4.3 Article

EFFECT OF ZINC NUTRITION ON GROWTH, YIELD, AND QUALITY OF FORAGE SORGHUM IN RESPECT WITH INCREASING POTASSIUM APPLICATION RATES

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT NUTRITION
卷 33, 期 14, 页码 2062-2081

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01904167.2010.519081

关键词

forage sorghum; growth and other physiological attributes; K and zinc levels; yield and quality attributes; yield economics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A two-year field study was conducted to determine the effect of two zinc (Zn) levels [0 and 10 kg zinc sulfate (ZnSO4) ha-1] in respect with four potassium (K) levels (0, 20, 40 and 60 kg K2O ha-1) on growth, yield and quality of forage sorghum. The soil of the experimental field was loamy sand (Inceptisol), carrying 70, 08, 77, and 0.51 mg nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), K, and Zn kg-1 soil, respectively. Increasing K levels significantly improved most of the growth, yield, and quality attributes gradually irrespective of the Zn levels. Zinc applied at 10 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 proved significantly better than no zinc application at various K application rates. The benefit of zinc application increased progressively with increasing K rates for most of the parameters studied, indicating significant response of the crop to positive K x Zn interaction in plants in respect with K and Zn application to the soil. Accordingly, 60 kg K2O ha-1 applied with10 kg ZnSO4 ha-1 boosted most of the attributes maximally. It resulted in about 20-40% increase in growth attributes, 25% increase in fresh matter yield, 36-38% increase in dry matter yield, and 38% increase in protein yield compared to the comparable K level applied without zinc. It also enhanced N uptake by 38%, P uptake by 5-19%, K uptake by 40-42%, and Zn uptake by 114-144%. Across the K rates, application of 10 kg ZnSO4 surpassed no zinc application by 30-35% in N uptake, by 8-15% in P uptake, by 33-36% in K uptake, by 120-140% in Zn uptake, by 19-21% in fresh matter yield, by 29-31% in dry matter yield, and by 30-34% in protein yield.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据