Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika, volume 36 issue 4 (december 2021) : 338-340

​Performance of Green Gram (Vigna Radiata L.) as Influenced by Sulphur and Iron Application

Maddila Teja, Rabindra Kumar, V. Gopijagadeeswar Reddy, M. Vikram Sai, M. Sai Kumar
1Department of Agronomy, School of Agriculture, Suresh Gyan Vihar University, Jaipur-302 017, Rajasthan, India.
  • Submitted08-11-2021|

  • Accepted20-01-2022|

  • First Online 03-02-2022|

  • doi 10.18805/BKAP394

Cite article:- Teja Maddila, Kumar Rabindra, Reddy Gopijagadeeswar V., Sai Vikram M., Kumar Sai M. (2022). ​Performance of Green Gram (Vigna Radiata L.) as Influenced by Sulphur and Iron Application. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 36(4): 338-340. doi: 10.18805/BKAP394.
Background: The present study was carried out on “Performance of Green gram as Influenced by Sulphur and Iron Application” to increase the grain quality and helps in synthesis of protein, vitamins, enzymes and flavoured compounds in the plant.
Methods: A field experiment was conducted during kharif season of 2018 at the Crop Research Farm, Department of Agronomy, Suresh Gyanvihar University, Jaipur. To study the influence of sulphur and iron on the performance of green gram. This experiment was done in randomized block design with eight treatments which are replicated thrice. Treatments consists of T1 control, T2 1.0% FeSO4 as foliar spray at 25 DAS, T3 25 kg S ha-1 as ZnSO4, T4 25 kg S ha-1 as SSP, T5 25 kg S ha-1 as ZnSO4 + 1.0% FeSO4 as foliar spray at 25 DAS, T6 25 kg S ha-1 as SSP + 1.0% FeSO4 as foliar spray at 25 DAS, T7 12.5 kg S ha-1 as ZnSO4 + 12.5 kg S ha-1 as SSP and T8 12.5 kg S ha-1 as ZnSO4 + 12.5 kg S ha-1 as SSP + 1.0% FeSO4 as foliar spray at 25 DAS. 
Result: The results indicated that application of 12.5 kg S ha-1 as ZnSO4 + 12.5 kg S ha-1 as SSP + 1.0% FeSO4 as foliar spray at 25 DAS is suitable to get higher green gram yield, compared to other treatments.

  1. Anonymous (2018). Agriculture Statistics at a Glance. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agri. and FW, New Delhi.

  2. Bhattacharjee, A., Lehtinen, M.J., Kajander, T., Goldman, A. and Jokiranta, T.S. (2013). Both domin 19 and domin 20 of factor H are involved in binding to complement C3b and C3d. Mol Immunol. 47: 1686-1691.

  3. Goos, R.J. and Johnson, B.E. (2000). A comparsion of three methods for reducing iron-deficiency chlorosis in soybean. Agron. J. 92: 1135-1139.

  4. Khorgamy, A. and Farina, A. (2009). Effect of phosphorus and zinc fertilization on yield and yield components of chick pea cultivars. Afr. Crop Sci. Conf Proceedings. 9: 205-208.

  5. Nadergoli, M.S., Yarnia, M. and Khoei, F.R. (2011). Effect of zinc and manganese and their application method on yield and yield components of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Middle-East J. Sci. Res. 8: 859-865.

  6. Piri, I., Nik, M.M., Tavassoil, A., Rastegaripour, F. and Babaeian, M. (2012). Effect of Irrigation frequency and application levels of sulphur fertilizer on water-use efficiency and yield of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea). Afr. J. Biotechnol. 10: 11459-11467.

  7. Sahu, S., Lidder, R.S. and Singh, P.K. (2008). Effect of micronutrients and bio fertilizers on growth, yield and nutrients uptake by Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in vertisol of Madhya Pradesh. Adv. Pl. Sci. 21(3): 501-503.

  8. Sawan, Z.M., Hafez, S.A. and Basyony, A.E. (2001). Effect of phosphorus fertilization and foliar application of chelated zinc and calcium on seed, protein and oil yields and oil properties of cotton. J. Agric. Sci. 136: 191-198.

  9. Singh, A.L., Joshi, Y.C., Chaudhari, V. and Zala, P.V. (1999). Effect of different sources of Iron and Sulphur on leaf chlorosis, nutrient uptake and yield of groundnut. Ferti Res. 24: 85.

  10. Usman, F., Hassan, A. and Ahmad, A. (2007). Arterial ischemic stroke with protein deficiency in Pakistan. Raw Medi J. 32: 205-207.

  11. Valenciano, J.B., Boto, J.A. and Marcelo, V. (2010). Response of chick pea (Cicer arietinum L.) yield to zinc, boron and molybdenum application under pot conditions. Span. J. Agric. Res. 8: 797-80.

Editorial Board

View all (0)