Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First Articles
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First Articles
Indian Journal of
Agricultural Research
Print ISSN: 0367-8245
Online ISSN: 0976-058X
NASS Rating
5.60
SJR
0.217
CiteScore
0.595

Chief Editor:
V. Geethalakshmi
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University Coimbatore, INDIA
Frequency:Monthly
Indexing:
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Go...

Research Article

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 51 issue 6 (december 2017) : 591-595

Effect of magnesium sulphate on yield, economics and growth attributes of rainfed safflower (Carthamus tinctorious) in scarcity zone of Maharashtra
 

S.V. Khadtare, S.K. Shinde, V.B. Akashe, D.V. Indi, V. M. Toradmal
1AICRP on Safflower, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, 97 Raviwar Peth, Solapur , Maharashtra- 413 002, India
Cite article:- Khadtare S.V., Shinde S.K., Akashe V.B., Indi D.V., Toradmal M. V. (2017). Effect of magnesium sulphate on yield, economics and growth attributes of rainfed safflower (Carthamus tinctorious) in scarcity zone of Maharashtra. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 51(6): 591-595. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-4791.

ABSTRACT

MgSO4 application showed significant influence on productivity and quality of safflower. Among the various treatments tested, application of MgSO4 @ 750 ppm at bud initiation (BI) and flower initiation (FI) recorded the higher seed yield (1143 kg/ha). The higher volume weight (728.4g/l) and 100 seed weight (6.04 g) was also observed under the same treatment. The effect of MgSO4 @ 750 ppm at BI and FI was also found significantly superior in terms of SPAD index, RLWC, LAI on A and leaf area. Application of MgSO4 @ 500 ppm was statistically at par with MgSO4 @ 750 ppm at BI and FI in many other parameters under study. Numerically higher net monitory returns (Rs. 17667/ha) and B: C ratio (2.14) was realized with application of MgSO4 @ 750 ppm at BI and FI. 

REFERENCES

  1. Anonymous (2015). Oilseeds Statistics: A Compendium - 2015, ICAR-Indian Institute of Oilseeds Research, Hyderabad. Available at nmoop.gov.in/Presentations /SAFFLOWER_28-03-2017.pptx 
  2. Anonymous (2017). State wise area, production and productivity of safflower in India (2015-16). In: Director’s report on safflower and linseed, Annual group meeting held at ICAR-IIOR, Hyderabad between 17-19 August, 2017: 18
  3. Cakmak I and Kirkby EA. (2008). Role of magnesium in carbon partitioning and alleviating photo-oxidative damage. Physiol. Plant., 133: 692-704 
  4. Cakmak I and Yazici AM. (2010). Magnesium: A Forgotten Element in Crop Production. Better Crops. 94 (2):23-25 
  5. Cakmak I. (2013). Magnesium in crop production, food quality and human health. Plant and Soil 368: 1–4. doi:10.1007/s11104-013-    1781-2
  6. Dey BB, Pal DS and Kole N. (2013). Integrative effect of magnesium sulphate on the growth of flowers and grain yield of paddy: A chemist’s perspective. Rasayan J. Chemistry. 6 (10):300 - 302
  7. Farhat N, Rabhi M, Falleh H, Lengliz K, Smaoui A, Abdelly C and Lachaal M (2013) Interactive effects of excessive potassium and Mg deficiency on safflower. Acta Physiol Plant, 35 (9): 2737-2745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-013-1306-x
  8. Gite AN, Patil SR and Phapal AP. (2007). Relationship of leaf area and chlorophyll content with yield of safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Annals of Plant Physiol., 21 (2): 294-295.
  9. Gonzalez and Gonzalez – Vilar. (2001). Determination of relative water content. In: Hand book of Plant Ecophysiology Technique. [Reigosa Roger (ed], Kluwer Academy Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. pp. 207-212. 
  10. Jain HC, Goswami U, Deshmukh MR, Hegde DM. (1999). Response of sesame to macronutrients with and without organic manure in a coastal ecosystem. Sesame and safflower Newsletter 14: 37-39.
  11. Jakobsen ST. (1993). Interaction between Plant Nutrients: III. Antagonism between Potassium, Magnesium and Calcium. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B - Soil & Plant Science. 43(1): 1-5
  12. Mirzapour MH, Khoshgoftar AH, Mirnia SK, Bahrami HA and Naeini MR (2003). Interactive effects of potassium and magnesium on growth and yield of sunflower in a saline soil. Water and Soil Sci. J. 17(2):232-239
  13. Murthy IYLN (2006). Effect of phosphorus levels on phosphorus, potassium, calcium and magnesium content and seed yield of safflower genotypes. Agropedology, 16 (1):54-59 
  14. Senbayram M, Gransee A, Wahle V and Thiel T (2015). Role of magnesium fertilisers in agriculture: plant–soil continuum .Crop & Pasture Science, 66,1219–1229 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/CP1510
  15. Steucek GL and Koontz HV. (1970). Phloem mobility of magnesium. Plant Physiol. 46: 50-52 
  16. Sumner ME, Farina PMW, Hurst VJ. (1978). Magnesium fixation- A possible cause of negative yield responses to lime applications. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 9: 995–1007. doi:10.1080/0010362780936687
  17. Takacsne H, Stefanovits BM, Kastori E and Kiss AS. (2003). Effect of Magnesium leaf fertilization on the seed yield and oil composition of Safflower (Carthamus tinctorious L.), Agris Record No. http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/    search.do?recordID=HU2003000397 
  18. Tanaka DL, Riveland NR, Bergman JW, Schneiter AA (1997). Safflower Plant Development Stages. Proceedings of IVth International Safflower Conference, Bari (Italy), June 2-7, 179-180.
  19. Tang N, Li Y, Chen and LS. (2012) Magnesium deficiency–induced impairment of photosynthesis in leaves of fruiting Citrus reticulata trees accompanied by up-regulation of antioxidant metabolism to avoid photo-oxidative damage. Plant Nut. Soil Sci., 175: 784-793 DOI: 10.1002/jpln.201100329
  20. Vafaie A, Ebadi A, Rastgou B. and Moghadam SH. (2013). The effects of potassium and magnesium on yield and some physiological traits of Safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.). Int. J. of Agric. and Crop Scie. Available online at www.ijagcs.com IJACS/    2013/5-17/1895-1900 ISSN 2227-67
  21. Verbruggen N and Hermans C. (2013). Physiological and molecular responses to magnesium nutritional imbalance in plants. Plant and Soil 368, 87–99. doi:10.1007/s11104-013-1589-0 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)