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...

EFFECT OF DIFFERENT DOSES AND METHODS0FZINC APPUCATI0N: ON GROWfH AND METABOUC ACfIVITY OF WHEAT GROWN IN SEMI-ARID CONDmONS

Chandra Bhushan, Hari Shankar, Shri Krishna, R.S. Yadav

Affiliations

¹Department of Crop Physiology, C.S. Aza.d University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur • 208 002, India

Submitted|
First Online |
doi

Cite article:- Bhushan Chandra, Shankar Hari, Krishna Shri, Yadav R.S. (2025). EFFECT OF DIFFERENT DOSES AND METHODS0FZINC APPUCATI0N: ON GROWfH AND METABOUC ACfIVITY OF WHEAT GROWN IN SEMI-ARID CONDmONS. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 38(4): 302 - 305. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Reid trials were conducted during 1996 and 1997. The results of the trial consisting of three inter-row spacings (30,45 and 60 em) and three Intra-row spacings (10, 15 and 20 em) revealed that Inter row spacing of 45 em was better than 30 em. The Intra-row spacing did not affect the seed yield significantly. The highest average yield (23.28 q he −1) was obtained with an inter and intra-row spacing of 45cm x 15 em. The seed yie1ds obtained, due to the spacing viz., 30 x 15, 30 x 20, 45 x 10, 45 x 10, 60 x 10 and 60 cm x 15 cm were found at par; while those obtained at 30 x 10, 45 x 20 and 60 cm x 20 cm spacings were significandy lower than that of 45 cm x 15 cm spacing. All the growth and yield characters were also improved with increase in inter-row spacing except that of number of fingers per plant. The increase in Inter-row spacing from 45cm to 60cm in 1996 and intra-row spacing from 15 cm to 20 cm in 1997, however, significantly reduced the number of fingers per plant. Test weight remained unaffected during both the years.

KEYWORDS

REFERENCES

Evans, J.R. (1993). Indian J. PI. Physiol., 72: 297-302.
Gangwar, K.S. and Singh, N.P. (1988): Legume Res., 11: 11-14.
Guru, S.K. et a/. (1999). Indian J. PI. Physiol., 4: 117-120.
Klepper, L. et al. (1971). Indian J. PI. Physiol., 48: 580-590.
Lazorav, R. (1965). Rest. Nauki.. 2: 27-37.
Mathur, A.K. and Bhatnagar, G.C. (1991). Indian J. Pl. Physiol., 44(3): 382-383.
Mehtra. BV. et a/. (1964). J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 15: 41-47. •
Mishra, P.H. and Baghel, S.K. (1988). Farm Sci. J., 3: 196-199.
Takkar. P.N. and Bansal. R.L. (1987). Acta. Agronomic Hungarica, 36: 277-277

Disclaimer :

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Copyright :

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.