0% found this document useful (0 votes)
52 views56 pagesSunflower Thesis
This thesis investigates the effects of varying levels of Sulphur and Boron on the performance of Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) in a field experiment conducted at SHUATS, Prayagraj during the Zaid 2021 season. The results indicate that the optimal application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur combined with 1.5 kg/ha Boron significantly enhances plant height, leaf number, dry weight, crop growth rate, yield attributes, and economic returns. The study concludes that these nutrient applications are beneficial for improving sunflower growth and productivity.
Uploaded by
abhishekramani098Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
52 views56 pagesSunflower Thesis
This thesis investigates the effects of varying levels of Sulphur and Boron on the performance of Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) in a field experiment conducted at SHUATS, Prayagraj during the Zaid 2021 season. The results indicate that the optimal application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur combined with 1.5 kg/ha Boron significantly enhances plant height, leaf number, dry weight, crop growth rate, yield attributes, and economic returns. The study concludes that these nutrient applications are beneficial for improving sunflower growth and productivity.
Uploaded by
abhishekramani098Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 56
Effect of levete of Salphur and Boron on performance of
Sunfower(Melianthus annuus L.)
THESIS
Sulenitted in pertial fulfitment of the requirements for the award of the
Degree of
MASTERS OF SCIENCE
IN
AGRICULTURE(AGRONOMY)
By
G. RAHUL
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY,
YAINI AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE, FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE,
SAM HIGGINBOTTOM UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE,
TECHNOLOGYAND SCIENCES,
PRAYAGRAJ-211007(U.P) INDIA2021
PID No.: I9YMSAGROO76
ay 2023)10:37/am vam higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology And Sciences
var . Centered wet
va
(U.P. State Act No. 35 of 2016, as passed by the Uttar Pradesh Logisiature)
Prayagraj (Allahabad) - 211 007, U.P., india
180 9001-2008 Certines
Office 91.592-2684781, 2684781
Fos 91-532. 2684394
Website ween shuats edu in
E-mail info@shuots eduin
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINAL WORK
This is to certify that the study conducted by G. RAHUL, PID No. 19MSAGROO76, during
2019 - 2021 as reported in the present thesis was under my guidance and supervision. The results
reported by him are genuine and the script of the thesis has been written by the candidate
himself. His thesis entitled, “Effect of levels of Sulphur and Boron on performance of
Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)"is therefore being forwarded for acceptance in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture
‘Agronomy) of Naini Agricultural Institute, Faculty of Agriculture.
ijesWSingh
istant Professor
(Advisor)
Department of Agronomy
"lace: Prayagraj
‘ate: 4=.1.2-.202 LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
No. No.
Mean weekly weather parameters and total rainfall during the cropping
321 | season (Zaid! 2021). i
fF 33.1 | physico-chemical soil analysis of soil during Zaid season. 2
341 | cropping history of the experimental field data. B
362 | Catendar of pre sowing operations. 16
3.83 | Catendar post sowing field operations. 18
3.121 | ANOVA table for RBD analysis. 23
up _ | Influence of Sulphur and Boron on plant height (em) of sunflower at
+ different day intervals. 28
42.1 _ | Influence of Sulphur and Boron on number of leaves per plant of
“| sunflowerat different day intervals. 31
43,1 _ | Influence of Sulphur and Boron on dry matter (g) of sunflower at different
day intervals. 4
— 3,
‘say | Influence of Sulphur and Boron on crop growth rate (p/m/day) of
sunflower at different day intervals. 7
45.1 Influence of Sulphur and Boron on relative growth (g/g/day) rate of
“| sunflower at different day intervals. a0
‘4.12.1 | Influence of Sulphur and Boron on yield atributes of sunflower
(Helianthus anruass L.). a)
4.13.1 | Influence of Sulphur and Boron on oil percentage of sunflower (Helianthus
‘ annuus L.). <7
L
‘4.14.1 | Influence of Sulphur and Boron on economics of sunflower elianthna
annuus L.). 48 LIST OF FIGURES
[ Title Page
No | ah No.
gag | Mean weekly weather parameters and total rainfall during
| theeropping season (Zaid 2021). 10
L 353 | Layout of experimental field. 1s
4.13 | plant height depicting on different days intervals. 29
‘zg | Number of leaves per plant depicting on different days
intervals. oe
| 432 - oe : ,
Dry weight (g) depicting on different days intervals. 35
a Crop growth rate (g/m*/day) depicting on different days
"| intervals of sunflower. a8
a6 Relative growth rate (g/g/day)depicting on different days
| intervals. py
Seed and Stover yield (kg/ha) depicting in treatments
4.72 45
afterharvesting. LIST OF PLATES
es Title Page]
Not No.
; Secondary tillage of lang with tractor drawn cultivator at CRE
(cropresearch farm) SHUATS, Prayagra, Zaid 2021 x
2 | MaXing bunds by the labour in the part of layout preparation a 1
CRE(crop research farm) SHUATS, Prayagraj, Zaid 2021, x
3 | Apwlication of ferilizers and sowing seeds by making furrows
atCRF (crop research farm) SHUATS., Prayagraj, Zaid 2021, x
4 | Germination of seeds after 4 DAS at CRF (crop research farm)
‘SHUATS. Prayagraj, Zaid 2021. xl
5 After 2" inigation 7 DAS at CRF (crop research farm)
SHUATS Prayagra}, Zaid 2021. XI
6 | Application of insecticide to protect crop from pest afterl3 DAS
‘atCRF (crop research farm) SHUATS, Prayagraj, Zaid 2021, XI
7 __| Taking plant height observation 30 DAS at CRF (crop research
farm)SHUATS, Prayagraj. Zaid 2021. xIll
g _ | Crop at anthesis stage 52 DAS at CRF (crop research farm)
‘SHUATS, Prayagraj, Zaid 2021. xm
9 _| Atifield observation 60 DAS at CRF (crop research farm)
SHUATS,Prayagraj, Zaid 2021. XIV
19 _| After seed formation stage 72 DAS at CRF (crop research
farm)SHUATS, Prayagraj, Zaid 2021. XIV
11 | Protecting the capitulum from birds with the help of net at CRF
(cropresearch farm) SHUATS, Prayagraj, and Zaid 2021. xv
12. _| Harvesting manually 83 DAS at CRF (crop research farm)
SHUATS.Prayagraj, Zaid 2021
XV LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
at ar
ANOVA
BC
cD
CGR
2m
Tone.
‘al.
ab.
Rupees (INR)
Percentage
Standard Deviation
Degree Centigrade or Celsius
Agronomic efficiency
Analysis of Variance
Benefit cost ratio
Critical Difference
Crop growth rate
Centimeter(s)
Centimeter Square
‘Concentrated
Crop Research Farm
Conventional Transplanted Rice
Co-efficient of variance
Di-ammonium Phosphate
Days after transplanting,
Degrees of freedom
Electrical Conductivity
‘Sum of Squares due to Error
Co-workers
et cetera (Similar items are included)
Foliar Application
F calculated
F tabulated
Figure
gram ABSTRACT
A Field experiment was conducted during Zaid 2021 at Crop Research Farm, Department of
Agronomy. SHUATS, Prayagraj (U.P). The soil of experimental plot was sandy loam in
texture, nearly neutral in soil reaction (pH 7.1), low in organic carbon (0.36%), available N
(171.48 kg/ha), available P (15.2 ke’ha) and available K (232.5 kg/ha).The treatmentsconsist
of two levels of Sulphur soil application and four levels of Boron soil application and one
respective control was used. The experiment was laid out in randomized block design with
nine treatments each replicated thrice. The result showed that viz: Plant height (126.47 cm)
was recorded significantly higher with application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron.
Number of leaves per plant (21.52) was recorded significantly higher with application of 40
kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron. Whereas, dry weight (13.16 g/plant), maximum crop
growth rate (4.84 g/m*/day) at 30-45 DAS interval and also, relative growth rate (0.039
g/g/day) at 30-45 DAS interval recorded significantly higher application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur
+0.5 kg/hha Boron. Capitulum diameter (14.86 cm), number of seeds per capitulum (333.43),
seeds yield (1429.28 kg/ha), stover yield (2476.33 kg/ha) and oil content (41.5%) recorded
significantly higher with the application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron. Maximum,
gross returns (83,988.16 %/ha), net return (56,258.92 %/ha) and benefit cost ratio (2.16) was
obtained with application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron.
Key words: Sunflower, Sulphur, Boron, Oil content. Tate 12.2 Mean weekly weather parameters and total rainfall during the cropping
season Zeid 2021).
[ stoathmeck | Week | Temperature (e)_| Relative humidity (%) Hala
| Max [Min | Max Min | (mm)
[Sart202t 3 Pn ae) B 0
fi 3 25 @ 40 0
KE 34 25 | ~36 38 07
F 35 26 33 32 0
| “xpakz02 36 28 32 32 05
I 36 28 352 32 0
36 30 30 30 08
37 31 ® 30 0
May-2021 37. 28 48 30 06
az 33 32 25 0
rn 33 25 0
ro 40 32 32 26 0
June-2021 40 32 38 28 0
at 4] 31 42 34 0
3 40 31 44 30 0
a 40 30 48 32 0
July-2021 in 38 28° | 56 a 0
a 37 7 39 47 09
a 36 27 6 a2 0
36 27 62 77 0
Source: Meteorological observatory, College of Forestry, SHUATS, PRAYAGRAJ.
LL 43 Soil of the Experimental field,
he soil of the experimental field constituting a part of central Gangetic allyvium is neural
and deep. Pre- sowing soil samples were taken from x depth of 15 em with the help of an
auger. The composite samples were used for the chemical and mechanical analysis. The si
was sandy foam in texture, low in organic carbon and medium in available nitrogen,
phosphorous and low in potassium, The mechanical, chemical and physico-chemica}
properties of the soil of experimental field and the methods used are presemed in Tabic
33.1
Table 3.3.1 Physico-chemical soil analysis of soil during Zaid season.
Particulars Result (%) Method (reference)
‘Silt 22.6%
Sand 63%
Clay 14.4% (Bouyoucos. 1962)
Texture class Sandy loam
Parameter Result (unit) Method Reference
: ‘Alkaline Permanganate | Subbaiah andAsija|
‘Available nitrogen | 171.48 kg/ha Method 1956
Olsen's Colorimetric
Available phosphorus 15.2 kghha Method Olsen et al.1954
: i Flame Photometer | Toth and Prince,
Available potassium | 232.5 kg/ha mated
Walkley and Black
Organic carbon 0.36% oe Jackson, 1973
Glass electrode pit
pH 14 . e Jackson, 1973
Method No.4,USDA -
EC 0.29 (a/sm) Hand book No. 60__| Richards. 1954
‘The mechanical analysis of soil (0-15 em depth) is represented in Table 3.3.1 34 Cropping history
The details of the crop grown in different seasons in the experimental field at Crop research
farm were reconed for the last five years to get an idea about the different species grown.
Cropping history of experimental field for the last six years is presented in table 3.4.1
Table 3.4.1 Cropping history of the experimental field data.
Year Kharif Rabi Zaid
2016-2017 Fallow Wheat Fallow
I~ 3017-2018 Rice Fallow Chickpea
2018-2019 Black gram Fallow ‘Cowpea
2019-2020 Maize Chickpea Greengram
2020-2021 Rice Saflower Sunflower
3.5 Experimental details
35.1 Details of treatment combinations
Factor I: Levels of Sulphur
a. Sulphur (S1) -20 kg/ha
b. Sulphur (S2)-40 kg/ha
Factor II: Levels of Boron
a. Boron (B1)- 0 kg/ha
b. Boron (Bz)~0.5 kg/ha
Boron (Bs)— 1.0 kg/ha
d. Boron (B.)~ 1.5 kg/ha
TALS AND METHODS
: \ Page 13 Treatment combinations
1. Control
2. 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron
3. 20kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron
4. 20kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron
5, 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron
6. 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron
7. 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron
8. 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 ke/ha Boron
9. 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 ke/ha Boron
3.5.2 Details of layout
Design
Total number of treatments
Total number of replications
Total number of plots
Size of each plot
Width of main irrigation channel
Width of sub irrigation channel
Width of bunds
Total length of experimental field
Total width of experimental field
Gross cultivated area
Net cultivated area
Variety
ALS AND METHODS
Randomized Block Design
9
3
Pa
3*3m=9m"
1.0m
0.5m
0.3m
30m
WSm
379.5 m*
243m?
DRSH-1 M6 Pre-sowing operations
{A61 Preparation ofthe field
Un onder to focitate sowing, the experimenal field was thoroughly ploughed and followed
ty harrowing and brought to fine ith. Stubles and weeds were picked up from the field
and the land was leveled with the help of rake and the plots were demarcated according to
luyout. The preparation of land and the operations carried out in the field. before sowing are
given in table below:
Table 3.6.2 Calendar of pre sowing operations,
SNo] Date Operation Remark
Filter paper and petri dish
1. | 24 March 2021) Germination test of crop under
laboratory conditions.
a Tractor drawn disc
2. | 25 March 2021 Plouphing of il plough,
Harrowi ji
owing and leveling cultivator and planker
3. | 25 March 2021 Stubble removal Hand rake
4. | 25March2021] Layout ofthe experimental field Manually
8. | 27March 2021 Opening of furrow Manually by hoe
Urea, DAP and MoP
6. | 27 March 2021 Fertilizers application od
applied manually
7. | 27 March 2021 Sowing Manually
363 Fertilizer application
Fenilizers were applied at 45cm deep furrows were made along the seed rows with a hand
hoe. The nutrient sources were Urea, DAP and MoP to fulfill the requirement of nitrogen,
phosphorous and potassium. The recommended dose of 8Okg/ha nitrogen, 60kg/ha
phosphorous and 40kg/ha potassium was applied according to the treatment details. Half of
nitrogen, whole phosphorous and potash was applied as basal atthe time of sowing.
3.6.4 Sources of nutrients,
The sources used for applying N. P and K were Urea (N 46%), Di-ammonium Phosphate (P
46% & N 18%) and Muriate of Potash ¢K 60%), respe
MATERIALS AND METHODS. iqagation was done manually through check basin method as per required. Totally 6
imigations were giver from sowing 10 harvesting according moisture sensitive stages of
ew
4S Post-harvest operations
38.1 Harvesting:
The crop was harvested when dorsal side of the capitulum tured to lemon yellow
color. The heads from the net plot were cut, threshed and seed yield was recorded after
drying. The stalks were left in field for few weeks for sun drying. they were collected cut
at ground level with the help of sickle and stover yield was taken for further calculations.
‘Table 3.8.3 Calendar of post sowing field operations.
S.No. | Operation
peat Date Remark
sowing (DAS)
T. | Gap filling T2DAS | 08.04.2021 | Manually
2. | Thinning 15 DAS 11.04.2021 | Manually
3. | Weeding
Manual weeding (first) 25 DAS 25.04.2021 | Manually
4. _| Top dressing of fertilizer
1* top-dressing of nitrogenous 30DAS | 30.04.2021 | Manually
fertilizer (Urea)
3, _ | Irrigation
First 2DAS 29.03.2021 | Tube well
Second 18 DAS 14.04.2021 | Tube well
‘Third 30 DAS 30.04.2021 | Tube well
Fourth 46 DAS 16.05.2021 | Tube well
Fifh 68 DAS 07.06.2021 | Tube well
6 | Plant protection
Covering of heads with paper bags 68 DAS 07.06.2021 | Manually
7, | Harvesting 96 DAS 01.07.2021 [~ Manually
MATERIALS AND M 19 Pre-harvest observations
_ag.aPlant height (em)
he average height of plants was recorded at an interval of ISDAS. The height of the plant
yas measured from the base of the plant up to the last leaf, Height of the five randomly
cclected plants was recorded at 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 days after sowing from each plot. The
eight was measured in cm.
139.2 Dry weight (e/plant)
Dry weights of plants were recorded without root at intervals of 15, 30, 45, 60 and 75 DAS.
by uprooting two plants from second row in each plot. These plants were first dried then
wrapped with paper and then kept in oven for oven drying at 70°C for 24-48hours. The dry
weight of samples were recorded, averaged and expressed as g/plant.
3.9.3 Crop Growth Rate (g/m’/day)
Crop growth rate (CGR) denotes overall growth rate of the crop plants and measured after
fixed period of time, irrespective of the previous growth rate (Leopold and Kridemann,
1975). It is expressed as gram of dry matter per m? produced per day. Crop growth rate was
calculated between 15-30, 30-45 and 45-60 DAS. Values were calculated by using the
W2-Wi
CGR =P (te— i)
MATERIALS AND METHODS where. We and Wr are dry weight of plant (g) re
ara respectively.
3.9.4 Relative growth rate (p/g/day)
‘corded at time tz, ts (days) and P is ground
The relative growth rate (RGR) indicates the amount of growth per unit dry weight of plant
pet unit time (Leopold and Kridemann, 1975), tt is expressed as grams of dry matter
produced by a gram of existing dry matter in a day. The values were computed between 15-
30, 30-45 and 45-60 DAS. The RGR was worked out with the help of following formula
following formula:
Loge We — Loge Wi
RGR = te-ti
Where Loge: Logarithm to the base, Wi: Dry weight of the plant at ti, Wa: Dry weight ofthe
plant at t2.
3.10Post-harvest observation
3.10.1 Number of seed/capitulum:
Number of seeds per capitulum was counted from five plants harvested from Im?
area from each plot and an average was taken.
3.10.2 Number of unfilled seeds/capitulum:
Number of unfilled seeds per capitulum was counted from five plants harvestedfrom
Im? area from each plot and an average was taken.
3.10.3 Test weight (g)
‘A random sample of 1000 seeds was taken from the harvested bulk and was weighed to
the nearest 40.52 g
3.10.4 Seed yield (kg/ha):
Samples of thousand seeds were randomly collected from each plot and were weighed for «
further record by electronic balance. Thus, test weight was finally estimated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS Page 20 |e
‘ nay:
cqever Ned Oke
qret
re oe otaained by subtracting the seed yield per plot from the respective
oat eld per plot and finally expressed in terms of kaha.
w
ret Harvest inde (%4)
The harvest index was calculated as ratio of economic yield to biological
Jad andexrwessed in per cent. It was calculated by the formula given by Donald and
Hamblin (1963).
Economic yiel
Harvest index = sonore Yield keh
—$—$—$—$—$—<—————-* 100
Biological yield ke/ha
LIL Economics
jhe cost of cultivation, grass retum. net return and benefit cost ratio were worked out to
cnaoste the economics of each treatment based on the existing market prices of inputs and
copes.
LILA Cost of cultivation (W/ha)
Tee cost of cultivation for each treatment was calculated separately taking into
consideration all the cultural practices followed and costs of inputs used in the cultivation
te
3.112 Gross return (3/ha)
‘The gross return from each treatment was calculated in( /ha) taking into consideration the
cost of cultivation and the market price of the produce.
3.113 Net Profit (3/ha)
The net profit from each treatment was calculated separately by using the formula given
below. Net retum (% /ha) = Gross retum — Cost of cultivation.
3.11.4 Benefit Cost Ratio (B:C)
The benefit cost ratio for each treatment was calculated by using the following formula.
Net return (%/ha)
BCR=
Total cost of cultivation (%/ha)
3.12 Quality analysis of sunflower
3.12.1 Oil (%) in the sunflower seed.
Oil content in kernels was estimated through “Soxhlet’s apparatus using petroleum ether as
— cx“
MATERIALS AND METHODS Page 2
,-.—lUC cans.
ze mathematical model of randomized block design used as follows:
Xy = WAT) + By bey
where.
Xy = Effect of i treatment inj block
f = General Ettect
b = Effect duc to i'* treatment
3 = Effect of "block
&y = error distributed normally with mean zero and 2.
Based on the above model, the data obtained on each of the characters under study were
subjected to analysis in Randomized Block Design.
Table 3.13.1 ANOVA table for RBD analysis
‘Sources of variance DF SS MS | F-cal. Value
Replication r-1 RSS RMS RMS/EMS
Treatment t-1 TSss TMS TMS/EMS
Error @-De-) ESS EMS
Total re-1 Total SS
. Computation of ANOVA:
CF = Correction factor
G = Grand total
N = Number of observations
Total sum of squares (TSS)= Di jX? — C.FEJR?
MATERIALS AND METHODS Page 23 qo test significance of difference *F* test was, applied. The mean ‘Square for treatment (TMS)
was divided By mean sduare duc (0 error (EMS) to get “F* value, The calculated “F" valuewse
examined against the table
© “P" at 5% level of significance for respective degrce of
freedom of treatment and block.
standard Error of mean (SEm)
standard error of mean was calculated from ANOVA table using
formula:Standard error of mean, SEm = VEMS/F oF Veu-
S.E. difference mean = V2{E.M.S/F}
Critical difference (CD)
To estimate, whether there is significant difference between two treatment means foreach
ofthe character CD at 5% level of significance was calculated as:
C.D =S.E. difference mean * t 0.05 (error d.f.)
Coefficient of Variation
Itis defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean expressed in percentage.
C.V.=0 /GM * 100
Where, o = Standard deviation, G.M = Grand Mean.
MATERIALS AND METHODS CHAPTER-IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
_——
vse findings of the present experiment entitled, “Effect of levels of Sulphur and Boron
ye find
; mance of Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.)". conducted during Zaid 2021 at Cr
esearch Farm. Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture: SHUATS. Prayag
auabatad) are being presented and discussed in the following pages under appropri
A
peasings. Data on pre-harvest and post-harvest observations were statistically analyzed ¢
ajssusion on experimental findings in the light of scientific reasoning has been stated.
i
a. Precharvest observations (at 15,30, 45 and 60 DAS)
41 Plant height (em)
42. Number of leaves/plant
43 Dry weight (g/plant)
44 Crop growth rate (g/m?/day)
45 Relative growth rate (g/g/day)
B. Post-harvest observations
46 Capitulum diameter (cm)
4.7 Number of seeds per capitulum
48 Test weight (g)
49 — Grain yield (kg/ha)
4.10 Stover yield (kg/ha)
4.11 Harvest index (%)
C. Economics
4.12 Cost of cultivation (&/ha)
4.13 Gross returns (2/ha)
4.14 Net returns (3/ha)
4.15 Benefit cost ratio
rary rere yr
re. Quality analysis
axe Oil]ontent 6)
preharvest observations
-
41 Pant height (em)
The data presented on plant height of sunflower plant were statistically analyzed
and have been presented in table 4.1.1.
At 15 DAS the higher plant height was observed in with application of 40 kg/ha
sulphur + 1.5 ke/ha Boron (5.93cm) and the lowest was obtained in with application of 20
kgha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron (5.63cm). There is no significant difference among the
treatments.
At 30 DAS significantly higher plant height was observed in with application of 40
kg/haSulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron (33.47em), which is statistically at par with application of
20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron (32.07cm), 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron
62.87cm), 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron (33.13) and 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 ke/ha
Boron (33.20cm).
At 45 DAS significantly higher plant height was observed in treatment with the
application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron (105.23cm) which is statistically at par
with application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron (104.77em), 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0
kg/ha Boron (105.10cm) and 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron (105.07c¢m).
At 60 DAS significantly higher plant height was observed in treatment with the
application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron (165.93cm) which is statistically at par
with application of 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron (125.30em) and 40 kg/ha Sulphur +
O kg/ha Boron (125.33em), 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron (125.40cm) and 40 kg/ha
Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (126.30cm).
Plant height increases with sulphur uptake as it increases cell multiplication, ie,
{
elongation & cell expansion throughout the entire period of crop growth, higher levels of ie
sulphur in protein & carbohydrate metabolism, activating many enzymes which influences
shoot length, reported by Kumar et al. 2011.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Page 26 a The increase in plant height may be due to appropriate dose of boron. Because B
_ pays important role in various enzymatic and other biochemical reactions,
Similar results
ere discussed by Zahoor ef al, 2011, Gitte et at, 2008,
SA
=
@
TS AND DISCUSSION
ie Zores Table 4.1.1 Influence of Sulphur and Boron on plant height (em) of sunflow
er at different day intervals.
S.No. Treatments 15 DAS 30 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS
Control 5.64 31.43 102.87 124.30
2. 20kg/ha Sulphu? + 0 kg/ha Boron 5.63 31.43 103.07 124.51
3. 20 kyha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 5.86 32.07 103.97 124.20
4. 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 5.80 31.37 103.93 123.62
5. 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 5.93 31.40 103.83 125.30
6. ° 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 5.85 32.87 104.77 125.33
7. 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 5.80 33.13 105.23 125.40
8 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 5.90 33.20 105.10 126.30
9. 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 5.93 33.47 105.07 126.47
F test NS s s s
‘SEm (4) ou 0.54 0.28 0.42
cD (5%) - 161 0.83 1.25
Page 28
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 10
120
100 |——
BE 0
= DIS DAS
= 530 DAS
2 0 045 DAS
2 5.60 Das
=
40
20 f+ |
0
‘Treatments
Fig, 4.1.2 Plant height depicting on chart in different days intervals
—_——_—_—ooooOoOeS—e
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Page 29 7
42 Number of leaves/plant
The data presented on number of leaves per sunflower plant were statistically
analyzed and have been presented in table 4.2.1.
At 1S DAS the highest number of leaves per plant were observed in 40 kg/ha
sulphur + 1.5 kwfha Boron (5.34). The lowest was obtained in 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha
Boron (5.24), 40 kgfha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron (5.24). There is no significant difference
among the treatments.
‘At 30 DAS the significantly highest number of leaves per plant were observed in 40
Agha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron (19.01), which is statistically at par with the application of
40kgha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (18.47).
At45 DAS the significantly higher number of leaves per plant were observed in 40
{pha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron (22.65) which was statistically at par with the application of
4Mkgha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (22.52) and 40 ke/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron (22.15).
At 60 DAS the significantly highest number of leaves per plant were observed in 40
kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (21.52) which was statistically at par with the application of
4Okghha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron (21.15) and 40 ke/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron (21.48).
The application of Boron which resulted in the increase in growth attributes may be
ue to the translocation of plant nutrients due to application of it to growing plant parts and
‘ore photosynthesis which in turn promoted more number of leaves reported by Kader er al.,
2013.
pL meme. ser’
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Poneto LE ee reer ee seer ener nena ee TT
Table 42.1 Influence of Sulphur and Boron on number of leaves per plant of sunflower at different day Intervals
Treatments 15 DAS 30 DAS 45 DAS 60DAS
1 Control 5.30 16.67 20.54 20.18
2. 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 5.28 16.93 20.65 20.07
3. 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 5.24 17.86 20.95 20.20
4. 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 25: 18.13 21.25 20.37
5. 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 5.33 18.25 21.18 20.09
40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 5.24 18.38 21.80 20.77
7, 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 5.25 18.40 22.15 21.48
8. _ 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 5.29 18.47 22.52 21.52
40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 5.34 19.01 22.65 21.15
F test NS Ss s s
SEm (+) 0.26 0.19 0.27 0.15
CD (S%) - 0.57 0.81 O44
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
oo 255 Page sd z
2
2
5 O15 DAS
zg
5 1830 DAS
& 45 DAS
= 860 DAS
2
é
E
Zz
. ‘Treatments
Fig. 42.2 Number of leaves per plant depicting on chart in different days intervals '
_RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Page 32 aspry weight @/ptant)
-The data presented on dry weight of sunflower plant were’statistically analyzed and
pave been presented in table 4.3.1,
‘At 15 DAS the higher dry weight was observed in 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha
own (037 g/plant), 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (0.37 g/plant) and the lowest in
control treatment (0.32 g/plant), 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron (0.32 g/plant) and 20
kaha Sulphur + 0.5 ke/a Boron (0.32 g/plant). There was no significant difference among
the treatments.
‘At 30 DAS the significantly higher dry weight was observed in 40 kg/ha Sulphur +
1.5 kghha Boron (6.37 e/plant) which is statistically at par with the application of 40 ke/ha
Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (6.11 g/plant), 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron (6.07
plant), 40 ke/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron (6.04 g/plant), 20 kysha Sulphur + 1.5 ke/ha
Boron (5.98 g/plant) and20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (5.94 g/plant).
‘ALAS DAS the significantly higher dry weight was observed in 40 kg/ha Sulphur +
15 kg/ha Boron (11.07 g/plant) which is statistically at par with the application 40 kg/ha
Sulphur + 1.0 ke/ha Boron (10.90 g/plant) and 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron (10.97
e/plant).
‘At 60 DAS the significantly higher dry weight was observed in 40 kg/ha Sulphur +
0.5 kg/ha Boron (13.16 g/plant) which is statistically at par with the application of 40 kg/ha
Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron (13.10 g/plant), 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (13.02
plant), 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron (13.04 g/plant), 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha
Boron (12.99 p/plant) and20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (12.92 g/plant).
Sulphur helps in better photosynthesis means more dry matter accumulation as
sulphur is a constituent of succinyl Co-A, which involved in chlorophyll in leaves and their
activation at cellular level accelerate photosynthesis. The favorable effect of boron might be
attributed to its direct role cell elongation, cell d
by Aravind ef al., 2018.
jon and biomass accumulation reported
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION eR
¢ 43.1 Influence of Sulphur and Boron on dry matter (g/plant) of sunflower at different day intervals
S.No Treatments 15 DAS 30 DAS 45 DAS 60 DAS
1. Control 0.32 5.38 9.23 12.03
2, 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 0.32 5.72 9.36 12.52
3. 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 0.32 5.60 9.37 12.56
4. 20 ky/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 0.34 5.94 10.14 12.92
$. 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 0.35 5.98 10.34 12.99
6. 40 ky/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 0.35 6.04 10.39 13.04
7, 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 0.36 6.07 10.97 13.16
8. 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 0.37 6.11 10.90 13.02
40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 0.37 6.37 11.07 13.10
F test NS s s Ss
SEm (4) 0.01 0.15 0.12 0.13
CD (5%) : 0.44 037 0.38
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSIO.
Page 34 Grams (g)
‘Treatments
Fig, 4.3.2 Dry weight (g/plant) depicting on chart in diffe
rent days intervals
@ISDAS
@30 DAS
045 DAS
360 DAS
a iaraianinnnanRE ERENT ET
P:
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
age 35 crpegrott rate (g/m*/day)
a
‘he data presented on crop growth rate (e/m*/day) of sunflower plant were statistically
and have been presented in table 4.4.2,
yee
inthe present investigation crop grovth rate was inreased with increasing erop age up to
|< spDAs. after that it was decreased,
15300
‘At 15:30 DAS the higher crop growth rate was observed in 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kehha
pron (5.92 g/m’/day) and the lowest was observed in control (5.02 gm’
/day). There was no
vital significant difference among the treatments,
At 30-45 DAS the significantly higher crop growth rate was observed in 40 kg/ha
supur+ 05 kg/ha Boron (4.84 g/m"/day). Which was statistically at par with the application of
4okghha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (4.73 g/m*/day), 40 ke/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron (4.65
ghldy), 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron (4.31 g/m*/day) and 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha
Boron (4.29 g/m*/day).
At 45-60 DAS the significantly higher crop growth rate was observed in 20 kg/ha
Sulphur+ 0.5 kg/ha Boron (3.15 g/m"/day), Which was statistically at par with the application of
2 kgha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron (3.12 g/m"/day), Control (2.77 g/m'/day) and 20 kg/ha
Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (2.74 g/m?/day).
Higher CGR is attributable to parallel increase in dry matter production due to efficient
tmtien assimilation and carbohydrate metabolism, owing to application of sulphur along with
‘rconmended NPK. The crop fertilized with sulphur increased the CGR considerably up to 30-
‘Says stage which might be because of improved plant vigour due to efficient photosynthesis,
ote and carbohydrate metabolism reported Kumar et al, 2011.
t
“SULTS AND DISCUSSION Page 36 Table 441 Influence of Sulphur and Boron on crop growth rate (g/m’/day) of sunflower at different day intervals
15-30 DAS 30-45 DAS 45-60 DAS
S.No Treatment
1. Control ae ot au
. + 20 kyha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 5.34 3.60 3.12
3. 20kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 5.21 3.72 3.15
4. 20kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 5.53 4.16 2.74
5, 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 5.56 431 261
6, 40kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 5.62 4.29 2.62
: 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 5.64 4.84 27
. 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron
9. 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron fe oe ate
Ftest . ia a
SEm (4) by . 8s
ce . 021 0.15
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4
we 15-30 DAS
-@ 30-45 DAS
am 45-60 DAS
0
4 5 6 7 8
Treatment
Fig. 4.4.2 Crop growth rate (g/m*/day) depicting on graph in different days intervals of sunflower.
CSS RS
Page 38
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION agreative growth rate (r/p/day)
The data presented on relative growth rate (g/p/day)of sunflower plant were
caisivally analyzed and have been presented in table 4.5.2. In the present investigation
restive growth rate was increased with increasing crop growth up to 15-30 DAS, after that it
— yasdecreased.
: At 15-30 DAS the higher relative growth rate was observed in 20 kg/ha Sulphur +0
| gh Boron (0.193 g/8/day) and the lowest in 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (0.185
| git). There was no significant difference among the treatments.
‘At 30-45 DAS the significantly higher relative growth rate was observed in 40 kg/ha
Sulphur + 0.5 ke/ha Boron (0.039 g/g/day). Which was statistically at par with the application
of 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (0.038 g/g/day).
t
f
‘At 45-60 DAS the significantly higher relative growth rate was observed in 20 kg/ha
Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron and 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron (0.019 g/g/day). Which
vas statistically at par with the treatment control (0.018 g/g/day).
Res
ULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 4.5.1 Influence of Sulphur
‘and Boron on relative growth rate (g/g/day) of sunflower at different day intervals.
S.No Treatments 15-30 DAS 30-45 DAS 45-60 DAS.
1. Control 0.192 0.036 0.018
2. 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 0.193 0.033 0.019
3. 20kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 ke/ha Boron 0.190 0.034 0.019
4. 20kg/ha Sulphur+ 1.0 kg/ha Boron 0.199" 0.035 0.016
5, 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 0.189 0.036 0.015
6. 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 0.190 0.037 0.015
7.40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 9.188 0.039 0.012
40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 0.185 0.038 0.012
9. 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 0.188 0.036 0.011
F test NS s s
SEm (2) 0.003, 0.0005 0.0001
cD 6%) - 0.001 0.001
Page 40
PFCTIETS AND DISCUSSION 15-30 DAS
930-45 DAS
gpa | 45-60 DAS
Treatments
Fig. 4.5.2 Relative growth rate (g/g/day) depicting on chart in different days intervals.
————
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Page 41 osharvestobservations
8
pe data presented on post-harvest of sunflower plant were statistically analyzed and have
en presented in table 4.12.1,
47 Capitalum diameter (em)
the significantly higher capitulum diameter was observed in 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kyha
Boron (14.86 cm). Which was statistically at par with the application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur
+1.0 kg/ha Boron (14.69 cm) and 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron (14.51 cm).
Sulphur application was also highly beneficial in improving the capitulum diameter. Since
itis an clement inevitable for oilseed, its greater diversion is required towards the head and
toon application had increased the head diameter might be due to pollen-production
capacity of anthesis and pollen grain viability reported by Shekawat and Shivay, 2008,
48 Number of seeds per capitulum
The significantly higher number of seeds per capitulum was observed in 40 kg/ha Sulphur
+1.5 kg/ha Boron (333.43). Which was statistically at par with the application of 40 kg/ha
Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron (331,65) and 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 ke/ha Boron (325.46).
The increase in number of seeds per head might be due to increase in translocation of
assimilates from source to sink reported by Shekawat and Shivay, 2008.
49 Test weight (g)
The higher test weight was observed in 30 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 ky/ha Boron (34.67 g).
‘And lowest was observed in 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron (34.23 g). There was no
significant difference among the treatments,
4.10 Seed Yield (kg/ha)
‘The significantly higher seed yield was observed in 40 ky/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron
(1420.28 ky/ha). Which was statistically at par with 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron
(1420.41 kg/ha) and 40 ky/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kyfha Boron (1418.13 ky/ha), sarkar and Mallick (2009), also observed that sulphur is known to play vital role in
formation of amino acids. Higher dry matter accumulation and better translocation of photo-
gymthates led to increase in yield components, which in tum resulted in increase in seed
yield
The B application improved the seed yield because it maintains good balance between
photosynthesis and respiration. Boron removal alters the cell wall structure, with a transitory
decrease in elasticity modulus, flowed by a secondary hardening and reduction in the
incidence of plasma membrane — bound reductase activity for better translocation to sink
Shekawat and shivay, 2008 similar results were obtained by Vu et al., 2002.
4.11 Stover yield (kg/ha)
‘The significantly higher stover yield was observed in 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1,5 kgfta Boron
(2476.33 kg/ha). Which was statistically at par with the application of 40 ky/ha Sulphur +
1.0 kg/ha Boron (2462.42 kg/ha).
Increase in stover yield can be ascribed to the overall improvement in plant organs
associated with faster and uniform vegetative growth of the crop with sulphur application
reported by Solanki and Sharma, 2016.
4.12 Harvest Index (HI)
The higher harvest index was observed in 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron (57.71). And
lowest was observed in control treatment (54.43). There was no significant difference
among the treatments.
‘USSION ron on yield attributes of sunflower
Table 4.12.1 Influence of Sulphur and Bo!
Number ced Stover
Capitola Tfeeeds Test” yield Yield eve
diameter per Weight(®)——(kgyha) tan lar
S.No, Treatments (em) capitulum
34,35 1223.80 2248.05, $4.43
1. Control 12.28 27s
2 2308.19 $7.22
20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 12.88 279.91 34.23 1321.19 8.
20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 13.41 287.32 34.34 1337.16 2335.22 37.26
4. 20kwha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 13.43 294.29 3441 1360.94 2354.23 37.81
5. 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ba Boron 13.42 34.58 1386.26 2389.81 58.00
6. , 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 1411 34.62 1405.54 2425.52 57.94
7, 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 1451 325.46 34.71 1418.13 2443.15 38.04
8 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1,0 kg/ha Boron 14.69 331.65 34.71 1420.41 2462.42 37.68
9. 40-kg/ha Sulphur + 1,5 ky/ha Boron 14.86 333.43 34.87 1429.28 2476.33 57.71
F test
$ $ NS S v NS
0.24 3.38 ond 6.12 6.92 0.29
on 10.12 - 18.35 20.73 2
OOO
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Seed yield
Stover yield
‘Treatments
Fig. 4.12.2 Seed and Stover yield (kg/ha) depicting on chart in treatments after harvesting.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Page 45
{ 4.13 Oil content (%)
“The significantly higher oil content (%) was observed in 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 15 kghha
Boron (41.5%).Which was statistically at par with the application of 40 ke/ha Sulphur + 1-0
05 ky/ha Boron (41%) and 40 kg/ha Sulphur
kgiha Boron (41.2%). 40 kya Sulphur +
+ O kg/ha Boron (40.5%).
4 the oil and protein contents of sunflower over the
art of S-containing amino
il seed crops goes in
‘The sulphur application improve
“This might be due to the fact that sulphur is an integral p
ine) and 50 10 80% of total $ in 0
.d by Tamak ef al., 1997.
control
(Cysteine, Cystine and Methion
reporte
acids
making S- containing compounds
RESULTS AND DIS
ION
Page 46 a
Treatments Oil percentage (%)
lL Control 34.3
2 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 36.1
3 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 35.8
4 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 36.4
$20 ky/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 36.7
6 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 40.5
7 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 41.0
8. 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 42
40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 4s
Fest Ss
‘SEm (+) 0.42
CD (5%) 1.27
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIO.
Pao 47 —_
‘Table 4.14.1 Influence of Sulphur and Boron on economics of sunflower.
S.No Treatments Cost Ha sits Nal aie oer) C ratio
1, Control 23,594.24 48,446.00 72,040.24 1.92
3, 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 ke/ha Boron 25,594.24 52,057.79 77,152.03 2.00
3, 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 ky/ha Boron : 25,639.24 53,052.62 78,691.86 2.05
20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 25,684.24 54,406.88 80,081.12 2.00
+ 20 kehha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 25,729.24 $5,853.16 81,581.40 2.01
40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 ke/ha Boron 27,594.24 55,121.59 82,715.83 201
40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 27,639.24 55,817.70 83,456.94 2.06
40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 27,684.24 55,906.88 83,591.12 2M
27,729.24 56,258.92 83,988.16 2.16
40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron
“Data not subjected to statistically analyzed.
Page 48
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION C. Economics
The data pertaining to economics of growing as influenced by influence of magnesium
applications on growth and yield of sunflower been exhibited and has been presented
table 4.13.1.
4.14 Cost of cultivation (%/ha)
The maximum cost of cultivation was found in with the application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur
+ 1.5 kg/ha Boron (27,729.24 %/ha). And lowest was observed in control treatment
(23,594.24 %ha)
4.14 Gross return (%/ha)
? The maximum gross return was found in with the application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur +
1.5 kg/ha Boron (83,988.16 %/ha). And lowest was observed in control treatment
(72,040.24 %/ha).
4.15 Net return (3/ha)
‘The maximum net return was found in with the application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5
kg/ha Boron (56,258.92 %/ha). And lowest was observed in control treatment
(48,446.00 %/na).
4.16 B:C ratio
Higher B:C ratio was found in with the application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha
Boron (2.16). And lowest was observed in control treatment (1.92).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Page 49
nay ANOVA TABLES:
APPENDIX - 1
Table 1 Plant height (em) of sunflower at 15 DAS
ANOVA 15 DAS
Source at | ss F.Cal | _F. Tab. 5% | Result
Replication 8_| 031 0.04 1.04
‘Treatment 2_| 008 0.04 Lor 2.59 NS
Error 16_| 0.60 0.04
TOTAL 26 | 0.99
Table 2 Plant height (em) of sunflower at 30 DAS
ANOVA 30 DAS
Source at ss | Mss [| F.Cal] F.Tab.5% | Result
Replication 8 19.24 2.40 2.78
Treatment 2 0.05 0.02 0.03 259 s
Error 16 13.84 0.86
TOTAL 26 | 3342
Table 3 Plant height (cm) of sunflower at 45 DAS
ANOVA 45 DAS
Source af SS MSS [_F.Cal Result
Replication 18.82 2.35 10.28
Treatment 1.67 0.84 3.65 259 s
Error 16 3.66 0.23
TOTAL 26 | 24.18 I
SY
APPENDIX
Pagel Table 4 Plant height (cm) of sunflower at 60 DAS,
ANOVA
60 DAS
Source at Ss MSS | F.Cal|_F.Tab.5% | Result
Replication 8 22.57 2.82 $37
Treatment 2 0.60 0.30 0.57 259 s
Error 16 841 0.53
TOTAL 26 31.59
Table 5 Number of leaves par plant of sunflower at 15 DAS
ANOVA 15 DAS
Source ar{ ss MSS | F.Cal | F.Tab.5% | Result
Replication 8 0.04 0.00 0.02
Treatment 2 0.33 0.16 0.83 2.59 NS
Error 16 3.17 0.20
‘OTAL 26 3.53
‘able 6 Number of leaves per plant of sunflower at 30 DAS
ANOVA 30 DAS
Source at SS MSS | F.Cal| _F.Tab.5% | Result
Replication 8 12.16 152 14.20
Treatment 2 0.42 0.21 1.94 2.59 NS
Error 16 ut On
TOTAL 26 14.29
‘Table 7 Number of leaves per plant of sunflower at 45 DAS
ANOVA 45 DAS
Source MSS | F.Cal | F.Tab.$% | Result
|__Replication 1,87 8.46 al
Treament 0.19 0.85 2.59 s
Error
TOTAL
APPENDIX Table 8 Number of leaves par plant of sunflower at 60 DAS
ANOVA 60 DAS
Source atl ss E.Cal | F.Tab.5% | _ Result
Replication 8 | sor 1.08 | 16.50 |
Treatment | 2 | 031 | ons | 236 259 s
Error 16 1.04 0.07
TOTAL 26 9.97
‘Table 9 Dry weight accumulation (g/plant) of sunflower at 15 DAS
ANOVA 15 DAS
Source af | Ss MSS F.Cal_ | F.Tab.5% | Result
Replication 8 0.01 0.00 4.98
Treatment 2 0.00 0.00 332 | 259 NS
Error 16 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 26 0.02
Table 10 Dry weight accumulation (g/plant) of sunflower at 30 DAS
ANOVA 30 DAS.
Source af SS F.Cal_| F.Tab.5% | Result
Replication 8 215 4.10
Treatment 2 0.22 1.67 | 2.59 NS
Error 16 1.05
TOTAL 26 3.42
Table 11 Dry weight accumulation (g/plant) of sunflower at 45 DAS
ANOVA 60 DAS
Source at SS M.S.S F. Cal Result
Replication 8 12.68 1.59 35.22
Treatment 2 0.25 0.12 274 | 259 Ss
Error 16 0.72 0.05
TOTAL 26 13.65
SD
APPENDIX Page it Table 12 Dry weight accumulation (g/plant) of sunflower at 60 DAS
ANOVA 60 DAS
Source af SS MSS F.Cal | F. Tab. 5% | Result
Replication 8 3.30 0.41 8.78
Treatment 2 0.52 0.26 5.49 2.59 s
Error 16 0.75 0.05
TOTAL 26 457
Table 13 Crop growth rate (g/m’/day) of sunflower at 15-30 DAS interval
ANOVA 15-30 DAS
Source af SS MSS F. Cal F. Tab. 5% Result
| Replication 8 1.76 0.22 3.46
‘Treatment 2 0.24 0.12 1.87 2.59 NS.
Error 16 1.02 0.06
TOTAL 26 3.01
Table 14 Crop growth rate (g/m’/day) of sunflower at 30-45 DAS interval
ANOVA 30-45 DAS
Source df SS MSS F. Cal F. Tab. 5% Result
Replication 8 4.95 0.62 4.52
Treatment 2 0.04 0.02 0.15 2.59 Ss
Error 16 2.19 0.14
TOTAL 26 7.18
Table 15 Crop growth rate (g/m*/day) of sunflower at 45-60 DAS interval
ANOVA 45-60 DAS
Source af SS MSS | F.Cal| F.Tab.5% | Result
Replication 8 4.24 0s3_| 7:93
‘Treatment 2 0.18 0.09 132 2.59 s
EI 1 1.07 0.07
Error 6
TOTAL 26 5.48
ie P: V
| APPENDIX ‘agely Table 16 Relative growth rate (p/p/day) of sunflower at 15-30 DAS interval
r
ANOVA | 15-30 Das |
Source af] ss MSS | F.Cai] F.T2b5% | Result
Replication 8 0.00 0.00 oso |
Treatment 2 0.00 0.00 287 | 259 xs |
Error 16 | 0.00 0.00 |
TOTAL 26 | 090
Table 17 Relative growth rate (g/g/day) of sunflower at 30-45 DAS interval
ANOVA
Source af| oss |. Mss | F.cal Result
o>, Replication 8 0.00 0.00 0.78
Treatment 2 0.00 0.00 030 259 s
Error 16 | 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 26 | 0.00
Table 18 Relative growth rate (g/g/day) of sunflower at 45-60 DAS interval
ANOVA 45-60 DAS,
Source af| oss |- mss | rca] FTab.s% | Result
Replication 8 0.00 0.00 13.83
Treatment 2 0.00 0.00 093 259 s
Error 16 | 0.00 0.00
TOTAL 26 | __ 0.00
Table 19 Number of seeds/eapitulum of sunflower at harvest
ANOVA Post-harvest
Source at ss_| Mss | F.ca] Ftab.s% | Reut
Replication 8 1148855 1436.07| 41.98
‘Treatment 2 45.33 | 22.66 | 0.66 250 s
2
16 sa730 | 3a2n | ue :
[__ TOTAL 26 12081.18 _ Table 20 Diameter of eapitulum of sunflower at harvest
ANOVA Post-harvest
Source at Ss MSS | F.Cal|_F.Tab.5% | Result
Replication 8 18.18 227 13.65
Treatment 2 0.27 0.13 0.80 2.59 Ss
Error 16 2.66 0.17
TOTAL 26 2111
Table 21 Test weight (g) of sunflower
ANOVA Post-harvest
Source afl ss MSS | F.Cal| F.Tab.5% | Result
Replication 8 Lu O14 2.36
Treatment 2 0.08 0.04 0.71 2.59 NS
Error 16 0.94 0.06
TOTAL 26 2.13
Table 22 Grain yield (kg/ha) of sunflower at harvest
‘ANOVA Post-
harvest
Source af] ss MSS F. Cal | F. Tab. 5%| Result
Replication 104202.35 | 13025.29 | 115.86
Treatment 2 316.88 158.44 141 | 2.59 s
Enor 16 1798.82 112.43
TOTAL 26 106318.05
Table 23 Stover yield (kg/ha) of sunflower at harvest
ANOVA Post-harvest
Source ar] ss MSS | Fall F.Tab.5% | Result
—ilir ae 14221610 | 1777.01 | 123.89 —
I 3
a 938.63 46932 | 327 [25
Eror
T 16 2295.84 143.49
OTAL 26 | 145450.58
Page v4 2%
¢
a
as r Table 24 Harvest index (%) of sunflower
ANOVA Post-harvest
Source at SS MSS | F.Cal|_F.Tab.5% | Result
Replication 8 | 3069 | 3.84 | 14.99
‘Treatment 2 0.02 0.01 0.04 2 BS
Error 16 4.10 0.26
TOTAL 26 | 34.81
Table 25 Oil percentage (%) of sunflower
ANOVA Post-harvest
Source at ss | mss | F.Cal| F.Tab.5% | Result
Replication 8 193.02 | __24.13 44.74
‘Treatment 2 032 | 0.16 029 2) BS)
Error 16 863 | 0.4
TOTAL 26 | 201.96
x
q
a
2
8
8
My
3
Ee =
APPENDIX - II
Table 1 Common cost of cultivation (8/ha) for effect of Sulphur and Boron on
gronthand yield of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.).
Particulars Unit Quantity Time z Cost
Land
Preaparation
Weeding and
cleaning | _‘#bour 2 1 350 700
Ploughing 2 1,800 3,600
| Fertilizer
Application kgfha kg
Urea kg 5.08 55 1,053.04
DAP kg 3.16 1 2 1,825.6
MoP. ke 2.43 I 17.44 1065.6
Labour for
Fasplication | to (4 labour) 1 350 1.400
Planting
Material and Seeds 3 2.250
Sowing
Sowing Labour 8 350 2,800,
Intercultural
Operations
Weeding Labour 5 2 350 1,750
Tubewell 1 Shr Irrigation(2
Irrigation ee labour) 5 100 500
Labour for hr Irrigation(2
Irrigation | CSOHE labour) 5 350 1,750
Harvesting, Labour 14 350 4,900
Total(&/ha) 23,594.24
ee a le
APPENDIX
Page Vil Table $.2 Variable cost (/hx) of cultivation for effect of Sulphur and Boron on Srowth and yield of sunflower (Helianthusannuus Ly.
Sulphur soil application Boron soil application Total cost
Fixed Cost | Quantity | cost {Tl | Ovaniiy | Cost fo sheers
SNo.| Treatments (hs) | Govt) | ke) | enn | hea) | eg) (tay
1 Control 23,594.24 - - - 0 - 0 23,594.24
2 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 23,594.24 20 100 2,000 0 90 0 25,594.24
3 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 23,594.24 20 100 2,000 OS 90 45 25,639.24
4 20 kg/ha Sul Iphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 23,594.24 20 100 2,000 90 90 25,684.24
5 20 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 23,594.24 20 100 2,000 90 135 25,729.24
6 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 0 kg/ha Boron 23,594.24 40 100 4,000 0 90 0 27,594.24
a, 40 ky/ha Sulphur + 0.5 kg/ha Boron 23,594.24 40 100 4,000 OS 90 45 27,639.24
8 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.0 kg/ha Boron 23,594.24 40 100 4,000 1 90 90 27,684.24
9 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron 23,594.24 40 100 4,000 LS 90 135 27,729.24 \\/
ee
hal fe
13(4): 2292322021)
ISSN No. (Print): 0975-1130
ISSN No, (Online): 2249-3237
intuence of Sulphur and Boron on Yield and Economics of Sunflower (Helianthus
annuus L.)
G. Rahul", Rajesh Singh? and Ekta Singh?
eae and Ekta Singh
__|MSe. Scholar, Department of Agronomy, Nal, SHUATS, Prayagr). (Citar Prades, India
Lasstan Professor, Department of teronom NAL STUATS. Procora tes Peaeal alia
“PhD. Scholar, Department of Agronomy, NAI, SHUATS. Prayagray.(Utar Pradesh, India
‘renal Gonder G Raa
eee 19 at 2081, decd 14 October 202)
(Pubs by Research Trend. Website wn resercaren nt)
AESTRACT: A fiekd trial was laid out during Zald 2021 at Crop Research Farm, Deparimeat of
[Agrsomy, SUUATS, Prayagraj (U.P. The soil of trial plot was sandy loam in texture, nearly neutral i
(treactin (pIl 7.3), low ia organic earbon (0.57%), avallable N (230 kg/h ble F (82.10 kaya) and
sraable K (235 kg/ha) The treatments consist of two levels of sulphar soil application and four levels of
foron with a control. The trial was laid out in randomized block design with nine treatments each
repeted thrice. It is concluded that application of 40 kg/ha Sulphur + 1.5 kg/ha Boron recorded
ousderably greater grain yield (1429.28 kg/ha), gross return (83,988.16 @/ha), net return (56,258.92 &/ha)
aed benefit cost ratio (2.16). These findings are based on one season; therefore, further trail may be
rgeired for further confirmation. The oil and protein contents of sunflower and mustard were
seuficantly and synergistically improved by the application of both sulphur and boron,
[Keyrords: Sunflower, aid. Sulphur, boron, yield and economics.
INTRODUCTION
Oicosumption has been inereased duc to increasing
‘raion and_ capitation consumption recently.
(il, one ofthe most attentions isto cultivate oil
‘sch as sunflower, because of its importance in
‘ssin nation, Development of el seeds quality and
a9 fas formed a substantial part of farming in
ex couties (Weiss, 2000).
Le apricultural economy of India, oilseeds are
‘tet next only to food grains in terms of acreage,
Ron and salue. India is the largest producer of
“cts inthe world in terms of output. Among, the
Crops sunflower (Helianthus annuus 1.) is an
a
a8 On. Holds great promise as an oilseed erop
its short period. photo-in-sensitivity and
z nctily to different agro-climatic regions and
eaghgt Sunflower seed covers about 48-53 percent
Mg gt SuMlower ol is a rich source of linoleic acid
cep a ean patients. Ihe wil is alo wsed for
ened, gtezsnated oil. Sulphur shonage is
Ceceen( tty due to high crop yield and
Sau hither rate of § removal b) ops, and