Study of Physico-Chemical and Micronutrient Status of Soil, Water and Plant System of Sargodha District: Effect of Micronutrients (Zn, B) on Forage Yield and Quality of Oat and Pearl Millet
By
Abdul Jalil
Department of Microbiology Faculty of Biological Sciences Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, Pakistan 2013
i
Study of Physico-Chemical and Micronutrient Status of Soil, Water and Plant System of Sargodha District: Effect of Micronutrients (Zn, B) on Forage Yield and Quality of Oat and Pearl Millet
A manuscript presented to the Quaid-i-Azam University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Biological Sciences (Soil Science)
By
Abdul Jalil
Department of Microbiology Faculty of Biological Sciences Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, Pakistan 2013
ii
Dedicated to Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and to my sweet mother (late Nasreen Akhter), and great father (late Naseer Ahmad)
iii
APPROVAL
This is certify that this thesis submitted by Abdul Jalil is accepted in present form by
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam University,
Islamabad, as satisfying the dissertation requirements for the degree of Doctor of
Philosophy in Soil Science/Microbiology.
Supervisor: ______
Chairperson: ______
External Examiner: ______
External Examiner: ______
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am thankful to Almighty Allah, the most Gracious and the Merciful, Who enabled me to carry out this study and continues to bless me in life. I consider it my utmost duty to express my gratitude to the Holy Prophet (S.A.W.) whose patient and diligent life taught me to come to entirety of this program.
I am grateful to my supervisor, Professor Dr. M. Fayyaz Chaudhary, Dean
(Retd.), Faculty of Biological Sciences, Quaid-i-Azam, University, Islamabad for his guidance, support, and encouragement during the course of this study. I also extend my gratitude to Dr. Ejaz Rafique, Principal Scientific Officer, National Agricultural Research
Centre, Islamabad for his valuable suggestions, cooperation, and moral support for enabling me to accomplish this dissertation.
I am highly indebted to Faraz Ahmad, Assistant Research Officer, Soil and Water
Testing Laboratory, Sargodha for his advice and assistance in statistical work. I am also grateful to Dr. Muhammad Zia, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad for his time and effort in making suggestions for improving this dissertation: and to Malik Riaz, Malik
Mumtaz Ahmad, Shaukat Nawaz and Imtiaz Ahmad, Soil and Water Testing Laboratory,
Sargodha and Muhammad Riaz, Shah Pur, for their assistance in analytical work. I gratefully acknowledge the financial support of Higher Education Commission, Govt. of
Pakistan, Islamabad.
I owe a lot to my family, especially my mother, Mst. Nasreen Akhtar, my brother,
Hamid Mahmood, my wife, Rafia Noreen, and my sister, Hifza Naseer for their encouragement, sincere moral support, and consistent patience throughout the study.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V
LIST OF TABLES IX
LIST OF FIGURES XI
LIST OFAPPENDICES XII
ABSTRACT XIV
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8
2.1. Role of micronutrients in crop production 8
2.2. Groundwater quality 20
2.3. Crop response to micronutrient fertilization 25
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 32
3.1 Micronutrient indexing and physico-chemical characteristics of soil, 32 fodder crops and ground water in Sargodha district
3.1.1. Sampled Area 32
3.1.2. Soil, plant and water sampling 33
3.1.3. Laboratory analyses of soils, plant tissues and ground water 34
3.1.3.1 Glassware, chemicals and instruments 34
3.1.3.2. Soil analysis 38
3.1.3.3. Plant tissue analysis 42
3.1.3.4. Water analysis 43
3.2. Effect of micronutrients (Zn, B) on fodder yield and quality of oat and 45 pearl millet
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
page
3.2.1. Experimental sites 45
3.2.2. Nutrient treatments and experimental design 45
3.2.3. Laboratory analyses of soils and plant tissues 48
3.2.3.1. Soil analysis 48
3.2.3.2. Plant tissue analysis 48
3.2.4. Plant height 51
3.2.5. Number of tillers per plant 51
3.2.6. Dry matter yield 51
3.3. Statistical analysis 52
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 53
4.1. Micronutrient status of soils and fodder crops grown in Sargodha 53 district
4.1.1. Zinc status of soils 53
4.1.2. Zinc contents of fodder crops 71
4.1.3. Copper status of soils 77
4.1.4. Copper contents of fodder crops 80
4.1.5. Iron status of soils 82
4.1.6. Iron contents of fodder crops 84
4.1.7. Manganese status of soils 87
4.1.8. Manganese contents of fodder crops 89
4.1.9. Boron status of soils 91
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
page
4.1.10. Boron contents of fodder crops 93
4.2. Soil characteristics and their affect on micronutrient availability 95
4.2.1. Soil organic matter 95
4.2.2. Soil pH 98
4.2.3. Soil texture 100
4.3. Groundwater characteristics of Sargodha district 104
4.3.1. Groundwater characteristics of Sargodha district during kharif 104 season
4.3.2. Groundwater characteristics of Sargodha district during rabi 106 season
4.4. Effect of micronutrients (Zn, B) on forage yield and quality of oat 113
4.4.1. Yield components and yield 114
4.4.2. Quality of oat (CP, ADF, NDF) 120
4.5. Effect of micronutrients (Zn, B) on forage yield and quality of pearl 124 millet
4.5.1. Yield attributes and yield 125
4.5.2. Quality of pearl millet (CP, ADF, NDF) 131
LITERATURE CITED 138
APPENDICES 162
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page 1 Information regarding sampling sites during kharif and rabi in 36 Sargodha district
2 Selected initial physico-chemical characteristics of field experimental 46 sites
3 Summary of data showing soil micronutrient status in the kharif 54 fodder fields of Sargodha district
4 Mean values for EC, pH, organic matter and concentration of Zn, Cu, 55 Fe, Mn and B in the sampled soil series of kharif fodders fields from Sargodha district
5 Soil series wise distribution of micronutrient deficiencies in surface 58 soils in Sargodha district (kharif)
6 Correlation coefficient (r values) between soil micronutrients and 61 various soil characteristics of Sargodha district in kharif
7 Summary of data showing soil micronutrient status in the rabi fodder 62 fields of Sargodha district
8 Mean values for EC, pH, organic matter and concentration of Zn, Cu, 63 Fe, Mn and B in the sampled soil series of rabi fodders fields from Sargodha district
9 Soil series wise distribution of micronutrient deficiencies in surface 66 soils in Sargodha district (rabi)
10 Correlation coefficient (r values) between soil micronutrients and 68 various soil characteristics of Sargodha district in rabi
11 Micronutrient contents on dry weight basis in the kharif fodders of 72 Sargodha
12 Correlation coefficient (r values) between soil and kharif (summer) 74 plant micronutrients in Sargodha district
13 Micronutrient contents on dry weight basis in the rabi fodders of 75 Sargodha
ix
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
14 Correlation coefficient (r values) between soil and rabi (winter) plant 76 micronutrients in Sargodha district
15 Soil properties in the field of kharif fodder in Sargodha district 79
16 Soil properties in the field of rabi fodder in Sargodha district 79
17 Range, mean and fitness % age of some selected properties of ground 105 water of Sargodha in Pakistan in kharif
18 Range, mean and fitness % age of some selected properties of ground 107 water of Sargodha in Pakistan in rabi
19 Correlation coefficient (r) between various water and soil 109 characteristics of district Sargodha in kharif
20 Correlation coefficient (r) between various water and soil 109 characteristics of district Sargodha in rabi
x
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page 1 Map of district Sargodha with distribution of sampling sites 35
2 Relationship between texture and micronutrient contents of kharif 101 fodder fields at Sargodha district
3 Relationship between texture and micronutrient contents of rabi 102 fodder fields at Sargodha district
4 Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on plant height of oat 115
5 Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on number of tillers per 116 plant of oat
6 Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on dry matter yield of 118 oat
7 Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on acid detergent fiber of 121 oat
8 Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on neutral detergent fiber 122 of oat
9 Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on crude protein contents 123 of oat
10 Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on plant height of pearl 126 millet
11 Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on number of tillers per 128 plant of pearl millet
12 Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on dry matter yield of 129 pearl millet
13 Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on crude protein contents 132 of pearl millet
14 Effect of different combinations of Zn and B acid detergent fiber of 134 pearl millet
15 Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on neutral detergent 135 fiber of pearl millet
xi
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
1 Micronutrient status of soils in Sargodha district (kharif 06) 162
2 Micronutrient status of soils in Sargodha district (rabi 06-07) 169
3 Generalized micronutrients soil test interpretation criteria used in 176 Pakistan
4 Some physico-chemical properties of soils in Sargodha district 177 (kharif 06)
5 Some physico-chemical properties of soils in Sargodha district (rabi 184 06-07)
6 Concentration of micronutrients in fodder crops collected from 191 Sargodha district (kharif 06)
7 Concentration of micronutrients in fodder crops collected from 194 Sargodha district (rabi 06-07)
8 Suitability criteria of water for irrigation purpose 197
9 Ground water quality characteristics of tube well water samples 198 collected from Sargodha district (kharif 06)
10 Ground water quality characteristics of tube well water samples 201 collected from Sargodha district (rabi 06-07)
11 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B, Zn) on plant height of oat at 204 district Sargodha
12 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B, Zn) on number of tillers per 205 plant of oat at district Sargodha
13 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B, Zn) on dry matter yield of oat at 206 district Sargodha
14 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B, Zn) on acid detergent fiber of 207 oat at district Sargodha
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES (continued)
Appendix Page
15 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B, Zn) on neutral detergent fiber of 208 oat at district Sargodha
16 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B, Zn) on protein contents (%) of 209 oat at district Sargodha
17 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B, Zn) on plant height of pearl 210 millet at district Sargodha
18 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B, Zn) on number of tillers per 211 plant of pearl millet at district Sargodha
19 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B, Zn) on dry matter yield of pearl 212 millet at district Sargodha
20 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B, Zn) on protein contents (%age) 213 of pearl millet at district Sargodha
21 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B, Zn) on acid detergent fiber of 214 pearl millet at district Sargodha
22 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B, Zn) on neutral detergent fiber of 215 pearl millet at district Sargodha
xiii
ABSTRACT
Pakistani agriculture is largely an economic symbiosis of crop and livestock. But,
scarcity of quality forage in the country has made livestock to continually suffer. The
micronutrient nutrition of forage crops is important not only for increasing productivity
but also for quality of the herbage produced. Pakistani soils are mostly calcareous and alkaline in reaction where availability of micronutrient is a serious problem. Therefore, a
research was carried out to study (i) The physico-chemical characteristics of soil and
water samples of Sargodha district (ii) Micronutrient status of soil and fodders of
Sargodha district and, (iii) the micronutrients (Zn and B) effect on yield, yield
components and quality of oat and pearl millet at district Sargodha.
For this purpose soil, water and plant samples were collected twice a year during
Kharif (summer) 2006 and rabi (winter) 2006-07. The sampling sites were uniformly
distributed throughout district Sargodha. From each site, composite soil sample was taken
up to 60 cm depth in the order of 0-15, 15-30, and 30-60 cm depths. These soil samples
were analyzed for pH, particle size analysis, organic matter and micronutrients i.e. Cu,
Zn, Mn, B and Fe. Similarly, associated fodder samples were also analyzed for these
micronutrients. While ground water samples were also collected along with soil and plant
samples and analyzed for EC, SAR, RSC and Cl-1. After this, two field experiments at farmer field of Sargodha district were conducted to evaluate the response of micronutrients (Zn and B) to fodder yield and quality of oat and pearl millet.
In this study, the soils of district Sargodha varied from loamy sand to silty clays, low in organic matter and alkaline in reaction (pH >7.0). In general, DTPA-extractable
xiv
micronutrients i.e., Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn and dilute HCl extractable B was higher in surface
soil and decreased with depth. During kharif 2006, out of total analyzed soil surface
samples 48, 01, 53, 03 and 41% were deficient in Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn and B, respectively.
Similarly during rabi (2006-07) 47, 01, 47, 02 and 30% soil samples were deficient in Zn,
Cu, Fe, Mn and B, respectively. Soil organic matter, pH and texture had strong influence
on the distribution of plant available micronutrients. While correlation coefficients
indicated that all micronutrients were positively correlated with soil organic matter. Soil
pH had a negative and non-significant correlation with available Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn and positive but non-significant correlation with B in both summer and winter. Further, it can be amply surmised from the above data that light textured soils were mostly deficient in
micronutrients (Cu, Fe, and B) as compared to heavy textured soils in summer. While in rabi, Zn availability decreased in coarse textured soils.
Similarly, fodder samples were also analyzed for micronutrients (Zn, Cu, Mn, Fe
and B). During kharif 2006, plant tissue analysis revealed a 29 and 31% Zn deficiency in
millet and sorghum, respectively. Further, 10 and 14% sorghum samples were deficient
in Fe and Mn, respectively. Likewise during rabi, only Mn deficiency was observed as 2,
15 and 6% in berseem, lucerne and oat, respectively. While only 2% berseem was found
to be deficient for B.
Ground water samples were also collected along with soil and plant samples to
obtain a general picture of water resources of Sargodha district. Water samples that have
EC< 1.0 dSm-1 are considered to be fit for irrigation. Almost 26 and 24% water samples
were found to be fit in summer and winter, respectively. Whereas with respect to SAR,
46 and 50% water samples were fit (SAR<6) in summer and winter, respectively. While
xv
31 and 33% water samples had RSC<1.25 which indicated their suitability for irrigation
purpose.
In Pakistan, fodder crops are traditionally grown on soils having poor fertility and
the use of micronutrients for these crops is negligible. Thus effects of micronutrients (Zn
and B) on yield, yield components and quality of oat and pearl millet were studied during rabi 2007-08 (winter) and Kharif 2008 (summer). A factorial combination of three levels of B (0, 1, 2 kg ha-1) and Zn (0, 5, 10 kg ha-1) were applied. Data were noted for plant height, number of tillers per plant, dry matter yield, crude protein content, acid detergent fibre (ADF) and neutral detergent fibre (NDF). Plant height and tillers per plant showed positive and highly significant correlation with dry mater yield. The results showed that sole applications of B and Zn with their increasing levels significantly increased plant height, number of tillers per plant, dry matter yield and crude protein contents. Besides this, there was statistically non-significant effect of these micronutrients on protein, ADF and NDF of pearl millet. While there was some positive but non-significant effect on
ADF and NDF contents of oat with application of these micronutrients.
In the past, no survey of the micronutrient deficiencies in a large number of farmers’ fodder fields of Sargodha district has been undertaken. While, the earlier research has mostly concentrated on the major nutrients and the deficiencies of NPK have been reported to be widespread in this system. But our results demonstrate clearly that apart from water shortage and irrigation with brackish water, soil infertility is also the issue for crop production and productivity enhancement in study area. By balance fertilization, good quality fodder can be available throughout the year and ultimately we can perk up the animal productivity up to 50 per cent with existing gene pool. Further, it
xvi
is emphasized that use of brackish water should be avoided to maintain soil health and for
sustainable crop yield where good quality water is manageable. However, if the use of
brackish water becomes necessary in an area where underground water may be the only
source of irrigation, then such water should be used with proper management practices.
In future experiments, we should also analyze micronutrient content in the harvested plant tissues after growing the fodders under these treatments. This will provide more information on how the treatments are affecting the micronutrient status of the kharif (Pearl millet) and rabi (oat) fodders when treated with extra B and Zn.
xvii
Chapter: 1
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is the main source of livelihood for 66 % of Pakistan’s population, employs 44.7 % of the total workforce and accounts for 21.8 % of the GDP (Economic
Survey, 2009). We have to increase our crop production according to our increasing population. This increase in crop productivity can be achieved either by increasing per acre productivity or bringing more area under cultivation.
It is generally thought that one of the major factors responsible for decrease in production is poor plant nutrition. The soils of Pakistan are low in many essential plant nutrients due to their formation from calcareous alluvium and loess. Decomposition of organic matter whether by high temperature or any other reason adds to impoverishment of soil resources of several elements essential for growth (Hadda and Arora, 2006). In fact, the modern agriculture that demand usage of fertilizers which mostly contain only macro nutrients i.e. nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) and large scale irrigation for high-yielding varieties might have contributed to micronutrient deficiencies in soils
(Dar, 2004). Since 1950, application of NPK fertilizers has been rapidly increased in agricultural lands while less attention has been paid to micronutrients fertilization (Brady and Weil, 2002). For plants only seven micronutrients are considered essential. These are
Iron (Fe), Manganese (Mn), Zinc (Zn), Copper (Cu), Boron (B), Molybdenum (Mo) and
chlorine (Cl) (Prasad and Power, 1997). Molybdenum deficiencies are found mainly on acid, sandy soils in humid regions. Molybdenum uptake by plants increases with
increased soil pH, which is opposite that of the other micronutrients (Sahrawat et al.,
2011). Most soils contain sufficient levels of chloride for adequate plant nutrition.
1 However, reported chloride deficiencies have been reported on sandy soils in high rainfall areas or those derived from low-chloride parent materials. That’s why Cl generally is not considered in fertilizer programs. Besides this, Cl is applied to soils with
KCl, the dominant potassium fertilizer (Sahrawat et al., 2011).
Furhermore, there is a depletion of micronutrients, particularly when high yielding crop varieties under intensive cropping system are grown on coarse textured soils (Mc Dowell and Valle, 2000). This large scale depletion has continued for the last four decades and this may further deteriorate already exploited soils (Sharma et al.,
2004). The low availability of micronutrients coupled with their fast depletion has resulted in their deficiencies (Sidhu and Sharma, 2010). Soil factors like organic matter, pH, particle size fractions and calcium carbonate had profound influence on the distribution of plant available micronutrients (Sharma et al., 2004; Rafique et al., 2012).
There is frequent micronutrient deficiency in semi arid and arid regions of world like
Indus plain of Pakistan. The information obtained from 329 soil samples of Balochistan
(Pakistan) collected from various depths revealed widespread deficiencies of Zn and B followed by Fe (Zia et al., 2004). Even globally, it is estimated that about 30 and 50% of cultivated soils suffered from Fe and Zn deficiencies, respectively (Cakmak, 2002) including Pakistan (Rashid, 1996). Similarly, B deficiency has also been observed on 132 crops in over 80 countries (Shorrocks, 1997). In Pakistan, Zn and B deficiencies are more widespread micronutrient disorders and have been reported for different field crops in almost all agro-climatic regions of the country. More than 60% soils in Punjab, 21% in
Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw, 94% in Sindh and above 90% in Balochistan have suffered from
Zn deficiency (NFDC, 1998). Iron and B deficiencies are exhibited in many crops, e.g.
2 citrus, deciduous fruits, groundnuts etc. (Tariq et al., 2004). Crops suffered from Fe
deficiency are more susceptible to diseases and grow slower than normal and are more
susceptible to diseases (Chatterjee et al., 2006). Besides this, various research studies
suggest that micronutrient provision to crops result in improved drought resistance,
vigorous seedlings and lower vulnerability to plant diseases (Welch and Graham, 2004).
Micronutrients deficiencies are related to crops and even to various cultivars and soil types. Soil and plant analysis revealed that more than half of the cultivated soils of our country were deficient in B and Zn for many crops (Khattak, 1995). Earlier researchers have also observed that Zn use was needed to optimize irrigated crop productivity in such
alluvial calcareous soils of Pakistan (Ahmed et al., 2011, Rafique et al., 2012).
Agriculture and livestock in Pakistan are interwoven with the intricate fabric of
society in economical, cultural, and religious ways aslivestock rearing and farming forms
an integral part of rural life. Besides this, energy crisis across the globe will lead to
utilization of bioenergy as well as use of organic manure after recycling of livestock-
based waste. Thus the significance of fodder crops in agriculture needs no emphasis
because an adequate and nutritious fodder is a basic requirement for livestock and its
products for human consumption. Fodder scarcity is a major limitating factor for progress
of livestock industry in Pakistan. While the available fodder crops are low in quality due
to deficient in proteins, minerals and energy. Quality of fodder crops in Pakistan is too
poor to meet the livestock requirement (Khan, 2003). We can increase milk production
by 100 % with the provision of quality nutritional fodder (Mayruce et al., 1985).
Livestock in our country is deficient in crude protein and total digestible nutrients by 38
and 24%, respectively (Sarwar et al., 2002). Due to ever-increasing populaion pressure of
3 human beings, cultivated land is mostly used for cash or food crops, thus there is no chance of using good quality land for fodder production. Mostly forages are grown on low fertility soils while we can increase fodder production and their nutritive value markedly with proper fertilization (Hussein et al., 2002). Substantial improvement in yield and nutritional quality of fodder crops can be achieved through balanced nutrition
(Hazra, 1992; Tripathi et al., 2009b).
Micronutrient deficiencies can cause serious reduction in production of fodder and increase health disorders in livestock (Romheld and Marschner, 1991). Micronutrient deficiencies have become one of the major constraints to productivity in many intensively cultivated soils (Takkar et al., 1989). Soil pH, redox potential, bicarbonate concentration and temperature all alter micronutrient availability (McFarlane, 1999). It should be noted that importance of micronutrients in increasing productivity and quality of fodder crops
(Tripathi et al., 2009a) has been well established in India. Similarly, Turner (1993) reported increase in forage yield with application of micronutrients. While Johnson et al.
(1997) reported that forage legumes were particularly more responsive to B fertilization.
Use of oats (Avena sativa L.) as forage crop is a common practice all over the world. It has been used as fodder crop over a long period of time in Pakistan. In our country, the green fodder of oat is used to feed cattle and horses (Hussain et al., 1993). It is one of the most important rabi (winter) cereal fodder crop grown throughout the country both under irrigated and rain fed conditions. It is second to berseem (Trifolium elaxandrinum L.) in total country winter-feed production. It is extensively grown around cities, towns and big villages. Various research workers like Chaudhary, (1983),
Chaudhary et al. (1985) and Hussain et al. (1998) have evaluated the suitability of oat as
4 a forage crop under various agro-climatic conditions of Pakistan. Furthermore, the
improved fertilization of oat may help to enhance crop quality and thus increase the
potential for producing high quality oat (Mohr et al., 2004). Its fodder contains 13.45 %
crude protein and 25.64 % crude fiber (Ashraf et al., 1995).
Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) is important forage of semi-arid tropics. It has comparative advantage over all other cereals because of its adaptability to drier and low fertile conditions and thus is an important fodder crop of our country. Most of its
growing areas are confined to light textured soils, having poor water holding capacity and
soil fertility. The major constraints that limit the yield of pearl millet are inadequate plant
stand and slow initial growth due to low moisture retention and poor soil fertility.
The desire to increase crop production by bringing more area under cultivation is limited with the scarcity of water resources. With more pressing demands for non- agricultural sectors, availability of good-quality water is falling short of the crop water requirement, particularly in arid and semi-arid regions of the world, like Pakistan
(Murtaza et al., 2011). Although Pakistan has the largest canal irrigation system in the world, enough water is not available on all cultivated lands to grow crops (Mohtadullah et al., 1993). To overcome this shortage, more than eight hundred thousand tube-wells have been installed in the Indus basin of Pakistan (Anonymous, 2008). About 6.8 X 1010
m3 (Anonymous, 2008) pumped groundwater from these tube wells is of marginal quality
due to high electrical conductivity (EC), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and/or residual
sodium carbonate (RSC), that are adversly affecting crop yields (Latif and Beg, 2004;
Murtaza et al., 2009). This large scale application of irrigation with poor quality water is expected to continue in semi-arid and arid regions of world including Pakistan that
5 already have serious environmental concerns due to high population growth rates (Qadir
et al., 2007).
Over the past few decades, such water and land degradation has increased rapidly
in several major irrigated areas of the world e.g. the Indo-Gangetic plain in India (Gupta
and Abrol, 2000), Indus plain in Pakistan (Aslam and Prathapar, 2006), Yellow River
Basin in China (Chengrui and Dregne, 2001), Euphrates Basin in Syria and Iraq (Sarraf,
2004). As the continued irrigation with such poor quality water inevitably increased the
price to be paid by the farmers to sustain irrigated agriculture (Rengasammy and Olssen,
1993). Thus a better management strategy is ever needed to minimize the predictable
long-term adverse effects of sodification and salinization for sustainable irrigated farming
(Gritsenko and Gritsenko, 1999).
The total cultivated area of the Sargodha district is 5,856 km2 (Govt. of Pakistan,
2003). It is a densely populated region of the Punjab and intensive cropping is done in
this region. Sargodha is famous for fodder production in addition to citrus .The Fodder
Research Institute, Sargodha, is the only institution handling the seed production of
improved fodder crops. Beside this, several hundred tonnes of fresh milk and its products are being transported daily from Sargodha to Rawalpindi- Islamabad (250 km away), the capital of Pakistan. The city of Sargodha is now a major source of fodder as a cash crop,
which is hauled over great distances throughout Punjab (Pakistan) and federal area, due
to easy access of the farming communities to seeds of improved forage cultivars. The
production and quality of fodder crops is very poor because these are mostly grown on
alkaline calcareous soils without balance fertilization.
6 This situation realizes that we should carry out survey and field experiments on
micronutrients for different crops in different areas of Pakistan. Although, the problems
of micronutrient deficiencies are somewhat local at present and may become more
serious in future but it is essential to give full consideration to evaluate micronutrient
status of local soils at district level. Besides this, there is an urgent need for developing clear information on ground water resources and its quality. This data needs to be regularly updated and made available to farmers and researchers at the local (district) level. Such information will certainly help farmers, researchers and government officials to formulate proper guidelines. This present research work was undertaken with this
hypothsis that micronutrient and water quality can have a profound affect on fodder
production and its availability throughout the year. So we studied the physico-chemical
charactersistics of water and soils, micronutrient status of soils, fodders of Sargodha
district and response of oat and pearl millet to micronutrients (Zn and B) with the
following objectives.
1. To determine the extent of various micronutrients viz. Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu, and B
deficiencies in soils and associated fodder crops of forage based cropping system
of Sargodha district.
2. To assess the physico- chemical properties of the soils in Sargodha district.
3. To evaluate temporal variation in the irrigation water quality of Sargodha district.
4. To assess the effect of micronutrient application on fodder yield and quality
(Crude protein, acid detergent fibre, and neutral detergent fibre) of oat and pearl
millet in Sargodha soils.
7 Chapter: 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1. Role of micronutrients in crop production
The growth and development of plants depend not only on an adequate supply of
moisture and light, but also on a supply of numerous mineral nutrients (Marschner,
1995). The terms macronutrient and micronutrient are often used to refer to those
elements that are essential and have specific physiological functions in plant metabolism
(Romheld and Marschner, 1991). Of the identified elements needed to plants, nine are
considered to be macronutrients, which are required in higher quantities. While there are eight micronutrients recognized in the literature as being essential to plant growth and development, which are required in smaller quantities. These include zinc (Zn), chlorine
(Cl), boron (B), iron (Fe), copper (Cu), molybdenum (Mo), manganese (Mn), and selenium (Se) (Asher, 1991; Marschner, 1995). The main role of micronutrients is to be physiological. They are typically found as constituents of prosthetic groups in metalloproteins associated with plants structure, as activators of certain enzyme reactions and are responsible for osmotic regulation associated with plant turgor pressure
(Salisbury and Ross, 1992). All of these functions are important for the better crop yield.
These have also been found to be involved in the key physiological processes of photosynthesis, N fixation, respiration and other biochemical pathways (Marschner,
1995; Mengel et al., 2001) and their deficiency can impede these vital physiological processes thus limiting yield gain. Besides this, various studies suggest that better micronutrient fertilization improve resisatnce against drought and plant diseases, and also result in vigorous seedlings (Welch and Graham, 2004). In fact, the ‘green revolution’
8 that is based on high-yielding varieties, frequent application of irrigation, and usage of
NPK fertilizers might well have contributed to micronutrient deficiencies in soils, crops,
livestock and in human nutrition (Dar, 2004).
In Pakistan, fertilizer use predominantly pertains to macronutrients, i.e., only N
and P. Potassium fertilization is also only applied to a few high-K requiring crops, like
sugarcane, potato and tobacco. While micronutrients fertilization is negligible. Thus
deficiencies of micronutrient in Pakistan resulted in low crop yield as well as
deterioration in quality of produce. The prevalence of high free carbonates, alkaline pH,
and low soil organic matter of soils, all contributed toward micronutrient deficiencies in
crops (Rashid, 1996b). Besides this, abundant soil moisture in flooded rice fields and due
to torrential monsoon rains may cause micronutrient leaching, especially of B beyond the
rhizosphere (Keren and Binghm, 1985). Similarly, the dry surface soil because of no rains
may inhibit availability of micronutrients to roots (Shorrocks, 1997).
In Pakistan, micronutrient disorder of crops is being addressed since early 1970,s.
The first micronutrient deficiency in our country was observed by Yoshida and Tanaka
(1969) who established that Zn deficiency was major the cause of “Hadda” disease of rice in the Punjab. Almost at the same time in Sindh province (Pakistan), a positive cotton response to B fertilization was observed by Chaudhry and Hisiani (1970). In early 1970,s,
Pakistan Agriculture Research Council (PARC) highlighted the importance of micronutrient research and they initiated micronutrient projects in all four provinces of
Pakistan. While micronutrient research at National Agriculture Research Centre (NARC),
Islamabad was started in early 1980,s. Salient development of 1990,s included reporting
of field scale deficiencies of Zn and B in wheat, cotton, citrus, mango and other crops
9 (Rashid et al., 2000), Fe deficiency in apple and legume crops (Rashid et al., 1997a) and
citrus (Rashid et al., 1991). A salient research accomplishment during 2000,s is an alarming B deficiency in most of the crops (Rashid et al., 2005). In the nutshell, research studies so for have gathered a reasonable amount of information about micronutrient
deficiencies and development of their management strategies was restricted to only a few
major crops in the country. However, all the crops and areas have not received so much
attention.
2.1.1. Zinc
Zinc is an essential element for plants (Sommer and Lipman, 1926), livestock
(Tucker and Salman, 1955) and humans (Pories and Stram, 1966). Zinc was one of the
first elements known to be essential for crops, livestock, and human beings but in spite of
that knowledge, its deficiency still plagues us now. Plants primarily utilize Zn as a
divalent cation Zn+2 (Marschner, 1995). Zinc is involved in protein, nucleic acid,
carbohydrate, and lipid metabolism. In addition, Zn is critical to the control of gene
transcription and the coordination of other biological processes (Bashir et al., 2012). Zinc
is invoved in maintaining the structural and functional integrity of biological membranes
(Sadeghzadeh and Rengel, 2011). Zinc is an exceptional micronutrient regarding its
relevance in biological systems because it is the only trace metal represented in all classes
of enzymes (Broadley et al., 2007). Nearly 2800 proteins in biological systems require Zn
for their activity and structural stability (Andreini et al., 2009). Zinc plays multiple roles in basic biochemical processes of plants such as enzyme catalysis or activation, protein synthesis, carbohydrate and auxin metabolism, chlorophyll production, pollen formation,
10 cytochrome and nucleotide synthesis, maintenance of membrane integrity, and energy
dissipation (Alloway, 2009).
Zinc is generally taken up as free divalent cation (Zn2+), but at high pH it may be
absorbed as monovalent cation (ZnOH+) (Marschner 1995). Zinc uptake across root
plasma membrane is carrier-mediated secondary active transport. Metal transporters of
ZIP (Zinc Iron Permeases) family are the primary uptake system in plants, but channel
proteins might also be present. However, it is not yet clear to what extent specific
membrane channels and specific transporters are involved in Zn transport into root cells
(Lee et al., 2010a, b).
Zinc deficiency is prevalent worldwide in semitropical, tropical, and temperate
climate (Shivay et al., 2007) including Pakistan (Rashid, 1996a). Almost 50% of the
agricultural soils from India and Turkey and 33% of China are Zn- deficient for plants
(Gupta, 2005). Other specific studies on low soil Zn contents were conducted in Malawi,
Mali and Burkina Faso (Asten et al., 2004). Zn is now recognized as the third deficient nutrient in developing countries of Asia (Anonymous, 2007). Now efforts are underway
to reduce soil Zn deficiency, as it in addition to reduction in crop yield but also results in
low Zn content in crop produce leading to poor Zn nutrition of livestock and human
beings, a subject that has received considerable attention (Schardt, 2006).
Zinc is one of the most widely deficient micronutrient particularly in alkaline pH
(Alloway, 2004) and calcareous soils (Rafique et al., 2012). This high pH of soil results
in decreased absorption of Zn by plant roots and increased sorption on soil carbonates,
hydroxides, and organic matter (Rupa and Tomar, 1999). The solubility of Zn decreased
100 fold with each unit increase in pH (Lindsay, 1991). Zinc deficiency has been reported
11 widely in calcareous soils and the main crop affected is maize (Zou et al., 2007). It may
be due to too low free Zn2+ activity in calcareous soils that is necessary to support
optimal crop growth (Welch, 1995). Therefore, the Zn deficiency on such types of soils
reduces crop production (Sillanpaa, 1990). While Benbi and Brar (1992) reported that in
Punjab (India) 70% of soils having <0.4% organic carbon were deficient in Zn. The main
factors responsible for increase in Zn deficiency are intensive cropping systems, use of
high yielding varieties; use of diamonium phosphate (DAP) in place of single super
phosphate (which had Zn present in it as an impurity); use of urea in place of ammonium
sulphate (which had more acid forming effect); increased use of phosphatic fertilizers that
resulted in Phosphorus-induced its deficiency (Quijaro-Guerta et al., 2002).
The nutrient indexation survey in Pakistan indicated that Zn deficiency is the most
widespread micronutrient deficiency. The percentage of Zn deficient areas in the Punjab
(Pakistan) are 40% in cotton-wheat system (Rashid and Rafique, 1997), 66% in rainfed
potohar plateau i.e. 60% each in sorghum and groundnut, 70% in wheat, and 80% in
rapeseed-mustard (Rashid et al., 1997d). Most of the citrus orchards of Punjab (82%) are
Zn deficient (Rashid et al., 1991; Siddique et al., 1994). On an average, about half of the
soil samples collected from various regions of Punjab was observed as Zn deficient
(NFDC, 1998). Besides this, extensive field experimentation also verified prevalence of
wide spread Zn deficiency in wheat of Punjab province.
Zinc has low mobility, so most of the deficiency symptoms appear at the tips of young leaves. The symptoms under severe Zn deficiency are stunted stems, chlorosis and reduced leaf size. While its deficiency symptoms in older leaves are curling, wilting
stunted growth and extensive chlorosis (Marschner, 1995). Its deficiency can also
12 adversely affect chlorophyll content of the leaf, stomatal conductance and net
photosynthesis (Hu and Sparks, 1991).
Most of the scientific reports showed negative correlation of Zn with Fe (Trivedi
et al., 1998), Mn (Gupta, 1995), and Cu (Malewar and Syed, 1994; Malewar, 1994).
Besides this, it is also observed that Zn application created a protective mechanism in
root cell microenvironment against excessive B uptake (Singh et al., 1990).
2.1.2. Iron
Iron is one of the essential micronutrient needed for the growth and development
of crop (Brady and Weil, 2002). It is involved in the chlorophyll formation of crops, which is related to photosynthesis limitation. It is a constituent of a larger number of metabolically active compounds like hemoglobin, cytochromes etc. (Tandon, 1995). The critical limit of Fe in soil is 4.5 mg kg-1 (Tandon, 1995). Crops suffering from Fe
deficiency grow slowly and are more susceptible to diseases (Chatterjee et al., 2006). Its
plant available forms are Fe3+and Fe2+ (Raven et al., 1999). After its uptake, it is
relatively immobile in the plant tissue. It plays vital role in various metabolic processes
with its involvement in the two to three enzymes necessary for catalyzing certain
2− reactions in chlorophyll synthesis, respiration, reduction of sulfate (SO4 ) and sulfite
2− (SO3 ) and nitrogen fixation (Romheld and Marschner, 1991). It activates a number of
other plants enzymes and is an integral component of the tri carboxylic acid (TCA) cycle.
Plants are growing in a sea of Fe as it is the fourth most abundant element in the
upper earthcrust and comprises about 5% of the earth crust (Havlin et al., 2005). But its
availability to plants in alkaline soil is a problem (Meng et al., 2005). It is established that
Fe deficiency in crops primarily occurs in soils with alkaline pH due to free carbonates
13 (Hansen et al., 2003). Most alkaline soils of Pakistan are in the pH range of 7.5 to 8.5,
although some soils have even higher pH values. The solubility of Fe minerals decreases exponentially for each pH unit increases in the pH (Lindsay and Schwab, 1982). In arid and semi-arid regions of the world, as much as 33% soils are calcareous (Brown, 1961) and inspite of this many field crops grow normally on these calcareous soils. Its deficiency occurs only when susceptible crops are grown on these soils. In Fe deficient areas, the deficiencies generally occur in patchy areas with a high degree of spatial variability. In many cases, chlorotic patches occur uniformally in the field with respect to soil factors that control the availability and uptake of Fe (Hansen et al., 2003). Iron deficiency is associated with edaphic factors like soil carbonates and bicarbonates, salinity, soil Fe composition, soil moisture content, and soil compaction. This high level of carbonates and bicarbonates in the soil solution induce Fe deficiency in plants (Inskeep and Bloom, 1986). In general, Fe deficient soils have greater concentrations of solid phase carbonates (Franzen and Richardson, 2000), reactivity of carbonates (Morris et al.,
1990) and clay-sized fractions of carbonates (Inskeep and Bloom, 1986). Similarly soil salinity has also been the cause of Fe deficiency is many crops. But the evidence for this deficiency is lacking, but it may be due to decreased root growth with increased soil salinity. Electric conductivity (total soluble salts) is directly related to differences in Fe deficiency chlorosis among field positions that lower EC have been observed for the non- chlorotic areas than for the chlorotic areas (Hansen et al., 2004). In addition to this,
Franzen and Richardson (2000) also made similar findings.
Soil analysis indicated that 71% citrus orchards of the Punjab (Pakistan) and 15% crop fields in the rainfed potohar suffered from Fe deficiency. However, Fe deficiency
14 was much lesser in the Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw, Sindh, and Baluchistan provinces of
Pakistan (NFDC, 1998). While two research reports of Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw indicated
that 24% soil samples suffered from Fe deficiency (PARC, 1986; Khattak and Parveen,
1988). Similarly, 20% rapeseed mustard fields in rainfed potohar (Rashid, 1993), and
37% citrus soils of Sargodha (Siddique et al., 1994) were also suffering from Fe
deficiency. On soil test basis, the most widespread deficiency of Fe (in 85% fields) was reported in citrus orchards of the Punjab. However, total Fe analysis of leaf tissues did not show any Fe deficiency in this study (Rashid et al., 1991). There is a wide variation in
Fe concentration of different crops (Meng et al., 2005). This is not only observed between mean Fe contents of different crops, but a large variability can also been observed within a single crop species (Kennedy and Burlinghame, 2003). Besides this, high yielding cultivars after green revolution have lower mean Fe contents as compare to traditional genotypes (Khush, 2001).
Though the above mentioned soil analysis reports may not reveal widespread Fe deficiency. However, its deficiency prevails in calcareous, compact, and sandy soils low
in organic matter. Thus, the fraction of Fe deficient soil samples may not reveal the real extent of its deficiency. Similarly, plant analysis for total Fe is not a reliable technique for
determining Fe nutritional status of the plants. Rather, the fresh plant tissues must be
analyzed for ferrous (Fe2+) by using appropriate techniques. Such foliar analysis in
Pakistan is limited only to apple (Stallen et al., 1988), citrus (Rashid and Rashid, 1992),
chickpea (Rashid and Din, 1992) and groundnut (Rashid et al., 1997a).
15 2.1.3. Boron
Boron is an important micronutrient for growth and devolpment of plants (Loomis
and Durst, 1992). About ninety years ago it was known that B is one of the essential
elements for plant growth. Its importance as a plant nutrient was first demonstrated by
Warrington (1923). Plants take up undissociated boric acid (H3BO3) from the soil
solution to utilize this element (Fleming, 1980). This is then transported in plants by the
xylem, where it can be found in relatively high concentrations in the zones where water is
being actively transpired from the plant i.e. both the leaf tips and margins (Mengel and
Kirkby, 1987). Boron has mainly role in cell wall formation, lignifications, and xylem
differentiation (Romheld and Marchner, 1991). It is also involved in plant reproduction,
elongation of the pollen tube, and germination of pollen (Nyborg and Hoyt, 1970). Boron is necessary for crop maturity, water balance, flower set, and crop yield particularly in
oilseed and legume crops (Evans and Solberg, 1998). It is also involved in the synthesis
of protein (Sauchelli, 1969) and oil (Malewar et al., 2001). Deficiency of B causes severe
reductions in crop yield, due to severe disturbances in B-involving metabolic processes,
such as metabolism of nucleic acid, carbohydrate, protein and indole acetic acid, cell wall
synthesis, membrane integrity and function, and phenol metabolism (Tanaka and Fujiwar,
2008).
Boron deficiency is a worldwide problem for field crops where both quantitative
and qualitative losses of yield occur annually (Wei et al., 1998). Similarly in India, B
deficiency in crops is more widespread than the deficiency of any other micronutrient
(Gupta, 1993). Over the last 60 years a B deficiency, shown by a positive affect of B
fertilization, has been observed for 132 crops in more than 80 countries (Shorrocks,
16 1997). The inclusion of B in fertilizer schedule often determines the success and failure of crops (Dwivedi et al., 1990). Boron deficiency is, however, more common in alkaline calcareous soils low in organic matter contents (Havlin et al., 2005) because of low solubility and avaialbilty despite relatively greater total B content in such soils (Havlin et
al., 2005). Boron deficiency in these soils is due to their high pH and presence of free
carbonates of silt size fraction providing more specific surface for B adsorption (Eck and
Campbell, 1962). With the increase in soil pH, there is decrease in B availability except
saline-sodic soils. This depressing effect of pH is more noticeable beyond pH 6.5 (Gupta,
1979). Coarse texture soils low in organic matter are inherently low in available B and
also prone to more leaching losses of B. Higher intensity of light has been found to
increase the rate of plant growth and as a result B deficiency symptoms appear more
quickly (Maclnnes and Albert, 1969).
Now B deficiency has been identified as a widespread disorder in alkaline
calcareous soils of Pakistan (Rashid et al., 1997a,) and all over the world (Dell et al.,
1997). Similarly, in India, one third of soils are estimated to be B- deficient and the main
crops affected include cereals, pulses etc. (Singh, 2006). In some countries, B fertilizer is
routinely used for high value crops (Shorrocks, 1997). This is not the case in developing
countries of the world (NFDC, 1998). There is a high risk of Bdefieciency in our crops as
Pakistani soils are calcareous have high prevalence of free carbonates, high pH, low
organic matter contents because all these factors are associated with low availability of
soil B to plants (Rashid et al., 2002). Besides this, torrential rains during monsoon season
and abundant soil moisture in paddy fields may cause B leaching beyond the rhizosphere
(Keren and Bingham, 1985). While during dry spells the dry surface soils may inhibit
17 availability of B to roots of crops (Shorrocks, 1997). Moreover, after the green revolution
due to high croping intensity, yields have risen and as a result increased amount of B is
being mined from soils over the years. Hence, present cropping systems is continuously
mining the soil B reserves and overtime it may result in an increased B deficiency. The
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) global study on micronutrients in 20 districts
of the Punjab (Pakistan) observed that out of 177 soil samples, almost half were B
deficient (Rashid et al., 1997b). Its deficiency is also widespread in rainfed potohar, as on
an average 55% field of wheat, Sorghum, rapeseed-mustard, and groundnut suffer with
this disorder (NFDC, 1998). In Khyber-Pakthunkhaw provice, out of the 426 soil samples
69% were B deficient. Boron deficiency was also observed in about half of the orchards
of citrus and 16% of apple in this province (Rehman, 1990; Khattak, 1994). In Sindh
province, FAO global report on micronutrients indicated B deficiency to be occurring on
one fourth of cultivated fields of six districts (Sillanpaa, 1982). In Azad Jammu and
Kashmir (AJK), its deficiency has been also observed in 45% field of Muzaffarabad and
Kotli districts (Majeed, 1987; Chaudhry, 1990). However, no data is reported regarding B
status of soils in Baluchistan. But it is evident from the above literature that B plays a
significant role in plant nutrition though with a very narrow range between deficiency
and toxicity (Tariq, 1997).
2.1.4. Copper
Plants take up copper, an essential plant micronutrient, as Cu2+ ion. Concentration
of Cu in plants is dependent not only on plant species, stage of growth and plant part but
also on various soil properties (Welch et al., 1991). As an essential plant micronutrient, it is considered an integral component of photosynthesis and respiration processes (Hall
18 and Williams, 2003). Copper is also present in various enzymes associated with oxidation
and reduction processes. Crops with high Cu needs are cereals like wheat and barley,
whereas canola and rye have very low Cu requirements (Solberg et al., 1999). Copper is needed in very small quantity so worldwide its deficiency is quite rare except in Australia
(Salisbury and Ross, 1992). It is involved in carbon assimilation and nitrogen metabolism; its deficiency results in severe growth retardation. Cu is also involved in lignin biosynthesis, which not only provides strength to cell walls but also prevents wilting (Taiz and Zeiger, 2010).
The FAO global study indicated that there was no deficiency in all the 242 soil samples collected throughout the Pakistan (Sillanpaa, 1982). Research by Pakistani scientists also revealed Cu deficiency of very low magnitude, i.e., only 1% in cultivated fields of Punjab and Sindh, 2% in Baluchistan and 3% in Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw province.
Likewise, foliar analysis also revealed Cu deficiency of very small extent i.e. 1% in cotton in theirrigated area of Punjab, and 6% in rainfed potohar crops (wheat, rapeseed- mustard, groundnut, and sorghum).While, the only scientific report that revealed widespread Cu deficiency is related to citrus orchards of Sargodha (Siddique et al., 1994) that contradicted the results of a similar nutrient indexation indicated only 5% citrus orchards as Cu deficient in districts Sargodha, Sahiwal and Faisalabad (Rashid et al.,
1991). Field experimentation also revealed Cu deficiency at local level. For example,
Wheat did not respond to Cu application in Jhang, M. Garh and Vehari districts.
Thus, Cu deficiency is of much lesser magnitude compared to these of Zn, B, and
Fe.
19 2.1.5. Manganese
Plant absorbs Mn as the divalent cation Mn 2+ (Welch et al., 1991). This essential
nutrient plays an important role in cell reduction-oxidation processes (Marschner, 1995)
and is essential for activating numerous plant enzymes. Perhaps the most important role
of Mn is in the chloroplast membrane system, where it is associated with the oxidation of
water during the photosynthesis reactions (Salisbury and Ross, 1992).
Manganese deficiency has also been reported in soils of Europe (Welch et al.,
1991), semiarid regions of China, India, southeast and western Australia, and many
African countries (Welch et al., 1991). However, the soil testing and plant analysis data
of Pakistan indicated that the magnitude of Mn deficiency is also very small. The
magnitude of its deficiency in various crops and regions is 2% in cotton fields of the
Punjab and rainfed crops fields of the potohar region, and no deficiency at all in the soil
of the remaining provinces of Paksitan (Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw, Sindh and Baluchistan).
The only exceptions of widespread Mn deficiency are in citrus orchards i.e. 27% in
Sargodha (Siddique et al., 1994) and 60% in Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw (Khattak, 1994).
However, another report of nutrient indexation of citrus plants and associated soils
contradicted the above reports that only 4% citrus orchards of Sargodha, Sahiwal and
Faisalabad district suffered from Mn deficiency (Rashid et al., 1991). Field experiments on Mn fertilization in the suspected Mn deficient citrus orchards are suggested to resolve this ambiguity.
2.2. Groundwater quality
There is a competition for fresh water among industrial, municipal and agricultural sectors in several regions of the world due to ever increasing demographic
20 demands. As a result there has been a decreased allocation of fresh water to irrigated agriculture (Ghafoor et al., 2012). In arid and semi-arid regions of the world, crop scientists are forced to use poor quality underground water that cannot be used without treatment.The regular use of such poor-quality water deteriorated soil health and can cause reduction in crop yield (Minhas, 1996). Scientific work in Pakistan and worldwide regarding effect of brackish groundwater on soil and plant is reviewed below.
In Pakistan, poor quality of tube well water is the major contributing factor towards the low yield of crops, as it is unfit for irrigation in most of the areas (Khan et al.,
2012). The quality of underground water is seldom comparable to canal water. Electrical conductivity (EC), sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and residual sodium carbonate (RSC) of canal waters ranged from 105 to 345 mg L-1, 0 to 4.37 (mmol L-1) ½ and 0 to 1.2 mmol
L-1, respectively (Ibrahim and Hussain, 1988). In tehsil Kot Adu, district Muzaffar Garh
Punjab, Pakistan Khan et al., (2012) found that almost all the area has highly saline water, which is affecting yield of various crops and soil health. Out of 315 water samples
30, 8 and 62% water samples were fit, marginally fit and unfit for irrigation purposes, respectively. Out of 194 (62%) unfit water samples, 75% had electrical conductivity
-1 higher than permissible limit (i.e. >1250 µS cm ), 12% were found with high SAR (i.e.
-1 >10), and 13% had high RSC (i.e. >2.5 meq L ). Similarly, 60% tube-well were unfit from Chunian, 80 % from kasur ,90% from Pattoki and Kot Radha Kishan tehsil of
District Kasur, Punjab, Pkistan (Mehboob et al., 2011). In district Attock Punjab,
Pakistan 88 samples (46%) were fit, and 27 samples (14%) were marginally fit and 77 samples (40%) were unfit for irrigation to crops (Rehman et al., 2011). The quality of
21 undergroundwater is mostly poor (Ahmed and Chaudhry, 1987) but even it becomes
worse with increase in soil depth (Gupta et al., 1994).
Groundwater salinity is a growing problem in semi arid areas of all over the
world. In India, it has been estimated that about 5 million acres of land are now affected
by saline water. In some areas of Rajasthan and Gujarat states, groundwater salinity is too high that it is utilized for salt production. The groundwater of 21 out of 26 districts of
Gujarat and 27 out of 33 districts of Rajasthan is found to be too saline for consumption
(Chakraborti et al., 2011). Similarly in Karnataka state of India, Ramakrishnaiah et al.
(2009) reported that EC of the groundwater samples varied between 130-3000 μScm-1 during pre-monsoon. Eshtehard district of Iran is characterized with semiarid climate and groundwater is the main water supply in this region due to scarcity of surface water resources. Salinity hazard in 37, 15 and 48% of water samples is classified as medium, high and very high, respectively. Such waters are not suitable for irrigation under normal condition and further management for salinity control is required in remediating such problem. Sodium hazard in 42% of water samples collected is regarded as low and can be used for irrigation in almost all soils. Thus high EC and SAR in most water samples of this district have restricted the water quality for irrigation purposes (Khodapanah, et al.,
2009). In Bangladesh, about 75% of water for irrigation comes from groundwater. Shahid et al. (2006) studied the suitability of groundwater for irrigation in Bangladesh.
Geographic information system (GIS) and groundwater quality maps were used for the processing of groundwater quality data collected from 113 locations sporadically distributed over the country. The result showed that groundwater of the southwestern part
22 of Bangladesh, which comprises 22.5% area of the country, is highly affected by salinity
and sodium hazards.
When underground water of high EC irrigated the soils, it undergoes important
changes in soil pH, solute concentration, and SAR etc. These changes depend not only on
quality of water but also on management practices (Ghafoor et al., 1997). When poor
quality water is used for several years for raising crops, ECe has been shown to increase linearly with EC of irrigation water and the number of irrigations (Ghafoor et al., 1997).
The application of brackish water adversely affected the various physical properties of soil such as saturated hydraulic conductivity, bulk density, porosity, soil strength and infiltration rates (Siyaz et al., 1983, Costa et al., 1991, Baumhardt et al., 1992, Ghafoor et al., 1997). The nature and speed of changes in soil properties depends on solute ions concentration and composition in irrigated water (Abu-Sharar and Salameh, 1995).
In irrigated semi-arid and arid areas of the world, soil salinity is a significant factor in reducing crop productivity because rainfall is insufficient to leach salts from the rhizosphere (Francois and Maas, 1994). According to Carvajal et al. (1999), the effect of salts on plant may be divided into three broad categories (1) an osmotic potential of soil solution is reduced and as a result the plant available water is decreased, (2) physical structure of the soil is deterirated and water permeability and soil aeration is diminished and (3) specific ion effect on plant metabolism. However, with most crops, Dasberg et al.
(1991) reported that yield losses due to reduction in osmotic potential are significant before foliar injury appears. Similarly, Hassan et al. (1996) reported reduction in dry- matter yield of sorghum due to irrigation with brackish water of higher EC, SAR and
RSC.
23 Hussain et al. (1991) found that brackish water could be used successfully under
good drainage conditions and better management practices. Wheat grown on normal soils
using brackish water of EC 1.3 to 4.1 dS m-1, showed no significant reduction in yield.
However, seed cotton yield reduced significantly as compared with canal water used for
irrigation. Ahmad (1993) reported that drainage effluent of good water quality could be
used for crops. However, the marginal quality of water would need the mixing with good
quality water. Similarly, it is recommended that poor quality water can be used during
season of canal water shortage i.e.rabi for wheat crop (Sidhu et al., 1996). However,
fresh water should be used during high rainfall season i.e. Kharif for various crops to
flush down the salts out of the root zone.
In Khairpur (Pakistan) Chang et al. (1997) found that saline drainage effluent
(EC up to 3.0 dS m-1) could be used for growing wheat and cotton crops, without
deterioration in soil health and reduction in crop yield. While Chaudhary et al. (1997)
recommended that to maintain crop production and soil productivity, tube well water having EC in range of 2.1 to 8.5 dS m-1 and SAR 6.2 to 20.9 can be used in conjunction
with canal water. Crop yield can be increased further if this quality water is amended
with gypsum. Likewise, Khalid et al. (1999) reported that brackish tube well water can be
used for crops without any loss of yield by alternating two canal with one tube well
irrigation having EC 2.32 dS m-1, SAR 9.12 and RSC 3.9 meq L-1 while saving 33% of canal supplies. However, the prolonged irrigation with brackish water can cause salinity and sodicity. Similarly, Ahmad et al. (2001) concluded that we can successfully use marginal quality water of tube-well to produce crops with better management practices
(crop/cultivar selection, method of irrigation and soil management).
24 2.3. Crop response to micronutrient fertilization
A large number of field trials conducted both at govt and private experimental
research stations and on farmer’s fields have verified the prevalence of micronutrient
deficiencies in many crops of Pakistan.
2.3.1. Zinc
Zinc deficiency is one of the most widespread micronutrient deficiencies among
different field crops (Romheld and Marschner, 1991). Crop response to Zn fertilization
has been widely reported. In India, Tandon, (1991) reported that Zn application resulted
in yield increase of major cereals (300-350 kg ha-1), green legumes (300-400 kg), tubers
and bulbs (about 3 t ha-1), and sugar cane (17 t ha-1). In Pakistan, Zn fertilization resulted
in yield increase of 13% in wheat, 8% in cotton and sugarcane, 18% in maize and
sunflower (NFDC, 1998). Most of the scientific investigations in Pakistan are on rice followed by wheat, cotton, maize, sugarcane, potato, sorghum, tobacco, and citrus conducted primarily in Punjab and NWFP. While in India, a lot of research work has been also carried out on pearl millet and Oat forages.
In India, Dadhich and Gupta (2005) carried out a field experiment on fodder pearl millet during two consecutive summer seasons of 1999-2000 with three levels of Zn i.e.
0, 5, and 10 kg Zn ha-1. The results showed that highest dose of Zn application i.e. 10 kg
ha-1 significantly increased tillers per plant, plant height, tillers, leaves per plant, leaf area,
stem girth, green fodder yield and crude protein yield over no Zn application in both the
cuttings and in pooled mean. Similarly, under semi-arid eastern Rajasthan, Dadhich and
Gupta (2003) evaluated the effect of Zn on fodder yield of pearl millet. The results
showed that application of 10 kg Zn ha-1 significantly increased the plant height and
25 green fodder yield over no Zn application and 5 kg Zn ha-1 in both the years. Likewise,
Manohar et al. (1992) observed the response of fodder pearl millet to 3 levels of Zn. The
application of Zn at 10 kg ha-1 significantly increased green fodder yield over control at
both cuttings and total production. The increase was 10 %, 8.92 % and 5.23 % at first, second cut and total productions respectively over control. In another experiment
Dadhich and Gupta (2005) revealed that an increase in level of Zn up to 10 kg ha-
1significantly increased green and dry fodder yields compared with no Zn application.
Furthermore the results showed that application of 10 kg Zn ha-1 significantly increased
crude protein and crude fiber. While ether extract and ash content responded only up to 5
kg Zn ha-1. Contrarily, the Nitrogen free extract significantly decreased with increasing
levels of Zn up to 10 kg ha-1.While, the total digestible nutrients (TDN) remained
statistically unaffected with Zn application. In another experiment on pearl millet fodder, a significant increase in crude protein and crude-fibre was also noted with Zn fertilization. With increase in Zn level, the nutritive ratio was decreased that indicated better quality of fodder at higher level of applied Zn (Keshwa and Jat, 1992).
In a wheat- pearl millet cropping system, Jain and Dahama, (2006) revealed that application of 6 kg Zn ha-1 to wheat significantly improved the growth, yield, yield attributes, and protein content in succeeding pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) over control, while application of Zn at 12 kg Zn ha-1 significantlly improved Zn uptake by
pearl millet over lower levels.
For pearl millet grain, Jakhar et al. (2006) studied the 3 levels of Zn (0, 5 and 10
kg Zn ha-1) on growth, yield, quality and economics of pearl millet. The increasing levels
of Zn showed significant improvement in plant height up to 5 kg Zn ha-1 in both the
26 individual years. The application of 5 kg Zn ha-1 showed perceptible improvement in
protein content of pearl millet grain and 10 kg Zn ha-1 though increased the protein
content of grain as compare to control but it was insignificant in both the years. The data
further revealed that net return of pearl millet increased significantly with the increase in
the level of Zn up to 5 kg Zn ha-1. Similarly Choudhary et al. (2005) found that
application of Zn to pearl millet at 5.0 kg ha-1 brought about a significant increase in
plant height, number of tillers, dry matter yield and length of ear head over control and
2.5 kg Zn ha-1. This 2.5 kg Zn ha-1 significantly increased the chlorophyll content of leaves, effective tillers and number, weight of grains per ear. Whereas 5 kg Zn ha-1 significantly increased the grain (21.5 q ha-1) and stover (37.9 q ha-1) yields, net return
(Rs.13543 ha-1) and benefit cost ratio (1.63). Yadav et al. (1991) also conducted a field experiment at SKN college of Agriculture, Jobner (India) to invstigate the response of pearl millet to different levels of Zn. Application of Zn at 10 kg ha-1 significantly
increased the number of shoots, number of leaves, dry matter yield, ear bearing shoots
per plant, test weight, and grain and stover yield as compared to no Zn fertilizer and 5 kg
Zn ha-1. In another experiment, soil application of 15, 30 and 45 kg zinc sulfate ha-1 to pearl millet resulted in significant improvement in seed and stover yields over no fertilizer use, but the highest net returns were obtained with soil application of 30 kg zinc sulfate ha-1. Furthermore, the increase in seed yield was 10.7%, 16.3% and 16.8% respectively over the control. However, there was non-significant difference among these treatments (Jain et al., 2001).
Singh et al. (1989) investigated the affect of different levels of Zn on green fodder
-1 yield of oat. Three levels of ZnSO4 (0, 25 and 50 kg ZnSO4 ha ) were applied.
27 -1 Application of ZnSO4 at 50 kg ha resulted in significant increase in number of tillers per
plant, green fodder yield and crude protein content over no fertilizer use.
In Pakistan, Zn application generally resulted in 10 to 15% increase in wheat
grain yield over the control. Average increase with Zn was 403 kg wheat grains per
hectare or 13% over control (NFDC, 1998).
In Pakistan, maize is highly susceptible to Zn deficiency, and this is evident from
the results of 15 field experiments (NFDC, 1998). Increase in maize grain yield varied
from 14 to 45% over control, with an average of 18% and benefit of Zn application was
observed in both irrigated and rainfed crop.
In Pakistan, Zn fertilization resulted in an average 8% increase of seed cotton
yield (ranged from 6 to 13%) over the control (NFDC, 1998). Rashid (1996b) conducted
10 field experiments during 1995-96 and recorded an increase of 5-17% (an average of
9%) due to zin application as compare to control. In another field trial at Faisalabad,
NIAB (1987), however, they observed 50% increases in cotton (seed cotton yield) with 5
kg Zn ha-1. Likewise, Khattak (1987) reported 20% increase in cotton yield with Zn @
7.5 kg ha-1 at D. I. Khan (Pakistan).
At Peshawar (Pakistan), Khattak (1980, 1981) observed 8% increases in
sugarcane yield with foliar application of 10 kg Zn ha-1. Likewise, potato is also highly
susceptible to Zn deficiency; and this is evident from 20-22% increase in yield with 5 kg
Zn ha-1 at Tarnab and Nowshehra (Iftikharul-Haq, 1996).
At Mardan (Pakistan), Zn application resulted in 5% increase in tobacco yield
over no Zn use. In this study, soil application of 5 kg Zn ha-1 proved far better than foliar
28 applications of Zn (Khattak, 1988). The Zn application also resulted in 22% yield
increase in sunflower (Rashid and Qayyum, 1991).
Among fruits, citrus is more prone to Zn deficiency, Khattak (1995) investigated
that foliar applications of 0.1% Zn solution resulted in 16% and 26% increase in fruit yield of citrus at Peshawar and Mardan, respectively. It also increased fruit size, weight,
and vitamin-C content and decreased peel fraction. However, at Haripur, soil application
of Zn (90 g ZnSO4 per tree of citrus) did not increase fruit yield, but there was slight increase in juice contents (Javed, 1990). This variation may be due to the reason that in short term, soil application of Zn may or may not prove effective in orchards. Therefore, its foliar spray is generally recommended.
Zinc application also proved quite beneficial to crops grown on saline, sodic and saline sodic soils. For example, in a 4-year (1981-85) wheat field experiment on a saline- sodic soil (EC= 9.5 dS m-1, SAR= 15) in tehsil Bhalwal district Sargodha, 5 kg Zn ha-1 increased wheat grain yield by 55% over no Zn fertilization (Chaudhry et al., 1988).
2.3.2. Boron Soil conditions and agronomic practices throughout the country are favorable for
B deficiency in plants. The crop intensification and diversification in the country has
enhanced the incidence of B deficiency. Some crops (cotton, legumes, lucerne i.e. alfalfa,
canola, and pine) have higher B requirements as compare to other crops (Shorrocks,
1997). Hence these are more susceptible to B deficiency and suffer yield losses in low B
soils (Rashid et al., 2002). Globally, positive crop responses to B fertilization have been
reported in over 80 countries and on most of the crops (Shorrocks, 1997). In Pakistan,
crop response to B fertilization has been reported for crops like wheat, maize, cotton,
sugarcane, sugar beet, potato, groundnut, and tobacco (NFDC, 1998). Boron application
29 not only increases the yield but, in many instance, the quality of the crop is also
improved. This implies that inadequate B supply to plants apart from causing yield
reductions, may also deteriorate the quality of the crop produce. Low concentration of B
in plants is also known to cause lesser fruit number, size and other quality parameters in
fruits (apple and avocado). Foliar application of B to citrus was observed to improve fruit
quality appreciably (NFDC, 1998).
Sinha and Chatterjee, (1994) found that foliar application of B at 0.33 mg L-1
gave the highest grain yield (50.9 g per plant), 100-grain weight (1.0 g) and biomass
(117.1 g per plant) of pearl millet. However, both low (0.33 mg L-1) and high rates (0.66
mg L-1) of B application adversely affected these characters. Boron application at 0.66
mg L-1 resulted in a minimum phenol (0.008%) and nitrate- N (10%) in the grain.
However, B decreased the concentration of protein (6.48 and 9.25%) and starch (5.87 and
6.52%) both at low as well as excess supply. While, it had a greater accumulation of
sugars (0.352%) at high level as compared with that at the lower level (0.194%). High level of B rates increase its content in grain but this increased was much less (3 ug g-1 dry
weight) than that in the leaves.
Increase in wheat grain yield ranged from 5 to 26 % with the application of 1-2 kg
B ha-1over no fertilizer use i.e. NPK alone. The range of yield increase was 5-30% with
an average of 13% in six field experiments conducted at Nuclear Institute for Agriculture
and Biology (NIAB) Faisalabad, Pakistan in the cotton-wheat areas of the Punjab. Rashid
and Qayyum, (1991) reported an increase in yield of rainfed wheat with application of B
by 13-15% at Rawalpindi and Islamabad. Similarly Iqtidar et al. (1979) found an increase
in wheat grain yield by 26% in two filed experiments at Peshawar.
30 In maize, B application resulted in yield increase ranged from 12% at Rawalpindi
(Malik et al., 1991) to 35% at D.I. Khan (Aslam, 1990). The maximum number of field
experiments on B nutrition was conducted on cotton. In 30 field experiments, seed cotton
yield increase ranged from 2% at Multan (Malik et al., 1992) to 30% at Dera Ismail khan
(Khattak, 1987) with an average increase yield of 14% over control. B application in
cotton proved effective both by soil broadcast as well as foliar application. Foliar
application of B is cost-effective and it appears to be a better option in cotton as it can be
safely mixed with pesticides (Rashid and Rafique, 1997). With B application, yield
increase in sugarcane yield was 40% (SCRI 1989; 1990) and 7% in sugar beet (Khattak,
1980; 1981).
The increase in potato yield was 15-30% over no B fertilizer use with an average
of 21% in three field experiments carried out in the NWFP (Iftikharul-Haq, 1996). An
increase of 19% in tobacco yield was obtained with B soil application at Mardan,
Pakistan (Khattak, 1988). Boron application also increased groundnut pod yield by 10%
over no B use in rainfed Potohar (Rashid et al., 1997 b).
Foliar applications of B hardly increased citrus (Blood red) fruit yield in Peshawar
valley, but it increased its fruit juice content from 51 to 63%, decreased peel fraction
from 38 to 27%, and increased vitamin C content from 43 to 48 mg per 100 mL juice
(Khattak, 1995).
31 Chapter: 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1. Micronutrient indexing of soils, fodder crops and physico-chemical characteristics of soil and ground water in Sargodha district
3.1.1. Sampled area
District Sargodha, a major geographical district having an area of 5,854 km2 within
Punjab province (Pakistan), lies between the latitude 31º 34΄ to 32º 36΄ North longitudes
of 72º 10΄ to 73º 18΄ East. It comprises six tehsils i.e. Sargodha, Bhalwal, Sillanwali,
Shahpur, Sahiwal, and Kotmomin. Sargodha lies between Jehlum and Chenab Rivers
(Chaj doab). River Jhelum flows on the North-Western and river Chenab on the eastern
side of the district. Landscape of the district is mainly plain. It lies in the fertile
agriculture belt of Punjab plains. Agriculture is the main source of economy of most of
the people who have a rich history of dairy farming. This area has a pivotal role in the agricultural economy of the Pakistan because of its strong infrastructure for irrigated agriculture. It is a part of agro ecological zone where most part is irrigated by lower
Jehlum canal. The soils of the major part of study area are formed from alluvial sediments. These consist of fine-grained unconsolidated alluvium, which have been deposited by the Chenab and Jhelum River. The sub soil water of the district, except in the areas along the banks of rivers Jhelum and Chenab and major part of Bhalwal tehsil, is brackish and is unfit for agriculture use.
The climate is extremely hot in summer and cold in winter. June and July are the hottest months. The mean minimum and maximum temperatures during this period are v
25ºc and 39ºc, respectively. January and February are the coldest months. The main crops
32 during rabi are wheat, barley, oat, berseem, and lucern. While during Kharif are sugarcanne, rice, pearl millet, sorghum, and maize.
3.1.2. Soil, plant and water sampling
A survey was conducted consecutively for two seasons i.e. kharif 2006 (summer) and rabi 2006-07 (winter) to assess the physico-chemical characteristics of soils, water and micro nutritent status of soil, associated plants in Sargodha district. Agricultural activities in Pakistan are performed in two seasons. The crops which are cultivated before the beginning of winter season and harvested in the beginning of summer are known as
“Rabi Crops”. But those crops which are grown in the early summer and their picking or harvesting takes place in early winter are called “Kharif Crops”. We studied pearl millet
(Pennisetum glaucum), maize (Zea mays), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), and lucerne
(Medicago sativa) fodders during kharif and berseem (Trifolium alexandrinum), lucerne
(Medicago sativa) and oat (Avena sativa) fodders during rabi season. The soil, plant and water samples were taken uniformly throughout Sargodha district. These sampling sites were selected by drawing equidistant circles from center of district map. Then diameters were drawn at equal distance .The points where diameters intersect the circles were the sampling sites. In kharif, 2006 sampling of soil, associated plants and water was done in months of June and July. While during rabi 2006-07, sampling was done in months of
January and February. From each sampling site, composite soil sample from three depths
(0-15, 15-30, and 30-60 cm) were collected by augering three holes, about 3 to 5 meter apart in triangle orientation. Soil of each depth from three holes was mixed and composited; sub-samples were placed in polythene bags. Soils of the sampled area were identified according to US Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 2006). The plant leaves
33 were also collected from the same sites from where in soil samples were collected. Each
plant sample was collected from 8-10 plants randomly. No plant was sampled from the
borderlines of field. Plant and soil samples were brought daily to Soil & Water Testing
Laboratory of Sargodha for immediate processing. Plant samples were washed with
distilled water.Then oven dried at 70+1°C for two days. The soils samples were air dried,
ground and sieved through a 2 mm nylon screen. Besides this, ground water samples
were also collected from the tube well that irrigated the sampled soils.
The details regarding the sampling sites are given in Figure 1. The sampled area
included 18 soil series belonging to two Soil Orders, i.e., Aridisol and Entisol.
Distribution of soil samples according to soil series is given in Table 1.
3.1.3. Laboratory analysis of soils, plant tissues and ground water
The soils of fodder fields were analysed for electrical conductivity (EC), sodium
adsorption ratio (SAR), pHs, organic matter, soil texture, DTPA extractable Zn, Fe, Cu,
Mn, and HCl extractable B. Plant leaves of kharif fodders (maize, sorghum, millet and
lucerne) and rabi fodders (oat, berseem and lucerne ) were analyzed for Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn,
and B. While water samples were analysed for EC, SAR, residual sodium carbonate
(RSC) and chloride (Cl-1).
3.1.3.1. Glass ware, chemicals and instruments
All chemicals used in experiment were of analytical grade and purchased from
Sigma Aldrich (St Lo. Mo), BDH (UK) and Merck (Germany). All the glassware used in this study was made of borosilicate. The glassware was initially washed with liquid detergent (Max) and rinse thoroughly; then oven dried for 12 hours at 100 C0. The
34
Figure 1: Map of district Sargodha with distribution of sampling sites. Each Value represents the sampling site
35 Table 1 Information regarding sampling sites during kharif and rabi in Sargodha district Location Village Tehsil Soil Series Sub Group 1 Masrana Kotmomin Khudian Fluventic Haplocambids 2 Jhol Pur Kotmomin Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 3 Sadhwal Bhalwal Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 4 Chara Gah Bhalwal Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 5 Alipur Bhalwal Miani Fluventic Haplocambids 6 Nathu wala Shah pur Sultanpur Fluventic Haplocambids 7 Tankee wala Shah pur Sultanpur Fluventic Haplocambids 8 Bonga Blocha Shah pur Sultanpur Fluventic Haplocambids 9 Dhiro Sial Sahiwal Sindhelianwali Sodic Haplocambids 10 Sheikh Nawa Lok Sahiwal Jhakkar Sodic Haplocambids 11 Kot Khuda Bux Sahiwal Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 12 Chak 137 -SB Sillanwali Rasullpur Typic Haplocambids 13 Gurna Pathana Kotmomin Bagh Fluventic Haplocambids 14 Kohriwal Kotmomin Khair Typic Torrifluvents 15 Daulat Pur Kotmomin Sodhra Typic Torrifluvents 16 Pahrianwanli Kotmomin Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 17 Abdal Kotmomin Rasullpur Typic Haplocambids 18 Chak 4-NB Bhalwal Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 19 Chak 101-ML Bhalwal Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 20 Janda Bhalwal Sultanpur Fluventic Haplocambids 21 Noor Khan wala Bhalwal Sultanpur Fluventic Haplocambids 22 Kotli Awan Shah Pur Miani Fluventic Haplocambids 23 Mahmand Tula Shah pur Sultanpur Fluventic Haplocambids 24 Dakhli Jalpana Shah pur Sultanpur Fluventic Haplocambids 25 Hukam Pur Shah pur Miani Fluventic Haplocambids 26 Jahan Abad Shah pur Shah pur Typic Haplocambids 27 Kot Muhammad Yar wala Shah pur Miani Fluventic Haplocambids 28 Dera Gul Bibi Sahiwal Miani Fluventic Haplocambids 29 Ahli Gangooo Sahiwal Rasullpur Typic Haplocambids 30 Chak 111-NB Sillanwali Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 31 Chak 124-SB Sillanwali Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 32 Chak 48-SB Sillanwali Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 33 Chak 56-ASB Sargodha Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 34 Chak 54-SB Sargodha Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 35 Sewar Kotmomin Sultanpur Fluventic Haplocambids 36 Jala Makhdoom Kotmomin Khudian Fluventic Haplocambids 37 Jalap Kotmomin Sultanpur Fluventic Haplocambids 38 Chak 66-SB Kotmomin Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 39 Chak 10-SB Kotmomin Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 40 Lalyani South Kotmomin Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 41 Chak 7-SB Bhalwal Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 42 Purana Bhalwal Bhalwal Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 43 Chak 15 -NB Bhalwal Bhalwal Typic Calciargids
36 Table 1 (contd.) Location Village Tehsil Soil Series Sub Group 44 Sher Muhammad Wala Bhalwal Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 45 Utian Bhalwal Rasullpur Typic Haplocambids 46 Kot Khuda Bux Shah Pur Gajiana Typic Natragids 47 Chak 59-NB Sargodha Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 48 Rakh Dharema Sargodha Rasullpur Typic Haplocambids 49 Chak 69-NB Sargodha Rasullpur Typic Haplocambids 50 Chak 81-NB Sargodha Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 51 Chak 91-NB Sargodha Rasullpur Typic Haplocambids 52 Chak 89-NB Sargodha Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 53 Chak 109-SB Sargodha Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 54 Karana Sargodha Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 55 Chak 107-SB Sargodha Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 56 Chak 39-SB Sargodha Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 57 Chak 34-SB Sargodha Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 58 Chak 30-SB Sargodha Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 59 Laluwali Sargodha Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 60 Chak 51-SB Sargodha Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 61 Chak 22-SB Sargodha Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 62 Rahmian wala Kotmomin Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 63 Moazam Abad Kotmomin Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 64 Chak 16-SB Kotmomin Gajiana Typic Natragids 65 Chak 13-SB Bhalwal Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 66 Ajnala Station Bhalwal Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 67 Chak 25-NB Sargodha Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 68 Chak 20-NB Sargodha Rasullpur Typic Haplocambids 69 Qadir Pur Sargodha Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 70 Mari Sargodha Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 71 Chak 53-NB Sargodha Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 72 Chak 52-NB Sargodha Rasullpur Typic Haplocambids 73 Luday Wala Sargodha Rasullpur Typic Haplocambids 74 Military Farms Sargodha Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 75 Chak 51-NB Sargodha Rasullpur Typic Haplocambids 76 Chak 93-NB Sargodha Gandhra Typic Natragids 77 Chak 88-SB Sargodha Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 78 Chak 87-SB Sargodha Gandhra Typic Natragids 79 Chak 82-SB Sargodha Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 80 Chak 77-SB Sargodha Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 81 Chak 74-SB Sargodha Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 82 Chak 70-SB Sargodha Gandhra Typic Natragids 83 Roshan Pur Bhalwal Miani Fluventic Haplocambids 84 Dhool Kadhi Sahiwal Rajowal Typic Torrifluvents 85 Mohib Pur Sahiwal Satgarh Sodic Haplocambids 86 Khichi Sahiwal Adilpur Sodic Haplocambids 87 Ahli Kamboh Sahiwal Shahdara Typic Torrifluvents
37 instruments used in this study were atomic absortion (company, Shimadzu; model, AA-
6300), flame photometer (company, Jenway; model, FP-7) and spectrophotometer
(company, Pharma Spec; model, UV-1700).
3.1.3.2. Soil analysis
The methods used for soil analysis were as under.
3.1.3.2.1. Soil texture
It was analyzed by the hydrometer method (Day, 1965). Forty gram soil (oven dry
basis) was placed in 600 mL glass beakers. Then 60 mL of 4% sodium hexa metaphosphate
(dispersion solution) was added to each beaker, and left it overnight. The suspensions were
transferred to dispersing cups and mixed for 3 minutes using mechanical shaker. Then soil
suspensions were transferred into 1000 mL glass cylinders and distilled water was added up
to the mark. After this, soil suspensions were stirred with a plunger and the temperature was
recorded. This was repeated for about 40 seconds, finishing with 2 or 3 slow and deliberate
strokes. Time was noted immediately. A hydrometer was lowered down carefully into the
suspension, and took reading after exactly 40 seconds. Now carefully removed the
hydrometer, the suspensions were left undisturbed until a second hydrometer reading was
taken exactly after 2 hours, a temperature was also recorded at that time. The USDA textural
triangle was used to determine the soil textural class.
3.1.3.2.2. Soil pH
A 100 g of soil was taken in beaker to prepare the saturated soil paste. For this,
slowly and slowly added distilled water until saturated paste was prepared. Besides this,
we prepared buffer solutions of pH 7.0 and 9.0 by dissolving buffer tablets in 100 mL of
distilled water. Then pH meter was standardized with buffer solutions of pH 7.0 and
38 9.0.Then the soil paste was taken in beaker, and pH was noted by inserting the electrode
of pH meter into the paste (Thomas, 1996).
3.1.3.2.3. Electrical conductivity (ECe)
The saturated soil paste was prepared in same way as described earlier. Then
extract of this paste was taken with the help of vacuum pump. After this, the EC of the
extract was measured with conductivity meter (Rhoades, 1996).
3.1.3.2.4. Soil organic matter (OM)
Organic matter was determined by the method of Nelson and Sommers (1996).
First of all 1.0g soil was taken. Then it was swirled in 10 mL of 1 N K2Cr2O7 solution, and 20 mL concentrated H2SO4 was added. After this, mixed it well and then allowed to
stand for half an hour. Then distilled water was added to dilute it to 200 mL. After this 10
mL phosphoric acid, 0.2g sodium flouride and 3-4 drops of diphenyl-amine indicator
were added and titrate it against freshly prepared 0.5 N FeSO4.7H2O to a dull green end
point. Soil OM content was calculated as below:
%OM = mL for blank-mL for soil X N FeSO4.7H2O x 0.69 wt. of soil sample (g) 3.1.3.2.5. Soil calcium and magnesium
First of all, we prepared soil extract. We weighed 200 g air dry soil in a crucible
dish. We made its saturated paste by same method described earlier and then filtered it
with a vacuum filtration system using a Buuchner funnel fitted with Whatman No.42
filter paper. We collected filterate in small bottle and kept it for subsequent
measurements.
39 Analysis of calcium and magnesium was done according to method described in
handbook NO.60 (U. S. Salinity Lab. Staff, 1954). It was determined by taking 10 mL of
clear soil extracts in a conical flask.was prepared by following method. Then 8-10 drops
of buffer solution (NH4Cl-NH40H) and 3-4 drops of Eriochrome black-T (EBT) indicator
were added and titrated against ETDA (versenate) solution till color changed from wine
red to bluish green.
3.1.3.2.6. Sodium
Sodium from soil extract was also determined by method described in handbook
NO.60 (U. S. Salinity Lab. Staff, 1954). A quantity measuring 2.54 g dry NaCl was
dissolved in one litre. Thus stock solution having concentration of sodium 1000 ppm was
prepared which was used for preparing working solutions by following formula:
C1V1=C2V2
Working standard solution has concentration of 10, 20, 30, ------100 mg L-1.
3.1.3.2.7. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)
SAR=Na+/ (Ca ++ +Mg++) /21/2
All the cations were expressed as meq L-1.
3.1.3.2.8. Micronutrients (Zn, Fe, Cu, and Mn) by DTPA extraction procedure
The extracting solution was prepared by dissolving 3.94g DTPA and 2.2 g CaCl2 in distilled water in 2-L volumetric flask. Then 25.84 g Triethanolamine (TEA) was taken into another beaker and transferred it into the 2-L volumetric flask that contained the
DTPA and CaCl2 solution. After this its volume made up to about 1800 mL by adding
distilled water. Then its pH was adjusted exactly to 7.3 with HCl, and made to 2-L
40 volume with distilled water. This final extracting solution now contained 0.005 M DTPA,
0.1 M TEA, and 0.1 M CaCl2.
Ten gram soil was taken in 125-mL conical flasks, and 20 mL of DTPA
extraction solution was added. Flasks were shaken for 2 hrs on a horizontal shaker and
suspensions were filtered through filter paper i.e. Whatman No. 42 (Lindsay and Norvell,
1978).
3.1.3.2.9. Zinc, copper, iron and manganese in soil extracts
Soil extracts were analyzed for Zn, Cu, Fe and Mn by using atomic absorption
spectroscopy (Wright and Stuczynski, 1996).
3.1.3.2.10. HCl extraction for boron
Ten g air-dry soil was taken in to a polypropylene tube and about 0.2 g B-free activated charcoal was added. Then 20 mL 0.05 N HCl solution was added to each flask shaken for 5-10 minutes and suspensions were filtered through Whatman No. 42 filter paper (Ponnamperuma et al., 1981).
3.1.3.2.11. Boron in soil extracts
Boron in soil extracts was measured colorimetrically using Azomethine-H method
(Keren, 1996). Firstly, 250g ammonium acetate and 15g ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, disodium salt (EDTA-disodium) was dissolved in 400 mL distilled water to prepare buffer solution, and finally 125 mL of glacial acetic acid was added slowly and slowly and mixed it well.
After this, 0.45 g azomethine-H was dissolved in 100 mL 1% L-ascorbic acid solution to prepare azomethine-H reagent. Fresh reagent solution was prepared and stored it in a refrigerator for a week.
41 One mL of each extract or standard solution was transferred into a 10-mL
polypropylene tube.Then 2 mL buffer solution was added to each polypropylene tube and
mixed well. Then 2 mL Azomethine-H reagent was added. After half an hour the color
intensity was recorded by spectrophotometer at 420 nm, wavelength.
3.1.3.3. Plant tissue analysis
Plant leaves were collected and analyzed for micronutrients i.e. Zn, Fe, Cu, B and
Mn.
3.1.3. 3.1. Wet digestion
Plant material (leaves of fodder crops) was wet digested in a 2:1 mixture of nitric-
perchloric acid (HNO3: HClO4) for all nutrients except N and B. One-gram ground plant
material was placed in 50 mL digestion flask. Then 10 mL of acid mixture was added to this flask, mixed it well and left it for 24 hours. On the next day, temeperature of this flask was gradually increased up to 230 C by placing it on hot plate in a digestion chamber. This flask was heated at this temperature until the white fumes of HClO4
appeared and brown NO2 fumes ceased to produce in the flask. The flask was further
heated until the volume of contents was reduced to about by 5 mL, but not to dryness.
Now digestion was completed and the liquid became colorless. After this, flask was
cooled and 20 mL of distilled water was added. Now volume of this flask was made up to
100mL with distilled water and the solution was decanted. Aliquots of this solution were
used for the determination of micronutrients viz. Mn, Zn, Cu and Fe (Ryan et al., 2001).
3.1.3.3.2. Zinc, copper, iron, manganese in digest
The micronutrients i.e. Zn, Fe, Cu, and Mn in plant digests were determined by
atomic absorption spectroscopy (Wright and Stuczynski, 1996).
42 3.1.3.3.3. Boron
Boron in plant tissue was determined by dry ashing (Gaines and Mitchell, 1979).
For this, 0.5 g ground plant material was taken in a porcelain crucible and put it in a
muffle furnace. It was ignited by gradually raising the temperature to 550C. It was
continuously ignited for 6 hours after attaining 550C. Now ashing was complete and
moistened it with a few drops of distilled water. Further, 10 mL of 0.36 N H2SO4 solutions was added into the crucible. These crucibles were allowed to stand for 1 hour.
During this time, ash was broken by stirring occasionally with a plastic rod. Then filtered this aliquot through filter paper i.e. Whatman filter paper No. 42. The filtrate was analyzed for B concentration as done in case of soil extract B (Keren, 1996).
3.1.3.4. Water analysis
The water samples for following parameters were analyzed by methods described in handbook NO.60 (U. S. Salinity Lab. Staff, 1954).
3.1.3.4.1. Electrical conductivity (EC)
The irrigation water quality depends upon total concentration of soluble salts
present in it accompanied by the pH of the water. The EC of the water samples was
measured with EC meter as discussed in the case of soil extracts.
3.1.3.4.2. Carbonates and bicarbonates (CO3 and HCO3)
The 50 mL of water was taken in conical flask. Then 1-3 drops of
Phenolphthalein 1% were added. If no color appeared, CO3 are absent. If pink color
appeared, CO3 are present. Titrate it with 0.1 N H2SO4 to colorless end point.
43 After colorless end point, 1-2 drops of methyl orange indicator were added to the same conical flask and titrated it against 0.1 N sulfuric acid from golden yellow to a light orange or light pink end point. Reserved this flask for chloride determination.
-2 -1 CO3 (meq L ) = 2R1 x Normality of H2SO4 X 1000 Aliquot (mL)
3.1.3.4.3. Chloride
To the same conical flask after light orange yellow end point, 3-4 drops of potassium chromate (K2CrO4) were added. While stirring, titrated under light with 0.05 N silver nitrate (AgNO3), to a brick red precipitate or permanent reddish brown colour.
-1 Cl (meq L ) = (mL of AgNO3for sample – mL of AgNO3 for blank) X N X 1000 Aliquot (mL)
3.1.3.5.4. Calcium and magnesium
The calcium and magnesium of the water samples was measured by same method
as discussed in the case of soil extracts.
3.1.3.4.5. Sodium
The Na of the water samples was determined by same method as given in the case
of soil extracts.
3.1.3.4.6. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and Residual sodium carbonate (RSC)
SAR=Na+/ (Ca ++ +Mg++) /21/2
Residual sodium carbonate can be calculated by using following equation
-1 -2 -1 ++ ++ RSC in meq L = (CO3 + HCO3 ) – (Ca + Mg )
All anions and cations are expressed in meq L-1.
44 3.2. Effect of micronutrients (Zn and B) on fodder yield, quality of oat and pearl millet 3.2.1 Experimental sites
Two field experiments were conducted on two different soils at farmer field.
Pearl millet was grown at Kot Abbas and oat at Sahiwal in district Sargodha, Punjab province, Pakistan. These experiments were conducted only once. Both these crops were irrigated with canal water.
Both the selected sites were low in micronutrient fertility. Some selected soil characteristics (soil depth 0-15cm) are given in Table 2. Prior to the experiment, fodder production was being practiced at both the sites using traditional tillage and cultural pactices.
3.2.2. Nutrient treatments and experimental design
The experiments were laid out in randomized complete block design (RCBD).
There were nine treatments comprising of all possible combinations of three levels each of Zn (0, 5, 10 kg ha-1) and B (0, 1, 2 kg ha-1). The treatments were replicated three times having a net plot size of 3.0 m x 6.0 m. On the basis of our survey, we have selected Zn and B as soil amendements. Although Fe was also deficeient in Sargodha soils, yet we did not select it because Iron deficiency is most difficult and expensive micronutrient deficiency to correct under field condition. Because soil application of irorganic-Fe often ineffective in controlling Fe deficiency except when application rates are extraordinary large. Similarly, Fe (II) salts rapidly oxidize upon exposure to ambient air under field conditions (Zuo and Zhang, 2011)
45 Table 2: Selected initial physico-chemical characteristics of field experimental sites
Experimental sites Soil characteristics (depth 0-15cm) Oat (Sahiwal ) Pearl millet( Kot Abbas )
Texture Clay Loam Sandy Loam pH 8.30 8.10
EC (dS m-1) 3.20 2.40
Organic matter (%) 0.35 0.42
DTPA- extr. (mg kg-1)
Zn 0.42 0.45
Fe 3.58 4.12
HCl (mg kg-1)
B 0.37 0.42
46 During rabi (winter) 2007-08, oat (Avena sativa L.) crop was sown manually by using single row hand drill in mid November maintaining row-to-row distance of 30 cm and harvesting was done during February. While in kharif 2008, pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) was sown manually by using single row hand drill in mid April maintaining row-to-row distance of 30 cm and harvesting was done during April. In both these
-1 experiments, the recommended dose of P (57 kg ha P2O5) as SSP (single super phosphate) was applied at the time of sowing, while half of the recommended dose of N
(80 kg ha-1) was applied at the time of sowing and remaining half with first irrigation. All
Experimental treatments
B Zn
………..kg ha-1………
T1 0 0 T2 0 5 T3 0 10 T4 1 0 T5 1 5 T6 1 10 T7 2 0 T8 2 5 T9 2 10
the micronutrient fertilizers were applied to soil at the time of sowing. Zinc was applied as zinc sulphate of Engro, B as borax of Fauji Fertilizer Company. All other agronomic practices except those under study were kept uniform for all the treatment combination.While observations regarding plant height, number of tillers per plant, and dry matter yield were recorded during the course of study. Total green fodder yield was
47 recorded by harvesting the whole plot. Dry matter yield was calculated by using fresh and dry weight of plant samples. Besides this, plant samples (leaves) were collected and analyzed for quality parameters (crude protein, acid detergent fibre, and neutral detergent fibre etc.)
3.2.3. Laboratory analysis of soils and plant tissues
3.2.3.1. Soil analysis
The sampled soils were analyzed as per procedures described in section 3.1.3.2.
3.2.3.2. Plant tissue analysis
Proteins in plant tissues (leaves) were measured by multiplying total plant nitrogen percentage with a factor of 6.25 (James et al., 1995). Plant total nitrogen was determined by Kjeldahl method.
A 0.5 g plant sample was placed in 100 mL digestion tubes. Then 10 mL of conc.
H2SO4 and 3.0 g mixture of K2SO4-Se (catalyst) were added. After this, temperature was set at 100 0C and placed these tubes in block digester. After twenty minutes removed these tubes and wash down any material adhering in the neck. Then set it again at 3800C and placed it in block digester for two hours till the colorless solution.
An aliquot of 10 mL and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution of 10 mL was taken in 100 mL distillation flask and connected to distillation unit to begin distillation. Then distilled it till 35 mL distillate was collected. Now removed this flask and distillate was titrated against 0.1 N H2SO4 to pink end point (Ryan et al., 2001).
Percent nitrogen in plant
% N = 14.0067 x [mL of titrant for sample-mL of titrant for blank] x N of acid Wt. of sample (g) x 10
48 3.2.3.2.2. Neutral detergent fiber
A dry and ground plant sample of 1.0 g was taken in a Berzelius beaker for refluxing. Then in order, a 100 mL of neutral detergent solution, 2 mL of decahydronaphthalene, and 0.5 g of sodium sulfite were added with a calibrated scoop.
This neutral detergent solution was prepared by adding 30 g sodium lauryl sulfate, 18.61 g disodium dihydrogen EDTA (ethylene diamine tetra acetate), 6.81 g sodium borate decahydrate reagent, 4.56 g disodium hydrogen phosphate reagent, and 10 mL 2- ethoxy- ethanol in one liter of distill water and agitated to dissolve. The pH of solution was adjusted within range of 6.9 to 7.0.
Now this solution was heated to boiling point in 5 to 10 minutes. Heating was reduced as boiling began in order to avoid foaming. After this, heating was adjusted to an even level and refluxed it for an hour, timed from onset of boiling. Then we placed tarred crucibles on filtering apparatus and filled crucible with suspended solids. Now sample was rinsed into crucible with a minimum quantity of hot (80˚C) water. Then vacuum was removed, mat was broken up, and filled crucible with hot water. Filtered it and repeated washing procedure. After this, washing was repeated with acetone in same manner.
Finally these crucibles were dried at 105˚C overnight, cooled in desiccators to room temperature and their weight was taken. This recovered neutral detergent fiber was reported as cell walls.
Cell walls % on as fed or partial dry basis =
Wt of crucible and cell walls – wt of crucible × 100 Wt of sample
49 Adjusting to dry basis:
(a) Cell walls % on as fed sample × 100 Dry matter % of as fed sample Or
(b) Cell walls % on partial dry sample × 100 Dry matter % of partial dry sample
3.2.3.2.3. Acid detergent fiber
A dry and well-ground plant sample of 1.0 g was taken in a container suitable for refluxing. To this container, 100 mL of acid detergent solution (Sulfuric acid, 1 N.) and 2 mL of deca hydro naphthalene were added. Now this container was heated to boiling point in 5 to 10 minutes. Then reduced heat to avoid foaming as boiling begins and allowed it to reflux for one hour, from onset of boiling. Then filtered it on a tarred crucible using light suction, the filtered mat was broken with a rod and washed it twice with hot water (90 to 100˚C). Then washing was repeated with acetone. Finally sucked and dried at 105˚C for overnight, cooled in a desiccators to room temperature and its
weight was taken. Acid detergent fiber % on partial dry or as fed basis:
(Wt of crucible + fiber – tare wt of crucible) × 100 Wt of sample
Adjust to dry basis:
(a) Acid detergent fiber % on as fed sample ×100 Dry matter % of as fed sample
Or
(b) Acid detergent fiber % on partial dry sample ×100 Dry matter % of partial dry sample
50 3.2.4. Plant height
At maturity twelve plants of each crop were selected randomly in each treatment.
Heights of all these plants were noted from base to the tip of highest leaf with the help of
measuring tape and then the average plant height was worked out.
3.2.5. Number of tillers per plant
At the time of maturity twelve plants of each crop were selected randomly in each
treatment of the individual crop. Numbers of tillers of all these plants were measured and
then average was calculated.
3.2.6. Dry matter yield
The green fodder yield of each plot was weighed with the help of spring balance.
After this dry matter percentage was determined after taking into the consideration the
moisture percentage in sampled plants. This dry matter percentage was used for determination of the dry matter yield per plot and then it was converted in tones per
hectare.
The plant samples were dried in a hot air oven at 1050C for 48 hours or up to a
constant weight to determine moisture percentage of plant samples. Weight of plant
samples was noted both before and after drying. Then moisture percentage was
determined as given below.
Moisture % = Weight of sample-Weight of sample after drying x 100 Weight of sample
51 3.3. Statistical analysis
There were three replicates for each treatment. Analysis of Variance i.e. ANOVA
of the measured parameters was performed using MSTAT-C and the treatment means
were compared using Duncan,s multiple range test i.e. DMRT at 5% probability level.
Microsoft EXCEL was used for correlation analysis and for drawing figures, graphs.
52 Chapter: 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Micronutrient status of soils and fodder crops grown in Sargodha district
A knowledge of micronutrient status of soils and plants help to understand inherent nutrient supplying capacity of soils to develop effective management strategies for different cropping patterns. A good understanding of micronutrient status in soils and crop is a pre-requisite for sustainable agriculture.
4.1.1. Zinc status of soils
Zinc is an important micronutrient for growth and development of plants (Das and
Saha, 1999). It is involved as metal activator in several enzymes. Its deficiency inhibits synthesis of protein (Rashid, 1996b).
4.1.1.1 Zinc status in soils of kharif fodders grown at Sargodha district
In summer, surface soil Zn (0-15 cm) contents ranged from 0.24 to 1.80 mg kg-1
with a mean value of 0.74 mg kg-1. The mean Zn content was 0.49 mg kg-1 with a range
from 0.17 to 1.11 mg kg-1 in mid-surface soils (15-30 cm) and 0.27 mg kg-1 with a range
from 0.08 to 0.71 mg kg-1 in sub-surface soil layers (30-60 cm) (Table 3; Appendix 1).
The surface soil DTPA-extractable Zn content was higher (0.98 mg kg-1) in Shahpur
series and lowest (0.24 mg kg-1) in Khair series (Table 4). In summer only six soil series,
i.e., Satgarha, Shahpur, Shahdara, Rajowal, Adilpur and Bagh exhibited no deficiency,
while soils of other series showed defiency upto 100% (Table 5).
In considering 0.50 mg kg-1 as a critical level for DTPA-Zn in soil for plant
growth (Appendix 3) (Lindsay and Norvell, 1978), about 48 % surface soil samples
suffered with Zn deficiency. While 12% soil samples are marginal (0.5-0.8 mg kg-1), and
53 Table 3: Summary of data showing soil micronutrient status in the kharif (summer) fodder fields of Sargodha district
Nutrient Soil Depth Range Mean Low Medium High
…….(cm)….. …………….………………………….mg kg-1…………………………………….
< 0.5* 0.5-0.8* > 0.8* Zn 0-15 0.24-1.80 0.74+ 0.39 42 (48%) ** 10(12%) ** 35(40%) ** 15-30 0.17-1.11 0.49+ 0.25 52 (59%) ** 18(21%) ** 17(20%) ** 30-60 0.08-0.71 0.27+ 0.17 72 (83%) ** 15(17%) ** -
< 0.2* > 0.2* Cu 0-15 0.12-1.28 0.66+ 0.29 01(01%) ** 86(99%) ** 15-30 0.09-0.94 0.44+ 0.23 15(17%) ** 72 (83%) ** 30-60 0.04-0.81 0.23+ 0.15 43(49%) ** 44(51%) **
< 4.5* > 4.5* Fe 0-15 1.14-8.71 4.48+ 1.56 46(53%) ** 41(47%) ** 15-30 0.98-6.50 3.00+ 1.18 77(88%) ** 10 (12%) ** 30-60 0.50-3.98 1.76+ 0.83 87(100%) ** -
< 1.0* 1.0-2.0* > 2.0* Mn 0-15 0.70-5.50 2.66+ 1.31 03(3%) ** 33(38%) ** 51(59%) ** 15-30 0.41-4.36 1.71+ 0.85 24(28%) ** 34(39%) ** 29(33%) ** 30-60 0.21-3.60 0.97+ 0.60 56(64%) ** 24(28%) ** 07(08%) **
< 0.45* 0.45-1.0* >1.0* B 0-15 0.16-1.30 0.54+ 0.24 36(41%) ** 46(53%) ** 5(6%) ** 15-30 0.09-0.95 0.38+ 0.18 59(68%) ** 28(32%) ** - 30-60 0.03-0.71 0.24+ 0.15 75(86%) ** 12(14%) ** -
* Critical level of nutrients **Number and %age of sites falling in that range Each value is the mean + SE of 87 sites
54 Table 4: Mean values for EC, pH, organic matter and concentration of Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn and B in the sampled soil series of kharif fodders fields from Sargodha district No.of Depth DTPA extractable HCl Sr.No. Soil Series ECe pHs O.M Sites (cm) Zn Cu Fe Mn B (dS m-1) (%) ……………………..(mg kg-1)………………………………………. 1 Adilpur 1 0-15 6.45 8.60 0.56 0.82 0.44 3.10 2.39 0.74 15-30 7.95 8.80 0.49 0.61 0.37 2.42 1.95 0.47 30-60 8.82 8.90 0.28 0.33 0.08 1.83 1.17 0.28
2 Bagh 1 0-15 0.87 7.90 0.84 0.53 1.17 2.92 2.95 0.30 15-30 1.20 8.00 0.56 0.32 0.82 1.89 1.85 0.17 30-60 1.30 8.00 0.21 0.12 0.43 1.30 1.23 0.09
3 Bhalwal 18 0-15 1.43+0.89 8.15+0.20 0.91+0.26 0.82+0.41 0.68+0.22 4.81+1.69 2.85+1.51 0.57+0.24 15-30 1.41+0.82 8.18+0.15 0.66+0.24 0.59+0.25 0.47+0.17 3.26+1.40 1.90+0.92 0.40+0.22 30-60 1.37+0.86 8.19+0.17 0.38+0.19 0.37+0.18 0.30+0.13 1.95+0.91 1.05+0.57 0.25+0.15
4 Gajiana 2 0-15 4.40+0.07 8.45+0.07 0.81+0.15 0.57+0.18 0.43+0.01 3.25+0.76 0.86+0.23 0.57+0.23 15-30 5.78+0.32 8.58+0.04 0.42+0.10 0.40+0.12 0.34+0.05 2.17+1.05 0.57+0.23 0.37+0.15 30-60 6.20+0.57 8.65+0.07 0.32+0.15 0.19+0.10 0.22+0.08 1.31+0.47 0.32+0.13 0.17+0.05
5 Gandhra 3 0-15 4.99+1.03 8.53+0.06 0.91+0.26 0.77+0.12 0.69+0.29 4.71+1.72 1.76+0.56 0.88+0.30 15-30 5.90+0.83 8.60+0.00 0.66+0.24 0.54+0.18 0.48+0.26 2.84+1.31 1.25+0.54 0.66+0.21 30-60 6.67+0.42 8.77+0.06 0.38+0.19 0.35+0.07 0.21+0.09 2.26+0.96 0.64+0.26 0.44+0.23
6 Hafizabad 26 0-15 1.55+0.82 8.10+0.22 0.82+0.24 0.86+0.42 0.75+0.29 4.67+1.50 3.19+1.26 0.60+0.27 15-30 1.66+0.85 8.21+0.18 0.54+0.18 0.58+0.28 0.51+0.23 3.05+1.00 1.92+0.78 0.41+0.19 30-60 1.84+1.00 8.27+0.16 0.31+0.15 0.30+0.19 0.22+0.13 1.63+0.75 0.94+0.45 0.27+0.17
55 Table 4 (Contd.) No.of Depth DTPA extractable HCl Sr.No. Soil Series ECe pHs O.M Sites (cm) Zn Cu Fe Mn B (dS m-1) (%) ……………………..(mg kg-1)………………………………………. 7 Jhakkar 1 0-15 5.10 8.45 0.77 0.41 0.48 3.88 1.62 0.34 15-30 6.70 8.55 0.70 0.29 0.28 2.11 1.36 0.20 30-60 7.20 8.60 0.42 0.14 0.18 1.04 0.54 0.17
8 Khair 1 0-15 2.84 8.10 0.77 0.24 0.28 4.602 1.43 0.23 15-30 3.17 8.20 0.35 0.22 0.14 3.26 0.91 0.18 30-60 3.70 8.50 0.14 0.16 0.04 2.94 0.21 0.16
9 Khudian 2 0-15 1.10+0.14 8.30+0.28 1.12+0.10 0.50+0.03 0.65+0.10 3.00+0.57 1.56+0.38 0.43+0.12 15-30 1.13+0.39 8.35+0.07 0.84+0.00 0.35+0.03 0.48+0.15 1.88+0.10 0.88+0.13 0.33+0.08 30-60 1.13+0.53 8.30+0.00 0.53+0.05 0.22+0.04 0.24+0.03 1.01+0.06 0.48+0.05 0.16+0.04
10 Miani 6 0-15 1.57+0.74 8.18+0.27 1.05+0.27 0.90+0.56 0.91+0.31 5.34+1.79 3.87+1.20 0.45+0.15 15-30 1.44+0.56 8.20+0.20 0.68+0.21 0.50+0.29 0.55+0.26 3.54+1.51 2.84+0.97 0.33+0.14 30-60 1.39+0.59 8.20+0.19 0.42+0.14 0.30+0.18 0.32+0.19 2.39+1.16 2.04+0.93 0.20+0.11
11 Rajowal 1 0-15 2.15 8.20 0.35 0.89 0.43 3.74 4.18 0.29 15-30 2.83 8.30 0.28 0.36 0.27 2.85 2.39 0.14 30-60 3.07 8.40 0.14 0.10 0.13 1.59 1.88 0.08
12 Rasulpur 11 0-15 0.78+0.56 7.98+0.27 0.72+0.21 0.56+0.25 0.30+0.11 3.39+1.26 1.80+0.72 0.47+0.19 15-30 0.89+0.47 8.12+0.28 0.50+0.22 0.39+0.18 0.20+0.08 2.53+1.09 1.04+0.25 0.34+0.15 30-60 1.06+0.53 8.21+0.22 0.31+0.12 0.23+0.13 0.12+0.05 1.35+0.49 0.57+0.26 0.21+0.11
56 Table 4 (Contd.) No.of Depth DTPA extractable HCl Sr.No. Soil Series ECe pHs O.M Sites (cm) Zn Cu Fe Mn B (dS m-1) (%) ……………………..(mg kg-1)………………………………………. 13 Satgarh 1 0-15 7.20 9.10 0.42 0.75 0.67 7.71 1.85 0.71 15-30 8.85 9.30 0.35 0.51 0.32 4.7 1.1 0.55 30-60 9.98 9.30 0.21 0.26 0.21 2.85 0.87 0.47
14 Shah pur 1 0-15 1.20 8.40 0.91 0.98 1.10 6.30 2.50 0.61 15-30 1.05 8.40 0.35 0.52 0.92 4.52 1.54 0.48 30-60 1.00 8.10 0.21 0.29 0.81 2.58 1.17 0.17
15 Shahdara 1 0-15 1.17 8.30 0.84 0.82 0.33 6.33 2.39 0.3 15-30 1.58 8.40 0.70 0.51 0.14 4.86 1.85 0.21 30-60 1.85 8.40 0.42 0.23 0.06 2.91 1.48 0.03
16 Sindhelianwali 1 0-15 4.75 8.30 0.91 0.48 0.82 3.78 1.35 0.75 15-30 5.00 8.50 0.70 0.42 0.57 2.18 0.92 0.49 30-60 5.70 8.80 0.35 0.12 0.42 0.80 0.62 0.35
17 Sodhra 1 0-15 2.20 8.50 1.05 0.38 0.38 2.59 1.09 0.51 15-30 2.05 8.40 0.91 0.24 0.31 1.73 0.68 0.22 30-60 1.75 8.30 0.56 0.14 0.12 0.96 0.39 0.13
18 Sultanpur 9 0-15 1.23+0.62 8.09+0.22 0.92+0.23 0.64+0.37 0.70+0.23 4.58+1.18 2.49+1.12 0.44+0.13 15-30 1.37+0.54 8.19+0.13 0.61+0.29 0.36+0.19 0.48+0.20 2.96+1.16 1.61+0.73 0.32+0.10 30-60 1.42+0.59 8.22+0.14 0.37+0.17 0.18+0.09 0.21+0.10 1.76+0.80 1.08+0.54 0.21+0.11
57 Table 5: Soil series wise distribution of micronutrient deficiencies in surface soils in Sargodha district (kharif) ………..…...DTPA extractable……………….. HCl No.of Soil Series Sub Group Zn Cu Fe Mn B sites ……………………………..Deficient sites (%)………………………………………. Adil Pur Sodic Haplocambids 1 Nil Nil 1(100%) Nil Nil
Bagh Fluventic Haplocambids 1 Nil Nil 1(100%) Nil 1(100%)
Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 18 7(38%) Nil 9(50%) 1(5%) 8(44%)
Gajiana Typic Natragids 2 1(50%) Nil 2(100%) 1(50%) 1(50%)
Gandhara Typic Natragids 3 3(100%) Nil 1(33%) Nil Nil
Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 26 11(42%) Nil 12(46%) Nil 7(27%)
Jhakkar Sodic Haplocambids 1 1(100%) Nil 1(100%) Nil 1(100%)
Khair Typic Torrifluvents 1 1(100%) Nil Nil Nil 1(100%)
Khudian Fluventic Haplocambids 2 1(50%) Nil 2(100%) Nil 1(50%)
Miani Fluventic Haplocambids 6 3(50%) Nil 2(33%) Nil 5(83%)
Rajowal Typic Torrifluvents 1 Nil Nil 1(100%) Nil 1(100%)
58 Table 5 (contd.) ………..…...DTPA extractable……………….. HCl No.of Soil Series Sub Group Zn Cu Fe Mn B sites ……………………………..Deficient sites (%)………………………………………. Rasulpur Typic Haplocambids 11 7(64%) 1(9%) 9(82%) Nil 4(36%)
Satghara Sodic Haplocambids 1 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Shahdara Typic Torrifluvents 1 Nil Nil Nil Nil 1(100%)
Shahpur Typic Haplocambids 1 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Sindhelianwali Sodic Haplocambids 1 1(100%) Nil 1(100%) Nil Nil
Sodhra Typic Torrifluvents 1 1(100%) Nil 1(100%) Nil Nil
Sultanpur Fluventic Haplocambids 9 5(55%) Nil 3(33%) 1(11%) 5(55%)
59 40 % are adequate ( 0.8) in DTPA –Zn (Table 3; Appendix 1). In this study, available
DTPA-Zn correlated positively with DTPA-Cu (0.47), DTPA-Fe (0.53), dilute HCl-B
(0.40) and DTPA-Mn (0.53) contents in soils during summer (Table 6).
4.1.1.2 Zinc status in soils of rabi fodders grown at Sargodha district
In rabi, surface soil Zn (0-15cm) was 0.24 to 2.07 with a mean of 0.74 mg kg-1, while in mid surface soil (15-30 cm) was 0.14 to1.46 with a mean of 0.50 mg kg-1 and
subsoil (30-60 cm) was 0.04 to1.06 with a mean of 0.31 mg kg-1 (Table 7; Appendix 2).
The surface soil DTPA-extractable Zn content was higher (1.29 mg kg-1) in Shahpur
series and lowest (0.21 mg kg-1) in Bagh series (Table 8). In winter only five soil series, i.e., Satgarha, Shahpur, Shahdara, Adilpur and Jhakkar exhibited no deficiency, while soils of other series showed defiencies upto 100 % (Table 9).
In considering 0.50 mg kg-1 as a critical level for DTPA-Zn in soil for plant
growth (Appendix 3) (Lindsay and Norvell, 1978), about 47 % surface soil samples are
deficient, 16 % soil samples are marginal (0.5-0.8 mg kg-1), and 37 % are adequate (
0.8) in DTPA –Zn (Table 7; Appendix 2). In this study, available DTPA-Zn correlated
positively with DTPA-Cu (0.48), DTPA-Fe (0.37), dilute HCl-B (0.31) and DTPA-Mn
(0.50) contents in soils during winter (Table 10).
The results of our study were in agreement with Sharma et al. (1999; 2000; 2004) who reported that plant available Zn was positively correlated with plant available
DTPA- Fe, Cu and Mn. Similarly, DTPA-Zn showed positive correlation with DTPA-Cu and Fe (Sharma et al., 1992; 2002). Interdependence of micronutrients suggested that their availability depended upon common edaphic factors (Sharma et al., 2002). Furher,
60 Table 6: Correlation coefficient (r values) between soil micronutrients and various soil characteristics of Sargodha district in kharif Soil characteristics Soil micronutrient contents (mg kg-1) & micronutrient Zn Cu Fe Mn B contents Cu (mg kg-1) 0.47
Fe // 0.53 0.62
Mn // 0.53 0.51 0.59
B // 0.40 0.40 0.46 0.35
pH -0.13 -0.15 -0.12 -0.20 0.03
Organic Matter (%) 0.28 0.42 0.41 0.37 0.30
EC (dS m-1) -0.11 -0.08 -0.04 -0.12 0.15
SAR -0.12 -0.05 -0.04 -0.12 0.12
61 Table 7: Summary of data showing soil micronutrient status in the rabi fodder fields of Sargodha district
Nutrient Soil Depth Range Mean Low Medium High
…….(cm)….. …………….………………………….mg kg-1…………………………………….
< 0.5* 0.5-0.8* > 0.8* Zn 0-15 0.24-2.07 0.74+ 0.41 41(47%) ** 14(16%) ** 32(37%) ** 15-30 0.14-1.46 0.50+ 0.26 55(63%) ** 17(20%) ** 15(17%) ** 30-60 0.04-1.06 0.31+ 0.20 72(83%) ** 13(15%) ** 02(02%) **
< 0.2* > 0.2* Cu 0-15 0.15-1.40 0.61+ 0.27 01(01%) ** 86(99%) ** 15-30 0.10-0.89 0.41+ 0.18 10(11%) ** 77(89%) ** 30-60 0.04-0.62 0.23+ 0.13 43(49%) ** 44(51%) **
< 4.5* > 4.5* Fe 0-15 1.89-13.22 5.61+ 2.48 41(47%) ** 46(53%) ** 15-30 1.16-10.81 4.08+ 1.95 54(62%) ** 33(38%) ** 30-60 0.71-8.52 2.74+ 1.51 75(86%) ** 12(14%) **
< 1.0* 1.0-2.0* > 2.0* Mn 0-15 0.82-7.70 2.92+ 1.40 02(02%) ** 25(29%) ** 60(69%) ** 15-30 0.40-5.10 2.01+ 0.96 10(11%) ** 40(46%) ** 37(43%) ** 30-60 0.10-3.81 1.22+ 0.73 39(45%) ** 40(46%) ** 08(09%) **
< 0.45* 0.45-1.0* > 1.0* B 0-15 0.10-1.67 0.65+ 0.36 26(30%) ** 48(55%) ** 13(15%) ** 15-30 0.07-1.45 0.49+ 0.30 48(55%) ** 31(36%) ** 08(09%) ** 30-60 0.03-1.07 0.32+ 0.22 66(76%) ** 20(23%) ** 01(01%) **
* Critical level of nutrients **Number and %age of sites falling in that range Each value is the mean + SE of 87 sites
62 Table 8: Mean values for EC, pH, organic matter and concentration of Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn and B in the sampled soil series of rabi fodders fields from Sargodha district No.of Depth DTPA extractable HCl Soil Series ECe pHs O.M Sites (cm) Zn Cu Fe Mn B (dS m-1) (%) ……………………..(mg kg-1)………………………………………. Adilpur 1 0-15 6.9 8.6 0.70 0.81 0.94 3.6 2.18 0.64 15-30 7.8 8.7 0.56 0.51 0.35 2.41 1.48 0.33 30-60 8.35 8.8 0.35 0.39 0.18 1.8 0.82 0.19
Bagh 1 0-15 0.62 7.7 0.91 0.21 1.07 2.85 1.73 0.4 15-30 0.7 7.7 0.70 0.08 0.69 2.29 1.5 0.29 30-60 0.75 7.8 0.28 0.01 0.32 2.24 1.22 0.13
Bhalwal 18 0-15 1.39+0.84 8.14+0.21 0.95+0.25 0.81+0.43 0.68+0.26 5.97+2.38 3.43+1.73 0.83+0.36 15-30 1.39+0.69 8.16+0.19 0.72+0.23 0.51+0.25 0.40+0.19 4.49+1.90 2.51+1.09 0.68+0.35 30-60 1.38+0.71 8.16+0.20 0.51+0.30 0.35+0.22 0.23+0.14 2.98+1.56 1.52+0.87 0.42+0.24
Gajiana 2 0-15 5.02+0.33 8.53+0.11 0.63+0.10 0.53+0.09 0.42+0.13 3.93+0.21 1.32+0.54 0.49+0.27 15-30 6.22+0.79 8.73+0.11 0.35+0.10 0.32+0.02 0.34+0.15 2.33+0.62 0.95+0.21 0.34+0.18 30-60 6.76+0.48 8.80+0.00 0.28+0.10 0.17+0.01 0.24+0.14 1.27+0.61 0.49+0.09 0.12+0.07
Gandhra 3 0-15 3.65+0.63 8.60+0.05 0.84+0.07 0.43+0.07 0.84+0.34 5.72+2.82 1.32+0.23 0.92+0.33 15-30 4.92+0.83 8.57+0.06 0.63+0.07 0.24+0.08 0.53+0.19 4.03+1.95 1.00+0.33 0.63+0.15 30-60 5.86+0.89 8.70+0.10 0.35+0.07 0.15+0.06 0.24+0.07 2.48+0.96 0.65+0.17 0.39+0.12
Hafizabad 26 0-15 1.39+0.81 8.06+0.17 0.99+0.25 0.84+0.46 0.61+0.29 6.01+2.82 3.47+1.17 0.74+0.44 15-30 1.50+0.84 8.12+0.16 0.76+0.23 0.56+0.27 0.43+0.19 4.57+2.26 2.31+0.92 0.53+0.35 30-60 1.60+0.92 8.15+0.17 0.48+0.22 0.38+0.23 0.26+0.16 3.23+1.93 1.29+0.67 0.37+0.26
63 Table 8 (Contd.) No.of Depth DTPA extractable HCl Soil Series ECe pHs O.M Sites (cm) Zn Cu Fe Mn B (dS m-1) (%) ……………………..(mg kg-1)………………………………………. Jhakkar 1 0-15 4.90 8.60 0.56 0.51 0.63 3.71 1.95 0.47 15-30 5.75 8.60 0.42 0.36 0.38 2.2 1.16 0.28 30-60 6.20 8.80 0.21 0.17 0.21 1.82 0.36 0.14
Khair 1 0-15 2.00 7.90 0.84 0.44 0.30 4.78 1.08 0.26 15-30 2.35 8.10 0.35 0.31 0.22 2.49 0.89 0.18 30-60 2.90 8.30 0.14 0.09 0.14 1.46 0.74 0.06
Khudian 2 0-15 1.63+0.95 8.05+0.21 0.84+0.10 0.52+0.09 0.66+0.18 5.26+0.35 1.54+0.18 0.39+0.03 15-30 1.93+0.74 8.15+0.21 0.74+0.05 0.43+0.08 0.44+0.11 3.43+1.01 1.13+0.08 0.24+0.03 30-60 2.05+0.92 8.20+0.28 0.39+0.05 0.23+0.07 0.20+0.12 2.40+0.52 0.78+0.10 0.15+0.01
Miani 6 0-15 1.18+0.46 8.07+0.21 1.04+0.14 0.97+0.60 0.64+0.13 7.87+3.08 3.77+1.55 0.38+0.14 15-30 1.06+0.60 7.99+0.21 0.89+0.18 0.74+0.26 0.43+0.09 5.11+2.31 2.36+1.03 0.28+0.11 30-60 0.88+0.40 7.86+0.17 0.61+0.23 0.60+0.18 0.28+0.07 2.96+1.38 1.91+1.01 0.20+0.08
Rajowal 1 0-15 2.60 8.40 0.49 0.47 0.86 4.98 1.98 0.37 15-30 2.55 8.40 0.42 0.41 0.48 3.11 1.11 0.21 30-60 2.35 8.30 0.35 0.28 0.31 2.31 0.81 0.13
Rasulpur 11 0-15 0.91+0.43 8.06+0.24 0.81+0.13 0.49+0.19 0.30+0.12 4.12+1.83 2.03+0.71 0.50+0.22 15-30 1.03+0.37 8.10+0.20 0.55+0.22 0.34+0.13 0.20+0.08 3.00+1.31 1.60+0.54 0.36+0.18 30-60 1.12+0.38 8.16+0.18 0.37+0.19 0.18+0.10 0.11+0.06 2.06+1.20 0.87+0.41 0.25+0.16
64 Table 8 (Contd.) No.of Depth DTPA extractable HCl Soil Series ECe pHs O.M Sites (cm) Zn Cu Fe Mn B (dS m-1) (%) ……………………..(mg kg-1)………………………………………. Satgarh 1 0-15 6.8 9 0.63 0.78 0.76 6.2 1.6 0.86 15-30 7.4 9.1 0.42 0.44 0.48 4.81 1.09 0.62 30-60 8.1 9.2 0.21 0.3 0.12 3 0.52 0.55
Shah pur 1 0-15 1.08 8.35 0.84 1.29 0.72 7.65 2.65 0.80 15-30 1.25 8.40 0.42 0.81 0.47 5.13 1.74 0.58 30-60 1.53 8.40 0.21 0.23 0.27 3.60 1.27 0.41
Shahdara 1 0-15 2.32 8.10 0.77 0.92 0.48 5.94 2.49 0.32 15-30 2.60 8.20 0.63 0.59 0.31 4.51 1.70 0.19 30-60 2.60 8.20 0.42 0.34 0.12 3.36 0.88 0.10
Sindhelianwali 1 0-15 4.20 8.50 0.77 0.48 0.62 4.20 1.98 0.77 15-30 5.30 8.60 0.56 0.26 0.40 2.76 1.05 0.65 30-60 5.7 8.6 0.21 0.19 0.21 1.85 0.49 0.58
Sodhra 1 0-15 3.1 8.4 0.56 0.36 0.21 3.31 0.82 0.27 15-30 3.7 8.5 0.42 0.21 0.11 2.04 0.4 0.22 30-60 3.8 8.5 0.21 0.11 0.08 1.77 0.1 0.06
Sultanpur 9 0-15 1.10+0.61 7.93+0.23 0.89+0.19 0.71+0.40 0.67+0.19 5.47+2.25 3.18+1.04 0.57+0.20 15-30 1.11+0.41 7.96+0.16 0.68+0.27 0.49+0.29 0.47+0.21 4.01+1.84 2.22+0.62 0.44+0.21 30-60 1.13+0.44 7.99+0.22 0.48+0.24 0.32+0.18 0.27+0.14 2.51+1.20 1.33+0.50 0.29+0.17
65 Table 9: Soil series wise distribution of micronutrient deficiencies in surface soils in Sargodha district (rabi) ………..…...DTPA extractable……………….. HCl No.of Soil Series Sub Group Zn Cu Fe Mn B sites ……………………………..Deficient sites (%)………………………………………. Adil Pur Sodic Haplocambids 1 Nil Nil 1(100%) Nil Nil
Bagh Fluventic Haplocambids 1 1(100%) Nil 1(100%) Nil 1(100%)
Bhalwal Typic Calciargids 18 7(38%) Nil 6(33%) Nil 2(11%)
Gajiana Typic Natragids 2 1(50%) Nil 2(100%) 1(50%) 1(50%)
Gandhara Typic Natragids 3 2(67%) Nil 2(67%) Nil Nil
Hafizabad Typic Calciargids 26 11(42%) Nil 13(50%) Nil 6(23%)
Jhakkar Sodic Haplocambids 1 Nil Nil 1(100%) Nil Nil
Khair Typic Torrifluvents 1 1(100%) Nil Nil Nil 1(100%)
Khudian Fluventic Haplocambids 2 1(50%) Nil Nil Nil 2(100%)
Miani Fluventic Haplocambids 6 1(17%) Nil 1(17%) Nil 4(67%)
Rajowal Typic Torrifluvents 1 1(100%) Nil Nil Nil 1(100%)
66 Table 9 (contd.) ………..…...DTPA extractable……………….. HCl No.of Soil Series Sub Group Zn Cu Fe Mn B sites ……………………………..Deficient sites (%)……………………………………….
Rasulpur Typic Haplocambids 11 8(72%) 1(9%) 8(72%) Nil 3(27%)
Satghara Sodic Haplocambids 1 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Shahdara Typic Torrifluvents 1 Nil Nil Nil Nil 1(100%)
Shahpur Typic Haplocambids 1 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Sindhelianwali Sodic Haplocambids 1 1(100%) Nil 1(100%) Nil Nil
Sodhra Typic Torrifluvents 1 1(100%) Nil 1(100%) Nil 1(100%)
Sultanpur Fluventic Haplocambids 9 5(55%) Nil 4(44%) Nil 3(33%)
67 Table 10: Correlation coefficient (r values) between soil micronutrients and various soil characteristics of Sargodha district in rabi Soil characteristics & Soil micronutrient contents (mg kg-1) micronutrient Zn Cu Fe Mn B contents Cu (mg kg-1) 0.48
Fe // 0.37 0.32
Mn // 0.50 0.41 0.41
B // 0.31 0.30 0.35 0.33 pH -0.19 -0.12 -0.11 -0.30 0.01
Organic Matter (%) 0.53 0.46 0.45 0.50 0.39
EC (dS m-1) -0.13 -0.08 -0.17 -0.29 0.02
SAR -0.17 -0.04 -0.19 -0.31 0.02
68 DTPA- extractable Zn contents were higher in the topsoils and decreased with soil depth.
Our results are in agreement with Chahal et al. (2005) and Buri et al. (2000) who reported that DTPA Zn generally decreased with increase in soil depth. It may be due to high organic matter due to high microbial activity and/or supplementary chemical fertilization in surface soil (Sharma et al., 2004). This high accumulation of DTPA-Zn in surface soil could result from biomining and turnover by plant residues (Sharma et al., 2000). It may to be due to concentrating effect and/or cycling of perennial plants on these layers of soils. The leaching of micronutrients from surface horizons appeared to be minimal. It may be due to their limited downward movement because of low rainfall and rapid decomposition of organic matter because of hot dry summer (Sharma et al., 1999). It is amply surmised from available literature that subsurface soil Zn deficiency was a critical problem in Zn-deficient area and could not be solved only by fertilization as Zn remained in surface soil when applied to soil surface (Grewal and Graham, 1999).
Similarly, Nable and Webb (1993) reported that Zn supply to the topsoil could not replace the need for Zn in sub-soil in order to achieve maximum growth of wheat. Low
Zn levels in sub-soils could also restrict sub-soil water extraction (Nable and Webb,
1993), which in semi arid cropping zones may be a more significant constraint to crop yield than the micronutrient deficiency.
In Pakistan and worldwide, low availability of Zn is one of the widest ranging micronutrient disorders for agriculture. In our country previous studies corroborated my findings and observed Zn deficiency in 78% fields of rapeseed mustard (Rashid, 1993),
61% of peanut (Rashid, 1994), and 59% of sorghum (Rashid et al., 1997). Besides this, in cotton wheat system of Punjab, 40% of cotton fields were deficient in Zn (Rashid and
69 Rafique, 1997). While in the Indian context, their findings substantiate our results who found that more than half of the agricultural soils were Zn deficient (Alloway, 2004), with as much as 69% of the wheat-growing soils (Rathore et al., 1980). Similarly, in arid soils of India, more than half of soil samples were deficient in DTPA-Zn (Sharma et al.,
1992). While Sharma et al. (1999) reported that 60% of the surface soil samples contained available Zn lower than critical level. Similarly Gupta et al. (2000) observed
that 45 % soils of Madhya Pradesh were deficient in plant available Zn. While Sharma et
al. (2002) also reported that out of 600 surface soil samples from Entisols of Punjab
(India) about 47% were Zn deficient and were expected to response to Zn fertilization.
Global studies are also in line with our findings and they recorded Zn deficiency in half
of the soil samples of 25 countries (Graham, 1991). Similarly, Sillanpaa, (1990)
examined 190 soil samples from 15 countries and observed that about half of these
samples were low in Zn. According to White and Zasoski (1999), the extent of Zn
deficiency in soils is comparable with the extent of NPK deficiencies in many countries.
In the northern central plains of west Java (Indonesia), 29% of the soils were found to be
Zn deficient (Seopardi, 1982). In China, about 33% of that country’s vast area was Zn
deficient (Liu Zheng, 1991). In Turkey, Zn deficiency is also the most widespread
micronutrient deficiency in soils and crops. EyuEpoglu et al. (1994) revealed that half of
the arable soils in Turkey were Zn deficient on the basis of 1511 soil samples collected
from all over the country.
The low availability of Zn to roots of plant rather than low total Zn content in
soils is the main cause of this widespread Zn deficiency in soils. This limited availability
of Zn to plant roots is because of alkaline pH, low organic matter and coarse texture of
70 soil (Table 4, 8; Appendix 4, 5) (Alloway, 2004; Cakmak, 2004). Due to prevailing arid and semi arid conditions, there is limited contribution of soil organic matter towards available pools of micronutrients. Furthermore, the use of only NPK fertilizers for high yielding varieties and limited application of farmyard manures has further aggravated this problem of depletion of soil micronutrients (Sharma et al., 2004).
4.1.2. Zinc status of fodder crops
4.1.2.1 Zinc status of kharif fodder crops grown at Sargodha district
Sorghum as a green forage is very popular in all the provinces of Pakistan. In the present study, Zn concentrations in sorghum crop across the district Sargodha ranged from 26 to 86 with a mean value of 50 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix 6). In considering 40 mg kg-1 as threshold Zn concentration required for healthy plant growth of sorghum
(Reuter et al., 1997), 31% plant suffered with Zn deficiency (Table 11; Appendix 6).
Pearl millet traditionally is mainly confined to low fertile water deficit soils. In pearl- millet fodder crop, the Zn concentrations ranged from 30 to 93 with a mean value of 49 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix 6). On an average, only 29% plant suffered with Zn deficiency with a critical value (Reuter et al., 1991) of 40 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix
6). Maize as a fodder crop is a successfully grown during kharif and Zaid season. Zinc concentrations in maize fodder crop of Sargodha district were 55 to 56 with a mean of
55.5 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix 6). In considering 20 mg kg-1 Zn as critical value required for healthy plant growth (Jones et al., 1991), no plant suffered with Zn deficiency (Table 11; Appendix 6).
71 Table 11: Micronutrient contents on dry weight basis in the kharif fodders of Sargodha Fodder No. of Range Mean Nutrient Deficient Crop Sites/Samples (mg kg-1) (mg kg-1) Zn 40 mg kg-1* P. Millet 28 30-93 49+16 8 (29%) ** 40 mg kg-1* Sorghum 49 26-86 50+16 15 (31%) ** 20 mg kg-1* Lucerne 8 33-88 55+18 Nil** 20 mg kg-1* Maize 2 55-56 55.5+1 Nil** Cu 5 mg kg-1* P. Millet 28 8-50 27+12 Nil ** 8 mg kg-1* Sorghum 49 14-69 32+11 Nil** 7 mg kg-1* Lucerne 8 21-52 33+11 Nil** 5 mg kg-1* Maize 2 34-43 38+6 Nil** Fe 50 mg kg-1* P. Millet 28 80-485 213+93 Nil ** 160 mg kg-1* Sorghum 49 99-451 217+68 5 (10%) ** 30 mg kg-1* Lucerne 8 84-315 217+70 Nil** 50 mg kg-1* Maize 2 115-386 250+191 Nil** Mn 25 mg kg-1* P. Millet 28 32-90 61+15 Nil** 40 mg kg-1* Sorghum 49 25-95 53+17 7 (14%) ** 30 mg kg-1* Lucerne 8 32-90 53+18 Nil** 20 mg kg-1* Maize 2 42-56 49+10 Nil** B 10 mg kg-1* P. Millet 28 18-68 38+13 Nil ** 4 mg kg-1* Sorghum 49 20-78 48+14 Nil** 30 mg kg-1* Lucerne 8 31-82 48+20 Nil** 5 mg kg-1* Maize 2 46-48 47+1 Nil** * Critical level of nutrients **Number and %age of sites falling in that range
72 Lucerne is a prominent leguminous fodder crop that is mostly grown in limited water
supply areas. The Zn concentration in lucerene crop was 33 to 88 with a mean of 55 mg
kg-1 in kharif (Table 11; Appendix 6). With a critical value of 20 mg kg-1 (Jones et al.,
1991), there was no Zn deficiency in lucerne crop (Table 11; Appendix 6). The Zn contents of plant (fodder) samples have positive correlation (0.73) with DTPA-Zn contents of soils in summer (Table 12).
4.1.2.2 Zinc status of rabi fodder crops grown at Sargodha district
Berseem is the valuable legume forage crop of rabi season. The Zn concentration
in this crop was 23 to 93 with a mean of 47 mg kg-1 (Table 13; Appendix 7). In
considering 15 mg kg-1 as threshold Zn concentration required for normal healthy plant
(Jones et al., 1991), there was no Zn deficiency in berseem fodder crop (Table 13;
Appendix 7). Oat is another most important cereal used as forage crops during rabi
season. Zinc concentration in oat crop was 26 to 74 with a mean of 44 mg kg-1 (Table 13;
Appendix 7). With a critical value of 15 mg kg-1 (Jones et al., 1991), there was no Zn
deficiency in oat crop (Table 13; Appendix 7). The Zn concentration in lucerene crop was
27 to 88 with a mean of 45 mg kg-1 during rabi season (Table 13; Appendix 7). With a
critical value of 20 mg kg-1 (Jones et al., 1991), there was no Zn deficiency in lucerne
crop (Table 13; Appendix 7). The Zn contents of plant (fodder) samples have positive
correlation (0.60) with DTPA-Zn contents of soils in winter (Table 14).
This is in agreement with findings of Rehman and Cox (1988) and Rafique et al.
(2006), who reported a significant positive correlation between DTPA soil Zn and plant
Zn. In contrast, Mc Dowell et al. (1982) have found that plant Zn had negative correlation
(-0.113) with soil Zn.
73 Table 12: Correlation coefficient (r values) between soil and kharif (summer) plant micronutrients in Sargodha district Plant micronutrient Soil micronutrient contents (mg kg-1) contents (mg kg-1) Zn Cu Mn Fe B
Zn 0.73 0.18 0.33 0.22 -0.12
Cu 0.14 0.66 0.12 0.33 0.10
Mn 0.28 0.22 0.64 0.21 0.12
Fe 0.15 0.37 0.24 0.71 0.16
B 0.20 0.22 0.16 0.24 0.67
74 Table 13: Micronutrient contents on dry weight basis in the rabi fodders of Sargodha Fodder No. of Nutrient Range Mean Deficient Crop Sites/Samples …...mg kg-1…... …...mg kg-1…... Zn 15 mg kg-1 * Berseem 57 23-93 47+16 Nil ** 20 mg kg-1 * Lucerne 13 27-88 45+16 Nil** 15 mg kg-1 * Oat 17 26-74 44+13 Nil** Cu 5 mg kg-1 * Berseem 57 10-56 30+12 Nil ** 7 mg kg-1 * Lucerne 13 14-49 33+10 Nil** 5 mg kg-1 Oat 17 11-49 31+11 Nil** Fe 50 mg kg-1 * Berseem 57 133-594 310+113 Nil ** 30 mg kg-1 * Lucerne 13 185-506 267+94 Nil** 40 mg kg-1 Oat 17 115-552 257+121 Nil** Mn 25 mg kg-1 * Berseem 57 18-98 59+17 1 (2%) ** 30 mg kg-1 * Lucerne 13 22-67 46+13 2 (15%) ** 25 mg kg-1 Oat 17 25-86 59+16 1 (6%) ** B 25 mg kg-1 * Berseem 57 13 -92 53+16 1(2%) ** 30 mg kg-1 * Lucerne 13 36-88 64+16 Nil** 20 mg kg-1 Oat 17 31-77 51+14 Nil
* Critical level of nutrients **Number and %age of sites falling in that range
75 Table 14: Correlation coefficient (r values) between soil and rabi (winter) plant micronutrients in Sargodha district Plant micronutrient Soil micronutrient contents (mg kg-1) contents (mg kg-1) Zn Cu Mn Fe B
Zn 0.60 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.05
Cu 0.09 0.74 0.12 0.01 0.16
Mn 0.38 0.09 0.72 0.18 0.21
Fe 0.07 0.04 0.29 0.76 0.11
B 0.38 0.04 0.22 0.27 0.76
76 Zinc concentration in fodder crops of district Sargodha revealed deficiency of this
micronutrient to a very low magnitude. However, in contrast Siddique et al. (1994) reported 62% Zn deficiency in citrus leaves of Sargodha district. Similarly there was 90%
Zn deficiency in citrus leaves of Sargodha, Faisalabad and Sahiwal districts (Rashid et
al., 1991).
4.1.3. Copper status of soils
Copper participates in carbohydrate and protein metabolism and nitrogen fixation
(Rashid, 1996b). It also involves in photosynthesis, respiration, lignifications and detoxification of superoxide radicals (Hall and Williams, 2003).
4.1.3.1 Copper status in soils of kharif fodders grown at Sargodha district
In summer, the DTPA-extractable soil Cu ranged from 0.12 to 1.28 with a mean
of 0.66 mg kg-1 in surface, 0.09 to 0.94 with a mean of 0.44 mg kg-1 in mid surface, and
0.04 to 0.81 with a mean of 0.23 mg kg-1 in sub-surface (Table 3; Appendix 1).The
surface soil DTPA-extractable Cu content was highest (1.17 mg kg-1) in Bagh series and
lowest (0.28 mg kg-1) in Khair series (Table 4) in samples taken in summer. Only
Rasulpur soil series exhibited Cu (9%) deficiency (Table 5). In considering 0.20 mg kg-1 as a critical level for DTPA –Cu in soil for plant growth (Rashid 1996a), only 1.0 % soil surface samples suffered from Cu deficiency (0.2 mg kg-1) and 99.0 % are adequate
(0.2 mg kg-1) in DTPA –Cu (Table 3; Appendix 1). In this study, DTPA-Cu correlated positively with DTPA-Fe (0.62), dilute HCl B (0.40) and DTPA-Mn (0.51) contents in soils for summer (Table 6).
77 4.1.3.2 Copper status in soils of rabi fodders grown at Sargodha district
In winter, surface soil Cu (0-15cm) was 0.15 to 1.40 with a mean of 0.61 mg kg-1, while subsoil (15-30 cm) was 0.10 to 0.89 with a mean of 0.41 mg kg-1, and subsoil (30-
60 cm) was 0.04 to 0.62 with a mean of 0.23 mg kg-1 (Table 7; Appendix 2). The surface
soil DTPA-extractable Cu content was highest (1.07 mg kg-1) in Bagh series and lowest
(0.21 mg kg-1) in Sodhra series (Table 8) in samples taken in winter. Similarly, only
Rasulpur soil series exhibited Cu deficiency (9%) in winter (Table 9). In considering 0.20
mg kg-1 as a critical level for DTPA –Cu in soil for plant growth (Rashid 1996a), only 1.0
% soil surface samples suffered from Cu deficiency (0.2 mg kg-1) and 99.0 % are
adequate (0.2 mg kg-1) in DTPA –Cu (Table 7; Appendix 2). In this study, DTPA-Cu
correlated positively with DTPA-Fe (0.32), dilute HCl B (0.30) and DTPA-Mn (0.41)
contents in soils for both summer and winter, respectively (Table 10). The results from
this study are in agreement with those obtained by Omoregie and Oshney, (2002) who
observed strong positive correlation between plant available Mn and Cu in soils.
Copper deficiency is more prevalent in sub surface soil than topsoil layers, mostly due to slightly low organic matter content in mid and subsurface soils (Table 15, 16). The content of Cu was higher in surface soil and decreased with depth (Chattopadhyay et al.,
1996; Sharma et al., 2002). This could be due to accumulation of biomass in the surface soils (Sharma et al., 2000; 2002; 2004).
In Pakistan, previous studies also substantiate our results that they observed its deficiency in only 1-3 % of cultivated fields of Pakistan (NFDC, 1998). In contrast,
Siddique et al. (1994) found a widespread Cu deficiency in citrus orchards of Sargodha.
However, another study of nutrient indexation indicated only 5% as Cu deficient in
78 Table 15: Soil properties in the field of kharif fodder in Sargodha district
Soil Parameter Soil Depth (cm) Range Mean pHs 0-15 7.70-9.10 8.16+ 0.26 15-30 7.80-9.30 8.25+ 0.24 30-60 7.80-9.30 8.29+ 0.24 -1 ECe (dS m ) 0-15 0.25-7.20 1.79+ 1.43 15-30 0.30-8.85 1.98+ 1.73 30-60 0.35-9.98 2.14+ 1.94 Organic matter (%) 0-15 0.35-1.47 0.86+ 0.24 15-30 0.21-1.05 0.59+ 0.22 30-60 0.14-0.84 0.35+ 0.16 SAR 0-15 0.64-21.35 4.97+ 4.4 15-30 0.70-24.84 5.52+ 5.0 30-60 0.57-26.73 5.99+ 5.5
Table 16: Soil properties in the field of rabi fodder in Sargodha district
Soil Parameter Soil Depth (cm) Range Mean pHs 0-15 7.70-9.00 8.11+ 0.25 15-30 7.70-9.10 8.15+ 0.25 30-60 7.65-9.20 8.18+ 0.28 -1 ECe (dS m ) 0-15 0.40-6.90 1.71+ 1.39 15-30 0.35-7.80 1.86+ 1.60 30-60 0.27-8.35 1.97+ 1.79 Organic matter (%) 0-15 0.42-1.54 0.96+ 0.23 15-30 0.28-1.40 0.72+ 0.24 30-60 0.14-1.05 0.47+ 0.23 SAR 0-15 0.27-20.97 4.22+ 3.43 15-30 0.49-21.54 4.57+ 3.53 30-60 0.52-23.52 4.94+ 4.18
79 district Sargodha, Faisalabad and Sahiwal (Rashid et al., 1991). While in India surveys
conduced from time to time suggested that there is no cu deficiency in most of the soils
of kerala (Patel and Singh, 1995). Likewise, Sharma, et al. (2004) reported that only 10% samples were deficient in Ballowal series (India). Similar results were on put forward by
Sharma et al. (1999) who also found that only 10% of the samples were deficient in Cu.
None of the soil samples were found to be deficient in soils of Madhya Pradesh, India
(Gupta et al., 2000). Even on a global scale, our results are in agreement with Salisbury and Ross, (1992) who reported that cu deficiency is quite rare because plants need it in very small quantities.
Thus, in Pakistani soils Cu deficiency is not a problem in these fields as compared to other micronutrients (Fe, Zn, and B). The presence of higher amount of Cu in these soils indicated that source of alluvium was rich in Cu bearing minerals.
4.1.4. Copper status of fodder crops
4.1.4.1 Copper status of kharif fodder crops
There is wide adaptability of variability Sorghum as a fodder due to its drought
withstanding ability, quick growth, high dry matter yield, and high biomass
accumulation. In Sargodha district, Cu concentrations in sorghum fodder were 14 to 69
with a mean of 32 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix 6). In considering 8 mg kg-1 Cu as
critical value required for healthy plant growth (Jones et al., 1991), no plant suffered with
Cu deficiency (Table 11; Appendix 6). In arid and semi arid areas, pearl millet is an
essential component of farming system. Its reasonable harvests are assured due to its
wide adaptability to grow in a rigorous climate. In pearl-millet fodder crop, the Cu
concentrations ranged from 8 to 50 with a mean value of 27 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix
80 6). On an average, no plant suffered with Cu deficiency with a critical value of 5 mg kg-1
(Deb and Sakal, 2002) for normal growth of plant (Table 11; Appendix 6). Copper
concentrations in maize fodder crops across the district Sargodha were 34 to 43 with a
mean of 38 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix 6). Copper content of 5 mg kg-1 in plants was
considered necessary for optimum crop growth (Jones et al., 1991), with this criterion no
maize plant suffered with Cu deficiency (Table 11; Appendix 6). During kharif season,
the Cu concentration in lucerene crop was 21 to 52 with a mean of 33 mg kg-1 (Table 11;
Appendix 6). With a critical value of 7 mg kg-1 (Jones et al., 1991), no lucerene plant was
suffered with Cu deficiency (Table 11; Appendix 6). In this study, Cu contents of plants
(fodder crops) have positive correlation (0.66) with soil DTPA-Cu contents in summer
(Table 12).
4.1.4.2 Copper status of rabi fodder crops
Similarly during rabi season, the Cu concentration in lucerene crop was 14 to 49
with a mean of 33 mg kg-1 (Table 13; Appendix 7). With a critical value of 7 mg kg-1
(Jones et al., 1991), no lucerene sample was suffered with Cu deficiency (Table 13;
Appendix 7). Berseem fodder is most acceptable, palatable and digestible fodder for cattle especially for dairy animals. The Cu concentration in berseem crop was 10 to 56 with a mean of 30 mg kg-1 (Table 13; Appendix 7). In considering 5 mg kg-1 as threshold
Cu concentration required for normal healthy growth of berseem (Jones et al., 1991),
there was no sample suffered with Cu deficiency (Table 13; Appendix 7). As for as oat
fodder is concerned, it provides soft and palatable fodder. The Cu concentration in oat
crop was 11 to 49 with a mean of 31 mg kg-1 (Table 13; Appendix 7). With a critical
value of 5 mg kg-1 (Jones et al., 1991) for growth of healthy plant, there was no Cu
81 deficiency in oat crop (Table 13; Appendix 7). In this study, Cu contents of plants (fodder
crops) have positive correlation (0.74) with soil DTPA-Cu contents in winter (Table 14).
So plant analysis also did not reveal any significant Cu deficiency. Plant analysis data were in agreement with the soil analysis results as it revealed Cu deficiency of very low magnitude. In Pakistan, our results are substantiated by previous findings that there is no deficiency in forages of punjab (Khan et al., 2006) citrus and apple leaves of Khyber-
Pakhtunkhaw (Rehman, 1990), only 1% deficiency in cotton leaves in Punjab (Rashid and Rafique, 1997), 5% citrus leaves of Sargodha (Rashid et al., 1991), 2% in wheat plants, 1% in rapeseed-mustard and 6% in sorghum plants in rainfed potohar plateau
(Rashid and Qayyum, 1991; Rashid, 1993). Our findings are also in line with Gowda et al. (2004) who reported that green fodders, such as cultivated fodders, leguminous fodders and mixed local grasses contained an adequate level of Cu.
4.1.5. Iron status of soils
Iron plays an important role in metabolic processes (Romeheld and Marschner,
1991), photosynthesis, sulphate reduction, and nitrogen assimilation (Rashid, 1994).
4.1.5.1 Iron status in soils of kharif fodders grown at Sargodha district
The surveyed soil analysis indicated that in summer, DTPA extractable Fe ranged
from 1.14 to 8.71with a mean of 4.48 mg kg-1 in surface soil layer, from 0.98 to 6.50 with
a mean of 3.00 mg kg-1 in mid surface (15-30 cm), and from 0.50 to 3.98 with a mean of
1.76 mg kg-1 in sub surface layers (30-60 cm) (Table 3; Appendix 1). In summer only
four soil series, i.e., Satgarha, Shahpur, Shahdara, and Khair exhibited no deficiency,
while soils of other series showed defiencies (Table 5).
82 With a critical level of 4.50 mg kg-1 for available DTPA-Fe in soil (Lindsay and
Norvell, 1978), 53% soil surface samples were deficient and remaining 47% were
adequate in Fe for summer (Table 3; Appendix 1). In this study, plant available DTPA-Fe correlated positively with dilute HCl B (0.46) and DTPA Mn (0.59) contents in soils for summer (Table 6).
4.1.5.1 Iron status in soils of rabi fodders grown at Sargodha district
While in winter, DTPA extractable Fe ranged from 1.89 to 13.22 with a mean of
5.61 mg kg-1 in surface soil layer, from 1.16 to 10.81 with a mean of 4.08 mg kg-1 in mid
surface (15-30 cm), and from 0.71 to 8.52 with a mean of 2.71 mg kg-1 in sub surface
layers (30-60 cm) (Table 7; Appendix 2). Simialrly only six soil series, i.e., Satgarha,
Shahpur, Shahdara, Rajowal, Khair and Khudian exhibited no deficiency, while soils of other series showed defiencies in winter (Table 9). With a critical level of 4.50 mg kg-1 for available DTPA-Fe in soil (Lindsay and Norvell, 1978), 47% soil surface were deficient and 53% soil samples were adequate ( 4.50 mg kg-1) in DTPA –Fe for summer
(Table 7; Appendix 2). In this study, plant available DTPA-Fe correlated positively with
dilute HCl B (0.35) and DTPA Mn (0.41) contents in soils for winter (Table 10).
Iron is deficient in lower depth soil than topsoil layers, mostly due to slightly low
organic matter content (Table 15, 16). Various researchers reported that DTPA Fe
decrease with depth (Singh and Singh, 1983; Jalali et al., 1989; Saini et al., 1994; Sharma
et al., 1992; 1999; 2002; 2005; 2009). In Pakistan context, our findings are in line with
previous researchers who observed 85% Fe deficiency in citrus orchards of Sargodha,
Sahiwal and Faisalabad (Rashid et al., 1991); 37% in citrus orchards of Sargodha
(Siddique et al., 1994); and 50% in groundnut of rainfed potohar plateau (Rashid et al.,
83 1997a). In India, considering 4.5 mg kg-1 Fe as critical level for deficiency, 67, 25 and
34% of tested soil samples were Fe deficient by Sharma et al. (1992; 1999; 2002), respectively. While Sharma et al. (2004) reported a limited deficiency in inceptisols of
Punjab, India. Similar results were also accorded by Halina, (2000) who reported that analyzed soils contain insufficient amounts of plant available Fe. Iron may be exists either in the oxidized or reduced form in response to soil moisture. Consequently, oxidized form of Fe (Fe+3) which is mostly unavailable to plants are dominant in arid and semi arid soils (Brown, 1977). From above discussion, it is concluded that Fe disorder would be a serious for calcareous and alkaline soils (Mengel et al., 2001). In fact, one third of the cultivated soils of world are calcareous and rated as Fe deficient (Mori,
1999). In contrast, Soummare et al. (2003) reported that in tropical soils, the readily plant available Fe is higher than the critical level for the growth and development of many plants.
4.1.6. Iron status of fodder crops
4.1.6.1 Iron status of kharif fodder crops
Sorghum amongst the kharif crops occupies more than half of the total cultivated fodder cropped area of Pakistan. Iron concentration in sorghum fodder of sampled area was 99 to 451 with a mean of 217 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix 6). In considering 160 mg kg-1 Fe as critical value required for healthy plant growth (Jones et al., 1991), 10% plant suffered with Fe deficiency (Table 11; Appendix 6). In pearl-millet fodder crop, the
Fe concentrations ranged from 80 to 485 with a mean value of 213 mg kg-1 (Table 11;
Appendix 6). On an average, no plant suffered with Fe deficiency with a critical value of
50 mg kg-1 (Deb and Sakal, 2002) for normal plant growth (Table 11; Appendix 6). Iron
84 concentrations in maize fodder crops across the district Sargodha were 115 to 386 with a
mean of 250 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix 6). With a critical value of 50 mg kg-1 (Jones et
al., 1991), there was no sample suffered with Fe deficiency (Table 11; Appendix 6).
The Fe concentration during kharif in lucerene crop was 84 to 315 mg kg-1 with a
mean of 217 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix 6). With a critical value of 30 mg kg-1 (Jones
et al., 1991), there was no Fe deficiency in lucerene (Table 11; Appendix 6). While Fe
contents of plants have positive correlation (0.71) with soil DTPA-Fe contents in summer
(Table 12).
4.1.6.2 Iron status of rabi fodder crops
As for as berseem fodder is concerned, it provides fodder with high tonnage
throughout whole rabi season in 5 - 6 cuts. The Fe concentration in this crop was 133 to
594 with a mean of 310 mg kg-1 (Table 13; Appendix 7). In considering 50 mg kg-1 as threshold Fe concentration required for normal healthy plant (Jones et al., 1991), there was no sample suffered with Fe deficiency (Table13; Appendix 7). Likewise, the Fe concentration in oat crop was 115 to 552 with a mean of 257 mg kg-1 (Table 13;
Appendix 7). With a critical value of 40 mg kg-1 (Jones et al., 1991) for growth of healthy oat crop, there was no Fe deficiency (Table 13; Appendix 7). Further, during rabi season the Fe concentration in lucerene crop was 185 to 506 with a mean 267 mg kg-1 (Table 13;
Appendix 7). With a critical value of 30 mg kg-1 (Jones et al., 1991), there was no Fe
deficiency in lucerene (Table 13; Appendix 7). While Fe contents of plants have positive
correlation (0.76) with soil DTPA-Fe contents in winter (Table 14).
The results showed that there is a very low magnitude of Fe deficiency in plants.
In Pakistan, various researchers corroborate our findings who reported that there is no Fe
85 deficiency in citrus (Khattak, 1994) and apple leaves (Rehman, 1990). Similarly in rainfed potohar plateau, there is no Fe deficiency in wheat (Rashid, 1993) and only 3% in sorghum plants (Rashid and Qayyum, 1991). In addition to this, there was no deficiency of Fe in cotton leaves grown in Punjab province (Rashid and Rafique, 1997).
However, the analytical data of plants contradicted soil data. It is worth considering that plant analysis has its limitations. The analysis for total Fe is not a reliable tool for determining Fe nutritional status of the plants. Rather, fresh plant tissues must be analyzed for ferrous (Fe2+) content by using suitable extraction procedures.
While in Pakistan, such data is only limited to peanut (Rashid, et al., 1997c), apple
(Stallen et al, 1988), and chickpea (Rashid and Din, 1992). Therefore, these
interpretations may be taken as a guideline and the soil analytical data must be considered in conjunction with plant analysis for Fe 2+ content. Further plant availability of Fe is also
difficult to assess accurately with a soil test (McFarlane, 1999). In addition, soil tests are
not likely to predict what is available for plant uptake because plants have an
extraordinary capacity to modify the forms and availabilty of Fe in the rhizosphere
(Marschner, 1995). Iron deficient leaves often contain more Fe as compare to green
leaves. Thus considerable amount of Fe inside plant tissue is also unavailable to plants
for metabolic use (Tandon, 1995). This was in line with Rashid and Din (1992) who
reported that Fe concentration in two chickpea cultivars had more Fe concentration (800
and 1100 mg kg-1) than in green plant tissue (700 and 1000 mg kg-1). Similarly, Jeon et
al. 1986 also observed on calcareous soils of Taiwan that total Fe content of peanut
leaves did not always aid in diagnosing deficiency of Fe. To overcome this poblem,
86 Katyal and Sharma (1980) have emaphsized for plant analysis of physiologically active
fraction of Fe (Fe+2) instead of total Fe.
4.1.7. Manganese status of soils
Manganese is involved in CO2 assimilation and N metabolism (Mengel and
Kirkby, 1987). But it’s most important role is oxidation of water and Oxygen evolution in photosynthesis (Salisbury and Ross, 1992).
4.1.7.1 Manganese status in soils of kharif fodders grown at Sargodha district
In summer, DTPA-extractable soil Mn ranged from 0.70 to 5.50 mg kg-1 with a
mean of 2.66 mg kg-1 in surface soil (0-15cm), while it ranged from 0.41 to 4.36 mg kg-1 with a mean of 1.71 mg kg-1 in mid surface (15-30 cm), and it ranged from 0.21 to 3.60
mg kg-1 with a mean of 0.97 mg kg-1 in sub surface soil layers (30-60 cm) (Table 3;
Appendix 1). Only Bhalwal, Gajiana and Sultanpur soil series exhibited Mn deficiency
(9%) in summer (Table 5).
With a critical level of 1.0 mg kg-1 (Appendix 3) for available DTPA-Mn in soil
(Lindsay and Norvell, 1978), only 3, 38 and 59% soil surface samples were deficient (<
1.0 mg kg-1), marginal (1.0 - 2.0 mg kg-1) and adequate ( 2.0 mg kg-1) , respectively
(Table 3; Appendix 1). In this study, the correlation coefficient showed the positive correlation between plant available DTPA Mn and available B (0.35) contents in soils for summer (Table 6).
4.1.7.2 Manganese status in soils of rabi fodders grown at Sargodha district
While in winter 2007, surface soil Mn (0-15cm) was 0.82 to 7.70 mg kg-1 and
mean 2.92 mg kg-1, while subsoil (15-30 cm) was 0.40 to 5.10 mg kg-1 and mean 2.01 mg kg-1, and subsoil (30-60 cm) 0.10 to 3.81 mg kg-1 and mean 1.22 mg kg-1 (Table 7;
87 Appendix 2). Further, only Gajiana soil series exhibited Mn deficiency in winter (Table
9).
Further, with a critical level of 1.0 mg kg-1 (Appendix 3) for available DTPA-Mn
in soil (Lindsay and Norvell, 1978) 2, 29 and 69% soil surface samples were deficient (<
0.1 mg kg-1) , marginal (1.0 - 2.0 mg kg-1) and adequate ( 2.0 mg kg-1) in Mn,
respectively (Table 7; Appendix 2). In this study, the correlation coefficient showed the
positive correlation between plant available DTPA Mn and available B (0.33) contents in
soils for winter (Table 10).
Manganese is also deficient in mid and sub surface soil than topsoil layers, mostly
due to low organic matter content (Table 15, 16; Appendix 4, 5). The topsoil layers have
relatively higher DTPA-extractable values due to accretion of organic matter by
biological process with crop production (Sharma et al., 2002). Our results are in agreement with Sharma et al. (2009) who observed that subsurface horizons were poor with respect to DTPA- extractable Mn than the surface horizons.
The soil analysis revealed that Mn deficiency is not a major problem in district
Sargodha. More or less similar results were reported by Sharma et al. (2002) who observed only <1% soil samples of psamments were deficient and Sharma et al. (1992) reported only 3% of soil samples as Mn deficient. However, in contrast, Nayyar et al.
(1985) reported a widespread deficiency of Mn on sandy soils of India.
The results in this study have shown that despite high soil pH, most of the soils of
Sargodha contain adequate level of available Mn. Research by Pakistani scientists also substantiated our findings and they observed Mn deficiency to a tune of only 2% in cotton fields of Punjab and rainfed crop fields in potohar and no deficiency in the soils of
88 NWFP, Sindh and Balochistan (NFDC, 1998). The only exceptions are two scientific
reports of Khattak (1994) and Siddique et al. (1994) who observed widespread Mn
deficiency in 27% citrus orchards of Sargodha and 60% of NWFP, respectively. In India,
earlier workers (Singh and Subba Rao, 1995) reported that only 4% of soils were
deficient in Mn. While Sharma et al. (1999) and Soumare et al. (2003) reported that none
of the soil samples was found to be deficient in Mn. Similar findings were also reported
by Wajih and Mustafa, (1992) in Saudi Arabia.
4.1.8. Manganese status of fodder crops
Manganese is essential for photosynthesis in all plants (Rutherford and Boussac,
2004).
4.1.8.1 Manganese status of kharif fodder crops
Manganese concentrations in sorghum crop across the district Sargodha ranged
from 25 to 95 with a mean value of 53 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix 6). In considering 40
mg kg-1 as threshold Mn concentration required for healthy plant growth (Jones et al.,
1991), 14% samples suffered with Mn deficiency (Table 11; Appendix 6). In pearl-millet
fodder crop, the Mn concentrations ranged from 32 to 90 with a mean value of 61 mg kg-1
(Table 11; Appendix 6). With a critical value of 25 mg kg-1 (Deb and Sakal, 2002), no
plant suffered with Mn deficiency (Table 11; Appendix 6). Manganese concentration in
maize fodder crops across the district Sargodha was 42 to 56 with a mean of 49 mg kg-1
(Table 11; Appendix 6). In considering 20 mg kg-1 Mn as critical value required for healthy plant growth (Jones et al., 1991), no plant suffered with Mn deficiency (Table 11;
Appendix 6).
89 During kharif season, the Mn concentration in lucerene crop was 32 to 90 with a
mean of 53 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix 6). With a critical value of 30 mg kg-1 (Jones et
al., 1991), there was no plant sample suffered with Mn deficiency (Table 11; Appendix
6). In this study, the Mn contents of plant (fodder) samples have positive correlation
(0.64) with plant available DTPA -Mn in summer (Table 12).
4.1.8.1 Manganese status of rabi fodder crops
During rabi season, the Mn concentration in lucerene crop was 22 to 67 with a
mean of 46 mg kg-1 (Table 13; Appendix 7). With a critical value of 30 mg kg-1 (Jones et
al., 1991), there were 15% samples suffered with Mn deficiency (Table 13; Appendix 7).
Berseem (Egyptian clover) is the main rabi fodder crop and the Mn concentration in this
crop was 18 to 98 with a mean of 59 mg kg-1 (Table 13; Appendix 7). In considering 25
mg kg-1 as threshold Mn concentration required for normal healthy plant (Jones et al.,
1991), there were only 2% samples suffered with Mn deficiency (Table 13; Appendix 7).
Similarly, the Mn concentration in oat crop was 25 to 86 with a mean of 59 mg kg-1
(Table 13; Appendix 7). With a critical value of 25 mg kg-1 (Jones et al., 1991) for
growth of healthy plant, there was 6% Mn deficiency in oat crop (Table 13; Appendix 7).
In this study, the Mn contents of plant (fodder) samples have positive correlation (0.72) with plant available DTPA -Mn in winter (Table 14).
However, in contrast, Omoregic and Oshney, (2002) have reported a negative correlation between DTPA-Mn content in soils and in plants. Further, Mn concentration
in fodder crops of district Sargodha revealed a deficiency of this micronutrient to a very
low magnitude. Similarly, a report of citrus leaves had narrated that only 4% citrus
90 orchards of Sargodha, Sahiwal and Faisalabad district suffer with Mn deficiency (Rashid
et al., 1991).
4.1.9. Boron status of soils
Boron is essential for development and normal growth of plants. Researchers has
greatly improved our knowledge that B participates in functions of cellular membrane
(Goldbach et al., 2001), anti-oxidative defensive systems (Cakmak and Romheld, 1997), plant hormone regulation, fruiting, seed formation (Rashid et al., 2000) and formation of cell wall (O’Neil et al., 2004).
4.1.9.1 Boron status in soils of kharif fodders grown at Sargodha district
In the present study, the results for B content of soils showed that in summer, the
surface soil HCl B was 0.16 to 1.30 with averaged 0.54 mg kg-1, mid surface soil B was
0.09 to 0.95 mg kg-1 with averaged 0.38 mg kg-1 and sub surface soil B was 0.03 to 0.71
mg kg-1 with averaged 0.24 mg kg-1 (Table 3; Appendix 1). In summer only six soil series, i.e., Satgarha, Shahpur, Sindhelianwali, Sodhra, Adilpur and Gandhra were sufficient, while soils of other series showed deficiency upto 100 percent (Table 5). For interpretation of the present data, a minimum HCl extractable B content of 0.45 mg kg-1 soil (Appendix 3) was considered necessary for optimum crop growth (Rafique et al.,
2003). Using this criterion 41% soil surface samples were deficient (<0.45 mg kg-1), 53%
soil samples were medium (0.45-1.0 mg kg-1) and 6% were adequate ( 1.0 mg kg-1) in soil B for summer (Table 3; Appendix 1).
4.1.9.2 Boron status in soils of rabi fodders grown at Sargodha district
While in winter 2007, it ranged from 0.10 to 1.67 with averaged 0.65 mg kg-1 in
surface soil, in sub soil (15-30 cm) its ranged from 0.07 to 1.45 mg kg-1 with averaged
91 0.49 mg kg-1and in sub soil (30-60 cm) it ranged from 0.03 to 1.07 mg kg -1 with averaged
0.32 mg kg-1 (Table 7; Appendix 2). In winter only six soil series, i.e., Satgarha, Shahpur,
Sindhelianwali, Jhakkar, Adilpur and Gandhra were sufficient, while soils of other series
showed deficiency upto 100 percent (Table 9). With a critical value of HCl-extractable B
content of 0.45 mg kg-1 in soil (Appendix 3), there were 30% soil surface samples deficient (<0.45 mg kg-1) , 55% soil samples were medium (0.45-1.0 mg kg-1) and 15%
were adequate ( 1.0 mg kg-1) in soil B for winter (Table 7; Appendix 2).
Alkaline pH, low organic matter and calcareousness are the main reasons for this
deficiency of soil B (Rashid et al., 2002; Havlin et al., 2005). Boron content was greater in surface soils than the mid surface and sub surface layers. Greater B in surface soils than sub surface soils is due to crop residues recycling (Table 3, 7). Wang et al. (1999) found that extractable B level on key soils of southeast China declined with depth in the soil. Our result is in line with Mandal and De (1993) who also reported that B contents decreased with soil depth. This is primarily due to presence of amorphous Fe and Al oxide contents of the sub surface soil layers and decrease in organic matter with soil depth (Sarkar et al., 2008b). However, the previous studies were confined to surface soils only. The roots of many crops may go in subsurface layers to derive their nutrient requirements from there. Thus it is very important to study the depth wise distribution of plant available B contents in the sub surface soils (Sarkar et al., 2008b).
In Pakistan, FAO global study on micronutrients corroborated our finding that out of 177 soil samples from 20 districts of the Punjab, about half samples were B deficient
(Sillanpa, 1982). Even on a worldwide, our findings are in agreement with results of
international researchers of many countries who have reported a B deficiency in 80
92 countries (Shorrocks, 1997). In Australia, cotton on alkaline soil was affected by B deficiency (Holloway et al., 2006). Similarly, about one third of soils are estimated to be
B deficient in India (Singh, 2006) and China (Zhang et al, 2006). While in Europe, high value crops were often treated with foliar sprays of B (Sinclair and Edwards, 2006). In other reports of India, the soils of a vast area of country suffered from B deficiency
(Mandal et al., 2004; and Sarkar et al., 2006). This local (Rashid et al., 2002; 2004) as well as international literature (Bell and Rerkasem, 1997; Shorrocks, 1997) established that B deficiency was increasing in Pakistan, and emphasized its effective management by diagnosis and delineation of B deficient areas and crops.
4.1.10. Boron status of fodder crops
4.1.10.1 Boron status of kharif fodder crops
In the present study, B concentration in sorghum fodder across the district
Sargodha was 20 to 78 with a mean of 48 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix 6). In considering
4 mg kg-1 B as critical value required for healthy plant growth (Jones et al., 1991), there
was no Zn deficiency in sorghum crop (Table 11; Appendix 6). In pearl-millet fodder
crop, the B concentrations ranged from 18 to 68 with a mean value of 38 mg kg-1 (Table
11; Appendix 6). Boron content of 10 mg kg-1 in plants was considered necessary for
optimum crop growth (Deb and Sakal, 2002). Using this criterion no plant sample was
deficient in B (Table 11; Appendix 6). Boron concentrations in maize fodder crops across
the district Sargodha were 46 to 48 with a mean of 47 mg kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix 6). In considering 5 mg kg-1 B as critical value required for healthy plant growth (Jones et al.,
1991), there was no Zn deficiency in maize fodder crop (Table 11; Appendix 6). During
kharif season, the B concentration in lucerene crop was 31 to 82 with a mean of 48 mg
93 kg-1 (Table 11; Appendix 6). With a critical value of 30 mg kg-1 (Jones et al., 1991), there was no Zn deficiency in lucerne crop (Table 11; Appendix 6). In this study, B contents of fodder crops have positive correlation with soil HCl-B contents (0.67) in summer (Table
12).
4.1.10.2 Boron status of rabi fodder crops
During rabi season, the B concentration in lucerene crop was 36 to 88 with a mean of 64 mg kg-1 (Table 13; Appendix 7). With a critical value of 30 mg kg-1 (Jones et
al., 1991), there was no sample that suffered with B deficiency (Table 13; Appendix 7).
Berseem (Egyptian clover) is one of the most important winter forage legumes in
Pakistan. The B concentration in this crop was 13 to 92 with a mean of 53 mg kg-1 (Table
13; Appendix 7). In considering 25 mg kg-1 as threshold B concentration required for
normal healthy plant (Jones et al., 1991), there was only 2% B deficiency in berseem
samples (Table 13; Appendix 7). Similarly, the B concentration in oat crop was 31 to 77
with a mean of 51 mg kg-1 (Table 13; Appendix 7). With a critical value of 20 mg kg-1
(Jones et al., 1991) for growth of healthy plant, there was no B deficiency in oat crop
(Table 13; Appendix 7). In this study, B contents of fodder crops have positive correlation with soil HCl-B contents (0.76) in winter (Table 14).
However, in contrast to results of this study, B deficiency has been identified in many crops including cotton (Rashid and Rafique, 1997), wheat (Rashid et al., 2002).
Similarly in rainfed potohar plateau, a nutrient indexation of plants revealed that there was 60 % B deficiency in wheat, (Rashid, 1993), 50% in sorghum (Rashid et al., 1997c)
65% in rapeseed-mustard (Rashid, 1993) and 50% in groundnut (Rashid et al., 1997b).
94 Boron concentration in plant samples appeared rather exceptionally high. This was particularly so because the suggested critical level are not locally developed.
4.2. Soil characteristics and their affect on micronutrient availability
Soil is a very complex system and it supplies nutrients to plants. Physico- chemical properties of soil markedly affect uptake and utilization of nutrients by plants
(Wilkinson, 1972). The data regarding physico-chemical characteristic of soils were grouped for each of the 18 soil series sampled from the district Sargodha (Table 4, 8) indicated wide variability in soil properties.
4.2.1 Soil organic matter
Soil organic matter is a major factor controlling the capacity of soil resources to sustain human societies by fertility maintenance (Syers and Craswell, 1995). It exerts a significant impact on the availability of soil micronutrient to plants (Zhang et al., 2001).
So, it is necessary to maintain or increase organic matter for availabilty of micronutrients for better crop production.
4.2.1.1 Soil organic matter of kharif fodders grown at Sargodha district
In summer, the soil organic matter ranged from 0.35 to1.47 with the mean value of 0.86% in surface soils, while in mid surface soils (15-30) ranged from 0.21 to1.05 with a mean value of 0.59% and sub surface soil (30-60cm), it ranged from 0.14 to 0.84 with a mean value of 0.35% in summer (Table 15; Appendix 4). In fact, 61% surface soil samples contained less than 0.86% organic matter, the considered minimum requirement for good plant growth (Cottenie, 1980). Further, 33% soil samples were medium (0.86-
1.29%) and 6% were adequate ( 1.29%) in organic matter for summer. Only eight soil series out of a total of 18, i.e. Bhalwal, Gandhra, Khudian, Miani, Shahpur,
95 Sindhelianwali, Sodhra and Sultanpur had adequate organic matter in surface soil in summer (Table 4). Soil organic matter contents of district Sargodha have a positive correlation with available Zn (0.28), Cu (0.42), Fe (0.41), Mn (0.37) and B (0.30) in summer (Table 6).
4.2.1.2 Soil organic matter of rabi fodders grown at Sargodha district
Similarly in winter, it ranged from 0.42 to1.54 with the mean value of 0.96% in surface soils, while in mid surface soils (15-30) it ranged from 0.28 to1.40 with a mean value of 0.72% and sub surface soil (30-60cm) it ranged from 0.14 to 1.05 with a mean value of 0.47% (Table 16; Appendix 5). In fact, 55% surface soils samples were deficient
(0.86%), 41% medium (0.86-1.29%) and 4% adequate ( 1.29%) in organic matter for winter. While only five soil series out of a total of 18, i.e. Bhalwal, Bagh, Hafizabad,
Miani, and Sultanpur had adequate organic matter in surface soil in winter (Table 8). Soil organic matter contents of district Sargodha have a positive correlation with available Zn
(0.53), Cu (0.46), Fe (0.45), Mn (0.50) and B (0.39) in winter (Table 10).
The soils of Sargodha are generally low in organic matter. Organic matter was more at upper surface layers as compared to mid and sub surface layers. Likewise,
Omorgie and Oshineye (2002) also reported that the organic matter content was higher at the surface than the subsurface. Our results are in line with Zaka et al. (2004) who revaled that soils of Sargodha district were highly deficient in organic matter. While
Avais et al. (2006) analyzed 203 soil samples of Sargodha district and they found that
82% soil samples were poor and 18% satisfactory in organic matter content. It might be due to unbalanced fertilization and high summer temperature resulting in rapid decomposition of it (Sharma et al., 2004).
96 Although these soils have little organic matter but their contribution to the extractable micronutrients cannot be ignored. In this study, the effect of organic matter on
DTPA extractable micronutrients was found to be dominant. The above results are in line with the results of some previous findings (Katyal and Sharma, 1991; Sharma et al.,
1992; 1999; 2000; 2002; 2009) who have reported that organic matter has a positive effect on available Zn, Cu, Mn, and Fe. Hodgson (1963) explained that micronutrient availability in soils increased due to generation of complexing agents by organic matter.
It might be due to increased diffusion rate of Zn by soil organic matter (Sharma and Deb,
1988). Similarly, various other researchers reported similar results that DTPA-Zn has a significant and positive correlation with organic matter (Gupta et al., 2000; Chahal et al.,
2005). The above results are also in agreement with the results of Wang et al. (2003) who reported significant and positive correlations between micronutrients (Cu, Zn and Mn) and organic matter contents of soil.
As for as B deficiency is concerned, it is more commonly observed in soils of low organic matter content (Mandal et al., 2004). The above results are in agreement with findings of Sarkar et al. (2008b) who reported a positive correlation between soil organic matter content and plant savailable B. As a matter of fact, organic matter is one of the major sources of available B in soils (Okazaki and Chao, 1968). It increased B availability because it minimized B leaching and maintained it in readily available form
(Yermiyahu et al., 1988). The observed relationship between organic matter and soil HCl
– B is further supported by the fact that B deficiency has been reported in crops grown on the soil with low organic matter content, as B is retained by soil organic matter (Havlin et al., 2005).
97 4.2.2. Soil pH
Soil pH is one of the most significant factors that influence the availability of
micronutrients in soil. It plays a vital role in the dynamics of plant micronutrients, especially controls the solubility and consequently the availability of Mn, Zn, Fe, and Cu to plants (Rengasamy and Olsson, 1993).
4.2.2.1 Soil pH of kharif fodders grown at Sargodha district
The soils of Sargodha district were alkaline in reaction as pH of surface soils
varied from 7.7 to 9.1 in summer (Table 15; Appendix 4). Mean pH value for surface soil
(0-15 cm) was 8.16, for mid surface (15-30 cm) 8.25 and for sub surface soils 8.29 in
summer (Table 15; Appendix 4). In summer only seven soil series, i.e., Gajiana, Gandhra,
Sindhelianwali, Jhakkar, Khair, Rajowal and Adilpur have pH increased slightly with
depth, while soils of other series exhibited in consistent trend of pH with depth. Soil pH
has a negative but non-significant correlation with available Zn, Cu, Fe, and Mn while
positive but non-significant correlation with B in summer (Table 6).
4.2.2.2 Soil pH of rabi fodders grown at Sargodha district
In winter, the soils of Sargodha district were also alkaline in reaction as pH of
surface soils varied from 7.7 to 9.0 .Mean pH value for surface Soil (0-15 cm) was 8.11,
for mid surface (15-30 cm) 8.15 and for sub surface soils 8.18 in winter (Table 16;
Appendix 5). Similarly, in winte only six soil series, i.e., Gajiana, Gandhra,
Sindhelianwali, Khair, Satgarh and Adilpur, pH increased slightly with depth, while soils
of other series exhibited inconsistent trend of pH with depth. Soil pH has a negative but
non-significant correlation with available Zn, Cu, Fe, and Mn while positive but non-
significant correlation with B in winter (Table 10).
98 Generally, the soil pH affects the DTPA-extractable micronutrient content. Soil pH is the key factor responsible for the availability of Fe (Lins and Cox, 1988), Mn
(Lindsay and Cox, 1985) and Zn (Haby and Sims, 1979; Lins and Cox, 1988). A number of scientists showed that there is inverse relationship between availability of micronutrient and soil pH. It may be due to the reason that increase in soil pH hydrolyze metal ions into insoluble forms and/or adsorbed them onto soil surfaces (Das and Saha,
1999). Furthermore, high pH of soil decreased plant available Fe and limited the liberation of Fe to soil solution ((Ahmed et al., 2012).
Several earlier studies have reported that soil pH has a negative correlation with micronutrients for some calcareous alkaline soils (Katyal and Sharma 1991; Buri et al.,
2000; Fageria, 2002; Chahal et al., 2005). While some other workers have also observed more or less similar results that there is non-significant but negative correlation between soil pH and Cu (Sharma et al., 1999; Wang et al., 2003), and between soil pH and DTPA-
Fe and Cu (Saini et al., 1994; Sharma et al., 2005). On the other hand, some researchers reported a negative but significant correlation between soil pH and DTPA-available Zn,
Mn, and Fe (Katyal and Sharma, 1991; Chattopadhyay et al., 1996; Chhabra et al., 1996;
Sharma et al., 1999), negative but significant correlation between soil pH and DTPA- available Zn and Mn (Wang et al., 2003; Sharma et al., 2005), negative but significant correlation between soil pH and DTPA-available Fe and Mn (Sharma et al., 2000)
Soil pH is also an important factor that controls the B availability in soil and plants (Gupta et al., 2000) and it is less available to plants with increasing soil pH. On the other hand, the results differ from that of several scientists who observed a significant negative correlation between soil pH and HCl-extractable B in the soil (Rafique, 2009).
99 4.2.3. Soil texture
Texture has significant impact on physico-chemical characteristics of the soil. It
has an important bearing on main properties of soil i.e. nutrient availability and nutrient
holding capacity, tillage, infiltration rate and root penetration etc.
Texture categories of all samples showed that mostly soil samples were medium
to coarse in texture. It further showed that soil samples were generally medium textured
varying from loamy sand to silty clays. The results for this character agree with the
conclusions of Zaka et al. (2004) who reported that soil texture in most of the sampling
sites of Sargodha was characterized as loam (Medium type) varying from sandy loam to
clay loam (Appendix 4, 5).
In kharif, fine textured soils (Sandy clay loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, sandy
clay, silty clay, and clay) had mean value of available DTPA- Zn 0.59, Cu 0.54, Mn 1.95,
Fe 3.49 and HCl-B 0.39 mg kg-1. While medium textured soils (Loam, silt loam, and silt)
had mean value of available DTPA- Zn 0.50, Cu 0.47, Mn 1.88, Fe 3.10 and HCl-B 0.40
mg kg-1. Similarly coarse textured soils (Loamy sand, sand, and sandy loam) had mean value of available DTPA- Zn 0.37, Cu 0.20, Mn 1.08, Fe 2.46 and HCl-B 0.32 mg kg-1
(Figure 2).
In rabi, fine textured soils had mean value of available DTPA- Zn 0.60, Cu 0.42,
Mn 2.06, Fe 4.80 and HCl-B 0.48 mg kg-1. While medium textured soils had mean value
of available DTPA- Zn 0.54, Cu 0.45, Mn 2.21, Fe 4.22 and HCl-B 0.52 mg kg-1.
However, coarse textured soils had mean value of available DTPA- Zn 0.32, Cu 0.26, Mn
1.33, Fe 2.99 and HCl-B 0.34 mg kg-1 (Figure 3).
100 6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5 Fine texture 3.0 Medium texture
(mg kg-1) Coarse texture 2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 Zn Cu Fe Mn B Micronutrients
Figure 2: Relationship between texture and micronutrient contents of kharif fodder fields at Sargodha district
101 8.0 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 Fine texture 4.0 Medium texture (mg kg-1) 3.5 Coarse texture 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Zn Cu Fe Mn B
Micronutrients
Figure 3: Relationship between texture and micronutrient contents of rabi fodder fields at Sargodha district
102 It can be concluded from the above data that coarse texture soils had mostly low
micronutrient status as compared to fine texture soils. A coarse texture soil can usually
maintain lesser organic matter than a finer textured soil. This is probably because of the
lower moisture contents and rapid oxidation of organic matter in sandy soils due to high
aeration. Other scientistss have also revealed that clay contents to a great degree control
Zn in soils (Sharma et al., 2005). This has been substantiated by many researchers
(Katyal and Sharma, 1979; Sharma et al., 1992; 2002) who reported that soil which were
coarse in texture were more prone to Zn deficiency as compared to fine textured soils.
Likewise, sand contents showed significant negative correlation with DTPA-Cu (Sharma
et al., 2002). So availability of Cu in soils is expected to increase as the texture become
finer (Katyal and Sharma, 1991). These results validate the incidence of Cu deficiency
reported by Arora and Sekhon (1980) in wheat grown on high pH coarse textured soils.
The coarse texture soils are generally poor in Fe (Halina, 2000). However in contrast,
Saini et al. (1994) reported that DTPA-Fe had non-significant correlation with texture of
soil. Mostly, sand was inversely correlated with micronutrients due to presence of quartz in sand (Sharma et al., 2009).
Low available B in these soils may have been due to their light-texture
(Shorrocks, 1997). Boron deficiency is more commonly observed in coarse textured soils
(Mandal and De 1993). It may be associated with increase in leaching from the coarse
textured soils (Sarkar et al., 2008a). Likewise, Fleming (1980) revealed that it was mostly
observed that plant grown on coarse textured soils suffered more B deficiency than fine
texture soils because sandy soils in general contain less available B than heavy soils.
103 4.3. Groundwater characteristics of Sargodha district
Irrigation has long played and still in the future is expected to play a greater role
in feeding the rapidly expanding world population. This demanded that we had to use
more evenly the freshwater supplies due to a threat of the scarcity of high quality
irrigation water in many regions of the world.
-2 - - + The water samples were analyzed for EC, SAR, RSC, CO3 , HCO 3, Cl , Na and
Ca++ + Mg+ (Anonymous, 1954). Then water samples were categorized on the basis of
EC, SAR and RSC values (Appendix 8) as described by the soil fertility organization
(Malik et al., 1984).
4.3.1. Groundwater characteristics of Sargodha district during kharif season
In kharif, electrical conductivity (EC) of water samples collected throughout
district Sargodha ranged from 0.54 to 4.86 dS m-1 with a mean value of 1.7 dS m-1 (Table
17). Samples that had EC< 1.0 dS m-1 i.e. below the upper limit (1.0 dS m-1) described
fit for irrigation water was 26 % in summer. Only 16% samples had EC between 1-1.25
dS m-1, that is range for marginally fit irrigation water. Whereas all other water samples
had EC>1.25 dS m-1and were unfit for irrigation purpose (Table 17; Appendix 10).
The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of all water samples ranged from 0.96 to
35.06 with a mean value of 7.01 for summer. The data showed that 46 % water samples were fit (SAR<6), 36 % were marginally fit (SAR 6-10), while 18% were unfit
(SAR>10) for summer (Table 17; Appendix 9). The residual sodium carbonate (RSC) of
all the water samples ranged from -0.70 to 13.80 with a mean value of 2.68 meq L-1 for summer (Table 17). The data showed that 44 % water samples had RSC> 2.50 for summer. So, these water samples were unfit and would promote the sodium hazard in
104 Table 17: Range, mean and fitness % age of some selected properties of ground water of Sargodha in Pakistan in kharif
EC SAR RSC Cl-1 dS m-1 (meq L-1 ) (meq L-1 ) Range 0.54-4.86 0.96-35.06 -0.70-13.80 1-38.5
Mean 1.70+1.05 7.01+5.50 2.68+2.50 8.98+7.80
Fit (%) 23(26) 40(46) 27(31) 30(34)
Marginally Fit 14(16) 31(36) 22(25) - (%)
Unfit (%) 50(58) 16(18) 38(44) 57(66)
Values in parenthesis ( ) indicate %age of samples Critical limits for EC (Fit= 0-1.0, M.Fit= 1.0-1.25 and unfit= >1.25 dS m-1) Critical limits for SAR (Fit= <6.0, M. Fit= 6.0-10.0 and unfit= >10.0) Critical limits for RSC (Fit= <1.25, M. Fit= 1.25-2.50 and unfit= >2.5 meq L-1) Critical limits for Cl-1 (Fit= <4.0 and unfit= >4.0 dS m-1 meq L-1)
105 soils. While only 25 % water samples have RSC from 1.25 to 2.50 for summer and these
were marginally fit. However, the remaining 31 % water samples had RSC<1.25 which
indicate their suitability for irrigation purpose (Table 17; Appendix 9).
The chloride content of these water samples ranged from 1.0 to 38.5 meq L-1 with a mean value of 8.98 meq L-1 for summer (Table 17; Appendix 9). The results showed
that 34 % samples were found to be less than the prescribed limits of 4 meq L-1 (Isaac et
al., 2008) for summer (Table 17; Appendix 9).
4.3.2. Groundwater characteristics of Sargodha district during rabi season
While in winter, Electrical conductivity (EC) of water sample collected through
out district Sargodha ranged from 0.58 to 10.5 with a mean value of 1.7 dS m-1 (Table
18). Samples that had EC< 1.0 dS m-1 i.e. below the upper limit (1.0 dS m-1) described
for fit irrigation water were 24% in winter. Only 16% samples had EC between 1.0- 1.25
dS m-1, which is range for marginally fit irrigation water. Where as all other water
samples had EC>1.25 dS m-1and were unfit for irrigation purpose (Table 18; Appendix
10).
The sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) of all the water samples ranged from 0.45 to
26.96 with a mean value of 6.53 for winter. The data showed that 50% water samples
were fit (SAR<6), 28% were marginally fit (SAR 6-10), while 22% were unfit (SAR>10)
for winter (Table 18; Appendix 10).The residual sodium carbonate (RSC) of all the water
samples ranged from –2.5 to 9.3 with a mean value of 2.21 meq L-1 for winter (Table 18).
The data showed that 40% water samples have RSC> 2.50 for winter. So, these water
samples were unfit and will promote the sodium hazard in soils. While only 27% water
samples were marginally fit (RSC from 1.25 to 2.50), and remaining 33% water samples
106 Table 18: Range, mean and fitness % age of some selected properties of ground water of Sargodha in Pakistan in rabi
EC SAR RSC Cl-1 dS m-1 meq L-1 meq L-1 Range 0.58-10.50 0.45-26.96 -2.50-9.30 1.5-73
Mean 1.70+1.29 6.53+4.98 2.21+2.49 8.87+ 9.33
Fit (%) 21(24) 44(50) 29(33) 27(31) Marginally Fit 14(16) 24(28) 23(27) - (%)
Unfit (%) 52(60) 19(22) 35(40) 60(69)
Values in parenthesis ( ) indicate %age of samples Critical limits for EC (Fit= 0-1.0, M.Fit= 1.0-1.25 and unfit= >1.25 dS m-1) Critical limits for SAR (Fit= <6.0, M. Fit= 6.0-10.0 and unfit= >10.0) Critical limits for RSC (Fit= <1.25, M. Fit= 1.25-2.50 and unfit= >2.5 meq L-1) Critical limits for Cl-1 (Fit= <4.0 and unfit= >4.0 dS m-1 meq L-1)
107 had RSC<1.25 which indicate their suitability for irrigation purpose (Table 18; Appendix
10).
The chloride content of these water samples ranged from 1.5 to 73.0 meq L-1 with a mean value of 8.87 meq L-1 for winter (Table 18; Appendix 10). The results showed
that 31% samples were found to be less than the prescribed limits of 4 meq L-1 (Isaac et
al., 2008) for winter (Table, 18; Appendix 10).
Irrigation has been an important factor in agricultural development of Pakistan. In
our country, more or less similar results were observed by many researchers who have
reported that there were 41% irrigation water samples fit, 12% marginally fit and 47%
unfit in Kasur district (Shakir et al., 2002). Whereas in another study 25% were found fit,
17% marginally fit, 58% unfit in Mandi Baha-ud-Din district (Pervaiz et al., 2003). In
another study only 7% were fit, 33% marginally fit and 60% unfit in union Council
Gakhra Kalan, Gujrat (Pervaiz, 2005).
The degree of adverse effect on soil properties depends upon the chemical
composition of irrigation water. What so ever the ionic composition of irrigation water,
its harmful effects increases with the increase in EC (total salt concentration). In this
study EC of irrigation water have positive correlation with soil EC, SAR, and pH (Table
19, 20). Thus the regular use of brackish water without proper soil management may lead
to salt affected soils, particularly in heavy textured soils. Long-term uses of poor quality
irrigation water worsen soil properties and negatively affect different crops (Choudhary
et al., 2007; Kaur et al., 2008). In Pakistan, Ghafoor et al. (1993); Kahlown and Azam,
(2003) reported that the use of poor quality water for irrigation is a main reason of soil
salinity. Continuous use of brackish water increases soil pH and ESP in rhizosphere and
108
Table 19: Correlation coefficient (r) between various water and soil characteristics of district Sargodha in kharif Soil Water characteristics characteristics EC RSC Cl-1 SAR (iw) dS m-1 (meq L-1 ) (meq L-1 )
-1 0.66 0.61 0.56 0.79 ECe (dS m )
SAR 0.69 0.65 0.56 0.80
pHs 0.49 0.49 0.42 0.61
Table 20: Correlation coefficient (r) between various water and soil characteristics of district Sargodha in rabi Soil Water characteristics characteristics EC RSC Cl-1 SAR (iw) dS m-1 (meq L-1 ) (meq L-1 )
-1 0.65 0.59 0.49 0.65 ECe (dS m )
SAR 0.35 0.39 0.28 0.36
pHs 0.46 0.47 0.46 0.48
109 decreases yield of crops (Choudhary et al., 2006). Similarly, Bouwer, (2000) concluded
that continuous use of brackish water without proper management strategies poses grave
danger to soil productivity. Crops irrigated with poor quality groundwater, showed poor seed germination and retardation (Kannan et al., 2005). Similarly, salinity restricts ability of plants to withdraw water from soil (Bauder and Brock, 2001). The plants grown on saline soils suffered from micronutrient deficiency i.e. Fe, Cu, Zn and Mn due to very low solubility of these micronutrients on such soils (Page et al., 1990). So the supplemental fertilization, particularly of micronutrients, results in recovery of physiological parameters and stimulated plant growth (Zhu, 2001). However, a number of scientists (Chang, 1961; Kaddak and Ghowail, 1964; Rhoades et al., 1980) reported that saline water can be used for crop production. An appropriate selection of variety /crop
and best water management practices would minimize their adverse effects on soil health
and crop productivity (Chaudhary et al., 1990; Muhammad and Ghafoor, 1992;
Chaudhary et al., 1997).
The SAR is an index that reflects the relative proportion of Na+ to Ca++ + Mg+.
High SAR of irrigation water increases the SAR of soil solution and finally increases Na+
on soil exchanges sites. The SAR of irrigation water in study area was observed above
the acceptable limit in many water samples and it has positive correlation with soil EC,
SAR, and pH (Table 19, 20). Long-term use of waters with high SAR often causes
accumulation of Na and could lead to rapid sodification of soils. About 10 million hactre
irrigated land of the world suffered from salinity and sodicity (Szabolcs, 1989).
The irrigation with sodic water badly affected the soil physical properties because
of crusting, and migration of clay leading to choking of pores (Oster and Jayawardene,
110 1998; Grattan and Oster, 2003; Oster, 2004). The long-term use of sodic water for
irrigation often increases soil pH that affects availability of soil nutrient leading to
malnutrition of plants (Grattan and Grieve, 1999).
The residual sodium carbonate (RSC) indicates the sodium hazard. The unfit
irrigation water sample contain excess of bicarbonates and carbonates resulting in soil
dispersion due to precipitation of soil solution calcium and increased solution sodium
(Emerson and Bakker, 1973) as well as decreased uptake of nutrients by plants (Kanwar
and Chaudry, 1968). In this study, RSC of irrigation water had positive correlation with
soil EC, SAR, and pH (Table 19, 20). Our results have been substantiated by several
scientists who reported that carbonate or bicarbonate increase the pH of the soil solution,
EC and ESP (Ayers and Westcot 1985; Minhas and Bajwa, 2001; Choudhary et al., 2004;
Minhas et al., 2007) and plants growing on these kinds of soils would thus be subjected to
Fe deficiency (Gupta et al., 1989). There are a huge number of investigations concerning
- the effect of HCO3 on Fe nutrition, (1) Bicarbonate prevents absorption of Fe and as a
result its accumulation in root apoplasts (Zribi and Gharsalli, 2002); (2) It badly affects
the translocation of Fe from root to shoot (Deal and Alcantara, 2002); and (3) It
inactivates Fe in plant leaves (Romheld, 2000).
Chloride is not adsorbed on soil particles but moves into soil solution. One of the
major sources of chloride to soils is irrigation water (Karaivazogloua et al., 2005). Soils
high in chloride include those have poor drainage condition and irrigated with water with
a high level of Cl, since chloride leachs down easily because it is one of the most mobile ions (Johnson et al., 1989). In this study, Cl of irrigation water has positive correlation with soil pH, EC and SAR (Table 19, 20). Many studies are in line with our results and
111 have shown that the excess of chloride present in irrigation water increases soil pH, ESP,
EC and also affects the growth and yield of sugarcane (Choudhary et al., 2004). Previous
investigations have also found a significant correlation between chloride levels in
irrigation water, soils and leaf of tobacco (Metochis and Orphanos, 1990). Furthermore,
the number of leaves/tillers per plant and plant hieght reduced significantly due to
increase level of cl- in irrigation water (Karaivazogloua et al., 2005).
In ground water properties, differences have also been observed between two
seasons i.e. kharif and rabi. The mean values of SAR, RSC and Cl are higher in kharif as
compare to rabi season. Some seasonal variations in ground water are related to
anthropological activities, other to natural phenomena (Pettyjohn, 1982). Changes in
groundwater quality are due to variation in climatic conditions, residence time of water,
aquifer materials, and inputs from soil during percolation of water (Matini et al., 2012).
This may be due to the reason that kharif samples were collected in the month of June,
July i.e. pre monsoon season. Our results are in agreement with many researchers from
India (Laluraj and Gopinath, 2006; Ravichandran and Jayaprakash, 2011) who also
observed that pre monsoon season samples showed high salts content than that during the post monsoon period. Rainfall recharge is a major cause for variation in groundwater chemistry. The composition of the infiltrated water depends on rainfall, the soil environment, agricultural use and the thickness of the unsaturated zone (Scheytt, 1997).
In short unfit water should not be used for irrigation as all these factors combine to decrease the crop production. However, now there are certain possibilities to safely use
brackish water if the soil and water properties are known (Tyagi and Sharma, 2000; Qadir et al., 2003). The UN and all other agencies also recommended an efficient water use and
112 reduce ground water overdraft (Pitman, 2004). Thus it is recommended that we have to
use best possible management practices if we have to use brackish water for irrigation
Management strategies
We have to efficiently use available water supplies as good-quality irrigation water
is expected to decrease with passage of time (Wichelns, 2002). This study revealed that
integrated water resources management has to be adopted by following measures.
I. Identify critical areas.
II. Conjunctive use of canal and tube well groundwater.
III. Estimate and forecast water quality on district level by developing simulation
models
IV. Generalization of data.
V. An appropiate selection of crops/varieties and better soil management
4.4. Effect of micronutrients (Zn, B) on forage yield and quality of oats at district Sargodha
When fodder crops are harvested, large amount of nutrients are removed form the soil. Therefore, continuous fodder production can deplete soil nutrient more rapidly than grain production system. Chemical fertilizers play a pivotal role towards improving fodder yield as well as quality of produce but major limitation in accomplishing crop potential is use of imbalanced fertilizers. So the nutrient needs must be balanced with mineral fertilizers to obtain optimum levels of fodder yield and quality (Malhi et al.,
2004). Fodder crops respond well to the mineral fertilizer when soils are deficient in those nutrients. Oat is particularly important, as it furnishes a highly sustaining fodder need during the rabi season (winter), when fodder supply is scarce and costly (Jayanthi et al., 2002). Field experiment was conducted in Sargodha, Punjab, Pakistan, during the rabi
113 2007-08 to study the effect of Zn and B on yield attributes, yield and quality (CP, ADF,
and NDF) of Oats.
4.4.1. Yield attributes and yield
There was significant difference in plant height of all the treatments (Appendix
11; Figure 4). Significantly taller plants (155cm) were recorded in treatment T6 (B1, Zn10).
While, a significantly shorter plant height (99.50cm) was recorded in case of treatment T1
(control). The variation in plant height of the crop may be attributed to lack of nutrients.
With a sole application of B at low and higher levels, there was a 7 and 9 % increased in plant height over control, respectively. While with a sole application of Zn at low and higher levels, there was 10 and 25% increased in plant height over control, respectively.
In the combined application, there was a clear indication of either additive or synergistic effects on plant height. With a combination of two micronutrients i.e. B and Zn at higher levels (B2, Zn10), there is a 53, 22 and 40% increase in plant height over control (T1), a sole application of higher level of Zn (T3), and of B (T7), respectively. It may be due to
symergistic effect of these micronutrients. However, maximum plant hieght was observed
in B1, Zn10 as compare to B2, Zn10. As Zn fertilization may considerably affect the
absorption of other nutrients and cause imbalance of these nutrients (Kumar et al., 1986).
As for as number of tillers per plant is concerned, they showed similar trend to
plant height. Significant increase in number of tillers per plant was observed with a sole
and combined application of B and Zn (Appendix 12; Figure 5). When we applied B
alone, it showed positive response in terms of increasing number of tillers per plant over
114 180
A 160 A A
B 140 C
120 D D D E (cm) 100 hieght 80
Plant 60
40
20
0 Control Zn5 Zn10 B1 B1, Zn5 B1, Zn10 B2 B2, Zn5 B2, Zn10 Treatments
Fig 4: Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on plant height of oat. Each value is the mean + SE of three replicates and the alphabets on the bars present statistical difference (p<0.05) in values after LSD
115 7 AB A AB AB BC 6 C D 5 D E
4 tillers/plant
of 3
No. 2
1
0 Control Zn5 Zn10 B1 B1, Zn5 B1, Zn10 B2 B2, Zn5 B2, Zn10 Treatments
Fig 5: Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on number of tillers per plant of oat. Each value is the mean + SE of three replicates and the alphabets on the bars present statistical difference (p<0.05) in values after LSD
116 control with increasing level of B. Similarly, a sole application of Zn also showed
positive response with their increasing levels. When we applied two micronutrients in
different combinations (B1Zn5, B1Zn10, B2Zn5, B2Zn10), they all produce more number of
tillers per plant as compared to control and their sole applications (B1, Zn5, Zn10, B1, B2).
The increase in dry matter yield was in close conformity with the corresponding
increases in the respective yield components i.e. plant height and number of tillers per
plant (Appendix 13; Figure 6). Boron application at 2 kg ha-1 resulted in 14% increase in
dry matter yield over the control. Similarly, Zn application at 10 kg ha-1 produced 47%
increase in dry matter yield over control. The increase in dry matter yield with increasing
levels of micronutrients is due to increased availability of these nutrients from applied
micronutrients fertilizers. Since our experiments were conducted on alkaline pH soils, the
optimum rate of Zn to be applied is higher because the availability of applied Zn
decreases with increase in soil pH above 7.0 due to reactions with carbonates and
bicarbonates and sulfate present in high quantities in alkaline soils. That is the reason,
you are getting highest yield at 10 kg ha-1 as compared to 5.0 kg ha-1 rates (Sahrawat et al.,
2011). When we applied fertilizer in a combination of two micronutrients, T9 (B2, Zn10) it
produced maximum dry matter yield i.e. 10.50 t ha-1. The increase in dry matter yield
with an increase in applied micronutrients is probably due to considerable improvement
in the yield attributing characters such as number of tillers per plant and plant height.
These growth parameters may be helpful in harvesting the maximum solar radiation by
way of increased canopy size and shape which enabled to produce increased biomass.
The above results revealed that treatment T9 (B2Zn10) gave the outstanding results.
It produced higher dry matter yield, taller plants and maximum number of tillers
117 12.00 A A A 10.00 B C ) 1 ‐ 8.00 D ha
(t E EF F yield
6.00 matter 4.00 Dry
2.00
0.00 Control Zn5 Zn10 B1 B1, Zn5 B1, Zn10 B2 B2, Zn5 B2, Zn10 Treatments
Fig 6: Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on dry matter yield of oat. Each value is the mean + SE of three replicates and the alphabets on the bars present statistical difference (p<0.05) in values after LSD
118 per plant. Growth of cereals like oat in term of plant height and tiller production is mainly
decided by the availability of optimum nutrients, which was met out with B and Zn
fertilization. An increase in yield with an increase in application of B and Zn fertilizer
was invariably due to favorable effect of these nutrients on number of tillers, plant height and consequently more dry matter yield. Roy and Jha (1976) also recorded similar observations. In Pakistan, earlier works investigated that micronutrients fertilization
results in appreciable crop yield improvement (NFDC, 1998). Average yield response
with Zn fertilization was: 13% in wheat, and 18% in maize (NFDC, 1998). Similarly an
average yield increase with B fertilization was: 14 % in cotton and wheat and 20 % in maize (NFDC, 1998). On worldwide scale, cereal yields responses to Zn application have been reported by Brennan (1991) in South-West of Western- Australia. They further investigated that corn, citrus, cotton, onions and sorghum have also been found to be responsive to Zn (Martens and Seed 1991). Similarly, Singh et al. (1989) marked the evidence that application of ZnSo4 to oat resulted in significant increase in number of
tillers per plant, green forage yield over control (Singh et al., 1989). In Bangladesh,
several field experiments have been conducted to study the effect of B use on yield of
various crops. Their results are in conformity with our findings that they observed
remarkable yield increases in most of crops, especially in chickpea, mustard and
vegetables (Islam and Talukder, 1991) and wheat (Abedin et al., 1994). Besides this,
findings of Gupta, (1979) are also in agreement with our findings. He recorded a positive
response of crop to B application. This increase in yield with B application accrues
because of increase in number of productive tillers per hill (Rashid, 2006). The above
119 results indicated a significant effect of micronutrients (Zn and B) use on the fodder yield
and yield attributes of oat.
4.4.2. Quality of oat
Micronutrient deficiency may not only reduce yield of crop but also deteriorate
quality of produce, and, hence, may lower the price of the crop produce (Rashid, 2006).
The data regarding ADF and NDF of oat as affected by micronutrients (Zn, B)
application under irrigated conditions of Sargodha is shown in (Appendix 14, 15; Figure
7, 8). Statistical analysis of the data revealed non-significant affect of application of
micronutrients (Zn, B) on ADF and NDF of oat. Acid Detergent Fibre and NDF increased
with increasing levels of micronutrients over control but this increase was non
significant. Acid Detergent Fibre of different treatments ranged from 28.05 to 29.05
percent and NDF ranged from 47.90 to 49.5 percent. More or less similar opinion was
reported by Dadhich and Gupta, (2005) and Keshwa and Jat, (1992) who revealed that
there was a significant increase in fibre contents of pearl millet with micronutrient
application.
In our experiment, date regarding crude protein contents of oat showed that there
is a significant response to micronutrient application (B, Zn) (Appendix 16; Figure 9).
The maximum crude protein contents (10.98%) were produced by T6 (B1, Zn10). While
the minimum crude protein contents (9.55%) were produced in control. The sole application of B1, B2, and Zn5, Zn10 resulted in increase in crude protein contents as
compared to control. When two micronutrients were combined, a high level of B and Zn
(B2, Zn10), resulted in increase in crude protein contents by 13, 12 and 3%
120
Fig 7: Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on ADF of oat. Each value is the mean + SE of three replicates and the alphabets on the bars present statistical difference (p<0.05) in values after LSD
121
Fig 8: Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on NDF of oat. Each value is the mean + SE of three replicates and the alphabets on the bars present statistical difference (p<0.05) in values after LSD
122 12 A AB AB 11 BC ABC C D 10 D D
9 (%) 8
7 protein
6 Crude 5
4
3
2 Control Zn5 Zn10 B1 B1, Zn5 B1, Zn10 B2 B2, Zn5 B2, Zn10 Treatments
Fig 9: Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on crude protein contents (%) of oat. Each value is the mean + SE of three replicates and the alphabets on the bars present statistical difference (p<0.05) in values after LSD
123 over control, sole application of high levels of B2 and of Zn10, respectively.
An effect of micronutrients on forage production had been extensively reviewed
in India (Monteiro, 1991; Tripathi and Hazra, 1995) but not in Pakistan. Forage yield and quality responses to some micronutrients have been reported in several literatures
(Tripathi et al., 2009 b). Micronutrients applied individually, like Zn and B increased forage yield by 9-81% in Indian grasses (Hazra and Tripathi, 1998). The micronutrients application gave 6-17 and 7-18% increase in green and dry forage yield of sorghum over control (Tripathi et al., 2009a). The quality traits like protein content, neutral detergent
fiber and acid detergent fiber were also improved due to combined use of micronutrients
(Tripathi et al., 2009a). Earlier workers (Singh, 1991; Katyal, 2004; Rashid, 2006;
Tripathi et al., 2009a) found that micronutrients fertilization not only enhanced the yield
but also appreciably increased the crude protein in various crops. Our results are in line
with that of Brady (1996) who reported that B is involved in the synthesis of protein.
Similar results were on put forward by Singh et al. (1989) who observed that
application of ZnSo4 to oat resulted in significant increase in crude protein content over
no Zn use. Contrary to these findings, Tamak et al. (1997) reported that B decreased the
protein content.
So, it was concluded that micronutrients (B, Zn) fertilization has a major role in
improving forage quality i.e protein as well as yield of oat fodder.
4.5. Effect of micronutrients (Zn, B) on forage yield and quality of pearl millet at district Sargodha
In Pakistan, forages are the cheapest source of feed for animals and play an
important role in livestock production. Traditionally, forages are mostly grown on soil
having low fertility status and their production and quality can be increased markedly
124 with fertilization (Malhi et al., 2004). Balanced fertilization does not mean
macronutrients, i.e., N, P, and K only but it also refers to taking care of micronutrient
deficiencies (Dadhich and Gupta, 2005). The micronutrients nutrition of fodder crops are
not only important for increase in production but also for quality of the herbage produced
(Tripathi et al., 2009a).
4.5.1. Yield components and yield
Plant height is a very important while determining the fodder yield .The greater
the height, the greater is the forage yield. Podriguez (1973) investigated that plant height
significantly correlated with fodder yield. Likewise, Akmal et al. (2002) reported that tall
millet varieties produced higher green fodder yields than shorter ones.
The data regarding plant height of pearl millet as affected by fertilizers (Zn and B)
under irrigated conditions of Sargodha is shown in Appendix 17 and Figure 10. Statistical
analysis of the data showed that there was significant effect of application of
micronutrients (Zn and B) on plant height. The plants height ranged from 163.9 to
213.0 cm. Maximum plant height (2.13m) was obtained with B2, Zn10 while minimum
plant height (1.64m) was obtained with T1 (control). The sole application of Zn5, Zn10 increased the plant height with their increasing rates. But wih increased level of B (B2),
the plant height decreased as compare to low level of B (B1). Similarly, low level of B
and Zn (B1, Zn5) have taller plants as compared to lower level of Zn and higher level of B
(B2, Zn5).While, combined and high levels of B and Zn (B2, Zn10), it resulted in an
increase of 30, 2.5 and 12.7 % increase in plant height over control, a sole application of
higher level of Zn (T3), and of B (T7), respectively.
125 250
A BC AB AB AB CD ABC 200 BCD
D
150 (cm)
hieght
100 Plant
50
0 Control Zn5 Zn10 B1 B1, Zn5 B1, Zn10 B2 B2, Zn5 B2, Zn10 Treatments
Fig 10: Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on plant height of pearl millet. Each value is the mean + SE of three replicates and the alphabets on the bars present statistical difference (p<0.05) in values after LSD
126 Tillers per plant of pearl millet crop were significantly affected by micronutrient
(Zn and B) application (Appendix 18; Figure 11). Number of tillers per plant ranged from
6.6 to 7.3. It is evident from the planned comparisons that maximum (7.3) tillers were
produced by B2, Zn10, which may be due to better plant growth as a result of balanced
micronutrient application. While the minimum (6.6 tillers) were produced by treatment
T1 (control). Boron and Zn alone at both rates i.e. at low and higher levels increased
number of tillers per plant over control. Similarly, both B and Zn at higher level (T9)
resulted in increase of 11, 6 and 9% tillers per plant over control, a sole application of
higher level of Zn (Zn5), and of B (B2), respectively.
Dry matter yield is one of the most important components of animal diet for feeding livestock.The data regarding dry matter yield showed significant differences among different treatments. It ranged from 9.50 to 12.33 t ha-1 (Appendix 19; Figure 12).
The combined effect of B with Zn was found to be significant. The combination of both
-1 B and Zn at higher levels (B2, Zn10) gave the yield of 12.33 t ha , showing 30% increase
over control. The affect of micronutrients in increasing the dry matter yields suggests that
these are limiting micronutrients in this soil; and hence the significant increase in yields
resulted following its use.
Yield and yield components viz. tillers per plant and plant height of the
experimental crop showed significant response to different level of micronutrients. The increase in yield attributes might be owing to a significant role of micronutrients in
growth of plants because of their stimulatory and catalytic effect in various physiological
and metabolic processes of plant (Choudhary et al., 2005). The increase in yield with
127
7.8
7.6 A
7.4 AB
7.2 ABC BC ABC 7 C BC BC C 6.8 tillers/plant 6.6 of
6.4 No. 6.2
6
5.8
5.6 Control Zn5 Zn10 B1 B1, Zn5 B1, Zn10 B2 B2, Zn5 B2, Zn10 Treatments
Fig 11: Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on number of tillers per plant of pearl millet. Each value is the mean + SE of three replicates and the alphabets on the bars present statistical difference (p<0.05) in values after LSD
128 14.00 A AB BC 12.00 BC CD BCD BC BC D
) 10.00 1 ‐ ha
(t 8.00 yield
6.00 matter
Dry 4.00
2.00
0.00 Control Zn5 Zn10 B1 B1, Zn5 B1, Zn10 B2 B2, Zn5 B2, Zn10 Treatments
Fig 12: Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on dry matter yield of pearl millet. Each value is the mean + SE of three replicates and the alphabets on the bars present statistical difference (p<0.05) in values after LSD
129 increasing level of nutrients could also be explained on the basis of better nutritional
environment created by micronutrients (Maliwal et al., 1985). The above results are in agreement with those of Singh, (1998) who revealed the results of 292 trials in India on pearl millet indicating positive response to micronutrient fertilization irrespective of deficient and sufficient field sites. Likewise, data from 5000 on farm field experiments in
India showed that average response to Zn application ranged between 0.09 to 4.62 t ha-1 of fodders (Singh, 2000). In calcareous soils of Bihar and Tamil Nadu, response to B application ranged from 0.5-2.0 kg ha-1 which represents an increase of 28 to 60% over control plots (Patel et al., 1999). Spectacular responses of various crops to B fertilization
(0.5-2.5 kg ha-1) have largely been observed on B deficient soils of India (Sakal and
Singh 1995, Sakal et al., 1997). The significant increase in dry matter yield of pearl millet
fodder crop in India was found as a result of zinc addition upto 10ppm (Gupta et al.,
1986).
Our results are in line with various researchers in India viz. Keshwa and Jat,
(1992); Chaoudhary et al. (2005); Dadhich and Gupta, (2005); Jain and Dahama, (2006);
Jakhar et al. (2006) who reported that number of tillers per plant, plant height and yield of pearl millet was significantly affected by micronutrient fertilization. Several earlier scientists (Maliwal et al., 1985; Keshwa and Jat 1992; Manohar et al., 1992; Dadhich and
Gupta, 2003; 2005) had reported more or less similar results that there was a significant increase in dry matter yield due to Zn application. This indicated the beneficial effect of
Zn on the vegetative growth of pearl millet plants. Zn plays a pivotal role in metabolism of nitrogen and regulating the auxin concentration in plant and might have improved these yield attributes.
130 However, on the other hand Pandya et al. (1955) did not observe any significant
effect of B and Zn applied either singly or in combination on yield of pearl millet.
Likewise, Mahabari (1970) also could not notice any significant effect of B on yield of
hybrid pearl millet. While Singh and Karwasra, (1988) observed that there was no
significant difference on dry matter yields between low Zn (5.0 kg ha-1) and high Zn
doses (10 kg ha-1) treatments. While, high yielding varieties of pearl millet showed
significant response to Zn application in calcareous soil of Pune (Patil et al., 1972).
4.5.2. Quality of pearl millet (CP, ADF, NDF)
Quality fodder is a prerequisite for healthy and well performed livestock.
Micronutrient application in many instances not only enhance crop yield but quality of
the produce also gets better. The most common parameters used to describe forage
quality are CP, NDF and ADF (Soest, 1985).
The data showed that there is a non-significant response of pearl millet to
micronutrient (B and Zn) application in terms of crude protein content of pearl millet
crop (Appendix 20; Figure 13). The crude protein ranged from 8.20 to 8.92 %. Sole
application of Zn (T2 to T3) resulted in increase in crude protein contents with their
increasing rate. Further sole B application at higher rate (T7) resulted in only 0.4%
increase in crude protein as compare to sole application at lower rate (T4). While,
increasing rate of B (B2, Zn5 and B2, Zn10) decreased protein contents as compare to lower level of B (B1, Zn5 and B1, Zn10). It may be due to a reason that there may be a
competition among these micronutrients for plant uptake at higher level (Neue et al.,
1998).
131
10 NS 9
8
7 (%)
6 protein
5 Crude
4
3
2 Control Zn5 Zn10 B1 B1, Zn5 B1, Zn10 B2 B2, Zn5 B2, Zn10 Treatments
Fig 13: Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on crude protein contents of pearl millet. Each value is the mean + SE of three replicates and the alphabets on the bars present statistical difference (p<0.05) in values after LSD
132 While statistical analysis of the data regarding ADF (Acid detergent fibre) and
NDF (Neutral detergent fibre) of different treatments showed that response to Zn and B
application was non-significant. Acid detergent fibre and NDF increased with increasing levels of micronutrients over control but this increase was non significant. Acid detergent fibre of different treatments ranged from 37.70 to 38.67 percent (Appendix 21; Figure
14) neutral detergent fibre ranged from 60.30 to 61.71 percent (Appendix 22; Figure
15).
Our results are in contrast with Tripathi et al. (2009a) who reported that crude
protein content of sorghum crop was significantly affected by micronutrient fertilization.
The reason for improvement in fodder quality could be traced back in pivotal role of Zn
and B (Jahiruddin et al., 2001) in plant nutrition. The beneficial effect of B also could be
expected, because it plays a vital role in carbohydrate metabolism and in protein
formation (Mengel and Kirkby, 1987). Our results are in line with those of Sinha and
Chatterjee, (1994) and Tamak et al. (1997) reported that B decreased the protein content.
However, in contrast, Singh, (1991) who reported that application of micronutrients
increased the crude protein in various crops. Similarly, Keshwa and Jat, (1992); Dadhich
and Gupta, (2005) and Jain and Dahama (2006) also noted a significant increase in
content and yield of protein with Zn application. This may be attributed to a significant
role of Zn in protein synthesis and nitrogen metabolism in the plant. While Gupta, (1979)
conclusively suggested that B fertilization has also positive response to crop quality. In
this study, there is a non-significant affect of micronutrients (Zn and B) on ADF and
NDF contents of pearl millet. On the other hand, the results differ from that of Keshwa
133
Fig 14: Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on ADF of pearl millet. Each value is the mean + SE of three replicates and the alphabets on the bars present statistical difference (p<0.05) in values after LSD
134
Fig 15: Effect of different combinations of Zn and B on NDF of pearl millet. Each value is the mean + SE of three replicates and the alphabets on the bars present statistical difference (p<0.05) in values after LSD
135 and Jat, (1992) and Dadhich and Gupta, (2005) observed that there was a significant increase of fibre contents with micronutrient application.
It can be amply surmised from above discussion that fodder yield of pearl millet depends on an adequate supply of B and Zn. While treatment T 9 (B2, Zn10) gave the outstanding results. It produced higher dry matter yield, taller plant and maximum number of tillers per plant. Further, there is non significant affect of micronutrients on quality of pearl millet.
Our results demonstrate that crops grown in Sargodha district suffer from widespread micronutrient deficiencies of Zn, Fe and B and application of these micronutrients (B, Zn) can play a major role towards improving forage yield of oat and pearl millet. We recommend following things.
• At present, micronutrient indexation of soils and crops is restricted to specific
areas /cropping systems. So systematic nutrient indexing is suggested in the left
over areas.
• Special emphasis is needed for micronutrient nutrition of minor crops which are
sensitive to micronutrient deficiency and not received due attention in the past.
• Development of tolerant crop genotypes to micronutrient stresses, by involving
plant breeders, plant physiologists and soil scientists.
• High cost and low availability of inputs coupled with their low use efficiency call
for adopting innovative technologies like fertigation.
• Long-term studies on the status of total and available micronutrient contents with
relevance to major soil types are suggested under a coordinated research and
development project at national level.
136
• Human, animal and plant nutritionist should explore role of micronutrient
deficiencies in plans, animals and human beings.
137 LITERATURE CITED
Abedin, M.J., M. Jahiruddin., M.S. Haque., M.R. Islam., and M. Ahmed. 1994. Application of B for improving grain yield in wheat. Prog. Agri., 5: 75-79. Abu-Sharar, T.M., and A.S. Salameh. 1995. Reduction in hydraulic conductivity and infiltration rate in relation to aggregate stability and irrigation water turbidity. Agri. Water Manage., 29: 53-62. Ahmad, M.M., S. Ahmad., M. Yasin., and M. Shafiq. 2001. Issues and potential of marginal quality water for irrigation. Proceedings 2nd National Seminar on Drainage in Pakistan, April 18-19, 2001. Univ. Agri., Faisalabad: 258-268. Ahmad, R. 1993. Disposal of saline drainage effluent. DRIP Newsletter. Drainage and Reclamation Institute of Pakistan, Tando Jam, 14: 8. Ahmed, H., M.T. Siddique, S. Ali., A. Khalid., and N.A. Abbasi. 2012. Mapping of Fe and impact of selected physico-chemical properties on its bioavailability in the apple orchards of Murree region. Soil Environm., 31(1): 100-107. Ahmed, N., and G.R. Chaudhry. 1987. Irrigated agriculture of Pakistan. Lahore, Pakistan. Ahmed, N., M. Abid., A. Rashid., F. Ahmad., and M.A. Ali. 2011. Impact of residual and cumulative zinc on cotton-wheat productivity in an irrigated Aridisol. Abstract In: 3rd International Zinc Symposium "Improving Crop Production and Human Health", 10–14 October 2011, Hyderabad, India. Akmal, M., M. Naeem., S. Naseem., and A. Shakoor. 2002. Performance of different pearl millet varieties under rainfed conditions. Pak. J. Agri. Res., 17(4): 351-354. Alloway, B.J. 2004. Zinc in soils and crop nutrition. International Zn Association. Brussels, Belgium: 22-33. Alloway, B.J. 2009. Soil factors associated with zinc deficiency in crops and humans. Environ. Geochem. Hlth., 31: 537–548. Andreini, C., I. Bertini., and A. Rosato. 2009. Metalloproteomes: a bioinformatic approach. Acc. Chem. Res., 42:1471–1479. Anonymous. 1954. U. S. Salinity Lab. Staff. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soil. USDA Handbook to Washington, USA. Anonymous. 2003. Economic Survey of Pakistan. Economic Advisor’s Wing, Finance Div., GOP, Islamabad. Anonymous. 2007. Help eliminate the fifth leading disease risk factor in developing countries. Ferti. Agri., International Fertilizer Agency, Paris. Anonymous. 2008. Pakistan Statistics Year Book. Federal Bureau of Statistics, Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Arora, C.L., and G.S. Sekhon. 1980. The effect of soil characteristics on the Zn-Cu interaction in the nutrition of wheat. J. Agri. Sci., Cambridge, 99: 185-190.
138 Asher, C.J. 1991. Beneficial elements, functional nutrients, and possible new essential elements. In: Mortvedt, J. J., Cox, F.R., Shuman, L.M., and R. M. Welch (eds). Micronutrients in Agriculture. SSSA. Book Series, 2(4): 703-723. Ashraf, Y., S.A. Nagra., and A.H. Gillani. 1995. Micro mineral contents of fodder as affected by varieties and harvesting intervals. J. Agri. Res., 35 (3-4): 352-355. Aslam, K.M. 1990. To study the effect of B fertilization on the yield of maize. M.Sc (Hons.) thesis. Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw Agri. Univ., Peshawar. Aslam, M., and S.A. Prathapar. 2006. Strategies to Mitigate Secondary Salinization in the Indus Basin of Pakistan: a Selective Review. Research Report 97. International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, Sri Lanka: 1-17. Asten, P.J.A., S.E. Van Barro., M. C. S. Wopereis., and T. Defoer. 2004. Using farmer knowledge to combat low productive spots in rice fields of a Sahelian irrigation scheme, Land Degradation and Development, 15: 383-396. Avais, M.A., S. Siddiq., N.A. Chaudhry., M.A. Nasir., M. Azam., and M. Ishfaq. 2006. Soil fertility status of citrus orchards in district Sargodha. In: International Symposium on Sustainable Crop Improvement and Integrated Management. September 14-16:174-177. Ayers, R.S., and D.W. Westcot. 1985. Water quality for agriculture (FAO Irrig. and Drainage Pap. 29, Rev. 1), Rome: FAO: 63. Bashir, K., Y. Ishimaru., and N.K. Nishizawa. 2012. Molecular mechanisms of zinc uptake and translocation in rice. Plant Soil, 361:189–201. Bauder, J.W., and T.A. Brock. 2001. Irrigation water quality, soil amendments, and crop effects on sodium leaching. Arid Land Res. Manag., 15: 101–113. Baumhardt, R.L., C.W. Wendt., and J. Moore. 1992. Infiltration in response to water quality, tillage and gypsum. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 56: 261-266. Bell, R.W., and B. Rerkasem (ed.). 1997. Boron in soils and Plants. Proc. International Symposium on B in Soils and Plants, 7-11 September 1997, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 270. Benbi, D.D., and S.P.S. Brar. 1992. The interpretation of Olsen extractable P values in relation to recommendations for the fertilizer requirements of crops. Fert. Res., 32: 223-227. Bouwer, H. 2000. Groundwater problems caused by irrigation with sewage effluent. J. Environ. Health, 63: 17–20. Brady, N.C., 1996. The Nature and Properties of soils. 11th ed. Mcmillan Publishing Company. Inc. New York: 444-487. Brady, N.C., and R.R. Weil. 2002. The nature and properties of soil. 13th edition. Prentice Hall, U.S.A: 1-667. Brennan, R.F. 1991. Effectiveness of Zinc sulfate and Zinc chelate as foliar sprays in alleviating Zn deficiency of wheat grown on Zn-deficient soils in Western Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agri., 31: 831-834.
139 Broadley M.R., P.J. White., J.P. Hammond., I. Zelko., and A. Lux. 2007. Zinc in plants. New Phytol., 173: 677–702. Brown, J.C. 1961. Iron chlorosis in plants. Adv. Agron., 13: 239-269. Brown, J.C. 1977. Physiography of plant tolerance to alkaline soils. In: Crop tolerance to sub-optional land condition (ASA Special Publication 32): 257-276. Buri, M.M., T. Masunaga., and T. Wakatsuki. 2000. Sulfur and Zn levels as limiting factors to rice production in West Africa lowlands. Geoderma, 94: 23–42. Cakmak, I. 2002. Plant nutrition research: Priorities to meet human needs for food in sustainable ways. Plant Soil, 247: 3–24. Cakmak, I. 2004. Identification and correction of widespread Zn deficiency in Turkey- a success story. Proc. of International Fertilizer Society, 552:1-26. Cakmak, l., and V. Romheld. 1997. Boron deficiency induced impairments of cellular functions in plants. Plant Soil, 193: 71-83. Carvajal, M., V. Martinez., and F.C. Alcaraz. 1999. Physiological function of water channels as affected by salinity in roots of paprika pepper. Physiol. Plantarum, 105: 95-101. Chahal, D.S., B.D. Sharma., and P.K., Singh. 2005. Distribution of forms of Zn and their association with soil properties and uptake in different soils orders in semi-arid soils of Punjab, India. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 36: 2857-2874. Chakraborti, D., B. Das., and M. Muurrill. 2011. Examining India’s groundwater quality management. Environ. Sci. Technol., 45: 27–33. Chang, C.W. 1961. Effect of saline irrigation and exchangeable sodium on soil properties and growth of alfalfa and cotton. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Pro., 19: 29–35. Change, M.H., M. Sheikh., and A.M. Leghari.1997. Crop production with saline drainage effluent. J. Drainage Water Manage., 2(1): 76-83. Chatterjee, C., R. Gopal., and B.K. Dube. 2006. Impact of Fe stress on biomass, yield, metabolism and quality of potato. Sci. Hortic., 108: 1-6. Chattopadhyay, T., A.K. Sahoo., R.S. Singh., and R.L. Shyampura. 1996. Available micronutrient status in the soils of Vindhyan scarplands of Rajasthan in relation to soil characteristics. J. Indian. Soc. Soil Sci., 44(4): 678-681. Chaudhary, M.H. 1983. Developments in fodder production in Punjab. Prog. Farming, 3: 22-25. Chaudhary, M.H., M.A. Mukhtar., and M. Saleem. 1985. Research in fodder crops in Punjab- A perspective. Prog. Farming, 5: 28-34. Chaudhary, M.R., A. Hameed., M.A. Chaudhary., and M.Q. Channa. 1997. Soil properties and crops yield as affected by drainage water and management practices. In: Proceedings of International Symposium on Water for the 21st Century, Vol. 2. CEWRE, UET, Lahore, Pakistan, 17–19 June 1997: 403–410.
140 Chaudhary, M.R., C.B. Ahmed., and M. Abaidullah. 1990. Management of brackish water and its impact on soil properties and crop yield. In: Proceedings of Indo-Pak Workshop on Soil Salinity and Water Management, vol. 2. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC), Islamabad, Pakistan, 10–14 February 1990: 311–324. Chaudhry, M.R., M.S. Rafiq., and C.B. Ahmad. 1988. Impact of Zn on crop production and soil properties in a saline sodic soil. Pak. J. Soil Sci., 3: 35-37. Chaudhry, T.M., and G.R. Hisiani 1970. Effect of B on the yield of seed cotton. The Pakistan cottons, 1: 13-15. Chengrui, M.,and H.E. Dregne. 2001. Silt and the future development of China’s Yellow River. The Geographical Journal, 167: 7–22. Chhabra, G., P.C. Srivastava., D. Ghosh., and A.K. Agnihotri. 1996. Distribution of available micronutrient cations as related to soil properties in different soil zones of Gola-Kosi interbasin Crop, Res.II (3): 296-303. Choudhary, B. R., G.L. Keshwa., and C.M. Parihar. 2005. Effect of thiourea and Zn on productivity of Pearl millet. Ann. Agri. Res., 26 (3): 424-427. Choudhary, O.P., A.S. Josan., M.S. Bajwa., and M.L. Kapur. 2004. Effect of sustained sodic and saline–sodic irrigations and application of gypsum and farmyard manure on yield and quality of sugarcane under semi-arid conditions. Field Crop Res., 87: 103–116. Choudhary, O.P., B.S. Ghuman., A.S. Josan., and M.S. Bajwa. 2006. Effect of alternating irrigation with sodic and non-sodic waters on soil properties and sunflower yield. Agri. Water Manage., 85:15 1 – 56. Choudhary, O.P., Kaur., Gurleen., Benbi., and D. Kumar. 2007. Influence of long-term sodic-water irrigation, gypsum, and organic amendments on soil properties and nitrogen mineralization kinetics under rice-wheat system. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 38: 2717 – 2731. Costa, J.L., L. Prunty., B.R. Montgomery., J.L. Richardson., and R.S. Alessi. 1991. Water-quality effects on soils and alfalfa. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 55: 203-209. Cottenie, A. 1980. Soil and plant testing as a basis of fertilizer recommendations. FAO Soils Bulletin 38/2: 120. Dadhich, L.K., and A.K. Gupta. 2003. Productivity and economics of pearl millet fodder as influenced by S, Zn and planting pattern. Forage Res., 28(4): 207-209. Dadhich, L.K., and A.K. Gupta. 2005. Effect of sulphur, Zn, and planting pattern on yield and quality of fodder pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum). Indian. J. Agri. Sci., 75 (1): 49-51. Dar, W.D. 2004. Macro-benefits from micronutrients for grey to green revolution in agriculture, IFA International Symposium on Micronutrients, New Delhi, India. Das, D.K., and D. Saha. 1999. Micronutrient research in soils and crops of West Bengal. Department of Agriculture Chemistry and Soil Science, Bidhan Chandra KrishiViswavldyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia, West Bengal.
141 Dasberg, S., H. Bielorai., A. Haimowitz., and Y. Erner. 1991. The effect of saline irrigation water on “Shamouti” orange trees. Irrigation Sci., 12: 205-211. Day, P.R. 1965. Particle fractionation and particle size analysis. In: C.A. Black (ed.) Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, USA : 545-567. Deal, G.M., and E. Alcantara. 2002. Bicarbonate and low Fe level increase root to total plant weight ratio in Olive and Peach rootstock. J. Plant Nutr., 25: 1021-1032. Deb, D.L., and R. Sakal. 2002. Micronutrients. In: Sekhlon et al. (eds.), Foundation of Soil Science. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., New Delhi: 391-404. Dell, B., P.H. Brown., and R.W. Bell. (ed.). 1997. Boron in soil and plants: Reviews. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: 219. Dwivedi, G.K., M. Dwivedi., and S.S. Pal. 1990. Modes of application of micronutrients in acid soil in soybean-wheat crop sequence. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 38: 458-463. Eck, P., and F.J. Campbell. 1962. Effect of high calcium on boron tolerance of carnation, Dianthus caryophyllus. P. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci., 81: 510-517. Economic Survey. 2009. Pakistan economic survey 2008-09. Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan: 16-24. Emerson, W.W., and A.C. Bakker. 1973. The comparative effect of exchangeable Ca: Mg and Na on some soil physical properties of red brown earth soils. The spontaneous dispersion of aggregates in water. Aust. J. Soil Res., 11: 151-152. Evans, I.R., and E. Soldberg. 1998. Minerals for plants, animals, and man. Agri-Facts (Agdex 531-3). Alberta agriculture Food and Rural Development. Eyupoglu, F., N. Kurucu., and U. Sanisa. 1994. Status of plant available micronutrients in Turkish soils. In: Annual Report No. R-118. Soil and Fertilizer Research Institute, Ankara: 25-32. Fageria, N.K. 2002. Influence of micronutrients on dry matter yield and interaction with other nutrients in annual crops. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira, 37: 1765-1772. Fleming, G.A. 1980. Essential micronutrients: Boron and Molybdenum. In: Applied Soil Trace Elements, ed. B. E. Davies: 155-176. Francois, L.E. and Maas, E.V. 1994.Crop response and management on salt-effected soils. In: M. Pessarakli (ed.), Handbook of plants & crop stress. Marcel Dekkar, Inc., New york, USA: 149-181. Franzen, D.W., and J.L. Richardson. 2000. Soil factors affecting Fe chlorosis of soybean in the red river valley of North Dakota and Minnesota. J. Plant Nutr. , 23: 67-78. Gaines, T.P., and G.A. Mitchell. 1979. Boron determination in plant tissue by the azomethine-H method. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 10: 1099-1108. Ghafoor, A., G. Murtaza., M. Z. Rehman, Saifullah., and M. Sabir. 2012. Reclamation and salt leaching efficiency for tile drained saline-sodic soil using marginal quality water for irrigating rice and wheat crops. Land Degrad. Dev., 23: 1–9.
142 Ghafoor, A., M. Azam., and M. Shoaib. 1993. Characterization of tube well and handpump waters in the Faisalabad tehsil. J. Pak. Soc. Soil Sci., 8: 1-2. Ghafoor, A., M.R. Chaudhry., M. Qadir., G. Murtaza., and H.R. Ahmad. 1997. Use of drainage water for crops on normal and salt-affected soils without disturbing biosphere equilibrium. Publ. No.176. IWASRI Lahore, Pakistan. Goldback, H.E., Q. Yu., R. Wingender., M. Schulz., M. Wimmer., P. Findeklee., and F. Baluska. 2001. Rapid response reactions of roots to B deprivation. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sc., 164: 173-181. Gowda, N. K. S., J.V. Ramana., C.S. Parsad., and K. Singh. 2004. Micronutrient content of certain tropical conventional and unconventional feed resources of Southern India. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 36: 77-94. Graham, R.D. 1991. Breeding wheat for tolerance to micronutrient deficient soils: Present status and priorities. In: Wheat for the Non-Traditional Warm Areas CIMMYT (ed. Saunders, D. A), Mexico D. F: 315-332. Grattan, S.R., and C.M. Grieve. 1999. Salinity-mineral nutrient relations in horticultural crops. Sci. Hortic., 78: 127–157. Grattan, S.R., and J.D. Oster. 2003. Use and reuse of saline-sodic waters for irrigation of crops. J. Crop Prod., 7: 131–162. Grewal, H.S., and R.D. Graham. 1999. Residual effects of subsoil Zn and oilseed rape genotype on grain yield and distribution of Zn in wheat. Plant Soil, 207: 123-132. Gritsenko, G.V., and A.V. Gritsenko. 1999. Quality of irrigation water and outlook for phytomelioration of soils. Eurasian Soil Sci., 32(2): 236-242. Gupta, A.P. 2005. Micronutrient status and fertilizer use scenario in India. J. Trace Elem. Med. Bio., 18: 325-331. Gupta, G.P., R.S. Khanparia., B. L. Sharma., and Y. M. Sharma. 2000. Extractable micronutrients in relation to properties of some red and yellow soils of Madhya Pradesh. Ann. Agri. Res., 21 (4): 522-526. Gupta, R.K., and I.P. Abrol. 2000. Salinity build-up and changes in the rice-wheat system of the Indo-Gangetic Plains. Exp. Agri., 36: 273–284. Gupta, R.K., N.T. Singh., and M. Sethi. 1994. Groundwater quality for irrigation in India. In: Technical bulletin, 19: 1-13. Gupta, R.K., R.R. Singh., and I.P. Abrol. 1989. Influence of simultaneous changes in sodicity and pH on the hydraulic conductivity of an alkali soil under rice culture. Soil Sci., 147: 28-33. Gupta, U.C. 1979. Boron nutrition of crops. Adv. Agron., 31: 273-307. Gupta, U.C. 1993. Deficiency, sufficiency, and toxicity levels of B in crops. In: Boron and its role in Crop Production. Ed. U. C. Gupta: 137-145. Gupta, V.K. 1995. Zinc research and agricultural production. In: Micronutrient Research and Agriculture Production (HLS Tandon.ed.), FDCO, New Delhi: 142.
143 Gupta, V.K., A.P.Gupta., and J.C. Katyal. 1986. J. Ind. Soc. Soil Sci., 34: 92-96. Haby, V.S., and J.R. Sims. 1979. Availability of micronutrient cations in Montana soils. Bulletin 708, Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, Bozeman, Montana. Hadda, M.S., and S. Arora. 2006. Soil and nutrient management practices for sustaining crop yields under maize-wheat cropping sequence in sub-mountain Punjab, India. Soil Environm., 2: 1-5. Halina, D.N. 2000. Status of Fe in alluvial soils from the Wisla River Valley, Poland. J. Plant Nutr., 23 (11-12): 1549-1557. Hall, J.L., and L.E. Williams. 2003. Transition metal transporter in plants. J. Exp. Bot., 54: 2601-2613. Hansen, N.C., M.A. Schmitt., J.E. Anderson., and J.S. Strock. 2003. Iron deficiency of soybean in upper Midwest and associated soil properties. Agron. J., 95: 1595-1601. Hansen, N.C., V.D. Jolley., S.L. Naeve., and R.J. Goos. 2004. Iron deficiency of soybean in north central US and associated soil properties. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 50: 983-87. Hassan, A., M. Abid., A. Ghafoor., and M.R. Chaudhry. 1996. Growth response of wheat and sorghum to ECiw, SARiw and RSC grown on Rasalpur Bhalike soil series. Pak. J. Soil Sci., 1: 5-9. Havlin. J.L., J.D. Beaton, S.L. Tisdale and W.L. Nelson. 2005. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers: An Introduction to Nutrient Management. 7th Edition: 515. Hazra, C.R. 1992. Fertilizer use in forage pasture and grassland production.In: Non- Traditional Sectors for Fertilizer use. FDCO New Dehli: 30-47. Hazra, C.R., and S.B. Tripathi. 1998. Fert. News., 43: 77-89. Hodgson, J.F. 1963. Chemistry of micronutrient in soils. Adv. Agron., 15: 119-150. Holloway, R.E., R.D. Graham., and Stacey. 2006. Micronutrient deficiencies in Australian field crops. Chapter 3 In: Alloway, B. J. (ed.) Micronutrient Deficiencies in Global crop production, Springer, Dordrecht: 63-92. Hu, H., and D. Sparks. 1991. Zinc deficiency inhibits chlorophyll synthesis and gas exchange in 'Stuart' pecan. Hortic. Sci., 26: 267-268. Hussain T., A.M. Akhtar., G. Gilani., and H. Akram. 1991. Management of poor quality drainage waters for crop production under cotton-wheat cropping system. J. Drain. Reclaim., 3 (2): 14-19. Hussain, A., D. Mohammad, S. Khan., and M.B. Bhatti. 1993. Forage yield and quality potential of various cultivars of Oat (Avena Sativa L.) Pak. J. Sci. Indus. Res., 36: 258-260. Hussain, A., D. Mohammad., S. Khan., M.B. Bhati., and M.U. Mufti. 1998. Effect of harvest stage on forage yield and quality of winter cereals. Sarhad J. Agri., 14: 219- 224.
144 Hussein, M.M., A.L. Saleh., A.A. Abd-El-Kader., and A.A. Amedabo-El-Liell. 2002. Macronutrient concentration and contents in sorghum fodder as affected by nitrogen fertilization and irrigation intervals. 17th WCSS, 14-21 August, Thailand: 2305-10. Ibrahim, M., and N. Hussain. 1988. Irrigation quality of Pakistan rivers water. J. Agri. Res., 26: 149-154. Iftikhar-ul-haq. 1996. Annual Report, 1995-96. Directorate of soils and plant nutrition, ARI, Tarnab, Peshawar. Inskeep, W.P., and P.R. Bloom. 1986. Effect of soil moisture on soil CO2, soil solution bicarbonate, and Fe chlorosis in soybeans. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 50: 946-952. Iqtidar, A., J.K. Khattak., S. Perveen., and T. Jabeen. 1979. Effect of boron on the yield and crude protein content of wheat, Pak. J. Sci. Indus. Res., 22: 248-250. Isaac, R.K., T.K. Khura., and J.R. Wurmbrand. 2008. Surface and subsurface water quality appraisal for irrigation. Environ. Monit. Assess: 643-45. Islam, M.S., and K.H. Talukder. 1991. Research findings on the effect of B in cereals and vegetables. Annual Report 1987-1991. Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute, Joydebpur. Jahiruddin, M., H. Harada., T. Hatanaka., and Y. Sunaga. 2001. Adding B and Zn to soil for improvement of fodder value of soybean and corn. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 32 (17-18): 2943-51. Jain, N.K., and A.K. Dahama. 2006. Direct and residual effects of P and Zn fertilization on productivity of wheat (Triticum aestivum) - pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum). Indian. J. Agron., 51 (3): 165-169. Jain, N.K., B.L. Poonia., and R.P. Singh. 2001. Response of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) to Zn fertilization in flood-prone eastern plains zone of Rajasthan. Ind. J. Agri. Sci., 71 (5): 339-44. Jakhar, S.R., M. Singh., and C.M. Balai. 2006. Effect of farmyard manure, P and Zn levels on growth, yield, quality and economics of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.). Ind. J. Agri. Sci., 76 (1): 58-61. Jalali, V.K., A.R. Talib., and P.N. Takkar. 1989. Distribution of micronutrients in some benchmark soils of Kashmir at different altitudes. J. Indian. Soc. Soil Sci., 37: 465. James, D.W., C.J. Hurst, and T.A. Tindall. 1995. Alfalfa cultivar response to phosphorus and potassium deficiency: Elemental composition of the herbage. J. Plant Nutr. 18: 2447−2464. Javed, Y. 1990. Effect of different levels of nitrogen with and without Zn sprays on vigour, growth, and quality of citrus. M.Sc. (Hons.) thesis. Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw Agri. Univ. Peshawar. Jayanthi, C., P. Malarvizhi., A.K.Fazullah Khan., and C. Chinnusamy. 2002. Integerated nutrient management in Oat. Indian. J. Agron., 47(1): 130-133.
145 Jeon, J.F., C.L. Chen, and K.H. Houng. 1986. Micronutrient deficiencies and balances in groundnut plants. Memoirs of the College of Agriculture, National Taiwan University, Taiwan. Johnson, C.P., C. Kerridge., and A. Sultana. 1997. Responses of forage legumes and grasses to Molybdenum. In: Gupta. U.C. (ed.) Molybdenum in Agriculture. Cambridge University Press, U.K: 202-228. Johnson, G.D., J.L. Sims., and J.H. Grove. 1989. Distribution of potassium and chloride in two soils as influenced by rate and time of KCl application and soil pH. Tob. Sci., 33: 35–39. Jones, J.B. Jr., B. Wolf, and H.A. Mills. 1991. Plant Analysis Handbook. Macro–Micro Publishing, Inc. Athens, Georgia, USA: 27-56. Kaddak, M.T., and S.I. Ghowail. 1964. Salinity effect on the growth of corn at different stages of development. Agron. J., 56: 214–217. Kahlown, M.A., and M. Azam. 2003. Effect of saline drainage effluent on soil health and crop yield. Agri. Water Manage., 62: 127–138. Kannan, V., R. Ramesh., and C. Sasikumar. 2005. Study on ground water characteristics and effects of discharged effluents from textile units at Kasur district. J. Environ. Health, 26(2): 269-272. Kanwar, J.S., and M.L. Chaudhary. 1968. Effect of Mg on the uptake of nutrients from the soil. J. Res. Pb. Agri. Univ., 3: 309-319. Karaivazogloua, N.A., D.K. Papakostab., and S. Divanidisc. 2005. Effect of chloride in irrigation water and form of nitrogen fertilizer on Virginia (flue-cured) tobacco. Field Crops Res., 92: 61–74. Katyal, J.C., and B.D. Sharma. 1979. Role of micronutrients in crop production (A review). Fert. Res., 24: 33-50. Katyal, J.C., and B.D. Sharma. 1980. A new technique to resolve iron chlorosis. Plant Soil, 55:105-119. Katyal, J.C., and B.D. Sharma. 1991. DTPA- extractable and total Fe, Cu, Mn and Fe in Indian soils and their association with some soil properties. Geoderma, 49: 165-179. Katyal. J.C. 2004. Role of micronutrients in ensuring optimum use of macronutrients. IFA International Symposium on Micronutrients, Held during 23-25 February 2004 at New Delhi: 3-17. Kaur, J., O.P. Choudhary., and B. Singh. 2008. Microbial biomass carbon and some soil properties as influenced by long-term sodic-water irrigation, gypsum, and organic amendments. Aust. J. Soil Res., 46: 141–151. Kennedy, G., and B. Burlinghame. 2003. Analysis of food composition data on rice from a plant genetic resources perspective. Food Chem., 80: 589-596. Keren, R. 1996. Boron. In: D.L. Sparks et al. (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis, part 3: Chemical Methods. Soil Sci. Soc. America, Madison, WI, USA: 603-626.
146 Keren, R., and F.T. Bingham. 1985. Boron in waters, soils, and plants. Adv. Soil. Sci., 1: 229-276. Keshwa, G.L. and P.C. Jat. 1992. Effect of P and Zn on quality and fodder production of summer pearl millet. Indian J. Agron., 37 (1): 187-188. Khalid M., M.Y. Nadeem., M. Ibrahim., and A. Ali. 1999. Use of brackish water for irrigation by alternating it was canal water. Proc. National Workshop on water resources Achievements and Issues in 20th Century and Challenges for the next Millennium, June 28-30, 1999, Islamabad. Pakistan Council of Research in water Resources, Islamabad: 202-206. Khan, M.B., M.Y. Khan., M.I. Khan., and M.T. Akbar. 2012. Quality of ground water for irrigation of tehsil Kot Adu, district Muzaffar Garh Punjab, Pakistan. World Rural Obser., 4(2): 1-6. Khan, Z.I. 2003. Effect of seasonal variation on the availability of macro-and micronutrients to animals (Sheep and Goat) through forage from soil. PhD Thesis. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan: 286. Khan, Z.I., A. Hussain., M. Ashraf., and L.R. McDowell. 2006. Mineral Status of Soils and Forages in Southwestern Punjab-Pakistan: Micro-minerals. Asian Austral. J. Anim., 19(8): 1139 – 1147. Khattak J.K. 1980, 1981, 1987, 1988. Cooperative research program on micronutrient status of Pakistan. Soil and its role on crop production, Annual Reports, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1986-87, and 1987-88. Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw Agri. Univ., Peshawar. Khattak, J.K. 1994. Effect of foliar application of micronutrients in combination on with urea on the yield and fruit quality of Sweet oranges. Final Technical Report 1991- 1994. Pakistan Science Foundation, Islamabad and Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw Agr. Univ., Peshawar. Khattak, J.K. 1995. Micronutrients in Pakistan agriculture. Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw Agri. Univ., Peshawar: 135. Khattak. J.K. and S. Parveen.1988. Micronutrient status of Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw soils. In: Proc. National seminar on Micronutrients in Soils and Crops in Pakistan. Dec. 13-15, 1987. Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw Agri. Univ. Peshawar: 62-74. Khodapanah, L., W.N.A. Sulaiman., and N. Khodapanah. 2009. Groundwater quality assessment for different purposes in Eshtehard district, Tehran, Iran. Eur. J. Sci. Res., 36(4): 543-553. Khush, G.S. 2001. Challenges for meeting the global food and nutrient needs in the new millennium, Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 60: 15-26. Kumar, V., V.S. Ahlawat., R.S. Antil., and D.S. Yadav. 1986. Interaction of N and Zn in pearl millet: 2. Effect on concentration and uptake of phosphorus, potassium, iron, manganese, and copper. Soil Sci., 142(6): 340-345. Laluraj C.M., G. Gopinath. 2006. Assessment on seasonal variation of groundwater quality of phreatic aquifers - a river basin system. Environ. Monit. Assess., 117(1- 3): 45-57.
147 Latif, M., and A. Beg. 2004. Hydrosalinity issues, challenges and options in OIC member states. In: M. Latif, S. Mahmood, and M. M. Saeed, eds. Proceedings of the International Training Workshop on Hydrosalinity Abatement and Advance Techniques for Sustainable Irrigated Agriculture, PCRWR, Islamabad: 1-14. Lee, S., H.J. Jeong., S.A. Kim., J. Lee., M.L. Guerinot., and G. An. 2010a. OsZIP5 is a plasma membrane zinc transporter in rice. Plant Mol. Biol., 73: 507–517. Lee, S., S.A. Kim., J. Lee., M.L. Guerinot., and G. An. 2010b. Zinc deficiency-inducible OsZIP8 encodes a plasma membrane-localized zinc transporter in rice. Mol. Cells, 29: 551–558. Lindsay, W. L., and W. A. Norvell. 1978. Development of a DTPA soil test for Zn, Fe, Mn, and Cu. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 42: 421-428. Lindsay, W.L. 1991. Inorganic equilibria affecting micronutrients in soil. In: Micronutrients in Agriculture, 2nd ed. (J.J. Mortvedt, F. R. Cox, L.M. Shuman, R. M. Welch, ed.). Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison: 89-144. Lindsay, W.L., and A.P. Schwab. 1982. The chemistry of Fe in soils and its availability to plants. J. Plant Nutr., 5: 821-840. Lindsay, W.L., and F.R. Cox. 1985. Micronutrient soil testing for tropics. In: P.L.G. Vlek (Editor). Micronutrients in Topical Food Crop Production. Fert. Res., 7: 169-200. Lins, I.D.G., and F.R. Cox. 1988. Effect of soil pH and clay content on the Zn soil test interpretation for corn. Soil Sci. Soc. Am J., 52: 1681-1683. Liu, Zheng. 1991. Characterization of content and distribution of microelements in soils of China. In: Portch, S. (ed.) International symposium on the Role of Sulphur, Magnesium, and Micronutrients in Balanced plant Nutrition. Potash and phosphate Institute of Canada, Hong Kong, China: 54-61. Loomis, W.D., and R.W. Durst. 1992. Chemistry and biology of boron. Bio Factors, 3: 229-239. MacLnnes, C.B., and L.S. Albert. 1969. Effect of light intensity and plant size on the rate of development of early boron deficiency symptoms in tomato root tips. Plant Physiol., 44: 965-967. Mahabari, M.B. 1970. Boron status of soils of Maharashtra State. II. Boron contents of well waters of Western Maharashtra. M.Sc. (Agri) Thesis, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Pahuri. Majeed, R.S. 1987. To study the micronutrient status of Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir soils. M. Sc. (Hons.) thesis, Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw Agr. Univ., Peshawar. Malewar, G.U. 1994. Two decades of Soil Science research at Marathwada Agricultural University. Parbhani. Souvenir: 17-52. Malewar, G.U., and Prof. I. Syed. 1994. National seminar on development in Soil Science. Indian society of Soil Science. New Delhi: 440-441.
148 Malewar, G.V., S.D. Kate., S.L. Waiker., and S. Ismail. 2001. Interaction effect of Zn and B on yield, nutrient uptake and quality of mustard (Brassica Juncea L.) on a Typic Haplustert. J. Indian. Soc. Soil Sci., 49: 763-765. Malhi, S.S., K.S. Gill., D.H. McCartney., and R. Malmgren. 2004. Fertilizer management of forage crops in the Canadian Great Plains. Recent Res. Devel. Crop. Sci., 1: 237- 271. Malik, D.M., M.A. Khan., and B. Ahmad. 1984. Gypsum and fertilizer use efficiency of crop under different irrigation system in Punjab. In: Seminar on optimum crop production through Management of soil resources, May 12-13, 1984, Pakistan: 27. Malik, D.M., S. Mahmood., and Ehsan-ul-Haq. 1991. Soil fertility investigations on farmer’s fields. Annual Report, 1990-91. Soil Fertility and Testing Institute, Lahore. Malik, M.A., M.I. Makhdum., and S.I.H. Shah. 1992. Cotton response to B fertilizer in silt loam soils. In: Soil Health for Sustainable Agriculture Proc. Third National Congress of Soil Science, Lahore, March 20-22, 1990: 331-336 Maliwal, P.L., S.S. Manohar., and S.S Dhaka. 1985. Response of bajra to different levels of P, Zn, and F.Y.M. Indian. J. Agron., 30 (3): 314-317. Mandal, B., and De, D.K. 1993. Depth wise distribution of extractable B in some acidic inceptisols of India. Soil Sci., 155: 256-262. Mandal, B., S. Ghosh., and A.P. Chattopadhyay. 2004. Distribution of extractable B content in acidic soils of west Bengal in relation to soil properties. Indian J. Agri. Sci., 74: 658-662. Manohar, S.S., G.D. Singh., and P.S. Rathore. 1992. Response of fodder pearl millet to levels of N, P and Zn. Indian. J. Agron., 37 (2): 362-364. Marschner, H. 1995. Functions of mineral nutrients: Micronutrient Iron. In: Mineral Nutrition of Higher plants; Academic Press Ltd: Cambridge: 314-324. Martens, D.C., and Reed, S.T. 1991. Zn: Unlocking agronomic potential. Solutions: 29- 31. Matini, L., C. Tathy., and J.M. Moutou. 2012. Seasonal Groundwater Quality Variation in Brazzaville, Congo. Res. J. Chem. Sci., 2(1): 7-14. Mayruce, E.H., F.B. Robert., and S.M. Darrel. 1985. Forages. The Science of the Grassland Agriculture. 4th Ed. Iowa State University Press (Ames), Iowa, U.S.A: 413-421. Mc Dowell, L.R., and G. Valle. 2000. Major minerals in forages. In: Forage evaluation in Ruminant Nutrition (ed. D.I.Givens, E. Owen, R.F.E. Oxford and H.M. Omed): 373. Mc Dowell, L.R., M. Kiatoko., J.E. Bertrand., H.L. Chupman., F.M. Pate., F.G. Martin., and J.H. Comrad.1982. Evaluating the nutritional status of beef cattle from four soils order regions of Florida: II. Trace Minerals. J. Anim. Sci., 55: 38-47.
149 McFarlane, J.D. 1999. Iron. In: K. I. Peverill, L. A. Sparrow and D. J. Reuter (eds.), Soil Analysis. An Interpretation Manual. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood: 295-301. Mehboob, I., M.S. Shakir., and A. Mahboob. 2011. Surveying tubewell water suitability for irrigation in four tehsils of district Kasur. Soil Environm., 30(2): 155-159. Meng, F., Y. Wei., and X. Yang. 2005. Iron content and bioavailability in rice. J. Trace Elem. Med. Bio., 18: 333-338. Mengal, K., and E.A. Kirkby. 1987. Principles of plants Nutrition. Ed 4. International Potash institute. Berne, Switzerland: 533-43. Mengel, K., E.A. Kirkby., H. Kosegarten., and T. Appel. 2001. Iron. In: Principles of Plant Nutrition. Kluwer academic publish, Dordrecht: 553-571. Metochis, C., and P.I. Orphanos. 1990. Course of chloride concentration in tobacco leaves through the harvesting season. J. Plant Nutr. 13 (5): 485–493. Minhas, P.S. 1996. Saline water management for irrigation in India. Agri. Water Manage., 30: 1-24. Minhas, P.S., and M.S. Bajwa. 2001. Use and management of poor quality waters for the rice–wheat based production system. J. Crop Prod., 4: 273–305. Minhas, P.S., S.K. Dubey., and D.R. Sharma. 2007. Comparative effects of blending, intera/inter–seasonal cyclic uses of alkali and good quality waters on soil properties and yields of paddy and wheat. Agri. Water Manage., 87: 83–90. Mohr, R.M., C.A. Grant., and W.E. May. 2004. Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium fertilizer management for oat. Better Crops, 88 (4): 12-14. Mohtadullah, K., C. A. U. Rehman., and C. M. Munir. 1993. Water for the 21st Century. Environment and Urban Affairs Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. Monteiro, F.A.1991. Forrageiras. In: M.E. Ferreira and M.C.P. Cruz (eds). Micronutrients na agricultura: 651-682. Mori, S. 1999. Iron acquisition by plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol., 2: 250–253. Morris, D.R., R.H. Loeppert., and T.J. More. 1990. Indigenous soil factors influencing Fe chlorosis of soybean in calcareous soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 54: 1329-1336. Muhammad, S., and A. Ghafoor. 1992. Physical and chemical methods of reclaiming saline-sodic soils using marginal groundwater. In: Proceedings of Fifth International Drainage Workshop, 3: 121–130. Muhammed, S., and A. Ghafoor. 1992. Irrigation water salinity/sodicity analysis. In: G. Haider (ed.) Manual of Soil Salinity Research. Publ. No. 147, IWASRI, Lahore, Pakistan: 3.1-3.28. Murtaza, B., G. Murtaza., M. Zia-ur-Rehman., A. Ghafoor., S. Abubakar., and M. Sabir. 2011. Reclamation of salt-affected soils using amendments and growing wheat crop. Soil Environm., 30(2): 130-136. Murtaza, G., A. Ghafoor., G. Owens., M. Qadir., U.Z. Kahlon. 2009. Environmental and economic benefits of saline-sodic soil reclamation using lowquality water and soil
150 amendments in conjunction with a rice-wheat cropping system. J. Agron. Crop Sci., 195: 124–136. Nable, R.O., and M.J. Webb. 1993. Further evidence that Zn is required throughout the root zone for optimal plant growth and development. Plant Soil, 150: 247-253. Nayyar, V.K., U.S. Sadana., and P.N. Takkar. 1985. Methods and rates of application of Mn and its critical level for wheat following rice on coarse textured soils. Fert. News, 8: 173-178. Nelson, D.W. and L.E. Sommers. 1996. Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. In: Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2, 2nd ed., A.L. Page et al., Ed. Agronomy 9: 961-1010. Neue H.U., C. Quijano., D. Senadhira., and T. Setter. 1998. Strategies for dealing with micronutrient disorders and salinity in lowland rice systems. Field Crop Res., 56: 139-155. NFDC. 1998. Micronutrients in agriculture: Pakistani Perspective. National Fertilizer Development Center, Islamabad, Pakistan: 1-51. NIAB. 1987. Fifteen years of NIAB. Nuclear Institute for Agriculture and Biology, Faisalabad. Nyborg, M., and P.B. Hoyt. 1970. Boron deficiency in turnip rape growth on gray wooded soils. Can. J. Soil Sci., 50: 87-88. O’Neill, M.A., T. Ishii., P. Albersheun., and A.G. Darvill. 2004. Rhamnogalacturonan II: Structure and function of a borate cross-linked cell wall pectic polysaccharide. Ann Rev. Plant Biol. 55: 109-139. Okazaki, E., and T.T. Chao. 1968. Boron adsorption and desorption by some Hawaiian soils. Soil Sci., 105: 255-259. Omorgie, A.U., and A.A. Oshineye. 2002. Mineral contents and their interrelationships in soils forage system along transshipment route of nomadic pastoralist in southern Nigeria. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 33 (11-12): 1841-1851. Oster, J.D. 2004. Amendment use to mitigate the adverse effects of sodic water. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Sustained Management of Sodic Lands, Extended Summaries, UPCAR, Lucknow, India: 89–91. Oster, J.D., and N.S. Jayawardene. 1998. Agricultural management of sodic soils. In: Sumner, M.E., Naidu, R. (Eds.), Sodic Soils: Distribution, Processes, Management and Environmental Consequences. Oxford University Press: 125–147. Page, A.L., A.C. Chang., and D.C. Adriano. 1990. Deficiencies and toxicities of trace elements. In: Tanji, K, K, (Ed), Agricultural Salinity Assessment and Management Manuals and reports on Engineering practices No, 71. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, USA: 138-160. Pandya, H.G., N. Narayana., and H.R. Arakeri. 1955. Effect of trace elements on the yield of bajra crop. Pune Agriculture College Magazine, 45 (1): 127-128.
151 PARC. 1986. Soil status and scope of micronutrients in Pakistan agriculture. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, Islamabad: 36. Patel, K.P., and M.V. Singh. 1995. Copper research and agricultural production. In: Micronutrient Research and Agri Production. (ed.). HLS Tandon, FDCO, New Delhi: 15-33. Patel, K.P., K.C. Patel., V. George., and K.C. Ramani. 1999. Three decades of micronutrient research in soils and plants of Gujarat. GAU Anand: 1-20. Patil, N.D., P.G. Kulkarni and D.P. Chavan. 1972. Micronutrient status of soils and crop responses in Maharashtra, Fertilizer News. 17(6): 45-48. Pervaiz, Z. 2005. Characterization of Irrigation Quality of ground water in union council Gakhra Kalan, district Gujrat (Pakistan). Int. J. Agri. Bio: 269-271. Pervaiz, Z., S.S.H. Kazmi., and K.H. Gill. 2003. Characterization of irrigation quality of ground water in Mandi Baha-ud-Din district. Asian J. Plant Sci, 2(7): 523-525. Pettyyjohn, W.A. 1982. Cause of effect of cyclic changes in ground water quality. Ground water Monit. R., 2(1): 43-49. Pitman, G.T.K. 2004. Jordan, An evaluation of bank assistance for water development and management. A country assistance evaluation. Washington DC: World Banks. Podriguez, C.S. 1973. Comparison of six varieties elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum). Agron. Trop., 23 (6): 555-567. Ponnamperuma, F.N., M.T. Cayton., and R.S. Lantin. 1981. Dilute hydrochloric acid as extractant for available Zn, Cu and B in rice. Plant Soil, 61: 297–310. Pories, W.J., and W.H. Strain. 1966. In: Zn Metabolism (A. S. Prasad, ed.). Thomas, Springfield, III, USA: 378. Prasad, R., J.F. Power. 1997. Soil fertility management for sustainable agriculture. CRC- Lewis, Boca Raton. Qadir, M., B. R. Sharma., A. Bruggeman., R. Choukr-Allah., and F. Karajeh. 2007. Non- conventional water resources and opportunities for water augmentation to achieve food security in water scarce countries. Agri. Water Manage., 87: 2–22. Qadir, M., T.M. Boers., S. Schubert., A. Ghafoor., and G. Martaza. 2003. Agricultural water management in water starved countries. Agri. Water Manage., 62: 165–185. Quijano-Guerta, C., G.J.D. Kirk., A.M. Portugal., V.I. Bartolome., and G.C. McLaeren. 2002. Tolerance of rice germplasm to zinc deficiency. Field Crop Res., 76: 123- 130. Rafique, E. 2009. Integrated nutrient management for sustaining irrigated cotton-wheat productivity in aridisols of Pakistan. PhD Thesis, Quaid-e-Azm University, Islamabad: 60- 61. Rafique, E., A. Rashid, A.U Bhatti., G. Rasool., and N. Bughio. 2003. Boron deficiency in cotton grown on calcareous soils of Pakistan. I- Distribution of B availability and comparison of soil testing methods .In: Boron in Plant and Animal Nutrition, edited by Goldbach et al., Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York: 349-356.
152 Rafique, E., A. Rashid, J. Ryan, and A.U. Bhatti. 2006. Zinc deficiency in rain fed wheat in Pakistan: Magnitude, spatial variability, management, and plant analysis diagnostic norms. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 37: 181–197. Rafique, E., M. Mahmood-ul-Hassan., A. Rashid., M.F. Chaudhary. 2012. Nutrient balances as affected by integrated nutrient and crop residue management in cotton- wheat system in Aridisols. I. Nitrogen. J. Plant Nutr., 35: 591–616. Ramakrishnaiah, C. R., C. Sadashivaiah., and G. Ranganna. 2009. Assessment of water quality index for the groundwater in Tumkur Taluk, Karnataka state, India. E- J. Chem., 6(2): 523-530. Rashid, A. 1993. Nutritional disorders of rapeseed-mustard and wheat grown in potohar area. Micronutrient Project Annual Report, 1991-92. NARC, Islamabad: 105. Rashid, A. 1994. Nutrient indexing of cotton and micronutrient requirement of crops. Micronutrient Project Annual Report, 1991-92: 91. Rashid, A. 1996a. Secondary and Micronutrients. In: A. Rashid and K.S. Memon (Managing Authors). Soil Science. National Book Foundation, Islamabad: 341-385. Rashid, A. 1996b. Nutrient indexing of cotton in Multan district and B, Zn nutrition of cotton. Micronutrient Project Annual Report, 1994-1995. NARC, Islamabad: 75-76. Rashid, A. 2006. Incidence, diagnosis and management of micronutrient deficiencies in crops: Success stories and limitations in Pakistan. Invited paper. Proc. IFA International Workshop on Micronutrients, 27 Feb. Kumming, China: 1-20. Rashid, A., and A. Rashid. 1992. Nutritional problems of citrus in calcareous soils of Pakistan. In: Proc. First Int. Seminar on Citriculture in Pakistan, Dec. 1992. University of Agriculture, Faisalabad: 190-197. Rashid, A., and E. Rafique. 1997. Nutrient indexing and B and Zn nutrition of cotton and susceptibility of rapeseed-mustard and rice genotypes to B deficiency. Annual Report, Micronutrient, NARC, Islamabad. Rashid, A., and F. Qayyum. 1991. Micronutrient status of Pakistan soils and its role in crop production. Cooperative Program. Final Report, 1983-90. NARC, Islamabad: 83- 84. Rashid, A., and J. Din. 1992. Differential susceptibility of chickpea cultivars to Fe chlorosis grown on calcareous soils of Pakistan. J. Indian Soc. Sci., 40: 488-492. Rashid, A., E. Rafique., and J. Ryan. 2002. Establishment and management of B deficiency in field crops in Pakistan: A country Report. In: Goldbach, et al. (ed.). Boron in Plant and Animal Nutrition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, New York: 339-348. Rashid, A., E. Rafique., and N. Ali. 1997b. Micronutrient deficiencies in rainfed calcareous soils of Pakistan. II. Boron nutrition of the peanut plant. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 28: 149-159.
153 Rashid, A., E. Rafique., and N. Bughio. 1997c. Micronutrients deficiencies in rainfed calcareous soils of Pakistan. III. Boron nutrition of sorghum. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 28: 441-454. Rashid, A., E. Rafique., and N. Bughio. 2000. Boron deficiency diagnosis and correction in cotton grown in Aridisols of Pakistan: Soil Testing and Foliar analysis. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 31: 1408-09. Rashid, A., E. Rafique., J. Din., S.N. Malik., and M.Y. Arian. 1997a. Micronutrient deficiencies in rainfed calcareous soils of Pakistan. I. Iron chlorosis in the peanut plant. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 28: 135-148. Rashid, A., E. Rafique., N. Bughio., and M. Yasin. 1997d. Micronutrient deficiencies in rainfed calcareous soils of Pakistan. IV. Zinc nutrition of sorghum. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 28: 455-467. Rashid, A., F. Hussain., A. Rashid., and J. Din. 1991. Nutrient status of citrus orchards Punjab. Pak. J. Soil Sci., 6: 25-28. Rashid, A., M. Yasin, M. Ashraf, and R. A. Mann. 2004. Boron deficiency in calcareous soils reduces rice yield and impairs grain quality. (IRRI) 29: 58-60. Rashid, A., M. Yasin., M. Ashraf., M. A. Ali., Z. Ahmad., R. Ullah., R. A. Mann., and I. A. Khan. 2005. Alarming B deficiency established in calcareous rice soils: Boron use improved yield and cooking quality. In: Abstract Book 3rd Int. Symposium on all aspects of Plant and Animal B Nutrition, Wuhan, China: 78. Rathore, G.S., R.S. Khamparia., G.P. Gupta., and S.B. Sinha. 1980. Availability of micronutrients in some alluvial soils and their effect on wheat. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 28: 248-250. Raven, P.H., F.R. Evert., and S.E. Eichhorn. 1999. Biology of plants: sixth edition. W.H. Freeman and company worth publishers. New York, NY: 944. Ravichandran, K., and M. Jayaprakash. 2011. Seasonal variation on physico-chemical parameters and trace metals in groundwater of an industrial area of north Chennai, India. Ind. J. Sci. Tech., 4(6): 646-649. Rehman, H. 1990. Annual Reports, Directorate of Soils and Plant Nutrition. 1988-89, 1989-90, and 1990-91. ARI, Tarnab, Peshawar. Rehman, O., B. Ahmad., and S. Afzal. 2011. Sources and quality of irrigation water in district Attock. J. Agri. Res., 49(2): 203-220. Rehman, P.C., and F.R. Cox. 1988. Evaluation of the modified Olsen extracting reagent for copper, zinc, and manganese. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 19: 1859–1870. Rengasamy, P., and K.A. Olsson. 1993. Irrigation and sodicity. Aust. J. Soil Res., 31: 821-837. Rhoades, J.D. 1996. Salinity, electrical conductivity and total dissolved solids. In: Sparks, D. L., A. L. Page, P. A. Helmke, R. H. Loeppert, P.N. Soltanpour, M. A. Tabatabai, C. T. Johnston and M. E. Sumner (Eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods. Soil Sci. Soc. Am: 417-474.
154 Rhoades, J.D., C.J. Phene., and S.L. Rawlins. 1980. Irrigation of cotton with saline drainage water. ASCE Convention preprint: 80–119. Romheld, V. 2000. The chlorosis paradox: Iron inactivation as a secondary event in chlorotic leaves of grapevine. J. Plant Nutr., 23: 1629-1643. Romheld, V., and H. Marschner. 1991. Function of micronutrients in plants. In: Mortvedt, J.J., F.R. Cox., L.M. Shuman., R.M. Welch. (eds). Micronutrients in Agriculture: SSSA, Book Series, 2(4): 297-328. Roy, R.K., and J.N. Jha. 1976. Response of wheat to Zn and Potash. Indian J. Agron., 21 (3): 302-03. Rupa, T.R., and K.P. Tomer. 1999. Zinc desorption kinetics as influenced by pH and phosphorus in soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 30: 1951-1962. Rutherford, A.W., and A. Boussac, A. 2004. Water photolysis in biology. Science, 303: 1782-1783. Ryan, J., G. Estefan., and A. Rashid. 2001. Soil and Plant Analysis Laboratory Manual. 2nd Edition. (ICARDA) Aleppo, Syria: 118-127. Sadeghzadeh, B., and Z. Rengel. 2011. Zinc in soils and crop nutrition. In: Hawkesford MJ, Barraclough P (eds). The molecular basis of nutrient use efficiency in crops. Wiley, London: 335–376. Sahrawat, K.L., S.P. Wani., A. Subba Rao., and G. Pardhasaradhi. 2011. Management of emerging multinutrient deficiencies: A prerequisite for sustainable enhancement of rainfed agricultural productivity. In: S.P. Wani, J. Rockström and K.L. Sahrawat (Eds.) Integrated Watershed Management in Rainfed Agriculture. CRC Press/Balkema, Taylor and Francis Group, 2300 AK Leiden, the Netherlands: 281- 313. Saini, R.S., D.S. Chahal., and B.D. Sharma. 1994. Distribution of different forms of Fe in Arid zone soils of Punjab, India. Arid Soil Res. Rehab., 9: 177-186. Sakal, R., and A.P. Singh. 1995. Boron research and agricultural production. In: Tandon, H.L.S. (ed). Micronutrient Research and Agriculture Production, FDCO, New Delhi: 1-30. Sakal, R., V.K. Nayyar., and M.V. Singh. 1997. Sustainable soil productivity under rice- wheat system Bull. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 18: 39-47. Salisbury, F.B., and C.W. Ross. 1992. Plant Physiology 4th Edition. Wordsworth publishing Company, Belmont CA: 682. Sarkar, D., B. Mandal., A.K. Sarkar., S. Singh., D. Jena., D.P. Patva., and P. Martin. 2006. Performance of boronated NPK in B deficient soils. Ind. J. Ferti., 1: 57-59. Sarkar, D., B. Mandal., and D. Mazumdar. 2008a. Plant availability of B in acid soils as assessed by different extractants. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sc., 171: 249-254. Sarkar, D., B. Mandal., M. C. Kundu., and J. A. Bhat. 2008b. Soil properties influence distribution of extractable B in soil profile. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 39: 2319-32.
155 Sarraf, M. 2004. Assessing the costs of environmental degradation in the Middle East and North African countries, Environment Strategy Notes, No. 9 Environment Department, World Bank: Washington DC, USA. Sarwar, M., M. A. Khan., and Z. Iqbal. 2002. Feed Resources for Livestock in Pakistan. Int. J. Agri. Biol., 4 (1): 186-192. Sauchelli, V. 1969. Trace elements in Agriculture.Van Nostrand. Reinhold Company, New York: 84-88. Schardt, D. 2006. That Zincing feeling - Zinc in human nutrition - Special report. Nutrition action health-letter. Scheytt, T. 1997. Seasonal variations in groundwater chemistry near Lake Belau, Schleswig-Holstein, northern Germany. Hydrogeology Journal, 5: 86–95. SCRI. 1989, 1990. Annual Technical Reports, 1988-89 and 1989-90. Sugar Crops Research Institute, Mardan. Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw Agri. Univ., Peshawar. Seopardi, G. 1982. The zinc status in Indonesian agriculture. Contrib. Cent. Res. Inst. Food Crops (Bogor) 68: 10-31. Shahid, S., X. Chen., and M.K. Hazarika. 2006. Evaluation of groundwater quality for irrigation in Bangladesh using geographic information system. J. Hydrol. Hydromech., 1(54): 3–14. Shakir, M.S., M. Ahmad., and M.A. Khan. 2002. Irrigation quality of under ground water in Kasur district. Asian J. Plant Sci., 1(1): 53-64. Sharma, B.D., H. Arora., R. Kumar., and V.K. Nayyar. 2004. Relationships between soil characteristics and total and DTPA- extractable Micronutrients in Inceptisols of Punjab. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 35(5-6): 799-818. Sharma, B.D., H.S. Jassal., J.S. Sawhney., and P.S. Sidhu. 1999. Micronutrient distribution in different physiographic unit of Siwalak Hills of semi arid tract of Punjab (India). Arid Soil. Res. Rehab., 13: 189-200. Sharma, B.D., R. Kumar., B. Singh., and M. Sethi. 2009. Micronutrients distribution in salt-affected soils of the Punjab in relation to soil properties. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci., 55(4): 367-377. Sharma, B.D., S.S. Mukhopadhyay., and H. Arora. 2005. Total and DTPA-extractable micronutrients in relation to pedogenesis in some alfisols of Punjab, Indian J. Soil Sci., 70(7): 559-572. Sharma, B.D., S.S. Mukhopadhyay., P.S. Sidhu., and J.C. Katyal. 2000. Pedospheric attributes in distribution of total and DTPA extractable Zn, Cu, Mn and Fe in Indo- Gangetic plains. Geoderma, 56: 31-35. Sharma, B.D., V.K. Aggarwal., S.S. Mukhopadhyay., and Harsh-Arora. 2002. Micronutrient distributions and their association with soil properties in Entisols of Punjab. Indian J. Agri. Sci., 7: 315-321. Sharma, K.N., and D.L. Deb. 1988. Effect of organic manuring on Zn diffusion in soils of varying texture. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci, 36: 219-224.
156 Sharma. B.D., P.S. Sidhu., and V.K. Nayyer. 1992. Distribution of micronutrients in arid soils of Punjab and their relationship with soil properties. Arid Soil. Res. Rehab., 6: 233-242. Shivay, Y.S., D. Kumar., R. Parsad., and I.P.S. Ahlawat. 2007. Relative yield and Zn uptake by rice from zinc sulphate and zinc oxide coatings onto urea. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys., 80: 181-188. Shorrocks, V.M. 1997. The occurrence and correction of B deficiency. Plant Soil, 193: 121-148. Siddique, M., T.M. Rashid., and M. Saeed. 1994. Micronutrient status of soil, plants of citrus growing areas in Punjab, In: Efficient use of Plant Nutrients. Proc. 4th National Congress of Soil Science, Islamabad, May 24-26, 1992: 355-360. Sidhu, G.S., and B.D. Sharma. 2010. Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid-extractable micronutrients status in soil under a rice-wheat system and their relationship with soil properties in different agroclimatic zones of indo-gangetic plains of India. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 41: 1, 29-51. Sidhu, M., M.R. Chaudhry., Ihsanullah., and M.A. Chaudhry. 1996. Conjunctive use of fresh and saline water for irrigation. IWASRI, 168: 58. Sillanpa, M. 1982. Micronutrients and the nutrient status of soils. A global study. FAO Soil Bulletin No. 48. Rome, Italy: 444. Sillanpaa, M. 1990. Micronutrient assessment at the country level: An international study, FAO Soils Bulletin No. 63. Rome, Italy: 208. Sinclair, A.H., and A.J. Edwards. 2006. Micronutrient deficiencies in crops in Europe Chapter 9 In: Alloway, B. J. (ed.) Micronutrient Deficiencies in Global Crop Production, springer, Dordrecht: 380. Singh, G.D., G.R. Chaudhary., and R.R. Chaudhary. 1989. Green fodder yield of oat as affected by different levels of N, P and Zn. Haryana J. Agron., 5 (1): 77-78. Singh, J.P., D.J. Dalhiya., and R.P. Narwal. 1990. Boron uptake and toxicity in wheat in relation to zinc supply. Fert. Res., 24: 105-110. Singh, K., and S.P.S. Karwasra. 1988. Response of pearl millet to Zn fertilization in relation to DTPA extractable Zn. Fert. Res., 18: 13-17. Singh, M.V. 1991. Seminar on importance of zinc sulfate in agriculture, organized by U.P. Zinc sulfate manufacturer Assoc. held at IISR, Lucknow: 117. Singh, M.V. 1998. Twenty- eighth progress report of 1996-98 for the AICRP of Micro and Secondary nutrients and pollutants in soils and plants, Bhopal: 1-137. Singh, M.V. 2000. Twenty -ninth progress report of 1999-2000 for the AICRP of Micro and Secondary Nutrients and pollutants in soils and plants, Bhopal: 1-120. Singh, M.V. 2006. Micronutrient deficiencies in crops in India. Chap 4. In: Alloway, B.J. (ed.) Micronutrient Deficiencies in Global Crop Production, Springer, Dordrecht: 93-125.
157 Singh, M.V., and A. Subba Rao. 1995. Manganese research and agricultural production. In: Micronutrient Research and Agri. Production Ed. HLS Tandon, FDCO, New Delhi: 33-56. Singh, R.P., and R. Singh. 1983. Forms and distribution of Mn and Fe in some soils of Garhwal hills. Indian J. Agri. Chem., 16: 127-32. Sinha, P., and C. Chatterjee. 1994. Influence of B on yield and grain quality of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum). Indian J. Agri. Sci., 64 (12): 836-840. Siyaz, R.S., R. Pal., S.R. Poonia., and T.C. Baruah. 1983. Effect of mixed cation solution on hydraulic soil properties. Agri. Water Manage., 6: 15-25. Soest, P.J.V. 1985. Composition, Fibre quality, and Nutritive value of forages. In: Forages, the Robert and M.S. Darrel 4th Ed., Iowa State University press Ames, Iowa, USA: 412-421. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Key to soil taxonomy. 10th ed. Soil Survey Division − Natural Resources Conservation Services. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA: 341. Solberg, E., I.R. Evans., and D. Penney. 1999. Copper deficiency: Diagnosis and Correction. Agri-Facts (Agdex 532-3). Alberta agriculture food and rural development. Somner, A.L., and C.B. Lipman. 1926. Evidence on the indispensable nature of zinc and boron for higher green plants. Plant Physiol., 1(3): 231-249. Soumare, M., F.M.G. Tack., and M.G. Verloo. 2003. Distribution and availability of Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu in four tropical agricultural soils. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 34 (7- 8): 1023-1038. Stallen, M., A. Hameed., and M. Naseem. 1988. Micronutrient disorders in apple: Limitations of analysis for diagnosis. In: Proc. National Seminar on Micronutrients in Soils and Crops in Pakistan. Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw Agri. Univ., Peshawar: 139- 148. Syers, J.K., and E.T. Craswell. 1995. Role of soil organic matter in sustainable agricultural systems. In: Lefroy, R.D.B., Blair, G.J., Craswell, E.T. 1994. (Eds.), Soil Organic Matter Management for Sustainable Agriculture: A Workshop Held in Ubon, Thailand, 24-26August 1994: 7– 14. Szabolcs, I. 1989. Salt affected soils. CRC Press: Boca Raton, Florida: 274. Taiz, L., and E. Zeiger. 2010. Plant Physiology, 5th ed. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Publishers, Sunderland, MA, USA. Takkar, P.N., I.M. Chibba., and S.K. Mehta. 1989. Twenty Years of Coordinated Research on Micronutrients in Soils and Plants. Indian Institute of Soil Science, Bhopal: 314. Tamak, J.C., H.C. Sharma., and K.P. Singh. 1997. Effect of P, S and B on Seed yield and quality of sunflower. Indian J. Agron., 42: 173-176.
158 Tanaka, M., and T. Fujiwar. 2008. Physiological roles and transport mechanisms of boron: Perspectives from plants. Arch. Eur. J. Physiol., 456: 671–677. Tandon, H.L.S. 1991. Nutrients_their role and deficiency symposium. In: Secondary and Micronutrients in Agri. Pub. Fertilizer development and consultation Org. New Delhi, India: 4-13. Tandon, H.L.S. 1995. Micronutrients in soils, crops and fertilizers. A Sourcebook cum Directory. Fertilizer Development and Consultation Organization, New Delhi: 1- 138. Tariq, A., M.A. Gill., Rahmatullah., and M. Sabir. 2004. Mineral nutrition of fruit trees. Proc. Plant-Nutrition Management for Horticultural Crops under Water- Stress Conditions, Agriculture Research Institute, Sariab, Quetta: 28-33. Tariq, M. 1997. Effect of B supply on the availability of nutrients in soil and uptake by radish (Raphanus sativus L.) Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Soil Science, Univeristy of Reading, England. Thomas, G.W. 1996. Soil pH and soil acidity. In: Sparks, D. L., A. L. Page, P. A. Helmke, R. H. Loeppert, P.N. Soltanpour, M. A. Tabatabai, C. T. Johnston and M. E. Sumner (Eds.). Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 3. Chemical Methods. Soil Sci. Soc. America and Am. Soc. Agron. Madison, Wisconsin, USA: 475-490. Tripathi, S.B., A.K. Rai., A.K. Dixit., and K.A. Singh. 2009a. Improving yield and quality of fodders through secondary and micronutrients. Indian J. Fert., 5(4): 81- 96. Tripathi, S.B., and C.R. Hazra. 1995. Nutrient management and fertilizer use in forage. Book Chapter,“Forage Production and Utilization” edited by Dr.R.P. Singh, Director , IGFRI, Jhansi: 201-32. Tripathi, S.B., S.N. Tripathi., K.K. Singh., and K.A.Rai. 2009b. Effect of micronutrients application on forage productivity and quality. In: Abstracts, 4th World Congress on conservation agriculture- Innovations for improving efficiency, equity and environment, New Delhi, India: 129. Trivedi, B.S., R.C. Gani., and G.G. Patel. 1998. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci., 46: 158-159. Tucker, H.F., and W.D. Salman. 1955. Parakeratosis or zinc deficiency disease in the pig. P. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med., 88: 613-616. Turner, T.R. 1993. Turfgrass. In: Bennett, W.F (ed.), Nutrient deficiencies and toxicities in crop plants. Am. Phyt. Soc., St. Paul: 187-196. Tyagi, N.K., and D.P. Sharma. 2000. Disposal of drainage water: recycling and reuse. In: Proceedings of the 8th ICID International Drainage Workshop, vol. 3, New Delhi, 31st January to 4th February 2000. ICID, New Delhi: 199– 213. United States Salinity Laboratory Staff. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. USDA Handbook 60. Washington: 96-97. Wajih, A., and Al- Mustafa. 1992. Availability of Mn in calcareous soil of Saudi Arabia. J. King Saud Univ. Agri. Sci., 4 (1): 127-138.
159 Wang, K., Y.Yang., J.M. Xue., Z.Q. Ye., Y. Wei., and R.W. Bell. 1999. Low risks of toxicity from boron fertiliser in oilseed rape-rice rotations in south east China. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys., 54: 189-197. Wang, S.P., Y.F. Wang., Z.Y. Hu, Z.Z. Chen., J. Fleckenstein., and E. Schnug. 2003. Status of Fe, Mn, Copper and Zn of soils and plants and their requirements for Ruminants in Inner Mongolia Steppes of China. Commun. Soil Sci. Plan., 34 (5-6): 655-670. Warington, K.1923. The effect of boric acid and borax on the broad bean and certain other plants. Ann. Bot., 37: 629-672. Wei, Y.Z., R.W. Bell., Y. Yang., Z.Q. Ye., K. Wang., and L.B. Haung. 1998. Prognosis of B in oilseed rape (Brassica napus) by plant analysis. Aust. J. Agri. Res., 49: 867- 874. Welch, R.M. 1995. Micronutrient nutrition of plants. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci., 14: 49-87. Welch, R.M., and R.D. Graham. 2004. Breeding for micronutrients in staple food crops from a human nutrition perspective. J. Exp. Bot., 55: 353-364. Welch, R.M., W.H. Alloway., W.A. House., and J. Kubota. 1991. Geographic distribution of trace element problems. In: Mortvedt J J, Cox, FR., Shuman, LM., Welch RM., (ed.) Micronutrients in Agriculture, 2nd end, SSSA Book Ser. 4. SSSA, Madison, Wisconsin: 31-57. White, J.G., and R.J. Zasoski. 1999. Mapping soil micronutrients. Field Crop Res., 60: 11–26. Wichelns, D. 2002. An economic perspective on the potential gains from improvements in irrigation water management. Agri. Water Manage., 52: 233 –248. Wilkinson, H.F. 1972. Movement of micronutrient to plant roots. In: J.J. Mortvedt, P.M. Giordiano and W.L. Lindsay (eds.). Micronutrients in Agriculture. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, W I, USA: 139-169. Wright, R.J., and T.I. Stuczynski. 1996. Atomic absorption and flame emission spectrometry. In: D.L. Sparks et al. (ed.). Methods of Soil Analysis, part 3: Chemical Methods. Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, WI, USA: 65-90. Yadav, J.P., G.D. Singh., and G.L. Keshwa. 1991. Growth and yield of pearl millet as affected by different forms of nitrogenous fertilizers and levels of Zn. Haryana J. Agron., 7 (1): 91-93. Yermiyahu, U., R. Keren., and Y. Chen. 1988. Boron sorption on composted organic matter. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 52: 1309-1313. Yoshida, S., and A. Tanaka. 1969. Zinc deficiency of rice in calcareous soils. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr., 15: 75-80. Zaka, M.A., H. Hussain., G. Sarwar., M.R. Malik., I. Ahmad., and K.H. Gill. 2004. Fertility status of Sargodha district soils. Pak. J. Sci. Res., 56: 69-75.
160 Zhang, F., Y. Gao., X. Faw., R. Shi., and C. Zou. 2006. Micronutrient deficiencies in crops in China. Chapter 05 In: Alloway, B. J. (ed.) Micronutrient Deficiencies in Global crop production, Springer, Dordrecht: 127-148. Zhang, S.X., X.B. Wang., and K. Jin. 2001. Effect of different N and P levels on availability of Zn, Cu, Mn and Fe under arid conditions. Plant Nutr. Fert. Sci., 7: 391–396. Zhu, J.K. 2001. Plant salt tolerance. Trends Plant Sci., 6: 66–71. Zia, M.S., M. Aslam., N. Ahmad., M. Cheema., A. Shah., and H. Laghari. 2004. Diagnosis of plant nutrient disorders in fruit plants. Proc. Plant-Nutrition Management for Horticultural Crops under Water-Stress Conditions, Agriculture Research Institute, Sariab, Quetta: 16-27. Zou, C.Q., X.P. Gao., and F.S. Zhang. 2007. Micronutrient deficiencies in crop production in China. In: Alloway, B. (Ed) Micronutrient Deficiencies in Global Crop Prod: 127-148. Zribi, K., and M. Gharsalli. 2002. Effect of bicarbonate on growth and Fe nutrition of pea. J. Plant Nutr., 25: 2143-2149. Zuo, Y., and F. Zhang. 2011. Soil and crop management strategies to prevent Fe deficiency in crops. Plant Soil, 339: 83-95.
161 Appendix 1: Micronutrient status of soils in Sargodha district (kharif, 2006) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ……………………………….(mg kg-1)………………………… 1 0-15 0.48 0.58 2.60 1.83 0.51 15-30 0.33 0.37 1.21 0.97 0.39 30-60 0.14 0.22 0.96 0.51 0.13 2 0-15 0.22 0.54 5.07 0.78 0.45 15-30 0.10 0.42 3.37 0.48 0.19 30-60 0.02 0.34 1.85 0.15 0.06 3 0-15 1.50 0.94 6.66 6.06 0.40 15-30 0.81 0.67 3.81 4.32 0.35 30-60 0.66 0.44 2.96 2.18 0.25 4 0-15 1.26 0.42 4.06 4.89 0.41 15-30 0.91 0.31 2.68 2.73 0.23 30-60 0.34 0.16 1.28 0.64 0.14 5 0-15 0.30 0.60 2.72 4.04 0.40 15-30 0.23 0.37 1.78 2.91 0.31 30-60 0.08 0.22 1.11 2.04 0.23 6 0-15 0.42 0.60 4.79 3.47 0.36 15-30 0.27 0.49 3.57 2.89 0.29 30-60 0.16 0.24 2.32 2.32 0.16 7 0-15 0.41 0.41 5.10 1.90 0.47 15-30 0.35 0.32 3.81 0.98 0.19 30-60 0.06 0.28 1.10 0.27 0.07 8 0-15 0.40 0.86 4.64 0.85 0.57 15-30 0.31 0.71 3.18 0.67 0.45 30-60 0.12 0.16 2.00 0.40 0.33 9 0-15 0.48 0.82 3.78 2.85 0.95 15-30 0.42 0.57 2.18 1.92 0.69 30-60 0.12 0.42 0.80 0.72 0.45 10 0-15 0.81 0.98 4.88 8.62 0.34 15-30 0.39 0.68 3.11 5.36 0.20 30-60 0.14 0.38 2.04 1.54 0.17 11 0-15 1.20 0.74 1.14 2.97 0.19 15-30 0.80 0.40 0.67 1.78 0.16 30-60 0.45 0.17 0.41 0.91 0.05 12 0-15 0.49 0.26 1.14 3.82 0.34 15-30 0.31 0.17 0.98 2.89 0.19 30-60 0.18 0.14 0.81 2.48 0.11
162 Appendix 1 (contd.) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ……………….………………(mg kg-1)………………………… 13 0-15 0.43 1.17 2.92 2.95 0.30 15-30 0.17 0.82 1.39 2.50 0.17 30-60 0.02 0.43 1.10 1.43 0.09 14 0-15 0.24 0.28 4.60 0.89 0.23 15-30 0.22 0.14 3.26 0.68 0.18 30-60 0.16 0.04 2.94 0.39 0.16 15 0-15 0.48 0.58 2.59 1.83 0.51 15-30 0.34 0.41 1.73 1.09 0.42 30-60 0.14 0.22 0.96 0.51 0.13 16 0-15 1.54 0.80 7.00 5.76 1.42 15-30 1.19 0.48 6.10 4.41 1.33 30-60 0.98 0.36 5.16 3.30 1.26 17 0-15 0.71 0.63 8.13 4.94 0.57 15-30 0.47 0.36 4.64 2.37 0.41 30-60 0.31 0.18 2.13 1.39 0.3 18 0-15 0.40 0.98 3.94 1.72 0.67 15-30 0.32 0.72 2.51 1.41 0.58 30-60 0.14 0.26 1.17 0.87 0.41 19 0-15 1.38 1.19 5.17 4.10 0.59 15-30 0.91 0.94 2.91 3.07 0.33 30-60 0.67 0.47 1.39 2.09 0.15 20 0-15 1.48 0.96 3.98 2.41 0.43 15-30 0.85 0.71 1.10 1.32 0.32 30-60 0.40 0.24 0.72 0.71 0.21 21 0-15 0.30 0.74 3.69 1.76 0.25 15-30 0.28 0.31 2.51 0.81 0.23 30-60 0.26 0.04 1.42 0.22 0.21 22 0-15 0.48 1.15 7.17 4.14 0.33 15-30 0.31 0.79 5.85 2.71 0.18 30-60 0.16 0.40 4.64 1.82 0.07 23 0-15 0.90 1.00 5.55 2.24 0.47 15-30 0.28 0.72 4.20 2.20 0.31 30-60 0.13 0.36 3.17 1.38 0.15 24 0-15 0.64 0.32 2.23 2.92 0.3 15-30 0.18 0.17 1.14 1.76 0.27 30-60 0.07 0.08 0.57 1.14 0.21 25 0-15 1.16 1.28 6.00 1.86 0.44 15-30 0.44 0.62 3.45 1.43 0.37 30-60 0.19 0.38 2.10 0.71 0.29
163 Appendix 1 (contd.) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ………………………………..(mg kg-1)………………………… 26 0-15 0.38 1.10 5.30 0.50 0.41 15-30 0.12 0.92 3.32 0.34 0.28 30-60 0.09 0.81 1.58 0.17 0.07 27 0-15 0.43 1.00 7.10 4.37 0.43 15-30 0.29 0.86 5.81 3.21 0.28 30-60 0.11 0.63 3.98 2.18 0.13 28 0-15 1.24 0.92 5.17 5.48 0.75 15-30 1.11 0.48 2.64 4.36 0.59 30-60 1.00 0.20 1.53 3.60 0.36 29 0-15 0.80 0.08 3.40 3.80 0.52 15-30 0.68 0.06 2.13 1.15 0.47 30-60 0.54 0.03 1.66 0.47 0.36 30 0-15 0.26 0.76 3.16 1.60 0.63 15-30 0.17 0.41 2.84 0.87 0.45 30-60 0.12 0.26 1.38 0.27 0.12 31 0-15 0.32 0.56 3.76 1.76 0.59 15-30 0.27 0.41 2.19 1.13 0.47 30-60 0.20 0.32 1.08 0.69 0.40 32 0-15 0.71 0.90 8.71 4.09 0.54 15-30 0.25 0.71 6.50 2.81 0.31 30-60 0.09 0.33 3.79 1.30 0.15 33 0-15 0.86 0.58 3.15 1.10 0.48 15-30 0.81 0.47 2.37 0.85 0.33 30-60 0.74 0.31 0.93 0.56 0.28 34 0-15 0.37 1.10 3.81 3.12 0.43 15-30 0.29 0.98 2.70 2.17 0.31 30-60 0.15 0.37 1.31 1.81 0.17 35 0-15 0.49 0.78 6.37 2.09 0.67 15-30 0.31 0.41 3.98 1.91 0.51 30-60 0.15 0.30 2.35 1.17 0.43 36 0-15 0.42 2.72 1.40 0.45 0.34 15-30 0.37 2.38 0.95 0.19 0.27 30-60 0.24 1.16 0.50 0.14 0.19 37 0-15 0.75 0.67 4.51 4.73 0.39 15-30 0.41 0.51 3.15 1.99 0.27 30-60 0.12 0.19 1.91 1.67 0.14 38 0-15 0.97 0.72 4.95 5.33 0.79 15-30 0.81 0.60 3.37 2.91 0.61 30-60 0.18 0.51 3.09 1.57 0.33
164 Appendix 1 (contd.) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ………………………………..(mg kg-1)………………………… 39 0-15 0.45 1.13 6.87 4.49 0.97 15-30 0.37 0.93 3.98 3.55 0.72 30-60 0.21 0.71 2.79 2.87 0.55 40 0-15 1.42 0.52 3.80 4.12 0.81 15-30 0.79 0.31 2.10 2.15 0.35 30-60 0.60 0.24 0.56 0.87 0.17 41 0-15 1.68 1.02 5.86 1.71 0.64 15-30 1.31 0.87 3.98 1.15 0.54 30-60 0.50 0.66 2.47 0.56 0.52 42 0-15 0.92 0.84 5.36 3.55 0.9 15-30 0.71 0.41 4.15 2.17 0.74 30-60 0.30 0.14 2.50 0.84 0.51 43 0-15 0.42 0.86 2.54 2.56 0.30 15-30 0.37 0.48 1.11 1.37 0.23 30-60 0.16 0.35 0.83 0.29 0.18 44 0-15 0.42 1.26 6.26 2.03 0.51 15-30 0.29 0.78 3.15 1.37 0.33 30-60 0.10 0.10 0.74 0.56 0.18 45 0-15 0.36 0.56 4.25 1.75 0.26 15-30 0.24 0.41 2.81 1.26 0.23 30-60 0.08 0.36 1.36 0.21 0.15 46 0-15 1.70 0.44 2.71 2.02 0.41 15-30 0.98 0.37 1.13 1.33 0.16 30-60 0.56 0.37 0.57 0.81 0.13 47 0-15 1.30 0.49 7.84 5.50 0.56 15-30 1.11 0.23 3.13 2.47 0.41 30-60 0.63 0.11 1.50 2.19 0.32 48 0-15 0.34 0.22 2.26 1.93 0.14 15-30 0.28 0.14 1.60 1.25 0.07 30-60 0.07 0.07 0.70 0.71 0.003 49 0-15 0.39 0.46 2.49 1.74 0.58 15-30 0.28 0.37 1.98 0.99 0.31 30-60 0.12 0.22 1.43 0.31 0.02 50 0-15 0.46 1.02 4.56 2.21 0.17 15-30 0.41 0.71 2.38 1.17 0.14 30-60 0.12 0.21 1.10 0.56 0.04 51 0-15 0.48 0.22 4.21 1.61 0.23 15-30 0.35 0.16 2.98 0.91 0.20 30-60 0.02 0.04 1.62 0.71 0.15
165 Appendix 1 (contd.) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ………………………………..(mg kg-1)………………………… 52 0-15 0.46 0.60 2.98 3.17 0.43 15-30 0.39 0.45 2.19 2.11 0.31 30-60 0.37 0.27 0.9 1.35 0.22 53 0-15 0.24 0.36 3.52 4.50 0.55 15-30 0.17 0.18 2.89 2.37 0.47 30-60 0.11 0.10 1.43 1.49 0.31 54 0-15 0.88 0.61 4.12 1.06 0.57 15-30 0.68 0.48 3.08 0.56 0.39 30-60 0.33 0.30 2.72 0.31 0.16 55 0-15 1.05 0.91 4.03 4.11 0.16 15-30 0.88 0.77 3.17 3.79 0.09 30-60 0.3 0.13 2.12 2.12 0.05 56 0-15 0.98 0.90 6.33 4.70 0.64 15-30 0.72 0.46 4.70 4.22 0.21 30-60 0.54 0.18 2.84 0.63 0.13 57 0-15 0.94 0.76 5.04 2.79 1.01 15-30 0.71 0.44 3.07 1.40 0.62 30-60 0.22 0.19 1.90 0.89 0.47 58 0-15 0.48 0.52 2.91 1.03 0.54 15-30 0.31 0.34 1.75 0.71` 0.37 30-60 0.28 0.16 0.60 0.19 0.21 59 0-15 0.72 0.78 5.62 2.29 0.37 15-30 0.82 0.60 4.48 1.92 0.22 30-60 0.50 0.20 3.07 0.38 0.15 60 0-15 0.36 0.60 3.70 2.26 0.38 15-30 0.23 0.41 2.89 1.30 0.36 30-60 0.12 0.31 1.45 1.07 0.17 61 0-15 0.91 0.18 3.68 3.87 1.10 15-30 0.60 0.09 1.95 2.32 0.95 30-60 0.31 0.07 0.79 1.70 0.71 62 0-15 1.14 0.42 4.52 2.07 0.75 15-30 0.75 0.31 2.71 1.11 0.71 30-60 0.22 0.11 1.91 0.87 0.68 63 0-15 1.08 0.82 5.68 3.84 0.35 15-30 0.48 0.66 4.28 1.56 0.27 30-60 0.96 0.06 2.61 0.34 0.09 64 0-15 1.74 0.42 3.78 0.40 0.73 15-30 1.31 0.30 2.91 0.21 0.47 30-60 1.12 0.16 1.64 0.02 0.20
166 Appendix 1 (contd.) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ………………………………...(mg kg-1)………………………… 65 0-15 0.42 0.58 5.09 2.01 0.90 15-30 0.18 0.34 3.70 1.31 0.80 30-60 0.08 0.02 2.36 0.23 0.52 66 0-15 0.47 0.51 3.19 4.28 0.62 15-30 0.39 0.33 2.71 2.69 0.56 30-60 0.33 0.17 1.70 0.80 0.47 67 0-15 1.20 0.78 8.46 2.14 0.41 15-30 1.02 0.38 6.06 1.56 0.18 30-60 0.74 0.12 2.58 0.70 0.09 68 0-15 0.38 1.12 6.12 4.52 1.07 15-30 0.21 0.67 3.51 2.87 0.95 30-60 0.09 0.40 2.09 1.12 0.68 69 0-15 0.44 0.25 5.68 4.94 0.45 15-30 0.33 0.10 2.09 2.63 0.31 30-60 0.12 0.08 0.50 1.05 0.18 70 0-15 1.83 0.93 4.68 3.31 0.48 15-30 1.11 0.68 3.57 2.11 0.37 30-60 0.90 0.27 1.42 0.90 0.21 71 0-15 1.74 0.66 5.07 1.32 0.39 15-30 0.93 0.47 2.32 0.85 0.24 30-60 0.54 0.34 0.99 0.17 0.07 72 0-15 1.76 0.28 5.02 4.24 0.89 15-30 1.51 0.11 3.67 2.82 0.67 30-60 1.28 0.03 1.18 1.07 0.20 73 0-15 0.35 0.87 2.67 1.71 0.52 15-30 0.22 0.72 1.79 1.11 0.40 30-60 0.19 0.59 0.97 0.25 0.31 74 0-15 0.46 0.80 1.38 2.74 0.32 15-30 0.32 0.61 0.96 1.89 0.21 30-60 0.13 0.33 0.41 1.15 0.09 75 0-15 1.13 0.88 2.61 3.15 0.5 15-30 0.69 0.61 1.70 2.77 0.42 30-60 0.32 0.37 0.91 1.08 0.37 76 0-15 2.03 0.91 2.74 3.21 1.23 15-30 1.77 0.77 1.33 1.49 0.9 30-60 0.95 0.31 1.18 1.11 0.71 77 0-15 0.84 0.60 4.00 1.65 0.72 15-30 0.53 0.32 2.71 0.91 0.37 30-60 0.24 0.02 1.29 0.30 0.15
167 Appendix 1 (contd.) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ……………….……………….(mg kg-1)………………………… 78 0-15 0.92 0.36 5.47 1.74 0.75 15-30 0.79 0.27 3.71 1.12 0.54 30-60 0.60 0.14 3.00 0.59 0.31 79 0-15 0.41 0.28 3.49 2.85 0.37 15-30 0.33 0.15 1.79 2.11 0.26 30-60 0.17 0.08 0.98 1.70 0.09 80 0-15 0.42 0.46 3.71 1.32 0.93 15-30 0.31 0.31 2.93 0.77 0.26 30-60 0.12 0.20 1.64 0.54 0.14 81 0-15 2.02 1.22 5.54 4.37 1.30 15-30 1.35 0.71 3.84 2.17 0.69 30-60 1.20 0.23 2.34 0.82 0.60 82 0-15 0.39 0.81 5.91 2.33 0.67 15-30 0.17 0.30 3.48 1.85 0.55 30-60 0.08 0.18 2.61 0.92 0.31 83 0-15 2.10 0.48 3.85 3.35 0.37 15-30 1.19 0.18 2.71 2.39 0.25 30-60 0.88 0.08 1.99 1.87 0.11 84 0-15 0.89 0.43 3.74 4.18 0.29 15-30 0.36 0.27 2.85 2.39 0.14 30-60 0.10 0.13 1.59 1.88 0.08 85 0-15 0.45 0.37 7.71 5.85 0.71 15-30 0.31 0.10 4.70 3.90 0.55 30-60 0.26 0.05 2.85 1.87 0.47 86 0-15 1.37 0.44 3.10 4.39 0.74 15-30 1.02 0.37 2.42 2.95 0.47 30-60 0.89 0.08 1.83 1.72 0.28 87 0-15 1.87 0.33 7.33 4.39 0.30 15-30 0.98 0.10 4.86 2.85 0.21 30-60 0.43 0.02 2.91 1.48 0.03
168
Appendix 2: Micronutrient status of soils in Sargodha district (rabi, 2006-07) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ……………….……………..(mg kg-1)………………………… 1 0-15 0.45 0.53 8.50 2.41 0.41 15-30 0.37 0.26 6.14 1.70 0.22 30-60 0.18 0.11 4.77 0.91 0.16 2 0-15 0.48 0.42 12.11 2.39 0.27 15-30 0.32 0.31 7.89 1.78 0.18 30-60 0.20 0.17 5.38 0.69 0.11 3 0-15 1.27 0.45 7.17 7.70 0.38 15-30 0.58 0.34 6.50 5.10 0.26 30-60 0.34 0.19 3.16 3.60 0.24 4 0-15 1.64 0.44 3.69 6.17 0.61 15-30 1.53 0.31 2.81 3.89 0.55 30-60 1.24 0.12 2.39 1.55 0.26 5 0-15 1.09 0.84 5.56 2.54 0.34 15-30 0.81 0.41 3.81 1.17 0.25 30-60 0.40 0.17 2.26 0.79 0.18 6 0-15 0.48 0.82 3.10 4.32 0.47 15-30 0.33 0.41 2.71 3.38 0.35 30-60 0.18 0.15 1.99 2.30 0.18 7 0-15 0.27 0.47 7.17 3.13 0.31 15-30 0.15 0.31 4.15 1.81 0.17 30-60 0.07 0.18 2.07 0.54 0.04 8 0-15 1.40 0.90 4.31 2.06 0.79 15-30 1.10 0.75 2.51 1.69 0.67 30-60 0.90 0.60 1.73 0.88 0.47 9 0-15 0.28 1.35 7.20 3.11 0.77 15-30 0.16 1.10 4.76 1.95 0.65 30-60 0.09 0.91 2.85 0.89 0.58 10 0-15 1.81 1.13 8.71 9.95 0.47 15-30 1.12 0.80 6.20 6.16 0.28 30-60 0.72 0.36 3.82 2.16 0.14 11 0-15 0.91 0.64 2.28 4.01 0.52 15-30 0.39 0.48 1.32 2.38 0.38 30-60 0.14 0.19 0.71 1.91 0.26 12 0-15 0.40 0.21 3.50 4.71 0.47 15-30 0.27 0.12 1.71 2.85 0.62 30-60 0.16 0.04 0.80 1.46 0.38
169 Appendix 2 (contd.) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ……………….……………..(mg kg-1)………………………… 13 0-15 0.21 1.07 2.85 1.73 0.40 15-30 0.08 0.99 2.29 1.50 0.29 30-60 0.01 0.92 2.24 1.22 0.13 14 0-15 0.44 0.50 5.78 2.08 0.26 15-30 0.31 0.32 2.49 1.89 0.18 30-60 0.09 0.24 1.46 0.74 0.06 15 0-15 0.42 0.52 7.31 2.32 0.47 15-30 0.37 0.21 6.04 1.40 0.32 30-60 0.31 0.11 5.77 1.10 0.16 16 0-15 0.68 0.58 8.80 6.98 1.32 15-30 0.24 0.26 7.25 4.64 1.09 30-60 0.13 0.08 3.13 3.11 1.02 17 0-15 0.41 0.51 3.77 5.85 0.79 15-30 0.28 0.17 2.41 4.10 0.60 30-60 0.09 0.09 1.77 2.81 0.47 18 0-15 0.46 0.56 7.61 2.07 1.26 15-30 0.32 0.36 4.94 1.62 1.18 30-60 0.27 0.18 3.32 0.88 1.11 19 0-15 1.90 1.40 3.52 5.16 0.81 15-30 1.06 0.69 0.74 3.30 0.31 30-60 0.79 0.38 0.31 2.82 0.20 20 0-15 1.24 0.50 5.22 1.82 0.76 15-30 0.94 0.26 4.89 1.69 0.64 30-60 0.50 0.04 4.34 1.45 0.60 21 0-15 0.39 0.81 2.02 2.31 0.76 15-30 0.27 0.71 1.69 1.80 0.51 30-60 0.16 0.28 0.99 1.20 0.33 22 0-15 0.47 0.56 12.71 5.71 0.12 15-30 0.43 0.28 7.06 3.06 0.08 30-60 0.36 0.22 3.98 1.89 0.06 23 0-15 0.41 0.33 8.31 3.13 0.41 15-30 0.34 0.30 5.48 2.28 0.29 30-60 0.04 0.19 3.18 1.30 0.10 24 0-15 0.47 0.71 4.32 2.98 0.35 15-30 0.41 0.66 2.10 1.77 0.29 30-60 0.36 0.31 1.13 1.19 0.06 25 0-15 0.84 0.76 6.92 2.60 0.39 15-30 0.82 0.54 2.93 1.90 0.27 30-60 0.69 0.37 1.32 1.54 0.20
170 Appendix 2 (contd.) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ……………….…………….(mg kg-1)………………………… 26 0-15 0.49 0.22 4.35 1.05 0.50 15-30 0.31 0.17 3.13 0.84 0.38 30-60 0.13 0.07 2.45 0.37 0.11 27 0-15 0.56 0.50 10.14 3.07 0.51 15-30 0.47 0.44 8.81 2.01 0.38 30-60 0.18 0.31 5.10 1.17 0.21 28 0-15 1.70 0.58 7.60 5.81 0.44 15-30 1.12 0.48 4.47 4.07 0.33 30-60 0.48 0.28 2.13 3.81 0.27 29 0-15 0.44 0.21 2.08 3.04 0.57 15-30 0.31 0.15 1.98 2.31 0.44 30-60 0.09 0.07 1.84 1.20 0.39 30 0-15 0.41 0.54 2.31 1.62 1.09 15-30 0.32 0.31 1.39 0.91 0.88 30-60 0.05 0.16 0.71 0.29 0.67 31 0-15 0.43 1.04 2.90 2.50 0.54 15-30 0.37 0.65 1.42 2.20 0.42 30-60 0.31 0.38 0.71 1.85 0.33 32 0-15 1.07 0.59 7.70 3.07 0.63 15-30 0.65 0.31 5.60 1.90 0.39 30-60 0.34 0.14 3.92 1.17 0.21 33 0-15 0.29 0.68 7.95 4.54 0.58 15-30 0.17 0.32 6.37 2.83 0.39 30-60 0.08 0.18 5.48 1.53 0.17 34 0-15 0.76 1.00 4.14 2.50 0.53 15-30 0.59 0.89 3.78 1.79 0.48 30-60 0.36 0.62 2.26 1.48 0.37 35 0-15 0.86 0.72 8.32 4.07 0.78 15-30 0.34 0.22 6.92 2.73 0.75 30-60 0.13 0.15 3.31 1.42 0.61 36 0-15 0.18 0.98 3.01 1.07 0.37 15-30 0.08 0.81 2.71 0.58 0.26 30-60 0.02 0.78 2.30 0.35 0.14 37 0-15 0.90 0.78 6.47 4.80 0.47 15-30 0.60 0.65 5.64 2.85 0.31 30-60 0.32 0.32 3.87 1.71 0.16 38 0-15 1.41 0.92 5.80 3.45 0.84 15-30 0.79 0.68 5.80 2.71 0.76 30-60 0.49 0.44 5.60 1.60 0.55
171 Appendix 2 (contd.) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ……………….……………..(mg kg-1)………………………… 39 0-15 0.95 1.30 5.98 5.37 0.85 15-30 0.86 0.86 3.81 3.87 0.62 30-60 0.69 0.52 2.42 2.97 0.44 40 0-15 1.30 0.29 3.54 5.35 0.33 15-30 0.65 0.26 2.96 4.80 0.27 30-60 0.42 0.09 1.38 1.12 0.16 41 0-15 0.88 0.87 13.22 1.98 0.31 15-30 0.69 0.66 10.81 1.19 0.13 30-60 0.62 0.46 8.52 0.66 0.09 42 0-15 0.44 0.23 4.38 3.87 0.60 15-30 0.21 0.15 3.77 2.44 0.25 30-60 0.09 0.08 1.89 1.17 0.13 43 0-15 0.38 0.84 4.08 3.27 2.96 15-30 0.13 0.61 3.77 2.73 1.79 30-60 0.06 0.39 1.72 0.99 0.45 44 0-15 0.64 1.32 7.09 2.88 0.21 15-30 0.49 0.71 6.16 2.15 0.15 30-60 0.44 0.42 5.12 1.14 0.08 45 0-15 0.47 0.44 4.15 2.17 0.33 15-30 0.36 0.26 3.38 1.43 0.15 30-60 0.06 0.19 1.50 0.78 0.04 46 0-15 2.59 0.51 4.08 2.70 0.82 15-30 1.30 0.44 2.77 2.10 0.68 30-60 0.66 0.34 1.70 0.95 0.17 47 0-15 0.92 0.46 9.40 3.70 0.64 15-30 0.88 0.31 6.12 2.08 0.55 30-60 0.26 0.23 5.57 1.07 0.31 48 0-15 0.24 0.15 3.64 1.56 0.10 15-30 0.14 0.13 2.87 0.87 0.07 30-60 0.04 0.06 2.56 0.30 0.03 49 0-15 0.51 0.73 2.51 2.71 0.52 15-30 0.42 0.37 1.58 1.91 0.35 30-60 0.31 0.15 0.71 0.81 0.19 50 0-15 0.46 0.53 4.85 3.31 0.28 15-30 0.33 0.31 2.71 1.88 0.18 30-60 0.22 0.08 1.32 1.11 0.11 51 0-15 0.41 0.31 2.21 3.19 0.20 15-30 0.22 0.18 1.38 1.81 0.11 30-60 0.14 0.10 0.74 0.71 0.03
172 Appendix 2 (contd.) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ……………….……………..(mg kg-1)………………………… 52 0-15 0.57 0.55 3.87 4.10 0.60 15-30 0.44 0.34 2.10 2.45 0.42 30-60 0.34 0.28 1.07 1.37 0.25 53 0-15 0.46 0.96 3.31 4.87 0.71 15-30 0.28 0.75 2.07 3.31 0.49 30-60 0.02 0.46 1.22 2.35 0.30 54 0-15 0.92 0.70 6.09 2.01 1.02 15-30 0.54 0.27 4.88 1.52 0.92 30-60 0.33 0.15 2.42 0.81 0.55 55 0-15 0.48 0.55 4.11 3.78 0.29 15-30 0.38 0.44 3.17 2.75 0.14 30-60 0.12 0.37 1.78 1.85 0.05 56 0-15 0.17 0.87 5.12 2.12 0.83 15-30 0.09 0.28 4.28 1.88 0.76 30-60 0.07 0.04 3.54 1.04 0.15 57 0-15 1.37 0.63 9.90 3.48 1.38 15-30 0.77 0.44 6.52 2.00 1.08 30-60 0.33 0.14 3.67 1.70 0.81 58 0-15 0.71 0.50 7.75 2.50 1.67 15-30 0.56 0.38 5.84 1.50 1.34 30-60 0.54 0.23 3.52 1.02 1.29 59 0-15 1.42 0.62 3.85 2.63 1.39 15-30 1.21 0.48 3.14 2.11 1.28 30-60 1.08 0.09 2.25 0.87 1.04 60 0-15 1.06 0.20 3.77 2.75 0.59 15-30 0.60 0.10 2.71 2.25 0.48 30-60 0.31 0.09 1.89 1.57 0.38 61 0-15 1.02 0.80 6.76 3.16 1.22 15-30 0.88 0.35 3.99 2.35 0.87 30-60 0.76 0.12 2.84 1.57 0.75 62 0-15 1.42 0.48 8.41 4.13 1.61 15-30 1.20 0.40 7.40 2.78 1.45 30-60 0.71 0.25 5.85 1.42 1.07 63 0-15 0.49 0.55 7.60 4.62 1.15 15-30 0.44 0.32 5.28 3.68 1.10 30-60 0.30 0.20 3.14 2.71 0.91 64 0-15 0.46 0.33 3.78 1.20 0.30 15-30 0.33 0.23 1.89 0.94 0.21 30-60 0.18 0.14 0.84 0.80 0.07
173 Appendix 2 (contd.) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ……………….……………(mg kg-1)………………………… 65 0-15 0.34 0.32 8.80 3.45 1.63 15-30 0.31 0.25 7.75 1.89 1.55 30-60 0.22 0.21 6.91 0.28 1.08 66 0-15 0.41 0.26 4.15 3.41 0.70 15-30 0.39 0.16 3.07 2.67 0.63 30-60 0.24 0.10 2.54 1.80 0.58 67 0-15 0.44 0.64 6.52 2.93 1.45 15-30 0.34 0.36 4.80 2.46 1.42 30-60 0.12 0.31 3.75 1.15 1.03 68 0-15 0.36 0.51 8.40 4.82 1.21 15-30 0.28 0.36 3.94 3.72 1.07 30-60 0.16 0.21 3.42 1.40 0.97 69 0-15 1.86 0.71 4.18 3.44 0.59 15-30 1.15 0.64 2.59 2.12 0.41 30-60 0.94 0.50 1.45 1.03 0.32 70 0-15 2.07 0.63 7.15 3.43 0.56 15-30 1.46 0.54 5.50 2.71 0.44 30-60 1.06 0.38 2.92 1.18 0.27 71 0-15 1.72 0.57 6.65 1.45 0.48 15-30 0.98 0.46 5.57 1.10 0.34 30-60 0.78 0.40 4.92 0.27 0.11 72 0-15 1.24 0.60 10.40 3.44 1.00 15-30 0.72 0.39 7.88 3.12 0.79 30-60 1.16 0.19 2.06 2.66 0.23 73 0-15 0.48 0.98 5.62 2.62 0.61 15-30 0.41 0.93 5.11 1.77 0.46 30-60 0.32 0.88 4.56 1.05 0.39 74 0-15 0.49 0.57 1.89 1.25 0.45 15-30 0.34 0.53 1.16 1.20 0.30 30-60 0.05 0.48 0.78 0.97 0.19 75 0-15 1.43 0.97 4.06 3.75 0.51 15-30 0.99 0.89 3.71 2.87 0.46 30-60 0.80 0.80 2.68 1.51 0.39 76 0-15 2.36 1.09 3.79 3.20 0.92 15-30 1.02 1.06 2.72 2.43 0.63 30-60 0.79 0.71 2.19 1.87 0.41 77 0-15 0.46 0.58 4.31 1.40 0.21 15-30 0.34 0.45 4.06 0.94 0.15 30-60 0.23 0.23 3.95 0.12 0.04
174 Appendix 2 (contd.) ……………………….DTPA…………………... HCl Location Soil Depth Zn Cu Fe Mn B (cm) ……………….………….(mg kg-1)………………………… 78 0-15 1.50 0.96 13.41 5.17 1.24 15-30 0.62 0.74 9.10 2.91 0.77 30-60 0.37 0.62 6.70 1.80 0.50 79 0-15 0.74 0.43 7.70 2.79 0.45 15-30 0.37 0.26 5.15 2.36 0.36 30-60 0.11 0.11 2.71 1.45 0.18 80 0-15 0.31 0.36 3.91 3.42 0.67 15-30 0.22 0.21 1.85 1.91 0.39 30-60 0.11 0.13 0.94 0.87 0.18 81 0-15 0.81 0.42 9.43 3.09 0.78 15-30 0.62 0.28 7.36 1.20 0.52 30-60 0.58 0.14 4.64 0.24 0.28 82 0-15 0.43 0.98 8.95 1.59 0.59 15-30 0.17 0.53 6.28 1.37 0.48 30-60 0.08 0.18 3.55 0.69 0.27 83 0-15 1.14 0.62 4.31 2.91 0.48 15-30 0.78 0.44 3.56 1.94 0.36 30-60 0.58 0.30 2.96 0.74 0.27 84 0-15 0.47 0.86 1.92 4.98 0.37 15-30 0.41 0.48 1.37 3.11 0.21 30-60 0.08 0.31 0.50 2.31 0.03 85 0-15 1.08 0.76 8.20 6.60 0.86 15-30 0.94 0.48 5.81 3.99 0.62 30-60 0.90 0.12 3.00 2.52 0.55 86 0-15 1.10 0.94 3.60 3.18 0.64 15-30 0.81 0.35 2.41 1.98 0.33 30-60 0.39 0.18 1.80 1.62 0.19 87 0-15 1.02 0.48 7.94 5.49 0.32 15-30 0.79 0.31 5.51 3.70 0.19 30-60 0.34 0.12 3.36 2.38 0.04
175 Appendix 3: Generalized micronutrients soil test interpretation criteria used in Pakistan
Micronutrient Soil Test Low Marginal Adequate
...... (mg kg-1)…………………….
B 0.05 M HCl <0.45 0.45-1.0 >1.0
Zn DTPA <0.50 0.50-0.80 >0.80
Cu DTPA <0.20 >0.20
Fe DTPA <4.50 >4.50
Mn DTPA <1.0 1.0-2.0 >2.0
DTPA= Diethylene triamine pentaacetic acetic acid Source: Rashid and Ahmad (1993); Ryan et al. (2001); Rafique et al. (2003).
176 Appendix 4: Some physico-chemical properties of soils in Sargodha district (kharif, 2006)
++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 1 0-15 8.50 1.00 7.50 2.50 1.29 1.05 Clay Loam 15-30 8.40 0.85 6.50 2.00 1.10 0.84 Clay Loam 30-60 8.30 0.50 3.50 1.40 1.05 0.49 Clay Loam 2 0-15 8.40 0.55 3.50 2.00 1.51 0.63 Loam 15-30 8.30 0.45 3.00 1.50 1.22 0.42 Loam 30-60 8.30 0.40 2.90 1.10 0.91 0.21 Loam 3 0-15 8.30 2.60 15.00 11.00 4.01 0.84 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.40 2.90 12.50 16.50 6.60 0.63 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.50 3.50 12.00 23.00 9.38 0.42 Sandy Loam 4 0-15 8.30 1.40 10.00 4.00 1.78 0.84 Loam 15-30 8.40 1.70 9.00 8.00 3.77 0.56 Loam 30-60 8.40 2.00 8.50 11.50 5.57 0.28 Loam 5 0-15 8.45 1.45 6.00 8.50 4.90 0.84 Clay Loam 15-30 8.40 1.10 4.50 6.50 4.33 0.42 Clay Loam 30-60 8.30 0.95 4.00 5.50 3.88 0.28 Clay Loam 6 0-15 7.80 1.00 8.50 1.50 0.72 0.84 Loam 15-30 8.10 1.20 10.00 2.00 0.90 0.49 Loam 30-60 8.30 1.50 12.00 3.00 1.22 0.21 Loam 7 0-15 8.10 0.50 4.00 1.00 0.70 0.70 Clay Loam 15-30 8.20 0.65 3.50 3.00 2.26 0.35 Clay Loam 30-60 8.40 0.70 2.50 4.50 4.02 0.21 Clay Loam 8 0-15 8.25 1.60 9.50 6.50 2.98 0.84 Clay Loam 15-30 8.30 1.75 10.50 7.00 3.05 0.49 Clay Loam 30-60 8.40 1.80 10.50 7.50 3.27 0.28 Clay Loam 9 0-15 8.30 4.75 22.00 25.50 7.68 0.91 Clay Loam 15-30 8.50 5.00 20.00 30.00 9.48 0.70 Clay Loam 30-60 8.80 5.70 17.00 40.00 13.70 0.35 Clay Loam 10 0-15 8.45 2.10 9.00 12.00 5.65 1.12 Loam 15-30 8.35 1.70 7.00 10.00 5.34 0.70 Loam 30-60 8.30 1.20 5.00 7.00 4.42 0.49 Loam 11 0-15 8.10 0.67 5.00 1.70 1.08 0.49 Loam 15-30 8.20 0.60 4.50 1.50 1.00 0.35 Loam 30-60 8.20 0.58 4.50 1.30 0.86 0.21 Loam 12 0-15 8.40 0.55 4.00 1.50 1.06 0.70 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.50 0.58 4.00 1.80 1.27 0.35 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.50 0.62 3.00 3.00 1.73 0.21 Sandy Loam 13 0-15 7.90 0.87 5.10 3.60 2.25 0.84 Loam 15-30 8.00 1.20 6.20 5.80 3.29 0.56 Loam 30-60 8.00 1.30 6.40 6.60 3.69 0.21 Loam
177 Appendix 4 (contd.) ++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 14 0-15 8.10 2.84 10.40 18.00 7.89 0.77 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.20 3.17 11.30 20.40 8.58 0.35 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.50 3.70 12.50 24.50 9.80 0.14 Sandy Loam 15 0-15 8.50 2.20 8.50 13.50 6.55 1.05 Clay Loam 15-30 8.40 2.05 7.70 12.80 6.52 0.91 Clay Loam 30-60 8.30 1.75 6.90 10.60 5.70 0.56 Clay Loam 16 0-15 7.90 0.55 3.50 2.00 1.51 1.12 Clay Loam 15-30 8.00 0.63 3.80 2.50 1.81 0.91 Clay Loam 30-60 8.10 0.70 4.20 2.80 1.93 0.35 Clay Loam 17 0-15 8.30 0.85 4.50 4.00 2.66 0.70 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.40 0.98 4.80 5.00 3.22 0.35 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.50 1.62 7.30 8.90 4.66 0.21 Sandy Loam 18 0-15 7.90 0.25 1.60 0.90 1.00 1.12 Loam 15-30 8.10 0.35 2.20 1.30 1.23 0.63 Loam 30-60 8.20 0.39 2.40 1.50 1.36 0.42 Loam 19 0-15 8.10 1.65 8.30 8.20 4.02 1.12 Loam 15-30 8.30 1.90 9.20 9.80 4.56 0.84 Loam 30-60 8.40 2.25 10.10 12.40 5.51 0.70 Loam 20 0-15 8.00 1.00 8.00 2.00 1.00 0.70 Loam 15-30 8.10 1.60 10.00 6.00 2.68 0.28 Loam 30-60 8.20 1.92 10.50 8.70 3.79 0.21 Loam 21 0-15 7.80 0.40 2.50 1.50 1.34 1.40 Loam 15-30 8.00 0.55 3.50 2.00 1.51 1.05 Loam 30-60 8.10 0.55 3.20 2.30 1.81 0.63 Loam 22 0-15 7.90 0.85 4.00 4.50 3.18 1.40 Clay Loam 15-30 8.10 1.25 6.00 6.50 3.75 0.91 Clay Loam 30-60 8.40 1.60 9.00 7.10 4.05 0.56 Clay Loam 23 0-15 8.50 4.40 18.00 26.00 8.66 1.05 Clay Loam 15-30 8.50 4.10 19.00 22.00 7.13 0.91 Clay Loam 30-60 8.40 4.05 20.00 20.50 6.01 0.63 Clay Loam 24 0-15 8.40 1.40 10.80 3.20 1.37 1.05 Loam 15-30 8.30 1.20 10.00 2.10 0.93 0.98 Loam 30-60 8.00 0.85 7.00 1.50 0.80 0.42 Loam 25 0-15 8.40 0.90 6.20 2.80 1.59 0.84 Clay Loam 15-30 8.40 0.80 5.50 2.40 1.44 0.49 Clay Loam 30-60 8.00 0.75 5.30 2.20 1.35 0.35 Clay Loam 26 0-15 8.40 1.20 6.50 5.50 3.05 0.91 Clay Loam 15-30 8.40 1.05 5.50 5.00 3.01 0.35 Clay Loam 30-60 8.10 1.00 5.20 4.80 2.97 0.21 Clay Loam
178 Appendix 4 (contd.) ++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 27 0-15 7.80 0.67 4.20 2.50 1.72 1.12 Clay Loam 15-30 7.90 0.85 5.10 3.40 2.13 0.84 Clay Loam 30-60 8.10 1.05 6.20 4.30 2.44 0.63 Clay Loam 28 0-15 8.20 2.40 12.00 11.80 4.82 1.33 Clay Loam 15-30 8.30 2.40 11.70 12.40 5.13 0.84 Clay Loam 30-60 8.40 2.50 10.00 15.00 6.70 0.35 Clay Loam 29 0-15 8.20 1.05 2.30 8.20 7.64 0.77 Loam 15-30 8.40 1.10 2.00 9.00 9.00 0.28 Loam 30-60 8.50 1.20 1.50 10.50 12.12 0.21 Loam 30 0-15 8.40 0.85 5.00 3.50 2.21 1.12 Clay Loam 15-30 8.40 0.90 5.00 4.00 2.52 0.84 Clay Loam 30-60 8.50 1.05 5.50 4.80 2.89 0.35 Clay Loam 31 0-15 8.00 1.00 8.00 2.00 1.00 0.63 Loam 15-30 8.00 1.10 7.50 3.50 1.80 0.49 Loam 30-60 8.20 1.22 7.00 5.20 2.73 0.28 Loam 32 0-15 8.40 2.15 8.30 13.20 6.47 1.26 Loam 15-30 8.50 2.52 9.70 15.50 7.03 0.77 Loam 30-60 8.50 2.85 10.30 18.20 8.02 0.35 Loam 33 0-15 7.90 2.10 15.90 5.20 1.84 1.12 Loam 15-30 7.95 2.10 15.30 5.70 2.06 0.98 Loam 30-60 8.00 2.00 14.00 6.10 2.30 0.84 Loam 34 0-15 8.20 1.23 4.20 8.10 5.59 0.56 Loam 15-30 8.40 1.47 5.10 9.60 6.01 0.42 Loam 30-60 8.50 1.95 6.30 13.20 7.43 0.35 Loam 35 0-15 8.00 1.05 5.10 5.40 3.38 0.70 Clay Loam 15-30 8.10 1.35 6.20 7.30 4.15 0.49 Clay Loam 30-60 8.10 1.42 6.50 7.70 4.27 4.42 Clay Loam 36 0-15 8.10 1.20 9.50 2.50 1.14 1.19 Clay Loam 15-30 8.30 1.40 10.50 3.50 1.52 0.84 Clay Loam 30-60 8.30 1.50 10.00 4.80 2.14 0.56 Clay Loam 37 0-15 8.10 1.70 6.20 10.80 6.13 0.98 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.20 1.93 6.50 12.80 7.10 0.49 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.20 2.01 6.70 13.40 7.32 0.28 Sandy Loam 38 0-15 8.00 1.05 4.10 6.40 4.46 1.19 Loam 15-30 8.00 0.98 3.90 5.90 4.22 0.91 Loam 30-60 7.90 0.77 3.20 4.50 3.55 0.63 Loam 39 0-15 8.15 1.48 8.70 6.10 2.92 0.84 Loam 15-30 8.30 1.70 9.20 7.80 3.64 0.35 Loam 30-60 8.40 1.95 9.80 9.70 4.38 0.21 Loam
179 Appendix 4 (contd.) ++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 40 0-15 8.00 1.35 7.70 5.80 2.95 0.91 Loam 15-30 8.20 1.20 6.00 6.00 3.46 0.49 Loam 30-60 8.30 1.20 5.00 7.00 4.42 0.35 Loam 41 0-15 7.90 0.88 7.30 1.50 0.78 0.84 Loam 15-30 7.90 0.90 7.50 1.60 0.83 0.63 Loam 30-60 8.00 1.10 9.00 2.00 0.94 0.28 Loam 42 0-15 7.80 1.95 10.50 9.00 3.92 0.91 Loam 15-30 7.90 2.35 12.50 11.00 4.40 0.56 Loam 30-60 8.10 3.10 13.70 17.30 6.60 0.21 Loam 43 0-15 7.90 0.85 3.50 5.00 3.77 0.56 Loam 15-30 8.00 0.92 3.60 5.60 4.17 0.42 Loam 30-60 8.30 1.10 3.80 7.20 5.22 0.21 Loam 44 0-15 8.10 0.52 4.00 1.20 0.84 0.70 Loam 15-30 8.10 0.50 4.00 1.00 0.70 0.42 Loam 30-60 8.00 0.37 3.00 0.70 0.57 0.14 Loam 45 0-15 7.80 1.20 9.20 2.80 2.00 1.26 Loam 15-30 7.90 1.40 10.00 4.10 1.83 0.84 Loam 30-60 7.95 2.10 14.70 6.30 2.32 0.35 Loam 46 0-15 8.00 0.45 3.50 1.00 0.75 1.40 Loam 15-30 8.10 0.55 4.00 1.50 1.06 0.91 Loam 30-60 8.10 0.60 4.00 2.20 1.10 0.49 Loam 47 0-15 8.00 0.73 4.00 3.30 2.33 0.77 Loam 15-30 8.10 0.95 4.60 4.90 3.23 0.49 Loam 30-60 8.20 1.20 5.30 6.70 4.11 0.28 Loam 48 0-15 7.70 0.35 2.70 0.80 0.68 0.42 Sandy Loam 15-30 7.80 0.40 3.00 1.00 0.81 0.35 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.00 0.50 3.50 1.50 1.13 0.21 Sandy Loam 49 0-15 7.70 0.30 2.50 0.70 0.65 0.84 Sandy Loam 15-30 7.80 0.50 3.50 1.40 1.05 0.56 Sandy Loam 30-60 7.95 0.51 3.00 2.10 1.71 0.42 Sandy Loam 50 0-15 7.80 0.30 1.80 1.20 1.26 0.91 Loam 15-30 8.00 0.30 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.63 Loam 30-60 8.10 0.35 2.00 1.50 1.50 0.42 Loam 51 0-15 7.70 0.50 4.00 1.00 0.70 0.84 Loam 15-30 7.90 0.60 4.50 1.40 0.93 0.49 Loam 30-60 8.10 0.70 5.00 2.20 1.39 0.35 Loam 52 0-15 8.00 0.45 2.50 2.00 1.78 1.40 Loam 15-30 8.10 0.55 3.00 2.50 2.04 0.91 Loam 30-60 8.10 0.60 3.00 3.00 2.45 0.49 Loam
180 Appendix 4 (contd.) ++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 53 0-15 7.90 0.30 1.50 1.40 1.61 0.70 Loam 15-30 8.10 0.43 2.00 2.50 2.50 0.56 Loam 30-60 8.10 0.55 2.20 3.30 3.14 0.14 Loam 54 0-15 8.40 4.10 18.50 22.50 7.39 0.77 Loam 15-30 8.50 4.25 18.00 24.00 8.00 0.56 Loam 30-60 8.60 5.35 17.00 37.00 12.70 0.35 Loam 55 0-15 8.30 1.12 6.30 4.90 2.76 0.84 Loam 15-30 8.40 1.65 8.10 8.40 4.17 0.49 Loam 30-60 8.50 1.98 9.50 10.30 4.72 0.35 Loam 56 0-15 8.10 1.35 7.00 6.50 3.47 0.91 Loam 15-30 8.30 1.55 7.70 7.80 3.97 0.63 Loam 30-60 8.30 1.60 8.00 8.00 4.00 0.35 Loam 57 0-15 8.50 4.20 19.00 22.50 7.30 0.63 Loam 15-30 8.40 3.20 13.00 18.50 7.26 0.56 Loam 30-60 8.40 3.10 13.00 18.00 7.06 0.35 Loam 58 0-15 7.70 0.55 4.00 1.50 1.06 0.84 Loam 15-30 7.90 0.60 4.40 1.60 1.08 0.56 Loam 30-60 8.10 0.63 4.00 2.30 1.62 0.21 Loam 59 0-15 8.20 1.25 4.00 8.50 6.01 1.12 Loam 15-30 8.20 1.10 4.50 6.50 4.33 0.90 Loam 30-60 8.10 1.00 5.00 5.00 3.16 0.56 Loam 60 0-15 8.50 4.30 20.20 22.80 7.17 1.12 Loam 15-30 8.40 3.77 17.80 19.90 6.67 0.98 Loam 30-60 8.30 2.28 11.30 11.50 4.84 0.63 Loam 61 0-15 8.10 1.28 7.40 5.40 2.80 1.05 Loam 15-30 8.20 1.59 8.80 7.10 3.38 0.77 Loam 30-60 8.30 1.95 11.30 8.20 3.44 0.35 Loam 62 0-15 8.30 1.80 9.20 8.80 4.10 0.63 Loam 15-30 8.30 1.80 9.50 8.30 3.80 0.35 Loam 30-60 8.40 1.95 10.00 9.50 4.25 0.21 Loam 63 0-15 7.70 0.30 2.20 0.80 0.76 0.91 Loam 15-30 8.00 0.45 3.00 1.50 1.22 0.70 Loam 30-60 8.10 0.60 4.00 2.00 1.41 0.35 Loam 64 0-15 8.10 2.35 12.00 11.50 4.69 0.84 Loam 15-30 8.00 2.00 12.00 7.80 2.47 0.70 Loam 30-60 8.00 1.80 14.50 3.50 1.30 0.35 Loam 65 0-15 8.40 1.60 9.50 6.50 2.98 1.05 Loam 15-30 8.50 1.40 9.00 5.00 2.36 0.70 Loam 30-60 8.50 1.17 7.50 4.10 2.11 0.35 Loam
181 Appendix 4 (contd.) ++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 66 0-15 8.20 2.45 11.30 13.50 5.55 0.56 Loam 15-30 8.20 2.95 14.20 15.30 5.74 0.42 Loam 30-60 8.30 3.28 16.10 16.70 5.88 0.21 Loam 67 0-15 8.30 0.50 4.00 0.90 0.64 0.56 Loam 15-30 8.10 0.40 2.50 1.30 1.16 0.42 Loam 30-60 7.80 0.35 2.00 1.50 1.50 0.21 Loam 68 0-15 8.00 0.70 3.00 4.00 3.27 0.84 Loam 15-30 8.45 0.90 3.50 5.50 4.15 0.70 Loam 30-60 8.50 1.00 3.80 6.20 4.50 0.56 Loam 69 0-15 8.30 1.45 11.00 3.50 1.49 0.56 Loam 15-30 8.30 1.95 12.20 7.30 2.95 0.42 Loam 30-60 8.40 2.28 13.10 9.70 3.79 0.21 Loam 70 0-15 8.00 1.18 6.50 5.30 2.94 1.47 Loam 15-30 8.10 1.35 7.20 6.30 3.32 1.05 Loam 30-60 8.20 1.52 8.10 7.10 3.52 0.84 Loam 71 0-15 8.30 1.05 5.80 4.70 2.75 0.70 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.20 0.85 5.10 3.40 2.13 0.49 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.20 0.82 5.00 3.20 2.02 0.21 Sandy Loam 72 0-15 7.70 0.48 3.00 1.80 1.47 0.42 Sandy Loam 15-30 7.80 0.65 3.50 3.00 2.26 0.21 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.00 0.84 4.00 4.40 3.11 0.21 Sandy Loam 73 0-15 8.20 0.42 2.00 2.20 2.20 1.12 Loam 15-30 8.30 0.71 3.30 3.80 2.95 0.84 Loam 30-60 8.30 0.89 4.20 4.70 3.24 0.35 Loam 74 0-15 8.30 0.77 3.10 4.60 3.69 0.63 Loam 15-30 8.40 0.95 3.70 5.80 4.26 0.21 Loam 30-60 8.40 1.00 3.90 6.10 4.37 0.14 Loam 75 0-15 8.50 1.23 5.10 7.20 4.50 0.42 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.40 0.98 4.20 5.60 3.86 0.35 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.35 0.71 3.50 3.60 2.72 0.28 Sandy Loam 76 0-15 8.50 4.83 16.00 32.30 11.42 0.70 Loam 15-30 8.60 6.25 17.20 45.30 15.44 0.56 Loam 30-60 8.80 7.02 19.30 50.90 16.38 0.35 Loam 77 0-15 8.20 2.50 8.40 16.60 8.09 0.70 Loam 15-30 8.40 2.80 9.00 19.00 8.96 0.35 Loam 30-60 8.40 3.70 12.50 24.50 9.80 0.21 Loam 78 0-15 8.60 6.10 18.30 42.70 14.11 0.70 Loam 15-30 8.60 6.50 19.00 46.00 14.92 0.35 Loam 30-60 8.70 6.80 19.50 48.50 15.53 0.28 Loam
182 Appendix 4 (contd.) ++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 79 0-15 7.90 2.35 15.80 7.70 2.73 0.63 Loam 15-30 8.10 2.70 17.00 10.00 3.43 0.28 Loam 30-60 8.10 3.10 18.50 12.50 4.11 0.14 Loam 80 0-15 8.20 1.40 10.50 3.50 1.53 0.63 Loam 15-30 8.40 1.40 10.00 4.00 1.78 0.35 Loam 30-60 8.50 1.50 9.00 6.00 2.82 0.14 Loam 81 0-15 8.50 3.20 8.50 23.50 11.40 1.05 Loam 15-30 8.50 3.00 8.20 21.80 10.76 0.84 Loam 30-60 8.40 2.50 7.50 17.50 9.04 0.77 Loam 82 0-15 8.50 2.85 8.10 20.40 10.13 0.91 Loam 15-30 8.60 4.15 9.40 32.10 14.80 0.70 Loam 30-60 8.80 6.20 10.80 51.20 22.03 0.42 Loam 83 0-15 8.30 1.67 8.10 8.60 4.27 0.77 Clay Loam 15-30 8.10 1.25 5.50 7.00 4.22 0.56 Clay Loam 30-60 8.00 1.10 5.20 5.80 3.59 0.35 Clay Loam 84 0-15 8.20 2.15 8.50 13.00 6.30 0.35 Loam 15-30 8.30 2.83 9.20 19.10 8.90 0.28 Loam 30-60 8.40 3.07 10.30 20.40 8.98 0.14 Loam 85 0-15 9.10 7.20 14.50 57.50 21.35 0.42 Clay Loam 15-30 9.30 8.85 16.70 71.80 24.84 0.35 Clay Loam 30-60 9.30 9.98 18.50 81.30 26.73 0.21 Clay Loam 86 0-15 8.60 6.45 18.70 45.80 14.97 0.56 Clay Loam 15-30 8.80 7.95 21.20 58.30 17.90 0.49 Clay Loam 30-60 8.90 8.82 22.50 65.70 19.58 0.28 Clay Loam 87 0-15 8.30 2.17 10.30 11.40 5.02 0.84 Loam 15-30 8.40 3.08 13.50 17.30 6.65 0.70 Loam 30-60 8.40 3.15 13.90 17.60 6.67 0.42 Loam
183 Appendix 5: Some physico-chemical properties of soils in Sargodha district (rabi, 2006-07)
++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 1 0-15 8.20 2.30 10.00 13.00 5.81 0.91 Clay Loam 15-30 8.30 2.45 10.30 14.20 6.25 0.77 Clay Loam 30-60 8.40 2.70 11.50 15.50 6.46 0.42 Clay Loam 2 0-15 8.40 0.75 5.00 2.50 1.58 0.98 Clay Loam 15-30 8.50 1.05 6.50 4.00 2.22 0.77 Clay Loam 30-60 8.50 1.50 8.20 6.80 3.35 0.35 Clay Loam 3 0-15 8.10 0.70 3.00 4.00 3.26 0.77 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.30 0.85 3.50 5.00 3.78 0.56 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.50 1.00 3.80 6.20 4.49 0.35 Sandy Loam 4 0-15 7.90 1.10 8.00 3.00 1.50 1.26 Loam 15-30 7.95 2.00 10.50 9.50 4.15 1.12 Loam 30-60 8.00 2.25 11.50 11.00 4.58 0.56 Loam 5 0-15 8.50 0.90 6.00 3.00 1.73 1.05 Clay Loam 15-30 8.25 0.80 5.20 2.80 1.73 0.91 Clay Loam 30-60 7.90 0.70 4.80 2.20 1.42 0.77 Clay Loam 6 0-15 7.70 0.70 3.20 3.80 3.00 0.77 Loam 15-30 7.90 0.95 4.00 5.50 3.88 0.49 Loam 30-60 8.10 1.10 4.50 6.50 4.33 0.28 Loam 7 0-15 8.00 0.45 2.00 2.50 2.50 0.7 Clay Loam 15-30 8.10 0.57 2.50 3.20 2.86 0.49 Clay Loam 30-60 8.30 0.65 2.70 3.80 3.27 0.28 Clay Loam 8 0-15 7.80 1.55 4.50 11.00 7.33 1.19 Clay Loam 15-30 7.80 1.25 4.50 8.00 5.33 1.05 Clay Loam 30-60 7.70 1.20 5.00 7.00 4.43 0.63 Clay Loam 9 0-15 7.70 3.20 16.00 16.00 5.65 1.15 Clay Loam 15-30 8.00 4.30 18.30 24.70 8.16 0.77 Clay Loam 30-60 8.05 4.70 19.80 27.20 8.64 0.56 Clay Loam 10 0-15 8.10 1.90 8.50 10.50 5.10 1.40 Clay Loam 15-30 8.10 1.75 8.00 9.50 4.75 1.12 Clay Loam 30-60 7.80 1.20 5.80 6.20 3.64 0.77 Clay Loam 11 0-15 8.00 0.78 5.50 2.30 1.38 1.12 Loam 15-30 8.00 0.90 6.00 3.00 1.73 0.91 Loam 30-60 8.10 1.10 7.10 3.90 2.06 0.63 Loam 12 0-15 8.40 0.60 3.50 2.50 1.89 0.77 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.40 0.80 3.80 4.20 3.05 0.28 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.50 0.90 4.20 4.80 3.31 0.21 Sandy Loam 13 0-15 7.70 0.62 4.50 1.70 1.13 0.91 Loam 15-30 7.70 0.70 4.80 2.20 1.42 0.70 Loam 30-60 7.80 0.75 5.20 2.30 1.43 0.28 Loam
184 Appendix 5 (contd.) ++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 14 0-15 7.90 2.00 8.50 11.50 5.57 0.84 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.10 2.35 9.30 14.20 6.58 0.35 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.30 2.90 11.50 17.50 7.30 0.14 Sandy Loam 15 0-15 8.40 3.10 14.00 17.00 6.42 1.54 Clay Loam 15-30 8.50 3.70 17.50 19.50 6.59 1.40 Clay Loam 30-60 8.50 3.80 18.00 20.00 6.66 1.05 Clay Loam 16 0-15 8.00 0.55 4.00 1.50 1.06 0.70 Loam 15-30 8.15 0.80 6.00 2.00 1.15 0.28 Loam 30-60 8.20 1.20 7.50 4.50 2.32 0.28 Loam 17 0-15 8.30 0.82 3.50 4.70 3.55 0.63 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.40 0.92 3.80 5.40 3.91 0.35 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.50 1.20 5.30 6.90 4.24 0.21 Sandy Loam 18 0-15 8.20 5.90 16.50 42.50 14.80 1.26 Loam 15-30 8.10 3.15 8.50 23.00 11.15 0.91 Loam 30-60 8.00 2.90 7.70 21.30 10.85 0.56 Loam 19 0-15 7.95 1.00 6.50 3.50 1.94 1.26 Loam 15-30 8.10 1.50 7.50 7.50 3.87 0.91 Loam 30-60 8.20 1.80 8.00 10.00 5.00 0.56 Loam 20 0-15 7.70 0.65 4.00 2.50 1.76 0.63 Loam 15-30 7.80 1.00 5.60 4.40 2.62 0.35 Loam 30-60 7.90 1.35 7.20 6.30 3.32 0.21 Loam 21 0-15 7.90 1.50 7.10 7.90 4.19 0.84 Loam 15-30 7.90 1.20 5.80 6.20 3.64 0.70 Loam 30-60 7.80 0.75 4.30 3.20 2.18 0.35 Loam 22 0-15 8.00 1.50 9.00 6.00 2.82 1.19 Clay Loam 15-30 7.90 1.50 9.20 5.80 2.70 1.12 Clay Loam 30-60 7.80 1.30 7.70 5.30 2.77 0.91 Clay Loam 23 0-15 8.40 4.30 16.70 26.30 9.10 1.05 Clay Loam 15-30 8.30 4.05 17.20 23.30 7.94 1.05 Clay Loam 30-60 8.30 3.90 17.00 22.00 7.54 0.91 Clay Loam 24 0-15 8.20 1.15 8.20 3.30 1.62 1.12 Loam 15-30 7.90 0.95 7.10 2.40 1.27 0.91 Loam 30-60 7.80 0.73 5.90 1.40 0.81 0.63 Loam 25 0-15 8.30 0.95 6.20 3.30 1.87 0.77 Clay Loam 15-30 8.20 0.78 5.30 2.50 1.53 0.56 Clay Loam 30-60 8.10 0.55 4.20 1.30 0.90 0.28 Clay Loam 26 0-15 8.35 1.08 5.40 5.40 3.28 0.84 Clay Loam 15-30 8.40 1.25 6.00 6.50 3.75 0.42 Clay Loam 30-60 8.40 1.53 7.20 8.10 4.26 0.21 Clay Loam
185 Appendix 5 (contd.) ++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 27 0-15 7.80 0.55 4.50 1.00 0.66 1.05 Clay Loam 15-30 7.70 0.45 3.50 0.90 0.68 0.91 Clay Loam 30-60 7.65 0.40 3.00 1.00 0.81 0.70 Clay Loam 28 0-15 7.90 1.80 7.50 10.50 5.42 1.05 Clay Loam 15-30 7.90 1.60 8.00 8.00 4.00 0.90 Clay Loam 30-60 7.70 1.35 8.00 5.50 2.75 0.56 Clay Loam 29 0-15 7.80 1.10 4.00 7.00 4.94 0.98 Sandy Loam 15-30 7.90 1.35 5.10 8.40 5.26 0.56 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.10 1.60 6.20 9.80 5.56 0.35 Sandy Loam 30 0-15 7.70 0.85 5.00 3.50 2.21 1.40 Clay Loam 15-30 8.10 1.60 8.00 8.00 4.00 0.91 Clay Loam 30-60 8.20 1.70 8.20 8.80 4.34 0.70 Clay Loam 31 0-15 8.40 2.20 4.50 17.50 11.66 0.70 Loam 15-30 8.30 1.85 5.70 12.80 7.58 0.35 Loam 30-60 8.20 1.30 5.20 7.80 4.83 0.21 Loam 32 0-15 8.30 1.95 7.30 12.20 6.38 1.12 Loam 15-30 8.50 2.00 7.60 12.40 6.36 0.70 Loam 30-60 8.50 2.40 9.50 14.50 6.65 0.56 Loam 33 0-15 8.20 2.75 12.00 15.50 6.32 1.25 Loam 15-30 8.10 1.90 10.30 8.70 3.83 0.56 Loam 30-60 8.00 1.75 9.80 7.70 3.47 0.28 Loam 34 0-15 8.10 0.92 3.50 5.70 4.30 0.42 Loam 15-30 8.20 1.35 4.70 8.80 5.74 0.35 Loam 30-60 8.40 1.70 7.20 9.80 7.11 0.21 Loam 35 0-15 7.80 0.50 3.00 2.00 1.63 0.84 Clay Loam 15-30 7.90 0.80 5.20 2.80 1.73 0.70 Clay Loam 30-60 7.90 0.85 5.50 3.00 1.80 0.70 Clay Loam 36 0-15 7.90 0.95 4.30 5.20 3.54 0.77 Clay Loam 15-30 8.00 1.40 5.20 8.80 5.45 0.70 Clay Loam 30-60 8.00 1.40 5.50 8.50 5.12 0.35 Clay Loam 37 0-15 7.90 1.10 5.00 6.00 3.79 0.91 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.00 1.20 4.00 8.00 5.65 0.42 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.10 1.65 4.00 12.50 8.83 0.35 Sandy Loam 38 0-15 7.90 0.80 3.50 4.50 3.40 1.32 Loam 15-30 7.80 0.65 3.20 3.30 2.60 0.91 Loam 30-60 7.80 0.70 3.40 3.60 2.76 0.49 Loam 39 0-15 8.10 1.35 8.30 5.20 2.55 0.98 Loam 15-30 8.20 1.50 7.70 7.30 3.72 0.77 Loam 30-60 8.40 1.70 7.90 9.10 4.57 0.35 Loam
186 Appendix 5 (contd.) ++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 40 0-15 7.90 0.80 7.00 1.00 0.53 0.91 Loam 15-30 8.10 0.70 4.50 2.50 1.66 0.77 Loam 30-60 8.10 0.70 4.20 2.80 1.93 0.70 Loam 41 0-15 8.00 0.60 5.50 0.45 0.27 1.12 Loam 15-30 8.10 0.75 6.50 0.90 0.49 0.91 Loam 30-60 8.10 0.80 7.00 1.00 0.52 0.70 Loam 42 0-15 7.80 2.00 7.50 12.50 6.45 1.25 Loam 15-30 8.00 2.40 9.50 14.50 6.65 0.63 Loam 30-60 8.10 2.90 9.80 20.20 9.12 0.35 Loam 43 0-15 8.00 0.95 3.90 5.60 4.01 1.26 Loam 15-30 8.10 1.25 5.70 6.80 4.02 1.05 Loam 30-60 8.20 1.45 6.50 8.00 4.43 0.77 Loam 44 0-15 7.80 0.70 4.50 2.50 1.66 1.05 Loam 15-30 7.80 0.60 3.80 2.20 1.59 0.98 Loam 30-60 7.75 0.55 3.70 1.80 1.32 0.56 Loam 45 0-15 7.80 1.25 6.30 6.20 3.49 0.91 Sandy Loam 15-30 7.85 1.50 6.80 8.20 4.44 0.56 Sandy Loam 30-60 7.90 1.60 7.20 8.80 4.63 0.35 Sandy Loam 46 0-15 8.00 1.25 8.50 4.00 1.94 1.05 Clay Loam 15-30 7.80 0.78 4.30 3.50 2.38 0.70 Clay Loam 30-60 7.80 0.60 3.20 2.80 2.21 0.28 Clay Loam 47 0-15 7.90 0.60 4.20 1.80 1.24 0.84 Loam 15-30 8.00 0.60 4.00 2.00 1.41 0.49 Loam 30-60 8.00 0.75 4.30 3.20 2.18 0.21 Loam 48 0-15 7.85 0.40 2.50 1.50 1.34 0.70 Sandy Loam 15-30 7.90 0.35 2.20 1.30 1.23 0.42 Sandy Loam 30-60 7.90 0.30 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.28 Sandy Loam 49 0-15 7.80 0.55 2.80 2.70 2.40 0.77 Sandy Loam 15-30 7.95 0.87 4.50 4.20 2.80 0.42 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.10 1.04 5.10 5.30 3.31 0.28 Sandy Loam 50 0-15 7.90 0.42 2.80 1.40 1.18 0.84 Loam 15-30 7.90 0.55 3.20 2.30 1.81 0.70 Loam 30-60 8.00 0.67 3.50 3.20 2.41 0.35 Loam 51 0-15 7.95 0.77 4.50 3.20 2.13 0.77 Loam 15-30 8.00 0.95 5.20 4.30 2.66 0.56 Loam 30-60 8.20 1.20 6.20 5.80 3.29 0.28 Loam 52 0-15 7.85 0.55 3.80 1.70 1.23 0.77 Sandy Loam 15-30 7.90 0.87 4.50 4.20 2.80 0.42 Sandy Loam 30-60 7.95 1.04 5.10 5.30 3.31 0.28 Sandy Loam
187 Appendix 5 (contd.) ++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 53 0-15 7.90 0.50 3.00 2.00 1.63 0.77 Loam 15-30 8.00 0.50 2.50 2.50 2.23 0.49 Loam 30-60 8.10 0.75 3.50 4.00 3.02 0.35 Loam 54 0-15 8.05 1.40 5.00 9.00 5.69 1.40 Loam 15-30 8.20 1.90 6.20 12.80 7.27 0.84 Loam 30-60 8.20 2.10 6.50 14.50 8.04 0.49 Loam 55 0-15 8.20 0.75 4.40 3.10 2.19 1.19 Loam 15-30 8.30 0.90 5.00 4.00 2.52 1.05 Loam 30-60 8.50 1.40 5.80 8.20 4.81 0.70 Loam 56 0-15 8.20 0.78 3.50 4.30 3.25 0.84 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.20 0.60 2.80 3.20 2.70 0.70 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.10 0.44 2.00 2.40 2.40 0.42 Sandy Loam 57 0-15 8.10 2.10 8.00 13.00 6.50 0.70 Loam 15-30 8.20 3.00 11.20 18.80 7.94 0.56 Loam 30-60 8.30 3.30 12.50 20.50 8.20 0.35 Loam 58 0-15 8.05 0.90 6.00 3.00 1.73 1.19 Loam 15-30 8.00 0.60 4.50 1.50 1.00 1.05 Loam 30-60 8.00 0.40 3.00 1.00 0.81 0.84 Loam 59 0-15 8.50 3.80 13.80 24.20 9.21 0.98 Clay Loam 15-30 8.60 4.35 14.80 28.70 10.55 0.91 Clay Loam 30-60 8.70 5.70 15.60 41.40 14.82 0.70 Clay Loam 60 0-15 8.40 3.90 23.50 15.50 4.52 1.19 Loam 15-30 8.30 2.35 14.80 8.70 3.19 1.05 Loam 30-60 8.20 1.95 12.00 7.50 3.06 0.70 Loam 61 0-15 8.30 1.70 10.50 6.50 2.83 1.12 Loam 15-30 8.40 1.75 10.80 6.70 2.88 1.05 Loam 30-60 8.50 1.93 12.00 7.30 2.98 0.91 Loam 62 0-15 7.90 1.40 8.50 5.50 2.66 0.98 Loam 15-30 8.00 1.60 10.00 6.00 2.68 0.91 Loam 30-60 8.05 1.85 11.30 7.20 3.02 0.70 Loam 63 0-15 8.30 1.22 8.00 4.20 2.10 1.26 Loam 15-30 8.20 0.90 6.00 3.00 1.73 0.84 Loam 30-60 8.20 0.95 6.20 3.30 1.87 0.49 Loam 64 0-15 8.35 0.78 5.10 2.70 1.69 1.19 Loam 15-30 8.35 0.66 4.20 2.40 1.65 1.05 Loam 30-60 8.30 0.42 3.00 1.20 0.98 0.56 Loam 65 0-15 8.30 1.70 9.50 7.50 3.44 1.05 Loam 15-30 8.30 1.65 9.00 7.50 3.53 0.84 Loam 30-60 8.25 1.40 7.80 6.20 3.14 0.28 Loam
188 Appendix 5 (contd.) ++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 66 0-15 8.00 2.35 12.00 11.50 4.70 0.98 Loam 15-30 8.10 2.60 12.00 14.00 5.70 0.77 Loam 30-60 8.10 2.70 12.50 14.50 5.80 0.42 Loam 67 0-15 8.00 0.55 3.50 2.00 1.51 0.77 Loam 15-30 7.90 0.35 2.00 1.50 1.50 0.70 Loam 30-60 7.80 0.27 1.50 1.20 1.38 0.42 Loam 68 0-15 8.00 0.85 4.00 4.50 3.18 0.77 Loam 15-30 8.10 1.20 4.60 7.40 4.88 0.70 Loam 30-60 8.15 1.30 4.90 8.10 5.17 0.35 Loam 69 0-15 8.10 2.35 11.00 12.50 5.33 0.84 Loam 15-30 8.20 2.60 11.50 14.50 6.04 0.77 Loam 30-60 8.30 2.70 11.70 15.30 6.33 0.42 Loam 70 0-15 8.10 1.25 6.70 5.80 3.16 1.40 Loam 15-30 8.00 1.00 6.00 4.00 2.30 1.12 Loam 30-60 8.00 0.89 5.40 3.50 2.13 1.05 Loam 71 0-15 8.00 0.85 5.00 3.50 2.21 0.84 Sandy Loam 15-30 7.90 0.70 4.20 2.80 1.93 0.63 Sandy Loam 30-60 7.95 0.50 3.30 1.70 1.32 0.42 Sandy Loam 72 0-15 8.20 1.30 7.50 5.50 2.84 0.77 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.10 0.93 6.20 3.10 1.76 0.56 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.10 0.80 5.40 2.60 1.58 0.42 Sandy Loam 73 0-15 8.30 0.50 2.40 2.60 2.37 1.26 Loam 15-30 8.40 0.84 3.70 4.70 3.45 1.05 Loam 30-60 8.40 0.91 4.30 4.80 3.27 0.84 Loam 74 0-15 8.20 0.49 2.10 2.80 2.73 0.70 Loam 15-30 8.40 0.80 3.80 4.20 3.04 0.56 Loam 30-60 8.50 1.23 5.90 6.40 3.72 0.21 Loam 75 0-15 8.45 0.83 4.00 4.30 3.04 0.84 Sandy Loam 15-30 8.30 0.65 3.00 3.50 2.86 0.70 Sandy Loam 30-60 8.20 0.43 2.10 2.20 2.14 0.63 Sandy Loam 76 0-15 8.45 4.34 18.00 25.40 8.46 0.77 Loam 15-30 8.50 5.80 22.50 35.50 10.58 0.63 Loam 30-60 8.60 6.89 23.20 45.70 13.41 0.28 Loam 77 0-15 8.20 0.80 5.00 3.00 1.89 0.70 Loam 15-30 8.10 0.69 4.50 2.40 1.33 0.35 Loam 30-60 8.10 0.50 3.50 1.50 1.13 0.21 Loam 78 0-15 8.50 2.50 10.50 14.50 6.32 0.91 Loam 15-30 8.60 3.80 13.00 25.00 9.80 0.70 Loam 30-60 8.80 5.35 14.50 39.00 14.48 0.42 Loam
189 Appendix 5 (contd.) ++ + Location Soil Depth pHs ECe (Ca+Mg) Na SAR OM Texture (cm) (dS m-1) ….….. (meq L-1)……….. (%) 79 0-15 8.30 1.80 8.20 9.80 4.84 0.91 Loam 15-30 8.35 2.63 12.00 14.30 5.83 0.63 Loam 30-60 8.40 3.35 15.30 18.20 6.58 0.28 Loam 80 0-15 8.40 1.65 8.30 8.20 4.02 0.70 Loam 15-30 8.40 1.55 7.70 7.80 3.97 0.42 Loam 30-60 8.30 1.20 6.90 5.10 2.75 0.28 Loam 81 0-15 8.30 1.85 5.00 13.50 8.53 0.70 Loam 15-30 8.40 2.40 6.50 17.50 9.70 0.56 Loam 30-60 8.50 2.70 7.20 19.80 10.44 0.35 Loam 82 0-15 8.40 2.60 8.00 18.00 9.00 1.19 Loam 15-30 8.60 3.85 10.50 28.00 12.22 0.91 Loam 30-60 8.70 5.35 15.80 37.70 13.41 0.56 Loam 83 0-15 8.10 1.38 7.00 6.80 3.63 1.12 Clay Loam 15-30 8.00 1.20 6.50 5.50 3.05 0.91 Clay Loam 30-60 8.00 1.00 5.00 4.50 2.71 0.42 Clay Loam 84 0-15 8.40 2.60 10.00 16.00 7.15 0.49 Loam 15-30 8.40 2.55 10.00 15.50 6.93 0.42 Loam 30-60 8.30 2.35 9.00 14.50 6.83 0.35 Loam 85 0-15 9.00 6.80 13.50 54.50 20.97 0.77 Clay Loam 15-30 9.10 7.40 15.00 59.00 21.54 0.63 Clay Loam 30-60 9.20 8.10 15.50 65.50 23.52 0.42 Clay Loam 86 0-15 8.60 6.90 18.20 50.80 16.84 0.84 Clay Loam 15-30 8.70 7.80 21.50 56.50 17.23 0.70 Clay Loam 30-60 8.80 8.35 18.50 65.00 21.37 0.63 Clay Loam 87 0-15 8.40 2.32 11.20 12.00 5.07 0.77 Loam 15-30 8.50 2.45 12.00 12.50 5.10 0.63 Loam 30-60 8.50 2.60 13.20 12.80 4.98 0.42 Loam
190 Appendix 6: Concentration of micronutrients in fodder crops collected from Sargodha district (kharif, 2006) Zn Cu Mn Fe B Location Fodder Crop ………………...(mg kg-1)………………………… 1 P. Millet 30.0 33.7 34.5 80 37.0 2 Sorghum 52.3 37.2 31.7 180 35.0 3 Sorghum 79.3 49.8 57.8 226 41.0 4 Lucerne 58.2 20.9 50.9 194 36.0 5 Lucerne 39.7 35.5 42.2 84 35.5 6 Lucerne 37.9 52.4 31.8 203 33.0 7 Sorghum 41.2 18.5 27.1 171 39.5 8 Sorghum 46.6 43.9 24.9 194 44.5 9 Sorghum 37.5 37.8 38.8 173 48.0 10 Sorghum 61.4 26.8 66.5 233 33.0 11 P. Millet 68.8 39.7 48.5 87 22.5 12 P. Millet 54.6 16.3 31.6 92 45.0 13 P. Millet 68.7 49.5 89.7 177 38.0 14 P. Millet 33.4 16.1 64.5 200 20.5 15 P. Millet 50.0 18.7 33.6 162 35.0 16 Sorghum 65.6 40.2 93.2 134 63.0 17 Sorghum 40.6 13.9 42.2 182 35.0 18 Sorghum 32.0 32.6 37.4 165 36.0 19 Sorghum 75.6 50.7 58.4 267 42.0 20 Sorghum 84.4 28.5 47.9 165 38.0 21 Sorghum 30.4 30.9 42.6 211 23.0 22 P. Millet 45.6 49.9 58.7 311 40.0 23 Sorghum 46.4 39.7 41.6 239 46.0 24 P. Millet 34.8 15.6 46.2 122 29.5 25 Sorghum 59.7 43.7 45.6 202 49.0 26 Lucerne 58.3 41.8 47.3 315 49.0 27 P. Millet 41.1 33.8 67.5 485 45.0 28 Sorghum 60.7 30.2 56.3 451 54.5 29 P. Millet 51.7 8.0 51.0 238 43.0 30 Sorghum 32.4 21.6 41.0 265 47.5 31 Lucerne 33.5 25.5 41.7 232 74.5 32 Sorghum 42.3 37.0 65.9 381 59.0 33 Sorghum 59.2 23.1 45.0 179 63.0 34 Sorghum 35.4 46.3 81.7 285 50.0 35 P. Millet 69.6 38.8 45.8 392 42.5 36 P. Millet 48.7 24.2 67.4 248 28.0 37 P. Millet 72.0 17.5 88.7 161 35.0 38 Sorghum 73.7 23.8 95.5 181 67.5 39 Sorghum 29.3 47.0 83.2 284 71.0
191 Appendix 6 (contd.) Location Fodder Crop Zn Cu Mn Fe B ………………...(mg kg-1)………………………… 40 Sorghum 71.9 25.0 78.8 170 61.0 41 P. Millet 92.9 38.7 49.6 292 48.0 42 Lucerne 56.4 24.6 53.8 294 82.0 43 Sorghum 36.5 26.4 42.6 144 27.0 44 Sorghum 40.2 48.8 40.9 293 56.0 45 Sorghum 42.7 24.8 49.7 181 31.0 46 Sorghum 32.9 24.7 46.5 139 33.0 47 P. Millet 79.7 32.8 74.8 261 44.5 48 P. Millet 50.3 13.8 67.9 95 29.0 49 P. Millet 32.9 24.8 57.0 167 42.0 50 P. Millet 40.9 48.5 72.7 191 24.5 51 Sorghum 33.2 19.3 42.8 187 20.5 52 Sorghum 42.0 29.5 56.8 99 53.5 53 P. Millet 36.8 23.5 82.6 159 45.0 54 Sorghum 40.7 17.8 40.3 242 42.5 55 P. Millet 48.9 8.9 67.3 189 22.5 56 Sorghum 62.6 25.1 62.0 228 47.0 57 Sorghum 42.8 17.1 57.0 234 64.5 58 Maize 54.7 33.7 41.9 115 47.5 59 P. Millet 39.3 17.3 52.6 200 18.5 60 P. Millet 33.9 21.8 52.8 216 31.5 61 P. Millet 42.2 18.3 62.7 285 57.5 62 Sorghum 42.2 14.0 41.8 205 47.0 63 Sorghum 84.3 26.0 69.8 272 41.0 64 Sorghum 32.7 35.4 30.8 116 20.5 65 Sorghum 29.8 34.1 48.4 218 27.0 66 Sorghum 49.9 48.5 68.3 171 39.5 67 Maize 56.4 42.9 55.8 386 46.0 68 Sorghum 38.7 21.1 27.3 197 56.0 69 P. Millet 47.7 18.5 81.3 237 59.0 70 Sorghum 85.8 69.3 77.9 295 68.0 71 Sorghum 70.0 28.8 54.7 200 67.0 72 Sorghum 43.6 21.8 41.9 198 52.0 73 Sorghum 34.2 32.8 48.9 212 47.0 74 P. Millet 44.4 29.5 64.0 185 37.0 75 Sorghum 59.3 27.8 40.5 189 61.0 76 P. Millet 33.3 38.1 70.2 135 68.0 77 Sorghum 55.3 28.0 55.1 200 52.0 78 Sorghum 35.5 27.1 47.0 262 60.0 79 Sorghum 59.7 27.8 59.5 169 42.0
192 Appendix 6 (contd.) Location Fodder Crop Zn Cu Mn Fe B ………………...(mg kg-1)………………………… 80 Sorghum 51.8 31.6 51.6 176 72.0 81 Sorghum 25.8 42.7 84.1 237 78.5 82 P. Millet 45.3 36.7 68.1 309 61.5 83 Lucerne 88.4 36.5 89.5 217 31.5 84 Lucerne 68.1 24.9 64.7 195 39.0 85 Sorghum 65.9 41.1 55.5 417 55.0 86 Sorghum 41.2 29.1 43.8 217 38.0 87 P. Millet 40.3 18.5 53.7 281 21.5
193 Appendix 7: Concentration of micronutrients in fodder crops collected from Sargodha district (rabi, 2006-07) Zn Cu Mn Fe B Location Fodder Crop ………………...(mg kg-1)………………………… 1 Berseem 38.9 31.7 35.5 217 43.0 2 Berseem 37.6 23.8 59.3 594 32.0 3 Berseem 55.3 23.3 98.0 290 41.0 4 Berseem 64.2 19.9 86.2 181 57.0 5 Lucerne 50.0 41.1 40.3 224 36.0 6 Lucerne 32.5 43.7 52.8 185 45.0 7 Berseem 32.2 13.5 47.8 297 30.0 8 Lucerne 63.1 38.4 66.9 234 62.0 9 Berseem 28.7 32.8 64.8 271 57.0 10 Berseem 29.7 27.5 56.6 154 38.0 11 Berseem 60.3 29.6 71.7 171 58.0 12 Oat 25.7 10.8 47.0 151 41.0 13 Berseem 39.3 53.0 57.3 154 41.0 14 Berseem 33.5 13.0 30.6 298 36.0 15 Berseem 27.7 10.0 18.2 195 32.5 16 Berseem 54.2 40.3 77.4 397 72.0 17 Lucerne 31.4 14.3 48.9 232 61.0 18 Lucerne 38.4 25.2 50.8 263 86.0 19 Berseem 45.5 50.1 78.4 167 62.0 20 Lucerne 31.4 28.7 37.9 234 88.0 21 Oat 33.8 35.7 59.0 165 45.0 22 Oat 74.3 31.7 86.4 552 62.5 23 Berseem 43.5 16.9 48.4 329 47.5 24 Oat 43.0 33.9 52.5 242 32.0 25 Berseem 52.6 42.5 41.7 318 43.0 26 Oat 52.9 38.7 70.2 321 61.0 27 Lucerne 45.9 23.5 52.4 506 60.5 28 Berseem 61.2 18.3 89.3 330 65.5 29 Berseem 41.1 16.2 54.9 164 43.0 30 Oat 32.4 28.7 45.7 132 31.5 31 Oat 40.0 41.5 79.4 153 38.0 32 Berseem 52.3 37.0 75.9 481 69.0 33 Berseem 28.5 29.6 58.2 565 52.0 34 Berseem 41.7 36.3 45.1 372 46.0 35 Berseem 89.6 33.7 58.6 455 60.0 36 Berseem 58.8 31.5 50.3 365 50.0 37 Berseem 59.0 51.3 66.4 361 59.0 38 Berseem 72.5 47.5 40.7 381 63.5 39 Berseem 30.7 51.0 73.2 314 61.0
194 Appendix 7 (contd.) Location Fodder Crop Zn Cu Mn Fe B ………………...mg kg-1………………………… 40 Berseem 37.7 13.6 65.5 412 48.0 41 Oat 51.3 38.7 44.7 427 41.5 42 Oat 39.2 20.2 65.5 149 52.5 43 Lucerne 37.0 38.5 48.1 212 70.5 44 Berseem 55.2 38.7 55.8 370 28.0 45 Berseem 32.7 14.3 37.5 183 48.5 46 Oat 42.8 17.7 50.5 138 63.0 47 Oat 63.2 12.8 58.7 352 58.5 48 Berseem 22.8 10.9 61.5 175 12.5 49 Berseem 37.7 31.0 52.5 385 41.0 50 Berseem 30.7 19.0 65.7 298 42.5 51 Berseem 45.0 47.8 52.9 215 39.0 52 Berseem 81.7 31.9 65.8 350 58.0 53 Oat 33.8 48.9 72.5 259 52.5 54 Berseem 71.0 33.0 54.1 500 71.0 55 Berseem 41.3 24.8 87.5 239 37.0 56 Berseem 44.1 40.2 55.3 338 55.0 57 Berseem 44.9 33.6 63.4 407 82.5 58 Berseem 60.2 34.7 78.9 459 92.0 59 Berseem 65.9 20.6 63.1 231 69.0 60 Berseem 56.0 15.8 72.5 304 62.0 61 Berseem 42.6 30.6 59.7 352 87.0 62 Berseem 45.9 20.7 77.9 342 85.0 63 Oat 38.2 26.1 68.2 355 77.0 64 Berseem 41.1 27.2 39.0 133 52.0 65 Lucerne 27.5 39.9 64.7 390 88.0 66 Berseem 51.2 26.2 54.6 283 51.0 67 Oat 55.8 38.8 77.0 299 76.0 68 Lucerne 48.2 26.1 28.2 355 60.0 69 Berseem 66.0 38.7 82.5 304 81.0 70 Berseem 92.7 28.1 96.0 297 79.0 71 Lucerne 88.3 31.7 22.3 217 62.5 72 Berseem 26.0 14.2 47.7 145 63.0 73 Lucerne 39.1 26.3 42.8 230 57.0 74 Oat 33.4 28.5 24.8 115 42.5 75 Berseem 33.0 17.7 48.8 205 48.0 76 Berseem 40.4 39.5 36.8 214 65.0 77 Berseem 30.8 17.4 26.9 258 28.0 78 Berseem 32.1 31.5 39.7 262 73.0 79 Berseem 40.1 27.1 48.0 383 41.5
195 Appendix 7 (contd.) Zn Cu Mn Fe B Location Fodder Crop ………………...mg kg-1………………………… 80 Oat 28.9 31.8 46.7 285 54.0 81 Berseem 55.7 20.1 68.4 489 53.5 82 Berseem 37.1 55.7 45.6 466 40.0 83 Berseem 70.0 47.2 63.9 151 53.5 84 Berseem 33.2 43.6 53.5 268 51.0 85 Oat 53.5 40.6 60.8 277 43.0 86 Lucerne 51.9 48.7 41.7 187 54.5 87 Berseem 66.7 33.1 57.1 450 48.0
196 Appendix 8: Suitability criteria of water for irrigation purpose
Parameter Fit M. Fit Unfit
EC (dS m-1) <1.0 1.0-1.25 > 1.25
SAR <6.0 6.0-10.0 >10.0
RSC (meq L-1) <1.25 1.25-2.5 > 2.5
(Malik et al., 1984)
197 Appendix 9: Ground water quality characteristics of tube well water samples collected from Sargodha district (kharif, 2006)
- +2 +2 + EC CO3 HCO3 Cl (Ca +Mg ) Na RSC SAR Location (dS m-1) ………………………………. (meq L-1)……………………………. 1 1.02 Nil 6.50 3.50 6.20 4.00 0.30 2.27 2 0.92 Nil 6.50 2.50 5.40 3.69 1.10 2.24 3 1.61 1.00 7.50 8.50 3.00 12.82 4.50 10.47 4 1.55 Nil 7.90 7.50 6.60 8.56 1.30 4.72 5 0.68 Nil 5.50 1.00 4.50 2.21 1.00 1.47 6 0.55 Nil 4.10 1.50 4.00 1.47 0.10 1.04 7 1.21 Nil 7.50 4.50 6.80 5.13 0.70 2.78 8 0.74 Nil 6.00 1.50 4.80 2.47 1.20 1.60 9 1.23 Traces 7.00 5.00 3.10 9.34 3.90 7.50 10 1.33 Nil 6.10 7.00 3.80 9.65 2.30 7.00 11 1.58 Traces 9.00 6.50 4.10 11.52 4.90 8.04 12 1.59 Nil 6.60 9.00 4.20 11.73 2.40 8.09 13 0.69 Nil 4.90 2.00 3.90 3.04 1.00 2.18 14 0.73 Nil 4.10 3.00 4.70 2.70 -0.60 1.76 15 1.02 Nil 6.80 3.50 6.20 4.00 0.60 2.27 16 1.04 Nil 6.20 4.00 5.50 4.95 0.70 2.99 17 1.18 Nil 5.10 6.50 3.00 8.60 2.10 7.04 18 1.32 Nil 6.80 6.50 5.00 8.26 1.80 5.22 19 1.06 Nil 6.00 4.50 4.80 5.65 1.20 3.64 20 0.75 Traces 5.00 2.50 4.20 3.40 0.80 2.36 21 0.68 Nil 5.50 1.50 4.90 1.95 0.60 1.25 22 1.40 Nil 6.00 8.00 3.90 10.13 2.10 7.28 23 1.35 Traces 6.40 7.00 3.80 9.78 2.60 7.10 24 0.79 Nil 5.50 2.50 4.80 3.21 0.70 2.07 25 2.05 Nil 10.50 9.50 5.90 4.34 4.60 8.39 26 1.47 Nil 5.40 9.00 5.00 9.70 0.40 6.13 27 0.89 Nil 4.80 4.00 5.50 3.26 -0.70 1.98 28 2.51 Traces 8.30 17.00 5.50 19.52 2.80 11.77 29 2.38 Traces 10.40 13.00 4.30 19.30 6.10 13.16 30 0.81 Nil 5.50 2.50 4.00 3.91 1.50 2.76 31 2.41 1.00 10.50 12.50 3.80 20.04 6.70 14.54 32 2.58 Traces 11.50 14.00 9.20 16.30 2.30 7.61 33 3.32 Nil 16.60 16.50 8.50 23.91 8.10 11.60 34 1.89 Nil 10.30 8.50 5.70 13.04 4.60 7.75 35 1.03 Nil 6.20 4.00 5.90 4.34 0.30 2.53 36 0.62 Nil 5.10 1.00 4.30 1.95 0.80 1.33 37 0.93 Nil 5.10 4.00 5.60 3.69 -0.50 2.20 38 1.10 Nil 6.70 4.00 2.80 8.34 3.90 7.05 39 0.67 Nil 5.00 1.50 3.90 2.60 1.10 1.86
198 Appendix 9 (contd.) - +2 +2 + EC CO3 HCO3 Cl (Ca +Mg ) Na RSC SAR Location (dS m-1) ……………………………….meq L-1……………………………. 40 1.65 Nil 9.10 7.50 6.10 10.43 3.00 5.97 41 0.85 Traces 6.50 2.00 5.10 3.47 1.40 2.17 42 2.95 Nil 12.60 16.50 7.80 20.43 4.80 10.34 43 0.74 Traces 4.70 2.50 3.00 3.47 1.70 2.84 44 5.72 Traces 14.70 42.50 8.90 47.86 5.80 22.68 45 0.91 Nil 6.50 2.50 5.90 3.26 0.60 1.89 46 1.27 Nil 7.70 5.00 5.90 6.91 1.80 4.04 47 1.86 Nil 10.50 7.50 6.00 12.39 4.10 7.15 48 1.48 Nil 7.90 7.00 4.40 10.47 3.50 7.07 49 0.54 Traces 4.00 1.50 2.60 2.74 1.40 2.40 50 1.20 Nil 7.10 5.00 4.50 7.60 2.60 5.06 51 1.10 Traces 7.50 3.50 4.70 6.52 2.80 4.26 52 3.04 Traces 14.00 16.00 8.90 21.30 5.10 10.10 53 1.99 Traces 7.80 12.00 5.50 14.26 2.30 8.64 54 9.00 Nil 22.20 65.50 12.10 76.50 10.10 31.09 55 10.31 Traces 26.10 70.50 12.30 86.95 13.80 35.06 56 0.94 Traces 5.50 3.00 3.00 6.30 2.50 5.14 57 1.78 Traces 10.60 7.00 5.50 12.39 4.50 7.47 58 1.59 Nil 7.60 8.00 4.80 11.08 2.80 7.14 59 1.11 Traces 6.50 4.50 4.90 6.08 1.60 3.89 60 1.05 Traces 5.50 5.00 4.60 5.65 0.90 3.72 61 0.86 Nil 5.50 3.00 4.00 4.56 1.50 3.22 62 2.19 Nil 8.10 13.50 5.40 16.08 2.70 9.80 63 1.29 Nil 7.00 5.50 3.10 9.78 3.90 7.88 64 3.20 Nil 15.30 16.50 11.00 20.65 4.30 8.82 65 4.58 Traces 14.50 31.00 7.00 37.60 7.50 20.10 66 2.50 Traces 11.00 13.50 7.10 17.82 3.90 9.46 67 0.78 Nil 3.80 3.50 4.00 3.70 -0.20 2.61 68 1.38 Traces 7.60 6.00 4.80 8.91 2.80 5.75 69 1.26 Nil 5.10 7.50 3.90 8.69 1.20 6.22 70 0.95 Nil 4.50 5.00 4.90 4.56 -0.40 2.91 71 0.68 Nil 4.50 2.50 5.00 1.52 -0.50 0.96 72 1.32 Nil 6.90 6.00 4.40 8.91 2.50 6.02 73 1.40 Nil 5.50 8.00 3.50 10.43 2.00 7.88 74 2.89 Nil 13.10 15.00 8.90 19.56 4.20 9.27 75 2.84 Nil 10.10 17.50 4.80 23.26 5.30 15.00 76 3.87 Traces 18.70 19.00 8.80 30.04 9.90 14.32 77 3.42 Traces 15.00 19.00 9.50 24.34 5.50 11.17 78 2.25 Nil 10.50 12.00 7.80 14.56 2.70 7.39 79 1.15 Nil 7.40 3.50 5.70 5.65 1.70 3.34
199 Appendix 9 (contd.) - +2 +2 + EC CO3 HCO3 Cl (Ca +Mg ) Na RSC SAR Location (dS m-1) ……………………………….meq L-1……………………………. 80 1.91 Traces 10.50 8.50 6.30 12.60 4.20 7.12 81 2.02 Nil 10.40 9.50 5.80 14.56 4.60 8.55 82 0.59 Nil 3.10 2.50 3.60 2.17 -0.50 1.62 83 1.26 Nil 6.00 6.50 6.70 5.65 -0.70 3.08 84 1.38 Nil 7.20 6.50 3.80 9.78 3.40 7.10 85 0.86 Nil 5.50 3.00 4.70 3.47 0.80 2.26 86 1.55 Traces 6.70 8.50 4.10 11.08 2.60 7.73 87 1.02 Nil 7.10 3.00 5.50 4.56 1.60 2.75
200 Appendix 10: Ground water quality characteristics of tube well water samples collected from Sargodha district (rabi, 2006-07)
- +2 +2 + EC CO3 HCO3 Cl (Ca +Mg )Na RSC SAR Location (dS m-1) ……………………………….meq L-1……………………………. 1 0.850 Nil 4.50 3.80 6.70 1.73 -2.20 0.95 2 1.020 Nil 6.20 4.00 4.30 5.95 1.90 4.05 3 1.358 Nil 6.50 7.00 5.00 8.50 1.50 5.38 4 1.340 Nil 6.00 7.50 5.70 7.60 0.30 4.50 5 0.992 Nil 5.30 4.50 4.50 5.34 0.80 3.56 6 1.543 Nil 8.60 6.60 4.50 10.91 4.10 7.27 7 1.087 Nil 5.00 5.60 3.60 7.20 1.40 5.36 8 1.174 Nil 7.20 4.50 6.80 4.80 0.40 2.60 9 1.339 Traces 6.90 6.50 3.40 10.00 3.50 7.67 10 1.468 Nil 6.60 8.00 4.90 9.80 1.70 6.26 11 1.379 0.50 5.60 7.90 1.20 12.43 4.90 16.04 12 1.307 Nil 5.30 7.50 4.90 8.25 0.40 5.27 13 0.581 Nil 4.40 1.50 2.90 2.83 1.50 2.35 14 0.633 Nil 3.60 2.50 5.00 1.30 -1.40 0.82 15 0.801 Nil 4.40 3.50 6.90 1.17 -2.50 0.63 16 1.740 Nil 8.90 8.50 5.20 12.17 3.70 7.54 17 1.590 Nil 8.90 6.70 3.30 12.40 5.60 9.68 18 2.070 Nil 9.90 10.00 3.00 17.39 6.90 14.25 19 1.299 Nil 5.70 7.00 4.60 8.26 1.10 5.39 20 1.099 Nil 6.50 4.50 7.50 3.39 -1.00 1.75 21 0.706 Nil 4.00 3.00 6.20 0.82 -2.20 0.47 22 1.710 Nil 7.60 9.50 5.00 12.17 2.60 7.69 23 1.268 Nil 6.40 6.00 4.80 7.82 1.60 5.05 24 1.054 Nil 6.80 3.50 7.20 3.39 -0.40 1.78 25 1.891 Traces 6.80 12.00 3.70 15.00 3.10 11.02 26 1.030 Nil 6.80 3.50 4.90 5.34 1.90 3.42 27 0.755 Nil 4.90 2.50 6.80 0.83 -1.90 0.45 28 3.282 Nil 12.60 20.00 8.50 24.39 4.10 11.83 29 1.724 Nil 6.60 10.50 2.20 15.21 4.40 14.51 30 0.861 Nil 3.90 4.50 2.00 6.52 1.90 6.52 31 4.981 Nil 16.20 30.00 12.00 36.91 4.20 15.12 32 3.054 Nil 14.50 15.50 11.00 18.70 3.50 7.97 33 4.580 Nil 14.30 29.00 5.50 39.47 8.80 23.80 34 2.034 Nil 9.60 10.50 6.40 13.69 3.20 7.65 35 0.970 Nil 6.70 3.00 7.50 2.17 -0.80 1.12 36 0.632 Nil 4.60 1.50 5.00 1.30 -0.40 0.82 37 0.805 Nil 5.00 3.00 6.10 1.78 -1.10 1.02 38 1.260 Nil 6.40 6.00 3.80 8.60 2.60 6.27 39 0.586 Nil 4.30 1.50 4.20 1.52 0.10 1.05
201 Appendix 10 (contd.) - +2 +2 + EC CO3 HCO3 Cl (Ca +Mg ) Na RSC SAR Location (dS m-1) ……………………………….meq L-1……………………………. 40 1.567 Nil 8.00 7.50 4.80 10.95 2.90 7.07 41 1.062 Nil 6.30 4.00 6.60 3.78 -0.30 2.08 42 1.349 Nil 6.40 6.50 4.70 9.13 1.70 5.96 43 1.272 Nil 6.40 6.00 5.00 5.60 1.40 3.54 44 4.110 Traces 14.30 26.00 6.00 34.56 8.30 19.95 45 0.864 Traces 5.90 2.50 6.20 2.40 -0.30 1.36 46 0.925 Nil 6.70 2.50 6.80 2.26 -0.10 1.22 47 1.541 Traces 6.50 9.00 4.40 10.86 2.10 7.34 48 0.793 Nil 5.90 2.00 4.70 3.13 1.20 2.04 49 0.628 Nil 5.00 1.50 3.70 2.61 1.30 1.92 50 1.580 Traces 8.50 7.00 4.70 10.95 3.80 7.15 51 1.020 Traces 6.20 4.00 4.70 5.43 1.50 3.54 52 2.550 Traces 12.00 13.00 7.70 17.60 4.30 8.97 53 1.326 Nil 7.70 5.50 5.80 7.60 1.90 4.46 54 8.260 Nil 19.60 56.00 5.20 74.13 14.40 46.04 55 8.790 Nil 21.50 65.00 6.10 79.17 15.40 45.24 56 0.682 Nil 5.00 2.00 4.40 2.48 0.60 1.68 57 2.744 Nil 12.10 15.00 6.30 20.91 5.80 11.81 58 1.667 Nil 7.90 8.50 5.00 11.30 2.90 7.15 59 1.076 Nil 6.50 4.00 4.60 6.17 1.90 4.08 60 0.976 0.50 6.00 3.50 4.30 5.43 1.70 3.70 61 1.367 Traces 7.20 6.00 4.10 9.78 3.10 6.83 62 3.480 Nil 12.90 21.00 7,50 27.43 5.40 14.21 63 1.658 Nil 8.80 8.00 5.00 11.40 3.80 7.23 64 1.580 Nil 8.00 7.50 4.80 10.87 2.90 7.02 65 10.500 Nil 29.30 73.00 20.00 85.22 9.30 26.96 66 2.179 Nil 10.10 10.50 6.70 14.78 3.40 8.07 67 0.810 Nil 5.40 2.50 5.50 2.43 -0.10 1.46 68 1.438 Nil 7.50 6.50 7.20 6.95 0.30 3.66 69 1.031 Nil 6.50 3.50 6.40 3.90 0.10 2.18 70 0.843 Nil 5.80 2.50 7.00 1.30 -1.20 0.70 71 0.668 Nil 4.30 2.00 5.20 1.48 -0.90 0.91 72 1.874 Nil 11.30 7.00 2.70 16.08 8.60 13.86 73 0.936 Nil 6.50 3.00 7.00 2.30 -0.50 1.23 74 2.408 Nil 12.50 11.00 8.00 16.08 4.50 8.04 75 2.401 Nil 8.00 15.50 4.40 19.56 3.60 13.18 76 3.600 Nil 14.50 21.00 7.60 28.26 6.90 14.49 77 3.110 0.50 13.80 16.50 8.00 22.17 5.80 11.08 78 2.525 1.00 12.00 11.50 7.50 17.60 5.50 9.07 79 1.031 Nil 7.20 3.00 5.30 4.80 1.90 2.96
202 Appendix 10 (contd.) - +2 +2 + EC CO3 HCO3 Cl (Ca +Mg ) Na RSC SAR Location (dS m-1) ……………………………….meq L-1……………………………. 80 2.161 Traces 12.50 9.00 7.00 14.13 5.50 7.55 81 1.196 Nil 7.00 5.00 6.50 5.52 0.50 3.06 82 0.291 Nil 1.90 1.00 2.00 1.04 -0.10 1.04 83 1.147 Nil 5.80 5.50 5.20 6.08 0.60 1.19 84 1.563 Nil 8.10 6.50 4.00 11.78 4.10 8.35 85 0.975 Nil 5.30 4.00 4.00 5.78 1.30 4.09 86 1.387 Nil 5.90 7.50 3.50 10.39 2.40 7.87 87 1.161 Nil 7.00 4.50 5.10 6.08 1.90 3.82
203 Appendix 11 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B and Zn) on plant height of oat at district Sargodha
Treatment B Zn R1 R2 R3 Average
…. (kg ha-1) ….
T1 0 0 102.6 96.0 99.8 99.1
T2 0 5 108.8 109.0 110.0 109.3
T3 0 10 123.2 128.4 121.0 124.9
T4 1 0 109.5 103.0 105.5 106.0
T5 1 5 138.0 139.0 134.0 137.0
T6 1 10 158.5 152.0 154.5 155.0
T7 2 0 112.2 108.4 104.3 108.3
T8 2 5 154.0 147.5 150.0 150.5
T9 2 10 150.6 153.0 150.0 151.9
A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E T A B L E
Degrees of Sum of F Value Source Mean Square Prob Freedom Squares Treat 8 11679.3 1459.91 157.86 0.0000 Error 18 166.5 9.25 Total 26 11845.7
204 Appendix 12 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B and Zn) on number of tillers plant-1 of oat at district Sargodha
Treatment B Zn R1 R2 R3 Average
…. (kg ha-1) ….
T1 0 0 4.50 4.25 4.15 4.30
T2 0 5 5.15 5.65 5.40 5.40
T3 0 10 5.40 5.80 6.00 5.73
T4 1 0 4.90 4.55 4.65 4.70
T5 1 5 6.05 5.80 5.70 5.85
T6 1 10 6.20 6.10 5.80 6.03
T7 2 0 4.60 5.00 4.80 4.80
T8 2 5 5.80 5.95 6.10 5.95
T9 2 10 5.85 6.20 6.25 6.10
A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E T A B L E
Degrees of Sum of F Value Source Mean Square Prob Freedom Squares Treat 8 10.6780 1.33475 29.54 0.9600 Error 18 0.8133 0.04519 Total 26 11.4913
205 Appendix 13 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B and Zn) on dry matter yield of oat at district Sargodha
Treatment B Zn R1 R2 R3 Average
…. (kg ha-1) ….
T1 0 0 5.41 5.87 5.91 5.73
T2 0 5 7.36 7.02 7.71 7.36
T3 0 10 8.28 8.86 8.17 8.43
T4 1 0 6.56 6.10 5.98 6.21
T5 1 5 8.86 9.32 9.66 9.28
T6 1 10 9.78 10.47 10.12 10.12
T7 2 0 6.33 6.67 6.56 6.52
T8 2 5 9.66 9.89 10.35 9.97
T9 2 10 10.81 10.24 10.47 10.50
A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E T A B L E
Degrees of Sum of F Value Source Mean Square Prob Freedom Squares Treat 8 80.7623 10.0953 96.31 0.0000 Error 18 1.8868 0.1048 Total 26 82.6491
206 Appendix 14 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B and Zn) on acid detergent fiber of oat at district Sargodha
Treatment B Zn R1 R2 R3 Average
…. (kg ha-1) ….
T1 0 0 27.25 28.00 28.90 28.05
T2 0 5 27.60 28.40 29.50 28.50
T3 0 10 28.65 29.75 27.50 28.63
T4 1 0 28.00 29.40 27.05 28.15
T5 1 5 27.60 28.80 30.05 28.82
T6 1 10 29.10 27.70 30.35 29.05
T7 2 0 28.40 27.90 28.55 28.28
T8 2 5 27.75 28.90 30.30 28.98
T9 2 10 29.10 27.70 30.35 29.05
A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E T A B L E
Degrees of Sum of F Value Source Mean Square Prob Freedom Squares Treat 8 3.6413 0.45516 0.37 0.9221 Error 18 22.0367 1.22426 Total 26 25.780
207 Appendix 15 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B and Zn) on neutral detergent fiber of oat at district Sargodha
Treatment B Zn R1 R2 R3 Average
…. (kg ha-1) ….
T1 0 0 46.54 47.81 49.35 47.90
T2 0 5 47.09 48.44 50.30 48.61
T3 0 10 48.82 50.70 46.86 48.79
T4 1 0 47.77 50.13 46.11 48.00
T5 1 5 47.03 49.08 51.21 49.11
T6 1 10 49.59 47.20 51.72 49.50
T7 2 0 48.34 47.54 48.60 48.16
T8 2 5 47.29 49.25 51.63 49.38
T9 2 10 49.59 47.20 51.72 49.50
A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E T A B L E
Degrees of Sum of F Value Source Mean Square Prob Freedom Squares Treat 8 9.9481 1.24352 0.35 0.9335 Error 18 63.9391 3.55217 Total 26 73.8873
208 Appendix 16 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B and Zn) on protein contents (%age) of oat at district Sargodha
Treatment B Zn R1 R2 R3 Average
…. (kg ha-1) ….
T1 0 0 9.81 9.52 9.32 9.55
T2 0 5 10.45 10.14 10.01 10.20
T3 0 10 10.68 10.40 10.15 10.41
T4 1 0 9.88 9.67 9.43 9.66
T5 1 5 10.38 10.61 10.90 10.63
T6 1 10 11.35 11.00 10.61 10.98
T7 2 0 9.27 9.63 9.96 9.62
T8 2 5 10.98 10.80 10.32 10.70
T9 2 10 10.91 10.49 10.85 10.75
A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E T A B L E
Degrees of Sum of F Value Source Mean Square Prob Freedom Squares Treat 8 7.18607 0.89826 11.15 0.0000 Error 18 1.44967 0.08054 Total 26 8.63574
209 Appendix 17 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B, Zn) on plant height of pearl millet at district Sargodha
Treatment B Zn R1 R2 R3 Average
…. (kg ha-1) ….
T1 0 0 164.6 160.0 167.0 163.9
T2 0 5 196.8 203.5 201.0 200.4
T3 0 10 211.5 208.2 204.0 207.9
T4 1 0 200.5 204.5 198.0 201.0
T5 1 5 204.0 208.0 206.3 206.1
T6 1 10 211.6 207.6 205.4 208.2
T7 2 0 194.0 188.0 185.0 189.0
T8 2 5 201.0 198.0 195.6 198.2
T9 2 10 212.0 216.0 211.0 213.0
A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E T A B L E
Degrees of Sum of F Value Source Mean Square Prob Freedom Squares Treat 8 3426.27 428.284 3.82 0.0087 Error 18 2020.47 112.248 Total 26
210 Appendix 18 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B and Zn) on number of tillers plant-1 of pearl millet at district Sargodha
Treatment B Zn R1 R2 R3 Average
…. (kg ha-1) ….
T1 0 0 6.4 6.6 6.9 6.6
T2 0 5 7.1 6.5 6.9 6.8
T3 0 10 6.7 6.9 7.1 6.9
T4 1 0 6.7 6.4 6.9 6.7
T5 1 5 7.1 6.8 7.1 7.0
T6 1 10 6.9 7.0 7.4 7.1
T7 2 0 6.8 6.9 6.4 6.7
T8 2 5 6.8 6.9 6.4 6.7
T9 2 10 7.4 7.5 7.0 7.3
A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E T A B L E
Degrees of Sum of F Value Source Mean Square Prob Freedom Squares Treat 8 1.17463 0.14683 2.20 0.0787 Error 18 1.20167 0.06676 Total 26
211 Appendix 19 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B and Zn) on dry matter yield of pearl millet at district Sargodha
Treatment B Zn R1 R2 R3 Average
…. (kg ha-1) ….
T1 0 0 9.00 9.50 10.00 9.50
T2 0 5 10.67 11.00 11.33 11.00
T3 0 10 11.67 11.08 10.58 11.11
T4 1 0 10.63 10.00 9.88 10.17
T5 1 5 11.25 11.08 11.83 11.39
T6 1 10 11.67 11.75 12.42 11.94
T7 2 0 10.00 10.75 10.75 10.50
T8 2 5 10.50 10.75 11.25 10.83
T9 2 10 12.00 12.63 12.38 12.33
A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E T A B L E
Degrees of Sum of F Value Source Mean Square Prob Freedom Squares Treat 8 12.6421 1.58027 3.28 0.0174 Error 18 8.6799 0.48222 Total 26
212 Appendix 20 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B and Zn) on protein contents (%age) of pearl millet at district Sargodha
Treatment B Zn R1 R2 R3 Average
…. (kg ha-1) ….
T1 0 0 8.50 8.25 7.85 8.20
T2 0 5 8.80 8.70 8.25 8.58
T3 0 10 8.95 8.60 8.45 8.67
T4 1 0 8.65 8.00 8.25 8.30
T5 1 5 8.80 8.90 8.45 8.72
T6 1 10 9.20 8.90 8.65 8.92
T7 2 0 8.75 8.00 8.25 8.33
T8 2 5 8.35 8.45 9.00 8.60
T9 2 10 8.95 8.65 9.10 8.90
A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E T A B L E
Degrees of Sum of F Value Source Mean Square Prob Freedom Squares Treat 8 0.67538 0.08442 0.60 0.7674 Error 18 2.54092 0.14116 Total 26
213 Appendix 21 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B and Zn) on acid detergent fiber of pearl millet at district Sargodha
Treatment B Zn R1 R2 R3 Average
…. (kg ha-1) ….
T1 0 0 39.05 37.25 36.80 37.70
T2 0 5 38.10 39.25 37.25 38.20
T3 0 10 36.90 39.35 38.75 38.33
T4 1 0 39.30 38.10 36.95 38.12
T5 1 5 38.53 36.88 39.73 38.38
T6 1 10 37.13 38.53 39.68 38.45
T7 2 0 37.00 38.20 39.30 38.17
T8 2 5 40.32 38.27 36.67 38.42
T9 2 10 38.57 39.72 37.72 38.67
A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E T A B L E
Degrees of Sum of F Value Source Mean Square Prob Freedom Squares Treat 8 3.6832 0.46039 0.30 0.9567 Error 18 27.6849 1.53805 Total 26
214 Appendix 22 Effect of micronutrient fertilizers (B and Zn) on neutral detergent fiber of pearl millet at district Sargodha
Treatment B Zn R1 R2 R3 Average
…. (kg ha-1) ….
T1 0 0 62.45 59.58 58.86 60.30
T2 0 5 60.82 62.65 59.46 60.98
T3 0 10 58.92 62.83 61.88 61.21
T4 1 0 62.66 60.75 58.92 60.78
T5 1 5 61.50 58.87 63.42 61.27
T6 1 10 59.27 61.50 63.34 61.38
T7 2 0 59.07 60.97 62.78 60.94
T8 2 5 64.37 61.10 58.55 61.34
T9 2 10 61.52 63.40 60.21 61.71
A N A L Y S I S O F V A R I A N C E T A B L E
Degrees of Sum of F Value Source Mean Square Prob Freedom Squares Treat 8 9.0999 1.13749 0.29 0.9600 Error 18 70.3391 3.90773 Total 26
215