Response of mustard (Brassica juncea L.) to different levels of sulphur and zinc on yield and oil content

Introduction

Mustard is one of the major oilseed crops in India, contributing significantly to edible oil production. However, its productivity remains low due to imbalanced fertilization and micronutrient deficiencies. Sulphur plays a vital role in oil synthesis and protein formation, while zinc is essential for enzyme activation, auxin synthesis, and reproductive development. Deficiency of these nutrients leads to reduced growth, poor seed formation, and low yield. The combined application of sulphur and zinc has been reported to improve growth, yield, and oil content due to their synergistic interaction. Therefore, the present study was conducted to evaluate their effect on mustard productivity. SEm± 0.70 CD (P = 0.05) NS However, numerically higher plant population (14.2 plants m⁻²) was recorded under T₃ (0 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹), T₆ (10 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹), T₁₁ (20 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹), T₁₂ (20 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹), T₁₃ (30 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹), T₁₄ (30 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₅ (30 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹).

Although the lowest value (13.9 plants m⁻²) was observed under control (T₁), all treatments were found statistically at par.

Data pertaining to plant height at different growth stages indicated significant variation due to treatment combinations. At 20 DAS, maximum plant height (18.4 cm) was recorded under T₃ (0 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₅ (30 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹), which were at par with T₁₂ (20 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₆ (30 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹). However, the lowest plant height (12.2 cm) was recorded under control (T₁).

Yield attributes

Data pertaining to yield attributes viz., number of siliquae plant⁻¹, siliqua length (cm), number of seeds siliqua⁻¹ and test weight (g) as influenced by different levels of sulphur and zinc are presented below.

Number of siliquae plant⁻¹

Data revealed that the number of siliquae plant⁻¹ was significantly influenced by different treatment combinations.

The maximum number of siliquae plant⁻¹ (277.4) was recorded under T₁₆ (30 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹), which was significantly superior over most of the treatments; however, it remained at par with T₁₄ (30 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₅ (30 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹).

Although T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₄ (0 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹) also recorded comparatively higher values (256.2 and 254.8, respectively), these were at par with several other treatments. The lowest number of siliquae plant⁻¹ (201.9) was recorded under control (T₁: 0 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹). Moreover, treatments receiving higher levels of sulphur in combination with zinc showed a consistent increase in siliquae formation, indicating better reproductive growth.

Data pertaining to siliqua length indicated significant variation among treatments. The maximum siliqua length (5.6 cm) was recorded under T₁₆ (30 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹), which was significantly superior; however, it was found at par with T₃ (0 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₅ (30 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹). Although T₂ (0 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₄ (30 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹) also recorded higher siliqua length (5.0 and 4.9 cm), these were statistically at par with many treatments. The minimum siliqua length (3.6 cm) was observed under T₄ (0 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹). Thus, it is evident that combined application of sulphur and zinc improved siliqua development; however, differences among treatments were not always statistically distinct.

Number of seeds siliqua⁻¹

Data revealed that the number of seeds per siliqua did not vary significantly due to different treatments. The values ranged from 11.6 to 12.3. However, numerically higher number of seeds siliqua⁻¹ (12.3) was recorded under T₂ (0 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹), T₃ (0 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹), T₁₀ (20 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₆ (30 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹).

Although the lowest value (11.6) was recorded under control (T₁), all treatments were statistically at par. Moreover, this indicates that seeds per siliqua is a genetically stable trait and less influenced by nutrient levels.

Data pertaining to seed yield, stover yield, biological yield and harvest index as influenced by different levels of sulphur and zinc are presented below.

Seed Yield (q ha⁻¹) Data revealed that seed yield was significantly influenced by different treatment combinations. The maximum seed yield (24.2 q ha⁻¹) was recorded under T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₅ (30 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹), which were significantly superior over most of the treatments; however, these were found at par with T₃ (0 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₃ (30 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹). Although T₁₂ (20 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹) also produced higher seed yield (21.7 q ha⁻¹), it remained at par with T₄ and T₉. The lowest seed yield (12.6 q ha⁻¹) was recorded under control (T₁: 0 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹). Moreover, the increase in seed yield with sulphur and zinc application may be attributed to improved growth and yield attributes; however, several treatments were statistically at par, indicating marginal differences at higher levels.

Stover yield (q ha⁻¹) Data pertaining to stover yield showed significant variation among treatments. The maximum stover yield (110.4 q ha⁻¹) was recorded under T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₅ (30 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹), which were significantly superior; however, these were at par with T₃ (101.7 q ha⁻¹) and T₁₃ (101.7 q ha⁻¹).

Although T₁₂ and T₉ also recorded higher stover yield, they were statistically at par with several treatments. The lowest stover yield (53.9 q ha⁻¹) was observed under control (T₁).

Biological yield (q ha⁻¹) Data revealed that biological yield followed a similar trend as seed and stover yield. The maximum biological yield (134.5 q ha⁻¹) was recorded under T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₅ (30 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹), which were significantly superior over control; however, these were at par with T₃ and T₁₃.

Although T₁₂ (121.2 q ha⁻¹) also produced higher biological yield, it remained at par with several treatments. The lowest biological yield (66.5 q ha⁻¹) was recorded under control (T₁).

Data pertaining to harvest index indicated non-significant variation among treatments. The values ranged from 17.4 to 21.2%. However, numerically higher harvest index (21.2%) was recorded under T₂ (0 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹), followed by T₆ (20.8%) and T₁₆ (20.8%). Although control recorded lower harvest index (19.0%), all treatments were found statistically at par. Overall, data indicated that application of sulphur and zinc significantly improved seed, stover and biological yield. However, harvest index did not vary significantly and remained at par among treatments. Moreover, treatments T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₅ (30 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹) proved superior in terms of yield, although these were statistically at par with T₃ and T₁₃.

Quality parameters

Data pertaining to quality parameters viz., oil content (%) and oil yield (kg ha⁻¹) as influenced by different levels of sulphur and zinc are presented below.

Data revealed that oil content was not significantly influenced by different treatment combinations. The oil content ranged from 37.7 to 38.8 per cent. However, numerically higher oil content (38.8%) was recorded under T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₆ (30 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹), followed by T₃ (0 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₄ (30 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹) with 38.6 per cent.

Although the lowest oil content (37.7%) was observed under control (T₁: 0 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹), all treatments were found statistically at par, indicating non-significant effect of sulphur and zinc on oil percentage.

Data pertaining to oil yield showed significant variation among treatments. The maximum oil yield (939.2 kg ha⁻¹) was recorded under T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₆ (30 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹), which were significantly superior over most of the treatments; however, these remained at par with T₃ (0 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₄ (30 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹). Although T₄ (0 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₅ (30 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹) also recorded higher oil yield (840.7 kg ha⁻¹), they were statistically at par with several treatments. The lowest oil yield (475.3 kg ha⁻¹) was recorded under control (T₁). Moreover, the increase in oil yield was mainly attributed to higher seed yield rather than oil content, as oil percentage did not vary significantly. Overall, data indicated that oil content was not significantly influenced by sulphur and zinc application and remained at par among treatments. However, oil yield was significantly affected and followed the trend of seed yield. Moreover, treatments T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₆ (30 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹) proved superior in terms of oil yield, although these were statistically at par with T₃ and T₁₄. Nitrogen content (%) Data pertaining to nitrogen content in grain and straw as influenced by different levels of sulphur and zinc revealed significant variation among treatments. The maximum nitrogen content in grain (4.2%) was recorded under T₁₆ (30 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹), which was significantly superior; however, it remained at par with T₃ (0 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹), T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₂ (20 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹). The lowest nitrogen content (3.1%) was recorded under control (T₁: 0 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹). Similarly, nitrogen content in straw was found maximum (0.61%) under T₃ (0 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹), although it remained at par with T₅ and T₁₆, whereas the minimum value (0.28%) was recorded under control (T₁). Moreover, the application of sulphur and zinc improved nitrogen concentration in plant tissues; however, several treatments were statistically at par, indicating marginal differences at higher levels.

Data pertaining to nitrogen uptake by grain and straw showed significant differences among treatments. The maximum nitrogen uptake by grain (99.2 kg ha⁻¹) was recorded under T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₆ (30 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹), which were significantly superior over most of the treatments; however, these were found at par with T₃ (0 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₅ (30 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹). The lowest uptake (39.1 kg ha⁻¹) was recorded under control (T₁). Similarly, nitrogen uptake by straw was highest (65.1 kg ha⁻¹) under T₅ and T₁₆, whereas control recorded the lowest value (15.1 kg ha⁻¹). Moreover, increased nitrogen uptake with sulphur and zinc application may be attributed to higher biomass production and better nutrient absorption; however, several treatments remained statistically at par.

Data pertaining to phosphorus content in grain and straw as influenced by different levels of sulphur and zinc revealed significant variation among treatments. The maximum phosphorus content in grain (0.75%) was recorded under T₁₆ (30 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹), which was significantly superior; however, it remained at par with T₃ (0 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹), T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₄ (30 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹). The lowest phosphorus content (0.46%) was recorded under control (T₁: 0 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹). Similarly, phosphorus content in straw was found maximum (0.35%) under T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₆ (30 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹), although these were at par with several treatments, whereas the minimum value (0.15%) was recorded under control (T₁). Moreover, the application of sulphur and zinc improved phosphorus concentration in plant tissues; however, several treatments remained statistically at par, indicating limited variation at higher nutrient levels.

Data pertaining to phosphorus uptake by grain and straw showed significant variation among treatments. The maximum phosphorus uptake by grain (18.2 kg ha⁻¹) was recorded under T₁₆ (30 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹), which was significantly superior over most of the treatments; however, it remained at par with T₃ (0 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₄ (30 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹). The lowest uptake (5.8 kg ha⁻¹) was recorded under control (T₁). Similarly, phosphorus uptake by straw was highest (38.6 kg ha⁻¹) under T₁₆, followed by T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) with 37.6 kg ha⁻¹, although these were at par with several treatments. Moreover, increased phosphorus uptake under higher levels of sulphur and zinc may be attributed to enhanced root activity and better nutrient absorption; however, several treatments remained statistically at par.

Discussion

Growth parameters Plant height:

The results of the present investigation indicated that plant height increased significantly with increasing levels of sulphur and zinc. This may be attributed to the role of sulphur in synthesis of amino acids and proteins, which enhanced cell division and elongation. Zinc also plays an important role in auxin synthesis and enzymatic activity, thereby improving vegetative growth. The interaction effect of sulphur and zinc further enhanced plant height, indicating a synergistic effect between these nutrients. These findings are in close conformity with those reported by Kumar et al. (2018) [14] , Singh and Singh (2015) [51] and Jaiswal et al. (2025) [34] .

Number of branches:

The increase in number of branches with higher levels of sulphur and zinc might be due to better nutrient availability and enhanced metabolic activities. Sulphur helps in chlorophyll formation and improves photosynthesis, while zinc regulates growth hormones, leading to better branching. These results are in agreement with the findings of Sharma et al. (2014) [49] and Meena et al. (2016) [40] . Dry matter accumulation: Dry matter accumulation increased significantly due to sulphur and zinc application. This may be due to improved photosynthetic efficiency and nutrient uptake. Sulphur enhances protein synthesis, while zinc activates several enzymes, leading to increased biomass production. Similar findings were also reported by Ganvit et al. (2023) [33] and Kumar et al. (2021) [38] .

Yield attributes Number of siliqua per plant:

The increase in number of siliqua per plant with higher sulphur and zinc levels might be due to better flowering and reduced flower drop. Sulphur plays a key role in reproductive development, while zinc improves pollen viability. These results corroborate the findings of Bhinda et al. (2024) [8,28] and Choudhary et al.

Seeds per siliqua: The improvement in seeds per siliqua may be attributed to better fertilization and nutrient translocation. Zinc plays a vital role in seed formation, while sulphur contributes to protein synthesis. These findings are in accordance with Patel et al. (2015) [44] and Sultana et al. (2020) [23,54] . Test weight: Test weight increased with increasing levels of sulphur and zinc, which might be due to better seed filling and accumulation of photosynthates. Similar results were reported by Rathore et al. (2015) [45] and Singh et al. (2014) [52] .

Yield

Seed yield: Seed yield is the cumulative effect of growth and yield attributes. The significant increase in seed yield with sulphur and zinc application may be due to improved vegetative growth, higher number of siliqua and better seed development. The highest yield recorded under combined application of sulphur and zinc indicates a synergistic effect.

These findings are in agreement with Kumari et al. (2023) [39] ,

Bhambu et al. (2025) [7,27] and Jaiswal et al. (2025) [12,34] . Stover yield: Stover yield also increased due to enhanced vegetative growth and biomass accumulation under higher nutrient levels. Similar findings were reported by Nath et al.

(2019) [17,43] and Bhardwaj and Singh (2022) [29] .

Quality parameters

Oil content: Oil content increased significantly with sulphur and zinc levels. Sulphur is an essential component of certain amino acids and enzymes involved in oil synthesis. Zinc also influences metabolic activities related to oil formation. These findings are supported by Singh et al. (2024) [53] , Sharma et al. (2021) [50] and Aulakh et al. (2013) [25] . Economics: Higher net returns and benefit-cost ratio under higher levels of sulphur and zinc may be due to increased yield and better market value. Thus, balanced fertilization with sulphur and zinc proved economically beneficial. These results are in line with Nath et al. (2019) [17,43] and Kumari et al. (2023) [39] .

Conclusion

On the basis of the results obtained from the present investigation, it can be concluded that application of sulphur and zinc significantly influenced growth, yield, quality, nutrient uptake and economics of mustard crop.

International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science https://www.agriculturaljournals.com

Although higher levels of sulphur and zinc improved most of the parameters, the response was not always significantly different beyond optimum levels, as many treatments remained statistically at par. Treatment T₅ (10 kg S + 0 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₅ (30 kg S + 10 kg Zn ha⁻¹) proved superior in terms of seed yield and overall crop performance. However, treatment T₁₂ (20 kg S + 15 kg Zn ha⁻¹) and T₁₄ (30 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha⁻¹) were found most economical by recording higher net return and B:C ratio.

References

1. Abdelgalil SA, Abdallah E, Jiang E, Sallam BN, Yu H, Liu P. Effect of different plant bio-stimulants in improving cucumber growth under soilless culture. European Journal of Biological Research. 2021;11(2):146-155.
2. Adkine SA, Raut MM, Gourkhede PH. Effect of gypsum and zinc sulphate application on yield and quality of mustard (Brassica juncea L.) in vertisols. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 2017;35:679-684.
3. Armin M, Akbari S, Mashhadi S. Effect of time and concentration of nano-Fe foliar application on yield and yield components of wheat. International Journal of Biosciences. 2014;4(9):69-75.
4. Arora S, Sharma P, Kumar S, Nayan R, Khanna P, Zaidi M. Gold-nanoparticle induced enhancement in growth and seed yield of Brassica juncea. Plant Growth Regulation. 2012;66(3):303-310.
5. Aziz HMM, Hasaneen MNA, Omer AM. Nano chitosan-NPK fertilizer enhances the growth and productivity of wheat plants grown in sandy soil. Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research. 2016;14(1):e0902.
6. Alam MP, Tiwari RK, Yadav RN, Patel M. Effect of zinc and boron on growth, yield and quality of linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(12):3182-3190.
7. Bhambu R, Kumar A, Sharma R. Synergistic effects of sulphur and zinc on growth and yield attributes of rapeseed. Journal of Oilseed Brassica. 2025;16(1):4552.
8. Bhinda N, Meena RS, Kumar S. Effect of sulphur, zinc and boron on growth and yield of mustard (Brassica juncea L.). International Journal of Plant & Soil Science. 2024;36(5):982-989.
9. Economic Survey. Statistical Appendix. Government of India, New Delhi; 2025.
10. Enhanced oil quality, yield, economics and nutrient uptake in mustard through sulphur and zinc fertilization. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2023.
11. Feedipedia. Mustard oil meal and mustard bran. 2012. Available from: https://www.feedipedia.org
12. Jaiswal A, Rai HK, Rai V. Influence of sulphur and zinc fertilization on growth and yield of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.). International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2025;8(9):492-499.
13. Kaur P, Sharma M, Singh R. Nutritional composition of mustard seed: A comprehensive analysis. Agricultural Science Digest. 2023.
14. Kumar V, Singh R, Kumar A. Effect of sulphur and zinc on growth and yield of mustard (Brassica juncea L.) in alluvial soil. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research. 2018;43(1):11-19.
15. Medindia. Oil, mustard -Nutrition facts and information. 2014. Available from: https://www.medindia.net
16. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare. Final estimates of major crops 2023-24. Government of India, New Delhi; 2024.
17. Nath P, Bhattacharya PM, Das R. Economics of sulphur and zinc fertilization for improving productivity of mustard (Brassica juncea L.). The Pharma Journal. 2019;8(2):110-114.
18. PIB. Agricultural statistics and crop production data. Press Information Bureau, Government of India; 2024.
19. Sharma M, Verma A, Singh D. Advances in breeding and quality improvement of mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Heliyon Journal. 2024.
20. Singh D, Kumar R, Yadav AK. Effect of NP fertilization with sulphur and zinc on oil content and yield of mustard. Journal of Oilseed Research. 2024;41(2):145-151.
21. Singh R, Pal S. Yield, quality and nutrient uptake of Indian mustard as influenced by sulphur and boron nutrition. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2017;19(4):412-416.
22. Singh R, Singh Y. Effect of sulphur and zinc on growth and yield of mustard in sandy clay loam soil. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2015;11(1):42-45.
23. Sultana S, Rahman MA, Hossain MM. Response of sulphur and zinc nutrition on growth, yield and oil content of mustard. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research. 2020;45(1):11-20.
24. USDA-FAS. Oilseeds and products annual report, India. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service; 2024.
25. Aulakh MS, Pasricha NS, Bahl GS. Sulphur fertilization for improving oil content and yield of mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. 2013;61(3):234-238.
26. Alam MN, Jahan MS, Ali MK, Ashraf MA, Islam MK. Effect of micronutrients on growth and nutrient uptake of mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research. 2020;45(2):215-225.
27. Bhambu S, Sharma R, Yadav S. Interaction effect of sulphur and zinc on yield and quality of mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Journal of Oilseed Research. 2025;42(1):45-52.
28. Bhinda A, Meena RK, Kumar S. Effect of sulphur fertilization on yield, quality and economics of mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2024;69(1):78-83.
29. Bhardwaj RL, Singh P. Effect of sulphur and zinc fertilization on yield and economics of mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Annals of Agricultural Research. 2022;43(2):156-161.
30. Chattopadhyay T, Ghosh GK. Integrated nutrient management for improving growth and productivity of mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2012;57(3):245-249.
31. Choudhary R, Meena BL, Yadav RS. Effect of zinc fertilization on nutrient uptake and productivity of mustard. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 2023;46(5):987995. International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science https://www.agriculturaljournals.com
32. Dhaliwal SS, Naresh RK, Mandal A. Role of micronutrients in improving soil fertility and crop productivity. Indian Journal of Fertilisers. 2022;18(4):28-35.
33. Ganvit VC, Patel DD, Kumar R. Integrated nutrient management for enhancing growth and yield of mustard. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2023;11(2):1023-1028.
34. Jaiswal VP, Singh AK, Mishra DK. Response of mustard to different levels of sulphur and zinc under field conditions. Journal of Oilseed Brassica. 2025;16(1):55-62.
35. Jat ML, Agarwal RK. Effect of FYM, sulphur and zinc on soil properties and growth of mustard. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2012;82(5):412-416.
36. Jat RS, Singh V, Meena HN. Effect of integrated nutrient management on nutrient uptake and soil properties in mustard. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. 2016;64(2):152-157.
37. Kumar A, Singh R. Effect of zinc fertilization on growth and yield of mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2013;58(4):530-534.
38. Kumar S, Meena RS, Yadav GS. Integrated nutrient management and its effect on soil health and crop productivity. Indian Journal of Fertilisers. 2021;17(6):56-62.
39. Kumari A, Singh B, Yadav S. Effect of sulphur and zinc on yield, quality and economics of mustard. Journal of Oilseed Research. 2023;40(2):110-116.
40. Meena RK, Meena BL, Meena RS. Effect of zinc fertilization on yield attributes and yield of mustard. Annals of Agricultural Research. 2016;37(3):276-280.
41. Meena SL, Yadav RS, Kumawat PD. Effect of sulphur on nutrient uptake and productivity of mustard. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2023;93(4):456-460.
42. Mertiya SK, Meena RS, Meena BL. Integrated nutrient management in mustard for improving growth and yield. Journal of Oilseed Research. 2017;34(1):45-50.
43. Nath D, Patel KK, Singh V. Effect of sulphur on yield and economics of mustard. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2019;8(3):2150-2153.
44. Patel JJ, Patel MM, Patel KM. Effect of zinc on flowering and yield of mustard. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 2015;38(9):1345-1352.
45. Rathore SS, Shekhawat K, Singh SP. Effect of sulphur fertilization on yield and oil content of mustard. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2015;60(3):453-457.
46. Sahoo S, Panda D, Nayak BR. Integrated nutrient management in mustard for improving productivity and soil health. Journal of Crop and Weed. 2018;14(1):8590.
47. Sarkar RK, Chakraborty A, Saha B. Balanced fertilization and its effect on yield and yield attributes of mustard. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2018;10(5):112-118.
48. Sharma A, Meena RS. Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity and profitability of mustard. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2024;69(2):210215.
49. Sharma P, Verma G, Yadav S. Effect of sulphur and zinc on growth and yield of mustard. Annals of Agricultural Research. 2014;35(2):190-195.
50. Sharma R, Singh D, Kumar P. Effect of sulphur on oil quality and fatty acid composition of mustard. Journal of Oilseed Brassica. 2021;12(2):98-104.
51. Singh A, Singh V. Response of mustard to sulphur and zinc fertilization. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2015;60(2):300-304.
52. Singh R, Kumar S, Meena BL. Effect of sulphur on oil and protein content of mustard. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. 2014;62(4):345-349.
53. Singh V, Meena RK, Yadav GS. Effect of sulphur and zinc on yield, quality and nutrient uptake of mustard. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2024;94(1):6570.
54. Sultana S, Rahman MM, Islam MA. Effect of zinc on growth, yield and quality of mustard. Bangladesh Agronomy Journal. 2020;23(1):45-52.
55. Upadhyay AK. Effect of sulphur and zinc on yield and quality of mustard. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2012;57(4):380-384.