Effect of varieties, date of sowing and foliar application of micronutrients on growth, yield attributes and yield of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)

Introduction

Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), commonly known as "Jau" in Hindi, is one of the most important cereal crops of the world and belongs to the family Poaceae. It ranks fourth among cereal crops in terms of acreage and production after wheat, rice and maize in India (Pal et al., 2012) [16] . Owing to its adaptability to diverse agro-climatic conditions, barley is cultivated for food, feed, forage and malting purposes. The grain contains about 12.5% moisture, 11.5% albuminoids, 74% carbohydrates, 1.3% fat, 3.9% crude fibre and 1.5% ash (Vaughan et al., 2007; Kumari, 2015) [12,26] . Besides its nutritional importance, barley is recognized for several healthpromoting properties, including lowering blood cholesterol through β-glucans and reducing glycemic response (Pins and Kaur, 2006) [9,18] . Globally, barley occupies an area of 49.70 million hectares with a production of 151.62 million tonnes and an average productivity of 3.05 t ha⁻¹ (Statista, 2022-2023). In India, barley is grown on 7.20 million hectares with a production of 21.50 million tonnes and productivity of 3.0 t ha⁻¹ (USDA, 2023-24). Rajasthan is one of the major barley-producing states, cultivating the crop on 2.94 million hectares with a production of 9.11 million tonnes and productivity of 3501 kg ha⁻¹ (Rajasthan Agricultural Statistics, 2021 -22). Optimum temperature for anthesis and grain filling ranges from 12 to 22 °C, while temperatures exceeding 30 °C during pre-or post-anthesis stages adversely affect grain development and yield (Prasad et al., 2017) [20] . Delayed sowing exposes the crop to terminal heat stress, resulting in poor tillering, reduced growth and lower yield. Singh et al. (2001) [24] reported that delaying barley sowing beyond 15 December may reduce grain yield by about 50 kg ha⁻¹ day⁻¹. Furthermore, varietal response to sowing environments differs considerably, and therefore selection of suitable genotypes adapted to normal and late-sown conditions is essential for maximizing productivity (Kumar et al., 2010) [10] . Micronutrient nutrition has emerged as another critical factor influencing barley production. Continuous cultivation of high-yielding varieties and intensive fertilizer use have aggravated deficiencies of micronutrients, particularly zinc (Zn) and iron (Fe), in many agricultural soils. Zinc plays a key role in enzyme activation, protein synthesis, carbohydrate metabolism and stress tolerance, while iron is indispensable for chlorophyll synthesis, photosynthetic electron transport and respiration (Alloway, 2004) [2] . Deficiencies of these nutrients lead to impaired growth, reduced tillering, chlorosis and poor grain formation, ultimately resulting in lower yield and quality (Tahir et al., 2009) [25] . The availability of Zn and Fe is often limited in alkaline and calcareous soils of arid and semi-arid regions due to high soil pH and bicarbonate concentrations. Foliar application has been recognized as an effective approach for correcting micronutrient deficiencies and enhancing nutrient use efficiency. Agronomic biofortification through zinc and iron fertilization not only improves crop productivity but also enhances grain nutritional quality, thereby addressing micronutrient malnutrition in cereal-based diets (Cakmak, 2008) [4] . Moreover, significant genetic variability exists among barley genotypes for zinc and iron uptake and accumulation, which can be exploited through suitable varietal selection and nutrient management practices (Garcia-Oliveira et al., 2018) [6] .

Considering the importance of sowing time, varietal performance and micronutrient management in barley production, the present investigation was undertaken to evaluate the effect of foliar application of zinc and iron on growth and yield of barley, assess the performance of barley varieties under normal and late-sown conditions, and study the interaction between micronutrient application and varieties under different sowing environments.

Materials and Methods

The present research work was carried out during two successive rabi seasons of 2021-22 and 2022-23 at Agronomy farm, S. K. N. College of Agriculture, Jobner, Jaipur. Rainfall received during the crop period was 5.00 mm to 93.00 and 6.00 to 107.4 mm during kharif season of 2022 and 2023, respectively. The soil of the experimental field was sandy loam in texture with low available nitrogen, medium phosphorus and potassium status. The experiment was laid out in split plot design during both the years with four replications. Date of sowing and varieties were allocated to main plot and foliar application of micronutrients to sub plots. Split plot design was used in experimentation consisting of sixteen treatment combinations (four in main plots and four in sub plots). Treatment combinations were assigned to experimental units randomly employing Fisher and Yates random table method (Panse and Sukhatme, 1985) [17] and allocated thrice. The barley varieties RD 2552 and RD 2907 were used for the experiment RD 2552 is a medium-statured variety with a plant height of 80 to 90 cm. It has been developed for irrigated and rainfed conditions and is suitable for normal as well as salt-affected soils. This variety is recommended for timely sown conditions. RD 2907 was developed by RARI, Durgapura for cultivation in salinity conditions. RD 2907 is a barley variety suitable for irrigated and fertile conditions.

Observation was recorded on the following parameters Growth parameters

For all the growth and development studies during the crop growth period, five plants were selected randomly and tagged in each net plot except for that of chlorophyll content (SPAD value), leaf area index and net assimilation ratio. Destructive sampling from border rows followed for dry matter accumulation. Initially, the growth parameters were recorded at 30 days after sowing and subsequent observations were taken at an interval of 30 days upto 90 days after sowing and lastly at harvest. The straw yield was worked out by subtracting the grain yield from biological yield and expressed in kg/ha by multiplying the same conversion factor employed for grain yield.

Biological yield (kg/ha) Total harvested above ground plant parts from each net plot were carefully bundled after sun drying, tagged and taken to threshing floor. Each bundle was weighed to record the biological yield/plot and finally converted into kg/ha.

The ratio of economic yield to the biological yield (harvest index) was computed using the following formula given by (Nichiporovich, 1967) [15] .

Statistical analysis

The data obtained on various parameters was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis in split plot design to draw a valid conclusion adopting analysis of variance technique as described by Gomez and Gomez (1984) [7] to identify the treatment effects. The interpretation of the treatment effects were made on the basis of least significant difference (LSD). The analysis of variance is given below.

Results and Discussion

Plant stand Data indicated that late sowing significantly increased plant population at both 20 DAS and harvest during the two years of study. The late-sown crop recorded 30.9 and 30.3 plants per metre row length at 20 DAS and harvest, respectively, which were 8.5% and 8.99% higher than normal sowing. Barley varieties showed no significant differences in plant stand at either stage. Similarly, foliar application of micronutrients (0.5% FeSO₄•7H₂O, 0.5% ZnSO₄•7H₂O, and their combination) did not significantly affect plant population compared with the water spray control

Plant height

Normal sowing resulted in significantly taller barley plants at all growth stages (30, 60, 90 DAS, and harvest) compared to late sowing. On a pooled basis, plant heights under normal sowing were 19.3, 74.0, 113.6, and 117.0 cm at 30, 60, 90 DAS, and harvest, respectively, representing increases of 5.4%, 17.2%, 12.1%, and 13.3% over late sowing. The two barley varieties did not differ significantly in plant height at 30 DAS. However, significant differences were observed at 60 DAS, 90 DAS, and harvest. Variety RD-2552 produced significantly taller plants than the other variety, recording pooled heights of 72.1, 115.4, and 119.2 cm at 60 DAS, 90 DAS, and harvest, respectively. Micronutrient sprays had no significant effect on plant height at 30 DAS. However, significant increases were observed at 60 DAS, 90 DAS, and harvest. The combined foliar application of 0.5% FeSO₄•7H₂O + 0.5% ZnSO₄•7H₂O (N₃) produced the tallest plants, with pooled heights of 74.2, 111.5, and 117.0 cm at 60 DAS, 90 DAS, and harvest, respectively. These values were statistically at par with 0.5% ZnSO₄•7H₂O (N₂) and were 25.1%, 15.1%, and 17.5% higher than the control. Dry matter accumulation Dry matter accumulation was significantly higher under normal sowing at 60 DAS, 90 DAS, and harvest. On a pooled basis, normal sowing increased dry matter accumulation by 24.7%, 14.8%, and 26.5% at these stages, respectively. The varieties showed no significant difference at 30 DAS. However, RD-2552 accumulated significantly more dry matter than RD-2907 at 60 DAS, 90 DAS, and harvest. Foliar application of micronutrients significantly increased dry matter accumulation. The combined FeSO₄ and ZnSO₄ treatment (N₃) recorded the highest values and increased dry matter by 27.0%, 14.7%, and 20.0% over the control at 60 DAS, 90 DAS, and harvest, respectively. Number of Tillers (per m Row Length) Normal sowing significantly increased the number of tillers at 60 DAS, 90 DAS, and harvest compared to late sowing. On a pooled basis, the normally sown crop recorded about 10% more tillers than the late-sown crop, indicating better vegetative growth and tiller production under timely sowing. The two barley varieties did not differ significantly in tiller number at 30 DAS. However, at 60 DAS, 90 DAS, and harvest, RD-2552 recorded significantly higher tiller numbers than RD-2907. On a pooled basis, RD-2552 produced about 9-10% more tillers, demonstrating its superior tillering ability. Foliar application of micronutrients significantly increased tiller production at all later growth stages. The combined application of 0.5% FeSO₄•7H₂O + 0.5% ZnSO₄•7H₂O (N₃) recorded the highest tiller numbers, followed by ZnSO₄ alone. On a pooled basis, N₃ increased tiller production by about 24% over the control. The overall growth of plants increased in terms of plant height, chlorophyll content, leaf area index, leaf area duration, dry matter accumulation and relative growth rate (Shirinzadeh et al. 2017) [23] . Several researchers (Kaur and Gill 2015) [9] and (Kumar, 2013) [11] also reported almost similar trend in respect of findings growth parameters of wheat under timely sown condition. The marked variations in growth and development among different cultivars have been noticed by Alam et al.

(2013) [1] in barley as well. These findings are in a good line which obtained by Terfe et al. (2018). Growth of plant increased in terms of plant height, chlorophyll content, leaf area index, leaf area duration, dry matter accumulation and relative growth rate. These findings are in a good line which obtained by Harisha et al. (2017) [8] .

Test weight

Normal sowing significantly increased test weight and recorded a 10.9% higher value than late sowing. RD-2552 produced significantly higher test weight than RD-2907 and recorded a 9.4% increase on a pooled basis. Although individual years showed non-significant differences, pooled analysis indicated that the combined FeSO₄ and ZnSO₄ treatment (N₃) increased test weight by 3.1% over the control. [22,28] also observed significantly higher number of tillers, grains/spike, grain weight/spike and test weight in barley.

In an investigation conducted on barley, (Shirinzadeh et al. 2017) [23] observed higher grain and straw yield under normal sown condition. Yadav et al. (2017) and Ram et al. 2012 [22,28] also observed significantly higher number of tillers, grains/spike, grain weight/spike and test weight in barley. In an investigation conducted on barley, Mona et al. (2013) [13] and Piri (2012) [19] observed higher grain and straw yield under normal sown condition. Yadav et al. (2017) and Ram et al. (2012) [22,28] also observed significantly higher number of tillers, grains/spike, grain weight/spike and test weight in barley. In an investigation conducted on barley, by Deshmukh et al. (2015) [5] and Mukharjee, (2012) [14] observed higher grain and straw yield under normal sown condition.

Conclusion

Based on the results of two years investigation, it may be concluded that normal sowing proved superior over late sowing in improving growth and productivity of barley under semi-arid conditions. Among the barley varieties, RD-2552 performed better with respect to growth, yield attributes and yield as compared to RD-2907. Foliar application of 0.5 per cent FeSO₄•7H₂O + 0.5 per cent ZnSO₄•7H₂O at tillering and flowering stage proved most effective in improving growth parameters, yield attributes and grain yield of barley. Normal sowing of barley significantly enhanced productivity over late sowing, recording 26.6% higher grain yield, 26.0% higher straw yield, and 26.3% higher biological yield on pooled basis. Among varieties, RD-2552 performed superiorly with pooled grain yield of 3823 kg/ha and showed 9.5%, 6.5%, and 7.6% higher grain, straw, and biological yield, respectively, over RD-2907. Foliar application of 0.5% FeSO₄•7H₂O + 0.5% ZnSO₄•7H₂O at tillering and flowering stages produced maximum yields and increased grain, straw, and biological yield by 13.4%, 9.5%, and 11.0%, respectively, over control.

References

1. Alam MP, Kumar S, Ali N, Manjhi RP, Kumari N, Lakra RK, et al. Performance of wheat varieties under different sowing dates in Jharkhand. Journal of Wheat Research. 2013;5(2):61-64.
2. Alloway BJ. Zinc in soil and crop nutrition. Brussels (Belgium): International Zinc Association; 2004.
3. Cakmak I. Enrichment of cereal grains with zinc: Agronomic or genetic biofortification. Plant and Soil. 2008;302:1-17.
4. Deshmukh KM, Nayak SK, Damdari R, Wanjari SS. Response of different wheat genotypes to different sowing time in relation to GDD accumulation. Advance Research Journal of Crop Improvement. 2015;6(2):66-72.
5. Garcia-Oliveira AL, Chander S, Ortiz R, Menkir A, Gedil M. Genetic basis and breeding perspectives of grain iron and zinc enrichment in cereals. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2018;9:937.
6. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1984.
7. Harisha CB, Asangi H, Singh R, Meena NK, Lal G. Irrigation management for higher productivity in seed spices: A review. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6(6):2334-2345.
8. Kaur J, Ram H, Gill BS, Kaur J. Agronomic performance and economic analysis of soybean (Glycine max) in relation to growth regulating substances in Punjab, India. Legume Research. 2015;38(5):603-608.
9. Kumar M, Sheoran P, Yadav A. Productivity potential of wheat in relation to different planting methods and nitrogen management strategies. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2010;80(5):427-429.
10. Kumar S. Performance of new wheat varieties under timely and late-sown conditions [MSc Agronomy thesis]. Ranchi (Jharkhand): Birsa Agricultural University; 2013.
11. Ranchi (Jharkhand): Birsa Agricultural University; 2015.
12. Mona R. Effect of sulphur and zinc on growth, yield and quality of cabbage (Brassica oleracea var. capitata) under different moisture regimes [MSc Agriculture thesis]. Jobner (Rajasthan): SKN College of Agriculture, Rajasthan Agricultural University; 2012.
13. Mukherjee D. Effect of different sowing dates on growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum) cultivars under midhill situation of West Bengal. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2012;57(2):152-156.
14. Nichiporovich AA. Aims of research on photosynthesis of plants as a factor of soil productivity. In: Nichiporovich AA, editor. Photosynthesis of productive systems. Jerusalem: Israel Programme for Scientific Translations; 1967. p. 3-36.
15. Pal SK, Verma UN, Singh MK, Thakur R. Heat unit requirement for phenological development of wheat under different levels of irrigation, seed rate and fertilizer. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1996;66(7):397-400.
16. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. 4th ed. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 1985.
17. Pins JJ, Kaur H. A review of the effects of barley betaglucan on cardiovascular and diabetic risk. Cereal Foods World. 2006;51(1):8-11.
18. Piri I. Effect of phosphorus fertilizer and micronutrients foliar application on sorghum yield. 2012. p. 3998-4001.
19. Prasad S, Agrawal KK, Kumar R, Prakash V. Heat unit requirement of wheat cultivars under varying thermal regimes at Jabalpur. Journal of Agrometeorology. 2017;19(3):283-285.
20. Radford PJ. Growth analysis formulae: Their use and abuse. Crop Science. 1967;7(3):171-175.
21. Ram A, Pannu RK, Dasharath P. Effect of management practices on growth, yield and quality of late-sown wheat. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2012;57(1):92-95.
22. Shirinzadeh A, Abad HHS, Nourmohammadi G, Haravan EM, Madani H. Effect of planting date on growth periods, yield and yield components of some bread wheat cultivars in Parsabad Moghan. International Journal of Farming and Allied Sciences. 2017;6(4):109-119.
23. Singh R, Kler DS, Singh S. Effect of crop geometry and nitrogen on growth and yield of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.). Indian Journal of Environment and Ecoplan. 2001;5:173-178.
24. Tahir M, Ali A, Nadeem MM, Hussain A, Khalid F. Effect of different sowing dates on growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties in district Jhang, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Life and Social Sciences. 2009;7(1):6669.
25. Vaughan DA, Balazs E, Heslop-Harrison JS. From crop domestication to super-domestication. Annals of Botany. 2007;100(5):893-901.
26. Watson DJ. The physiological basis of variation in yield. Advances in Agronomy. 1947;4:101-146.
27. Yadav V, Mishra DN, Chauhan RS, Tomar P, Singh R. Performance of newly released wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties on different sowing dates under NWPZ of Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2017;6(1):720-722.