Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.

Sci (2018) Special Issue-7: 723-731

International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences

ISSN: 2319-7706 Special Issue-7 pp. 723-731
Journal homepage: http://www.ijcmas.com

Original Research Article

Studies on Impact of Sulphur with and without FYM on Yield,
Uptake and Methionine Content in Mustard

Vaishali Sharma*, B. L. Sharma, G. D. Sharma, S. S. Porte and Alok Dubey

Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa
Vidyalaya, Jabalpur-482004 (M.P.), India
*Corresponding author

ABSTRACT

An experiment was conducted at the field of Department of Soil Science and Agril.
Chemistry, JNKVV, Jabalpur (M.P) during Rabi season of 2013-14 and 2014-15 under
AICRP on MSN in a Factorial randomized block design with three replications and ten
treatments comprising viz., T 1 (Control), T2 (15 Kg S ha-1), T3 (30 Kg S ha-1), T4 (45 Kg S
ha-1), T5 (60 Kg S ha-1), T6 (FYM 5 t ha-1), T7 (15 Kg S ha-1+ FYM 5 t ha- 1), T8 (30 Kg S ha-
1
Keywords + FYM 5 tha-1), T9 (45 Kg S ha-1 + FYM 5 t ha-1) and T10 (60 Kg S ha-1 + FYM 5t ha-1).
Highest seed (1684.70 kg ha-1) and Stover (4739.82 kg ha-1) yields was recorded with the
Mustard, Sulphur,
FYM, Yield, application of Sulphur 60 kg ha-1 + FYM 5 t ha-1 over rest of the treatments. Treatment
Uptake, combination of Sulphur 60 kg ha-1+ FYM 5 t ha-1 S4F1 was recorded maximum 16.63, 12.84
Methionine and 29.47 kg ha-1 sulphur uptake by seed, Stover and plant, respectively. Treatment
combination of Sulphur 60 kg ha-1+ FYM 5 t ha-1 recorded maximum percentage of
Methionine (3.09 mg g-1) in seed. However, better improvements in yields were exhibited
when S and FYM were integrated together. This increase might be due to steady
decomposition of FYM and release of nutrients throughout the crop growth period coupled
with better assimilation of nutrients.

Introduction

Mustard is the third most important oilseed availability of sulphur in soils and plays a
crop after groundnut and soybean in India. significant role in improving quality and
In Indian agricultural economy, oilseeds are seed development (Ghosh et al., 2002).
important next to cereals in terms of area, Sulphur uptake and assimilation in rapeseed-
production and value with accounting for mustard are crucial for determining yield,
about 1.5% of gross domestic production oil, quality and resistance to various stresses.
and 8% of value of all agricultural products Among the oilseed crops, rapeseed-mustard
(Hegde, 2009). Sulphur is best known for its has the highest requirement of sulphur.
role in the synthesis of proteins with the Sulphur increases the yield of mustard by 12
formation of amino acids methionine (21% to 48% under irrigated and 17 to 24% under
S) and cysteine (27% S), chlorophyll, oil rain-fed condition (Aulakh and Pasricha,
content of the seeds and nutritive quality of 1988). More sulphur is therefore, required
forages (Jamal et al., 2005) Integrated use of need for their oil and protein synthesis in
sulphur and farmyard manure improves the oilseed crops. Sulphur nutrition in oilseeds

723
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) Special Issue-7: 723-731

indicated a considerable increase in yield Kg S ha-1+ FYM 5 t ha- 1), T8 (30 Kg S ha-1
and quality of oilseeds (Chauhan et al., + FYM 5 tha-1), T9 (45 Kg S ha-1 + FYM 5 t
2002). Sulphur deficiency in crops is ha-1) and T10 (60 Kg S ha-1 + FYM 5t ha-1).
gradually becoming widespread in different The sources of NPK fertilizers were nitrogen
soils of the country due to use of high through urea (46% N), phosphorus through
analysis sulphur-free fertilizers coupled with single super phosphate (16% P 2O5), potash
intensive cropping, higher crop yields and through murate of potash (60% K2O) and
higher sulphur removals. Because of its sulphur through single super phosphate
involvement in vital function in the plant (12% S). FYM @ 5 t ha-1 was applied prior
metabolism, sulphur deficiency would lead to sowing in the concerning treatments.
to adverse effect on growth and yield of Mustard (Pusa Tarak) was sown during
many crops. However, organic manures, fourth week of October and harvested in the
particularly FYM are important components last week of February (2013-14 and 2014-
of integrated nutrient management (Patra et 15). At harvest samples were collected, oven
al., 1998) not only supply macronutrients dried, processed. The chemical analysis of
but also meet the requirement of the plant sample was carried out by wet
micronutrients, besides improving soil digesting with HNO3:HClO4 (4:1) di-acid
health. Keeping this in view, the present mixture as per the procedure outlined by
investigation was planned to studies on the (Jackson, 1973) and to determine
effect of sulphur with and without FYM on concentrations of N, P, K and S at harvest
yield and quality of mustard crop in using procedure described by (Jackson,
Vertisols. 1973). The grain and straw yield of mustard
were recorded from collected soil samples
Materials and Methods (0–15 cm) of each plot after harvesting.
These samples analyzed for pH using 1:2.5
The field experiment was conducted on soil: water suspension, electrical
Research Farm of the Department of Soil conductivity by conductivity meter. Organic
Science and Agricultural Chemistry, carbon by rapid titration method (Walkley
Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, and Black, 1934), Available N estimated by
Jabalpur (MP) during Rabi 2013-14 and alkaline permanganate method (Subbiah and
2014-15. The studies on the effect of sulphur Asija, 1956), available P by Olsen’s method
with and without FYM were studied on (Olsen et al., 1954), available K by
attributes yield of mustard crop in a Vertisol. ammonium acetate extraction method
The soil Typic Haplustert, clayey in texture (Jackson, 1967) and available S by turbid
has pH 7.72, EC 0.24 dSm-1, organic carbon metric method (Chesnin and Yien, 1950) and
6.48 g kg-1, available N 299.62 kg ha-1, estimation of Methionine (Sadasivam and
available P 20.5 kg ha-1, available K 360 kg Manickam, 1992) method.
ha- 1 and available S 15.6 kg ha-1. The
experiment was laid out in a Factorial Results and Discussion
randomized block design with 10 treatments
comprising different combinations of Seed Yield
sulphur fertilizers alone and with organic
manure in three replications. The details of The data on seed yield per hectare in
the treatments were T1 (Control), T2 (15 Kg different treatments is given in Table 1. In
S ha-1), T3 (30 Kg S ha-1), T4 (45 Kg S ha-1), the application of sulphur 60 kg ha-1 (S4)
T5 (60 Kg S ha-1), T6 (FYM 5 t ha-1), T7 (15 was significantly superior over other

724
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) Special Issue-7: 723-731

treatment which was recorded maximum Stover yield

1754.67, 1799.17 and 1776.92 kg ha-1seed
yield per hectare followed by S3 (1702.83, The stover yield increased significant due to
1796.67 and 1749.75 kg ha-1) at first year, the different levels of sulphur and FYM on
second year and pooled, respectively S3 & S4 mustard. The data on stover yield in
were at par with each other. Lowest yield different treatments is given in Table 2. The
(1159.17, 1256.83 and 1208.0 kg ha-1) was application of sulphur 60 kg ha-1 (S4) was
observed with control at first year, second significantly superior which recorded
year and pooled, respectively. Highest maximum yield of stover 4387.0, 4486.75
percent increase in (51.4, 43.2 and 47.1%) and 4436.88 kg ha-1 followed by S3
seed yield was observed with S4 over control (4084.17, 4209.33 and 4146.75 kg ha-1) at
(S0 Sulphur 0kg ha-1) at first year, second first year, second year and pooled,
year and pooled, respectively. The respectively S3 & S4 were statistically at par
application of 5.0 t FYM ha-1 (F1) exhibited with each other. Lowest yield (2640.33,
significantly maximum yield of 1645.47, 2919.83 and 2780.08 kg ha-1) was recorded
1723.93 and 1684.70 kg ha-1 and minimum in S0 (Sulphur 0 kg ha-1) at first year, second
1340.38, 1411.80 and 1376.07 kg ha-1 seed year and pooled, respectively Treatment S4
yield with treatment F0 at first year, second (60.0 kg ha-1) was recorded highest 66.2,
year and pooled, respectively. 53.7 and 59.6% increase stover yield per
hectare over control (S0 Sulphur 0 kg ha-1) at
In case of interaction, the treatment first year, second year and pooled,
combination of S4F1 (Sulphur 60 kg ha-1+ respectively.
FYM 5 t ha-1) recorded significantly higher
yield (1645.47, 1723.93 and 1684.70 kg ha- As regards to FYM, the application of 5.0
1
) seed yield per hectare and the minimum tonnes FYM ha-1 (F1) exhibited significantly
(933.33, 1036.33 and 984.83 kg ha-1) seed maximum (3904.4, 4049.17 and 3976.78 kg
yield was recorded in the treatment ha-1) stover yield per hectare, however,
combination of S0F0 (Sulphur 0 kg ha-1+ minimum (3369.4, 3537.0 and 3453.20 kg
FYM 0 t ha-1 i.e. control) at first year, ha-1) stover yield in treatment F0 (FYM 0 ha-
1
second year and pooled. This may be due to ) at first year, second year and pooled,
application of sulphur attributed to the respectively. In case of interaction, the
stimulatory effect in cell division, cell treatment combination of S4F1 (Sulphur 60
elongation and setting of cell structure and kg ha-1+ FYM 5 t ha-1) was recorded
also higher dose may be responsible for significantly maximum (4683.33, 4796.50
increased leaf area and chlorophyll content and 4739.82 kg ha-1) stover yield per hectare
causing higher photosynthesis and and the minimum (2336.0, 2725.33 and
assimilation, metabolic activities responsible 2530.67 kg ha-1) Stover yield per hectare
for overall reproductive phase and was recorded in the treatment combination
ultimately improved the seed and stover of S0F0 (Sulphur 0 kg ha-1+ FYM 0 t ha-1 i.e.
yield. Similar findings have been reported control) at first year, second year and
by Sharawat et al., (2002), Dongarkar et al., pooled, respectively. Dongarkar et al.,
(2005), Katkar et al., (2009), Sharma et al., (2005), Sharma et al., (2009), Parmar et al.,
(2009), Parmar et al., (2010), Kapur et al., (2010), Kapur et al., (2010) and Neha et al.,
(2010), Chattopaddhyay (2012), Neha et al., (2014) for Stover yield. However, better
(2014), Alam et al., (2014) and Ray et al., improvements in yields were exhibited when
(2014) for seed yield per hectare. S and FYM were integrated together.

725
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) Special Issue-7: 723-731

Table.1 Seed yield (kg ha-1) in mustard as influence by various doses of sulphur and FYM at
first year, second year and pooled

Treat. Seed yield per hectare (kg ha-1) at

% increase over control
Symb. 2013 2014 Pooled
S levels F0 F1 Mean F0 F1 Mean F0 F1 Mean 2013 2014 Pooled
S0 933.33 1385.00 1159.17 1036.33 1477.33 1256.83 984.83 1431.17 1208.00 - - -
S1 1243.33 1501.67 1372.50 1314.67 1568.67 1441.67 1279.00 1535.17 1407.08 18.4 14.7 16.5
S2 1313.33 1637.33 1475.33 1391.33 1698.67 1545.00 1352.33 1668.00 1510.17 27.3 22.9 25.0
S3 1575.67 1830.00 1702.83 1642.67 1950.67 1796.67 1609.17 1890.33 1749.75 46.9 43.0 44.8
S4 1636.00 1873.33 1754.67 1674.00 1924.33 1799.17 1655.00 1898.83 1776.92 51.4 43.2 47.1
Mean 1340.33 1645.47 1411.80 1723.93 1376.07 1684.70
FYM FYM FYM
S levels FxS S levels FxS S levels FxS
levels levels levels
SEm± 66.38 41.98 93.88 68.94 43.60 97.50 61.20 38.70 86.55
CD at 5%
195.85 123.86 N.S. 203.38 128.63 N.S. 180.54 114.18 N.S.
level

Table.2 Stover yield (kg ha-1) in mustard as influence by various doses of sulphur and FYM at
first year, second year and pooled

Treat. Stover yield (kg ha-1)

% increase over control
Symbol 2013 2014 Pooled
S levels F0 F1 Mean F0 F1 Mean F0 F1 Mean 2013 2014 Pooled
S0 2336.00 2944.67 2640.33 2725.33 3114.33 2919.83 2530.67 3029.50 2780.08 - - -
S1 3104.33 3630.67 3367.50 3276.67 3788.67 3532.67 3190.50 3709.67 3450.08 27.5 21.0 24.1
S2 3450.33 3960.67 3705.50 3554.67 4079.00 3816.83 3502.50 4019.83 3761.17 40.3 30.7 35.3
S3 3865.67 4302.67 4084.17 3951.33 4467.33 4209.33 3908.50 4385.00 4146.75 54.7 44.2 49.2
S4 4090.67 4683.33 4387.00 4177.00 4796.50 4486.75 4133.83 4739.92 4436.88 66.2 53.7 59.6
Mean 3369.40 3904.40 3537.00 4049.17 3453.20 3976.78
FYM FYM
S levels FxS S levels FxS S levels FYM levels FxS
levels levels
SEm± 150.76 95.35 213.20 157.44 99.57 222.66 126.86 80.23 179.41
CD at 5%
444.75 281.28 N.S. 464.47 293.75 N.S. 374.25 236.70 N.S.
level

Table.3 Sulphur uptake by Seed (kg ha-1) in mustard as influence by different levels of sulphur
and FYM at first year, second year and pooled

Treat. Sulphur uptake by seed (kg ha-1) % increase over control

Symb. 2013 2014 Pooled (sulphur)
S levels F0 F1 Mean F0 F1 Mean F0 F1 Mean 2013 2014 Pooled
S0 5.08 8.01 6.55 6.00 9.35 7.68 5.54 8.68 7.11 0 0 0.00
S1 7.69 10.07 8.88 8.55 11.02 9.79 8.12 10.55 9.33 35.7 27.5 31.3
S2 8.94 12.09 10.52 10.23 13.31 11.77 9.59 12.70 11.15 60.7 53.4 56.7
S3 11.71 14.38 13.04 12.63 16.06 14.34 12.17 15.22 13.69 99.2 86.9 92.6
S4 13.36 16.09 14.73 13.85 17.18 15.51 13.61 16.63 15.12 125.0 102.1 112.6
Mean 9.36 12.13 10.25 13.38 9.81 12.76
FYM FYM FYM
S levels FxS S levels FxS S levels FxS
levels levels levels
SEm± 0.349 0.482 0.682 0.356 0.563 0.795 0.234 0.234 0.524
CD at 5%
0.906 1.432 NS 1.057 1.671 NS 0.672 0.672 NS
levels

726
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) Special Issue-7: 723-731

Table.4 Sulphur uptake by Stover in mustard as influence by different levels of sulphur and
FYM at first year, second year and pooled

Sulphur uptake by (kg ha-1) Stover % increase over control

Treat. Symb.
2013 2014 Pooled (sulphur)
S levels F0 F1 Mean F0 F1 Mean F0 F1 Mean 2013 2014 Pooled
S0 4.40 5.60 5.00 4.64 5.93 5.28 4.52 5.76 5.14 0 0 0.00
S1 5.34 6.25 5.80 6.97 9.48 8.22 6.16 7.86 7.01 16.0 55.6 36.4
S2 5.83 7.12 6.48 8.56 11.75 10.15 7.19 9.44 8.32 29.6 92.1 61.7
S3 7.53 8.42 7.97 11.21 14.30 12.76 9.37 11.36 10.37 59.5 141.4 101.6
S4 8.20 9.12 8.66 13.46 16.56 15.01 10.83 12.84 11.83 73.3 184.0 130.2
Mean 6.26 7.30 8.97 11.60 7.61 9.45
FYM FYM FYM
S levels FxS S levels FxS S levels FxS
levels levels levels
SEm± 0.143 0.227 0.321 0.301 0.476 0.673 0.503 0.318 0.711
CD at 5%
levels 0.426 0.673 NS 0.894 1.413 NS 1.974 0.912 NS

Table.5 Sulphur uptake by total biomass (kg ha-1) in mustard as influence by different levels of
sulphur and FYM at first year, second year and pooled

Treat. Total Sulphur uptake by plant (kg ha-1) % increase over control
Symb. 2013 2014 Pooled (sulphur)
S levels F0 F1 Mean F0 F1 Mean F0 F1 Mean 2013 2014 Pooled
S0 9.48 13.61 11.55 10.64 15.28 12.96 10.06 14.44 12.25 0 0 0.00
S1 13.03 16.32 14.68 15.52 20.50 18.01 14.28 18.41 16.35 27.1 39.0 33.5
S2 14.77 19.21 16.99 18.79 25.06 21.93 16.78 22.14 19.46 47.1 69.2 58.9
S3 19.24 22.80 21.02 23.84 30.36 27.10 21.54 26.58 24.06 82.0 109.1 96.4
S4 21.56 25.21 23.39 27.31 33.74 30.53 24.44 29.47 26.96 102.5 135.6 120.1
Mean 15.62 19.43 19.22 24.99 17.42 22.21
FYM FYM FYM
S levels FxS S levels FxS S levels FxS
levels levels levels
SEm± 0.395 0.624 0.883 0.576 0.910 1.287 0.981 0.621 1.388
CD at 5%
1.173 1.855 2.624 1.711 2.705 3.825 3.852 1.780 5.448
levels

Table.6 Methionine content in Seed in mustard as influence by different levels of sulphur and
FYM at first year, second year and pooled

Methionine content in seed (mg g-1) % increase over control

Treat. Symb.
2013 2014 Pooled (sulphur)
S levels F0 F1 Mean F0 F1 Mean F0 F1 Mean 2013 2014 Pooled
S0 2.36 2.42 2.39 2.49 2.74 2.61 2.42 2.58 2.50 - - -
S1 2.58 2.68 2.63 2.69 3.19 2.94 2.63 2.94 2.78 10.0 12.5 11.3
S2 2.66 2.80 2.73 2.76 3.30 3.03 2.71 3.05 2.88 14.3 15.9 15.1
S3 2.83 3.05 2.94 2.95 3.52 3.23 2.89 3.28 3.09 23.0 23.8 23.4
S4 2.78 2.96 2.87 2.84 3.32 3.08 2.81 3.14 2.97 20.2 17.8 18.9
Mean 2.64 2.78 2.74 3.21 2.69 3.00
FYM FYM FYM
S levels FxS S levels FxS S levels FxS
levels levels levels
SEm± 0.021 0.034 0.048 0.028 0.044 0.062 0.028 0.018 0.109
CD at 5%
0.064 0.100 NS 0.083 0.131 NS 0.039 0.050 0.154
levels

727
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) Special Issue-7: 723-731

This increase might be due to steady significantly increase in sulphur uptake by

decomposition of FYM and release of stover. Interaction of both the factor did not
nutrients throughout the crop growth period exhibit any significant effect on this
coupled with better assimilation of nutrients. character. Significantly maximum (8.66,
15.01 and 11.83 kg ha-1) sulphur uptake by
Sulphur uptake stover was recorded in the treatment of S4
(60.0 kg S ha-1) followed by S3 (45.0 kg S
By Seed ha-1) (7.97, 12.76 and 10.37 kg ha-1) in first
year, second year and pooled, respectively
It is evident from the data presented in the which were at par with each other in pooled.
Table 3 noted that uptake of sulphur by seed The lowest (5.0, 5.28 and 5.14 kg ha-1)
was significantly influenced due to sulphur uptake by Stover was recorded in
application of sulphur and FYM. Their treatment S0 (Sulphur 0 kg ha-1) in first year,
interaction effects were not affected second year and pooled, respectively.
significantly. Significantly maximum Treatment S4 (60 kg S ha-1) was recorded
-1)
(14.73, 15.51 and 15.12 kg ha sulphur highest (73.3, 184.0 and 130.2%) increase in
uptake by seed was recorded in the sulphur uptake in stover over control (S0
treatment of S4 (60.0 kg S ha-1) followed by Sulphur 0 kg ha-1) in first year, second year
S3 (45.0 kg S ha-1), (13.04, 14.34 and 13.69 and pooled, respectively. Treatment F1
kg ha-1) as compared to other treatments in (FYM 5 t ha-1) noted maximum sulphur
first year, second year and pooled, uptake by stover (7.30, 11.60 and 9.45 kg
respectively. Highest (125.0, 102.1 and ha-1) and the minimum (6.26, 8.97 and 7.61
112.6%) increase in sulphur uptake in seed kg ha-1 sulphur uptake) with F0 (0 t FYM ha-
1
was recorded under the treatment S4 (60 kg ) in first year, second year and pooled,
S ha-1) over control (S0 Sulphur 0kg ha-1) in respectively. Treatment combination of S4F1
first year, second year and pooled, (Sulphur 60 kg ha-1+ FYM 5 t ha-1 was
respectively. Treatment F1 (FYM 5 t ha-1) recorded maximum 9.12, 16.56 and 12.84 kg
noted maximum sulphur uptake by seed ha-1 sulphur uptake by stover followed by
(12.13, 13.38 and 12.76 kg ha-1) and the S3F1 (Sulphur 45 kg ha-1 + FYM 5 t ha-1)
minimum (9.36, 10.25 and 9.81 kg ha-1 (8.42, 14.30 and 11.36 kg ha-1), while, it was
sulphur uptake with zero FYM ha-1 (F0) in recorded lowest 4.40, 4.64 and 4.52 kg ha-1
first year, second year and pooled, in treatment S0F0 (Sulphur 0 kg ha-1 + FYM
respectively. Treatment combination of S4F1 0 t ha-1 i.e. control) in first year, second year
(Sulphur 60 kg ha-1+ FYM 5 t ha-1) was and pooled, respectively.
recorded maximum 16.09, 17.18 and 16.63
kg ha-1.sulphur uptake by seed followed by Total Sulphur uptake
S3F1 Sulphur 45 kg ha-1+ FYM 5 t ha-1
(14.38, 16.06 and 15.22 kg ha-1), while, it A perusal of the data in Table 5 revealed
was recorded lowest 5.08, 6.00 and 5.54 kg that various levels of sulphur, FYM and
ha-1in treatment S0F0 (Sulphur 0 kg ha-1+ interaction effect significantly increase in
FYM 0 t ha-1 i.e. control) in first year, total sulphur uptake by plant. Significantly
second year and pooled, respectively. maximum (23.39, 30.53 and 26.96 kg ha-1)
sulphur uptake by total biomass was
By Stover recorded in the treatment of S4 (60.0 kg S
ha-1) followed by S3 (45.0 kg S ha-1) (21.02,
A perusal of the data in Table 4 revealed 27.10 and 24.06 kg ha-1) in first year, second
that various levels of sulphur and FYM year and pooled, respectively and which
728
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) Special Issue-7: 723-731

were at par with each other in pooled. The (2000), Giri et al., (2003), Singh and Meena
lowest (11.55, 12.96 and 12.25 kg ha-1) total (2003), Shah et al., (2006), Zizale et al.,
sulphur uptake plant was recorded in (2008), Jat and Chaudhary (2012) and
treatment S0 (Sulphur 0 kg ha-1) in first year, Chattopaddhyay and Ghosh (2012) for Seed
second year and pooled, respectively. & Stover, Kumar and Yadav (2007), Kumar
Treatment S4 (60 kg S ha-1) was recorded and Trivedi (2012), Pachauri et al., (2012)
(102.5, 135.6 and 120.1%) higher total and Sharma (2013) for plant.
sulphur uptake by plant over control (S0
Sulphur 0 kg ha-1) in first year, second year Methionine content in seed
and pooled, respectively. Treatment F1
(FYM 5 t ha-1) observed significantly The data for various levels of sulphur, FYM
maximum sulphur uptake by total biomass and their interaction with respect to the
(19.43, 24.99 and 22.21 kg ha-1) and the methionine content in seed are summarized
minimum (15.62, 19.22 and 17.42 kg ha-1 in Table 6.Methionine content in seed was
sulphur uptake with F0 (0 t FYM ha-1) in first increased with increasing rates of sulphur up
year, second year and pooled, respectively. to the dose of 45 kg S ha-1 (S3). Significantly
Treatment combination of S4F1 (Sulphur 60 maximum (2.94, 3.23 and 3.09 mg g-1)
kg ha-1 + FYM 5 t ha-1) was recorded methionine content in seed was recorded in
significantly maximum 25.21, 33.74 and treatment S3 followed by S4 (60.0 kg S ha-1)
29.47 kg ha-1 total sulphur uptake by plant (2.87, 3.08 and 2.97%) and the minimum
followed by S3F1 Sulphur 45 kg ha-1 + FYM methionine content (2.39, 2.61 and 2.50%)
5 t ha-1 (22.80, 30.36 and 26.58 kg ha-1) in with the lowest sulphur application i.e. 0 kg
first year, second year and pooled, ha-1 (S0) in first year, second year and
respectively which were at par with each pooled, respectively. Treatment S3 (45.0 kg
other in first year and pooled only, while, it S ha-1) was recorded 23.0, 23.8 and 23.4%
was recorded lowest (9.48, 10.64 and 10.06 higher methionine content in seed over
kg ha-1) in treatment S0F0 (Sulphur 0 kg ha-1 control (S0 Sulphur 0 kg ha-1) in first year,
+ FYM 0 t ha-1 i.e. control) in first year, second year and pooled, respectively.
second year and pooled, respectively. Application of FYM with the increasing
rates significantly increased methionine
A study of data pertaining to the utilization content in seed. Treatment F1 noted
of sulphur by mustard revealed that The maximum seed methionine (2.78, 3.21 and
highest uptake of sulphur by both seed and 3.0 mg g-1) and the minimum (2.64, 2.74 and
stover of mustard was recorded with soil test 2.69 mg g-1 methionine content) with zero
based NPK application + 60 kg S ha-1 as FYM/ha (F0) in first year, second year and
compared to other treatments could be due pooled, respectively. S X FYM interaction
to the synergetic relationship between showed significant difference in seed
nitrogen and sulphur, which improved methionine content on pooled basis only.
sulphur availability in root zone as well as Treatment combination of S3F1 (Sulphur 45
the content in plant leading to enhance kg ha-1 + FYM 5 t ha-1) and S4F1 (Sulphur
translocation of sulphur to reproductive 60 kg ha-1+ FYM 5 t ha-1) were recorded
organs of plant. The improved sulphur maximum 3.28 and 3.14 mg g-1 methionine
content coupled with the higher biomass content in seed, respectively which were at
accumulation resulted in increased the par with each other. While, it was recorded
uptake of sulphur. The findings are in close lowest 2.42 mg g-1 in treatment S0F0
harmony with the result of Raut et al., (Sulphur 0 kg ha-1 + FYM 0 t ha-1). Reason

729
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) Special Issue-7: 723-731

for this may be due to synergic effects of Crops: 13 (1): 131-134.

both the nutrients. The findings are in close Hegde DM. 2009. Souvenir, Indian Society of
harmony with the result of Basumatary et Oilseeds Research, Hyderabad, pp 1-15.
al., (2006), Singh et al., (2008a). Kumar et Jackson ML. 1967. Soil Chemical Analysis.
al., (2011) and Neha et al., (2014) Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd, New
Delhi; 205.
Jackson ML. 1973. Soil chemical analysis.
References Prentice Hall of India Ltd. New Delhi. pp;
498.
Alam Md, Mishra AK, Singh K. 2014. Response Jamal A, Fazli IS, Ahmad S, Abdin MZ, Yun SJ.
of sulphur and FYM on the soil properties 2005. Effect of sulphur and nitrogen
and yield of mustard. NASA -2014 application on growth characteristics, seed
International symposium 6-18. and oil yield of soybean cultivars. Korean
Aulakh, MS, Pasricha NS. 1988. Sulphur Journal Crop Science. 50(5): 340- 345.
fertilization of oilseeds for yield and Jat JS, Rathore BS and Chaudhary MG. 2012.
quality. Sulphur in Indian Agriculture. Effect of sulphur and zinc on growth,
SII/3-1-SII/3-14. chlorophyll content, yield attributes and
Basumatary Anjali, Das P, Baruah A M and yields of mustard (Brassica juncea) on
Borah R C 2006. Integrated effect of clay loam soil of Rajasthan. AGRES- An
inorganic and organic source of sulphur International e-Journal: 1 (1): 42-52
on quality characteristics of rapeseed. Kapur LT, Patel AR, Thakur RF. 2010. Yield
Indian J Agric Bio che. 19 (2), 59-2006 attributes and yield of mustard (Brassica
Chattopaddhyay S and Ghosh GK. 2012. juncea L. Czern and Coss) as affected by
Response of rapeseed (Brassica juncea L.) sulphur levels. An Asian Journal of Soil
to various sources and levels of sulphur in Science. 5 (1): 216-217.
red and lateritic Soils of West Bengal, Katkar RN, Sonune BA, Kadu PR. 2009. Long-
India. International Journal of Plant, term effect of fertilization on soil
Animal and Environmental Sciences. chemical and biological characteristics
2(4): 50-59. and productivity under sorghum (Sorghum
Chauhan, DR, Ram M, Singh I. 2002. Response bicolor) - wheat (Triticum aestivum)
of Indian mustard to irrigation and system in Vertisol. Indian Journal of
fertilization with various sources and Agriculture Science. 81(8): 734-739.
levels of sulphur. Indian journal of Kumar H, Yadav DS. 2007. Effect of
Agronomy. 47(3): 422-426. phosphorus and sulphur levels on growth,
Chesnin L, Yien CH. 1950. Turbidimetric yield and quality of Indian mustard
determination of available sulphur in soil. (Brassica juncea) cultivars. Ind. J. Agron.
Soil Science Society of America, 52(2): 154-157.
Proceeding. 15: 149-157. Kumar R and Trivedi SK. 2012. Effect of levels
Dongarkar KP, Pawar WS, Khawale VS, and sources of sulphur on yield, quality
Khutate NG, Gudadhe NN. 2005. Effect and nutrient uptake by mustard (Brassica
of nitrogen and sulphur on growth and juncea L.) Progressive Agriculture. 12 (1):
yield of mustard (Brassica junceaL.). J. 69 -73.
Soils Crops. 15(1): 163-167. Kumar S, Tiwari SK and Singh SS. 2011. Effect
Ghosh PK, Mandal KG, Bandyopadhyay KK, of sources and levels of sulphur on growth
Hati KM, Tripathi, AK. 2002. Role of yield and quality of sunflower. Indian
plant nutrient management in oilseed Journal of Agronomy: 56 (3): 242- 246.
production. Fertilizer News. 47: 67-80. Kumar S, Verma SK, Singh TK, Singh S. 2011.
Giri MD, Hamid A, Giri DG, Kunwar RP and Effect of nitrogen and sulphur on growth,
Mohammad S. 2003. Effect of irrigation yield and nutrient uptake by Indian
and sources of sulphur on quality and mustard (Brassica juncea). Indian Journal
uptake of nutrients of mustard. J. Soils of Agricultural Sciences. 81: 145–149.

730
 Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2018) Special Issue-7: 723-731

Neha, Dashora LN, Kaushik MK, Upadhyay B. Daryagani, New Delhi pp 22-23.
2014. Yield, nutrient content, uptake and Shah D, Bohra JS and Shukla DN. 2006. Effect
quality of Indian mustard genotypes as of N, P and S on growth attributes and
influenced by sulphur under southern nutrient uptake by Indian mustard
Rajasthan conditions. Annals of Agri-Bio (Brassica juncea L.). J. Crop Res: 31 (1):
Research. 19 (1): 81-84. 52-55.
Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Sharawat S, Singh TP, Singh JP. 2002. Effect of
1954. Estimation of available phosphorus nitrogen and sulphur on the yield and oil
in soils by extraction with sodium content of Indian mustard (Brassica
bicarbonate (NaHCO3), U.S.D.A. juncea L.). Progre. Agric. 2 (2): 177.
Circular. 939: 1-19. Sharma A, Sharma P, Brar MS, Dhillon NS.
Pachauri RK, Trivedi SK, Kumar Y. 2012. 2009. Comparative response to sulphur
Effect of sulphur levels on growth, yield application in raya (Brassica juncea) and
and quality of Indian mustard genotypes wheat (Triticum aestivum) grown on light
and their economics. Journal of Soils and textured alluvial soils. Journal of Indian
Crops. 1954; 22 (2): 258-263. Society Soil Science. 57(1): 62.
Parmar RM, Parmar JK, Patel MK. 2010. Effect Sharma Poonam 2013. Effect of Varieties and
of nitrogen and sulphur on yield and yield Fertility Levels on Yield and Nutrient
attributes of mustard under the loamy Uptake of Mustard in Western Region of
sand soil of North Gujarat. An Asian Madhya Pradesh A Journal of
Journal of Soil Science. 5 (2): 295-299. Multidisciplinary Advance Research: 67
Patra AP, Panda D, Patra BC, Karmakar AJ. (2): 67- 69.
1998. Effect of FYM, zinc and NPK Singh A. K, Singh, S.N., Singh, O.P. and Khan,
fertilizers on yield components and yield M.A. 2008. Quality of Indian Mustard
of wheat after winter rice in West Bengal. (Brassica juncea L.) as Affected by
Journal of Intracademicia. 2(1/2): 1-6. Nitrogen and Sulphur Fertilizers in a
Raut RF, Hamid A, Hadole SS and Jlignale GS. Nutrient Deficient Soil. Indian J Agric
2000. Effect of irrigation and sulphur on Biochem 21 (1 & 2), 39-41,
concentration, uptake and availability of Subbiah BV, Asiija EC. 1956. A rapid procedure
sulphur, nitrogen and phosphorus in for estimation of available nitrogen in
mustard (Brassica juncea). J. Soils and soil. Current Science. 25(8): 259-260.
Crops, 10 (1): 145-148. Walkley A, Black IA. 1934. Estimation of soil
Ray K, Pal AK, Banerjee H, Phonglosa A. 2014. organic carbon by the chromic acid
Correlation and path analysis studies for titration method. Soil Science. 37: 29-38.
growth and yield contributing traits in Zizale VJ, Jadav NB, Gorphrfed PS. 2008.
Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Effect of sulphur and zinc on yield,
International Journal of Bio-resource and quality and its concentration on mustard.
Stress Management. 5 (2): 200-206. An Asian Journal of Soil Science. 3 (1):
Sadasivam S and Manickam A. 1992. 173-177.
Biochemical method New Age
International Pvt. Ltd. Ansari Road,

731