American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2011, 2, 63-69
doi:10.4236/ajps.2011.21009 Published Online March 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ajps)
63
Influence of Integrated Nutrients on Growth, Yield
and Quality of Maize (Zea mays L.)
Azhar Ghaffari, Asghar Ali, Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad Waseem*, M. Ayub, Asif Iqbal,
Atta Ullah Mohsin
Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, 38040, Pakistan; *Corresponding Author.
Received November 12th, 2010; revised January 4th, 2011; accepted January 10th, 2011.
ABSTRACT
A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the integrated nutrients effect on growth, yield and quality of maize (Zea
mays L.) during spring, 2009, at the Agronomic Research Area, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. The experimen t
was laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) having three replications with following treatments: T1
(control), T2(recommended NPK @ 200-120-125 kg ha-1), T3 [single spray of multi-nutrient (a solution mixture of mi-
cronutrients i.e; Zn = 2%, Fe = 1%, B = 1%, Mn = 1%, Cu = 0.2% and macronutrients N = 1%, K2O = 2%, S = 2%) @
1.25Lha-1], T4 (recommended NPK @ 200-120-125 kg ha-1 + single spray of multi-nutrient @ 1.25L ha-1), T5 (recom-
mended NPK @ 200-120-125 kg ha-1 + two spray of multi-nutrient @1.25Lha-1) and T6 (recommended NPK @
200-120-125 kg ha-1+ three spray o f mu lti-nutrien t @ 1.25Lha-1).The recommended dose of NPK in addition with single
spray of Multi-nu trients substationally improved all growth parameters, ear cha racteristics and also enhanced macro-
nutrients use efficiency u p to 11.5% which induced significa nt increase in grain yield as compared to co ntrol and also
in the treatment where recommended dose of NPK was applied alone. The quality parameter of maize (oil contents)
significantly improved b y foliar application of multi-nu trients solution but recommended dose o f fertilizer in addition to
single spray of Multi-nutrients was economical.
Keywords: Multi-Nutrients, Foliarapplication, Nutrients Use Efficiency, Oil Content
1. Introduction
Intensive crop rotation and imbalance fertilizer use have
resulted in a wide range of nutrients deficiency in fields.
For intensive cropping systems, the current recommended
fertilizers rates need revision upwards with in balance
ratio of vital micronutrients specific to crop to enhance
stagnant yields [1]. By supplying plants with micronu-
trients, either through soil application, foliar spray, or
seed treatment improved yield, quality and macronutrien t
use efficiency was improved up to 50% [2].
Developing countries contribute a major share in the
world cultivated land of maize which is nearly 67% but
their share in production is only about 46%, where ap-
proximately 60% of the world maize is produced by USA
and China collectively [3]. There are many factors re-
sponsible for lower grain yield in these countries includ-
ing Pakistan such as improper selection of genotype or
hybrid, less optimal plant population in the field and ab-
sence of standard crop husbandry for hybrids of varying
maturity groups. Among these, fertilizer management
plays an important role for obtaining satisfactory yield.
In order to increase crop productivity nutrient manage-
ment may be achieved by the involvement of organic
sources, bio-fertilizers and micro-nutrients [4]. Micronu-
trient deficiency can greatly disturb plant yield, quality
and the health of domestic animals and humans [5]. Full
exploitation of the genetic potential requires intensive
fertilizer application, but it increases the cost of the
products. Also, about 50% of applied N and 70% of ap-
plied potassium to the soil remain unavailable to a crop
due to a combination of leaching, fixation, and volatiliza-
tion. However, the waste of the nutrients can be reduced
by foliar applications of dilute solutions [6]. Witt et al.,
(2006) [7] stated th at pr eliminary results o f on-farm trials
with maize clearly indicate opportunities to increase
yield and profitability, if crop and integrated nutrient
management are fine-tuned to site-specific conditions.
Rasheed et al., (2004) [8] and Vilela et al., (1995) [9] also

Influence of Integrated Nutrients on Growth, Yield and Quality of Maize (Zea mays L.) 64
observed significant improvement in maize grain yield in
response to N and S application.
The integrated nutrient management has been paid lit-
tle attention in agriculture areas of developing world [10].
Available literature indicates that in Pakistan, deficien-
cies of micronutrients have emerged in most of the far-
mer’s fields due to continuous use of conventional NPK
fertilizers which lack many of the vital micronutrients
and the trend may deplete the natural nutrient supply in
intensively cultivated areas. So, very little work has been
done on commercial foliar fertilizers under agro-climatic
conditions of Pakistan. There- for e, the pres ent stu dy w as
executed to evaluate th e integrated nutrients use effect on
growth, yield and quality of maize.
2. Materials and Methods
A field study was conducted to evaluate the Influence of
integrated nutrien ts on growth, yield and quality o f maize
(Zea mays L.) at the Agronomic Research Area, Univer-
sity of Agriculture, Faisalabad. The experiment was laid
out in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD)
having three replications and following treatment T1
(control), T2 (recommended NPK @ 200-120-125 kg
ha-1), T3 [single spray of multi-nutrient (a solution mix-
ture of micronutrients i.e; Zn = 2%, Fe = 1%, B = 1%,
Mn = 1%, Cu = 0.2% and macronutrients N = 1%, K2O =
2%, S = 2%) @ 1.25Lha-1], T4(recommended NPK @
200- 120-125 kg ha-1 + single spray of multi-nutrient @
1.25L ha-1), T5 (recommended NPK @ 200-120-125 kg
ha-1 + two spray of multi-nutrient @ 1.25L ha-1) and T6
(recommended NPK @ 200-120-125 kg ha-1 + three
spray of multi-nutrient @ 1.25L ha-1). Maize hybrid
(Pioneer-32B33) was used in this study. In each treat-
ment 5 rows of maize were sown. The rows were 70 cm
apart with plant to plant distance of 20 cm. First foliar
application of Multi-nutrients was sprayed at 4-5 leaves
stage where second and third foliar sprays were applied
after one week interval. The observations plant height at
maturity, number of grain rows per cob, number of grains
per cob, 100-grains weight, grain yield, biological yield,
fertilizer use efficiency and harvest index were recorded.
The collected data was analyzed statistically by using
Fisher’s analysis of variance technique and individual
tre a t me n t means w er e s ep a r at e d by using least sign ificant
difference (LSD) test at 5 percent probability level [11].
Oil contents were determined by Soxhlet Fat Extrac-
tion method described by Low, 1990 [12]. Soil samples
were taken before sowing of crop to depth of 30 cm for
physiochemical analysis. The soil sample analytic report
is presented in Table 1 which showed hunger of soil to
specific nutrients in which all nutrients were below the
critical range to some extent where K was sufficient in
soil as described by Sims and Johnson, 1991 [13] critical
range of nutrients in soil. The extraction of available p
was made using DTPA method.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Plant Height
Plant height reflects the vegetative growth behavior of
crop plants to applied inputs. Data pertaining to plant
height were collected and subjected to statistical analysis
is presented in table-II show ed significant effects of mul-
ti-nutrients solution spray on height of maize plants. The
comparison of treatment means revealed that maximum
plant height (176.09 cm) was achieved when single spray
of multi-nutrients was applied along with recommended
basal dose of NPK (T4) to maize plants. The treatment
(T4) was significantly differ with T1 (control), T2 (rec-
ommended dose of fertilizer @ 200-120-125 kg NPK
ha-1) and T3 (single spray of Multi-nutrients @ 1.25 L
ha-1), where it was statistically at par with T6 (recom-
mended dose of fertilizer + 3 sprays of Multi-nutrients),
T5 (recommended dose of fertilizer + 2 sprays of Mul-
ti-nutrients).
Plant height increase in response to multi-nutrients in
studies conducted on maize [14] and wheat [15] which
affirmed that further increase in rate of multi-nutrients
application did not show any increment which may be
possibly due to the presence of antagonistic affects, neg-
ative interactions and toxicity of some nutrients to plant
as a complex phenomena that occurred when nutrients
were used in combination [16].
3.1.1. Number of Grain Rows per Cob
Number of grain rows per cob which revealed a signifi-
cant difference among treatments as showed in table II.
The comparison of treatment’s means exposed that foliar
application of multi-nutrients is very effective in terms of
grain rows per cob as showing great variation from 17.06
to 6.13. The highest value attained in T4 (recommended
Table 1. Pre sowing physio-chemical analysis of soil.
Textural
class Saturation (%) pH ECe O.M (%) N (%) P ppm K ppm Zn ppm Fe ppm Cu ppm Mn ppm B ppm S ppm
Loam 33 7.65 2.1 0.58 0.04 6.64 183.3 0.52 3.8 0.15 1.3 0.92 Nil

Influence of Integrated Nutrients on Growth, Yield and Quality of Maize (Zea mays L.) 65
dose of fertilizer + 1 spray of Multi-nu- trients) where
lowest number of grain rows observed in control (T1).
The T4 (recommended dose of fertilizer + 1 spray of
Multi-nutrients) treatment is statistically at par with T2
(recommended dose o f fertilizer @ 200-120-125 kg NPK
ha-1) and T5 (recommend ed do se o f fertilizer + 2 sprays of
Multi-nutrients) where both are at par with T6 (recom-
mended dose of fertilizer + 3 sprays of Mu lti-nu- trients).
Since grain rows emergence and development depends
on environmental factors like vigor, nutrient provision in
proper proportions that induce it, therefore different
sources of fertilizers and their combinations create statis-
tically significant differences in the treatments. The
number of grain rows per cob varied to applied nutrients
as these outcomes substantiate by the findings of Bakry
et al. (2009) [17] who reported that different micronutri-
ents and their combination was testified on maize crop
which proved beneficial and salubrious in enhancing all
physiological and yield parameters of maize crop and
also gave a good response in term of number of grain
rows per cob. On the basis of experiment conducted by
Kruczek, 2005 [18] by applying different levels of mul-
ti-component fertilizer on maize crop, it is cleared that
multi-nutrients fertilizers have a significant affect on
number of grain rows per cob. The possibly reason for
lower number of grain rows per cob in T5 (recommended
dose of fertilizer + 2 sprays of Multi-nutrients) and T6
(recommended dose of fertilizer + 3 sprays of Mul-
ti-nutrients) treatments may be attributed to the antago-
nistic affect of micronutrients and their negative interac-
tion as increase in B concentration beyond the certain
limit have a negative impact on uptake of Zn [19], [20];
and [21].
3.1.2. Number of Grains per Cob
The results obtained from the data collected showed in
table II suggested significant response of spring maize
plants in terms of number of grains per cob to integrated
nutrient management approaches. The contrast study of
means showed a great variation in grains per cob which
confirmed the micronutrients affect on quantity of grains.
The frequency of multi-nutrients application gave dif-
ferent responses as highest number of grains (450.67)
was observed in T4 treatment where basal dose of NPK
@ 200-120-125 kg ha-1 supplied with single spray of
multi-nutrients solution @ 1.25 L ha-1. The second high-
est and statistically significant nu mber of grains (401.93)
was achieved in treatment T2 where recommended rate of
fertilizer @ 200-120-125 kg NPK ha-1 was applied how-
ever, T5 (recommended dose of fertilizer + 2 sprays of
Multi-nutrients) and T6 (recommended dose of fertilizer +
3 sprays of Multi-nutrients) are statistically at par with T2
treatment. The lowest number of grains (84.27) was at-
tained in T1 (control) treatment which is statistically at
pat with T3 (106.60) where only single spray of Mul-
ti-nutrients @ 1.25 L ha-1 was applied without any basal
dose of NPK. The increment in number of grains per cob
might be due to the presence of magnesium in Mul-
ti-nutrients solution as grains number are direct index of
pollen viability and where magnesium is proved to be
increases fruit set and pollen viability, and significant
affect on pol l en formation [22] an d [23].
3.1.3. 100-Gr a i n Weigh t (g )
Mean grain weight is an important yield contributing
factor, which plays a decisive role in showing the poten-
tial of a variety. The data regarding the 100-grain are
presented in table II. The results confirmed the signifi-
cant influence of micronutrients on grain weight. A
comparative study of means showed considerable varia-
tions in treatment means varying from 33.58 to 26.70 g
weight for 100-grain. The maximum 100-grain weight
obtained when maize plants received basal dose of con-
ventional fertilizer with single spray of multi-nutrients
solution (T4). Treatment means where recommended
dose of fertilizer + 2 sprays of Multi-nutrients (T5), rec-
ommended basal dose of NPK @ 200-120-125 kg ha-1
(T2) and recommended dose of fertilizer + 3 sprays of
Multi- (T6 ) was applied appeared statistically similar but
these differ significantly from T1 (control) and T3 (single
spray of multi-nutrients @ 1.25 L ha-1). The least weight
for 100-grain (26.70 g) was recorded in T1 (control)
which is statistically same with output of treatment T3
(27.22 g) where multi-nutrients was sprayed alone. The
weight of grains depend on flabbiness of grains and
transport of assimilates to the seed [23].The potassium
and magnesium exerted a positive influence on the
weight of grains, since both elements participate in the
transportation of carbohydrates to the sink organs [24].
The 100-grain weight is lower in NPK treatment as
compare to T4 (recommended dose of fertilizer + 1 spray
of Multi-nutrients) treatment.
3.1.4. Grain Yield (t ha-1)
Data regarding grain yield in table II showed significant
enhancement in yield of maize plants. The comparison of
means for the grain yield (t ha-1) of maize plants at dif-
ferent nutrients management treatments is given in table
4.10 which showed a minimum value of 0.723 t ha-1 for
control maize plots and maximum value of 5.780 t ha-1
for the T4 (recommended dose of fertilizer + 1 spray of
Multi-nutrients) treatment. Maximum grain yield was
followed by T2 (recommended dose of fertilizer @200-
120-125 kg NPK ha-1), T5 (recommended dose of fertil-
izer + 2 sprays of Multi-nutrients) and T6 (recommended
dose of fertilizer + 2 sprays of Multi-nutrients) as 4.13,
3.81 and 3.58 t ha-1 respectively, where these treatments

Influence of Integrated Nutrients on Growth, Yield and Quality of Maize (Zea mays L.) 66
were statistically at par with each other. The least grain
yield was recorded in T1 (0.72 t ha-1) and T3 (1.24 t ha-1)
where single spray of Multi-nutrients@ 1.25 L ha-1 was
applied, both were statistically same.
This increase may be mainly due to the additional
availability of nutrients as foliar sprays where T5 and T6
treatments results were not statistically significant as
compare to T4 treatment’s out come. Its might be the
multi-nutrients composition of solution which enabled
maize plants of treatment T4 to attained maximum grain
yield and yield attributes while decline trend in other
multi-nutrients treatments might be due to the negative
interaction of micronutrients as their concentrations in-
creases per treatment [25]. Lisuma et al. (2008) [26]who
reported that the use of micronutrients contributed to
increase yields when applied in combination of macro-
nutrients as compared to conventiona l fertilization which
lack of micronutrients. Similar trend was observed by
Singh et al., (2009) [27] in wheat crop who claimed that
100% NP plus single spray of micronutrients gave best
results in comparison to other treatments. The maxi-
mum yield achieved when best site specific nutrient ma-
nagement approaches were used, in a study conducted by
Bakry et al. (2009) [17] which revealed that micronutri-
ents played a critical role in achieving higher yield in
conjugation with manures. A decrease trend of grain
yield with increasing rate of multi-nutrients solution was
also observed by (Lana et al., 2007) [28] who stated th at
up to a certain level yield boosts with rising rate of mul-
ti-nutrients but further increase in rate of nutrients did not
respond linearly and might be it drastically reduces the
yield.
3.1.5. Biological Yield (t ha-1)
Data pertaining to biological yield as affected by foliar
applied different micro- and macro- nutrients is presented
in table II. Biological yield differed significantly among
various levels of nutrients. The results regarding analysis
of variance of post treated data revealed that biological
yield of maize plants varied from maximum 15.73 t ha-1
attained in T4 (recommended dose of fertilizer + 1 spray
of Multi-nutrients) to lowest value 2.707 t ha-1 observed
in control (T1) treatment. Where as the maximum value
for biological yield was statistically similar with 13.750 t
ha-1 and 12.460 t ha-1, these values gave by treatment T2
(recommended dose of fertilizer @200-120-125 kg NPK
ha-1) and T5 (recommended dose of fertilizer + 2 sprays
of Multi-nutrients) treated maize plants respectively. In
T6 (recommended dose of fertilizer + 3 sprays of Mul-
ti-nutrients) treatment biological yield of maize plants
was 11.997 t ha-1 which statistically at par with outcome
of T2 and T5 treatments. The treatment T3 where single
spray of multi-nutrients@ 1.25 L ha-1 was sprayed with-
out any basal dose of NPK showed 6.180 t ha-1 biological
yield, which significantly differed from control (2.707 t
ha-1) treatment.
The biological yield increment might be due to man-
ganese application which significantly improve uptake of
Mg, Zn and Mn in corn. So, micronutrients may be at-
tributed enhanced photosynthesis, early growth and ni-
trogen fixation as Zn and other vital nutrients was present
in multi-nutrients solution. These results are in confor-
mity with findings of Ali et al. (2008) [28] and Welch
(2003) [5] who stated that application of micronutrients
combinations gave highest biological yield as grain yield
was also influenced which might be attributed to the ad-
ditional availability of nutrients. Similar pattern in re-
sponse to mix fertilization of micronutrients in maize
was also giv en by Lana et al., (2007)[29].
3.1.6. Harvest Index (%)
The physiological ability of a hybrid to convert total dry
matter in to grain yield is determined by its Harvest In-
dex (HI). The Table 2 pertain the data concerning har-
vest index (HI) of maize plants as affected by nutrient
management practices.
The analyzed data revealed that significant affect on
harvest index was observed among fertilizer treatments.
The comparison of mean study showed variation in har-
vest index from 36.638 to 24.297. The maximum value
for harvest index was observed in T4 where recom-
mended dose of basal fertilizer along with 1 spray of
Multi-nutrients was applied. The treatments T2 (recom-
mended dose of fertilizer@200-120-125 kg NPK ha-1),
T5 (recommended dose of fertilizer + 2 sprays of Mul-
ti-nutrients) and T6 (recommended dose of fertilizer + 3
sprays of Multi-nutrients) was statistically similar for
harvest index values 30.447, 30.283 and 29.260 respec-
tively. The least harvest index (24.297) was recorded in
control treatment which was statistically at par with out-
come of single spray of Multi-nutrients@ 1.25 L ha-1
treated maize plants in T3 treatment (25.217).
These results are in agreement with the findings of the
Sajedi et al. (2009) [30] who investigated the micronu-
trients impact on salinity stressed maize plants under
water deficit conditions. The outcomes of this study
proved that harvest index was significantly affected by
micronutrients application when maize plants were re-
ceiving normal irrigation and no selenium was applied.
3.1.7. Fertilizer Use Efficiency (kg-1)
Fertilizer Use Efficiency (FUE) is also called nutrient to
grain ratio. The major macronutrients (N, P and K) use
efficiency was significantly influenced by micronutrients
foliar sprayed as showed in table II. The treatments
showed that highest FUE was observed in T4 where

Influence of Integrated Nutrients on Growth, Yield and Quality of Maize (Zea mays L.) 67
Table 2. Influence of integrated nutrient management practices on maize yield, yield component, FUE and oil content.
Treatments Plant
height
(cm)
No. of
grain rows
per cob
No. of
grains
per cob
100-grain
weight (g)
Grain
yield
t ha-1
Biological
yield
t ha-1
Harvest
index
(%)
Fertilizer
use
efficiency
Oil
contents
(%)
T1) Control 102.5c 6.1d 84.2d 26.7c 0.72c 2.7d 24.29c 0 3.3c
T2) recommended
dose of fertilizer
(200-120-125 kg
NPK ha-1)
154.9b 15.6ab 401.9b 30.5b 4.13b 13.75ab 30.44b 7.8b 4.6b
T3) Single spray of
Multnutrients
(1.2 L ha-1) 114.1c 9.1c 106.6d 27.2c 1.55c 6.18c 25.21c 2.02d 3.6c
T4) T2 + 1 spray of
Multi-nutrients 176.9a 17.0a 450.67a33.5a 5.78a 15.73a 36.63a 11.53a 4.96ab
T5)T2 + 2 sprays of
Multi-nutrients 168.5ab 15.4ab 349.3c 30.7b 3.8b 12.46ab 30.28b 7.08c 5.2a
T6)T2 + 3 sprays of
Multi-nutrients 168.2ab 14.53b 308.9c 29.4b 3.58b 11.9b 29.87b 6.57c 5.27a
LSD Value 15.05 2.47 42.10 1.77 1.30 3.47 3.11 3.39 0.37
Any two means not sharing same letter differ significantly at 5% level of probability.
multi-nutrients solution was sprayed once @ 1.25 L ha-1
along with ba sal dose of NPK (200 -125-1 20 kg NPK ha-1)
which was 11.53%. In rest of treatments T5 and T6 where
multi-nutrients was sprayed twice and thrice respectiv ely
along with recommended dose of NPK, appeared to be
statistically similar with T2 treatment where recom-
mended dose of fertilizer@200-120-125 kg NPK ha-1
was applied. The lowest efficiency was recorded in T3
(2.027) where multi-nutrients solution was sprayed once
without any basal dose of fertilizers. These results are in
harmony with Malkouti et al. (2008) [2] who reported
that macronutrient use efficiency significantly improved.
So, it strongly recommended that optimum level of mi-
croelements should be used rather than critical level in
crops. Micronutrients application not only replenish the
macronutrient concentration in grains they also enhance
the efficiency of micronutrients in plants as studied by
Orsozo et al. (2009) [31] in maize which proved their
catalyst role in up taking of primary nutrients as well as
other nutrients. Parallel trends were noted by (He et al.,
2009) [32].
3.1.8. Oil Contents (%)
Data concerning oil contents were subjected to statistical
analysis and is represented in Table II as analysis of va-
riance. The results of analyzed data showed significant
affect of multi-nutrients application as compared to con-
trol. The comparative view of means revealed that crude
oil content in grains was statistically similar among mul-
ti-nutrients applied treatments as T4, T5 and T6 where
multi-nutrients was sprayed once, twice and thrice re-
spectively @ 1.25 L ha-1 along with recommended rate of
fertilizer @ 200-120-125 kg of NPK h a-1. The maxi mum
value for oil contents was recorded in T6 (5.27%) fol-
lowed by T5 (5.20%) and T4 (4.96%) where as treatment
T4 was statistically at par with result of T2 (4.60%)
treatment which received recommended rate of fertilizer
@ 200-120-125 kg of NPK ha-1 alone. The least value for
crude oil content in grains was determined in control
maize plants (3.33%) where this findings was same from
statistics point of view with T3 (3.63%) treatment. Crude
oil contents of grains increases due to the disulphide
bond formation between polypeptide chains which in-
creases as sulfur concentrations increases. Sulfur is re-
sponsible for oil content increment as it is required in
synthesis of co-enzyme A which involved in oxidation
and synthesis of fatty acids. These results are in confor-
mity with findings of (Rasheed et al., 2004) [8] and (V i-
lela et al., 1995) [9] who fo un d th at sulfur indu ced high er
oil contents in maize grains.
3.2. Economic Analysis
The successful adoption of integrated nutrient manage-
ment practice is finally determined the net financial gain
(Table 3). The best nutrient management practice was T4
where one spray of multi-nutrients was applied in conju-
gation with recommended dose of NPK attaining 41,170
Rs. net field benefits. The rest of treatment’s net field
benefits were to low to recommend for farmers.
4. Conclusion
Based on findings of study, it can be recommended that
single spray of Multi-nutrients along with recommended

Influence of Integrated Nutrients on Growth, Yield and Quality of Maize (Zea mays L.) 68
Table 3. Net field benefits (NFB) as influenced by integrated nutrient management practices.
Gross incomeGross
expenditure NFB
Treatments
(Rs. ha-1)
BCR
Increases or
Decreases over
control
(%)
T1) Control 9,029 14,675 - -
T2) Recommended dose of fertilizer
(200-120-125 kg NPK ha-1) 56,742 36,815 19,927 0.54
T3) Single spray of Multi-nutrients(1.25 L ha-1) 21404 16,265 5,139 0.31
T4) T2 + 1 spray of Multi-nutrients 79,475 38,305 41,170 1.07
T5) T2 + 2 sprays of Multi-nutrients 52,387 39,795 12,592 0.31
T6) T2 + 3 sprays of Multi-nutrients 49,270 41,285 7,985 0.19
dose of NPK is feasible for enhancing yield, quality and
nutrients use efficiency of maize hybrid Poineer-32B33
economically under agro-climatic conditions of Faisala-
bad Pakistan.
REFERENCES
[1] H.L.S. Tandon, “Experiences with Balanced Fertilization
in India,” Better Crops, Vol. 11, No. 1, 1997, pp. 20-21.
[2] M.J. Malakouti, “Zinc is a Neglected Element in the Life
Cycle of Plants: A review,” Middle Eastern and Russian
Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology, Vol. 1, No.
1, 2008, pp. 1-12.
[3] P. Pingali, and S. Pa ndey, “Meeting World Maize Nee ds:
Technological Opportunities and Priorities for the Public
Sector,” CIMMYT World Maize Facts and Trends, Vol.
93, No.2-3, 2005, pp. 252-263.
[4] D.K. Singh , A.K. Pandey, U.B. Pandey and S.R. Bhonde,
“Effect of Farmyard Manure Combined with Foliar Ap-
plication of NPK Mixture and Micronutrients on Growth,
Yield and Quality of Onion,” Newsletter-National Hort.
Res. Develop. Foundation, Vol.21-22, No. 1, 2002, pp.
1-7.
[5] R.M. Welch, “Farming for Nutritious Foods: Agricultural
Technologies for Improved Human Health,” In:
IFA-FAO Agricultural Conference, Rome, Italy, 2003.
[6] Z. Jamal, and M. F. Chaudhary, “Effects of Soil and Fo-
liar Application of Different Concentrations of NPK and
Foliar Application of (NH4)2SO4 on Growth and Yield
Attributes in Wheat (triticum aestivum. L),” Pak. J. Pl.
Sci，Vol. 13, No. 2, 2007, pp. 119-128.
[7] C. Witt, J.M. Pasuquin and A. Dobermann, “Towards a
Site-specific Nutrient Management Approach for Maize
in Asia,” Better Crops, Vol. 90, No. 1, 2006, pp. 28-31.
[8] M. Rasheed, H. Ali and T. Mahmood, “Impact of Nitro-
gen and Sulfur Application on Growth and Yield of Ma-
ize (L.Zea mays) Crop,” Journal Research of Science,
Vol. 15, No. 2, 2004, pp. 153-157.
[9] L. Vilela, K.D. Ritchey and J.E. Silva, “Response of
Soybeans and Maize to Sulfur Fertilizer on a Dark-Red
Latosol Originally under Cenado Vegetation in the Dis-
trito Federal,” Revista Brazil and Ciencia Solo, Vol. 19,
No. 2, 1995, pp. 281-285.
[10] D.M. Hedge, and B.S. Dwived, “Integrated plant nutrient
supply and management as a strategy to meet nutrient
demand,” Fertilizer News, Vol. 38, 1993, pp. 49-50.
[11] R. G. D. Steel, J. H. Torrie and D. A. Dicky, “Principles
and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach,”
3rd Ed, McGraw Hill, Inc. Book Co. NY (USA), Vol. 20,
1997, pp. 352-358.
[12] N.H. Low, “Food analysis,” 417/717 Laboratory Manual,
Dept. of Microbiology and Food Science, Univ. of Sas-
katchewn, Canada, 1990, pp. 37-38.
[13] J.T. Sims and O.V. Johnson, “Micronutrient Soil Test,” In:
Mortvedt et al. (ed.), “ Micronutrient in Agriculture,” Soil
Science Society, Am. Madison, WI, 1991, pp. 427-472
[14] A. Verma, V. Nepalia and P.C. Kanthaliya, “Effect of
Integrated Nutrient Supply on Growth, Yield and Nutrient
Uptake by Maize (Zea mays L.) Wheat (Triticum aesti-
vum L.) Cropping System,” Ind. J. Agron, Vol. 51, 2006,
pp. 3-5.
[15] A.Y. Negm and F.A. Zahran, “Optimization Time of
Micronutrient Application to Wheat Plants Grown on
Sandy Soils,” Egyptian Journal of Agricultural Research,
Vol. 79, No. 3, 2001, pp. 813-823.
[16] M.J. Malakouti, “The Effect of Micronutrients in Ensur-
ing Efficient Use of Macronutrients,” Turkish Journal of
Agriculture, Vol.32, No.3, 2008, pp. 215-220.
[17] M. A. A. Bakry, R. A. Yasser, “Soliman and S. A. M.
Moussa, Importance of micronutrients, organic manure
and biofertilizer for improving maize yield and its com-
ponents grown in desert sandy soil,” Research Journal of
Agriculture and Biological Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2009,
pp. 16-23.
[18] A. Kruczek, “Effect of Nitrogen Doses and Application
Ways of Nitrogen Fertilizers and a Multi-Component Fer-
tilizer on Maize Yielding,” Pam. Pul. Poland. Vol. 140,
2005, pp. 129- 138.

Influence of Integrated Nutrients on Growth, Yield and Quality of Maize (Zea mays L.) 69
[19] F. Aref, “Application of different levels of zinc and boron
on concentration and uptake of zinc and boron in the corn
grain,” Journal of American Science, Vol. 6, 2010, pp.
100-106.
[20] A. Asad, and R. Rafique, “Effect of Zinc, Copper, Iron,
Manganese and Boron on Yield and Yield Components of
Wheat Crop in Tehsil Peshawar,” Pakistan Journal of
Biological Sciences, Vol. 3, No. 10, 2000, pp. 1615-1620.
doi:10.3923/pjbs.2000.1615.1620
[21] S. A. Barben, B. G. Hopkins, V. D. Jolley, B. L. Webb
and B. A. Nichols, “Phosphorus and Manganese Interac-
tions and Their Relationships with Zinc in Chelator-
Buffered Solution Grown Russet Burbank Potato,” Jour-
nal of Plant Nutrition, Vol. 33, No. 5, 2010, pp. 752-769.
doi:10.1080/01904160903575964
[22] M. H. Mahgoub, El-Quesni, E. M. Fatma and M. M.
Kandil, “Response of Vegetative Growth and Chemical
Constituents of Schefflera Arboricola L. Plant to Foliar
Application of Inorganic Fertilizer (Grow-More) and
Ammonium Nitrate at Nubaria,” Ozean Journal of Ap-
plied Science, Vol. 3, 2010, pp. 177-184.
[23] H. S. Siam, M. G. Abd-El-Kader and H. I. El-Alia, “Yield
and yield components of maize as affected by different
sources and application rates of nitrogen fertilizer,” Re-
search Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences,
Vol. 4, No. 5, 2008, pp. 399-412.
[24] P. Barlog and K. Frckowiak-Pawlak, “Effect of mineral
fertilization on yield of maize cultivars differing in ma-
turity scale,” Acta Sci. Pol. Agricultura, Vol. 7, No. 5,
2008, pp. 5-17.
[25] Y. Fang, L. Wang, Z. Xin, L. Zhao, X. An and Q. Hu,
“Effect of Foliar Application of Zinc, Selenium, and Iron
Fertilizers on Nutrients Concentration and Yield of Rice
Grain in China,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chem-
istry, Vol. 56, No. 6, 2008, pp. 2079-2084.
doi:10.1021/jf800150z
[26] J.B. Lisuma, J.M.R. Semoka and E. Semu, “Maize Yield
Response and Nutrient Uptake after Micronutrient Appli-
cation on a Volcanic Soil,” Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 98,
No. 2, 2006, pp. 402-406.
doi:10.2134/agronj2005.0191
[27] N.J. Singh, H.S. Athokpam, K.P. Patel and M.C. Meena,
“Effect Of Nitrogen And Phosphorus in Conjunction with
Organic and Micronutrients on Yield and Nutrient Uptake
by Maize-Wheat Cropping Sequences and Soil,”2009.
[28] S. Ali, A.R. Khan, G. Mairaj, M. Arif, M. Fida and S.
Bibi, “Assessment of Different Crop Nutrient Manage-
ment Practices for Yield Improvement,” Australian Jour-
nal of Crop Science, Vol. 2, No. 3, 2008, pp. 150-157.
[29] A.M.Q. Lana, R.M.Q. Lana, A.S. Frigoni and L.R. Tre-
visan, “Dosages, Sources and Application Period of
Micronutrients in Corn Crop,” Magistra, Vol. 19, No. 1,
2007, pp. 76-81.
[30] N.A. Sajedi, M.R. Ardakani, A. Naderi, H. Madani and
M.M.A. Boojar, “Response of Maize to Nutrients Foliar
Application under Water Deficit Stress Conditions,”
American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sci-
ences,Vol. 4, No. 3, 2009, pp. 242-248.
doi:10.3844/ajabssp.2009.242.248
[31] F. Oroszo, S. Jakab, T. Losak and K. Slezak, “Effects of
Fertilizer Application to Sweet Corn (Zea mays L.)
Grown on Sandy Soil,” Journal of Environmental Biology,
Vol. 30, No. 6, 2009, pp. 933-938.
[32] P. He, S. Li, J. Jin, H. Wang, C. Li, Y. Wang and R. Cui,
“Performance of an Optimized Nutrient Management
System for Double-Cropped Wheat-Maize Rotations in
North-Central China,” Journal of Agronomy, Vol. 101,
No. 6, 2009 , pp. 1489-1496.
doi:10.2134/agronj2009.0099
[33] Fertility. Environ. Ecol. Vol. 27, pp. 25-31.