Impact of integrated nutrient management on yield and nutritional value of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an essential leguminous crop cultivated worldwide due to its nutritional value and economic significance. Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) is a sustainable agricultural approach that combines organic and inorganic fertilizers, crop residues, and other nutrient sources to enhance soil fertility, crop yield, and quality. This research paper aims to investigate the impact of Integrated Nutrient Management on the yield and nutritional value of chickpea, providing valuable insights for sustainable agricultural practices and food security. A field experiment was conducted over two cropping seasons, comparing the conventional nutrient management system with the integrated nutrient management approach. Results from the study demonstrated that integrated nutrient management significantly improved the yield of chickpeas compared to conventional practices. The increased yield was attributed to the judicious combination of nutrients, leading to enhanced plant growth, root development, and overall crop health. Furthermore, the nutritional analysis revealed that the chickpea grown under the integrated nutrient management system exhibited higher concentrations of essential macronutrients (protein, carbohydrates, and dietary fiber) and micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) compared to conventionally managed crops. The enhanced nutritional content signifies the potential of INM to bolster the nutritional quality of chickpeas, which can positively impact human health and dietary diversity. Additionally, the INM approach proved to be environmentally sustainable, as it reduced the dependency on chemical fertilizers and promoted the recycling of organic waste materials, contributing to soil health and fertility.

Illustrations explain the paper; charts are replotted from the paper's own table values.

AI-generated illustration

↗ Enlarge

INM Conceptual FrameworkClose ×

AI-generated conceptual illustration (chickpea plants (Cicer arietinum L.)). It explains the idea and does not show study data.

Open full-size image ↗

Replotted from source data

↗ Enlarge

Grain yield (q/ha): Control vs 100o/o GRD vs 50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1 vs 50% GRD + Vermicompost... vs 50% GRD + PSB @ 4 kg...Close ×

Replotted from Table 3 (page 3) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Open full-size image ↗

Replotted from source data

↗ Enlarge

N % and P % and more: Control vs 100% GRD vs 50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1 vs 50% GRD + Vermicompost... vs 50% GRD + PSB @ 4 kg...Close ×

Replotted from Table 10 (page 4) of the original paper. Every bar is the paper's own table value.

Open full-size image ↗

Introduction

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an essential leguminous crop known for its high nutritional value and vital contribution to global food security. However, its productivity and nutritional content are often constrained by nutrient deficiencies in the soil [1] . To address this issue, integrated nutrient management (INM) practices have gained attention as a sustainable approach to enhance crop productivity while preserving its nutritional value. Pulses have a unique capacity to maintain and restore soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation because of their extensive root systems and leaf fall. Pulses are an essential dietary source of protein [2,3] . India produces roughly 14.4 million tonnes of pulse grains on a surface area of about 23 million hectares. The chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), which stands out for its high protein content and adaptability as a food grain, is the most common pulse crop in India's semi-arid tropics. 5.75 million tonnes of land, or 7.1 million hectares, or 30.9 percent of the total area and 39.9 percent of production, are used to grow pulses. Madhya Pradesh is the nation's leading producer of chickpeas, with a yield of 26.6 lakh tonnes/ha and a productivity of 931 kg/ha. There are 28.62 lakh acres on its surface.

Material and Method

The research experiment was conducted under MSSRF Project in Village Bhauwala, Dehradun (latitude 23° 1 o 'N and longitude 79° 57'E, 393 metres above sea level) in Rabi season for one year (2022-23). The soil of the experimental field was sandy loam in texture, poor in fertility in respect of available nitrogen and organic carbon and medium in respect of available phosphorus and available potassium. Soil was slightly alkaline in reaction (pH 7.70).

Experiment Design

The experiment consisted of seven treatments, replicated four folds in randomized design. The details of the layout of experiment are given in (Table 1, 2 and Figure 1). 50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t/ha T3 100% GRD T4 50%o GRD + PSB 4kg/ha T5 50% GRD + vermicompost@ 2 t/ha T6 50% GRD + FYM@ 5 t/ha + PSB@ 4 kg/ha T7 50% GRD + vermin compost @ 2 t/ha + PSB @ 4 kg/ha 18

↗ Enlarge

Figure 1Close ×

Experiment Layout

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper figureSource PDF · page 2 ↗

1	Location	Farmers Field in Bh
2	Design	RBD
3	Replications	4
4	Treatments	7
5	Crop	chickpea
6	Variety	JG-322
7	Plot size	25 x 23 m
8	Net plot size	575 m2
9	Spacing between plots	0.5 m
10	Spacing between replications	1.0 m
11	Spacing between rows	30 cm
12	Spacing between plant to plant	15 cm

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 1Close ×

Experiment Layout

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 2 ↗

Plant sample preparation

In each plot, plant samples were carefully collected within a one-meter area, ensuring uniform productivity. Prior to harvesting chickpeas, the plant samples underwent a drying process in a specialized oven set at 70 °C. Afterwards, the samples were divided into separate grain and straw components.

Pre-sowing operations

In this particular experiment, a tractor was initially employed to create a well-prepared seed bed. Subsequently, a power tiller was utilized to further cultivate the soil by efficiently mixing and dispersing the dirt. The manures and fertilizers were then carefully measured and evenly spread across each designated area following the given instructions. On November 30, 2022, the crop planting phase commenced, where 80 kg per hectare of specially treated JG-322 chickpea seeds, enriched with bioculture, rhizobium, and fungicide, were sown.

Nitrogen content evaluation

The Nitrogen concentration is determined using the wet method, following the instrument analysis approach described in KELPOL's work from 1965 and AOAC's guidelines from 1965 [4,5] . The procedure involves taking 1 gram of plant material (either straw or seeds) and mixing it with 100 ml of a digestion solution in a flask. The digestion solution contains potassium and copper sulphates in a 1:5 ratio and is added to the flask in varying amounts between 2 to 5 grams. Additionally, 10 ml of concentrated hydrochloric acid (H2SO4) is added to the flask, and the mixture is allowed to stand until it becomes clear. After cooling, the volume is adjusted to 100 ml. To initiate the distillation process, a 10 ml sample of the digestion liquid is taken and added to a separate distillation flask. Subsequently, 10 cc of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) is added. The liberated ammonia is collected in another flask containing methyl red, two drops of bromo-chloroacetic acid, and 10 ml of 2% boric acid. To ensure the complete expansion of ammonia before colour development, the distillation process is extended by an extra five minutes. Furthermore, in the acidic plant extract solution, vanadomolybdate reacts with orthophosphates, forming a yellow complex that can be used to develop a yellow colour indicative of phosphoric content. The transmittance (or absorbance) of the solution at 420 nm is measured using a spectrophotometer, following the method established by Koening and Johnson in 1942. Potassium content in the diet was tested using a Digi table flame thermometer, as outlined by Black in 1965 [4] .

Sulphur content evaluation

Barium sulphate precipitate's turbidity was measured using a turbidometer, and the solution's absorbance (or transmittance) at 420 nm was calculated using turbidimetry (Bardsley and Lancaster, 1960) [5] .

Organic carbon content evaluation

The rapid titration technique was used to find the organic carbon. It was created in 1934 by Walkely and Black, and Piper reported it in 1950 [6] .

Phosphorus content evaluation

With the help of a technique similar to that described by Orsen et al. (1954), the phosphorus content of soil was extracted. With the aid of 0.5 m NaHC03 (PH 8.5), the phosphorus is eliminated from the soil. Ascorbic acid is used to calculate transmittance. Miller and Keeney established the 1982 theory behind blue colour transmittance and absorption. The spectrophotometer with a 660 nm wavelength is ready after ten minutes [7,8] .

Potassium content evaluation

By adding neutral normal ammonium acetate and measuring with a flame photometer, the amount of potassium that was made available was calculated [8] .

Statistical analysis of the test results

The statistical study of grain and straw yield statistics resulted in the Panse (1970) and Sukhatme technique containing analytical data on the soil and plant [9] .

Result

This study was covered under the Dehradun Town Bhauwala Facilitated Supplement. The leaders for Chickpea (MSSRF) project, which is still in process [10] . In a farmer's field, a chickpea crop was had a go at using seven remarkable treatment mixes. Comparative medications (a blend of inorganic and normal composts) were used in the assessment close by a piece that is regularly energized and an absolute control. The survey's critical goal was to evaluate the impact of consolidated supplement the chiefs (IFM) on the sound advantage and production of chickpeas [11] . The yield, protein content, and dietary advantage of grain, straw, and basic soil parts are quantifiably summarized in (Table 3 -11). Table 3 clearly demonstrates how different treatments affect the yield of chickpeas. When compared to the control or farmers' practice (FP), the introduction of FYM, vermicompost, and PSB consistently increases yields.

Treatment code	Nutrient management practice	Grain yield (q/ha)	Straw yield (q/ha)
T1	Control	12.34	19.92
T2	100o/o GRD	15.00	21.87
T3	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1	16.34	26.40
T4	50% GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1	18.42	28.66
T5	50% GRD + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	15.43	28.82
T6	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	19.62	30.83
T7	50°10 GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	21.54	32.93
	Mean	16.96	27.06
	S.Em±	1.34	2.10
	CD at 5%	3.97	6.26

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 3Close ×

Grain yield and Straw Yield (q/ha)

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

Effect of various INM methods on the production of chickpea grains and straw

Treatment T 1 , with 50% GRD, 5 t vermicompost/ha, and 4 kg PSB/ha, resulted in the highest yield of 21.54 q/ha, significantly surpassing the control's yield of 12.34 q/ha. The test plot (25×23 m 2 ) also showed a significant treatment influence on both grain and straw yields. Treatment T 1 produced the most straw at 32.93 q/ha, while grain yields ranged from 12.34 to 21.54 q/ha across different treatments [12] . Overall, grain production increased by 59.0% from T 1 to T 6 treatments and by 74.5% when compared to the improvement from control to farmer practices. Similarly, straw production showed notable growth across treatments. Regarding soil pH, most treatments had minimal impact on pH levels. However, T 2 treatment did affect the soil pH, reducing it from an initial range of 7.71-7.85 to 7.61-8.03 after harvest. The overall decrease in pH was by 0.03 units.

Effect of treatments on soil EC

Despite a slight deviation of 0.04 Dsm -1 from the fundamental value, the soil electrical conductivities during the hidden and post-harvest stages remained largely undefined. Examining the data presented in Table 5, it becomes apparent that the early phase variance in the equation at the post-accumulate level was found to be negligible. The initial stage equation yielded values ranging from 0.13 to 0.18, while the post-accumulate equation ranged from 0.14 to 0.19 Dsm -1 . The mean values for the initial stage and post-procure level were 0.15 and 0.18 Dsm-1, respectively. The electrical conductivity increased by 2% between the sample and end typical readings, indicating a minor change in the overall trend.

Treatment code	Nutrient management practice	Grain yield (q/ha)	Straw yield (q/ha)
T1	Control	0.14	0.15
T2	100% GRD	0.16	0.17
T3	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1	0.13	0.15
T4	50% GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1	0.18	0.18
T5	50% GRD + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	0.18	0.19
T6	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	0.14	0.16
T7	50°10 GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	0.13	0.14
	Mean	0.15	0.18
	S.Em±	0.147	0.147
	CD at 5%	NS	NS

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 5Close ×

Effect of treatments on Soil EC

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

Effects of treatment on the N, P, K, S content in grain

The nitrogen concentration of the treatments varied significantly when the grain was harvested. The lowest nitrogen content in the control was 3.13%. The highest Nitrogen concentration 3.4% (7%) was seen in the T 1 therapy. T 1 therapy includes 505 of the GRD.

Vermicompost was added to 50% of the GRD and 5% of the total PSB (4 kg ha-1). T 7 showed increase of 10.86 °C, over T 1 , 8.44 °C, over T 2 and 5.15 °C, over T3 when 50% of GRD +5% of FYM ha were added.

The data presented in Table 10 demonstrates that all treated plots exhibited significantly higher phosphorus accessibility in the grain stage compared to untreated plots. The difference in phosphorus content between the IPNS prescriptions was approximately 0.375 to 0.422%. Notably, the grain from the T1 treatment had the highest phosphorus concentration, with an increase of 12.53 percent compared to the control grain with 0.375 percent phosphorus [13] .

Treatment code	Nutrient management practice	N %	P %	K %	S %
T1	Control	3.130	0.375	0.801	0.280
T2	100% GRD	3.200	0.391	0.809	0.287
T3	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1	3.300	0.408	0.861	0.342
T4	50% GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1	3.290	0.410	0.863	0.342
T5	50% GRD + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	3.230	0.408	0.843	0.341
T6	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	3.350	0.414	0.869	0.361
T7	50°10 GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	3.470	0.422	0.881	0.376

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 10Close ×

Effect of treatment on the N, P, K, and S content grain

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 4 ↗

Regarding the impact of treatments on grain potassium content, the results in Table 8 indicate considerable variation. The average potassium content was found to be 0.847 percent, ranging from 0.801 to 0.881 percent. The highest potassium concentration was observed in the T 1 grain, which was 9.99 percent higher than the control. Furthermore, T 3 outperformed T 2 in terms of potassium content in the grain. Examining the effects of treatments on grain sulfur content, the data in Table 8 reveals that fully treated plots experienced a significant and consistent increase in sulfur content. The sulfur content ranged from 0.280 to 0.376%, with an average value of 0.333%. Notably, the T 7 treatment had the highest sulphur content, showing a remarkable 34.29% increase compared to the control. 50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha -1 20.62 T4 50% GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha -1 20.56 T5 50% GRD + PSB @ 4 kg ha -1 20.12 T6 50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha -1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha -1 21.12 T7 50°10 GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha -1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha The crude protein factor has been multiplied in order to calculate the protein content of crops. The reserve protein in seeds may be considerably increased using a variety of techniques. While agricultural practices had the lowest protein concentrations, high-yield treatments including FYM, Vermicompost, and PSB had the highest protein concentrations. The protein level in the control was substantially higher at 21.68 percent compared to these treatments. The conclusion was a 2.56, 5.74, 5.44, 3.18, 8.31, and 16.31 percent rise in protein concentrations. 20.66% of the protein was, on average.

Treatment code	Nutrient management practice	Grain yield (q/ha)	Straw yield (q/ha)
T1	Control	11.50	11.45
T2	100% GRD	12.10	12.20
T3	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1	12.30	12.85
T4	50% GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1	11.40	13.10
T5	50% GRD + PSB @ 4 kg ha- 1	12.80	12.90
T6	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	12.40	13.72
T7	50°10 GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	13.02	14.70
	Mean	12.22	12.96
	S.Em±	0.718	0.45
	CD at 5%	NS	NS

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 8Close ×

Effect of treatments on the available soil phosphorus

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 4 ↗

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors acknowledge the technical support received from the School of Agriculture, Dev Bhoomi Uttarakhand.

Figures and tables from the paper

Treatment	Doses
T1	Control
T2	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t/ha
T3	100% GRD
T4	50%o GRD + PSB 4kg/ha
T5	50% GRD + vermicompost@ 2 t/ha
T6	50% GRD + FYM@ 5 t/ha + PSB@ 4 kg/ha
T7	50% GRD + vermin compost @ 2 t/ha + PSB @ 4 kg/ha 18

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 2Close ×

Treatment combinations

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 2 ↗

Treatment code	Nutrient management practice	Grain yield (q/ha)	Straw yield (q/ha)
T1	Control	7.71	7.68
T2	100o/o GRD	7.85	8.03
T3	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1	7.82	7.83
T4	50% GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1	7.81	7.86
T5	50% GRD + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	7.81	7.80
T6	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	7.83	7.61
T7	50°10 GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	7.84	7.64
	Mean	7.81	7.78
	S.Em±	0.393	0.393
	CD at 5%	NS	NS

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 4Close ×

Effect of treatments on Soil pH

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 3 ↗

Treatment code	Nutrient management practice	Grain yield (q/ha)	Straw yield (q/ha)
T1	Control	0.64	0.63
T2	100o/o GRD	0.65	0.66
T3	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1	0.66	0.68
T4	50% GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1	0.66	0.67
T5	50% GRD + PSB @ 4 kg ha- 1	0.65	0.65
T6	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha- 1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	0.68	0.70
T7	50°10 GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	0.70	0.73
	Mean	0.69	0.70
	S.Em±	0.010	0.014
	CD at 5%	0.022	0.030

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 6Close ×

Effect of treatments on soil organic Carbon

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 4 ↗

Treatment code	Nutrient management practice	Grain yield (q/ha)	Straw yield (q/ha)
T1	Control	380.00	360.00
T2	100o/o GRD	370.00	380.0
T3	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1	400.00	403.00
T4	50% GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1	375.00	398.00
T5	50% GRD + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	389.00	390.00
T6	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	360.00	410.00
T7	50°10 GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	420.00	426.00
	Mean	384.96	391.32
	S.Em±	20.01	24.88
	CD at 5%	NS	NS

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 9Close ×

Effect of treatments on the available soil potassium

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 4 ↗

Treatment code	Nutrient management practice	Grain yield (q/ha)	Straw yield (q/ha)
T1	Control	215.20	210.82
T2	100% GRD	218.30	212.37
T3	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1	219.60	220.37
T4	50% GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1	222.50	230.35
T5	50% GRD + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	219.60	227.42
T6	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	224.34	230.32
T7	50°10 GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	225.45	232.30
	Mean	220.72	223.43
	S.Em±	7.37	8.65
	CD at 5%	22.10	22.30

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 7Close ×

Effect of treatments on the available soil nitrogen (kg/ha)

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 4 ↗

—	Mean	3.290	0.404	0.847	0.333
	S.Em±	0.06	0.007	0.015	0.013
	CD at 5%	0.201	0.020	0.045	0.039

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 11Close ×

Effect of treatment on the protein content in grain

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 5 ↗

Treatment code	Nutrient management practice	% Protein Content
T1	Control	19.50
T2	100o/o GRD	20.00
T3	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1	20.62
T4	50% GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1	20.56
T5	50% GRD + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	20.12
T6	50% GRD + FYM @ 5 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	21.12
T7	50°10 GRD + Vermicompost @ 2 t ha-1 + PSB @ 4 kg ha-1	22.68
	Mean	20.66
	S.Em±	1.34
	CD at 5%	2.82

Table text extracted from the original PDF; superscript letters are shown inline. The original table image is below.

View original table image

↗ Enlarge

Table 11Close ×

Effect of treatment on the protein content in grain

Open full-size image ↗

Original paper tableSource PDF · page 5 ↗

1. Abdul Basir, Khan Zada, Shah Z. Effect of phosphorous and farmyard manure on nitrogen nutrition. Sarhad Journal Agriculture. 2005;21(2):11-19.
2. Arya S, Kumar R, Prakash O, Kumar S, Mahawer SK, Chamoli S, et al. Chemical composition and biological activities of Hedychium coccineum Buch.-Ham. Ex Sm. essential oils from Kumaun hills of Uttarakhand. Molecules. 2022;27(15):4833.
3. Arya S, Mahawer SK, Karakoti H, Kumar R, Prakash O, Kumar S, et al. Study of the Variability of the Chemical Profile, and Biological Activity Approaches of Hedychium coronarium J. Koenig Essential Oil from Different Habitats of Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Food Quality. 2023..
4. Chandra R. Response and economics of Rhizobium, Phosphorus and Zinc application in gram. Legume Research. 1995, 1965;18(2):103-108.
5. Bardsley CE, Lancaster JD. Determination of reserve sulfur and soluble sulfates in soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal. 1960;24(4):265-268.
6. Dixit JP, Pandey RP, Namdeo KN. Influence of phosphatic fertilizer on Bengal gram. Madras Agricultural Journal. 1983;70(7):478-479.
7. Dubey SK, Shrivastava SK. Response of Soybean of microbial inoculants. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 1991;6(4):202-206.
8. Ghosh BN, Ved Prakash, Singh RD. Yield response and nutrient use efficiency on soybean wheat system in long term manorial experiment. Proc. National workshop long-term fertility management through integrated nutrient supply system. Indian I NSTT. Soil Sci Bhopal. 1998, 27-282.
9. Gupta SC. Effect of combined inoculation on nodulation, nutrient uptake and yield of chickpea in vertisol. Journal of the Indian Society of Soil Science. 2006;54(2):251-254.
10. Hulugalle NR, Enturistle PC, Cooper JL, Scott F, Nehl DB, Allen SJ, et al. Sowing wheat or field peas as rotation crops after irrigation cotton in a grey vertisol. Australian J Soil Res. 1999;37(5):867-889.
11. Jain LK, Pushpendra Singh. Growth and nutrient uptake of chickpea as influenced by biofertilizer and phosphorous nutrition. Crop Res. 2003;25(3):41:413. 60.
12. Kanwar K, Pariyal SS. Influence of phosphorous management and organic manuring on uptake and yield of chickpea. Annals of Agril. 2002;28(4):642-645.
13. Kumpawat BS, Manohar SS. Response of gram to bacterial inoculation, P and micronutrients. Madras Agric. J. 1994;61(7):397-398.
14. Lindsay WL, Norvell WA. Micronutrient soil test for Zn, Cu, Fe, Mn, Agron, 84. Mac Taggart. Effect of potash levels and method of application on the yield of gram. Madras Agril. Journal. 1969;70(8):537-538.
15. Prasad R, Singh RP, Roy HK, Sinha H. Effect of fertilizer, lime and manure on some physical and chemical properties of a red loam soil under multiple cropping. J Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 1983;31:601-603.