Assessment of recommended tomato varieties by IIHR through on farm trials (OFT’S) for Vidarbha region of Maharashtra

Introduction

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) is a high-value vegetable crop in India; hybrid development (e.g., Arka series) has focused on disease resistance and higher yield. On-farm comparisons and frontline demonstrations are important to quantify yield gains, technology gaps and economic returns under farmers' conditions and inform extension priorities. Recent literature emphasizes measuring technology gap, extension gap and economic indicators (yield increase percentages, B:C ratios) to evaluate on-farm impact. www.extensionjournal.com indicates a highly educated group of farmers compared with the national rural average. Education enhances farmers' capacity to interpret extension advice and manage scientific farming systems efficiently (Meena et al., 2018; Singh et al., 2019) [3,12] . The higher proportion of graduates in the present sample suggests a strong potential for rapid technology diffusion through peer learning. The results show that 53.85 per cent of respondents were marginal farmers, 30.77 per cent were small, and 15.38 per cent were semi-medium farmers, with no medium or large holdings. The average landholding was 1.27 ha (SD = 0.60). The predominance of marginal and small holdings aligns with the national scenario, where over 85 per cent of operational holdings are below 2 ha (Government of India, 2019) [1] . This indicates that the sample reflects the structural characteristics of Indian agriculture. Similar findings were reported by Patel and Meena and Singh (2020) [4] . Smaller holdings imply constraints in capital and resource availability but also an opportunity for KVK interventions to promote high-value crops, integrated farming systems, and low-cost technologies suited for limited land. The majority of respondents (53.85%) earned between ₹ 1,00,001 and ₹ 2,00,000 annually, followed by 33.33 per cent in the ₹ 2-3 lakh category. Only 7.69 per cent had incomes above ₹ 3 lakh. The mean income was ₹ 1.80 lakh per annum. These figures are comparable to NABARD's All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey (2022) [5] , which places the median annual income of smallholders around ₹ 1.7 lakh. Lower annual incomes among marginal and small farmers underline the need for livelihood diversification and value-addition interventions through KVKs. The socio-economic status (SES) index revealed that 33.33 per cent of respondents belonged to the "high" category and 38.46 per cent to the "very high" category, while only 10.26 per cent were "low". The mean SES score was 7.23 (SD = 1.76). This indicates that nearly three-fourths of respondents maintained a moderate-to-high standard of living. High SES, despite small landholdings, suggests diversified income sources, educational attainment, and asset ownership. Similar findings were observed by Meena and Singh (2020) [4] , who found that education and non-farm income substantially improve rural SES indices. Extension contact was found to be moderate to high among most respondents: 58.97 per cent reported moderate and 35.90 per cent high contact levels (mean = 10.02, SD = 1.95). None fell in the low-contact category. This demonstrates a strong linkage with extension systems, particularly with KVKs. High extension contact is a key determinant of improved knowledge, skill, and adoption of innovations (Sundaramari and Ramasubramanian, 2017; Singh et al., 2020) [17, ] . Regarding visits to KVKs, 41.03 per cent each reported visiting once or twice per season, and 10.26 per cent more than twice per season, whereas only 7.69 per cent had never visited. The mean frequency score was 1.54 (SD = 0.79). Frequent visitation indicates strong engagement with the KVK system and validates the success of frontline demonstrations and on-campus training as effective extension tools. Similar patterns were noted by Meena et al. (2018) [3] and Thorat et al. (2022) [19] , who observed that repeated exposure to KVK activities improved farmers' knowledge and skill retention. Social participation analysis revealed that 28.21 per cent of respondents had moderate participation, while 51.28 per cent exhibited high or very high participation levels. The mean social participation score was 2.56 (SD = 1.10). High social participation reflects membership in farmer organizations, self-help groups (SHGs), and cooperatives. Such participation builds social capital and fosters collective learning and market access (Narayanan et al., 2021) [6] . The composite picture of the respondents indicates a younger, educated, smallholder group with strong extension linkage and active social engagement. Such a profile is highly favorable for technology dissemination, as education and extension contact jointly enhance the adoption process (Sundaramari and Ramasubramanian, 2017) [17] . However, modest annual income and limited landholding continue to constrain investment capacity, emphasizing the need for low-cost, high-return technologies and collective approaches through FPOs or cooperatives.

Psychological and Behavioural Characteristics of the Respondents

The psychological and behavioural traits of farmers influence their decision-making, innovativeness, and responsiveness to new agricultural technologies. The present study assessed four key behavioural attributes; economic motivation, scientific orientation, risk preference, and innovativeness which play a crucial role in determining technology adoption and participation in KVK programmes (Table 2). The results indicate that 33.33 per cent of the respondents had a high level of economic motivation, while 38.46 per cent exhibited a very high level. About 17.95 per cent had moderate, and only 10.26 per cent had low motivation levels. The overall mean score was 18.06 with an SD of 4.41. These findings imply that the majority of farmers were economically driven, striving to increase their farm income and productivity. Economic motivation is a key driver for adopting improved technologies, as financially oriented farmers actively seek profitable innovations and respond positively to demonstrations and training (Rogers, 2003) [9] . Similar observations were reported by Patel and Meena and Singh (2020) [4] and Meena et al. (2018) [3] , who found that farmers with high economic motivation are more likely to participate in extension activities and adopt scientific practices. This strong motivation among respondents could be attributed to the success and visible benefits of KVK demonstrations, which have shown substantial yield and profit advantages. Scientific orientation reflects the extent to which an individual believes in and applies scientific methods in farming. In this study, 38.46 per cent of respondents had a high level of scientific orientation, and 33.33 per cent were in the very high category, together forming over 71 per cent of the sample. Only 7.69 per cent had low orientation. The mean score was 17.63 (SD = 5.12). This indicates that respondents exhibited a strong inclination toward scientific farming, which is an encouraging indicator for the dissemination of new technologies. Farmers with higher scientific orientation tend to adopt innovations early and rely more on verified information sources (Sundaramari & Ramasubramanian, 2017) [17] . The observed results agree www.extensionjournal.com with Thorat et al. (2022) [19] and Singh et al. (2019) [14] , who reported that farmers associated with KVKs demonstrated higher scientific orientation and knowledge gain compared to non-participants. Risk preference represents a farmer's willingness to accept uncertainty in the hope of gaining higher returns. The study found that 46.15 per cent of respondents had a very high level of risk preference, 30.77 per cent were high, and only 7.69 per cent were low. The mean score was 19.54 with an SD of 6.11, reflecting a generally high-risk-taking attitude among the respondents. This suggests that most farmers were entrepreneurial and confident in experimenting with new practices, possibly due to the support and assurance provided by KVK demonstrations and extension staff. High risk preference among farmers indicates readiness to adopt new technologies and diversify into innovative enterprises. These results corroborate the findings of Meena and Singh (2020) [4] who highlighted that exposure to extension programmes significantly enhances farmers' confidence and willingness to take calculated risks. Innovativeness measures the degree to which an individual is open to adopting new ideas and practices. The data show that 43.59 per cent of respondents exhibited very high innovativeness, followed by 28.21 per cent with high and 17.95 per cent with moderate levels. Only 10.26 per cent had low innovativeness, and none were in the very low category. The mean score was 18.81 (SD = 5.93). This finding implies that a majority of the farmers were progressive and receptive to new technologies. Such farmers often act as opinion leaders within their communities, facilitating peer learning and diffusion of innovations (Rogers, 2003) [9] . High innovativeness levels may result from continuous exposure to KVK training, demonstrations, and advisory services, which build confidence and curiosity to test new practices. Comparable results were reported by Patel et al. (2020) and Thorat et al. (2022) [19] , who observed that KVK-trained farmers maintained higher innovativeness and adoption indices than their untrained counterparts. Overall, the psychological profile of respondents indicates a progressive, motivated, and scientifically oriented group with high risk-taking ability and innovativeness. Such behavioural attributes form a strong foundation for agricultural modernization and effective utilization of extension services. These traits are consistent with the innovation-decision process proposed by Rogers (2003) [9] , wherein economic motivation, scientific orientation, and risk-taking collectively determine the rate of adoption. High motivation and innovativeness among KVK-associated farmers suggest that the institutional environment is successfully nurturing a proactive mindset towards scientific farming. However, continued exposure, need-based training, and participatory demonstration are essential to sustain these positive traits and extend similar behavioural transformation to other farmer groups.

Knowledge of Tomato Cultivation Practices

The knowledge and adoption status of respondents regarding tomato cultivation practices is presented in Table 3. The assessment covered six major components: land preparation, varieties/planting material, sowing/transplanting, irrigation, nutrient management, and plant protection. The percentages indicate the proportion of respondents aware of or adopting each recommended practice. Respondents showed considerable awareness of fundamental land preparation practices. About 76.92% were aware of proper ploughing techniques, 58.97% understood the importance of avoiding waterlogging, 56.41% recognized suitable soil types, 51.28% prepared beds appropriately, and 48.72% applied FYM as recommended. Proper land preparation is critical for aeration, root development, and nutrient uptake, particularly for tomatoes, which are sensitive to waterlogging and poor soil fertility (Singh et al., 2018) [13] . The relatively high awareness of ploughing and water management reflects routine extension guidance, whereas lower awareness of FYM application suggests a need for further emphasis on organic matter management. Knowledge of crop variety selection and seedling management was moderate to high. Transplanting was the most widely practiced activity (97.44%), followed by seedling preparation (82.05%), seed treatment (61.54%), traits of good varieties (53.85%), and choice of crop variety (46.15%). High transplanting adoption indicates farmers understand its importance for establishing uniform stands, improving growth, and reducing early crop losses. The moderate knowledge of variety traits reflects the need for continued training on selecting high-yielding, diseaseresistant cultivars suitable for local conditions. Respondents displayed variable adoption for timing and spacing practices. Depth of transplanting (89.74%) and precautions while transplanting (84.62%) were highly adopted, whereas timing of transplanting (48.72%), spacing for determinate varieties (51.28%), and spacing for indeterminate varieties (64.10%) were moderately followed. Proper transplanting depth and spacing are essential for optimal canopy development, air circulation, and disease reduction. Previous studies highlight that incorrect spacing or delayed transplanting can reduce yields and increase pest/disease incidence (Meena et al., 2018) [3] . The high adoption of transplanting precautions demonstrates responsiveness to KVK training, whereas spacing adjustments require further reinforcement. Irrigation management is crucial for tomato growth and yield. Respondents were aware of irrigation schedules (76.92%), irrigation during flowering/fruiting (87.18%), maintenance of drip lines (82.05%), losses due to overirrigation/waterlogging (66.67%), and criteria for deciding irrigation timing (74.36%). These findings indicate that farmers are relatively knowledgeable about critical irrigation periods and micro-irrigation maintenance, which aligns with modern recommendations for water use efficiency in tomato cultivation (Singh et al., 2019) [15] . However, gaps remain in preventing losses from excessive irrigation, suggesting the need for hands-on demonstration and drip scheduling training. Knowledge of nutrient management practices was relatively high, with 94.87% following fertigation recommendations, 87.18% observing fertilizer precautions, 71.79% applying micronutrients timely, 69.23% applying nitrogen www.extensionjournal.com appropriately, and 53.85% aware of the recommended NPK dose. The high adoption of fertigation reflects the growing use of modern drip-based nutrient delivery systems in tomato cultivation. Timely micronutrient and nitrogen management ensures fruit quality and yield. However, the moderate knowledge of recommended NPK doses suggests that farmers need further support in calculating fertilizer requirements based on soil tests and crop demand (Meena et al., 2018) [3] . Respondents demonstrated good awareness of pest and disease management. Major pests were recognized by 71.79%, major diseases by 79.49%, preventive fungicide sprays by 69.23%, cultural pest/disease management practices by 84.62%, and time of harvesting by 79.49%. This indicates that farmers are proactive in integrated pest management (IPM) practices, consistent with findings from KVK training programs (Singh et al., 2018) [13] . Cultural practices for disease prevention and timely harvesting were well adopted, reflecting responsiveness to extension recommendations. However, preventive fungicide usage could be improved to reduce disease incidence and improve fruit quality. Thus, Nearly 44% of respondents are in the high knowledge category, and the majority (about 90%) are at least moderate. The SD (5.82) shows some heterogeneity. Extension messages can leverage the existing knowledge base (peer demonstration) but should target the 10% lowknowledge farmers and areas with specific gaps (FYM etc.). The findings reveal that farmers possess moderate to high knowledge and adoption of recommended tomato cultivation practices. Highest adoption was observed in transplanting, fertigation, transplanting precautions, and irrigation during flowering/fruiting, while moderate adoption was noted in fertilizer dose calculation, variety selection, and pest preventive sprays. This pattern suggests that hands-on practices with visible results (transplanting, fertigation) are more likely to be adopted than abstract or technical recommendations (soil nutrient dose, variety traits). Similar adoption trends have been reported by Meena et al. (2018) [3] , where KVK interventions increased practical adoption while knowledge-intensive practices required further reinforcement. Although knowledge scores were relatively high for many recommended practices (especially transplanting and fertigation), adoption of some soil fertility practices (FYM, recommended NPK dose) was lower. Bridging this knowledge-practice gap could improve nutrient status and further reduce the technology gap. Recommendations from NHB/ICAR on NPK and FYM can guide extension messages (e.g., recommended N ~ 90-120 kg/ha depending on guidelines and hybrid requirements

Adoption of Tomato Cultivation Practices

The knowledge and adoption of recommended tomato cultivation practices by respondents are summarized in [13] . These results indicate that farmers prioritize visible and routine practices but may need additional guidance on organic amendments. High adoption was recorded for seed treatment (92.31%) and transplanting (74.36%), followed by seedling preparation (58.97%), traits of good varieties (48.72%), and crop variety selection (43.59%). The high adoption of seed treatment reflects awareness of disease prevention and seedling protection measures. Lower adoption in variety selection indicates that farmers may not fully differentiate between high-yielding or disease-resistant cultivars. Strengthening farmer awareness of variety traits is essential for maximizing productivity. Depth of transplanting (79.49%) and transplanting precautions (74.36%) were widely adopted, while timing of transplanting (43.59%) and spacing for determinate (48.72%) and indeterminate varieties (56.41%) showed moderate adoption. These results suggest that farmers prioritize practical transplanting procedures that directly impact plant establishment, but technical recommendations such as precise spacing and optimal timing require reinforcement through demonstrations and hands-on training (Meena et al., 2018) [3] . Adoption of irrigation practices was relatively high. Farmers followed irrigation during flowering and fruiting (82.05%), regular irrigation schedules (71.79%), drip line maintenance (74.36%), criteria for irrigation timing (66.67%), and were aware of losses due to over-irrigation (61.54%). Effective water management is critical for tomato yield and quality. The results indicate a positive response to KVK training on irrigation practices, particularly for critical crop growth stages. However, further training may be required to reduce over-irrigation losses, which can cause nutrient leaching and disease incidence (Singh et al., 2019) [12] . High adoption was observed for fertigation (89.74%) and fertilizer precautions (79.49%), followed by micronutrient application timing (61.54%), nitrogen application timing (58.97%), and awareness of recommended NPK doses (48.72%). This indicates that farmers actively adopt modern fertigation methods but need additional guidance on precise nutrient dosing to optimize input use efficiency and avoid nutrient imbalances (Meena et al., 2018) [3] . Farmers showed good knowledge of pest and disease management. Awareness of major diseases (74.36%), cultural practices (76.92%), time of harvesting (71.79%), major insects (66.67%), and preventive fungicide sprays (66.67%) was moderate to high. These results demonstrate www.extensionjournal.com adoption of integrated pest and disease management practices, indicating that KVK interventions effectively build farmers' capacity to prevent and manage crop losses. Nonetheless, adoption of preventive fungicide sprays could be improved for better disease control and fruit quality (Singh et al., 2018) [13] . Thus, most farmers fall into the moderate adoption category. The small percentage (20.5%) in high adoption suggests room for scaling best practices; extension should focus on converting the moderate adopters to high adopters through focused demonstrations and input support. The results reveal moderate to high adoption of tomato cultivation practices. Practices with visible outcomes, such as seed treatment, fertigation, transplanting precautions, and irrigation during flowering/fruiting, were more widely adopted than technical knowledge-based practices like nutrient dosing, variety selection, and spacing for different varieties. This pattern highlights the importance of practical demonstrations for adoption, as observed in other KVK-led studies (Meena et al., 2018) [3] . Extension programs should continue hands-on field demonstrations, with special emphasis on knowledge-intensive practices such as soil nutrient management, spacing, and preventive plant protection measures, to further improve productivity and adoption rates.

Technological and Extension Gap in Tomato Cultivation

The technological and extension gaps in tomato cultivation are presented in Table 8. Average Extension Gap was 70.00 q/ha with a standard deviation of 29.55 q/ha. This indicates a significant gap between the recommended technology and the level of adoption by farmers, despite the existing extension services. Average Yield Increase over Farmers' Practice was 15.08% (SD = 4.68), reflecting the positive impact of improved practices promoted by KVKs. This moderate yield increase indicates that while farmers adopt some recommendations, complete adoption is still limited, which constrains yield maximization. Average Technology Gap was 279.17 q/ha with SD 106.73, suggesting a substantial difference between the potential yield achievable with recommended practices and the yield obtained under current farmer practices. Average Technology Index was 34.86% (SD = 13.28), indicating that there is a significant scope for improving productivity by adopting scientific and improved tomato cultivation techniques (Samui et al., 2000) [11] . A lower technology index reflects higher efficiency in technology adoption; here, a 34.86% index highlights a moderate adoption level. While extension demonstrations improved farmer yields, a large technology gap persistsreasons often include localized constraints (soil fertility, pest pressure, input access, management intensity) and indicate the need for adaptive research and stronger extension support. This pattern is consistent with other yield-gap studies in tomato. These results suggest that extension efforts need to be intensified to minimize the technology and extension gap. Farmers require additional training, demonstrations, and follow-up visits to bridge this gap, particularly for nutrient management, spacing, and pest/disease control (Meena et al., 2018) [3] .

Economics of Tomato Cultivation

The economics of tomato cultivation for three varieties -Vinayak (T 1 ), Arka Rakshak (T 2 ), and Arka Samrat (T 3 ) are presented in Table 9. The gross cost of cultivation ranged from ₹81,526.67 to ₹83,123.33 per hectare, with T 1 having slightly higher costs due to management practices. Standard deviation in cost was relatively low, indicating uniformity in cultivation practices across treatments. Arka Rakshak (T 2 ) recorded the highest gross return (₹2,89,853.33/ha) followed by Arka Samrat (T 3: ₹2,75,438.33/ha) and Vinayak (T 1: ₹2,51,966.67/ha). Standard deviation was highest for T 2 , suggesting some variability in market prices or yields among farmers. The net return was highest in Arka Rakshak (T 2: ₹2,08,326.67/ha), followed by Arka Samrat (T 3: ₹1,93,911.67/ha) and Vinayak (T 1: ₹1,68,843.33/ha). This indicates that adoption of improved varieties can significantly increase profitability. The B:C ratio was highest for Arka Rakshak (3.54), followed by Arka Samrat (3.37) and Vinayak (3.03). A B:C ratio above 3.0 suggests highly remunerative cultivation. The SD of B:C ratios was lowest for Vinayak (0.03) and higher for T 2 and T 3 , indicating variation in returns among farmers. The economic analysis demonstrates that Arka Rakshak (T 2 ) is the most profitable variety under the given agro-climatic conditions. Improved varieties, coupled with recommended practices, enhance both yield and income. High B:C ratios indicate that tomato cultivation is economically viable and adoption of recommended technology can significantly improve farmer livelihoods (Patel & Meena, 2020). Arka Rakshak (T 2 ) gives the highest gross return (Rs. 289,853/ha) and highest net return (Rs. 208,326.67/ha) with the best B:C ratio of 3.54, indicating highest economic attractiveness among the three varieties under these on-farm conditions. This aligns with published on-farm reports where Arka Rakshak often gives superior returns due to disease resistance and high marketable yield. Costs are comparable across treatments; variation in returns drives profitability differences. The relatively low CV for gross/net returns shows returns are reasonably stable across demonstration plots, although Arka Rakshak shows somewhat higher variability (reflecting yield variability). The B:C ratios here (≈3.0-3.5) suggest very profitable production under the demonstrated managementhigher than some district-level averages reported in other studies, but comparable to successful KVK/FLD demonstrations elsewhere; economic results depend heavily on price realization, disease incidence, and management intensity. Arka Rakshak (T 2 ) shows the highest mean yield and highest economic returns. This is consistent with reports that Arka Rakshak, a triple disease-resistant F1 hybrid developed by IIHR performs well in farmer and protected environments, especially where ToLCV, bacterial wilt and early blight are constraints. Technology and extension gaps: The extension gap (~70 q/ha) and sizable technology gap (~279 q/ha) indicate that while demonstrations improve farmer yields, a considerable yield potential remains unrealized. The high B:C ratios indicate tomato cultivation under these demonstrated practices is profitable. However, economic returns can be volatile due to price fluctuations, www.extensionjournal.com so risk mitigation (market linkages, contract farming) and diversification are prudent.

Descriptive Statistics

Arka Rakshak (T 2 ) recorded the highest mean yield (≈ 526 q ha⁻¹), followed by Arka Samrat (T 3 ) (≈ 491 q ha⁻¹) and Vinayak (T 1 ) (≈ 451 q ha⁻¹). There is a statistically significant difference among the mean yields of the three tomato varieties. Arka Rakshak (T 2 ) yielded significantly higher than Vinayak (T 1 ). Differences between T 2 vs T 3 and T 3 vs T 1 were not statistically significant at the 5% level. Hence, Arka Rakshak is statistically superior overall. Arka Rakshak (T 2 ) recorded the highest mean yield of 526.41 q ha⁻¹, which was about 16.8% greater than Vinayak (T 1 ) and 7.1% greater than Arka Samrat (T 3 ). The coefficient of variation (≈ 20%) across treatments indicates moderate yield variability, typical of on-farm conditions influenced by soil and management heterogeneity. ANOVA results (F = 5.72, p = 0.0043) revealed a significant varietal effect on tomato yield. Tukey's HSD indicated that Arka Rakshak (T 2 ) produced significantly higher yields than Vinayak (T 1 ), while the difference between Arka Rakshak and Arka Samrat (T 3 ) was not significant. The mean yield advantage of T 2 over T 1 was about 75 q ha⁻¹ (≈ 16.8%). Variability (CV ≈ 20%) reflects expected heterogeneity under on-farm conditions. These findings substantiate earlier reports of Arka Rakshak's superior performance and disease resistance (IIHR 2023; NHB 2024) [2,7] . They confirm that, under Vidarbha conditions, Arka Rakshak provides a statistically and economically superior choice for tomato growers. These results demonstrate that Arka Rakshak (T 2 ) is statistically superior in yield performance compared with the farmers' practice variety Vinayak (T 1 ). The improvement may be attributed to Arka Rakshak's triple disease resistance-against Tomato Leaf Curl Virus (ToLCV), Bacterial Wilt (Ralstonia solanacearum), and Early Blight (Alternaria solani)-and its vigorous hybrid growth habit (IIHR 2023) [2] . Similar superiority of Arka Rakshak over local hybrids has been reported in on-farm trials in Telangana and Karnataka (Rani et al., 2024; Sahu et al., 2023) [8,10] .

References

1. IIHR. Arka Rakshak -Triple disease-resistant tomato hybrid description. Indian Institute of Horticultural Research, Bengaluru; 2023.
2. Meena MS, Singh KM, Jha AK. Impact of Krishi Vigyan Kendras on adoption of improved agricultural technologies. Indian J Ext Educ. 2018;54(3):65-69.
3. Meena MS, Singh KM. Socio-economic determinants of livelihood security among smallholders. Agric Ext Rev. 2020;32(2):20-25.
4. NABARD. All India Rural Financial Inclusion Survey - 2022. National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai; 2022.
5. Narayanan S, Patel R, Thorat R. Role of farmer organizations in improving market participation of smallholders. Indian J Agric Econ. 2021;76(3):411-425.
6. National Horticulture Board. Horticultural Statistics and Production Practices: Tomato. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2024.
7. Rani S, Patil K, Kumar M. On-farm evaluation of Arka Rakshak hybrid under semi-arid tropics. Indian J Hortic Sci. 2024;81(2):145-151.
8. Rogers EM. Diffusion of innovations. 5th ed. New York: Free Press; 2003.
9. Sahu R, et al. Comparative yield performance of improved tomato hybrids under farmers' field conditions. Veg Sci. 2023;50(4):563-570.
10. Samui SK, Maitra S, Roy DK, Mandal AB, Saha D. Technology gap, adoption, and extent of yield gap in groundnut. J Indian Soc Coastal Agric Res. 2000;18(2):180-183.
11. Singh K, Meena MS. Social participation and its role in technology dissemination. Agric Ext Rev. 2019;31(1):56-59.
12. Singh K, Meena MS, Kumar R. Adoption of improved tomato production technologies by farmers in Vidarbha region. Indian J Ext Educ. 2018;54(2):45-50.
13. Singh K, Meena MS, Kumar R. Farmers' education and adoption of agricultural innovations: Evidence from India. Int J Agric Sci. 2019;15(2):121-126.
14. Singh K, Meena MS, Sharma P. Irrigation management and yield optimization in tomato. J Hortic Sci. 2019;14(1):12-18.
15. Singh R, Meena MS, Sharma P. Age and adoption behaviour of farmers in relation to improved farm practices. Indian J Ext Educ. 2014;50(1&2):67-70.
16. Sundaramari M, Ramasubramanian M. Role of extension contact in improving adoption behaviour of farmers. Indian Res J Ext Educ. 2017;17(2):29-33.
17. Thakare UG, Ingle PO. Development and standardization of socio-economic status scale. Indian J Ext Educ. 2007;4:8-16.
18. Thorat R, Meena MS, Patel R. Impact of KVK interventions on farmers' knowledge and adoption. J Ext Syst. 2022;38(1):45-51.