Effect of organic and inorganic pre-sowing treatments on phenotypic characteristics in pea (Pisum sativum L.)

Introduction

Field pea (Pisum sativum L.) belongs to leguminous family Fabaceae. It is cultivated in temperate regions at high elevations or during cool season in warm regions throughout the world. Pea is diploid with chromosome number 2n=14. India ranks third in area after China and USSR under pea (vegetable and pulses pea) cultivation (Singh et al. 2017) [3] . In India, the total area covered by pea is 0.442 million hectares with the production of 4.239 million tonnes whereas, productivity is 9.5 tonne per hectare. Uttar Pradesh is the highest producing state in India. In Uttar Pradesh, area under this crop is 0.178 million hectares with the production of 1.953 million tonnes and productivity 10.97 tonne per hectare (Anonymous, 2015). India is the largest producer of pulses (about 18.5 million tons) and processor of pulses in the world and also imports around 3.5 million tonnes. According to Indian Institute of Pulses research, Indian population is expected to touch 1.68 billion by 2030 and pulse requirement for the year 2030 is projected 32 million tonnes with required annual growth rate of 4.2 percent. The major pulse producing states in India are M.P. (23%), U.P. (18%), Maharashtra (14%), Rajasthan (9%), and Karnataka (6%) and rest (30%) Pulses are produced in other states of India. The major problem which limits field pea productivity is the crop establishment under rainfed environment. Other factors such as water logging and drought are the major stressors that limit the crop productivity. Use of quality seed alone has been reported to improve productivity in field pea. The most cost-effective method available for better stand establishment is to sow the seed with high germination which shows quick early growth. The major constraints of good establishment are due to low quality seed in addition to lack of soil moisture (Gurumu and Naylor, 1991) [2] . The crop is cultivated for its tender immature pods for use as vegetables and mature dry pods for use as a pulse. They are major source of protein for vegetarian human diet and improve the soil fertility through fixation of atmospheric nitrogen. Grain legume is the cheapest source of protein for both urban and rural population in tropics as well as in temperate region. (Rachie and Roberts, 1974) [18] These conditions result in poor emergence that may subsequently cause sparse plant stands (Saxena et al. 1997) [4] . Improving the productivity of field pea under rainfed environment is possible through seed priming treatment. Presowing seed treatment including chemical, polymer coating, botanical and priming treatments plays an important role in improve seed performance. Usually, priming leads to improve plant performance through enhancement in vigour, germination and drought tolerance (Kumar et al., 2015) [7] . The seed priming process involves soaking the seed overnight (for about 8 hrs), surface drying them up to initial seed moisture content (Musa et al. 2001) to hasten germination, enhances crop establishment and promotes seedling vigor (Harris et al., 1999) [5] . Seed coating with biological fungicides protects the seed and young seedlings from fungal invasions. The seed treatment with hormones such as gibberellic acid, polyethylene glycol plays an important role in enhancing germination through increased cell division activity. Seed priming with organic substance it is enhancing yield and its important role in sustainable agriculture. To compete with weed species and better seed performance quick and synchronized germination is desirable to set crop successfully. This was achieved by priming, which involves controlled hydration that restricts germination but permit pre germinative physiological and biochemical changes to occur (Bradford et al. 1990; Khan, 1992) [1,6] . Keeping in view the above facts, the present research work was carried out to investigate the effect of different seed priming treatments on the enhancement of seed yield and seed quality attributes in field pea.

Materials and Method

The present study, entitled "Effect of Organic and Inorganic Presowing Treatments on Phenotypic Characteristics in Pea (Pisum sativum L.)", was undertaken during the Rabi season of 2024-25 at Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh. The experiment was arranged in a Randomized Block Design (RBD) with three replications, employing a plot size of 4m². The experimental material comprised twelve treatments, including organic priming with tulsi (Ocimum sanctum) leaf extract, inorganic priming agents such as gibberellic acid (GA₃), polyethylene glycol (PEG6000), and a fungicide (Carbendazim WP @ 5%), along with an untreated control. These treatments were applied across four pea (Pisum sativum L.) varieties-Kali Naina, AP-3, K-6, and Swami Aparna. The field will be organized in 3 replications total 36 plot Each plot will feature three rows, each 2 meters long, with a 10 cm plant-to-plant spacing and row to row 30cm row spacing. The experiment comprised of 12 different pre-sowing seed treatment viz., T1 (KALI NAINA+ control), T2 (AP-3+ control), T3 (K-6 + control), T4 (SWAMI APRNA + control), T5 (KALI NAINA + Carbendazim WP @5%), T6 (AP-3+ Carbendazim WP @5%), T7 (K-6 + Tulsi leaf extract @6%) T8 (SWAMI APRNA + Tulsi leaf extract @6%), T9 (KALI NAINA + PEG6000 @ 5%), T10 (AP-3 + PEG6000 @ 5%), T11 (K-6 + GA₃ @ 10 ppm), T12 (SWAMI APRNA + GA₃ @ 10 ppm).Observations were recorded from five randomly selected representative plants per plot for eighteen morphological and yield-related traits, namely: plant height at 30, 60, and 90 days after sowing (DAS); number of pods per plant; days to 50% flowering; number of branches per plant; number of seeds per pod; total pods per plant; days to maturity; seed yield per plant (g); 1000-seed weight (g); biological yield (kg); and harvest index (%).The recorded data for each trait were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) in accordance with the experimental design to assess the statistical significance of differences among treatments. At 30 days after sowing (DAS), the maximum plant height (45.00 cm) was recorded in K-6 + GA₃ 10 ppm (T₁₁), whereas the minimum height (21.13 cm) was observed in Swami Aprna (T₄). At 60 DAS, the tallest plants (85.17 cm) were produced by Kali Naina + Carbendazim WP 5% (T₅), while the shortest (37.10 cm) occurred in AP-3 + control (T₂). By 90 DAS, Kali Naina + Carbendazim WP 5% (T₅) again attained the greatest stature (121.47 cm), with AP-3 + control (T₂) maintaining the lowest height (39.87 cm). Earliness in flowering was achieved by AP-3 + PEG 5% (T₁₀), reaching 50% flowering in 70.33 days, whereas delayed flowering was recorded in Swami Aprna + GA₃ 10 ppm (T₁₂; 95.20 days). The highest number of branches per plant (6.13) was produced by Kali Naina + PEG 5% (T₉), while the lowest (2.00) was in Swami Aprna + GA₃ 10 ppm T₁₂. The maximum seeds per pod (6.50) were recorded in both AP-3 + Carbendazim WP 5% (T₆) and Kali Naina + PEG 5% (T₉), whereas the minimum (6.00) was in AP-3 + control (T₂). Regarding maturity, the earliest crop completion (73.67 days) was noted in T₆ and T₁₀, while the longest duration to maturity (103.00 days) occurred in (T₅). The highest 100-seed weight (31.67 g) was recorded in Kali Naina (T₁), followed by by Kali Naina + Carbendazim WP 5% (T₅) (29.67 g), whereas the lowest (20.00 g) was in T₆. The greatest number of pods per plant (21.17 [17,12,10,11,13,14,18] .

Conclusion

The present study, entitled "Effect of Organic and Inorganic Presowing Treatments on Phenotypic Characteristics in Pea (Pisum sativum L.)", was conducted to evaluate the impact of selected pre-sowing interventions on the growth and yield performance of pea. The experimental framework encompassed organic priming with Tulsi (Ocimum sanctum) leaf extract; inorganic treatments involving gibberellic acid (GA₃), polyethylene glycol (PEG6000), and a fungicidal application of Carbendazim WP @ 5%; in addition to untreated control plots. These treatments were tested across four pea variety-Kali Naina, AP-3, K-6, and Swami Aparna. The highest performance was recorded in Kali Naina primed with PEG6000 @ 10 ppm, which markedly improved yield-contributing traits. Conversely, variety such as AP-3 consistently produced lower yields under minimal or no intervention, reflecting limited genetic potential and the detrimental influence of inadequate agronomic management.

Acknowledgement

The Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University Prayagraj, UP, India is gratefully acknowledged by the authors for providing all necessary facilities and resources.

Conflicts of Interest Statement

We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. The research was fully done in independently not any financial support involved.

Author contribution Contributed to the conception and design of the analysis paper Contributed to the data collection Data and analysis tools wrote the analysed paper. Also evaluated the paper and then suggested to publish in this journal.

References

1. Bradford KJ, Steiner JJ, Trawatha SE. Seed priming influence on germination and emergence of pepper seed lot. Crop Sci. 1990;28:1001-1005.
2. Gurumu M, Naylor REL. Effects of low water potential on germination of two sorghum varieties. Seed Sci Technol. 1991;19:373-383.
3. Singh A, Jatav AL, Singh P, Singh BA, Singh P, Sharma SK. Effect of seed priming treatments on seed quality parameters and storability of field pea (Pisum sativum L.). J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2017;6(5):161-163.
4. Saxena NP, Saxena MC, Johansen C. Chickpea ideotypes for low-and high-input conditions. In: Asthana AN, Ali M, editors. Recent Advances in Pulses Research. Kanpur: Indian Society of Pulses Research and Development, Indian Institute of Pulse Research (IIPR); 1997. p. 217-231.
5. Harris D, Joshi A, Khan PA, Gothkar P, Sodhi PS. On-farm seed priming in semiarid agriculture: development and evaluation in maize, rice and chickpea in India using participatory methods. Exp Agric. 1999;35:15-29.
6. Khan AA. Pre-plant physiological seed conditioning. Hortic Rev. 1992;14:131-181.
7. Kumar M, Kumar A, Kumar R, Yadav SK, Yadav R, Kumar J. Effect of seed enhancement treatment on field performance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). J Appl Nat Sci. 2015;7(2):557-561.
8. Rachie KO, Roberts LM. Grain legumes of lowland and tropics. Adv Agron. 1974;26:1-132.
9. Singh SK, Tomar BS, Anand A, Kumari S, Prakash K. Effect of growth regulators on growth, seed yield and quality attributes in garden pea (Pisum sativum var. hortense) cv. Pusa Pragati. Indian J Agric Sci. 2018;88(11):1730-1734.
10. Gurmani AR, Wang X, Rafique M, Jawad M, Khan AR, Khan QU, Ahmed R, Fiaz S. Exogenous application of gibberellic acid and silicon to promote salinity tolerance in pea (Pisum sativum L.) through Na⁺ exclusion. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2022;29(6):103305.
11. Javed T, Ali MM, Shabbir R, Anwar R, Afzal I, Mauro RP. Alleviation of copper-induced stress in pea (Pisum sativum L.) through foliar application of gibberellic acid. Biology. 2021;10(2):120.
12. Kumar GV, Rai PK, Jain PA. Influence of pre-sowing seed treatments with biofertilizers and plant growth regulators on growth, yield and yield attributing traits of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) var. Rachna. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2022;34(22):1215-1221.
13. Siddiqui MH, Khan MN, Mohammad F, Khan MMA. Role of nitrogen and gibberellin in the regulation of enzyme activities and in osmoprotectant accumulation in Brassica juncea L. under salt stress. J Agron Crop Sci. 2008;194(3):214-224.
14. Rathod RR, Gore RV, Bothikar PA. Effect of growth regulators on growth and yield of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J Agric Vet Sci. 2015;8(5):36-39.
15. Sharma A, Jain N. A study on effect of gibberellic acid on seed germination of urad bean. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2016;5(4):347-350.
16. Singh A, Jatav AL, Singh P, Singh BA, Singh P, Sharma SK. Effect of seed priming treatments on seed quality parameters and storability of field pea (Pisum sativum L.). J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2017;6(5):161-163.
17. Saxena NP, Saxena MC, Johansen C. Chickpea ideotypes for low-and high-input conditions. In: Asthana AN, Ali M, editors. Recent Advances in Pulses Research. Kanpur: Indian Society of Pulses Research and Development, Indian Institute of Pulse Research (IIPR); 1997. p. 217-231.
18. Abenavoli MR, Leone M, Sunseri F, Bacchi M, Sorgonà A. Root phenotyping for drought tolerance in bean landraces from Calabria (Italy). J Agron Crop Sci. 2015;202(1):1-12.
19. Khan N, Bano A, Ali S, Babar MA. Crosstalk amongst phytohormones from plants and PGPR under biotic and abiotic stresses. Plant Growth Regul. 2020;90:189-203.