Effect of planting techniques and weed management practices on yield and economics of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.)

Introduction

Finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.), also known as ragi, is a hardy, climate-resilient millet crop widely grown in India and Africa for grain and fodder (Kumar and Paramasivan, 2020) [4] . It is nutritionally superior, rich in calcium (344 mg/100 g), dietary fiber (15-20%), and essential amino acids (Gull et al., 2014) [5] , making it valuable in managing lifestyle diseases (Gurung et al., 2023) [6] . Karnataka leads in cultivation, contributing over 60% to national production (Shubhashree et al., 2023) [9] . Despite its potential, yields remain low due to poor agronomic practices (Gavit et al., 2017) [7] . Planting methods like broadcasting and random transplanting result in uneven spacing and reduced productivity (Bhatta et al., 2017) [8] . Proper spacing improves nutrient use and crop growth (Bhowmik et al., 2012) [12] . Additionally, finger millet is highly susceptible to early weed competition, causing 34-62% yield losses if not controlled timely (Prasad et al., 1991; Manjunath and Muniyappa, 1990) [11,10] . Labour-intensive hand weeding is costly and often delayed (Nyende, 2001) [13] , prompting the need for efficient weed management. Herbicides, especially low-dose formulations, offer effective and economical weed control with minimal environmental impact (Guruprasanna et al., 2004; Devi et al., 2024) [14,15] . To boost productivity and profitability in finger millet, scientific evaluation of planting techniques and integrated weed management is essential, especially under rainfed and resourcelimited conditions (Pradhan et al., 2014) [2] .

Materials and Methods

A field experiment was undertaken during Kharif 2024-25 season at the instructional farm, Dr. Sharadchandra Pawar College of Agriculture, Baramati, District Pune, Maharashtra, India. Geographically, the area was situated between 18o13' North latitude and 74o54' East longitude. The experiment was conducted in a split plot design with 4 main plot treatments (planting techniques) and 5 sub-plot treatments (weed management practices), comprised a total of 20 treatment combinations, replicated 3 times. The main plot treatments included: S1 -Direct seeding at 30 cm × 10 cm spacing, S2 -Direct seeding at 30 cm × 30 cm spacing, S3 -Transplanting at 30 cm × 10 cm spacing and S4 -Transplanting at 30 cm × 30 cm spacing. The sub-plot treatments comprised different weed management strategies, which were: T1 -Pre-emergence application of Oxyfluorfen 23.5% EC at 80 g ha⁻¹ followed by one hand weeding at 40 DAS/DAT, T2 -Post-emergence application of Bispyribac-sodium 10% SC at 20 g ha⁻¹ followed by one hand weeding at 40 DAS/DAT, T3 -Hand weeding on 20 DAS/DAT followed by one hand weeding at 40 DAS/DAT, T4 -Weed free check and T5 -Weedy check. Pre-emergence herbicide spray done on 2 DAS and post emergence on 20 DAS.

Result and discussion Yield attributes and yield Effect of planting techniques

The data (Table 1, Fig. 1) on yield-attributing characters and yield of finger millet as influenced by different planting techniques revealed significant variations. Among all the planting techniques, transplanting at 30 cm × 30 cm spacing (S4) treatment recorded the highest number of earheads plant-1 (7.15), maximum number of fingers earhead-1 (8.66), highest grain weight plant-1 (44.24 g) and test weight (5.71 g). The better performance under wider spaced transplanting is likely due to improved air circulation, better light penetration, and less competition between plants. This allowed each plant to grow more vigorously and utilize available resources more efficiently. These observations are in line with the findings of Ahiwale et al., (2011) [1] and Bhatta et al., (2017) [8] reported similar improvements in yield attributes under transplanting methods with wider spacing. Similarly in the yield (Table 2, Fig. 2) transplanting at 30 cm × 30 cm produced the highest grain yield (23.51 q ha⁻¹), straw yield (49.00 q ha⁻¹), biological yield (72.50 q ha⁻¹) and also recorded a harvest index (32.29%). The lowest grain yield (15.49 q ha⁻¹), straw yield (33.79 q ha⁻¹), biological yield (49.28 q ha⁻¹) and lower harvest index (30.98%) were recorded under direct seeding at 30 cm × 10 cm. The overall improvement in yield under transplanting may be due to better plant establishment, healthier tillering, and more effective use of nutrients and moisture. These results are strongly supported by earlier studies from Pradhan et al., (2014) [2] and Hebbal et al., (2018) [16] .

Effect of weed management practices

Weed management practices significantly influenced the yield attributes and yield of finger millet (Table 1, Fig. 1). Among all treatments, the weed-free check (T4) recorded the highest number of earheads plant-1 (4.84), number of fingers earhead-1 (8.51), grain weight plant-1 (36.63 g) and test weight (5.77 g). While this was statistically similar to two hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS/DAT and PE application of PE application of oxyfluorfen fb hand weeding at 40 DAS/ DAT. The weedy check (T5) produced the lowest values across all yield traits, indicating the severe negative impact of unchecked weed competition during the early growth phase of the crop. Weeds not only compete for essential resources like light, water, and nutrients but also create an unfavorable microenvironment that hampers crop development. This is in agreement with earlier findings by Prasad et al., (1991) [11] and Manjunath and Muniyappa (1990) [10] , who reported yield losses up to 60% in finger millet under severe weed infestation. The yield data (Table 2, Fig. 2) followed a similar trend. The weed-free check gave the highest grain yield (24.11 q ha⁻¹), straw yield (48.81 q ha⁻¹), and biological yield (72.92 q ha⁻¹), with a harvest index of 33.03%. However, these values were statistically at par with two other effective treatments hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS/DAT (T3) and pre-emergence application of oxyfluorfen followed by hand weeding at 40 DAS/DAT (T1). These results highlight the efficiency of combining herbicides with manual weeding, as both treatments provided a relatively weed-free environment during the crop's critical growth stages. Similar results were reported by Bhargavi et al., (2016) [17] found that integrated weed management strategies, especially those combining chemical and manual methods, significantly improved the yield of finger millet. Additionally, Shubhashree et al., (2023) [9] emphasized that early and timely weed control is essential for achieving optimum productivity, particularly in slow-growing crops like finger millet.

Interaction effect

Significantly highest grain weight plant-1 (53.81 g), grain yield (27.91 q ha⁻¹), straw yield (56.90 q ha⁻¹) and biological yield (84.81 q ha⁻¹) recorded under treatment combination transplanting at 30 × 30 cm with weed free check recorded minimum weed dry matter. This treatment was closely followed by transplanting at 30 × 30 cm with two hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS/ DAT and transplanting at 30 × 30 cm with PE application of oxyfluorfen fb hand weeding at 40 DAS/ DAT.

Economics Effect of planting techniques

The economic analysis revealed that transplanting at 30 × 30 cm spacing emerged as the most profitable planting technique, recording the highest gross returns of ₹1,22,542.79 ha⁻¹, net returns of ₹57,806.33 ha⁻¹, and a B:C ratio of 1.88. This was closely followed by the transplanting technique at 30 × 10 cm, which also showed favourable economic outcomes. On the contrary, direct seeding at 30 × 10 cm spacing resulted in the lowest economic performance, with gross returns of ₹80,983.26 ha⁻¹, net returns of ₹14,969.49 ha⁻¹, and a B:C ratio of 1.21. However, the lowest cost of cultivation was observed in direct seeding at 30 × 30 cm, likely due to reduced labour and input requirements. (Table 3, Fig. 3) The superior economic returns in transplanting can be attributed to better crop establishment, reduced intra-plant competition, and enhanced nutrient uptake, ultimately resulting in higher yield and profit margins. These results align with the findings of Hebbel et al., (2018).

Effect of weed management practices

Among the weed management practices, the weed free check recorded the highest gross returns of ₹1,25,451.69 ha⁻¹, which was statistically comparable with two hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS/DAT. However, the pre-emergence application of oxyfluorfen followed by one hand weeding at 40 DAS/DAT emerged as the most economical treatment, generating net returns of ₹55,344.14 ha⁻¹ and the highest B:C ratio of 1.90 (Table 3, Fig. 3). These results were at par with the treatment involving two hand weeding at 20 and 40 DAS/DAT indicating that both approaches were effective in improving profitability. In contrast, the weedy check resulted in the lowest economic returns, with a gross income of only ₹52,329.81 ha⁻¹ and net returns of ₹1,939.71 ha⁻¹, despite incurring the lowest cost of cultivation (₹50,390.11 ha⁻¹). The poor performance of this treatment was largely due to heavy weed infestation, which severely impacted crop growth and yield. These findings are supported by Pradhan et al., (2010) [2] and Kunjur et al., (2019) [3] .

Interaction effect

Treatment transplanting at 30 × 30 cm with weed free check recorded highest gross returns (₹1,45,292.92 ha⁻¹). Whereas, transplanting at 30 × 30 cm with pre-emergence application of oxyfluorfen followed by one hand weeding at 40 DAS/DAT recorded highest net returns (₹72,826.93 ha⁻¹). This interaction proved superior in maximizing profitability.

Conclusion

It is concluded that transplanting at 30 × 30 cm with weed free found superior in terms of yield attributes and yield, Whereas, transplanting at 30 × 30 cm with pre-emergence application of oxyfluorfen 23.5% EC at 80 g ha-1 fb one hand weeding at 40 DAS/ DAT observed best economics returns.

References

1. Ahiwale PH, Chavan LS, Jagtap DN, Mahadkar UV, Gawade MB. Effect of establishment methodsand nutrient management on yield attributes and yield of finger millet (Eleusine coracana G.). Crop Research. 2013;45(1to3):612.
2. Pradhan A, Rajput AS, Thakur A. Effect of weed management on growth and yield of finger millet. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2010;42(1and 2):53-6.
3. Kujur S, Singh VK, Gupta DK, Kumar S, Das D, Jena J. Integration of different weed management practices for increasing yield of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn). Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2019;8(2):614-7.
4. Kumar NS, Paramasivan M. Evaluate the establishment techniques on growth and yield of finger millet (Eleusine coracana). Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2020;6:153-5.
5. Gull A, Jan R, Nayik GA, Prasad K, Kumar P. Significance of finger millet in nutrition, health and value-added products: a review. Journal of Environmental Science, Computer Science and Engineering and Technology. 2014;3(3):1601-1608.
6. Gurung SB, Khadka RB, Dhami NB. Effects of fingermillet intensification on yield and disease-resistance in central hills of Nepal. Nepalese Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2023;24:5-21.
7. Gavit HD, Rajemahadik VA, Bahure GK, Jadhav MS, Thorat TN, Kasture MC. Effect of establishment techniques and sowing time on yieldand yield attributes of proso millet. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6(5):1523-8.
8. Bhatta LR, Subedi R, Joshi P, Gurung SB. Effect of crop establishment methods and varieties on tillering habit, growth rate and yield of finger-millet. Agricultural Research and Technology: Open Access Journal. 2017;47(3):367-71.
9. Shubhashree KS, Keshavaiah KV, Shekar BG, Murthy KK. Effect of pre and post emergence herbicide application on growth and yield of direct seeded finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.). Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2023;57(2):378-84.
10. Manjunath BL, Muniyappa TV. Integrated weed management in drill sown finger millet (Eleusine coracana Gaertn.). Indian Journal of weed science. 1990;22(3 and 4):83-5.
11. Prasad RTV, Narasimha N, Dwarakanath N, Munegowda MK, Krishnamurthy K. Integrated weed management in drilled finger millet. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 1991;25(13-19):463.
12. Bhowmik SK, Sarkar MAR, Zaman F. Effect of spacing and number of seedlings per hill on the performance of aus rice cv. NERICA 1 under dry direct seeded rice (DDSR) system of cultivation. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University. 2012;10(2):191-5.
13. Nyende P. Effect of soil fertility and weed management on the performance of finger millet in eastern Uganda. M. Sc. Thesis, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. 2001.
14. Guruprasanna HL, PrabhakaraSetty TK, Nanjappa HV. Efficiency of chlorimuron ethyl in control of weeds in transplanted finger millet. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2004;38(3):289-93.
15. Devi R, Choudhary K, Bochalya RS, Meenakshi. Effect of herbicidal weed management practices on growth characters of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.). International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2024;7(8):262-6.
16. Hebbal N, Ramachandrappa BK, Mudalairiyappa, Thimmegouda MN. Yield and economics of finger millet with establishment methods under different planting geometry and nutrient source. Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultura Research and Devlopment. 2018;33(1):54-8.
17. Bhargavi B, Sunitha N, Swathi P, Ramu YR, Reddy GP. Weed dynamics, growth and yield of transplanted finger millet as influenced by different weed management practices. Annals of Agricultural Research. 2016;37(4):4203.