Nutrient dynamics and quality of chickpea as influenced by varied phosphorus sources and sulphur levels

Introduction

Pulses possess unique characters that augment the biological efficacy of protein and enhance soil fertility via atmospheric nitrogen fixation, rendering them a crucial protein source within dietary frame works. Its deep roots also allow the soil to open up, improving aeration and increasing the organic matter in the soil due to excessive leaf fall (Mrunalini et al. 2022) [23] . It can fix nitrogen about 25-30 kg ha -1 through microbial symbiosis and these minimize dependency on chemical fertilizers (Reddy and Reddy, 2005) [30] . Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) belongs to the Fabaceae family, native to South East Turkey. The word "kikus" in Greek means "force" or "strength". Chickpea is utilized in the form of processed whole seed (powder) and dal, but also used for making a range of sweets, sauces and snacks, which are highly recommended for good health stomach cure illnesses and blood purification (Singh et al. 2018) [35] . All over the world, India is the greatest producer and acreage holder of chickpea. The chickpea crop covers approx. 10.56 m ha area and production of 11.23 m tons with average productivity of 1063 kg/ha in the India (Anonymous, 2022) [3] . It also has 18-22% of protein, 52-70% of carbohydrates, 4-10% of fat, and adequate amounts of nutrients such as calcium, phosphorus, iron and vitamins, is a good source of dietary fibers (Grasso et al. 2022) [11] . Crop growth and development are primarily dependent on the root system's development in which phosphorus plays a crucial role for the growth and development of roots (Malhotra et al. 2018) [20] . In case of leguminous pulse crops, phosphorus is the most abundant nutrient because it is essential for enhancing root growth and development, which triggers their capacity for biological nitrogen fixation. It initiates the lateral and fibrous roots growth, which makes easier to work for rhizobacteria to cause nodulation, and as a result encourages the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen in leguminous crops. Phosphorus is an essential constituent of nucleic acid and energy providing molecules. The accessible most popular form of phosphate is found in phosphatic fertilizers -diammonium phosphate, single super phosphate (SSP), and triple super phosphate (TSP) (Khandelwal et al. 2012) [17] . Rhizobacteria play a crucial role in roots nodulation, leading to enhanced better growth and its development.

A sufficient dose of phosphorus nutrient speeds up the formation and development of pods and the pods matures early (Singh et al. 2018) [37] . Sulphur plays an important role in the photosynthesis, chlorophyll, nutrient metabolism processes and also a vital component for the synthesis of enzymes, vitamins, and proteins in plants (Shah et al. 2022) [32] . Studies on the effects of phosphorus and sulphur on legumes are therefore more crucial than those on nitrogen as the latter is corrected by symbiosis with Rhizobium bacteria. Thus, the present study of phosphorus and sulphur nutrients to legumes is higher valuable than that of nitrogen, but later stage is being fixed by Rhizobacterial symbiosis (Jamal et al. 2010) [15] . In addition, nowadays sulphur is most recognized as major plant nutrient, along with nitrogen (N), Phosphorous (P) and potassium (K). Sulphur has numerous oxidizing functions in soil and plant nutrition and constituent of certain amino acids such as methionine, cystine and cysteine with Fe-S proteins known as ferredoxin (Narayan et al. 2023) [24] . The acidity produced by ox important role in photosynthesis, chlorophyll to solubilize plant nutrients and reclamation of alkali soils. Sulphur is also known to promote nodulation in legumes thereby triggering the N fixation. Gypsum is the preferred and suitable source of sulphur, because of diverse role in soil especially in saline and alkaline soils (Kheir et al. 2018) [18] . The present research study entitled "nutrient dynamics and quality of chickpea as influenced by varied phosphorus sources and sulphur levels" was carried out to know the effects of phosphorus and sulphur on nutrient content, uptake and quality of chickpea.

Materials and Methods

Experimental site

The existing study was carried out during Rabi, 2021 at the Instructional Farm, COA, SKRAU, Bikaner, Rajasthan. In the research study plot size was 4.2 m x 4.0 m, under sandy loam texture which was lightly alkaline in reaction, very low organic carbon 0.09, available nitrogen 115.4 kg ha -1 , phosphorus 14.5 kg ha -1 and sulphur 7.3 kg ha -1 but medium in available potassium 212.35 kg ha -1 . The GNG-1851 cultivar was taken under 30 cm x 10 cm geometry.

Treatment details and its application

The 12 treatment combinations were applied as basal dose under factorial randomized block design with three replications. The treatment details are given in the table below: The phosphorus was applied through most availability form DAP, SSP and PROM fertilizer and weighted quantity of gypsum for sulphur was applied as per treatment combinations.

Crop cultivation details

The field was prepared after harvest of pre sown kharif crop with the help of ploughing thoroughly with tractor drawn lough disk followed by cross harrowing and planking. The standard package of practices was followed throughout during crop growth period.

Plant analysis

In the present analysis at the time of threshing, seed and straw samples were collected from each plot as per treatment wise and washed, dried in oven at 60-85 °C temperature till constant weight was obtained. The samples were then separately powdered using a Willey Mill and the contents of Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and potassium were measured as per the standard procedures listed below.

Nitrogen: Plant samples were crushed, digested with sulfuric acid and hydrogen peroxide in digestion block and observed brown to red color after adding Nessler's reagent, and was estimated by a colorimetric method (Snell and Snell, 1939) [37] . A proportion of nitrogen was computed and expressed in per cent.

Phosphorus:

The Vanadomolybdo phosphoric acid yellow color method was used to assess the phosphorus content from seed and straw of chickpea and samples were digested with Di-acid (HNO3: HClO4) mixture (Jackson, 1973) [14] . The intensity of color was tested in a spectrophotometer.

Potassium: A flame photometer was used to measure the potassium level of samples digested in Di-acid. The strength of emission is proportional to the concentration of K, which is measured in a flame photometer using a K filter, when potassium atoms are excited in a flame and release a flamespecific wavelength (Jackson, 1973) [14] .

Protein content: The protein content in seed was measured by multiplying the percentage of nitrogen concentration in seed by 6.25 (A.O.A.C., 1960) [1] .

Nutrient uptake :

The nutrient uptake was measured by the following formula.

Nutrient uptake = Percent nutrient content in seed or straw x Seed or straw yield (kg ha^(-1))/100 Net returns: The cost of cultivation for each treatment was analysed from the gross returns worked out for the respective treatment to retain at net returns per treatment.

Net returns = Gross return-cost of cultivation

Benefit: Cost ratio

In the present study, benefit: cost ratio was calculated to ascertain economic viability of the treatment using formula: B:C ratio = Net returns (ha -1 ) / Cost of cultivation (ha -1 )

Statistical analysis

In the statistical analysis, researcher used to methodology described by Panse and Sukhatme (1985) [25] was followed to statistically analyze the data collected for different treatment in order to analyze the significance of variance level at 5%. The "F" test was determined at 5% percent and one percent levels of significance after the crucial differences were computed to evaluate the significance of treatment means.

Results and Discussion Nutrients Nitrogen, Phosphorous and potash content as affected by Phosphorus Sources

The data presented in table 1, apparently it was observed that the nutrient N, P and K in seed and straw of chickpea significantly affected by various phosphorus sources. Among the sources of phosphorus and application through PROM significantly increased the nutrient content in seed and straw as compared to DAP and SSP. However, potassium content in seed and straw was found non-significant with different sources of phosphorus. Application of P2O5 (32 kg) through PROM boosting the Nitrogen, Phosphorous and potassium content their absorption in seed and straw as compared to 32 kg P2O5 ha -1 through DAP and SSP. The physico-chemical properties, fertility status and microbial biomass and their population in soil were all enhanced by the addition of PROM, and as a result, these the nutrients become readily available for crop. The well-developed root system of the plant may have contributed to the rise in nitrogen content by making more phosphorus available to soil microorganisms. As a result, promotes the growth of Rhizobacteria with enhances atmospheric biological nitrogen fixation that's improve nitrogen content (Tondan, 1991) [39] . Fertility status of the soil which was found to be deficient in N and P but medium in K, may be responsible for the improved phosphorus availability in the soil, which boosted macronutrient content with P fertilization. Increased K buildup in the crop was the outcome of enhanced plant root systems brought about by increased nutrient availability. The findings of many researches were in agreement with this investigation. Here some of the findings of Singh et al. (2015) [34] , Aechra et al. (2017) [2] , Yadav et al. (2017) [41] and Bairwa et al. (2019) [5] , Ramamoorthy and Ariraman (2023) [28] are in agreement with these results.

Nutrient uptake by seed and straw

The data existing in table 2, revealed that increase in nutrient uptake by chickpea was observed on with various sources of phosphorus. The application of 32 kg P2O5 ha -1 through PROM significantly increased the uptake of nitrogen by 39.01, 20.54 per cent in seed, 27.62, 14.10 per cent in straw and 34.60, 18.09 per cent total uptake by plant of chickpea, phosphorus by 51.19, 25.00 per cent in seed, 41.07, 21.66 cent in straw and 46.34, 21.66 per cent total uptake and potassium uptake by 39.25, 17.60 per cent in seed, 24.75, 13.83 per cent in straw and 26.88, 14.41 per cent total uptake by plant of chickpea as compared to 32 kg P2O5 ha -1 through DAP and SSP, respectively. This might be due to application of phosphorus through PROM increased the yield and nutrient content in seed and straw of chickpea. Thus, higher yields and nutrient content in seeds and straw have led to enhance uptake of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium. Application of Rhizobacteria formulation on roots may be the cause of the increase in protein content of seed linked to improved nitrogen availability, hence enhancing nitrogen uptake in crop. Additionally, PROM has been shown to improve the physical state of soil, which enhances nutrient intake. The findings of Singh et al. (2015) [34] , Aechra et al. (2017) [2] , Yadav et al. (2017) [41] and Bairwa et al. (2019) [5] and Karada et al. (2023) [16] are in agreement with these results.

Quality parameter

In the analysis, the data shown in table 1, that application of 32 kg P2O5 ha -1 through PROM increased the protein content in seed significantly by 8.93 and 4.97 per cent, respectively as compared to DAP and SSP, respectively. The higher protein content in seed that has been linked to increased nitrogen availability could be the result of Rhizobia properly establishing on roots, which would increase nitrogen uptake of crop. Application of PROM is known to improve the physical state of the soil, which enhances the protein content. According to Bairwa et al. (2019 [5] , Kumar et al. (2023) [19] , Waghmare et al. (2024) [40] and Manoj et al. (2023) [21] these results are consistent with their findings.

Economics: A significant increase in net returns was observed with application of different phosphorus sources. The highest net returns (₹87206) was recorded with the application of 32 kg P2O5 ha -1 through PROM, which was higher by 61183, 71313 over 32 kg P2O5 ha -1 through DAP and SSP, respectively.

Nutrients Nitrogen, Phosphorous and potassium as affected by different sulphur level

The data presented in table 1, showed that nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) content in seed and straw of chickpea was found non-significant due to different levels of sulphur. However, the rise in sulphur levels had no discernible effect on N, P and K content of seed and straw. These results are in line with those of Singh et al. (2015) [34] , Aechra et al. (2017) [2] , Yadav et al. (2017) [41] , Bairwa et al. (2019) [5] and Ramamoorthy and Ariraman (2023) [28] .

Nutrient uptake as affected by sulphur

In this study, the application of sulphur approximately 40 kg ha -1 was found significantly higher in the case of nutrient (nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium) uptake by chickpea over control and 20 kg ha -1 but it remains at par with 60 kg ha -1 sulphur. It also revealed that 40 kg ha -1 of sulphur can be a better strategy for the supplementation of nutrients presented as table 2. Nutrient uptake and accumulation in vegetative parts may have risen due to increased nutrition availability in the root zone and increased cellular metabolic activity. When fertilizer was applied, there would be an increase in the amount of nutrients absorbed as a function of biomass production and biomass's nutrient content. Bahadur and Tiwari (2014) [4] reported that an increase in sulphur application up to 30 kg ha -1 significantly higher content and uptake of the nitrogen, phosphorus and sulphur both in seed and straw of chickpea as compared to 15 kg ha -1 and control. According to Chiaiese et al. (2004) [6] applying sulphur to chickpea increased the amount of sulphur present in both grain and stover. Das (2017) [7] , also mentioned that sulphur and nitrogen worked together to enhance the uptake of other nutrients. Sulphur application increased the number of root nodules along with nitrogen fixation (Scherer et al. 2006) [31] , which may have encouraged the production of more aboveground dry matter, increased nutrient uptake, which in turn raised nutrient content in grain and stover along with better seed and stover production. These findings regarding the total uptake of nutrients are also evaluated by the researchers (Dharwe et al. (2019) [9] , Italiya et al. (2019) [13] , Singh and Singh (2012) [12] and Hadole et al. (2024) [12] .

Quality parameter

Sulphur is a constituent of protein and other valuable substances like oil, hence the application of sulphur observed a positive result on an increase in protein content in seeds of chickpea. Srinivasulu et al. (2015) [38] mentioned that the application of 20 and 40 kg ha -1 of sulphur enhanced the protein content by 7.5 and 8.0% respectively, as compared the control. Das et al. (2016) [8] also studied that regardless of applying 20 kg ha -1 of sulphur greatly enhanced the protein content upto 3%. These result's relation to protein content is in complete supported with Mir et al. (2013) [22] and Patel et al. (2014) [26] . An higher in protein content with respect to application of increased doses of sulphur, due to increased root activity and translocation of higher nitrogen and sulphur resulting in the synthesis of more sulphur-containing amino acids such as methionine, cysteine and cystine (Ramkala and Gupta, 1999) [29] . The data presented in table 1, reveals that highest protein content in seed was found with application of 60 kg S ha -1 , but increased non-significantly than application of 40, 20 kg S ha -1 and control. These results align with the findings of Patel et al. (2023) [27] , Manoj et al. (2023) [21] and Dautaniya et al. (2023) [10] .

Economics

Net returns were increased significantly influenced by the level of Sulphur from 0 upto 40 kg ha -1 . Application of sulphur at 40 kg ha -1 significantly increased the net returns ( 82990) over control and 20 kg ha -1 , respectively. Benefit-cost ratio increased significantly with increase in level of Sulphur from 0 upto 40 kg ha -1 . Application of sulphur at 40 kg ha -1 measured highest benefit cost ratio (2:34) as compared to control of 20 kg ha -1 .

Conclusion

In the study, from the existing experiment, it is concluded that the application of 32 kg ha 1 P2O5 through PROM and 40 kg ha -1 of sulphur gave the better results as comparison to other remaining treatments. The significantly higher nutrients content and uptake was observed with the application of 32 P2O5 kg ha -1 through PROM and 40 kg ha -1 of sulphur under sandy loam soil of Bikaner region. It can be a better strategy in nutrient deficient areas for the supplementation of phosphorus and sulphur.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgmentAll the facilities and resources during entire research were provided by the Instructional Farm, Department of Agronomy, COA, Swami Keshwanand Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Rajasthan-334006 (India).

References

1. AOAC. Official methods of analysis. 9th ed. Washington DC: Association of Official Agricultural Chemists; 1960. p.119.
2. Anonymous. Rajasthan Agricultural Statistics At a Glance. Jaipur: DOR, Rajasthan; 2022. p.112-116.
3. Bahadur L, Tiwari DD. Nutrient management in mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) through sulphur and biofertilizers. Legume Res. 2014;37(2):180-187.
4. Bairwa PC, Sammauria R, Gupta KC. Direct and residual effect of PROM on productivity, nutrient uptake, soil properties and economics under clusterbean-wheat cropping system. J Soil Salinity Water Qual. 2019;11(1):84-89.
5. Chiaiese P, Ohkama-Ohtsu N, Molvig L, Godfree R, Dove H, Hocart C, et al. Sulphur and nitrogen nutrition influence the response of chickpea seeds to an added, transgenic sink for organic sulphur. J Exp Bot. 2004;55(404):1889-1901.
6. Das SK. Effect of phosphorus and sulphur on yield attributes, yield, nodulation and nutrient uptake of green gram [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. Legume Res. 2017;40(1):138-143.
7. Das SK, Biswas B, Jana K. Effect of farm yard manure, phosphorus and sulphur on yield parameters, yield, nodulation, nutrient uptake and quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). J Appl Nat Sci. 2016;8(2):545-549.
8. Dharwe DS, Dixit HC, Dotaniya CK, Khandagle A, Mohbe S, Doutaniya RK. Effect of phosphorus and sulphur on the yield and nutrient content of green gram. Int J Chem Stud. 2019;7(2):01-05.
9. Doutaniya RK, Dotaniya CK, Singh N, Dautaniya H, Lata M, Mohbe S, et al. Effect of intercropping systems with different levels of sulphur on protein content, nitrogen uptake and yield attributes of mungbean. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2023;35(4):42-50.
10. Grasso N, Lynch NL, Arendt EK, O'Mahony JA. Chickpea protein ingredients: A review of composition, functionality, and applications. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 2022;21(1):435-452.
11. Hadole SS, Sarap PA, Sarode M, Reddy YA, Aage AB, Nandukar SD, et al. Effect of sulphur application on yield, nutrient uptake and quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Int J Environ Clim Change. 2024;14(2):106-120.
12. Italiya JH, Jadav NJ, Rathod SV, Viradiya MB. Effect of sulphur and zinc on yield and chemical composition of greengram. Int J Chem Stud. 2019;7(3):364-368.
13. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.; 1973. p.151-154.
14. Jamal A, Moon YS, Zainul Abdin M. Sulphur-a general overview and interaction with nitrogen. Aust J Crop Sci. 2010;4(7):523-529.
15. Karada MS, Singh Y, Mishra R, Agnihotri D, Patel KK, Yadav NK, et al. Enhancing nutrient content and uptake in chickpea through phosphorus and PSB inoculation in custard apple based agri-horti system. Int J Environ Clim Change. 2023;13(11):2419-2428.
16. Khandelwal R, Choudhary SK, Khangarot SS, Jat MK, Singh P. Effect of inorganic and biofertilizers on productivity and nutrients uptake in cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp]. Legume Res. 2012;35(3):235-238.
17. Kheir A, Shabana M, Seleiman M. Effect of gypsum, sulfuric acid, nano-zeolite application on saline-sodic soil properties and wheat productivity under different tillage types. J Soil Sci Agric Eng. 2018;9(12):829-838.
18. Kumar D, Bochalya RS, Mehta S, Menia M, Patel NA. Effect of different sources of phosphorus on protein content, soil fertility and yield of greengram. Int J Environ Clim Change. 2023;13(7):700-706.
19. Malhotra H, Vandana, Sharma S, Pandey R. Phosphorus nutrition: plant growth in response to deficiency and excess. Plant Nutr Abiotic Stress Tolerance. 2018:171-190.
20. Manoj MK, Meena H, Yadav RK, Yadav VK, Ghasil BP, Danga S. Productivity, profitability and quality of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] influenced by phosphorus and sulphur fertilization. Legume Res. 2023:1-5.
21. Mir AH, Lal SB, Salmani M, Abid M, Khan I. Growth, yield and nutrient content of black gram (Vigna mungo) as influenced by levels of phosphorus, sulphur and phosphorus solubilizing bacteria. South Asian Assoc Reg Coop J Agric. 2013;11(1):1-6.
22. Mrunalini K, Behera B, Chandana P, Patnaik GP, Modi RU, Saraswat A, et al. Legumes to reduce ecological footprints for climate-smart cropping systems. Adv Legumes Sustain Intensif. 2022:403-420.
23. Narayan OP, Kumar P, Yadav B, Dua M, Johri AK. Sulfur nutrition and its role in plant growth and development. Plant Signal Behav. 2023;18(1):2030082.
24. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical methods for agricultural workers. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 1985.
25. Patel HK, Patel PM, Suthar JV, Patel MR. Yield, quality and post-harvest nutrient status of chickpea as influenced by application of sulphur and phosphorus fertilizer management. Int J Sci Res Publ. 2014;4(7):2250-3153.
26. Patel PK, Jadav NJ, Gohil VKN. Direct effects of potassium, sulphur and KSB on growth, yield and quality of direct seeded rice under direct seeded rice-chickpea cropping system. Pharma Innov J. 2023:846-851.
27. Ramamoorthy P, Ariraman R. Effect of phosphorus and sulphur application on growth, yield attributes, nutrient uptake, quality and economics of blackgram (Vigna mungo L.): A review. Agric Rev. 2023;44(2):252-258.
28. Ramkala, Gupta SP. Effect of source and level of sulphur on yield and quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian J Agron. 1999;37(1):112-114.
29. Reddy TY, Reddy GHS. Principles of agronomy. New Delhi: Kalyani Publishers; 2005.
30. Scherer HW, Pacyna S, Manthey N, Schulz M. Sulphur supply to peas (Pisum sativum L.) influences symbiotic N2 fixation. Plant Soil Environ. 2006;52(2):72-77.
31. Shah SH, Islam S, Mohammad F. Sulphur as a dynamic mineral element for plants: A review. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2022;22(2):2118-2143.
32. Singh D, Singh H. Effect of phosphorus and zinc nutrition on yield nutrient uptake and quality of chickpea. Ann Plant Soil Res. 2012;14(1):71-74.
33. Singh K, Manohar RS, Choudhary R, Yadav AK, Sangwan A. Response of different sources and levels of phosphorus on yield, nutrient uptake and net returns on mungbean under rainfed condition. Agric Sci Dig-Ann Res J. 2015;35(4):263-268.
34. Singh R, Singh D, Pratap T, Singh AK, Singh H, Dubey S. Effect of different levels of phosphorus, sulphur and biofertilizers inoculation on nutrient content and uptake of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Int J Chem Stud. 2018;6:2574-2579.
35. Singh R, Pratap T, Singh D, Singh G, Singh AK. Effect of phosphorus, sulphur and biofertilizers on growth attributes and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;7(2):3871-3875.
36. Snell FB, Snell CT. Colorimetric method of analysis. New York: IIAD Vannostr & Co. Inc.; 1939.
37. Srinivasulu DV, Solanki RM, Kumari CR, Babu MV. Nutrient uptake, yield and protein content of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as influenced by irrigation and sulphur levels in medium black soils. Int J Agric Sci. 2015;11:5458.
38. Tondon HLS. Fertilizer equivalents of FYM, green manures and biofertilizers. Fertil News. 1991;36(12):69-79.
39. Waghmare MS, Ugile SK, Chavan PG, Waghmode BG. Effect of phosphate solubilizing microorganisms and phosphorus levels on growth, yield and quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in inceptisol. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2024;36(5):432-440.
40. Yadav KR, Manohar RS, Kumawat SR, Yadav VK. Effect of phosphorus sources and phosphorus solubilizing microorganism on growth and yield of mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. Chem Sci Rev Lett. 2017;6(22):1152-1155.