Influence of spacing and sowing practices on urdbean growth attributes in the Malwa Region of Madhya Pradesh

Introduction

Urdbean (Vigna mungo L. Hepper), commonly known as black gram, is an important pulse crop belonging to the family Leguminosae (Fabaceae), subfamily Papilionaceae, and genus Vigna, Nair et al., (2024) [25] . It is one of the major grain legumes cultivated in the Indian subcontinent and has been grown in India since ancient times. Urdbean plays a significant role in Indian agriculture due to its adaptability to diverse agro-climatic conditions, short duration, and ability to improve soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation Giri et al., (2024) [13] . Expansion in Urdbean cultivation and utilization has contributed to food security and enhanced income for small and marginal farmers. Urdbean is a diploid, self-pollinated C 3 plant with a chromosome number of 2n = 22 (Bhattacharjee,2024) [5] . It is an annual herbaceous crop possessing a well-developed tap root system with lateral roots bearing nitrogen-fixing nodules (Singh, 2013) [31] . The crop exhibits a dicotyledonous growth habit with erect, semi-erect, or spreading plant types depending on the variety. Urdbean grows well under tropical and subtropical climatic conditions (Hedayetullah and Zaman, 2018) [19] . The crop requires warm weather, with optimum temperatures ranging between 25 and 35°C, and performs best under moderate rainfall of 600-1000 mm. It is sensitive to frost and prolonged waterlogging. Urdbean can be successfully cultivated on a wide range of soils, including loamy, clay loam, and black cotton soils, provided proper drainage is available Sahni et al., (2016) [29] . A soil pH range of 6.0 to 7.5 is considered ideal for optimum growth and development. Nutritionally, Urdbean is a rich source of plant protein, containing about 24-26% protein, 55-60% carbohydrates, 1-1.5% fat, 3-4% minerals, and 4-5% crude fiber Kole et al., (2002) [24] . It is particularly rich in the essential amino acid lysine, which complements cereal-based diets. Urdbean is also a good source of vitamins such as thiamine, riboflavin, and niacin, making it an important component of human nutrition, especially in vegetarian diets. Urdbean is widely used in traditional Indian cuisine. The split seeds are consumed as dal, while the flour is extensively used in the preparation of idli, dosa, vada, papad, and other fermented food products. In addition to its use as food, Urdbean residues serve as valuable fodder for livestock, and the crop contributes to soil health by enhancing organic matter and nitrogen content. India is the largest producer and consumer of Urdbean globally. Major Urdbean-growing states include Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu. In Maharashtra, Urdbean is predominantly cultivated in the Vidarbha and Marathwada regions, where climatic conditions and soil types are favorable Nair et al., (2024) [25] . Adoption of suitable agronomic practices such as ridge and furrow and Broad Bed Furrow (BBF) methods helps in moisture conservation and improves crop performance under rainfed conditions. Plant spacing plays a crucial role in determining the growth and yield of Urdbean, as it influences light penetration, air circulation, nutrient uptake, and moisture utilization Kole et al., (2002) [24] . Optimum plant geometry ensures better crop growth, reduces competition among plants, and enhances yield potential while minimizing the need for excessive inputs. The findings of this study will help farmers identify suitable sowing methods and optimum spacing to improve productivity, resource-use efficiency, and profitability of urdbean cultivation in the region.

Materials and Methods

The present investigation titled "Influence of Sowing Methods and Plant Spacing on Urdbean (Vigna mungo L.) in the Malwa Region (M.P.). The present experiment was conducted at at Crop Research Cafeteria, under Mandsaur University, Mandsaur (Madhya Pradesh). Mandsaur (Madhya Pradesh) which is situated at latitude 24 0 C 4'36.61''N, longitude 75 0 4'9.46'' E and at an altitude of 442.16 meters above the mean sea level. The experiment involved two main plot treatments: B 1 for flat bed sowing and B 2 for raised bed sowing. There were four sub-plot treatments based on spacing: S1 for broadcasting, S 2 for 30×30 cm spacing, S 3 for 45×30 cm spacing, and S 4 for 60×30 cm spacing. The treatment combinations were as follows: T 1: Flat bed + Broadcasting (B 1 S 1 ), T 2: Flat bed + 30×30 cm spacing (B 1 S 2 ), T 3: Flat bed + 45×30 cm spacing (B 1 S 3 ), T 4: Flat bed + 60×30 cm spacing (B 1 S 4 ), T 5: Raised bed + Broadcasting (B 2 S 1 ), T 6: Raised bed + 30×30 cm spacing (B 2 S 2 ), T 7: Raised bed + 45×30 cm spacing (B 2 S 3 ) andT 8: Raised bed + 60×30 cm spacing (B 2 S 4 ). The experiment was laid out using a split plot design with three replications. There were eight treatments in total, and the experiment was conducted in 24 plots. The gross plot size was 3.60 × 3.90 meters, which equals 14.40 m², while the net plot size was 3.0 × 3.90 meters, totaling 11.70 m². The gross plot area was calculated to be 424.70 m². For the Urdbean crop, the recommended fertilizer doses were 20 kg N, 40 kg P, and 20 kg K per hectare. The seed rate used for the experiment was 80 kg per hectare.

Results and Discussion

1. Plant population Data pertaining to plant population at 30 Days After Sowing (DAS) and at harvest, as presented in the (Table -1), indicate the main effects of different sowing methods (flat bed and raised bed) and spacing treatments (broadcasting and various row spacing's) on the plant population in Urdbean (Vigna mungo L.). These factors significantly affected the plant population at both 30 DAS and harvest, with distinct trends observed throughout the growing stages.

Main Effect of Sowing Methods

In general, the raised bed method (B 2 ) showed a consistently higher plant population both at 30 DAS and at harvest compared to the flat bed method (B 1 ). Urdbean sown under raised beds (B 2 ) had a plant population of 25 [, 2, 23] .

Main Effect of Spacing

Among the different sowing method × spacing combinations, significant variations in plant populations were observed.Under the raised bed method (B 2 ), the combination with broadcasting (S 1 ) resulted in the highest plant population at 30 DAS (32.38 plants per square meter), and this remained relatively high at harvest with 29.07 plants per square meter. In contrast, the combination of flat bed method (B 1 ) and 60×30 cm spacing (S 4 ) resulted in the lowest plant population at both stages (13.30 plants per square meter at 30 DAS, decreasing to 12.80 plants per square meter at harvest). It suggests that the plant spacing may not be ideal for maximizing plant establishment in the flat bed method, particularly at a larger distance between plants. The present study is incorporated with the findings of Ghormade et al., (2011) [12] ; Ghasemi et al., (2017) [11] and Rathnayaka et al., (2018) [28] and Kaysha et al., (2018) [22] in Urdbean.

Interaction Effects of Sowing Method and Spacing

The interaction between the sowing method and spacing treatments also revealed significant results. The highest plant population at both 30 DAS and harvest was observed under the raised bed + broadcasting (B 2 S 1 ) treatment, with 32.38 plants per square meter at 30 DAS, decreasing slightly to 29.07 at harvest. Similarly, the flat bed + 45×30 cm spacing (B 1 S 3 ) combination resulted in a good plant population, with 20.59 plants per square meter at 30 DAS, which slightly increased to 19.30 plants per square meter at harvest. On the other hand, the flat bed + 60×30 cm spacing (B 1 S 4 ) combination resulted in the smallest plant population at both stages, with only 13.30 plants per square meter at 30 DAS and 12.80 plants per square meter at harvest. This highlights the importance of selecting appropriate sowing methods and spacing combinations to maximize plant population and ensure optimal crop performance. Similar observations were reported by the findings of Ghasemi et al., (2017) [11] , El-Sayed et al., (2020) [8] ; and Zyada et al., (2021) [33] .

The fresh and dry weight of Urdbean at 30 DAS varied significantly across sowing methods and subplot treatments as presented in (Table-2).

Main Effect of Sowing Methods

Urdbean plants grown on raised beds (B 2 ) had a higher fresh weight (113.91 g) and dry weight (16.87 g) compared to those grown on flat beds (B 1 ), which had a fresh weight of 89.93 g and a dry weight of 14.93 g. Our results substantiate the findings of past studies conducted by Qureshi et al., (2018) [27] and Joseph et al., (2019) [20] .

Main Effect of Spacing

Among the subplot treatments, the plants grown with 30×30 cm spacing (S 2 ) had the highest fresh weight of (114.91 g) and the highest dry weight of (16.97 g) followed by 60×30 cm spacing (S 4 ) showed a fresh weight of (105.21g) and a dry weight of (16.01g) and broadcasting (S 1 ) resulted in a fresh weight of (100.63 g) and a dry weight of (15.81 g). The 45×30 cm spacing (S 3 ) had the lowest fresh weight at (88.87 g) and dry weight at (14.50 g). The evidence we present echoes the results reported by (Asewar et al., 2017 and Singh et al., 2018) [2,30] and Aseefa et al., in Urdbean.

Interaction Effects of Sowing Method and Spacing

The combination of B 2 S 1 (Raised bed + Broadcasting) produced the highest fresh weight (136.02 g) and dry weight (18.63 g) followed by B 2 S 2 (Raised bed + 30×30 cm spacing) resulted in a fresh weight of (124.53g) and a dry weight of (18.29g) and B 2 S 3 (Raised bed + 45×30 cm spacing) resulted in a fresh weight of (123.39 g) and a dry weight of (18.22g). The treatment T 8 B 2 S 4 (Raised bed + 60×30 cm spacing) resulted in the lowest fresh weight (72.27g) and dry weight (13.50 g). The results obtained here are in contrast with the conclusions of (Adhikari and Ramana 2019 and Gulser, 2019) [1,16] and Habde et al., (2025) [18] in Urdbean.

Number of Pods at 90 days after sowing (DAS)

Data pertaining to the number of pods at 90 Days After Sowing (DAS), as presented in the (Table -3

Main Effect of Sowing Methods

In general, the raised bed method (B 2 ) resulted in a higher number 17.65 of pods at 90 DAS compared to the flat bed method (B 1 ) had 17.19 pods at 90 DAS.

Main Effect of Spacing

Among the different spacing treatments, significant variations in the number of pods were observed. The 30×30 cm spacing (S 2 ) treatment led to the highest number of pods at 90 DAS, with a measurement of 18.63, followed by the 30×30 cm spacing, followed by (S 3 ) treatment, which resulted in 18.50 pods. In contrast, the broadcasting treatment (S 1 ) resulted in the lowest number of pods at 90 DAS, with 17.01 pods. In line with the current experiment, the findings suggest as per (Ghasemi et al., 2017 [11] and Kaur et al., (2025) [21] in Urdbean.

Interaction Effects of Sowing Method and Spacing

The interaction between the sowing method and spacing treatments revealed significant differences in the number of pods. The highest number of pods was observed under the treatment T 8 (B 2 S 4 ) raised bed + 60×30 cm spacing combination, with 21.18 pods, followed by treatment T 5 (B 2 S 1 ) raised bed + broadcasting with 19.05 pods, and treatment T 2 B 1 S 2 (Flat bed +30×30 cm spacing) (B 1 S 2 ) with 18.82 pods. However, the minimum number of pods was recorded under the treatment B 2 S 2 (Raised bed + 30×30 cm spacing) with 12.44 pods at 90 DAS. The results obtained here are in contrast with the conclusions of (Adhikari and Ramana 2019 and Gulser, 2019) [1,16] .

Days to 50% flowering

Data pertaining to the number of pods at 90 Days after Sowing (DAS), as presented in the (Table -4), indicate the main effects of different sowing methods (flat bed and raised bed) and spacing treatments (broadcasting and various row spacing) on days to 50% flowering in Urdbean. These factors significantly affected the days to 50% flowering, with distinct trends observed throughout the growing stages. This suggests that the raised bed method may provide a more favorable environment for plant growth and development, leading to earlier flowering. The findings presented here contradict the results reported by (Eseigbe et al.,2024; Essilfie et al.,2024) [9,10] and Kaur et al., (2025) [21] in Urdbean.

Main Effect of Sowing Methods

In general, the raised bed method (B 2 ) resulted in minimum days taken for flowering (36.80) days compared to the flat bed method (B 1 ) which observed (40. 16) at 90 days.The findings presented here contradict the results reported by (Eseigbe et al.,2024; Essilfie et al.,2024; Taksalkar et al.,2024) [9,10,32] in Urdbean.

Main Effect of Spacing

Among the different spacing treatments, significant variations were observed for days to 50% flowering. The 30×30 cm spacing (S 2 ) treatment led to the minimum days to 50% flowering at 90 DAS, with 39.21 days, followed by treatment (S 3 ) 45×30 cm spacing, which observed (40.00) days. In contrast, the treatment (S 1 ) broadcasting treatment resulted maximum (40.69) days. In contrast, the treatment (S 1 ) broadcasting treatment resulted maximum (40.66) days. This suggests that closer spacing may optimize flowering time, possibly by enhancing plant interaction or reducing competition for resources like nutrients and sunlight. Some previously studies also in line with our study as per (Gu et al.,2024 & Chavan et al.,2025) [15,6] and Bansal et al.,2024 [4] in Urdbean.

Interaction Effects of Sowing Method and Spacing

The interaction between the sowing method and spacing treatments revealed significant differences in the days to 50% flowering. The minimum days was observed under the treatment T 8 (B 2 S 4 ) Raised bed + 60×30 cm spacing combination, with (39.05) days, followed by treatment T 4 (B 1 S 4 ) Flat bed +60×30 cm spacing with (39.17) days, and treatment T 6 (B 2 S 2 ) Raised bed + 30×30 cm spacing with (39.33) days. However, the maximum days to 50% flowering was recorded under the treatment T 3 (B 2 S 2 ) flat bed +45×30 cm spacing with (40.69) days.

In contrast, treatment T 5 with raised bed + broadcasting (B 2 S 1 ) resulted in a longer maturity period. This shows that the spacing method, when paired with a suitable sowing method, plays a significant role in determining the maturity timeline. Similar findings were also noticed by (Pereyra et al.,2024; Dos Santos et al., 2024) [26,7] .

Conclusion

The raised bed method (B 2 ) consistently resulted in a higher plant population compared to the flat bed method (B 1 ). The best combination for plant population was raised bed + broadcasting (B 2 S 1 ), while flat bed with wider spacing (60×30 cm) showed the lowest. Urdbeans grown on raised beds (B 2 ) had higher fresh and dry weights than those on flat beds (B 1 ). The raised bed + broadcasting (B 2 S 1 ) combination produced the highest biomass, while raised bed + 60×30 cm spacing (B 2 S 4 ) had the lowest. Raised beds (B 2 ) led to more pods compared to flat beds (B1). The highest pod count was found in the raised bed + 60×30 cm spacing (B 2 S 4 ), while broadcasting (S 1 ) had the lowest. The raised bed method (B 2 ) resulted in earlier flowering. Raised bed + 60×30 cm spacing (B 2 S 4 ) flowered the earliest, while broadcasting (S 1 ) took the longest.

References

1. Adhikari T, Ramana S. Nano fertilizer: its impact on crop growth and soil health. J Res PJTSAU. 2019;47(3):1-11.
2. Asewar BV, Gore AK, Pendke MS, Waskar DP, Gaikwad GK, Chary GR, et al. Broad bed and furrow technique -a climate smart technology for rainfed urdbean of Marathwada region. J Agric Res Technol. 2017;42(3):5-9.
3. Assefa A, Abate M, Haile M, Hunegnaw Y. Optimization of seed proportions of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) and planting patterns for sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.)-mung bean intercropping in Lasta District, North Wollo Zone, Ethiopia. Int J Food Agric Nat Resour. 2025;6(2):45-54.
4. Bansal KK, Sandhu KS, Bharti V, Saha A, Srivastava H, Nesar NA, et al. Influence of varieties and spacings on growth, yield attributes and productivity of pigeonpea. Indian J Agric Res. 2024;58(6):1-6.
5. Bhattacharjee S. Breeding for biotic stress in urdbean through genomics-enabled strategies. In: Genomics-aided breeding strategies for biotic stress in grain legumes. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2024. p. 163-187.
6. Chavan RV, Zanzad RV, Gawande VV, Rathod PGT. Effects of plant growth regulators and micronutrients on quality parameters of soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill). Plant Arch. 2025;25(1):216-222.
7. dos Santos Cunha V, Fipke GM, Conceição GM, Müller TM, Pires JLF, Fulaneti FS, et al. Intraspecific competition in row spacings in urdbean. Emirates J Food Agric. 2024;36:1-8.
8. El-Sayed SA, Algarni AA, Shaban KAH. Effect of NPK nano-fertilizers and compost on soil fertility and root rot severity of urdbean plants caused by Rhizoctonia solani. Plant Pathol J. 2020;19:140-150.
9. Eseigbe OB, Kamara AY, Miko S, Omoigui LO, Solomon R, Adeleke MA, et al. The impact of planting dates on the performance of urdbean varieties [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] in the Nigerian savannas. Agronomy. 2024;14(10):2198.
10. Essilfie ME. Effect of varietal combination and relative time of planting on yield productivity of maize and urdbean intercrop in the forest-savannah transition zone of Ghana. 2024;18(6):60-74.
11. Ghasemi M, Ghorban N, Madani H, Mobasser H, Nouri MZ. Effect of foliar application of zinc nano oxide on agronomic traits of two varieties of rice. Crop Res. 2017;52(6):239-247.
12. Ghormade V, Deshpande MV, Paknikar KM. Perspectives for nano-biotechnology enabled protection and nutrition of plants. Biotechnol Adv. 2011;29:792-803.
13. Giri MD, SJ SN. Enhancing urdbean (Vigna mungo) yield, nutrient uptake and protein content: impact of fertilizer levels, farmyard manure and biofertilizers. J Food Legumes. 2024;37(4):396-403.
14. Grassini P, La Menza NC, Edreira JIR, Monzón JP, Tenorio FA, Specht JE. Urdbean. In: Crop physiology case histories for major crops. London: Academic Press; 2021. p. 282319.
15. Gu Y, Zheng H, Li S, Wang W, Guan Z, Li J, et al. Effects of narrow-wide row planting patterns on canopy photosynthetic characteristics, bending resistance and yield of urdbean in maize-urdbean intercropping systems. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):9361.
16. Gulser F. Effects of iron sources and doses on plant growth criteria in soybean seedlings. Eurasian J Soil Sci. 2019;8(4):298-303.
17. Gupta S, Das A, Pratap A, Gupta DS. Urdbean. In: The beans and the peas. 2021. p. 33-54.
18. Habde S, Dhanasekar P, Souframanien J. Urdbean [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper] breeding. In: Fundamentals of legume breeding: a text for students and practitioners. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2025. p. 101-119.
19. Hedayetullah M, Zaman P. Urd bean (black gram). In: Forage crops of the world. Vol II: Minor forage crops. Oakville: Apple Academic Press; 2018. p. 175-188.
20. Joseph J, Ganga WJ, Hettiarachchi M. A review of the latest in phosphorus fertilizer technology: possibilities and pragmatism. J Environ Qual. 2019;48(1):1300-1313.
21. Kaur D, Singh A, Singh UK. Effect of combined study of land configuration and nutrient management on the performance of blackgram (Vigna mungo L.) in the transGangetic region. J Food Legumes. 2025;38(3):481-485.
22. Kaysha K, Shanka D, Bibiso M. Performance of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) varieties at different NPS rates and row spacing at Kindo Koysha district, Southern Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric. 2020;6(1):1771112.
23. Keisham M, Zimik L, Laishram B, Hajarimayum SS, Khumukcham PS, Yambem S, et al. Effect of varieties and spacing on yield of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] in Bishnupur district of Manipur. Pharma Innov J. 2021;10(1):262-267.
24. Nair RM, Chaudhari S, Devi N, Shivanna A, Gowda A, Boddepalli VN, et al. Genetics, genomics, and breeding of black gram [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper]. Front Plant Sci. 2024;14:1273363.
25. Pereyra VM, Hefley T, Prasad PV, Ciampitti IA. Urdbean seed yield, protein, and oil concentration for a modern and old genotype under varying row spacings. Heliyon. 2024;10(15):1-12.
26. Qureshi A, Singh DK, Dwivedi S. Nano-fertilizers: a novel way for enhancing nutrient use efficiency and crop productivity. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(2):2319-2329.
27. Rathnayaka RMNN, Iqbal YB, Rifnas LM. Influence of urea and nano-nitrogen fertilizers on the growth and yield of rice cultivar. Int J Res Publ. 2018;5(2):7-7.
28. Sahni S, Prasad BD, Kumari S. Diseases of urd/mung bean crops and their management. In: Crop diseases and their management. 2016. p. 57-74.
29. Singh AK, Singh CS, Singh AK, Karmakar S. Urdbean productivity as influenced by foliar application of nutrients. J Pharma Phytochem. 2018;SP1:413-415.
30. Singh RP. Status paper on pulses. Bhopal: Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and Cooperation; 2013. p. 1-215.
31. Zyada HG, Ibraheim SKA, El-Saadony FM, Mohaseb MI. Response of growth and productivity of cowpea plants to nano mixture of micronutrients under different potassium sulphate fertilizer rates. J Bio-Agric. 2021;1:1-14.