Critical stage based irrigation scheduling and crop management practices for the maximization of rainfed groundnut productivity and economics in red loam soil

Introduction

Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is one of the most important oilseed crops of India, valued for its dual role as a source of edible oil and high-quality protein. The crop contains about 45-50% oil and 25-30% protein, making it a vital for nutritional security as well as farm income. It is a valuable crop for marginal farmers largely grown during the summer and Kharif seasons. In India, groundnut occupies a prominent position among oilseed crops. During the 2024-25, the crop was cultivated over 43.75 lakh hectares with a total production of 113.12 lakh tonnes, registering a substantial increase compared to 86.60 lakh tonnes in 2023-24. The average national productivity during this period was about 2,586 kg ha -1 (GOI, 2025). Among the major producing states, Gujarat emerged as the leading contributor with approximately 19.17 lakh hectares and a production of 50.37 lakh tonnes, followed by Rajasthan with 8.74 lakh hectares and 23.73 lakh tonnes (CEIC, 2025) [4] . In Tamil Nadu, groundnut occupied about 33.0 lakh hectares with a production of 4.46 lakh tonnes and recorded a relatively high productivity of 2,694 kg ha -1 , reflecting the importance of the crop in the state's farming systems and the effectiveness of improved management practices (Anonymous, 2024) [1] . Despite its importance, groundnut productivity remains unstable, particularly during the rainy season, due to erratic monsoon behaviour, frequent disease outbreaks, waterlogging and poor drainage conditions (Sanju, 2013) [19] . In particular, groundnut moisture stress during the flowering and pod filling stages is critical for yield. Not only the yield of groundnut but also the quality also decreased under moisture stress. Even short periods of stress can substantially reduce pod set and final yield. Flowering, pegging and pod setting phases are the major waterrequiring stages, and that better irrigation scheduling during these windows can improve yield and water-use efficiency. Therefore, irrigation scheduling that prioritizes these critical growth stages has emerged as an effective strategy to stabilize yield and enhance water use efficiency and water productivity (Zhang et al., 2021) [22] . Alongside irrigation management, groundnut responds strongly to balanced nutrition. Adequate supply of essential nutrients supports early root growth and enhances pod development. Integration of organic manures, micronutrients, and foliar fertilization which enhances the nutrient availability, uptake efficiency and soil health, especially under moisture limited environments (Priyadharshini et al., 2025) [17] . Furthermore, stress-alleviating practices such as mulching, kaolin sprays, and foliar potassium application play an important role in reducing soil moisture loss by moderating canopy temperature, regulating transpiration and improving assimilate translocation under summer conditions (Gajera et al., 2024) [9] . Mulching could reduce soil evaporation, moderates soil temperature, suppresses weeds and improves soil moisture retention, often translating into improved pod yield and water productivity (Biswal et al., 2022) [3] . Along with antitranspirants and growth regulators, including film-forming polymers and metabolic compounds such as salicylic acid, ABA analogues and growth retardants, can reduce transpiration, maintain leaf water status and protect reproductive organs during short drought periods, which has been shown to improve flower and peg survival and reduced yield loss. While individual approaches such as improved irrigation or fertilizer management can enhance productivity, their combined and interactive effects under field conditions remain inadequately explored for this region. Optimizing irrigation and fertilizer application is therefore crucial, integrating critical-stage-based irrigation scheduling with comprehensive crop management practices to sustainably intensify groundnut production under water-limited conditions.

Materials and Methods

A field experiment was conducted during Kharif, 2024 in the farmer's field at Perampattu Village, Tirupattur District, Tamil Nadu, India. The experimental field was located geographically at (12° 38 ' N latitude, 78° 58' E longitude) to study the effect of different stages of irrigation and integrated crop management practices for groundnut in North Eastern Zone of Tamil Nadu. The soil of the experimental field is red loam. It is low in available nitrogen (153.4 kg ha -1 ), medium in available phosphorus (15.4 kg ha -1 ) and potassium (133.1 kg ha -1 ). The experiments was set up using a strip plot design, having 4 irrigation stages viz., no Irrigation (I1), Irrigation at flowering and pod filling stages (I2), Irrigation at pegging and pod filling stages (I3), Irrigation at flowering, pegging and pod filling stages (I4) in the main plot and 7 crop management practices, viz., absolute control (S1), RDF alone (10:10:45 kgha -1 of NPK)(S2), INM(RDF + poultry manure compost 1 t ha -1 + Micro nutrient mixture 12.5 kg ha -1 ) (S3), RDF + Paddy straw mulch @ 5 t ha -1 + foliar application of K @ 0.5% (S4), RDF+ kaolin @ 1% + foliar application of K @ 0.5% (S5), INM + paddy straw mulch @ 5 t ha -1 + foliar application of K @ 0.5% (S6), INM + kaolin @ 1% + foliar application of K @ 0.5% (S7) in subplot, replicated thrice. Irrigation was given immediately after sowing and the life irrigation was given at 3 DAS to all the plots. The subsequent irrigation was given to the crop as per the treatment schedule. The RDF (10:10:45 kg ha -1 of NPK) was applied in the form of urea, single super phosphate and muriate of potash was applied to the groundnut crop. Based on the treatments, poultry manure compost (1 t ha -1 ) was applied to the field before groundnut sowing. The paddy straw mulch (5 t ha -1 ) was applied on 20 DAS and the MN mixture (12.5 kg ha -1 ) was applied as basal according to the treatment schedules. The foliar application of potassium through MOP as well as Kaolin spray were applied during 25 DAS @ 0.5% and 1%, respectively. The variety which is used for the experimental trial was VRI 10, with a duration of 90-95 days. The seed was sown manually in the field. Spacing adopted between the rows and plants was 30 cm and 10 cm, respectively. Biometric observations on yield of grain yield and haulm yield were recorded at the harvest stage, and also the economics of groundnut were also obtained in the experiment. The existing market price of the inputs and outputs was used to calculate cost of cultivation. Similarly, gross return was calculated based on the grain and haulm of groundnut and their prevailing market price. In this experiment the market price of grain and haulm was Rs. 72 kg -1 and 1 kg -1 respectively. The benefit cost ratio (BCR) was worked out by dividing net return by variable cost.

Gross return (Rs. ha -1 ) = [Grain yield (kg ha -1 ) X cost of one kg grain] + [Haulm yield (kg ha -1 ) X cost of one kg haulm] Net return (Rs. ha -1 ) = [Gross return (Rs. ha -1 ) -Total cost of cultivation (Rs. ha -1 )] B:C ratio = [Net return (Rs. ha -1 ) -Total cost of cultivation (Rs. ha -1 )]

Statistical analysis

The experimental data were statistically analysed as suggested by Gomez and Gomez (2010) [11] . For significant results, the critical difference was worked out at the 5% level.

Results and Discussion

Yield

Pod and haulm yields of groundnut were significantly influenced by irrigation stages and integrated crop management practices at the harvest stage and are furnished in Table 1. Among irrigation treatments, irrigation at flowering, pegging and pod filling stages (I4) recorded the highest pod yield and haulm yield (2258 kg ha -1 and 3453 kg ha -1 , respectively) which were statistically on par with irrigation at flowering and pod filling stages (I2). This may be attributed to the maintenance of optimum soil moisture during critical phenological stages, which enhanced nutrient availability, uptake and utilization. Adequate moisture during flowering and pegging promoted effective peg penetration and pod initiation, while sufficient water during pod filling ensured efficient assimilate translocation, kernel development, and sustained vegetative growth. These favourable physiological conditions resulted in higher pod formation, improved biomass accumulation, delayed senescence and ultimately enhanced yield of groundnut. These results are reported by Channabasava and Singh (2024) [5] . In contrast, the lowest pod yield and haulm yield (1066 kg ha -1 and 1796 kg ha -1 , respectively) were recorded under no irrigation (I1). This reduction was mainly due to prolonged soil moisture stress throughout the crop growth period, which restricted nutrient dissolution, root activity and nutrient uptake. Moisture deficit during flowering, pegging, and pod development caused flower and peg abortion, poor pod filling, reduced leaf area development and early senescence, ultimately resulting in lower pod and haulm yields. These results corroborate the findings of Behera et al. (2015) [2] .

Among crop management practices, INM + paddy straw mulch @ 5 t ha⁻¹ + foliar application of K @ 0.5% (S6) recorded the highest pod yield and haulm yield (2285 kg ha -1 and 3491 kg ha - 1 , respectively) followed by INM + kaolin @ 1% + foliar application of K @ 0.5% (S7), which was on par with INM (RDF + poultry manure compost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ + micronutrient mixture @ 12.5 kg ha⁻¹) (S3). This may be attributed to improved soil moisture conservation and balanced nutrient supply, which enhanced nutrient availability and uptake in groundnut through increased soil nutrient status and microbial activity, along with improved water use efficiency. These conditions supported key physiological processes such as effective peg establishment and pod development. Adequate and balanced supply of macro-and micronutrients further promoted vegetative growth, enhanced dry matter accumulation, and ultimately resulted in higher pod and haulm yields with greater yield stability. These findings are in agreement with Sathiya et al. (2020) [20] and Gowsalya et al. (2023) [12] . The absolute control (S1) recorded the lowest pod yield and haulm yield (687 kg ha -1 and 1213 kg ha -1 , respectively) which may be attributed to inadequate nutrient supply, resulting in poor nutrient uptake, reduced photosynthetic activity, impaired reproductive development, limited vegetative growth and poor biomass accumulation. These results are reported by Chaudhary et al. (2015) [6] . The interaction effect revealed that irrigation at flowering, pegging, and pod filling stages combined with INM + paddy straw mulch @ 5 t ha⁻¹ + foliar application of K @ 0.5% (I4S6) produced the highest pod yield and haulm yield (2865 kg ha -1 and 4240 kg ha -1 , respectively) which was on par with irrigation at flowering and pod filling stages with INM + paddy straw mulch @ 5 t ha⁻¹ + foliar application of K @ 0.5% (I2S6). This may be due to the synergistic interaction between adequate soil moisture and balanced nutrient supply, which ensured optimal nutrient uptake efficiency, enhanced photosynthate translocation to reproductive sinks, sustained vegetative growth and minimized stress-induced yield losses. These results are in close conformity with the findings of Hosamani and Janawade (2007) [13] .

Conversely, the lowest pod yield and haulm yield (505 kg ha - 1 and 914 kg ha -1 , respectively) were recorded under the combination of no irrigation and absolute control (I1S1). This may be due to severe moisture stress coupled with nutrient deficiency, which severely restricted root activity, nutrient uptake, vegetative growth and reproductive development, leading to poor peg establishment, reduced pod set, low biomass production, and early senescence in groundnut was reported by Devi et al. (2019) [8] . The harvest index was not appreciably influenced by the irrigation stages and integrated crop management practices in groundnut and it was found non-significant.

Economics

Economics of groundnut was significantly influenced by irrigation stages and integrated crop management practices at the harvest stage and are furnished in Table 2. Irrigation at flowering, pegging and pod filling stages (I4) was recorded the highest gross income, net income and BCR (Rs. 168266 ha -1 , Rs. 104705 ha -1 , 2.57) which was on par with irrigation at flowering and pod filling stages (I2). This might be due to increased pod and haulm yield resulting from adequate moisture during critical stages. This, improved water availability enhanced resource-use efficiency and yield per unit cost, thereby improving overall profitability. Similar findings were reported by Saha and Gunri (2024) [18] . The lowest gross income, net income and BCR (Rs. 79596 ha -1 , Rs. 17647 ha -1 , 1.27) was recorded under no Irrigation (I1). This might be due to reduced yields caused by moisture stress led to lower gross income, net income and Benefit -cost ratio of groundnut was reported by Suresh et al. (2013) [21] . In comparison to the other the crop management practices, INM + Paddy straw mulch @ 5 t ha -1 + foliar application of K @ 0.5% (S6) recorded the highest gross income, net income and BCR (Rs. 170278 ha -1 , Rs. 96709 ha -1 , 2.31) followed by INM + Kaolin @ 1% + foliar application of K @ 0.5% (S7) which was on par with INM (RDF + Poultry manure compost 1 t ha -1 + Micro nutrient mixture 12.5 kg ha -1 ) (S3). The superior economics observed with integrated nutrient application may be attributed to substantial yield improvement resulting from enhanced nutrient uptake and utilization efficiency, which ultimately led to higher net returns and benefit-cost ratio. Similar findings were reported by Dash et al. (2013) [7] . The lowest gross income, net income and BCR (Rs. 51345 ha -1 , Rs. 14897 ha -1 , 1.41) was recorded under absolute control (S1). Poor crop productivity arising from inherent soil fertility constraints that reduced pod and haulm yields leading to lower profitability has been reported by Patel et al. (2009) [16] . With regards to interaction, irrigation at flowering, pegging and pod filling stages along with INM + paddy straw mulch @ 5 t ha -1 + foliar application of K @ 0.5% (I4S6) significantly recorded the highest gross income, net income and BCR (Rs. 213385 ha -1 , Rs. 139144 ha -1 , 2.87). Synergistic effects on yield, resource-use efficiency, and crop stability, which enhanced productivity under optimum moisture and nutrient availability, maximized the economics of the crop. Similar findings were reported by Naresha et al. (2018) [15] . The lowest gross income, net income and BCR (Rs. 37779 ha -1 , Rs. 2271 ha -1 , 1.06) was recorded under the combination of no irrigation with absolute control (I1S1). Compounded moisture and nutrient stress, resulting in minimal yields under these conditions was insufficient to recover production costs, leading to poor economic viability has been reported by Maurya et al. (2017) [14] .

Conclusion

From the findings of the study it can be concluded that the highest pod yield and haulm yield were recorded in the treatment comprising irrigation at flowering, pegging, and pod filling stages along with INM + paddy straw mulch @ 5 t ha -1 + foliar application of K @ 0.5%. Additionally, maximum net returns and benefit cost ratio were achieved under irrigation at flowering and pod filling stages along with INM + paddy straw mulch @ 5 t ha⁻¹ + foliar application of K @ 0.5% in red loam soil.

References

1. Anonymous. Agricultural statistics at a glance. Chennai: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Government of Tamil Nadu; 2024.
2. Behera BS, Mohit D, Behera AC, Behera RA. Weather based irrigation scheduling in summer groundnut in Odisha condition. Int J Agric Sci Res. 2015;5(5):247-260.
3. Biswal P, Swain DK, Jha MK. Straw mulch with limited drip irrigation influenced soil microclimate in improving tuber yield and water productivity of potato in subtropical India. Soil Tillage Res. 2022;223:105484.
4. CEIC Data. India -Agricultural yield: nine oilseeds - groundnut: Tamil Nadu. CEIC Data Company Ltd.; 2025.
5. Channabasava, Singh R. Effect of spacing and irrigations on growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Int J Res Agron. 2024;7(4):322-324.
6. Chaudhary JH, Ramdev R, Sutaliya S, Desai JL. Growth, yield, yield attributes and economics of summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) as influenced by integrated nutrient management. J Appl Nat Sci. 2015;7(1):369-372.
7. Dash AK, Nayak BR, Panigrahy N, Mohapatra S, Samant PK. Performance of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) under different levels of sulphur and irrigation. Indian J Agron. 2013;58(4):578-582.
8. Devi MT, Bairagya MD, Prasanna AL, Zaman A. Effects of irrigation regime and phosphorus level on yield and yield attributes of summer groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.). Int J Agric Sci. 2019;11(12):8673-8676.
9. Gajera JB, Kachhadiya SP, Rajani AV, Hirapara KV. Strategies for improving resilience against abiotic stresses in summer groundnut. Int J Environ Clim Change. 2024;14(8):600-612.
10. Government of India. Groundnut outlook: January 2025. First advance estimates for 2024-25. New Delhi: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers' Welfare; 2025.
11. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2 nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 2010. p. 13-175.
12. Gowsalya M, Murugan G, Suseendran K, Saravana Perumal M, Stalin P. Effect of integrated application of organic manures and inorganic fertilizers on growth and biomass productivity of machine sown groundnut. Plant Arch. 2023;23(1):212-217.
13. Hosamani MH, Janawase AD. Response of rabi groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) to irrigation schedules and integrated nutrient management in deep black soils of upper Krishna command area. Karnataka J Agric Sci. 2007;20(3):453-456.
14. Maurya AC, Verma SK, Kumar S, Lakra K. Nutrient concentration and their uptake and available nutrients in soil influenced by irrigation, mulching and integrated nutrient management in summer groundnut. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2017;6(11):2405-2415.
15. Naresha R, Laxminarayana P, Devi KBS, Sailaja V. Quality, yield and economics of rabi groundnut as influenced by irrigation scheduling and phosphogypsum levels. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2018;7(3):3292-3303.
16. Patel GN, Patel PT, Patel PH, Patel DM, Patil DK, Patil RM. Yield attributes, yield, quality and uptake of nutrients by summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) as influenced by sources and levels of sulphur under varying irrigation schedules. J Oilseeds Res. 2009;26(2):119-122.
17. Priyadharshini V, Balasubramanian P, Rajeshkumar A, Silviya RA. Responses of groundnut to different levels of nutrients with gypsum in typical Alfisols under irrigated condition. Legume Res. 2025;48(11):1940-1943.
18. Saha D, Gunri SK. Effect of polythene mulching, irrigation regimes and fertilizer doses on summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) nodulation, pod yield and nitrogen availability in soil. Environ Ecol. 2014;32(2):1301-1303.
19. Sanju HR. Effect of precision water and nutrient management with different sources and levels of fertilizer on yield of groundnut. Bengaluru: University of Agricultural Sciences; 2013.
20. Sathiya K, Hussainy SAH, Sridhar P. Effect of land configuration and mulching on the growth, yield and economics of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea). Res Crops. 2020;21(2):226-230.
21. Suresh K, Balaguravaiah D, Ramulu V, Rao CHS. Comparative efficiency of sprinkler irrigation over check basin irrigation in groundnut at different irrigation schedules. Int J Plant Anim Environ Sci. 2013;3(2):9-13.
22. Zhang J, Wang Q, Xia G, Xia G, Chi D. Continuous regulated deficit irrigation enhances peanut water use efficiency and drought resistance. Agric Water Manag. 2021;255:106997.