Response of nano dap on postharvest nutrient status in soil and economics in chickpea (Cicer kabulium)

Introduction

Chickpea, a significant pulse crop, is hampered by water scarcity and nutritional deficiencies in semi-arid regions. Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), being a major rabi pulse crop of India, occupies 35.2% of total area under pulses, contributing to about 49.7% of total pulse production in 2021-22 (Anonymous, 2022) [1] . In Andhra Pradesh, it is grown in an area of 4.51 lakh hectares, producing 4.90 lakh tonnes with a productivity of 1105 kg ha -1 (Anonymous, 2022a) [2] . The natural requirements for nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers can affect the growth of the chickpea crop. Chickpea, being a leguminous crop, can fix atmospheric Nitrogen. When it comes to phosphorus, a greater amount applied was fixed in the soil (Attiwell and Adams, 1993; Frossard et. al., 2000) [3,10] . A key plant nutrient that affects cell division, seed germination, blooming, fruiting, fat synthesis and starch is phosphorus. (Rotaru and Sinclair, 2009; Yadav et al., 2017) [21,27] Additionally, it participates in a number of biochemical processes, including the control of metabolic pathways and enzyme reactions (Malhotra et al., 2018) [15] . When applied properly, phosphoric fertiliser improves nodulation and facilitates biological nitrogen fixation, which boosts legume growth and yield (Dharwe et al., 2019) [9] . In addition, phosphorus enhances growth and productivity of legumes (Sudharani et al., 2018; Sahu et al., 2020) [26,22] . Therefore, application of phosphorus is essential to meet the needs at flowering and pod filling. The nutrient source can be either a single fertiliser, a compound fertiliser, or a combination of both, especially for pulse crops. A wide range of agricultural inputs is being used extensively in agricultural techniques worldwide to increase food production. Fertilisers are crucial agricultural inputs that primarily improve crop yields and quality (Babu et al., 2021) [5] . Without the significant use of fertilisers, current agricultural systems are unable to supply the increasing demand for food. But plants are intrinsically incapable of efficiently absorbing and using nutrients. The use of conventional fertilisers has demonstrated a crucial role in maintaining adequate food supplies and cumulative crop yields during the past 60 years.

By conserving fertiliser resources and boosting crop yields via appropriate nutrient management. Nano fertilisers are incredibly effective for precise nutrient administration in food production (Kumpawat, 2010) [14] . Nano-designed ingredients as fertiliser haulers or staggered proclamation vectors for the construction of "smart fertiliser" as new facilities to enhance nutrient use competence and lower costs of environmental safety (Solanki et al., 2015) [24] . Nano fertilisers are disparagingly imperative for encouraging the advancement of eco-friendly and sustainable agriculture production by decreasing the burden on farmers (Rai et al., 2012; Chhipa, 2017) [17,6] . Therefore a study was conducted to evaluate the effect on nano DAP on post harvest nutrient stuatus and economics in chickpea.

Materials and Methods

A field experiment was carried out, 2023-24, on a clay loamy soil at the Agricultural College Farm, Bapatla. The experimental site is situated at 80° 25' E longitude, 15° 54' N latitude, and at an altitude of 5.49 m and 7 km away from the Bay of Bengal. It is located in the upland coastal area of the Krishna Agro Climatic Zone of Andhra Pradesh. The experiment was laid out in a randomised block design concept and in three replications. The weekly mean maximum and minimum temperatures during the crop period range from 32.8 °C to 28.7 °C and 18.0 °C to 22.5 °C, respectively, while the average maximum and minimum temperatures during the crop growth period were 30.4 °C and 20.1 °C, respectively. The weekly mean relative humidity ranged between 85.73% to 71.73% with an average of 78.7%. A total rainfall of 326.6 mm was received in 5 days during the crop growth period. Composite soil samples from the experimental site were collected from 0-30 cm depth before experimentation. The soil samples were thoroughly mixed and then kept for air drying. A representative soil sample of about 1 kg was drawn by the quartering method. The soil sample was analysed for different physical and physicochemical properties. The soil of the experimental site was classified as clay loam in texture, neutral in reaction, E.C. was non-saline in nature and below the critical point, low in organic carbon, low in available nitrogen (190 kg ha -1 ), and medium in available phosphorus (24.6 kg ha -1 ) and high in potassium (305 kg ha - 1

). The Recommended Dose of Fertilizer (RDF) for chickpea was 20:50:0 kg N: P 2 O 5 :K 2 O ha -1 . N and P 2 O 5 were applied in different doses by means of urea and diammonium phosphate, respectively. The recommended dosage of nano DAP used 500 ml acre -1 , applied as seed treatment and spraying before flowering. However, seed treatment and application of foliar sprays of nano DAP were given in selected treatments only. The following table shows the treatments in the experiment Treatments (Table -1). 100% P+nano DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering T4 75% P+nano DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering T5 50% P+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering T6 Nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering T7

Seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed T8

Seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering T9 100% P+seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg seed+ nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering T10 75% P+seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+ nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering T11 50% P+seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+ nano-DAP spray @ 2. 2 i.e., NPK availability (kg ha -1 ) in soil after harvest of chickpea as influenced by the application of nano DAP. The available N content increased from 176.3 kg ha -1 in control (T 1 ) to 211.4 kg ha -1 in treatment (T 9 ), 100% P+seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering. Similarly amount of phosphorus in postharvest soil was affected by different levels of phosphorus fertilisers. The maximum available phosphorus content (34.8 kg ha -1 ) was available in 100% P+seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering (T 9 ), and the lowest was recorded (17.5 kg ha -1 ) in control (T 1 ). The maximum available K content was registered in (T 9 ) 100% P+seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering (319.1 kg ha -1 ) and lowest in (T 1 ) control (292.2 kg ha -1 ) might be due to foliar application of nano fertilisers plus soil application of traditional fertilisers might led to increased levels of accessible nutrients after the fulfilment of the crop's nutritional needs at various phases of development. These results are in close conformity to the findings of Choudhary et al. (2014) [8] and Hasaneen et al. (2016) [11] along with the results of Rajonee et al. (2017) [18] .

Maximum gross returns (Rs. 145119 ha -1 ) were registered with 100% P+seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml per kg seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 (T 9 ) before flowering, which was on parity with T 10 , i.e., 75% P+seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering (Rs.138053 ha -1 ). The next best treatments, which recorded higher gross returns, were 100% P+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering (T 3 ), which was, however, comparable with 75% P+nano DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering (T 4 ). While significantly lower gross returns (Rs 42088 ha -1 ) were observed in the (T 1 ) control, in which no fertilisers were applied, this was significantly lower than all the treatments. The significant increase in gross returns might be due to higher seed yield and haulm yield in the treatments in which nano DAP performed well. The increase in yield attributes such as number of branches per plant, pods per branch, and number of seeds per plant resulted in a higher yield that in turn increased gross returns. Increased yields immediately result in higher overall gross monetary rewards are significantly influenced by output. By improving nitrogen absorption efficiency, foliar spray can reduce total fertiliser inputs without compromising production. This efficiency has a beneficial impact on gross monetary returns by lowering the cost per unit of yield. The results are in conformity with Rawat (2017) [20] . Similar observations were recorded by Jadhav et al. (2021) [12] .

Net returns were the actual profit that could be attained under particular treatments. The data depicted in Table 3 i.e., Gross returns (Rs ha -1 ), net returns (Rs ha -1 ) and B-C ratio of chickpea as influenced by the application of nano DAP and Figure 1. As regards, significantly higher net returns (Rs 103344 ha -1 ) were realised with 100% P + seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering (T 9 ), which was on par with 75% P+seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before (T 10 ). Significantly lower net returns (Rs-1782 ha -1 ) were recorded in control (T 1 ) due to lower yields.

Benefit-cost ratio

The B-C ratio of chickpea shows a statistically detectable magnitude due to the application of nano DAP, depicted in Table 3 i.e., Gross returns (Rs ha -1 ), net returns (Rs ha -1 ) and B-C ratio of chickpea as influenced by the application of nano DAP and Figure 1. Significantly higher B-C (2.47) was registered with 100% P+seed treatment with nano DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed + nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering (T 9 ), which was, however, comparable with 75% P+seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering (T 10 ). The B-C ratio was negative (-0.23) and recorded a minimum in (T 1 ) Control. These findings are corroborative with the findings of Srivastava et al. (2017) [25] and Prakash et al. (2023) [16] . These are also supported by findings of Hence high yields and low cost contributed to increased B:C ratio for chickpea crop. Similar observations were recorded by Rajput et al.

(2022) [19] and Sathyan et al. (2022) [23] , Chinnappa et al.

(2023) [7] , Attri et al. (2023) [4] and Jagadeesh et al. (2024) [13] Table 3. Gross returns (Rs ha -1 ), net returns (Rs ha -1 ) and B-C ratio of chickpea as influenced by the application of nano DAP 1.91 T3: 100% P + nano DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering 124359 83184 2.02 T4: 75% P + nano DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering 122877 82370 2.03 T5: 50% P + nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering 89865 50027 1.26 T6: Nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering 55929 18428 0.49 T7: Seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed 69547 34846 1.00 T8: Seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering 85392 47291 1.24 T9: 100% P+seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering 145119 103344 2.47 T10: 75% P+seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering 138053 96946 2.36 T11: 50% P +seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering 92664

Conclusion

Combined application of nano Dap and conventional Dap (T 9 ) 100% P+seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml kg -1 seed+nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 before flowering (T 9 ) recorded maximum available phosphorus content (34.8 kg ha -1 ) and the lowest was recorded (17.5 kg ha -1 ) in control (T 1 ). Maximum gross returns, net returns and B-C ratio were registered with 100% P + seed treatment with nano-DAP @ 5 ml per kg seed + nano-DAP spray @ 2.5 ml L -1 (T 9 ) before flowering which was on parity with T 10 .

References

1. Anonymous. Agriculture statistics at a glance 2022. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Planning Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh; 2022. Available from: http://www.apdes.ap.gov.in
2. Anonymous. Agriculture statistics at a glance 2022. Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Planning Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh; 2022a. Available from: http://www.apdes.ap.gov.in
3. Attiwell PM, Adams MA. Nutrient cycling in forests. New Phytol. 1993;124:561-582.
4. Attri M, Sharma N, Mehta S, Mecarty JS. Effects of seedling dipping and foliar application of nano DAP on growth, yield and economics of fine rice. Bangladesh J Bot. 2023;52(4):1025-1031.
5. Babu U, Shukla AK, Kumar A, Meena RK. Effect of sowing methods and nutrients on growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): A review. Curr Res Agric Farming. 2021;2(2):18-22.
6. Chhipa H. Nanofertilizers and nanopesticides for agriculture. Environ Chem Lett. 2017;15:15-22.
7. Chinnappa SA, Krishnamurthy D, Ajayakumar MY, Ramesha YM, Ravi S. Effect of nano fertilizers on growth, yield, nutrient uptake and soil microbiology of kharif sorghum. Int J Environ Clim Change. 2023;13(10):2339-2348.
8. Choudhary AK, Suri VK. Integrated nutrient management technology for direct seeded upland rice (Oryza sativa L.) in northwestern Himalayas. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal. 2014;45:777-784.
9. Dharwe DS, Dixit HC, Dotaniya CK, Doutaniya SMR, Jamara P. Influences of phosphorus and sulphur on yield attributes of summer green gram (Vigna radiata L.). J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;7:147-149.
10. Frossard E, Condron LM, Oberson A, Sinaj S, Fardeau JC. Processes governing phosphorus availability in temperate soils. J Environ Qual. 2000;29:15-23.
11. Hasaneen MNA, Abdel-Aziz HMM, Omer AM. Effect of using two different types of engineered nanomaterials on the growth and antioxidant enzymes of French bean plants. J Plant Prod. 2016;7(9):10211025.
12. Jadhav SS, Jadhav AS, Karpe PJ, Chalak AM. Effect of foliar application of fertilizers on yield attributes, yield and economics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Int J Res Agron. 2025;8(1):Article 2422.
13. Jagadeesh V, Deshmukh M, Pilewad S. Studies on effect of nano DAP on yield and nutrient uptake of soybean grown on vertisol. Int J Res Agron. 2024;7(10):672-677.
14. Kumpawat BS. Integrated nutrient management in blackgram (Vigna mungo) and its residual effect on succeeding mustard (Brassica juncea) crop. Indian J Agric Sci. 2010;80:76-79.
15. Malhotra H, Sharma S, Pandey R. Phosphorus nutrition: Plant growth in response to deficiency and excess. In: Plant nutrients and abiotic stress tolerance. Singapore: Springer; 2018. p. 171-190.
16. Prakash AN, Siddaram R, Bellakki MA. Response of nano DAP on growth, yield, and economics of soybean (Glycine max L.). Pharma Innov J. 2023;12(12):19851989.
17. Rai V, Acharya S, Dey N. Implications of nanobiosensors in agriculture. J Biomater Nanobiotechnol. 2012;3(2A):315-324.
18. Rajonee AA, Zaman S, Huq SMI. Preparation, characterization and evaluation of efficacy of phosphorus and potassium incorporated nano fertilizer. Adv Nanopart. 2017;6(2):62-74.
19. Rajput JS, Thakur AK, Nag NK, Chandrakar T, Singh DP. Effect of nano fertilizer in relation to growth, yield and economics of little millet (Panicum sumatrense) under rainfed conditions. Pharma Innov J. 2022;11(7):153-156.
20. Rawat A, Kumar R, Singh VP, Bhatt B. Effect of plantbased nano-sized gypsum on growth parameters and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Int J Conserv Sci. 2017;8(4):2991-2993.
21. Rotaru V, Sinclair TR. Interactive influence of phosphorus and iron on nitrogen fixation by soybean. Environ Exp Bot. 2009;66:94-99.
22. Sahu S, Shankar T, Maitra S, Mohapatro S, Swamy GVVSN. Effect of phosphorus and sulphur on growth, productivity and nutrient uptake of green gram (Vigna radiata L.): A review. Agro-Economist. 2020;7:91-93.
23. Sathyan D. Effect of nano nutrients on pea growth and yield (Pisum sativum L.). Pharma Innov J. 2022;11(9):1895-1898.
24. Solanki P, Bhargava A, Chhipa H, Jain N, Panwar J. Nano-fertilizers and their smart delivery system. In: Nanotechnologies in food and agriculture. 2015. p. 81101.
25. Srivastava S, Tomar PS, Arya V, Verma SK. Effect of integrated application of inorganic and organic sources on soil properties, yield and nutrient uptake by pearl millet. Int J Life Sci. 2017;12(1):609-614.
26. Sudharani Y, Mohapatra PP, Pramanik K, Maitra S. Effect of different phosphorus levels on growth and yield of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) genotypes. Int J Manag Technol Eng. 2018;8:2876-2881.
27. Yadav GS, Babu S, Meena RS, Debnath C, Saha P, Debbarma C, Datta M. Effects of Godawari Phosgold and single super phosphate on groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) productivity, phosphorus uptake, phosphorus use efficiency and economics. Indian J Agric Sci. 2017;87(9):1165-1169.