Cropping system-driven variability in pearl millet growth under regenerative agricultural practices in Alfisol

Introduction

Pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) is the fifth most important cereal after rice, wheat, maize, and sorghum, which is being cultivated on around 27 M ha worldwide. It is a member of the Poaceae family, serves as a vital staple food for millions of people, especially in the arid and semi-arid regions of Asia and Africa (Jukanti et al., 2016) [8] . Its remarkable ability to flourish under harsh conditions where many other cereals fail makes it a key contributor to global food security (Shrestha et al., 2023) [26] . Notably, pearl millet exhibits exceptional resilience, thriving in environments characterized by higher temperatures, limited rainfall, and poor soil fertility (Satyavathi et al., 2021) [22] . This enables pearl millet to thrive in areas where most other crops cannot, making it an essential contributor to food security in harsh and unpredictable climates (Daduwal et al., 2024) [4] . Pearl millet provides a balanced source of carbohydrates, proteins, essential fatty acids, and dietary fiber, which supports digestive health (Kumar et al., 2024) [10] . In addition, it is abundant in essential micronutrients, including iron, zinc, magnesium, calcium, phosphorus, and B vitamins, all of which are vital for metabolic functions and immune health (Saleh et al., 2013) [20] . The grain also contains bioactive compounds including flavonoids, polyphenols, and tannins that contribute to its strong antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. According to Babypriyanka et al. (2024) [1] , these compounds help mitigate oxidative stress, regulate inflammatory processes, and may even reduce the risk of chronic diseases.

Conventional farming methods involving frequent tillage, monocropping, and non-judicious application of fertilizers were replaced markedly with more attention paid towards maintaining soil health in all aspects without compromising on yield. This reduces soil erosion, reduces evaporative loss of soil moisture, and augments organic carbon storage (Madarasz et al., 2021) [13] . Regenerative agriculture encompasses a wide range of farming and grazing practices aimed at restoration and sustainable management of soil health through sequestration of soil organic carbon (C). It comprises system-based conservation agriculture (CA), which includes no-till farming in conjunction with residue mulching, cover cropping, integrated nutrient and pest management, complex rotations, and integration of crops with trees and livestock (Lal, 2020; Sawargaonkar et al., 2025) [12,24] . The judicious application of nutrients, if supplemented with the addition of biologicals, is more promising, impacting important metabolic functions such as phosphate solubilizing, nitrogen fixation, and synthesis of growth hormones (Sheteiwy et al., 2021) [25] . Under irrigation deficit conditions, mulching is used to retain water in the soil, resulting in higher yield and better water use efficiency (Chakraborty et al., 2008) [3] . This practice boosts soil fertility and reduces soil erosion (Sarker et al., 2025) [21] . Pearl millet is grown in pure and complex mixed systems. Since its sole cultivation is often risky and to avoid risks in rainfed areas, generally farmers in the arid and semi-arid regions practice mix/intercrop pearl millet with legumes to increase productivity per unit area or avoid the risk of failure of crops. Cropping diversity and intercropping improve the system's resilience by interrupting pest and disease cycles, while enhancing soil carbon, fertility, and biodiversity (Wang et al., 2024; Sawargaonkar et al., 2025) [30,24] . This practice optimizes resource use, increases productivity, and improves land-use efficiency (Bandyopadhyay et al., 2016) [2] , especially in areas where climate change is shortening the growing season and making traditional sequential cropping more difficult (Jabbar et al., 2010) [7] . The basic concept of intercropping is to make better use of resources and to reduce risk. To obtain more information on the complementary effects of pearl millet in cropping systems and regenerative agriculture practices on growth analysis, the current study was conducted.

Materials and Methods

The experiment was conducted during kharif 2023 and 2024 (sowing years) for two years on Alfisols at ICRISAT, located at 17.50 0 N latitude, 78.27 0 E longitude, at an altitude of 484 m above mean sea level, in the Southern Agro-Climatic Zone of Telangana. The weekly mean evaporation day-1 was 5.3 mm day-1 against total rainfall of 782.80 mm and 918.7.7 mm respectively in 2023-24 and 2024-25 (Fig. 1). The experimental soil was neutral in reaction (pH of 7.27), low in organic carbon (0.35%), low in available nitrogen (217.56 kg ha -1 ), medium in available phosphorus and potassium (18.21 and 156.41 kg ha -1 , respectively). The plot size was 13.5 m x 22.5 m. BBFs were formed using the BBF Former before sowing in the first year of experimentation. Mechanized sowing was performed with a zero-till dryland multicrop planter, which allows simultaneous sowing of multiple seeds while maintaining appropriate spacing between crops. The experiment was designed with three cropping systems as main plot treatments and three regenerative agriculture practices as subplot treatments. The cropping systems included M1: pearl millet + pigeonpea (2:1), M2: groundnut + pearl millet (4:1) -sunflower, M3: pearl milletgroundnut, whereas regenerative agricultural practices were S1: Soil Test-Based Fertilizer (STBF), S2: STBF + mulch, and S3: STBF + mulch + biological consortia, and were replicated thrice. The pearl millet variety tested was Pioneer Hybrid 86M94. Fertilizer application with urea, DAP, and MOP was based on soil test results, and the main crop dosage was determined (Table 1). The basal 1/3 rd portion of pearl millet straw, while complete pigeonpea stalk and sunflower straw are used as mulch for the next season's crops in the treatments STBF+ mulch (S2) and STBF+ mulch + biological consortia (S3) (Table 2). Biological consortia @ 10 ml kg -1 seed were applied as a seed treatment, containing Rhizobia, Phosphorus Solubilizing Bacteria (PSB), and Potassium Solubilizing Bacteria (KSB). The composition details of biological consortia were given in Table 3. Where, W1 and W2 = dry weight of the plant at time intervals of T1 and T2, respectively S = the land area on which dry weight was observed (Watson, 1952) [29] 2.2 Absolute growth rate (g/plant/day)

Where, W1 and W2 = dry weight of the plant at time intervals of T1 and T2, respectively (Richards, 1969) [19] The data recorded was subjected to statistical scrutiny by analysis of variance technique for split-plot design suggested by Gomez and Gomez (1984) [6] .

Results

Cropping systems 3.1.1 Plant height

Cropping systems had no significant influence on plant height of pearl millet at 20 DAS (Table 4). At 40, 60 DAS, and at harvest, groundnut + pearl millet (4:1) -sunflower (M2) resulted in taller plants, followed by pearl millet + pigeonpea (2:1) (M1) and pearl millet-groundnut (M3), with significant differences between any two of the cropping systems. Groundnut + pearl millet (4:1) -sunflower (M2) with the advantage of legumes intercropped might have helped pearl millet to uptake more nutrients, which increased meristematic growth, cell division, and elongation, resulting in taller plants. Similar results were reported by Lahane (2021) [11] .

At 20 DAS, cropping systems did not significantly affect the leaf area of pearl millet (Table 5). However, at 40, 60 DAS, and at harvest, higher leaf area was noticed with pearl milletgroundnut (M3), which was on par with groundnut + pearl millet (4:1) -sunflower (M2) but significantly higher than pearl millet + pigeonpea (2:1) (M1) in both the years of study and the pooled mean.

As the pearl millet-groundnut (M3) received less competition compared to only three plants per bed, leaf area might be higher owing to a good amount of ground area per plant, luxurious light penetration, and leaf expansion. Leaf area increased up to 60 DAS, but at harvest, due to leaf senescence, leaf area decreased. Similar results were reported by Kazemeini and Sadeghi (2013) [9] .

Dry weight per plant

Significantly higher dry weight was noticed at all the stages of observation in groundnut + pearl millet (4:1) -sunflower (M2) (Table 6) followed by pearl millet + pigeonpea (2:1) (M1) and pearl millet-groundnut (M3) with significant difference between any two of them at 20 and 40 DAS and non-significant variation at 60 DAS and at harvest Improved access to nutrients, water and space compared to other cropping systems might be the reason for higher dry weight in pearl millet-groundnut (M3)).

Crop Growth Rate

CGR shows the dry weight that a crop unit area gains over a specific period of time. Cropping systems significantly influenced CGR. However, interaction was not statistically significant (Fig. 2). CGR was not affected significantly at 20 DAS due to cropping systems. At 60 DAS, groundnut + pearl millet (4:1) -Sunflower (M2) recorded significantly higher CGR, followed by pearl millet + pigeonpea (2:1) (M1) and pearl millet -groundnut (M3). CGR attained its peak value at 60 DAS, which may be due to higher accumulation of plant weight during this period that is used to measure CGR. The reproductive phase, which commenced at 60 DAS, might have directly increased the crop growth rate. Groundnut + pearl millet (4:1) -sunflower (M2) recorded higher CGR in all growth stages. The reason may be attributed to the presence of legume, i.e., groundnut, which helped the pearl millet with nutrients, and it resulted in luxuriant growth. Similar results regarding plant weight was noticed by Pujari (2020) [17] .

Absolute growth rate

The absolute increase in dry weight per unit time is known as AGR. AGR increased gradually with time up to 60 DAS but reduced at harvest. AGR was found to be significantly influenced by cropping systems, but the interaction effect was non-significant (Fig. 3). At 20 DAS, AGR was affected nonsignificantly at 20 DAS due to cropping systems. At 60 DAS, higher AGR in the first and second year was realized with groundnut + pearl millet (4:1) -sunflower (M2), followed by pearl millet + pigeonpea (2:1) (M1) and pearl millet -groundnut (M3). This is mainly due to higher dry matter accumulation in groundnut + pearl millet (4:1) -sunflower (M2) because of the legume effect. Also, at 60 DAS, the reproductive growth might have increased the crop's AGR. Similar findings as plant weight were reported by Reddy (2023) [18] . Plant height of pearl millet at 20 DAS was significantly untraceable due to regenerative agricultural practices (Table 4). While at 40, 60 DAS and at harvest, STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) resulted in significantly taller plants compared with STBF + mulch (S2). While significantly shorter plants were with STBF (S1).

The conjuctive advantage of consortia and mulch in STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) might have helped the plant to extend the availability of nutrients and water and resulted in good growth and taller plants, which accelerated the synthesis of more chlorophyll and amino acids and stimulated the cellular activity, which is useful for the process of cell division. Similar results were reported by Monisha et al. (2019) [15] , Sivamurugan et al. (2018) [27] , and Sawargaonkar et al. (2013) [23] .

Leaf area of pearl millet at 20 DAS was significantly untraceable due to regenerative agricultural practices (Table 5).

At 40 DAS, across both years and pooled data, STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) resulted in higher leaf area than STBF + mulch (S2), which were on par with each other. Significantly lower leaf area was observed with STBF (S1). During 2023-24 and 2024-25, at 60 DAS, in both years and pooled data, STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) resulted in higher leaf area compared with STBF + mulch (S2), which were on par with each other. Significantly lower leaf area was observed with STBF (S1). However, the difference varied significantly between any two of them in the pooled mean. At harvest, STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) resulted in significantly higher leaf area followed by STBF + mulch (S2) and STBF (S1) in the order of descent with significant disparity between any two of them.

Many beneficial microbes might have synthesized phytohormones like auxins, gibberellins, and cytokinins in the presence of mulch and biologicals, which stimulate leaf initiation, expansion, and overall canopy development.

Enhanced leaf area in the presence of biological consortia, as resulted from this work, validates the findings of Upendranaik et al. (2018) [28] and Sawargaonkar et al. (2013) [23] .

Dry weight per plant

Dry weight of pearl millet was significantly affected due to regenerative agricultural practices at 40, 60 DAS, and at harvest, but showed a non-significant effect at 20 DAS (Table 6). At 40 DAS in the first year of study, STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) resulted in higher dry weight, followed by STBF + mulch (S2), which were on par with each other. Significantly lower dry weight was realized with STBF (S1). In the second year of study and in pooled data, STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) documented significantly higher dry weight, followed by STBF + mulch (S2), which in turn was significantly higher than that with STBF (S1). At 60 DAS in both years of study, STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) documented significantly more dry weight compared with STBF + mulch (S2), which in turn was statistically comparable with STBF (S1). At harvest, dry weight followed the order of STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) followed by STBF + mulch (S2) and STBF (S1) in decreasing order with non-significant variation among each other. Moisture availability due to the presence of mulch might have improved the microclimate and helped the crop stand to establish well. The additional benefits in terms of nutrients and growth-promoting hormones like auxins, gibberellins, and cytokinins drawn with the addition of biological consortia along with the mulch in STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) might be the reason for better photosynthesis and translocation of photosynthates to the plant, which resulted in significantly higher dry weight.

Crop Growth Rate

Among regenerative agricultural practices, higher CGR was noticed with the application of STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) followed by STBF + mulch (S2) and STBF (S1) (Fig 2). The difference was non-significant at 20 DAS.

Significantly higher CGR was realized with STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) at 60 DAS and at harvest. Application of STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) had an additive effect of biologicals and mulch, which made the moisture and nutrients available to the crop throughout its growth period. Thus, resulting in higher CGR compared with other STBF (S1) and STBF + mulch (S2). Similar results were also reported by Maharana and Singh (2021) [14] , Nikhitha et al. (2021) [16] , and Sawargaonkar et al. (2013) [23] .

Absolute growth rate

Among regenerative agricultural practices, application of STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3) recorded the highest AGR, followed by STBF + mulch (S2) and STBF (S1) (Fig. 3). The difference was non-significant at 20 DAS. The highest AGR was noticed at 60 DAS. This is mainly due to the production of more panicles and tillers with the addition of biologicals in STBF + mulch + biological consortia (S3), which helped the crop to increase AGR. Dawar et al. (2023) [5] reported similar findings regarding plant weight.

Conclusion

The present study demonstrated that both cropping system diversification and regenerative agricultural practices significantly influence the growth performance of pearl millet under Alfisol conditions. Among cropping systems, groundnut + pearl millet (4:1) -sunflower proved most effective in enhancing plant height, dry matter accumulation, and growth rates, likely due to complementary resource use and the beneficial effects of legume integration. However, the sole pearl millet-groundnut system recorded higher leaf area owing to reduced interspecific competition. Among regenerative practices, the combined application of soil-test-based fertilizers, mulch, and biological consortia (S3) consistently outperformed other treatments by improving plant growth attributes, including CGR and AGR. This improvement can be attributed to enhanced nutrient availability, better soil moisture conservation, and microbialmediated growth promotion. The non-significant interaction between cropping systems and regenerative practices indicates that their effects are largely independent. Overall, integrating diversified cropping systems with regenerative practices, particularly STBF combined with mulch and biological consortia, offers a sustainable strategy to improve crop growth and soil health in semi-arid Alfisols.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsWe acknowledge the support of ICRISAT, Hyderabad and Department of Agronomy, S.V. Agricultural College, Tirupati, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, for providing the facilities, technical help and necessary guidelines for financial support during the research work.

References

1. Babypriyanka S, Hepziba JS, Pushpam KA, Pillai AM, Vijayalakshmi R, Theradimani M. Exploring the bioactive components of millets for their nutraceutical potential. Food Science and Biotechnology. 2024.
2. Bandyopadhyay PK, Singh KC, Mondal K, Nath R, Ghosh PK, Kumar N, Singh SS. Effects of stubble length of rice in mitigating soil moisture stress and on yield of lentil (Lens culinaris) in rice-lentil relay cropping. Agricultural Water Management. 2016;173:91-102.
3. Chakraborty D, Nagarajan S, Aggarwal P, Gupta VK, Tomar RK, Garg RN. Effect of mulching on soil and plant water and the growth and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in a semi-arid environment. Agricultural Water Management. 2008;95:1323-1334.
4. Daduwal HS, Bhardwaj R, Srivastava RK. Pearl millet: A promising fodder crop for changing climate: a review. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2024;137(7):1-23.
5. Dawar R, Kumar J, Nengparmoi T, Reddy KJ, Borah ID, Al Ansari MS, et al. Growth and soil health influenced by mulching and irrigation in sunflower. Biological Forum - An International Journal. 2023;15(10):585-590.
6. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 1984.
7. Jabbar AAJ, Ahmad RA, Bhatti IH, Atique-ur-Rehman AU, Virk ZA, Vains SN. Effect of different rice-based intercropping systems on rice grain yield and residual soil fertility. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 2010;42(4):2339-2348.
8. Jukanti AK, Gowda CLL, Rai KN, Manga VK, Bhatt RK. Crops that feed the world 11: pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.): an important source of food security, nutrition and health in the arid and semi-arid tropics. Food Security. 2016;8(2):307-329.
9. Kazemeini A, Sadeghi H. Reaction of green bean-safflower intercropping patterns to different nitrogen levels. Iran Agricultural Research. 2013;31(2):13-22.
10. Kumar A, Tomer V, Kumar M, Chawla P. Millets: cultivation, processing, and utilization. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2024.
11. Lahane LB. Productivity and profitability of oilseed-based intercropping system in non-spiny safflower. Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2021.
12. Lal R. Regenerative agriculture for food and climate. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2020;75(5):123A124A.
13. Madarasz B, Jakab G, Szalai Z, Juhos K, Kotroczó Z, Tóth A, et al. Long-term effects of conservation tillage on soil erosion in Central Europe: a random forest-based approach. Soil and Tillage Research. 2021;209:104959.
14. Maharana S, Singh S. Effect of iron and zinc on growth and yield of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.). Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;10(10):546-550.
15. Monisha V, Rathinaswamy A, Mahendran PP, Kumutha K. Influence of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of foxtail millet in red soil. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2019;7(3):3536-3539.
16. Nikhitha D, Singh R, Singh E. Performance of organic manures and growth regulators on pearl millet. Asian Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Environmental Sciences. 2021;23(2):244-247.
17. Pujari J. Agronomic evaluation of transplanted pigeonpea and sunflower intercropping system. University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur; 2020.
18. Reddy YPK. Productivity and profitability of pigeonpeabased double cropping systems. Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University; 2023.
19. Richards FJ. The quantitative analysis of growth. Plant Physiology. 1969;5:3-76.
20. Saleh ASM, Zhang Q, Chen J, Shen Q. Millet grains: nutritional quality, processing, and potential health benefits. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2013;12(3):281-295.
21. Sarker BC, Kabir E, Bell RW, Ali Y. Improving seed yield and nitrogen use efficiency of sunflower by deep placement of nitrogen fertilizers and straw mulch on saline clay soils of the Ganges Delta. Field Crops Research. 2025;326.
22. Satyavathi CT, Ambawat S, Khandelwal V, Srivastava RK. Pearl millet: a climate-resilient nutricereal for mitigating hidden hunger and providing nutritional security. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2021;12:1-18.
23. Sawargaonkar GL, Patil MD, Wani SP, Pavani E, Reddy BVSR, Marimuthu S. Nitrogen response and water use efficiency of sweet sorghum cultivars. Field Crops Research. 2013;149:245-251.
24. Sawargaonkar GL, Datta A, Kamdi PJ, Rakesh S, Pasumarthi R, Davala MS, et al. Bundled management practices for enhanced finger millet productivity in acid soils: empirical evidence from Odisha, India. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research. 2025;21:101946.
25. Sheteiwy MS, Abd El-Hady EH, Xiong YC, Macovei A, Brestic M, Skalicky M, et al. Inoculation with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and mycorrhiza confers tolerance to drought stress and improves seed yield and quality of soybean. Physiologia Plantarum. 2021;172(4):2153-2169.
26. Shrestha N, Hu H, Shrestha K, Doust AN. Pearl millet response to drought: a review. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2023;14:1-14.
27. Sivamurugan AP, Ravikesavan R, Singh AK, Jat SL. Effect of phosphorus and liquid biofertilizers on maize growth and yield. Chemical Science Review and Letters. 2018;7(26):520-523.
28. Upendranaik P, Rao S, Desai BK, Krishnamurthy D, Yadahalli VG. Effect of organic manures on foxtail millet under integrated organic farming. Advances in Research. 2018;13(2):1-6.
29. Watson DJ. The physiological basis of variation in yield. Advances in Agronomy. 1952;4:101-145.
30. Wang W, Chen GR, Li MY, Chen Y, Wang Y, Tao HY, et al. Long-term cereal-legume intercropping accelerates soil organic carbon loss in subsoil of dryland. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2024;211.