Effect of planting techniques and growth hormones on growth, yield and economics of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) under Prayagraj conditions

Introduction

Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.), a pseudo-cereal of the family Amaranthaceae native to the Andean region of South America, has gained worldwide attention as a climate-resilient and highly nutritious crop. Its grains contain 12-18% protein with a balanced essential amino-acid profile, together with dietary fibre, minerals and antioxidants, and are naturally gluten-free, making the crop valuable for nutritional security. Quinoa tolerates drought, salinity, frost and poor soil fertility, allowing cultivation on marginal lands where conventional cereals often fail. In India, quinoa was introduced in the early 2010s and is gradually expanding across Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh and parts of southern India, with average productivity of about 1.2-1.5 t ha⁻¹. The Prayagraj region of the Indo-Gangetic plains, with its alluvial soils, subtropical climate and assured irrigation, offers good potential for quinoa cultivation during the Rabi season. However, productivity is often constrained by inappropriate planting techniques and limited use of growth-promoting inputs. Planting technique governs plant stand, canopy architecture, root development and resource-use efficiency. Methods such as broadcasting, line sowing, ridge sowing and bed planting differ in aeration, drainage and moisturse distribution, and thereby influence growth and yield. Likewise, plant growth regulators play a decisive role in crop development: gibberellic acid (GA₃) promotes cell elongation, stem growth and flowering; ascorbic acid acts as an antioxidant improving physiological efficiency; and Panchgavya, an organic bio-enhancer, supplies nutrients, beneficial microbes and natural hormones. As very little work integrating both factors has been carried out for quinoa in the Prayagraj region, the present study was undertaken to evaluate their effect on growth, yield and economics.

The specific objectives were: (i) to study the effect of planting techniques and growth hormones on the growth of quinoa; (ii) to study their effect on yield; and (iii) to work out the economics of the different treatment combinations.

Materials and Methods

The field experiment was conducted during the Rabi season of 2025-26 at the Crop Research Farm, Department of Agronomy, Prof. Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University, Naini, Prayagraj (25.35° N, 81.89° E; 98 m above mean sea level). The region is subtropical with hot dry summers and cool winters and a mean annual rainfall of about 1042 mm. The experimental soil was sandy clay loam, neutral in reaction (pH 7.3), with electrical conductivity 0.37 dS m⁻¹, medium organic carbon (0.57%), low available nitrogen (212 kg ha⁻¹) and medium available phosphorus (12.5 kg ha⁻¹) and potassium (267 kg ha⁻¹). The experiment was laid out in a Factorial Randomized Block Design with three replications and twelve treatment combinations (Table 1), comprising four planting techniques and three foliar-applied growth hormones. Quinoa variety EC507740 (AICRP, UAS Bangalore) was sown at 30 × 10 cm spacing in plots of 9 m² (3 × 1.75 m). Recommended fertilizer doses were applied uniformly through urea, DAP and MOP. Three irrigations were given as per crop need, and weeds were controlled by hand weeding at 35 and 60 DAS. Foliar sprays were applied with a knapsack sprayer: GA₃ @ 100 ppm (100 mg L⁻¹), ascorbic acid @ 50 ppm and Panchgavya @ 5% (50 mL L⁻¹). Growth observations (plant height, dry matter accumulation, crop growth rate, relative growth rate and number of branches) were recorded at 20, 40, 60, 80 DAS and at harvest on five tagged plants per plot. Yield attributes (panicles plant⁻¹, test weight, seed, straw and biological yield, and harvest index) were recorded at harvest, and economics (cost of cultivation, gross return, net return and benefit-cost ratio) were computed from prevailing market prices. Data were analysed by analysis of variance for the Factorial Randomized Block Design, and treatment differences were tested at the 5% level of significance.

Table 1: Treatment combinations

Code

Treatment combination Code Treatment combination T₁ Broadcasting + GA₃ @ 100 ppm T₇ Ridge sowing + GA₃ @ 100 ppm T₂ Broadcasting + Ascorbic acid @ 50 ppm T₈ Ridge sowing + Ascorbic acid @ 50 ppm T₃ Broadcasting + Panchgavya @ 5% T₉ Ridge sowing + Panchgavya @ 5% T₄ Line sowing + GA₃ @ 100 ppm T₁₀ Bed method + GA₃ @ 100 ppm T₅ Line sowing + Ascorbic acid @ 50 ppm T₁₁ Bed method + Ascorbic acid @ 50 ppm T₆ Line sowing + Panchgavya @ 5% T₁₂ Bed method + Panchgavya @ 5%

Results and Discussion

Growth parameters

Plant height increased progressively with crop age and reached a maximum at harvest (Fig. 1). At early stages (20 DAS) planting techniques had no significant effect, reflecting uniform germination. From 40 DAS onward, organized planting methods were significantly superior to broadcasting. At 100 DAS, ridge sowing and bed method recorded the tallest plants (106.93 cm each), significantly exceeding line sowing (104.62 cm) and broadcasting (101.80 cm). Among foliar treatments, Panchgavya @ 5% generally promoted greater height at early and final stages, while GA₃ @ 100 ppm was most effective during the active vegetative phase (80 DAS), consistent with its role in cell elongation. Dry matter accumulation followed a similar increasing trend (Fig. 2). At harvest, ridge sowing recorded the maximum dry weight (85.62 g plant⁻¹), statistically at par with bed method (85.28 g plant⁻¹) and significantly superior to line sowing (83.83 g plant⁻¹) and broadcasting (80.41 g plant⁻¹). The superior biomass under ridge and bed planting is attributed to improved soil aeration, better drainage and efficient nutrient uptake. Among growth hormones, Panchgavya @ 5% recorded the highest dry matter at most stages, while GA₃ improved biomass during intermediate stages. Crop growth rate (CGR) increased from early stages, peaked during 60-80 DAS and declined towards maturity (Fig. 3). Ridge sowing recorded the highest CGR during 40-60 DAS (23.01 g m⁻² day⁻¹) and 80-100 DAS (23.82 g m⁻² day⁻¹), while line sowing was superior during peak growth (60-80 DAS). GA₃ @ 100 ppm enhanced CGR during early and late stages, whereas Panchgavya recorded the maximum CGR during peak vegetative growth.

Relative growth rate (RGR) declined steadily with crop age and showed no significant treatment differences, indicating that although treatments altered absolute growth, they did not change the proportional efficiency of biomass production. uniform plant distribution. Among foliar treatments, Panchgavya @ 5% produced the most branches at early and mid-stages, while ascorbic acid was most effective at harvest.

Yield attributes and yield

Yield attributes were appreciably influenced by planting technique and foliar treatment (Fig. 4). The bed method produced the highest number of panicles per plant (18.35), followed by ridge (17.20) and line sowing (17.12). Test weight was greatest under line sowing (3.40 g) and ridge sowing (3.35 g). Seed yield, however, was highest under ridge sowing (3.23 q ha⁻¹), followed by line sowing (3.01 q ha⁻¹), broadcasting (2.93 q ha⁻¹) and bed method (2.77 q ha⁻¹), reflecting the better dry-matter accumulation and assimilate translocation under ridge planting. Straw yield was likewise maximum under ridge sowing (7.79 t ha⁻¹) and minimum under bed method (6.28 t ha⁻¹) (Fig. 5).

Considering treatment combinations, ridge sowing with GA₃ @ 100 ppm (T₇) recorded the highest seed yield (3.55 q ha⁻¹) and straw yield (8.02 t ha⁻¹), whereas bed method with Panchgavya (T₁₂) recorded the lowest. Harvest index was highest under line and bed methods combined with ascorbic acid (31.25%), indicating better partitioning of assimilates towards reproductive structures under these treatments. 4) showed that the cost of cultivation ranged from ₹ 62,800 to ₹ 68,200 ha⁻¹, being higher under ridge and bed methods owing to greater field-preparation and management costs. The maximum gross return (₹ 1,93,528 ha⁻¹) and net return (₹ 1,25,728 ha⁻¹) were obtained under ridge sowing with GA₃ @ 100 ppm (T₇), driven by its superior seed and straw yields (Fig. 6). The lowest returns were recorded under bed method with Panchgavya (T₁₂). The benefit-cost ratio reinforced this advantage (Fig. 7). The highest B:C ratio (1.85) was recorded under ridge sowing with GA₃ @ 100 ppm (T₇), clearly superior to all other combinations, followed by line sowing with Panchgavya (T₆) and ridge sowing with Panchgavya (T₉), each at 1.55. The lowest B:C ratio (1.13) occurred under bed method with Panchgavya (T₁₂). The superior profitability of T₇ resulted from its ability to generate the maximum yield and gross return at a moderate increase in cultivation cost.

Conclusion

The study demonstrated that planting technique and foliar-applied growth hormones significantly influenced the growth, yield and profitability of quinoa under Prayagraj conditions. Ridge sowing improved dry matter accumulation, crop growth rate and seed yield, while GA₃ @ 100 ppm enhanced reproductive growth and grain filling. The combination of ridge sowing with foliar application of gibberellic acid @ 100 ppm (T₇) produced the highest seed yield (3.55 q ha⁻¹), net return (₹ 1,25,728 ha⁻¹) and benefit-cost ratio (1.85), and is therefore recommended as the most productive and economically feasible practice for quinoa cultivation in the Prayagraj district. Being based on a single season, the findings may be confirmed through further multilocation and multi-season testing.

References

1. Abdalla MM, Diop M, et al. Phenological, morphological and agronomic responses of quinoa genotypes to different planting methods and sowing densities in the Sahel region. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 2020.
2. Ali M, et al. Influence of planting geometry on crop stand, canopy architecture and weed competition in field crops. Agronomy Research. 2020.
3. Basra SMA, Iqbal S, Afzal I. Evaluating the response of nitrogen application on growth, development and yield of quinoa. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2014;16:886-892.
4. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Quinoa: An ancient crop to contribute to world food security. Rome: FAO; 2013.
5. Hernandez-Linares MC, Vadell J. Branching and assimilate partitioning in quinoa under varied agronomic management. Field Crops Research. 2016.
6. Risi J, Galwey NW. The pattern of genetic diversity in the Andean grain crop quinoa: associations between agronomic characters and spacing. Euphytica. 2009.
7. Saif U, et al. Effect of sowing techniques on morphological attributes, grain yield and harvest index of quinoa. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2020.
8. Sofi PA, et al. Growth, yield and metabolic responses of quinoa to foliar application of GA₃ and ascorbic acid. Journal of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2015.
9. Yadav R, et al. Effect of organic and inorganic nutrient sources on seed filling and test weight of pseudo-cereals. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2018.