Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and yield components of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

Introduction

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is one of the most widely cultivated cereal crops in the world and a major source of calories and protein for a large population, particularly in countries like India (Kaur et al., 2023) [6] . In India, it plays a crucial role in food security and agricultural economy; however, sustaining its productivity has become increasingly challenging due to continuous nutrient mining, soil degradation and imbalanced fertilizer use under intensive cropping systems (Bhusal, 2025) [1] . Long-term cereal-based rotations with excessive reliance on chemical fertilizers have led to a decline in soil organic carbon, reduced microbial biomass and deterioration of soil physical properties, ultimately affecting soil health and crop productivity (Singh et al., 2024) [14] . In addition, declining nutrient use efficiency, especially nitrogen, has increased production costs and contributed to environmental issues such as nutrient leaching and greenhouse gas emissions (Srivastava & Ngullie, 2009) [16] . Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) has emerged as a sustainable approach to improve soil fertility and enhance crop productivity through the balanced use of chemical fertilizers, organic manures and biofertilizers (Srivastava & Ngullie, 2009) [16] . Organic inputs such as vermicompost improve soil structure, water-holding capacity and organic carbon content, while also enhancing microbial activity and nutrient mineralization (Bhusal, 2025) [1] . Biofertilizers like Azotobacter and phosphate-solubilizing bacteria further improve nutrient availability through biological nitrogen fixation and phosphorus solubilization, along with the production of growth-promoting substances that enhance root development and nutrient uptake (Kumar et al., 2022) [8] . The synergistic interaction of these components with inorganic fertilizers ensures a continuous and balanced nutrient supply, leading to improved yield attributes, better grain formation and higher productivity in wheat (Chopra et al., 2025) [2] . Thus, INM not only enhances yield and yield components but also improves nutrient use efficiency, soil health and economic returns, making it a promising strategy for sustainable wheat production under modern agro-climatic conditions.

Materials and Methods

The experiment was conducted during the Rabi season of 2025-26 at the Agriculture Research and Development Centre, Sakatpura, Vikrant University, Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh), India, to evaluate the effect of integrated nutrient management on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). The study was laid out in a Randomized Block Design (RBD) with 11 treatments and three replications, comprising a total of 33 plots. Each plot measured 3 × 3 m². The wheat variety HI 1634 was used for the investigation under uniform agronomic practices to ensure reliable comparison among treatments. The data recorded on various parameters were analyzed as per Randomized Block Design (RBD) design as suggested by Gomez and Gomez (1984). The results have been interpreted on the basis of 'F' test value and critical difference (CD) was calculated. The treatment structure included different combinations of recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF), vermicompost and Azospirillum to assess their influence on crop performance. The treatments were T 1: 100% RDF (120:60:40 NPK), T 2: 100% RDF + Azospirillum (25 g kg⁻¹ seed), T 3: 100% RDF + vermicompost (3 t ha⁻¹), T 4: 75% RDF + Azospirillum (25 g kg⁻¹ seed), T 5: 75% RDF + vermicompost (3 t ha⁻¹), T 6: 50% RDF + Azospirillum (25 g kg⁻¹ seed) and T 7: 50% RDF + vermicompost (3 t ha⁻¹), along with remaining comparative treatments as per experimental requirement. The study was designed to evaluate the combined and individual effects of inorganic fertilizers, organic manure and biofertilizer on growth, yield and productivity of wheat under agro-climatic conditions of Gwalior region.

Results and Discussion

Growth Attributes

The plant population per plot was significantly influenced by integrated nutrient management treatments. The highest plant population (417.67 plants plot⁻¹) was recorded under 100% RDF (120:60:40 NPK) + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed, followed by 75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed (410.00 plants plot⁻¹) and 100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ (408.00 plants plot⁻¹), whereas the lowest plant population (375.00 plants plot⁻¹) was observed under the Control treatment. The increased plant population may be attributed to improved soil conditions and better nutrient availability during crop establishment. Plant height at harvest was significantly affected by the treatments. The maximum plant height (95.73 cm) was recorded under 100% RDF (120:60:40 NPK) + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed, followed by 75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed (92.10 cm) and 50% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed (89.13 cm). The lowest plant height (78.50 cm) was observed under the Control treatment. The greater plant height could be due to balanced nutrient supply and enhanced vegetative growth. The number of tillers per plant varied significantly among treatments. The highest number of tillers per plant (7.62) was recorded under 100% RDF (120:60:40 NPK) + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed, followed by 75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed (7.03) and 100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ (6.65), while the lowest value (4.83) was observed under the Control treatment.

Increased tillering may be attributed to improved nutrient uptake and better crop growth. The number of spikelets per plant was significantly influenced by the treatments. The highest number of spikelets per plant (21.77) was recorded under 100% RDF (120:60:40 NPK) + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed, followed by 75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed (20.43) and 50% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed (19.50), whereas the lowest number (15.50) was observed under the Control treatment. The improvement in spikelet formation may be due to enhanced nutrient availability and better reproductive development. Test weight differed significantly among the treatments. The maximum test weight (46.83 g) was recorded under 100% RDF (120:60:40 NPK) + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed, followed by 75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed (45.22 g) and 100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ (44.23 g), while the minimum test weight (36.79 g) was observed under the Control treatment. Higher test weight may be attributed to better grain filling and dry matter accumulation. The number of grains per spike was significantly affected by integrated nutrient management treatments. The highest number of grains per spike (63.10) was recorded under 100% RDF (120:60:40 NPK) + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed, followed by 75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed (59.14) and 100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ (55.08), whereas the lowest value (39.03) was observed under the Control treatment. The increased number of grains per spike may be due to improved nutrient supply, which enhanced spike development and grain setting. Similar findings were reported by Kumar et al. (2020) [9] and Patel et al. (2018) [11] , who observed improved plant growth and yield attributes under integrated nutrient management due to better nutrient availability and soil conditions. In contrast, Sharma and Singh (2019) [13] and Verma et al. (2021) [17] reported that some growth parameters like plant population and height are more influenced by seed quality and genetics than fertilizer levels. Similar increases in tillers, spikelets, test weight and grains per spike were also supported by Yadav et al. (2017) [18] and Choudhary et al. (2021) [3] , whereas Kaur et al. (2019) [7] and Gupta et al. (2018) [4] noted that environmental and management factors may sometimes limit or weaken these responses.

Yield Attributes

The grain yield was significantly influenced by different integrated nutrient management treatments (Table 4.6 and Fig. 4.6). The highest grain yield (58.50 q ha⁻¹) was recorded under T 8 (100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed), followed by T 9 (75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed) with 54.74 q ha⁻¹ and T 3 (100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹) with 52.51 q ha⁻¹. Among the remaining treatments, T 10 (50% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed) recorded 51.23 q ha⁻¹, T 5 (75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹) 50.35 q ha⁻¹ and T 2 (100% RDF (120:60:40 NPK) + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed) 49.76 q ha⁻¹. Moderate grain yield was observed under T 7 (50% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹) with 47.51 q ha⁻¹ and T 1 (100% RDF (120:60:40 NPK)) with 47.23 q ha⁻¹, while T 4 (75% RDF + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed) recorded 45.30 q ha⁻¹. The lowest grain yield (40.33 q ha⁻¹) was observed under T 6 (50% RDF + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed), whereas the control treatment T 11 (no fertilizer, no organic manure and no biofertilizer) recorded the lowest yield (35.24 q ha⁻¹).

The straw yield also showed significant variation among treatments (Table 4.6 and Fig. 4.6). The highest straw yield (135.58 q ha⁻¹) was recorded under T 8 (100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed), followed by T 9 (75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed) with 128.17 q ha⁻¹ and T 3 (100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹) with 123.73 q ha⁻¹. Intermediate values were recorded under T 10 (50% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed), T 5 (75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹) and T 2 (100% RDF + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed). Moderate straw yield was observed under T 7 (50% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹) and T 1 (100% RDF (120:60:40 NPK)), while T 4 recorded 107.08 q ha⁻¹ and T 6 (50% RDF + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed) recorded 96.76 q ha⁻¹. The lowest straw yield (86.54 q ha⁻¹) was recorded under T 11 (control: no fertilizer, no organic manure and no biofertilizer). Biological yield followed a similar trend as grain and straw yield. The maximum biological yield (194.08 q ha⁻¹) was recorded under T 8 (100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed), followed by T 9 (182.91 q ha⁻¹) and T 3 (176.24 q ha⁻¹). The lowest biological yield (121.78 q ha⁻¹) was observed under T 11 (control). Harvest index showed slight variation among treatments. The highest harvest index (43.10%) was recorded under T 8 (100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed), followed by T 9 (42.71%) and T 2 (100% RDF (120:60:40 NPK) + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed) with 42.50%. Treatments T 3 (100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹), T 1 (100% RDF), T 5 (75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹), T 4 (75% RDF + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed) and T 10 (50% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed) showed nearly similar values ranging from 42.34% to 42.43%. The lowest harvest index (40.75%) was recorded under T 11 (control). The grain, straw and biological yield were significantly influenced by different integrated nutrient management treatments. The highest grain yield (58.50 q ha⁻¹), straw yield (135.58 q ha⁻¹) and biological yield (194.08 q ha⁻¹) were recorded under T 8 (100% RDF + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed), followed by T 9 and T 3 , whereas the lowest values were observed under the control (T 11 ). Similar findings were reported by Kumar et al. (2020) [9] , Patel et al. (2018) [11] and Choudhary et al. (2021) [3] , who attributed higher yields to improved nutrient availability, better root development and enhanced photosynthetic activity under integrated nutrient management. In contrast, Sharma and Singh (2019) [13] and Verma et al. (2021) [17] reported that yield differences may sometimes be limited due to genetic control and reduced responsiveness at higher fertility levels. Harvest index showed only slight variation among treatments, with the highest value under T 8 (43.10%) and the lowest under T 11 (40.75%), supporting the findings of Singh et al. (2020) [15] , while Kaur et al. (2019) [7] reported that harvest index is comparatively stable and less influenced by nutrient management practices.

Conclusion

The study concluded that integrated nutrient management significantly improved the growth, yield attributes and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under the agro-climatic conditions of Gwalior (M.P.). The treatment involving 100% RDF (120:60:40 NPK) + Vermicompost @ 3 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum @ 25 g kg⁻¹ seed recorded the highest plant population (417.67 plants plot⁻¹), plant height (95.73 cm), tillers per plant (7.62), spikelets per plant (21.77), test weight (46.83 g), grains per spike (63.10), grain yield (58.50 q ha⁻¹), straw yield (135.58 q ha⁻¹), biological yield (194.08 q ha⁻¹) and harvest index (43.10%). It was followed by 75% RDF + Vermicompost + Azospirillum and 100% RDF + Vermicompost treatments, while the lowest values were recorded under the control (plant population 375.00, plant height 78.50 cm, grain yield 35.24 q ha⁻¹, straw yield 86.54 q ha⁻¹ and biological yield 121.78 q ha⁻¹). Hence, it is concluded that integration of inorganic fertilizers with vermicompost and biofertilizer is more effective than sole application of fertilizers, leading to higher productivity, improved yield components, better soil health and sustainable wheat production.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgmentThe author sincerely thanks the Chairman of the Department of Technology Transfer, Mahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidyalaya, Chitrakoot, Satna (M.P.), India, for his invaluable guidance, constant encouragement and support in the successful completion of this research work. The author also expresses heartfelt gratitude to all colleagues, field assistants and laborers for their sincere efforts and valuable assistance during the field experimentation. Special thanks are extended to Satyendra Ahirwar, Avadesh Kumar, Mandvi Srivastava, Chandan Singh, Hirdesh Kumar, Naveen Kumar Singh, UPS Bhadauria and Anvesh Kumar Dohare for their continuous help, cooperation and support throughout the study.

References

1. Bhusal S. Soil health degradation and sustainable nutrient management in cereal-based cropping systems. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture and Environment. 2025;14(1):22-30.
2. Chopra R, Singh M, Kaur P. Integrated nutrient management for improving wheat productivity and nutrient use efficiency. International Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 2025;19(2):115-123.
3. Choudhary R, Sharma P, Singh A. Effect of integrated nutrient management on wheat productivity and spike fertility. Journal of Crop Science and Agriculture. 2021;12(3):45-52.
4. Gupta S, Meena RK, Yadav S. Influence of environmental factors on grain yield and yield attributes in wheat. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 2018;52(4):389-394.
5. Joshi V, Patel KM, Verma R. Response of wheat to different fertilizer levels under irrigated conditions. Journal of Cereal Research. 2019;11(2):120-125.
6. Kaur J, Singh R, Gill S. Wheat production and food security challenges in India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2023;93(4):456-462.
7. Kaur M, Singh J, Brar AS. Stability of harvest index under different nutrient management practices in wheat. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2019;15(6):112-118.
8. Kumar A, Yadav S, Sharma P. Role of biofertilizers in improving nutrient availability and crop productivity. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. 2022;185(3):210-218.
9. Kumar P, Sharma R, Singh D. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of wheat. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Agriculture. 2020;8(2):55-61.
10. Meena BS, Yadav R, Sharma KC. Influence of organic and inorganic nutrient sources on yield attributes of wheat. Annals of Agricultural Research. 2020;41(1):33-39.
11. Patel N, Mehta D, Joshi R. Integrated nutrient management effects on growth parameters of wheat. Journal of Applied Agricultural Science. 2018;10(1):25-30.
12. Reddy SV, Kumar A, Rao G. Genotypic influence on spike characteristics in wheat under varying nutrient levels. Crop Improvement Journal. 2018;45(2):90-96.
13. Sharma A, Singh R. Role of seed quality and fertilizers in determining plant population in wheat. Indian Farming. 2019;69(5):22-25.
14. Singh R, Verma P, Yadav R. Long-term effects of intensive cropping systems on soil health and productivity. Soil and Tillage Research in India. 2024;28(1):33-41.
15. Singh R, Yadav S, Meena R. Effect of nutrient management on dry matter partitioning and harvest index in wheat. Journal of Cereal Research. 2020;11(2):120-125.
16. Srivastava AK, Ngullie E. Integrated nutrient management for sustainable crop production. Indian Journal of Fertilisers. 2009;5(10):67-74.
17. Verma P, Singh B, Yadav R. Genotype × environment interaction in wheat yield response under nutrient management. Agricultural Science Digest. 2021;41(3):200204.
18. Yadav S, Kumar R, Singh P. Effect of biofertilizers on tillering and nitrogen uptake in wheat. Journal of EcoFriendly Agriculture. 2017;12(1):15-20.