Effect of humic acid on productivity and profitability of Indian mustard

Introduction

In 'Rapeseed-Mustard' group of oil seeds, mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czernj & Cosson] occupies the prime position in India. Mustard is predominantly cultivated in Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat. The cultivation of this crop also occurs in unconventional regions of South India such as Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh. It is grown in both irrigated and rainfed environments. Productivity has improved significantly in India over the last ten years and the production of 2022-23 was 126.96 lakh tonne (Anonymous, 2024 a ) [1] . Currently the area, production and productivity of rapeseed-mustard in Gujarat was 2.67 lakh ha, 5.35 lakh tonnes and 1999.08 kg ha -1 , respectively (Anonymous, 2024 b ) [2] . Mustard Brassica napus, Brassica campestris and Brassica juncea are the three species of mustard those produce edible oil. Oil of plant origin constitute important component of human diet, ranking third after cereals and animal products and are nutritionally superior to animal oil (Alam et al., 2015) [3] . Although it is an important crop but the cultivation of mustard has to compete with other crops and it has been shifted to marginal lands of poor productivity. The demand for edible oil is rising as the population grows. Therefore, it is widely acknowledged that there should be a significant increase in the production of edible oil to meet this demand (Meena et al., 2017) [4] . Humic acid efficiently improves soil fertility and crop productivity, especially on poorly fertile and alkaline-calcareous soils (Rajpar et al., 2011) [5] . Humic acid is an organically charged bio-stimulant that significantly affects plant growth and development, yield attributes and increases crop yield. It has been extensively investigated that humic acid improves physical, chemical and biological properties of soils (Keeling et al., 2003 and Mikkelsen, 2005) [6,7] . Humic acid comprises a mixture of weak aliphatic and aromatic organic acids which are not soluble in water under acid condition but are soluble in water under alkaline condition. Humic acid also occurs in rotting vegetable matter and can be detected in the black slime of an ordinary compost pit in home garden. In soils it is most likely formed by certain secondary processes like polymerization of polyphenols leached by rain from surface leaf litter and condensation of phenols, quinines and proteins which are provided by the action of soil microorganisms. Humic acid exerts physical, chemical and biological effects on soil quality by serving as soil conditioners, nutrient source and substrate for microorganism. They form complexes with many metals and make them available to plant roots and microorganisms. Stimulate plant growth by increasing biomass production. Increase yield and improve quality of plants.

Materials and methods

A field experiment was conducted during the rabi season of the year 2023-24 at Agronomy Instructional Farm, C. P. College of Agriculture, Sardarkrushinagar, Banaskantha, Gujarat. Geographically, Sardarkrushinagar comes under North Gujarat Agro-climatic region situated at 24°19ʹ North latitude and 72°19ʹ East longitude, with an elevation of 154.52 m above the mean sea level. The soil of experimental was loamy sand in texture with slightly alkaline in reaction (7.32 pH), electrical conductivity (0.14 dS m -1 ) within safe limit. The soil was low in organic carbon (0.26%) and available nitrogen (156.3 kg ha -1 ), medium in available P 2 O 5 (36.54 kg ha -1 ) and available K 2 O (256.2 kg ha - 1 ). The RBD layout was used with factorial concept for the experiment and implemented with three replications. There were sixteen treatment combinations comprising four levels of soil application of humic acid (S 0: 0 kg ha -1 , S 1: 10 kg ha -1 , S 2: 20 kg ha -1 , S 3: 30 kg ha -1 ) and four levels of foliar spray of humic acid [F 0: Control (water spray), F 1: 20 ppm, F 2: 40 ppm, F 3: 60 ppm]. Foliar spray of humic acid at 30 and 50 DAS was applied uniformly to all the treatments. The recommended dose of 50 kg nitrogen ha -1 , 50 kg phosphorus ha -1 , 40 kg sulphur ha -1 were applied uniformly to all the plots. Soil application of humic acid, full dose of phosphorus, sulphur and half dose of nitrogen were applied at time of sowing and the remaining half dose of the nitrogen was top dressed at 30-35 DAS in moisturised field. The sources of nitrogen, phosphorus, sulphur and humic acid were urea, Diammonium phosphate, bentonite sulphur and potassium humate. The oil content in mustard seed was determined by FT-NIR (Fourier Transferable near Infra-Red) technique (Model Bruker) as per standard method suggested by Tiwari et al. (1994) [8] . The oil yield was computed by multiplying the seed yield with oil content. It was computed by using the following formula Oil content (%) × Seed yield (kg/ha) Oil yield (kg/ha) = 100

Data on different aspects of mustard crop were subjected to the statistical analysis in accordance with analysis of variation techniques as per procedure of randomized block design suggested by Gomez and Gomez (1984) [9] .

Results and Discussion

Effect of humic acid on growth parameter Soil application of humic acid 30 kg ha -1 recorded significantly higher plant height (129.6 cm and 184.5 cm), dry matter accumulation (17.82 and 57.20 g plant -1 ) at 60 DAS and harvest and number of secondary branches per plant (14.20) which remained statistically at par with 20 kg ha -1 soil application of humic acid (Table 1). However, the number of primary branches per plant, plant height and dry matter accumulation at 30 DAS were all determined to be non-significant (Table 1). Jape et al.

(2013) [10] also reported that application of humic acid proved effective on increasing the growth parameter in groundnut. 1). The number of primary branches per plant, plant height, and dry matter accumulation at 30 DAS were all deemed to be non-significant (Table 1). The difference in plant height might be due to humic acid stimulate plant growth by the assimilation of major and minor elements, enzyme activation and/or inhibition, changes in membrane permeability, protein synthesis and finally the activation of biomass production ultimately increased dry matter of plant. These findings are in accordance with those reported by Mahmoud et al. (2011) [11] , Rajpar et al. (2011) [5] , Hendawy et al. (2015) [12] , Bahrun et al. (2019) [13] and Chaitra et al. (2024) [14] .

Effect of humic acid on yield attributes and yield

Yield attributes and yield of mustard was significantly influenced by soil application of humic acid. Significantly higher number of siliquae per plant (280.3), seed yield (1740 kg ha -1 ) and stover yield (4359 kg ha -1 ) was recorded with soil application of humic acid @ 30 kg ha -1 was found to be statistically at par with 20 kg ha -1 soil application of humic acid.

Lowest number of siliquae per plant (230.2), seed yield (1471 kg ha -1 ) and stover yield (3725 kg ha -1 ) was recorded with control (Table 2). On the other hand, information about the number of seeds per siliqua, siliqua length, test weight, and harvest index shown to be non-significant. Increase in yield may be attributed to mineralization of nutrients, which leads improved growth and better partitioning of assimilates to various metabolic sinks Talavia et al. (2007) [15] . Similar finding was reported by Rajpar et al. (2011) [5] in mustard, Ahmad et al. (2016) [16] in canola, Lotfi et al. (2018) [17] in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) and Akter et al. (2023) [18] in mustard. The highest number of siliquae per plant (267.2), seed yield (1694 kg ha -1 ) and stover yield (4299 kg ha -1 ) was observed with foliar spray of humic acid @ 60 ppm at 30 and 50 DAS over rest of treatments, but number of siliquae per plant and seed yield was at par with foliar spray of humic acid @ 40 ppm and stover yield at par with foliar spray of humic acid @ 40 ppm and 20 ppm (Table 2). Whereas, Data pertaining to seeds per siliqua, length of siliqua, test weight and harvest index were found nonsignificant with foliar spray of humic acid. These results are in close agreement with the findings of Bakry et al. (2013) [19] , Parihar et al. (2013) [20] , Deotale et al. (2017) [21] , Barekati et al.

(2019) [22] , Nandini and Math (2019) [23] , Kiran et al. (2020) [24] and Reddy et al. (2021) [25] .

Effect of humic acid on quality

Soil application of humic acid did not have a significant influence on oil content while exerted significant influence on oil yield. Significantly higher oil yield (673 kg ha -1 ) was recorded with 30 kg ha -1 soil application of humic acid, which was remained at par with 20 kg/ha soil application of humic acid while least oil yield (564 k kg ha -1 ) was recorded with control (Table 3). This might be due to higher seed yield in soil application of humic acid as compared to control.

Economics analysis

Maximum economic return with successive increase in soil application of humic acid was noted. Maximum gross return (₹1,02,654 ha -1 ) and net return (₹54,148 ha -1 ) were obtained with soil application of humic acid @ 30 kg ha -1 . Whereas, the minimum gross return (₹86,824 ha -1 ) and net return (₹48,269 ha - 1 ) was observed with control (Table 4). Higher seed and stover yield with increasing soil application of humic acid might be resulted in higher net return. This might be due to fact that increment in soil application of humic acid increase yield. The results are conformity with the finding of Paramasivan et al.

(2015) [28] and Sai Kumar et al. (2015) [29] . Increased economic return with foliar spray of humic acid was observed. foliar spray of humic acid @ 60 ppm to mustard crop recorded maximum gross return (₹1,00,004 ha -1 ) and net return (₹56,156 ha -1 ). Whereas, the minimum gross return (₹88,666 ha -1 ) and net return (₹45,627 ha -1 ) were observed with water spray (Table 4). This might be due to higher yield under this treatment. The results are conformity with the finding of Metre et al. (2013) [30] , Parihar et al. (2013) [20] , Deotale et al. (2014) [31] and Ganta et al. (2021) [32] .

Conclusion

It can be concluded that soil application of humic acid @ 20 kg/ha as basal and foliar spray of 40 ppm humic acid along with RDF (50,50,00,40 kg N, P 2 O 5 , K 2 O, S ha -1 ) produced higher yield of mustard under loamy sand soil of north Gujarat.

References

1. Anonymous. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Second advance estimates of production of oilseeds and commercial crops for 2023-24. New Delhi: Government of India; 2024.
2. Anonymous. Directorate of Agriculture, Agriculture, Farmers Welfare and Co-operation Department, Government of Gujarat. 2024. https://dag.gujarat.gov.in
3. Alam MJ, Ahmed KS, Mollah MRA, Tareq MZ, Alam J. Effect of planting dates on the yield of mustard seed. International Journal of Applied Sciences and Biotechnology. 2015;3(4):651-654.
4. Meena H, Meena PKP, Kumhar BL. Studies on response of mustard varieties to different sowing dates under humid southern plain zone of Rajasthan. International Journal of Pure and Applied Bioscience. 2017;5(3):385-391.
5. Rajpar MB, Bhatti ZH, Shah AN, Tunio SD. Humic acid improves growth, yield and oil content of Brassica campestris L. Pakistan Journal of Agriculture, Agricultural Engineering and Veterinary Sciences. 2011;27(2):125-133.
6. Keeling AA, McCallum KR, Beckwith CP. Crop and Environment Research Centre, Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire, UK. Bioresource Technology. 2003;90(2):127-137.
7. Mikkelsen RL. Humic materials for agriculture. Better Crops with Plant Food. 2005;89(3):6-7.
8. Tiwari PN, Gambhit PN, Rajan TS. Rapid and nondestructive determination of oil in oilseeds. Journal of Oil Chemists' Society. 1994;51:1049.
9. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1984. p. 680-684.
10. Jape MM, Patil SR, Raut SM, More NS. Response of foliar sprays of humic acid through cowdung wash on morphophysiological, yield and yield contributing parameters of groundnut. Journal of Soils and Crops. 2013;23(2):321.
11. Mahmoud MM, Hassanein AHA, Mansour SF, Khalefa AM. Effect of soil and foliar application of humic acid on growth and productivity of soybean plants grown on a calcareous soil under different levels of mineral fertilizers. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering. 2011;2(8):881-890.
12. Hendawy SF, Hussein MS, El-Gohary AE, Ibrahim ME. Effect of foliar organic fertilization on the growth, yield and oil content of Mentha piperita var. citrata. Asian Journal of Agricultural Research. 2015;9(5):237-248.
13. Bahrun AH, Mollah A, Khotimah NH. Application of humic acid and vesicular arbuscular mycorrhiza (VAM) for growth and production of soybean. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2019;343(1):012023.
14. Chaitra P, Math KK, Patil RS, Rathore G, Gowthamchand NJ, Sharma G. Effect of humic acid from vermicompost and commercial source on growth, yield and quality of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Environment and Ecology. 2024;42(1):77-83.
15. Talavia BP, Polara KB, Mathukia RK, Guolakia BA. Influence of humic acid on growth, yield and quality of summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Advances in Plant Sciences. 2007;20(2):659-660.
16. Ahmad S, Daur I, Al-Solaimani SG, Yasir M. Effect of rhizobacteria inoculation and humic acid application on canola (Brassica napus L.) crop. Pakistan Journal of Botany. 2016;48(5):2109-2120.
17. Lotfi R, Kalaji HM, Valizadeh GR, Khalilvand BE, Hemati A, Gharavi-Kochebagh P, et al. Effects of humic acid on photosynthetic efficiency of rapeseed plants growing under different watering conditions. Photosynthetica. 2018;56(3):962-970.
18. Akter C, Islam MM, Parvin S, Shafiqul M. Response of different mustard varieties to humic acid. Journal of Bioscience and Agriculture Research. 2023;30(2):25412550.
19. Bakry AB, Sadak MS, Moamen HT, Abd El Lateef EM. Influence of humic acid and organic fertilizer on growth, chemical constituents, yield and quality of two flax seed cultivars grown under newly reclaimed sandy soils. International Journal of Academic Research. 2013;5(5):125134.
20. Parihar LB, Deotale RD, Raut SM, More NS, Banginwar AD. Physiological responses of foliar application of humic acid through vermicompost wash on morpho-physiological, yield and yield contributing parameters of mustard (Brassica juncea). Journal of Soils and Crops. 2013;23(2):292.
21. Deotale RD, Padghan GA, Kamdi SR, Patil SR, Madke VS. Effect of foliar application of humic acid through vermicompost wash and NAA on chemical and biochemical parameters and yield of pigeonpea. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2017;5(6):1786-1791.
22. Barekati F, Hervana EM, Rad AHS, Mohamadia GN. Effect of sowing date and humic acid foliar application on yield and yield components of canola cultivars. Journal of Agricultural Science. 2019;25:70-78.
23. Nandini R, Math KK. Effect of humic acid on yield and uptake of major nutrients by blackgram (Vigna mungo L.) in an Alfisol. Journal of Farm Sciences. 2019;32(4):424-427.
24. Kiran SK, Prakash SS, Krishnamurthy R, Yogananda SB, Shivakumar KV. Effect of humic acid and multimicronutrient mixture with STCR fertilizer dose on nutrient content and uptake by cowpea in southern dry zone (Zone 6) of Karnataka. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2020;9(4):493-498.
25. Reddy TV, Patel PP, Patel BR, Patel GN. Integrated nitrogen management, humic and fulvic acids on performance of sesame (Sesamum indicum). Journal of Crop and Weed. 2021;17(2):42-46.
26. Emam SM, Awad AAM. Impact of plant density and humic acid application on yield, yield components and nutrient uptake of sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) grown in a newly reclaimed soil. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering. 2017;8(11):635-642.
27. Amiri M, Rad AHS, Valadabadi A, Sayfzadeh S, Zakerin H. Response of rapeseed fatty acid composition to foliar application of humic acid under different plant densities. Plant, Soil and Environment. 2019;66:303-308.
28. Paramasivan M, Arunkumar V, Prabhu T. Effect of humic acid and inorganic fertilizers on productivity, profitability, nutrient uptake and soil fertility in brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) var. KKM1 in Alfisol of Tamil Nadu. Asian Journal of Soil Science. 2015;10(2):185-190.
29. Sai Kumar T, Bhanu Rekha K, Sudhakara Babu SN, Madhavi A. Yield and economics of rainfed sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) as influenced by humic acid and nutrient management practices in Alfisols. Progress Research -An International Journal. 2015;10(Special III):1764-1766.
30. Metre NR, Deotale RD, Arsode SV, Ghewande SS, Banginwar AD. Physiological responses of foliar application of humic acid through cow dung wash on morphophysiological parameters and yield of greengram. Journal of Soils and Crops. 2013;23(2):331.
31. Deotale R, Ghadage P, Charjan SU, Peshattiwar PD, Jayade VS. Effect of foliar spray of humic acid through cow dung and vermicompost wash on biochemical parameters and yield of green gram. International Journal of Research in Biosciences and Agricultural Technology. 2014;2(2):23472517.
32. Ganta H, Rao CBB, Prakash TR, Hussain SA. Effect of hormones on yield and economics of mustard (Brassica juncea L.) under Southern Telangana agro-climatic conditions. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2021;11(7):89-94.