Productivity enhancement through foliar nutrition in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)

Introduction

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important cool-season grain legume belonging to the family Fabaceae and is believed to have originated in Southwest Asia. It is widely cultivated owing to its high nutritional value, adaptability and contribution to food and nutritional security (Singh et al., 2018) [16] . Commonly known as gram, Bengal gram, garbanzo or chana, chickpea is an excellent source of dietary protein and improves soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation, thereby contributing to sustainable cropping systems (Singh et al., 2018) [16] . The seeds are consumed as whole grains, split dal and flour, while the haulm serves as nutritious livestock feed. Chickpea seeds contain 18-22% protein, 52-70% carbohydrates, 4-10% fat, about 1.37% crude fibre and are rich in essential amino acids, vitamins and minerals, making them an important component of a balanced human diet (Kumar et al., 2018) [8] . Globally, chickpea is the second most important pulse crop after pigeon pea (Londhe et al., 2022) [9] . India contributes nearly 65% of global chickpea production. During 2025-26, chickpea occupied 95.2 m ha with a production of 117.92 m t and an average productivity of 1238 kg ha -1 , while in Telangana it occupied 0.71 m ha with a production of 0.119 m t and productivity of 1673 kg ha -1 (Indiastat, 2025-26) [5] . Despite its importance, chickpea productivity remains below its genetic potential, particularly under rainfed conditions, mainly due to inadequate nutrient availability during the critical reproductive stages. Foliar nutrition has emerged as an efficient nutrient management strategy for supplying nutrients directly to plant foliage during periods of peak nutrient demand. It facilitates rapid nutrient absorption, corrects temporary nutrient deficiencies, enhances photosynthetic activity, promotes assimilate translocation and improves nutrient use efficiency (Rauniyar, 2020) [13] while minimizing nutrient losses associated with soil application (Januszkiewicz et al., 2023) [6] .

Recent advances in nanotechnology have led to the development of nano fertilizers, which offer controlled nutrient release, higher nutrient absorption efficiency and reduced environmental losses, thereby improving crop productivity and nutrient use efficiency (Al-Juthery and Al-Maamouri, 2020) [2] . Among these, Nano Urea and Nano DAP developed by the Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) have emerged as promising alternatives to conventional fertilizers for sustainable crop production (Rameshaiah et al., 2015) [12] . Nano Urea contains 4% nitrogen in nanoparticles (30-50 nm), enhancing nitrogen absorption while reducing nutrient losses through volatilization, leaching and runoff (Suthar et al., 2023) [17] . Similarly, Nano DAP contains 8% nitrogen and 16% phosphorus, improving phosphorus use efficiency and reducing dependence on conventional diammonium phosphate fertilizers (Khemshetty et al., 2024) [7] . Therefore, integrating foliar nutrition with nano fertilizers offers considerable potential for improving nutrient use efficiency, productivity and sustainability in chickpea cultivation.

Materials and Methods

A field experiment was conducted during rabi 2025-26 at the Agricultural Research Station (ARS), Adilabad, Professor Jayashankar Telangana Agricultural University (PJTAU), Telangana, India, to evaluate the effect of different foliar nutrition treatments on the productivity of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). The experimental site is located in the Northern Telangana Agroclimatic Zone at 19°40′ N latitude and 78°32′ E longitude, with an altitude of about 264 m above mean sea level. During the crop growth period the maximum temperature ranged from 28.6 to 37.8 °C, while the minimum temperature ranged from 11.4 to 22.8 °C. The crop received only scanty rainfall during the experimental period and the prevailing weather conditions were generally favourable for normal growth and development of chickpea. The soil of the experimental field was well-drained clay in texture. Before sowing, composite soil samples were collected from the 0-15 cm soil depth and analysed using standard laboratory procedures. The experimental soil was neutral in reaction (pH 7.53), non-saline (EC 0.52 dS m -1 ) and low in organic carbon (0.43%). It was low in available nitrogen (220.5 kg ha -1 ), medium in available phosphorus (39.17 kg P₂O₅ ha -1 ) and medium in available potassium (267.05 kg K₂O ha -1 ). The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Block Design (RBD) with thirteen treatments and three replications. The treatments consisted of T1: Absolute control; T2: 80% RDF; T3: 100% RDF; T4: 80% RDF + Acuspray Pulse (N:P:K:S 10:8:34:2) 4 g l -1 ; T5: 100% RDF + Acuspray Pulse (N:P:K:S 10:8:34:2) 4 g l -1 ; T6: 80% RDF + Nano Urea Plus 4 ml l -1 ; T₇: 100% RDF + Nano Urea Plus 4 ml l -1 ; T8: 80% RDF + Nano DAP2.5 ml l -1 ; T9: 100% RDF + Nano DAP 2.5 ml l -1 ; T10: 80% RDF + two sprays of 2% urea; T11: 100% RDF + 2% urea; T12: 80% RDF 2% DAP; and T13: 100% RDF + 2% DAP. The recommended dose of fertilizers (20:50:20 kg N P2O5 K2O ha -1 ) was applied through urea, single superphosphate and muriate of potash according to the treatment schedule. Foliar sprays were imposed twice, at the pre-flowering and pod development stages. The chickpea variety ADBeG-2 was sown using a seed rate of 62.5 kg ha -1 with the recommended agronomic practices of PJTAU. Observations on yield attributes, seed yield, haulm yield, harvest index, were recorded following standard procedures. Statistical analysis of chickpea observations was carried out using the analysis of variance technique suitable for a randomized block design in accordance with Panse and Sukhatme (1978) [11] . The Ftest at 5% probability was used to determine significance and treatment means were compared using CD values.

Results and Discussion

Yield attributes 3.1.1 Number of pods plant -1

The number of pods plant -1 was significantly influenced by different foliar nutrition treatments (Table 1). Among them T5 (100% RDF + two sprays of Acuspray Pulse (N:P:K:S 10:8:34:2) 4 g l -1 at pre flowering and pod development stages) recorded the highest number of pods plant -1 (35.0) and T7 (32.9), T₁₁ (32.7), T₁₃ (30.6). are on par with T5. This was followed by T9 (28.8), T3 (25.6), T4 (23.8), T10 (22.1), T6 (20.5), T12(18.9) and T8 (17.2). The lowest number of pods plant -1 (14.1) was recorded under the absolute control (T1), which was comparable with T2 (15.8). The increase in pod number under T₅ may be attributed to the balanced supply of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur during the reproductive phase, which increased photosynthetic efficiency, flower retention and translocation of assimilates towards developing reproductive organs, thereby improving pod setting. Similar trends were observed by Aggarwal et al. (2015) [1] , who observed a significant increase in pods plant -1 with foliar application of balanced nutrient sources in chickpea.

Number of seeds pod -1

The number of seeds pod -1 was not considerably responded to different foliar feeding (Table 1). Numerically, the highest number of seeds pod -1 (1.3) was registered in T5 and T9, while T3, T6, T7, T8, T11, T12 and T13 showed 1.2 seeds pod -1 . Treatments T2, T4 and T10 recorded 1.1 seeds pod -1 , whereas the lowest value (1.0) was observed in the absolute control (T1). non-significant response indicates that seeds pod -1 is largely governed by the genetic makeup of the variety and is comparatively less impacted by external nutrient supply. Nevertheless, a slight numerical improvement under Adequate foliar nutrient supply may be Associated with better fertilization and seed development resulting from improved nutrient availability during flowering. Corresponding observations were documented by Dewangan et al. (2017) [3] .

Seed index

Seed index was also not significantly affected by different foliar nutrition treatments (Table 1). However, numerical variation was exhibited among the treatments, with values ranging from 21.1 to 26.7 g. The highest seed index (26.7 g) was achieved with T5, followed by T11 (26.0 g), T7 (25.9 g), T13 (25.6 g) and T9 (25.5 g). The lowest seed index (21.1 g) was obtained in the absolute control (T1). The relatively higher seed index under T₅ might be due to improved nutrient availability during the seed filling stage, resulting in greater accumulation and translocation of photosynthates to developing seeds. However, the absence of significant differences suggests that seed size is predominantly controlled by varietal characteristics and therefore shows limited response to foliar nutrition. The current results are in conformity with those of Manjhi et al. (2020) [10] .

Yield 3.2.1 Seed yield

Seed yield differed significantly among the foliar nutrient regimes (Table 2). The highest seed yield (2520.7 kg ha -1 ) was reflected in T5 (100% RDF + two sprays of Acuspray Pulse 4 g l -1 ), T11 (2437.3 kg ha -1 ), T7 (2408.3 kg ha -1 ) was statistically on par with T5 These treatments were followed by T13 (2383.3 kg ha -1 ), T9 (2335.7 kg ha -1 ), T3 (2253.7 kg ha -1 ), T4 (2166.7 kg ha -1 ), T10 (2123.0 kg ha -1 ), T6 (2117.3 kg ha -1 ), T12 (2074.7 kg ha -1 ), T8 (2045.5 kg ha -1 ) and T2 (2003.4 kg ha -1 ). The lowest seed yield (1864.0 kg ha -1 ) was documented under absolute control (T1).

The superior seed yield expressed with T₅ could be ascribed to the synchronized supply of both primary and secondary nutrients during the reproductive phase, which ensured continuous assimilate production, reduced flower and pod abscission and promoted efficient partitioning of photosynthates towards developing seeds. The subsequent high-performing treatment, T₁₁ (100% RDF + two sprays of 2% urea at pre-flowering and pod development stages). The current findings reinforce the observations of Singh et al. (2023) [14] who observed that foliar application of 2% urea at flowering and pod formation stages significantly enhanced seed yield.

Haulm yield

Haulm yield was considerably regulated by the foliar nutrition treatments (Table 2). The highest haulm yield (5199.4 kg ha -1 ) was presented in T5, followed by T11(4873.6 kg ha -1 ), T7 (4869.8 kg ha -1 ), T13 (4590.0 kg ha -1 ) and T9 (4512.4 kg ha -1 ). Lowest haulm yield (3215.6 kg ha -1 ) was exhibited in the absolute control (T1). The increased haulm yield under T₅ could be due to enhanced vegetative growth, increased dry matter accumulation and efficient utilization of nutrients supplied through integrated foliar nutrition during critical growth stages. The findings are in line with Singh et al. (2021) [15] .

Harvest index

Harvest index was not significantly Determined by different foliar nutrition treatments (Table 2). Although numerical differences were observed. Harvest index ranged from 32.6% in T₅ to 36.7% in the absolute control (T1). The non-significant variation in harvest index indicates that foliar nutrition proportionally increased both seed yield and haulm yield without markedly altering biomass partitioning between economic and biological yield. Comparable responses were reported by Eliş et al. (2020) [4] who also found that harvest index remained statistically unaffected under different foliar nutrition treatments in chickpea.

Conclusion

Among the different foliar nutrition treatments, T5 (100% RDF + two sprays of Acuspray Pulse (N:P:K:S 10:8:34:2) 4 g l -1 at preflowering and pod development stages) recorded superior yield attributes, including the highest number of pods plant -1 and seed index and produced the highest seed yield and haulm yield. It was followed by T11 (100% RDF + two sprays of 2% urea) and T₇ (100% RDF + two sprays of Nano urea plus 4 ml l -1 ). The number of seeds pod -1 , seed index and harvest index were not significantly raised by the foliar application schedules. Based on the results of the present investigation, foliar application of T5 proved to be the most effective nutrient management for enhancing productivity and profitability of chickpea.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors sincerely thank the Professor Jayashankar Telangana Agricultural University (PJTAU), Hyderabad, for providing the facilities and financial support to conduct the present investigation. The authors are also grateful to the Agricultural Research Station (ARS), Adilabad, for providing the experimental field, laboratory facilities and technical assistance throughout the course of the study.

References

1. Aggarwal N, Singh G, Ram H, Sharma P, Kaur J. Irrigated chickpea's symbiotic efficiency, growth and productivity as affected by foliar application of urea. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 2015;7(5):516-519.
2. Al-Juthery HW, Al-Maamouri EHO. Effect of urea and nanonitrogen fertigation and foliar application of nano-boron and molybdenum on some growth and yield parameters of potato. Al-Qadisiyah Journal for Agricultural Sciences. 2020;10(1):253-263.
3. Dewangan S, Singh RP, Singh S, Singh MK. Effect of integrated nutrient management and drought mitigating strategies on yield, water use efficiency and soil fertility of rainfed chickpea (Cicer arietinum). The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2023;93(11):1245-1250.
4. Eliş S, İpekeşen S, Başdemir F, Tunç M, Bicer B. Effect of different fertilizer forms on yield and yield components of chickpea varieties. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Food Sciences. 2020;4(2):209-215.
5. Januszkiewicz R, Kulczycki G, Samoraj M. Foliar fertilization of crop plants in Polish agriculture. Agriculture. 2023;13(9):1715.
6. Khemshetty A, Patil DH, Rathod PS, Patil AS, Basavaraj K. Studies on nano DAP on growth, yield and quality of chickpeas under rainfed conditions of northeastern dry zone of Karnataka. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2024;46(3):139-145.
7. Kumar N, Hazra KK, Nath CP, Praharaj CS, Singh U. Grain legumes for resource conservation and agricultural sustainability in South Asia. In: Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management. 2018. p. 77-107.
8. Londhe VM, Jadhav VT, Jadhav JD, Amrutsagar VM. Studies on shifting of sowing windows for sustainable production of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under variable rainfall situation in scarcity zone of Maharashtra. Journal of Agriculture Research and Technology. 2022;47(3):247.
9. Manjhi K, Masram P, Kushwaha HS, Singh D. Effect of foliar nutrition on yield and economics of mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek]. Journal of Food Legumes. 2020;33(3):160-163.
10. Panse VC, Sukhatme PV. Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers. New Delhi: Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 1978. p. 87-89.
11. Rameshaiah GN, Pallavi J, Shabnam S. Nano fertilizers and nano sensors: an attempt for developing smart agriculture. International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science. 2015;3(1):314-320.
12. Rauniyar K. Foliar feeding and its role in vegetables: a review. International Journal of Advanced Research. 2020;8:637-641.
13. Singh G, Brar HS, Virk HK, Khokhar A, Kaur C, Singh K, et al. Effect of foliar-applied urea on symbiotic parameters, yield and monetary returns of irrigated chickpea. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 2023;46(8):1668-1682.
14. Singh K, Kumar S, Kaur C. Effect of foliar application of water-soluble fertilizers on growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 2021;55(5):639-642.
15. Singh R, Singh D, Pratap T, Singh AK, Singh H, Dubey SK. Effect of different levels of phosphorus, sulphur and biofertilizer inoculation on nutrient content and uptake of chickpea. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2018;6(6):2574-2579.
16. Suthar NK, Desai CK, Desai JS. Nano urea. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research. 2023;7(2):577580.