Economics of Seaweed-Based Biostimulant Application in Soybean (Glycine max L.) under Inceptisol Conditions.

Introduction

Soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) is among the most economically important oilseed-cum-pulse crops of the world, valued both as a source of edible oil and as a high-protein feed and food component (Smith and Huyser, 1987) [1] . India ranks fifth among soybean-producing nations, with Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan being the leading producing states (Anonymous, 2024) [2] . Soybean productivity remains sensitive to a range of environmental constraints across its growth cycle. As a short-day plant, its flowering and maturity are strongly regulated by photoperiod (Garner and Allard, 1930) [3] and adverse conditions during germination and early establishment can considerably extend crop emergence (Jasinska and Kotecki, 2003) [4] . Elevated temperatures during flowering and pod development are known to reduce seed number and seed mass (Schlenker and Roberts, 2008; Wheeler et al., 2000; Gibson and Mullen, 1996) [5,6,7] , while heat and moisture stress alter the protein and oil composition of the harvested seed (Dornbos and Mullen, 1992; Vollmann et al., 2000) [8,9] . Water deficit during critical growth stages further depresses seed yield (Cox and Jolliff, 1986) [10] . Such yield instability affects the costeffectiveness of soybean cultivation, making the economic evaluation of any corrective input, including biostimulants, an essential companion to its agronomic evaluation. Biostimulants have emerged as one such corrective input.

They are defined as substances or microorganisms applied to plants, seeds or the root zone with the intention of enhancing nutrientuse efficiency and abiotic stress tolerance, independent of their nutrient content (Du Jardin, 2012; Du Jardin, 2015) [11,12] . Kauffman et al. (2007) [13] similarly described biostimulants as agents that promote plant growth through non-nutritional mechanisms. Their principal categories, including seaweed extracts, humic substances, protein hydrolysates and microbial inoculants, have been reviewed extensively (Calvo et al., 2014; Basak, 2008; Yakhin et al., 2017; Halpern et al., 2015; Lu et al., 2024) [14,15,16,17,18] , with a consistent conclusion that biostimulants alleviate abiotic stress and improve nutrient acquisition in crop plants (Van Oosten et al., 2017) [19] . Among the different biostimulant categories, seaweed extracts have been used as fertilizer additives for several decades on account of their content of natural plant growth regulators, amino acids and trace elements (Blunden, 1972; Zodape, 2001) [20, 21] . Seaweeds, comprising nearly 9,000 known macroalgal species, are an abundant and renewable coastal resource (Govindasamy et al., 2011; Chhaya, 1997; Green, 2015) [22,23,24] and extracts of genera such as Kappaphycus and Ascophyllum have been reported to improve seed germination, nutrient content and overall crop quality in a range of field and legume crops (Zodape et al., 2010) [25] . In soybean specifically, seaweed and related biostimulants have been shown to enhance growth, physiological performance and grain quality under both irrigated and rainfed conditions (Rathore et [26,27,28,29,30,12] . Reduced-input studies have further shown that biostimulant use can partially compensate for lower doses of nitrogen fertilizer without yield penalty (Kristek et al., 2017) [31] and comparative trials in soybean and blackgram have confirmed measurable growth responses to novel biostimulant formulations (Vishwanantha et al., 2022) [32] . More recent work has extended these findings to organic input combinations (Chaudhary et al., 2023) [33] , biological fertilizers under diverse agro-ecologies (Miraezami et al., 2024; Bertham et al., 2026) [34, 35] , nutrient-deficiency diagnostics (Latifinia and Eisvand, 2022) [36] and nutrient uptake dynamics under seaweed sap application (Lodhi et al., 2023) [37] . While the agronomic benefits of seaweed biostimulants are well documented, their economic viability is not automatic, since the biostimulant itself represents an additional recurring cost over and above the standard fertilizer schedule. Several workers have specifically examined this economic dimension: Pramanick et al. (2013) [38] and Pal et al. (2015) [39] reported higher gross and net returns following seaweed sap application in green gram and maize (sweet corn), respectively; Patil et al. (2019) [40] and Nayak et al. (2020) [41] evaluated the cost-return balance of seaweed extract use in soybean and rice, Garai et al. (2019) [42] and Rai et al. (2021) [43] examined returns under legumebased cropping sequences; Arioli et al. (2021) [44] and Sarita et al. (2021) [45] reported profitability responses in grape and wheat; Sebastian (2021) [46] computed the return on investment for seaweedtreated rice; Zarzecka et al. (2020) [47] demonstrated that combining a biostimulant with another agronomic input raised the overall cost of cultivation in potato; and Mote et al. (2022) [48] showed that the choice of biostimulant source itself altered the cost of cultivation in rice, independent of the yield obtained. Dwivedi et al. (2014) [49] additionally reported that increasing seaweed sap concentration altered both productivity and the associated input cost in blackgram. Despite this body of work, the specific cost implication of combining two different modes of application, namely foliar spray and soil drenching, using two distinct seaweed sources, has not been examined for soybean grown on Inceptisols of the scarcity zone of Maharashtra. The present investigation was, therefore, undertaken to evaluate the effect of different seaweed biostimulant treatments on the cost of cultivation of soybean grown in an Inceptisol.

Materials and Methods

Experimental site

The field experiment was conducted during kharif 2024 at the Post Graduate Institute Research Farm, Department of Soil Science, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Dist. Ahilyanagar, Maharashtra, India (19°34′ N latitude, 74° 64′ E longitude; elevation 465 m above mean sea level). The site falls in the scarcity zone on the eastern side of the Western Ghats, with an average annual rainfall of about 520 mm, concentrated mainly between June and September. The experimental soil was medium-deep black, belonging to the Inceptisol order, moderately alkaline in reaction (pH 8.43), low in soluble salts (EC 0.19 dS m ¹), low in organic carbon (0.45%) and low in calcium⁻ carbonate (4.29%). The soil was low in available nitrogen (248 kg ha ¹), moderate in available⁻ phosphorus (21.02 kg ha ¹) and very high in available potassium (328 kg ha ¹).⁻ ⁻

Experimental design and treatments

The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Block Design with ten treatments replicated thrice, using soybean cv. Phule Kimaya (KDS-753) sown at a spacing of 45 cm × 5 cm on 12th July 2024. The gross and net plot sizes were 4.00m×3.60 m and 3.80m×2.70n m, respectively. The ten treatments comprised: T1, absolute control; T2, general recommended dose of fertilizer, GRDF (50:75:45 kg N:P2O5:K2O ha ¹ + 10 t FYM ha ¹); T3 and T4, GRDF with foliar spray of 0.50%⁻ ⁻ and 0.75% seaweed extract of Kappaphycus alvarezii at 30 and 45 days after sowing (DAS), respectively; T5, GRDF with soil drenching of 1% Kappaphycus alvarezii extract at 20 and 35 DAS; T6, GRDF with the combined foliar spray (0.50%) and drenching (1%) of Kappaphycus alvarezii; T7 and T8, GRDF with foliar spray of 0.50% and 0.75% Ascophyllum nodosum extract, respectively; T9, GRDF with drenching of 1% Ascophyllum nodosum extract; and T10, GRDF with the combined foliar spray (0.50%) and drenching (1%) of Ascophyllum nodosum extract.

Estimation of cost of cultivation

The cost of cultivation ( ha ¹) for each treatment was worked out by accounting for all the₹ ⁻ operational expenses incurred during crop production, viz., land preparation, seed and sowing, FYM and fertilizer material and their application, cost of the seaweed biostimulant procured and its application through foliar spray and/or soil drenching, plant protection, irrigation, intercultural operations and harvesting, based on the prevailing market rates of inputs, machinery and human labour during the cropping season. Since the biostimulant sources, their concentration and the number and mode of application varied across treatments, the incremental cost over the control and over the GRDF-alone treatment was separately worked out for each treatment to isolate the specific contribution of the biostimulant component to the total cultivation cost.

Statistical analysis

The data on cost of cultivation were subjected to analysis of variance as applicable to a Randomized Block Design (Panse and Sukhatme, 1995) [50] . Wherever the treatment effects were found significant, the critical difference (CD) was calculated at 5 per cent level of probability for comparison of treatment means.

Results and Discussion

Cost of cultivation

The data on the cost of cultivation of soybean as influenced by different seaweed biostimulant treatments are presented in Table 1 and illustrated in Fig. 1.

The cost of cultivation ranged from F46 , 887ha⁻¹ under the absolute control (T₁) to F74 , 158ha⁻¹ under the combined foliar spray and drenching of Ascophyllum nodosum (T₁₀) . Among the treatments, T₁₀ recorded the highest cultivation cost, followed by T₆ (F71 , 515ha⁻¹) T₉ (F70 , 169 ha ¹),⁻ T₅ (968 , 390ha⁻¹) and T₈ (968 , 078ha⁻¹) , whereas the lowest cost among the fertilized treatments was recorded under T₂ (F61 , 804ha⁻¹) (Table 1, Fig. 1). Compared with the absolute control, the application of GRDF alone (T₂) increased the cost of cultivation by approximately 32%, reflecting the expenditure on fertilizers and FYM. The addition of seaweed biostimulants over GRDF further increased cultivation costs by about 5-8% under foliar spray treatments (T₃ , T₄ and T₇) , 7-11% under soil drenching treatments (T₅ , T₈ and T₉ and 16-20% under combined foliar spray and soil drenching treatments (T₆ and T₁₀) (Fig. 1). The higher cultivation cost under combined treatments was mainly attributed to the greater quantity of seaweed biostimulant required and the additional labour involved in the second mode of application, while the basal fertilizer schedule remained identical across all fertilized treatments. The comparatively higher cultivation cost recorded under the Ascophyllum nodosum-based treatments (T₇-T₁₀) than the corresponding Kappaphycus alvarezii-based treatments (T₃-T₆) reflects the higher procurement cost of the former seaweed source (Table 1). Similar sourcedependent differences in cultivation cost have been reported in maize, fenugreek and other cropping systems (Basavaraja et al., 2018; Mafakheri and Asghari, 2018; Ghosh et al., 2020) [51,52,53] . Kumari et al. (2023) [54] , López-Serrano et al. (2026) [55] and Shahrajabian et al.

Variables

(2023) [56] likewise emphasized that the source of the biostimulant and the application rate are important determinants of production cost. The present findings corroborate earlier reports that increasing the dose or intensity of biostimulant application raises cultivation costs because of higher input and labour requirements (Patil et [40,47,48,45,43,42,39,44,49] . Therefore, both the application method and the seaweed source are important determinants of cultivation cost and should be considered while formulating economically viable recommendations for soybean production.

Economic analysis

The economic analysis of soybean under different seaweed biostimulant treatments, including break-even yield, required grain yield, benefit-cost ratio (B:C ratio) and net return, is presented in Table 2, while the grain and stover yield obtained under different treatments is illustrated in Fig. 2. The break-even yield increased from 9.58 q ha ¹ under the absolute control⁻ (T₁) to 15.16 q ha ¹ ⁻ under the combined application of Ascophyllum nodosum (T₁₀) , while the required grain yield increased from 14.38 to 22.74 q ha ¹ across treatments, reflecting the progressive increase in ⁻ cultivation cost (Table 2). Similarly, the benefit-cost ratio declined from 2.30 under T₁ to 1.45 under T₁₀ , whereas net return decreased from 60,737 ha ¹ to ₹ ⁻ F33 , 466ha⁻¹ with increasing investment in seaweed biostimulant application (Table 2). These findings indicate that higher cultivation costs require proportionately greater productivity to maintain economic profitability.

Although the cultivation cost increased with the combined application of seaweed biostimulants, grain and stover yields also improved compared with the control and GRDF alone, particularly under the combined application treatments (Fig. 2). This suggests that the additional expenditure incurred on seaweed biostimulants may be compensated by enhanced crop productivity, provided that the yield advantage is sufficient to offset the increased production cost. [26,38,41,54] . Therefore, economic recommendations should be based on a combined evaluation of cultivation cost, crop productivity and profitability rather than on input cost alone.

Conclusion

The cost of cultivation of soybean increased progressively with the addition of seaweed biostimulants over the general recommended dose of fertilizer and was highest under the treatments combining both foliar spray and soil drenching. The combined application of Ascophyllum nodosum (T10) and of Kappaphycus alvarezii (T6) recorded the highest cultivation costs among all treatments, exceeding the cost of GRDF alone by about 20 and 16 per cent, respectively, largely on account of the additional biostimulant material and labour required for the second mode of application. Since the combined treatments also represent the more input-intensive options, their adoption needs to be weighed against the yield and quality advantage they confer and the present cost data provide the necessary baseline for such an economic evaluation in soybean grown on Inceptisols.

References

1. Smith KJ, Huyser W. World distribution and significance of soybean. In: Wilcox JR, editor. Soybeans: Improvement, Production and Uses. American Society of Agronomy, Wisconsin; 1987:1-22.
2. Anonymous. Agricultural Market Intelligence Centre, Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University, Hyderabad, pp. 1-4. 2024.
3. Garner WW, Allard HA. Photoperiodic response of soybeans in relation to temperature and other environmental factors. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington DC. 1930.
4. Jasinska Z, Kotecki A. Detailed Tillage of Plants. Wroclaw Agricultural Academy, Wroclaw; 2003.
5. Schlenker W, Roberts MJ. Estimating the impact of climate change on crop yields: the importance of nonlinear temperature effects. NBER Working Paper 13799. 2008.
6. Wheeler TR, Craufurd PQ, Ellis RH, Porter JR, Prasad PVV. Temperature variability and the yield of annual crops. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment. 2000;82:159167.
7. Gibson LR, Mullen RE. Influence of day and night temperature on soybean seed yield. Crop Science. 1996;36:98-104.
8. Dornbos DL, Mullen RE. Soybean seed protein and oil contents and fatty acid composition adjustments by drought and temperature. Journal of the American Oil Chemists Society. 1992;69:228-231.
9. Vollmann J, Fritz CN, Wagentristl H, Ruckenbauer P. Environmental and genetic variation of soybean seed protein content under Central European growing conditions. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 2000;80:1300-1306.
10. Cox WJ, Jolliff GD. Growth and yield of sunflower and soybean under soil water deficits. Agronomy Journal. 1986;78:226-230.
11. Du Jardin P. The Science of Plant Biostimulants -A bibliographic analysis. Ad hoc Study Report to the European Commission DG ENTR. 2012.
12. Du Jardin P. Plant biostimulants: Definition, concept, main categories and regulation. Scientia Horticulturae. 2015;196:3-14.
13. Kauffman GL III, Kneivel DP, Watschke TL. Effects of a biostimulant on the heat tolerance associated with photosynthetic capacity, membrane thermostability and polyphenol production of perennial ryegrass. Crop Science. 2007;47:261-267.
14. Calvo P, Nelson L, Kloepper JW. Agricultural uses of plant biostimulants. Plant and Soil. 2014;383:3-41.
15. Basak A. Biostimulators. Definitions, classification and legislation. Biostimulators in Modern Agriculture, General Aspects, pp. 7-17. 2008.
16. Yakhin OI, Lubyanov AA, Yakhin IA, Brown PH. Biostimulants in plant science: a global perspective. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2017;7:2049.
17. Halpern M, Bar-Tal A, Ofek M, Minz D, Muller T, Yermiyahu U. The use of biostimulants for enhancing nutrient uptake. Advances in Agronomy. 2015;129:141174.
18. Lu Q, Jin L, Tong C, Liu F, Huang B, Zhang D. Research progress on the growthpromoting effect of plant biostimulants on crops. Phyton. 2024;93(4):661.
19. Van Oosten MJ, Pepe O, De Pascale S, Silletti S, Maggio A. The role of biostimulants and bioeffectors as alleviators of abiotic stress in crop plants. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture. 2017;4:5.
20. Blunden G. The effects of aqueous seaweed extract as a fertilizer additive. Proceedings of the Seventh Japan International Seaweed Symposium, Tokyo University Press, pp. 584-589. 1972.
21. Zodape ST. Seaweeds as a biofertilizer. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research. 2001;60:378-382.
22. Govindasamy CS, Narayani M, Arulpriya P, Ruban K, Anantharaj, Srinivasan R. In vitro antimicrobial activities of seaweed extracts against human pathogens. Journal of Pharmacy Research. 2011;4:2076-2077.
23. Chhaya ND. Minding our marine wealth, an appraisal of Gujarat coastal resources, pp. 30-31. 1997.
24. Green BW. Fertilizers in aquaculture. Feed and Feeding Practices in Aquaculture, Woodhead Publisher. 2015:2752.
25. Zodape ST, Mukhopadhyay S, Eswaran S, Reddy MP, Chikara J. Enhanced yield and nutritional quality in greengram (Phaseolus radiata L.) treated with seaweed (Kappaphycus alvarezii) extract. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research. 2010;69:468-471.
26. Rathore SS, Chaudhary DR, Boricha GN, Ghosh A, Bhatt BP, Zodape ST, et al. Effect of seaweed extract on the growth, yield and nutrient uptake of soybean (Glycine max) under rain-fed conditions. South African Journal of Botany. 2009;75:351-355.
27. Tandon, Dubey. Effects of biozyme (Ascophyllum nodosum) biostimulant on growth and development of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merill]. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis. 2015;46(7):845-858.
28. Kocira S, Szparaga A, Kocira A, Czerwinska E, Wojtowicz A, Bronowicka-Mielniczuk U, et al. Modeling biometric traits, yield and nutritional and antioxidant properties of seeds of three soybean cultivars through the application of biostimulant containing seaweed and amino acids. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2018;9:388.
29. Szparaga A, Kocira S, Kocira A, Czerwinska E, Swieca M, Lorencowicz E, et al. Modification of growth, yield and the nutraceutical and antioxidative potential of soybean through the use of synthetic biostimulants. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2018;9:1401.
30. Kocira S, Szparaga A, Kubon M, Czerwinska E, Piskier T. Morphological and biochemical responses of Glycine max (L.) Merill to the use of seaweed extract. Agronomy. 2019;9:93.
31. Kristek S, Lenar L, Jovic J, Marcek T, Zmaic K, Resic I, et al. The influence of benefit microorganisms on yield and quality of soybean grains under conditions of reduced nitrogen fertilization. Poljoprivreda. 2017;23(2):25-30.
32. Vishwanantha S, Ramarao, Shwetha NB, Koppalkar GB, Ashoka N, Ananda N, Umesh RM, Vinaykumar M, Naik SV. Response of blackgram (Vigna mungo L.) and soybean (Glycine max L.) to novel biostimulants in north eastern dry zone of Karnataka. Legume Research. 2022;45:1130-1136.
33. Chaudhary D, Surve V, Bambhaneeya S, Raj A, Deshmukh S. Effect of organics on yield, quality, nutrient content and uptake of soybean [Glycine max (L.)] under rainfed condition. International Journal of Agricultural Science. 2023;8:286-298.
34. Miraezami M, Norouzi A, Faraji A, Dadashi R, Rodino S, Pop R, et al. Agrophysiologic traits of soybean in response to biological fertilizers. Romanian Agricultural Research. 2024;41:109-116.
35. Bertham YH, Utami K, Sari SP. Enhancing macronutrient uptake and growth of soybean in coastal areas through integrated biofertilizer applications. International Journal of Agricultural Technology. 2026;22(3):1063-1076.
36. Latifinia E, Eisvand HR. Soybean physiological properties and grain quality responses to nutrients and predicting nutrient deficiency using chlorophyll fluorescence. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2022;22(2):19421954.
37. Merrill.) nutrient uptake. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;12(7):2480-2482.
38. Pramanick B, Brahmachari K, Ghosh A. Effect of seaweed sap on growth and yield improvement of green gram. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2013;8:11801186.
39. Pal A, Dwivedi SK, Maurya PK, Kanwar P. Effect of seaweed saps on growth, yield, nutrient uptake and economic improvement of maize (sweet corn). Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 2015;7(2):970-975.
40. Patil SD, More VR, Bhalerao GA, Jagtap MP. Effect of combination of inorganic fertilizer and seaweed extract on yield, yield attributes and economics of soybean crop. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2019;8:1741-1744.
41. Nayak P, Biswas S, Dutta D. Effect of seaweed extracts on growth, yield and economics of kharif rice (Oryza sativa L.). Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2020;9:247-253.
42. Garai S, Brahmachari K, Sarkar S, Kundu R, Pal M, Pramanick B. Crop growth and productivity of rainy maizegarden pea cropping sequence as influenced by Kappaphycus and Gracilaria saps at alluvial soil of West Bengal, India. British Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 2019;36:1-11.
43. Rai U, Datta S, Chatterjee R, Thapa A. Effect of organic sources of nutrients, humic acid and seaweed extracts on growth and yield of French bean varieties. Legume Research. 2021;44:824-828.
44. Arioli T, Mattner SW, Hepworth G, McClintock D, McClinock R. Effect of seaweed extract application on wine grape yield in Australia. Journal of Applied Phycology. 2021;33:1883-1891.
45. Sarita, Seema, Chaudhary SR. Seaweed extract can boon the yield performances and profitability of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Biological Forum -International Journal. 2021;13:459-463.
46. Sebastian HGG. Growth and yield performance of rice cultivars (Oryza sativa L.) under seaweed extract and inorganic fertilizer. Plant Science Today. 2021;8(4):933940.
47. Zarzecka K, Gugała M, Sikorska A, Grzywacz K, Niewęgłowski M. Marketable yield of potato and its quantitative parameters after application of herbicides and biostimulants. Agriculture. 2020;10:49.
48. Mote GK, Mane MJ, Bodake PS, Thorat TN, Mane AV, Wahane AV, et al. Bio efficacy of foliar applied biostimulants on nutrient uptake, yield and economics of rice (Oryza sativa L.) under lateritic soils of Konkan region. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11:318-322.
49. Dwivedi SK, Meshram MR, Pal A, Pandey N, Ghosh A. Impact of natural organic fertilizer (seaweed saps) on productivity and nutrient status of blackgram (Phaseolus mungo L.). The Bioscan. 2014;9(4):1535-1539.
50. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers. Fourth Edition, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi; 1995.
51. Basavaraja KP, Yogendra DN, Zodape TS, Prakash R, Ghosh A. Effect of seaweed sap as foliar spray on growth and yield of hybrid maize. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 2018;41:1851-1861.
52. Mafakheri S, Asghari B. Effect of seaweed extract, humic acid and chemical fertilizers on morphological, physiological and biochemical characteristics of Trigonella foenum-graecum L. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology. 2018;20(7):1505-1516.
53. Ghosh A, Shankar T, Malik GC, Banerjee M, Ghosh A. Effect of seaweed extracts on the growth, yield and nutrient uptake of maize (Zea mays L.) in the red and lateritic belt of West Bengal. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2020;8:799-802.
54. Kumari S, Sehrawat KD, Phogat D, Sehrawat AR, Chaudhary R, Sushkova SN, et al. Ascophyllum nodosum (L.) Le Jolis, a pivotal biostimulant toward sustainable agriculture: a comprehensive review. Agriculture. 2023;13(6):1179.
55. López-Serrano L, Scalschi L, Simeón R, San Bautista A, Gonzalez-Hernandez AI. Harnessing the power of biostimulants: a comprehensive review of their role in enhancing agricultural productivity and sustainability. Applied Sciences. 2026;16(4):1924.
56. Shahrajabian MH, Petropoulos SA, Sun W. Survey of the influences of microbial biostimulants on horticultural crops: case studies and successful paradigms. Horticulturae. 2023;9:1-24.
57. Angela F, Nikolaos P, Filipa M, Larla P, Javona P, Marina S, et al. Combined effect of biostimulants and mineral fertilizers on crop performance and fruit quality of watermelon plants. Horticulturae. 2023;9(7):828.
58. Ayed S, Bouhaouel I, Jebari H, Hamada W. Use of biostimulants: towards sustainable approach to enhance durum wheat performances. Plants. 2022;11:133.
59. Ayman MEG, Kaman M, El-Hai A, Ghoneem KM. Amino and humic acids promote growth, yield and disease resistance of faba bean cultivated in clayey soil. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2009;3(2):731-739.
60. Banjare L, Banwasi R, Jataw GK, Shrivastav LK. Effect of seaweed extract on yield and nutrient uptake of rice in a vertisol. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(3):21932198.
61. Boghdady SM, Selim HAD, Nassar AMR, Salama MA. Influence of foliar spray with seaweed extract on growth, yield and its quality, profile of protein pattern and anatomical structure of chickpea plant (Cicer arietinum L.). Middle East Journal of Applied Sciences. 2016;6:207-221.
62. Chen CL, Song WL, Sun L, Qin S, Ren CG, Yang JC, et al. Effect of seaweed extract supplement on rice rhizosphere bacterial community in tillering and heading stages. Agronomy. 2022;12:342.
63. Deepana P, Sathiya Bama K, Santhy P, Sivasankari Devi T. Effect of seaweed extract on rice (Oryza sativa L. var. ADT53) productivity and soil fertility in Cauvery delta zone of Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 2021;13(3):1111-1120.
64. Devi NL, Mani S. Effect of seaweed saps Kappaphycus alvarezii and Gracilaria on growth, yield and quality of rice. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015;8(19).
65. Giannoulis KD, Bartzialis D, Asimaki K, Breza AZ, Malamou PK, Zournatzis E, et al. The impact of biostimulants on the yield and quality attributes of essential oil from different basil varieties. Crops. 2025;5(2):14.
66. Godlewska A, Ciepiela AG. Yield performance and content of selected organic compound in Trifolium pratense treated with various bio-stimulants against the background of nitrogen fertilization. Legume Research. 2020;43:850-855.
67. Ismaiel SAR, Khedr FG, Metwally AG, Soror AFS. Effect of biostimulants on soil characteristics, plant growth and yield of pea (Pisum sativum L.) under field conditions. Plant Science Today. 2022;9:650-657.
68. Kavipriya R, Dhanalakshmi PK, Jayashree S, Thangaraju N. Seaweed extract as a biostimulant for legume crop, green gram. Journal of Ecobiotechnology. 2011;3:16-19.
69. Kumar P, Dube SD, Chauhan VS. Photosynthetic response of bell pepper to Biozyme in relation to fruit yield. Vegetable Science. 2000;27:54-56.
70. Kurakula RSR, Rai KP. Effect of seaweed extracts on growth and yield parameters in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Plant and Soil Science. 2021;33:1-8.
71. Layek J, Das A, Ghosh A, Sarkar D, Idapuganti R, Boragohain J, et al. Foliar application of seaweed sap enhances growth, yield and quality of maize in Eastern Himalayas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India Section B: Biological Sciences. 2017;89:19.
72. Margal PB, Thakare RS, Kamble BM, Patil VS, Patil KB, Titirmare NS. Effect of seaweed extracts on crop growth and soil: a review. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2023;45(9):9-19.
73. Ramamoorthy GK, Munisamy S. Evaluation of biostimulant and salt-mediated stress alleviating activities of tropical red and brown seaweeds based biostimulant through green gram seedling cut assay technique. Journal of Plant Nutrition. 2025;48(20):3667-3683.
74. Singh SK, Thakur R, Singh MK, Singh CS, Pal SK. Effect of fertilizer level and seaweed sap on productivity and profitability of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2015;60(3):420-425.
75. Mollick S, Karak C, Roy B, Chakraborty B, Das P, Bhutia P. Effects of bio stimulants on growth, yield and quality of tomato. International Journal of Economic Plants. 2026;11:347-352.
76. Venkatesh R, Raman R, Kandasamy S, Srinivasan S. Foliar nutrition of biostimulants on the yield, biochemical parameters, nutrient uptake and profitability of greengram. International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2025;8(10):160-163.
77. Xie H, Wu K, Iqbal A, Ali I, He L, Ullah S, et al. Synthetic nitrogen coupled with seaweed extract and microbial inoculants improves rice (Oryza sativa L.) production under a dual cropping system. Italian Journal of Agronomy. 2021;16:1800.
78. Younes NA, Anik TR, Rahman MM, Wardany AA, Dawood MFA, Tran LSP, et al. Effects of microbial biostimulants (Trichoderma album and Bacillus megaterium) on growth, quality attributes and yield of onion under field conditions. Heliyon. 2023;9:e14203.