Effect of integrated nutrient management on soil properties, growth, yield and quality parameters of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea (L.) Czern)

Introduction

India ranks fourth globally in oilseed production with oilseeds occupying approximately 27-29 million hectares and producing around 40 million tonnes annually (Government of India, 2024) [8] . Rapeseed-mustard (Brassica spp.) is the second most important oilseed crop after soybean in India (Shekhawat et al., 2012) [24] . According to ICAR-DMR (2024) [11] , India's rapeseed-mustard production reached 13.19 million tonnes from 9.19 million hectares during 2023-24. Mustard seeds contain 30-45% oil and 20-25% protein. However, productivity remains low primarily due to imbalanced nutrient management. Nitrogen (N) is the key nutrient influencing growth, yield, and quality of mustard. Sole reliance on chemical nitrogen fertilizers leads to nutrient imbalance, reduced nutrient use efficiency, and deterioration of soil health. Integrated Nutrient Management (INM), involving the combined use of inorganic fertilizers, organic manures, and biofertilizers, has emerged as a sustainable approach to improving crop productivity while maintaining soil fertility (Hegde and Dwivedi, 1994) [10] . FYM improves soil organic matter and nutrient availability. Azotobacter fixes atmospheric nitrogen and produces growth-promoting substances including auxins, gibberellins, and cytokinins (Subba Rao, 2001) [26] . PSB converts insoluble phosphorus to plant-available forms through secretion of organic acids (Mohammadi, 2012) [16] . Although several studies have reported positive effects of INM in mustard, information on the combined use of full RDF, FYM, Azotobacter and PSB under Central Plain Zone conditions of Uttar Pradesh is limited. It was hypothesized that integration of organic and biological nutrient sources with RDF would improve nutrient availability, soil fertility, and mustard productivity over sole chemical fertilization. The present investigation was planned with this objective.

Materials and Methods Experimental Site and Design

The field experiment was conducted during 2025-26 at the Student Instruction Farm, CSAUK, Kanpur (25°26′-28°58′N; 79°31′-80°34′E; 125.9 m MSL). The experiment was laid out in Randomized Block Design (RBD) with eight treatments and three replications. Net plot size was 20 m 2 (5×4 m). Mustard cv. Varuna (T-19) was sown on 13 November 2025 at a spacing of 45 cm × 15 cm and seed rate of 5 kg ha -1 . The crop season received total rainfall of approximately 89 mm; mean temperatures ranged from 5.1 °C to 31.5 °C; mean relative humidity ranged 36-96%.

Initial Soil Characteristics

Initial soil (0-15 cm) was sandy loam with bulk density 1.35 Mg m -3 , pH 7.80, EC 0.23 dSm -1 , organic carbon 0.48%, available 149.0 kg ha -1 (Low), available P 15.8 kg ha -1 (Medium), and available K 212.0 kg ha -1 (Medium).

Treatment Details

The Recommended Dose of Fertilizers (RDF) for mustard was NPK @ 120:60:40 kg ha -1 . Eight treatments were evaluated: T 1 -Absolute Control (no fertilizer) T 2 -100% RDF through chemical fertilizers T 3 -75% RDF + 25% N through FYM T 4 -75% RDF + 25% N through Vermicompost T 5 -75% RDF + Azotobacter + PSB T 6 -75% RDF + 25% N through FYM + Azotobacter + PSB T 7 -50% RDF + 50% N through FYM + Azotobacter + PSB T 8 -100% RDF + 25% N through FYM + Azotobacter + PSB Note on T8 nutrient balance: In T 8 , 25% N through FYM was applied additionally to 100% RDF, resulting in approximately 125% effective N input. Superiority of T 8 may partly reflect higher total N input alongside true INM synergistic effects. Azotobacter chroococcum and Bacillus megaterium (PSB) cultures containing 10 8 CFU g -1 were applied as seed inoculants at 25 g kg -1 seed using peat-based carrier. FYM contained N: 0.5%, P: 0.25%, K: 0.4%; vermicompost contained N: 1.5%, P: 1.0%, K: 0.5%. Nitrogen was applied through urea (46% N) and DAP (18% N); phosphorus through DAP (46% P 2 O 5 ); potassium through MOP (60% K 2 O).

Observations and Methods

Soil samples (pre-sowing and post-harvest) were analysed for bulk density (core sampler, Singh 1980), pH and EC (1:2.5 soil: water, Jackson 1973) [12] , organic carbon (Walkley-Black, Jackson 1973) [12] , available N (alkaline permanganate, Subbaiah and Asija 1956) [27] , available P (Olsen's method, Olsen et al., 1954), and available K (flame photometer, Jackson 1973) [12] . Growth parameters were recorded from five randomly selected plants per plot. Plant population was counted from a 1 m 2 quadrat at 15 DAS. Harvest index (HI) was calculated as: HI (%) = [Seed yield/Biological yield] × 100. Nitrogen content in seed was estimated by Kjeldahl's method; protein content = N% × 6.25. Nitrogen uptake (kg ha -1 ) = [Seed yield (kg ha -1 ) × N content (%)]/100.

Statistical Analysis

Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) for RBD as per Fisher (1974) [5] . Significance of treatment effects was tested by F-test, and treatment means were compared using Critical Difference (CD) at p = 0.05.

Standard Error of Mean (SEm±) and Coefficient of Variation (CV%) are reported in respective tables.

Results and Discussion

Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Soil Properties Bulk Density, pH and EC Bulk density, soil pH, and EC showed non-significant differences among treatments (Table 1). Bulk density ranged from 1.30 (T 8 ) to 1.35 Mg m -3 (T 1 ), representing a 3.7% reduction under T 8 over control, a practically meaningful improvement in soil tilth. The declining trend in bulk density under T 8 is attributable to organic matter addition through FYM, which improves soil aggregation and porosity (Kansotia et al., 2015) [14] . The slight pH reduction under integrated treatments results from organic acids released during FYM decomposition and CO 2 produced in the rhizosphere by biofertilizers (Kumar et al., 2021) [15] . EC values remained within the safe range (0.23-0.26 dSm -1 ) confirming no salt stress.

Organic Carbon

Soil organic carbon (OC) was significantly influenced by INM treatments (CD = 0.06; SEm ± = 0.02; CV = 5.2%). Maximum OC (0.61%) was recorded under T 8 , followed by T 6 (0.57%); minimum (0.48%) under T 1 , a 27.1% improvement under T 8 . Higher OC is attributed to direct carbon addition through FYM and stimulation of soil microbial biomass turnover by Azotobacter and PSB. These findings agree with Kumar et al., (2021) [15] and Singh and Pal (2011) [25] .

Available N, P and K Available N, P, and K were all significantly influenced by treatments (Table 1). T 8 recorded the highest available N (198.4 kg ha -1 ), P (24.2 kg ha -1 ), and K (246.5 kg ha -1 ). Higher available N under T 8 is attributed to chemical N supply, FYM mineralization, and biological N fixation by Azotobacter. Elevated available P reflects PSB-mediated phosphorus solubilization through organic acid secretion that converts insoluble Ca-P to plant-available orthophosphate (Mohammadi, 2012) [16] . Initial and postharvest soil NPK changes are presented in Table 4.

Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Growth and Yield Parameters Plant Population and Plant Height

Plant population was not significantly influenced (F-cal. 0.240 < F-tab. 2.764), ranging from 14.32 (T 1 ) to 16.95 plants m -2 (T 8 ), confirming uniform establishment. Plant height at 60 DAS was maximum under T 8 (84.44 cm), at par with T 6 (83.58 cm). At harvest, T 8 attained 177.57 cm, followed by T 6 (175.08 cm). Taller plants under integrated treatments reflect better N availability. Azotobacter produces indole acetic acid (IAA) and gibberellins (GA 3 ) that enhance root proliferation and shoot elongation through cell division promotion in the shoot apex (Subba Rao, 2001; Jaiswal et al., 2021) [26] .

Primary Branches and Siliquae per Plant

Primary branches ranged from 4.07 (T 1 ) to 7.30 (T 8 ) per plant (CD = 0.45; SEm ± = 0.15; CV = 7.2%). Siliquae per plant ranged from 216.67 (T 1 ) to 312.33 (T 8 ), with T 8 at par with T 6 (311.33) (CD = 14.66; SEm ± = 4.83; CV = 5.1%). Higher branching and pod number under integrated treatments are attributed to adequate N promoting axillary bud development and PSB-mediated P availability enhancing energy metabolism critical for floret development (Hadiyal et al., 2017; Gora et al., 2022) [9,6] .

Test Weight

Test weight ranged from 4.33 g (T 1 ) to 5.47 g (T 4 ), with T 4 significantly superior to all treatments (CD = 0.17; SEm ± = 0.06; CV = 3.0%). Superior seed filling under T 4 is attributed to the slow and steady nutrient release profile of vermicompost that synchronises nutrient supply during grain filling, enhancing photosynthate translocation to developing seeds (Yashi et al., 2023; Pardhi et al., 2025) [31,18] .

Seed Yield, Biological Yield and Harvest Index

Seed yield ranged from 11.40 q ha -1 (T 1 ) to 27.73 q ha -1 (T 8 ), a 143.2% increase over control (CD = 1.24; SEm ± = 0.41; CV = 4.9%). T 8 was statistically at par with T 6 (25.99 q ha - 1 ). Biological yield ranged from 42.28 q ha -1 (T 1 ) to 95.36 q ha -1 (T 8 ). Harvest index (26.79-29.26%) was significantly influenced by treatments (CD = 1.06%), with T 8 and T 3 recording the highest HI (29.08%) and T 7 the minimum (26.79%). These results agree with Yadav et al., (2018) [30] and Gora et al., (2022) [6] .

Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Nitrogen Content and Uptake

Nitrogen content in seed ranged from 3.300% (T 1 ) to 3.693% (T 8 ); N uptake by seed ranged from 37.62 kg ha -1 (T 1 ) to 102.41 kg ha -1 (T 8 ). Both were significantly influenced (CD 5%: N content 0.18%; N uptake 3.35 kg ha - 1 ). The N uptake for T 8 was verified as: 2773 kg ha -1 × 3.693/100 ≈ 102.4 kg ha -1 . Higher seed N content is attributed to sustained N supply, biological N fixation by Azotobacter, and PSB-mediated P availability that promoted glutamine synthetase and nitrate reductase enzyme activity during grain filling (Dubey et al., 2021; Gora et al., 2023) [4,6] .

Effect of Integrated Nutrient Management on Seed Protein Content

Seed protein content was significantly influenced by treatments (CD = 1.12%; SEm ± = 0.37%; CV = 4.2%). Maximum protein content (23.08%) was recorded under T 8 , followed by T 6 (22.81%), while minimum (20.62%) was under T 1 . Since protein content = N% × 6.25, integrated treatments ensuring higher seed N concentration naturally resulted in higher protein. This superiority is attributed to balanced and sustained N supply from chemical fertilizers, progressive organic N release from FYM during grain filling, and biofertilizer-mediated nutrient mobilization (Bora et al., 2021; Sharma et al., 2023) [1,23] . Oil content determination was not included in the present study; future investigations should incorporate seed oil content as a key quality parameter. Seed Yield (q ha -1 )

Biol. Yield (q ha -1 ) HI (%)

Conclusion

The present investigation demonstrated that integrated application of chemical fertilizers, organic manures, and biofertilizers significantly improved soil fertility, crop growth, yield, and quality of Indian mustard under Kanpur conditions during 2025-26. T 8 (100% RDF + 25% N through FYM + Azotobacter + PSB) proved most effective for soil fertility improvement, seed yield (27.73 q ha -1 ; 143.2% over control), and seed protein content (23.08%), and was at par with T 6 for most parameters. T 4 recorded maximum test weight (5.47 g) reflecting superior seedfilling by vermicompost. Based on one-year experimental results, T 8 appeared most promising; however, multi-season evaluation is required before wider recommendation. Future studies should incorporate oil content as a key quality parameter.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementsThe authors are grateful to the Department of Soil Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology, Kanpur, for providing the necessary facilities to conduct this experiment. The guidance and support of Dr. Anil Kumar Singh, Associate Professor, is gratefully acknowledged.

References

1. Bora PJ, Borah T, Das B. Integrated nutrient management in rapeseed-mustard: a review. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2021;10(1):621-628.
2. Choudhary P, Sharma MK, Verma V, Pathak R. Impact of organic and inorganic nutrient sources on nutrient assimilation of Indian mustard under Central Indian conditions. J Soil Salinity Water Qual. 2025;17(2):205212.
3. Dey R, Bhatt VK, Singh P, Maurya S. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of mustard under Uttarakhand conditions. Asian J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2024;10(1):64-74.
4. Dubey A, Singh M, Yadav SK, Dwivedi S. Effect of integrated nutrient management on quality, nutrient content and uptake in Indian mustard. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2021;10(1):1053-1058.
5. Fisher RA. Statistical methods for research workers. 14th ed. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd; 1974.
6. Gora JS, Singh S, Chhabra AK, Kumar A. Integrated nutrient management for productivity and profitability of mustard in Western Uttar Pradesh. Pharma Innov J. 2022;11(6):1898-1902.
7. Gora JS, Singh S, Chhabra AK, Kumar A. Effect of vermicompost and nutrients with biofertilizers on quality, growth and nutrient uptake of mustard. Biol Forum Int J. 2023;15(2):728-733.
8. Government of India. Agricultural statistics at a glance 2024. New Delhi: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; 2024.
9. Hadiyal AP, Polara ND, Babariya LA, Mathukia RK, Chauhan DM. Effect of organic manures and biofertilizers on growth, yield and economics of Indian mustard. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2017;6(4):11001103.
10. Hegde DM, Dwivedi BS. Integrated nutrient supply and management as a strategy to meet nutrient demand. Fertil News. 1994;39(4):49-62.
11. ICAR-Directorate of Mustard Research. Annual report 2023-24. Bharatpur, Rajasthan: ICAR-Directorate of Mustard Research; 2024.
12. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt Ltd; 1973. 498 p.
13. Jaiswal AK, Patel MK, Patel A, Patel S. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of mustard under Chhattisgarh conditions. Pharma Innov J. 2021;10(12):1329-1331.
14. Kansotia BC, Sharma Y, Meena RS. Effect of vermicompost and inorganic fertilizers on soil properties and yield of Indian mustard. J Oilseed Brassica. 2015;6:198-201.
15. Kumar S, Meena RS, Singh RK. Soil microbial and nutrient dynamics under different sowing environments of Indian mustard. Sci Rep. 2021;11:5289.
16. Mohammadi K. Phosphorus solubilizing bacteria: occurrence, mechanisms and their role in crop production. Resour Environ. 2012;2(1):80-85.
17. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Washington (DC): US Department of Agriculture; 1954. USDA Circular No. 939.
18. Pardhi KK, Bhardwaj AK, Rajput RS, Tiwari V. Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield attributes of Indian mustard. Int J Adv Biochem Res. 2025;9(2):218221.
19. Pooniyan N, Gora JS, Singh S, Chhabra AK. Integrated nutrient management in mustard under Jatropha-based agro-forestry system. Pharma Innov J. 2022;11(5):1388-1392.
20. Radheshyam D, Singh AK, Mishra R, Pandey V. Effect of integrated nutrient management on agronomic traits and soil properties of Indian mustard. Int J Res Agron. 2026;9(2):204-207.
21. Sahoo U, Tiwari A, Meena MD, Kumar D. Nutrient uptake pattern in Indian mustard as influenced by integrated nutrient management. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(5):2711-2718.
22. Sandeep Patel A, Singh M, Maurya SK, Kumar A. Effect of sulphur, zinc and FYM on growth and yield of mustard. Int J Econ Plants. 2023;10(2):145-151.
23. Sharma R, Gupta S, Verma H, Singh P. Effect of variable doses of organic manures on growth, quality and yield of mustard. Pharma Innov J. 2023;12(1):1472-1477.
24. Shekhawat K, Rathore SS, Shekhawat P, Yadav SK. Advances in agronomic management of Indian mustard: an overview. Int J Agron. 2012;2012:1-14.
25. Singh SP, Pal MS. Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity, quality, nutrient uptake and economics of mustard. Indian J Agron. 2011;56(4):381-387.
26. Subba Rao NS. Soil microbiology. 4th ed. Enfield (NH): Science Publishers; 2001.
27. Subbaiah BV, Asija GL. A rapid procedure for the determination of available nitrogen in soils. Curr Sci. 1956;25:259-260.
28. Tripathi MK, Chaturvedi S, Shukla DK, Mahapatra BS. Yield performance and quality in Indian mustard as affected by integrated nutrient management. Indian J Agron. 2010;55(2):138-142.
29. Yadav PK. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and quality of mustard in central Uttar Pradesh. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2021;10(4):20142017.
30. Yadav RK, Singh M, Meena S, Tiwari R. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of mustard in central Uttar Pradesh. Int J Chem Stud. 2018;6(3):1567-1570.
31. Yashi L, Terhiisa M, Chaturvedi S. Effect of organic manures on growth and yield of mustard under NorthEast Indian conditions. Pharma Innov J. 2023;12(3):891-895.