Genotypic performance of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) under varying sowing windows

Introduction

Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) is an important pulse crop of the family Fabaceae, commonly known as khesari, lang, chural, latri, batura, lakhori and tiwra in India (Campbell, 1997) [3] . It is a hardy annual legume with well-developed roots and nodules capable of fixing atmospheric nitrogen, contributing to soil fertility under low-input conditions (Campbell et al., 1993) [4] . The crop is well adapted to drought-prone, marginal and rainfed environments. Grass pea is an important source of plant protein, with seed protein content ranging from 8.6 to 34.6%, along with 48.0 -52.3% of carbohydrates and 1.1% -1.7% crude fibre (Tamburino et al., 2012; Longvah et al., 2017; Campbell, 1997; Hanbury et al., 1999) [16,12,3,8] . The seeds are consumed as pulse, dal and flour, while immature pods, young leaves and crop residues are used as vegetables and livestock feed, contributing to food and feed security (Tyagi et al., 2017) [17] . In India, about 0.362 million ha area was under grass pea cultivation in India, with Chhattisgarh ranking first in area and production, followed by Bihar and Madhya Pradesh (Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare). In Maharashtra, the crop is mainly grown in the Eastern Vidarbha region, particularly in Bhandara, Chandrapur, Gadchiroli, Gondia and Nagpur districts, where it is cultivated after rice using residual soil moisture. Under proper management, the crop can produce about 8-10 q ha⁻¹ under direct sowing and 3-4 q ha⁻¹ under utera cultivation (Dixit et al., 2016) [5] . Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) is an important pulse crop of rainfed and marginal ecosystems; however, its productivity remains low and unstable under field conditions due to inadequate agronomic practices. Among these, sowing time is a key non-monetary factor that strongly influences crop establishment, phenological development and final productivity (Rafaat et al., 2021) [14] . Ghosh and Khan (2018) [6] reported that variation in sowing dates significantly affected yield and yield attributes of grass pea, with optimum sowing resulting in higher grain yield, whereas delayed sowing reduced yield mainly due to poor development of yield components and lower test weight. The selection of suitable genotypes with stable performance, along with appropriate agronomic management, is essential under variable environmental conditions (Kamdi et al., 2017) [9] . Hence, based on the above considerations and climate change context, the experiment was conducted to evaluate the response of different grass pea genotypes on yield attributes, yield and economics under different sowing windows.

Materials and Methods

A field experiment was conducted at Agronomy Farm, College of Agriculture, Nagpur during rabi season of 2025-26. The soil of the experimental field was clayey in texture, low in available nitrogen (249.71 kg ha -1 ) and phosphorus (22.30 kg ha -1 ) and rich in available potassium (368.03 kg ha -1 ). Organic carbon content (0.56%) was medium and soil reaction was slightly alkaline pH (7.5). The experiment was laid out in split plot design with 12 treatment combinations replicated thrice, comprising four sowing windows viz., 42nd MW (S 1 ), 43rd MW (S 2 ), 44th MW (S 3 ) and 45th MW (S 4 ) as main plot treatments and three genotypes of grass pea viz., Ratan (G 1 ), Prateek (G 2 ), and NLK-73 (G 3 ), as sub plot treatments. Grass pea was sown manually with 30 cm X 10 cm spacing during the meteorological week-based sowing windows. Observations were recorded from net plot area and then adjusted to haˉ¹ value using hectare factor conversion. Statistical analysis was applied to data and cost of cultivation was estimated by using prevailing market price of grass pea.

Results and Discussion

Yield attributes Effect of sowing window Significantly higher numbers of pods plant⁻¹, seeds pod⁻¹ and seed index were recorded in the 44 th MW (S 3 ) compared with the other sowing windows, followed by the 43 rd MW (S 2 ). These yield attributes were lowest in the 45 th MW (S 4 ). This might be due to favourable temperature during the reproductive and seed-filling stages, which promoted better reproductive development, seed setting and assimilate accumulation. Similar findings were reported by Ghosh and Khan (2018) [6] and Gusmao (2018) [7] .

Effect of genotypes

Among the evaluated grass pea genotypes, Ratan (G 1 ), produced significantly higher numbers of pods plant⁻¹, seeds pod⁻¹ and seed index and was superior to Prateek (G 2 ) and NLK-73 (G 3 ). This might be due to greater genetic potential for branching, reproductive efficiency and seed development. Similar findings were reported by Laghari et al. (2016) [11] , Sleman et al. (2019) [15] and Bag et al. (2023) [2] . Crop Yield Performance Effect of sowing window Significantly higher seed yield, stover yield, biological yield and harvest index were obtained with sowing in the 44 th MW (S₃) compared with the other sowing windows, followed by the 43 rd MW (S₂), while the lowest values were recorded in the 45 th MW (S₄). This might be due to favourable temperature during flowering, pod setting and seed filling, which promoted better biomass accumulation, pod retention, seed development and efficient partitioning of assimilates towards seed yield. Similar findings were reported by Ghosh and Khan (2018) [6] , Gusmao (2018) [7] and Rafaat et al. (2021) [14] .

Effect of genotypes

Among the evaluated grass pea genotypes, Ratan (G₁) recorded significantly higher seed yield, stover yield, biological yield and harvest index than Prateek (G₂) and NLK-73 (G₃), while NLK-73 (G₃) recorded the lowest values. This might be due to genetic differences in branching, biomass accumulation, reproductive capacity and assimilate partitioning, resulting in greater pod and seed development in Ratan (G₁). Similar findings were reported by Laghari et al. (2016) [11] , Sleman et al. (2019) [15] , Mahapatra et al. (2020) [13] and Bag et al. (2023) [2] .

Monetary returns Effect of sowing window

Grass pea sown during the 44 th MW (S 3 ) recorded significantly higher net monetary return and benefit ratio compared with the 43 rd MW (S 2 ) and 42 nd MW (S 1 ), whereas sowing during the 45 th MW (S 4 ) recorded the lowest net monetary return and benefit ratio. This might be due to higher seed and stover production under the optimum sowing window, while delayed sowing reduced crop productivity and consequently economic returns. Similar findings were reported by Majid AghaAlikhani et al.

(2014) [1] and Ghosh and Khan (2018) [6] .

Effect of genotypes

Among the genotypes, Ratan (G 1 ) recorded significantly higher net monetary return and benefit ratio than Prateek (G 2 ) and NLK-73 (G 3 ). This might be due to its higher seed and stover production associated with superior growth and yield-attributing characters, resulting in greater net returns. Similar findings were reported by Bag et al. (2023) [2] and Krishna et al. (2023) [10] .

Interaction effect

Yield attributes, crop yield performance and economics were not significantly influenced by the interaction effect of sowing windows and genotypes. (Table1 and 2)

Conclusion

Sowing window and genotype had a pronounced effect on the yield attributes, yield and economic performance of grass pea.

Results revealed that the crop sown during the 44 th MW (S 3 ) performed best, as favourable temperature conditions during flowering, pod setting and seed filling supported better reproductive development and seed formation, resulting in higher productivity and econimics whereas yield and yield attributes declined with successive delay in sowing, with the lowest performance recorded under the 45 th MW (S 4 ). Among the genotypes, Ratan (G 1 ) was superior for yield, yield attributes and economics which may be attributed to its superior genetic potential.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementI acknowledge my sincere thanks to Dr. V. A. Khadse, Chairman of advisory committee and Extension Agronomist, Training and Visit scheme, College of Agriculture, Nagpur, Dr. V. S. Khawale, Professor of Agronomy, Agronomy Section, College of Agriculture, Nagpur and Dr. P. D. K. V. Akola, (MH) for providing research farm for my experimental trial.

References

1. AghaAlikhani M, Behnamfar F, Eyshi Rezaie E, Bannayan M. Assessment of sowing date impacts on productivity of different grass pea ecotypes. Int J Farming Allied Sci. 2014;3(7):798-805.
2. Bag A, Ghosh M, Bera S, Banerjee S, De SK. Effect of crop establishment methods on growth, yield and economics of lathyrus (Lathyrus sativus L.) varieties in Vindhya alluvial region of West Bengal. Indian J Agron. 2023;68(3):335-337.
3. Campbell CG. Grass pea. Lathyrus sativus L. Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops. Rome: Bioversity International; 1997. No. 18.
4. Campbell CG, Mehra RB, Agrawal SK, Chen YZ, Abd El Moneim AM, Khawaja HIT, et al. Current status and future strategy in breeding grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.). Euphytica. 1993;73:167-175.
5. Dixit GP, Parihar AK, Bohra A, Singh NP. Achievements and prospects of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) improvement for sustainable food production. Crop J. 2016;4(5):407-416.
6. Ghosh A, Khan SA. Determination of optimum sowing time of grass pea based on yield variation as affected by varied dates of sowing in new alluvial zone of West Bengal. Int J Agric Environ Biotechnol. 2018;11(1):11-16.
7. Gusmao M. Early sowing of grain legume crops after rice harvest increases grain yield. Univ J Agric Res. 2018;6(5):155-159.
8. Hanbury CD, Siddique KHM, Galwey NW, Cocks PS. Genotype × environment interaction for seed yield and ODAP concentration of Lathyrus sativus L. and L. cicera L. Euphytica. 1999;110:45-60.
9. Kamdi SR, Patil S, Deotale RD, Kamdi SS, Kalamkar VB, Dhapke SK, et al. Selection of potential Lathyrus genotypes for stable performance over years. Multilogic Sci. 2017;7(24):200-203.
10. Krishna JVVS, Banerjee S, Ghosh M, Soren C, Pati S. Performance of lathyrus varieties under different establishment methods in red and laterite zone of West Bengal. J Food Legumes. 2023;36(2-3):197-199.
11. Laghari UA, Shah AN, Kandhro MN, Zia-ul-Hassan, Jamro GM, Talpur KH. Growth and yield response of five elite grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) genotypes to varying levels of potassium. Sarhad J Agric. 2016;32(3):218-222.
12. Longvah T, Ananthan R, Bhaskarachary K, Venkaiah K. Indian food composition tables. Hyderabad: National Institute of Nutrition, Indian Council of Medical Research; 2017. p. 2-58.
13. Mahapatra NS, Das A, Bhattacharyya PK, Bhattacharya S, Pal S, Barpete S. Studies on genetic variability, divergence and association of characters in grass pea. J Crop Weed. 2020;16(1):155-161.
14. Rafaat JG, Ghareeb SA, Hasan SS. Effect of sowing dates on growth, yield and its components of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) varieties under rainfed condition. Tikrit J Agric Sci. 2021;21(1):59-67.
15. Sleman SM, Muhammed SR, Ahmad DA, Abdulkhaleq DA, Muhammad TO. Evaluation of some grass pea genotypes (Lathyrus sativus L.) for forage, seed yield and its components under rainfed conditions in Sulaimani region. Tikrit J Agric Sci. 2019;19(3):35-46.
16. Tamburino R, Guida V, Pacifico S, Rocco M, Zarelli A, Parente A, et al. Nutritional value and antioxidant capacity of grass pea seeds. Aust J Crop Sci. 2012;6(9):149-156.
17. Tyagi R, Pandey A, Agrawal A, Varaprasad K, Paroda R, Khetarpal R. Underutilized crops for food and nutritional security in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: APAARI; 2017.