INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENTINNIGER (Guizotia abysssinica L.)

Introduction

Niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.) is an important minor oilseed crop cultivated mainly under rainfed and marginal production conditions. It's adaptability to relatively poor soils and variable moisture environments makes it relevant to diversified and resource-constrained farming systems. However, productivity remains modest where fertilizer use is inadequate or unbalanced. Nutrient availability is a major determinant of crop growth, reproductive development and seed productivity. Nitrogen is closely associated with vegetative growth and photosynthetic capacity, while phosphorus is important in energy transfer, root development and reproductive processes. An appropriate fertilizer dose can therefore improve biomass production and the formation of yield components. Foliar nutrition provides an additional pathway for nutrient delivery during periods of high crop demand. Foliar application can complement soil fertilization by supplying nutrients directly to actively growing tissues and may improve nutrient utilization during reproductive development. Previous studies have reported beneficial effects of integrated nutrient management, different fertilizer application and foliar nutrition on niger growth and productivity. Improved growth, yield and economics under integrated nutrient management, positive responses of niger to foliar nutrition and micronutrients. Nevertheless, location-specific information on combining different fertilizer levels with foliar nutrition for Phule Karala (IGPN2004-1) is limited. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the individual and combined effects of different fertilizer levels and foliar spray application on growth, yield attributes, productivity, oil and protein yield, economics of niger cv. Phule Karala (IGPN2004-1) under the agro-ecological conditions of Nagpur.

Material and methods

The experiment was conducted during rabi 2025-26 at the Agronomy Farm, College of Agriculture, Nagpur. The soil was a Vertisol with clayey texture and slightly alkaline reaction (pH 7.65). Organic carbon was 0.58%. Initial available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were 255.80, 22.13 and 369.20 kg ha⁻¹. The crop was sown on 30 October 2025 and harvested on 3 March 2026. During the crop period 50.6 mm rainfall was received, maximum temperature reached 41.5 °C and minimum temperature declined to 4.1 °C. Relative humidity varied considerably during the season. The experiment was laid out in a Factorial Randomized Block Design (FRBD) with three fertilizer levels and three foliar spray applications giving nine different treatment combinations replicated three times (27 plots). Gross plot size was 4.5 × 3.6 m and net plot size was 3.6 × 3.2 m. Variety used was Phule Karala (IGPN2004-1) was sown at 30 × 10 cm spacing using a seed rate of 5 kg ha⁻¹.The treatments were

Treatment details

Sr.No. Symbol

A

The growth and yield attributing characters were recorded with quality studies

At harvest, capitula plant⁻¹, seeds capitulum⁻¹, test weight, seed yield plant⁻¹, straw yield plant⁻¹. Seed yield ha -1 , Straw yield ha -1 ,harvest index, oil content, oil yield, protein content, protein yield, gross monetary returns (GMR), net monetary returns (NMR) and B:C ratio were determined. NMR was calculated by subtracting cost of cultivation from GMR, and B:C ratio was calculated as GMR divided by cost of cultivation. The interaction was found to be non-significant overall for all yield attributes.

Results and discussion

Yield attributes

Seed yield plant⁻¹ increased progressively with increasing levels of RDF i.e. 100%, 125% and 150% RDF recording

Oil and protein content and yield

The Oil content was statistically non-significant but showed a numerical increase from 37.63% under 100% RDF to 38.63% with the application of 150% RDF, with 125% RDF recording 37.82%. Oil yield, which integrates seed yield and oil concentration, increased from 219 kg ha⁻¹ under 100% RDF to 267 kg ha⁻¹ with the application of 150% RDF, with 125% RDF recording 235 kg ha⁻¹. Among foliar treatments application of PDKV GradeII recorded 38.62% oil and 256 kg ha⁻¹ oil yield, compared with 37.72% 2% urea application and 224 kg ha⁻¹ under S₁ (2% urea) and 37.74% and 235 kg ha⁻¹ under (S 2) 2% DAP. The higher oil yield under (F₃) 150% RDF and (S₃) PDKV Grade II was mainly associated with their greater seed productivity.

Protein content was statistically non-significant but showed a numerical increase from 18.22% under (F₁) 100% RDF to 19.29% under (F₃) 150% RDF, with (F₂) 125% RDF recording 18.53%. Protein yield, which is influenced by both seed yield and protein concentration, increased from 107 kg ha⁻¹ under 100% RDF to 133 kg ha⁻¹ with application of 150% RDF , while 125% RDF reorded 112 kg ha⁻¹. Among foliar treatments application of PDKV Grade II recorded the highest protein content (19.33%) and protein yield (128 kg ha⁻¹), followed by (S 2 ) 2% DAP application (18.40% and 115 kg ha⁻¹) and (S₁) 2% urea (18.31% and 108 kg ha⁻¹), respectively. The higher protein yield under (F₃) 150% RDF and (S₃) PDKV Grade II was mainly associated with greater seed productivity.

Gross monetary returns, net monetary returns and B:C ratio

Gross monetary return increased progressively with increasing levels of fertilizer application. Highest GMR was under 150% RDF i.e. ₹75,345. Similarly, the highest net monetary return was recorded ₹54,398 ha⁻¹ with the application of 150% RDF. The B:C ratio also improved from 3.11 under (F₁) 100% RDF to 3.19 under (F₂) 125% RDF and 3.60 for (F₃) PDKV Grade II. The higher economic returns obtained under 150% RDF were mainly attributed to greater seed and straw productivity, which resulted in enhanced monetary returns from the harvested produce. The interaction effect between fertilizer levels and foliar sprays was found to be non-significant..

Interaction effect

The interaction between fertilizer levels and foliar sprays was nonsignificant for the yield attributes, seed and straw productivity, quality parameters and economic variables evaluated. Numerically, combinations involving F 3 and S 3 tended to produce the highest values

Conclusion

Application of 150% RDF (F 3 ) produced the highest yield attributes, seed and straw yield, biological yield, oil yield, protein yield and economic returns of niger cv. Phule Karala. Among foliar treatments, PDKV Grade II (S 3 ) was consistently superior to 2% DAP and 2% urea for yield and productivity. Oil and protein contents were not significantly altered, but their yields increased because of greater seed productivity. The treatment combination effects were non-significant under the experimental conditions. Under the conditions of this experiment, 150% RDF (F 3 ) and PDKV Grade II (S 3 ) are to be considered promising practices for improving niger productivity and profitability.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementI acknowledge my sincere thanks to Dr. Usha. R. Dongarwar, Chairman of advisory committee and Senior Scientist and Head, KVK, Sakoli, Dr. V. S. Khawale, Professor of Agronomy, Agronomy section, College of Agriculture, Nagpur, Dr. P. D. K. V. Akola, (MH) for providing research farm for my experimental trail.

References

1. Amare A, Getachew E, Victor. Response of noug (Guizotia abyssinica L.) to NP fertilizers application and seeding rates on yield and yield components in Ebinat District, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2015;11(2):7276.
2. Biswas S, Mondal S, Mondal P, Das R. Performance of niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.) under different seed priming and liquid manure options in Eastern Plateau and Hill Zone of India. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2024;26(3):472-480.
3. Bora P, Bora PC, Kurmi K, Kalita S. Yield and nutrient uptake in niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.) as influenced by different levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2021;17(2):502-508.
4. Chatterjee N, Sahu G, Ghosh G. Effect of balanced nutrient management on niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.) in red and lateritic soils of West Bengal. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2019;8:1039-1049.
5. Chaudhari DG, Deshmukh SP, Singh N, Surve V, Mote BM, Gajera BM. Study of foliar nutrition applied at different growth stages on niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.). International Journal of Plant & Soil Science. 2023;35(19):1147-1151.
6. Choudhari BK, Aglave BN, Bhosle NU, Chavan PM, Shinde LR. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.). The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;12(8):1416-1418.
7. Dalei BB, Meena MK, Phonglosa A, Sinha B, Nayak L, Pradhan K. Green manuring and nitrogen management for sustainable productivity of niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.) in Odisha, India. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science. 2023;35(21):369374.
8. Dalei BB, Panda S, Kheroar S. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and economics of niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.). Journal of Oilseeds Research. 2014;31(1):46-48.
9. Deshmukh MR, Jyotishi A, Ranganatha ARG. Productivity and economic viability of winter niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.) under varying nutrient management practices. Journal of Oilseeds Research. 2015;32(1).
10. Idhole GP, Nimanwad BB, Pawar SB, Gokhale DN. Effect of micronutrient foliar application on growth and yield of Niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.) under rainfed condition. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(7):1409-1412.
11. Itnal A, Parashivamurthy P, Ravishankar P, Boraiah B, Basavaraja B. Optimization of nutrients for seed yield and economics of seed production in niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.). Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2020;56(2):60-64.
12. Kaman N, Ojah N, Dutta R, Basumatary A, Das R, Das P. Effect of graded levels of fertilizer on growth and yield of niger varieties under rainfed condition of Assam. Ecology, Environment and Conservation. 2023;29(1):412-419.
13. Kasle SV, Gaikwad SR, Bhusari SA, Kalegore NK. Studies on growth, yield and quality of niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.) as influenced by graded levels of fertilizer and plant density. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2020;9(11):314-316.
14. Praveen MG, Rajkumara S, Yenagi BS. Sulphur and boron nutrition on growth, yield and economics of niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.) under rainfed conditions of Northern Transition Tract of Karnataka. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2020;9(3):531-536.
15. Ranganatha ARG, Patil HS, Deshmukh MR. Nutrient management in niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.). JNKVV Research Journal. 2010;44(2):113-117.
16. Raut SS. Growth, yield and quality of niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.) as influenced by integrated nitrogen management. Ph.D. thesis, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani. 2018.
17. Sahoo SK, Tripathy S, Sahoo KC, Tudu S, Das S, Biswasi S, Majhi PK, Samantaray S. Effect of different nutrient management practices on growth, yield attributes and yield of niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.) in Eastern Ghat High Land Agro Climatic Zone of Odisha. International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2025;8(3):194-196.
18. Sandeep KR, Kubsad VS. Yield, quality and nutrient uptake of Niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.) as influenced by plant geometry, fertilizer level and cycocel. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(9):3470-3476.
19. Surve VH, Pisal RR, Patel CL. Performance of Rabi niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.) influenced by phosphorus management. Agricultural Science Digest. 2013;33(1):25-28.
20. Tadayyon A, Beheshti S, Pessarakli M. Effects of sprayed humic acid, iron, and zinc on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of niger plant (Guizotia abyssinica L.). Journal of Plant Nutrition. 2017;40(11):1644-1650.
21. Talukdar M, Bhadoria PBS, Mahapatra SC. Impact of nitrogen fertilizer from organic and conventional sources on seed yield of niger (Guizotia abyssinica L.). International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research. 2016;9(1):16-24.
22. How to cite this article: Kohale LD, Dongarwar UR, Pagar P, Pofali SU. INTEGRATED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT IN NIGER (Guizotia abysssinica L.). International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2026;9(9):697-701. doi: https://www.doi. org/10.33545/2618060X.2026.v9.i9j.6591