Nutrient management in little millet (Panicum sumatrense L.) for different row spacing

Introduction

Little millet (Panicum sumatrense L.) is an important small millet crop cultivated predominantly under rainfed conditions. The crop possesses considerable adaptability to moisture stress and relatively poor soil conditions and therefore has an important role in sustainable dryland agriculture. In recent years, millets have received increased attention because of their nutritional value, climate resilience and potential contribution towards diversification of cereal-based production systems. Productivity of little millet is influenced by several agronomic factors, among which crop geometry and nutrient management are particularly important. Row spacing regulates plant population, canopy development, light interception and the availability of soil moisture and nutrients to individual plants. An excessively wide spacing may result in underutilization of available resources, whereas closer spacing increases plant population per unit area and may enhance yield per hectare despite reduced productivity on an individual plant basis. Nutrient management is another important determinant of crop growth and yield. Little millet is commonly cultivated in low-input conditions, and inadequate nutrient supply may restrict tillering, leaf development, dry matter accumulation and grain formation. Adequate nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium supply can promote vegetative growth, root development, tillering and assimilate production, thereby improving yield formation. Despite the inherent advantages of little millet, it faces several agronomic, environmental and practical challenges.

Variability in the soil properties, rainfall pattern and temperature affect plant responses and make it difficult to establish universal applicable recommendations. Therefore, multi-location and multi-season research including diverse soil types, climatic conditions, and integrated nutrient management approaches are required for developing more comprehensive and widely applicable recommendations for sustainable little millet production.

Materials and Methods

The field experiment was conducted during the kharif season of 2025 at the All India Coordinated Research Project on Weed Management, Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth, Akola, Maharashtra to study the effect of row spacing and nutrient management on growth and yield of little millet (Panicum sumatrense L.). The experiment was laid out in Factorial Randomized Block Design with two factors, three replications and twelve treatment combinations. The crop variety used was PDKV-Tejashree. The gross plot size was 4.00 m × 3.60 m and the net plot size was 3.40 m × 2.70 m. The experimental site was located in the Central Vidarbha agro-climatic zone at 20°42′ N latitude, 77°02′ E longitude and an altitude of 307.42 m above mean sea level. The soil of the experimental site was medium black in texture. The initial soil analysis indicated low available nitrogen (160.80 kg ha⁻¹), medium available phosphorus (20.00 kg ha⁻¹) and high available potassium (306.93 kg ha⁻¹). The soil had pH 7.81, electrical conductivity 0.21 dS m⁻¹ and organic carbon 0.430%. The available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were, and respectively. During the crop season, a total rainfall of 615.9 mm was received from the 27th to 40th meteorological week, against a normal rainfall of 532 mm. The crop experienced 33 rainy days during the growing period. [1] . Nutrient management significantly influenced plant height. Application of 150% GRDF recorded the highest plant height (122.86 cm), followed by 125% GRDF (122.20 cm). These two treatments were statistically at par. The control recorded the lowest plant height (96.83 cm). Improved plant height under higher nutrient levels may be attributed to better availability of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, which supported cell division, cell elongation and vigorous vegetative growth. The result is in agreement with Niharika et al. (2021) [9] and Janani et al. (2022) [5] .

Number of tillers

The number of tillers m⁻² was significantly influenced by row spacing. At harvest, 30 cm spacing produced the highest number of tillers (169.67 m⁻²), followed by 45 cm spacing (128.80 m⁻²), while paired row spacing recorded the lowest value (120.97 m⁻²). The higher tiller population per unit area under 30 cm spacing was primarily due to the greater plant population accommodated within a given land area. The findings are in conformity with Syed et al. (2022) [15] in little millet Application of 150% GRDF produced 151.72 tillers m⁻², which was statistically at par with 125% GRDF (148.57 m⁻²). The control recorded only 124.03 tillers m⁻². The increase in tiller production with higher nutrient supply may be attributed particularly to greater nitrogen availability during the tillering phase. Similar observations were reported by Raundal et al. (2017) [11] and Niharika et al.

Leaf area and leaf area index

Among spacing, 45 cm spacing recorded significantly higher leaf area of 526.76 cm² plant⁻¹ compared with paired row spacing (516.39 cm² plant⁻¹) and 30 cm spacing (505.72 cm² plant⁻¹). Greater leaf area under wider spacing can be attributed to greater availability of physical space, light, moisture and nutrients to individual plants, resulting in enhanced leaf expansion. . These results collaborated with the findings of Syed et al. (2022) [15] and Hiwale et al.

(2025) [4] in little millet.

In contrast, leaf area index was significantly higher under 30 cm spacing (3.37), followed by 45 cm spacing (2.34) and paired row spacing (2.29). The higher LAI under closer spacing was associated with the greater number of plants per unit area, which compensated for the smaller individual leaf area. Similar observations have been reported by Hebbal et al. (2018) [3] and Janani et al. (2022) [5] . [8] and Padmaja et al. (2024) [10] . [12] in little millet. Nutrient management significantly increased grain weight and number of panicles plant⁻¹. Application of 150% GRDF recorded the highest grain weight (4.30 g plant⁻¹) and number of panicles (4.23 plant⁻¹), which were statistically at par with 125% GRDF recording 4.27 g plant⁻¹ and 4.17 panicles plant⁻¹, respectively. The improvement in yield attributes under higher nutrient levels may be attributed to improved tillering and greater assimilate availability for reproductive structures. These results are in close agreement with those of Padmaja et al. (2024) [10] in finger millet.

Test weight

Test weight was not significantly influenced by either row spacing or nutrient management. Numerically, 45 cm spacing recorded the highest test weight (1.61 g), while 30 cm spacing recorded 1.57 g. Among nutrient treatments, 150% GRDF recorded 1.62 g compared with 1.58 g under 125% GRDF. The non-significant response indicates that test weight was comparatively stable under the treatments imposed and may have been governed largely by the inherent characteristics of the variety.

Effect of spacing and nutrient levels on grain yield, straw yield and harvest index Grain yield

Row spacing significantly influenced grain yield. The 30 cm spacing recorded significantly higher grain yield of 1430 kg ha⁻¹, followed by paired row spacing (1245 kg ha⁻¹), whereas the lowest grain yield was recorded under 45 cm spacing (1216 kg ha⁻¹). The higher grain yield under 30 cm spacing, despite lower grain weight and number of panicles on an individual plant basis, may be attributed to the substantially greater plant population per unit area. Thus, the higher number of plants compensated for lower individual plant productivity and resulted in greater grain production per hectare. Similar observations have been reported by Bitew and Asargew (2014) [2] in finger millet and Jyothi et al. (2021) [7] in foxtail millet. Nutrient management significantly influenced grain yield. Application of 150% GRDF recorded the highest grain yield (1493 kg ha⁻¹), which was statistically at par with 125% GRDF (1440 kg ha⁻¹). The control recorded the lowest grain yield (955 kg ha⁻¹). Increased grain yield under higher nutrient supply may be attributed to enhanced plant growth, tiller production, leaf area development, dry matter accumulation and yield attributes. The significant response to higher fertility levels agrees with Asewar et al. (2023) [1] and Sujathamma and Naik (2022) [14] , who reported improved growth and yield of little millet with increasing fertilizer levels.

Straw yield

The 30 cm spacing recorded significantly higher straw yield (4387 kg ha⁻¹), followed by paired row spacing (3647 kg ha⁻¹), while the lowest straw yield was recorded under 45 cm spacing (3507 kg ha⁻¹). The higher straw production under 30 cm spacing may be attributed to the greater plant population, plant height and LAI, resulting in greater cumulative vegetative biomass per unit area. These findings are in close conformity with those reported by Nigus and Melese (2018) in finger millet and Jhansi et al. (2025) [6] in foxtail millet. Among nutrient levels, 150% GRDF recorded the highest straw yield (4300 kg ha⁻¹), which was statistically at par with 125% GRDF (4242 kg ha⁻¹). Higher nutrient availability enhanced vegetative growth and dry matter production, thereby increasing straw yield. Similar results were reported by Janani et al. (2022) [5] in barnyard millet.

Harvest index

Harvest index was not significantly influenced by row spacing or nutrient management. The highest numerical harvest index under row spacing was recorded with 45 cm spacing (25.60%), followed by paired row (25.33%) and 30 cm spacing (24.31%). Among nutrient treatments, 150% GRDF recorded the highest numerical harvest index (25.53%), followed by 125% GRDF (25.41%), whereas control recorded 24.10%.

Interaction effect

The interaction between row spacing and nutrient management was significant for grain and straw yield. The combination of 30 cm spacing with 150% GRDF recorded the highest grain yield of 1682 kg ha⁻¹, which was statistically at par with 30 cm spacing combined with 125% GRDF (1602 kg ha⁻¹). The lowest grain yield reported was 899 kg ha⁻¹ under 45 cm spacing combined with the control treatment. The significant interaction indicates that the response of grain yield to nutrient supply varied with row spacing. The higher plant population established under 30 cm spacing apparently benefited from increased nutrient availability, allowing the crop to sustain greater growth and reproductive production per unit area. A similar response was recorded for straw yield. The combination of 30 cm spacing with 150% GRDF produced the highest straw yield of 4882 kg ha⁻¹, which was statistically at par with 30 cm spacing combined with 125% GRDF (4867 kg ha⁻¹). The lowest straw yield was recorded under 45 cm spacing with control nutrient management (2657 kg ha⁻¹).

Conclusion

The present investigation demonstrated that Sowing of Little millet at 30 cm spacing recorded significantly higher values of growth parameters. Whereas, 45 cm spacing produced higher leaf area plant -1 , dry matter accumulation plant -1 and yield attributing characters. However both grain and straw yield were significantly higher in spacing 30cm. The highest values of growth contributing characters, yield attributing characters and actual yield was highest in treatment with 150% GRDF (60:30:30) which were at par with 125% GRDF (50:25:25). Among spacing treatments, 30 cm spacing exhibited superior nutrient use efficiency indices.

References

1. Asewar BV, Syed Shireen JR, Aher KP, Sachin. Response of different little millet (Panicum sumatrense L.) varieties to fertilizer levels. 2023.
2. Bitew Y, Asargew F. Determination of seed rate and inter-row spacing for finger millet production (Eleusine coracana Gaertn.) in north western Ethiopia. International Journal of Research and Review. 2014;1(4).
3. Hebbal N, Ramachandrappa BK, Thimmegouda MN. Yield and economics of finger millet with establishment methods under different planting geometry and nutrient source. Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and Development. 2018;33(1):54-58.
4. Hiwale AU, Nemade SM, Mohod NB, Kanwade DG, Goud VV, Ingle MR. Performance of little millet (Panicum sumatrense L.) under different spacings and seed rate. International Journal of Agriculture and Nutrition. 2025;7(10):27-28.
5. Janani N, Durai Singh R, Chelvi Ramessh TVR, Selvam S. Effect of row spacing and potassium management on the growth and yield attributes of barnyard millet (Echinochloa frumentacea L.) under irrigated conditions. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(7):1944-1948.
6. Jhansi K, Karanjikar PN, Suryavanshi VP, Sneha SB, Lokhande SS. Effect of fertilizer levels and row spacings on growth and yield of foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.). International Journal of Economic Plants. 2025;12(2):1-6. doi:10.23910/2/2025.5982b.
7. Jyothi NK, Sumathi V, Subramanyam D, Sudhakar P, Krishna TG, Karuna Sagar G. Productivity and profitability of foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) as influenced by varied agro techniques under Southern agro-climatic Zone of Andhra Pradesh. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;10(7):907-911.
8. Melavanki MS, Boraiah B, Nagangoudar MB, Chethan Babu RT. Optimizing planting geometry and nutrient management for enhanced growth and yield of teff (Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter) in Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka. Indian Journal of Ecology. 2024;51(5):1037-1041.
9. Niharika M, Vidya Sagar GECH, Bhanu Rekha K, Anjaiah T. Response of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) to varying levels of plant density and nitrogen. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2021;11(11):308-314. doi:10.9734/IJECC/2021/v11i1130546.
10. Padmaja M, Awasarmal VB, Kausalye SP, Rajkumar Y. Studies on effect of crop geometry and fertilizer levels on growth and yield of kharif finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.). International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2024;7(12):519-522.
11. Raundal PU, Patil VU. Response of little millet varieties to different levels of fertilizers under rainfed condition. International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology. 2017;4(8):55-58.
12. Sarala NV, Kumar MH, Madhavilatha L, Vajantha B, Hemalatha T. Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on growth and yield of little millet. Andhra Pradesh Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2020;6(2):71-74.
13. Soutade VJ, Raundal PU. Response of little millet varieties to different levels of fertilizers under rainfed condition. Journal of Agriculture Research and Technology. 2022;47(1):131-135.
14. Sujathamma P, Santhosh Kumar Naik B. Effect of crop geometry and fertilizer levels on the grain yield of little millet (Panicum sumatrense L.) in rainfed vertisols. Biological Forum-An International Journal. 2022;14(4):862-865.
15. Syed SJR, Asewar BV, Aher KP, Sachin. Impact of different plant densities and nutrient levels on growth and yield of little millet (Panicum sumatrense L.). The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(12):3052-3055.