Effect of tillage practices and nutrient management on growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer Arietinum L.)

Introduction

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is one of the most important cool-season food legumes and a major source of dietary protein, carbohydrates, minerals and other essential nutrients. It has considerable importance in Indian agriculture because of its contribution to nutritional security, pulse production and soil fertility. Chickpea also has the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen through symbiotic association with Rhizobium, thereby contributing to nutrient cycling and improving the sustainability of cereal-pulse cropping systems. Despite its importance, chickpea productivity is influenced by several agronomic and environmental constraints, including poor soil fertility, inadequate nutrient availability, moisture stress and unsuitable soil-management practices. Tillage plays an important role in modifying soil physical conditions, seedbed preparation, aeration, water availability and root development. Appropriate tillage can therefore create favourable conditions for crop establishment and subsequent growth, while its interaction with nutrient management may influence yield formation and resource-use efficiency. Nutrient management is another critical factor governing chickpea growth and productivity. Although biological nitrogen fixation reduces the dependence of chickpea on external nitrogen, balanced application of essential nutrients is necessary for vigorous vegetative growth, nodulation, reproductive development and seed formation. Integrated nutrient management involving inorganic fertilizers and organic sources such as vermicompost can improve nutrient availability and soil health. Recent studies have demonstrated that combinations of recommended fertilizer doses with vermicompost and biofertilizers can substantially improve chickpea growth, yield attributes and grain yield (Zala et al., 2024; Abisankar et al., 2024) [2,1] . Recent research has also shown that integrated nutrient management can improve nutrient uptake and grain quality, while organic nutrient sources such as vermicompost can enhance yield and nutrient acquisition in chickpea (Dubey et al., 2024; Namdeo et al., 2024) [3,4] . Therefore, combining suitable tillage with balanced nutrient management may provide an effective approach for enhancing chickpea productivity and sustaining soil fertility. The present investigation was conducted during Rabi 2025-26 at Agricultural Research Farm, Department of Agronomy, School of Agriculture, Suresh Gyan Vihar University, Jaipur, Rajasthan, to study the effect of tillage practices and nutrient management on growth, yield attributes and productivity of chickpea.

Materials and Methods

A field experiment entitled "Effect of Tillage Practices and Nutrient Management on Growth, Yield Attributes and Productivity of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)" was conducted during the Rabi season of 2025-26 at the Agricultural Research Farm, Department of Agronomy, School of Agriculture, Suresh Gyan Vihar University, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The experiment was laid out in a split-plot design with three replications. Three tillage practices were assigned to the main plots: T 1 -zero tillage, T 2 -reduced tillage and T 3 -conventional tillage. Five fertilizer management treatments were allocated to the sub-plots: F 1 -control, F 2 -100% RDF, F 3 -75% RDF + 25% RDN through vermicompost, F 4 -50% RDF + 50% RDN through vermicompost and F 5 -25% RDF + 75% RDN through vermicompost. Chickpea was grown using recommended agronomic practices. Observations on growth attributes, including plant height, number of branches, days to 50% flowering and dry matter accumulation, were recorded at specified growth stages. Yield attributes such as pods plant -1 , seeds pod -1 and seed index were recorded at harvest. Seed, stover and biological yields and harvest index were also determined. The experimental data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for split-plot design, and treatment means were compared using the critical difference (CD) at 5% probability level.

Results and Discussion

Growth attributes

Plant height was significantly influenced by tillage practices and fertilizer management at 30 DAS, 60 DAS and harvest (Table 4.1; Fig. 4.1). Among tillage treatments, conventional tillage (T 3 ) recorded the maximum plant height of 24.27, 39.40 and 54.87 cm, respectively, while zero tillage (T 1 ) recorded the minimum values of 22.84, 37.43 and 52.96 cm. Reduced tillage remained statistically at par with conventional tillage. Better soil tilth, aeration and root development under conventional tillage may have enhanced water and nutrient uptake, thereby promoting plant growth. Similar differences in chickpea performance under contrasting tillage systems have been reported by Dixit et al. (2015) and Singh et al. (2020) [5] . Fertilizer management also significantly affected plant height. The maximum height was recorded under F 3 (75% RDF + 25% RDN through vermicompost), with values of 24.93, 40.27 and 56.00 cm, respectively, followed by F 4 and F 2 . The minimum was observed under control (21.71, 35.51 and 51.62 cm). The improved growth under integrated nutrient management may be attributed to the continuous nutrient supply from vermicompost along with readily available nutrients from inorganic fertilizer. Similar responses were reported by Zala et al. (2024) [2] , Abisankar et al. (2024) [1] , Raghuwanshi et al. (2025) [6] and Meena et al. (2025) [7] . Conventional tillage produced the maximum number of branches (23.95 plant -1 ), statistically at par with reduced tillage (23.36), whereas zero tillage recorded 22.39 branches plant -1 (Table 4.5). Among fertilizer treatments, F 3 produced the highest number of branches (24.80 plant -1

), followed by F 4 (24.47), while control recorded the lowest value (21.07). The interaction showed the maximum number of branches under T 3F3 (25.67 plant -1 ). Enhanced nutrient availability and improved root growth probably increased vegetative development and branch formation. Similar improvements in branching due to INM have been reported by Jat et al. (2025) [8] , Raghuwanshi et al. (2025) [6] and Zuber et al. (2026) [9] . Tillage and fertilizer management significantly influenced flowering time. Conventional tillage recorded the earliest 50% flowering (63.33 days), whereas zero tillage required 65.40 days. F 3 recorded the earliest flowering (62.56 days) and control the latest (66.67 days). Improved nutrient availability probably promoted faster crop establishment and reproductive development. Similar improvements in crop growth and phenological development under integrated nutrient management have been reported by Kumar et al. (2019) [10] , Singh et al. (2024) [11] and Nagar et al. (2025) [12] .

Dry matter accumulation was significantly influenced by both factors (Table 4.8). Conventional tillage recorded the maximum dry matter of 2.53, 14.82 and 23.90 g plant -1 at 30 DAS, 60 DAS and harvest, respectively. F 3 recorded the highest values of 2.60, 14.97 and 24.50 g plant -1 , while control recorded the lowest. The interaction effect was significant, with T 3F3 producing the highest dry matter accumulation (2.79, 15.17 and 25.08 g plant -1 ). Greater dry matter production under INM can be attributed to improved nutrient availability, root activity and photosynthetic efficiency. Comparable findings were reported by Zala et al. (2024) [2] , Abisankar et al. (2024) [1] , Jat et al. (2025) [8] and Meena et al. (2025) [7] .

Yield attributes and yield

The number of pods plant -1 was significantly affected by tillage and fertilizer management (Table 4.12). Conventional tillage recorded the maximum pods (64.93 plant -1

), followed by reduced tillage (64.33), whereas zero tillage recorded 63.04. Among fertilizer treatments, F 3 produced the maximum number of pods (66.09 plant -1

), followed by F 4 (65.73), while control recorded 61.67. The interaction effect was significant and the maximum value was recorded under T 3F3 (67.33 pods plant -1 ). The increase in pods may be attributed to greater branching and dry matter accumulation under favourable tillage and nutrient conditions. Similar enhancement in pod production through integrated nutrient management was reported by Jakhar et al. (2021) [13] , Mukati et al. (2021) [14] , Raghuwanshi et al. (2025) [6] and Zuber et al. (2026) [9] . Conventional tillage recorded the maximum number of seeds pod -1 (1.63) and seed index (15.19 g), whereas zero tillage recorded 1.31 seeds pod -1 and 14.56 g, respectively. F 3 produced the highest values of 1.76 seeds pod -1 and 15.50 g seed index, while the control recorded the lowest values. The T 3F3 combination recorded the maximum values of 1.99 seeds pod -1 and 15.73 g, indicating better reproductive development under combined tillage and nutrient management. Similar improvements in seed formation and seed weight through INM have been reported by Kumar et al. (2019) [10] , Jakhar et al. (2021) [13] , Zala et al. (2024) [2] and Meena et al. (2025) [7] . Seed yield was significantly influenced by tillage practices and fertilizer management (Table 4.12; Fig. 4.6). Conventional tillage produced the maximum seed yield of 1570.2 kg ha -1 , followed by reduced tillage (1544.8 kg ha -1 ), while zero tillage recorded 1488.2 kg ha -1 . The greater yield under conventional tillage was associated with higher plant height, branching, pod number and seed formation. Earlier studies have reported that chickpea yield response to tillage varies with soil, moisture and residue conditions; both conventional and reduced tillage can perform well under suitable environments. Among fertilizer treatments, F 3 (75% RDF + 25% RDN through vermicompost) recorded the maximum seed yield of 1612 kg ha -1 , followed by F 4 (1601.7 kg ha -1 ) and F 2 (1568.3 kg ha -1 ), while control produced 1407 kg ha -1 . Integrated application probably improved nutrient availability and nutrient-use efficiency. Similar yield enhancement under combinations of inorganic fertilizer and vermicompost has been reported by Zala et al. (2024) [2] , Raghuwanshi et al. (2025) [6] , Jat et al. (2025) [8] , Meena et al. (2025) [7] and Nagar et al. (2025) [12] . Conventional tillage recorded the maximum stover yield (2411.0 kg ha -1 ) and biological yield (3981.2 kg ha -1 ), whereas zero tillage recorded 2341.6 and 3829.8 kg ha -1 , respectively. F 3 produced the highest stover yield (2445.3 kg ha -1 ) and biological yield (4057.3 kg ha -1 ). The interaction T 3F3 recorded the highest stover (2476 kg ha -1 ) and biological yield (4124 kg ha -1 ). Increased biomass production was associated with greater plant growth and nutrient availability. Similar results have been reported by Jakhar et al. (2021) [13] , Abisankar et al. (2024) [1] , Raghuwanshi et al. (2025) [6] and Zuber et al. (2026) [9] . Harvest index was not significantly affected by either tillage or fertilizer management (Table 4.18). Numerically, conventional tillage recorded the highest harvest index (39.38%), while F 3 recorded 39.69%. The non-significant response indicates that increases in seed and vegetative biomass occurred proportionately, resulting in relatively similar partitioning of assimilates. A similar non-significant response of harvest index under integrated nutrient management was reported by Zuber et al. (2026) [9] .

Conclusion

The study revealed that tillage practices and nutrient management significantly influenced the growth, yield attributes and productivity of chickpea. Among tillage practices, conventional tillage (T 3 ) generally recorded superior growth, yield attributes, seed yield, stover yield and biological yield compared with reduced and zero tillage. Among nutrient management treatments, 75% RDF + 25% RDN through vermicompost (F 3 ) performed best across most growth and yield parameters. The combination of conventional tillage with 75% RDF + 25% RDN through vermicompost (T 3F3 ) recorded the highest overall performance, particularly for plant height, branches, dry matter accumulation, pods plant -1 , seeds pod -1 , seed index, seed yield, stover yield and biological yield. Harvest index was not significantly affected by the treatments.

References

1. Abisankar M, Augustine R, Isaac Manuel R, Balaganesh B, Dinesh Kumar D. Study of physiological growth indices and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) to soil and foliar application through integrated nutrient management practices. Asian Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2024;10(2):190-197.
2. Zala DA, Dadarwal RS, Jat RD, Prakash R, Asif M, Kavita. Optimizing integrated nutrient management (INM) for enhanced growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under irrigated conditions. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2024;46(12):872-881.
3. Dubey K, Jakhar C, Jain N, Yadav IR. Response of vermicompost and zinc application on yield and nutrient uptake by gram (Cicer arietinum L.). Asian Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2024;10(3):590-596.
4. Namdeo S, Bhatnagar GS. Effect of integrated nutrient management on quality and nutrient uptake by chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2024;46(7):149-153.
5. Singh M, Mishra JS, Bhatt BP. Effect of sowing methods and weed management practiced on growth, yield, weed flora and nutrient uptake on late sown chickpea. Journal of Krishi Vigyan. 2020;8(2):87-91.
6. Raghuwanshi M, Suman B, Bairwa R, Regar CL, Chaturvedi F. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) crop. Asian Journal of Advances in Agricultural Research. 2025;25(7):149-157.
7. Meena HO, Suman B. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on growth, yield, nutrient uptake and economic returns of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2025;47(9):320-327.
8. Jat HN, Sharma OP, Kumar S, Chaturvedi V, Singh G, Bhamboo K. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Annals of Agricultural Research. 2025;46(3):275-279.
9. Zuber M, Yadav S, Singh S, Nagar R, Malav M, Khan K, Khandelwal D. Integrated nutrient management through biofertiliser and organic manure enhances growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Plant & Soil Science. 2026;38(7):104-115.
10. Kumar A, Kumar R, Kumar A, Kumar S, Bharti AK. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and seed quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under rainfed condition. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2019;8(3):2268-2270.
11. Singh D, Khare N. Effect of integrated nutrient management of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under teak (Tectona grandis) based agroforestry. Asian Journal of Advances in Agricultural Research. 2024;24(4):27-33.
12. Nagar K, Mishra D, Suman B. Assessment of integrated nutrient management (INM) on growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2025;47(7):551-556.
13. Jakhar M, Sharma PK, Mandeewal RL, Choudhary R, Lal B. Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield and economics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Annals of Agricultural Research. 2021;42(1):54-58.
14. Mukati S, Kool YM, Thakur D, Singune D. Effect of integrated nutrient management on performance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and soil properties. International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2021;11(5):156-162.
15. Abraham S, Singh I, Sahu E, Jamrey P, Arya M. Enhancement of productivity in chickpea through frontline demonstrations on farmers' field. Journal of Food Legumes. 2021;34(1):48-50.
16. Dewangan S, Singh RP, Singh MK, Singh S. Effect of integrated nutrient management and drought mitigating practices on performance of rainfed chickpea (Cicer arietinum). The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2017;87(3):301-305.
17. Dixit AK, Kumar S, Rai AK, Kiran Kumar T. Tillage and irrigation management in chickpea (Cicer arietinum)-fodder sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) cropping system under semi-arid conditions of India. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2014;59(4):575-580.
18. Kumar P, Singh S, Yadav VK, Yadav J, Singh S, Singh RP, Pratap M, Maury A, Pandey A. Effect of integrated nutrients management through organic sources on growth parameters and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2024;7(12S):270-274.
19. Nath CP, Kumar N, Hazra KK, Dutta A, Praharaj CS, Singh R, Singh SS, Dubey RP, Sen S, Dixit GP, Kumar D. Five years of conservation tillage and weed management in a rice-chickpea rotation of northern Gangetic Plains of India: Weed growth, yield benefits and economic profitability. Soil and Tillage Research. 2024;244:106226.
20. Singh AK, Chovatia PK, Kathiria RK, Savaliya NV. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and economics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2019;7(3):3048-3050.
21. Vekariya GB, Patel ML, Vora VD, Patel TJ, Jotangiya KS, Hirapara DS. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of chickpea under North Saurashtra region. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences. 2021;13(7):1083210836.
22. Zala DA, Dadarwal RS, Jat RD, Prakash R, Asif M, Kavita. Optimizing integrated nutrient management (INM) for enhanced growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under irrigated conditions. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2024;46(12):872-881.
23. How to cite this article: Choudhary D, Chaturvedi V, Shivran H, Mathur M, Sarkar D, Misra A. Effect of tillage practices and nutrient management on growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer Arietinum L.). International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2026;9(9):1395-1399. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.33545/261806 0X.2026.v9.i9s.6708