Morpho-physiological characters and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L) affected by different levels of plant growth regulators

Introduction

Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) commonly known as peanut, goobernut, earthnut, monkey nut and mungphooli, is an important oilseed and food crop cultivated in many parts of the world. It ranks among the major food crops globally and is considered the second most important oilseed crop in India. Groundnut originated in South America, and species of the genus Arachis are naturally distributed across a wide geographical range extending from southern Uruguay to Northeastern Brazil. It belongs to the family Fabaceae and is a self-pollinated legume crop. Cultivated groundnut is an autotetraploid species with a chromosome number of 2𝑛 = 4𝑥 = 40. Based on differences in plant growth and branching pattern cultivated groundnut is broadly classified into two subspecies. The two subspecies of cultivated groundnut are further divided into two botanical varieties. A. hypogaea subsp. fastigiata includes var. fastigiata, commonly referred to as the valencia type and var. vulgaris known as the spanish type. Similarly, A. hypogaea subsp. hypogaea comprises var. hypogaea commonly known as the Virginia type and var. hirsuta. Plant growth regulators (PGRs) are naturally occurring or synthetic organic compounds that influence various physiological processes in plants when applied in small quantities. They play an important role in regulating plant growth and development and are widely used to improve flowering, fruit development, fruit size, ripening and root growth. The use of PGRs as seed treatments or foliar applications has been reported to improve the growth, yield and quality of several vegetable crops. The response of plants to PGR application is influenced by environmental factors such as light, temperature, moisture and nutrient availability. Moreover, the effectiveness of PGRs depends on factors such as the type and concentration of the regulator, method of application and time of treatment.

Material and methodology

The present investigation intitled "Effects of plant growth regulators on morpho-physiological, yield and yield parameters of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) cv. PDKVG 335 was carried out during Kharif 2025-26 at oilseed research unit Dr, P.D.K.V, Akola in randomized block design (RBD) with three replications and ten treatments viz., T 1 (PBZ @ 50 ppm), T 2 (PBZ @ 100 ppm), T 3 (PBZ @ 150 ppm), T 4 (SA @ 100 ppm), T 5 (SA @ 125 ppm), T 6 (SA @ 150 ppm), T 7 (MH @ 750 ppm), T 8 (MH @ 1000 ppm), T 9 (MH @ 1250 ppm) and T 10 (control). The sowing was done on 20 June 2025 by dibbling method having plot size 5 m x 1.5 m with a spacing of 30 cm x 10 cm. Thereafter, all intercultural operations were done as and when required.

The observations were measured by five randomly selected and tagged plants. Plant height was measured from the base of the plant to the growing tip and expressed in centimeter. The leaf area was measured on automatic leaf area meter. The specific leaf weight was computed from the data of leaf dry weight (mg) and leaf area (cm 2 ) at 80 DAS and at harvest. The SPAD meter is an instrument that used to measure the chlorophyll content and total dry matter of plant was determined to assess the dry matter accumulation. For this the plant was uprooted from field and these plants were sun dried and then oven dried at 70 °C to record a constant weight. The number of pods from five sample plants were counted and then average number of pods per plant were worked out after harvest. Pods from each plant were threshed by hand, cleaned and weighed separately. From this mean yield of seed per plant were worked out and recorded in grams.

Result and Discussion

Effects of foliar application of different concentrations of plant growth regulators on the morphological characteristics of groundnut plants. The observations include plant height (cm), leaf area (cm 2 ), specific leaf weight (mg cm -2 ), specific leaf area (cm 2 g -1 ) total dry matter production, chlorophyll content index, number of pods plant -1 and yield plant -1 are presented in table 1. These parameters were evaluated to understand the influence of PGR treatments on the morpho-physiological and yield performance of the crop.

Plant height

Plant height showed significant differences among the treatments. The mean plant height values differ from 32.80 to 37.91 cm. The shortest plants were observed under treatment T 9 (1250 ppm MH) (32.80), followed by T 3 (150 ppm PBZ) (33.04) and T 8 (1000 ppm MH) (33.49) compared to the untreated control (T 10 ) (37.91). The remaining treatments exhibited intermediate plant heights. In comparison with the control, noticeable reductions in plant height were also observed with treatment T 2 (100 ppm PBZ) (34.20), T 7 (750 ppm MH) (34.85) and T 6 (150 ppm SA) (35.15) while the other treatments produced comparatively moderate effects. The results obtained in the present investigation are supported by the findings of Kulkarni et al., (1995) [1] , Porwal et al., (2002) [2] , Ravi et al., (2024) [3] and Lenka et al., (2024) [4] .

Leaf area

Leaf area ranged from 1252.98 to 1617.20 cm 2 plant -1 . The lowest leaf area was recorded with T 9 (1250 ppm MH) (1252.98) over all the treatments however, treatment T 2 (100 ppm PBZ) (1395.10), T 3 (150 ppm PBZ) (1328.79), T 7 (750 ppm MH) (1416.36) and T 8 (1000 ppm MH) (1331.86) at par with it. The maximum leaf area was recorded under T 10 (Control) (1617.20). The findings of the present study are consistent with the results reported by Craft et al. (1994) [5] , Phulekar et al., (1998) [6] , El-shennaway et al, (2004) [7] and Muneeba et al. (2022) [8] .

Specific leaf weight

The maximum specific leaf weight was recorded in T 9 (1250 ppm MH) (7.41) followed by) T 3 (150 ppm PBZ) (7.35) and T 8 (1000 ppm MH (7.20). The minimum value was recorded in the control (T 10 ) (5.08). The specific leaf weight under T 9 was approximately 45.87% higher than the control. This result finding are close agreement with the finding of Craft and Sutton (1994) [5] , Phulekar et al. (1998) [6] , Shukla et al. (2000) [9] .

Specific leaf area

The specific leaf area was calculated and it showed considerable variation among the treatments. [6] , Shukla et al. (2000) [9] .

Chlorophyll content index

The chlorophyll content index varied significantly among the different treatments. The highest chlorophyll content index was recorded in T 7 (750 ppm MH) (43.84), followed by T 2 (100 ppm PBZ) (42.25) and T 8 (1000 ppm MH) (42.00). In comparison, the lowest chlorophyll content index was observed in the control (T 10 ) (32.91). The treatment T 7 recorded an increase of approximately 33.23 per cent over the control.

Total dry matter production

The higher total dry matter production of 39.09 g plant-1 was recorded in the treatment T 9 (1250 ppm MH) which was followed by treatment T 3 (150 ppm PBZ) (37.29), T 8 (1000 ppm MH) (36.75) and T 2 (36.19) whereas the control recorded the lowest total dry matter production of 31.19 g plant-1. The greater dry natter accumulation indicates enhanced photosynthetic activity throughout the crop growing period improved nutrient uptake and more efficient utilization of assimilates, ultimately contributing to better pod yield. This result finding is in close agreement with the finding of Reddy et al. (2009) [10] ,

Thein et al. (2012) [11] , Goswami et al. (2022) [12] and Ravi et al. (2024) [3] .

Number of pod plant-1

Yield contributing characters such as number of pods plant -1 was found significantly different among all the treatments. The highest number of pods plant -1 was observed in the treatment T 9 (1250 ppm MH) (26.13) than rest of treatments however, treatment T 2 (23.30), T 3 (25.27), T 7 (22.70) and T 8 (24.17) remained at par with it T 9 . The lowest number of pods plant -1 were produced in the treatment T 10 control (14.96). The experimental findings correspond with those of Rahman et al. (2004) [13] , Sharma et al. (2005) [14] and Lenka et al. (2024) [4] .

Yield plant-1

Data regarding yield plant -1 showed significant variation among all treatments and are recorded in the table 2. The highest yield was shown by treatment T 9 (1250 ppm MH) (18.15) over the all treatments however, treatment T 2 (16.07), T 3 (17.20), T 7 (15.40) and T 8 (16.48) remained statistically similar with it. The lowest number of pods plant -1 were produced in the treatment T 10 control (11.82). The result of this experiment are consistent with those of Thein et al. (2012) [11] , Mishra et al. (2021) [15] , Ghadiali et al. (2023) [16] , Dasanal et al. (2024) [17] and Srikant et al. (2024) [18] .

Conclusion

Based on the findings of the present investigation, the effect of different plant growth regulators on the morpho-physiological and yield characters of groundnut influenced by different growth regulators.

1)

Morphological characters viz., plant height, leaf area, specific leaf area and specific leaf weight and Physiological characters viz., dry matter production and chlorophyll content index was observed to be superior with MH @ 1250 ppm and PBZ @ 150 ppm.

2)

Similarly, important yield-contributing characters including number of pods plant -1 and pod yield plant -1 were significantly improved with the application of MH @ 1250 ppm and PBZ @ 150 ppm.

3)

Overall, the results indicate that MH @ 1250 ppm was the most promising treatment for improving the growth and yield performance of groundnut under the conditions of the present study. However, since the experiment was conducted for only one season, further trials across different seasons and locations are recommended to validate and confirm these findings

References

1. Kulkarni SS, Chetti MB, Uppar DS. Influence of growth retardants on biochemical parameters in sunflower. J. Maharashtra Agril.Univ.. 1995;29:352-354.
2. Porwal R, Nagada CL, Pundir JPS. Effect of pruning severity and growth retardant on the vegetative growth, flower yield and oil content of damask rose {Rose damascene Mill.). J.of Applied Hort. (Lucknow). 2002;4(1):37-40.
3. Ravi S, Rangasami SR, Vadivel N, Kumar TP, Harishankar K, Shankar SV, Vigneshwaran R. Productivity and econometric analysis of leguminous monkey-nut (Arachis hypogaea L.) as influenced by growth retardant. Legume Research. 2024;47(1):5258.
4. Lenka S, Kumar GS, Swain SK, Dash RR, Pradhan KC, Sethy AK. Effect of growth regulators on morpho-physiological parameters of kharif groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Legume Research. 2024.
5. Crafts BSJ, Sutton TG. Effect of maleic hydrazide on photosyntehsis, carbohydrate metabolism and senescence of hurley tobacco (Nicotiania tabacum L.). Field crop Res.. 1994;37(2):129135.
6. Phulekar CS, Chetti MB, Nalini AS, Patil AB. Relationship of leaf characters with total dry matter and yield in ground nut as influenced by growth retardants. Indian J. Agric, Res.. 1998;32(3):195-200.
7. El-Shennawy AMB, Torky M, Ismail A. Effect of cycocel and maleic hydrazide on the production of Acacia saligna flowering pot plants. Annuals of Agric. Sci. Moshtohor. 2004;42(3):12931307.
8. Muneeba B, Sinha BK, Chand G, Sinha R, Gupta M, Sharma M, Sharma D. Response of growth retardants paclobutrazol and cycocel on morphological characteristics in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) genotypes under rainfed condition. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2022;11(12):715-719.
9. Shukla AP, Namdeo KN. Physiological parameters and bulb yield of onion (Allium cepa) varieties. Crop Res., (Hisar). 2000;20(1):93-96.
10. Reddy Prashant, Ninganur BT, Chetti MB, Hiremath SM. Effect of growth retardants and nipping on chlorophyll content, nitrate reductase activity, seed protein content and yield in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 2009;22(2):289292.
11. Thein T, co-authors. Effect of paclobutrazol on growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Yezin Agricultural University, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar; 2012.
12. Goswami P, Gunri SK, Sengupta A, Barman M. Effect of paclobutrazol on succeeding crop summer groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) after potato. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management. 2022;13(10):1124-1129.
13. Rahman MS, Tahar NI, Karim MA. Influence of GA3 and MH and their time of spray on dry matter accumulation and growth attributes of soybean. Pakistan J. Biol. Sci. 2004;7(11):1851-1857.
14. Sharma K, Kaur J, Thind SK. Biochemical parameters, pod setting percentage and yield of soybean (Glycine max L.Merill ) as influenced by foliar application of IAA and MH under low intensity. Environ. Ecology. 2005;23(2):225-229.
15. Mishra J, Swain SK. Impact of maleic Hydrazide (MH) induced dormancy on plant growth and yield attributes of groundnut seeds. Pharma Innovation. 2021;10(12):1531-1537.
16. Ghadiali JJ, Macwan SJ, Bhanvadia AS, Patel KB. Effectiveness of Paclobutrazole Application on Improvement of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Yield Under Water Deficit Conditions. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2023;35(23):500-509.
17. Dasanal K, Deshpande VK, Uppar DS, Motagi BN, Bhat RS. Impact of Maleic Hydrazide Foliar Application on In Situ Germination, Seed Yield and Seed Quality Parameters in Groundnut (Arachis Hypogaea L.). Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2024;46(11):153-59.
18. International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science https://www.agriculturaljournals.com 26648458, 2026, 8(9), Downloaded from https://www.doi.org/10.33545/2664844X.2026.v8.i9m.1975 by International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science on [28/09/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://www.agriculturaljournals.com) for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
19. Srikanth B, Santhosh B, Sandhya Rani P, John K. Effect of Growth Retardants on Plant Yield and Seed Quality of Groundnut (Arachis Hypogaea L.). Advances in Research. 2024;25(4):57-63.
20. How to cite this article: Bilari PS, Ladole M, Gahukar S, Farkade B, Shirale S, Pooja, et al. Morpho-physiological characters and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L) affected by different levels of plant growth regulators. International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science. 2026;8(9):958-961. doi: https:// www.doi.org/10.33545/2664844X.2026.v8.i9m.1975