Soil fertility and nutrient index-based fertilizer requirement for kharif crops in Chhattisgarh using soil health card data under fertilizer supply constraints

Introduction

Soil is a very important natural resource that supports plant growth and provides food, fiber, and feed (FAO, 2015) [1] . In traditional farming systems, a natural balance was maintained between crop production and soil fertility through practices such as crop rotation, organic manuring, and recycling of farm residues (Prasad, 2009) [2] . However, after the Green Revolution, increasing food demand and higher crop production led to the excessive use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and intensive farming practices, which reduced soil, crop and humane health (Pathak, 2010; Patra et al. 2016; Mandal et al., 2018; Vinothkanna et al. 2020) [3,4,5] . At present, there is a need for precise, sustainable, and cost-effective use of agricultural inputs. Using fertilizers based on soil nutrient status improves crop growth and yield, reduces losses, lowers costs, and increases farmers' income (Dobermann, 2007) [6] . Sustainable soil fertility management practices, including integrated use of organic and inorganic nutrient sources, are crucial for maintaining long-term soil productivity and resilience (Chowdary et al., 2018; Kapoor et al., 2021) [7,8] . Soil fertility evaluation helps in better decision-making by showing how soil properties vary across locations and over time (Dandasena et al., 2024) [9] . Soil testing is a scientific method to assess soil health, identify nutrient deficiencies or excesses, and recommend suitable fertilizers, helping farmers manages soils for sustainable and profitable farming (Chauhan et al., 2025) [10] . The large database generated under this scheme offers a valuable opportunity to assess soil fertility status at regional and state levels and to develop targeted nutrient management Recognizing the importance of soil fertility management, the Government of India launched the Soil Health Card (SHC) Scheme on 19 February 2015 at Suratgarh, Rajasthan. The scheme promotes soil test-based fertilizer application by providing farmers with information on soil nutrient status and site-specific nutrient recommendations. The National Productivity Council (NPC) reported that the SHC scheme reduced chemical fertilizer use by 8-10% and increased agricultural productivity by 5-6% (Patel et al., 2017) [11] . Chhattisgarh, a major agricultural state in central India, is characterized by diverse soil types and predominantly rice-based cropping systems (Bhuarya et al., 2015) [12] . Despite its importance in agricultural production, the state faces several challenges, including low soil organic carbon, nutrient imbalances, and ineffi cient use of fertilizers (Netam et al., 2022) [13] . In addition, variability in fertilizer availability and supply constraints highlights the need for efficient and alternative nutrient management strategies that can sustain crop productivity while reducing reliance on chemical fertilizers (Jat et al., 2020; Chivenge et al., 2021) [15,14] . In this context, the present study aims to analyze Soil Health Card data to assess soil fertility status and to quantify the distribution of soil samples across different fertility categories. The study further evaluates the Nutrient Index Value (NIV) to determine the overall fertility status of major nutrients and uses this information to formulate fertilizer recommendations for Kharif crops. The primary objective is to develop nutrient management strategies and estimate fertilizer requirements for Kharif crops in Chhattisgarh for the year 2026, particularly under conditions of fertilizer supply constraints. The findings of this study are expected to support efficient fertilizer planning, promote balanced nutrient use, and contribute to sustainable agricultural development in the region.

Materials and Methods

The following materials and methods were used in this study, including soil fertility analysis based on Soil Health Card data, calculation of the Nutrient Index Value (NIV), formulation of fertilizer recommendations, and estimation of fertilizer requirements for Kharif crops in Chhattisgarh for the 2026 cropping season.

Soil fertility analysis

Three years of data from the Soil Health Card portal (2023-24 to 2025-26) were used to analyze 12 soil parameters, namely pH, EC, OC, N, P, K, S, Fe, Mn, Zn, Cu, and B. According to the data available on the portal, the total number of soil samples analyzed was 1,60,918 in 2023-24, 1,74,677 in 2024-25, and 2,51,671 in 2025-26. The number of samples falling under different fertility categories for each parameter was obtained from the portal. After aggregating the data across all three years, the percentage distribution of samples under different categories for each parameter was calculated. AS per Soil Health Card Scheme Guidelines, the fertility classes for the different soil parameters are presented below.

Nutrient index value

The fertility status of soils with respect to available nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K) was evaluated using the Nutrient Index Value (NIV) approach. The nutrient index was calculated following the standard method proposed by Ramamoorthy Available B (mg kg -1 ) < 0.5 > 0.5

Adjusted fertilizer recommendations

Fertilizer recommendations for major Kharif crops were formulated based on the Nutrient Index Value (NIV) derived from Soil Health Card data. The NIV was used to classify soil fertility into low, medium, and high categories, and the recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) was adjusted accordingly to optimize nutrient use.

For nutrients in the low category, 100% of the recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) was applied. For medium and high categories, the RDF was reduced by 25% and 50%, respectively, and the remaining nutrient requirement was recommended to be met through Integrated Plant Nutrient System (IPNS) approaches, including nano-fertilizers, organic manures, and biofertilizers. The general recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) for major Kharif crops is given below.

Estimation of fertilizer requirements

The total fertilizer requirement for major Kharif crops was estimated based on the crop-wise area for the year 2025 (Table 3) and the recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) adjusted using the Nutrient Index Value (NIV). Initially, the total nutrient requirement in terms of N, P 2 O 5 , and K 2 O was calculated by multiplying crop area with the adjusted RDF for each crop. [16] The estimated nutrient requirements were subsequently converted into fertilizer quantities based on commonly used fertilizer sources in Chhattisgarh. Nitrogen (N) was considered to be supplied mainly through urea, diammonium phosphate (DAP), and complex fertilizer N:P:K (12:32:16). Phosphorus (P 2 O 5 ) was supplied through single super phosphate (SSP), DAP, and N:P:K (12:32:16), while potassium (K 2 O) was supplied through muriate of potash (MOP) and N:P:K (12:32:16). First, the total phosphorus (P 2 O 5 ) requirement was apportioned among different fertilizer sources based on their relative consumption pattern in the state, with 48% supplied through DAP, 18% through SSP, and 34% through N:P:K (12:32:16). The corresponding quantities of DAP and N:P:K (12:32:16) were then used to estimate the amount of nitrogen contributed by these fertilizers, which was deducted from the total nitrogen requirement. The remaining nitrogen requirement was met through urea.

Similarly, the potassium (K 2 O) supplied through N:P:K (12:32:16) was calculated and deducted from the total potassium requirement, and the remaining potassium was estimated to be supplied through MOP. This approach ensured balanced fertilizer estimation based on nutrient requirements and prevailing fertilizer use patterns under conditions of fertilizer supply constraints. (Source: Government of Chhattisgarh, 2025-26) [17]

Result and Discussion

Soil fertility status

The analysis of Soil Health Card data revealed important insights into the physicochemical properties and nutrient status of soils in Chhattisgarh. The distribution of soil reaction (pH), electrical conductivity (EC), organic carbon (OC), macronutrients (N, P, and K), and micronutrients is presented in Figures 1.

Soil reaction (pH) indicated that the majority of soils were neutral (89.50%), followed by acidic (10.27%) and a negligible proportion of alkaline soils (0.22%). This suggests that most soils are within a favorable pH range for nutrient availability and crop growth, although acidic soils may require liming to optimize productivity. Electrical conductivity (EC) showed that 99.41% of soils were non-saline, with only 0.59% classified as saline, indicating that salinity is not a major constraint in the region. Organic carbon (OC) status was predominantly low (48.22%) and medium (36.65%), with only 13.44% of samples in the high category. This reflects poor organic matter content in soils, which may adversely affect soil structure, water retention, and nutrient availability. Among macronutrients, available nitrogen (N) was largely deficient, with 78.95% of samples in the low category, followed by 20.64% in medium and only 0.41% in high. This widespread nitrogen deficiency is closely associated with low organic carbon levels and continuous nutrient depletion. Available phosphorus (P) was mainly in the medium category (65.86%), followed by low (25.99%) and high (8.15%), indicating moderate phosphorus availability, possibly due to fertilizer application but limited by fixation in soils. Available potassium (K) was relatively sufficient, with 53.88% and 41.17% of samples in medium and high categories, respectively, and only 4.95% in low, suggesting adequate potassium reserves in the soils. Sulphur (S), a secondary nutrient, showed deficiency in 35.15% of samples, while 64.85% were sufficient, indicating an emerging concern that may be linked to reduced use of sulphur-containing fertilizers and low organic matter inputs. Among micronutrients, zinc (Zn) deficiency was most prominent (45.09%), followed by boron (B) deficiency (23.17%), highlighting their potential limitation for crop productivity. In contrast, iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), and copper (Cu) were largely sufficient, with deficiency levels of 8.75%, 1.74%, and 2.68%, respectively. The results obtained from Soil Health Card data in Chhattisgarh were also supported by earlier studies conducted by Pathade et al. (2006) [18] , Kumar et al. (2014) [19] , Chandrakar et al. (2014) [20] , Sahu et al. (2018) [21] , Kumar et al. (2015) [22] , Rajpoot et al. (2021) [23] , Devdas et al. (2021) [24] , Mandal et al. (2021) [25] , Tiwari et al. (2023) [26] , Singhal et al. (2022) [27] , and Singh et al. (2006) [28] .

Nutrient index values (NIV)

The Nutrient Index Values (NIV) indicate considerable variation in the fertility status of soils in Chhattisgarh with respect to major nutrients (Table 4). The NIV for available nitrogen (N) was 1.21, which falls under the low fertility category, indicating widespread nitrogen deficiency in the soils. This may be attributed to low organic matter content, continuous cropping, and inadequate application of nitrogenous fertilizers.

In contrast, the NIV for available phosphorus (P) was 1.82, placing it in the medium fertility category. This suggests a moderate level of phosphorus availability in the soils, possibly due to regular application of phosphatic fertilizers, although fixation in acidic soils may limit its effective availability to plants. The NIV for available potassium (K) was 2.36, which falls under the high fertility category, indicating that the soils are generally well supplied with potassium. This could be due to the presence of potassium-bearing minerals in the parent material and comparatively lower depletion by crops.

Adjusted fertilizer recommendations

Fertilizer recommendations for major Kharif crops were formulated based on the Nutrient Index Value (NIV) derived from Soil Health Card data. The NIV was used to classify soil fertility status into low, medium, and high categories, and the recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) was adjusted accordingly. For nutrients in the low category, 100% of RDF was applied, while for medium and high categories, the RDF was reduced by 25% and 50%, respectively. Based on the NIV classification, the adjusted fertilizer doses (kg ha -1 ) for major Kharif crops in Chhattisgarh are presented in Table 5. The reduced fertilizer doses were supplemented through Integrated Plant Nutrient System (IPNS) approaches, including organic manures and biofertilizers, to ensure balanced nutrient supply and sustainable soil health management.

Integrated plant nutrient system (IPNS) approaches

Under conditions of fertilizer supply constraints, Integrated Plant Nutrient System (IPNS) practices were recommended for major Kharif crops in Chhattisgarh as an effective strategy to supplement reduced chemical fertilizer application. IPNS integrates organic, inorganic, and biological sources of nutrients, thereby ensuring balanced nutrient supply while reducing dependence on external fertilizers. [29,30] . Application of bluegreen algae (10 kg ha -1 ) and biofertilizers such as Azotobacter and Azospirillum (20 g kg -1 seed treatment) enhanced biological nitrogen fixation, saving about 25 kg N ha [32,33,34,31] , while Rhizobium inoculation in pulse crops (25 g kg -1 seed) fixed up to 60 kg N ha -1 (Hamdi et al., 2026) [35] . Organic sources such as farmyard manure (FYM) and vermicompost (5 t ha -1 each) contributed to nearly 25% nitrogen savings, along with improvements in soil structure and microbial activity (Bharose et al., 2023; Katiyar et al., 2023) [36,37] . Foliar application of nano urea [38, 39] , while foliar spray of 2% urea solution and 20% cow urine solution provided an additional saving of approximately 25 kg N ha -1 (Pangaribuan et al., 2023) [40] . For phosphorus management, application of nano DAP (seed treatment @ 5 ml kg -1 seed and foliar spray @ 2 ml L -1 at 30 days) resulted in up to 50% saving of P 2 O 5 (Singh et al., 2025; Chundawat et al., 2025; Karn et al., 2025) [42,41,43] . The use of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria (PSB) @ 20 g kg -1 seed further enhanced phosphorus availability in the soil and resulted in a saving of up to 10 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 (Rawat et al., 2022) [44] . Beyond reducing fertilizer demand, IPNS offers multiple advantages, including improved nutrient use efficiency, enhanced soil organic car bon, better soil physical properties, increased microbial activity, and sustained crop productivity. It also minimizes nutrient losses through leaching and volatilization, reduces environmental pollution, and lowers input costs for farmers. Therefore, IPNS serves as a sustainable and practical approach for maintaining soil fertility and ensuring crop productivity, particularly under conditions of limited fertilizer availability.

Fertilizer requirements

Fertilizer requirements were calculated based on the nutrient requirements of each crop. After estimating the total requirement of individual nutrients, the values were converted into equivalent quantities of fertilizers. The crop-wise nutrient requirement for major Kharif crops based on the previous year's cropped area is presented in Table 6. The results indicate considerable variation in nutrient demand among crops, primarily due to differences in cropped area and recommended fertilizer doses. The total nutrient requirement for the Kharif season was estimated to be 425,705 tonnes of nitrogen (N), 200,789 tonnes of phosphorus (P 2 O 5 ), and 86,469 tonnes of potassium (K 2 O).

Conclusion

The present study highlights the utility of Soil Health Card data for assessing soil fertility status and developing nutrient index-based fertilizer recommendations for Kharif crops in Chhattisgarh under fertilizer supply constraints. The analysis revealed that most soils are low in organic carbon and deficient in nitrogen. The Nutrient Index Values (NIV) indicated low, medium, and high fertility status for nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, respectively. Based on the NIV, fertilizer recommendations were rationalized by applying 100% of the recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) for deficient nutrients, while reducing the RDF by 25% and 50% for medium and high fertility categories. To compensate for nutrient requirements under supply constraints, Integrated Plant Nutrient System (IPNS) practices were recommended. The use of green manuring, organic manures, biofertilizers, and nano-fertilizers reduced dependence on chemical fertilizers while improving soil health, nutrient use efficiency, and sustainability. The estimated fertilizer requirement showed higher demand for nitrogenous fertilizers, particularly urea, followed by complex fertilizers and DAP, while potassic fertilizer demand remained relatively lower. These findings are important for planning fertilizer supply and distribution in the state. Overall, the study demonstrates that a combined approach of Soil Health Card-based assessment, NIV-guided fertilizer adjustment, and IPNS adoption can optimize fertilizer use, enhance crop productivity, and support sustainable agriculture under limited fertilizer availability.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgmentThe authors are thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions that helped improve the quality of the manuscript. The authors also express their sincere gratitude to the faculty members and staff of Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya for their support and guidance during the preparation of this manuscript. Funding No external funding was received for this study.

References

1. FAO. Status of the World's Soil Resources (SWSR) -Main Report. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization; 2015.
2. Prasad R. Efficient fertilizer use: The key to food security and better environment. Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 2009;47:117.
3. Pathak H. Trend of fertility status of Indian soils. Current Advances in Agricultural Sciences. 2010;2:10-12.
4. Patra S, Mishra P, Mahapatra SC, Mithun SK. Modeling impacts of chemical fertilizer on agricultural production: A case study on Hooghly District West Bengal India. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment. 2016;2:1-11.
5. Vinothkanna S, Rajee R, Senthilraja K. Assessing ground water quality for the suitability of irrigation in Dindigul District, Tamil Nadu, India. Indian Journal of Ecology. 2020;47:23-29.
6. Dobermann A. Nutrient use efficiency -Measurement and management. Paris, France: International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA); 2007.
7. Kapoor R, Sharma A, Raina R, Thakur KS. Assessment of soil fertility status of different villages of Chamba district of Himachal Himalayas. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2021;57:196-201.
8. Dandasena NK, Pal P, Mollah N, Das S, Bhattacharya P. Soil fertility evaluation and mapping. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research. 2024;8:363-367.
9. Chauhan RS, Singh S, Pratap S, Chauhan Y. Assessing the impact of knowledge and adoption of soil health cards on soil health management in Agra district, Uttar Pradesh. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2025;27:218-222.
10. Patel GG, Lakum YC, Mishra A, Bhatt JH. Awareness and knowledge regarding soil testing and utility perception of Soil Health Card. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2017;6:329-334.
11. Bhuarya SK, Chaudhary JL, Manikandan N, Khalkho D. Spatial analysis of rainfall and rainy days in Chhattisgarh State, India. Journal of Agricultural Physics. 2015;15:140-149.
12. Netam RS, Sahu I, Verma R. Assessment of soil fertility and nutrient constraints in Chhattisgarh plains. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science. 2022;34:45-52.
13. Chivenge P, Sharma S, Bunquin MA. Integrated soil fertility management in developing countries. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2021;319:107529.
14. Jat ML, Bijay-Singh, Gerard B, Majumdar K. Nutrient management and use efficiency in South Asian agriculture. Advances in Agronomy. 2020;161:1-65.
15. Srivastava LK, Banwasi R, Bachkaiya V, Jatav G, Kumar U, Nayak V. Types, area and crop recommendations of soils of Chhattisgarh (Hindi). Raipur, India: Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya; 2024.
16. Government of Chhattisgarh. Administrative Report, Year 202425 (Hindi). Department of Agriculture Development, Farmers Welfare and Biotechnology, Chhattisgarh, India; 2025-26.
17. Pathade A, Sharma GK, Verma S, Kumar S, Bachkaiya KK. Physicochemical properties of soils of Chhattisgarh plains. Journal of Interacademicia. 2006;10:44-47.
18. Kumar A, Mishra VN, Srivastav LK, Banwasi R. Evaluations of soil fertility status of available major nutrients (N, P & K) and micro nutrients (Fe, Mn, Cu & Zn) in Vertisol of Kabeerdham District of Chhattisgarh, India. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies. 2014;1:72-79.
19. Chandrakar K, Srivastava LK, Chandrakar UK, Mahant KD. Status of available micronutrients of the sampled soil of Inceptisol from Janjgir district of Chhattisgarh. Journal of Soils and Crops. 2014;24:34-42.
20. Sahu TD, Nag RS. Characterization of soils of different agro-climatic zones of Chhattisgarh. International Journal of Chemical Studies. 2018;6:2936-2942.
21. Kumar A, Srivastava LK, Mishra VN, Sharma G. Soils of Chhattisgarh: A study. Global Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies. 2015;4:83-89.
22. Rajpoot RS, Bajpai RK, Shrivastava LK, Kumar U, Tedia K, Mishra VN. Evaluation of soil physical and chemical properties under rice-based cropping system in Alfisols of Northern Hill Region of Chhattisgarh. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2021;10:2748-2761.
23. Devdas D, Srivastava LK, Mishra VN. Characterization and classification of different soil types of Gariyaband district of Chhattisgarh. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2021;10:1667-1677.
24. Mandal S, Khalkho D, Tripathi MP, Das S, Kumar L. Delineation and characterization of land resources to assess agro-climatic zone based farming situation in Chhattisgarh plains. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 2021;20:257-268.
25. Tiwari S, Gawde A, Paul N, Pattanaik R, Pattanaik I. Depth-wise distribution of chemical properties of the soils from different sites of the Northern Hill Zone of Chhattisgarh. Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;12:3460-3465.
26. Singhal VK, Chandravanshi H. Biodiversity in Chhattisgarh's Soil. Raipur, India: Chhattisgarh State Biodiversity Board; 2022.
27. Singh R, Choudhary SK, Kundu DK, Sengar SS, Kumar A. Soils of Chhattisgarh: Characteristics and water management options. Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India: Water Technology Centre for Eastern Region, ICAR; 2006.
28. Tanveer A, Ali HH, Ikram NA. Green manuring for soil health and sustainable production of agronomic crops. In: Hasanuzzaman M, editor. Agronomic Crops. Singapore: Springer; 2019. p. 1-20.
29. Dubey L, Dubey M, Jain P. Role of green manuring in organic farming. Plant Archives. 2015;15:23-26.
30. Bastakoti B, Khanal D, Banjade D. Azotobacter: An option for nitrogen fertilizer substitution: A detailed review. Journal of Wastes Biomass Management. 2024;6:1-4.
31. PUSA Sharbati. Plant Archives. 2022;22:77-81.
32. Shukla MK, Dwivedi SK, Pandey VC, Gajić G. Integrated use of fly ash, blue-green algae, and bio-fertilizers for sustainable rice cultivation in fly ash-contaminated environment. International Journal of Plant and Environment. 2025;11:662-673.
33. Hamdi W, Ouerghi K, Attallah A, Souid A, L'taief B, Hajji-Hedfi L, Louhichi B, Hamdi N, Jellali S, Rebouh NY. Influence of Rhizobium inoculation and nitrogen on growth and yield of pea using multidisciplinary simulator for standard crops model under Mediterranean rain-fed conditions. Journal of Soil Science and Plant Nutrition. 2026;26:433-452.
34. Bharose R, Dohare APS, Babu U, Kumar S, Pal RL. Effect of integrated use of fertilizers, farm yard manure, green manure and zinc on rice (Oryza sativa L.) productivity and soil fertility. International Journal of Economic Plants. 2023;10:37-40.
35. Katiyar RB, Sundaramurthy S, Sharma AK, Arisutha S, Singh AP, Mishra S, Ayub R, Jeon BH, Khan MA. Vermicompost: An ecofriendly and cost-effective alternative for sustainable agriculture. Sustainability. 2023;15:14701.
36. Rathour SK, Bhatnagar A, Singh G, Kumar A, Hasanain M, Pandey A, Mehta A. Effect of foliar fertilization of nano urea and 2% urea on yield, nutrient uptake, nitrogen use efficiency and economics of maize (Zea mays L.). International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2024;7:330-336.
37. Vasanth P, Sivakumar K, Jeyajothi R, Chandrasekaran P. Foliar spray of urea and nano-urea in yield and economics of maize (Zea mays L.). Journal of Applied and Natural Science. 2025;17:383388.
38. Pangaribuan DH, Widagdo S, Hariri M, Siregar S. The effect of rice straw mulch and cow urine on growth, yield, quality on sweet corn and pest population density. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2023:1-10. International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research https://www.biochemjournal.com 26174707, 2026, 10(10), Downloaded from https://www.doi.org/10.33545/26174693.2026.v10.i10Se.10299 by International Journal of Advanced Biochemistry Research on [03/10/2026]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://www.biochemjournal.com) for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 41. Chundawat DS, Solanki NS, Mathur IJ, Rathore BS, Kumar V, Patel C. Effect of conjoint application of phosphorus and Nano DAP on growth and yield of black gram (Vigna mungo L.). International Journal of Agricultural Invention. 2025;10:82-86.
39. Singh Y, Pal RK, Kumar M, Kumar V, Chandel RS. Influence of Nano DAP-based phosphorus application through seedling dipping and foliar spray on growth, yield attributes and yield of transplanted rice (Oryza sativa L.). International Journal of Plant and Soil Science. 2025;37:516-525.
40. Karn N, Kumar A, Ikram M, Sachan S, Singh J, Kumar S, Shubham, AbdelRahman MAE. Enhancing agronomic crop performance: A review of the role of Nano-Diammonium Phosphate (Nano-DAP) in improving soil nutrient status and crop productivity. Sains Tanah: Journal of Soil Science and Agroclimatology. 2025;22:328-337.
41. Rawat P, Sharma A, Shankhdhar D, Shankhdhar SC. Improvement of phosphorus uptake, phosphorus use efficiency, and grain yield of upland rice (Oryza sativa L.) in response to phosphate-solubilizing bacteria blended with phosphorus fertilizer. Pedosphere. 2022;32:752-763.
42. Government of India. Soil Health Card Scheme Database. New Delhi: Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare; 2026.
43. Mandal S, Khalkho D, Tripathi MP, Kumar L, Kushwaha SD. Characterization and delineation of farming situations of Durg district. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2018;7:2208-2214.
44. Mehata DK, Kattel I, Sapkota P, Ghimire NP, Mehta RK. Biofertilizers: A sustainable strategy for organic farming that would increase crop production and soil health. Plant Physiology and Soil Chemistry. 2023;3:35-39.
45. Ramamoorthy B, Bajaj JC. Available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium status of Indian soils. Fertilizer News. 1969;14:25-36.
46. Shastri S, Saha A. Farmers' perception of the Soil Health Card Scheme in Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International. 2025;47:152-158.
47. How to cite this article: Singhal VK, Jatav G, Singh AK, Kumar H, Kumar T, Rathiya G. Soil fertility and nutrient index-based . 2026;SP10(10):356-362. doi: https://www.doi.org/10.33545/26174693.20