Effect of Seed Hydropriming, Plant Spacing and INM on Biomass Production, Yield, and Nutrients Uptake by Summer Green Gram Crop

Introduction

Green gram is one of the important pulse crops. Its native place is India and central Asia. Green gram is cultivated in the countries of India, Burma, Srilanka, Pakistan, China, Fiji, Queens land and Africa. Green gram (Vigna radiata L.) is commonly known as moong, golden gram, mung, etc. It is grown in India for its multipurpose uses as vegetable, pulse, fodder and green manure crop. It is highly nutritive and digestible than other pulses (Kumar et al, 2009)¹. It is grown almost in all the states and occupies about 5.13 million hectares area producing 3.09 million tonnes and yield level of 601 kg/ha (Anonymous, 2020-21)². The states of Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh are the main states occupying the top two positions contributing over 40 % of total production in India. While Maharashtra contributes about 14 %, Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh share about 10 % and 8.5 % of total production. There is a wide gap between realizable potential productivity and productivity realized by farmers. The productivity of moong bean in research plots and frontline demonstrations is 10 – 12 quintals/ ha while it is only 8 – 9 quintals per hectare on farmers’ fields and the national average yield is still low of 4 – 5 quintals per hectare. This yield gap needs to be addressed by improving seed production packages and supply of good quality seeds to the farmers (Marimuthu, and Surendran 2015)³ and other low-cost technology.

There are number of crop production factors which contribute to enhance productivity of any crop. Cost effective factors include seed treatment, plant geometry and INM practices including combination of simple and complex fertilizers and organics. Although, the use fertilizers can lead to enhanced productivity but its continuous application over the years is known to result in deleterious effects on soil health (Endris and Dawid, 2015)⁴. Further, use of organics alone cannot compensate total production of crops per unit of land area obtained due to inorganic chemical fertilizers (Ahmad et. al, 2013)⁵. Integrated use of reduced levels of fertilizers in conjunction with organic sources of nutrients has drawn the attention of the scientists and farmers to use on large scale for increasing productivity and profitability of various crops on cost effective basis. Thus, in view of above cited facts experiments were conducted to evaluate and quantify the impact of seed hydropriming, plant geometry and INM practices including combination with fertilizers and organic sources of nutrients viz; farmyard manure and vermicompost, on stover and grain yield and its contributor characters, as well as N, P and K removal by green gram crop.

Hypotheses

There exists a vast gap between potential productivity and present level of productivity realized by farmers. The productivity potential of moong bean in research plots and frontline demonstrations is 10 – 12 quintals/ ha while it is only 8 – 9 quintals per hectare on most of the farmers’ fields. The national average yield is still low at 4 – 5 quintals per hectare. This yield gap can be minimized by employing various cost-effective measures e.g. seed treatment, plant geometry and INM practices including combination of simple and complex fertilizers and organics. Although, the use of fertilizers alone can lead to higher productivity but their continuous application over the years has deleterious effects on soil health. Use of organics alone cannot compensate the productivity of crops obtained due to inorganic chemical fertilizers. With this back ground, present study was formulated to find out the optimum plant geometry and cost-effective integrated nutrient management practice including reduced level of fertilizers, farmyard manure and vermicompost for maximising production, nutrient uptake during summer season.

Materials and Methods

The experiments were done at Bundelkhand University Jhansi (UP), during Summer 2020-21 and -2021-22 in split-split plot design having 3 replications. The treatments comprised combination of main plot treatments viz; 2 seed treatments (1) P1(seed hydropriming) and (2) P2(untreated) x 2 plant geometry treatments viz; (1) G1(30×10cm) and G2(30×20 cm), 5 sub plot treatments of integrated nutrient management (INM) practices (N) viz; (1) N1(20+40+20 kg NPK ha-1 (RDF), (2) N2(100 % RDF through FYM), (3) N3(100 % RDF through Vermicompost) (4) N4(50% RDF through chemical fertilizer+50% RDF through FYM) and (5) N5(50% RDF through chemical fertilizer+50% RDF through Vermicompost). In all there were 20 treatment combinations of 2 seed treatments x 2 plant geometry treatments x 5 nutrients management treatments. Seed hydropriming was done by soaking of healthy seeds in normal water for 8 hours (P2: Seed hydropriming) and compared with Untreated seeds P1. Fertilizer urea, single superphosphate and muriate of potash, Farmyard manure, and vermicompost were the source of nutrients. The recommendation of nutrients (RDF) for mung crop is 20, 40 and 20 kg ha-1 of N, P2O5 and K2O. Basal application of fertilizers was done in the quantity as per treatments. Broadcasting of farmyard manure and vermicompost was done in two equal halves as per the requirement of treatments during last ploughing and split application after 30 days of sowing. Prior to laying out of this experiment, rainfed wheat crop was taken in the previous season. The experimental soil was neutral in reaction (pH 7.3, EC 0.21 dS/m) having 0.53% organic carbon, 160.05 kg/ha available N, 30.10 kg/ha available phosphorus and 260 kg/ha K content in plough layer of soil.

The main objectives were to assess the efficacy of seed priming under different plant population and INM treatments on yield attributes, biological yield and nutrients uptake by moong bean crop grown in summer seasons. Observations on yield attributor characters viz; pods/ plant, pod length (cm), seeds/ pod, seed yield (g/plant), harvest index (HI), and seed index (g/1000 seeds) were recorded manually using standard procedures. Total N content in straw and grain samples was estimated according to Micro-Kjeldahl method (Yoshida et al, 1971)⁶, total P content by the procedure of Olsen et al (1954)⁷ and total K content determined by using Flame Photometer method (Jackson, 1973)⁸. Statistical analysis of data was done as per the procedure suggested by Panse and Sukhatme (1985)⁹.

Results and Discussion

Yield Attributors

Pods Per Plant

Results (Table 1) that seed hydropriming of (P₂) produced significantly a greater number of 14.66 pods/plant as against 11.32 pods/ plant due to P₁(untreated seeds). The treatment G₁(30×10 cm) recorded a higher number of 13.84 pods / plant compared to 12.15 pods /plant due to treatment of G₂(30×20 cm) and both were statistically at par. The treatment G₁ produced 13.91 % more pods/ plant as compared with the treatment G_2. Treatment N₅(50% RDF through chemical fertilizer+50% RDF through Vermicompost) produced significantly high 13.67 pods/ plant over rest of the treatments except the treatment N₄. The treatment N₂(100 % RDF through FYM) led to significantly less pods of 12.37/ plant only. The relative superiority of treatments with regards to number of green gram pods/ plant was in order of N₅ > N_4, > N₁ > N₃ > N₂, respectively. An enhancement pods/ plant because of treatments N_3, N_1, N_4, and N₅ over N₂ was 2.42%, 4.77%, 7.52, and 10.51%, respectively. The results emphasized that seed priming, plant geometry of G₁(30×10 cm) and conjunctive use of FYM / vermicompost resulted in significantly high amount of pods/ plant. The bearing of pods/ plants is although governed by the genetic characteristics still some minor changes may be brought about by agronomical management practices including balanced nutrition of plants under the same environmental conditions. Seed priming, plant geometry of G₁(30×10 cm) and conjunctive use of FYM / vermicompost improved germination percentage, plant density, and nutrition maximized, accelerated vegetative and reproductive growth and therefore pod production per plant. Keerthi and others (2015)¹⁰ also had similar observations. However, the interactions of different treatments were statistically non-significant, indicating their independent impacts on pod number.

Pod Length (cm)

The shortest mean pod length of 8.16 cm was recorded under P₁(untreated seeds) which was increased to 8.86 cm (8.57 %) due to seed hydropriming treatment P_2. Planting geometry of G₁(30×10 cm) caused significantly largest mean pod length of 8.80 cm which significantly decreased to 8.21 cm in wider plant spacing under G₂(30×20 cm). Closer plant spacing of 30×10 cm increased the mean pod length by 7.3% compared to wider 30×20 cm spacing. The mean length of pods due to these treatments N₁, N_2, and N₃ was 8.40, 8.28 and 8.33 cm, respectively and was on par in between them but significantly less as compared with N₄ and N₅ treatments. There was an increase of mean pod length by 0.61%, 1.45%, 3.74 % and 7.85 %, because of treatments N_3, N_1, N_5, and N_4, respectively over the treatment N_2. Seed hydropriming treatment P₂, plant geometry of 30×10 cm (treatment G₁) and conjunctive use of organics (treatments N₅ and N₄), were significantly more effective for growth of green gram pods with respect to pod length. No interaction was observed between treatments. The finding of present study is in accordance with those of Chaudhary et al. (2015)¹¹.

Table 1: Effect of different main and sub treatments on yield attributes of summer green gram (Mean of 2021 and 2022 years).

Treatments	Pods/ Plant	Pod length (cm)	Seeds/ pod	Seed yield (g/plant)	Harvest Index (%)	Seed Index (g/1000 seeds)
Seed treatment (P)
P1: Untreated seeds	11.32	8.16	6.43	2.37	37.06	33.36
P2: Seed hydropriming	14.66	8.86	7.13	3.74	43.56	35.70
S. Em. ±	0.36	0.08	0.01	0.11	0.46	0.04
C.D. (P=0.05)	2.21	0.51	0.05	0.70	2.77	0.25
Plant Geometry (G)
G1: 30cm × 10cm	13.84	8.80	6.95	3.39	49.76	35.11
G2: 30cm × 20cm	12.15	8.21	6.61	2.72	30.86	33.96
S. Em. ±	0.40	0.06	0.04	0.10	0.68	0.03
C.D. (P=0.05)	1.57	0.23	0.17	0.41	2.67	0.13
Nutrient Management (N)
N1: 20+40+20 kg NPK ha-1 (RDF)	12.96	8.40	6.77	2.94	38.80	34.52
N2: 100 % RDF through FYM	12.37	8.28	6.64	2.74	37.79	34.09
N3: 100 % RDF through Vermicompost	12.67	8.33	6.69	3.01	40.61	34.27
N4: 50% RDF through fertilizer + 50% RDF through FYM	13.30	8.93	6.84	3.22	41.70	34.77
N5: 50% RDF through fertilizer + 50% RDF through Vermicompost	13.67	8.59	6.94	3.36	42.65	35.01
S. Em. ±	0.29	0.06	0.04	0.14	1.43	0.07
C.D. (P=0.05)	0.85	0.17	0.13	0.41	NS	0.20
S. Em. ± (PxGxN)	0.589	0.12	0.089	0.28	2.87	0.14
CD (P=0.05) (PxGxN)	NS	0.34	NS	NS	NS	NS

Green Gram Seeds Per Pod

Seed hydropriming proved superior as it increased the seeds/ pod by 10.7 % over without seed hydropriming treatment. Seed hydropriming of P₂ produced significantly more seeds of 7.13 seeds/ pod than untreated seeds in treatment P₁ (6.43 seeds/ pod). Closer plant spacing treatment G₁(30×10 cm) proved its superiority as it increased seeds per pod by 5.14% compared to wider plant spacing in treatment G₂:30×20 cm (6.95 vs 6.61 seeds per pod). The INM treatment of N₅(50% RDF from fertilizer+50% RDF through Vermicompost) produced significantly highest mean number of 6.94 seeds/pod, next was the treatment N₄ which recorded 6.84 mean number of seeds/ pod, both being at par. Results emphasized that integration fertilizers equivalent to 50% of RDF with 50% nutrients through organic sources (treatments N₄ and N₅) proved more effective compared to nutrients through organic sources (treatments N₂ and N₃) alone and 100% RDF from fertilizers (N₁), respectively. None of the interactions of seed hydropriming x plant geometry x nutrient management treatments were observed significant in this respect. The findings of the present investigation endorse the results of Amruta et al. (2015)¹².

Seed Yield (g/plant)

Seed hydropriming, plant geometry of 30×10 cm and nutrient management treatment of N₅ produced highest seed weight of 3.74, 3.39 and 42.65 g/plant, respectively as compared with respective factors of the treatments, respectively. Interaction of different treatments P x G x N were observed nonsignificant.

Harvest Index (%)

Harvest index of any crop is the parameter which describes proportion of yield and straw production and therefore high harvest index is desired for getting maximum advantage in form of monetary returns. Seed hydropriming treatment of P₂ proved significantly superior over the treatment P₁. The mean harvest index of 37.06% and 43.56% was observed due to the treatments P₁ and P₂ respectively. Planting geometry treatment G₁(30×10 cm) caused highest mean harvest index of 49.76%, while it significantly decreased to 30.86% due to wider plant spacing in the treatment G₂(30×20 cm). Harvest index is the resultant of overall impact of seed and stover production of green gram and therefore it followed the same trend. The treatments on integrated use of chemical fertilizers and/ or FYM and vermicompost (N₄ and N₅) were significantly different to influence the harvest index of green gram crop, although highest harvest index of 42.65% was recorded obtained from N₅(50% RDF through chemical fertilizer+50% RDF through Vermicompost) which gradually decreased in descending order to 41.70% > 40.61% > 38.80% and > 37.79 % because treatments N₄, N₃, N₁ and N₂, respectively. The results (Table 1) clearly indicated that combined use of fertilizers plus organics (FYM and/ or vermicompost), each equivalent to 50% of RDF, are optimum for realizing high harvest index and seed yield. Parvez et al. (2013)¹³ also reported similar results.

Seed Index (g/ 1000 seeds)

Seed hydropriming increased the mean seed index from 33.36 to 35.70 g/ 1000 seeds, respectively to a significant level and is attributed to early germination and establishment and growth of roots for affecting better nutrients uptake. The treatment G₁(30×10 cm) was associated with highest mean seed index of 35.11 g/ 1000 seed which was significantly decreased to 33.96 g/1000 seeds due to wider plant spacing (G₂:30×20 cm). Seed index of 34.09 g/ 1000 seed observed from treatment N₂(100 % RDF through FYM) was increased to 34.27 g, 34.52 g, 34.77 g and 35.01 g/ 1000 seeds due to treatments N₃(100 % RDF from Vermicompost), N₁(20+40+20 kg NPK ha^-1 (RDF)), N₄(50% RDF through fertilizer+50% RDF through FYM) and N₅(50% RDF from fertilizer+50% RDF through Vermicompost), respectively. The treatments involving organics proved better as organics help increasing nutrient availability and their translocation to reproductive parts producing bold seeds.

Seed and Biological Yield

Grain Yield

The results (Table 2) showed that seed hydropriming (P₂) produced significantly higher moong bean yield of 858.61 kg/ha than the treatment P₁(without seed priming) which recorded yield of 554.97 kg/ha. The mean increase in seed yield due to seed priming was 54.71 % over without seed priming, which is attributed to yield contributory characters. Planting geometry of G₁(30×10 cm) also produced significantly more mean yield of 995.70 kg/ha, while significantly decreased yield of 417.88 kg/ha was from plant geometry treatment G₂(30×20 cm). The treatment G₁(30×10 cm) witnessed 138.272% increased yield of 995.70 kg/ha over wider plant geometry of G₂ (30×20 cm) yielding 417.88 kg/ha. Ali et al.  (2001)¹⁴ also observed similar findings. INM treatment of N₅(50% RDF from fertilizer+50% RDF through Vermicompost) led to grain yield of 800.96 kg/ha, being significantly high over all the treatments except treatment N₄. The treatment N₄(50% RDF through chemical fertilizer+50% RDF through FYM) ranked second in merit which recorded seed yield of 753.91 kg/ha and was statistically on par with treatment N₅. The seed yield due to treatments N₁, N₂ and N₃ was 666.24, 617.49 and 695.35 kg/ ha, respectively, being at par in between them but resulted in significantly less seed yield over the treatments N₄ and N₅. The minimum seed yield of 617.49 kg/ha was recorded from treatment N₂ which was increased by 7.89 %, 12.61%, 22.09 %, and 29.71% due to N₁, N₃, N₄ and N₅. The interactions of seed hydropriming, geometry of plants and INM treatments were observed non-significant. Earlier Bhise et al., (2011)¹⁵, Chaudhary et al. (2015)¹¹, and Kalsaria et.al., (2017)¹⁶ have also drawn similar conclusions.

Biological Yield (kg/ha)

The trend of variations of biological yield in different treatments followed the trend of seed yield and yield attributors for obvious reasons. Seed hydropriming (treatment of P₂), Closer plant spacing treatment G₁(30×10 cm) and Nutrient management of N₅(50% RDF through fertilizer+50% RDF through Vermicompost) proved significantly superior over respective factors of the treatments. The mean minimum biological yield of 1426 kg/ha was observed due to treatment P₁(untreated seeds), The increase in mean biological yield due to seed hydropriming treatment P₂ was 31.76 % as compared to the treatment P₁ (Table 2). Closer plant spacing treatment G₁(30×10 cm) recorded highest mean biological yield of 1985 kg/ha while significantly low of 1320 kg/ha due to wider plant spacing of treatment G₂(30×20 cm). Nutrient management of N₅(50% RDF from fertilizer+50% RDF through Vermicompost) produced significantly higher mean biological yield of 1772 kg/ha. Next in order were the treatments N₄, N₃, N₁ and N₂, respectively producing biological yield of 1772, 1629, 1619 and 1530 kg/ha, respectively. Similar observations were concluded by Murade et al. (2014)¹⁷.

Uptake of Nutrients

Uptake of NPK (kg/ha)

The results (Table 2 and Fig. 1) revealed that the treatment P₁ caused a mean uptake of 30.59 kg/ha N, 5.10 kg/ha P, and 16.59 kg/ha K, respectively. Seed hydropriming treatment (P₂) significantly increased it by 45.54 % (44.52 kg/ha N), 55.10 % (7.91 kg/ha P) and 35.20 % (22.43 kg/ha K), respectively. The plant geometry treatment of G₁(30×10 cm) recorded significantly high uptake of 48.19 kg/ha N, 8.50 kg/ha P and 22.83 kg/ha K which was decreased by 45.65 % (26.92 kg/ha N), 46.94 % (4.51 kg/ha P) and 29.08 % (16.19 kg/ha K), respectively because of treatment G₂. Nutrient management of N₅(50% RDF from fertilizer+50% RDF from Vermicompost) resulted significantly more uptake of 41.44 kg/ha N, 7.31 kg/ha P, and 21.01 kg/ha K, respectively. Next in order was the treatment N₄ which recorded mean gross absorption of 39.49 kg/ha N, 6.90 kg/ha P, and 21.01 kg/ha K, respectively, however, differences were statistically nonsignificant in between N₅ and N₄. Further, the pattern of nutrients uptake (N, P and K) by moong bean crop was in the order of N₅ > N₄ > N₃ > N₁ > N₂. Increase in total mean removal of N by the treatments N_1, N_3, N₄ and N₅ was 7.40 %, 9.03 %, 13.98 % and 22.71 %, respectively. Increase in gross uptake of P by the treatments N_3, N_1, N₄ and N₅ was 8.44 %, 9.01%, 19.58%, and 28.07%; and the same of K was 5.43%, 6.64%, 11.97%, and 16.40%, respectively compared to treatment N₂ which recorded minimum total uptake. It is concluded that seed hydropriming (P₁), plant geometry of 30×10 cm (G₁) and nutrient management treatment N₅(50% RDF from fertilizer+50% RDF from Vermicompost) recorded higher uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium as these treatments produced highest seeds, stover and grain production also. Earlier reports of Shelke et al. (2013)¹⁸ and Twinkle (2016)¹⁹ endorse these findings on moong bean.

Table 2: Productivity and nutrient uptake by summer green gram affected by seed hydropriming, plants geometry and INM (Fertilizers x FYM x Vermicompost) (Mean of 2021 and 2022 years).

Treatments	Seed Yield (kg/ha)	Biological yield (kg/ ha)	Total Uptake of nutrients (kg/ha)
			N	P	K
Seed treatment (P)
P1: Untreated seeds	554.97	1426	30.59	5.10	16.59
P2: Seed hydropriming	858.61	1879	44.52	7.91	22.43
S. Em. ±	16.36	25	0.63	0.11	0.32
C.D. (P=0.05)	99.53	154	3.84	0.69	1.96
Plant Geometry (G)
G1: 30cm × 10cm	995.70	1985	48.19	8.50	22.83
G2: 30cm × 20cm	417.88	1320	26.92	4.51	16.19
S. Em. ±	16.90	23	0.70	0.10	0.25
C.D. (P=0.05)	66.35	89	2.75	0.40	0.98
Nutrient Management (N)
N1: 20+40+20 kg NPK ha-1 (RDF)	666.24	1619	36.27	6.29	19.25
N2: 100 % RDF through FYM	617.49	1530	33.77	5.77	18.05
N3: 100 % RDF through Vermicompost	695.35	1629	36.82	6.28	19.03
N4: 50% RDF through fertilizer + 50% RDF through FYM	753.91	1713	39.49	6.90	20.21
N5: 50% RDF through fertilizer + 50% RDF through Vermicompost	800.96	1772	41.44	7.31	21.01
S. Em. ±	34.75	39	1.27	0.23	0.42
C.D. (P=0.05)	100.09	111	3.66	0.65	1.20
S. Em. ± (PxGxN)	69.49	77	2.54	0.45	0.83
C.D. (P=0.05) (PxGxN)	NS	NS	NS	NS	NS

Figure 1: Total uptake of N, P and K by crop (kg /ha) as influenced by seed priming, plant geometry and different sources and levels of nutrients. Click here to view Figure

Conclusion

Based on two years study, it is concluded that practices of seed hydropriming, crop geometry of 30×10 cm row x plant spacing and conjunctive use of N, P, K nutrients equivalent to 50% of recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) coupled with 50% nutrients through organic sources (FYM and/ or vermicompost) were found optimum for maximizing vigor of plants.

Acknowledgement

Authors are thankful to the authorities of Institute of Agriculture Sciences, Bundelkhand University Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, India for providing all the facilities including logistic support and financial assistance to carry out research work.

Funding Sources

The experiment was the part for Ph.D. thesis and therefore University provided all the logistic support and funding for carrying out the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors do not have any conflict of interest.

Data Availability Statement

This statement does not apply to this article.

Ethics Statement

This research did not involve human participants, animal, subjects, or any material that requires The ethical approval.

Informed Consent Statement

This study did not involve human participants, and therefore, informed consent was not required.

Authors’ Contribution

The major contributor is First author/Corresponding author. The first author /corresponding author (myself) carried out experiments, recorded observations, processed the data, analyzed and interpreted the data, wrote thesis and therefore the main contributor. Second author is guide and Advisor for research work. His contribution was to help formulation of Synopsis for the research work, providing guidance from time to time, supervision of the research work, help editing the thesis write up etc.

References

1. Kumar, R., Nandan, R., Kumar, V., Prasad, S. and Singh. Response of summer mung bean (Vigna radiata) cultivars. Ind J Agril Sci, 2009; 79 (4): 309-312.
2. Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi, 2020-21; eands.dacnet.nic.in. http://www.indiaagristat.com.
   
3. Marimuthu, S. and Surendran, U. Effect of nutrients and plant growth regulators on growth and yield of black gram in sandy loam soils of Cauvery new delta zone, India. Cogent Food and Agriculture, 2015; 1(1): 143-147.
   CrossRef
4. Endris, S. and Dawid, J. Yield response of maize to integrated soil fertility management on acidic nitosol of south-western Ethiopia. J Agron, 2015; 14: 152-57.
   CrossRef
5. Ahmad, M., Afzal, M., Ahmad, A., Ahmad, A.U.H. and Azeem, M. I. Role of organic and inorganic nutrient sources in improving wheat crop production. Cercetari Agronomics in Moldova, 2013; 4: 15-23.
   CrossRef
6. Yoshida, S., Forno, D. A. and Cock, J. H. Laboratory Manual for Physiological Studies in Rice. 1971; IRRI, Philippines.
7. Olsen, S. R.; C. L. Cole; P. S. Watanabe and L. A. Dean. Estimation of available Phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate, 1954; USDA Dept. Agric, 939: 1-19.
8. Jackson, M. L. Soil chemical analysis, Pub. Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, II Indian Reprint, 1973; 1-41.
9. Panse, V. G. and Sukhatme, P. V. Statistical Methods for Agricultural workers 4^th, 1985; ICAR Publication, New Delhi, India.
10. Keerthi, M. M., Babu, R., Joseph, M. and Amutha, R. Optimizing plant geometry
    and nutrient management for grain yield and economics in irrigated green gram. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 2015; 6: 1144-1150.
    CrossRef
11. Chaudhary, A. N., Vihol, K. J., Chaudhary, J. H., Mor, V. B. and Desai, L. J. Influence of spacing and scheduling of irrigation on growth, yield, yield attributes and economics of summer green gram (Vigna radiata). Eco. Env. & Cons., 2015; 21(Dec. Suppl.): S357-S361.
12. Amruta, N., Maruthi, J. B., Sarika, G. and Deepika C. Effect of integrated nutrient management and spacing on growth and yield parameters of black gram cv. LBG-625 (Rashmi). The Bioscan, 2015, 10(1):193-198.
    CrossRef
13. Parvez, M. T., Paul, S. K. and Sarkar, M. A. R. Yield and yield contributing characters of mung bean as affected by variety and levels of phosphorus. Journal of Agroforestry and Environment, 2013; 7(1):115-118.
14. Ali, A; Nadeem, M. A; Tayyab, M; Tahir, M. and Sohail, R. Determining suitable planting geometry for two mung bean (Vigna radiata ) cultivars under Faisalabad conditions. Pakistan Journal of Biological Science, 2001; 4: 344-45.
15. Bhise, A. B, Pawar, S. U, Solunke, S. S, Alse, U. N. and Kadam, G. T. Effects of varieties and plant geometry on yield attributes and yield of summer green gram (Vigna radiata ). Advance Research Journal of Crop Improvement, 2011; 2: 221-223.
16. Kalsaria, R. N., Vekariya, P. D., Hadiyal, J. G. and Ichchhuda, P. K. 2017. Effect of spacing, fertility levels and bio-fertilizers on growth and yield of summer green gram (Vigna radiate Wilczek). Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 2017; 6(5):934-937.
17. Murade, N. B., Patil, D. B, Jagtap, H. D. and More, S. M. Effect of spacing and fertilizer levels on growth and yield of urd bean. International quarterly. J. of life Sci, 2014; 9(4):1545-1547.
18. Shelke, A. V., Sonani, V. V., Gaikwad, V. P. and Raskar, S. S. Varietal response to different levels of fertility and bio-fertilizers on yield and quality of summer green gram (Vigna radiata ). International Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 2013; 9 (1): 264- 266.
19. Twinkle K. K. Effect of inorganic and organic fertilizer on growth and yield of green gram (Vigna radiata Wilezek) under guava (Psidium guajava) based agri-horti system, 2016; M. Sc. (Agri.) thesis (Unpublished) submitted to Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, U.P., India.