Effect of land configuration, nutritional management module and biofertilizer application on performance, productivity and profitability of urdbean [Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper], in North-Western India

DOI: 10.18805/lr.v0iOF.9285    | Article Id: LR-3443 | Page : 741-747
Citation :- Effect of land configuration, nutritional management module and biofertilizer application on performance, productivity and profitability of urdbean[Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper], in North-Western India .Legume Research.2016.(39):741-747

S. S. Tomar, Ashish Dwivedi *, Adesh Singh and M.K. Singh1

Address :

Department of Agronomy, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut– 250 110 (U.P.), India.

Submitted Date : 20-02-2015
Accepted Date : 29-05-2015


A field experiment was conducted during kharif season 2010 and 2011 on sandy loam soil. The treatments comprises having two land configurations (Flat bed and raised bed) and five nutrient management options (control, PSB alone, 100% RDF, 50% RDF+PSB and 100% RDF+PSB) were tested in factorial randomized design with three replication. Results indicated that raised bed planting recorded higher mean growth attributes viz., plant height (63.8 cm), dry weight/plant (14.2 g), LAI at 60 DAS (3.58), number of root nodules/plant (29.7), yield attributing component and yield viz., pods/plants (19.7), seeds/pod (5.0) and test weight (42.5 g), grain yield (9.8 q/ha), quality parameters viz., protein content (21.4 %) and protein yield (209.9 kg/ha), total nutrients uptake, available soil nutrients status viz., organic carbon (0.575 %), available nitrogen (225.4 kg/ha), phosphorus (16.9 kg/ha) and potassium (249.2 kg/ha) and economics viz., net return/ha (Rs 13200), B:C ratio (1.55), production efficiency (12.3 kg/day/ha) and economic efficiency (165 Rs/day/ha) as compared to flat bed method. Similarly 100% RDF + PSB produces highest values of all the above parameters than rest of the treatments. 


Available soil nutrients Economics LAI Nutrient uptake PSB Protein yield Raised bed.


  1. A.O.A.C. (1960). Methods of Analysis. Association of Offical agricultural Chemists, Washington, D.C. 9th edition. Pp. 15-16.
  2. Ali, M. and Kumar, S. (2005). Pulses: yet to see a breakthrough. The Hindu Survey of Indian Agriculture. National Press, Kasturi Buildings, Chennai – 600 002, pp. 54-56.
  3. Baloch, Q.B., Kaleri, I.A., Memon, N., Sharif, N. and Chachar, Q.I. (2013). Effect of various sowing patterns on growth and yield of Indian squash (Citrullus vulgaris). J. Agri. Tech. 9: 625-632.
  4. Bansal, R.K. (2009). Synergistic effect of Rhizobium, PSB and PGPR on nodulation and seed yield of mungbean. J. Food Leg. 22: 37-39.
  5. Barroso, C.V., Pereira, G.T. and Nahas, E. (2006). Solubilization of CaHPO4 and AlPO4 by Aspergillus niger in culture media with different carbon and nitrogen sources. Braz. J. Microbiol. 37: 434-438.
  6. Dadhich, L.K. and Gupta, A.K. (2004). Plant morphology, yield, nutrient content and uptake of fodder pearl millet as influenced by S, Zn supply and its intercropping with cowpea. Annals Agric. Bio. Res. 9: 183-188.
  7. Deshmukh, M.R., Jain, H.C., Duhoon, S.S. and Goswami, U. (2002). Integrated nutrient management in sesame for Kymore plateau zone of Madhya Pradesh. J. Oilseeds Res., 19: 73-75.
  8. Gomez, K.A, Gomez, A.A (1984). Statistical Procedure for Agricultural Research. John Willey and Sons, 2nd edition. 329.
  9. Jackson, M.L. (1973). Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Pvt.Ltd. New Delhi. 
  10. Jadhav, V.K., Chauhan, G.S. and Singh, Vivek. (2008). Effect of cultural and chemical methods of weed management on performance of blackgram. (Phaseolus mungo). Indian J. Agron. 45: 561-564.
  11. Kumar, A., Singh, S.N. and Giri, G. (2004). Influence of planting ratio and fertilizer application on dry matter production LAI and nutrient content and uptake by maize and groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) in intercropping. Annals Agric. Res. 25:283-288. 
  12. Kumari, A., Singh, O.N. and Kumar, R. (2012). Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, seed yield and economics of garden pea (Pisum sativum L.) and soil fertility changes. J. Food Legumes 25: 121-124.
  13. Kumawat, N., Singh, R.P., Kumar, R., Kumari, A. and Kumar, P. (2012). Response of intercropping and integrated nutrition on production potential and profitability on rainfed pigeonpea. J. Agril. Sci. 4: 154-162.
  14. Pramanik, S.C. and Singh N.B. (2006). Raised bed planting improves productivity of pulses. Chickpea Newsletter, January 2006.
  15. Singh, D. and Singh, R. P. (2014). Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, physiological parameters and productivity of lentil. Int. J. agric. Sci. 1: 175-178.
  16. Singh, G., Chandra, S. and Dass, A. (2013) Productivity and profitability of vegetable pea under sprinkler irrigation and PSB seed inoculation. Indian j. agric. Sci. 83: 745-747.
  17. Shrivastav, P and Gupta P (2011). Effect of rhizobium and PSB on Growth. Int. J. Sci. and Adv.Tech.1: 69-71.
  18. Tandon H.L.S (1998). Methods of Analysis of Soils, Plants, Water and Fertilizers. Fertilizer Development and Consultation Organization, New Delhi. 143 pp.
  19. Thakur, N.S., Kushwaha, B.B. and Sinha, N.K. (2011). Productivity and water use in kharif sorghum under different land configuration and mulching. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 56: 47-51.
  20. Tripathi A.K., Dubey A.P., Awasthi U.D., Tripathi B.N. and Somendranath (2008). Growth and dry-matter partitioning of winter maize (Zea mays) as influenced by intercropping. Current Adv. Agric. Sci. 4: 20-24.

Global Footprints