Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp1 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Wheat varietal response to organic fertilization under Casuarina (Casuarina junghuhniana Miq.) based agrisilviculture system in trans-Gangetic Plains

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.11278
Submitted
13 August 2025
Published
13-02-2026

Abstract

The study examined wheat varieties under a Casuarina (Casuarina junghuhniana Miq.) - based agrisilviculture system (CASs) with organic fertilizer at the Department of Forestry, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, during the rabi season of 2022-23. Casuarina trees (spaced at 5 × 3 m) showed growth increments of 0.4 m in height, 1.85 cm in girth and 0.2 m in crown spread during the study. Organic fertilizer treatments significantly enhanced soil organic carbon, available nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K) and Diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (DTPA)-extractable micronutrients, including zinc (Zn), iron (Fe), copper (Cu) and manganese (Mn), compared with the control (open field). However, lower soil moisture and reduced light availability (by 54.5–59.3 %) were observed under the agroforestry system. Air temperature was slightly lower and relative humidity was higher under the Casuarina canopy. Growth, physiological and yield parameters of wheat were generally superior in the sole crop compared to the agroforestry system, except for relative stress injury (RSI) (%), N balance index (NBI), chlorophyll index (CHI) and canopy temperature depression (CTD). Among the varieties tested, WH 1270 recorded the highest test weight, dry matter accumulation, grain yield (GY) and harvest index (HI) under Casuarina. WH 1142 showed the greatest yield reduction (35.31 %) under tree shade, indicating high shade sensitivity. Wheat responded best to T1 (150 kg ha-1 Recommended Dose of Nitrogen (RDN) via inorganic fertilizers), with higher NBI, CHI and yield parameters, highlighting its effectiveness even under CASs. The result indicates nutrient content was consistently higher under the agroforestry system than under sole cropping, reinforcing its relevance for developing climate-resilient production systems that enhance soil conservation, diversify income and lessen environmental pressures.

References

  1. 1. Robertson GP. A sustainable agriculture? Daedalus. 2015;144(4):76-89. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00355
  2. 2. Keeney D. Sustainable agriculture: definition and concepts. J Prod Agric. 1990;3(3):281-5. https://doi.org/10.2134/jpa1990.0281
  3. 3. Kumari N, Pandey AK, Singh AK, Singh A. Sustainable agriculture: balancing productivity and environmental stewardship for future generations. J Sci Res Rep. 2024;30(8):629-39. https://doi.org/10.9734/jsrr/2024/v30i82284
  4. 4. Gamage A, Gangahagedara R, Subasinghe S, Gamage J, Guruge C, Senaratne S, et al. Advancing sustainability: the impact of emerging technologies in agriculture. Curr Plant Biol. 2024;40:100420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpb.2024.100420
  5. 5. Umesha S, Manukumar HMG, Chandrasekhar B. Sustainable agriculture and food security. In: Singh RL, Mondal S, editors. Biotechnology for Sustainable Agriculture. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing; 2018. p. 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812160-3.00003-9
  6. 6. Muhie SH. Novel approaches and practices to sustainable agriculture. J Agric Food Res. 2022;10:100446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2022.100446
  7. 7. Nair PKR, Garrity D, editors. In: Agroforestry - The Future of Global Land Use. Dordrecht: Springer; 2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4676-3
  8. 8. Fahad S, Chavan SB, Chichaghare AR, Uthappa AR, Kumar M, Kakade V, et al. Agroforestry systems for soil health improvement and maintenance. Sustainability. 2022;14:14877. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142214877
  9. 9. De Leeuw J, Njenga M, Wagner B, Iiyama M, editors. Treesilience: an assessment of the resilience provided by trees in the drylands of Eastern Africa. Nairobi (Kenya): World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF); 2014. https://hdl.handle.net/10568/52011
  10. 10. Kumar V, Tiwari A. Importance of tropical homegardens agroforestry system. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(9):1002-19. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.609.122
  11. 11. Zhu X, Liu W, Chen J, Bruijnzeel LA, Mao Z, Yang X, et al. Reductions in water, soil and nutrient losses and pesticide pollution in agroforestry practices: A review of evidence and processes. Plant Soil. 2020;453(1–2):45–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04377-3
  12. 12. Hübner R, Kühnel A, Lu J, Dettmann H, Wang W, Wiesmeier M. Soil carbon sequestration by agroforestry systems in China: A meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2021;315:107437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107437
  13. 13. Pan J, Chen S, He D, Zhou H, Ning K, Ma N, et al. Agroforestry increases soil carbon sequestration, especially in arid areas: A global meta-analysis. Catena. 2025;249:108667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2024.108667
  14. 14. Geprge A, Joseph S, Mohan M, Kunhamu TK. Carbon pools in the agroforestry landscapes of the Western Ghats biodiversity hotspot of Kerala, India. Catena. 2025;250:108807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2025.108807
  15. 15. Brown SE, Miller DC, Ordonez PJ, Baylis K. Evidence for the impacts of agroforestry on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services and human well-being in high-income countries: A systematic map protocol. Environ Evid. 2018;7:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0136-0
  16. 16. Castle SE, Miller DC, Ordonez PJ, Baylis K, Hughes K. The impacts of agroforestry interventions on agricultural productivity, ecosystem services and human well-being in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review. Campbell Syst Rev. 2021;17(2):e1167. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1167
  17. 17. Willmott A, Willmott M, Grass I, Lusiana B, Cotter M. Harnessing the socio-ecological benefits of agroforestry diversification in social forestry with functional and phylogenetic tools. Environ Dev. 2023;47:100881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2023.100881
  18. 18. Abera A, Bojago E, Masha M, Lidatu T. Agroforestry practices, adoption factors and livelihood contributions among smallholder farmers in Didu district, southwestern Ethiopia. J Agric Food Res. 2025;102052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2025.102052
  19. 19. Tiwari A, Rao OP. Tree growth, litter fall and leaf litter decomposition of Casuarina equisetifolia based agri-silviculture system. Biotech Today. 2015;5(1):28-33. https://doi.org/10.5958/2322-0996.2015.00005.8
  20. 20. Koutika LS, Taba K, Ndongo M, Kaonga M. Nitrogen-fixing trees increase organic carbon sequestration in forest and agroforestry ecosystems in the Congo basin. Reg Environ Change. 2021;21:109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01816-9
  21. 21. Jagadesh M, Srinivasarao C, Selvi D, Thiyageshwari S, Kalaiselvi T, Kumari A, et al. Quantifying the unvoiced carbon pools of the Nilgiri Hill region in the Western Ghats global biodiversity hotspot. Sustainability. 2023;15(6):5520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065520
  22. 22. François M, Pontes MCG, Lima da Silva A, Mariano-Neto E. Impacts of cacao agroforestry systems on climate change, soil conservation and water resources: A review. Water Policy. 2023;25(6):564-81. https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2023.164
  23. 23. Do VH, La N, Bergkvist G, Dahlin AS, Mulia R, Nguyen VT, et al. Agroforestry with contour planting of grass contributes to terrace formation and conservation of soil and nutrients on sloping land. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2023;345:108323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.108323
  24. 24. Rosenstock TS, Tully KT, Arias-Navarro C, Neufeldt H, Butterbach-Bahl K, Verchot LV. Agroforestry with N₂-fixing trees: sustainable development’s friend or foe? Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 2014;6:15-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.09.001
  25. 25. Koutika L-S, Zagatto MRG, Pereira APA, Miyittah M, Tabacchioni S, Bevivino A, et al. Does the introduction of N2-fixing trees in forest plantations on tropical soils ameliorate low fertility and enhance carbon sequestration via interactions between biota and nutrient availability? Case studies from Central Africa and South America. Front Soil Sci. 2021;1:752747. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoil.2021.752747
  26. 26. Ravi R, Buvaneswaran C, Saravanan S. Carbon sequestration potential of Casuarina equisetifolia plantations at harvest age in tropical region of India. Plant Sci Today. 2025;12(2):1-11. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.5987
  27. 27. Bhalla PL, Sharma A, Singh MB. Enabling molecular technologies for trait improvement in wheat. In: Bhalla P, Singh M, editors. Wheat biotechnology. Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1679. New York (NY): Humana Press; p. 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7337-8_1
  28. 28. Feldman M, Levy AA. Wheat evolution and domestication. Cham (Switzerland): Springer; 2023. p. 673. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-30175-9
  29. 29. Caron BO, Pinheiro MVM, Korcelski C, Schwerz F, Elli EF, Sgarbossa J, et al. Agroforestry systems and understory harvest management: the impact on growth and productivity of dual-purpose wheat. An Acad Bras Cienc. 2019;91(4):e20180667. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201920180667
  30. 30. Zhang G, Zhang J, Xu L, Zhou Y, Hou P, Yang F, et al. Study on the nutrient optimal management strategy of high and stable annual yield in the rice–wheat system: a 10-year term experiment. Agronomy. 2022;12(3):698. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12030698
  31. 31. Bhardwaj AK, Malik K, Chejara S, Rajwar D, Narjary B, Chandra P. Integration of organics in nutrient management for rice-wheat system improves nitrogen use efficiency via favorable soil biological and electrochemical responses. Front Plant Sci. 2023;13:1075011. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1075011
  32. 32. Sullivan CY, Ross WM. Selection for drought and heat resistance in grain sorghum. In: Mussell H, Staples R, editors. Stress Physiology in Crop Plants. New York: John Wiley; 1979. p. 263-81.
  33. 33. Neugart S, Tobler MA, Barnes PW. Rapid adjustment in epidermal UV sunscreen: comparison of optical measurement techniques and response to changing solar UV radiation conditions. Physiol Plant. 2021;173(3):725-35. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.13517
  34. 34. Agati G, Tuccio L, Kusznierewicz B, Chmiel T, Bartoszek A, Kowalski A, et al. Nondestructive optical sensing of flavonols and chlorophyll in white head cabbage grown under different nitrogen regimens. J Agric Food Chem. 2016;64(1):85-94. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.5b04962
  35. 35. Donald CM, Hamblin J. The biological yield and harvest index of cereals as agronomic and plant breeding criteria. Adv Agron. 1976;28:361-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60559-3
  36. 36. Lindner RC. Rapid analytical methods for some of the more common inorganic constituents of plant tissues. Plant Physiol. 1944;19(1):76-89. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.19.1.76
  37. 37. Koenig R, Johnson C. Colorimetric determination of phosphorus in biological materials. Ind Eng Chem Anal Ed. 1942;14(2):155-6. https://doi.org/10.1021/i560102a026
  38. 38. Bhargava BS, Raghupathi HB. Analysis of plant materials for macro and micronutrients. In: Tandon HLS, editor. Methods of analysis of soils, plants, waters and fertilizers. New Delhi: FDCO; p. 49-82.
  39. 39. Lindsay WL, Norvell WA. Development of a DTPA soil test for zinc, iron, manganese and copper. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 1978;42:421-8. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1978.03615995004200030009x
  40. 40. Gill RIS, Singh B, Kaur N. Productivity and nutrient uptake of newly released wheat varieties at different sowing times under poplar plantation in north-western India. Agrofor Syst. 2009;76:579-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-009-9223-0
  41. 41. Ahlawat KS, Dhillon RS, Mandal BS, Dilbag S, Singh MK. Light intensity pattern and effect of intercrops on the growth of eucalyptus tree in Eucalyptus tereticornis based agrisilvicultural system. Environ Ecol. 2012;30(3B):1011-6.
  42. 42. Zhang D, Du G, Sun Z, Bai W, Wang Q, Feng L, et al. Agroforestry enables high efficiency of light capture, photosynthesis and dry matter production in a semi-arid climate. Eur J Agron. 2018;94:1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2018.01.001
  43. 43. Newaj R, Bhargava MK, Yadav RS, Shanker AK. Tree–crop interaction in Albizia procera based agroforestry system in relation to soil moisture, light and nutrients. Indian J Agrofor. 2020;5(1-2).
  44. 44. Arenas-Corraliza MG, López-Díaz ML, Rolo V, Cáceres Y, Moreno G. Phenological, morphological and physiological drivers of cereal grain yield in Mediterranean agroforestry systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2022;340:108158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.108158
  45. 45. Stansluos AAL, Öztürk A, Türkoğlu A, Piekutowska M, Niedbała G. Planting geometry may be used to optimize plant density and yields without changing yield potential per plant in sweet corn. Plants. 2024;13(17):2465. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13172465
  46. 46. Miao L, Wang X, Yu C, Ye C, Yan Y, Wang H. What factors control plant height? J Integr Agric. 2024;23(6):1803-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jia.2024.03.058
  47. 47. Sirohi C, Rao OP, Rana BS. Varietal comparison of wheat and paddy under Populus deltoides based agri-silvicultural system in sodic soil. Indian J For. 2012;35(3):291-4. https://doi.org/10.54207/bsmps1000-2012-4GAF0I
  48. 48. Rao OP, Chhavi S, Verma SK. Growth and yield attributes of wheat and paddy intercropped under Dalbergia sissoo Roxb. based agri-silvicultural system on partially improved salt affected soil in Faizabad district. Indian For. 2016;142(5):481-6.
  49. 49. Ibrahim M, Hassan AU, Iqbal M, Valeem EE. Response of wheat growth and yield to various levels of compost and organic manure. Pak J Bot. 2008;40(5):2135-41.
  50. 50. Coskun D, Britto DT, Shi W, Kronzucker HJ. Nitrogen transformations in modern agriculture and the role of biological nitrification inhibition. Nat Plants. 2017;3:17074. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2017.74
  51. 51. Dimkpa CO, Fugice J, Singh U, Lewis TD. Development of fertilizers for enhanced nitrogen use efficiency—trends and perspectives. Sci Total Environ. 2020;731:139113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139113
  52. 52. Kohli A, Saini BC. Microclimate modification and response of wheat planted under trees in a fan design in northern India. Agrofor Syst. 2003;58(2):109-17. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026090918747
  53. 53. Pham HT, La N, Öborn I, Bergkvist G, Mulia R, Dahlin S. Light distribution at the fruit tree–crop interface and consequences for yield in sloping upland agroforestry. Heliyon. 2024;10(19):e38655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38655
  54. 54. Ghimire S, Dhami D, Shrestha A, Budhathoki J, Maharjan M, Kandel S, et al. Effectiveness of different combinations of urea and vermicompost on yield of bitter gourd (Momordica charantia). Heliyon. 2023;9(8):e18663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e18663
  55. 55. Oyege I, Bhaskar MSB. Effects of vermicompost on soil and plant health and promoting sustainable agriculture. Soil Syst. 2023;7(4):101. https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems7040101
  56. 56. Kumar P, Dubey SD, Rawat DK, Prajapati SK, Prajapati BK, Rawat CL. Direct effect of FYM, vermicompost, biofertilizer, sulphur and zinc on growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) and their residual effect on succeeding wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in maize–wheat cropping system. Int J Res Agron. 2024;7(1):336-54. https://doi.org/10.33545/2618060X.2024.v7.i1e.236
  57. 57. Sande TJ, Tindwa HJ, Alovisi AMT, Shitindi MJ, Semoka JM. Enhancing sustainable crop production through integrated nutrient management: A focus on vermicompost, bio-enriched rock phosphate and inorganic fertilizers—a systematic review. Front Agron. 2024;6:1422876. https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2024.1422876
  58. 58. Gosal SK, Gill GK, Sharma S, Walia SS. Soil nutrient status and yield of rice as affected by long-term integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizers. J Plant Nutr. 2018;41(4):539-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2017.1392570
  59. 59. Mu X, Chen Y. The physiological response of photosynthesis to nitrogen deficiency. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2021;158:76-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2020.11.019
  60. 60. Fathi A. Role of nitrogen (N) in plant growth, photosynthesis pigments and N use efficiency: A review. Agrisost. 2022;28:1-8. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7143588
  61. 61. Kozlowski TT, Pallardy SG. Mineral nutrition. In: Kozlowski TT, Pallardy SG, editors. Physiology of woody plants. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 1997. p. 210-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012424162-6/50027-2
  62. 62. Balota M, Payne WA, Evett SR, Lazar MD. Canopy temperature depression sampling to assess grain yield and genotypic differentiation in winter wheat. Crop Sci. 2007;47(4):1518-29. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2006.06.0383
  63. 63. Fukai S, Mitchell. Role of canopy temperature depression in rice. Crop Environ. 2022;1(3):198-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crope.2022.09.001
  64. 64. Thompson WM, Nissen SJ. Influence of shade and irrigation on the response of corn (Zea mays), soybean (Glycine max) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) to carfentrazone–ethyl. Weed Technol. 2002;16(2):314-18. https://doi.org/10.1614/0890-037X(2002)016[0314:IOSAIO]2.0.CO;2
  65. 65. Andleeb T, Ali Z, Mahmood Z, Latif S, Quraishi UM. Wheat varietal response to relative SPAD index and RNDVI under variable nitrogen application and terminal heat stress along with yield repercussion. Agronomy. 2022;12(7):1538. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12071538
  66. 66. Liu Y, Wang J, Xiao Y, Shi X, Zeng Y. Diversity analysis of chlorophyll, flavonoid, anthocyanin and nitrogen balance index of tea based on Dualex. Phyton. 2021;90(5):1549-1558. https://doi.org/10.32604/phyton.2021.015557
  67. 67. Mbarki S, Sytar O, Zivcak M, Abdelly C, Cerda A, Brestic M. Anthocyanins of coloured wheat genotypes in specific response to salt stress. Molecules.2018;23(7):1518. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23071518
  68. 68. Li Z, Ahammed GJ. Plant stress response and adaptation via anthocyanins: A review. Plant Stress. 2023;10:100230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stress.2023.100230
  69. 69. Patil JR, Mhatre KJ, Yadav K, Yadav LS, Srivastava S, Nikalje GC. Flavonoids in plant–environment interactions and stress responses. Discov Plants. 2024;1:68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44372-024-00063-6
  70. 70. Sharma A, Sah VK. Comparative growth, yield and yield attributes of wheat under poplar and eucalyptus based agroforestry system. Plant Arch. 2020;20:47-52.
  71. 71. Singh B, Gill RIS, Kaur N. Performance of poplar plantation under different levels of nutrients in an agroforestry system. Indian For. 2022;148(5):479-85. https://doi.org/10.36808/if/2022/v148i5/166952
  72. 72. Singh B, Kaur N, Gill RIS, Singh J. Productivity of trees and crops under integrated nutrient management in poplar-based agroforestry systems. Indian J Agrofor. 2023;25(1):87-94.
  73. 73. Sharma A, Singh N, Pandey R, Sah VK, Kaushik P. Performance of wheat varieties under open agriculture and agroforestry systems: A comparative study of growth and yield characteristics. Int J Adv Biochem Res. 2025;9(4):1151-57. https://doi.org/10.33545/26174693.2025.v9.i4n.4261
  74. 74. Singh A, Singh P, Gill RIS. Agroforestry could be one of the viable options to deal with terminal heat stress in wheat causing yield loss in Indo-Gangetic Plains Environ Dev Sustain. 2025;27:19631-73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04731-1
  75. 75. Chen Y, Teng Z, Yuan Y, Yi Z, Zheng Q, Yu H, et al. Excessive nitrogen in field-grown rice suppresses grain filling of inferior spikelets by reducing the accumulation of cytokinin and auxin. Field Crops Res. 2022;283:108542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108542
  76. 76. Mi W, Luo F, Liu W, Liu K. A transcriptome reveals the mechanism of nitrogen regulation in tillering. Genes (Basel). 2024;15(2):223. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes15020223
  77. 77. Isaac ME, Borden KA. Nutrient acquisition strategies in agroforestry systems. Plant Soil. 2019;444:1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-019-04232-5
  78. 78. Ramesh KR, Deshmukh HK, Sivakumar K, Guleria V, Umedsinh RD, Krishnakumar N, et al. Influence of eucalyptus agroforestry on crop yields, soil properties and system economics in southern regions of India. Sustainability. 2023;15(4):3797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043797
  79. 79. Rangappa K, Singh NR, Joga RJ, Mohapatra KP, Chandra P, Choudhury BU, et al. Tree crop interactions, productivity and physiological efficiency of understorey crops in Alnus nepalensis and Gmelina arborea based agroforestry systems in eastern Himalayas. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2025;9:1494371. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2025.1494371
  80. 80. Rehim A, Khan M, Imran M, Bashir MA, Ul-Allah S, Khan MN, et al. Integrated use of farm manure and synthetic nitrogen fertilizer improves nitrogen use efficiency, yield and grain quality in wheat. Ital J Agron. 2020;15(1):29-34. https://doi.org/10.4081/ija.2020.1360
  81. 81. Pardon P, Reubens B, Mertens J, Verheyen K, De Frenne P, De Smet G, et al. Effects of temperate agroforestry on yield and quality of different arable intercrops. Agric Syst 2018;166:135-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2018.08.008
  82. 82. Bhattacharyya P, Chakraborty K, Molla KA, Poonam A, Bhaduri D, Sah RP, et al., editors. Climate Resilient Technologies for Rice Based Production Systems in Eastern India. Cuttack: ICAR-National Rice Research Institute; 2022. p. 408.
  83. 83. Kumar SP, Singh N, Kishore A, Parashar AP, Sharma JD, Reddy KS, et al. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of green gram (Vigna radiata L.) Wilczek. J Food Legumes. 2024;37(1):114-16. https://doi.org/10.59797/jfl.v37.i1.185
  84. 84. Chaudhary D, Alam MS, Patel JN, Yograj. Effects of synthetic fertilizer, organic fertilizer and bio-fertilizers on the yield and productivity of dual-purpose oat (Avena sativa L.) under mid-hill region of Himachal Pradesh. Int J Adv BiochemS Res. 2024;8(6S):616-24. https://doi.org/10.33545/26174693.2024.v8.i6Sh.1416
  85. 85. Kumar S, Kumar S, Khanduri VP, Singh B, Joshi R, Riyal MK, et al. Tree diversity, carbon sequestration and production potential of Oryza sativa L. in traditional agroforestry systems of Garhwal Himalaya, India. Carbon Res. 2025;4:6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44246-024-00158-5
  86. 86. Ripamonti A, Finocchi M, Pulina A, Franca A, Seddaiu G, Turini L, et al. Effects of tree presence on forage yield and nutritive value in agroforestry livestock systems: a global systematic review. Agrofor Syst. 2025;99:110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-025-01214-8
  87. 87. Sharma S, Singh P, Angmo P, Dhaliwal SS. Micro-nutrient pools and their mobility in relation to land-use system in a cold high altitude Himalayan mountainous region. Agrofor Syst.2021;95:1395–412 . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00623-9
  88. 88. Dhaliwal SS, Sharma V, Shukla AK, Verma V, Kaur M, Singh P, et al. Effect of addition of organic manures on basmati yield, nutrient content and soil fertility status in north-western India. Heliyon. 2023;9(3):e14514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14514
  89. 89. Dhaliwal SS, Sharma V, Shukla AK, Gupta RK, Verma V, Kaur M, et al. Residual effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on growth, yield and nutrient uptake in wheat under a basmati rice–wheat cropping system in north-western India. Agriculture. 2023;13(3):556. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030556
  90. 90. Bajtor C, Mousavi SMN, Illés A, Golzardi F, Szeles A, Szabo A, et al. Nutrient composition analysis of maize hybrids affected by different nitrogen fertilization systems. Plants. 2022;11(12):1593. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11121593
  91. 91. Chen Y, Wen M, Ma X, Guo C, Li M, Zhao W, et al. Variation of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium contents in drip-irrigated cotton at different yield levels under combined effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Agronomy. 2024;14(3):503. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14030503

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.