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

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. 2 (2026)

Forage and grain yield of millet genotypes combination as an effect of planting and mowing date: Forage and grain yield of millet genotypes

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.14613
Submitted
19 March 2026
Published
04-06-2026 — Updated on 12-06-2026
Versions

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted to assess the effects of sowing dates, mowing frequencies and genotypes on yield components, forage productivity and quality traits of millet. The experiment followed a split- plot design with three replications. The main plots were assigned to sowing dates (D1 and D2), while the sub-plots consisted of mowing treatments (M2: one-cut and M3: repeated reducing). The sub-sub plots 3 included three genotypes (V1, V2 and V3). The effects discovered that sowing date drastically motivated all studied developments; the second one sowing date (D2) continuously outperformed the primary (D1) in terms of thousand-grain weight, grain yield, fresh forage yield, crude
protein percentage and ash content. Regarding control practices, the only-reduce treatment (M2) maximised each grain and forage yields, whereas repeated reducing (M3) extensively elevated crude protein content despite a discount in general yield additives. Substantial genotypic variation was observed, with genotype V3 excelling in yield potential, whilst genotype V2 tested superiority in quality parameters, together with crude protein and ash percentages. Significant interactions among sowing date, reducing and genotype had been recorded for maximum tendencies, indicating a high sensitivity of millet to each environmental management and genetic heritage. Genetic parameter analysis confirmed that the studied trends had been predominantly ruled via genetic variance, exhibiting extremely high-experience heritability (ranging from 0.96 to 0.99). The near correspondence among genotypic (GCV) and phenotypic (PCV) coefficients of variation suggests minimal environmental influence, highlighting substantial potential for genetic improvement through targeted selection.

References

  1. 1. Deshmukh SP, Patel JG, Patel AM. Ensuing economic gains from summer pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) due to different dates of sowing and land configuration. Afr J Agric Res. 2013;8(48):6337–43. https://doi.org/10.5897/ajar2013.7346
  2. 2. Islam MR, Garcia SC, Sarker NR, Islam MA, Clark CE. Napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum) management strategies for dairy and meat production in the tropics and subtropics: Yield and nutritive value. Front Plant Sci. 2023;14:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1269976
  3. 3. Khrbeet HK, Hashim KI. Forage crops. Baghdad: University of Baghdad, College of Agriculture; 2017. p. 298.
  4. 4. Gupta AJ, Khade YP, Benke AP, Mainkar P, Gedam PA, Mahajan V, et al. Assessing onion genotypes stability and potential in diverse Indian environments. Cogent Food Agric. 2024;10(1):2360606. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2024.2360606
  5. 5. Cayit S, Ozyazici MA. Growth, yield and quality of some pearl millet genotypes grown in the semi-arid climate zone in Türkiye. Bangladesh J Bot. 2025;54(2):191–98. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjb.v54i2.81698
  6. 6. Govintharaj P, Gupta K, Maheswaran M, Sumathi P, Atakari D. Correlation and path coefficient analysis of biomass yield and quality traits in forage type pearl millet hybrids. Int J Pure Appl Biosci. 2018;6(1):1056–61. https://doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.5992
  7. 7. El Tahir IM, Babiker AZ, Abdalla EA, Ahmed AAE, Goda MOY, Elgabri MAM. Overview of germplasm collecting activities for plant genetic resources in Sudan (2002–2022). Genet Resour. 2025;6(11):24–40. https://doi.org/10.46265/genresj.BWNF7962
  8. 8. Al-Lahham G, Awil Y, Najjar R, Shihab S, Al-Ruweili M, Al-Mansour R, et al. Estimating the combining ability for some forage yield-related traits in individual hybrids of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.). Syrian J Agric Res. 2020;7(1):228–45.
  9. 9. Salama HS, Shaalan AM, Nasser ME. Forage performance of pearl millet in arid regions under different sowing dates. Chil J Agric Res. 2020;80(4):167–77. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392020000400572
  10. 10. Salem AAM. Pearl millet. In: Field crops book. Part two. Cairo: Comprehensive Agricultural Library; 2022.
  11. 11. Makarana G, Yadav RK, Kumar R, Kumar A, Soni PG, Kar S. Fodder and grain quality of pearl millet under mowing management with saline irrigation. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;7(3):1251–57.
  12. https://doi.org/10.5958/2231-6744.2017.00009.3
  13. 12. Bell LW, Kirkegaard JA, Tian L, Morris S, Lawrence J. Interactions of spring cereal genotypic attributes and recovery of grain yield after defoliation. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:607. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.00607
  14. 13. Mrubata K, Nciizah AD, Muchaonyerwa P. Planting date and tillage effects on sorghum yield and nutrient uptake. Front Agron. 2024;6:1388823. https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2024.1388823
  15. 14. Cao ZY, Chen ZH, Tang B, Zeng Q, Guo HL, Huang WH, Zhou SL. The effects of sowing date on maize phenology, morphology and yield formation. Field Crops Res. 2024;309:109309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2024.109309
  16. 15. Al-Mafraji IK, Jumaa SH, Mohammed AH. Effect of planting dates on qualitative traits of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties. J Res Appl Sci Biotechnol. 2025;2(6):208–15. https://doi.org/10.55544/jrasb.2.6.30
  17. 16. Singh P, Boote KJ, Kadiyala MDM, Nedumaran S, Gupta SK, Srinivas K, et al. Yield gains under climate change through genetic improvement of pearl millet. Sci Total Environ. 2017; 601:1226–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.002
  18. 17. Shekara BG, Mahadevu P, Chikkarugi NM, Manasa N. Response of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) varieties to nitrogen levels for higher fresh forage yield and quality in southern dry zone of Karnataka. Forage Res. 2019;45(3):232–34. https://doi.org/10.22271/phyto.2020.v9.i5ak.12749
  19. 18. Attri M, Kumar R, Gupta R, Bansal KK, Kumari S. Millets: The miracle grains of the 21st century. New Delhi: Kripa-Drishti Publications; 2024.
  20. 19. Li X, Zhuge S, Du J, Zhang P, Wang X, Liu T, et al. Heat stress during grain filling inhibits maize grain development and yield. Front Plant Sci. 2025;15:1533527. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1533527
  21. 20. Bello TT, Mahadi MA, Lado A. Effect of weed control treatments, sowing date and sowing method on growth and yield of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) in Sudan Savanna of Nigeria. FUDMA J Agric Agric Technol. 2022;8(1):30–37. https://doi.org/10.33003/jaat.2022.0801.072
  22. 21. Gasparis S, Miloszewski MM. Genetic basis of grain size and weight in rice, wheat and barley. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(23):16921. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms242316921
  23. 22. Baraa MA, Zeyad AA, Ahmed SA-allah R. Response of growth and yield of several sorghum varieties to plant density. Plant Sci Today. 2025;12(3). https://horizonepublishing.com/journals/index.php/PST/article/view/6915
  24. 23. Raghad KH, Rasha AA-bakri, Ahmed SA-allah R. Response of three maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars to foliar application of Al-Nahrain liquid fertilizer. Plant Sci Today. 2025;12(4). https://horizonepublishing.com/journals/index.php/PST/article/view/10826
  25. 24. Mekonnen TW, van Biljon A, Ceronio G, Labuschagne M. Effects of planting date and environment on grain yield and quality traits of maize hybrids. Heliyon. 2023;9(11):e21660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21660
  26. 25. Mahmood T, Ahmed T, Trethowan R. Genotype × environment × management reciprocity and crop productivity. Front Agron. 2022;4:800365. https://doi.org/10.3389/fagro.2022.800365
  27. 26. Reager MRM, Chandra S, Kishor N, Kherawat BS, Pant R. Effect of different dates of sowing on pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) hybrids under semi-arid region of Rajasthan. Ann Arid Zone. 2023;62(2):109–15. https://doi.org/10.59512/aaz.2023.62.2.2
  28. 27. Ghazi TM, Abed ZA. Estimation of some genetic parameters of the sunflower genotypes under drought stress. Bulgarian J Agric Sci. 2025;31(2):355–60.
  29. 28. Yasir MA, Abed ZA. Evaluation of the efficiency of some irrigation systems and water levels on some vegetative growth and yield traits of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci. 2025;1487(1):012087. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1487/1/012087

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.