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

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp5 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Response of integrated application of nano urea, nano diammonium phosphate and microbial inoculants on yield and economics of fodder sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench)

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.14634
Submitted
22 March 2026
Published
28-07-2026

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during the kharif season of 2024 and 2025 at the research farm of Acharya Narendra Deva University of Agriculture and Technology, Kumarganj, Ayodhya, Uttar Pradesh to understand the response of integrated application of nano urea, nano diammonium phosphate (DAP) and microbial inoculants on yield and economics of fodder sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench.). The experiment was laid out in randomised block design (RBD) with 10 treatments replicated thrice, using the variety CSH24MF. The treatments consisted of different combinations of conventional, nano and biofertilisers applied to the crops such as: control [no nitrogen (N) and phosphorous (P), only, potassium (K)] (T1); recommended dose of fertiliser (RDF) consisting of 120–60–40 kg NPK ha-1 (T2), 75 % recommended dose of N and P together with nano urea and nano DAP  at 2 mL L-1 of water, respectively (T3); 75 % recommended dose of N and P together with nano urea and nano DAP  at 4 mL L-1 of water, respectively (T4); 75 % recommended dose of N and P together with nano urea and nano DAP  at 6 mL L-1 of water, respectively (T5); 75 % recommended dose of N and P together with urea and DAP spray  at 2 %, respectively (T6); T3 combined with soil application of Azospirillum and phosphate-solubilising bacteria (PSB)  at 2kg ha-1 , each (T7);  T4 combined with soil application of Azospirillum and PSB  at 2 kg ha-1, each (T8); T5  combined with soil application of Azospirillum and PSB  at 2 kg ha-1, each (T9) and T6 combined with soil application of Azospirillum and PSB  at 2 kg ha-1 (T10).  Among the various treatment combinations, application of 75 % recommended dose of N and P together with nano urea and nano DAP spray at the rate of 6 mL L-1, respectively and soil application of Azospirillum at the rate 2 kg ha-1 and PSB at the rate 2 kg ha-1 (T9) resulted in substantial increase in yield performance. It recorded the highest green fodder yield (335, 295, 270 q ha-1 during 2024 at and 344.67, 310.56 and 279 q ha-1 during 2025 at first, second and third cuts, respectively), corresponding dry matter yield (93.10, 82.50 and 75.15 q ha-1 during 2024 and 93.40, 81.87 and 74 q ha-1 during 2025 at successive cuts) and total green fodder yield. The pooled economic analysis conducted thereafter resulted in highest net returns (₹54062 ha-1), gross returns (₹91712 ha-1) and benefit cost (2.44) throughout both the year of experimentation with treatment T9. Thus, the combined application of nanofertilisers and biofertilisers with conventional fertilisers can be considered as an effective nutrient management approach for boosting crop productivity and profitability.

References

  1. 1. Tyagi J, Ahmad S, Malik M. Nitrogenous fertilizers: Impact on environment sustainability, mitigation strategies and challenges. Int J Environ Sci Technol. 2022;19(11):11649–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04027-9
  2. 2. Ravishankara AR, Daniel JS, Portmann RW. Nitrous oxide (N₂O): The dominant ozone-depleting substance emitted in the 21st century. Science. 2009;326(5949):123–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1176985
  3. 3. Chameides WL, Kasibhatla PS, Yienger J, Levy H. Growth of continental-scale metro-agro-plexes, regional ozone pollution and world food production. Science. 1994;264(5155):74–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.264.5155.74
  4. 4. Guan X, Chen J, Liu G, Wang X. Soil phosphorus forms in saline soil after the application of biomass materials. Agronomy. 2024;14(2):255. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14020255
  5. 5. de Vasconcelos MJV, Figueiredo JEF, de Oliveira MF, Schaffert RE, Raghothama KG. Plant phosphorus use efficiency in acid tropical soil. Int J Maize Sorghum. 2022;21:e1259. https://doi.org/10.18512/rbms2022vol21e1259
  6. 6. Johan PD, Ahmed OH, Omar L, Hasbullah NA. Phosphorus transformation in soils following co-application of charcoal and wood ash. Agronomy. 2021;11(10):2010. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11102010
  7. 7. Abhiram G. Contributions of nano-nitrogen fertilizers to sustainable development goals: A comprehensive review. Nitrogen. 2023;4(4):397–415. https://doi.org/10.3390/nitrogen4040028
  8. 8. Srisha V, Prasad VM. Effect of NPK and nano fertilizers on plant growth, yield and quality of Gladiolus grandiflorus L. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2022;34(22):1529–34. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2022/v34i2231528
  9. 9. Giri BR, Chattaraj S, Rath S, Pattnaik MM, Mitra D, Thatoi H. Unveiling the molecular mechanism of Azospirillum in plant growth promotion. Bacteria. 2025;4(3):36. https://doi.org/10.3390/bacteria4030036
  10. 10. Rawat P, Das S, Shankhdhar D, Shankhdhar SC. Phosphate-solubilizing microorganisms: Mechanism and their role in phosphate solubilization and uptake. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2021;21(1):49–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-020-00342-7
  11. 11. Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute (IGFRI). IGFRI Vision 2050. Jhansi (UP): Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute; 2021.
  12. 12. Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare. Land Use Statistics at a Glance 2023–2024. New Delhi: Economics, Statistics and Evaluation Division; 2025.
  13. 13. Reddy YR, Blümmel M. Options for enhancing sorghum forage utilization in ruminants. In: Tonapi VA, Talwar HS, Are AK, Bhat BV, Reddy CR, Dalton TJ, editors. Sorghum in the 21st Century: Food–Fodder–Feed–Fuel for a Rapidly Changing World. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2021. p. 667–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8249-3_26
  14. 14. Taran T. Nutritious feed for farm animals during lean period: Silage and hay-a review. Forage Res. 2019;45(1):10–22.
  15. 15. Bouyoucos GJ. Hydrometer method improved for making particle size analyses of soils. Agron J. 1962;54(5):464–5. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1962.00021962005400050028x
  16. 16. Black CA. Methods of soil analysis. Part I: Physical and mineralogical properties. Madison (WI): American Society of Agronomy; 1965. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr9.1
  17. 17. Blake GR, Hartge KH. Bulk density. In: Klute A, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Madison (WI): American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America; 1986. p. 363–75. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssabookser5.1.2ed.c13
  18. 18. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt Ltd.; 1973. p. 151–4.
  19. 19. Walkley A, Black IA. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 1934;37:29–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
  20. 20. Subbiah VB, Asija GL. A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Curr Sci. 1965;25:259–60.
  21. 21. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. Washington (DC): United States Department of Agriculture; 1954. p. 1–19.
  22. 22. Casida LE Jr, Klein DA, Santoro T. Soil dehydrogenase activity. Soil Sci. 1964;98(6):371–6.
  23. 23. Subba Rao NS. Advances in agricultural microbiology. In: Subba Rao NS, editor. Studies in the Agricultural and Food Sciences. London: Butterworth Scientific; 1982. p. 295–303.
  24. 24. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1984.
  25. 25. Noor H, Yan Z, Sun P, Zhang L, Ding P, Li L, et al. Effects of nitrogen on photosynthetic productivity and yield quality of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Agronomy. 2023;13(6):1448. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13061448
  26. 26. Khan F, Siddique AB, Shabala S, Zhou M, Zhao C. Phosphorus plays key roles in regulating plants’ physiological responses to abiotic stresses. Plants. 2023;12(15):2861. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12152861
  27. 27. Chauhan AC, Tripathi S, Singh N, Saini L. Effect of fertilizer levels, biocompost and biofertilizer on growth and yield attributes of fodder Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(6):617–20.
  28. 28. Akhtar S, Bashir S, Khan S, Iqbal J, Gulshan AB, Irshad S, et al. Integrated usage of synthetic and bio-fertilizers: An environment friendly approach to improve the productivity of sorghum. Cereal Res Commun. 2020;48(2):247–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42976-020-00029-w
  29. 29. Babu RTC, Singh M, Praveen BR, Kumar R, Kumar B, Melavanki MS. Partial substitution of conventional nitrogen fertilizers with nano urea and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in fodder oats. Range Manag Agrofor. 2025;46(1):123–8. https://doi.org/10.59515/rma.2025.v46.i1.17

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.