Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp9 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Response of mung bean to exogenous applied sulphur and aspartic acid in hot arid region of Rajasthan

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.17670
Submitted
26 August 2026
Published
12-11-2026

Abstract

Balanced nutrient management is a major concern in the present-day scenario, especially in soils of arid regions, which are low in soil fertility; hence, supplementation of sulphur (S) helps in plant growth and maintenance of soil health. The use of amino acids as biostimulants has gained widespread importance in recent times. L-aspartic acid (ASP) is one of the amino acids, which plays a key role in plant growth and stress management. No studies have reported the use of ASP in mung bean; therefore, the present study investigates the effect of graded levels of S application in soil and foliar application of ASP on growth and yield of mung bean. The field experiment was conducted during kharif 2024 and 2025 at Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur in a split plot design containing four main plots (0, 20, 40 and 60 kg sulphur ha⁻¹) and four subplots (0, 40, 80 and 120 mg L⁻¹ aspartic acid) with 3 replications. Our research findings revealed that both S and ASP positively improved the growth parameters and yield of mung beans. Relative to the control, the improvement in plant height, leaf area index (LAI), dry matter production, specific leaf weight (SLW), crop growth rate (CGR), net assimilation rate (NAR) and grain yield was 18.3, 15.8, 47.2, 17.1, 52.8, 30.0 and 72.6 %, respectively, by S60 (pooled). Similarly, A120 produced 15.7, 15.1, 34.8, 8.6, 38.2, 19.2 and 25.3 % higher values for the above parameters compared to the control (pooled). The correlation analysis indicated a significantly positive correlation of grain yield with NAR at 25–45 days after sowing (DAS) (0.961 **) and at 45–65 DAS (0.937 **).

References

  1. 1. Khambalkar PA, Agrawal S, Dhaliwal SS, Yadav SS, Sadawarti MJ, Singh A, et al. Sustainable nutrient management balancing soil health and food security for future generations. Appl Food Res. 2025;5(2):101087. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.afres.2025.101087
  2. 2. Malviya A, Singh P, Singh RK, Solanki P. Comparative evaluation of urea and integrated PGPR with nitrogen-fixing microbes: and their effects on maize (Zea mays). In: Diazotrophic plant growth-promoting microorganisms and green energy. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2026. p. 71–90. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-9682-9_4
  3. 3. Kumar M, Panwar NR, Kumawat RN, Santra P. Influence of different land use systems on soil properties in hot arid Rajasthan. J Indian Soc Soil Sci. 2020;68(2):121–7. http://doi.org/10.5958/0974-0228.2020.00014.6
  4. 4. Kumar M, Raina P, Singh SK. Soil fertility appraisal for hot arid regions of Thar Desert, Rajasthan, India. Ann Arid Zone. 2020;59(1-2):1–6. http://doi.org/10.56093/aaz.v59i1-2.103051
  5. 5. Zhao FJ, Tausz M, De Kok LJ. Role of sulfur for plant production in agricultural and natural ecosystems. In: Sulfur metabolism in phototrophic organisms. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2008. p. 417–35. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6863-8_21
  6. 6. Sharma RK, Cox MS, Oglesby C, Dhillon JS. Revisiting the role of sulfur in crop production: a narrative review. J Agric Food Res. 2024;15:101013. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101013
  7. 7. Islam S, Kaur S, Solah V, Motesharezadeh B, Ma W. Declining soil sulphur: a hidden threat to cereal yield and protein quality. Agriculture. 2026;16(7):756. http://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16070756
  8. 8. Bhatla SC, Kathpalia R. Essential and functional mineral elements. In: Plant physiology, development and metabolism. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2023. p. 25–49. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-5736-1_2
  9. 9. Narayan OP, Kumar P, Yadav B, Dua M, Johri AK. Sulfur nutrition and its role in plant growth and development. Plant Signal Behav. 2023;18(1):2030082. http://doi.org/10.1080/15592324.2022.2030082
  10. 10. Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Agricultural statistics at a glance 2024-25 [statistical report]. New Delhi: Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2025. http://agriwelfare.gov.in/Documents/CWWGDATA/Agricultural_Statisitcs_at_a_Glance_2024_25_En.pdf
  11. 11. Kemal M, Teka TA, Dibaba K, Urugo MM. Effects of processing methods on nutrient and antinutrient composition, techno-functional and antioxidant properties of mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek) varieties. LWT. 2025;222:117663. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2025.117663
  12. 12. Elobuike CS, Idowu MA, Adeola AA, Bakare HA. Nutritional and functional attributes of mungbean (Vigna radiata [L.] Wilczek) flour as affected by sprouting time. Legume Sci. 2021;3(4). http://doi.org/10.1002/leg3.100
  13. 13. Mbeyagala EK, Karimi Rael, Binagwa PH, Amuge ES, Vemula A Kumar, Nair RM. Yield and mineral composition among mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek] genotypes grown in different agroecologies in East Africa. Int J Agron. 2023;2023:1–17. http://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5534650
  14. 14. Hou D, Yousaf L, Xue Y, Hu J, Wu J, Hu X, et al. Mung bean (Vigna radiata L.): bioactive polyphenols, polysaccharides, peptides and health benefits. Nutrients. 2019;11(6):1238. http://doi.org/10.3390/nu11061238
  15. 15. Assefa ZB, Dinku AM, Jemal AM. Value chain analysis of mung bean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek thrive) in Kalu Woreda, Ethiopia. Agric Food Secur. 2022;11(1):54. http://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-022-00393-2
  16. 16. Wang X, Chang L, Yang J, Jiang Y, Zhang W, Zhang Y, et al. Reduced nitrogen input enhances proso millet nitrogen acquisition advantage in proso millet/mung bean intercropping. Farming Syst. 2026:100258. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.farsys.2026.100258
  17. 17. Singh D, Gaur MK. Sustainability farming in rainfed areas: constraints and strategies. In: Geo-environment of the Thar Desert. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2026. p. 315–33. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-16742-2_16
  18. 18. Zahoor A, Asim M, Ahmed U, Saeed MF, Jamal A, Dewir YH, et al. Sustainable nitrogen optimization in mung bean production: evaluating nitrogen-fixing bacteria and nitrogen dosages for yield and soil health. J Plant Nutr. 2026;49(9):1513–24.http://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2026.2645756
  19. 19. Li T, Chen X, Cao S, Liu Z, Tian L, Gao Z, et al. Integrated physiological and transcriptome analyses of the effects of water-soluble amino acid fertiliser on plant growth. J King Saud Univ Sci. 2024;36(11):103504. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2024.103504
  20. 20. Sadak MS, Bakry BA, Abdel-Razik TM, Hanafy RS. Amino acids foliar application for maximizing growth, productivity and quality of peanut grown under sandy soil. Braz J Biol. 2023;83. http://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.256338
  21. 21. Abdelhamid MT, Sh Sadak M, Schmidhalter U. Effect of foliar application of amino acids on plant yield and physiological parameters in bean plants irrigated with seawater. Acta Biol Colomb.2014;20(1):140–52. http://doi.org/10.15446/abc.v20n1.42865
  22. 22. Trovato M, Funck D, Forlani G, Okumoto S, Amir R. Editorial: amino acids in plants: regulation and functions in development and stress defense. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:772810. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.772810
  23. 23. Yan P, Dong X, Lu L, Fang M, Ma Z, Du J, et al. Wheat yield and nitrogen use efficiency enhancement through poly(aspartic acid)-coated urea in clay loam soil based on a 5-year field trial. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:953728. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.953728
  24. 24. Han M, Sun S, Feng J, Wang S, Liu X, Si Y, et al. Investigation of stimulated growth effect by application of L-aspartic acid on poplar. Ind Crops Prod. 2024;209:118023. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2024.118023
  25. 25. Rizwan M, Ali S, Zaheer Akbar M, Shakoor MB, Mahmood A, Ishaque W, et al. Foliar application of aspartic acid lowers cadmium uptake and Cd-induced oxidative stress in rice under Cd stress. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2017;24(27):21938–47. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-9860-1
  26. 26. Sadak MS, Sekara A, Al-ashkar I, Habib-ur-Rahman M, Skalicky M, Brestic M, et al. Exogenous aspartic acid alleviates salt stress-induced decline in growth by enhancing antioxidants and compatible solutes while reducing reactive oxygen species in wheat. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:987641. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.987641
  27. 27. Amin A. Improving growth and productivity of faba bean plants by foliar application of thiourea and aspartic acid. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2014;3(6):724–36. http://doi.org/10.9734/IJPSS/2014/8227
  28. 28. Jackson ML. Soil chemical analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt Ltd; 1973. 498 p.
  29. 29. 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(1):29–38. http://doi.org/10.1097/00010694-193401000-00003
  30. 30. Subbiah BV, Asija GL. Rapid procedure for estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Curr Sci. 1956;25:259–60.
  31. 31. Olsen SR, Cole CV, Watanabe FS, Dean LA. Estimation of available phosphorus in soils by extraction with sodium bicarbonate. USDA Circular No. 939. USDA; 1954.
  32. 32. Standford G, English L. Use of the flame photometer in rapid soil tests for K and Ca. Agron J. 1949;41(9):446–7. http://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1949.00021962004100090012x
  33. 33. Cheisen L, Yien CH. Turbidometric determination of available sulphates. Soil Sci Soc Am Proc. 1956;15:149–51.
  34. 34. Watson DJ. The physiological basis of variation in yield. In: Advances in Agronomy. Elsevier; 1952. p. 101–45. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60307-7
  35. 35. Radford PJ. Growth analysis formulae – their use and abuse. Crop Sci. 1967;7(3):171–5. http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1967.0011183X000700030001x
  36. 36. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1984. 680 p.
  37. 37. Mishra A, Gupta H, Mishra US, Sirothia P, Darwai P. Interaction effect of sulphur and NPK on growth parameters and yield of mustard. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2023;35(15):138–44.http://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2023/v35i153089
  38. 38. Dawar R, Karan S, Bhardwaj S, Meena DK, Padhan SR, Reddy KS, et al. Role of sulphur fertilization in legume crops: a comprehensive review. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2023;35(21):718–27.http://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2023/v35i214033
  39. 39. Karaman R, Türkay C. Effects of bacteria, molybdenum and sulphur fertilization on agronomic and quality characteristics of mung bean. Selcuk J Agric Food Sci. 2024;38(2):274–87.http://doi.org/10.15316/SJAFS.2024.026
  40. 40. Kurt D. Responses of tobacco plants after the exogenous application of L-aspartic acid. J Plant Nutr. 2026;49(5):938–49. http://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2025.2591186
  41. 41. Meena KK, Meena RS, Kumawat SM. Effect of sulphur and iron fertilization on yield attributes, yield and nutrient uptake of mung bean (Vigna radiata). Indian J Agric Sci. 2013;83(4):472–6.
  42. 42. Sahu S, Shankar T, Maitra S, Adhikary R, Mondal T, Duvvada SK. Impact of phosphorus and sulphur on the growth and productivity of green gram (Vigna radiata). Res Crops. 2021;22(4):785–91. http://doi.org/10.31830/2348-7542.2021.131
  43. 43. Balagangathar B, Kalaiyarasan C, Kandasamy S, Madhavan S, Jawahar S. Impact of nitrogen and sulphur application on the growth and yield of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Crop Res. 2024;59(3):138–42. http://doi.org/10.31830/2454-1761.2024.CR-972
  44. 44. Bijarnia KK, Shukla UN, Kumari K, Khippal AK, Dhayal BC, Choudhary MS. Influence of stress mitigating chemicals and sulphur on growth and yield of green gram. J Agri Search. 2023;10(3):163–7. http://doi.org/10.21921/jas.v10i03.13767
  45. 45. Gautam P, Bhunia SR, Sahoo A, Sawal RK, Rakshit S, Yadav VK, et al. Drip irrigation and sulphur fertilization influenced fodder yield, quality and water use efficiency of groundnut in arid region. PLoS One. 2023;18(8). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090
  46. 46. Sastry YS, Dawson J. Influence of sulphur and molybdenum on growth and yield of black gram (Vigna mungo L.). Int J Environ Clim Change. 2023;13(9):2714–20. http://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2023/v13i92557
  47. 47. Ramdan AA, Mahmoud YO Ramdan, Bakry BA, El-Bassiou HMS. Biochemical and yield of flax in responses to some natural antioxidant substances under sandy soil conditions. Asian J Plant Sci. 2020;19(3):261–72. http://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2020.261.272
  48. 48. Parashar A, Jain M, Tripathi DL. Effect of phosphorus and sulphur on the growth and yield of black gram (Vigna mungo L.). J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2020;9(5):2585–8.
  49. 49. Park JC, SP N, Kim HD, Kang DY, Kim IH, Bae SW, et al. The exogenous application of non-toxic sulfur contributes to the growth-promoting effects of leaf lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. crispa). Agriculture. 2021;11(8):769. http://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11080769
  50. 50. Raj VSA, Debbarma V, Nikhitha K. Impact of sulphur and boron levels on growth, yield and economics of summer green gram (Vigna radiata L.). Int J Environ Clim Change. 2023;13(6):56–63.http://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2023/v13i61797
  51. 51. Shah SH, Islam S, Mohammad F. Sulphur as a dynamic mineral element for plants: a review. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2022;22(2):2118–43. http://doi.org/10.1007/s42729-022-00798-9
  52. 52. Panda D, Sen A, Dhakre DS, Mondal S. Correlation analysis of some growth, physiological parameters, yield and yield attributes of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Int J Bio-res Env Agril Sci. 2015;1(3):90–5.
  53. 53. Mondal MMA, Puteh AB, Malek MA, Ismail MR, Rafii MY, Latif MA. Seed yield of mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) in relation to growth and developmental aspects. Sci World J. 2012;2012:1–7. http://doi.org/10.1100/2012/425168

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.