 |
Volume 13, Issue 4, 132447 (1-16)
International Journal of Recycling Organic Waste in Agriculture (IJROWA)
https://dx.doi.org/10.57647/ijrowa-0965-j438
Kakarla Pavitra1
, Vandana Thakur1,∗ 
, Sunny Sharma1 
,
1Department of Horticulture, School of Agriculture, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India. 2River Basin Research Center, Gifu University, Japan.
∗Corresponding author: [email protected]
Received:
18 September 2023 Revised:
17 November 2023 Accepted:
29 January 2024 Published online: 30 May 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
Results: The study found significant results across attributes. Pusa Chetki excelled in germination time, plant height, leaves, and leaf area at different stages. Pusa Shweta showed superiority in root-related factors, chlorophyll, ascorbic acid, sugars, acidity, and dry matter. T10 demonstrated excellence in various parameters. A combination of Pusa Chetki with 100% Vermicompost yielded notable results in plant height, soluble solids, sugars, and firmness. The VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25) treatment in Pusa Shweta displayed the highest gross return, net return, and benefit-to-cost ratio.
Radish (Raphanus sativus L.) is a diploid plant species with a chromosome number of eighteen (Kumar et al., 2023). It is widely cultivated in Asia due to its nutritional and medicinal properties (Shao et al., 2021). This is a perennial herbaceous root crop that belongs to the Brassicaceae fam- ily. The plant is cultivated for its modified young and tender fusiform tap root (Upadhyay and Prasad, 2021), which is commonly consumed grated, garnished, or as a salad in various Asian cuisines (Kumar et al., 2023). It contains sig-
nificant levels of antioxidants, phenolic compounds, vitamin C, and minerals such as potassium and calcium. Nutrient compounds offer various health benefits, such as cell pro- tection and the reduction of high blood pressure, thereby decreasing the risk of heart disease. It is a significant source of nitrates, which can facilitate blood flow (Upadhyay and Prasad, 2021). It has potential applications in the treat- ment of sleeplessness, chronic diarrhea, and neurological headaches (Dulal et al., 2021). In India, the cultivated area for radish spans 2, 09,000 hectares, with a corresponding production of 3347 metric tons. Haryana is currently the
leading state in horticultural production, with a total output of 550,070 tonnes. West Bengal has the highest cultivated area per hectare, estimated at 41,360 hectares (NHB, 2021). The popularity of radish cultivation may be attributed to its wide adaptability, low production costs, short crop dura- tion, and ability to thrive in various soil types with minimal care. However, it is important to ensure uninterrupted root growth and development. Radish exhibits a lower incidence of diseases and pest infestations compared to other veg- etable crops (Singh, 2021).
To ensure optimal nutrition, it is essential to supply a bal- anced combination of organic, inorganic, and bio-fertilizers. The repeated use of chemical fertilizers is costly and can lead to degradation of soil and water quality, thereby nega- tively impacting overall environmental health. The applica- tion of organic fertilizers enhances soil structure, microbial activity, and nutrient content, leading to improved crop qual- ity (Upadhyay and Prasad, 2021). Organic manures are en- vironmentally friendly and can be obtained in either bulk or concentrated forms. Organic fertilizers exhibit reduced ana- lytical value in comparison to inorganic fertilizers, and their chemical composition lacks definitiveness (Bilong et al., 2022). Farmyard manure (FYM) offers the primary benefit of efficient and low-loss nutrient recycling, while also con- tributing to the preservation of humus. Humic substances play a crucial role in maintaining soil fertility and ensuring the long-term stability of soil (Shahwar et al., 2023). Ver- micompost is a valuable source of essential macronutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium) as well as micronutrients (iron, manganese, zinc, and cop- per). Poultry manure is estimated to contain approximately 60% organic nitrogen, which undergoes rapid mineraliza- tion (Iqbal et al., 2019; Bilong et al., 2022). It is widely acknowledged as a valuable plant nutrient for various crop types. Azotobacter plays a significant role in the process of atmospheric nitrogen fixation, contributing to the supply of nitrogen to plants. This, in turn, enhances soil fertility and improves crop productivity. Specifically, it enhances enzymatic activity and improves the translocation of plant growth-promoting substances (Bilong et al., 2022). Sumbul
et al. (2020) noted that Azotobacter can improve the avail- ability of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in certain vegetables. Given the elevated expenses associated with inorganic fertilizers and their detrimental effects on soil and water quality, it is crucial to consider alternative and more cost-effective options such as organic manures. This ap- proach can help mitigate expenses and meet the nutritional needs of crops to some extent. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of organic amendments and biofertilizers on the growth and yield of radish (Rhaphanus sativus L.).
The research study was conducted from October to De- cember at the Experimental Farm of Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, situated in Kapurthala district. The experimental site is located at coordinates 31.13 N and
75.47 E, with an average elevation of 234 meters. It is situated near Mount Everest, within the River Ganga re- gion. Phagwara is a region with a flat topography, which is representative of the Indo-Gangetic plains.
The climate of this region is generally categorized as semi- arid. During the peak months of May and June, summers are characterized by high temperatures ranging from 30 to 45 ◦C (86 to 113 ◦F), accompanied by dry conditions. Win- ter temperatures in December and January typically reach a low of approximately 5 ◦C (41 ◦F). The monsoon season, spanning from July to September, brings substantial rain- fall, offering respite from the high temperatures of summer (Fig. 1).
The research experiment followed a Factorial Randomized Block Design with three replications during the Rabi season of 2022. The study utilized two varieties of radish, Pusa Shweta and Pusa Chetki, obtained from IARI in New Delhi. Various combinations of three organic manures (FYM, poul-
try manure, and vermicompost) and two biofertilizers (Azo- tobacter and PSB) were applied at different doses during the investigation. Organic manures and biofertilizers were ob- tained from the Department of Horticulture, School of Agri- culture, Lovely Professional University, located in Phag- wara, Punjab, India. A total of nine treatment combinations were utilized, including one control group. The treatments consisted of Control (T1), 100% well-rotted FYM (T2), 100% vermicompost (T3), 100% poultry manure (T4), 50% poultry manure + 50% PSB (T5), 75% well-rotted FYM
+ 25% poultry manure (T6), 75% well-rotted FYM + 25% Azotobacter (T7), 75% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM (T8), 50% vermicompost + 50% azotobacter (T9), and 50% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM + 25% poultry manure (T10). Field preparation was done in the month of October. According to the cultivation guidelines provided by Punjab Agricultural University (PAU), the recommended seed rate for Pusa Shweta and Pusa Chetki radish varieties is 5 kg per acre or 185 g per 150 m2. Sowing in the Rabi season, specifically in October, is conducted on ridges with a row-to-row spacing of 45 cm and a plant-to-plant spac- ing of 7.5 cm. The seeds are sown at a depth of 1.5 cm. No synthetic fertilizers have been used in the field. The recommended basal doses of organic manures, including FYM (25 t/ha), vermicompost (12.5 t/ha), and poultry ma- nure (2.5 t/ha), were incorporated into the soil during ridge preparation. In addition, the seed treatment involved the application of biofertilizers, specifically Azotobacter, and phosphorus solubilizing bacteria, at a concentration of 4 kg/ha each. Biofertilizers were prepared by creating a slurry through the mixing of biofertilizers with water at the appro- priate concentration. The seeds were then soaked in this slurry overnight and subsequently dried under partial shade conditions before being sown. Radish roots were harvested when they reached horticultural maturity, specifically at the tender stage. The harvest was conducted manually, with careful attention to avoid damaging the roots.
To reduce potential errors caused by border effects, a to- tal of five plants were randomly chosen from the middle rows of each unit plot. Observations were then recorded on a plot-wise basis. Data was collected for various growth traits, including the number of days for germination and har- vest, plant height, number of leaves per plant, and leaf area. The average of these traits was calculated for five plants, and measurements were taken at 15, 30, and 45 days after sowing (DAS). The study involved recording the number of days from sowing to germination and from sowing to harvest for fresh radish roots. These values were then used to calculate the mean average for statistical analysis. Plant height was measured at intervals of 15, 30, and 45 days using a measuring scale. The number of leaves per plant was recorded at three different day intervals (15, 30, and 45 days after sowing). The mean value was calculated from selected plants. The leaf area at the same intervals was also measured using LICOR 3000. The average leaf area was then calculated and expressed as the leaf area index of the plant.
Data on yield parameters, including root length (cm), root width (cm), root fresh weight, root yield per plot, and total root yield per hectare (q/ha), were collected from five ran- domly selected plants. In addition, root length and width were measured using a vernier caliper, with measurements recorded in centimeters. The fresh weight of the roots of five plants per plot was measured using a digital weighing balance, and the average values were calculated at the time of harvest. The cumulative root yield in kilograms was de- termined for a specific plot until the final harvest. The total root yield (q/ha) was determined by summing the individual root yield values obtained from each plot.
The biochemical content of randomly selected plants was analyzed according to the standard analysis procedure pro- vided by the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (AOAC). The total soluble solids content was determined by crushing the sample using a pestle and mortar and measur- ing it with a Hand Refractometer. The ascorbic acid content was determined using a volumetric method involving the use of 2,6-dichlorophenol indophenol dye. The determi- nation of reducing sugars was conducted using the Lane- Eynon method, as described by Lane and Eynon (1923). The estimation of total soluble sugars was conducted using the phenol-sulfuric acid method, following the procedure outlined by Sadasivam and Manickam (1992). Titrating is the most frequently employed technique for assessing the titratable acidity of radish vegetables (AOAC, 1990). Non-reducing sugars were determined by subtracting the amount of reducing sugars from the total sugar content. The chlorophyll content in the leaves of five randomly selected plants was estimated using a SPAD chlorophyll meter. The instrument was clamped over the leaf tissue during harvest to obtain the SPAD value. The dry matter content and mois- ture percentage of leaves and roots were determined by separately taking 20 g of each sample, wrapping them in paper, and drying them in a hot air oven (Ievinsh, 2011). The formulas for calculating dry matter and moisture per- centages are as follows:
Dry matter percentage = (FW − DW)/DW × 100 Moisture percentage = (FW − DW)/FW × 100
where, FW = Fresh weight, which is 20 g DW = Dry weight
Soil samples were collected randomly before and after the trial. An auger is used to extract a 6-inch deep and 1-inch thick layer of soil. A total of seven to eight samples were taken from the field in a zigzag arrangement. The samples were blended into a fine mixture and fully dried in the air. Then the samples were sieved thoroughly using a 2 mm sieve. The collected soil samples were used for analysis of soil nutrient status using various standardized methods. The findings of several assessments were conducted on the soil sample before and after the start of the experiment (Table 1, 2). The physicochemical analysis of the organic amendments has also been done by using various methods, as mentioned in Table 3.
S.no. | Properties of soil | readings | Procedure used |
1 | Soil pH | 6.90 | Using a pH meter, given by |
Thomas (1996) | |||
2 3 | Electrical conductivity (dSm−1 at 25 ◦C) Organic carbon (%) | 0.18 0.39 | Jackson (1973) Walkley and Black (1934) |
4 | Available Nitrogen (kg/ha) | 152.83 | |
5 | Available Phosphorus (kg/ha) | 28.97 | |
6 | Available potassium (kg/ha) | 138.36 |
Rating | pH | EC (dsm−1) | OC % | N (kg ha−1) | P (kg ha−1) | K (kg ha−1) |
Low | < 6.5 < 0.8 | < 0.5 | < 250 | < 28 | < 140 | |
Medium | 6.5 − 7.5 0.8 − 2.5 | 0.5 − 0.75 | 250 − 500 | 28 − 56 | 140 − 280 | |
High | > 7.5 > 2.5 | > 0.75 | > 500 | > 55 | > 280 | |
Water holding 96.56 | 98.15 | 97.89 | ||
Organic carbon (%) | 12.16 | 21.96 | 21.67 | Walkley and Black (1934) |
C: N ratio | 10.39 | 18.20 | 9.38 | - |
Nitrogen (%) | 0.57 | 1.17 | 2.31 | |
Phosphorus (%) | 0.22 | 0.81 | 1.64 | |
Potassium (%) | 0.55 | 9.97 | 2.41 | |
capacity
The total cost of cultivation was calculated by considering all expenses related to cultural activities and input expendi- tures for each experimental plant. The analysis focused on net returns per hectare and the economic aspects of differ- ent treatments. The B:C ratio was calculated to assess the commercial potential of the treatments within the investi- gation. The economic details of all the combinations were calculated.
Total cost of cultivation = fixed cost + variable cost Gross return from crops (Rs/ha) = total yield × market price of crop (Rs/kg)
It was observed that there was a significant influence of different varieties, treatments of organic amendments, and biofertilizer, and their interactions were seen on days taken for germination (Fig. 2). Between both the varieties, the minimum days taken for germination were recorded in Pusa Chetki and the maximum was recorded in Pusa Shweta (Table 4). Whereas, amongst the treatments, the lowest value was noticed in the treatment vermicompost 100% and
the highest value was noticed with VC + FYM (75:25). In between the two-way interaction of varieties and treatments, Pusa Chetki + vermicompost 100% had recorded minimum value and Pusa Shweta coupled with VC + FYM (75:25) had recorded maximum value. When the interactions were compared with the control, the interactions Pusa Chetki VC
+ PM (75:25) were recorded as superior, while all treatment combinations with Pusa Shweta except Pusa Shweta cou- pled with the sole application of vermicompost had shown superiority. As per the calculated data, a positively signifi- cant amount of variation was found amongst the varieties, organic amendments, biofertilizer, and in between their in- teractions, for various growth, yield, quality traits, and soil nutrient status. Different varieties, treatments of organic amendments, biofertilizers, and their interactions have a significant influence on plant height at 15 DAS (Table 4). Among the varieties, Pusa Chetki exhibited the highest plant height at 15 DAS while Pusa Shweta had the lowest plant height. Regarding the treatments, the highest plant height was observed in the sole application of vermicompost, while the lowest plant height was recorded in the control treat- ment. Considering the interaction between varieties and treatments, the combination of Pusa Chetki coupled with the sole application vermicompost 100% exhibited the max- imum plant height at 15 DAS. On the other hand, the combi-
Code | Days taken for germination | 15 DAS | Plant height 30 DAS | 45 DAS | Number of leaves per plant (15 DAS) | |||||||||
V1 V2 Mean | V1 V2 | Mean | V1 V2 Mean | V1 | V2 | Mean | V1 V2 Mean | |||||||
T1 | 9.57 | 8.23 | 8.90 | 4.32 6.13 | 5.22 | 15.73 16.34 | 16.04 | 26.67 | 29.04 | 27.86 | 3.48 | 4.14 | 3.81 | |
T2 | 9.53* | 8.54 | 9.04 | 5.81* 7.56* | 6.68 | 16.25 17.58 | 16.92 | 25.41 | 29.80* | 27.60 | 3.88 | 4.36* | 4.12 | |
T3 | 9.01 | 8.13 | 8.57 | 7.05* 7.87* | 7.46 | 17.60 18.24 | 17.92 | 27.91 | 29.57* | 28.74 | 3.56 | 4.70* | 4.13 | |
T4 | 9.32* | 8.87 | 9.10 | 6.18* 6.78* | 6.48 | 16.43 17.10 | 16.77 | 26.36 | 28.84* | 27.60 | 3.64 | 4.38* | 4.01 | |
T5 | 9.46* | 8.26 | 8.86 | 6.76* 6.59* | 6.68 | 16.83 17.19 | 17.01 | 27.47 | 29.51* | 28.49 | 3.76 | 4.52* | 4.14 | |
T6 | 9.45* | 8.63 | 9.04 | 6.80* 6.07* | 6.44 | 16.65 17.51 | 17.08 | 27.57 | 29.28* | 28.43 | 3.84 | 4.55* | 4.20 | |
T7 | 9.26* | 8.64 | 8.95 | 6.03* 6.54* | 6.28 | 16.41 17.44 | 16.92 | 26.55 | 28.24 | 27.40 | 3.74 | 4.51* | 4.12 | |
T8 | 9.66* | 8.66 | 9.16 | 7.04* 7.13* | 7.09 | 17.09 17.66 | 17.37 | 27.86 | 29.83* | 28.84 | 3.86 | 4.52* | 4.19 | |
T9 | 9.43* | 8.74 | 9.09 | 6.68* 7.25* | 6.96 | 16.87 18.15 | 17.51 | 26.93 | 29.75* | 28.34 | 3.55 | 4.76* | 4.15 | |
T10 | 9.25* | 8.35 | 8.80 | 7.14* 7.38* | 7.26 | 17.74 18.58 | 18.16 | 28.14 | 29.92* | 29.03 | 4.17* | 4.63* | 4.40 | |
Mean | 9.39* | 8.51 | 8.95 | 6.38 6.93 | 6.66 | 16.76 17.58 | 17.17 | 27.09 | 29.38 | 28.23 | 3.75 | 4.51 | 4.13 | |
CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD SE(d) | SE(m) | CD SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | ||
A | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.06 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.16 0.08 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.02 | |
B | 0.22 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.13 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.35 0.17 | 0.12 | 0.27 | 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.05 | |
(A × B) | 0.31 | 0.15 | 0.11 | 0.18 0.09 | 0.06 | N/A 0.24 | 0.17 | 0.39 | 0.19 | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.07 | |
V1: Pusa Shweta; V2: Pusa Chetki; Factor (A): Varieties; Factor (B): Treatments; Factor (A × B): interaction between vari-eties and treatments; CD: Critical difference; SE(d): Standard Error of Difference; SE(m): standard error of the mean;*: Superior over control; Control (T1), 100% well-rotted
FYM (T2), 100% vermicompost (T3), 100% poultry manure (T4), 50% poultry manure + 50% PSB (T5), 75% well-rotted FYM + 25% poultry manure (T6), 75% well-rotted FYM + 25% Azotobacter (T7), 75% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM (T8), 50% vermicompost + 50% Azotobacter (T9), and 50% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM + 25% poultry manure (T10).
nation Pusa Shweta in control had the minimum plant height. Furthermore, when compared to the control, all treatments in combination with both varieties showed superiority, in- dicating that the application of organic amendments and biofertilizers positively influenced plant height at 15 DAS. The variety Pusa Chetki exhibited the highest plant height at 30 DAS, while Pusa Shweta had the lowest plant height at 30 DAS (Table 4). Whereas, amongst the treatments the highest plant height was observed in treatment VM:FYM: PM (50:25:25) and the lowest with control treatment. The two-way interaction between varieties and treatments did not show any significant differences. This implies that the combined effect of varieties and treatments did not have a noticeable impact on the plant height at 30 DAS.
On the other hand, the maximum plant height at 45 DAS was observed with the variety namely, Pusa Chetki while the lowest was recorded in Pusa Shweta (Table 4). Regard- ing the treatments, the highest plant height was exhibited by treatment vermicompost 100%, while the lowest was recorded in FYM along with Azotobacter (75:25). When considering the interaction between varieties and treatments, the combination Pusa Chetki + VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25) exhibited the maximum plant height. Conversely, the com- bination Pusa Shweta + Well rotten FYM 100% had the minimum plant height. Comparing the interactions with the control, Pusa Shweta with VC:FYM: PM (50:25:25) and all treatments in combination with Pusa Chetki showed superiority over the control in terms of plant height at 45 DAS. A positively significant influence of different varieties and treatments of organic amendments and biofertilizers had been observed on the number of leaves per plant at 15 DAS (Table 4). Among the two studied varieties, Pusa Chetki exhibited the highest number of leaves per plant at 15 DAS, while the lowest value was noted with Pusa Shweta. Concerning the treatments, the maximum number of leaves was observed in treatment VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), and
the minimum was recorded in the control treatment. When considering the two-way interaction between varieties and treatments (V + T), the combination of Pusa Chetki with VC: Azotobacter (50:50) had the maximum number of leaves per plant at 15 DAS. On the other hand, the combination of Pusa Shweta with control had the minimum value for the studied trait. When comparing the interactions with the con- trol, treatment Pusa Shweta with VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25) and all treatments in combination with Pusa Chetki showed superiority in terms of the number of leaves per plant at 15 DAS. Between both the varieties, the maximum number of leaves per plant at 30 DAS was recorded in Pusa Chetki and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Shweta (Table 5). Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment VC: Azotobacter (50:50), and the lowest value was noticed with T1 (control). Among the two- way interactions of varieties and treatments (V+T), Pusa Chetki with VC: Azotobacter (50:50) was recorded with maximum value, and Pusa Chetki with FYM (100%) ob- served with the minimum value for the studied trait. When interactions were compared to control, all the treatments in combination with Pusa Shweta recorded superior except Pusa Shweta with FYM (100%).
In addition to this, amongst both varieties, the maximum number of leaves per plant at 45 DAS was recorded in Pusa Shweta and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Chetki (Table 5). However, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment VC: Azotobacter (50:50), and the lowest value was noticed with T1 (control). It has been recorded that the two-way interaction of varieties and treatments (V + T) was found to be non-significant. However, amongst the treatments, Pusa Shweta with VC: Azotobacter (50:50) had recorded a maximum value and Pusa Chetki (control) had recorded a minimum value. Data performance was also calculated for leaf area index at 15, 30, and 45 DAS (Table 5). Based on observed performance
Numb | er of leaves per | plant | Leaf area(cm2) | |||||||||
Code | 30 DAS | 45 DAS | 15 DAS | 30 DAS 45 DAS | ||||||||
V1 V2 | Mean | V1 | V2 Mean | V1 V2 | Mean | V1 V2 Mean V1 V2 Mean | ||||||
T1 | 5.24 6.60 | 5.92 | 8.47 | 7.51 7.99 | 13.38 15.37 | 14.37 | 26.84 | 30.25 | 28.55 | 97.52 | 116.08 | 106.80 |
T2 | 5.64 6.48* | 6.06 | 9.09 | 8.03 8.56 | 13.88 16.85* | 15.37 | 26.24 | 30.75* | 28.49 | 98.74 | 116.56* | 107.65 |
T3 | 6.27* 7.32* | 6.80 | 9.48 | 8.42 8.95 | 14.64* 17.65* | 16.14 | 27.65 | 31.48* | 29.57 | 100.44 | 117.16* | 108.80 |
T4 | 6.04* 7.48* | 6.76 | 9.41 | 8.66 9.03 | 13.71 16.69* | 15.20 | 26.33 | 31.85* | 29.09 | 99.35 | 117.90* | 108.63 |
T5 | 6.22* 6.96* | 6.59 | 9.52 | 9.12 9.32 | 14.32 16.66* | 15.49 | 26.94 | 32.03* | 29.49 | 99.67 | 118.97* | 109.32 |
T6 | 6.76* 6.94* | 6.85 | 9.42 | 8.86 9.14 | 14.52* 17.09* | 15.81 | 26.96 | 32.08* | 29.52 | 100.74 | 119.76* | 110.25 |
T7 | 6.79* 7.06* | 6.92 | 9.93 | 8.64 9.28 | 14.92* 16.12* | 15.52 | 27.41 | 32.24* | 29.82 | 101.60 | 118.04* | 109.82 |
T8 | 6.92* 7.19* | 7.05 | 9.63 | 9.54 9.59 | 15.73* 16.55* | 16.14 | 27.86 | 31.98* | 29.92 | 100.46 | 119.49* | 109.98 |
T9 | 7.06* 7.90* | 7.48 | 10.88 | 9.84 10.36 | 14.44 17.77* | 16.11 | 27.00 | 32.05* | 29.53 | 99.47 | 121.82* | 110.65 |
T10 | 6.73* 7.70* | 7.22 | 10.73 | 9.74 10.24 | 14.66* 17.68* | 16.17 | 27.30 | 32.14* | 29.72 | 101.42 | 120.79* | 111.11 |
Mean | 6.37 7.16 | 6.77 | 9.66 | 8.84 9.25 | 14.42 16.84 | 15.63 | 27.05 | 31.69 | 29.37 | 99.94 | 118.66 | 109.30 |
CD SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) SE(m) | CD SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | |
A | 0.03 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.19 | 0.10 0.07 | 0.09 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.19 | 0.09 | 0.07 |
B | 0.07 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.43 | 0.21 0.15 | 0.20 0.10 | 0.07 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.42 | 0.21 | 0.15 |
A × B | 0.10 0.05 | 0.04 | N/A | 0.30 0.21 | 0.28 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.06 | 0.60 | 0.29 | 0.21 |
V1: Pusa Shweta; V2: Pusa Chetki; Factor (A): Varieties; Factor (B): Treatments; Factor (A × B): interaction between vari-eties and treatments; CD: Critical difference; SE(d): Standard Error of Difference; SE(m): standard error of mean; *: Superior over control; Control (T1), 100% well-rotted FYM (T2), 100% vermicompost (T3), 100% poultry manure (T4), 50% poultry manure + 50% PSB (T5), 75% well-rotted FYM + 25% poultry manure (T6),
75% well-rotted FYM + 25% Azotobacter (T7), 75% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM (T8), 50% vermicompost + 50% Azotobacter (T9), and 50% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM + 25% poultry manure (T10).
for both the varieties, the maximum value for leaf area index at 15 DAS was recorded in Pusa Chetki and the mini- mum was recorded in Pusa Shweta. Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), and the lowest value was noticed with control. In between the two-way interaction of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Chetki with VC: Azotobacter (50:50) had recorded maximum value, and the minimum value was recorded in Pusa Shweta (control). When the interactions were compared with the control, Pusa Shweta with VC: FYM (75:25), Pusa Shweta with FYM: (75:25), Pusa Shweta with VC:FYM:PM (50:250:25), Pusa Shweta with Vermicompost (100%), Pusa Shweta with FYM:PM (75:25) and all the treatments in combination with Pusa Chetki recorded superior over control. Similarly amongst two different varieties the maximum value for leaf area in- dex at 30 days after sowing was recorded in Pusa Chetki and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Shweta. Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment VC:FYM (75:25), and the lowest values were noticed with well-rotten FYM (100%). Among the two- way interactions of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Chetki with FYM: Azotobacter (75:25) had recorded maxi- mum value, and the minimum value was recorded in Pusa Shweta (control). When the interactions were compared to the control, all the treatments in combination with Pusa Chetki showed superiority over the control. However, the maximum leaf area index at 45 DAS was recorded in Pusa Shweta and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Chetki. However, amongst the treatments the highest value was noticed in the treatment VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), and the lowest value was noticed with T1 (control). Among the two-way interactions of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Chetki with VC: Azotobacter (50:50) had recorded maximum value and Pusa Shweta (control) had recorded minimum value. When the interactions were compared to the control, all the treatments in combination with Pusa
Chetki showed superiority over the control. As per the presented data for varieties, the minimum days taken to harvest were recorded in Pusa Chetki and the maximum was recorded in Pusa Shweta (Table 6). Whereas, among the treatments the lowest value was noticed in the treatment FYM: Azotobacter (75:25). Whereas, the highest value was noticed with control. Among the two-way interactions of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Chetki, well FYM: Azotobacter (75:25) had recorded minimum value, whereas, Pusa Shweta with PM:PSB (50:50) had recorded maximum value. When the interactions were compared with the con- trol, all the treatments in combination with Pusa Chetki recorded superiority over the control.
Most of the studied growth attributes of radish varieties were significantly influenced by the various treatments. Treat- ment of Vermicompost 100 percent applied on radish vari- ety “Pusa Chetki” resulted from minimum days taken for germination and maximum plant height at 15 DAS. Nu- merous studies have reported that both solid vermicompost and vermicompost extract contain a variety of active sub- stances, including phenolic and humic compounds. These substances have been found to have a dose-dependent effect on seed germination and the early stages of seedling devel- opment (Mishra et al., 2020). However, the maximum plant height at 30 DAS was noticed, when 50 percent of vermi- compost along with 25 percent of FYM and poultry manure, each incorporated in soil of variety Pusa Chetki. The in- creased plant height may be due to the increased dosage and beneficiary effect of integrated nutrient management this might be due to the influence of nutrients, the chief constituent of protein which is essential for the formation of protoplasm leading to meristematic activity, cell division, and development of root (Urra et al., 2019). However, the presence of humic acids, as well as micro and macronutri- ents found in vermicompost, may also potentially lead to an increase in the plant’s height. It was found that applying vermicompost resulted in the highest recorded plant height
Code
Root diameter
(cm)
Root length
(cm)
Root fresh weight
(g)
Days taken to
harvest
Root yield per
plot (Kg)
V1 | V2 | Mean | V1 | V2 | Mean | V1 | V2 | Mean | V1 | V2 | Mean | V1 | V2 | Mean | |
T1 | 3.17 | 2.99 | 3.08 | 20.54 | 17.24 | 18.89 | 156.64 | 131.66 | 144.15 | 52.24 | 48.66 | 50.45 | 9.18 | 5.26 | 7.22 |
T2 | 3.50 | 2.64 | 3.07 | 22.33* | 17.83 | 20.08 | 173.94* | 137.81 | 155.88 | 52.35 | 48.16* | 50.25 | 9.74* | 5.79 | 7.77 |
T3 | 4.74* | 2.42 | 3.58 | 23.28* | 19.56 | 21.42 | 152.56* | 132.51 | 142.54 | 51.22 | 47.89* | 49.56 | 9.92* | 5.80 | 7.86 |
T4 | 3.87* | 2.83 | 3.35 | 21.80* | 18.23 | 20.01 | 180.19* | 146.13 | 163.16 | 51.25 | 48.22* | 49.74 | 10.35* | 5.61 | 7.98 |
T5 | 3.49 | 3.43 | 3.46 | 21.22* | 19.70* | 20.46 | 176.93* | 132.87 | 154.90 | 52.93 | 47.85* | 50.39 | 10.49* | 5.83 | 8.16 |
T6 | 3.78* | 2.79 | 3.29 | 22.63* | 19.92* | 21.27 | 170.67* | 136.37 | 153.52 | 51.36 | 47.55* | 49.45 | 10.11* | 5.80 | 7.95 |
T7 | 3.38 | 3.19 | 3.29 | 24.83* | 18.55 | 21.69 | 190.82* | 144.92 | 167.87 | 51.36 | 47.06* | 49.21 | 10.81* | 5.98 | 8.40 |
T8 | 3.51* | 3.16 | 3.34 | 24.56* | 19.51 | 22.04 | 251.18* | 153.72* | 202.45 | 52.15 | 48.25* | 50.20 | 11.06* | 6.17 | 8.62 |
T9 | 4.08* | 3.25 | 3.66 | 25.18* | 17.91 | 21.55 | 232.66* | 141.69 | 187.17 | 51.65 | 47.16* | 49.40 | 11.27* | 5.87 | 8.57 |
T10 | 4.48* | 3.27 | 3.87 | 24.51* | 19.88* | 22.20 | 241.32* | 153.99* | 197.66 | 51.82 | 48.22* | 50.02 | 12.16* | 6.26 | 9.21 |
Mean | 3.80 | 3.80 | 3.40 | 23.09 | 18.83 | 20.96 | 192.69 | 131.66 | 166.93 | 51.83 | 47.90 | 49.87 | 10.51 | 5.84 | 8.17 |
CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | |
A | 0.13 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.23 | 0.12 | 0.08 | 2.44 | 1.20 | 0.85 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.06 |
B | 0.30 | 0.15 | 0.10 | 0.52 | 0.26 | 0.18 | 5.46 | 2.69 | 1.90 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.39 | 0.19 | 0.14 |
A × B | 0.42 | 0.21 | 0.15 | 0.74 | 0.36 | 0.26 | 7.72 | 3.80 | 2.69 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.03 | 0.56 | 0.27 | 0.19 |
V1:Pusa Shweta; V2: Pusa Chetki; Factor (A): Varieties; Factor (B): Treatments; Factor (A × B): interaction between varieties and treatments; CD: Critical difference; SE(d): Standard Error of Difference; SE(m): standard error of mean; *: Superior over control; Control (T1), 100% well-rotted FYM (T2), 100% vermicompost (T3), 100% poultry manure (T4), 50% poultry manure + 50% PSB (T5), 75% well-rotted FYM + 25% poultry manure (T6),
75% well-rotted FYM + 25% Azotobacter (T7), 75% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM (T8), 50% vermicompost + 50% Azotobacter (T9), and 50% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM + 25% poultry manure (T10).
in radish (Khede et al., 2019). Similarly, an increase in plant height was reported when vermicompost was applied in combination with NPK integration. The results are also in conformity with the findings of Maduwanthi and Marapana (2021); Mani and Anburani (2018). Increased nutrient avail- ability plays a crucial role in facilitating nutrient uptake by plants, which is essential for their optimal growth and devel- opment. Nitrogen, a component of chlorophyll pigment, is particularly important for photosynthesis (Patel et al., 2023). Enhanced photosynthesis, resulting from an ample supply of nitrogen, contributes to greater plant growth, specifi- cally in terms of increased plant height. These findings were in harmony with Shilpa et al. (2022) and SRehman et al. (2023). The incorporation of a 50 percent dose of vermicompost and Azotobacter each in Pusa Chetki showed a positive response for the number of leaves per plant (15 and 30 DAS) and leaf area index (15 & 45 DAS). In con- trast to this Pusa Chetki along with soil application of FYM 75% and seed treatment with Azotobacter 25%, found with highest value for the number of leaves per plant, while the minimum was noted for days to harvest. Increased number of leaves per plant was found may be due to promotive effects of macro and micronutrients on vegetative growth which ultimately lead to more photosynthetic activity. The combination of FYM and Azotobacter may have resulted in the improvement of cation exchange capacity and water holding capacity of the soil (Patel et al., 2023; Basnet et al., 2021). Additionally, it could have supplied all the essential primary and secondary nutrients necessary for optimal plant growth, specifically in terms of leaf development per plant. This result was confirmed by SRehman et al. (2023) and Kumar et al. (2022). The application of organic fertilizer in conjunction with vermicompost and Azotobacter also likely facilitated the uptake of nitrogen and other nutrients, leading to a higher leaf count. This application likely en- hanced the uptake of nitrogen and other essential nutrients, resulting in a higher number of leaves. Similar findings of the maximum number of leaves due to organic manure and biofertilizers were reported by Patel et al. (2023). The combination of organic fertilizer, vermicompost, and Azo- tobacter application is believed to have contributed to the increase in leaf count. The plausible explanation for the increase in leaf area could be attributed to the enhanced uptake of nutrients, particularly iron and magnesium, from the soil (Mani and Anburani, 2018). This increased nutrient availability likely promoted greater photosynthetic activity, contributing to the expansion of leaf area (Patel et al., 2023). Furthermore, the presence of humic acid might have played a role in facilitating the increased leaf area. These findings were given conformity with the findings of SRehman et al. (2023) and Patel et al. (2023). The combination of FYM along with vermicompost has been observed to contribute to the maximum leaf area index because the availability of balanced and sufficient nutrients supports optimal leaf devel- opment and, consequently, a higher leaf area index (Shilpa et al., 2022). Increment in leaf area due to physiological parameters like photosynthesis, stomata conductance, and transpiration might have improved with the application of FYM. It enhances the absorption of nutrients from soil; and
enhances carbohydrate assimilation and production of new tissue (SRehman et al., 2023).
It was observed that there was a significant influence of different varieties, treatments of organic amendments, and biofertilizers, and their interactions were recorded on the root diameter. In-between both the varieties, the maximum root diameter was recorded in Pusa Chetki, and the mini- mum was recorded in Pusa Shweta. Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment of VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), and the lowest value was noticed with well rotten FYM 100%. Among the two-way interac- tions of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Chetki + Ver- micompost (100%) had recorded maximum value. Whereas, the minimum value for the trait was recorded with a combi- nation of Pusa Shweta treated with vermicompost (100%). When the interactions were compared with the control, the interactions of Pusa Chetki with Vermicompost (100%), Pusa Chetki treated with VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), Pusa Chetki with VC: Azotobacter (50:50), Pusa Chetki with Poultry manure (100%), Pusa Chetki with FYM:PM (75:25), Pusa Chetki with VC:FYM (75:25) were recorded superior over the control. Similarly, the data has been recorded for root length and the result was revealed that, based on performance, a significant difference was found between both the varieties, the maximum root length was recorded in Pusa Shweta, and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Chetki. However, among the treatments the highest value was noticed in the treatment VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), and the lowest value was noticed with control. Among the two- way interactions of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Shweta with VC: Azotobacter (50:50) had recorded maxi- mum value. Whereas, Pusa Chetki (control) had recorded with minimum value. When the interactions were compared with control, all the treatments in combination with Pusa Shweta and the interactions Pusa Chetki with FYM:PM (75:25), Pusa Chetki with VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), Pusa Chetki accompanied with PM:PSB (50:50) recorded supe- rior over control. The maximum root fresh weight was recorded in Pusa Shweta and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Chetki. Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment VC:FYM (75:25), and the lowest values were noticed with Vermicompost (100%). Among the two-way interactions of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Shweta with VC:FYM (75:25) had recorded a maximum. The lowest value for the trait was recorded with a combination of Pusa Chetki (control). When the in- teractions were compared with the control, the interactions Pusa Chetki with VC:FYM (75:25) and Pusa Chetki with VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), and all the treatments in combi- nation with Pusa Shweta were recorded as superior over control.
Among the varieties, the maximum root yield per plot was recorded in Pusa Shweta and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Chetki (Table 6). Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), and the lowest value was noticed with con- trol. In between the two-way interaction of varieties and
treatments, Pusa Shweta with VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25) had recorded maximum value. Whereas, the minimum value was recorded in Pusa Chetki (control). When the interac- tions were compared with the control, all the treatments in combination with Pusa Shweta recorded superiority over the control.
Yielding attributes of radish varieties were also positively influenced by the various treatments of organic manures and biofertilizers. The soil application of a full dose of vermicompost (100%) in Pusa Chetki increased the root di- ameter, while the length was at maximum when the seed of variety Pusa Shweta was treated with Azotobacter and soil application of Vermicompost (50%). An explanation for the increase in root length and root diameter could be the result of decreased bulk density and increased porosity and water retention capacity of the soil caused by the application of organic manures (Sun et al., 2022; Patel et al., 2023). Addi- tionally, the growth enhancement could be attributed to the process of nutrient solubilization facilitated by the addition of poultry manure and vermicompost, resulting in increased uptake of essential plant nutrients such as nitrogen, phos- phorus, and potassium (Shilpa et al., 2022; SRehman et al., 2023). The major yield contributing trait i.e. highest fresh root weight of Pusa Shweta was noted, when vermicompost and well-rotten FYM at 75:25, respectively incorporated in the soil. Similarly, the variety Pusa Shweta produced maxi- mum yield, with the incorporation of combined application of vermicompost (50%), FYM (25%), and poultry manure (25%) in the soil. The maximum fresh root weight and in- crement in root yield might be due to the nutrients (N.P.K.) are starting material for biological synthesis and they also play an important role in plant metabolism and being an essential constituent of diverse type metabolically active compounds like purines, pyrimidines, enzymes, coenzymes and alkaloids (Shani et al., 2017). Thus increased availabil- ity of photosynthesis, which consequently led to a desirable
C:N ratio as carbohydrate supply might be helping in larger storage in the root as well as shoot. This type of situation reflected in growth and yield parameters directly led to a higher yield of radish root yield. Increased yield due to bet- ter availability of nutrients and a balanced C:N ratio might have increased the synthesis of carbohydrates which ulti- mately promoted greater yield (Olasekan et al., 2019). The improved effectiveness of these treatments can be attributed to the higher availability of nutrients and the gradual release of these nutrients coinciding with the stage of root develop- ment in radish. This, in turn, leads to increased root growth and improved aeration for root development. These findings were uncovered by (Shilpa et al., 2022).
For quality aspects, positively significant outcomes were observed for all the studied quality traits. In between both the varieties, maximum total soluble solids were recorded in Pusa Chetki and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Shweta (Table 7). Whereas, amongst the treatments the highest value was noticed in the treatment Vermicompost (100%) and the lowest value was noticed with Poultry ma- nure (100%). It has been recorded that amongst the two- way interaction of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Chetki with Vermicompost (100%) had recorded maximum value. The lowest value was recorded with control of Pusa Shweta. When the interactions were compared to the con- trol, all the treatments in combination with Pusa Chetki, except Pusa Chetki, Poultry manure (100%) were recorded as superior over the control. On the other hand, there was a significant influence of different varieties, treatments of organic amendments, and biofertilizers, and their interac- tions were recorded on the chlorophyll content in leaves (Table 7). In between both the varieties, the maximum chlorophyll content was recorded in Pusa Shweta and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Chetki. Whereas, amongst
Treatments | Total Soluble Solids (◦Brix) | chlorophyll content (SPAD value) | firmness (kg/cm2) | Ascorbic acid content (mg per 100 g) | Titratable acidity (%) | |||||||||
V1 V2 Mean | V1 V2 Mean | V1 V2 Mean | V1 V2 Mean | V1 V2 Mean | ||||||||||
T1 | 4.17 | 4.29 | 4.23 | 38.30 | 40.81 | 39.55 | 5.65 7.72 | 6.69 | 18.38 | 17.55 | 17.96 | 0.54 | 0.65 | 0.60 |
T2 | 4.27 | 4.68* | 4.47 | 41.24* | 40.54* | 40.89 | 5.19 7.51* | 6.35 | 18.49 | 17.41 | 17.95 | 0.44 | 0.53 | 0.48 |
T3 | 4.57 | 4.82* | 4.69 | 42.67* | 40.35* | 41.51 | 5.52 7.87* | 6.70 | 18.56 | 17.27 | 17.92 | 0.63 | 0.63 | 0.63 |
T4 | 4.17 | 4.22 | 4.20 | 43.43* | 41.53* | 42.48 | 5.57 7.57* | 6.57 | 18.40 | 17.71 | 18.06 | 0.63 | 0.53 | 0.58 |
T5 | 4.25 | 4.46* | 4.35 | 41.53* | 42.53* | 42.03 | 5.66 7.57* | 6.62 | 18.98 | 18.06 | 18.52 | 0.64 | 0.54 | 0.59 |
T6 | 4.19 | 4.44* | 4.32 | 42.11* | 40.20* | 41.16 | 5.76 7.60* | 6.68 | 18.11 | 17.77 | 17.94 | 0.65* | 0.54 | 0.60 |
T7 | 4.30 | 4.44* | 4.37 | 41.33* | 41.74* | 41.53 | 5.34 7.15* | 6.25 | 18.53 | 17.50 | 18.02 | 0.65* | 0.55 | 0.60 |
T8 | 4.29 | 4.42* | 4.36 | 41.47* | 40.36* | 40.91 | 5.67 7.62* | 6.64 | 18.27 | 17.34 | 17.81 | 0.53 | 0.56 | 0.54 |
T9 | 4.25 | 4.36* | 4.31 | 44.16* | 40.55* | 42.36 | 5.31 7.72* | 6.52 | 18.74 | 17.71 | 18.23 | 0.73* | 0.55 | 0.64 |
T10 | 4.31 | 4.51* | 4.41 | 41.47* | 41.29* | 41.38 | 5.53 7.57* | 6.55 | 18.55 | 17.55 | 18.05 | 0.74* | 0.54 | 0.64 |
Mean | 4.28 | 4.46 | 4.37 | 41.77 | 40.99 | 41.38 | 5.52 7.59 | 6.56 | 18.50 | 17.59 | 18.05 | 0.62 | 0.56 | 0.59 |
CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | |
A | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.05 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
B | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.23 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.11 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.29 | 0.14 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
A × B | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.33 | 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.16 0.08 | 0.05 | N/A | 0.20 | 0.14 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.01 |
V1: Pusa Shweta; V2: Pusa Chetki; Factor (A): Varieties; Factor (B): Treatments; Factor (A × B): interaction between varieties and treatments; CD: Critical difference; SE(d): Standard Error of Difference; SE(m): standard error of mean; *: Superior over control; Control (T1), 100% well-rotted FYM (T2), 100% vermicompost (T3), 100% poultry manure (T4), 50% poultry manure + 50% PSB (T5), 75% well-rotted FYM + 25% poultry manure (T6),
75% well-rotted FYM + 25% Azotobacter (T7), 75% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM (T8), 50% vermicompost + 50% Azotobacter (T9), and 50% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM + 25% poultry manure (T10).
the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treat- ment VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), and the lowest value was noticed with control. Among the two-way interactions of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Shweta, VC: Azoto- bacter (50:50) had recorded maximum value. The lowest value was recorded in Pusa Shweta (control). When the interactions were compared with the control, all the treat- ments in combination with Pusa Shweta and Pusa Chetki recorded superior over the control.
The data on firmness has confirmed that a significant in- fluence of different varieties, treatments of organic amend- ments, biofertilizers, and their interactions was recorded on the firmness and ascorbic acid content (Table 7). In between both the varieties, maximum firmness was recorded in Pusa Chetki and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Shweta. Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was no- ticed in the treatment vermicompost (100%) and the lowest value was noticed with FYM: Azotobacter (75:25). Among the two-way interactions of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Chetki, Vermicompost (100%) recorded maximum value, whereas, the minimum value was recorded in Pusa Shweta, well rotten FYM (100%). When the interactions were compared with the control, all the treatments in com- bination with Pusa Chetki recorded superior over control. In between both the varieties, the maximum ascorbic acid content was recorded in Pusa Shweta and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Chetki. Whereas, among the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment PM:PSB (50:50), and the lowest value was noticed with T3 (Ver- micompost 100%). Among the two-way interactions of varieties and treatments (V + T) was observed to be non- significant. However, Pusa Shweta, PM:PSB (50:50) had recorded maximum value. Whereas, the minimum value was recorded in Pusa Chetki, Vermicompost (100%). A significant influence of different varieties, treatments of
organic amendments, biofertilizers, and their interactions was recorded on titratable acidity. In between both the vari- eties, the maximum titratable acidity was recorded in Pusa Shweta and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Chetki (Ta- ble 4). Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment VC: Azotobacter (50:50) and VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), and the lowest value was noticed with well-rotten FYM (100%). Among the two-way inter- actions of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Shweta, VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25) recorded maximum value, and the minimum value was recorded in Pusa Shweta, well rotten FYM (100%). When the interactions were compared with control, the interactions, Pusa Shweta with VC: Azotobacter (50:50), Pusa Shweta, accompanied with FYM:PM (75:25), and Pusa Shweta with FYM: Azotobacter (75:25) recorded superior over control. A significant influence of different varieties, treatments of organic amendments, biofertiliz- ers, and their interactions was recorded on the reducing sugars, non-reducing sugar, and total sugar (Table 8). In be- tween both the varieties, the maximum reducing sugars was recorded in Pusa Chetki and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Shweta. Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment T1 (control), and the lowest value was noticed with PM:PSB (50:50). Among the two-way interactions of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Chetki, Vermicompost (100%) had recorded max- imum value. Whereas, the minimum value was recorded in Pusa Shweta, FYM:PM (75:25). When the interactions were compared with the control, all the treatments in com- bination with Pusa Chetki recorded superior over the con- trol. Amongst the varieties, maximum non-reducing sug- ars were recorded in Pusa Shweta and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Chetki (Table 8). Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment well rotten FYM (100%) and the lowest value was noticed
Treatments
Total sugars (g 100 g−1)
Reducing sugars (g 100 g−1)
Non-reducing sugars (g 100 g−1)
moisture content
of leaves (%)
moisture content
of roots (%)
V1 | V2 | Mean | V1 | V2 | Mean | V1 | V2 | Mean | V1 | V2 | Mean | V1 | V2 | Mean | |
T1 | 9.86 | 10.32 | 10.09 | 9.65 | 10.14 | 9.89 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 90.78 | 91.23 | 91.01 | 97.31 | 97.66 | 97.49 |
T2 | 9.83 | 10.54* | 10.19 | 9.47 | 10.24* | 9.86 | 0.36* | 0.30* | 0.33 | 91.71* | 91.23 | 91.47 | 97.75 | 95.92 | 96.84 |
T3 | 9.57 | 10.65* | 10.11 | 9.37 | 10.34* | 9.86 | 0.20 | 0.31* | 0.26 | 91.17 | 90.28 | 90.73 | 96.72 | 96.26 | 96.49 |
T4 | 9.72 | 10.53* | 10.12 | 9.44 | 10.24* | 9.84 | 0.27* | 0.29* | 0.28 | 91.30 | 90.52 | 90.91 | 97.18 | 95.68 | 96.43 |
T5 | 9.65 | 10.26* | 9.95 | 9.34 | 10.04* | 9.69 | 0.31* | 0.22* | 0.26 | 90.22 | 91.27 | 90.75 | 96.85 | 96.18 | 96.51 |
T6 | 9.48 | 10.45* | 9.97 | 9.26 | 10.22* | 9.74 | 0.22 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 90.33 | 91.12 | 90.73 | 95.24 | 94.17 | 94.70 |
T7 | 9.66 | 10.34* | 10.00 | 9.34 | 10.13* | 9.74 | 0.32* | 0.21 | 0.26 | 90.31 | 90.14 | 90.23 | 96.34 | 95.74 | 96.04 |
T8 | 9.67 | 10.35* | 10.01 | 9.34 | 10.12* | 9.73 | 0.33* | 0.23 | 0.28 | 90.30 | 90.38 | 90.34 | 96.79 | 95.39 | 96.09 |
T9 | 9.64 | 10.35* | 9.99 | 9.34 | 10.14* | 9.74 | 0.29* | 0.21 | 0.25 | 90.25 | 90.36 | 90.30 | 97.20 | 95.69 | 96.45 |
T10 | 9.48 | 10.54* | 10.01 | 9.26 | 10.25* | 9.76 | 0.22 | 0.29* | 0.26 | 90.80 | 90.82 | 90.81 | 96.54 | 94.94 | 95.74 |
Mean | 9.66 | 10.43 | 10.04 | 9.38 | 10.19 | 9.78 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.26 | 90.72 | 90.74 | 90.73 | 96.79 | 95.76 | 96.28 |
CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | CD | SE(d) | SE(m) | |
A | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 0.20 | 0.10 | 0.07 |
B | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.23 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.44 | 0.22 | 0.15 |
A × B | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.33 | 0.16 | 0.11 | 0.62 | 0.30 | 0.22 |
V1: Pusa Shweta; V2: Pusa Chetki; Factor (A): Varieties; Factor (B): Treatments; Factor (A × B): interaction between varieties and treatments; CD: Critical difference; SE(d): Standard Error of Difference; SE(m): standard error of mean; *: Superior over control; Control (T1), 100% well-rotted FYM (T2), 100% vermicompost (T3), 100% poultry manure (T4), 50% poultry manure + 50% PSB (T5), 75% well-rotted FYM + 25% poultry manure (T6),
75% well-rotted FYM + 25% Azotobacter (T7), 75% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM (T8), 50% vermicompost + 50% Azotobacter (T9), and 50% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM + 25% poultry manure (T10).
with control. It has been recorded that amongst the two- way interaction of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Chetki, and Vermicompost (100%) had recorded maximum value. When the interactions were compared to control, Pusa Shweta, VC:FYM (75:25), Pusa Shweta, FYM: Azoto- bacter (75:25), Pusa Shweta VC: Azotobacter (50:50), Pusa Shweta, FYM (100%), Pusa Shweta, PM (100%), Pusa Shweta, PM:PSB (50:50), Pusa Chetki, VC (100%), Pusa Chetki, VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), well rotten FYM (100%), Pusa Chetki with PM (100%), Pusa Chetki, PM:PSB (50:50) recorded superior over the control.
In between both the varieties, the maximum total sug- ars were recorded in Pusa Chetki and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Shweta (Table 8). Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treat- ment FYM (100%), and the lowest value was noticed with PM:PSB (50:50). Among the two-way interactions of va- rieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Chetki, Vermicom- post (100%) recorded maximum value. Whereas, the mini- mum value was recorded in Pusa Shweta, FYM:PM (75:25). When the interactions were compared with the control, all the treatments in combination with Pusa Chetki recorded superior over the control. The data on the moisture percent- age of leaves and roots has confirmed a significant influence of different varieties, treatments of organic amendments, biofertilizers, and their interactions. In between both the varieties, the maximum moisture% of leaves was recorded in Pusa Chetki and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Shweta.
Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), and the lowest value was noticed with control. Among the two- way interactions of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Shweta, Well-rotten FYM (100%) recorded a maximum value, and the minimum value was recorded in Pusa Chetki, FYM: Azotobacter (75:25). When the interactions were compared with control, Pusa Shweta, Well-rotten FYM (100%) recorded superior over control. Between both of the varieties, the maximum moisture% of roots was recorded in Pusa Shweta and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Chetki (Table 8). Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment control, and the lowest values were noticed with FYM:PM (75:25). Among the two- way interaction of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Shweta, Well-rotten FYM (100%) had recorded maximum value. V2 + T6 Pusa Chetki, FYM:PM (75:25) recorded with a minimum value. When the interactions were com- pared with control, none of the interactions showed superior- ity over control. A significant influence of different varieties, treatments of organic amendments, biofertilizers, and their interactions were recorded on the dry matter percentage of leaves and roots (Table 9). In between both the varieties, the maximum dry matter % of leaves was recorded in Pusa Shweta and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Chetki. Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment FYM: Azotobacter (75:25%), and the lowest value was noticed with well-rotten FYM (100%). Between the two-way interaction of varieties and treatments
Available N:P:K
Code | V | Leaves (%) V2 Mean | V1 | Roots (%) V2 | Mean | (ds/m) N P K
| |||||||
T1 | 9.22 | 8.77 | 8.99 | 5.54 | 5.47 | 5.51 | 6.70 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 136.087 | 22.04 | 123.17 | |
T2 | 8.29 | 8.77 | 8.53 | 5.45 | 4.82 | 5.13 | 6.80 | 0.11 | 0.28 | 143.86 | 23.29 | 132.28 | |
T3 | 8.83 | 9.72 | 9.27 | 5.65* | 4.75 | 5.20 | 6.80 | 0.15 | 0.34 | 146.29 | 22.63 | 131.847 | |
T4 | 8.70 | 9.48 | 9.09 | 5.56 | 4.87 | 5.22 | 6.60 | 0.13 | 0.32 | 142.26 | 21.89 | 134.87 | |
T5 | 9.78* | 8.73 | 9.25 | 5.63* | 4.76 | 5.20 | 6.70 | 0.16 | 0.25 | 138.83 | 24.24 | 128.65 | |
T6 | 9.67* | 8.88 | 9.28 | 4.95 | 5.17 | 5.06 | 6.70 | 0.14 | 0.29 | 144.893 | 20.58 | 133.74 | |
T7 | 9.69* | 9.86* | 9.77 | 4.73 | 4.85 | 4.79 | 6.90 | 0.17 | 0.36 | 139.263 | 23.04 | 129.35 | |
T8 | 9.70* | 9.62* | 9.66 | 5.64* | 4.92 | 5.28 | 7.10 | 0.12 | 0.34 | 143.21 | 21.27 | 131.28 | |
T9 | 9.75* | 9.64* | 9.70 | 5.56 | 4.86 | 5.21 | 7.00 | 0.19 | 0.32 | 142.537 | 23.01 | 134.26 | |
T10 9.20 | 9.18 | 9.19 | 5.56 | 5.01 | 5.29 | 7.20 | 0.17 | 0.36 | 146.52 | 23.62 | 133.56 | ||
Mean | 9.28 | 9.26 | 9.27 | 5.43 | 4.95 | 5.19 | Mean | 6.70 | 0.14 | 0.23 | 136.087 | 22.04 | 123.17 |
CD SE(d) SE(m) CD SE(d) SE(m) C.D. 0.32 | 0.019 | 0.018 | 1.57 | 5.43 | 1.16 | ||||||||
Dry matter content (%) pH EC
1
OC (%)
(Kg/ha)
A N/A 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01
B 0.24 0.12 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.02
A×B 0.34 0.17 0.12 0.09 0.05 0.03
(0.05) C.V.
2.69
-
7.46
-
3.36
-
136.087
-
2.41
-
3.00
-
V1:Pusa Shweta; V2: Pusa Chetki; Factor (A): Varieties; Factor (B): Treatments; Factor (A × B): interaction between varieties and treatments; CD: Critical difference; SE(d): Standard Error of Difference; SE(m): standard error of mean; *: Superior over control; pH: potential of Hydrogen; EC(ds m−1): Electrical conductivity; OC%: Organic carbon; N (kg ha−1): Available Nitrogen; P (kg ha−1): Available Phosphorus; K (kg ha−1): Available potassium; C.D: Critical difference; C.V: Coefficient of variation; Control (T1), 100% well-rotted FYM (T2), 100% vermicompost (T3), 100% poultry
manure (T4), 50% poultry manure + 50% PSB (T5), 75% well-rotted FYM + 25% poultry manure (T6), 75% well-rotted FYM + 25% Azotobacter (T7), 75% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM (T8), 50% vermicompost + 50% Azotobacter (T9), and 50% vermicompost + 25% well-rotted FYM + 25% poultry manure (T10).
(V + T), Pusa Chetki, FYM: Azotobacter (75:25) recorded a maximum value, whereas the minimum value was recorded in Pusa Shweta, Well-rotten FYM (100%). When com- pared with control, among all the interactions, Pusa Shweta, PM:PSB (50:50), Pusa Shweta, FYM:PM (75:25), FYM:
Azotobacter (75:25), Pusa Shweta, VC:FYM (75:25), Pusa Shweta, VC: Azotobacter (50:50), Pusa Chetki, FYM: Azo- tobacter (75:25), Pusa Chetki, VC:FYM (75:25) and Pusa Chetki, VC: Azotobacter (50:50) showed superiority over control. In between both the varieties, the maximum dry matter percentage of roots was recorded in Pusa Shweta and the minimum was recorded in Pusa Chetki. Whereas, amongst the treatments, the highest value was noticed in the treatment VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), and the lowest value was noticed with FYM: Azotobacter (75:25). Among the two-way interaction of varieties and treatments (V + T), Pusa Shweta, Vermicompost (100%) recorded maximum value and the minimum value had been recorded in Pusa Shweta treated with Well FYM: Azotobacter (75:25). When the interactions were compared with control, the treatments viz., Pusa Shweta in the combination of different doses of Vermicompost (100%), VC:FYM (75:25), and FYM:PM (75:25%) shown superiority over control, respectively.
All the quality attributes were also positively influenced by the application of organic manures in combination with bio- fertilizers. The full dose of vermicompost (100%) in Pusa Chetki enhanced the availability of total soluble solids, firm- ness, total sugar, and reducing and non-reducing sugar. The potential cause behind an increase in the total soluble solids content phenomenon could be the accumulation of a greater amount of reserve substances in the roots. The significant impact of increased vermicompost application on the to- tal soluble solids might have influenced the radish plant’s response to vermicompost (Olasekan et al., 2019). This could be attributed to the insufficient organic matter present in the soil, which limits its ability to enhance the physical and chemical properties of the soil, as well as provide an ample nutrient supply (Urra et al., 2019). Vermicompost is a source of organic matter, which improves soil structure and moisture-holding capacity. Increased organic matter content can enhance root development and strengthen the plant’s anchorage in the soil. This can result in firmer plant tissues (Sun et al., 2022). The adoption of safe produc- tion practices, combined with the use of farmyard manure, leads to a gradual enhancement in the quality parameters such as total sugar content, and reducing and non-reducing sugars of radish roots. This improvement can be attributed to the increased growth parameters observed in the plants, which subsequently result in improved nutrient uptake and photosynthetic activities (Kumar et al., 2022). The quality parameters of radish are positively influenced by the stimu- lation of enzymatic activities by plant growth components. The utilization of safe production practices, along with the incorporation of FYM, creates favorable conditions for the growth and development of radish, leading to improved nu- trient absorption, efficient photosynthesis, and ultimately higher quality in the harvested radish roots (Adekiya et al., 2019). The chlorophyll content in the leaves of Pusa Shweta was positively influenced, with a reduced dose of vermi-
compost (soil application) and Azotobacter (seed treatment)
i.e. 50 percent each. The application of poultry manure exhibited a significant influence on the leaf levels of nitro- gen, phosphorus, potassium, calcium, and magnesium in radish plants. This, in turn, may contribute to an increase in chlorophyll content. Similar findings were found to be overlapped with the findings of Gamba et al. (2021). On the other hand, titratable acidity was also greatly increased with soil application of reduced dose vermicompost (50%), FYM (25%), and poultry manure (25%). The increased ascorbic content found in poultry manure can be attributed to its higher potassium content, as potassium is known to enhance the quality of crops. A quadratic relationship be- tween poultry manure and vitamin C content was derived by Gamba et al. (2021) and Zhang et al. (2021). Further- more, Abanto-Rodriguez et al. 2016 observed a positive correlation between ascorbic acid and the concentration of magnesium and phosphorus. The higher titratable acidity content observed in poultry manure can be attributed to its elevated potassium content. Potassium is well-known for its positive influence on crop quality. It plays a crucial role in various physiological processes within plants, including the regulation of pH and acidity levels. Adequate potassium levels can enhance enzymatic activity and metabolic pro- cesses related to organic acid synthesis, leading to increased titratable acidity in crops (Rasool et al., 2023; Wani et al., 2023). Application of recommended full dose of Well rotten FYM level up the moisture percentage of leaves and roots of radish variety “ Pusa Shweta”. Meanwhile, a reduction in application dose of FYM (75%) and Azotobacter (25%), increased the dry matter content of leaves, while in root higher availability was observed in Pusa Shweta, when ver- micompost (100%) applied in full dose. More plant spread, photosynthetic area, and the availability of micronutrients may be responsible for the increase in fresh and dry matter content, which led to a greater accumulation of photosyn- thates in leaves of radish crop (Wani et al., 2023; Negi et al., 2023). The other possible reason might be that the organic manures release nutrients in a controlled manner.
A significant effect of organic amendments and biofertil- izers was observed on the chemical properties of the soil, including EC (Electrical Conductivity), organic carbon, ni- trogen, phosphorus, and potassium, except for pH (Table 9). Among the treatments, the highest pH value was recorded in VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), while the lowest pH value was observed in Poultry manure (100%). In terms of EC, the highest value was found in VC: Azotobacter (50:50), closely followed by FYM: Azotobacter (75:25), whereas the low- est value was observed in Well rotten FYM (100%). The treatment PM:PSB (50:50) had the highest organic carbon percentage, while FYM: Azotobacter (75:25) had the low- est. Regarding nitrogen content, the highest values were recorded in control, VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), and Vermi- compost (100%), while the lowest value was observed in PM:PSB (50:50). For phosphorus, the highest values were found in control and PM:PSB (50:50), and the lowest value was recorded in FYM:PM (75:25). Finally, control and
Poultry manure (100%) had the highest potassium values; while the lowest value was observed in PM:PSB (50:50). Soil nutrients are the major factors that greatly influence the growth and development of the plant because they directly or indirectly affect the yield and quality attributing traits of the crop. The availability of nitrogen and pH of the soil was highly influenced by the soil application of half dose of vermicompost with one-fourth dose of Well-rotten FYM and poultry manures. The electrical conductivity of the soil was also affected by the applied dose of vermicompost and Azotobacter fifty percent each. Additionally, the organic carbon and phosphorus content of the soil status was also improvised when the soil was incorporated with half a dose of vermicompost in combination with seed treatment of phosphorus solubilizing bacteria. In contrast to this, the full dose of poultry manures raised the availability of potassium in treated soil. The application of organic manures plays a crucial role in the secretion of growth-promoting substances and is also known as a slow releaser (Parry et al., 2021). Thereby facilitating improved root development, carbohy- drate translocation to storage organs, water transportation, and the uptake and breakdown of nutrients, which also ulti- mately enhance the availability of organic carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium content in the soil (Kaur et al., 2023). The utilization of organic manures affects the du- ration of vegetable crops by enhancing nutrient absorption by plants and promoting the growth of water-conducting tissues. A decrease in bulk density and increase in poros- ity and water holding capacity of the soil due to organic manures might have contributed to increasing the length of roots of the plants. The increase in the length of the root may be attributed to the solubilization of plant nutrients by
It was observed that the total cost of cultivation varied among the different treatments. The highest total cost was recorded in Vermicompost (100%). When examining the gross returns, the combination Pusa Shweta, VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), yielded the highest returns, while the combi- nation Pusa Chetki, VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25), generated the lowest returns. Lastly, the benefit-cost ratio was also varied among the different combinations. The combina- tion Pusa Shweta, VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25) exhibited the highest benefit-cost ratio, indicating a favorable return on investment. On the other hand, the combination of Pusa Chetki, and Well rotten FYM (100%) showed the lowest benefit-cost ratio (Table 10). The treatment of vermicom- post (50%) along with one-fourth doses of Well-rotten FYM and poultry manures in Pusa Shweta was found more prof- itable in radish crops. The balanced application of organic manure along with biofertilizers in integration might also help to reduce the cultivation cost as the ratio, which re- sulted in more benefit in terms of yield and benefit-cost ratio (Kaur et al., 2023).
Based on formal deliberation it has been concluded that the significant influence of varieties, treatments, and their interactions was observed on most of the studied attributes of radish. Whereas, the variety namely Pusa Shweta, and the treatment of VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25) followed by VC 100%, VC: Azotobacter (50:50) along with the interaction
Code | Treatment combinations | Yield (q ha−1) | Total cost of cultivation (US$) | Gr | oss returns (US$) | Net returns (US$) | Benefit- cost ratio | ||||
V1 V2 | V1 | V2 | V1 | V2 | V1 | V2 | V1 V2 | ||||
Combinations | |||||||||||
T2 FYM 38.96 | 23.17 | 1237.33 | 1237.07 | 7014.76 | 4171.77 | 5777.70 | 2934.70 | 4.67b | 2.37b | ||
T3 Vermicompost (VC) 39.66 | 23.21 | 1465.44 | 1465.13 | 7140.80 | 4178.97 | 5675.67 | 2713.84 | 3.87b | 1.85 | ||
T4 Poultry manure (PM) 41.40 | 22.45 | 1270.34 | 1270.08 | 7454.09 | 4042.13 | 6184.01 | 2772.06 | 4.87ab | 2.18 | ||
T5 PM+PSB 41.95 | 23.33 | 1227.42 | 1227.16 | 7553.11 | 4200.58 | 6325.95 | 2973.41 | 5.15ab | 2.42b | ||
T6 FYM +Poultry manure 40.44 | 23.19 | 1245.58 | 1245.32 | 7281.24 | 4175.37 | 6035.92 | 2930.05 | 4.85ab | 2.35b | ||
T7 FYM+Azotobacter 43.25 | 23.92 | 1220.22 | 1219.96 | 7787.18 | 4306.81 | 6567.22 | 3086.84 | 5.38ab | 2.53b | ||
T8 VC+FYM 44.26 | 24.67 | 1319.21 | 1318.93 | 7969.03 | 4441.84 | 6650.10 | 3122.91 | 5.04ab | 2.37b | ||
T9 VC+Azotobacter 45.06 | 23.49 | 1317.17 | 1316.89 | 8113.07 | 4229.38 | 6796.18 | 2912.50 | 5.16ab | 2.21 | ||
VC+ FYM+Poultry T10 manure 48.64 (50:25:25) | 25.05 | 1334.13 | 1333.84 | 8757.65 | 4510.26 | 7423.81 | 3176.42 | 5.57ab | 2.38b | ||
Control | |||||||||||
T1 Control 36.72 | 21.01 | 1165.29 | 1165.046 | 6611.451 | 3782.859 | 5446.405 | 2617.813 | 4.67 | 2.25 | ||
100%
100%
100%
(50:50)
(75: 25)
(75: 25)
(75:25)
(50:50)
V1:Pusa Shweta; V2:Pusa Chetki; a:Superior over V1 control; b: Superior over V2 control; ab: Superior over both the controls; Selling price: 0.24 US$
per Kg
combination of Pusa Chetki with Vermicompost 100% followed by Pusa Shweta with VC: Azotobacter (50:50) and VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25) had shown their positive influence on various horticultural and soil nutrient attributes. According to the outcome from the economic analysis, the interaction combination of Pusa Shweta with VC:FYM:PM (50:25:25) was found more profitable than others in open field conditions.
Conceptualization: Vandana Thakur., Pavitra Kakarla and Sunny Sharma.; methodology, data collection and original data analysis: Vandana Thakur.,and Sunny Sharma; data presentation, writing: Vandana Thakur; Sartaj Ahmed Bhat, Sunny Sharma; reviewing and editing: Vandana Thakur, Sunny Sharma and Pavitra Kakarla. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
The authors declare that they are no conflict of interest associated with this study.
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the OICC Press publisher. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0.
Adekiya AO, Agbede TM, Aboyeji CM, Dunsin O, Simeon VT (2019) Effects of biochar and poultry manure on soil characteristics and the yield of radish. Sci Hortic 243:457–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.(2018)
AOAC (1990) Official methods of analysis. 15th ed Wash- ington DC. Edr. Washington DC.
Basnet B, Aryal A, Neupane A, Bishal KC, Rai NH, Basnet M Adhikari (2021) Effect of integrated nutrient man- agement on growth and yield of radish. J Agric Nat Resour 4 (2): 167–174. https://doi.org/10.3126/janr. v4i2.33712
Bilong EG, Abossolo-Angue M, Nanganoa LT, Anaba BD, Ajebesone FN, Madong BA, Bilong P (2022) Organic manures and inorganic fertilizers effects on soil prop- erties and economic analysis under cassava cultiva- tion in southern Cameroon. Sci Rep 12:20598. https:
//doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-17991-6
Bradstreet RB (1954) Kjeldahl method for organic nitrogen.
Anal Chem 26 (1): 185–187.
Dulal D, Baral D, Poudel A, Kafle K, Shrestha B (2021) Effect of different doses of vermicompost on growth, yield, and quality of radish (Raphanus sativus L. cv. Mino Early). Arch Agric Eniron Sci 6 (3): 354–359. https://doi.org/10.26832/24566632.2021.0603014
Gamba M, Asllanaj E, Raguindin PF, Gilsic M, Franco B, Bussler W, Metzger B, Kern H, Muka T (2021) Nu- tritional and phytochemical characterization of radish (Raphanus sativus L.): A systematic review. Trend F Sci Techno 113:205–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.
Ievinsh G (2011) Vermicompost treatment differentially affects seed germination, seedling growth and physi- ological status of vegetable crop species. Plant Grow Reg 65:169–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10725-011- 9586-x
Iqbal A, He L, Khan A, Wei S, Akhtar K, Ali I, Ullah S, Munsif F, Zhao Q, Jiang L (2019) Organic manure coupled with inorganic fertilizer: an approach for the sustainable production of rice by improving soil prop- erties and nitrogen use efficiency. Agron 9 (10): 651. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9100651
Jackson ML (1973) Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall, New Delhi 32:34–36.
Kaur L, Rattan P, Reddy AH, Sharma A (2023) Effect of organic manures and bio-fertilizers on growth and yield of radish (Raphanus sativus L.). J Pharm Innov 12 (7): 1249–1254.
Khede K, Kumawat A, Tembare D (2019) Effect of or- ganic manures, fertilizers and their combinations on growth, yield and quality of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) cv.Japanese White. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 8
(3): 400–405. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.(2019)
Kumar P, Baksh H, Singh R, Srivastav A, Pandey R (2022) Impact of organic manures and biofertilizers on growth, yield and quality of cabbage: Effects of organic ma- nures and biofertilizers on cabbage. J Agri Sear 9 (4):
300–302. https://doi.org/10.21921/jas.v9i04.\% 2011592
Kumar S, Kumar P, Jatav V, Dukpa P, Suman S (2023) Influence of organic manure and inorganic fertilizers on growth and yield of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) in Gird Region of Madhya Pradesh, India. Int J Plant Soil Sci 35 (20): 244–252. https://doi.org/10.9734/ IJPSS/2023/v35i203804
Lane JH, Eynon L (1923) Methods for determination of reducing and non-reducing sugars. J Sci 42:32–37.
Maduwanthi SD, Marapana RAJ (2021) Show more compar- ison of pigments and some physicochemical properties of banana as affected by ethephon and acetylene in- duced ripening. Biocat Agric Biotechnol 33:101997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.(2021).101997
Mani A, Anburani A (2018) Short communication organic nutrient management technique for enhancing growth and physiological parameters in radish (Raphanus sativus L.). J Phyto 10:40–42. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 25081/jp.2018.v10.3461
Metson AJ (1956) Methods of chemical analysis for soil survey samples, New Zealand Soil Bureau Bulletin, no. 12
Mishra A, Singh S, Greene A (2020) Effect of integrated fertilization on qualitative and quantitative traits of radish (Raphanus sativus L.). Int J Current Microbiol Appl Sci 9 (8): 987–995. https://doi.org/10.20546/ ijcmas.2020.908.107
Negi M, Sharma JC, Shukla YR (2023) Effect of organic manures and inorganic fertilizers on dry matter yield, soil and plant nturients in onion (Allium cepa). Indian J Agric Sci 92 (6): 680–683. https://doi.org/10.56093/ ijas.v92i6.100007
NHB (2021) Final estimates of 2020-21 and first advance estimates of 2021-22 of area and production of horti- cultural crops. Department of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmer Welfare, 1–
2.
Olasekan AA, Agbede TM, Aboyeji C, Dunsin O (2019) Effect of biochar and poultry manure on soil charactes- rtics and the yield of radish. Sci Hortic 243:457–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.(2018).08.048
Olsen S, Sommers L (1982) Phosphorus. AL Page et al.(ed.) Methods of soil analysis. Part 2. Agron. Monogr. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. Phosphorus. Accessed January, 403–430.
Parry FA, Dar WA, Bhat BA, Sultan T (2021) Effect of different combinations of farm yard manure and bio- fertilizers on growth, yield and quality of Chinese cab- bage under high altitude climatic conditions of JK. Int J Chem Sci 9 (1): 856–858. https://doi.org/10.22271/ chemi.2021.v9.i1l.11332
Patel KS, Lal B, Upadhyay A, Singh RB, Singh P, Singh D (2023) Effect of different organic manures and inor- ganic fertilizers on growth and yield performance of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) c.v. Japanese White. J Exp Agric Int 45 (10): 139–143. https://doi.org/10. 9734/JEAI/2023/v45i102208
Piper CS (2002) Soil and plant analysis. Hans publishers, Bombay, India
Rasool A, Ghani A, Nawaz R, Ahmad S, Shahzad K, Rebi A, Ali B, et al. (2023) Effects of poultry manure on the growth, physiology, yield, and yield-related traits of maize varieties. ACS Omeg 25 8 (29): 25766–25779. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.3c00880
Sadasivam S, Manickam A (1992) In: Biochemical methods for agricultural sciences, Wiley Eastern Limited, New Delhi Boletin Cient Cien Bas e INg ICBI 2, 4, 6–11.
Shahwar D, Mushtaq Z, Mushtaq H, Alqaeawi AA, Park Y, Alshahrani TS, Faizan S (2023) Role of microbial inoculants as biofertilizers for improving crop pro- ductivity: A review. Heliyon 9 (e16134): 1–14. https:
//doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16134
Shani E, Salehin M, Zhang Y, Sanchez SE, Doherty C, Wang R, Mangado CC, et al. (2017) Plant stress toler- ance requires auxin-sensitive Aux/IAA transcriptional repressors. Curr Biol 27:437–444. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.cub.2016.12.016
Shao Y, Zhang D, Kang L, Li Z (2021) Global gene expres- sion perturbation in rapeseed due to the introduction of alien radish chromosomes. J Genetic 25:1–13. https:
//doi.org/10.1007/s12041-021-01276-4
Shilpa, Sharma M, Kaur M, Sharma AK, Sharma P, Chauhan M (2022) Soil fertility, growth, yield and root quality of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) as influ- enced by integrated nutrient management practices. Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal 45 (10): 1316–1333. https:
//doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2022.2142237
Singh MK (2021) Effect of integrated nutrient management on seed germination and cost benefit ratio of Radish (Raphanus sativus L.) cv. Kashi Shweta. J Nat Resour Develop 16 (2): 100–103.
SRehman, Castro FD, Aprile A, Benedetti M, Fanizzi FP (2023) Vermicompost: enhancing plant growth and combating abiotic and biotic stress. Agron 13 (4): 1–
24. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13041134
Sumbul A, Ansari RA, Rizvi R, Mahmood I (2020) Azo- tobacter: A potential bio fertilizer for soil and plant health management. Saudi J Biol Sci 27 (12): 3634–
3640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjbs.2020.08.004
Sun J, Luo H, Jiang Y, Wang L, Xiao L, Weng L (2022) In- fluence of nutrient (NPK) factors on growth, and phar- macodynamics component biosynthesis of Atracty- lodes chinensis: an insight of acetyl-CoA carboxy- lase (ACC), 3-hydoxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reduc- tase (HMGR), and farnesyl pyrophosphate synthase (FPPS) signaling response. Front Plant Sci 13:1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.(2022).799201
Thomas GW (1996) Soil pH and soil acidity. In: Sparks, D.L., Ed., methods of soil analysis: part 3—chemical methods, book series no. 5, SSSA and ASA, Madison, WI, 475–489.
Upadhyay SK, Prasad R (2021) Studies on effect of or- ganic manures and biofertilizers on growth and yield of radish var. Kashi Shweta. Pharm Innovat J 10 (8): 1211–1213.
Urra J, Alkorta I, Garbisu C (2019) Potential benefits and risks for soil health derived from the use of organic amendments in agriculture. Agron 9 (9): 1–23. https:
//doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9090542
Walkley A, Black IA (1934) An examination of degtjar- eff method for determining soil organic matter and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci 37:29–37.
Wani IM, Narayan S, Magray MM, Khan FA, Mir SA, Yaseen I, Khurshid A (2023) Effect of organic manures and biofertilizers on seed quality of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) under temperate conditions of Kashmir. 15
(1): 315–319.
Zhang N, Yan J, Liu P (2021) Effect of bacterial manure on the properties of complex soil and growth of ryegrass. Agron 11 (3): 568. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy