Journal Pone 0288090

PLOS ONE
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Drip irrigation and sulphur fertilization

influenced fodder yield, quality and water use
efficiency of groundnut in arid region
Priyanka Gautam ID1,2*, S. R. Bhunia1, A. Sahoo2, R. K. Sawal2, Shantanu Rakshit2, V.
K. Yadav2, B. Lal3, Ramniwas1, Gograj1, Rajesh Bishnoi3, V. S. Rathore4
1 Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, SKRAU, Bikaner, India, 2 ICAR-National Research
Centre on Camel, Bikaner, India, 3 ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Regional Research Centre,
a1111111111 Bikaner, India, 4 ICAR-Central Arid Zone Research institute, Regional Research Station, Bikaner, India
a1111111111
a1111111111 * [email protected]
a1111111111
a1111111111
Abstract
Availability of ample and nutritious fodder for livestock is always a challenge in arid region.
Choice of crops such as groundnut that can fulfil the requirement of fodder with its crop resi-
OPEN ACCESS
dues along with human needs can be a viable option to bridge the gap between availability
Citation: Gautam P, Bhunia SR, Sahoo A, Sawal and requirement of fodder. The fodder yield and quality largely depend on soil moisture and
RK, Rakshit S, Yadav VK, et al. (2023) Drip
nutrient supply especially sulphur (S), a key nutrient for improving groundnut fodder quality.
irrigation and sulphur fertilization influenced fodder
yield, quality and water use efficiency of groundnut However, no researchers have given emphasis on coupling effect of drip irrigation (DI) and
in arid region. PLoS ONE 18(8): e0288090. https:// sulphur on fodder yield, quality, digestibility and water use efficiency (WUE). Therefore, the
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090
study was conducted to determine the effects of different regimes of DI and S on productivity
Editor: Arun Kumar Shanker, Central Research and quality of fodder. Results revealed that higher regimes of DI i.e. 0.8 +1.0 PE(pan evapo-
Institute for Dryland Agriculture, INDIA
ration) and 1.0 PE level of irrigation along with 40 kg S ha-1 significantly improved the yield,
Received: January 18, 2023 primary quality traits (crude protein, ether extract and ash), digestibility indices and signifi-
Accepted: June 16, 2023 cant reduction in Fibers which indicates improvement in quality of fodder. Fodder productiv-
ity was 27.0 and 25.6% higher in 1.0 PE and 0.8+1.0 PE level of irrigation, respectively, as
Published: August 4, 2023
compared to 0.6 PE level (lower water regime) of irrigation, although 0.6 PE level of irrigation
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the
recorded higher WUE and was at par with 0.8 PE and 0.6 +1.0 PE level of DI. By changing
benefits of transparency in the peer review
process; therefore, we enable the publication of the levels of DI from 1.0 PE to 0.8+1.0 PE, considerable water can be saved without affect-
all of the content of peer review and author ing the yield and quality of fodder. Similarly, crop responded to S up to 60 kg ha-1 but at par
responses alongside final, published articles. The
with 40 kg S ha-1 indicating that application of extra S after 40 kg did not warrant any extra
editorial history of this article is available here:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 benefit in terms of fodder yield, WUE and quality of fodder. Thus, adjusting the PE levels of
DI for water saving and optimal S application can be a sustainable strategy to improve the
Copyright: © 2023 Gautam et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the productivity and quality of groundnut fodder in arid region.
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are Introduction

within the paper. Rapid increase in human population imposing huge pressure on livestock to fulfil the need for
Funding: The author(s) received no specific animal products. Fodder quality is also essential with quantity for higher productivity of live-
funding for this work. stock [1]. Fodder deficit has to be bridge up either by enhancing productivity, utilizing
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 1 / 20

PLOS ONE Fodder yield and quality under drip irrigation and sulphur fertilization
Competing interests: The authors have declared unexploited feed resources like crop residues of various crops, or by horizontal expansion of
that no competing interests exist. area under forage crop, which has limited scope [2]. In arid regions, livestock rearing is diffi-
cult due to limited supply of forages because of water scarcity and poor soil fertility [3]. There-
fore, a serious strategy is essential for continuous fodder supply by forage cultivation and feed
for livestock [4] in these areas. Forage quality (palatability, digestibility, intake, nutrient con-
tent) is also need to be maintained or improved along with yield for better livestock productiv-
ity. Forage quality is affected by several factors such as harvesting time, maturity age of forage,
type of forage species, prevailing weather and crop management practices [5]. Competition for
natural resources especially water for production of food and forage has put arid regions
under pressure. Dual purpose crops such as groundnut needs to be cultivated, which is a valu-
able source of nutrient, and every part of groundnut has commercial value [6]. The kernels are
good source of quality oil and protein for humans, green leaves, stems and shells of the pods
are used as animal feed, its haulm is considered as good dry fodder for animals, cake obtained
after oil extraction is also used as animal feed, especially in arid regions [7], where mitigation
of fodder requirement is always a challenge.
Scarcity of water and nutrients, poor soil fertility with fragile ecosystem are the major char-
acteristics of arid regions. Crop failure is quite common in this region and the reasons may be
unpredictable weather, erratic and uneven rainfall leading to prolonged dry spell (may be up
to > 30 days)and high salinity [8]. In addition to the harsh climate, inefficient utilization of
existing limited resources under arid climate is also a serious threat to plant productivity [9].
From last few years’ irrigation facility improved in the region and it enhanced crop productiv-
ity, however, overutilization of groundwater for irrigation, unreasonable land use and other
inappropriate agronomic measures [10] lead to salinization and deterioration of soil health
[11]. There is a large gap exists between rainfall and potential evapotranspiration that indicates
the essentiality of irrigation for meeting water requirement of crops in this region. Thus, the
importance of agro-management practices that preserve water has increased [12]. Ground nut
farmers usually apply excessive irrigation i.e. around 600–700 mm water to maximize yield [9].
This poor and inefficient management of irrigation water resulted in reduction of WUE, and
economic benefits along with several environmental issues. Therefore, suitable irrigation
regimes like drip irrigation are needed for augmenting water use efficiency for sustainable pea-
nut production in arid regions of India. Drip irrigation promises complete elimination of the
problem of water stress even under severe water scarcity condition. Unlike the conventional
method of irrigation, pipe network and emitters in drip irrigation delivers the water near the
root zone of crops without much loss of water, resulting in higher water productivity [13].
Another important factor for improving crop production and productivity after irrigation
is through modifying soil nutrient supply. Sulphur’s essentiality for plant growth and develop-
ment has also been acknowledged for improving crop productivity [14], quality [15], and
plants’ abiotic stress responses [16]. Therefore, access to an adequate supply of S for plants
throughout their development is necessary for optimum crop performance [17]. Despite all
this, S has received little attention for many years, until only recently [18]. This is largely
because previously it was a thought that fertilizers and atmospheric deposition adequately sup-
plied the soil with enough sulphur [19]. Subsequently, due to the importance of S nutrient in
plant functions (such as in sugar production, carbon dioxide assimilation, nitrogen (N) fixa-
tion and protein formation), S is increasingly becoming more important [20]. Notably, scien-
tific research indicates that the farmers will have to start applying S through fertilization to
achieve full potential of crop in terms of yield, quality and to make efficient use of applied N
for protein and enzyme synthesis [16, 19]. In most of the groundnut growing tracts, the level
of available sulphur reaches below the critical limit and groundnut crop is bound to suffer on
account of sulphur deficiency [21]. Since groundnut is rich in both oil and protein, the

requirement of S for this crop is substantial [21]. Therefore, the present investigation was
planned with the hypothesis that drip irrigation at suitable pan evaporation level can save
enough amount of water and optimum sulphur fertilization can improve forage productivity
and quality of groundnut in hot arid region. Accordingly, this study was conducted to deter-
mine the effect of drip irrigation levels and different doses of sulphur in groundnut on fodder
yield, fodder value, quality of dry fodder and water saving in arid environments.
Materials and methods

Experimental site and climatic conditions
The field experiment was conducted during kharif season of two consecutive years of 2020
and 2021 at Experimental Farm, College of Agriculture, S.K. Rajasthan Agricultural Uni-
versity, Bikaner (Rajasthan), situated at 28˚ 10ˊN latitude and 73˚ 35ˊ E longitude at an alti-
tude of 235 meters above mean sea level. Bikaner falls under arid climate with average
annual rainfall of about 265 mm, receiving more than 80 per cent in the kharif season
(July-September) through South West monsoon. During summer, the maximum tempera-
ture may go as high as 48˚ C while in the winters it may fall as low as 0˚C. The weather data
was obtained from Meteorological observatory of Agricultural Research Station, Bikaner
and presented as Fig 1. The maximum and minimum temperature ranged between 26.6˚C
to 43.2˚C and 8.5˚C to 31.1˚C during the crop growing season of 2020 and 32.1˚C to
41.1˚C and 12.0˚C to 27.9˚C during the crop growing season of 2021, respectively. Crop
received 159.9 mm and 251.2 mm of rainfall with 12 and 20 rainy days in the growing sea-
son of 2020 and 2021, respectively. The soil of the experimental field was loamy sand in
texture and slightly alkaline in reaction (pH 8.4), poor in organic carbon (0.11%), low in
available nitrogen (104 kg ha-1) but medium in available phosphorus (14 kg ha-1), potas-
sium (75 kg ha-1).
Experimental design and treatments

The experiment was laid out in split plot design with irrigation as main plot treatment and
sulphur fertilization as sup-plot treatment and replicated thrice. Six levels of drip irrigation
viz., 0.6 PE(from sowing to maturity), 0.8 PE(from sowing to maturity), 1.0 PE (from sowing
to maturity), 0.6 PE (0-45DAS) + 0.8 PE (46 DAS to maturity), 0.6 PE (0-45DAS) + 1.0 PE
(46 DAS to maturity) and 0.8 PE (0-45DAS) + 1.0 PE (46 DAS to maturity) and four levels of
sulphur fertilization i.e., 0, 20, 40 and 60 kg S ha-1 were used. Wettable powder of soluble sul-
phur was applied as per the treatments, it is a readily available form of S, and therefore it was
applied at the time of sowing. The layout of the experiment was same during both the years.
For field preparation, one pre-sowing irrigation (palewa) was applied and ploughing was
done by tractor drawn Rotavator. Thereafter, the field was laid out manually into plots
according to the plan of work with the provision of path. Irrigations were applied as per
treatments.
Crop management
The groundnut seed was treated before sowing adopting FIR (seed was treated in the sequence
of fungicide, insecticide, Rhizobium) method to ensure protection from soil borne diseases
and for enhancing nitrogen fixationwith fungicide Bavistin @ 2 g kg-1, imidaclorpid @ 3 ml kg-
1
and Rhizobium. The groundnut variety HNG-123 was sown manually by kera method (drop-
ping seeds in furrows followed by covering with soil)at depth of 5–6 cmat a seed rate of 100 kg
ha-1. For fertilizer management, 40 kg N ha-1, 40 kg P2O5 ha-1, 60 kg K2O ha-1were given

Fig 1. Maximum and minimum temperature, rainfall recorded daily during the crop growth period i.e. from June
to November in 2020 and 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090.g001
through Urea, DAP and MOP. Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and sulphur (as per the treat-
ments) were applied as basal before sowing. Prophylactic plant protection measures were
undertaken to protect the crop from insects and diseases. Two sprays of Streptocycline @ 0.5 g
liter-1 + Copper oxy chloride @ 2.5 g liter-1 +Mencozeb @ 2 g liter-1 of water at 80 DAS and
100 DAS were done for controlling collar rot and blight disease.
Irrigation water application

Irrigation was scheduled based on pan evaporation. Irrigations through drip were scheduled
on alternate days as per treatment. The quantity of water was calculated as follows:
Irrigation waterðmmÞ ¼ PE � Irrigations levels

Where,
PE ¼ Pan evaporationðmmÞ
The lateral drip lines are laid on the soil surface at a line-to-line distance of 100 cm and
dripper to dripper distance was 30 cm with 4 lit hr-1 discharge.
Fodder yield
Groundnut was harvested manually and after removing the pods of the plants from net plot
area, biomass was recorded from each treatment and green and dry fodder productivity was
recordedas t ha-1.
Fodder quality parameters

The plant samples were collected at the time of harvesting for analysis of fodder quality param-
eters. Contents of ash (%), crude protein (CP; %) and ether extract (EE; %) was estimated as
per AOAC [22]. Neutral and acid detergent fiber (NDF and ADF) were determined as per Van
Soest et al. [23] while lignin was analyzed by procedure of Robertson and Van Soest [24]. The
haulm yield was multiplied with the content of CP, EE and ash% for estimation of respective
yield under each treatment.
Secondary quality parameters also determined such as DMI, TDN, DMD, NEL, RFV, RFQ,
DE, ME and NE. Dry matter intake (DMI), total digestible nutrients (TDN), dry matter digest-
ibility (DMD), net energy for lactation (NEL) were determined by the equations suggested by
Horrocks and Vallentine [25].
120
DMI ð%Þ ¼
NDF
TDN ð%Þ ¼ 1:291 � ADF þ 101:35
DMDð%Þ ¼ 88:9 ð0:779 � ADFÞ
NEL ðMcal kg 1 Þ ¼ ½1:044 ð0:0119 � ADF Þ� � 2:205
NEL ðMJ kg 1 Þ ¼ NEL ðMcal kg 1 Þ � 4:184
Relative feed value (RFV) is an important indicator to estimate the digestible dry matter
from ADF and calculates the dry matter intake potential from NDF. Higher the RFV indicates
higher quality of fodder determined by the equation given by Horrocks and Vallentine [25].
DMI ð%Þ � DMDð%Þ
RFV ¼
1:29
Relative feed quality (RFQ) index reflects the Fiber digestibility to estimate intake as well as
total digestible nutrients substitutes for DDM. Fodder/feed containing higher NDF, make
RFQ, a better predictor of fodder quality than RFV. The RFQ emphasizes on digestibility of
Fiber while RFV uses DDMI [26].
DMI ð%Þ � TDNð%Þ
RFQ ¼
1:23
Digestible energy (DE) provides an indication of actual amount of energy from a feed/

fodder that can be used by animal and was estimated by the formula of Fonnesbeck et al. [27].
DEðMcal kg 1 Þ ¼ 0:27 þ ½0:0428 � DMDð%Þ�
DEðMJ kg 1 Þ ¼ DEðMcal kg 1 Þ � 4:184
Metabolizable energy (ME) refers to the digestible energy minus energy lost in urine plus
energy lost in the form of gaseous production of methane by rumen and hind gut microbes
during digestion.
MEðMJ kg 1 Þ ¼ DEðMJ kg 1 Þ � 0:821
4:4 � TDN ð%Þ

Digestible feed energyðDFEÞ ¼ f g � 4:184
1:23100
Net energy (NE) was calculated as difference in energy lost from excreta and heat produced
in digestive and metabolic processes [28].
�
fTDN ð%Þ � 3:65g 100
NEðMJ kg 1Þ ¼ � 6:9
188:3
Nutrient analysis
The representative samples of haulm/dry fodder were taken at the time of threshing were thor-
oughly ground to pass through 40mesh sieve and analyzed for nitrogen, and sulphur content.
Nitrogenand sulphur content was estimated by procedures of Subbiah and Asija [29] and
Chesnin and Yien [30], respectively.
Water use and water use efficiency (WUE)

Total water applied to the field was calculated at different PE levels viz., 0.6 PE, 0.8 PE, 1.0 PE
and 0.6+0.8 PE, 0.6+1.0 PE and 0.8+1.0 PE. The amount of water received through rainfall
during crop growing period was also added in the estimation of water use. Water use efficiency
was calculated as the ratio of groundnut green and dry fodder yield to total water used in the
particular treatment and expressed in kg ha-1 mm.
Fodder yieldðkg ha 1 Þ
WUEðkg ha 1 mmÞ ¼
wateruseðmmÞ
Statistical analysis
The data of fodder yield, quality parameters, digestibility indices, nutrient uptake and WUE
were recorded and analyzed in analysis of variance (ANOVA) for split-plot design in excel. All
the recorded data is distributed normally with equal variances. Treatment significance was
determined using the F-test, and comparisons were made by using critical difference (CD) at
the 5% level of significance. Regression analysis was performed between fodder quality param-
eters and irrigation water and sulphur regimes.
Results
Effect on fodder productivity of groundnut
Green and dry fodder yields of groundnut significantly influenced with different treatments of
drip irrigation levels and S fertilization during both the years (Table 1). Maximum fodder yield
was recorded in 1.0 PE level of drip irrigation but it was at par with 0.8 +1.0 PE drip irrigation,

Table 1. Effect of drip irrigation and sulphur levels on green and dry fodder yield of groundnut during 2020 and 2021.
Drip irrigation levels (PE) Sulphur levels (kg ha-1)
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
2020 2021
Green fodder yield (t ha-1)
0.6 10.70c 11.32b 13.06b 13.25b 11.46c 12.08c 13.63c 14.03b
0.8 14.69ab 14.77a 14.18b 16.12a 15.47ab 15.47ab 14.88c 16.82a
1.0 16.29a 17.00a 17.65a 17.40a 17.03a 17.73a 18.39a 18.15a
0.6 + 0.8 13.22b 15.23a 15.57ab 13.46b 13.31bc 15.32b 15.66bc 13.55b
0.6 + 1.0 14.29ab 15.17a 15.63ab 16.51a 14.42b 15.29b 15.73bc 16.50a
0.8 + 1.0 16.16a 17.01a 16.67a 17.03a 16.84a 17.69a 17.34ab 17.70a
S.Em.± 0.86 0.80
CDP=0.05 2.47 2.30
Dry fodder yield (t ha-1)
0.6 3.43c 3.63b 4.19b 4.25b 3.65c 3.85c 4.34c 4.47b
0.8 4.54ab 4.57a 4.38b 4.98a 4.78ab 4.78ab 4.59c 5.19a
1.0 4.71a 4.92a 5.11a 5.03a 4.92a 5.13a 5.32a 5.25a
0.6 + 0.8 3.95b 4.55a 4.65ab 4.02b 3.97bc 4.57b 4.67bc 4.04b
0.6 + 1.0 4.24ab 4.50a 4.63ab 4.89a 4.27b 4.53b 4.66bc 4.88a
0.8 + 1.0 4.73a 4.98a 4.88a 4.99a 4.92a 5.17a 5.07ab 5.18a
S.Em.± 0.26 0.24
CDP=0.05 0.74 0.69
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090.t001
whereas lowest fodder yield was recorded in 0.6 PE level of irrigation. On an average, drip irri-
gation levels of higher PE, i.e., 1.0 PE and 0.8 +1.0 PE increased dry fodder yield by 1045, 292,
713 and 444 kg ha-1 over 0.6 PE, 0.8PE, 0.6+0.8PE and 0.6+1.0PE level of drip irrigation,
respectively. Fodder yield was 27.0 and 25.6% higher in 1.0 PE and 0.8+1.0 PE level of irriga-
tion, respectively, as compared to 0.6 PE level of irrigation.
Maximum green and dry fodder yield was recorded with 60 kg S ha-1 which was at par with
40 kg S ha-1, while lowest fodder yield was recorded in control (Table 1). On an average, appli-
cation of 20, 40 and 60 kg S ha-1 resulted in 5.8, 8.4, 9.7% higher yield of groundnut, respec-
tively, when computed over no S application. The increase in dry fodder yield was 253 kg ha-1,
when level of S was increased from 0–20 kg S ha-1; this increase in yield was 111 kg ha-1, when
level of S increased from 20–40 kg S ha-1, and then when level of S increased from 40–60 kg S
ha-1yield increase was only 57 kg ha-1. As per the interaction effect it was observed that drip
irrigation level of 1.0 PE produced maximum fodder yield when supplied with 40 kg S ha-1,
although it was at par with the 1.0 PE and 60 kg S ha-1, 0.8+1.0 PE and 60 kg S ha-1, 0.8+1.0 PE
and 40 kg S ha-1.
Quality parameters of groundnut fodder

Crude protein, ether extract and ash content and yield. Different levels of drip irrigation
and sulphur fertilization significantly influenced the content and yield of CP, EE and ash in
groundnut fodder during both the years (Tables 2 and 3). It can be seen that significantly high-
est content and yield of CP (16.98% and 8.57 q ha-1), EE(3.50% and 1.76 q ha-1) and ash(9.84%
and 4.98 q ha-1) was recorded in 1.0 PE level of drip irrigation, which was at par with 0.8 +1.0
PE level of drip irrigation. Whereas, lowest CP, EE and ash content and yield was recorded in
0.6 PE level of irrigation. On an average, the content and yield of CP, EE and ash was higher in
2021 over 2020. Application of higher doses of S(40 and 60 kg S ha-1) contributed positively in

Table 2. Effect of drip irrigation and sulphur levels on content and yield of crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE) and ash of groundnut fodder during 2020.
Content (%) Yield (q ha-1) Fiber (%)
CP EE Ash CP EE Ash CF NDF ADF
Drip irrigation levels (PE)
0.6 14.14b 2.84b 6.76b 5.43d 1.11b 2.65c 25.32a 38.53a 29.83a
0.8 15.39ab 3.33ab 9.26a 7.05ab 1.56a 4.33ab 21.25b 32.50b 23.98b
1.0 16.79a 3.49a 9.83a 8.30a 1.72a 4.88a 20.28b 30.90b 22.52b
0.6 + 0.8 14.79ab 3.08ab 8.61a 6.41cd 1.34ab 3.71b 23.63ab 34.24ab 26.31ab
0.6 + 1.0 15.21ab 3.31ab 8.98a 6.88bc 1.50a 4.13ab 22.16ab 33.16b 24.89b
0.8 + 1.0 16.25ab 3.44ab 9.44a 7.91ab 1.67a 4.63a 20.26b 32.05b 23.13b
S.Em.± 0.68 0.20 0.39 0.43 0.12 0.27 1.09 1.39 1.28
LSDP=0.05 2.14 0.62 1.24 1.36 0.37 0.85 3.42 4.37 4.04
Sulphur levels (kg ha-1)
0 14.82b 2.99b 7.35d 6.34b 1.29c 3.20c 23.87a 35.75a 27.54a
20 15.31ab 3.25ab 8.82c 6.91ab 1.47b 4.04b 22.27b 34.48a 25.27bc
40 15.68ab 3.29a 9.17b 7.28a 1.53a 4.29ab 21.38b 32.63b 24.16cd
60 15.90a 3.47a 9.91a 7.45a 1.63a 4.68a 21.08b 31.40b 23.46d
S.Em.± 0.35 0.09 0.19 0.22 0.05 0.14 0.44 0.53 0.56
LSDP=0.05 0.99 0.27 0.55 0.63 0.15 0.41 1.27 1.52 1.60
I x S P=0.05 2.43 0.66 1.36 1.55 0.38 1.00 3.10 3.72 3.91
better vegetative, and reproductive of the crop resulting in higher N content in haulm leading
to better content and yield of CP, EE and ash in fodderduring both the years of 2020 and 2021
(Tables 2 and 3). Maximum content and yield of CP (16.08% and 7.66 q ha-1), EE(3.47% and
1.66 q ha-1) and ash(9.92% and 4.75 q ha-1), which was at par with 40 kg S ha-1, whereas lowest
contents and yield was recorded in control. On an average, application of 20, 40 and 60 kg S
Table 3. Effect of drip irrigation and sulphur levels on content and yield of crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE) and ash of groundnut fodder during 2021.
Content (%) Yield (q ha-1) Fiber (%)
CP EE Ash CP EE Ash CF NDF ADF
0.6 14.50b 2.83b 6.79b 5.87d 1.18b 2.79c 24.65a 36.68a 29.48a
0.8 15.78ab 3.36ab 9.29a 7.56ab 1.64a 4.54ab 20.52b 31.48b 23.63b
1.0 17.18a 3.51a 9.86a 8.85a 1.81a 5.09a 19.56b 30.05b 22.18b
0.6 + 0.8 15.19ab 3.09ab 8.64a 6.60cd 1.35ab 3.74b 22.93ab 33.17ab 25.97ab
0.6 + 1.0 15.60ab 3.34ab 9.01a 7.08bc 1.52a 4.16ab 21.48ab 32.10b 24.57b
0.8 + 1.0 16.72ab 3.43ab 9.46a 8.45ab 1.75a 4.81a 19.59b 30.99b 22.79b
S.Em.± 0.71 0.29a 0.54 0.47 0.16 0.33 1.11 1.22 1.28
LSDP=0.05 2.24 ns 1.69 1.47 0.52 1.03 3.49 3.84 4.03
0 15.21b 3.01b 7.37d 6.74b 1.35c 3.32c 23.36a 34.66a 27.01a
20 15.71ab 3.26ab 8.86c 7.32ab 1.54b 4.17b 21.74b 32.64a 25.00bc
40 16.13ab 3.30a 9.20b 7.68a 1.59a 4.43ab 20.51b 31.53b 23.89cd
60 16.26a 3.48a 9.93a 7.87a 1.69a 4.83a 20.21b 30.82b 23.18d
S.Em.± 0.33 0.06 0.22 0.22 0.04 0.14 0.44 0.68 0.57
LSDP=0.05 0.94 0.16 0.63 0.62 0.11 0.39 1.27 1.96 1.63
I x S P=0.05 2.30 0.39 1.54 1.52 0.28 0.96 3.12 4.81 3.99

ha-1 resulted in 3.3, 5.6, 7.1% (CP content), 8.3, 9.7, 15.6% (EE content) and 20.1, 24.9, 34.8%
(ash content) higher in groundnut fodder, respectively, when computed over no S application.
As per the interaction effect it was observed that drip irrigation level of 1.0 PE produced maxi-
mum CP, EE and ash content and yield when supplied with 60 kg S ha-1, although it was at par
with the 1.0 PE and 40 kg S ha-1, 0.8+1.0 PE and 60 kg S ha-1, 0.8+1.0 PE and 40 kg S ha-1.
Fiber content of groundnut fodder. Results indicated that different levels of drip irriga-
tion and sulphur fertilization significantly affected the content of NDF, ADF and CF (Tables 2
and 3). Lowest content of CF(19.92%), NDF(30.47%) and ADF(22.35%)was recorded in 1.0 PE
level of drip irrigation, which was at par with 0.8 +1.0 PE level of drip irrigation with 19.93,
31.52 and 22.96% CF, NDF and ADF content, respectively, whereas, highest CF, NDF and
ADF content was recorded in 0.6 PE level of irrigation. In general, Fiber contents were slightly
higher in 2020 than 2021. Different levels of sulphur fertilization significantly influenced CF,
NDF and ADF content in groundnut fodder during both the years (Tables 2 and 3). When
compared with no fertilization control, application of higher doses of S (40 and 60 kg S ha-1)
significantly decreased the Fiber content of crop during both the years of 2020 and 2021. The
minimum CF, NDF and ADF content (20.64, 31.11 and 23.32%, respectively) was recorded
with 60 kg S ha-1 which was at par with 40 kg S ha-1, whereas maximum CF content was
recorded in control. On an average, application of 20, 40 and 60 kg S ha-1 resulted in 7.3, 12.6,
14.4% lower CF content, 4.8, 9.7, 13.2% lower NDF content, 8.8, 13.7, 17.2% lower ADF con-
tent of groundnut, respectively, when computed over no S application. Fiber content was
decreased with increasing levels of S from 0 to 60 kg S ha-1, but the rate of decrease was higher
from 0–20 kg S ha-1, thereafter rate of decrease in Fiber content was proportionately lower. As
per the interaction effect it was observed that drip irrigation level of 1.0 PE produced mini-
mum CF, NDF and ADF content when supplied with 60 kg S ha-1, although it was at par with
the 1.0 PE and 40 kg S ha-1, 0.8+1.0 PE and 60 kg S ha-1, 0.8+1.0 PE and 40 kg S ha-1.
Different digestibility and quality indices. All the digestibility and quality indices were
significantly affected due to different levels of drip irrigation and sulphur fertilization during
both the years (Tables 4 and 5). The groundnut fodder in 1.0 PE level of irrigation showed sig-
nificantly higher DMI (3.98%), DMD (71.49%), TDN (72.50%) and NEL (7.18 MJ kg-1) content
as compared to other remaining levels of drip irrigations, especially 0.6 PE level.
As per sulphur fertilization, application of 60 kg S ha-1reported significantly higher DMI
(3.92%), DMD (70.73%), TDN (71.24%) and NEL (7.08 MJ kg-1) content followed by 40 kg S
application ha-1, whereas, lowest values were obtained in control. As per the interaction effect,
1.0 PE level of irrigation when supplied with 60 kg Sha-1 resulted in maximum DMI, DMD,
TDN and NEL contents, although it was at par with the 1.0 PE and 40 kg S ha-1, 0.8+1.0 PE and
60 kg S ha-1, 0.8+1.0 PE and 40 kg S ha-1.
When the groundnut fodder crop grown under higher levels of drip irrigation i.e., 1.0 PE
and 0.8 + 1.0 PE levels recorded higher RFV (221.5) (Fig 2), RFQ (236.0) (Fig 3), DE (13.93 MJ
kg-1), ME (11.44MJ kg-1), DFE (13.35 MJ kg-1), and NE (6.03 MJ kg-1) as compared to other
levels of drip irrigation (Tables 4 and 5). Among sulphur fertilization, groundnut fodder sup-
plied with 60 kg S ha-1reported significantly higherRFV (215.8), RFQ (228.6), DE (13.80 MJ
kg-1), ME (11.39MJ kg-1), DFE (13.11 MJ kg-1), and NE (5.86 MJ kg-1). As per the interaction
effect, 1.0 PE level of irrigation when supplied with 60 kg Sha-1 resulted in maximum RFV,
RFQ, DE, ME, DFE and NE contents, although it was at par with the 1.0 PE and 40 kg S ha-1,
0.8+1.0 PE and 60 kg S ha-1, 0.8+1.0 PE and 40 kg S ha-1.
Nutrient content and uptake in groundnut fodder. Nitrogen and sulphur content was
estimated in dry fodder and it remained unaffected due to drip irrigation levels during both
the years (Table 6). On an average, it can be seen that N and S content in dry fodder was higher
in 1.0 PE drip irrigation, which was statistically at par with 0.8 +1.0 PE level of drip irrigation,

Table 4. Effect of drip irrigation and sulphur levels on digestibility indices of groundnut fodder during 2020; DMI-dry matter intake, DMD- dry matter digestibil-
ity, TDN- total digestible nutrients, NEL- net energy for lactation, DE- digestible energy, ME- metabolizable energy, DFE- digestible feed energy, NE- net energy.
DMI (%) DMD (%) TDN (%) NEL (Mcalkg-1) NEL (MJ kg-1) DE (Mcalkg-1) DE (MJ kg-1) ME (MJ kg-1) DFE (MJ kg-1) NE ((MJ kg-1)
0.6 3.15b 65.67b 62.85b 1.52b 6.36b 3.08b 12.89b 10.58b 11.57b 4.74b
0.8 3.71a 70.22a 70.40a 1.67a 7.00a 3.28a 13.70a 11.25a 12.96a 5.75a
1.0 3.92a 71.36a 72.28a 1.71a 7.16a 3.32a 13.91a 11.42a 13.31a 6.00a
0.6 + 0.8 3.53ab 68.41ab 67.39ab 1.61ab 6.74ab 3.20ab 13.38ab 10.98ab 12.41ab 5.35ab
0.6 + 1.0 3.66a 69.51a 69.21a 1.65a 6.90a 3.25a 13.58a 11.15a 12.74a 5.59a
0.8 + 1.0 3.79a 70.89a 71.50a 1.70a 7.09a 3.30a 13.82a 11.35a 13.16a 5.90a
S.Em.± 0.14 1.00 1.66 0.03 0.14 0.04 0.18 0.15 0.31 0.22
LSDP=0.05 0.43 3.15 5.22 0.11 0.44 0.13 0.56 0.46 0.96 0.70
0 3.39b 67.44c 65.79c 1.58c 6.61c 3.16c 13.21c 10.84c 12.11c 5.14c
20 3.50b 69.22b 68.73b 1.64b 6.86b 3.23b 13.52b 11.10b 12.65b 5.53b
40 3.72a 70.08ab 70.17a 1.67ab 6.98ab 3.27ab 13.68ab 11.23ab 12.92ab 5.72ab
60 3.89a 70.62a 71.06a 1.69a 7.06a 3.29a 13.78a 11.31a 13.08a 5.84a
S.Em.± 0.06 0.43 0.72 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.10
LSDP=0.05 0.18 1.25 2.06 0.04 0.18 0.05 0.22 0.18 0.38 0.28
I x S P=0.05 0.43 3.05 5.07 0.10 0.43 0.13 0.54 0.45 0.93 0.67
whereas lowest N and S content was recorded in 0.6 PE level of irrigation. Application of
higher doses of S (40 and 60 kg S ha-1) contributed positively in better vegetative, reproductive
and root growth of the crop resulting in higher N and S content in groundnut fodder during
both the years of 2020 and 2021. The maximum N (1.48%) and S (0.24%) content was recorded
with 60 kg S ha-1 which was at par with 40 kg S ha-1 (1.46% and0.23%), whereas lowest N and S
Table 5. Effect of drip irrigation and sulphur levels on digestibility indices of groundnut fodder during 2021; DMI-dry matter intake, DMD- dry matter digestibil-
ity, TDN- total digestible nutrients, NEL- net energy for lactation, DE- digestible energy, ME- metabolizable energy, DFE- digestible feed energy, NE- net energy.
DMI (%) DMD (%) TDN (%) NEL (Mcalkg-1) NEL (MJkg-1) DE (Mcalkg-1) DE (MJkg-1) ME (MJ kg-1) DFE (MJ kg-1) NE ((MJ kg-1)
0.6 3.30b 65.93b 63.29b 1.53b 6.39b 3.09b 12.94b 10.62b 11.65b 4.80b
0.8 3.84a 70.50a 70.85a 1.68a 7.04a 3.29a 13.75a 11.29a 13.04a 5.81a
1.0 4.05a 71.62a 72.71a 1.72a 7.20a 3.34a 13.95a 11.46a 13.39a 6.06a
0.6 + 0.8 3.65ab 68.67ab 67.83ab 1.62ab 6.78ab 3.21ab 13.43ab 11.02ab 12.49ab 5.41ab
0.6 + 1.0 3.77ab 69.76a 69.63a 1.66a 6.93a 3.26a 13.62a 11.18a 12.82a 5.65a
0.8 + 1.0 3.91a 71.15a 71.93a 1.70a 7.13a 3.32a 13.87a 11.39a 13.24a 5.96a
S.Em.± 0.17 1.00 1.65 0.03 0.14 0.04 0.18 0.15 0.30 0.22
LSDP=0.05 0.52 3.14 5.20 0.11 0.44 0.13 0.56 0.46 0.96 0.70
0 3.51c 67.86c 66.48c 1.59b 6.67c 3.17c 13.28c 10.90b 12.24c 5.23c
20 3.71bc 69.43b 69.08b 1.65a 6.89b 3.24b 13.56b 11.13a 12.72b 5.57b
40 3.85ab 70.29ab 70.51ab 1.68a 7.01ab 3.28ab 13.72ab 11.26a 12.98ab 5.77ab
60 3.95a 70.84a 71.43a 1.69a 7.09a 3.30a 13.82a 11.34a 13.15a 5.89a
S.Em.± 0.08 0.44 0.73 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.07 0.14 0.10
LSDP=0.05 0.23 1.27 2.10 0.04 0.18 0.05 0.23 0.19 0.39 0.28
I x S P=0.05 0.57 3.10 5.15 0.10 0.44 0.13 0.57 0.46 0.95 0.69

Fig 2. Relative feed value of groundnut dry fodder as influenced by levels of drip irrigation and sulphur
fertilization.
content was recorded in control. Nitrogen and sulphur content increased with increasing lev-
els of S from 0 to 60 kg S ha-1, but the rate of increase was higher from 0–20 kg S ha-1, thereaf-
ter rate of increase in N and S content was proportionately lower following the Baule unit
concept.
Drip irrigation and S fertilization levels had significant effect on N and S uptake of ground-
nut fodder during both the years (Table 6)because nutrient uptake is governed by fodder yield
of groundnut and yield was significantly differed due to treatment effect, so as N and S uptake.
Results indicated that Nand S uptake by fodder was significantly higher in 1.0 PE drip irriga-
tion (77.8 and 11.75 kg ha-1, respectively), which was statistically at par with 0.8 +1.0 PE level
of drip irrigation (75.1 and 11.66 kg ha-1, respectively), whereas lowest N and S uptake was

Fig 3. Relative feed quality of groundnut dry fodder as influenced by levels of drip irrigation and sulphur
fertilization.
recorded in 0.6 PE level of irrigation (38.7 and 8.91 kg ha-1, respectively). In general, total N
uptake was slightly higher in 2021 than 2020, because of higher yield in 2021. Application of
higher doses of S (40 and 60 kg S ha-1) resulted in higher N and S uptake by groundnut fodder
during both the years. The maximum N and S uptake (70.5 and 11.77 kg ha-1, respectively)
was recorded with 60 kg S ha-1 which was at par with 40 kg S ha-1 (68.4 and 11.11 kg ha-1),
whereas lowest N and S uptake (60.4 and 8.91 kg ha-1) was recorded in control. As per the
interaction effect it was observed that drip irrigation level of 1.0 PE when supplied with 60 kg S
ha-1resulted in maximum and N and S uptake, although it was at par with the 1.0 PE and 40 kg
S ha-1, 0.8+1.0 PE and 60 kg S ha-1, 0.8+1.0 PE and 40 kg S ha-1.

Table 6. Effect of drip irrigation and sulphur levels on nutrient content and uptake of groundnut fodder during 2020 and 2021.
N content S content N uptake S uptake
2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021 2020 2021
0.6 1.336 1.350 0.216 0.218 51.1c 54.2c 8.63b 9.19b
0.8 1.442 1.430 0.231 0.227 65.9abc 68.4abc 10.89ab 11.27ab
1.0 1.547 1.535 0.234 0.231 76.6a 79.0a 11.57a 11.93a
0.6 + 0.8 1.403 1.370 0.224 0.223 60.5bc 59.2b 9.65ab 9.70ab
0.6 + 1.0 1.431 1.411 0.230 0.229 64.4abc 63.9abc 10.36ab 10.48ab
0.8 + 1.0 1.521 1.502 0.233 0.231 74.1ab 76.1a 11.49a 11.83ab
S.Em.± 0.094 0.084 0.039 0.039 4.8 4.9 0.86 2.06
CDP=0.05 ns ns ns ns 15.0 15.2 2.64 2.72
0 1.394 1.386 0.203 0.202 59.5b 61.3c 8.76c 9.05c
20 1.435 1.416 0.227 0.225 64.5ab 65.5bc 10.38b 10.69b
40 1.469 1.450 0.236 0.235 68.0a 68.9ab 10.95a 11.27a
60 1.487 1.479 0.246 0.244 69.6a 71.4a 11.63a 11.92a
S.Em.± 0.023 0.025 0.003 0.004 1.9 1.8 0.25 0.26
CDP=0.05 ns ns ns ns 5.3 5.2 0.71 0.75
Water use efficiency. Water use efficiency was computed by dividing green and dry fod-
der yield with their respective water use of the treatment. It was found that lower the water
use, higher the WUE of the treatment. Data presented in Table 7 revealed that different treat-
ments of drip irrigation levels and S fertilization significantly influenced water use efficiency of
Table 7. Effect of drip irrigation and sulphur levels on water use efficiency and uptake of groundnut fodder during 2020 and 2021.
Drip irrigation levels (PE) Sulphur levels (kg ha-1)
0 20 40 60 0 20 40 60
2020 2021
Water use efficiencyGFY(kg ha-1 mm)
0.6 14.47de 15.29bcde 17.66ab 17.91a 15.49de 16.33bcde 18.42ab 18.96a
0.8 15.28bcde 15.35abcde 14.74cde 16.75abcd 16.08bcde 16.08abcde 15.47cde 17.49abcd
1.0 13.76e 14.36de 14.91cde 14.69de 14.38e 14.98de 15.53cde 15.33de
0.6 + 0.8 15.03cde 17.31abc 17.69a 15.29bcde 15.13cde 17.41abc 17.79a 15.39bcde
0.6 + 1.0 14.01e 14.87cde 15.32abcde 16.18abcde 14.14e 14.99cde 15.42abcde 16.17abcde
0.8 + 1.0 14.67de 15.43abcde 15.12bcde 15.45abcde 15.28de 16.05abcde 15.73bcde 16.06abcde
S.Em.± 0.90 0.86
CDP=0.05 2.59 2.46
Water use efficiencyDFY(kg ha-1 mm)
0.6 4.64def 4.90bcde 5.66ab 5.74a 4.93def 5.20bcde 5.87ab 6.04a
0.8 4.72cdef 4.75cdef 4.56cdef 5.18abc 4.97cdef 4.97cdef 4.78cdef 5.40abc
1.0 3.98f 4.16ef 4.31ef 4.25ef 4.16f 4.33ef 4.49ef 4.43ef
0.6 + 0.8 4.49def 5.17abcd 5.29abc 4.57cdef 4.52def 5.20abcd 5.31abc 4.59cdef
0.6 + 1.0 4.15ef 4.41def 4.54cdef 4.80cde 4.19ef 4.44def 4.56cdef 4.79cde
0.8 + 1.0 4.29ef 4.52cdef 4.43def 4.52cdef 4.47ef 4.69cdef 4.60def 4.70cdef
S.Em.± 0.27 0.26
CDP=0.05 0.79 0.75

groundnut fodder during both the years. Significantly highest WUE was recorded in 0.6 PE
drip irrigation level and 60 kg S ha-1 (18.44 and 5.89 kg ha-1mm with GFY and DFY, respec-
tively) during both the years. However, 0.6 PE level of irrigation was at par with 0.8 PE and 0.6
+1.0 PE level of drip irrigation, irrespective of the year and fodder yield. Similarly, WUE in 60
kg S ha-1 was at par with 40 kg S ha-1during both the years. Lowest WUE was recorded in 1.0
PE level of irrigation and when no sulphur was applied.
Discussion
Effect of drip irrigation and sulphur on fodder yield and nutrient uptake
Shortage of water is the major constraint for limiting crop yield in arid and semi-arid areas
[31]and improving effective utilization of water is an urgent need for sustainable crop produc-
tion in these areas [32]. Deficit irrigation (DI) has been emerging as an effective practice to
improve water use efficiency, and saving of water [9, 33]. Priorto this study, little information
exists on fodder productivity, water use efficiency, and quality of fodder and cake of ground-
nut under varying irrigation and S application rates. Results of the present study revealed that
S application is effective in increasing yield of groundnut in the areas having low content of S
in soil, and to achieve optimal coupling effect of irrigation and S for optimizing yield, aproper
combination of irrigation and fertilizer is required. Decrease in soil moisture often makes it
difficult for uptake of nutrients such as N, P, K and S, reducing growth, development and
yield. Lower photosynthesis and cell growth under moisture scarce conditions lowers the
growth and yield of crops grown [34].
Minimum fodder yield was recorded in 0.6 PE level of drip irrigation, with the increasing
PE levels fodder yield was increased, recording significantly higher yield in 1.0 PE drip irriga-
tion followed by 0.8 +1.0 PE level of drip irrigation. Dry matter production and its partitioning
to sinks is the major determining factor of yield; and water-deficit condition largely affects
them. Similar observation was recorded in the study that yield declined with a reduction in
irrigation regime (0.6 PE level). Higher irrigation levels of 1.0 PE and 0.8+1.0 PE helped in
maintaining the stress-free conditions for optimum growth and development of plants
throughout the crop growing period. The better response may be due to more frequent and
optimum supply of irrigation water, which not only increased nutrients availability in root
zone but also enhanced uptake of nutrients by the plant as well as ensured better partitioning
of nutrients in actively growing plant parts resulting in better growth, biomass and yield con-
tributing characters. The yield increase with higher PE levels of irrigation is due to frequent
higher volume of water application through drip irrigation which resulted in favour able
microclimate and kept soil moisture constantly nearer to field capacity which helped in
increasing yields. Proper irrigation scheduling under drip provides means of reducing water
wastage through evaporation with increased yields [35] as of treatment 0.8+1.0PE in the pres-
ent study. The maintenance of continuously high soil water potential, thus minimizing wide
fluctuations in soil water content might be the reason of yield increase. Nitrogen and sulphur
content and uptake in haulm or dry fodder was significantly higher in 1.0 PE drip irrigation,
which was statistically at par with 0.8 +1.0 PE level of drip irrigation, whereas lowest uptake
was recorded in 0.6 PE level of irrigation. Higher vegetative growth of shoots and roots
resulted in the better nutrient uptake under higher irrigation regimes. The nutrient uptake is a
function of nutrient concentration in economic and biological parts of the crop. The increase
in N and S uptake by crop might have ascribed to the cumulative effect for enhanced nutrient
concentration and biomass yield [36].
The sulphur fertiliser has a positive impact on the fodder yield of groundnut with higher
uptake of other micro and macronutrients [21]. Sulphur nutrition to crop is vital both from a

quality and quantity point of view. Sulphur lowers the HCN content of certain crops, promotes
nodulation in legumes, and increases fodder yield in oilseeds like groundnut. Higher fodder
yield with increased application of sulphur also attributed to protein and enzyme synthesis as
it is a constituent of sulphur containing amino acids namely methionine, cysteine, and cystine
[37]. According to Yadav et al. [38] with increasing levels of S, fodder yield and quality of
groundnut was increased due to better functioning of the roots and improving the sulphur
uptake in the root zone.
Effect of drip irrigation and sulphur on fodder quality parameters

For better quality and palatability of fodder, crude protein content, ash content and ether
extract should be higher, whereas, all the Fiber, CF, NDF, ADF and lignin content should be
lower in fodder. Fibers has the inverse relationship with crude protein and ash i.e. higher
crude Fiber, lower the crude protein in fodder, so is the poor quality and palatability of fodder.
It was evident from data all the dry fodder quality parameters were improved under higher irri-
gation regimes and higher doses of S application during both the years. According to [39, 40]
forage containing lower concentrations of ADF and NDF and higher DMI are of good quality
and NDF and ADF are positively correlated with shorter irrigation intervals that means reduc-
tion in irrigation regime or interval will increase NDF and ADF content. Similar finding was
also reported that NDF and ADF in alfalfa was increased by reducing irrigation [41]. Fiber
content in plants is affected by growth stage, leaf to stem ratio, nutrient availability in soil and
prevalent weather [42]. The increase in crude Fiber in lower level of irrigation may be associ-
ated with reduction in photosynthates [43]. The NDF and ADF concentration was lower in
higher level of irrigation regimes with 40 kg S ha-1 could be explained by the higher concentra-
tion of carbohydrate leading to better vegetative growth [44]. Under water stress, a main physi-
ological response of plant is to increase the insoluble Fibers in cell walls to prevent moisture
loss. Providing regular and continuous irrigation water as in drip irrigation slows down this
process and prevents increase in crude Fiber [45]. The percentage of ash in forage represents
the amount of minerals in plant tissues with the absorption of these materials by roots gener-
ally diminishing under drought conditions [46]. With the irrigation regime 0.8 +1.0 PE and 40
kg S ha-1 increased the ash content, due to optimum supply and availability of nutrients, more
nutrient uptake, by changing the pHor secretion of enzymes [47].
The optimum application of Scan be able to sufficient supply of nutrients for protein syn-
thesis [48] thus augmenting the crude protein in groundnut fodder. Numerous studies have
reported that when drought stress increases, the CP content of forage improves due to accu-
mulation of nitrogen [49]. The significantly highest crude protein, ash content and ether
extract and lowest crude Fiber, NDF, ADF and lignin content was recorded with application of
higher doses of S, because application of S contributed positively in better vegetative, repro-
ductive and root growth of the crop resulting in higher nutrient content in haulm leading to
better quality of dry fodder. Therefore, S and N content was positively correlated with CP and
ash content, however, negatively correlated with CF, NDF, ADF and lignin (Figs 4 and 5), indi-
cating that improvement in S fertilization, significantly improved the quality of groundnut
haulm/dry fodder.
The groundnut fodder yield and quality were increased when 0.8+1.0 PE level of irrigation
was applied with 40 kg S ha-1, which may increase the leaf water potential, the rate of CO2assi-
milation, transpiration, cause root growth and enhanced water absorption in the plant. Thus,
it can be stated that combined application of irrigation and S would probably improve the
absorption of nutrients and water in the plant thereby boosting its growth, development and
increasing the green and dry fodder yield of groundnut in arid environment.

Fig 4. Relationship of sulphur content in haulm/dry fodder with fodder quality parameters.
Conclusions
It can be concluded that lower irrigation regimes (0.6 PE) reduced the yield of fodder and
increased the Fiber content and decreased the protein and ash content leading to poor quality
fodder with low digestibility. Adjustment in irrigation regime i.e. 0.8PE (from sowing to 45
DAS) + 1.0 PE (46 DAS to maturity) resulted in better productivity, water saving and nutri-
tious fodder. Crop responded to increasing levels of S from 0–60 kg ha-1but response was
higher from 0–40 kg S ha-1, thereafter response was proportionately lower. Coupling effect of
0.8 +1.0 PE and 40 kg S ha-1 improved fodder yield and quality due to optimum supply and
availability of moisture and nutrients leading to lower Fiber content with better digestibility of
the fodder.

Fig 5. Relationship of nitrogen content in haulm/dry fodder with fodder quality parameters.
Acknowledgments
The authors want to acknowledge Dean, College of Agriculture, Bikaner and Vice-chancellor,
SKRAU, Bikaner for providing necessary facilities and support for completion of the study. I
also want to thank Director, NRCC, Bikaner for granting study leave for this investigation.

Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Priyanka Gautam, S. R. Bhunia.
Data curation: Priyanka Gautam, S. R. Bhunia, B. Lal.
Formal analysis: R. K. Sawal.
Investigation: Priyanka Gautam, V. K. Yadav, Gograj.
Methodology: V. K. Yadav, Ramniwas, Gograj.
Project administration: Priyanka Gautam, A. Sahoo.
Resources: S. R. Bhunia.
Software: Shantanu Rakshit, Rajesh Bishnoi.
Supervision: A. Sahoo, V. S. Rathore.
Validation: Priyanka Gautam.
Visualization: R. K. Sawal, Shantanu Rakshit, Ramniwas, V. S. Rathore.
Writing – original draft: Priyanka Gautam, B. Lal.
Writing – review & editing: Priyanka Gautam, A. Sahoo, R. K. Sawal, Shantanu Rakshit, B.
Lal, Rajesh Bishnoi, V. S. Rathore.
References
1. Vijay D, Gupta CK, Malviya DR. Innovative technologies for quality seed production and vegetative mul-
tiplication in forage grasses. Current Sci.2018; 114(1):148–154.
2. Dagar JC. Potentials for fodder production in degraded lands. In: Ghosh PK, Mohanta SK, Singh JB,
Vijay D, Kumar RV, Yadav VK, Kumar Sunil (eds.) Approaches Towards Fodder Security in India. Stu-
dera Press, New Delhi. 2017; pp333–364.
3. Vijay D, Kumar V, Malaviya DR. Current status and future strategies for forage crop seed production. In
M. K. Srivastava, et al (Eds.) Compendium of lectures, model training course on fodder crops for climate
resilient agriculture.2013; p. 180. IGFRI.
4. Palsaniya D, Singh RR, Venkatesh A, Tewari RK, Dhyani SK. Grass productivity and livestock dynam-
ics as influenced by integrated watershed management interventions in drought prone semi arid Bun-
delkhand, India. Range Manage. Agrofor. Symposium Issue (A).2010; pp. 4–6.
5. Jancik F, Koukolova V, Kubelkova P, Cermak B. Effects of grass species on ruminal degradability of
silages and prediction of dry matter effective degradability. Czech J. Animal Sci.2009; 54: 315–323.
6. Bhat EA, Sajjad N, Manzoor I, Rasool A. Bioactive Compounds in Peanuts and Banana. Biochem. Anal.
Biochem.2019; 8(2): 382.
7. Nautiyal PC, Zala PV, Tomar RK, Sodayadiya P, Tavethia B. Evaluation of water use efficiency newly
developed varieties of groundnut in on-farm trials in two different rainfall areas in Gujarat, India. Journal
of SAT Agricultural Research. 2011; 9: 1−6.
8. Ayangbenro AS, Babalola OO. Reclamation of arid and semi-arid soils: The role of plant growth-promot-
ing archaea and bacteria. Current Plant Biol. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpb.2020.100173
9. Rathore VS, Nathawat N S, Bhardwaj S, Yadav BM, Kumar M, Santra P, et al. Optimization of deficit irri-
gation and nitrogen fertilizer management for peanut production in an arid region. Sci. Rep.2021;https://
doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82968-w.
10. Rathore VS, Tanwar RPS, kumar P, Yadav OP. Integrated Farming System: Key to sustainability in arid
and semi-arid regions. Indian J. Agric. Sci.2019; 89 (2): 181–192.
11. Lal B, Sharma SC, Meena RL, Sarkar S, Sahoo A, Chand Roop, et al. Utilization of byproducts of sheep
farming as organic fertilizer for improving soil health and productivity of barley forage. J. Environ. Man-
age. 2020; 269:110765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110765 PMID: 32425170
12. Golzardi F, Baghdadi A, Afshar K. Alternate furrow irrigation affects yield and water-use efficiency of
maize under deficit irrigation. Crop Pasture Sci.2017; 68 (8): 726–734.

13. Singh AL, Nakar RN, Goswami N, Kalaria KA, Chakraborty K, Singh M. Water deficit stress and its man-
agement in groundnut. In: Advances in Plant Physiology, 2013; Vol. 14 Ed. A. Hemantaranjan, Scientific
Publishers (India), Jodhpur, pp: 371–465.
14. Farhad ISM, Islam MN, Hoque S, Bhuiyan MSI. Role of Potassium and Sulphur on the Growth, Yield
and Oil Content of Soybean (Glycine max L.). Academic J. Plant Sci.2010; 3(2):99–103.
15. Ullah MH, Huq SMI, Alam MDU, Rahman MA. Impacts of Sulphur Levels on Yield, Storability and Eco-
nomic Return of Onion. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res.2018; 33:539–548.
16. Jamal A, Moon Y, Abdin MZ. Sulphur—A general overview and interaction with nitrogen. Australian J.
Crop Sci.2010; 4:523–529.
17. Edis R, Norton R. Sulphur Nutrition and Fluid Fertilizers. Victorian Liquid Fertilizer Forum. 2012. p. 4.
http://www.ipni.net/
18. Zenda T, Liu S, Dong A, Duan H. Revisiting Sulphur—The Once Neglected Nutrient: It’s Roles in Plant
Growth, Metabolism, Stress Tolerance and Crop Production. Agriculture.2021; 11:626. https://doi.org/
10.3390/agriculture11070626
19. Lal B, Rana KS, Rana DS, Shivay YS, Sharma DK, Meena BP, et al. Biomass, yield, quality and mois-
ture use of Brassica carinata as influenced by intercropping with chickpea under semiarid tropics. J.
Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci.2019; 18:61–71.
20. Ali A, Iqbal Z, Hassan SW, Yasin M, Khaliq T, Ahmed S. Effect of nitrogen and sulphur on phenology,
growth and yield parameters of maize crop. Sci. Int.2013; 25: 363–366.
21. Sisodiya RR, Babaria NB, Parmar TN, Parmar KB. Effect of sources and levels of sulphur on yield and
micronutrient (Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu) absorption by groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Int.l J. Agric. Sci.
2017; 9(32): 4465–4467.
22. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 17th edition. 2000; Association of Official Analytical Chemists,
Washington, DC, USA.
23. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-
starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci.1991; 74:3583–3597. https://doi.org/
10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2 PMID: 1660498
24. Robertson JB, Van Soest PJ. Detergent System of Analysis and its Application to Human Foods. 1981;
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
25. Horrocks RD, Vallentine JF. Harvested forages. 1999; Academic press. London. UK.
26. Undersander D, Moore JE, Schneider N. Relative forage quality. Focus on Forage.2010; 12 (6):1–3.
27. Fonnesbeck PV, Clark DH, Garret WN, SpethC F. Predicting energy utilization from alfalfa hay from the
western region. Proc. American Soc. Anim. Sci.1984; 35:305–308.
28. Gonzalez CL, Everitt JH. Nutrient contents of major food plants eaten by cattle in the South Texas
Plains. J. Range Manage.1982; 35 (6):733–6.
29. Subbiah BV, Asija GL. A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soils. Current
Sci.1956; 25:259–260.
30. Chesnin L, Yien CH. Turbid metric method for determination of sulphur. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer-
ica1950; 14:149–151.
31. Tilman D, Balzer C, Hill J, Befort BL. Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agricul-
ture. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA.2011; 108:20260–20264. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1116437108
PMID: 22106295
32. Rathore VS, Nathawat NS, Bhardwaj S, Renjith PS, Yadav BM, Kumar M, et al. Yield, water and nitro-
gen use efficiencies of sprinkler irrigated wheat grown under different irrigation and nitrogen levels in an
arid region. Agric. Water Manage. 2017; 187:232–245.
33. English MJ, Solmon KH, Hoffman GJA. A paradigm shift in irrigation management. J. Irrig. Drain. Eng.
2002; 128:267–277.
34. Munns R, James RA, Läuchli A. Approaches to increasing the salt tolerance of wheat and other cereals.
J. Exp. Bot.2006; 57 (5):1025–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erj100 PMID: 16510517
35. Molden D, Oweis T, Steduto P, Bindraban P, Hanjra MA, Kijne J. Improving agricultural water productiv-
ity: Between optimism and caution. Agric. Water Manage. 2010; 97(4): 528–535.
36. Singh M, Bhati S. Nutrient use in cotton grown under drip irrigation system in north-western India. J.
Crop Weed. 2018; 14(2):122–129.
37. Kumar S, Tewari SK, Singh SS. Effect of sources and levels of sulphur on growth yield and quality of
sunflower. Indian J. Agron.2011; 56(3):242–246.

38. Yadav N, Yadav SS, Yadav N, Yadav MR, Kumar R, Yadav LR, et al. Growth and productivity of
groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) under varying levels and sources of sulphur in semi-arid conditions of
Rajasthan. Legume Res. 2018; 41(2): 293–298.
39. Ates E, Coskuntuna L, Tekeli AS. The amino acid and fiber contents of four different annual forage
legumes at full-bloom stage. Cuban J. Agric. Sci.2010; 44:73–78.
40. Carmi A, Aharoni Y, Edelstein M, Umiel N, Hagiladi A, Yosef E, et al. Effects of irrigation and plant den-
sity on yield, composition and in vitro digestibility of a new forage sorghum variety, Tal, at two maturity
stages. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol.2006. 131 (1–2):121–33.
41. Liu M, Wang Z, Mu L, Xu R, Yang H. Effect of regulated deficit irrigation on alfalfa performance under
two irrigation systems in the inland arid area of midwestern China. Agric. Water Manage2021; 248,
106764.
42. Fulkerson WJ, Neal JS, Clark CF, Horadagoda A, Nandra KS, Barchia I. Nutritive value of forage spe-
cies grown in the warm temperate climate of Australia for dairy cows: Grasses and legumes. Livestock
Sci.2007; 107:253–64.
43. Goicoechea M, Lacombe E, Legay S, Mihaljevic S, Rech P, Jauneau A, et al. EgMYB2, a new transcrip-
tional activator from eucalyptus xylem, regulates secondary cell wall formation and lignin biosynthesis.
Plant J.2005; 43:553–567. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2005.02480.x PMID: 16098109
44. Srimathi Priya L, Kumutha K, Arthee R, Pandiyarajan P. Studies on the Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal
Fungal Enhancement on Soil Aggregate Stability. Res. J. Recent Sci.2014; 3:19–28.
45. Nielsen DC. Forage soybean yield and quality response to water use. Field Crops Res.2011; 124
(3):400–407.
46. Naz AA, Reinert S, Bostanci C, Seperi B, Leon J, Böttger C, et al. Mining the global diversity for bioe-
nergy traits of barley straw: genomewide association study under varying plant water status. GCB Bioe-
nergy.2017; 8(8):1356–1369.
47. Yasmeen T, Hameed S, Tariq M, Ali S. Significance of arbuscular mycorrhizal and bacterial symbionts
in a tripartite association with Vigna radiata. Acta Physiol. Plant.2012; 34:1519–1528.
48. Meena RS, Vijayakumar V, Yadav GS, Mitran T. Response and interaction of Bradyrhizobium japoni-
cum and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the soybean rhizosphere. Plant Growth Regul.2018; 84:207–
223.
49. Jahanzad E, Jorat M, Moghadam H, Sadeghpour A, Chaichi MR, Dashtaki M. Response of a new and a
commonly grown forage sorghum cultivar to limited irrigation and planting density. Agric. Water Man-
age. 2013; 117:62–69.

Journal Pone 0288090

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pone 0288090

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal Pone 0288090

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PLOS ONE

Drip irrigation and sulphur fertilization

Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are Introduction

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 1 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 2 / 20

Materials and methods

Experimental design and treatments

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 3 / 20

Irrigation water application

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 4 / 20

Fodder quality parameters

TDN ð%Þ ¼ 1:291 � ADF þ 101:35

DMDð%Þ ¼ 88:9 ð0:779 � ADFÞ

NEL ðMcal kg 1 Þ ¼ ½1:044 ð0:0119 � ADF Þ� � 2:205

NEL ðMJ kg 1 Þ ¼ NEL ðMcal kg 1 Þ � 4:184

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 5 / 20

DEðMJ kg 1 Þ ¼ DEðMcal kg 1 Þ � 4:184

4:4 � TDN ð%Þ

Water use and water use efficiency (WUE)

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 6 / 20

Quality parameters of groundnut fodder

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 7 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 8 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 9 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 10 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 11 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 12 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 13 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 14 / 20

Effect of drip irrigation and sulphur on fodder quality parameters

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 15 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 16 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 17 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 18 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 19 / 20

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288090 August 4, 2023 20 / 20

You might also like