Morphological, Phenological and Yield assessment of Cosmic Yantras on Solanum lycopersicum L. and Pisum sativum L. crop plants under normal climatic conditions

Year : 2026 | Volume : 15 | 03 | Page :
By

Chand Kiran,

  1. Student, Department of Bio Sciences, Career Point University, Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh, India

Abstract

Vegetables are edible plants or parts of plants (roots, stems, leaves, flowers and seeds) that are consumed for their nutritional value. They are rich in vitamins, fiber and antioxidants. The study was conducted in cropping season (April to October 2024) to observe the comparative effect of cosmic yantras and organic manures on growth and morphology of Pisum sativum and Solanum lycopersicum under normal climatic conditions. The objective of this research was to study the impact of organic fertilizer and cosmic yantras on tomato and pea plant growth and yield potential. Out of 30 pots used in this study, 15 were for Pisum sativum and 15 for Solanum lycopersicum. In each set of 15 pots, we used three different conditions, 5 pots with normal soil and cosmic yantras, 5 pots with organic fertilizers mixed with soil and 5 pots with normal soil. After thorough evaluation of the experimental pots, it was found the application of cosmic yantras demonstrated the superior performance as compared to the organic fertilizer. P. sativum and S. lycopersicum exhibited higher yield and improved plant vigor with the application of cosmic yantras, as confirmed by the recorded data. The result obtained the relevance of optimizing higher nutrient and management practices in cosmic yantra with no effect to the environment. It enhanced yield potential, and promotes sustainable agricultural practices for future food security.

Keywords: Cosmic Yantras, Growth hormone, Pisum sativum, Solanum lycopersicum.

How to cite this article:
Chand Kiran. Morphological, Phenological and Yield assessment of Cosmic Yantras on Solanum lycopersicum L. and Pisum sativum L. crop plants under normal climatic conditions. Research & Reviews : Journal of Botany. 2026; 15(03):-.
How to cite this URL:
Chand Kiran. Morphological, Phenological and Yield assessment of Cosmic Yantras on Solanum lycopersicum L. and Pisum sativum L. crop plants under normal climatic conditions. Research & Reviews : Journal of Botany. 2026; 15(03):-. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/rrjob/article=2026/view=249715

References

  1. Mahajan A, Gupta R, Sharma R. Bio-fertilizers: A way to sustainable development agriculture. Agrobios Newsl. 2008;6:36–7.
  2. Adebayo A, Olatunji A, Akinola A. Organic fertilizers and their impact on tomato production in Nigeria. Niger J Hortic Sci. 2022;10(1):15–25.
  3. Al-Taey A, Al-Azawi M, Al-Shareefi H, Al-Tawaha AR. Effect of saline water, NPK and organic fertilizers on soil properties, antioxidant enzymes in leaves and yield of lettuce (Lactuca sativa var. Paris Island). Res Crops. 2018;19(3):441–9.
  4. Aksoy U. Ecological farming. In: Proceedings of the Ecological Farming Symposium; 2001; Antalya, Turkey. p. 14–16.
  5. Alvarez C, Garcia C, Carracedo E. Soil fertility and mineral nutrition of organic banana plantation in Tenerife. Biol Agric Hortic. 1998;5:313–23.
  6. Ayoub T. Fertilizers and the environment. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst. 1999;55:117–21.
  7. Bai Y, Lindhout P. Domestication and breeding of tomatoes: What have we gained and what can we gain in the future? Ann Bot. 2007;100:1085–94.
  8. Barbieri P, Pellerin S, Nesme T. Comparing crop rotation between organic and conventional farming. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1).
  9. Bhatt, Joshi H. Influence of long-term chemical fertilizers and organic manures on soil fertility. Univ J Agric Res. 2019;7(5):177–88.
  10. Blanca J, Cañizares J, Cordero L, Pascual L, Nuez F. Variation revealed by SNP genotyping and morphology provides insight into the origin of the tomato. PLoS One. 2012;7:e48198.
  11. Boukid F, Rosell CM, Castellari M. Pea protein ingredients: A mainstream ingredient to (re)formulate innovative foods and beverages. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2021;110:729–42.
  12. Tu C, Ristaino JB, Hu S. Soil microbial biomass and activity in organic tomato farming systems: Effects of organic inputs and straw mulching. Soil Biol Biochem. 2006;38:247–55.
  13. Campbell BM, et al. Agriculture production as a major driver of the Earth system exceeding planetary boundaries. Ecol Soc. 2017;22:8.
  14. Cassman KG, Grassini P. A global perspective on sustainable intensification research. Nat Sustain. 2020;3:262–8.
  15. Chowdhury R. Effects of chemical fertilizers on the surrounding environment and alternatives to chemical fertilizers. IES ENVIS Newsl. 2004;7:4–5.
  16. Chynchyk OS. Influence of fertilization system and methods of basic tillage on the formation of pea plant structure. Feed Feed Prod. 2013;77:123–7.
  17. Cieslarova J, Hybl M, Griga M, Smykal P. Molecular analysis of temporal genetic structuring in pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars bred in the Czech Republic and former Czechoslovakia since the mid-20th century. Czech J Genet Plant Breed. 2012;48(2):61–73.
  18. Didur I, Mostovenko V. Photosynthetic activity of vegetable peas depending on varietal characteristics, soil liming and food system. Agric For. 2020;4(19):42–50.
  19. Diener E, Larsen RJ. The experience of emotional well-being. In: Lewis M, Haviland JM, editors. Handbook of Emotions. New York: Guilford Press; 1993.
  20. FAOSTAT database [Internet]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2013. Available from: http://faostat3.fao.org/home/E
  21. Fausti SW. The causes and unintended consequences of a paradigm shift in corn production practices. Environ Sci Policy. 2015;52:41–50.
  22. Freemark K, Kirk A. Birds on organic and conventional farms in Ontario: Partitioning effects of habitat and practices on species composition and abundance. Biol Conserv. 2001;101:337–50.
  23. Gan R, Kuang L. Antioxidant activity and total phenolic content of medicinal plants associated with prevention and treatment of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases. J Med Plants Res. 2010;4(22):2438–44.
  24. Ghosh K. Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops Res. 2004;88:227–37.
  25. Giovannucci E, Rimm EB, Colditz GA, Willett WC. Intake of carotenoids and retinol in relation to risk of prostate cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:1767–76.
  26. Hazell P, Wood S. Drivers of change in global agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2008;363:495–515.
  27. Heinze S, Raupp J, Joergensen RG. Effect of fertilizer and spatial heterogeneity in soil pH on microbial biomass indicators in a long-term field trial of organic agriculture. Plant Soil. 2010;328:203–15.
  28. Heiser CJ. Nightshades: The Paradoxical Plants. San Francisco (CA): W.H. Freeman; 1969. p. 53–105.
  29. Tanimu J, Uyovbisere EO, Lyocks SWJ, Tanimu Y. Effects of cow dung on the growth and development of maize crop. Greener J Agric Sci. 2013;3:371–83.
  30. Tswanya MN, Olaniyi JO, Akanbi WB, Kolawole GO. Effects of pinching time on the performance of three tomato varieties (Lycopersicon lycopersicum Mill) in Ogbomoso and Mokwa, Nigeria. International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology. 2017 May;2(3):238791.
  31. Jenkins JA. The origin of the cultivated tomato. Econ Bot. 1948;2:379–92.
  32. Kahiluoto H, Kaseva J, Balek J, Olesen JE, Ruiz-Ramos M, Gobin A, et al. Decline in climate resilience of European wheat. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019;116(1):123–8.
  33. Kalapchieva S, Masheva S, Yankova V. Characterizing the agrobiological response of garden pea in organic production. Sci Works. 2010;1:87–92.
  34. Kovbasa V, et al. Functions derivation of stresses in the soil and resistance forces to the motion of a plough share for cavity creation. UPB Sci Bull Ser D Mech Eng. 2021;83(3):305–18.
  35. Kreplak J, Madoui MA, Cápal P, Novák P, Labadie K, Aubert G, et al. A reference genome for pea provides insight into legume genome evolution. Nat Genet. 2019;51:1411–22.
  36. Lal R, Miller FP. Sustainable farming for tropics. In: Singh RP, editor. Sustainable Agriculture: Issues and Prospective. Vol. 1. New Delhi: Indian Society of Agronomy, IARI; 1990. p. 69–89.
  37. Lefcheck JS, et al. Biodiversity enhances ecosystem multifunctionality across trophic levels and habitats. Nat Commun. 2015;6:1–7.
  38. Akhter S, Sen R, Akter S, Jaime A, Silva TD, Haque A, Noor S. Efficacy of vermicompost to improve soil health, yield and nutrient uptake of cauliflower in grey terrace soil of Bangladesh. Dyn Soil, Dyn Plant. 2012 Sep 19;6(1):103-9.
  39. Lu ZX, He JF, Zhang YC, Bing DJ. Composition, physicochemical properties of pea protein and its application in functional foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2020;60:2593–605.
  40. Berova M, Karanatsidis G, Sapundzhieva K, Nikolova V. Effect of organic fertilizer on growth and yield of pepper plants (Capsicum annuum L.). Folia Hortic. 2010;22:3–7.
  41. Mäder P, Fließbach A, Dubois D, Gunst L, Fried P, Niggli U. Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science. 2002;296(5573):1694–7.
  42. Marriott EE, Wander MM. Total and labile soil organic matter in organic and conventional farming systems. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 2006;70:950–9.
  43. Mazid M, Khan TA, Mohammad F. Effect of abiotic stress on synthesis of secondary plant products: A critical review. Agric Rev. 2011;32(3):172–82.
  44. Mazur V, et al. Ecological suitability of pea (Pisum sativum) varieties to climate change in Ukraine. Agron Res. 2021;32(2):276–83.
  45. Meena RK, Kumar S, Maji S, Kumar D, Kumar M. Effect of organic manures and biofertilizers on growth, flowering, yield and quality of tomato cv. Pusa Sheetal. Int J Agric Sci. 2014;10(1):329–32.
  46. Mondelaers K, Aertsens J, Van Huylenbroeck G. A meta-analysis of the differences in environmental impacts between organic and conventional farming. Br Food J. 2009;111(10):1098–119.
  47. Fageria NK, Baligar VC, Li YC. The role of nutrient-efficient plants in improving crop yields in the twenty-first century. J Plant Nutr. 2008;31:1121–57.
  48. Niggli U, Earley J, Earley J, Ogorzalek K. Organic agriculture and environmental stability of the food supply. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Organic Agriculture and Food Security; 2007 May 3–5; Italy. Rome: FAO; 2007.
  49. Nowicki M, Foolad MR. Late blight of tomato. In: Varshney RK, Tuberosa R, editors. Translational Genomics for Crop Breeding. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. p. 241–65.
  50. Oyewole CI, Opaluwa H, Omale R. Response of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum): Growth and yield to rates of mineral and poultry manure application in the Guinea savanna agro-ecological zone in Nigeria. J Biol Agric Healthc. 2012;2:44–56.
  51. Parr AJ, Bolwell GP. Phenols in the plant and in man: The potential for possible nutritional enhancement of the diet by modifying the phenolic content and profile. J Sci Food Agric. 2000;80:985–1012.
  52. Parray BA, Ganai AM, Fazili KM. Physicochemical parameters and growth and yield of tomato: Role of farmyard manure and neem cake. Am Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci. 2007;1(2):302–7.
  53. Patra K. Concept, scope and components of integrated farming system. In: Training Manual: A Model Training Course on Root and Tuber Crop Based Integrated Farming System: A Way Forward to Address Climate Change and Livelihood Improvement. 2016. p. 8–13.
  54. Paziuk V, et al. Substantiation of the energy-efficient schedules of drying grain seeds. Bull Transilv Univ Brasov Ser II For Wood Ind Agric Food Eng. 2021;14(2):137–46.
  55. Peralta IE, Spooner DM, Knapp S. Taxonomy of wild tomatoes and their relatives (Solanum sect. Lycopersicoides, sect. Junglandifolia, sect. Lycopersicon; Solanaceae). Syst Bot Monogr. 2008. p. 151–60.
  56. Peyvast G, Madeni S, Forghani A. Effect of vermicompost on growth, yield and quality of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). J Food Agric Environ. 2008;6(1):110–3.
  57. Pretty J, Bharucha ZP. Sustainable intensification in agricultural systems. Ann Bot. 2014;114:1571–96.
  58. Raiola A, Rigano MM, Calafiore R, Frusciante L, Barone A. Enhancing the human-promoting effects of tomato fruit for biofortified food. Mediators Inflamm. 2014;2014:139873. doi:10.1155/2014/139873.
  59. Ramakrishnan PS. Linking natural resource management with sustainable development of traditional mountain societies. Trop Ecol. 2003;44(1):54.
  60. Ramanathan V, Xu Y. The Copenhagen Accord for limiting global warming: Criteria, constraints, and available avenues. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107(18):8055–62.
  61. Rois-Díaz M, Lovrić N, Lovrić M. Farmers’ reasoning behind the uptake of agroforestry practices: Evidence from multiple case studies across Europe. Agrofor Syst. 2017;92:811–28.
  62. Rowland IC, Mason MG, Pritchard IA, French RJ. Effect of field peas and wheat on the yield and protein content of subsequent wheat crops grown at several rates of applied nitrogen. Aust J Exp Agric. 1994;34:641–6.
  63. Rusch A, Chaplin-Kramer R, Gardiner MM, Hawro V, Holland J, Thies C, et al. Agricultural landscape simplification reduces natural pest control: A quantitative synthesis. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2016;221:198–204.
  64. Darwin SC, Knapp S, Peralta IE. Taxonomy of tomatoes in the Galápagos Islands: Native and introduced species of Solanum section Lycopersicon (Solanaceae). Syst Biodivers. 2010;8(1):1–16.
  65. Sarkar S, Maitra DN. Bilakkhani: A multipurpose shrub for ecofriendly agriculture. Everymans Sci. 2001;36(3):141.
  66. Shimbo S, Watanabe T, Zhang W, Ikeda M. Cadmium and lead contents in rice and other cereal products in Japan during 1998–2000. Sci Total Environ. 2001;281:165–75.
  67. Sreenivasa MN, Nagaraj MN, Bhat SN. Beejamruth: A source for beneficial bacteria. Karnataka J Agric Sci. 2010;17:72–7.
  68. Abera T, Feyisa D. Faba bean and field pea seed proportion for intercropping systems in Horro Highlands of western Ethiopia. Afr Crop Sci J. 2009;16:243–9.
  69. Chiti T, et al. Soil organic carbon stock assessment for different cropland land uses in Italy. Biol Fertil Soils. 2012.
  70. Tamburino L, Bravo G, Clough Y, Nicholas KA. From population to production: Fifty years of scientific literature on how to feed the world. Glob Food Secur. 2020;24:100346.
  71. Toor RK, Savage GP, Heeb A. Influence of different types of fertilizers on the major antioxidant components of tomatoes. J Food Compos Anal. 2006;19:20–7.
  72. Tswanya MN, Olaniyi JO, Akanbi WB, Kolawole GO. Effects of pinching time on the performance of three tomato varieties (Lycopersicon lycopersicum Mill.) in Ogbomoso and Mokwa, Nigeria. Int J Environ Agric Biotechnol. 2017;2(3).
  73. Mutayoba V. Assessing tomato farming and marketing among smallholders in high-potential agricultural areas of Tanzania. Int J Econ Commer Manag. 2018;6(8):577–90.
  74. Viskelis P, Radzevičius A, Urbonavičienė D, Viskelis J, Karklelienė R, Bobinas Č. Biochemical parameters in tomato fruits from different cultivars as functional foods for agricultural, industrial and pharmaceutical uses. In: ElShemy H, editor. Plants for the Future. London: InTechOpen; 2015. doi:10.5772/60873.
  75. Solomon W, Ndana R, Abdulrahim Y. Comparative study of the effect of organic manure (cow dung) and inorganic fertilizer (NPK) on the growth rate of maize (Zea mays L.). Int Res J Agric Sci Soil Sci. 2012;2:516–9.
  76. Wang Y, Wang Y, Liu L, Wu H, Wang J. The mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and depressive symptoms among the Chinese unemployed population: A cross-sectional study. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14:61.
Ahead of Print Subscription Original Research
Volume 15
03
Received 30/06/2026
Accepted 10/07/2026
Published 11/07/2026
Publication Time 11 Days

Login

My IP

PlumX Metrics