




































 AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL STUDIES 9(1) (2024), 27-34  

 

27 

 

 

      AGRICULTURAL STUDIES 
                                                               AIJAS VOL 9 NO 1 (2024) P-ISSN 2641-4155   E-ISSN 2641-418X 

                                                                                                                      Available online at www.acseusa.org      

                                                                                                                                  Journal homepage: https://www.acseusa.org/journal/index.php/aijas 

                 Published by American Center of Science and Education, USA 

 INFLUENCE OF HUMIC ACID ON YIELD AND YIELD 

ATTRIBUTING CHARACTERS OF RIDGE GOURD    

 

 Sanjoy Kumar Bordolui (a)1    Gouranga Sundar Mandal (b)      

 

(a) Assistant Professor, Department of Seed Science and Technology, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia, West Bengal, India; E-

mail: sanjoy_bordolui@rediffmail.com 
(b) Assistant Professor, Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, Nadia, West Bengal, India; E-

mail: mandal.gouranga@gmail.com 

 

 
A R T I C L E I N F O 
 

 

Article History: 
 

Received: 14th June 2024 

Reviewed & Revised: 14th June  

to 14th August 2024 

Accepted: 20th August 2024 

Published: 29th August 2024 

 
Keywords: 

 

FYM, Humic Acid, Neem Cake,  

Ridge Gourd, Yield  

 
JEL Classification Codes: 

 

Q22, Q120 

       

Peer-Review Model:  
 

External peer-review was done through  

double-blind method.  

 
A B S T R A C T 
 
Humic acids are organic compounds that enhance agronomic parameters, plant growth, and soil 

characteristics. Humic acid-based products have recently been utilized in crop production to maintain 

the sustainability of agricultural output. Humic acid can enhance a variety of physical, chemical, and 

biological properties of soil, including texture, structure, water-holding capacity, cation exchange 

capacity, pH, soil carbon, enzymes, nitrogen cycling, and nutrient availability. This study emphasizes 
the significance of humic acid for crop growth, plant hormone production, nutrient uptake and 

assimilation, Yield, and protein synthesis. The study deals with the Effect of humic acid on growth, fruit 

weight, fruit volume, quality of fruit, and Yield per hectare of ridge gourd. The research was studied at 

the In-check Farm, BCKV, Mohanpur, Nadia, W.B., India, in the pre-kharif season of 2023, following 

RBD with three replications, seven treatments, and control.  Among the treatments, T6 had the highest 

fruit yield (127.908 q ha-1), followed by T5 in second place (109.842 q ha-1) and T1 in last place (70.480 

q ha-1), with a significant difference between them. The average fruit yield and parameters associated 
with Yield were significantly higher for ridge gourds when 112 kg ha-1 of humic acid was applied in 

conjunction with the recommended dosage of fertilizers (T6). In all cases except days to flower initiation, 

T6 was highest among the other treatments. Hence, the humic acid (112 kg ha-1) along with FYM @ 20 

kg ha-1, neem cake @ 600 kg ha-1, N @ 50 kg ha-1, P2O5 @ 25 kg ha-1, and K2O @ 25 kg ha-1 fertilizers 

were recommended for getting the maximum Yield, and quality of ridge guard.  

 
 

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee ACSE, USA. This open-access article is distributed under the terms 

and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license 

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).                           

 

INTRODUCTION 

Ridge gourd [Luffa acutangula (L.) Roxb.)] is a "Cucurbitaceae" family member and is cultivated mainly for edible 

purposes. The ridge gourd originated in India. It is grown throughout the country, viz. Malaysia, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, the 

Philippines, Indonesia, and Taiwan. Ridge gourds are also grown for commercial purposes. Ridge gourds are tender, green 

fruits that are used in a variety of dishes. The gelatinous substance "luffing" found in gourd fruits is emetic and has 

historically been used to treat fever and stomach ailments (Karthick et al., 2017). As the population grows, each nation's 

need for vegetables progressively rises.  Thus, to supply a balanced diet, it is imperative to increase production by developing 

high-yielding varieties, using improved technologies, and increasing acreage (Kumar & Dwivedi, 2018). A balanced diet is 

one of the key elements influencing the growth and Yield of vegetable crops. It is equally important to consider the optimal 

levels at which nutrients should be applied and the source from which they originate. Excessive fertilizer use for higher crop 

yields will result in nutrient leaching and increase production costs. This will ultimately affect the environment and the 

health of the soil (Hebbar et al., 2004). Humic acid is an organic substance produced by decomposing plant and animal 

matter. This biostimulant is a significant part of humus and is the black organic matter that accumulates in soils and other 

environments. Plants can gain various advantages from humic acid. It contributes to increased nutrient uptake, moisture 

retention, and soil structure improvement. It stimulates the growth of plants as well.  It can be sprayed on leaves or given to 

plants in liquid or granular form. It is crucial to adhere to the application rates and timing the manufacturer recommends. It 

is a natural material made from decaying plant and animal stuff. Humic acid is necessary for plants to produce more crops 

and to be generally healthier. Proper fertilizer is crucial for ridge gourd cultivation to achieve ideal growth (Hebbar et al., 

2004). This article will cover the special needs of ridge gourds, particularly the dosage of humic acid, and provide 

                                                      
1Corresponding author: ORCID ID: 0000-0003-2087-2968 

© 2024 by the authors. Hosting by ACSE. Peer review under the responsibility of the American Center of Science and Education, USA.  
https://doi.org/10.46545/aijas.v9i1.315 

 

To cite this article: Bordolui, S. K., & Mandal, G. S. (2024). INFLUENCE OF HUMIC ACID ON YIELD AND YIELD ATTRIBUTING CHARACTERS 
OF RIDGE GOURD. American International Journal of Agricultural Studies, 9(1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.46545/aijas.v9i1.315 

https://doi.org/10.46545/aijas.v9i1.315
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
https://www.openaccess.nl/en
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2087-2968
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8728-4699


Bordolui & Mandal, American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 9(1) (2024), 27-34 

 

28 

 

professional guidance on increasing ridge gourd yield. The goal of the current study was to determine the ideal dosage of 

humic acid for improving ridge gourds' growth, Yield, and fruit quality, as there is a shortage and an absence of scientific 

data on humic acid, particularly concerning ridge gourds. The main objective of this study is to observe the Effect of humic 

acid on Yield and yield attributing characters in ridge gourd.  The literature review section highlights the response of humic 

acid in ridge gourd and other crops. It usually has a positive response to yields and enhances the biochemical characteristics 

of the soil. Considering the considerations above, the experiment was carried out in the pre-kharif of 2023 at the In-check 

Farm, BCKV, Mohanpur, Nadia, West Bengal, India. The treatments details were T1 = Control (No input); T2 = T1 + Humic 

acid @112.0 kg ha-1; T3 = FYM @ 20 kg ha-1, neem cake @ 600 kg ha-1, N @ 25 kg ha-1, P2O5 @ 25 kg ha-1, and K2O @ 25 

kg ha-1 applied uniformly to all the treatments before sowing. Apply 25 kg N ha-1 thirty days after sowing; T4= T3 + Humic 

acid @28 kg ha-1; T5= T3 + Humic acid @56 kg ha-1; T6= T3 + Humic acid @112 kg ha-1; T7= T3 + Humic acid @124 kg 

ha-1. Based on the results and discussion, it was determined that the optimum doses for achieving the highest Yield in ridge 

guard were humic acid (112 kg ha-1) combined with FYM @ 20 kg ha-1, neem cake @ 600 kg ha-1, N @ 50 kg ha-1, P2O5 

@ 25 kg ha-1, and K2O @ 25 kg ha-1. 

 

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Humic acid is one of the most potent biostimulants among humic substances and has many positive effects on growth and 

development.   According to Cao et al. (2010) and Zhang and Shangguan (2007), it effectively encourages the rate of 

photosynthesis, increased plant growth, more dry matter, and production and accumulation of more organic matter. When 

humic acid is added to different synthetic fertilizers, plants grow faster and absorb more nutrients. By boosting microbial 

population and activities, water holding capacity, cation exchange capacity, and enzyme activities in the soil, humic acid 

can improve the biochemical properties of soil. Humic acid will lead to more effective plant growth and nutrient uptake 

(Khattak & Dost, 2010). Plant height, the leaf area index (LAI), and the production of biomass through increased 

photosynthesis are all ultimately impacted by humic acid (Tahir et al., 2011). Numerous scientific studies have shown that 

Humic acid influences the development of plant roots and shoots and the amount of chlorophyll. According to Rose et al. 

(2014) and Olaetxea et al. (2020), humic acid enhances the growth of shoots and roots by raising the levels of enzyme 

activity and growth-promoting hormones, such as auxin and cytokinin, in plants. According to Sivakumar et al. (2007), 

humic acid application significantly increases N, P, and K uptake in plants, which ultimately influences higher branches, 

Number of flowers, fruits, Yield, and seed test weight.  

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

The field experiment was conducted at the In-check Farm, BCKV, Mohanpur, Nadia, West Bengal, India, in the pre-kharif 

season 2023. The trial site's soil type was a well-drained sandy loam with initial organic carbon of 0.43%, pH of 7.45, EC 

(Electrical Conductivity) of 0.63 ds m-1, available nitrogen of 0.07%, available phosphorus of 220.2 kg ha-1, and available 

potassium of 126 kg ha-1. Ridge gourd genotypes "Amta Jhinge" seeds were sown at 1.50 x 0.60m spacing during the last 

week of April 2023. Three replications of each of the seven treatments were included in the CRD design of the experiment. 

Before seeding, N, P2O5, and K2O were evenly applied to each treatment @ 25:25:25 kg ha-1, along with the FYM @ 20 t 

kg ha-1 and neem cake @ 600 kg ha-1. Thirty days after sowing, apply 25 kg N ha-1. The treatment information and amount 

of fertilizer used per treatment are shown in Table 1. Ten plants were randomly selected replication-wise for each treatment, 

and various growth and yield parameters were recorded. According to the suggested package of practices, all agronomic 

and plant protection measures were implemented (Prabhakar et al., 2010). The different Yield and yield attributing 

characters like root length, shoot length, Days to flower initiation, Effect on the Number of flowers plant-1, Effect on the 

Number of fruits picking-1, Effect on Yield per picking (q ha-1), Effect on total Yield (q ha-1), Average Number of fruits / 2 

kg,  and Average fruit weight (g). The experimental data were statistically analyzed using the OPSTAT computer 

programming (Sheoran et al., 1998) and compared using critical difference (CD) at 5%. 

 

Table 1. Treatments Details 

 
Sl. No. Treatments Details Dose (kg ha-1) 

1.  T1 Control (No input): Without the application of fertilizer and humic acid 

2.  T2  T1 + Humic acid @112.0 kg ha-1 

3.  T3  FYM @ 20 kg ha-1, neem cake @ 600 kg ha-1, N @ 25 kg ha-1, P2O5 @ 25 kg ha-1, and K2O @ 25 kg ha-1 applied 

uniformly to all the treatments before sowing. Apply 25 kg N ha-1 thirty days after sowing.  

4.  T4  T3 + Humic acid @28 kg ha-1 

5.  T5  T3 + Humic acid @56 kg ha-1 

6.  T6  T3 + Humic acid @112 kg ha-1 

7.  T7  T3 + Humic acid @224 kg ha-1 

 

RESULTS 

Root length (cm) 
The root length of seedlings varied significantly. The root length in T6 was the longest at 34.000 cm, and the differences 

between T6, T4, T5, and T7 were not statistically significant. T1 (12.630) had the lowest root growth, followed by T2, T3, and 

T4. All three groups’ statistical growth was comparable (Table 2).  

 

 



Bordolui & Mandal, American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 9(1) (2024), 27-34 

 

29 

 

Plant height (cm) 

Regarding the impact of humic acid on the plant height of ridge gourds, it is evident from the table-2 that the highest growth 

was recorded by T6 (1,432.000 cm), followed by T4 and T7; in comparison, most dwarf plants were recognized for control 

(995.333 cm) preceded by T2 though the non-significant difference was observed among T2, T4, T5, and T7. The range of 

plant height was 995.333 cm to 1,432.000 cm. At the same time, after applying various humic acid doses, a notable increase 

in plant height over control was observed. Sible et al. (2021) observed an analogous type of result. 

 

Days to flower initiation  
Days to flower initiation varied non-significantly among the different treatments. The maximum days required for flower 

initiation were in T1 (32.667), and the minimum days were represented in T6 and T7 (31.333).  

 

Table 2. Root length (cm), Plant height (cm), Days to flower initiation, Total Number of flowers plant-1, and Number of 

fruits picking-1 of Ridge gourds 

 
Sl 

No. 

Treatments Root length (cm) Plant length 

(cm) 

Days to flower 

initiation 

Number of 

flowers planted -

1 

Number of fruits picked -1 

1 T1 12.630 995.333 32.667 36.253 1.627 

2 T2 12.767 1,260.333 32.667 36.603 1.640 

3 T3 13.433 1,313.333 32.333 39.428 1.765 

4 T4 29.333 1,247.000 31.667 40.747 1.827 

5 T5 32.833 1,203.667 31.667 43.739 1.956 

6 T6 34.000 1,432.000 31.333 47.082 2.108 

7 T7 25.333 1,215.333 31.333 42.890 1.920 

C.D. (0.05) 10.453 197.116 NS 3.201 0.133 

SEm (±) 3.355 63.271 0.356 1.027 0.043 

SE(d) 4.745 89.478 0.504 1.453 0.060 

C.V. 25.373 8.851 1.932 4.344 4.020 

 

Number of flowers plant-1 
A maximum number of flowers in plant-1 was observed in T6 (47.082) and the minimum in T1 (36.253). The Number of 

flower plants-1 varied significantly. Even so, T1, T2, T3; T5, T7 showed the non-significant differences. 

 

Number of fruits picking-1  

A significant difference existed between the treatments in the Number of fruits picked per day. T6 had the most considerable 

Number of fruits picked per day (2.108), while T1 had the Number picked per day (1.627). T5 and T7 showed no discernible 

differences in fruit production per picking. Yoshida et al. (2011) reported a similar outcome. 

 

Table 3. Treatment-wise Yield (q ha-1) of Ridge gourds from pickings 1 to 5  

 
S.No. Treatments No. of 

picking 

Yield (q  ha-1) 

(1st picking) 

Yield (q ha-1) 

(2nd picking) 

Yield (q ha-1) 

(3rd picking) 

Yield (q ha-1) (4th 

picking) 

Yield (q ha-1) (5th 

picking) 

1 T1 10 4.688 7.093 7.263 7.764 8.580 

2 T2 10 6.042 7.150 8.092 8.000 11.593 

3 T3 10 6.875 8.021 10.583 8.674 12.167 

4 T4 10 7.969 9.046 12.740 8.505 13.223 

5 T5 10 8.125 8.819 16.037 9.206 15.180 

6 T6 10 15.938 9.033 15.869 9.578 15.780 

7 T7 10 10.781 9.304 11.977 9.268 13.733 

C.D. (0.05) - 0.552 0.675 0.975 0.900 1.376 

SEm (±) - 0.177 0.217 0.313 0.289 0.442 

SE(d) - 0.251 0.307 0.443 0.408 0.625 

C.V. - 3.555 4.495 4.597 5.742 5.933 

 

No. of picking  
For every treatment, ten pickings were completed. 

 

Yield of 1st picking 
The Yield of the first picking significantly varied among the treatments. The highest Yield was found in T6 (15.938 q ha-1), 

and the lowest Yield was in T1 (4.688 q ha-1), though T2 and T3 showed a non-significant difference. 

 

Yield of 2nd picking 
There were notable differences in the second-picking Yield between the treatments. T7 had the highest Yield (9.304 q ha-1) 

while T1 had the lowest Yield (7.093 q ha-1); however, there were no significant differences between T4, T6, and T7. 

 

 

 



Bordolui & Mandal, American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 9(1) (2024), 27-34 

 

30 

 

Yield of third-picking   
The third picking yield showed a significant variation between the treatments. T5 recorded the highest Yield (16.037 q ha -

1), while T1 recorded the lowest Yield (7.263 q ha-1). Nonetheless, non-significant differences were seen in the data from 

T5 and T6. 

 

Yield of 4th picking  
In this instance, the yield ranged from 7.764 q ha-1 (minimum-T1) to 9.578 q ha-1 (maximum-T6). The fourth picking yield 

showed considerable variation. A few non-significant differences were observed, such as T1, T2, T3, and T4; T5, T6, and T7. 

 

Yield of 5th picking  
The Yield in T6 was at its maximum (15.780 q ha-1) and its lowest (8.580 q ha-1). There were notable variations in the Yield 

of 5th picking. Despite this, T5 and T6 showed some non-significant differences. 

 

Table 4. Treatment-wise Yield (q ha-1) of Ridge gourds from pickings 6 to 10 

 
S. No. Treatments Yield (q  ha-1) 

(6th  picking) 

Yield (q ha-1) 

(7th  picking) 

Yield (q ha-1) (8th  

picking) 

Yield (q ha-1) (9th b 

picking) 

Yield (q ha-1) (10th 

picking) 

1 T1 5.417 9.413 6.896 6.500 6.867 

2 T2 7.813 12.027 6.979 7.567 7.233 

3 T3 6.458 12.267 7.573 9.167 8.933 

4 T4 8.125 12.880 9.479 9.867 9.767 

5 T5 8.854 14.233 8.958 10.367 10.067 

6 T6 11.667 15.467 11.146 11.867 11.600 

7 T7 8.021 14.733 9.271 10.173 10.007 

C.D. (0.05) 2.647 1.121 1.768 0.874 0.646 

SEm (±) 0.850 0.360 0.567 0.280 0.207 

SE(d) 1.202 0.509 0.802 0.397 0.293 

C.V. 18.279 4.793 11.289 5.190 3.901 

 

Yield of 6th picking  
The Yield from the sixth picking was highly variable. T6 had the highest Yield (11.667 q ha-1), while T1 had the lowest Yield 

(5.417 q ha-1). However, T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, and T7 all showed some non-significant differences. 

 

Yield of 7th picking 
The yield of the 7th picking significantly varied among the treatments. While there was a non-significant difference between 

T2, T3, T4, T5, and T7, T6 had the highest Yield (15.467 kg ha-1), and T1 had the lowest (9.413 kg ha-1). 

 

Yield of 8th picking 
Across the treatments, there was a significant variation in the eighth picking yield. Though there was no statistically 

significant difference between T1, T2; T2, T3; T3, T5; T4, T5, T7, the maximum yield (11146 kg ha-1) was noted for T6 and 

the minimum was for T1 (6.896 kg ha-1). 

 

Yield of 9th picking   
The Yield of the 9th picking significantly varied among the treatments. The Yield of T6 (11.867 kg ha-1) was the highest, 

while T1 (6.500 kg ha-1) was the lowest. Nevertheless, non-significant differences were shown in the T3, T4, T5, and T7 data. 

 

Yield of 10th picking  
The Yield ranged from 6.867 q ha-1 (minimum-T1) to 11.600 q ha-1 (maximum-T6) in this instance. During the tenth picking, 

the Yield varied greatly. However, some non-significant differences existed between T5 and T7 and T1 and T2. 

 

Table 5. Total Yield (q ha-1), the average Number of fruits per 2 kg, and average fruit weight (g) of ridge gourd 

 
S. No. Treatments Total Yield (q ha-1) Average Number of fruits / 2 kg  Average fruit weight (g) 

1 T1 70.480 14.500 137.310 

2 T2 82.492 13.900 143.293 

3 T3 90.713 12.867 155.143 

4 T4 101.600 12.533 159.190 

5 T5 109.842 12.433 160.287 

6 T6 127.908 10.167 196.237 

7 T7 107.263 11.167 180.033 

C.D. (0.05) 3.085 0.525 2.552 

SEm (±) 0.990 0.169 0.819 

SE(d) 1.401 0.239 1.158 

C.V. 1.739 2.335 0.878 

 



Bordolui & Mandal, American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 9(1) (2024), 27-34 

 

31 

 

Total Yield 
The overall yield varied considerably between the treatments. With a significant difference, T6 had the highest Yield 

(127.908 q ha-1), and T5 came in second (109.842 q ha-1). T1 had the lowest Yield (70.480 q ha-1) of all the treatments, which 

was significantly lower. The results of Treatment 2, which applied only 112 kg of humic acid per hectare, showed an increase 

of more than 17% (82.492 q ha-1) in comparison to the control group (70.480 q ha-1) and only 10% below the recommended 

dosage (90.713 q ha-1) of fertilization (T3) for ridge gourd crops. 

 

The Average Number of Fruits per 2 Kg  
The control group (14.500) had the highest Number of fruits per 2 kg, followed by T2, while T6, T7, and T3 had the 

significantly lowest Number of fruits per 2 kg (Table 5). T3 and T4 had non-significantly different numbers.  

 

Average Fruit Weight (g) 

In contrast to the recommended practices, which call for T3 (155.143 g), the average fruit weight, which varied significantly 

among the treatments, resulted in a 26% increase in T6 (196.237 g). 

 

DISCUSSIONS 

The results of Treatment 2, which applied only 112 kg of humic acid per hectare without the application of any fertilizer, 

showed an increase in fruit yield of more than 17% (82.492 q ha-1) in comparison to the control (70.480 q ha-1) and only 

10% below the recommended dosage (90.713 q ha-1) of fertilization (T3) for ridge gourd crops. Interesting to mention that 

application of 112 kg ha-1 of humic acid along with FYM@ 20 kg ha-1; neem cake @ 600 kg ha-1; N, P2O5 and K2O @ 

50:25:25 kg ha-1 chemical fertilizers) (T6) increased by 41 per cent without applying any fertilizer (T1) in the fruit yield of 

ridge gourds. Less NO3-N and K have been observed to leach into the deeper soil layer as a result of increased nutrient 

uptake caused by water soluble fertilizers, and WSF fertigation increased NPK uptake (Singandhupe et al., 2007; Badr et 

al., 2010; Yoshida et al., 2011). Plants can be treated with humic acid as a foliar spray, liquid, or granule form. For this 

experiment, it was applied in granular form. The kind of plants being treated and the intended outcome determine the 

recommended dosage the most. The compositions of humic acid affect the source. However, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen 

are present in all forms of humic acid. For instance, humic acids with higher carbon content are more resilient to degradation 

than those with lower carbon content. Younger plants or stressed plants typically require a higher concentration. Plant type, 

growth stage, and granular doses are some variables that affect how humic acid affects plants. Younger plants are generally 

more vulnerable to the effects of humic acid than older ones. High humic acid doses can be particularly harmful to seedlings. 

Humic acid promotes the metabolism of nitrogen and carbon, which is crucial for plant growth.  Humic acid-activated 

enzymes related to the nitrogen absorption processes, including glutamine synthetase, nitrate reductase, and glutamate 

dehydrogenase (Canellas et al., 2013). Moreover, humic materials promote the production of nitric oxide (NO) at the lateral 

root emergence site. Nitric oxide is a bioactive material that plays several functions in a plant's physiological processes, 

including root development (Lamattina et al., 2003). Humic substances are incorporated to increase NO accumulation, which 

aids in the morphological changes of the root system, including the growth of secondary roots, an increase in root thickness, 

and higher fresh weight of roots (Mora et al., 2012). According to research by Canellas and Olivares (2014), humic acid 

promotes root tissue cell proliferation and the density and length of root hairs. The humic materials enhance the hormonal 

effects on the root and shoot of plants (Muscolo et al., 2013). Humic compounds can increase H+ ATPase and ion transport 

in the root system's plasma membranes (Muscolo et al., 2013). These effects directly affect the plant system's ability to 

acquire and absorb nutrients. Humic substances have been shown to increase the activities of enzymes involved in the 

tricarboxylic acid cycle and glycolysis process (Nardi et al., 2007). Pyruvate kinase, phosphofructokinase, glucokinase, and 

phosphoglucose isomerase are the enzyme activities linked to the glycolysis process; malate dehydrogenase, NADP+-

isocitrate dehydrogenase, and citrate synthase are the enzyme activities related to the respiration process. By activating 

auxins, such as phospholipase A2, a regulator of stomatal opening, humic acid in the root zone can set off physiological 

responses for shoot development (Russell et al., 2006).  

The higher absorption of plant nutrients (micro and macronutrients) via humic acid raises the chlorophyll 

concentration in the leaf, which benefits the plant’s ability to grow shoots (Sible et al., 2021). Plants can absorb more 

nutrients because of the humic acid's slow release of soil nutrients, which increases the Number of tillers in the plants 

(Sunarya & Tedjaningsih, 2016). The findings indicate that when added to soil or applied topically, humic acid can 

significantly enhance growth-related attributes like plant height, tiller count, dry weight, etc. Unbalanced nutrient intake and 

toxic effects on plant metabolism can impair physiological processes and nutrient uptake. Both soil and foliar application 

of humic acid have a notable impact on the yield-related traits of the plants. According to Elankavi et al. (2020), humic acid 

enhances the soil's chemical, physical, and microbial activities and increases hormone activity. These results increased plant 

nutrient uptake, producing more photosynthate production and more significant source-to-sink translocation of assimilates. 

Ultimately, this leads to yield and yield attributing characters, such as straw yield and grain test weight. Humic acid 

application influences N and P and increases plant age, according to Sivakumar et al.  (2007). These aids influence yield 

production and the significant accumulation of dry matter. Furthermore, it is a naturally occurring biostimulant, reducing 

production losses and enhancing plant resistance to abiotic stresses like salinity and drought. Conversely, humic acid 

improves nitrogen uptake in the sink, raising the grains' protein content (El-Galad et al., 2013). Humic acid also contributes 

to the increase in the content of carbohydrates by promoting a faster rate of photosynthesis, which in turn increases the 

amount of assimilates that are transferred from the source to the sink (Azcona et al., 2011). When humic acid is applied, the 



Bordolui & Mandal, American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 9(1) (2024), 27-34 

 

32 

 

plants develop stronger roots and more permeable cell membranes, which improve plant nutrition uptake and ultimately 

result in higher doses of N, P2O5, and K in the plants (Eshwar et al., 2017; Mahmoud et al., 2011). Nonetheless, Sivakumar 

et al. (2007) state that humic acid applied to the soil up to 115 kg ha-1 significantly boosts crop yield; however, due to its 

harmful effects on plant metabolic processes, yield production is reduced beyond this point. 

 

CONCLUSIONS 

Compost and other decomposing organic materials are natural sources of humic acid. Humic acid can be used as a fertilizer 

to enhance the soil’s fertility and structure and to help plants absorb more nutrients. From the experiment, it can be concluded 

that the application of 112 kg ha-1 of humic acid, along with the recommended dosage of fertilizers (Treatment 6) for Ridge 

gourd crops, had successfully improved the growth (root as well as shoot), Yield, yield attributing parameters (Number of 

flowers and fruits) and also the average fruit weight of ridge gourds. 

   
Seed sowing After germination First wedding 

   

First flowering 2nd wedding Fruit initiation 

   
First harvesting The field at first harvesting Canopy of plant 

   
Fruiting stage Harvesting Harvesting 

 



Bordolui & Mandal, American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 9(1) (2024), 27-34 

 

33 

 

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.K.B. and G.S.M.; Methodology, S.K.B.; Software, S.K.B.; Validation, S.K.B. and G.S.M.; Investigation, 

S.K.B. and G.S.M.; Resources, S.K.B. and G.S.M.; Data Curation, S.K.B.; Writing – Original Draft Preparation, S.K.B. and G.S.M.; Writing – Review & 

Editing, S.K.B. and G.S.M.; Visualization, S.K.B.; Supervision, S.K.B.; Project Administration, S.K.B.; Funding Acquisition, S.K.B. and G.S.M. Authors 

have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because the research does not deal with vulnerable groups 

or sensitive issues. 

Funding: The authors received no direct funding for this research. 
Acknowledgements: We want to acknowledge BCKV for their incredible support.  

Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. 

Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. Due to restrictions, they are not 
publicly available. 

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.         

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

REFERENCES 

Azcona, I., Pascual, I., Aguirreolea, J., Fuentes, M., García‐Mina, J. M., & Sánchez‐Díaz, M. (2011). Growth and 

development of pepper are affected by humic substances derived from composted sludge, Journal of Plant Nutrition 

and Soil Science, 174(6), 916-924. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201000264 

Badr, M. A., Abou Hussein, S. D., El-Tohamy, W. A., & Gruda, N. (2010). Nutrient Uptake and Yield of Tomato under 

Various Methods of Fertilizer Application and Levels of Fertigation in Arid Lands. Gesunde Pflanzen, 62(1), 11-19. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10343- 010- 0219-5 

Canellas, L. P., Balmori, D. M., Médici, L. O., Aguiar, N. O., Campostrini, E., Rosa, R. C., Façanha, A. R., & Olivares, F. 

L. (2013). Combining humic substances and Herbaspirillum seropedicae inoculation enhances the growth of maize 

(Zea mays L.) Plant Soil, 366, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-012-1382-5.  

Canellas, L. P., & Olivares, F. L. (2014). Physiological responses to humic substances as plant growth promoters. Chemical 

and Biological Technologies in Agriculture, 1, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-5641-1-3 

Cao, D., Zong, L. G., Xiao, J., Zhang, Q., & Zhao, Y. (2010). Effects of bio-fertilizer on organically cultured cucumber 

growth and soil biological characteristics. Ying Yong sheng tai xue bao= The journal of applied ecology, 21(10), 

2587-2592. 

Elankavi, S., Nambi, J., Ramesh, S., Jawahar, S., & Lavanya, K. (2020). Influence of different doses of fertilizers and foliar 

spray of nutrients on Yield and yield attributes of rice. Annals of the Romanian Society for Cell Biology, 24(2) 1127-

1134. 

El-Galad, M. A., Sayed, D. A., & El-Shal, R. M. (2013). Effect of humic acid and compost applied alone or in combination 

with sulphur on soil fertility and faba bean productivity under saline soil conditions. Journal of Soil Sciences and 

Agricultural Engineering, 4(10), 1139-1157. 

Eshwar, M., Srilatha, M., Rekha, K. B., & Sharma, S. H. (2017). Effect of humic substances (humic, fulvic acid) and 

chemical fertilizers on nutrient uptake, dry matter production of aerobic rice (Oryza sativa L.). Journal of 

Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 6(5), 1063-1066. 

Hebbar, S. S., Ramachandrappa, B. K., Nanjappa, H. V., & Prabhakar, M. (2004). Studies on NPK drip fertigation in field 

grown tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). European. J. Agron., 21, 117-127.  

Karthick, K., Patel, G. S., & Prasad, J. G. R. (2017). Performance of Ridge gourd (Luffa acutangula L. Roxb). Varieties and 

nature of cultivation on growth and flowering attributes. Int. J. Agril. Sci., 9, 3910-3912.  

Khattak, R. A., & Dost, M. (2010). Seed cotton yield and nutrient concentrations are influenced by lignitic coal-derived 

humic acid in salt-affected soils. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 26(1), 43-49.  

Kumar, A., & Dwivedi, A. K. (2018). Growth and Yield of Ridge Gourd [Luffa acutangula L. (Roxb.)] as affected by 

application of nitrogen and potash fertilizers under the agro-climatic condition of zone prevailing in Bokaro district 

of Jharkhand., Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci., 8, 22-28.  

Lamattina, L., García-Mata, C., Graziano, M., & Pagnussat, G. (2003). Nitric oxide: the versatility ofan extensive signal 

molecule. Annual review of plant biology, 54(1), 109-36.  

Mahmoud, M. M., Hassanein, A. H., Mansour, S. F., & Khalefa, A. M. (2011). Effect of soil and foliar application of humic 

acid on growth and productivity of soybean plants grown on a calcareous soil under different levels of mineral 

fertilizers. Journal of Soil Sciences and Agricultural Engineering, 2(8), 881-890. 

Mora, V., Baigorri, R., Bacaicoa, E., Zamarreno, A. M., & García-Mina, J. M. (2012). The humic acid-induced changes in 

the root concentration of nitric oxide, IAA and ethylene do not explain the changes in root architecture caused by 

humic acid in cucumber. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 76, 24-32. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2011.10.001 

Muscolo, A., Sidari, M., & Nardi, S. (2013). Humic substance: relationship between structure and activity. Deeper 

information suggests univocal findings. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 129, 57-63. 

Nardi, S., Muscolo, A., Vaccaro, S., Baiano, S., Spaccini, R., & Piccolo, A. (2007). Relationship between molecular 

characteristics of soil humic fractions and glycolytic pathway and Krebs cycle in maize seedlings. Soil Biology and 

Biochemistry, 39(12), 3138-46.  

Olaetxea, M., Mora, V., Baigorri, R., Zamarreño, A. M., & García-Mina, J. M. (2020). The singular molecular conformation 

of humic acids in solution influences their ability to enhance root hydraulic conductivity and plant growth. Molecules, 

26(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules26010003  

Prabhakar, M., Hebbar, S. S., & Nair, A. K. (2010). Production technology of vegetable crops-A hand book. Indian Institute 

of Horticultural Research, Hessarghatta, Bangalore, Karnataka, 87-92.  



Bordolui & Mandal, American International Journal of Agricultural Studies 9(1) (2024), 27-34 

 

34 

 

Rose, M. T., Patti, A. F., Little, K. R., Brown, A. L., Jackson, W. R., & Cavagnaro, T. R. (2014). A meta-analysis and 

review of plant-growth response to humic substances: practical implications for agriculture. Advances in agronomy, 

124, 37-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800138-7.00002-4  

Russell, L., Stokes, A. R., Macdonald, H., Muscolo, A., & Nardi, S. (2006). Stomatal responses to humic substances and 

auxin are sensitive to inhibitors of phospholipase A2. Plant and Soil, 283, 175-185.  

Sheoran, O. P., Tonk, D. S., Kaushik, L. S., Hasija, R. C., & Pannu, R. S. (1998). Statistical software package for agricultural 

research workers. Department of Mathematics Statistics, CCS HAU, Hisar, 139-143. 

Sible, C. N., Seebauer, J. R., & Below, F. E. (2021). Plant biostimulants: A categorical review, their implications for row 

crop production, and relation to soil health indicators. Agronomy, 11(7), 1297.  https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy110 

7129739.  

Singandhupe, R. B., James, B. K., Antony, E., Nanda, P., & Behera, M. S. (2007). Response of drip fertigation and mulching 

on growth and fruit yield of pointed gourd (Trichosanthes dioica). Indian. J Agril. Sci., 77(1), 8-13 

Sivakumar, K., Devarajan, L., Dhanasekaran, K., Venkatakrishnan, D., & Surendran, U. (2007). Effect of humic acid on the 

Yield and nutrient uptake of rice. ORYZA-An International Journal on Rice, 44(3), 277-279. 

Sunarya, Y., & Tedjaningsih, T. (2016). Increasing nitrogen fertilizer efficiency on wetland rice by using humic acid. 

Journal of Tropical Soils, 20(3), 143-148. https://doi.org/10.5400/jts.2015.20.3.143  

Tahir, M. M., Khurshid, M., Khan, M. Z., Abbasi, M. K., & Kazmi, M. H. (2011). Lignite-derived humic acid effect on 

growth of wheat plants in different soils. Pedosphere, 21(1), 124-131.  

Yoshida, C., Iwasaki, Y., Makino, A., & Ikeda, H. (2011). Effects of irrigation management on the growth and fruit yield 

of tomato under drip fertigation. Horticultural Research, 10(3), 325-331. 

Zhang, X. C., & Shangguan, Z. P. (2007). Effect of nitrogen fertilization on photosynthetic pigment and fluorescence 

characteristics in leaves of winter wheat cultivars on dryland. J. Nuclear Agric. Sci., 21, 299-304.  

 

 
Publisher’s Note: ACSE stays neutral about jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 

 

 

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee ACSE, USA. This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 

(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). 

American International Journal of Agricultural Studies (P-ISSN 2641-4155 E-ISSN 2641-418X) by ACSE is licensed under a Creative Commons 

Attribution 4.0 International License. 

http://ssbfnet.com/ojs/index.php/ijrbs
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

