Pigeonpea (
Cajanus cajan L.) is one of India’s most important pulse crops, contributing significantly to dietary protein security and, through biological nitrogen fixation, to soil fertility in rainfed cropping systems (
FAO, 2021;
ICAR-IIPR, 2022;
Dakora and Keya, 1997). India accounts for nearly 70 per cent of global pigeonpea area and production, making it the largest producer and consumer of the crop
(Joshi et al., 2001). The crop is grown predominantly by small and marginal farmers in semi-arid, rainfed regions, either as a sole crop or intercropped with cereals and oilseeds and its deep root system, drought tolerance and dual grain-fodder value make it well suited to resource-poor, marginal environments
(Varshney et al., 2017; Birthal et al., 2015).
Despite this importance, national productivity remains well below trial and frontline-demonstration yields, a gap attributed to low adoption of improved technologies, biotic stresses such as pod borer and wilt, abiotic stresses including drought and continued reliance on traditional varieties and imbalanced nutrient management (
ICAR-IIPR, 2022;
Sharma et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2020; Joshi et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2019). Adoption of improved technologies is therefore considered central to raising productivity and profitability: farmers who adopt improved varieties and recommended agronomic practices obtain markedly higher yields and net returns than non-adopters and technologies such as short-duration and hybrid varieties, seed treatment and integrated pest management have shown substantial field-level yield advantages
(Birthal et al., 2015; Singh and Pal, 2019;
Varshney et al., 2017; Sharma et al., 2021). Even so, adoption remains uneven across regions and farm sizes owing to socio-economic, institutional and market-related constraints (
Rogers, 2003;
Feder et al., 2014).
This review synthesizes evidence on the adoption of improved pigeonpea production technologies in India, with the objectives of (i) reviewing the status of adoption, (ii) synthesizing the major constraints affecting it and (iii) identifying future opportunities and policy directions, to support evidence-based extension and policy interventions.
This review is organized around
Rogers (2003) Diffusion of Innovations framework, under which technologies offering a clear, visible advantage over existing practice (
e.g., hybrid varieties, seed treatment) are expected to diffuse faster than those requiring larger changes to established routines or greater upfront investment relative to perceived risk (
e.g., full integrated pest management packages, mechanized sowing). This framework is used throughout to interpret differential uptake and to organize the constraints and opportunities discussed.
A question this review returns to is why adoption remains partial despite decades of research investment by ICAR-IIPR, ICRISAT and the state agricultural universities. Part of the answer, developed in Sections 3 and 9, is that national figures mask divergent state trajectories: some states (
e.g., Gujarat, Maharashtra) have converted varietal releases into large productivity gains, while others (
e.g., Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh) have not, despite access to the same varieties (
ICRISAT, 2014). This suggests adoption is gated less by technology availability than by whether seed-delivery systems, extension capacity and risk-mitigating institutions are locally strong enough to let farmers act on it - constraints catalogued in Sections 6 and 7.
Methodology for literature review
This review draws on secondary literature on the adoption of improved pigeonpea production technologies in India, collected from peer-reviewed journals, books, conference proceedings, doctoral theses and reports from national and international organizations, including ICAR, ICAR-IIPR, FAO and the Directorate of Economics and Statistics (
ICAR-IIPR, 2022;
FAO, 2021;
DES, 2023). A comprehensive search was conducted using Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and ScienceDirect, using Boolean combinations of keywords such as pigeonpea, technology adoption, improved varieties, pulse production technologies, constraints in adoption and extension and technology diffusion (
Rogers, 2003).
The review covered studies published during 2000-2024, a period of substantial advancement in pigeonpea varietal and management research
(Varshney et al., 2017). Studies were included if they focused on pigeonpea production, technology adoption or related socio-economic aspects in the Indian context, provided empirical evidence on adoption levels, determinants or constraints and were published in peer-reviewed journals or official institutional reports; studies with incomplete data, duplication, or no direct relevance to pigeonpea technology adoption were excluded.
This review is presented as a narrative rather than a formal systematic review, so PRISMA-type reporting is not claimed; narrative reviews are a well-accepted format for this literature and are not required by most agricultural science journals to follow PRISMA, which targets systematic reviews and meta-analyses of intervention-effect studies. Consistent with this framing, the review reports its search sources, date range and inclusion/exclusion criteria transparently, without presenting a record-count flow diagram implying a formal systematic-review protocol.
Current scenario of pigeonpea production in India
Pigeonpea occupies a significant place in India’s pulse economy: India is the world’s largest producer and consumer, accounting for roughly 70 per cent of global area and 63 per cent of global production (FAOSTAT;
DES, 2023;
FAO, 2021). In recent years the crop has been cultivated on about 4-5 million hectares yielding 3-4 million tonnes, with national average productivity generally below 900 kg/ha, well short of experimental potential (
DES, 2023;
ICAR-IIPR, 2022). Africa is the secondary centre of production, contributing about 21 per cent of the global total, led by Malawi, Tanzania, Kenya, Mozambique and Uganda (
FAO, 2021).
Major producing states include Maharashtra, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Telangana, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh (
DES, 2023;
ICAR-IIPR, 2022). The crop is grown predominantly under rainfed conditions in semi-arid, marginal-soil regions, where its deep root system and drought tolerance make it well suited as a sole or intercropped species.
Computed from Table 1, the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) over 2016-17 to 2021-22 was approximately +1.7 per cent for area, near-flat (-0.05 per cent) for production and -1.7 per cent for productivity - recent output has been sustained mainly by area expansion rather than yield gains. This matches the longer-run pattern for 1980-81 to 2009-10, when productivity grew at only -0.21 per cent per annum (
ICRISAT, 2014), reinforcing that the productivity constraint is structural rather than a short-term fluctuation.
Regional heterogeneity in production and adoption
Because production is concentrated in a handful of states, national averages conceal divergent regional trajectories. Decadal data (1971-73 to 2008-10) show Maharashtra’s area roughly doubling with yield rising from about 496 to 787 kg/ha and Andhra Pradesh’s area and yield both more than doubling, driven by wilt-resistant, medium-duration varieties (
ICRISAT, 2014). Gujarat recorded the sharpest gain of any major state (451 to 1,001 kg/ha), again attributed to improved cultivars and management. Karnataka’s area tripled but yield rose only marginally (456 to 569 kg/ha), while Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh saw productivity
decline as area was displaced by cereal- and oilseed-based systems (
ICRISAT, 2014). This matches the 2022-23 snapshot in Table 2, where Gujarat and Jharkhand post yields well above Karnataka despite Karnataka’s much larger area. The same source shows productivity instability consistently exceeding area instability, especially in Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, evidence that rainfed dependence, not adoption behaviour alone, drives much regional variation (
ICRISAT, 2014). Read with the adoption evidence in Section 5, this suggests the same technologies (
e.g., Asha, Maruti) can yield very different outcomes depending on rainfall, soil quality and local seed-delivery strength.
Technological innovations in pigeonpea production
Over recent decades, ICAR institutions have developed and disseminated a suite of improved pigeonpea production technologies, summarized in Table 3: high-yielding and disease-resistant varieties, including short-duration and hybrid types with demonstrated yield advantages over traditional varieties (
Saxena, 2008;
Bohra et al., 2020; Saxena et al., 2021); seed treatment and Rhizobium inoculation to improve germination, seedling protection and biological nitrogen fixation, complemented by integrated nutrient management combining chemical fertilizers, organic manures and biofertilizers
(Pooniya et al., 2015; Kutcher et al., 2002; Murwa, 2013;
Al-Suhaibani et al., 2020); integrated pest management targeting the destructive pod borer (
Helicoverpa armigera) and other pests
(Sarkar et al., 2020; Chhalotra, 2021;
Volp et al., 2025); improved agronomic practices such as line sowing, optimum spacing and timely weed management; mechanization to address labour shortages
(Ramanjaneyulu et al., 2025); and climate-resilient technologies including drought-tolerant varieties, improved water management and diversified cropping systems (
Rao and Gopinath, 2016;
Bohra et al., 2020).
Adoption status of improved pigeonpea production technologies
Adoption of improved pigeonpea technologies has received considerable research attention given their role in reducing yield gaps
(Shiferaw et al., 2008), yet adoption remains uneven across regions (
Lele and Goswami, 2017). Improved varieties have been adopted by a considerable share of farmers in major growing areas, but traditional varieties persist due to limited seed availability, farmer familiarity and perceived risk
(Ayenan et al., 2017); IPM adoption against pod borer, wilt and sterility mosaic remains moderate owing to limited awareness and access to biological inputs
(Volp et al., 2025). Adoption of recommended nutrient management is similarly low, as many farmers lack complete knowledge of, or resources for, balanced fertilization
(Mapfumo et al., 2001; Kumawat et al., 2017) and basic agronomic practices such as land preparation are followed more consistently than line sowing or timely weed management
(Pal et al., 2016; Simtowe et al., 2016).
Quantitative adoption evidence, though limited to site-specific surveys rather than a nationally representative sample, illustrates both achievable scale and its unevenness. In ICRISAT-led Tropical Legumes-II intervention villages in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, roughly 90 per cent of sample pigeonpea area had shifted to improved varieties (Asha, Maruti and related cultivars) within two to three years of participatory varietal selection and seed multiplication, against a substantially lower share in non-intervention control villages (
ICRISAT, 2014)-evidence that active seed access and demonstration can lift adoption sharply, though such gains remain concentrated in project-supported pockets. By contrast, the Kalyana-Karnataka farm survey, conducted without a comparable seed-delivery intervention, found only partial adoption of two released varieties (TS-3R, GRG-811) and their associated practice bundle, with marketing and technical constraints ranked ahead of seed access
(Ajayakumar et al., 2024). Seed-system evidence adds a related bottleneck: certified seed contributes 15-20 per cent of production gains directly, rising to about 40 per cent with complementary inputs, yet certified seed production remains a small, specialised activity dominated by medium/large irrigated holdings
(Pal et al., 2016). Together, as shown in Table 4, these studies suggest the adoption gap reflects uneven, geographically patchy delivery of seed and complementary inputs more than outright rejection of improved technology.
Adoption also varies regionally with agro-climatic conditions, extension support and input access (
Huggi, 2021;
Norton and Alwang, 2020). Farm size matters too: larger farmers adopt more readily given better credit and information access, while small and marginal farmers face financial and institutional constraints
(Simtowe et al., 2016).
Drivers of adoption of improved pigeonpea production practices
Adoption of improved pigeonpea technologies is shaped by socio-economic, institutional and economic-technological factors (
Cafer and Rikoon, 2018). Education, farm size and cultivation experience influence adoption decisions: better-educated, larger and more experienced farmers are more likely to understand and absorb the risks of new varieties, IPM and nutrient practices
(Vilakazi et al., 2025; Kinyua et al., 2023; Kumar et al., 2018; Ayenan et al., 2017). Institutionally, access to extension services, training, credit and quality inputs are key enablers: extension reduces information asymmetry, credit eases liquidity constraints on input purchase and mechanization and reliable seed systems further enhance adoption (
Cafer and Rikoon, 2018;
Abraham and Pingali, 2021;
Sidhu and Gill, 2006;
ICAR-IIPR, 2022). Economically, farmers favour technologies offering clear yield or profitability advantages that are labour-saving, climate-resilient and compatible with existing practices (
Tey and Brindal, 2012;
Mase et al., 2017; Sharma et al., 2021).
Barriers to adoption of improved pigeonpea technologies
Adoption remains limited by multiple technical, economic and institutional constraints, summarized in Table 5
(Shiferaw et al., 2008). Non-availability of quality seed of improved and hybrid varieties is among the most widely reported barriers, forcing continued reliance on farm-saved or local seed and slowing diffusion of improved cultivars
(Shiferaw et al., 2008; Saxena et al., 2016). High incidence of pod borer (
Helicoverpa armigera) and Fusarium wilt discourages investment in improved technologies, while IPM adoption itself remains low due to limited awareness and the complexity of multi-component pest control
(Sharma et al., 2014; Choudhary et al., 2021; Rao et al., 2011). Price fluctuations, weak market infrastructure and limited assured procurement add further disincentive to invest in quality seed, fertilizer or pesticides (
Darekar and Reddy, 2017;
Bowman and Zilberman, 2013;
Abraham and Pingali, 2021;
Archana et al., 2026). Labour shortages during peak operations and climatic variability under rainfed conditions, further discourage adoption of practices requiring timely manual intervention or higher input investment
(Kaoneka et al., 2016; Priya et al., 2026). Finally, knowledge gaps, weak extension linkages and a lack of suitable sowing/harvesting machinery constrain awareness and mechanization among small and marginal farmers
(Nain et al., 2015; Antwi-Agyei and Stringer, 2021).
Emerging opportunities for enhanced technology adoption
Despite these constraints, significant opportunities exist to strengthen the pigeonpea value chain. The large gap between potential and farmers’ field productivity can be narrowed through wider dissemination of improved varieties, better crop management and farmer training (
ICAR-IIPR, 2022;
Singh et al., 2020). Hybrid pigeonpea, showing 30-50 per cent yield advantages over traditional varieties, offers a particularly promising avenue if hybrid seed production and distribution networks are expanded, alongside short-duration and climate-resilient varieties to reduce drought and rainfall risk
(Saxena et al., 2021; Roy et al., 2026; Sharma et al., 2021). Digital extension - mobile advisory services, helplines and decision-support tools - can extend agronomic, pest, nutrient and weather information to small and marginal farmers who lack access to traditional extension, while also enabling peer-to-peer learning (
Mittal and Mehar, 2016;
Aker, 2011). Farmer Producer Organizations and cooperatives can improve access to inputs, credit and mechanization, strengthen market linkages and support value-addition activities such as pigeonpea flour that diversify income and reduce post-harvest losses
(Birthal et al., 2015). Climate-smart practices - doubled-up legume intercropping, mulching, conservation tillage and efficient water management - can further improve yield stability and soil fertility
(Varshney et al., 2017; Ali and Gupta, 2012). Overall, stronger seed systems, extension support, climate-resilient varieties and market linkages can together accelerate adoption
(Joshi et al., 2016; Volp et al., 2025).
Critical synthesis of findings
The evidence assembled in this review does not indicate a single, uniform pattern of adoption of improved pigeonpea production technologies in India. Instead, adoption varies considerably according to the availability of seed, extension support, agro-climatic conditions, market incentives and farmers’ capacity to manage production risks. For instance, in the ICRISAT-led participatory varietal selection villages of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, adoption of improved varieties reached approximately 90% of the sampled pigeonpea area within two to three cropping seasons, demonstrating the potential for rapid diffusion when seed multiplication, demonstrations and farmer participation are systematically integrated (
ICRISAT, 2014). In contrast, evidence from the Kalyana-Karnataka farm-level survey indicates that adoption of improved varieties and associated production practices remained partial, with farmers identifying market and technical constraints as more important than seed access alone
(Ajayakumar et al., 2024). These findings suggest that adoption is jointly determined by farmers’ awareness and access to improved technologies and by whether local agro-climatic and market conditions provide sufficient economic incentives to adopt them.
The variation in adoption is also reflected in the regional differences in pigeonpea productivity. Gujarat’s productivity improvements and Maharashtra’s simultaneous growth in area and yield appear to be associated with comparatively effective pathways for the adoption of improved cultivars. In contrast, Karnataka experienced relatively stagnant productivity despite an expansion in cultivated area, while Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh recorded productivity declines, indicating weaker translation of varietal and technological improvements into farm-level productivity (
ICRISAT, 2014). From the perspective of Rogers’ (2003) diffusion of innovations framework, technologies that provide clearly visible relative advantages but involve greater complexity or lower trialability tend to experience slower and more partial adoption. This is particularly evident in the case of integrated pest management (IPM), balanced integrated nutrient management (INM) and mechanized sowing. Conversely, individual inputs such as improved seed varieties tend to diffuse more rapidly when they are readily available and their benefits are clearly observable to farmers.
The synthesis of constraints reported across the reviewed literature further demonstrates that pigeonpea technology adoption is influenced by multiple interconnected factors. A simple citation-frequency assessment of the literature provides an indicative, rather than meta-analytic, measure of the relative emphasis placed on different constraints. Pest and disease pressure emerged as the most frequently reported constraint, particularly problems associated with pod borer and Fusarium wilt. This was followed by seed availability, market uncertainty, labour shortages, climatic risks and knowledge and extension gaps, each receiving substantial support across the reviewed studies. Mechanization gaps were comparatively less frequently corroborated. The evidence therefore indicates that improving seed availability alone is unlikely to generate sustained adoption unless it is accompanied by effective pest and disease management, reliable extension support and mechanisms to reduce market and production risks.
The findings are consistent with broader evidence from the Indian pulse sector, which indicates that improvements in smallholder agricultural productivity are generally associated with the combined influence of input availability, credit access, technological support and market integration rather than dependence on a single intervention
(Birthal et al., 2015). The ICRISAT TL-II model provides an important institutional example, as it combines farmer participatory varietal selection with structured seed multiplication and distribution, thereby addressing both awareness and seed-access constraints simultaneously (
ICRISAT, 2014). For pigeonpea, this approach suggests that future extension and seed-system interventions should move beyond stand-alone seed distribution and instead integrate improved varieties with locally appropriate pest and disease management, technical guidance and mechanisms for reducing price and market uncertainty.
Overall, the results demonstrate that adoption of improved pigeonpea technologies is not simply a function of technological availability. The effectiveness of an intervention depends on the interaction between technology characteristics, institutional support, local production conditions and farmers’ economic circumstances. The evidence particularly highlights the importance of integrated approaches that combine seed-system strengthening with extension, pest and disease management and market-risk reduction. Region-specific strategies are therefore more appropriate than uniform state-level interventions, particularly in areas such as Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, where productivity challenges persist despite continued cultivation of pigeonpea.
