Effect of moisture stress on nodulation, growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
by Kwang-Wook An
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Agronomy
Montana State University
© Copyright by Kwang-Wook An (1986)
Abstract:
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is being investigated for rotation with cereals in the Northwestern United
States. Chickpea is capable of a symbiotic relationship with Rhizobium bacteria that can convert
atmospheric nitrogen to a usable plant form. Soil moisture stress limits chickpea production. The
objective of this research was to determine the effect of soil moisture levels on nodulation, growth, and
yield of chickpea. Field experiments were established in 1985. Main moisture treatments (zero, low,
intermediate and high irrigation) were applied with a modified line-source sprinkler system. Subplots
of four chickpea cultivars (ILC 591, UC-5, ILC 517, and Suratato) were evaluated for yield effects and
irrigation by cultivar interactions.
The highest soil water depletion occurred at 0 to 20 cm as compared to the 20 to 40 cm depth for all
cultivars. Days to flowering, plant height, biomass, shoot dry weight, seed yield, seed weight, harvest
index, and nodule dry weight of all cultivars increased with increased ET. Days to flowering, plant
height, shoot dry weight, and harvest index for all irrigation regimes were significant among cultivars.
Plant biomass, seed yield, seed weight, and grain water use efficiency (WUE) had an irrigation by
cultivar interaction. However, there was no significant difference in nodule dry weight due to cultivar
or irrigation by cultivar interactions. EFFECT OF MOISTURE STRESS ON MODULATION, GROWTH AND
YIELD OF CHICKPEA (CICER ARIETINUM L.)
by
Kwang-Wook An
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
of
Master of Science
in
Agronomy
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY
Bozeman, Montana
June, 198.6
ii
APPROVAL
of a thesis submitted by
Kwang-Wook An
This thesis has been read by each member of the thesis
committee and has been found to be satisfactory
regarding
content,
English usage, format, citation,
bibliographic
style,
and consistency, and is ready for submission to the
College of Graduate Studies.
Date
Chairperson, Graduate Committee
Approved for the Major Department
He ad , Major Department
Approved for the College of Graduate Studies
/
Dat^
I
„
Graduate Dean
i
si3 79
/W
iii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In
the
presenting
requirements
University,
I
this thesis in partial fulfillment
for a master's degree at
agree
that
the
Library
available to borrowers under rules of the
quotations
Montana
shall
from this thesis are allowable without
permission,
provided
that
accurate
State
make
Library.
of
it
Brief
special
acknowledgement
of
source is m a d e .
Permission
tion
or
for extensive quotation from or
of this thesis may be granted by my major
in his absence,
opinion of either,
scholarly purposes.
reproduc­
professor,
by the Dean of Libraries when,
in the
the proposed use of the material is for
Any copying or use of the material in
this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without
my permission.
Signature
/$??.
Date___________ -7 / 2
^
6___________
V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I
wish
to
express my sincere
appreciation
to
the
following:
My
family
and
the
Korean
Government
for
their
encouragement and support during my graduate education.
Dr.
Ronald H .
and . friendship
Lockerman for his assistance, guidance
while,
serving as my major
professor
and
during the preparation of this thesis.
D r s . L . E . Wiesner and G . L. Westesen for their advice
while serving on my graduate committee.
Dr.
D . G . Miller for his concern for graduate studies
and agronomic research.
The Plant and Soil Science Department and
Extension
Service
secretaries for
their
Cooperative
assistance
and
students
for
friendship.
My
close
friends
and fellow graduate
their friendship and stimulating discussions.
Mrs.
Donna
Thornburg
for preparation of
the
final
manuscript.
The
Montana Agricultural Experiment Station
and
the
Plant and Soil Science Department for providing support and
facilities for my studies and research program.
Vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
APPROVAL..............................
.ii
STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO U S E ............................ iii
VI TA......................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..........
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................
V
Vi
LIST OF TABLES............................................ Viii
LIST OF FIGURES............
ix
ABSTRACT......................................
xi
CHAPTER
I.
II.
III.
INTRODUCTION........................................ I
LITERATURE REVIEW........
MATERIALS AND METHODS.......................
2
10
Site Description.................................. 10
Experimental Design............................... 11
Planting.......................
11
Meteorological Observations...................... 11
Irrigation System...................
.13
Soil Moisture Determination..........
13
Growth and Yield Measurements............
14
Statistical Methods............................... 16
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................ 17
Environments......................
17
Evapotranspiration...................
17
Plant Available W at er.................
18
Days to Flowering................................. 23
■Plant Height.................
24
Biomass..................
27
Shoot Dry Weig ht.............
28
Seed Yield....................................... ..28
Seed Weight.........
30
vi i
TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page
W U E ................................................ 32
Harvest Index...................................... 32
Nodule Dry Weight................................. 34
V.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS....................
36
LITERATURE CITED............................................ 38
APPENDIX
44
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Weekly Environmental Data for Chickpea
Moisture Stress Experiment at the Wytanna
Ranch near Manhattan, MT, in 1985................ 12
2.
Irrigation Regimes for Chickpea Moisture
Stress Experiment at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985............................ 15
3.
Daily Environmental Data for Chickpea
Moisture Stress Experiment at the Wytanna
Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in 1985.........
45
4.
Water Budget (Evapotranspiration) of Four
Irrigation Regimes for Chickpea Moisture
Stress Experiment at the Wytanna Ranch ,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985 ............................. 48
5.
Water Budget (Irrigation,Rainfall) for the
Four Irrigation Regimes for Chickpea Moisture
Stress Experiment at the Wytanna Ranch, •
Manhattan, MT, in 1985............................. 50
6.
Significance Table of the Cultivar and
Irrigation by Cultivar Interaction for each
Parameter Measured at the Wytahna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985............................. 52
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
1.
Relationship of Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) to Water Applied at Four Irrigation
Levels (zero, low, intermediate, and high)
to Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985.............. ........ * .... 18
2.
The Effect of Chickpea 1ILC 59 11 on Plant
Available Water from Emergence to Harvest
at the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in
1985.........
19
3.
The Effect of Chickpea 1UC- S1 on Plant
Available Water from Emergence to Harvest
at the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in
1985................................................ 20
4.
The Effect of Chickpea 1ILC 51 71 on Plant
Available Water from Emergence to Harvest
at the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in
1985................................................ 21
5.
The Effect of Chickpea 1Suratato1 on Plant
Available Water from Emergence to Harvest
at the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in
1985......................
22
6.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, Low, Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on Days to Flowering
of Four Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna
Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in 1985....... '............ 24
7.
The Effect of Time and Four irrigation Levels
on Plant Height of Four Chickpea Cultivars at
the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in 198 5 ....... 25
8.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, Low, intermediate
and
High Irrigation Regimes on Plant Height of Four
Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985................ .........
26
X
LIST OF FIGURES— Continued
Figures .
9.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, Low, Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on Plant Biomass of
Four Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985.....
Page
27
10.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, Low, Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on Shoot Dry Weight of
Four Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985............................. 29
11.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, L o w , Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on Seed Yield of
Four Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985............................. 30
12.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, Low, Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on 1,000 Seed Weight of
Four Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985.... ....................... 31
13.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, L o w , Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on Grain Water Use
Efficiency (WUE) of Four Chickpea Cultivars
at the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in 19 85 .... 33
14.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, Low, Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on Harvest Index (HI) of
Four Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985............................ 34
15.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, Low, Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on Nodule Dry Weight of
Four Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985
35
xi
ABSTRACT
Chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L .) is
being
investi­
gated for rotation with cereals in the Northwestern United
States.
Chickpea
is capable of a symbiotic relationship
with
Rhizobium bacteria
that can convert atmospheric
nitrogen to a usable plant form.
Soil moisture stress
limits chickpea production. The objective of this research
was to determine the effect of soil moisture
levels on
nodulation, growth, and yield of chickpea.
Field experi­
ments were established in 1985.
Main moisture treatments
(zero,
low, intermediate and high irrigation) were applied
with a modified line-source sprinkler system.
Subplots of
four chickpea cultivars (ILC 591,
UC-5,
ILC 517,
and
Suratato) were evaluated for yield effects and
irrigation
by cultivar interactions.
The highest soil water depletion occurred at O to 20
cm as compared to the 20 to 40 cm depth for all cultivars.
Days to flowering, plant height, biomass, shoot dry weight,
seed yield,
seed weight,
harvest index,
and nodule dry
weight of all cultivars increased with increased E T .
Days
to flowering,
plant height,
shoot dry weight, and harvest
index for all irrigation regimes were significant among
cultivars.
Plant biomass,
seed yield,
seed weight,
and
grain water
use efficiency (WUE) had an irrigation by
cultivar
interaction.
However,
there was no significant
difference
in nodule dry weight due to cultivar
or
irrigation by cultivar interactions.
I
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Chickpea
(Cicer
is
a
cool-season
food
legume that is being investigated as
an
alternative
crop
in
crop
with cereals and may provide the same soil
Montana.
arietinum
L .)
It may have potential as a
rotational
amendment
benefits as dry pea and lentil.
Chickpea
has low oil,
for
Oriental and
as
an
"add
high protein,
Spanish cooking.
on"
in
salads
and is
It is
in
the
commonly
United
Chickpea fixes nitrogen through a symbiotic
ship
with
Rhizobium
spheric
nitrogen
Chickpea
is
NOg
soils.
cropping
bacteria.
(Ng)
to
Rhizobia
a
popular
States.
relation­
convert
atmo­
plant
form.
usable
self-sufficient for nitrogen fixation in
Consequently,
systems
to
chickpea
decrease
the
used
may be used in
demand
low
some
for
nitrogen
most
limiting
However,
there is
fertilizer.
Soil
moisture
stress
is one of
factors affecting chickpea production.
limited
chickpea
research
water requirements.
the
the
on irrigation
management
and
This study was initiated to determine
effect of various soil moisture levels on
growth and yield of chickpea.
nodulation,
2
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Chickpea
(Cicer
Bengal gram,
arietinum
L.),
also
garbanzo and Pois chiche,
1977).
Approximately,
tion is from Southern Asia.
westward
from Afghanistan,
Mediterranean
85%
gram,
originated in Asia
Minor with the earliest recording 5450 B.C.
Singh,
called
(Auckland and
of the world
produc­
The remaining acreage extends
through Western Asia
and
the
Basin, into Ethiopia and Eastern Africa, the
Americas, and Australia (Smithson, 1983).
Chickpea
seed
size
"Kabuli"
is divided into two distinct types based
and
of
adaptation.
The
is grown as a summer crop in
large-seeded
the
Mediter­
ranean, Near East, and Central and South America.
The fall
planted,
type
area
on
small-seeded
Pakistan,
and
(Auckland
nDesi"
Ethiopia
type
during
and van der Maesen,
is
the
1980;
grown
in
India,
dry
season
Auckland and
Singh,
cool,
1977; Ladizinsky and Alder, 1976).
Compared to other grain legumes produced in the world,
chickpea
rates
second
in
area
planted,
and
quantity
harvested with nearly 8 million metric tons
duced annually (Auckland and Singh,
1977).
for
production.
nearly
75% of the total world
third
in
pro­
India accounts
Pakistan
3
and Ethiopia produce approximately 14% of the world's crop.
The
remaining
portion
is produced mostly.in
the
Middle
East, Africa and Mexico (Auckland and van der Maesen, 1980;
Auckland and Singh,
1977).
The majority of production in
India is still from ancient land-races,
grown
as
a
world's
ha- 1 .
rainfed crop on
average
unit
Production
Egypt's
in
irrigated
poor
where chickpea
fertility
production is very
India
averages 690
production is 1,650 Kg
soil.
is
The
low at 700 Kg
Kg
ha-"*- while
ha--*-
(Auckland
and Singh, 1977).
Chickpea
Africa,
is
a relatively new crop in many
Australia
and
the
Americas.
popularity in the United States,
Most
has
mostly for use in salads.
States is grown in California.
imports
another
from Mexico.
10,000 metric tons,
decreasing
et al.,
1982).
production
The United
the
the
States
much of which
Mexico has recently encouraged a
shift from chickpea to pinto
of
gained
of the 3,500 metric tons of chickpea produced in
United
thus
It
parts
comes
production
bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.),
amount available
for
export
(Auld
This reduction combined with the decreased
trends in California,
may create new
domestic
markets.
Chickpea is a cool-season,
deep-rooted, annual legume.
Roots
may penetrate to 180 cm with nodules
both
the
primary
and
secondary
roots.
developing
Leaves
yellowish-green and covered with glandular hairs.
on
are
Flowers
4
are
typically
papilionaceous,
solitary,
and
borne
in
axillary racemes, although some cultivars have two or three
flowers
per raceme (Auckland and van der Maesen, 1980).
■ "Kabuli" chickpea usually has white flowers and
leaflets.
small
The
"Desi"
leaflets.
natural
usually has purplish
Chickpea
is
large
flowers
self-pollinated,
and
although
cross pollination by bees has been noted (Auckland
and Singh, 1977).
Great
diversity
agronomic
traits.
exists between
for
most
Height ranges from 20 to 100 cm,
pods
per plant range from 9 to 618,
cultivars
seed size varies from 1,500
to 16,500 seeds Kg- "*", and there may be I to 3 seeds per pod
(Auckland
and Singh,
1977).
type is cream to yellow.
or
black
although
seeds.
the
One
Seed color of the
"Kabuli"
The "Desi" type has green, brown
pod per peduncle is
"double pod" characteristic may
most
common,
be
present
(Bahl and Gowda , 1975; Govil et al., 1980) •
Chickpea
is
considered a
long-day
flower under all types of photoperiods.
plant ,
but
may
A diurnal sequence
of cool night and warm day temperatures is optimal for crop
growth
and
chickpea
and
from
yield.
production
18
to 21°C
Optimum
temperatures
for
range from 21 to 27°C during the
day
at
day/night
night.
Soil
temperature
for
germination should exceed 5°C and preferably be above 150C.
Optimum
precipitation for chickpea is approximately 635 to
762 mm annually (Muehlbauer et al., 1982).
5
The
plant,
most' important yield component is pod number
which
secondary
closely
branches
and Adler ,
has
is
1976;
correlated with the
(Katiyar and Singh,
number
1979;
and
of
Ladizinsky
Mehra and Ramanujami 1979).
a major effect on yield (Singh
per
Seed size
Auckland,
1975).
One hundred seed weight has a significant negative correla­
tion
with
plant.
both the number of seeds per pod
The
and pods
small seeded varieties generally have
per
higher
yield potential, but the opposite has been reported in some
cases (Pinthus et a l ., 1973).
Seed yield in grain legumes depends upon both the veg­
etative and
reproductive
components
which
are
markedly
affected by environmental factors (Summerfield and Minchini
1976).
Chickpea
environments
is
ranging
grown
from
in a
tremendous
variety
the Tropic of Cancer
to
of
40°N
(Sinhai 1977; Summerfield et a l . f 1979).
The
rate and duration of chickpea
influenced by climatic conditions ,
which
especially temperature,
exerts a strong influence ,on cultivar adaptation
different regions.
planting
in
Crops generally mature H O
are
well adapted at Hyderabad
1979).
India
winters are short (Saxena and Sheldrake ,
production
(29°N),
days
a warm environment and within 160 days
cool environment (Summerfield et a l .,
vars
growth are greatly
is
where
restricted
to
late
after
in
a
Early culti( H 0N ) i
1979),.
cultivars
winters are prolonged.
in
where
However,
at
Hissar
Growing season
at
6
Hissar
is double that of
Hyderabad.
Additionally,
dry
matter productivity per day is higher at Hissar.
Harvest
'j
indices
(HI)
are higher at Hyderabad than at Hissar as a
consequence
of
greater vegetative growth
at
the
latter
location.
Chickpea
is
moderately
frost
tolerant.
Young
seedlings can withstand temperatures as cold as -130C (FA O,
195 9;
Koinov,
1968 ; Whyte et a l . , 1953 ) ^
In the Mediter­
ranean region, winter planting has recently become feasible
following
to
the selection of lines that are
Aschochyta
blight (Keatinge and
advantages
of
winter
resulting
from
planting
are
more
Cooper,
(I)
resistant
1983).,
higher
cultivars
yields
better moisture availability and a
growing season, and (2) the opportunity to extend
The
longer
chickpea
to areas of lower rainfall than is required with
spring-planted conditions (Singh and Hawtin, 1979).
Soil
moisture stress may enhance early senescence and
maturation of chickpea.
cided
with
(Saxena
and
water
Chickpea senescence in India coin­
depletion in
Sheldrake,
1979).
the
upper
soil
profile
This suggested that
soil
moisture is an important factor in triggering senescence.
Utilization
way
of reduced branching chickpea may offer a
to increase yields by suppressing early
stored
soil
moisture.
Islam and
Sedgley
depletion
(1981)
of
found
evidence for this in field experiments with spring wheat.
7
Variation
in
branching
in chickpea
cultivars
has
been
reported (Singh and Tuwafe, 1981).
Several
of
water
stress
identified
uptake
hypotheses have been suggested for the effect
two
inhibits
on
nitrogen
fixation.
water stress effects:
Sprent
(I)
(1976)
depressed
oxidative phosphorylation which
produces
ATP and NADPH 2 ^eguifGd for the metabolic reduction of
to
NHg
and (2) water stress affects
istics
bound
membrane
which in turn affect the function of
enzyme essential for N 2 fixation.
erate
stress
may
be
overcome
by
NOg
character­
the
membrane
Effects of
increasing
mod­
the
O2
concentrations.
Low
soil moisture in rainfed situations may
the formation and function of nodules (Sinha,
et al.
the
restrict
1977).
Pate
(1969) suggested that limitations in water supply to
nodule may affect nodule activity by restricting fixa­
tion products which may accumulate in inhibitory concentra­
tions.
Sprent
(1971)
observed
a
close
nitrogen-fixing and respiratory activities.
researchers
thesis
reported
accounts
reduction
that inhibition of
for the inhibition of
link
However, other
shoot
nodule
at low water potentials (Finn
between
and
photosyn­
acetylene-
Brun,
1979;
Huang et al., 1975a; Huang et al., 1975b).
Some
to
the
soil.
effects of water stress may be directly
multiplication
Shimshi et al.
and movement of Rhizobium
related
in
the
(1967) found that 3 to 4 cm placement
8
of
inoculum
peanut.
in
They
the soil.gave
also
concluded
rapidly following irrigation,
sufficient
the
best
that
Rhizobium
for
multiply
and migrate in the soil when
moisture is available.
Soil water tensions of
-0.8 Mpa reduced the movement of Rhizobium
migration
nodulation
trifolii,
cessation occurred when water-filled soil
and
pores
became discontinuous (Hamdi, 1970).
Chickpea has been reported to obtain moisture down
a
180 cm depth and grow well without supplemental
tion
if
adequate
may
either
pre-plant soil moisture
(Sandhu et a l .,
extract
irrigated
1978).
water at deep soil
or
depths.
irriga­
rainfall
Non-irrigated
to
is
chickpea
However,
fully
chickpea usually does not deplete soil moisture
below 127 cm.
Water stress beyond -0.5 Mpa is reported to
be detrimental to seedling chickpea emergence and growth of
the
radicle
and plumule (Sandhu
to irrigation in areas where winter rainfall
area duration.
45
days
the
maintained a
greater leaf area index,
Singh et al.
was
leaf
and longer leaf
chickpea
Two irrigations, one during vegetative growth
other during pod fill generally
1974).
higher
increased
yield response in India (Saxena and Yadav,
al.,
positive
(1982) showed that irrigation
after planting significantly
grain yield.
and
plants
reported a
Sharma,
response
water potential,
(1975)
1978;
Saxena
Irrigated
Yadav
al.,
1985).
negligible.
and
et
gave
the
best
1975; Sharma et
The greatest yield increase in northern India
'I
9
was
32
percent.
Dehradun,
by
chickpea
at
ranged from 1.10 to 210 mm and the
yields
varied from 900 to 1800 Kg ha-1 (Singh and Bhushan,
1979).
A
India
The average water use
water use efficiency of 8.1 Kg grain mm-^ha-^
has
been
reported for rainfed chickpea receiving irrigation 31 to 43
days
after
unpublished).
irrigations (31,
planting
(Sardar
Conversely,
43, 65 and 92
plants
Singh
and
receiving
Saxena,
frequent
days after planting) had a
lower water use efficiency of 7.8 Kg grain mrrT^ha-^ .
10
CHAPTER III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Effects
chickpea
of
moisture
(Cicer
experiments
Montana.
in
arietinum
level on growth
L . ) were
and
yield
evaluated
1985 at the Wytanna Ranch near
in
of
field
Manhattan,
Four "Kabuli" chickpea cultivars (ILC ,591, UC-5,
ILC 517, and Suratato) were evaluated under four irrigation
regimes.
Site Description
The
mixed,
soil
,was a Manhattan sandy
Typic Calciborolls).
loam
(coarse-loamy,
Composite soil samples
were
taken on 18 May 1985 at depths of O to 30, 30 to 60, and 60
to
120 cm to determine initial
were
and
State
oven-dried
soil
fertility.
at 80° in a forced-air oven for 48
analyzed by standard soil test methods in the
University soil and Plant Testing
analysis indicated the presence of 26,
hours
Montana
Laboratory.
The
169, 2,977, and 198
Kg ha- 1 , respectively of N , P, K , and SO^.
electrical
Samples
conductivity (EC) of 0.35 mmhos,
The soil had an
medium effer­
vescence, organic matter content of 1.14%., and pH's of 8.6,
8.7,
cm,
and 8.9 at depths of 0 to 30, 30 to 60, and 60 to 120
respectively.
Bulk densities at depths of 0 to 30, 30
11
to
60 and 60 to 120 cm were 0.87,
respectively.
1.01,
and 1.23 Mg
,
The area was previously cropped to barley.
Experimental Design
A
modified
randomized
complete
block,
design with six replication was utilized.
ments
(2.5
x 4.8 m) of increasing
split-block
Four main treat­
moisture
(zero,
intermediate, and high irrigation) were applied.
irrigation
analysis
and could
of variance (ANOVA)
(Hanks
cultivars
tistical
test to evaluate cultivar yield
analyzed
the
not be tested statistically
However,
irrigation
Main plot
treatments were fixed due to the limits of
line-source system,
by
low,
et
a l .,
1980).
were randomized to afford a valid sta­
by cultivar interactions.
differences
Moisture data
and
were
by linear regression as described by Hanks et al.
(1980).
Planting
Seed were planted 16 May 1985 in eight-row plots
a
cone planter.
Commercial
Rows were 30 cm apart with 20 seed
granular
Rhizobium inoculum from the
with
m-"*".
Nitragin
Co. was applied to the seed prior to planting.
Meteorological Observations
Growing season precipitation,
ity
temperature, and humid­
were measured daily with standard weather instruments.
12
These
measurements
are shown in
summarized in Table I.
by
Appendix,
Table
3
and
Evaporation was recorded daily
measuring the water loss from pans (No.
I
wash
by
tubs)
similar to the procedure described by Bauder et a l . (1982).
Cumulative
evaporation from the pan is a good estimate
of
crop water use (Bauder et al., 1982).
Table I.
Weekly Environmental Data for Chickpea Moisture
Stress Experiment at the Wytanna Ranch near
Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
Temperature
Week
Precip
Mean
High
mm
5/16-5/18
5/19-5/25.
5/26-6/ I
6/ 2-6/ 8
6/ 9-6/15
6/16-6/22
6/23-6/29
6/30-7/ 6
7/ 7-7/13
7/14-7/20
7/21-7/27
7/28-8/ 3
8/ 4-8/10
8/11-8/17
8/18-8/20
5/16-8/20
Mean
Low
_____
Q
Humidity
Mean
Mean
_ _
Mean
High
..........
Mean
Low
Q. ...
0.0
27.0
22.0
2.2
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
4.4
0.0
0.0
20.0
12.5
3.2
11.5
20
25
17
23
23
27
22
33
30
28
31
22
26
17
25
2
6
8
9
5
6
5
9
11
10
10
8
6
I
2
11
16
12
16
14
17
14
21
20
19
20
15
16
10
14
59
67
71
68
64
62
68
70
74
76
75
77
76
76
76
25
24
37
34
23
22
31
26
34
32
29
46
29
38
26
106.8
25
7
16
71
30
13
Irrigation System
Moisture
treatments
were applied with a
line-source
sprinkler irrigation system similar to the one described by
Hanks
et
nozzles
a
l
(Rain
Glendora,
(1976).
Bird
A Model 25 sprinkler
Sprinkler
Manufacturing
California) was used.
with
4
mm
Company
of
Sprinklers were operated
at 379.5 kPa giving a wetted radius of 15 m and a discharge
rate
of
placed
0.34 I s-"*" per sprinkler head.
Sprinklers were
/
2.5 x 60 cm risers spaced 4.6 m apart on 5 cm
on
diameter aluminum pipe with hook apd latch couplings.
Plots
were
irrigated after approximately 6.5
water was lost from the evaporation
container.
cm
Irrigation
was applied when the wind speed was less than 2.4 m s ^
control
drift,
runoff.
Plastic
plot
at
and
at
successive
collection
intervals
to
amount
of
to
reduce
cups were placed within
canopy level to monitor the
Ofi
eac,h
applied
water.
Soil Moisture Determination
Neutron
probe access tubes (160 psi PVC pipe with
an
inside diameter of.40 mm) were placed in the center of each
plot.
Soil moisture measurements were taken with a neutron
probe (Campbell,
40,
were
60,
Model 503DR
Hydroprobe) at depths of 20,
80, 100, 120, and 140 cm.
taken
after
planting
and
Initial probe readings
at
14 day
intervals.
14
Additionally,, measurements were taken prior to and 24 hours
after each irrigation.
Irrigations were applied at 37 and
48 days after planting.
Data at specific time periods for ET,
rainfall
summarized
levels are given in Appendix,
in Table 2„
corresponding
plant
each
irrigation
and
Tables 4 and 5 and
Seasonal irrigation
regimes
and
ET values were used to regress all soil
and
growth parameters.
irrigation
Seasonal ET was determined
regime by the following equation:
for
ET
=
soil moisture content at planting + precipitation + irriga­
tion - soil moisture content at harvest.
Growth and Yield Measurements
Stand
counts were taken from the center two
each plot on 19 June 1985,
rows
of
and at harvest from a 2 m^ area
in the center of each plot.
Plant
height was measured 15 days after emergence and
at 14 day intervals until harvest.
Date of first bloom was
recorded for each pl o t .
Plots
were harvested from I August to 20 August
approximately 60% of the leaves turned yellow.
Nodule dry
weight was based on a sample of 12 plants per p l o t .
were
randomly selected,
weighed.
dried at 80°C for 24
Plants
hours,
and
Shoot and seed dry weight were taken from a 2 m^
area in the center of each plot at harvest.
was
when
Plant material
dried at 80°C with a forced-air oven for 48 hours
and
15
weighed
to
determine dry matter per
plant.
Seeds
were
removed from the pods with a Vogel rubber-roller thresher.
Plant biomass,
of
harvest index (expressed as the
ratio
seed yield to above-ground plant biomass) and grain and
biomass
WUE
(expressed
as yield
mm'^ha-1
of
ET)
were
determined.
Table 2.
Cultivar
Irrigation Regimes for Chickpea Moisture Stress
Experiment at the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan,
MT, ,in 1985.
Irrigation
Regime
Total Water Applied
(precip.+irrigation)
Seasonal
ET
mm
ILC 591
Zero
Low
Intermediate
High
67
95
190
253
123
154
245
309
UC-5
Zero
Low
Intermediate
High
67
95
190
253
118
156
249
309
■ Zero
Low
Intermediate
High
67
95
190
253
122
157
245
307
Zero
Low
Intermediate
High
67
95
190
253
125
164
249
309
ILC-517
Suratato
16
Statistical Methods
The
Lund
was
effects
the
MSUSTAT computer program developed by Richard
used for all statistical
analyses.
were analyzed by linear regression.
Main
Subplot
E.
plot
and
main plot by subplot interaction effects were analyzed
by ANOVA.
(
17
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Environments
The
the
temperature ranged from 9 to 37°C
minimum temperature ranged from -4 to IS0C
Table
30°C
maximum
3).
season.
Total precipitation for the crop
season was 106.8 mm.
before
8
above
minimum temperature was equal to
or below O0C for 3 day s.
occurred
(Appendix,
The maximum temperature was equal to or
for 24 days and the
growing
while
Most of
the
precipitation
June or after 28 July in
the
growing
Growing season length was 97 days.
Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration
crop
is a
expressing water
use
by
a
measure of crop transpiration plus soil surface
evaporation.
applied
(ET)
water
There was a good relationship between ET and
(precipitation
and
irrigation)
at
four
O
irrigation regimes with r
=0.99 (Fig.
I).
ET
146% between the zero and high irrigation regime.
increased
18
y = 5 9 .6 7 + 0 .9 8 6 1 x
r2=0.99
100
140
O
ILC 591
O
U C -5
□
A
ILC 517
Suratafo
180
WATER APPLIED (mm)
Figure I.
Relationship of Seasonal Evapotranspiration (ET)
to Water Applied at Four Irrigation Levels
(zero, low, intermediate, and high) to Chickpea
Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan, MT,
in 1985.
Plant Available Water
Plant
available water for each cultivar at
to
a depth of 140 cm was approximately 7.8 cm
3,
4, 5).
four
(Fig.
2,
Available water in the 0 to 20 cm depth for the
irrigation
emergence.
emergence
treatments
However,
declined
available
immediately
after
water in the intermediate
19
SOIL D E P TH (cm)
P L A N T A VA ILA B LE WATER (cm)
ILC 591
DAYS A F T E R EM ER G EN C E
Figure 2.
The Effect of Chickpea 1ILC 591' on Plant
Available Water from Emergence to Harvest
at the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in
1985. Arrows indicate time of irrigation.
20
SOIL D E P TH (cm)
U C -5
DAYS AFTER EMERGENCE
Figure 3.
The Effect of Chickpea 1U C - B 1 on Plant Avail­
able Water from Emergence to Harvest at the
Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
Arrows indicate time of irrigation.
21
ILC 517
0-20
IRRIGATION
High
----- Low
2 0 -4 0
Informed. ----- Zero
<
1.0
6 0 -8 0
LU 0 .5
GD
O
<
1.0
^
0 .5
8 0 -1 0 0
100-120
120-140
DAYS AFTER EMERGENCE
Figure 4.
The Effect of Chickpea 'ILC 5 1 7 1 on Plant
Available Water from Emergence to Harvest
at the Wytanna R a n c h , Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
Arrows indicate time of i r r i gation.
SOIL DEPTH (cm)
4 0 -6 0
22
SOIL DEPTH (cm)
SU RATATO
DAYS A F T E R EMERGENCE
Figure 5.
The Effect of Chickpea 1S u r a t a t o 1 on Plant
Available Water from Emergence to Harvest at
the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
Arrows indicate time of irrigation.
23
and
high irrigation treatments was replenished to
varying
degrees with rainfall and irrigation.
Marked
among
the four chickpea cultivars at the
regimes,
for
to
differences in plant available water
especially
'ILC 591',
20
cm
depleted
26,
the
20
emergence.
buted
to
35,
Available water
irrigation
and
However,
to
irrigation
'ILC 517', and 'Suratato' in the
depth for the zero
respectively.
in
late in the season.
'UC-S',
26,
four
occurred
37
days
treatments
after
0
was
emergence,
available water for all cultivars
40 cm depth was
depleted
37
days
after
Variable depletion levels are primarily attri­
differential
root
densities
among
cultivars.
Subramanialyer and Saxena (1975) reported that the upper 30
cm
of
area
the soil profile is the most
important
absorption
for chickpea since 40 to 50% of the extractable roots
were found in the top 10 cm of the soil.
Days to Flowering
Analysis
ference
there
in
was
interaction.
of
variance indicates
days to flowering
no
significant
Cultivar
among
a
significant
cultivars.
irrigation
by
dif­
However,
cultivar
1ILC 591' consistently bloomed later
than the other three cultivars at the zero, low, and inter­
mediate irrigation regimes
(Fig. 6).
First bloom for all
the
cultivars was delayed approximately two
the
low and h,igh irrigation regimes.
days
between
These data indicate
24
that
increased soil moisture increased
vegetative
growth
with subsequent delayed flowering.
o ILC 591
y?4 3 .7 8 + 0 .0 l0 3 6 x , r =0.99
O U C -5
y=43.07+O .O I256x, r2 =0.99
□ ILC 517 9=43.24 + 0.0l047x, r2=0.9&.
A Surotofo 9 =42 .6 7 + 0 .0 l0 8 9 x ,
rz= 0.9 8
190
i:
ET (mm)
Figure 6.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, L o w , Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on Days to Flowering
of Four Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
Plant Height
Cultivars
height at 15,
(Fig.
7).
were
29,
significantly
different
for
plant
38, 45, 55, and 63 days after emergence
Irrigation had the greatest effect on cultivar
25
height
during
stages.
the
Cultivar
intermediate
height
is
growth
and
development
important
due
to
lodging
potential, harvestability, and cultural management.
IRRIGATION
—------High
...... Intermed
------Low
-------- Zero
V
ILC 591
U C -5
ILC 517
Suratato
IT_Ti
20
40
H - Tl
60 80 0
20
40
60
80
DAYS AFTER EMERGENCE
Figure 7.
The Effect of Time and Four Irrigation Levels
on Plant Height of Four Chickpea Cultivars at
the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
Arrows indicate time of irrigation.
There
was a significant difference in plant height at
harvest
due
cultivar
interaction was non-significant.
had
the
to
highest
cultivar even though
increase
(61%)
in
the
irrigation
Cultivar
plant
height
by
1U C - 5 1
with
26
increased
RT
levels
lowest increase (49%)
Miller
et
positive
pea.
al.
while cultivar
(Fig.
(1977)
8).
'Suratato'
had
Manning et a l . (1977) and
reported that plant height
had
relationship with increased water application
These
data
the
indicate that irrigation management
a
in
is
important in controlling vegetative growth of chickpea.
E
o
X
O
UJ
<
_l
CL
180
230
ET (mm)
Figure 8.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Z e r o , L o w , Intermediate
and
High Irrigation Regimes on Plant Height of Four
Chickpea
Cultivars
at
the
Wytanna
Ranch,
M a n h a t t a n , MT, in 1985.
27
Biomass
Cultivars
biomass
tion.
and
were
'ILC
response
at
irrigation regimes
The
high
cultivar
different
for
there was an irrigation by cultivar
Cultivar
biomass
significantly
59 11
the
had the
lowest
zero (ET =
122
(ET = 309 mm), respectively
irrigation
interac­
and
mm)
treatment increased the
1ILC 591 1 133% as compared to the zero
plant
highest
and
high
(Fig.
9).
biomass
irrigation
treatment.
4,500
o 3,900
O
ILC 591
y = 2 3 3 .8 + I2.22x, rz=0.99
O
U C -5
y = 7 3 l.l+ 9 .3 4 0 x , r2=0.99
□
A
ILC 517
Suratato
y = 9 6 8 .l + 8 .0 4 6 x , r2= 0 .9 6
9=563.2+10.91 x, r2=0.99
3,300
2,700
2,100
ET (mm)
Figure 9.
of
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Z e r o , Low, Intermediate
and
High Irrigation Regimes on Plant Biomass of
Four Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
28
Shook Dry Weight
Cultivars
weight.
were
However,
interaction.
weight
response
had
to
was no irrigation
by
dry
cultiyar
'Suratato1 had the highest shoot dry
increased
ET
for
the
zero,
and high irrigation regimes (Fig. 10).
1ILC
consistently lower shoot dry weight at the
low,
intermediate,
cultivar
there
Cultivar
intermediate,
5171
significantly different in shoot
'ILC
and
high ET levels.
591',
harvest increased 87,
weight
of
'UC-5', 'ILC 517', and 'Suratato'
at
73,
68,
Shoot dry
and 95%, respectively with
increased E T .
Seed Yield
Cultivar
signifiant
'ILC
irrigation
(225%)
interaction.
level and the highest increase as ET
(Fig. 11).
the
levels.
have
by cultivar
591' had the lowest seed yield response at
irrigation
all
seed yield was significant and there
other
higher
conditions.
a
Cultivar
the
zero
increased
Seed yield of 'ILC 517' was higher than
cultivars at the zero and
low
These results suggest that cultivar
a
was
production
potential
irrigation
'ILC 517' may
under
drought
29
O ILC 591
2,100
O U C -5
□ ILC 517
- A Suratato
y = 500.1+ 5.372%,
y = 6 4 l . 2 + 4.721 x,
9 = 6 1 0 .7 + 3 .9 5 6 x ,
9 = 460.4 + 6.231%,
rz = 0 .9 8
r2=0.98
r2=0.93
r2=0.99
f,700
190
i:
E T (mm)
Figure 10.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, L o w , Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on Shoot Dry Weight of
Four Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
30
O ILC 591
□
ILC 517
9=-266.1+ 6.844x, T2=O-SS
=30.76 +4.615x, r2=0.SS
9=175.3 +4.761 x, T2=O-SS
A
Surafafo
9=9 6 .3 0 + 5.3I6 x, T2=O-SS
-O UC-5
y
190
;
ET (mm)
Figure 11.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, Low, Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on Seed Yield of Four
Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
Seed Weight
Chickpea
market quality and price is based upon
size, with the larger seeds receiving a premium.
a
significant
cultivar
'Suratato'
and
and
difference
an
in 1,000
irrigation
1U C - S 1
by
seed
cultivars had
There was
weight
cultivar
higher
seed
due
to
interaction.
1,000
seed
31
weight
than
'ILC
591' and 1ILC 517' for
regimes (Fig. 12).
increased
the
irrigation
'Suratato' and 1UC-S' 1,000 seed weight
with increased irrigation at a greater rate than
other two cultivars.
'UC-5'
all
increased
21%
irrigation regimes,
irrigation
and
Seed weight of
17%
from
respectively.
management
may
be
the
'Suratato'
zero
to
and
high
These data suggest that
used
to
maximize
market
quality of chickpea.
- O ILC 591
O UC-5
D ILC 517
y=3 14.3+ 0.2796%, r2=0.99
y=384.3+0.3904x, r2=0.97
y=288.8+0.2l50%, r2= 0.9 1
A Suratato y=398.8+0.5164% ^..
r2=0.99^..'""—
190
2
ET (mm)
Figure 12.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, Low, Intermediate
and
High Irrigation Regimes on 1,000 Seed Weight of
Four Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
32
WUE
There
use
was no significant difference in biomass
efficiency
(WUE)
due to cultivar and
However ,
cultivaf interaction.
difference
by
irrigation
there was a
1Suratato1
interaction.
increased
Additional
water
Grain
with
WUE of
increased
evapotranspired
was
irrigation
1ILC
ET
by
significant
in grain WUE due to cultivar and an
cultivar
water
5911
and
(Fig.
13).
efficiently
con­
verted into increased seed production.
Grain WUE's of 1ILC
5911
and 1Suratato1 increased 26% and
12%,
1ILC
51 71
and
indicating
1UC - S 1
that
WUE decreased with
additional
soil moisture
respectively.
increased
was
not
ET
used
efficiently . ' WUE is suggested as a good tool for charac­
terizing moisture conservation models.
Harvest Index
The
analysis of variance indicated that harvest index
(HI) was significantly different among cultivars.
index
Harvest
for all cultivars increased with increased ET
14) .
ILC
591 1
and
'Suratato1 cultivars had
increase
in HI than the other two cultivars.
support
the i conclusion
evapotranspired
for
1ILC
that
the
a
These
additional
591' and 1Suratato' was
efficiently utilized in increased seed production.
(Fig.
higher
data
water
more
33
A
O ILC 591
O U C -5
□ ILC 517
A Suratato
190
y=4.033+0.0068x, r2=0.94 ~
y=6.070+0.0042x, r2=0.85
y= 6.732 +0.0046x, r2=0.97
9 = 4.215 + 0.0028x, r2=0.56 -
;
ET (mm)
Figure 13.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, L o w , Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on Grain Water Use
Efficiency (WUE) of Four Chickpea Cultivars
at the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
34
'6
O
□
A
ILC 591
UC -5
ILC 517
Suratato
190
y=0.2524 +0.00072x, r^=0.93 .
9=0.3185 + 0.00034%, r2=0.97
9=0.3862+0.00031%, r®=0.59
9=0.2467+ 0.00049%, r2=0.79*
2:
ET (mm)
Figure 14.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET) Levels of Zero, L o w , Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on Harvest Index (HI)
of Four Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna
Ranch, Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
Nodule Dry Weight
There
weight
was
no significant difference
among cultivars.
Overall nodule weight
437% with increases in ET (Fig. 15).
reports
from Pate et al.
in
nodule
dry
increased
These data agree with
(1969) and Sinha (1977) that low
35
soil
moisture may restrict the formation and
nodules.
Further
effect of soil
research
is
warranted
function
involving
of
the
moisture stress on N 2-fixation efficiency.
y =- 7 7 .3 8 + 0 .9 4 4 8 x
r2= 0 .9 0
O ILC 591
O U C -5
□ ILC 517
A Suratoto
ET (mm)
Figure 15.
The Effect of Four Seasonal Evapotranspiration
(ET)
Levels of Zero, Low, Intermediate and
High Irrigation Regimes on Nodule Dry Weight of
Four Chickpea Cultivars at the Wytanna Ranch,
Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
Means represent the
average of 36 plants.
36
CHAPTER.V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Four
chickpea
cultivars and four irrigation
regimes
resulted in differences in soil plant available water.
cultivars showed less soil water depletion at 20 to
compared with 0 to 20 cm depth.
reports
All
40 cm,
This supports the previous
that ’ the upper 30 cm of the soil profile
is
the
most important absorption area for chickpea.
There
was a significant difference in
days to flowering,
yield,
seed
cultivar.
plant biomass,
weight,
plant
height,
shoot dry weight,
harvest index,
seed
and grain WUE due to
All plant parameters except grain WUE increased
with increased ET.
There was also a significant irrigation
by cultivar interaction for plant biomass, seed yield, seed
weight, and grain W U E .
Cultivar ,1ILC 5 9 1 1 consistently bloomed later than the
other
three,
Additionally,
cultivars
1ILC
at the
four
irrigation
59 11 exhibited a greater plant
response to time and increasing irrigation
WUE
regimes.
levels.
height
Grain
and harvest index of cultivar 1ILC 5911 increased with
increased ET.
This was related to the higher increase
in
plant biomass and seed yield, compared with the other three
cultivars.
37
Chickpea
if
is relatively self-sufficient in !^-fixation
environmental conditions are favorable.
significant
irrigation
difference
due
to cultivar and
interaction for nodule
dry
There was
no
cultivar
by
weight.
However,
nodule dry weight increased with increased E T .
These
extremely
quality.
data
indicate
important
in
that irrigation
chickpea
seed
management
production
Fufther research is warranted involving
tion timing and rate of application.
is
and
irriga­
38
LITERATURE CITED
39
LITERATURE CITED
Auckland, A.
K .,
and L . J . G . van der Maeson. 1980.
Chickpea.
pp.
249-258..
In W.
R . Pehr, and H . H .
Hadley
(ed s.) Hybridization of crop plants. American
Soc.
of Ag r o n . and Crop S c i . So c. of America,
Madison,
WI.
Auckland,
A. K., and K . B . Singh.
1977.
The exploitation
of natural genetic variability for the improvement of
chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.).
pp.
83-94.
In. A •
Muhammedy
R . Aksel, and R.
C . von Borstel
(eds.)
Genetic Diversity in Plants.
Plenum Press, New Yor k.
Aul d, D . L., R . H . Callihan, G . A. Murray, L . E . O'Keeffe,
and B . L. Bettis.
1982.
Garbanzo beans-a potential
new pulse crop for Idaho.
Uni.
of Idaho Exp.
Stn.
Bull. No. 615.
Bah l, P. N.,
and C . L . L . Gow da. 1975.
Pod setting in
crosses of Bengal gr a m . In d. J . Genet.
35:13-16.
Bauder, J . W.,
L . D . King,
and G . L. Westesen. 1982.
Scheduling irrigation with evaporation pa n s . Coopera­
tive Extension Service,
Montana State University.
. Bozeman, MT.
Bu ll . No. 1262.
FAO (Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations) . 1959.
pp. 78-87.
Iju Tabulated information
on tropical and sub-tropical grain legumes.
Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Finn, G . A.,
and W. A. Br u n . 1979.
Water stress effects
on
C O 2 assimilation,
photosynthate
partitioning,
stomatal resistance,
and nodule activity in soybean.
Crop Science. 20:431-434.
Hanks, R . J., J . Keller, V. P . Rasmussen, and G . D . Wilson.
1976.
Line source sprinkler for continuous variable
irrigation-crop production studies.
Soil S c i . S o c .
Am. Journal.
40(3):426-429.
Hanks, R . J., D . V. Sisson, R . L. Hurst, and K . G . Hubbard.
1980.
Statistical analysis of results from irrigation
experiments
using the line-source sprinkler
system.
Soil S c i . S o c . Am. Journal.
44(4):886-887.
40
Govil, J . N.,
B . R . Murky,
and
B . S.
Rana.
1980.
Components
of
Productivity in
relationship
to
geographical distribution in chickpea.
Ind. J. Genet.
40:515-527.
Hamdi, Y. A.
1970.
Soil water tension and the movement of
rhizobia.
Soil/Biol, and Biochem.
3:121-126.
Huang, C., J.
S. Boyer,
and L .
N . Vanderhoet. 1975a.
Acetylene reduction (nitrogen fixation) and metabolic
activities
of soybean having various leaf and nodule
water potentials.
Plant Physiol.
56:222-227.
Huang, C., J.
S. Boyer,
and L .
N . Vanderhoet. 1975b.
Limitation of acetylene reduction (nitrogen,fixation)
by
photosynthesis
in soybean having
low
water
potentials.
Plant Physiol.
56:228-232.
Islam,
T . M . T., and R . H . Sedgley. 1981.
Evidence for a
'uniculum effect1 in spring wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.)
in a mediterranean
environment.
Euphytica.
30:277-282.
Katiyar,
R.
P.,
and S . P.
Singh.
1979.
architecture of yield and its components in
Ind. J. Genet.
39:146-149.
Genetic
chickpea.
Keatinge,
J.
D . H.,
and P . J. M . Cooper.
1983.
Kabuli
chickpea
as
a
winter-sown
crop
in
northern
Syria:
moisture relations and crop productivity.
J.
Agric. S c i . Camb.
100:667-680.
Koinov,
G.
1968.
Optimum sowing rates for chickpea (In
Bulgarian).
Nauchni Trudone.
Vissh Selskostoopanski
Institute Vasil Kolarov.
17:65-69.
Ladizinsky,
G.,
and A. Adler.
1976.
The origin of
chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.).
Euphytica.
25:211217.
Manning,
C . E.,
D . G . Miller,
and I . D . Teare.
1977.
Effect of moisture stress on leaf anatomy and wateruse efficiency of peas.
J. Ame r. S o c . Ho r t . S c i .
102:756-760.
Mehra,
R . B.,
and S . Ramanujam.
1979.
Adaptation in
segregating populations of Bengal gram.
Indian J.
Genet.
39:492-500.
41
Miller , D . G.,
C . E . Manning,
and I . D . Teare.
1977.
Effects of soil water levels on components of growth
S o c . Ho r t .
J . Ame r .
and yield
in p e a s .
102(3) :3 4 9-•351.
Short,
W. J.
Kaiser,
Muehlbauer,
P. J.,
R . W.
Bezdicek, K . J. Morrison,
and D . F.
Swan.
1982.
Description and culture of chickpeas.
Washington
State University Coooperative
Extension.
Pullman,
Washington.
Bull. No. 1112.
Pate, J.
S.,
B . E . S . Gunning, and L . G . Baiarty. 1969.
Ultrastructure and functioning of the transport system
of a leguminous root nodule.
Planta.
85:11-34.
Pinthus,
M.
J., A. Bar-am,
and A. Muhasen.
1973.
Environmental
and genetic factors affecting seed size
■ and
grading of
chickpeas
(Cicer arietinum. L.),
Israel J. Agric. Res. 23(2):59-67.
Sandhu,
B . S., S . S . Parihar, K .
L . Khera, and K . S ,
Sandhu.
1978.
Scheduling
irrigation to chickpea.
Indian J. Agric. S c i . 48(8):486-492.
Saxena,
M . C., and D . S . Yadav.
1975.
Some agronomic
considerations of pigeonpeas and chickpeas.
pp.
3161.
Iji Proceedings of the International Workshop on
Grain Legumes.
ICRISAT, Hyderabad.
Saxena,
N . P., and A. R . Sheldrake.
1979.
Physiology of
growth,
development,
and yield of chickpea in India,
pp.106-120.
%ri
Proceedings of the
International
Workshop on Chickpea Improvement.
International Crops
Research
Institute
for
the
Semi-Arid
Tropics,
Hyderabad.
Sharma,
H . C., Tejsingh,
and D . S . R .
Mohan.
1974.
Response of gram varieties
to irrigation.
Haryana
Agricultural
University
Journal
of
Research.
4(4):255-260.
Sharma,
R . A.
1985.
Influence of drought stress on the
emergence
and
growth
of
chickpea
seedlings.
International Chickpea Newsletter.
12:15-16.
Shimshi,
D.,
J.
Schiffmann, Y . Kos t, H . Bielorai, and Y .
Alper.
1967.
Effect of soil moisture
regime on
nodulation of inoculated peanuts.
Agron.
J. 59:397400.
42
Singh> G., and L . S . Bhushan. 1979.
Water u s e , water use
efficiency
and yield of dry land
chickpea
as
influenced by P-fertilization and stored soil water
and
crop season
rainfall.
Agricultural
water
management.
2:299-305.
Singh,
H . B., A.
Rahman,
and M . C . Saxena.
1982.
Responses
of
chickpea to rhizobia
inoculation,
nitrogen,
and phosphorus under different
irrigation
regimes.
International Chickpea Newsletter.
6:26-27.
Singh, K . B., ,and A. K . Auckland.
1975.
Chickpea, breeding
at ICRISAT.
pp.
3-17.
I_n Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Grain Legumes.
ICRISAT,
Hyderabad.
Singh,
K . B.,
and G . C . Hawtin.
1979. Winter planting.
International Chickpea Newsletter.
1:4.
Singh,
K . B . and S . Tuwafe.
1981.
The collection,
evaluation,
and
maintenance of Kabuli
chickpea
germplasm
at
ICARDA.
International
Chickpea
o
Newsletter.
4:2-4.
Sinha,
S.
K.
1977.
Food legumes:
distribution,
adaptability
and biology of yield.
FAO
Plant
Production
and
Protection Paper
3.
Food
and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Smithson,
J. B . 1983.
ICRISAT's Research on Chickpea,
pp.
20-23.
JTn. Grain legumes in Asia,
Summary
Proceedings of the Consultative Group Meeting for
Asian Regional Research on Grain Legumes,
1983.
International Crops Research Institute for the SemiArid Tropics, Hyderabad.
Sprent,
J.
I.
1971.
The effects of water stress on
nitrogen-fixing
root nodules
I.
Effects on the
physiology of detached soybean nodules.
New Phys.
70:9-17.
Sprent,
J.
I.
1976. Water deficits and nitrogen-fixing
nodules,
pp. 291-315.
ni T . T . Kozlowski (ed.) Water
deficits and plant growth.
Academic Press Inc.,
New
York, New York.
Subramanialyer,
P . R. V.,
and M . C . Saxena.
1975.
Preliminary studies on root distribution pattern of
some gram varieties.
Journal of Nuclear
Agriculture
and Biology.
4(2):46-48.
43
Sumirter field,
R.
J
and F . R. Minchin.
1976.
An
integrated strategy for daylength and temperaturesensitive
screening of potentially tropic-adapted
soybeans.
pp.
186-191.
Iji R . M . Goodman
(ed.)
Expanding the use of soybeans in Asia and Oceania.
INTSOY , Illinois.
Summerfield,
R . J.,
F . R . Minchinz E . H . Roberts, and P.
Hadley.
1979.
Effects of daylength,
day and night
temperature on growth,
reproductive development and
seed
yield
of
chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.).
University of Reading-ICRISAT. Internal Communication
No. 2.
Whyte,
R . 0., G . Nilsson-Ieissner, and H . ,C . Trumble.
1953.
Legumes in Agriculture.
Food and Agriculture
Organization of The United Nations.
Agricultural
Study Number 21, FA O, Rome.
44
APPENDIX
45 '
Table 3.
Daily Environmental Data for Chickpea Moisture
Stress Experiment at the Wytanna Ranch,.
Manhattan, MT, in 1985.
Temperature
Date
Precip.
5/16
5/17
5/18
5/19
5/20
5/21
5/22
5/23
5/24
5/25
5/26
5/27
5/28
5/29
5/30
5/31
mm
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.0
18.0
22.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
High
Low
18
18
23
24
23
26
26
27
27
22
16
19
19
19
11
20
---C--I
I
3
4
6
6
8
7
8
6
9
8
4
4
I
5
Humidity
Mean
High
—
10
10
13
14
' 15
16
17
17
18
14
13
14
12
12
6
13
—
50
64
64
62
66
67
67
66
LOW
—
—
—
—
—
70
74
76
74
70
66
68
28
31
16
17
26
19
20
23
22
39
50
37
31
31
42
21
68
------------------- means
May
totals
6/1
6/2
6/3
6/4
6/5
6/6
6/7
6/8
6/9
6/10
6/11
6/12
6/13
6/14
6/15
6/16
6/17
49.0
21
5
13
67
28
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
17
17
22
26
29
31
21
20
20
19
26
24
24
27
24
24
9
7
6
9
7
8
15
9
4
2
3
3
8
7
6
7
7
11
12
12
16
17
19
23
15
12
11
11
15
16
16
17
16
16
70
70
72
74
74
73
50
62
58
50
68
68
68
68
68
55
50
47
46
34
49
36
28
20
23
20
20
26
17
26
31
22
24
27
46
Table 3.
Continued
Temperature
Date
6/18
6/19
6/20
6/21
6/22
6/23
6/24
6/25
6/26
6/27
6/28
6/29
6/30
Precip.
;
mm
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Humidity
Low
High
Low
Mean
High
24
32
29
28
29
32
9
11
19
25
29
30
31
---C--4
6
9
6
4
8
5
6
0
I
8
10
8
14
19
19
17
17
20
7
9
10
13
19
20
20
68
64
66
68
66
69
72
66
68
71
64
68
67
23
17
20
26
16
16
48
42
26
24
30
30
19
—
— intjdrib-June
totals
7/1
7/2
7/3
7/4
7/5
7/6
7/7
7/8
7/9
7/10
7/11
7/12
7/13
7/14
7/15
7/16
7/17
7/18
7/19
7/20
7/21
7/22
7/23
7/24
6.2
24
6
15
66
28
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.2
. 0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
32
32
37
33
34
33
32
30
31
32
28
27
28
26
30
28
23
25
30
32
33
33
26
28
5
9
9
9
10
10
13
9
9
11
14
10
8
11
11
10
10
10
9
9
12
11
14
7
19
21
23
21
22
22
23
20
20
22
21
19
18
19
21
19
17
18
20
21
23
22
20
18
66
72
74
72
70
68
74
74
71
70
80
74
73
70
69
78
80
82
78
77
76
76
74
79
34
32
22
28
18
27
36
31
28
32
42
50
20
13
31
38
48
40
30
25
20
26
43
28
,
47
Table 3.
Continued
Temperature
Humidity
High
Low
mm
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
30
32
32
29
14
17
24
--- C--4
6
13
9
10
6
7
17
19
23
19
12
12
16
75
76
68
59
80
80
80
30
26
27
36
80
58
40
July
totals
12.4
29
10
20
74
34
8/1
8/2
8/3
8/4
8/5
.
8/6
8/7
8/8
8/9
8/10
8/11
8/12
8/13
8/14
8/15
8/16
8/17
8/18
8/19
8/20
0.0
2.0
10.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.5
0.0
2.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.0 .
0.0
'0.0
11.5
0.0
30
19
22
27
33
27
31
20
23
21
12
15
16
18
23
.13
.21
27
.24
25
8
11
8
6
8
4
6
11
2
2
5
4
3
-3
3
2
-4
2
3
2
19
15
15
17
21
16
19
16
13
12
9
10
10
8
13
8
9
15
14
. 14
7.9
78
80
79
79
81
78
71
72
72
75
76
80
77
75
75
74
75
76
77
17
45
43
22
48
30
20
28
22
31
62
43
38
32
21
44
27
24
30
23
Precip.
Date
7/25
7/26
7/27
7/28
7/29
7/30
7/31
.
Mean
High
Low
—
------ ---------------means-------------August
totals
Growing
season
totals
(97 days)
39.2
106.8
22
4
13
76
33
--------------------- means-------------25
7
16
71
30
Table 4.
Water Budget (Evapotranspiration) of Four irrigation Regimes for Chickpea
Moisture Stress Experiment at the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan, MT in 1985.
Irrigation
Cultivar
UC-5
ILC-517
Suratato
Regime
Time Period
11
12
13
14
21
22
23
24
31
32
33
34
May 16-June 21
June 22-July 2
July 3-Aug 20
44
29
47
45
40
64
43
69
121
43
79
185
46
36
46
43
44
67
- mm
42
72
123
46
86
176
44
36
43
49
48
65
46
75
124
44
85
175
120
149
233
307
128
154
237
308
123
162
245
304
44
31
45
46
46
70
45
68
121
44
78
186
42
36
39
44
39
80
46
76
121
47
91
178
49
33
43
46
43
58
47
72
112
47
89
172
120
162
234
308
117
163
243
316
125
147
231
308
44
33
50
50
43
68
44
76
119
44
82
186
47
34
36
50
44
74
44
75
118
46
91
175
48
37
46
45
46
71
46
75
107
44
88
166
127
161
239
312
117
168
237
312
131
162
228
298
41
31
49
46
45
89
46
75
123
45
82
185
42
33
51
52
41
70
46
76
115
47
90
.174
46
34
47
54
56
85
47
74
112
44
78
180
121
180
244
312
126
163
237
311
127
195
233
302
May 16-June 21
June 22-July 2
July 3-Aug 20
May 16-June 21
June 22-July 2
July 3-Aug 20
May 16-June 21
June 22-July 2
July 3-Aug 20
^
OO
*First number indicates replication. Second number indicates irrigation level (I =
zero irrigation, 2 = low irrigation, 3 = intermediate irrigation, 4 = high irrigation.)
Table 4.
Continued
Irrigation
Cultivar
Time Period
41
42
43
44
51
52
ILC-591
May 16-June 21
June 22-July 2
July 3-Aug 20
52
31
35
52
45
59
. 47
58
150
48
71
192
44
30
58
46
44
65
118
156
255
311
132
55
31
45
46
42
61
59
63
151
38
77
195
131
149
273
50
35
34
54
45
63
119
53
Regime
54
61
62
63
64
42
54
53
45
78
187
4022
54
36
45
66
42
61
148
43
76
192
155
249
310
116
147
251
311
44
26
15
47
47
58
51
61
145
• 44
75
187
44
28
58
45
40
80
45
69
139
45
85
185
310
85
152
257
306
130
165
253
315
53
61
147
38
80
185
44
27
44
45
40
55
36
61
152
47
79
180
42
26
55
42
40
62
48
64
141
46
80
187
162
261
303
115
140
249
306
123
144
253
313
51
22
56
53
39
60
51
60
156
41
67
197
39
17
50
43
42
45
36
68
156
45
71
189
39
31
69
48
42
76
43
62
145
45
74
198
129
152
267
305
106
130
260
305
139
166
250
317
mm
UC-5
ILC-517
Suratato
May 16-June 21
June 22-July 2
July 3-Aug 20
May 16-June 21
June 22-July 2
July 3-Aug 20
May 16-June .21
June 22-July 2
July 3-Aug 20
^
Second inumber indicates irrigation level (I =
*First number indicates replication.
irrigation. 4 = high irrigation.)
zero irrigation, 2 = low irrigation Z 3 = intermediate :
Table 5.
Water Budget (Irrigation, Rainfall) for the Four Irrigation Regimes for
Chickpea Moisture Stress Experiment at the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan,
MT, in 1985.
Irrigation
Time Period
Regime
11
12
13
14
21
22
23
24
31
0
0
0
14
14
0
48
48
0
.76
76
0
0
0
0
• 14
14
0
48
48
0
76
76
0
0
28
96
152
0
28 . 96
152
32 . 33
34
0
0
0
14
14
0
48
48
0
76
76
0
0
28
96
152
Irrigation (mm)
May 16-June 21
June 22-July 2
July 3-August 20
Rainfall (mm)
May 16-June 21
June 22-July 2
July 3-August 20
Ul
O
51
4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
107
107
107
107
107
51
4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
. 51
4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
107' 107
107
107
107
107
107
51
4
52
*First number indicates replication.
Second number indicates irrigation level (I =
zero irrigation, 2 = low irrigation, 3 = intermediate irrigation, 4 = high irrigation).
Table 5.
Continued
Irrigation
41
42
43
44
51
52
53
54
61
62
63
64
0
0
0
14
14
0
48
48
0
76
76
0
0
0
0
14
14
0
48
48
0
76
76
0
0
0
0
14
14
0
48
48
0
76
76
0
0
28
96
152
0
28
96
152
0
28
96
152
51
.4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
51
4
52
1
—I
LD
Time Period
Regime
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
107
Irrigation (mm)
May 16-June 21
June 22-July 2
July 3-August 20
Rainfall (mm)
51
May 16-June 21
June 22-July 2
July 3-August 20
4
52
*First number indicates replication. Second number indicates irrigation level (I =
zero irrigation, 2 = low irrigation, 3 = intermediate irrigation, 4 = high irrigation).
52
Table 6.
Significance Table of the Cultivar and Irrigation
by Cultivar Interaction for each Parameter
Measured at the Wytanna Ranch, Manhattan,
MT, in 1985.
Parameter
Days after
Emergence
C
Significance
I x C
Plant height
Days to flowering
Plant biomass
Shoot dry weight
Seed yield
Seed w t . 1,000
Harvest index
Biomass WUE
Grain WUE
Nodule dry weight
15
29
38
45
55
63
33-63
++ 68—86
68-86
68-86
.68-86
68-86
68-86
68-86
68-86
++Harvest; *significant @ .05 level.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
NS
*
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
■ NS
NS
NS
*
NS
*
*
NS
NS
*
NS
M O N T M ti STATE U NtVERSITV LIBRARIES
stks N378.Anl
i ^NiieVe0f moisture stress on nodulation,
RL
3 1762 00513623 7
Main
N378
Anl
con.2
D A T *
A n , Kwanp--Wook
Effect of moisture
stress on nodulation...
i s s u e d
t o
!'ain
N37'q
^r>l
con.