Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T21:39:17.649Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Factors affecting growth and yield of short-duration pigeonpea and its potential for multiple harvests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Y. S. Chauhan
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru P.O. Andhra Pradesh 502324, India
N. Venkataratnam
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru P.O. Andhra Pradesh 502324, India
A. R. Sheldrake
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru P.O. Andhra Pradesh 502324, India

Summary

Environmental and cultural factors that may limit the yield of short-duration pigeonpea were investigated over three seasons. Plants in the peninsular Indian environment at Patancheru grew less and produced less dry matter by first-flush maturity than at Hisar, a location in northern India where the environment is considered favourable for the growth of short-duration pigeonpea. However, with a similar sowing date in June, the mean seed yields of three genotypes, ICPL 4, ICPL 81 and ICPL 87, were very similar, at about 2·3 t/ha, in both environments. This was mainly due to the higher ratio of grain to above-ground dry matter at Patancheru. In addition to the first harvest, all genotypes showed a potential for two more harvests owing to the warm winters at Patancheru. The potential for multiple harvests was particularly high in ICPL 87, which yielded 5·2 t/ha from three harvests in 1982–3, 3·6 t/ha from two harvests in 1983–4, and 4·l t/ha from three harvests in 1984–5. The optimum plant population density at Patancheru was 25–35 plants/m2 for ICPL 87, but was higher for the other two genotypes.

At Patancheru, the total dry-matter and seed yield of first and subsequent harvests were significantly reduced by delaying sowing beyond June. Generally, the second- and the third-harvest yields were lower on vertisol than on alfisol under both irrigated and unirrigated conditions.

The total yield of ICPL 87 from two harvests was far higher than that of a well-adapted medium-duration genotype BDN 1, grown over a similar period. The yield advantage was greater on the alfisol because of the better multiple harvest potential of this soil. The results of this study demonstrate that properly managed short-duration genotypes of pigeonpea may have considerable potential for increased yield from multiple harvests in environments where winters are warm enough to permit continued growth.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Green, J. M., Sharma, D., Reddy, L. J., Saxena, K. B., Gupta, S. C., Jain, K. C., Reddy, B. V. S. & Rao, M. R. (1981). Methodology and progress in the ICRISAT pigeonpea breeding program. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Pigeonpeas, vol. 1, pp. 437449. Patancheru, A. P., India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Google Scholar
Kanwar, J. S. (1981). Early-maturing pigeonpeas heading for a green revolution. International Pigeonpea Newsletter 1, 67.Google Scholar
Kumar Rao, J. V. D. K., Dart, P. J., Day, J. M. & Matsumoto, T. (1981). Nitrogen fixation by pigeonpea. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Pigeonpeas, vol. 1, pp. 190199. Patancheru, A. P. India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Google Scholar
McPherson, H. G., Warrinoton, I. J. & Turnbull, H. L. (1985). The effect of temperature on rate of development of pigeonpea. Annals of Botany 56, 597611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, I. M., Venkataratnam, N. & Sheldrake, A. R. (1981). Response to row to row and plant to plant spacing in pigeonpea. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Pigeonpeas, vol. 2, pp. 249256. Patancheru, A. P., India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Google Scholar
Saxena, M. C. & Yadav, D. S. (1975). Some agronomic considerations of pigeonpeas and chickpeas. In International Workshop on Orain Legumes, pp. 31—61. Hyderabad, A. P., India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Google Scholar
Sharma, D., Saxena, K. B. & Green, J. M. (1978). Potential for ratooning in pigeonpea. Field Crops Research 1, 165172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldrake, A. R. (1984). Pigeonpea. In The Physiology of Tropical Field Crops (ed. Goldsworthy, P. R. and Fisher, N. M.), pp. 385417. Chichester, U.K.: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Spence, J. A. & Williams, J. A. (1972). Use of photoperiod response to change the plant design. Crop Science 12, 121122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tayo, T. O. (1985). Assessment of the effect of ratooning pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) in the lowland tropics. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 104, 589593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J. F. & Raper, C. D. Jr (1976). Photoperiodic control of seed filling for soybeans. Crop Science 16, 667672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Venkataratnam, N. & Sheldrake, A. R. (1985). Second harvest yields of medium-duration pigeonpeas (Cajanus cajan) in peninsular India. Field Crops Research 10, 323332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallis, E. S., Byth, D. E., Whiteman, P. C. & Saxena, K. B. (1983). Adaptation of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) to mechanised culture. In Proceedings of Australian Plant Breeding Conference, pp. 142145. Adelaide, Australia: Australian Plant Breeding Society.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W., Rao, M. R. & Natarajan, M. (1981). Traditional cropping systems with pigeonpea and their improvement. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Pigeonpeas vol. 1, pp. 1125. Patancheru, A. P., India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Google Scholar