Dbu XX PDF

AGRONOMIC INVESTIGATIONS ON TALL CHICKPEA
GENOTYPES SUITABLE FOR MECHANICAL HARVESTING
Thesis submitted to the

University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
IN
AGRONOMY
BY
SOMANAGOUDA B. PATIL
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
DHARWAD – 580 005
JUNE, 2013
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DHARWAD (CHIDANAND P. MANSUR)
JUNE, 2013 MAJOR ADVISOR
Approved by :
Chairman : ____________________________
(CHIDANAND P. MANSUR)
Co-Chairman: __________________________
POORAN M. GAUR)
1. __________________________
(P. M. SALIMATH)
2. __________________________
(V. I. BENAGI)
3. __________________________
(S. C. ALAGUNDAGI)
4. __________________________
(R. V. KOTI)
5. __________________________
(S. P. HALAGALIMATH)
6. __________________________
(S. R. SALAKINKOP)
CONTENTS
Sl.
Chapter Particulars
No.
CERTIFICATE
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF PLATES
LIST OF APPENDICES
1. INTRODUCTION
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Effect of ecosystems (irrigated and rainfed) on chickpea production
2.2 Performance of chickpea genotypes
2.3 Effect of plant density of chickpea
2.4 Interaction effect of ecosystem, chickpea genotypes and plant population
density
2.5 Mechanical harvesting
2.6 Economics of the chickpea production system
3. MATERIAL AND METHODS
3.1 General description
3.2 Climatic condition
3.3 Experimental details
3.4 Previous crop on the experimental site
3.5 Cultivation aspects
3.6 Observations recorded
3.7 Experiment – III: Study on performance of tall chickpea genotypes for
mechanical harvesting
3.8 Physicochemical characteristics of seeds
3.9 Economic analysis
3.10 Statistical analysis and interpretation of data
4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
4.1 Experiment–I. Performance of tall chickpea genotypes suitable for
mechanical harvesting at different plant density under rainfed ecosystem
4.2 Experiment–II. Performance of tall chickpea genotypes suitable for
mechanical harvesting at different plant density under irrigated ecosystem
4.3 Experiment–III: Studies on performance of tall chickpea genotypes for
Contd….
Sl.
Chapter Particulars
No.
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Weather and crop performance
5.2 Performance of chickpea genotypes under rainfed and irrigated ecosystem
5.3 Effect of plant density on chickpea under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems
5.4 Interaction of genotypes and plant density on chickpea productivity under
rainfed and irrigated ecosystems
5.5 Performance of tall chickpea genotypes for mechanical harvesting
5.7 Practical utility of results
5.8 Future line of work
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.2 Effect of plant density on chickpea
6.3 Interaction effect of genotypes and plant density on chickpea
6.4 Performance of chickpea genotypes for mechanical harvesting
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Title
No.
1. Physical and chemical properties of soil in the experimental site (Expt-I
& II)
2. Physical and chemical properties of soil in the experimental site (Expt-
III)
3. Mean monthly meteorological data for the experimental year (2011-12)
and the mean of past 30 years (1980-2010) of International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru,
Andhra Pradesh, India
and the mean of past 30 years (1980 – 2010) of International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru,
Andhra Pradesh, India
5. Plant height of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
rainfed ecosystem
6. Number of primary branches per plant of chickpea genotypes as
influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
7. Secondary branches per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by
plant density under rainfed ecosystem
8. Canopy spread of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
under rainfed ecosystem
9. Leaf area per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
10. Dry matter accumulation in leaves of chickpea genotypes as influenced
by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
11. Dry matter accumulation in stem of chickpea genotypes as influenced by
12. Dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts of chickpea genotypes as
13. Total dry matter production plant-1 of chickpea genotypes as influenced
14. First pod height and stem girth of chickpea genotypes as influenced by
15. Days to emergence, first flower initiation, 50% flowering and days to first
pod initiation of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
rainfed ecosystem
16. Days to maturity, vegetative and reproductive growth period of chickpea
genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
17. Leaf area index of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
18. Leaf area duration of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
19. Absolute growth rate of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
density under rainfed ecosystem
Contd…..
Table
Title
No.
20. Relative growth rate of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
21. Cumulative growth rate of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
22. Root length and dry weight of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
23. Total and active nodules per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced
24. Nodule fresh and dry weight of chickpea genotypes as influenced by
25. Root volume of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
rainfed ecosystem
26. Chlorophyll content (SPAD value) of chickpea genotypes as influenced
27. Leaf relative water content (RWC) of chickpea genotypes as influenced
by the plant density during 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystems
28. Light transmission and absorption ratio at flowering stage of chickpea
genotypes as influenced by the plant density during 2012-13 under
rainfed ecosystems
29. Number of filled, unfilled and total pods per plant of chickpea genotypes
as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
30. Number of seeds per plant and seeds per pod of chickpea genotypes as
31. Pod and seed yield plant and 100-seed weight of chickpea genotypes as
32. Seed yield, biological yield and harvest index of chickpea genotypes as
33. Left over pods seed yield and per cent left over pods seed yield of
chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed
ecosystem
34. Nitrogen and protein content in grains of chickpea genotypes as
35. Plant lodging at harvest of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
36. Weed population and biomass per plot as influenced by chickpea
genotypes and plant density under rainfed ecosystem
37. Pod damage (%) of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
38. Wilt incidence of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
39. Rust incidence of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
40. Soil moisture content in chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
Contd…..
Table
Title
No.
41. Nutrient uptake by chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
42. Available N, P2O5 and K2O status in soil as influenced by chickpea
43. Economics of the chickpea production system as influenced by
44. Seed weight and bulk density of chickpea genotypes as influenced by
45. Seed and pod volume of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
46. Hydration capacity and hydration index of chickpea genotypes as
47. Swelling capacity and swelling index of chickpea genotypes as
48. Per cent of soaked seeds of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
irrigated ecosystem
50. Number of primary branches per plant of chickpea genotypes as
influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
51. Number of secondary branches per plant of chickpea genotypes as
52. Canopy spread of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
under irrigated ecosystem
53. Leaf area per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
54. Dry matter accumulation in leaves of chickpea genotypes as influenced
by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
55. Dry matter accumulation in stem of chickpea genotypes as influenced by
plant density under irrigated ecosystem
56. Dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts of chickpea genotypes as
57. Total dry matter production per plant of chickpea genotypes as
58. First pod height and stem girth of chickpea genotypes as influenced by
59. Days to emergence, first flower initiation, 50% flowering and days to first
pod initiation of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
irrigated ecosystem
60. Days to maturity, vegetative and reproductive growth period of chickpea
genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
61. Leaf area index of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
62. Leaf area duration of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
Contd…..
Table
Title
No.
63. Absolute growth rate of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
density under irrigated ecosystem
64. Relative growth rate of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
65. Cumulative growth rate of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
66. Root length and dry weight of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
67. Total and active nodules plant-1 of chickpea genotypes as influenced by
68. Nodule fresh and dry weight of chickpea genotypes as influenced by
69. Root volume of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
irrigated ecosystem
70. Chlorophyll content (SPAD value) of chickpea genotypes as influenced
by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
71. Leaf relative water content (RWC) of chickpea genotypes as influenced
by the plant density during 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem
genotypes as influenced by the plant density during 2012-13 under
irrigated ecosystem
73. Number of filled, unfilled and total pods per plant of chickpea genotypes
as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
74. Number of seeds per plant and seeds per pod of chickpea genotypes as
75. Pod and seed yield plant-1 and 100-seed weight of chickpea genotypes
as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
76. Seed yield, biological yield and harvest index of chickpea genotypes as
77. Left over pods seed yield and per cent left over pods seed yield of
chickpea genotypes as influenced by the plant density under irrigated
ecosystem
78. Nitrogen and protein content in grains of chickpea genotypes as
79. Plant lodging at harvest of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
80. Weed population and biomass per plot as influenced by the chickpea
genotypes and plant density under irrigated ecosystem
82. Wilt incidence of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
83. Rust incidence of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
Contd…..
Table
Title
No.
84. Soil moisture content (%) in chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
87. Economics of the chickpea production system as influenced by
88. Growth attributes of tall chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical
harvesting
89. Growth attributes of tall chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical
harvesting
90. Days to 50 per cent flowering and maturity and first pod height as
influenced by tall chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical harvesting
91. Yield attributes of tall chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical
harvesting
92. Yield and yield attributes of tall chickpea genotypes suitable for
93. Pod damage and plant lodging as influenced by tall chickpea genotypes
suitable for mechanical harvesting
94. Seed and straw moisture content after harvest as influenced by
chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting
method
95. Productive and un-productive time for harvesting as influenced by
method
96. Total time taken and forward speed for harvesting of chickpea
genotypes under mechanical and conventional method
97. Weight of cleaned grain and grain purity as influenced by tall chickpea
genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting method
98. Weight of seed from left over pods and grain loss as influenced by tall
method
99. Weight of damaged grain and grain damage per cent as influenced by
tall chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting
method
100. Un-threshed grain weight and per cent un-threshed grain as influenced
by tall chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional
harvesting method
101. Total harvest loss and per cent harvest loss as influenced by chickpea
102. Threshing losses and efficiency as influenced by chickpea genotypes
under mechanical and conventional harvesting method
103. Harvested total grain yield and theoretical grain yield as influenced by
method
Contd…..
Table
Title
No.
104. Actual and theoretical field capacity as influenced by chickpea
105. Harvest per cent and performance efficiency as influenced by chickpea
106. Harvest and field efficiency as influenced by chickpea genotype under
mechanical and conventional harvesting method
107. Cutting efficiency and energy requirement as influenced by chickpea
108. Economics of mechanical and conventional harvesting method
LIST OF FIGURES
Plate
Title
No.
and past 30 years (1980-2010) of International Crops Research Institute
for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
and past 30 years (1980-2010) of International Crops Research Institute
for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
3. Layout of Experiment – I and II
4. Layout of Experiment – III
5. Seed yield per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
density under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems (pooled)
6a. Dry matter accumulation in different parts of chickpea genotypes under
rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
6b. Dry matter accumulation in different parts of chickpea genotypes under
irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
under rainfed and irrigated and ecosystems (pooled)
10a. Dry matter accumulation in different parts of chickpea as influenced by
plant density under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
10b. Dry matter accumulation in different parts of chickpea as influenced by
plant density under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
11. First pod height of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems (pooled)
12. Days to emergence, first flower initiation, 50% flowering and first pod
initiation of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
13. Days to emergence, first flower initiation, 50% flowering and first pod
initiation of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
genotypes as influenced by plant density during 2012-13 under rainfed
ecosystem (pooled)
genotypes as influenced by plant density during 2012-13 under
under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
Contd…….
Plate
Title
No.
genotypes and plant density under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
genotypes and plant density under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
20. Seed and biological yield of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
density under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
21. Seed and biological yield of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
density under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
22. Total dry matter production per plant of chickpea genotypes as
influenced by plant density under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems
(pooled)
23. Grain loss, grain damage and per cent un-threshed grain as influenced
by tall chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional
harvesting method (pooled)
24. Per cent harvest loss as influenced by chickpea genotypes under
mechanical and conventional harvesting method (pooled)
25. Actual and theoretical field capacity as influenced by chickpea
26. Threshing, performance and field efficiency as influenced by chickpea
genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting methods
27. Productive and un-productive time for harvesting as influenced by
method
28. Economic analysis of chickpea production systems as influenced by
genotypes and plant density under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
29. Economic analysis of chickpea production systems as influenced by
genotypes and plant density under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
LIST OF PLATES
Plate
Title
No.
1. Manual sowing of Experiments – I and II
2. Machine sowing of Experiment –III
3. Maintenance of required plant density
4. Plant protection chemical application
5. Traditional harvesting of chickpea
6. General view of Experiment – I during 2011-12
7. General view of Experiment – II during 2011-12
8. General view of Experiment – I during 2012-13
9. General view of Experiment –II during 2012-13
10. Procedure for recording leaf area in chickpea
11. General view of Experiment – III
12. Mechanical harvesting of chickpea
13. Plant types of chickpea genotypes
14. Pods of chickpea genotypes
15. Seeds of chickpea genotypes
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
Title
No.
I. Prices of inputs and outputs
II. Treatment wise cost of cultivation
III. Studying physicochemical characters of chickpea seed at

ICRISAT laboratory
IV. Particle size analysis of experimental soil at ICRISAT laboratory
V. Recording soil and plant observations in chickpea at ICRISAT

INTRODUCTION
Pulses establish an excelled integrant of Indian agriculture as they are the paramount source
of protein in predominantly vegetarian diet. They form almost an essential component of Indian diet as
dal-roti denoting complete and satisfying food. Among the commonly used food item of our daily meal,
pulses supply highest amount of protein. Besides, pulses supply nutritious fodder, feed, fuel and they
specially fortify soil through biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) which is economically sound and
environmentally acceptable and thereby sustain the productivity of the cropping systems.
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the principal pulse crop and an important source of protein for
millions of people in the developing countries, particularly in South Asia, who are largely vegetarian
either by choice or because of economic reasons. In addition to high protein content (20-22%),
chickpea is rich in fibre, minerals (phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, iron and zinc) and -carotene.
Its lipid fraction is high in unsaturated fatty acids. Chickpea plays a significant role in improving soil
fertility by fixing the atmospheric nitrogen. Chickpea meets 80 per cent of its nitrogen (N) requirement
-1
through symbiotic nitrogen fixation and can fix upto 140 kg N ha from air. It leaves substantial
amount of residual nitrogen for subsequent crops and adds plenty of organic matter to maintain and
improve soil health and fertility. Because of its deep tap root system, chickpea can withstand drought
conditions by extracting water from deeper layers in the soil profile.
Chickpea is cultivated globally on an area of 12.03 million hectares adding 9.24 million tonnes
-1
of grains annually to the world food basket, with an average productivity of 768 kg ha . It is the most
important pulse crop of India sharing 29.7 and 38.0 per cent of the total area and total production of
-1
pulses respectively with an average productivity of 912 kg ha . It is grown extensively in Madhya
Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka and these
states contribute more than 90 per cent to the total production in the country.
The present-day tasks of Agronomy derive from the necessity of satisfying the growing needs
of the population for agricultural products. The agronomic sciences are called upon to develop
methods which will steadily free agriculture from the effects of harmful natural factors, particularly
drought. The important roles are from mechanization, agricultural engineering, use of chemistry, land
development, crop management and seed selection and growing ecosystem. Among the different
agronomic production technologies, optimum plant population and selection of appropriate genotypes
suitable for mechanical harvesting for different growing ecosystems are the important to increase the
chickpea productivity by reducing the dependency on scarce labour.
Traditionally, chickpea is sown in winter as a rainfed crop in the region, which has highly
varying and often insufficient rainfall. It is, therefore, largely raised on residual moisture, which results
in low and variable yields and discourages farmers from investing inputs in its production. Limited
supplemental irrigation can, however, play a major role in boosting and stabilizing the productivity of
winter-sown chickpea. Chickpea tolerates drought and salinity stress and is one of the most important
pulse crops in semi-arid regions of Iran, India and Pakistan. Supplemental irrigation have significant
effects on yield and yield component, also suitable plant densities and correct adjustment of row
spacing lead to optimum uses of soil and environmental factors that produce high yield and yield
component (Falah, 2002 and Sheikh and Siadat, 2003). The supplemental irrigation during pod
formation and seed filling stage produced highest seed and biological yield (Taliee and Siyadian,
2000). Also suitable plant density and plant nutrient (minimum competition for light, water, minerals)
increased assimilate production and photosynthesis efficiency at seed formation stage (Bagheri and
Nezami, 2000). Chickpea cultivars differ in response to drought stress and plant densities in dry
conditions (Kanoni, 2001 and Kumar and Dhiman, 2004).
Important causes for lack of improvement in production and low chickpea yields in the country
are use of un-optimized plant population/density and cultivation of unsuitable varieties, inappropriate
crop management, abundance of insect pests and diseases and losses during harvesting operations
(Hassan et al., 2003 and Yadav et al., 2007). The gap between potential and existing yield of
chickpea can be bridged by using optimized seed rate of various chickpea genotypes to improve its
production in the country by achieving optimum plant population (Yadav et al., 2007).
Plant density has more effect on yield and yield components of chickpea. Many researchers
reported the effect of plant population on grain yield and some of agronomic characteristics of
chickpea (Mansur et al., 2003, Valimohammadi et al., 2007 and Kashfi et al., 2010). Planting density
depends on environmental conditions, seed size, plant type and way of sowing (Masood Ali and
Singh, 1999 and Yigitoglu, 2006).
Chickpea is the main pulse crop in India that contribute 38.0 per cent of the total production of
-1
pulses in country. Although the existing vareties have a potential of 20-25 q ha they fail to adjust
under higher population pressure and in rich fertility conditions. That is why there is a wide gap
between the realized yield at farmers field and the yield of research stations. The farmers wants to
increase the area and production of chickpea, but for the scaracity of labourers especially for sowing
and harvesting of chickpea the area is less. Presently mechanical sowing is being adopted by
farmers, but they are facing problem in harvesting by machine because of lack of varieties that are
suitable for mechanical harvesting. Therefore, there is a need to develop and scruitnize the genotypes
with compact and erect plant structure arose (Behl and Salimath, 1996) which seems an alternative to
minimize the yield gap by adjusting more number of plants per unit area (Maloo, 1999) under high
fertility levels (Singh et al., 1994a) and also suitable for mechanical harvesting to reduce the drudgery
on scarce labour in India. In a mechanical harvesting, the plant height and first pod height of desi
chickpea becomes an important factor. It affects the speed of harvest and potential crop loss through
pod passing unerneath the machine cutter bar (Knights, 1984).
Traditionally, chickpea is hand-harvested. At maturity, the crop is pulled out from the ground
and heaped for sun-drying in the field. It is then hauled by tractors to farm yards and threshing ground
in the village. Threshing is done by animals, tractors or local threshers. Yield losses are high in
manual threshing operations. Mechanical harvesting using combines has been shown to be
successful. The availability of cheaper methods of mechanical harvesting of the crop would help in
stabilizing and increasing the area under chickpea. In contrast to fully mechanized cereal crop
cultivation, lack of mechanization is a major constraint to the expansion of chickpea area in many
countries (Buddenhaggen, 1990, Oram and Belaid, 1990 and Osman et al., 1990). Mechanized
harvesting of chickpea presents fewer problems than for other legumes because of the availability of
tall cultivars, which permits the use of traditional cereal grain combines with some minor adjustments
(Saxena et al., 1987). The introduction of winter sowing in lowlands and early spring sowing in
highlands will improve plant vigor and yield and promote mechanical harvesting. Yield losses due to
mechanical harvesting using a plot combine for end winter- (early spring-) sown chickpea were 29 per
cent in ILC 482, a cultivar of conventional plant height, compared with no seed yield loss in ILC 3279,
a tall cultivar (Saxena et al. 1987). Mechanical harvesting of winter-sown ILC 482 (40 cm plant height)
and ILC 3279 (60 cm), and a spring-sown Syrian local cultivar (25 cm), with a swath mower, caused 6
to 48 per cent loss in grain yield. The highest yield losses were recorded in the local cultivar. Modified
cereal combine harvesters could not be used to harvest the local cultivar due to its short plant height.
The loss in seed yield due to combine harvesting was 18 per cent in ILC 3279 and 26 per cent in ILC
482. Because of its height, ILC 3279 was the only cultivar where mechanical harvesting was found to
be economical.
In the view of plant height and first pod height, ICRISAT, Chickpea Breeding Section, has
developed tall and erect genotypes viz., ICCV-11601, ICCV-11602, ICCV-11603, ICCV-11604
suitable for mechanical harvesting. The present study was conducted to evaluate these tall chickpea
genotypes under varied plant densities to minimize the yield gap in comparison with popular existing
genotype (JG-11).
Since the information on these practices is lacking, the present investigation was designed to
study the performance of suitable tall chickpea genotypes and optimum plant densities for mechanical
harvesting under both irrigated and rainfed ecosystem at International Crops Research Institute for
the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru (Andhra Pradesh), India during rabi 2011-12 and 2012-
13 with the following objectives.
1. To study the performance of tall chickpea genotypes under rainfed and irrigated ecosystem.
2. To study the effect of plant density on chickpea under rainfed and irrigated ecosystem.
3. To study the interaction effect between genotypes and plant densities under irrigated and rainfed
ecosystems.
4. To study the performance of tall chickpea genotypes for mechanical harvesting.
5. To study the economics of the chickpea production system.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
In this chapter, an attempt has been made to review the published literature on the relevant
research work done on chickpea with regard to ecosystem, performance of genotypes, plant density
and mechanical harvesting. Work carried out on both Kabuli and desi chickpea and other legume
crops has been included on the fallowing heads.
2.1 Effect of ecosystems (irrigated and rainfed) on chickpea production
2.2.1 Growth and yield
2.2.2 Root parameters
2.2.3 Physiological traits
2.2.4 Soil moisture content
2.2.5 Seed parameter
2.2.6 Insect-pest and disease incidence
2.3 Effect of plant density of chickpea
2.3.4 Nutrient uptake and soil nutrient status
2.3.5 Protein content
2.3.7 Weed incidence
2.3.8 Insect-pests and disease incidence
2.3.9 Plant lodging
2.4 Interaction effect of ecosystem, chickpea genotypes and plant population density
2.5 Mechanical harvesting
2.1 Effect of ecosystems (Rainfed and Irrigated) on chickpea
Chickpea in India is usually grown on conserved soil moisture or under rainfed conditions and
this will result in poor productivity of the crop, though the crop responds favourably to one or two
supplemental irrigations. Although, the water requirement of the crop is relatively low, it often suffers
from periodic moisture deficits owing to low and uncertain rains during rabi season. Consequently, the
average yields of rainfed crop are low. There are numerous reports to show that irrigation increases
the yield of chickpea crop (Saraf and Ahlawat, 1975, Pai and Hukkeri, 1979 and Sandhu et al., 1978
and Yusuf et al., 1980). The extent of yield increase through irrigation depends upon degree, duration
and period of moisture stress.
Variable seed yields are a deterrent to growing chickpea as they are mostly grown on residual
soil moisture and often experience water stress during their growth in chickpea growing countries
(Singh et al., 1997). Irrigation has been shown to significantly increase chickpea seed yield (Zhang et
al., 2000). Chickpea yield is reputed to be most responsive when irrigation was provided at flowering
and pod filling (Malhotra et al., 1997).
The three years field experiment at Kanpur (U.P.) on light textured alluvial soils, showed that
-1 -1
grain yield of chickpea increased from 1.93 t ha under un-irrigated control to 3.02 t ha with one
irrigation applied at pod filling stage (Bhan, 1980). Similarly, Singh et al. (1980a) also observed that
irrigation significantly increased the number of pods per plant and dry weight of pods. Further, they
reported that irrigation at seedling and flowering stages gave significant increase in yield of chickpea
compared to irrigation at other stages.
Singh and Sharma (1980) from Haryana reported that one irrigation to chickpea during
flowering significantly increased crop growth, yield attributes and yield of chickpea compared to un-
irrigated crop on sandy loam soil.
Nayar and Singh (1983) working at IARI New Delhi, observed that the irrigated chickpea crop
-1 -1
gave significantly higher yield (3.1 t ha ) in comparison to un-irrigated crop (1.85 t ha ), but there was
no marked difference either to time of irrigation or between one and two irrigations. Two irrigations
applied at branching and pod development decreased the grain yield of chickpea enhancing foliage
growth and auto shading by plants compared to single irrigation either at branching or pod
development (Nayar and Singh, 1985). Poonia (1984) obtained highest yield (1.3 t ha-1) with two
irrigations one at flowering and another at pod formation stage of chickpea, which was significantly
higher than one irrigation either at flowering or pod formation and no irrigation (control).
Mandal et al. (1985) on alluvial sandy loams of Kalyani (W.B.) found that chickpea gave good
response to two irrigations beyond which there was no response. Providing two or three irrigations
resulted in better yield components like higher number of pods and seeds per plant and 1000-seeds
weight than one or four irrigations. Haloi and Baldev (1986) working at IARI, New Delhi on the effect
of irrigation on different growth attributes of chickpea, observed that irrigation significantly increased
leaf area and LAI values. They further reported that all the irrigation levels significantly increased NAR
and RGR over no irrigation.
Roy et al. (1988) conducted experiment at Bihar, reported that irrigation at 45-50 days after
-1
sowing and at pod initiation stage was significantly higher seed yield of chickpea (1470 kg ha ) than
-1
no irrigation (1136 kg ha ). Similarly, Siag et al. (1990) on sandy loams at Sriganganagar, found that
-1
the highest grain yield (2.6 t ha ) in chickpea was obtained with two irrigations at vegetative and pod
formation stages of crop growth. Bajpai et al. (1991) reported that chickpea yields were significantly
-1
increased due to irrigation levels. The highest yields of 944 and 1254 kg ha were recorded due to
irrigation applied at branching and flowering during two years of study, respectively. Gaur and
Choudhary (1993) working on clay loam soils at Udaipur observed a significant yield increase in
chickpea when it was irrigated twice (pre-flowering and pod formation) over one irrigation at pre-
flowering stage. Yield obtained with two and one irrigation were 115.2 per cent and 63.6 per cent
higher than control, respectively. Similarly, in an experiment at Ranchi, Srivastava and Srivastava
(1994) noticed that values of growth and yield attributes were significantly higher at two irrigations
applied at flowering and pod filling stages of chickpea compared to non-irrigated plot.
0
Sugha et al. (1994) noticed that the pace of wilt development was slow at 9.7-15.6 C and
0 0 0
32.6-35.5 C and fast at 24.8-28.5 C temperature ranges. Thus temperature 20-35 C favoured the
0
chickpea wilt, optimum being 24.8-28.5 C. This optimum temperature usually prevails during
September and March-April. A significant increase in per cent wilt was recorded with an increase in
moisture level, highest (87.8%) being at 32 per cent soil moisture level. However, no significant
difference in wilt incidence was recorded beyond 25 per cent and 15-21 per cent moisture level.
Nawaz (1994) and Shinde et al. (1996) found the pods per plant to be the most affected trait
by the irrigation. Similarly the delay in days to 50 per cent flowering suggested that irrigation prolongs
the vegetative period.
Reddy and Ahlawat (1998) reported that two irrigations at branching and pod initiation
increased plant growth (plant height, dry matter production, leaf area index and root nodule mass)
-1
and gave more pods plant higher seed and haulm yield of chickpea compared to no irrigation at
IARI, New Delhi. Chaudhari et al. (1998) observed that there was a significantly positive effect of
irrigation on the length of pod, harvest index, protein content and seed yield of chickpea. Irrigation
(0.83 t ha-1) increased seed yield by 9 per cent than no irrigation (0.76 t ha-1).
Arya and Kushwaha (2000) indicated that chickpea responded favourably for two irrigations
one at branching and one at pod development and recorded significantly higher grain yield (20.32 q
ha-1) and haulm yield (45.01 q ha-1). Providing one irrigation also produced significantly higher grain
(18.72 q ha-1) and haulm (42.49 q ha-1) yield over no irrigation (control). Taliee and Siyadian (2000)
obseved that supplemental irrigation in pod formation and seed filling stage produced highest seed
and biological yield. Muhammad Azam (2002) conducted field experiment during 1993-94 and 1994-
95 to investigate the response of lentil to irrigation at the Crop Production and Water Management
Research Area, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Fully irrigated crop intercepted markedly more
PAR over control (no irrigation) by about 89.14 per cent. Partially irrigated crops were also superior in
the amount of intercepted PAR over control.
Anwar et al. (2003) carried out the two experiments at Lincoln University, New Zealand in a
cool-temperature sub-humid climate, observed that irrigation to Kabuli chickpea at any growth stage
significantly (P<0.001) increased intercepted PAR compared with rainfed plants by 33 per cent from
-2 -2
736 to 978 MJ m and 32 per cent from 857 to 1128 MJ m in 1998-99 and 1999-2000, respectively.
Bakhshi et al. (2007) at Islamabad, Pakistan, recorded the yield and most of the yield
components of chickpea were improved with the application of irrigation. On an average, 48 per cent
increase in number of pods per plant, 36 per cent in total dry weight and 17 per cent in grain yield was
recorded due to irrigation than rainfed conditions. On the contrary, the grain size was reduced by 16
per cent and the number of primary and secondary branches remained un-affected due to irrigation.
Khourgami and Rafiee (2009) studied the effect of supplemental irrigation on yield and yield
components of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in dry farming conditions at the Khoramabad Agricultural
Research Station, Iran. Supplemental irrigation at 50 per cent flowering and at pod filling have
significant effects on yield and yield components, also seed yield increased due to increase in number
of pod per plant, number of seed per pod and hundred seed weight.
Mirzaei Heydari et al. (2009) revealed that an average of two supplemental irrigations led to
-1 -1
increase of grain yield (556 kg ha ), biological yield (1102 kg ha ), pod number per plant (6.8) and
number of seeds per pod (2.52). Supplemental irrigation at 50 per cent flowering stage led to a
significant increase of grain yield in all the chickpea cultivars.
From the study conducted at Eskisehir (Turkey) by Kayan and Turhan (2012), found that leaf
relative water content (RWC) and loss of turgidity of chickpea crop did not change by irrigation
treatments before flowering period as compared to no-irrigation treatment, while leaf RWC decreased
and loss of turgidity increased in pod formation period. Besides that, the irrigation treatments caused
a decrease in chlorophyll content before flowering period when it caused an increase in chlorophyll
content in pod formation period.
Significant differences were noted by Dogan et al. (2012) in chickpea for plant height (ranging
from 24.0 to 37.5 cm), 1000-seed weight (ranging from 192.0 to 428.7 g), and above ground biomass
-1
(ranging from 2722 to 6083 kg ha ) for water applications to control (no irrigation) and irrigation
treatments. Statistical analysis indicated a strong relationship between the amount of irrigation and
grain yield, which ranged from 256.5 to 1957.3 kg ha -1. Harvest index values ranged between 0.092
and 0.325, while WUE and IWUE values ranged between 1.15-4.55 and 1.34-8.36 kg ha-1 mm-1,
respectively.
Genotype plays an important role in determining the crop yields. The potential yield of
genotypes within its genetic limit is set by environment where it is grown. Genotypes are different in
their yield potential depending on many complex physiological processes taking place in different
parts of the plant, which are controlled by both genetic makeup of plant and the environment. A
difference in height was evident soon after emergence. The erect lines, on an average, were 23 to 27
per cent taller than the semi-erect line. There was a corresponding increase of 16 to 39 per cent in
height to the first pod. Measurement of main stem internode lengths clearly showed the height
difference to be due to longer internodes in the erect lines (erect:semi-erect internode length ratios
varied from 1.05 to 1.31). Another consistent effect of plant type was observed for time to 50 per cent
flowering. The erect lines were late by 1.2 to 2.1 days. This is consistent with 0.9 more vegetative
nodes to the first flowering node in erect lines. Apart from increasing the plant height, the erect plant
type also reduced the seeds per plant and yield per plant. Also markedly affected the number of
primary branches was reduced from 1.97 in semi-erect lines to 1.41 in erect lines. There was a slight
compensatory increase in the number of secondary branches in erect lines. This was also reflected in
a significant decrease in the percentage of pods borne on primary branches in erect lines.
Katiyar (1980) noticed that the cultivar P-1026 was late to flower (35 days) and maturity (158
days) among several varieties tested under Kanpur conditions.
Singh et al. (1984) observed that the plant height of gram varieties RS-10, RS-11, RSG-2, C-
235, G-114 and Local ranged between 41 cm to 47 cm during winter season at Jobner. Among the
varieties, RS-11 produced the tallest plants (47.3 cm) and more number of branches (5.9) while the
lower values were observed in local variety. Among the three varieties of chickpea studied, ICCC-37
recorded the maximum plant height (30.7 cm) and Annigeri-1 the minimum (26.3 cm).
However, the highest number of branches per plant was observed in Joythi followed by ICCC-
37 under clayey soils of Guntur, Andhra Pradesh (Prabhakara Rao et al., 1985).
Singh and Faroda (1985) reported that under Hisar conditions on sandy loam soils Annigeri-1
produced the tallest plants (32.0 cm) followed by H-208 (30.0 cm) and BDN-9 (29.6 cm). Konde and
Ghag (1986) observed that variety Phule G-1 recorded the maximum plant height of 56.7 cm, which
was significantly superior over other four varieties studied (Phule G-5, phule-G-6, Phule G-8 and
Chaffa).
Marcellos and Knights (1987) observed that the cultivar 'Garnet' came to flowering earlier
than Opal at Agricultural Research station, Australia.
Beech and Leach (1988) reported that the varieties had significant effect on dry matter
-2 -2
production m and the results revealed that the variety 'Tyson' produced maximum dry matter m
(204 g) than other varieties tested under vertisols at South-eastern Queensland. Gill et al. (1988) from
-2
their study on six varieties found that H-75-35 produced maximum dry matter (386.3 g m ) and
-2
'Radhey' the minimum (131.0 g m ), but K-850 has got more 100-grain weight which was significantly
superior over other tested varieties (K-850, BG-276, GL-769, H-75-35, Radhey and PDG-83-13) at
Punjab Agricultural University Farm. In a study with four varieties of chickpea (JG-62, Sel-436, PG-15
and Vikas), under Rahuri conditions on black soils, Deore et al. (1989) found that PG-15 gave the
maximum (34.8 g) and JG-62 the minimum (27.0 g) dry matter per plant.
Patra et al. (1989) observed tallest plants (31.6 cm) with ICCL-83227 compared to other
varieties ICCL-83214 (30.8 cm) and Annigeri-1 (30.4 cm) on clay loam soils of Orissa. The cultivar
ICCL 83214 produced 11.16 per cent higher grain yield (727 kg ha-1) than ICCL 83227 (654 kg ha-1).
The cultivar Annigeri-1 (550 kg ha -1) due to less favourable production of pods plant-1, was
significantly inferior to ICCL 83214 and had 15.9 per cent less yield than ICCL 83214. Further, found
tallest plants (31.6 cm) in ICCL-83227 compared to other varieties ICCL-83214 (30.8 cm) and
Annigeri-1 (30.4 cm).
Sarawgi and Singh (1989) reported that the gram varieties (H-208, Pant G-144, Radhey,
-1
Pusa-809 and GG-588) did not differ significantly with regard to number of seeds pod . Similarly,
Prabhakar and Saraf (1991) reported that gram varieties Pusa-209 and Pusa-261 did not differ
significantly regarding dry matter per plant. Nimje (1991) recorded higher grain yield in JG-315 (22.0 q
-1
ha ) than other tested varieties (Ujjain-21, C-235 and Radhey) under Vertisols of Bhopal. Accordingly,
-1 -1
Roy et al. (1995) reported higher yield in Nobin (1.4 t ha ) than in Local variety (1.2 t ha ).
Pawar and Wasnik (1991) reported that Phule G-5 produced the highest number of branches
(38) among the varieties, which included Phule G-2 and N-31 under irrigated vertisols at Rahuri. Jat
1
and Mali (1992) found that the highest number of branches in RS-11 and seed yield (11.9 q ha )
among the three varieties tested viz., RSG-2, RSG-44 and RS-11 under sandy loam soils at Jobner.
Singh et al. (1993) reported taller plants (55.7 cm), number of pods per plant (59), more number of
seeds per pod and higher haulm yield (65.0 q ha-1) in H-82-2 than H-86-143, but highest test weight
was recorded in H-86-143 (20.2 g) than H-82-2 (17.2 g) under sandy loam soils. Dixit et al. (1993b)
-1
observed higher number of branches, higher number of pods plant , highest stalk and seed yield in
'Radhey' than 'Ujjain-21' under deep black soils during winter season.
Singh et al. (1994) found that cultivar PDG-8413 produced higher grain and stalk yield (19.4
and 64.7 q ha-1, respectively) and more number of pods per plant compared to GNG-146, 'Avarodhi'
and H-208 in sandy loams of Hisar. However, maximum 100-grain weight (18.3 g) was observed in
'Avarodhi' followed by PDG-8413 (16.3 g), GNG-146 (14.0 g) and H-208 (13.5 g).
Hemchandra and Yadav (1997) observed maximum dry matter per plant in cultivar KGD-1174
followed by 1168-B and minimum in cultivar K-1168, but K-1168 to be the highest yielder (18.85 q ha-
1
) among the 12 varieties tested under rainfed condition at C. S. Azad University of Agriculture and
Technology, Kanpur (U. P.). A field experiment conducted at Ujjain in winter season of 1990-91 and
1991-92 showed that the chickpea variety 'JG 315' was significantly higher for grain yield (17.0 and
-1
16.4 q ha , respectively) and yield attributing characters such as pods per plants, grains per pod and
1000-grain weight during both the years as compared to 'Ujjan 21' (Thakur et al., 1998). Masood Ali
and Singh (1999) reported that the genotype 'PBG-1' gave significantly higher grain yield compared to
'Radhey' and 'H 82-2' in both the years under sandy loams of U.P. Genotypes 'KPG-59' was at par.
The mean grain yield of ‘PBG-1’, ‘KPG 59’, 'Radhey' and ‘H 82-2’ was 2375, 2122, 1903 and 1780 kg
-1
ha , respectively.
Mittal et al. (1999) reported that among the ten varieties studied JG-74 was the earliest to
flower (65 days) and maturity (106 days) and JG-322 was the late in flowering (77 days) and maturity
-1
(118 days). However, JG-322 recorded higher yield (21 q ha ) among the ten varieties studied. Lather
et al. (1994) noticed that 'Gaurav' came to flowering and maturity earlier than H-86-18 at Hisar.
Jadhav and Pawar (1999) observed taller plants (53.8 cm) and more number of branches in
'Vishal' than 'Vijay' (46.3 cm tall), but higher number of pods per plant, dry matter per plant and seed
-1 -1
yield in 'Vijay' (50, 32.3 g and 3.0 t ha , respectively) than 'Vishal' (39, 27.7 g and 2.6 t ha ,
respectively) under black soils at Rahuri.
-1
Patel (1999) recorded higher stalk yield (13.9 q ha ) in JG-74 among the four varieties
studied viz. (JG-74, JG-315, JG-62 and Ujjain-21. Lather (2000) revealed that promising tall and erect
chickpea genotypes H 96-99 and H 96-26 recorded higher plant height (81.13 and 69.93 cm,
respectively), primary branches (5.33 and 5.27, respectively), initiation of fruiting node (22.60 and
23.47, respectively) and number of pods per plant (69.92 and 63.27, respectively). These tall and
erect genotypes recorded comparable seed yield (2627 and 2421 kg ha-1, respectively) against check
-1
varieties viz., C-235 and H 8-18 (2659 and 2460 kg ha , respectively) at normal planting density (33
-2
plants m ) at Hisar, Haryana.
Satish Kumar and Kadian (2006) carried out a field study in 2001 and 2002 at Hisar
(Haryana). Over the years, the erect genotypes H 96-99 out yielded HC-1 by a margin of 17.2 per
cent. The higher yield of H 96-99 was result of 31.2 per cent more number of pods per plant, 18.3 per
cent more number of branches per plant and 18.1 per cent heavier seeds compared to HC-1. The
plants of H 96-99 were also taller than HC-1. The highest number of pods in H 96-99 might be the
result of better utilization of radiation because of its erect growth habit. However, HC-1 produced 35.4
per cent more number of grains per pod but this favourable parameter alone failed to compensate the
yield loss due to poor pod bearing of this variety. Similarly, Satish Kumar et al. (2006) reported that at
maturity the chickpea genotypes HC-3 and C-235 accumulated the highest and lowest total above
ground bio-mass, respectively. Crop growth rate (CGR) of chickpea genotype HC-3 was found higher
except between 60-89 DAS, where it was found higher in H 92-67.
Chaitanya and Chandrika (2006) conducted a field experiment on sandy loam soils of Tirupati
with three chickpea varieties viz., ICCV-10, ICCV-2 and Annegiri-1. The variety ICCV-10 was superior
to Annegiri-1 and ICCV-2 in respect to plant height, number of branches per plant, number of pods
-1
per plant and seed and haulm yields (475 and 1103 kg ha , respectively).
Sheoran et al. (2008) reported that the desi chickpea cultivar PBG-1 recorded significantly
higher seed yield as compared to PBG-5 with mean increase of 9.9 per cent over the latter. Though
plant height and 1000-seed weight was conspicuously higher in PBG-5 (61.2 cm and 165.1 g)
compared to PBG-1, the marked superiority of PBG-1 for number of pods per plant and seeds per pod
contributed more to seed yield.
Verma et al. (2009) reported that chickpea genotype 'Awarodi' and 'Udai' being at par with
each other proved significantly superior over KGD-1168 for 1000-seed weight for two years. Number
of seeds per pod and harvest index was not influenced significantly by different genotypes. Such
variations among the genotypes might be due to genetic constitution of different genotypes which
provided inherent capacity to perform genotypes in different ways. Genotype 'Awarodi' produced
significantly maximum and KGD-1168 significantly minimum seed yield. These yields may be
attributed mainly to number of branches per plant, which also behaved in the similar manner. Besides,
yield potential of different genotypes depend on their genetic constitution, which varies from genotype
to genotype.
Singh et al. (2010) reported that during 2007-08, variety BDG 72 gave the highest grain yield (3130.0
kg ha-1). Pusa 1053, Pusa 372 and Pusa 256 were the medium yielding varieties with grain yield of 2856.0,
2740.0 and 2590.0 kg ha-1, respectively. During 2008-09, variety BDG 72 was highest yielder (3525.0 kg ha-1)
followed by Pusa 1053 (3189.5 kg ha-1), Pusa 256 (3115.0 kg ha-1) and Pusa 1105 (3020.0 kg ha-1). However,
higher plant height was recorded with genotypes viz., Pusa 1053 (61.4 cm), Pusa 1103 (59.9 cm) and BGD 72
(58.8 cm) as compared to other genotypes during both the years. Goyal et al. (2010) observed that genotype
Phule G 95333 recorded significantly higher growth characters, yield attributing traits, grain and haulm yield as
compared to genotype Phule G 0515.
The improved plant growth and development of yield attributes in Phule G 95333 resulted in higher
grain and haulm yield. The bolder grain size alone in Phule G 0515 could not compensate for more pods, grains
per pod and grain yield.
Prasad et al. (2012) observed from the field experiment conducted during 2007-08 at Hisar,
-1
the superiority of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes HC-1 in term of pods plant , 100-grain
weight, LAI, seed and biological yields and harvest index over BG-372 and PBG-1. However, ‘PBG-1’
produced significantly taller plants than BG-372which was on par with HC-1.
Mane and Shinde (1987) reported varietal difference regarding number of nodules and nodule
dry weight, the highest nodule number and nodule dry weight in chickpea was observed with the
variety 'Vishwas', which was significantly superior over other six varieties studied on clay soils of
Varanasi. Silsbury (1989) noticed that all the tested cultivars of chickpea viz., 'Dooen', 'Tyson', 'Opal'
and 'Amethyst' nodulated successfully and fixed nitrogen actively during the vegetative period.
Raju et al. (1991) reported the highest nodule number per plant and nodule dry weight in
-1
Type-3 of chickpea, that resulted in higher stalk yield (37.5 q ha ), which was significantly superior
over Pant G-110 and K-468 under sandy loams of Varanasi. Jat and Mali (1992) in their varietal study
of chickpea with RSG-2, RSG-44 and RS-11 observed significant differences in nodule dry weight per
plant under sandy loam soils.
From a study at Pantnagar, Prasad et al. (1978) found no significant differences in light
interception due to gram varieties at pre-flowering and maximum flowering stages. Leach and Beech
(1988) observed that there is no significant difference in light interception between two cultivars i.e.,
K-223 and Tyson at South-eastern Queensland.
Verma et al. (2009) revealed the result of effect of chickpea genotypes on relative water
content (RWC) which was significant, when 'Awarodi' and 'Udai' being at par with each other and
proved significantly superior over KGD-1168. Similarly, varietal variations in different physiological
traits of chickpea have also been reported by Sharma-Natu et al. (2003).
Mukesh Chand et al. (2010) revealed that maximum accumulated GDD (1980.2 0C day) were
utilized by cultivar KGD 1168 while minimum GDD (1916.2 0C day) utilized by 'Avrodhi', whereas
cultivars K 850 and 'Radhey' were at par to attain physiological maturity.
Shamsi et al. (2011) reported that growth degree days (GDD) and the quantity of absorbed
radiation by various chickpea genotypes indicate that the lowest amounts of GDD (1408.70 0C day)
and HTU (14313.78 0C day) were observed in 'Jam' genotype and the highest values, i.e., 1532.50 0C
0
day and 15921.80 C day were observed in 12-60-31 genotype, respectively.
Kayan and Turhan (2012) reported that in water stress tolerant chickpea cultivar cv. 'I k',
RWC was higher while losses of turgidity lower than in the water stress susceptible cultivar cv. 'Ya a'.
Similar results were obtained for chickpea cultivars subjected to drought stress (Gunes et al., 2008).
Singh et al. (1991) reported that the soil moisture depletion pattern was almost similar in all
the three varieties of Kabuli chickpea (L-144, L-550 and Gora Hissari) tested at Hissar. While Dixit et
al. (1993a) reported that varieties did not significantly varied in moisture depletion pattern.
2.2.5 Seed parameter
Waldia et al. (1991) reported that range in different characters showed a particular trend in
respect of seed mass in desi and Kabuli types. The rate of radical emergence and shoot length had
higher range in Kabuli and desi small-seeded types than the bold-seeded, whereas rate of plumule
emergence, root-shoot ratio, hydration capacity and hydration index were found higher in bold Kabuli
and desi types than the smaller ones. Root length and protein (%) ranges were high in Kabuli types
than desi types, while for methionine, cystine, iron, phosphorus, seed density and pH content, the
range was high in desi than Kabuli types irrespective of seed mass. They also reported that the
comparative mean differences in various groups of seed masses indicated highly significant
differences between small and bold-seeded types for most of the traits. Rate of plumule emergence,
radicle emergence, root length and shoot length were significantly higher in small- than bold-seeded
types. Kabuli types differed significantly from desi types for higher mean values when compared
within bold- and small-seed groups for most of characters. Comparatively, root-shoot ratio was higher
in desi bold over desi small and bold Kabuli types.
Tripathi et al. (2012) evaluated eighty-six chickpea genotypes (44 Kabuli and 42 desi) for their
physicochemical traits under rainfed condition at ICRISAT, Patancheru, India. Hydration capacity was
-1 -
higher in Kabuli types (0.19-0.68 g water seed ) compared to the desi types (0.11-0.31 g water seed
1
), while the hydration index was almost similar in both desi and Kabuli types. Swelling capacity and
swelling index of different genotypes ranged between 0.11-0.70 ml seed-1 and 2.1-2.76 ml seed-1,
respectively. Similarly 100-seed weight and seed volume, hydration capacity and swelling capacity
-1 -1
were highest in ICC 17109 (0.68 g water seed and 0.70 ml seed , respectively) and lowest in
-1 -1
Himchana 1 (0.11 g water seed and 0.11 ml seed , respectively).
2.2.6 Insect-pest and diseases incidence
2.2.6.1 Insect-pest
The gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigera is a key pest of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). The
damage caused by this pest on chickpea ranges upto 84.4 per cent with an average of 7 per cent in
different farming systems (Lateef, 1992). Puri et al. (1998) reported 60-80 per cent crop losses due to
Helicoverpa pest from early vegetative to podding stage in chickpea. The major reasons for the
reluctance of farmers to use insecticide against this crop appeared to be the non-availability of proper
insecticide and its high cost, development of resistance and environmental pollution. Thus, the use of
resistant varieties is an ideal component of pest management at no additional cost and free from
environmental pollution problem. The resistant genotype is the best component of integrated pest
management.
Patil et al. (2007) screened twenty-five promising short-duration chickpea genotypes from the
International Chickpea Helicoverpa Resistant Nursery (ICHRN) under pesticide-free field conditions at
Rahuri. (M.S.). The mean pod damage among the test entries ranged from 5.05 per cent in ICC
16374 to 14.90 per cent in RIL 7 with mean pod damage of 9.53 ± 2.25%. In total, 25 genotypes were
screened; 2 genotypes, viz, ICC 16374 (5.05%) and ICCL 79037 (5.90%), recorded less pod damage
compared to the resistant check ICC 506 (6.35%).
A management strategy for gram pod borer relies heavily on chemical insecticides. However,
concerning chemical insecticides, the farmer’s reluctance to use it, the non-availability, high cost,
development of resistance and environmental pollution (Armes et al., 1996), have opened up avenues
for the identification and adaption of chickpea genotypes resistance/tolerance to Helicoverpa. The
genotype is the best/preferred component of agronomic manipulation for management of Helicoverpa
in chickpea. Therefore, Sanap and Jamadagni (2005) tried 24 chickpea genotypes with one check
i.e., ICC 50 ED at Rahuri, Maharashtra. The genotypes ICC 87311 and ICCV 2 recorded lower pod
damage (20.37 and 20.39%, respectively) and PSR (pest susceptibility ratio) than other tried
genotypes. However, maximum grain yield was recorded with ICC 12490 and ICC 9854 (1483 and
-1
1391 kg ha , respectively). Similarly, use of Helicoverpa tolerant varieties of chickpea like JG-315,
JG-74, BG-256 and JG-130 for central zone and ICCV-7 for southern zone is recommended (Ahmad
and Rai, 2005).
Siddegowda (2004) tried fifteen varieties with one resistant check (ICS 506). The genotypes,
ICCV 10 recorded lowest pod damage (10.09%) followed by JG 74 and Black chickpea. However, the
grain yield was significantly higher in GBS 963 followed by black chickpea and ICC 506.
2.2.6.2 Diseases
-1
Gaur et al. (2006) reported that the extra-large (63 g 100 seeds ) Kabuli variety ICC 17109,
-1 -1
the medium-seeded (25 g 100 seeds ) Kabuli variety ICCV 2 and the large-seeded (38 g 100 seeds )
Kabuli variety KAK 2 were resistance to Fusarium wilt than other Kabuli varieties. Sarwar et al. (2009)
evaluated the response of 10 chickpea genotypes to gram pod borer H. armigera was checked at the
farm conditions. Results indicated that C-727 behaved the best for holding the least borer’s population
and damage while CM-88 proved sensitive and the least productive.
A variety would perform better only when it is provided with optimum environmental
conditions. The establishment of adequate plant population is most important to realize the full yield
potential of a genotype.
Chickpea like many other crops has the ability to make adjustment to the available space.
Wider spacing (low plant population density) allows the plants to be profusely branched and too
narrow spacing makes the plants sparsely branched. The optimum spacing/density for a crop
depends on crop species, growth habit, duration and moisture availability. A tall/erect variety
-1
produced 60 per cent more yield at higher plant population density (5.0 lakh ha ) than lower density
-1
(1.67 lakh ha ), while a local bushy cultivar showed little response to higher density (Byth et al.,
-2
1979). Chickpea is generally planted at a density of 33 plants m (30 cm row to row spacing and 10
cm plant to plant spacing). However, Jeswani (1986) stressed the need to define ideotypes in pulses
to improve the harvest index for major breakthrough changes in plant type by reducing their
spreading, indeterminate and bushy habit. Siddique et al. (1984) proposed chickpea ideotype for
enhancement of yield comprising not more than two branches when sown at high plant density.
Similar ideotype approach was suggested to overcome the genetic limits of chickpea productivity by
introduction of major morpho-physiological changes such as compact and erect plant habit, open and
upright canopy, responsiveness to higher density planting, better management and input conditions
(Dahiya et al., 1990).
The number of plants required per unit area is one of the prime considerations for higher
biomass production which depends upon the nature of the crop, growth habit, branching and
environment. This number can neither be too small, so that all the production potential will not be
utilized, nor can it be too large so that excessive plant competition will reduce the overall efficiency of
the crop. Manipulation of seed rate and spacing are the important factors in achieving required level
of plant density, so that, plant makes efficient use of the resources. Reviews pertaining to influence of
plant densities / seed rate / spacing on chickpea and related crops are summarized below.
Sen and Jana (1959) recorded adverse effect of increasing levels of plant population on
chickpea plant height. They further reported that the number of branches, horizontal spread and dry
weight per plant increased with wider spacing which ultimately helped in increasing the yield per plant.
They also observed that pods per plant, grains per pod and yield per plant also increased with wider
spacing. A spacing of 30 cm x 30 cm increased the per plant yield over 30 cm x 15 cm.
Nirad et al. (1960) indicated that chickpea grain yield increased with wider row spacing and
was accompanied by increase in 1000-seed weight, number of pods per plant and seeds per pod.
Argikar (1970) reported from Badanpur (Maharashtra) that chickpea should be sown in rows of 30 cm
to 45 cm apart for better growth and yield.
Sewaram et al. (1973) found that the inter row spacing of 30 cm recorded 3.0 and 3.9 t ha-1
more grain yield than 45 and 60 cm inter row spacing, respectively. Similarly, widening the inter row
spacing beyond 30 cm registered a decline in chickpea yield (Verma and Singh, 1974). Kostrinski
(1974) observed 52 per cent increase in yield when the population of winter chickpea in Israel was
doubled by reducing the row spacing from 60 cm to 30 cm.
Wilcox (1974) reported an increase in harvest index with increased population from 2.5 to 5.8
-1
lakh plants ha in soybean. Subramanian et al. (1974) from Coimbatore reported the higher yields of
-1 -2
1.19 and 0.69 t ha of chickpea with a higher spacing of 45 cm × 10 cm (22 plants m ) and 45 cm ×
-2
20 cm (11 plants m ), respectively.
Kaul and Sekhon (1976) reported that the grain yield of chickpea was significantly higher at
30 cm row spacing than wider row spacing of 45 cm. However, Saxena and Singh (1977)
recommended 30 cm row spacing as optimum for chickpea.
Kamel et al. (1978) concluded that the plant height of chickpea increased with increase in
plant population. Similar results were reported in chickpea from Gulbarga and Ludhiana under
coordinated trials during 1983-84 and 1984-85, respectively (Anon., 1984). However, at Saboor
(Bihar) plant height of chickpea decreased with increasing plant population (Anon., 1985).
Karwasra and Faroda (1979) from Hissar (Haryana) reported that the row spacing of 40 cm
produced significantly more grain yield as compared to 20 cm spacing. They noticed definite
improvements in the grain yield with wider row spacing of 40 cm. Sah (1979) from Nepal reported 2.2
-1
lakh ha as optimal plant population for Parwandpur (Nepal) conditions. Saxena (1979) found that
-2
yield was increased with increasing plant population upto 50 plants m for irrigated chickpea and 23
-2
plants m for un-irrigated chickpea.
Singh and Sharma (1980) found that the planting of gram at 30 cm apart in rows with 70 kg
-1
seed ha resulted in higher yield.
Katiyar (1980) proclaimed in his report that harvest index decreased with high densities in
chickpea because of delayed formation of sub-branches which have high share of plant dry weight
per unit area.
Veeranna et al. (1980) reported the highest chickpea grain yield of 1238 kg ha-1 with
-1
increased spacing of 22.5 cm × 10 cm (4.4 lakh plants ha ). They observed that the yield components
did not vary significantly with different inter and intra row spacing indicating that the plant population
density had actually contributed towards increased seed yield. Singh et al. (1981) from Hissar
reported that grain yields were similar under both the row spacings. However, Verma and Singh
(1974) and Kaul and Sekhon (1976), reported increased yield under closer row spacing.
Hernandez and Hill (1983) reported that plant density could not produce any significant
difference to the weight of 100-grains of chickpea. But, increase in seeding densities after a certain
limit lead to a decreased seed yield of chickpea.
Siddique et al. (1984) studied harvest index of various branches in the chickpea plants at
different spacings. They reported no significant variation among the branches of plants in wider
-2
spacing (23 plants m ) while differences in harvest index was significant in the plants grown at closer
-2
spacing (50 plants m ). Further found high plasticity of chickpea though there was distinct trend
towards higher biological yield and lower harvest index as plant density was increased.
At Durgapur, number of grains per pod, 100-grain weight and haulm yield remained at par
though the number of pods per plant increased with decreasing plant population in chickpea (Anon.,
1984).
Roy and Sharma (1986) working on sandy loam soil in Bihar under late-sown condition, found
-1 -1
that the plant population of 5,00,000 plants ha recorded 225 kg ha more grain yield than the normal
-1
population of 3,33,000 kg ha .
Calcagno et al. (1988) observed in dry and warm environment of eastern Silily (Italy), seed
yield of tall and erect chickpea genotypes (ILC 72 and ILC 3279) with predominantly apical pod
-2
production increased with increasing plant density to 30 plants m , but yield of the other genotypes
(ILC 237, ILC 263, ILC 482, ILC 1932, FLIP 81/32, FLIP 81/45, Calia and Principe) was maximum at
-2
25 plants m and significantly declined at the highest density due to these varieties being semi-
spreading. Patel et al. (1988) reported the higher number of branches per plant (7) in 45 cm row
spacing under clay soils of South Gujarat. Singh et al. (1988) reported that, there was a positive
correlation between plant height and the number of plants per unit area due to more competition for
light.
Beech and Leach (1989) reported that chickpea grain yield increased with increasing planting
-2
density (from 14 to 56 plants m ) in both the dry (106 mm) and wet (286 mm) seasons, the magnitude
of yield increase was surprisingly greater in the dry (21.2%) compared with the wet (9.5%) season.
-1
Sarawgi and Singh (1989) observed that higher plant population of 5.0 lakh plants ha
-1
resulted in significantly higher chickpea stalk yield (40 q ha ) over lower population of 3.3 lakh plants
-1 -1
ha (35 q ha ), but increase in grains per pod was with decrease in plant population from 5.0 to 3.3
lakh plants ha-1.
Patra et al. (1989) reported the maximum plant height at higher plant population of 5.0 lakh
-1 -1
ha which was significantly superior to that of 3.3 lakh and 2.5 lakh ha under clay loam soils. But
-1
more number of seeds per pod was produced at lower population (2.5 lakh plants ha ) than at higher
population (5.0 lakh plants ha-1). Singh and Singh (1989) observed increase in plant height which
ranged between 15.6 cm to 30.5 cm with increase in row spacing from 30 cm to 60 cm under rainfed
conditions of Orissa.
Experimental results of Thakur and Jadhav (1990) revealed that chickpea crop grown at 4.5
lakh plants ha-1 gave higher yield (37.0 q ha-1) which was significantly superior over 3.0 and 6.0 lakh
plants ha-1.
Plant height, number of branches, stalk and seed yield increased with increasing plant
-1
population density as result of higher seed rate from 75 kg to 125 kg ha , but dry weight of plant was
decreased with increasing seed rate under clay loam soils of Madhya Pradesh (Rathore and Patel,
1991).
-1
Pawar and Wasnik (1991) reported increase in stalk yield from 37 to 40 q ha with decrease
in row spacing (30 cm to 22.5 cm) and plant to plant spacing (12.5 cm to 7.5 cm). However, higher dry
matter per plant and number of branches in wider spacing of 30 cm × 12.5 cm which was significantly
superior over the respective close spacings (22.5 cm × 7.5 cm, 22.5 cm × 10 and 22.5 cm × 12.5 cm)
under vertisols of Rahuri, Maharashtra. Daft (1991) noticed that increasing plant density decreased
dry matter production per plant at Dundee (U.K.). Similarly, Mane and Jadhav (1991) noticed that the
-1
lower plant density of 3.0 lakh plants ha accumulated significantly more dry matter per plant as
-1
compared to the higher plant densities of 4.5 and 6.0 lakh plants ha at all the growth stages of crop
under clayey soils.
Jat and Mali (1992) observed higher number of branches and pods per plant at seed rate of
-1 -1 -
60 kg ha than higher seed rate of 80 kg ha and maximum yield was at higher seed rate of 80 kg ha
1
under irrigated sandy loam soils. Mohammad (1992) indicated that under conditions of Sudan where,
the growing period is limited by high temperature at the beginning of the season and hot spells during
-2
the growth period, grain yield was determined to a great extent by number of plants m . The
increased number of pods and seeds per plant did not compensate for a plant stand reduction. Yield
-2
increased with increase in population upto 66 plants m .
Significantly increase in plant height and stalk yield were observed at higher density (66
-2 -2
plants m ) and higher seed yield was recorded at lower densities (55 and 44 plants m ), but number
of seeds per pod and 100-seed weight did not notice any significant difference due to plant density
-2
(44, 55 and 66 plants m ) under sandy loam soils at Hisar (Singh et al., 1993). Similarly, Singh et al.
(1994) observed that 100-seed weight was not significantly affected by row spacing (30 cm and 45
cm), but decreasing row spacing brought increased plant height.
Results of an experiment by Mahapatra et al. (1995) revealed higher stalk and seed yield at
closer spacing (30 cm × 10 cm) than at wider spacing (45 cm × 10 cm), but there was no significant
difference between 30 cm × 10 cm and 45 cm × 10 cm spacings with regards to number of pods per
plant under deep black soils of Rahuri (Maharashtra).
The increase in plant height, dry matter per plant, number of seeds per pod and decrease in
-1
100-seed weight with increasing plant population from 1.3 (30 cm × 25 cm) to 3.3 lakh plants ha (30
cm × 10 cm) was noticed by Hassan et al. (1998). He also reported that higher plant population
increased the seed yield compared to a lower plant population due to more number of seeds per
plant, branches per plant and 1000-seed weight. Whereas harvest index, seeds per pod and plant
height were not influenced statistically by plant population.
Results of an experiment by Shaikh and Mungse (1998) revealed that dry matter per plant
decreased with increase in plant density from 2.2 to 3.3 lakh plants ha-1 under clayey soils of Rahuri,
-1
but seed yield was increased from 21 to 22 q ha , respectively with increase in plant population.
Thakur et al. (1998) from the experiment conducted during 1990-91 and 1991-92, reported
that grain yield (17.3 and 16.9 q ha-1, respectively) and haulm yield (42.9 and 41.0 q ha-1,
respectively) of chickpea were significantly higher with 5,00,000 plants ha-1 as compared to 4,00,000
-1 -1
plants ha and 3,00,000 plants ha , whereas, number of pods per plant, grains per pod and 1000-
-1
seed weight were significantly lower with 5,00,000 plants ha .
Masood Ali and Singh (1999) reported that the effect of plant population on grain yield was
non significant, but numerically population density of 40 plants m-2 recorded higher mean grain yield
-1 -2 -1
(2085 kg ha ) than 33 plants m (2064 kg ha ). They also, observed higher stalk yield at high
-2 -2
population (40 plants m ) than at low population (33 plants m ) under sandy loams of Kanpur.
-2
However, increase in plant population from 33 to 40 plants m did not cause improvement in 100-
seed weight and number of seeds per pod. Similar observations also made by Dhingra et al. (1986),
-2
who obtained significantly higher haulm yield with population density of 40 plants m compared to 33
-2
plants m .
Optimum plant density of desi chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) increased with increasing yield
potential in south-western Australia (Jettner et al., 1999). These results suggest that the optimum
-2
plant density was 50 plants m for most chickpea crops in south-western Australia yielding about 1.0 t
-1 -1 -2
ha , whereas in high-yielding situations (>1.5 t ha ), plant densities of >70 plants m produce the
most profit. Lather (2000) from the field experiment at Hisar (Haryana), showed significant seed yield
(3843 and 3981 kg ha-1, respectively) superiority under high planting density of 50 plants m-2 as
-2
compared to normal planting density of 33 plants m in tall chickpea genotypes.
Mehar Singh et al. (2000) reported that for Kabuli chickpea a spacing of 30 cm × 10 cm was
found better than 45 cm × 10 cm. More number of plants per unit area played their role and thus
higher grain yield (32.02%) was recorded at 30 cm × 10 cm than 45 cm × 10 cm.
Sharar et al. (2001) reported that seed yield and growth characteristics such as plant height,
number of branches per plant, number of seeds per pod and 1000-seed weight were influenced
-1
significantly by seeding densities. Maximum seed yield of 2299.56 kg ha was obtained at seeding
-1
density of 70 kg ha , whereas row spacing had no significant effect on plant height, seed yield and
yield components. For obtaining higher yield of gram cultivar Paidar-91, it may be sown in 30 cm apart
rows using seed rate of 70 kg ha-1.
Mozumder et al. (2003) reported that wider spacing gave higher number of pod and pod yield
per plant but closer spacing gave higher number of pods and pod yield per unit area. The highest
-1 -1
yield (24.16 t ha ) was obtained from 25 × 10 cm spacing (4,00,000 plants ha ) of mid-November
-1
planting. Comparatively higher number of branches (4.93 plant ) and plant height (25.0 cm) was
obtained from 30 × 15 cm spacing (2,22,222 plants ha-1) while they were lower (4.24 plant-1 and 23.7
-1
cm, respectively) with 20 x 10 cm spacing (5,00,000 plants ha ).
Stephen et al. (2003) carried out a study on chickpea genotypes in eastern Oregon and found
that the increasing plant population (2.1 to 4.7 plants ft -2) increased seed yield of both cultivars
(Dwelley and Sinaloa). However, there were no further significant increase in yield of Dwelley when
-2
plant population was increased above 3.4 plants ft . For Sinaloa, the highest seed yield was
-2
produced at the highest plant population of 4.7 plants ft .
Regan et al. (2003) and Gan et al. (2003) recommended optimum plant population density for
higher seed yield from 40 to 45 plants m-2 for Kabuli chickpea and from 45-50 plants m-2 for desi
chickpea. Gan et al. (2003) further reported that seed yield potential of desi chickpea could be
increased by increasing planting population to produce more pods per unit area, whereas the seed
yield potential of Kabuli chickpea would be increased by shortening the period of vegetative growth,
promoting the number of pods per plant and increasing mean seed weight. Therefore, the higher grain
yields observed under higher plant population densities could be attributed to increased number of
-2 -2
pods m that resulted from higher number of branches m .
Liu et al. (2003) conducted a field experiment in south-western Saskatchewan and examined
thermo-phological plasticity of three market classes of chickpea by growing the crop at four plant
population densities. Total number of fertile pods per plant decreased significantly as the plant
-2
population density increased from 20 to 50 plants m . Chickpea grown at high population density (50
-2
plants m ) produced approximately half as many fertile pods per plant as those grown at low density
(20 plants m-2), but total number of pods per unit area increased with increasing plant population
density.
Frade and Valenciano (2005) pointed that there was reduction in the number of pods per
plant (mean, from 56 at 8 plants m-2 to 14 at 36 plant m-2) of Kabuli type of chickpea and the 1000-
seed weight (mean from 406 g at 8 plant m-2 to 383 g at 36 plants m-2) as plant density was increased.
-2 -2
The highest yields of 222 g m were obtained at the highest density 36 plants m in Spain under
irrigated condition.
Pezeshkpur et al. (2005), Shams et al. (2005) and Ahmadian et al. (2005) obtained increased
yield of chickpea with increasing density from 33 to 54 plants m-2. Similarly, Yigitoglu (2006) reported
-2
highest seed yield of chickpea with early winter sowing and high plant density (45 plants m ).
Satish Kumar and Kadian (2006) reported that erect and tall chickpea genotype ‘D 96-99’
behaved similar at both the planting densities (3.33 lakh plants ha-1 and 5.0 lakh plants ha-1), whereas
semi-erect genotype HC-1 produced significantly more grain yield at planting density of 3.33 lakh
-1 -1
plants ha than 5.0 lakh plants ha .
-2
Bahr (2007) from Egypt, reported the differences between low density (26 plant m ) and high
density (50 plant m-2) for yield, yield attributes, N per cent and protein per cent in chickpea seeds. It
was clear that the differences were significant for all the studied attributes except plant height, number
of branches per plant, number of seeds per plant, N per cent and protein per cent in seeds. The high
-2
density of 50 plants m produced taller plants, bigger branches, more pods, more seed number than
-2
low density of 26 plants m . The, seed and biological yield per feddan and harvest index were higher
with high density planting. Chickpea seeds sown at high density recorded higher N per cent, protein
per cent than low density.
Kibe and Kamithi (2007) concluded that in Kenyan semi-arid highland region, Naivasha, grain
-1 -1
yield production increased from 1274 to 3271 kg ha in season I and 1027 to 1994 kg grains ha in
-1
season II. As plant population increased from 74, 074 to 148, 148 plants ha , grain yield increased by
156.7 and 94.2%, in seasons I and II, respectively. The highest rate of increase estimated at 26.96 kg
grain per plant ha-1 from season I compared to 13.05 kg grain per plant ha-1 in season II can be
attributed to the higher rainfall received in season I which exceeded that of season II.
An experiment was conducted to study the analysis of dry matter production, growth and yield
in Kabuli chickpea genotypes by Mansur et al. (2009a) on vertisol field site of UAS, Dharwad
(Karnataka) during two rabi seasons. Significantly higher dry matter production (10.16 g plant -1) was
produced at low plant density of 2.22 lakh ha-1 over high plant density of 4.44 lakh ha-1but was at par
-1 -1
with 3.33 lakh ha . While high plant density recorded significantly higher seed yield (1761 kg ha )
-1 -1
over low plant density of 2.22 lakh ha (1359 kg ha ) which was mainly due to higher canopy width
(44.9 cm) and 100-seed weight (23.76 g).
Fallah and Poor (2009) conducted the study at Agricultural Research Station of Khorram-
abad, Iran and observed that increase in plant density led to significant decrease in the number of
primary and secondary branches, number of pods per plant and a significant increase in grain yield as
-2
well. It was 80 plants m which yielded the highest grain, showing no significant difference with 40
-2 -2
and 60 plants m treatments, but showed significant difference with 20 plants m .
-
Khourgami and Rafiee (2009) reported that increase in plant densities from 30 to 66 plants m
2 -2
increased the seed yield and biological yield of chickpea. The higher plant densities of 66 plants m
-1 -1
produced the highest seed yield (1388 kg ha ) and biological yield (3822 kg ha ) compared to lower
-2
plant densities of 30, 42 and 54 plants m planted in dry farming conditions at the field of
Khoramabad Agricultural Research Station, Iran.
Field experiments were conducted by Kamithi et al. (2009) at the National Animal Husbandry
Research Center (NAHRC), Naivasha, Kenya, during the long (season 1) and short (season 2) rains
-1
of the year 2005. Increasing plant population density from 74,074 to 148,148 ha produced
significantly (P<0.05) higher dry matter in chickpea (at 120 days after sowing) by 26.7 per cent and
23.3 per cent and higher grain yield in by 24.0 per cent and 64.0 per cent during the long and short
seasons, respectively.
From the field experiment by Mirzaei Heydari et al. (2009) on chickpea, the results indicated
that, by increasing plant densities grain yield increased accordingly. The highest grain yield of 1388
-1 -1 -2
kg ha and biological yield of 3823 kg ha were obtained from the higher density of 66 plants m over
lower plant densities.
-1
Khan et al. (2010) found that 45 cm row spacing with 75 kg seed rate ha in chickpea crop
affected positively on the different agronomic parameters like number of pods per plant, number of
seeds per pod and 100-seed weight which ultimately contributed to increased biological yield, grain
yield and harvest index and concluded that a 45 cm single row spacing with 75 kg seed rate ha-1 is
the optimum planting geometry for efficient light interception and photosynthetic activity.
Gan et al. (2010) concluded that the total pod production of chickpea crop depended more on
-2
plants m than on pods per plant. Also, seed yield potential of chickpea would be increased by
increasing plant population to produce more pods per unit area.
Mirzaei et al. (2010) conducted field experiment on clay loam soil at Ardabil, Iran and found
that maximum number of empty pod per plant, seed per pod, seed weight and biological yield were
-2 -2
significant in the lower planting density of 25 plants m over higher densities (35 and 45 plants m ).
-1
But highest chickpea grain yield (1489.5 kg ha ) and harvest index (55.64%) was obtained in the
higher density of 45 plants m-2 followed by density of 35 plants m-2.
Khalid Ali et al. (2010) conducted experiment at Agriculture Research Farm, Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa, Agricultural University, Peshawar (Pakistan) on chickpea. Results indicated that plant
height (cm) was significantly affected by various seed rates viz., 40 kg ha-1 (12 plants m-2), 80 kg ha-1
(27 plants m-2) and 120 kg ha-1 (41 plants m-2). Plant height increased with the increase in plant
-2
density upto 27 plants m but no significant increase in plant height was noticed as density further
-1
increased. The minimum plant height was recorded in plots planted at lower density (40 kg ha seed
-1 -
rate), while maximum plant height was found in plots seeded at 80 or 120 kg ha (12 or 27 plants m
2 -1
). Mean values of seed rates showed that maximum (79) pods plant were recorded in plots seeded
-1 -2 -1
at 40 kg ha (12 plants m ) while minimum number of 68 pods plant were recorded in plots seeded
-1 -2
at 120 kg ha (41 plants m ).
Goyal et al. (2010) conducted experiment at Sehore on medium black clay loam and noticed
-2
that at higher plant density of 33 plants m with 30 cm rows resulted in significantly higher grain and
-2
haulm yield over 22 plants m with 45 cm row spacing. The data on growth (except plant height) and
yield attributes such as pods per plant and grain yield per plant increased with wider row spacing (45
cm) having lower plant densities 22 plants m-2 because of the less competition for nutrient, water and
solar radiation, etc. Vanderpuye (2010) reported that plant length increased significantly with
increasing plant population density.
-2
Kashfi et al. (2010) revealed that higher planting density of 48 plants m (with 50 cm between
and 4.2 cm within the rows) produced an average seed yield of 1727 kg ha-1 over lower densities (16
and 32 plants m-2). Increase in chickpea density caused a significant rise in plant height, first node
distance from ground level and biological yield. However, certain traits such as the number of primary
and secondary branches, seeds per pod, pods per plant, seed yield per plant decreased significantly
with increased plant density. On the whole, the maximum chickpea seed yield (in cv. Kourosh) was
-2
obtained in higher planting density of 48 plant m at Karaj (Iran) conditions.
Results of the experiment conducted by Shamsi (2010) at farm of Dorood Faraman
(Kermanshah-Iran) under rainfed condition showed that row spacing of 20 cm had the highest
-1 -1
biological yield (2,857 kg ha ) followed by 30 and 40 cm (2,582 and 1,673 kg ha , respectively).
However, maximum number of pods per plant and grains per plant belonged to 40 cm row spacing
but higher number of pods and grains per unit area in 20 cm row spacing resulted in increased grain
yield. Results also showed increased planting density resulting in decreased yield components, but on
the other hand increased plant number compensated for decrease of yield components. Planting on
higher density had higher distance of pod from soil surface and thus easier for mechanized
harvesting. Similarly, according to Rahemi and Soltani (2005), the height of the first pod to soil surface
increased with the increase in plant density.
Mazaheri and Iilagh (2011) showed that row spacing had no significant effect on all
investigated traits. However, number of pods m-2, seed yield, biological yield and 100-seed weight
were relatively smaller in row spacing of 60 cm. Plant density had positive significant effect on number
-2 -2
of pods m , seed yield and biological yield, with plant density of 35 plants m having the highest. The
-2
number of branches were significantly more in density of 25 plants m .
Khawar et al. (2012) found that maximum plant population m-2 at harvest was recorded for the
-1 -1
seed rate of 70 kg ha followed by 60 kg ha , while minimum plant population at harvest was
-1
recorded for the seed rate of 50 kg ha at Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad-Pakistan
on a sandy loam soil. The maximum plant height, grain yield and biological yield were recorded for the
-1 -1 -1
seed rate of 70 kg ha (higher plant density) followed by 60 kg ha , while the seed rate of 50 kg ha
had the lowest values. However, maximum number of branches per plant and number pods per plant
-1 -1
was recorded for the seed rate of 50 kg ha followed by 60 kg ha , while minimum number of pods
per plant was recorded with the seed rate of 70 kg ha -1.
A field experiment was conducted at Raichur by Naik et al. (2012) and the results indicated
that plant height was significantly influenced by change in plant density. The plant height increased
-1
with increasing plant density (22.2 to 3.33 lakh ha ) under both irrigated and non-irrigated condition.
At harvest, the highest plant height (31.32 cm) was recorded with 3.33 lakh ha-1 (30 x 10 cm spacing)
compared to 2.22 lakh ha-1 (45 x 10 cm spacing).
A field experiment was conducted on sandy loam by Prasad et al. (2012) at Hisar. The
-1
planting geometry of 30 cm × 7.5 cm (4.44 lakh plants ha ) produced significantly more number of
plants per meter row length (mrl) in chickpea genotypes during both the initial and maturity stages.
Narrow intra-row spacing (30 cm × 7.5 cm) recorded higher seed yield (1.37 tha-1) and biological yield
-1 -1
(5.96 t ha ) than wider intra-row spacing of 30 cm × 10 cm (3.33 lakh plants ha ).
-2
Bejandi et al. (2012) observed that lower planting density of 25 plants m produced the
highest number of pods per plant. The lowest number of pods per plant and lowest percentage of
hollow pods were noted in higher planting density of 35 and 45 plants m-2. Also they noticed that
-2
minimum days to maturity were found in the higher planting density of 45 plants m . A steady
-2
increase in number of days to maturity took place when plant density was decreased to 25 plants m .
Similarly, Khan et al. (2003) in soybean increased number of days to maturity reported that with
decrease in plant density. These results are in agreement with Valimohammadi et al. (2007) in
chickpea. They reported that low plant density have a maximum days to maturity.
Singh and Singh (1989) reported that more number of nodules in 45 cm row spacing at
flowering when compared with 30 cm and 60 cm row spacing in chickpea under sandy loam soils of
Bulandshar (U. P.). Mane and Jadhav (1991) noticed more number of nodules per plant and higher
-1
nodule dry weight in chickpea at the lower planting density of 3.0 lakh plants ha when compared to
-1
the higher plant densities of 4.5 and 6.5 lakh plants ha under clay soil of Pune (Maharashtra).
Increase in nodule dry weight per plant of chickpea was observed with decreased seed rates from 80
-1
kg to 60 kg ha under sandy loam soils (Jat and Mali, 1992).
The number of nodules per plant decreased with increase in plants per unit area as per seed
rate in chickpea. The highest number of nodules per plant (74) were recorded in plots planted at 40 kg
-1
ha seed rate, while the number of nodules per plant were significantly lower in plots planted at 80 or
-1
120 kg ha seed rate as result of higher plant density (Khalid Ali et al., 2010) in Pakistan. This results
are in agreement with those of Vaishya et al. (1995) who reported that nodulation decreases with
increase in seed rates which might be due to the competition between the roots for phosphorous for
nodulation. Bejandi et al. (2012) observed that increase in planting density of chickpea had not
influenced any variation in nodule number, active nodule, nodule fresh and dry weight in North West
of Iran.
Lower plant population or wider spacing results in wastage of solar radiation. Dense plant
population on the other hand, is considered more efficient in utilizing solar radiation and other edaphic
factors. Various growth indices such as CGR, RGR and NAR are also affected by alteration of plant
population density and are dependent on dry matter production. The CGR which determines the
ultimate dry matter production is increased with increase in population density. Higher densities
generally show higher CGR.
Singh et al. (1967) reported that maximum light was intercepted in a closer row spacing (25
cm) than under wider spacing (50 cm) in black gram.
An erect leaf orientation is advantageous for intercepting more solar radiation and minimizing
inter plant shading when plant density is high (Duncan, 1969). Light entering a canopy consisting of
erect leaves can be spread over a large photosynthetic area, resulting in greater photosynthetic
efficiency.
Kamel et al. (1978) reported that an increase in plant density resulted in a significant increase
in RGR. Besides the growth of aerial parts, it is expected that the nodule number, dry weight and root
growth may also be altered due to variation in plant densities. Growth rate depends on the ability of a
crop to capture light and the efficiency of conversion of intercepted light into biomass. Thus growth of
a crop may be analyzed in terms of radiation interception and the efficiency of utilization of intercepted
radiation (Monteith, 1977 and Gallagher and Biscoe, 1978).
Dhingra et al. (1986) observed the highest interception of light at all the stages with 90 kg
seed rate ha-1. The crop with narrow row spacing (22.5 cm) intercepted more light than wider spacing
(30 cm) at Ludhiana. Similar results were found by Leach and Beech (1988), who observed that the
maximum light was intercepted in a closer row spacing (25 cm) than wider row spacing (50 cm) at
South-Eastern Queensland. Crop management practices often affect canopy development, light
interception and radiation use efficiency (Leach and Beech, 1988 and Ayaz et al., 2004). Narrow row
spacing coupled with high plant population increased the light interception in chickpea.
High density initially provokes fast growth of canopy in area unit which inturn ejects available
stored water in soil through respiration and causes the plant to encounter drought stress during
flowering and grain-filling stages; therefore, under rainfed conditions suitable seed density must be
considered for more absorption of solar energy and improved utilization of water and soil (ICARDA,
1990).
It is practically established that photosynthesis provides energy for plant growth and
development. Chloroplasts are the organelles on which the photosynthetic activities of the plant are
centered and chlorophyll is the primary light-absorbing pigment in the photosynthetic process.
Chlorophyll is therefore an indispensable component of photosynthetic reactions. Plant density may
affect the chlorophyll content. Greater plant population and higher seed rate increase the competition
for available nutrients, moisture and light resulting in lower chlorophyll content in chickpea plants
(Vaishya and Fayaz Qazi, 1992) on sandy loam soil at Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh.
-1 -1
The results showed that 75 kg seed ha and 100 kg seed ha allow for significantly higher
-1
chlorophyll content than 125 kg seed ha .
Increasing plant population density may improve WUE by reducing early-season evaporation
losses due to improved ground cover (Martin et al., 1994).
Crop yield is a function of the amount of solar radiation intercepted by the crop canopy, the
rate of conversion of intercepted radiation into biomass and harvest index (Sinclair and Gardner,
1998). Hussain et al. (2000) concluded that higher plant populations increased both the total dry
matter and the seed yield of chickpea due to higher radiation interception and utilization.
Ayaz et al. (2000) stated that increased planting population densities (PPD) leads to greater
total dry matter production, PPD of 50,000, 100,000 and 200,000 ha-1 produced 4300 kg to 8690 kg
-1
dry matter ha as population increased. This was also in agreement with findings of Hussain et al.
(2000), who also attributed increasing dry matter with the increasing level of planting population
densities.
Muhammad Azam (2002) investigated the response of lentil to plant population at the Crop
Production and Water Management Research Area, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. A
-2
population of 200 plants m enhanced PAR interception and radiation utilization efficiency over 150 or
-2
100 plants m .
In the short-seasons found in the Northern Great Plains, particularly Saskatchewan, use of
higher plant populations in chickpea consistently increased biomass and seed yield (Gan et al., 2003),
this may be due to increased leaf area index (LAI) and light interception by altering plant canopy
structure. Further they reported that plant population density (PPD) for maximum WUE is around 76
-2 -2 -2
plants m for pea, 39 plants m for desi chickpea and 36 plants m for Kabuli chickpea. This range of
PPD for maximum WUE was close to the PPD required for maximum seed yield where they ranged
-2 -2 -2
from 38 to 42 plants m for Kabuli, 40 to 45 plants m for desi and 68 to 74 plants m for dry pea.
Plant density is a key component in optimizing the productivity of chickpea. The use of high plant
density usually increases seed yield of chickpea in areas with a short growing season, but the
magnitude of the yield increase depends on environmental conditions. In areas where the growing
season is short, the increased seed yield with increasing plant density is largely due to increased light
interception of the crop canopy (Li, 2008). In arid to semi-arid environments, the increased seed yield
with higher plant density is largely due to improved water use and water use efficiency.
Gan et al. (2007) reported that the WUE of dry pea increased significantly as plant population
-2
density (PPD) increased from 28 to 70 plants m . The WUE of chickpea increased as PPD increased
-2
from 18 to 38 plants m , with no increase thereafter for the desi and a decline for the Kabuli.
Shamsi (2009) observed that by reducing density from 57 to 19 plants m-2, the dry biomass
-2
yield increased, being highest for cultivar 12-60-31 at a density of 28 plants m . Compared to other
densities, at this plant density the effective grain-filling (log phase) took place more rapidly. The
maximum photo growing degree-days (GDD) was in cultivar 12-60-31 while the maximum grain yield
-2
was at a density of 28 plants m .
A field investigation on effect of plant density on physiological traits in chickpea cultivars by
Mirzaei Heydari et al. (2009) concluded that by increasing plants per unit area resulted in an
increment in leaf chlorophyll content accompanied by a reduction of light interception under the
canopy. The least light interception under the canopy was obtained by higher plant densities of 54
-2
and 66 plants m .
Khan et al. (2010) reported that crop growth rate was also significantly affected by seed rates.
-1 -
The maximum crop growth rate was observed in 75 kg seed rate ha with value of 8.22 and 9.85 g m
2 -1 -2 -1 -1 st nd
d followed by 7.72 and 9.61 g m d with 90 kg seed rate ha during 1 and 2 year, respectively.
-2 -1 -1 st
Minimum crop growth rate (6.63 g m d ) was recorded in plots with 100 kg ha seed rate during 1
-2 -1 -1
year but during 2005-06, minimum CGR (7.51 g m d ) was recorded in 60 kg seed rate ha . Crop
growth rate was decreased by 11 per cent and 24 per cent at under plant population and it was also
decreased by 19 per cent and 11 per cent in case of over population. Crop growth was increased by
-1
13 per cent when seed rate was increased from 60 to 75 kg ha but it was decreased from 6 to 19 per
-1
cent when seed rate increased from 75 to 90 and 100 kg ha , respectively. It was depicted that crop
-1
growth rate was maximum at optimum plant population (75 kg seed rate ha ) and it was decrease in
either case.
Plant density is very important to facilitate aeration and light penetration into plant canopy for
optimizing rate of photosynthesis (Khan et al., 2010, Azizi and Kahrizi, 2008 and Kahrizi et al., 2011).
Ashraf Alizade et al. (2011) reported that plant density decreases lead to increased
chlorophyll content of leaves in chickpea. On the other hand at low planting densities, due to less
competition between plants, number of branches per plant, stem remobilization and percentage light
-2
penetration significantly increased. Density of 25 and 50 plants m had increased leaf chlorophyll
-2 -2
content and optimum point reached, but density of 75 plants m leaf chlorophyll to 50 plants m can
-2
be reduced due to plant internal factors. Density of 25 plants m on the highest floor canopy light
penetration and density of 75 plants m-2 at the bottom of the lowest penetration of light canopy.
2.3.4 Nutrient uptake and soil nutrient status
-1
Gupta and Singh (1982) observed that higher plant density of 6.6 lakh plants ha depleted
-1 -1
more amount of nutrients (25 kg N + 80 kg P2O5 ha ) compared to 4.4 lakh plants ha in chickpea
under sandy soils of Uttar Pradesh. Similarly, Mane and Jadav (1991) also reported higher plant
-1 -1
density (4.5 lakh plants ha ) depleted more amounts of nutrients (25 kg N + 50 P2O5 ha ) compared
-1
to 3.0 lakh plants ha in chickpea.
-1
Mansur et al. (2009b) reported that the nitrogen (68.28 kg ha ) and phosphorus uptake
-1 -1
(20.55 kg ha ) was significantly more under higher plant densities of 4.44 lakh ha due to significant
-1 -
increase in seed and bhusa yield. While nitrogen (53.35 kg ha ) and phosphorus uptake (11.57 kg ha
1 -1
) was lowest under the low plant density of 2.22 lakh ha owing to low biological productivity.
2.3.5 Protein content
Significant increase in crude protein content in grain with increasing row spacing was noticed
by Karwasra and Faroda (1979) in Hissar (Haryana).
Badshah et al. (2003) reported that seed protein content of chickpea was negatively
correlated to seed size, volume and density. Valimohammadi et al. (2007) found that seed protein
content was significantly affected by planting density of chickpea under the condition of Urmia, Iran.
The highest seed protein content was recorded with the higher planting density of 45 plants m-2.
These results clearly indicate that there was negative relation between protein content and number
pods per plant. In higher planting density pods per plant decreased but seed protein content was
highest. Similarly, Bahr (2007) reported in Egypt that chickpea seeds sown by high density contain
higher N per cent, protein per cent than low density.
Ranvir Singh (1974) observed that sowing at 30 cm × 5 cm depleted higher amount of
moisture compared to 30 cm × 10 cm and 30 cm × 15 cm in summer blackgram, it was due to high
population requiring more amount of water for their metabolic activities but individual plant
development was less compared to plants at low population.
Reddy (2000) reported that sowing chickpea at medium spacing (30 cm x 7.5 cm) recorded
the higher moisture content over closer (30 cm x 5 cm) and wider spacings (30 cm x 10 cm and 30 cm
x 15 cm).
2.3.7 Weed incidence
Competition between crop and weeds can be modified by manipulating crop geometry as
increase in crop density can enhance the crop’s share of the total resource pool and reduce their
availability to weeds (Aldrich, 1984).
Initial slow growth of the crop along with more ground area would have favoured the
germination and growth of weeds and this could be one of the reasons for higher weed population in
-1
3.3 lakh plants ha as opined by Ethredge et al. (1989). Higher leaf area and better smothering effect
of crop would have prevented the weeds from utilizing sufficient resources such as light, moisture and
nutrients resulting in lesser dry weight of weeds. Similar finding of higher plant density reducing the
weed dry weight was observed by Singh and Bajpai (1994).
The use of high plant density in chickpea production decreases soil water evaporation early in
the growing season when plant canopy closure is low (Turner et al., 2001). In contrast, low plant
density may allow weeds to develop more aggressively and limit crop yield potential.
-1
Senthil Kumar (2009) revealed that the plant population of 5.0 lakh ha (30 x 10 cm) recorded
significantly lesser weed density and thereby reduced the weed dry weight in groundnut. Effective
control of weeds by higher plant density resulted in better values of weed control efficiency than that
-1
of lower plant density. Similarly, the plant density of 4.0 lakh ha (25 cm × 10 cm) also resulted in
-1
significantly lower weed density than the 3.3 lakh plants ha (20 cm x 10 cm).
Mousavi et al. (2009) reported that the maximum annual weed biomass were observed in
-2 -2
autumn sowing date with lower planting density of 25 plants m followed by 50 plants m and
-2
minimum biomass was in winter chickpea with higher planting density of 75 plants m . The highest
chickpea grain yield under dryland condition was harvested in autumn crop with plant density of 50
plants m-2.
A field experiment conducted to know the relationships between seed rate and weeds
biomass and grain yield of chickpea under dryland condition (Jan et al., 2010), showed that weed
biomass decreased with increase in seed rates (40 to 120 kg ha-1) as a function of increased plant
population per unit area. Grain yield increased with increase in seed rate from 40 to 80 kg ha-1, while
-1
beyond 80 kg ha grain yield decreased indicating the negative impact of increased plant population
on grain yield.
The field study on response of plants per unit area as of seed rates on weed biomass in
chickpea was conducted by Khalid Ali et al. (2010) in Pakistan and found that weed biomass
-1
decreased with increase in number of plants per unit area, as seed rates of 120 kg ha had minimum
-2
weed biomass (156 g m ) compared to the lesser seed rates. The maximum weed biomass was
-1 -2 -1 -
recorded in lesser plants per unit area at seed rates of 40 kg ha (222 g m ) and 80 kg ha (199 g m
2
).
2.3.8 Insect-pest and diseases incidence
2.3.8.1 Insect-pest
Chickpea crop has fewer pest problems than other legumes, Helicoverpa armigera Hubner, a
polyphagous lepidopteran insect, is a major pest in most of the chickpea growing areas. The present
trend is to manage the pest populations below harmful levels with minimum use of insecticides. It is
also possible to minimize the yield loss due to pests by agronomic manipulations (Begum et al.,
1992), who observed that varieties did not differ significantly in pod damage. Minimum pod damage
(4.82%) occurred at lower plant density of 5 plants m-2, followed by 10 plants m-2 (5.06%). The
-2
maximum pod damage of 6.17 per cent was recorded at higher density of 20 plants m followed by 15
-2 -2
plants m (5.78%). Plant density of 15 plants m resulted in a significantly higher mean grain yield
-1 -2 -1
(1378 kg ha ) than that of 20 plants m (1265 kg ha ).
The higher plant density probably favoured the growth of the pest by creating a micro-climate
conducive to their dark loving Helicoverpa larval development. Naresh (1986) reported that the lower
-2
pod damage was recorded with lower plant density i.e., 10 plants m (7.4%) than higher plant
densities Considering the chickpea grain yield, the maximum yield was obtained on 20 plants
-2
(244.75g m ). There was no significant different between grain yield obtained on 20 and 30 plants.
Similarly, Sithanantham et al. (1981) reported that higher population of H. armigera larvae per unit
area were associated with increased plant densities of chickpea but with little effect on the percentage
of pods damaged or yield. These results were consisted with the findings of Qadeer and Singh (1989)
who reported that minimum damage occurred at a lower plant density.
-1
Besides, increase in seed rate from 75 to 100 kg ha greatly increased per cent pod damage
(22.7 per cent to 29.0%) because increase in seed rate results in closer plant spacing which supports
higher Helicoverpa larval population. Further increase in seed rate from 100 to 125 kg ha-1 did not
shown a significant increase in pod damage. But increased pod damage in higher seed rate did not
affect chickpea grain yield due to higher plant population per unit area that compensated for the
increased pod damage (Anilkumar et al., 2011).
2.3.8.2 Diseases
Plants spaced at 15-20 cm had much higher disease incidence in chickpea than those spaced
at 7.5 cm; this was attributed to the shallower root system in widely spaced plants which were
susceptible to wilt when subjected to moisture stress (Bahl, 1976).
Jettner et al. (1999) observed that high plant densities can exacerbate fungal diseases and
hence, optimum plant densities are desirable in disease-prone situations. Also reported that highest
-1
harvest index was reported at seed rate of 30 kg ha .
Andrabi et al. (2011) reported that maximum wilt incidence recorded with lesser row spacing
of 20 cm (29.17%) as compared to higher spacing (50 cm). The maximum disease incidence at row to
row spacing of 20 cm could be attributed to the higher crop density and excessive crop canopy which
helped in conserving moisture and favoured the infection and further disease development and
secondary spread of disease. However, maximum yield was harvested from the crop sown at a
spacing of 30 cm (11.52 q ha-1) which attributed to proper spacing and proper plant protection.
2.3.9 Plant lodging
Pedersen et al. (2003) noticed that soybean yields often increase, upto a point, with
increasing plant population. However, soybean yield responses to plant population are generally small
and often inconsistent. In general, when plant populations are increased, plant height increases and
there are greater yield losses from lodging. In their field experiment found that lodging increased as
-1
plant population increased. The plant population of 1,90,800 acre recorded higher lodging score of
-1
2.1 than lower plant population of 65,500 acre (1.0).
2.4 Interaction effect of ecosystem, chickpea genotypes and plant density on
chickpea
The release of high yielding genotypes has contributed a great deal towards the improvement
of chickpea yields. Use of tall chickpea genotypes would facilitate mechanical harvesting. But, yield of
tall/erect genotypes have comparable seed yield against semi-erect genotypes at normal environment
(Lather, 2000). The yield potential of these genotypes can be further exploited by providing optimum
environment by manipulating agronomic practices viz., plant population density and irrigation. The
seed yield of chickpea is highly dependent on plant population (Ayaz et al., 1999). Seed yield
increased with increased plant density upto an optimum, which changed according to genotype
(Penaloza and Levio, 1991). At that density, yield is limited by climatic factors, water availability and
genotype (Soltani et al., 1999). Plant density is one of the important characters, which can be
manipulated to obtain the maximum production from per unit land area. The optimum plant density
with proper geometry of planting is dependent on variety, its growth habit and agro-climatic condition
(Goyal et al., 2010).
Pandey and Singh (1976) at Pantnagar observed that the seed yield of gram variety K-4 and
Pant-104 were higher at 25 cm as compared to 50 and 75 cm row spacing.
Byth et al. (1979) reported in a trial at Tel Hadia that a tall type of chickpea genotype (NEC-
138) produced 60 per cent more yield at 5,00,000 plants ha-1 than at 1,67,000 plants ha-1, while a
local bushy cultivar showed little response.
Singh et al. (1980a) reported 25 per cent more yield in bushy type of chickpea variety than tall
variety at similar plant density. It has been revealed that yield augmentation caused by increasing
seed density has been achieved by planting the tall genotypes with dense plant form (Saxena, 1980).
Roy and Sharma (1986) reported that chickpea genotypes viz., BG 281, BG 270, Radhey, C
-1
235, Farmer’s local and H 208 at higher plant population of 5,00,000 plants ha gave significantly
-1 -1
higher grain yield (1792 kg ha ) than at normal plant population (3,33,000 plants ha ). Hughes et al.
(1987) found that radiation use efficiency (RUE) was greater for cultivars with erect growth habit than
for cultivars with prostrate growth habit and that RUE was lower for the 60 plants m-2 compared with
-2
30 plants m plant populations.
Singh et al. (1988) reported from IARI, New Delhi that the chickpea cultivars viz., BG 257, BG
261, BG 268 and BG 274 produced significantly more grain yield with spacing of 20 cm x 5 cm (10
lakh plants ha-1) and 30 cm x 5 cm (67 lakh plants ha-1). Whereas, the cultivar BG 209 produced the
-1
most at a spacing of 40 cm x 5 cm (50 lakh plants ha ). Among the cultivars, BG 257 and BG 268
gave the highest grain yield with spacing of 30 cm x 5 cm. They further reported that the decrease in
-1
the number of plants ha increased the number of branches and pods per plant and 100-grain weight.
Spacing of 30 cm x 5 cm and 40 cm x 5 cm had significantly more number of branches and pods per
plant and higher 100-grain weight than the narrow spacing of 20 cm x 5 cm.
Calcagno et al. (1988) reported that seed yield of tall, erect chickpea genotypes (ICL 72 and
ICL 3279) with predominantly apical pod production increased with increasing plant density to 30
-2 -2
plants m , but yield of the other genotypes was maximum at 25 plants m and significantly declined at
the highest density. Singh et al. (1988) studied five chickpea varieties at seeding densities of 10, 55
and 66 m-2 at the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi during the winter season of 1984-
85 and 1985-86 and the highest seed yield was obtained by tall varieties BG-257 and BG-268 at 66
-2
plant m due to more branches per plant, pods per plant and 100-seed weight than other varieties.
Further, declared that yield increased significantly with the increase in density of erect and tall
-2
genotypes form 33 to 50 plants m by decreasing the row spacing from 30 cm to 20 cm.
A field experiment was carried out by Aziz et al. (1988) to investigate the influence of seeding
-1
densities viz., 16, 32, 48, 64, 80 and 96 kg ha on the seed yield of three chickpea varieties, RC-32,
C-235 and C-727. The experiment was conducted at two sites, Malakandhar farm of the NWFP
Agricultural University, Peshawar and the Agricultural Research Station, Ratta Kulachi, D.I. Khan
(Pakistan) during 1981-82. The highest seed yield of chickpea was produced from the highest
seeding density used and there was a progressive decline in seed yield with density at both the sites.
Varietal effect on seed yield was also highly significant. Variety, RC-32 produced maximum seed yield
followed by C-235 and C-727 which were not significant at either site. However, there was a
progressive increase in number of pods per plant as the seeding density decreased. Interaction
between seeding density x variety was also highly significant. The number of seed per pod was not
affected by seeding densities at either site. However, interaction between seeding density x variety
was significant for seeds per pod at Malakandher Farm. Varieties, RC-32 and C-235 produced equally
higher number of seeds per pod and C-727 was significantly lower.
Singh and Singh (1989) studied chickpea cultivars H 86-143 and H 82-2 at planting densities
-2
of 44, 55 and 66 m . They reported that in H 82-2, seed yield was the highest at density of 44 plants
-2 -2
m , whereas, in H 86-143, the seed yield was the highest at a density of 55 plants m .
Ortega et al. (1996) evaluated the effect of irrigation schedules and plant densities on four
genotypes of gram. Further evaluation revealed that there was a positive response in yields of the
genotypes to high plant populations and irrigation at flowering time plus at pre-plant.
The seed yield of chickpea is highly dependent on plant population (Ayaz et al., 1999). Seed
yield increased with increased plant density upto an optimum, which changed according to genotype.
A field study by Lather (2000) on performance of tall chickpea genotypes (H 96-26 and H 96-
-2
99) under normal and high plant density (33 and 50 plants m , respectively) in comparison with check
genotypes (C 235 and H 8-18) was carried out at Hisar, Haryana. The results revealed that promising
tall/erect chickpea genotypes H 96-99 and H 96-26 recorded higher plant height (81.13 and 69.93 cm,
respectively), primary branches (5.33 and 5.27, respectively), initiation of fruiting node (22.60 and
23.47, respectively) and number of pods per plant (69.92 and 63.27, respectively). These tall/
-1
recorded comparable seed yield (2627 and 2421 kg ha , respectively) against check varieties (2659
-1 -2
and 2460 kg ha , respectively) at normal density planting (33 plants m ). However, tall genotypes
-1
showed significant seed yield (3843 and 3981 kg ha , respectively) superiority under high density
-2
planting of 50 plants m and are also found suitable for mechanical harvesting as the fruiting zone
started at about 20 cm from base.
-2
Yield increased with increase in plant population upto 50 plants m for irrigated and
-2
population of 23 plants m was ideal for rainfed chickpea (Saxena, 1979 and Lather, 2000).
A field experiment was carried out by Biswas et al. (2002) to evaluate two blackgram varieties
under three plant population densities. The planting configurations were 40 x 10 cm, 30 x 10 cm and
-2
40 x 5 cm representing 25, 33 and 50 plants m . Both the varieties showed identical results in LAI,
CGR, NAR and RGR. But plant population densities had significant effects on LAI and CGR of the
blackgram varieties. The highest value of LAI and CGR was recorded at highest plant population
densities and the lowest at lowest densities in all the growth periods of blackgram. But the NAR and
RGR did not differ due to different plant population densities.
Muhammad Azam (2002) from Faisalabad studied the response of lentil to irrigation and plant
population. Fully irrigated crop intercepted markedly more PAR over control (no irrigation) by about
89.14 per cent. Partially irrigated crops were also superior in the amount of intercepted PAR over
control. A population of 200 plant m-2 also enhanced PAR interception and radiation utilization
-2
efficiency over 150 or 100 plants m .
Supplemental irrigation have significant effects on yield and yield component, also suitable
plant densities and correct adjustment of row spacing lead to optimum uses of soil and environmental
factors that produce high yield and yield component (Falah, 2002 and Sheikh and Siadat, 2003).
Basu et al. (2004) evaluated six chickpea genotypes namely C 214, K 850, Katila, Phule G5,
RSG 143-1 and Vijay under two distinct soil moisture (rainfed and irrigated) conditions at experimental
station of IIPR , Kanpur (UP). The relative water content (RWC) of leaves of these genotypes at
podding stage decreased to mean value of about 55.7 per cent in rainfed and 76.5 per cent in
irrigated crop. Leaf growth rate and photochemical efficiency (quantum yield, Fv/Fm) of leaves pre-
adapted to dark or light did not decrease significantly even though RWC declined to about 55 per cent
due to water stress.
A field experiment was conducted in winter season of 2003-04 to study the effect of row
-1
spacing (30 and 45 cm) and seed rates (30, 40 and 50 kg ha ) on the performance of genotypes
(GPF 2 and GNG 469) of desi chickpea. Bold-seeded genotype, i.e., GNG 469 recorded higher 100-
seed weight (22.81 g) and lower pods per plant than the small-seeded (14.85 g) genotype OPF 2.
Both the row spacings (30 cm and 45 cm) were on par in plant traits and grain yield. Grain yield
-1
increased with increase in seed rate from 30 kg to 50 kg ha as of increase in plants per unit area.
-1 -1
The cultivar GNG 469 produced higher grain yield at 50 kg ha seed rate, whereas 40 kg ha seed
rate was sufficient for GPF 2 (Singh and Sekhon, 2006).
Satish Kumar and Kadian (2006) observed that the interaction effect between chickpea
genotypes and planting density was significant for mean data at Hisar, Haryana. The genotype H 96-
99 having erect plants (77.21 cm tall) produced significantly higher grain yield at dense plant density
-1
of 5 lakh plants ha , whereas HC-1 having lesser plant height of 59.35 cm performed significantly
-1
better for yield at lower density of 3.33 lakh plants ha .
The comparison between individual genotypes revealed that, under irrigated condition,
genotype 93A086 and under rainfed condition 92A207 gave maximum grain yield at Pakistan. The
grain size remained stable in 93A086, whereas it was reduced in 92A207 on application of irrigation
(Bakhsh et al., 2007).
Li et al. (2008) conducted a study on chickpea and observed rapid leaf development, high
solar radiation interception and efficient use of radiation to maximize the yield potential in a short-
season typical of the Northern Great Plains. This study determined the effects of cultivars varying in
leaf architecture on light interception (LI) and radiation use efficiency (RUE) in chickpea. Six Kabuli
-2
chickpea cultivars with fern and unifoliate-leaf traits were grown under low (45 plants m ) and high
-2
(85 plants m ) population density at Saskatoon and Swift Current, Saskatchewan, in 2003 and 2004.
Fern-leaf cultivars achieved consistently higher maximum light interception and greater cumulative
intercepted radiation than cultivars with the unifoliate-leaf. Estimated RUE varied largely with growing
season, but did not differ among cultivars or between plant populations. Compared with low plant
population, high plant population resulted in greater maximum light interception in only one out of four
location-years, but higher cumulative intercepted radiation in three out of four location-years. The
results indicated that future high-yielding Kabuli chickpea cultivars for short seasons will benefit from
increased canopy light interception and seasonal cumulative intercepted radiation via the fern-leaf
trait, although the fern-leaf does not further increase RUE. Use of fern-leaf cultivars, coupled with
adoption of strategies that promote a rapid canopy development and improved radiation interception
are keys to maximizing chickpea yield potential in the short-seasons experienced in the Northern
Great Plains.
A field experiment was conducted by Shamsi (2009) at Kermanshah in Iran to evaluate the
effects of planting density and variety on grain filling, yield and yield components of chickpea. The
-2
highest yield was realized with cultivar 12-60-31 at an optimum density of 28 plants m and the
difference among cultivars and various planting densities was highly significant (P 0.05). The highest
number of pods per plant (15.7), the number of grains per plant (18.1) and weight of 100 grains (32.9
-2
g) were recorded with cultivar 12-60-31 at a density of 28 plants m as compared to lower (19 plants
-2 -2
m ) and higher (57 plants m ) planting density.
The investigation on drought stress, supplemental irrigation and plant densities in chickpea
cultivars was studied by Khourgami and Rafiee (2009) at Khoramabad Agricultural Research Station
(Iran), who recorded that supplemental irrigation, plant densities and cultivars were effective on
chickpea production in dry land. Supplemental irrigation at 50 per cent flowering with higher plant
-2 -1
density of 66 plants m in flip 93-93 cultivar produced the highest grain yield (2060.12 kg ha ) and
yield component because of optimal use from environmental factors.
Shamsi et al. (2011) conducted an experiment in the Agricultural Research Station, College of
Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah Branch, Iran. The most elevated height of plant and
the highest distance of pod formation from soil were recorded in cultivar 12-60-31 and cultivar ILC-482
-2 -2
at the plant density of 57 plants m compared to lower density (19 and 28 plants m ) due to tall
nature of variety and flexibility for planting density.
A field study was conducted by Rasaei Ali et al. (2012) at the experimental farm at the Faculty
of Agriculture, Razi University, Kermanshah, Iran. The results showed that highest green chickpea
-1
pod yield and biological yield (9100 and 5326 kg ha , respectively) was obtained at a planting density
of 70 plants m-2and irrigation at the flowering + poding stages. The lowest green pod yield of 4300 kg
ha-1 was obtained at a density of 90 plants m-2 + rainfed (no irrigation), while the lowest biological
-1 -2
yield of 3471 kg ha was obtained at a density of 30 plants m + rainfed (no irrigation). The results
also showed that the traits such as pods per plant and grains per pod have a positive correlation with
-2
green pod yield. Finally, the density of 70 plants m with two-stage supplemental irrigation (flowering
+ poding) was considered as the condition that enhanced high yield production and as such was
recommended for the region.
Kayan and Turhan (2012) reported from Turkey that, leaf relative water content (RWC) and
loss of turgidity are associated with water stress tolerance in chickpea cultivars in before flowering
and pod formation periods. Moreover, it was found that cv. Isik was more water stress tolerant than
other cultivars investigated.
Thangwana and Ogola (2012) reported that cultivar and planting density affected the number
of pods per plant only in the winter sowing; number of pods per plant was greater at low (27.3)
compared with high (20.6) planting density. Planting density did not affect number of seeds per pod,
100-seed weight and harvest index in both seasons (summer and winter season) in South Africa. In
contrast, the effect of cultivar on number of seeds per pod and 100-seed weight was significant in
both the seasons. Grain yield and harvest index varied with cultivar only in the summer sowing. Grain
-1
yield in the summer and winter seasons sowing was greater at the high (2149 and 3308 kg ha ,
-1
respectively) compared with the low (1035 and 1483 kg ha , respectively) planting density. Grain
-1 -1
yield was greater in the winter (3308 kg ha ) compared with the summer (1483 kg ha ) sowing.
Cokkizgin (2012) from Turkey studied ‘Inci’ and ‘55-C’ chickpea genotypes were sow at 30,
-2
40, 50 and 60 plants m . The increase in the plant density increased the plant height and first pod
height, but decreased in branch number and stem diameter. The highest first pod height was obtained
-2 -2
from 60 plants m (33.00 cm), whereas the lowest was 40 and 30 plants m (24.70 and 26.30 cm,
respectively). The first pod height was decrease when the plant density reduced, which shows that
first pod height was parallel with plant height. On the other hand, results of experiment revealed that
genotypes were differed significantly in plant height and stem diameter while no significant differences
were determined in the other parameters measured.
Chickpea harvesting is usually done by hand. After pulling the plants from the soil, they are
gathered at one site and then threshed. Combine harvesters have rarely been used for chickpea
harvesting because the plants are short and semi-prostrate. The development of tall, erect plants
could enable the use of combine harvesters in chickpea harvesting. Isam (1972) reported that losses
in chickpea yield due to mechanical harvesting in different harvesters ranged between 30 per cent
and 60 per cent, yields in high population plots were better, plant height was an important factor for
machine-harvest efficiency and weed population, especially Convolvulus, was a great hindrance in
mechanical harvesting.
The erect lines, on average, were 23 per cent to 27 per cent taller than the semi-erect lines.
There was a corresponding increase of 16 per cent to 39 per cent in height to the first pod.
Measurement of main stem internode lengths clearly showed the height difference to be due to longer
internodes in the erect lines (erect:semi-erect internode length ratios varied from 1.05 to 1.31).
Another consistent effect of plant type was observed for time to 50 per cent flowering. The erect lines
were late by 1.2 to 2.1 days. This was consistent with 0.9 more vegetative nodes to the first flowering
node in erect lines. Apart from increasing the plant height, the erect plant type also reduced the seeds
per plant and yield per plant. Also markedly affected the number of primary branches, which reduced
from 1.97 in semi-erect lines to 1.41 in erect lines. There was a slight compensatory increase in the
number of secondary branches in erect lines. This was also reflected in a significant decrease in the
percentage of pods borne on primary branches in erect lines.
Hadjichristodoulou (1987) said that tallness of plants is necessary for mechanical harvesting
of chickpea. Late varieties tends to be tall than early varieties. Among the various traits studied, the
most important in breeding programmes are seed yield, height of plants and of lowest pods and seed
mass. Early varieties gave higher yield, but were short and their pods close to the ground, making
mechanical harvesting difficult. The yield of varieties with denser populations was higher than that of
the varieties with low populations. Thus, low plant density is expected to affect both yield and
The use of tall erect types would facilitate harvesting, both by hand and by mechanical
methods. In one trial at Tel Hadia, a tall type (NEC-138) produced 60 per cent more yield at 500,000
plants ha-1 than at 1,67,000 plants ha-1, while a local bushy cultivar showed little response. The
possibility exists for redesigning the canopy type and the agronomic system that may result in
substantial yield increases (Anon., 1979).
Under irrigation, Kabuli chickpea in Australia attained a height adequate for rapid mechanical
harvesting. However, under dryland conditions, limiting moisture can further depress the height of
short-statured desi cultivars. In a completely mechanized agricultural system, the plant height of desis
thus becomes an important factor. It affects both the speed of harvest and potential crop loss through
pods passing underneath the cutter bar (Knights, 1984).
The superiority in seed yield of lentil cultivar 78S26002 over the local cultivar increased from
9 per cent when hand harvested to 39 per cent with mowing because of its lower likelihood of lodging.
-1
In the 1986-87 and 1987-88 seasons, the seed yield from a hand harvest was 1650 kg ha compared
-1
with 1508 kg ha following harvest by mower, representing a loss of 8.6 per cent from mechanization.
The corresponding haulm loss was 16.6 per cent of the mean from a hand harvest of 2140 kg haulm
-1
ha . However, the harvest losses from mechanical harvesting by mower were compensated for by the
reduced labour costs compared with hand harvesting (Erskine et al., 1991).
Haffar et al. (1991) conducted experiment at the International Center for Agricultural
Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) to test the effect of several combine harvesters on returns of two
chickpea varieties ILC 482 and ILC 3279 developed at the center as potentials for mechanical
harvesting. Variety ILC 482 proved to be a better potential variety for mechanical harvesting due to its
higher inherent yield even though it had higher percentages of harvesting losses.
Lather et al. (2000) observed that promising tall/erect chickpea genotypes H 96-99 and H 96-
26 recorded higher plant height (81.13 and 69.93 cm, respectively), primary branches 5.33 and 5.27,
respectively), initiation of fruiting node (22.60 and 23.47, respectively) and number of pods per plant
(69.92 and 63.27, respectively). These tall/erect genotypes recorded comparable seed yield (2627
and 2421 kg ha-1, respectively) against check varieties (2659 and 2460 kg ha-1, respectively) at
-2
normal density planting (33 plants m ). However, they showed significant seed yield (3843 and 3981
-1 -2
kg ha , respectively) superiority under high density planting of 50 plants m and are also found
suitable for mechanical harvesting as the fruiting zone started at about 20 cm from base. Turner et al.
(2001) observed that plants grown at lower plant density are usually shorter and branchy, which
increases losses during combine harvest.
-1
El-Sayed et al. (2002) found that increasing forward speed from 1.7 to 2.7 km h , the
-1
harvesting untreated, total losses and field capacity increased from 3.2, 1.95, 8.75%, 1.1 fed h to
-1
4.1, 2.1, 9.36%, 1.38 fed h , respectively and the damaged losses, performance efficiency decreased
from 0.9 and 94.06 per cent to 0.7, 92.6%, respectively.
Imara et al. (2003) found that, the total grain loss increased by increasing the combine
forward speed. The total grain loss of indirect harvesting method (using mower and threshing
machine) increased about 2.5 times of that of total grain loss of direct harvesting (using combine).
-1
EL-Khateeb (2005) found that the cylinder speed of 24.0 m s gave the minimum value of
total losses (2.33%) and maximum value of performance efficiency (97.88%). Baffle plate angles of
0
90 (1.57 rad) gave the minimum values of cylinder loss, cleaning loss and total loss percentages
(0.70, 0.55 and 1.62%) and maximum value of performance efficiency of 97.95 per cent by increasing
-1
the forward speed from 1.5 to 3.0 km h . At grain moisture of 25.0 per cent, it tends to decrease the
-1
rates of fuel consumption from 7.20 to 5.24 L fed .The results of machine test design for legume
mechanized harvesting in Maragheh showed that chickpea can be harvested mechanically with 8 per
cent loss (Rahim Zadeh et al., 2006).
Further, test of the especial combine head for legume mechanized harvesting in Sararood
showed that this especial combine head had the least loss (5.2%) in comparison with cereal head
combine and handy harvest.
Moussa (2008) from Egypt reported that mechanical method (mower then thresher)
consumed about double energy of combined method, while traditional method (sickle then thresher)
consumed about the same energy with combine. Further, the field capacity was increased, although
the field efficiency decreased with the increase of harvesting speed. The actual field capacity was low
under manual harvesting than that due to low labour energy.
EL-Naga et al. (2010) reported that effective field capacity increased at increase in forward
speed and decreased in grain moisture content. While, the field efficiency decreased at increase in
forward speed and grain moisture content. Whereas, the highest value of the effective field capacity
-1 -1
and field efficiency of 0.48 fed h and 78.38% were obtained at forward speed of 1.15 and 0.53 km h
and grain moisture content of 12.13 per cent, respectively. While the lowest value of the effective field
capacity and field efficiency of 0.2 fed h-1 and 48.01% were obtained at forward speed of 0.53 and
-1
1.15 km h ) and grain moisture content of 16.73 per cent, respectively.
Mansur (2003) observed that the genotype ICCV-2 at a plant density of 3.33 lakh ha-1 with 50
kg P2O5 ha-1 recorded significantly high net returns (Rs.35603 ha -1) and benefit cost ratio (3.18) than
higher densities. Similar line of results was observed by Mehar Singh et al. (2000).
Sher Singh et al. (2004) reported that row spacing of 45 cm recorded higher net returns (Rs.
-1 -1
20,008 ha ) and benefit: cost ratio (4.57) in comparison to 30 cm row spacing (Rs. 18,444 ha and
4.23, respectively).
-1
Sher Singh et al. (2005) recorded maximum gross returns (Rs.37,575 ha ), net returns
-1
(Rs.26,340 ha ) and benefit cost ratio (2.35) with the treatment consisting of two irrigations one each
at pre sowing and pod initiation stage.
Moussa (2008) combine harvester reduced the criterion cost of harvesting about 32 and 36
per cent compared to semi mechanical system (mower + transportation + thresher) and traditional
system (manual + transportation + thresher), respectively.
Naik (2011) reported that genotype JG-11 recorded significantly higher net returns (Rs.
-1
22,651 ha ) and benefit cost ratio (3.39) than Annigeri-1. The higher net returns and benefit cost ratio
of genotype JG-11 was mainly attributed to significantly higher seed yield and haulm yield as
compared to A-1. Also observed that chickpea sown at wider spacing (45 cm x 10 cm) recorded
-1 -1
higher gross returns (Rs. 31,709 ha ) and significantly higher net returns (Rs. 22,652 ha ) and benefit
cost ratio (3.47) over chickpea sown at closer spacing (30 cm x 10 cm).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Field experiments were conducted during rabi seasons of 2011-12 and 2012-13 pertaining to
study the “Agronomic investigations on tall chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical harvesting
under different ecosystems”. The details of the material used and the techniques adopted during the
course of investigation are described here under.
3.1 General description
3.1.1 Location of the experimental site
During rabi 2011-12, two field experiments were conducted in a black precision experimental
plot (BP 8A) and during rabi 2012-13, the same experiments were repeated in a black precision
experimental plot (BP 11C). One experiment was also conducted during rabi 2012-13 in Black
Manmool experimental plot (BM 14C) of International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
0
Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru (Andhra Pradesh), India, which is located at latitude of 17 53' N and
0
longitude of 78 27' E and at an altitude of 545 m above mean sea level.
3.1.2 Soil characteristics of the experimental site
Soil type of the experimental site was Vertisol. Composite soil samples from 0-30 cm depth
were collected from the site before laying out the all the experiments during both the years of
experimentation (rabi 2011-12 and 2012-13). The collected composite sample was analyzed for
important physico-chemical properties. The textural class of soil of all the experimental sites during
both the years was black clay loam. The physico-chemical properties of soils of experiment - I and II
conducted during rabi 2011-12, experiment - I and II conducted during rabi 2012-13 and experiment -
III conducted during rabi 2012-13 are presented in Table 1 and 2, respectively.
3.2 Climatic condition
The International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru is
situated in the Central Telangan a Zone of Andhra Pradesh and receives fairly well distributed mean
annual rainfall of 908.01 mm. The monthly meteorological data on rainfall, evaporation, temperature,
relative humidity, wind velocity, solar radiation and bright sunshine of experimental seasons (April, 2011
to March, 2012 and April, 2012 to March, 2013) and the average weather parameters for the past 30
years (1980-2010) are given in the Table 3 and 4 and Fig. 1 and 2.
3.3 Experimental details
The details of the experiments with regard to treatments evaluated, the design adopted and
plot size are given below.
These experiments consisted of five genotypes as main plots and three plant population
densities as sub plots with three replications. Both the experiments were conducted with same set of
treatments, design, layout, experimental procedure and cultural operations during both the years
except growing ecosystem (rainfed or under irrigation).
3.3.1 Design and layout
These experiments were laid out in a split-plot design and the plan of layout of the experiment
is depicted in Fig. 3.
3.3.2 Treatmental details (Experiment – I and II)
Main plot : Genotype (G)*
G1: ICCV-11601
G2: ICCV-11602
G3: ICCV-11603
G4: ICCV-11604
G5: JG-11 (Check)
Sub plot : Plant density (D)
-1
D1: 3.33 lakh ha (Normal plant density)
Table 1: Physical and chemical properties of soil in the experimental site (Expt-I & II)
Value obtained
Sl. No. Parameters Method employed
BP 8A BP 11C
I. Physical properties
a. Particle size analysis
Coarse sand (%) 18.02 16.04
International pipette method
Fine sand (%) 19.50 15.83
(Piper, 1966)
Silt (%) 15.81 17.48
Clay (%) 46.67 50.65
Textural class Clayey Clayey
II. Chemical properties
-
Available nitrogen (kg ha Alkaline permanganate method
a. 1 282.50 296.94
) (Subbiah and Asija, 1956)
-1
b. Available P2O5 (kg ha ) 24.53 26.17 Olsen’s method (Jackson, 1973)
Flame photometer (Jackson,
c. Available K2O (kg ha-1) 319.01 328.26
1973)
Walkley and Black’s wet
d. Organic carbon (%) 0.54 0.55 oxidation method (Jackson,
1973)
e. Soil pH (1:2.5 soil:water) 8.00 8.10 Potentiometry (Piper, 1966)
Electrical conductivity (dS Conductivity bridge (Jackson,
f. 0.18 0.15
m-1) 1967)
Table 2: Physical and chemical properties of soil in the experimental site (Expt-III)
Sl. No. Parameters Value obtained Method employed
I. Physical properties
a. Particle size analysis
Coarse sand (%) 11.27 International pipette method (Piper,

1966)
Fine sand (%) 14.39
Silt (%) 18.81
Clay (%) 55.54
Textural class Clayey
II. Chemical properties
Alkaline permanganate method

a. Available nitrogen (kg ha-1) 270.44
(Subbiah and Asija, 1956)
-1
b. Available P2O5 (kg ha ) 22.85 Olsen’s method (Jackson, 1973)
-1
c. Available K2O (kg ha ) 291.70 Flame photometer (Jackson, 1973)
Walkley and Black’s wet oxidation

d. Organic carbon (%) 0.52
method (Jackson, 1973)
e. Soil pH (1:2.5 soil:water) 8.02 Potentiometry (Piper, 1966)
-1
f. Electrical conductivity (dS m ) 0.16 Conductivity bridge (Jackson, 1967)
Table 3: Mean monthly meteorological data for the experimental year (2011-12) and the mean of past 30 years (1980-2010) of International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India
Relative Relative
Rainfall Evaporation humidity humidity Wind Velocity Solar Bright
Temperature (0C) Radiation Sunshine
(mm) (mm) at 07:17 hr at 14:17 hr (Kmph) (mj/ m2) (Hrs)
(%) (%)
Month
Mean Mean
2011- 1980- 1980- maximum minimum
2011- 1980- 2011- 1980- 2011- 1980- 2011- 1980- 2011- 1980-
2011-12
12 2010 2010 2011- 1980- 2011- 1980- 12 2010 12 2010 12 2010 12 2010 12 2010
12 2010 12 2010
April - 2011 7.50 27.10 254.90 300.35 36.57 37.59 22.71 22.54 72.73 64.53 31.42 26.23 7.08 8.42 20.76 22.10 8.65 9.40
May - 2011 2.00 30.64 317.39 362.41 38.02 38.83 24.94 24.77 60.28 58.64 27.69 27.56 7.96 10.90 20.60 22.48 8.16 9.13
June - 2011 35.89 113.89 247.99 258.87 34.53 34.35 24.10 23.62 79.40 79.00 43.75 47.40 14.84 15.51 16.71 18.09 5.46 5.86
July - 2011 185.30 191.71 172.68 177.46 30.94 30.74 22.83 22.44 87.82 86.78 60.77 61.52 12.56 14.62 14.69 15.51 4.29 4.08
August - 2011 155.50 236.75 113.79 135.90 29.21 29.29 22.37 21.83 92.82 90.31 72.75 67.92 9.63 11.46 13.83 15.07 3.62 4.20
September -
101.59 148.00 126.40 129.82 30.05 30.10 21.64 21.51 92.53 91.59 65.26 63.62 7.09 7.25 16.37 16.92 5.79 5.72
2011
October - 2011 35.60 96.82 138.68 139.60 31.39 30.28 20.00 19.34 91.87 90.49 49.74 51.97 3.71 5.41 17.07 17.13 7.73 7.39
November - 2011 11.40 20.73 140.00 135.26 30.01 28.94 15.08 15.68 91.09 88.89 40.82 43.65 5.38 5.62 16.32 16.34 8.25 8.29
December - 2011 0.00 4.26 132.68 131.92 29.76 27.97 12.31 12.86 92.37 90.20 36.15 38.07 4.26 5.50 14.93 15.72 8.50 8.73
January - 2012 0.00 9.66 157.40 149.18 29.98 28.71 15.02 13.79 83.48 89.56 38.53 36.51 6.44 6.63 15.77 16.58 8.33 9.08
February - 2012 0.00 6.86 198.68 188.64 32.93 31.75 15.68 16.04 79.43 78.82 32.06 28.89 6.36 7.30 18.44 19.01 9.47 9.74
March - 2012 0.00 21.59 283.39 267.05 36.50 35.20 17.57 19.31 68.18 70.13 22.32 24.95 5.82 7.71 20.66 20.73 9.36 9.41
Total / Mean 534.78 908.01 2283.98 2376.46 32.49 31.69 19.52 19.49 82.67 82.62 43.44 44.85 7.59 8.97 206.15 17.97 7.30 7.42
Rainfall (mm) 2011-12 Rainfall (mm) 1980-2010
250 Solar Radiation 2011-12 Solar Radiation 1980-2010 45
Max. temp. 2011-12 Max. temp. 1980-2010
Min. temp. 2011-12 Min. temp. 1980-2010
40
200
35
Rainfall (mm) and solar radiation (MJ/m2 )
Max. & Min. temperature (0C)

30
150
25
20
100
15
10
50
0 0
April May June July August September October November December January February March
Month
Fig. 1: Mean monthly meteorological data for the experimental year (2011-12) and past 30 years (1980-2010) of International Crops Research
Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India
Table 4: Mean monthly meteorological data for the experimental year (2012-13) and the mean of past 30 years (1980 – 2010) of International Crops
Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India
Relative Relative Solar

Rainfall Evaporation 0 Wind Velocity Bright
Temperature ( C) humidity humidity Radiation (mj
(mm) (mm) (Kmph) -2 Sunshine (Hrs)
at 07:17 hr (%) at 14:17 hr (%) m )
Month Mean Mean
2012- 1980- 1980- maximum minimum 2012- 1980- 2012- 1980- 2012- 1980- 2012- 1980- 2012- 1980-
2012-13
13 2010 2010 2012- 1980- 2012- 1980- 13 2010 13 2010 13 2010 13 2010 13 2010
13 2010 13 2010
April - 2012 17.39 27.10 263.88 300.35 37.45 37.59 22.83 22.54 68.65 64.53 29.10 26.23 7.50 8.42 18.87 22.10 7.70 9.40
May - 2012 2.79 30.64 397.89 362.41 40.07 38.83 25.44 24.77 49.86 58.64 21.92 27.56 8.94 10.90 21.12 22.48 8.78 9.13
June - 2012 280.80 113.89 277.68 258.87 34.78 34.35 24.17 23.62 72.26 79.00 45.56 47.40 12.89 15.51 16.91 18.09 5.45 5.86
July - 2012 199.19 191.71 139.40 177.46 30.14 30.74 22.03 22.44 88.57 86.78 65.54 61.52 11.65 14.62 13.50 15.51 3.00 4.08
August - 2012 94.70 236.75 125.40 135.90 29.69 29.29 21.82 21.83 89.60 90.31 68.15 67.92 9.73 11.46 15.43 15.07 4.86 4.20
September - 2012 58.39 148.00 116.79 129.82 29.76 30.10 21.67 21.51 93.06 91.59 65.70 63.62 6.75 7.25 16.58 16.92 5.33 5.72
October - 2012 73.79 96.82 133.69 139.60 30.39 30.28 17.98 19.34 92.51 90.49 50.67 51.97 3.85 5.41 16.60 17.13 6.88 7.39
November - 2012 38.20 20.73 103.09 135.26 28.71 28.94 15.78 15.68 94.79 88.89 51.42 43.65 3.77 5.62 14.11 16.34 6.42 8.29
December - 2012 0.00 4.26 123.29 131.92 29.85 27.97 13.67 12.86 91.76 90.20 39.11 38.07 4.46 5.50 15.24 15.72 8.61 8.73
January - 2013 1.00 9.66 135.90 149.18 30.60 28.71 15.38 13.79 91.93 89.56 38.74 36.51 5.65 6.63 14.69 16.58 8.10 9.08
February - 2013 10.09 6.86 168.69 188.64 31.06 31.75 16.34 16.04 85.53 78.82 33.60 28.89 7.01 7.30 17.69 19.01 8.79 9.74
March - 2013 0.00 21.59 126.79 267.05 34.64 35.20 17.17 19.31 73.06 70.13 23.93 24.95 6.52 7.71 20.09 20.73 9.05 9.41
Total / Mean 776.34 908.01 2112.49 2376.46 32.26 31.69 19.52 19.49 82.63 82.62 44.45 44.85 7.39 8.97 200.83 17.97 6.91 7.42
Rainfall (mm) 2012-13 Rainfall (mm) 1980-2010
300 45
Solar Radiation 2012-13 Solar Radiation 1980-2010
Max. temp. 2012-13 Max. temp. 1980-2010
Min. temp. 2012-13 Min. temp. 1980-2010 40
250
35
Rainfall (mm) and solar radiation (MJ/m2)
Max. & Min. temperature (0C)

200 30
25
150
20
100 15
10
50
5
0 0
April May June July August September October November December January February March
Month
N
G1D3 G1D2 G1D1
G2D2 G2D1 G2D3
R-I G3D1 G3D3 G3D2
G4D3 G4D1 G4D2
G5D1 G5D2 G5D3
G2D3 G2D2 G2D1
G5D2 G5D1 G5D3
R-II G1D1 G1D3 G1D2
G3D3 G3D1 G3D2
G4D1 G4D2 G4D3
G5D3 G5D2 G5D1
G4D2 G4D1 G4D3
R-III G2D1 G2D3 G2D2
G1D3 G1D1 G1D2

4.0 m
G3D1 G3D2 G3D3
1.2 m
Fig. 3: Layout of Experiment–I and II
LEGEND
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601
G2 : ICCV-11602
G3 : ICCV-11603
G4 : ICCV-11604
G5 : ICCV-11605
Plant density (D)

D1 : 3.33 lakhs ha-1 (normal)
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakhs ha (20% hight)
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakhs ha (40% hight)
-1
D2: 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher than D1)
D3: 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher than D1)
*Genotypes G1 to G4 are erect and tall type and G5 is semi-erect type
3.3.3 Other details of the experiment
Location : ICRISAT, Patancheru (AP)
Growing ecosystem : Rainfed and Irrigated (as per the experiment)
Season : Rabi 2011-12 and 2012-13
Year of commencement : 2011-12
Design : Split plot
Main plot (Genotype) :5
Sub plot (Plant density) :3
No. of treatments : 15 (5 3)
Replications : Three
Seed rate : As per treatment
Row spacing : 30 cm
Plot size :4m 1.2 m
3.4 Previous crop on the experimental site
Sorghum crops were grown during 2010-11 and 2011-12 on both the years of field
experimentation.
3.5 Cultivation aspects
3.5.1 Preparatory cultivation
The land was ploughed once with mould board plough and later harrowed twice to bring the
soil to fine tilth. Stubbles and weeds were removed from the experimental site. During the subsequent
period, broad bed and furrows of 4 m length and 1.2 m breadth were prepared 2-3 weeks before
sowing in allotted main plot treatments.
3.5.2 Fertilizers application
-1
100 kg of DAP ha was uniformly broadcasted before layout during both the years of
experiments.
3.5.3 Seeds and sowing
Prior to sowing, the seeds were treated with fungicide Captan @ 4g kg-1 seeds. Sowing was
done on broad beds with four 30 cm rows by hand dibbling the seeds upto 3 to 4 cm deep (Plate 1).
-2
Seeds were sown at different plant densities viz., 33, 39 and 46 plants m as D1, D2 and D3,
respectively with 10, 7.5 and 6.7 cm intra-row spacing, respectively. The chickpea crop was sown
during rabi seasons during 2011-12 and 2012-13. The details of season, sowing date and year are as
follows.
Date of sowing
Experiment
Rabi 2011-12 Rabi 2012-13
Experiment-I 25-10-2011 12-10-2012
Experiment-II 27-10-2011 12-10-2012
3.5.4 After care
3.5.4.1 Gap filling and thinning
Gap filling was undertaken one week after sowing to maintain the optimum plant density.
Thinning was attended 25 days after sowing (DAS) to maintain required plant population retaining one
healthy seedling per spot (Plate 3).
Plate 1: Manual sowing of Experiments – I and II
Plate 2: Machine sowing of Experiment –III
Plate 3: Maintenance of required plant Plate 4: Plant protection chemical

density application
Plate 5: Traditional harvesting of chickpea
3.5.4.2 Intercultivation and weeding
No intercultivation was done in both the experiments. But weeds were removed by hand
weeding after recording observation on plot-wise weed population, once during the crop growth period
at 40 days after sowing, to keep the plots free from weeds.
3.5.4.3 Plant protection measures
The prophylactic measures were undertaken against chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa
armigera, based on economic thresh hold level (ETL). The recommended insecticides were used for
control of pod borer in both the experiments (Plate 4).
3.5.4.4 Irrigation
One common irrigation through sprinkler was given to both the experiments immediately after
sowing for the uniform germination and establishment. Two irrigations were applied to experiment – II
(irrigated experiment) at vegetative and flowering stage.
3.5.5 Harvesting and processing
Chickpea crop was harvested at 90 to 115 days after sowing as per genotypes maturity. First,
all the border plants were harvested and then from the net plot area as per the treatment by cutting
the plants close to the ground. Harvesting was done a week after their physiological maturity. After
harvesting, as per the treatment, the plants were bundled and allowed for sun drying. Then the grains
were separated from the dried plants by threshing with a machine (Plate 5). The biological and grain
yield per net plot area were recorded separately and used to work out yield per hectare.
3.6 Observations recorded
Sampling procedure
A sample consisting of five plants selected at random from net plot area and tagged in each
plot for recording various biometric observations. The biometric observations on growth parameters
were recorded at three stages of plant growth viz., 30 days after sowing, 60 days after sowing and at
harvest. Destructive sampling was carried out on plants selected outside net plot. Yield and quality
parameters were recorded at harvest. The parameters and procedures followed to record
observations on each parameter are presented below.
3.6.1 Growth parameters
The various growth parameters viz., plant height, number of branches per plant, leaf area per
plant, leaf area index, leaf area duration, dry weight of the leaves, dry weight of the stem, total dry
weight of the plant, number of nodules per plant and dry weight of the nodules, etc., were recorded at
different growth stages of chickpea crop. The general view of experimental plots is depicted in Plate
6, 7, 8 and 9.
3.6.1.1 Plant height (cm)
The height of the five randomly selected and tagged plants were measured at 30, 60 DAS
and at harvest from the base of the plant to the tip of fully opened leaf on the main shoot. The
average height of five plants was taken as plant height and expressed in cm.
3.6.1.2 Number of primary and secondary branches per plant
The number of main and side branches were counted on the five earlier tagged plants and
their average was recorded as number of primary and secondary branches per plant, respectively at
30, 60 DAS and at harvest.
2
3.6.1.3 Leaf area per plant (dm )
The leaf area was worked out by leaf area meter (LI-COR 3000). For this purpose, the plants
were uprooted and brought immediately to the laboratory in a bucket containing water to maintain
turgidity in plant. The leaflets from sampled plant were separated and arranged on an OHP sheet
carefully and kept another OHP sheet on arranged leaflets as shown in Plate 10, then passed it into
2 2
the leaf area meter to recorded leaf area in cm per plant and was converted into dm per plant.
Plate 6: General view of Experiment – I during 2011-12 Plate 7: General view of Experiment – II during 2011-12
Plate 8: General view of Experiment – I during 2012-13 Plate 9: General view of Experiment –II during 2012-13
-1
3.6.1.4 Dry matter accumulation and partitioning (g plant )
Plant samples were collected at 30, 60, 75/90 DAS and at harvest to determine the total dry
matter production in plant and its partitioning into stem, leaf and pods. After plant sampling, the plant
parts were separated and oven dried at 70±5°C to attain a constant weight and weighed separately to
determine the dry matter accumulation in stem and leaf and expressed in g per plant. Dry weight of
reproductive parts (pods) was recorded at 60, 75/90 DAS and at harvest. The sum of dry weight of all
the plant parts was taken as total dry matter production per plant in g at different growth stages.
2
3.6.1.5 Canopy spread (cm )
The canopy spread of the five randomly selected and tagged plants was measured at 30, 60
DAS and at harvest. It was worked out by measuring the canopy spread in two directions i.e., in
between the rows and between the plants within the row. Length and breadth of canopy cover were
2
multiplied and expressed in cm per plant.
3.6.1.6 Days to flower initiation
Number of days required from sowing to the appearance of the first flower bud in each
treatment was computed and expressed as days to flower initiation.
3.6.1.7 Days to pod initiation
Number of days required from sowing to the appearance of the first pod in each treatment
was computed and expressed as days to pod initiation.
3.6.1.8 Days to 50 per cent flowering
The number of days taken for 50 per cent of the plants to produce first flower in each plot was
recorded by counting the days from the date of sowing.
3.6.1.9 Days to maturity
The formation of pinkish to copper brown layer on the pods was taken as indication of the
physiological maturity. The observations were recorded on the randomly tagged ten plants in each
treatment and days to physiological maturity from the date of sowing was recorded and the average
was computed and expressed in days.
3.6.1.10 First pod height (cm)
The pod height of the five randomly selected and tagged plants were measured at harvest
from the surface of the soil to the lower pod of the plant. The average pod height of five plants was
taken as first pod height and expressed in cm.
3.6.2 Growth indices
3.6.2.1 Leaf area index (LAI)
It is defined as an assimilatory surface per unit area of land (Sestak et al., 1971). Leaf area
index was worked out at 30, 60 DAS and at harvest by dividing the leaf area per plant by land area
occupied by the plant.
Leaf area per plant (dm2)
LAI =
Land area per plant (dm2)
3.6.2.2 Leaf area duration (LAD)
Leaf area duration is the integral part of leaf area index over a growth period (Watson, 1952).
LAD for various growth periods was worked out from the formula given by Power et al. (1967) and
expressed in days.
Li + L(i +1)
LAD = (t2 – t1)
2
Where,
th
Li = LAI at i stage
th
L(i+1) = LAI at (i+1) stage
th th
(t2 - t1) = Time interval between i stage and (i+1) stage in days
Plate 10: Procedure for recording leaf area in chickpea
3.6.2.3 Absolute growth rate (AGR)
It indicates the dry weight increase per unit time and expressed in g per day. It was calculated
by using the following formula.
W2 - W1
AGR =
t 2 – t1
Where,
W1 and W 2 are the total dry weights per plant (g) at time t1 and t2, respectively.
3.6.2.4 Relative growth rate (RGR)
It is the rate of increase in dry weight per unit dry weight already present and is expressed in
g per g per day. Relative growth rate at various growth stages was calculated as suggested by
Radford (1967).
Loge W2 - Loge W1
RGR =
t2 – t1
Where,
W1 = Dry weight of plant (g) at time t1
W2 = Dry weight of plant (g) at time t 2
3.6.2.5 Crop growth rate (CGR)
Crop growth rate is the rate of dry matter production per unit ground area per unit time
(Watson, 1952). It was calculated by using the following formula and expressed in g per dm2 per day.
W2 - W1 1
CGR =
t 2 – t1 A
Where,
W1 : Dry weight of the plant (g) at time t1
W2 : Dry weight of the plant (g) at time t2
2
A : Land area (dm )

At 30 and 60 days after sowing, three plants from each treatment were randomly selected and
soil of root zone depth was moistened by adding sufficient water to the root zone. After soaking the
root zone, the plants were carefully uprooted and root observations were recorded.
3.6.3.1 Number of root nodules per plant
Uprooted plant root system was washed by keeping in bucket containing water and then
nodules were separated as active nodules by knowing pink colour after piercing the nodule and
counted numbers was expressed on per plant basis.
3.6.3.2 Nodule fresh and dry weight per plant (mg)
The nodules separated from five plants were weighed on electrical balance to know fresh
weight and then kept in oven at 70±5°C for 24 hrs and the dried weight of nodules was recorded and
was expressed in mg per plant.
3
3.6.3.3 Root volume (mm )
Roots of plants sampled were immersed in 250 ml measuring cylinder filled with water and
3
the rise in level of water in flask was measured in mm of root volume per plant.
3.6.3.4 Root dry weight (g)
The roots of plants sampled were oven dried at 70±5°C to attain constant weight and weighed
on electronic balance and expressed in g per plant.
3.6.3.5 Root length (cm)
Root length was taken by measuring from root collar region to tip of main root and was
expressed in cm.
3.6.4 Physiological and agrometeorological indices
3.6.4.1 Chlorophyll content (SPAD value)
Chlorophyll content in the third leaf from the top was taken in randomly selected five plants in
each plot by using SPAD chlorophyll meter (Konica Minolta SPAD-502 plus,) and average of reading
was taken as SPAD reading.
3.6.4.2 Leaf relative water content (RWC, %)
The relative water content of the leaf was determined by sampled 8 to 10 young fully
expanded leaflets at 40 and 70 DAS. Each leaflet represents a different plant. Each sample is placed
in an airtight poly cover and immediately placed in a picnic cooler but not frozen on ice. Samples were
brought to the lab immediately.
In the lab sampled leaflets were weighed to obtain fresh weight (FW). The FW obtained from
each sample was above the minimum of 0.5 g recommended by Clausen and Kozlowski (1965), after
which the sample was immediately kept in de-ionized water for 4 hr under normal room light and
temperature. After hydration, the samples were taken out of water and are well dried of any surface
moisture quickly and lightly with filter/tissue paper and immediately weighed to obtain fully turgid
weight (TW). Samples were then oven dried at 70±5°C for 48 hr and weighed to determine sample
dry weight (DW). The following calculation given by Barr and Weatherley (1962) was used to
determine RWC.
FW – DW
RWC (%) = 100
TW – DW
Where,
FW = Sample fresh weight (g)
TW = Sample turgid weight (g)
DW = Sample dry weight (g)
3.6.4.3 Light transmission ratio (LTR) and light absorption ratio (LAR)
The light intensity is measured in chickpea canopy by using an AccuPAR Ceptometer (Model
E-240-LP 80, Manufactured by Decagon Devices, Inc. USA). The Ceptometer was positioned
beneath the canopy across the plot rows, perpendicular to the row length. It recorded both the above
and below the canopy readings simultaneously between 1130 and 1400 h solar time at flowering
stage. LTR and LAR were calculated by following formula (Yoshidha et al., 1972) and expressed in
percentage.
LTR (%) = I/Io 100
LAR = 100 - LTR
Where,
I = Light intensity beneath the canopy
I0 = Light intensity above the canopy
3.6.5 Yield and yield components

The plants selected for recording growth observations were utilized for recording the
observations on the following yield components.
3.6.5.1 Number of filled pods per plant
The number of filled pods present in five tagged plants was counted individually and the
average was worked out and expressed as number of filled pods per plant at harvest.
3.6.5.2 Number of unfilled pods per plant
The number of unfilled pods present in five tagged plants was counted individually and the
average was worked out and expressed as number of unfilled pods per plant at harvest.
3.6.5.3 Total number of pods per plant
The total number of pods present in five tagged plants was determined by adding the number
of filled and unfilled pods/plant and the average was worked out and expressed as total number of
pods per plant at harvest.
3.6.5.4 Number of seeds per plant
After separating the filled seeds from five randomly selected plants from each treatment, the
filled seeds were counted and average was expressed as number of seeds per plant.
3.6.5.5 Number of seeds per pod
Number of seeds per pod was calculated by using the following formula
Number of seeds per plant
Number of seeds per pod =
Number of filled pods per plant
3.6.5.6 Pod yield per plant (g)
All pods were separately picked by hand from five tagged plants individually at harvest and
weight of pods of individual plant was taken separately to compute pod weight per plant in g.
3.6.5.7 Seed yield per plant (g)
At harvest, all pods were separated manually from five tagged plants individually and dried,
shelled and cleaned. The seed weight from each plant was recorded and average of five plants was
expressed as seed yield per plant in g.
3.6.5.8 Hundred seed weight (g)
One hundred seeds were manually counted from net plot in each treatment and 100-seed
weight was recorded by adopting ISTA procedure (Anon., 1999) and was expressed in g.
3.6.5.9 Seed yield (kg ha-1)
The seed yield obtained from the net plot area was cleaned, dried in the shade for seven days
and weighed in kg. The seed weight from five plants used for taking observations was also added for
computing the seed yield per ha. On the basis of net plot seed yield, the seed yield per hectare was
computed and expressed in kilograms per hectare (kg ha-1).
-1
3.6.5.10 Biological yield (kg ha )
The biological yield was obtained from the net plot area. The harvested plants from each net
plot were bundled, dried and weighed in kg by using battery operated weighing balance. On the basis
of biological yield of net plot, the biological yield per hectare was computed and expressed in
-1
kilograms per hectare (kg ha ).
3.6.5.11 Harvest index (%)
The harvest index was calculated by using the following formula.
Seed yield per ha
HI (%) = 100
Biological yield per ha
3.6.6 Per cent of plant lodging
The lodging of plant was recorded by counting the number of plants lodge and total number of
plants in a meter row length of net plot by using following formula and expressed in percentage.
Number of lodge plants in a meter row length
Plant lodging (%) = 100
Total number of plants in a meter row length
3.6.7 Pest occurence
3.6.7.1 Weed population and biomass per plot
Weed population was known by counting of number of weeds within the net plot area at 40-45
days after sowing and expressed as weed density per plot. The collected weeds were kept in an oven
at 70±5°C till became constant weight and dry weight was expressed as g plot.
3.6.7.2 Pod damage (%)
Soon after harvest, pods per plant were taken from the earlier tagged plants and were sorted
out as infested and non-infested pods based on careful visual examination. The pods having circular
holes or external damages or breaks due to pod borer infestation (Helicoverpa armigera) were
considered as infested pods and their number was expressed in percentage treatment wise by using
the following arithmetical formula.
Number of pods infested per plant

Pod damage (%) = 100
Total number of pods per plant
3.6.7.3 Wilt incidence (%)
The per cent wilt incidence was calculated by counting number of wilted plants in each net
plot area by using the following formula:
Number of wilted plants per plot

Wilt incidence (%) = 100
Total number of plants per plot
3.6.7.4 Rust incidence (%)
The per cent rust incidence was calculated by counting number of rust infested plants in each
net plot area by using the following formula:
Number of rust infested plants per plot

Rust incidence (%) = 100
Total number of plants per plot
3.6.8 Physico-chemical properties of soil
3.6.8.1 Soil moisture content (%)
Soil samples were taken from 0-30 cm layers in each treatment before sowing, at 50 days
after sowing and after harvest of crop using a soil tube/tube auger. The soil moisture content was
0
determined gravimetrically after oven drying the samples to a constant weight at 105 C for 24 hours
and expressed in percentage on oven dry weight basis.
WS1 – WS2
Soil moisture content (%) = 100
WS2
Where,
WS1 = Fresh weight of soil, g
WS2 = Dry weight of soil, g
3.6.8.2 NPK analysis

Composite soil sample was collected from 0-30 cm soil depth from each treatment in all the
three replications. The composite soil samples were dried properly in shade, ground and passed
through 2 mm sieve. The sieved soil samples were chemically analyzed for available nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium.
Available soil nitrogen was estimated by alkaline permanganate oxidation method as outlined
by Subbiah and Asija (1956). Available phosphorus was determined by Olsen’s method as outlined by
Jackson (1967) using spectrophotometer (660 nm wave length). Available potassium was extracted
with neutral normal ammonium acetate and the content of K in the solution was determined by flame
photometer (Jackson, 1967).
3.6.8.3 Soil organic carbon (OC)
The soil organic carbon content was determined by Walkley and Blacks wet oxidation method
as described by Jackson (1973).
3.6.8.4 Soil reaction (pH)
Soil pH measurement was made in soil and water solution of 1:2.5 ratio using pH meter as
described by Piper (1966).
3.6.8.5 Electrical conductivity (EC)
Electrical conductivity of soil was determined by conductivity bridge (Piper, 1966).
3.6.9 Chemical analysis of plant
The plant samples collected at harvest were dried and ground in a micro mill and passed
through a 40 mesh sieve and used for estimation of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content.
3.6.9.1 Estimation of nitrogen
The nitrogen content of plant sample was estimated by following modified Microkjeldahl
method outlined by Jackson (1973).
3.6.9.2 Estimation of phosphorus
Phosphorus content of plant sample was estimated after wet oxidation using tri acid mixture.
From net oxidized digested sample, phosphorus was estimated by the Vanadomolybdate yellow
colour method (Jackson, 1973).
3.6.9.3 Estimation of potassium
The wet oxidized digested sample was used for estimation of potassium by flame photometer
(Jackson, 1973).
3.6.9.4 Nutrient uptake studies
The plant samples of chickpea collected for dry matter production studies at harvest were
analyzed for nitrogen, phosphorus and potash contents after drying in hot air oven at 70±50C and
powdered in micro-willey mill. Nitrogen estimation was done by Kjeldahl’s method (Jackson, 1973),
phosphorus by Vanado molybdate phosphoric yellow colour method and potassium by flame
photometric method. Based on nutrient content of plants and dry matter production, uptake of
nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were worked out by using following formula.
Nutrient content (%)
Nutrient uptake (kg ha-1) = Dry matter yield (kg ha-1)
100
3.6.9.5 Protein content in grains
The nitrogen content in grain was estimated by modified Microkjeldhal method (Jackson,
1973). The protein content in grains was worked out by multiplying the nitrogen content of the grain
with a conversion factor of 6.25 (Tai and Young, 1974).
III: Study on performance of tall chickpea genotypes for mechanical harvesting
The experiment was conducted during 2012-13 at ICRISAT experimental site (BM 14A). The
treatment consisted of four tall genotypes and one semi-erect genotype taken as a check.
3.7.1 Design and layout
The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) and plan of
layout is depicted in Fig. 4. General view of the experimental plot is depicted in Plate 11.
3.7.2 Treatment details
Genotypes (G)
G1: ICCV-11601
G2: ICCV-11602
G3: ICCV-11603
G4: ICCV-11604
G5: JG-11 (Check)
Note: All these genotypes were harvested by combine harvester (John Deere 1158 model) and the
harvesting performance was compared with conventional harvesting of field of Experiment-I
conducted during rabi 2012-13.
3.7.3 Other details of experimentation
Season : Rabi 2012-13
Growing condition : Rainfed
Location : ICRISAT, Patancheru (Andhra Pradesh)
Design : Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD)
R-IV R-III R-II R-I
ICCV-11601 ICCV-11604 ICCV-11603 JG-11
ICCV-11603 ICCV-11602 JG-11 ICCV-11604
ICCV-11602 ICCV-11601 ICCV-11604 ICCV-11603
Fig. 4: Layout of Experiment–III

Fig. 4: Layout of Experiment–III
ICCV-11604 JG-11 ICCV-11601 ICCV-11602
4.5 m
ICCV-11603 ICCV-11602 ICCV-11601
JG -11
N
20 m
LEGEND
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601
G2 : ICCV-11602
G3 : ICCV-11603
G4 : ICCV-11604
G5 : ICCV-11605
Plant density (D)

D1 : 3.33 lakhs ha-1 (normal)
D2 : 3.99 lakhs ha-1 (20% hight)
D3 : 4.66 lakhs ha-1 (40% hight)
Plate 11: General view of Experiment – III
Treatments :5
Replications : Four
Seed rate : 62.5 kg ha-1
Spacing : 30 cm 10 cm
Plot size : 4.5 m 20 m
3.7.4 Previous crop on the experimental site
The land was kept fallow during previous year (2011-12) of the field experimentation.
3.7.5 Cultivation details
3.7.5.1 Preparatory cultivation
The land was ploughed once with mould board plough and later harrowed twice to bring the
soil to fine tilth. Stubbles and weeds were removed from the experimental site. During the subsequent
period, Broad bed and furrows of 4 m length and 1.2 m breadth were prepared two to three weeks
before sowing in allotted main plot treatment.
3.7.5.2 Fertilizers application
100 kg of DAP ha-1 was uniformly applied before layout of experiment.
3.7.5.3 Seeds and Sowing
Prior to sowing, the seeds were treated with fungicide Captan + Benomyl 50 per cent WP @ 4
g kg-1 seeds. Sowing was done on broad beds by tractor upto 3 to 4 cm deep at the spacing of 30 cm
10 cm (Plate 2). The crop was sown on 11 October, 2012.
3.7.6 After care
3.7.6.1 Gap filling and thinning
Gap filling was undertaken one week after sowing to maintain the optimum plant population.
Thinning was attended 25 days after sowing (DAS) to maintain optimum plant density retaining one
healthy seedling per spot.
3.7.6.2 Intercultivation and weeding
One intercultivation was done at 30 days after sowing by tractor hoe, to keep the plots free
from weeds.
3.7.6.3 Plant protection measures
The prophylactic measures were under taken against chickpea pod borer, Helicoverpa
armigera, based on economic thresh hold level (ETL). The recommended insecticides were used for
control of pod borer.
3.7.7 Harvesting and processing
Chickpea was harvested by using combine harvester (John Deere 1158 model) after crop
attaining maturity (Plate 12).
3.7.8 Observations recorded
Sampling procedure
Sample consisting of fifteen plants from net plot area were selected randomly and tagged in
each plot for recording various biometric observations. The biometric observations on growth
parameters were recorded at three stages of plant growth viz., 30 days after sowing, 60 days after
sowing and at harvest. Yield and quality parameters were recorded at harvest.
3.7.8.1 Growth parameters
The various growth parameters such as plant height, number of branches per plant, canopy
spread, etc., were recorded at different growth stages of chickpea crop.
3.7.8.1.1 Plant height (cm)
The height of the five randomly selected and tagged plants were recorded as per the
procedure furnished in section 3.6.1.1.
Plate 12: Mechanical harvesting of chickpea
3.7.8.1.2 Number of primary and secondary branches per plant
The number of main and side branches was recorded by adopting the procedure explained in
section 3.6.1.2.
3.7.8.1.3 Canopy spread (cm2)
The plant canopy spread of the five randomly selected and tagged plants were measured at
30, 60 DAS and at harvest. It was worked out by adopting the procedure explained in section 3.6.1.5.
3.7.8.1.4 Days to flower initiation
Days to flower initiation were recorded as per the procedure explained in section 3.6.1.6.
3.7.8.1.5 Days to pod initiation
Number of days required to initiate first pod was recorded as per the procedure mentioned in
section 3.6.1.7.
3.7.8.1.6 Days to 50 per cent flowering
The number of days taken for 50 per cent of the plants to produce first flower was recorded by
adopting the procedure explained in section 3.6.1.8.
3.7.8.1.7 Days to maturity
Days to maturity was recorded as per the procedure explained in section 3.6.1.9.
3.7.8.1.8 First pod height (cm)
The pod height of the five randomly selected and tagged plants were measured at harvest by
adopting the procedure furnished in section 3.6.1.10.
3.7.8.1.9 Per cent of plant lodging
Per cent of plant lodging was determined as per the procedure explained in section 3.6.6.
3.7.8.2 Yield and yield components
The plants selected for recording growth observations were utilized for recording the
observations on the following yield components.
3.7.8.2.1 Number of filled pods per plant
The number of filled pods present in five tagged plants was recorded as per the procedure
explained in section 3.6.5.1.
3.7.8.2.2 Number of unfilled pods per plant
The number of unfilled pods present in five tagged plants was recorded as per the procedure
furnished in section 3.6.5.2.
3.7.8.2.3 Total number of pods per plant
The total number of pods present in five tagged plants was determined by adopting the
procedure explained in section 3.6.5.3.
3.7.8.2.4 Unfilled pod percentage
The percentage of unfilled pods was worked out by following formula
Number of unfilled pods per plant
Unfilled pod percentage = 100
Total number of pods per plant
3.7.8.2.5 Number of seeds per plant
The total number of seeds per plant was recorded as per the procedure detailed in section
3.6.5.4.
3.7.8.2.6 Number of seeds per pod
Number of seeds per pod was computed by adopting the formula furnished in section 3.6.5.5.
3.7.8.2.7 Pod yield per plant (g)
The pod yield per plant was recorded as per the procedure furnished in section 3.6.5.6.
3.7.8.2.8 Seed yield per plant (g)
The seed yield per plant was recorded as per the procedure explained in section 3.6.5.7.
3.7.8.2.9 Hundred seed weight (g)
The total number of seeds per plant was recorded as per the procedure detailed in section
3.6.5.8.
3.7.8.2.10 Seed yield (q ha-1)
The seed yield per hectare was computed by adopting the procedure furnished in section
3.6.5.9.
3.7.9 Mechanical harvesting observation
3.7.9.1 Seed and straw moisture content
The moisture content in seed and straw was determined immediately after harvest by using
the following equation.
Initial weight (g) – Oven dry weight (g)
Moisture content (%) = x 100
Oven dry weight (g)
-1
3.7.9.2 Forward speed (m sec )
Forward speed was determined by measuring the time consumed for distance of 20 meter of
rear wheels of combine harvester in mechanical harvesting and 4 meter movement of labour in
conventional harvesting. It was measured by using following equation and expressed in meter per
second (m sec-1).
Traveling distance (m)
Forward speed (m sec-1) =
Traveling time (sec)
3.7.9.3 Harvesting yield (kg fed-1)
The harvesting yield included weight of grain harvested by a machine or worker excluding
harvest losses. It was expressed in kilogram per feddan (kg fed-1). 1 fed = 60 m x 70 m = 4200 m2 =
0.42 hectares = 1.038 acres.
3.7.9.4 Theoratical yield (kg fed-1)
Theoratical yield included both weight of grain harvested by a machine or worker and harvest
losses. It was expressed in kilogram per feddan (kg fed-1).
3.7.9.5 Harvest per cent
At harvest time, seeds yield of each plot in mechanized and conventional harvesting method
were weighed. After finishing the harvest, the left over pods on ground were collected and threshed
manually and weighed. The harvest per cent for each plot was calculated and determined by using
the following equation.
B
Harvest per cent (%) = x 100
A+B
Where,
A = weight of the seed from left over pods per fed
B = weight of seed harvested per fed
3.7.9.6 Harvest efficiency (%)
The time required for harvesting the grains for all the treatments and also amount of
harvested grain was recorded and weighed. Harvest efficiency for each plot was obtained through
following equations.
Conventional Weight of grains harvested by a worker (kg fed-1)
harvest efficiency = The time needed to harvest by a worker (h fed-1) x 100
(%)
-1
Mechanical harvest Weight of grains harvested by a machine (kg fed )
= -1 x 100
efficiency (%) The time needed to harvest by a machine (h fed )
3.7.9.7 Field efficiency ( f)
Actual field efficiency was determined by measuring all the time elements involved while
harvesting and threshing. The whole time (total) was categorized into productive and non-productive
time. Productive time was the actual time used for harvesting the grains while non-productive time
was made up of turning time, repair and adjustment time and other time losses during harvesting in
machanical harvesting and movement and resting time of labour, repair and adjustment time for
thresher and other time losses during harvesting in tradiational harvesting as shown below:
Productive time (h fed-1)
Field efficiency (%) = x 100
Total time taken (h fed-1)
OR
Th – T u
Field efficiency ( f) = x 100
Th
Where,
Th = total time for harvesting and threshing processes per fed., h
Tu = total un-productive time during harvesting and threshing process per fed., h
3.7.9.8 Grain purity (%)
Grain purity in mechanical and conventional harvesting method is calculated by using the
following equation and expressed in percentage.
Cleaned grain weight
Grain purity (%) = x 100
Total grain weight
3.7.9.9 Actual field capacity (Fcact)
Actual field capacity was measured for each case by recording the operating time for combine
and labour, ignoring transportation time. It can be determined from the following equation and
expressed in fed per hour (fed h-1).
1
Fcact = (fed h-1)
Total time required for harvesting
3.7.9.10 Theoretical field capacity (Fcth)
Actual field capacity was measured by using the following equation and expressed in fed per
hour (fed h-1).
width x forward speed
Fcth = (fed h-1)
constant
WxV
Fcth = (fed h-1)
4.2
Where,
W = theoretical machine width, m
V = machine forward speed, km h-1.
3.7.9.11 Grain loss (%)
In the selected harvested area of the field, placed a frame of one square meter in each plot to
evaluate weight of grains lying on the ground within the frame and collected pods were threshed
manually and weighed on electronic balance and expressed in kilogram feddan (kg fed-1). The grain
loss was measured by using following equation and expressed in percentage.
Grains left after harvest (kg fed-1)
Grain loses (%) = x 100
Theoretical grain yield (kg fed-1)
3.7.9.12 Grain damage per cent
The grains damaged by combine harvester and thresher were separated and weighed on
-1
electronic balance and expressed in kilogram per feddan (kg fed ). The grain damage was measured
by using the following equation.
-1
Weight of damaged grain (kg fed )
Grain damage per cent = -1 x 100
Theoretical grain yield (kg fed )
3.7.9.13 Per cent un-threshed grain
The un-threshed pods were threshed manually and weighed on electronic balance and
expressed in kilogram per feddan (kg fed-1). The un-threshed grains were measured by using the
following equation.
Weight of un-threshed grains (kg fed-1)
Per cent un-threshed grains = x 100
3.7.9.14 Total harvest loss (%)
The percentage of total grain loss was calculated by using the following equation.
Total harvest loss (%) = Grain loss + grain damage + un-threshed grain
3.7.9.15 Performance efficiency ( p)
The combine and manual harvesting performance was calculated by using the following
equation.
Cleaned grain weight (kg fed-1)
Performance efficiency ( p) = x 100
3.7.9.16 Cutting efficiency ( c)
An average length of 10 plants from each plot in the field during and after harvesting was
measured to calculate cutting efficiency. The cutting efficiency was calculated by using the following
equation.
Ha – Hb
Cutting efficiency ( c) = x 100
Ha
Where,
Ha = height of stand plant above the soil surface before cutting, cm
Hb = height of the stubble after cutting, cm
3.7.9.17 Threshing loss (%)
Threshing loss was a combine of many kinds of losses such as weight grain damage and un-
threshed grain. It can be calculated by using the following equation.
Weight of damaged grains (kg fed-1) + Weight of un-
Threshing loss (%) = threshed grain (kg fed-1) x 100
Grain harvested by machine/worker (kg fed-1)
3.7.9.18 Threshing efficiency ( th)
Threshing efficiency was calculated by using the following equation.

-1
Threshing loss (kg fed )
Threshing efficiency ( th) = -1 x 100
Harvested grain yield (kg fed )
3.7.9.19 Energy requirements
The following formula was used to calculate the energy requirements for mechanical
harvesting.
-1 Machine power (kW)
Energy requirement (kW. h fed ) = -1
Actual field capacity (fed h )
Manual labour energy was determined as mechanical power equal to (0.075 to 0.10 kW) at
continuous work (Lijedahl et al. 1951).
Worker power = 1.36 hp (0.10 kW)
So, the energy was calculated by using the following formula.
Worker power (kW)
Energy requirement (kW. h fed-1) =
Actual field capacity (fed h-1)
3.8 Physicochemical characteristics of seeds
The physicochemical properties of chickpea seeds of different treatments were assessed.
The following physical properties were determined in duplicate.
3.8.1 Seed weight (g seed-1)
Recorded as the mean weight of 100 seeds by using automatic seed counter attached with
electronic balance.
100-seed weight (g)
Seed weight (g seed-1) =
100 seeds
3.8.2 Bulk density (g cc-1)
Bulk density was determined by putting a known weight of test seed sample into empty
graduated jar and the volume occupied by sample was noted. The bulk density was calculated using
the following formula (Mohsenin, 1980).
Weight of the sample (g)
Bulk density (g cc-1) =
Volume occupied as bulk (cc)
3.8.3 Seed volume (SV, mL seed-1)
Hundred seeds were transferred to a 250 mL graduated cylinder and 100 mL of deionized
water was added. Seed volume was determined according to following formula:
Total volume (mL) – 100 (mL)
Seed volume (SV, mL seed-1) =
100
3.8.4 Hydration capacity (HC, g seed-1)
A 100 seeds was counted and transferred to a 250 mL graduated cylinder and 100 mL of
deionized water was added. The cylinder was stoppered and left overnight (16 h) at room
temperature. The next day, the grains were blotted with absorbent paper to remove superfluous water
and the swollen seeds were reweighed. The hydration capacity per seed was determined by using the
following formula:
Weight of soaked seeds (g) – weight of seeds before soaking (g)
Hydration capacity (HC, g seed-1) =
Number of seeds
3.8.5 Hydration index (HI)
The ratio between hydration capacity and original seed weight was estimated using to
following equation:
Hydration capacity (HC, g seed-1)
Hydration index (HI) =
Seed weight (g)
3.8.6 Swelling capacity (SC, mL seed-1)
Hundred seeds were soaked in 100 mL of deionized water overnight (16 h) in a 250 ml
graduated cylinder. The volume of the soaked seeds was noted to calculate swelling capacity per
seed using to the following equation:
Volume after soaking (mL) – Volume before
Swelling capacity (SC, mL seed-1) = soaking (mL)
Number of seeds
3.8.7 Swelling index (SI)
The ratio between swelling capacity and to seed volume was estimated using to following
equation:
Swelling capacity (SC, mL seed-1)
Swelling index (SI) =
Seed volume (mL)
3.9 Economic analysis
3.9.1 Cost of cultivation
The current price of input materials, labour and machinery cost were considered for
computing the cost of cultivation and was expressed in Rs. per ha.
3.9.2 Gross income
Based on the current price of the main products and byproducts at harvest during both the
years the gross income was calculated and was expressed in Rs. per ha.
3.9.3 Net income and benefit cost ratio (B:C)
Based on the current price of inputs and outputs during two years, the gross profit (Rs. ha-1)
and benefit cost ratio (B:C) were worked out by using the following formula.
Net income (Rs. ha-1) = Gross income - Cost of cultivation
Net income (Rs. ha-1)
Benefit cost ratio =
Cost of cultivation (Rs. ha-1)
3.9.4 Harvest cost
The cost performaning the harvesting of different genotypes was estimated considering the
machine charges. The value of grain loss for each different genotype has been considered for
calculating cost of harvesting.
The operating cost for mechanical harvesting was calculated by the following equation
(Moussa, 2008).
Combine charges (Rs. h-1)
Operating cost (Rs. fed-1) =
Actual field capacity (fed h-1)
The criterion cost was calculated by the following equation (Moussa, 2008).
Criterion cost (Rs. fed-1) = Operating cost + monetary value of losses
3.10 Statistical analysis and interpretation of data
The data collected from the experiments at different growth stages and at harvest was
subjected to statistical analysis as described by Gomez and Gomez (1984). The level of significance
used for ‘F’ and‘t’ test was P = 0.05. Critical difference values were calculated whenever ‘F’ test was
found significant. In case of non significant effects, value of standard error of means alone is
presented in tables. For comparision between harvesting methods (mechanical and conventional)
student t-test was done by using computer software, SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Studies).
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The results of the field experiment entitled “Agronomic investigations on tall chickpea
genotypes suitable for mechanical harvesting” conducted during rabi 2011-12 and 2012-13 at
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra
Pradesh, India are presented in this chapter. The results of both the years and pooled data are
presented in table. The results of pooled data are used for interpretation of results.
4.1 Experiment–I. Performance of tall chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical
harvesting at different plant density under rainfed ecosystem
The experiment was conducted during rabi seasons of 2011-12 and 2012-13. It consisted of
four erect and tall chickpea genotypes viz., ICCV-11601 (G1), ICCV-11602 (G2), ICCV-11603 (G3) and
ICCV-11604 (G4) and one normal semi-erect genotype i.e., JG-11 (G5) with three plant density viz.,
-1
Normal plant density (D1, 3.33 lakh ha ), 20 per cent higher than normal plant density (D2, 3.99 lakh
-1 -1
ha ) and 40 per cent higher than normal plant density (D3, 4.66 lakh ha ). The crop was entirely
raised under rainfed ecosystem without any supplemental irrigation.
4.1.1 Growth attributes
4.1.1.1 Plant height (cf. Table 5)
The pooled data showed that plant height (cm) at different growth stages of chickpea differed
significantly among the genotypes. At 30 days after sowing, the genotype ICCV-11602 produced
significantly taller plants (G2, 23.09 cm), which was on par with ICCV-11601 and JG-11 (G1, 22.88 cm
and G5, 21.58 cm, respectively). However, significantly lower plant height was recorded in ICCV-
11604 (G4, 20.02 cm). Similarly, at 60 days after sowing, significantly taller plants were noticed in
ICCV-11602 (G2, 58.79 cm) followed by ICCV-11601 and ICCV-11604 (G1, 55.74 cm and G4, 53.59
cm, respectively), but significantly lower plant height was found in JG-11 (G5, 30.44 cm). A similar
trend of plant height recorded at 60 days after sowing was noticed at harvest also. Similar trend was
observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with significantly taller plants in ICCV-
11602 at 30 days after sowing (G2, 22.52 and 23.65 cm, respectively), 60 days after sowing (G2,
57.84 and 59.74 cm, respectively) and at harvest (G2, 67.15 and 69.07 cm, respectively).
Plant height differed significantly due to planting density at 60 days after sowing and at
harvest, but did not differ significantly at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days after sowing, planting
-1
chickpea at 40 per cent higher density than normal (4.66 lakh ha ) produced the tallest plants (D3,
-1
52.13 cm) than 20 per cent higher plant density i.e., 3.99 lakh ha (D2, 49.83 cm) and normal plant
density i.e., 3.33 lakh ha-1 (D1, 47.78 cm). Similarly, at harvest also, significantly tall plants were
produced in 40 per cent higher plant density (D3, 61.46 cm) followed by 20 per cent higher plant
density (D2, 59.33 cm) with least plant height observed in normal plant density (D1, 57.45 cm). Similar
trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with 40 per cent higher plant
density recorded significantly taller plants at 60 days after sowing (D3, 51.23 and 53.03 cm,
respectively) and at harvest (D3, 60.30 and 62.61 cm, respectively) compared to other plant density.
Interaction effect between genotypes and plant density was significant at all the stages of
crop growth except at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days after sowing, ICCV-11602 with 40 per cent
higher plant density produced significantly taller plants (G2D3, 60.55 cm), which was on par with ICCV-
11602 with 20 per cent higher plant density (G2D2, 58.70 cm) and ICCV-11601 with 40 per cent higher
plant density (G1D3, 58.38 cm), while least value was recorded in JG-11 with normal plant density
(G5D1, 28.34 cm). Similarly, at harvest, significantly taller plants were produced with ICCV-11602 with
40 per cent higher plant density (G2D3, 70.35 cm), which was at par with ICCV-11601 with 40 per cent
higher plant density (G1D3, 70.14 cm) and ICCV-11602 with 20 per cent higher plant density (G2D2,
67.78 cm), while lower values were recorded in JG-11 with normal plant density (G5D1, 31.40 cm). A
similar trend of interaction effect on plant height at different growth stages of chickpea was noticed
during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 also under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.1.2 Number of primary branches per plant (cf. Table 6)
-1
The pooled data indicated that effect of genotypes on number of primary branches plant was
significant at different growth stages. At 30 days after sowing, significantly more number of primary
branches per plant was produced in JG-11 (G5, 5.21), which was closely followed by ICCV-11603 and
ICCV-11604 (G3, 4.20 and G4, 4.13, respectively) and were statistically at par with each other.
However, the least number of primary branches per plant was observed in ICCV-11601 (G1, 3.70).
Table 5: Plant height of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
Plant height (cm)

Treatment 30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 22.33 23.44 22.88 54.56 56.93 55.74 65.50 69.01 67.26
G2 : ICCV-11602 22.52 23.65 23.09 57.84 59.74 58.79 67.15 69.07 68.11
G3 : ICCV-11603 20.53 21.99 21.26 50.29 51.74 51.01 59.89 63.38 61.63
G4 : ICCV-11604 19.20 20.85 20.02 52.40 54.78 53.59 65.70 67.67 66.69
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 20.88 22.28 21.58 29.67 31.21 30.44 32.41 34.36 33.38
S.Em± 0.37 0.39 0.27 0.89 0.37 0.48 0.72 0.46 0.43
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.22 1.26 0.81 2.90 1.22 1.45 2.35 1.50 1.28
Plant density (D)
-1
D 1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 20.80 22.11 21.45 46.83 48.74 47.78 56.06 58.84 57.45
-1
D 2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 21.15 22.48 21.82 48.79 50.87 49.83 58.03 60.64 59.33
-1
D 3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 21.33 22.73 22.03 51.23 53.03 52.13 60.30 62.61 61.46
S.Em± 0.28 0.29 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.28 0.40 0.49 0.32
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 1.17 1.19 0.81 1.17 1.45 0.90
Genotype x plant density (GxD)
G1D1 22.01 23.04 22.52 52.33 54.44 53.39 62.27 66.73 64.50
G1D2 22.27 23.45 22.86 54.20 56.72 55.46 65.41 68.86 67.14
G1D3 22.70 23.84 23.27 57.13 59.62 58.38 68.83 71.44 70.14
G2D1 22.27 23.31 22.79 56.30 57.97 57.14 65.58 66.80 66.19
G2D2 22.57 23.71 23.14 57.73 59.66 58.70 66.75 68.81 67.78
G2D3 22.73 23.95 23.34 59.50 61.60 60.55 69.12 71.58 70.35
G3D1 20.10 21.71 20.91 47.80 49.55 48.68 57.72 62.07 59.89
G3D2 20.67 22.04 21.35 50.10 51.68 50.89 59.68 63.21 61.45
G3D3 20.84 22.21 21.52 52.97 53.99 53.48 62.27 64.86 63.56
G4D1 19.07 20.66 19.86 50.33 52.43 51.38 64.18 66.34 65.26
G4D2 19.23 20.84 20.04 52.27 54.85 53.56 65.68 67.62 66.65
G4D3 19.30 21.04 20.17 54.59 57.05 55.82 67.23 69.05 68.14
G5D1 20.53 21.85 21.19 27.38 29.29 28.34 30.57 32.23 31.40
G5D2 21.02 22.37 21.69 29.67 31.43 30.55 32.60 34.70 33.65
G5D3 21.10 22.63 21.87 31.97 32.90 32.44 34.07 36.13 35.10
S.Em± 0.62 0.66 0.65 0.88 0.90 0.63 0.88 1.10 0.71
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 2.61 2.65 1.80 2.61 3.25 2.02
NS : Non significant; DAS : Days after sowing
At 60 days after sowing, the genotype JG-11 recorded significantly more number of primary
branches per plant (G5, 6.30), followed by ICCV-11603 and ICCV-11604 (G3, 5.82 and G4, 5.65,
respectively) and least number of primary branches per plant was noticed in ICCV-11601 (G 1, 4.76).
Similarly, at harvest also, significantly more number of primary branches per plant resulted in JG-11
(G3, 6.79) which was statistically on par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 6.56) and ICCV-11604 (G4, 6.52).
Similar trend was observed during both the years of experimentation.
Number of primary branches per plant varied significantly due to plant density at all the
growth stages except at 30 days after sowing. However, at 60 days after sowing, significantly more
number of primary branches per plant was produced at normal plant density (D1, 5.88) over 20 per
cent and 40 per cent higher than normal density (D2, 5.50 and D3, 5.19, respectively). Similarly, at
harvest also normal plant density (D1) registered significantly more number of primary branches per
plant (6.78) over 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher density (D2, 6.41 and D3, 6.07, respectively).
Interaction effect was non significant at all the growth stages. The trend was similar during the
individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.1.3 Number of secondary branches per plant (cf. Table 7)
Pooled data analysis revealed that, a significant difference in number of secondary branches
per plant was recorded at different growth stages due to genotypes. At 30 days after sowing, among
the genotypes, JG-11 produced significantly more number of secondary branches per plant (G5, 4.42)
than other genotypes, followed by ICCV-11602 (G2, 2.11). The ICCV-11602 was at par with ICCV-
11603 (G3, 2.02) and ICCV-11601 (G1, 1.94). However, significantly least values were recorded by
ICCV-11604 (G4, 1.53). At 60 days after sowing, significantly more number of secondary branches per
plant was produced with ICCV-11602 (G2, 9.70), which was at par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 9.29), but
significantly least number of secondary branches per plant was produced by JG-11 (G5, 8.73). At
harvest also, ICCV-11602 produced significantly higher number of secondary branches per plant (G2,
12.56), which was at par with all the tested genotypes except JG-11 (G5, 10.36). Similar trend was
noticed during both the years (2011-12 and 2012-13).
A significant variation in number of secondary branches per plant was found due to plant
density at 60 days after sowing and at harvest, but not at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days after
-1
sowing, planting crop at normal density (3.33 lakh ha ) produced significantly more number of
secondary branches per plant (D1, 10.28) over 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher than normal plant
density (D2, 9.10 and D3, 8.03, respectively). Similarly, at harvest, normal plant density produced
significantly more number of secondary branches per plant (D1, 13.32) compared to both the higher
plant density. Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13.
The interaction effect was significant only at 60 days after sowing and at harvest. At 60 days
after sowing, significantly more number of secondary branches per plant was recorded with G2D1
(11.08) followed by G5D1 (10.44), while least number of secondary branches per plant was observed
with G5D3 (7.25). At harvest also, G2D1 recorded significantly more number of secondary branches per
plant (13.93), which was statistically at par with G3D1, G4D1 and G5D1 (13.48, 13.11 and 13.04,
respectively). However, significantly least number of secondary branches per plant was observed with
G5D3 (8.13). Similar trend was observed during both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-
13) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.1.4 Canopy spread per plant (cf. Table 8)
2 -1
The data on canopy spread (cm plant ) differed significantly at different growth stages due to
genotypes. At 30 days after sowing, JG-11 showed significantly maximum canopy spread (G5, 384.24
cm2 plant-1) over other genotypes, followed by ICCV-11603 (G3, 309.13 cm2 plant-1) and ICCV-11602
2 -1
(G2, 308.74 cm plant ). The minimum canopy spread was registered with ICCV-11604 (G4, 262.66
2 -1
cm plant ). A similar trend of canopy spread was observed at 60 days after sowing and at harvest.
During both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) also, similar trend was observed for
canopy spread due to genotypes. The data on canopy spread varied significantly due to plant density
at 60 days after sowing and at harvest. Whereas, canopy spread did not differ significantly at 30 days
after sowing.
Table 6: Number of primary branches per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1
Number of primary branches plant
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 3.34 3.45 3.40 4.64 4.89 4.76 5.61 6.20 5.90
G2 : ICCV-11602 3.69 3.81 3.75 4.97 5.19 5.08 6.01 6.62 6.32
G3 : ICCV-11603 3.85 3.96 3.90 5.68 5.96 5.82 6.31 6.81 6.56
G4 : ICCV-11604 3.77 3.90 3.83 5.56 5.75 5.65 6.18 6.87 6.52
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 4.85 4.97 4.91 6.21 6.39 6.30 6.68 6.91 6.79
S.Em± 0.20 0.15 0.13 0.21 0.11 0.12 0.17 0.07 0.09
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.66 0.50 0.38 0.69 0.37 0.36 0.54 0.22 0.27
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 4.06 4.18 4.12 5.77 5.99 5.88 6.52 7.04 6.78
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 3.90 4.02 3.96 5.39 5.61 5.50 6.17 6.65 6.41
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 3.73 3.86 3.80 5.07 5.31 5.19 5.79 6.35 6.07
S.Em± 0.11 0.15 0.09 0.11 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.06
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.33 0.25 0.20 0.30 0.19 0.17
G1D1 3.50 3.61 3.56 4.91 5.20 5.05 5.89 6.47 6.18
G1D2 3.37 3.47 3.42 4.63 4.90 4.76 5.60 6.18 5.89
G1D3 3.14 3.28 3.21 4.37 4.56 4.47 5.34 5.94 5.64
G2D1 3.83 3.95 3.89 5.27 5.48 5.37 6.40 6.97 6.69
G2D2 3.70 3.83 3.76 5.00 5.20 5.10 6.03 6.64 6.34
G2D3 3.54 3.66 3.60 4.65 4.89 4.77 5.61 6.25 5.93
G3D1 4.06 4.17 4.12 6.03 6.30 6.17 6.55 7.07 6.81
G3D2 3.83 3.95 3.89 5.65 5.92 5.78 6.33 6.77 6.55
G3D3 3.64 3.77 3.71 5.37 5.65 5.51 6.05 6.59 6.32
G4D1 3.95 4.05 4.00 5.91 6.08 6.00 6.45 7.10 6.77
G4D2 3.77 3.88 3.82 5.57 5.71 5.64 6.19 6.87 6.53
G4D3 3.59 3.76 3.68 5.20 5.46 5.33 5.90 6.64 6.27
G5D1 4.97 5.11 5.04 6.74 6.91 6.83 7.30 7.60 7.45
G5D2 4.83 4.95 4.89 6.11 6.30 6.21 6.67 6.78 6.72
G5D3 4.74 4.85 4.80 5.77 5.97 5.87 6.05 6.36 6.21
S.Em± 0.25 0.34 0.21 0.25 0.19 0.16 0.23 0.15 0.14
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Table 7: Secondary branches per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1
Secondary branches plant
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 1.90 1.98 1.94 8.64 8.91 8.78 11.86 12.16 12.01
G2 : ICCV-11602 2.05 2.16 2.11 9.59 9.81 9.70 12.39 12.72 12.56
G3 : ICCV-11603 1.95 2.08 2.02 9.16 9.41 9.29 12.12 12.40 12.26
G4 : ICCV-11604 1.50 1.57 1.53 9.09 9.26 9.18 11.93 12.14 12.03
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 4.36 4.48 4.42 8.66 8.81 8.73 10.22 10.49 10.36
S.Em± 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.19 0.20 0.14 0.37 0.43 0.28
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.43 0.42 0.28 0.64 0.66 0.42 1.20 1.41 0.85
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 2.49 2.58 2.53 10.21 10.36 10.28 13.24 13.39 13.32
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 2.36 2.46 2.41 8.98 9.21 9.10 11.64 11.93 11.78
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 2.21 2.32 2.27 7.90 8.16 8.03 10.23 10.63 10.43
S.Em± 0.08 0.13 0.08 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.26 0.31 0.20
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.51 0.46 0.33 0.78 0.90 0.58
G1D1 1.98 2.07 2.03 9.47 9.66 9.56 12.90 13.15 13.02
G1D2 1.90 1.98 1.94 8.67 8.93 8.80 11.91 12.18 12.04
G1D3 1.81 1.89 1.85 7.80 8.15 7.97 10.78 11.17 10.97
G2D1 2.15 2.26 2.20 10.93 11.23 11.08 13.98 13.88 13.93
G2D2 2.07 2.17 2.12 9.53 9.79 9.66 12.33 12.82 12.57
G2D3 1.95 2.06 2.00 8.30 8.41 8.36 10.86 11.47 11.16
G3D1 2.06 2.17 2.11 9.97 10.17 10.07 13.38 13.58 13.48
G3D2 1.95 2.09 2.02 9.16 9.42 9.29 12.22 12.42 12.32
G3D3 1.84 1.98 1.91 8.37 8.64 8.50 10.76 11.21 10.98
G4D1 1.60 1.69 1.64 10.16 10.33 10.25 13.01 13.22 13.11
G4D2 1.51 1.57 1.54 9.14 9.30 9.22 11.97 12.19 12.08
G4D3 1.39 1.44 1.41 7.98 8.15 8.06 10.80 11.01 10.91
G5D1 4.65 4.73 4.69 10.50 10.39 10.44 12.92 13.15 13.04
G5D2 4.36 4.48 4.42 8.42 8.61 8.51 9.78 10.03 9.91
G5D3 4.06 4.24 4.15 7.06 7.43 7.25 7.96 8.29 8.13
S.Em± 0.17 0.30 0.17 0.39 0.35 0.26 0.59 0.68 0.45
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 1.15 1.02 0.75 1.74 2.02 1.29
Table 8: Canopy spread of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
2
Canopy spread (cm )
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 281.02 298.27 289.64 450.56 473.77 462.16 680.38 714.66 697.52
G2 : ICCV-11602 298.11 319.42 308.77 467.66 498.19 482.93 723.71 766.40 745.06
G3 : ICCV-11603 293.23 325.12 309.17 469.50 499.28 484.39 694.44 728.44 711.44
G4 : ICCV-11604 251.44 272.55 262.00 411.92 436.51 424.22 642.10 677.79 659.94
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 370.07 398.41 384.24 631.62 675.42 653.52 901.92 942.01 921.97
S.Em± 20.35 20.20 14.34 20.02 15.74 12.73 18.70 17.95 12.96
C.D. (P=0.05) 66.37 65.86 42.98 65.28 51.32 38.17 60.97 58.55 38.86
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 317.33 340.94 329.13 521.27 554.59 537.93 806.70 843.87 825.28
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 298.11 322.22 310.16 487.86 517.24 502.55 728.54 767.05 747.79
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 280.88 305.11 293.00 449.63 478.08 463.86 650.29 686.66 668.48
S.Em± 14.78 13.81 10.12 12.71 9.68 7.99 11.19 12.99 8.57
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 37.51 28.56 22.84 33.01 38.33 24.51
G1D1 294.74 308.74 301.74 481.65 507.48 494.56 746.89 779.06 762.98
G1D2 281.61 300.85 291.23 452.74 474.05 463.39 679.81 716.70 698.25
G1D3 266.70 285.22 275.96 417.29 439.79 428.54 614.43 648.23 631.33
G2D1 315.02 336.13 325.57 499.39 535.43 517.41 801.16 843.74 822.45
G2D2 297.21 319.38 308.29 469.03 496.44 482.73 722.35 766.58 744.47
G2D3 282.10 302.76 292.43 434.57 462.71 448.64 647.62 688.89 668.25
G3D1 302.87 341.87 322.37 496.22 528.51 512.37 758.76 794.70 776.73
G3D2 293.79 322.95 308.37 470.41 500.61 485.51 695.41 729.47 712.44
G3D3 283.02 310.53 296.78 441.88 468.74 455.31 629.15 661.16 645.15
G4D1 264.22 281.85 273.04 435.46 461.85 448.65 704.63 743.92 724.28
G4D2 247.41 272.45 259.93 411.87 436.05 423.96 642.77 676.36 659.57
G4D3 242.68 263.36 253.02 388.44 411.63 400.03 578.88 613.09 595.98
G5D1 409.80 436.09 422.94 693.62 739.68 716.65 1022.04 1057.93 1039.98
G5D2 370.51 395.48 383.00 635.27 679.05 657.16 902.33 946.17 924.25
G5D3 329.90 363.68 346.79 565.98 607.54 586.76 781.39 821.94 801.66
S.Em± 33.05 30.88 22.62 28.43 21.65 17.87 25.02 29.05 19.17
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 83.87 63.87 51.07 73.82 85.71 54.80
Table 9: Leaf area per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
2
Leaf area per plant (dm )
Treatment 30 DAS 60 DAS 75/90 DAS*
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 4.76 5.21 4.99 8.82 9.56 9.19 8.34 8.98 8.66
G2 : ICCV-11602 2.97 3.47 3.22 6.96 7.70 7.33 7.73 8.51 8.12
G3 : ICCV-11603 4.56 5.01 4.79 8.01 8.70 8.36 8.76 9.43 9.09
G4 : ICCV-11604 3.71 3.98 3.84 7.83 8.52 8.17 8.69 9.38 9.03
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 3.24 3.96 3.60 6.14 6.95 6.55 7.28 8.03 7.66
S.Em± 0.24 0.36 0.22 0.19 0.23 0.15 0.21 0.22 0.15
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.77 1.18 0.65 0.61 0.73 0.44 0.68 0.71 0.45
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 4.21 4.68 4.45 8.72 9.45 9.08 9.47 10.06 9.77
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 3.85 4.33 4.09 7.57 8.29 7.93 8.17 8.87 8.52
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 3.48 3.97 3.72 6.36 7.12 6.74 6.84 7.65 7.25
S.Em± 0.26 0.32 0.21 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.15 0.19 0.12
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.37 0.35 0.25 0.46 0.56 0.35
G1D1 5.13 5.46 5.30 10.01 10.72 10.36 9.68 10.29 9.98
G1D2 4.73 5.27 5.00 8.85 9.57 9.21 8.32 9.01 8.67
G1D3 4.42 4.91 4.67 7.60 8.39 7.99 7.04 7.63 7.33
G2D1 3.30 3.72 3.51 8.14 8.84 8.49 9.09 9.55 9.32
G2D2 2.95 3.45 3.20 6.95 7.69 7.32 7.69 8.57 8.13
G2D3 2.68 3.23 2.95 5.79 6.58 6.18 6.40 7.42 6.91
G3D1 4.93 5.34 5.14 9.23 9.89 9.56 9.88 10.48 10.18
G3D2 4.60 5.01 4.80 8.02 8.71 8.37 8.88 9.42 9.15
G3D3 4.15 4.68 4.42 6.77 7.51 7.14 7.52 8.38 7.95
G4D1 4.00 4.36 4.18 8.85 9.58 9.21 9.87 10.42 10.15
G4D2 3.75 4.00 3.88 7.89 8.49 8.19 8.61 9.30 8.96
G4D3 3.37 3.57 3.47 6.74 7.49 7.11 7.59 8.41 8.00
G5D1 3.71 4.50 4.10 7.35 8.22 7.79 8.87 9.58 9.22
G5D2 3.24 3.93 3.59 6.16 6.98 6.57 7.33 8.07 7.70
G5D3 2.77 3.45 3.11 4.91 5.65 5.28 5.65 6.44 6.04
S.Em± 0.59 0.72 0.47 0.28 0.27 0.19 0.35 0.43 0.27
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.83 0.78 0.55 1.02 1.26 0.78
NS : Non significant; DAS : Days after sowing; *75 DAS for JG-11 and 90 DAS for other varieties
At 60 days after sowing, significantly maximum canopy spread was noticed in normal plant
-1 2 -1
density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 537.93 cm plant ), which was significantly superior to higher plant
-1 -1 2 2 -1
density of 3.99 ha and 4.66 lakh ha (D2, 502.55 cm and D3, 463.86 cm plant , respectively).
-1
Similarly, at harvest, significantly maximum canopy spread was noticed in 3.33 lakh plants ha (D1,
2 -1
825.28 cm plant ) than other plant density. Similar trend was observed during both the years of
experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13).
The interaction between genotypes and plant density were significant with regard to canopy
spread at all the stages of crop growth except at 30 days after sowing. Among the different treatment
combinations, G5D1 recorded significantly maximum canopy spread (716.65 cm2 plant-1), which was
closely followed by G5D2 (657.16 cm2 plant-1) at 60 days after sowing, while significantly minimum
2 -1
canopy spread was noticed with G4D3 (400.03 cm plant ). Similarly, at harvest G5D1 observed
2 -1
significantly maximum canopy spread (1039.98 cm plant ) than rest of the combinations, followed by
2 -1 2 -1
G5D2 (924.25 cm plant ), while minimum canopy spread was noticed with G4D3 (595.98 cm plant ).
Similar trend was observed during both the years experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) also under
rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.1.5 Leaf area per plant (cf. Table 9)
Pooled data revealed that genotypes varied significantly for leaf area per plant at 30, 60 and
75/90 days after sowing. At 30 days after sowing, significantly highest leaf area was produced in
2 -1 2 -1
ICCV-11601 (G1, 4.99 dm plant ), and was on par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 4.79 dm plant ). However,
2 -1
significantly the lowest leaf area was produced in ICCV-11602 (G2, 3.22 dm plant ). Similarly, at 60
2 -1
days after sowing, ICCV-11601 recorded significantly highest leaf area (G1, 9.19 dm plant ) followed
2 2 -1
by ICCV-11603 and ICCV-11604 (G3, 8.36 dm and G4, 8.17 dm plant , respectively) and the lowest
2 -1
leaf area was observed in JG-11 (G5, 6.55 dm plant ). At 75/90 days after sowing, significantly
2 -1 2
higher leaf area was produced in ICCV-11603 (G3, 9.09 dm plant ) and ICCV-11604 (G4, 9.03 dm
-1
plant ), which were on par with each other and significantly superior to other genotypes. The lowest
value was observed in JG-11 (G5, 7.66 dm2 plant-1). Similar trend was followed during the individual
years of experimentation.
Plant density varied significantly for leaf area at all the growth stages (60 and 75/90 days after
sowing) except at 30 days after sowing. However, numerically highest leaf area was noticed in normal
plant density of 3.33 lakh ha-1 (D1, 4.45 dm2 plant-1) as compared to higher plant density at 30 days
after sowing. At 60 days after sowing, significantly highest leaf area was recorded in normal plant
2 -1 2
density (D1, 9.08 dm plant ) over 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher plant density (D2, 7.93 dm and
2 -1
D3, 6.74 dm plant , respectively). Similar trend was observed at 75/90 days after sowing. During the
individual years of experimentation also, a similar trend was noticed.
Interaction effects was significant at all the growth stages of chickpea except at 30 days after
sowing. At 60 days after sowing, significantly higher leaf area was recorded with ICCV-11601 with
2 -1 2 -1
normal plant density (G1D1, 10.36 dm plant ) followed by G3D1 (9.56 dm plant ), while significantly
2 -1
lower values were observed with G5D3 (5.28 dm plant ). On the contrary, at 75/90 days after sowing,
2 -1
significantly higher leaf area was observed with G3D1 (10.18 dm plant ), which was at par with G4D1
2 -1 2 -1
(10.15 dm plant ) and G1D1 (9.98 dm plant ). Significantly lower values were observed with G5D3
(6.04 dm2 plant-1). A similar trend of leaf area plant-1 at different growth stages of chickpea was
observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.1.6 Dry matter accumulation in leaves (cf. Table 10)
-1
The pooled data on dry matter accumulation in leaves (g plant ) at 30, 60 and 75/90 days
after sowing and at harvest differed significantly due to chickpea genotypes, plant density and their
interaction under rainfed ecosystem.
The effect of genotypes on dry matter accumulation in leaves was significant at all the growth
stages. The dry matter was increased up to 75/90 days after sowing, but decreased at harvest. At 30
days after sowing, the genotype ICCV-11601 recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in
-1 -1
leaves (G1, 1.59 g plant ), and was on par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 1.34 g plant ). However,
-
significantly lower dry matter accumulation in leaves was observed with ICCV-11602 (G 2, 0.95 g plant
1
). At 60 days after sowing also, ICCV -11601 produced significantly higher dry matter accumulation in
leaves (G1, 2.90 g plant-1), but significantly lower values were observed with JG-11 (G5, 2.11 g plant-
1
), and was on par with ICCV-11602 (G2, 2.19 g plant-1). At 75/90 days after sowing, the genotype
-1
ICCV-11603 recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in leaves (G 3, 3.31 g plant ) than
-1
other genotypes and was at par with ICCV-11604 (G4, 3.23 g plant ).
Table 10: Dry matter accumulation in leaves of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1
Dry matter accumulation in leaves (g plant )
Treatment 30 DAS 60 DAS 75/90 DAS* At harvest
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 1.52 1.65 1.59 2.77 3.04 2.90 2.64 2.85 2.74 1.83 2.10 1.97
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.88 1.01 0.95 2.06 2.31 2.19 2.24 2.56 2.40 1.72 1.97 1.84
G3 : ICCV-11603 1.25 1.44 1.34 2.73 2.97 2.85 3.13 3.48 3.31 2.19 2.45 2.32
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.90 1.12 1.01 2.30 2.66 2.48 3.02 3.45 3.23 2.30 2.54 2.42
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.97 1.11 1.04 1.96 2.26 2.11 2.04 2.40 2.22 1.42 1.73 1.57
S.Em± 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.10 0.07
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.39 0.37 0.25 0.36 0.36 0.23 0.35 0.27 0.20 0.30 0.34 0.21
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 1.24 1.42 1.33 3.09 3.34 3.21 3.36 3.63 3.50 2.48 2.75 2.61
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 1.09 1.27 1.18 2.39 2.67 2.53 2.59 2.98 2.79 1.88 2.16 2.02
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0.97 1.11 1.04 1.62 1.93 1.78 1.88 2.24 2.06 1.31 1.56 1.44
S.Em± 0.08 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.05
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.24 0.29 0.18 0.24 0.28 0.18 0.24 0.19 0.15
G1D 1 1.64 1.80 1.72 3.52 3.79 3.66 3.33 3.61 3.47 2.36 2.55 2.46
G1D 2 1.52 1.68 1.60 2.76 3.06 2.91 2.57 2.85 2.71 1.83 2.11 1.97
G1D 3 1.38 1.48 1.43 2.02 2.27 2.15 2.01 2.09 2.05 1.31 1.64 1.47
G2D 1 0.94 1.11 1.02 2.60 2.83 2.72 2.84 3.07 2.96 2.26 2.54 2.40
G2D 2 0.89 1.00 0.94 2.19 2.41 2.30 2.28 2.73 2.51 1.70 1.96 1.83
G2D 3 0.82 0.93 0.87 1.39 1.69 1.54 1.60 1.87 1.74 1.19 1.40 1.29
G3D 1 1.38 1.54 1.46 3.63 3.85 3.74 3.92 4.15 4.04 2.74 3.06 2.90
G3D 2 1.25 1.46 1.36 2.72 2.95 2.84 3.16 3.52 3.34 2.17 2.44 2.31
G3D 3 1.13 1.30 1.22 1.86 2.10 1.98 2.30 2.78 2.54 1.65 1.85 1.75
G4D 1 1.04 1.23 1.14 2.86 3.12 2.99 3.83 4.12 3.97 2.89 3.16 3.03
G4D 2 0.89 1.12 1.01 2.34 2.69 2.51 2.95 3.37 3.16 2.30 2.54 2.42
G4D 3 0.76 1.01 0.88 1.70 2.18 1.94 2.28 2.85 2.57 1.72 1.92 1.82
G5D 1 1.23 1.40 1.31 2.82 3.10 2.96 2.89 3.22 3.05 2.14 2.44 2.29
G5D 2 0.92 1.10 1.01 1.92 2.24 2.08 2.01 2.41 2.21 1.41 1.77 1.59
G5D 3 0.76 0.84 0.80 1.13 1.42 1.28 1.23 1.57 1.40 0.70 1.00 0.85
S.Em± 0.18 0.31 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.14 0.18 0.21 0.14 0.18 0.14 0.12
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.54 0.65 0.41 0.53 0.63 0.40 0.54 0.42 0.33
However, significantly lower dry matter accumulation in leaves was observed with JG-11 (G5,
-1
2.22 g plant ). At harvest, the genotype ICCV-11604 recorded significantly maximum dry matter
-1 -1
accumulation in leaves (G4, 2.42 g plant ), which was on par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 2.32 g plant ).
-1
While, minimum dry matter accumulation in leaves was observed in JG-11 (G5, 1.57 g plant ). During
the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 similar trend at all the growth stages was noticed.
The effect of plant density on dry matter accumulation in leaves was significant at all the
growth stages except at 30 days after sowing. Significantly higher dry matter accumulation in leaves
-1 -1
was recorded with normal density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 3.21 g plant ) at 60 days after sowing
compared to higher plant density of 3.99 lakhs and 4.66 lakh ha-1 (D2, 2.53 g and D3, 1.78 g plant-1,
respectively). Similar trend was followed at 75/90 days after sowing and at harvest also. During both
the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13), a similar trend of dry matter accumulation in
leaves was observed at all the growth stages.
The interaction between genotype and plant density was significant at all the growth stages
except at 30 days after sowing. The interaction G3D1 recorded significantly higher dry matter
-1 -1
accumulation in leaves (3.74 g plant ), which was statistically at par with G 1D1 (3.66 g plant ) and
-1
significantly least dry matter accumulation in leaves was found with G5D3 (1.28 g plant ) at 60 days
after sowing. At 75/90 days after sowing, significantly higher dry matter accumulation in leaves was
-1 -1
recorded with G3D1 (4.04 g plant ), which was at par with G4D1 (3.97 g plant ). The lower value was
-1
recorded with G5D3 (1.40 g plant ). At harvest, G4D1 recorded significantly higher dry matter
-1 -1
accumulation in leaves (3.03 g plant ), which was at par with G3D1 (2.90 g plant ) and lower value
-1
was recorded with G5D3 (0.85 g plant ). Similar trend was noticed during both the years of
4.1.1.7 Dry matter accumulation in stem (cf. Table 11)
-1
The pooled data on dry matter accumulation in stem (g plant ) at 30, 60 and 75/90 days after
sowing and at harvest differed significantly due to chickpea genotypes, plant density and their
Significant change in dry matter accumulation in stem was observed due to genotypes at all
the growth stages except at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days after sowing, significantly higher dry
-1
matter accumulation in stem was registered by genotype ICCV-11601 (G1, 6.81g plant ), and was on
-1 -1
par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 6.74 g plant ) and ICCV-11604 (G4, 6.70 g plant ). However, significantly
-1
lower values were observed with JG-11 (G5, 5.52 g plant ), and was on par with ICCV-11602 (G2,
-1
6.04 g plant ). Similarly, at 75/90 days after sowing, the genotype ICCV-11601 recorded significantly
higher dry matter accumulation in stem (G1, 9.50 g plant-1) than other genotypes, which was at par
with ICCV-11604 (G4, 9.36 g plant-1) and ICCV-11603 (G3, 9.20 g plant-1). However, significantly lower
-1
dry matter accumulation in stem was observed with JG-11 (G5, 5.85 g plant ). A similar trend was
observed at harvest and during both the years at all the growth stages.
Planting chickpea at various density also differed significantly at all the growth stages except
for 30 days after sowing. The normal planting density of 3.33 lakh ha-1 (D1) recorded significantly
-1
higher dry matter accumulation in stem at 60 days after sowing (7.58 g plant ), at 75/90 days after
-1 -1 -1
sowing (9.50 g plant ) and at harvest (10.10 g plant ) over higher plant density of 3.99 lakh ha and
-1
4.66 lakh ha . Similar trend was noticed during the individual years (2011-12 and 2012-13) under
rainfed ecosystem.
Significant influence of interaction between genotypes and plant density on dry matter
accumulation in stem was noticed at all the growth stages except at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days
after sowing, interaction G1D1 recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in stem (8.03 g
-1 -1 -1 -1
plant ), which was at par with G3D1 (7.93 g plant ), G4D1 (7.74 g plant ) and G5D1 (7.43 g plant ).
-1
However, significantly least dry matter accumulation in stem was observed with G5D3 (3.72 g plant ).
At 75/90 days after sowing, G1D1 recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in stem (10.54
g plant-1), which was at par with G3D1 (10.26 g plant-1) and G4D1 (10.20 g plant-1). Significantly least
value was noticed with G5D3 (4.24 g plant-1). Similarly, at harvest also, G1D1 recorded significantly
-1 -1
higher dry matter accumulation in stem (11.42 g plant ), which was at par with G4D1 (11.21 g plant )
-1 -1
and G3D1 (10.94 g plant ). Significantly least value was noticed with G5D3 (4.33 g plant ). A similar
trend of influence of genotypes, plant density and their interaction on dry matter accumulation in stem
was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystem.
Table 11: Dry matter accumulation in stem of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1
Dry matter accumulation in stem (g plant )
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 2.27 2.51 2.39 6.65 6.96 6.81 9.43 9.58 9.50 9.98 10.19 10.08
G2 : ICCV-11602 1.89 2.11 2.00 5.90 6.18 6.04 7.72 8.13 7.93 7.91 8.35 8.13
G3 : ICCV-11603 2.12 2.35 2.23 6.59 6.90 6.74 9.08 9.31 9.20 9.54 9.91 9.73
G4 : ICCV-11604 1.86 2.10 1.98 6.54 6.85 6.70 9.21 9.51 9.36 9.93 10.11 10.02
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 1.91 2.16 2.03 5.36 5.68 5.52 5.69 6.00 5.85 5.79 6.13 5.96
S.Em± 0.25 0.22 0.17 0.30 0.28 0.20 0.13 0.20 0.12 0.27 0.33 0.21
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS 0.92 0.61 0.43 0.66 0.36 0.89 1.07 0.64
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 2.15 2.38 2.27 7.53 7.82 7.68 9.34 9.66 9.50 9.97 10.23 10.10
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 2.01 2.24 2.13 6.20 6.49 6.34 8.34 8.52 8.43 8.67 8.96 8.82
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 1.86 2.11 1.99 4.89 5.23 5.06 6.99 7.34 7.16 7.26 7.63 7.44
S.Em± 0.15 0.15 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.20 0.15 0.13
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.41 0.41 0.28 0.38 0.31 0.24 0.59 0.44 0.36
G1D 1 2.42 2.64 2.53 7.89 8.16 8.03 10.42 10.66 10.54 11.33 11.52 11.42
G1D 2 2.28 2.54 2.41 6.66 6.97 6.82 9.60 9.69 9.64 10.00 10.31 10.15
G1D 3 2.12 2.36 2.24 5.39 5.75 5.57 8.25 8.41 8.33 8.60 8.75 8.68
G2D 1 2.00 2.19 2.09 7.11 7.39 7.25 8.92 9.28 9.10 9.17 9.59 9.38
G2D 2 1.89 2.11 2.00 5.91 6.18 6.04 7.74 8.09 7.92 7.93 8.27 8.10
G2D 3 1.77 2.02 1.89 4.68 4.96 4.82 6.50 7.01 6.76 6.63 7.20 6.91
G3D 1 2.29 2.50 2.40 7.79 8.08 7.93 10.12 10.40 10.26 10.80 11.08 10.94
G3D 2 2.12 2.31 2.21 6.59 6.90 6.75 9.20 9.31 9.25 9.64 9.99 9.81
G3D 3 1.95 2.24 2.09 5.38 5.70 5.54 7.92 8.22 8.07 8.20 8.66 8.43
G4D 1 1.93 2.20 2.07 7.58 7.90 7.74 9.97 10.42 10.20 11.13 11.28 11.21
G4D 2 1.86 2.10 1.98 6.56 6.86 6.71 9.40 9.53 9.46 9.92 10.09 10.00
G4D 3 1.77 1.99 1.88 5.48 5.80 5.64 8.26 8.59 8.43 8.75 8.97 8.86
G5D 1 2.13 2.37 2.25 7.28 7.58 7.43 7.28 7.55 7.42 7.40 7.68 7.54
G5D 2 1.89 2.16 2.03 5.27 5.55 5.41 5.76 6.00 5.88 5.86 6.16 6.01
G5D 3 1.70 1.94 1.82 3.52 3.91 3.72 4.02 4.46 4.24 4.11 4.55 4.33
S.Em± 0.33 0.33 0.23 0.31 0.31 0.22 0.29 0.23 0.19 0.45 0.34 0.28
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.91 0.91 0.62 0.85 0.69 0.53 1.32 0.99 0.80
Table 12: Dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
Dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts (g plant-1)

Treatment 60 DAS 75/90 DAS* At harvest
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 1.29 1.55 1.42 7.79 9.42 8.60 11.21 13.26 12.24
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.98 1.27 1.13 7.19 8.07 7.63 10.19 11.39 10.79
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.85 1.11 0.98 6.48 7.48 6.98 9.83 10.78 10.30
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.52 0.79 0.65 7.61 9.27 8.44 11.49 14.47 12.98
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 9.05 9.67 9.36 11.89 14.16 13.02 12.53 14.95 13.74
S.Em± 0.17 0.20 0.13 0.15 0.18 0.12 0.17 0.25 0.15
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.56 0.64 0.39 0.47 0.59 0.35 0.57 0.81 0.45
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 2.89 3.25 3.07 9.61 11.10 10.35 12.68 14.93 13.81
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 2.54 2.88 2.71 7.93 9.57 8.75 10.83 12.95 11.89
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 2.18 2.51 2.35 7.04 8.37 7.71 9.64 11.03 10.33
S.Em± 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.17 0.12 0.10
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.29 0.22 0.18 0.36 0.30 0.23 0.49 0.35 0.29
G1D1 1.50 1.78 1.64 9.52 11.64 10.58 12.98 16.07 14.53
G1D2 1.32 1.53 1.42 7.53 9.23 8.38 10.97 13.39 12.18
G1D3 1.05 1.34 1.20 6.31 7.39 6.85 9.66 10.33 10.00
G2D1 1.16 1.42 1.29 7.99 9.02 8.51 11.18 13.01 12.09
G2D2 0.97 1.24 1.11 6.95 7.72 7.34 10.04 11.21 10.63
G2D3 0.82 1.15 0.98 6.63 7.46 7.04 9.34 9.94 9.64
G3D1 1.02 1.33 1.17 7.39 8.42 7.91 10.96 11.82 11.39
G3D2 0.83 1.19 1.01 6.55 7.62 7.08 9.75 10.64 10.20
G3D3 0.69 0.80 0.75 5.51 6.41 5.96 8.79 9.86 9.32
G4D1 0.66 0.95 0.81 9.11 10.39 9.75 13.03 16.10 14.57
G4D2 0.49 0.74 0.61 7.05 8.98 8.02 10.95 14.33 12.64
G4D3 0.40 0.67 0.54 6.66 8.44 7.55 10.48 12.99 11.74
G5D1 10.11 10.76 10.44 14.02 16.02 15.02 15.26 17.65 16.46
G5D2 9.08 9.68 9.38 11.54 14.30 12.92 12.41 15.18 13.80
G5D3 7.95 8.57 8.26 10.10 12.16 11.13 9.91 12.03 10.97
S.Em± 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.27 0.23 0.18 0.37 0.26 0.23
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.65 0.50 0.40 0.80 0.68 0.51 1.10 0.78 0.65
DAS : Days after sowing; *75 DAS for JG-11 and 90 DAS for other varieties
4.1.1.8 Dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts (cf. Table 12)
The pooled data with respect to dry matter accumulation (DMA) in reproductive parts (g plant-
1
) of chickpea at 60 and 75/90 days after sowing and at harvest differed significantly as influenced due
to genotypes, plant density and their interaction effect under rainfed ecosystem.
At 60 days after sowing, among the genotypes, JG-11 produced significantly higher DMA in
reproductive parts (G5, 9.36 g plant-1) than other genotypes, followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 1.42 g
-1
plant ). However, significantly lower DMA in reproductive parts was observed with ICCV-11604 (G4,
-1
0.65 g plant ). At 75/90 days after sowing also, significantly higher DMA in reproductive parts were
-1 -1
observed with JG-11 (G5, 13.02 g plant ) followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 8.60 g plant ) and ICCV-
-1
11604 and (G4, 8.44 g plant ). Significantly lower DMA in reproductive parts was found with ICCV-
-1
11603 (D3, 6.98 g plant ). A similar trend of DMA in reproductive parts recorded at 60 days after
sowing was noticed at harvest stage also. Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of
2011-12 and 2012-13.
Plant density varied significantly in DMA in reproductive parts at 60 and 75/90 days after
sowing and at harvest of chickpea. At 60 days after sowing, planting chickpea at normal density of
-1 -1
3.33 lakh ha resulted in significantly higher DMA in reproductive parts (D1, 3.07 g plant ) than higher
-1 -1
plant density of 3.99 lakh and 4.66 lakh ha (D2, 2.71 g and D3, 2.35 g plant , respectively). Similarly,
at 75/90 days after sowing and at harvest also, significantly higher DMA in reproductive parts was
-1 -1
recorded with plant density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 10.35 g and 13.81 g plant , respectively) followed by
-1 -1
3.99 lakh ha (D2, 8.75 g and 11.89 g plant , respectively) with least DMA in reproductive parts in
-1 -1
plant density of 4.66 lakh ha (D3, 7.71 g and 10.33 g plant , respectively). Similar trend of plant
densiy effect on DMA in reproductive parts was noticed during both the years of experimentation
(2011-12 and 2012-13).
Interaction effect between genotypes and plant density differed significantly at all the growth
stages. The combination of G5D1 recorded significantly higher DMA in reproductive parts at 60 and
-1
75/90 days after sowing (10.44 and 15.02 g plant , respectively), which was closely followed by G5D2
-1
(9.38 and 12.92 g plant , respectively). Similarly, at harvest also, G5D1 recorded significantly higher
-1
DMA in reproductive parts (16.46 g plant ), and was closely followed by G4D1 and G1D1 (14.57 and
-1
14.53 g plant , respectively) and were at par with each other. A similar trend was noticed during both
the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under rainfed ecosystem. Significantly higher
DMA in reproductive parts at 60 days after sowing, 75/90 days after sowing and at harvest was also
-1
recorded with combination of G5D1 during 2011-12 (10.11, 14.02 and 15.26 g plant , respectively)
-1
and 2012-13 (10.76, 16.02 and 17.65 g plant , respectively) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.1.9 Total dry matter production per plant (TDMP) (cf. Table 13)
The pooled data on total dry matter production per plant (g) differed significantly at 30, 60 and
75/90 days after sowing and at harvest as influenced by chickpea genotypes, plant density and their
Genotypes significantly influenced the total dry matter production per plant at 30, 60 and
75/90 days after sowing and at harvest. At 30 days after sowing, significantly higher total dry matter
-1
was produced with ICCV-11601 (G1, 3.98 g plant ), and was on par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 3.58 g
plant-1), but significantly superior to other genotypes. However, significantly lower total dry matter was
produced with ICCV-11602 (G2, 2.94 g plant-1), which was on par with ICCV-11604 and JG-11 (G4,
-1
2.98 g and G5, 3.07 g plant , respectively). At 60 days after sowing, JG-11 produced significantly
-1 -1
higher total dry matter (G5, 16.98 g plant ), followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 11.13 g plant ) and ICCV -
-1
11 60 3 (G3, 10.57 g plant ) and the lower dry matter was produced with ICCV-11602 (G2, 9.35 g
-1
plant ).
At 75/90 days after sowing also, significantly higher total dry matter was produced by JG-11
-1 -1
(G5, 20.88 g plant ), which was statistically on par with ICCV-11601 (G1, 20.85 g plant ) and ICCV-
-1
11604 (G4, 20.79 g plant ). However, significantly lower total dry matter was produced with ICCV-
-1
11602 (G2, 17.96 g plant ). At harvest, ICCV-11604 produced significantly higher total dry matter (G 4,
-1 -1
25.03 g plant ), which was closely followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 24.19 g plant ). However,
-1
significantly lower total dry matter was produced with ICCV-11602 (G2, 20.66 g plant ). Similar trend
was noticed during the individual years at all the growth stages, but at 30 days after sowing effect of
genotypes was non significant.
-1
Table 13: Total dry matter production plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1
Total dry matter production (g plant )
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 3.79 4.17 3.98 10.71 11.56 11.13 19.85 21.86 20.85 22.92 25.46 24.19
G2 : ICCV-11602 2.77 3.12 2.94 8.95 9.75 9.35 17.15 18.76 17.96 19.71 21.60 20.66
G3 : ICCV-11603 3.37 3.78 3.58 10.17 10.97 10.57 18.51 20.12 19.31 21.36 22.94 22.15
G4 : ICCV-11604 2.75 3.22 2.98 9.36 10.30 9.83 19.67 21.91 20.79 23.32 26.73 25.03
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 2.87 3.27 3.07 16.36 17.60 16.98 19.37 22.38 20.88 19.73 22.82 21.28
S.Em± 0.28 0.29 0.20 0.35 0.33 0.24 0.12 0.27 0.15 0.44 0.42 0.30
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS 0.60 1.14 1.06 0.72 0.40 0.89 0.45 1.43 1.38 0.91
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 3.40 3.80 3.60 13.51 14.41 13.96 22.16 24.27 23.21 24.96 27.75 26.36
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 3.10 3.52 3.31 11.12 12.04 11.58 18.74 20.94 19.84 21.22 23.92 22.57
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 2.83 3.22 3.03 8.70 9.67 9.18 15.83 17.80 16.82 18.05 20.06 19.05
S.Em± 0.17 0.22 0.14 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.27 0.20 0.17
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS 0.39 0.57 0.55 0.38 0.53 0.32 0.30 0.78 0.60 0.48
G1D 1 4.06 4.44 4.25 12.92 13.74 13.33 23.27 25.91 24.59 26.58 30.04 28.31
G1D 2 3.80 4.22 4.01 10.74 11.57 11.15 19.71 21.77 20.74 22.70 25.72 24.21
G1D 3 3.51 3.85 3.68 8.46 9.37 8.92 16.57 17.89 17.23 19.48 20.61 20.04
G2D 1 2.94 3.30 3.12 10.87 11.63 11.25 19.76 21.38 20.57 22.50 25.04 23.77
G2D 2 2.78 3.11 2.94 9.07 9.83 9.45 16.98 18.55 17.76 19.58 21.34 20.46
G2D 3 2.59 2.94 2.77 6.89 7.80 7.35 14.72 16.35 15.54 17.06 18.43 17.74
G3D 1 3.67 4.04 3.86 12.43 13.25 12.84 20.94 22.60 21.77 24.29 25.77 25.03
G3D 2 3.37 3.77 3.57 10.14 11.05 10.60 18.74 20.31 19.53 21.36 22.87 22.12
G3D 3 3.07 3.54 3.31 7.93 8.61 8.27 15.85 17.44 16.65 18.44 20.17 19.30
G4D 1 2.97 3.43 3.20 11.10 11.97 11.54 22.91 24.93 23.92 26.66 30.15 28.40
G4D 2 2.75 3.22 2.99 9.39 10.28 9.84 19.23 21.58 20.41 22.76 26.56 24.66
G4D 3 2.53 3.00 2.76 7.58 8.66 8.12 16.87 19.23 18.05 20.55 23.48 22.01
G5D 1 3.36 3.77 3.57 20.21 21.44 20.82 23.93 26.52 25.23 24.79 27.76 26.28
G5D 2 2.81 3.26 3.03 16.27 17.47 16.87 19.05 22.52 20.78 19.68 23.11 21.39
G5D 3 2.46 2.78 2.62 12.61 13.90 13.26 15.14 18.09 16.62 14.72 17.58 16.15
S.Em± 0.38 0.48 0.31 0.43 0.41 0.30 0.40 0.25 0.24 0.59 0.45 0.37
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 1.27 1.22 0.85 1.19 0.72 0.68 1.75 1.34 1.07
Table 14: First pod height and stem girth of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
First pod height (cm) Stem girth (mm)

Treatment
2011-12 2011-12 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 41.99 42.84 42.41 3.60 3.89 3.74
G2 : ICCV-11602 43.16 43.89 43.53 2.92 3.11 3.01
G3 : ICCV-11603 37.31 38.66 37.98 3.07 3.30 3.19
G4 : ICCV-11604 39.53 41.84 40.68 3.37 3.61 3.49
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 20.36 21.38 20.87 2.76 2.87 2.82
S.Em± 0.42 0.36 0.28 0.08 0.06 0.05
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.38 1.18 0.83 0.27 0.19 0.15
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 35.14 36.32 35.73 3.25 3.44 3.34
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 36.45 37.71 37.08 3.15 3.35 3.25
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 37.82 39.13 38.48 3.03 3.27 3.15
S.Em± 0.28 0.31 0.21 0.08 0.08 0.06
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.83 0.90 0.59 NS NS NS
G1D1 40.77 41.53 41.15 3.68 3.96 3.82
G1D2 41.99 42.83 42.41 3.62 3.88 3.75
G1D3 43.22 44.15 43.68 3.50 3.82 3.66
G2D1 41.80 42.52 42.16 2.99 3.14 3.06
G2D2 43.12 43.88 43.50 2.92 3.11 3.01
G2D3 44.57 45.28 44.93 2.85 3.09 2.97
G3D1 36.03 37.27 36.65 3.16 3.37 3.27
G3D2 37.31 38.64 37.98 3.07 3.30 3.19
G3D3 38.57 40.06 39.31 2.98 3.23 3.11
G4D1 38.23 40.53 39.38 3.44 3.67 3.55
G4D2 39.49 41.83 40.66 3.38 3.60 3.49
G4D3 40.87 43.15 42.01 3.29 3.56 3.43
G5D1 18.87 19.77 19.32 2.97 3.07 3.02
G5D2 20.33 21.35 20.84 2.78 2.88 2.83
G5D3 21.88 23.03 22.46 2.55 2.68 2.61
S.Em± 0.63 0.68 0.46 0.19 0.18 0.13
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.86 2.02 1.33 NS NS NS
NS : Non significant
The plant density varied significantly for total dry matter production per plant at all the growth
stages. At 30 days after sowing, significantly higher total dry matter was recorded with normal plant
-1 -1 -1 -1
density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 3.60 g plant ), which was on par with 3.99 lakh ha (D2, 3.31 g plant ).
While significantly lower total dry matter accumulation was observed with higher plant density of 4.66
lakh ha-1 (D3, 3.03 g plant-1), but was statistically par with 3.66 lakh ha-1. Similarly, at 60 days after
sowing, with increase in plant density there was a decrease in total dry matter production plant-1.
-1 -1
Whereas, normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 13.96 g plant ) produced significantly higher total
-1 -1
dry matter than higher plant density of 3.99 lakh and 4.66 lakh ha (D2, 11.58 g and D3, 9.18 g plant ,
respectively). At 75/90 days after sowing and at harvest of crop, a similar trend of total dry matter
-1
production plant was observed. During the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13, similar trend
was observed at all the growth stages. But at 30 days after sowing effect of plant density was non
significant.
Interaction effect was significant at all the growth stages of chickpea except at 30 days after
sowing. At 60 days after sowing, significantly higher total dry matter production by JG-11 planted at
-1 -1
normal desnity (G5D1, 20.82 g plant ), followed by G5D2 and G1D1 (16.87 and 13.33 g plant ,
-1
respectively). The interaction G5D1 produced significantly higher total dry matter of 25.23 g plant at
75/90 days after sowing , which was statistically on par with G1D1 (24.59 g plant-1). However, at
harvest, G4D1 produced significantly higher total dry matter (28.40 g plant-1) compared to rest of the
-1
combinations, but it was statistically on par with G1D1 (28.31 g plant ) and significantly lower values
-1
were observed with G5D3 (16.15 g plant ). A similar trend of interaction effect was observed during
the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystem at all the growth stages.
4.1.1.10 First pod height (cf. Table 14)
The pooled data revealed that, there was significant influence of genotypes with respect to
first pod height at harvest of chickpea. Among the genotypes, ICCV-11602 recorded significantly
highest first pod height (G2, 43.53 cm) followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 42.41 cm) and ICCV-11604 (G4,
40.68 cm). The lowest first pod height was recorded with JG-11 (G5, 20.87 cm). Similar trend was
noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with ICCV-11602 (G2, 43.16 and 43.89
cm, respectively)
Plant density had significant influence on first pod height at harvest of chickpea. The height of
first pod was progressively and significantly increased with increase in plant density i.e., from 3.33
-1
lakh to 4.66 lakh ha (D1, 35.73 to D3, 38.48 cm). Similar trend was noticed during the individual years
-1
of 2011-12 and 2012-13 significantly highest first pod height with plant density of 4.66 lakh ha (D3,
37.82 and 39.13 cm, respectively).
The interaction effect between genotypes and plant density was significant on first pod height
at harvest of chickpea. Among the different interactions, ICCV-11602 with 40 per cent higher plant
density (G2D3) recorded significantly higher first pod height (44.93 cm), and was on par with G1D3
(43.68 cm). However, significantly lower first pod height was found with G5D1 (19.32 cm). During the
individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13, significantly higher first pod height was noticed with G2D3
(44.57 and 45.28 cm, respectively), which was at par with G1D3 (43.22 and 44.15 cm, respectively)
and G2D2 (43.12 and 43.88 cm, respectively), while lower first pod height was observed with G5D1
(18.87 and 19.77 cm, respectively) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.1.11 Stem girth (cf. Table 14)
Pooled data indicated that, stem girth (mm) at harvest of chickpea differed significantly due to
genotypes. The highest stem girth was obtained with ICCV-11601 (G1, 3.74 mm) followed by ICCV-
11604 (G4, 3.49 mm). The lowest stem girth was recorded with JG-11 (G5, 2.82 mm). Similar trend
was followed during the individual years of experimentation.
Stem girth did not differ significantly due to the effect of plant density and interaction effect.
The trend of plant densities and interaction effect was similar during the individual years of 2011-12
and 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.2 Phenophases
4.1.2.1 Days to emergence (cf. Table 15)
The pooled results showed that, days to emergence of chickpea did not differ significantly due
to genotypes, plant density and their interactions. A similar trend of was noticed during both the years
of experimentation under rainfed ecosyst
Table 15: Days to emergence, first flower initiation, 50% of flowering and days to first pod initiation of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
Days to emergence Days to first flower initiation Days to 50% flowering Days to first pod initiation
Treatment
Genotype (G)
G 1 : ICCV-11601 7.67 7.56 7.61 49.33 50.44 49.89 56.11 57.00 56.56 58.22 59.33 58.78
G 2 : ICCV-11602 7.44 7.56 7.50 49.22 51.11 50.17 57.89 58.78 58.33 59.78 61.00 60.39
G 3 : ICCV-11603 7.78 7.89 7.83 52.56 53.44 53.00 60.00 62.00 61.00 62.56 63.78 63.17
G 4 : ICCV-11604 7.89 8.00 7.94 54.78 56.89 55.83 62.33 64.67 63.50 65.67 67.67 66.67
G 5 : JG-11 (Check) 7.33 7.44 7.39 37.56 38.11 37.83 41.67 43.56 42.61 45.33 46.67 46.00
S.Em± 0.35 0.44 0.28 0.71 0.68 0.49 0.38 0.68 0.39 0.42 0.35 0.27
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 2.31 2.23 1.47 1.25 2.22 1.17 1.37 1.15 0.82
Plant density (D)
-1
D 1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 7.60 7.67 7.63 49.00 50.27 49.63 55.93 57.53 56.73 58.80 60.07 59.43
D 2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 7.67 7.67 7.67 48.60 49.87 49.23 55.53 57.20 56.37 58.33 59.67 59.00
-1
D 3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 7.60 7.73 7.67 48.47 49.87 49.17 55.33 56.87 56.10 57.80 59.33 58.57
S.Em± 0.22 0.20 0.15 0.40 0.36 0.27 0.26 0.28 0.19 0.41 0.30 0.26
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
G 1D1 7.33 7.33 7.33 49.00 50.67 49.83 56.67 57.33 57.00 58.67 59.67 59.17
G 1D2 7.67 7.67 7.67 49.33 50.33 49.83 56.00 57.00 56.50 58.33 59.33 58.83
G 1D3 8.00 7.67 7.83 49.67 50.33 50.00 55.67 56.67 56.17 57.67 59.00 58.33
G 2D1 7.33 7.67 7.50 49.67 51.33 50.50 58.33 59.00 58.67 60.33 61.33 60.83
G 2D2 7.33 7.33 7.33 49.00 51.00 50.00 58.00 58.67 58.33 59.67 61.00 60.33
G 2D3 7.67 7.67 7.67 49.00 51.00 50.00 57.33 58.67 58.00 59.33 60.67 60.00
G 3D1 8.00 8.00 8.00 53.33 53.67 53.50 60.33 62.33 61.33 63.00 64.00 63.50
G 3D2 7.67 8.00 7.83 52.33 53.33 52.83 60.00 62.00 61.00 62.67 63.67 63.17
G 3D3 7.67 7.67 7.67 52.00 53.33 52.67 59.67 61.67 60.67 62.00 63.67 62.83
G 4D1 8.00 8.00 8.00 55.00 57.00 56.00 62.33 65.00 63.67 66.00 68.00 67.00
G 4D2 8.00 7.67 7.83 54.67 56.67 55.67 62.00 64.67 63.33 65.67 67.67 66.67
G 4D3 7.67 8.33 8.00 54.67 57.00 55.83 62.67 64.33 63.50 65.33 67.33 66.33
G 5D1 7.33 7.33 7.33 38.00 38.67 38.33 42.00 44.00 43.00 46.00 47.33 46.67
G 5D2 7.67 7.67 7.67 37.67 38.00 37.83 41.67 43.67 42.67 45.33 46.67 46.00
G 5D3 7.00 7.33 7.17 37.00 37.67 37.33 41.33 43.00 42.17 44.67 46.00 45.33
S.Em± 0.54 0.57 0.33 1.02 0.95 0.60 0.62 0.85 0.43 0.86 0.66 0.57
Table 16: Days to maturity, vegetative and reproductive growth period of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed
ecosystem
Days to maturity Vegetative growth period Reproductive growth period

Treatment
Genotype (G)
G 1 : ICCV-11601 99.00 100.56 99.78 41.67 42.89 42.28 49.89 50.33 50.11
G 2 : ICCV-11602 101.22 102.56 101.89 41.78 43.56 42.67 52.00 51.44 51.72
G 3 : ICCV-11603 103.56 104.33 103.94 44.78 45.56 45.17 51.22 51.11 51.17
G 4 : ICCV-11604 107.33 108.56 107.94 46.89 48.89 47.89 52.78 51.67 52.22
G 5 : JG-11 (Check) 89.22 90.00 89.61 30.22 30.67 30.44 51.89 52.00 51.94
S.Em± 0.37 0.54 0.33 0.76 0.66 0.50 0.67 1.17 0.67
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.20 1.77 0.98 2.49 2.15 1.51 NS NS NS
Plant density (D)
-1
D 1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 101.07 102.07 101.57 41.40 42.60 42.00 52.07 51.80 51.93
-1
D 2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 100.13 101.27 100.70 40.93 42.20 41.57 51.67 51.47 51.57
D 3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 99.00 100.27 99.63 40.87 42.13 41.50 50.93 50.67 50.80
S.Em± 0.28 0.32 0.21 0.51 0.42 0.33 0.57 0.50 0.38
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.83 0.93 0.61 NS NS NS NS NS NS
G 1D1 100.00 101.33 100.67 41.67 43.33 42.50 51.00 50.67 50.83
G 1D2 99.00 100.67 99.83 41.67 42.67 42.17 50.00 50.67 50.33
G 1D3 98.00 99.67 98.83 41.67 42.67 42.17 48.67 49.67 49.17
G 2D1 102.00 103.33 102.67 42.33 43.67 43.00 52.33 52.00 52.17
G 2D2 101.33 102.67 102.00 41.67 43.67 42.67 52.33 51.67 52.00
G 2D3 100.33 101.67 101.00 41.33 43.33 42.33 51.33 50.67 51.00
G 3D1 104.67 105.33 105.00 45.33 45.67 45.50 51.33 51.67 51.50
G 3D2 103.67 104.33 104.00 44.67 45.33 45.00 51.33 51.00 51.17
G 3D3 102.33 103.33 102.83 44.33 45.67 45.00 51.00 50.67 50.83
G 4D1 108.33 109.33 108.83 47.00 49.00 48.00 53.33 52.33 52.83
G 4D2 107.33 108.67 108.00 46.67 49.00 47.83 53.00 52.00 52.50
G 4D3 106.33 107.67 107.00 47.00 48.67 47.83 52.00 50.67 51.33
G 5D1 90.33 91.00 90.67 30.67 31.33 31.00 52.33 52.33 52.33
G 5D2 89.33 90.00 89.67 30.00 30.33 30.17 51.67 52.00 51.83
G 5D3 88.00 89.00 88.50 30.00 30.33 30.17 51.67 51.67 51.67
S.Em± 0.63 0.79 0.47 1.20 1.02 0.74 1.24 1.48 0.85
Table 17: Leaf area index of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
Leaf area index (LAI)

Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 1.00 1.10 1.05 1.47 1.60 1.54 1.39 1.50 1.44
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.62 0.73 0.68 1.16 1.29 1.22 1.28 1.42 1.35
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.96 1.06 1.01 1.33 1.45 1.39 1.46 1.58 1.52
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.78 0.83 0.81 1.31 1.43 1.37 1.45 1.57 1.51
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.68 0.83 0.75 1.07 1.20 1.13 1.20 1.34 1.27
S.Em± 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.03
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.14 0.25 0.13 0.10 0.13 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.08
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 0.70 0.78 0.74 1.16 1.26 1.21 1.26 1.35 1.30
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 0.86 0.96 0.91 1.36 1.48 1.42 1.45 1.58 1.51
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 0.87 0.99 0.93 1.29 1.44 1.36 1.36 1.52 1.44
S.Em± 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.06
G1D1 0.85 0.91 0.88 1.33 1.43 1.38 1.29 1.37 1.33
G1D2 1.05 1.17 1.11 1.57 1.70 1.64 1.48 1.60 1.54
G1D3 1.10 1.22 1.16 1.51 1.67 1.59 1.40 1.52 1.46
G2D1 0.55 0.62 0.59 1.09 1.18 1.13 1.21 1.27 1.24
G2D2 0.65 0.77 0.71 1.24 1.37 1.30 1.37 1.52 1.45
G2D3 0.67 0.80 0.73 1.15 1.31 1.23 1.27 1.48 1.37
G3D1 0.82 0.89 0.86 1.23 1.32 1.27 1.32 1.40 1.36
G3D2 1.02 1.11 1.07 1.43 1.55 1.49 1.58 1.67 1.63
G3D3 1.03 1.16 1.10 1.35 1.49 1.42 1.50 1.67 1.58
G4D1 0.67 0.73 0.70 1.18 1.28 1.23 1.32 1.39 1.35
G4D2 0.83 0.89 0.86 1.40 1.51 1.46 1.53 1.65 1.59
G4D3 0.84 0.89 0.86 1.34 1.49 1.42 1.51 1.67 1.59
G5D1 0.62 0.75 0.68 0.98 1.10 1.04 1.18 1.30 1.24
G5D2 0.72 0.87 0.80 1.14 1.29 1.21 1.30 1.44 1.37
G5D3 0.69 0.86 0.77 1.08 1.22 1.15 1.12 1.28 1.20
S.Em± 0.11 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.05
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.13 0.14 0.09 0.19 0.22 0.14
NS : Non significant; DAS : Days after sowing; *75 DAS for JG-11 and 90 DAS for other genotypes
4.1.2.2 Days to first flower initiation (cf. Table 15)
The pooled data revealed that, significant variation in days to first flower initiation in chickpea
was observed due to genotypes. The genotype ICCV-11604 took more days (G4, 55.83) to initiate first
flower than other genotypes and the next late genotype was ICCV-11603 (G3, 53.00). However, JG-
11 (G5) took only 37.83 days to initiate first flower.
Influence of plant density on days to first flower initiation was non significant.
None of interaction between genotypes and plant density showed significant difference with
respect to days to first flower initiation.
A similar trend was observed during the individual years also under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.2.3 Days to 50 per cent flowering (cf. Table 15)
The pooled results indicated that, genotypes differed significantly for days to 50 per cent
flowering in chickpea. The genotype ICCV-11604 took more days to 50 per cent flowering (G 4, 63.50)
followed by ICCV-11603 (G3, 61.00) and ICCV-11602 (G2, 58.33). However, JG-11 flowered earliest
(G5, 42.61) compared to rest of the genotypes.
Days to 50 per cent flowering in chickpea did not differed significantly due to plant density.
-1
However, numerically normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1) took more number of days to 50 per
cent of flowering (56.73) than higher density of 3.99 lakh ha-1 (D2, 56.37) and 4.66 lakh ha-1 (D3,
56.10).
The interaction effect was not significant. A similar trend of genotypes, plant density and
interactions effect on days to 50 per cent flowering in chickpea was observed during both the years of
experimentation under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.2.4 Days to first pod initiation (cf. Table 15)
Pooled results revealed that, days to first pod initiation in chickpea was influenced
significantly due to different genotypes. The genotype ICCV-11604 took more days to initiate first pod
(G4, 66.67) than rest of the genotypes and was followed by ICCV-11603 (G3, 63.17). However, JG-11
initiated first pod earliest (G5, 46.00) compred to other genotypes.
The effect of plant density and interaction did not differ significantly. A similar trend of
genotypes, plant density and interactions effect on days to first pod initiation in chickpea was
observed during the individual years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under rainfed
ecosystem.
4.1.2.5 Days to maturity (cf. Table 16)
The pooled results showed that, days to maturity of chickpea differed significantly due to
genotypes. The genotype ICCV-11604 took more days to mature (G4, 107.94) than other genotypes,
which was followed by ICCV-11603 (G3, 103.94). However, JG-11 matured earliest (G5, 89.61)
compared to other genotypes. Days to maturity in chickpea varied significantly due to plant density. It
was observed that there was a decrease in the duration of maturity with increase in plant density.
-1
Normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha took more number of days to maturity of the crop (D1, 101.57)
-1 -1
than higher density of 3.99 lakh ha (D2, 100.70) and 4.66 lakh ha (D3, 99.63).
The interaction effect of genotypes and plant density did not show any significant influence on
days to maturity of chickpea.
A similar trend of genotypes, plant density and interactions effect on days to maturity of
chickpea was observed during both the years of experimentation under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.2.6 Vegetative growth period (cf. Table 16)
The pooled data indicated that, vegetative growth period of chickpea differed significantly
among the genotypes. The genotype ICCV-11604 had more vegetative growth period (G4, 47.89
days) than other tested genotypes, followed by ICCV-11603 (G3, 45.17 days). While shortest
vegetative growth period was noticed with JG-11 (G5, 30.44 days). Similar trend was followed during
both the years of 2011-12 and 2012-13. Vegetative growth period did not differ significantly due to
plant density. However, increase in plant density relatively shortened the vegetative growth period.
Similar trend was noticed during the individual years also. Interaction effect was not significant for
pooled or individual years data under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.2.7 Reproductive growth period (cf. Table 16)
Pooled data revealed that, reproductive growth period of chickpea was not influenced
significantly among the genotypes. However, ICCV-11604 had numerically more vegetative growth
period (G4, 52.22 days) than other genotypes. A similar trend was noticed during the individual years
of 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Plant density and interaction effect was non significant. Interaction effect was also non
significant for individual years (2011-12 and 2012-13) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.3.1 Leaf area index (LAI) (cf. Table 17)
Pooled data showed that, influence of genotypes on leaf area index (LAI) recorded at various
growth stages was significant. The LAI was increased up to 60 days after sowing, but decreased at
75/90 days after sowing only in ICCV-11601. At 30 days after sowing, ICCV-11601 recorded
significantly higher LAI (G1, 1.05), which was at par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 1.01), while lower LAI value
was observed in ICCV-11602 (G2, 0.68). Similarly, at 60 days after sowing, the same genotype ICCV -
11601 produced significantly higher LAI (G1, 1.54) followed by ICCV-11603 (G3, 1.39) and ICCV-
11604 (G4, 1.37), but significantly lower values were observed with JG-11 (G5, 1.13). However, at
75/90 days after sowing, ICCV-11603 recorded significantly higher LAI (G3, 1.52), which was at par
with ICCV-11604 (G4, 1.51) and ICCV-11601 (G1, 1.44). Significantly lower value was observed with
JG-11 (G5, 1.27). Similar trend was followed during the individual years of experimentation.
A significant influence of plant density on leaf area index (LAI) was noticed at all the growth
stages. At 30 days after sowing, significantly higher LAI (0.93) was recorded with 40 per cent higher
plant density (D3, 4.66 lakh ha-1) and 20 per cent higher (D2, 3.99 lakh lakh ha-1) than normal plant
-1
density (D1, 3.33 lakh ha ). However, at 60 and 75/90 days after sowing, higher LAI was recorded
with 20 per cent higher plant density (D2, 1.42 and 1.51, respectively) and 40 per cent higher plant
density. Similar trend was noticed during both the individual years at all the growth stages except at
30 days after sowing, where the effect of plant density was non significant.
The interaction between genotype and plant density was significant at all the growth stages
except at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days after sowing, ICCV-11601 with 20 per cent higher plant
-1
density i.e., 3.99 lakh ha (G1D2) recorded significantly higher LAI (1.64), which was statistically at par
with G1D3 (1.59) and lowest LAI was found with G3D2 (1.04). At 75/90 days after sowing, significantly
higher LAI was recorded with G3D2 (1.63), which was at par with G4D2 (1.59), G4D3 (1.59), G3D3 (1.58)
and G1D2 (1.54). However, minimum value was recorded with G5D3 (1.20). Similar trend was noticed
during both the years of experimentation.
4.1.3.2 Leaf area duration (LAD) (cf. Table 18)
Pooled data revealed that, significant difference in leaf area duration (LAD) among the
various growth stages was noticed among the genotypes. At 30-60 days after sowing, ICCV-11601
had significantly more LAD (G1, 38.82 days) followed by ICCV-11603 (G3, 36.03 days). However,
significantly least LAD was recorded with JG-11 (G5, 28.28 days). During 60-75/90 days after sowing
also, ICCV-11601 observed significantly higher LAD (G1, 44.70 days), which was at par with ICCV-
11603 and ICCV-11604 and lower value was noticed with JG-11 (G5, 27.56 days). Similar trend was
noticed during both the years.
Significant variation in leaf area duration (LAD) among the various growth stages was
observed due to plant density. The increase in plant density upto 20 per cent of normal density (D2,
-1
3.99 lakh ha ) resulted in increased LAD and further increase of 40 per cent higher plant density (D3,
4.66 lakh ha-1) decreased the LAD. The higher LAD was observed with plant density of 3.99 lakh ha-1
at both the periods. Similar trend was noticed during the individual years also. Interaction between
genotypes and plant density were non significant during 30-60 and 60-75/90 days after sowing.
Similar trend was observed at all the growth stages during both the years of experimentation (2011-12
and 2012-13) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.3.3 Absolute growth rate (AGR) (cf. Table 19)
-1
The pooled data indicated that, absolute growth rate (AGR, g day ) during both the duration
-
differed significantly among the genotypes. JG-11 recorded significantly higher AGR (G5, 0.464 g day
1
), but all other genotypes were statistically on par with each other during 30-60 days after sowing.
Table 18: Leaf area duration of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
Leaf area duration (LAD, days)

Treatment 30-60 DAS 60-75/90 DAS*
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 37.13 40.51 38.82 42.94 46.46 44.70
G2 : ICCV-11602 26.71 30.24 28.48 36.63 40.63 38.63
G3 : ICCV-11603 34.41 37.65 36.03 41.98 45.50 43.74
G4 : ICCV-11604 31.32 33.89 32.60 41.40 44.96 43.18
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 26.13 30.43 28.28 17.02 38.11 27.56
S.Em± 0.89 1.07 0.69 0.75 0.86 0.57
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.89 3.48 2.08 2.44 2.80 1.71
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 27.97 30.59 29.28 33.14 39.10 36.12
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 33.18 36.68 34.93 38.44 45.90 42.17
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 32.28 36.37 34.32 36.40 44.41 40.40
S.Em± 0.82 1.13 0.70 0.55 0.68 0.44
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.41 3.32 1.99 1.62 2.01 1.25
G1D1 32.84 35.09 33.97 39.37 42.03 40.70
G1D2 39.36 43.08 41.22 45.77 49.56 47.67
G1D3 39.20 43.37 41.28 43.69 47.80 45.75
G2D1 24.53 26.99 25.76 34.45 36.77 35.61
G2D2 28.35 32.03 30.19 39.04 43.36 41.20
G2D3 27.26 31.70 29.48 36.38 41.77 39.07
G3D1 30.78 33.15 31.96 38.22 40.74 39.48
G3D2 36.73 39.92 38.33 45.07 48.34 46.70
G3D3 35.71 39.88 37.79 42.65 47.43 45.04
G4D1 27.71 30.04 28.88 37.44 40.00 38.72
G4D2 33.53 35.97 34.75 44.00 47.43 45.71
G4D3 32.72 35.66 34.19 42.77 47.45 45.11
G5D1 23.98 27.69 25.83 16.22 35.95 26.08
G5D2 27.92 32.38 30.15 18.33 40.80 29.57
G5D3 26.50 31.23 28.86 16.50 37.58 27.04
S.Em± 1.74 2.32 1.56 1.25 1.51 0.98
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS NS
Table 19: Absolute growth rate of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1
Absolute growth rate (AGR, g day )
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.231 0.246 0.238 0.305 0.343 0.324
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.206 0.221 0.214 0.274 0.300 0.287
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.227 0.240 0.233 0.284 0.310 0.297
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.220 0.236 0.228 0.349 0.397 0.373
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.450 0.478 0.464 0.217 0.331 0.274
S.Em± 0.013 0.014 0.010 0.013 0.015 0.010
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.042 0.046 0.029 0.043 0.048 0.030
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 0.337 0.354 0.345 0.320 0.369 0.344
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 0.267 0.284 0.276 0.278 0.336 0.307
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0.195 0.215 0.205 0.259 0.304 0.282
S.Em± 0.009 0.006 0.005 0.010 0.009 0.007
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.026 0.018 0.015 0.029 0.026 0.019
G1D1 0.295 0.310 0.303 0.345 0.406 0.375
G1D2 0.231 0.245 0.238 0.299 0.340 0.319
G1D3 0.165 0.184 0.175 0.270 0.284 0.277
G2D1 0.265 0.278 0.271 0.296 0.325 0.310
G2D2 0.210 0.224 0.217 0.263 0.291 0.277
G2D3 0.143 0.162 0.153 0.261 0.285 0.273
G3D1 0.292 0.307 0.300 0.300 0.324 0.312
G3D2 0.226 0.243 0.234 0.292 0.313 0.303
G3D3 0.162 0.169 0.165 0.260 0.293 0.277
G4D1 0.271 0.285 0.278 0.393 0.432 0.413
G4D2 0.221 0.235 0.228 0.334 0.387 0.360
G4D3 0.168 0.189 0.179 0.321 0.374 0.347
G5D1 0.562 0.589 0.575 0.265 0.357 0.311
G5D2 0.449 0.474 0.461 0.203 0.350 0.276
G5D3 0.338 0.371 0.355 0.182 0.286 0.234
S.Em± 0.021 0.018 0.012 0.022 0.022 0.015
C.D. (P=0.05) NS 0.057 0.035 NS NS NS
However, during 60-75/90 days after sowing, ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher AGR
-1 -1
(G4, 0.373 g day ) followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 0.324 g day ) with lower value in JG-11 (G5, 0.274 g
-1
day ). During the individual years, a similar trend of AGR was noticed.
Variation in absolute growth rate during both the durations was influenced significantly due to
plant density. During both the periods, the AGR decreased with increase in plant density from normal
-1
density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1) to 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher than normal density (D2 and D3).
-1
Higher AGR of 0.345 and 0.344 g day was recorded during 30-60 and 60-75/90 days after sowing,
respectively. Similar trend was observed during the individual years of experimentation.
Interaction effect was significant with regard to absolute growth rate only during 30-60 days
after sowing. The significantly higher AGR was recorded in JG-11 with normal plant density of 3.33
-1 -1
lakh (G5D1, 0.575 g day ), and was followed by G5D2 (0.461 g day ). Among the tall genotype
interactions, planting ICCV-11601 and ICCV-11603 at normal plant density recorded significantly
higher AGR than other combinations. The lower value was recorded with G3D3 (1.65 g day-1). A
similar trend was noticed during 2012-13, while during 2011-12, interaction effect was non significant
under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.3.4 Relative growth rate (RGR) (cf. Table 20)
Pooled data revealed that, genotypes showed significant variation in relative growth rate
-1 -1
(RGR, g g day ) of chickpea during both the duration. Significantly higher RGR was recorded in JG-
-1 -1 -1
11 (G5, 0.057 g g day ) followed by ICCV-11602 and ICCV-11604 (G2, 0.039 and G4, 0.039, g g
-1
day ) during 30-60 days after sowing. However, during 60-75/90 days after sowing, ICCV-11604
recorded significantly higher RGR (G4, 0.026 g g-1 day-1) followed by ICCV-11602 (G2, 0.022 g g-1 day-
1
) and lower RGR was noticed in JG-11 (G5, 0.007 g g-1 day-1). Similar trend was observed during the
individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Relative growth rate of chickpea recorded during both the durations varied significantly due to
plant density. The RGR decreased progressively and significantly with increase in plant density during
30-60 days after sowing but it increased during later stage. Significantly higher RGR was recorded
-1 -1 -1
with normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 0.045 g g day ) which was statistically at par with 20
-1 -1
per cent higher than normal plant density (D2, 0.042 g g day ), but showed superiority over 40 per
-1 -1
cent higher density (D3, 0.037 g g day ). Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of
experimentation.
The interaction effect for pooled and individual years was non significant during both the
periods under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.3.5 Cumulative growth rate (CGR) (cf. Table 21)
-2 -1
The pooled results showed that, cumulative growth rate (CGR, g dm day ) was influenced
-2 -1
significantly by the genotypes. It was significantly higher in genotype JG-11 (G5, 0.191 g dm day )
compared to rest of the genotypes, However, rest of the genotypes were at par with each other during
30-60 days after sowing. Whereas, at 60-75/90 days after sowing significantly higher CGR was
observed in ICCV-11604 (G4, 0.157 g dm-2 day-1) followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 0.135 g dm-2 day-1).
-2 -1
While, lower CGR was observed in JG-11 (G5, 0.114 g dm day ) which was on par with other tested
genotypes. Similar trend was observed during the individual years of experimentation.
Cumulative growth rate differed significantly due to plant density. Significantly higher CGR
was observed at 20 per cent higher plant density of 3.99 lakh ha-1 (D2, 0.123 g dm-2 day-1) than normal
-2 -1
plant density of 3.33 lakh (D1, 0.115 g dm day ) and 40 per cent higher than normal plant density of
-1 -2 -1
4.66 lakh ha (D3, 0.102 g dm day ) during 30-60 days after sowing.
However, during 60-75/90 days after sowing, it was significantly higher at 40 per cent plant
density (D3, 1.40 g dm-2 day-1), which was at par with 20 per cent higher density and showed
-1
significant superiority over normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha . Similar trend of CGR was observed
during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13. Interaction effect was non significant. A similar
trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystem.
Table 20: Relative growth rate of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1 -1
Relative growth rate (RGR, g g day )
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.021 0.021 0.021
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.039 0.038 0.039 0.022 0.022 0.022
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.037 0.035 0.036 0.021 0.021 0.021
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.040 0.039 0.039 0.025 0.026 0.026
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.058 0.056 0.057 0.006 0.008 0.007
S.Em± 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.009 0.010 0.006 0.004 0.004 0.003
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 0.046 0.045 0.045 0.018 0.018 0.018
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 0.043 0.041 0.042 0.018 0.019 0.019
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0.037 0.036 0.037 0.021 0.021 0.021
S.Em± 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.000
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001
G1D1 0.039 0.040 0.039 0.020 0.021 0.020
G1D2 0.035 0.033 0.034 0.020 0.021 0.021
G1D3 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.022 0.022 0.022
G2D1 0.044 0.043 0.044 0.020 0.020 0.020
G2D2 0.041 0.039 0.040 0.021 0.021 0.021
G2D3 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.026 0.025 0.025
G3D1 0.042 0.040 0.041 0.018 0.018 0.018
G3D2 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.021 0.021 0.021
G3D3 0.032 0.030 0.031 0.023 0.024 0.023
G4D1 0.044 0.042 0.043 0.024 0.025 0.024
G4D2 0.041 0.039 0.040 0.024 0.025 0.025
G4D3 0.036 0.035 0.036 0.028 0.028 0.028
G5D1 0.061 0.058 0.059 0.006 0.007 0.007
G5D2 0.059 0.056 0.057 0.006 0.009 0.007
G5D3 0.054 0.054 0.054 0.007 0.009 0.008
S.Em± 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.001
Table 21: Cumulative growth rate of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-2 -1
Cumulative growth rate (CGR, g dm day )
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.094 0.101 0.098 0.127 0.143 0.135
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.084 0.091 0.088 0.115 0.126 0.121
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.093 0.098 0.095 0.120 0.131 0.125
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.091 0.098 0.094 0.146 0.167 0.157
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.185 0.197 0.191 0.090 0.139 0.114
S.Em± 0.005 0.006 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.004
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.017 0.019 0.012 0.017 0.020 0.012
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 0.112 0.118 0.115 0.107 0.123 0.115
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 0.119 0.126 0.123 0.124 0.149 0.137
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0.097 0.107 0.102 0.129 0.151 0.140
S.Em± 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.003
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.011 0.008 0.006 0.012 0.011 0.008
G1D1 0.098 0.103 0.101 0.115 0.135 0.125
G1D2 0.103 0.109 0.106 0.133 0.151 0.142
G1D3 0.082 0.092 0.087 0.134 0.141 0.138
G2D1 0.088 0.093 0.090 0.099 0.108 0.103
G2D2 0.093 0.100 0.096 0.117 0.129 0.123
G2D3 0.071 0.081 0.076 0.130 0.142 0.136
G3D1 0.097 0.102 0.100 0.100 0.108 0.104
G3D2 0.100 0.108 0.104 0.130 0.139 0.135
G3D3 0.081 0.084 0.082 0.129 0.146 0.138
G4D1 0.090 0.095 0.093 0.131 0.144 0.138
G4D2 0.098 0.105 0.101 0.148 0.172 0.160
G4D3 0.084 0.094 0.089 0.160 0.186 0.173
G5D1 0.187 0.196 0.192 0.088 0.119 0.104
G5D2 0.199 0.210 0.205 0.090 0.155 0.123
G5D3 0.168 0.184 0.176 0.091 0.142 0.116
S.Em± 0.008 0.008 0.005 0.009 0.009 0.006
Table 22: Root length and dry weight of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
Root length (cm) Root dry weight (g)

Treatment 30 DAS 60 DAS 30 DAS 60 DAS
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 12.63 12.88 12.76 28.92 28.86 28.89 1.75 2.06 1.90 3.11 3.18 3.15
G2 : ICCV-11602 11.63 11.78 11.71 27.24 26.97 27.10 1.17 1.45 1.31 1.74 1.77 1.75
G3 : ICCV-11603 11.45 11.75 11.60 27.84 27.42 27.63 1.58 1.84 1.71 2.38 2.52 2.45
G4 : ICCV-11604 12.25 12.43 12.34 27.93 27.98 27.95 1.72 1.97 1.85 2.84 2.95 2.89
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 11.93 12.07 12.00 27.53 27.30 27.42 1.37 1.65 1.51 1.99 1.97 1.98
S.Em± 0.20 0.24 0.16 0.25 0.30 0.20 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.13 0.12 0.09
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.67 0.77 0.47 0.81 0.98 0.59 0.16 0.18 0.11 0.42 0.39 0.26
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 12.17 12.40 12.29 26.26 26.09 26.17 1.63 1.93 1.78 2.94 3.01 2.98
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 11.98 12.16 12.07 27.78 27.65 27.72 1.52 1.80 1.66 2.45 2.51 2.48
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 11.78 11.98 11.88 29.64 29.38 29.51 1.40 1.66 1.53 1.86 1.89 1.88
S.Em± 0.15 0.18 0.12 0.31 0.35 0.23 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.05
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.92 1.03 0.67 NS NS 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.13
G1D 1 12.88 13.10 12.99 27.28 27.06 27.17 1.85 2.17 2.01 3.51 3.59 3.55
G1D 2 12.67 12.92 12.79 28.72 28.78 28.75 1.73 2.06 1.90 3.16 3.21 3.18
G1D 3 12.35 12.63 12.49 30.77 30.75 30.76 1.65 1.96 1.80 2.68 2.74 2.71
G2D 1 11.81 11.96 11.88 25.20 25.29 25.24 1.24 1.55 1.40 2.20 2.24 2.22
G2D 2 11.63 11.76 11.69 27.31 26.90 27.10 1.18 1.46 1.32 1.77 1.83 1.80
G2D 3 11.46 11.63 11.55 29.21 28.72 28.97 1.10 1.34 1.22 1.25 1.23 1.24
G3D 1 11.54 12.01 11.78 26.48 26.27 26.38 1.62 1.91 1.77 2.90 2.99 2.95
G3D 2 11.43 11.70 11.57 27.76 27.35 27.55 1.59 1.85 1.72 2.37 2.54 2.46
G3D 3 11.37 11.53 11.45 29.29 28.64 28.96 1.52 1.77 1.65 1.87 2.02 1.94
G4D 1 12.30 12.41 12.35 26.35 26.32 26.34 1.77 2.05 1.91 3.17 3.34 3.26
G4D 2 12.25 12.39 12.32 27.82 27.90 27.86 1.72 1.97 1.85 2.87 2.97 2.92
G4D 3 12.21 12.48 12.34 29.61 29.71 29.66 1.68 1.89 1.78 2.48 2.52 2.50
G5D 1 12.34 12.54 12.44 25.97 25.51 25.74 1.69 1.97 1.83 2.90 2.92 2.91
G5D 2 11.94 12.06 12.00 27.29 27.33 27.31 1.38 1.66 1.52 2.05 2.02 2.04
G5D 3 11.50 11.61 11.56 29.32 29.07 29.20 1.03 1.32 1.17 1.03 0.95 0.99
S.Em± 0.34 0.39 0.26 0.70 0.78 0.52 0.16 0.17 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.10
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 2.07 2.31 1.50 NS NS NS 0.43 0.42 0.29
4.1.4.1 Root length (cf. Table 22)
The pooled data indicated that, root length (cm) at various growth stages differed significantly
due to genotypes. At 30 days after sowing, significantly more root length was noticed with genotype
ICCV-11601 (G1, 12.76 cm), which was statistically at par with ICCV-11604 (G4, 12.34 cm), but
significantly superior over other genotypes. However, significantly short roots was observed with
ICCV-11603 (G3, 11.60 cm), and was at par with ICCV-11602 and JG-11 (G2, 11.71 cm and G5, 12.00
cm, respectively). Similarly, at 60 days after sowing also, ICCV-11601 recorded significantly more root
length (G1, 28.89 cm) compared to other genotypes and was closely followed by ICCV-11604 (G4,
27.95 cm). Similar trend was noticed during the individual years also.
The root length was significantly influenced by plant density only at 60 days after sowing.
-1
Significantly more root length was observed with increase in plant density from 3.33 to 4.66 lakh ha
(D1, 26.17 to D3, 29.51 cm). Similar trend was observed during the individual years also.
The interactions effect was significant at 60 days after sowing. Significantly more root length
was recorded with interaction of ICCV-11604 planted 40 per cent higher density (G1D3, 30.76 cm),
which was statistically on par with G4D3 (29.66 cm), but showed significant superiority over rest of the
interactions, while significantly least root length was observed with G2D1 (25.24 cm). A similar trend
was observed during both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under rainfed
ecosystem.
4.1.4.2 Root dry weight (cf. Table 22)
The pooled data revealed that, genotypes influenced the significant variations in root dry
weight (g plant-1) at various stages of crop growth. At 30 days after sowing, among the genotype,
-1
ICCV-11601 recorded higher root dry weight (G1, 1.90 g plant ) than other genotypes, but was at par
-1
with ICCV-11604 (G4, 1.85 g plant ). Whereas, significantly lower root dry weight was observed with
-1
ICCV-11602 (G2, 1.31 g plant ). Similar trend was observed at 60 days after sowing also with ICCV-
-1
11601 (G1, 3.15 g plant ) recording higher root dry weight. A similar trend was noticed during the
individual years also.
The plant density influenced significantly in root dry weight at various stages of crop growth.
-1
Significant increase in root dry weight was recorded with normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha at 30
-1
and 60 days after sowing (D1, 1.78 and 2.98 g plant , respectively), but higher plant density
decreased the root dry weight. However, at 30 days after sowing during the individual years of
experimentation, root dry weight was not differed significantly due to plant density.
The interaction effect was significant only at 60 days after sowing. It was significantly higher in
-1 -1
G1D1 (3.55 g plant ) followed by G4D1 (3.27 g plant ). Similar trend was observed during the
-1 -1
individual years of experimentation with G1D1 (3.51 g plant during 2011-12 and 3.59 g plant during
2012-13) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.4.3 Total and active nodule number per plant (cf. Table 23)
Pooled data analysis revealed that, influence of genotypes on total and active nodule number
per plant differed significantly at 30 and 60 days after sowing. The total and active nodule number at
30 days after sowing was significantly more in semi-erect genotype JG-11 (G5, 19.68 and 16.95,
respectively) as statistically compared to rest of the other genotypes. Among the tall genotypes,
ICCV-11601 (G1, 17.31 and 15.05, respectively) was superior to test of the genotypes. But
significantly less numbers were observed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 15.32 and 13.36, respectively).
However, at 60 days after sowing, significantly more number of total and active nodules were
produced with ICCV-11601 (G1, 35.27 and 30.05, respectively), but was at par with ICCV-11604 (G4,
34.71 and 29.40, respectively) and ICCV-11603 (G3, 34.05 and 29.03, respectively) and showed
significantly superiority over JG-11 (G5, 27.67 and 24.95, respectively). Similar trend of number of
nodules was observed during both the years of experimentation.
Influence of plant density on total and active nodule number per plant differed significantly at
30 and 60 days after sowing. The increase in plant density from normal to higher i.e., 3.33 to 4.66
-1
lakh ha resulted in reduction of both total and active nodules at both the stages. Significantly more
-1
number of nodules were produced at 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 18.08 and 15.40, respectively) over higher
plant density. Similar trend of number of nodules were observed during the individual years only at 60
days after sowing.
Table 23: Total and active nodules per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1 -1
Total nodules plant Active nodules plant
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 16.76 17.86 17.31 34.68 35.86 35.27 14.88 15.23 15.05 29.88 30.23 30.05
G2 : ICCV-11602 15.09 15.54 15.32 32.90 33.54 33.22 13.18 13.55 13.36 28.18 28.55 28.36
G3 : ICCV-11603 16.56 17.61 17.08 33.49 34.61 34.05 13.97 14.83 14.40 28.77 29.29 29.03
G4 : ICCV-11604 16.36 17.28 16.82 34.18 35.24 34.71 13.77 14.29 14.03 28.97 29.83 29.40
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 19.25 20.11 19.68 27.25 28.09 27.67 16.64 17.27 16.95 24.64 25.27 24.95
S.Em± 0.76 0.82 0.56 0.38 0.43 0.29 0.62 0.57 0.42 0.43 0.40 0.29
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.48 2.67 1.67 1.23 1.39 0.86 2.02 1.86 1.26 1.40 1.32 0.88
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 17.63 18.54 18.08 33.43 34.34 33.88 15.07 15.74 15.40 28.67 29.34 29.00
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 16.84 17.71 17.27 32.54 33.51 33.03 14.49 15.11 14.80 28.09 28.71 28.40
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 15.94 16.79 16.36 31.52 32.56 32.04 13.91 14.25 14.08 27.51 27.85 27.68
S.Em± 0.48 0.53 0.36 0.22 0.24 0.16 0.43 0.43 0.30 0.28 0.27 0.19
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS 1.02 0.64 0.72 0.47 NS NS 0.87 0.83 0.79 0.55
G1D 1 17.63 18.73 18.18 35.63 36.73 36.18 15.28 15.88 15.58 30.28 30.88 30.58
G1D 2 16.76 17.88 17.32 34.69 35.88 35.29 14.93 15.29 15.11 29.93 30.29 30.11
G1D 3 15.89 16.96 16.43 33.72 34.96 34.34 14.43 14.51 14.47 29.43 29.51 29.47
G2D 1 15.56 16.19 15.87 33.56 34.19 33.87 13.28 14.02 13.65 28.28 29.02 28.65
G2D 2 15.07 15.60 15.33 32.93 33.60 33.27 13.11 13.42 13.26 28.11 28.42 28.26
G2D 3 14.66 14.82 14.74 32.22 32.82 32.52 13.15 13.21 13.18 28.15 28.21 28.18
G3D 1 17.07 18.07 17.57 34.07 35.07 34.57 14.32 15.19 14.76 29.11 29.57 29.34
G3D 2 16.59 17.62 17.11 33.49 34.62 34.06 13.98 15.04 14.51 28.71 29.25 28.98
G3D 3 16.00 17.14 16.57 32.90 34.14 33.52 13.60 14.26 13.93 28.50 29.05 28.77
G4D 1 16.60 17.60 17.10 34.60 35.60 35.10 14.11 14.57 14.34 29.32 30.19 29.76
G4D 2 16.35 17.29 16.82 34.18 35.29 34.73 13.71 14.25 13.98 28.98 30.04 29.51
G4D 3 16.11 16.94 16.53 33.74 34.84 34.29 13.50 14.05 13.77 28.60 29.26 28.93
G5D 1 21.29 22.09 21.69 29.29 30.09 29.69 18.36 19.02 18.69 26.36 27.02 26.69
G5D 2 19.42 20.16 19.79 27.42 28.16 27.79 16.71 17.57 17.14 24.71 25.57 25.14
G5D 3 17.02 18.09 17.56 25.02 26.02 25.52 14.84 15.20 15.02 22.84 23.20 23.02
S.Em± 1.08 1.18 0.80 0.49 0.55 0.37 0.97 0.96 0.68 0.63 0.60 0.43
Table 24: Nodule fresh and dry weight of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
Nodule fresh weight (mg) Nodule dry weight (mg)

Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 33.28 39.36 36.32 48.46 51.20 49.83 10.14 10.51 10.32 13.83 14.56 14.19
G2 : ICCV-11602 29.97 34.55 32.26 42.36 44.86 43.61 8.59 9.33 8.96 10.96 11.65 11.31
G3 : ICCV-11603 33.17 38.44 35.80 47.90 50.08 48.99 9.13 10.15 9.64 13.28 13.83 13.56
G4 : ICCV-11604 32.93 37.85 35.39 48.42 50.98 49.70 9.10 9.59 9.34 13.59 14.54 14.07
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 33.15 38.51 35.83 44.40 45.30 44.85 10.23 10.43 10.33 11.71 12.20 11.96
S.Em± 0.43 0.40 0.29 1.04 0.81 0.66 0.31 0.27 0.21 0.37 0.32 0.25
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.40 1.32 0.88 3.40 2.64 1.98 1.01 NS 0.62 1.22 1.03 0.74
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 32.97 38.56 35.76 47.93 50.14 49.03 10.11 10.83 10.47 14.40 15.08 14.74
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 32.37 37.69 35.03 46.03 48.52 47.28 9.35 9.97 9.66 12.72 13.37 13.05
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 32.16 36.98 34.57 44.97 46.80 45.88 8.85 9.19 9.02 10.91 11.62 11.26
S.Em± 0.33 0.39 0.26 0.59 0.77 0.49 0.17 0.21 0.14 0.29 0.23 0.18
C.D. (P=0.05) NS 1.15 0.73 1.74 2.28 1.39 0.50 0.63 0.39 0.86 0.66 0.53
G1D 1 34.11 40.75 37.43 50.23 52.72 51.47 10.80 11.17 10.98 15.73 15.90 15.82
G1D 2 33.31 39.29 36.30 48.43 51.12 49.77 10.00 10.50 10.25 13.93 14.60 14.27
G1D 3 32.41 38.05 35.23 46.73 49.77 48.25 9.61 9.84 9.73 11.83 13.17 12.50
G2D 1 30.28 35.16 32.72 44.44 47.03 45.74 9.17 9.93 9.55 12.72 13.05 12.88
G2D 2 29.30 34.41 31.85 42.27 44.88 43.58 8.42 9.33 8.88 10.77 11.70 11.23
G2D 3 30.34 34.07 32.20 40.36 42.66 41.51 8.17 8.73 8.45 9.40 10.20 9.80
G3D 1 33.35 38.80 36.08 49.61 51.79 50.70 9.52 10.86 10.19 15.10 15.57 15.33
G3D 2 33.16 38.42 35.79 47.88 50.14 49.01 9.09 10.25 9.67 13.68 13.82 13.75
G3D 3 33.00 38.10 35.55 46.22 48.31 47.26 8.78 9.33 9.05 11.07 12.10 11.58
G4D 1 33.61 39.00 36.30 49.93 52.30 51.12 9.46 10.09 9.78 14.73 16.63 15.68
G4D 2 32.90 37.89 35.39 48.31 51.06 49.69 9.08 9.57 9.33 13.67 14.57 14.12
G4D 3 32.29 36.67 34.48 47.04 49.58 48.31 8.76 9.10 8.93 12.37 12.43 12.40
G5D 1 33.49 39.08 36.28 45.42 46.84 46.13 11.60 12.11 11.85 13.70 14.23 13.97
G5D 2 33.18 38.45 35.82 43.28 45.38 44.33 10.14 10.22 10.18 11.57 12.17 11.87
G5D 3 32.78 38.00 35.39 44.51 43.67 44.09 8.94 8.95 8.94 9.87 10.20 10.03
S.Em± 0.73 0.88 0.57 1.32 1.73 1.09 0.38 0.48 0.30 0.65 0.50 0.41
The total and active nodule number per plant differed significantly due to interaction of
genotypes and plant density only at 60 days after sowing. Significantly more number of total and
active nodules was recorded with G1D1 (36.18 and 30.58, respectively) and least number was noticed
with G5D3 (25.52 and 23.02, respectively). Similar trend of total and active nodule number was
observed with G1D1 both during 2011-12 (35.63 and 30.28, receptively) and during 2011-12 (36.73
and 30.88, receptively) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.4.4 Fresh and dry weight of nodules per plant (cf. Table 24)
The pooled data showed, significant differences in fresh and dry weight of nodules per plant
(mg) recorded at 30 and 60 days after sowing due to genotypes. At 30 days after sowing, the
genotype ICCV-11601 recorded significantly higher fresh and dry weight of nodules (G1, 36.32 and
-1 -1
10.32 mg plant , respectively), which was at par with JG-11 (G5, 35.83 and 10.29 mg plant ,
-1
respectively). While, lowest weight was recorded with ICCV-11602 (G2, 32.26 and 8.96 mg plant ,
respectively). At 60 days after sowing, ICCV-11601 recorded significantly fresh and dry weight of
nodules (G1, 49.83 and 14.19 mg plant-1, respectively), which was at par with ICCV-11604 (G4, 49.70
-1
and 14.07 mg plant , respectively). However, significantly lowest weight was recorded with ICCV-
-1
11602 (G2, 43.61 and 11.31 mg plant , respectively). Similar trend of influence was observed during
both the years at 60 days after sowing, while during 2012-13 the effect of genotype on nodule dry
weight was non significant at 30 days after sowing.
Significant variation in fresh and dry weight of nodules per plant at both the growth stages (30
and 60 days after sowing) was observed due to plant density. The fresh and dry weight of nodules
significantly decreased due to increase in plant density at both the stages. Significantly maximum
-1
fresh and dry weight of nodules was produced at normal plant desnity of 3.33 lakh ha (D1) at both 30
-1
days after sowing (35.76 and 10.47 mg plant , respectively) and at 60 days after sowing (49.03 and
-1
14.74 mg plant , respectively). Similar trend of fresh and dry weight of nodules was observed during
the individual years only during 2012-13, while during 2011-12 the effect of plant density was not
significant at 30 days after sowing.
The interaction effect was non significant. Similar trend was noticed during the individual
years (2011-12 and 2012-13) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.4.5 Root volume (cf. Table 25)
The pooled data indicated that, genotypes had significant influence on root volume per plant
3 -1
at 60 days after sowing. It was significantly higher in genotype ICCV-11601 (G1, 8.48 mm plant )
3 -1
followed by ICCV-11604 (G4, 7.51 mm plant ) and ICCV-11604 was at par with ICCV-11603 (G3,
3 -1 3 -
7.41 mm plant ). Significantly lower root volume was noticed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 5.50 mm plant
1
). Similar trend o was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with ICCV-11601
3 -1
(G1) recording higher root volume (8.22 and 8.73 mm plant , respectively).
Plant density had significant influence on root volume per plant at 60 days after sowing.
-1
Planting chickpea at normal density of 3.33 lakh ha noticed significantly higher root volume (D1, 7.96
3 -1 -1 3 3
mm plant ) than higher plant density of 3.99 and 4.66 lakh ha (D2, 7.08 mm and D3, 6.16 mm
-1
plant , respectively). Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13.
The interaction effect between genotypes and plant density on root volume at 60 days after
sowing was significant. The treatment combination of ICCV-11601 with 40 per cent higher plant
3 -1
density (G1D1) recorded significantly higher root volume of 9.59 mm plant compared to other
3 -1
combinations. The lower root volume was observed with G5D3 (5.13 mm plant ). Similar trend was
followed during the individual years of experimentation with significantly higher root volume in
interaction of G1D1 (9.34 mm3 during 2011-12 and 9.83 mm3 plant-1 during 2012-13) under rainfed
ecosystem.
4.1.5 Physiological parameters
4.1.5.1 Chlorophyll content (SPAD value) (cf. Table 26)
Pooled data on chlorophyll content (SPAD value) differed significantly at 30 and 60 days after
sowing due to genotypes. At 30 days after sowing, JG-11 showed significantly higher SPAD value
(62.27) compared to other genotypes. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11601 found superior with
higher SPAD value of 58.98, which was on par with ICCV-11604 (58.44). The minimum SPAD value
was registered with ICCV-11603 (56.50). At 60 days after sowing, similar trend was noticed.
Table 25: Root volume of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed
ecosystem
Root volume (ml) at 60 DAS

Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 8.22 8.73 8.48
G2 : ICCV-11602 5.28 5.72 5.50
G3 : ICCV-11603 7.06 7.76 7.41
G4 : ICCV-11604 7.40 7.63 7.51
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 6.61 6.25 6.43
S.Em± 0.14 0.10 0.09
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.44 0.34 0.26
Plant density (D)
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal) 7.82 8.09 7.96
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 6.91 7.25 7.08
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 6.00 6.31 6.16
S.Em± 0.10 0.10 0.07
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.30 0.29 0.20
G1D1 9.34 9.83 9.59
G1D2 8.20 8.78 8.49
G1D3 7.11 7.58 7.35
G2D1 6.11 6.47 6.29
G2D2 5.31 5.78 5.55
G2D3 4.42 4.90 4.66
G3D1 8.06 8.67 8.36
G3D2 7.03 7.77 7.40
G3D3 6.09 6.85 6.47
G4D1 7.71 7.98 7.85
G4D2 7.39 7.63 7.51
G4D3 7.08 7.27 7.17
G5D1 7.89 7.53 7.71
G5D2 6.64 6.28 6.46
G5D3 5.31 4.95 5.13
S.Em± 0.23 0.22 0.16
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.68 0.65 0.45
DAS : Days after sowing
Table 26: Chlorophyll content (SPAD value) of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
Chlorophyll content (SPAD value)

Treatment 30 DAS 60 DAS
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 60.17 57.78 58.98 60.72 59.36 60.04
G2 : ICCV-11602 57.22 56.51 56.87 57.86 56.67 57.27
G3 : ICCV-11603 56.74 56.26 56.50 57.29 56.48 56.88
G4 : ICCV-11604 58.58 58.30 58.44 59.47 58.78 59.13
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 62.71 61.83 62.27 63.84 62.99 63.42
S.Em± 0.94 1.11 0.73 0.81 0.82 0.58
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.08 3.63 2.19 2.65 2.67 1.73
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 59.60 58.68 59.14 61.08 59.97 60.53
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 59.04 58.14 58.59 59.90 58.91 59.40
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 58.61 57.59 58.10 58.53 57.69 58.11
S.Em± 0.51 0.41 0.33 0.48 0.60 0.38
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 1.40 1.76 1.09
G1D1 60.65 58.34 59.50 62.00 60.57 61.28
G1D2 60.19 57.73 58.96 60.80 59.41 60.11
G1D3 59.67 57.27 58.47 59.38 58.11 58.74
G2D1 57.72 57.00 57.36 59.04 57.70 58.37
G2D2 57.25 56.57 56.91 57.93 56.75 57.34
G2D3 56.68 55.98 56.33 56.61 55.57 56.09
G3D1 57.24 56.73 56.99 58.46 57.43 57.95
G3D2 56.70 56.22 56.46 57.34 56.49 56.92
G3D3 56.28 55.83 56.06 56.06 55.50 55.78
G4D1 59.07 58.75 58.91 60.55 59.80 60.17
G4D2 58.65 58.30 58.47 59.52 58.85 59.19
G4D3 58.01 57.85 57.93 58.35 57.70 58.03
G5D1 63.33 62.60 62.96 65.37 64.37 64.87
G5D2 62.39 61.88 62.13 63.90 63.05 63.48
G5D3 62.42 61.01 61.72 62.24 61.57 61.90
S.Em± 1.13 0.91 0.73 1.06 1.34 0.85
Table 27: Leaf relative water content (RWC) of chickpea genotypes as influenced by the plant
density during 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystems
Leaf relative water content (RWC, %)

Treatment
40 DAS 70 DAS
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 64.93 30.66
G2 : ICCV-11602 65.06 24.29
G3 : ICCV-11603 64.66 28.69
G4 : ICCV-11604 66.57 32.26
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 58.09 26.68
S.Em± 0.59 0.70
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.92 2.29
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 67.90 33.76
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 64.03 28.58
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 59.66 23.21
S.Em± 0.41 0.48
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.20 1.41
G1D1 68.81 35.14
G1D2 65.01 30.74
G1D3 60.96 26.09
G2D1 67.53 29.35
G2D2 65.20 24.32
G2D3 62.46 19.20
G3D1 68.30 32.96
G3D2 64.68 28.72
G3D3 61.00 24.38
G4D1 70.28 36.34
G4D2 66.74 32.28
G4D3 62.68 28.16
G5D1 64.58 35.01
G5D2 58.51 26.82
G5D3 51.19 18.23
S.Em± 0.91 1.07
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.68 3.15
Table 28: Light transmission and absorption ratio at flowering stage of chickpea genotypes as
influenced by the plant density during 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystems
Light transmission ratio Light absorption ratio

Treatment
(LTR, %) (LAR, %)
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 20.85 79.15
G2 : ICCV-11602 24.30 75.70
G3 : ICCV-11603 19.89 80.11
G4 : ICCV-11604 22.88 77.12
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 13.56 86.44
S.Em± 0.71 0.71
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.31 2.31
Plant density (D)
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal) 22.56 77.44
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 20.35 79.65
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 17.97 82.03
S.Em± 0.18 0.18
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.53 0.53
G1D 1 23.05 76.95
G1D 2 20.93 79.07
G1D 3 18.56 81.44
G2D 1 26.49 73.51
G2D 2 24.39 75.61
G2D 3 22.02 77.98
G3D 1 22.18 77.82
G3D 2 19.87 80.13
G3D 3 17.61 82.39
G4D 1 24.99 75.01
G4D 2 22.92 77.08
G4D 3 20.74 79.26
G5D 1 16.10 83.90
G5D 2 13.65 86.35
G5D 3 10.93 89.07
S.Em± 0.40 0.40
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.18 1.18
Similarly, during 2012-13, the trend of SPAD value influenced by genotypes was similar at 60
days after sowing, while during 2011-12, JG-11 (62.71) was on par with ICCV-11601 (60.17) at 30
days after sowing.
The chlorophyll content (SPAD value) varied significantly due to plant density only at 60 days
-1
after sowing. Significantly higher SPAD value was noticed in normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha
-1 -1
(60.53) than higher plant density of 3.99 ha and 4.66 lakh ha (59.40 and 58.11, respectively).
Similar trend was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13.
The interaction effect was non significant at both the stages of crop growth. However,
numerically higher SPAD value was observed with interaction G5D1 at 30 and 60 days after sowing
(62.96 and 64.87, respectively). A similar trend was observed during the individual years of
experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.5.2 Leaf relative water content (RWC) (cf. Table 27)
Genotypes had significant influence on leaf relative water content at 40 and 70 days after
sowing. It was significantly higher in genotype ICCV-11604 (G 4, 66.57%), which was at par with ICCV-
11602 (G2, 65.06%), but significantly lower leaf relative water content was noticed with JG-11 (G5,
58.09%) at 40 days after sowing. A similar trend was followed at 70 days after sowing, but lower leaf
relative water content was observed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 24.29%).
Plant density had significant influence on leaf relative water content at 40 and 70 days after
-1
sowing. Planting chickpea at normal density of 3.33 lakh ha recorded significantly higher leaf relative
water content at 40 and 70 days after sowing (D1, 67.90 and 33.76%, respectively) compared to
-1 -1
higher plant density of 3.99 lakh ha (D2, 64.03 and 28.58%, respectively) and 4.66 lakh ha (D3,
59.66 and 23.21%, respectively).
The interaction G4D1 recorded significantly higher leaf relative water content of 70.28 per cent
and 36.34 per cent at 40 and 70 days after sowing, respectively, which was at par with G1D1
(68.81%), G3D1 (68.30%) and G2D1 (67.53%) at 40 days after sowing and G1D1 (35.41%) and G5D1
(35.01%) at 70 days after sowing. However, lower leaf relative water content was observed with G5D3
(51.19 and 18.23%, respectively) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.5.3 Light absorption and transmission ratio (LAR and LTR) (cf. Table 28)
Genotypes had significant influence on light absorption and transmission ratio recorded at
flowering stage. Significantly higher light absorption and lower light transmission ratio was observed in
genotype JG-11 (G1, 86.44% and 13.56%, respectively) compared to rest of the genotypes. Among
the tall genotypes, ICCV-11603 (G3, 80.11 and 19.89%, respectively) and ICCV-11601 (G1, 79.15 and
20.85%, respectively) were superior to other genotypes. Significantly least light absorption and higher
light transmission ratio was observed in ICCV-11602 (G 2, 75.70 and 24.30%, respectively).
Plant density also had significant influence on light absorption and transmission ratio at
-1
flowering stage. Planting chickpea at density of 4.66 lakh ha noticed significantly higher light
absorption and lower light transmission ratio (D3, 82.03 and 17.97%, respectively) compared to lower
-1 -1
plant density of 3.99 lakh ha (D2, 79.65 and 20.35%, respectively) and 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 77.44 and
22.56%, respectively).
The interaction was significant. Planting of JG-11 at 40 per cent higher density than normal
(G5D3) recorded significantly higher light absorption ratio (89.07%) and lower light transmission ratio
(10.93%) followed by JG-11 at 20 per cemt higher plant density (G5D2, 86.35 and 13.65%,
respectively). However, significantly lower light absorption and higher light transmission ratio was
-1
noticed with ICCV-11602 at normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha (73.51 and 26.49%, respectively)
4.1.6 Yield attributes
4.1.6.1 Number of filled pods per plant (cf. Table 29)
The pooled data showed that, the semi-erect genotype JG-11 produced significantly more
number of filled pods (G5, 46.81 plant-1), which was on par with ICCV-11602 (G2, 46.48 plant-1) and
significantly superior over other genotypes. However, least number of filled pods was produced with
-1 -1
ICCV-11601 (G1, 37.80 plant ), and was on par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 38.60 plant ). Similar trend
was observed during the individual years with JG-11 recording significantly more number of filled pods
-1 -1
(G5, 44.57 plant during 2011-12 and 49.05 plant during 2012-13).
Table 29: Number of filled, unfilled and total pods per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1 -1 -1
Number of filled pods plant Number of unfilled pods plant Total number of pods plant
Treatment
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 35.55 40.04 37.80 2.66 2.06 2.36 38.21 42.10 40.16
G2 : ICCV-11602 44.12 48.83 46.48 5.09 3.31 4.20 49.22 52.13 50.68
G3 : ICCV-11603 36.69 40.51 38.60 4.14 2.36 3.25 40.83 42.87 41.85
G4 : ICCV-11604 38.33 42.39 40.36 3.94 2.25 3.09 42.27 44.63 43.45
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 44.57 49.05 46.81 6.63 3.90 5.26 51.20 52.95 52.07
S.Em± 1.06 1.13 0.77 0.28 0.15 0.16 1.08 1.11 0.78
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.44 3.67 2.31 0.93 0.48 0.48 3.53 3.62 2.33
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 45.97 50.12 48.05 3.62 2.14 2.88 49.59 52.27 50.93
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 39.96 44.32 42.14 4.44 2.73 3.59 44.40 47.05 45.73
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 33.62 38.04 35.83 5.42 3.45 4.43 39.04 41.49 40.27
S.Em± 0.54 0.44 0.35 0.15 0.11 0.09 0.55 0.45 0.35
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.59 1.28 0.99 0.45 0.33 0.27 1.61 1.31 1.01
G1D1 40.92 45.38 43.15 1.83 1.55 1.69 42.75 46.93 44.84
G1D2 35.50 40.04 37.77 2.60 2.00 2.30 38.10 42.04 40.07
G1D3 30.24 34.69 32.47 3.55 2.63 3.09 33.79 37.33 35.56
G2D1 49.50 54.21 51.85 4.08 2.67 3.38 53.58 56.88 55.23
G2D2 44.20 48.88 46.54 5.02 3.28 4.15 49.22 52.16 50.69
G2D3 38.67 43.40 41.03 6.18 3.97 5.08 44.85 47.37 46.11
G3D1 41.82 45.55 43.68 3.42 1.83 2.63 45.23 47.39 46.31
G3D2 36.68 40.52 38.60 4.08 2.33 3.21 40.77 42.86 41.81
G3D3 31.57 35.45 33.51 4.92 2.92 3.92 36.49 38.37 37.43
G4D1 43.53 47.49 45.51 3.52 1.89 2.70 47.05 49.38 48.22
G4D2 38.33 42.49 40.41 3.92 2.22 3.07 42.25 44.72 43.48
G4D3 33.11 37.18 35.15 4.40 2.63 3.51 37.51 39.81 38.66
G5D1 54.09 57.99 56.04 5.25 2.77 4.01 59.34 60.75 60.05
G5D2 45.08 49.67 47.37 6.58 3.83 5.21 51.66 53.50 52.58
G5D3 34.53 39.49 37.01 8.05 5.10 6.58 42.58 44.59 43.59
S.Em± 1.21 0.97 0.78 0.34 0.25 0.21 1.22 1.00 0.79
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.56 2.87 2.22 NS NS 0.60 3.60 2.94 2.25
Plant density also influenced significantly the number of filled pods per plant. Filled pod
-1
number decreased with increase in plant density. The normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha recorded
-1
significantly more number of filled pods (D1, 48.05 plant ) compared to higher density. However, the
-1 -1
least number was found with 4.66 lakh ha (D3, 35.83 plant ). Similar trend was observed during the
individual years with normal plant density recording significantly more number of filled pods plant-1 (D1,
45.97 plant-1 during 2011-12 and 50.12 plant-1 during 2012-13).
Among the interactions, G5D1 registered significantly more number of filled pods (56.04),
-1 -1
followed by G2D1 (51.85 plant ). Whereas, G1D3 recorded least number of filled pods (32.47 plant ).
Similar trend was observed during 2011-12 and 2012-13 with G5D1 recording higher number of filled
pods (54.09 and 57.99 plant-1, respectively) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.6.2 Number of unfilled pods per plant (cf. Table 29)
The pooled data revealed that the tall genotype ICCV-11601 (G1) produced significantly least
-1
number of unfilled pods (2.36 plant ) compared to rest of the genotypes, followed by ICCV-11604 (G4,
-1 -1
3.09 plant ). Significantly more number of unfilled pods were found with JG-11 (G5, 5.26 plant ).
Similar trend was observed during the individual years also.
The unfilled pod number per plant increased with increase in plant density. Normal plant
-1 -1
density of 3.33 lakh ha produced significantly least number of unfilled pods (D1, 2.88 plant )
-1
compared to higher density. However, more number was found with plant density of 4.66 lakh ha
-1
(D3, 4.43 plant ). Similar trend was observed during the individual years of experimentation.
The interaction effect was significant. The planting a tall genotypes ICCV-11601 at normal
-1
density (G1D1) recorded significantly least number of unfilled pods (1.69 plant ) followed by G1D2
-1 -1
(2.30 plant ) and G3 D1 (2.70 plant ) and significantly more number was observed with G5D3 (6.58
-1
plant ). During both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13), the interaction effect on
-1
number of unfilled pods plant was non significant under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.6.3 Total number of pods per plant (cf. Table 29)
Pooled data analysis showed that, genotypes significantly influenced total number of pods per
plant. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 produced significantly higher total number of pods (G5, 52.07
-1 -1
plant ), which was on par with ICCV-11602 (G2, 50.68 plant ) and significantly superior over rest of
-1
the genotypes. The least total number of pods was produced with ICCV-11601 (G1, 40.16 plant ).
-1
Similar trend of total number of pods plant was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and
2012-13 with JG-11 recording higher total number of pods per plant (51.20 and 52.95, respectively).
Plant density significantly influenced in total number of pods per plant. Higher plant density of
-1 -1
4.66 lakh ha (D3) decreased the total number of pods (, 40.27 plant ) than lower plant density of
-1 -1 -1 -1
3.99 lakh ha (D2, 45.73 plant ) and 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 50.93 plant ). Similar trend was observed
-1
during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha
recording significantly higher total number of pods (D1, 49.59 and 52.27, respectively).
Interaction effect was significant. Significantly more total number of pods was recorded with
-1 -1
G5D1 (60.05 plant ) followed by G2D1 (55.23 plant ), while least total number of pods was observed
-1
with G1D3 (35.56 plant ). Similar trend was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-
-1
13 recording significantly more total number of pods with G5D1 (59.34 and 60.75 plant , respectively)
4.1.6.4 Number of seeds per plant (cf. Table 30)
The pooled results revealed that, significant difference in number of seeds per plant was
observed due to genotypes. The tall genotype ICCV-11602 (G2) produced significantly more number
-1 -1
of seeds (G2, 61.80 plant ) followed by JG-11 (G5, 57.44 plant ). Significantly least number of seeds
-1 -1
was produced with ICCV-11601 (G1, 51.71 plant ). A similar trend for number of seeds plant was
-1
noticed during the individual years of 2012-13. While during 2011-13, JG-11(G5, 55.30 plant ) was on
-1
par with ICVV-11604 (G4, 53.13 plant ).
Significant difference in number of seeds per plant was observed due to plant density. The
-1
increase in plant density from 3.33 to 4.99 lakh ha (D1 to D3) resulted in decreased number of seeds
-1
plant from 63.93 to 47.45. Similar trend of number was noticed during both the years of
experimentation.
Table 30: Number of seeds per plant and seeds per pod of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1 -1
Number of seeds plant Number of seeds pod
Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 48.91 54.52 51.71 1.30 1.36 1.33
G2 : ICCV-11602 59.90 63.71 61.80 1.30 1.31 1.30
G3 : ICCV-11603 49.99 55.82 52.91 1.29 1.38 1.34
G4 : ICCV-11604 53.13 57.59 55.36 1.32 1.36 1.34
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 55.30 59.57 57.44 1.19 1.22 1.20
S.Em± 1.04 0.88 0.68 0.02 0.04 0.02
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.41 2.87 2.05 0.07 NS 0.07
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 61.69 66.17 63.93 1.29 1.33 1.31
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 53.78 58.52 56.15 1.29 1.33 1.31
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 44.86 50.04 47.45 1.26 1.32 1.29
S.Em± 0.52 0.49 0.36 0.02 0.02 0.01
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.53 1.45 1.02 NS NS NS
G1D1 56.44 61.41 58.92 1.32 1.35 1.34
G1D2 49.02 55.06 52.04 1.31 1.38 1.34
G1D3 41.25 47.10 44.18 1.28 1.36 1.32
G2D1 67.53 71.24 69.38 1.31 1.32 1.31
G2D2 60.22 63.99 62.11 1.30 1.31 1.31
G2D3 51.94 55.91 53.92 1.28 1.29 1.28
G3D1 57.31 62.97 60.14 1.31 1.39 1.35
G3D2 50.19 56.05 53.12 1.30 1.38 1.34
G3D3 42.47 48.45 45.46 1.27 1.37 1.32
G4D1 60.59 64.61 62.60 1.33 1.37 1.35
G4D2 53.21 57.75 55.48 1.32 1.37 1.34
G4D3 45.59 50.42 48.01 1.31 1.36 1.33
G5D1 66.61 70.62 68.62 1.19 1.22 1.20
G5D2 56.26 59.77 58.01 1.19 1.20 1.20
G5D3 43.05 48.32 45.68 1.18 1.22 1.20
S.Em± 1.16 1.10 0.80 0.04 0.04 0.03
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.42 3.25 2.28 NS NS NS
Table 31: Pod and seed yield plant and 100-seed weight of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1 -1
Pod yield plant (g) Seed yield plant (g) 100-seed weight (g)
Treatment
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 10.51 11.86 11.18 8.66 9.60 9.13 22.90 23.44 23.17
G2 : ICCV-11602 10.76 12.12 11.44 8.99 9.95 9.47 17.05 17.58 17.32
G3 : ICCV-11603 10.24 11.98 11.11 8.36 9.70 9.03 21.84 22.22 22.03
G4 : ICCV-11604 11.15 12.78 11.96 9.37 10.50 9.94 23.45 24.08 23.77
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 11.89 13.27 12.58 10.11 11.08 10.59 22.72 23.51 23.11
S.Em± 0.07 0.13 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.55 0.23 0.30
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.23 0.42 0.22 0.25 0.31 0.18 1.79 0.74 0.89
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 11.45 12.93 12.19 9.68 10.70 10.19 21.88 22.46 22.17
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 10.92 12.42 11.67 9.08 10.18 9.63 21.67 22.18 21.92
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 10.36 11.85 11.11 8.54 9.62 9.08 21.24 21.86 21.55
S.Em± 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.30 0.25 0.20
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.18 0.19 0.13 0.17 0.19 0.13 NS NS NS
G1D1 10.94 12.30 11.62 9.08 10.05 9.57 23.15 23.87 23.51
G1D2 10.51 11.87 11.19 8.65 9.61 9.13 23.04 23.28 23.16
G1D3 10.08 11.40 10.74 8.23 9.15 8.69 22.51 23.17 22.84
G2D1 11.20 12.53 11.86 9.42 10.35 9.88 17.40 17.84 17.62
G2D2 10.78 12.13 11.46 9.01 9.96 9.49 17.02 17.59 17.31
G2D3 10.31 11.70 11.01 8.55 9.55 9.05 16.74 17.30 17.02
G3D1 10.70 12.44 11.57 8.82 10.16 9.49 22.28 22.44 22.36
G3D2 10.27 12.03 11.15 8.39 9.71 9.05 22.08 22.34 22.21
G3D3 9.75 11.47 10.61 7.89 9.21 8.55 21.17 21.87 21.52
G4D1 11.58 13.19 12.38 10.00 10.91 10.45 23.67 24.31 23.99
G4D2 11.15 12.79 11.97 9.28 10.52 9.90 23.35 24.09 23.72
G4D3 10.71 12.36 11.53 8.84 10.09 9.47 23.34 23.85 23.59
G5D1 12.84 14.21 13.52 11.06 12.03 11.54 22.89 23.81 23.35
G5D2 11.89 13.28 12.58 10.10 11.09 10.59 22.85 23.59 23.22
G5D3 10.96 12.32 11.64 9.17 10.12 9.65 22.44 23.11 22.78
S.Em± 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.14 0.10 0.68 0.56 0.44
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.41 0.42 0.29 0.39 0.43 0.28 NS NS NS
-1
The interaction G2D1 recorded significantly more number of seeds (69.38 plant ), and was on
-1
par with G5D1 (68.62 plant ). However, the least number of seeds was observed with G1D3 (44.18
-1
plant ). Similar trend was observed during both the years with significantly more number of seeds
-1 -1
with G2D1 (67.53 plant during 2011-12 and 71.24 plant during 2012-13) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.6.5 Number of seeds per pod (cf. Table 30)
Pooled results indicated that, number of seeds per pod exhibited significant difference due to
different genotypes. The tall genotypes ICCV-11604 (G4) and ICCV-11603 (G3) recorded significantly
-1
more number of seeds per pod (1.34 and 1.34 pod , respectively), which was at par with all the
-1
genotypes except JG-11 (G5, 1.20 pod ). Similar trend was followed during the individual years also.
Number of seeds per pod did not exhibited any significant difference due to different plant
density. However, planting chickpea at higher plant density recorded relatively least number of seeds
per pod than normal plant density. Similar trend was followed during the individual years of
Interaction effect was non significant. A similar trend was also followed during the individual
years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.6.6 Pod yield per plant (cf. Table 31)
The pooled data indicated that, significantly higher pod yield per plant was observed with
semi-erect genotype JG-11 (G5, 12.58 g) over rest of the genotypes and was closely followed by
ICCV-11604 (G4, 11.96 g). Significantly least pod yield per plant was observed with ICCV-11603 and
ICCV-11601 (G3, 11.11 g and G1, 11.18 g, respectively), which were at par with each other. Similar
trend was observed during both the years of experimentation.
Data on pod yield per plant varied significantly due to plant density. Significantly higher pod
-1
yield per plant was registered with normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 12.19 g) over higher
-1
plant density of 3.99 lakh and 4.99 lakh ha (D2, 11.67 g and D3, 11.11 g, respectively). Similar trend
was observed during the individual years of experimentation.
Significantly higher pod yield per plant was recorded with interaction G5D1 (13.52 g) closely
followed by G5D2 (12.58 g), and was at par with G4D1 (12.38 g). However, G3D3 recorded significantly
lower pod yield per plant (10.61 g). Similar trend was observed during the individual years of 2011-12
and 2012-13 with significantly higher pod yield per plant observed with G5D1 (12.84 and 14.21 g,
respectively) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.6.7 Seed yield per plant (cf. Table 31)
The pooled data indicated that, genotypes differ significantly with respect to seed yield per
plant (g) of chickpea. JG-11 produced significantly higher seed yield per plant (G5, 10.59 g) compared
to rest of the genotypes and the next best genotype was ICCV-11604 (G4, 9.94 g). However,
significantly lower seed yield per plant was produced with ICCV-11603 (G3. 9.03 g). A similar trend
was followed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with JG-11 recording significantly
higher seed yield plant-1 (G5, 10.11 and 11.08 g, respectively) followed by ICCV-11604 (G4, 9.37 and
10.50 g, respectively).
The increase in plant density in chickpea resulted in decrease in per plant seed yield.
-1
However, normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha recorded significantly higher seed yield per plant (D1,
10.19 g) than 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher plant density (D2, 9.63 g and D3, 9.08 g,
respectively). A similar trend was followed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with a
-1
plant density of 3.33 lakh ha recording significantly higher seed yield per plant (9.68 and 10.70 g,
respectively).
The treatment combination of JG-11 with normal plant density (G5D1) registered significantly
higher seed yield per plant (11.54 g) followed by G5D2 and G4D1 (10.59 and 10.45 g, respectively) and
were on par with each other. Whereas, lower seed yield per plant was observed with G3D3 (8.55 g). A
similar trend was followed during the individual years with G5D1 recording significantly higher seed
yield per plant (11.06 g during 2011-12 and 11.03 g during 2012-13).
Table 32: Seed yield, biological yield and harvest index of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1 -1
Seed yield (kg ha ) Biological yield (kg ha ) Harvest index (%)
Treatment
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 1680 2066 1873 4877 5413 5145 34.68 38.37 36.52
G2 : ICCV-11602 1780 2137 1959 4371 5059 4715 40.62 42.30 41.46
G3 : ICCV-11603 1551 1971 1761 4292 5156 4724 36.11 38.24 37.18
G4 : ICCV-11604 1832 2183 2007 4907 5435 5171 37.30 40.24 38.77
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 2277 2619 2448 4442 5316 4879 51.53 49.49 50.51
S.Em± 39 21 22 40 52 33 0.81 0.42 0.46
C.D. (P=0.05) 126 69 66 130 169 98 2.65 1.37 1.37
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 1600 1965 1783 4039 4742 4390 39.76 41.49 40.63
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 1840 2212 2026 4586 5283 4935 40.30 41.98 41.14
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 2033 2408 2220 5109 5802 5455 40.08 41.71 40.89
S.Em± 13 12 9 54 33 32 0.39 0.37 0.27
C.D. (P=0.05) 39 36 26 159 98 91 NS NS NS
G1D1 1452 1830 1641 4217 4752 4485 34.44 38.58 36.51
G1D2 1695 2085 1890 4850 5410 5130 35.36 38.70 37.03
G1D3 1894 2282 2088 5564 6076 5820 34.22 37.81 36.02
G2D1 1518 1880 1699 4169 4722 4446 36.43 39.89 38.16
G2D2 1795 2151 1973 4371 5079 4725 41.07 42.44 41.75
G2D3 2028 2381 2205 4573 5375 4974 44.37 44.56 44.47
G3D1 1319 1733 1526 3719 4657 4188 35.47 37.27 36.37
G3D2 1569 1986 1777 4315 5174 4744 36.37 38.45 37.41
G3D3 1766 2195 1981 4842 5638 5240 36.49 39.00 37.75
G4D1 1569 1926 1748 4205 4776 4491 37.33 40.44 38.89
G4D2 1845 2188 2016 4932 5447 5190 37.27 40.26 38.76
G4D3 2083 2434 2258 5584 6081 5833 37.30 40.03 38.66
G5D1 2140 2458 2299 3883 4802 4342 55.13 51.27 53.20
G5D2 2298 2651 2474 4464 5307 4886 51.45 50.04 50.75
G5D3 2392 2748 2570 4979 5839 5409 48.01 47.14 47.58
S.Em± 30 28 20 121 74 71 0.88 0.84 0.61
C.D. (P=0.05) 88 81 58 356 219 203 2.58 2.47 1.73
4.1.6.8 100-seed weight (cf. Table 31)
Pooled data indicated that, significant difference in 100-seed weight (g) was observed among
the genotypes. The tall genotype ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher 100-seed weight (G4,
23.77 g), which was on par with ICCV-11601 (G1, 23.17 g) and JG-11 (G5, 23.11). Significantly least
100-seed weight was recorded with ICCV-11602 (G2, 17.32). A similar trend was noticed during the
individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with ICVV-11604 recording higher 100-seed weight (G4,
23.45 and 24.08 g, respectively).
The effect of plant density and interaction was non significant under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.6.9 Seed yield (cf. Table 32)
-1
The pooled result revealed that, seed yield (kg ha ) varied significantly among the genotypes.
-1
The semi-erect genotype JG-11 produced significantly higher seed yield (G5, 2448 kg ha ) compared
to rest of the genotypes. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11604 produced significantly higher seed
yield (G4, 2007 kg ha-1), which was on par with ICCV-11602 (G2, 1959 kg ha-1). While, ICCV-11603
produced significantly lowest seed yield (G3, 1761 kg ha-1). Similar trend of seed yield followed during
the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with significantly highest seed yield in JG-11 (G5, 2277
-1 -1
kg and 2619 kg ha , respectively) followed by ICCV-11604 (G4, 1832 kg and 2182 kg ha ,
respectively).
There was progressive and significant increase in the seed yield among the plant density.
Seed yield increased with increase in plant density to 40 per cent higher than normal plant density
-1
(D3, 2220 kg ha ), while significantly least seed yield was observed with normal density of 3.33 lakh
-1 -1
ha (D1, 1783 kg ha ). Similar trend of increment in seed yield was also observed during the
-1
individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13. A higher plant density of 4.66 lakh ha (40 per cent higher
-1
than normal) recorded significantly higher seed yield of 2033 and 2408 kg ha during 2011-12 and
2012-13, respectively.
The interaction of genotypes with plant density was significant with respect to seed yield. The
semi-erect genotype JG-11 planted at 40 per cent higher density (G5D3) produced significantly higher
-1
seed yield (2570 kg ha ) compared to rest of the interactions and was followed by JG-11 at 20 per
-1
cent higher density (G5D2) and normal density (G5D1) (2474 and 2299 kg ha , respectively), whereas,
planting a tall genotype ICCV-11604 at 40 per cent higher density (G4D3, 2258 kg ha-1) was on par
with G5D1 (2299 kg ha-1) and G2D3 (2205 kg ha-1) with respect to seed yield. Irrespective of
genotypes, there was linear and significant increase in seed yield in interactions with increase in plant
density. However, lowest seed yield was observed with ICCV-11603 planted at normal density (G3D1,
-1
1526 kg ha ). Similar trend was followed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with
-1
interaction G5D3 recording significantly higher seed yield (2392 and 2748 kg ha , respectively) under
rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.6.10 Biological yield (cf. Table 32)
The pooled data showed that, significant difference in the biological yield (kg ha-1) was
observed due to effect of genotypes. The genotype ICCV-11604 produced significantly higher
-1 -1
biological yield (G4, 5171 kg ha ), which was at par with ICCV-11601 (G1, 5145 kg ha ). However,
-1
significantly least biological yield was produced with ICCV-11602 (G2, 4715 kg ha ), which was at par
-1
with ICCV-11603 (G3, 4724 kg ha ). Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12
-1
and 2012-13 with ICCV-11604 producing higher biological yield (G4, 4907 and 5435 kg ha ,
respectively).
-1
The biological yield was significantly higher in higher plant density of 4.66 lakh ha (D3, 5455
-1 -1 -1
kg ha ) compared to lower density of 3.99 and 3.33 lakh ha (D2, 4935 kg and D1, 4390 kg ha ,
respectively). Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with a
-1 -1
planting density of 4.66 lakh ha (D3, 5109 and 5802 kg ha , respectively).
Significant differences were recorded on biological yield due to interaction of genotypes and
plant density. Significantly higher biological yield was recorded in ICCV-11604 and ICCV-11601 with
-1 -1
40 per cent higher density (G4D3, 5833 kg ha and G1D3, 5820 kg ha , respectively) and were
statistically on par with each other, but significantly superior to other treatment combinations.
-1
However, the least biological yield was observed with G3D1 (4188 kg ha ). Similar trend was followed
during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with G4D3 (5584 and 6081 kg ha-1, respectively)
and G1D3 (5563 and 6076 kg ha-1, respectively) recording significantly higher biological yield and were
on par with each other.
4.1.6.11 Harvest Index (cf. Table 32)
Pooled data on harvest index marked varied significantly among the genotypes. It was
significantly highest in JG-11 (G5, 50.51%) followed by ICCV-11602 and ICCV-11604 (G2, 41.46%
and G4, 38.77%, respectively). However, significantly lowest harvest index was observed in ICCV-
11601 (G1, 36.52%). Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of experimentation.
Harvest index was non significant due to plant density in pooled as well as for individual
years.
Significant differences in harvest index were observed due to interaction effect between
genotypes and plant density. It was significantly more (53.20%) and less (36.02%) in G5D1 and G1D3
treatment combinations, respectively. Similar trend of was noticed during the individual years of
4.1.6.12 Left over pods seed yield and per cent left over pods seed yield (cf. Table 33)
-1
The genotypes differed with respect to left over pods seed yield (kg ha ) and per cent left
over pods seed yield. Genotypes JG-11 recorded significantly maximum left over pods seed yield and
-1
per cent left over pods seed yield (G5, 57.60 kg ha and 2.39%, respectively) and minimum with
-1
ICCV-11603 (G3, 8.93 kg ha and 0.52%, respectively). Similar trend followed during both the years
of experimentation.
The plant density caused significant variation in left over pods seed yield and per cent left
over pods seed yield. The left over pods seed yield was significantly more in higher plant density of
-1 -1
4.66 lakh ha (D3, 29.58 kg ha ) over lower plant density. On the contrary, per cent left over pods
seed yield was significantly more in normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha -1 (D1, 1.42%) over higher
plant density. Similar trend followed during both the years of experimentation.
The interaction between genotypes and plant density differed significantly for left over pods
seed yield and per cent left over pods seed yield. The values were significantly higher in G5D3 (62.23
kg ha-1 and 2.47%, respectively) followed by G5D2 (58.28 kg ha-1 and 2.40%, respectively). Similar
trend was observed during both the individual years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under
rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.7 Nitrogen and protein content (cf. Table 34)
Significantly higher nitrogen and protein content was observed with genotype ICCV-11602
(G2, 3.48 and 21.75%, respectively) over other genotypes and was closely followed by ICCV-11603
(G3, 3.40 and 21.27%, respectively). However, significantly least nitrogen and protein content was
recorded with JG-11 (G5, 2.77 and 17.34%, respectively). Similar trend was observed during both the
years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13).
Data on nitrogen and protein content varied significantly due to plant density. Significantly
higher nitrogen and protein content (3.33 and 20.82%, respectively) was registered with 20 per cent
-1 -1
higher plant density (D2, 3.99 lakh ha ) over 40 per cent higher plant density (G3, 4.66 lakh ha ) and
-1
normal plant density (G1, 3.33 lakh ha ). Similar trend was observed during both the years of
The interaction effect were non significant. Similar trend was observed during the individual
years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.8 Plant lodging (cf. Table 35)
The pooled data on plant lodging (%) recorded at harvest of chickpea varied significantly
among the genotypes. Significantly higher plant lodging was recorded with ICCV-11602 (G2, 13.28%)
over rest of the genotypes, while significantly least plant lodging was noticed with JG-11 (G5, 1.28%).
A similar trend was observed during the individual years of experimentation.
Plant lodging recorded at harvest of chickpea differed significantly due to plant density. Plant
-1 -1
lodging increased with increase in plant density from 3.33 lakh ha to 4.66 lakh ha (4.82 to 6.44%).
A similar trend was noticed during the individual years also.
Interaction effect genotypes and plant density on plant lodging was significant. The treatment
combination G2D3 recorded significantly higher plant lodging (15.05%) over rest of the interactions.
While, least plant lodging was found with G5D1 (0.93%). The interaction effect was similar during the
individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystem.
Table 33: Left over pods seed yield and per cent left over pods seed yield of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed
ecosystem
Left over pods seed yield Per cent left over pods seed yield
-1
Treatment (kg ha ) (%)
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 24.28 30.08 27.18 1.48 1.46 1.47
G2 : ICCV-11602 30.34 29.46 29.90 1.77 1.39 1.58
G3 : ICCV-11603 8.72 9.14 8.93 0.58 0.47 0.52
G4 : ICCV-11604 15.33 16.87 16.10 0.87 0.78 0.83
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 55.91 59.28 57.60 2.52 2.26 2.39
S.Em± 0.92 0.44 0.51 0.10 0.02 0.05
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.00 1.42 1.52 0.34 0.07 0.16
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 25.04 27.18 26.11 1.52 1.32 1.42
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 27.14 29.14 28.14 1.43 1.26 1.35
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 28.58 30.58 29.58 1.38 1.23 1.30
S.Em± 0.28 0.35 0.22 0.02 0.02 0.01
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.84 1.02 0.64 0.06 0.05 0.04
Interaction (GxD)
G1D 1 22.82 28.44 25.63 1.62 1.55 1.59
G1D 2 24.41 30.30 27.36 1.46 1.45 1.46
G1D 3 25.60 31.50 28.55 1.37 1.38 1.37
G2D 1 29.05 28.07 28.56 1.96 1.49 1.73
G2D 2 30.34 29.57 29.96 1.74 1.37 1.56
G2D 3 31.64 30.73 31.18 1.60 1.29 1.45
G3D 1 8.19 8.84 8.51 0.64 0.51 0.57
G3D 2 8.81 9.13 8.97 0.57 0.46 0.52
G3D 3 9.17 9.46 9.31 0.53 0.43 0.48
G4D 1 14.75 16.37 15.56 0.97 0.85 0.91
G4D 2 15.38 16.90 16.14 0.86 0.77 0.82
G4D 3 15.86 17.33 16.60 0.79 0.71 0.75
G5D 1 50.37 54.18 52.28 2.42 2.20 2.31
G5D 2 56.76 59.81 58.28 2.54 2.26 2.40
G5D 3 60.61 63.86 62.23 2.61 2.33 2.47
S.Em± 0.63 0.78 0.50 0.04 0.04 0.03
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.87 2.29 1.43 0.13 0.11 0.08
Table 34: Nitrogen and protein content in grains of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
N content in grains (%) Protein content (%)

Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 3.27 3.38 3.33 20.45 21.14 20.80
G2 : ICCV-11602 3.44 3.52 3.48 21.48 22.02 21.75
G3 : ICCV-11603 3.34 3.47 3.40 20.84 21.69 21.27
G4 : ICCV-11604 3.29 3.44 3.36 20.58 21.48 21.03
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 2.70 2.85 2.77 16.87 17.80 17.34
S.Em± 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.17 0.29 0.17
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.09 0.15 0.08 0.56 0.94 0.50
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 3.18 3.28 3.23 19.85 20.51 20.18
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 3.27 3.39 3.33 20.45 21.19 20.82
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 3.17 3.33 3.25 19.83 20.78 20.31
S.Em± 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.15 0.17 0.11
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.44 0.51 0.33
G1D1 3.24 3.33 3.28 20.22 20.79 20.51
G1D2 3.33 3.43 3.38 20.79 21.41 21.10
G1D3 3.25 3.40 3.33 20.33 21.23 20.78
G2D1 3.41 3.48 3.44 21.29 21.72 21.50
G2D2 3.50 3.59 3.55 21.90 22.42 22.16
G2D3 3.40 3.51 3.45 21.25 21.92 21.58
G3D1 3.30 3.41 3.35 20.60 21.29 20.94
G3D2 3.40 3.52 3.46 21.26 22.01 21.64
G3D3 3.31 3.49 3.40 20.67 21.79 21.23
G4D1 3.26 3.39 3.32 20.35 21.16 20.75
G4D2 3.35 3.50 3.43 20.96 21.86 21.41
G4D3 3.27 3.43 3.35 20.44 21.42 20.93
G5D1 2.69 2.82 2.75 16.79 17.60 17.20
G5D2 2.78 2.92 2.85 17.35 18.27 17.81
G5D3 2.64 2.81 2.72 16.48 17.54 17.01
S.Em± 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.33 0.39 0.26
Table 35: Plant lodging at harvest of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
rainfed ecosystem
Plant lodging (%)

Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 3.16 3.34 3.25
G2 : ICCV-11602 13.24 13.31 13.28
G3 : ICCV-11603 3.84 3.79 3.82
G4 : ICCV-11604 6.43 6.39 6.41
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 1.27 1.29 1.28
S.Em± 0.19 0.12 0.11
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.63 0.40 0.34
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 4.82 4.83 4.82
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 5.53 5.57 5.55
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 6.41 6.47 6.44
S.Em± 0.12 0.11 0.08
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.35 0.34 0.24
Interaction (GxD)
G1D1 2.26 2.68 2.47
G1D2 3.33 3.31 3.32
G1D3 3.88 4.04 3.96
G2D1 11.74 11.71 11.72
G2D2 12.94 13.17 13.05
G2D3 15.03 15.06 15.05
G3D1 3.32 3.13 3.22
G3D2 3.76 3.75 3.76
G3D3 4.44 4.50 4.47
G4D1 5.85 5.69 5.77
G4D2 6.39 6.36 6.38
G4D3 7.04 7.11 7.08
G5D1 0.91 0.96 0.93
G5D2 1.23 1.28 1.25
G5D3 1.68 1.63 1.65
S.Em± 0.27 0.26 0.19
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.79 0.76 0.53
Table 36: Weed population and biomass per plot as influenced by chickpea genotypes and plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1 -1
Weed population plot Weed biomass plot (g)
Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 4.57 8.86 6.72 3.26 4.67 3.96
G2 : ICCV-11602 6.90 11.18 9.04 4.28 5.46 4.87
G3 : ICCV-11603 6.63 10.74 8.68 2.80 4.47 3.64
G4 : ICCV-11604 5.64 9.52 7.58 2.51 3.88 3.19
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 4.15 8.38 6.27 2.12 3.64 2.88
S.Em± 0.27 0.31 0.21 0.34 0.26 0.22
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.89 1.01 0.62 1.11 0.85 0.65
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 6.89 11.12 9.00 4.19 5.89 5.04
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 5.59 9.78 7.69 3.02 4.45 3.73
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 4.26 8.31 6.28 1.77 2.93 2.35
S.Em± 0.23 0.29 0.18 0.16 0.19 0.12
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.67 0.85 0.52 0.46 0.55 0.35
Interaction (GxD)
G1D1 6.00 10.11 8.06 4.79 6.54 5.66
G1D2 4.60 8.91 6.76 3.32 4.73 4.03
G1D3 3.12 7.56 5.34 1.66 2.75 2.21
G2D1 8.17 12.78 10.47 5.35 7.10 6.22
G2D2 6.85 11.26 9.06 4.34 5.42 4.88
G2D3 5.67 9.49 7.58 3.15 3.87 3.51
G3D1 8.00 12.20 10.10 3.90 5.65 4.77
G3D2 6.67 10.75 8.71 2.78 4.53 3.66
G3D3 5.22 9.26 7.24 1.74 3.22 2.48
G4D1 6.93 10.73 8.83 3.76 5.18 4.47
G4D2 5.67 9.54 7.60 2.47 3.89 3.18
G4D3 4.33 8.30 6.32 1.30 2.57 1.93
G5D1 5.33 9.78 7.56 3.18 4.99 4.09
G5D2 4.17 8.43 6.30 2.20 3.67 2.93
G5D3 2.95 6.93 4.94 1.00 2.26 1.63
S.Em± 0.51 0.64 0.41 0.35 0.42 0.27
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.51 1.89 1.17 1.04 1.23 0.78
4.1.8 Pest occurrence
4.1.8.1 Weed population per plot (cf. Table 36)
Pooled results revealed that, the weed population per plot was significantly more with
-1 -1
genotype ICCV-11602 (G2, 9.04 plot ), which was on par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 8.68 plot ). However,
-1
significantly least weed population was associated with JG-11 (G5, 6.27 plot ) was followed by ICCV-
11604 and ICCV-11601. During the individual years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13),
similar trend of weed population was noticed.
Influence of plant density on weed population per plot differed significantly. The increase in
plant density from normal to higher i.e., 3.33 to 4.66 lakh ha-1 resulted in reduction of weed population
from 9.00 to 6.28 plot-1. Significantly maximum weed population was recorded at 3.33 lakh ha-1 (D1,
-1
9.00 plot ) over higher plant density. Similar trend was followed during the individual years of
-1
experimentation with 4.66 lakh ha recording significantly lower weed population of 4.26 and 8.31
during 2011-12 and 2012-13, respectively.
Significantly higher weed population was recorded with G2D1 (10.47 plot-1), which was at par
-1
with interaction G3D1 (10.10 plot ), while significantly lower weed population was recorded with G5D3
-1
(4.94 plot ). Similar trend was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under
rainfed ecosystem. But during 2012-13, weed population was relatively more compared to 2011-12.
4.1.8.2 Weed biomass per plot (cf. Table 36)
A significant difference in weed biomass per plot (g) at 40 days after sowing of chickpea was
observed among the genotypes. Significantly higher weed biomass was observed with genotype
ICCV-11602 (G2, 4.87 g plot-1) compared to other genotypes and was followed by ICCV-11601 (G1,
3.96 g plot-1), while lower weed biomass was noticed with JG-11 (G5, 2.88 g plot-1). Similar trend of
influence was observed during both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13).
A significant variation in weed biomass per plot was observed due to the influence of plant
density. The weed biomass was significantly decreased due to increase in plant density. Significantly
maximum weed biomass was produced at 3.33 lakh ha-1 (D1, 5.04 g plot-1) than higher plant density of
-1 -1
3.99 lakh and 4.66 lakh ha (D2, 3.73 g and D3, 2.35 g plot ). Similar trend was observed during the
The interaction G2D1 recorded significantly higher weed biomass (6.22 g plot-1), while
significantly lower weed biomass was recorded with G5D3 (1.63 g plaot-1). Similar trend was noticed
during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.8.3 Pod damage (cf. Table 37)
Influence of genotypes on pod damage (%) of chickpea was significant. Among the different
genotypes tried, semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded more pod damage (G5, 4.45%) compared to
rest of the genotypes. However, lower pod damage was observed with ICCV-11603 (G3, 2.08%).
Similar trend was followed during 2012-13, but during 2011-12 all the tall genotypes such as ICCV-
11601 (G1, 2.03%), ICCV-11602 (G2, 1.99%), ICCV-11604 (G4, 1.96%) and ICCV-11603 (G3, 1.82%)
were at par with each other.
Significant variation in pod damage was observed due to the influence of plant density. Pod
damage was progressively and significantly increased due to increase in plant density. Significantly
maximum pod damage (3.47%) was recorded at 40 per cent higher plant density (D1, 4.66 lakh ha-1)
than 20 per cent higher (D2, 3.99 lakh ha-1) or normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha-1 (D2, 2.64% and
D3, 2.07%, respectively). Similar trend was observed during the individual years.
The interaction of JG-11 with 40 per cent higher plant density (G5D3) recorded higher pod
damage (5.77%) followed by G5D2 (4.28%) and the least pod damage was with G1D1 (1.57%). Similar
trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.8.4 Wilt incidence (cf. Table 38)
A significant influence on wilt incidence among the genotypes was not observed at 30 and 60
days after sowing of chickpea crop. However, ICCV-11601 and ICCV-11602 noticed relatively more
wilt incidence than other genotypes at both the stages. Similar trend was observed during both the
years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13).
Table 37: Pod damage (%) of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed
ecosystem
Pod damage (%)

Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 2.03 2.34 2.18
G2 : ICCV-11602 1.99 3.04 2.51
G3 : ICCV-11603 1.82 2.33 2.08
G4 : ICCV-11604 1.96 2.87 2.42
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 3.84 5.06 4.45
S.Em± 0.13 0.08 0.08
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.43 0.27 0.23
Plant density (D)
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal) 1.84 2.30 2.07
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 2.25 3.03 2.64
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 2.89 4.06 3.47
S.Em± 0.05 0.09 0.05
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.16 0.26 0.15
G1D1 1.53 1.61 1.57
G1D2 1.95 2.18 2.06
G1D3 2.60 3.24 2.92
G2D1 1.62 2.15 1.89
G2D2 1.91 2.98 2.45
G2D3 2.43 3.97 3.20
G3D1 1.53 1.79 1.66
G3D2 1.80 2.28 2.04
G3D3 2.12 2.92 2.52
G4D1 1.62 2.23 1.92
G4D2 1.92 2.83 2.38
G4D3 2.33 3.56 2.95
G5D1 2.88 3.70 3.29
G5D2 3.69 4.87 4.28
G5D3 4.94 6.61 5.77
S.Em± 0.12 0.20 0.12
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.35 0.59 0.33
Wilt incidence in chickpea was significantly influenced due to plant density. At initial stage of
-1
crop growth (30 days after sowing), wilt incidence was more in normal density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1,
-1
2.18%) than 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher density of 3.99 and 4.66 lakh ha (D2, 1.86% to D3,
1.56%). Similar trend was followed at 60 days after sowing. Similar trend was noticed during 2011-12
also, but during 2012-13, plant density did not significantly influence on wilt incidence.
None of interactions were found to cause significant difference in the wilt incidence at both the
stages of crop growth. A similar trend observed during the individual years of experimentation (2011-
12 and 2012-13) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.8.5 Rust incidence (cf. Table 39)
The incidence of rust was not noticed at all the growth stages across the genotypes, plant
density and their interaction effect during both the years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under rainfed
ecosystem.
4.1.9 Soil moisture content (cf. Table 40)
Pooled data on soil moisture content (%) recorded at 55 days after sowing (flowering stage)
and at harvest of chickpea differed significantly due to genotypes. At flowering, JG-11 recorded
significantly highest soil moisture content (G5, 13.88%) and it was on par with ICCV-11604 (G4,
13.66%), but showed its superiority over all other genotypes. Similarly at harvest also, JG-11 recorded
significantly highest soil moisture content (G5, 10.85%) and was on par with ICCV-11603 (G3,
10.68%). However, the least soil moisture content was recorded with ICCV-11601 at both the stages
(G1, 12.64 and 9.77%, respectively). Similar trend was noticed during 2011-12 and 2012-13 at
harvest, while during 2012-13 effect of genotypes on soil moisture content was non significant at
flowering stage.
Plant density influenced the soil moisture content both at flowering and harvesting stages.
-1
Planting chickpea at higher density of 4.66 lakh ha recorded lowest soil moisture content both at
flowering and at harvest stages (D3, 11.83 and 9.11%, respectively) compared to lower plant density.
However, significant increase in soil moisture content was recorded with normal plant density of 3.33
-1
lakh ha (D1, 14.52 and 11.38%, respectively). Similar trend was followed during the individual years
of experimentation.
The interaction effect of genotypes and plant density on soil moisture content was significant
only at harvest stage. The interaction G5D1 recorded significantly higher moisture content (12.11%) at
harvesting, but was at par with G3D1 and G2D1 (11.57 and 11.29%, respectively), while lower moisture
content was observed with G1D3 (8.65%). Similar trend was observed during the individual years of
4.1.10 Nutrient uptake
4.1.10.1 Nitrogen uptake (cf. Table 41)
-1
The pooled data on nitrogen uptake (kg ha ) in chickpea differed significantly among the
genotypes. Significantly higher nitrogen uptake was noticed with genotype ICCV-11604 (G4, 82.28 kg
ha-1), which was statistically at par with JG-11 (G5, 79.77 kg ha-1), but significantly superior over other
genotypes. However, significantly least nitrogen uptake was observed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 65.05 kg
-1 -1
ha ). During 2011-12, significantly higher nitrogen uptake was observed in JG-11 (G5, 91.03 kg ha )
-1
followed by ICCV-11604 (G4, 85.39 kg ha ). However, during 2012-13 significantly higher nitrogen
-1
uptake was observed in ICCV-11604 (G4, 74.14 kg ha ), which was on par with JG-11 (G5, 73.52 kg
-1
ha ).
Nitrogen uptake in chickpea was significantly influenced by plant density. The nitrogen uptake
increased with increase in plant density. The 40 per cent higher plant density recorded significantly
-1
higher nitrogen uptake (D3, 85.23 kg ha ) compared to 20 per cent higher and normal plant density of
-1
3.33 lakh ha . Similar trend was observed during the individual years (2011-12 and 2012-13).
Interaction effect was non significant. A similar trend was observed during both the years of
4.1.10.1 Phosphorus uptake (cf. Table 41)
-1
The pooled data on phosphorus uptake (kg ha ) in chickpea differed significantly among the
genotypes. Significantly higher phosphorus uptake was recorded with genotype ICCV-11604 (G4, 7.26
-1 -1
kg ha ), and was on par with JG-11 (G5, 7.21 kg ha ).
Table 38: Wilt incidence of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
Wilt incidence (%)

2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 2.57 2.33 2.45 1.66 1.15 1.40
G2 : ICCV-11602 2.59 2.34 2.47 1.73 0.87 1.30
G3 : ICCV-11603 1.96 1.59 1.77 1.29 0.87 1.08
G4 : ICCV-11604 1.66 1.42 1.54 1.20 0.99 1.10
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 1.51 0.69 1.10 1.07 1.04 1.05
S.Em± 0.43 0.58 0.36 0.19 0.10 0.11
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 2.41 1.94 2.18 1.85 1.25 1.55
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 2.05 1.68 1.86 1.42 0.97 1.19
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 1.71 1.41 1.56 0.91 0.72 0.81
S.Em± 0.18 0.28 0.17 0.13 0.09 0.08
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.55 NS 0.48 0.38 0.25 0.22
G1D1 2.93 2.64 2.79 2.29 1.56 1.93
G1D2 2.58 2.34 2.46 1.70 1.12 1.41
G1D3 2.21 2.01 2.11 0.98 0.76 0.87
G2D1 3.04 2.77 2.90 2.08 1.16 1.62
G2D2 2.62 2.36 2.49 1.91 0.83 1.37
G2D3 2.11 1.90 2.00 1.19 0.60 0.90
G3D1 2.21 1.79 2.00 1.88 1.16 1.52
G3D2 1.96 1.59 1.77 1.24 0.83 1.04
G3D3 1.71 1.39 1.55 0.76 0.60 0.68
G4D1 2.00 1.63 1.81 1.53 1.17 1.35
G4D2 1.65 1.43 1.54 1.20 1.04 1.12
G4D3 1.33 1.20 1.27 0.89 0.77 0.83
G5D1 1.90 0.85 1.38 1.46 1.22 1.34
G5D2 1.44 0.67 1.05 1.03 1.04 1.03
G5D3 1.18 0.55 0.87 0.71 0.86 0.79
S.Em± 0.41 0.63 0.38 0.28 0.19 0.17
Table 39: Rust incidence of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
Rust incidence (%)

Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G2 : ICCV-11602 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G3 : ICCV-11603 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G4 : ICCV-11604 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S.Em± - - - - - - - - -
C.D. (P=0.05) - - - - - - - - -
Plant density (D) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S.Em± - - - - - - - - -
C.D. (P=0.05) - - - - - - - - -
Genotype x plant density (GxD) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G1D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G1D2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G1D3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G2D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G2D2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G2D3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G3D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G3D2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G3D3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G4D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G4D2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G4D3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G5D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G5D2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G5D3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S.Em± - - - - - - - - -
C.D. (P=0.05) - - - - - - - - -
Table 40: Soil moisture content in chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
Soil moisture content (%)

Treatment Flowering stage After harvest
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 11.59 13.69 12.64 9.21 10.32 9.77
G2 : ICCV-11602 11.69 13.68 12.69 9.50 10.73 10.12
G3 : ICCV-11603 12.15 14.07 13.11 10.25 11.11 10.68
G4 : ICCV-11604 12.73 14.58 13.66 9.37 10.35 9.86
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 13.01 14.74 13.88 10.35 11.35 10.85
S.Em± 0.25 0.29 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.14
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.82 NS 0.57 0.70 0.62 0.43
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 13.58 15.46 14.52 10.88 11.89 11.38
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 12.27 14.21 13.24 9.76 10.80 10.28
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 10.86 12.79 11.83 8.58 9.64 9.11
S.Em± 0.19 0.18 0.13 0.22 0.23 0.16
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.56 0.54 0.38 0.66 0.68 0.46
G1D1 12.77 14.90 13.84 10.32 11.49 10.90
G1D2 11.64 13.75 12.70 9.19 10.33 9.76
G1D3 10.36 12.42 11.39 8.13 9.16 8.65
G2D1 13.01 15.01 14.01 10.70 11.87 11.29
G2D2 11.79 13.75 12.77 9.64 10.87 10.26
G2D3 10.27 12.29 11.28 8.16 9.45 8.80
G3D1 13.34 15.29 14.31 11.20 11.95 11.57
G3D2 12.33 14.23 13.28 10.22 11.12 10.67
G3D3 10.77 12.70 11.74 9.32 10.27 9.79
G4D1 14.06 15.82 14.94 10.56 11.52 11.04
G4D2 12.62 14.54 13.58 9.40 10.38 9.89
G4D3 11.53 13.38 12.45 8.15 9.17 8.66
G5D1 14.71 16.27 15.49 11.61 12.62 12.11
G5D2 12.96 14.79 13.87 10.32 11.28 10.80
G5D3 11.37 13.17 12.27 9.13 10.16 9.64
S.Em± 0.42 0.41 0.29 0.50 0.52 0.36
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 1.47 1.52 1.02
Table 41: Nutrient uptake by chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1 -1 -1
Nitrogen uptake (kg ha ) Phosphorus uptake (kg ha ) Potassium uptake (kg ha )
Treatment
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 67.98 79.23 73.60 5.18 7.42 6.30 48.24 58.88 53.56
G2 : ICCV-11602 59.20 70.89 65.05 4.25 6.59 5.42 40.41 49.93 45.17
G3 : ICCV-11603 60.85 75.45 68.15 5.15 7.65 6.40 46.64 61.08 53.86
G4 : ICCV-11604 74.14 85.39 82.28 6.30 8.22 7.26 49.73 59.12 54.42
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 73.52 91.03 79.77 6.17 8.25 7.21 29.91 41.86 35.88
S.Em± 1.53 1.04 0.93 0.28 0.09 0.14 1.64 2.02 1.30
C.D. (P=0.05) 5.01 3.40 2.78 0.90 0.29 0.43 5.36 6.58 3.90
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 54.94 67.39 61.16 4.42 6.25 5.33 40.44 51.84 46.14
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 68.20 81.64 74.92 5.46 7.70 6.58 43.47 54.82 49.14
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 78.27 92.18 85.23 6.35 8.94 7.64 45.05 55.86 50.45
S.Em± 1.68 1.28 1.06 0.10 0.17 0.10 1.15 1.08 0.79
C.D. (P=0.05) 4.96 3.76 3.02 0.30 0.51 0.29 3.40 3.20 2.26
G1D1 54.24 64.91 59.57 4.34 6.18 5.26 44.63 54.60 49.62
G1D2 68.36 80.30 74.33 5.13 7.60 6.36 48.55 59.20 53.87
G1D3 81.35 92.48 86.91 6.06 8.49 7.28 51.53 62.84 57.19
G2D1 51.86 60.88 56.37 3.82 5.63 4.73 40.84 49.33 45.08
G2D2 60.23 72.27 66.25 4.36 6.63 5.50 40.44 50.43 45.44
G2D3 65.51 79.53 72.52 4.56 7.51 6.04 39.95 50.04 44.99
G3D1 50.28 64.89 57.58 4.01 6.08 5.04 42.95 58.77 50.86
G3D2 61.50 76.30 68.90 5.27 7.85 6.56 47.33 62.21 54.77
G3D3 70.76 85.16 77.96 6.16 9.02 7.59 49.63 62.27 55.95
G4D1 58.45 69.38 63.91 5.13 6.67 5.90 45.21 54.99 50.10
G4D2 75.67 87.16 81.41 6.18 7.99 7.08 50.62 59.78 55.20
G4D3 88.30 99.65 93.97 7.59 10.00 8.80 53.37 62.58 57.97
G5D1 59.87 76.88 68.37 4.81 6.66 5.74 28.57 41.51 35.04
G5D2 75.24 92.16 83.70 6.33 8.43 7.38 30.40 42.49 36.44
G5D3 85.45 104.06 94.76 7.35 9.66 8.50 30.75 41.57 36.16
S.Em± 3.76 2.85 2.36 0.23 0.39 0.22 2.58 2.42 1.77
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.67 NS 0.64 NS NS NS
However, significantly least phosphorus uptake was observed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 5.42 kg
-1
ha ). Similar trend was observed during 2011-12, while during 2012-13, JG-11 recorded significantly
-1 -1
higher phosphorus uptake (G5, 8.25 kg ha ), which was on par with ICCV-11604 (G4, 8.22 kg ha ).
Phosphorus uptake by chickpea differed significantly due to plant density. The phosphorus
uptake was increased with increase in plant density. Planting at 40 per cent higher density recorded
-1
significantly higher phosphorus uptake (D3, 7.64 kg ha ) compared to 20 per cent higher and normal
-1
plant density (3.33 lakh ha ). Similar trend was observed during the individual years of
experimentation.
Interaction effect between genotypes and plant density was found non significant. A similar
trend was observed during the individual years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under
rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.10.1 Potassium uptake (cf. Table 41)
The pooled data on potassium uptake (kg ha-1) by chickpea varied significantly among the
genotypes. Significantly higher potassium uptake was recorded in genotype ICCV-11604 (G4, 54.42
-1 -1 -1
kg ha ), which was on par with ICCV-11603 (G5, 53.86 kg ha ) and ICCV-11601 (G1, 53.56 kg ha ).
-1
However, significantly least potassium uptake was observed with JG-11 (G2, 35.88 kg ha ). Similar
trend was observed during 2011-12, while during 2012-13, ICCV-11603 recorded significantly higher
-1 -1
potassium uptake (G3, 61.08 kg ha ), which was on par with ICCV-11604 (G4, 59.12 kg ha ) and
-1
ICCV-11601 (G1, 58.88 kg ha ).
Significant variation in potassium uptake in chickpea was observed among the plant density.
-1
Significantly higher potassium uptake (50.45 kg ha ) was recorded at 40 per cent higher density (D3,
-1 -1
4.66 lakh ha ), which was on par with 20 per cent higher plant density (D2, 3.99 lakh ha ), and
-1
significantly superior over normal plant density (D1, 3.33 lakh ha ). Similar trend was observed during
the individual years of experimentation.
Interaction between genotypes and plant density was non significant. A similar trend was
observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.11 Nutrient status of the soil
4.1.11.1 Available N (cf. Table 42)
-
The pooled data showed that genotypes significantly influenced on available N status (kg ha
1
) in soil after harvest of chickpea. Genotype ICCV-11602 recorded significantly higher available N
-1
(G2, 303.09 kg ha ) compared to rest of the genotypes and was followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 291.41
-1 -1
kg ha ). However, least available N was observed in JG-11 (G5, 280.88 kg ha ). A similar trend was
observed during both the years of experimentations (2011-12 and 2012-13).
Available N status in soil differed significantly due to plant density. Significantly higher
-1 -1
available N status in soil was recorded with normal density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 306.88 kg ha )
-1
compared to 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher plant density (D2, 291.17 and G3, 273.44 kg ha ,
respectively). Similar trend was observed during both the years of experimentation.
Interaction between genotype and plant density was non significant. During both the years of
experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13), a similar trend was noticed under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.11.2 Available P2O5 (cf. Table 42)
Pooled results indicated that, available P2O5 status in soil (kg ha-1) significantly varied among
the genotypes. Significantly higher available P2O5 was recorded with ICCV-11602 (G2, 28.46 kg ha-1)
over rest of the genotypes, while significantly least available P2O5 was noticed with JG-11 (G5, 24.25
-1
kg ha ). Similar trend was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13.
The influence of plant density on available P2O5 status in soil was significant. Increase in plant
density progressively and significantly decreased the available P 2O5 status in soil. Significantly higher
-1
available P2O5 was recorded with normal density (D1, 27.31 kg ha ) over 20 per cent and 40 per cent
-1
higher than normal plant density (D2, 26.08 and G3, 24.51 kg ha , respectively). Similar trend was
noticed during both the years of experimentation.
The interaction effect was non significant. Similar trend was noticed during both the years of
Table 42: Available N, P2O5 and K2O status in soil as influenced by chickpea genotypes and plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1 -1 -1
Available N (kg ha ) Available P2O5 (kg ha ) Available K2O (kg ha )
Treatment
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 287.98 294.85 291.41 25.67 27.79 26.73 278.21 287.68 282.94
G2 : ICCV-11602 299.75 306.43 303.09 27.15 29.78 28.46 281.51 291.38 286.45
G3 : ICCV-11603 286.52 292.88 289.70 23.46 27.52 25.49 276.58 289.56 283.07
G4 : ICCV-11604 284.11 290.66 287.39 22.96 26.83 24.90 271.54 286.95 279.24
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 277.32 284.45 280.88 22.74 25.75 24.25 268.88 284.38 276.63
S.Em± 3.05 2.65 2.02 0.27 0.40 0.24 2.41 2.82 1.85
C.D. (P=0.05) 9.96 8.63 6.06 0.87 1.31 0.72 7.85 NS 5.55
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 304.22 309.55 306.88 25.66 28.95 27.31 286.85 293.31 290.08
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 287.60 294.74 291.17 24.55 27.62 26.08 275.58 288.27 281.92
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 269.59 277.28 273.44 22.98 26.04 24.51 263.60 282.39 273.00
S.Em± 2.28 2.34 1.63 0.20 0.21 0.15 2.66 1.34 1.49
C.D. (P=0.05) 6.72 6.90 4.67 0.60 0.63 0.42 7.85 3.94 4.25
G1D1 306.16 311.15 308.65 27.21 29.28 28.24 289.78 293.71 291.74
G1D2 287.82 295.09 291.46 25.66 27.84 26.75 278.51 287.83 283.17
G1D3 269.95 278.31 274.13 24.15 26.25 25.20 266.34 281.50 273.92
G2D1 315.98 320.98 318.48 28.54 31.12 29.83 293.52 296.09 294.80
G2D2 299.68 307.74 303.71 27.14 29.90 28.52 281.52 291.65 286.59
G2D3 283.58 290.58 287.08 25.76 28.31 27.03 269.49 286.40 277.95
G3D1 302.25 307.25 304.75 24.68 28.90 26.79 288.18 293.56 290.87
G3D2 288.20 293.29 290.74 23.59 27.54 25.56 276.70 290.03 283.36
G3D3 269.12 278.12 273.62 22.11 26.13 24.12 264.87 285.10 274.99
G4D1 300.01 305.01 302.51 24.36 28.08 26.22 282.27 292.67 287.47
G4D2 285.06 292.41 288.73 22.95 26.98 24.97 271.57 287.11 279.34
G4D3 267.26 274.57 270.91 21.58 25.42 23.50 260.77 281.08 270.92
G5D1 296.69 303.35 300.02 23.52 27.38 25.45 280.50 290.53 285.52
G5D2 277.21 285.18 281.19 23.41 25.82 24.61 269.60 284.72 277.16
G5D3 258.06 264.81 261.43 21.30 24.07 22.68 256.52 277.89 267.20
S.Em± 5.09 5.23 3.65 0.46 0.48 0.33 5.95 2.99 3.33
Table 43: Economic analysis of chickpea production system as influenced by genotypes and plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1 -1
Gross return (Rs. ha ) Net return (Rs. ha ) B:C ratio
Treatment
G 1D1 40659 51238 45949 25811 36391 31101 1.74 2.45 2.09
G 1D2 47473 58372 52922 31813 42712 37262 2.03 2.73 2.38
G 1D3 53028 63902 58465 36556 47430 41993 2.22 2.88 2.55
G 2D1 42514 52636 47575 27666 37789 32727 1.86 2.55 2.20
G 2D2 50250 60233 55242 34590 44573 39582 2.21 2.85 2.53
G 2D3 56796 66671 61734 40324 50199 45261 2.45 3.05 2.75
G 3D1 36927 48511 42719 22080 33664 27872 1.49 2.27 1.88
G 3D2 43918 55614 49766 28258 39954 34106 1.80 2.55 2.18
G 3D3 49454 61468 55461 32982 44996 38989 2.00 2.73 2.37
G 4D1 43938 53937 48937 29090 39089 34090 1.96 2.63 2.30
G 4D2 51649 61264 56457 35989 45604 40797 2.30 2.91 2.61
G 4D3 58311 68140 63226 41839 51667 46753 2.54 3.14 2.84
G 5D1 59924 68833 64378 45076 53985 49531 3.04 3.64 3.34
G 5D2 64336 74214 69275 48676 58554 53615 3.11 3.74 3.42
G 5D3 66982 76938 71960 50510 60465 55487 3.07 3.67 3.37
S.Em± 836 772 569 836 772 569 0.04 0.05 0.03
C.D. (P=0.05) 2465 2277 1626 2465 2277 1626 0.11 0.14 0.09
4.1.11.2 Available K2O (cf. Table 42)
Pooled results showed that available K2O status in soil (kg ha-1) significantly varied among the
-1
genotypes. The genotype ICCV-11602 recorded significantly higher available K2O (G2, 286.45 kg ha )
-1
over other tested genotypes, which was on par with ICCV-11601 (G1, 282.94 kg ha ) and ICCV-
-1
11603 (G3, 283.07 kg ha ). However, significantly least available K2O was noticed with JG-11 (G5,
-1
276.63 kg ha ). Similar trend was observed during 2011-12, while during 2012-13, the effect of
genotypes on available K2O was non significant.
Plant density influenced significantly on available K 2O status in soil. Increase in plant density
progressively and significantly decreased the available K2O status in soil. Planting at normal density
-1 -1
(3.33 lakh ha ) recorded significantly higher available K2O (D1, 290.08 kg ha ) over 20 per cent and
40 per cent higher than normal plant density. Similar trend was noticed during both the years of
experimentation.
Interaction effect of genotypes and plant density did not differ significantly with respective to
available K2O status in soil. Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and
2012-13 under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.12 Economics of the chickpea production systems under rainfed ecosystem (cf. Table 43)
The pooled data indicated that, net returns was maximum in semi-erect genotype JG-11 with
40 per cent higher plant density (G5D3, Rs. 55,487 ha-1) with gross returns of Rs. 71,960 ha-1 and was
-1
closely followed by JG-11 with 20 per cent higher plant density (G5D2, Rs. 53,615 ha and Rs. 69,275
-1
ha , respectively). However, planting tall genotype ICCV-11604 at 40 per cent higher plant density
-1 -1
(G4D3) recorded on par net and gross returns (Rs. 46,753 ha and Rs. 63,226 ha , respectively) with
-1 -1
normal plant density of JG-11 (G5D1, Rs. 49,531 ha and Rs. 64,378 ha , respectively). The least
-1
returns were obtained in ICCV-11603 with normal density planting (G3D1, Rs. 27,872 ha and Rs.
-1
42,719 ha , respectively).
The higher benefit cost (B:C) ratio of 3.42 was obtained with planting JG-11 at 20 per cent
higher plant density (G5D2), and was followed by JG-11 with 40 per cent higher plant density (G5D3,
3.37). However, least B:C ratio was obtained with planting ICCV-11603 at normal plant density (G3D1,
1.88) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.13 Physicochemical characterization of seeds
4.1.13.1 Seed weight (cf. Table 44)
-1
The pooled data indicated that, significant variation in seed weight (g seed ) was observed
among the genotypes. The genotype ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher seed weight (G4,
0.238 g seed-1) and was on par with ICCV-11601 (G1, 0.232 g seed-1) and JG-11 (G5, 0.231 g seed-1).
However, significantly least seed weight was observed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 0.173 g seed-1).
Plant density and interactions effect was non significant. A similar trend was observed during
the individual years of experimentation under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.13.2 Seed bulk density (cf. Table 44)
The pooled data revealed that, the bulk density of seed (g cc-1) significantly differed among
-1
the genotypes. Significantly higher bulk density was recorded with ICCV-11602 (G2, 0.750 g cc ) and
-1
was on par with JG-11 (G5, 0.727 g cc ). However, significantly least seed bulk density observed with
-1
ICCV-11601 (G1, 0.689 g cc ). During 2012-13, the genotypic effect was not significant.
The planting density and interaction effect was not significant. A similar trend of plant density
and interactions effect was followed during both the years of experimentation under rainfed
ecosystem.
4.1.13.3 Seed volume (cf. Table 45)
-1
The pooled data on seed volume (mL seed ) significantly differed among the genotypes. The
-1
genotype ICCV-11604 (G4, 0.207 mL seed ) recording significantly higher seed volume and was on
-1
par with ICCV-11601 (G1, 0.200 mL seed ). However, significantly least seed volume was observed
with ICCV-11602 (G2, 0.157 mL seed-1).
genotypes, plant density and interactions effect was observed during individual years (2011-12 and
2012-13) under rainfed ecosystem.
Table 44: Seed weight and bulk density of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem
-1 -1
Seed weight (g seed ) Seed bulk density (g cc )
Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.229 0.234 0.232 0.705 0.673 0.689
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.171 0.176 0.173 0.764 0.735 0.750
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.218 0.222 0.220 0.727 0.687 0.707
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.235 0.241 0.238 0.733 0.700 0.717
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.227 0.235 0.231 0.738 0.715 0.727
S.Em± 0.005 0.002 0.003 0.006 0.017 0.009
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.018 0.007 0.009 0.021 NS 0.027
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 0.219 0.225 0.222 0.745 0.717 0.731
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 0.217 0.222 0.219 0.730 0.702 0.716
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0.212 0.219 0.216 0.725 0.687 0.706
S.Em± 0.003 0.003 0.002 0.009 0.014 0.008
G1D1 0.231 0.239 0.235 0.715 0.687 0.701
G1D2 0.230 0.233 0.232 0.702 0.672 0.687
G1D3 0.225 0.232 0.228 0.698 0.660 0.679
G2D1 0.174 0.178 0.176 0.779 0.751 0.765
G2D2 0.170 0.176 0.173 0.758 0.731 0.744
G2D3 0.167 0.173 0.170 0.757 0.723 0.740
G3D1 0.223 0.224 0.224 0.743 0.702 0.723
G3D2 0.221 0.223 0.222 0.720 0.687 0.703
G3D3 0.212 0.219 0.215 0.719 0.672 0.695
G4D1 0.237 0.243 0.240 0.740 0.713 0.727
G4D2 0.233 0.241 0.237 0.732 0.701 0.716
G4D3 0.233 0.238 0.236 0.727 0.686 0.707
G5D1 0.229 0.238 0.233 0.748 0.732 0.740
G5D2 0.228 0.236 0.232 0.740 0.718 0.729
G5D3 0.224 0.231 0.228 0.727 0.694 0.710
S.Em± 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.021 0.031 0.019
Table 45: Seed and pod volume of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
rainfed ecosystem
-1
Seed volume (mL seed ) Pod
volume
Treatment -1
(mL pod )
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
(2012-13)
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.194 0.206 0.200 0.142
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.149 0.164 0.157 0.081
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.191 0.195 0.193 0.133
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.200 0.215 0.207 0.136
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.186 0.196 0.191 0.086
S.Em± 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.001
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.017 0.010 0.009 0.004
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 0.188 0.199 0.194 0.117
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 0.184 0.196 0.190 0.116
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0.180 0.190 0.185 0.114
S.Em± 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.001
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS
G1D1 0.195 0.210 0.203 0.143
G1D2 0.195 0.207 0.201 0.142
G1D3 0.192 0.202 0.197 0.140
G2D1 0.155 0.170 0.163 0.083
G2D2 0.150 0.165 0.158 0.081
G2D3 0.144 0.157 0.150 0.079
G3D1 0.193 0.199 0.196 0.135
G3D2 0.192 0.195 0.193 0.133
G3D3 0.187 0.191 0.189 0.131
G4D1 0.207 0.218 0.212 0.138
G4D2 0.199 0.214 0.207 0.137
G4D3 0.194 0.213 0.203 0.135
G5D1 0.190 0.200 0.195 0.089
G5D2 0.185 0.197 0.191 0.087
G5D3 0.183 0.191 0.187 0.084
S.Em± 0.007 0.009 0.006 0.003
Table 46: Hydration capacity and hydration index of chickpea genotypes as influenced by
Hydration capacity
-1 Hydration index
Treatment (mL seed )
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.206 0.234 0.220 0.904 1.000 0.952
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.140 0.172 0.156 0.819 0.979 0.899
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.111 0.136 0.124 0.513 0.613 0.563
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.244 0.279 0.262 1.054 1.161 1.107
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.238 0.255 0.247 1.049 1.088 1.069
S.Em± 0.006 0.009 0.005 0.038 0.041 0.028
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.019 0.028 0.016 0.125 0.134 0.084
Plant density (D)
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal) 0.195 0.221 0.208 0.892 0.980 0.936
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 0.189 0.216 0.203 0.868 0.974 0.921
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0.180 0.209 0.194 0.842 0.951 0.897
S.Em± 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.033 0.032 0.023
G1D1 0.214 0.243 0.228 0.927 1.018 0.973
G1D2 0.205 0.230 0.218 0.894 0.991 0.943
G1D3 0.199 0.228 0.214 0.890 0.991 0.940
G2D1 0.147 0.181 0.164 0.844 1.016 0.930
G2D2 0.138 0.173 0.155 0.809 0.984 0.896
G2D3 0.135 0.162 0.149 0.805 0.939 0.872
G3D1 0.119 0.142 0.131 0.537 0.634 0.585
G3D2 0.113 0.136 0.125 0.521 0.613 0.567
G3D3 0.101 0.130 0.115 0.480 0.592 0.536
G4D1 0.245 0.280 0.263 1.055 1.154 1.104
G4D2 0.251 0.284 0.267 1.076 1.186 1.131
G4D3 0.237 0.273 0.255 1.030 1.144 1.087
G5D1 0.251 0.256 0.254 1.098 1.078 1.088
G5D2 0.238 0.257 0.247 1.042 1.095 1.069
G5D3 0.226 0.252 0.239 1.007 1.092 1.049
S.Em± 0.014 0.014 0.010 0.073 0.072 0.051
4.1.13.4 Pod volume (cf. Table 45)
The pod volume (mL pod-1) significantly differed among the genotypes. The genotype ICCV-
-1
11601 (G1, 0.142 mL pod ) recorded significantly higher pod volume followed by ICCV-11604 (G4,
1 -1
0.136 mL pod ) and ICCV-11603 (G3, 0.133 mL pod ). However, significantly least pod volume
-1
observed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 0.081 mL pod ).
The effect of plant density and interaction did not differ significantly under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.13.5 Hydration capacity (cf. Table 46)
-1
The pooled results showed that, hydration capacity (mL seed ) differed significantly due to
genotypes. The genotype ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher hydration capacity (G4, 0.262 mL
-1 -1
seed ) compared to rest of the genotypes except JG-11 (G5, 0.247 mL seed ) with which it was on
-1
par. However, least hydration capacity was recorded with ICCV-11603 (G3, 0.124 mL seed ).
Hydration capacity did not vary significantly due to plant density and interaction effect of
genotypes and plant density. A similar trend was observed during both the years of experimentation
4.1.13.6 Hydration index (cf. Table 46)
The pooled data on hydration index was influenced significantly due to genotypes. The
genotype ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher hydration capacity (G4, 1.107) and was on par
with JG-11 (G5, 1.069). However, ICCV-11603 (G3, 0.563) recorded significantly least hydration index.
The plant density and interaction effect was not significant. A similar trend was followed
during both the years of experimentation under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.13.7 Swelling capacity (cf. Table 47)
The pooled data revealed that, the swelling capacity (mL seed-1) significantly differed among
the genotypes. The genotype JG-11 recorded significantly higher swelling capacity (G5, 0.051 mL
-1 -1
seed ) and was on par with ICCV-11604 (G4, 0.049 mL seed ). However, significantly least swelling
-1
capacity was recorded with ICCV-11603 (G3, 0.030 mL seed ).
Effect of plant density and interaction was not significant. A similar trend was followed during
both the years of experimentation under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.13.8 Swelling index (cf. Table 47)
The pooled data revealed that, the swelling index significantly differed among the genotypes.
The genotype ICCV-11602 only recorded significantly higher swelling index (G2, 0.305) compared to
rest of the genotypes, followed by followed by JG-11 (G5, 0.268) and ICCV-11604 (G4, 0.237).
However, significantly least swelling index was recorded with ICCV-11603 (G3, 0.157).
Plant density and interaction effect was not significant. A similar trend was followed during
both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under rainfed ecosystem.
4.1.13.9 Soaked seeds (cf. Table 48)
The pooled data on soaked seeds (%) significantly differed among the genotypes.
Significantly higher soaked seeds were recorded with JG-11 (G5, 96.78%) and were on par with
ICCV-11604 (G4, 96.22%). However, significantly least soaked seed was recorded with ICCV-11603
(G3, 60.00%).
genotypes, plant density and interactions effect was observed under rainfed ecosystem.
4.2 Experiment–II. Performance of tall chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical
harvesting at different plant density under irrigated ecosystem
The experiment was conducted during rabi seasons of 2011-12 and 2012-13. It consisted of
four erect and tall chickpea genotypes viz., ICCV-11601 (G1), ICCV-11602 (G2), ICCV-11603 (G3) and
ICCV-11604 (G4) and one normal semi-erect genotype i.e., JG-11 (G5) with three plant densities viz.,
-1
Normal plant density (D1, 3.33 lakh ha ), 20 per cent higher than normal plant density (D2, 3.99 lakh
-1 -1
ha ) and 40 per cent higher than normal plant density (D3, 4.66 lakh ha ). Two irrigations were
applied to crop one at vegetative and another at flowering stage.
Table 47: Swelling capacity and swelling index of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
-1
Swelling capacity (mL seed ) Swelling index
Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.039 0.041 0.040 0.201 0.198 0.200
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.047 0.048 0.047 0.314 0.296 0.305
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.027 0.033 0.030 0.142 0.172 0.157
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.048 0.050 0.049 0.239 0.234 0.237
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.050 0.052 0.051 0.270 0.267 0.268
S.Em± 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.008 0.012 0.007
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.025 0.041 0.022
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 0.043 0.047 0.045 0.235 0.238 0.237
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 0.042 0.045 0.044 0.235 0.234 0.235
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0.040 0.043 0.042 0.229 0.228 0.229
S.Em± 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.012 0.010 0.008
G1D1 0.040 0.042 0.041 0.205 0.200 0.203
G1D2 0.039 0.041 0.040 0.200 0.199 0.200
G1D3 0.038 0.039 0.039 0.198 0.195 0.197
G2D1 0.048 0.050 0.049 0.309 0.297 0.303
G2D2 0.047 0.049 0.048 0.317 0.295 0.306
G2D3 0.045 0.046 0.046 0.316 0.294 0.305
G3D1 0.029 0.036 0.032 0.150 0.179 0.165
G3D2 0.027 0.034 0.030 0.142 0.173 0.158
G3D3 0.025 0.031 0.028 0.133 0.163 0.148
G4D1 0.049 0.052 0.050 0.237 0.237 0.237
G4D2 0.048 0.050 0.049 0.244 0.234 0.239
G4D3 0.046 0.049 0.047 0.238 0.230 0.234
G5D1 0.052 0.055 0.054 0.276 0.274 0.275
G5D2 0.050 0.052 0.051 0.271 0.270 0.271
G5D3 0.048 0.049 0.048 0.262 0.257 0.259
S.Em± 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.026 0.023 0.018
Table 48: Per cent of soaked seeds of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density
Per cent of soaked seeds

Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 70.89 74.22 72.56
G2 : ICCV-11602 89.11 93.89 91.50
G3 : ICCV-11603 58.44 61.56 60.00
G4 : ICCV-11604 94.44 98.00 96.22
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 94.89 98.67 96.78
S.Em± 0.91 0.75 0.59
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.96 2.44 1.76
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 81.87 85.60 83.73
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 81.60 85.40 83.50
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 81.20 84.80 83.00
S.Em± 0.90 0.57 0.53
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS
G1D1 71.00 74.33 72.67
G1D2 71.00 74.67 72.83
G1D3 70.67 73.67 72.17
G2D1 89.67 94.33 92.00
G2D2 89.00 94.00 91.50
G2D3 88.67 93.33 91.00
G3D1 58.67 62.00 60.33
G3D2 58.67 61.67 60.17
G3D3 58.00 61.00 59.50
G4D1 94.67 98.33 96.50
G4D2 94.67 98.00 96.33
G4D3 94.00 97.67 95.83
G5D1 95.33 99.00 97.17
G5D2 94.67 98.67 96.67
G5D3 94.67 98.33 96.50
S.Em± 2.01 1.28 1.19
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS
Table 49: Plant height of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
Plant height (cm)

Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 23.52 24.72 24.12 65.04 67.71 66.38 74.10 76.08 75.09
G2 : ICCV-11602 23.63 25.52 24.58 65.20 67.95 66.58 75.72 76.52 76.12
G3 : ICCV-11603 21.87 22.95 22.41 59.48 61.30 60.39 68.87 70.83 69.85
G4 : ICCV-11604 20.54 22.07 21.31 64.98 67.16 66.07 72.44 74.12 73.28
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 22.43 22.98 22.71 35.00 36.86 35.93 38.98 40.74 39.86
S.Em± 0.61 0.45 0.38 0.32 0.63 0.35 1.17 0.76 0.70
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.98 1.46 1.13 1.03 2.06 1.06 3.82 2.48 2.09
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 21.87 23.06 22.47 55.38 57.72 56.55 63.11 64.95 64.03
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 22.44 23.66 23.05 57.64 60.13 58.88 66.02 67.66 66.84
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 22.89 24.23 23.56 60.80 62.74 61.77 68.94 70.37 69.65
S.Em± 0.35 0.52 0.31 0.46 0.42 0.31 0.42 0.47 0.32
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 1.34 1.25 0.89 1.25 1.39 0.91
G1D1 22.67 24.31 23.49 62.20 65.62 63.91 71.18 73.53 72.35
G1D2 23.50 24.76 24.13 64.97 67.66 66.31 73.83 75.68 74.75
G1D3 24.41 25.09 24.75 67.97 69.84 68.90 77.29 79.03 78.16
G2D1 23.45 25.03 24.24 62.60 65.42 64.01 72.47 73.66 73.06
G2D2 23.57 25.18 24.37 64.13 67.80 65.97 75.90 76.83 76.37
G2D3 23.88 26.37 25.13 68.87 70.64 69.75 78.80 79.07 78.93
G3D1 21.40 22.46 21.93 57.24 59.03 58.13 66.00 68.41 67.21
G3D2 21.98 23.00 22.49 59.51 61.30 60.41 68.88 70.89 69.88
G3D3 22.23 23.38 22.81 61.69 63.57 62.63 71.73 73.19 72.46
G4D1 19.87 21.56 20.71 62.23 64.23 63.23 69.37 71.25 70.31
G4D2 20.66 22.10 21.38 64.63 66.88 65.76 72.53 74.10 73.32
G4D3 21.10 22.56 21.83 68.07 70.36 69.22 75.43 77.00 76.21
G5D1 21.98 21.96 21.97 32.63 34.31 33.47 36.55 37.90 37.22
G5D2 22.48 23.24 22.86 34.97 36.99 35.98 38.94 40.79 39.86
G5D3 22.83 23.74 23.29 37.40 39.28 38.34 41.45 43.53 42.49
S.Em± 0.78 1.15 0.70 1.02 0.95 0.70 0.95 1.06 0.71
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 3.01 2.80 1.99 2.80 3.12 2.03
4.2.1 Growth attributes
The pooled data revealed that, genotypes significantly influenced on plant height at 30 days
after sowing, 60 days after sowing and at harvest of chickpea. At 30 days after sowing, significantly
taller plants were produced by genotype ICCV-11602 (G2, 24.58 cm), which was on par with ICCV-
11601 and JG-11 (G1, 24.12 cm and G5, 22.71 cm, respectively), but significantly superior over rest of
the genotypes. Significantly lower plant height was recorded with genotype ICCV-11604 (G4, 21.31
cm). At 60 days after sowing also, ICCV-11602 produced significantly taller plants (G2, 66.58 cm) than
other tested genotypes, which was closely followed by ICCV-11601 and ICCV-11604 (G1, 66.38 cm
and G4, 66.07 cm, respectively) and were statistically at par with best genotype. However, JG-11
produced significantly lower plant height (G5, 35.93 cm). A similar trend of plant height was noticed at
harvest stage also. During the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 similar trend was observed
with recording significantly taller plants in ICCV-11602 at 30 days after sowing (G2, 23.63 and 25.52
cm, respectively), 60 days after sowing (G2, 65.20 and 67.95 cm, respectively) and at harvest (G2,
75.72 and 76.52 cm, respectively).
Plant density significantly influenced plant height at all the growth stages except at 30 days
after sowing. However, numerically higher plant height was noticed with higher plant density than
lower density. At 60 days after sowing, higher density of 4.66 lakh ha-1 produced significantly taller
-1
plants (D3, 61.77 cm) than lower plant density of 3.99 lakh and 3.33 lakh ha (D2, 58.88 cm and D1,
56.55 cm, respectively). Similar trend was noticed at harvest. Also during the individual years of 2011-
-1
12 and 2012-13, similar trend of plant height was observed with higher plant density of 4.66 lakh ha
recording significantly taller plants at 60 days after sowing (D3, 60.80 and 62.74 cm, respectively) and
at harvest (D3, 68.94 and 70.37 cm, respectively) than lower plant density.
A significant difference among the interaction effect of genotypes and plant density was found
only at 60 days after sowing and at harvest. At 60 days after sowing, G2D3 produced significantly taller
plants (69.75 cm), which was at par with G1D3 (68.90 cm). However, lower plant height was observed
with G5D1 (33.47 cm). Similarly, at harvest, significantly taller plants were produced by G2D3 (78.93
cm), which was at par with G1D3 (78.16 cm), while lower values were recorded with G5D1 (37.22 cm).
A similar trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated
ecosystem.
The genotypic effect on number of primary branches per plant at different growth stages was
found to be significant. At 30 days after sowing, significantly more number of primary branches per
plant was produced by JG-11 (G5, 5.51), followed by ICCV-11603 and ICCV-11604 (G3, 4.69 and G4,
4.56, respectively) and were on statistical at par. However, the least number of primary branches per
plant was produced with ICCV-11601 (G1, 4.07). At 60 days after sowing, significantly more number of
branches per plant was recorded with ICCV-11603 (G3, 6.36), which was on par with JG-11 and
ICCV-11604 (G5, 6.12 and G4, 6.09, respectively). Significantly least number of primary branches per
plant was produced with ICCV-11601 (G1, 5.32). Similarly, at harvest also, significantly more number
of primary branches per plant were produced with ICCV-11603 (G3, 7.80), it was followed by ICCV-
11602 and ICCV-11604 (G2, 7.37 and G4, 7.34, respectively), but significantly least number of primary
branches per plant were noticed with ICCV-11601 (G1, 6.73). Similar trend was observed during the
The influence of plant density on number of primary branches per plant was significant only at
60 days after sowing and at harvest. At 60 days after sowing, significantly more number of primary
-1
branches per plant was produced at normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 6.27) than higher
-1
density of 3.99 lakh (D2, 5.92) and 4.66 lakh ha (D3, 5.56). Similarly, at harvest also, significantly
-1
more number of primary branches per plant was observed with normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha
-1
(D1, 7.65) compared to higher plant density of 3.99 lakh and 4.66 lakh ha (D2, 7.25 and D3, 6.87,
respectively). Similar trend was observed during both the years of experimentation.
Number of primary branches per plant was not significant at all the growth stages. Similar
trend was observed during the individual years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under
irrigated ecosystem.
Table 50: Number of primary branches per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
Number of primary branches plant-1

Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 3.99 4.15 4.07 5.24 5.41 5.32 6.62 6.83 6.73
G2 : ICCV-11602 4.37 4.60 4.49 5.60 5.78 5.69 6.98 7.76 7.37
G3 : ICCV-11603 4.56 4.81 4.69 6.25 6.48 6.36 7.67 7.93 7.80
G4 : ICCV-11604 4.47 4.66 4.56 5.99 6.20 6.09 7.56 7.12 7.34
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 5.34 5.67 5.51 6.03 6.22 6.12 6.91 7.18 7.05
S.Em± 0.25 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.19 0.17 0.13
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.81 0.25 0.39 0.56 0.43 0.32 0.64 0.54 0.38
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 4.80 4.97 4.89 6.17 6.38 6.27 7.53 7.77 7.65
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 4.53 4.78 4.65 5.82 6.01 5.92 7.15 7.35 7.25
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 4.30 4.59 4.45 5.47 5.66 5.56 6.76 6.97 6.87
S.Em± 0.17 0.18 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.12 0.08
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.33 0.20 0.19 0.31 0.35 0.22
G1D1 4.20 4.29 4.24 5.52 5.72 5.62 6.96 7.20 7.08
G1D2 4.01 4.15 4.08 5.24 5.39 5.32 6.61 6.81 6.71
G1D3 3.76 4.01 3.88 4.95 5.12 5.04 6.29 6.49 6.39
G2D1 4.62 4.74 4.68 5.87 6.04 5.95 7.63 8.09 7.86
G2D2 4.39 4.62 4.51 5.62 5.79 5.71 6.93 7.78 7.36
G2D3 4.11 4.43 4.27 5.30 5.50 5.40 6.38 7.41 6.90
G3D1 4.74 4.96 4.85 6.52 6.77 6.65 7.98 8.25 8.12
G3D2 4.49 4.80 4.65 6.26 6.50 6.38 7.69 7.94 7.82
G3D3 4.45 4.68 4.57 5.95 6.18 6.06 7.35 7.60 7.48
G4D1 4.64 4.79 4.72 6.26 6.47 6.37 7.87 7.43 7.65
G4D2 4.44 4.66 4.55 6.01 6.22 6.12 7.58 7.12 7.35
G4D3 4.32 4.53 4.43 5.70 5.90 5.80 7.22 6.80 7.01
G5D1 5.82 6.08 5.95 6.67 6.90 6.79 7.22 7.88 7.55
G5D2 5.32 5.65 5.49 5.98 6.15 6.07 6.93 7.11 7.02
G5D3 4.88 5.29 5.08 5.43 5.62 5.52 6.57 6.57 6.57
S.Em± 0.38 0.41 0.28 0.25 0.16 0.15 0.23 0.26 0.18
Table 51: Number of secondary branches per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1
Number of secondary branches plant
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 2.07 2.16 2.11 10.80 11.42 11.11 15.46 16.49 15.97
G2 : ICCV-11602 2.25 2.35 2.30 14.13 14.80 14.46 17.15 17.93 17.54
G3 : ICCV-11603 2.13 2.24 2.19 12.51 13.40 12.96 15.34 16.67 16.01
G4 : ICCV-11604 1.62 1.73 1.67 13.03 14.41 13.72 16.36 17.26 16.81
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 4.63 4.87 4.75 10.75 11.07 10.91 12.50 13.04 12.77
S.Em± 0.32 0.15 0.18 0.51 0.41 0.33 0.40 0.59 0.36
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.06 0.47 0.53 1.68 1.35 0.99 1.31 1.92 1.07
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 2.67 2.79 2.73 13.45 14.02 13.74 16.71 17.60 17.16
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 2.54 2.66 2.60 12.28 12.94 12.61 15.38 16.30 15.84
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 2.42 2.55 2.48 11.00 12.10 11.55 13.99 14.93 14.46
S.Em± 0.12 0.11 0.08 0.31 0.24 0.20 0.36 0.23 0.22
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.93 0.70 0.56 1.08 0.68 0.62
G1D1 2.14 2.23 2.19 11.66 12.33 12.00 16.44 17.48 16.96
G1D2 2.07 2.14 2.11 10.79 11.41 11.10 15.46 16.47 15.97
G1D3 2.01 2.09 2.05 9.95 10.53 10.24 14.47 15.51 14.99
G2D1 2.33 2.42 2.38 15.27 15.91 15.59 18.30 19.08 18.69
G2D2 2.25 2.36 2.30 14.10 14.79 14.44 17.19 17.97 17.58
G2D3 2.17 2.26 2.22 13.01 13.71 13.36 15.96 16.75 16.35
G3D1 2.22 2.34 2.28 13.67 14.08 13.87 16.61 17.88 17.25
G3D2 2.14 2.25 2.20 12.54 13.10 12.82 15.35 16.71 16.03
G3D3 2.04 2.14 2.09 11.33 13.01 12.17 14.06 15.42 14.74
G4D1 1.73 1.82 1.78 14.00 14.94 14.47 17.44 18.34 17.89
G4D2 1.60 1.71 1.65 13.08 14.37 13.73 16.39 17.28 16.84
G4D3 1.52 1.65 1.59 12.00 13.91 12.95 15.23 16.16 15.70
G5D1 4.92 5.16 5.04 12.67 12.84 12.76 14.76 15.23 14.99
G5D2 4.64 4.85 4.75 10.88 11.03 10.96 12.50 13.07 12.79
G5D3 4.34 4.59 4.46 8.70 9.33 9.02 10.24 10.81 10.53
S.Em± 0.27 0.24 0.18 0.70 0.53 0.44 0.81 0.52 0.48
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 2.08 1.57 1.26 2.40 1.53 1.38
The pooled data pertaining to number of secondary branches per plant differed among the
genotypes at all the growth stages. At 30 days after sowing, semi-erect genotype JG-11 produced
significantly more number of secondary branches per plant (G5, 4.75) compared to rest of the
genotypes. The next best genotype was ICCV-11602 (G2, 2.30), which was at par with ICCV-11603
(G3, 2.19) and ICCV-11601 (G1, 2.11). However, significantly least secondary branches per plant was
observed with ICCV-11604 (G4, 1.67). At 60 days after sowing, significantly more number of
secondary branches per plant was produced with ICCV-11602 (G2, 14.46), which was at par with
ICCV-11604 (G4, 13.72). Significantly least number of secondary branches per plant was produced by
JG-11 (G5, 10.91). Similar trend was noticed at harvest also. During the individual years of
experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13), a similar trend of number of secondary branches per plant
was produced.
Number of secondary branches per plant was varied significantly due to plant density at all
the growth stages except at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days after sowing, significantly more number
-1
of secondary branches per plant were produced at normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 13.74)
-1
over higher plant density of 3.99 lakh and 4.66 lakh ha (D2, 12.61 and D3, 11.55, respectively). At
harvest also, a similar trend was observed. Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of
2011-12 and 2012-13.
Number of secondary branches per plant was influenced significantly due to interaction effect
at all the stages of crop growth except at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days after sowing, significantly
more number of secondary branches per plant was recorded with G2D1 (15.59) and was at par with
G4D1 (14.47) and G2D2 (14.44), while least number of secondary branches per plant was observed
with G5D3 (9.03). At harvest also, G2D1 recorded significant more number of secondary branches per
plant (18.69), which was statistically at par with G4D1 (17.89). However, least number of secondary
branches per plant was observed with G5D3 (10.53). Similar trend was observed during both the years
of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.1.4 Canopy spread per plant (cf. Table 52)
2 -1
The pooled data indicated that, significant differences in canopy spread (cm plant ) were
noticed at different growth stages due to genotypes. At 30 days after sowing, JG-11 showed
2 -1
significantly maximum canopy spread (G5, 531.02 cm plant ) over rest of the genotypes, which was
2 -1 2 -1
followed by ICCV-11602 (G2, 401.71 cm plant ) and ICCV-11603 (G3, 399.72 cm plant ) and were
at par with each other. However, minimum canopy spread was noticed with ICCV-11604 (G4, 344.19
cm2 plant-1). A similar trend was observed at 60 days after sowing. At harvest, maximum canopy
spread was observed with JG-11 (G5, 1133.12 cm2 plant-1), but was closely followed by ICCV-11602
2 2 -1
and ICCV-11603 (G2, 899.27 cm and G3, 859.93 cm plant , respectively) and were statistically at
par with each other. Similar trend was observed during both the years experimentation.
Significant differences in canopy spread were noticed due to plant density only at 60 days
after sowing and at harvest, but not influenced significantly at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days after
-1
sowing, significantly maximum canopy spread was noticed in normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha
2 -1 -1
(D1, 818.37 cm plant ), which was significantly superior to higher plant density of 3.99 ha and 4.66
-1 2 2 -1
lakh ha (D2, 737.98 cm and D3, 662.76 cm plant , respectively). Similar trend of canopy spread
was observed at harvest also. During the individual years experimentation, a similar trend of canopy
spread at all the growth stages was observed.
Interaction effect was significant at all stages of crop growth except at 30 days after sowing.
2
At 60 days after sowing, G5D3 was recorded significantly maximum canopy spread (1131.66 cm
-1 2 -1
plant ), which was closely followed G5D2 (1007.44 cm plant ), while significantly minimum canopy
2 -1
spread was noticed with G4D3 (560.90 cm plant ). Similarly, at harvest, G5D1 observed significantly
2 -1 2 -1
maximum canopy spread (1266.03 cm plant ) followed by G5D2 (1136.01 cm plant ). The minimum
2 -1
canopy spread was noticed with G4D3 (710.85 cm plant ). Similar trend was observed during both
the years experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.1.5 Leaf area per plant (cf. Table 53)
2 -1
The pooled data on leaf area (dm plant ) at 30, 60 and 75/90 days after sowing varied
significantly due to genotypes. At 30 days after sowing, the tall genotype ICCV-11601 recorded
2 -1 2
significantly highest leaf area (G1, 6.59 dm plant ), which was on par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 6.40 dm
-1
plant ), but showed superiority over other tested of genotypes. Significantly lowest leaf area was
2 -1 2 -1
noticed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 4.88 dm plant ), and was at par with JG-11 (G5, 5.08 dm plant ).
Table 52: Canopy spread of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
Canopy spread (cm2)

Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 370.03 389.56 379.80 657.80 686.60 672.20 799.41 836.36 817.88
G2 : ICCV-11602 395.03 408.39 401.71 686.94 715.23 701.09 881.18 917.36 899.27
G3 : ICCV-11603 388.14 411.31 399.72 686.35 716.51 701.43 843.23 876.63 859.93
G4 : ICCV-11604 337.45 350.92 344.19 605.54 633.07 619.31 764.36 808.89 786.63
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 517.99 544.05 531.02 978.29 1030.68 1004.49 1099.19 1167.04 1133.12
S.Em± 19.54 27.99 17.07 15.55 14.80 10.73 31.03 25.20 19.99
C.D. (P=0.05) 63.72 91.27 51.16 50.73 48.26 32.18 101.21 82.19 59.93
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 434.90 456.10 445.50 800.46 836.28 818.37 966.59 1015.12 990.85
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 403.62 421.78 412.70 721.88 754.08 737.98 875.16 920.93 898.05
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 366.66 384.66 375.66 646.62 678.91 662.76 790.67 827.72 809.19
S.Em± 28.86 27.05 19.78 12.32 14.24 9.41 15.93 20.84 13.12
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 36.34 41.99 26.90 47.01 61.47 37.49
G1D1 399.47 418.77 409.12 721.83 753.38 737.60 878.14 916.10 897.12
G1D2 370.21 392.16 381.18 658.35 686.27 672.31 796.90 838.56 817.73
G1D3 340.42 357.75 349.08 593.22 620.17 606.69 723.19 754.41 738.80
G2D1 417.45 435.70 426.58 750.73 784.02 767.37 959.43 1004.43 981.93
G2D2 402.69 412.61 407.65 687.43 713.23 700.33 879.63 925.02 902.32
G2D3 364.94 376.85 370.90 622.65 648.45 635.55 804.46 822.64 813.55
G3D1 412.27 437.34 424.81 750.54 783.39 766.96 914.84 952.84 933.84
G3D2 388.65 409.03 398.84 687.26 714.80 701.03 844.45 876.52 860.48
G3D3 363.48 387.57 375.53 621.25 651.34 636.29 770.40 800.52 785.46
G4D1 356.28 376.85 366.56 673.43 703.07 688.25 848.94 901.75 875.35
G4D2 338.27 350.81 344.54 595.21 622.32 608.76 753.80 793.58 773.69
G4D3 317.81 325.10 321.46 547.98 573.83 560.90 690.36 731.34 710.85
G5D1 589.03 611.82 600.43 1105.76 1157.56 1131.66 1231.60 1300.46 1266.03
G5D2 518.29 544.29 531.29 981.13 1033.75 1007.44 1101.04 1170.98 1136.01
G5D3 446.64 476.04 461.34 847.99 900.74 874.36 964.94 1029.69 997.31
S.Em± 64.54 60.48 44.22 27.54 31.83 21.05 35.63 46.59 29.33
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 81.26 93.90 60.16 105.11 137.44 83.82
Table 53: Leaf area per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1 2
Leaf area plant (dm )
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 6.36 6.81 6.59 12.66 13.40 13.03 13.20 13.99 13.59
G2 : ICCV-11602 4.83 4.93 4.88 10.66 11.31 10.99 12.28 12.83 12.56
G3 : ICCV-11603 6.19 6.62 6.40 11.80 12.45 12.12 13.43 13.97 13.70
G4 : ICCV-11604 5.41 5.84 5.63 11.09 11.59 11.34 12.87 13.28 13.08
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 4.80 5.37 5.08 10.14 10.74 10.44 11.89 12.39 12.14
S.Em± 0.32 0.37 0.24 0.22 0.23 0.16 0.22 0.26 0.17
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.04 1.20 0.73 0.71 0.75 0.48 0.72 0.85 0.51
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 6.01 6.42 6.21 12.17 12.81 12.49 13.67 14.26 13.96
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 5.56 5.94 5.75 11.31 11.93 11.62 12.80 13.35 13.07
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 5.00 5.39 5.19 10.33 10.96 10.64 11.73 12.27 12.00
S.Em± 0.33 0.48 0.29 0.17 0.19 0.13 0.17 0.17 0.12
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.51 0.57 0.37 0.49 0.49 0.33
G1D1 6.89 7.36 7.13 13.64 14.35 14.00 14.19 14.96 14.58
G1D2 6.44 6.82 6.63 12.68 13.42 13.05 13.23 14.02 13.63
G1D3 5.76 6.25 6.00 11.65 12.42 12.04 12.17 12.98 12.58
G2D1 5.24 5.37 5.31 11.52 12.20 11.86 13.26 13.87 13.57
G2D2 4.84 4.94 4.89 10.71 11.35 11.03 12.32 12.86 12.59
G2D3 4.42 4.48 4.45 9.76 10.38 10.07 11.26 11.75 11.51
G3D1 6.67 7.05 6.86 12.71 13.34 13.03 14.25 14.79 14.52
G3D2 6.22 6.64 6.43 11.85 12.47 12.16 13.53 14.08 13.81
G3D3 5.68 6.17 5.92 10.85 11.53 11.19 12.49 13.05 12.77
G4D1 5.79 6.20 5.99 11.90 12.46 12.18 13.73 14.22 13.98
G4D2 5.45 5.85 5.65 11.11 11.62 11.36 12.92 13.30 13.11
G4D3 5.00 5.46 5.23 10.26 10.70 10.48 11.97 12.31 12.14
G5D1 5.45 6.09 5.77 11.07 11.68 11.38 12.91 13.46 13.18
G5D2 4.83 5.43 5.13 10.21 10.80 10.50 12.00 12.47 12.24
G5D3 4.13 4.59 4.36 9.13 9.75 9.44 10.77 11.25 11.01
S.Em± 0.75 1.07 0.65 0.38 0.42 0.29 0.38 0.40 0.26
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 1.14 1.28 0.83 1.10 1.09 0.75
Similarly, at 60 days after sowing, ICCV-11601 recorded significantly highest leaf area (G1,
2 -1 2 -1
13.03 dm plant ) followed by ICCV-11603 and ICCV-11604 (G3, 12.12 and G4, 11.34 dm plant ,
2 -1
respectively), but lowest leaf area was observed with JG-11 (G5, 10.44 dm plant ). At 75/90 days
2 -1
after sowing, ICCV-11603 produced significantly higher leaf area (G3, 13.70 dm plant ), which were
2 -1
on par with ICCV-11601 (G1, 13.59 dm plant ). The ICCV-11601 was on par with ICCV-11604 (G4,
13.08 dm2 plant-1. The lowest leaf area was noticed with semi-erect genotype JG-11 (G5, 12.14 dm2
-1
plant ). Similar trend was followed during the individual years of experimentation.
Data on leaf area per plant influenced significantly due to plant density at all growth stages
(60 and 75/90 days after sowing) except at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days after sowing and at
harvest, significantly highest leaf area was recorded in normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha-1 (D1,
2 -1
12.49 and 13.96 dm plant , respectively) over higher plant density of 3.99 lakh (D2, 11.62 and 13.07
2 -1 -1 2 -1
dm plant , respectively) and 4.66 lakh ha (D3, 10.64 and 12.00 dm plant , respectively). Similar
trend of leaf area was followed during the individual years of experimentation.
A significant difference in interaction effects of genotypes and plant density on leaf area per
plant were found at all growth stages except at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days after sowing,
2 -1
significantly higher leaf area was recorded with G1D1 (14.00 dm plant ) followed by G1D2 (13.05) and
2 -1 2 -1
G3D1 (13.03 dm plant ), while lower values were observed with G5D3 (9.44 dm plant ). Similarly, at
2 -1
75/90 days after sowing, significantly higher leaf area was observed with G1D1 (14.58 dm plant ),
2 -1 2 -1
which was at par with G3D1 (14.52 dm plant ) and G4D1 (13.98 dm plant ), while significantly lower
2 -1
values were observed with G5D3 (11.01 dm plant ). A similar trend was observed during the
individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.1.6 Dry matter accumulation in leaves (cf. Table 54)
-1
Genotypes significantly influenced on dry matter accumulation in leaves (g plant ) at all the
growth stages under irrigated condition. At 30 days after sowing, the tall genotype ICCV-11601
-1
recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in leaves (G 1, 2.45 g plant ), which was on par
-1
with ICCV-11603 (G3, 2.13 g plant ). However, lower dry matter accumulation in leaves was observed
-1
with ICCV-11602 (G2, 1.53 g plant ). Similar trend of dry matter accumulation in leaves recorded in at
30 days after sowing was noticed at 60 days after sowing also. At 75/90 days after sowing, the
genotype ICCV-11603 recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in leaves (G3, 6.10 g
plant-1), it was at par with ICCV-11604 (G4, 5.89 g plant-1). However, the lower dry matter
-1
accumulation in leaves was observed with JG-11 (G5, 4.78 g plant ). At harvest, ICCV-11604
-1
recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in leaves (G4, 4.98 g plant ) than all the tested
-1
genotypes except ICCV-11603 and ICCV-11601 (G3, 4.79 g and G1, 4.63 g plant , respectively). A
similar trend of dry matter accumulation in leaves was observed during both the years of experiments
(2011-12 and 2012-13).
Plant density on dry matter accumulation in leaves were significant at all the growth stages,
except at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days after sowing, significantly higher dry matter accumulation
-1 -1
in leaves was recorded with normal density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 5.95 g plant ) compared to higher
-1 -1
plant density of 3.99 lakhs and 4.66 lakh ha (D2, 5.14 g and D3, 4.33 g plant , respectively). Similar
trend was followed at 75/90 days after sowing and at harvest also. A similar trend of dry matter
accumulation in leaves was observed during both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-
13).
Interaction effect was significant at all the growth stages except at 30 days after sowing. At 60
days after, significantly higher dry matter accumulation in leaves was recorded with G 1D1 (6.56 g
plant-1), which was at par with G3D1 (6.52 g plant-1), while least dry matter accumulation in leaves was
found with G5D3 (3.74 g plant-1). On the contrary, at 75/90 days after sowing, G3D1 recorded
-1
significantly higher dry matter accumulation in leaves (6.64 g plant ), which was at par with G4D1
-1 -1
(6.55 g plant ) and G1D1 (6.45 g plant ). However, significantly lower dry matter accumulation in
-1
leaves was recorded with G5D3 (4.04 g plant ). At harvest, G4D1 recorded significantly higher dry
-1
matter accumulation in leaves (5.60 g plant ), which was at par with G3D1 and G1D1 (5.32and 5.19 g
-1 -1
plant , respectively), while lower values were recorded with G5D3 (3.42 g plant ). During both the
years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13), a similar trend was noticed under irrigated
ecosystem.
Table 54: Dry matter accumulation in leaves of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1
Dry matter accumulation in leaves (g plant )
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 2.40 2.49 2.45 5.64 5.86 5.75 5.61 5.92 5.77 4.57 4.68 4.63
G2 : ICCV-11602 1.48 1.58 1.53 4.36 4.49 4.42 4.64 5.06 4.85 3.91 4.11 4.01
G3 : ICCV-11603 2.11 2.15 2.13 5.52 5.71 5.62 6.04 6.15 6.10 4.73 4.86 4.79
G4 : ICCV-11604 1.88 1.94 1.91 5.09 5.30 5.20 5.70 6.08 5.89 4.87 5.09 4.98
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 1.76 1.84 1.80 4.63 4.78 4.70 4.57 4.99 4.78 3.85 4.10 3.97
S.Em± 0.17 0.16 0.12 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.22 0.16 0.14
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.57 0.53 0.36 0.48 0.26 0.25 0.38 0.34 0.24 0.73 0.51 0.41
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 2.10 2.16 2.13 5.86 6.03 5.95 6.09 6.25 6.17 4.95 5.13 5.04
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 1.92 1.99 1.95 5.03 5.25 5.14 5.26 5.57 5.42 4.37 4.55 4.46
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 1.76 1.84 1.80 4.25 4.41 4.33 4.58 5.09 4.83 3.83 4.03 3.93
S.Em± 0.15 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.13 0.09
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.25 0.23 0.16 0.15 0.20 0.12 0.33 0.39 0.25
G1D 1 2.64 2.70 2.67 6.47 6.64 6.56 6.38 6.53 6.45 5.12 5.26 5.19
G1D 2 2.41 2.47 2.44 5.62 6.05 5.83 5.53 5.97 5.75 4.58 4.65 4.61
G1D 3 2.16 2.32 2.24 4.84 4.90 4.87 4.93 5.27 5.10 4.01 4.15 4.08
G2D 1 1.53 1.62 1.58 5.12 5.22 5.17 5.46 5.75 5.60 4.42 4.65 4.53
G2D 2 1.48 1.58 1.53 4.31 4.41 4.36 4.50 4.85 4.67 3.88 4.07 3.98
G2D 3 1.42 1.54 1.48 3.64 3.85 3.74 3.95 4.58 4.26 3.42 3.59 3.51
G3D 1 2.31 2.37 2.34 6.41 6.63 6.52 6.54 6.73 6.64 5.32 5.32 5.32
G3D 2 2.11 2.15 2.13 5.54 5.73 5.64 6.05 6.14 6.10 4.71 4.92 4.82
G3D 3 1.91 1.93 1.92 4.61 4.78 4.70 5.52 5.58 5.55 4.15 4.33 4.24
G4D 1 2.07 2.13 2.10 5.68 5.90 5.79 6.51 6.58 6.55 5.46 5.75 5.60
G4D 2 1.87 1.93 1.90 5.09 5.30 5.20 5.73 6.04 5.89 4.90 5.01 4.95
G4D 3 1.70 1.76 1.73 4.51 4.70 4.60 4.84 5.60 5.22 4.27 4.51 4.39
G5D 1 1.95 2.01 1.98 5.64 5.79 5.71 5.55 5.68 5.62 4.45 4.67 4.56
G5D 2 1.72 1.84 1.78 4.58 4.74 4.66 4.49 4.87 4.68 3.80 4.08 3.94
G5D 3 1.60 1.66 1.63 3.67 3.81 3.74 3.66 4.41 4.04 3.28 3.55 3.42
S.Em± 0.33 0.26 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.10 0.30 0.29 0.19
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.55 0.51 0.36 0.34 0.46 0.28 0.74 0.87 0.55
Table 55: Dry matter accumulation in stem of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1
Dry matter accumulation in stem (g plant )
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 3.20 3.46 3.33 7.99 8.27 8.13 11.74 12.12 11.93 12.66 13.33 12.99
G2 : ICCV-11602 2.77 2.98 2.87 7.20 7.49 7.35 9.89 10.30 10.09 10.22 10.66 10.44
G3 : ICCV-11603 3.08 3.27 3.18 7.87 8.16 8.02 11.24 11.66 11.45 12.17 12.73 12.45
G4 : ICCV-11604 2.71 2.89 2.80 7.82 8.10 7.96 11.35 11.95 11.65 12.47 12.70 12.58
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 2.93 2.95 2.94 6.53 7.20 6.87 6.12 6.49 6.30 6.33 6.75 6.54
S.Em± 0.20 0.27 0.17 0.23 0.25 0.17 0.23 0.31 0.20 0.31 0.31 0.22
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.76 NS 0.51 0.76 1.02 0.58 1.00 1.00 0.65
Plant density (D)
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal) 3.15 3.32 3.23 8.67 8.96 8.81 11.18 11.61 11.39 12.11 12.56 12.34
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 2.95 3.14 3.05 7.51 7.81 7.66 10.19 10.61 10.40 10.85 11.31 11.08
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 2.71 2.87 2.79 6.28 6.77 6.52 8.83 9.29 9.06 9.36 9.83 9.59
S.Em± 0.20 0.18 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.09 0.13 0.17 0.11 0.26 0.22 0.17
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.35 0.43 0.27 0.38 0.51 0.31 0.76 0.65 0.48
G1D 1 3.41 3.72 3.56 9.13 9.40 9.26 12.78 13.19 12.98 14.02 14.47 14.25
G1D 2 3.25 3.49 3.37 7.99 8.28 8.13 11.95 12.24 12.09 12.70 13.47 13.08
G1D 3 2.94 3.17 3.05 6.84 7.12 6.98 10.48 10.92 10.70 11.27 12.04 11.66
G2D 1 2.97 3.26 3.11 8.34 8.62 8.48 11.02 11.42 11.22 11.52 11.97 11.75
G2D 2 2.77 2.98 2.87 7.21 7.51 7.36 9.90 10.33 10.12 10.20 10.72 10.46
G2D 3 2.56 2.70 2.63 6.05 6.33 6.19 8.73 9.14 8.94 8.95 9.29 9.12
G3D 1 3.30 3.50 3.40 9.03 9.31 9.17 12.23 12.64 12.44 13.37 14.12 13.75
G3D 2 3.10 3.27 3.19 7.86 8.17 8.02 11.35 11.79 11.57 12.33 12.70 12.51
G3D 3 2.85 3.03 2.94 6.72 7.01 6.86 10.14 10.55 10.35 10.81 11.37 11.09
G4D 1 2.83 3.06 2.95 8.82 9.14 8.98 12.24 12.83 12.54 13.76 14.01 13.89
G4D 2 2.72 2.88 2.80 7.86 8.13 8.00 11.53 12.13 11.83 12.49 12.69 12.59
G4D 3 2.60 2.73 2.66 6.78 7.04 6.91 10.29 10.90 10.60 11.16 11.39 11.28
G5D 1 3.26 3.04 3.15 8.01 8.31 8.16 7.63 7.95 7.79 7.87 8.24 8.05
G5D 2 2.92 3.08 3.00 6.60 6.95 6.78 6.21 6.58 6.39 6.54 6.97 6.75
G5D 3 2.61 2.73 2.67 4.98 6.33 5.66 4.52 4.93 4.73 4.59 5.04 4.82
S.Em± 0.45 0.40 0.30 0.32 0.37 0.21 0.33 0.45 0.24 0.56 0.50 0.38
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.79 0.97 0.60 0.84 1.14 0.69 1.70 1.45 1.08
4.2.1.7 Dry matter accumulation in stem (cf. Table 55)
The pooled data on dry matter accumulation in stem (g plant-1) was significantly influenced
due to genotypes at all the growth stages except at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days after sowing, the
tall genotype ICCV-11601 produced significantly higher dry matter accumulation in stem (G1, 8.13 g
-1 -1 -1
plant ), which was at par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 8.02 g plant ) and ICCV-11604 (G4, 7.96 g plant ).
-1
Significantly lower dry matter accumulation in stem was observed with JG-11 (G5, 6.87 g plant ), but
-1
was on par with ICCV-11602 (G2, 7.35 g plant ). Similarly, at 75/90 days after sowing, ICCV-11601
-1
recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in stem (G3, 11.93 g plant ) than other tested
genotypes, but was at par with ICCV-11604 (G4, 11.65 g plant-1) and ICCV-11603 (G3, 11.45 g plant-
1
). However, the lower dry matter accumulation in leaves was observed with JG-11 (G5, 6.30 g plant-
1
). A similar trend was observed at harvest. During both the years of 2011-12 and 2012-13, a similar
trend was noticed at all the growth stages.
Dry matter accumulation in stem was significantly differed due to plant density at all the
growth stages except at 30 days after sowing. Planting chickpea at normal planting density 3.33 lakh
-1
ha (D1) recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in stem at 60 days after sowing (8.81 g
-1 -1 -1
plant ), at 75/90 days after sowing (11.39 g plant ) and at harvest (12.34 g plant ) compared to
-1 -1
higher plant density of 3.99 lakh ha (D2) and 4.66 lakh ha (D3). During the individual years of
experimentation also, a similar line of results was followed at all the growth stages.
Dry matter accumulation in stem differed significantly due to interaction effect genotypes and
plant density at all the stages crop growth except at 30 days after sowing. At 60 harvest, G1D1
-1
recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in stem (9.26 g plant ), which was at par with
-1 -1
G3D1 (9.17 g plant ) and G4D1 (8.98 g plant ). However, significantly least dry matter accumulation in
-1
stem was observed by G5D3 (5.66 g plant ). At 75/90 days after sowing, G1D1 recorded significantly
-1 -1
higher dry matter accumulation in stem (12.98 g plant ), which was at par with G4D1 (12.54 g plant )
-1 -1
and G3D1 (12.44 g plant ), while significant least value was noticed with G5D3 (4.73 g plant ).
Similarly, at harvest G1D1 recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in stem (14.25 g plant -
1 -1
), which was at par with G4D1 and G3D1 (13.89 and 13.75 g plant , respectively), while significant
-1
least value was noticed with G5D3 (4.82 g plant ). A similar trend was observed during the individual
years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.1.8 Dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts (cf. Table 56)
The pooled data revealed that, dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts at 60 and 75/90
days after sowing and at harvest of chickpea varied significantly among the genotypes. At 60 days
after sowing, significantly higher DMA in reproductive parts was produced by the genotypes JG-11
(G5, 10.60 g plant-1) over rest of the genotypes, which was followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 2.12 g plant-
1 -1
). Significantly lower DMA in reproductive parts was observed with ICCV-11604 (G4, 0.97 g plant ).
-1
Similarly, at 75/90 days after sowing, among the tested genotypes, JG-11 (G5, 15.30 g plant )
produced significantly higher DMA in reproductive parts than rest of the genotypes and was followed
-1 -1
by ICCV-11601 (G1, 10.53 g plant ) and ICCV-11604 (G4, 9.95 g plant ). The lower DMA in
-1
reproductive parts was produced with ICCV-11603 (G3, 8.94 g plant ). At harvest also, significantly
-1
higher DMA in reproductive parts was produced by JG-11 (G5, 17.29 g plant ) followed by ICCV-
-1 -1
11604 (G4, 15.41 g plant ) and ICCV-11601 (G1, 14.80 g plant ) and were on par with each other.
However, significantly lower DMA in reproductive parts was registered with ICCV-11603 (G3, 11.69 g
-1
plant ). A similar trend was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13.
The variation in DMA in reproductive parts at 60 and 75/90 days after sowing and at harvest
was significant due to plant density. At 60 days after sowing, planting chickpea at normal density of
3.33 lakh ha-1 resulted in significantly higher DMA in reproductive parts (D1, 3.85 g plant-1) than higher
-1 -1
plant density of 3.99 lakh and 4.66 lakh ha (D2, 3.47 g and D3, 3.06 g plant , respectively). A similar
trend was followed at 75/90 days after sowing and at harvest also. During both the years of
experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13), similar trend of plant density effect on DMA in reproductive
parts was noticed at all the growth stages.
Interaction effect was significant at all the growth stages. At 60 and 75/90 days after sowing,
significantly higher DMA in reproductive parts was produced by interaction G5D1 (11.66 and 17.35 g
-1 -1
plant , respectively) followed by G5D2 (10.63 and 15.26 g plant , respectively). Similarly, at harvest,
-1
G5D1 recorded significantly higher DMA in reproductive parts (20.16 g plant ), but which was closely
-1
followed by G4D1 (17.29 g plant ). A similar trend was followed during the individual years of 2011-12
and 2012-13.
Table 56: Dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1
Dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts (g plant )
Treatment 60 DAS 75/90 DAS* At harvest
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 2.01 2.23 2.12 9.66 11.40 10.53 13.72 15.89 14.80
G2 : ICCV-11602 1.76 2.01 1.89 8.90 9.76 9.33 11.13 13.14 12.14
G3 : ICCV-11603 1.61 1.83 1.72 8.42 9.46 8.94 10.78 12.61 11.69
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.86 1.08 0.97 9.12 10.77 9.95 14.62 16.20 15.41
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 10.45 10.75 10.60 14.36 16.24 15.30 16.38 18.20 17.29
S.Em± 0.18 0.19 0.13 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.35 0.30 0.23
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.58 0.62 0.39 0.69 0.56 0.41 1.14 0.98 0.69
Plant density (D)
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal) 3.73 3.97 3.85 11.64 13.07 12.35 15.35 17.24 16.30
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 3.36 3.59 3.47 9.87 11.45 10.66 13.38 15.24 14.31
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 2.93 3.18 3.06 8.77 10.05 9.41 11.24 13.14 12.19
S.Em± 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.13 0.11 0.09
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.31 0.28 0.20 0.38 0.36 0.25 0.40 0.32 0.25
G1D1 2.34 2.58 2.46 11.55 13.68 12.62 15.36 17.39 16.38
G1D2 2.02 2.21 2.11 9.38 11.09 10.24 14.24 16.32 15.28
G1D3 1.67 1.91 1.79 8.05 9.43 8.74 11.54 13.95 12.75
G2D1 1.96 2.22 2.09 9.96 11.01 10.48 12.97 15.08 14.03
G2D2 1.77 2.03 1.90 8.90 9.67 9.28 11.01 12.95 11.98
G2D3 1.56 1.80 1.68 7.84 8.61 8.22 9.40 11.41 10.40
G3D1 1.82 2.04 1.93 9.48 10.59 10.04 12.56 14.68 13.62
G3D2 1.63 1.85 1.74 8.48 9.44 8.96 10.88 12.75 11.81
G3D3 1.37 1.60 1.49 7.30 8.34 7.82 8.90 10.40 9.65
G4D1 1.02 1.24 1.13 10.67 11.90 11.29 16.60 17.99 17.29
G4D2 0.87 1.09 0.98 8.59 10.54 9.57 14.56 16.06 15.31
G4D3 0.70 0.92 0.81 8.11 9.87 8.99 12.71 14.55 13.63
G5D1 11.51 11.80 11.66 16.51 18.19 17.35 19.25 21.08 20.16
G5D2 10.48 10.78 10.63 14.00 16.52 15.26 16.22 18.15 17.18
G5D3 9.35 9.67 9.51 12.55 14.01 13.28 13.67 15.38 14.52
S.Em± 0.23 0.21 0.16 0.29 0.28 0.20 0.30 0.24 0.19
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.68 0.63 0.45 0.85 0.81 0.57 0.89 0.72 0.55
Table 57: Total dry matter production per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1
Total dry matter production (g plant )
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 5.60 5.95 5.78 15.64 16.36 16.00 27.01 29.44 28.22 30.95 33.90 32.42
G2 : ICCV-11602 4.24 4.56 4.40 13.32 14.00 13.66 23.42 25.11 24.27 25.26 27.91 26.58
G3 : ICCV-11603 5.19 5.42 5.30 15.00 15.71 15.35 25.70 27.27 26.49 27.68 30.20 28.94
G4 : ICCV-11604 4.59 4.83 4.71 13.78 14.48 14.13 26.17 28.80 27.49 31.97 33.98 32.98
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 4.68 4.79 4.74 21.61 22.73 22.17 25.04 27.71 26.38 26.55 29.05 27.80
S.Em± 0.30 0.39 0.25 0.29 0.27 0.20 0.41 0.37 0.27 0.58 0.45 0.37
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS 0.74 0.93 0.89 0.59 1.34 1.19 0.82 1.90 1.48 1.11
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 5.25 5.48 5.37 18.26 18.97 18.61 28.90 30.93 29.92 32.41 34.94 33.67
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 4.87 5.13 5.00 15.89 16.65 16.27 25.32 27.64 26.48 28.61 31.10 29.85
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 4.47 4.71 4.59 13.46 14.35 13.91 22.18 24.43 23.31 24.43 26.99 25.71
S.Em± 0.30 0.22 0.18 0.19 0.20 0.14 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.26 0.27 0.19
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS 0.53 0.56 0.60 0.39 0.61 0.62 0.42 0.78 0.79 0.54
G1D 1 6.05 6.42 6.23 17.95 18.62 18.28 30.71 33.39 32.05 34.51 37.12 35.81
G1D 2 5.66 5.96 5.81 15.63 16.54 16.08 26.86 29.30 28.08 31.52 34.44 32.98
G1D 3 5.10 5.49 5.29 13.35 13.93 13.64 23.45 25.63 24.54 26.83 30.13 28.48
G2D 1 4.50 4.88 4.69 15.42 16.06 15.74 26.44 28.18 27.31 28.91 31.70 30.31
G2D 2 4.25 4.55 4.40 13.29 13.95 13.62 23.30 24.85 24.07 25.09 27.74 26.41
G2D 3 3.98 4.24 4.11 11.26 11.98 11.62 20.53 22.32 21.42 21.77 24.29 23.03
G3D 1 5.61 5.87 5.74 17.26 17.98 17.62 28.26 29.97 29.11 31.25 34.12 32.69
G3D 2 5.21 5.42 5.31 15.03 15.76 15.40 25.88 27.37 26.63 27.92 30.37 29.14
G3D 3 4.76 4.96 4.86 12.70 13.39 13.05 22.96 24.48 23.72 23.86 26.10 24.98
G4D 1 4.89 5.19 5.04 15.52 16.27 15.90 29.42 31.31 30.37 35.82 37.75 36.78
G4D 2 4.59 4.81 4.70 13.83 14.52 14.18 25.85 28.72 27.29 31.95 33.75 32.85
G4D 3 4.30 4.50 4.40 11.99 12.65 12.32 23.24 26.37 24.81 28.14 30.45 29.29
G5D 1 5.21 5.05 5.13 25.17 25.90 25.53 29.69 31.81 30.75 31.57 33.99 32.78
G5D 2 4.64 4.93 4.78 21.66 22.47 22.07 24.70 27.97 26.34 26.55 29.20 27.87
G5D 3 4.21 4.39 4.30 18.00 19.81 18.91 20.73 23.35 22.04 21.54 23.97 22.76
S.Em± 0.66 0.50 0.41 0.45 0.46 0.31 0.46 0.47 0.33 0.76 0.67 0.42
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 1.24 1.33 0.88 1.36 1.39 0.94 1.73 1.77 1.20
Significantly higher DMA in reproductive parts at 60 days after sowing, 75/90 days after
sowing and harvest was also recorded with interaction G5D1 during 2011-12 (11.51, 16.51 and 19.25 g
-1 -1
plant , respectively) and 2012-13 (11.80, 18.19 and 21.08 g plant , respectively) under irrigated
ecosystem.
4.2.1.9 Total dry matter production per plant (TDMP) (cf. Table 57)
The pooled data on total dry matter production (g plant -1) at 30, 60 and 75/90 days after
sowing and at harvest significantly influenced due to genotypes. At 30 days after sowing, significantly
-1
higher total dry matter was produced with ICCV-11601 (G1, 5.78 g plant ) compared to rest of the
-1
genotypes, but was on par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 5.30 g plant ). Significantly lower total dry matter
-1
was produced with ICCV-11602 (G2, 4.40 g plant ) and was on par with ICCV-11604 and JG-11 (G4,
-1
4.71 g and G5, 4.74 g plant , respectively). At 60 days after sowing, among the genotypes, JG-11
-1
produced significantly higher total dry matter (G5, 22.17 g plant ) than other tested genotypes and
was followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 16.00 g plant ) and ICCV-11603 (G3, 15.35 g plant-1). However,
-1
significantly lower dry matter was produced with ICCV-11602 (G2, 13.66 g plant-1). At 75/90 days after
-1
sowing, ICCV-11601 was produced significantly higher total dry matter (G1, 28.22 g plant ), which
-1
was on par with each ICCV-11604 (G4, 27.49 g plant ). However, significantly lower total dry matter
-1
was produced with ICCV-11602 (G2, 24.27 g plant ). At harvest, ICCV-11604 produced significantly
-1 -1
higher total dry matter (G4, 32.98 g plant ), which was at par with ICCV-11601 (G1, 32.42 g plant ).
-1
Significantly lower values were recorded with ICCV-11602 (G2, 26.58 g plant ). Similar trend was
noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 at all the growth stages, but at 30 days
after sowing genotypes effect was non significant.
Total dry matter production recorded at 30, 60 and 75/90 days after sowing and at harvest
significantly influenced due to plant density. At 30 days after sowing, significantly higher total dry
-1 -1
matter production was noticed in normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 5.37 g plant ), which was
on par with 3.99 lakh ha (D2, 5.00 g plant ) and 3.99 lakh ha was on par with 4.66 lakh ha-1 (D3,
-1 -1 -1
4.59 g plant-1). At 60 days after sowing, increase in plant density from 3.33 lakh ha-1 to 4.66 lakh ha-1
-1
resulted in progressive and significantly decrease in total dry matter from 18.61 to 13.91 g plant . A
similar trend was followed at 75/90 DAS and at harvest also. During 2011-12 and 2012-13 similar
trend was observed at all the growth stages. But at 30 days after sowing, plant density effect was non
significant during both the years.
Significant influence on total dry matter production was noticed due to interaction effect of
genotypes and plant density at all the growth stages of chickpea except at 30 days after sowing. At 60
days after sowing, significantly higher total dry matter was produced by interaction G5D1 (25.53 g
-1 -1
plant ) followed by G5D2 (22.07 g plant ). At 75/90 days after sowing, G1D1 produced significantly
-1 -1
higher total dry matter (32.05 g plant ) followed by G5D1 (30.75 g plant ). However, at harvest, G4D1
-1
produced significantly higher total dry matter (36.78 g plant ) over rest of the interactions, but was at
par with G1D1 (35.81 g plant-1). A similar trend was observed during the individual years of 2011-12
and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
The pooled data on first pod height (cm) at harvest of chickpea differed significantly due to
genotypes. The tall genotype ICCV-11602 recorded significantly highest first pod height (G2, 46.36
cm), which was on par with ICCV-11601 (G1, 45.80 cm). The lowest first pod height was recorded with
semi-erect genotype JG-11 (G5, 23.57 cm). Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of
2011-12 and 2012-13 with ICCV-11602 recording highest first pod height (G2, 45.42 and 47.29 cm,
respectively).
First pod height recorded at harvest differed significantly due to plant density. The increase in
-1
plant density from 3.33 lakh to 4.66 lakh ha resulted progressively and significant increase in height
of first pod from 39.04 to 42.06 cm was noticed. Similar trend was noticed during the individual years
of 2011-12 and 2012-13 recording significantly highest first pod height with plant density of 4.66 lakh
ha-1 (D3, 41.40 and 42.72 cm, respectively).
Significantly highest first pod height was recorded with interaction G2D3 (47.74 cm) and was
par with G1D3 (47.31 cm), while significantly lowest first pod height was observed with G5D1 (21.82
cm). Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with G2D3
recording significantly higher first pod height (46.80 and 48.68 cm, respectively) and lower first pod
height was observed with G5D1 (21.33 and 23.94 cm, respectively) under irrigated ecosystem.
Table 58: First pod height and stem girth of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
First pod height (cm) Stem girth (mm)

Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 45.07 46.52 45.80 3.82 3.99 3.91
G2 : ICCV-11602 45.42 47.29 46.36 3.15 3.23 3.19
G3 : ICCV-11603 42.34 43.45 42.90 3.26 3.46 3.36
G4 : ICCV-11604 43.16 44.92 44.04 3.61 3.80 3.70
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 23.18 23.96 23.57 2.96 3.16 3.06
S.Em± 0.46 0.85 0.48 0.09 0.06 0.05
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.49 2.78 1.45 0.31 0.18 0.16
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 38.33 39.76 39.04 3.43 3.60 3.51
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 39.77 41.21 40.49 3.35 3.51 3.43
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 41.40 42.72 42.06 3.30 3.47 3.39
S.Em± 0.32 0.37 0.24 0.07 0.04 0.04
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.94 1.08 0.70 NS NS NS
G1D1 43.55 45.12 44.33 3.84 4.06 3.95
G1D2 45.00 46.49 45.74 3.81 3.97 3.89
G1D3 46.67 47.96 47.31 3.82 3.94 3.88
G2D1 44.13 45.91 45.02 3.24 3.29 3.27
G2D2 45.33 47.29 46.31 3.17 3.22 3.19
G2D3 46.80 48.68 47.74 3.04 3.17 3.10
G3D1 40.83 42.02 41.43 3.31 3.50 3.41
G3D2 42.28 43.41 42.84 3.25 3.45 3.35
G3D3 43.90 44.93 44.41 3.23 3.44 3.34
G4D1 41.80 43.45 42.62 3.74 3.88 3.81
G4D2 43.11 44.92 44.02 3.57 3.80 3.69
G4D3 44.57 46.38 45.47 3.51 3.72 3.61
G5D1 21.33 22.30 21.82 3.02 3.26 3.14
G5D2 23.13 23.94 23.53 2.95 3.13 3.04
G5D3 25.07 25.64 25.35 2.91 3.08 3.00
S.Em± 0.74 1.08 0.54 0.15 0.09 0.09
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.11 2.41 1.55 NS NS NS
4.2.1.11 Stem girth (cf. Table 58)
The pooled data with respect to stem girth (mm) at harvest differed significantly among the
genotypes. The tall genotype ICCV-11601 recorded significantly higher stem girth (G1, 3.91 mm)
followed by ICCV-11604 (G4, 3.70 mm). However, lowest stem girth was recorded with JG-11 (G5,
3.06 mm). Similar trend was followed during the individual years also.
The effect of plant density and interaction between genotypes and plant density was non
significant. Similar trend was followed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under
4.2.2 Phenophases
4.2.2.1 Days to emergence (cf. Table 59)
The pooled data indicated that, effect of genotypes, plant density and their interaction on days
to emergence of chickpea was found to be non significant. A similar trend of genotypes, plant density
and interactions effect on days to emergence of chickpea was noticed during the individual years of
2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.2.2 Days to first flower initiation (cf. Table 59)
The pooled data showed that, genotypic effect on variation in days to first flower initiation in
chickpea was significant. The genotype ICCV-11604 (G4) took more days to initiate first flower (58.50)
than other tested genotypes. However, JG-11 took fewer days to initiate first flower (G5, 41.17).
Influence of plant density and interaction effect between genotypes and plant density on days
to first flower initiation was non significant.
Similar trend of genotypes, plant density and interactions effect on days to initiation of first
flower in chickpea was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated
ecosystem.
4.2.2.3 Days to 50 per cent flowering (cf. Table 59)
The pooled data with regard to days to 50 per cent flowering in chickpea was significantly
varied among the genotypes. The genotype ICCV-11604 took more days to 50 per cent flowering (G 4,
67.28), which was on par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 64.89) and was followed by ICCV-11602 (G2, 61.00).
However, JG-11 was the earliest (G5, 46.78) compared to other tested genotypes.
Days to 50 per cent flowering in chickpea was not influenced significantly due to plant density.
However, normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha-1 took more number of days to 50 per cent of flowering
-1 -1
(D1, 60.13) than higher density of 3.99 lakh ha (D2, 59.93) and 4.66 lakh ha (D3, 59.77).
Days to 50 per cent of flowering were not different due to interaction effect of genotypes and
plant density.
Similar trend of genotypes, plant density and interactions effect on days to 50 per cent of
flowering in chickpea was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under
4.2.2.4 Days to first pod initiation (cf. Table 59)
Days to first pod initiation in chickpea differed significantly among the genotypes. ICCV-11604
took more days to initiate first pod (G4, 67.89) than other genotypes and was followed by ICCV-11603
(G3, 64.94). However, JG-11 initiate first pod earliest (G5, 47.33) than other genotypes.
Days to first pod initiation in chickpea was not influenced significantly due to different plant
density.
Interaction effect between genotypes and plant density on days to first pod initiation in
chickpea was found to be non significant.
Similar trend of genotypes, plant density and interactions effect on days to first pod initiation
in chickpea was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated
ecosystem.
Table 59: Days to emergence, first flower initiation, 50% of flowing and days to first pod initiation of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant
Days to emergence Days to first flower initiation Days to 50% flowering Days to first pod initiation
Treatment
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 7.56 7.67 7.61 52.78 52.78 52.78 58.11 61.44 59.78 60.11 60.11 60.11
G2 : ICCV-11602 7.76 7.87 7.81 52.89 53.22 53.06 59.56 62.44 61.00 61.78 62.33 62.06
G3 : ICCV-11603 8.02 8.13 8.08 55.11 55.89 55.50 63.78 66.00 64.89 64.67 65.22 64.94
G4 : ICCV-11604 7.96 8.18 8.07 58.00 59.00 58.50 65.22 69.33 67.28 67.78 68.00 67.89
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 7.44 7.33 7.39 41.00 41.33 41.17 44.44 49.11 46.78 46.44 48.22 47.33
S.Em± 0.27 0.42 0.25 0.49 0.90 0.51 2.82 0.63 1.45 0.40 1.05 0.56
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 1.60 2.95 1.54 9.20 2.05 4.33 1.30 3.44 1.69
Plant density (D)
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal) 7.70 7.90 7.80 52.20 52.73 52.47 58.47 61.80 60.13 60.53 61.07 60.80
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 7.77 7.84 7.80 51.93 52.40 52.17 58.20 61.67 59.93 60.13 60.80 60.47
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 7.77 7.77 7.77 51.73 52.20 51.97 58.00 61.53 59.77 59.80 60.47 60.13
S.Em± 0.22 0.17 0.14 0.48 0.40 0.31 0.20 0.23 0.15 0.29 0.27 0.20
G1D 1 8.00 7.33 7.67 53.33 53.00 53.17 58.00 61.67 59.83 60.67 60.33 60.50
G1D 2 7.33 8.00 7.67 52.67 52.67 52.67 58.33 61.33 59.83 60.00 60.00 60.00
G1D 3 7.33 7.67 7.50 52.33 52.67 52.50 58.00 61.33 59.67 59.67 60.00 59.83
G2D 1 7.87 8.20 8.03 53.33 53.67 53.50 60.00 63.00 61.50 62.00 62.67 62.33
G2D 2 7.53 7.87 7.70 52.67 53.33 53.00 59.33 62.33 60.83 62.00 62.33 62.17
G2D 3 7.87 7.53 7.70 52.67 52.67 52.67 59.33 62.00 60.67 61.33 62.00 61.67
G3D 1 7.80 8.13 7.97 56.00 56.67 56.33 64.00 66.33 65.17 65.00 65.33 65.17
G3D 2 8.13 7.80 7.97 54.67 55.67 55.17 63.67 66.00 64.83 64.67 65.33 65.00
G3D 3 8.13 8.47 8.30 54.67 55.33 55.00 63.67 65.67 64.67 64.33 65.00 64.67
G4D 1 7.85 8.18 8.02 57.00 58.33 57.67 65.33 69.33 67.33 68.00 68.33 68.17
G4D 2 8.18 8.18 8.18 58.67 59.00 58.83 65.33 69.33 67.33 67.67 68.00 67.83
G4D 3 7.85 8.18 8.02 58.33 59.67 59.00 65.00 69.33 67.17 67.67 67.67 67.67
G5D 1 7.00 7.67 7.33 41.33 42.00 41.67 45.00 48.67 46.83 47.00 48.67 47.83
G5D 2 7.67 7.33 7.50 41.00 41.33 41.17 44.33 49.33 46.83 46.33 48.33 47.33
G5D 3 7.67 7.00 7.33 40.67 40.67 40.67 44.00 49.33 46.67 46.00 47.67 46.83
S.Em± 0.49 0.38 0.31 1.07 0.90 0.70 0.45 0.52 0.34 0.66 0.60 0.44
Table 60: Days to maturity, vegetative and reproductive growth period of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated
ecosystem
Days to maturity Vegetative growth period Reproductive growth period

Treatment
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 106.22 107.67 106.94 45.22 45.11 45.17 53.44 54.89 54.17
G2 : ICCV-11602 107.44 108.56 108.00 45.13 45.36 45.24 54.56 55.33 54.94
G3 : ICCV-11603 109.78 111.44 110.61 47.09 47.76 47.42 54.67 55.56 55.11
G4 : ICCV-11604 113.33 114.11 113.72 50.04 50.82 50.43 55.33 55.11 55.22
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 94.67 97.67 96.17 33.56 34.00 33.78 53.67 56.33 55.00
S.Em± 1.20 0.99 0.78 0.63 1.08 0.62 1.39 1.75 1.12
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.91 3.24 2.34 2.04 3.52 1.87 NS NS NS
Plant density (D)
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal) 106.93 108.53 107.73 44.50 44.83 44.66 54.73 55.80 55.27
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 106.33 108.00 107.17 44.16 44.56 44.36 54.40 55.60 55.00
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 105.60 107.13 106.37 43.96 44.43 44.20 53.87 54.93 54.40
S.Em± 0.55 0.58 0.40 0.50 0.41 0.32 0.82 0.81 0.58
G1D 1 107.00 108.33 107.67 45.33 45.67 45.50 53.67 55.33 54.50
G1D 2 106.33 107.67 107.00 45.33 44.67 45.00 53.67 55.00 54.33
G1D 3 105.33 107.00 106.17 45.00 45.00 45.00 53.00 54.33 53.67
G2D 1 108.00 109.00 108.50 45.47 45.47 45.47 54.67 55.33 55.00
G2D 2 107.67 108.67 108.17 45.13 45.47 45.30 55.00 55.33 55.17
G2D 3 106.67 108.00 107.33 44.80 45.13 44.97 54.00 55.33 54.67
G3D 1 110.33 112.00 111.17 48.20 48.53 48.37 54.33 55.33 54.83
G3D 2 109.67 111.67 110.67 46.53 47.87 47.20 55.00 56.00 55.50
G3D 3 109.33 110.67 110.00 46.53 46.87 46.70 54.67 55.33 55.00
G4D 1 113.67 114.67 114.17 49.15 50.15 49.65 56.67 56.33 56.50
G4D 2 113.33 114.33 113.83 50.48 50.82 50.65 54.67 55.33 55.00
G4D 3 113.00 113.33 113.17 50.48 51.48 50.98 54.67 53.67 54.17
G5D 1 95.67 98.67 97.17 34.33 34.33 34.33 54.33 56.67 55.50
G5D 2 94.67 97.67 96.17 33.33 34.00 33.67 53.67 56.33 55.00
G5D 3 93.67 96.67 95.17 33.00 33.67 33.33 53.00 56.00 54.50
S.Em± 1.23 1.31 0.90 1.11 0.92 0.72 1.84 1.82 1.29
4.2.2.5 Days to maturity (cf. Table 60)
The pooled data on days to maturity of chickpea differed significantly among the genotypes.
The tall genotype ICCV-11604 took more days to mature (G4, 113.72) than rest of the genotype,
which was followed by ICCV-11603 (G3, 110.61). However, semi-erect genotype JG-11 matured the
earliest (G5, 96.17) compared rest of the genotypes.
The data on days to maturity in chickpea was not influenced significantly due to plant density.
None of interaction of genotypes and plant density on days to maturity of chickpea showed to
be significant.
Similar trend of genotypes, plant density and interactions effect was observed during the
individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.2.6 Vegetative growth period (cf. Table 60)
Significant variation in vegetative growth period was noticed among the genotypes. The
genotype ICCV-11604 took more periods for vegetative growth (G4, 50.43 days) than rest of the
genotypes, which was followed by ICCV-11603 (G3, 47.42 days). While shorter period of vegetative
growth was noticed with JG-11 (G5, 33.78 days). Similar trend was followed during both the years of
Vegetative growth period was not influenced significantly due to effect of plant density.
However, increase in plant density resulted in relatively shorter period of vegetative growth. Similar
trend was noticed during the individual years also.
Vegetative growth period was not differed due to interaction effect. Similar trend of influence
was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.2.7 Reproductive growth period (cf. Table 60)
Reproductive growth period of chickpea was not influenced significantly among the
genotypes. However, numerically ICCV-11604 took more periods for reproductive growth (G4, 55.22
days) than rest of the genotypes. A similar trend of results was noticed during the individual years of
2011-12 and 2012-13.
Reproductive growth period of chickpea to not differed significantly due plant effect. Similar
trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.3.1 Leaf area index (LAI) (cf. Table 61)
Pooled data on leaf area index (LAI) at various growth stages differed significantly among the
genotypes. The LAI increased with advances in stage, but the magnitude of increment was more
between 30 and 60 days after sowing. At 30 days after sowing, significantly higher LAI was observed
in ICCV-11601 (G1, 1.22), which was at par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 1.18). Significantly least LAI was
observed in ICCV-11602 (G2, 0.86). Similarly, at 60 days after sowing, the same genotype ICCV -
11601 produced significantly higher LAI (G1, 2.36) followed by ICCV-11603 and ICCV-11604, but
significantly least values were observed with JG-11 (G5, 1.72). However, at 75/90 days after sowing,
ICCV-11603 recorded significantly higher LAI (G3, 2.63), which was at par with ICCV-11601 (G1,
2.61). Significantly least LAI was observed in JG-11 (G5, 2.13). Similar trend was followed during the
Plant density progressively and significantly increased the leaf area index (LAI) at all the
growth stages. At 30 days after sowing, significantly higher LAI was recorded with 40 per cent higher
plant density (D3, 1.11), which was at par with 20 per cent higher plant density (D2, 1.11). However,
significantly least LAI was recorded in normal plant density (D1, 0.91). Similar trend was followed
during at 60 days after sowing. However, at 75/90 days after sowing, significantly higher LAI was
recorded with 40 per cent higher plant density (D1, 2.65) than 20 per cent higher (D2, 2.60) and
normal plant density (D1, 2.10). Similar trend was noticed during both the years of experimentation at
all the growth stages except at 30 days after, were the effect of plant density was non significant
during 2011-12 and 2012-13.
The interaction effect was significant at all the growth stages except at 30 days after sowing.
-1
At 60 days after sowing, ICCV-11601 with 40 per cent higher plant density of 3.99 lakh ha (G1D3)
recorded significantly LAI (2.55), which was statistically at par with G1D2 (2.50).
Table 61: Leaf area index of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
Leaf area index (LAI)

Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 1.17 1.26 1.22 2.28 2.44 2.36 2.52 2.69 2.61
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.85 0.87 0.86 1.86 2.00 1.93 2.33 2.44 2.39
G3 : ICCV-11603 1.13 1.22 1.18 2.10 2.24 2.17 2.57 2.69 2.63
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.97 1.06 1.02 1.95 2.06 2.00 2.46 2.54 2.50
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.90 1.01 0.96 1.66 1.79 1.72 2.07 2.18 2.13
S.Em± 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.04
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.22 0.26 0.16 0.16 0.13 0.09 0.16 0.17 0.11
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 0.88 0.95 0.91 1.71 1.82 1.77 2.05 2.15 2.10
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 1.07 1.15 1.11 2.10 2.23 2.16 2.54 2.66 2.60
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 1.06 1.16 1.11 2.10 2.26 2.18 2.58 2.71 2.65
S.Em± 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.02
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS 0.17 0.10 0.11 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.07
G1D1 1.02 1.09 1.05 1.97 2.09 2.03 2.17 2.29 2.23
G1D2 1.25 1.34 1.30 2.42 2.58 2.50 2.67 2.85 2.76
G1D3 1.23 1.36 1.29 2.45 2.64 2.55 2.73 2.93 2.83
G2D1 0.74 0.76 0.75 1.62 1.73 1.68 2.01 2.11 2.06
G2D2 0.90 0.92 0.91 1.98 2.12 2.05 2.47 2.59 2.53
G2D3 0.90 0.91 0.91 1.98 2.13 2.06 2.50 2.63 2.56
G3D1 0.98 1.04 1.01 1.82 1.92 1.87 2.18 2.26 2.22
G3D2 1.20 1.30 1.25 2.23 2.37 2.30 2.74 2.86 2.80
G3D3 1.21 1.34 1.27 2.25 2.42 2.34 2.81 2.95 2.88
G4D1 0.83 0.90 0.87 1.68 1.78 1.73 2.09 2.17 2.13
G4D2 1.03 1.12 1.08 2.07 2.18 2.13 2.60 2.69 2.65
G4D3 1.04 1.16 1.10 2.10 2.21 2.16 2.68 2.76 2.72
G5D1 0.82 0.93 0.88 1.48 1.58 1.53 1.82 1.91 1.86
G5D2 0.96 1.09 1.03 1.78 1.91 1.84 2.22 2.33 2.27
G5D3 0.90 1.02 0.96 1.72 1.88 1.80 2.18 2.30 2.24
S.Em± 0.14 0.19 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.05
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.23 0.24 0.16 0.22 0.23 0.16
Table 62: Leaf area duration of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
Leaf area duration (LAD, days)

2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 51.73 55.53 53.63 72.05 76.96 74.50
G2 : ICCV-11602 40.58 42.94 41.76 62.82 66.60 64.71
G3 : ICCV-11603 48.48 51.95 50.22 70.13 73.94 72.04
G4 : ICCV-11604 43.83 46.78 45.30 66.14 68.98 67.56
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 38.35 42.06 40.20 28.01 29.76 28.89
S.Em± 1.17 1.23 0.85 1.47 1.22 0.96
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.83 4.01 2.55 4.80 3.97 2.86
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 38.89 41.51 40.20 51.55 54.33 52.94
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 47.49 50.83 49.16 63.57 67.11 65.34
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 47.40 51.22 49.31 64.37 68.30 66.34
S.Em± 0.96 1.70 0.97 0.94 0.88 0.64
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.82 5.00 2.78 2.76 2.61 1.84
G1D1 44.84 47.79 46.32 62.09 65.78 63.93
G1D2 55.09 58.83 56.96 76.37 81.49 78.93
G1D3 55.26 59.96 57.61 77.70 83.60 80.65
G2D1 35.40 37.44 36.42 54.46 57.69 56.08
G2D2 43.15 45.66 44.40 66.77 70.72 68.75
G2D3 43.20 45.73 44.47 67.23 71.40 69.31
G3D1 41.95 44.49 43.22 59.91 62.82 61.36
G3D2 51.55 55.02 53.28 74.61 78.49 76.55
G3D3 51.95 56.35 54.15 75.87 80.53 78.20
G4D1 37.73 40.15 38.94 56.57 59.21 57.89
G4D2 46.55 49.57 48.06 70.09 73.06 71.57
G4D3 47.21 50.61 48.91 71.76 74.66 73.21
G5D1 34.54 37.68 36.11 24.73 26.17 25.45
G5D2 41.11 45.08 43.09 30.02 31.78 30.90
G5D3 39.39 43.42 41.41 29.28 31.34 30.31
S.Em± 2.10 3.33 2.18 2.26 2.02 1.44
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS 4.11
The least LAI was found with G5D1 (1.53). At 75/90 days after sowing, significantly maximum
LAI was recorded with G3D3 (2.88), which was at par with G1D3 (2.83), G3D2 (2.80), G1D2 (2.76) and
G4D3 (2.72). Significantly lower value was recorded with G5D1 (1.86). Similar trend was noticed during
both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.3.2 Leaf area duration (LAD) (cf. Table 62)
Leaf area duration (LAD) was significantly varied among the genotypes between 30-60 and
60-75/90 days after sowing. Tall genotypes recorded significantly higher LAD than semi-erect
genotype during both the periods. Between 30-60 days after sowing, significantly higher LAD was
recorded in ICCV-11601 (G1, 53.63 days) compared to rest of the genotypes and was closely followed
by ICCV-11603 (G3, 50.22 days), while significantly lower LAD was observed in JG-11 (G5, 40.20
days). Between 60-75/90 days after sowing, the LAD increased with advances in growth stage only
incase of tall genotypes, but decreased incase of semi-erect genotype. Again ICCV-11 recorded
significantly higher LAD (G1, 74.50 days), which was at par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 72.04 days).
However, significantly lower LAD was found in JG-11 (G 5, 28.89 days). Similar trend was noticed
during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Significant variation in leaf area duration (LAD) between various growth stages was showed
due to plant density. The increase in plant density to 40 per cent of normal density (D3, 4.66 lakh ha-1)
resulted in increased in LAD. The higher LAD was observed with plant density of 4.66 lakh ha -1 at
-1
both the growth stages (D3, 49.31 and 66.34 days, respectively), which was at par with 3.99 lakh ha
(D1, 49.16 and 65.34 days, respectively). However, lower LAD was noticed with normal plant density
-1
of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 40.20 and 52.94 days, respectively). Similar trend was noticed during the
Interactions between genotypes and plant density was non significant only between 30-60
days after sowing. Significantly higher LAD was observed in ICCV-11601 with 40 per cent higher plant
-1
density of 4.66 lakh ha (G1D3, 80.65 days), which was on par with G1D2 (78.93 days), G3D3 (78.20
days) and G3D2 (76.55 days) between 60-75/90 days after sowing. Similar trend was observed only
between 30-60 days after sowing during both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13),
while between 60-75/90 days after sowing, interaction effect was non significant during 2011-12 and
2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.3.3 Absolute growth rate (AGR) (cf. Table 63)
-1
Absolute growth rate (AGR, g day ) between 30-60 and 60-75/90 days after sowing differed
-
significantly among the tested genotypes. JG-11 recorded significantly higher AGR (G5, 0.580 g day
1
), but all other genotypes were on par with each other during 30-60 days after sowing. However,
-1
during 60-75/90 days after sowing, ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher AGR (G4, 0.445 g day ),
-1 -1
and was followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 0.407 g day ) with lower value in JG-11 (G5, 0.140 g day ).
During the individual years of experimentation, a similar trend of AGR was noticed.
Variation in absolute growth rate (AGR) during both the periods (between 30-60 and 60-75/90
days after sowing) was observed due to plant density. At both the periods of observation the AGR
-1
was decrease with increased in plant density from normal density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1) to 20 per cent
and 40 per cent higher than normal density (D2 and D3). It was recorded higher AGR of 0.440 and
0.377 g day-1 at 30-60 and 60-75/90 days after sowing, respectively. Similar trend was followed during
the individual years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13).
Interaction effect was non significant during both the periods of observation. A similar trend
was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.3.4 Relative growth rate (RGR) (cf. Table 64)
Genotypes showed significant variation in relative growth rate (RGR, g g-1 day-1) between 30-
60 and 60-75/90 days after sowing. Among the genotypes, significantly higher RGR was recorded in
-1 -1 -1
JG-11 (G5, 0.052 g g day ) followed by ICCV-11602 and ICCV-11604 (G2, 0.038 and G4, 0.037, g g
-1
day ) during 30-60 days after sowing. However, during 60-75/90 days after sowing, ICCV-11604
-1 -1
recorded significantly higher RGR (G4, 0.022 g g day ), and was followed by ICCV-11602 (G2, 0.019
-1 -1 -1 -1 -1
g g day ) and ICCV-11601 (G1, 0.019 g g day ). Lower RGR was noticed in JG-11 (G5, 0.011 g g
-1
day ). Similar trend was observed during the individual years of experimentation.Relative growth rate
(RGR, g g-1 day-1) of chickpea recorded during both the periods varied significant due to plant density.
Table 63: Absolute growth rate of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1
Absolute growth rate (AGR, g day )
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.33 0.35 0.34 0.379 0.436 0.407
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.337 0.371 0.354
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.33 0.34 0.33 0.357 0.385 0.371
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.31 0.32 0.31 0.413 0.477 0.445
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.56 0.60 0.58 0.114 0.166 0.140
S.Em± 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.007 0.007 0.005
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.024 0.023 0.015
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 0.43 0.45 0.44 0.355 0.399 0.377
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 0.37 0.38 0.38 0.314 0.366 0.340
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0.30 0.32 0.31 0.291 0.336 0.313
S.Em± 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.007 0.008 0.005
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.022 0.023 0.015
G1D1 0.40 0.41 0.40 0.425 0.492 0.459
G1D2 0.33 0.35 0.34 0.374 0.425 0.400
G1D3 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.337 0.390 0.363
G2D1 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.367 0.404 0.386
G2D2 0.30 0.31 0.31 0.334 0.363 0.348
G2D3 0.24 0.26 0.25 0.309 0.345 0.327
G3D1 0.39 0.40 0.40 0.367 0.400 0.383
G3D2 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.362 0.387 0.374
G3D3 0.26 0.28 0.27 0.342 0.369 0.356
G4D1 0.35 0.37 0.36 0.464 0.501 0.482
G4D2 0.31 0.32 0.32 0.401 0.473 0.437
G4D3 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.375 0.457 0.416
G5D1 0.67 0.69 0.68 0.151 0.197 0.174
G5D2 0.57 0.58 0.58 0.102 0.183 0.142
G5D3 0.46 0.51 0.49 0.091 0.118 0.104
S.Em± 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.016 0.016 0.012
Table 64: Relative growth rate of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1 -1
Relative growth rate (RGR, g g day )
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.035 0.034 0.034 0.018 0.020 0.019
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.038 0.037 0.038 0.019 0.020 0.019
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.035 0.036 0.036 0.018 0.019 0.018
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.021 0.023 0.022
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.052 0.052 0.052 0.010 0.013 0.011
S.Em± 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.007 0.006 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.001
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 0.042 0.042 0.042 0.017 0.018 0.018
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 0.040 0.039 0.039 0.017 0.019 0.018
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.018 0.019 0.019
S.Em± 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS 0.004 NS NS 0.001
G1D1 0.038 0.037 0.037 0.018 0.020 0.019
G1D2 0.035 0.034 0.034 0.018 0.019 0.019
G1D3 0.032 0.031 0.032 0.019 0.020 0.020
G2D1 0.042 0.040 0.041 0.018 0.019 0.018
G2D2 0.038 0.037 0.038 0.019 0.019 0.019
G2D3 0.035 0.035 0.035 0.020 0.021 0.020
G3D1 0.038 0.039 0.038 0.016 0.017 0.017
G3D2 0.035 0.036 0.036 0.018 0.018 0.018
G3D3 0.033 0.034 0.033 0.020 0.020 0.020
G4D1 0.039 0.038 0.039 0.021 0.022 0.022
G4D2 0.037 0.037 0.037 0.021 0.023 0.022
G4D3 0.034 0.035 0.034 0.022 0.025 0.023
G5D1 0.052 0.055 0.054 0.011 0.014 0.012
G5D2 0.053 0.051 0.052 0.009 0.015 0.012
G5D3 0.049 0.050 0.050 0.009 0.011 0.010
S.Em± 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS 0.002
Table 65: Cumulative growth rate of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-2 -1
Cumulative growth rate (CGR, g dm day )
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.139 0.144 0.142 0.159 0.182 0.170
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.125 0.131 0.128 0.141 0.156 0.149
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.136 0.143 0.139 0.151 0.163 0.157
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.127 0.134 0.131 0.173 0.202 0.187
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.234 0.249 0.242 0.047 0.069 0.058
S.Em± 0.006 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.019 0.008 0.010 0.011 0.010 0.007
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 0.145 0.150 0.147 0.118 0.133 0.126
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 0.163 0.171 0.167 0.140 0.163 0.151
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0.149 0.160 0.155 0.145 0.167 0.156
S.Em± 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.002
C.D. (P=0.05) NS 0.011 0.009 0.010 0.010 0.007
G1D1 0.132 0.136 0.134 0.142 0.164 0.153
G1D2 0.148 0.157 0.152 0.166 0.189 0.178
G1D3 0.137 0.140 0.138 0.168 0.194 0.181
G2D1 0.121 0.124 0.123 0.122 0.135 0.129
G2D2 0.134 0.139 0.137 0.148 0.161 0.155
G2D3 0.121 0.128 0.125 0.154 0.171 0.163
G3D1 0.129 0.135 0.132 0.122 0.133 0.128
G3D2 0.146 0.153 0.149 0.161 0.172 0.166
G3D3 0.132 0.140 0.136 0.170 0.184 0.177
G4D1 0.118 0.123 0.121 0.155 0.167 0.161
G4D2 0.137 0.144 0.140 0.178 0.210 0.194
G4D3 0.127 0.135 0.131 0.187 0.227 0.207
G5D1 0.222 0.232 0.227 0.050 0.066 0.058
G5D2 0.252 0.260 0.256 0.045 0.081 0.063
G5D3 0.229 0.256 0.242 0.045 0.059 0.052
S.Em± 0.011 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.005
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS 0.021 0.015
The RGR was decreased progressively and significantly with increase in plant density during
30-60 days after sowing but it decreased during later stage. Significantly higher RGR was recorded
-1 -1 -1
with normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 0.042 g g day ), which was at par with 20 per cent
-1 -1
higher than normal plant density (D2, 0.039 g g day ), but showed superiority over 40 per cent
higher density (D3, 0.037 g g-1 day-1) at 30-60 days after sowing. At 60-75/90 days after sowing,
higher RGR was recorded in 40 per cent higher density (D3, 0.019 g g-1 day-1) than lower density.
During the individual years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13), the effect of plant density was
non significant at both the stages.
The interaction effect was significant only at later stages (60-75/90 DAS). At 60-75/90 days
after sowing, planting a tall genotype ICCV-11604 at 40 per cent higher plant density observed
-1 -1
significantly higher RGR (0.023 g g day ) compared to rest of the interactions and was followed by
-1 -1 -1
G4D2 and G4D1 (0.020 g g day , each). However, least value was observed with G5D3 (0.010 g g
-1
day ). Similar trend was followed during both the years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated
ecosystem.
4.2.3.5 Cumulative growth rate (CGR) (cf. Table 65)
-2 -1
The pooled data on cumulative growth rate (CGR, g dm day ) recorded at 30-60 and 60-
75/90 days after sowing differed significantly among the genotypes. It was significantly higher in semi-
erect genotype JG-11 (G5, 0.242 g dm-2 day-1) compared to rest of the genotypes and but all other
genotypes were at par with each other during 30-60 days after sowing. At 60-75/90 days after sowing,
-2 -1
the ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher CGR (G4, 0.187 g dm day ) followed ICCV-11601 (G1,
-2 -1 -2 -1
0.170 g dm day ). Whereas, least CGR was recorded in JG-11 (G5, 0.058 g dm day ). Similar
trend was observed during the individual years of experimentation.
Cumulative growth rate differed significant due to plant density. Significantly higher CGR was
-1 -2 -1
observed at 20 per cent higher plant density of 3.99 lakh ha (D2, g 0.167 dm day ) than normal
-2 -1
plant density of 3.33 lakh (D1, 0.147 g dm day ) and 40 per cent higher than normal plant density of
-1 -2 -1
4.66 lakh ha (D3, 0.155 g dm day ) during 30-60 days after sowing. However, during 60-75/90 days
-2 -1
after sowing, it was significantly higher at 40 per cent plant density (D3, 0.156 g dm day ), which was
at par with 20 per cent higher density and showed significant superiority over normal plant density of
3.33 lakh ha-1. Similar trend was observed during the individual years also.
Interaction effect was significant only during 60-75/90 days after sowing. Significantly higher
CGR was observed in ICCV-11604 with 40 per cent higher plant density of 4.99 lakh (G4D3, 0.207 g
-2 -1 -2 -1
dm day ) which was at par with G4D2 (0.194 g dm day ). Whereas, significantly least value of CGR
was observed in JG-11 with 40 per cent higher planting density (G5D3, 0.052 g dm-2 day-1). A similar
trend was noticed during 2012-13, but during 2011-12, it was non significant.
4.2.4.1 Root length (cf. Table 66)
The genotypes resulted in significant variations in root length (cm) recorded at various stages
of crop growth. At 30 days after sowing, the genotype ICCV-11601 recorded significantly more root
length (G1, 13.90 cm), which was at par with ICCV-11602 (G4, 13.51 cm). However, significantly lower
root length was observed with ICCV-11603 (G3, 12.72 cm) and was at par with ICCV-11604 and JG-
11 (12.88 and 13.13 cm, respectively). Similarly, ICCV-11601 recorded significantly more root length
(G1, 28.34 cm) compared to rest of the genotypes and was closely followed by ICCV-11602 (G2, 27.42
cm) at 60 days after sowing. However, ICCV-11602 was statistically on par with all other genotypes
except ICCV-11603 (26.53 cm). Similar trend was noticed during the individual years also.
The plant density resulted in significant variations in root length at 60 days after sowing
except at 30 days after sowing. Increase in plant density resulted in progressive increase in root
length. At 60 days after sowing, higher root length was progressively and significantly increased with
-1
increase in plant density from 3.33 to 4.66 lakh ha (D1, 25.22 cm to D3, 29.36 cm). Similar trend was
noticed during both the years of experimentation at 60 days after sowing.
Significant variations of root length at 60 days after sowing were seen due to interaction effect
between genotypes and plant density, but it was non significant at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days
after sowing, significantly more root length was recorded by interaction of G1D3 (30.67 cm) over rest of
the interactions and was on par with G5D3 (29.51 cm). A similar trend was followed during both the
years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under irrigated ecosystem.
Table 66: Root length and dry weight of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
Root length (cm) Root dry weight (g)
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 13.75 14.05 13.90 27.84 28.83 28.34 1.93 2.06 1.99 3.52 3.54 3.53
G2 : ICCV-11602 13.39 13.62 13.51 26.87 27.97 27.42 1.37 1.46 1.42 2.18 2.14 2.16
G3 : ICCV-11603 12.60 12.84 12.72 26.19 26.86 26.53 1.78 1.84 1.81 2.82 2.88 2.85
G4 : ICCV-11604 12.76 12.99 12.88 26.80 27.44 27.12 1.90 1.97 1.94 3.26 3.31 3.28
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 13.07 13.19 13.13 26.58 27.22 26.90 1.47 1.65 1.56 2.33 2.33 2.33
S.Em± 0.20 0.25 0.16 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.12 0.08
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.65 0.82 0.48 0.99 0.81 0.59 0.23 0.17 0.13 0.34 0.39 0.24
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 12.93 13.13 13.03 24.82 25.63 25.22 1.82 1.93 1.87 3.36 3.37 3.37
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 13.10 13.34 13.22 26.77 27.62 27.20 1.70 1.80 1.75 2.86 2.87 2.86
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 13.31 13.55 13.43 28.97 29.75 29.36 1.55 1.66 1.61 2.25 2.26 2.25
S.Em± 0.16 0.19 0.12 0.22 0.31 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.04
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.66 0.92 0.55 NS NS 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.12
G1D 1 13.49 13.81 13.65 25.69 26.58 26.14 2.05 2.17 2.11 3.93 3.95 3.94
G1D 2 13.81 14.09 13.95 27.66 28.75 28.21 1.91 2.06 1.98 3.56 3.57 3.56
G1D 3 13.95 14.25 14.10 30.17 31.17 30.67 1.82 1.96 1.89 3.07 3.10 3.08
G2D 1 13.37 13.53 13.45 25.22 26.25 25.74 1.44 1.55 1.50 2.64 2.60 2.62
G2D 2 13.32 13.61 13.46 26.69 27.92 27.30 1.38 1.46 1.42 2.21 2.19 2.20
G2D 3 13.48 13.72 13.60 28.68 29.75 29.22 1.28 1.38 1.33 1.68 1.63 1.65
G3D 1 12.54 12.67 12.61 24.00 24.75 24.37 1.82 1.91 1.87 3.34 3.35 3.35
G3D 2 12.57 12.83 12.70 26.25 26.83 26.54 1.78 1.85 1.82 2.81 2.90 2.85
G3D 3 12.68 13.01 12.85 28.33 29.00 28.66 1.72 1.77 1.75 2.31 2.38 2.34
G4D 1 12.60 12.89 12.75 25.11 26.05 25.58 1.97 2.05 2.01 3.61 3.70 3.66
G4D 2 12.73 12.98 12.85 26.70 27.37 27.03 1.92 1.97 1.95 3.31 3.33 3.32
G4D 3 12.95 13.11 13.03 28.58 28.92 28.75 1.81 1.89 1.85 2.85 2.88 2.87
G5D 1 12.64 12.73 12.68 24.08 24.50 24.29 1.81 1.97 1.89 3.26 3.28 3.27
G5D 2 13.08 13.18 13.13 26.57 27.25 26.91 1.48 1.66 1.57 2.39 2.38 2.39
G5D 3 13.48 13.66 13.57 29.10 29.92 29.51 1.11 1.32 1.21 1.35 1.32 1.33
S.Em± 0.35 0.43 0.28 0.50 0.70 0.43 0.17 0.17 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.09
-1
Table 67: Total and active nodules plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
Total nodules plant -1 Active nodules plant-1
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 18.32 19.81 19.06 43.06 45.39 44.23 17.09 17.97 17.53 37.73 38.74 38.23
G2 : ICCV-11602 15.83 17.12 16.47 28.91 30.69 29.80 14.45 15.22 14.84 25.31 25.90 25.61
G3 : ICCV-11603 18.41 19.42 18.92 39.94 40.44 40.19 15.82 16.53 16.18 33.29 33.42 33.36
G4 : ICCV-11604 18.15 19.46 18.81 41.51 42.90 42.20 15.57 16.40 15.98 37.82 38.02 37.92
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 21.80 22.78 22.29 30.68 32.01 31.34 19.19 19.97 19.58 25.80 25.89 25.85
S.Em± 1.07 0.98 0.72 0.80 0.48 0.47 0.69 0.82 0.54 0.74 0.61 0.48
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.48 3.18 2.17 2.60 1.56 1.39 2.26 2.69 1.62 2.40 1.98 1.43
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 19.53 20.76 20.15 44.55 46.12 45.34 17.17 17.94 17.55 39.00 39.41 39.21
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 18.52 19.73 19.13 36.98 38.40 37.69 16.39 17.22 16.81 32.09 32.57 32.33
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 17.46 18.66 18.06 28.94 30.33 29.64 15.72 16.49 16.10 24.88 25.20 25.04
S.Em± 0.78 0.60 0.49 0.37 0.41 0.27 0.41 0.41 0.29 0.39 0.44 0.29
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS 1.41 1.08 1.20 0.78 NS NS 0.83 1.16 1.29 0.84
G1D 1 19.21 20.79 20.00 51.05 53.67 52.36 17.36 18.34 17.85 45.57 46.67 46.12
G1D 2 18.39 19.81 19.10 43.35 45.50 44.43 17.07 17.95 17.51 38.08 39.00 38.54
G1D 3 17.35 18.82 18.09 34.79 37.00 35.89 16.85 17.61 17.23 29.53 30.54 30.04
G2D 1 16.64 17.89 17.27 35.59 37.67 36.63 14.86 15.64 15.25 32.13 32.33 32.23
G2D 2 15.85 17.13 16.49 28.94 30.75 29.84 14.49 15.24 14.87 25.20 26.20 25.70
G2D 3 15.01 16.32 15.67 22.21 23.67 22.94 14.00 14.78 14.39 18.62 19.17 18.89
G3D 1 19.09 20.07 19.58 47.54 48.08 47.81 16.34 16.98 16.66 40.80 41.07 40.94
G3D 2 18.37 19.39 18.88 40.07 40.55 40.31 15.76 16.54 16.15 33.28 33.43 33.36
G3D 3 17.78 18.81 18.29 32.22 32.69 32.46 15.37 16.07 15.72 25.79 25.77 25.78
G4D 1 18.60 19.94 19.27 48.46 49.87 49.16 16.11 16.91 16.51 43.43 43.67 43.55
G4D 2 18.20 19.50 18.85 41.58 43.00 42.29 15.55 16.40 15.98 37.99 38.23 38.11
G4D 3 17.66 18.94 18.30 34.48 35.83 35.16 15.05 15.88 15.47 32.05 32.17 32.11
G5D 1 24.11 25.09 24.60 40.12 41.33 40.73 21.17 21.82 21.50 33.09 33.33 33.21
G5D 2 21.79 22.82 22.31 30.95 32.20 31.57 19.08 19.97 19.53 25.89 26.00 25.95
G5D 3 19.49 20.42 19.96 20.98 22.48 21.73 17.31 18.10 17.71 18.43 18.33 18.38
S.Em± 1.75 1.33 1.10 0.82 0.91 0.61 0.91 0.92 0.65 0.88 0.98 0.66
4.2.4.2 Root dry weight (cf. Table 66)
Significant differences were noticed among the genotypes on root dry weight (g plant -1) at
various stages of crop growth. At 30 days after sowing, ICCV-11601 recorded higher root dry weight
-1
(G1, 1.99 g plant ) compared to rest of the genotypes, but was at par with ICCV-11604 (G4, 1.94 g
-1 -
plant ). However, significantly lower root dry weight was observed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 1.42 g plant
1
). Similarly, at 60 days after sowing, the genotype ICCV-11601 recorded significantly higher root dry
-1
weight (G1, 3.53 g plant ) followed by ICCV-11604 (G4, 3.28 g) and lower root dry weight was
-1
observed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 2.16 g plant ). A similar trend was noticed during the individual years
also. Whereas, ICCV-11601 was at par with ICCV-11604 both at 30 and 60 days after sowing.
The root dry weight found to differ significantly due to plant density at different growth stages.
Significant increase in root dry weight was recorded at 30 days after sowing with normal plant density
-1 -1 -1 -1
of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 1.87 g plant ), but it was at par with 3.99 lakh ha (D2, 1.75 g plant ) and 3.99
-1 -1 -1
lakh ha and with 4.66 lakh ha (D3, 1.61 g plant ). Similarly, at 60 days after sowing, higher plant
density decreased the root dry weight from 3.37 to 2.25 g plant -1 at 3.33 to 4.66 lakh ha-1, respectively.
Similar trend was followed during the individual years at 60 days after sowing. But, at 30 days after
sowing effect of plant density was not significant during 2011-12 and 2012-13.
The root dry weight due to interactions of genotypes and plant density differed significantly at
60 days after sowing, but at 30 days after sowing, it was non significant. Significantly higher root dry
-1 -
weight was recorded with G1D1 (3.94 g plant ) at 60 days after sowing followed by G4D1 (3.66 g plant
1 -1
) and lower values were observed with G5D3 (1.33 g plant ). Similar trend was observed during the
-1
individual years of experimentatiom with G1D1 recording 3.93 g plant during 2011-12 and 3.95 g
-1
plant during 2012-13 at 60 days after sowing under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.4.3 Total and active nodule number per plant (cf. Table 67)
Genotypes had significant influence on total and active nodule number per plant at different
growth stages. At 30 days after sowing, total and active nodule number per plant was significantly
more in genotypes JG-11 (G5, 22.29 and 31.34, respectively) than all other genotypes, which was
closely followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 19.06 and 44.23, respectively). However, significantly least
numbers were observed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 16.47 and 29.80, respectively). At 60 days after
sowing, significantly more number of total and active nodules per plant were produced with ICCV-
11601 (G1, 44.23 and 38.23, respectively), which was at par with ICCV-11604 (G4, 42.20 and 37.92,
respectively) but showed significant superiority over JG-11 (G5, 31.34 and 25.85, respectively).
Similar trend was followed during both the years of 2011-12 and 2012-13. Plant density had
significant influence on total and active nodule number per plant at different growth stages. The
increase in plant density from normal to higher i.e., 3.33 to 4.66 lakh ha-1 resulted in reduction of total
and active nodules per plant at both the stages. Significantly more number of total and active nodules
-1
per plant were produced at 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 20.15 and 18.06, respectively) over higher plant
density. Similar trend of number of nodules were observed during the individual years only at 60 days
after sowing, while at 30 days after sowing effect of plant density was non significant during both the
years.
The interaction effect was significant only at 60 days after. Significantly higher total and active
nodule number per plant was recorded with interaction of G1D1 (52.36 and 46.12, respectively), and
was closely followed by G4D1 (49.16 and 43.55, respectively). The lower values were noticed with
G5D3 (21.73 and 18.38). Similar trend was observed during the individual years recording significantly
higher total and active nodule number per plant with G1D1 both during 2011-12 (51.05 and 45.57,
respectively) and during 2012-13 (53.67 and 46.67, respectively) under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.4.4 Fresh and dry weight of nodules per plant (cf. Table 68)
The pooled data on fresh and dry weight of nodules per plant (mg) at various growth stages of
chickpea varied significantly among the genotypes. At 30 days after sowing, among the tested
genotypes, JG-11 was recorded significantly higher fresh and dry weight of nodules per plant (G5,
39.61 and 11.38 mg, respectively), which was at par with ICCV-11601 (G1, 38.80 and 11.28 mg,
respectively). While minimum weights were recorded with ICCV-11602 (G2, 36.75 and 9.84 mg,
respectively). At 60 days after sowing also, ICCV-11601 recorded maximum fresh and dry weight of
nodules (G1, 56.14 and 16.69 mg, respectively), which was at par with ICCV-11604 (G4, 55.76 and
16.57 mg, respectively). However, significantly minimum weight was recorded with ICCV-11602 (G2,
13.92 and 45.82 mg, respectively).
Table 68: Nodule fresh and dry weight of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
Nodule fresh weight (mg) Nodule dry weight (mg)
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 37.53 40.08 38.80 55.21 57.07 56.14 11.12 11.44 11.28 16.33 17.04 16.69
G2 : ICCV-11602 34.97 38.52 36.75 44.37 47.27 45.82 9.25 10.42 9.84 13.57 14.26 13.92
G3 : ICCV-11603 36.38 40.31 38.35 51.31 54.47 52.89 10.59 11.35 10.97 15.78 16.33 16.06
G4 : ICCV-11604 35.60 39.31 37.46 53.88 57.65 55.76 9.93 10.99 10.46 16.09 17.06 16.57
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 37.84 41.37 39.61 45.63 48.61 47.12 11.08 11.68 11.38 14.21 14.70 14.46
S.Em± 0.59 0.46 0.38 1.80 1.07 1.05 0.47 0.44 0.32 0.37 0.30 0.24
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.93 1.51 1.13 5.87 3.50 3.14 NS NS 0.97 1.20 0.99 0.72
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 36.99 40.61 38.80 56.70 59.01 57.86 10.83 11.72 11.28 16.90 17.58 17.24
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 36.43 39.87 38.15 49.77 53.02 51.40 10.43 11.16 10.80 15.22 15.87 15.55
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 35.98 39.28 37.63 43.77 47.00 45.38 9.92 10.65 10.28 13.47 14.19 13.83
S.Em± 0.35 0.44 0.28 1.02 0.78 0.64 0.26 0.26 0.19 0.31 0.24 0.20
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS 0.80 3.01 2.29 1.83 NS 0.78 0.53 0.92 0.69 0.56
G1D 1 37.80 40.80 39.30 61.41 64.50 62.96 11.44 11.80 11.62 18.23 19.13 18.68
G1D 2 37.48 39.99 38.74 56.40 56.73 56.57 11.10 11.42 11.26 16.43 17.07 16.75
G1D 3 37.30 39.44 38.37 47.83 49.96 48.90 10.81 11.10 10.95 14.33 14.93 14.63
G2D 1 35.23 38.96 37.10 51.13 52.49 51.81 9.59 11.25 10.42 15.22 15.55 15.38
G2D 2 34.92 38.41 36.66 43.35 47.39 45.37 9.39 10.36 9.88 13.27 14.20 13.73
G2D 3 34.77 38.20 36.48 38.63 41.91 40.27 8.77 9.67 9.22 12.23 13.03 12.63
G3D 1 37.06 40.88 38.97 55.99 58.46 57.23 11.02 11.83 11.42 17.60 18.07 17.83
G3D 2 36.35 40.25 38.30 50.77 54.83 52.80 10.62 11.39 11.01 16.18 16.32 16.25
G3D 3 35.74 39.80 37.77 47.18 50.11 48.64 10.12 10.84 10.48 13.57 14.60 14.08
G4D 1 35.94 39.88 37.91 60.99 63.86 62.43 10.42 11.16 10.79 17.23 18.40 17.82
G4D 2 35.63 39.25 37.44 53.84 57.58 55.71 9.89 10.95 10.42 16.17 17.10 16.63
G4D 3 35.23 38.80 37.02 46.81 51.50 49.16 9.48 10.86 10.17 14.87 15.67 15.27
G5D 1 38.90 42.55 40.72 53.97 55.76 54.86 11.69 12.58 12.13 16.20 16.73 16.47
G5D 2 37.76 41.43 39.60 44.51 48.58 46.55 11.13 11.69 11.41 14.07 14.67 14.37
G5D 3 36.86 40.15 38.51 38.41 41.50 39.96 10.42 10.77 10.59 12.37 12.70 12.53
S.Em± 0.79 0.97 0.63 2.28 1.74 1.43 0.58 0.59 0.41 0.70 0.53 0.44
Table 69: Root volume of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated
ecosystem
Root volume (ml) at 60 DAS

Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 9.68 10.15 9.91
G2 : ICCV-11602 6.04 6.47 6.26
G3 : ICCV-11603 8.54 9.21 8.87
G4 : ICCV-11604 8.86 9.06 8.96
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 6.40 6.91 6.66
S.Em± 0.14 0.13 0.10
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.45 0.43 0.29
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 8.81 9.23 9.02
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 7.93 8.40 8.16
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 6.98 7.45 7.21
S.Em± 0.10 0.10 0.07
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.29 0.31 0.20
G1D1 10.79 11.18 10.99
G1D2 9.68 10.23 9.96
G1D3 8.56 9.03 8.80
G2D1 6.86 7.22 7.04
G2D2 6.06 6.53 6.30
G2D3 5.21 5.65 5.43
G3D1 9.51 10.12 9.81
G3D2 8.54 9.20 8.87
G3D3 7.57 8.30 7.94
G4D1 9.16 9.43 9.30
G4D2 8.88 9.05 8.96
G4D3 8.53 8.72 8.62
G5D1 7.74 8.22 7.98
G5D2 6.46 6.97 6.71
G5D3 5.01 5.55 5.28
S.Em± 0.22 0.23 0.16
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.66 0.68 0.46
Similar trend of influence was observed during both the years 2011-12 and 2012-13 at 60
days after sowing for nodule fresh weight per plant, but at 30 days after sowing genotypes effect was
non significant on nodule dry weight during both the years 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Fresh and dry weight of nodules per plant at 30 and 60 days after sowing varied significantly
due to plant density. The fresh and dry weight of nodules per plant was significantly decreased due to
increase in plant density at both the stages. Significantly maximum fresh and dry weight of nodules
-1
per plant were produced at 3.33 lakh ha at both 30 days after sowing (D1, 38.80 and 11.28 mg,
respectively) and at 60 days after sowing (D1, 57.86 and 17.24 mg, respectively). Similar trend of
fresh and dry weight of nodules were observed during the individual years only at 60 days after
sowing, but at 30 days after sowing effect of plant density was non significant during 2011-12.
The interaction effect was non significant at both the stages. Similar trend was noticed during
the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.4.5 Root volume (cf. Table 69)
3
The root volume per plant (mm ) recorded at 60 days after sowing varied significantly among
3 -1
the genotypes. The tall genotype ICCV-11601 (G1, 9.91 mm plant ) recorded significantly higher root
3 -1 3 -1
volume, followed by ICCV-11604 (G4, 8.96 mm plant ) and ICCV-11603 (G3, 8.87 mm plant ). Both
ICVV-11604 and ICCV-11603 were at par with each other. Significantly lower root volume was noticed
with ICCV-11602 (G2, 6.26 mm3 plant-1). Similar trend was followed during the individual years of
3 -1
2011-12 and 2012-13 with ICCV-11601 recording 9.68 and 10.15 mm plant root volume,
respectively.
Plant density had significant influence on root volume per plant recorded at 60 days after
sowing. Planting chickpea at normal density of 3.33 lakh ha-1 noticed significantly higher root volume
3 -1 -1 3
(D1, 9.02 mm plant ) than higher plant density of 3.99 and 4.66 lakh ha (D2, 8.16 mm and D3, 7.21
3 -1
mm plant , respectively). Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-
-1 3 3 -1
13 with 3.33 lakh ha recording significantly higher root volume (D1, 8.81 mm and 9.23 mm plant ,
respectively).
Interaction effect between genotypes and plant density on root volume per plant at 60 days
after sowing was significant. The interaction G1D1 recorded significantly higher root volume of 10.99
3 -1
mm plant compared to other combination. The lower root volume was observed with G5D3 (5.28
3 -1
mm plant ). Similar trend of root volume was followed during the individual years of experimentation
3 3 -1
with G1D1 (10.79 mm during 2011-12 and 11.18 mm plant during 2012-13) under irrigated
ecosystem.
4.2.5 Physiological parameters
4.2.5.1 Chlorophyll content (SPAD value) (cf. Table 70)
The pooled data pertaining to chlorophyll content (SPAD value) recorded at 30 and 60 days
after sowing significantly influenced among the genotypes. At 30 days after sowing, among the
genotypes, JG-11 recorded significantly higher SPAD value (57.17) compared to rest of the
genotypes. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11601 recorded significantly higher SPAD value (54.26)
compared to other genotypes and was statistically on par with ICCV-11603 (53.34). The minimum
SPAD value was registered with ICCV-11602 (51.45). Similar trend was noticed at 60 days after
sowing also. During 2011-12, the trend of SPAD value influenced by genotypes was similar at 60
days after sowing, while during 2012-13, JG-11 (56.36) was on par with ICCV-11601 (53.53).
Chlorophyll content (SPAD value) influenced significantly due to plant density at 60 days after
sowing, while it was non significant at 30 days after sowing. At 60 days after sowing, planting
-1
chickpea at normal density of 3.33 lakh ha resulted in significantly higher chlorophyll content (D1,
-1
58.16), which was at par with 3.99 lakh ha (D2, 57.34). Significantly lower values were recorded with
-1 -1
4.66 lakh ha (D3, 55.56), which was at par with 3.99 lakh ha . Similar trend was observed during the
individual years of experimentation also. Interaction effect was non significant. However, numerically
higher SPAD value was observed with interaction G5D1 at 30 and 60 days after sowing (58.00 and
63.45, respectively). A similar trend was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13
under irrigated ecosystem.
Table 70: Chlorophyll content (SPAD value) of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
Chlorophyll content (SPAD value)

2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 54.98 53.53 54.26 59.00 57.86 58.43
G2 : ICCV-11602 51.89 51.01 51.45 54.78 53.67 54.22
G3 : ICCV-11603 53.77 52.92 53.34 57.38 56.19 56.79
G4 : ICCV-11604 52.65 51.41 52.03 55.52 54.47 54.99
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 57.98 56.36 57.17 62.95 61.73 62.34
S.Em± 0.74 0.99 0.62 0.76 0.67 0.50
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.42 3.22 1.85 2.46 2.18 1.51
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 54.93 53.62 54.27 58.71 57.61 58.16
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 54.29 53.05 53.67 57.92 56.76 57.34
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 53.55 52.47 53.01 57.15 55.98 56.56
S.Em± 0.76 0.80 0.55 0.46 0.46 0.33
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS NS 0.93
G1D1 55.38 53.98 54.68 59.84 58.66 59.25
G1D2 54.93 53.52 54.22 58.97 57.83 58.40
G1D3 54.64 53.09 53.87 58.18 57.09 57.64
G2D1 52.52 51.51 52.01 55.47 54.43 54.95
G2D2 51.90 51.07 51.48 54.77 53.68 54.22
G2D3 51.27 50.45 50.86 54.10 52.90 53.50
G3D1 54.90 53.61 54.25 58.03 56.99 57.51
G3D2 54.03 52.91 53.47 57.37 56.13 56.75
G3D3 52.38 52.24 52.31 56.75 55.45 56.10
G4D1 53.04 51.81 52.42 56.17 55.13 55.65
G4D2 52.65 51.41 52.03 55.53 54.46 55.00
G4D3 52.28 51.00 51.64 54.85 53.83 54.34
G5D1 58.81 57.18 58.00 64.04 62.86 63.45
G5D2 57.95 56.33 57.14 62.95 61.70 62.33
G5D3 57.19 55.57 56.38 61.86 60.63 61.25
S.Em± 1.71 1.78 1.23 1.04 1.02 0.73
Table 71: Leaf relative water content (RWC) of chickpea genotypes as influenced by the plant
density during 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem
Leaf relative water content (RWC, %)

Treatment
40 DAS 70 DAS
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 76.77 35.17
G2 : ICCV-11602 69.65 28.15
G3 : ICCV-11603 71.80 31.36
G4 : ICCV-11604 74.79 37.65
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 68.50 31.53
S.Em± 0.51 0.53
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.65 1.73
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 74.72 37.16
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 72.32 32.86
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 69.86 28.30
S.Em± 0.47 0.37
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.37 1.10
G1D1 78.91 39.22
G1D2 76.76 35.15
G1D3 74.63 31.15
G2D1 71.41 32.47
G2D2 69.66 28.22
G2D3 67.86 23.75
G3D1 73.89 34.84
G3D2 71.82 31.38
G3D3 69.68 27.85
G4D1 77.75 40.85
G4D2 74.84 37.70
G4D3 71.78 34.38
G5D1 71.63 38.42
G5D2 68.54 31.83
G5D3 65.32 24.34
S.Em± 1.04 0.83
C.D. (P=0.05) NS 2.45
4.2.5.2 Leaf relative water content (RWC) (cf. Table 71)
Genotypes had significant influence on leaf relative water content (%) recorded at 40 and 70
days after sowing. At 40 days after sowing, leaf relative water content was significantly higher in
genotype ICCV-11601 (G1, 76.77%) followed by ICCV-11604 (G4, 74.79%).
However, significantly lower leaf relative water content was noticed with JG-11 (G 1, 68.50%).
At 70 days after sowing, ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher leaf relative water content (G 4,
37.65%), followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 35.17%). Significantly lower leaf relative water content was
observed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 28.15%).
Plant density had significant influence on leaf relative water content recorded at 40 and 70
days after sowing. Significantly higher leaf relative water content was recorded with normal density of
-1
3.33 lakh ha at both 40 and 70 days after sowing (D1, 74.72 and 37.16%, respectively) over to higher
-1 -1
plant density of 3.99 lakh ha (D2, 72.32 and 32.86%, respectively) and 4.66 lakh ha (D3, 69.86 and
28.30%, respectively).
The interaction effect on leaf relative water content 70 days after sowing was significant, but it
remained non significant at 40 days after sowing. The treatment combination of G4D1 recorded
significantly higher leaf relative water content of 40.85 per cent at 70 days after sowing, followed by
G1D1 (39.22%). However, lower values were observed with G2D3 (23.75%).
4.2.5.3 Light absorption and transmission ratio (LAR and LTR) (cf. Table 72)
Significant differences in LAR and LTR (%) recorded at 50 days after sowing was observed
among the genotypes. Significantly, higher LAR and lower LTR was observed in semi-erect genotype
JG-11 (G5, 91.60 and 8.40%, respectively) and closely followed by a tall genotype ICCV-11603 (G3,
83.33 and 16.67%), but significantly lower LAR and higher LTR was noticed with ICCV-11602 (G2,
79.38 and 20.62%) at 50 days after sowing.
LAR and LTR had shown significant difference due to different plant density. Planting of
chickpea at normal density of 3.33 lakh ha-1 noticed significantly lower LAR and higher LTR at 50 days
after sowing (D1, 81.34 and 18.66%, respectively) as statistically compared to higher plant density of
-1 -1
3.99 lakh ha (D2, 83.56 and 16.44%, respectively) and 4.66 lakh ha (D3, 85.90 and 14.10%,
respectively).
The interaction effect between genotypes and plant density on LAR and LTR at 50 days after
sowing was significant. However, the treatment combination G5D3 recorded significantly higher LAR of
94.40 per cent and lower LTR of 5.60 per cent at 50 days after sowing, respectively, but lower LAR
and higher LTR were observed with G2D1 (77.20 and 22.80%, respectively).
4.2.6 Yield attributes
The pooled data pertaining to number of filled pods per plant of chickpea differed significantly
among the genotypes. Significantly more number of filled pods per plant was produced by JG-11 (G5,
57.72) followed by ICCV-11602 (G2, 55.43). However, least number of filled pods per plant was
produced with ICCV-11601 (G1, 47.22). Similar trend was followed during the individual years of
2011-12 and 2012-13 with JG-11 recording significantly more number of filled pods per plant (G5,
57.44 and 57.99, respectively).
Number of filled pods per plant differed significantly due to plant density. The number of filled
-1
pod decreased with increase in plant density. The normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha was observed
with significantly more number of filled pods per plant (D1, 58.52) compared to higher density of 3.99
-1
lakh and 4.66 lakh ha (D2, 52.41 and D3, 45.36, respectively). Similar trend was followed during the
individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with 3.33 lakh ha-1 recording significantly more number of
filled pods per plant (D1, 57.39 and 59.64, respectively).
Interaction effect was significant. Among the interactions, G5D1 registered significantly more
number of filled pods per plant (68.48), followed by G2D1 (60.52). Significantly least number of filled pods
per plant was recorded with G1D3 (41.80). Similar trend was observed during 2011-12 and 2012-13
with G5D1 recording more number of filled pods per plant (67.67 and 69.29, respectively) under
Table 72: Light transmission and absorption ratio at flowering stage of chickpea genotypes as
influenced by the plant density during 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem
Light transmission Light absorption ratio

Treatment
ratio (%) (%)
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 17.70 82.30
G2 : ICCV-11602 20.62 79.38
G3 : ICCV-11603 16.67 83.33
G4 : ICCV-11604 18.62 81.38
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 8.40 91.60
S.Em± 0.24 0.24
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.79 0.79
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 18.66 81.34
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 16.44 83.56
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 14.10 85.90
S.Em± 0.15 0.15
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.45 0.45
G1D1 19.79 80.21
G1D2 17.73 82.27
G1D3 15.60 84.40
G2D1 22.80 77.20
G2D2 20.67 79.33
G2D3 18.38 81.62
G3D1 18.86 81.14
G3D2 16.70 83.30
G3D3 14.45 85.55
G4D1 20.73 79.27
G4D2 18.64 81.36
G4D3 16.48 83.52
G5D1 11.13 88.87
G5D2 8.48 91.52
G5D3 5.60 94.40
S.Em± 0.34 0.34
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.01 1.01
Table 73: Number of filled, unfilled and total pods per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1 -1 -1
No. of filled pods plant No. of unfilled pods plant Total no. of pods plant
Treatment
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 46.02 48.43 47.22 2.44 1.61 2.02 48.45 50.04 49.25
G2 : ICCV-11602 54.46 56.41 55.43 3.42 2.71 3.06 57.88 59.12 58.50
G3 : ICCV-11603 48.90 50.65 49.78 2.29 1.74 2.02 51.19 52.39 51.79
G4 : ICCV-11604 49.01 51.64 50.33 2.34 1.60 1.97 51.35 53.24 52.30
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 57.44 57.99 57.72 4.92 3.54 4.23 62.36 61.52 61.94
S.Em± 0.81 0.85 0.59 0.18 0.13 0.11 0.72 0.93 0.59
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.64 2.79 1.76 0.59 0.42 0.33 2.36 3.02 1.76
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 57.39 59.64 58.52 2.58 1.77 2.18 59.97 61.41 60.69
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 51.48 53.33 52.41 3.06 2.22 2.64 54.54 55.55 55.04
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 44.62 46.10 45.36 3.61 2.73 3.17 48.23 48.83 48.53
S.Em± 0.57 0.61 0.42 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.52 0.64 0.41
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.69 1.81 1.20 0.38 0.25 0.22 1.54 1.89 1.18
G1D1 51.25 53.83 52.54 2.03 1.37 1.70 53.28 55.20 54.24
G1D2 46.15 48.50 47.33 2.41 1.59 2.00 48.56 50.09 49.32
G1D3 40.65 42.96 41.80 2.87 1.87 2.37 43.52 44.83 44.18
G2D1 59.50 61.54 60.52 3.08 2.38 2.73 62.58 63.92 63.25
G2D2 54.43 56.41 55.42 3.39 2.68 3.04 57.82 59.09 58.46
G2D3 49.44 51.28 50.36 3.79 3.06 3.42 53.23 54.33 53.78
G3D1 53.92 56.21 55.06 1.99 1.46 1.73 55.91 57.67 56.79
G3D2 49.00 51.08 50.04 2.27 1.72 1.99 51.27 52.80 52.03
G3D3 43.78 44.67 44.23 2.61 2.05 2.33 46.39 46.72 46.55
G4D1 54.62 57.33 55.98 2.00 1.30 1.65 56.62 58.64 57.63
G4D2 49.16 51.85 50.50 2.33 1.60 1.96 51.49 53.44 52.47
G4D3 43.25 45.75 44.50 2.70 1.88 2.29 45.95 47.63 46.79
G5D1 67.67 69.29 68.48 3.80 2.34 3.07 71.47 71.63 71.55
G5D2 58.67 58.82 58.74 4.89 3.50 4.19 63.55 62.32 62.94
G5D3 46.00 45.84 45.92 6.07 4.78 5.43 52.07 50.63 51.35
S.Em± 1.28 1.37 0.94 0.29 0.19 0.17 1.17 1.43 0.92
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.79 4.05 2.69 NS 0.56 0.49 3.45 4.22 2.64
Genotypes showed significant variation in number of unfilled pods per plant. The tall genotype
ICCV-11604 produced significantly least number of unfilled pods (G4, 1.97), which was at par with
other tall genotypes viz., ICCV-11601 (G1, 2.02) and ICCV-11604 (G4, 2.02). However, significantly
more number of unfilled pods was found with semi-erect genotype JG-11 (G5, 4.23). Similar trend was
followed during the individual years also. Plant density differed significantly on number of unfilled pods
per plant. The unfilled pod number per plant was increased with increase in plant density. Normal
-1
plant density of 3.33 lakh ha produced significantly least number of unfilled pods per plant (D1, 2.18)
compared to higher density of 3.66 lakh and 4.66 lakh ha -1 (D2, 2.64 and D3, 3.17). Similar trend was
observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Interaction effect was significant. Significantly least number of unfilled pods per plant was
recorded with G4D1 (1.65), which was at par with G1D1 (1.70), G3D1 (1.73), G4D2 (1.96), G3D2 (1.99)
and G1D2 (2.00). Significantly more number was observed with G5D3 (5.43). Similar trend was
followed during 2012-13, while during 2011-12, the interaction effect on number of unfilled pods per
plant was non significant under irrigated ecosystem.
Pooled data indicated that, the semi-erect genotypes JG-11 produced significantly higher total
number of pods per plant (G5, 61.94) compared to rest of the genotypes and was followed by ICCV-
11602 (G2, 58.50). However, significantly least total number of pods per plant was produced with
ICCV-11601 (G1, 49.25). Similar trend was followed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-
13 with JG-11 recording higher total number of pods per plant (62.36 and 61.52, respectively). Total
number of pods per plant differed significantly due to plant density. Planting chickpea at higher
-1
density of 4.66 lakh ha decreased the total number of pods per plant (D3, 48.53) than lower plant
-1 -1
density of 3.99 lakh ha (D2, 55.04) and 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 60.69). Similar trend was observed during
-1
the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha recording
significantly higher total number of pods per plant (D1, 59.97 and 61.41, respectively).
The differences on total number of pods per plant due to interaction between genotypes and
plant density were significant. The more total number of pods per plant was recorded with G5D1
(71.55) followed by G2D1 (63.25). However, the least number was observed with G1D3 (44.18). Similar
trend was followed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
Pooled results indicated that, the number of seeds per plant was significantly highest with
genotype ICCV-11602 (G2, 76.57) followed by JG-11 (G5, 72.88) and ICCV-11604 (G4, 69.87).
Significantly least number of seeds per plant was produced with ICCV-11601 (G1, 65.28). A similar
trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 recording significantly higher
number of seeds per plant with ICCV-11602 (G2, 74.63 and 78.50, respectively). Significant difference
in number of seeds per plant was observed due to plant density. The increase in planting density from
-1
3.33 to 4.99 lakh ha resulted in decrease in number of seeds per plant from 78.89 to 61.64. Similar
trend was noticed during both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13).
Interaction effect was significant for number of seeds per plant. The interaction G5D1 recorded
significantly more number of seeds per plant (84.33), and was on par with G2D1 (83.33). However, the
least number of seeds per plant was observed with G1D3 (57.41). Similar trend was observed during
both the years recording significantly more number of seeds per plant with G2D1 (81.98 during 2011-
12 and 85.69 during 2012-13).
Significant variation on number of seeds per pod was noticed due to different genotypes. It
-1 -1
was significantly higher with ICCV-11604 with more number of seeds pod (G4, 1.39 pod ), which
-1
was at par with all genotypes except JG-11 (G5, 1.27 pod ). Similar trend was followed during the
Non significant variation of number of seeds per pod was found due to influence of different
plant density. However, planting chickpea at higher plant density observed relatively least number of
seeds per pod than normal plant density. Similar trend was followed during the individual years of
2011-12 and 2012-13. None of the interaction effects was significant. A similar trend was also
followed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
Table 74: Number of seeds per plant and seeds per pod of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1 -1
No. of seeds plant No. of seeds pod
Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 62.95 67.60 65.28 1.37 1.40 1.38
G2 : ICCV-11602 74.63 78.50 76.57 1.37 1.39 1.38
G3 : ICCV-11603 65.76 69.41 67.58 1.35 1.37 1.36
G4 : ICCV-11604 67.60 72.13 69.87 1.38 1.40 1.39
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 70.70 75.05 72.88 1.24 1.30 1.27
S.Em± 1.01 0.84 0.66 0.02 0.02 0.01
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.31 2.75 1.98 0.06 0.05 0.04
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 76.71 81.07 78.89 1.34 1.36 1.35
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 68.55 73.00 70.78 1.34 1.37 1.35
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 59.73 63.55 61.64 1.34 1.38 1.36
S.Em± 0.69 0.80 0.53 0.01 0.01 0.01
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.03 2.37 1.51 NS NS NS
G1D1 70.61 75.31 72.96 1.38 1.40 1.39
G1D2 63.07 67.86 65.47 1.37 1.40 1.39
G1D3 55.17 59.64 57.41 1.36 1.39 1.37
G2D1 81.98 85.69 83.83 1.38 1.39 1.39
G2D2 74.45 78.52 76.49 1.37 1.39 1.38
G2D3 67.46 71.30 69.38 1.37 1.39 1.38
G3D1 72.64 76.93 74.79 1.35 1.37 1.36
G3D2 66.02 70.36 68.19 1.35 1.38 1.36
G3D3 58.60 60.93 59.77 1.34 1.37 1.35
G4D1 75.83 80.20 78.02 1.39 1.40 1.39
G4D2 67.80 72.75 70.28 1.38 1.40 1.39
G4D3 59.17 63.45 61.31 1.37 1.39 1.38
G5D1 82.46 87.20 84.83 1.22 1.26 1.24
G5D2 71.39 75.52 73.46 1.22 1.28 1.25
G5D3 58.24 62.44 60.34 1.27 1.37 1.32
S.Em± 1.54 1.80 1.18 0.03 0.02 0.02
C.D. (P=0.05) 4.55 5.31 3.38 NS NS NS
-1
Table 75: Pod and seed yield plant and 100-seed weight of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1 -1
Pod yield plant (g) Seed yield plant (g) 100-seed weight (g)
Treatment
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 12.27 12.72 12.50 10.14 10.59 10.37 23.66 24.38 24.02
G2 : ICCV-11602 12.52 12.98 12.75 10.38 10.86 10.62 17.58 18.39 17.99
G3 : ICCV-11603 12.00 12.83 12.41 9.85 10.68 10.27 22.47 23.07 22.77
G4 : ICCV-11604 12.90 13.63 13.27 10.66 11.39 11.02 24.12 24.99 24.55
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 13.65 14.13 13.89 11.49 11.96 11.73 23.36 24.42 23.89
S.Em± 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.09 0.06 0.45 0.33 0.28
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.27 0.25 0.17 0.27 0.28 0.18 1.47 1.09 0.84
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 13.21 13.80 13.50 11.04 11.62 11.33 22.58 23.41 23.00
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 12.68 13.27 12.97 10.51 11.12 10.81 22.25 23.04 22.64
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 12.12 12.71 12.41 9.96 10.55 10.26 21.89 22.71 22.30
S.Em± 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.40 0.41 0.29
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.17 0.19 0.12 NS NS NS
G1D1 12.71 13.18 12.94 10.57 11.03 10.80 24.18 24.91 24.54
G1D2 12.27 12.73 12.50 10.14 10.60 10.37 23.66 24.27 23.96
G1D3 11.84 12.25 12.05 9.72 10.13 9.93 23.14 23.97 23.56
G2D1 12.96 13.39 13.17 10.80 11.24 11.02 17.91 18.67 18.29
G2D2 12.54 12.99 12.76 10.40 10.91 10.65 17.57 18.30 17.93
G2D3 12.07 12.56 12.32 9.94 10.43 10.18 17.28 18.21 17.75
G3D1 12.46 13.30 12.88 10.31 11.14 10.73 23.02 23.35 23.19
G3D2 12.03 12.85 12.44 9.87 10.70 10.29 22.56 22.99 22.78
G3D3 11.50 12.33 11.92 9.37 10.20 9.79 21.84 22.86 22.35
G4D1 13.33 14.05 13.69 11.08 11.79 11.44 24.28 25.16 24.72
G4D2 12.91 13.64 13.27 10.66 11.40 11.03 24.02 25.01 24.52
G4D3 12.47 13.21 12.84 10.23 10.97 10.60 24.05 24.80 24.43
G5D1 14.60 15.07 14.83 12.44 12.91 12.67 23.53 24.96 24.25
G5D2 13.64 14.14 13.89 11.48 11.97 11.73 23.42 24.61 24.02
G5D3 12.72 13.17 12.95 10.56 11.01 10.78 23.12 23.69 23.41
S.Em± 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.13 0.15 0.10 0.90 0.91 0.64
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.40 0.37 0.26 0.38 0.43 0.28 NS NS NS
4.2.6.6 Pod yield per plant (cf. Table 75)
Pooled data analysis showed that, pod yield per plant (g) varied significantly among the
genotypes. Significantly higher pod yield per plant was observed with genotype JG-11 (G5, 13.89 g)
over other genotypes and was closely followed by ICCV-11604 (G4, 13.27 g). Significantly least pod
yield per plant was observed with ICCV-11603 (G3, 12.41 g), which was at par with and ICCV-11601
(G1, 12.50 g). Similar trend was observed during both the years of experimentation.
Pod yield per plant varied significantly due to plant density. Normal plant density of 3.33 lakh
-1
ha produced significantly higher pod yield per plant (D1, 13.50 g) compared to higher plant density of
-1
3.99 lakh and 4.99 lakh ha (D2, 12.97 g and D3, 12.41 g, respectively). Similar trend was observed
during both the years of 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Interaction between genotypes and plant density was significant. Significantly higher pod yield
per plant was recorded with G5D1 (14.83 g) closely followed by G5D2 (13.89 g) and G4D1 (13.69 g) and
were at par with each other. However, significantly lower pod yield per plant was observed with G3D3
(11.92 g). Similar trend was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with G5D1
recording significantly higher pod yield per plant (13.60 and 15.07 g, respectively) under irrigated
ecosystem.
4.2.6.7 Seed yield per plant (cf. Table 75)
Pooled results revealed that, seed yield per plant (g) varied significantly among the
genotypes. The semo-erect genotypes JG-11 produced significantly higher seed yield per plant (G5,
11.73 g) compared rest of the genotypes and was followed by ICCV-11604 (G4, 11.02 g). However,
significantly lower seed yield per plant was produced with ICCV-11603 (G3. 10.27 g), and was on par
with ICCV-11601 (G1, 10.37 g). A similar trend was followed during the individual years of 2011-12
and 2012-13 recording significantly higher seed yield per plant with JG-11 (G5, 11.49 and 9.96 g,
respectively) followed by ICCV-11604 (G4, 10.66 and 11.39 g, respectively).
The increase in plant density in chickpea resulted with decrease in per plant seed yield. A
-1
plant density of 3.33 lakh ha recorded significantly higher seed yield per plant (D1, 11.33 g) than 3.99
-1
and 4.66 lakh ha (D2, 10.81 g and D3, 10.26 g, respectively). A similar trend was followed during the
-1
individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with a plant density of 3.33 lakh ha recording significantly
higher seed yield per plant (11.04 and 11.62 g, respectively).
An interaction effect was significant. The interaction G5D1 registered significantly higher seed
yield per plant (12.67 g) followed by G5D2 and G4D1 (11.73 and 11.79 g, respectively) and were on par
with each other. Whereas, lower seed yield per plant was observed with G3D3 (9.79 g). A similar trend
was followed during the individual years with G5D1 recording significantly higher seed yield per plant
(12.44 g during 2011-12 and 12.91 g during 2012-13) under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.6.8 100-seed weight (cf. Table 75)
A significant difference in 100-seed weight (g) was observed among the genotypes. The
genotype ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher 100-seed weight (G4, 24.55 g), which was on par
with ICCV-11601 (G1, 24.02 g) and JG-11 (G5, 23.89 g). However, significantly least number of seeds
was produced with ICCV-11602 (G2, 17.99 g). A similar trend was noticed during the individual years
also.
The 100-seed weight was not differed significantly due to plant density. Similar trend was
noticed during both the years of experimentation.
The interaction effect between genotypes and plant density was found to be non significant
for 100-seed weight. Similar trend was observed during the individual years of experiment (2011-12
and 2012-13) under irrigated condition.
The pooled results indicated that, the semi-erect genotype JG-11 produced significantly
-1 -1
higher seed yield (G5, 2865 kg ha ) followed by a tall genotype ICCV-11604 (G4, 2511 kg ha ).
-1
However, ICCV-11603 produced significantly lower seed yield (G3, 2385 kg ha ) than rest of the
genotypes. Similar trend was followed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 recording
-1
significantly higher seed yield with JG-11 (G5, 2783 kg and 2948 kg ha , respectively) followed by
-1
ICCV-11604 (G4, 2388 kg and 2633 kg ha , respectively).
Table 76: Seed yield, biological yield and harvest index of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1 -1
Treatment Seed yield (kg ha ) Biological yield (kg ha ) Harvest index (%)
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 2184 2433 2309 6224 6425 6325 34.87 37.20 36.03
G2 : ICCV-11602 2299 2536 2418 5891 6230 6061 38.62 40.23 39.42
G3 : ICCV-11603 2176 2385 2280 5928 6341 6135 36.16 36.87 36.51
G4 : ICCV-11604 2388 2633 2511 6271 6611 6441 37.59 39.02 38.30
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 2783 2948 2865 5788 6216 6002 46.85 47.16 47.00
S.Em± 48 35 30 75 40 42 0.77 0.61 0.49
C.D. (P=0.05) 155 114 89 243 129 127 2.52 1.98 1.47
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 2065 2274 2169 5471 5865 5668 37.84 38.92 38.38
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 2396 2617 2506 5997 6327 6162 39.28 40.60 39.94
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 2638 2871 2754 6593 6902 6748 39.32 40.76 40.04
S.Em± 26 23 18 51 34 31 0.42 0.26 0.25
C.D. (P=0.05) 77 69 50 151 99 88 1.24 0.78 0.71
G1D 1 1864 2105 1985 5747 5956 5852 32.63 35.43 34.03
G1D 2 2217 2466 2341 6177 6404 6291 35.70 37.62 36.66
G1D 3 2472 2729 2601 6748 6915 6832 36.27 38.54 37.41
G2D 1 1967 2200 2084 5065 5515 5290 38.87 39.96 39.42
G2D 2 2331 2567 2449 5858 6157 6008 39.15 41.01 40.08
G2D 3 2598 2842 2720 6751 7017 6884 37.83 39.73 38.78
G3D 1 1865 2064 1965 5447 5883 5665 34.32 35.16 34.74
G3D 2 2212 2417 2314 5895 6332 6114 36.73 37.05 36.89
G3D 3 2451 2673 2562 6442 6809 6626 37.42 38.42 37.92
G4D 1 2027 2267 2147 5782 6163 5972 35.71 36.87 36.29
G4D 2 2423 2666 2544 6275 6601 6438 37.80 39.42 38.61
G4D 3 2715 2966 2840 6755 7071 6913 39.25 40.76 40.00
G5D 1 2599 2733 2666 5314 5807 5561 47.69 47.19 47.44
G5D 2 2796 2967 2882 5780 6142 5961 47.02 47.93 47.48
G5D 3 2952 3143 3048 6269 6700 6485 45.83 46.35 46.09
S.Em± 59 52 39 115 75 69 0.94 0.59 0.56
C.D. (P=0.05) 173 153 112 339 222 196 2.77 1.74 1.59
Table 77: Left over pods seed yield and per cent left over pods seed yield of chickpea genotypes as influenced by the plant density under
irrigated ecosystem
Left over pods seed yield
-1 Per cent left over pods seed yield (%)
Treatment (kg ha )
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 16.76 16.76 16.76 1.62 1.47 1.55
G2 : ICCV-11602 18.51 18.35 18.43 1.72 1.54 1.63
G3 : ICCV-11603 6.69 6.24 6.46 0.66 0.56 0.61
G4 : ICCV-11604 9.48 9.14 9.31 0.85 0.74 0.80
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 32.30 32.73 32.52 2.49 2.34 2.42
S.Em± 0.39 0.43 0.29 0.05 0.04 0.03
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.28 1.42 0.88 0.16 0.15 0.10
Plant density (D)
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal) 15.68 15.57 15.63 1.54 1.38 1.46
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 16.58 16.59 16.59 1.44 1.32 1.38
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 17.98 17.76 17.87 1.42 1.29 1.36
S.Em± 0.18 0.11 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.01
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.53 0.34 0.30 0.04 0.03 0.03
Interaction (GxD)
G1D1 15.61 15.48 15.55 1.75 1.54 1.64
G1D2 16.65 16.75 16.70 1.59 1.46 1.52
G1D3 18.00 18.04 18.02 1.54 1.41 1.48
G2D1 17.69 17.45 17.57 1.88 1.66 1.77
G2D2 18.37 18.30 18.33 1.67 1.52 1.60
G2D3 19.48 19.29 19.38 1.60 1.45 1.52
G3D1 6.49 6.02 6.26 0.73 0.61 0.67
G3D2 6.71 6.17 6.44 0.65 0.55 0.60
G3D3 6.88 6.51 6.70 0.60 0.52 0.56
G4D1 8.86 8.53 8.70 0.91 0.79 0.85
G4D2 9.55 9.16 9.36 0.84 0.74 0.79
G4D3 10.04 9.74 9.89 0.79 0.71 0.75
G5D1 29.77 30.37 30.07 2.46 2.32 2.39
G5D2 31.63 32.56 32.10 2.43 2.32 2.38
G5D3 35.52 35.25 35.38 2.58 2.38 2.48
S.Em± 0.40 0.26 0.24 0.03 0.03 0.02
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.18 0.75 0.68 0.09 0.08 0.06
Table 78: Nitrogen and protein content in grains of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
N content in grains (%) Protein content (%)

Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 3.60 3.65 3.63 22.53 22.80 22.66
G2 : ICCV-11602 3.76 3.80 3.78 23.52 23.78 23.65
G3 : ICCV-11603 3.68 3.78 3.73 23.03 23.61 23.32
G4 : ICCV-11604 3.66 3.73 3.69 22.87 23.29 23.08
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 3.00 3.06 3.03 18.74 19.10 18.92
S.Em± 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.20 0.23 0.15
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.10 0.12 0.07 0.64 0.74 0.45
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 3.49 3.54 3.52 21.83 22.11 21.97
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 3.61 3.66 3.63 22.55 22.87 22.71
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 3.53 3.61 3.57 22.04 22.56 22.30
S.Em± 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.18 0.18 0.13
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.53 0.54 0.37
G1D1 3.56 3.59 3.57 22.24 22.43 22.34
G1D2 3.66 3.70 3.68 22.90 23.15 23.03
G1D3 3.59 3.65 3.62 22.45 22.80 22.63
G2D1 3.71 3.74 3.73 23.20 23.39 23.30
G2D2 3.83 3.87 3.85 23.92 24.19 24.05
G2D3 3.75 3.80 3.78 23.44 23.75 23.60
G3D1 3.62 3.66 3.64 22.60 22.90 22.75
G3D2 3.74 3.79 3.77 23.36 23.70 23.53
G3D3 3.70 3.87 3.79 23.13 24.21 23.67
G4D1 3.61 3.67 3.64 22.53 22.91 22.72
G4D2 3.72 3.79 3.76 23.25 23.69 23.47
G4D3 3.65 3.72 3.69 22.84 23.27 23.05
G5D1 2.98 3.03 3.00 18.60 18.91 18.76
G5D2 3.09 3.14 3.11 19.29 19.63 19.46
G5D3 2.93 3.00 2.97 18.33 18.75 18.54
S.Em± 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.41 0.41 0.29
-1
The plant density effect on seed yield ha was significant. Seed yield was increased with
-1 -1
increase in plant density from 3.33 lakh to 4.99 lakh ha (D1, 2169 to D3, 2754 kg ha ). Similar trend
of increment in seed yield was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with 4.66
-1 -1
lakh ha recorded significantly higher seed yield (2638 and 2871 kg ha , respectively).
-1
Interaction effect due to genotypes and plant density on seed yield ha was found to be
significant. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 planted at 40 per cent higher density (G5D3) observed
-1
significantly higher seed yield (3048 kg ha ) followed by 20 per cent higher density (G5D2) and normal
-1
density (G4D3) (2882 and 2840 kg ha , respectively), whereas, G4D3 produced significantly higher
seed yield than G5D1 (2666 kg ha-1). However, lower seed yield was observed with G3D1 (1965 kg ha-
1
). Similar trend was followed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with G5D3 recording
-1
significantly higher seed yield (2952 and 3143 kg ha , respectively) followed by G5D2 and G4D3,
whereas, G4D3 was on par with G5D2 under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.6.10 Biological yield (cf. Table 76)
-1
The pooled data on biological yield (kg ha ) of chickpea differed significantly among the
genotypes. The tall genotype ICCV-11604 produced significantly maximum biological yield (G4, 6441
-1 -1
kg ha ), which was at par with ICCV-11601 (G1, 6325 kg ha ). However, significantly minimum
-1
biological yield was produced by JG-11 (G5, 6002 kg ha ), which was statistically at par with ICCV-
11602 (G2, 6061 kg ha-1). Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-
-1
13 with ICCV-11604 (G4, 6271 and 6611 kg ha , respectively).
-1
Biological yield ha of chickpea differed significantly due to plant density. It was significantly
more in higher plant density of 4.66 lakh ha-1 (D3, 6748 kg ha-1) when compared to lower density of
3.99 and 3.33 lakh ha-1 (D2, 6163 kg and D1, 5668 kg ha-1, respectively). Similar trend was noticed
-1
during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with a planting density of 4.66 lakh ha (D3, 6593
-1
and 6902 kg ha , respectively).
Significant differences were recorded on biological yield due to interaction of genotypes and
plant density. Significantly maximum biological yield was recorded with G4D3 and G1D3 (6913 and
-1
6832 kg ha , respectively) and were statistically at par with each other, but significantly superior to
-1
other treatment combinations. However, the minimum value was observed with G2D1 (5290 kg ha ).
Similar trend of results were followed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with G4D3
-1 -1
(6755 and 6601 kg ha , respectively) and G1D3 (6748 and 6915 kg ha , respectively) recording
significantly maximum biological yield and were on par with each other under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.6.11 Harvest Index (cf. Table 76)
The pooled data revealed that, harvest index was significantly varied among the genotypes. It
was significantly the highest in JG-11 (G5, 47.00%), followed by ICCV-11062 and ICCV-11602 (G2,
39.42% and G4, 38.30%, respectively). However, the lowest harvest index was observed with ICCV-
11601 (G1, 36.03%). Similar trend was noticed during the individual years also.
The harvest index was found to be significant due to plant density. It was significantly more
and less in plant density of 4.66 lakh ha-1 (D2, 40.04%) and 3.33 lakh ha-1 (D1, 38.38%), respectively.
-1
However, higher plant density of 3.99 and 4.66 lakh ha were statistically at par. Similar trend was
noticed during the individual years of experiment (2011-12 and 2012-13). But during 2011-12,
-1
significantly higher harvest index was found with 3.99 lakh ha (D2, 39.32%).
Interaction effect between genotypes and plant density was significant with respect to harvest
index. It was significantly more (47.48%) and less (34.03%) in G5D2 and G1D1 treatment
combinations, respectively. Similar trend of harvest index was noticed during the individual years of
experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.6.12 Left over pods seed yield and per cent left over pods seed yield (cf. Table 77)
-1
Significant difference in left over pods seed yield (kg ha ) and per cent left over pods seed
-1
yield was observed due to genotypes. It was more in case of JG-11 (G5, 67.74 kg ha and 2.42%,
-1
respectively) and less in ICCV-11603 (G3, 4.46 kg ha and 0.61%, respectively). Similar trend was
followed during both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13).
-1
Significant difference in left over pods seed yield (kg ha ) and per cent left over pods seed
yield was observed due to plant density. The left over pods seed yield was significantly more in higher
plant density of 4.66 lakh ha-1 (D3, 17.87 kg ha-1) over lower plant density.
Table 79: Plant lodging at harvest of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
irrigated ecosystem
Plant lodging (%)

Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 3.85 3.99 3.92
G2 : ICCV-11602 15.56 15.33 15.45
G3 : ICCV-11603 4.33 4.42 4.38
G4 : ICCV-11604 7.20 7.18 7.19
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 1.52 1.53 1.52
S.Em± 0.32 0.36 0.24
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.06 1.17 0.73
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 5.60 5.57 5.59
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 6.46 6.44 6.45
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 7.41 7.47 7.44
S.Em± 0.13 0.14 0.10
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.39 0.41 0.27
Interaction (GxD)
G1D1 2.96 3.13 3.04
G1D2 3.81 3.96 3.89
G1D3 4.78 4.89 4.84
G2D1 14.00 13.67 13.83
G2D2 15.48 15.21 15.34
G2D3 17.21 17.13 17.17
G3D1 3.40 3.53 3.47
G3D2 4.32 4.35 4.34
G3D3 5.26 5.39 5.32
G4D1 6.35 6.29 6.32
G4D2 7.20 7.14 7.17
G4D3 8.04 8.12 8.08
G5D1 1.30 1.25 1.27
G5D2 1.50 1.53 1.51
G5D3 1.75 1.82 1.79
S.Em± 0.30 0.31 0.21
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.88 0.91 0.61
On the contrary, per cent left over pods seed yield was significantly more in normal plant
-1
density of 3.33 lakh ha (D1, 1.46%) over higher plant density. Similar trend was followed during both
the years of experimentation.
Interaction between genotypes and plant density differed significantly for left over pods seed
yield and per cent left over pods seed yield. The values were significantly maximum in G5D3 (73.72 kg
-1 -1
ha and 2.48%, respectively) followed by G5D2 (66.87 kg ha and 2.38%, respectively). Similar trend
was observed during the individual years (2011-12 and 2012-13) under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.7 Nitrogen and protein content (cf. Table 78)
Significant variation in nitrogen and protein content in grains (%) was observed among the
genotypes. The genotype ICCV-11602 recorded significantly higher nitrogen and protein content (G2,
3.78 and 23.65%, respectively) compared to rest of the genotypes and was on par with ICCV-11603
(G3, 3.73 and 23.32%, respectively). However, significantly least nitrogen and protein was observed
with JG-11 (G5, 3.03 and 18.92%, respectively). Similar trend was observed during both the years of
Nitrogen and protein content varied significantly due to plant density. Significantly higher
nitrogen and protein content (3.63 and 22.71%, respectively) was registered with 20 per cent higher
-1 -1
plant density (D2, 3.99 lakh ha ) than 40 per cent higher (D3, 4.66 lakh ha ) and normal plant density
-1
(D1, 3.33 lakh ha ). Similar trend was observed during both the years of experimentation (2011-12
and 2012-13).
Interaction effect was non significant. Similar trend was observed during the individual years
of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
Plant lodging (%) differed significantly among the genotypes. The tall genotype ICCV-11602
recorded significantly higher plant lodging (G2, 15.45%) compared to rest of the genotypes. However,
significantly lesser plant lodging was noticed with semi-erect genotype JG-11 (G5, 1.52%). A similar
trend was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Plant density effect on plant lodging was significant. The increase in plant density from 3.33
-1 -1
lakh ha to 4.66 lakh ha resulted in progressive and significant increase in plant lodging at harvest
(5.59 to 7.44%). A similar trend was noticed during the individual years also.
Plant lodging varied significantly due to interaction effect genotypes and plant density. Among
the interactions, G2D3 recorded significantly higher plant lodging (17.17%) than rest of the interactions
and least plant lodging was found with G5D1 (1.27%). Similar trend was observed during the individual
years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.8 Pest occurrence
4.2.8.1 Weed population per plot (cf. Table 80)
The pooled data on weed population per plot counted at 40 days after sowing of chickpea
differed significantly among the genotypes. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly
lower weed population (G5, 8.68 plot-1), which was at par with all tall genotypes except ICCV-11602
-1
(G2, 14.87 plot ). Similar trend was observed during the individual years of experimentation (2011-12
and 2012-13).
Weed population per plot differed significantly due to plant density. The increase in plant
density from 3.33 to 4.66 lakh ha-1 resulted in reduction of weed population from 11.47 to 8.86 plot-1.
Similar trend was observed during the individual years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13).
The interaction effect was significant with respect to weed population per plot. Significantly
lower weed population was recorded with G1D3 (7.58 plot-1) over rest of the interactions and were
statistically at par with G3D3 (7.75 plot-1), G4D3 (7.86 plot-1), G5D2 (8.67 plot-1), G1D2 (8.83 plot-1) and
-1
G3D2 (9.08 plot ). However, significantly higher weed population was recorded with G2D1 (16.83
-1 -1
plot ) followed by G2D2 (14.60 plot ). During the individual years of experimentation (2011-12 and
2012-13), a similar trend weed population was noticed under irrigated ecosystem. But relatively more
weed population per plot was noticed during 2012-13 compared to 2011-12.
Table 80: Weed population and biomass per plot as influenced by the chickpea genotypes and plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1 -1
Weed population plot Weed biomass plot (g)
Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 7.01 10.65 8.83 6.62 8.29 7.45
G2 : ICCV-11602 12.64 17.09 14.87 9.05 11.02 10.04
G3 : ICCV-11603 7.31 11.03 9.17 4.05 5.70 4.87
G4 : ICCV-11604 7.40 10.79 9.09 5.79 7.44 6.61
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 6.72 10.64 8.68 3.54 5.18 4.36
S.Em± 0.51 0.53 0.37 0.33 0.33 0.23
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.67 1.73 1.10 1.07 1.06 0.70
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 9.49 13.44 11.47 8.16 9.94 9.05
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 8.20 11.91 10.05 5.55 7.27 6.41
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 6.95 10.77 8.86 3.72 5.36 4.54
S.Em± 0.33 0.28 0.21 0.30 0.28 0.20
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.96 0.81 0.61 0.87 0.83 0.58
Interaction (GxD)
G1D1 8.35 11.80 10.08 9.35 10.97 10.16
G1D2 7.00 10.67 8.83 6.25 8.00 7.12
G1D3 5.67 9.50 7.58 4.25 5.90 5.07
G2D1 14.33 19.33 16.83 11.34 13.66 12.50
G2D2 12.60 16.60 14.60 9.27 11.20 10.24
G2D3 11.00 15.33 13.17 6.55 8.20 7.37
G3D1 8.67 12.67 10.67 6.41 8.06 7.23
G3D2 7.42 10.75 9.08 3.52 5.17 4.34
G3D3 5.83 9.67 7.75 2.22 3.87 3.04
G4D1 8.67 12.00 10.33 8.25 9.90 9.08
G4D2 7.33 10.84 9.09 5.49 7.14 6.32
G4D3 6.19 9.53 7.86 3.62 5.27 4.44
G5D1 7.42 11.42 9.42 5.44 7.09 6.27
G5D2 6.67 10.67 8.67 3.20 4.85 4.03
G5D3 6.08 9.83 7.96 1.98 3.59 2.79
S.Em± 0.73 0.62 0.48 0.66 0.63 0.46
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.15 1.81 1.36 1.95 1.87 1.31
4.2.8.2 Weed biomass per plot (cf. Table 80)
Weed biomass per plot (g) significantly differed among the genotypes. It was significantly
-1
lower with semi-erect genotype JG-11 (G5, 4.36 g plot ) compared to rest of the genotypes and was
-1
at par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 4.87 g plot ). Significantly higher weed biomass was observed with tall
-1
genotype ICCV-11602 (G2, 10.04 g plot ). Similar trend was observed during the individual years of
experimentation.
Weed biomass per plot significantly differed due to plant density. The weed biomass was
-1
significantly and progressively decreased due to increase in plant density from 3.33 to 4.66 lakh ha .
-1
Significantly minimum weed biomass was produced at higher plant density of 4.66 lakh ha (D1, 4.54
-1 -1 -1
g plot ) than lower plant density of 3.99 lakh and 3.33 lakh ha (D2, 6.41 g and D3, 9.05 g plot ).
Similar trend was observed during the individual years also.
Interaction effect had significant influence on weed biomass per plot. Significantly lower weed
-1
biomass was recorded with G5D3 (2.79 g plot ) than rest of interactions and was at par with G3D3
-1 -1
(3.04 g plot ) and G5D2 (4.03 g plot ). However, significantly higher weed biomass was noticed with
-1 -1
G2D1 (12.50 g plot ) followed by G2D2 and G1D1 (10.24 and 10.16 g plot , respectively). Similar trend
4.2.8.3 Pod damage (cf. Table 81)
Pooled data revealed that, a significant difference in pod damage (%) was observed due to
genotypes. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly more pod damage (G5, 6.04%) than
rest of the genotypes. However, significantly lower pod damage was observed with ICCV-11602 (G2,
2.57%). Similar trend was followed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 with JG-11
recorded significantly higher pod damage (G5, 5.48 and 6.60%, respectively).
A significant variation in pod damage was observed due to influence of plant density. Pod
damage was significantly increased due to increase in plant density. Significantly maximum pod
-1
damage was observed at 4.66 lakh ha (D3, 4.73%) than lower plant densit of 3.99 lakh and 3.33 lakh
-1
ha (D2, 3.34% and D1, 2.44%, respectively). Similar trend was observed during the individual years
of 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Interaction effect was significant. The interaction G5D3 recorded higher pod damage (8.74%)
followed by G5D2 (5.62%), but least pod damage was with G2D1 (1.98%). Similar trend was noticed
during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.8.4 Wilt incidence (cf. Table 82)
Pooled data on wilt incidence (%) in chickpea was not significantly differed among the
genotypes at 30 and 60 days after sowing. However, the tall genotypes ICCV-11601 and ICCV-11602
noticed relatively more wilt incidence than other genotypes at both the stages. Similar trend was
observed during both the years of experimentation.
Wilt incidence in chickpea was significantly influenced due to plant density. At 30 days after
sowing, wilt incidence was more in normal density of 3.33 lakh ha-1 (D1, 1.0%) than higher density of
3.99 lakh and 4.66 lakh ha-1 (D2, 0.88 to D3, 0.75%, respectively). Similar trend was followed at 60
days after sowing. During the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13, a similar trend was observed
at 60 days after sowing, but at 30 days after sowing, the plant density showed non significance during
the individual years of experimentation.
Interaction effect was non significant. A similar trend was observed during both the years of
4.2.8.5 Rust incidence (cf. Table 83)
The rust incidence during period of investigations was not noticed at all the growth stages
across the genotypes, plant density and their interaction effect.
4.2.9 Soil moisture content (cf. Table 84)
Pooled data revealed that, soil moisture content (%) differed significantly due to genotypes at
harvest only. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly highest moisture content (G5,
13.23%), though it was on par with ICCV-11604 (G4, 12.86%), but showed its superiority over rest of
the genotypes. However, the lowest moisture content was recorded with ICCV-11601 (G1, 11.87%).
Similar trend was noticed during the individual years also.
Table 81: Pod damage (%) of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
irrigated ecosystem
Pod damage (%)

Treatment
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 2.50 3.11 2.80
G2 : ICCV-11602 2.39 2.76 2.57
G3 : ICCV-11603 2.74 3.42 3.08
G4 : ICCV-11604 2.76 3.31 3.03
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 5.48 6.60 6.04
S.Em± 0.23 0.34 0.21
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.75 1.12 0.62
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 2.22 2.66 2.44
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 3.01 3.68 3.34
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 4.29 5.18 4.73
S.Em± 0.15 0.24 0.14
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.44 0.71 0.40
G1D1 1.97 2.45 2.21
G1D2 2.43 3.00 2.72
G1D3 3.09 3.88 3.48
G2D1 1.83 2.13 1.98
G2D2 2.20 2.91 2.55
G2D3 3.15 3.23 3.19
G3D1 1.93 2.20 2.07
G3D2 2.63 3.16 2.89
G3D3 3.67 4.89 4.28
G4D1 2.02 2.37 2.20
G4D2 2.71 3.17 2.94
G4D3 3.54 4.39 3.96
G5D1 3.38 4.15 3.76
G5D2 5.09 6.15 5.62
G5D3 7.98 9.51 8.74
S.Em± 0.34 0.54 0.32
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.99 1.58 0.90
Table 82: Wilt incidence of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
Wilt incidence (%)

2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 1.27 0.89 1.08 1.52 1.39 1.45
G2 : ICCV-11602 1.21 0.66 0.93 1.46 1.23 1.35
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.98 0.70 0.84 1.40 1.17 1.29
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.95 0.62 0.79 1.28 1.11 1.19
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.84 0.63 0.73 1.22 1.01 1.11
S.Em± 0.18 0.12 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.08
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 1.19 0.81 1.00 1.59 1.36 1.47
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 1.06 0.69 0.88 1.38 1.19 1.28
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0.91 0.59 0.75 1.17 1.00 1.08
S.Em± 0.11 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.05
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS 0.19 0.26 0.19 0.15
G1D1 1.40 1.03 1.22 1.76 1.57 1.66
G1D2 1.27 0.88 1.08 1.52 1.39 1.46
G1D3 1.15 0.76 0.96 1.28 1.21 1.25
G2D1 1.34 0.78 1.06 1.68 1.42 1.55
G2D2 1.21 0.66 0.94 1.47 1.24 1.35
G2D3 1.07 0.53 0.80 1.25 1.03 1.14
G3D1 1.15 0.77 0.96 1.62 1.37 1.49
G3D2 0.98 0.69 0.84 1.40 1.17 1.29
G3D3 0.81 0.65 0.73 1.19 0.99 1.09
G4D1 1.09 0.75 0.92 1.46 1.26 1.36
G4D2 0.96 0.62 0.79 1.28 1.12 1.20
G4D3 0.81 0.49 0.65 1.09 0.95 1.02
G5D1 0.97 0.73 0.85 1.42 1.18 1.30
G5D2 0.85 0.63 0.74 1.23 1.01 1.12
G5D3 0.70 0.52 0.61 1.02 0.83 0.92
S.Em± 0.25 0.16 0.15 0.19 0.15 0.12
Table 83: Rust incidence of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
Rust incidence (%)

Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G2 : ICCV-11602 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G3 : ICCV-11603 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G4 : ICCV-11604 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S.Em± - - - - - - - - -
C.D. (P=0.05) - - - - - - - - -
Plant density (D) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S.Em± - - - - - - - - -
C.D. (P=0.05) - - - - - - - - -
Genotype x plant density (GxD) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G1D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G1D2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G1D3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G2D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G2D2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G2D3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G3D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G3D2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G3D3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G4D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G4D2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G4D3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G5D1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G5D2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
G5D3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
S.Em± - - - - - - - - -
C.D. (P=0.05) - - - - - - - - -
Table 84: Soil moisture content (%) in chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
Soil moisture content (%)

Treatment Flowering stage After harvest
2011-12 2012-13 Pooled 2011-12 2012-13 Pooled
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 16.77 16.85 16.81 11.58 12.16 11.87
G2 : ICCV-11602 17.06 17.08 17.07 11.91 12.80 12.35
G3 : ICCV-11603 17.35 17.44 17.40 11.97 12.90 12.43
G4 : ICCV-11604 18.49 18.52 18.51 12.66 13.06 12.86
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 18.53 18.68 18.60 12.81 13.64 13.23
S.Em± 0.60 0.75 0.48 0.19 0.21 0.14
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 0.61 0.68 0.42
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 18.93 19.07 19.00 13.20 13.99 13.60
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher) 17.67 17.76 17.72 12.23 12.93 12.58
-1
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha (40% higher) 16.33 16.31 16.32 11.12 11.81 11.46
S.Em± 0.34 0.41 0.27 0.18 0.17 0.13
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.99 1.21 0.76 0.54 0.51 0.36
G1D1 18.15 18.28 18.22 12.38 13.32 12.85
G1D2 16.51 16.93 16.72 11.77 12.18 11.97
G1D3 15.64 15.34 15.49 10.58 10.97 10.78
G2D1 18.34 18.43 18.39 12.92 13.73 13.32
G2D2 17.20 17.10 17.15 11.87 12.82 12.35
G2D3 15.63 15.70 15.67 10.94 11.84 11.39
G3D1 18.48 18.81 18.64 13.02 13.91 13.47
G3D2 17.38 17.46 17.42 12.08 12.96 12.52
G3D3 16.21 16.04 16.13 10.79 11.82 11.30
G4D1 19.63 19.57 19.60 13.57 14.01 13.79
G4D2 18.65 18.55 18.60 12.69 13.04 12.86
G4D3 17.18 17.45 17.32 11.72 12.12 11.92
G5D1 20.02 20.24 20.13 14.14 14.97 14.55
G5D2 18.59 18.77 18.68 12.75 13.67 13.21
G5D3 16.97 17.02 16.99 11.55 12.29 11.92
S.Em± 0.75 0.92 0.59 0.41 0.39 0.28
C.D. (P=0.05) NS NS NS 1.22 1.14 0.81
Table 85: Nutrient uptake by chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1 -1 -1
Nitrogen uptake (kg ha ) Phosphorus uptake (kg ha ) Potassium uptake (kg ha )
Treatment
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 92.53 96.51 94.52 7.23 8.47 7.85 65.87 81.82 73.84
G2 : ICCV-11602 87.51 94.14 90.82 7.06 8.29 7.68 60.18 76.37 68.28
G3 : ICCV-11603 94.56 102.51 98.53 7.61 8.89 8.25 68.88 86.85 77.43
G4 : ICCV-11604 102.89 109.65 107.56 8.39 9.62 9.00 69.03 85.83 77.86
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 103.12 112.00 106.27 8.31 9.65 8.98 45.21 60.55 52.88
S.Em± 3.95 3.91 2.78 0.44 0.36 0.28 3.06 3.26 2.24
C.D. (P=0.05) NS 12.75 8.34 NS NS 0.85 9.98 10.64 6.70
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 79.45 86.80 83.12 6.45 7.67 7.06 60.07 76.30 68.19
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 96.88 103.51 100.20 7.59 8.74 8.17 61.90 78.13 70.01
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 112.04 118.58 115.31 9.12 10.54 9.83 63.53 80.42 71.98
S.Em± 2.06 2.34 1.56 0.18 0.24 0.15 1.99 2.22 1.49
C.D. (P=0.05) 6.09 6.91 4.46 0.52 0.70 0.42 NS NS NS
G1D1 77.38 81.22 79.30 6.29 7.12 6.70 64.97 79.27 72.12
G1D2 92.81 97.49 95.15 6.68 8.06 7.37 66.27 82.67 74.47
G1D3 107.41 110.82 109.11 8.71 10.22 9.47 66.35 83.53 74.94
G2D1 68.77 77.01 72.89 5.54 6.98 6.26 55.77 72.82 64.29
G2D2 87.68 93.60 90.64 6.88 7.85 7.37 60.49 75.29 67.89
G2D3 106.06 111.81 108.94 8.77 10.03 9.40 64.28 81.00 72.64
G3D1 79.49 87.50 83.49 6.48 7.65 7.06 67.41 84.75 76.08
G3D2 95.16 103.31 99.23 7.87 9.08 8.48 68.62 87.64 78.13
G3D3 109.03 116.71 112.87 8.48 9.95 9.21 70.61 88.16 79.38
G4D1 84.58 91.75 88.16 6.98 8.44 7.71 66.52 83.45 74.98
G4D2 104.49 111.16 107.82 8.04 9.11 8.57 69.80 86.35 78.08
G4D3 119.62 126.05 122.83 10.14 11.32 10.73 70.78 87.69 79.24
G5D1 87.01 96.52 91.77 6.96 8.19 7.58 45.68 61.23 53.45
G5D2 104.25 112.00 108.13 8.47 9.61 9.04 44.29 58.71 51.50
G5D3 118.10 127.49 122.80 9.49 11.16 10.32 45.65 61.71 53.68
S.Em± 4.62 5.24 3.49 0.40 0.53 0.33 4.44 4.96 3.33
Plant density influenced the soil moisture content both at flowering and harvesting stage.
-1
Planting chickpea at 40 per cent higher density (D3, 4.66 lakh ha ) recorded lowest soil moisture
content both at flowering and at harvesting stages (16.32 and 11.46%, respectively) than lower plant
density. However, significant increase in soil moisture content was recorded with normal plant density
of 3.33 lakh ha-1 (D1, 19.00 and 13.60%, respectively). Similar trend was followed during the individual
years of experimentation.
The soil moisture content differed significantly due to interaction of genotypes and plant
density only at harvest. Significantly higher soil moisture content was noticed with G5D1 (14.55%),
which was at par with G4D1 (13.79%), while lower value were found with G1D3 (10.78%). Similar trend
4.2.10 Nutrient uptake
4.2.10.1 Nitrogen uptake (cf. Table 85)
The pooled data indicated that, nitrogen uptake (kg ha-1) in chickpea differed significantly
among the genotypes. The tall genotype ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher nitrogen uptake
-1 -1
(G4, 107.56 kg ha ), and was on par with JG-11 (G5, 106.27 kg ha ). However, significantly least
-1
nitrogen uptake was observed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 90.82 kg ha ). During 2012-13, significantly
-1
higher nitrogen uptake was observed in JG-11 (G5, 112.00 kg ha ), which was on par with ICCV-
-1 -1
11604 (G4, 109.65 kg ha ) and ICCV-11603 (G3, 102.51 kg ha ). However, during 2012-13, nitrogen
uptake was found non significant among the genotypes.
Nitrogen uptake in chickpea was significantly influenced by plant density. It was increased
-1
with increase in plant density. Planting at 40 per cent higher density (D3, 4.66 lakh ha ) recorded
-1 -
significantly higher nitrogen uptake (115.31 kg ha ) compared to 20 per cent higher (D2, 3.99 lakh ha
1 -1
) and normal plant density (D1, 3.33 lakh ha ). Similar trend was observed during the individual years
(2011-12 and 2012-13).
The effect of interaction on nitrogen uptake was non significant. Similar trend was observed
during both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.10.1 Phosphorus uptake (cf. Table 85)
-1
The pooled data on phosphorus uptake (kg ha ) in chickpea differed significantly among the
genotypes. The tall genotype ICCV-11604 was observed with significantly higher phosphorus uptake
(G4, 9.00 kg ha-1), which was on par with JG-11 (G5, 8.98 kg ha-1) and ICCV-11603 (G4, 8.25 kg ha-1).
-1
However, significantly least phosphorus uptake was observed with ICCV-11602 (G2, 7.68 kg ha ).
During the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13, the phosphorus uptake did not differ significantly
among the genotypes.
Phosphorus uptake in chickpea differed significantly due to plant density. The phosphorus
uptake was increased with increase in plant density. Planting at 40 per cent higher density (D3, 4.66
-1 -1
lakh ha ) recorded significantly higher phosphorus uptake (9.83 kg ha ) compared to 20 per cent
-1 -1
higher (D2, 3.99 lakh ha ) and normal plant density (D1, 3.33 lakh ha ). Similar trend was observed
during the individual years of experimentation.
Interaction effect was non significant. Similar trend was observed during both the years of
4.2.10.1 Potassium uptake (cf. Table 85)
-1
The pooled data indicated that, potassium uptake (kg ha ) in chickpea varied significantly
among the genotypes. Significantly higher potassium uptake was recorded with tall genotype ICCV-
-1 -1
11604 (G4, 77.86 kg ha ), which was on par with ICCV-11603 (G3, 77.43 kg ha ) and ICCV-11601
-1
(G1, 73.84 kg ha ). Significantly least potassium uptake was observed with semi-erect genotype JG-
11 (G2, 52.88 kg ha-1). During 2011-12, significantly higher nitrogen was recorded in ICCV-11603 (G3,
-1 -1
86.85 kg ha ), which was on par with other genotypes except JG-11 (G5, 60.55 kg ha ). Similar trend
was followed during 2012-13.
Plant density did not differ significantly with respect to potassium uptake in chickpea. Similar
trend was observed during the individual years of experimentation.
Interaction effect was non significant on potassium uptake. Similar trend was observed during
both the years of 2011-12 and 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem.
Table 86: Available N, P2O5 and K2O status in soil as influenced by chickpea genotypes and plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1 -1 -1
Available N (kg ha ) Available P2O5 (kg ha ) Available K2O (kg ha )
Treatment
Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601 276.88 281.64 279.26 24.25 26.06 25.16 262.42 282.35 272.39
G2 : ICCV-11602 285.99 290.74 288.37 25.92 28.49 27.20 266.03 285.30 275.67
G3 : ICCV-11603 273.33 278.56 275.95 22.27 25.73 24.00 259.95 276.81 268.38
G4 : ICCV-11604 272.58 277.52 275.05 21.21 24.95 23.08 255.69 278.68 267.18
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 267.50 272.42 269.96 21.11 24.34 22.72 251.50 277.26 264.38
S.Em± 1.92 2.88 1.73 0.27 0.38 0.23 2.39 1.61 1.44
C.D. (P=0.05) 6.25 9.40 5.19 0.88 1.24 0.70 7.78 5.25 4.31
Plant density (D)
-1
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha (Normal) 287.90 292.40 290.15 24.38 27.17 25.78 270.79 283.68 277.23
-1
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha (20% higher) 276.40 280.92 278.66 22.97 25.95 24.46 259.36 281.09 270.23
D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher) 261.47 267.22 264.34 21.50 24.61 23.06 247.21 275.47 261.34
S.Em± 1.98 2.10 1.45 0.42 0.37 0.28 2.65 1.15 1.45
C.D. (P=0.05) 5.85 6.20 4.13 1.24 1.09 0.80 7.82 3.41 4.13
G1D1 290.34 294.58 292.46 25.83 27.36 26.59 274.17 288.02 281.10
G1D2 278.50 282.22 280.36 24.24 26.10 25.17 262.73 282.62 272.67
G1D3 261.80 268.14 264.97 22.70 24.71 23.70 250.37 276.43 263.40
G2D1 298.98 302.46 300.72 27.35 29.64 28.50 278.24 289.30 283.77
G2D2 285.93 291.16 288.54 25.91 28.56 27.23 266.05 285.68 275.86
G2D3 273.07 278.61 275.84 24.49 27.27 25.88 253.82 280.92 267.37
G3D1 284.55 290.47 287.51 23.53 26.86 25.20 271.70 273.97 272.84
G3D2 277.13 280.55 278.84 22.40 25.88 24.14 260.07 280.72 270.39
G3D3 258.31 264.66 261.49 20.87 24.44 22.66 248.10 275.74 261.92
G4D1 284.08 288.67 286.38 22.62 26.24 24.43 266.59 283.77 275.18
G4D2 272.30 277.50 274.90 21.20 24.82 23.01 255.73 279.04 267.38
G4D3 261.35 266.40 263.87 19.81 23.80 21.81 244.75 273.22 258.99
G5D1 281.53 285.83 283.68 22.58 25.75 24.17 263.25 283.32 273.29
G5D2 268.17 273.17 270.67 21.11 24.41 22.76 252.24 277.42 264.83
G5D3 252.80 258.28 255.54 19.64 22.85 21.24 239.03 271.05 255.04
S.Em± 4.44 4.70 3.23 0.94 0.82 0.62 5.92 2.58 3.23
4.2.11 Nutrient status of the soil
4.2.11.1 Available N (cf. Table 86)
-1
The pooled data revelaed that, available N (kg ha ) diffred significantly among the genotypes.
-1
The tall genotype ICCV-11602 recorded significantly higher available N (G2, 288.37 kg ha ) compared
-1
to rest of the genotypes and was followed by ICCV-11601 (G1, 279.26 kg ha ). However, significantly
least available N was observed in JG-11 (G5, 269.96 kg ha-1). Similar trend was observed during the
Plant density influenced significantly on available N status in soil. It was decreased with
increase in plant density. Significantly higher available N status in soil (290.15 kg ha-1) was recorded
with normal density (D1, 3.33 lakh ha-1) compared to 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher plant density.
The interaction effect of genotype and plant density was non significant. A similar trend was
also noticed during the individual years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under irrigated
ecosystem.
4.2.11.2 Available P2O5 (cf. Table 86)
-1
The pooled data showed that available P2O5 (kg ha ) was significantly varied among the
-1
genotypes. Significantly higher available P2O5 was recorded in ICCV-11602 (G2, 27.20 kg ha ) than
rest of the genotypes. However, significantly least available P2O5 was noticed with JG-11 (G5, 22.72
-1
kg ha ). Similar trend was observed during the individual years of 2011-12 and 2012-13.
Plant density varied significantly on available P2O5 status in soil. Increase in plant density
preogressively and significantly decreased the available P2O5 status in soil. Significantly higher
-1
available P2O5 was recorded with normal density (D1, 27.78 kg ha ) over 20 per cent and 40 per cent
higher plant density. Similar trend was noticed during both the years of experimentation.
The interaction effect was non significant with respect to available P2O5 status in soil. Similar
trend was followed during both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under irrigated
ecosystem.
4.2.11.2 Available K2O (cf. Table 86)
-1
The pooled data indicated that available K2O (kg ha ) was significantly varied among the
genotypes. The genotype ICCV-11602 recorded significantly higher available K2O (G2, 275.67 kg ha-1)
than rest of the genotypes and was on par with ICCV-11601 (G1, 272.39 kg ha-1). However,
-1
significantly least available K2O was noticed with JG-11 (G5, 264.28 kg ha ). Similar trend was
observed during 2012-13. While during 2011-12, ICCV-11602 recorded significantly higher available
-1 -1
K2O (G2, 266.03 kg ha ), which was on par with ICCV-11601 (G1, 262.42 kg ha ) and ICCV-11603
-1
(G3, 259.95 kg ha ).
Plant density differed significantly on available K2O status in soil. Increase in plant density
progressively and significantly decreased the available K2O status in soil. Planting at normal density
-1 -1
(D1, 3.33 lakh ha ) recorded significantly higher available K2O (277.23 kg ha ) over 20 per cent and
40 per cent higher plant density. Similar trend was followed during both the years of experimentation.
Interaction effect was not significant. Similar trend was noticed during the individual years of
2011-12 and 2012-13 also under irrigated ecosystem.
4.2.12 Economics of the chickpea production system under irrigated ecosystem (cf. Table 87)
The pooled data on economics of chickpea production as influenced by genotypes and plant
density under irrigated ecosystem.
The interaction of planting semi-erect genotype JG-11 at 40 per cent higher plant density
-1 -1
registered maximum net returns (G5D3, Rs. 67,858 ha ) with gross returns of Rs. 85,330 ha and was
-1 -1
followed by JG-11 with 20 per cent higher plant density (G5D2, Rs. 64,034 ha and Rs. 80,694 ha ,
respectively). Planting tall genotype ICCV-11604 at 40 per cent higher plant density gave higher net
-1 -1
and gross returns (G4D3, Rs. 62,058 ha and Rs. 79,530 ha , respectively) than normal plant density
-1 -1
of JG-11 (G5D1, Rs. 58,810 ha and Rs. 74,658 ha , respectively) and comparable returns with JG-11
with 20 per cent higher plant density (G5D2, Rs. 64,034 ha-1 and Rs. 80,694 ha-1, respectively). The
-1
least returns were obtained in ICCV-11603 with normal density planting (G3D1, Rs. 39,163 ha and
-1
Rs. 55,011 ha , respectively).
Table 87: Economic analysis of chickpea production systems as influenced by genotypes and plant density under irrigated ecosystem
-1 -1
Gross return (Rs. ha ) Net return (Rs. ha ) B:C ratio
Treatment
G 1D1 52191 58952 55571 36343 43105 39724 3.29 3.72 3.51
G 1D2 62069 69038 65554 45409 52378 48894 3.73 4.14 3.93
G 1D3 69226 76420 72823 51754 58948 55351 3.96 4.37 4.17
G 2D1 55084 61603 58344 39237 45756 42496 3.48 3.89 3.68
G 2D2 65268 71874 68571 48608 55214 51911 3.92 4.31 4.12
G 2D3 72749 79571 76160 55276 62099 58687 4.16 4.55 4.36
G 3D1 52216 57806 55011 36369 41958 39163 3.29 3.65 3.47
G 3D2 61923 67686 64805 45263 51026 48145 3.72 4.06 3.89
G 3D3 68637 74847 71742 51164 57374 54269 3.93 4.28 4.11
G 4D1 56769 63477 60123 40921 47630 44275 3.58 4.01 3.79
G 4D2 67833 74636 71234 51173 57976 54574 4.07 4.48 4.28
G 4D3 76015 83046 79530 58542 65574 62058 4.35 4.75 4.55
G 5D1 72780 76535 74658 56933 60688 58810 4.59 4.83 4.71
G 5D2 78300 83089 80694 61640 66429 64034 4.70 4.99 4.84
G 5D3 82659 88002 85330 65186 70529 67858 4.73 5.04 4.88
S.Em± 1643 1454 1097 1643 1454 1097 0.10 0.09 0.07
C.D. (P=0.05) 4848 4289 3136 4848 4289 3136 0.29 0.26 0.19
Table 88: Growth attributes of tall chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical harvesting
-1 -1
Plant height (cm) Number of primary branches plant Number of secondary branches plant
Genotypes
30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest 30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest 30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest
G1 : ICCV-11601 22.46 53.00 65.87 3.49 4.47 5.62 1.77 8.31 10.29
G2 : ICCV-11602 22.58 56.62 66.15 3.65 4.85 6.12 1.85 9.78 11.83
G3 : ICCV-11603 21.01 47.98 61.54 3.90 5.56 6.49 1.80 9.27 11.60
G4 : ICCV-11604 19.95 50.71 65.40 3.69 5.33 6.36 1.46 9.30 11.32
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 21.62 30.17 32.03 4.90 5.75 6.68 4.06 8.96 10.41
S.Em± 0.47 0.45 0.76 0.10 0.27 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.34
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.46 1.40 2.35 0.30 0.84 0.64 0.59 0.56 1.06
G1 to G4 : Erect and tall genotypes

G5 : Semi-erect genotype
Table 89: Growth attributes of tall chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical harvesting
Canopy spread between rows Canopy spread between plants Canopy spread
2
Genotype (cm) (cm) (cm )
30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest 30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest 30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest
G1 : ICCV-11601 18.21 26.66 30.90 15.39 17.54 23.84 280.35 468.07 736.65
G2 : ICCV-11602 18.44 26.85 31.92 15.94 17.91 24.88 293.88 481.09 794.32
G3 : ICCV-11603 18.72 27.07 31.02 15.65 18.03 24.10 292.79 487.88 747.40
G4 : ICCV-11604 17.07 25.92 29.82 14.60 16.62 23.27 249.06 430.44 694.45
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 21.04 32.05 35.15 18.67 21.32 28.24 393.04 682.79 992.37
S.Em± 0.28 0.38 0.41 0.33 0.44 0.44 8.07 13.70 15.65
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.86 1.18 1.25 1.03 1.37 1.35 24.86 42.21 48.22

Planting JG-11 at 40 per cent higher plant density obtained higher benefit cost (B:C) ratio
(G5D3, 4.88) compared to rest of the interactions and was followed by JG-11 with 20 per cent higher
plant density (G5D2, 4.84). Among the tested combinations, planting tall genotype ICCV-11604 at 40
per cent higher plant density (G4D3) obtained higher benefit cost ratio of 4.55, followed by ICCV-
11604 with 20 per cent higher plant density (G4D2, 4.28), while least benefit cost ratio of 3.47 was
obtained with planting ICCV-11603 at normal plant density (G3D1). Similar trend was observed during
both the years of experimentation (2011-12 and 2012-13) under irrigated ecosystem.
4.3 Experiment–III: Studies on performance of tall chickpea genotypes for
Field experiment was conducted during rabi 2012-13 at ICRISAT, Patancheru (AP), India.
Experiment consisted of five genotypes out of which four were erect and tall viz., ICCV-11601, ICCV-
11602, ICCV-11603 and ICCV-11604 and one semi-erect normal genotypes i.e., JG-11 (check). The
results of the study are furnished below.
4.3.1 Growth parameters
The genotypes influenced significantly on plant height (cm) at all the growth stages of
chickpea.
At 30 days after sowing, significantly tallest plats were produced by tall genotype ICCV-11602
(22.58 cm), which was statistically at par with ICCV-11601 and JG-11 (22.46 cm and 21.62 cm,
respectively). However, significantly lower plant height was observed with genotype ICCV-11604
(19.95 cm).
At 60 days after sowing also, tall genotype ICCV-11602 produced significantly tallest plants
(56.62 cm) than other genotypes and was followed by other tall genotypes like ICCV-11601 and
ICCV-11604 (53.00 cm and 50.71 cm, respectively). However, semi-erect JG-11 registered
significantly lower plant height (30.17 cm).
Similarly, at harvest, ICCV-11602 observed significantly tallest plants (66.15 cm), but was
statistically on par with other tall genotypes viz., ICCV-11601 (65.87 cm) and ICCV-11604 (65.40 cm).
Significantly lower plant height was observed with semi-erect genotype JG-11 (32.03 cm).
At 30 days after sowing, semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly higher number of
primary branches per plant (4.90) over tall genotypes and was closely followed by ICCV-11603 (3.90).
However, significantly least number was produced with ICCV-11601(3.49), which was statistically at
par with ICCV-11602 and ICCV-11604 (3.65 and 3.69, respectively).
At 60 days after sowing also, semi-erect genotype JG-11 produced significantly higher
number of branches per plant (5.75), and was statistically at par with tall genotypes like ICCV-11603
(5.56) and ICCV-11604 (5.33). However, ICCV-11601 registered significantly least number of primary
branches per plant (4.47).
Similarly, at harvest also, significantly maximum number of primary branches per plant was
produced by semi-erect genotype (JG-11, 6.68), which was on par with all the tall genotypes tried
except ICCV-11601, which recorded significantly lower number of branches per plant (5.62).
At 30 days after sowing, the semi-erect chickpea genotype JG-11 produced significantly more
number of secondary branches per plant (4.06) over tall genotypes, but all the tall genotypes were on
par with each other.
On the contrary, at 60 days after sowing, significantly maximum number of secondary
branches per plant were produced by tall genotype ICCV-11602 (9.78), which was statistically at par
with all other genotypes except ICCV-11601 (8.31) and JG-11 (8.96).
Similarly, at harvest also, tall genotype ICCV-11602 produced significantly maximum number
of secondary branches per plant (11.83), which was at par with other tall genotypes like ICCV-11603
(11.60) and ICCV-11604 (11.32), but significantly least number of secondary branches per plant was
noticed with ICCV-11601 and JG-11 (10.29 and 10.41, respectively).
4.3.1.4 Canopy spread between rows (cf. Table 89)
The treatments differed significantly at all the growth stages. At 30 days after sowing, semi-
erect genotype JG-11 (21.04 cm) spread more canopy between the rows compared to tall genotypes,
but all the tall genotypes showed at par canopy spread except ICCV-11604 (17.07 cm).
At 60 days after sowing, semi-erect genotype (JG-11) recorded significantly maximum canopy
spread (32.05 cm) followed by ICCV-11603 (27.07 cm). But all the tall genotypes recorded at par
canopy spread between rows. Significantly lower value was recorded with ICCV-11604 (25.92 cm).
Similarly, at harvest, significantly maximum canopy spread between rows was noticed with
JG-11 (35.15 cm) compared to rest of the genotypes and was followed by ICCV-11602 (31.92 cm),
which was on par with ICCV-11603 and ICCV-11601 (31.02 and 30.90 cm, respectively). However,
significantly lower canopy spread was recorded with ICCV-11604 (29.82 cm).
4.3.1.5 Canopy spread between plants (cf. Table 89)
The treatments differed significantly at all the growth stages. At 30 days after sowing,
significantly maximum canopy spread between plants was found with semi-erect genotype JG-11
(18.67 cm) over tall genotypes, followed by ICCV-11602 (15.94 cm). However, significantly lower
canopy spread between plants was observed with ICCV-11604 (14.60 cm).
At 60 days after sowing also, JG-11 recorded significantly maximum canopy spread between
plants (21.32 cm), followed by ICCV-11603 (18.03 cm). ICCV-11603 was statistically on par with all
other tall genotypes except ICCV-11604, which recorded significantly lower canopy spread of 16.62
cm.
Similarly, at harvest, the semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly higher canopy
spread between plants (28.24 cm) compared to all the tall genotypes. Among the tall genotypes,
significantly higher canopy spread between plants was noticed with ICCV-11602 (24.88 cm), and was
on par with other tall genotypes ICCV-11603 and ICCV-11601 (24.10 and 23.84 cm, respectively).
However, significantly lower values were found with ICCV-11604 (23.27 cm).
4.3.1.6 Total canopy spread (cf. Table 89)
At 30 days after sowing, semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly maximum canopy
2 2
spread (393.04 cm ) over tested tall genotypes, followed by ICCV-11602 (293.88 cm ) and ICCV-
2
11603 (292.79 cm ). However, significantly lower canopy spread was observed with ICCV-11604
2
(249.06 cm ).
At 60 days after sowing also, semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly maximum
2 2
canopy spread (682.79 cm ) followed by ICCV-11603 (487.88 cm ) and ICCV-11603, which were
statistically on par with all other tall genotypes except ICCV-11604, which was having significant lower
2
canopy spread (430.44 cm ).
Similarly, at harvest, significantly higher canopy spread was observed with semi-erect
2 2
genotype JG-11 (992.37 cm ) than tall genotypes, followed by ICCV-11602 (794.32 cm ), and was on
2
par with ICCV-11603 (747.40 cm ). However, significantly lower values were found with ICCV-11604
2
(694.45 cm ).
4.3.1.7 Days to 50 per cent flowering and maturity (cf. Table 90)
The chickpea genotypes differed significantly for days to 50 per cent flowering and maturity.
The tall genotypes took more days to 50 per cent flowering and maturity than semi-erect genotype.
Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11604 took more days to 50 per cent flowering (64 days) and
maturity (108 days) followed by ICCV-11603 (61 and 105 days, respectively). However, JG-11
flowered (43 days) and matured (90 days) the earliest.
Data regarding first pod height (cm) at harvest differed significantly among the chickpea
genotypes. The tall genotypes were having significantly higher first pod height compared to semi-
erect genotype. Amongst the tall genotypes, ICCV-11602 recorded significantly higher first pod height
(40.97 cm) than other genotypes, but was statistically at par with ICCV-11601 (39.86 cm). However,
significantly lower first pod height was observed with semi-erect genotype JG-11 (19.30 cm).
Table 90: Days to 50 per cent flowering and maturity and first pod height as influenced by tall
chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical harvesting
Days to 50% First pod height at

Genotypes Days to maturity
flowering harvest (cm)
G1 : ICCV-11601 57 100 39.86
G2 : ICCV-11602 58 102 40.97
G3 : ICCV-11603 61 104 36.52
G4 : ICCV-11604 64 108 39.07
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 43 90 19.30
S.Em± 0.75 0.73 0.40
C.D. (P=0.05) 2.30 2.24 1.24

Table 91: Yield attributes of tall chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical harvesting
No. of Per cent Total Number

No. of filled
Genotype unfilled unfilled number of of seeds
pods plant-1 -1 -1 -1
pods plant pods pods plant plant
G1 : ICCV-11601 35.80 2.85 7.37 38.65 49.68
G2 : ICCV-11602 44.54 3.96 8.16 48.49 62.06
G3 : ICCV-11603 37.21 3.06 7.61 40.27 52.47
G4 : ICCV-11604 39.40 3.25 7.61 42.65 56.11
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 49.32 4.78 8.84 54.10 63.27
S.Em± 0.65 0.12 0.28 0.65 0.85
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.99 0.37 0.86 2.01 2.63

4.3.2 Yield parameters
Number of filled pods per plant differed significantly among the tested genotypes. The semi-
erect genotype i.e., JG-11 produced significantly higher number of filled pods per plant (49.32)
followed by tall genotype ICCV-11602 (44.54) and significantly least number of filled pods per plant
was produced with ICCV-11601 (35.80), which was on par with ICCV-11603 (37.21 plant-1).
Chickpea genotypes significantly influenced on number of unfilled pods per plant. Tall
genotypes produced lesser number of unfilled pods per plant compared to semi-erect genotype (JG-
11). Among the tall genotypes, significantly least unfilled pods per plant were produced with ICCV-
11601 (2.85) and ICCV-11603 (3.06) and were on par.
4.3.2.3 Per cent unfilled pods (cf. Table 91)
The per cent unfilled pods varied significantly due to chickpea genotypes. Among the
genotypes, significantly least per cent of unfilled pods was observed with tall chickpea genotype
ICCV-11601 (7.37%), which was statistically at par with all other tall genotypes except ICCV-11602.
However, significantly highest per cent unfilled pod was noticed with semi-erect genotype JG-11
(8.84%).
Significant differences in total number of filled pods per plant were observed amongst the
chickpea genotypes. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 produced significantly more total number of
pods per plant (54.10) compared to other genotypes, and was followed by tall genotypes ICCV-11602
(48.49) and ICCV-11604 (42.65). However, significantly least number was noticed with ICCV-11601
(38.65), which was on par with ICCV-11603 (40.27).
The genotypes JG-11 produced significantly more number of seeds per plant (63.27) which
was statistically on par with ICCV-11602 (62.06). However, significantly least number of seeds was
produced with ICCV-11601 (49.68), and was on par with ICCV-11603 (52.47).
The number of seeds per pod varied significantly due to chickpea genotypes. Tall genotypes
produced significantly higher number of seeds per pod than semi-erect genotype. Among the tall
genotypes, ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher number of seeds per pod (1.32), and was
statistically at par with all other tall genotypes and showed superiority over semi-erect genotype JG-11
(1.17).
4.3.2.7 Pod and seed yield per plant (cf. Table 92)
The pod and seed yield per plant (g) differed significantly due to chickpea genotypes. The
semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly highest pod and seed yield per plant (12.55 g and
11.05 g, respectively), and was followed by a tall genotype ICCV-11604 (11.59 g and 9.89 g,
respectively). Significantly least pod and seed yield per plant was recorded with ICCV-11603 (10.65 g
and 8.95 g, respectively), which was at par with other tall genotypes viz., ICCV-11602 (10.69 g and
8.99 g, respectively) and ICCV-11601 (10.86 and 9.16 g, respectively).
4.3.2.8 Hundred seed weight (cf. Table 92)
Significant influence of chickpea genotypes was observed on 100-seed weight (g). Among the
genotypes, bold seeds were produced by tall chickpea genotype ICCV-11604 with a test weight of
23.24 g than all other genotypes and was closely followed by ICCV-11601 (22.57 g) and JG-11 (22.48
g). However, significantly smaller seeds were produced with ICCV-11602 (16.71 g).
-1
Variation in seed yield (kg ha ) was observed among the chickpea genotypes. The semi-
-1
erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly higher seed yield (1969 kg ha ) compared to tall
genotypes. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11604 registered significantly higher seed yield (1659 kg
-1 -1
ha ), and was on par with ICCV-11602 (1618 kg ha ) and significantly least value was observed with
-1
ICCV-11603 (1537 kg ha ).
Table 92: Yield and yield attributes of tall chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical
harvesting
Number of Pod yield Seed yield 100-seed Seed yield

Genotype -1 -1 -1 -1
seeds pod plant (g) plant (g) weight (g) (kg ha )
G1 : ICCV-11601 1.29 10.86 9.16 22.57 1550
G2 : ICCV-11602 1.28 10.69 8.99 16.71 1618
G3 : ICCV-11603 1.31 10.65 8.95 21.60 1537
G4 : ICCV-11604 1.32 11.59 9.89 23.24 1659
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 1.17 12.75 11.05 22.48 1969
S.Em± 0.03 0.13 0.13 0.21 25
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.08 0.40 0.40 0.64 78

Table 93: Pod damage and plant lodging as influenced by tall chickpea genotypes suitable for
Genotype Pod damage (%) Plant lodging (%)

G1 : ICCV-11601 3.46 3.24
G2 : ICCV-11602 3.27 12.68
G3 : ICCV-11603 3.16 3.37
G4 : ICCV-11604 3.44 5.80
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 6.31 1.25
S.Em± 0.25 0.39
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.76 1.19

Table 94: Seed and straw moisture content after harvest as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting
method
Seed moisture content (%) Straw moisture content (%)
Genotype Mechanical Conventional Mean Mechanical Conventional Mean
t-test value t-test value
harvesting harvesting difference harvesting harvesting difference
NS NS
G1 : ICCV-11601 10.15 (±0.22) 9.83 (±0.69) 0.32 0.12 14.46 (±0.94) 14.08 (±0.71) 0.37 0.08
NS NS
G2 : ICCV-11602 10.10 (±0.82) 9.98 (±0.71) 0.11 0.03 14.88 (±0.99) 14.17 (±0.89) 0.71 0.15
NS NS
G3 : ICCV-11603 10.22 (±0.72) 10.04 (±0.65) 0.17 0.05 15.22 (±0.29) 14.47 (±0.87) 0.75 0.14
NS NS
G4 : ICCV-11604 10.27 (±0.06) 10.15 (±0.62) 0.12 0.03 15.73 (±0.47) 14.81 (±0.95) 0.92 0.14
NS NS
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 10.13 (±0.96) 9.94 (±0.51) 0.19 0.27 15.15 (±0.73) 14.35 (±0.42) 0.81 0.18
S.Em± 0.35 0.32 0.31 0.39
Values in the parenthesis are standard deviation
NS : Non significant; *Significant at 5% level

Table 95: Productive and un-productive time for harvesting as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting
method
-1 -1
Productive time (h fed ) Un-productive time (h fed )
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.92 (±0.01) 59.06 (±0.44) -58.15 263.06* 0.27 (±0.01) 39.50 (±6.31) -39.23 12.43*
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.93 (±0.01) 69.42 (±1.11) -68.49 123.25* 0.29 (±0.01) 40.07 (±6.11) -39.78 13.01*
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.90 (±0.01) 57.04 (±1.33) -56.14 84.29* 0.27 (±0.02) 39.30 (±7.21) -39.03 10.83*
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.90 (±0.02) 60.02 (±0.74) -59.11 159.99* 0.27 (±0.02) 39.50 (±6.40) -39.23 12.25*
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 1.23 (±0.03) 80.97 (±3.13) -79.74 50.95* 0.49 (±0.03) 45.75 (±6.11) -45.26 14.83*
S.Em± 0.01 0.64 0.01 0.28
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.03 1.98 0.02 0.86
Values in the parenthesis are standard deviation, *Significant at 5% level

2
fed = feddan = 60 m x 70 m = 4200 m = 0.42 hectares = 1.038 acres
4.3.3 Pod damage (cf. Table 93)
Pod damage (%) was significantly influenced due to chickpea genotypes. Semi-erect
genotype JG-11 recorded significantly more pod damage (6.31%) than all the tall genotypes.
However, all the tall genotypes were statistically at par for pod damage.
Significant variation in plant lodging (%) at harvest was observed among the chickpea
genotypes. The tall genotypes were more prone for lodging than semi-erect genotype. Among the tall
genotypes ICVV-11602 observed significantly more lodging (12.68%) than other genotypes. The
semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly less lodging (1.25%).
4.3.5 Harvesting performance
4.3.5.1 Seed and straw moisture content (cf. Table 94)
The seed and straw moisture content (%) in chickpea did not vary significantly among the
genotypes both under mechanical and conventional harvesting method. However, moisture content
was relatively more in mechanical harvesting compared to conventional harvesting method. The seed
moisture ranged from 9.83 to 10.15 per cent and 10.10 to 10.27 per cent and straw moisture ranges
from 14.08 to 14.81 per cent and 14.46 to 15.73 per cent in conventional and mechanical harvesting
methods, respectively.
4.3.5.2 Productive time (cf. Table 95)
-1
The data on productive time taken for harvesting (h fed ) of chickpea genotypes under
mechanical and conventional harvesting method.
The treatments differed significantly. The tall genotypes took significantly less productive time
for harvesting compared to semi-erect genotype. There was no significant difference among the tall
-
genotypes. However, numerically ICCV-11603 and ICCV-11604 took less productive time (0.90 h fed
1
each) than other tested genotypes. However, significantly higher productive time was observed with
semi-erect genotype JG-11 (1.23 h fed-1).
In conventional harvesting, the chickpea genotypes also differed significantly with respect to
productive time for harvesting. The tall genotypes took significantly less productive time than semi-
erect genotype. Amongst the tall genotypes, significantly lowest productive time was observed with
ICCV-11603 (57.04 h fed-1) in conventional harvesting followed by ICCV-11601 (59.06 h fed-1).
However, semi-erect genotype JG-11 took significantly more productive time (80.97 h fed-1) compared
to rest of the genotypes.
Among the harvesting methods, productive time varied significantly in all the genotypes.
Conventional harvesting took 56.14 to 79.74 h fed-1 more productive time for harvesting over
mechanical harvesting method.
4.3.5.3 Un-productive time (cf. Table 95)
-1
Data pertaining to un-productive time taken during harvesting (h fed ) of chickpea genotypes
under mechanical and conventional harvesting methods.
The genotypes differed significantly. The semi-erect genotype took more un-productive time
during mechanical harvesting compared to tall genotypes. Un-productive time was significantly higher
-1
in JG-11 (0.49 h fed ) over all the tall genotypes, but all the tall genotypes were on par with each
other. Relatively lower un-productive time was taken while harvesting ICCV-11601, ICCV-11603 and
-1
ICCV-11604 (0.27 h fed each).
Similar trend of mechanical harvesting was followed in conventional harvesting method also.
Un-productive time differed significantly between harvesting methods in all the genotypes.
Conventional harvesting took 39.03 to 45.26 h fed-1 additional un-productive time for harvesting over
4.3.5.4 Total time taken for harvesting (cf. Table 96)
-1
Data pertinent to total time taken for harvesting of chickpea genotypes (h fed ) both by
mechanical and conventional harvesting methods.
Table 96: Total time taken and forward speed for harvesting of chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional method
-1 -1
Total time taken for harvesting (h fed ) Forward speed (m sec )
G1 : ICCV-11601 1.18 (±0.01) 98.56 (±6.58) -97.38 29.58* 0.283 (±1.24) 0.020 (±3.00) 0.262 177.35*
G2 : ICCV-11602 1.22 (±0.01) 109.49 (±6.38) -108.27 33.92* 0.280 (±0.56) 0.017 (±0.48) 0.263 140.10*
G3 : ICCV-11603 1.17 (±0.01) 96.33 (±8.53) -95.17 22.31* 0.288 (±0.79) 0.021 (±0.21) 0.267 252.13*
G4 : ICCV-11604 1.17 (±0.03) 99.52 (±7.14) -98.34 27.55* 0.287 (±0.72) 0.020 (±0.33) 0.267 76.45*
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 1.72 (±0.04) 126.72 (±9.09) -125.00 27.49* 0.210 (±6.00) 0.014 (±1.72) 0.196 83.88*
S.Em± 0.01 0.69 0.0024 0.0001
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.04 2.13 0.0074 0.0005
Values in the parenthesis are standard deviation, *Significant at 5% level,

2
Table 97: Weight of cleaned grain and grain purity as influenced by tall chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting
method
Weight of cleaned grain (kg fed-1) Grain purity (%)
Genotype Mechanical Conventional Mean t-test Mechanical Conventional Mean t-test
harvesting harvesting difference value harvesting harvesting differe value
nce
G1 : ICCV-11601 623.10 (±23.33) 764.27 (±28.40) -141.16 7.68* 99.76 (±0.05) 98.76 (±0.10) 1.00 18.40*
G2 : ICCV-11602 646.07 (±29.63) 780.94 (±35.34) -134.87 5.85* 99.69 (±0.05) 97.98 (±0.11) 1.70 28.20*
G3 : ICCV-11603 628.57 (±21.05) 725.69 (±25.39) -97.12 5.89* 99.80 (±0.01) 98.97 (±0.07) 0.83 25.05*
G4 : ICCV-11604 674.96 (±9.85) 805.88 (±25.42) -130.92 9.60* 99.65 (±0.02) 98.61 (±0.09) 1.04 22.18*
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 661.37 (±10.6.3) 1027.30 (±38.64) -365.93 18.26* 99.36 (±0.03) 98.17 (±0.11) 1.20 20.12*
S.Em± 10.31 4.91 0.02 0.05
C.D. (P=0.05) 31.77 15.14 0.06 0.14
2
The total time taken for harvesting varied significantly among the chickpea genotypes both
under mechanical and conventional harvesting methods. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 took more
-1
total time for mechanical harvesting (1.72 h fed ) compared to tall genotypes. All the tall genotypes
-1
were statistically on par with each other except ICCV-11602 (1.22 h fed ), which took significantly
higher time for harvesting.
Under conventional harvesting method, the semi-erect genotype JG-11 consumed more time
-1
for harvesting (126.72 h fed ) compared to tall genotypes. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11602
-1
consumed more total time for harvesting (109.49 h fed ) than rest of the genotypes. However,
significantly least time was taken by ICCV-11603 (96.33 h fed-1).
Significant variation in total time taken was observed among the harvesting methods in all the
-1
genotypes. Conventional harvesting took 95.17 to 125.00 h fed additional total time for harvesting
over mechanical harvesting in all the genotypes. However, significantly higher time was taken in semi-
erect genotype harvesting in both the methods.
4.3.5.5 Forward speed (cf. Table 96)
-1
The data on forward speed for harvesting (m sec ) of chickpea genotypes under mechanical
and conventional harvesting methods.
In mechanical harvesting, tall genotypes had significantly more forward speed for harvesting
compared to semi-erect genotype. However, all the tested tall genotypes were on par with each other.
However, numerically ICCV-11603 and ICCV-11604 had more forward speed (0.288 and 0.287 m
-1
sec , respectively) than other tested genotypes. Significantly lower forward speed was observed with
-1
semi-erect genotype JG-11 (0.210 m sec ).
Under conventional harvesting method, all the tall genotypes had significantly more forward
-1 -1
speed (0.017 to 0.021 m sec ) than semi-erect genotype JG-11 (0.014 m sec ).
A signifcant difference in forward speed was observed among the harvesting methods in all
the genotypes. Mechanical harvesting had significantly more forward speed for harvesting in all the
chickpea genotypes with forward speed ranges of 0.196 to 0.267 m sec-1 compared to conventional
harvesting method.
4.3.5.6 Weight of cleaned grains (cf. Table 97)
-1
The data pertaining to weight of cleaned grains (kg fed ) as influenced by chickpea
genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting methods
Chickpea genotypes varied significantly in weight of cleaned grains under mechanical
harvesting, among the genotypes, significantly highest weight of cleaned grains was produced with
-1 -1
ICCV-11604 (674.96 kg fed ), which was on par with JG-11 (661.37 kg fed ) and ICCV-11602
-1
(646.07 kg fed ). However, significantly lowest weight of cleaned grains was produced with ICCV-
-1
11601(623.10 kg fed ).
In conventional harvesting, the semi-erect genotype JG-11 produced significantly highest
-1
weight of cleaned grains (1027.30 kg fed ) compared to rest of the genotypes. Among the tall
-1
genotypes, ICCV-11604 produced significantly highest weight of cleaned grains (805.88 kg fed )
-1
closely followed by ICCV-11602 (780.94 kg fed ).
The difference between mechanical and conventional harvesting was significant with respect
-1
to weight of cleaned grains in all the genotypes. The difference ranged from 97.12 to 365.93 kg fed .
4.3.5.7 Grain purity (cf. Table 97)
Data pertaining to grain purity (%) of chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional
harvesting methods.
Significantly highest grain purity was observed under mechanical harvesting with tall chickpea
genotypes than semi-erect genotype. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11603 recorded significantly
higher grain purity of 99.80%, which was statistically at par with ICCV-11601 (99.76%). However,
significantly least grain purity was noticed in semi-erect genotype JG-11 (99.36%). Similarly, in
conventional harvesting also the tall genotype ICCV-11603 recorded significantly highest grain purity
(98.97%) than rest of the genotypes and was followed by ICCV-11601 (98.76%). Significantly least
grain purity was observed in JG-11 (98.17%).
Grain purity was significantly higher in mechanical harvesting over conventional harvesting in
all the genotypes ranging between 0.83 to 1.70%.
4.3.5.8 Weight of the seed from left over pods and grain loss (cf. Table 98)
-1
The data recorded on weight of the seed from left over pods (kg fed ) and grain loss (%) in
chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting methods.
Significant differences in weight of the seed from left over pods and grain loss were observed
among the chickpea genotypes under mechanical harvesting method. The semi-erect genotype JG-
-1
11 had significantly more weight of the seed from left over pods (161.48 kg fed ) and grain loss
(19.52%) compared to tall genotypes. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11602 recorded significantly
more weight of the seed from left over pods (31.66 kg fed-1) and grain loss (4.66%) than rest of the tall
genotypes with significantly least weight of the seed from left over pods and grain loss was recorded
-1
with ICCV-11603 (15.76 kg fed and 2.44%, respectively).
Similar trend of weight of the seed from left over pods and grain loss was also observed
under mechanical harvesting. However, ICCV-11602 was on par with ICCV-11601.
The weight of the seed from left over pods and grain loss was significantly more in JG-11
-1
with mechanical harvesting (161.48 kg fed and 19.52%, respectively) compared to tall genotypes.
-1
4.3.5.9 Weight of damaged grain (kg fed ) and grain damage per cent (cf. Table 99)
Weight of damaged grain and grain damage per cent significantly varied among the chickpea
genotypes in mechanical harvesting method. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 had significantly more
-1
weight of damaged grain and grain damage (3.33 kg fed and 0.40%, respectively) compared to tall
genotypes. Among the tested tall genotypes, ICCV-11604 recorded significantly more weight of
-1
damaged grain and grain damage (1.70 kg fed and 0.24%, respectively) and significantly least value
-1
was observed with ICCV-11603 (0.66 kg fed and 0.10%, respectively).
Similar trend was followed with conventional harvesting method also, but magnitude of
damage was more compared to mechanical harvesting.
The weight of damaged grain and grain damage per cent was significantly more in
conventional than mechanical harvesting in all the genotypes. The difference ranged from 2.78 to
-1
8.66 kg fed and 0.40 to 0.70 per cent, respectively.
4.3.5.10 Un-threshed grain weight and per cent un-threshed grain (cf. Table 100)
The weight of un-threshed grain and per cent un-threshed grain varied significantly among
chickpea genotypes under mechanical harvesting. It was significantly more in ICCV-11602 (1.04 kg
-1 -1
fed and 0.15%, respectively), followed by JG-11, (0.90 kg fed and 0.11%, respectively), but rest of
the genotypes were at par with each other.
Incase of conventional harvesting, the tall genotype ICCV-11602 recorded significantly more
-1
weight of un-threshed grain and per cent un-threshed grain (10.36 kg fed and 1.26%) compared to
-1
rest of the genotypes and was followed by semi-erect genotype JG-11 (7.21 kg fed and 0.66%).
-1
However, significantly lower values were observed with ICCV-11603 (4.13 kg fed and 0.10%).
The weight of un-threshed grain and per cent un-threshed grain was significantly varied
between harvesting methods in all the genotypes. It was significantly higher in conventional method of
-1
harvesting (ranged 3.51 to 9.32 kg fed and 0.45 to 1.11%, respectively) over mechanical harvesting.
4.3.5.11 Total harvest loss and per cent harvest loss (cf. Table 101)
Chickpea genotypes had significant differences in total harvest loss (h fed-1) and per cent
harvest loss under mechanical harvesting. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly
-1
highest total harvest loss and per cent harvest loss (165.71 kg fed and 20.03%, respectively)
compared to tall genotypes. Amongst tall genotypes, ICCV-11602 recorded highest total harvest loss
-1
and per cent harvest loss (33.68 kg fed and 4.96%, respectively) over rest of the tested genotypes.
-1
However, significantly least value was recorded with ICCV-11603 (17.05 kg fed and 2.64%,
respectively).
Similarly, in conventional harvesting, semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly
-1
highest total harvest loss and per cent harvest loss (58.61 kg fed and 5.40%, respectively) compared
-1
to tall genotypes, followed by ICCV-11602 (44.34 kg fed and 5.38%, respectively) with least value in
-1
ICCV-11603 (23.38 kg fed and 3.12%, respectively).
Table 98: Weight of seed from left over pods and grain loss as influenced by tall chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional
harvesting method
-1
Weight of seed from left over pods (kg fed ) Grain losses (%)
NS
G1 : ICCV-11601 26.31 (±1.24) 26.81 (±3.00) -0.49 0.30 4.05 (±0.31) 3.34 (±0.27) 0.71 3.40*
G2 : ICCV-11602 31.66 (±0.56) 28.30 (±0.48) 3.36 9.10* 4.66 (±0.21) 3.43 (±0.11) 1.23 10.22*
NS
G3 : ICCV-11603 15.76 (±0.79) 15.81 (±0.21) -0.05 0.11 2.4 (±0.14) 2.11 (±0.05) 0.33 4.41*
NS
G4 : ICCV-11604 19.29 (±0.72) 19.81 (±0.33) -0.52 1.32 2.77 (±0.14) 2.37 (±0.05) 0.40 5.45*
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 161.48 (±6.00) 39.41 (±1.72) 122.07 39.09* 19.52 (±0.43) 3.63 (±0.21) 15.89 66.16*
S.Em± 1.41 0.70 0.13 0.07
C.D. (P=0.05) 4.33 2.15 0.41 0.23

Table 99: Weight of damaged grain and grain damage per cent as influenced by tall chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional
harvesting method
-1
Weight of damaged grain (kg fed ) Grain damage per cent
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.83 (±0.28) 4.22 (±1.15) -3.38 5.70* 0.13 (±0.05) 0.53 (±0.14) -0.40 5.35*
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.97 (±0.30) 5.68 (±1.06) -4.71 8.53* 0.14 (±0.05) 0.69 (±0.11) -0.54 9.28*
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.66 (±0.08) 3.44 (±0.57) -2.78 9.64* 0.10 (±0.01) 0.46 (±0.06) -0.36 10.95*
G4 : ICCV-11604 1.70 (±0.15) 6.15 (±0.33) -4.45 24.55* 0.24 (±0.02) 0.74 (±0.05) -0.49 17.53*
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 3.33 (±0.15) 11.99 (±0.86) -8.66 19.87* 0.40 (±0.02) 1.10 (±0.05) -0.70 24.85*
S.Em± 0.11 0.42 0.02 0.05
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.34 1.31 0.05 0.15

Table 100: Un-threshed grain weight and per cent un-threshed grain as influenced by tall chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional
harvesting method
-1
Un-threshed grain weight (kg fed ) Per cent un-threshed grain
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.69 (±0.01) 5.39 (±1.02) -4.70 9.24* 0.11 (±0.00) 0.67 (±0.13) -0.57 8.79*
G2 : ICCV-11602 1.04 (±0.08) 10.36 (±0.95) -9.32 19.53* 0.15 (±0.01) 1.26 (±0.17) -1.11 13.21*
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.62 (±0.01) 4.13 (±0.25) -3.51 27.82* 0.10 (±0.00) 0.55 (±0.02) -0.45 51.70*
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.66 (±0.05) 5.22 (±0.51) -4.56 17.78* 0.09 (±0.01) 0.62 (±0.06) -0.53 18.13*
G5 : JG-11
0.90 (±0.06) 7.21 (±1.38) -6.31 9.15* 0.11 (±0.01) 0.66 (±0.12) -0.55 9.13*
(Check)
S.Em± 0.02 0.45 0.003 0.056
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.07 1.39 0.009 0.172

Table 101: Total harvest loss and per cent harvest loss as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting
method
-1
Total harvest loss (kg fed ) Per cent harvest loss
NS
G1 : ICCV-11601 27.83 (±1.37) 36.41 (±3.41) -8.58 4.66* 4.28 (±0.34) 4.54 (±0.29) -0.26 1.15
NS
G2 : ICCV-11602 33.68 (±0.66) 44.34 (±0.59) -10.66 24.21* 4.96 (±0.26) 5.38 (±0.19) -0.42 2.59
G3 : ICCV-11603 17.05 (±0.77) 23.38 (±0.90) -6.33 10.70* 2.64 (±0.14) 3.12 (±0.03) -0.48 6.93*
G4 : ICCV-11604 21.65 (±0.71) 31.18 (±0.93) -9.53 16.24* 3.11 (±0.14) 3.73 (±0.13) -0.62 6.40*
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 165.71 (±5.99) 58.61 (±1.76) 107.10 34.32* 20.03 (±0.43) 5.40 (±0.16) 14.63 63.53*
S.Em± 1.41 0.71 0.14 0.08
C.D. (P=0.05) 4.33 2.18 0.43 0.24

The total harvest loss and per cent harvest loss differed significantly between harvesting
methods in all the genotypes except with ICCV-11601 in case of per cent harvest loss. The magnitude
of loss was significantly more in conventional harvesting over mechanical harvesting method in all the
genotypes except semi-erect genotype JG-11. However, mean difference of loss was more in case of
JG-11 (14.63%) than tall genotypes.
4.3.5.12 Threshing loss (cf. Table 102)
The data pertaining to threshing loss (%) in chickpea genotypes as influenced by mechanical
and conventional harvesting methods.
Under mechanical harvesting, the tall genotypes recorded significantly lower threshing loss
than semi-erect genotype. The genotype JG-11 recorded significantly highest threshing loss (0.51%)
compared to rest of the genotypes. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11604 recorded significantly
higher threshing loss (0.34%), which was on par with ICCV-11602 (0.30%), while significantly least
value was observed in ICCV-11603 (0.20%).
Significant difference in threshing loss among the genotypes was also observed in
conventional harvesting. The tall genotype ICCV-11602 recorded significantly highest threshing loss
(1.95%) closely followed by semi-erect genotype JG-11 (1.77%). However, significantly least
threshing loss was observed with ICCV-11603 (1.01%). The threshing losses were signficantly more
in conventional method (0.96 to 1.65%) over mechanical method of harvesting. Among the
genotypes, ICCV-11602 had 1.65 per cent more threshing loss in conventional method over
mechanical method of harvesting.
4.3.5.13 Threshing efficiency (cf. Table 102)
In mechanical harvesting, the tall genotypes recorded significantly highest threshing efficiency
(%) than semi-erect genotype. The genotype ICCV-11603 recorded significantly highest threshing
efficiency (99.97%) compared to rest of the genotypes and was on par with ICCV-11601 (99.96%).
However, significantly least threshing efficiency was observed in JG-11 (99.92%).
In conventional harvesting also, the tall genotype ICCV-11603 recorded significantly highest
threshing efficiency (99.88%), which was on par with ICCV-11601 (99.86%). However, significantly
least threshing efficiency was observed in JG-11 and ICCV-11604 (99.83 per cent each).
Threshing efficiency was significantly more in conventional (0.09 to 0.20%) over mechanical
harvesting. Among the genotypes, ICCV-11602 had more difference (0.20%) in threshing efficiency
between mechanical and conventional harvesting method.
4.3.5.14 Harvested total grain yield (cf. Table 103)
-1
The data on harvested total grain yield (kg fed ) in chickpea genotypes as influenced by
Significant influence of mechanical harvesting among the chickpea genotypes was observed
with respect to total grain yield harvested by machine. Among the genotypes, significantly highest
-1
weight of total grain harvested was observed with ICCV-11604 (677.32 kg fed ), which was at par
-1 -1
with JG-11 (665.60 kg fed ) and ICCV-11602 (648.09 kg fed ). However, significantly least total
-1
harvested grain yield was with ICCV-11601 (624.62 kg fed ).
The weight of total grain harvested manually also differed significantly among the chickpea
genotypes. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly highest total grain harvested
-1
manually (1046.50 kg fed ) compared to tall genotypes. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11604
-1
recorded significantly highest value (817.25 kg fed ) than rest of the genotypes. However,
-1
significantly least values were recorded with ICCV-11603 (733.26 kg fed ).
Significant difference in total grain harvest between harvesting methods was observed in all
-1
the genotypes. It was significantly higher in conventional (ranged from 103.41 to 380.90 kg fed ) over
mechanical harvesting method.
4.3.5.15 Theoretical grain yield (cf. Table 103)
The data pertaining to theoretical grain yield (kg fed-1) of chickpea genotypes as influenced by
mechanical and conventional harvesting methods. Theoretical grain yield harvested by machine
differed significantly among the chickpea genotypes. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded
-1
significantly highest theoretical grain yield (827.08 kg fed ) compared to tall genotypes.
Table 102: Threshing losses and efficiency as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting method
Threshing losses (%) Threshing efficiency (%)
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.23 (±0.05) 1.20 (±0.09) -0.96 18.48* 99.96 (±0.01) 99.84 (±0.01) 0.12 15.26*
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.30 (±0.05) 1.95 (±0.11) -1.65 28.68* 99.95 (±0.01) 99.76 (±0.02) 0.20 16.58*
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.20 (±0.01) 1.01 (±0.06) -0.81 24.88* 99.97 (±0.00) 99.86 (±0.01) 0.11 38.43*
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.34 (±0.02) 1.36 (±0.09) -1.02 22.34* 99.95 (±0.00) 99.83 (±0.01) 0.12 16.48*
G5 : JG-11
0.51 (±0.03) 1.77 (±0.11) -1.26 21.70* 99.92 (±0.01) 99.83 (±0.01) 0.09 15.95*
(Check)
S.Em± 0.02 0.05 0.003 0.006
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.05 0.14 0.010 0.018
Table 103: Harvested total grain yield and theoretical grain yield as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional
harvesting method
-1 -1
Harvested total grain yield (kg fed ) Theoretical grain yield (kg fed )
624.62 773.87 650.94 800.68
G1 : ICCV-11601 -149.25 8.07* -149.74 7.83*
(±23.17) (±28.85) (±21.97) (±31.33)
648.09 796.99 679.75 825.28
G2 : ICCV-11602 -148.90 6.48* -145.54 6.29*
(±29.43) (±35.34) (±29.45) (±35.71)
629.86 733.26 645.62 749.07
G3 : ICCV-11603 -103.41 6.16* -103.45 6.14*
(±21.13) (±26.07) (±21.13) (±26.27)
677.32 817.25 696.60 837.06
G4 : ICCV-11604 -139.93 10.24* -140.45 10.28*
(±9.87) (±25.47) (±9.18) (±25.73)
665.60 1046.50 827.08 1085.91
G5 : JG-11 (Check) -380.90 18.49* -258.83 12.14*
(±10.53) (±39.83) (±15.59) (±39.69)
S.Em± 10.27 5.06 10.65 5.21
C.D. (P=0.05) 31.63 15.58 32.83 16.06
Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11604 recorded significantly highest theoretical grain yield
-1 -1
(696.60 kg fed ) which was on par with ICCV-1602 (679.75 kg fed ), whereas, significantly least
-1
theoretical grain yield was observed with ICCV-11603 (645.62 kg fed ).
In conventional harvesting also, significantly highest theoretical grain yield was recorded in
-1
semi-erect genotype JG-11 (1085.91 kg fed ) compared to tall genotypes. Among the tall genotypes,
-1
ICCV-11604 recorded significantly highest value (837.06 kg fed ), and was on par with ICCV-11602
-1
(825.28 kg fed ). However, significantly least theoretical grain yield was observed with ICCV-11603
-1
(749.07 kg fed ).
The difference between harvesting methods was significantly more with respect to theoretical
-1
grain yield among all the chickpea genotypes. The difference ranged from 103.45 to 258.83 kg fed .
-1
4.3.5.16 Actual and theoretical field capacity (fed h ) (cf. Table 104)
The treatments differed significantly. Under mechanical harvesting, the tall genotypes
recorded higher actual and theoretical field capacity compared to semi-erect genotype. Significantly
highest actual and theoretical field capacity was observed with ICCV-11603 (0.858 and 1.113 fed h-1,
-
respectively), which was on par with all the tall genotypes except ICCV-11602 (0.821 and 1.078 fed h
1
, respectively), while significantly least actual and theoretical field capacity was registered with semi-
-1
erect genotype JG-11 (0.582 and 0.812 fed h ).
In conventional harvesting, the tall genotypes recorded significantly highest actual and
theoretical field capacity than semi-erect genotype. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11601, ICCV-
11603 and ICCV-11604 recorded similar actual and theoretical field capacity and showed significant
-1
superiority over ICCV-11602 (0.009 and 0.017 fed h , respectively). However, significantly least
-1
actual field capacity was registered in JG-11 (0.008 and 0.014 fed h , respectively). The difference
between mechanical and conventional harvesting for actual and theoretical field capacity was
-1
significant in all the genotypes. The mechanical harvesting had 0.57 to 0.85 and 0.80 to 1.09 fed h
actual and theoretical field capacity than conventional harvesting in all the genotypes.
4.3.5.17 Harvest per cent (cf. Table 105)
With mechanical harvesting, significantly highest harvest per cent was observed in tall
genotypes compared to semi-erect genotype. It was significantly highest in ICCV-11603 (97.56%), but
was on par with ICCV-11604 (97.23%), while significantly least harvest per cent was noticed in JG-11
(80.48%). Similar trend was observed with conventional harvesting method also. The harvest per cent
was significantly higher in conventional (ranged from 0.33 to 15.89%) over mechanical harvesting in
all the genotypes. However, semi-erect genotype JG-11 had significantly more difference of harvest
per cent (15.89%) between harvesting methods.
4.3.5.18 Performance efficiency (%) (cf. Table 105)
Data pertaining to performance efficiency (%) of chickpea genotypes as influenced by
mechanical and conventional harvesting methods. With mechanical harvesting, significantly highest
performance efficiency was recorded with tall chickpea genotypes over semi-erect genotype. The tall
genotype, ICCV-11603 recorded significantly highest performance efficiency (97.36%) than rest of the
genotypes and was closely followed by ICCV-11604 (96.89%), while significantly least value was
observed in JG-11 (79.97%). Similarly, in conventional harvesting, the tall genotype ICCV-11603
recorded significantly highest performance efficiency (96.88%) followed by ICCV-11604 (96.27%).
However, significantly least value was observed in JG-11 (94.60%), and was on par with ICCV-11602
(95.62%).
The performance efficiency differed significantly between harvesting methods in ICCV-11603,
ICCV-11604 and JG-11 and found non significant difference in rest of the genotypes. It was more in
conventional only incase of JG-11 (14.63%) over conventional harvesting, but incase of rest of the
genotypes it was more in mechanical compared to conventional harvesting. Among all the genotypes
JG-11 had more difference in performance efficiency between harvesting methods.
4.3.5.19 Harvest efficiency (kg h-1) (cf. Table 106)
-1
The data pertaining to harvest efficiency (kg h ) in chickpea genotypes as influenced by
mechanical and conventional harvesting methods. The harvest efficiency under mechanical
harvesting was significantly higher in tall genotypes over semi-erect genotype. It was significantly
highest in ICCV-11604 (540.15 kg h-1), but rest of the tall genotypes were on par with each other.
Significantly least value was observed in JG-11 (387.44 kg h-1).
Table 104: Actual and theoretical field capacity as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting method
-1 -1
Actual field capacity (fed h ) Theoretical field capacity (fed h )
G1 : ICCV-11601 0.844 (±0.006) 0.010 (±0.001) 0.83 269.38* 1.091 (±0.011) 0.021 (±0.000) 1.07 188.19*
G2 : ICCV-11602 0.821 (±0.009) 0.009 (±0.001) 0.81 173.80* 1.078 (±0.014) 0.017 (±0.000) 1.06 146.86*
G3 : ICCV-11603 0.858 (±0.005) 0.010 (±0.001) 0.85 363.22* 1.113 (±0.008) 0.022 (±0.001) 1.09 287.95*
G4 : ICCV-11604 0.854 (±0.023) 0.010 (±0.001) 0.84 74.04* 1.106 (±0.027) 0.021 (±0.000) 1.09 80.84*
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 0.582 (±0.014) 0.008 (±0.001) 0.57 81.55* 0.812 (±0.018) 0.014 (±0.001) 0.80 89.08*
S.Em± 0.007 0.000 0.0092 0.0002
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.022 0.000 0.0285 0.0005

Table 105: Harvest per cent and performance efficiency as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting
method
Harvest per cent Performance efficiency (%)
NS
G1 : ICCV-11601 95.95 (±0.31) 96.66 (±0.27) -0.71 3.40* 95.72 (±0.34) 95.46 (±0.29) 0.26 1.15
NS
G2 : ICCV-11602 95.34 (±0.21) 96.57 (±0.11) -1.23 4.41* 95.04 (±0.26) 94.62 (±0.19) 0.42 2.59
G3 : ICCV-11603 97.56 (±0.14) 97.89 (±0.05) -0.33 10.22* 97.36 (±)0.14 96.88 (±0.03) 0.48 6.93*
G4 : ICCV-11604 97.23 (±0.14) 97.63 (±0.05) -0.40 5.45* 96.89 (±0.14) 96.27 (±0.13) 0.62 6.40*
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 80.48 (±0.43) 96.37 (±0.21) -15.89 66.16* 79.97 (±0.43) 94.60 (±0.16) -14.63 63.53*
S.Em± 0.13 0.07 0.14 0.08
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.41 0.23 0.43 0.24

Table 106: Harvest and field efficiency as influenced by chickpea genotype under mechanical and conventional harvesting method
-1
Harvest efficiency (kg h ) Field efficiency (%)
527.55 7.89 77.38 60.11
G1 : ICCV-11601 519.66 45.86* 17.27 9.03*
(±22.65) (±0.79) (±0.51) (±3.79)
532.02 7.31 76.11 63.55
G2 : ICCV-11602 524.71 56.18* 12.56 7.07*
(±28.88) (±0.74) (±0.41) (±3.53)
540.15 7.67 77.07 59.47
G3 : ICCV-11603 532.48 36.33* 17.60 8.86*
(±18.93) (±0.96) (±0.48) (±3.94)
578.02 8.26 77.14 60.50
G4 : ICCV-11604 569.76 88.34* 16.64 8.83*
(±12.87) (±0.85) (±1.01) (±3.63)
387.44 8.30 71.72 64.02
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 379.13 90.09* 7.70 6.25*
(±8.87) (±0.89) (±0.99) (±2.26)
S.Em± 9.83 0.07 0.38 0.37
C.D. (P=0.05) 30.29 0.21 1.18 1.13

Table 107: Cutting efficiency and energy requirement as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting method
Cutting efficiency (%) Energy requirement (kW. h fed-1)
G1 : ICCV-11601 84.17 (±0.91) 90.95 (±0.37) -6.78 13.85* 10.07 (±0.07) 9.86 (±0.66) 0.21 0.63NS
G2 : ICCV-11602 85.88 (±0.67) 91.67 (±0.81) -5.78 10.98* 10.36 (±0.12) 10.95 (±0.64) -0.59 1.82NS
G3 : ICCV-11603 83.48 (±0.72) 89.83 (±0.46) -6.35 14.91* 9.91 (±0.05) 9.63 (±0.85) 0.28 0.65NS
G4 : ICCV-11604 84.29 (±0.59) 90.56 (±0.58) -6.27 15.06* 9.96 (±0.27) 9.95 (±0.71) 0.01 0.03NS
G5 : JG-11 (Check) 77.67 (±1.21) 90.54 (±1.19) -12.87 15.12* 14.61 (±0.35) 12.67 (±0.91) 1.94 3.98*
S.Em± 0.39 0.40 0.11 0.07
C.D. (P=0.05) 1.20 NS 0.35 0.21
G1 to G4 : Erect and tall genotypes ,
However, in conventional harvesting, the semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly
-1 -1
higher harvest efficiency (8.30 kg h ), and was on par with tall genotype ICCV-11604 (8.26 kg h ).
-1
However, significantly least values were observed with ICCV-11602 (7.31 kg h ).
The harvest efficiency was significantly more in mechanical harvesting in all the genotypes
-1
(379.13 to 569.76 kg h ) over conventional harvesting method.
4.3.5.20 Field efficiency (%)(cf. Table 106)
The data on field efficiency of chickpea genotypes as influenced by mechanical and
conventional harvesting methods.
Under mechanical harvesting, the tall genotypes had significantly highest harvest field
efficiency than semi-erect genotype. The genotype ICCV-11601 recorded significantly highest harvest
field efficiency (77.38%), which was at par with rest of the tall genotypes. Significantly least value was
observed in semi-erect genotype JG-11 (71.72%).
In conventional harvesting, the semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly highest
harvest field efficiency (64.02%) than tall genotypes. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11602 recorded
significantly higher harvest field efficiency (63.55%) than rest of the tall genotypes, but was
statistically at par with JG-11.
The harvest field efficiency significantly varied between harvesting methods in all the tested
genotypes. It was significantly higher in mechanical harvesting (7.70 to17.60%) over conventional
harvesting.
4.3.5.21 Cutting efficiency (%) (cf. Table 107)
The data pertaining to cutting efficiency (%) of chickpea genotypes as influenced by
The chickpea genotypes differed significantly for cutting efficiency under mechanical
harvesting. The tall genotypes registered significantly higher cutting efficiency than semi-erect
genotype. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11602 recorded significantly highest cutting efficiency
(85.88%) compared to rest of the tall genotypes and was followed by ICCV-11604 (84.29%).
However, JG-11 recorded significantly least cutting efficiency (77.67%). In conventional harvesting
method, the cutting efficiency did not differ significantly among the genotypes.
Cutting efficiency differed significantly between the harvesting methods in all the tested
genotypes. The difference ranged from 5.78 to 12.87 per cent between mechanical and conventional
harvesting methods.
-1
4.3.5.22 Energy requirement (kW. h fed ) (cf. Table 107)
The data pertaining to energy requirement for harvesting of chickpea genotypes as influenced
by harvesting methods.
Energy requirement differed significantly among the genotypes under mechanical harvesting.
The tall genotypes required significantly least energy for harvesting than semi-erect genotype. The
-1
genotype ICCV-11603 recorded significantly least energy requirement (9.91 kW. h fed ) compared to
-1
rest of the genotypes and was on par with ICCV-11604 (9.96 kW. h fed ) and ICCV-11601 (10.07 kW.
-1 -1
h fed ). However, significantly highest energy requirement was observed in JG-11 (14.61 kW. h fed ).
In conventional harvesting threshing efficiency differed significantly among the chickpea
genotypes. The tall genotype ICCV-11603 recorded significantly least energy requirement (9.63 kW. h
-1
fed ) than rest of the genotypes. However, significantly highest energy requiremnet was observed in
-1
JG-11 (12.67 kW. h fed ). Significant variation in energy requirement was noticed between harvesting
methods only in case of semi-erect genotype, but rest of the genotypes found non significant. JG-11
recorded significantly higher energy requirement (1.94 kW. h fed-1) in mechanical harvesting than
conventional harvesting.
4.3.5.23 Economics of the chickpea harvesting (cf. Table 108)
Tall genotypes had relatively minimum criterion cost for mechanical harvesting (Rs. 1677 to
-1 -1
2229 fed ) than semi-erect genotype (Rs. 6689 fed ). Similar trend was observed in case of
-1
conventional harvesting also. However, tall genotypes gave Rs. 1101 to 1183 fed additional benefits
-1
over conventional harvesting, but in semi-erect genotype, it was negative (Rs. 2889 fed ).
Table 108: Economics of mechanical and conventional harvesting method
Genotype
Parameters
G1 G2 G3 G4 G5
-1
Combine harvester charges, Rs. h 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
-1
Actual field capacity of machine, fed h 0.84 0.82 0.86 0.85 0.58
-1
Operation cost, Rs. fed 1184 1219 1166 1172 1718
-1
Total harvesting losses, kg fed 27.83 33.68 17.05 21.65 165.71
-1
Monetary value of losses, Rs. fed 807 977 494 628 4806
-1
Criterion cost for mechanical harvest, Rs. fed 2019 2229 1677 1821 6689
-1
Cost of conventional harvesting, Rs. fed 3156 3386 2778 3004 3800
-1
Benefit over conventional harvesting, Rs. fed 1137 1157 1101 1183 -2889
G1 : ICCV-11601 : erect and tall genotypes

G2 : ICCV-11602 : erect and tall genotype
G3 : ICCV-11603 : erect and tall genotype
G4 : ICCV-11604: erect and tall genotype
G5 : JG-11 : semi-erect genotype
DISCUSSION
The growth of plant is the net result of diverse metabolic activities taking place in different
parts of plant during its life cycle and is further influenced by the supply of light, water, temperature
and nutrients from the environment. The plant leaves powered by sunlight, convert simple
components viz., carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates and other compounds that are required
for growth. The synthesis, accumulation and translocation of these metabolites to the economic part
of the plant are often influenced by environmental conditions. The production of economic yield of
crops is an outcome of many complicated physiological, morphological and bio-chemical events
taking place at different plant parts. These complicated events inturn, are based on the environmental
conditions, under which the crop is grown. The agronomic practices can modify the environment to
certain extent and thereby help the crop to utilize the available resource efficiently to achieve higher
production. Thus, maximum yields are obtained when optimum conditions are provided for a crop.
Maintenance of optimum plant population, selection of suitable genotypes and irrigation management
are important in modern agronomic practices, which aim at increasing the productivity per unit area.
The present study was undertaken to determine the optimum plant population, suitable genotypes of
chickpea for mechanical harvesting and manipulate the soil moisture by providing supplemental
irrigation to provide better growing conditions to the crop.
The results of the experiment entitled “Agronomic investigations on tall chickpea genotypes
suitable for mechanical harvesting” conducted during rabi seasons of 2011-12 and 2012-13 at
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra
Pradesh, India are discussed here. Mainly mean data of the two years (pooled) are discussed in this
chapter.
5.1 Weather and crop performance
Crop growth is mainly dependent on the environmental factors. The fluctuations in weather
conditions greatly influence growth, development and yield potential of crop. Chickpea was raised
under both rainfed and irrigated ecosystems. The rainfall received during the crop growing period
from October to February was 47.00 mm and 123.08 mm during 2011-12 and 2012-13, respectively.
The mean annual rainfall for the past 30 years at the ICRISAT was 908.01 mm. The annual rainfall
received during experimentation years 2011-12 was 534.78 mm, which was 41.10 per cent lower
compared to normal (908.01 mm). In fact the kharif season, i.e. July to September was relatively wet.
The rainfall received during 2012-13 was similar to that of 2011-12 but the wet spell extended upto
November with an annual rainfall of 776.34 mm, which was 14.10 per cent lower compared to to
normal. Thus, the rainfall distribution pattern during both the rabi seasons for chickpea crop was
favourable. During rabi season in the years 2011-12 the rainfall was relatively less compared to 2012-
13, which resulted in lower yield levels in chickpea during 2011-12 (Table 1 and Fig. 1 and 2). The
monthly mean minimum and maximum temperature, relative humidity and other weather parameters
did not deviate much from the normal with no differential influence on crop growth and development.
0
During the years 2011-12 and 2012-13, the highest mean monthly maximum temperature (38.02 C
0 0
and 40.07 C, respectively) and the lowest mean monthly minimum temperature (12.31 C and 13.67
0
C respectively) were observed during the months of May and December, respectively. Mean monthly
maximum relative humidity recorded at 14:17 hr was 72.75 per cent and 68.15 per cent during both
the years in the month of August and mean monthly minimum relative humidity was 22.32 per cent
and 21.92 per cent, in the month of March and May, respectively. The growth, yield and yield
attributes were higher during 2012-13 compared to 2011-12, might be due to higher rainfall received
during cropping season in second year of experiment.
Performance of cultivars is governed by many factors, which individually or in combination
determine the yield potentiality. Optimum LAI coupled with higher photosynthetic activity can lead to
higher biomass production and further by way of partitioning of dry matter, a cultivar can yield better.
Thus, identification of all such favourable yield and growth components and their integration in one
cultivar lead to its better performance over other cultivar.
In India chickpea is usually grown on conserved soil moisture or under rainfed conditions
which results in poor productivity of the crop, though the crop responds favourably to one or two
supplemental irrigations. Although, the water requirement of the crop is relatively low, it often suffers
from periodic moisture deficits owing to low and uncertain rains during rabi season. Consequently the
average yields of rainfed crop are low.
There are numerous reports to show that irrigation increases the yield of chickpea crop [Saraf
and Ahlawat (1975), Pai and Hukkeri (1979), Sandhu et al. (1978) and Yusuf et al. (1980)]. The extent
of yield increase through irrigation depends upon degree, duration and period of moisture stress.
Variable seed yields are a deterrent to growing chickpea as they are mostly grown on residual soil
moisture and often experience moisture stress during their growth in chickpea growing countries
(Singh et al., 1997). Tall and erect chickpea genotypes are relatively less yielders and further yield
can be improved by providing supplemental irrigations.
In the present study, four erect and tall genotypes viz., ICCV-11601, ICCV-11602, ICCV-
11603 and ICCV-11604 and one normal semi-erect genotype i.e., JG-11 were evaluated under both
rainfed and irrigated ecosystem at ICRISAT, Patancheru and their performance is discussed below.
5.2.1 Crop performance
The semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded significantly higher seed yield both under rainfed
-1
and irrigated ecosystem (2448 and 2865 kg ha , respectively). This was to an extent of 31, 25, 39
and 22 per cent higher than tall genotypes viz., ICCV-11601, ICCV-11602, ICVV-11603 and ICCV-
11604, respectively under rainfed. Under irrigated ecosystem, JG-11 was 24, 18, 26 and 15 per cent
higher, respectively (Table 32 and 76). Studies undertaken by several workers also revealed varietal
differences in the seed yield of chickpea [(Singh et al. (1994), Satish Kumar and Kadian (2006), Goyal
et al. (2010) and Prasad et al. (2012)].
Seed yield is governed by number of factors which have a direct or indirect impact. Among
the yield components, pod and seed yield per plant was more closely related with seed yield. The
semi-erect genotype JG-11 produced significantly higher pod and seed yield per plant under rainfed
(12.58 and 10.59 g, respectively) and irrigated ecosystem (13.89 and 12.73 g, respectively) compared
to rest of the genotypes. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher seed
yield per plant under both the ecosystems (9.94 and 11.02 g, respectively) followed by ICCV-11602
(9.47and 10.62 g, respectively). However, significantly least seed yield was observed in ICCV-11603
(9.03 and 10.27 g, respectively). Yield per plant is inturn determined by other yield components viz.,
number of pods per plant, number of seeds per plant, number of seeds per pod and 100-seed weight.
The total number of pods per plant was significantly higher in JG-11 under both the ecosystems
(52.07 and 61.94, respectively) than other genotypes. Increase in number of pods per plant in semi-
erect genotype was to the extent of 30, 3, 24 and 20 per cent over tall genotypes like ICCV-11601,
ICCV-11602, ICVV-11603 and ICCV-11604, respectively under rainfed and 26, 6, 20 and 19 per cent
under irrigated ecosystem. This increase in yield was mainly due to significantly higher number of
branches and canopy spread in JG-11 at all the growth stages of crop. These results are in line with
the finding of Jadhav and Pawar (1999) and Chaitanya and Chandrika (2006).
On the contrary, number of seeds per plant was higher in tall genotype ICCV-11602 under
both the ecosystems (61.80 and 76.57, respectively), which was 8 and 5 per cent higher than JG-11
and 12 and 10 per cent, respectively higher than ICCV-11604 (Table 30 and 74). The higher number
of seeds per plant was mainly because of higher seeds per pod. The seed number per plant and per
pod was alone not directly contributed to final seed yield, test weight was also important to asses the
final seed yield.
Seed size or 100-seed weight is an important character in chickpea. The tall genotype ICCV-
11604 recorded significantly higher 100-seed weight under both the ecosystems (23.77 and 24.55 g,
respectively), and was on par with ICCV-11601 (23.17 and 24.02 g, respectively) and JG-11 (23.11
and 23.89 g, respectively) (Table 31 and 75). Thus, owing to integration of all the favourable yield
components such as relatively more number of pods and seeds per plant, 100-seed weight and
higher seed yield per plant in tall genotype ICCV-11604, produced significantly higher seed yield
compared to rest of the tall genotypes, followed by ICCV-11602 (Fig. 5). This variation among the
genotypes was also noticed by Sheoran et al. (2008) and Verma et al. (2009).
Significantly higher biological yield was recorded with ICCV-11604 under both the
ecosystems (5171 and 6441 kg ha-1, respectively) compared to other genotypes but was on par with
-1
ICCV-11601 (5145 and 6325 kg ha , respectively) (Table 32 and 76). The improvement of biological
yield in ICCV-11604 was to the tune of 5.99 and 7.31 per cent higher than JG-11 under rainfed and
irrigated ecosystems, respectively. This improvement might be due to higher seed yield produced in
tall genotype ICCV-11604 with better performance of growth parameters viz., plant height, number of
branches, stem girth, leaf area and total dry matter production and its distribution in different plant
parts compared to other genotypes. Significantly least biological yield was registered in JG-11.
Genotypic variations in chickpea have also been reported by Chaitanya and Chandrika (2006).
Rainfed Irrigated
14
LEGEND
Genotype (G)
12 G1 : ICCV-11601
G2 : ICCV-11602
10 G3 : ICCV-11603
Seed yield per plant (g)
G4 : ICCV-11604
8 G5 : JG-11 (Check)
Plant density (D)
6 D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal)
D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher)

4
0
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
D1
D2
D3
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
Treatment
Fig. 5: Seed yield per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems (pooled)
Fig. 5: Seed yield per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems (pooled)
The higher biological yield in ICCV-11604 may be due to tall plants and more total dry matter
production, resulting in very low harvest index observed (only 38.77 % and 38.30%) in rainfed and
irrigated ecosystems, respectively compared to JG-11 (50.51% and 47.00%, respectively) indicating
low efficiency of distribution of total dry matter into reproductive parts.
The final seed yield was also influenced by losses during harvesting. The genotype JG-11
-1
was observed to have higher left over pods seed yield (57.60 and 32.52 kg ha ) with 2.39 and 2.42
per cent of per cent left over pods seed yield than tall genotypes under both the ecosystems. This
might be due to its semi-erect and dense canopy coverage nature of the genotype resulting in
overlapping of canopy, resulting in more pod drop during harvesting compared to other genotypes,
which are erect and tall recording lower losses.
The differences in yield and yield attributing characters among the genotypes might be due to
genetic constitution of different genotypes which provided inherent capacity to perform genotypes in
different ways. This type of differences among the genotypes with respective yield and yield
attributing character were observed by Nimje (1991), Jat and Mali (1992), Masood Ali and Singh
(1999), Patel (1999), Lather (2000), Satish Kumar and Kadian (2006) and Prasad et al. (2012).
Differences in seed yield and yield components could also be traced back to differences in
total dry matter production (TDMP) per plant and its distribution in to different parts. Genotypes JG-11,
ICCV-11601 and ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher total dry matter production per plant at 30,
60 and 75/90 days after sowing, respectively. At harvest, ICCV-11604 produced higher dry matter
under both the ecosystems (25.03 and 32.98 g, respectively) than rest of the genotypes and was on
par with ICCV-11601 (24.19 and 32.42 g, respectively) (Table 13 and 57). Similar results of variation
in dry matter production among chickpea genotypes were reported by Gill et al. (1988), Jadhav and
Pawar (1999) and Satish Kumar et al. (2006). However, TDMP alone does not wholly reflect the
efficiency of genotypes but its accumulation in different parts (Fig. 6a and 6b) particularly in the
reproductive parts of the plant is of significance (Watson et al., 1963), in other words the source sink
relationship is important which is indicated by harvest index. When partitioning of TDM in different
parts is examined, it was apparent that JG-11 accumulated higher proportion of dry matter in pods
throughout the reproductive phase than all other genotypes (Table 12 and 56). That apart, tall
genotypes ICCV-11601 and ICCV-11604 accumulated higher dry matter in stem and leaves,
particularly the later one indicating the more photosynthetic efficiency of the plants i.e. the more the
dry matter in leaf, the more will be the leaf area per unit land area (LAI). Further, effective leaf area for
prolonged period i.e. LAD particularly with ICCV-11601 and ICCV-11604 was also higher under both
the ecosystems (Table 18 and 62). These contributed towards higher TDMP in ICCV-11604 and
ICCV-11601. A tall genotype ICCV-11604 recorded higher AGR, RGR and CGR compared to other
genotypes particularly at later stages which is more important with regard to sink size. Because of
these characteristics ICCV-11604 produced higher quantum of phosynthates/dry matter at harvest
due to dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts which contributes for higher seed yield.
Therefore at harvest, among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11604 with higher translocation efficiency
coupled with better sink capacity outperformed other genotypes. Such variations among the
genotypes might be due to genetic constitution of different genotypes which provided inherent
capacity to perform in different ways. This type of contrasting results was also reportrd by
Hemchandra and Yadav (1997) at Kanpur.
The total dry matter production and its contribution towards grain yield is mainly governed by
the better performance of growth attributes viz., leaf area, leaf area index, leaf area duration, number
of branches per plant, plant height and the stem girth. The differential behavior in genotypes in these
attributes could be ascribed to genetic characteristics of genotypes. The differential behaviour in
these attributes among chickpea genotypes was also noticed by Beech and Leach (1988), Jat and
Mali (1992), Chaitanya and Chadrika (2006), Goyal et al. (2010) and Prasad et al. (2012). The growth
attributes like dry matter production and its distribution into various plant parts have an indirect
effect/influence on seed yield and inturn have their independence on different growth parameters
namely LAI, LAD, AGR, RGR, CGR, etc.
In the present investigation, significantly taller plants were observed with genotype ICCV-
11602 at various growth stages compared to rest of the genotypes under both the ecosystems (Table
5 and 49 and Fig. 7 and 8). The tall genotypes ICCV-11602, ICCV-11601, ICCV-11604 and ICCV-
11603 were 33.88 cm, 34.73 cm, 28.25 cm and 33.31 cm taller at harvest under rainfed and 35.23
cm, 36.26 cm, 29.99 cm and 33.42 cm taller under irrigated ecosystem than semi-erect genotype JG-
11 (33.38 and 39.86 cm, respectively) (Plate 13). The taller plants might be due to erect and tall plant
type nature of theses genotypes.
30 Leaves Stem Reproductive parts
25 ICCV-11604
Leaves Stem Reproductive parts
ICCV-11602
ICCV-1 1603
25
20
20
10.30
20
6.98
Dry ma tter pro ductio n (g/pla nt)

12.98
Dry matter production (g/plant)

Dry ma tter production (g /plant)
10.79
15 15
7.63 8.44
15
10 10 0.98
1.13
10
9.20 0.65
9.73
9.36
7.93 6.74 10.02
8.13
6.04
5 5 6.70
5
2.23
2.00
3.31 1.98
2.19 2.40 2.85 3.23
1.84 2.32 2.48 2.42
0.95 1.34 1.01
0
0
0
S
S
S
est
e st
S
A
DA
DA
S
DA
t
S
es
arv
D
arv
A
arv
D
D
30
60
30
60
0
th
/90
h
/9
30
th
60
At
A
/9
75
75
A
75
Days after sowing (DAS) Da ys after sowing (DAS)
Days after sowing (DAS)

ICCV-11 601
JG-11
25
20
20

12.24
15
13.02 13.74 8.60
15
9.36
10
1.42
10
9.50
10.08
6.81
5 5.85
5.52
5.96 5
2.39
2.03
2.9 2.74
2.11 2.22 1.59 1.97
1.57
1.04
0 0
st
S
AS
t
S
ve
DA
es
A
r
arv
D
ha
60
30
0
30
60
th
/9
At
/9
75
A
75
Days after sowing (DAS) Days after sowing (DAS)
Fig. 6a: Dry matter accumulation in different parts of chickpea genotypes under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
Fig. 6a: Dry matter accumulation in different parts of chickpea genotypes under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
30 Leaves Stem Reproductive parts 35 Leaves Stem Reproductive parts 35 Leaves Stem Reproductive parts
ICCV-116 04
ICCV-11602
ICCV-11603
30 30
25
15.41
25 25
12.14
20 11.69
9.33 9.95
8.94
Dry matter production (g/pl ant)

20 20
15
15 15
1.72
1.89
0.97
11.45 11.65
12.45 12.58
10 10.09
10.44 10 8.02 10
7.96
7.35
5 5 5
3.18
2.80
5.62 6.10 5.89
4.79 5.20 4.98
2.87
4.42 4.85
4.01 2.13 1.91
0 0
1.53
0
e st
S
S
t
S
es
A
DA
DA
arv
arv
D
D
30
60
th
30
60
th
/9
S
est
/9
AS
A
75
A
A
DA
75
arv
D
D
30
60
th
/9
A
75
Days after sowi ng (DAS) Days after sowing (DAS)
30 Leaves Stem Reproductive parts 35 Leaves Stem Reproductive parts
JG-11 ICCV-11601
30
25
25 14.80
20 10.53

17.29
15.3 0
20
10.60
15
15 2.12
11.93
12.99
10
10 8.13
6.87 6.30
6.54
5
5 3.33
5.75 5.77
4.63
2.94
2.43
4.70 4.78
3.97
0
1.80
t
S
s
A
A
DA
ve
0
D
D
ar
30
60
th
/9
A
75
t
S
AS
es
A
DA
arv
D
D
60
30
th
/9
A
75
Fig. 6b: Dry matter accumulation in different parts of chickpea genotypes under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
Fig. 6b: Dry matter accumulation in different parts of chickpea genotypes under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest
80
70
60
50
Plant height (cm)
40
30
20
10
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
D1
D2
D3
Treatment
Fig. 7: Plant height of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
Fig. 7: Plant height of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed
ecosystem (pooled)
30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest

80
70
60
50
Plant height (cm)
40
30
20
10
0
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
D1
D2
D3
Treatment
Fig. 8: Plant height of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
Genotype (G): G1: ICCV-11601; G2: ICCV-11602; G3: ICCV-11603; G4: ICCV-11604; G5: JG-11 (Check)
Plant density (D): D1: 3.33 lakh ha -1 (Normal); D2: 3.99 lakh ha -1 (20% higher); D3: 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher)
Fig. 8: Plant height of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated
ecosystem (pooled)
ICCV-11601
ICCV-11602
ICCV-11603
ICCV-11604
ICCV-11605
Plate 13: Plant types of chickpea genotypes
Increase in plant height in these genotypes resulted in correspondence increase in first pod
height. Similarly higher plant height in erect/tall genotypes was observed by Singh et al. (1984), Singh
et al. (1993), Lather (2000) and Singh et al. (2010). The difference in number of branches per plant
was also noticed among tested genotypes. This was possibly due to phenotypic expression of the
genetic potential of the genotypes. Canopy spread is also one of the important growth characters that
indicates the plant type. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 had more canopy spread than tall genotypes
2
at all the growth stages (Table 8 and 52). At harvest it recorded 921.88 and 1133.02 cm canopy
spread under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems, respectively. The lower canopy spread with tall
genotypes might be due to erect and compact growth. This type of differential behaviour in branches
and canopy spread was also noticed by Pawar and Wasnik (1991), Dixit et al. (1993b), Satish Kumar
and Kadian (2006) and Chaitanya and Chadrika (2006).
The magnitude of improvement in all the growth, yield and yield attributes were higher in
irrigated ecosystem over rainfed. The increase in seed yield was to an extent of 21.48 per cent in
ICCV-11601, 21.70 per cent in ICCV-11602, 27.18 per cent in ICCV-11603, 22.70 per cent in ICCV-
11604 and 14.88 per cent in JG-11 over rainfed ecosystem. Improvement in growth and yield under
irrigation was also observed by Siag et al. (1990), Srivastava and Srivastava (1994), Khourgami and
Rafiee (2009) and Dogan et al. (2012). Similarly, Chaudhari et al. (1998) observed that there was a
significantly positive effect of irrigation on the length of pod, harvest index and seed yield of chickpea.
Irrigation increased the seed yield by nine per cent over no irrigation. Bakhshi et al. (2007) at
Islamabad, Pakistan found that the yield and most of the yield components of chickpea were
improved with the application of irrigation. On an average, 48 per cent increase in number of pods per
plant, 36 per cent in total dry weight and 17 per cent in grain yield was recorded with irrigation. Zhang
et al. (2000) and Mirzaei Heydari et al. (2009) found that supplemental irrigation significantly
increased chickpea seed yield.
5.2.2 Phenophases
Superior performance of JG-11 under both the ecosystems could also be ascribed to early
initiation and early peak flowering in the genotype which favoured utilization of dry matter directly in
the development of sink at early stage thereby avoiding wastage of photosynthates during
unproductive growth. The days to emergence was non significant in all the genotypes. However,
semi-erect genotype JG-11 took fewer days for initiation of first flower, 50 per cent of flowering,
initiation of first pod and maturity compared to tall genotypes tested (Table 15 and 59). This was
mainly because of prolonged vegetative growth period in tall genotypes than semi-erect genotype.
The semi-erect genotype JG-11 matured 10-18 days earlier than tall genotypes with 30 days of
vegetative growth period under rainfed and 10-18 days later with 47 days vegetative growth period
under irrigated ecosystem. However, all the tested genotypes had similar reproductive growth period
(Table 16 and 60). The differential behavior of genotypes with respect to duration of phenophases
was more of a genetic character. The variation in phenophases was also noticed among chickpea
genotypes by several workers [Katiyar (1980), Marcellos and Knights (1987), Lather et al. (1994),
Mittal et al. (1999) and Reddy (2000)].
The duration of phenophases was relatively more under irrigated than rainfed ecosystem. All
the genotypes matured 5-8 days late in irrigated over rainfed ecosystem. A similar variation among
the genotypes was also observed by Nawaz (1994) and Shinde et al. (1996), who reported delay in
days to 50 per cent flowering suggest with prolonged vegetative period in irrigated ecosystem.
The root parameters viz., nodules per plant, nodule fresh and dry weight per plant, root length
and volume per plant and root dry weight per plant recorded at 30 and 60 days after sowing were
significantly higher in all the tall chickpea genotypes except ICCV-11602 than semi-erect genotype
JG-11 under both the ecosystems.
Among the tall genotypes, the total and active nodules per plant recorded at 30 and 60 days
after sowing were significantly higher in ICCV-11601 and ICCV-11604 under both irrigated and
rainfed ecosystem than other tested genotypes, which resulted in higher nodule fresh and dry weight
at both the growth stages (Table 23 and 67). This improvement in ICCV-11601 and ICCV-11604
attributed to maximum root length and volume, which inturn helped in better absorption of nutrients
and stored soil moisture from the soil profile. Genotypic differences in root parameters were also
observed by Mane and Shinde (1987), Silsbury (1989), Raju et al. (1991) and Jat and Mali (1992).
Supplemental irrigation in chickpea helped in development of root parameters. The better
development of root parameters was noticed in irrigated ecosystem than rainfed. Similarly, Reddy and
Ahlawat (1998) reported that two irrigations at branching and pod initiation increased root nodule
mass per plant and higher seed and haulm yield of chickpea compared to no irrigation at IARI, New
Delhi.
The physiological traits like chlorophyll content, leaf relative water content (RWC), light
transmission and absorption ratio play an important role in final contribution to the crop yield. The
chlorophyll content was measured in SPAD value at 30 and 60 days after sowing (Table 26 and 70). It
was higher in semi-erect genotype JG-11 under both rainfed (62.27 and 63.42, respectively) and
irrigated ecosystem (57.17 and 62.34, respectively) followed by tall genotypes ICCV-11601and ICCV-
11604.
The leaf relative water content (RWC) is probably the most appropriate measure of plant
water status in terms of the physiological consequence of cellular water deficit. The RWC was higher
at 40 days after sowing, but was drastically decreased at later stage (70 days after sowing) indicating
reduction of turgidity in plant (Table 27 and 71). RWC showed variation among the genotypes, it was
higher in tall genotype ICCV-11604 during both the stages under rainfed (66.57 and 32.26%,
respectively) and irrigated ecosystem (76.77 and 32.26%, respectively) and it might be due to the
better root development leading to higher water absorption which helped in maintaining plant tissue
towards turgid condition for long time. These results are in line with the finding of Verma et al. (2009)
and Kayan and Turhan (2012).
Growth rate depends on the ability of a crop to capture light and the efficiency of conversion
of intercepted light into biomass. The higher light absorption ratio (LAR) and lower light transmission
ratio (LTR) at flowering stages of chickpea was observed in semi-erect genotype JG-11 than tall
genotypes, which might be due to maximum canopy spread in by JG-11 (Table 28 and 72). This type
of variation among the chickpea genotypes was contradictory the finding of Prasad et al. (1978) and
Leach and Beech (1988), who observed no significant difference in light interception.
Decreased chlorophyll content and an increased RWC and LAR were observed under
irrigated than rainfed ecosystem. This variation under irrigation was also reported by Muhammad
Azam (2002), Anwar et al. (2003) and Kayan and Turhan (2012).
5.2.5 Pest occurence
Pest is a biotic factor (weeds, insect-pests, diseases, etc.) that influencing the final yield of the
crop. In the present study, the weed population and biomass varied significantly among the genotypes
(Table 36 and 80). The genotype JG-11 recorded least weed population and biomass per plot
-1
compared to rest of the genotypes under both rainfed (6.27 and 2.88 g plot , respectively) and
-1
irrigated ecosystem (8.68 and 4.36 g plot , respectively). Among the tested tall genotypes, ICCV-
-1
11601 recorded significantly least weed population (6.72 plot ), but ICCV-11604 registered least
-1
weed biomass (3.19 g plot ) under rainfed ecosystem, while under irrigated ecosystem the same
-1
genotype (ICCV-11601) recorded least weed population (8.83 plot ), but least weed biomass was
-1
noticed in ICCV-11603 (4.87 g plot ). The reduction in weed population and biomass in JG-11 might
be due to semi-erect growth habit and canopy spread that does not allow more transmission of light
for survival of weed species.
The gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigera is a key pest of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). The
damage caused by this pest on chickpea ranged upto 84.4 per cent with an average of seven per cent
in different farming systems (Lateef, 1992). Puri et al. (1998) reported 60-80 per cent crop losses due
to Helicoverpa pest from early vegetative stage to podding stage in chickpea. A management strategy
for gram pod borer relies heavily on chemical insecticides. However due to more concern for chemical
insecticides like, the farmer’s reluctance to use, the non-availability, high cost, development of
resistance and environmental pollution (Armes et al., 1996), have opened up avenues for the
identification and adoption of chickpea genotypes resistance/tolerance to Helicoverpa. The genotype
is the best/preferred component of agronomic manipulation for management of Helicoverpa in
chickpea. In the present investigation, higher pod damage was recorded in JG-11(4.45) (Table 37 and
81). The increase in damage in JG-11 was to an extent of 77-114 per cent over tall genotypes under
rainfed and 96-135 per cent under irrigated ecosystem (Fig. 9). The higher pod damage in JG-11 was
mainly due to dense canopy coverage and relatively horizontal branches conducive for development
and movement of Helicoverpa larvae in the plant.
Rainfed Irrigated
9
LEGEND
Genotype (G)
8
G1 : ICCV-11601
7 G2 : ICCV-11602
G3 : ICCV-11603
6
G4 : ICCV-11604
Pod damage (%)
G5 : JG-11 (Check)
5
Plant density (D)
4 D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal)

3
0
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
D1
D2
D3
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
Treatment
Fig. 9: Pod damage (%) of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed and irrigated and ecosystems (pooled)
Fig. 9: Pod damage (%) of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed and irrigated and ecosystems (pooled)
The variation in pod damage among chickpea genotypes were also reported by Siddegowda
(2004), Sanap and Jamadagni (2005) and Sarwar et al. (2009).
Wilt incidence did not vary significantly among chickpea genotypes both at early and later
stages of crop growth (Table 38 and 82). The incidence of rust was not noticed during the period of
present study under both the ecosystems (Table 39 and 83).
5.2.6 Nutrient uptake and available nutrient status in soil
The uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium at harvest was maximum with ICCV-
-1
11604 (79.77, 7.26 and 54.42 kg ha , respectively) under rainfed ecosystem and 107.56, 9.00 and
-1
77.86 kg ha , respectively under irrigated ecosystem (Table 41 and 85). These differences in the total
uptake were mainly due to vast differences in their biological yield. The available N, P2O5 and K2O
were significantly higher with ICCV-11602 under both the ecosystems, which might be due to lower
nutrient uptake (Table 42 and 86).
Soil moisture content differed significantly among the genotypes. The lower moisture content
in soil at flowering (11.64 and 16.81%) and at harvest (9.77 and 11.87%) was reported in genotype
ICCV-11601 compared to other tested genotypes under both the ecosystems, respectively (Table 40
and 84). This might be due to the better root development which resulting in higher water absorption.
Further, higher moisture content with JG-11 with more canopy spread leading to decreased in
evaporation.
5.3 Effect of plant density on chickpea under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems
Plant population density adjustment is an important agronomic manipulation for attaining
higher yields. The maximum yield for a particular crop and environment can be obtained at that plant
density where competition between the plants will be minimum and its optimum plant density helps to
utilize the growth resources like soil, nutrients and solar radiation efficiently and enable the crop to
yield higher. In the present the investigation, chickpea was planted with three plant densities viz.,
-1 -1
normal (3.33 lakh ha ), 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher than normal (3.99 and 4.66 lakh ha ,
respectively) both under rainfed and irrigated ecosystem.
Many studies have been conducted to determine the optimum plant density in desi genotypes
of chickpea (Veeranna et al., 1980, Anon., 1984 and Singh et al., 1988). The optimum plant density
varies with the genotypes, soil and climatic conditions and management practices.
In the present study, the seed yield differed significantly with the variation in plant density.
-1
Planting chickpea at 40 per cent higher plant density (4.66 lakh ha ) produced significantly higher
seed yield (2220 and 2754 kg ha ) followed by 20 per cent higher density i.e., 3.99 lakh ha-1 (2026
-1
and 2506 kg ha-1), while least seed yield was produced at normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha-1 (1783
-1
and 2169 kg ha ) both under rainfed and irrigated ecosystem, respectively (Table 32 and 76). The
increase in seed yield at 40 per cent higher plant density was to an extent of 25 and 10 per cent over
20 per cent higher and normal plant density, respectively under rainfed and 27 and 10 per cent,
respectively under irrigated ecosystem. The seed yield was maximum at 40 per cent higher plant
-1 -1
density (4.66 lakh ha ), however, normal plant density (3.33 lakh ha ) produced significantly higher
yield and growth parameters, which was mainly due to better resource availability and reduced inter
plant competition in the community. The normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha-1 recorded significantly
higher number of pods per plant (50.93 and 60.69) compared to 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher
plant density under both the ecosystems, respectively (Table 29 and 73). Increase in plant density to
20 per cent and 40 per cent than normal also resulted in reduction of number of seeds per plant, pod
and seed yield per plant. Similarly, Karwasra and Faroda (1979) observed higher yield attributes like
number of pods and seeds per plant with wider row spacing which may be attributed to the less
dropping of the flowers and immature fruits. However, 100-seed weight and harvest index did not
differ significantly with the variation in the plant density. Similar observations were made by
Arockinathan and Saraf (1984), Sen and Jana (1959) and Mansur (2003).
The maximum seed yield was produced at 40 per cent higher plant density, though values of
-1
yield attributing characters were better in normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha , these improvements
were not sufficient to compensate the increased plant number per unit area obtained from 40 per cent
enhanced plant density.
25 Leaves Stem Reproductive parts 25 Leaves Stem Reproductive parts 30
Leaves Stem Reproductive parts
25
20 20
20
11.89 13.81
Dry ma tter production (g/pla nt)

8.75 10.3 5
Dry ma tter productio n (g/plant)
Dry matter pro duction (g/plant)

15 15
10.33
7.71 15
3.07
10 2.71 10
10
2.35
9.50
10.10
8.43 7.68
8.82
6.34 7.16
5 5 7.44 5
5.06
2.27
3.21 3.5
2.13 2.6 1
1.99 1.33
2.53 2.79 0
2.02 1.78 2.06
1.18 1.44
1.04
st
S
DA
DA
DA
ve
0 0
r
ha
30
60
/90
At
75
t
AS
S
t
AS
S
AS
es
es
DA
DA
arv
arv
D
0D
0D
30
60
30
60
th
th
/9
/9
A
A
75
75
Days after sowing (DAS) Days after sowing (DAS) Fig. 10a: Dry matter accumulation in different parts of chickpea as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)

35
25
30
30
25 16.30
20 25
12.19
Dry matter prod uction (g/p lan t)

12.35
1 4.31 9.41
Dry matter production (g/pl ant)
Dry matter production (g/ plant)
10 .66
20 20
15
3.85
3.06 15
15
3 .4 7
11.39
10 12.34
9.06
8.81
10 .40 9.59 10
10 1 1.08
6.52
7 .6 6
5
5
3.23
5 5.95 6.17
5.05
2.79
3 .0 5
4.83 2.13
5.42 4.33 3.93
5 .1 4
4.46 0
1.80
1 .9 5
t
S
es
DA
DA
DA
rv
0
ha
30
60
0
/90
At
75
S
AS
t
AS
v es
S
e st
AS
DA
DA
DA
0D
a rv
D
D
h ar
30
60
30
60
th
/9
/9
At
75 Days after sowin g (DAS)
A
75
Days after sowing (DAS) Days after sowin g (DAS) Fig. 10b: Dry matter accumulation in different parts of chickpea as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
Fig. 10b: Dry matter accumulation in different parts of chickpea as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
Similar results were reported by Jat and Mali (1992), Shaikh and Mungse (1998), Reddy
(2000) and Kashfi et al. (2010). Similarly, Pezeshkpur et al. (2005), Shams et al. (2005) and
Ahmadian et al. (2005) who also found that yield of chickpea increased with increased density from
-2
33 to 54 plants m . Yigitoglu (2006) reported that highest seed yield of chickpea was obtained in early
winter sowing and high plant density (45 plant m-2). Mansur et al. (2009a) at UAS, Dharwad reported
that chickpea genotypes produced significantly higher seed yield with a plant density of 4.4 lakh ha-1.
Similarly, the total dry matter production per plant and its accumulation in different plant parts
-1
was higher with normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha compared to 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher
plant density, which recorded 26.36 and 33.67 g plant-1 total dry matter production at harvest under
rainfed and irrigated ecosystem, respectively (Table 13 and 57). The highest dry matter production
per plant at normal plant density may be attributed to significantly higher leaf area, number of
branches leading to higher dry matter accumulation in leaves, stem and reproductive parts (Fig. 10a &
10b). These results are in agreement with Shaikh and Mungse (1998) and Naik et al. (2012).
Similarly, Mansur et al. (2009a) reported higher total dry matter production at lower plant density
compared to higher density in Kabuli chickpea.
The dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts also decreased with increase in plant
density either 20 per cent or 40 per cent than normal. At harvest, significantly higher dry matter
-1
accumulated in the reproductive parts with normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha (13.81 and 16.30 g
-1
plant ) compared to 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher plant density under rainfed and irrigated
ecosystem, respectively (Table 12 and 56). Hence, normal plant density recorded higher per plant
yield compared to higher density. This is because, translocation of photosynthates to reproductive
parts is the single most important factor contributing to seed yield.
The dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts also depends on the photosynthetic ability
of plant at various growth stages and that can be analysed through dry matter accumulation in leaves
and leaf area. The chickpea at normal plant density accumulated significantly higher dry matter in
their leaves as compared to higher density. The increased dry matter accumulation in leaves at
normal plant density may be related to significantly higher number of leaves and leaf area over higher
density.
The magnitude of photosynthetic ability of the crop is more meaningfully interpreted in terms
of leaf area index and leaf area. Increase in the plant density increased the leaf area index as
observed in different growth stages, which indicated higher leaf area per plant with normal plant
density. The leaf area being a photosynthetic surface, plays an important role in total biomass
accumulation and quantity of photosynthates available for seed production. The higher leaf area at
normal plant density may be attributed to better spread and canopy width as a result of increased
availability of space for each plant. All these factors combined together increased the dry matter
production and accumulation in reproductive parts of chickpea sown at normal plant density which
inturn resulted in higher yield components as compared to the yield components at 20 per cent and
40 per cent higher than normal plant density. Due to lesser inter-plant spacing, there was an increase
-1
in LAI at 40 per cent higher plant density (4.66 lakh ha ).
The plant height at all the growth stages was significantly higher with 40 per cent higher plant
density (4.66 lakh ha-1) compared to 20 per cent higher plant density (3.99 lakh ha -1) and normal plant
density (3.33 lakh ha-1), resulting in increased first pod height under both the ecosystems (Table 5
and 49 and Fig. 11). Kashfi et al. (2010) and Vanderpuye (2010) reported that plant height and lower
pod height increased significantly with increase in plant population density. This may be due to
increased inter-plant competition for light, while less space is available for growth of each plant, which
enhanced the growth of the terminal buds than the lateral branches.
The number of branches and canopy spread at different stages of crop growth was higher at
normal plant density. This positive relationship of normal plant density and number of branches per
plant was also reported by Rathore and Patel (1991), Jat and Mali (1992), Mahapatra et al. (1995)
and Reddy (2000). Similarly, a study at IARI, New Delhi supports these findings of increase in number
of branches and pods per plant with decrease in number of plants per ha (Singh et al., 1988). Fallah
and Poor (2009) observed that increase in plant density led to significant decrease in the number of
primary and secondary branches, number of pods per plant and a significant increase in grain yield as
well. Higher branches were reflected in the better performance of the individual plants as indicated by
higher number of pods and seed per plant.
Rainfed Irrigated
50
LEGEND
45 Genotype (G)
G1 : ICCV-11601
40
G2 : ICCV-11602
35 G3 : ICCV-11603
G4 : ICCV-11604
First pod height (cm)
30
G5 : JG-11 (Check)
25 Plant density (D)
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal)

20
15 D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher)
10
0
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
D1
D2
D3
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
Treatment
Fig. 11: First pod height of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems (pooled)
Fig. 11: First pod height of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems (pooled)
The rate of increase in plant height was more rapid during 30 to 60 days after sowing and it
was slow at later stages under both the ecosystems. Whereas, the total dry matter production per
plant was slow between 30-60 days after sowing as there was dry matter production only in leaves
and stem at this stage and at later stage as the dry matter in the reproductive parts was getting
accumulated, there was rapid increase in total dry matter production per plant from 60 days after
sowing onwards till the harvest. The normal plant density recorded significantly higher crop absolute
growth rate (AGR) and relative growth rate (RGR) at peak growth period of 30-60 days after sowing.
These results are in accordance with findings of Mansur (2003).
The increase plant height leads to relatively smaller and thinner stalks leading to lesser stem
dry matter per plant at higher plant density. These results are in accordance with the findings of many
researchers [Singh et al. (1994), Jadhav and Pawar (1999), Singh et al. (2004) and Naik (2011)].
-1
Though chickpea sown at normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha recorded significantly higher
seed yield and stem dry matter per plant, it was inadequate to compensate the reduction in biological
yield due to lower plant population per unit area. Hence, biological yield recorded at 40 per cent
-1
higher plant density was significantly higher (5455 and 6748 kg ha ) than the normal plant density
under both the ecosystems (Table 32 and 76). These results are in conformity with the findings of
Patel et al. (1988), Mane et al. (1991), Mansur et al. (2009a) and Naik (2011). Similarly, Khourgami
-2
and Rafiee (2009) reported that increase in plant density from 30 to 66 plants m increased the seed
yield and biological yield of chickpea in dry farming conditions at the field of Khoramabad Agricultural
Research Station, Iran. Goyal et al. (2010) conducted experiment at Sehore on medium black clay
loam and noticed that at higher plant density of 33 plants m-2 with 30 cm rows resulted in significantly
higher grain and haulm yield over 22 plants m-2 with 45 cm row spacing. The data on growth (except
plant height) and yield attributes such as pods per plant and grain yield per plant increased with wider
-2
row spacing (45 cm) having lower plant density of 22 plants m because of the less competition for
nutrient, water and solar radiation, etc.
All the growth and yield attributes recorded at various growth stages were relatively higher in
irrigated compared to rainfed ecosystem. These results agree with the findings of Singh and Sharma
(1980), Bajpai et al. (1991), Arya and Khushawa (2000), Mirzaei Heydari et al. (2009) and Dogan et
al. (2012).
5.3.2 Phenophases
Different phenophases of chickpea like days to emergence, days to initiation of first flower,
days to 50 per cent flowering and days to initiation of first pod were not affected significantly due to
plant density (Fig. 12 and 13). However, plants in higher density of 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher plant
density) matured two days earlier than those at normal plant density (3.33 lakh ha-1) under both the
ecosystems (Table 15, 16, 59 and 60). This could be because, at 40 per cent higher density the
duration of vegetative phase was reduced due to inter-plant competition resulting in early maturity
without any significant effect on reproductive phase. These results corroborate with the findings of
Valimohammadi et al. (2007), who reported that low plant density had a maximum days to maturity.
Similarly, Bejandi et al. (2012) observed that minimum days to maturity were found with the higher
-2
planting density of 45 plants m .
In irrigated ecosystem, the phenophase duration prolonged compared to rainfed ecosystem.
Under irrigated ecosystem, the duration of flowering, podding and maturity was relatively more than
rainfed ecosystem. These observations are in accordance with Nawaz (1994) and Shinde et al.
(1996).
Root parameters were significantly influenced by plant density at both 30 and 60 days after
sowing. Root length and dry weight was not influenced significantly at 30 days after sowing under
both the ecosystems. The root parameters like root dry weight, nodules per plant, fresh and dry
weight of nodules and root volume decreased with increase in plants per unit area in chickpea, as
-1
highest values were recorded with normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha compared to 20 per cent and
40 per cent higher than normal, while the root length increased with increase in plant density (Table
23 and 67). These results are in close proximity with the findings of Mane and Jadhav (1991), Vaishya
et al. (1995), Reddy (2000), Khalid Ali (2010) who reported that nodulation decreaserd with increase
in plants per unit area, which might be due to the competition between the roots for resource
utilization.
80 Days to emergence Days to first flower initiation
Days to 50% flowering Days to first pod initiation
70
60
50
Phenophase
40
30
20
10
0
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
D1
D2
D3
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
Treatment
Fig. 12: Days to emergence, first flower initiation, 50% flowering and first pod initiation of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed
ecosystem (pooled)
Fig. 12: Days to emergence, first flower initiation, 50% flowering and first pod initiation of
chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
80 Days to emergence Days to first flower initiation

Days to 50% flowering Days to first pod initiation
70
60
50
Phenophase
40
30
20
10
0
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
D1
D2
D3
Treatment
Fig. 13: Days to emergence, first flower initiation, 50% flowering and first pod initiation of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
Fig. 13: Days to emergence, first flower initiation, 50% flowering and first pod initiation of
chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
30 Light transmission ratio (LTR, %) Light absorption ratio (LAR, %) 100
90
25
80
70
20
Light transmission ratio (%)
Light absorption ratio (%)

60
15 50
40
10
30
20
5
10
0 0
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
D1
D2
D3
Treatment
Fig. 14: Light transmission and absorption ratio at flowering stage of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density during 2012-13 under rainfed
ecosystem (pooled)
Fig. 14: Light transmission and absorption ratio at flowering stage of chickpea genotypes as
influenced by plant density during 2012-13 under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
25 Light transmission ratio (LTR, %) Light absorption ratio (LAR, %) 100
90
20 80
70
Light transmission ratio (%)
Light absorption ratio (%)

15 60
50
10 40
30
5 20
10
0 0
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
D1
D2
D3
Treatment
Fig. 15: Light transmission and absorption ratio at flowering stage of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density during 2012-13 under
Plant density (D): D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal); D2: 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher); D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher)
Fig. 15: Light transmission and absorption ratio at flowering stage of chickpea genotypes as
influenced by plant density during 2012-13 under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
On the contrary, Bejandi et al. (2012) observed that increase in planting density of chickpea
had no influence on variation in nodule number, active nodule, nodule fresh and dry weight at North
West of Iran. The better root development was observed in irrigated ecosystem than rainfed
ecosystem. Significant improvement in root parameters under irrigation was also reported by Reddy
and Ahlawat (1998).
The chlorophyll content (SPAD value) and RWC decreased with an increase plant density,
-1
the highest value was recorded at normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha under both the ecosystems.
This may be probably due to the fact that a less dense plant population provided a better opportunity
to the plant to utilize the resources, i.e., nutrients, moisture and light in a better way, which inturn
resulted in higher chlorophyll content. These results are in accordance with Vaishya and Fayaz Qazi
(1992) and Ashraf Alizade et al. (2011).
On the contrary, light absorption ratio (LAR) by plant canopies increased with increase in
plant density as an evident of decrease light transmission ratio (LTR) through the plant canopies
(Table 28 and 72 and Fig. 14 and 15). This could be attributed to more number of leaves per unit area
at higher density that capture more light. Similar results were reported by Dhingra et al. (1986), Leach
and Beech (1988), Reddy (2000) and Muhammad Azam (2002).
The decrease in chlorophyll and increase in RWC and light absorption was noticed in irrigated
ecosystem over rainfed. These results are in comformity with Kayan and Turhan (2012). Similarly,
Basu et al. (2004) reported that the RWC in rainfed situation decreased to about 15-25 per cent lower
than irrigated crop.
5.3.5 Pest abundance
The variation of pest abundance in the present study was due to the influence of plant density
at various growth stages of chickpea under both the ecosystems.
Comparing the effect of plant density, it was noticed that weed population and biomass
decreased with increase in number of plants per unit area as of 40 per cent higher plant density had
-1
minimum weed population and biomass as compared to the normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha
under both the ecosystems (Table 36 and 80). Initial slow growth of the crop along with more ground
area available would have favoured the germination and growth of weeds and this could be one of the
-1
reasons for higher weed population in normal plant density of 3.33 lakh plants ha as opined by
Ethredge et al. (1989). Higher leaf area and better smothering effect of crop might have prevented the
weeds from utilizing sufficient resources such as light, moisture and nutrients resulting in lesser dry
weight of weeds. A similar finding of higher plant density reducing the weed dry weight was observed
by Singh and Bajpai (1994) and Vaishya et al. (1995). The occurrence of weeds was relatively more
in irrigated than rainfed ecosystem.
The present trend is to manage the pest populations below economic threshold levels with
minimum use of insecticides. It is also possible to minimize the yield loss due to pests by agronomic
manipulations. Sithanantham et al. (1981) reported that higher population of H. armigera larvae per
unit area were associated with increased plant density of chickpea with little effect on the pe rcent pod
-1
damag or yield. In the present study, increase in 40 per cent higher plant density (4.66 lakh ha ) than
-1
normal (3.33 lakh ha ) resulted in increase in pod damage to the extent of 67.63 per cent under
-1
rainfed and 93.85 per cent under irrigated ecosystem over normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha
(Table 37 and 81). This was mainly because of the dense population probably favouring the growth of
the pest by creating a microclimate conducive to their larval development. These results are in
conformity with Begum et al. (1992) and Anilkumar et al. (2011).
The more wilted plants per unit area were noticed with higher plant density at both the stages,
-1
but overall wilt incidence percentage was higher in normal plant density (3.33 lakh ha ). The
contradictory results were reported by Andrabi et al. (2011). In the this study, the higher number of
wilted plants per unit area with higher plant density might have compensated by more number of
plants per unit area resulting in minimum wilt incidence percentage at 40 per cent higher plant density
(1.56 and 0.75%) than normal and 20 per cent higher plant density under both rainfed and irrigated
ecosystems, respectively (Table 38 and 82). Among the ecosystems, the incidence was relatively
more in rainfed than irrigated.
Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium
100
90
80
70
60
Nutrient uptake (kg/ha)
50
40
30
20
10
0
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
D1
D2
D3
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
Treatment
Fig. 16: Nutrient uptake by chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
Fig. 16: Nutrient uptake by chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed
ecosystem (pooled)
140 Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium
120
100
Nutrient uptake (kg/ha)
80
60
40
20
0
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
D1
D2
D3
Treatment
Fig. 17: Nutrient uptake by chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
Plant density (D): D 1: 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal); D2: 3.99 lakh ha -1 (20% higher); D 3: 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher)
Fig. 17: Nutrient uptake by chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated
ecosystem (pooled)
Avail. N Avail. P Avail. K
350
300
250
Available nutrients in soil (kg/ha)
200
150
100
50
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
D1
D2
D3
Treatment
Fig. 18: Available N, P2O5 and K2O status in soil as influenced by chickpea genotypes and plant density under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
Fig. 18: Available N, P2O5 and K2O status in soil as influenced by chickpea genotypes and
350
Avail. N Avail. P Avail. K
300
250
Available nutrients in soil (kg/ha)
200
150
100
50
0
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
D1
D2
D3
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
Treatment
Fig. 19: Available N, P2O5 and K2O status in soil as influenced by chickpea genotypes and plant density under irrigated ecosystem
(pooled)
Genotype (G): G1 : ICCV-11601; G2: ICCV-11602; G3: ICCV-11603; G4: ICCV-11604; G5: JG-11 (Check)
Plant density (D): D1: 3.33 lakh ha -1 (Normal); D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher); D3: 4.66 lakh ha -1 (40% higher)
Fig. 19: Available N, P2O5 and K2O status in soil as influenced by chickpea genotypes and
5.3.6 Nutrient uptake and available nutrient status in soil
The total uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium increased with increase in plant
-1 -1
density from 3.33 lakh ha to 4.66 lakh ha (Table 41 and 85 and Fig. 16 and 17). Higher plant
-1
density of 40 per cent (4.66 lakh ha ) resulted in maximum total uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus and
-1
potassium under rainfed ecosystem (85.23, 8.94 and 50.45 kg ha , respectively) and irrigated
-1
ecosystem (115.31, 9.83 and 71.98 kg ha , respectively). These results are in conformity with the
findings of Naik (2011) and Mansur (2003). The availability of nutrients in soil increased with increase
in plant density under both the ecosystems (Table 42 and 86 and Fig. 18 and 19).
Plant density had significant effect on the soil moisture content both at flowering and after
harvest of chickpea under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems (Table 40 and 84). Soil moisture content
progressively and significantly decreased with increase in plant density to either 20 per cent or 40 per
-1
cent higher than normal, it was significantly higher with normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha at
flowering and after harvest under rainfed (10.88 and 7.85%, respectively) and irrigated ecosystem
(15.60 and 10.23%, respectively). This was mainly because of dense stand, using soil moisture more
rapidly due to more number of plants per unit area for their metabolic activities. Similar line of
observations was made by Reddy (2000). The magnitude of decrement in soil moisture with increased
plant density was more in rainfed ecosystem than irrigated.
5.4 Interaction of genotypes and plant density on chickpea productivity under
rainfed and irrigated ecosystems
Interaction of genotypes and plant density had significant influence on growth parameters, dry
matter production and its distribution at later stages of growth of chickpea. The interaction effects
were also significant with regard to yield and yield attributes. This indicates that the genotypes
differed in their phenotypic characters to their interaction with plant density.
The seed yield of chickpea both under rainfed and irrigated ecosystem were significantly
higher in semi-erect genotype JG-11 planted at 40 per cent higher plant density (2570 and 3048 kg
-1 -1
ha , respectively) followed by 20 per cent plant density (2474 and 2882 kg ha , respectively)
compared to rest of the treatment combinations (Table 32 and 76). However, the tall genotype ICCV-
-1
11604 with 40 per cent higher plant density (2258 kg ha ) recorded on par seed yield with JG-11
planted at normal density under rainfed ecosystem, but under irrigated ecosystem, the former
-1
combination recorded higher seed yield (2840 kg ha ) than planting JG-11 at normal density (2666 kg
-1 -1
ha ) and on par seed yield with JG-11 at 20 per cent higher plant density (2882 kg ha ) (Fig. 20 and
21). These results are in agreement with Lather (2000). The increment in seed yield with increase in
plant density to 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher than normal was very less in case of semi-erect
genotype JG-11, but was more in tall genotypes. The progressive increase in yield of the tall
genotypes with plant density can be attributed to the position in which the pods are borne on the
canopy. Pods borne higher on the canopy permit yield increases in higher plant density. This may be
a result of better light usage for photosynthesis when pods are borne higher. Similar observation were
made by Calcagno et al. (1988) and Singh et al. (1980b), who found that the optimum plant density
-2
for chickpea was 25 plants m , but that higher density may be optimum for tall, erect genotypes that
can bear pods high in the canopy. Similarly, Byth et al. (1979) reported that a tall type of chickpea
genotype (NEC-138) produced 60 per cent more yield at 5,00,000 plants ha-1 than at 1,67,000 plants
-1
ha , while a local bushy cultivar showed little response.
The higher grain yield recorded in JG-11 with different plant density was mainly due to
increased number of pods and seeds per plant, pod and seed yield per plant under rainfed ecosystem
(Plate 14 and 15). But in irrigated ecosystem, higher seed yield in JG-11 was recorded only at 40 per
cent higher plant density. It indicated that tall genotype yield was not affected when sown at 40 per
cent higher plant density under irrigated ecosystem. Significant increase in yield attributes was the
result of higher dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts.
Significantly higher total dry matter (TDM) accumulation was observed in semi-erect genotype
JG-11 at normal plant density at initial stage of crop growth (Table 13 and 57). However, at harvest,
significantly higher TDM was observed with tall genotype ICCV-11604 planted at normal density of
-1 -1
3.33 lakh ha both under rainfed and irrigated ecosystem (28.40 and 36.78 g plant ) followed by
ICCV-11601 with normal plant density (Fig. 22).
3000 Seed yield (kg/ha) Biological yield (kg/ha) 7000
6000
2500
5000
2000
Biological yield (kg/ha)

4000
Seed yield (kg/ha)
1500
3000
1000
2000
500
1000
0 0
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
D1
D2
D3
Treatment
Fig. 20: Seed and biological yield of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
Fig. 20: Seed and biological yield of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
3500 Seed yield (kg/ha) Biological yield (kg/ha) 8000
7000
3000
6000
2500
5000
Biological yield (kg/ha)
2000
Seed yield (kg/ha)
4000
1500
3000
1000
2000
500
1000
0 0
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
D1
D2
D3
Treatment
Fig. 21: Seed and biological yield of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
Plant density (D): D1: 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal); D2: 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher); D3: 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher)
Fig. 21: Seed and biological yield of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under
ICCV-11601
ICCV-11602
ICCV-11603
ICCV-11604
ICCV-11605
Plate 14: Pods of chickpea genotypes
ICCV - 11601
ICCV - 11602
ICCV - 11603
ICCV - 11604
ICCV - 11605
Plate 15: Seeds Of Chickpea Genotypes

Rainfed Irrigated
40
LEGEND
Genotype (G)
35
G1 : ICCV-11601
G2 : ICCV-11602
30
Total dry matter production (g/plant)
G3 : ICCV-11603
G4 : ICCV-11604
25
G5 : JG-11 (Check)
20 Plant density (D)
D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal)
15 D2 : 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher)

10
0
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
D1
D2
D3
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
Treatment
Fig. 22: Total dry matter production per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed and
irrigated ecosystems (pooled)
Fig. 22: Total dry matter production per plant of chickpea genotypes as influenced by plant density under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems
(pooled)
Tall genotype had relatively more vegetative growth period compared to semi-erect genotype
JG-11 and it contributed to the pod dry matter in later stages, that is why they had less TDM in initial
growth stage than at harvest stage. Significant increase in total dry matter accumulation in chickpea is
dependent on the contribution from growth parameters. Performance of growth parameters indicated
a significant higher plant height, number of secondary branches and first pod height and minimum
canopy spread in tall chickpea genotypes with 40 per cent of higher plant density compared to JG-11
under both the ecosystems. These results are in conformity with Lather (2000).
Significant improvement in the sink size (number of pods, grain weight, test weight, etc.) could
be due to increase in number of primary branches per plant, which resulted in development of more
number of reproductive parts. These parameters have contributed for better dry matter partitioning
and distribution into different plant parts. More leaf area, LAI, LAD and better dry matter partitioning
have resulted in increased translocation of photosynthates from source to sink.
Planting chickpea at 40 per cent higher density resulted in increase in the root length
compared to normal plant density (Table 22 and 66). Interaction of ICCV-11601 with 40 per cent
higher plant density recorded more root length at 60 days after sowing compared to other interactions
under both the ecosystems (30.76 and 30.67 cm, respectively) followed by ICCV-11604 with 40 per
cent higher plant density. The interaction effect on other root parameters like number of root nodules
per plant and nodule dry weight were non significant. The higher root dry weight (3.55 and 3.94, g
-1
plant , respectively) was recorded in ICCV-11601 with normal plant density, which was closely
followed by ICCV-11604 with normal plant density under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems,
respectively. These results are in line with the findings of Reddy (2000).

-1
Planting ICCV-11604 at normal density (3.33 lakh ha ) recorded significantly higher leaf
relative water content (RWC) at 30 and 60 days after sowing followed by ICCV-11601 under both the
ecosystems which might have led to better root growth and absorption of soil moisture from deeper
layers (Table 27 and 71). Light absorption by crop canopy (LAR) was higher in planting chickpea
genotypes at higher plant density than normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha-1. Interaction of JG-11 with
40 per cent higher plant density recorded significantly higher light absorption ratio at flowering stage
under both the ecosystems (89.07 and 94.40%, respectively), might be due to more number of plants
per unit area absorbing more light at higher plant density.
5.4.4 Plant lodging
The plant lodging percentage increased with increase in plant density under both the
ecosystems, while the magnitude of increment was more in tall genotypes and in irrigated ecosystem
than in semi-erect genotype and rainfed ecosystem (Table 35 and 79). The interaction of ICCV-11602
with 40 per cent higher plant density recorded significantly higher plant lodging under both rainfed
(15.05%) and irrigated ecosystem (17.17%) compared to rest of the interactions, while least plant
lodging was found with semi-erect genotype JG-11 at normal plant density (0.93 per cent and 1.27%,
respectively).
5.4.5 Pest abundance
Weed population and biomass under all the tested genotypes decreased with increase in
plant density to 20 per cent and 40 per cent under both the ecosystems (Table 36 and 80).
-1 -1
Significantly higher weed population (10.47 and 16.83 plot ) and biomass (6.22 and 12.50 g plot )
was recorded in ICCV-11602 with normal plant density, which was at par with ICCV-11603 with
normal plant density under both the ecosystems. This might be due to more light transmission to the
ground resulting in better availability of light for weed survival. Further, significantly higher pod
damage was recorded in interaction of JG-11 with 40 per cent higher plant density under both the
ecosystems (5.77 and 8.74%, respectively) (Table 37 and 81), as increase in plant density in semi-
erect genotype probably favouring the growth of the pest (Helicoverpa) by creating a micro-climate
conducive to the dark loving larval development
5.5 Performance of tall chickpea genotypes for mechanical harvesting
At harvest, tall genotypes recorded significantly higher plant height compared to semi-erect
genotype (Table 88). Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11602 was the tallest (66.15 cm), but was on
par with other tall genotypes viz., ICCV-11601 (65.87 cm) and ICCV-11604 (65.40 cm). Significantly
lower plant height was observed with semi-erect genotype JG-11 (32.03 cm). The higher plant height
was due to narrow angle of the branches on the main shoot resulting in tall, erect and compact plants
(Singh, 1980).
Semi-erect genotype JG-11 (6.68) registered significantly higher number of branches, but was
on par with all the tall genotypes except ICCV-11601 (5.62). However, tall genotype observed higher
secondary branches per plant over semi-erect genotype. The higher number of secondary branches
was recorded in ICCV-11602 (11.83), which was on par with ICCV-11603 and ICCV-11604 (Table
88). Canopy spread varied significantly among the genotypes at all the growth stages. At harvest,
2
significantly higher canopy spread was observed with semi-erect genotype JG-11 (992.37 cm ) than
2
tall genotypes, it was followed by ICCV-11602 (794.32 cm ) and was on par with ICCV-11603 (747.40
2 2
cm ). However, significantly lower values were found with ICCV-11604 (694.45 cm ) (Table 89). This
higher canopy spread may be due to semi-erect plant nature of JG-11. Similarly, Singh (1980)
observed that mean canopy width of tall plant was 33 per cent less than that of the bushy type
The growth components are having direct influence on yield. Plant height, branches, canopy
spread and to some extent its yield potential are strongly influenced by environmental conditions
during stem elongation, although there is considerable varietal variation for these characteristics
-1
(Duncan, 1975). Semi-erect genotype JG-11 produced significantly higher seed yield (1969 kg ha )
compared to tall genotypes (Table 92). Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11604 recorded significantly
higher seed yield (1659 kg ha-1), which was on par with ICCV-11602 (1618 kg ha-1). The yield
increase in JG-11 was to an extent of 18.69 and 21.69 per cent over ICCV-11604 and ICCV-11602,
respectively. Such differences in cultivars with respect to seed yield have been reported many
researchers [Anon. (1979), Haffar et al. (19910, Lather et al. (2000) and Prasad et al. (2012)].
In the study, semi-erect genotype JG-11 was high yielding compared to tall genotypes. Seed
yield is governed by number of factors, which has direct or indirect impact. The main factors,
responsible for higher seed yield are the number of pods and seeds per plant, pod and seed yield per
plant and 100-seed weight (Table 92). Similarly, Singh (1980) reported that tall lines yielded about 25
per cent less than the bushy lines. The higher yield in semi-erect bushy genotype was mainly
because of the higher number of pods per plant which inturn appears to positively correlated with
more number of primary branches per plant.
Among the yield components, seed yield per plant was more closely associated with seed
yield per hectare. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 produced significantly higher seed weight per plant
(9.25 g) compared to tall genotypes (Table 92). Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11604 registered
higher seed yield per plant (8.09 g) than rest of the genotypes. The higher seed yield per plant might
be attributed to more number of pods per plant, number seeds per plant, number of seeds per pod
and 100-seed weight. The differential behaviour in these attributes could be ascribed to genetic
character of genotypes. Similar variation in genotypes was also observed by Verma et al. (2009),
Singh et al. (2010) and Prasad et al. (2012). Further, higher seed weight per plant in semi-erect
genotype JG-11 may be ascribed to early days to 50 per cent flowering and early maturity (Table 85).
In contrast to fully mechanical cereal crop cultivation, lack of mechanization is a major
constraint to the expansion of chickpea area in many countries [Buddenhaggen (1990), Oram and
Belaid (1990) and Osman et al. (1990)]. Mechanized harvesting of chickpea presents fewer problems
than for other legumes because of the availability of tall cultivars, which permits the use of traditional
cereal grain combines with some minor adjustments (Saxena et al., 1987).
In the present investigation four tall and erect and one semi-erect genotype were harvested
both by mechanically (combine harvester) and conventionally (manual cutting + transportation +
thresher) to evaluated their performance.
Among the harvesting methods, total harvest loss were recorded highest with mechanical
harvesting of tall genotypes (ranged from 2.64 to 4.96%), but mechanical harvesting of semi-erect
genotype JG-11 recorded 20.03 per cent higher total grain loss compared to conventional harvesting
(5.40%) (Table 101 and Fig. 23 and 24).
22 ICCV-11601 ICCV-11602 ICCV-11603 ICCV-11604 JG-11
20
18
16
14
Grain loss (%)
12
10
0
Mechanical harvesting
Conventional harvesting
Grain loss Grain damage Un-threshed grain
Treatment
Fig. 23: Grain loss, grain damage and per cent un-threshed grain as influenced by tall chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional
harvesting method (pooled)
Fig. 23: Grain loss, grain damage and per cent un-threshed grain as influenced by tall chickpea
genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting method (pooled)
25 ICCV-11601 ICCV-11602 ICCV-11603 ICCV-11604 JG-11
20
15
Harvest loss (%)
10
0
Mechanical harvesting Conventional harvesting
Treatment
Fig. 24: Per cent harvest loss as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting method (pooled)
Plant density (D): D1 : 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal); D2: 3.99 lakh ha-1 (20% higher); D3 : 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher)
Fig. 24: Per cent harvest loss as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and
conventional harvesting method (pooled)
2.5 Actual field capacity (fed/h) Theoretical field capacity (fed/h)
2.0
Field capacity (fed/h)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Mechanical Conventional Mechanical Conventional Mechanical Conventional Mechanical Conventional Mechanical Conventional
harvesting harvesting harvesting harvesting harvesting harvesting harvesting harvesting harvesting harvesting
ICCV-11601 ICCV-11602 ICCV-11603 ICCV-11604 JG-11
Fig. 25: Actual and theoretical field capacity as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting method
Fig. 25: Actual and theoretical field capacity as influenced by chickpea genotypes under
mechanical and conventional harvesting method

Conventional
harvesting
Field efficiency (%)
Mechanical
harvesting
Conventional
Performance efficiency (%)
harvesting
Mechanical
harvesting
Conventional
harvesting
Threshing efficiency (%)
Mechanical
harvesting
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fig. 26: Threshing, performance and field efficiency as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting
methods
Fig. 26: Threshing, performance and field efficiency as influenced by chickpea genotypes
under mechanical and conventional harvesting methods
The higher losses in mechanical harvesting may be due to the semi-erect nature of JG-11
genotype with short plant height (32.03 cm) and first pod height (19.30 cm), resulting in more weight
of seed from left over pods, weight of damaged seeds and weight of un-threshed pods and per cent
losses compared to conventional harvesting method. It indicates that plant height and height of first
pod are the important factors influencing the efficiencies of mechanical harvesting of chickpea. These
results are in conformity with the findings of Saxena et al. (1987), Lather et al. (2000), Turner et al.
(2001) and Rahim Zadeh et al. (2006). Similarly, Isam (1972) who reported that losses in chickpea
yield due to mechanical harvesting in different harvesters ranged between 30 per cent and 60 per
cent. Plant height was an important factor for machine-harvest efficiency and weed population,
especially Convolvulus, a great hindrance during mechanical harvesting.
Grain purity of chickpea genotypes was highest in mechanical harvesting compared to
conventional harvesting (Table 97). Among the genotypes, tall genotypes registered highest grain
purity than semi-erect genotype. This may be attributed to more weight of cleaned grain to total grain
harvested by machine. Threshing efficiency was significantly higher in mechanical harvesting of
chickpea genotypes over conventional harvesting (Table 102). Among the genotypes, threshing
efficiency (ranges from 99.95 to 99.97%) was more in tall genotypes than semi-erect genotype
(99.92%).
The harvested total and theoretical grain yield was more in conventional harvesting than
mechanical (Table 103), mainly because that conventional harvesting experimental crop was raised
on precision plots (BP 11C) with higher fertility level than mechanical harvesting experimental plot
(BM 14A) that was raised in same soil type but was relatively less fertile (Table 1 and 2).
The actual field capacity is an important factor to know the harvesting by machine/manual per
unit time (Table 104). The actual field capacity was lower under conventional harvesting (one labour
-1
can harvest 0.01 to 0.02 fed h ) due to lower human energy (Moussa, 2008). Tall genotypes had
highest actual and theoretical field capacity than semi-erect genotype (Fig. 25). The variations in the
field capacity were due to the different forward speeds among the genotypes (Veerangouda et al.,
-1
2010). The highest actual field capacity of 0.858 fed h was observed for machine forward speed of
-1
0.288 m sec in ICCV-11603 in mechanical harvesting method.
Variation in harvest per cent and performance efficiency between mechanical and
conventional harvesting method was observed due to variation in harvest losses and total seed
harvested by machine and manual (Fig. 26). The genotype ICCV-11603 registered higher harvest per
cent and performance efficiency (97.56 and 97.36%, respectively) in mechanical harvesting over
other genotype and conventional harvesting method (Table 105). The least performance efficiency
was observed with JG-11 under both mechanical (79.97%) and conventional (94.60%) harvesting
compared to tall genotypes. The higher performance efficiency in tall genotypes was mainly because
-1
of the higher forward speed (0.283-0.288 m sec ). A similar observation was made by EL-Khateeb
(2005).
In mechanical harvesting, the field efficiency was more (ranged between 71.72 and 77.38%)
compared to conventional harvesting (from 59.47 to 64.02%) (Table 106 and Fig. 26). This might be
due to the fact that saving of time in mechanical harvesting (both productive and un-productive) for
harvesting of chickpea genotypes (Fig. 27). The tall genotypes recorded more field efficiency in
mechanical harvesting, in contrast to conventional harvesting compared to semi-erect genotype (JG-
11). Among the genotypes, ICCV-11601 and ICCV-11604 were considered more suitable because of
registering highest field efficiency of 77.38 and 77.14 per cent, respectively over other tall genotypes
and semi-erect genotype JG-11 (71.72%) under mechanical harvesting.
Cutting efficiency was more in conventional harvesting of chickpea genotypes than
mechanical harvesting (Table 107). It significantly varied among the genotypes only under mechanical
harvesting. The tall genotypes recorded higher cutting efficiency over semi-erect genotype, which may
be due to taller plants. Hence, tallness of plants is attributed to cutting efficiency, i.e., higher the
tallness better is the cutting efficiency.
-1
The chickpea genotype JG-11 with 40 per cent higher density (4.66 lakhs ha ) recorded
-1 -1
higher net returns (Rs. 55,487 and 67,858 ha ) and gross returns (Rs. 71,960 and 85,330 ha )
compared to other interactions under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems, respectively (Table 43 and 77
and Fig. 28 and 29). However, planting tall genotype ICCV-11604 at 40 per cent higher plant density
recorded on par returns with normal plant density of JG-11 under rainfed ecosystem.
Mechanical harvesting Productive time (h/fed) Mechanical harvesting Un-productive time (h/fed)
1.4 90
Conventional harvesting Productive time (h/fed) Conventional harvesting Un-productive time (h/fed)
80
1.2
70
Conventional harvesting (time, h/fed)

1
Mechanical harvesting (time, h/fed)
60
0.8
50
40
0.6
30
0.4
20
0.2
10
0 0
Genotype
Fig. 27: Productive and un-productive time for harvesting as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and
conventional harvesting method
Fig. 27: Productive and un-productive time for harvesting as influenced by chickpea genotypes under mechanical and conventional harvesting
method
80000 Gross returns (Rs./ha) Net returns (Rs./ha) B:C 4.0
70000 3.5
60000 3.0
50000 2.5
Gross and net returns (Rs./ha)
Benefit cost ratio

40000 2.0
30000 1.5
20000 1.0
10000 0.5
0 0.0
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
Treatment
Fig. 28: Economic analysis of chickpea production systems as influenced by genotypes and plant density under rainfed ecosystem (pooled)
Fig. 28: Economic analysis of chickpea production systems as influenced by genotypes and
90000 Gross returns (Rs./ha) Net returns (Rs./ha) B:C 6.0
80000
5.0
70000
60000 4.0
Gross and net returns (Rs./ha)
Benefit cost ratio
50000
3.0
40000
30000 2.0
20000
1.0
10000
0 0.0
G1D1
G1D2
G1D3
G2D1
G2D2
G2D3
G3D1
G3D2
G3D3
G4D1
G4D2
G4D3
G5D1
G5D2
G5D3
Treatment
Fig. 29: Economic analysis of chickpea production systems as influenced by genotypes and plant density under irrigated ecosystem (pooled)
Plant density (D): D1: 3.33 lakh ha-1 (Normal); D2: 3.99 lakh ha -1 (20% higher); D3: 4.66 lakh ha-1 (40% higher)
Fig. 29: Economic analysis of chickpea production systems as influenced by genotypes and
In irrigated ecosystem, ICCV-11604 at 40 per cent higher plant density recorded higher net
-1
and gross returns (Rs. 62,058 and 79,530 ha , respectively) than normal plant density of JG-11 (Rs.
-1
58,810 and 74,658 ha , respectively) and comparable returns with JG-11 with 20 per cent higher
-1
plant density (Rs. 64,034 and 80,694 ha , respectively). The least returns were obtained in ICCV-
11603 with normal plant density under both the ecosystems. The higher benefit cost ratio was
obtained with the planting of JG-11 at 20 per cent and 40 per cent higher plant density under both the
ecosystems. However, least benefit cost ratio was obtained with planting ICCV-11603 at normal plant
density. The higher economic advantage of chickpea was mainly attributed to significantly higher seed
and biological yield per ha also reported earlier by Sher Singh et al. (2004) and Naik (2011). The tall
genotypes had relatively minimum criterion cost for harvesting compared to semi-erect genotype and
-1
gave Rs. 1101 to 1183 fed additional benefits in mechanical harvesting over conventional harvesting,
-1
but in semi-erect genotype, it was negative (Rs. 2889 fed ). This might be due to the fact that,
monetory value of losses was more in semi-erect genotype in mechanical harvesting (Rs. 4806 fed-1)
(Table 108).
5.7 Practical utility of results
Based on the results obtained from the present investigation, the following chickpea
cultivation practices for semi-arid tropics can be indicated.
1. Chickpea genotypes during rabi season under irrigated ecosystem results in higher seed yield
compared to rainfed ecosystem.
2. The semi-erect chickpea genotype JG-11 produced higher seed yield under both the
-1
ecosystems (2448 and 2865 kg ha , respectively) compared to other tested genotypes.
-1
Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11604 (2007 and 2511 kg ha , respectively) produced
higher seed yield than other genotypes.
-1
3. Planting chickpea at 40 per cent higher plant density (4.66 lakh ha ) gave higher seed yield
-1 -1
than 20 per cent higher (3.99 lakh ha ) and normal plant density (3.33 lakh ha ) under
rainfed and irrigated ecosystem.
4. The semi-erect genotype JG-11 planted at 40 per cent higher plant density followed by 20 per
cent higher plant density produced higher seed yield compared to other treatments. The tall
genotype, ICCV-11604 planted at 40 per cent higher plant density produced on par seed yield
-1 -1
(2258 kg ha ) with JG-11 planted at normal density (2299 kg ha ) under rainfed ecosystem.
But under irrigated ecosystem the former combination produced higher seed yield (2840 kg
-1 -1
ha ) than planting JG-11 at normal density (2666 kg ha ) and on par seed yield with JG-11 at
-1
20 per cent higher plant density (2882 kg ha ).
5. Mechanical harvesting of semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded 20.03 per cent higher total
grain loss compared to tall genotypes. The tall genotypes had relatively minimum criterion
-1
cost for harvesting compared to semi-erect genotype and gave Rs. 1101 to 1183 fed
additional benefits in mechanical harvesting over conventional harvesting, but in semi-erect
genotype, it was negative (Rs. 2889 fed-1).
6. Planting tall chickpea genotype ICCV-11604 at 40 per cent higher density under irrigated
-1 -1
ecosystem produced higher seed yield (2840 kg ha ) and net returns (Rs. 62,058 ha )
compared to JG-11 at normal density by minimizing the harvesting losses and harvesting cost
in mechanical harvesting was found to be optimum for higher yield in case of chickpea and
this treatment combination is an appropriate agronomic practice to be disseminated to the
farming community for obtaining higher productivity in chickpea.
5.8 Future line of work
1. Need for studies on further increase in plant density in tall chickpea genotypes,
2. Needed to improve ther productivity of tall chickpea genotypes by nutrient management.
3. Need to study on time of harvesting of tall chickpea genotypes.
4. Efforts are needed to breed tall varieties with still higher yield potential.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Labour availability in India is becoming scarce for timely harvesting of crops and also expensive.
Cost effective method to harvest the crop is one of the means to reduce production costs as well as
reduced seed losses by timely harvesting of chickpea crop. Mechanical harvesting will reduce the cost
of production as compared to manual harvest. Hand harvest is not only expensive, but also causes
seed loss due to shattering and delay in harvesting. The research entitleed “Agronomic investigations
on tall chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical harvesting” was conducted at ICRISAT,
Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, during rabi seasons of 2011-12 and 2012-13. The treatment consisted
of four tall chickpea genotypes viz., ICCV-11601 (G1), ICCV-11602 (G2), ICCV-11603 (G3) ICCV-
11604 (G4) and semi-erect genotype, JG-11 (G5) with three plant densities viz., normal plant density
-1 -1
(D1, 3.33 lakh ha ), 20 per cent higher than normal plant density (D2, 3.99 lakh ha ) and 40 per cent
-1
higher than normal plant density (D3, 4.66 lakh ha ). The crop was raised under both rainfed and
irrigation ecosystem and harvested by manually and combine harvester. The results of the
experiments are summarized below:
Semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded 31, 25, 39 and 22 per cent higher seed yield of chickpea
-1
under rainfed ecosystem (2448 kg ha ) and 24, 18, 29 and 15 per cent under irrigated ecosystem
-1 -1 -1
(2865 kg ha ) than ICCV-11601 (1873 and 2309 kg ha ), ICCV-11602 (1959 and 2418 kg ha ),
-1 -1
ICVV-11603 (1761 and 2280 kg ha ) and ICCV-11604 (2007 and 2511 kg ha ), respectively.
Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11604 recorded higher seed yield (2007 and 2511 kg ha-1)
compared to rest of the genotypes and was followed by ICCV-11602 (1959 and 2418 kg ha-1)
both under rainfed and irrigated ecosystem respectively.
Maximum biological yield was recorded in tall genotype ICCV-11604 both under rainfed (5171 kg
ha-1) and irrigated ecosystem (6441kg ha-1), which was on par with ICCV-11601.
Yield parameters viz., pod and seed yield per plant and number of pods per plant, were recorded
highest with JG-11. This was closely followed by tall genotypes ICCV-11604 and ICCV-11602
under both the ecosystems. However, tall genotype ICCV-11604 recorded significantly higher
100-seed weight (23.77 to 24.55 g) under both the ecosystems which was on par with ICCV-
11601 (23.17 and 24.02 g) and JG-11 (23.11 and 24.89 g). At harvest, a tall genotype ICCV-
11604 produced higher TDM (25.03 and 32.98 g) under both the ecosystems, which was on par
with ICCV-11601 (24.19 and 32.42 g)
Among the tall genotypes, taller plants, higher first pod height and more number of secondary
branches were recorded in ICCV-11602 at harvest and leaf area in ICCV-11601 at vegetative
growth stages under both the ecosystems. However, higher canopy spread and primary branches
per plant at harvest was recorded in semi-erect genotype JG-11 than tall genotypes.
The tall genotypes matured 10-18 days later than semi-erect genotype with higher vegetative
period under both the ecosystems.
Tall genotype ICCV-11604 recorded higher growth indices like absolute growth rate (AGR),
relative growth rate (RGR) and cumulative growth rate (CGR). The higher leaf area index (LAI)
and leaf area duration (LAD) were noticed in ICCV-11601 at initial growth stages (30 to 60 days
after sowing) under both the ecosystems.
The genotypes, ICCV-11601 and ICCV-11604 were superior with higher nodules under both
irrigated and rainfed ecosystems, which resulted in higher nodule fresh and dry weight at both the
growth stages. The genotypes also recorded higher root length and volume.
The higher chlorophyll content (SPAD value) was recorded in JG-11 both at 30 days after sowing
(62.27 and 57.17) and 60 days after sowing (63.42 and 62.34) both under rainfed and irrigated
ecosystem compared to other tested genotypes. Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11601 recorded
higher chlorophyll content at 60 days after sowing under both rainfed and irrigated ecosystem
(60.04 and 58.43, respectively).
The leaf relative water content was highest in ICCV-11604 during both the stages under
rainfed and irrigated ecosystems. The higher light absorption ratio (86.44 and 91.60%) was
observed in semi-erect genotype JG-11 under both the ecosystems, respectively.
Least weed population and biomass per plot was recorded with JG-11 under both rainfed (6.27
-1 -1
and 2.88 g plot , respectively) and irrigated ecosystem (8.68 and 4.36 g plot , respectively).
-1
Among the tall genotypes, ICCV-11601 recorded significantly least weed population (6.72 plot ),
-1
but ICCV-11604 registered least weed biomass (3.19 g plot ) under rainfed ecosystem, while in
irrigated ecosystem same genotype (ICCV-11601) recorded least weed population (8.83 plot-1),
but least weed biomass was noticed in ICCV-11603 (4.87 g plot -1).
Irrespective of ecosystem, chickpea seed yield increased with increase in plant desnity. Planting
-1
chickpea at 40 per cent higher plant density (4.66 lakh ha ) produced higher seed yield under
-1
rainfed and irrigated ecosystems (2220 and 2754 kg ha ).
a-1
Normal plant density of 3.33 lakh h recorded significantly higher yield attributes like number of
pods per plant, number of seeds per plant, seed yield per plant, etc. But 100-seed weight and
seeds per pod were not significantly influenced.
Total dry matter production per plant and its accumulation in different plant parts was higher with
-1 -1
normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha compared to 20 per cent (3.99 lakh ha ) and 40 per cent
-1 -1
higher plant density (4.66 lakh ha ), which recorded 26.36 and 33.67 g plant total dry matter
production at harvest under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems, respectively.
Growth attributes like number of branches per plants, canopy spread and leaf area was
decreased with increase in plant density. But plant height at harvest was progressively and
significantly increased with increase in plant density under both the ecosystems. Planting
chickpea at 40 per cent higher density produced tallest plant, resulting higher first pod height than
lower plant density.
LAI and LAD were increased with increase in plant desnity upto 20 per cent higher, further
increase in plant density resulted in decrease in LAI and LAD. However, AGR, CGR and RGR
were increased progressively with increase in plant density.
-1
Plants in higher density of 4.66 lakh ha (40 per cent higher plant density) matured 2 days earlier
-1
than those at normal plant density (3.33 lakh ha ) under both the ecosystems.
The root parameters like root dry weight, nodules per plant, fresh and dry weight of nodules and
root volume decreased with increase in plants per unit area in chickpea, as highest values were
-1
recorded with normal plant density of 3.33 lakh ha compared to 20 per cent and 40 per cent
higher than normal, while the root length increased with increase in plant density.
The chlorophyll content (SPAD value) and RWC decreased and light absorption ratio increased
with increase in plant density under both the ecosystems.
Weed population and biomass decreased with increase in number of plants per unit area. 40 per
cent higher plant density had minimum weed population and biomass as compared to the normal
-1
plant density of 3.33 lakh ha under both the ecosystems. Planting at 40 per cent higher density
-1
(4.66 lakh ha ) resulted in increased pod damage by Helicoverpa to the extent of 68 per cent
-1
under rainfed and 94 per cent under irrigated ecosystem over normal plant density 3.33 lakh ha
(3.47 and 4.73%, respectively). The number of wilted plants per unit area was noticed more in
higher plant density at both the stages, but overall wilt incidence percentage was higher in normal
plant density (3.33 lakh ha-1).
6.3 Interaction effect of genotypes and plant density on chickpea
Planting semi-erect genotype JG-11 at 40 per cent higher plant density produced significantly
-1
higher seed yield (2570 and 3048 kg ha , respectively) followed by 20 per cent plant density
-1
(2474 and 2882 kg ha , respectively) compared to rest of the treatment combinations.
However, the tall genotype ICCV-11604 with 40 per cent higher plant density (2258 kg ha-1)
recorded on par seed yield with JG-11 planted at normal density under rainfed ecosystem, but
-1
under irrigated ecosystem the former combination recorded higher seed yield (2840 kg ha )
-1
than planting JG-11 at normal density (2666 kg ha ) and on par seed yield with JG-11 at 20
-1
per cent higher plant density (2882 kg ha ).
Significantly higher TDM was observed with tall genotype ICCV-11604 planted at normal
-1 -
density of 3.33 lakh ha both under rainfed and irrigated ecosystem (28.40 and 36.78 g plant
1
) followed by ICCV-11601 with normal plant density.
Significant higher plant height, number of secondary branches and first pod height and
minimum canopy spread were recorded in tall chickpea genotypes with 40 per cent of higher
plant density compared to JG-11 under both the ecosystems.
Interaction of ICCV-11601 with 40 per cent higher plant density recorded more root length at
60 days after sowing compared to other interactions under both the ecosystems (30.76 and
30.67 cm, respectively) followed by ICCV-11604 with 40 per cent higher plant density.
-1
Tall genotype ICCV-11604 at normal density of 3.33 lakh ha recorded higher leaf relative
water content followed by ICCV-11601. However, JG-11 with 40 per cent higher plant density
recorded significantly higher light absorption ratio at flowering stage under both the
ecosystems (89.07 and 94.40%, respectively).
The plant lodging percentage increased with increase in plant density under both the
ecosystems. The interaction of ICCV-11602 with 40 per cent higher plant density recorded
significantly higher plant lodging under both rainfed (15.05%) and irrigated ecosystem
(17.17%) than all other treatment combinations, while least plant lodging was found at semi-
erect genotype JG-11 at normal plant density (0.93 per cent and 1.27%, respectively).
-1 -1
The maximum weed population (10.47 and 16.83 plot ) and biomass (6.22 and 12.50 g plot )
was recorded in ICCV-11602 with normal plant density, which was at par with ICCV-11603
with normal plant density under both the ecosystems.
Significantly higher pod damage was recorded in interaction of JG-11 with 40 per cent higher
plant density under both the ecosystems (5.77 and 8.74%, respectively).
6.4 Performance of chickpea genotypes for mechanical harvesting
Total harvest loss were highest in mechanical harvesting of tall genotypes (ranged 2.64 to
4.96%), but mechanical harvesting of semi-erect genotype JG-11 recorded 20.03 per cent
higher total grain loss compared to conventional harvesting (5.40%).
The genotype ICCV-11603 registered higher harvest per cent and performance efficiency
(97.56 and 97.36%, respectively) in mechanical harvesting over other genotypes and
harvesting methods. The least performance efficiency was observed with JG-11 under both
mechanical (79.97%) and conventional (94.60%) harvesting than tall genotypes.
Field efficiency was relatively more in mechanical harvesting (71.72 to 77.38%) compared to
conventional harvesting method (59.47 to 64.02%). The tall genotypes recorded more field
efficiency with mechanical harvesting method. The genotypes ICCV-11601 and ICCV-11604
registered highest field efficiency of 77.38 and 77.14 per cent, respectively, while least field
efficiency was observed in JG-11 (71.72%) under mechanical harvesting.
Planting tall genotype ICCV-11604 at 40 per cent higher plant density recorded comparable
-1
net and gross returns (Rs. 46,753 and Rs. 63,226 ha , respectively) with normal plant density of JG-
-1
11 (Rs. 49,531 and Rs. 64,378 ha , respectively) under rainfed ecosystem.
ICCV-11604 at 40 per cent higher plant density higher net and gross returns (Rs. 62,058 and
Rs. 79,530 ha-1, respectively) than normal plant density of JG-11 (Rs. 58,810 and 74,658 ha-1,
respectively) and comparable returns with JG-11 with 20 per cent higher plant density (Rs. 64,034
-1 -1
and 80,694 ha , respectively) under irrigated ecosystem with an additional seed cost of Rs. 1320 ha
-1
over normal and Rs. 660 ha over 20% higher plant density.
The minimum criterion cost recorded with tall genotypes (Rs. 1677 to 2229 fed-1) than semi-
-1
erect genotype (Rs. 6689 fed ) under mechanical harvesting. However, tall genotypes gave Rs. 1101
-1
to 1183 fed additional benefits over conventional harvesting, but in semi-erect genotype, it was
-1
negative (Rs. 2889 fed ).
REFERENCES
Ahmad, R. and Rai, A. B., 2005, Biology and ecology. In 25 Years of Research on Helicoverpa at
IIPR; Upadhyaya, D., Ali, M., Eds.: Indian Institute of Pulse Research, Kanpur, Lucknow,
pp.7-16.
Ahmadian, A. M., Sobhani, A. and Malek, M., 2005, Study of density effect on yield and its
components of chickpea varieties under northern Khorassan dry farming conditions. In
proceeding of the First National Conference on Pulse in Iran. 20-21 November, 2005.
Research Center for Plant Sciences, Ferdowesi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
Aldrich, R. J., 1984, Weed-Crop Ecology : Principles in Weed Management. North Scitruate, M. A.
Breton. pp. 189-214.
Andrabi, M. Vaid, M. and Razdan, V., 2011, Evaluation of different measures to control wilt causing
pathogen in chickpea. J. Plant Prot. Res., 51(1) : 55-59.
Anilkumar, Reena, Brij Nandan, Sharma, J. P. and Jai Kumar, 2011, Effect of phosphorus and seed
rate on growth and productivity of bold seeded Kabuli chickpea in subtropical kandi areas
of Jammu and Kashmir. Plant Archives, 10(1) : 125-129.
Anonymous, 1979, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement. 28 Feb. - 2
Mar., 1979, ICRISAT, Hyderabad, A. P., India. p. 33.
Anonymous, 1984, All India Co-ordinated Pulse Improvement Project, Consolidated report on rabi
pulses, 1983-84. Rabi Workshop 17-20 Sept., 1984, Junagadh. pp. 8-27.
Anonymous, 1985, All India Co-ordinated Pulse Improvement Project. Consolidated report on rabi
pulses. Rabi Workshop. Sept., 1985. pp. 7-15.
Anonymous, 1999, International rules for seed testing. Seed Sci. Technol., 27 : 335-342
Anwar, M. R., Mckenzie, B. A. and Hill, G. D., 2003, The effect of irrigation and sowing date on crop
yield and yield components of Kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in a cool-temperate
sub-humid climate. J. Agric. Sci., 141 : 259–271.
Argikar, G. P., 1970, Gram. In : “Pulse Crops of India” Ed. Kachrao P. and Arief, M., ICAR, New Delhi,
pp. 54-135.
Armes, N. J., Jadhav, D. R., Bond and De Souza, K. R., 1996, A survey of insecticide resistance in
Helicoverpa armigera in Indian subcontinent. Bull. Entomol. Res., 86 : 499-514.
Arockinathan, T. and Saraf, C. S., 1984, Performance of new chickpea (Cicer arietinium L.) genotypes
as influenced by the dates of sowing and row spacing. In proceedings of the International
Symposium of Indian Society of Soil Science, held at IARI, New Delhi, December 7-10,
1984, pp. 68-73.
Arya, R. L. and Khushwaha, B. L., 2000, To study the irrigation and phosphorus management in rice
chickpea cropping system. In : proceedings of the First International Agronomy Congress,
New Delhi, India, November., 1998, (ed. Ahlawat, I. P. S. and Surendra). pp. 23-27.
Ashraf Alizade, Tayeb Saki Nejad and Masaaod Rafiee, 2011, Effect of plant density on percent of
remobilization, chlorophyll content, light penetration rate and effective grain filling period of
chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in dry farming. Life Sci. J., 8(3) : 36-39.
Ayaz, S. B., Mckenzie, A., Hill, B. A. and Mcneil, D. L., 2000, The effect of plant population on dry
matter accumulation, yield and yield components of four grain legumes. New Zealand J.
Agron., 29 : 9-15.
Ayaz, S., McKenzie, B. A. and Hill, G. D., 1999, The effect of plant population on dry matter
accumulation, yield and yield components of four grains legumes. Agron. New Zealand, 29
: 9-15.
Ayaz, S., McKenzie, B. A., McNeil, D. L. and Hill, G. D., 2004, Light interception and utilization of four
grain legumes sown at different plant populations and depths. J. Agric. Sci. Camb., 142 :
297-308.
Aziz, A., Khan, A. and Salim, M., 1988, Chickpea seed yield as influenced by seeding densities.
Pakistan J. Agric. Res., 9(3) : 346-351.
Azizi, K. and Kahrizi, D., 2008, Effect of nitrogen levels, plant density and climate on yield quantity
and quality in cumin (Cuminum cyminum L.) under the conditions of Iran. Asian J. Plant
Sci., 7(8) : 710-716.
Badshah, A., Khan, M., Bibi, N., Khan, M., Ali, S., Chaudry, M. A. and Khattak, M. S., 2003, Quality
studies of newly evolved chickpea cultivars. Adv. Food Sci., 25(3) : 96-99.
Bagheri, A. and Nezami, A., 2000, Effect of weed control and plant densities on yield and
morphological characteristics of chickpea in dry farming of north Khorasan. J. Agric. Sci.
Indu., Iran. No : 14.
Bahl, P. N., 1976, Crop stand and its bearing on incidence of wilt in bengalgram. Indian J. Genet.
Plant Breed., 36 : 351-352.
Bahr, A. A., 2007, Effect of plant density and urea foliar application on yield and yield components of
chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci., 3(4) : 220-223.
Bajpai, R. P., Singh, V. K., Purohit, K. K. and Sisodia, R. I., 1991, Performance of pulses and wheat in
rice based cropping system under limited irrigation. Indian J. Pulse Res., 4(2) : 177-179.
Bakhshi, A., Malik, S. R., Aslam, M., Iqbal, U. and Haqqani, A. M., 2007, Response of chickpea
genotypes to irrigated and rainfed conditions. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 09(4) : 590-593.
Barr, H. D. and Weatherley, P. E., 1962, A re-examination of the relative turgidity technique for
estimating water deficit in leaves. Aust. J. Biol. Sci., 15 : 413-428.
Basu, P. S., Ali, M. and Chaturvedi, S. K., 2004, Adaptation of photosynthetic components of
th th th
chickpea to water stress. 4 International Crop Science Congress. 26 Sep. -10 Oct.
2004, Brisbane, Australia,
Beech, D. F. and Leach, G. J., 1988, Response of chickpea accessions to row spacing and plant
density on a vertisols on the Darling downs, South-eastern Queensland. Aust. J. Exp.
Agric., 28 : 367-376.
Beech, D. F. and Leach, G. J., 1989, The effect of planting density and row spacing on the yield of
chickpea (cv. Tyson) grown on the Darling downs, South-eastern Queensland. Aust. J.
Exp. Agric., 29 : 241-246.
Begum, N., Husain, M. and Chowdhury, S. I., 1992, Effect of sowing date and planting density on pod
borer incidence and grain yield of chickpea in Bangladesh. Int. Chickpea Newslett., 27 :
19-21.
Behl, P. N. and Salimath, P. M., 1996, Genetics, Cytogenetics and Breeding of crop plants. Oxford
and IBH Publishing, Calcutta, p. 11.
Bejandi, T. K., Sharifii, R. S., Sedghi, M. and Namvar, A., 2012, Effects of plant density, Rhizobium
inoculation and microelements on nodulation, chlorophyll content and yield of chickpea
(Cicer arietinumL.). Ann. Biol. Res., 3(2) : 951-958.
Bhan, S., 1980, Efficient water management enhances pulse production. Farmer and Parliament,
15(4) : 17-48.
Biswas, D. K., Haque, M. M., Hamid, A., Ahmed, J. U. and Rahman, M. A., 2002, Influence of plant
population density on growth and yield of two blackgram varieties. Pak. J. Agron., 1(2-3) :
83-85.
Buddenhaggen, I. W., 1990. Legumes in farming systems in Mediterranean climates. Pages 3-29 in
The role of legumes in the farming systems of the Mediterranean areas (Osman, A. E.,
Ibrahim, M. H., and Jones, M. A., eds.). Dordrecht, Netherlands : Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Byth, D. E., Green, J. M. and Hawtin, G. C., 1979, ICRISAT/ICARDA chickpea breeding strategies. In
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement. 28 Feb. - 2 Mar.,
1979, ICRISAT, Hyderabad, A. P., India, pp. 20-35.
Calcagno, F., Gallo, G., Venora, G., Iaiani, M. and Raimondo, I., 1988, Effects of plant density on
seed yield and its components for ten chickpea genotypes grown in Sicily, Italy. Int.
Chickpea Newslett., 18 : 29-31.
Chaitanya, S. K. and Chandrika, V., 2006, Performance of chickpea varieties under varied dates of
sowing in Chittoor district of Andhra Pradesh. Legume Res., 29(2) : 137-139.
Chaudhari, R. K., Patel, T. D., Patel, J. B. and Patel, R. H., 1998, Response of chickpea cultivars to
irrigation, N and P on sandy clay loam soil. Int. Chickpea and Pigeonpea Newslett., 25 :
25-26.
Clausen, J. J. and Kozlowski, T. T., 1965, Use of the relative turgidity technique for measurement of
water stresses in gymnosperm leaves. Can. J. Bot., 43 : 305-316.
Cokkizgin, A., 2012, Botanical characteristics of chickpea genotypes (Cicer arietinum L.) under
different plant densities in organic farming. Sci. Res. Essays, 7(4) : 498-503.
Daft, M. J., 1991, Influence of genotypes, rock phosphate and plant densities on mycorrhizal
development and the growth responses of five different crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 35
: 151-169.
Dahiya, B. S., Mehla, B. S., and Lather, V. S., 1990, A new approach to chickpea breeding. J. Crop
Improv., 17 : 104-110.
Deore, B. P., Bharud, R. W. and Kharde, V. N., 1989, Physiological basis for yield differences in
chickpea under different seeding periods. Ann. Plant Physiol., 3 : 181-187.
Dhingra, K. K., Dhillon, M. S. and Grewal, D. S., 1986, Effect of plant population and row spacing on
light interception and grain yield of chickpea under late sown conditions. Int. J. Tropical
Agric., 4 : 245-250.
Dixit, J. P., Pillai, P. V. A. and Namdeo, K. N., 1993a, Response of chickpea to planting date and
irrigation schedule. Indian J. Agron., 38 : 121-123.
Dixit, J. P., Soni, N. K. and Namdeo, K. N., 1993b, Moisture use pattern and yield of chickpea in
relation to planting date, variety and irrigation. Indian J. Agron., 38 : 573-577.
Dogan, E., Kahraman, A., Bucak, B., Kirnak. H. and Guldur, M. E., 2012, Varying irrigation rates effect
on yield and yield components of chickpea. Irrig. Sci., July 2012.
Duncan, W. G., 1969. Cultural manipulation for higher yields (ed. Dinauer, R. C.), Physiological
aspects of crop yield. ASA, Madison, WI. pp. 327-339.
EL-Khateeb, H. A., 2005, A study on performance of axial flow combine harvester in rice crop
harvesting. The 13th conference of the Misr Society of Agr. Eng., 14-15 December 2005,
pp. 381-401.
EL-Naga, A., Shetawy, M. H. M., El-Said M. A. and El-Hammed, A., Sh. F, 2010, Evaluating the
performance of a locally combine for harvest wheat crop. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 27(1) : 104121.
EL-Sayed, G. H., EL-Ataar, M. A. and. Arif, E. M., 2002, Mechanical harvesting of sunflower using the
th
general purpose combine. The 10 annual conference of the Misr J. Agr. Eng, 16-17
October 2002, pp. 155-172.
Erskine, W., Diekmann, J., Jegatheeswaran, P., Salkini, A., Saxena, M. C., Ghanaim A. and El
Ashkar, F., 1991, Evaluation of lentil harvest systems for different sowing methods and
cultivars in Syria. J. Agric. Sci., 117(3) : 333-338.
Ethredge, W. J., Jr., Ashley, D. A. and Woodruff, J. M., 1989, Row spacing and plant population
effects on yield components of soybean. Agron. J., 81 : 947-951.
Falah, S., 2002, Effect of plant densities and soil moisture on yield and yield component of chickpea
cultivars. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Isfahan University, Iran.
Fallah, S. A. and Poor, P. P., 2009, Effect of plant density and time of weeding on quantitative
characteristics of autumn chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) in Lorestan region. Iranian J. Field
Crop Sci., 40(2) : 67-74.
Frade, M. M. and Valenciano, J. B., 2005, Effect of sowing density on the yield and yield components
of spring-sown irrigated chickpea (Cicer areitium) grown in Spain. New Zealand J. Crop
Hortic. Sci., 33(4) : 367-371.
Gallagher, J. N. and Biscoe, P. V., 1978, Radiation absorption, growth and yield of cereals. J. Agric.
Sci. Camb., 19 : 47–60.
Gan, Y. T., Wang, J., Bing, D. J., Miller, P. R. and McDonald, C. L. 2007. Water use of pulse crops at
various plant densities under fallow and stubble conditions in a semi-arid environment.
Can. J. Plant Sci., 87 : 719–722.
Gan, Y., A. M. Johnston, J. D. Knight, C. McDonald, and C. Stevenson. 2010, Nitrogen dynamics of
chickpea: Effects of cultivar choice, N fertilization, Rhizobium inoculation, and cropping
systems. Canadian J. Pl. Sci., 90 (5) : 655-666.
Gan, Y., Miller, P. R., McConkey, B. G., Zentner, R. P., Liu, P. H. and McDonald. C. L., 2003,
Optimum plant population density for chickpea and dry pea in a semi-arid environment.
Can. J. Plant Sci., 83 : 1-9.
Gaur, B. L. and Choudhary, M. K., 1993, Effect of irrigation and moisture conserving substances on
yield and water use efficiency of gram (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 63(12) :
833-835.
Gaur, P. M., Pande, S., Upadhyaya, H. D. and Rao, B. V., 2006, Extra-large Kabuli chickpea with high
resistance to Fusarium wilt. SAT eJournal/ejournal. icrisat. org. (vol. 2).
Gill, D. S., Verma, M. M. and Brar, H. S., 1988, Physiological responses of chickpea genotypes under
high inputs in cooler environment of Northern India. Indian J. Plant Physiol., 31 : 413-417.
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A., 1984, Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. Second
Edition. A Willey Inter-Science Publication, New York, USA, pp. 1-680.
Goyal, S., Verma, H. D. and Nawange, D. D., 2010, Studies on growth and yield of Kabuli chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes under different plant densities and fertility levels. Legume
Res., 33(3) : 221 – 223.
Gunes, A., Inal, A., Adak, M. S., Bagci, E. G., Cicek, N. and Eraslan, F., 2008, Effect of drought stress
implemented at pre- or post-anthesis stage on some physiological parameters as
screening criteria in chickpea cultivars. Russ. J. Plant Physiol., 55(1) : 59-67.
Gupta, N. and Singh, R. S., 1982, Response of bengal gram to N and P under varying population
levels. Agric. Sci. Digest, 2 : 35-37.
Hadjichristodoulou, A., 1987, Association between traits of chickpea varieties. Int. Chickpea Newslett.,
17 : 2-4.
Haffar, L., Singh, K. B. and Birbari, W., 1991, Assessment of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) grain quality
and losses in direct combine harvesting. Transactions of the ASABE, 34(1) : 9-13.
Haloi, B. and Baldev, B., 1986, Effect of irrigation on growth attributes in chickpea when grown under
different dates of sowing and population pressure. Indian J. Plant Physiol., 29 : 14-27.
Hassan, G., Khan, N. and Khan, H., 2003, Effect of zero tillage and herbicides on the weed density
and yield of chickpea under rice-based conditions of D. I. Khan. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 9
: 193-200.
Hassan, M. S., Murshed, A. N. M. and Miah, A. A., 1998, Influence of plant spacing on flowering
pattern and biological yield of chickpea. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res., 23 : 455-462.
Hemchandra and Yadav, R. S., 1997, Physiological basis of seed yield variation in rainfed chickpea.
Indian J. Agric. Res., 31 : 199-204.
Hernandez, L. G. and Hill, G. D., 1983, Effect of plant population and inoculation on yield and yield
components of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Pro. Agron. Soc. New Zealand, 13 : 75-79.
Hughes, G., Keatinge, J. D. H., Cooper, P. J. M. and Dee, N. F., 1987, Solar radiation interception
and utilization by chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) crops in northern Syria. J. Agric. Sci.
Camb., 108 : 419-424.
Hussain, A., Nawaz, M. and Chaudhry, F. M., 2000, Radiation interception and utilization by chickpea
at different sowing dates and plant populations. J. Agric. Sci., 3(2) : 21-25.
ICARDA, 1990, Annual Report Food Legume Improvement Program, India.
Imara Z. M., Khadr, Kh. A. A., Mechail, W. M. and Arif, A. O. M., 2003, Effect of different planting and
harvesting methods on wheat production. Misr J. Agr. Eng., 20(1) : 115-128.
Isam, H. N., 1972, Development of Chickpea in Iraq. In : Proceedings of the International Workshop
on Chickpea Improvement. 28 Feb. - 2 Mar., 1979, ICRISAT, Hyderabad, A. P., India. pp.
252-253.
Jackson, M. L., 1967, Soil Chemical Analysis, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, p. 498.
Jackson, M. L., 1973, Soil Chemical Analysis, Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, p. 187.
Jadhav, K. J. and Pawar, V. S., 1999, Effect of spacings, layouts and varieties on growth and yield of
gram. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 69 : 516-518.
Jan, A., Daur, I., Khalid Ali and Khan, I. A., 2010, Tillage and seed rates effect on weed biomass,
grain and biological yield of dryland chickpea. Pak. J. Bot., 42(6) : 4011-4016.
Jat, M. R. and Mali, A. L., 1992, Effect of phosphorus and seeding rate on physiological parameters
and yield of chickpea. Indian J. Agron., 37 : 189-190.
Jeswani, L. M., 1986. Breeding strategies for improvement of pulse crops. Indian J. Genet. Plant
Breed., 46(Suppl.) : 276-280.
Jettner, R. J., Siddique, K. H., Loss, S. P. and French, R. J., 1999, Optimum plant density of desi
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) increase with increasing yield potential in south-western
Australia. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 50 : 1017-1025.
Kahrizi, D., Salmanian, A. H. and Zebarjadi, A. R., 2011, Effect of cultivar and density of cultured
cotyledons on shoot regeneration in rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Agric. Biotechnol., 9(2)
: 1-6.
Kamel, M. S., Mamood, E. A. and Hassan, M. Z., 1978, Effect of plant density on growth attributes of
two Egyptian chickpea varieties. Research Bulletin, Faculty of Agriculture Ainshams
University, 969 : 21.
Kamithi, D. K., Kibe, A. M. and Akuja, T. E., 2009, Effects of nitrogen fertilizer and plant population on
growth, yield and harvest index (HI) of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under dryland
conditions in Kenya. J. Appl. Biosci., 22 : 1359-1367.
Kanoni, H., 2001, Investigation of yield and adaptation in chickpea cultivars in Kordestan. J. Seed and
Plant, No. 17.
Karwasra, R. S. and Faroda, A. S., 1979, Response of gram varieties to seed rate and row spacing.
Haryana Agric. Univ. J. Res., 33 : 950.
Kashfi, S. M. H., Majnoun Hosseini, N., and Zeinali Khaneghah, H., 2010, Effect of plant density and
starter nitrogen fertilizer on yield and yield components of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L. cv.
Kourosh) at Karaj conditions. Iranian J. Pulses Res., 1(2) : 11-20.
Katiyar, R. P., 1980, Developmental changes in LAI and other parameters in chickpea. Indian J. Agric.
Sci., 50 : 684-689.
Kaul, J. N. and Sekhon, H. S., 1976, Performance of three genotypes as affected by the dates of
sowing and row spacing. Crop Improv., 12(3) : 22-26.
Kayan N. and Turhan, E., 2012, The physiological effects of different irrigation times on chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars. Food, Agric. Environ., 10 (3&4) : 506-510.
Khalid Ali, Amanullah Jan, Ijaz Ahmad, Fida Mohammad and Ahmad Said, 2010, Response of
chickpea and its weeds to tillage systems using varying seed rates and phosphorus levels.
Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res., 16(1) : 97-108.
Khan, A. Z., Shah, P., Khalil, S. K. and Taj, F. H., 2003. Influence of planting date and plant density
on morphological traits of determinate and indeterminate soybean cultivars under
temperate environment. J. Agron., 2 : 146-152.
Khan, E. A., Aslam, M., Ahmad, H. K., Ayaz, M. and Hussain, A., 2010, Effect of row spacing and
seeding rates on growth yield and yield components of chickpea. Sarhad J. Agric., 26(2) :
201-211.
Khawar Jabran, Abbas Ali, Zulfiqar Ali, Abdus Sattar, Azhar Mehmood Aulakh, Javaid Iqbal and
Mushtaq Ahmad Nadeem, 2012, Higher seed rates increase grain yield in chickpea (Cicer
arietinum L.) strains. Crop and Environment, 3(1-2) : 19-22.
Khourgami, A. and Rafiee, M., 2009, Drought stress, supplemental irrigation and plant densities in
chickpea cultivars. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings, 9 : 141-143.
Kibe, A. M. and Kamithi, D. K., 2007, Production potential of desi chickpea grown under various
nitrogen and planting densities at Naivasha. Agric. J., 2(4) : 520-525.
Knights, E. J., 1984, Effects of erect plant type in chickpeas. Int. Chickpea Newslett., 11 : 11-13.
Konde, B. K. and Ghag, M. S., 1986, Effect of Rhizobium inoculation on yield and its components in
some cultivars of chickpea. Agric. Sci. Digest, 6 : 186-188.
Kostrinski, J., 1974, Problems in chickpea cultivation and grain crop rotation in Israel. Special
Publication Agricultural Research Organization Volcani Centre, 34 : 51.
Kumar, J. and Dhiman, S., 2004, Moisture stress studies in different chickpea types. www. crop
science. org. au.
Lateef, S. S., 1992, Scope and limitation of host plant resistance in pulses for the control of
Helicoverpa armigera. Pages 31-37 in Helicoverpa management: Current status and
future strategies. Proceedings of First National Workshop, 30-31 August 1990, Kanpur,
India (Sachan, J. N., ed.). Kanpur 208 024, India : Directorate of Pulses Research.
Lather, V. S., 2000, Promising chickpea ideotype for higher plant density. Int. J. Chickpea and
Pigeonpea Newslett., 7 : 26-27.
Lather, V. S., Waldia, R. S., Malik, B. P. S., Harichand and Dahiya, 1994, A promising gram variety
Haryana Chana-3 (H-86-18). Haryana Farming, 2 : 4.
Leach, G. J. and Beech, D. F., 1988, Response of chickpea accessions to row spacing and plant
density on a vertisol on the Darling Downs, South-eastern Queensland, II : Radiation
interception and water use. Aust. J. Exp. Agric., 28 : 377-383.
Li, L., Bueckert, R. A., Gan, Y. and Warkentin, T., 2008, Light interception and radiation use efficiency
of fern- and unifoliate leaf chickpea cultivars. Can. J. Plant Sci., 88 : 1025-1034.
Lijedahl, J. B., Carleton, W. M., Turnqist, P. K. and Smith, D. W., 1951, Tractor and their power units
3rd edition 1979. Chapter one: ‘Development of tractor’.
Liu, Pu-hai, Gan, Y., Warkentin, T. and McDonald, C., 2003, Morphological plasticity of chickpea in a
semi-arid environment. Crop Sci., 43 : 426-429.
Mahapatra, A. K., Paikaray, R. K., Mishra, R. C. and Mohapatra, A. K. B., 1995, Response of
chickpea to row spacing nitrogen and phosphorus in acid red soils. Int. J. Chickpea and
Malhotra, R. S., Singh, K. B. and Saxena, M. C., 1997, Effect of irrigation on winter-sown chickpea in
a Mediterranean environment. J. Agron. Crop Sci., 178 : 237-243.
Maloo, S. R. 1999, Components of productivity and plant type concept in Cicer and Vigna species – A
review. Legume Res., 22 : 1.
Mandal, B. K., Dasgupta, D. S. and Roy, P. K., 1985, Effect of inter-cropping on yield and yield
components of wheat, chickpea and mustard under different moisture regimes. J. Agron.
Crop Sci., 155 : 251-267.
Mane, B. M. and Jadhav, A. S., 1991, Drymatter accumulation and nodulation of gram influenced by
fertilizer and plant densities. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 16 : 39-42.
Mane, P. B. and Shinde, P. A., 1987, Nodulation studies in new promising varieties of chickpea. J.
Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 12 : 129.
Mansur, C. P., 2003, Agrotechniques to enhance Kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) productivity in
Northern Transitional Zone of Karnataka. Ph. D. Thesis, Uni. Agric. Sci., Dharwad,
Karnataka (India).
Mansur, C. P., Palled, Y. B., Halikatti, S. I., Salimath, P. M. and Chetti, M. B., 2009a, An analysis of
dry matter production, growth and yield in Kabuli chickpea genotypes as influenced by
plant densities and phosphorus levels. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(1) : 1-4.
Mansur, C. P., Palled, Y. B., Halikatti, S. I., Salimath, P. M. and Chetti, M. B., 2009b, Uptake of
nitrogen phosphorus and protein content in Kabuli chickpea genotypes as influenced by
plant densities and phosphorus levels. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22(1) : 5-7.
Marcellos, H. and Knights, E. J., 1987, Grain legume agronomy research in New South-Wales- faba
beans and chickpea. Occasional Publication, Australian J. Agri. Sci., 28 : 23-30.
Martin, I., Tenorio, J. L. and Ayerbe, L., 1994, Yield, growth and water use of conventional and semi
leafless peas in semiarid environments. Crop Sci., 34 : 1576-1583.
Masood Ali and Singh, K. K., 1999, Performance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) at varying population
densities under late sown conditions. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 69(10) : 693-695.
Mazaheri, M. and Iilagh, C. A., 2011, Effect of row spacing and plant density on some morphological
traits, yield and seed protein in two chickpea cultivars (Cicer arientinum L.). Quarterly J.
Plant Prod. Sci. (J. Agric. Res.), 2(6) : 97-108.
Mehar Singh, Rakeshkumar and Singh, R. C., 2000, Agrotechnology for Kabuli chickpea. In :
Proceedings of National Symposium on Agronomy : Challenges and Strategies for the
Millennium, 15-18 Nov. 2000 Gujarat Agricultural University campus, Junagadh, Gujarat.
Mirzaei Heydari, M., Nouri Mirza Hasan, Khourgami, Ali, Pezeshkpour, P. and Arzani, A., 2009,
Effects of plant density and supplementary irrigation on agronomic traits, leaf chlorophyll
content and light interception at canopy base in chickpea cultivars. Iranian J. Field Crop
Sci., 40(3) : 113-121.
Mirzaei, N., Gholipouri, A., Tobeh, A., Asghari, A., Mostafaei, H. and Jamaati-e-Somarin, S., 2010,
Yield and yield components of chickpea affected by sowing date and plant density dry
conditions. World Appl. Sci. J., 10(1) : 64-69.
Mittal, M., Nigam, P. K., Rao, S. K. and Rao, S., 1999, Effect of environment on seed quality
composition in chickpea. Legume Res., 22 : 211-221.
Mohammad, A. K., 1992, Effect of row spacing on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) grain yield and yield
components. In : Program and abstracts 2nd International Food Legume Research
Conference, Cairo, p. 66.
nd
Mohsenin, N.N., 1980. Physical properties of plant and animal materials. 2 Edn., Gordon and
Breach Science publishers, New York, USA.
Monteith, J. L., 1977, Climate and efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philosophical Transactions
of Royal Society, London, 281 : 277-94.
Mousavi, S. K., Ahmadi A. A. R. and Ghorbani, R., 2009, Evaluation of the effects of sowing date and
plant population on morphological characteristics and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
and its weed population under dryland condition of Lorestan province. Iranian J. Field
Crop Sci., 7(1) : 243-257.
Moussa, 2008, Mechanical and traditional harvesting methods for wheat crop. Misr J. Agr. Eng., 25(4)
: 1094-1111.
Mozumder, S. N., Moniruzzaman, M., Islam, M. R. and Alam, S. N., 2003, Effect of planting time and
spacing on yield performance of bushbean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in the Eastern hilly area
of Bagladesh. Legume Res., 26(4) : 242-247.
Muhammad Azam, Abid Hussain, Syed Aftab Wajid and Muhammad Maqsood, 2002, Effect of sowing
date, irrigation and plant densities on radiation interception and its utilization efficiency in
lentils. Int. J. Agric. Biol., 4(2) : 217–219.
Mukesh Chand, Singh, D., Nishi Roy, Vijay Kumar and Singh, R. B., 2010, Effect of growing degree
days on chickpea production in Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh. J. Food Legumes,
23(1) : 41-43.
Naik , V., 2011, Influence of different irrigation methods and planting densities on yielding ability of
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under late sown condition. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Department
of Agronomy, Uni. of Agri. Sci., Raichur, India.
Naik, V., Pujari, B. T., Halepyati, A. S. and Koppalkar, B. G., 2012, Growth and yield of late sown
chickpea as influenced by irrigation methods, genotypes and planting densities. Karnataka
J. Agric. Sci., 25(2) : 267-269.
Naresh, J. S., Malik, V. S. and Kaushik, S. K., 1986, Larval population and damage of Heliothis
armigera Hubner estimated on different plant densities of chickpea during five weeks. Bull.
Entomol., 27(1) : 70-73.
Nawaz, M., 1994. The response of chickpea to sowing date, plant population and irrigation. Ph. D.
Thesis, Department of Agronomy, Univ. Agric., Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Nayar, R. R. and Singh, N. P., 1983, Influence of irrigation and phosphorus fertilization on growth and
yield of late sown chickpea. Ann. Agric. Res., 4(1-2) : 89-97.
Nayar, R. R. and Singh, N. P., 1985, Consumptive water use and soil moisture use pattern of late
sown chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as influenced by irrigation and phosphorus. Indian J.
Agron., 30(2) : 192-198.
Nimje, P. M., 1991, Irrigation and fertilizer requirement of chickpea genotypes in deep vertislos. Indian
J. Agron., 36 : 111-114.
Nirad, S. K., Sen, S. K. and Jana, N. K., 1960, Effect of spacing on gram (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian J.
Agron., 5 : 148-153.
Oram, P., and Belaid, A., 1990, Legumes in Farming Systems. ICARDA/IFPN Report. Aleppo, Syria :
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas/Washington DC, USA :
International Food Policy Research Institute.
Ortega, M. P. F., Grageda, G. J. and Morales, G. J. A., 1996, Effects of irrigation and plant density on
yield of Kabuli chickpea genotypes in a heavy textured soils. In : Proceedings of the
Sixteenth Plant Breeding Congress, Texoco, Mexico state (ed. Sahagun C. J., Ramirez V.
P., and Castillo G. F.), p. 173.
Osman, A. E., Ibrahim, M. H. and Jones, M. A. (eds.), 1990, The role of legumes in the farming
systems of the Mediterranean Areas: proceedings of the Workshop, 20-24 Jun 1988,
ICARDA, Aleppo, Syria. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Pai, A. A. and Hukkeri, S. B., 1979, Manual of Irrigation Management, Government of India, Ministry
of Agriculture and Irrigation, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi, p. 176.
Pandey, M. P. and Singh, J. P., 1976, Annual Progress Report 1975-76, G. B. Pant University of
Agriculture and Technology, Pantanagar. pp. 71-73.
Patel, J. R., 1999, Performance of gram varieties in rice fallow under different levels of phosphorus. J.
Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 24 : 109-110.
Patel, M P., Patel, H. C., Patel, R. G. and Patel, R. B., 1988, Response of gram to various seed rates
and spacings under clayey soils of South Gujarat. Gujarat Agric. Univ. Res. J., 13 : 46-50.
Patil, S. K., Shinde, G. P. and Jamadagni, B. M., 2007, Reaction of short-duration chickpea
genotypes for resistance to gram pod borer Helicoverpa armigera in Maharashtra, India.
SAT eJournal/ejournal.icrisat.org., 5(1) : 1-2.
Patra, S. S., Barik, K. C., Barik, T. and Garnayak, L. M., 1989, Response of desi chickpea cultivars to
plant density and levels of fertilizers under North Central Plateau conditions of Orissa,
India. Int. Chickpea Newslett., 21 : 30-31.
Pawar, H. K. and Wasnik, D. D., 1991, Effects of Spacing and Varieties on Growth and Yield of Gram.
J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 16 : 289-90.
Pedersen, P., 2003, Soybean yield as influenced by planting date and plant population. Iowa State
University, Northeast Research and Demonstration Farm, ISRF, 03 : 13.
Penaloza, H. E. and Levio, C. J., 1991, Comportamien o de tresgenotipos de garbanzo de diferente
peso de grano en cuatroniveles de población de plantas. AgriculturaTécnica (Santiago),
51(2) : 183-191.
Pezeshkpur, P., Daneshvar, M. and Ahmadi, A., 2005, The effect of plant density on agronomical
properties, leaf chlorophyll and light penetration to shading floor of white chickpea variety.
In Proceeding of the first National Conference on Pulse, 20 to 21 November, 2005.
Research Center for Plant Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad. Iran.
Piper, C. S., 1966, Soil and Plant Analysis, Hans Publications, Bombay, pp. 137-153.
Poonia, K. L., 1984, Response of bengalgram (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties to varying levels of
irrigations. Indian J. Agron., 29: 573.
Power, J. F., Willis, W O., Gunes, D. L. and Peichman, G. A., 1967, Effect of soil temperature,
phosphorus and plant age on growth analysis of barley. Agron. J., 59 : 231-234.
Prabhakar, M. and Saraf, L. S., 1991, Effect of irrigation regimes and management of phosphorus
sources on yield, biomass and water use of chickpea. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 16(2) :
221-223.
Prabhakara Rao, Y. P., Sudhakar Babu, K. and Ramaseshaiah, K., 1985, Response of chickpea
genotypes to fertilizer application and plant population. Annual Progress Report 1985-
1986. Regional Agricultural Research Station, Lam, Guntur (A. P.).
Prasad, D., Bangarwa, A. S., Satish Kumar and Asha Ram, 2012, Effect of sowing dates and plant
population on chickpea (Cicer arietinum) genotypes. Indian J. Agron., 57(2) : 206-208.
Prasad, V. V. S. Pandey, R. K. and Saxena, M. C., 1978, Physiological analysis of yield variation in
gram genotypes. Indian J. Plant Physiol., 21 : 228-234.
Puri, S. N., Murthy, K. S. and Sharma, O. P., 1998, Integrated management of insect pests in
chickpea and pigeonpea. Presented at the National Symposium on Management of Biotic
and Abiotic Stresses in Pulses Crops,
Qadeer, G. A. and Singh, Y. P., 1989, Some observations on outbreak of gram pod borer on grain
during rabi 1987-88 in Haryana. Plant Prot. Bull., 41(1-2) : 24-25.
Radford, D. J., 1967, Growth analysis formulae : their use and abuse. Crop Sci., 7 : 171-175.
Rahemi, K. A. and Soltani, A., 2005, Allometric relationships between leaf area and vegetative
qualities in plant chickpea. In : proceeding of the First National Conference on Pulse in
Iran. 20-21 November, 2005. Research Center for Plant Sciences, Ferdowesi University of
Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
Rahim Zadeh, R. , Ranjbar, F. , Feyzi Asl, V. , Khorsandi, H. , Atarilar, J. , 2006, Chickpea
Mechanization : Study on the effect of field operation on yield and mechanical harvesting
ability in dry land condition.
Raju, M. S., Verma, S. C. and Ramaiah, N. V., 1991, Effect of phosphorus in relation to FYM Vs.
Rhizobium inoculation on nutrient uptake by chickpea cultivars under rainfed conditions.
Indian J. Agric. Res., 25 : 43-48.
Ranvir Singh, R., 1974, A note on the effect of date of sowing, row spacing and soil moisture
depletion on summer urd. Ann. Arid Zone, 13 : 165-168.
Rasaei Ali, Ghobadi M. E. and Ghobadi, M., 2012, Effect of supplemental irrigation and plant density
on yield and yield components of peas (Pisum sativum L.) in Kermanshah region. African
J. Agric. Res., 7(15) : 2353-2358.
Rathore, A. L. And Patel, S. L., 1991, Response of late sown chickpea to method of sowing, seed rate
and fertilizer. Indian J. Agron., 36 : 180-183.
Reddy, 2000, Performance of chickpea cultivars at different plant densities. M. Sc. (Agri.), Thesis,
Acharya N. G. Ranga Agricultural University, Hyderabad, India.
Reddy, N. R. N. and Ahlawat, I. P. S., 1998, Response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes to
irrigation and fertilizers under late sown conditions. Indian J. Agron., 43(1) : 95-101.
Regan. K. L., Siddique, K. H. M. and Martin. L. D., 2003. Response of Kabuli chickpea to sowing rate
in Mediterranean-type environments of South-Western Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric.,
43(1) : 87-97.
Roy, R. K. and Sharma, R. P., 1986, Performance of chickpea genotypes at varying plant population
and fertility levels under late-sown conditions. Int. Chickpea Newslett., 14 : 19-20.
Roy, R. K., Sharma, R. P. and Singh, K. S. P., 1988, Effect of irrigation and foliar spray nutrients on
yield of late-sown chickpea. Int. Chickpea Newslett., 18 : 33-34.
Roy, S. K., Rahaman, S. M. L. and Salanuddin, A. B. M., 1995, Effect of Rhizobium inoculation and
nitrogen on nodulation, growth and seed yield of gram. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 65 : 853-857.
Sah, R. P., 1979, Chickpea research and production in Nepal. In Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Chickpea Improvement. 28 Feb. - 2 Mar., 1979, ICRISAT, Hyderabad, A. P.,
India, p. 249.
Sanap, M. M. and Jamadagni, B. M., 2005, Screening of chickpea for resistance to pod borer,
Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) at Rahuri, Maharashtra, India. Int. Chickpea and
Sandhu, B. S., Parihar, S. S., Kehra, K. L. and Sandhu, K. S., 1978, Scheduling of irrigation to
chickpea. The Indian J. Agric. Sci., 48 : 486-492.
Saraf, C. S. and Ahlawat, I. P. S., 1975, Review of recent research on pulse crops water management
practices. Indian Agric. Res., 9 : 1-6.
Sarawgi, S. K. and Singh, N. P., 1989, Response of chickpea varieties to plant population and
diammonium phosphate under late sown condition. Indian J. Agron., 34 : 61-63.
Sarwar, M., Ahmad, N. and Toufiq, M., 2009, Host plant resistance relationships in chickpea (Cicer
arietinum L.) against gram pod borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner). Pak. J. Bot., 41(6) :
3047-3052.
Satish Kumar and Kadian, V. S., 2006, Response of chickpea genotypes to planting and fertility
levels. Natnl. J. Plant Improv., 8(1) : 58-61.
Satish Kumar, Manish Kumar and Kadian, V. S., 2006, Biomass partitioning and growth of chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.) as influenced by sowing dates and genotypes. Legume Res., 29(2) :
110-113.
Saxena, M. C. and Singh, H. P., 1977, Studies on agronomic requirements on winter pulses. In :
Research on winter pulses. G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology,
Experimental Station Bulletin, 101 : 23-42.
Saxena, M. C., 1979, Plant population of chickpea – Recent advances in chickpea agronomy. In
Proceedings of the International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement. 28 Feb. - 2 Mar.,
1979, ICRISAT, Hyderabad, A. P., India, pp. 89-96.
Saxena, M. C., 1980, Recent advances in chickpea agronomy. Pages 16 - 98 in Proceedings of the
International Workshop on Chickpea Improvement, 28 Feb - 2 Mar 1979, ICRISAT Center,
India. Patancheru, A. P-502 324, India : International Crops Research Institute for the
Semi-Arid Tropics.
Saxena, M. C., Diekrnann, J., Erskine, W. and Singh, K. B., 1987. Mechanization of harvest in lentil
and chickpea in semi-arid areas. Mechanization of field experimentation in faba bean,
Kabuli chickpea and lentil at ICARDA. Pages 211-228 in Mechanization of field
experiments in semi-arid areas : proceedings of the ICARDA conference. Aleppo, Syria :
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas.
Sen, N. K. and Jana, M. K., 1959, Effect of spacings on gram (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian J. Agron., 4 :
148-153.
Senthil Kumar, N., 2009, Effect of plant density and weed management practices on production
potential of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Indian J. Agric. Res., 43(1) : 57-60.
Sestak, Z., Catasky, J. and Jarvis, P. G., 1971, Plant Photosynthetic production : Manual of Methods
(Ed. Junk N. V.), The Haque Publishers. pp. 72-78.
Sewaram, Giri, G. and Chowdhary, S. L., 1973, Effect of sowing dates and row spacings on the yield
of rabi pulses. Indian J. Agron., 18(4) : 533-535.
Shaikh, R. S. and Mungse, H. B., 1998, Influence of planting system, plant population and fertilizer
levels on physiological parameters of late sown chickpea. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 23 :
73-74.
Shams, K, S., Kobrae, R. and Zangeneh, R., 2005, Study on the effect of planting density on the trend
of grain filling, yield, and yield components of three chickpea varieties under Kermanshah
conditions. In : proceeding of the First National Conference on Pulse in Iran. 20-21,
November, 2005. Research Center for Plant Sciences, Ferdowesi University of Mashhad,
Mashhad, Iran.
Shamsi, K., 2009, The effects of planting density on grain filling, yield and yield components of three
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties in Kermanshah, Iran. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 2(3) : 99-
103.
Shamsi, K., 2010, The effect of sowing date and row spacing on yield and yield components on
Hashem chickpea variety under rainfed condition. African J. Biotechnol., 9(1) : 7-11.
Shamsi, K., Kobraee, S. and Rasekhi, B., 2011, The effects of different planting densities on seed
yield and quantitative traits of rainfed chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties. African J.
Agric. Res., 6(3) : 655-659.
Sharar, M. S., Ayub, M., Ather Nadeem, M. and Noori, S. A., 2001, Effect of different row spacings
and seeding densities on the growth and yield of gram (Cicer arieunum L.). Pak. J. Agri.
Sci., 38(3-4) : 51-53.
Sharma-Natu, Poonam, Singh, D. V., Pandey R. and Ghildiyal, M. C., 2003, Protease activity in
relation to mobilization of leaf nitrogen during pod development in irrigated and unirrigated
chickpea cultivars. Indian J. Plant Physiol., 8(1) : 12-16.
Sheikh H. M. and Siadat, M., 2003, Effect of supplemental irrigation on yield of chickpea. Azad Islamic
University, Dezfol, Iran.
Sheoran, P., Sardana, V. and Singh, S., 2008, Effect of sowing dates and seed rate on productivity of
chickpea cultivars under dryland conditions in Shivalik foothills of Punjab. J. Food
Legumes, 21(1) : 43-45.
Sher Singh, Malik, R. K. and Punia, S. S., 2005, Performance of late sown chickpea and its economic
feasibility as affected by irrigation, sulphur and seed inoculation. Haryana Agric. Univ. J.
Res., 35 : 131-134.
Sher Singh, Saini, S. S. and Singh, B. P., 2004, Effect of irrigation, sulphur and seed inoculation on
growth, yield and sulphur uptake of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under late sown
condition. Indian J. Agron., 49(1) : 57-59.
Shinde, G. C., Patil, J. G., Deshmukh, R. B. and Aher, R. P., 1996, Genetic variability in chickpea
under rainfed and irrigated conditions. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 21 : 476-477.
Siag, R. K., Verma, B. L. and Sandhu, B. S., 1990, Effect of irrigation regimes and phosphorus levels
on yield and water use efficiency of chickpea. Indian J. Pulse Res., 31(1) : 31-35.
Siddegowda, 2004, Population dynamics and management of pod borer, Helicoverpa armigera
(Hubner) in chickpea ecosystem. Ph. D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India).
Siddique, K. H. M., Sedgely, R. H. and Marshall, C., 1984, Effect of plant density on growth and
harvest index of branches in chickpea. Field Crop Res., 9 : 193-203.
Silsbury, J. H., 1989, Nodulation and nitrogen fixation of four cultivars of chickpea. Aust. J. Exp.
Agric., 29 : 663-669.
Sinclair, T. R. and Gardner, F. P., 1998, Environmental limits to plant production. Principles of ecology
in plant production. CAB International, Slough, UK.
Singh, A., Prasad, R. and Sharma, R. K., 1988, Effect of plant type and population density on growth
and yield of chickpea. J. Agric. Sci. Camb., 110 : 1-3.
Singh, A., Singh, S. B., Singh, A. P. and Vineeta Singh, 2010, Influence of sowing time on growth and
yield of chickpea genotypes in hilly region of Jammu. J. Food Legumes, 23(2&3) : 223-
225.
Singh, D. P. and Singh, T. P., 1989, Response of gram to row spacing and phosphorus fertilization.
Indian J. Agron., 34 (1) : 107-109.
Singh, G. and Sekhon, H. S., 2006, Effect of row spacing and seed rate on the growth and grain yield
of desi chickpea (Cicer arietinum) genotypes. The Indian J. Agric. Sci., 76(6) : 25-26.
Singh, G., Sharma, O. P., Keshwa, G. L. and Yadav, G. R., 1984, Studies on growth and yield of
chickpea cultivars as affected by sowing dates. Madras Agric. J., 71 : 789-790.
Singh, J., Singh, K. P., Mehta, O. P. and Malik, R. S., 1991, Seasonal consumptive use moisture
extraction pattern and water use efficiency of Kabuli gram cultivars under different levels
of irrigation. Agric. Sci. Digest, 11 : 142-144.
Singh, K. B., Malhotra, R. S., Saxena, M. C. and Bejiga, G., 1997, Superiority of winter sowing over
traditional spring sowing of chickpea in the Mediterranean region. Agron. J., 89 : 112-118.
Singh, K. B., Tuwafe, S. and Kamal, M., 1980a, Factors responsible for tallness and low yield in tall
chickpea : suggestions for improvement. Int. Chickpea Newslett., 2 : 5-7.
Singh, K.B., 1980, Factor responsible for tallness and low yield in tall chickpea: suggestions for
improvement. Int. Chickpea Newslett., 2 : 5-7.
Singh, M. K., Singh, R. P. and Singh, R. K., 2004, Influence of crop geometry, cultivar and weed
management practices on crop weed competition in chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Indian J.
Agron., 49(4): 258-261.
Singh, R. C. and Faroda, A. S., 1985, Effect of cytozyme on the growth and yield of chickpea
genotypes under late sown condition. Agric. Sci. Digest, 5 : 106-107.
Singh, R. C., Faroda, A. S. and Ram Mohan, D. S., 1981, Performance of gram genotypes under
varying sowing dates and row spacing. Haryana Agric. Univ. J. Res., 11(4) : 494-498.
Singh, R. C., Faroda, A. S. and Sharma, 1980b, Response of gram to irrigation and fertilization.
Indian J. Agron., 25 : 239-43.
Singh, R. C., Mehar Singh and Kumar, R., 1993, Response of chickpea genotypes to varying density
and fertility levels. Haryana Agric. Univ. J. Res., 23 : 115-118.
Singh, R. C., Mehar Singh, Kumar, R. and Tomer, D. P. S., 1994, Response of chickpea genotypes to
row spacing and fertility under rainfed conditions. Indian J. Agron., 39 : 569-572.
Singh, R., Stout, O. and Dhill, Y., 1967, Drymatter accumulation in blackgram influenced by radiation
interception and population. J. Korean Soc. Hortic. Sci., pp. 29. Field Crop Abstracts,
1985, 38 : 10.
Singh, S. and Sharma, H. C., 1980, Effect of profile moisture and phosphorus levels on growth and
yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Agric. Res. Rural Develop., 3(1&2) : 19-25.
Singh, V. K. and Bajpai, R. P., 1994, . Influence of crop geometry and weed-control method on yield
and economics of rainfed soybean (Glycine max). Indian J. Agron., 39(4) : 671-673.
Sithanantham, S., Tahhan, O., Hariri, G. and Reed, W., 1981, The impact of winter sown chickpeas
on insect pest and their management. In : Proceedings of Workshop on Ascochyta Blight
and Winter Sowing of Chickpeas, 4-7 may 1981, Aleppo, Syria. (Saxena, M. C. and Singh,
K. B., eds). Aleppo, Syria : International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas,
pp. 179-187.
Soltani, A., Ghassemi-Golezani, K., Khooie, F. R. and Moghaddam, M., 1999, A simple model for
chickpea growth and yield. Field Crops Res., 62(2-3) : 213-224.
Srivastava, G. P. and Srivastava, V. C., 1994, Effect of irrigation and foliar spray of nutrients on
growth and seed yield of gram (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 64(4) : 219-222.
Stephen Machado, Christopher Humphreys, Brian Tuck, Tom Darnell and Mary Corp, 2003, Variety,
seeding date, spacing, and seeding rate effects on grain yield and grain size of chickpeas
(Cicer arientinum L.) in eastern Oregon. Special Report 1047, Agricultural Experiment
Station, Oregon State University, pp. 25-31.
Subbiah, B. V. and Asija, G. L., 1956, A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in
soils. Curr. Sci., 25 : 259-260.
Subramanian, A., Raj, S. M. and Venkatachalam, C., 1974, A note on the effect of graded doses of
phosphate and spacing on the yield of bengalgram. Madras Agric. J., 61(9) : 791-793.
Sugha, S. K., Kapoor, S. K. and Singh, B. M., 1994, Factor influencing Fusarium wilt of chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.). Indian J. Mycol. Plant Pathol., 24(2) : 97-102.
Tai, Y. P. and Young, C. T., 1974, Variation in protein percentage in different portion of peanut
cotyledons. Crop Sci., 14(2) : 227-229.
Taliee, A. and Sayadian, K., 2000, Effect of supplemental irrigation and plant nutrient in chickpea (dry
farming). J. Agron. Sci., No : 2.
Thakur, H. S., Sinha, N. K., Raghuwanshi, R. K. S. and Sharma, R. A., 1998, Response of gram
(Cicer arietinum) varieties to plant population and date of sowing. Indian J. Agron., 43(2) :
315-317.
Thakur, R. N. and Jadhav, A. S., 1990, Effect of fertilizers and plant densities on the yield of gram. J.
Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 15 : 238-239.
Thangwana, N. M. and Ogola, J. B. O., 2012, Yield and yield components of chickpea (Cicer
arietinum) : Response to genotype and planting density in summer and winter sowings. J.
Food, Agric. Environ., 10(2) : 710-715.
Tripathi, S., Vindla, S., Jukanti, A. K., Kamatam, S., Rao, B. V., Gowda, C. L. L. and Gaur, P. M.,
2012, Genetic variability and interrelationships of phenological, physicochemical and
cooking quality traits in chickpea. Plant Genetic Resources, 3 : 194-201.
Turner, N. C., Wright, G. C. and Siddique, K. H. M., 2001, Adaptation of grain legumes (pulses) to
water-limited environments. Adv. Agron., 71 : 193-231.
Vaishya, R. D. and Fayaz Qazi, M., 1992, Chlorophyll content in chickpea as influenced by seed rates
and weed management practices. Int. Chickpea Newslett., 26 : 26-27.
Vaishya, R. D., M. Fayaz, S. Sher, A. L. Rajput and S. Singh. 1995. Effect of seed rate and weed-
management practices on nodulation and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Indian J.
Agron., 40(2) : 312-313.
Valimohammadi, F., Tajbakhsh, M. and Ali, S., 2007, Comparision of winter and spring sowing dates
and effect of plant density on yield, yield components and some quality, morphological
traits of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under environmental condition of Urmia, Iran. J.
Agron., 6(4) : 571-575.
Vanderpuye, A. W., 2010, Canopy architecture and plant density effect in short-season chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.). Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Plant Sciences, University of
Saskatchewan, Saskatoon. p. 178.
Veerangouda, M., Sushilendra, Prakash, K. V. and Anathachar, M., 2010, Performance evaluation of
tractor operated combine harvester. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 23(2) : 282-285.
Veeranna, V. S., Shanthamallaiah, N. R. and Patil, M. S., 1980, Close row spacing of bengalgram
increases yield. Curr. Res., 9(6) : 95-96.
Verma, C. B., Yadav, R. S., Singh, I. J. and Singh, A. K., 2009, Physiological traits and productivity of
rainfed chickpea in relation to urea spray and genotypes. Legume Res., 32(1) : 103-107.
Verma, V. S. and Singh, D., 1974, Influence of row and plant spacing on yield potential of gram
varieties at different dates. Indian J. Agric. Res., 8(3) : 193-194.
Waldia, R. S., Chandgi, R., Sood, D. R., Punia, R. C. and Chhabra, A. K., 1991, Variation for seed
mass, seedling vigor and quality attributes in desi and Kabuli chickpea genotypes. Int.
Chickpea Newslett., 24 : 15-17.
Watson, D. J., 1952, The physiological basis of variation in yield, Adv. Agron., 4 : 101-105.
Watson, D. J., Throne, G. N. and French, S. A. W., 1963, Analysis of growth and yield of winter and
spring wheat. Annals of Botany, 27 : 1-22.
Wilcox, J. R., 1974, Response of three soybean strains to equidistant spacing. Agron. J., 66 : 409-
412.
Yadav, S. S., Redden, R., Chen, W. and Sharma, B., 2007, Chickpea Breeding and Management.
CAB International, UK.
Yigitoglu, D., 2006, Research on the effect of different sowing densities on the yield and yield
components of some chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars that sown in winter and spring
in Kahramanmaras region. Ph. D. Thesis, Department of Field Crops, Institute of Natural
and Applied Science, University of Cukurova, p. 163.
Yoshidha, S. Forno, D. D., Cock, J. H. and Gomez, K. A., 1972, Laboratory Manual for Physiological
Studies of Rice, International Rice Res. Institute (IRRI) Manila, Philippines, pp. 67-68.
Yusuf, M., Singh, N. P. and Dastane, N. G., 1980, Yield and water use efficiency in relation to water
supply in chickpea. Indian J. Agron., 25(2) : 235-238.
Zhang, H., Pala, M., Oweis, T. and Harris, H., 2000, Water use and water-use efficiency of chickpea
and lentil in a Mediterranean environment. Aust. J. Agric. Res., 51 : 295-304.
Appendix I: Prices of inputs and outputs
Sl.No. Particulars Price (Rs.)*
I. Inputs
1. Chickpea seed material 55 kg-1
2. Fertilizer
-1
DAP 23.68 kg
3. Chemicals
-1
Captaf 50% WP (Captan) 407.14 kg
-1
Indoxocarb (Avaunt14.5% SC) 3305.37 ltr
-1
Quinalphos (Ekalux) 393.53 ltr
-1
Starthane (Acephate 75% SP) 496.75 kg
-1
Methomyl 40% SP Dhanuka (Lannate) 1112.51 kg
4. Labour Wages
-2
Men 150 day
-2
Women 125 day
-1
Combine harvest charges 1000 h
5. Irrigation charges 500 ha-1
II Outputs
Grain produces 29 kg-1
* Prices of inputs are taken from ICRISAT, Patancheru (Andhra Pradesh), India.
Appendix II: Treatment wise cost of cultivation
Sl.
Particulars G1D1 G1D2 G1D3 G2D1 G2D2 G2D3 G3D1 G3D2 G3D3 G4D1 G4D2 G4D3 G5D1 G5D2 G5D3
No.
1 Land preparation 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
2 Seed and sowing
Seed rate 62.5 75 87.5 62.5 75 87.5 62.5 75 87.5 62.5 75 87.5 62.5 75 87.5
Seed cost (kg) 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55
Seed treatment cost 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Sowing by hand (8
1000 1125 1250 1000 1125 1250 1000 1125 1250 1000 1125 1250 1000 1125 1250
labour/ha)
Total 4538 5350 6163 4538 5350 6163 4538 5350 6163 4538 5350 6163 4538 5350 6163
3 Fertilizer
DAP (100 kg/ha) 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260 1260
Application cost 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250
Weeding /
4 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Intercultivation
5 Irrigation application cost 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Pesticide and application
6 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
cost
7 Harvesting (18 labour) 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250 2250
Threshing cost (8
8 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Labour)
Thresher charges 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800
10 Transportation 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750
Grand total
14848 15660 16473 14848 15660 16473 14848 15660 16473 14848 15660 16473 14848 15660 16473
(RAINFED)
Grand total
15848 16660 17473 15848 16660 17473 15848 16660 17473 15848 16660 17473 15848 16660 17473
(IRRIGATED)
Appendix lll: Studying physicochemical characters of chickpea seed at ICRISAT laboratory
Appendix lV: Particle size analysis of experimental soil at ICRISAT Laboratory

Appendix V: Recordingsoil Plant Observation in chickpea at ICRISAT
AGRONOMIC INVESTIGATIONS ON TALL CHICKPEA
GENOTYPES SUITABLE FOR MECHANICAL HARVESTING
2013
SOMANAGOUDA B. PATIL Dr. CHIDANAND P. MANSUR

Major Advisor
ABSTRACT
Field experiment was conducted during rabi seasons of 2011-12 and 2012-13 at International
Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.
The experimental was laid out in split plot design. The treatment consisted of four tall chickpea
genotypes viz., ICCV-11601, ICCV-11602, ICCV-11603, ICCV-11604 and one semi-erect genotype,
JG-11 with three plant densities viz., normal plant density (3.33 lakh ha-1), 20 per cent higher (3.99
-1 -1
lakh ha ) and 40 per cent higher than normal (4.66 lakh ha ). The crop was raised under both rainfed
and irrigated ecosystem and harvested by manual and combine harvester.
Planting semi-erect genotype JG-11 at 40 per cent higher density produced significantly
higher seed yield under rainfed and irrigated ecosystems (2570 and 3048 kg ha-1, respectively)
compared to rest of the interactions. However, the tall genotype ICCV-11604 with 40 per cent higher
-1
plant density (2258 kg ha ) recorded on par seed yield with JG-11 planted at normal density (2299 kg
-1
ha ) under rainfed ecosystem, but under irrigated ecosystem, the former combination recorded
-1 -1
significantly higher seed yield (2840 kg ha ) than planting JG-11 at normal density (2666 kg ha ) and
-1
on par seed yield with JG-11 at 20 per cent higher plant density (2882 kg ha ).
All the five chickpea genotypes were evaluated for mechanical and conventional harvesting
-1
under rainfed condition with normal plant density (3.33 lakh ha ). Total harvest losses were less in
mechanical harvesting of tall genotypes (2.64 to 4.96%) compared to semi-erect genotype JG-11
(20.03%).
Planting tall chickpea genotype ICCV-11604 at 40 per cent higher density under irrigated
-1 -1
ecosystem recorded significantly higher seed yield (2840 kg ha ) and net return (Rs. 62,058 ha )
-1 -1
compared to JG-11 at normal density (2666 kg ha and Rs. 58,810 ha , respectively) by minimizing
the harvesting losses and harvesting cost under mechanical harvesting.

Dbu XX PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dbu XX PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dbu XX PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGRONOMIC INVESTIGATIONS ON TALL CHICKPEA

GENOTYPES SUITABLE FOR MECHANICAL HARVESTING

Thesis submitted to the

1. Manual sowing of Experiments – I and II

2. Machine sowing of Experiment –III

3. Maintenance of required plant density

4. Plant protection chemical application

5. Traditional harvesting of chickpea

6. General view of Experiment – I during 2011-12

7. General view of Experiment – II during 2011-12

8. General view of Experiment – I during 2012-13

9. General view of Experiment –II during 2012-13

10. Procedure for recording leaf area in chickpea

11. General view of Experiment – III

12. Mechanical harvesting of chickpea

13. Plant types of chickpea genotypes

14. Pods of chickpea genotypes

15. Seeds of chickpea genotypes

I. Prices of inputs and outputs

II. Treatment wise cost of cultivation

III. Studying physicochemical characters of chickpea seed at

IV. Particle size analysis of experimental soil at ICRISAT laboratory

V. Recording soil and plant observations in chickpea at ICRISAT

Sl. No. Parameters Value obtained Method employed

a. Particle size analysis

Coarse sand (%) 11.27 International pipette method (Piper,

Alkaline permanganate method

Walkley and Black’s wet oxidation

e. Soil pH (1:2.5 soil:water) 8.02 Potentiometry (Piper, 1966)

Max. & Min. temperature (0C)

Relative Relative Solar

Max. & Min. temperature (0C)

G2D2 G2D1 G2D3

R-I G3D1 G3D3 G3D2

G4D3 G4D1 G4D2

G5D1 G5D2 G5D3

G2D3 G2D2 G2D1

G5D2 G5D1 G5D3

R-II G1D1 G1D3 G1D2

G3D3 G3D1 G3D2

G4D1 G4D2 G4D3

G5D3 G5D2 G5D1

G4D2 G4D1 G4D3

R-III G2D1 G2D3 G2D2

G1D3 G1D1 G1D2

G3D1 G3D2 G3D3

Plant density (D)

Plate 2: Machine sowing of Experiment –III

Plate 3: Maintenance of required plant Plate 4: Plant protection chemical

3.6.3 Root parameters

3.6.5 Yield and yield components

Number of pods infested per plant

Number of wilted plants per plot

Number of rust infested plants per plot

3.6.8.2 NPK analysis

ICCV-11601 ICCV-11604 ICCV-11603 JG-11

ICCV-11603 ICCV-11602 JG-11 ICCV-11604

ICCV-11602 ICCV-11601 ICCV-11604 ICCV-11603

Fig. 4: Layout of Experiment–III