Advertisement

Changing Plant Architecture and Density can Increase Chickpea Productivity and Facilitate for Mechanical Harvesting

  • Ummed SinghEmail author
  • P. M. Gaur
  • S. K. Chaturvedi
  • K. K. HazraEmail author
  • Guriqbal Singh
Research
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

Tall and erect chickpea cultivar HC 5 (Haryana Chana 5) was primarily bred for inter-cropping with autumn planted sugarcane. Cultivar HC 5 is distinctly different in morphology from traditional bushy or semi-spreading chickpea cultivars and it is found suitable for machine harvesting. However, a general recommended planting density (30 cm × 10 cm) is being followed for cv. HC 5 as well. In this study, we hypothesized that high-density planting can improve crop productivity and also improve the plant architecture for mechanical harvesting. To test this hypothesis, four plant spacing treatments (30 cm × 10 cm, 30 cm × 7.5 cm, 22.5 cm × 10 cm, and 22.5 cm × 7.5 cm) were evaluated in two chickpea cultivars (HC 5 and JAKI 9218) for crop growth, grain yield and the desirable plant traits for mechanical harvesting. The highest grain yield of cv. HC 5 was observed with 22.5 cm × 10 cm spacing that increased the grain yield by 9% (p < 0.05) over plant spacing of 30 cm × 10 cm (conventional); this indicates that high-density planting could increase the productivity of the cv. HC 5. Where grain yield of cv. JAKI 9218 was reduced (p < 0.05) with the increase in planting density over 30 cm × 10 cm. Increased grain yield of cv. HC 5 with 22.5 cm × 10 cm spacing over 30 cm × 10 cm was mainly attributed to increase in plant density (33%); however, all the plant attributes (primary branch, secondary branch, pod plant−1) were reduced as compared to plant spacing of 30 cm × 10 cm. The decrease in intra-row spacing of cv. HC 5 resulted in a strong adverse effect on plant growth and yield parameters as compared to inter-row spacing and thus not recommended. High-density planting increased the plant height (erectness) and ground clearance of cv. HC 5 (height of first pod) (~ 30 cm), an essential prerequisite for mechanical harvesting, but not in cv. JAKI 9218. Hence, cv. HC 5 requires a dense planting for higher yield and appropriate plant structure for mechanical harvesting. Therefore, it is recommended to work out the optimum planting geometry/plant population to realize the potential yield of cultivars bred for mechanical harvesting.

Keywords

Chickpea Planting geometry Mechanical harvesting First pod height Yield 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support received from Department of Agricultural Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India under the National Food Security Mission project ‘Developing chickpea cultivars suited to mechanical harvesting and tolerant to herbicides’.

References

  1. Basha, S. J., Lakshmi, V. J., Reddy, A. T., Kamakshi, N., & Ahammed, S. K. (2018). Estimate of growth and yield parameters of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars amenable to mechanical harvesting. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 7(5), 2089–2091.Google Scholar
  2. Chaturvedi, S. K., Mishra, N., & Gaur, P. M. (2014). An overview of chickpea breeding programs in India: Legume perspectives. The Journal of the International Legume Society (Spain), 3, 50–52.Google Scholar
  3. Cici, S. Z. H., Adkins, S., & Hanan, J. (2008). A canopy architectural model to study the competitive ability of chickpea with sowthistle. Annals of Botany, 101(9), 1311–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Daheriya, M. (2014). Evaluation of chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical harvesting. M.Sc. thesis submitted to the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, India.Google Scholar
  5. DES, (2018). Directorate of Economics & Statistics, Department of Agriculture, Farmers Welfare and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India. https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/APY_96_To_06.htm. Accessed Aug 2018.
  6. Gomez, K. A., & Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical procedures for agricultural research (2nd ed.). Singapore: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Haddad, N. I., Salkini, A. B., Jagatheeswaran, P., & Snobar, B. A. (1988). Method of harvesting pulse crops. In R. J. Summerfield (Ed.), World crops: Cool season food legumes (pp. 341–350). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2764-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hazra, K. K., & Chandra, S. (2014). Mild to prolonged stress increased rice tillering and source-to-sink nutrient translocation under SRI management. Paddy and Water Environment, 12(1), 245–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. ICRISAT, (2017). First machine harvestable chickpea variety-Boon for farmers in Andhra Pradesh, India. Retrieved November 12, 2017, http://www.icrisat.org/first–machine–harvestable–chickpea–variety–boon–for–farmers–in–andhra–pradesh–india.
  10. IIPR, (2014–2015). Annual Report, ICAR–Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, Pradesh, pp. 24–32.Google Scholar
  11. Muehlbauer, F. J., & Singh, K. B. (1987). Genetics of chickpea. In M. C. Saxena & K. B. Singh (Eds.), The Chickpea (pp. 99–125). Wallingford, UK: CAB. International.Google Scholar
  12. Munirathnam, P., Jayalakshmi, V., Kumar, K. A., & Padmalatha, Y. (2015). Suitability of chickpea ‘NBeG47’ for mechanical harvesting under rainfed condition. Journal of Food Legumes, 28(2), 64–66.Google Scholar
  13. Patil, S. B. (2013). Agronomic investigations on tall chickpea genotypes suitable for mechanical harvesting. Ph.D. thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, India.Google Scholar
  14. Sheoran, O. P., Tonk, D. S., Kaushik, L. S., Hasija, R. C., & Pannu, R. S. (1998). Statistical software package for agricultural research workers. In D. S. Hooda & R. C. Hasija (Eds.), Recent advances in information theory, statistics and computer applications (pp. 139–143). Hisar: CCS HAU.Google Scholar
  15. Siddique, K. H. M., & Sykes, J. (1997). Pulse production in Australia past, present and future. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 37(1), 103–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Smith, D. W., Sims, B. G., & O’Neill, D. H. (1994). Testing and evaluation of agricultural machinery and equipment: Principles and practices. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICAR-Indian Institute of Pulses ResearchKanpurIndia
  2. 2.International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid TropicsHyderabadIndia
  3. 3.Rani Lakshmi Bai Central Agricultural UniversityJhansiIndia
  4. 4.Agricultural and Food Engineering Department (AGFE)Indian Institute of Technology KharagpurKharagpurIndia
  5. 5.Punjab Agricultural UniversityLudhianaIndia

Personalised recommendations