Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
weight and leaf area of the seedlings at 16 days<br />
after sowing (r = 0.82**), but by 30 days after<br />
sowing the relationship was less close<br />
(r = 0.57**) (Fig 40). The larger-seeded cultivars<br />
also had larger leaves (r = 0.86** for the<br />
relationship between maximum area per leaf on<br />
80-day-old plants and 100-seed weight). There<br />
was no significant relationship between 100-seed<br />
weight and total dry weight at harvest (r = 0.07)<br />
or yield (r = 0.13).<br />
300<br />
250<br />
200<br />
150<br />
100<br />
50<br />
0<br />
600<br />
500<br />
400<br />
300<br />
200<br />
100<br />
0<br />
A. 16 days after sowing<br />
B. 30 days after sowing<br />
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32<br />
Seed weight ( g / 100 seeds)<br />
Figure 40. Relationship between 100-seed weight<br />
and total dry weight of seedlings of 23<br />
chickpea cultivars.<br />
Susceptibility to iron chlorosis. A number of<br />
cultivars grown at ICRISAT Center showed a<br />
marked yellowing of the younger leaves during<br />
the vegetative phase. The plants recovered spontaneously<br />
later in the growing season. The yellowing<br />
symptoms could be relieved by sprays of<br />
ferrous sulphate, indicating that the symptoms<br />
were those of iron chlorosis. In a trial with two<br />
iron-chlorosis-susceptible cultivars we found<br />
that the sprayed plants gave 35 percent more<br />
yield than the controls, showing a distinct yieldreducing<br />
effect of this undesirable cultivaral<br />
characteristic.<br />
Response to moisture stress. We made a preliminary<br />
attempt to identify drought-tolerant<br />
cultivars of chickpea by growing 71 diverse<br />
cultivars on soil of limited moisture-holding<br />
capacity (an Alfisol). Three sets of replicated<br />
plots were irrigated during the growing season<br />
and three were not. Plants in the irrigated plots<br />
matured later and, on average, produced about<br />
three times as much dry matter and yield as did<br />
the nonirrigated plants, indicating that the latter<br />
were subjected to quite severe moisture stress.<br />
Duration of the cultivars (measured by the<br />
number of days to flowering) was significantly<br />
negatively related to the yield under nonirrigated<br />
conditions (r = - 0 . 3 9 * * ) , but was not significantly<br />
related to the yield under irrigation<br />
(r = 0.04). The ratio of the yield without irrigation<br />
to the yield with irrigation (which can be<br />
regarded as an index of drought tolerance) was<br />
significantly negatively related to the number of<br />
days to flowering (r = - 0 . 3 3 * * ) . In other<br />
words, the earlier cultivars tended to be more<br />
drought-tolerant and to yield better under nonirrigated<br />
conditions than did the later cultivars,<br />
but this tendency explained only a small part of<br />
the cultivaral differences.<br />
Although the correlations between yield per<br />
plant with and without irrigation (r = 0.60**)<br />
and between yield per plant without irrigation<br />
and the "drought-tolerance index" (r = 0.48**)<br />
were significant and positive, they are not strong<br />
enough to effectively identify-on the basis of<br />
yield under conditions of adequate moisture -<br />
cultivars which would yield well under drought<br />
conditions. Nor can plants which are most<br />
"drought tolerant" (as judged by ratio of yield<br />
without to yield with irrigation) be reliably<br />
identified simply by the yield produced under<br />
moisture stress.<br />
106