14.04.2014 Views

RA 00015.pdf - OAR@ICRISAT

RA 00015.pdf - OAR@ICRISAT

RA 00015.pdf - OAR@ICRISAT

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!