A field experiment was conducted at Hudeiba Research Station Farm, located at Ed-Damer, Sudan during 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 winter seasons to investigate the effect of different irrigation regimes and varieties on chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) yield, yield components and water productivity. The treatments include three irrigation regimes; irrigation every 10 days (I1 = full irrigation), irrigation every 15 days (I 2 = moderate stress) and irrigation every 20 days (I 3 = severe stress) and two varieties (Borgieg and Wad Hamid). The treatments were arranged in factorial randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 3 replications. Irrigation water being applied, grain yield, yield components (number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and the 100 seeds weight) and crop water productivity (CWP) and irrigation water productivity (IWP) were recorded. Results showed that the number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod, 100-seeds weight, grain yield and irrigation water applied were significantly ( p ≤ 0.001) affected by irrigation regimes. The highest values of these traits obtained with full irrigation, whereas the lowest values were recorded under severe water stress conditions. Results also indicated that, moderate and severe water stress regimes saved irrigation water by 24% and 32%, respectively compared with full irrigation. This study indicated that treatment I 1 which was irrigated every 10-days did not produce the highest IWP, while treatment I 2 which irrigated every 15-days gave the highest IWP. The lowest IWP occurred at severe water stress regime (I 3). It could be concluded that moderate water stress might be adopted. Contrarily, the adoption of severe water stressed that produce high water savings would lead to yield losses that might be economically not acceptable. The late maturing chickpea variety of Borgieg significantly ( p ≤ 0.05) out-yielded the early maturing variety Wad Hamid by 11%. Borgieg displayed the highest values of CWP and IWP.
The rapid increase of the world population and the corresponding demand for extra water by sectors such as industries and municipals, forces the agricultural sector to use its irrigation water more efficiently on the one hand and to produce more food on the other hand [
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is an important source of protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, and certain minerals. While this pulse crop is an important source of dietary protein for human consumption, it is also important for the management of soil fertility due to its nitrogen-fixing ability [
The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of different irrigation regimes and varieties on chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) yield, yield components and water productivity yield, yield components and water productivity.
A field experiment was conducted under irrigation, for two consecutive seasons (2011/2012 and 2012/2013), at the Hudeiba Research Station Farm, Ed-Damer, Sudan, located at latitude (17.57˚) N, Longitude (33.93˚) E, and altitude 350 m above sea level. The local climate is semi-desert (26), very hot and dry in summer and relatively cool in winter. The average rainfall does not exceed 100 mm per year falling for only three months (July to September) with the rest of the year virtually dry. The prevailing thermal regime as daily mean temperature during the two growing seasons is displayed in
The experiment was a factorial design with three irrigation regimes (selected based on previous studies), namely, I1 Irrigation every 10 days (full irrigation or normal), I2 Irrigation every 15 days (moderate water stress), I3 Irrigation every 20 days (severe water stress) and two varieties introduced from ICARDA, namely, Borgieg (erect, round seed shape, beige color seed, medium seed size, late maturing) and Wad Hamid (erect, round seed shape, beige color seed, large seed size, susceptible to stunt disease, early maturing). The treatments were arranged in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 3 replications. Water was applied just below the surface of the top of the ridges. The gross plot size was 7 ridges × 0.6 m (ridge width) × 12 m (ridge length) = 50.4 m2. The crop was sown manually in the third week of November in both seasons. All crops were planted in holes on top of 60 cm spaced ridges, with intra-row spacing of 0.1 m between holes and at the rates of 2 seeds
Depth (cm) | 0 - 23 | 23 - 44 | 44 - 87 | 87 - 120 | 120 - 157 | 157 - 203 | Mean |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sand (%) | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
Silt (%) | 47 | 42 | 39 | 37 | 40 | 37 | 40 |
Clay (%) | 49 | 55 | 58 | 60 | 56 | 60 | 56 |
Hydraulic conductivity (cm/hr) | 0.32 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.13 |
Moisture content at wilting point (m3/m3) | 38 | 43 | 47 | 44 | 50 | 54 | 46 |
Moisture content at field capacity (m3/m3) | 21 | 23 | 26 | 24 | 27 | 29 | 25 |
Soil bulk density (g/cm3) | 1.77 | 1.66 | 1.85 | 1.74 | 1.71 | 1.83 | 1.76 |
pH | 7.8 | 8 | 7.9 | 7.7 | 8 | 7.9 | 7.9 |
Electrical conductivity (dS/m) | 0.3 | 2.4 | 3.6 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 4.9 | 3.1 |
Calcium carbonate (%) | 6 | 4.6 | 5.4 | 6 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 5.4 |
Total nitrogen (%) | 0.045 | 0.04 | 0.045 | 0.03 | 0.035 | 0.035 | 0.038 |
Organic carbon (%) | 0.499 | 0.312 | 0.203 | 0.265 | 0.187 | 0.218 | 0.281 |
Cation exchange capacity (meq/100g soil) | 48 | 54 | 53 | 52 | 53 | 58 | 53 |
Sodium absorption ratio | 1 | 7 | 10 | 12 | 7 | 7 | 7 |
per hole. Nitrogen at the rate of 43 kg N ha−1 in form of urea was applied uniformly, to all experimental plots before the second irrigation. Hand weeding of the experimental area was performed as required. The plots were irrigated by furrow irrigation method. The amount of irrigation water (m3) for each plot in each irrigation event was measured directly in the field, using a current flow meter (type BFM001) connected to an irrigation pipe, using the following equation:
where, I = irrigation water (m3), A = cross section area (m2), T = total time (s) and V = velocity (m∙s−1)
Evapotranspiration (ETc) was determined using a standard water balance Equation (2):
where, I = irrigation, P = rainfall, W = capillary rise, R = runoff, D = deep drainage, and S = soil moisture. For the period after irrigation and before the next irrigation, I = 0 as no irrigation water is added. During winter (November-February), the rainfall (P) is zero. The water table is deep so the capillary rise (W) is zero. The runoff (R) is negligible as the land is flat with a very gentle slope (1). The soil is impermeable so the deep drainage (D) is almost zero. Therefore, the evapotranspiration is equal to the change in soil moisture (ΔS). Soil moisture depletion (S) was calculated from soil water profile, measured in one replication for a depth of 60 cm with 20 cm intervals, 2 - 3 days after irrigation and immediately before each irrigation event. This was done from planting to harvesting, through gravimetric method. Soil samples were oven-dried at 105˚C for 24 hours. Then, the calculated gravimetric moisture contents were converted into volumetric values, through multiplication with dry soil bulk density, viz:
where, n = number of soil layers sampled in the effective root zone which is = 3 (0 - 20, 20 - 40, 40 - 60); θ1 volumetric moisture content within 2 - 3 days after irrigation; θ2 = volumetric moisture content before the next irrigation in the i-th layer; d = the thickness of i-th layer (mm), which is = 200 mm; and Δt = the time interval between two consecutive measurements (days).
Irrigation treatments were started from the third irrigation
At harvest in both seasons, grain yield was calculated from the central three ridges (8 m long) = 14.4 m2 of each plot. A sub sample of ten plants was taken for determining the yield components (number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and the 100 seeds weight).
Crop water productivity is commonly expressed as the economic yield divided by the seasonal crop water use (seasonal evapotranspiration) [
Crop water productivity (CWP) was calculated as
where, Y = yield (kg∙ha−1), ET = seasonal evapotranspiration (m3∙ha−1). And Irrigation water productivity (IWP) was calculated as
where, Y= yield (kg∙ha−1), I = irrigation water applied (m3∙ha−1).
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out using MSTAT statistical package (1984). The data obtained were analyzed for each season separately, and then combined analysis was run for the two growing seasons because the homogeneity test was positive. As the soil moisture measurements were performed in one block, statistical analyses could not be performed for crop water productivity
The prevailing thermal regime as daily mean temperature during the two growing seasons is displayed in
Grain yield and yield components of chickpea as affected by irrigation regime and variety are presented in
Analysis of variance showed that number of pods per plant and grain yield were significantly affected by irrigation regime and variety, but number of seeds per plant and 100 seeds weight were affected by irrigation regime. Statistic analysis indicated no significant interaction between irrigation regimes and varieties.
Grain yield (kg/ha) | No. of pods/plant | No of seeds/pod | 100 seed weight (g) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Borgieg | Wad Hamid | Mean | Borgieg | Wad Hamid | Mean | Borgieg | Wad Hamid | Mean | Borgieg | Wad Hamid | Mean | |
I1 | 1234 | 1096 | 1165 | 45 | 41 | 43 | 0.84 | 0.82 | 0.83 | 22.8 | 23.3 | 23.1 |
I2 | 997 | 890 | 944 | 41 | 37 | 39 | 0.79 | 0.75 | 0.77 | 21.1 | 21.9 | 21.5 |
I3 | 543 | 472 | 508 | 28 | 25 | 27 | 0.63 | 0.59 | 0.61 | 17.5 | 18.2 | 17.9 |
Mean | 925 | 819 | 872 | 38 | 34 | 36 | 0.75 | 0.72 | 0.74 | 20.5 | 21.1 | 20.8 |
SE ± (I) | 41.11*** | 0.82*** | 0.016*** | 0.404*** | ||||||||
SE ± (V) | 33.57* | 0.67** | 0.013 ns | 0.330 ns | ||||||||
SE ± (I × V) | 58.14 ns | 1.16 ns | 0.022 ns | 0.571 ns | ||||||||
C.V (%) | 16.3 | 7.8 | 7.4 | 6.7 |
Ns: Not significant. *, **, *** Significant at p ≤ 0.05, 0.01 and 0.001 respectively.
Number of pods per plant decreased significantly (p ≤ 0.001) with the increase in water deficit (
There were also significant (p ≤ 0.001) reduction in number of seeds per pod and 100-seeds weight with water deficit and the trend was similar to the number of pods per plant trend (
The two varieties were not significantly different in 100 seed weight. However, higher average weight (21.1 g) was recorded for Wad Hamid Grain yield was significantly decreased (p ≤ 0.001) as water deficit increased (
The results of this study indicated that the yield decrease due to water deficit was attributed to reduction in number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and 100-seeds weight. A positive and highly significant correlation was found between grain yield and these traits (
No significant difference for variety X irrigation regime interaction indicates that the two varieties responded in a similar manner for water stress.
In this study, the unexpected low grain productivity of chickpea is attributed to the severe infestation of the crop by stunt disease.
The mean seasonal ET varied between 3370 m3∙ha−1 and 2311 m3∙ha−1 (
The analyses of variance (
The amount of irrigation water applied to Borgieg was higher than that applied to Wad Hamid. This was due to less water requirement of short duration variety.
The relationship between chickpea grain yield and seasonal ET is presented in
Irrigation water applied (m3∙ha−1) (number of irrigations) | Crop ET (m3∙ha−1) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Borgieg | Wad Hamid | Mean | Borgieg | Wad Hamid | Mean | |
I1 | 6843 | 6715 | 6779 (9) | 3545 | 3195 | 3370 |
I2 | 5217 | 5121 | 5169 (6) | 2702 | 2437 | 2570 |
I3 | 4750 | 4522 | 4636 (5) | 2462 | 2160 | 2311 |
Mean | 5603 | 5453 | 5528 (7) | 2903 | 2597 | 2750 |
SE ± (I) | 54*** | |||||
SE ± (V) | 44* | |||||
SE ± (I × V) | 77 ns | |||||
C.V (%) | 3.4 |
ns: Not significant. * and *** Significant at p ≤ 0.05 and 0.001 respectively.
obtained during the study period (6 treatments - 2 years). Grain yield varied from 238 to 1474 kg∙ha−1 and ET values from 2009 to 3590 m3∙ha−1. The linear regression between grain yield and ET showed that about 58% of the variation in grain yield could be attributed to variations in ET. Within the range of observed ET values, the regression slope predicts a yield increase of 58.6 kg∙ha−1 for each 100 m3 increase in ET. The negative value of the intercept indicates that a certain ET threshold value must be reached before any grain yield is obtained, which was 1264 m3∙ha−1 in this study. Several previous studies have also shown a linear relationship between grain yield and ETc [
CWP ranged from 0.220 kg∙m−3 for treatment I3 to 0.367 kg∙m−3 for treatment I2, while IWP for the same treatments ranged from 0.108 kg∙m−3 for treatment I3 to 0.182 kg∙m−3 for treatment I2 (
IWP (kg/m3) | CWP (kg/m3) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Borgieg | Wad Hamid | Mean | Borgieg | Wad Hamid | Mean | |
I1 | 0.181 | 0.163 | 0.172 | 0.348 | 0.343 | 0.346 |
I2 | 0.191 | 0.173 | 0.182 | 0.369 | 0.365 | 0.367 |
I3 | 0.114 | 0.102 | 0.108 | 0.221 | 0.219 | 0.220 |
Mean | 0.162 | 0.146 | 0.154 | 0.319 | 0.315 | 0.317 |
SE ± (I) | 0.0078*** | |||||
SE ± (V) | 0.0064 ns | |||||
SE ± (I × V) | 0.0110 ns | |||||
C.V (%) | 17.5 |
ns: Not significant. * and *** Significant at p ≤ 0.05 and 0.001 respectively.
Similar findings were reported by [
Under the conditions of this study, grain yield and yield components were significantly (p ≤ 0.001) affected by irrigation regimes. Exposing chickpea crop to water stress throughout the growing season significantly reduced grain yield. The low grain yield under water stress regimes was attributed to adverse effects of water stress on the yield components, mainly number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and 100 seeds weight. The highest seasonal ET was recorded in treatment I1, which exceeded those of I2 and I3 by 24% and 31%, respectively. The highest amount of irrigation water was applied in the full irrigation regime and significantly (p ≤ 0.001) reduced through the use of moderate and severe water-stress regimes. Treatment I1 (full irrigation) did not produce the highest IWP, while treatment I2 (moderate water stress) gave the highest IWP. Maximum CWP and IWP occurred at crop water use less than the maximum. The lowest IWP occurred at severe water stress regime (I3). This might be due to the fact that water savings at 20 = day intervals are not enough to overcome the concurrent yield losses. In conclusion moderate water stress may be adopted. Contrarily, the adoption of severe water stress that produced high water savings would lead to yield losses that might be economically not acceptable. The late maturing chickpea variety of Borgieg significantly (p ≤ 0.05) out-yielded the early maturing variety Wad Hamid by 11%. Borgieg displayed the highest values of CWP and IWP.
The authors thank the Land and Water Research Centre, Wad Medani, Sudan, the EU-IFAD PROJECT- ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas for supporting and funding this work.
M. K. AllaJabow,O. H.Ibrahim,H. S.Adam, (2015) Yield and Water Productivity of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as Influenced by Different Irrigation Regimes and Varieties under Semi Desert Climatic Conditions of Sudan. Agricultural Sciences,06,1299-1308. doi: 10.4236/as.2015.611124