Mahima Thesis Chickpea-1[2]

“Response of Chickpea Varieties to Nipping and Irrigation Level”
ADissertation
Submitted for the Award of the M. Sc. (Ag.) Agronomy Degree
ofPACIFIC ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION
ANDRESEARCHUNIVERSITY
By
MAHIMA
Underthesupervisionof
Dr.G.L.Sharma
Professor&Head
Department of
AgronomyPacificCollegeofAgriculture,
Udaipur
2024
FACULTY OF
AGRICULTUREDEPARTMENT
OFAGRONOMY
PACIFIC ACADEMY OF HIGHER EDUCATION & RESEARCH
UNIVERSITYUDAIPUR
Pacific Academy of Higher Education and Research
UniversityPacificCollegeof Agriculture,Udaipur,Rajasthan
DECLARATION
I, Miss. Mahima D/o Ranjit Singh Chauhanresident of

BehindvillageShamgarh hereby declare that the research work incorporated in the
presentthesis entitled "Response of Chickpea Varieties to Nipping and Irrigation Level
’’ isour original work. This work (in partor in full) has not been submitted to any
University for the award or a Degree or

aDiploma.Ihaveproperlyacknowledgedthematerialcollectedfromsecondarysources
wherever required. We solely own the responsibility for the originality of
theentirecontent.
Date: SignatureoftheCandidate
NameofSupervisor/s
Pacific Academy of Higher Education And Research
UniversityPacificCollege
ofAgriculture,Udaipur,Rajasthan
CERTIFICATE-I
Dated: / /
Its gives me immense pleasure in certifying that the thesis entitled "Response of
Chickpea Varieties to Nipping and Irrigation Level ’’and submitted by Miss.
Mahimais based on
theworkresearchcarriedoutundermyguidance.Hehascompletedthefollowingrequirement
sasperM.Sc.(Ag)regulationsoftheUniversity;
i. Courseworkasperuniversityrules.
ii. RegularlypresentedHalf YearlyProgressReportasbyprescribedtheUniversity.
iii. Published/acceptedminimumoftworesearchpaperin arefereedresearchjournal.
Irecommendthesubmissionof thesisas prescribed/notifiedbytheUniversity.
Date: NameandDesignationofSupervisor/s
(Dr. S. R.
Maloo)Dean
PacificCollegeofAgriculture,Udaipur
Pacific Academy of Higher Education And Research University
Pacific College of Agriculture, Udaipur, Rajasthan
CERTIFICATE-II
Dated: / /
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Response of Chickpea Varieties to Nipping And
Irrigation Level’’ submitted by Miss.Mahima to the Pacific Academy of Higher Education
And Research University,Udaipur in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Agriculture in the subject of Agronomy recommendation by the external
examiner was defended by the candidate before the following members of the examination
committee. The performance of the candidate in the oral examination on her thesis has been
found satisfactory, we therefore, recommended that the thesis be approved.
(Dr. G. L. Sharma) ( )
Major Advisor External Examiner
(Dr. Monika Jain) (Dr. Shipra Paliwal)

Advisor Advisor
(Dr.S.R. Maloo)
Dean, Pacific College of Agriculture
Approved by
( Dr. Hemant Kothari )

Dean PGS,
Pacific Academy of Higher Education And Research University
UniversityPacificCollegeof Agriculture,Udaipur,Rajasthan
CERTIFICATE-III
Date / /
This is to certify that Miss. Mahimaof the Department

ofAgronomy,PacificCollegeofAgriculture,Udaipurhasmadeallcorrection/modification
in the thesis entitled "Response of Chickpea Varieties to Nipping and Irrigation Level
’’which were
suggestedbytheexternalexaminerandtheadvisorycommitteeintheoralexaminationheldon
……….Thefinalcopiesofthethesisdullyboundandcorrectedweresubmittedonareenclose
dherewithforapproval..
(Dr. G. L.
Sharma)Majo
rAdvisor
Enclose: One original and two copies of bound thesis forwarded to the
Director,Resident Instruction, Pacific Academy of Higher Education and Research
University,Udaipur,throughtheDean,Pacific College ofAgriculture, Udaipur.
(Dr.G.L.Sharma)Professor (Dr.S.R. Maloo)

& Major AdvisorDepartment Dean
of Pacific College
AgronomyPacificCollegeofA ofAgricultureUdaipur,(Raj
gricultureUdaipur,(Raj.)
UniversityPacificCollegeofAgriculture,Udaipur,Rajasth
an
COPYRIGHT
I, hear by declare that the Pacific Academy of Higher Education and
ResearchUniversity Udaipur, Rajasthan shall have the rights to preserve, use and
disseminatethis dissertation/thesis entitled in print or electronic format for academic /
researchpurpose.
SignatureoftheCandidate
Date:
Place
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Ipaymyobeisanceto“AlmightyGod’’forthechoicestblessingsshoweredonme
whichIcouldbe abletoaccomplish thisendeavor.
IoweprofoundthanksandheartfulgratitudetoDr.S.R.Maloo,Dean,PacificCollegeofAgri
cultureforprovidingnecessaryfacilitiesandencouragementatvariousstages of
mydegreeprogramme
I feel it my profound privilege to record my deep sense of gratitude and sincere

thanksfrom the core of my heart to my esteemed and honorable major advisor Dr. G.L.
Sharma,Professor & Head, Department of Agronomy, Pacific college of Agriculture,
Udaipur for hisexpert and illuminating guidance and valuable suggestions in planning and
execution ofthisresearch..
I am highly thankful to the respected members of my advisory committee Dr.

A.U.Siddiqui, Professor, Dr. Monika Jain, Assistant Professor and Dr. Shipra Paliwal,
Assistantprofessorfortheirencouragement,continuoussupport,immaculateguidanceandhelpdur
ing the tenureof mystudy.
I extend special thanks to Ramesh Sir, Ashok Sir and Laboratory & field staff
forconstantlyhelping mefrom timeto time
I wish to express my deepest sense of gratitude to my revered parents,Mr Ranjit

Singh Chauhan
andMrs.SheelKunwar,fortheirunconditionallove,supportandsacrificewhichcanneverbeforgott
enandwhoseeverwillinghelp has a great role in mylife.
As life is incomplete without friends, so I am thankful to my lovely friends Mr. Rajat

Singh Chauhan,and Mr.Tarun Pratap Singh Solanki, for theirmoral support.
Last but not least I appreciate with thanks the assistance and help rendered to
meduringthe period of mystudy byall of thosewhosenames could notbementioned.
Date
Place-Udaipur (Mahima)
CONTENTS
ChapterNo. Particulars PageNo.
1. INTRODUCTION 1-2
2. REVIEWOFLITERATURE 3-17
3. MATERIALSANDMETHODS 18-29
4. EXPERIMENTALRESULTS 30-55
5. DISCUSSION 56-59
6. SUMMARY 60-62
7. CONCLUSION 63
*LITERATURECITED i-x
*ABSTRACT (ENGLISH)
*APPENDICES i-x
LISTOF TABLES
Table Content Page

No. No.
3.1 Meanweeklyweatherparameters forcropseason (Rabi,2021-22) 19
3.2 InitialPhysico-chemical characteristicsoftheexperimentalsoil 21
3.3 Croppinghistoryof theexperimentalfield 23
3.4 Treatmentswiththeirsymbols 23
3.5 Treatmentscombination 24
3.6 Calendar of 26
importantculturaloperationsfollowedduringthecourseofinvestigating
4.1 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelsonplantpopulation(perm 31
row length)
4.2 Effect of nipping,irrigationand phosphorus levelsonplant 32
heightat45and75 DAS
4.3 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelsonnumberofbranchesper 35
plant at 30,45 and 75DAS
4.4 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelsondryweightat30,60and 36
75 DAS
4.5 Effectofnippingirrigationandlevelsofphosphorusonnumberofpodsper 39
plant, numberof seeds perpodand testweight
4.6 Effectofnipping,irrigation andphosphoruslevels 43
ongrainyield,strawyield,biologicalyieldand harvestindexof thecrop
4.7 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelsonProteincontentingrain 45
4.8 EffectofnippingirrigationandphosphoruslevelsonN-andP- 47
content(%)ingrainand straw
4.9 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelsonNuptake,Puptakeand 50
Total phosphorus uptake
4.10 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelsonCostofcultivation,Gross 54
net returns and B: C ratio
LISTOFFIGURES
FigNo. Content PageNo.
3.1 Meanweeklyweatherparameters forcropseason (Rabi,2021-22) 20
3.2 Layoutofexperimentalfield 22
4.1 Effect of 33
nipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelsonplantheightat45and 75
DAS
4.2 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelsonnumberofbranchpe 37
r plant at 30, 45and 75 DAS
4.3 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelsondryweight(g/plant) 37
at 30, 60 and 75DAS
4.4 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelsonNumberofpodsper 40
plant
4.5 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelson Number 40

ofseedsper pod
4.6 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelsongrainyield,strawyie 44
ld and biologicalyield
4.7 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelsonNcontent(%) 48
4.8 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelsonNuptakegrainand 51
straw
4.9 Effectof nippingirrigation andphosphoruslevelon 52

PuptakestrawandTotal phosphorus uptake
4,10 Effectofnippingirrigationandphosphoruslevelson,NetreturnandBenef 55
it :Cost ratio
LISTOFAPPENDICES
App. No. Content PageNo.
I Analysisvarianceforplantpopulationatinitialstage i
II AnalysisvarianceforplantpopulationatFinalstage i
III Analysisvarianceforplantheightat45DAS ii
IV Analysisvarianceforplantheightat45DAS ii
V AnalysisvarianceforNumberof Branchat30DAS iii
VI AnalysisvarianceforNumberofBranchat45 DAS iii
VII AnalysisvarianceforNumberof Branchat75DAS iv
VIII AnalysisvarianceforDryweight at30DAS iv
IX AnalysisvarianceforDryweight at60DAS v
X AnalysisvarianceforDryweight at75DAS v
XI AnalysisvarianceforNumberofpods Vi
XII AppendixAnalysisvarianceforNo.ofseed vi
XIII AnalysisvarianceforTestweight vii
XVI Analysisvarianceforbiologicalyield Vii
XV AnalysisvarianceforgrainYield viii
XVI AnalysisvarianceforStrawyield Viii
XVII Analysisvarianceforharvestindex ix
XVIII AnalysisvarianceforProtein ix
XIX AnalysisvarianceforOil x
XX AnalysisvarianceforPuptake x
Acronyms
@ : Attherateof Max. : Maximum
% : Percent m2 : Squaremeter
°E : DegreeEast Min. : Minimum
0
C : DegreeCelsius mg : Milligram
Anova : AnalysisofVariance Mg : Megagram
CD : CriticalDifference mm/day: Millimeterperday
cm : Centimeter mha : Millionhectare
d.f. : Degreeoffreedom MT : Milliontons

0
DAS : DaysAfterSowing N : Degreenorth
dSm-1 : DeciSiemenspermeter N : Nitrogen
EC : ElectricalConductivity NS : Nonsignificant
etal. : (etal)andelsewhere P : Phosphorus
etc : (etcetera)andtherest P2O5 : Phosphoruspentaoxide
Fig. : Figure pH : Puissancedehydrogen
g : Gram qha-1 : Quintalperhectare
ha : Hectare R.H. : RelativeHumidity
hrs. : Hours ha-1 : Rupeesperhectare
i.e. : (idest.)thatis SEm± : Standarderrorofmean
K : Potassium S.No. : Serialnumber
kgha-1 : kilogramperhectare t : Tons
m : Meter viz. : (Videlicet)namely

CHAPTER–I INTRODUCTION
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is the premier pulse crop of Indian subcontinent. It
isanimportantcropforvegetarianpeopleasprimarysourceofprotein,itisthirdmostimportant pulse
crop grown in the world after dry beans and peas (Kaur et al., 2020). It ismainly roasted,
boiled, or fried and is used as the central ingredient in main dishes. The seedscan be eaten
whole split and decorticated (dal) or ground as four (basal), the shoots and
greenleavesareevencookedandeatenasgreenvegetables.AccordingtoWorldHealthOrganization
(WHO) Standards, the combined amino acid content of food mix of wheat-chickpea at aratio
of 67:25makesthe aminoacidcontent almostperfect.
India ranks first in area and production of chickpea followed by Australia,

Pakistanand Turkey. As per 4th advance estimates, it accounts an acreage of 10.17 million
hectarescontributing 11.35 million tones of production with an average productivity of 1,116
kg/haduring 2020-21 in India. Among states, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra,
Karnataka,Bihar,AndhraPradesh,TamilNaduandGujaratareprimarilygrowingstatesofchickpea.
In Rajasthan, it is primarily cultivated in semi- arid and arid districts of

Rajasthanincluding Udaipur, Bhilwara, Rajasamand, Nagaur, Jaipur, Jodhpur, Sikar, Pali,
Jhunjhunuand Ajmer. This crop is tolerant to drought, can be grown successfully on well
drained loamytosandyloam soils under residualmoisture(Yadavet al., 2019)
The most common variety of chickpea in South Asia, Ethiopia, Mexico and Iran is
the desi type, also called Bengal gram. It has small, dark seeds and a rough coat. It can be
black, green or speckled. In Hindi, it is called desi chana ‘native chickpea’ or kala chana
‘black chickpea’, and in Assamese, it is called boot or chholaa boot. This is a variety is
mostly grown in it can be hulled and split to make chana dal, Kurukshetra Prasadam (channa
laddu), and bootor daali.
Around the Mediterranean and in the Middle East, the most common variety of
chickpea is the kabuli type. It is large and tan-coloured, with a smooth coat. It was introduced
to india in the 18th century from Afganistan and is called kabuli chana in Hindi.
An uncommon black chickpea, ceci neri, is grown only in Apulia and Basilicat, in
southern Italy. It is around the same size as garbanzo beans, larger and darker than the ‘desi’
variety.
Nipping in chickpea is one of the important parameter for the enhancement of

yieldand yield contributing parameters. Nipping at various stages tended to enhance number
ofbranches and number of pods that in turn boost chickpea yield (Aziz, 2000). Nipping
practicein the research area has two fold advantages. On the one hand nipping at prescribed
growthstages could improveyield of the crop while on the other hand during time the
chickpea inthe field is usually a shortage of fodder and poor farmers could not afford to buy
forage atdistant locations, so chickpea may provide them an opportunity to fetch green fodder
for theirlivestock.
Chickpea can meet its water requirement from residual soil moisture left during
thepreceding main rainy season. It can withstand drought conditions by extracting water
fromdeeperlayersinthesoilprofilebecause ofitsdeep tap rootsystem (Gauret al.,2010). Itgoes
deeper than 150 cm.However, its major water need isextracted fromthe top60 cmof thesoil
profile, where most of its active roots reside in (Yirga Alemu and HanibalLemma,2012). It is
often exposed to drought during its active phenological growth stages (GeletuBejiga and
Yadeta Anbesa, 2002; Gaur et al., 2008) that result in poor crop growth andconsequently low
yield. Drought is among the most serious abiotic constraints to chickpeaproduction.It, together
with heat, accounts for about 50% of theyieldlosses caused byabiotic stresses (Gaur et al.,
2008). Hence, it is one alternative opportunity to increase theproductivity of chickpea as it is
mostly grown in receding soil moisture, which may not beenough during dry seasons.
However, mitigation of terminal moisture stress and therebyimproving the sustainable
productivity of chickpea crop in the study area is scanty. Thisindicates the need for further
research to consider these gaps. The objective of the
experimentwas,therefore,toinvestigatetheeffectsofirrigationon
yieldandyieldattributesofchickpea.
Keeping in view the above considerations, the present experiment was

undertakenwiththefollowingobjectives:
i) Towork out the response of chickpea varieties to nipping and irrigation levels
ii) Towork out the varieties of chickpea
iii) To study the interaction effects of irrigation, nipping on thecrop.
iv) Towork out theeconomicsof thetreatments.
CHAPTER–2 REVIEWOFLITERATURE
In this chapter, an attempt has been made to review the research work done so far
inIndia and abroad by different workers on the "Response of Chickpea (Cicer arietinumL.)
Varieties to Nipping and Irrigation Level ’’
2.1 EFFECTOFNIPPINGONGROWTHAND YIELDOFCHICKPEA
2.1.1 Effectofnippingongrowth parameters
Khan et al. (2003) conducted afield experiment during 1999-2000, 2000-2001 ongram
to find out the effect on removing the top growth at different level on growth and seedyield
of chickpea. The result showed that cutting of chickpea plants at ½ level appeared
thebesttreatment.
Kumaretal.(2017)conductedafieldexperimentonchickpeaandreportedthatmaximum
number of pod plant-1 was under one nipping at 40 DAS (66.78) which was at
parwithonenippingat30DAS(66.70).Thelowestnumberofpodplant-
1
wasrecordedundernonipping(62.51)withsignificantdifference.Theaverageincreaseinnumbero
fpodsplant-1 was 6.77 % due to nipping over no nipping. Nipping at 40 DAS and 30 DAS
recorded 6.83and6.70 %higher number ofpods plant-1 ascompared to no nipping.
Dhital et al. (2017) conducted a field experiment on field pea (Pisum sativum)
andobserved nipping has direct impact in growth and branching. Nipping at 30 DAS
followed bysecondary nipping at 40 DAS produced significantly higher number of branches
and reducedheightandalsoproducedsignificantlyhigheryieldcompared tocontrolledtreatment.
Khan et al. (2018) conducted a field experiment on chickpea and resulted that
foliarapplication of N PK (20:20:20) @ 2.5 kg ha -1 with nipping was found to be the
bestinteraction among others which significantly increased plant height (59.48 cm), number
ofbranches plant-1 (11.30), and number of pods plant-1 (115.36) as compared to the
controltreatment
Kumar et al. (2018) conducted a field experiment on field bean (Lablab purpureus
L.)to know the influence of nipping on plant. Plants nipped at 55 DAS lead to decrease in
plantheight but increased the number of branches (14.20 plant -1), and dry matter (283.02 g
16
plant-1)ascompared to non-nipped treatment.
17
2.1.2 Effectofnippingonyieldattributesandyield
Patel (1990) conducted a field experiment on chickpea and reported that nipping
twice20 and 30 DAS increased the number pods -1 and 100-seed weight and gave yields of
1.48 tha-1 compared with1.23t ha-1without nipping.
Aziz (2000) reported in chickpea that among pinching levels (30. 40, 60 and 75
daysafter emergence), pinching at 30 days to emergence gave the maximum number of
branchesplant-1 but it was statistically similar to pinching at 45 days after emergence. The
maximumnumber of pods plant-1 was found with pinching at 30 days with maximum yield
(2394 kg ha-1) than othertreatments and control (2018 kgha-1).
Tripathi and Rathi (2000) reported that uniform nipping of tender branches of
chickpeaafter45 or 60 daysofplantingincreased thegrainyield per unit area.
Sharma et al. (2003) conducted a field experiment at Agricultural Research

Station,Gulbarga on vertisol during kharif seasons to study the effect of nipping on seed yield
ofpigeon pea (Cv.TS-3). The results revealed that nipping of the terminal bud at 50 days
aftersowing significantly reduced the height of the plant and increased the yield and quality
ofyield.
Khan et al. (2006) reported that chickpea traits like number of productive
branchesplant-1, number of pods plant-1, 100 seeds weight and yield (kg ha -1) varied
significantly dueto nipping. However, number of seeds pod-1 remained non-significant. Plants
nipped in thelast week of December to the end of January showed enhancement in productive
pods andgrain yield while reduction in 100 seeds weight. A very strong positive correlation
(0.946)was observed between number of pods plant -1 and yield which is reported to be 0.04
in theordinary situations. Quantitative increase up to 53 % in yield (kg ha -1) was observed in
theplants.
Kokilavani et al. (2007) conducted a field experiment at Eastern Block of Tamil

NaduAgriculturalUniversityCoimbatoreduringsummerandresultedthatterminalclippingdoneat
35DASfavourablyimprovedtheyieldtrait,nutrient uptakeandyieldofthesesame.
Baloch and Zubair (2010) conducted a field experiment on and reported that number
ofplantsplot-1.plantheightandgrainyieldappearedstatisticallysignificantacrossnipping
18
methods where as number of pods plant -1, number of grains pod-1 and 1000- grain
weightwere found non-significant in row spacing. Control plot produced tallest plants (78.80
cm)whereas maximum yield (1792 kg ha -1) was obtained in nipping at ground level with
rows 40cmapart.Theresearch concluded thatnippingisaprofitablepracticefor chickpea growers
Tripathietal.(2013)conductedafieldexperimentwereconductedduringrainy(kharif)
seasons to study the effect that topping at 30 days after sowing gave higher yieldattributes
and seed yield being at par with topping at 45 days after sowing. Thus sunhemptoppingat 30
daysafter sowingrealized higheryield.
Shukla et al. (2018) observed that nipping at 30 and 50 DAS were found to increase
theallgrowthandyieldattributing parametersinchickpealikenumberofpodplant -1, podweight
plant-1. 100 number of seed plant-1, seed weight plant-1, grain yield (g) plant-1,
grainandbiologicalyield (q ha-1) and harvestindex.
Gnyandev et al. (2019)observed that the terminal shootchickpea plant was nipped
at30DAStorestrictgrowthandenhancehorizontalgrowthandtoderivesuchaddedbenefitsof
nipping. Between nipping and no nipping treatments, non-nipped (N ₂ ) plants
recordedsignificantly more plant height at 60 DAS and at harvest (37.78 and 44.23 cm,
respectively)comparedtonippedplant(N1).While,nippedplants(N1)recordedsignificantlyhigher
number of pod bearing branches (22.44 and 25.12) at 60 DAS and at harvest
respectivelycomparedto non-nippedplant (19.81 and22:43).
2.1.3Effectofnippingonnutrientcontentand qualityparameters
Reddyetal.(2009)tostudiedtheeffectofgrowthretardantsandnippingonbiochemical
parameters viz., chlorophyll content, nitrate reeducates activity, seed proteincontent and yield
in cowpea. The result showed that significantly higher chlorophyll
„a‟content(1.963)wasobtainedinMC1000ppmwhichisonparwithMC500ppm(1.977)and
maximum chlorophyll „b‟ content (1.083) was recorded in MH 500 ppm and lowest
incontrol(0.613).
Shukla et al. (2010) the observations had been studied on biochemical, yield and
yieldattributesparametersoftheJG-14.Foliarsprayingofnaphthaleneaceticacid,maleichydrazide
and nipping at 30 and 50 DAS were performed well. It is concluded from the resultthat foliar
applicationof NAA 50ppmat30and50DASand nippingat30and50DASwere
19
found increase the all parameters of plant like total chlorophyll content, nitrate
reductaseactivity,proteincontent in seed,leaf nitrogen content, totalphenol content.
Choudhary et al. (2021) anexperiment was conducted during wintereffect of

seedratesandnippingonqualityofchickpea(CicerarietinumL.)varieties.Amongvarieties,
„GNG 1581‟ recorded significantly , NPK uptake and crude protein content followed by
seedrate of 64 kg/ha and 48 kg/ha. NPK uptake were observed when nipping practiced at 45
daysafter sowing (DAS) than the control (no nipping), nipping at 30 DAS and 60 DAS.
However,protein content in seed was not influenced by nipping practice. Chickpea var.
„GNG 1581‟also revealed significantly higher total nitrogen (120.6 kg ha -1); and total
phosphorus uptake(23.02 kg ha-1) however, total potassium uptake (65.13 kg ha -1) was higher
in variety „GNG1958‟.
2.2 EFFECTOFIRRIGATIONON GROWTH ANDYIELD OFCHICKPEA
2.2.1 Effectofirrigationongrowthparameters
Deshpande(1980)foundthatapplicationoftwoirrigationstogramcrop,firstat50percentfloweringand
second atgrain development improvedcropgrowth.
Dixit (1992) conducted experiment at Faizabad on silty clay loam soils and stated
thatthe highest values of yield and yield attributes viz, number of pods plant, grains pod and
1000seedweightwerenotedwhenirrigationwasscheduledat0.4IW/CPEtochickpea,maintenance
ofhigheraswellaslowermoisturebeyond0.4IW/
CPEratioproveddetrimentaltoyieldattributesandyield in chickpea
Dixit et al. (1992) reported that irrigating chickpea by two and three irrigations
provedto be more advantageous in respect of higher number of branches, plant spread, and
numberofnodules, drymatterper plant etc.
Dixit et al. (1993) reported that irrigating chickpea by two and three irrigations
provedto be more advantageous in respect of higher number of branches, plant spread, and
numberofnodules, drymatterper plant etc.
20
Sable(1995)observedthatvariousplantgrowthparametersandplantproductivecharacters
especially dry matter production of chickpea was directly dependent upon theavailabilityof
waterduringcritical reproductivestages.
Pandian et al. (1998) found that scheduling of three irrigation at critical growth
stagesby surface methods for chickpea increased maximum mean plant height, number of
branches,leafareaand numberofpods.
Reddy et al. (2004) observed that irrigation through sprinkler at critical growth
stagesincreased the growth parameters of chickpea viz., plant height, plant spread, number
ofbranches plant-1, dry matter plant-1, number of nodules and their weight per plant as well
asmicrobialcount ascompareto rainfed crop.
Singh et al. (2006) reported that two irrigations at pre flowering and pod
developmentstages gave more plant height, plant spread, number of branches, leaf area etc.
over noirrigationand oneimportant at floweringstagerespectively.
Krishnamurthy and Steeramulu (2007) observed that the highest plant height,
numberof pods plant-1, number of branches plant-1 and dry matter production were observed
whenchickpea crop wasirrigatedat floweringstageandpod formationstage.
Thenua et al. (2010) conducted field experiment on sandy loam soils of

AgronomyResearch Farm, Amar Singh College, Lakhaoti, Bulandshahr and reported that
highest plantheight, highest number of pods plant, highest seeds pod -1, 1000 seed weight,
grain yieldduring 2006-07waswithirrigationat30,90DAStochickpea
comparedtocontrolinchickpea-foddersorghum croppingsystem.
Ram et al. (2013) reported that effective tillers m-2, grains spike-1, 1000 grain
weight,grainyieldincreasedsignificantlyin2009-
2010withfiveirrigationsatCRI,tillering,jointing, boot stage, milk stage and rice residues used
as mulch compared to no mulch inrice-wheatcroppingsystem on sandyloamsoil ofLudhiana.
2.2.2 Effectofirrigationonyieldattributesandyield
Katare et al. (1984) conducted the experiment during rabi season and reported that
twoirrigationsoneeachatfloweringandpodformationstageproducemoreyieldthan control.
21
Singhetal.(2006)reportedthatthetwoirrigationsatprefloweringandpoddevelopment
stages gave more seedyield over no irrigation and single irrigation at prefloweringstage.
Mustafa et al. (2008) observed that response of chickpea to irrigation and

nutrientmanagement in sandy loam soil. Result revealed that growth and yield of chickpea
washighest with four irrigations scheduled at sowing, branching, flowering and pod
formationstage.
Munirathnam and Sangita (2009) found that influence of date of sowing and
irrigationon chickpea. Dates of sowing did not brings significant influence with respects to
seed yield.As regards the effect of irrigation the irrigation at 35 DAS (flowering) and 55
DAS (poddevelopment)significantlyincreased seedyield.
Pramaniketal.(2009)reportedthatthewateruseefficiencyandeconomicsofchickpea under
variousirrigation depth. Among depth though 30 and45 mm
irrigationrecordedsignificantlyhighernodulation,rootgrowth,branchingandpoddevelopment.M
aximumgrainyieldrecordedwith30mmirrigationascomparedto15and60mmirrigations.
Mehmet and Digdem (2010) observed that the combination nitrogen 60 kg N/ha
andirrigation had the highest seed yield. Combination of nitrogen, rhizobium inoculation
andirrigation shows highest seed yield over control. They reported that nitrogen or
inoculationhas superior performance in seed yield and protein ratio under irrigation
compared to those ofnon irrigationcondition.
Singhetal.
(2016)conductedexperimentonloamysandsoilsofthePunjabAgriculturalUniversity,Ludhianaan
dreportedthatin2007-08,irrigationgivenatthevegetative stage significantly increased theabove
ground biomass and grainyield by
59%and36%,respectively,andhigherwaterproductivityascomparedtonoirrigationinchickpea
grown after riceinkharif
Chouhan et al. (2017) reported that higher plant height, dry matter accumulation,
daysto50%flowering,no.ofpodsperplant,no.ofseedsperpodandgrainyieldwasrecorded
22
with two irrigations given to chickpea at pre flowering and pod formation stage compared
tonoirrigationonsandyloamsoil attheresearchblockof AromaCollegeRoorkee,Haridwar.
Satybhan Singh (2017) effect of irrigation schedules and different levels of nutrients
ongrowth,yieldand quality of chickpea (Cicer arietinumL.) The lines were drawn with
thehelp of rope manually maintaining row to row distance of 30 cm. The seeds were put in
therows at intra row spacing of 10 cm. 20 kg Nitrogen ha -1 application was done through
Urea,applied in two equal splits (1/2) basal and other half 30 days after sowing of the crop
whilethe doses of Phosphorus and Sulphur were applied in single dose as basal as per
treatments.On the basis of results of the experiment it may be concluded that the 60 kg P 2O5
ha-1 and 40kg Sha-1withtwotime irrigationoneeachatpre-flowering andgrainfilling stage
ofchickpea could be necessary for obtained higher yield and economic return of
chickpea.Application of 60 kg P2O5 ha-1 and 40 kg S ha-1 with two irrigations one each at pre-
flowering and grain filling stage recorded highest yield, 1000-seeds weight, NPS uptake,
netreturnand benefit cost ratio in both theyears.
Kumar et al. (2018) conducted experiment at Research Farm, R.A.U., Pusa, Bihar
oncalcareoussoilsandstatedthatincorporationofgradedlevelsofcropresidueofpreviouscrop
(wheat) recorded the highest grain (4.52 t ha -1) and straw (7-22 t ha-1) yields of rice
inbothyearscompared toresidueremoval treatmentinwheat-ricecroppingsystem..
Kemal et al. (2018) experiment was conducted for two consecutive yearsinvestigatethe
effect of Supplemental Irrigation (SI) on yield and yield attributes of chickpea
(Habruvariety).ThetreatmentscomprisedofsixSIlevels(noSI/rain-fed,SIat:50%flowering,50%
pod setting; vegetative + 50% flowering, vegetative + 50% pod setting stages). Theresult
showed that the effect of SI on water use efficiency, yield and most yield componentsof
chickpea suchas weight of 100-seed, biomassyield, numberof secondary branch,podsand
seeds plant-1 was significant. SI generally decreased the water use efficiency of
chickpeacompared to rain-fed condition. Based on two-year result, SI twice at vegetative +
pod settingproduced maximum seed yield (30.02 q ha -1), which was at par with that of SI
twice atvegetative+ flowering (29.30 q ha -1) and once at vegetative stages (29.17 q ha -1). SI
once atvegetative, twice at vegetative + flowering and twice at vegetative + pod setting
stagesincreasedseedyieldby12,17and19%in2015;andby35,24and36%in2016,respectively,com
paredtorain-fedcondition.SIonceatvegetativestageprovidedmaximum
23
netbenefit(45880.40ETBha-1),withamarginalrateofreturn(477%)greaterthanminimum
acceptable level (100%). Moreover, it had the highest water use efficiency
amongSItreatments.Therefore,SIonceatvegetativestagecanberecommendedasthebestmanagem
entoption forchickpeaproduction in thestudyarea.
Srinivasan et al.(2019) Field experiment was conducted at Farmer‟s Field,

Palacode,PalacodeTaluk, Dharmapuri District to study the effect of nipping and nutrients on
growth,yield and economics of irrigated pigeonpea. The experiment was laid out in
RandomizedBlockDesignandreplicatedthrice.Theresultsrevealedthatapplicationof125%Reco
mmended Dose of Fertilizer + Nipping + Micronutrient mixture recorded
maximumgrowth,yield attributes,yield and economics.
2.2.3 Effectofirrigationonnutrientcontentandqualityparameter
SinghandSharma(1980)reportedthatthehigherinitialprofilesoilmoistureoradditionalirriga
tionsignificantlyincreasedgrowthyieldandqualitycontributingcharactersofchickpea.
Rupela et al. (2010) found that the bacteria nodulating chickpea are specific and do
notshows cross inoculation affinity with any members of known cross inoculation group.
Thisgroupof bacteriahasbeen named asBradyrhizobium.
Satybhan Singh (2017) effect of irrigation schedules and different levels of nutrients
onquality of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) The lines were drawn with the help of rope
manuallymaintainingrowtorowdistanceof30cm.Theseedswereputintherowsatintrarowspacing
of 10 cm. 20 kg Nitrogen ha-1 application was done through Urea, applied in twoequal splits
(1/2) basal and other half 30 days after sowing of the crop while the doses ofPhosphorus and
Sulphur were applied in single dose as basal as per treatments.On the basisof results of the
experiment it may be concluded that the 60 kg P 2O5 ha-1and 40 kg S ha-
1
withtwotimeirrigationoneeachatpre-
floweringandgrainfillingstageofchickpeacouldbenecessaryfor obtainedhigher qualityof
chickpea.
Singh et al.(2018) This field study was conducted during Rabi season 2009-10
and2010-
11tostudytheeffectofdifferentlevelsofphosphorus,sulphur,irrigationandintercroppingonyielda
24
ndqualityofmustardandchickpeaatagronomicresearchfarmof
25
Amar Singh (P.G.) College, Lakhaoti, Bulandshahr (U.P.). On the basis of results of
theexperiment it may be concluded that the 60 kg P 2O5 ha-1 and 40 kg S ha-1with two
timeirrigation, one each at pre-flowering and grain filling stages of mustard in mustard
andchickpea intercropping system could be necessary for obtained higher yield, oil content
inmustard,protein contentin chickpea and maximum benefitcostratio.
2.3 EFFECT OF VARIETIES ON GROWTH AND YIELD OF CHICKPEA
2.3.1 Growth parameters:

Akdag et al. (2001)observed that there is an interaction of a particular legume spp. with it
respective Rhizobium symbionts. The inoculation of Rhizobium had significant positive effects on
number and weight of effective nodules of chickpea.
Singh et al. (2004)reported that the inoculation with Rhizobium + PSB significantly
increased plant height, dry matter, nodulation and pod plant-1 over single inoculation of
Rhizobium or PSB and uninoculation, however, single inoculation with Rhizobium or PSB being at
per with each other and significantly superior over the control.
Rudresh et al. (2005) reported that the effect of inorganic with Rhizobium on growth
attributes and observed that chickpea gave higher plant height Review of literature (3.3cm),
number of branches plant-1 (23.3%) and biomass plant-1 (144%) as compared to uninoculated
control.
Singh and Prasad (2008)reported that the seed inoculation with Rhizobium significantly
enhance growth attributes like; plant population, plant height, branch and nodule of chickpea.
Verma et al. (2013)reported the maximum number of nodules, dry weight of nodules, root
and shoot were recorded in co-inoculation of Mesorhizobium spp. and Pseudomonas fluorescens .
The Mesorhizobium spp. and P. fluorescens have been shown maximum significant increase in all
parameter due to higher nitrogen fixation by Mesorhizobium spp. and strong phosphate solubilizer,
higher production of plant growth promoting hormones like indole acetic acid by P. fluorescens.
Therefore, co-inoculation of Mesorhizobium spp.strain BHURC03 and P. fluorescens may be
highly effective bioformulation for chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) production.
Giri et al. (2010)studied the effect of Rhizobium inoculation in chickpea. They revealed
that inoculation increased the shoot length, root length, shoot weight and root weight to the tune of
13.04%, 15.07% ,10.26% and 11.42% as compared to control in pot experiment.
26
Namvar et al. (2011)observed the Application of N and Rhizobium inoculation continued
to have positive effect on growth viz. plant height, number of primary and secondary branches.
Pawar et al. (2014)observed the seed inoculation was more effective than soil
inoculation. In case of seed germination on the growth of Bengal gram (Cicer arietinum), it was
noted that enhanced growth rate was obtained; hence Rhizobium can be used as bioinoculants.
Singh et al. (2014)observed the microbial inoculants (uninoculation control, Rhizobium
CAT-4059, Rhizobium CAT-5078, PSB) and nitrogen levels (0, 10, 20, 30 kg ha-1 ) on growth and
nodulation of chickpea. Nitrogen application had significant effect on the plant height and
nodulation such as number of nodules, fresh weight of nodules and dry weight of nodules,
Inoculation of Rhizobium strain CAT-5078 had also significant effect on the plant height, number
of nodules, fresh weight of nodules and dry weight of nodules.
Gyandev et al. (2015)observed the effect of seed treatment on plant growth in two
chickpea varieties A-1 (desi) and KAV -2 (kabuli). The study revealed that seeds treat with
Rhizobium followed by PSB resulted in higher number of branches and maximum plant height was
recorded in ICCV-2 variety treated with Rhizobium followed by PSB treatment.
Khaitov et al. (2016)observed that Inoculation of plants with strains Rhizobium spp. R4,
R6 and R9 significantly increased shoot, root dry matter, and nodules number by 17, 12, and 20 %
respectively over the control.
Chauhan et al. (2017)study the combined application of 60 kg P2O5 ha-1 + PSB
inoculation significantly increased the growth attributes (plant height, number of branches plant-1 ,
dry weight of root nodule and root and shoot dry weight plant-1 ) over control.
Singh et al. (2019)observed that significantly higher values of growth parameters viz.,
plant height, number of branches plant-1 , number and dry weight Review of literature of root
nodules, dry matter production with the application of 75% RDF + VAM + Rhizobium + PSB +
KMB (soil application).
2.3.2 Yield & Yield Attributes:

Jain and Singh (2003)reported that chickpea cv. JG-315 on seed inoculation with
Rhizobium and Phosphorus solubilizing bacteria (PSB) markedly increased nodulation, pods plant-
1 , seed and straw yield. Seed inoculation with Rhizobium and PSB increased seed yield by 15 and
10% respectively, as compared to control. Combine inoculation of Rhizobium and PSB produce
the highest mean seed yield of 1.63 t ha-1 .
27
Khan et al. (2003)reported that with the inoculation of Rhizobium observes significantly
higher number of pods plant-1 , number of seeds plant-1 and 1000 seeds weight in chickpea.
Rudresh et al. (2005)reported that increased yield in chickpea with the combined
inoculation of Rhizobium, phosphate solubilizing bacteria and tricoderma as compared to either
individual inoculation or uninoculated control under both green house and field condition.
Ali et al. (2006) study the interactive effect of seed inoculation i.e. uninoculated and
inoculated seed along with various level e.g. phosphorus (0, 60, 90 and 120 kg ha-1 ) on chickpea
at Agronomic Research Area, University of Agriculture Technology Kumarganj. Ayodhya. The
result revealed that higher 1000 seed weight, seed yield and biological yield were obtained with
seed inoculation and 90 kg ha-1 . 10 Review of literature.
Kushwaha (2007) observed that the Rhizobium, Phosphorus and dual inoculation of
Rhizobium + Phosphorus significantly enhanced seed and straw yields of chickpea.
Sarna et al. (2008)reported that the symbiotic efficiency of Rhizobium strain in chickpea
Rhizobium inoculation alone significantly improved the nodulation (45.7%) and seed yield
(13.6%) over control.
Elkoca et al. (2008) observed that the combined inoculation of Rhizobium with
Pseudomonas striata or Bacillus polymyxa and with Bacillus megaterium have shown increased
dry matter, grain yield and phosphorus uptake significantly over the control.
Singh and Prasad (2008)reported that the seed inoculation with Rhizobium markedly
enhanced yield attributes grain and straw (17.38 qha-1 and 21.98 qha-1 ) respectively. Rhizobium
inoculation has been found to be beneficial in increasing N2 fixation and yield of chickpea.
Akhtar and Siddiqui (2009)reported that the inoculation of Rhizobium spp. caused a greater
increase in growth and yields than the P. putida, P. aeruginosa or G. intraradices. The number of
nodules per root system was significantly higher in plants inoculated with Rhizobium spp.
compared to plant without Rhizobium spp.
Panwar et al. (2010)observed that the increase in grain yield due to Rhizobium strain
inoculation was 9.95 – 27.93 % over the control.
Abdalla et al. (2011)observed that the inoculation of phosphate solubilizing bacteria was
found to cause significant increase in yield of chickpea. Inoculation of root nodule bacteria
significantly increase chickpea seed yield.
Tagore et al. (2013)reported that the effect of Rhizobium and phosphate solubilizing
bacterial (PSB) inoculants on symbiotic traits, it is effective in term of nodules number
(27.66nodule/plant), nodules dry weight (74.30 gm plant-1 ), fresh weight(144.90 mg plant-1 ),
28
shoot dry weight (11.76 gm plant-1 ) and leghemoglobin, content (2.29 mg -1of fresh nodules) and
also showed its positive effect in increasing the yield attributing parameter, straw and grain yield
in
chickpea.
Siddiqui et al. (2014)reported that the inoculation of the seed with an effective strain of
Rhizobium species along with Azotobacter chroococcum resulted in significant increase grain yield
over controls.
Kumar et al. (2014)observed that the application of RDF + @5t ha-1 vermicompost + PSB
(phosphorus solubilizing bacteria) + Rhizobium significantly increased yield and yield attributes of
chickpea over control.
Kumar et al. (2015)study the three levels of fertilizers (100, 75 and 50% of RDF) and 4
levels of bio-fertilizers (B1: Control B2: Rhizobium as seed treatment + PSB as soil application,
B3: Rhizobium as seed treatment + VAM as soil application, B4: Rhizobium & PSB both as seed
treatment) and noted that the maximum yield was recorded with 75% RDF + B4 found as good as
the yield obtained with 25% saving of fertilizers. The use of bio-fertilizers with reduced quantity
of chemical fertilizers is therefore recommended for better yield of chickpea.
Chandra and Pareek (2015)reported that the Mesorhizobium spp. In chickpea alone showed
marginal increase in grain and straw yield. Different PGPR with Mesorhizobium spp. In chickpea
produce significantly more grain yield (3.4 to 20.7%) and straw yield (5.9 to 11.7%) over
Mesorhizobium spp.Review of literature .
Bidyarani et al. (2016)reported that significantly higher yield parameter in the Anabaeria
lexa treatment, which recorded 50% higher grain yield (1724 kg ha-1 ) as compared to control
(847 kg ha-1 ).
inoculation significantly increased yield attributes and yield (pods/plant, 1000 seed weight) and
yield of chickpea over control. Chickpea crop responded significantly up to 90 kg P2O5 ha-1 alone
and increased the seed and straw yield by 42.7 and 38.3 percent, respectively over control. The
maximum seed (23.55q ha-1 ) and straw (64.48q ha-1 ) yields were recorded with 60 kg P2O5
ha-1 + PSB inoculation.
Singh et al. (2017)reported that the plant height, number of branches plant-1 , number of
pods plant-1 and test weight was positive and significantly affected by seed inoculation with PSB
+ Rhizobium. The combined seed inoculation (PSB + Rhizobium) significantly increased the seed
yield of chickpea by 20.1 percent over control.
29
Singh and Singh (2018)reported that use of biofertlizers such as Rhizobium can reduce the
demand of chemical fertilizer and decreases adverse environmental effect. The studies have shown
positive effect of Rhizobium inoculation on growth attributes, Symbiotic parameter, yield and yield
component nutrient uptake and quality in chickpea.
Singh et al. (2019)observed that significantly higher values of yields attribute viz., pods
plant-1 along with higher seed yield (2228 kg ha-1 ) and straw yield (3436 kg ha-1 ) with the
application of 75% RDF + VAM + Rhizobium + PSB + KMB (soil application).
2.3.3 Quality parameters:

Nagar and Meena (2004)observed that the seed inoculation with PSB significantly
increased protein content in seed over the control.
Rokhzadi et al. (2008)observed that the combine inoculation of Azosprillum + Azotobactor
+ Mesorhizobium + Pseudomonas resulted in promotion of protein yield of chickpea as compared
with other inoculation treatment and uninoculated control.
Nishita and joshi (2010)reported that seed inoculation with Rhizobium is a promising
fertilizer because it is cheap, easy to handle and improved seed quality of chickpea.
Abdalla et al. (2013)reported that the inoculation of Rhizobium and PSB both are increased
protein content in chickpea seed as well as inoculation of PSB significantly increased protein
content in chickpea seed.
inoculation significantly increased protein content (22.5%) in grain and straw (8.0%) and protein
yield (534.6 kg ha-1 ).
30
CHAPTER–III MATERIALSANDMATHEODS
The field experiment entitled "Response of Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)Varieties

to Nipping and Irrigation Level’’was conducted during rabi season of2022-
23attheInstructionalFarm,PacificCollegeofAgriculture,Udaipurarebeingpresentedin
thischapter.
Datarecordedongrowthcharacters,yieldattributingcharacters,yield,qualityparameters
and economics of chickpea were statistically analyzed. The mean pertaining tovarious studies
have been presented in the form of abridged tables along with
necessaryillustrationsincorporatedatappropriateplaces.Theanalysisofvariancetablesareappende
dat the end of this manuscript (Appendix I to XX). Results of the main effects and
interactioneffects, which were found significant, are presented in this chapter. The results
have also beendepictedgraphicallywherever, it isnecessary.
3.1 Experimentalsite
The field experiment was conducted at the Instructional Farm, Department of

Agronomy,Pacific College of Agriculture, Udaipur, which is situated at South- East part of
Rajasthan at anelevationof582.17mabovemeansealevelat24°35‟Nlatitudeand73°42‟Elongitude.
Itfallsunder the agro- climatic zone IVa i.e. Sub humid Southern Plain and the Aravalli hills
ofRajasthan.
3.1.2Climateand Weather:
The experimental site is situated in the tract of sub humid, characterized by
moderatewinters and summers. Four seasons can be distinguished during the year: a dry summer
fromMarch to June, a warm and humid rainy season from July to September, a post monsoon
warmseason from October to November, and a severe cold season from December to February.
Awide range of fluctuations is experienced for the mean maximum and minimum
temperaturesduringbothsummerandwinterseasons.Maximumtemperatureisabout45°Cduringhots
ummer months of May and June, while during winter months of December and January
theminimumtemperaturemaybesubzero.
The actual mean weekly meteorological data during the crop seasons of rabi 2022-
23,recorded at observatory located at Research Farm of PCA, Udaipur are given in Table 3.1.
Therainfall received during the rabi crop seasons of 2022-23 was 222 mm. The mean
31
weeklymaximumtemperatureinrabi 2022-23 rangedbetween 29.1 to 34.0°C and
32
Table3.1Meanweeklyweatherparametersrecordedduringcropseason (Rabi,2022-23)
SMW*No. Period Temperature(0C) Mean R.H. Evaporation Bright Rainfall

From To Max. Min. (%) (mm/day) sunshine( (mm)
hrs)
40 01/10/2022 07/10/2022 31.2 20.4 85.2 3.46 5.9 3
41 08/10/2022 14/10/2022 32.9 19.6 78.5 4.29 6.5 2
42 15/10/2022 21/10/2022 30.9 15.0 78.0 3.90 7.1 7
43 22/10/2022 28/10/2022 29.9 13.8 81.5 4.20 8.0 0
44 29/10/2022 04/11/2022 30.4 9.4 65.3 4.14 8.7 0
45 05/11/2022 11/11/2022 29.6 8.5 70.4 3.80 8.0 0
46 12/11/2022 18/11/2022 27.5 7.4 78.0 3.09 6.4 12
47 19/11/2022 25/11/2022 24.9 12.5 76.8 1.88 5.0 171
48 26/11/2022 02/12/2022 27.0 10.3 76.4 2.79 6.5 0
49 03/12/2022 09/12/2022 23.6 9.4 77.3 1.43 4.6 0
50 10/12/2022 16/12/2022 25.0 6.5 75.6 1.50 6.1 0
51 17/12/2022 23/12/2022 23.6 3.3 71.7 1.06 7.7 0
52 24/12/2022 31/12/2022 23.6 7.9 76.9 1.46 6.9 18
1 01/01/2023 07/01/2023 23.3 8.9 81.7 1.13 6.0 5
2 08/01/2023 14/01/2023 20.9 3.9 74.4 0.79 8.8 0
3 15/01/2023 21/01/2023 23.6 3.9 78.9 0.57 8.2 0
4 22/01/2023 28/01/2023 21.6 3.3 78.3 0.93 8.8 0
5 29/01/2023 04/02/2023 27.0 4.2 74.5 1.07 8.5 0
6 05/02/2023 11/02/2023 25.9 5.1 80.6 1.03 8.8 0
7 12/02/2023 18/02/2023 26.7 5.1 81.0 1.10 8.7 0
8 19/02/2023 25/02/2023 30.0 7.6 72.0 3.43 9.4 0
9 26/02/2023 04/03/2023 30.1 8.9 80.5 3.90 8.2 0
10 05/03/2023 11/03/2023 31.4 12.4 65.4 4.31 7.5 4
11 12/03/2023 18/03/2023 36.3 12.3 38.2 5.86 8.3 0
12 19/03/2023 25/03/2023 37.7 13.1 34.3 6.24 7.3 0
13 26/03/2023 01/04/2023 38.0 12.0 30.2 6.26 8.4 0
*StandardmeteorologicalweeksSource=MeteorologicalObservatory,Udaipur
33
Rainfall Temp.(max) Temp. (Min) MeanR.H.(%)
Fig:3.1Meanweeklyweatherparametersforcrop Evaporation(mm)Brightsunshine(hrs)
season(Rabi,2022-23)
34
Minimumbetween1.6to17.0°C.Themeanweeklymorningandeveningrelativehumidity
varied between 58 to 99 and 21 to 81 per cent in rabi 2022-23. During the
rabicropseasondailysunshinehoursrangedbetween2.0 to 9.5 hoursin 2022-23.
3.1.2 Soilof theexperimentalfield
In order to ascertain physico-chemical characteristics of the experimental field,

soilsamples up to 15 cm depth were collected randomly from different spot of
investigationsite and a composite sample was prepared by mixing the soil. The composite
soil
sampleforthedifferentmechanical,physicalandchemicalpropertiesoftheexperimentalsoilwa
s analysed using standard methods. The results of the soil analysis are presented
inTable3.1 alongwiththemethodsused forthe abovementioneddeterminants.
Table3.2InitialPhysico-chemicalcharacteristicsof theexperimentalsoil
Soilproperties Value(0- Methodsofanalysiswithr

15cm) eference
A.MechanicalComposition
Sand(%) 39.10 Hydrometermethod(Bouyoucos,1
Silt(%) 25.70 962)
Clay(%) 35.20
Texture Clayloam Triangularmethod(Brady,1983)
B.Physicalproperties
Bulk density(Mgm-3) 1.42 MethodNo.38,USDAHandBookNo.
60(Richards,1954)
Particledensity 2.45 MethodNo.39,USDAHandBookNo.
(Mgm-3) 60(Richards,1954)
Porosity(%) 42.05 MethodNo.40,USDAHandbookNo.
60(Richards,1954)
C.Chemicalproperties
Organiccarbon(%) 0.51 WalkleyandBlack‟srapidtitration
method(WalkleyandBlack, 1934)
AvailableN(kgha-1) 241.96 AlkalineKMnO4method(Subbiahand
Asija,1956)
AvailableP2O5(kgha-1) 21.39 Olsen‟smethod(Olsenetal.,1954)
AvailableK2O(kgha-1) 384.85 FlamephotometricMethod
(Jackson,1973)
EC (dsm-1) 0.81 MethodNo.4USDAHandbook
No.60(Richards,1954)
35
SoilpH 8.24 MethodNo.21b,USDAHandbookNo.
60(Richards,1954)
36
The field experiment entitled; “ Response of chickpea (cicer arietinum) varieties to
irrigation levels” was conducted during rabi season of 2022-23 at the Instructional Farm,
Pacific College of Agriculture, Udaipur are being presented in this chapter. Data recorded
on growth characters, yield attributing characters, yield, quality parameters and economics
of chickpea were statistically analyzed. The mean pertaining to various studies have been
presented in the form of abridged tables along with necessary illustrations incorporated at
appropriate places. The analysis of variance tables are appended at the end of this
manuscript (Appendix I to XX). Results of the main effects and interaction effects, which
were found significant, are presented in this chapter. The results have also been depicted
graphically wherever, it is necessary
37
MAIN IRRIGATION CHANNEL
R1 R2 R3
39.9 M
V2N0I2
V2N0I1 V1N0I1 2.7 M
4.0 M 1M
10.8 M
SUB IRRIGATION CHANNEL SUB IRRIGATION CHANNEL
Treatment details:
A. Varieties Experiment Details:
V1 GNG-1581 Plot size= 4.0 m x 2.7 m
V2 JG-1 Replication=3
V3 Pratap Chana-1 Total treatment=12
B. Nipping Total number of plots=36
No No Nipping Design=RBD (Factorial)
Ni Nipping
C. Irrigation levels
I1 One irrigation
I2 Two irrigation
FIGURE 3.2: PLAN OF LAYOUT
38
3.1.3 Croppinghistory
Thedetailsregardingcroppingpatternfollowedontheexperimentalfieldduringlastthreeye
ars arementioned in Table3.3
Table3.3Croppinghistoryoftheexperimental site
Cropscultivated
Year
kharifseason Rabi season zaid(summer
season)
2020-21 Maize Linseed Greengram
2021-22 Sorghum Chickpea Black
gram2022-23 PresentInvestigation
3.2 Experimentaldetails
3.2.1 Treatments
Twelve different treatment combinations comprising of two nipping

treatments‟two irrigation levels and three phosphorus levels were tested in factorial RBD
with threereplications. The plan of layout is depicted in Fig. 3.2. The treatments along
with theirsymbolsaregiven in Table3.4
Table3.4Treatmentswiththeirsymbols
Treatment Symbols
(A) Varieties Detail
(i) V1 GNG-1581 V1
(ii) V2 JG-14 V2
(iii) V3 Pratap Chana-1 V3
(B) Nipping
(i) No Nipping No
(ii) Nipping N1
(C) Irrigation Levels
(i) One irrigation I1
(ii) Two irrigation I2
39
3.2.2 OtherExperimentalDetails:
(A) Totaltreatmentcombinations: 2 x2x3 =12
(B) Experimentaldesign :FactorialRBD
(C) Numberofreplications : 3
(D) Totalnumber ofplots : 36

(E) Plotsize : Net plotsize4 mx2.7 m
3.5TreatmentCombination
Sr.No. TreatmentsCombination
T1 V1N0I1 GNG-1581+ No Nipping + One Irrigation
T2 V1N0I2 GNG-1581+ No Nipping + Two Irrigation
T3 V1N1I1 GNG-1581+ Nipping + One Irrigation
T4 V1N1I2 GNG-1581+ Nipping + Two Irrigation
T5 V2N0I1 JG-14 +No Nipping + One Irrigation
T6 V2N0I2 JG-14+No Nipping + Two Irrigation
T7 V2N1I1 JG-14+ Nipping + One Irrigation
T8 V2N1I2 JG-14+ Nipping + Two Irrigation
T9 V3N0I1 Pratap Chana-1 + No Nipping + One Irrigation
T10 V3N0I2 Pratap Chana -1+ No Nipping + Two Irrigation
T11 V3N1I1 Pratap Chana-1+ Nipping + One Irrigation
T12 V3N1I2 Pratap Chana-1 + Nipping + Two Irrigation
3.3 DETAILSOFCROPRAISING
The schedule of pre and post sowing operations followed during the period
ofinvestigation is presented in Table 3.6 The details regarding various cultural
operationsfollowedaredescribed hereunder.
3.3.1 Landpreparation
Theexperimentalfieldwascrosswisecultivatedbytractordrawncultivatorfollowed by
one harrowing and planking to obtain leveled and compact seedbed. Thelayout was done
as per the experimental design. The sequence of operations carried out inthefield
duringthe courseofinvestigation is outlined in Table 3.6
40
3.3.2 FertilizerApplication:
Full dose of nitrogen through urea and phosphorus through single super
phosphatewereappliedinfurrows, 5cmbelowseedingdepthbeforesowing,aspertreatments.
3.3.3 Seedrateandsowing:
Furrows were opened at a spacing of 30 cm. Sowing of chickpea was done on

Oct10,2022 at depth of5-6cm usingauniform seedrate of60 kgha-1.
3.3.4 Thinning
Thinning was done at 15 days after sowing to maintain plant to plant spacing of
10cmwithin row
3.3.5 Weedingandhoeing
One weeding-cum-hoeing was done manually at 30 DAS to facilitate aeration

andtocontrol weeds.
3.3.6 Irrigation
1. Irrigation=at35DAS, 2.At65 DASpod formationstage
3.3.7 Plantprotection
Need based plant protection measures were adopted to protect the crop from
insectpestsand foliar diseases.
3.3.8 Harvestingandthreshing
The crop was harvested manually with the help of sickle. The crop from net
plotarea was harvested separately for each plot. The harvested produce ofeach plot
wastagged and sun-dried for a week. Before threshing, the biological yield (seed + straw)
wasrecorded with electronic balance. The crop was threshed manually by beating the
plantswiththehelpofstick.Asmallsampleofseedwasdrawnfromeachplotforestimatingtest
weight. Threshingand winnowing operations were carried out
togetseedfromharvestedproduce.
41
Table3.6Calendarofimportantculturaloperationsfollowedduringthecourseofinvestigatio
n
S.No. Operations Date
1. Fieldpreparation 28-10-22
2. Layoutoftheexperimentalfield 1-11-22
3. Fertilizerapplication 2-11-22
4. Sowing 2-11-22
5. Hoeingandweeding 5-12-22
6. I 7-12-22
IrrigationII 6-01-22
Irrigation
7. Nippingtime 2-12-22 (30DAS)
8. Harvesting 23-03-23
9. Threshingandwinnowing 29-03-23
3.4 TREATMENTEVALUATION:
In order to evaluate effects of the treatments on growth, yield attributes,

yield,quality, nutrient content, nutrient uptake and economics of mustard crop,
observationswererecorded for each parameter asper theprocedurementioned below-
3.4.1 Plantpopulation andgrowthparameters:

3.3.1.1Plantpopulation
The number of plants was counted from five randomly selected one metre
rowlength of each plot at 15 DAS and at harvest. They were averaged and expressed
asnumberof plants permetre.
3.4.1.2Plantheight
Plant height is the general indication of plant growth which is measured in
cm.Plant height was recorded from base of main stem at ground level to the tip of main
stemat30, 60 DAS.
3.3.1.3 Numberof branchesperplant
42
Thetotalnumbersofbranchesperplantwerecountedforselectedfiveobservational
plants at 30, 60 DAS and at harvest and the average value was workedout.
3.3.1.4 Dry matterper plant
For estimation of dry matter, one plant was randomly selected from net plot.
Itwas dried in thermostatically controlled oven at 70 0C till constant weight was
obtained.Drymatterproduction per plant (g) at 30, 60 DAS.
3.4.2 Yieldattributes andYield

3.4.2.1Totalnumberofpodsperplant
Fromtheobservationalplants,totalnumbersofpodswererecordedafterharvestandave
ragenumbers of pods per plant wereworked out.
3.3.2.2Numberof seedsperpod
Fromtheobservationalplants,totalnumberofseedswasrecordedfrompodscollectedafter
harvestandaveragenumbersofseeds perplant wereworkedout.
3.3.2.4 Testweight(g)
Testweightwasworkedoutfromthesampletakenfromnetplotofeachtreatment.Thehu
ndred seedsfromthesampleweretakentowork outthetestweight.
3.3.2.5 Grain yield(kg/ha)
After threshing and winnowing, clean seeds obtained from each net plot
wereweighedandconvertedin to kg/ha.
3.3.2.6 Straw yield(kg/ha)

Straw yield was worked out by deducting of seed yield from the biological
yieldperplot andthen converted in to kg/ha.
3.3.2.4 Biologicalyield(kg/ha)
The biological yield (seed + straw) from the net plot was recorded after
completedryingofplantsinsun.Thebiologicalyieldperhectarewascalculatedfromthebiologic
alyield ofnet plot.
3.3.2.5 Harvest index (%)

Harvest index (HI) was calculated by dividing economical yield (seedyield) bythe
biological yield (seed and straw) and represented in percentage. Harvest index
wascalculated aspertheformulaadvocated byDonald andHamblin (1976).
43
3.4.3 ChemicalAnalysisandqualityparameters
(a)NandPcontent:
Plant materialfor this study was drawnafter harvestof mustard and the seedswere
dried at 70°C for 48 hours, the plant material thus obtained was ground with the helpof
grinder and passed through mesh sieve and then used for determination of N and
Pcontent. The nutrient contents of this material were then estimated as given in Table
4.7.The chemical analysis was done for determination of nitrogen and phosphorus content
inseedsand stoveratharvest.The methodsadoptedare given below:
Nitrogen: Nessler‟sreagentcolorimetricmethod(Lindner,1944).
Phosphorus: Vanadomolybdo-phosphoricacidyellowcolour method(Richards1968)
-1
(b) Nutrientuptake (kgha )
Theuptakeofeach nutrient wascomputed bythe followingformula:
Nutrientuptake (kgha )=
Nutrientcontent(%)inseedorstraw×Seedorstrawyield(kgha−1)
100
-1
(c)Proteincontent(%)
The protein content (%) in grains was determined by multiplying grain

nitrogencontent(%) with aconversion factor6.25(A.O.A.C., 1960).
3.3.1 EconomicEvaluations
Utilityofadoptingdifferent practiceswascomputed byusingthefollowing data.
3.4.4.1 Netreturns (Rsha-1)
To find out the most profitable treatment, economics of different treatments

wasworked out in terms of net monetary returns by subtracting the cost of treatment and
thecost of cultivation from gross income obtained. Cost of cultivation and net profit
werecalculatedon the basis of prevailingpriceof productsand inputs(AppendixXI).
Netreturns(Rs.ha-1)=Gross returns-Totalcostof cultivation.
3.4.4.2 Benefit:cost:
44
Thiswascalculatedby dividing netreturnswithcostofcultivation foreachtreatment to
see the economic viability of the treatments. The computation details ofeconomicsfor each
treatment aregiven in Appendix XI.
Netreturns(Rsha-1)
Benefit:Cost=
Costof cultivation(Rs ha-1)
3.4.4.3 Statisticalanalysis:
Datacollectedduringthepresentinvestigationweresubjectedtostatisticalanalysis by
adopting appropriate method of analysis of variance as described by Cochranand Cox
(1967). Wherever the variance ratio (F-values) were found significant at 5 percent level of
probability, the critical difference (CD) values were computed for makingcomparison
among the treatment means. Summary tables along with SEm ± and CD wereprepared and
presented in the text of chapter entitled “Experimental results” and
analysisofvariancefromdifferent parameters are given intheappendixat theend.
45
CHAPTER4 EXPERIMENTALRESULTS
Result of the field experiment entitled,“Response of Chickpea Varieties to

Nipping and Irrigation Levels”conducted during rabi season of 2022-2023 at the
Instructional Farm, Pacific College of Agriculture, Udaipur are being presented in this
chapter. Data pertaining to effect of treatments on various aspects of growth parameters,
yield components, yield, nutrient content and their uptake as well as other aspects of
chickpea crop were statistically analysed to test significance of results. The results for main
effects have been described invariably and presented in succeeding paragraphs. The analysis
of variance have been furnished in the Appendices at the end (Appendix I to X)
4.1 EFFECT OF VARIETIES, NIPPING AND IRRIGATION LEVELS ON PLANT

POPULATION AND GROWTH PARAMETERS
4.1.1 Effect on plantpopulation

Varieties: Data (Table 4.1) show that varieties did not significantly influence plant
population of the crop.
Nipping: An examination of data presented in (Table 4.1) indicates that nipping did not
significantly influence plant population per meter row length at initial as well at final stage
of the crop.
Irrigation: Data (Table 4.1) show that two irrigation levels did not significantly influence
plant population per meter row length of chickpea at initial and final stage of the crop
growth.
4.1.2 Effect on plantheight(cm)

Varieties: It is evident from data (Table 4.2) that varieties JG-14 recorded significantly the
highest plant height of 33.675 cm. Further variety Pratap Chana-1 gave significantly higher
plant height over variety GNG-1581. Variety JG-14 produce higher plant height by 4.41%
over varieties Pratap Chana-1 and GNG-1581, respectively.
Nipping: Data (Table 4.2) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher plant height
(cm) at 30,60 DAS and at harvest by 1.58 percent, respectively over no nipping.
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.2) that two irrigation gave significantly higher plant
height (cm) at 30,60 DAS and at harvest by 1.58 percent, respectively over one irrigation.
46
Table4.1Effectof varieties, nipping andirrigation levelsonplantpopulation(per mrow
length) and growth characters
Treatment Plant Population
Varieties
GNG-1581 10.400
JG-14 10.450
Pratap Chana-1 10.433
S. Em. ± 0.063
CDat5% NS
Nipping
No Nipping 10.422
Nipping 10.433
S. Em. ± 0.052
CDat5% NS
Irrigation
One irrigation 10.428
Two irrigation 10.428
S. Em. ± 0.052
CDat5% NS
47
Table4.2Effectof varieties,nipping andirrigation levelsonplantheight
Treatment Plant height (cm)

30 DAS 60 DAS At harvest
Varieties
GNG-1581 23.750 30.758 31.675
JG-14 24.450 32.654 33.675
Pratap Chana-1 24.342 31.400 32.250
S. Em. ±0.060 0.148 0.068
CDat5% 0.177 0.433 0.199
Nipping
No Nipping 23.850 31.311 32.278
Nipping 24.511 31.897 32.789
S. Em. ± 0.049 0.121 0.055
CDat5% 0.145 0.354 0.162
Irrigation
One irrigation 23.889 31.381 32.278
Two irrigation 24.472 31.828 32.789
S. Em. ±0.049 0.121 0.055
CDat5% 0.145 0.354 0.162
48
4.1.3 Effect on dry matter production
highest dry matter production/plant of 17.460 g. Further variety Pratap Chana-1 gave
significantly higher dry matter production/plant over variety GNG-1581. Variety JG-14
produce higher dry matter production/plant by 3.92% over varieties Pratap Chana-1 and
GNG-1581, respectively.
Nipping: Data (Table 4.3) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher dry matter
production/plant by 3.61 percent, respectively over no nipping.
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.3) that two irrigation gave significantly higher dry
matter production/plant by 7.86 percent respectively over one irrigation.
4.1.4 Effect on number of primary branches/plant

Varieties: Data (Table 4.4) show that varieties did not differ significantly in respect on
number of primary branches/plant at 30 and at harvest and 60 DAS significantly higher
number of primary branches/plant of 3.467. Variety JG-14 produce higher number of primary
branches/plant by 4.02% over variety Pratap Chana-1 and GNG-1581, respectively.
Nipping: An examination of data presented in (Table 4.4) indicates that nipping did not significantly
influence number of primarybranches/plantat 30 DAS, at harvest at initial as well at final
stage of the crop and 60 DAS by 4.8 percent, respectively over no nipping.
Irrigation: Data (Table 4.4) show that two irrigation levels did
notsignificantlyhighernumberof primarybranches/plantat 30 DAS, at harvest at initial as
well at final stage of the crop and 60 DAS by 5.84 percent, respectivelyoveroneirrigation.
4.1.5 Effect on days to flower initiation

Varieties:Data (Table 4.5) show that varieties did notsignificant effect days to flower
initiation in the crop.
Nipping: An examination of data presented in (Table 4.5) indicates that nipping did not
significant days to flower initiation in the crop at initial as well at final stage of the crop.
Irrigation: It is clear from data (Table 4.5) that two irrigation gave significantly higher days
to flower initiation in the crop by 3.27 percent respectively over one irrigation.
49
Table4.3Effectofvarieties, nipping and irrigationlevels on dry matter
production
Treatment Dry matter production (g/plant)

Varieties
GNG-1581 1.643 4.298 16.257
JG-14 1.730 4.608 17.460
Pratap Chana-1 1.660 4.377 16.801
S. Em. ± 0.006 0.005 0.093
CDat5% 0.017 0.016 0.272
Nipping
No Nipping 1.639 4.363 16.540
Nipping 1.717 4.492 17.138
S. Em. ± 0.005 0.004 0.076
CDat5% 0.014 0.013 0.222
Irrigation
One irrigation 1.629 4.315 16.202
Two irrigation 1.727 4.539 17.476
S. Em. ±0.005 0.004 0.076
CDat5% 0.014 0.013 0.222
50
Table4.4Effectof varieties,nipping and irrigationlevels on number of
primary branches
Treatment Number of primary branches/plant

Varieties
GNG-1581 2.442 3.183 3.433
JG-14 2.558 3.467 3.483
Pratap Chana-1 2.475 3.333 3.450
S. Em. ± 0.046 0.064 0.065
CDat5% NS 0.188 NS
Nipping
No Nipping 2.478 3.250 3.428
Nipping 2.506 3.406 3.483
S. Em. ± 0.037 0.052 0.053
CDat5% NS 0.154 NS
Irrigation
One irrigation 2.461 3.233 3.422
Two irrigation 2.522 3.422 3.489
S. Em. ± 0.037 0.052 0.053
CDat5% NS 0.154 NS
51
Table 4.5 Effect of varieties, nipping and irrigationlevels on days to flower initiation
Treatment Days to flower initiation
Varieties
GNG-1581 36.000
JG-14 36.583
S. Em. ± 0.256
CDat5% NS
Nipping
No Nipping 36.333
Nipping 36.056
S. Em. ± 0.209
CDat5% NS
Irrigation
S. Em. ± 0.209
CDat5%0.613
52
4.2 EFFECT OF VARIETIES, NIPPING AND IRRIGATION LEVELS ON YIELD
ATTRIBUTES AND YIELD
4.2.1 Effect on number of seeds/pod

highest number of seeds/pod of 1.428. Further variety Pratap Chana-1 gave significantly
higher number of seeds/pod over variety GNG-1581. Variety JG-14 produce higher number
of seeds/pod by 8.75% over varieties Pratap Chana-1 and GNG-1581, respectively.
Nipping: Data (Table 4.6) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher number of
seeds/pod by 2.78 percent, respectively over no nipping.
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.6) that two irrigation gave significantly higher
number of seeds/pod by12.70 percent respectively over one irrigation.
4.2.2 Effect on number of pods/plant

highest number of pods/plant of 54.000. Further variety Pratap Chana-1 gave significantly
higher number of pods/plant over variety GNG-1581. Variety JG-14 produce higher number
of pods/plant by 0.93% over varieties Pratap Chana-1 and GNG-1581, respectively.
Nipping: Data (Table 4.6) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher number of
pods/plant by 7.94 percent, respectively over no nipping.
number of pods/plant by 14.74 percent respectively over one irrigation.
4.2.3 Effect on test weight

highest test weight of 190.333 g. Further variety Pratap Chana-1 gave significantly higher
test weight over variety GNG-1581. Variety JG-14 produce higher test weight by 1.78%
Nipping: Data (Table 4.6) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher test weight by
0.82 percent, respectively over no nipping.
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.6) that two irrigation gave significantly higher test
weight by 3.89 percent respectively over one irrigation.
53
Table4.6Effectof varieties,nipping and irrigationlevels on yield attribute
Treatment No. of seeds/ No. of pods/ Test

pod plant weight (g)
Varieties
GNG-1581 1.313 49.500 187.00
JG-14 1.428 54.000 189.500
Pratap Chana-1 1.302 53.500 190.333
S. Em. ± 0.007 0.529 0.660
CDat5% 0.021 1.551 1.935
Nipping
No Nipping 1.329 50.333 188.167
Nipping 1.366 54.333 189.722
S. Em. ± 0.006 0.432 0.539
CDat5% 0.017 1.266 1.580
Irrigation
One irrigation 1.267 48.167 185.333
Two irrigation 1.428 56.500 192.556
S. Em. ± 0.006 0.432 0.539
CDat5% 0.017 1.266 1.580
54
4.2.4 Effect on straw yield
highest straw yield of 52.46 q/ha . Further variety Pratap Chana-1 gave significantly higher
straw yield over variety GNG-1581. Variety JG-14 produce higher straw yield by 59.79%
Nipping: Data (Table 4.7) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher straw yield by
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.7) that two irrigation gave significantly higher straw
yield by 5.19 percent respectively over one irrigation.
4.2.5 Effect on grain yield

highest grain yield of 18.98 q/ha. Further variety Pratap Chana-1 gave significantly higher
grain yield over variety GNG-1581. Variety JG-14 produce higher number of pods/plant by
56.85% over varieties Pratap Chana-1 and GNG-1581, respectively.
Nipping: Data (Table 4.7) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher grain yield by
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.7) that two irrigation gave significantly higher grain
yield by 5.27 percent respectively over one irrigation.
55
4.2.6 Effect on biological yield
highest biological yield of 71.447 q/ha. Further variety Pratap Chana-1 gave significantly
higher biological yield over variety GNG-1581. Variety JG-14 produce higher biological
yield by 59.02% over varieties Pratap Chana-1 and GNG-1581, respectively.
Nipping: Data (Table 4.7) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher biological
yield by 15.25 percent, respectively over no nipping.
biological yield by 5.19 percent respectively over one irrigation.
4.2.7 Effect on harvest index

Varieties: Data (Table 4.7) show that varieties did not significant effect on harvest index of
the crop.
Nipping: An examination of data presented in (Table 4.7) indicates that nipping treatment
failed to produce significant effect on harvest index of the crop.
Irrigation: It is clear from data (Table 4.7) show that two irrigation treatments did not
significantly influence harvest index.
56
Table4.7Effectof varieties,nipping and irrigationlevels on yield and
harvest index
Treatment Straw yield Grain yield Biological yield Harvest

(q/ha) (q/ha) (q/ha) (%)
Varieties
GNG-1581 32.83 12.10 44.929 26.904
JG-14 52.46 18.98 71.447 26.596
Pratap Chana-1 40.93 15.08 56.001 26.954
S. Em. ± 0.41 0.17 0.431 0.323
CDat5% 1.21 0.51 1.263 NS
Nipping
No Nipping 38.99 14.39 53.386 26.973
Nipping 45.15 16.38 61.532 26.663
S. Em. ± 0.34 0.14 0.352 0.263
CDat5%0.99 0.41 1.032 NS
Irrigation
One irrigation 41.01 14.99 56.005 26.803
Two irrigation 43.14 15.78 58.913 26.834
S. Em. ± 0.34 0.14 0.352 0.263
CDat5% 0.99 0.41 1.032 NS
57
4.3 EFFECT OF VARIETIES, NIPPING AND IRRIGATION LEVELS ON N-
CONTENT AND UPTAKE AND QUALITY PARAMETERS
4.3.1 Effect on N-content in straw and grain

highest n-content in straw and grain of 0.726. Further variety Pratap Chana-1 gave
significantly higher n-content in straw and grain over variety GNG-1581. Variety JG-14
produce higher n-content in straw and grain by 1.81% over varieties Pratap Chana-1 and
Nipping: Data (Table 4.8) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher n-content in
straw and grain by 1.25 and 1.50 percent, respectively over no nipping.
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.8) that two irrigation gave significantly higher n-
content in straw and grain by 2.37 and 1.86 percent respectively over one irrigation.
4.3.2 Effect on P-content in straw and grain

highest p-content in straw and grain of 2.883. Further variety Pratap Chana-1 gave
significantly higher p-content in straw and grain over variety GNG-1581. Variety JG-14
produce higher p-content in straw and grain by 0.80% over varieties Pratap Chana-1 and
Nipping: Data (Table 4.8) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher p-content in
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.8) that two irrigation gave significantly higher p-
content in straw and grain by 0.85 and 1.23 percent respectively over one irrigation.
58
Table4.8Effectof varieties,nipping and irrigationlevels on N-and P-content
in straw and grain
Treatment N-content (%) P-content (%)
Straw Grain Straw Grain
Varieties
GNG-1581 0.716 2.873 0.330 0.780
JG-14 0.726 2.883 0.363 0.855
Pratap Chana-1 0.729 2.860 0.361 0.818
S. Em. ±0.002 0.006 0.001 0.003
CDat5% 0.006 0.016 0.004 0.010
Nipping
No Nipping 0.719 2.850 0.347 0.812
Nipping 0.728 2.893 0.355 0.824
S. Em. ±0.002 0.005 0.001 0.003
CDat5% 0.005 0.013 0.003 0.008
Irrigation
One irrigation 0.715 2.845 0.350 0.813
Two irrigation 0.732 2.898 0.353 0.823
S. Em. ± 0.002 0.005 0.001 0.003
CDat5%0.005 0.013 0.003 0.008
59
4.3.3 Effect on N-uptake by straw and grain
highest n-uptake by straw and grain of 38.089 and 54.756 kg/ha. Further variety Pratap
Chana-1 gave significantly higher n-uptake by straw and grain over variety GNG-1581.
Variety JG-14 produce higher n-uptake by straw and grain by 61.95 and 57.38% over
varieties Pratap Chana-1 and GNG-1581, respectively.
Nipping: Data (Table 4.9) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher n-uptake by
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.9) that two irrigation gave significantly higher n-
uptake by straw and grain by 7.60 and 7.36 percent respectively over one irrigation.
4.3.4 Effect on P-uptake by straw and grain

highest p-uptake by straw and grain of 17.805 and 16.234 kg/ha. Further variety Pratap
Chana-1 gave significantly higher p-uptake by straw and grain over variety GNG-1581.
Variety JG-14 produce higher p-uptake by straw and grain by 51.84 and 71.91% over
Nipping: Data (Table 4.9) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher p-uptake by
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.9) that two irrigation gave significantly higher p-
uptake by straw and grain by 11.23 and 6.10 percent respectively over one irrigation.
60
4.3.5 Effect on Total N and P-uptake by crop
highest total n and p-uptake by crop of 92.845 and 34.039 kg/ha. Further variety Pratap
Chana-1 gave significantly higher total n and p-uptake by crop over variety GNG-1581.
Variety JG-14 produce higher total n and p-uptake by crop by 59.22 and 41.41% over
Nipping: Data (Table 4.9) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher total n and p-
uptake by crop by 16.18 and 7.04 percent, respectively over no nipping.
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.9) that two irrigation gave significantly higher total
n and p-uptake by crop by 7.46 and 2.80 percent respectively over one irrigation.
4.3.6 Effect on Protein content in seeds

highest protein content in seeds of 18.016. Further variety Pratap Chana-1 gave significantly
higher protein content in seeds over variety GNG-1581. Variety JG-14 produce higher total
protein content in seeds by 0.78% over varieties Pratap Chana-1 and GNG-1581,
respectively.
Nipping: Data (Table 4.10) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher protein
content in seeds by 1.51 percent, respectively over no nipping.
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.10) that two irrigation gave significantly higher protein
content in seeds by 1.87 percent respectively over one irrigation.
61
Table4.9Effectof varieties,nipping and irrigationlevels on N-and P-uptake by
straw and grain and total N-and P-uptake by crop
Treatment N-uptake (kg/ha) P-uptake (kg/ha) Total Total
Straw Grain Straw Grain N-uptake P-uptake
Varieties
GNG-1581 23.518 34.791 12.433 9.443 58.309 21.876
JG-14 38.089 54.756 17.805 16.234 92.845 34.039
Pratap Chana-1 29.861 43.146 11.726 12.344 73.007 24.070
S. Em. ±0.296 0.516 0.165 0.150 0.532 0.215
CDat5% 0.869 1.512 0.483 0.440 1.561 0.630
Nipping
No Nipping 28.087 41.038 15.813 11.749 69.125 27.562
Nipping 32.892 47.424 12.163 13.598 80.316 25.761
S. Em. ± 0.242 0.421 0.134 0.123 0.435 0.176
CDat5% 0.710 1.235 0.394 0.359 1.275 0.515
Irrigation
One irrigation 29.373 42.661 14.732 12.298 72.033 27.030
Two irrigation 31.606 45.801 13.244 13.049 77.407 26.293
S. Em. ±0.242 0.421 0.134 0.123 0.435 0.176
CDat5%0.710 1.235 0.394 0.359 1.275 0.515
62
Table 4.10 Effect of varieties, nipping and irrigationlevels on protein content in seeds
Treatment Protein content (%)
Varieties
GNG-1581 17.953
JG-14 18.016
S. Em. ± 0.035
CDat5% 0.103
Nipping
No Nipping 17.813
Nipping 18.083
S. Em. ± 0.029
CDat5% 0.084
Irrigation
S. Em. ± 0.029
CDat5% 0.084
63
4.4 EFFECT OF VARIETIES, NIPPING AND IRRIGATION LEVELS ON
ECONOMICS
4.4.1 Effect on net returns

highest net return of 115626.917 rs/ha. Further variety Pratap Chana-1 gave significantly
higher net return over variety GNG-1581. Variety JG-14 produce higher net return by
84.58% over varieties Pratap Chana-1 and GNG-1581, respectively.
Nipping: Data (Table 4.11) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher net return by
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.11) that two irrigation gave significantly higher net
return by 5.34 percent respectively over one irrigation.
4.4.2 Effect on B:C ratio

highest b:c ratio of 3.903. Further variety Pratap Chana-1 gave significantly higher b:c ratio
over variety GNG-1581. Variety JG-14 produce higher b:c ratio by 84.80% over varieties
Pratap Chana-1 and GNG-1581, respectively.
Nipping: Data (Table 4.11) clearly show that nipping gave significantly higher b:c ratio
Irrigation:It is clear from data (Table 4.11) that two irrigation gave significantly higher b:c ratio by
0.50 percent respectively over one irrigation.
64
Table4.11Effectof varieties, nipping andirrigation levels on net returns and B:C ratio
Treatment Net returns (Rs/ha) B:C ratio
Varieties
GNG-1581 62642.313 2.112
JG-14 115626.917 3.903
Pratap Chana-1 85338.063 2.879
S. Em. ± 1071.987 0.035
CDat5% 3144.030 0.104
Nipping
No Nipping 80428.181 2.746
Nipping 95310.014 3.183
S. Em. ± 875.274 0.029
CDat5% 2567.089 0.085
Irrigation
One irrigation 85581.097 2.957
Two irrigation 90157.097 2.972
S. Em. ± 875.274 0.029
CDat5%2567.089 NS
65
66
CHAPTER-5DISCUSSION
In the course of presenting the results of the experiment entitled “Response of

Chickpea Varieties to Nipping and Irrigation levels (Ciceraretinum)” significant
variations in the criteria used for evaluation the treatments wereobserved. Such variations
and also those having uniform trend are discussed in this chapter in the light of evidence
and positive explanations so as to establish the caused and effect relationship.
5.1 EFFECT OF VARIETIES:
5.1.1 Growth parameters:
In general
5.1Effect ofnipping
51.1Growthparameters
The results presented in the preceding chapter indicated that nipping

significantlyincreasedplantheight,numberofbranchesperplantanddryweightperplantincom
parison to no nipping (Table 4.2,4.3,4.4). This could be due to nipping effect onapical
buds which resulted in production of more secondary branches and cessation ofvertical
growth on account of effective translocation of growth regulators particularlyauxins
being diverted to the potential and tertiary shoot buds which in normal conditionsremain
dormant (Aziz M A., (2000). Sing and Singh (1992) also reported similar
findingsandstatedthatnippingresultedinefficientaccumulationofphotosynthesisinthevegetat
iveplant parts, therebyresultedin thesegrowth parameters.
5.1.2 Yield attributersandyield
The results presented in the preceding chapter indicated that nipping

significantlyincreased yield attributes of chickpea (Table 4.5 and 4.6) in comparison to no
nipping.The reason behind this might be nipping practice registered more number
branches
perplantwhichenhancedmorenumberofpodperplant.Thesefindingsareincloseagreement
with the results of Singh, et al., (2010), and Thenua, et al., (2010). The resultsalso
indicated that nipping gave significant increases in grain, straw and biological yieldsover
no nipping. The increase in grain yield noticed with nipping was mainlydue toproduction
of a greater number of productive branches and number of pods per plantcompared to no
nipping. These findings are67 in close agreement with the
(DonaldandHamblin1976).Nippinginthecropalsosignificantly
increasedstrawyield(TableTable
4.5and4.6),whichcouldbeattributedtoincreasesinoverallgrowthduetonippingas
68
exhibited by increases in various growth parameters. Significant increase in
biologicalyield of the crop under nipping treatment could be the result of increases in
grain yieldand straw yield. These results are in close conformity with the findings of
(DonaldandHamblin1976).
5.1.3 Nutrientcontentandqualityparameters
TheresultsintheprecedingchaptershowedthatnippinggavesignificantincreasesinNandP
contentsingrainandstrawovernonipping.Theseincreasescouldbeattributed to overall
increases in crop growth under nipping which caused production ofgrowth promoting
hormones. Significant variation in N and P uptake by linseed varietieswerereported
byChoudharyet al., (2021).(Table4.7, 4.8 and4.9).
Nipping gave significant increases in protein content in grain which could be

duesignificantincreasesinNcontentingrain.Theresultsareinlinewiththeworksof(Dasetal.,
2015).
5.2 Effectofirrigation
5.2.1 Growthparameters
The resultsindicatedthattwoirrigationrecordedsignificantincreasesinplantheight, dry
matter accumulation and number of primary branches per plant in comparisonto one
irrigation (Table 4.2, 4.3, 4.4). These increases in growth parameters could beattributed to
the sufficient moisture available in root zone of chickpea which can increasethe nutrients
availability to plant that increased the vegetative growth and leaves that inturn
helptomanufacture morefood materialwiththe presenceofchlorophyll.In linewith the
present result, some research results indicated significant effect of irrigation
ongrowthparameters(Sharma et al. 2014; Balochet al.,2010)
5.2.2 Yieldattributesandyield
The results in the preceding chapter revealed that two irrigations significantly
increasedyield attributes of chickpea viz., number of pods and number of seeds per pod
over oneirrigation.These increments could be attributed to the sufficient soil moisture in
the rootzone that increased the number of primary and secondary branches, which
ultimatelyincreased the number of pods and seeds (Singh, 2017). The observation is
consistent
withotherresults(Rasaeietal.,2012;Shamsietal.,2010;Silvaetal.,2014;Singhetal.,2016;Singh
, 2017; Yagmur and Kaydan,2011). 69
Two Irrigations significantly increased grain, straw and biological yield of the
cropin comparison to one irrigation (Table 4.5 and 4.6). These increases in grain yield
ofchickpea could be ascribed to increases in yield attributes namely pods per plant and
seedper pod (Singh,2017) Singh et al. (2006) also observed that the highest seed yield
of
thechickpeaobservedwhenchickpeacropwasirrigatedatfloweringstageandpodformation
stage. According to Singh et al. (2016), the number of pods/plant increased bydouble
irrigation in the first season and by single irrigation at flowering or pod
formationinthesecondseason.Singh(2017),alsoreportedthatthenumberofpods/
plantofchickpeasignificantlyincreasedwiththeapplicationoftwo-timeirrigationatpre-
flowering+grain filling stage.
5.2.3 Nutrientcontentandqualityparameters
While presenting the results in the preceding chapter, it was observed that
twoirrigations significantly increasedn content in seed and straw incomparison to
oneirrigation (table 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9). These increases in N content could be attributed
tobetternodulationandnitrogenfixationbyrootnodulesduetoadequatemoistureavailability
under two irrigations treatment. The results are in close agreement with thefindings of
(Sharma et al., 2012) Significant increases in N and P uptake under twoirrigations were
also observed over one irrigation which could be ascribed to increases innutrientcontent
and increasesin bothgrain andstrawyield.
Significant increase in protein content in grain was observed with two

irrigationscompared toone irrigation, which could be due to increases in N content in
grain asdiscussedabove. Thefindingsweresimilar toSharmaet al.(2012).
70
CHAPTER6 SUMMARY
The results of experiment entitled “Response of Chickpea Varieties to Nipping

and Irrigation Levels” conducted at the Instructional Farm, Pacific College of Agriculture,
Udaipur during rabi season of 2022-2023, presented and discussed in the preceding chapters are
summarized as under:
6.1EffectofVarieties:
1. The varieties did not differ significantly in respect of plant population recorded at harvest.
2. Variety JG-14 recorded significantly the highest plant height at 30,60 and at harvest.
3. Variety JG-14 recorded significantly the highest dry matter production at harvest over varieties
GNG-1581 and Pratap Chana-1.
4. The varieties did not differ significantly in respect on number of primary branches/plant at 30
and at harvest and 60 DAS significantly higher in variety JG-14 over varieties GNG-18 and
Pratap Chana-1.
5. The varieties did not differ significantly in respect of days to flower initiation recorded at
harvest.
6. Yield attribute viz., no.of seeds/pod, no.of pods/plant and test weight are significantly highest
in variety JG-14 over varieties GNG-1581 and Pratap Chana-1.
7. Grain yield was recorded significantly higher in variety JG-14 over varieties GNG-1581 and
Pratap Chana-1. Higher straw yield and biological yield was significantly recorded by variety
JG-14 over varieties GNG-1581 and Pratap Chana-1.
8. Harvest index did not differ significantly higher in all the varieties.
9. N-content in grain and straw was significantly recorded higher in variety JG-14 over varieties
10. P-content in grain and straw was significantly recorded higher in variety JG-14 over varieties
11. N-uptake by grain and straw was significantly recorded higher in variety JG-14 over varieties
12. P-uptake by grain and straw was significantly recorded higher in variety JG-14 over varieties
13. Total n and p-uptake by crop was significantly recorded higher in variety JG-14 over
varieties GNG-1581 and Pratap Chana-1.71
14. Protein content was significantly recorded higher in variety JG-14 over varieties GNG-1581
and Pratap Chana-1.
15. The net return and B:C ratio were significantly higher in variety JG-14.
16. The net return increased in variety JG-14 by Rs. 115626.917/ha and the B:C ratio was 3.903
as compared to other varieties.
6.2 Effect of Nipping:
1.Nipping did not significantly influence plant population per meter row length at initial as well at
final stage of the crop.
2. Nipping gavesignificantlyhigherplantheightat30,60DAS and at harvest by 1.58
percent,respectivelyover no nipping.
3. Nipping gave significantly higher dry matter production/plant at 30,60 DAS and at harvest
by 3.61 percent, respectively over no nipping.
4. Nipping did notsignificantly influence number of primarybranches/plantat 30 DAS, at
harvest at initial as well at final stage of the crop and 60 DAS by 4.8 percent, respectively
over no nipping.
5. Nipping did notsignificantly influence days to flower initiation at initial as well at final
stage of the crop.
6. Nipping gavesignificantly highernumber of seeds/pod, number of pods/plant and test weight
by 2.78, 7.94 and 0.82 percent, respectively overno nipping.
7. Nippinggave significantly highergrainyield, straw yield and biological yieldof 18.98, 52.46
and 71.447 q/ha whichwassignificantlyhigherby13.82, 15.79 and 15.25 percent,
respectivelyover no nipping.
8. Nipping did not significantly influence harvest index at initial as well at final stage of the
crop.
9. Nipping gave significantly higherN-content in straw and grain by 1.25 and 1.50 percent,
respectively over no nipping.
10. Nipping gave significantly higher P-content in straw and grain by 2.30 and 1.47 percent,
11. Nipping gavesignificantly higher N-uptake by straw and grain by 17.10 and 15.56 percent,
12. Nipping gavesignificantlyhigher P-uptakebystraw and grain by 30.00 and 15.73 percent,
respectivelyoverno nipping.
13. Nipping gave significantly higher total n and p-uptake by crop by 16.18 and 7.04 percent,
respectively over no nipping. 72
14. Nipping gave significantly higher protein content in seeds by 1.51 percent, respectively over
no nipping.
15. Nipping gave significantly higher net return by 18.50 percent, respectively over no nipping.
16. Nipping gave significantly higher B:C ration by 15.91 percent, respectively over no nipping.
6.3 Effect of Irrigation:
1. Two irrigation levels did not significantly influence plant stand per meter row length of
chickpea at initial and final stage of the crop growth.
2. Twoirrigation levelsgavesignificantlyhigherplantheight at 30,60 DAS and at harvest by 1.58
percent,respectivelyoveroneirrigation.
3. Two irrigation levels gave significantly higher dry matter production/plant at 30,60 DAS
and at harvest by 7.86 percent, respectively over one irrigation.
4. Twoirrigation levelsdid notsignificantlyhighernumberof primarybranches/plantat 30 DAS,
at harvest at initial as well at final stage of the crop and 60 DAS by 5.84 percent,
respectivelyoveroneirrigation.
5. Twoirrigation levels gave significantly higher days to flower initiation in the crop by 3.27
percent, respectively over one irrigation.
6. Two irrigation levels gave significantly higher number of seeds/pod, number of
pods/plant and test weight by12.70, 14.74 and 3.89 precent, respectivelyoveroneirrigation.
7. Twoirrigation levelsgavesignificantlyhigher grain yield, straw yield and biological yield of
18.98, 52.46 and 71.447 q/ha which was significantly higher by 5.27, 5.19 and 5.19 percent,
respectively over one irrigation.
8. Twoirrigation levels did notsignificantly influence harvest index at initial as well at final
stage of the crop.
9. Twoirrigation levelsgavesignificantlyhigher N-content in straw and grain by 2.37 and
1.86percent, respectivelyoveroneirrigation.
10. Twoirrigation levelsgavesignificantlyhigherP-content in straw and grain by 0.85 and
1.23percent, respectivelyoveroneirrigation.
11. Two irrigation levels gave significantly higher N- uptake by straw and grain by 7.60 and
7.36 percent, respectively over one irrigation.
12. Two irrigation levels gave significantly higher P-uptake by straw and grain by 11.23 and
6.10 percent, respectively over one irrigation.
13. Two irrigation levels gave significantly higher total n and p-uptake by crop by 7.46 and
2.80 percent, respectivelyover oneirrigation.
14. Two irrigation levels gave significantly higher protein content in seeds by 1.87 percent,
73
respectively over oneirrigation.
15. Twoirrigation levelsgavesignificantly higher net return by 5.34 percent, respectively
overoneirrigation.
16. Twoirrigation levels significantlyhigher B:C ratio by 0.50 percent, respectively
overoneirrigation.
74
CHAPTER7 CONCLUSION
From the results of the experiment entitled“Response of Chickpea Varieties to

Nipping and Irrigation Levels”,it may be concluded the under prevailing agro-climatic
conditoins of Zone IV-A of Rajasthan, chickpea variety JG-14 to be beneficial for
enhanching productivity as well as net returns and B:C ratio.Nipping in chickpea is a
beneficial practice as it gave significantly higheryield, net returns and B:C ratio in
comparisonto no nipping treatment. Two irrigation levels appears tobe quite
remunerative as itgave significantly highergrainyield,netreturnsand B:C ratio in
comparison to one irrigation.However, these results are only indicative based on one
year’s experimentation and therefore, requires further confirmation before making any
recommendations to the farmers.
75
LiteratureCited
A.O.A.C. 1960. Official methods of analysis, 9th edition Association of Official

AgriculturalChemists,Washington DC, pp119.
76
“Response of Chickpea Varieties to Nipping and Irrigation Levels
(CicerarietinumL.)”
Mahima Dr. G. L. Sharma**
Research Scholar Major Advisor
ABSTRACT
A field experiment entitled"Response of Chickpea Varieties to Nipping and

Irrigation Levels (Cicer arietinum L.)"was conducted at the Instructional Farm, Pacific
College of Agriculture, Udaipur during rabi season of 2022-23. The experiment
comprising combinationsof three varieties (GNG-1581, JG-14 and Pratap Chana-1) and
two nipping treatments (No nipping and nipping) and two irrigation levels (One
irrigation andtwo irrigation), thereby makingtwelve treatment combinations. The
experiment was laid out in factorial randomized blockdesignwith three replications.
The results showed that variety JG-14 recorded significantly the highest plant
height, dry matter production over other test varieties. The variety JG-14 resulted highest
in various yield attributes viz., number of seeds/pod, number of pods/plant and test
weight. The mean grain yield of 18.98 q/ha was obtained with variety JG-14 which was
higher over other varieties. Significantly the higher straw and biological yield was noted
with variety JG-14 over other varieties. Significantly the highest N and P content in grain
and straw and protein content in seed and the N and P uptake in grain and straw and the
total N and P uptake by crop were noted with variety JG-14. The variety JG-14 gave
significantly the highest mean net returns of Rs. 115626.917 and B:C ratio of 3.903.
The results showed that nipping significantly increased plant growth characters viz., plant
height; yield attributes and yield viz., number of
seeds/pod,numberofpods/plant,grainyield,strawyieldandbiologicalyield;NandPcontent in
grain and straw and protein content in seed and the N and P uptake in grain and straw and
the total N and P uptake by crop
incomparisontononipping.Further,nippinggavesignificantly highergrainyield by 13.82
percent, net returns by 18.50 percent and B:C ratioby15.91 percent higher over no nipping.
Two irrigation levels in crop resulted in significantly higher growth characters
viz., plantheight, days to flower initiation; yield attributes and yield viz., number seeds/pod,
number of pods/plant, grain yield, straw yield and biological yield; NandP content in grain
and straw and protein content in seed and the N and Puptake in grain and straw and the total
N and P uptake by crop overoneirrigation.Twoirrigation
levelsrecordedsignificantlyhighergrainyieldby 5.27 percent, net returns by 5.34 percent and
B:C ratio by 0.50 percentin comparison to oneirrigation.
*P.G.Scholar, DepartmentofAgronomy,PCA,Udaipur.
**Prof., DepartmentofAgronomy,PCA,Udaipur.
APPENDIX-I
Analysis ofvariance (MSS)forplantpopulation/ha
Source of variations d.f. MSS

Plant population
At harvest
Replications
Treatment
Variety (V)
Nipping (N)
Irrigation (I)
VN
VI
NI
VNI
Error
APPENDIX-II
Analysis ofvariance (MSS)forplantheight (cm)

Plant height (cm)
Replications
Treatment
Variety (V)
Nipping (N)
Irrigation (I)
VN
VI
NI
VNI
Error lxx
ix
APPENDIX-III
Analysis ofvariance (MSS)fordry matter production/plant (g)

Dry matter production/plant (g)
Replications
Treatment
Variety (V)
Nipping (N)
Irrigation (I)
VN
VI
NI
VNI
Error
APPENDIX-IV
Analysis ofvariance (MSS)fornumber of primary branches/plant

Number of primary branches/plant
Replications
Treatment
Variety (V)
Nipping (N)
Irrigation (I)
VN
VI
NI
VNI
lxx
Error x
APPENDIX-V
Analysis ofvariance (MSS)fordays to flower initiation

Days to flower initiation
Replications
Treatment
Variety (V)
Nipping (N)
Irrigation (I)
VN
VI
NI
VNI
Error
APPENDIX-VI
Analysis ofvariance (MSS) fornumber of seeds/pod , number of pods/plant and test
weight (g)
Source of variations d.f. number of number of test

seeds/pod pods/plant weight
Replications
Treatment
Variety (V)
Nipping (N)
Irrigation (I)
VN
VI
NI
VNI
Error
lxx
xi
APPENDIX-VII
Analysis ofvariance (MSS)foryield (q/ha), harvest index
Source of variations d.f. Grain Straw Biological Harvest

yieldyield yield yield
Replications
Treatment
Variety (V)
Nipping (N)
Irrigation (I)
VN
VI
NI
VNI
Error
APPENDIX-VIII
Analysis ofvariance (MSS)forN and P-content in straw and grain (%)
Source of variations d.f. N content P content

Straw Grain Straw Grain
Replications
Treatment
Variety (V)
Nipping (N)
Irrigation (I)
VN
VI
NI
VNI
Error
lxx
xii
APPENDIX-IX
Analysis ofvariance (MSS)forN and P-uptake by straw and grain and total N and P-
uptake by crop
Source of variations d.f. N-uptake (kg/ha) P-uptake (kg/ha) Total

Straw Grain Straw Grain N-uptake P-uptake
Replications
Treatment
Variety (V)
Nipping (N)
Irrigation (I)
VN
VI
NI
VNI
Error
APPENDIX-X
Analysis ofvariance (MSS)forprotein content (%) in seed
Source of variations d.f. Protein content
Replications
Treatment
Variety (V)
Nipping (N)
Irrigation (I)
VN
VI
NI
VNI
Error
lxx
xii
APPENDIX-XI
Analysis ofvariance for Net return (Rs.), B:C Ratio
Source of variations d.f. Net retuen (Rs. ha) B:C Ratio
Replications
Treatment
Variety (V)
Nipping (N)
Irrigation (I)
VN
VI
NI
VNI
Error
lxx
xiv

Mahima Thesis Chickpea-1[2]

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mahima Thesis Chickpea-1[2]

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Mahima Thesis Chickpea-1[2]

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“Response of Chickpea Varieties to Nipping and Irrigation Level”

I, Miss. Mahima D/o Ranjit Singh Chauhanresident of

University for the award or a Degree or

ii. RegularlypresentedHalf YearlyProgressReportasbyprescribedtheUniversity.

iii. Published/acceptedminimumoftworesearchpaperin arefereedresearchjournal.

Irecommendthesubmissionof thesisas prescribed/notifiedbytheUniversity.

(Dr. Monika Jain) (Dr. Shipra Paliwal)

( Dr. Hemant Kothari )

This is to certify that Miss. Mahimaof the Department

(Dr.G.L.Sharma)Professor (Dr.S.R. Maloo)

I, hear by declare that the Pacific Academy of Higher Education and

disseminatethis dissertation/thesis entitled in print or electronic format for academic /

I feel it my profound privilege to record my deep sense of gratitude and sincere

I am highly thankful to the respected members of my advisory committee Dr.

I wish to express my deepest sense of gratitude to my revered parents,Mr Ranjit

As life is incomplete without friends, so I am thankful to my lovely friends Mr. Rajat

ChapterNo. Particulars PageNo.

Table Content Page

FigNo. Content PageNo.

3.1 Meanweeklyweatherparameters forcropseason (Rabi,2021-22) 20

4.5 Effectofnipping,irrigationandphosphoruslevelson Number 40

4.9 Effectof nippingirrigation andphosphoruslevelon 52

App. No. Content PageNo.

V AnalysisvarianceforNumberof Branchat30DAS iii

VI AnalysisvarianceforNumberofBranchat45 DAS iii

VII AnalysisvarianceforNumberof Branchat75DAS iv

VIII AnalysisvarianceforDryweight at30DAS iv

XIII AnalysisvarianceforTestweight vii

XVI Analysisvarianceforbiologicalyield Vii

XVI AnalysisvarianceforStrawyield Viii

@ : Attherateof Max. : Maximum

°E : DegreeEast Min. : Minimum

Anova : AnalysisofVariance Mg : Megagram

CD : CriticalDifference mm/day: Millimeterperday

cm : Centimeter mha : Millionhectare

d.f. : Degreeoffreedom MT : Milliontons

dSm-1 : DeciSiemenspermeter N : Nitrogen

etal. : (etal)andelsewhere P : Phosphorus

etc : (etcetera)andtherest P2O5 : Phosphoruspentaoxide

Fig. : Figure pH : Puissancedehydrogen

g : Gram qha-1 : Quintalperhectare

ha : Hectare R.H. : RelativeHumidity

hrs. : Hours ha-1 : Rupeesperhectare

i.e. : (idest.)thatis SEm± : Standarderrorofmean

K : Potassium S.No. : Serialnumber

kgha-1 : kilogramperhectare t : Tons

m : Meter viz. : (Videlicet)namely

India ranks first in area and production of chickpea followed by Australia,

In Rajasthan, it is primarily cultivated in semi- arid and arid districts of

Nipping in chickpea is one of the important parameter for the enhancement of

Keeping in view the above considerations, the present experiment was

2.1 EFFECTOFNIPPINGONGROWTHAND YIELDOFCHICKPEA

2.1.1 Effectofnippingongrowth parameters

Sharma et al. (2003) conducted a field experiment at Agricultural Research

Kokilavani et al. (2007) conducted a field experiment at Eastern Block of Tamil

Choudhary et al. (2021) anexperiment was conducted during wintereffect of

2.2 EFFECTOFIRRIGATIONON GROWTH ANDYIELD OFCHICKPEA

Thenua et al. (2010) conducted field experiment on sandy loam soils of

Mustafa et al. (2008) observed that response of chickpea to irrigation and