Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Full Research Article

Actual Evapotranspiration, Water Expense Efficiency and Grain Yield of Chickpea under Varying Irrigation Regimes

Md. Hedayetullah1, C.K. Kundu1, J. Akhtar1, S.S. Hussain2, S. Das1, M.K. Datta3, N.M. Devi1
1Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Nadia, Mohanpur-741 252, West Bengal, India.
2Sheri Kashmir University of Science and Technology, Srinagar- 191 202, Jammu and Kashmir, India.
3Sri Sri University, Cuttack-754 006, Odisha, India.

  • Submitted09-07-2024|

  • Accepted20-09-2024|

  • First Online 04-10-2024|

  • doi 10.18805/LR-5378

ABSTRACT

Background: Chickpea crop is water sensitive amongst the pulse crop. It can grow leftover moisture with lifesaving water supply through irrigation during grain filling stage. Timely irrigation is important at crucial growth stages to achieving higher chickpea yield. In present study, the actual seasonal evapotranspiration, water expense efficiency and grain yield of Chickpea varieties under varying irrigation have been evaluated.

Methods: The field trial was laid out at the AB block farm of BCKV, Kalyani with a split-plot design with two chickpea varieties (i) V1- Bidisha and (ii) V2- Purva, in the main plots and three irrigation frequencies (i) I1-irrigate once only at 30 days after sowing (DAS); (ii) I2- irrigate twice on 30 and 50 DAS and (iii) I3- irrigate thrice on 30, 50 and 70 DAS replicated thrice during the rabi season of 2020-21 and 2021-22.

Result: The water expense efficiency was highest (1.32 kg m-3) under I1 irrigation frequency by Bidisha variety followed by Purva variety recorded highest WUE 0.95 kg m-3. The maximum chickpea yield (2040 kg ha-1) was harvested from Bidisha and was 23.04% greater than Purva mean over two years in I3 irrigation regime. Considering the output of the study cultivation of Bidisha with three irrigations can be suggested to the farmers of the region.

INTRODUCTION

Chickpea is an important winter legume crop in India and popularly known as Bengal gram, or Brown gram (Patel et al., 2022). Chickpea has multiple used as i.e. leafy vegetable, roasted green pod, chana dal, germinated seeds and flour (Manjunatha et al., 2024). Several dishes i.e. snacks, sweets and dishes can be made from flour. Chickpea grain contains about 25.5% proteins (Pooja and Sarawad, 2019) and 60.5% carbohydrates (Biabani and Sajadi, 2018). The brown chickpea occupies around 80% and the white gram around 20% productions in the world. India is the leading country contributing about 70% of the world’s total production (Naz Farha et al., 2018; Muehlbauer and Sarker, 2017). The area of chickpea crop rises from 7.57 million hectares in 1950-51 to 9.93 million hectares in 2013-14 productivity rise up from 4.80 q/ha to 9.65 q/ha (Loria et al., 2022; FAOSTAT, 2018). Chickpea production differed year to year because of adverse weather during winter season and recorded a sharp decline over years. Chickpea is a suitable winter pulse crop for farmers to grow on residual soil moisture, i.e. with limited irrigation facilities; one to two irrigations is very much essential for terminal heat stress in drier tract (Yucel, 2018; Raghavendra et al., 2017). The irrigation at right time in appropriate critical stages improves crop water productivity (Kelimo, 2022). Less amount of soil water contribution crop is faced certain level of water stress during crop growth (Asaf et al., 2023, Chetariya et al., 2024). The less supply of irrigation increases water productivity (WP) and decreases cost of cultivation (Osuna-Amador, et al., 2023). The cultivation of chickpea in rice fallow has many approaches for higher grain production. In low to medium land soil dominated by clay loam soil is suitable for chickpea. The leftover moisture with lifesaving irrigation is congenial for chickpea yield (Hedayetullah and Sadhukhan, 2018).
       
Chickpea crop is water sensitive among the pulse crop. It can grow on residual soil moisture during germination, establishment and early growth but in later stage lifesaving water supply through irrigation is needed. Bengal gram is can grow wide adaptability of land i.e. marginal lands and less scope of supplementary irrigation. However, there are reports on crop improvement related to optimum irrigation (Kumar et al., 2021) water use pattern of prominent chickpea crops is major concerned. Number of leaf per plant and leaf area decrease due to water stress that means evapotranspiration is major concern (Tiwari et al., 2024). The water losses from the soil and from plant are referred to as evapotranspiration (ET) as experiment is actual evapotranspiration concern in pulse crops. Water use efficiency (WUE) can enhance with proper irrigation scheduling (Amiri et al., 2021).
       
The scenario of water use pattern winter pulse crops need to reshape for kharif followed by rabi season. There is possibility to take second crops under this region after rice with application of two irrigation optimum grain yield may be harvested (Hedayetullah et al., 2018). In water scares areas, crop varieties and irrigation schedule helps to achieve higher yield and water use efficiency (Kamboj et al., 2024). The aim of this trial was to evaluate the effect of actual evapotranspiration, water expense efficiency and grain yield of Chickpea varieties under varying irrigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Location and soil type
 
The trial was conducted in rabi season of 2020-21 and 2021-22 at AB block farm of BCKV, Kalyani (22°59'15.5"N 88°25'30.1"E). Soil parameters of trial plot were low organic carbon with clay loam texture having pH of 6.8, Electrical conductivity of 1.26 ds m-1 and BD of 1.28 g cm-3.  The soil of experimental field was silty clay (Table 1). Important soil physiochemical properties are presented in Fig 1.
 

Fig 1: Particle size of the experimental soil.



Table 1: Important chemical properties of the experimental soil.


 
Experimental design
 
The field trial was set out with a split-plot design with two chickpea varieties (i) V1- Bidisha and (ii) V2- Purva, in the main plots and three irrigation frequencies (i) I1-irrigate once only at 30 days after sowing (DAS); (ii) I2- irrigate twice on 30 and 50 DAS and (iii) I3- irrigate thrice on 30, 50 and 70 DAS. Depth of irrigation was 50 mm and replicated four times. The data were analysed statistically for comparing the treatments means. The rainfall and pan evaporation loss are presented in Fig 1.
 
Agronomic practices
 
Land was prepared by drawn disc harrow with 20 cm tillage depth and finally given indigenous leveler. Bidisha and Purva were sown on month of November and mature crop harvested at the age of 120-130 days. Plant geometry was was 0.3×0.1 m. and fertilized with 20:40:40 as N, P2O5 and K2O kg ha-1.
 
Soil water storage
 
The soil water content (qm) was measured gravimetrically at 0.0-0.15, 0.15-0.3, 0.3-0.45, 0.45-0.6 0.6-0.75 and 0.75-0.90 m depths on sowing and harvest. Soil was oven dried at 100°C for two days. The soil water content was taken on depth basis (qd) and the unit was in mm. Depth basis soil water content of the entire root zone profile (0-900 mm) i.e. qdt was obtained by adding the depth basis soil water content of each layer as:
 
θdt = S θd0-150 + θd150-300 +  θd300-450 +  θd450-600  + θd600-750 + θd750-900
 
At harvest stage mature chickpea crop has cut in 9.6 meter square area and then it converted to Mg ha-1 as a grain yield.
 
Water expense efficiency (WEE)
 
It is computed using the following standard formulae:
 
  
 
WEE = Water expense efficiency
GY= Grain yield
WE= Water expense.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Water balance component
 
Precipitation
 
The cropping season of experiment was in dry winter, rainfall occasionally occurred. During the cropping season rainfall occurred in 2021-22 and less rain was occurred in 2020-21. The total precipitation during study period in 2021-22 was 223 mm which is depicted in rainfall bar along with evaporation (Fig 2).
 

Fig 2: Rainfall (bar) and pan evaporation (line) status during 2021-22.


 
Irrigation regimes
 
Irrigation was given with different frequencies on two chickpea varieties. In V1I1 treatment, plot was irrigated once only at 30 days after sowing (DAS) and total irrigation was given 50 mm during cropping season and in V1I2 treatment, plot was irrigated twice on 30 and 50 DAS and total irrigation was given 100 mm during cropping season. In this way, in V1I3 treatment, plot was irrigated thrice on 30, 50 and 70 DAS. Total irrigation was given 150 mm during the cropping season (Table 2). Depth of irrigation was 50 mm in each plot and in each replication. The irrigation frequencies (Alla et al., 2015) at vegetative and reproductive stages with 7-10 days interval showed effective to achieve higher chickpea yield.
 
Soil water storage study
 
During the cropping season the highest soil water storage (82.33 mm) was obtained under treatment V1I1 in Bidisha crops in 2021-22. The soil water content was decreasing towards I2 and I3 respectively. The lowest soil water storage (25.41 mm) was obtained under treatment V2I3 in Purva crops in 2020-21 (Table 2). In case of Bidisha crops soil water content decreased by 30% and 36%, respectively under I2 and I3 irrigations frequencies in 2020-21 whereas in Purva crops soil water storage decreased by 15% and 58%, respectively under I2 and I3 irrigations frequencies in 2020-21.
 

Table 2: Components of water balance for two varieties under varying irrigation regimes.


 
Actual evapotranspiration
 
Among these two chickpea varieties Bidisha crop plot having maximum actual evapotranspiration compare to the Purva variety. The maximum actual evapotranspiration (396.12 mm) was obtained under treatment V1I3 in Bidisha crops in 2021-22. It has been found that the AET increased notably with an increase in frequency of irrigation regimes and significant amount of rainfall. Actual evapotranspiration (AET) from Bidisha field increased by 19.42% and 38.35 %, respectively under I2 and I3 irrigations frequencies in 2020-21 and AET from Purva field increased 26.60% and 36.64%, respectively under I2 and I3 irrigations frequencies in 2020-21. The similar trend of AET was recorded in 2021-22 in both varieties under different irrigation regimes depicted in Table 2.
 
Grain yield and actual evapotranspiration relationship
 
There is effective linear correlation between yield and actual evapotranspiration. The relationship between grain yield and actual evapotranspiration is presented in Fig 3 and 4. Obtained yield varied from 1.53 to 1.93 Mg ha-1 and 1.03 to 1.54 Mg ha-1 in bidisha and purva variety respectively in 2020-21 and similar trend also observed in the year of 2021-22 (Table 3). The yield of chickpea water use pattern was confirmed by Ray et al., 2011. The seasonal actual evapotranspiration was recorded 119.94 to 194.56 mm and 111.13 to 175.41 mm in Bidisha and Purva crops respectively in 2020-21 and the similar curve was obtained in successive year of study 2021-22 (Table 2) and (2020-21). Fig 3 and 4 showed a relationship between grain yield (y) and actual ET (x), marked with high R2 value as given below-
 
Y= 0.001 SET2- 36.49; R2= 0.465
 
i. y= -6.672x2 +87.209x+37.087;-----(year-2020-21)
R2= 0.4549
 
ii. y= -6.672x2 +53.683x+292.44;-----(year-2021-22)
R2= 0.5467
 

Fig 3: Grain yield and actual evapotranspiration relationship under varying irrigation frequencies in 2020-21.


 

Fig 4: Grain yield and actual evapotranspiration relationship under varying irrigation frequencies in 2021-22.


 

Table 3: Impact of irrigation regimes on grain yield and water use efficiency (WEE) for two chickpea varieties.


       
Results showed that about 45.49% and 54.67% in 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively grain yield variation could be results for SET. The Y- SET relationship supported the findings of Ali (2017) and Oweis et al., (2004).
 
Water expense efficiency
 
The highest WEE (1.32 kg m-3) under I1 treatment in 2020-21 (Table 3) by Bidisha variety. In Purva variety recorded highest WUE 0.95 kg m-3 in I1 treatment in 2020-21. The decreased at 5.14% and 24.67%, respectively under I2 and I3 irrigations levels in 2020-21 for Bidisha variety. In case of Purva variety decreased by 4.2% and 7.4%, respectively under I2 and I3 irrigations frequencies in 2020-21. In both the varieties having decreasing trend obtained in water use efficiency. Whereas in 2021-22, both the varieties having increasing trend obtained in water use efficiency may be due to the second year rainfall contribution. Ali (2017) and Oweis et al., (2004) showed the higher water use efficiency found in less irrigated treatments.
 
Seasonal actual evapotranspiration and water expense efficiency relationship
 
The relationship between Seasonal actual evapotranspiration (SET) and water use efficiency (WEE) is presented in Fig 5 and Fig 6. Measured water expense efficiency (WEE) varied from 1.32 to 0.99 kg m-3 and 0.95 to 0.88 kg m-3 in Bidisha and Purva varieties respectively in 2020-21. Ali (2017) and Sarkar et al., (2016) reported that water expense efficiency in mulch plot it indicates less number of irrigation applied. The similar curve was obtained in successive year of study (2021-22). Fig 5 and 6 showed a linear relationship between seasonal actual evapotranspiration (SET) and water use efficiency (WEE), marked with high R2 value as expressed below:
 
i. y = -0.0023x + 1.3979-------(year-2020-21)
R² = 0.1565
 
ii. y = -0.0012x + 0.0319--------(year-2021-22)
R² = 0.2145
 

Fig 5: Seasonal actual evapotranspiration and water use efficiency relationship under varying irrigation frequencies in 2020-21.


 

Fig 6: Seasonal actual evapotranspiration and water use efficiency relationship under varying irrigation frequencies in 2021-22.


 
Results showed that about 15.45% and 21.45% in 2020-21 and 2021-22 respectively of the variations in water expense efficiency (WEE) could be attributed due to variation in Seasonal actual evapotranspiration. The relationship confirmed by Razzak et al., (2017 and Fernandez-Garcia et al., (2013).

CONCLUSION

Value of actual evapotranspiration (AET) loss from Bidisha field was marginally higher over Purva variety during the cropping season. In total maximum grain yield was harvested from Bidisha field which was greater than Purva. Highest amount (150 mm) of irrigation water application resulted in lowest value of water use efficiency. In study area chickpea grown in winter season, in this region water scarcity is very common. Considering the output of the study cultivation of Bidisha with two irrigations can be suggested to the farmers of the region. There is possibility to take second crops under this region after rice with application of three irrigations to achieve optimum grain yield.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are thankful to AICRP on Chickpea, BCKV and Department of Agronomy for support in soil physical and chemical analysis. This project was funded by ICAR- Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES


  1. Ali, M.H. (2017). Response of chickpea varieties to different irrigation regimes. Asian Journal of Advances in Agricultural Research. 2(4): 1-7. doi: 10.9734/AJAAR/2017/35861.

  2. Alla Jabow, M.K., Ibrahim, O.H., Adam, H.S. (2015). Yield and water productivity of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) as influenced by different irrigation regimes and varieties under semi desert climatic conditions of sudan. Agricultural Sciences. 6: 1299-1308. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/as.2015.611124.

  3. Amiri, S., Nargeseh, H.I., Moghaddam, S.R., Azizi, K. (2021). Water use efficiency of chickpea agro-ecosystems will be boosted by positive effects of CO2 and using suitable genotype × environment × management under climate change conditions. Agricultural Water Management. 252: 106928, ISSN 0378-3774, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106928.

  4. Asaf Avneria, B., Zvi, P., David, B., Roy S., Omer P.A., Ittai H., Shahal A., Ran N.L. (2023). Optimization of chickpea irrigation in a semi-arid climate based on morpho- physiological parameters 3: https://doi.org/10.1101/ 2023.02.12.528176.

  5. Biabani, A., Sajadi, S.J. (2018). Effect of moisture content on biophysical characteristics of chickpea cultivars. Legume Research. 41(3): 432-435. doi: 10.18805/LR-368.

  6. Chetariya, C.P., Pithia, M.S., Delvadiya, I.R., Pheirim, R., Soharu, A. and Dubey, N. (2024). Evaluation of desi chickpea (Cicer arientinum L.) Landraces for heat tolerance using Morpho-phenological traits and stress tolerance indices (STI). Agricultural Science Digest. doi: 10.18805/ag.D- 5902.

  7. FAOSTAT. (2018). World Food Organization of the United Nations, Online Agricultural Database, FAO Rome, available at http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/ (accessed 15/10/ 2018).

  8. Fernandez-Garcia, P., Lopez-Bellido, L., Munoz-Romero, V., Lopez Bellido, R.J. (2013). Chickpea water use efficiency as affected by tillage in rainfed Mediterranean conditions. Agricultural Water Management. 129: 194-199.

  9. Hedayetullah, M. and Sadhukhan, R. (2018) Production technology of relay chickpea under rice fallow for sustainable agriculture. Journal of Agroecology and Natural Resource Management. 5(2): 122-124.

  10. Kilemo, D.B. (2022). The review of water use efficiency and water productivity metrics and their role in sustainable water resources management. Open Access Libr. Journal.  9: 1-21.

  11. Kumar, P.R., Mali, S.S., Singh, A.K. and Bhatt, B.P. (2021). Impact of irrigation methods, irrigation scheduling and mulching on seed yield and water productivity of chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Legume Research. 44(10): 1247-1253. doi: 10.18805/LR-4188.

  12. Loria, K., Kumari, M., Sood, Y., Vikas, Lalita, Rani, S. and Himangini. (2022). Effect of seed rate and seed spacing on yield attributes of chickpea. Agricultural Science Digest. doi: 10.18805/ag.D-5565.

  13. Manjunatha, L., Srinivasa, N., Basavaraja, T. and Keerthi, M.C. (2024). Characterization of chickpea chlorotic dwarf virus (CpCDV) associated with chickpea stunt disease. Legume Research. 47(3): 496-500. doi: 10.18805/LR- 4512.

  14. Muehlbauer, F.J., Sarker, A. (2017). Economic Importance of Chickpea: Production, Value and World Trade. The Chickpea Genome, [R.K. Varshney et al. (eds.)], Compendium of Plant Genomes.© Springer International Publishing.doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-66117-9_2.

  15. Naz, F., Mazid, M., Khan, K. (2018). Global research paradigms in chickpea economics: An approach with Indian scenario. Agricultural Reviews. 39(4): 261-271. doi: 10.18805/ ag.R-1350.

  16. Osuna-Amador, J.D., Alonzo, R.M., Castro, T.V., Romeo, L.V., Martinez , L.H., Georgianne, W. M. (2023). Regulated deficit irrigation during vegetative growth enhances crop water productivity in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Agronomy. 23: 13(3) 917; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030917.

  17. Oweis, T.A., Ahmed, H., Pala, M. (2004). Water use efficiency of winter-sown chickpea under supplemental irrigation in a mediterranean environment. Agricultural Water Management. 66: 163-179. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2003.10.006.

  18. Patel, H.A., Thanki, J.D. and Joshi, M.P. (2022). Studies on growth, yield, soil nutrient status and economics of chickpea as influenced by inm in chickpea- fodder maize cropping sequence. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 56(4): 435-438. doi: 10.18805/IJARe.A-5918.

  19. Pooja, C., Sarawad I.M. (2019). Influence of iron and zinc on yield, quality of chickpea and status of iron and zinc in post harvest soil. Agricultural Science Digest. 39(1): 31-35. doi: 10.18805/ag.D-4882.

  20. Kamboj, E., Dhaka, A.K., Kumar, S., Singh, B., Hooda, V.S. and Kamal. (2024). Growth and yield performance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) as influenced by irrigation levels and genotypes: A review. Agricultural Reviews. doi: 10.18805 /ag.R-2693.

  21. Raghavendra, T., Jayalakshmi, V., Babu Venkatesh, D. (2017). Temperature induction response (TIR) - A novel physiological approach for thermotolerant genotypes in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) . Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 51(3): 252- 256. doi: 10.18805/ijare.v51i03.7914.

  22. Ray, M., Nanda, M.K., Khan, D.K. (2011). Effect of date of sowing and irrigation on seed yield, yield attributes and water use of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) at lower Gange tic plains of West Bengal. Journal of Crop and Weed. 7(2): 30-32.

  23. Razzak, A., Bahadur, M.M., Hafiz, M.H.R., Bala, P. (2017). Yield and yield components of chickpea influenced by irrigation level. International Journal Business Social Science Research. 5(4): 137-142.

  24. Sarkar, S., Sarkar, A., Zaman, A. (2016). Yield, water use and economics of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) as influenced by different levels of irrigation and mulches. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 61(4): 479-483.

  25. Tiwari T.N., Katiyar P.K. (2024). Seed Osmo-priming in chickpea enhances seed quality and crop performance under normal and water deficit conditions . Legume Research. 47(5): 779-786. doi: 10.18805/LR-4544.

  26. Yücel Derya (2018). Response of chickpea genotypes to drought stress under normal and late sown conditions. Legume Research. 41(6): 885-890. doi: 10.18805/LR-434.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)