The feasibility of growing pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (Linn.) Millsp.] as a perennial crop was investigated during 1980-82. The medium-duration pigeonpea genotype 'ICP 1-6', sown in the post-rainy season at a population of 30 plants/m2, was allowed to perennate for 18 months, during which it produced 3 flushes of pods at 5,15 and 18 months after sowing. There was a substantial plant mortality after the first-flush harvest, but due to the high-sowing rate many plants survived and regenerated to form a closed canopy in the following rainy season. The mean yield of 2 seasons was 0.5 tonne/ha in the first flush, 1 tonne/ha in the second and 0.05 tonne/ha in the third. The yield from the second flush was obtained without weeding or insecticide spray and was comparable to that of the rainfed crop of medium-duration genotypes. Considerable leaf fall also occurred, which contributed 40kg N/ha to the soil. The yield from the third flush was very low to warrant continuation of the crop for another 3-4 months after the second-flush crop. At this harvest the mean firewood (air-dried stem) yield was 3.5 tonnes/ha. The system has good potential in the wet rainy season fallows in peninsular India, as it enables pigeonpea after the rainy season with little efforts and few inputs

Chauhan, Y S

Sheldrake, A R

Venkataratnam, N

ICRISAT Open Access Repository

Indian Journal o f  Agricultural Sciences 57 (12) : 895-9, D ecember 1987A perennial cropping system from pigeonpea grown in post-rainy seasonY. S. CH A U H A N 1, N . V EN KA TARATN AM 3 and A . R . SH ELD RA KE3International Crops Research Institute fo r  the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 502 325Received : 30 A pril 1987ABSTRACTThe feasibility of growing pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L inn.) Millsp.] as a perennial crop was investigated during 1980-82. The m edium -duration pigeonpea genotype :ICP 1-6’s sown in the post-rainy season a t a population of 30 plants/m 2, was allowed to perennate fo r 18 m onths, dudiig  which it  produced 3 flushes of pods a t 5, 15 and 18 m onths after sowing. There was a substantial plant m ortality after the first-flush. harvest, b u t due to  the high-sowing rate many plants survived'and regenerated to  form a closed canopy in the following rainy season. The mean yield of 2 seasons was 0.5 tonne/ha in the first flush, 1 tonne/ha in the second and 0.05 tonne/ha in the th ird . The yield from  the second flush was obtained w ithout weeding o r  insecticide spray and was com parable to  th a t of the rainfed crop of m edium -duration genotypes. Considerable leaf fall also occurred, which contributed  40 kg N /ha to  the soil. The yield from  the th ird  flush was very low to  w arrant continuation o f the crop for another 3-4 m onths after the second-flush crop. A t this harvest the mean firewood (air-dried stem) yield was 3.5 tonnes/ha. The system has good potential in the w et rainy season fallows in peninsular India, as it enables pigeonpea after the rainy season with little efforts and few inputs.Pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (Linn.) Millsp.] is intrinsically a perennial plant, although it is generally grown as an annual crop. Due to  its deep roots and drought-tolerant nature, it is grown ex­tensively on drylands (Singh and Das, 1986). One problem in growing it as a perennial crop is its general susceptibility to  diseases, such as fusarium wilt (Fusa- rium udum Butler) and sterility mosaic.W ith the availability o f cultivars com­bining resistance to several diseases (Nene et al., 1981), it should be possible to overcome some of the limitations to  the perennial cropping o f pigeonpea. Further, cropping systems in which high initial plant stands are established could be uti­lized; so that even if some plants die for^Agronomist (Physiology), 2Senior Research AssociateC onsu ltan t Physiologist, 20. Willow R oad, London NW  3, Englandvarious reasons after the first-flush crop, there should still be enough surviving plants to  exploit the resources of light and water in the next season. One such system is pigeonpea sown in the post-rainy season. Owing to  the reduced growth of plants due to  cool whether and short days, a high plant population has been recommended in the post-rainy season, which is 5-9 times more than required in norm al sowings around the longest day (Narayanan and Sheldrake, 1979).Hence an experiment was conducted to  find out the possibility o f raising a perennial crop o f pigeonpea from  a crop sown a t the beginning o f the post-rainy season. The system envisaged planting pigeonpea a t  a high density in September- November, when post-rainy season crops are usually established, harvesting it by ratooning in late February or March, and leaving plants in the field during the dry895CH A U H A N  E T  AL. [Vol. 57, No. 12period o f April-M ay. Owing to the droughttolerant nature o f pigeonpea, many plants would be expected to  survive this dry period, and with the onset o f  the rainy season quickly establish a closed canopy. Thus a crop similar to  a normal crop established around the longest day was expected to  be harvested by December o r January. This could be further rato- oned to  give another harvest by M arch, when it would be removed from the field.M A TERIA LS AND M ETHODSThree trials were set up on Vertisol (Typic Pellustert) during 1980-82 at Sangareddy Fruit Research Station (70. km north-west o f Hyderabad, 17 °N, 78 °E, 545 m above mean sea-level) and an observation plot during 1982-84 at Patan- cheru (30 km north-west o f Hyderabad). A genotype (‘ICP 1-6’) tolerant to wilt and sterility mosaic (SM) was used. Basal dressing o f fertilizer was not done. In 1980-82 the seeds were sown on 9 Nove­mber 1980 on a flat seed-bed at 30 cm x 10 cm spacing and a light irrigation was given to  germinate the seeds,..since the surface soil was dry a t the time of sowing. During the post-rainy season the plots were weeded once and 1 spray o f endo- sulfan ( e c  35%) was given to  control the infestation o fpod-borer (Heliothis armi- gera Hiibn.).In  the first trial, designed to study the effect o f method of first-flush harvesting on subsequent harvests, 3 harvest m ethods o f the first flush were te s te d : (i) hand-picking o f pods, (ii) ratooning by cutting the plants at 30 cm above-ground level, and (Hi) ratooning by cutting the plants a t 10 cm above- ground level. The second trial was desi­gned to  study the effect o f plant popula­tion on the second-flush yield. Plant population was varied using 3 thin­ning treatments during August 1981 : (i) no thinning, (ii) thinning o f alternate rows, and (iii) thinning o f 2 out o f 3 rows. In the third trial the effect of method o f harvesting the second flush on the third-flush yield was studied. The 3treatm ents of this experiment on the second flush w e re : (i j  hand-picking o f pods, ( i i )  ratooning by cutting the plants a t 110 cm above-ground level, and (///) ratooning by cutting the plants at 180 cm above-ground level. There were 3 repli­cations in each experiment, laid out in a randomized block design. Plot size in trial 1 was 55 m x 55 m and in trials 2 and 3 it was 44.6 m X 44.6 m. The first flush of the 1980-82 crop matured in M arch 1981. In trials 2 and 3 the first-flush crop harvested from  different plots was bulked as treatments had not been impos­ed by then. The second-flush crop m atur­ed by December 1981- In trials 1 anc 2 the second flush was harvested at 110 cm above-ground level. In all the trials the third flush was harvested in April 1982 a t the ground level.In 1982- 84, for observation plot seeds were sown on 17 September 1982 in 0.25 ha  on 150 cm broad beds and furrows at a spacing o f 30 cm row-to-row and 8 cm plant-to-plant, with 4 rows/bed. The first-flush crop was weeded once and 1 spray o f endosulfan (Be 35%) was given to  control the infestation of pod-borer. The first flush o f the 1982-84 crop m atur­ed in February 1983. This crop was harvested by ratooning a t 30 cm above­ground level, which was nearly half of the to tal plant height. The second flush commenced in November and was ready for harvest by January 1984. The second flush was harvested by cutting the stems a t  150 cm above-ground level. The third- flush crop was harvested in April 1984 by cutting the stems at the ground level.Observations were recorded on seed yield, dry m atter, fallen leaves and plant survival a t each harvest in 1980-82. In 1982-84, only seed yield, stem dry m atter and plant survival were recorded.RESU LTS A N D  D ISCUSSIONThe average first-flush yield in 1980- 82 was 0.40 tonne/ha and in 1982-84 was 0.66 tonne/ha (Table 1). The low yield from  the first flush in 1980-82 was due to delayed sowing in November (Venkata- ratnam  e t  a l . ,  1984). In 1982-84 it was896D ecem ber 1987] PEREN N IA L C RO PPIN G  O F  PIG EO N PEA  IN  POST-RAINY SEASONTable 1. Yield (tonnes/ha) o f  different flushes of m edium -duration pigeonpea genotype ‘IC P 1-6’ grown as a perennial in 1980-82 a t Sangareddy and in 1982-84 at PatancheruTreatm ent F irst flush Second flush Third flush Total1980-82Experiment 1Hand-picking 0.35 ± 0.053* 1.45 0.051 0.13 ± 0.010 1.93 ± 0.106Ratooning at 30 cm 0.40 ± 0.042 1.44 ± 0.143 0.11 ± 0.017 1.95 ± 0.188Ratooning a t 10 cm 0.42 ± 0.042 1.21 ± 0.140 0.11 ± 0.013 1.74 ± 0.191Experiment 2N o thinning 1.26 ±  0.081 0.11 ±  0.011 1.77 ±  0.085Thinning alternate rows 0.40 1.10 ±  0.082 ' 0.08 ±  0.006 1.59 ±  0.083Thinning of 2 out of .3 0.93 ±  0.116 0.08 ±  0.014 1.41 ±  0.121rowsExperiment 3Hand-picking 1.25 ±  0.076 0.11 ±  0.029 1.76 ±  0.073R atooning at 180 cm 0:40 1.02 ±  0.082 0.09 ±  0.014 1.51 ±  0.076R atooning at 110 cm 1.10' ±  0.038 0.07 ±  0.010 1.57 ±  0.035M ean 0.40 1.20 0.10 1.70982-84 0.66 0.91 0.003 1.57*Standard errorslightly lower than norm al, because of pod-borer damage (about one-third pods).The plant population at the harvest o f the first flush was about 30 plants/m 2. Afterwards, substantial plant m ortality occurred in both  the  1980-82 and 1982— 84 crops. M ore than 50% plants died after the first-flush harvest in 1980-82 oh the onset o f the rainy season, irrespec­tive o f the mode of harvest. In the 1982- 84 observation plot, maximum m ortality occurred between harvest of the first flush in February and the onset of the rainy season in June; thereafter plant population tended to  stabilize. The m ortality was mainly due to  the.infection by Rhizoctonia bataticola (Taub.) Butler and drought stress. However, the survi­ving plant population, 14 plants/m 2, was still more than is generally required for the crop sown in the rainy season. These plants form ed a satisfactory canopy in the rainy season, effectively suppressingthe growth o f weeds.The second flush of pods of the plants grown in 1980-81 reached m aturity at the same time to medium-duration pigeon­pea sown at the beginning of the rainy season (the norm al sowing time). In 1980-82 the mean yield o f the second- flush crop was 1.20 tonnes/ha and in 1982-84 it was 0.91 tonne/ha (Table 1). These yields were obtained without fur­ther land cultivation, interculture and insecticide application. In 1980-82 the attack  o f pod-boring caterpillers o f H. armigera was modest com pared with that in an adjacent farm er’s field, probably due to  a build-up o f predators. The yields obtained were com parable with those of m edium-duration pigeonpea grown under rainfed conditions (Sharma et ah, 1978). In 1980-82 the first flush o f pods could be harvested by ratooning without ad­versely affecting the subsequent crop yield (Table 1). This is useful, since •ratooning is much quicker and cheaper897CH A U H A N  E T  AL. [Vol. 57, No. 12Table 2. Fallen leaves (tonnes/ha) a t the second-flush harvest and dry m atter (tonnes/ha) at the third-flush harvest of m edium -duration genotype ‘IC P  1-6’ grown as a perennial crop during 1980-82 a t SangareddyFallen leaves Total dry m atter FirewoodExperim ent 1 3.1 ±  0.30* 5.6 ±  0.34 4.7 ±  0.29Experim ent 2N o  thinning 2.1 ±  0.08 5.3 ±  0.20 4.5 ±  0.21Thinning o f alternate rows 1.5 ±  0.12 4.0 ±  0.16 3.0 ±  0.20Thinning o f 2 out o f 3 rows 0.9 ±  0.19 3.0 ±  0.34 2.4 ±  0.23^Standard errorthan hand-picking the pods. Similarly, in the second trial the surviving plants may form  an optimum canopy and there may be no advantage to  thin out an apparently excessive population (Table !)■In 1980-82 and 1982-84 the yield from  the third flush, was very small, 0.10 tonne/ha and 0.003 tonne/ha (Table 1). This may be due to  severe drought stress and soil cracking during the form ation of the third flush (V enkataratnam  and Shel­drake, 1985). Hand-picking o f the second flush did not improve the yield o f the th ird  flush (Table 1). The low yield potential o f the third flush is very uneco­nomical.In 1980-82, the weight o f fallen leaves was 3.1 tonnes/ha in trial 1 (Table 2), which at 1.3% N  content could have been 40 kg N /ha. This is similar to  a crop of medium-duration pigeonpea sown at the usual time which can leave as much as 30-40 kg N /ha in the form  of fallen leaves, senesced nodules etc. (Kumar Rao et a l ,  1983). The quantity o f fallen leaves declined with an increase in the degree o f thinning (Table 2). This indicates that weight of air-dried stem left after threshing the third-flush crop in Experi­m ent 1 in 1980-82 was 4.7 tonnes/ha and in 1982-84 it was 2.2 tonnes/ha. For fallen leaves the am ount o f stem material was reduced with thinning (Table 2). How­ever, in Table 2 the biomass of the plants thinned was not included as it was more suitable as a forage than as firewood. The fresh weight o f the stems was 3,122kg/ha in the alternate row-thinning treat­ment a n d -4,494 kg/ha in the 2 out o f 3 row-thinning treatm ents. The respective dry weights were 812 and 1,211 kg/ha.Thus in field it is possible to  grow a perennial cropping system with a crop of pigeonpea grown in the post-rainy season. The cropping system may have an advan­tage in areas o f peninsular India. Vertisols are normally left fallow during the rainy season, because of the difficulty in work­ing the soil while wet.REFEREN CESK um ar R ao , J. V. D . K ., D art, P . J. and Sastry, P. V. S. S. 1983. Residual effects o f pigeon­pea {Cajanus cajari) on yield and nitrogen response o f maize. Experimental Agricul­tu re s  : 131-41.N arayanan, A. and Sheldrake, A. R . 1979. Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) as w inter crop in  peninsular India. Experimental Agricul­ture. 15 : 91-5.N ene, Y. L., K annaiyan, J . and R eddy, M. V. 1981. Resistance to  m ajor pigeonpea dis­eases. Proceedings o f  the International Workshop on Pigeonpeas, Vol. 1, p p .-121-8, held a t the In ternational Crops Research Institu te for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patan- cheru, H yderabad, A ndhra Pradesh. -Sharm a, D ., Saxena, K . B. and G reen, J. M. 1978. Potential for ratooning in  pigeonpea. Field Crops Research 1 : 165-72.Singh, R . P . and D as, S. K . 1986. ‘M anagement o f chickpea and pigeonpea under stress conditions, with particular reference to  drought.’ Paper presented a t the Con­sultant’s W orkshop on the A daptation of Chickpea and Pigeonpea for Tolerance to  Physical Stress, 19-21 D ecem ber 1984, In ternational C rops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, H yderabad (in press).D ecem ber 1987] PE R E N N IA L  C RO PPIN G  O F  PIG EON PEA  IN  POST-RAINY SEASONY enkataratnam , N . and Sheldrake, A . R . 1985. Second harvest yields o f  medium duration pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) in peninsular India. Field Crops Research 10 : 323-32.V enkataratnam, N ., R ao, I. M . and Sheldrake, A . R . 1984. Effects o f plant population on postrainy season pigeonpea yields. Inter­national Pigeonpea Newsletter 3 : 20-2.899

A perennial cropping system from pigeonpea grown in

post-rainy season

http://oar.icrisat.org/8822/1/IJAS_57_12_895-899_1987.pdf

A perennial cropping system from pigeonpea grown in post-rainy season

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ICRISAT Open Access Repository