Indian J AgJic. Res., 36 (3) : 156-161. 2002 DRY MATTER ACCUMULATIION IN plant PARTS OF GREENGRAM {VIGNA RADIATA (L.) WILCZEK} AS INFLUENCED BY CROPPING SYSTEM, ROW PROPORTIONS AND GREENGRAM POPULATION LEVELS B.T. Pujari and M.N. Sheelvantar Department of Agronomy, University of Agricultural Sciences, DhalWad - 580 005, India ABSTRACT A field experiment was conducted on vertisols during khali!seasons of 1992-93 and 1993-94 to study the influence of cropping system, row proportions and greengram population levels in pigeonpea based intercropping systemg on dry maller production and its accumulation in different plant parts of greengram viz., stem, leaves, petioles and pods. lntercropping with pigeonpea significantly influenced the dry matter production of greengram at 50 days after sowing (DAS) and at harvest. The sole crop of greengram at 50 DAS produced significantly higher dry matter (12.54 9 plant'l) when compared,to the intercropped greengram (9.97 9 plant") and similar trend was observed at harvest. The accumulation of dry matter in different plant parts of greengram is also significantly influenced by intercropping with pigeonpea. The greengram intercropped under different row proportions with pigeonpea influenced the dry matter production and its accumulation in gree~ram significantly. The intercropped greengram under 2:2 row proportion of pigeonpea and greengram produced significantly higher dry matter (12.52 9 plant") at harvest when compared to 2:1 row proportion (9.73 9 plan!"i). Greengram population levels significantly influenced the dry matter production and its accumulation in different plant parts. Significantly higher dry matter is produced and accumulated under 50 per cent population level than that of 100 per cent. INTRODUCTION Greengram 1t-1gna radjata (L.) Wilczekl is one of the most important pulse crops of India. It is grown in almost all parts of the country. It is an excellent source of high quality protein. Sprouted seeds of greengram coptain good amount of riboflavin, thiamine and ascorbic acid (Vitamin C). Being a leguminous crop, it has the capacity to fix atmospheric nitrogen through symbiotic nitrogen fixation, It is also used as a green manure crop. It also provides an excellent green fodder to the animals. As short duration crop, it fits well in various multiple and intercropping systems. Pigeonpea is being cultivated in Gulbarga district on a vast area mainly as a sole crop. Pigeonpea, a wide spaced crop. growing slowly in the early part d its life span. facilitates introduction of a short duration, short statured intercrop like greengram. Rao and Mittra (1989) stated that growing two legumes together helped in increasing productivity as well as achieving higher LEF. Intercropping of pigeonpea with greengram and blackgram produced significantly higher pigeonpea ecluivalents than in pure stands at Hisar (Singh et ai, 1986) Madhusudan Rao et al. (1989) stated that the monetary advantage was highest when pigeonpea was intercropped with greengram in 1:2 row proportion at Lam, Andhra Pradesh. Hence, the present investigation was carried out at ARS, Gulbarga to introduce greengram in the region as an intercrop with pigeonpea and to study the influence of cropping system, row proportions and greengram population levels on dry matter production and accumulation in different plant parts of greengram. MATERIAL AND METHODS A field experiment was conducted during khan!seasons of 1992-93 and 1993 94 at the Agricultural Research Station. Gulbarga, Karnataka on vertbols. The soil ph * Part of the Ph. D. Thesis submitted by senior author to the University of Agricultural Sciences. DhalWdd - ~)8() 005
Vol. 36, No.3, 2002 157 was 8.3 with 0.54 per cent organic carbon, 25 kg ha- 1 of available phosphorus and 350 kg ha- I of available potassium. There were 10 treatments comprising of four row proportions of pigeonpea and greengram (1:1, 1:2, 2:1 and 2: 2) and two levels of greengram populations (50 and 100%) with two sole crops each of pigeonpea and greengram. The experiment was laid out in a randomized block design with three replications. The gross plot size was 4.8 x 3.6 m and the net plot size varied under different row proportions. The varieties used were Pragati (ICPL-87) and Pusa Baisaki of pigeonpea and greengram respectively. The population of pigeonpea was maintained at 100 percent of its sole optimum (166708 plants ha- I ) in all the intercropping treatments by adjusting the intra row space while greengram was maintained at two population levels viz., 50 and 100 per cent of sole optimum for each row proportion, by adjusting intra row space. The sole crop of pigeonpea was sown at a spacing of 45 cm x 13.33 cm and sole greengram was sown at a spacing of 30 cm x 10 cm. The recommended dose of fertilizer for pigeonpea(25 : 50 N : Pps kg ha- I ) and greengram (25: 50 N : PzOs kg ha- I ) were applied as basal dose. In case of intercropping treatments the fertilizers were applied in proportionate to the sole optimum population for main crop and intercrop separately. Five plants were uprooted at random from each plot and soil around the roots was removed. The plant samples were separated into leaves, petioles, stem and pods and dried setjarately at 70 D C in hot air oven for 72 hour'; The completely dried samples were weighed and the dry weight of different plant parts was expressed in grams on per plant basis. The rainfall received during crop growth period was adequate and well distributed. The crops were harvested at their physiological maturity. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Effect of cropping systems: Greengram intercropped with pigeonpea influenced the dry matter production and its accumulation in stem, leaves, petioles and pods of greengram significantly at 50 DAS and harvest. The sole crop of greengram at 50 DAS produced significantly higher dry matter(12.54 9 plann than intercropped greengram (9.97 9 plant-i) in the pooled analysis (Table 1). The same trend was observed at harvest. The pooled analysis at the time of harvest revealed that the dry matter produced by the sole crop of greengram (14.88 9 plant l ) was 28 per cent higher than intercropped greengram (11.64 9 plant l ). Similar reduction in the dry matter production of intercrops with pigeonpea have been reported by Madhusudan Rao et al. (1989). The lower dry matter production in intercropped greengram could be mainly attributed to increased total population of greengram and pigeonpea per unit area resulting in increased competition for growth resources, specially the moisture, nutrients and light. The intercropping with pigeonpea also significantly influenced dry matter accumulation in leaves, petioles, stem and pods. Sole greengram recorded significantly higher dry matter accumulation in leaves and petioles of 1.30 9 plant l and 0.189 9 plant-i, respectively at 30 DAS in the pooled analysis and this was 10 and 11 per cent higher respectively when compared to intercropped greengram (Table 2). Sim;lar trend was observed at 50 DAS and at harvest. The lower dry matter accumulation in leaves of intercropped greengram could be due to lcwer leaf area when compared to sole greengrom. The reduced leaf area of intercrowed greengram may be due to limited photosyjithetic ability as a result of competition for water' and nutrient supply under increased populatiqn pressure due to the presence of pigeonpela as an associated crop (Donald, 1963). Like leaves and petioles, sole greengram accumulated significantly higher dry matter in stem and pods than intercropped greengram (Table 3); at the time of harvesting, in the
158 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Table 1. Dry matter production (g plant!) of greengram as influenced by intercropping wittl pigeonpea (cv. ICPL-87) of different row proportions and greengram population levels Days after sowing (DAS) Dry matter production Treatment 30DAS 50 DAS At harvest pooled analysis. The dry matter accumulated in the stem of sole greengram (3.77 g plant"l) was 40 per cent higher than intercropped greengram (2.70 g plant"i) and similarly in the pooled analysis, at the time of harvesting, the dry matter accumulated in the pods of sole greengram (8.14 g plant I) was significantly higher by 41 per cent than intercropped with greengram (5.77 g plant"i). The reduction in dry matter accumulation in pods of intercropped greengq.'lm was mainly attributed to the lower dry matter producing ability of the crop. Effect of row proportions: Greengram intercropped under different row proportions with pigeonpea influenced the dry matter production of greengram significantly at 50 DAS and at harvest during both the years of experimentation as well as the pooled analysis (Table 1). In the pooled analysis, at the tinie of harvesting, the dry matter produced under 2:2 (12.52 g plant I) row proportion of pigeonpea and greengram was 29 per cent higher than that under 2: 1 row proportion of pigeonpea and greengram (9. 73 g plant I). The lower dry matter production under 2: 1 row proportion could be attributed to the fact that pigeonpea plants covered that intercrops because of lower space between two pairs of pigeonpea. This restricts the development of leaf area and whole and thereby producing lower dry matter. Row proportions also significantly influenced the dry matter accumulation in different plants parts of greengram intercropped with pigeonpea. The dry matter accumulated in the leaves of greengramat 30 DAS in pooledanalysis (Table 2) under 2: 1 (1.03 g plant I) was 17 per cent lower when compared to 1:2 row proportion (1.24 g plant"i). Similarly, lowerdrymatterwas
... ~ Tab1e 2. Dry matter accumulation in petioles (g plant l ) and leaves (g plant l ) of. greengram as influenced by intercropping with pigeonpea (cv. ICPL-87) at different row proportions ant;! greengram population levels Dry matter accumulation in petiol~ Dry matter accumulation in leaves Treatment 30DAS SODAS At harvest 30DAS SODAS At harvest 1992 1993 Pooled 1992 1993 Pooled 1992 1993 Pooled 1992 1993 Pooled 1992 1993 Pooled 1992 1993 Pooled Cropping system SoleGG 0.194 0.184 0.189 0.583 0.487 0.535 1.07 0.99 1.03 1.35 1.25 1.30 4.63 4.43 4.53 3.40 3.18 3.29 Intercropped GG 0.177 0.165 0.171 0.465 0.367 0.416 0.83 0.67 0.75 1.22 1.14 1.18 3.80 3.60 3.70 2.65 2.46 2.56 S.Ed± 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.006 0.008 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.12 0.06 0.06 C.D. at 5% 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.013 0.017 0.011 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.07 0.25 0.13 0.13 ~ Row proportions (RP) w PP:GG.(j\ 1:1 0.180 0.188 0.174 0.483 0.377 0.430 0.83 0.71 0.77 1.29 1.17 1.23 4.00 3.78. 3.89 2.82 2.62 2.72 z 1:2 0.183 0.171 0.177 0.493 0.385 0.439 0.79 0.69 0.74 1.29 1.19 1.24 4.02 3.78 "'3;90 2.88 2.68 2.78. 9 w. 2:1 0.168 0.158 0.163 0.422 0.322 0.372 0.87 0.61 0.74 1.08 0.98 1.03 3.22 3.02 3.12 2.08 1.92 2.00 2:2 0.176 0.164 0.170 0.462 0.382 0.422 0.77 0.67 0.72 1.21 1.09 1.15 4.01 3.83 3.91 2.83 2.63 2.73 l\j S.Em± 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.09 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.05 0.07 0 l\j C.D. at 5% 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.013 0.018 0.015 NS NS NS 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.25 0.14 0.21 Greengram population level (GGPL) 50 per cent 0.180 0.158 0.174 0.488 0.396 0.442 0.83 0.73 0.78 1.25 1.15 1.20 3.98 3.76 3.87 2.77 2.61 2.69 100 per cent 0.174 0.162 0.168 0.442 0.338 0.390 0.75 0.64 0.70 1.18 1.08 1.13 3.65 6.45 3.54 2.54 2.30 2.42 S.Em± 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.003 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 Om 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.04 CD. at 5% 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.009 0.012 0.009 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.18 0.09 0.12 Interaction (RPxGGPL) S.Em± 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.006 0.008 0.007 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.06 0.06 CD. at 5% NS NS NS NS NS NS 0.81 0.33 0.52 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Table 3. Dry matter accumulation (DMA) in stem (g plant!) and pods (g plant!) of greengram as influenced by intercropping with pigeonpea (cv. ICPL-87) at different row proportions and greengram population levels DMA in stem DMA in pods Treatment 30DAS SODAS At harvest SODAS At harvest Z 0 > 0' C 1992 1993 Pooled 1992 1993 Pooled 1992 1993 Pooled 1992 1993 Pooled 1992 1993 Pooled ~ Cropping system Z C-. Sole greengram 0.62 0.54 0.58 3.81 3.09 3.45-3.87 3.67 3.77 4.46 4.06 4.26 8.34 7.94 8.14 0 C Intercropped GG 0.50 0.46 0.48 3.08 2.32 2.70 2.70 2.69 2.70 3.49 2.71 3.10 5.98 5.56 5.77 ::tl z S.Ed+ 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.04 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.04» CD. at 5% 0.02 0.02 0.02 006 0.06 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.09 0.23 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.09 r- 0 Row proportions (RP)." PP:GG» 1:1 0.15 0.47 0.48.3.02 2.32 2.67 2.80 2.74 2.81 3.38 2.90 3.14 5.92 5.60 5.76 C) 1:2 0.51 0.46 0.48 3.37 2.61 2.99 3.08 2.84 2.96 3.53 2.99 3.26 6.40 5.94 6.17 ~ c 2:1 0.46 0.40 0.43 2.74 2.00 2.37 2.36 2.36 2.36 2.66 2;18 2.42 4.98 4.44 4.71 2 2:2 0.50 0.46 0.48 3.20 2.40 2.80 2.76 2.66 2.71 4.40 2.78 3.59 6.62 6.24 6.43 S.Em± 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.08 0-.07 0.04 0.04 0.04 ~ C.D. at 5% 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.16 0.16 0.18 0.09 0.25 0.21 0.11 0.13 0.12 r-. Greengram population ::tl l'tl levels (GGPL) (fl 50 per cent 0.52 0.48 0.50 3.24 2.48 2.36 2.98 2.86 2.92 3.82 3.00 3.41 6.74 6.30 6.52 ~ ::tl 100 per cent 0.48 0.42 0.45 2.93 2.19 2.56 2.56 2.42 2.49 3.17 () 2.43 2.80 5.23 4.81 5.02 J: S.Em± 0.01 0.01 0.01 om 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 CD. at 5% 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.17 0.12 0.08 0.09 "0.09 Interaction (RPxGGPL) S.Em± 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.07 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.05 C.D. at 5% NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
accumulated in leaves of intercropped greengram at 50 DAS and at harvest, under 2: 1 row proportion. The reduction in the dry matter accumulation in leaves of gre'engram could be due to the fact that the competition for growth resources especially for light was least under 1:2 row proportion because the pigeonpea plant did not cover its canopy fully over greengram because of wider space. While under 2: 1 row proportion the pigeonpea plants covered the greengram plants because of lower space between tow pairs of pigeonpea rows which restricts the leaf and therebydry matter accumulation in leaves. Similar trend of decreased dry matter accumulation was observed in stem (2.36 g-plant l ) and pods (4.71 9 plant l ) of inh~rcropped greengram' under 2: 1 row proportion of pigeonpea and' greengram at harvest in the pooled analysis (Table 3). Effect of greengram population levels: The dry matter production and accumulation in different plant parts of intercropped greengram was significantly influenced by greengram population levels, The REFERENCES Bisqnoi, K.C. etaj. (1987).lndianJ. Eco!., 17: 178-181. Donald, C.M, (1963). Adv. Agron., 10: 435-473. Madhusudan Rao, D.v. eta!. (1989). AndhraAgric. J., 36:112-115. Rao, L.J. and MiUra, B.N. (1989). Indian Farming, 39 (6): 25-26. Singh, R.C. eta!. (1986). Legume Res., 9:81-?4. Vol. 36, No.3, 2002 161 dry matter produced per plant under 50 per centpopulation level (12.81 9 planp) atharvest was significantly higher 22 per cent when compared to that under 100 per cent population level (10.48 9 plant l ) which could be due to increased competition among plants for moisture and nutrients (Table 1). Similar r~ults were reported by Bishnoi eta! (1987). The dry matter accumulated in leaves and petioles of intercropped greengram under lower population levels was six and four per cent higher, respectively when compared to higher plant population at 30 DAS, in the pooled analysis (Table 2) and the trend was same at 50 DAS and harvest. Similarly higher dry matter accumulation wasobserved in stemand pods of intercropped greengram under lower plant population than higher plant population (Table 3). Interaction effects: Dry matter production and its accumulation in different plant parts of intercropped greengram was not significantly influenced by the interactjon effects of row proportions and greengram population levels.