Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T00:36:39.058Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Chickpea to Nitrogen, and a Comparison of the Factors Affecting Chickpea Seed Yield with those Affecting Wheat Grain Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

D. J. Bonfil  and
M. J. Pinthus
D. J. Bonfil
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot 76100, Israel
M. J. Pinthus
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot 76100, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Chickpea yields in Israel are usually considerably lower than wheat yields under comparable conditions. This study aimed to examine the possible yield limiting factors in chickpeas. Increasing the availability of nitrogen during seed development by a pre-sowing application of nitrate or by nitrogen top dressing at the onset of flowering led to an increase in the percentage of nitrogen in the straw but had no significant effect on seed yield. Growth analysis of chickpeas and wheat grown in two adjacent field experiments revealed that during the fruiting period these crops accumulated similar amounts of dry matter. However, the proportion of total wheat dry matter accumulated in the wheat grains was twice the proportion of total chickpea dry matter accumulated in the chickpea seeds. It was concluded that the main intrinisic factor limiting the seed yield of chickpeas is the continuation of vegetative growth during the period of seed development, which reduces the amount of assimilate allocated to the seeds.

Los factores restrictivos del rendimiento en el garbanzo

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , January 1995 , pp. 39 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, D. P. (1992). Yield and nitrogen fixation of chickpea cultivars in response to inoculation with selected rhizobial strains. Agronomy Journal 84:510–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crookston, R. K., Kurle, J. E., Copeland, P. J., Ford, J. H. & Lueschen, W. E. (1991). Rotational cropping sequence affects yield of corn and soybean. Agronomy Journal 83:108–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. (1982). Symbiosis nitrogen and dry matter distribution in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Experimental Agriculture 18:339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanna-Chopra, R. & Sinha, S. K. (1987). Chickpea: physiological aspects of growth and yield. In The Chickpea, 163–190 (Eds Saxena, M. C. and Singh, K. B.). Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
Rupela, O. P. & Saxena, M. C. (1987). Nodulation and nitrogen fixation in chickpea. In The Chickpea 191–206 (Eds Saxena, M. C. and Singh, K. B.). Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
Saxena, M. C. (1987). Agronomy of chickpea. In The Chickpea 207–232 (Eds Saxena, M. C. and Singh, K. B.). Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
Saxena, M. C., Silim, S. N. & Singh, K. B. (1990). Effect of supplementary irrigation during reproductive growth on winter and spring chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in a Mediterranean environment. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 114:285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, K. B. (1987). Chickpea breeding. In The Chickpea, 127–162 (Eds Saxena, M. C. and Singh, K. B.). Wallingford: CAB International.Google ScholarPubMed
Singh, P. (1991). Influence of water-deficits on phenology, growth and dry-matter allocation in chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Field Crops Research 28:1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. H. & Saxena, N. P. (1991). The use of non-destructive measurement and physiological models of yield determination to investigate factors determining differences in seed yield between genotypes of “desi” chickpeas (Cicer arietinum). Annals of Applied Biology 119:105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar