Production Functions for Chickpea, Field Pea, and Lentil in the Central Great Plains
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NIELSEN: PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS FOR CHICKPEA, FIELD PEA, AND LENTIL 563 Mascianica, M.P., H.P. Wilson, R.F. Walden, T.E. Hines, and R.R. Skarphol, B.J., and K.A. Corey. 1987. Response of snap beans to Bellinder. 1986. No-tillage snap bean growth in wheat stubble of tillage and cover crop combinations. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. varied height. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 111(6):853±857. 112(6):936±941. Mulling, C.A., F.D. Tompking, and W.L. Parks. 1980. Effects of tillage Swanton, J.C., D.R. Clements, and D.A. Derksen. Weed succession methods on soil nutrient distribution, plant nutrient absorption, under conservation tillage: A hierarchical framework for research stand, and yield of snap beans and lima beans. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. and management. Weed Technol. 7:286±297. Sci. 105(4):591±593. Tapia, H., and A. Camacho. 1988. Integrated common bean produc- Navarro, V.B. 1997. Effects of cover mulch and fertilizers on weed tion management based on no tillage agriculture. Gesellschaft fur behavior and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) growth and Technische Ausammenarbeit, Managua, Nicaragua. yield. (In Spanish.) M.S. thesis. Escuela de Sanidad Vegetal, Uni- Teasdale, J.R. 1993. Reduced herbicide weed management systems versidad Nacional Agraria, Managua, Nicaragua. for no-tillage corn (Zea mays L.) in a hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) Powell, G.E., and K.A. Renner. 1999. Weed control in navy bean in cover crop. Weed Technol. 7:883±899. reduced tillage systems. J. Prod. Agric. 12:428±433. Teasdale, J.R., C.E. Beste, and W.E. Potts. 1991. Response of weeds Romero, D. 1989. Time and rate of application of fomesafeÂn and to tillage and cover crop residues. Weed Sci. 39:195±199. fluazifop-butyl for post-emergent weed control in common bean Thurston, D. 1994. Slash/mulch systems: Neglected sustainable tropi- (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). (In Spanish.) M.S. thesis. Instituto Superior cal agroecosystems. p. 29±42. In H.D. Thurston, M. Smith, G. de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Escuela de Produccio n Vegetal, Mana- Abawy, and S. Kearl (ed). Tapado Slash/Mulch: How farmers use gua, Nicaragua. it and what researchers know about it. CIIFAD, Cornell Univ., Salmero n, O.D. 1996. Weed dynamics and common bean (Phaseolus New York. vulgaris L.) yield under cover mulch and fertilizers. (In Spanish.) Vyn, T.J., G. Opoku, and C.J. Swanson. 1998. Residue management M.S. thesis. Escuela de Produccio n Vegetal, Universidad Nacional and minimum tillage systems for soybean following wheat. Agron. Agraria, Managua, Nicaragua. J. 90:131±138. Sandoval-Avila, D.M., T.E. Michaels, S.D. Murphy, and C.J. Swanton. Xu, C., and F.J. Pierce. 1998. Dry bean and soil response to tillage 1994. Effect of tillage practices and planting patterns on perfor- and row spacing. Agron. J. 90:393±399. mance of white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Ontario. Can. J. Zelaya, I.A., D.K.M. Owen, and Pitty, A. 1998. Effect of tillage and Plant Sci. 74:801±805. environment on weed population dynamics in the dry tropics. SAS Institute. 1990. SAS/STAT user's guide. Vol. 2. Version 6. 4th Memorias de IV Congreso de Manejo Integrado de Plagas, Mana- ed. SAS Inst., Cary, NC. gua, Nicaragua. Production Functions for Chickpea, Field Pea, and Lentil in the Central Great Plains David C. Nielsen* ABSTRACT or no-tillage systems are used (Halvorson et al., 1994; A short-season legume grown in rotation with winter wheat (Triti- Peterson et al., 1996; Anderson et al., 1999; Nielsen et cum aestivum L.) is needed to diversify and enhance dryland crop al., 1999). Adding new crops to rotation sequences can rotations in the central Great Plains. This study was conducted to complicate the system when a new crop's maturity and determine the potential of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), field pea harvest period interfere with timely winter wheat estab- (Pisum sativum L.), and lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) as such rota- lishment in mid to late September. A short-season le- tional legumes based on yield responses to water and soil water extrac- gume that could be planted early would provide rota- tion patterns. The legumes were planted under a line-source gradient tional benefits such as N fixation, increased soil organic irrigation system to provide a range of available water conditions. matter, and increased surface soil stability; sufficient Soil water content, crop water use, and seed yield were measured to determine relationships between water use and yield. Distributions time for late summer rains to recharge the surface soil of estimated yields were produced using these relationships and the water for good winter wheat establishment; and allevia- local historical rainfall record. Chickpea exhibited the greatest rate tion of monoculture insect, disease, and weed problems of increase in yield with increases in water use (10.6 kg haϪ1 mmϪ1 ), (Power, 1987). Three legumes that have potential to fit followed by field pea (8.0 kg haϪ1 mmϪ1 ) and lentil (3.3 kg haϪ1 into dryland rotations with winter wheat are chickpea, mmϪ1 ). Yields estimated from the historical rainfall record ranged field pea, and lentil. from 951 to 3782 kg haϪ1 (mean of 2092 kg haϪ1 ) for chickpea, 523 to 2718 kg haϪ1 (mean of 1406 kg haϪ1 ) for field pea, and 286 to 1247 kg haϪ1 (mean of 654 kg haϪ1 ) for lentil. All three legumes have Chickpea agronomic potential to be used as dryland crops ahead of winter Chickpea is a drought-tolerant, cool-season legume wheat in the central Great Plains. used for human consumption. Most of the chickpea grown in the USA are the large-seeded kabuli type sold for canning purposes. The major USA production areas roducers in the central Great Plains have tradi- are the rainfed Palouse area of the Pacific Northwest Ptionally used a winter wheat±fallow production sys- and the irrigated production area of California's San tem in which one crop is grown every 2 yr. Recent Joaquin Valley. Dryland chickpea trials in Fort Collins, studies have shown the feasibility of intensifying and CO gave a 2-yr average yield of 1049 kg haϪ1 (Brick et diversifying from this production system when reduced al., 1998). A number of studies have reported the yield response of chickpea to available water (Table 1). Gra- USDA-ARS, Central Great Plains Res. Stn., 40335 County Rd. GG, dient irrigation studies with chickpea in Yellowjacket, Akron, CO 80720. Received 8 Aug. 2000. *Corresponding author CO (elevation of 2128 m) showed a strong yield re- ([email protected]). sponse to water applied, but the response was not consis- Published in Agron. J. 93:563±569 (2001). tent from year to year. Overall yields ranged from 4.8 564 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 93, MAY±JUNE 2001 Table 1. Previous research on seed yield response of chickpea, field pea, and lentil to water use traits. Crop Reference Location Seed yield response² r 2 Water use trait Chickpea Leach and Beech (1988) Australia kg haϪ1 ϭ 6.8X NA³ Cumulative evapotranspiration Singh and Bhushan (1980) India kg haϪ1 ϭ 13.1 (X Ϫ 34.9) NA Soil water at planting and rainfall Sivakumar and Singh (1987) India kg haϪ1 ϭ 8.8 (X Ϫ 34.4) 0.90 Cumulative evapotranspiration Siddique and Sedgley (1987) Australia kg haϪ1 ϭ 4.7 (X Ϫ 172.6) NA Postflowering water use Grewal et al. (1984) India kg haϪ1 ϭ 3.5 (X Ϫ 123.3) 0.98 Cumulative evapotranspiration Silim and Saxena (1993) Syria variable with variety; regression slopes avg. NA Cumulative evapotranspiration 6.0 kg haϪ1 mmϪ1 Brick et al. (1998) Colorado variable, regression slopes range from 4.8 to NA Irrigation amount 9.6 kg haϪ1 mmϪ1 Singh and Singh (1988) India kg haϪ1 ϭ 10.4 (X ϩ 71.3) 0.62 Growing season rainfall Brown et al. (1989) Syria kg haϪ1 ϭ 3.6 (X ϩ 40.3) 0.79 Cumulative evapotranspiration Field pea Borstlap and Entz (1994) Canada kg haϪ1 ϭ 10.9 (X Ϫ 76.4) 0.55 Cumulative evapotranspiration PIRSA (2000) Australia kg haϪ1 ϭ 15.0 (X Ϫ 130) NA Growing season rainfall McDonald (1995) Australia kg haϪ1 ϭ 4.3 (X Ϫ 87.0) 0.89 Growing season rainfall Lentil Silim et al. (1993) Syria variable with variety; regression slopes average NA Irrigation amount 6.1 kg haϪ1 mmϪ1 PIRSA (2000) Australia kg haϪ1 ϭ 15.0 (X Ϫ 130) NA Growing season rainfall Yusuf et al. (1979) India kg haϪ1 ϭ 6.8 (X ϩ 62.8) 0.99 Growing season rainfall ϩ irrigation Sharma and Prasad (1984) India kg haϪ1 ϭ 8.4 (X Ϫ 115.7) 0.99 Cumulative evapotranspiration ² X, water use trait (mm). ³ NA, not available. to 9.6 kg haϪ1 for each additional millimeter of water tion in the top 60 cm contributed 74 to 83% of the total applied (Brick et al., 1998). A production fact sheet for crop water use. South Australia reports a chickpea yield increase of 15.0 Harris (1979) stated that temperatures exceeding 30 kg haϪ1 for each additional millimeter of growing season to 32ЊC limit yield of chickpea by hastening maturity. precipitation received. Other reports also indicate a sig- Work in South Australia noted that chickpea will toler- nificant relationship between chickpea yield and water ate higher temperatures during flowering than field pea availability (Table 1). However, Singh (1984) and Rah- (Hawthorne et al., 1999). Sivakumar and Singh (1987) man et al. (1983) found no consistent relationship be- reported that high temperatures from flowering to ma- tween water use and yield. turity of late-sown chickpea led to reduced seed size Thomas and Fukai (1995) reported that maximum and lower yield.