transplated pigeonpea and its relavance in yield maximization

1. PROFESSOR JAYASHANKAR TELANGANA STATE
AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY
Course No: AGRON-691
Course Title: Doctoral Seminar
PRESENTED BY
B. VENKATESH,
RAD/2020-03,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY.
COURSE IN-CHARGE:
Dr. G.E.Ch. Vidya Sagar
Professor,
Department Agronomy
College of Agriculture,
PJTSAU.
Approaches to yield maximization in transplanted
pigeonpea in view of climate change

2. SEQUENCE OF THE PRESENTATION:
INTRODUCTION
Selection of cultivar and spacing
Influence of method of nursery raising and age of seedlings
Nutrient management and role of bio-fertilizers
Conclusions

3. Introduction

4. Introduction:
• India stands first in the area and production of pulses
in the world.
• Pigeonpea is second most important pulse crop in
India after chickpea.
• In Telangana major pulse crop is pigeonpea with an
area of 7.37 lakh acres.

5. Fig: 01 Deviation of monthly total rainfall from long period average (2021)

6. Fig:02 carbon dioxide emissions and atmospheric Co2 concentration over the years

7. • In recent years kharif rains (monsoon) are generally
becoming irregular and erratic.
• Due to which sowing in first week of June is delayed
• And many times happens to be in end July, because of
this optimum yield is not obtained.
• And due to the late sowing the crop encompass many
diseases and pest problems.

9. Description of technology adopted
• Transplanting is a agroecological innovation for
improving production, food security and resilient to
climate change conditions based on the following
principles.
• Early, quick and healthy plant establishment
• Reduced plant density (Less seed rate)
• Improved soil condition, enrichment with organic
matter.
• Better utilization of moisture through development of
deep root system.

10. Conditions:
• Soils without any salinity problems and with good
drainage are most suited.
• While transplanting ball of earth should not break so, that
plant establishes in main field within 2 days.
• As red gram is deep rooted soils must be well ploughed.
• For rainfed crop the transplanting should be completed by
end of June.
• Under irrigated conditions the transplanting should be
completed by first week of June.

11. Fig: Sequence of processes in transplanting

12. Table:01 Economic impact of system of pigeonpea intensification
(12 KVK’s) (ICPH 2740)
Treatment/particulars Mean values of both the years Percentage of
Benefits
Technology used Improved variety
along with SPI
Traditional sowing
methods along
with old variety
Cost of cultivation
(₹ ha-1) 19300 15600 -19.1
Gross returns (₹ ha-1)
45115 31200 30.8
Net returns (₹ ha-1) 25815 15600 39.5
B:C ratio 2.4 1.95 -
Singh et al., 2018
KVK, Madya Pradesh

13. Approaches for increasing yields in transplanted pigeonpea
• Cultivar selection (Hybrid)
• Method of nursery raising
• Time of transplanting (Age of seedlings)
• Spacing
• Bio-fertilizers
• Nutrient management
• Water management

14. Selection of cultivar and spacing

15. Table:02 Effect of inter row spacing and age of seedlings on plant
growth (60 cm) (BSMR-736)
Treatment
Plant height at
maturity (cm)
No. of primary
branches
plant-1
Days to 50%
flowering
Days to maturity
Dry matter
accumulation
(g plant-1
)
Inter row spacing
M1: 90 cm 202 17.75 126 169.64 546.17
M2: 120 cm 190.58 20.33 127.33 170.43 608.34
M3: 150 cm 180.42 23 129.09 175.48 632.71
CD at 5 % NS 0.76 N S NS 36.8
Age of seedlings
S1: 21 days 181.67 18.56 126.78 177.38 652.24
S2: 28 days 215.67 22.23 120.89 159.15 676.96
S3: 35 days 213.11 20.44 124.56 170.2 563.41
S4: Normal
sowing
153.56 17.56 137.67 182.42 470.16
CD at 5 % 33.93 2.2 13.81 7.7 64.38
Jamadar and Sajjan 2014
UAS, Dharwad, Karnataka

16. Table:03 Demonstrations of exceptionally high yields (kg ha-1)of
pigeonpea hybrids by some farmers in Vidharba (M.H) (Asha)
Location Area (m2) Hybrid Yield
(Kg ha-1)
Control yield
(kg ha-1)
% yield
improvement
over control
Salod
450 3956 2044 48.4
Nimgaon
1012 3951 2469 37.6
Kothoda
450 4667 3556 24
Tamoli
450 3889 2278 41.4
Mean
- 4116 2587 37.1
Saxena and Tikle, 2015

17. Table:04 Yield (kg ha-1) of hybrid ICPH 2740 and control Asha
in the on farm trails conducted in four Indian states
State Trials Hybrid Control Gain % over
control
Madya Pradesh 13 1814 1217 32.9
Maharashtra 179 1772 1337 24.5
Telangana 47 1999 1439 28.01
Gujarat 40 1633 1209 25.9
Mean 279 1804 1325 26.5
Saxena et al., 2016

18. Table:05 Light interception, growth and yield studies on pigeonpea varieties at
various growth intervals (21 days old seedlings)
Treatments Dry matter production (g plant-1) Reflecti
on (%)
Transmis
sion (%)
Absorption
(%)
Yield
(q ha-1)
60 DAT 120 DAT 180 DAT
Nursery sowing time
Second
fortnight of
May
72.83 125.81 208.60 6.6 10.9 82.5 17.97
First fortnight
of June
63.90 119.52 200.69 7.3 11.4 80.3 15.13
Second
fortnight of
June
54.44 113.08 - 7.6 14.6 77.8 13.83
CD (0.05) 1.03 0.66 0.65 - - - 6.84
Varieties
Manak 61.14 117.68 202.39 6.7 14.5 78.8 22.51
Paras 63.58 119.63 204.56 6.4 9.7 83.9 24.90
UPAS-120 66.44 121.10 206.98 6.0 6.4 87.6 25.51
CD (0.05) 0.66 0.59 0.79 - - - 1.77
Kumar et al., 2021
Hisar

19. Table: 06 Yield and Photosynthetic active radiation, radiation use
efficiency (RUE) of different treatments of pigeonpea
Treatment
Seed yield
(kg ha-1)
Stover yield (kg
ha-1)
Accumulated
intercepted
PAR (Mjm-2)
Seed RUE
(kg ha-1 Mj-1)
Stover
radiation use
efficiency
(kg ha-1 Mj-1)
Crop geometry
45cm x 27 cm 1286 4154 706 1.82 5.88
50 cm x 25 cm 1324 4223 706 1.87 5.98
60 cm x 21 cm 1107 4039 654 1.69 6.17
75 cm x 17 cm 1206 4131 665 1.81 6.21
90 cm x 14 cm 1492 4441 707 2.11 6.28
CD (0.05) 123 114 65 - -
Varieties
AL 15
(Indeterminate)
1324 4262 700 1.89 6.10
PAU 881
(Determinate)
1242 4133 672 1.88 6.24
CD (0.05) 0.78 0.72 23.8 - -
Loam, Ludhiana, Punjab

20. Treatment details
No. of pods
plant
-1
Grain
weight
plant
-1
Grain
yield (kg
ha
-1
)
LAI
90 120
T1: Transplanted pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) + soybean (1:2) 991 201.9 2537 2.52 3.93
T2:Transplanted pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) + greengram (1:2)
1071 206.7 2550 2.53 4.03
T3:Transplanted pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) + blackgram (1:2) 980 201.1 2334 2.42 3.75
T4:Direct sown pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) + soybean (1:2) 292 87 1254 1.42 2.53
T5:Direct sown pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) + greengram (1:2) 287 86.2 1213 1.38 2.43
T6:Direct sown pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) + blackgram (1:2) 279 84.1 1121 1.33 2.30
T7:Direct sown pigeonpea (90 cm × 30 cm) + soybean (1:2) 157 54.8 1684 1.14 2.03
T8:Direct sown pigeonpea (90 cm × 30 cm) + greengram (1:2) 158 55 1789 1.16 2.18
T9:Direct sown pigeonpea (90 cm × 30 cm) + blackgram (1:2) 165 57.6 1877 1.17 2.25
T10:Sole transplanted pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) 1138 212.5 2662 2.75 4.43
T11:Sole direct sown pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) 328 103.9 1705 1.63 2.79
T12:Sole direct sown pigeonpea (90 cm × 30 cm) 192 81.5 1988 1.59 2.47
L.S.D. (0.05) 63 13.7 205 0.28 0.47
Table: 07 Yield and yield parameters of pigeonpea as influenced by planting methods,
plant geometry and intercrops
Sujatha et al., 2018
UAS, Dharwad, Medium deep black soil

21. Tr. No
Treatments
Total dry matter production
(g plant
-1
)
Net assimilation rate
(g m
-2
day
-1
)
120 DAT/ DAS At harvest 60 - 90 DAT/
DAS
90-120
DAT/ DAS
T1 Transplanted pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) + soybean (1:2) 816.3 963.93 11.09 3.69
T2 Transplanted pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) + greengram (1:2) 837.12 976.14 10.98 3.85
T3 Transplanted pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) + blackgram (1:2) 779.09 933.67 10.91 3.61
T4 Direct sown pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) + soybean (1:2) 269.53 326.72 8.13 1.42
T5 Direct sown pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) + greengram (1:2) 258.95 311.21 8.02 1.32
T6 Direct sown pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) + blackgram (1:2) 242.32 290.22 8.3 1.19
T7 Direct sown pigeonpea (90 cm × 30 cm) + soybean (1:2) 182.09 222.03 19.78 2.78
T8 Direct sown pigeonpea (90 cm × 30 cm) + greengram (1:2) 195.87 232.05 19.84 3.46
T9 Direct sown pigeonpea (90 cm × 30 cm) + blackgram (1:2) 213.69 246.66 19.72 3.65
T10 Sole transplanted pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) 860.73 1033.05 10.95 5.2
T11 Sole direct sown pigeonpea (120 cm × 60 cm) 297.02 358.02 8.45 1.18
T12 Sole direct sown pigeonpea (90 cm × 30 cm) 250.61 281.24 21.23 2.75
L.S.D. (0.05) 70.85 50.19 0.76 1.07
Table:08 Total dry matter production and net assimilation rate of pigeonpea as
influenced by planting methods, geometry and intercrops
Sujatha and Babalad, 2019
Place: UAS, Dharwad, Soil type: Medium black soils

22. Table:09 Yield of hybrid pigeonpea and nitrogen addition to soil through
leaf litter as influenced by planting methods and geometry
Mallikarjun et al., 2015
Dharwad

23. Influence of method of nursery raising
and
age of seedlings at time of transplanting

24. Table: 10 Yield response of pigeonpea as influenced by age of seedling, Planting
and nursery raising method in Eastern Plains of India (722 mm)
Planting methods Seed yield
(kg ha-1)
Straw yield
(kg ha-1)
Pods plant-1 Survival % at
harvest
Flat 3088 6262 297 88.9
Ridge 3933 7473 326 87.4
C.D (0.05) 471 NS 25 NS
Age of seedlings and nursery raising method
3 WAS Poly 4851 9326 416 89.1
4 WAS Poly 3668 7898 292 84.1
5 WAS Poly 3064 5075 267 82.5
3 WAS Paper 3230 6787 247 90.1
4 WAS Paper 3216 7070 273 89.4
5 WAS Paper 2844 5068 256 80.3
In situ direct
seeded
3699 6850 258 92.7
C.D (0.05) 881 2589 61 8.8
Praharaj et al., 2015
Kanpur, U.P

25. Table:11Effect of planting methods, varieties and N levels on growth, yield and
economics of pigeonpea under rainfed conditions (Pooled data of 2013 and 2014)
(435 mm)
Treatments Plant population (No. ha-1) Stem girth (cm) Seed Yield (kg ha-1) Net returns
(Rs ha-1)
B:C ratio
Planting methods
S1: Normal planting (90 × 20) 50683 4.93 1255 33698 2.19
S2: Square system by dibbling (90 × 90 ) 10291 8.44 1074 25553 1.95
S3: Transplanting (90 × 90) 9884 8.63 1041 12242 1.32
S4: Transplanting (120 × 90) 6961 10.32 1100 15881 1.42
CD (0.05) 428 0.53 177 - -
Varieties
V1: PRG-158 19543 8.07 1134 23014 1.74
V2: Asha 19366 8.08 1101 20674 1.68
CD (0.05) NS NS NS - -
N levels
N1: 20 kg ha-1 19436 8.05 1120 22197 1.73
N2: 40 kg ha-1 19473 8.11 1115 21491 1.70
CD (0.05) NS NS NS - -
Ramanjaneyulu et al., 2017
RARS,Palem, Alfisols

26. Treatments
Chlorophyll Content (SPAD
Reading)
CGR(gm
-2
day
-1
)
Dry Matter Production
(kg ha
-1
)
60 DAS 90 DAS 60–90 DAS
60
DAS
90
DAS
Main plots
M1-Direct sowing 47.5 38.5 24.2 1623 2715
M2-Transplanting 14 days old seedlings raised in portrays 42 35.5 23 1413 2524
M3-Transplanting 21 days old seedlings raised in
portrays
54.4 41.7 26 1927 3048
M4-Transplanting 28 days old seedlings raised in portrays 49.4 39.4 24.5 1675 2787
CD (0.05) 2.07 1.53 1.22 207 208
Sub plots
S1-Recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) +2 % DAP spray 47.7 38.3 24.2 1619 2730
S2-RDF + Foliar spray of 1% Pulse wonder once at peak
flowering stage
44.8 35.3 23.4 1498 2599
S3-RDF + Foliar spray of 19:19:19(polyfed) 1 % once at
flowering +again at15 days after first spray
49.1 39.5 24.6 1686 2797
S4-RDF+ Foliar spray of 19:19:19 (polyfed) 1 % once at
flowering + multi K 1% spray 15 days after first spray.
51.7 41.8 25.4 1837 2948
CD(0.05) 2.64 2.1 0.67 114 117
Table:12 Effect of Age of seedlings and foliar nutrition spray on chlorophyll content (SPAD reading),
crop growth rate (g m-2 day-1) and DMP kg ha-1 in transplanted pigeonpea
Rajesh et al., 2010
Place: Madhurai

27. Fig 03: Perse values of total biomass, fodder yield, grain yield, its components and HI for
pigeonpea at 370 [aCO2] and [eCO2]
Vanaja et al., 2010
CRIDA, Hyderabad, sandy loam soils

28. Nutrient management

29. Fig:04 Effect of no inoculation and combined application of AMF and PGPR on grain yields
of finger millet (dark shaded bars) and pigeon pea (light shaded bars) in transplanted vs.
direct sown intercropping system at Bangalore and Kolli Hills during the season 2016-17.
Natarajan et al., 2020

30. Table:13 Yield parameters of red gram as influenced by nursery practices and
nutrient management
Treatments
No. of
pods plant
-1
No. of
seeds pod
-1
Seed yield
(kg ha
-1
)
Stalk yield
(kg ha
-1
)
Main plot
M1
130.06 4.53 1182.5 3422.7
M2
124.6 3.62 1132.8 3289
M3
127.09 3.77 1155.4 3349.9
CD (p=0.05)
2.34 0.06 20.3 58.42
Subplot
S1
95.62 2.77 869.3 2561.8
S2
116.16 3.37 1056 3078.6
S3
127.67 3.7 1160 3374.4
S4
131.34 3.81 1194 3455.6
S5
117.48 3.41 1068 3109.6
S6
145.45 4.22 1322.3 3803.6
S7
157.08 4.56 1428 4093.5
CD (p=0.05)
5.16 0.18 30.42 92.13
Susithra et al., 2019
Place: Tamil Nadu, Soil type: Sandy loam

31. Main plots: M1 - polythene bag, M2 - pro-tray, M3 - leaf cup nursery
Subplots:
S1 - control,
S2 - 100 percent recommended dose of fertilizer
S3 - 100 per cent RDF + 2 per cent DAP foliar spray
S4 - 100 per cent RDF + 0.25 per cent humic acid foliar spray,
S5 - 100 per cent RDF + phosphobacteria soil application @ 2 kg ha-1
S6 - 100 per cent RDF + phosphobacteria soil application @ 2 kg ha-1 + 2
percent DAP foliar spray
S7 - 100 per cent RDF + Phosphobacteria soil application @ 2 kg ha-1 +
0.25 per cent humic acid foliar spray

32. Table:14 Yield and economics of transplanted pigeonpea as influenced
by drip fertigation
Treatments Seed yield (kg ha-1)
Cost of cultivation
(Rs ha-1)
Gross returns
(Rs ha-1)
Net returns (Rs ha-1) B:C ratio
T1
1042 24192 57292 33100 2.37
T2
1427 24512 78511 53999 3.2
T3
1534 32269 84346 52077 2.61
T4
1630 32589 89651 57062 2.75
T5
1770 32909 97343 64434 2.96
T6
2006 33962 110330 76368 3.25
T7
2170 37282 119350 82068 3.2
T8
2290 34602 125950 91348 3.64
T9
2831 41077 155705 114628 3.79
T10
3010 41397 165550 124153 4.01
T11
3340 41717 183700 141983 4.4
C.D. at 5% 181 4039 0.14
Vanishree et al.,2015
Place: UAS, Raichur, Soil type: Vertisols

33. • T1 : Soil application of NF at 100 % RDF without irrigation
• T2 : Surface irrigation with soil application of 100 % RDF (NF)
• T3: Drip fertigation of NF at 75 % RDF in 3 splits (30, 45 and 60 DAT)
• T4: Drip fertigation of NF at 75 % RDF in 4 splits (30, 45, 60 and 75 DAT)
• T5: Drip fertigation of NF at 75 % RDF in 5 splits (30, 45, 60, 75 and 90 DAT)
• T6: Drip fertigation of NF at 100 % RDF in 3 splits (30, 45 and 60 DAT)
• T7: Drip fertigation of NF at 100 % RDF in 4 splits (30, 45, 60 and 75 DAT)
• T8: Drip fertigation of NF at 100 % RDF in 5 splits (30, 45, 60, 75 and 90 DAT)
• T9: Drip fertigation of WSF at 100 % RDF in 3 splits (30, 45 and 60 DAT)
• T10: Drip fertigation of WSF at 100 % RDF in 4 splits (30, 45, 60 and 75 DAT)
• T11: Drip fertigation of WSF at 100 % RDF in 5 splits (30, 45, 60, 75 and 90 DAT)

34. Table:15 Effect of pulse magic on yield attributes and yield of
transplanted pigeon pea (40 demonstrations) (6 feet × 2.5 feet)
No. of pod
plant-1
Seed yield
(g plant-1)
Seed yield
(q ha-1)
% increase
yield over
check
Stalk yield
T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2 T1 T2
1365 1294 538.45 461.87 28.57 25.14 13.64 - 43.65 41.13
Raju et al., 2016
Kalabugragi, Karnataka, Heavy soils
T1 : All practices as per package of practice with pulse magic application in transplanted
pigeon pea
T2: Only package of practice and no pulse magic spraying
(Contains 10 % of nitrogen, 40 % of phosphorus, 3 % of micronutrients and 20 ppm PGR)

35. Table:16 Biological properties of soil after addition of different
organic and bio-organic fertilizers in transplanted pigeonpea
Treatments
SMBC (μg g−1
soil)
Microbial load (CFU g−1 soil)
Bacteria Fungi Actinomycetes
Uc 2.66
h
12.56
l
7.84
h
9.86
j
Rh 2.67
h
12.60
jk
7.90
fg
9.91
hi
Rh + Ab 2.76
bc
12.72
cd
8.02
b−d
10.03
b−d
Rh + Pf 2.76
bc
12.73
bc
8.04
bc
10.05
bc
Rh + Ph 2.74
c−e
12.69
ef
7.99
c−e
9.99
de
Rh + Ac 2.75
cd
12.70
de
8.00
c−e
9.99
de
Rh + Pm 2.78
ab
12.75
ab
8.04
a−c
10.06
a−c
Rh + Gm 2.79
a
12.76
a
8.07
ab
10.07
ab
Rh + Mw 2.79
a
12.77
a
8.10
a
10.10
a
Ab 2.72
e−g
12.65
gh
7.95
ef
9.96
e−g
Pf 2.72
e−g
12.67
fg
7.97
de
9.96
e−g
Ph 2.71
fg
12.64
hi
7.94
ef
9.93
f−h
Ac 2.70
g
12.62
ij
7.94
ef
9.92
gh
Pm 2.73
d−f
12.68
ef
7.97
de
9.97
ef
Gm 2.73
d−f
12.68
ef
7.97
c−e
9.97
ef
Mw 2.75
cd
12.70
d
8.00
c−e
10.02
cd
Ansari and Mahmood, 2017
Aligarh, UP, India
• Uc = Untreated check
• Rh = Rhizobium
• Ab = Azospirillum
brasilense
• Pf = Pseudomonas
fluorescens
• Ph = Parthenium
hysterophorus
• Ac = Ageratum
conezoides
• Pm = Poultry manure
• Gm = Goat manure
• Mw = Municipal waste
• SMBC = Soil Microbial
Biomass C

36. Fig 05: Seed yield (kg ha-1 ) and TDM (g plant-1 ) of transplanted pigeonpea as influenced by foliar
application of major nutrients, minor nutrients and plant growth regulators
Avinash et al., 2020
T1 - Foliar application of NPK (19:19:19) mixture @ 2%, T2 - Foliar application of 6BA @ 20ppm,
T3 – Foliar application of Salicylic acid @ 100ppm, T4 - Foliar application of Pulse magic @ 10 g l-1,
T5 - Foliar application of MAP @ 2%, T6 - Foliar application of Zinc sulphate @ 0.5%, T7 - Foliar
application of Boric acid @ 0.1%, T8 - Water spray , T9: RDF, T10: Absolute control
Kalburgi district of Karnataka. Clay soil

37. Table: 17 Effect of bio-inoculant mediated nutrient management on seed, stover and
biological yield of transplanted pigeonpea (Pooled 2016 and 2017)
Treatments Seed yield (t ha-1) Stover yield (t ha-1) Biological yield (t ha-1)
Control 0.835 3.52 4.355
RDF (30: 60: 40 NPK) 1.275 5.345 6.62
RDF + BI 1.625 5.635 7.06
Vermicompost
(5 t ha-1
)
1.445 5.87 7.31
FYM (5 t ha-1
) 1.215 4.735 5.95
Leaf compost (5 t ha-1
) 1.01 4.38 5.39
Vermicompost + BI 1.635 6.215 7.845
FYM + BI 1.655 6.42 8.075
Leaf compost + BI 1.24 4.94 6.185
CD (P= 0.05) 0.19 0.475 0.555
Gupta et al., 2018
Sandy clay loam, IARI, New Delhi

38. Treatment
Grain
Yield
Stalk
Yield
Gross
Income
Cost of
Cultivation
Net
Income
B:C
ratio
(kg ha
-1
) (kg ha
-1)
(Rs ha
-1
) (Rs ha
-1
) (Rs ha
-1
)
T1 - Control (water spray) 1760 6056 101263 47210 54053 2.14
T2- 2.0% DAP spray on flowering and15 days after
first spray
2210 7463 127186 48670 78516 2.61
T3 -0.5% MAP spray on flowering and 15 days
after first spray
2512 8228 144493 48785 95215 2.97
T4- 1.0% MAP spray on flowering and 15 days after
first spray
2405 8096 138403 49410 88383 2.8
T5- 1.5% MAP spray on flowering and 15 days after
first spray
2284 7642 131521 50040 81481 2.63
T6- 2.0% MAP spray on flowering and 15 days after
first spray
2196 7352 126370 50660 75726 2.49
T7- 1.0% 19:19:19 spray on flowering and 15 days
after first spray
2251 7463 129596 49210 80386 2.64
T8- 1.5% 19:19:19 spray on flowering and 15 days
after first spray,
2080 6946 119702 49735 68295 2.4
T9- 2.0% 19:19:19 spray on flowering and 15 days
after first spray
2018 6756 116085 50260 65930 2.31
T10- 1.0% pulse wonder spray on flowering and 15
days after first spray
1857 6481 106910 50160 56750 2.22
CD (p=0.05) 171 465 NA NA NA -
Table:18 Effect of foliar application of different sources of phosphorus on yield and
economics of transplanted pigeonpea (Pooled analysis)
Sivakumar et al., 2020
Place: Tamil Nadu, Soil type: Heavy soils

39. Table: 19 Effect of drip-fertigation on growth of Transplanted Red gram during
Kharif (2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 pooled analysis) (150 × 90 cm)
Treatments
Plant
height (cm)
Primary
branches
Secondary
branches
Stem girth
(cm)
LAI RUE (g MJ-1)
WUE (kg ha
mm-1)
A) Main plots – 4 Irrigation level
I1 -60 % of daily
pan Evaporation
198 12 5.2 12 2.2 0.23 3.09
I2-80 % of daily pan
Evaporation
205 14 6.3 13.3 3.81 0.25 4.12
I3- 100 % of daily
pan Evaporation
212 17 8.5 14 4.19 0.26 4.23
I4- 120 % of daily
pan Evaporation
218 20.2 9 15.9 4.37 0.26 4.33
C.D. (p=0.05) NS 2.91 1.78 1.16 - - -
B) Sub-plots – 3 Fertility levels
F1- 75 % of RDF 199 11.4 7.9 13.4 2.97 0.23 7.2
F2- 100 % of RDF 210 14.4 9.8 13.7 3.64 0.25 7.5
F3- 125 % of RDF 222 16.3 10.5 14.3 4.32 0.27 7.8
C.D (p=0.05) NS 2.81 1.08 NS - - -
Rani and Sudhakar, 2018
Black cotton soil, ARS Tandur

40. Table:20 Yield and yield parameters of hybrid pigeon pea (ICPH
2671) as influenced by plant geometries and fertility levels
Treatments Pods plant-1 Grain weight
(g plant-1)
Grain yield
(q ha-1)
Stalk yield
(q ha-1)
S1F1 162.3 42.6 20.60 104.17
S1F2 178.4 58 23.48 100.67
S1F3 168.6 65.3 22.77 98.23
S2F1 166.9 55 22.39 109.80
S2F2 176.5 60.3 24.17 108.43
S2F3 191.5 72.6 25.70 90.27
S3F1 173.5 56.3 22.63 115.30
S3F2 201.8 74.3 26.10 114.10
S3F3 211.3 83 28.49 118.67
Maruti (ICP 8863) 139.93 33.6 16.79 70.89
C.D (0.05) 12.76 20.25 3.54 6.73
Meena et al., 2011
Dharwad

41. Treatment details:
• Plant geometry (S)
S1-60 cm × 30 cm
S2-90 cm × 30 cm
S3-90 cm × 45 cm
• Fertility Levels (F)
F1-25:50 N& P kg ha-1
F2-37.5:75 N& P kg ha-1
F3-50:100 N& P kg ha-1

42. Table 21. Effect of dual inoculation of Glomus fasciculatum and Rhizobium on the
chlorophyll, nitrogen and phosphorus contents of transplanted pigeonpea (RDF) 120 DAT
Microbial
Inoculants
Chlorophyll Content
(mg g-1)
(Acetone extraction method)
N (%) P (%)
Un-inoculated
Control 2.47 3.04 0.98
Rhizobium
2.81 3.18 1.87
VAM
2.85 3.26 2.03
VAM +
Rhizobium
2.94 3.96 2.1
CD ( p = 0.05 )
0.03 1.02 0.02
Bhattacharjee and Sharma, 2012
Assam

43. Fig: 06 Phosphorous use efficiency on fertilizer levels, irrigation levels and colour plastic
mulches in raised bed pigeonpea (150× 90 cm)
Babu et al., 2021
Raichur, Clay soil
F1: 75 % RDF through fertigation, F2: 100 % RDF through fertigation; I1: 60 % ET, I2: 80 % ET, I3: 100
% ET; M1: White over black, M2: Silver over black, M3: Complete black plastic mulch M4: Control)

44. Conclusions:
Selection of long duration hybrids and varieties (>180 days)
with higher spacing (150 × 90 cm) in heavy soils will be the
most suitable for transplanting conditions.
Planting of 21 – 28 days old seedlings in black soils with
irrigation facility will fetch the economic benefits under climate
change conditions.
 Higher nutrient dose (125 %) with split application (or) RDF
along with foliar nutrition will pay the ways to yield
maximization.
Intervention of bioinoculants in transplanted pigeonpea either
through application to the soil or through seed treatment will
convert unavailable form to available form and higher nitrogen
fixation (PSB and Rhizobium).
Pigeonpea initial slow growth as a added advantage to introduce
the short duration crops to improve the system productivity
(Green gram and Black gram).