CULTURAL PRACTICES FOR PIGEON PEA (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) AS FORAGE, GREEN MANURE, AND GRAIN CROPS

BY

FARID A. BAHAR

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1981

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author expresses his most sincere gratitude to Dr. Gordon M. Prine, supervisory committee chairman, for providing materials and facilities, and for his valuable criticisms, suggestions, and guidance throughout this graduate program.

He would also like to extend his appreciation to Drs . William G. Blue, Wayne L. Currey, David A . Knauft, and Peter J. van Blokland, for their advice, encouragement, and improvement of this manuscript.

His deep appreciation to Mr. Louis Phillips for the valuable technical assistance in all his field experiments and in preparation of samples for laboratory work. Special appreciation goes to Drs. Vincent N. Schroder and Raymond N. Gallaher and their staff for allowing the use of their laboratories. He extends his special appreciation to Mr. Richard 0. Lynch who helped him in the statistical analyses of all his data.

He would like to express his special gratitude to Dr. Ibrahim Manwan, Head of Maros Research Institute for Food Crops, and to Ir. Sadikin Sumintawikarta , Head of the Agency for Agricultural Research and Development, Department of Agriculture, Republic of Indonesia, who continuously seek ways to provide advanced training for agricultural research

workers in Indonesia. Because of their dedication to the

ii

advancement of agricultural research in Indonesia, he was able to conduct his research and obtain vital education in

the United States.

Finally, he would like to extend special thanks wife, Mapparimeng, his son, Farman, and his daughter for their generous help, patience, and understanding

iii

to his Falma,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES vi

LIST OF FIGURES ix

ABSTRACT xi

INTRODUCTION 1

LITERATURE REVIEW 3

Botany 3

Origin and Distribution 5

Climatic and Soil Requirements 6

Importance and Potential 7

Pests, Diseases, and Their Control .... 12

Insect pests 12

Diseases 14

Weeds 14

Cultural Management 15

Cultivation 15

Fertilization 16

Planting Dates 18

Plant Population 19

MATERIALS AND METHODS 21

Forage and Green Manure Experiments .... 24

Forage 24

Green manure 2 6

Grain Experiments 26

Row width 26

Plant population 27

Row width and plant population

interaction 28

IV

Method of Data Collection

Page

29

Forage and green manure experiments . 29

Grain experiments 30

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 32

Forage and Green Manure Experiments

Forage .

Green manure

Grain Experiments

Row width

Plant population

Row-population

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

32

32

45

45

45

55

68

74

Forage and Green Manure Experiments 74

Grain Experiments 75

APPENDIX 78

LITERATURE CITED 85

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 91

v

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 9

Inter-row plant spacings at different populations and row widths ....

Cultivar and lines of pigeon pea in forage and green manure study ....

Total dry matter forage production of pigeon pea cut at two heights for two crop seasons at Gainesville, Florida

Average growth duration, plant survival, harvested shoot length, and dry matter forage yield on all pigeon pea entries on each harvest at two cutting heights for two crop seasons. Gainesville, Florida

In vitro digestible organic matter production of pigeon pea forage when cut at two heights for two crop seasons. Gainesville, Florida

Weight, IVOMD , and crude protein content of component parts of forage from the third harvest for 25-cm cutting height at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980.

Weight, IVOMD, and crude protein content of component parts of forage from the fourth harvest for 50-cm cutting height at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980.

Crude protein production of pigeon pea forage when cut at two heights for two crop seasons. Gainesville, Florida.

Dry matter production and some agronomic characteristics of pigeon pea grown as a green manure crop at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980

Page

23

25

33

37

40

42

43

44

46

vi

Table

Page

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Grain yield and some agronomic character- istics of three cultivar-lines of pigeon pea and of three row widths at Gainesvil- le, Florida, in 1980 47

Grain yield and some agronomic character- istics of three pigeon pea lines planted on three dates at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980 49

Grain yield and some agronomic character- istics of pigeon pea planted on three dates for three row withs at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980 54

Grain yield of pigeon pea cultivar or line entries as affected by dates of planting and plant populations in two crop seasons at Gainesville, Florida 55

Pod maturity of pigeon pea on 12 November 1979 and 9 November 1980, as affected by dates of planting and plant populations in two crop seasons at Gainesville,

Florida 53

Fifty percent flowering stage of pigeon pea as affected by dates of planting and plant populations in two crop seasons. Gainesville, Florida 53

Plant height of pigeon pea as affected by dates of planting and plant popula- tions in two crop seasons. Gainesville,

Florida 54

Leaf area index of FL 90c pigeon pea as affected by dates of planting and plant populations in two crop seasons. Gaines- ville, Florida 55

Seed weight, number of seeds per pod, and

good seeds of FL 90c and Norman pigeon peas as affected by dates of planting and plant populations at Gainesville, Florida, in

Vll

Table

Page

19 Grain weight per plant of pigeon pea at harvest of as affected by dates of planting and plant populations. Gainesville,

Florida, in 1980 67

20 Grain yield and some agronomic character-

istics of FL 81d pigeon pea planted on three dates for three row widths at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980 69

21 Grain yield and some agronomic character- istics of FL 81d pigeon pea planted on three dates for three plant populations

at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980 .... 70

22 Dry matter forage production of pigeon pea

entries on two cutting heights for three harvests at Gainesville, Florida, in 1979 . 78

23 Dry matter forage production of pigeon pea

entries on two cutting heights for four harvests at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980 . 79

24 Plant survival of pigeon pea entries as affected by cutting height on each har- vest for two crop seasons at Gainesville,

Florida 80

25 Plant height before harvest of pigeon pea

entries of two cutting heights for three harvests at Gainesville, Florida, in 1979 . 81

26 Plant height before harvest of pigeon pea

entries of two cutting heights for four harvests at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980 . 82

27 Iri vitro organic matter digestibility of pigeon pea forage as affected by cutting height on each harvest for two crop

seasons. Gainesville, Florida 83

28 Crude protein content of pigeon pea as affected by cutting height on each harvest for two crop seasons. Gainesville,

Florida 84

viii

Figure

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 9

LIST OF FIGURES

Average annual rainfall (A) and rainfall in 1979 and 1980 (B) at Gainesville,

Florida

Average dry matter forage production over 10 pigeon pea entries when cut at two heights for two crop seasons. Gaines- ville, Florida

Grain yield production of three pigeon pea lines in three dates of planting. Gainesville, Florida, 1980

Grain yield production of pigeon pea in three row widths and in three dates of planting. Gainesville, Florida, 1980

Minimum air temperature for the months of October, November, December from 1972 to 1980 at 152.5 cm above ground, at Gainesville, Florida

Percent of seasons with minimum tempera- ture at or below 0 and -2.2 C during ten day period endings, 1937-1967, at Gaines- ville, Florida

Minimum air temperature for the months of November (A) and December (B) of 1979 and 1980, at 152.5 cm above ground, at Gainesville, Florida .

Average grain yield of five cultivar- lines of pigeon pea in three dates of planting. Gainesville, Florida, 1980

Average grain yield of pigeon pea over five cultivar-lines at three plant populations and in three dates of planting. Gainesville, Florida, 1980

Page

34

35

50

50

52

53

58

59

59

IX

Figure

10 Grain yield of FL 81d pigeon pea grown

in three row widths, three plant popu- lations, and three dates of planting. Gainesville, Florida, 1980 ....

Page

71

x

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

CULTURAL PRACTICES FOR PIGEON PEA (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.)

AS FORAGE, GREEN MANURE, AND GRAIN CROPS

By

Farid A. Bahar December 1981

Chairman: Dr. Gordon M. Prine

Major Department: Agronomy

Pigeon pea ( Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) is a promising new crop plant for Florida and Southern USA. Pigeon peas were evaluated as forage, green manure, and grain crops under different cultural practices during two seasons.

Ten cultivars or lines of pigeon pea grown for forage from 15 May to 2 November 1979, and from 22 April to 7 November 1980, were cut at heights of 25 and 50 cm. All plants were harvested three times, except for the 50 cm cutting height in 1980 which was harvested four times . Two-year average annual dry matter yields varied among cultivar- lines from 3.46 to 6.08 t/ha . In vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) of forage ranged from 41.4 to 68.8%, and crude protein ranged from 17.3 to 31.9%.

xi

Ten cultivars or lines were planted in rows 41 cm apart on 22 April and harvested on 24 September 1980. The highest dry matter yield was 9.0 t/ha by ICP 6344. Nitrogen concentration of cultivar-line entries ranged from 2.0 to 2.8% and N yield from 25 to 190 kg/ha.

Field experiments conducted in 1979 and 1980 to study pigeon pea as a grain crop included a cultivar and several lines, three dates of planting, three row widths, and three plant populations. Several Florida lines gave highest grain yields — 2,520 kg/ha for FL 81d in 1979’ and 2,120 kg/ha for FL 24c in 1980. Optimum planting time for grain was 15 June to 5 July when Florida lines should give high grain yields with little risk of freeze damage. Row widths of 41, 61, and 91 cm, and plant populations ranging from 3.3 to 13.2/m had little effect on grain yield, plant height, days to 50% flowering, pod maturity, and number of seeds per pod.

Early plantings produced lower grain yield per hectare, taller plants, higher percentage of pod maturity, higher leaf area index, and lower harvest index than did late plantings .

Xll

INTRODUCTION

Pigeon pea (Ca janus ca jan (L.) Millsp.) has the potential to become a forage, green manure, and grain crop in Florida and the Southern USA. Pigeon pea has the ability to grow well in marginal land and in a wide range of soil types. It is a legume and is capable of fixing its own N. High yields are obtainable from pigeon pea, both as grain and/or vegetable seed pods or as forage.

This crop has been widely used as human food and, to a lesser extent, for livestock nutrition in many parts of the world, including India, South America, Southeast Asia, and many African countries. Pigeon pea seeds contain 19 to 30% protein, and are high in carbohydrates, Ca, P, and Fe.

They are also a good source of vitamins A and B.

The podded green top of pigeon pea fed to milking cows not only resulted in higher milk production than with alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L. ) , but also provided sufficient protein to substitute for soybean meal. Cattle fed on pigeon pea pastures increased their live weight rapidly (Gooding, 1962; Krauss, 1932; and Schaaf fhausen , 1965).

The root system of pigeon peas is extensive and penetrates the soil deeply, allowing for optimum moisture and nutrient utilization. This allows plants to thrive on light, sandy soil with low moisture-holding capacity. The extensive ground cover of pigeon pea plants minimizes

1

erosion by wind and water. Because of relatively rapid coverage of the soil surface by the canopy, weed control is needed only during early growth.

Since pigeon pea is capable of growing on marginal lands, the area of arable land can be expanded. When pigeon pea is grown in rotation with other crops its N-fixing ability, especially when it is plowed in, will benefit subsequent crops.

Problems with a longer growing period, photoperiodicity, harvesting, nematodes, etc., are becoming less important as progress in pigeon pea plant breeding widens the area suitable for this crop.

However, as with other crop, proper cultural practices for improved cultivars are important factors that contribute to maximize net economic return by pigeon pea.

The objective of studies on this crop was to identify yield potential of pigeon pea lines and cultivars for grain, green manure, and forage from different cultural practices and planting dates in North Florida.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Botany

Pigeon pea is known also as Congo pea, Angola pea, Puerto Rico pea, red gram, and no eye pea. Because it has broad geographical range, it has many different local names, such as gandul or gandur in Cuba and Puerto Rico, guandul or chicharo de paloma in Colombia, timbolillo or quimbolillo in Costa Rica, guandu in Panama, pusoporoto in Peru, kadios in the Philippines, and kacang goode in Indonesia (Morton,

1976) .

The suggested botanical name for pigeon pea is Ca janus ca jan (L.) Millsp., in Subfamily Papilionaceae , of the Family Leguminosae (Hutchinson, 1967; Tutin, 1958). In many previous publications, it may be known as Cytisus cajan (L.), Ca janus indicus Spreng, and Ca janus cajan (L.) Druce (Purseglove, 1968).

Pigeon pea can be grown annually or perennially. It is a bushy shrub that may reach a height of 3.5 m; the stem is woody at the base. It has a deep vertical tap root and numerous rootlets, some bearing nodules inhabited by N-fixing bacteria (Morton, 1976). The leaves are pinnate, three- foliate , dark green and silky on the upper surface.

3

4

densely silvery-downy, and dotted with glands on the upper surface (El Baradi, 1978). Yellow or yellow-red flowers are borne in racemes in leaf axils. The dorsal side of the flower is either red, purple, or deep orange; another variation includes the standard yellow flower with either red or purple veining on the dorsal side (Rachie and Roberts, 1974). The majority of flowers open between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. and remain open for about 6 hours. Rain at flowering will reduce fertilization (Purseglove, 1968). Flowering extends for several months and flower dropping may reach up to 68% (Rangasamy, 1975 ) . The flowers are about 2.5 cm in length.

The pods are somewhat flattened, indehiscent, and obliquely constricted between the seeds; there are about two to eight seeds per pod, with the average being four seeds. The pods are 4 to 10 cm in length and 0.6 to 1.5 cm in width. Unripe pods may be solid green, purple, maroon, or green-blotched with purple or maroon coloring. Seeds vary in size, are usually globular in shape, and weigh 7 to 15 g/lOO . The immature seeds are green, and when mature, they may be white, grayish, red, brown, dark-purplish, or speckled in color and have a small white hilum (Rachie and Roberts, 1974) . The seeds are very hard when mature and dry, but become soft and enlarged when soaked in water (Morton, 1976 ) .

Although pigeon peas are normally self- fertilized (Krauss , 1932; Wilsie and Takahashi, 1934) with filament

5

elongation and pollen shedding occurring prior to flower opening, natural crossing is common. The more plants that are grown, the greater the chance that natural crossing will occur. Natural crossing also depends upon the efficiency of the pollination agents. It has been reported that natural crossing ranges from 0.15 to 65% ( Ariyanayagan , 1976; Howard et al . , 1919; Krauss, 1932; Purseglove, 1968; and Veerswamy and Rathnaswamy, 1972). Bees (in particular Magachile spp.), as well as other insects such as Apis dorsata , are probably responsible for cross pollination (williams,

1977) .

Origin and Distribution

The exact origin of pigeon pea is unknown. It is probably a native wild species of Africa in the sub-Saharan region. Seeds were found in the Egyptian tombs of the 12th Dynasty, which indicates that the crop was known in Egypt between 2200 and 2400 B.C. (El Baradi, 1978). It was introduced from Africa to Brazil and India (Krauss, 1932), and from India to Australia, Ceylon, Gambia and Jamaica ( FAO , 1959). The crop was introduced to the New World in early post-Colombian days, but it did not reach the Pacific until introduced to Guam in 1772 (Purseglove, 1968). It was probably first brought to Florida by fishermen and spongers from the Bahamas who settled on the Florida Keys and in Coconut Grove. It is speculated that the bushes were grown in their dooryards (Morton, 1976).

6

Pigeon peas are now widely grown in many countries of the tropics and subtropics . The main producing countries are Uganda, Tanzania and Malawi in Africa; Dominican Republic, Haiti, Panama, Puerto Rico, Trinidad and Venezuela in Latin America; and India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Burma in Asia ( FAO , 1974) .

Climatic and Soil Requirements

Pigeon pea can grow under widely different climatic and soil conditions from 30 N to 30 S latitudes (Akinola et al . , 1975). It can grow well under semi-arid conditions with an average annual rainfall of about 625 mm; it is drought resistant, but it is intolerant of water— logged conditions and very sensitive to frost (El Baradi , 1978; Krauss, 1932; Morton, 1976) . The fact that it is a deep-rooted plant may be related of its tolerance to both drought and heat (Gooding, 1962; May and Milthorpe, 1962).

The crop thrives on a wide range of soils, provided the soils are not deficient in lime and are well-drained. On extremely acid soils, nodulation may be adversely affected, and on slightly alkaline soils (about pH 7.5) regrowth after the first bearing of fruits may become extremely cholorotic and the plants may suffer die-back (El Baradi, 1978).

Salinity tolerance of pigeon pea varies with varieties , but ranges from 6 to 12 mmhos/ cm . Generally, pigeon pea is more salt tolerant than cowpea (Purseglove, 1968).

7

According to several reports, pigeon pea can grow at elevations up to 3,000 m (Morton, 1976), but best growth is achieved in Hawaii between 30 and 460 m. Plants tested at elevations between 1,070 and 1,520 m failed to produce fruit (Krauss, 1932 ) .

Importance and Potential

Pigeon pea, as a food item, can be marketed in a variety of ways. It is sold as dry seed, immature seeds, ripe peas, or as young pods. The popularity of these varieties depends upon the culture in which they are sold. In India, it is the dried seed that is most important, although the cooking time is very long — 4 to 5 hours. In Puerto Rico, the fresh immature seeds are most popular even though they sell for twice the price of the mature, dried peas. The Puerto Ricans feel that the immature seeds are

tastier and more tender, not to mention the reduced cooking time .

Dhal (split pea) is produced in India by milling dried pigeon peas. Milling consists of two main steps; loosening the outer husk by a wet or a dry method and removal of the husk, and then splitting the pea into two cotyledons (El Baradi, 1978). Byproducts of milling including husk,

powder, and small broken seeds are usually sold as cattle feed .

The green stage peas are usually canned, but good preparation, high quality, and proper maturity are required to obtain a uniform product (Sanchez, 1963).

8

Pigeon pea seeds are high in protein (varying from 19 to 30%), and rich in vitamin B. The seeds are also a good source of all minerals; such minerals are generally low in traditional staple food crops (Gooding, 1962; Oliveira,

1976) .

The green pea has about 66.7% of water, 20% carbohydrates, 7.0% protein, 3.5% fiber and 1.3% ash. Dried ripe seeds contain about 10% water, 23% protein, 56% carbohydrates , 8.1% fiber and 3.8% ash (Rachie and Roberts, 1974). As in most other grain legumes, pigeon peas are somewhat deficient in S-containing amino acids and tryptophan. Leaves contain about 9% protein; young pods contain 7 to 10% protein, and pod husks contain about 7.04% protein (Morton, 1976.)

Reports on pigeon peas as feed mostly deal with the

vegetative parts of the plant, although the seed and its

»

byproducts can also be used as feed. The upper third of the plant contains 70% moisture, 7.11% crude protein, 1.6% fat, 7.88% N-free extract, 10.72% crude fiber and 2.64% ash (Krauss, 1932 ) . Immature hay (cut before flowering stage) contained 11.12% crude protein, 2.71% fat, 25.2% crude fiber, 47.09% N-free extract and digestibility coefficient 71.44, 67.57, 52.87 and 64.67%, respectively (prine and Werner, 1977).

The straw of pigeon pea, consisting of stems, leaves, and pods after the removal of the seeds contained about 11% crude protein, 2% ether extract, 29% crude fiber, 47% N-free

9

extract, 75.6% carbohydrates, 11.5% ash, and 0.15% P. The digestibilities of crude protein, ether extract, crude fiber and N-free extract were 37.8, 21.3, 44.3, and 65.7%, respectively (Jayal et al . , 1970). The digestibility coefficient for the crude protein of pigeon pea dried at 100 C was 71.5% (Gooding, 1962).

Pigeon peas grown in Hawaii are used as feed for domestic animals primarily as hay, or as meal for horses, mules, cattle, and goats. The flowers and buds of the plants are used as feed for ducks, chickens, turkeys, pigeons, and rabbits (Krauss, 1932); and it has been incorporated into pellet rations for fowl (Draper, 1944).

The protein value of pigeon pea forage in Hawaii is about equal to that of alfalfa and the yield of forage per hectare may be 10 times that of alfalfa (Barrett, 1928).

It has been reported that cattle fed exclusively on this plant gain approximately 0.68 to 1.25 kg/ head/day. In a feeding period of 100 to 200 days, 2-year-old steers gained 22 to 45 kg/head more on pigeon pea than on grass pastures (Krauss, 1932 ) . Zebu bulls, grazing on pigeon pea pastures, gained an average of 35 kg during 93 days of severe drought, while the control animals, grazing on pangolagrass ( Digitaria decumbens stent) lost 6 kg ( Schaaf fhausen , 1965).

The major drawback in pigeon pea utilization as a grazing crop has been its poor survival and severe breakage which reduces the effective grazing duration to about 3

10

years (Anon., 1948). Consequently, silage would probably be better than direct grazing, particularly where an all-year-round feed supply is needed (Akinola et al . ,

1975 ) .

In addition to food and feedstuff, pigeon pea is also used as a windbreak; it should be planted 3 m or more from the nearest crop row to avoid root competition (Winters and Miskimen, 1967). In Central and South America, it is used as a shade plant for coffee, cacao, tea, and citrus seedlings (Killinger, 1968). It is also used as bee forage (Krauss, 1932) and for rearing silkworms (Broceras cajani) (Morton, 1976) . In India, the dried stems are used for fuel directly or made into charcoal.

In Argentina, India, Java (Indonesia), West Africa, Cuba, and Colombia, the leaves, flowers, and immature pods are used as folk medicine to cure certain ailments (El Baradi, 1978; Morton 1976).

The seeds have slightly narcotic properties, since too much consumption of raw seeds seems to induce sleepiness, but without any serious consequences (Johnson and Raymond, 1964) .

Yields of pigeon peas vary widely according to cultural practices, pest infestation, disease infection, prevailing climatic conditions at flowering, and variety (El Baradi, 1978). In Florida, field grown pigeon peas, sown in May and harvested at ground level when the plants were 154 days old, produced 7,970 kg of oven-dry matter/ha (Killinger, 1968).

11

Green matter production, between 10,050 and 20,000 kg/ha, was obtained when the upper one- third to one-half of mature stands spaced for grain was harvested (Krauss, 1932). Parbery (1967) recorded a dry matter yield of 30,250 kg/ha from mature 220-day-old stands sown in January. in three harvests cut 5 cm above ground level within 1 year, dry matter production of 15,820 kg/ha was obtained (Oakes and Skov, 1962 ) .

In Colombia, a number of studies conducted by Herrera et al. (1966) demonstrated that cutting at ground level caused no regrowth compared to cutting at 30 cm.

As reported earlier, very high forage yields can be expected from a well-managed pure stand of pigeon pea. To insure stand longevity and continuous regrowth, pigeon pea harvests require a suitable combine harvester adapted for high-level cutting with minimum bruising. Although varieties could be expected to differ in resistance to severity of defoliation, practical consideration should favor higher cutting levels for plants growing in drier environments, unless irrigation facilities are available.

According to Prine and Werner (1977), pigeon peas offer promise as a forage crop under tropical and subtropical conditions. Research needed includes (1) breeding and selection of cultivars which will persist under grazing and cutting pressure, and (2) management studies to determine grazing pressure, rest periods, cutting frequencies, and heights that will increase longevity of plants.

12

As mentioned earlier, pigeon pea is consumed either as dry grain or as green pod (or unripe pod and seed). The latter is to meet the demand for a green vegetable and for canning. At a population of 47,900 plants/ha, yield of nearly 8,000 kg/ha of green pods was obtained (Hammerton, 1971). A trial in Trinidad indicated that "Grenada Long Podded" selection reached a potential yield of 8,970 kg/ha. The highest green pod yield recorded in Marie-Galante Island, Trinidad was 8,970 to 14,570 kg /ha (Salette and Courbois, 1968).

Dry seed production under favorable growing conditions can result in yields of 1,600 to 2,500 kg/ha (Rachie and Roberts, 1974). However, the highest yield of dry seed was 7,500 kg/ha from a small plot of variety UQ50 in Australia ( Akinola et al . , 1975).

Pests, Diseases, and Their Control

Insect pests

Insect pests are considered a serious problem for pigeon peas, both in the field and in storage. There are more than 200 insect species that have been reported to damage pigeon peas in India (ICRISAT, 1978). Among them, leafhoppers and pod borers are the most serious pests (El Baradi , 1978 ) .

Some insect pests that cause damage to pod and developing seeds in the field from different places are Heliothis obsoleta (gram caterpillar), H. armigerra

13

(American bollworm) , H. virescens Fabr. (tobacco bud worm)

H. zea Boddie (corn earworm) , Agromiza obtusa M. (gram pod fly), Ancylostomia stercorea (Zell.) (pod borer), Etiella zinckenella Tretschke (pea pod borer), Exelastis atomosa W. (red gram plume moth), Elasmopalpus rubedinellus (Zell.) (pyramid moth), Anticanisca gemmatilis Hub (velvet bean caterpillar), Clavigralla gibbosa Spin (coreid bug). Coccus elongatus (flat scale insect) (Bindra and Jakhmola, 1967; Egwuata and Taylor, 1976; Gangrade , 1963; Killinger, 1968; Pramanik and Basur, 1967; Purseglove, 1968; Rachie and Roberts, 1974; Rachie and Wurster , 1971; Vaishampayan and Singh, 1969 ) .

Nematodes attacking pigeon pea are Helicotylenchus dihystera, Meliodogyne arenaria, M. javanica (eelworm), M. incognita , M. hapla , Pratylenchus spp . and Roty lenchulus reniformis . Growing a resistant cultivar seems to be the best way to solve the nematode problem.

Insect pests attacking pigeon pea in storage are Bruchus spp . , Trogoderma granarium , Cadra cantella , Sitophilus oryzae , Tribolium castaneum and Lantheticus spp. To control these insect pests, fumigation with ethylene dibromide, phosphine or methy lbromide is used, or malathion is added to storage sack.

A number of insecticides have been developed which help control pigeon pea field and storage attacks, such as DDT, Malathion, Dieldrin, Endrin, Dimethoate, Endosulfan,

Disul foton , Mephospholan , Furadan, Thiodan, and BHC .

14

Diseases

Pigeon pea is infested with fungal, bacterial, and virus diseases (Spence, 1975). Diseases attacking root and stem bases are Fusarium udum, Macrophomina phaseoli , Phaseolus manihotis, Phyllosphora ca janae , Phoma ca jani and Diplodia ca jani . Among those diseases attacking the stem and leaf are Col le to trichum ca jani , Uromyces spp . , Uredo ca jani , Cercospora spp. and Phytophthora ca jani . Sterility mosaic has been reported as the main attacking virus .

The most practical methods of disease control (ICRISAT, 1978; Rachie and Roberts, 1974): (1) growing resistant

varieties (this is ideally the most practical control mechanism), (2) practicing good farming techniques, such as crop rotation, sanitation, planting dates and control of disease vectors (insects and nematodes), and (3) using seed treatments, such as fungicides Benlate, Demosan and Phorate,and insecticides Lannate and Furadan.

Weeds

As with any other legume crop, many kinds of weeds can infest pigeon pea fields. Weeds can be controlled manually, mechanically, chemically, or by using a combination of these methods .

It has been reported that pigeon pea can suppress the growth of weeds, but this is true only when the plants have reached a height of about 1 m. Therefore, effective weed

control at early growth stages of the crop is important for high yield production.

15

Proraetryne , a pre-emergence treatment, provided good weed control in pigeon pea (Kasasian, 1964). Post-emergence application of Gramoxone (or Paraquat), as directed spray, also gave good weed control. Other herbicides that have been used successfully are Ametryne , Chloramben, Diphenamid and Diquat (Akinola et al . , 1975). It has been reported that mechanical weeding at 20 to 45 days after planting is effective in creating a weed-free condition (Saxena and Yadav, 1975 ) .

Cultural Management

Cultivation

If soil is free from weeds, land preparation may not be necessary. Satisfactory germination has often been obtained with little cultivation. However, for best germination, pigeon pea requires a seed-bed with good tilth.

For clay soils, pre-sowing tillage and cultivation are recommended (Krauss, 1932). It has been reported that deep plowing (25 cm) of light loam soil does not increase pigeon pea yield grown under irrigated conditions as compared with shallow plowing (10 to 12.5 cm) using a traditional country plow (Khan and Mathur , 1962). El Baradi (1978) suggested that under rainfed conditions, it is advisable to use an appropriate soil moisture conservation method to store the highest possible moisture quantity in the soil before planting. In soil subjected to water- logging , yields were increased by 30% when the seeds were sown on ridges rather than on the flat (Choudhury and Bhatia, 1971).

16

Pigeon pea can be grown as an annual or perennial crop; it can be grown in pure stands or mixed with other crops such as maize, sorghum, peanut, finger millet, or with cotton (El Baradi, 1978; Gooding, 1962; Tiwari, 1977). In addition, pigeon pea can be planted in rows or sown broadcast. The broadcast method is usually used when pigeon pea is planted as green manure, as a cover crop, or as a fodder crop. There is evidence that the row-planting method increases seed yield and reduces seeding rate when compared with the broadcast method (Mukherjee, 1960).

Fertilization

Because pigeon pea plants have a deep and extensive root system that allows them to utilize available nutrients present deep in the soil, many investigators have reported that pigeon pea does not respond to fertilizers (Morton, 1976). However, some responses to fertilizers have been obtained. Killinger (1968), experimenting on a dry sandy soil at the University of Florida, recommended 336 to 560 kg of 0-8-8 or 0-10-10 (N-P205~K20) fertilizer/ha at seeding time. Salette and Courbois (1968) reported that a strain local to Marie-Galante showed a 34 to 45% yield response to 112 kg of P2C>5 and 134 kg of K20/ha, whereas an introduction from Puerto Rico gave no response to

® nts . This implies that there may be considerable differences among varieties in nutrient requirements or in their capacities to absorb nutrients from soils.

17

Since the crop is a legume, it does not generally require N fertilization, except in some cases where N is added in amounts of not more than 25 kg/ha to stimulate nodulation or to increase protein content (Manihi, 1973). Addition of a high rate of N depresses N fixation of the plants (Batawardekar et al . , 1966; Dalai and Quilt, 1974).

Under tropical conditions, most studies indicate p to be the first limiting element, and it is recommended to apply 20 to 80 kg/ha of P^Oj- (Batawadekar et al . ,

1966; Khan and Mathur , 1962). Moderate application of P and K can be expected to produce economic return on soils deficient in those elements (Rachie and Roberts, 1974).

On field trials of three pigeon pea varieties, application of 25, 44 and 21 kg/ha of N, P and K, respectively, increased grain yield from 1,600 (no fertilizer) to 2,300 kg/ha (Manihi et al . , 1973). In another field experiment, increasing the superphosphate rate from 33 to 100 kg increased grain yield from

2,030 to 2,760 kg/ha (El Baradi, 1978) . Pot trials showed that application of sulphur, in combination with N, P and K significantly increased the nethionine content and grain yield, but had no significant effect on its N content (Oke, 1976) .

The effect of 22.4 kh N/ha as ammonium sulphate on grain for yield was studied on pigeon pea, peanut, and sorghum ( Singh and Sahasrabudhe , 1957 ) . The N decreased pigeon pea yield, but increased production in the other two

18

crops. It was speculated that the cause of reduced yield in pigeon pea by N was due to the fact that pigeon pea grows relatively slowly in its early stages; in addition, the low C/N ratio did not favor nodulation by Rhizobium japonicum (Nichols , 1965 ) .

In India, 200 kg of N/ha applied to a Vertisol did not increase grain, but increased total dry matter by about 43% over no N application. There was increased N uptake because of more dry matter in plant parts than in grain (ICRISAT, 1978) .

Pigeon pea utilizes the same rhizobial complex as cowpea , acasia, albizzia, cassia, centrocema, desmodium and indigofera (Burton and Martinez, 1980). Research in Nigeria (Oke, 1976) pointed out that N fixation and transfer of N to other parts of the plant can be quite efficient. Maximum fixation per plant for pigeon pea was 14.5 mg/ day, while for Centrocema and S ty losanthes , maximum fixation was 10.3 and 4.6 mg/ day per plant, respectively. Younger plants were more effective than older ones in the fixation process.

Planting Dates

There are two basic groups of pigeon pea — early and late maturing (Krauss, 1932; Purseglove, 1968). Gooding (1960) reported that in Trinidad, the time for pod formation differed by up to 106 days in earlier maturing lines and up to 237 days in later maturing lines. In addition to those two groups, there is also a day neutral cultivar, Amarillo, which flowers at any season of the year in Florida (Killinger, 1968).

19

According to Knott and Deanon (1967), for the short type of pigeon pea, planting can be done at any time, but preferably between October and December in Puerto Rico, and between December and January in Trinidad. For the tall type, flowering occurs in the period of short day length; therefore, depending on planting time, flowering may take place as early as 125 days to as late as 430 days from seeding .

Most varieties of pigeon pea are sensitive to photoperiod and the sowing date has an important influence on the vegetative and reproductive processes (Akinola and Whiteman, 1975). Killinger (1968) reported that in Florida, 120 and 150 days are usually required for flowering. In Hawaii, the tall-growing plants produce seed within 60 to 80 days after sowing (Krauss, 1932). It has been reported that in Sudan, the first pod ripening requires 5 to 6 months and in Kenya, maturity takes about 6 months (Akinola et al . , 1975) .

Plant Population

Yield responses to sowing density are basically consequences of inter- and intra-plant competition for water, nutrients, and light. The responses are affected by sowing date, light duration and intensity, temperature, soil structure and nutrient status, moisture availability, species or genotype, and pest and disease control (Akinola and Whiteman, 1975).

20

Close spacing tends to increase plant height and reduce individual plant productivity. Hamraerton (1971) reported that maximum yield per plant is obtained at spacing of 122 x 122 cm, and highest yield per hectare is obtained at a spacing of 61 x 61 cm.

In East Bengal (India), pigeon pea for seed production (either as a monocrop or mixed with cereals) was usually sown in rows of 92 cm with plants 122 cm apart in the row. Plants were thinned to 33 to 46 cm within rows, or broadcast sown at 18.0 to 22.4 kg of seed/ha ( FAO , 1959). Killinger (1968) suggested a row width of 75 to 95 cm at 6.7 kg of seed/ha for cultivar Norman as a grain crop, and as a cover crop, a row width of 30 to 45 cm at 6.8 to 22.4 kg of seed/ha .

Rachie and Roberts (1974) reported that late maturing crops generally responded best to a low population of 7,000 to 10,000 plants/ha. A seeding rate of 160 kg/ha has been reported by growers of pigeon pea for forage (FAO, 1959).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Field experiments were divided into two groups:

a. Pigeon peas for forage and green manure.

b. Pigeon peas for grain.

All field experiments were conducted on the main Agronomy Research Farm at the University of Florida,

Gainesville, during the 1979 and 1980. The soil was Arredondo fine sand, a member of the loamy, siliceous, hyperthermic family of Grossarenic Paleudalfs (Carlisle and NeSmith, 1972), with pH between 6.2 and 6.4.

The land was prepared before each planting by disk harrowing twice and dragging to level. A 0-10-20 (N-P205-K20) fertilizer was applied at a rate of 560 kg/ha just before the second disking. Herbicide mixture of benefin (N— butyl-N-ethy 1- , -trifluoro— 2 , 6-dinitro— p— tuluidine ) and vernolate (s-propyl dipropyithiocarbamate ) at the rates of 1.36 liters a.i./ha and 3.11 liters a.i./ha, respectively, were incorporated into the soil 10 to 14 days before planting.

To control weeds after crop establishment, the herbicide bentazon ( 3- isopropyl-1 H-2 , 1 , 3-benzothiadizin-4 ( 3H ) -one , 2 , 2 dioxide) was applied at the rate of 1.0 liters a.i./ha when plants were 9 to 10 weeks old. Lay-by cultivation was made 7 to 8 weeks after planting. Additional hand weedings controlled those weeds left behind by the previous weed control measures.

21

22

To obtain correct plant population in grain crop experiments, the seeds were planted in excess and then thinned later to proper population about 2 weeks after planting. The inter-row plant spacings at different populations and row widths are presented in Table 1 . In case of poor seed germination, new seeds were applied in skips as soon as they could be recognized. Sprinkler irrigation was applied when needed for rapid seed germination .

The insecticide, Methomyl [(S-methyl N-[ ( methylcaroamoil ) oxy] thiacetimidate , was applied at the rate of 0.56 kg a. i/ha as necessary to control insects attacking leaves and pods.

Grain was harvested after plants were killed by freezes on 14 November 1979 and 12 December 1980. Forage was harvested three to four times depending on the vigor and recovery growth of the plants. Plants for green manure were harvested when losses of bottom leaves became severe.

Forage and green manure were harvested with hand sickles and seed pods were hand picked from plants for grain yields.

The distances between rows for the grain crop were 41,

61, and 91 cm. Plots consisted of 4, 3 and 2 plant rows for these row widths, respectively. Plants for forage and green manure studies were all seeded with row widths of 41 cm and with four plant rows per plot. For both experiments, plot size was 5.49 m long and 1.83 m wide.

23

Table 1. Inter-row plant spacings at different populations and row widths.

Row widths

Population

Inter-row plant spacing

cm

— plant/m^ —

cm

41

4

62

8

31

12

21

61

3.3

50

6.6

25

13 .2

12.5

4

41

8

21

12

14

91

4

27

8

14

12

9

24

The seed of cultivar- lines except Norman and Florida lines used in forage and green manure studies were obtained from the International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India (Table 2).

Forage and Green Manure Experiments

Forage

Ten cultivars or lines of pigeon pea were planted at each season, and seven of them were common in both seasons (Table 2). The experimental design for both seasons was a split plot with each treatment replicated four times. Cultivars or lines of pigeon pea were main-plot treatment, and cutting height of 25 and 50 cm high were subplot treatments .

In 1979, plots were seeded on 15 May. The first forage harvest was made on 24 July 69 days after planting (DAP), the second harvest was on 10 September or 48 days after first harvest ( DAFH ) and the third harvest on 2 November. Plant harvested for both cutting heights was at the same time in this season.

In 1980, plots were seeded on 22 April. Plants with cutting height of 25 cm were harvested three times; on 9 July, 79 DAP; on 25 August, 47 DAFH; and on 7 November, 75 days after second harvest (DASH). At 50 cm cutting height, the plants were harvested four times; on 1 October, 49 DASH; and on 7 November, 37 days after third harvest ( DATH ) .

Table 2

Cultivar and lines of pigeon pea in forage and green manure study.

Code No.

ICP No.

Pedigree

Season of study

Source

Norman

—

—

1,2

U . of F.

121

—

73081 (D1 bulk)

2

122

6344

T-7

1,2

Test 27, ICRISAT t

123

7221

Gwalior-3

1,2

Test 27, ICRISAT

124

7182

BDN-1

1,2

Test 43 , ICRISAT

125

1

—

1,2

V.P. , ICRISAT

126

7118

C-ll

2

Test 40 ICRISAT

127

7065

M.P. Collection, India

1,2

V.P. , ICRISAT

128

8530

Tamil Nadu Col- lection, India

1

Germplasm,

ICRISAT

129

1641

T-17

1

Germplasm,

ICRISAT

130

8518

LRG-30

1,2

V.P,

ICRISAT

131

—

FL composite

1

U . of F.

132

—

FL 81 d

2

U . of F.

t ICRISAT

International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, India.

26

Data recorded in both forage experiments were plant survival, plant height, days to harvest, forage dry matter production, forage protein content, _in vitro organic matter digestibility of forage. In addition, protein content, and in vitro organic matter digestibility (IVOMD) of component parts of forage were determined in the 1980 crop.

Green manure

Ten cultivars or lines of pigeon peas (Table 9) were planted on 22 April and were harvested on 24 September 1980 .

The experimental design was a randomized block with each treatment replicated four times. Days to harvest, dry matter production, plant height, N content, and plant survival were determined.

Grain Experiments

Row width

A similar experiment was conducted in each season. The row spacings were maintained at 41, 61, and 91 cm on both experiments. In the first season, three cultivar or lines of pigeon pea (Table 10) were planted on 19 July 1979. The distance between plants within the row was about 10 to 15 cm. Grain was harvested on 22 November 1979. Cultivars or lines were placed as main plot treatments, and row-widths as subplot treatments in a split plot design. Each treatment was replicated four times.

27

For the second season, three different pigeon pea lines

(Table 11) were planted on three dates: 3 June, 24 June,

and 15 July 1980. Plant population was maintained at eight/ 2

m . All plants on each date of planting were harvested on 17 December 1980. In this second season, the experimental design was a split plot with each treatment replicated five times. Pigeon pea lines were main plot treatments, and row-widths were subplot treatments.

Grain yield, days to harvest, and plant height data for both seasons were collected. The number of seeds per pod, seed weight, and percentage of good seeds were also collected in the first season experiment. Maturity stage in November and at harvest, and days to reach 50% flowering stage were recorded for the second experiment .

Plant population

In this study, experiments were conducted in both 1979 and 1980 seasons . Row-width was maintained at 61 cm in each experiment. The experimental design was a split plot with each treatment replicated five times. Cultivars or lines of pigeon pea were main plot treatments and plant populations were subplot treatments .

In the first season, nine cultivar or lines of pigeon

pea (Table 13) were planted at three plant populations: 3.3,

2

6.6, and 13.2 plants/m . Each set of these treatments was planted at three dates: on 24 May, 22 June, and 19 July

1979 . All plants on each date of seeding were harvested on 20 November 1979.

28

For the second season, five cultivars or lines of

pigeon pea (Table 13) were planted at three plant

2

populations: 4, 8, and 12 plants/m . Each set of these

treatments was planted on 3 June, 24 June, and 15 July 1980. All plants on each date of planting were harvested on 17 December 1980.

Data on days to harvest, days to 50% flowering, plant height, maturity stage before harvest, leaf area index (LAI) of FL 90c pigeon pea and grain yield production were collected. In addition, seed weight, number of seeds per pod, and percentage of good seed were determined.

Row width and plant population interaction

Line FL 81 d pigeon pea was planted at three

row-widths: 41, 61 and 91 cm apart, and at three plant

. 2

populations: 4, 8 and 12 plants/m . Each set of these

treatments was planted at three dates: 3 June, 24 June, and

15 July 1980. Plants from each date were harvested on 17 December 1980.

Row-widths were main plot treatments and plant poulations were subplot treatments in a split plot design. All treatments were replicated five times.

Days to harvest, days to 50% flowering, plant height, percentage of good seed, maturity stage before harvest, and grain yield were determined.

29

Method of Data Collection Forage and green manure experiments

Forage dry matter production was based on the fresh

weight of the two center rows of four-row plots, with an 2

area of 2.97 m . A representative subsample was weighed and oven dried at 65 C to a constant moisture content; dry weight was recorded. Forage dry matter production then was calculated to t/ha . For forage, the plants were harvested either at 25 or 50 cm height, depending on the treatment.

For dry matter production in green manure study, the plants were harvested about 5 cm above ground.

Nitrogen content and digestibility analyses were performed at Agronomy Research Support Laboratory,

University of Florida. Plant samples were prepared by grinding them in a Wiley mill (Standard Model 3) with a 1-mm screen. Nitrogen was analyzed by using an aluminum block digester following the method by Gallaher et al . (1975), and

crude protein content was calculated by multiplying percent N times 6.25 (Schneider and Flatt, 1975 ). I_n vitro organic matter digestibility of the samples was determined by the modified "Tilley and Terry" two-stage technique (Moore and Dunham, 1971 ) .

Plant survival was expressed in percent, based on the number of plants surviving in the two— center rows prior to harvest. The height of the plant prior to each harvest recorded in cm was the average of three plants measured from ground level to the tallest part of the plant. Days to

30

harvest was the duration (in days) between planting and the first harvest, or between two consecutive harvests.

Grain experiments

Grain yield was based on constant grain dry-weight per

plot adjusted to kg/ha. Harvested plot area was 3.35, 2.23 2

and 2.97 m for 2, 3 and 4 plant rows per plot, respectively.

Days to 50% flowering and days to harvest were durations from planting to the time when approximately 50% of plants in each plot were flowering or were harvested, respectively.

Leaf area index (LAI) was the total leaf area of the plant divided by the land area which it occupied. Three plant samples were taken from each plot and leaf area was measured by an automatic portable area meter, a Lambda Instrument Corporation, Model LI-3000.

Pod maturity was the maturity stage of the pod prior to harvest, expressed in percent.

A 100-pod sample was taken at random from each plot to be used in measuring the number of seeds per pod, percent of good seed, and 100— seed weight. The number of seeds per pod was the total number of seeds from a 100-pod sample divided by 100. The percentage of good seed was obtained by dividing the weight of good seeds by the total weight of seeds from a 100-pod sample, and the 100-seed weight is the weight of 100 seeds in grams.

31

Harvest Index (Hi) was the ratio between total grain production and the total dry matter of the plant shoot.

Three plant samples were randomly selected from each plot by cutting them at ground level and drying at 65 C to constant moisture content. Both dry weight of grain and total dry matter (include grain weight) were recorded.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Forage and Green Manure Experiments

Forage

Significant differences in total dry matter forage production was obtained among cultivar-line entries (Table 3). There were no significant differences in dry matter yield between 25 and 50 cm cutting height. The average forage yield was 5.83 t/ha for 1979 and 4.60 t/ha for 1980 (Table 3, and Appendix Tables 22 and 23).

Cultivar-lines which were planted in both years produced average annual dry matter yields ranging from 3.46 to 6.08 t/ha. The cultivar Norman gave the highest yield. Cultivar-line entries consistently produced lower yields in 1980 than in the 1979 season. Lack of rainfall in 1980 (Fig. IB) may have been the main factor for lower dry matter yield in this year. Plants received 759 mm rainfall during the growing period in 1979, while the plants received only 622 mm rainfall in 1980. The 1979 rainfall was higher than the 70-year average, while 1980 rainfall was lower than 70-year average (Fig. 1A) .

Dry matter yields over all cultivar-lines for each harvest at both cutting heights for the two crop seasons are shown in Fig. 2 and Table 3, and in Appendix Tables 22 and 23. For 1979, average forage yield from the cutting at 25 cm was higher in the first harvest, but the next two

32

33

Table 3. Total dry matter forage production of pigeon pea

cut at two heights for two seasons at Gainesville, Florida .

Year

Cultivar

1979

1980

Two-year

or line

Cutting

height

avg .

25 +

50 +

Avg .

25 +

50$

Avg .

forage ,

U/ ilO.

Norman

6.05

6.86

6 . 4 5ab*

5.78

5.66

5.72

6.08a

121

—

—

—

3.99

4.53

4 . 2 6 be

—

122

5.71

6.25

5 . 98ab

4.54

4.86

4 . 70ab

5.34a

123

5.54

6.03

5 . 78ab

5.45

4.56

5 . 0 lab

5.39a

124

5.42

6.52

5 . 97ab

4.93

5.20

5 . 06ab

5.51a

125

5.89

5.47

5.68b

5.33

4.95

5 . 14ab

5.41a

126

—

—

—

4.00

2.73

3 . 3 7cd

—

127

3.35

5.27

4.31c

2.55

2.65

2 . 62d

3.46b

128

4.84

6.34

5.59

—

—

—

—

129

5.61

6 . 11

5 . 86ab

—

—

—

—

130

5.51

6.41

5 . 96ab

4.72

4.50

4 . 61ab

5.28a

131

6.07

7.33

6.70a

—

—

—

—

132

—

—

—

5.35

5.61

5 . 4 8ab

—

Avg .

5.40a

6.25a

5.83

4.66a

4.53a

4.60

5.21

* Means followed by the same letter within the same column or within the same line in the same year are not signifi- cantly different at 5% level according to Duncan Multiple Range Test ( DMRT ) .

t Total yield of three harvests.

$ Total yield of four harvests.

300

34

>1

u

>1

oo c n

in on -

o o in

>i

>

0

z

a c u cn

3

2

M

3

2

C

3

t3

J3

-P

G

O

2

m

>

o

z

a

<u

cn

3

>i

3

2

G

3

2

G

3

s:

+j

G

O

2

o

(N

ID

CN

00

•uiui XenuuV

Fig. 1. Average annual rainfall (A) and rainfall in 1979 and 1980 (B) at

Gainesville, Florida (data furnished by Dr. D.E. McCloud, unpublished data) .

35

o

00

<T\

•' o O

O 4-> I I

-P w in -P o -P

<U cn £ m x:

cn > cn ex' Sp P P *H P -P

ta (0 o a) o a)

t)

(Ti

1

1

_ in

>i

its

s

o

m

o

(N

O

o

■eq/q. 'jraqqeui Aaa

Fig. 2. Average dry matter forage production over 10 pigeon pea entries when cut at two heights for two crop seasons. Gainesville, Florida.

36

harvests were lower than those cut at 50-cra height. In the 1980 crop, cutting at 25 cm consistently produced higher dry matter yield than those cut at 50-cm height (Fig. 2). The harvest intervals for both cutting heights was equal in 1979, but in 1980, plants cut at 50-cm heights were harvested four times while plants cut at 25-cm height were harvested only three times. The result was lower yields for the 50-cm cutting height, but improved quality of forage.

Crop stand or plant survival data (either before the first harvest or as affected by cutting height) are presented in Table 4 and Appendix Table 24. The plant stand of 1980 entries before the first harvest was about 10% lower when compared to 1979. For the 1979 planting, cutting at 25-cm height reduced the number of plants surviving to 77 and 51%, respectively, after the first and second harvests. During the same year, cutting at 50-cm height resulted in a plant survival rate of 99 and 77%, respectively, after the first and second harvests. In both harvests, plants cut at 50 cm had significantly more plant survival than those cut at 25 cm (Appendix Table 24). In 1980, survival of plants cut at 25 cm was reduced to 71 and 31%, respectively, after the first and second harvests. When cut at 50 cm, plant survival was higher than those cut at 25 cm; survival rate was reduced to 80, 71, and 56% after the first, second, and third harvests, respectively. In 1980, an interaction occurred between cutting heights and cultivar-lines after the second harvest, suggesting that some cultivar-lines have

Table 4. Average growth duration, plant survival, harvested shoot length, and dry matter forage yield over all pigeon pea entries on each harvest at two cutting heights for two crop seasons. Gainesville, Florida.

37

+j

x

S'

•P

Q)

x

S'

c

•P

+J

4-1

3

O

e

0

1

o

in

■P

X

S'

•H

o

X

S'

G

•P

+J

-P

a

o

e

0

1

in

<N

o

p

<D

XI

s

3

2

P

CD

•P

-P

to a)

E S'rd

(0 rH

>1 P tu P O -H QP >1

'S

(D

•P H-

in x

<u -p 4-> > O S' P O C

(0 x <u

33 c/3 i — I

-P

G

i0

(0

>

> P 3 CP W

c

o

X! -P •P 4-> 3 (0 O P P 3 U T3

P

cu

>i p a) p o -h

QP >i

T3

aj

4-> +-

W X

CU 4-1 4-1 > O S'

p o c id x id

3 ID P

(0 > •H > p 3 cx in

4-1

G

<0

G

O

X -H

4.1 4->

3 (0 O P P 3 U rS

W

4-1

in

a)

>

p

(0

X

id

<T\

m

I--

in

00

r-

o

00

m

X

CO

CN

o

CN

ON

CTV

rH

LD

\

4-1

1 — 1

m

rH

o

rH

rH

o

H1

I

I

I

6

0

1 I I

I

I

1

dp

I

I

I

I

I

in

rd

T3

I

I

o

oo

in

O'!

OO

<N

in

S'

VO

f-'

VO

IN

O

O

O'

f"

r-

o

av

o

oo

IX)

in

ov

<40

VO

>4

in

in

cv

e'-

en

o

r»

<n

r~

xs

oo

oo

r-

oo

o

co

O'!

4-1

4-1

1

id

o

rH

o

o

o

rd

cu

X

CN

CN

(T\

V

CN

E

S>n3

\

•

•

•

•

•

Id rH

X

CN

CN

O

in

X

CN

o

VO

O

<N X O 00

00

r-

CTV

oo

o

r-

o\°

in

>i

id

i

i

o

o

r-

t-"

in

as

oo

cn

vo

VO

in

in

o

e'-

en

r"

r-

CN 00

CN 00

O

o

04

vo

VO

o

o

IN

Plant height before harvest subtracted by cutting height.

38

differential capacities to withstand different cutting heights and cutting frequencies .

Pigeon pea entries had significant differences in plant height either before or after harvest (Appendix Tables 25 and 26). Shoot lengths, after the first harvests of both crop seasons, were similar (Table 4), but dry-forage yields showed large differences. The 1979 crop, cut at 25 cm after the first harvest, produced 165 cm (or 84 cm + 81 cm) of shoot; when it was cut at 50 cm, it produced 176 cm (or 95 + 81 cm) of shoot with corresponding dry matter yields of 3.11 t/ha (or 2.20 t/ha + 0.91 t/ha) and 4.36 t/ha (or 3.29 t/ha + 1.07 t/ha), respectively. The 1980 crop, cut at 25- and 50-cm heights after the first harvest, produced 159 and 146 cm of harvested shoot, and dry matter yields of 3.26 and 3.55 t/ha, respectively. These data point out that plant survival (shoot density) had more effect on the total dry matter production than the length of harvested shoot.

Increasing both length of growing period and the number of harvests for the 1980 crop did not increase dry matter yield. Increasing the length of the 1980 growing period by about 30 days over the 1979 growing season permitted four harvests at cutting height of 50 cm, while only three harvests were obtained at 25 cm cutting height. After the first 1980 harvest, total dry matter forage yield from the 25- cm cutting height was 3.26 t/ha in two harvests, and 3.55 t/ha in three harvests at the 50-cm cutting height, both in 121 growing days (Table 4). By including the yield

39

of the first harvest, cutting at 25-cm height produced slightly higher dry forage yields, but it was not significantly different over cutting at 50-cm height. Over the 2 years, cutting heights did not cause significant differences in total dry matter production. However, a cutting height of 50 cm seemed to be the best, because it permitted greater plant survival.

In vitro organic matter digestibility analyses of dry matter forage for both crop seasons on each harvest are presented in Appendix Table 27 . The percentage of IVOMD ranged from 41.4 to 68.8% with an average of 51.7%. Cultivar-lines planted in both seasons indicated that the cutting height of 50 cm had a slightly higher percentage of IVOMD, 54.9 compared to 50.5% for the 25-cm cutting height. The difference in IVOMD among cultivar-lines was small.

In both crop seasons, plants cut at 50-cm height produced more digestible organic matter than those cut at 25 cm (Table 5). Digestible organic matter production ranged from 0.85 to 3.77 t/ha with an average of 2.58 t/ha. Of the seven cultivar-lines planted in both seasons, one line had significantly lower IVOMD yield than the other entries due to lower dry matter production.

Component parts of forage from the last harvest of both 1980 cutting heights are presented in Tables 6 and 7.

Plants cut at 25— cm height, which had 74 growing days, consisted of 41% leaves, 40% stems, 12% flowers, and about 11% fruits. The IVOMD percentage of young fruits (pod +

Table 5

40

. In vitro digestible organic matter production of pigeon pea forage when cut at two heights for two crop seasons. Gainesville, Florida.

Cultivar or line

Year

Two-year avg .

1979

1980

Cutting

height

25

50

Avg.

25

50

Avg .

t/ha

Norman

2.93

3.27

3.10a*

2.84

3.28

3.06a

3.08a

121

—

—

—

1.88

2.10

1 . 99bc

—

122

3.09

2.97

3.03a

2.74

2.54

2 . 64ab

2.83a

123

2.22

2.95

2.58a

2.66

2.91

2. 78ab

2.68a

124

2.54

3.41

2.97a

2.64

2.79

2 . 71ab

2.84a

125

3.09

2.45

2.77a

2.11

2.46

2 . 28ab

2.53a

126

—

—

—

1.51

1.42

1 .47cd

—

127

1.93

2.54

2.23a

0.85

1.19

1 . 02d

1.63b

128

2.16

3.10

2.63a

—

—

—

—

129

2.51

2.74

2.63a

—

—

—

—

130

3.07

3.35

3.21a

2.67

2.29

2 . 48ab

2.85a

131

2.26

3.77

3.01

—

—

—

—

132

—

—

—

2.60

3.55

3.08a

—

Avg . t

2.58a

3.05a

2.82

2.25a

2.45a

2.35

2.63

* Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT.

+

Average means followed by the same letter in the same line of the same year are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT.

41

seeds) was 58.1%, leaves 52.9%, flowers 46.7%, and stems 31.2% (Table 6). Plants of the last harvest of 50 cm cutting height, which had 37 growing days, consisted of 65% leaves and 35% stems. The IVOMD of leaves was 57.5% and stems was 38.6%.

For both cutting heights, IVOMD values of forage sug- gest that cultivar-lines which have a relatively high per- centage of leaves will have more digestible organic matter.

The crude protein percentages for both crop seasons indicated that cutting at 50 cm height resulted in slightly more crude protein than cutting at 25 cm . The average crude protein ranged from 17.3 to 31.9%, with an average of about 22.3% (Appendix Table 28). This was slightly higher than the amount reported by Krauss (1932).

Total crude protein production in both crop years for each cutting height is presented in Table 8. The 50 cm cutting height produced more crude protein than the 25 cm height. Annual crude protein yield over both crop seasons ranged from 0.35 to 1.67 t/ha with an average of 1.11 t/ha.

Crude protein contents of different forage components of the last 1980 harvest for both cutting heights are presented in Tables 6 and 7. At the 25— cm cutting height, crude protein concentrations in leaves, flowers, fruits and stems were 28.6, 22.6, 17.7, and 8.7%, respectively. For those plants cut at the 50— cm height, leaves contained the highest crude protein, 29.5%, followed by stems with 11.9% of crude protein.

Table 6. Weight, IVOMD, and crude protein content of component parts of forage from

the third harvest! for 25 cm cutting height at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980.

42

tn

1

a

in

S>

t

rH

3

a

•H

U

o

o\o

I

rtf

00

rtf

O

in

in

rd

tO

C

rtf

S

o

z

o

tO

rtf

rtf

rtf

to

<T>

O

•

•

•

CN

ro

CN

CN

CN

CN

rtf

rtf

rtf

ro

00

in

•

•

•

VO

rH

in

00

in

rH

rH

rtf

rtf

rtf

ro

00

00

<7»

rtf

rtf

rtf

<T>

•

•

•

<Ti

CN

pH

CN

ro

ro

rH

in

ro

rtf

rtf

rtf

00

to

00

cn

r-

CN

CN

CN

*tf

rtf

rtf

rH

in

CN

*•

•

•

(N

CN

ID

in

in

rH

r-

ro

in

ro

CN

CN

ro

CN

r**

00

LO

tQ

CN

CN

to

oo

o

to

00

CN

<T»

d

rtf

O

•H

4H

•H

c

on

•H

W

-P

O

c

03

P

rtf

C

6

3

pH

o

u

0)

e

M

0)

X!

X>

Eh

eu

s

Q

0

-U

!T>

C

•H

T3

SH

O

o

<u e

«j o

tn (0

a)

x:

X>

X>

U3

<D

>

(0

si

TJ

G

0

o

<u

tn

<u

x:

x>

<D

+J

tn

>i

(0

T3

■^r

r-

tn

ta

S

a)

Cn

n)

SH

o

CN

>1 rH

+J

Mh

in

XI

tn

<#>

a)

rH

v

in

>

rtf

a)

p

-P

rH

3s

-P

(0

0

O

rtf

x;

■p

rH

rH

-P

TJ

4H

0

c

U

0

4H

<13

•H

P

x:

-p

0)

03

XI

C

4H

On

rtf

4H

a)

•H

•

<13

•H

si

<u

On

T5

Eh

2

>

<

•K

+■

++■

43

Table 7. Weight, IVOMD, and crude protein content of component parts of forage from the fourth harvestt for 50-cm cutting height at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980.

Cultivar Leaves Stems

or line Weightt IVOMD Protein Weightt IVOMD Protein

%

Norman

64

58.8a*

30.4a

36

39.1a

12.1a

122

66

60.5a

30.5a

34

38.9a

11.3a

132

64

56.2a

27.7a

36

37.8a

12.4a

Avg .

65

57.5

29.5

35

38.6

11.9

* Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT .

t The fourth harvest was 37 days after the third harvest, t Weight of total forage.

44

Table 8. Crude protein production of pigeon pea forage when cut at two heights for two crop seasons. Gainesville, Florida.

Year

Cultivar

1979

1980

Two-year

or line

Cutting height

avg .

25

50

Avg.

25

50

Avg .

Crude

protein

, t/ha

Norman

1.21

1.43

1.32a*

1.21

1.38

1.30a

1.31a

121

—

—

—

0.86

0.94

0 . 90bc

—

122

1.26

1.28

1 . 27ab

1.13

1.07

1 . lOab

1.18a

123

0.87

1.29

1 . 08ab

1.05

1.22

1 . 13ab

1 .11a

124

1.11

1.62

1.37a

1.18

1.27

1 .23ab

1.30a

125

1.34

1.12

1 . 23ab

0.88

1.05

1 . 97abc

1.10a

126

—

—

—

0.65

0.67

0 . 66cd

—

127

0.78

1.14

0.96b

0.35

0.52

0.44b

0.70b

128

0.92

1.39

1 . 16ab

—

—

—

—

129

1.10

1.24

1 . 17ab

—

—

—

—

130

1.24

1.48

1.37a

1.14

1.00

1 . 07ab

1.22a

131

0.94

1.66

1 . 30ab

—

—

—

—

132

—

—

—

1.15

1.47

1.31a

—

Avg. t

1.08a

1.37a

1.22

0.96a

1.06a

1.01

1 . 13

* Means

followed

by the same

letter within

the same

column are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT .

t Means followed by the same letter in the same line of the same year are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT.

45

Both IVOMD and crude protein content data showed stems or branches to have low values. Therefore, for quality one should select pigeon pea cultivar-lines that have higher percentage of leaves .

Green manure

In 1980, when 10 pigeon pea cultivar-lines were grown as green manure, dry-matter production ranged from 1.0 to 9.0 t/ha with an average of 5.2 t/ha (Table 9). The highest dry-matter production (9.0 t/ha) in 156 days of growth was produced by entry ICP 6344. This dry matter was higher than that obtained by Killinger (1968) in Florida during the same length of growing period.

As shown in Table 9, the number of missing plants was high and varied among cultivar-lines. Plant height also varied, ranging from 125 to 281 cm.

The N concentration of the dry matter for each cultivar-line as green manure ranged from 2.0 to 2.8%, and there were no significant difference those cultivar-lines (Table 9). Total N production, therefore, depended upon the total dry— matter production. In this study, N production ranged from 25 to 190 kg/ha.

Grain Experiments

Row width

The effect of row width on grain yields of three pigeon pea cultivar-lines is presented in Table 10. Pigeon pea

46

Table 9. Dry matter production and some agronomic charac- teristics of pigeon pea grown as a green manure crop at Gainesville, Florida, in 198 0.

Cultivar or line

Dry matter production

Plant

survival

Plant

height

Nitrogen

concentration

Nitrogen

production

t/ha -

— % —

- cm -

— %

— kg/ha -

Norman

5. 3bc*

5 lbc

281a

2 . 2a

130ab

121

2 . 8cd

35c

125f

2 . 8a

35cd

122

9.0a

94a

255bc

2.3a

175a

123

5 . 6bc

8 Oab

234d

2.2a

150ab

124

5. 9bc

75ab

210e

2.3a

135ab

125

5 . lbc

7 9ab

235d

2.5a

190a

126

5 . Obc

30cd

199e

2 . 0a

8 0bcd

127

l.Od

4d

196e

2.3a

25d

129

6 . 7ab

69ab

263b

2.5a

160ab

130

5 . 9bc

78ab

244cd

2.1a

llOabc

Avg.

5.2

60

205

2.3

119

* Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT .

47

Table 10. Grain yield and some agronomic characteristics of three cultivar-lines of pigeon pea and of three row widths at Gainesville, Florida, in 1979.

Treatment

Grain

yield

Plant

height

Number of seeds per pod

100-seed

weight

Good seed

Cultivar

kg/ha

cm

— g —

%

or line

FL 68

960a*

138b

—

—

—

FL lOde

880a

127c

4a

9.5a

65a

Norman

220b

218a

3b

6.1b

30b

Row width

41 cm

620b

161a

4a

7.7a

39b

61 cm

590b

160a

4a

7.8a

52a

91 cm

840a

163a

4a

7.8a

52a

* Means followed by the same letter within cultivar-line effect, or within row widths effect in the same column are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT .

48

lines FL 68 and FL lOde both produced significantly more grain than cultivar Norman. Plant height was significantly different among those three cultivar-lines ; Norman was the tallest while FL lOde was the shortest.

When compared with Norman, line FL 10 de had significantly more seed per pod. In addition, FL lOde seeds were heavier than Norman, and it had a greater percentage of good seeds (Table 10).

In the 1979 study, the widest row width (91 cm) produced significantly more grain than the two narrower widths. There were no significant differences in plant height, number of seeds per pod, or seed weight among the different row widths. However, 61- and 91 -cm rows had significantly higher percentages of good seeds than the 41 -cm rows.

Since this crop was seeded on 19 July 1979, the plants did not have enough time to produce mature seed; frost stopped their growth in the middle of November 1979. The growing period was only 127 days.

In the 1980 study, plant population was maintained at eight/m2 (Tables 11 and 12, and Figs. 3 and 4). The average grain yield production indicated the optimum planting date is either 24 June or 15 July this season. Of the three lines of pigeon pea planted, FL 24c yielded the highest grain production when planted on 24 June 1980. The other two lines of pigeon pea (FL 90c and FL 81 d) yielded highest when planted on 15 July 1980 (Fig. 3 and Table 11).

49

Table 11. Grain yield and some agronomic characteristics

of three pigeon pea lines planted on three dates at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980.

Pigeon pea

Planting date

line

3 June

24 June

15 July Avg.

3 June

24 June

15 July

Avg.

Grain, :

Plant height, cm

FL 24c

1,000+

1,980a*

1,590a

1,52C$

158c

143 +

117+

139 $

FL 8 Id

1,140

1,620b

1,750a

1,500

188a

157

132

159

FL 90c

1,030

1,540b

1,660a

1,410

170b

155

127

151

Avg.

1,060

1,710

1,670

172

152

125 •

Table 11 continued

Pigeon pea line

Planting date

3 June

24 June

15 July

Avg.

3 June

24 June

15 July

Avg.

— Days

to 50%

flowering

—

— % pod

maturity at 9 Nov. —

FL 24c

68b

73 +

64b

68 $

93+

86 +

48+

76$

FL 8 Id

69b

74

66a

69

92

80

29

67

FL 90c

71a

74

64b

70

92

83

63

79

Avg.

69

73

65

92

83

47

* Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not signi- ficantly different at 5% level according to DMRT.

t There was an interaction effect between pigeon pea lines and row width.

1- There was an interaction effect between pigeon pea lines and date of planting.

/ha

50

n 3

o

o

o

o

o

o

\

o

CO

CN

tn

M

CN

rH

rH

TJ U O

rH O ^ CO CXi CN

rH

3

>3

lo

0)

c

3

^3

CN

<u

c

3

•3

m

Cn

r*

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

vo

CN

CN

r-H

rH

o

o

00

Fig. 3. Grain yield production of Fig. 4. Grain yield production of

three pigeon pea lines in three pigeon pea in three row widths dates of planting. Gainesville, and in three dates of planting Florida, 1980. Florida, 1980.

51

Minimum air temperature data (Figs. 5 and 6) indicated that frost may often kill plants in early November. For that reason, the 24 June planting has less risk of low yields due to a freeze.

Additional evidence to support the preferred 24 June planting is indicated in pod maturity. From this planting, 80% of the pods reached maturity by 9 November 1980, as compared with only 47% for the 15 July planting. The 15 July plantings produced about the same grain yield as the 24 June planting, since a freeze did not occur until the middle of December (Fig. 7). This late freeze permitted plants of the last seeding to continue their filling process.

All pigeon pea lines reached the 50% flowering stage 65 to 73 days after planting. Regardless of planting time, the plant required about 2 to 2.5 months for vegetative growth.

As planting time was delayed, plant height was increasingly shortened. Plants from the 3 June seeding grew to an average height of 172 cm, while those seeded 15 July plants grew only to an average height of 125 cm.

The average grain yield for different row widths is presented in Table 12. The highest grain yield, 1,950 kg/ha, was obtained from rows 61 cm apart in 24 June planting (Fig. 4). There were no significant differences in yield due to row width in 15 July planting, while the 3 June planting had an interaction effect between cultivar-lines and row width.

52

Temperature

CC)

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 (date)

Fig. 5. Minimum air temperature for the months of October, November, December from 1972 and 1980, at 152.5 cm above ground, at Gaines- ville, Florida (data furnished by Dr. D.E. McCloud, unpublished data) .

Season with minimum temperature below 0 and -2.2 C

53

Fig. 6. Percent of seasons with minimum temperature at

or below 0 and -2.2 C during 10 day period endings, 1937-1967, at Gainesville, Florida (adapted from Johnson, 1970) .

54

Table 12. Grain yield and some agronomic characteristics of pigeon pea planted on three dates for three row widths at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980.

Row width

Planting date

3 June

24 June

15 July Avg.

3 June

24 June

15 July

Avg.

Grain, :

Ivy/ I Id — — — —

Plant height, cm

41

870+

1,520b*

1,640a 1 , 340 t

172a

150+

122 +

148+

61

1,130

1,950a

1,740a 1,610

170a

154

125

150

91

1,170

1,670b

1,620a 1,490

173a

151

129

151

Avg.

1,060

1,710

1,670

172

152

125

Table 12

continued . . .

Planting date

Row width

3 June

24 June

15 July Avg.

3 June

24 June

15 July

Avg.

— cm

— Days

to 50%

flowering —

— % pod maturity

at 9 Nov. —

41

69a

74+

65a 69 t

94+

84 +

46+

74t

61

69a

73

65a 69

91

82

47

74

91

69a

73

64a 70

92

83

48

74

Avg.

69

73

65

92

83

47

* Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not signi- ficantly different at 5% level according to DMRT.

t There was an interaction effect between pigeon pea lines and row width.

t There was an interaction effect between pigeon pea lines and date of planting

55

There were only slight differences in height due to variation in row width. Similar trends were also observed at the 50% flowering and pod maturity stage (Table 12). As row width became wider, grain production per plant increased, but a significant difference was obtained only for row widths of 61 and 91 cm over 41 cm for the 24 June planting .

Plant population

Grain yield data from the 1979 study indicated interaction effects either between date of planting, cultivar-line entries, and plant population, or between cultivar-line entries and plant population within the planting date. The average grain yield production on each planting date, however, suggested that 24 May and 22 June were the best planting dates (Table 13). Six of those nine cultivar- lines gave highest yield when planted on 22 June, and all of them produced lowest grain yield when planted on 19 July 1979.

In the 1980 study, grain yield data also indicated an interaction effect similar to that in 1979, but the average grain yield production on each date of planting suggested that 24 June and 15 July were the best planting dates. Pour of five cultivar-lines gave highest grain yield when planted on 24 June, and all of them gave lowest yield when planted on 3 June (Table 11).

56

Table 13. Grain yield of pigeon pea cultivar or line entries as affected by dates of planting and plant popula- tion in two crop seasons at Gainesville, Florida.

Cultivar

Planting

date

1979

1980

or line

24 May

22 June

15 July

Avg.

3 June

24 June

15 July

Avg.

FL 45c

1,560*

1,250*

1,070*

1,300+

—

—

—

—

FL 74205

1,150

1,280

730

1,050

—

—

—

—

FL 88ab

1,790

2,060

1,690

1,850

—

—

—

—

FL 67

1,970

1,940

1,550

1,820

—

—

—

—

FL 81a

1,870

1,930

1,370

1,720

—

—

—

—

FL 95a

1,430

1,610

1,320

1,460

—

—

—

—

FL 90c

1,830

2,130

1,690

1,880

960*

1,680

* 1,740*

1,460+

FL 8 Id

2,520

2,310

2,090

2,310

1,250

1,770

1,570

1,530

Norman

1,140

1,230

540

970

1,090

1,320

1,130

1,180

FL 68

—

—

—

—

550

1,430

1,340

1,110

FL 24c

—

—

—

1,160

2,120

1,840

1,710

Avg.

1,700

1,750

1,340

1,600

1,000

1,660

1,520

1,390

Planting date

Population

1979

1980

24 May

22 June

15 July

Avg. 3

June

24 June

15 July

Avg.

Plants/m2

Ky / ria.

3.3

1,690*

1,580*

1,170*

1,480+

—

—

—

—

6.6

1,690

1,860

1,350

1,640

—

—

—

—

13.2

1,710

1,810

1,500

1,670

—

—

—

—

4.0

—

—

—

—

960*

1,590*

1,510*

1,350+

8.0

—

—

—

—

1,070

1,690

1,480

1,410

12.0

*“““ ”

—

—

990

1,740

1,440

1,390

Avg.

1,700

1,750

1,340

1,600

1,000

1,660

1,520

1,390

* There was an interaction effect between cultivar and plant population within the same date of planting.

t There was an interaction effect between date of planting, cultivar or lines, and plant populations within the same crop year.

57

Based on these 2 years of research, the best planting date was at the 22 June and 24 June planting dates. When planted 3 to 4 weeks earlier or later than these dates, a low grain production resulted in one or the other of the 2 years studied. In the first year, all plants were harvested on 20 November 1979 due to early frost which killed plants of the last planting before seeds were mature (Fig. 7A) .

In the second year, the plants were not killed by frost until the seeds were mature in the middle of December 1980 (Fig. 7B), which contributed to the greater grain yield of the last planting. A recommended time of planting ranging from about 15 June to 5 July with Florida lines, should give both high grain yields and little risk of freeze damage in North Florida.

Data for minimum air temperature (Figs. 5 and 6) indicated that the frost may damage the plants in November, which mandates that plants reach physiological maturity in early November. Therefore, 22 June or 24 June seemed to be the optimum planting dates .

As far as grain yield is concerned, FL 81 d and FL 90c yielded consistently well (Table 13). Line FL 24c outyielded FL 81 d in the second year of study (Fig. 8). The highest grain yield obtained was 2,800 kg/ha produced by FL 81 d when planted in 61- cm rows at 13.2 plants/m2 on 24 May 1979.

The effect of plant population on grain yields is presented in Table 13 and Fig. 9. Although there was an

Temperature

(C)

Fig. 7. Minimum air temperature for the months of November (A) and December (B) of 1979 and 1980, at 152.5 cm above ground, at Gaines- ville, Florida.

kg/ha kg/ha

59

o

o

fa

CN

O

O

P»

o

o

n

o o

o o

<T\

(3 QJ CD CD

a, p <u xs <u h

C 4J d)rl

0 P fa

QJ fa XX >

tji C3 fa CO

•fa 0)

(fa W C C (1) fa fa in C (3 0 fa T3 C3 i— I g T3 I

p—j •

<D (3 CO CT>

•H > C C Jfafa 0 fa fa fa fa • C fa fa C O •H 3 (3 <3 CO (3 O rH iH <n p d a<-t tM) a > ow -

Q) fa Qj 0 *3 C"fa "0 (3 fa M fa p p g cd p a) qj nj fa o

J> > fa f3 fa <C 0 &r0 CP

<71

CT>

fa

fa

d

C3

in

(U

g

d

•"3

fa

CN

CD

g

d

l”3

fa

a)

>

fa

4-1

(3

cu

(fa

iw

o

g

o

CD

Cio

g co

CTi

•H

-P fa

g

ci <3 -

*H H (3 TS Ou CX'd i fa fa

a; fa fa p ■H 0 O O

g

•H

(3

P

tr>

i

p CD (3 (T> > (3 fa P -P CD fa > d <C o

CO

U3 fa CD fa (3 T3

ai

fa

>

w

<d

g

•h

(3

U

o

o

i — i

o

o

i-~

o

o

m

o

o

cn

o

o

in

Cr>

*p

fa

CN

60

interaction effect between planting date, cultivar-line

entries and plant population, the average grain yield at

populations of 6.6 and 13.2 plants/m2 or 8 and 12 2

plants/m were higher than yields from populaitons with

to 3.3 and 4 plants/m , respectively. In the first

year, the highest grain yield obtained was at 6.6 / 2

plants/m when planted on 22 June. In the second year, the highest grain yield obtained was at 12 plants/m2 when planted on 24 June .

Pod maturities recorded on 12 November 1979 and 9 November 1980 indicated that the cultivar-line entries had different pod maturities (Table 14). The average percentages of pod maturity of the 1979 plants were lower than the 1980 plants. It is speculated that more pods were produced in the 1979 plants due to higher rainfall received in that year, which contributed to a lower percentage of pod maturity. The 1979 plants received 782 mm of rainfall while the 1980 plants received only 552 mm of rainfall.

Pod maturity of the 1979 crop as affected by population is shown in Table 14. As indicated, only the 24 May plants (population of 3.3 plants/m ) produced greater percentage of pod maturity than the other two populations. The 1980 crop indicated no significant differences in pod maturity due to population (Table 14).

The average number of days to reach the 50% flowering stage ranged from 67 to 75 days (Table 15) . Except for cultivar Norman, most plants reached the 50% flowering stage

61

Table 14. Pod maturity of pigeon pea on 12 November 1979 and 9 November 1980 as affected by dates of planting and plant populations in two crop seasons at Gainesville, Florida.

Cultivar or line

1979

1980

24 May

22 June

15 July

Avg.

3 June 24 June 15 July

Avg.

-5 UldLUI t: puu — — —

FL 45c

19h*

lie

6de

12 1

—

—

—

—

FL 74205

38g

7f

6de

17

—

—

—

—

FL 88ab

97a

50a

29a

59

—

—

—

—

FL 67

84c

30c

7de

40

—

—

—

—

FL 81a

65e

12e

8d

28

—

—

—

—

FL 95a

56f

lie

6de

24

—

—

—

—

FL 90c

93b

39b

20b

51

89b

80b

53b

74 +

FL 8 Id

73d

16d

13c

34

93a

80b

28d

68

Norman

69e

17d

5e

30

75c

51c

5e

44

FL 68

—

—

—

—

94a

84a

32c

70

FL 24c

“ “ ”

“

—

92a

86a

60a

79

Avg.

66

21

12

89

76

36

Planting date

Population

1979

1980

24 May

22 June

15 July

Avg.

3 June 24 June 15 July

Avg.

Plants/m2

: ]JUU

3.3

68a

21a

11a

33+

—

—

—

6.6

65b

21a

12a

33

—

—

—

—

13.2

65b

22a

12a

33

—

—

—

—

o

«

—

—

—

—

89a

76a

43a

66a

8.0

—

—

—

—

89a

77a

37a

68c

12.0

— — _

88a

76a

36a

67b

Avg.

66

21

12

89

76

36

* Means followed by the same letter within the same date are not signi- ficantly different at 5% level according to DMRT.

+ There was an interaction effect between cultivar or lines and date of of planting, and or between population and date of planting.

62

in the same length of time when planted from 24 May to 24 June. Plants of the last planting (15 July and 19 July) flowered slightly earlier than the two earlier plantings. Pigeon pea plants at all planting dates had a vegetative period of more than 2 months (Table 15). Plants may continue to produce new flowers and pods, even though the earlier pods were already physiologically mature.

There was a negative relationship indicated between plant height and date of planting for both crop years. As planting date was delayed, plant height decreased (Table 16 ) .

Leaf area indices of FL 90c for both crop years are shown in Table 17 . The data indicated significant differences in LAI between 1 month and 2-month- old plants and/or at the 50% flowering stage. These data showed the slow rate of growth of pigeon pea plants in the early stages. There was a positive relationship between population and LAI. As population increased, so did LAI.

There was a slight reduction in seed weight as planting time was delayed. The number of seeds per pod was not affected by various planting dates. A negative relationship between percentage of good seeds and date of planting was obtained. As planting date was delayed, the percentage of good seed was reduced (Table 18). Plant population had no significant effect on seed weight, number of seeds per pod, or percentage of good seeds.

63

Table 15. Fifty percent flowering stage of pigeon pea as affected by dates of planting and plant popula- tions in two crop seasons. Gainesville, Florida.

Cultivar

Planting

date

or line

19 7 9t

1980

24 May

22 June

15 July

Avg. 3

June

24 June

15 July Avg.

FL 45c

75

83

70

76

—

—

—

—

FL 74205

76

83

72

77

—

—

—

—

FL 88ab

71

75

63

69

—

—

—

—

FL 67

70

74

65

70

—

—

—

—

FL 81a

72

85

72

76

—

—

—

—

FL 95a

71

74

65

70

—

—

—

+

FL 90c

70

72

63

68

71c*

73c

65d

69+

FL 81d

70

74

69

71

68d

74b

67b

70

Norman

101

90

78

90

98a

86a

73a

86

FL 68

—

—

—

—

73b

74b

66c

71

FL 24c

—

—

—

—

68d

72d

64e

68

Avg.

75

79

69

76

76

67

Population

Planting

date

1979 t

1980

24 May

22 June

15 July

Avg.

3 June

24 June

15 July

Avg.

2

Plants/m

3.3

75

79

69

74

—

—

—

—

6.6

75

79

69

74

—

—

--

—

13.2

75

79

69

74

—

—

—

—

4.0

—

—

—

—

76a*

76a

67a

73a

8.0

—

—

—

—

76a

76a

67a

73a

12.0

—

—

—

—

75a

76a

67a

73a

Avg.

75

79

69

76

76

67

* Means followed by the same letter within the same date are not signi- ficantly different at 5% level according to DMRT .

t There was no variation observed between replications.

+ There was an interaction effect between cultivar or lines and date of planting.

64

Table 16. Plant height of pigeon pea as affected by dates of planting and plant populations in two crop seasons. Gainesville, Florida.

Cultivar or line

Planting date

1979

1980

24 May 22 June 15 July Avg. 3 June 24 June 15 July Avg.

cm

FL 45c

206c*

160de

132e

166t

—

—

—

—

FL 74205

186d

157de

143cd

162

—

—

—

—

FL 88ab

168e

144f

112g

141

—

—

—

—

FL 67

183d

170c

133e

162

—

—

—

—

FL 81a

219b

181b

146b

182

—

—

—

—

FL 95a

188d

162d

14 Id

164

—

—

—

—

FL 90c

161f

156e

117 f

145

163d

158b

124c

148 +

FL 8 Id

208c

174c

144bc

175

186b

158b

129b

158

Norman

260a

248a

192a

233

253a

190a

167a

203

FL 68

—

—

—

—

173c

150c

116d

147

FL 24c

—

—

—

—

156e

144d

124c

141

Avg.

198

172

140

186

160

132

Planting date

Population

1979

1980

24 May 22 June 15 July Avg. 3 June 24 June 15 July Avg.

3.3

194b

169b

138c

6.6

200a

171b

140b

13.2

4.0

200a

177a

142a

8.0

12.0

—

—

—

167 + 170

—

—

—

—

173

183b

158a

133a

158+

—

188a

160a

132a

160

—

188a

161a

131a

160

Avg. 198 172 140

186 160 132

* Means followed by the same letter within the same date of planting are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT.

+ There was an interaction effect between cultivar or lines and date of planting, and or between population and date of planting.

65

Table 17. Leaf area index of FL 90c pigeon pea as affected by dates of planting and plant populations in two crop seasons. Gainesville, Florida.

At one month old

Planting date

Population

1979

1980

24 May

22 June

15 July

Avg.

3 June

24 June

15 July

Avg.

Plants/m2

3.3

0.01b*

0.07a

0.06b

0.05 +

6.6

0.01b

0 • 08s

0.09b

0.06

—

—

—

—

13.2

0.02a

0.15a

0.21a

0.13

—

—

—

—

4.0

—

—

—

—

0.11b

0.11b

0.05c

0.09+

o

00

—

—

—

—

0.21a

0.17a

0.07b

0.15

12.0

—

—

—

—

0.23a

0.16a

0.09a

0.16

Avg.

0.02

0.10

0.12

0.18

0.15

0.07

At two months old and 50% flowering

stage :

for 1979

and 1980, respectively.

Planting date

Population

1979

1980

24 May

22 June

15 July

Avg.

3 June

22 June

15 July

Avg.

Plants/m2

3.3

1.75b

0.84b

1.45b

1.35c

—

—

—

—

6 . 6

2.80b

1.17b

2.02b

2.00b

—

—

—

—

13.2

4.51a

2.48a

4.24a

3.74a

—

—

—

—

4.0

—

—

—

—

4.57b

3.51b

2.30a

3.46b

8.0

—

—

—

—

5.58a

4.45a

2.72a

4 . 25a

12.0

—

—

—

6.36a

4.40a

2.46a

4.41a

Avg.

3.02a

1.50b

2.57a

5.50a

4.12a

2.49b

* Means followed by the same letter within the same date of planting are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT .

t There was an interaction effect between date of planting and population.

Table 18. Seed weight, number of seeds per pod, and good seeds of FL 90c and Norman pigeon peas as affected by dates of planting and plant popu- lations at Gainesville , Florida, in 1979.

66

<u

<d

go

c

•H

4->

c

cd

rH

fcj

4J

rH

5

I

%

<j\

I

CN

(N

I

CN

I

00

O

D

(N

CM

•'S'

CN

F

<

>i

§

CN

CN

CN

S

p

o

I 4-

CO

co in id t-~

(0 id 00 ID •'S*

D 12 (0

CM Oo

# in 03

to ca 00 o

CO OO

1

rtf

<J\

1

•

V.

ro

in

<d

cx>

rn

•

©

ffl

in

ro

m

12

cd 12 o in

• •

-s'

(0 12 OO VD

I co co

4-

m r~

rH

Do cd cd

» O CO 4J

Xi D •H

91

0 in

i

o o

(0

o

vo

12

o

CO

5 a

CN CO

CJ

o

OO

hi

b

co

o

F

<

<u

+J

id

TJ

tr>

g

•H

-p

c

(0

rH

b

F

<

I

oo

o

D

CN

CN

CN

F

<

>1

%

o

rH

0}

CN

CN

F

<

0 D

CN

CN

1

CN

Cn

rtP

in

i

o

o

CN

.S

cd cd id oo i— o

CD CD f"

(0 (0 (0 vd in o m

(0 CO f0

CM rH rH

t" r- r-

co (0 id

O VD rH

O'* co co

cd id i-t r-~

<0

r-~

(0

r-

i

i

i

l

4J

*&

•H

I

cd

r-

co co co

co

cO

vo

co co co

(0

C"

(0

oo

co co co

(0 cd (0 co oo oo • • • co co co

in in

• •

OO CO

id cd

rH r- • • oo oo

cd cd •^r co

oo

cd

H

OO

cd

oo oo oo

cd id

cd

m

o o o

cd

rH

3

C

j3

g

ro

VD

CN

a

O

c3

•

•

0

•H

rH

ro

VD

ro

b

4J

b

rH

r-

oo

CO

cd

r-

co

cd

r'*

co

cd

oo

co

o

oo

in

oo

co

o

F

<

4->

C

S

a)

MH

mh

•rH

TJ

rH

4->

5

o

•H

MH

•H

6 •H

in

4->

B

<u

a

£

MH

O

J5

55

67

Table 19. Grain weight per pigeon pea plant at harvest as affected by dates of planting and plant populations. Gainesville, Florida, in 1980.

Cultivar or line

Planting

date

3 June

24 June

15 July

Avg.

oidin weignL

, g/piant - -

FL 90c

18+

31 +

33b*

21$

FL 8 Id

23

33

29bc

28

Norman

20

23

23d

22

FL 6 8

9

25

25cd

20

FL 24c

21

39

40a

20

Avg.

18

30

30

Population

Planting

date

3 June

24

June

15 July

Avg .

2

Plants/m

Grain

wtiignL

, g/piant

4.0

25+

40 +

43a*

36$

O

•

00

16

28

2 7b

23

12.0

13

23

20c

18

Avg.

18

30

30

* Means followed by the same letter within the same date date of planting are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT .

t There was an interaction effect between cultivar or lines and plant population within the same date of plantincr.

t There was an interaction effect between cultivar or lines, population, and date of planting.

68

The average grain weight produced per plant was lower from the 3 June than from 24 June and 15 July plantings in 1980. Each cultivar-line produced similar amounts of grain during the last two plantings (Table 19). Plant population produced a greater variation in grain weight per plant. There was in inverse relationship between population and grain weight. As population increased, grain weight decreased .

Row- population

Grain yield production and other agronomic characteristics of FL 81 d pigeon pea as affected by date of planting, row width, and plant population are presented in Tables 20 and 21, and Fig. 10.

Plantings made on 24 June and 15 July produced significantly higher grain yields than that on 3 June 1980. Although no significant differences were observed between 24 June and 15 July, plants seeded on 24 June had less chance of receiving freeze damage before seed maturity.

Furthermore, within the same planting date, no significant differences were observed due to row width or population (Tables 20 and 21). This is an indication that FL 81 d was not greatly affected by either of these factors. Data shown in Fig. 10 suggest that planting on 24 June yielded highest when planted in 61-cm row width at a population of 8 plants /m^ .

From the three sample plants per plot, no significant f erences in grain production per plant due to variation

Table 20. Grain yield and some agronomic characteristics of FL 81d pigeon pea planted on three dates for three row widths at Gainesville, Florida in 1980.

69

03

03

03

O'

i

vO

0*

vO

>

j

in

ro

<

O'

rH

rH

r-H

>1

rH

p

G

c

X3

h>

(0

03

XI

03

n

r-H

O

ro

O'

in

ft

ro

o

CN

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

p

<13

d)

G

G

ft

p

03

03

03

XI

d)

r*

CO

CN

p

ro

ro

CN

ro

<N

p

rH

r-H

rH

rH

ix3

e

d3

G

>1

G

p

03

03

03

03

0)

Q

O

CN

CN

1

O

CP

vO

CO

ro

1

CN

rH

rH

r-H

CP

O'

03

03

03

>

O

CP

<

»-

CO

CN

CN

P

>i

e

rH

ifl

G

rH

ft

03

03

03

03

O

CO

CO

in

p

co

CN

CN

CN

d)

rH

d)

■P

03

<13

G

ft

p

TJ

G

sz

•o

O'

03

03

03

03

CP

•H

r-H

CN

CO

rH

c

d)

m

CO

CN

ro

►h

•H

CN

3

■P

C

G

<13

•H

03

G

03

G

P

03

03

03

03

h)

o

CP

ro

rH

CO

co

CN

CN

ro

CN

03

03

03

O

O

O

•

vO

r^>

O

CP

1

ro

in

in

>

1

<

1

rH

rH

rH

>i

1

1

rH

1

03

03

03

03

G

1

O

o

O

O

03

VO

in

in

vO

r-

vo

m

03

*»

k.

rH

x:

rH

rH

r-H

rH

\

d)

CP

G

M

03

03

03

03

G

O

o

O

O

0)

v

rH

o

cp

G

in

m

in

•H

*»

«.

CN

03

rH

rH

rH

r-H

P

o

*

<13

03

03

03

XI

G

1

O

O

O

o

G

1

<N

in

vO

0)

1

O

CN

CN

rH

1

•»

ro

1

rH

rH

rH

rH

X

4-

1

1

T

•r-

B

rH

rH

rH

3

o

VO

CP

4-

1

cp

O

1

>

OS

1

<

1

•H

+j

o

o

o

CN

I

Q)

P

(0

n

O'

a

•H

P

c

as

f—t

ft

O'

1

03

0

0

>

1

in

CO

m

<

1

CO

00

00

>1

1

i

rH

i

G

h)

TS

03

0

0

in

<D

ro

CN

rH

rH

d)

CO

CO

CO

t n

0

G

T!

G

0

0

O'

03

0

0

in

in

r-

CN

dP

00

CO

CO

0

1

G

1

G

1

1

0

0

0

1

CO

vo

ro

1

CO

CO

CO

CP

0

0

0

>

CP

vo

<

O'

vO

vo

vo

>i

.

rH

>

G

0

z

0

0

0

r-'

["-

in

p

ro

CN

CN

r-H

1X3

0

G

P

G

•H

h)

P

0

0

0

0

o

o

O

p

00

00

CO

CN

fl

e

0

T!

G

0

G

ft

0

0

0

h)

ro

ro

rH

<*P

CP

CP

<P

ro

0

0

0

•

CP

rH

o

CP

1

rH

CN

CN

>

1

•

•

•

<

1

o

O

O

1

1

rH

G

0

0

0

hJ

X

CN

VO

CN

d)

CN

CN

CN

in

T3

•

•

•

r-H

C

o

o

O

•H

0

G

X)

G

0

0

0

0

0

CN

ro

CN

>

CN

CN

CN

U

•

•

•

CN

03

O

O

O

X

0

G

1

0

0

0

G

1

vO

1

rH

rH

rH

ro

1

1

O

o

O

JO

p

■H

3

3

s

e

U

^ VO CP

X3

CN

00

03

VO

CO

03

VO

CO

XI

CP

CN

03

O

CO

03

CM

<p

03

CN

O

03

CN

CN

O

XJ

LO

O

CP

>

<

<D

>

<D

dP

in

-P

03

4J

c

CD

U

<D

4h

4h

•H

T3

P

C

03

o

c

O'

P

o

fl

<u

p

<xs

o

u

0)

JZ

c

■H

SZ

P

P

<u

p

P

a)

a)

s

03 t n

a)

JZ

p

> i E-i

n os

s

Q

0)

3 0 0 P

r—4

rH CP

O G

14-4 -H W ^

c o

03 O CD U £ 03

W

o

•H

-P

W

•H

P

CD

4J

O

P

03

o

•H

B

O

G

O

P

CP

03

<13

(0

cd

x:

4J

C •

•H

E-i

x:

K

4-1

S

•H

Q

?

0

p

P

d)

p

O'

p

c

d)

*H

rH

73

P

CD

0

6

O

0

O

W

1X3

<D

i — i

x:

d>

V

>

d)

>1 rH

■Q

TJ

in

d3

3

4J

0

0

rH

rH

4J

0

G

4-4

<D

Jh

’J)

CD

G

4-4

0

4-4

CD

•H

B

T3

<D

>i

CP

rH

0

•P

^4

G

CD

0

>

U

0

•H

4h

<D

•H

-P

G

0

CP

TJ

•H

W

CP

C

•M

•H

0

4J

c

G

0

<D

r—i

U

C4

0

Table 21. Grain yield and some agronomic characteristics of pigeon pea planted on three dates for three plant populations at Gainesville, Florida, in 1980.

70

03

XI

u

CP

I

03

03

03

tp

i

CN

>

I

in

on

>

<T>

on

o

<

I

CO

00

00

<

CP

rH

rH

rH

>.

i

I

>1

—

H

l

rH

p

3

G

c

h)

73

03

A

XI

XI

03

03

03

0

P

VO

VO

<T>

in

0

on

CN

o

CN

in

CO

VO

O

CO

rH

rH

0

00

CO

CO

CO

rH

p

rH

rH

rH

0

W

0

d)

c

g

CO

3

0

G

•“D

0

p

03

XI

XI

X5

C7>

03

o3

03

0

d)

in

o

CN

on

vO

in

VO

vO

p

r*

CN

O

CN

CN

CO

CO

00

CO

CN

p

rH

rH

rH

rH

73

g

0

1

0

G

1

G

3

1

3

P

03

03

0

03

1

03

03

XI

0

h)

Q

in

in

CN

1

r-

r-

on

VO

on

CO

on

CO

on

1

CO

GO

CO

CO

on

1

CN

rH

rH

rH

tp

03

03

03

CP

03

XI

XI

>

r-

c^*

r^

>

CN

N*

rH

<

cn

vO

vO

vo

<

•-

N1

CN

CN

P

•

>i

c

H

>

rH

73

3

0

3

P

2

CO

03

XI

X

03

03

03

03

XI

CN

on

00

in

H

(j)

O

an

<J)

0

LO

p

CN

rH

CN

0

H

03

CN

on

CN

CN

■P

03

rH

0

dJ

CO

-P

03

0

G

>.

■P

T3

G

p

TJ

3

•H

3

X

U

CP

03

X

rQ

03

tJ>

3

03

03

03

0

c

p

in

in

CN

rH

G

-P

o

O

rH

o

d)

n1

CN

CN

on

CN

03

CO

00

CO

CO

•H

CN

3

•H

£

4->

H

G

0

c

G

0

03

G

p

03

G

O

pH

3

73

03

X

XI

03

H_|

3

CU

03

03

0

0

CO

P

CO

in

o

CO

CL.

on

CN

CN

CN

on

O

on

CN

CN

CN

on

dP

(T>

CT>

an

an

03

03

03

o

o

O

03

XI

XI

•

O

(T*

•

CN

an

an

tn

1

in

1

CN

rH

rH

>

1

>

1

•

•

t

1

I

rH

rH

rH

<

1

o

o

o

>i

1

1

>4

1

1

rH

1

03

03

03

03

H

3

1

O

O

o

o

3

03

03

0

0

r*

VO

in

h)

X

VO

CN

on

on

in

r-

vO

VO

•

0

CN

CN

CN

CN

m

03

*»

•k

•

m

03

•

•

•

•

rH

XI

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

G

O

o

o

o

\

•H

0

&

•

0

G

X

03

03

03

03

•

G

■P

3

O

O

o

O

•

3

W

03

XI

XI

0

K

on

CN

on

0>

•

0

in

o

rH

CN

G

in

VO

vO

in

>

CN

CN

CN

CN

•H

*

T3

•'tf

u

•

•

•

•

CN

03

rH

rH

rH

rH

CN

03

O

o

O

O

U

0

K

O

*

’ i

3

0

03

0)

03

XI

£

0

G

O

O

o

o

C

1

03

03

0

XI

3

1

rH

<T>

CO

-P

3

1

VO

in

in

1

CN

rH

rH

rH

1

rH

rH

rH

rH

1

G

1

•

•

on

1

rH

rH

rH

rH

0

on

1

O

o

o

o

O

c

0

CN

rH

c

0

CN

•r-

6

CN

•H

£

4J

\

■P

\

03

w

0

03

W

r-

■3

00

CN

H-

pH

rH

-P

00

CN

G

c

rH

•

3

G

rH

,

ft

03

04

03

IT>

0

• — 1

>

cd

0

rH

>

co

(X

<

Eh

04

04

<

<#=

in

P

(0

P

c

d)

P

d)

P

P

*H

73

>i

ip

P

C

73

o

c

CP

-p

0

c

<u

p

(0

c

1

3

P

o

o

<u

s

(0

in

a)

x

■p

.c

p

P

3

P

<u

-p

p

0)

d)

i

73 •

(/) E-i 05 d) S x q ■p

o

>1 -p

n

CP 73 C <U P 3 73 O P P O P O O U Ip fO

w

c

73

dj d)

2C p

in

u

•H

4J

in

p

P

d>

P

u

03

P

(0

X

o

s

0

c

0

p

CP

It)

d>

e

in

d)

x

p

05

£

Q

O

P P

d)

P

P

d)

CP

c

p

73

P

O

O

03 O in 73

d) p

x <u

p > d>

>i p XI

<x>

73 m d)

3 P

O 03

P P O C ip d) P

in d) c p 73 p

d) P

s 73

(U >i tji P

d) 73 > O id p p d) p

p c 73 CP 73 P in

tp

c

o

c

p p

c

73 d) P P O. 73

d of FL 8 Id pigeon pea grown in three row widths, three plant popula- three dates of planting. Gainesville, Florida, 1980.

72

xn planting time or variation in row width was observed

(Table 20). An inverse relationship between plant population

and grain production per plant was noted. As plant

population increased, grain production per plant decreased.

2

The 4 plants/m population had significantly greater

grain production per plant than that of 8 and 12 2

plants/m . No significant differences were observed

2

between 8 and 12 plants/m populations (Table 21).

Dry matter production per plant decreased as planting time was delayed, or as population was increased. Row width had no significant effect on dry matter production per plant (Table 21 ) .

A HI was computed from three plant samples per plot.

This index indicated a significantly lower value for 3 June

plants when compared with two later plantings (Table 20).

Row width had no significant effect; however, population of 2

four plants/m had significantly higher HI than both 8 and 12 plants/m . The lower HI value of the 3 June plants was due mainly to longer vegetative growth before seed production.

As planting was delayed, the percentage of mature pods on 9 November was reduced. Pod maturity was lower for 15 July plants when compared with the two earlier plantings.

Row width and plant population had no significant effect on pod maturity (Tables 20 and 21).

Percentage of good seed was slightly lower in the 15 July planting, but no significant differences were observed.

73

Percentage of good seed was not affected by row width or plant population (Tables 20 and 21).

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Forage and Green Manure Experiments

Field and laboratory studies were conducted in 1979 and 1980 to identify the yield potential of pigeon peas as a forage crop for North Florida. Cutting height, number of harvests, protein content, and IVOMD of forage were studied.

There were some significant differences among pigeon pea cultivar-lines in terms of dry matter forage production, ranging from 3.46 to 6.08 t/ha. Cutting at 50-cm height was better than cutting at 25 cm; the 50-cm height produced more plant survival, more dry matter production, more digestible organic matter, and more crude protein than cutting at 25 cm .

The percentage of IVOMD in forage dry matter ranged from 41.4 to 68.8%, with total digestible organic matter production ranging from 0.85 to 3.77 t/ha. Crude protein concentration ranged from 17.3 to 31.9%, with total crude protein production ranging from 350 to 1,660 kg/ha.

Leaves contained much higher percentages of IVOMD and crude protein content than stems/branches, which suggested that cultivar-lines which have a high proportion of leaves will produce higher values of IVOMD and crude protein.

Within the growing period of 170 to 200 days, three harvests seem to be appropriate. Depending on plant vigor,

74

75

first clipping can be done as early as 69 days after planting; thereafter, clipping can be done every 50 to 60 days .

The 10 pigeon pea cultivar-lines grown for forage in 1980 were also grown as green manure crops to determine dry matter production and N content. The highest yield obtained was 9.0 t/ha of dry matter during the 156-day growing period. Nitrogen concentration ranged from 2.0 to 2.8% for all pigeon pea entries.

Grain Experiment

To provide more information on pigeon pea as a grain crop for North Florida, a series of field experiments was conducted in the 1979 and 1980 growing seasons. Factors studied were cultivar, date of planting, row width, and plant population.

Grain yields at different dates of planting indicated that the optimum time to plant was the June 22 and June 24 planting dates. The best time of planting range was projected to be from June 15 to July 5 for Florida lines similar maturity pigeon peas. Within these dates, the Florida lines should produce high grain yields and give little risk of freeze damage. Earlier plantings produced lower grain yield per hectare, taller plants, higher percentage of pod maturity, higher LAI, and lower harvest index. On the other hand, later plantings had shorter plants, lower percentage of pod maturity, lower LAI, higher harvest index, and greater chance of freeze damage.

76

Row widths, 41, 61 and 91 cm apart, had no significant effect on plant height, days to 50% flowering, pod maturity, harvest index, and number of seeds per pod.

2

Populations of 3.3, 6.6 and 13.2 plants/m in 1979 and

2

4.0, 8.0 and 12.0 plants/m in 1980 had no significant effects on plant height, days to 50% flowering, pod maturity, number of seeds per pod, and seed weight. However, as plant population increased LAI increased, and dry matter production decreased.

Although the row width and plant population studies

were not conclusive as to the best to use, a population of 2

8 plants/m planted in rows 61 to 90 cm apart would be a good compromise to use for grain until futher experiments can be conducted.

Conclusions

Pigeon pea shows promise as grain, forage and green manure crop for Florida. It produces a subtantial amount of forage of fair quality, that could be especially useful in the dry fall months. Pigeon pea fixes N amounts comparable to the best of other legumes.

Pigeon pea for grain should be planted from June 15 to July 5. The grain yield of pigeon pea was comparable to other grain legumes. Although a marketing system for pigeon pea does not yet exist, the market system for cowpea, lentil, and other dry beans can be adapted to pigeon pea. Pigeon pea can be grown on more marginal soils than other grain legumes, therefore, increasing the area of cultivalble land.

APPENDIX

78

Cp

G

•H

44

44

G

O •

CT1

O r- 3 cr, -P r— i

4-1 G

O -H

CO (3 QJ 03 •H *H

g g ■P o G rH aj Cn

03 -

<1> <3

Gj I- 1 I — I

G -H O > <3 co cp <u

■G G Gj -H c3

4-1 u

o

44 G (0 O

-G CO 4J 44 O CO G 0) 03 > O G G (B C4 43

<3 <3 CP 0) (0 G G 43 O 44 4-1

G

G O <3 4-1 4J

44 CO c3 -P 6 43 Cp

>it-i

G <3

Q X

CN

04

0)

rG

X

cd

E-i

e

o

44

jG

CP

•G

0)

43

Cr>

c

•H

-P

•P

G

U

Cp

>

C

o

in

LD

CN

o

in

in

CN

o

in

in

04

o

in

CN

*

i

43

X

43

43

43

43

i

t3

c3

c3

c3 43

O 43

(3

<3

(3

i

in

CO

00

r~-

CO

rH

VO

ID

O

i

<T>

r-"

o

ID

co

in

00

cn

r-»

1

VO

in

LD

m

in

LD

LD

in

vo

i

(3

rH

i

VO

LD

CO

CN

r-

r-

rH

i — 1

CO

in

(3

i

00

CN

o

m

CN

CO

r-H

CO

CN

44

i

•

O

i

VO

VO

vo

vo

LO

ID

vo

ID

vo

r-

VO

E4

i

i

(3

i

m

rH

CN

CP

in

rH

rH

o

i

o

t-'

LD

00

CO

00

vo

m

o

i

VO

in

m

in

ID

CO

ID

ID

vo

in

(3

44

43

<3

CO

\

CN

CN

CN

co

in

r-

rH

r-

00

r-

CN

(3

44

CN

cn

O'*

r-H

c-

CO

CN

CO

o

1

>

•

rH

G

rH

o

o

rH

o

o

rH

o

rH

rH

rH

r-H

c3

<3

43

CT>

<3

c3

00

CO

m

CN

r*

CO

r*

r-'

CO

r-H

CN

03

G

cn

o

CO

<n

00

CO

00

o>

rH

o

<T>

1

G

0

•

rH

CO

44

o

rH

o

o

o

o

o

o

r-H

r-H

o

rH

>1

G

44

03

(3

!0

rH

VO

o

CN

m

rH

cn

00

CN

<T»

(3

G

VO

CO

CN

m

rH

o

CN

CO

VO

CN

r-

>

<3

•

i

G

>

CO

co

CO

co

CO

CN

CO

CO

CO

co

CO

cn

(3

O

43

43

in

CN

1 — 1

CO

r-

o

m

cn

o

03

1

["•

CN

CN

CN

vo

r-H

00

r-H

i — 1

vo

CN

r-

C

1

•

i

CN

1

1

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

rH

rH

CN

CN

CN

CN

O'*

44

1

1

43

CO

1

CO

rH

P-

r-

<n

o

in

co

cn

CO

<3

1

o

Cn

cn

CO

m

cn

cn

r-

CN

00

CN

>

1

•

1

G

1

CN

rH

rH

rH

i — 1

rH

r-H

rH

• — i

CN

r-H

r-

(3

1

43

1

<3

1

CN

VO

o

rH

VO

o

cn

in

cn

CO

44

l

CO

CN

•'tr

CO

rH

LD

rH

co

CN

CN

CO

1

•

i

rH

1

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

r-H

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

r-

G G U O

G

<3

E

G

0

Z

(NniflOOCOOOH

CNCNCNCNCNCNCNCOCO

4-

CP

>

<

4-1 4-> O CO <3

0) > -P G m co Q 43

4->

c3

4->

G

<3

G

<3

4-1

44

•H

03

>i

r-4

4-J

G

<3

O

•H

44

■H

G

CP

■H

CO

4->

O

G

(3

G

<3

G

<3

4-t

4-)

(3

(3 E4

(0 C

(3

0

43

44

44

CP

>1

c

43

•rH

43

43

G

(3

0

3

O

0

O

r-H

t3

i — 1

0

rH

44

(3

>

cn

(3

c

r-H

(3

(3

<#>

S

LD

■K

I

CP

■H

CO

44

O

G

Means followed by the same letter within the same harvest are nificantly different at 5% level according to DMRT .

79

l

1

r

* o

P

P

P

P

•a

P

P

•

i

3 P

3

3

3

3

U TO

3

3

o

CN in

o

t — 1

m

H1

t>

CN

rH

00

>

i

[" CN

f"

o

o

rH

ro

m

in

<

i

O'

i

m hj

m

in

LO

ro

CN

p

LO

c

i

•H

i

3

p

rH

i

m on

in

in

o

in

ro

cn

o

rH

oo

p

o

3

i

in in

00

LO

CN

Cl

in

LO

m

in

3

in

P

i

•

0

0

i

in hp

in

CN

CN

LO

•

Eh

t

0 o

i

3

3 co

i

oo cn

■N<

in

oo

oo

o

in

CN

in

LO

P cn

in

i

t"- o

in

ro

o

in

[-»

oo

in

rH

CN

i

•

cp

i

LO CO

H1

LO

LO

p

CN

■^r

in

0 G

i

•H

P

i

cn ..

cn

i

CD (0

<D

i

•H T5

S

i

i

00 o

CO

in

O'

00

LO

rH

r-

00

r~-

p p

o

rj

CN CN

rH

rH

rH

rH

o

CN

rH

rH

rH

i

G O

in

•

rH

CD P

fi

3

o o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

rH

Em

(0

-P

P

\

CD '

£

P

Ch CD

o

pH

p

4-

G P

*»

cn

(D

m in

r-

ro

ro

CN

cn

CN

o

CN

0 -P

p

o

CD

O

m r-

CO

H1

CO

in

r"

m

o

cn

N*

1

CD >

p

in

>

3

•

O

o> cn

o

p

P

rH rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

o

o

rH

rH

rH

1 1

•P CD

■H

3

O

a g

(D

P

P

4-

•H

P

in <n

CO

o

in

oo

in

cn

CN

o

LO

r~

<p 3

in

T3

rH LO

CO

CN

in

rH

rH

in

rH

oo

o

i

0 O

O

CN

P

p

•

rH

C

ro

rH O

o

rH

l — 1

rH

rH

o

rH

rH

rH

rH

G P

■H

0 to

p

G

•H

p

CD

P cn

3

p

>

3

O P

O

cn

O

O 00

O'

rH

in

ro

ro

CO

o

cc

r->

3 cn

o

CD

in cn

rH

<n

rH

rH

rH

rH

CN

rH

cn

rH

P <D

LO

>

•

i

0 >

P

1

CN CN

CN

rH

CN

CN

rH

rH

CN

CN

rH

00

p p

3

I

& CO

P

1

3

P

1

co

CN

rH

CN

cn

rH

in

ro

O

in

CD

IT)

P

l

oo in

rH

m

rH

ro

o

CN

in

CN

CN

O P

CN

C

1

•

1

3 3 P O O »P P

CN

1

1

1

1

CN CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

rH

rH

ON

CN

ON

00

P

P

1

P

P O

cn

1

n- in

LO

ro

O

ro

LO

ro

ro

00

CD P

O

CD

1

CN 00

rH

o

o

rH

CO

LO

o

00

<T\

o\

P

in

>

1

•

1

P cn

P

1

rH O

rH

rH

1 — 1

rH

o

o

rH

rH

o

3 P

3

1

£ P

P

1

3

O

1

00 O'

o

00

LO

00

m

LO

in

ro

o

£>i *H

m

P

l

r- r-

LO

LO

CN

ro

LO

a>

p CD

CN

cn

1

•

i

a p

rH

1

rH o

rH

rH

rH

H

rH

o

rH

rH

rH

r-

ro

H

CN

3 CD

P

p

CD

>

c

O

cn

•

p •

p

3

++

CD

rH

.

M P

£

<D

>

P

rH

H rH

CN

ro

in

LO

t"

o

CN

Cn

P

p

(0

3

H

0 CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

ro

ro

3

3

Eh

u

D

2 rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

<

a p

CD

>

CD

<*°

LD

P

(0

P

c

CD

P

CD

P

P

•H

TO

-P

G

id

o

•H

P

•H

G

O'

•H

cn

P

o

G

CD

P

(0

P

CD

P

P

<D

CD

£

(0

cn

CD

P

p

>i£*

p a

■o

CD

3

o

2

Q

O

P

P tT> O G

p -rH

T3

CO

G

3 o CD O 2 3

rH

•

P

cn

G

CD

3

G

0

•H

•rH

i — 1

P

•rH

P

c

0

O'

•H

P

cn

3

>

P

•rH

0

P

G

rH

3

CD

O

p

3

TJ

G

P

3

cn

CD

P

>

P

P

O'

3

•H

P

CD

P

CD

£

O'

3

G

cn

•rH

P

CD

P

p

3

p

O

C

•

G

•H

Eh

CD

p

K

CD

p

2

3

•H

Q

P

3

CD

0

P

p

P

CD

P

P

O'

0

P

G

CD

CD

•H

P

rH T3

P

p

CD

CD

o

£

CD

C

3

O

0

cn

3

•rH

P

CD

rH

o

P

CD

3

P

>

P

CD

CD

rH

P

P

G

0\0

•rH

ro

in

CD

c

3

P

3

o

3

rH

cn

rH

P

3

0

G

3

p

CD

P

CD

cn

CD

P

c

P

CD

3

P

P

CD

•rH

Ei

2

TO

+.

++

Table 24. Plant survival of pigeon pea entries as affected by cutting height on each harvest for two crop seasons at Gainesville, Florida.

80

>

p

<d

x

1

1

1

1

1

o

o

o

o

1

X

O

X

XI

X

03

in

X

1

03

TO

o

XI

03

03

CD

CD

03

CD

.p

1

O

rH

cn

m

cn

on

1

1

00

1

CD

1

1

00

on

LO

VD

r-

r*

1

'

1

CO

in

O'

>

>

1

1

1

CO

r*

on

on

00

r-

CM

m

1

1

o

1

CO

<

p

1

ID

rH

in

cD

CD

m

on

rH

1

1

1

CD

(0

1

X

1

CD

o

1

CD

CM

00

in

on

on

cn

1

1

00

1

rH

in

T3

1

CO

cn

CO

CO

00

00

in

CM

1

1

CO

1

CO

P

1

m

1

in

1

1

on

on

cn

rH

CD

o

rH

r-

1

1

cn

|

On

rH

CM

1

1

rH

on

rH

1

1

in

'

cn

#

1

1

XI

o3

Cn

1

03

XI

03

03

03

id

03

XI

03

>

»

1

rH

rH

on

o

CD

on

o

in

1

1

rH

1

cD

<

>

1

<J\

CO

cn

CO

CO

CD

<sT

1

1

on

1

CO

o

p

1

CO

<d

1

o3

on

X,

1

rH

o

1

in

rH

in

O

on

O

CD

1

1

rH

1

rH

O

in

T3

1

On

cn

cn

on

00

O'

1

1

on

1

On

CO

c

1

CN

1

1

03

in

1

CO

CM

rH

LO

on

00

o

HT

1

1

rH

1

rH

rH

CM

1

1

00

CO

00

r-

in

1

1

on

1

CO

r-

1

1

1

XI

XI

X

X

On

1

03

o

03

03

03

03

03

X

o3

03

>

«

1

CO

00

00

00

CO

rH

r*

1

I

1

co.

<

>

1

On

cn

<n

on

on

on

CO

1

I

on

1

on

p

' 1

<d

1

X

03

o

cn

cD

00

cn

cD

on

cD

LO

1

1

1

CO

o

in

V

<tf>

on

cn

cn

on

on

CO

00

1

1

on

1

on

on

-p

w

X

rH

o3

cn

1

•H

m

1

r*

o

00

CO

on

v0

m

on

1

I

in

1

CO

rH

p

<1)

CM

1

cn

in

cn

cn

on

on

on

00

1

1

on

1

on

on

id

X

1

<u

1

SH

en

1

*

G

•

1

X

Xl

XI

XI

X

X

X

■H

On

1

03

03

03

03

XI

o

03

03

03

03

-P

>

.

1

i

CO

O

On

i

o

on

on

on

cD

I

■P

<

>

1

i

CD

CD

in

i

m

CD

cD

CD

I

3

P

1

U

id

1

X

1

03

o

1

i

O

00

rH

cn

I

VO

o

O

00

i

r*

m

T3

1

CO

i

00

CO

CD

i

00

CO

on

l

P

1

m

1

1

X

in

1

rH

i

VO

cn

on

in

i

on

on

00

CO

l

rH

CM

1

1

ID

i

in

in

in

i

rH

on

in

CD

in

I

m

On

.

1

1

o

>

1

O

o

CO

o

o

in

o

o

o

on

03

on

in

P

1

O

i

o

on

o

o

l

on

o

o

o

on

l

On

rH

<d

1

rH

i

rH

rH

rH

i

rH

rH

rH

I

On

X

1

TS

1

1

X

in

C

1

O

i

o

o

in

cD

l

m

CD

r-

CD

l

r^

CM

CN

1

1

on

i

CO

CO

i

r-

CO

CO

l

n*

1

1

03

•

1

o

o

o

o

o

O

o

o

o

o

o

o

>

1

o

i

o

o

o

o

i

o

o

o

o

o

i

o

m

P

1

rH

i

rH

i — i

rH

rH

i

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

l

rH

cd

1

X

1

1

03

P

1

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

O

in

cn

1

o

i

o

o

o

o

i

o

o

o

o

o

I

o

CM

rH

1

rH

1

rH

rH

rH

rH

i

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

i

rH

p

(d

0)

>

c

G

•H

•H

03

*

-p

rH

E

•

rH

>h

rH

CM

cn

in

cD

r**

CO

On

o

rH

CM

CP

3

p

0

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

cn

cn

cn

>

U

o

z

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

< 1

c

03

s followed by the same letter in the same column, or in the same line within the same harvest crop season are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT .

81

Table 25. Plant height before harvest of pigeon pea entries of two cutting heights for three harvests at Gai- nesville, Florida, in 1979.

Cultivar or line

Cutting

height, cm

25

50

Avg .

25

50

Avg.

25

50

Avg .

1st

harvest

2nd

harvest

3rd

harvest

Norman

134

137

136ab*

112

152

132a

108

135

122abc

122

138

139

139a

115

149

132a

115

125

120abc

123

131

136

134abc

112

150

131a

101

128

115cd

124

115

121

118d

102

139

121a

100

131

116bcd

125

124

123

124cd

107

135

122a

105

126

116bcd

127

117

122

120d

105

143

124a

92

128

llOd

128

131

135

133abc

106

137

122a

113

141

127a

129

127

131

129abcd

113

144

129a

114

134

124ab

130

128

131

130abc

113

151

132a

113

134

124abc

131

124

127

126bcd

111

149

130a

102

126

114cd

Avg. f

127a

130a

109b

145a

106b

131a

* Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT .

t Means followed by the same letter within the same harvest are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT.

82

Table 26. Plant height before harvest of pigeon pea entries of two cutting heights for four harvests at Gai- nesville, Florida, in 1980.

Cultivar or line

Cutting height,

cm

25

50

Avg.

25

50

Avg.

25

50

Avg.

50

1st

harvest

2nd

harvest

3rd

harvest

4th harvest

Norman

117

121

119a*

135

131

133 +

109

127

118a

66a

121

61

58

59a

78

84

81

75

83

79d

56d

122

115

115

115b

126

130

128

90

117

103b

61bc

123

114

113

114b

132

128

130

95

120

108ab

63abc

124

97

99

98e

109

115

112

100

125

113ab

60cd

125

109

104

106c

116

119

117

101

124

113ab

61bc

126

103

103

103d

105

112

109

104

121

112ab

59cd

127

93

93

93f

85

111

98

81

104

93c

65ab

130

108

109

109c

124

123

124

98

119

108ab

63abc

132

104

107

105cd

128

119

123

99

129

114a

65ab

Avg.i

102a

102a

114

117

95b

117a

62

* Means followed by the same letter within the same column are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT .

t There was an interaction effect between cutting height and cultivar or line.

t Means followed by the same letter within the same harvest are not significantly different at 5% level according to DMRT.

id

>iT3

-Q -h S-4

XS O

(U i— 1

P Cm O

0) - 4-4 a)

4-1 r-4 fd rH •H W > (d 03

a)

<u g

cn-H 03 03 P U O 4-4

03 03 03 G a O

03 G 03

o a)

03 03 tr>

•H

a,

a,

o

P

o

4-1

o

o

>4 3J

p> -p

•H

rH H

•H O X! 4-1 •H

-P -P 03 03 03 0) Oi > •H P 03 03

x:

p

03 x:

-p u

-P 03 <d 03 E

c

o o

■rH

G -P

g x:

tn tji P "H

O 03

x:

o

p Cp ■p c

•H *H > -p p G I G h| u

<N

03

I — I

-Q

03

Eh

83

i p

O 03 CP

13 03 >

Eh >i 03

P

03

03

>4

o

00

CP

CP

r-

<p

tp

>

o

in

o

m

in

CN

o

in

in

CN

o

n

in

CN

>

P

03

x;

x:

p

•^r

>

P

03

x:

T3

p

m

>

P

03

x;

03

G

CN

>

p

03

x:

p

03

CP

>

<

o

n

in

CN

o

in

in

CN

>

P

03

x:

03

p

m

>

P

03

x;

G

CN

P rt! > •H 4J i — I

3

a

a

3

u

o

1

1

03

rt

03

03

03

03

03

1

o

H4

rH

o

in

CP

CO

1

1

•

•

•

•

•

•

p

dp

1

rH

1

W

ro

CO

|

CM

|

1

CM

1

1

CM

0

in

1

LO

1

in

in

in

in

1

LO

|

1

in

|

|

in

o

1

o

p

1

03

03

1

rt

03

03

o3

03

03

03

03

03

1

co

CM

H4

00

CD

01

rH

LO

rH

-p

1

•

•

•

a)

c

1

rH

in

CO

CO

CO

CM

co

i

|

CO

1

CO

co

>

a>

1

LT)

LO

LO

in

in

in

LO

in

1

1

LO

1

in

in

a>

p

1

p— 1

a)

1

4H

1

dP

4-1

1

CO

00

o

CD

H4

H4

CO

cO

CO

in

rH

in

•H

1

•

•

•

X

1

CO

CM

VO

CO

CO

cO

CO

rH

1

1

CO

1

in

LO

p

1

CO

vo

VO

VO

vo

co

CO

VO

1

|

c 0

|

vo

VO

03

>4

1

r— 1

1

p

p

1

£

c

1

a)

03

1

03

p

o

1

VO

CD

CO

r-

o

CO

vO

CO

in

CD

a)

•H

1

•

•

•

4-H

4H

1

00

CM

CO

CM

o

CM

o

LO

1

1

o

1

CM

rH

4H

•H

1

H1

in

in

in

in

in

LO

in

1

1

in

1

in

in

•H

G

1

XI

CD

1

03

•rH

1

rH

o

rH

H4

CO

00

in

CO

CO

>4

cn

1

•

•

•

r— 1

1

10

00

r-

CO

vo

H4

vo

i

1

in

1

r-

VO

p

p

1

H4

H4

H4

N1

1

|

1

^J4

£

o

1

03

G

1

03

u

1

00

CD

o

in

CO

VO

o

CM

p

rH

•H

a)

1

•

•

•

LW

p

1

CO

n

H4

N1

rH

CM

1

|

in

1

•rH

03

1

in

in

in

in

in

in

LO

LO

1

|

in

1

in

in

c

1

Cn

c

1

03

•H

0

1

CM

rH

rH

vo

rH

in

o

CD

W

03

1

•

•

•

03

1

VO

in

CO

vo

vo

1

i

CO

1

vD

p

<D

1

H1

H4

H4

H4

H4

^J4

1

i

^J4

1

o

03

1

c

03

X

00

rH

CM

n

CO

o

00

CO

rH

C'

a)

c

Q

•

•

t

p

03

§

CO

CD

H4

rH

CO

CD

i

1

o

1

CO

CO

03

o

in

VO

LO

in

VO

in

in

in

1

1

vO

1

in

in

p

>

£

03

H

03

0)

rH

o

CO

CM

co

CM

CO

CO

CM

CO

>

<*>

•

•

•

rH

p

rH

in

H4

VO

vo

CO

1

1

i

rH

in

o

03

i n

CO

in

LO

in

in

LO

LO

1

1

in

1

in

in

o

X

1

*

a>

0)

1

a3

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

03

b

b

1

rH

C T»

O

CO

co

VO

CD

<p

CM

CO

03

03

i

•

•

m

03

1

rH

1

rH

rH

CM

CM

|

rH

<p

CD

rH

rH

i

rH

1

in

1

in

in

in

uo

1

in

in

in

i

in

<D

<u

1

X

X

i

03

P

p

1

in

CO

co

co

rH

00

CO

vo

rH

1

•

•

c

c

1

1

CO

CD

in

r-

1

c-

cO

oo

CO

VO

i

r-

•H

•H

1

LO

1

LO

LO

in

in

|

in

in

in

in

LO

i

in

X

X

1

p

p

1

03

•rH

•rH

1

CO

in

CO

co

CM

o

co

co

o

rH

CM

s

3

i

<D

1

CO

CO

|

CO

CO

r-

o

i

p

P

1

in

1

in

in

in

LO

|

in

LO

uo

in

CO

i

in

a)

a)

1

p

p

1

o3

p

p

1

in

in

co

CO

CO

CD

rH

co

CM

in

<D

0)

i

•

•

rH

rH

1

CO

1

r-

H4

rH

CO

|

LO

C"

o

o

i

r-

1

H1

1

H4

in

H4

1

*sr

in

in

i

a)

<i)

1

g

g

1

03

03

03

•

!

(T>

H4

VO

in

CO

CD

rH

CM

</)

03

H

i

•

«

1

CD

1

CO

VO

LO

CM

1

r*

CM

o

in

i

co

a)

a)

1

1

H4

H4

H4

in

1

in

LO

'sT

i

X

X

u

1

p

p

1

03

0

1

CM

CD

o

CO

CO

<p

in

CM

rH

>4

I>1

p

1

•

•

X

X

1

CO

1

o

o

CM

co

1

rH

rH

i — i

<T»

i

CD

C7>

1

1

LO

in

in

H4

1

in

in

'sT

i

T5

X

c

1

0)

•

aj

•H

1

rt

E-i

3

03

1

LO

CM

cd

o

H4

a

00

CM

in

0

tx

O

U

1

•

•

rH

r-H

o

1

o

1

CD

H4

CO

1

o

CM

co

VO

i

CO

rH

a

rH

o

1

LO

1

H4

H4

in

H4

1

in

i

0

0

o

MH

0

4-1

03

p

w

03

rH

c

c

CP

c

0)

03

03

c

03

>

b

•

<D

•rH

0)

Q)

P

rH

CM

CO

H4

LO

cO

r-

CO

<T>

o

rH

CM

s

X

s

rH

0

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CM

CO

CO

CO

>

3

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

3 — 1

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

c

■K

-4-

Table 28. Crude protein content of pigeon pea forage as affected by cutting height on each harvest for two crop seasons. Gainesville, Florida.

84

o

£

0)

0

o

in

o

in

in

o CN

00

<T '

O

in

m

CN

o

in

u

at

v

>4

in

CN

o

in

in

CN

O'

[•"

O'! O

th in

n

CN

O

in

n

CN

34

(13

>

3

U

O'

>

(0

O'

ic

O'

>

CD

C

34

0

i

b

b

b

05

b

b

b

CN

i

LO

o

CN

ro

CN

1

1 — 1

1

CN

rH

ro

CN

i

CN

1

i

CN

1

1

CN

1

CN

1

CN

CN

CN

CN

i

CN

1

l

CN

1

1

CN

1

4-1

i

05

05

05

o5

05

05

05

05

05

05

05

1

CN

CN

in

o

rH

in

CO

in

1

•

•

•

rH

44

1

rH

CN

rH

ro

CN

ro

CN

1

i

CN

1

rH

CN

0

3

1

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

1

i

CN

1

CN

CN

>

0

•

1

0

34

>

1

rH

0

34

i

4H

01

1

o

ro

CN

rH

CO

ro

o

00

<#>

4H

b

i

•

•

•

in

•pH

1

CN

CN

ro

ro

ro

ro

in

CO

1

i

1

CN

ro

xj

b

1

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

1

i

CN

1

CN

CN

44

4-1

1

05

>4

1

rH

1

4-3

44

i

++

3

C

1

T— 1

in

rH

ro

CO

CN

o

ro

ro

cn

0

05

*

1

•

•

•

34

o

>

1

o

rH

o

o

o

rH

CN

CN

1

i

rH

1

cn

o

0

•rH

34

i

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

1

I

CN

1

rH

CN

4H

4b

01

1

MH

•rH

b

1

++

•rH

c

1

\ — 1

rH

in

CN

o

CO

in

CN

r"

in

X)

Cn

xj

1

•

•

•

•rH

34

1

o

rH

o

cn

O'

CO

CO

O'!

1

i

cn

1

CO

<n

>i

cn

ro

1

CN

CN

CN

rH

rH

rH

rH

rH

1

i

rH

1

rH

rH

rH

1

4-3

44

1

05

c

0

1

in

o

O'

ro

30

m

vO

in

05

c

•

1

•

•

•

o

>

1

CN

ID

CN

ro

in

CN

ro

ro

1

i

ro

1

CN

ro

•H

0

34

1

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

1

i

CN

I

CN

CN

4h

34

01

1

•pH

05

b

1

05

c

1

rH

ro

r-

cn

o

•sT

VO

ro

ro

Cn

c

X)

1

•

•

•

•rH

o

g

rH

rH

03

rH

<7\

rH

cn

1

i

rH

1

rH

o

cn

cn

CN

CN

CN

rH

rH

CN

rH

CN

rH

1

l

CN

1

CN

CN

o5

c

4-3

0

•H

05

0

cn

o

CTi

CN

rH

CN

m

cn

O'

ro

(T>

c

•

4->

•

•

X!

>

O

IT)

rH

r-

in

00

r-

30

in

1

i

in

1

in

33

0

C

34

34

CN

ro

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

1

i

CN

1

CN

CN

34

05

05

04

05

b

05

44

0

ro

rH

CO

rH

in

CO

m

r*

ro

VO

CN

c

cn

4-1

X

•

•

•

£

0

cn

3

rH

o

ro

1

i

1

ro

•sT

3

>

r— 1

34

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

1

i

CN

1

CN

CN

pH

34

o

0

05

*

o

b

<#>

05

05

05

05

05

01

01

05

05

01

CN

ro

cn

CO

in

o

O'

30

cn

0

0

•

•

e

e

rH

i

rH

rH

ro

CN

1

rH

rH

CN

pH

pH 1

rH

05

05

1 CN

i

CN

CN

CN

CN

1

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN 1

CN

cn

cn

1

05

0

0

1 o

VO

cn

rH

rH

CO

CO

ro

VO

00

b

b

•

•

44

44

>

1 ro

i

ro

in

ro

i

ro

ro

in

pH 1

ro

34

1 CN

i

CN

CN

CN

CN

1

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN 1

CN

C

c

05

1

•rH

•rH

b

1

05

b

b

1 CN

CO

n*

O

VO

LO

rH

00

cn

44

44

XI

•

•rH

•pH

34

1 rH

i

ro

m

1

ro

in

CN

ro 1

ro

3

3

ro

1 CN

1

i

CN

CN

CN

CN

1

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN l

CN

34

34

1

05

0

0

i co

<n

CN

CN

in

rH

CO

ro

rH

rH

vO

44

44

•

•

-M

44

>

i cn

i

o

cn

in

CN

1

o

o

rH

ro

ro l

rH

0

0

34

1 rH

i

CN

pH

CN

CN

1

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN l

CN

rH

rH

•

05

1

F-*

b

1

05

0

0

a

1 LO

ro

00

VO

VO

o

t — 1

<n

VO

6

e

2

XJ

•

05

05

Q

G

1 CN

i

cn

cn

pH

ro

1

cn

00

CN

o

cn i

o

cn

cn

CN

1 CN

i

rH

rH

CN

CN

1

pH

pH

CN

CN

rH |

CN

0

1

<D

CD

-P

1

05

b

b

1 LO

in

in

r-

rH

o

ro

00

ro

44

44

cn

•

•

•

c

>

1 rH

i

CN

CN

vo

pH

1

rH

CO

CN

CN 1

CN

>1 E-i

>4

•pH

34

1 CN

i

CN

CN

CN

CN

1

CN

CN

pH

CN

CN 1

CN

b 03

b

XJ

05

1

2

34

b

1

05

XI Q

XI

0

i m

m

ro

co

ro

r-

rH

in

pH

in

in

0

CD

U

44

•

3 0

:?

o

cn

i cn

i

O'!

r"

1 — 1

o

1

o

o

co

cn

CO 1

cn

0 44

0

05

rH

1 rH

i

rH

rH

CN

CN

1

CN

CN

pH

pH

pH 1

rH

rH

rH

c

(0

34

rH

CN

ro

in

VO

r-

CO

cn

O

' — 1

CN

O'

0

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

CN

ro

ro

ro

>

2

pH

pH

rH

rH

rH

pH

pH

pH

rH

pH

rH

rH

c

rH

cn

rH

o

c

0

rH

44

•rH

44

CD

TJ

>

01

U

cn

CD

c

0

G

rH

(0

o

0

0

u

0

ClP

2

05

2

in

*

c

0

•H

44

u

(t3

34

CD

4-1

c

C

(0

cn

(C

3

(D

34

a)

b

Eh

++

effect between cultivar or lines and cutting height.

LITERATURE CITED

* Akinola, J.O., and P.C. Whiteman. 1975. Agronomic studies on pigeon pea (Ca janus ca jan (L.) Millsp.). 1. Field responses to sowing time. Aust. J. Agric. Res.

26(1) : 43-56 .

‘Akinola, J.O., and P.C. Whiteman, and E.S. Wallis. 1975. The agronomy of pigeon pea ( Ca janus ca jan ) . Review Series, Commonwealth Bureau of Pastures and Field Crops. No. 1/1975.

Anonymous. 1948. Report of the University of Hawaii

Agricultural Experiment Station for the Biennium ending June 30, 1948. p. 171.

t Ariyanayagan , R.P. 1976. Out-crossing and isolation in

pigeon peas. Tropical Grain Legume Bulletin (Nigeria), 5:14-17.

Barrett, O.W. 1928. The tropical crops. The Macmillan Co., New York. p. 349-351.

Batawadekar, P.U., S.S. Chiney, and K.M. Deshmukh. 1966. Reponse of bajri-tur mixed crop to nitrogen and phosphate fertilization under dry farming conditions of Sholapur. Indian J. Agron . 11:243-246.

♦Bindra, O.S., and S.S. Jakhmola. 1967. Incidence of and losses caused by some pod- infesting insects in different varieties of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Mill.) Indian J. Agric. Sci . 37:177-186.

Burton, J.C., and C.J. Martinez. 1980. Rhizobia inoculants for various species. Technical Bulletin No. 101. The Nitragin Company, Inc., Florida. p. 1-5.

Carlisle, V.W., and J. NeSmith. 1972. Florida Soil

Identification Handbook. Hyperthermic Temperature Zone. University of Florida, Soil Sci. Dep. in cooperation with U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Dep. p.

63 .

Choudhury, S.L., and P.C. Bhatia. 1971. Ridge planted

kharif pulses yield high despite waterlogging. Indian Farming 21(3) :8-9.

85

86

Dalai, R.C., and P. Quilt. 1977. Effect of N, P, liming and Mo on nutrition and grain yield of pigeon pea.

Agron . J. 69 ( 5 ): 854-857 .

Draper, C.I. 1944. Algaroba beans, pigeon peas, and

processed garbage in the laying mash. Hawaii Agric. Exp. Stn. Prog. Notes 44.

t Egwuata, R.I., and T.A. Taylor. 1976. Aspects of the spatial distribution of Acanthomia tomentosicollis Stal. (Heteroptera , Coreidae ) in Cajanus ca jan c (pigeon pea). J. of Econ . Ent . (USA) 69" ( 5Tt59’l-594 .

• El Baradi, T.A. 1978. Pulses. 3. Pigeon peas. Abst. on

Trop. Agric. 4(112) :9-23.

, FAO. 1959. Tabulated information on tropical and

subtropical grain legumes. Plant Production and protection Division. FAO , Rome. p. 45-62.

• FAO. 1974. Production Year Book. Rome. 28(1):80.

Gallaher, R.N. , C.O. Weldon, and J.G. Futral. 1975. An aluminum block digester for plant and soil analysis . Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 39:803-806.

Gangrade, G.A. 1963. Assessment of damage to tur (Cajanus ca jan) in Madhya Pradesh by the Tur pod fly, Agromyza obtusa Mallock. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 33:17-20.

Gooding, H.J. 1960. Some problems of pigeon pea

improvement. J. Agric. Soc. Trin. Tob. 60:321-338.

•Gooding, H.J. 1962. The agronomic aspects of pigeon peas. Field Crop Abstr. 15:1-4.

Hammerton, J.L. 1971. A spacing/planting date trial with Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. Trop. Agr . (Trinidad) 48:341-350.

Herrera, P.G., C.J. Lotero, and L.V. Crowder. 1966. Cutting frequency with tropical forage legumes. Agricultura Trop. 22:473-483.

•Howard, A.G., L.C. Howard, and K. Abdur Rahman. 1919. Studies in the pollination on Indian crops. Mem.

Dept. Agric. India Bot . Ser. 10:195-220.

•Hutchinson, J. 1967. Key to the families of flowering

plants of the world. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

• ICRISAT , 1978. International Crops Research Institute for Semi-Arid Tropics. Annual Report, 1977-1978. Andhra Pradesh, India. p. 97-115.

87

Jayal, M.M., P.S. Gupta, and V. Mahadevan . 1970.

Nutritive value of arhar (Ca janus indicus ) bhoosa for feeding cattle. Indian Veterinary Journal 47 ( 3 ): 253-260 . In Herb. Abst. (1972) 42 :243 .

Johnson, R.M., and W.D. Raymond. 1964. The chemical

composition of some tropical food plants. 2. Pigeon peas ( Ca janus ca jan) and cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata ) . Trop. Sci. 6:68-73.

Johnson, W.O. 1970. Minimum temperature in agricultural areas of Peninsular Florida: Summary of seasons

1937-67. IFAS Publication No. 9, Univ . of Fla, Gainesville. p. 74,105.

i Kasasian, L. 1964. Chemical weed control in pigeon peas. Caribb. Agric. 2:721-742.

Khan, A.R., and B.P. Mathur . 1962. Studies on tillage. 13.

Effect of variation in depth of cultivation with different methods of phosphate application on the yield of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) . Indian J. Agric. Sci. 32:35-38.

Killinger, G.B. 1968. Pigeon peas ( Cajanus cajan (L.) Druce), a useful crop for Florida. Soil and Crop Sci. Soc. Fla. Proc. 28:162-167.

Knott, J.E., and J.R. Deanon, Jr. 1967. Notes on the

control and biology of Heliothis armigera (Hub.) on pigeon pea in Uganda. E. Afr. Agr . and For. J. 36:296-297 .

i Krauss, F.G. 1932. The pigeon pea ( Cajanus indicus ) : Its

improvement, culture, and utilization in Hawaii.

Hawaii Agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 64. p.1-46.

Manihi , S. 1973. Influence of varieties, planting rates, row spacings and fertilizer nutrients on the yield components of pigeon-pea Cajanus cajan (L. ) Millsp.). Indian J. of Agric. Sci. 43 ( 11) : 998-1001.

» May , L.H., and F.L. Milthorpe . 1962. Drought resistance

of crop plants. Field Crop Abst. 15:171-179.

Moore, J.E., and D.G. Dunham. 1971. Nutrition Laboratory. Dept, of Animal Sci., Univ. of Fla. p.1-10.

* Morton, Julia F. 1976. The pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan

Millsp.), a high protein, tropical bush legume. Hort . Sci. 11(1) : 11- 19 .

88

Mukherjee, D. 1960. Studies on spacing of Ca janus ca jan (L.) Millsp. Indian J. Agric. Sci . 30 : 177-184 .

Nichols, R. 1965. Studies on the major-element

deficiencies of the pigeon pea ( Ca janus ca jan) in sand culture. 2. The effect of major element deficiencies on nodulation, growth and mineral composition. Plant and Soil 22:112-116.

Oakes, A.J., and O. Skov. 1962. Some woody legumes as forage crops for the dry tropics. Trop. Agric. (Trinidad) 39:281-287.

Oke , O.L. 1967. Nitrogen fixing capacity of some Nigerian legumes. Expl . Agric. 3:315-321.

Oliveira, J.S. 1976. Grain legumes of Mozambique.

Tropical Grain Legume Bull. (Nigeria) 3:13-15.

Parbery, D.B. 1967. Pasture and fodder crop plant introductions at Kimberley Research Station, W. Australia, 1963-64. 1. Perennial legumes. CSIRO Div.

Land Res. Tech. Mem. 67/6.

Pramanik, L.M., and A.C. Basur . 1967. Record of two insect

pests of pigeon pea (Ca janus ca jan) in West Bengal. Indian Agriculturist 11(2): 145-147 .

Prine, G.M., and J.C. Werner. 1977. Forage potential in

pigeon peas and perennial peanuts. Proceedings of 11th Annual Conference on Livestocks and Poultry in Latin America. Gainesville, Florida. p. A. 9-15.

• Purseglove , J.W. 1968. Tropical Crops. Dicotyledons.

Longmans, London, pp. 236-241.

* Rachie , K.O., and L.M. Roberts. 1974. Grain legumes of lowland tropics. _In Advances in Agronomy 26:22-44.

Rachie, K.O., and R.T. Wurster. 1971. The potential of pigeon pea (Ca janus ca jan (L .)' Millsp . ) as a horticultural crop in East Africa. First E. Afr .

Hort. Symp. p. 172-178.

• Rangasamy, P. 1975. Studies on the flowering and pod-set

in redgram (Cajanus cajan (L. ) Millsp.). Madras Aqric. J. (India), 63 ( 5 ): 295-298 .

Salette, J.E., and J.M. Courbois. 1968. Agronomical

aspects of pigeon pea in Marie-Galante . Proc. Caribb. Fd. Crop Soc . , Trinidad 6:32-37.

Sanchez, N.F. 1963. The brine grading of pigeon peas. J. of Agric. of the University of Puerto Rico (USA)

47(1) : 14-23 .

89

»Saxena, M.C., and D.S. Yadav . 1975. Some agronomic

considerations of pigeonpeas and chickpeas . International Workshop on Grain Legumes, ICRISAT, p. 31-61.

Schaaf fhausen, R. von. 1965. Weight increase of zebu

cattle grazing on legumes Dolichos lablab and Ca janus indicus. Proc. 9th Int . Grassland Congr . Sao Paulo,

2 :965-968 .

Schneider, B.H., and W.P. Flatt. 1975. The evaluation of feeds through digestibility experiments. Univ. of Ga . Press. Athens, GA. P.89.

Singh, S., and V.B. Sahasrabudhe . 1957. Effect of organic and inorganics on the yield of johar ( Sorghum vulgara ) , anhar ( Ca janus ca jan) and groundnut ( Arachis hypogea ) and after effect on rainfed cotton. Indian J. Agron . 1:151, 157 .

i Spence, J.A. 1975 . The importance of diseases in relation to the grain legume research programme in the Eastern Caribbean. I_n Tropical Diseases of Legumes, Edited by Bird, J. and K. Maramorosch. Academic Press, New York, p. 151-155.

Tiwari, A.S. 1977. Spreading plant type does better in pigeon pea. Tropical Grain Legume Bulletin (Nigeria) 7:7-10.

0 Tutin, T.G. 1958. Classification of the legumes. I_n

Nutrition of the Legumes. Edited by Hallsworth, E.G. Proc. 5th Easter School, Univ. of Nottingham, Butterworths , London. p. 3-14.

Vaishampayan , S.M., and Z. Singh. 1969. Comparative

effectiveness of some modern insecticides against the blossum thrips of red-gram (Ca janus ca jan (L. ) Millsp.) Indian J. Agric. Sci . 39:52-56.

Veersav/amy, R. and, R. Rathnaswamy. 1972 . Red Gram

(Ca janus ca jan ) CO. 1-an improved short-term strain for Tamil Nadu. Madras Agric. J. (India) 59 ( 3 ) : 177- 179 .

1 Williams, I.H. 1977. Behaviour of insects foraging on

pigeon pea (Ca janus ca jan (L.) Millsp.) in India.

Trop. Agric. (Trinidad and Tobago) 54 ( 4 ): 353-363 .

*Wilsie, C.P, and M. Takahashi . 1934. Natural crossing in

the pigeonpea. J. Agric. Res. 49:923-927.

Winters, H.F., and G.W. Miskimen. 1967. Vegetable gardening in the Caribbean Area. Agr . Handbk. U.S. Dept. Agr., Agr. Res. Ser., Washington, D. 65 .

323 C . p

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Farid A. Bahar was born on 3 April 1942, in Belawa, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. He started his agricultural training in Ujung Pandang Agricultural High School, then enrolled to the Faculty of Agriculture, Bogor Agricultural University, in Bogor, Indonesia, where he received the Engineer (Ir.) degree in 1968.

From early 1969 to the present, Mr. Bahar has conducted research through the Maros Research Institute for Food Crops in South Sulawesi. In 1973, the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines provided him with a scholarship which led to a Master of Science degree in Agronomy at the University of the Philippines at Los Banos. At the end of 1978, the Indonesian government sent him to University of Florida, Gainesville, for advanced training which led to completion of requirements for a Ph.D. degree in agronomy.

In 1971, Mr. Bahar married Mapparimeng Bausat. They have two children: a son, Farman, and a daughter, Falma.

91

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

^rOrutrrr\ VV^ ,

Gordon M. Prine, Chairman Professor of Agronomy

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Wayne iJL. Currey Associate Professor of Agronomy

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

David A. Knauft Assistant Professor of Agronomy

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

William G. Blue Professor of Soil Science

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Peter J. van Blokland Associate Professor of Food Resources and Economics

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Agriculture and to the Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

December 1981

D^pin, College of Agriculture

Dean for Graduate Studies and Research