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
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11