,--.-. - _- _._..___ -m-e ...
,--.-.
-
_-
_._..___
-m-e
.._ _
1 - PNTRODUCTIOhi
Cn several P e g i o n o f ’ t h e Semi:-At:i.ti T'rop~~co thc average
annuel precip:it~ati.on appears l-o be SilffiSailk f o r
one two qoods
crops y e a r s , b u t t h e rainfall a r e eratic. (Virrnani)
IYillet and Groundnut. two of the mn-jol: crops wit.h
ICRISAT deal. must be adapted to such c l i m a t i c r e g i o n ; ,then it
kS i m p o r t a n t to find out from how two crops feet in S .A,T. Condit:ion e
2 MA'l'AHIALS
_ _ _-__ AN% METHODS
~-------,..---- --.<--
--- :
E'jl2 '
2 experiment was condcicted 012 fed SC-il (AI 1:isrl.i 1 !
,p,-vJ ‘; ‘:!
B of ICKISAT Center, Pantancheru ( indra) .
f3e f 91.'? start of lzhe experi.ment tllc soii ( O- 70 c m ) w a s aria1 jrsed f o r
nh)iSi CO chemical properties.
Soii ;‘epht
<-_-l.-.-. ---
Organic
car- _"-_^._
&vailable&sghorus
-- -----
cm
-
IN-PPm
- - -
0
-
15
7 - 7 5
Cl,20
0,8Q
6,O
:1. 5 -
30
Ï,45
0,15
0,50
5,5
Seeds Millet.. BK 560, Groundnut TMV2 iwere obtained from
!:he training program:~ .
Fertilizer Diammonium phosphate 100 kg/ha before planting
for a11 the plots.
Beteween 3 to 4 weeks after emergence applaying 62 kg/N ha 1135 kg
uree/kai.
'3. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS :
~-
Randomized bl.ock design with 3 L,epl.ications and 3 Yrai-
temnts :
- Tl
Sole Millet
- T2
Sole Gr0undnu.t
- T3
1 Millet/3 Groundnut inter trop.
4. CROSS AND NET PLOT SIZES WERE 10 M LENGHT 4,5M WIDE (3 Beds)
~--~--II
-
-
.-
In the experiment we studie :
-
-
1) Rainfall
2) Soi.1 moisture
3) Leaf area measurement on the Crop
4) Dry matter Accumulation and partitionning
5) LEAF temperature
6) Liqht interception
'1 Reiative humidy
8; Soi.1 temperature
9 J Plant phenol.ogy
10) Yield.
LI - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
----~~_. ---~
.
- Rainfall
--,--
Total rainfall. this year (L June to 30 octoher) is 477mm.
-1. 9 ? below the total rain in 1984 (531.8mm).
'In the month of june the cumulative rainfa1.L WGS 88,s rnrn, 4 k below
june 84. July rainfa1.l was about jul:y 84. Rainfall. in August was
on.ly 46,2 mm 69 % below the same month in 1984. We receive during
september 75,8 mm 24 % below, September 84 -- but rain In october was
93,0 mm 13 8, above october 84.
This year Crops are suffering frorr&%tf3i'Cit
mostly in the
month of Rugust. The few rain in September have been very he:i.pful
for the survival of Crops (Fig. 1)
RAINPALL(mm) RECORDED IN METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATORY AT ICRISAT
-
-
-
YEAR
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEIYBER OCTOBER
TOTAL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
l-984
92.3
171,7
147.7
99.2
80.9
591.8
1985
88.6
173.4
“46.2
75.8
93.0
477
OPEN - PAN EVAPORATION
Open pan evaporation during this year was observed
(1 June to 30 october) the lowest pan data was 4.7mm/day during
october. The bigest pan evaporation data was 9.5 mm/day during june.
During july, the open pan evaporation was 5.7 mm day. August 5.4 mm
days , september 5.3 mm days. (Fig.2).
SOIL TEMPERATURE
Soi1 temperature was observed in 2 conditions 5 cm and
15 cm depht.
Recording data 2 times days 8 AM - 2 PM the higest average daily
soi1 temperature were recorded during september :
5 cm depht 25.6'C at 8 AM, and 5 cm depht 33'C at ;? PM,
during july. The lowest average daiiy soi1 temperature were recorded
during august on 5 cm and
15cm at 8 AM, 24,6”C (Fig.3).
4.
LIGHT INTERCEPTION
- --- -."-.----.--~-
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
- -
Relative hamidity of air recorded i:n millet sole and
Groundnut at 13h 30 at RCW 12R was higher on SOI.~ Millet 47--DAE to
70-DAE. The hlgher relative humidity 64 ‘$ was recorded at the first
observation 39-DAE on intercrop and also the Lowest RH recorded on
the same treatement at 63-DAE 44.5 %.
On Groundnut RH record& was higher in intercrop a,t
39-DAE, 63-DAE and 98-DEA.
Higher RH-64, 5 % was recorded at 39-DAE on groundnut intercrop and
the lowest RH recorded at 69-DAR 44,s % (Fig. 6,7)
.I II - MICROCLIMATOLOGICAL STUDIES
We study water storage and EVAPO-transpiration in the
combinaison .- Millet/Groundnut intercrop,
Light interception by sole millet, sole groundnut and intercrop
and related to total biomass production under differents conditions.
Sole gmundnut
-
- . - -
iîruundnut intcrcrop
\\\\\\
---*
CH-“-
10
30
60
90
100
ûays ofter emr-gence
Fig.
uayr after emer~rm?
0
I 1
i I
PEiARL/MILLET
_.,_, ..-c!______ MAIN PLANT PHENOLOGY DATA
._-..---- --."- ._."____ -~ .._. --_ ..- .._. -.
Sob,.inq f3atr
:
21,.(-,.i3."
rJn;er g.i?;,cy dat t-
:
30.6.85
._ _ ___, II_...___..^._.._I_I_ __.... ___ .--._-__--- .__ ..- __..__.. -- .._ ._ - -- ---__-. - .-... --- .-. - . ..---.-...--.-
Pan1 cl.e
Ohysiolo-
1 :nit.iati.on
i)AE:
Anth fs;e
!XE
gxca 1
! DAE:
maturity
-._I_."-. -..._.- -_- .-.. --__.1 _..- -- _ ._.._._ -- -_-.
- _ - -
. I -
- -
Sole millet
14.7.85
1. 4
10.8.85
41
10.9.85 72
14,,7.85
14
11.8.85
42
10.9-85
7 ‘>L.
TILLERS
Sowing date :
26.6.85
Emergency
:
30.6.85
_..____. -_ __--__-.----l ---...“-_.<-___^---_-- --_~-.~ ~-----
'Panicle
l
I
physiol.o‘- '
Traitements
initiation
DAE Anthesis DAE
gical
DAE
maturity
-____ - .___ -_-.- -I---"sI-----.- -l_.-~~I_ ---- ----_
-.- --_-. -_
Sole millet
14.7.85
14
16.8.85 47
16.9.85 78
Yillet .inter erop
1.4.7.85
14
15.8.85 4 6
16.9.85
‘78
In the treatements, we found variations the tillers took one week
more for overtake the stage than main plant.
GROUNDNUT
Date of sowing
: 26.6.85
Date of emergency :
2.7.85
--_. ~. ---
- - - - - - - - ^--
.----
Physiolo.
Traitements
/ Anthesis
DAE Peg.
DAE
maturity
DAE
.__-ll-
-.-- .
- - ~--~
----.
I
Sole groundnut
1 26.6.85
24 5.8.85
34
27.10.85
117
Inter trop
27.6.85
25 6.8.85
35
28.10.85
118
i
-
-
~ - - -
---
HI--. _.
In millet Gnt one day
more for overtake the stage than sole groundnut..
tj .
LEAF AREA INDEX (LAI) MILLET BK 560
-.__-
-- ._-..----...-. -.-.-~ - _____ -.-.-.-- .---._
i. I! 3 1 I
i. t??
treatements peack value FOL leaf aura w~rt- 1-2 ,. 4 I/ 3 ~
6 < ..1 r es+ctive.ly for Main FLant, Till~rs ,. ,totai Main ?nd YJ i ';CI~ a
'- F'GK L:ntercrop peack value of LAI were 0.7, 4.1, 4.8 respecti-
1.re.j.y for, main pl.ant, Till.ers, total. Main -i Ti!.I.ers contributi-on of
'I'ii.lers nt the begining was less 18 B at 30-DEA. The Tillers contribu
t-ion incxease to 80 % at 45-DAE.
'.. For G.i:oundnut sole trop proceded LAI greater: ,than intercrop.
Leaf area increased more from 28-DA:E to 42-DEA.
In ail the treatements the peack value of LAI were CI.9 and 2..8
for intercrop .C according to intercrop and sole Groundnut.
Thc: leaf area index in sole Groundnut was 35.7 % more than intercrop.
(Fig. 10).
DRY MATTER PARTITIONNING
a) Millet
Dry matter production and its partitioning to different
plant parts was greater in sole Millet than mi.l.let intercrop. The
difference total dry matter among treatement were important CTotal
dry matter sole 2460 g/m2! intercrop -- 920/m2.
5) Groündnut
13 DAE the dry matter produced by leaves was 20 g/m2 in
both treatements 28 DAE. The dry matter production and its parti-
tioning into different plant parts was greater in sole Groundnut
than Groundnut intercrop. Total dry matter produced by leaves was
24Og/m2 and Groundnut intercrop 140g/m2.
The effect of intercrop is
important.
The produced Groundnut this year is caused by the low
rainfa.1;
and drought during poding and peging period..
Y-
I
-- ,
-.
I
1
I
,
‘\\\\
\\ \\ \\r \\
1
\\
\\ \\ \\r.
\\
\\ \\
\\
0
o-
0
.n\\\\‘\\
0
3 0
Sole groundnot
- -- - ---Ê
Groundnut inter trop
2
/- ----,
-----A t.91
0
f-28
-
- - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - -N y->\\
2.69
‘917
2*37
2 72 -A .2-,
-* s.42
v
I
1
th
.-
1
I
I
8
,
1
‘
--
--
u
10
20
3u
40
su
60
7 0
BU
90
luo
Jr0
m
Oays after emergence
r Ltaf arœa index ( LAU > of qroundmult TMVZ indifftrrnt traitr#rrtnt?s;(t?CW
--- kaf
- - - - - - - leaf sheat
Total d r y înalter
--.. -- . . CU(#)*
80
90
100
Oays afttr emrgence
2800
$
Millet inter trop
b,c
$ 2400
s
--- leaf
- - - - - - - bof shaat
2
Total dry laatter
ca 2000
_I.. --.. Cu(ffls
1600
1200
800
400
Doys aftef emerpnce
Fiq.
:Totoi dry natter of ptarl œmilllct ( BM-560 > and its partitioning
ta plant part RCW Y2 8(1985)
Sole groundnut
- - - L e a f
------.
Leaf + rtcm + root
--.. -
-
.1 Leaf + stam + foot + peg
-... -e-e
Leaf + stem + rwt + peg + f lower
j_-.
Leof+ stem + r oot + pag + fiower + pod
-
-
-
-
-
loto/ d r y motter
--- II .--. .-,
Dry rattœr production (olnrf ) and its partitimnhg mb qrmumdnwt
(TMVZ) smkt (RCWIZB 3985>
Groun dnut
Inter trop
--- ltaf
-- - -- --- leof + Stern + fout
- - - - - - - - loof + stem + fout + pag
-*.. C---S 1e0f+st~m+foot+pq+
ftowef
isof + stem + ftwt + pq+ flowef + pod
- - - - - Totoi dry motter
Days ofter emergence
Fig.
Dry @natter prodaction (slnf> amd its pmrtitioninq of grwndnut
(fbtV29 mmtrrcmp(RCWItR 19859
‘ :
/
.
Tij -idATEk S’I’omGE J’JD EVAPOTR,/QJSPIkATION
-&..--.-
-_-_-_- -- --.I_ ._... .-- ----_-- -.. .-.
EvapotransFiration froc sole InilieÇ plots was considerahly
lesu than sole Groundnut and int:ercx:op ï m~llel.:/:! Groundnut.
C:umulative ET in sole millet durinq the growth period
was 294.28 mm, and in sole Groundnur 498.4mm, ,111 this cas water luse
by inl-er trop was greatei
than sole Groundnut and sole millet (table
4-5-h).
8.
WATER STORAGE (11'2 cm DEEPHT)
T--__- --.-.-.-- . .-i-- _..^ -.-. _ --_ _.--.. _.
.. .-
!
IT;)tal.-Water
j1;nean (mm)
SDT
.
.._-~_-_
-_--~
27.6.85
6 . 1 8
3 . 0 9
5.7”85
2 1 8 . 5 1
2 . 5 6
1 . 2 8
1 1 . 7 . 8 5
L O S . 5 4
8 . 7 6
4 . 3 8
1 7 . 7 . 8 5
8 . 0 3
4 .Ol-
2 4 . 7 . 8 5
2 2 5 . 9 2
4 . 4 4
2 . 2 2
2.8.85
241;. 8 5
3 . 3 5
1 . 7 6
8.8.*85
2 0 6 . 8 1
5 . 4 1
2 . 7 0
16.8,#t?E
2 3 0 ‘ 7 9
2 0 . 2 1
1 0 . 1 1 .
23.8,,85
1. ‘7 6 . 6 1
5 . 0 5
2 . 5 3
30.84.85
1 2 . 8 0
6 . 4 0
6 . 9 . 8 5
1 6 7 -94
7 . 4 1
3 . 7 0
1 3 . 9 . 8 5
1 6 3 . 6 0
1 4 . 5 5
7 . 2 8
19.9.85
l 170.32
4 . 7 7
2 . 3 9
.---~-.-..----.__-.-..-
.._ -.-._- _,-_.
--_ -. - - .._” .- .-._-____^____ ---.---_- -1_---
9 .
Table 2
-.-_. ._. .I.
..-. - - --- ._. - .._
_ . .-. _.___ __ I. --. -_ ..---” ._._.. -. --.-_- --_ _ _ _ . ._
-.. ._ --“.._ _-__
Groundnut
Total.-water
Date
Sole
mean (mm)
SDT
SE
_-- - .._^_ .^- _ - .._ - -- _. ..-__ _,__. -^--.---.- ._.-- -- ---.- ._.__ -_-. ___ __ .---_-_- -.-. - ..__ -_ - - -... _- .__-
27.6-85
220.41
1.4.07
7.04
T.7,85
220.0%
15.86
.a.93
l.1.'7 "85
206.bl
23.33
Il
.I 3. . 69
L7.7.#85
216.27
1.7.90
8.95
24.7.85
233.24
14.81
7.41
2.8.85
236.24
21.09
iO.54
3.8.85
209.70
33.19
1.6 . 60
16.8.85
243175
22.62
i 1 . .3 1.
23.8.85
179.61
15.07
7 -53
30.8.85
176.02
7.35
j-68
6.9.85
178.26
18.05
9.02
'L3.9.85
177.28
1.9.12
9.56
:L9.9.85
164.25
15.65
7.83
/
27.9.85
183.61
1.5.90
'7.95
---- _._. .._ -__ - __
__-- _-^- -_- .-___
WATEK STORAGE (mm) 112 em DEPHT
Table 3
-.I_- -
_ _ __._ . __.. _..- -- -----..-- .-.- --
*.-_ _._- _-__ -. ..--.
_-----_
-11
Total-Watt-r
I
Date
Cr0p
SDT
SE
mean (mm)
i ___--..--_- __ --_----.---
-Y-.---
-.-
-
-
-
Inter trop
1. millet/3
Gnt
27.6.85
234.73
234.73
9.17
4.58
5.7.85
228.34
228.34
21.23
10.62
11.7.85
224.35
224..35
18.70
9.35
17.7.85
233.50
233.50
11.41
5.711
24.7.85
247‘05
247.05
17.58
8.79
2.8.85
256.15
256.15
23.62
11.81
8.8.85
228.40
228.40
11.94
5.98
16.8.85
222.87
222.87
20.62
10. 3:1
23.8.85
195.45
195.45
16.53
8.26
30.8.85
186.45
186.45
15.18
7.5'9
6.9.85
18L93
187.93
17.10
8.55
13.9.85
195.10
195.10
18.55
9.27
19.9.85
171.73
171.73
16.55
8.28
27.9.85
191.7%
191.72
12.02
6.01
.~_.-.~. .--
-
11.
CROP : MILLET ISole) EVAPOTRANSPIRATPQN
Table 4
:-.--- ---
-.-.- 1--1 .- ..--- -----.--1--“- ..--..-..- _._. .-.-- -.------- -..-...-. -l-ll-l-.- ___ “- ._.______-____ I_ __
i
I
Dates
Data
E T
____-__ _ __--.<-_- -.-_--- --._----..-- ~--.-_-~--__-_-~~._ ~-_---.
27-6
TO 5.7.85 i
24.6 f 209.17 - 218,51
:1 5 D 3
5.6
To 11-7.85
0.6 + 218.51
-'- 205.54
13.6
1.1.6.
Te 17-7.85
10.2 t 205.54 .- 203.76
:12-o
1.7.6. Ta 24.11.85 !
82.8 -t 203,76 .- 225.92
60.6
24 "7 ‘ 'Iv 2.x8.85
34.4 t 225-92 - 245.85
14-s
2.8. TO 8.8.85
i.,4 -t 245.85 - 206.81
40.4
8.8.
TO :16.8.85 i
12.4 t 206.81 -- 230.79
11.58
16.8
To 23.8-85
0, -J- 230.79 -' 176.61
54.2
23.8
TO 30.8.85
15.8 + 176.61 -_ 155.41
37.0
30.8
TO 6.9.85
11.7 -t 155.41 - 167.94
0.8
6.9
TO 13.9.85
26.6 + 167.94 - 163.60
30.9
13.9
TO 19.9.85
2.4 +- 163.60 -. 170.32
4.3
TOTAL............
294.28
~------
--_--..,-~
-----
- - -
1. 2 .
GROUNDNUT SOLE : EVAPCWiANSPLPIATIOM
Table 5
--.-_ - ___. .I-
Dates
Data
E T
--._ -.-. - - .-..-.---.-~-I..-- -.-.- ~-.-- -.-.-1._1---.-- -“-- ._-.--.- -.- .____ I .__^_
26.6
TO 5.7.85
24.6 -t 220.41 .- 220.02
24.8
5.7
TO 3.1.7.85
0.6 -t 220.02 .~ 206.61
.i 4 . 2
11.7
TO 17.7.85
10.2 t 206.61 -- 2l.6.27
0.5
1.7.7
TO 24.7.85
82.8 Jr 216.27 -' 233.24
65.8
24.:
To 2.8.85
34.4 f 233.24 -. 236.24
31.4
2.8
Tc 8.8.85
1.4 + 236.24 '- 209.70
27.9
8.8
Tc 16.8.85
12.4 + 209.70 - 243.75
21.6
16.8
To 23.8.85
0 +
i43.75 - 179.61
64.1
23.8
Tc 30.8.85
15.11 + 179.61 - 176.02
.19.3
30.8
Tc 6.9.85
11.5 t 176.02 - 77a.'f
AA.7
6.9. TO 3.3.9.85
26.6 + 178.26 - 177.28
27.6
l3.9 TO 19.9.85
2.4 + 177.28 - 164.25
15.4
' 19.9 TO 27.9.85
43.0 t 164.24 - 183.61
23.6
27.9 To 7.:10.85
99.5 + 183.61 - 209.69
73
7.10.85 TO 14.10
12.4 t 209.69 -. 232.58
22.9
'L4..Lû TO 21.10
0 +
232.58- 213.62
19.0
TOTAL : a.........
462.8
INTER CROP 1 MILLET/3 Gnt - EVAPOTRANSPTRATTON
6!L'able
____ ___ -_~.--.-.-..---- _ ___-_ -.__ _l_,___ll_ I_^ _-__. _ _ ^--- _._. - .___ _..._.___ ---.----- ..-- -----~-.
D a t e s
Data
E T
__~_----_--..-
-.------ ___- _~._- -_ll--l.---.-
--*
27.6 To 5.7.85
24.6 f 234.73 - 228.34
31
5.7 TG 11.7.85
0.6 t 228.34 I- 224.35
4.6
1 1 . 7 T G 17.7.85
10.2 t 224.35 - 233.50
1.1
17.7 TO 24.7.85
82.8 t 233.50 - 247.05
69.3
24.7 To 2.8.85
34.4 -t- 247.05 -- 256.15
25.3
2.8 TO 8.8.85
1.4 ,t 256.15 - 228.40
29.2
8.8 TO 10.8.85
12.4 -t 228.40 .- 222.27
18.5
16.8 TO 23.8.85
0
+ 222.27 - 195.45
26.8
23.8 TO 30.8.85
15.8 + 195.45 - 186.45
24.8
30.8 TO 6.9.85
11.7 + 186.45 - 187.93
10.2
6.9 TO 13.9.85
26.6 + 187.93 - 195.10
19.4
.13.9 TO 19.9.85
2 4
.
+ 195 10
.
.- 17: . 73
25.g
19.9 TO 27.9.85
43.0 t 171.73 -. 19ï.72
23
27.9 TO 7.10.85
99.5 + 191.72 -- 214.97
76.3
7.10 TO 14.10.85
12.4 + 214.97 -- 21.5.04
12.3
14.10 T O 21.10.85 0
+ 215.04 - 204.70
10.3
14
v
YIELD DATA
--.--_--.-_ --
Somw of selected characters
-_.__
.Il_s__I_ - "____ --.--..--- --.-
Lower grain this year is attrjbut.ed to low rainfail.
47 i rrm and distribution, and the severe drought 'dtiriny E.ts grain
fc:iling period and pediny,
Iii tnis experlment in sole millet Main plant produced more, than
t. ?. 1 1. e r 5 , but in inter trop ti.ll.ers produced more than Main plant
ir? the treatement with combinaison brad difficulty to growth.
The produced groundnut this year is caused by the low rainfall.
and drought during pediny and peging period.
.-_---.-“__-_.-..-
---.
-
:
0
l-4 Iu 0
l
---.-...-“.-
----
I
I
m
- d r-l
.-----
I
I
I -..
____
r-! ”
--.
C\\i m
-
_..__
_-.
I
-
_,___
h Cl Cri
--_-.
r-4 19 d
--
” .._-
-1-
-
16,
VJ "- CONCLUSICON
-_-.-------.
REPEHENCES
-._-.--- _-_-. ._._. -
~ ICRiSAT, Annual Report (821
.- Agroclimatology Report (19801
: Potential Evapo-,Transpiration.
Estimates in the S.A.T,
-~ C. K. ONG and MONTEITH : Respunse Pearl Millet tc* Light and Tempera-
ture.
-~ PIARASPNG, KANEMASU, CHANDHURI :: Water use and Water use Effi--
ciency of Pearl Millet.
-. A.K.S. HUDA, SIVAKUMAR MVS -~ REGO / 1985 :
An Analysis Data of Agroclimatic Data -. In Relation
to Firtilizer use in
Dry Land Aera of India.
-' JARWAL - S.D., 1984 : CANOPY architecture, 'Light, Interception,
Water use and Dry Matter Production.
Relationships in Pearl Millet.
- C. DANCETTE ; F. FOREST (1984) :
Recent Work on
WATER Requierements of Millet
and SORGHUM.
-
_-
_._..___
-m-e
.._ _
1 - PNTRODUCTIOhi
Cn several P e g i o n o f ’ t h e Semi:-At:i.ti T'rop~~co thc average
annuel precip:it~ati.on appears l-o be SilffiSailk f o r
one two qoods
crops y e a r s , b u t t h e rainfall a r e eratic. (Virrnani)
IYillet and Groundnut. two of the mn-jol: crops wit.h
ICRISAT deal. must be adapted to such c l i m a t i c r e g i o n ; ,then it
kS i m p o r t a n t to find out from how two crops feet in S .A,T. Condit:ion e
2 MA'l'AHIALS
_ _ _-__ AN% METHODS
~-------,..---- --.<--
--- :
E'jl2 '
2 experiment was condcicted 012 fed SC-il (AI 1:isrl.i 1 !
,p,-vJ ‘; ‘:!
B of ICKISAT Center, Pantancheru ( indra) .
f3e f 91.'? start of lzhe experi.ment tllc soii ( O- 70 c m ) w a s aria1 jrsed f o r
nh)iSi CO chemical properties.
Soii ;‘epht
<-_-l.-.-. ---
Organic
car- _"-_^._
&vailable&sghorus
-- -----
cm
-
IN-PPm
- - -
0
-
15
7 - 7 5
Cl,20
0,8Q
6,O
:1. 5 -
30
Ï,45
0,15
0,50
5,5
Seeds Millet.. BK 560, Groundnut TMV2 iwere obtained from
!:he training program:~ .
Fertilizer Diammonium phosphate 100 kg/ha before planting
for a11 the plots.
Beteween 3 to 4 weeks after emergence applaying 62 kg/N ha 1135 kg
uree/kai.
'3. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS :
~-
Randomized bl.ock design with 3 L,epl.ications and 3 Yrai-
temnts :
- Tl
Sole Millet
- T2
Sole Gr0undnu.t
- T3
1 Millet/3 Groundnut inter trop.
4. CROSS AND NET PLOT SIZES WERE 10 M LENGHT 4,5M WIDE (3 Beds)
~--~--II
-
-
.-
In the experiment we studie :
-
-
1) Rainfall
2) Soi.1 moisture
3) Leaf area measurement on the Crop
4) Dry matter Accumulation and partitionning
5) LEAF temperature
6) Liqht interception
'1 Reiative humidy
8; Soi.1 temperature
9 J Plant phenol.ogy
10) Yield.
LI - RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
----~~_. ---~
.
- Rainfall
--,--
Total rainfall. this year (L June to 30 octoher) is 477mm.
-1. 9 ? below the total rain in 1984 (531.8mm).
'In the month of june the cumulative rainfa1.L WGS 88,s rnrn, 4 k below
june 84. July rainfa1.l was about jul:y 84. Rainfall. in August was
on.ly 46,2 mm 69 % below the same month in 1984. We receive during
september 75,8 mm 24 % below, September 84 -- but rain In october was
93,0 mm 13 8, above october 84.
This year Crops are suffering frorr&%tf3i'Cit
mostly in the
month of Rugust. The few rain in September have been very he:i.pful
for the survival of Crops (Fig. 1)
RAINPALL(mm) RECORDED IN METEOROLOGICAL OBSERVATORY AT ICRISAT
-
-
-
YEAR
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEIYBER OCTOBER
TOTAL
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
l-984
92.3
171,7
147.7
99.2
80.9
591.8
1985
88.6
173.4
“46.2
75.8
93.0
477
OPEN - PAN EVAPORATION
Open pan evaporation during this year was observed
(1 June to 30 october) the lowest pan data was 4.7mm/day during
october. The bigest pan evaporation data was 9.5 mm/day during june.
During july, the open pan evaporation was 5.7 mm day. August 5.4 mm
days , september 5.3 mm days. (Fig.2).
SOIL TEMPERATURE
Soi1 temperature was observed in 2 conditions 5 cm and
15 cm depht.
Recording data 2 times days 8 AM - 2 PM the higest average daily
soi1 temperature were recorded during september :
5 cm depht 25.6'C at 8 AM, and 5 cm depht 33'C at ;? PM,
during july. The lowest average daiiy soi1 temperature were recorded
during august on 5 cm and
15cm at 8 AM, 24,6”C (Fig.3).
4.
LIGHT INTERCEPTION
- --- -."-.----.--~-
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
- -
Relative hamidity of air recorded i:n millet sole and
Groundnut at 13h 30 at RCW 12R was higher on SOI.~ Millet 47--DAE to
70-DAE. The hlgher relative humidity 64 ‘$ was recorded at the first
observation 39-DAE on intercrop and also the Lowest RH recorded on
the same treatement at 63-DAE 44.5 %.
On Groundnut RH record& was higher in intercrop a,t
39-DAE, 63-DAE and 98-DEA.
Higher RH-64, 5 % was recorded at 39-DAE on groundnut intercrop and
the lowest RH recorded at 69-DAR 44,s % (Fig. 6,7)
.I II - MICROCLIMATOLOGICAL STUDIES
We study water storage and EVAPO-transpiration in the
combinaison .- Millet/Groundnut intercrop,
Light interception by sole millet, sole groundnut and intercrop
and related to total biomass production under differents conditions.
Sole gmundnut
-
- . - -
iîruundnut intcrcrop
\\\\\\
---*
CH-“-
10
30
60
90
100
ûays ofter emr-gence
Fig.
uayr after emer~rm?
0
I 1
i I
PEiARL/MILLET
_.,_, ..-c!______ MAIN PLANT PHENOLOGY DATA
._-..---- --."- ._."____ -~ .._. --_ ..- .._. -.
Sob,.inq f3atr
:
21,.(-,.i3."
rJn;er g.i?;,cy dat t-
:
30.6.85
._ _ ___, II_...___..^._.._I_I_ __.... ___ .--._-__--- .__ ..- __..__.. -- .._ ._ - -- ---__-. - .-... --- .-. - . ..---.-...--.-
Pan1 cl.e
Ohysiolo-
1 :nit.iati.on
i)AE:
Anth fs;e
!XE
gxca 1
! DAE:
maturity
-._I_."-. -..._.- -_- .-.. --__.1 _..- -- _ ._.._._ -- -_-.
- _ - -
. I -
- -
Sole millet
14.7.85
1. 4
10.8.85
41
10.9.85 72
14,,7.85
14
11.8.85
42
10.9-85
7 ‘>L.
TILLERS
Sowing date :
26.6.85
Emergency
:
30.6.85
_..____. -_ __--__-.----l ---...“-_.<-___^---_-- --_~-.~ ~-----
'Panicle
l
I
physiol.o‘- '
Traitements
initiation
DAE Anthesis DAE
gical
DAE
maturity
-____ - .___ -_-.- -I---"sI-----.- -l_.-~~I_ ---- ----_
-.- --_-. -_
Sole millet
14.7.85
14
16.8.85 47
16.9.85 78
Yillet .inter erop
1.4.7.85
14
15.8.85 4 6
16.9.85
‘78
In the treatements, we found variations the tillers took one week
more for overtake the stage than main plant.
GROUNDNUT
Date of sowing
: 26.6.85
Date of emergency :
2.7.85
--_. ~. ---
- - - - - - - - ^--
.----
Physiolo.
Traitements
/ Anthesis
DAE Peg.
DAE
maturity
DAE
.__-ll-
-.-- .
- - ~--~
----.
I
Sole groundnut
1 26.6.85
24 5.8.85
34
27.10.85
117
Inter trop
27.6.85
25 6.8.85
35
28.10.85
118
i
-
-
~ - - -
---
HI--. _.
In millet Gnt one day
more for overtake the stage than sole groundnut..
tj .
LEAF AREA INDEX (LAI) MILLET BK 560
-.__-
-- ._-..----...-. -.-.-~ - _____ -.-.-.-- .---._
i. I! 3 1 I
i. t??
treatements peack value FOL leaf aura w~rt- 1-2 ,. 4 I/ 3 ~
6 < ..1 r es+ctive.ly for Main FLant, Till~rs ,. ,totai Main ?nd YJ i ';CI~ a
'- F'GK L:ntercrop peack value of LAI were 0.7, 4.1, 4.8 respecti-
1.re.j.y for, main pl.ant, Till.ers, total. Main -i Ti!.I.ers contributi-on of
'I'ii.lers nt the begining was less 18 B at 30-DEA. The Tillers contribu
t-ion incxease to 80 % at 45-DAE.
'.. For G.i:oundnut sole trop proceded LAI greater: ,than intercrop.
Leaf area increased more from 28-DA:E to 42-DEA.
In ail the treatements the peack value of LAI were CI.9 and 2..8
for intercrop .C according to intercrop and sole Groundnut.
Thc: leaf area index in sole Groundnut was 35.7 % more than intercrop.
(Fig. 10).
DRY MATTER PARTITIONNING
a) Millet
Dry matter production and its partitioning to different
plant parts was greater in sole Millet than mi.l.let intercrop. The
difference total dry matter among treatement were important CTotal
dry matter sole 2460 g/m2! intercrop -- 920/m2.
5) Groündnut
13 DAE the dry matter produced by leaves was 20 g/m2 in
both treatements 28 DAE. The dry matter production and its parti-
tioning into different plant parts was greater in sole Groundnut
than Groundnut intercrop. Total dry matter produced by leaves was
24Og/m2 and Groundnut intercrop 140g/m2.
The effect of intercrop is
important.
The produced Groundnut this year is caused by the low
rainfa.1;
and drought during poding and peging period..
Y-
I
-- ,
-.
I
1
I
,
‘\\\\
\\ \\ \\r \\
1
\\
\\ \\ \\r.
\\
\\ \\
\\
0
o-
0
.n\\\\‘\\
0
3 0
Sole groundnot
- -- - ---Ê
Groundnut inter trop
2
/- ----,
-----A t.91
0
f-28
-
- - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - -N y->\\
2.69
‘917
2*37
2 72 -A .2-,
-* s.42
v
I
1
th
.-
1
I
I
8
,
1
‘
--
--
u
10
20
3u
40
su
60
7 0
BU
90
luo
Jr0
m
Oays after emergence
r Ltaf arœa index ( LAU > of qroundmult TMVZ indifftrrnt traitr#rrtnt?s;(t?CW
--- kaf
- - - - - - - leaf sheat
Total d r y înalter
--.. -- . . CU(#)*
80
90
100
Oays afttr emrgence
2800
$
Millet inter trop
b,c
$ 2400
s
--- leaf
- - - - - - - bof shaat
2
Total dry laatter
ca 2000
_I.. --.. Cu(ffls
1600
1200
800
400
Doys aftef emerpnce
Fiq.
:Totoi dry natter of ptarl œmilllct ( BM-560 > and its partitioning
ta plant part RCW Y2 8(1985)
Sole groundnut
- - - L e a f
------.
Leaf + rtcm + root
--.. -
-
.1 Leaf + stam + foot + peg
-... -e-e
Leaf + stem + rwt + peg + f lower
j_-.
Leof+ stem + r oot + pag + fiower + pod
-
-
-
-
-
loto/ d r y motter
--- II .--. .-,
Dry rattœr production (olnrf ) and its partitimnhg mb qrmumdnwt
(TMVZ) smkt (RCWIZB 3985>
Groun dnut
Inter trop
--- ltaf
-- - -- --- leof + Stern + fout
- - - - - - - - loof + stem + fout + pag
-*.. C---S 1e0f+st~m+foot+pq+
ftowef
isof + stem + ftwt + pq+ flowef + pod
- - - - - Totoi dry motter
Days ofter emergence
Fig.
Dry @natter prodaction (slnf> amd its pmrtitioninq of grwndnut
(fbtV29 mmtrrcmp(RCWItR 19859
‘ :
/
.
Tij -idATEk S’I’omGE J’JD EVAPOTR,/QJSPIkATION
-&..--.-
-_-_-_- -- --.I_ ._... .-- ----_-- -.. .-.
EvapotransFiration froc sole InilieÇ plots was considerahly
lesu than sole Groundnut and int:ercx:op ï m~llel.:/:! Groundnut.
C:umulative ET in sole millet durinq the growth period
was 294.28 mm, and in sole Groundnur 498.4mm, ,111 this cas water luse
by inl-er trop was greatei
than sole Groundnut and sole millet (table
4-5-h).
8.
WATER STORAGE (11'2 cm DEEPHT)
T--__- --.-.-.-- . .-i-- _..^ -.-. _ --_ _.--.. _.
.. .-
!
IT;)tal.-Water
j1;nean (mm)
SDT
.
.._-~_-_
-_--~
27.6.85
6 . 1 8
3 . 0 9
5.7”85
2 1 8 . 5 1
2 . 5 6
1 . 2 8
1 1 . 7 . 8 5
L O S . 5 4
8 . 7 6
4 . 3 8
1 7 . 7 . 8 5
8 . 0 3
4 .Ol-
2 4 . 7 . 8 5
2 2 5 . 9 2
4 . 4 4
2 . 2 2
2.8.85
241;. 8 5
3 . 3 5
1 . 7 6
8.8.*85
2 0 6 . 8 1
5 . 4 1
2 . 7 0
16.8,#t?E
2 3 0 ‘ 7 9
2 0 . 2 1
1 0 . 1 1 .
23.8,,85
1. ‘7 6 . 6 1
5 . 0 5
2 . 5 3
30.84.85
1 2 . 8 0
6 . 4 0
6 . 9 . 8 5
1 6 7 -94
7 . 4 1
3 . 7 0
1 3 . 9 . 8 5
1 6 3 . 6 0
1 4 . 5 5
7 . 2 8
19.9.85
l 170.32
4 . 7 7
2 . 3 9
.---~-.-..----.__-.-..-
.._ -.-._- _,-_.
--_ -. - - .._” .- .-._-____^____ ---.---_- -1_---
9 .
Table 2
-.-_. ._. .I.
..-. - - --- ._. - .._
_ . .-. _.___ __ I. --. -_ ..---” ._._.. -. --.-_- --_ _ _ _ . ._
-.. ._ --“.._ _-__
Groundnut
Total.-water
Date
Sole
mean (mm)
SDT
SE
_-- - .._^_ .^- _ - .._ - -- _. ..-__ _,__. -^--.---.- ._.-- -- ---.- ._.__ -_-. ___ __ .---_-_- -.-. - ..__ -_ - - -... _- .__-
27.6-85
220.41
1.4.07
7.04
T.7,85
220.0%
15.86
.a.93
l.1.'7 "85
206.bl
23.33
Il
.I 3. . 69
L7.7.#85
216.27
1.7.90
8.95
24.7.85
233.24
14.81
7.41
2.8.85
236.24
21.09
iO.54
3.8.85
209.70
33.19
1.6 . 60
16.8.85
243175
22.62
i 1 . .3 1.
23.8.85
179.61
15.07
7 -53
30.8.85
176.02
7.35
j-68
6.9.85
178.26
18.05
9.02
'L3.9.85
177.28
1.9.12
9.56
:L9.9.85
164.25
15.65
7.83
/
27.9.85
183.61
1.5.90
'7.95
---- _._. .._ -__ - __
__-- _-^- -_- .-___
WATEK STORAGE (mm) 112 em DEPHT
Table 3
-.I_- -
_ _ __._ . __.. _..- -- -----..-- .-.- --
*.-_ _._- _-__ -. ..--.
_-----_
-11
Total-Watt-r
I
Date
Cr0p
SDT
SE
mean (mm)
i ___--..--_- __ --_----.---
-Y-.---
-.-
-
-
-
Inter trop
1. millet/3
Gnt
27.6.85
234.73
234.73
9.17
4.58
5.7.85
228.34
228.34
21.23
10.62
11.7.85
224.35
224..35
18.70
9.35
17.7.85
233.50
233.50
11.41
5.711
24.7.85
247‘05
247.05
17.58
8.79
2.8.85
256.15
256.15
23.62
11.81
8.8.85
228.40
228.40
11.94
5.98
16.8.85
222.87
222.87
20.62
10. 3:1
23.8.85
195.45
195.45
16.53
8.26
30.8.85
186.45
186.45
15.18
7.5'9
6.9.85
18L93
187.93
17.10
8.55
13.9.85
195.10
195.10
18.55
9.27
19.9.85
171.73
171.73
16.55
8.28
27.9.85
191.7%
191.72
12.02
6.01
.~_.-.~. .--
-
11.
CROP : MILLET ISole) EVAPOTRANSPIRATPQN
Table 4
:-.--- ---
-.-.- 1--1 .- ..--- -----.--1--“- ..--..-..- _._. .-.-- -.------- -..-...-. -l-ll-l-.- ___ “- ._.______-____ I_ __
i
I
Dates
Data
E T
____-__ _ __--.<-_- -.-_--- --._----..-- ~--.-_-~--__-_-~~._ ~-_---.
27-6
TO 5.7.85 i
24.6 f 209.17 - 218,51
:1 5 D 3
5.6
To 11-7.85
0.6 + 218.51
-'- 205.54
13.6
1.1.6.
Te 17-7.85
10.2 t 205.54 .- 203.76
:12-o
1.7.6. Ta 24.11.85 !
82.8 -t 203,76 .- 225.92
60.6
24 "7 ‘ 'Iv 2.x8.85
34.4 t 225-92 - 245.85
14-s
2.8. TO 8.8.85
i.,4 -t 245.85 - 206.81
40.4
8.8.
TO :16.8.85 i
12.4 t 206.81 -- 230.79
11.58
16.8
To 23.8-85
0, -J- 230.79 -' 176.61
54.2
23.8
TO 30.8.85
15.8 + 176.61 -_ 155.41
37.0
30.8
TO 6.9.85
11.7 -t 155.41 - 167.94
0.8
6.9
TO 13.9.85
26.6 + 167.94 - 163.60
30.9
13.9
TO 19.9.85
2.4 +- 163.60 -. 170.32
4.3
TOTAL............
294.28
~------
--_--..,-~
-----
- - -
1. 2 .
GROUNDNUT SOLE : EVAPCWiANSPLPIATIOM
Table 5
--.-_ - ___. .I-
Dates
Data
E T
--._ -.-. - - .-..-.---.-~-I..-- -.-.- ~-.-- -.-.-1._1---.-- -“-- ._-.--.- -.- .____ I .__^_
26.6
TO 5.7.85
24.6 -t 220.41 .- 220.02
24.8
5.7
TO 3.1.7.85
0.6 -t 220.02 .~ 206.61
.i 4 . 2
11.7
TO 17.7.85
10.2 t 206.61 -- 2l.6.27
0.5
1.7.7
TO 24.7.85
82.8 Jr 216.27 -' 233.24
65.8
24.:
To 2.8.85
34.4 f 233.24 -. 236.24
31.4
2.8
Tc 8.8.85
1.4 + 236.24 '- 209.70
27.9
8.8
Tc 16.8.85
12.4 + 209.70 - 243.75
21.6
16.8
To 23.8.85
0 +
i43.75 - 179.61
64.1
23.8
Tc 30.8.85
15.11 + 179.61 - 176.02
.19.3
30.8
Tc 6.9.85
11.5 t 176.02 - 77a.'f
AA.7
6.9. TO 3.3.9.85
26.6 + 178.26 - 177.28
27.6
l3.9 TO 19.9.85
2.4 + 177.28 - 164.25
15.4
' 19.9 TO 27.9.85
43.0 t 164.24 - 183.61
23.6
27.9 To 7.:10.85
99.5 + 183.61 - 209.69
73
7.10.85 TO 14.10
12.4 t 209.69 -. 232.58
22.9
'L4..Lû TO 21.10
0 +
232.58- 213.62
19.0
TOTAL : a.........
462.8
INTER CROP 1 MILLET/3 Gnt - EVAPOTRANSPTRATTON
6!L'able
____ ___ -_~.--.-.-..---- _ ___-_ -.__ _l_,___ll_ I_^ _-__. _ _ ^--- _._. - .___ _..._.___ ---.----- ..-- -----~-.
D a t e s
Data
E T
__~_----_--..-
-.------ ___- _~._- -_ll--l.---.-
--*
27.6 To 5.7.85
24.6 f 234.73 - 228.34
31
5.7 TG 11.7.85
0.6 t 228.34 I- 224.35
4.6
1 1 . 7 T G 17.7.85
10.2 t 224.35 - 233.50
1.1
17.7 TO 24.7.85
82.8 t 233.50 - 247.05
69.3
24.7 To 2.8.85
34.4 -t- 247.05 -- 256.15
25.3
2.8 TO 8.8.85
1.4 ,t 256.15 - 228.40
29.2
8.8 TO 10.8.85
12.4 -t 228.40 .- 222.27
18.5
16.8 TO 23.8.85
0
+ 222.27 - 195.45
26.8
23.8 TO 30.8.85
15.8 + 195.45 - 186.45
24.8
30.8 TO 6.9.85
11.7 + 186.45 - 187.93
10.2
6.9 TO 13.9.85
26.6 + 187.93 - 195.10
19.4
.13.9 TO 19.9.85
2 4
.
+ 195 10
.
.- 17: . 73
25.g
19.9 TO 27.9.85
43.0 t 171.73 -. 19ï.72
23
27.9 TO 7.10.85
99.5 + 191.72 -- 214.97
76.3
7.10 TO 14.10.85
12.4 + 214.97 -- 21.5.04
12.3
14.10 T O 21.10.85 0
+ 215.04 - 204.70
10.3
14
v
YIELD DATA
--.--_--.-_ --
Somw of selected characters
-_.__
.Il_s__I_ - "____ --.--..--- --.-
Lower grain this year is attrjbut.ed to low rainfail.
47 i rrm and distribution, and the severe drought 'dtiriny E.ts grain
fc:iling period and pediny,
Iii tnis experlment in sole millet Main plant produced more, than
t. ?. 1 1. e r 5 , but in inter trop ti.ll.ers produced more than Main plant
ir? the treatement with combinaison brad difficulty to growth.
The produced groundnut this year is caused by the low rainfall.
and drought during pediny and peging period.
.-_---.-“__-_.-..-
---.
-
:
0
l-4 Iu 0
l
---.-...-“.-
----
I
I
m
- d r-l
.-----
I
I
I -..
____
r-! ”
--.
C\\i m
-
_..__
_-.
I
-
_,___
h Cl Cri
--_-.
r-4 19 d
--
” .._-
-1-
-
16,
VJ "- CONCLUSICON
-_-.-------.
REPEHENCES
-._-.--- _-_-. ._._. -
~ ICRiSAT, Annual Report (821
.- Agroclimatology Report (19801
: Potential Evapo-,Transpiration.
Estimates in the S.A.T,
-~ C. K. ONG and MONTEITH : Respunse Pearl Millet tc* Light and Tempera-
ture.
-~ PIARASPNG, KANEMASU, CHANDHURI :: Water use and Water use Effi--
ciency of Pearl Millet.
-. A.K.S. HUDA, SIVAKUMAR MVS -~ REGO / 1985 :
An Analysis Data of Agroclimatic Data -. In Relation
to Firtilizer use in
Dry Land Aera of India.
-' JARWAL - S.D., 1984 : CANOPY architecture, 'Light, Interception,
Water use and Dry Matter Production.
Relationships in Pearl Millet.
- C. DANCETTE ; F. FOREST (1984) :
Recent Work on
WATER Requierements of Millet
and SORGHUM.