CERTIFICATE - ICRISAToar.icrisat.org/697/1/61330.pdf · 2011. 8. 30. · CONTENTS Chapter Title No....
112
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the thesis entitled "Effect of surface soil moisture on root growth and yield in rabi sorghum" submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of 'Master of Science in Agriculture' of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Hyderabad, is a record of the bonafide research work carried out by Mr. Elasha Abdel Hay Elasha Abu Elbashlr under my guidance and supervision. The subject of the thesis has been approved by the Student's Advisory Committee. No part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree or diploma. The published part has been fully acknowledged. All assistance and help received during the course of the investigations have been duly acknowledged by the author of the thesis. Thesis approved by the Student's Advisory Committee: Chairman: Dr. M. Ranga Reddy Professor and Head Dept, of Agronony and Principal, College of Agr~culture Rajendranagar Hyderabad 500 030 Members: 1. Dr. 8. Bhaskar Reddy Assoc~ate Professor Depattment of Agronomy College of Agriculture Rajendra Nagar Hyderabad 500 030 2. Dr. P.S. Sarma Associate Professor Dept. of Plant Physiology College of Agriculture Rajendranagar Hyderabad 500 030
Transcript of CERTIFICATE - ICRISAToar.icrisat.org/697/1/61330.pdf · 2011. 8. 30. · CONTENTS Chapter Title No....
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled "Effect o f surface soil moisture on root growth and yield in rabi sorghum" submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of 'Master of Science in Agriculture' of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Hyderabad, is a record of the bonafide research work carried out by Mr. Elasha Abdel Hay Elasha Abu Elbashlr under my guidance and supervision. The subject of the thesis has been approved by the Student's Advisory Committee.
No part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree or diploma. The published part has been fully acknowledged. All assistance and help received during the course of the investigations have been duly acknowledged by the author of the thesis.
Thesis approved by the Student's Advisory Committee:
Chairman: Dr. M. Ranga Reddy Professor and Head Dept, of Agronony and Principal, College of Agr~culture Rajendranagar Hyderabad 500 030
Members: 1. Dr. 8. Bhaskar Reddy Assoc~ate Professor Depattment of Agronomy College of Agriculture Rajendra Nagar Hyderabad 500 030
2. Dr. P.S. Sarma Associate Professor Dept. of Plant Physiology College of Agriculture Rajendranagar Hyderabad 500 030
CERTIFICATE
Mr. Elasha Abdel Hay Elasha Abu Elbashir has satisfactorily prosecuted the courqe
of research and that the thesis entitled EFFEC'I' OF SURFACE SOIL
MOIS'I'UHE ON ROOT (;KOW'I'H AND YIELD IN KABI SOK(:HUM
submitted is the result of original research work and is of sufficielitly high standard
to warrant its presentation to the examination. I also certify that the thesis or part
thereof h;~s not bee11 previously submitted by h ~ m for a degree of any University.
Date: >+'- / 0 -73 L - 9 Major Advisor: pv
Dr. M. Rmga Rerltly Professor and Head Department of Agrono~ny and Principal, Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, Rajendranagar Hyderabad 500 030
CONTENTS
Chapter Title No.
1 IN'I'KODUCTION
11 REVIEW OF LITEKA'rUKE
2.1 The root system of other crops 2.2 The root system of sorghu~li
2.2.1 Root. Morphology, Morphogenesis and Functinoal Characteristics
2.3 Plasticity and Co~npensatory Growth 2.4 Root Growth 111 Relation to Shoot Growth
2.4.1 Root Volu~nc and Mass 2.3.2 Root Lzilgth 2.4.3 Root/Slloot Ratio 2.4.4 Root Length Density
2.5.1 Cli~natic Factors 2.5.2 Solar Kudiation 2.5.3 Temperature 2.5.4 Open-pan Evaporation and
Saturation Vapour-Presaure Deficit
2 6 Edaphic Factors
2.6.1 Soil Water Storage 2.6.2 Soil Nutrient Content 2.6.3 Soil Cracking 2.6.4 Soil Temperature
2.7 Insects and Disease Proble~ns 2.8 Management Factors
Page No.
2.X.l Date of Sowing 2.8.2 Depth of Sowing 2.8.3 Irrigation 2.8.4 Fertilization 2.8.5 Plant Density and Row Spacing
2.8.6 Soil Physical Conditions (Tillage and Other Cultural Practices)
2.9 Growth Regulators
111 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Experi~nenml Site
3.1.1 Locntion 3.1.2 Climate 3.1.3 Soil
3.2 Experimental Details
3.2.1 Trenttnents 3.2.2 Experimental Deaig~l and Layuut
3.3.1 Plant Cirowth Analysis 3.3.2 Sampling Procedure 3.3.3 Nodal Koot Nutnber 3.3.4 Tohi Zoot Letiytti 3.3.5 Tot;~l Koot Mass 3.3.6 Root I,e~igtli Density 3.3.7 Plant Height 3.3.8 Leaf Number 3.3.9 Leaf Area 3.3.10 Leaf Dry Weight 3.3.1 1 Stem Dry lveight 3.3.12 Shoot Dry Weight 3.3.13 Total Plant Dry Weight 3.3.14 RooVShoot Ratio 3.3.15 Stover Dry Weight 3.3. I6 Biolnass 3.3.17 Yield and Yield Colnponents 3.3.18 Harvest Index
3.4 Nutrient Analysis 3.5 Water Use and Water Use Efficiency
IV RESULTS
4.1 Climate 4.2 Underground Portion
4.2.1 Nodal Roots. Total Root Length and Total Root Mass Per Plant During the Season
4.2.2 Nodal Roots. Total Root Length and Total Root Mass Per Plant During Different Growth Srages
4.2.3 Root Length Density
4.3 Aboveground Portioti
4.3.1 Stem Dry Weight, Leaf Dry Weight. Shoot Dry Weight and Total Plant Dry Weight Per Pla~lt
4.3.2 Root/Shoot Ratio 4.3.3 Green Leaf Area (ct,iz) and Leaf Number
Per Plant
4.4 Yield and Yield Attr~butes
4.4.1 I'l,int Height, Panicle Lzngth. Grain Number per Panicle, 100 Seed Mas\, Yield. Stover Weiglit, Biomass and Ila~.vest Index Functiot~ of Irrigation and Cicnolypcs
4.4.2 Interactio~~ Effect
4.5 Water Used and Water Use Efficiency 4.6 Nutrient Analysis
V DISCUSSION
Under Gvnw!r! Growth During N&! RQQ! Initiation a t~d Panicle Initiatioti Above Ground Portion at Early Growth Stages Above Ground Portion at Later Stage? Under Ground Portion at Later Stages Nutrient and Water Uptake Root Length Density Rootishoot Ratio Yield and Yield Attributes
VI SUMMARY
LITERATURE CITED
APPENDICES
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Title No.
Page No.
1 Temperature (Max. and Min. 'C) and rainfall ( ~ n m ) during the growing season.
2a Soil te1nper;tture ("C) s t 2 ctn soil depth.
2b Soil temperature ("C) at 5 c111 ?oil depth
3 Nodal root 1nu111bcr per plant at tlie end of the season as o function of irrigation treatmelits.
4 Nodal root n111nber per plant of four genotypes at the end of tlie sexon.
5 Total root lengtl~ per plant as a function of irrip:ltion : ~ t the c11d of the season.
(1 Tor;~i root length per pl:lnt of four genotypes a t the end of tlir se;Ison.
7 Total root mass per plant at the end of the S C ; I S ~ I I
as a function of irrigation treatments.
8 Total root mass per plant of four genotypes at the end of the reuson.
9 Nodal root< ?er plant for irrigation treaunent\ at four growth stages.
I0 Nodal root number per plant of four ge;iotypes at four gruwth stages.
I I Total root length at four growth stages as a function of il~igation treatlnents.
12 Total root length per plant for four genotypes at four growth stages.
13 Total root Inass per plant (g) function of il~igation at four growth stages.
14 Total root mass per plant (g) at four growth stages for four genotypes.
15 Total plant dry weight per plant (g) at the elid of the .\eason as a function of irrigation treatlnents.
16 Total plant dry weight (g) at the end of the season function of genotypes.
17 Aboveground total dry matter production per plant in relatin11 to underground total dry matter production per plant.
1 R Stern dry weight per plant (g) during five growth htages as affected by il~ig;~tion treatlnents.
I9 S t e ~ n dry weight per plant (g) for four genotypes ;it five growth stages.
I 0 Leaf dry weight per pld~it (g) during five growth \ I B ; C S BS
a function of irrigation tle;ltlllents.
21 Leaf dry weight per p1;111t (g) during five growth stages ;IS
a fu~~ction of genotype\.
22 Shoot dry weight per platlt (g) tluring five growth stage.; ;IS a fu~lctio~l of irrigation trcatmeots.
23 Shoot dry weight per plant (g) during five growth stages as $1 functio~l of ge~iotypes.
24 TCtd ;l:mt b y weight (g) at focr growth stages fu~lclic!? C? irrigation treitlllents.
25 Total p!:xt dry weight (g) of four gellotypes at four growrh stoges.
26 Total plant dry weight as a function of irrigation x genotype interaction.
27 Roodshoot ratio as affected by ilrigtion treatments during four growth stages.
28 Roodshoot ratio of four genotypes at four growth stages.
29 Yield, stover weight and biomass (Tlha) of four genotypes at harvest.
302 7c soil moisture at 0-50 cln soil depth for irrigatio~i seedling treatments at four growth stages.
30b '70 soil iiioisture at 50-100 c m soil depth for irrigation scedliiig treatments at four growth stages.
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title No.
Page No.
Analysis of variance table showing degrees of freedom (DF), F-probability (F-PR) for ~iodal root numbers per plant (NRPL"), total root length per plant (TRLPL I) and total root mash
per platit (TRMPL1).
Mean root ie~lgtli density values (ctn/ctn3) for genotypes and irrigation beattnetits at 50% flowering (50LTa FL) atid liarvest (HAR).
Analysis of variance table for root letigth density showitif degrees of freetlotii (DF), F-probnbility valuea (F-PK) at 50% tlowering (50% FL) illid h:irvest (HAR).
Analysis of variance table for atem dry weight (STDWPL-I), leaf dry wieght (LFDWPL-I), slioot dry weight (SHDWPU') and total plilnt dry weight (TDWPL1) snowing degrees of frcedoni (DFj anti F-probability (F-PR).
Mean leaf area and leaf ~illtnber as a functioti of irrigation seedling treattrierits atid getlotypes.
Plant height (PLH), panicle length (PNL), grain nutnber per patiicle (GP.NPN1), 100 seed tnass !!!)!I S M ) yield, stover wig!!! (ETOwT), biomass (B!C?) :n:! harvest index (HI) a affected by irrigation upsxnt? .
Plant height (PLH), panicle length (PNL), grain number per pirnicle (GRNPN1), 100 seed inass (IUI) SM), yield, stover wcight (STOWT), biomass (BIO), and harvest index (HI) of four genotypes.
Irrigation x genotype interaction of plant height (PLH) and grain number per panicle (GRNPN").
Water used and water use efficiency (WUE) at different irrigation treatments.
10 Nutrient analysis at flowering and harvest showing the per cent nitrogen and phosphorous at flowering (%NFL). (%PFL), and hawest stages (%NHAR), (%PHAR) and total nitrogen and phosphorous at both stages (TNFL), (TPFL), (TNHAR), (TPHAR),
I I Nitrogen and phosphorous percentage it1 the grain ('ZNGR. %PGR) and total nitrogen and phosphorous both in the grain and the whole plant (TNGR; TPGR; TNWP; TPWP).
12 Relationship between root length density (RLD) at harvest ant1 yield.
13 Probabilities of differences among treottnents for various measures of crop growth during nodal root itiitiatioli (NRI), panicle initiation (PI), 50% tlowreing (50Lio FL) and harvcxt (HAR).
Altltorr,qlt 1 firrd i t possiblc to nrerrtiorr olily o feu), brrr I sirrcerely cippreciote
eacli o ~ r c who co~rtribrrtctl ton~irrds the cor~rplet io~r of titis thesis.
Deep crrrrl sirirere firmtitude to D r . F .K. Birlilrger. Prbrr.ilial Scie~rrisr
(Pkysiolo,qyJ, Cererrls Plrysiolo,py, I ~ r r ~ ' r ~ i ~ r t i o ~ r o l Crops R ~ s ~ N ~ c ~ I 111,vr;trife f h r the
S~n r i -A r i r l Tr ,o /~ ics (ICHISAT). Co-Clrciirnrrir~ [if my r i d~ , i so~y r~o~~rrrr i t tee, f t i r hi.!
~ ~ u l u o b l e ,prridarrc~r. c'o~rstr~rc~tive criticisni fh~.o~i,qhout the per i r ~ i l r f this iiri8esti,pritiorr
The Iecrr.~ri~rg e tpar io ic r iorrler iris diwctiorr cr~ior~tf irrr l~ its ro~rtrihrrtiorr rr~words the
~rrrc'casfirl coni~iletiorr of'rlre rliesis, wris olso hdlJfil/ as o firtiwe ieuri i i i ig e ~ ~ ~ e r i e r i c e
to nie.
I ~ I I I ril.\o lii,yiiiy tliorikfiri to D r . M . Kt i~~ ,p ( i /I(crirly, Prr~f'esso~. ctrril Hctrcl,
& / ) ~ l f t t l r l i l ~ f A j i l ' ( l l l ~ ~ i ~ , rllld I / IC Pri l lc~jJ( l l ( f ' t h ~ (:lJ//I!ge ~ f ' ~ ,q l ' i r ' l l / / l l r e , Alldhrii
Pro(lc.!ii Agricu/trrr.u/ lJriivt,r.\i/y (APAU), Roj~~rje,~h.ti~rcr,qor, /lie Choirrilrm of nly
t i t11' i~ol ' j ~ ' < n ~ w i i / t t < f i ~ r /ti.\ 1:r1111oiiIe ,rii,qgestiori 0~trt11,q 111~ r o r r r~v uf i~!ve.!t i j i f i t rr~~r
cirri1 n'r i t i~r j i the tlrcsis. S11ec.ini tiro~rks to the nienrbers of trry rrtlvisory conrr?rittcr,
lo 111'. 8. Hlrusknr Kctlrly, Associcitc Professor, A,qroltonry h ! ) J c l ~ I n l ~ l t (APAU) cirrrl
to Dr.. P.S. Snrnrri, Associate Prr~f issor , Uepcirtmerrt of Plorrl Physio10,qy (APAUJ
f i ) r r i~eir. r111y to rloy orurro~o,qoirorts durirry hoth 11ry cr,rrr.se cirrtl r~esecrr~clr n1or.k.
1)r. D.E. Bym, Program Lerriler., Cewcils Pro,qrcin~. ICRISAT, rleserves spccicil
tlici~iks. I n ~ u u l l like to wormly rhutrks irN the stuff menrhers of the Cerecrl
Physiology i i r ~ i r i!c^RlSAT) esl~ccicilly iM/s R. . iuyi~chu~r(lron, Y.R.K. Monriri, B .
Lakshn~irtoruyurr~l Rao, D.V. Chundru Mnli i in Roo, P. Rnm Bubu, B . Shivuiuh o11d
L. George for the i r f ic ld work crssistirrzci' durirrg the t r io l .
I rrm ricelily ~ lwrefu l to M r . C . Swcimiricirhoti, Stcit i~f icici~r, Srcitistic.~ Ulr i t ,
ICRISAT, for his help orrd vuluahle suggestion r l~v i r rg the clnulysis o f t he c l~ tc l .
D r . V .L . Oswcrlr ortd D r B. V iwok r~ r , H~tmarr Resocrrcc Vcvelipr?terir P r o ~ r r ~ n ~
iHRDPJ rlesoves sprciol rcc~o,qrtcrioilfi~r their. erlcourrc,qenlott oild pronlpt mctiorts
thrcl hell1eiI ro nruke rhis erld(,~il~or i~ossihle.
I rrpprcciure M r . S.V. Prccstrd Huo for ntnkir1,q rkc. Jiiiul N~~~USII I IL '~ I IS tcrrd
r,or,acriorrs of'rhe rhcsis.
I Crlil rrof fi1,:qcl (hi, ser.~. ice~ otrd iric~' l r r~nhl le i r l~ of' fhc Housirlg ortd Food
Services (H'tFS) c.\/~eciolly M r Ai l i l R. Porrl, Sr,rrior Mnrrc~,q(v (H&FS), M r . S.
I ont d~ ,c l~ l y ,qrntt.firl I [ I rirr D'rr ir~~d iVNriorr I ) r~vt~Io~~nrr r r r Pr.o,yrrrtrr ( U N D P ) f i r .
pi.ol'idi/i,r,q rhe /itrc~ircircl s l r /~por~ l lid IC'R1,SATfi)r p,ovidirr,y WSL'III'L.~ f i r i ~ i l i f i e ~ .
T I I N I I ~ S 10 1)r.. OSI?I(I~I A.A. A,q~eb, Uir.e~,ror Getici~ril rrird lo D r . A. Yrr.rirt, I i e ~ d
of' the T,uir~irt,q Urt i f , A,yrirultlrrvl Kesrrn.i'/~ rorpororioil (ARC). Sicdoit, for
~ir.r(itr,yiir,q ~ i i y .s~/ioIrirsiri/>.
Special Iharlks lo illy n,Ve Ant iw A. Ahhlrs urld nly SOII Molrrinred E I ~ s h u /bi.
their rlrry lo 1111y pul iotce durirt,y the ~ l h o i e pcrinrl [ fn ly sr[ly.
Fiti~:!!:: + h i r o idcm~or , irs 11rrr.sfre o ~ ~ d conq~l~!t iorr is o-e~li terl t i ] tlic iorrl
# ELASHA ABDEL HAY ELASHA ABU ELBASHIR
I declare that this thesis elititled EFFECT OF SURFACE SOIL MOISTURE
ON ROO'I' (;ROWTI1 AND YIEI.1) IN KAHI SOR(;HUM is a holiafide record
of work dolie by Ine during the period of research at ICRISAT, Patancheru. This
thesis lhas [not for~lied ill whole or in part, the basis for the award of a n y degrre or
diploma.
D:~te: 2s - lo - 43 E1,ASHA AHUEL IlAY E1,ASIIA ARU ELI(ASI1IR
Name of the Author : ELASHA ABDEL HAY ELASHA
Title of the thesis : EFFECT OF SURFACE SOIL ClOISTCKE OX ROOT (;KOtVfH AKD YIE1.D I S RABI SOK(;HII\I.
Degree to wh~ch it is submitted : MASTER OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE (A(;RONOMY)
Faculty : A(;RICUL'I‘UKE
Department : A(;RONOMY
Major Advisor
University
: I)K M. KAN(;A KEDDY PROFICSSOK AN11 HEAD A(;HONOMY DEPARTMENT
Year of suhmission : 1993
The experiment was conducted at LCRISAT Center (India) during 1992 Rlhi season. The experimet~t was laid out in a split plot deaign having nested classification, with irrigation levels in the main plots and genotypes in the subplots.
The A5 trim seedling irriga!icn !eve! h2ve significantly i!?crcz:;rd !he nodal roots nlmtber. total root length: ;and total root mass per plant co~npared to the other treatments. The same was observed with genotypes at the end of the season.
R33t growth ~nieasurcd in various ways increased during the various growth stages irrespective of irrigation i n e b and genotypes and they reached their maximum after flowering time. Irrigation seedling treatments were significantly different for all the root parameters during nodal root initiation, and for nodal root number and total root length also during panicle initiation. Genotypes were significantly different for all the root attributes during 50% flowering and harvest for all of them except for nodal root number.
The root length density continued to increase with 45 nun seedling irrigation aeattnent in the 0 to 100 ctn depth and to decrease with the control between 50% flowering and harvest time. The difference at both growth stages for both irrigation
seedling treatments and genotypes were significant.
The above groutid crop growth (Stem, leaf, shoot and total plant dry weight) for irrigation levels and genotypes was Inore with 45 mm seedling treatment. Total pia~it dry weight iticreased linearly with tinie until it reached its tnaximum after 50% flowering titne. At this time the contribution of root.; was only 7 per cent.
The genotypes were significantly different for all above grou~id parameters at nodal root initiation. 50% floweritig 2nd harvest titile. Irrigation seedling treatments were not significant at m y growth stage for all above ground attributes except for green leaf dry weight which is significant ;it 50'7~ floweritig.
The root/shoot ratio for genotypes was significantly different at a~ithesis, nodal root initiittion and panicle illitiation. The irrigation seed l i~~g treatments were not significant ;it all these stages. The rootishoot rntio was mote ;tt ~nod;tl root aiid pa~iicle initiation stages ;111d relid to decline or r e ~ i ~ a i ~ i colistatit at 50% flowering and h;irvest titlie.
Getlotypes were .;ignificatitly different fol. yield ;ttld yield ;tttributes where the irrigation seedling treattnetlt.; were not.
Thy water LISC(I id water L I S ~ efficieticy V;IIUKY ?,!ere cotnpnrable with athe:. resultc. The sliglit increase in the water uce efficiency values w;~s due to 100 clii depth of s;~tiipling which resulted in ;I slight tlnderestimation of the water used and hence tlie slight overectimatiun ill the water uae efficiency values.
Most of tlie 11utl.ient atialysis para~neters were found to be not aignificantly different both at 50Lh floweritig 2nd harvest time.
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Globally, horghum ( S o ~ ~ l z u n ~ bicolov (L.) Moench) ranks fifth in itnportance
nniong cereals and sixth among important dietary sources of energy for the world's
populatio~i (Cock, 1985). Although tropic;tl in origin. but it is distributed
geographically between 45"N and 35"s and ecologic:llly between 300-1400 lnln
annual niiifall and O to >I000 ni above sea level. Tlia I:~l.ge gellotypic diversity of
sorghum iiiakes the crop adaptable tu tilost rrgions where ~naize or ~iiillet can be
grown (Seethi~ralna er oi., 19x8). Sorgl~utn oc~upies about 47 ~iiillion Iia worldwide
with Asi:! (!Y.h ~ i i ~ l l i c ~ i Ii;l) ;IS a le;!di~ig co!?clnetit, C.'!!c\i'erl by Afric:! (15.7 mil!io::
ha), Nolth and Central Aiiier~ca (2.7 lni l l io~~ ha). Austrdlia (0.73 lnillioli ha) and
USSR (O,lX million li;l) (Doggett, IOXX).
Maxi~iiuln harvested yields of > 15 Tihn in the temperate and >X Tih! in tlie
semi-arid tropics have been reported (Seetharamil et (11.. IYXX), but average farmers
yield in the semi-wid tropics (where the lnajority of the crop is growiij are ahout
0 . X Tiha, in comparison to 3.6 T h a in the high technology, temperate regions.
Agroclimatology of Sorghum
The potential yields in the semi-arid tropics are limited by the length of the
growing season which is determined by the seasonal rainfall and the water-holding
4
capacity of the soils (Seetharama et (11.. 19x8). Total rainfall, its length.
distribution, and intensity affect, plant growth such as seedling emergence, early
leaf and root growth and ni~trient uptake.
The growing seas011 i11 Africa ranges froin 90 diiys in the Sahel and Sudan
Savanna vegetation zones to 270 days towards the equator. The soils of Africa
especially in the west are Alfivols poor in nutrients (especially phosphorouh) and
with low water-l~oldi~ig c;ip~city.
In the sorplioin growing re~ ions of 111di;l. the lecigtli of tht: growing seicson
ranges between 00-IXO days. These regio~is (about 80%) fall cnostly under
Vertisols or AIfisols .Ire fertile enoi~gli to sustain cnodest yieltlv except where there
are acute nitrogen, phosphorouh or zinc def~cie~lcies. The distinctive feature in
sorghi~~ii p r ~ d u ~ t i ~ i ~ ~ i r ~ Itidiil is the cultivatioc~ of up to 40'h of the total ?1orphu11i
area 011 stored moisture in the vertisols of the Deccan region (Seetharamn, IYXX).
Average solar rndintion in the semi-arid tropics (17-21 nijim2/day) is
adequate during the season. The temperature extremes are Inore criticiil in
determining crop growth and yield (Peacock and Wilson, 1984). The optilnu~n
temperature for photosynthesis is about 40°C, and 30-35°C for growth (Eastin,
19x3). High temperature especially during years when rains end early, !nay result
in severe terminal drought stress. High temperature during vegetative growth may
be less critical than early or late stage especially if roots have access to water
(Seetharama, IYXX).
5
Postrainy season sorghutn in lndia is the third tilost important Indian cereal
aocou~iting for 13 per cent of the gross cropped area in the semi-arid parts of [he
country (Tarhalkar lY8h). It is grown on about I6 million ha including both the
rainy (June-September) and posuainy or rirbi (September-February) seasons
(Seetharama er (11.. 1990).
During rmhi. ~iiostly it is \owti in the Deccan plateau between 10 and 2O0N
latitude coveritig :nure than the latid occupied by tn;lize and more than half of that
planted to pearl ~ ~ ~ i l l r t . Despite tiiis, ~.i~bi \orglium accounts unly for less that1 30
per cent of the annual sorghu~n produc~ion (Tandon iu~d K;~llwar, ICJX4). Average
farmer's yields are about 0.5 'l'lhn. In contrast to its rainy se;tron counterpart, the
I.(/!>! sorghutn yield' !:::ve rem:iitied stagnant (Vi:!y:b!lush:t:im, IYXT,), despi:e its
good grain ;and fodilrr quality. The possible reasons for the low productivity of
rcrhi sorghum are environtnental (clitn;ltic and edaphic) and manngelnent factors
(Seethara~na er (I/., 1990).
Nodal Kuut Systern
Since there is about 6 ~iiillio~l ha in India grown #during the postrainy (rohi)
season in drying soi!:, it becomes important to have rapid seedling establishment
for high and stable yields (Sotnan and Seetharama, 1992). The early vigour is
critical if the crop is to use nutrient from the rapidly drying upper soil layers and
reduce evaporation from these layers. Both seedling establishlnent and early crop
vigour in the rohi sorghum environment depends largely on the rapid initiation and
6
extension of the crown or nodal roots, as the single seminal (primary) root of
sorghum usually lasts for 10-30 days after sowing (Freeman. 1970). Bur er 01.
(1977) found that setninal roots can retnain active for a longer period when nodal
root initiation is delayed, but they can not absorb adequate nutrient and water to
sustain plant growth. Blutn and Ritchie (19x4) found that when the top 0.3 111 soil
layer is wet (701;/0 field caliacityl, nodal root initlation and establishment proceed
i ~ t a maximum potentiill rate, but the develop~ncnt of ;I seco~idary root system can
be prevented or tlelsyed if ~noisture is deficient ; ~ t the crown depth (Cornish el r r l . ,
1984).
Sontan atid Seetllitrn~n;~ (1992) have foutitl genotypic variation in thc time
of nodal roo!. i!iitiotig~! :!ti11 nodill root length, but !!c.t it1 nutnber. They also
reported that the va~i;ltion ill the growth of the root <y\teln (especi;~lly of nodal root
growth) woh i~idepentlent of the v;tri;ttion it1 the ahoot growth. Also they fouttd the
rapid nodal root initi;ltion under drying soil to result it1 better early growth in
sorghum. Seethara~na er 111. (1990) obtained high heritability value for nodal root
length (h2=0.66) indicating that the genetic advance is possible for this trait.
Co~iibinitig such roc;- related traits with other useful agronomic characters is
necessary for crop irnprovetnent and yield increment. In connection with, this an
experiment was conducted with the following objectives:
I. To evaluate the effects of differences in early secondary root growth
on subsequelit crop water and nutrient uptake.
2. T o underst;ind how such differe~lces will i~ i f lue~ lce crop growth and
crop yield.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
CHAPTER 11
REVIEW OF LI'PERA'L'URK
Rahi sorghu~n accounts for nearly 41) per cent of the totol sorghum area in
Llidia (Seeth,irania c.r (11. I')')O), but ;lccounts for only 30 per cent of the total
sorghum production (Tandon and Kanwar, 10X4). Despite its i~nport;ince as an
intercrop component and its auperior gnill ant1 fodder quality, yields of f'rihi
sorphurn reinairi stagnant conipared to its ~a iny seaaon cl.op couliterpart (Seetliarn~na
et (11. 11)X6).
2.1 'I'IIK HOO'L' SYSL'HM O F OTHER CROPS
Vincent ,\lid Gregory (1085) liave show11 ih;lt differetlces ;~tiiong chickpea
genotypes in their early root growth and establishlnelit, could leiid for differences
ill (lie way the seedlings respond to environmental conditions and hence affect later
growth. In their study, the Syrian land local land race [LC 1929 producetl the
largest root system, outyielded other genotypes when stwn during spri~ig on store(!
soil moisture.
In wheat, Proffitt cr 171. (19X5), concluded that the depth of water front
penetration of I X 1n1niirigation14 days co~npared to 30.5 1n1dirrigation/l2 days
affect root growth producing differential rooting distribution patterns, depth of
9
penetration and root length density. On the same crop, Hurd (1968) reported that
the pattern of roots of different varieties help to explain their yield perfor~na~ice at
different ~iioisture levels.
111 soybean, Hooge~~boom el (11. (1'987). found th;~t during the early stages
of vegetative develop~nent. root growth occured in the upper regions of the ?oil ;lnd
[new roots proliferateii In wetter regions with ;~dvonci~ig sra.;on. They ;~lso
mentioned that tow;lrtls late \eason, draughtetl pl;inls with relatively smc~ll root
systelil were p;lrticularly ai~sceptible to draught-\ties.; lnju~y. Col~sequently, if
plants had developed a ~mallcr ahool/root ratio during early vegetative stags\, they
c;ln m;~int ;~i l~ turgor ;ind ;I liigli photosynthetic c<~rbon fixation rate\ (luring the
critical \ecd-fi!!ing !,!.!p:s of reproductive develop:::^:::.
Kislev ;111(1 KOI;ICII (1070) on macaro~~i wlie;~t, cucu~iiber, lentil, bitter vetch
and sorgliu~n extensively stutiicd the ~netliods used by the seedlings to affix
the~liselves to soil ant1 to produce sufficient force io counter balance the penetrating
radicle.
2.2 THE KOOT SYSTEM OF SOR(;HUM
Blum and Arkin (19X4), concluded that sorghum root distribution in the
profile in response to irrigation or rainfall is controlled by the inhibitive effects of
a dry top soil on crown root establishtnent and the associated growth compensation
in existing roots. Hackett (1973) reported that despite the rapid root develop~nent,
10
sorghum tended to maintain stable relationship between the overall number, lengths,
surface area, and volume of the root ti~etnbers as do other species.
2.2.1 Root M u r ~ h u l u ~ v , Mur~hogencsis and Functional Cl~amcteristics
Yaniazaki ilt~d Yeka~iio~o (10x3) reportrd sonie ~iiorphological differences
such as ate111 dinmetel, the notnber allti diameter of the pritnary roots and freque~lcy
of the secondary roots ;tlotig the plitnary root :Ixes it1 different species including
sorghu~n.
Seeth:~ratnn et 01. (~~~ipubliahed), found that the sorghu~n root syrteln is
cot1ipar:lble to t h ~ t of m;~ize. Ilut sorghu~n roots are finer, more fibrous and support
sinall lent' area tl1a11 those of tniaizc.
F r e e l n ; ~ ~ ~ (1970) autiimarized the genehis of pritnary root in sorghutii based
on the wotk of Chi (1942) :111d PJUI\OII (1962). The prim;lry roots emerge from the
aide of the colorhiza. Root hairs arise ft'o~n the epidermal cells just behind the
tegioti of elongation nntl the lateral roots emerge from the primary roots just above
the root hair zone.
b ' t a d i and Kobayashi (1980) found that nodal roots elongated from the
buds of lower internodes 3-4 days after emergence and are produceti in conce~inic
whorls with rapid pace initially which slowed down at later stages.
Blutn et (11. (1076) pointed that sorghum has eight whorls of nodal roots
appearing under field conditions beginning at 10 days after emergence (the first),
I I
panicle initiation (five), anthesis (the sixth), and grain filling stage (the remaining
two).
Kanitkar ci 01. (l96X) pointed that nodal root ~iumbers vary fro111 16-32 and
their size is colrel;lted to tile size of the node from which they origi~iate (Freeman,
1970).
Aucordi~~g to Myers (19x0) nod;~l roots p~olifer:~tetl and reached a ~l?axi~lium
branching around the final leaf htage. Tlieir establishinent signals the death of the
ae111in;ll roots of the ieetllings. It is wol.th ~ne~it io~i ing tli:~t hrilce roots ;!re ;llso ]nodal
roots originating from wliol-I\ at h~gher [lodes. Their function i~l~ill-t fro111 anchorage,
is water and ~iur~ietnt uptake.
Bur at (11. (1077) and P;lsaioura (10x3) co~icluded that the horgh11111 life cycle
~ ; I I I lint he completed with full dependcnce on ieminal roots, due to their
insufficient nutrient and water uptakc. Nodal roots when once initiateti . function
in nutrielit and water uptake and support of the plant till ~iiaturity.
Kannan (19x1) found that the recovery of the Fe-stressed plants were due
to nodal roots only.
2.3 PLASTICITY AND COMPENSATORY (;ROWTH
Jordan el 01. (197Ya) concluded that when nodal root nu~nbers were severely
reduced from 10 to 3, compensatory growth within the retnaining members was
12
capable of ~naintaini~ig root lrligth and volutne, but not root mass under irrigation,
soil fertility and soil cotnpaction condition but not under limiting water and nutrient
conditions. Jose er (11. (1990) reported that the draughted aorghuln plants continued
to produce (new ~todal roots but their number was less that1 the control. Also they
reported a marked reduction in the viability of the root tips and root cortex due to
drought stress and that rewatering of the draughted plants when tliey reached the
first wilting point failrd to illcrease the nutnber anti length of the nodal roots
co~ripotietits but not the seminal root component.;.
2.4.1 Root Vululne and Masv
Except the study 111;ldc by Rice ;ind E;~st i~i et al. (IL)Xh). ;all other .;tudie.:
t c~~ i i i~ l i~ ted before tloweri~ig.
Ac~ording to Bluin el 111. (1977a.b), a linear relationshtp exists between total
root length and leaf area, and between root volutnt and leaf area until panicle
in~t~at ion.
Jordan cl ol. (lY7Yb) concluded that plants with large leaf area were more
likely to have large root volumes and total length of nodal roots prior to panicle
initiation.
13
Myres (IYXO) and Kniga~na ct (11 . (1977) found that total root weight
increased until final-leaf v~rible m g e and remained constant utitil maturity under
field conditions. At ICRISAT (IYXX) the root tliass increased even after flowering
during postrainy aeoson.
Total root weight ~ntigeci i t ] different studies itoin 1-3 Tbia (Myres, 1980,
Ki~igama CI 01.. 1077).
Frotn different studies (Krddy, 1985 and Zart~naii and Woyewodzic
lY7Y),rhe loot giowtll pattcrns wzre fouild to be wcll within ;I common range of
,~bont top 50 ctn roil I;lyc~.
Cllolilm ;~iirl Vcnkntesw;~rlu (1065) reported a iiii~ximum rlistance of 200 cin
for vertical and larerill spread. Vertical extension in nodal roots proceeds at a
higher rate from tlie 5- led htage until panicle iniliadon. but rlows down at later
growth stages e.g hoft dough.
Accorditig to Mc Clure and Harvey (1962) marimutn 1ntel;il spread of roots
ocsured during panicle development stage (panicle initiation-Anthesis) and the
greatest root activity occured in the 38 cm region laterally froln the plant to a depth
of YO cm.
14
A greater proportion of root le~igth is found in the upper layers up to
anthesis, later senescence in these layers takes place combined with slight but
significant i11cre;lse in root length at lower depths. Fukai er c r l . (1'986) found that
tiller removal increased root growth at flag leaf stage but !not at ~naturity.
2.4.3 Ruot/sboot Ratio
Myers (19XO) 5t:ltetl th,it rootlshoot ratio (leclinctl with age. Wani c! ol.
(IYXX) found tli;lt the ratio decreased with nitrogen applicatiu~i under controlled
experi~iie~it.
Wright or trl. (lOX.1) li;rve shown 110 appreci;lble differences in root-hoot
b;~l,~nce d!!e to hciph! :!i!'kre~ices.
Evetts a~id Bur~~side (1971) found that the lower root/\hoot ratio uf sol.gliurn
as co~npareti to that of weed ~pecics was useful for the suppression of weed growth.
Michael and Sielel- Kelbitch (1972) concluded that, root-ahout rclatio~ls are
not adequately underatood as roots studies are difficult to handle.
2.4.4 Kuot i.mnth Density
Seethara~na er (11. (IYXX) found that with two preflowering il~igations mean
root length density increased by Inore than 50 per cent colnpared to roots of
unirrigated crops, but root length density at 120 and 150 cm soil depth was less
with preflowering irrigation compared to non irrigated sorghum plants.
15
The sharp increase ill root length density between late flowering to dough
stage is due to root brunching and elongation stimulated by the demand for water
(ICRISAT annual report. I9SO).
2.5 PRODUCTIVITY
According to Kao 2nd Kallionath (1081)) :~nd Sretliarama t,t (11. (1'178) r ~ h i
\orghu111 in I11iIi:i \liares co~iilnollalities with sorghun1 crops grow11 on resitiu;~l so11
~iioisti~re in Africa or in the Meditetr;~ne;~n (e.g.. Ihrael) or temperate regions (e.g.
'I'exes, 1JSA). l'hc most impo~tillif dilfrrence between African postrainy and Indian
I N ~ I ; sorghut~is is that the for~lier ;ire cropped un receding flooii plains after burning
the vegerntiolr wllcre .;oil fertility ih not limiting. The te~nperate or Mediterranean
\orghoriis are plantcti in salul,~ted highly f e r t i l~~ed mils (Sectharailla (,I ol., IYt)O)
Tlie v,iltle i~l~tlior s u ~ i i ~ i ) ; ~ ~ i ~ r d tlie environment;il fi~ctors li~iliting 1.11hi sorglut~n
productivity as climatic, ed;~phic, illsects and dise:lse probleiris and tnanage~nsnt
~ J C ~ O ~ S .
2.5.1 Climatic Factors
Vir~nani ct ol. (1982) pointed that the probability of receiving rainfall of
more than 10 tntn is about 60 per cent during the first week of October; soon after,
it decreases rapidly by about 2-5 per cent per week.
2.5.2. Solar Radiation
Solar radiation duri~lg rcrhi ia about 6 per cent less than during Kharif'
(Sivaku~nar and Virlnani. IC)X2), hut the conversiol~ of incident solar rad~ation to dry
matter by vuhi sorghutil is 1i:llf of th.it during Khurif (Sivaku~ti;~r ;tnd Huda, 19x5).
This differelice is due to lower leaf area i~idiues elid reduced radiation-use
efficiency during rnbi (Seetliarama et (11.. I9X2b)
2.5.3 'l'emperatore
Eartin et rrl. (19x3) pointed that so rgh~~ni is relatively i~lse~lsi t~ve to heat
during vcgttntive stdge, with varying effects during pz~nicle develupme~it. Heat
se~~si t ive stnges being ~iiicrosporogenesis and ~iiegasporoge~lesis.
Siv4kum;lr and Virin:~ni (10x2) fou~ld slight differences in the mean daily
temperntures during ~.ohi (24.Y"C) and Khovq (27.YC) sea.rona, but the diurnal
variatio~lr ilre greater during vcrhi. Rao ct (11. (1977) and Choudhari (IOXY) attributed
the reduction in growth and grain yield of rubi sorghu~n to lower night telnperature.
2.5.4. Open-pan Evaporation and Sat t~rnt iun Vapour-press1:re Deficit
Open pati evaporation rates range between 3-5 tn~ll/day during rahi. The
saturation vapor pressure deficit increases during rabi, but its i~nplicatioiis are not
yet sufficiently studied (Monteith, 1986).
2.6 EDAPHIC FACTORS
Tandon and Kanwar (1984). concluded that yield differences between
shallow and deep Vertisols cat1 be up to 1 T h a .
2.6.1 Soil Water Storace
Tarhalkar (19x6) estimated that about 175 ti1111 of water is required for
successful ,obi sorghutn cropptnp. The highest water use efficiency reported for
1.~1)i sorghu111 is 50 Kg/ll.i/111111 ( S e e t h a ~ a ~ ~ l i ~ L'I (11.. 1984). Water use efficiency for
,,(!hi horghum c;ln be ilicre;lsetl by mltlching on sh:tllow soil (Mane and Shingte,
19x2) ;itid nitrogen fe~riliz;ttinn (K;~nwar 01.. 1984).
2.6.2 Soil Nutrient C ~ ~ n l e n l
Khmriffallowing (weed free field contlitions) ilicrea\z\ water and nitrogen
rcserves (Rego cl ( I / . , 19x2) and a good measure ag;~in\t nirrogen deficiency
especially if an ullfertilized Kharif crop was followed.
2.6.3 Suil Cracking
Although it results in tretnendous water loss, but there is no documented
evidence of its impact on yield, l~ltercultivation helps to coliserve soil moisture
(Seethara~na et al. 1990).
2.6.4. Soil Tem~erature
The infortnation pertaining to the effects of soil temperature on root growth
is scality. Peacock and Heinrich (19x4) felt that this relationship is si~ililar to that
between leaf extension and tetnperature. Martin rr cil. (1035) in a gl:i\shouse trial
found more noi1,ll roots with Ih~gller tempernture, especi:~lly between 25-35" C
tIi:~n in the ronge of 15-25°C.
Shoot fly, root lid stalk rot iticiiience are the ni:~in proble~ns for rrihi
~ o t g h u ~ n (SrztIi;~r;ima rt ol.. 1000).
Nwanze rr ctl. (lYY(!! xtributed the delayed sowing of rohi sorghum to the
\hoot tly incitlence associated with early sow11 crops. Reddy et 01. (19x7) esti~iiated
a hX per cent decrease in grain yield and 37 per cent decreahr in stover yield when
sowing of rcihi cultivus was delayed 10-weeks. On the other hand, advancing the
sowing date (4 weeks) increased the yield by 2.5 T h a (Sprat and Chowdhary 1978).
but had no significant effect on yield without adequate fertility (Ulnrani, 19x9,
Kale, 1989)
2.8.2 D e ~ t h of Sowing
Kanitkar er (11 . (1968) fou~ld that the practice of deep sowing (>XI tntii) may
aeverely affect water and nutrielit uptake from the top soil layer.
2.8.3 Irrieation
Tarlialk:~~ (19x61 estim;~tsd tliat about less than 12 per cent of the rrrhi
wrghum is irrigdted, usually once or twice (Illring the season. Percentage of yield
g;litis ranged from 414 per cent (Hari Krislin;~, 10x1); 133-225 pel- cent with one
illid 284-41 1 pel cent with two irrtg;~tiotis :I.; cotnpared to ilryland crops (Verma,
1978). Plnut rr (11. (1969) reputted that r no st of [lie grain sorghum yield was
obtained with three trrigo:ion or with two i::igations :vlieii the second -as applied
hctwee~i he;~dlng ant1 11iilk \rage. They ;~lso reportetl the mitin yield co~liponellt
oft'ectetl by irrigation was 1000 gr:tin 1n;iss.
2.8.4 Fertilization
Kanwar ct (11. (19x4) sliowetl that water use and water use efficiency can
both be significantly iiicreased with nitrogen fenilization. The optimum nitrogen
varied from 25-85 Kgiha, while the optimum phosphorous was about I I Kgha.
Rego et ol. (19x2) mentioned the advantage of deep fertilizer placetnetit in receding
~noisture situations during rcrhi.
20
Under intensive cropping, phosphorous and potassiu~n nutrition is important,
phosphorous as a promoter for root growth (Venkateswaralu and Venkatasubbaiah
19x4) ant1 potassiutn for better grain growth and leaf-water relations (Beaton and
Sekhotl 19x5)
2.8.5 Plant Density and Row Spacing
A plant drlisity of 40.000- 135,000 pl;intsh;i :ind a row spacing of 75-00 cln
is reco~nmellded (CRItIA. IYXO) , but farmers use narrow rows of 30 c111 wit11 high
densities to 1naximi7.e fodder yield and quality. The practice was found to subject
hi sorglit~~ii to tertnilial stress a.i well as root and stalk-rots (ICRISAT, 19x3).
2.Xh Soil Physical Conditions !'!'illaee and Other Cultura! !'racticesl
(iencrally rout growth is promoted ill a well-cultivated highly drained soil
due to better root penrtration. Baligar and Nash (1978) found greater root length
in coarse (2-6 mm) than in fine aggregated soil; however, slnall aggregates resulted
in greater nutrient availability to roots. Baligar et.al. (10x1) found that a bulk
density o i 1.85 Mg m' affected sorghum root growth adversely.
Choprat and Nicou (1976) found that deep ploughing before sowing
illcreased root densities. ICRlSAT (1986) showed the advantage of deep tillage in
Alfisols on root growth. The author recorded yields of 3.22, 2.76. 2.52 Tiha for
deep ploughing (0.25 m), mold board plowing (0.15 m). and traditional tillage (0.1
m) respectively.
Wright er (11. (1083) found no effect of gibberellic acid application on root
growth, but ill pot experilnc~its ~iaphthalene acetic acid (NAA) and cycoccl (CCC)
spray illcreased root Inass.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MATERIAL AND METHODS
3.1 EXPERIMENTAI. SITE
The experiment was cunducted at ICRISAT Center (Intlii~) during 1992 wbi
SCLISOII. The site is locatetl ; ~ t a n altitude of 545 In ;lbovc sea level, IX"N, 7X"E in
Parancherti village, state of Andhr:i Prudesh (ICRISAT, IOXS).
The c1im;lte of ICRISAT C e ~ ~ t e r 1s ;I typical semi-arid tropical environment
characterized by a ~ h o r t period of rainf~l l (3-4 rnonths) and a prolonged dry spell
(8-9 months).
Three distinct seasons characterize this environment:
o Khurifor monsoon season, which usually starts in June and extends into
early October during which Inore than 110% of the total annual rainfall (760
~ n m ) is received. hi this season rainfed crops are raised (ICRISAT, 1989).
o Rabi or postrainy season extending from mid- October to January. This
season is relatively dry, cool with short days. Cropping is done on stored
23
soil moisture. The experitnent under study was raised during this season.
o Summer, the hottest season. It starts in February and continued till rains
cornmence in June. Usunlly crops are raised under irrigation.
The mean seasolual m;~ximum tenlperature is 32.5"~ and the minimum is
10.O"~. The daily pan evaporation ranges from 0.6 to 7.2 11un.
The experitnenlul site uhed was ;I Vertisol (Typic Pellu~tert. Kosireddipalli
series), ~ n e d i u ~ u deep (1.5 m) with o pli of 8.5. EC of 0.58 m. ~nhos/cm, organic
carbon of 0.4'7i and '1 bulk density of 1.3 Ucc.
3.2 EXPERIMEN'L'AI, 1)EI'AII.S
3.2.1 Treatments
Three irrigation levels were used. Tllese were:
1) No irrigation or control(10).
2) 20 mm irrigation level given at nodal root initiation (11).
3) 20 ~ n ~ n at nodal root initiation plus 25 lnm at panicle initiation
making a total of 45 ~ n l n (12).
All irrigations were given using sprinkler system during the night time when
wind velocity was at a minimum. The germination of the crop was effected by 20.4
24
lnln rainfall received ilnlnediately after sowing.
Four genotypes differing in their root characteristics were used ( Somun p
and Seethara~na N 1992). Eacli genotype was repeated twice to give two sets. The
genotypes were:
I) E3h-I
2) LAKAIII
3) M35-1
4) NAGA WHITE
3.2.2 Experimental Desia~i nntl 1,avout
The trrattncilts \$ere arranged ill a split plot design with nested classification
ill tlie subtle;ltments, with two repitcations.
Main plot tre;itriients were three irrigation levels and tlie Sub plot treatments
were four genotypes repeated twice within each tn;~in uentmerlt giving two sets (or
four total plots ) for each genotype x treatment i~iteraction. The field layout of the
experiment at BL3 during mbi season I992 is as foiiows:
I1 I
Field layout of the experiment at EL3 during rabi season 1992.
Main Plots (lrrigat~on levels)
I, = Control (no irrigation); I, = 20 mm at nodal root initiation; I, = 45 mm, 20 mm at nodal root initiation t 25 mm at panicle initiation
Subplots (genotypes), each repeated twice to give two sets
1 = E36-1; 2 = Lakadi; 3 = M35-1; 4 = Nagawhite
C = Center plot grown by M35-1 for mooisture observation
B = Border plot also grown by M35-1.
Gross plot size = 9 x 3 m
Net harvested area = 2.5 x 1.5 m
26
The gross plot size was 9 meter length, 4 rows width, with a row spacing
of 75 cm between rows. Total experimental area was 17x2 m2
Before sowing a basal dose of 125 K@a urea a~ id 75 Kgha of dialnlnonium
phosphate was incorporated. Sowing was carried out using a precision John Deer
Planter with four units. Seedling were thinned to n final spacing of 15-20 cm
between hills at 3 weeks after enlergence.
Intensive weed cont~ol (~n;lnt~nl) and pl;~nt protectioll 111cilsu1.e~ :~gai~ist pests.
~nailily thc h o o t tly, werc c;lrrieil out whenever Iiecessaty.
3.3.1 PI:lnt (;row111 Analysis
The platlt growth ;111;1lysis was done for both the root 2nd the shoot systelns
starting two weeks after the eliierge~lce of the crop (2 WAE).
A) Underground portion
Plants were saliipled at four different growth stages. These were;
I) First saniple at nodal root initiation 2 WAE.
2) Second sample at panicle initiation 3 WAE.
3) Third sample at 50% flowering of each genotype 7-9 WAE.
4) Fourth sample at harvest stage of each genotype 14-16 WAE.
3.3.2 Sarnoline Procedure
During early growth stages (~lodal root initiation, panicle initiation), as the
pl;rnts were still young, coring for roots was not done. Illstcad pl;lt~Ls were sampled
by digging directly to an approximate depth of 60 to 75 cln. The nil11 was to
recover as ~lluch ;Ir pohsible of their root systems. The area sa~npled was 50 cln
leilgtli of two rows (1.5 ~ n ) . At I;lrzr growth stages (50% tlowcri~lg dnd harvest)
and as the root syatellls of the differe~lt genotypes were well developed, a coring
[nethod was used to estimate root gmwth. The following procedure was ~dopted:
I ) A sa~lipling area of two rows each 50 cln Iengtli was conhidered.
Plillit~ ill thil; ; ~ r ~ a wcre clug out to :lbout 25 to 30 c ~ n to rrcover a11
the 1noi1;1l ;~nd b~;lce roots ;ittnched to the shoot ( i t 110dul ~lomber).
2 ) 'Thc top 10 clii soil (after pI;lnts were dug) was removed and all
visible rernaini~lg root5 collected. The weight of the coil removed
fro111 this area was recorded.
3) A rubsample of 10 Kg loose soil was taken, soeked in water
overnight, sieved thoroughly to recover most roots.
4) Six cores, each I00 cm deep were taken in the sampling area after
the 10 cln top soil removed. This was carried out by a coring
cylinder 5 cm in diameter. The soil from the cores was also soaked
in water overnight, sieved thoroughly and roots recovered.
5) The root weight in both loose ( I0 cm top soil) and core soil (100 cm
28
deep) were measured for each sub sample.
6) Total root weight on the top 10 cln wi~s calculated from the sub
sample.
7) Total root Irngth was also calculated to the total s a ~ n p l i ~ ~ g area from
the sub s ;~n~p le cores.
X) The total root weight frum both tlie 10 c111 top soil and tlie 100 cln
veil depth giive ;In estimate to the total root weight for each
genotype at each irrigi~tion !re:~t~ne~it.
For total root length, the thick root portio~is were ~neasured by a \tale. For
the thin portions a sub ~ a ~ n p l e of 0.5 g (fresh weight) of the 10 c ~ n top soil and of
5 g for the colr sunples were considered. Tlle lengtll of these was deter~nined
wing ;I Delta T Area liicter sepamtely. Totill lc~lgt l~ from both tlie top 10 cin soil
and the cures were calcu1;lted b;~setl on the total root weight for each p~~rameter.
The parameters recorded for tlie underground portion were:
3.3.3 Nodal Root Nur~iber
Nodal root\ number were deterlnined at each growth ,tiage for each sample
by counting directiy.
3.3.4 Total Root Leneth
For this parmliieter the salnple was separated into two portions;
i) The thick roots (> 0.5 111111 dinlneter)
ii) Tlle thin roots ( < 0.5 mm dia~neter)
I>uring early st;iges (nodal root i~~itiation, panicle initiation), all roots were
thin and ;~ccortl~ngly their length was !measured directly uaing ;I Delra T Are;[
Meter (MK2) to give an estimate for nodal root length. D u r i ~ ~ g later stages (50%
flowering, Ilnrvest), root.; bec;ltne thicker. The thicker portion was measured by n
scale, the thin portion by a Delta 1' Are;, Meter (MK2). The values of thicker anti
thinner roc.! per!lolis g:!ve an est1111ate of total no:!:! root length at !hehe growth
stages. Koot lziigtii Ine;i.;urelliznl was I,~ken ~ I I fresh roots.
3.3.5 Total Koot Mass
Rooe were transferred to an oven at XVC after their length was ~neasund
atid dried for 4X hours. Koot Inass at each growth stage for each sa~iiple was
determined.
3.3.6 Root L e n r t l ~ Density
Root length density is the ratio of the root length in the sa~npling area to the
soil volu~ne in that area. Root length density was calculated during 50% flowering
and harvest stages where coring was used.
B ) Aboveground Portion
A sa~npling area of 0.75 ~ n ' ( 2 rows x 0.5 m) per plot was considered
during each sample. Sa~nples were take11 at five growth stages, at nodal root
initiation, panicle initiation, panicle develop~iient ( 5 WAE), 50% flowering and at
harvest stages. Plant number in the satnpling area was deter~iiined. Plants were
tra~isported to the I:lb, separated into leaf blades, stems, leaf sheaths and
reproductive parts. The parilmetzrs recorded for aboveground portin11 were:
Platit height of different s;~~iiples ; ~ t each growth htage was ~iicasured for ; ~ l l
gznotypec. 'l'hc pl:!!!! !!eiglit w;~s ~neasured fro111 the bdse of the p!z!it to the !ip of
the filial leaf.
Total green leaf nu~ilber was deter~iiined at a11 growth stages except harvest
t ~ ~ n e .
3.3.9 Leaf Area
From the destructive aa~nples at each growth stage, leaf blades were
separated, cleaned and leaf area determined At nodal root initiation and panicle
initiation leaf area was measured on the whole satnple. At panicle develop~ne~lt and
50% flowering, a subsample of 113rd total fresh leaf weight was measured. Leaf
31
area at harvest stage was not taken. Leaf area was determined using an LI- COR
LI 3100 leaf area meter.
3.3.10 Leaf Drv Weiel~t
Leaf blades were transferred to an oven nt 80°C till constant weight was ob-
tained. Leaf dry weiglits were recorded ;it each sample for different growth stages.
3.3.11 Stern I)rv Weiglrt
For e;c11 s;itnple ; ~ t e;lch growtli stdge, s te~ns and leaf slieaths were
tri~naferred to ; I I ~ oven at 80°C; till constant dry weight wi~s obtained. Dry weights
for the four genotypec were recorded.
3.3.12 Shoot llrv Weicllt
The co~nbined dry weights of stems, peduncles and leaves were considered
to constitute the shoot dry wciglirs for each genotype at each sample during
different growth stages.
3.3.13 Total Plant 1)rv Weic l~ t
Shoot dry weights, panicles dry weights and root dry weights were sulnmed
to constitute total plant dry weight for each genotype at different sa~nples during
different growth stages.
3.3.14 Root/shoot Ratio
The proportion of root weight to shoot weight was calculated to constitute
root/shoat retio for all samples at different growth stages.
3.3.15 Stover 1)rv Weight
The genotypes were evaluated to their ability to prodi~cc. stover ;I[ harvest
stage. The shoot ;ind panicle dry weight? ~iiinus seed dry weight gnvr an estimate
to the stover dry weight.
3.3.16 Iiitr~n;~ss
The su111 of the shoot, arid panicle dry weights ;at harvest g;we an estimate
to total aboveground bioma~s.
3.3.17 Yieltl and Yield Cumyonents
The final sa~nple with at1 area of 250 crn length of two rows zach 75 cm
spacing (2.5 x 1.5 ~ n ) was harvested. The number of plants harvested were counted,
panicles separated and oven dried at 80°C till a constant weight was obtained. The
following yield parameters were ~neiisured:
1) Panicle length
2) Grain number per panicle
3) Panicle weight
4) 100 seed weight
33
After oven drying, heads were threshed manually and yield determined.
3.3.18 Harvest Index (HI1
The proporlion of biological yield transferable to econoliic yield is the HI.
It is worth mentio~iing that the underground and aboveground portions were
not significant with respect to tlle following parameters, and their probabilities were
~ io t given in the ati;ilysis of variance table, thehe we1.e:
i) Sets
ii) Irrig;~tion x hers
iii) Set I VS set 2
iv) Ivig3tion x ket I VS set 2
V) Genotypex xet I VS set 2
vi) 11rig;ltioll x genotype x set I VS set 2
3.4 NUTRIENT ANAI.YSIS
The analysis of nutrient was carried out at two growth stages, at 50%
flowering 2nd at harvest stages. At 50% flowering, !e;lves, stetns and panicles were
[nixed grounded together. At harvest, the nutrient an;llysis was carried out for both
seed and the rest of the plant. The following observations were recorded at each
1) Percent nitrogen and phosphorous.
2) Total nitrogen and phosphorous in the plant.
3.5 WA'PEK USE AND WA'PER USE EFFICIENCY
The mount of water used to ;I deptli of 100 cln ns well ah the efficiency of
using \v;lter ; ~ t ri~cll i11igati011 l r ~ r l W;I\ ~iilcul;lted. The etll~;ltion used for the
cnlculatiori WLS:
E'l' = Cliange in soil water content t Irrigation t Rainfall - 1)rainage - Runoff
The dlni11;lge n11d run off wcre ;~ssu~iled to be nil tluling the rohi he;~so~i.
Where El' s~alliis for cv;~po[~anspirntion.
CHAPTER 1V
RESU1,TS
4.1 CLIMATE
The ~neteorological tlatn durit~g thc experitnetit:tl period at ICRISA'I' Center
:Ire shown as Appendix I . Tot;ll r;litlfall during the period was 100.6 tnln. The
maximum was received during week 46 coilicidinp with the growth stages of
panicle develop~nclit and 50% I'lowerit~g. The crop was given n o irrigation other
than the trcarmetit.; under htu~ly.
The daily tiiaximu~ii and mitiimu~ii attiiuspheric te~iipcraturc.; were recorded
for all the week\ of the experiii1ent;ll period (Fig. I and Appendix I). 111 atltlitioti
to this ttlso the air tetnper;~tore ;ttid the soil tempcrutura (2 illid 5 C I I ~ soil depth) was
monitored duritlg the life cycle of the crop (Fig. 2 atid Appericlix 2).
4.2 UNDER(;ROUNI) PORTION
4.2.1 Nodal Roo$, Total Root Length and Total Root Mass Per Plant Ilurint:
the Seoson
At the end of the growing season, the irrigation seedling treattnentc were
significantly different with respect to nodal roots, total root length and total root
tnass per plant (Table 1, Fig. 3,5,7). Genotypes were also significantly different for
the root variables measured, but the differences atnong genotypes differed for
Standard weeks
Fig. 1. Temperature (Max, and in.'^) and rainfall (mm)
during the growing season
C o n t r a m d e p t h ) 20 rnm.[2c-! depth) 45 rnrn,(Z,c,m depth)
Fig. 2a. Soil temperature (k ) at 2 cm soil depth
20 '42 43 4h 4'5 4'6 47 4'8 49 50 5; 5; i 2 3 4 6 Standard Weeks
Control(5cmdepth) 20 rnm.[5-cy? depth) 45 mrn,l5,~m,deplh)
Fig. 2b. Soil temperature (k ) at 5 cm soil depth
Table I. Analjsis of varience table i haa inp degrees o l lrcedonl (UP), F-l'robability (F-PK) l o r nodal rrwt number per plant (NHPl."), total root lengt l~ per plant (TRI.PI:') and total root mass per plant (TRhII'I:').
Source v i V:ui:aio~~ l)F F-PR
NRPL' TICLPL' TRMPL'
3 X X X X X X X X X
2 XX X X
S:~~nplc K 1nig:tlion b
ST1 VS ST2 I
Genolypc.; 3 x x x X Y X IXX
S:1111plc x S'TI VS ST? 3 t
I ~ r ~ g ; i t n ~ n x STI VS ST2 2
S:IIII[I~~ A gcnolypc J XIX x x x x x x
lr,,g~,lI<Ill X :cll,Ilypc 0
ST1 VS ST2 r yc~iolypc 1
S:i~lipIc x Irr1p;alon x ST1 VS ST2 0
S.IIII[~IC x i r n ~ i ~ l ~ o r l x gen~rlyjlc 1 i:
S;IIII[I~ x S'I'I VS S'I? X Gelin. )
I r~~g ; i t~on Y ST1 VS ST2 x gemtypc h
CV((X) 8.1 2'9.X 20
- Nut siynihc:mi X X X P< O.IXI1 XX P< 0.01 x P<il.OS t P< i).lO
39
different root variables. M35-1, Naga White. and Lakadi had a maxi~nuni of I X
nodal root.; pcr plant co~npared to 14 nodal roots per plant for E36-I. Total root
length per plant for E36- 1 . Lakadi, and M35- I reached a ~nnximum of 13000-15000
cln per plant compared to only 7400 cln per plant for Naga White. The same
genotypes scored n maximuln tom1 root mass of 3-4 g per plant co~npnred to 2.6 g
per plant for N;~g;i White (Fig. 4.6,X). In N:~ga White the greater nodal rool.; per
plant were not reflected in t n ; ~ x i ~ n i ~ ~ n tot:~l root lengths per plant or total root Inass
per plant.
Nod;~l roots, total ruot le~igtll, a ~ ~ d totcli rant mas.; per pl;lnt illcl.eased rilpidly
tlitri~~g the v ;~~ ious growth alagcs (lurirlg the beason irrebpective of irrigation levels
and they reached a ~n;~xilnorn by either flowering for nodal root.; per plant (Kanitkar
et ul., 19x6, Myers, IOXO), (Pig. 9 ) or by flowering or harvest time for total root
lcngth and total root Inass per plant (Fig. 11,13). The irrigation seedling treatments
were significantly different for the root variables at eerly growth stages ( Nodal root
initiation, panicle initiation) for nodal root nu~nber atid totd root length per plant
but only at nodal root initiation for total root mass( Fig. 9.1 l , l3) .
The four genotypes showed a grand growth between the growtll period
panicle initiation and 50% flowering for nodal roots, total root length and total root
mass per plant as compared to either initial growth stages (nodal root initiation,
40
panicle initiation) or later growth stages (50% flowering, h;~rveat) (Fig. X,l0,12).
The grnotypcs were significantly differet~t at 5 0 6 tlowering for all the root
parameters a11d at p011ic1e initiation arid harvest for totill root length and at harvest
for total root tnass( Fig. 10,12.14)
4.2.3 Root I.enet11 Density
Root length delnity (cni root Isngtl~ u r n ' soil volutne) was ~ii;~xitilu~n at 50'h
tlowering for M35-1 i~ti(i L:ik;~di (0.25.0.2(1). Root length dcnsity cot~tintted to
increahe but with ;I Icsxr n~agnitude for E3h-1 ;111d Nagi~ White even after 501%
flowering (Table 2). At 50'h tlowering and liilrvest, the (liffcrctlcc between t l~e four
genotypes &?re \igt~ific;t~it( Table 3).
The effect(\) of itrig;~tioti level\ OII root lr~igth tlet~sity wcrc i t ) dgreetilent
with other result5 (ICKISAT, I')XL)). With the cotitrol tl.eattnent, root lengtl~ denaity
decreased between 50% tloweri~lg and harvebt growth \[ages. With 45 mln seedling
irrigation level, root length density continued to increase between the two growth
stages presutnably due to root branching at tleepcr horizons in the 45 tnm seedling
treatment. The difference between irrigation level? at both growth stages were not
significant (Table 2 and 3)
Irrigation
m Control m 20mm 1 4 5 m m
Fig. 3. Nodal root number per plant at the end of the season
as a function of irrigation treatments
Genotypes
1 E36-1 o Lakadi M35-1 D Naga white
Fig. 4. Nodal root number per plant of four genotypes at the
end of the season
Irrigation I control e3 20mm lil 15mm
Fig. 5. Total root length per plant as a function of irrigatior
at the end of the season
Genotypes I E36.1 Lakadl M35 1 Lsl Nagawhile
Fig. 6. Total root length per plant of four genotypes at the
end of the season
Irrigation l conlral 2omm E2 4smm
7g. 7. Total root mass per plant at the end of the season
as a function of irrigation treatmenfs
Genotypes
I E06.I D Lahadl &?i M35.1 D Napa whlte
Fig. 8. Total root mass per plant of four genotypes at the
end of the season
NRI ~ r o w t h
H AR.
Fig. 9. Nodal roots per plant for irrigation treatments at four growth
stages
NRI PI ~ e n o t ~ ~ e s ~ ~ ' ~ ~ . HAR. E36.1 Lakadi M35-1 Na@,,Whjte - .---. ,,.....,.
Fig. 10. Nodal root number per plant of four genotypes at four growth stages
100 SEf*) SE(*) SE(*) ! 2.7 38.9 3503 381 5
Irrigation 50"FL HAR
conlral .20mmmm ..$5mr?..
Fig. 11. Total root length at four growth stages as a function of
irrigation treatments
~ e n o t ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ HAR
E36-1 .bk@L .M35:1,, NWLWME
Fig. 12. Total root length per plant for four genotypes at four growth stages
46
30 - SE(+) SEf*) SEf*) SEf*) 9 10 . ,003 0.03 0.74 0.60
0.01 '
NRI PI 50%FL. HAR. Irrigation
c m @ ? a m 45.gm.
Fig. 13. Total root mass per plant(g) function of irrigation
at four growth stages
PI 5O%FL. HAR. Genotypes La$ada_dj M3$-,!. Naga,wh_ile
Fig. 14. Total root mass perplant(g) at four growth stages for four genotypes
Table 2. Mean rtmt lenpl l~ den$ity values (cnllcnl') for genoll~es and irrigation tre;itmenls at 50% flo!+ering ISIl% PI..) and I ~ a n e a t (IlhRJ.
.Clll% FL. HAR
EX). I 1121 O?X
'Table 3. ,\n;li)sis IIP Variance klhle fur root lengrlt density \Ilnainp degrees of lrcedcrnl (I)P), F.Prebahilily k;llue\ (I'.PR) . ~ t 50% nnserinx (5U%FI..l and Ih;~rvust ( I lhK) .
Source of rarht i i~n IJP P.l'l< a1
5111 kl.. HAI<
lcr~g;!ilun 1
S'i'l VS SIL I
Gelli>lypc i X Y X XIX
Irrlg.~lion ST1 VS S ' r L 2
ilrlg, x ticno h
ST1 VS ST2 X ( i c ~ ~ i , 1
i ~ . , , ~ . : s r l vs ST? Y I;CI,O
- Nu1 ? ~ ~ I I I ~ I ~ I C ~ I I I I r x x P< I:.iXIi
4.3.1 Stetn Dry Weieht, Leaf 1)rv Weight, Sltoot Dry Weieht and Total Plant
I)rv Weirht Per Plant
Stet11 dry weight, leal dry weight, slloot dry ucight and tot;tl dry weight per
platit for irrigatioli levels ;IS well as the four gelloiypes ivere sigtiificainly tlifferent
fro111 e x h c~tliet at tlir elid of the se;~so~i (Tahle 3 ;t~id Figs. 15.1(1).
The Atetll. leaf. shoot, itlrci tnt;~l t l ~ y weights incrc;t\etl ~tei~tlily t~glit 11.11111
liod;ll root itiili;~tioll st;tge till ;ill rc;~cI~(ld ;I tli;txitilt~~li Ihy harv~st titile for 11otll
irrig;ttio~i lev'ls illid geiloty~e\. TIIC p~owtli sii~ge betweell pat~icle itlitiatiotl,
p;uiicle t l e v e l ~ q w ~ n t wiis !!I? :~ctivt. grow!!! period n!!d ilu~ing it a I(\-!!? fnlds
illcrei~he iii stc~ii dry wcigllt colnp;i~ed to o11ly 4-7 folds iticl.ea\e for the s:tnie
parameter doring tlir gr11wt11 perinil panicle dcvelop~r~etit, 50'h tlowctit~g (Fig. 17).
Getlotypes uc r s sig~iifiiaiitly differe~~t for all ;tbovegro~~ntI paralneters dwing
growth stage$. notial root initiation, 50% flowering and hnrvcsl(Fig. 1'1.21,23,25).
Irrigation seedling trzattnents were not sig~~ificnntly different for all the pxalneters
at all growth stape. rxcept at 50 r/o flowering ibr leaf dry weight per plan! (Fig. 18.
20, 22, 24).
The interaction of irrigation x genotype was significant (Fig. 26)
Table 4. Analysis of vari:lnce table for r e m dry \reigB1(STDWPL") leaf dry weight (LFWI'I;'), s hmt dry seigllt (SIiDWPL:'I, and total plant dry weigl~t (I'D\VPI:'I slloainp degrees of freedl~nl (061 and F.Pr~~bubility (F-PR).
Source 01 v;ui:~lion DF
STDWPL" LFDWPL" SHDWPL' TDWPL'
Sn~nplc 3 x x x x x x x x x x x x
Gcnoiyprs i XIX xxx x x x XX I
S:unplz x ST1 VS ST? 3 I x
Inig. x ST1 VS ST2 2
irrig. x Geoa. (1
Irr~g. ST1 VS ST2 x 6 Gcno.
CV(C'") 20.2 19.9 18.5 14
- Not r~gnificmt xxx P< II.(XlI x x P< 0.01 X P< 0.05 t P<O.I
Irrigation l OOmm M 2 0 m r n m 4 5 m r n
Fig. 15. Total plant dry weight per plant(g)at the end of the season as a function of irrigation treatments
Genotypes E36-1 @g Lakadi M35-1 LSI Nagawhite
Fig. 16. Total plant dry weight(g)at the end ofthe season
function of genotypes
/....." stem
NRI P! sn%FL. H ~ R ,
Season
Fig. 17. Above-ground total dry matter production per plant in relation to under-ground total dry matter production per plant
* Means of irrigations and genotypes
Irrigation treatments Control 20 mni 45 mm - . - - - - ...,..., ,
Fig. 18. Stem dry weight per plant(g) during five growth stages as affected by irrigation
treatments
genotypes at five growth stages
Fig. 20.
SE(+) SE(+) SE(+) SE(+) SE(+) .02 .23 1.2 .ao .91
....... .... ...................... ;.... _-.. -.--
: ,------___. .. I : 8
.' t ,. ,
NRI PI PND 50%FL. HAR. Irrigation treatments
Control ?O mm 4 5 . 9 -
Leaf dry weight per plant(g) during five growth stages as a function of irrigation treatments
Genotypes
E m L;W/ M35:1 Nagajhite
Fig. 21. Leaf dry weight per plant(g) during five
growth stages as a function of genotypes
Irrigation treatments
Contra1 ?O mm 45mm
Fig. 22. Shoot dry weight per plant(g) during five growth stages function of irrigation treatments
Fig. 23.
70 sE(*) SE(*) SE(,J SE(+) SE(+j
60
50
40
30
20
10
8 2
O NRI PI PND 50%FL. HAR. Genptypes
L3.6.L CaWi M.35-1. N a ~ l k w M t ~
Shoot dry weight per plant(g) during five growth stages function of genotypes
Fig.
. , : , .' , .. .
NRI PI 50%FL. HAR. Irrigat~on treatments
CQOIUI ZQmm 45,mm 24. Total plant dry weight(g) at four growth stages
function of irrigation treatments
E36-1 Lakadi M35-1 Naga-wute - . - - - . , , . , . , . . Fig. 25. Total plant dry weight(g) of four genotypes at four
growyh stages
10 1 ' I I
oomrn 20mm 45mm Irrigation
E36-1 Lakadi M35-1 Nagawhite - . - - - - , , . , . . . , . - - -
Fig. 26. Total plant dry weightfg) as a function of
irrigation x genotype interaction
The rootlaho~lt r , ~ t i i ~ illcre:i.;e<f d ~ ~ i l l i g thc ' i r l im1 i ~ ~ e s p e ~ t i v e o f tile level o f
i l~ip; l t io11 [ill i t reached ;I i t i a x i l n~~ t t i hy 5(11b t lower~t ig ~ 1 1 d the11 decl i~ied wi th t ime
(Fig. 2 7 ) . Tlie \;lliie t~.t.~id aa.; observsil for llie four g~.tiotylies. A t ;anthcai\ :IS we l l
;IS l lodill r ~ u t i ~ i i t i : ~ t i o~ t :111d p;l~licle ~!i
Tdble 5, hlenn let11 area and Ie;~f nun~br r as a funrlion a1 irrii(.~lion \cedlinl: 1re;llmesfs and eena~~pec.
NRI I'I PND i l ' l l . Nil1 1'1 I'ND i l l tL~l'I
1 1 1 i l ? 1 1 1 0114
' I ? 711 7.7 1.6
J S h X l1l.l 'Ill
i(5 71) 1115 0 0
1 X , I l l 1 ' J I
i 11 7 l i X X <IJl
L 1: L L , ~ i,xc:1 LN: Lc;~f n11111hci
0.06 I I 2
NRI PI 5094FL. HAR. Irrigation
Fig. 27. Rootlshoot ratio as affected by irrigation treatments
during four growth stages
0 1 ' I I d NR! PI 50%FL. U.4R.
Genotypes €36-1 - Lakadi M35-1
, . . , , . . , , Naga white - - -
Fig. 28. Rootlshoot ratio of four genotypes at four growth stages
4.4 YIE:I,I) AND YIBI.1) ,VlI'RIHII'I'ES
4.4.1 Plant Height, P:~nicle I.eneth, (;rail\ Number I'er 1';111icle, 100 Seed
Mass, Yield, Stoker Weicht, 1!io111:1ss 2nd Ilnrvesl Intler;, l io~~ct io l l of
Irr ieation ant1 (;enotvpes
Differstiur\ betwrcii i r ~ i g . ~ t ~ o t ~ Icvelj \wrc not SI~III~IC;III~ i v i t l~ recpect to
grain tiu~nbsr pel. ~;IIIICIC, 100 \ C C ~ III,I\\, yicltl. \lover weiglit, hia~n;~es, ;~ntl linrve\t
itidex, but the tilftere~lczs uert. c i ~ ~ i t f i c , l ~ ~ t I'or p la~i t licipllt :IIIII 1pi111iu1e Ic11pt11 ('I'ilhle
0). ( i e ~ ~ o t y l ~ r \ \\$ere \ ~ p t ~ i t i c i ~ ~ ~ t l y i l i t i r ~ ~ ~ i t t'o~ ~>I;III~ l ie i~ht , pi1111cIc IcII:~II, I00 e t ~ 1 1
II~;IS\~ yiclci, \to\,ct w c ~ g l ~ t , I~~oIII,I~\, ;III~ II,II~VC>~ III(ICX (Tall l~, 71. 111 II~II~JC~~,
\1?5-1 wit11 ;I t i ~ , ~ ~ i ~ r n i i n yirlcl 11 i 3.25 T l l i ;~ wlicrc ;I\ N:I~;I Wl~i tc l1:1(1 ,I II~~II~II~IIIII
c ~ f 1.56 T/ll,i (1.1~. 20). l<y ;11ipIyi11g 20 III~~I :III~ 45 ti1111 1rr1g;itioll ceedlitig
tsc:ltmentc t11c yiclil ,~tlv;r~lt,ige in h i~ l~ l ia\s p~u(luctton over the c1111t1ol w;~s 1.24 ;lnd
1.711 '1'111;i rr\pectivcly.
4.4.2 Interaction Kffect
The irrigatiot~ x ge!ivtypz i~~teract io~l was aigr~ificant with respect to p l i ~ t ~ t
height and grain lumber per panicle (Table 8). The Nags White gellotype although
with greater nutnber of grai~is per panicle but it was not reflected illto maxilnuln
yield presumably due to low 100 heed mass (Table 7).
'Table 6. Plant h e i ~ l ~ l O'L.HI, p;lnitle lenglll (I'NI.), grain nunllrrr per p;lnicle (1;KNI'N 'I, lUll seed mnrq (101lS>1), yield, * t~ncr acigl~l (Sl'O\\'l'), l ~ i ~ ~ n ~ ; l * s (IllOl, and Il;~rrert indni (1111 ;L\ allecled by irrimtion tre.lllnrnls.
-. . - Inig. PLH PNL (iKNl'N1 IllOShl Y~cltl STOWT R I O HI
(CIII) j ~ l l l ) -- I?) iiil~.~~ c.rnl:,i ~T,II,II -
Ill 152 I i Y loll.$ i.15 ? t o I45 7 l1.411
I1 17? IS11 I 1.21 ?(>I J.IX h.'lll ll 17
I? 17X 1x7 lr l ih I : ' 1 4 4.71 745 1137
S E ( i ) 117 111.1 412 IIIY 1127 1142 1107 lllll
rV(% I 4.10 5 70 i.? Xllll 14.711 IJ? l l 14.III l i . l l
Table 7. Plant lleigl~t iPI.IIl, panicle lenjitl~ (I'NI.1, grain nultlbcr per p;lnicle I1;KNI'N 'I, 100 seed nla*r (IOIIShl], )ield, sturer \\eight (S'TOWI'), bionl;~rr (IllO.), :~nd Il;lrve>l index (HI1 of f ~ ~ u r ~csol jpcr.
Gcnil. PLli I'NL. CiRNPN ' liN1 Shl Y ~ r l ~ l S'IO\YI' RIO Ill (~111 ) (~$11) (p) (T~I;I) ('I'~I,I) (rn~.~!
E3h.l I56 !I! IOYh l.hIl I J.4tl 7 4 2 ll.dll
L;I:ldi I54 X.L l l I I4 iJ1X ?.AX .$.I)? 7 30 0.14
h l l i - l 212 18.5 I IX? 3 6') 125 5 X.XII 1) I 7
N1g.1 14s 22.2 IiIX 245 I . i h 1.75 ,311 1147 ~lllll:
PLH (iHNI'N1 I (ilINI1N I'LH (;I<NI'N l1l.Il (;I<NIIN ' (~111) i i l l l l ICIlll (<I111
I0 1511 I l l 1 I I(HIl1 IS7 'IS0 IIi, X')I
I1 158 000'~ 157 11101 221 i!JI 151 1553
12 I<') i l i i IhLl I?45 L?X 1\17 15') l C l i
S E ( i ) 4.0 101 I'LH (;RNt'N1
Lakadi Nagawhite Genotypes
yield stover weight biomass
Fig. 29. Yield, stover weight and biornass(T1ha) of four genotypes at harvest
Velical bars are standard errors, a (for yield),b (for stover weight) and c (for biomass)
4.5 WATER USED AND WATER lJSE EFFICIENCY
Water use e f f ic ie~ icy w:is higher wi t l i the ~ n l i t r o l trr31111e1it ;111d low ;I[ [lie
45 I n m xed l i l i g in ig ;~ t ion level ( T ~ h l t . 0). The t o l i ~ l :imoulit o f w;i!er used by the
crop during thc 5c;laon het.tiied to he low prc..;l~tiiably d11c to the fact t l l ;~t tlic prof i le
wah ot i ly wl i iplct l l o ;I t ie l~ t l i o f 1011 ~ 1 1 1 . 'TIIc v i ~ l i ~ c \ \ \ ; ~ t r r I I \ K ~ I ly IIIC clop were
s i g~ i i f i c ;~~ i t l y differelit for lie 45 111111 ir l ig;~t~[ i l r hcetl l i t~g level ;IS cotiip.~~.cd witt i the
other trtiitl>letit.;. The per c c ~ i t \n t l moi\ture for ir t igi i t iol i tre;1tliienrs : ~ t 0-50 nil
50-100 c ln \o i l deplli uel.e \ i g l i i f ~ c , ~ ~ i t ;at ~ ; r r I y 91:lgcl; (Fig. 30).
Mo \ t ot tlic ~ lu l l ie l r t II.I!:I!K!~~\ wr le ]lot \ iplr i f ic;~~lt !y tliffcrc~!! :t 50'7~
ilnfic111ig or ;I! I ia~?c\t ~IU\\III \tCigrl; (''1t)Ic I 0 ; r ] i ( i I I ) , 'Sli~s ~ i i ~ r y 111ipIy tliitt ~ l i c
i r t igot io~ i Ievelh had 11o r i g ~ i i f i c d ~ i t ilnp;ict r ~ t i liutrlellt absorpric~t! :I!!!! !lie d i l fc rc~ iceh
between getlotype5 wcrc due ~ i i ; ~ i ~ i l y to differcncc.; betwee11 tlie irrig;rtin~i scetllil ig
trent~ne~lts ;!lid l iot l o differelices ill ~ i i ~ t r i e t l t ;~v;~i labi l i ty tn ~ h c geliolypes.
Irrigation
a)
24
.g 22 - ?? 3 20 +d 0 .- 0 E 18 - .- 0
16
14
Fig. 30. % soil moisture at a) (0-50 cm) and b) (50-1 00 cm) soil depth for irrigation seedling treatments at four growth
SE(*) SE j t ) 2.3
SE(*) 2.4 0 75 0 48 ............... X" ' , "
I,..,
. x - - - - - - - - - - \ :...
('(.<.. ... ... .,. ... .'. t
' ' NRI PI 50% FL HAR
SI:ik) 1127 11.07 111 I I .R 3.7
('ViU ) 14 .1 I J I I ? ? I / / IJ.l - - -. .- - . -- -. -. -- - -- -
Table 10. Nutrient ; ln.~l~\h nt flo\rering ill18 Ih i~ r~c \ t \I111\vin~ the PCP cent nitrogen and p l~~np l~~~rnu . ; ;at fl~~\!erini: l%,NFI.l, I'7cl'FI.I,:1nd h:lr\c.\t \t:lgel i%Nl I~ \ l< l , ('inl'llAR) ;and totel ni t rqen :and QIIIII~IIII~IIII* :11 IhoI11 \l:lgu J'I'NFI.), (.l'I'Ell,l, ('I'NIIAKI, (TI'tl,iK).
lir.1 '{NFI. ' iPFL I'NFl. I l l ':NIiAI< 'II'HAR I'NHAII TI'IIAR (;en - (~N/II I '~ (~l'/ou!l .- ~&!N/III~) I~I'IIII? -- -- - 10 175 I l .? i 514 11.71 1172 il.iIc) 5 11.16
S ) 1l.lIh IlOI~Y 04h I I ! ! ! 11.1103 11?7 I!SI.!
1011 1.1.1 l i l t
I 0 0
!I ' i5 1 10 I I V i I l l
11111) l i b
--
I NWI' 'I l'\V13 (pNh11:l [gl'/o$)
7 1111 1 { O 7 'I? 1.51 X ' J i I. i i l
/Ill/ 11.12
8.78 I r7 7.07 l 10 7 h5 l . \ l l 7 ?I 1.07
11,4(, I1 Ill 1 7 ~ 1 I I r
. . . . . . - - - .- - --
DISCUSSION
At n c ~ t l ~ ~ l rvtir i ~ i i ~ ~ , ~ t i t i t i , tlie hcedliiig 1rrigilti1111 t ru,~t~ i ie~r t \ wcle .;ig~iiticirlit
lor :111 the ~ ~ ~ i d r r g ~ t l i ~ i i ~ l i i t t i i l ) ~ ~ t c ~ . ,A1 p ;~ r i i ~ l t . i ~ i ~ r i i i t ~ o ~ i , 11e1d,11 r1111t IILIII~OC~S ; ~ t ~ d
loti11 I'OI)~ l r ~ i f t l i per 1iI:riit ucrt. \ ~ g ~ i i f t ~ , ~ ~ i t hot 11111 111,. 111I;ti IOI I~ 111~115.
Cie~lotypes ill boll1 l ioi l ,~l root alici p;lliiclc inltlittlti:: st.~gt.\ wcre liot
~ i g ~ i ~ t i c ; ~ ~ i t rxccpt I'or tot;~l 1ix11 lvtiytli at pir~riclc i ~ i i t i ~ ~ t i ~ ~ ~ i tiiiic. ;111tl in ;I res(11t tlic
tn i t i , i t i t~~i vt 110d;lI root.; 1'111. genotype\ proueedccl w r t l i i l ~~ t I)CIII~! \CVI,ICI~ ~C~IULCII
(Ji~rt i ; i~i 1.f (11. ILJ7'J;i). 'l'liv lout I r~ ig th w;tr the i i i ~ i \ t he~ihitivc root polatiieter tn
~scc i l~ t ip \tnge \oil nioi\turc t ~ r i l ~ i i i e ~ ~ t j . 'l'liib W;I\ eviderit hun l tlie \ignificirnt
v;~ti ,~t~uti i n rant Iziigtli betweell genotype5 at pu~iicle initr;rtio~l, but not in tlic other
root pnraincter$ (11otl;rl ~ n ~ ~ ~ n h c r s t ti el total root ~iiuss).
5.2 AIIOVE(;KOUNI) POK'I'ION A'I' EARLY (;ROW'I'H STA(;ES
In contrast to the underground root parameters, the aboveground portion
(stem, leaf, shoot and total plant dry weight) at early growth stages (nodal root
initiation, panicle initiation and panicle development) continued without variation
73
between the irrigation seedling treatnients. This ~nny be due to differe~itial nodal
root in~ti;~tion (due to IIT~B;II~O~~ tre;~t~iirnts ~ i o t i~it l ict i l ig * ig l i~t i~; l l i t ;1boveg101111d
variation as the ~rod;ll root.: wcre still young : ~ t theye st;lgcs).
l i y lh;~rvcrt 11111~. 111e , I I ~ o Y C ~ ~ I ~ L I I ~ ~ I IIIII~IIIIU~CI\ (rtc111. Ic.~f. \ l i ~ i ~ t ; I I I~ t111;11
plalit (IIY ivc~glit) r r ~ c I i ~ , l 11le1r III~IY~II~UI~~. At SO'/lr [I~IW~IIII~ illid l ~ i ~ ~ v e \ t tillle t l ~ e
ier t l l i l~g i ~ ~ i g i ~ t i o ~ i t re; l t~ i le~i t~ (i1~1 111it vary betweell thelii, I h t there W;I\ ;I trend of
111crease ill ;~bovegrou~id portioli.: with 45 111111 see(llilig irrig;~tion t le;~tnle~it i ~ s
colnp;~reti to 2(1 Illin 01. colitr l~l treatment. Leaf area but not lc;~f nu~iiber was
iignific;~ntly different at SOLh t'lnwerilig for irrigation treatlncnt.:.
Genotypes at both 50% flowering and liuvest time showed a sigliificnnt
vacation between them ;~nd this was particularly true for M35-1 and E3h-1 with
respect to stern, leaf, shoot a~ l t l total plant dry weight. The values of green leaves
area and their number at 50% flowering were lower as compared to those at panicle
7 4
tlevelopliient stage pre\utn;lbly due to leaf sc~ie~ce~ice ;I! 50% flowering.
The iiicrcace ill rocit p;lr;lllieter\ (11~il;ll root ~ i i t~ l i b r r , tut;~l root Icngth i111il
total root IIYJS.\) ;111d it% t ~ r ~ i i i n ; i t i ~ ~ i witli a I~I,IX~II~LII~~ eillirr ;~ t 5O'h flowering or
h~rvcst was in i igrer~i i r~ i t WI~II ~ ~ t l i e r \ludir\ (Myres. lLIXO: I:~~k;ii ( '1 (11.. lc)X6). 'I'lle
irrigatio~i sretlli~ig trr;rt~iictits t l i~lugh were 1101 \I~III~IC;IIII ;it 50% f l u ~ e r ~ n g ;11id
h ~ r v e \ t t i ~ i ~ z for ~~~ id r rg lnu t id P(II~I~II~\. I)11t t ~ ~ i [ l e d to ~ I I C ~ ~ ~ I S C ;it l i ~ t l i st;~ges with
45 ~ n i n .;eedling tlcatnielit. Ciriiiirypr\ \rcIr %ign~t ic ; l~~t tor ;dl tlic IOOI ~ ~ ' ~ r ; ~ ~ i i c I e r s
both ;~ t SO'h f loweii~ig ;111d II;IIVC\~ t i ~ i i r .
1lltl1i1iigli 1111: I~~I~IICI~I l ~ t i i l \b:itcr LI~I;I~C I I I ~ l ic i t IC:ICII tlie \ ~ g i i i f i ~ a ~ i t levcl
for bur11 tile \ e e d l ~ ~ ~ g i~ r ig ;~ t io~ i tre;lrmetitc ;111d gelliitypc\. but III~IC W;IS ;I ~ ( ~ ~ i \ i s t t ' t i t
incre;~ae in the aiiiiiulit uf water il\ed ill111 n u ~ i e n t uptake will1 45 n im rreat~ncnt
compared with 20 111111 a1ii1 ~ontro l . The nutrient uptake during 50Lh floweri~ig was
consistently greater for Nags White, lakadi ;lnd M35-I . This way due to greater
secondary root initiation in these genotypes as compared to E3h-I (Fig. 10). 'I'hc
low final yield in Naga White may be due to less adaptations of this genotype to
robi environ~nent and the early flowering. The final greater yield in E3h-I ]nay be
due to Inore adaptations and more compensatory growth ~nechanisliis in root
characteristics.
75
I n this study, i t w a s evident that. the sig~~if icant differe~~res ill the seco~~d:~ry
root growth between the heedling isr ig t ion tre:itmcllts and its tendet~cy to vary
between genotypes during corly gro\+th sl;iges (nod;~l root initintion ilnd p,~nicle
initiation) Ih;ld co~it~ibuteti to bettel top water ; i t ~ ( i 11urrie11t uptake. 'I'his waa cleiir
fro111 the greater Iltltllellt upt,~ke ;I[ 5li'A f l k ~ \ v c ~ i ~ ~ p ;III~ 11;1rvcht in 4.5 111111 see(lli~ig
treiltiiient ;III~ it\ I C I I ~ ~ I I C ~ tu i~lcte;l'ic ft111I1cr i j i , ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ i l ; ~ ~ l y for N j \v i t l~ Pv1.35-I ,111d
E3h-I. Thi\ pcliiit Inny lhelp exl1lai11111p t l ~ e s ~ p ~ ~ i i i c i ~ ~ i t tiill'erc~iucs between
The eflect i ~ f i r ~ ~ g a t i u ~ ~ level.; ~ I I r u l t l e ~ ~ g r l i ~ ie~ ls i t y was cuinlx~riiblc with
other \tudie\ (I('RISA1'. 10XcJ). The root lellgtli density c o ~ ~ t ~ n ~ i c c l to decre;l\e
hetween the growth stages (50% flowering and l ia~vest time) due to contl.ol
treatment, where the root length density continued to increase between the growth
stages with 45 mln irrigation aerdling level. This tnay be due to Inore ioot
branching at deeper soil layers contributing to total root length density in 45 tnrn
irrigation seedling treatment (ICRISAT. 19x9). This study has also shown that the
root length density can continue to increase even after flowering. The low root
76
length denxity v;ilucs of Nogii White as ~.o~iipared to other genotype.; at the two
stages and with its final low yield ~i i ipht s u ~ p c s ~ the i~iipoitanue of the root le~igtl i
density to yielti. I t is to be 111r1itionc.d that. N;ig;i Wliite w;ls Inor all ,ldapted ~ r h i
cultivar and it is ;I pliutopcriodic \cli\itivr c ~ ~ l t i v . ~ r and tlvwercil e;irlier tlid11 thc
uther genotype\.
l',~hie 12. K e l ; ~ t i ( ~ ~ i \ l l i ~ betweell ~ u o t lc~lgtl i dcnuty (KI-I)) ;it li;~rvc\t :111d yield fol toll1 ~ellOr).I'c~.
-- . . ~ - - - ~. - ~ - - .
The hig~~if icant iricrease in the rootkhuut ratio at nodal root ini l iatio~i and
panicle i~iitiatlon In;ly bc explained by tlie greater root activity a~ntl develop~nent ;at
early growth stages as cotnpared to that of the slioot system. Tlic tlecline it1 the
ratio after 50% flowering was also noticed in different studies (Wani el (11.. I Y X X ) .
The low root/shoot ratio at tnatiirity (as compared to 50% flowering values) was
presurnably due to the reduced root growth after flowering or the death o f root
77
portions after SO% flowerillg where n ~ i t r i e ~ ~ t s slid a\i i~nilatrs are directed towards
the grain. The low root/slioot ~a t io \\;is rrportrti to be adv;~~it;igeous in supprei\ i~ig
the w e d growth ~ ~ n d e r Inoit ~ o n d ~ t i o ~ ~ s (Evetti 1.1 r~ l . . 1'17.3). ;I point in f;ivour of
k135-I and E30-I
Tllougll the ieedl i~ lx i r r ig ;~t io~i t1e;ltlni'lits Ii,~d 11o effect on final gwin
IIIII~LIC~ ;i!~ct I00 x c t l ~ii:i\~, 1>11t 11 %cc~iic[ l t l i ~ i t ihc c,irIy 1i11gc g rowt l~ dif l 'cre~~cc\
'l'l~c h ig~ i i f i ~a l i t ~ l i fSe~e~icc\ h e t ~ ~ e c n 1111. ( I i i fc~cnt gellotype\ to1 ill1 yield ill~l
yield colilpolieiit\ vuiild be ~cl;lted t r ~ tlw s i g ~ i ~ t i ~ i i ~ i t differc~ices in the runt ;~ttrihute\
(nodal root number, length ;111d 111;i\%) ~e\ultetl clue to varying su~face \oil ~ l io iht i~re
levels during early g ~ o w t h 5t:igei. The initiation of the root pi1ralneter5 at early
stage resulted in a well ertnblishetl ahoot system protluced on atlequate flipply o f
water and nutrients during subsequent growth stages (SO flowering, halvest) (Table
10 ant1 I I). The combined effects of the root and shoot parameters resulted in a
well developed source capable o f supporting a well developed sink, since yield
realization is the ultimate manifestation o f the source potential. Due to this,
7X
gellotypes s i ~ c l ~ as M35-l which l i ~ v e tile ' ih~ l i ty to initinre lliore seuo~~dary roots
during t.;~rly st:lgrs of growt l~ (Fig. 4 n ~ l d IS i ore ;ible ro supporr tile p1;111t wit11
adsr]u;itc wutcr allti l~utr iel i tr (tllore for hl3.S-I) 1hro11g11 s~~hsr t l l l rnr growth ;1111i
ultimarcly may Ihdve had co~itrtbured t i ) l i e l d (111orc for M35- I ) (Fig. 20 ) .
N K I 1'1 I I I i A R ~ . . -~ - - ...-
So~ lC i l ~ o o t I I~I I I I~C~ 0.il l (I. I I il.00 0.53
111 i l~di;~, it is the t11i1d llltljor ~eret11 g r o i v ~ ~ on a11 ;!reg aho11t 10 111iIliti11 h ; ~
in both the r;iiny and tlic /?/hi seo\oci accr~u~~ti l ig for 13% of thc g ~ o s s uroppctl area
ill thc \emi-ar1~1 parts of the cuuntry tTarhnlka~, 10x6).
The rcihi sorghum of Indid is grown in storeti soil ~i io~\ture I I I about 6
~liillion ha accounting to less than 30Lh of the annual sorghum protluctioc~ ill lntlia
(Tondon Kanwar, 1984). Since it is grown in drying bolls, early seedling
establishment and early vigor becomes crucial for stable yields (Soman and
Seetharama, 1993). Both the seedling establishment and the early vigor in the rc~hi
notldl roots which can supply tile crop with ndctlu;~te nutriclit illid w;~tcr to sust; i i~~
platit groktl i .
111 l l i i \ st11ily. \,~1i,ili1111 ill r t lo l i~ ig ~ I I ~ I I ; I L ~ ~ ~ I ~ \ I I ~ \ 1hct\\ce11 d i j jc rc~i t gc110tylies
1 1 l . i ~ lhc d I,IL;\,I 111,tl L.III ~ ' \ ~ l 1 1 1 l r t 1 ill 11iilili.bi11y ~ t i / ) i \(II~IIIIIII ~ i ~ o i l ~ i ~ t ~ v i t y . '1'0
~ c \ t t l~i, l i yp t~ r l~c \ i \ ,111 e \ l i c r ~ ~ ~ i c ~ i t \\,;I\ l;~icl OIII 111 %I yllit 11Iot ~ l c \ i g ~ i WI~II IIC\ILXI
~ l ; ~ ~ \ i i i c a t i c i ~ l \ ill tlle \tlh lrc;lflnclil\ wit11 tlircc irsig.~ti i i~l t re .~ l~ i i t~~l ts il111111[: tlic ~ s n l i
c \ t ,~h l~\ I i rne~i t \t,~pc (( 'u~itrol, 211 111111, 45 ~ i i ~ i i ) i t \ ;I ~n;liti IIII)~, fill11 Sellorype\
(I.ok;~rli. 1J3h- I , X135- I , aliil N;I~;I White) e;lcIi ~epe;~ted twice t i ] coli\lttote two ~ e t s
;IS sub rrcatlnelits atid two replic;~tiolis.
Total s;linfaIl at ICKISA'I' Center tlurillg tlie experimental perintl w;~s 100.6
nim. The crop genn~~intet l aiid established on 20.4 Inm rainf,lll. The irrigation
treatments were applied between I to 2 weeks after the emergence o f the crop.
A t the elid o f the season levels of irrigation seedling treetlnents as well as
genotypes were significantly different from each other with respect to nodel roots
XI
nulnber, total root length. ;itid tot;il root iliaas pcr pli~nt. Nag;! White gellotype. It;id
greatcr nuniber of iiod;~l roots per pl;~lit, yet ;it the end of tlie season i t h;td less
tot;ll root length ~s ivell ;I? less tix;~l loot 111;1\s 'This W:IS ;ittlibuted to rllott hut
thick noiial root.; which did not ~iroiluce ;I c~ilnp;i~sblc Iiigli total root l e i i~ t l i :i~iiI
total root ni;l\\ as the oilier gelllitypr.; (M35-I ;11111 F3h-I).
R{iiit lenfth dcnfity w l~ ich I~~C,I\IIIC~ tlie ~ o ( i t Iellgtli per unit ~ ~ i l u ~ i i c of \oil,
C O I ~ ~ I I I ~ I C ~ to ~ICLIC~I';~ ~vi t l i tlie ~ i i l i t rn l tre;ltliicli[, but increi~hcd w ~ t l i 45 t1i111 scc~lliiif
irrigation level betwee11 the glowth 5t;lgeh (50'h flowering allti Ii;irvc\t t i~ue). Tlic
differences between tlle two tre;illiietits at both growth atages were aigtiific;~nt. Tlic
three getlotypes E3h-I, Lakadi, and M15-1 had greater but significantly different
final root length density compared to Naga White. The (rend of i~icreaae ill root
length density with 45 ml i i seedling irrigation level was explained by greater root
branching at lower soil profiles resultitig in greater total root length as well as total
root mass per unit o f soil volume.
82
Tlie aboveground g ~ o w t h par;inieters (stern. leaf, hoot, and tot;rl dry wciglirs
per plant) conti~iued to i~icreasc steadily duritig tlic hrasoti i~~es~icct i i ,e o f i r r igat i~r i
level.: or genotype.:. At the end of the sc:tson. total plant dry weight for irr igntio~l
levels a.: ivell :I.: gcllotypc.; were s i g t i ~ t i c ; ~ ~ ~ t l y drtfc~ent f ~ l l t l i e i ic l~ ~~ t l i e r . The ste~iir
and pil~iicle.: contributrtl riiiirt. 111~111 XI1 I~CI t ~ i i t to !lie t~ t ; i l I~I;III~ d ~ y n'eiglit
cotiiparetl tu ~ i i ~ l y 7 pcr cent c n t i i r ~ l i t i t ~ t ~ ~ i liy 1111. root 111;is.:. '['lit. grc:itcr growtli l i t
root5 ii111i thc \liour.; o b \ c ~ ~ t . l i 111 \ r ~ ~ r i c Scriutylie\ c.p. M Y - I , explains the
Hoth Ic:if are.1 ;i11(1 Ic,I~ 1111riil)cr ~ r i ~ r r ~ i v e c l \te;ld~ly during tlic sen.:orl re;icIiing
tlietr n i ;~x imur i~ beforc SO'k f lowcr i~ ig tinie J I I~ tlecreahcd tlicrcefter clue to Icirf
.:criesccnce. Leaf area and leaf nu~nher for genotypes were significant at nodal ~.oot
initiation but riot for irrig;ltioti treatlnentr.
A t h;~rvest time, genotypes werc aigr~ificantly different from each other with
respect to grain number per panicle, 100 seed mass, yield, stover weight, biornass,
and harvest index. M35- I the classic ruhi variety was significantly different from
X3
the other genotypes \*,it11 rupee[ to tllcse ottribures. It see l l~rd tlint tile pc~ lo ty l l i c
diffelellces i n the root i .h;~r;~cte~~\t ic\ i i i i ~ i i ~ g tllr e:lrlp \r;lgcc II;ICI c o ~ i t r t b u r ~ ~ ~ l to
more nut riel it allci water opr;ike \rllli.I~ In'ly Iidd rcsulted ill tlre sig11itic;lllt
di f f i lel ices i n the shoot I),i1;llncrcr\ ohre~ved .It I;ltrr t;lgr'\. 'l'lli\ 11,111 fin;llly
coiitrihuted to ex11l.11n the d i f f e r r ~ l ~ c ~ \ ill y i c l ~ l . \tovcl \veiglit. ;lnd b i o i i l ; ~u ill thc
I i igl l yielding genotypes tc\ti.ii.
The trend of tnore water ;lnrl nutrielit upr:ike was expl;lilied a\ a result o f
significant initintion o f root attributes at el i l ly atages due to different treatments and
n trend of differences between the genotypes in the root parts at the .;ame stagcs.
Baligar V C ;111d N;I?III V E 107s Sorgh~1111 10111 gtowtli ;IS i t i t l ~ ~ e t ~ c ~ d by so11 physical properties. C u ~ i i ~ i i ~ ~ ~ l i c ; ~ r i o ~ ~ . ; In Soil Scie~icr ;~nd I'lil~it A~i;~Iysis O:SX3-50J.
Baligtir V C, Na?~l! V E. Wliirler F I) illid Mylirr D L. IOXI SOS~~IIII!~ ;ltid s ~ y b e d ~ i growrli ;IS intlue~iced by ~ y n t h t t ~ c p;~tis. ( 'u t l i~ i i in i ic ;~t~o~~\ it! S u ~ l Scicncc and Platir Analyris I?:07- l07
B111lii A. A ~ k i ~ i (; 1: ,111(l Joti1;111 \\/ I< I1177h So1~11111ii root I I IO I I I / I I I~C I~C\~ ;III~
gro\!,tIi, I - I:t'ti.ct of I~~~IIUIIIY ~CIIC\. ('1.1111 SCICIICC 17: 140- 153.
Rlutii A ;lntl Kirclie J 'I' lVX4 Effect t i fso i l ritrklcc water culltcnt on rorghuni Ioot di.;tribution In thr \oil. 1:icld ('rol!s Ke\earch X: lh0-170.
Bur R. Morad P and Berduoan J 1'177 l~nportance of \a~n i~ ia l ;in11 adventitious roots for growrll ;111d c;~tiori tiutrition ill grilin s~rgl iut i i (S~I~~IAIII (10cli111l). Plant and Soil 47:l-12.
Chala~n Ci V ant1 Venknteswtrrlu J 1'165 l~itrotluction to agricultural botany in India. Asia Publishing House. Volutiie I. Asia Publishing tloi~se. Bolnbay pp 358.
Chi Hsiu-Hui 1'142 Histogenesis in the roots o f (Holcw' sor,qhum L.) Iowa State Journal of Science 16: 1x9-205.
Choprat J L and Nicou R 1976 Influence du labour sur le developtnent radiculaire de differents plantes cultivees nu Senegal consequences sur leur alimentation
X 5
hydriquc. Agro~iomi Tropicale 31:7-27.
Choudl~ari S D 19x9 Production rech~iology ~ n < l ;I liew line of \ vo~k to i~i iprove whi sorghu~~i productio~~. [';per p r r rc~~ ted t i~rr i r~g the w o r k i ~ ~ g group llleeting OII p r o d ~ ~ c t i o ~ ~ technology of rrlhi sorphu~ii, Iielil ;I[ [lie Ce~iual Research l~istit irrt for Dryl; l~i~l Agri~.l~lture (CRIIIA), Ilyder:~b;~d. Septenibe~ 19, 19x0,
C ' u ~ k J H (19x5) Cas~av:~. N r u pvtent1.11 for .I ~ieslcctc~l crop. I~ i rcr~i ;~t ion;~l h f r i c u l l u ~ ~ l I)evelopmc~ir Srfiice. Ho~~ l l l r r . I I S A , pp 101
E. ,~a t~n . ' J I), Sul l iva~~ C Y , Ren~~ett J M, l)hopte A M, (;eriik T.1, ( i ~ l ~ ~ z a l e z V A, Let: K W. Ogi111lc1;i V ,111d Rice J I< 10x3 Sorgl i i~~i i rot ;111il \talk lot&, ;I criticdl ~evieiv : Prilcectlings of the co~isoltativt: p~oup tl i \cuhsi~~n on Re\earcli Need5 aliil St~ategies for co~i l ro l of sorghuni rot and stalk rot diseases, 27 Novc~iiber-2 December 19x1, Bellagio, It;~ly. In IC'RISA'I' (Intern;~tionsl Crops R e x a r ~ h l~irt i tutc for tlic Se~ii i-Arid Tropics), Pataiichrru. Alldlrra Pradcsli, 502 324, India 19x4.
Evetts L L ;lnd Burnside 0 P 1973 Early root and shoot developnie~it of nine plant species. Weed Science 21:2119-29 1.
Freenlnn J E I970 Development and structure of sorgliu~n plar~t and its fruit. pp 28-72. 111 Sorghum production and ut~lization (ed Wall J S and Ross W M). A V I publishing cotnpany. Westport. USA.
Fukai S, L iwa C J, Henderson C W L, Maharajan B B, Herrnades R C. Scarle C. Herbert S W and Foale M A 1986 The field perfor~nance o f induced
unicul~n grain sorghum (SOI.,~/IUIJI h i ~ ~ n l o r ~ ) in Soi~tli-E;15t Queensl;~nd, Australian Experi~iient;~l Agriculture. ?2:303.~lO?.
Hackctt C 1073 A grouth ;in:~ly.;i\ of y o u ~ ~ g sorgliuni root system. Aus t~ ;~ l i ; l~~ Jou111aI o f Biologic;~l Scic~ice.;. 26: 121 I-1214,
I lnr i K r ~ s h ~ i a J 10x1 IJcing rniiifnll for supylcmcnt:ll irrig.itio11 of Vertisols in 11idi;r. R;~inw;~ter stld tlryl,ln[l h g ~ ~ c u l t u ~ e pp 76-33 (New Dclhi. In(li:~n N;~tion;~l AC:IL~L'III~ of SCII.IICC.;).
Cfo~igcilboo~i~ Ci. I luck M (i :\lid Peters~i~i C M 1087 Koot growth r:ite of soyhe:~~i ;I.; nffcctcd by tlrLi~igllr htrc\\. Agroiio~iiy JUIIII~:I~ 70: (~07-fl l4,
I lurd F. A I'JOX (jruuth of root.; o f \rvcli v;iiiet~es of spri~ig wllc;~t ;it high ,~nd low ~nriisrurc luvcl.;. Aprono~iiy J~ior~id l O(l 201-?(IS.
I('K1SA'I' ( l ~ i t e ~ ~ ~ a t i u ~ l : ~ l ('rap\ Kc~t.; lrcl~ l~ is t i i i~re for tlie Senii-Arid 'l'ropics) l'JIJO A ~ i ~ i u , ~ l Heport for 1%'). I'~it;~i~cIieru. A ~ i d h r ; ~ Pr;idc~h. 312 324, I~l(li;i pp 10.
Jurci;~~i W K, Mc Cray M and Miller I-' R 1070a Co~npenaatory growtli in the crown root system of ~arghum. Agronomy Journal 71: 803-806.
Jordan W R. Mil ler F R and Morris D E 107')b Genetic variatio~i in root :111d hhnot growth of sorghum in hydroponic.;. Crop Scie~icc I9:JhX-472.
Jo\c R. Pardales J R and Kono Y 1990 Develop~nent of sorghum root system under increasing draught stress. Japanese Crop Science SV(4) 752-761.
Kaiga~na B K, Teare I D, Stone L R and Powers W L 1977 Root and top growth of irrigated and non irrigated grain sorghum. Crop Science 1: 555-559.
Kale S P 1989 robi (Winter) sorghum production technology. Paper presented during the 19th annual sorghum workshop, AISCIP, May 8-10, Tamil Nadu
X7
Agricultural University. Coitnbutore.
Kanitkar N V. Sirur S S and Gokli,ile D H 1968 1)ry For~ii i t ig in India. (3rd rd). ICAR. New Delhi pl1 470.
Kannan S LOXI The reduction o f P t l atid lecovery frcini chlorosis in Fe-stresseti sorghu~n seedlings: the ptiticipal role o f ;~dvetititious roots. Jourti;il o f Plitnt Nutrition 4. 73-7s.
Kislev bl ;III~ Kc~~i tc I i E 1070 i lech;it i is~i i \ (11 ICICII ~ i c t i t i t ~ i t i ~ i t i 11f \cc~ls g e ~ t i ~ i ~ i i ~ t i ~ i g oti the \oil \ulfacc. Alin;~ls o f t lot;~~iy 43: 87-92,
'v1;11ie V S :III[/ Shi~igtc A K 1482 IJx of ~ i i ~ t l c l i For c ~ i ~ i s c r \ i ~ l ~ : ~ l i o i \ t u ~ c ;1ti11 inire;i \ i~ig i l ic yielil o f ro tg l i u~n 111 dryl.ciid. Ilidi:111 JUIIII~,II ot A g ~ i ~ i l l t u t i l l Scienc~, 5 2 : 1%-462.
hl:ttt~ti .I ll. 'T,I~IOI J \V :11111 1.1.11ke 1- I035 I : t t ~ ~ t o f so11 t~.~ i i l )e t ; t l~~le ,11111 ~ l e / i i l i o f lp1'11it11ig (111 rlic ct i tcrgrl iw c ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~lcvc l i ip t i ic t~t ot ~orgl iutt i \cr[Ilitigs ill t l ~ e ~ I C U I iou\r. J~ iur~ i i r l o f Anicric:t~i Society 11f Ag~ot iomy 27: blrtl-665.
M ~ ~ l i . t e l Ci and Sicler - Kc lb i t i l i b1 1072 (:yt(ik~liili c011te11t dtt(l kcr11i.l \ I ~ C o f b ~ r l e y lines affcutcd hy ctiviron~lie~llal and gctietic f,tctlll\. ( ' lop S~iet lce 12: 162- 165.
!vIirliudi M J a11i1 Kubayajhi Y ILjXO 'The rel;~tionaliip bctwccn llie growth o f plant organ\ o f grain sorghutn hybrid. Jnpntietc Jour~ial o f Crop Science 49: 420- 427.
Moriteith J 1, IYXh Significance o f the coupling between sat~tratioti v;lpur prcssure deficit and rainfall i n monsoon cli~nates. Experimental Agriculture 22: 320- 338.
Myers R I K IOXO The root system o f a grain sorghutn crop. Field Crops Reaearch 3: 53-64.
Nwanze K F, Reddy Y V R and Soman P 19'10 The role o f leaf surface wetness i n larval behavior o f the sorghuln shoot f ly (Athrijio~lcc socmtcc) Entomologia
P:lssioun J B 10x3 Roots and ilr:iilgiit ri.si~t;~iicc. !\gricultur;~l Water bl;iiinprmciit 7: 26.5-2XO.
Peacock J M iintl Hei~iricl i ( i X1 IOXJ Liglit .llitl ICII~~CI..IIII~C ~CII)IIII$CS ill ~ ~ r g l ~ i ~ ~ i i . pi? 143-1% 111 Agro~iieterolngy of 5urgli111n ;II~II 111illrt ill !lie Senii-Arid Tropics. I'rocecdi~ig OE the Ititer1i;1tio1ia1 Sy~i iposi i~~i i . 15-20 K~)v~ i i i be r 10x2 lirlil at lCRIS.4'l' ( l ~ i t e r ~ ~ ; ~ t i i ~ ~ i ; ~ l C'iiips I<e5~,1rcli 1115titi1tc for t l i t S ~ ~ i i i - A r i d Tropic>) f l ;~t~~iicl~eri i , 502 324 l~ id i ,~.
K;IC \ (i 1'. V ~ t i y : ~ l ~ l i ~ ~ \ l i ; ~ ~ i a ~ i ~ I< V ;II~I~ I<;II~;I B S 1077 I<ecc~~t tlc\'elt~{iiiic~its ill $orgl i t~~i i brceil~ng in Intli;~: 111 pliint hrcedi~ip, I);I~ZI. 2. 3rd I~ i tcr~i ,~ l io~i ; i l C u ~ i g r e ~ \ of the S!\BRAO Scctinn 7: 7-1X.
I<;io R h l M S and K ;~~ i i :~~ ia t l i H 10X1) Protluction teclit~olngy r~ l ' rob i \orgli i i~i i i ~nprov r~ne~ i t . Paper pre\e~ited at tile AlCSIf' a~ i~ i i l a l workvliol), 2-4 Marcli l9XX. C S Azatl U~i iver \ i ly ol' A~I~LIII~UIC ;11id 'Te~l1110l~>gy, K i i l~p i~ r .
Rerlrly H V S liiX5 Consultnncy report to II,CA/E~iiharapi~llPA. II'A, AV, GAL., San Martin, B o ~ i j i 500011, Recifepe. Br;izil.
Retldy B V S, Seethara~na N iind House I, R 1987 Sorghum in postr;~iny season: Effect of soil moiature and datt of sowing 011 day5 to flower, and grain and stover yields o f diverse cultivars. Experilnental Agriculture 24: 31-36,
Rego T 1, Morghan J T and Sardar S 1982 Some aspects o f soil nitrogen relating to double cropping o f a deep Vertisol in the Semi-Arid Tropics. 12th International Congress o f Soil Science 6: I 16.
Rice J R and E a m i J D 14x6 Gr ; i i~ i sorgl iu~i i root respolisr to wilter ;~l ir l tenlperature during reproducti\.e develclp~i ir~it . Crop Science 26: 547-551.
Seethara~na N. Flower D J , Jay;~cli:i~~dr;ili R. K r i s l i ~ ~ ; ~ K K . Pe;~cock J M. Sing11 S, So i i ia i~ P. Uhha A a ~ i d Wani S P IOXX Asscss~nent o f ge~icitypic diiferences i n sorghuiii root characteri\iic\. l 'roceedi~ip\ o f the l ~ i t e r ~ i a ~ i o ~ ~ : ~ l (II~II~~C~S
of I'l;111t PIiyL;iulogy. New U e l h ~ . liiili;~. Febril;~ry 15-20 I'JXX.
SeelIi,ira~ii;i N, t l u t l ; ~ A K S ;III~ 5lo11tritli J I, IYXX S ~ i g l i ~ ~ ~ i i ill ~IIC Sc~i i i -a t id '~ropic\:Agsoi.liiii;~tology, pliyhiology ;IIII~ ~ ~ i ~ > i i c l l ~ ~ i g . l ' ; ~ p c r ~ ) s e ~ ~ ~ i t ~ d ( I i i ~ i ~ i p the \y i i i ) )~ i \ i i i t i i ti11 L~I~.II\, I~i tcr~i; i t io~i; i l I' l~itit l1liysioIogy ('o~~grtsL;, 1:cL~. 15. 20 , IOXX. New [ lel l i i , l ~ i t c r t ~ i ~ r i o ~ i ~ ~ l ( ' i i~ph Rchra~c l i 11iht1111te for tlie Se~ i i i - A i i i i 'l'rci]iic~, l ' s i t ; ~~ i c l i e r~~ , i111dli1:i l'r,t[ie\li S(l2 324 II~~I;I,
S ~ c t / i ; ~ ~ i ~ i i i ~ i N i t t i r l S i i ~g l i S (O~~ l ) i i l i l i \ l i c~ I l I('I<ISA'I' J ~ i i i ~ ~ i ; ~ l A ~ t i c l e NO. Oll.3, 111) 3 . III~~II~;I~~OII~I~ ('IIII)\ KCI~~IILII I~ i \ t i tu te tlic SctiiiL111i~l 'l'~[lj>ics, t ' : ~ t ; ~~ i chc r~~ . l ~ i d i ; ~ ,
Scc~Ii.is;~iiia k, Singh S ;III~ I<e~lcly I3 V S I')Xlr ('roll p ro ( I u~ t i v i t y ill \111rciI llil 1iio1\t111.1: e ~ ~ v i r ~ ~ i ~ i i e l ~ t : 11 L;I\C \tiltly \bit11 tlic por;trailiy \c;i\oli O'c~i~i) \ ~ ~ ~ g i i u ~ i i i n l~ i t l i ;~ . I('I<ISi\'l' ( l ~ r t c t ~ i ; ~ t i o ~ ~ ; ~ l ('ropy Ke\c;iicli I~ i r t i tu tc Ibr thc SCI~I-rZ~it l l ' lopic\ i . I',~t;l~rcliei-u. A ~ i d l i r i ~ l'ra[le\li. SO? 324. 111(11;1.
S r r r l i ; t n m ~ N. S111gh S a1111 Keiltiy H V S I 000 Strdtegie~ h ~ r ~ ~ i i p r o v i n g f.trl)r sorghu~ti protiuctivity. l'roceedi~ig\ [ i f thc I ~ i d i : ~ ~ i Natioli;~l Scic~icc A~;i t feiny B50 No. 5 and 6 pp 455-467.
Seetli,~mliin N, S ivaku~nar M V K, S;irdar S and B id i~ i ge r I; R IV7X Sorgliuln productivi ty under receding soil ~i ioisture i n 1)eccall Pl;~teau. Paper presented at !he lnter~iat ior ial Sy~npos iun i on Biological Applicutioli o f Solar Energy 1-5 Dece~nber 197X, Madurai University, Iiidi:~.
Seethara~na N. Wade L J, Peacock J M. Ver~ua P K, Rego R J and Sardar Singh 1YX2b Effect o f nitrogen and water stress on leaf area deve lop~r ie~ i t i n sorghum pp SYS-hO(l In Plant nutrition. Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. A Scaife, Slough. United Kingdom.
Sivaku~iinr bl V K nlid l iudn A K S Ic)XS Solar energy i~ t i l i za t i o~ i by uopical sorghu~ii. Agricultural Forest Mett.orology 35: 47-57.
Siv;lkulnar hl V K ;III~ \'ir~li;llii S M 1082 '1.h~ ~)llyslc;ll CIIV~~OIIII~~II~; ill snrghu~ii i n the eighties. lnterti;ltional Clop.; Re\r;lrcIi It~stitiite for the Se111i-Arid Tropics, Pati~~ichem, I~ id i ;~ , pp X3-l(l0.
root glowlh of ~ ~ a s t - r . ~ i ~ i y se;1.;u11 (rlrl>i) s t~ rg l i u~~ i , l i \ p c ~ i ~ i i e t ~ t ; ~ l ~ Igr icu l ture 28: 331-341.
Tnrlt lo~i I1 L S .illti Kat~w.lr J S IL)81 A review of f e ~ t i l ~ z r r (I\? rese;lrch 011 sorghu111 111 ICKISAI' Ke \c ,~~ch f3ullctiti No. X. I ~ ~ t e ~ t ~ d t i n ~ ~ i ~ l (1ro1is Rc~e;~rclt II~~IIIIII~ f o ~ IIIC Scll~i-AricI 'I'roprc.;, l ' i ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ c l i t * i ~ ~ , I t~d i ;~, SO \I[>,
1~1111,1111 N K IVSO ( ' o t ~ \ t ~ ; ~ i ~ i t n f 111.1i(I~ctivity ill 1(11it \1i1gli11111. f'l~l)ct ~irchctlted dt l r i t~g tlic wo~k \ l i i > l i grotq) ~ i i ec t i~ ig 1111 ~ ' I ~~L I~ I~ I I I I ' T c c l ~ ~ i ~ l o g y L I ~
S u ~ ~ h ~ t t i i , I ir l t l , ~ t the ('cnt1,11 Uc\e:t~cli I ~ ~ \ t i t ~ l t e 101 (iryl;l~i(l Agriculture. Ily(ler;~ilad. Scptc~i i l~cr 10. ILJXIJ.
Vcnk;~te\warlu J i111il V c ~ i k ; l l ~ l h ~ l h l l ; l i ~ V 10x4 Kespn~i\c ol I,~I/JI sorghutlls to ;rpplied tn~~t~ ientu ;lntl \ub-\ol l fcrtlllz;~tinn. f';~per pre\etltetl .I[ tlic Dlinrw;~rtl, AISCIP AIIII~I~I~ SO~~~UIII W[~rk\liol), 3-0 May IOX4, l J ~ i ~ v e r $ i t y ot rlgricultur;~l Sciences.
Verlna B 107X Runoff water for h l u ~ k uil.; o f Kurnar;~ka. I1itlii111 I:;~rti~ 28: 36-37.
Vidyabhushi~~iam K V IOXO St i~t l l \ o f l.(lhi hr1rgIiu111 lliiptnveliirtit 111 111[liil. Piiper presented ot the AlCSlP anllual w o ~ k \ l ~ o p , 14-16 May 1086, Hydel-;lb;ld, Andlira Prutiesli Agricultuml Univer\ity.
Vincent C and Gregory P J 19x5 Differences in the growth ;~nd develop~nent o f chickpea seedli~ig roots (Cicer aricri~rum). Experi~ncnri l Agriculture 1986, 22: 233-242.
Virnlani S hl. Siv;lkuni;ir h1 V K a11d Reddy S J 19x2 Rainfall prob~bi l i ty estilnates for selected locnrions of se~ni-arid Indi;~. 2t1tl ed. Inrsrliational Cropa Research Institute for the Se~ni-Atid Tropics, P;ttanclieru. I l~dio. 170
PP.
Wani S P. Sl la r~w i~ t K L and Lee K K I9XX Effcct of nitrogrli level< oti tiitrate reductase and nitrogr~lilse activity, dry Ili;ittrt ,~cculn~~l;~tion iitid tiitriigel~ ahsilililation of pcit grown sorgliit~il and pe;lrl tiiillcr pl;lnts, l i l~ l i~ lh l is l ied M;iliu\cript \ i i b~~ i i t t rd to pl.~tit and soil.
Wright S A. Jord,lti W R, h.lurg:it~ P W .~tid Rlillct I: I< IOS.1 (ic11'1ic t~iid liortiio~i;~l c01 i~o1 ot \1100t a1111 root gro\vtli [if sorgli~i~ii. ,\~I(IIIOIII~ JOIIIII~I~ 7 5 : hX2-hXh.
Ya1n;lz~ki K and Neh.tllioto 1' 1083 t1~ilii<lry 1.1101 t ' o ~ l ~ i ~ ~ t i o l ~ ill g r o ~ i i l j : \lioots of scvpr:il ccrt,;~l crop\. J;~p.ltlcre .10i11ti,tI of ('roll SC~CIICC 52: 3d2-3JX.
Appendix 1. Metaorological data far the growing season at ICRISAT Center (Rabi season 1992).
-------------.......-.....----...-.... .....-- . - - - - -~-- - -~- . . . - . . . - - - - - - - .
STD R A I N EYAP TMXY TllIN RIi01 F!Il~l :.!IN@ . U N ' . I I I I I E 'LILHAI) WEEK m rm I' C V a I : I!>. iMJ /n , "2 i l l l
. .. .. - - - ~ ~ - - - -----. .------. .---
1 0 . 3 .!'i .I,
.; i , 1,
.: ' . i ,, !I . . .'.. R ! I , (2
: . t j
. . I i ' t , , '
' C . 1 3.0 41. ,3 ! . 1 " ! I 'I 2 0.0 4 0 . : ! H I ' I < , , . I '4 $1
0.9 2 q . 2 : 1 , , . 1 i ' i t ,
1 . ) *1'4.2 ' , r ' l , I '1 3 1 5!.': I ! 1 1 I I 10.11 2 . ' ) 14.; I n . ,i: 3 ' ! . I I ! ! l ' l
Appendix 2. Soil temperature at (21 and ( 5 ) cm soil depth and air temperature ( O C ) above tho crop. -
Standard TO TO TI T1 T? TZ A i r - iu'rek 2CM 5Cl l LCM 5CM ZCEI 5CM Trmp.
-- . . . -. . -- 1 2cl.l 23.0 22.4 2 . 1 2 3 . 2 2 2 . 9 20.8
