ESTIMATION YIELD AND YIELD COMPONENTS OF PROMISING CHICKPEA GENOTYPES UNDER DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CHALLENGE HERBICIDE

  • MOHAMMED ALI HUSSAIN Dept. of Field Crop, College of Agricultural Engineering Science, University of Duhok, Kurdistan Region-Iraq
  • ABDULMALIK MOHAMED RASHID Dept. of Field Crop, College of Agricultural Engineering Science, University of Duhok, Kurdistan Region-Iraq
  • REBAR SULEIMAN NAIF Dept. of Field Crop, College of Agricultural Engineering Science, University of Duhok, Kurdistan Region-Iraq
  • VIAN YOUNIS SULEIMAN Protection unit, Directorate of Research, Kurdistan Region-Iraq
Keywords: chick pea, challenge, yield omponents

Abstract

A field experiment was carried out in sandy clay loam during winter season 2020-2021 at the field of Agricultural Research Center, Duhok. Two promising chickpea genotypes (FLipo7-223C and FLipo7-245C) using in this study derived from crosses per formed at international center for Agricultural research in Dry Areas (ICARDA). Four levels of challenge herbicide use 0, 0.5, 1.5 L ha-1). The experimental units were laid out in randomize complete block design in three replicates. The results indicated that the Flip 07-245 c chickpea genotype was superior in first pod height (29.5 cm), main and secondary branch per plant (4.383 and 6.808), 100 seed weight (40.409),number of nodules per plant (84.83) ,number of pods per plant (42.67) and total seed yield (267.89),while the best challenge herbicide was 1.5 l ha-1 because the dose gave the lowest value 8.5, broad leafed weed and 2.33 for narrow leafed weed, there for the seed yield increase with the increase the rate of challenge herbicide. The seed yield correlated positive and significantly with first pod height (0.35), number of nodules per plant 0.828, number of pods per plant (0.537), number of main branchy (0.774) and secondary branches per plant (0.683), while negative significantly with number of broad leaved weed (-0.675) and plant height (-0.705)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Agrawal. T, Kumar. S, Kumar A and R.R. Kumar. 2018. Correlation and coefficient Analysis for a grain yield and yield components in chickpea under normal and late sown conditions of Bihar, India. Curr Microbiol App sci 7:1633-1642.
Ahlawat. I. P.S, Singh. A and C.S. Saraf. 1983. Studies on weed control in field pea. Indian J .Weed Sci., 15(2):217-222
Ahmed. Am, Tana. T, Singh. P and A.Molla.2016. Modeling climate change impact on chickpea production and adaptation options in semi and North-Eastern Ethiopia. Agric. Environ. Int. Dev. 110:377-395.
Ahmadi, A, Mousavi. S. K, Ghiasvad .M and A-Hasan and 2013. Investigation flora and distribution of weed species of field peas (Cicer arietinmL.) in khorramabad. Inter J. of Farming and Allied Sciences. 2(16), 537.
Banik. M, Deore. G.N., Mandal .A.k. and P. Shah. 2017. Selection of yield contributing traits in chickpea genotypes by correlation and path analysis studies J. Pharm Innov6:402-405.
Datta. A. Sindel. B. M, Jessop P.R.S, Kristiansen.P and W.I .Felton 2007. Phytoxic response and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinmL.) genotypes wit per- emergence application of isoxaflutole. Australian. J. of Experimental Agri:47 (2):1460-1467.
Emenky.F.A, O.Ahmed, S.Khalaf and N.M Salim .2010. Influence of tillage and weed management on chickpea yield and its components.Pak. J.Weed Sci. Res. 16(2):189-198.
Hassan, G, I. Khan, 2007. Post emergence herbicide control of Asphodelus tenuifollus in desi chickpea. Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 13(2):33-38.
Ijaz Ahmad-khan, Rahamdad. K, A. Jan and S.M.A. Shah 2018. Studies on tolerance of chickpea to some pre and post-emergence herbicides. Emirates .J.of food and Agriculture. 30(9):725-731.
Khan .I.M, G. Hassan. I. Khan and K.B. Marwat. 2011. Testing of herbicides at various doses on the growth stages of wild onion growth in post. Sarhad. J. Agri.27 (1):85-91.
Knott. C.M and M.H. Halila.1988 weed in food legumes: Problems, effects and control methods. P.535-548. In. world Crops: Cool Season Food Legumes, Current Plant Science and Biotechnology in. Agriculture (R.J. Summer field, ed). Springer, Dordrech. Dol: https: // doi.org /10.1007/ 1978-94-009-2764.3-45.
Kochar .I.K, Kumar. M and S. Dhawan.2009. Association with major rabi crops of district srigananagar. Indian J. Weed Sci.41 (3and4):220-221.
Mckay, K, Miller. P, Jenks. B, Riesselman. J, Neill. K, Buschena. D and Bussan .A.J. 2002. Growing chickpea in the Northern Great plains. Extension Bulletin- A-1236. North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, USA, 8.PP.
Mohammedi. G, Javanshir. A, F.R. Mohammadi. S.A, Zehtab Salmasi S.2005. Critical period of weed interference in chickpea. Weed Research 24(1):57-63.
Mozhgan. V, Eskandar. Z, Mehdi M.M and B.Kambiz.2020. Review of research on weed management of chickpea in Iran: Challenges, Strategies and Perspectives. Journal of plant protection Research.60 2:113-125.
Raj. V.C, Arvadia. M.K and D.D. Patel. 2010. Effect of integrated weed management practices on rabi green gram. Green Farming, 1(4):377-379.
Shivch and Rakar and V.C. Raj.2018. Response of chick pea (Cicer arietinmL.) cultivars to weed management practices. A Review Trends in Biosciences. 11(3):262-267.
Taran. B, Warkentin. T.D, A. Vandenberg and F.A. Holm. 2009. Variation in chickpea germplasm for tolerance to imazethapyr and imazam or herbicides. Canadian. J. of Plant Science. 15(4):139-1.
Published
2023-05-18
How to Cite
HUSSAIN, M. A., RASHID, A. M., NAIF, R. S., & SULEIMAN, V. Y. (2023). ESTIMATION YIELD AND YIELD COMPONENTS OF PROMISING CHICKPEA GENOTYPES UNDER DIFFERENT LEVELS OF CHALLENGE HERBICIDE. Journal of Duhok University, 26(1), 175-182. https://doi.org/10.26682/ajuod.2023.26.1.18
Section
Agriculture and Veterinary Science