Effect of nipping practices on growth, development and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties

Introduction

Chickpea which is commonly known as gram and Bengal gram is grown in India during rabi season and it is the second-most major pulse crop after pigeon pea in diet and other uses. India is undisputed leader in global chickpea production which accounts for 65% to 75% of the world's total annual chickpea output. Chickpea in India is cultivated over an area of 9.0 million ha producing 11.08 million tonnes with a productivity of 1231 kg ha -1 , contributing 35 to 42 per cent of the national pulses acreage and production, respectively. The chickpea production in the country had gone up from 5.5 to 11.9 million tonnes during last five decades, registering a modest growth. During the same period, area increased from 7.83 to 9.99 million ha and productivity has steadily increased from 663 kg ha -1 to 1192 kg ha -1 . Average yield of some of the improved chickpea varieties reported by Anonymous (2023) [1] were like GJG 0809 (16 q ha -1 ), GNG 1958 (26.8 q ha -1 ) and CSJ 515 (24 q ha -1 ). As we can that the national productivity was much lower than the average yield of high yielding varieties of chickpea in our country. So, it becomes necessary to know the reasons for this yield gap. Among various low yield attributing factors, luxuriant growth of the chickpea plants may restricts the number of branches and ultimately the yield attributes causes the lower yield. The over growth of the foliage can be reduced by nipping practice at specific stage of growth which may be helpful to decline the phenomenon of apical dominance and enhance the initiation of more branches and ultimately encourage the more and more flowering, fruiting and grain formation and enhances the grain yield of the chickpea (Aziz, 2000) [2] . The different varieties of chickpea may vary for showing the response to of nipping for enhancing the growth and yield attributes as well as yield. The crop growth and yield of chickpea varieties under nipping at various stages help to pick the foremost promising variety in term of yield potential. Grain, straw and biological yield of chickpea crop were significantly influenced by the different varieties and nipping. The yield diversity concerning different varieties may also be caused by variation in pod bearing ability and therefore the number of seeds per pod (Choudhary et al., 2020) [8] . There is highly significant difference in the interaction of chickpea varieties with nipping which indicates that different varieties of chickpea reacted in a different way to nipping (Khan et al., 2017) [12] . Considering these facts in view, field experiment was conducted to study the effect of nipping practices on growth, development and yield of chickpea varieties.

Materials and Methods

An experiment was conducted on chickpea during rabi 2023-24 at Crop Research Centre 3 (CRC3), ITM University, Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh). The experimental field is situated in the Northern part of Madhya Pradesh and situated in Gird zone at the latitude of 26º13' North and longitude 76º14' East with an altitude of 211.52 meters above mean sea level. The soil of experimental field was sandy loam in texture having organic carbon 0.42%, available N 213 kg ha -1 , available P 2 O 5 12.7 kgha -1 and available K 2 O 247 kg ha -1 . The average annual rainfall of this region is about 750mm. The average temperature ranges between 4.0 °C to 47 °C. The experiment was conducted in factorial randomized block design with two factors and replicated thrice. The first factor consisting 4 nipping treatments viz., N0; no nipping, N1: nipping at 30 DAS, N2: nipping at 40 DAS and N3: nipping at 50 DAS; and 3 varieties viz., V1: JG-12, V2: JG16 and V3: JG-36.

The full recommended doses of nitrogen (20 Kg N ha -1 ), phosphorus (40 Kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 ) and potassium (20 kg K 2 O ha - 1 ) were applied at sowing. The chickpea crop was sown in lines 30 cm apart using a seed rate of 80 kgha -1 . Nipping was done at 30 DAS, 40 DAS and 50 DAS in the respective treatments. All other agronomic and plant protection measures were applied as per recommendations. The data on various growth characters, yield attributes and yields were recorded under various treatments. The results were analyzed statistically to draw suitable inference as per standard ANOVA technique (Gomez and Gomez, 1984) [10] .

Results and Discussion

Effect of nipping practices on growth parameters

The data in Table 1 reveals that plant height (56.0 cm) and number of primary branches (11.5 plant -1 ) were significantly higher with no nipping treatment (N0) followed by nipping practices (N3) done at 50 DAS (48.8 cm and 9.5 plant -1 ), nipping practices (N2) done at 40 DAS (42.6 cm and 8.6 plant -1 ) and these parameters were significantly lower in nipping practice (N1) done at 30 DAS (35.7 cm and 7.4 plant -1 ). The reduction in plant height under nipping practices done at different growth intervals may be due to the removal of apical portion containing auxins which probably reduced apical dominance of auxins and arrests the vertical growth of plants and begin to produce secondary branches instead increasing plant height. As in nipping practice, the apical bud is nipped and so the utilization of the photosynthates by the crop for secondary branches could be higher and this might be the reason for reduced plant height with nipping treatments (Khan et al., 2018 and Bhavana et al., 2019) [5,11] in chickpea. The higher plant height with no nipping treatment (N0) compared to nipping practices at 50 DAS, 40 DAS and 30 DAS was mainly due to the reason that nipping was not done and continuous supply of auxins to apical portion which leads apical dominance and inhibits secondary branches and thus plant continued its height. The number of primary branches plant -1 was recorded significantly higher with no nipping (N0) due to taller plants and apical dominance followed by nipping practice done at 50 DAS, 40 DAS and the lower number of primary branches plant -1 were noticed under nipping practice at 30 DAS due to lower plant height. However, results in Table 1 confirm that chickpea plants had a significantly higher number of secondary branches when it was nibbled at 40 DAS (18.2 plant -1 ) followed by 50 DAS (16.6 plant -1 ), 30 DAS (15.7 plant -1 ) and no nipping treatment (14.0 plant -1 ). This could be the result of the apical region being clipped, which produced more secondary branches and stopped vertical growth because growth regulators, especially auxins, were effectively translocated to the secondary shoot buds, which normally remain dormant. By pruning the plant at various growth intervals, the energy that the plant had been using for temporary growth was redirected towards branching. These results corroborate the findings of Gnyandev et al. (2019) [9] in chickpea. The significantly higher number of secondary branches plant -1 in nipping treatments of chickpea might also be due to the vigorous vegetative growth of the lateral shoots as a result of apical bud elimination, which decreased apical dominance of auxins and promoted sprouting of lateral secondary buds. If the source of auxins was removed by removing of apical portion through nipping, the secondary branches get activated below clipped portion which accelerate growth. This might be due to dispersion of carbohydrates or food materials toward the auxiliary vegetative buds below nipped portion. Also, nipping of terminal bud might have activated the dormant lateral buds to produce more secondary branches. The similar results were also reported by Campell et al. (2008) and Khan et al. (2018) [11] in chickpea. The lower number of secondary branches plant -1 in no nipping treatment (N0) might be due to inhibition of auxiliary buds by production of IAA in the apical portion. Nipping practices done at 30, 40 and 50 DAS leads to reduction in plant height and apical dominance and supporting the primary branches for producing a greater number of secondary branches and leaf area which determines the photosynthetic ability, growth and total dry matter production of a plant. Thus, nipping practices done at 30, 40 and 50 DAS significantly reduced the plant height and promoted the number of secondary branches. Similar results were also reported by Khan et al. (2018) [11] in chickpea and Teggelli et al. (2020) [19] in pigeon pea. Results in Table 1 reveals that nipping practices at 40 DAS also produced significantly higher total dry matter (696.0 g m -2 ) followed by nipping practices done at 50 DAS (607.3 g m -2 ), 30 DAS (606.3 g m -2 ) and the minimum with no nipping treatment (515.3 g m -2 ). The higher dry matter production with nipping practices might be due to better utilization of available resources with nipping practices which resulted in more photosynthesis and hence more dry matter was produced. The production of dry matter depends on leaf area and photosynthetic rate of plant. The increased number of secondary branches palnt -1 might have offered higher chance for the increased production of more leaf area which reflected into more photosynthesis by leaves which subsequently resulted into higher dry matter production plant -1 . These results corroborate the findings of Choudhary et al. (2020) [8] and Kushwaha et al. (2023) [15] in chickpea.

Effect of varieties on growth parameters

The data in Table 1 clearly indicates that chickpea varieties significantly affected the growth and development parameters viz., plant height, number of primary branches plant -1 , number of secondary branches plant -1 , leaf area index and total dry matter production (g m -2 ). Chickpea variety JG-16 registered higher plant height (48.3 cm) followed by JG-36 (44.8 cm) and JG-12 (44.2 cm). This may be mostly caused by the vegetative plant parts' effective photosynthates accumulation. It could also be a genetic character of varieties (Gnyandev et al., 2019) [9] . The number of primary and secondary branches were also higher in JG 16 (9.8 plant -1 and 16.9 plant -1 ) followed by varieties JG-36 (9.4 plant -1 and 15.9 plant -1 ) and JG-12 (9.2 plant -1 and 15.7 plant -1 ). Such varietal differences in number of branches might be due to higher growth of variety which was also reported by Merwade (2000) [17] , Gnyandev et al. (2019) [9] and Kushwaha et al. (2023) [15] in chickpea. Similarly, notably increased output of total dry matter and leaf area index was also reported in variety JG-16 (689.1 g m -2 and 4.88) followed by varieties JG-36 (578.7 g m -2 and 4.41) and JG-12 (550.8 g m -2 and 4.2). This variation in dry matter production and leaf area index might be due to variation in overall growth and development of individual variety, which indicates more photosynthetic activity. The varietal differences in respect of dry matter production and leaf area index were also reported by Choudhary et al. (2020) [8] and Kushwaha (2022) [16] and Kushwaha et al. (2023) [16] in chickpea.

Interaction effects on growth and development

Interactions between nipping practices done at different growth intervals and varieties significantly affected all growth and development attributes of chickpea (Table 1). In comparison to other interactions, the N0V2 (no nipping practice with variety JG-16) generated a greater number of primary branches (11.4 plant -1 ) and recorded a much higher plant height (57.6 cm). In the interaction of N0V2 (no nipping treatment with variety JG-16), the plants grew to their original height in contrast to nipped plants, which may have been caused by apical dominance owing to auxins. This resulted in a higher plant height and a bigger number of primary branches on plant -1 . The interaction of N2V2 (nipping at 40 DAS with variety JG-16) recorded a greater number of secondary branches (19.3 plant -1 ), higher LAI at 90 DAS (6.0), total dry matter production (822.9 g m -2 ) over all other interactions. This might be due to nipping effects on apical bud of chickpea variety which resulted in production of more secondary branches, higher LAI, dry matter and cessation of vertical growth on account of effective translocation of growth regulators particularly auxins. Similar interactional effect of nipping practices and varieties were also reported by Khan et al. (2017) [12] and Kushwaha (2022) [16] and Kushwaha et al. (2023) [15] in chickpea.

Effect of nipping practices on yield attributes and yield

Data recorded on yield attributes and grain yield as affected by nipping practices is given in Table 2 andTable 3, respectively. Results revealed that nipping practices in chickpea crop significantly influenced the yield attributing characters, especially number of pods plant -1 . Nipping of apical portion of chickpea at 40 DAS resulted into significantly more numbers of pods plant -1 (103.5) followed by nipping practices at 50 DAS (78.4 plant -1 ), 30 DAS (71.7 plant -1 ) and the lowest number of pods plant -1 was observed with no nipping practice (61.1 plant -1 ). However, nipping practices at 30, 40 and 50 DAS were failed to significantly influence the number of seeds pod -1 and seed index (g), however numerically, values of these parameters were observed higher in nipping practice at 40 DAS. The increased number of pods noticed with nipping practice at 40 DAS was mainly due to accumulation of more photosynthates which were utilized for production of more number of productive secondary branches and more number of pods plant -1 in chickpea (Aziz, 2000 and Khan et al., 2006) [2,13] . The nipping practice at 40 DAS might have efficiently altered the crop architecture by activating the dormant lateral secondary branches which ultimately increased the number to pods plant -1 which leads to greater chance for development of source and sink relationship in chickpea and thereby would have facilitated the significant increase in the yield attributes of the chickpea. This has also been documented in chickpea (Kushwaha et al., 2022) [15] . The significant improvement in the number of pods plant -1 in nippingpracticesat40and50DAS might be due to initiation of higher number of branches plant -1 which probably originated more flower buds that resulted in more pods (Baloch and Zubir, 2010 and Khan et al., 2018) [3,11] . The increased yield components might also be attributed to activation of lateral dormant buds by arresting the terminal growth through nipping which might have facilitated the significant increase in the yield attributes (Teggelli et al., 2020) [19] .The increase in yield attributes with nipping at 40 DAS and50 DAS might also be due to enhanced branching and dispersion of carbohydrates towards auxiliary vegetative buds below nipped portion which might have helped in production of more number of pods plant -1 and grain yield compared to no nipping (Sonboir et al., 2019 and Kushwaha et al., 2022) [16,18] . The significantly higher grain yield (2473 kg ha -1 ), biological yield (6415 kg ha -1 ) and straw yield (3942 kg ha - 1 ) were recorded with nipping practice at 40 DAS followed by Nipping at 50DAS (2177 kg ha -1 , 5942 kg ha -1 and 3765, respectively), 30 DAS (2008 kg ha -1 , 5486 kg ha -1 and 3478 kg ha -1 , respectively) and the lowest (1729 kg ha -1 , 4797 kg ha -1 and 3068 kg ha -1 , respectively) with no nipping treatment. The higher yield under nipping treatments might be because of the development of auxiliary buds which is inhibited by indole acetic acid (IAA) produced in the apical portion. When the source of auxins is removed by nipping, the lateral branching gets activated which resulted in increased number of pods plant -1 (Table 2) thereby increased grain yield (Bharathi et al., 2014 and Kithan and Singh, 2017) [4,14] . Increase in yield with nipping as compared with no nipping treatment clearly indicates that the energy which was previously used by plant to become taller was diverted towards grain formation. Grain yield depends on yield attributes i.e., number of branches (data not given) and number of pods plant -1 that is why grain yield was higher with nipping practice at 40 DAS, 50 DAS and 30 DAS as compared to no nipping treatment (Kushwaha et al., 2022 and Khan et al., 2018) [11,16] .

Effect of varieties on yield attributes and yield

Varieties were also significantly influenced the yield attributes and yields of chickpea (Table 2 and3). Among varieties, JG 16 produced significantly more number of pods plant -1 (84.1) and seed index (21.2 g) followed by varieties JG 36 (77.4 plant -1 and 17.6 g) and the lowest in variety JG 12 (74.6 plant -1 and16.7 g). However, these parameters did not differ significantly between varieties JG 12 and JG 36. Similarly, number of seeds pod -1 did also not differ significantly among varieties. The differences in yield attributes observed among chickpea varieties might be due to their differences in growth habit and genetic yielding ability. Similar varietal difference in chickpea with respect to yield attributes was also reported in chickpea (Merwade, 2000 and Kushwaha et al., 2022) [16,17] . The significantly higher grain yield (2233 kg ha -1 ), biological yield (5983 kg ha -1 ) and straw yield (3750 kg ha - 1 ) were recorded in variety JG 16 followed by JG 36 (2062 kg ha -1 , 5577 kg ha -1 and 3515 kg ha -1 , respectively) and significantly the lowest in JG 12 (1955 kg ha -1 , 5420 kgha - 1 and3424kgha -1 , respectively). This yield variation in respect of various varieties might be due to variation in pod bearing ability and vigorous growth. The higher yield could be attributed due to greater growth parameters viz., secondary branches, more LAI and cumulative effect of yield attributes. The variety JG 12 was poor yielder because of its poor growth, yield attributes and canopy makeup (Choudhary et al., 2020) [8] .

Interaction effect on yield attributes and yield

Interaction between nipping and varieties significantly influenced yield attributes of chickpea (Table 2). The interaction effects of nipping at 40 DAS with variety JG-16 recorded higher number of pods plant -1 (110.9) and seed index (21.9 g) over other treatment combinations. However, number ofseedspod -1 did not differ significantly due to various interaction effects. The increase in yield attributes noticed in the interaction of nipping with varieties was mainly due to accumulation of more photosynthates which were utilized for production of more number of productive secondary branches and more number of pods plant -1 in chickpea (Khan et al., 2006) [13] . Interaction between nipping and varieties was also significantly influenced the grain yield, biological yield and straw yield (Table 3). The interaction effects of nipping at 40 DAS with variety JG-16 recorded significantly highest grain yield (2662 kg ha -1 ), biological yield (6887 kg ha -1 ) and straw yield (4225 kg ha -1 ) over other treatment combinations. Increase in yield of varieties with nipping as compared to no nipping treatment due to that the energy which was previously used by varieties to become taller was diverted towards grain formation due to nipping (Sonboir et al., 2019 and Choudhary et al., 2020) [8,18] .

References

1. Anonymous. Directorate of Pulses Development (DPD). Bhopal: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2023. Available from: https://dpd.gov.in/Varieties-Web%20site.pdf
2. Aziz MA. Response of chickpea to nipping. Pakistan J Sci Ind Res. 2000;43(3):191-192.
3. Baloch MS, Zubair M. Effect of nipping on growth and yield of chickpea. J Anim Plant Sci. 2010;20(3):208210.
4. Bharathi K, Panneerselvam P, Bhagya HP. Effect of clipping and plant growth regulator along with different kinds of fertilizers on yield and yield parameters in sesame during monsoon period. Indian J Agric Res. 2014;48(3):232-236.
5. Bhavana J, Sanbagavalli S, Chinnusamy C. Influence of nipping and spacing on growth and yield of rainfed horsegram (Macrotyloma uniflorum). J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(3):3206-3208.
6. Campbell NA, Reece JB, Urry LA, Cain ML, Wasserman SA, Minorsky PV, et al. Biology. 8th ed. San Francisco: Pearson Benjamin Cummings; 2008. p.827-830.
7. Chaube H, Pundhir VS. Crop diseases and their management. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India; 2005.
8. Choudhary A, Shekhawat PS, Kumar S, Pareek B. Performance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) varieties to seed rate and nipping in arid irrigated plain zone. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2020;9(8):38953903.
9. Gnyandev B, Kurdikeri MB, Salimath PM. Effect of nipping and foliar spray of growth regulators on plant growth, seed yield and quality in chickpea varieties. J Entomol Zool Stud. 2019;7(2):318-321.
10. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. New York: WileyInterscience; 1984.
11. Khan EA, Hussain I, Shreyar, Ahmad HB. Influence of nipping and foliar application of nutrients on growth and yield of chickpea in rainfed condition. Legume Res. 2018;41(5):740-744.
12. Khan H, Gul R, Khan NU. Appraisal of interaction among nipping of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genotypes and their correlated response for grain yield. J Anim Plant Sci. 2017;27(4):1295-1302.
13. Khan H, Latif A, Mahmood S, Khan MS. Effect of nipping at various stages on yield and yield components of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). J Res Sci. 2006;17(4):235-240.
14. Kithan L, Singh R. Effect of nipping, crop geometry and different levels of nitrogen on the growth and yield of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.). J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2017;6(4):1089-1092.
15. Kushwaha K, Tyagi PK, Shridhar AK, Tyagi A. Effect of nipping and varieties on growth attributes, yield attributes and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Technofame J Multidiscip Adv Res. 2023;12(1):143152.
16. Kushwaha K, Tyagi PK, Shridhar AK, Tyagi A. Effect of nipping and varieties on yield attributes and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Technofame J Multidiscip Adv Res. 2022;11(2):106-113.
17. Merwade MN. Investigations on seed production techniques and storability of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) [PhD thesis]. Dharwad: University of Agricultural Sciences; 2000.
18. Sonboir HL, Tripathi V, Shrivastava LK, Kumar S. Evaluation of spacing and nipping time under different sowing time in system of chickpea intensification for climate change adaptation. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2019;8(9):1858-1868.
19. Teggelli RG, Ahmad ZB, Yusufali N, Patil MC. Influence of nipping technology on growth, yield and economics of pigeon pea cultivated under rainfed situation. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2020;9(2):886888.