ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We take it as our great privilege to thank Dr. Suman Kumar, Professor, Department of Agrometeorology, G.B.P.U.A.&T. Pantnagar, Uttarakhand for his inspiring guidance, unending encouragement and affectionate treatment during the course of investigation. We also feel immense pleasure in extending our sincere thanks to Dr. V. Bharadwaj, Professor & Head, Department of Agrometeorology, Dr. V.K. Singh, Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, Dr. Sobran Singh, Professor, Department of Soil Science and Dr. A.K. Shukla, Professor & Head, Department of Math and Statistics for their valuable suggestions during the progress of this research work. Warmest thanks are due to staff members of Department of Agrometeorology, College of Agriculture, for providing support and cooperation. Nothing can be achieved without complete support of our family member. We owe immensely to our parents whose boundless love, support and blessings made the present endeavor frutify. We are also thankful to our family members for their constant support. Lastly thanks to all beloved and respected people who loved and helped us but could not get separate mention. Place : Meerut Date : May 30, 2011 Shweta Singh Ashutosh Kumar Misra

CONTENTS

S.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Chapter Introduction Review of Literature Materials and Methods Experimental Results Discussion Summary and Conclusion Literature Cited Appendices

Page 7 9 36 47 75 84 87 101

LIST OF TABLES Table Title 1. Particle size distribution of Pattharchatta sandy loam soil (Series VI) 2. Chemical properties of Pattharchatta sandy loam soil (Series VI) 3. Bulk density and moisture content of the soil 4. Growing degree days for each penophase during growing season of chickpea in 2005-06 and 2006-07 5. Plant height, number of leaves and number of branches at different days after sowing during chickpea season in 2005-06 and 2006-07 6. Number of days taken to flowering and maturity during 2005-06 and 2006-07 7. Yield attributes of chickpea during 2005-06 and 2006-07 8. Yield studies of chickpea during 2005-06 and 2006-07 9. Daily, weekly and cumulative evapatranspiration of chickpea measured by lysimeter during 2005-06 and 2006-07 10. Pan evapotranspiration measured with USWB class-A pan evaporimeter of chickpea during 2005-06 and 2006-07 11. Weekly ratio of measured ET and pan evaporation (ET/EP) of chickpea during 2005-06 and 2006-07 12. Relationship between measured ET and EP during 2005-06 and 2006-07 13. Relationship between measured ET and estimated ETu using Blaney-Criddle method 14. Relationship between measured ET and estimated ETj, using Jensen-Haise method 15. Relationship between measured ET and estimated ETss using Stephens-Stewart method 16. Relationship between measured ET and estimated ETT using Turc method 17. Relationship between measured ET and estimated ETTW using Thornthwaite method 18. Relationship between measured ET and ETP using Penman method Page 38 38 38 50 56 56 56 57 59 61 63 66 67 68 70 71 71 74

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

Title Location of Uttarakhand Map of Crop Research Centre (CRC) located at GBPUAT Pantnagar Weighing type lysimeter Growing degree days for each phenophase during growing to maturity of chickpea Spatial temporal variation in temperature at different stages during 2005-06 Spatial and temporal variation in temperature at different stages during 2006-07 Soil temperature at different stages during 2005-06 Soil temperature at different stages during 2006-07 Spatial and temporal variation in relative humidity at different stages during 2006-07 Spatial and temporal variation in relative humidity at different stages during 2006-07 Various stage of crop growth during 2005-06 and 2006-07 Cumulative evapotranspiration of chickpea measured by lysimeter Cumulative pan evaporation of chickpea measured by pan evaporimeter Line diagram of ratio of measured ET by lysimeter and measured EP by USWB class A pan evaporimeter Line diagram of ratio of measured ET and estimated ETu using Blaney-Criddle method Line diagram of ratio of measured ET and estimated ETj using Jensen-Haise method Line diagram of ratio of measured ET and estimated ETss using Stephens-Stewart method Line diagram of ratio of measured ET and estimated ETt using Turc method Line diagram of ratio of measured ET and estimated ETth using Thornthwaite method Line diagram of ratio of measured ET and estimated ETP using Penman method
5

Page 36 37 43 50 52 52 53 53 54 55 57 60 63 65 66 69 70 72 73 74

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EP ET IARI Kc USWB WR DM WUE ETly ETu ETj ETss ETt ETth ETp No. GDD ly % r C RH F : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Pan evaporation Evapotranspiration Indian Agriculture Research Institute Crop coefficient United States Weather Bureau Water requirement Dry matter Water Use Efficiency Evapotranspiration using lysimeter Evapotranspiration using Blaney-Criddle method Evapotranspiration using Jensen-Haise method Evapotranspiration using Stephen-Stewart method Evapotranspiration using Turc method Evapotranspiration using Thornthwaite method Evapotranspiration using Penman method Number Growing degree days Langly Per cent Correlation Degree centigrade Relative humidity Degree Fahrenheit

Chapter 1

Introduction

Pulses have been the mainstay of Indian agriculture, enabling the land to restore fertility so as to produce reasonable yields of succeeding crops and providing proteineous grain and nutritive fodder. Chickpea is one of the important pulse crops of tarai and other regions of Uttarakhand. It is an essentially a winter season crop grown from November to April of this region. In this season supplementary irrigation is essential for successful completion of the life cycle of crop and higher yields. For economizing the water, irrigation should be given as per needs of the crop. Evapotranspiration is a complex phenomenon which depends on the extremely complicated interactions of soil, plant and meteorological factors. Evapotranspiration is measured either by weighing lysimeter or estimated from climatological data or water balance method. The best estimation of evapotranspiration was achieved through measurement of water used by well watered crops which exert minimal canopy resistance. Lysimeter offers not only the advantage of sensitivity and precision but also an accuracy. However, the technique is expensive and involves various complexities. Pan evaporation measured with standard pan (viz. USWB class A) can be related to ET or consumptive use but the technique has to be standardized for different crops under different soil and agroclimatic conditions. A large number of empirical and semi-empirical methods have been proposed and used by various workers for estimating evapotranspiration from various meteorological parameters. However, these methods are not equally applicable and suitable for all the locations and situations. Water is one of most important factors required by a crop or diversified pattern of crops for their normal growth under field conditions. Water is needed mainly to meet the demands of evaporanspiration and the metabolic activities of plants, both together known as consumptive use. Evapotranspiration is an important feature in microclimatic studies related to crop production, due to its
7

largely successful application in the economic utilization and application of irrigation water as per actual requirement of crops (Rosenberg et al., 1983). Environment is another important factor which effects the growth and development of chickpea. A rapid rise in temperature and desiccative power of the atmosphere cut short the vegetative and reproductive growth period of crop, resulting in low yield. Temperature and relative humidity affect the steepness of vapour pressure and temperature gradient between soil, plant and atmosphere. Therefore measurement of variations in time and space is essential for understanding the crop weather interactions. Keeping all these in view, the present study was conducted with following objectives: 1) To measure the spatial and temporal variation in air temperature, relative humidity and soil temperature on the canopy of chickpea. 2) 3) To study the growth, development and yield attributes of chickpea. Comparison of estimated amounts of evapotranspiration by various methods in chickpea. 4) To determine the relationship between evapotranspiration and pan evaporation.

Chapter 2

Review of Literature

Good growth and development of plants are largely governed by plant water balance throughout the growing period. For better understanding of plant water relations and evapotranspiration studies, the knowledge of micrometeorological conditions, soil and plant are essential because they affect water status of plants by controlling process of water loss and water supply. During the day when water loss by transpiration from plant exceeds water absorption by plant roots, water deficit depends mainly on the evaporative demand of the atmosphere and water supply to plant roots. Evaporative demand is a function of meteorological parameters mainly, temperature, humidity, wind velocity and radiation. To have clear understanding of micrometeorological elements and evapotranspiration, growth and development of chickpea, the literature is reviewed under following heads. 2.1 Effect of temperature and relative humidity on crop canopy The condition of temperature decrease with height above the surface, increase with height and no change with height are called lapse, inversion and neutral (adiabatic) conditions, respectively. The vertical gradients may be large (gradients as great as 1 to 10C between the surface and 2 meter are not uncommon) so that the air temperature depends upon the height of measurement. Carduckes and Robertson (1963) observed that the pattern of temperature distribution in oats varied with the nature of the day. On a clear and calm day temperature decreased progressively from ground surface upto a height of 5 feet, while on a cloudy and windy day when radiant energy for heating was low and turbulent mixing was strong, temperatures were relatively unaffected. Many workers have reported that the temperature near the ground varies with weather conditions and tissue. Luff (1965) at U.K. reported that in clear surface the temperature near the ground in a tall grass was less variable than in
9

shorter grass and the range of diurnal variation was less in winter than in summer. There were only slight differences in temperature between different types of grasses. He also reported that the variation in relative humidity between the different types of grasses were greatest in fine weather. In early summer, there were large difference in saturation deficit between the tussocks and the intervening grass. Lowery (1970) at New York reported that both day and night temperature extremes are most likely found at the ground surface and also temperature gradient is greater near the ground during both day and night because soil surface is the most active heat exchanger in the soil-air system. He also observed that profiles of moisture in the lower layers of the atmosphere and crop communities may be quite different in different environment as well as different times in the same environment. In addition, the profile depends upon the measure of moisture being used. The magnitude and the distribution of temperatures in crop canopies depend on many factors. Baumgartner (1973) at Munchen (France) reported that the vertical temperature distribution within crop stands is governed mainly by the heat emitted in the conversion of radiation inside the canopy and by this transfer of heat by vertical air movements in naturally closed stands the maximum temperature is generally observed in the upper light canopy while in less dense stands there may be a secondary maximum at the earth's surface. Kalma and Stanbill (1972) at the Volcani Institute of Agriculture Research Bet Dagan (Israel) measured relative humidity at equivalent heights both in a climate station out side the mature orange orchard and above the tree canopy at the experimental orchard site. They reported almost constant 8 per cent higher relative humidity of the air above the canopy. Similarly, Hosker et al. (1974) at USA studied the diurnal variation of the vertical thermal structure of a loblolly pine plantation and reported that on a clear day a very unstable temperature gradient occurred above the trees, while a strong inversion (about 8C) developed below the crowns. At night the sub-crown region
10

became weekly unstable, but the atmospheric layer above the trees was stable. On a clear day, the strength of the temperature inversion beneath the tree crowns was less than 1C. Frequently large temperature gradients occur in the horizontal because of topography (slope and relief can affect the solar radiation received per unit area and the mixing due to wind), local obstacles (tree, buildings, etc.) and surface changes (Partition of radiant energy between latent heat of evaporation and sensible heat and surface roughness which effect wind flow). In addition to vertical and horizontal temperature gradients, the eddy structure of the atmosphere causes large temperature fluctuations over short periods of times at a given level. Except for eddy transport measurements and possibly a few other spatial measurements, fast response temperature measurements are of doubtful values. Temperatures averaged over a few minutes and longer are usually desired and most temperature refer to as time averaged temperature. Even though a thermometer may be read at a given time, the reading is representative of a period related to the time constant of the thermometer. Joshi (1983) at Akola, Maharashtra observed that relative humidity was highest at the bottom of crop canopy and decreased gradually with increase in canopy height. Highest yields were obtained with maximum accumulation of heat units, sunshine hours and relative humidity during panicle emergence to maturation period which is critical for grain production in sorghum. The experiment was conducted on a waukegan silty loam soil where stress difference between irrigated and non-irrigated alfalfa canopy temperature (CT) and evapotranspiration (ET) served as indicators of stress and were measured using on infrared thermometer and protable chamber, respectively. Canopy temperature and ET did not differ appreciably between irrigated and non-irrigated alfalfa in early morning, but after 0900 hr and throughout the afternoon, non-irrigated alfalafa had a higher CT and lower ET (Sharratt et al., 1983) at Wisdon. Lee et al. (1984) at Korea found the difference in micrometeorological changes in the rice plant canopy at different growing stages. The vertical

11

distribution of temperature in the canopies showed that air temperature at 10 cm height from the ground was higher than at 30 cm height. Ozdemir, (1996) at Turkey observed that germination percentage and rate of germination were rapid at 20C and were progressively delayed as temperature decreased. Forty chickpea (desi and kabuli) cultivar were sown in November and December in New Delhi. Delayed sowing decreased seed yield. The kabuli types were more sensitive to temperature than desi types (Yadav et al., 1998). A field experiment conducted at Almora, Chandra et al. (2002) observed that the effect of irrigation levels and canopy temperature on potato (Solanum tubersoum L.). The yield increased significantly upto IW:CPE 1.50 and canopy temperature was 252.5C, which recorded the highest tuber yield. Sattar et al. (2003) in Pantnagar characterized the variability of temperature and humidity within wheat crop canopy at height of 0.60 m to 1.25 m. The temperature profiles showed an inversion up to height of 0.60 m by 09.30 hr which continued till the afternoon (15.30 hr). Above this height, normal lapse conditions prevailed. A sharp decrease in relative humidity with height and day time towards the afternoon was observed. The humidity profiles, thus, reflect the influence of corresponding temperature inversions on its distribution with height in the wheat crop canopy at different growth stages. Rao et al. (2004) at Hyderabad, A.P. reported that canopy temperature was higher than the air temperature and relative humidity was lower in crop canopy than the atmosphere. High temperature is one of the important abiotic stresses limiting chickpea productivity. A field experiment was conducted in New Delhi, India during 200203 to study the effect of temperature on crop growth rate in chickpea genotypes, namely Pusa 256, Pusa 372, BGD 72 (released cultivars) and DG 36, DG 46 and DG 51 (advance lines) growth under different planting dates. The minimum requirement of GDD was recorded in DG 36. In general, the advance lines under

12

study required less accumulated heat units compared to the released cultivars (Singh et al., 2005). Result revealed the temperature increases from normal in December and January affected the phonological development of wheat by advancing the anthesis stage and there by reducing the duration of tillering phase while in February it reduced duration of grain formation (Kaur et al., 2007) in Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. 2.2 Studies on growth, development and yield attributes of chickpea Singh and Malhotra (1973) at Ludhiana, Punjab obtained a significant and positive association of yield with clusters per plant, pods per plant and number of secondary branches. Sengupta and Roy (1979) at Pulses and Oil Seeds Researach Station, Berhampore, W.B. reported that the percentage of pod setting in chickpea was, to some extent, inversely related to relative humidity in February and the pod setting was not related to temperature and was not influenced by the number of sunshine hours. Saxena (1980) studies the number of days taken to flower initiation and pod set in 15 desi (small seeded) and kabuli (large seeded) chickpea cultivars grown at Hissar, and found that a low minimum temperature (10C) was a major factor preventing the pod set from perfect flower. Singh et al. (1981) conducted an experiment during rabi season of 1975-76 and 1976-77 with four sowing dates (Oct. 10, Oct. 25, Nov. 9 and Nov. 24) at Hisar and found that Oct. 10 sown crop attained maximum height during both the years and differences were significant as compared to Nov. 24 sown crop in first year and Nov. 9 and Nov. 24 sown crop in second year. Selvaraj et al. (1981) at Coimbatore, T.N. reported that harvesting the crop 130-135 days after sowing gave higher yields than when harvested earlier in red gram.

13

Sethi et al. (1981) at Hyderabad reported that in all the cultivar of chickpea flower initiation was started 32-35 days after sowing in contrast to 32-74 days taken for 50 per cent flowering under normal days length. Islam et al. (1982) at Bangaladesh reported that the average yield of chickpea (4.6 g/plant) was positively correlated with number of pods per plant and seed weight and negatively correlated with height of plant. Joshi (1983) at Akola, Maharashtra reported that highest yields were obtained with maximum accumulation of heat units, sunshine hours and relative humidity during panicle emergence to maturation period. Tripathi and Singh (1985) from a study carried out at Crop Research Station, NDUAST, Mirapur on chickpea with three dates of sowing (Oct. 25, Nov. 5 and Nov. 20) reported that highest grain yield for three varieties was obtained from Nov. 5 crop and yields were considerably reduced in all varieties in the latest sowing date. Summerfiled et al. (1987) at Patancheru, A.P. reported that photoperiod has been considered to have the most significant effect of flowering in chickpea. But wherever studies have been sufficiently extensive, major effect of temperature on flowering have been noted. Irrespective of species, there are large genetic differences in relative sensitivity to photoperiod and/or temperature. In quantitative long-day legumes, such as chickpea, vernalization can also hasten flowering in sensitive genotypes. Yadav et al. (1989) of Narendra Dev University of Agriculture and Technology, Faizabad concluded that sowing dates significantly affect the grain yield and straw yield. They obtained maximum yield on Oct. 20 sown crop which was at par with Oct. 30 sown crop in respect to grain and straw yield in first year while in second year Oct. 20 sowing out performed the Oct. 30 sowing in respect of grain yield by 4.5 per cent. They concluded that sowing of chickpea beyond Nov. 15 gave reduced yield. Singh et al. (1990) of Hisar reported that closer row spacing of 20 cm produced significantly more grain yield than wider row spacing of 30 cm.
14

Dixit et al. (1993) of Powerkheda reported that chickpea sown on Oct. 26 and Nov. 16 proved to be the best period for obtaining maximum number of branches per plant. While working with newly developed chickpea varieties and row spacing (39 and 45 cm) at Hisar, Singh et al. (1994) reported that wider row spacing of 45 cm resulted in significantly higher grain yield (1702 kg/ha) straw yield (6303 kg/ha) and number of pods per plant (44.60). They also reported that in general wider row spacing gave 9.7 per cent more yield than narrow spacing and it was attributed to increased number of pods per plant (14.3%) and grain size (3.4%) under wider row spacing. Ozdemir (1996) at Turkey showed that germination was decreased with increased temperature. Yadav et al. (1998) observed that delayed sowing decreased seed yield. Kabuli type were more sensitive to temperature than desi types. Jadhav and Pawar (1999) of Rahuri, Maharashtra reported that the yield contributing characters viz., number of pods per plant, number of grains per pod, grain yield per plant and 1000-grain weight were relatively higher in 30 10 cm2 and 45 67 cm2 spacing than that of 45 10 cm2. Significantly higher grain (2.93 t/ha) and straw yield (3.49 t/ha) were obtained with 30 10 cm2 spacing, followed by 45 6.67 cm2 spacing. Anwar et al. (2003) found that the canopy development, radiation absorption and its utilization for biomass production in response to irrigation at different growth stages of three kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cultivars was studied on a wakanui silt loath soil in Canterbury, New Zealand. Averaged over the 2 years, irrigation increased seed yield by 74-124 per cent. Full irrigation from emergence to physiological maturity always gave the highest seed yield. 2.3 Evapotranspiration (ET) : definition and process The crop evapotranspiration (ET) is an important factor in irrigation scheduling. Evapotranspiration dominates the water balance and controls
15

hydrological phenomena as soil moisture content, ground water recharge and stream flow. Though evaportranspiration is necessary for the growth of plants, it is usually viewed as a loss from the water budget. Much attention has been given to methods of reducing this loss in order to maximize water use efficiency in agricultural systems. As the value of water increases, planners should be aware of the technical issues involved in manipulating vegetation for crop yield. For this reason and because of the tremendous importance of irrigation in many rural planning schemes, literature on various aspects of evapotranspiration has been reviewed as follows : Evapotranspiration is defined as the quantity of water transpired by the plants during their growth or retained in the plant tissue, plus the moisture evaporated from the surface of the soil and the vegetation. The term water requirement (WR) of crops has been widely used in the literature to designate the quality yield pattern of crops, in a given period of time for its normal growth under field condition at a location. According to Michael et al. (1977) water requirement includes the losses due to evapotranspiration plus the losses during application of irrigation water and the quantity of water required for special operations such as land preparation, puddling for transplanting rice etc. The term evapotranspiration is used to describe the total process of water transfer into the atmosphere from vegetative and land surfaces (Rosenberg, 1974). 2.3.1 Factors affecting evaportranspiration The fundamental principle of evaporation was quoted by Resenberg (1974). He stated that evaporation is a function of difference in the vapour pressure of the water and vapour pressure of the air, Penman (1948, 1963) stated that potential evapotranspiration is largely controlled by water and vegetation and soil factors play only a minor role. Marlatt et al. (1961) showed that with decreasing soil moisture availability, the rate of ET was reduced below the PET. Stanhill (1965) at UNESCO and El-Nadi and Hudson (1965) at Sudan showed that the quantities of water evaporated from crop canopy increase with
16

increasing crop height. Burn et al. (1972) showed that the proportion of water lost as transpiration was closely related to leaf area index of soybean and sorghum. Balogun (1974) studied the influence of some climatic factors on evaporation and PET at Ibadan (Nigeria) and reported that the net solar radiation and mean air temperature were highly correlated with evaporation and PET. Folegatti et al. (2000) at Visconsin, USA demonstrated weighing type lysimeter in greenhouse and reported that the net radiation and mean air temperature better estimated the evapotranspiration in greenhouse. Merta et al. (2001) at German reported that the plant physiology methods are important for the understanding of the complex transpiration process. 2.3.2 Water use by chickpea and factors affecting it Dhonde and Patil (1986) concluded that highest yield involved 4-5 irrigations at intervals of about 25 days depending on rainfall and water use efficiency was highest with irrigation 8 cm deep and an IW: CPE ratio of 0.45. Singh and Singh (1990) at Hissar reported that both total dry matter production and seed yield responses of chickpeas to water management can be predicted if the normalized ET during the season is known. Tripathi (1992) at Pantnagar concluded that the variations in the crop coefficient due to 3 water tables were almost equal to the variation between 2 consecutive day values over 3 years (1982/83-1984/85). The crop coefficient of chickpea, pea and lentil was more dependent on canopy growth characteristics than on the water table. Kaushik and Chaubey (1999) of G.B.P.U.A.&T., Research Station, Ujhani Badaun, UP showed that two irrigation at branching and pod filling stage in chickpea gives the maximum grain yield and the maximum water use efficiency was recorded with one irrigation at branching. Multiseasonal irrigation experiments were examined in four locations of the piedmont and low land in the region of the north China and a crop water stress sensitivity index, the relationship between seasonal evapotranspiration (ET) and
17

yield and crop water production functions were developed by relating relative yield to relative ET deficit, the crop was more sensitive to water stress (Zhang et al., 1999). Merta et al. (2001) at German reported that the plant physiology methods are important for the understanding of the complex transpiration process. Singh and Prasad (2001) at Kota in case of chickpea, the ET was observed 418 mm crop yielded 4175 kg ha-1 grain and 9513 kg ha-1 total dry matter with WUE of 10.10 kg ha-1 mm-1 for grain and 22.85 kg ha-1 mm-1 for total dry matter. The average weekly ET was <2.0 mm day-1 at the initial stage and achieved a peak value of 5.84 mm day-1 when maximum LAI was 6.60 during 13 WAS. In chickpea, the ET was significantly and positively correlated with pan evaporation (r = +0.70) and sunshine hours (r = +0.68) but non-significant positively correlated with mean maximum temperature (r = +0.40).

2.3.3 Measurement of ET by lysimeters Lysimeters are somewhat expensive devices but since they provide absolute measure of mass transfer from a nearly natural past of the earth surface, their use of every important micrometerology. A lysimeter study involves growing crop in a large container (lysimeter) installed in a cropped field and measuring their weight losses and grains. It is presupposed that the crop and the soil conditions in the lysimeter are the same as in the surrounding field as far as possible. According to Coleman (1946), a lysimeter provides a precise and direct measurement of the amount of water supplied to and lost by the crop, often encounters a number of problems. The major limitations are the difficulties in creating physical conditions such as temperature, soil-moisture and bulk density etc. within the lysimeter comparable to those outside in the field. To ensure proper drainage, the bottom of an isolated soil column often requires the artificial application of a moisture suction equivalent to the suction present at the some depth in the natural soil in California. Van Bavel (1961) discussed the importance

18

of forced drainage in lysimeters in simulating the natural distribution of water with depth that occurs in adjoining soils in USA. In a review Pelton (1964) at Department of Soils University of Wisconsin, Madison discussed lysimeter principles and practice and the design of weighing lysimeters. He also discussed the requirements for the proper use of lysimeters in evapotranspiration research and considered several factors viz. uniformity of soil mass, surroundings, forced drainage or very deep surroundings to be of major importance in the proper design of lysimeter installation. Chang (1968) at Chicago stated that in some cases the soil temperature in lysimeters is raised to such an extent that the air conditioning of the whole system becomes necessity. Various designs and mechanisms of weighing lysimeter described in the literatures, by Colemon and Hamilton (1947); Harold and Dreibelbis (1958, 1967); Pruitt and Angus (1960); Morris (1959); Van Bavel and Myers (1962); Rosenberg and Brown (1970) and Ritchie and Burnett (1968) and Mcllory (1957), suggested that the size for all tall crops like sugarcane, maize etc. should be for cubic meter in volume. Ritchie and Burnett (1968) Soil and Water Conservation, Division Agriculture Research Service, USDA designed a precise weighing lysimeter in which load cell was more easily accessible for repairing. Bhardwarj and Shastri (1979) developed a simple weighing type lysimeter. The main components of the assembly are recriforced concrete structure and a dormant tank. The lysimeter tank containing undisturbed soil monolith has provision for measuring runoff and seepage losses and is supported by a weighing bridge with sensitivity of 200 g (0.14 mm of water). This system is suitable for water budgeting and ET studies on an hourly and daily basis. Robbins nad Wellardson (1980) at USA described a lysimeter which consists of four continuously weighing lysimeter mounted on a portable platform. The lysimetr is made for low pressure PVC irrigation pipe (1.18 m deep and 0.31 mm diameter) placed on hydraulic weighing system hat consists of either a water filled column. The sensitivity of weighing system is 0.1 kg on a equivalent water depth of 1.4 mm. Base ceramic cups placed in the centre of
19

lysimeter at 0.25, 0.50 and 0.75 m from the soil surface are connected outside for soil solution sampling. Eight small bolts symmetrically located around the lysimeter of the same depth as the ceramic cups, serve as four probe content for electrical conductivity measurements. Floating lysimeters are usually simpler and less expensive than weighing lysimeters, but it can be only use for paddy. Several designs of these lysimeters have been reported by King et al. (1956); McMillan and Paul (1961); Glover and Forsgate (1962); Konstantinov (1963) and Hanks and Shawcroft (1965) at Soil and Water Conservation Research Division ARS, USDA. A field experiment with wheat was conducted at Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana (Rajwat et al., 1989) to obtain reliable estimates of evapotranspiration using weighing lysimeters. Actual evapotranspiration was 309 mm. Potential evapotranspiration estimated by the modified Penman, Papadakis and Jense and Haise methods were 328, 314 and 437 mm, respectively. Seasonal crop coefficient, Kc = ET/PET (ratio of actual evapotranspiration to potential evapotranspiration) estimated by the modified Penman, Papadakis, open evaporation and Jensen and Haise methods were 0.94, 0.98, 0.82 and 0.71, respectively. Evapotranspiration estimated by modified Penman method was nearest to actual evapotranspiration except during easily crop establishment and at physiological maturity stage. Abtew (2001) at Newsely, Austria developed a simple model from a open water lysimeter evaporation study which was recommended to estimate daily evapotranspiration from solar radiation and maximum air temperature. Newesely and Cermusch (2001) developed a new lysimeter for using in step alpine areas which was found to be very effective. A 20 year weather data of mean temperature, mean relative humidity, sunshine hours and wind velocity collected from the CIAE observatory, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh was used for estimating evapotranspiration (Etc) in field crop (wheat, chickpea, soybean, maize, sorghum, and sugarcane) and vegetables (potato, cabbage, tomato and pea). Crop coefficients were obtained from the literature for
20

the different crops. The Etc was estimated for both kharif and rabi season considering the period of the crops in which the particular crop is grown in the study region (Dhandarkar et al., 2005). Water use efficiency (w) is a crop parameter of outstanding importance in crop simulation models, derived here as the slope of the relationship linking crop carbon gain to cumulative transpiration. The study aims at (i) evaluating w of field grown sunflower, sorghum, wheat and chickpea at three levels of aggregation day time net assimilation (A), daily net carbon gain, as difference between A and night time dark respiration and biomass; (ii) assessing the robustness or w parameter in terms of ability to discriminate between C-3 and C-4 species, pre and post anthesis, impact on nitrogen status, (iii) investigation the opportunity to normalize w by climate, using FAO Penman monteith reference evapotranspiration (E-ref) or atmospheric saturation vapour pressure deficit (D), (iv) comparing w with the corresponding radiation use efficiency (e) (Steduto and Albrizio, 2005) in Italy. Jalota et al. (2006) reported that shrinking water resources in north-west India calls for diversification for a rice-wheat cropping system to low water requiring crops and development of water efficient technologies in Punjab. Chickpea, because of its lower water demand (evapotranspiration) and irrigation requirement has been identified as suitable alternate crop to wheat. Yield

response of chickpea to irrigation depended upon soil texture, the timings and number of irrigations. The optimum yield (2 t/ha) on coarse to medium textured soil after rice can be obtained with one heavy pre plant and two post plant irrigations. 2.4 Estimation of relationship of ET with pan evaporation Pans of various sizes, shapes and depth of placement have been used throughout the world to measure force water evaporation. These measurements are interpreted to estimate evapotranspiration rates. Pan evaporation is a fairly reliable indication of potential ET.

21

A large number of studies have been done on evaporation from surface of lakes and pans. Pruitt (1958, 1960) and Jensen et al. (1961) investigated extensively to develop procedures for utilizing pan evaporation data in scheduling irrigation for a variety of crops. Pelton (1964) at Madison obtained highly positive and significant correlation between class A pan evaporation and meteorological data. Korven and Wilco (1965) found that class. A pan gave best correlation with meteorological data and suggested pan evaporation as a method of estimating ET. Reddy (1977) suggested an empirical method of estimation of water balance i.e. (PE = E + F), in which PE is PET, E is pan evaporation measured to PE for different regions. The factors 'F' depends on soil type and vegetation and involves energy balance and aerodynamic forms at Soil and Water Conservation Division, ARS, USDA. The relationship between pan evaporation and PET depends upo the type of pan evaporation, geographic location and growing season of crops. Though many types of evaporation pans and tanks have been employed but the standard USWB class A pan is the most widely used evaporation pan. The pans have higher rate evaporation than free water surface and conversion factor 0.7 is recommended for converting the observed evaporation rate to those of large water surface area. This factor is called pan coefficient. Similarly evapotranspiration from crop is equal to pan evaporation multiplied by the crop factor (ETcrop = Epan Kc). the value of crop factor depends on its foliage characteristics, stage of growth and geographic location. In regions where advection of sensible heat is unimportant free water evaporation from pans may indeed give realistic estimates of the potential evapotranspiration. However, according to Rosenberg (1974) at England where advection is considerable, the pan may give unrealistically low values. This is probably due to very small roughness of the water surface compared to that of growing crops because of their greater roughness, crops can extract much more sensible heat energy from the passing air. Cambell and Phene (1976) observed nearly 1:1 relationship between screened pan evaporation and PET computed from combination equation. Pans have some positive values. They are in expensive and easily maintained. The measurement of the quantity
22

of water evaporated is easily accomplished with calibrated gauges of various kinds in Florence (USA). Abo-Ghobar an Mahammad (1995) measured evapotranspiration by lysimeters in a desert climate. The measured evapotranspiration was positively correlated with the evapotranspiration estiamed from the Penman and Jensen-Haise methods using meteorological data from Dirab (Saudi Arabia). The linear regression was fitted with low R2 under the local arid climatic conditions. A better linear regression was obtained with zero intercept. The highest correlation coefficient (r=0.97) was obtained between the measured evapotranspiration from alfalfa and theevaporation from a class A pan. Ibrahim et al. (1996) estimated evapotranspiration by different methods in the north central tract of the Nile Delta region and compared those with pan evaporation. From the results, the equation for estimating ET within this area was ET (mm day-1) = 01642 + 0.8 EP where, EP = pan evaporation (mm day-1) Rambabu (1999) at Bapatla compared the estimated potential

evapotranspiration with the pan evaporation and reported that the latter showed the least deviation with measured ET. 2.5 Estimation of ET with mathematical methods based on

micrometeorological parameters Evapotranspiration is the most important and complex process in the hydrological cycle. So the development of methods to estimate the flux rates of vapour from water and vegetated surfaces has warranted a great deal of scientific effect. Various methods based on different meteorological and crop parameters have been developed for predicting crop water requirement and ET under varying agroclimatic conditions. Because the literature on these methods is enormous. So this review has been limited only to those methods which have been used in this study.

23

2.5.1

Thornthwaite method Thornthwaite (1948) proposed the following empirical formula which is

based on the assumption of an exponential relationship between mean monthly temperature and mean monthly consumptive use:
10 t U = 1.6 TE
a

(1)

where, U t TE = unadjusted monthly consumptive use of water = mean monthly temperature (C) = heat index which in equal to sum of 12 monthly values of heat
t index (I), I = 5
1.514

A = 0.000000675 (TE)30.0000771 (TE)2+0.01792 (TE)+0.49239 The equation (1) gives only unadjusted rate of ET owing to the variation in the number of days in a month and in the number of sun light hours during a day with region and latitude. Therefore, it becomes necessary to multiply the calculated value by a correction factor 'm'. The corrected value of evapotranspiration is given by : U = m U m= where, m h d = correction factor = actual day length in hours = number of days in a month
h d 12 30

Chang (1968) at Chicago enumerated the draw-backs of the thornthwaite formula. Temperature alone is not a good indication for the energy available for ET. Air temperature of a place lags behinds the radiation. According to this formula ET will cease when mean air temperature below 0C. These relations are valid only when the air temperature is between 0-26 5C. For lower temperature
24

the PET rate is assumed to be zero, while for high temperature the rate increased. While monotonically, with increasing temperature, hours of day light, was the only factors taken into account. The formula does not take into account wind effect. The formula is extremely empirical and highly complex. However, suitable tables are readily available for solution of the formula (Thornthwaite and Mather, 1957; Palmer and Havens, 1958). Thornthwaite (1954) justified the selection of the mean air temperature on the ground that there is fixed relationship between that part of the net radiation which is used for heating and part which is used for evaporation when the soil is continuously moist. The use of mean air temperature in the method is based on the implication given by Thornthwaite (1948) that no ET occurs when the mean temperature is less than 0C. In many cases, this assumption will obviously be incorrect since day time temperature during such a period is likely to rise above 0C, and is giving possibility that ET is likely to occur. The use of mean air temperature was also not suggested by Vanwijk and deVaries (1954) on the basis that the temperature of the air lags behind solar radiation, particularly in middle and high latitudes; consequently the formula tends to under estimate winter ET and to over-estimate summer ET (Ward, 1963). Pelton et al. (1960) compared PET estimated by Thornthwaite method with measured PET. The thornthwaite method was found reliable for daily, 3-day and 6-day period estimates. However, it failed for short period estimates principally because mean temperature is not a suitable physical measure of the energy available for use at Madison. Hashemi and Habibian (1977) at Geneva, Swetwerland studied the limitation of temperature based methods estimating the crop evaporation and they also observed that the Thornthwaite method under-estimated ET. Despite the inherent weaknesses of the formula implied by these criticism of its complexity, the Thornthwaite method has been widely applied because it

25

requires only mean air temperature and latitude data easily available at many locations and for long period. The methods of Thornthwaite, Penman and class A pan evaporation were compared by Souza et al. (1994) for estimating reference evapotranspiration (ET) in the lower region of Minas Gerais, Brazil. All the methods tested were overestimated the ET. Best results were obtained with Thornthwaite method followed by Penman and class A pan evaporation methods. Georgiev and Vazandjiiev (1994) at Bulgaria used six different methods for calculating potential evapotranspiration and evaluated. The methods tested were Penman, Christiansen, Thornthwaite, Garcia and Lopez, Hagreaves and Turc. All methods worked well but Thornthwaite was the most rapid method. 2.5.2 Turc method Turc (1961) proposed the following equations based on air temperature, solar radiation and relative humidity. (i) Equation for 50 per cent relative humidity : ETT = 0.7605 (ii)
T (RS + 0.35) T + 15
T (RS + 0.15) 1 + 50rh 70 T + 15

(2)

Equation for 70 per cent relative humidity : ETT = 0.7605 (3)

where, ETT T RS rh = Turc ET (mm day-1) = air temperature (C) = solar radiation (mm day-1) = relative humidity in fraction

Ayoade (1976) examined this method for estimating evaporation and ET in Nigeria. Calculations were made for mean annual ET and using the Thornthwaite water budgeting procedure. Compared estimated differed both in magnitude and seasons distribution as did measured evaporation using various pans. Estimates of PET here close for south Nigeria and during the wet season. Correlation analysis
26

indicted that temperature based formula would underestimate PET in North Nigeria. Metochis (1977) at Nicosia used this method for estimating PET of lucerne during 2-year period. The water balance of the soil profile in the field plots was used to provide standard PET values. This method did not give good correlation with measured PET. Correlation analysis indicated that the temperature based formula underestimated PET. 2.5.3 Stephens and Stewart method Stephens and Stewart (1963) proposed the following equation based on air temperature and solar radiation as estimate of ET : ETSS = (0.015T + 0.072) RS where, ETSS = Stephens-Stewart PET (mm day-1) T RS = air temperature (C) = solar radiation (mm H2O day-1) . (4)

This formula is based on air temperature and solar radiation. Ayoade (1976) observed that temperature based formula would underestimate PET. The failure of the temperature based formula to estimate ET over short term period is attributed to the fact that the short term mean temperature is not a suitable measurement of in coring radiation. Rambabu and Rao (1999) at Bapatla calibrated and evaluated potential evapotranspiration by Turc method but this method underestimated the actual evapotranspiration. 2.5.4 Jensen and Haise method Jensen-Haises estimate of PET is given by the following formula) Jensen and Haise, 1963) : ETJH = (0.24T + 0.88) RS where, T = air temperature (C)
27

(5)

RS

= solar radiation (mm H2O day-1)

ETJH = Jensen-Haise ET (mm day-1) Jensen et al. (1970) proposed the following formula for estimating PET using solar radiation and mean air temperature. ETJ where, ETJ CT = Jensen ET (mm day-1) = air temperature coefficient which is constant for a given area = CT (T TX) RS (6)

derived from the long-term mean maximum and minimum temperature for the month of highest mean air temperature. CT =

1 68 + 13CH
37.5 C 2 C1

CH = Humidity index =
C2 C1 T TX

= standard vapour pressure (mm Hg) at mean maximum air temperature during the warmest month. = standard vapour pressure at minimum air temperature during the same month. = mean daily air temperature in F = constant for a given area and represents the linear equation intercept on the temperature axis. = 27.5 0.33 (C2 C1) E1 / 1000

E1 RS

= elevation in feet

(C2-C1) = vapour pressure deficit (mm Hg) = solar radiation expressed as the equivalent depth of evaporation (mm day-1) Jensen et al. (1971) showed that this formula provided a good estimate of PET when wind speed and humidity data were not available and advection was not severe.

28

Singh (1974) used the Jensen-Haise method to estimate PET from wheat, lentil, potato and pea. He found this method suitable for wheat in the Tarai region at Pantnagar. Pathak (1980) estimated PET of wheat by Jensen-Haise method in Pantnagar and found that this method gave good correlation (r = 0.7) with the measured ET by a considerable amount.
2.5.5 Blaney-criddle method

Blaney and Morin (1942) correlated pan evaporation with monthly temperature relative humidity and percentage of total yearly day light hour for each individual month and derived an empirical consumptive use index. EL = 0.0167T (114-RH) where EL T RH = lack evaporation (inch) = annual temperature (C) = annual mean relative humidity (%) (7)

A factor for evaporative heat energy (available) was computed from the product of monthly mean temperature (F) and monthly per cent of total annual day light hours.
C = Ktp (114-RH) = Kf (114-RH) (8)

where, C K = monthly evaporation (inch) = monthly coefficient that varies with the type of vegetation or water surface used t P RH = mean monthly temperature (F) = monthly mean per cent of annual day light hours = monthly mean relative humidity (%)

Blancy and Criddle (1950) developed a consumptive use technique which correlated existing data on crop consumptive use of water with monthly

29

temperature, monthly percentage of annual day light hours and length of growing season. They proposed the following equation : U = KsF = Kmf = where, U Ks Km t P F = consumptive use during the period of interest in inch = growing period consumptive use coefficient = monthly consumptive use coefficient = monthly mean temperature in F = monthly per cent of total annual day light hours = sum of the monthly consumptive use factors (f) for the growing season f = tp / 100

K m tp 100

The Blaney-Criddle formula is as such in British units. This formula is converted in metric units as follows : U = 2.54 K where, U t = consumptive use of water (mm) = mean monthly temperature (C)

P (1.8) t + 32
I

(9)

The following assumptions have been made in the Blancy-Criddle method : (i) Seasonal consumptive use, U varies directly with the consumptive use factors f. (ii) (iii) Water supply to the growing plants never becomes limiting. The length of the growing season is an index of production and consumptive use of water is continuous by growing crop. (iv) Soil fertility and producing power of the soil do not differ significantly among the areas to be compared. This method is easy to use, necessary data are readily obtainable and the results have been found sufficiently accurate for many practical applications.
30

Although the formula looks attractively simple but it has several limitations. It is an empirical formula developed to fit for arid condition and expected to give good estimates of consumptive use. This method has greater success to estimate the PET for longer time than requirement for shorter period. The Blaney-Criddle approach has been used by several workers. Tomilson (1953) and Schelusener et al. (1961) used this approach for estimating PET and in irrigation planning for different crops. The United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Services modified by Blaney-Criddle formula for aid and semi arid areas in two ways (USDA-SCS, 1967). One modification was the use of climate coefficient (Kf) that was related to mean air temperature for the short period. The second modification was the use of crop coefficient (KC) which reflected the influence of the crop growth stages on ET rates. The modifications in the original form were as follows : K = K f . Kc where, Kf t Kc = temperature coefficient = 0.0073 t 0.314 = temperature (C) = crop coefficient

Doorenbos and Pruitt (1975) at Rome rejected the use of crop coefficient (Kc) normally applied in the original Blaney-Criddle approach because (i) the original crop coefficient (Kc) was heavily dependent on the local conditions and wide varieties of Kc values reported in literature make the selection of this value rather difficult, (ii) the relationship between Blancy-Criddle f-value and PET can be adequately described for a wide range of temperatures for areas. Heaving minor variations in relative humidity, sunshine hours and wind velocity. They recommended the following relationship for f factor in Blaney-Criddle formula. f = P (0.46 t + 8.33) using t in C or f = 25.4
Pt using t in F 100

31

where, t is the mean of daily maximum and minimum temperatures in C or F, p is the daily percentage of annual day time hours for a given month and latitude. Tosso (1975) proposed a new formula to determine ET in chilli which enables the estimation of class A pan evaporation with the information on pan evaporation and knowing the value of KC. It is possible to estimate the actual ET for a specific crop. The values of KC for a number of crops have been tabulated. According to Rathore and Singh (1976) at Rajasthan College of Agriculture, Udaipur the Blaney-Criddle method gave the closest relationship with water use in dwarf wheat. However, class A open pan was found to be most convenient for scheduling irrigation. Ton and Futton (1980) at USA reported that the value of KC depends on the percentage of foliage cover on the soil increasing from emergence of the crop to approximately 50-80 per cent of the full foliage cover, it remains at a maximum value for about 2 weeks and there after decreases during the later stage upto crop maturity. Palutikof et al. (1994) demonstrated simple methods for estimating evapotranspiration. It required only air temperature and day length data and compared with the results obtained using Penman method for sites in France and Spain. They concluded that the Blaney-Criddle method was the best method. Katimon et al. (1994) at Malaysia estimated evapotranspiration of chilli in the tropics by using Blaney-Criddle method. The actual crop evapotranspiration and estimated evapotranspiration ratio ranged from 0.92 to 1.76 depending on crop growth stage. Lasavio et al. (1995) compared estimated evapotranspiration from different methods. It was concluded that the Penman and Blaney-Criddle method gave the most accurate results. Lamascese et al. (1997) also used Blaney-Criddle method and concluded that this method was best for the metaponto area in Italy.

32

2.5.6 Modified Penman method

Penman (1948) proposed an equation for evaporation from open water surface based on combination of energy balance and sink strength and then applied empirical coefficient to convert estimated evaporation to PET from vegetative surface. Penman assured that the heat flux into and out of the soil was small enough to be conveniently ignored. By combination method, the PET data from a short green crop cover. Completely shading the ground and never short of water is expressed in generalized form as follows : ETP = W.Rn + (1 W) . F (u) (ea - ed) where, W.Rn = radiation term (1-W) f(u) . (ea-ed) = aerodynamic term ETP = reference crop ET in mm day-1 (10)

Solving radiation term

Rn = Rns - Rnl Rns (net incoming short wave radiation)=RA(1-) (0.25+0.50 n/N) Rnl = f (t) . f (ed) . f (n/N) (value of F(t), f(ed) and f(n/N) are given in Appendix XI) W = temperature and elevation weighing factor for the effect of radiation (Appendix XI) Radiation term = W Rn
Solving aerodynamic term

ea ed

= saturation vapour pressure at the mean air temperature = saturation vapour pressure of the air at dew point temperature in mm Hg =
RH mean e a 100

f(u)

= wind related function = 0.27 ( 1 + W2 / 100)

33

(1-w) = temperature and elevation related weighing factor for the effect of wind and humidity Value of ea, ed, f(u) and (1-W) are given in Appendix XI. Aerodynamic term = (1-W) f(u) (ea ed) Penman formula has been used by several workers for estimating crop ET and the results have shown good agreement between measured ET and estimated ET (Grant, 1975; Boonyatharobul, 1975 and Haine, 1976). Palaskar and Varde (1987) at Aurangabad, Maharashtra determined the ratio of an estimate by the pan evaporation method to an estimate by the modified penman method was 0.9. Pan evaporation and modified Penman methods showed a strong correlation for their estimates of ET0 (r = 0.88). Hence the pan evaporation method is recommended for the design of irrigation schemes if adequate and representive meteorological data required for the modified Penman method are not available. However, the results of Thom and Oliver (1977) at Edinburgh, U.K. have shown that the Penman equation under emphasized the importance of ventilation relative to radiation in maintaining regional evaporation. They proposed generalized ventilation term and a modified equation for evaporation. The new equation was calibrated to give the same annual total ET for short vegetation as Pensons original version. Rambabu and Rao (1999) at Bapatla demonstrated that among four methods Hargreaves estimates were close to the Penman's, and gave an average error of 21 percent. Calibration coefficients were evolved for all the four relationships that reduced the errors in PET estimation. Ramchandrappa and Nanjappa (1994) at Bangalore, Karnataka evaluated evapotranspiration of summer groundnut by Penman, pan evaporation, radiation and Blaney-Criddle methods in two consecutative years. In the first year, there was a close correlation between the crop evapotranspiration (ET) in all the irrigation schedules and ET by the modified Penman method. In the 2nd year the Penman

34

method estimated closely with actual crop ET. The pan evaporation and BlaneyCriddle methods underestimated actual crop ET.

35

Chapter 3

Materials and Methods

The material used, experimental procedures followed and the techniques adopted for collecting and recording the experimental observations during the rabi seasons of 2005-06 and 2006-07 with chickpea crop are described in this chapter.
3.1 Experimental site

G. B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology, Pantnagar (29o N latitude, 79o30' E longitude and altitude 243.84 m amsl) situated in Udham Singh Nagar District and is located in Tarai and bhabar agroclimatic zones of Uttarakhand (Fig. 1). A field experiment was conducted at the crop Research Centre, plot number D5 of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar (U.S. Nagar) during rabi seasons of 2005-06 and 2006-07 for chickpea crop (Fig. 2)

Fig. 1: Location of Uttarakhand

36

Fig. 2 : Map of Crop Research Centre (CRC) located at GBPUAT Pantnagar 3.2 Climate and weather conditions

The climate of Pantnagar is humid subtropical with severe cold winter and hot summer. Generally, the monsoon sets around the third week of June and last upto September end. A few showers generally occur during the winter and occasionally during the summer months also. Weekly average of various weather parameters recorded in the meteorological observatory adjacent to the experimental site, during the course of investigation are given in Appendix-I and II.
3.3 Soil characteristics

The soil of the experimental site is Patharchatta, sandy loam (series VI, Despandey et al., 1971). The soil is moderately dark coloured, naturally moderately well to well drained, developed in loamy alluvial sediments averaging 0.6 to 1.0 metre thick over loamy sand and sand or gravel. The soils has developed from calcarious medium to moderately coarse textured material under the predominant influence of tall grasses in moderately well drained conditions. The soil is weakly developed with mollic epipedon and cambic horizon and classified

37

as coarse-loamy, mixed, hyperthermic, typic hapludoll. Important physical and chemical properties of the soil are given in Table 1, 2 and 3.
Table 1 : Particle size distribution of Pattarchatta sandy loam soil (series VI) Horizon Depth (cm) 0-20 20-38 38-48 48-74 74-104 107-129 Particles size distribution of <2 mm fractions Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) 53.2 35.5 11.2 53.6 34.2 12.2 60.9 27.6 11.5 69.5 21.6 8.7 73.2 17.3 9.6 73.6 17.3 9.2

Ap A-1 B-1 B-2 B-31 B-32

Table 2 : Chemical properties of Pattarchatta sandy loam soil (series VI) Horizon Depth (cm) 0-20 20-38 38-48 48-74 74-104 107-129 Organic matter (%) 1.9 1.1 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 pH (1:2) CaCO3 equiv. CEC (c mol (%) p+ kg-1) 0.0 9.8 0.0 8.6 0.0 8.6 0.0 6.2 0.0 5.8 0.0 6.6

Ap A-1 B-1 B-2 B-31 B-32

6.4 6.1 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.4

Table 3 : Bulk density and moisture content of the soil Soil depth (cm) Bulk density (Mg m-3) 1.58 1.54 1.52 1.54 1.49 1.50 Soil moisture content (%) 0.033 MPa 1.5 MPa 20.3 5.2 19.1 5.3 16.4 4.9 12.6 4.2 10.5 4.6 11.0 4.2

0-20 20-38 38-48 48-74 74-104 107-129

3.4

Experimental details

The experiment was conducted with chickpea (Cicer aritunum L.) cv. PT-186 sown on 01 Dec. 2005 and 28 Nov., 2006 and harvest on 10 April 2006 and 20 April 2007, respectively.

38

3.4.1

Measurement of spatial and temporal variation in temperature and relative humidity

The micrometeorological observation recorded at 15 days interval after germination during growing period of chickpea. The observation were taken at hourly interval in the crop from 0900 to 1700 hours. Canopy temperature was recorded with the help of Air Thermometer. The canopy temperature was recorded by inclining the thermometer at an angle of 45, 5, 50 and 100 cm above the crop surface. Dry and wet bulb temperature were recorded with the help of Psychrometer at the heights of 5 cm, 50 cm and100 cm within the crop and these values were used for computing vapour pressure and relative humidity by using psychrometeric tables.
3.4.2 Soil temperature

Three soil thermometer at 5, 10 and 20 cm soil depth were fixed facing southward. The observations were recorded daily at 0900 to 17000 hours from germination to maturity.
3.4.3 Post planting observation on various studies 3.4.3.1 Growth and development studies

Five plants were randomly selected and tagged in each lysimeter. These observation were made at an interval of 25 days from the date of sowing of the crop.
3.4.3.1.1 Plant height

The plant height of five tagged plants were measured from the base of plant to the top of the plant at 15 days interval. The average have been reported as the plant height in cms.
3.4.3.1.2 Number of branches

Total number of branches were recorded from the tagged plants and mean value was worked out for number of branches per plant.
39

3.4.3.1.3 Number of leaves

Total number of leaves of five selected plants were counted and mean value was worked out for number of leaves per plant.
3.4.3.1.4 Days to flowering

The number of days taken to 75 per cent flowering were recorded based on visual observations.
3.4.3.1.5 Days to maturity

The number of days taken to 80 per cent maturity were recorded based on visual observations.
3.4.3.2 Yield attributes

Various yield attributes including number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod, seed weight per plant (g) and 1000-seed weight (g) were recorded following standard methods.
3.4.3.2.1 Number of pod per plant

Total number of pods on the five tagged plants used for measuring height and number of branches was counted and average number of pods per plant was reported.
3.4.3.2.2 Number of grain per pod

Number of grains per pod was recorded from 5 randomly selected pods form main shoot and different branches were threshold counted and average number of grains per pod has been reported.
3.4.3.2.3 Grain weight per plant

The grain obtained after threshing the pods of respeoctive branches from 5 randomly selected plants were weighed separately by electrical balance (sensitivity 0.0001 g) and average reported in grams.

40

3.4.3.2.4 1000-grain weight (g)

The weight of 1000-seeds was recorded with the above balance after counting the grains taken from the grains samples of the each lysimeter.
3.4.3.2.5 Yield studies (a) Grain yield

From the each lysimeter, net area 1.44 m2 was harvested and yield was recorded (biological yield). After threshing, grain yield per plant was recorded and has been reported in kg ha-1.
(b) Biological yield

The produce of each plot (grain and straw) was allowed to air dry in the respective plot after harvesting and weighed to record biological yield per lysimeter which was converted into kilogram per hectare.
(c) Straw yield

Grain yield deducted from biological yield of lysimeter was recorded and has been reported in kg ha-1.
3.4.3.2.7 Harvest index

Harvest index was calculated by dividing grain yield with biological yield, recorded from net plot area as follows : Harvest index = Grain yield 100 Biological yield

3.4.4 Weather relationship

Meteorological data was collected from Meteorological observatory situated adjacent to the crop field. Maximum and minimum temperatures were measured by maximum and minimum thermometers placed in the Stevenson screen. Wind speed was measured by anemometer. Relative humidity was calculated from temperatures recorded by dry and wet bulb thermometer placed in the Stevenson screen and RH (%) was computed using hygrometric tables of 1000 mb. Bright sunshine hours was measured by Campbell stocks type sunshine records installed
41

in the Meteorological observatory and growing degree days (GDD) were also calculated. GDD called heat units, effective heat units or growth units, are a simple means of relating plant growth, development and maturity of air temperature (Vittum et al., 1965). The growing degree days were calculated using the following equations.
n T + Tmin Tt GDD = max 2 i =1

where, Tmax + Tmin/2 is the average daily temperature and Tt is the minimum threshold or base temperature for a crop. Tt for the crops under study was assumed to be 40F or 4.4C
3.4.5 Evapotranspiration measurement methods

The ET losses in chickpea was measured with the help of two weighing type lysimeters (manufactured by Asiatic Equipments, Kolkata) installed at the Crop Research Centre, Pantnagar by Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), Pune. The details of the design of the lysimeters are shown in Fig. 3.3. A brief description is as follows:
3.4.5.1 Lysimeter details

3.4.5.1.1 Tanks

The lysimeter tank having the inside dimension 1.33 1.33 0.9 m3 made of 3 mm thick steel or iron and is mounted on the platform of a weighing machine. The sink of the tank is at the same level as the surface of surrounding field. The lysimeter tanks contains a perforated plate placed 75 cm depth, so as to from a hollow chamber at the bottom to collect percolated water. A tube is inserted through the perforated sheet into bottom of the hollow chamber to facilitate the removal of percolated water. A tap is also filled at the bottom of the tank to drain out the percolated water from the hollow chamber.

42

3.4.5.1.2 Retaining tank

A retaining tank is provided a pit linearly to isolate the lysimeter tank, weighing bridge etc. and to protect them from seepage of water adjoining the soil. It ensures a water proof room for lysimeter. The retaining tank has dimensions of 140 140 12.5 cm3. It is also made of 3 mm thick mild steel rain forced on sides along the top and diagonally by a angle iron of 3.7 3.7 0.6 cm3 and at the bottom edge by angle iron of 7.5 7.5 0.6 cm3 on the out side.

Fig. 3: Weighing type lysimeter 3.4.5.1.3 Dummy tank

A smaller tank of 30 30 90 cm3 size is placed in the gap near the head so as to prevent over heating of the sides of lysimeter tank near the weighing
43

machine pillar. It consists of mild steel sheet of 30 30 0.6 cm3 size with a platform of 10 mm diameter spaced at interval of 50 mm. The plate is supported by an angle iron frame of 37 37 6 mm3 size along all its edges at a depth of 75 cm. A GI-pipe of 12 mm diameter passing through a suitable opening in the perforated plate is welded to the perforated sheet. The pipe stops 5 mm short of the bottom, extends 75 mm above the tank and is closed by a plug at top. Angle from reinforcement of 37 37 6 mm3 size and at 175 mm length of which 125 mm length is welded on the outside to the walls end is provided a t the top of the tank at the four corners. Lifting rings is provided on each angle iron to enable safe lifting of the tank full of the soil.
3.4.5.1.4 Weighing mechanism

The various of the weight of the lysimeter tank as a result of seepage, runoff, irrigation, rainfall etc. is measured with weighting bridge having the following specifications. Type Capacity Platform size : : : Dormant platform weighting bridge 2000 kg 120 120 cm2

Distance from the centre of the platform to the centre of pillar = 122.5 cm
Installation of the lysimeter

At the time of installation of the lysimeter a pit of 3.5 3.0 1.75 m3 size were dug out. The soil was excavated from the pit in the layers of 15 cm upto a depth of 90 cm and was stacked on separate heaps with identification tags, at 3 meters away from the edges of the pit. A concrete foundation was laid and four sides of the foundation are also made up of concrete walls along with extended portion to house the weighing machine. Retaining tank was placed and belted with foundation. The weighing bridges were erected and lysimeter tanks were placed over the platform with the help of a chain pulley block in such a way that the drainage outlet was towards the dummy tank.
44

A filter bed consisting of 5 cm of graded gravel and 5 cm of sand occupied the bottom of the lysimeter tank. The soil was filled within 5 cm of the top of the lysimeter.
3.4.6 Estimation of ET by different mathematical methods based on micrometeorological parameters and analysis of the relationship of measured ET with estimated ET

The ET of chickpea was estimated separately on weekly basis by the mathematical methods of Thornthwaite, Turc, Stephen-Stewart, Jensen-Haise, Blaney-Criddle and modified Panman as described below:
3.4.6.1 Thornthwaite method

The ET was estimated by using the equations (1) described in review of literature, calculated by taking weekly mean temperature for all the week of chickpea growing season. Annual heat index (TE) was calculated from monthly indices (I) taking monthly mean temperature (C). The unadjusted consumptive use values (ET) were multiplied with a correlation factor obtained from IARI monograph (1970).
3.4.6.2 Turc method (1961)

In this method the Turc equation (3) was used for calculating weekly rate of ET for 70 per cent relative humidity. The weekly data of mean air temperature, solar radiation and relative humidity were taken from the record of Meteorological Observatory.
3.4.6.3 Stephens-Stewart method (1963)

The weekly ET rates were calculated by the equation (4) of Stephens and Steward as described in the proceeding chapter weekly mean temperature and solar radiation were taken from Meteorological Observatory records.

45

3.4.6.4 Jensen-Haise method

Jensen and Haise proposed equation (5) to estimate the ET which was further modified by Jensen et al. (1970). In this study the modified form of equation (6) was used to estimate weekly ET. This equation required vapour pressure at mean maximum air temperature and mean minimum temperature, which were obtained (Israelson, 1972). This equation also required solar radiation, which was obtained from Pantnagar Agrometeorology Observatory. The solar radiation data recorded in ly day-1 were converted to equal depth of water in millimeter per day by multiplying it with 0.017094. The elevation of the experimental site is important in the situation, so the elevation of Pantnagar was taken as 799.9 feet above mean sea level.
3.4.6.5 Blaney-Criddle method

ET was estimated on weekly basis by using equation (9) described in the preceding chapter on review of literature. It required mean air temperature and percentage of the daily day time hours. The temperature data were obtained from Pantnagar Meteorological Observatory. The percentage of the day time hours was obtained from Table 4.3 (Michael et al., 1977). This equation also required crop coefficient which was taken from Table 11.11 (Israelson, 1962).
3.4.6.6 Penman method (1948)

ET was estimated on weekly basis by using equation (10) of Penman as described in the preceding chapter. The RA component of Penman equation was obtained from the (Appendix-XI). The second component of these equations 'r' is a reflection coefficient of chickpea crop. The third component 'n' was summation of bright sunshine hours (Appendix-XI). The parameter (T4) was obtained from (Appendix XI). The another factor 'ea' saturated vapour pressure was obtained from the (Appendix-XI). The 'ea' value was multiplied by relative humidity and wind speed data were obtained from meteorological observatory records.

46

3.4.7

Measurement of pan evaporation (EP) and analysis of the relationship of measured ET with pan evaporation

The data on pan evaporation were collected from the meteorological observatory, located near the lysimeters. The pan evaporation at the observatory was recorded with the help of USWB (United States Weather Bureau) Class A pan evaporimeter has dimensions of 120 cm in diameter and 25 cm in depth. The pan is placed on a wooden rack. The pan evaporation is recorded daily by recording water level in the pan with the help of a hook gauge and still well. The daily pan evaporation data were summed up for computing weekly total pan evaporation for all the standard meteorological weeks. The cumulative pan evaporations for entire crop season was also compared for chickpea by summing up the weekly totals of corresponding weeks of chickpea in both year. The ratio of measured ET and pan evaporation were computed on weekly basis by dividing weekly total measured ET with weekly total pan evaporation. The relationship between measured ET and pan evaporation was studied through correlation and regression analysis taking measured ET as dependent variable and pan evaporation as independent variable. The correlation coefficients were calculated from weekly data of chickpea crop.
3.5 Statistical method

The statistical analysis of the data thus collected during the field experiment was done by a simple correlation and regression analysis made on weekly rates of measured ET and estimated ET.

47

Chapter 4

Experimental Results

A field experiment was conducted during the rabi season of 2005-06 and 2006-07 with chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) cv. PT-186 sown on 1 December, 2005, 28 November, 2006. ET is affected by soil, plant and meteorological factors, therefore, crop-atmosphere system was characterized in terms of

micrometeorological elements and its effect of ET was studied. The results are presented in under the following heads:
4.1 Meteorological observations recorded for chickpea growing season during 2005-06 and 2006-07

The weekly and the entire seasons average values of different weather parameters recorded during chickpea growing season in both years (2005-06 and 2006-07) are given in Appendix I and II, respectively. The average mean air temperature for the whole season during 2005-06 was 17.1C. The weekly average daily maximum temperature for the whole season was 24.5C and it varied from 18.9C at 35.9C. The maximum temperature was 35.9C in the 15th week during crop season and minimum was 18.9C in the 2nd week i.e. 8-14 January. The weekly average daily minimum temperature for the season was 9.8C and it varied from 3.7C in 4th week (22-28 Jan) to 15.3C in 15th week (9-15 April). The average mean relatively humidity (R.H.) during the season was 65 per cent. The R.H. was maximum (75%) during 2nd week (8.14 Jan). While it was minimum (42%) during 15th week (9-15 April). The average wind speed for the season was 3.5 km hr-1. The maximum wind speed was recorded as 7.4 km hr-1 in 8th week (19-25 Feb) while the minimum wind speed was recorded as 1.8 km hr-1 in 52nd week (24-31 Dec). The average duration of sunshine during the season was 7.1 hr day_1. The duration of sunshine was maximum (9.9 hr) during 14th week (28 April) while it was minimum (3.7 hr) during 6th week. The average solar radiation was 406.5 ly day-1 14th week (2-8 April) while it was minimum (285 ly day-1). The solar radiation was maximum (502 ly day-1) during 6th week. The total
48

rainfall during the season was 18.2 mm. The maximum rainfall was during 51st week. However, in year 2006-07, weather fluctuated, there were hail storm in 12 Feb 07, 13 March 2007 and 14 March 2007. The average mean air temperature for the whole season was 17.5C. The weekly average daily maximum temperature for the whole season was 24.9C and varied from 17.9C during 1st week (1-7 Jan) to 35.1C during 15th week (9-15 April). The weekly average daily minimum temperature for the season was 10.1C and varied from 2.5C during 2nd week to 20.8C during 16th week. The average mean relatively humidity (RH) during the season was 69 per cent. The RH was maximum (82%) during 6th week while it was minimum (51%) during 15th week. The average wind speed for the season was 9.8 km hr_1. The maximum wind speed was recorded as 15.8 km hr_1 in 6th week (5-11 Feb), while the minimum was 3.1 in 4th week. The average duration of sunshine during the season was 6.9 hr day_1. The duration of sunshine was maximum (9.9 hr) during 13th week (26-1 April). While it was minimum as (1.8 hr) during 6th week. The average solar radiation during the season was 397.1 ly day_1. The solar radiation was maximum (502 ly day_1) during 13th week. However, it was minimum (218 ly day_1) during 6th week. The total rainfall during the season was 275 mm. The maximum rainfall was during 6th week (81.6 mm), 7th week (69.4) and 11th week (46.00 mm).
4.1.2 Growing degree days for each phenophase during growing season of chickpea in year 2005-06 and 2006-07

The results showed that chickpea took 131 and 143 days to attain physiological maturity during 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively. The crop sown in 2006-07 took higher number of days compared to 2005-06 to attain physiological maturity. Accumulated heat units to attain crop growth stages from sowing to maturity for chickpea (Table 4.4 and Fig. 4.4) showed that a higher GDD was observed in 2006-07 compared to 2005-06. The crop sown during 1 December 2005 experienced 12.7 GDD at this time. At the time of germination, 8.3 GDD was
49

observed. GDD (123.6) during the period between sowing and germination as well as between germination and branching was found 167.8 GDD. GDD was 582.9 during branching to flowering. Between flowering to pod formation, GDD was 254.5 and 564.8 GDD during the period between pod formation to maturity. However, in 2006-07, 1810.4 GDD was recorded during sowing to maturity.

Table 4 : Growing degree days for each penophase during growing season of chickpea in year 2005-06 and 2006-07
Year Sowing to Germination Branching to Flowering to Pod germination to branching flowering pod formation to formation maturity Number of days 12 8 50 21 30 13 19 53 27 31 Growing degree days (GDD) 123.6 167.8 582.9 254.5 564.8 120.6 193.0 496.9 326.1 673.8 Sowing to maturity

2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07

131 143 1693.6 1810.4

800

2005-06 2006-07

700

600

Growing degree days

500

400

300

200

100

0 Germination Branching Flowering Development stages Pod formation Maturity

Fig. 4 : Growing degree days for each penophase during growing to maturity of chickpea

50

4.2

Spatial and temporal variation in temperature and relative humidity at different stages of chickpea during 2005-06 and 2006-07

Temperature profiles extended down form atmosphere into plant canopies and soil must necessarily differ from those in free air. Differences are compounded by the fact that as the day progresses the sources and sinks for sensible heat may change. Fig. 5-8 show temperature profiles for different stages. At the time of different stages (flowering, pod formation and maturity) the temperature increased as the height increased and then decreased with height. Soil temperature in the lower depth i.e. at 20 cm was observed less than the surface soil. The patterns of temperature variation in chickpea crop as a function of time and space on a particular day are shown in Fig. 5-8. In general, temperature increased rapidly from morning to noon, remained constant and then it decreased. The rate of increase or decrease varied with time of the day. The temperature differences were low in the noon while in the morning and evening temperature difference between within and above canopy was more. Fig. 5-8 also show that in the morning hours soil temperature at 20 cm depth was more than the surface while in noon and after noon soil temperature at 20 cm depth was less than surface soil. Air temperature profiles at different stages indicate that the temperature inside the crop canopy was lower than that recorded above the canopy almost throughout the day. At the time of flowering soil temperature increased at 18.5 to 24.6C at 5 cm depth and at 20 cm depth, it varied from 16.9C to 21.50C. Then after noon (0200 hr) it decreased from 24.6C to 22.2C at 5 cm depth and 28.5C to 18.1C at 20 cm depth. During same period the air temperature varied from 25-5 to 30.5C at 100 cm height and 24.3 to 29.7C at 5 cm height.

51

45

Flowering (17.2.06) 100 h (cm) Pod formation (9.3.06) 100 h (cm) Maturity (10.4.06) 100 h (cm)

Flowering (17.2.06) 50 h (cm) Pod formation (9.3.06) 50 h (cm) Maturity (10.4.06) 50 h (cm)

Flowering (17.2.06) 5 h (cm) Pod formation (9.3.06) 5 h (cm) Maturity (10.4.06) 5 h (cm)

40

Temperature (C)

35

30

25

20 9 10 11 12 1 Time 2 3 4 5

Fig. 5 : Spatial and temporal variation in temperature at different stages during 2005-06

45

Flowering (20.2.07) 100 h (cm) Pod formation (21.3.07) 100 h (cm) Maturity (20.4.07) 100 h (cm)

Flowering (20.2.07) 50 h (cm) Pod formation (21.3.07) 50 h (cm) Maturity (20.4.07) 50 h (cm)

Flowering (20.2.07) 5 h (cm) Pod formation (21.3.07) 5 h (cm) Maturity (20.4.07) 5 h (cm)

40

Temperature (C)

35

30

25

20
9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5

Time

Fig. 6 : Spatial and temporal variation in temperature at different stages during 2006-07

52

40

Flowering (17.2.06) Depth (5 cm) Pod formation (9.3.06) Depth (5 cm) Maturity (10.4.06) Depth (5 cm)

Flowering (17.2.06) Depth (10 cm) Pod formation (9.3.06) Depth (10 cm) Maturity (10.4.06) Depth (10 cm)

Flowering (17.2.06) Depth (20 cm) Pod formation (9.3.06) Depth (20 cm) Maturity (10.4.06) Depth (20 cm)

35

Temperature (C)

30

25

20

15 9 10 11 12 1 Time 2 3 4 5

Fig. 7 : Soil temperature at different stages during 2005-06

34

32

Flowering (20.2.07) Depth (5 cm) Pod formation (21.3.07) Depth (5 cm) Maturity (20.3.07) Depth (5 cm)

Flowering (20.2.07) Depth (10 cm) Pod formation (21.3.07) Depth (10 cm) Maturity (20.3.07) Depth (10 cm)

Flowering (20.2.07) Depth (20 cm) Pod formation (21.3.07) Depth (20 cm) Maturity (20.3.07) Depth (20 cm)

30

28

26 Temperature (C)

24

22

20

18

16

14 9 10 11 12 1 Time 2 3 4 5

Fig. 8 : Soil temperature at different stages during 2006-07

53

In general, temperature increased rapidly from 0800 to 0200 hours and then it decreased. The rate of increase or decrease varied with time of the day. At the pod formation soil temperature increased from 22.9C to 26.9C at 5 cm depth while the air temperature varied from 32.4C to 35.9C at 100 cm height above canopy. At the surface level with in canopy there was minimum temperature difference. At the time of maturity both temperature were increased. However, second year same pattern were seen but in month of February and March heavy hail storm was fallen so crop period were increased. The relative humidity profile at different stage are shown in Fig. 9-10. Both figures show that in all the case, relative humidity decreases with height. The relative humidity within the lower part of stand was more than the atmosphere. Figures 9 and 10 also indicate a general decrease in relative humidity from morning hours to 1200 noon. After 1400 hours the humidity was almost constant upto 1500 hours and after that it showed a increases.
75 73 71 69 Ralative humidity (%) 67 65 63 61 59 57 55 9 10 11 12 1 Time 2 3 4 5 Flowering (17.2.06) Height (5 cm) Pod formation (10.4.06) Height (5 cm) Maturity (10.4.06) Height (5 cm) Flowering (17.2.06) Height (100 cm) Pod formation (10.4.06) Height (100 cm) Maturity (10.4.06) Height (100 cm)

Fig. 9 : Spatial and temporal variation in relative humidity at different stages during 200506

In general, the noon time relative humidity values were lower than the morning and evening time values. These results are in the close agreement with the findings of Sri Niwas (1984). The relative humidity showed reverse trend
54

with air temperature in all the cases throughout the day. The possible reason may be that the air temperature and relative humidity are negatively correlated.
73

Flowering (20.2.07) Height (5 cm) Pod formation (21.3.07) Height (5 cm) Maturity (20.4.07) Height (5 cm)

Flowering (20.2.07) Height (100 cm) Pod formation (21.3.07) Height (100 cm) Maturity (20.4.07) Height (100 cm)

71

69

67 Ralative humidity (%)

65

63

61

59

57

55 9 10 11 12 1 Time 2 3 4 5

Fig. 10 : Spatial and temporal variation in relative humidity at different stages during 200607

4.3

Growth, development and yield attributes of chickpea

4.3.1 Plant height

Plant height increased with advancement in crop age and reached to maximum at maturity (Table 5 and Fig. 11). Rate of increase in plant height was higher during the period from 60 to 90 days and 80 to 100 days after sowing during 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. During 2006-07 crop attained slightly more height as compared to 200506 at all the growth stages. The maximum height were found to be 54 and 60.6 cm during 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively.
4.3.2 Number of branches per plant

Number of branches per plant increased with advancement of crop age and reached to its peak at maturity (Table 5 and Fig. 11). Number of branches

55

per plant were more during 2006-07. It was 14.6 and 22.5 in 2005-06 and 200607, respectively.
4.3.3 Number of leaves per plant

Number of leaves per plant increased as the crop advancement in age and reached to maximum at 120 days after sowing, thereafter declined (Table 5 and Fig. 11). Significantly more number of leaves per plant were recorded in 2006-07 in comparison to 2005-06 at all the growth stages.
Table 5: Plant height, No. of leaves and No. of branches at different days after sowing during 2005-06 and 2006-07 Growth Characters Days after sowing 30 60 90 120 Maturity 2005- 2006- 2005- 2006- 2005- 2006- 2005- 2006- 2005- 200606 07 06 07 06 07 06 07 06 07

Plant height(cm) No. of leaves No. of branches

10.3 16.2 5.4

10.6 16.6 5.8

20.9 28.9 7.0

28.2 35.4 7.6

45.0 65.1 9.4

48.1

53.5

55.8

54.0

60.6 70.3 22.5

76.7 128.6 138.1 65.8 13.4 13.6 21.3 14.6

Table 6: Number of days taken to flowering and maturity Flowering 2005-06 79 Table 7: Yield attributes No. of pods/ No. of grain/ 1000-grain Grain yield/ plant plant weight (g) plant (g) 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 34.6 30.7 1.52 1.32 205.24 195.87 5.42 4.21 2006-07 85 2005-06 131 Maturity 2006-07 143

56

Table 8: Yield attribues Straw yield Biological yield Harvest index (%) Grain yield -1 -1 (kg ha ) (kg ha-1) (kg ha ) 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 1845.0 1785.0 2618.0 2628.0 4463.0 4413.0 41.3 40.4
160 70

No. of leaves
140

No. of branches

Plant height
60

No. of leaves and No. of branches

120 50 100 40 80 30 60 20 40

20

10

0 2005-06 30 2006-07 2005-06 60 2006-07 2005-06 90

Days after sowing

0 2006-07 2005-06 120 2006-07 2005-06 2006-07 Maturity

Fig 11 : Various stage of crop growth during 2005-06 and 2006-07

4.3.4 Development

The development parameters were studied in term of days taken to 75% flowering and days to maturity. The results of days to 75 per cent flowering and days to maturity are presented in Table 6. Days to 75 per cent flowering were 79 and 85 during 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. However, days to physiological maturity were 131 and 143 in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively.
4.3.5 Yield attributes 4.3.5.1 Number of pods/plant

Number of pods/plant was higher during 2005-06 as compared to 2006-07 (Table 7). The results showed that number of pods/plant were 34.6 and 30.7 in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively.
57

Plant height (cm)

Relatively more number of grains per pod were recorded during 2005-06 than 2006-07 (Table 7). It was 1.52 in 2005-06 and however it was 1.32 in 200607.
4.3.5.2 1000-grain weight

Relatively higher 1000-grain weight was recorded during 2005-06 than 2006-07 (Table 7). It was 205.24g in 2005-06 and it was 195.07g in second year. Grain yield per plant was relatively higher during 2005-06 than 2006-07 (Table 7). It were 5.42 and 4.21g in first and second years, respectively.
Table 9(a): Daily, weekly and cumulative evapotranspiration of chickpea measured by lysimeter during 2005-2006 Standard week Weeks Average ET Weekly Cumulative ET (mm/day) total ET (mm) (mm)

49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1-7 Dec. 8-14 Dec. 15-21 Dec. 22-28 Dec. 29-4 Jan. 5-11 Jan. 12-18 Jan. 19-25 Jan. 26-1 Feb. 2-8 Feb. 9-15 Feb. 16-22 Feb. 23-1 Mar. 2-8 Mar. 9-15 Mar. 16-22 Mar. 23-29 Mar. 30-5 April 6-12 April Mean

3.2 2.2 1.9 2.5 1.9 1.5 1.9 2.7 1.9 1.7 1.8 2.5 5.1 3.3 3.1 4.9 5.7 5.6 6.1 3.13

22.4 15.4 13.3 17.5 13.4 10.5 13.2 18.9 13.3 11.9 12.6 17.5 35.7 23.1 21.7 34.3 39.9 39.2 42.7

22.4 37.8 51.1 68.6 82.0 92.5 105.7 124.6 137.9 149.8 162.4 179.9 215.6 238.7 260.4 294.7 334.6 373.8 416.5

58

Table 9(b): Daily, weekly and cumulative evapotranspiration of chickpea measured by lysimeter during 2006-2007 Standard week Weeks Average ET (mm/day) Weekly total ET (mm) Cumulative ET (mm)

48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

26-2 Dec. 3-9 Dec. 10-16 Dec. 17-23 Dec. 24-31 Dec. 1-7 Jan. 8-14 Jan. 15-21 Jan. 22-28 Jan. 29-4 Feb. 5-11 Feb. 12-18 Feb. 19-25 Feb. 26-4 Mar. 5-11 Mar. 12-18 Mar. 19-25 Mar. 26-1 April 2-8 April 9-15 April 16-22 April Mean

1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.8 4.5 5.7 4.3 4.5 5.4 6.4 6.1 5.3 5.5 8.5 3.24

8.0 8.1 8.0 7.6 8.8 10.5 8.4 8.2 11.4 11.0 5.4 18.0 40.2 30.2 31.5 37.8 44.8 42.5 37.2 38.5 59.5

8.0 16.1 24.1 31.7 40.5 51.0 59.4 67.6 79.0 90.0 95.4 113.4 153.6 183.8 215.3 253.1 297.9 340.4 377.6 416.1 475.6

4.3.6 Yield studies

Grain yield per hectare was higher during 2005-06 than 2006-07 (Table 8). Straw yield per hectare was relatively higher during 2006-07 as compared to 2005-06. The results on straw yield showed that it was maximum (2628 kg ha-1) in 2006 and was minimum (2618 kg ha-1) in 2005. Relatively more biological yield ha-1 was recorded in 2005-06 than 2006-07 (Table 8). 4463 and 4413 kg ha1

biological yield were observed in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. Harvest

59

index was higher during 2005-06 than 2006-07 (Table 8). The result showed that harvest index was 41.3 and 40.4 per cent in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively.

500 450 400 350 300 ET 250 200 150 100 50 0 2005-06 2006-07 48

2005-06 200607

49 49

50 50

51 51

52 52

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15 16

Meteorological standard week

Fig. 12 : Cumulative evapotranspiration of chickpea measured by lysimeter

4.4

Evapotranspiration (ET) of chickpea measured with lysimeter during 2005-06 and 2006-07

The data on the measured ET (per day, weekly total and cumulative) of chickpea of both year are given in Table 9 and Fig. 12. The cumulative ET of chickpea during 2005-06 was 416.5 mm. The weekly total ET increased as the age of crop increased. The average daily rate of ET was 3.13 mm day-1. In early stages of crop, the daily ET rate increased as the crop attained maturity. The average daily date of ET was maximum during 15th week. The weekly total ET was relatively higher during 9th to 15th weeks, while in 2006-07, the cumulative ET was 475.6 mm. The weekly total ET increased as the age of crop increased. The average daily rate of ET was maximum during 16th week. The average daily

60

rate of ET was 3.24 mm day-1 while weekly total ET was relatively higher during 12th to 16th weeks.
Table10(a): Pan evaporation measured with USWB class A pan evaporimeter of chickpea during 2005-06 Standard weeks Weeks Average EP (mm day-1) Weekly total Cumulative EP EP (mm) (mm)

49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1-7 Dec. 8-14 Dec. 15-21 Dec. 22-28 Dec. 29-4 Jan. 5-11 Jan. 12-18 Jan. 19-25 Jan. 26-1 Feb. 2-8 Feb. 9-15 Feb. 16-22 Feb. 23-1 Mar. 2-8 Mar. 9-15 Mar. 16-22 Mar. 23-29 Mar. 30-5 Mar. 6-12 April Mean

2.2 1.9 1.8 2.2 1.4 1.0 1.2 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.5 5.2 3.2 3.1 4.8 5.8 5.9 7.4 2.9

15.6 13.4 13.1 15.5 10.2 6.9 8.3 15.0 12.0 11.5 12.3 17.6 37.0 22.0 21.5 33.5 40.4 41.0 52.0

15.6 29.0 42.1 57.6 67.8 74.7 83.0 98.0 110.0 121.5 133.8 151.4 188.4 211.3 232.8 266.3 306.7 347.7 399.7

61

Table10(b) : Pan evaporation measured with USWB class A pan evaporimeter of chickpea during 2005-06 and 2006-07 Standard weeks Weeks Average EP (mm/day) Weekly total Cumulative EP EP (mm) (mm)

48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

26-2 Dec. 3-9 Dec. 10-16 Dec. 17-23 Dec. 24-31 Dec. 1-7 Jan. 8-14 Jan. 15-21 Jan. 22-28 Jan. 29-4 Feb. 5-11 Feb. 12-18 Feb. 19-25 Feb. 26-4 Mar. 5-11 Mar. 12-16 Mar. 19-25 Mar. 26-1 April 2-8 April 9-15 April 16-22 April Mean

2.2 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.6 1.7 1.5 2.1 4.3 4.7 3.5 3.0 3.1 4.2 5.1 4.6 6.6 6.9 7.1 3.4

16.0 13.0 11.0 12.2 12.3 12.7 12.0 12.1 11.2 14.2 31.2 33.2 25.2 20.4 21.9 29.9 35.6 32.3 46.4 48.2 49.9

16.0 29.0 40.0 52.2 64.5 77.2 89.2 101.3 112.5 126.7 157.9 191.6 216.8 237.2 259.1 288.5 324.1 356.4 402.8 451.0 500.9

62

600

2005-06
500

2006-07

400

EP

300

200

100

0
2005-06 0 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16 2006-07 48

Meteorological standard week

Fig. 13 : Cumulative pan evaporation measured with USWB class-A pan evaporimeter

4.5

Pan evaporation measured with USWB class-A pan evaporimeter for chickpea crop during 2005-06 and 2006-07

The data on the measured pan evaporation (EP) (per day, weekly total and cumulative) at standard week for chickpea during 2005-06 and 2006-07 are given in Table 10 and Fig. 13. During 2005-06, the cumulative pan evaporation (EP) was 399.7 mm. The maximum weekly total EP was recorded 7.4 mm during 15th week. The daily EP varied widely. It was maximum during 14th week and was minimum during 3rd week. During 2006-07, the cumulative pan evaporation (EP) was 500.9 mm. The average daily EP was 3.4 mm. The daily EP was maximum (7.1 mm day-1) during 16th week and was minimum (1.5 mm day-1) during 4th week.
4.6 Relationship between measured ET and measured pan evaporation (EP) in chickpea during 2005-06 and 2006-07

Weekly ET/EP ratio of different week are given in Table 11 and the variation of ET/EP ratio with crop age is shown in Fig. 14.
63

Table 11: Weekly ratio of measured ET and pan evaporation (ET/EP) of chickpea during 2005-06 and 2006-07 2005-06 Standard weeks Weeks ET/EP Standard weeks 2006-07 Weeks ET/EP

49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1-7 Dec. 8-14 Dec. 15-21 Dec. 22-28 Dec. 29-4 Jan. 5-11 Jan. 12-18 Jan. 19-25 Jan. 26-1 Feb. 2-8 Feb. 9-15 Feb. 16-22 Feb. 23-1 Mar. 2-8 Mar. 9-15 Mar. 16-22 Mar. 23-29 Mar. 30-5 Mar. 6-12 April

1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.3 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.8

48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

26-2 Dec. 3-9 Dec. 10-16 Dec. 17-23 Dec. 24-31 Dec. 1-7 Jan. 8-14 Jan. 15-21 Jan. 22-28 Jan. 29-4 Feb. 5-11 Feb. 12-18 Feb. 19-25 Feb. 26-4 Mar. 5-11 Mar. 12-18 Mar. 19-25 Mar. 26-1 April 2-8 April 9-15 April 16-22 April

0.5 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9

Mean

1.1

64

1.8

2005-06 2006-07

1.6

1.4

1.2

E T ly/E P

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
2005-06 2006-07

49 48 49

50 50

51 51

52 52

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15 16

Meteorological standard week

Fig. 14 : Line diagram of ratio of measured ET by lysimeter and measrued EP by USWB class A pan evaporimeter

As evident from the ET/EP ratio, the average ET/EP for chickpea was 1.1 and 0.9 during 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. The ET/EP ratio was maximum in middle of crop season in both cases. The maximum ET rate was 1.5 during 2nd week, while minimum was 0.8 during 6th week in 2005-06. However, the maximum ET/EP rate for 2006-07 crop season was 1.5 during 11th week. In initial stage of the crop the ET/EP ratio was quite low but increased as the crop growth proceeded and it again decreased towards maturity. A simple correlation and regression analysis made on weekly rates of measured ET and pan evaporation (EP) for both season is given in Table 12 and the relationship between measured ET and EP shown in Fig. 14. In year 2005-06, a negative correlation was obtained between measured ET and EP but in 2006-07 correlation was positive. However, the value of correlation coefficient (r) was 0.981 and 0.822 in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively and the value were significant.
65

Comparing the average rate of ET with EP, it was noted that the average rate of ET was measured 3.13 mm day-1 and average rate of EP was 2.9 mm day-1 in 2005-06. The pan evaporation (EP) under estimated by 7.34 per cent. However, in 2006-07, the pan evaporation (EP) over estimated 4.93 per cent.
4.7 Relationship between measured ET and estimated ET using different mathematical methods

The weekly daily ET rates estimated for both years by different empirical equations are given in Appendix IX and X. The results on the relationship between measured ET and estimated ET for different methods are presented in Figures (15 to 20) as line diagrams. The advantage of this line diagrams is that the data of two years can be compared with each other.
2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 ETly/ETu 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
2005-06 2006-07 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 12 13 13 14 14 15 15 16

2005-06 2006-07

Meteorological standard week

Fig. 15 : Line diagram of ratio of measured ET and estimated ET using Blaney-Criddle method

Table 12 : Relationship between measured ET and EP S. No. Mean Over (+) Corr. Year No. of Mean pairs measured measured under () coefficient ET (mm EP (mm estimation day-1) day-1) (%) 2005- 19 3.13 2.9 -7.34 0.981** 06 2006- 21 3.24 3.4 +4.93 0.822** 07
66

Regression equation

1. 2.

ET=-.0289EP + 1.400 ET=0.0303EP + 0.617

Table 13 : Relationship between measured ET and estimated ET using Blaney-Criddle method Mean Regression Over (+) Corr. S. Year No. of Mean No. pairs measured estimated under () coefficient equation ET ETu (mm estimation (mm day day-1) (%) 1 ) 1. 2005- 19 3.13 3.01 -3.83 0.706** ET = 06 0.042ETU + 0.524 2. 2006- 21 3.24 3.35 +3.39 0.493* ET = 07 0.042ETU + 0.394 ETU ET estimated through Blaney-Criddle method

** and * Significant at 1% and 5% level of significance

4.7.1 Relationship between measured ET and estimated ET using BlaneyCriddle method

A simple correlation and linear regression analysis of measured ET with estimated ET by Blaney-Criddle method for both years is given in Table 13. A line diagram of the measured and estimated ET for both years is shown in Fig. 15. The data in Table 13 indicated that this method provides reasonable estimation of ET in both years. This method, under estimated evapotranspiration by 3.83 per cent in 2005-06 and over estimated by 3.39 per cent in 2006-07. The average ET was 3.13 mm day-1 but the method estimated it as 3.01 mm day-1 and the average ET was 3.24 mm day-1 but the method estimated 3.35 mm/day in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. In both years this method showed positive correlation between measured ET and estimated ET. The value of r was highly significant in 2005-06 and it was significant in 2006-07.

67

4.7.2 Relationship between measured ET and estimated ET using JensenHaise method

A simple correlation and linear regression analysis between measured ET and estimated ET by Jensen-Haise method for both years is given in Table 14. A line diagram of the measured ET and estimated ET by this method is presented in Fig. 16.
Table 14 : Relationship between measured ET and estimated ETj using Jensen-Haise method Regression Mean Over (+) Corr. S. Year No. of Mean No. pairs measured estimated under () coefficient equation ET (mm ETj (mm estimation day-1) day-1) (%) 1. 2005- 19 3.13 3.14 -0.30 0.837** ET = 06 0.0179ETj + 1.356 2. 2006- 21 3.24 2.88 11.1 0.939** ET = 07 0.030ETj + 0.700 ETj ET estimated through Jensen-Haise method

** and * Significant at 1% and 5% level of significance

The data in Table 14 show that this method provides a good estimation of ET in both the years. The average measured ET were 3.13 and 3.24 mm day-1 while this method estimated at 3.14 and 2.88 mm day-1 in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. This method slightly under estimated ET by 0.3 and 11.1 per cent in both years, respectively. The correlation coefficient (r) are 0.837 and 0.939 in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. In both years r values are significant and there is positive correlation between measured ET and estimated ET.

68

2.0

2005-06 2006-07

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2 ETly/Ej

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

2005-06 2006-07
48

49 49

50 50

51 51

52 52

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15 16

Meteorological standard week

Fig. 16 : Line diagram of ratio of measured ET and estimated ETj using Jensen-Haise method

4.7.3

Relationship between measured ET and estimated ET using Stephens-Stewart method

A simple correlation and linear regression analysis of measured ET with estimated ET by Stephens-Stewart method for both years is given in Table 15. A line diagram of the measured ET and estimated is presented in Fig. 17. An evident from the data in the Table 15, this method also did not provide a reasonable estimation of ET in chickpea. This method highly underestimated ET by 22.0 and 17.9 per cent in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. The measured ET in 2005-06 was 3.13 mm day-1 and estimated ET by this method was 2.44 mm day-1 while in 2006-07 was 3.24 mm day-1 and estimated ET was 2.66 mm day-1. The correlation coefficient (r) between measured and estimated ET were 0.848 and 0.849 in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. The estimated ET showed significant relationship during both years.

69

Table 15: Relationship between measured ET and estimated ETss using Stephens-Stewart method Mean Over (+) S. Year No. of Mean Corr. Regression No. pairs measured estimated under () coefficient equation ET (mm ETss (mm estimation day-1) (%) day-1) 1. 2005- 19 3.13 2.44 -22.0 0.848** ET= 0.023 06 ETss+0.424 2. 2006- 21 3.24 2.66 -17.9 0.849** ET= 0.065 07 ETss+0.424 ETss ET estimated through Stephens-Stewart method

** and * Significant at 1% and 5% level of significance

2.5

2005-06 2006-07
2.0

1.5 E T ly /E T s s

1.0

0.5

0.0 2005-06 2006-07 48

49 49

50 50

51 51

52 52

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15 16

Meteorological standard week

Fig. 17 : Line diagram of ratio of measured ET and estimated ETss using Stephens-Stewart method

70

Table 16 : Relationship between measured ET and estimated ETT using Turc method Mean Over (+) Corr. Regression S. Year Number Mean of pairsmeasuredestimated under () coefficient equation No. ET (mm ETT (mm estimation day-1) day-1) (%) 1. 2005- 19 3.13 2.95 -5.7 0.641** ET = 06 0.0248ETT + 0.589 2. 2006- 21 3.24 2.74 -15.4 0.873** ET = 07 0.016ETT + 0.975 ETt ET estimated through Turc method

** and * Significant at 1% and 5% level of significance

Table 17 : Relationship between measured ET and estimated ETth using Thornthwaite method Mean Over (+) Corr. Regression S. Year Number Mean of pairs measuredestimated under () coefficient equation No. ET (mm ETth (mmestimation day-1) (%) day-1) 1. 2005- 19 3.13 2.84 -9.2 0.801** ET = 06 0.007ETTW + 0.943 2. 2006- 21 3.24 2.92 -9.8 0.867** ET = 07 0.038ETTV + 0.594 ETth ET estimated through Thornthwaite method

** and * Significant at 1% and 5% level of significance

4.7.4 Relationship between measured ET and estimated ET using Turc method

The results of correlation and linear regression of measured ET and estimated ET in chickpea is presented in Table 16 and line diagram is given in Fig. 18. It was found that, this method under estimated the ET. The ET rate were 3.13 and 3.24 mm day-1 and this method estimated as 2.95 and 2.74 mm day-1 in

71

2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. Thus it under estimated by 5.7 and 15.1 per cent in both the years, respectively. The correlation coefficient (r) between measured ET and estimated ET varied from first year to second year. In both years correlation coefficient (r) was significant.
1.8

2005-06 2006-07

1.6

1.4

1.2

ETly/ETurc

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
2005-06 2006-07

49 48 49

50 50

51 51

52 52

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15 16

Meteorological standard week

Fig. 18 : Line diagram of ratio of measured ET and estimated ETt using Turc method

4.7.5

Relationship between measured ET and estimated ET using Thornthwaite method

A correlation and linear regression analysis of measured ET and estimated ET by Thornthwaite method for both years is given in Table 17. A line diagram of the measured ET and estimated is given in Fig. 19. This method estimated the average rate of ET, 2.84 and 2.92 mm day-1 while the average measured ET by the lysimeter were 3.13 and 3.24 mm day-1, in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. This method under estimated the ET by 9.2 and 9.8 per cent in both years, respectively. The correlation coefficient between measured ET and estimated was significant in both years. The value of r were 0.801 and 0.867 and showed a
72

positive relationship with the estimated ET and measured ET during both years, respectively.
2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 ETly/ETtw 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
2005-06 2006-07

2005-06 2006-07

49 48 49

50 50

51 51

52 52

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15 16

Meteorological standard week

Fig. 19 : Line diagram of ratio of measured ET and estimated ETth using Thornthwaite method

4.7.6

Relationship between measured ET and estimated ET using Penman method

The relationship between measured ET by lysimeter and the estimated ET using Penman method was shown by a simple correlation and linear regression analysis given in Table 18 and also a line diagram of the measured ET and is shown in Fig. 20. The data in Table 18 indicate that this method provides a reasonable estimation of ET in chickpea. For both years this method very slightly under estimated the measured ET by 1.9 and 0.9 per cent in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. The correlation coefficient between measured ET and estimated ET showed significant value of r. In 2005-06, (0.864) whereas in 2006-07 (0.888). In both years the estimated ET showed a positive relationship with the estimated ET.
73

Table 18 : Relationship between measured ET and estimated ETP using modified Penman method Mean Over (+) Correlation Regression S. Year Number Mean of pairs measured estimated under () coefficient equation No. ET (mm ETP (mm estimation day-1) day-1) (%) 1. 2005- 19 3.13 3.07 -1.9 0.864** ET = 06 0.0007ETp + 0.976 2. 2006- 21 3.24 3.21 -0.9 0.888** ET = 07 0.006ETp + 0.877 ETp ET estimated through Penman method

** and * Significant at 1% and 5% level of significance

1.2

1.0

0.8

2005-06
ET ly/ETp

2006-07
0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
2005-06 2006-07

49 48 49

50 50

51 51

52 52

1 1

2 2

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15 16

Meteorological standard week

Fig. 20 : Line diagram of ratio of measured ET and estimated ETp using Penman method

74

Chapter 5

Discussion

In this chapter an attempt has been made to discuss significant findings of the experimental results obtained during the course of present investigation. Growth, development and yield performance of a crop is a function of metabolic processes taking place in plant body, which in turn area dependent on meteorological factors to which the plant is exposed. Soil moisture in an important factor changing the microclimate and it is also important factor for limiting the production potential of a crop. Since micro-meteorological elements like temperature and relative humidity were vary with time and space, evapatranspiration losses and growth in both years is discussed as follows :
5.1 Meteorological conditions of chickpea season during 2005-06 and 2006-07

The chickpea season, in this region, starts from mid November to mid December and continues upto April. Chickpea is well suited for this region. The meteorological data (Appendix I and II) indicated that during year 2005-06

weather conditions slightly fluctuated but in year 2006-07 weather conditions fluctuated considerably. In the month of February and March, there were heavy rainfall and hail storm. In year 2005-06, the mean air temperature was about 17.1C. The daily maximum temperature remained nearly 24.5C and daily minimum temperature remained nearly 9.8C and increased during late February. The relative humidity was 65 per cent up to February and after wards it decreased. The average wind speed during the season was 3.5 km hr-1 and average bright sunshine about 7.1 hr day-1. The average total solar radiation during this year was about 406.5 ly day-1. The total rainfall during crop period was only 18.2 mm which was very less to support the crop. So some irrigation is needed. There was negligible rainfall in most of weeks during this year.
75

However, in second year (2006-07), the mean air temperature was about 17.5C. The daily maximum temperature remained nearly 24.9C and daily minimum temperature remain nearly 10.1C and slightly increased after February. While both temperature i.e. maximum and minimum and relative humidity are slightly increased slightly compared to previous year. The wind speed and rainfall were also quite more in year 2006-07 as compare to 2005-06. Wind speed and rainfall were 3.5 km hr-1 and 18.2 mm, and 9.8 km hr-1 and 275 mm in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. At the time of flowering and pod formation (i.e. February and March) there was heavy hailstorm and rainfall in 2006-07, due to this reason, the crop period was increased.
5.2 Growing degree days of chickpea seasons during 2005-06 and 2006-07

Chickpea took 131 and 143 days to attain physiological maturity during 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. The crop sown in 2006-07 took higher number of days compared to 2005-06 to attain physiological maturity. Higher GDD was observed in 2006-07 compared to 2005-06 (1693.6 during 2005-06 and 1810.4 during 2006-07). In year 2005-06, sowing to germination, 123.6 GDD was observed which is almost equal to second year GDD (120.6). But germination to branching, flowering to pod formation and pod formation to maturity, there was less GDD observed as compared to second year. This might be due to the fact that only weather conditions which very much fluctuated in year 2006-07. There was heavy hail storm and rainfall during flowering and pod formation stages. Due to this reason, yield was less in 2006-07 as compared to 2005-06. The crop period was increased in 2006-07 so GDD was higher in 2006-07 as compared to 200506. GDD mainly depends upon temperature. When the temperature is high, GDD would be high. In year 2005-06, high temperature was observed due to occurrence of very less amount of rainfall. Whereas in 2006-07, less temperature

76

was observed in month of February and March. This might be due to heavy rainfall in these months and due to the fact, crop period was increased.
5.3 Spatial and temporal variations in temperature and relative humidity

Microclimate of a crop stand is largely influenced by air temperature within canopy. It has direct effect on physiological processes such as transpiration, photosynthesis and respiration. It is also responsible for thermal environment with in the crop stand. Air temperature profiles at different stages indicated that the temperature inside the crop canopy was lower than that recorded above the canopy almost throughout the day. This might be due to less sensible heat inside the crop canopy and absorption of radiation by crop foliage. Similar results have been reported by Ram Niwas (1986) and Singh (1988). In the crop field from 0900 to 1700 hours at one hour interval and it was observed that maximum temperature was at 1400 hours and thereafter the temperature was decreased. A similar trend was observed in the bare field. Bishnoi and Singh (1983) also reported similar results for sugar cane crop. This might be due to more absorption of radiation by foliage. The diurnal temperature variations were relatively higher during the flowering as compared to maturity stage. This might be mainly due to more coverage of earth surface by foliage during flowering stage. Temperature rises rapidly till solar noon and slowly decreases afterward. In the morning hours crop and soil surface remains cool and act as sink (Lowry, 1970). During the morning hours almost all the incoming radiant energy is absorbed resulting into sharp increase in temperature. The variation of temperature with height show that the lowest temperature was near the soil surface due to shading effect of the crop canopy. However, there was a great difference in the soil temperature between surface and 20 cm depth. The diurnal soil temperature fluctuations were lower at 20 cm depth as compare to soil surface. The relative humidity was observed maximum at morning hours in all the cases at the ground level among both heights i.e. 5 and 100 cm. Similar results
77

have also been reported by Singh et al. (1984) for pigeon pea. Bishnoi and Singh (1983) have reported higher relative humidity in cropped field as compared to bare filed. In general, the noon time relative humidity values were lower than the morning and evening hours. These results are in the close agreement with the findings of Ramniwas (1986). The relative humidity showed reverse trend with air temperature in all the cases throughout the day. The possible reason might be that the air temperature and relative humidity are negatively correlated. Humidity in chickpea canopy showed more diurnal variations.
5.4 Plant growth, development and yield

The crop yield is mainly determined by its growth and development attained. The capacity of plants to provide yield depend, not only on the size of photosynthetic system but also upon its efficiency and the length of time for which it is active. The final buildup of yield is the cumulative function of yield components. Yield per hectare of chickpea can be analysed in terms of yield per plant and plant population maintained per hectare at maturity. The yield per plant is governed by two basic components viz., number of grains per plant and 1000grain weight. The number of grains per plant would depend upon number of pods per plant and the number of grain per pod. Physiological effects on yield variation due to alternation in environmental conditions can, therefore, be analysed in terms of variation in growth, development and yield attributes. Data revealed that plant height increased with advancement in crop age and reached to maximum at maturity. The highest plant height was recorded (54 cm) in 2005-06 and 60.6 cm in 2006-07. The number of leaves per plant increased as the age of crop increased. The maximum number of leaves (128 and 138) was observed at 120 days after sowing, thereafter, these were decreased in both the years. This was due to senescence of leaves after 120 days of sowing. Days to 75 per cent flowering were 6 days more (85) in 2006-07 as compared to 2005-06. This was because of heavy hail storm and rainfall at flowering stage in 2006-07 which stimulated the further crop growth. At the pod
78

formation, again, hail storm and rainfall occurred. Due to this reason crop period was increased in 2006-07. The beneficial effect of rainfall during pod development stage was lost by heavy hail storm. Due to heavy hail storm pods were damaged and yield was reduced as compared to first year. Chickpea is a winter season crop but severe cold and frost are injurious to its growth and development. Frost at the time of flowering results in the failure of the flowers to develop seeds or in the death of the seeds inside the pods. Chickpea is generally grown under rainfed conditions. Excessive rains soon after sowing or at flowering and fruiting stage or hail storms at maturity stage cause heavy loss in yield. Temperature has greater influence on development process e.g. rate of germination, flowering and grain filling. All these development processes proceed at a faster rate at higher temperature. Relative humidity directly influences the water relation of plant and indirectly affects leaf growth, photosynthesis, pollination, occurrence of diseases and finally economic yield. Relative humidity has considerable influences on evapotranspiration and hence, on the water requirement of crops, but grain yield is found to be reduced under high relative humidity conditions. Straw yield was higher in 2006-07 but grain yield was lower because there was heavy hail storm (12 Feb, 07, 13 March, 07 and 14 March, 07) at the time of flowering and pod formation. In present investigation, grain yield per hectare was higher during 200506 in comparison to 2006-07 probably due to favourable weather conditions during pod development stage.
5.5 Evapotranspiration (ET) during 2005-06 and 2006-07

The cumulative evapotranspiration of chickpea under Uttarakhand tarai condition were about 416.5 and 475.6 mm in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. This variation may be largely attributed to the variations of crop stages, weather conditions and the variation in duration of crops. The duration of crop during
79

2005-06 was 131 days while it was 143 days in 2006-07 due to hail storm at time of flowering and pod formation. The average ET were 3.13 mm day-1 and 3.24 mm day-1 in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. In both years it increased and reached its peak during 9th to 15th standard week. This variation in daily rate of ET may be largely attributed to the variation in crop growth. The plant height, number of leaves, number of branches and development increased as the crop approached maturity and consequently ET of crop also increased. Thus, ET reached to a maximum value in 9th to 15th week after sowing when growth and development also increased to maximum values.
5.6 Pan evaporation during 2005-06 and 2006-07

The average cumulative pan evaporation during crop season 2005-06 and 2006-07 were 399.7 and 500.9 mm, respectively. The average daily pan evaporation during first year was 2.9 mm day-1 showed much variation. In early stages it was low and decreased upto 7th standard week and later on it increased during maturity phase of crop. The average daily pan evaporation during 2006-07 was 3.4 mm day-1. In early stages it was low and decreased upto 4th week and after that it was increased upto 8th week then decreased and later on it increased during maturity phase of crop. This increased and decreased trend in the middle stage was due to heavy rainfall in February and March, due to this, reduction in temperature and duration of bright sunshine.
5.7 Relationship between measured ET and pan evaporation (EP) during 2005-06 and 2006-07

The average ET/EP ratio were 1.1 and 0.9 during 2005-06 and 2006-27, respectively. These values indicated that pan evaporation is underestimated and overestimated the measured ET. In the early stages (upto 5 weeks) the ET/EP ratio was nearly equal to one but after that it increased. Thus during the period of rapid plant growth ET of chickpea was higher than pan evaporation. Later on ET/EP ratio decreased continuously with increased yellowing of leaves. This variation in ET/EP ratio might largely be attributed to the high rate of ET during
80

the period of more active plant growth and development. The higher rate of ET than EP is due to high roughness of crop plants as suggested by Rosenberg (1974). The simple correlation and linear regression analysis between ET and EP on weekly basis indicated a reasonable correlation between these parameter in both the years. Pan evaporation underestimated by 7.34 per cent and overestimated 4.93 per cent during 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. The value of correlation coefficient (r) was positive in both years. This, pan evaporation can be used as a criterion for estimating ET of chickpea under Uttarakhand tarai conditions both on weekly and seasonal basis.
5.8 Estimation of chickpea ET by mathematical methods

5.8.1 Blaney-Criddle method

The total cumulative ET estimated by this method (400.3 mm) was slightly lower than the measured cumulative ET (416.5 m) in 2005-06 while the total cumulative ET estimated by this method (492.4 mm) was slightly more than measured cumulative ET (475.6 mm) in 2006-07. The average daily rate of ET estimated by this method (3.01 mm day-1) was slightly less in comparison to measured rate of ET (3.13 mm day-1) in 2005-06 while in second year estimated ET (3.35 mm day-1) was more than the measured ET (3.24 mm day-1). The daily estimates of ET on weekly basis showed positive correlation with measured ET. This method gave slightly poor correlation between measured ET and estimated ET. Thus this method can be considered as a slightly suitable method for estimating ET in this region.
5.8.2 Jensen-Haise method

This method provides a good estimation of ET in both years. The estimated cumulative ET (417.6 mm) was close to measured cumulative ET (416.5 mm) and estimated cumulative ET (423.31 mm) was low as compared to measured cumulative ET (475.6 mm). The average daily rate of ET estimated by
81

this method (3.14 mm day-1) was almost equal to measured ET (3.13 mm day-1) in first year while second year, ET estimated by this method was 2.88 mm day-1 was low in comparison to measured ET 3.24 mm day-1. The daily estimated of ET done on weekly basis showed good correlation with measured ET for chickpea. This method is somewhat suitable for chickpea. Similar, results for chickpea at Pantnagar have also been reported by Singh (1974).
5.8.3 Stephens-Stewart method

This method highly underestimated ET in this region for chickpea. The estimated cumulative ET (324.5 mm) was very low as compared to measured cumulative ET (416.5 mm) in 2005-06. The estimated cumulative ET (391.0 mm) was also very low as compared to measured cumulative ET (475.6 mm) in 2006-07. The average daily rate of ET estimated by this method 2.44 and 2.66 mm day-1 was low in comparison to measured rate of 3.13 and 3.24 mm day-1 in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. The underestimation of ET by this method is mainly attributed to the fact that short term mean temperature is not a suitable measurement of incoming radiation as suggested by Ayoade (1976). This method gave slightly positive correlation. The estimated value of ET were much lower than the measured values.
5.8.4 Turc method

In 2005-06, estimated cumulative ET (392.3 mm) was low as compared to measured ET (416.5 mm) while in 2006-07, estimated cumulative ET (402.7 mm) was also less than measured cumulative ET (475.6 mm). This method underestimated the daily rate of ET by 5.7 and 15.1 per cent in both years. There is positive correlation between estimated, by this method, and measured ET. Metochis (1977) also reported a poor correlation between measured ET of Lucerne and the ET estimated by this method.
5.8.5 Thornthwaite method

The cumulative ET estimated by this method was 372.4 mm in 2005-06 which is less than the measured cumulative ET 416.5 mm. While in 2006-07,
82

cumulative estimated ET was 429.2 mm which was also less than cumulative measured ET 475.6 mm. The estimated daily ET rate were 2.84 and 2.92 mm day-1 in 2005-06and 2006-07, respectively. The measured ET rates were 3.13 and 3.24 mm day-1 in first and second year, respectively. Thus, this method underestimated measured ET by 9.2 and 9.8 per cent in both years. As this method is based on mean air temperature, the over estimation or underestimation might be attributed to low temperature during crop season. The over estimation of ET by this formula during summers has also been reported by Ward (1963). On weekly basis the estimated ET had good correlation with measured ET (r= 0.801 and 0.867) in both the years. But it was underestimated with measured ET. The weekly estimated value of ET are almost same during the chickpea season while measured ET varied largely due to weather condition and differences in crop growth.
5.8.6 Modified Penman method

This method gave a very suitable result which was very close to measured ET. The cumulative estimated ET by this method was 420.93 mm which was closer to measured cumulative ET 416.5 mm in first year and similarly, estimated was 451.2 mm which also closer to measured cumulative ET (475.6 mm) in second year. The daily estimate of ET (3.07 mm day-1) in first year by this method was closer to measured daily ET (3.13 mm day-1), while in second year, daily estimated ET was 3.21 mm day-1 was also close to measured daily ET (3.24 mm day-1). This method showed good positive correlation between estimated ET and measured ET in both years. Doorenbos and Pruitt (1975) suggested that as the modified Penman method took into consideration the more number of meteorological parameters, gives better results. Thus, this method is the most suitable method for estimating evapotranspiration in the tarai region of Uttarakhand.

83

Chapter 6

Summary and Conclusion

A field experiment was conducted during the rabi season of 2005-06 and 2006-07 at the Crop Research Centre, plot number D5 of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar to study the crop and weather relationship of chickpea. The ET losses in crop was measured with the help of two weighing type lysimeter (manufactured by Asiatic Equipments, Kolkatta) installed at the Crop Research Centre, Pantnagar by India Meteorological Department (IMD), Pune. The salient findings are summarized and concluded in followed point: 6.1 There was fluctuation in the weather conditions during both the crop season. The mean air temperatures were about 17.1C and 17.5C in 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. The mean air temperature tends to decline upto 3rd week of January and after that started rising in both the years. During crop season, mean relative humidity was recorded 65 and 69 per cent in both the years, respectively. The average wind speed was noticed 3.5 km hr-1 and 9.80 km hr-1 during 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. Average duration of bright sunshine was observed 7.1 and 6.9 hr day-1 and the daily total radiation was 406.5 and 397.1 ly day-1 in both years, respectively. Rainfall distribution was highly variable in both years that was 18.2 mm in 2005-06 and 275 mm in 2006-07. 6.2 More growing degree days were observed in 2006-07 as compared to 2005-06 (1693.6 during 2005-06 and 1819.4 during 2006-07). 6.3 Air temperature profiles at different stages indicated that the temperature inside the crop canopy was lower than that recorded above the canopy almost throughout the day. This may be due to less sensible heat inside the crop and absorption of radiation by crop foliage. The average relative humidity values were 67 and 67.1 per cent in 2005-06 and 64.3 and 64.7 per cent in 2006-07 in morning hours at both heights i.e., 5 and 100 cm,

84

respectively. The relative humidity showed reverse trend with air temperature in all the cases throughout the day. 6.4 The growth period of chickpea in 2005-06 was 131 days and in 2006-07 it was 143 days. The average plant height of chickpea was observed 54 and 60 cm in respective years. 6.5 Chickpea crop sown in 2006-07 took 6 days more for 75 per cent flowering as compared to 2005-06. 6.6 Grain yield per hectare was recorded higher (1845 kg ha-1) during 2005-06 in comparison to (1745 kg ha-1) 2006-07. This is due to favoruable weather conditions during flowering and pod development stages. 6.7 The total evapotranspiration in the experimental region was 416.5 mm during 2005-06 while for year 2006-07, it was 475.6 mm. In both the years during early and maturity phase the ET rate was high. 6.8 The total pan evaporation during 2005-06 was 399.7 mm while for year 2006-07 it was 500.9 mm. The average pan evaporation was 2.9 and 3.4 mm day-1 during 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. 6.9 The ET/EP ratio varied with the growth stages from early stage of crop to peak growth period. The ET/EP ratio decreased to 0.90 at maturity phase of chickpea in first year while in second year it was 0.80. It was observed that pan evaporation underestimated the measured chickpea ET by 7.34 per cent in 2005-06 and overestimated by 4.93 per cent in 2006-07. On weekly basis pan evaporation showed a positive correlation with ET during both the years. 6.10 The seasonal cumulative ET estimated by Blaney-Criddle method was 400.3 mm for first year which was lower than the measured ET (416.5 mm). While for second year estimated cumulative ET (492.4 mm) was more than the measured cumulative ET (475.6 mm). The daily rate of ET estimated by this method (3.0 mm day-1) for first year was slightly lower than measured daily ET (3.13 mm day-1). For second year daily rate of estimated ET was 3.30 mm day-1 which was a little more than the
85

measured daily ET (3.24 mm day-1). This method underestimated the measured ET for first year and overestimated the measured ET for second year. There was good correlation between estimated and measured ET during first year while for second year it showed satisfactory correlation between estimated and measured ET. 6.11 The Jensen-Haise method over estimated measured ET by 0.3 per cent in first year and under estimated by 1.1 per cent in second year. The seasonal cumulative ET estimated by this method was 417.6 and 423.3 mm for 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. The weekly ET values estimated by this method showed good correlation with measured values. 6.12 The Stephens-Stewart method underestimated ET. The seasonal total ET estimated by this method was 324.5 and 391.0 mm during 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively which were less than the measured seasonal ET (416.5 and 475.6 mm). This method exhibited good correlation with measured ET in both years on weekly basis. 6.13 The Turc method underestimated the seasonal total ET for both the years. This method gave positive correlation with measured ET for both years. The correlation varied in both years. 6.14 The Thornthwaite method did not give a close estimate of crop during both years. The estimated average daily rate was 2.84 and 2.92 mm day-1 during 2005-06 and 2006-07, respectively. Thus, this method

underestimated the ET in first chickpea season by 9.2 per cent and underestimated the ET in second chickpea season by 9.8 per cent. 6.15 The Penman method estimated ET very closely in both the years. The total ET estimated by this method for first season was 420.9 mm and for second year it was 451.2 mm. Total measured ET by lysimeter for first year was 416.5 mm and for second year is was 475.6 mm. On weekly basis the estimated values showed good correlation with measured values in both the years.

86

During vegetative phase of chickpea, the temperature and ET were low while during reproductive phase, temperature and ET were high and relative humidity was low in both years. These weather conditions were favourable for good growth and development of chickpea. Hence, it may be concluded that low temperature and low ET during vegetative phase and high temperature, more ET and low relative humidity are favourable for reproductive phase of chickpea. Further, it was experienced that rainfall and hailstorm at flowering and pod development stages are very injurious. Among the different empirical methods modified Penman method was found more appropriate than others.

87

Literature Cited

Abo-Ghobar, H.M. and Mohammad, F.S. 1995. Evapotranspiration measurement by lysimeters in a desert climate. Arab-Gulf J. Scient. Res., 13(1) : 109122. Abtew, W. 2001. Evaporation estimation for lave ovechobee in South Florida. J. Irrig. Drain Engg., 127(3) : 140-147. Albinet, E. 1977. Study of some methods of preceding water application in irrigation system. Institutional Agronomica, Iasi, Romania, 1 : 57-62. Anwar, M.R.; Mckenzie, B.A. and Hill, G.D. 2003. The effect of irrigation and sowing date of crop yield and yield components of kabuli chickpea (Cicer arietium L.) in a cool-temperate subhumid climate. J. Agric. Sci., 141(3-4) : 259-271. Ayoade, J.O. 1976. Evaporation and ET in Nigeria. J. Trop. Geog., 43 : 9-19. Balogun, C. 1974. The influence of some climatic factors on evaporation and PET at Ibadan, Nigeria. Ghana J. Agric. Sci., 7(1) : 45-49. Bangel, D.B. and Patil, V.A. 1983. Pod and grain development in chickpea. J. Maharastra Agric. Univ., 8 : 183-184. Banmgartner, A. 1973. Estimation of the radiation and thermal microenvironment from meteorological and plant parameters. In : R.O. Siatyes (ed.). Plant response to climatic factors. pp. 313-325. UNESOC, Paris. Bhardwaj, S.P. and Shastri, G. 1979. Development and installation of a simple mechanical weighing type lysimeter. Transact. Am. Soc. Agril. Engins., 22(4) : 797-802. Bishnoii, O.P. and Singh, G. 1986. Microclimatic variations in sugarcane field at Hissar conditions. Indian Sugar, 37 : 385-392. Blad, B.L. and Rosenberg, N.J. 1974. Evapotranspiration by subirrigated alfalfa and pasture in the east central great plains. Agon. J., 66 : 248-252.
88

Blaney, H.F. and Criddle, W.D. 1950. Determining water requirements in irrigated areas from climatological and irrigation data. USDA Soil Cons. Serv. Tech., 96 : 48. Blaney, H.F. and Morin, K.V. 1942. Evaporation and consumptive use of water empirical formulas. Trans. Am. Geophys. Union., 23 : 76-83. Boonyatharobul, K.W. 1975. Estimation of PET in Thailand by using formula based on climatological data. Kasetsart J., 9(1) : 26-34. Brown, I.S. and Rosenberg, N.J. 1970. Effect of wind breaks and soil water potential on stomatal diffusion resistance and photosynthetic rate of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris). Agron. J., 62 : 4-8. Brun, L.J.; Kanemasu, E.T. and Powers, W.L. 1972. Evapotranspiration from soybean and sorghum fields. Agron. J., 64(2) : 145-148. Cambell, R.B. and Phene, C.J. 1976. Estimating potential evapotranspiration from screened pan evaporation. Agric. Meteorol., 16 : 343-352. Chandra, S.; Singh, R.P.; Bhatnagar, V.K.; and Bisht, J.K. (2002). Effect of mulch and irrigation on tuber size, canopy temperature, water use and yield of potato (Solanum tuberosum). Indian J. Agron., 47(3) : 443-448. Chang, J.H. 1968. Climate and agriculture-An Ecological Survey. Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, pp 304. Chaudhary, C.K. 1997. Crop evapotranspiration and irrigation scheduling studies for optimizing water use. M. Tech., Thesis submitted to G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar (Uttaranchal). Coleman, E.A. 1946. A laboratory study to lysimeter drainage under control soil moisture tension. Soil. Sci., 62 : 365-383. Coleman, E.A. and Hamilton, E.L. 1947. The San Dimas lysimeters. California Forest and Range Exp. Sta. Res. Note. No. 47 : 33. Cordukes, W.E. and Robertson, G.D.W. 1963. Note on the temperature distribution within an actorap. Can. J. Plant Sci., 43 : 235-239.

89

Despande, S.B.; Fehrenbacher, J.B. and Beavers, A.H. 1971. Mollisols of Tarai region of Uttar Pradesh, Northern India, Part-I. Morphology and Mineralogy. Geoderma, 6 : 195-201. Dhandarkar, D.M.; Dhakad, S.S.; Reddy, K.S. and Singh, R. 2005. Estimation of crop water requirement for different field and vegetable crops in Bhopal region. Drainage & Irrig. Water Magt., pp. 89-98. Dhonde, P.W.; Shinde, S.H. and Patil, B.B. 1986. Irrigation scheduling to chickpea. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 11(2) : 164-166. Dixit, J.P.; Pillai, P.V.A. and Namdeo, K.N. 1993. Response of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) to planting date and irrigation schedule. Indian J. Agron., 38(1) : 121-123. Doorenbos, J. and Pruitt, W.O. 1975. Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 24, FAO, Rome. p. 179. Doorenpos, J. and Pruitt, W.C. 1977. Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements. Irrg. Drainage paper. 24, FAO. El-Nadi, A.H. and Hudson, J.P. 1965. Effect of crop height on evaporation from lucern and wheat grown in lysimeter under advective conditions in the sudan. Exp. Agric., 10 : 289-298. Folegatti, M.V.; Furlan, R.A.; Campeche, L.F.S.M. and Banco, F. 2000. 2000ASAE Annual International meeting, Malovauve Visconsin, USA. 1-12. Georgiev, G. and Vazaandjiev, V. 1994. Evaluation of water regime for cereals using climatic data. 17th ICID European Regional Conference of Irrigation and Drainage, Varna, Bulgaria. pp. 255-259. Glover, J. and Forsgate, J.A. 1962. Measurement of evapotranspiration from large tanks of soil. Nature, 195 : 1330. Grant, D.R. 1975. Comparison of evaporation from barley with Penman estimates. Agic. Meteorol., 15(1) : 49-60. Grantz, D.A. (1990). Interaction of humidity and the sugarcane canopy. Proceedings of the Plant Growth Regulator Society of America (USA). pp. 43-44.
90

Haine, R.W. 1976. Comparison of methods for estimating PET in Canterbury. New Zealand J. Sci., 19(3) : 255-264. Hanks, R.J. and Shaweroft, R.W. 1965. An economical lysimeter for evapotranspiration studies. Agron. J., 57 : 634-636. Harrold, L.L. and Dreibelbis, F.R. 1958. Evaluation of agricultural hydrology by monolith lysimeter (1944-1955). U.S. Deptt. Agr. Tech. Bull., No. 1179 : 166. Hashemi, F. and Habibian, M.T. 1977. Application of agroclimatic information for planning corn cropping under arid condition and saving irrigation water. In Agroneteorology of the maize (corn) criop symposium held at Iowa State Univ. July 1976. Geneva, Switzerland; World meteorological organization. pp. 141-155. Hosker, R.P.Jr.; Nappo, C.J.Jr. and Hanna, S.R. 1974. Diurnal variation of vertical thermal sturcutre in a pine plantation. Agric. Met. 13 : 259-265. IARI Monograph. 1970. No. 4 (New Series) Table 4.6. p. 115. IARI, Monograph. 1970. No. 4 (New Series). Table 4.3. pp. 106-107. Ibrahim, M.A.M.; Sadler, E.J. and Yoler, R.E. 1996. Evapotranspiration and irrigation scheduling. Proceedings of the International Conference (Camp, C.R., ed.). San Antonio, Texas, USA. pp. 387-393. Islam, M.K.; Kaul, A.K. and Begum, K. 1982. Phenotypic variability and correlation studies in indigenous chickpea of Bangladesh. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res., 7(1) : 1-5. Israelson, O.W. and Hansen, V.E. 1962. Irrigation principles and practices. 3rd Ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Table 11.11. p. 254. Jalota, S.K.; Anil Sood and Harman, W.L. 2006. Assessing the response of chickpea (Cicer aeritinum L.) yield to irrigation water on two soils in Punjab (India): a simulation analysis using the CROPMAN model. Agric. Water Manag., 79(3) : 312-320. Jensen, M.E. and Haise, H.R. 1963. Estimating evapotranspiration from solar radiation. J. Irrig. & Drain. Div. Am. Soc. Civil Engin. Proc., 89(IR-4) : 15-41.
91

Jensen, M.E.; Middleton, J.E. and Preitt, W.O. 1961. Scheduling irrigation from pan evaporation. Washington, Agr. Expl. Sta. Circ. 386 : 14. Jensen, M.E.; Robbe, D.C.N. and Franzoy, C.E. 1970. Scheduling irrigation using climatic crop soil data. J. Irrig. & Drain. Div. Am. Soc. Civil Engin. Proc., 96 : 25-28. Jensen, M.E.; Wrigth, J.L. and Pruitt, B.J. 1971. Estimating soil moisture depletion from climatic, crop and soil data. Tarns. Am. Soc. Agril. Engin., 14(5) : 954-959. Joshi, V.S. (1983). Influence of relative humidity-heat units and hours of sunshine on grain sorghum. Madras Agric. J. 70(7) : 446-450. Kalma, J.D. and Stanhill, G. 1972. The climate of an orange orchard : Physical characteristics and micro-climate relationships. Agric. Met., 10 : 185-201. Katimon, A. and Idris, Z.A. 1994. Crop evapotranspiration of chilli in the tropics. Comm. Soil Sci. & Pl. Analy., 25(3-4) : 351-359. Kaur, Praghjyot and Hundal, S.S. 2007. Effect of temperature rise on growth and yield of wheat. J. Res. Punjab Agric. Univ., 44(1) : 90-93. Kaushik, M.K. and Chaubey, A.K. 1999. Studies on irrigation requirement of chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Indian J. Agron., 44(2) : 367-369. King, K.M.; Tanner, C.B. and Suomi, V.E. 1956. A floating lysimeter and its evaporation record. Trans. Am. Geog. Union. 37 : 738-742 (Discussion 38 : 765-768). Konstantinov, A.R. 1963. Evapotranspiration in nature. Translated from Russian by I. Schectman, Israel program for Scientific Translation. Ltd. U.S. Deptt. Commerce. TT 66-51015, 1966. 523 p. Korven, H.C. and Wilcox, J.C. 1965. Correlation between evaporation from bellani plates and evapotranspiration from orchards. Can. J. Pl. Sci., 45 : 132-138. Lamascese, N.; Lasavio, D.; Ventrella, D. and Vanella, V. 1997. Comparison between measured and estimated evapotranspiration in the Metaponto area in Italy. Irrigazione Drenaggio, 44(2) : 22-26.

92

Lasavio, N.; Colouna, G. and Vanella, V. 1995. Comparison between evapotranspiration estimation methods in Metoponto area (Italy). Annali Istituto Sperimentale Agronomica, 21 : 59-69. Lee, J.T.; Jung, Y.S. and Ryu, I.S. 1984. changes in temperature and light distribution in rice crop canopy at different growth stages. J. Korean Soc. Soil Sci. & Fret., pp. 108-113. Lee, R. 1967. The hydrologic importance of transpiration control by stomata. Water Resou. Res., 3 : 737-752. Lowry, W.P. 1970. Weather and life. An introduction to biometeorology. Academic Press, New York and London. 305 p. Luff, M.L. 1965. The morphology and microclimate of dactylic glomerata tussocks. J. Ecol., 53 : 771-787. Marlatt, W.E.; Havens, A.V.; Willits, N.A. and Brill, G.D. 1961. A comparison of computed and measured soil moisture under snap beans. J. Geophys. Res., 66 : 535-541. Mc Millon, W.D. and Paul, H.A. 1961. Floating lysimeter. Agril. Eng., 42 : 498499. Mcllroy, I.C. 1957. The measurement of natural evaporation. J. Aust. Inst. Agril. Sci., 23 : 4-17. Merta, M.; Sambale, C.; Seidher, C. and Peschve, G. 2001. Suitability of plant physiological methods to estimate the transpiration of agricultural crops. J. Pl. Nut. Soil Sci., 164(1) : 43-48. Metochis, C. 1977. PET of Lucerne. Agri. Res. Inst. Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Cyprus, Techn. Bulletin. No. 21, pp 12. Michael, A.M.; Hukkeri, S.B. and Singh, N.P. 1977. Estimating water requirement. In : Water requirement and irrigation management of crops in India. IARI monograph No. 4, Water Technology Centre, IARI, New Delhi. pp. 91-162. Middleton, W.E.K. and Spilhaus, A.F. 1953. Meteorological instruments. Univ. Toronto Press, Canada. Morris, L.G. 1959. A recording weighing machine for the measurement of evaporation and dewfall. J. Agri. Eng. Res., 4 : 161-173.
93

Newesely, C. and Cernusch, A. 2001. A new lysimeter for the measurement of evaporation in alpine ecosystem. Lysimeter Tagung Zum Thema Gebietsbilon Zenshie Unter Sctriedlicher land Nutgung, pp. 75-78. Oliver, H. 1961. Irrigation and climate. Edward Arnold Ltd. London. p. 122. Ozdemir, S. 1996. Effect of temperature on germination of chickpea. Int. Chickpea & Pigeonpea Newsltt., 3 : 27-29. Palaskar, M.S.; More, S.P. and Varde, J.B. 1987. Comparison of panevaporation and modified Penman method for the estimation of crop water requirement. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 57(3) : 169-175. Palmer, W.C. and Havens, A.V. 1958. A graphical technique for determining evapotranspiration by the thornthwaite method. No. Weather Res., 86 : 123-128. Palutikof, I.P.; Goodess, U.M. and Guo, X. 1994. Climate change potential evapotranspiration and moisture availability in the mediteranean basin. Int. J. Climatol., 14(8) : 853-869. Pandya, H.N. 1968. A short note on the results of irrigation experiments in Bihar (as reported by Dastane et al., 1970). Pathak, A.K. 1980. To study the seasonal variation of evapotranspiration of wheat and maize crops as measured by weighing lysimeters. B. Tech. Dissertation Report submitted to G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar (Nainital). Patil, R.W.; Patil, S.M. and Darange, S.O. 2000. Estimation of max evapotranspiration for soybean by modified Penman method and its validation with lysimeteric data. Crop Res. Hissar, 19(2) : 216-220. Patil, V.S.; Kulkarni, G.N.; Achar, H.P.; Bhadrapur, T.G.; Panchal, Y.P.; Channobassi, H.S.M. and Dastane, N.G. 1969. Annual report ICAR, Soil and Water Management Scheme of major river valley project area. Agril. Res. Stn. Siruguppa, Karnataka. Pelton, W.L. 1964. Evaporation from atmosphere and pans. Can. J. Pl. Sci., 44 : 397-404.

94

Pelton, W.L.; King, K.M. and Tanner, C.B. 1960. An evaluation of the Thornthwaite and mean temperature methods for determining potential evapotranspiration. Agron. J., 52 : 387-395. Penman, H.L. 1948. Natural evapotranspiration from open water, bare soils and grass. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A Vol. 193 : 120-145. Penman, H.L. 1961. Weather plant and soil factors in hydrology. Weather, 16 : 207-219. Penman, H.L. 1963. Vegetation and Hydrology. Common Weather Agriculture Bureau, Technical Communication No. 53. Harpenden, England. Prabhjyot Kaur and Hundal, S.S. 2007. Effect of temperature rise on growth and yield of wheat. J. Res. Punjab Unvi., 44(1) : Pruitt, W.O. 1958. Irrigation time table. Whats new in crop and soils. 10 : 11-13. Pruitt, W.O. 1960. Relation of consumptive use of water to climate. Trans. Am. Soc. Agril. Engrs., 3(1) : 9-13 &17. Pruitt, W.O. 1966. Empirical method using primarily evaporation pans. In : Jensen, M.E. (ed.). Evapotranspiration and its role in water resources management conference. Proc. Am. Soc. Agril. Engrs., pp. 57-61. Pruitt, W.O. and Angus, D.E. 1960. Large weighing lysimeter for measuring evapotranspiration. Tran. Am. Soc. Agril. Engrs., 3(2) : 13-16. Rajwat, S.; Hundal, S.S. and Singh, R. 1989. Direct and indirect methods of estimation of evapotranspiration in wheat. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 59(8) : 508-514. Ram, Niwas. 1986. To quantify micro climate under different planting systems in rava. M.Sc. Thesis, HAU, Hissar. Ramachandrappa, B.K. and Nanjappa, H.V. 1994. Evaluation of Penman evaporation, radiation and Blaney-Criddle method for predicting in summer groundnut. Crop Res. Hissar, 7(3) : 479-484. Rambabu, A. and Rao, B.B. 1999. Evaluation and calibration of some potential evapotranspiration estimating methods. J. Agromet., 1(2) : 155-162.
95

Rao, M.S.; Reddy, K.D. and Singh, T.V.K. 2004. Effect of change in microclimate on insect pests and their predators in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Indian J. Agric. Sci., 74(7) : 399-402. Rao, V.U.; Bisnoi, O.P.; Singh, D. and Sharma, R.C. 1989. Actual evapotranspiration in pearl millets and wheat. Indian J. Agril. Sci., 59(3) : 179-180. Rathore, S.S. and Singh, R.M. 1976. Consumptive use of water by dwarf wheat and its relationship with climatological parameters. Indian J. Agron., 21(1) : 33-38. Reddy, S.J. 1977. Influence of soil water status and meteorological conditions on evaporation from a corm canopy. Agron. J., 65(6) : 893-897. Ritchie, J.T. and Burnett, E. 1968. A precision weighing lysimeter for row crop water use studies. Agron. J., 60 : 545-549. Ritchie, J.T.; Burnett, E. and Henderson, R.C. 1972. Dryland evaporative flux in a subhumid climate : III soil water influence. Agron. J., 64 : 169-173. Robbins, C.W. and Wellardsen, L.S. 1980. An instrumented lysimeter system for monitoring salt and water movement. Trans. Am. Soc. Agril. Engrs., 1 : 109-111. Rosenberg, N.J. 1974. Microclimate. In : The Biological Environment. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 159-194. Rosenberg, N.J. and Brown, K.W. 1970. Improvements in the Van Bavel-Myers autmatic weighing lysimeter. Water Resou. Res., 6 : 1227-1229. Rosenberg, N.J.; Blad, B.L. and Verma, S.B. 1983. Microclimate, Biological Environment. 2nd Edn. Willey Interscience. 178. the pp. 171-

Sathua, S. 2002. Evapotranspiration studies on maize in a mollisol of Tarai region of Uttaranchal. M.Sc. (Ag.) Agrometeorology, thesis submitted to G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar (Uttaranchal).

96

Sattar, A.; Tripathi, R.P. and Kushwaha, H.S. 2003. Profiles of temperature and humidity within wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) canopy. J. Agrometerol., 5(1) : 141-143. Saxena, N.P. 1980. Pod setting in relation to temperature at Hissar. Int. Chickpea Newsltt., 2 : 11-12. Schelusener, P.E.; Nemethy, J.J.; Shull, H.N. and Williams, G.E. 1961. Pasture irrigation requirements calculated from climatological data. Trans. Am. Soc. Agril. Engrs., 4(1) : 6-7 & 11. Selvaraj, K.V.; Parvathi, K. and Jaya Prakhasn, M. 1981. Effect growth regulator spray and harvesting time on yield content of CO3 red gram. Madras Agri. J., 68(7) : 478-480. of and protein

Sengupta, K. and Roy, P.M. 1979. Factors affecting success of cross pollination in chickpea. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 49(7) : 489-491. Sethi, S.C.; Byth, D.E.; Gowda, C.L.L. and Green, J.M. 1981. Photoperiodic response and accelerated generation turnover in chickpea. Field Crop Res., 4(3) : 215-225. Sharma, D.K.; Kumar, A. and Singh, K.N. 1990. Effect of irrigation scheduling on growth, yield and evapotranspiration of wheat in sodic soils. Agric. Water Manag., 18 : 267-276. Sharratt, B.S.; Reicosky, D.C.; Idso, S.B. and Baker, D.G. 1983. Relationship between leaf water potential, canopy temperature and evapotranspiration in irrigated and non-irrigated alfalfa. Singh, G.; Mavi, H.S.; Dhingra, K.K. and Singh, O.P. 1984. Some microclimatic aspects of pigeon pea crop. Int. J. Trop. Agric., 11(12) : 151-158. Singh, K.B. and Malhotra, R.S. 1973. Yield component of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.). Madras Agric. J., 60(6) : 364-366. Singh, M.; Singh, R.C.; Kumar, R. and Singh, M. 1990. Response of gram cultivars to row spacing and fertility levels under late sown conditions. Crop Res. Hisar, 3(2) : 155-157.

97

Singh, R. and Prasad, S.N. 2001. Lysimeteric measurement of evapotranspiration and water use efficiency of chickpea in south-eastern Rajasthan. Indian J. Soil Conserv., 29(3) : 241-244. Singh, R.C. and Singh, M. 1994. Effect of row spacing and N levels on chickpea genotypes under late sown conditions. Indian J. Pulses Res., 7(1) : 80-81. Singh, R.C.; Faroda, A.S. and Ram Mohan, D.S. 1981. Performance of gram genotypes under varying sowing dates and row spacings. Haryana Agric. Univ. J. Res., 11(4) : 494-498. Singh, R.V. 1974. Potential evapotranspiration studies in Nainital Tarai. M.Tech. Thesis submitted to G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar (Nainital). Singh, T.P.; Deshmukh, P.S.; Srivastava, G.C.; Kushwaha, S.R. and Mishra, S.K. 2005. Growth rates of chickpea (Cicer areitinum L.) genotypes under different planting dates. Indian J. Plant Physiol., 10(3) : 254-259. Souza, J.L.M.; Villa, Nova, N.A. and Costro Neto, P. 1994. Evaluation of the effect of adjective energy of the estimation of refrence evapotranspiration in Larvas region. Revista do Setor de Ciencias Agarias, 13(2) : 41-47. Stanhill, G. 1965. The concept of potential evapotranspiration in arid zone agriculture, proceedings of the Mont Pellier Symposium UNESCO. pp. 109-117. Steduto, P. and Albrizio, R. 2005. Resource use efficiency of field grown sunflower, sorghum, wheat and chickpea II. Water use efficiency and comparison with radiation use efficiency. Agric. & Forest meteorol., 130(3-4) : 269-281. Stephens, J.C. and Stewart, F.H. 1963. A comparison of procedures for computing evaporation and evapotranspiration. International Association of Science Hydrol. IUGL Barkeley, Publ. No. 62 : 123-133. Summerfield, R.J.; Roberts, E.H. and Hadley, P. 1987. Phtothermal effects on flowering in chickpea and other grain legumes. International Crop Research Inst. For the Semi-Arid Tropics Patancheru, A.P. (India). Adaptation of chickpea and pigeonpea to abiotic stresses: proceeding of the consultants, workshop, Patancheru, A.P., ICRISAT. pp. 33-48.
98

Thom, A.S. and Oliver, H.R. 1977. On Penman equation for estimating regional evaporation. Quarterly J. of the Royal Meteorol. Soc., 103(436) : 345-357. Thornthwaite, C.W. 1948. An approach, towards a rational classification of climate. The Geograph. Rev., 38(1) : 55-94. Thornthwaite, C.W. 1954. A re-examination of the concept and measurement of potential evapotranspiration. Drexel Institute of Technology Publication in Climatology, Vol. 7, Centertown, New Jersey. Thornthwaite, C.W. and Mather, J.R. 1957. Instructions and tables for computing potential evapotranspiration and the water balance. Drexel Institute of Technology, Centertown, New Jersey Publications in Climatology, 10 : 3. Tomilson, B.R. 1953. Comparison of two methods of estimating consumptive use of water. Agril. Engin., 34 : 459-464. Ton, C.S. and Futton, I.M. 1980. Ratio between ET of irrigated crop from floating lysimeters and A pan evaporation. Can. J. Pl. Sci., 60(1) : 197-201. Tosso, T.J. 1975. A new formula to determine ET in Chile. Agril. Technica, 35(3) : 139-147. Tripathi, H.P. and Singh, S.N. 1985. Performance of chickpea varieties under different dates of sowing. Int. Chickpea Newslt., 13 : 11-13. Tripathi, R.P. 1992. Irrigation timing for wheat based on climate, crop and soil data. J. Irrig. & Draing. Engrs., Vol. 118(3): May/June 370-381. Turc, M. 1961. Evaluation des Besoins en eau O. Irrigation evapotranspiration potenscalle formula climatique semplifice at misa. J. Ann. Agron., 12 : 13-49. United States Department of Agriculture Soil conservation Service, Engineering Division. 1967. Irrigation water requirements Tech. Release. No. 21 : 83. Van Bavel, C.N.M. 1961. Lysimetric measurement of evapotranspiration rates in the Eastern United States. Soil Sci. Am. Proc., 25:136-141. Van Bavel, C.N.M. and Myers, L.E. 1962. An automatic weighing lysimeter. Agr. Eng., 43 : 560-583, 587-588.

99

Van Bavel, C.N.M. and Newman, J.E. and Hilgeman. 1967. Climate and estimated water use by an orange orchard. Agril. Meteorol., 4 : 27-37. Van Wijk, W.R. and De Vries, D.A. 1954. Evapotranspiration. Netherlands J. Agril. Sci., 2 : 106-119. Van, Bavel, C.N.M. 1967. Change in canopy resistance to water loss from alfalfa induced by soil water depletion. Agril. Meteorol., 4 : 165-176. Vittum, M.T.; Dethier, B.E. and Lesser, R.C. 1965. Estimating growing degree days. Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci., 87 : 449-452. Ward, R.C. 1963. Observation of potential evapotranspiration (PE) on the Thames Flood Plain 1959-1960. J. Hydrol., 1 : 183-194. Yadav, D.S.; Singh, V.K. and Verma, K.K. 1989. Effect of sowing dates and plant densities on the performance of chickpea genotypes. Indian J. Pulses Res., 2(2) : 172-174. Yadav, V.S.; Yadav, S.S. and Panwar, J.P.S. 1998. Effect of planting time on physiological attributes and grain yield in desi and kabuli chickpea genotypes. Indian J. Plant Physiol., 3(4) : 292-295. Zhang, H.; Wang, X.; You, M. and Liu, C. 1999. Water yield relations and water use efficiency of winter wheat in the North China places. Irrig. Sci., 19(1) : 37-45.

100

APPENDIX-I Table 21: Average weekly meteorological data recorded at Pantnagar during 2005-06 Std. week Month Week No. Max. Min. temp. Relative (C) humidity temp. (C) (%) 23.2 5.4 65 22.2 5.6 63 22.8 7.6 63 21.1 6.4 71 20.8 8.5 72 18.9 3.8 75 23.3 9.2 67 20.1 3.7 68 24.0 8.1 71 24.7 10.6 72 26.4 12.2 71 29.9 12.9 64 27.4 10.8 66 27.4 13.6 65 26.9 12.2 66 31.1 13.0 60 31.9 13.6 55 35.3 14.6 50 35.9 15.3 42 Solar Rainfall No. of Av. wind Sunshine (hrs) radiation (mm) rainy days velocity (ly day-1) (km ha-1) 0 0 2.1 8.3 446 0 0 1.9 8.0 435 9.2 1 3.1 7.7 425 0 0 1.8 5.7 355 0 0 5.6 5.1 333 0 0 2.9 5.3 341 0 0 5.2 6.3 375 0 0 2.5 7.9 432 0 0 1.9 5.9 361 0 0 2.3 3.7 285 0 0 3.2 5.9 362 0 0 7.4 8.8 463 0.8 0 3.3 8.9 467 7.0 1 3.4 5.7 355 Trace 0 4.8 8.6 456 1.2 0 3.9 9.1 474 Trace 0 3.5 9.3 481 0 0 4.4 9.9 502 0 0 3.5 9.3 481

49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Apr. Apr.

1-7 Dec. 8-14 Dec. 15-21 Dec. 22-28 Dec. 29-4 Jan. 5-11 Jan. 12-18 Jan. 19-25 Jan. 26-1 Jan. 2-8 Feb. 9-15 Feb. 16-22 Feb. 23-1 Mar. 2-8 Mar. 9-15 Mar. 16-22 Mar. 23-29 Mar. 30-5 Apr. 6-12 Apr.

101

APPENDIX-II Table 23: Average weekly meteorological data recorded at Pantnagar during 2006-07 Std. week Month Week No. Max. Min. temp. Relative (C) humidity temp. (C) (%) 22.3 5.8 67 24.8 11.4 68 20.1 7.1 75 23.7 8.1 69 18.3 7.2 78 17.9 3.7 78 19.4 2.5 69 20.0 4.6 72 21.9 5.9 70 25.0 10.5 67 20.3 11.6 82 20.8 7.6 75 23.6 8.0 66 23.2 10.4 74 25.4 10.4 68 23.5 11.7 72 29.0 15.3 66 32.8 16.0 62 33.8 14.6 49 35.1 20.1 51 34.4 20.8 58 Solar Rainfall No. of Av. wind Sunshine (hrs) radiation (mm) rainy days velocity (ly day-1) (km hr-1) 0.2 0 6.6 7.9 432 1.2 0 7.2 4.6 316 8.4 1 5.3 5.3 341 0.0 0 4.3 7.4 414 0.0 0 7.1 3.8 288 0.0 0 10.8 6.1 269 0.0 0 4.1 6.4 379 0.0 0 6.1 5.5 248 0.0 0 3.1 5.5 248 Trace 0 6.4 5.7 355 81.6 3 15.8 1.8 218 69.4 2 9.3 8.0 435 0.0 0 11.4 7.87 428 33.8 3 12.1 7.1 404 5.0 1 11.9 8.1 439 46.0 2 18.1 8.1 439 13.4 2 15.9 9.3 481 0.0 0 8.1 9.9 502 Trace 0 15.6 9.4 484 3.2 1 15.3 8.8 463 13.0 1 12.5 8.6 456

48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Nov. Dec. Dec. Dec. Dec. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Jan. Feb. Feb. Feb. Feb. Mar. Mar. Mar. Mar. Apr. Apr. Apr.

26-2 Dec. 3-9 Dec. 10-16 Dec. 17-23 Dec. 24-31 Dec. 1-7 Jan. 8-4 Jan. 15-21 Jan. 22-28 Jan. 29-4 Feb. 5-11 Feb. 12-18 Feb. 19-25 Feb. 26-4 Mar. 5-11 Mar. 12-18 Mar. 19-25 Mar. 26-1 Apr. 2-8 Apr. 9-15 Apr. 16-22 Apr.

102

APPENDIX-III Table 24 : Average weekly meteorological data recorded during 2005-06 and 2006-07 Year Max. temp Min. temp. Mean temp. Relative Wind speed Duration of Solar Total Cumulative -1 (C) (C) (C) humidity (km hr ) sunshine (hr radiation rainfall ET (mm) day-1) (%) (1y day-1) (mm)

2005-06 2006-07

24.5 24.9

9.8 10.1

17.1 17.5

65 69

3.5 9.8

7.1 6.9

406.5 397.1

18.2 275

416.5 475.6

103

APPENDIX-IV Table 25 : Daily growing degree days (GDD) calculated from daily maximum and minimum temperature recorded at Pantnagar during 200506
Months 1 Dec. 05 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Dec. 1Jan 06 2 GDD 12.7 10.8 10.1 8.2 8.0 9.5 9.9 11.6 12.0 12.0 10.1 8.9 8.0 8.1 8.8 10.3 11.3 10.0 9.9 10.1 10.6 12.3 13.8 9.6 7.2 9.3 9.4 9.6 10.1 10.2 9.2 10.3 11.6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Jan. 1 Feb. 2 3 4 5 14.5 13.2 8.3 7.8 7.7 14.9 6.6 6.0 6.5 7.1 8.1 7.3 11.3 9.9 13.8 14.2 13.0 10.4 9.8 8.6 5.7 4.9 7.5 8.3 6.4 9.6 10.0 10.0 12.1 12.5 13.4 11.3 11.4 11.9 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Feb. 1 Mar. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13.8 14.0 13.7 12.6 13.9 12.5 14.3 14.6 14.4 15.7 15.4 14.4 15.0 15.0 17.0 16.8 16.8 17.8 17.5 16.8 16.6 16.7 13.8 13.3 14.5 14.1 13.8 14.7 14.1 18.2 18.1 18.2 14.9 14.6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Mar. 1 Apr. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Apr. Total 14.3 14.3 15.2 16.5 16.2 14.8 14.6 14.5 17.4 18.6 17.7 17.2 18.7 19.0 20.7 17.9 16.9 16.7 17.6 18.7 20.6 21.1 19.7 19.6 20.2 21.1 20.8 22.1 24.2 22.5 1734.5

104

APPENDIX-V Table 26 : Daily growing degree days (GDD) calculated from daily maximum and minimum temperature recorded at Pantnagar during 200607 Months GDD 30 7.5 2 12.1 8 11.8 28 Nov. 11.1 31 Dec. 7.2 3 13.4 9 11.4 05 1Jan 06 7.8 4 12.3 10 13.0 29 9.9 2 10.4 5 12.0 11 15.3 30 Nov. 9.5 3 4.3 6 11.5 12 14.6 1 Dec. 05 10.1 4 3.9 7 13.0 13 12.6 2 8.54 5 4.6 8 9.4 14 13.7 3 9.6 6 6.1 9 12.7 15 12.3 4 13.1 7 7.7 10 13.7 16 11.1 5 14.5 8 6.3 11 11.5 17 10.5 6 15.1 9 5.9 12 11.2 18 15.2 7 15.7 10 7.8 13 11.8 19 17.3 8 14.3 11 7.6 14 6.0 20 17.7 9 11.8 12 6.4 15 8.6 21 19.2 10 11.8 13 6.8 16 9.4 22 18.0 11 12.1 14 6.3 17 9.9 23 18.7 12 8.9 15 6.8 18 9.6 24 17.0 13 9.2 16 7.5 19 11.3 25 16.3 14 5.8 17 7.8 20 11.4 26 15.7 15 8.4 18 7.5 21 11.2 27 16.0 16 7.7 19 7.8 22 11.1 28 17.7 17 11.4 20 8.2 23 13.2 29 20.1 18 11.6 21 8.0 24 11.1 30 21.5 19 10.3 22 7.1 25 13.1 31 Mar. 22.6 20 12.5 23 6.7 26 9.5 1 Apr. 21.9 21 12.2 24 8.1 27 10.1 2 22.0 22 12.0 25 9.5 28 Feb. 12.2 3 20.1 23 10.9 26 10.5 1 Mar. 15.5 4 18.3 24 9.5 27 11.6 2 12.1 5 28.4 25 8.8 28 13.5 3 10.7 6 20.0 26 9.7 29 9.6 4 11.1 7 20.7 27 9.9 30 16.0 5 10.3 8 20.1 28 10.3 31 Jan. 13.9 6 12.5 9 20.6 29 7.2 1 Feb. 13.2 7 13.3 10 20.8
105

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Apr. Total

20.6 23.5 24.8 24.9 26.4 24.5 21.1 24.6 19.3 23.4 923

106

APPENDIX-VI Table 27: Spatial and temporal variation in temperature at different stages during 2005-06 and 2006-07 Stage Height (cm) 9 10 11 Time 12 1 2005-06 28.4 29.5 28.1 29.0 27.5 28.6 34.9 35.6 33.9 34.3 32.3 32.9 38.2 38.7 37.9 38.2 37.2 37.9 2006-07 25.1 25.9 24.8 25.6 24.2 25.1 32.0 33.2 31.8 32.5 31.6 30.7 38.5 39.5 37.7 38.7 37.1 38.1

Flowering (17.2.06) Pod formation (9.3.06) Maturity (10.4.06)

100 50 5 100 50 5 100 50 5 100 50 5 100 50 5 100 50 5

25.5 24.6 24.3 32.4 31.3 30.8 36.9 36.2 35.9 22.9 22.1 21.5 28.5 28.9 28.1 35.9 35.2 34.7

26.5 26.1 25.8 33.5 32.8 31.5 37.3 36.8 36.4 23.2 23.8 22.5 29.6 29.5 29.1 36.5 36.1 35.7

27.5 27.1 26.8 34.6 33.2 31.9 37.9 37.4 36.9 24.5 23.9 23.4 31.0 29.5 28.7 37.7 37.1 36.6

30.5 30.1 29.7 35.9 34.3 33.5 39.5 38.9 38.5 26.5 26.1 25.8 34.5 33.8 33.2 40.5 39.8 39.2

30.0 29.5 29.1 35.6 34.3 33.9 39.1 38.4 38.2 26.1 25.8 25.4 33.8 33.2 32.7 40.1 39.3 38.7

29.5 29.1 28.6 34.9 33.9 33.6 38.2 37.8 37.2 25.5 25.1 24.7 32.1 31.7 31.2 39.5 38.7 38.5

29.1 28.5 28.1 34.1 33.4 33.5 37.6 37.2 36.7 25.1 24.8 24.4 31.8 31.5 31.1 38.7 38.2 38.1

Flowering (20.2.07) Pod formation (21.3.07) Maturity (20.4.07)

107

APPENDIX-VII Table 28: Spatial and temporal variation in relative humidity at different stages during 2005-06 and 2006-07 Stage Depth (cm) 9 10 11 12 Time 1 2005-06 2 3 4 5

Flowering (17.2.06) Pod formation (10.4.06) Maturity (10.4.06)

5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100 5 100

72.5 72.4 69.0 69.7 59.5 59.2 70.5 70.4 65.0 64.9 59.0 58.8

71.4 71.2 68.5 68.2 58.6 58.4 70.0 69.9 64.5 64.2 58.5 58.1

70.9 70.6 67.7 67.5 57.2 56.9 69.1 69.0 63.5 63.1 57.5 57.2

70.1 69.8 67.1 66.8 56.4 56.2 68.5 68.4 62.5 62.2 56.8 56.7

69.5 69.2 66.5 66.2 56.1 55.9 2006-07 68.0 68.0 61.6 61.4 56.1 56.0

69.1 68.7 66.0 65.9 55.5 55.2 67.0 66.7 59.7 59.5 55.7 55.2

69.8 69.2 66.2 66.0 55.9 55.6 67.5 67.3 60.5 60.3 56.2 56.0

69.9 69.5 66.8 66.6 56.3 55.9 68.1 67.9 60.9 60.7 56.8 56.4

71.2 71.0 70.2 69.9 57.4 57.2 68.7 68.5 61.5 61.3 57.2 57.1

Flowering (20.2.07) Pod formation (21.3.07) Maturity (20.4.07)

108

APPENDIX-VIII Table 29: Soil temperature at different stages during 2005-06 and 2006-07 Stage Depth (cm) 9 10 11 12 Time 1 2005-06 23.5 21.9 20.3 26.1 23.2 21.3 33.5 26.5 27.9 2006-07 25.5 21.5 20.2 26.2 24.8 23.8 29.1 28.8 26.7

Flowering (17.2.06) Pod formation (9.3.06) Maturity (10.4.06)

5 10 20 5 10 20 5 10 20 5 10 20 5 10 20 5 10 20

18.5 17.1 16.9 22.9 20.1 18.9 27.1 23.7 25.1 18.8 17.1 15.9 21.9 20.4 19.2 27.2 25.5 24.5

19.2 17.9 17.5 23.2 20.9 19.3 28.9 26.2 25.9 20.1 18.2 16.5 23.1 21.6 20.2 28.5 26.1 25.1

21.2 18.9 18.2 24.3 21.9 20.1 29.9 26.9 26.5 22.5 19.5 17.5 24.1 22.4 21.5 29.1 27.1 25.8

22.3 19.9 19.3 25.2 22.8 20.9 31.5 27.5 27.1 24.5 20.2 19.5 25.2 23.5 22.5 30.5 28.1 26.1

24.6 22.2 21.5 26.9 24.2 22.1 34.9 30.1 29.2 27.1 22.2 22.2 27.2 25.2 24.1 31.5 29.1 26.3

24.1 21.5 20.1 26.1 23.1 21.7 34.1 29.5 28.5 26.5 27.8 21.8 26.5 24.8 29.8 30.5 26.5 26.1

23.6 20.2 19.4 25.5 22.5 20.2 33.5 28.8 28.1 25.8 20.1 19.1 27.1 24.2 23.5 29.1 27.1 25.8

22.2 19.1 18.1 25.0 21.2 19.5 33.1 26.1 27.5 25.1 19.2 18.1 26.5 23.6 23.1 26.5 26.5 25.1

Flowering (20.2.07) Pod formation (21.3.07) Maturity (20.3.07)

109

APPENDIX IX Weekly mean ET (mm/day) estimated by different methods for chickpea growing season during 2005-06 Standard weeks Weeks Blaney Criddle Jensen-Haise ETu (mm/day) ETj (mm/day) StephensStewart ETss (mm/day) 2.1 2.0 2.1 1.6 1.6 1.4 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.4 2.2 3.1 2.8 2.3 2.8 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.7 2.44 Turc ETt Thornthwaite Penman ETp (mm/day) ETth (mm/day) (mm/day) 1.2 2.1 2.9 1.2 2.9 1.9 1.2 2.3 1.7 1.0 2.0 2.6 2.8 2.2 1.9 2.5 1.8 1.8 3.5 2.4 2.9 2.8 1.8 3.8 2.8 2.4 1.5 2.4 2.7 1.7 3.0 3.1 1.9 4.0 3.6 3.3 3.8 3.0 5.6 3.1 3.4 4.8 3.8 3.1 2.9 4.1 3.8 2.7 4.2 4.1 5.1 4.5 5.1 5.0 4.4 5.5 6.7 2.95 2.84 3.21

49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1-7 Dec. 8-14 Dec. 15-21 Dec. 22-28 Dec. 29-4 Jan. 5-11 Jan. 12-18 Jan. 19-25 Jan. 26-1 Feb. 2-8 Feb. 9-15 Feb. 16-22 Feb. 23-1 Mar. 2-8 Mar. 9-15 Mar. 16-22 Mar. 23-29 Mar. 30-5 Mar. 6-12 April Mean

2.7 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.01

1.8 1.6 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.5 2.1 1.5 2.0 1.8 2.6 3.8 3.3 2.0 3.3 4.0 4.2 5.0 4.9 3.14

110

APPENDIX-X Weekly mean ET (mm/day) estimated by different methods for chickpea growing season during 2006-07 Standard weeks Weeks Blaney Criddle Jensen-Haise ETu (mm/day) ETj (mm/day) StephensStewart ETss (mm/day) 2.4 2.1 1.8 2.5 1.4 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.3 1.3 2.4 2.6 2.6 2.9 2.9 3.8 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.3 2.66 Turc ETt Thornthwaite Penman ETp (mm/day) ETth (mm/day) (mm/day) 1.2 1.6 0.9 1.0 1.9 1.1 0.9 1.6 1.6 1.2 1.8 0.9 0.8 1.6 1.5 0.9 1.4 1.5 2.7 1.4 1.3 2.6 2.3 1.4 2.8 2.4 1.2 3.3 2.8 1.2 2.07 2.6 1.5 3.1 2.4 1.4 3.2 2.5 1.6 3.1 2.7 4.2 3.5 3.9 4.6 3.5 2.8 4.5 4.2 5.0 5.7 4.5 4.9 5.4 4.4 3.9 4.6 4.4 4.9 4.9 5.9 6.2 7.6 2.74 2.92 3.07

48 49 50 51 52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

26-2 Dec. 3-9 Dec. 10-16 Dec. 17-23 Dec. 24-31 Dec. 1-7 Jan. 8-14 Jan. 15-21 Jan. 22-28 Jan. 29-4 Feb. 5-11 Feb. 12-18 Feb. 19-25 Feb. 26-4 Mar. 5-11 Mar. 12-16 Mar. 19-25 Mar. 26-1 April 2-8 April 9-15 April 16-22 April Mean

1.1 1.3 1.1 1.2 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.4 3.6 4.2 3.9 3.7 3.9 4.4 4.5 4.5 5.1 5.3 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.35

1.9 2.0 1.4 2.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.5 2.2 1.2 3.6 4.7 4.1 2.8 3.9 4.7 5.3 5.2 6.0 6.3 2.88
111

APPENDIX-XI (List of tables for Penman method) Table 32 : Extra terrestrial radiation (RA) expressed in equivalent evaporation in mm/day Latitu de Southern hemisphere Jan. Feb. Mar Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. degre Jan. Feb. Mar Apr.May Jun. e . . . 3.8 6.1 9.4 12.7 15.8 17.1 16.4 14.1 10.9 7.4 4.5 3.2 50 17.5 14.7 10.9 7.0 4.2 3.1 4.3 6.6 9.8 13.0 15.9 17.2 16.5 14.3 11.2 7.8 5.0 3.7 48 17.6 14.9 11.2 7.5 4.7 3.5 4.9 7.1 10.2 13.3 16.1 17.2 16.6 14.5 11.5 8.3 5.5 4.3 46 17.7 15.1 11.5 7.9 5.2 4.0 5.3 7.6 10.6 13.7 16.1 17.2 16.6 14.7 11.9 8.7 6.0 4.7 44 17.8 15.3 11.9 8.4 5.7 4.4 5.9 8.1 11.0 14.0 16.2 17.3 16.7 15.0 12.2 9.1 6.5 5.2 42 17.8 15.5 12.2 8.8 6.1 4.9 Northern hemisphere

Jul. Aug Sep. Oct. Nov. Dec. . 3.5 5.5 8.9 12.9 16.5 18.2 4.0 6.0 9.3 13.2 16.6 18.2 4.4 6.5 9.7 13.4 16.7 18.3 4.9 6.9 10.2 13.7 16.7 18.3 5.4 7.4 10.6 14.0 16.8 18.3

6.4 6.9 7.4 7.9 8.3

8.6 11.4 14.3 16.4 17.3 16.7 15.2 12.5 9.6 9.0 11.8 14.5 16.4 17.2 16.7 15.3 12.8 10.0 9.4 12.1 14.7 16.4 17.2 16.7 15.4 13.1 10.6 9.8 12.4 14.8 16.5 17.1 16.8 15.5 13.4 10.8 10.2 12.8 15.0 16.5 17.0 16.8 15.6 13.6 11.2

7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0

5.7 6.1 6.6 7.2 7.8

40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16
112

17.9 17.9 17.9 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.7 17.6 17.5 17.4

15.7 15.8 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.4 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.5

12.5 12.8 13.2 13.5 13.8 14.0 14.3 14.4 14.6 14.8

9.2 9.6 10.1 10.5 10.9

6.6 7.1 7.5 8.0 8.5

5.3 5.8 6.3 6.8 7.3 7.8 8.2 8.7 9.1 9.6

5.9 6.3 6.8 7.2 7.7 8.1 8.6 9.1 9.5 10.0

7.9 8.3 8.8 9.2 9.6

11.0 14.2 16.9 18.3 11.4 14.4 17.0 18.3 11.7 14.6 17.0 18.2 12.0 14.9 17.1 18.2 12.4 15.1 17.2 18.1

8.8 10.7 13.1 15.2 16.5 17.0 16.8 15.7 13.9 11.6 9.5 8.3 9.3 11.1 13.4 15.3 16.5 16.8 16.7 15.7 14.1 12.0 9.9 8.8 9.8 11.5 13.7 15.3 16.4 16.7 16.6 15.7 14.3 12.3 10.3 9.3 10.2 11.9 13.9 15.4 16.4 16.6 16.5 15.8 14.5 13.6 10.7 9.7 10.7 12.3 14.2 15.5 16.3 16.4 16.4 15.8 14.6 13.0 11.1 10.2 11.2 12.7 14.4 15.6 16.3 16.4 16.3 15.9 14.8 13.3 11.6 10.7 11.6 13.0 14.6 15.6 16.1 16.1 16.1 15.8 14.9 13.6 12.0 11.1 12.0 13.3 14.7 15.6 16.0 15.9 15.9 15.7 15.0 13.9 12.4 11.6

11.3 8.9 11.6 9.3 12.0 9.7 12.3 10.2 12.6 10.6

10.1 12.7 15.3 17.3 18.1 10.4 13.0 15.4 17.2 17.9 10.9 13.2 15.5 17.2 17.8 11.2 13.4 15.6 17.1 17.7 11.6 13.7 15.7 17.0 17.5

17.3 16.5 15.0 13.0 11.0 10.0 10.4 12.0 13.9 15.8 17.0 17.4 17.1 16.5 15.1 13.2 11.4 10.4 10.8 12.3 14.1 15.8 16.8 17.1 16.9 16.4 15.2 13.5 11.7 10.8 11.2 12.6 14.3 15.8 16.7 16.8

12.4 13.6 14.9 15.7 15.8 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.1 14.1 12.8 12.0 12.8 13.9 15.1 15.7 15.7 15.5 15.5 15.6 15.2 14.4 13.3 12.5 13.2 14.2 15.3 15.7 15.5 15.3 15.3 15.5 15.3 14.7 13.6 12.9 13.6 14.5 15.3 15.6 15.3 15.0 15.1 15.4 15.3 14.8 13.9 13.3 13.9 14.8 15.4 15.4 15.1 14.7 14.9 15.2 15.3 15.0 14.2 13.7 14.3 15.0 15.5 15.5 14.9 14.4 14.6 15.1 15.3 15.1 14.5 14.1 14.7 15.3 15.6 15.3 14.6 14.2 14.3 14.9 15.3 15.3 14.8 14.4 15.0 15.5 15.7 15.3 14.4 13.9 14.1 14.8 15.3 15.4 15.1 14.8

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

16.7 16.4 15.3 13.7 12.1 11.2 11.6 12.9 14.5 15.8 16.5 16.6 16.6 16.3 15.4 14.0 12.5 11.6 12.0 13.2 14.7 15.8 16.4 16.5 16.4 16.1 15.8 15.5 15.3 15.0 16.3 16.1 16.0 15.8 15.7 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.6 15.6 15.7 15.7 14.2 14.4 14.7 14.9 15.1 15.3 12.8 12.0 12.4 13.5 14.8 15.9 16.2 16.2 13.1 12.4 12.7 13.7 14.9 15.8 16.0 16.0 13.4 12.8 13.1 14.0 15.0 15.7 15.8 15.7 13.8 13.2 13.4 14.3 15.1 15.6 15.5 15.4 14.1 13.5 13.7 14.5 15.2 15.5 15.3 15.1 14.4 13.9 14.1 14.8 15.3 15.4 15.1 14.8

113

Table 33 : Mean daily duration of maximum possible sunshine hours (N) of different months and latitudes Northern latitudes January February March April (degree) 50 8.5 10.1 11.8 13.8 48 8.8 10.2 11.8 13.6 46 9.1 10.4 11.9 13.5 44 9.3 10.5 11.9 13.4 42 9.4 10.6 11.9 13.4 40 9.6 10.7 11.9 13.3 Southern latitudes January February March April (degree) 35 10.1 11.0 11.9 13.1 30 10.4 11.1 12.0 12.9 25 10.7 11.3 12.0 12.7 20 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.6 15 11.3 11.6 12.0 12.5 10 11.6 11.8 12.0 12.3 5 11.8 11.9 12.0 12.2 0 12.1 12.0 12.1 12.1

May

June

July

August September October November December

15.4 15.2 14.9 14.7 14.6 14.4

May

16.3 16.0 15.7 15.4 15.2 15.0

June

15.9 15.6 15.4 15.2 14.9 14.7

July

14.5 14.3 14.2 14.0 13.9 13.7

12.7 12.6 12.6 12.6 12.9 12.5

10.8 10.9 10.9 11.0 11.1 11.2

9.1 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.0

8.1 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.1 9.3

August September October November December

14.0 13.6 13.3 13.1 12.8 12.3 12.3 12.1

14.5 14.0 13.7 13.3 13.0 12.7 12.4 12.1

14.3 14.9 13.5 13.2 12.9 12.6 12.3 12.1

13.5 13.2 13.0 12.8 12.6 12.4 12.3 12.1

12.4 12.4 12.3 12.3 12.2 12.1 12.1 12.1

11.3 11.5 11.6 11.7 11.8 11.8 12.0 12.1

10.3 10.6 10.9 11.2 11.4 11.6 11.9 12.1

9.8 10.2 10.6 10.9 11.2 11.5 11.8 12.1

114

Table 34 : Saturation vapour pressure (ea) in mbar as function of mean air temperature (t) in C Temperature (C) ea in mbar 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

6.1 6.6 7.1 7.6 8.1 8.7 9.4 10.0 10.7 11.5 12.3 13.1 14.0 15.0 16.1 17.0 18.2 19.4 20.6 22.0

Temperature 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 (C) ea in mbar 23.4 24.9 26.4 28.1 29.8 31.7 33.6 35.7 37.8 40.1 42.4 44.9 47.6 50.3 53.2 56.2 59.4 62.8 66.3 69.9 Also actual vapor pressure (ed) can be calculated from this table using the T dew point data (e.g. Tdewpoint is 18C, ed is 20.6 mbar)

Table 35 : Value of wind function f (u) = 0.27 (1 + W/100) for wind run at 2 m height in km day-1 Wind speed (km day-1) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0.54 0.81 1.08 1.35 1.62 1.89 2.16 2.43 2.70

0.30 0.57 0.84 1.11 1.38 1.65 1.92 2.19 2.46

0.32 0.59 0.86 1.13 1.40 1.67 1.94 2.21 2.48

0.35 0.62 0.89 1.16 1.43 1.70 1.97 2.24 2.51

0.38 0.65 0.92 1.19 1.46 1.73 2.00 2.27 2.54

0.41 0.67 0.94 1.21 1.39 1.76 2.02 2.29 2.56

0.43 0.70 0.97 1.24 1.51 1.78 2.05 2.32 2.59

0.46 0.73 1.00 1.27 1.54 1.81 2.08 2.35 2.62

0.49 0.76 1.03 1.30 1.57 1.84 2.11 2.38 2.65

0.51 0.78 1.05 1.32 1.59 1.80 2.15 2.40 2.65

115

Table 36: Values of weight factor (1-W) for the effect of wind and humidity on ETo at different temperature and altitude Temperature (C) 1-W at altitude m 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0 0.57 0.54 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.19 500 0.56 0.52 0.49 0.46 0.43 0.40 0.38 0.35 0.33 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.21 0.19 0.18 1000 0.54 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.34 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.22 0.18 0.17 2000 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.34 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 3000 0.48 0.45 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.34 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 4000 0.46 0.42 0.39 0.36 0.34 0.31 0.29 0.27 0.25 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 W = / ( + r) : rate of change of saturation vapour pressure with temperature, r = psychrometric constant.

0.17 0.16 0.15 0.13 0.13 0.12

0.16 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.11

0.15 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.10

Table 37: Values of weight factor (W) for the effect of radiation on ETo at different temperature and altitude 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 Temperature (C) W at altitude m 0 0.43 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.64 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.78 0.80 0.82 500 0.44 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.57 0.60 0.62 0.65 0.67 0.70 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.79 0.81 0.82 1000 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.80 0.82 0.83 2000 0.49 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.85 3000 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.86 4000 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 W = / ( + r) : rate of change of saturation vapour pressure with temperature, r = psychrometric constant. 36 38 40

0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.89

0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.90

0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.90

116

Table 38 : Conversion factor for (Ra) to (Rns) for a given () of 0.25 and different ratios of (n/N) n/N (1-) (0.25 + 0.50 n/N) 0.0 0.05 0.10 0.015 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.0

0.19 0.21 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.43 0.45 0.47 0.49 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.56

Table 39 : Correction for temperature (t) on long wave radiation (Rnl) TC F (t) = TK4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36

11.0 11.4 11.7 12.0 12.4 12.7 13.1 13.5 13.8 14.2 14.6 15.0 15.4 15.9 16.3 16.7 17.2 17.7 18.1

Table 40 : Correction for vapour pressure f (ed) on long wave radiation (Rnl) ed (mbar) f(ed) = 0.34 0.444/ed 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 21 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

0.23 0.22 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.06

Table 41: Correction the ratio actual and maximum bright sunshine hours f(n/N) on long wave radiations (Rnl) n/N f(n.N0 (0.1 + 0.9 n/N) 0.0 0.05 0.10 0.015 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.0

0.10 0.15 0.19 0.21 0.28 0.33 0.37 0.42 0.46 0.51 0.55 0.60 0.61 0.69 0.73 0.78 0.82 0.87 0.91 0.96 1.0

Reference Table 11 to 20 : Climate, weather and crop, Lenka, D

117