Photosynthesis Research

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 61–69 | Cite as

Diurnal patterns of canopy photosynthesis, evapotranspiration and water use efficiency in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under field conditions

  • D. P. Singh
  • D. B. Peters
  • P. Singh
  • M. Singh
Regular Paper


Diurnal changes in net photosynthetic rate (PN), evapotranspiration rate (ET) and water use efficiency (WUE=PN/ET) of field grown chickpea (Cicer arietinum) L. cv. H-355 were studied from the vegetative phase through maturirty at Haryana Agricultural University Farm, Hissar, India. The maximum photosynthetic rate (PN max) increased from the initial vegetative phase to pod formation and declined at a rapid rate from pod filling to maturity. The response of PN to photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) (400–700 nm) was temperature-dependent during the day, i.e. on cool days the PN rates were lower for certain quanta of PPFD during the first half than during the second half of day, and vice versa on warm days. ET was affected both by crop cover and evaporative demand up to flowering, but thereafter it was independent of crop cover and followed the course of evaporative demand. ET was related to air temperature during the day while PN was related to PPFD. There was a lag of two to three hours between PNmax (around noon) and ETmax (around 2 p.m.). WUE increased from the vegetative stage through flowering but decreased thereafter to maturity.

Key words

canopy photosynthesis evapotranspiration water use efficiency 



days after planting




leaf area index


photosynthetically active radiation (in figures) is equivalent to PPFD (see below)


net photosynthetic rate


photosynthetic photon flux density


water use efficiency (= PN/ET)


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Campbell D, Degenhardt D and Kondra Z (1978) Breeding for early maturity in summer type Brassica napus. Proc V Intl Rapeseed Conf, Malmo, Sweden. Vol 1, pp 52–55Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Downes RW (1972) Physiological aspects of sorghum adaptation. In Rao NGP and House LR, eds., Sorghum in seventies, pp 265–274. New Delhi: Oxford & I.B.HGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson RC, Witters RE and Ciha AJ (1981) Apparent photosynthesis, evapotranspiration and light penetration in two contrasting hard red winter wheat canopies. Agron J 73: 419–22Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kramer PJ (1980) The role of physiology in crop improvement. In: Staples RC and Kuhr RJ (eds) Linking research to crop production, pp 51–62. New York: Plenum PressGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lush WM and Rawson HM (1979) Effects of deomestication and region of origin on leaf gas exchange in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L)Walp) Photosynthetica 13: 419–29Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pate JS (1978) Pea. In: Evans ET (ed) Crop physiology, pp 191–224. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ PressGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rawson HM and Constable GA (1980) Carbon production of sunflower cultivars in field and controlled environment. I. Photosynthesis and transpiration of leaves, stems and heads. Austral J of Plant Physiol 7: 555–73Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rawson HM, Begg JE, Woodward RG (1977) The effect of atmospheric humidity on photosynthesis, transpiration and water use efficiency of leaves of several plant species. Planta 134: 5–10Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sheldrake AR and Saxena NP (1979) Growth and development of chickpeas under progressive moisture stress. In: Mussel H and Staples RC (eds) Stress physiology in crop plants, pp 465–83. New York: Wiley-InterscienceGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Singh H and Yadav CK (1980) Gene action and combining ability for seed yield, flowering and maturity in rape seed. Indian J of Agric Sci 50: 655–58Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Singh DP, Rawson HM and Turner MC (1982) Effect of radiation, temperature and humidity on photosynthesis, transpiration and water use efficiency of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian J Plant Physiol 25: 32–39Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh DP, Singh P., Singh P, Sharma HC and Singh M (1982) Effect of crop geometry and irrigation management on growth, evapotranspiration and water use efficiency of chickpea. Proc IV Afro-Asian Conf of ICID, Vol 1, pp 489–504. Lagos, NigeriaGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Threshow M (1970) Environment and plant response, pp51–62. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Turner NC (1982) The role of shoot characteristics in drought resistance of crop plants. In: Drought Resistance in Crops with emphasis on rice, pp 115–124. Philippines: IRRIGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. P. Singh
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. B. Peters
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. Singh
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. Singh
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.UNDP Centre of Soil and Water ManagementHaryana Agricultural UniversityHissarIndia
  2. 2.University of IllinoisAgricultural Research, US Dept. of AgricultureUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations