Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T05:44:46.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Physiological Basis for Yield Differences between Four Genotypes of Groundnut (Arachis Hypogaea) in Response to Drought. III. Developmental Processes†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

D. Harris ,
R. B. Matthews ,
R. C. Nageswara Rao  and
J.H. Williams
D. Harris
Affiliation:
ODA Microclimatology Group, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire, England
R. B. Matthews
Affiliation:
ODA Microclimatology Group, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire, England
R. C. Nageswara Rao
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru PO, Andhra Pradesh 502324, India
J.H. Williams
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru PO, Andhra Pradesh 502324, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Rates of leaf development in four groundnut genotypes were found to depend primarily on temperature, although there was a linear relation between the thermal time to produce one leaf and mean leaf water potential below −0.6 MPa. Flower, peg and pod production was analysed in relation to leaf number, since this integrated effects of temperature and water status.

When water was not limited, the ratio of pod number: peg number was about 0.8 for all four genotypes. During drought only one genotype (TMV 2) maintained this value, while for the other genotypes the ratio was approximately 0.15. Genotypes also showed different patterns of development during recovery from drought. TMV 2 maintained relatively high values of partitioning factor throughout the pod-filling period, resulting in the largest harvest index and pod yield. Kadiri 3 achieved the second largest harvest index and pod yield by maintaining production of pegs during drought and only forming pods when stress was relieved.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 215 - 226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bhatia, V. S., Bhargava, S. C. & Sinha, S. K. (1984). Effect of irrigation on reproductive efficiency of bunch and spreading types of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102:505–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billaz, R. & Ochs, R. (1961). Stades de sensibilité de l'arachide à la sècheresse. Oleagineux 16:605–611.Google Scholar
Boote, K. J., Varnell, R. J. & Duncan, W. G. (1976). Relationships of size, osmotic concentration, and sugar concentration of peanut pods to soil water. Proceedings of the Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida 35:47–50.Google Scholar
Fourrier, P. & Prevot, P. (1958). Influence sur l'arachide de la pluviosité, de la fumure minérale et de trempage des graines. Oleagineux 13:805–809.Google Scholar
Lee, T. A. Jr, Ketring, D. L. & Powell, R. D. (1972). Flowering and growth response of peanut plants (Arachis hypogaea L. var. Starr) at two levels of relative humidity. Plant Physiology 49:190–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lenka, D. & Misra, P. K. (1973). Response of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to irrigation. Indian Journal of Agronomy 18:492–497.Google Scholar
Leong, S. K. & Ong, C. K. (1983). The influence of temperature and soil water deficit on the development and morphology of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Journal of Experimental Botany 34:1551–1561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, H., Chen, C. C. & Lin, C. Y. (1963). Study of drought resistance in the Virginia and Spanish types of peanut. Journal of the Agricultural Association of China 43:50–51.Google Scholar
Matthews, R. B., Harris, D., Rao, R. C. Nageswara, Williams, J. H. & Wadia, K. D. R. (1988a). The physiological basis for yield differences between four genotypes of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) in response to drought. I. Dry matter production and water use. Experimental Agriculture 24:191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, R. B., Harris, D., Williams, J. H. & Rao, R. C. Nageswara (1988b). The physiological basis for yield differences between four genotypes of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) in response to drought. II. Solar radiation interception and leaf movement. Experimental Agriculture 24:203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ong, C. K. (1984). The influence of temperature and water deficits on the partitioning of dry matter in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Journal of Experimental Botany 35:746–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ono, Y., Nakayama, K. & Kubota, M. (1974). Effects of soil temperature and soil moisture in podding zone on pod development of peanut plants. Proceedings of the Crop Science Society of Japan 43:247–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallas, J. E. Jr, Stansell, J. R. & Koske, T. J. (1979). Effects of drought on Florunner peanuts. Agronomy Journal 71:853–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passioura, J. B. (1972). The effect of root geometry on the yield of wheat growing on stored water. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23:745–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajendrudu, G., Singh, M. & Williams, J. H. (1983). Hydraulic press measurements of leaf water potential in groundnuts. Experimental Agriculture 19:287–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Underwood, C. V., Taylor, H. M. & Hoveland, C. S. (1971). Soil physical factors affecting peanut pod development. Agronomy Journal 63:953–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vivekanandan, A. S. & Gunasena, H. P. M. (1976). Lysimetric studies on the effect of soil moisture tension on the growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Beitrage Tropische Landwirtschaft und Veterinarmedizin 14:369–378.Google Scholar