Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T03:45:25.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Towards the Reliable Prediction of Time to Flowering in Six Annual Crops. III. Cowpea Vigna unguiculata

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

R. H. Ellis
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of Agriculture, Plant Environment Laboratory, Cutbush Lane, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AD, England
R. J. Lawn
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures, The Cunningham Laboratory, 306 Carmody Road, St Lucia, Brisbane, Queensland 4067, Australia
R. J. Summerfield
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of Agriculture, Plant Environment Laboratory, Cutbush Lane, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AD, England
A. Qi
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of Agriculture, Plant Environment Laboratory, Cutbush Lane, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AD, England
E. H. Roberts
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of Agriculture, Plant Environment Laboratory, Cutbush Lane, Shinfield, Reading, RG2 9AD, England
P. M. Chay
Affiliation:
CSIRO Davies Laboratory, Private Mail Bag, PO Aitkenvale, Townsville, Queensland 4814, Australia
J. B. Brouwer
Affiliation:
Victorian Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Private Bag 260, Horsham, Victoria 3401, Australia
J. L. Rose
Affiliation:
Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Hermitage Research Station, via Warwick, Queensland 4370, Australia
S. J. Yeates
Affiliation:
Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, PO Box 1346, Katherine, Northern Territory 0851, Australia

Summary

Six genotypes of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) of diverse origin were sown on various dates at five locations in Australia in order to provide a range of photothermal environments. Times from sowing to first flowering (f) ranged between 36 d and 145 d; pre-flowering temperature and photoperiod means varied from 15.7° to 29.2°C and from 11.6 to 15.5 h d−1. In five genotypes there was no effect of photoperiod on rate of progress towards flowering (1/f), but the relation between 1/f and mean temperature was always positive. The base temperatures (at which 1/f = 0) varied between 8.1° and 10.4°C. The rankings of parameter estimates among four photoperiod-insensitive genotypes common to this study and earlier research in controlled environments were almost identical, and there was generally good agreement between field observations and predictions from controlled environments once hourly temperatures were used to describe the natural environment. When cowpea plants were exposed to temperatures below 3°C, flowering was delayed beyond expected values, presumably as a result of chilling damage. In one genotype, rate of progress towards flowering was affected by both temperature and photoperiod, and relations between 1/f and the photothermal environment were described by a two-plane linear model of similar form to that determined in an earlier controlled environment study. These latest findings support the utility of such linear models for the prediction of crop phenology in the field and for the genetic characterization of photothermal flowering response in annual crops.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Bunting, A. H. (1975). Time, phenology and the yields of crops. Weather 30:312325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crookston, R. K., O'Toole, J., Lee, R., Ozbun, J. L. & Wallace, D. H. (1974). Photosynthetic depression in beans after exposure to cold for one night. Crop Science 14:457464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, C. T., Goudriaan, J. & van Laar, H. H. (1978). Simulation of Assimilation, Respiration and Transpiration of Crops. Wageningen: PUDOC.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. H., Roberts, E. H. & Summerfield, R. J. (1988). Variation in the optimum temperature for rates of seedling emergence and progress towards flowering amongst six genotypes of faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Annals of Botany 62:119126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodspeed, M. J. (1975). Computer routine for solar position, daylength and related quantities. Technical Memorandum No. 75/11. CSIRO Division of Water and Land Resources.Google Scholar
Hadley, P., Roberts, E. H., Summerfield, R. J. & Minchin, F. R. (1983). A quantitative model of reproductive development in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L) Walp.) in relation to photoperiod and temperature, and implications for screening germplasm. Annals of Botany 51:531543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoogenboom, G. & Huck, M. G. (1986). ROOTSIMU v. 4.0. A dynamic simulation of root growth, water uptake and biomass partitioning in a soil–plant–atmosphere continuum: Update and documentation. Agronomy and Soil Department Series 109. Alabama: Agricultural Experiment Station.Google Scholar
Huxley, P. A. & Summerfield, R. J. (1974). Effects of night temperature and photoperiod on the reproductive ontogeny of cultivars of cowpea and of soyabean selected for the wet tropics. Plant Science Letters 3:1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imrie, B. C. (1991). Cowpea. In New Crops: Agronomy and Potential of Alternative Crop Species, 3945 (Eds Jessop, R. S. and Wright, R. L.). Melbourne: INKATA Press.Google Scholar
Lush, W. M., Evans, L. T. & Wien, H. C. (1980). Environmental adaptation of wild and domesticated cowpcas (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.). Field Crops Research 3:173187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reicosky, D. C., Winkleman, L. J., Baker, J. M. & Baker, D. G. (1989). Accuracy of hourly temperatures calculated from daily minima and maxima. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 46:193209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, W. M., Allen, D. J. & Summerfield, R. J. (1985). Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.). In Grain Legume Crops, 520583. (Eds Summerfield, R. J. and Roberts, E. H.). London: Collins.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J. & Roberts, E. H. (1985). Cowpea. In Handbook of Flowering, Volume I, 171184. (Ed. Halevy, A. H.). Boca Raton: CRC Press Inc.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J. & Wien, H. C. (1980). Effects of photoperiod and air temperature on growth and yield of economic legumes. In Advances in Legume Science, 1736. (Eds Summerfield, R. J. and Bunting, A. H.). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J., Roberts, R. H., Ellis, R. H. & Lawn, R. J. (1991). Towards the reliable prediction of time to flowering in six annual crops. I. The development of simple models for fluctuating field environments. Experimental Agriculture 27:1133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summerfield, R. J., Lawn, R. J., Qi, A., Ellis, E. H., Roberts, E. H., Chay, P. M., Brouwer, J. B., Rose, J. L., Shanmugasundaram, S., Yeates, S. J. & Sandover, S. (1993). Towards the reliable prediction of time to flowering in six annual crops. II. Soyabean (Glycine max). Experimental Agriculture 29:253289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warrag, M. O. A. & Hall, A. E. (1984). Reproductive responses ofcowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) to heat stress. I. Responses to soil and day air temperature. Field Crops Research 8:316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wien, H. C. & Summerfield, R. J. (1980). Adaptation of cowpeas in West Africa: effects of photoperiod and temperature responses in cultivars of diverse origin. In Advances in Legume Science, 405417. (Eds Summerfield, R. J. and Bunting, A. H.). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.Google Scholar