Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-16T22:36:15.421Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental control of lentil (Lens culinaris) crop development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

B. A. McKenzie  and
G. D. Hill
B. A. McKenzie
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand
G. D. Hill
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) cultivars Titore and Olympic were sown at Canterbury, New Zealand, on eight dates, from April to November in 1984 and in May and August in 1985. Of the four important physiological growth stages (sowing to emergence (S–E), emergence to flowering (E–F), flowering to physiological maturity (F–Pm) and physiological maturity to harvest (Pm–H)), the duration of all except E–F depended upon accumulated thermal time above 2 °C. The mean accumulated thermal times for E–F, F–Pm, Pm–H were 116, 565 and 293 °C days, respectively. Stage E–F required from 1165 °C days for an April sowing to 509 °C days for a November sowing. There was a highly significant positive relationship (r2 = 0·99) between the rate of development during E–F and mean temperature. Photoperiod also affected development rate.

Neither of the two cultivars studied had a vernalization requirement for the induction of flowering. In both years, the development rate during E–F was highly dependent upon photoperiod-corrected temperature. The relationships presented show that development of lentil crops in Canterbury can be accurately predicted using accumulated temperature and photoperiod-corrected temperature.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 113 , Issue 1 , August 1989 , pp. 67 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

Angus, J. F., Cunningham, R. B., Moncur, M. W. & Mackenzie, D. H. (1980). Phasic development in field crops. I. Thermal response in the seedling phase. Field Crops Research 3, 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angus, J. F., Mackenzie, D. H., Morton, R. & Schafer, C. A. (1981). Phasic development in field crops. II. Thermal and photoperiodic responses of spring wheat. Field Crops Research 4, 249–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. M. (1960). Soybean ecology. I. Developmenttemperature relationships from controlled environment stodies. Agronomy Journal 52, 493–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, J. N., Biscoe, P. V. & Dennis-Jones, R. (1983). Environmental influences on the development, growth and yield of barley. In Barley: Production and Marketing (Eds Wright, G. M. & Wynn-Williams, R. B.), pp. 21–49. Special Publication, Agronomy Society of New Zealand No. 2.Google Scholar
Gladstones, J. S. & Hill, G. D. (1969). Selection for economic characters in Lupinus angustifoliusand L. digitalus. 2. Time of flowering. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 9, 213–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadley, P., Summerfield, R. J. & Roberts, E. H. (1983). Effects of temperature and photoperiod on reproductive development of selected grain legume crops. In Temperate Legumes (Eds Jones, D. G. & Davies, D. R.), pp. 19–41. London: Pitman Books.Google Scholar
Husain, M. M. (1984). The response of field bean (Vicia faba L.) to irrigation and sowing date. PhD thesis, Lincoln College, University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Husain, M. M., Hill, G. D. & Gallagher, J. N. (1988). The response of field beans (Vicia fabaL.) to irrigation and sowing date. 2. Growth and development in relation to yield. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 111, 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, P. G. & Laing, D. R. (1978). The effects of phenological and meteorological factors on soybean yield. Agricultural Meterorology 19, 485–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
New Zealand Soil Bureau (1954). Soils of the downs and plains of Canterbury and Otago. S.B. 686 L. Sheet 2.Google Scholar
Roberts, E. H., Hadley, P. & Summerfield, R. J. (1985). Effects of temperature and photoperiod on flowering in chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.). Annals of Botany 55, 881–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, E. H., Summerfield, R. J., Ellis, R. H. & Stewart, K. A. (1988). Photothermal time for flowering in lentil (Lens culinaris) and the analysis of potential vernalization responses. Annals of Botany 61, 29–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, E. H., Summerfield, R. J., Muehlbauer, F. J. & Short, R. W. (1986). Flowering in lentil (Lens culinaris Medic). The duration of the photoperiodic inductive phase as a function of accumulated daylength above the critical photoperiod. Annals of Botany 58, 235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saint-Clair, P. M. (1972). Responses of Lens esculenta Moench to controlled environment factors. PhD thesis, Agricultural University, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Saxena, M. C. & Wassimi, N. (1984). Photoperiodic response of some diverse genotypes of lentil (Lens culinarisMed.). Lens Newsletter 11,(2), 25–29.Google Scholar
Skjelvag, A. O. (1981). Effects of climatic factors on the growth and development of the field bean (Vicia faba L. var. minor). I. Phenology, height, growth and yield in a phytotrone (sic) experiment. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 31, 358–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summerfield, R. J. (1981). Adaptation to environments. In Lentils (Eds Webb, C. & Hawtin, G.), pp. 91–110. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J., Roberts, E. H., Erskine, W. & Ellis, R. H. (1985). Effects of temperature and photoperiod on flowering in lentils (Lens culinaris Medic). Annals of Botany 56, 659–671.CrossRefGoogle 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 (Eds Summerfield, R. J. & Bunting, A. H.), pp. 17–361. London: HMSO.Google Scholar