Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T18:28:56.568Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of morphologically divergent plant types in dried peas (Pisum sativum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. Stelling
D. Stelling
Affiliation:
Institute of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Georg-August University, von Siebold-Strasse 8, D-37075 Gottingen, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In 1991 and 1992, four sets of isogenic lines and eight released cultivars of pea (Pisum sativum L.) differing at the loci af (normal leaflets are converted to tendrils) and st (reduced stipule size) were grown in conventional plot stands at Göttingen, Germany. Crops were either supported by wire netting, to avoid the negative effects of lodging on yield, or were unsupported, thus permitting natural lodging, in order to study the effect of both genes on yield.

The conventional, normal-leafed plant type (AFAF STST) exhibited the highest yield potential, but also the largest yield reduction due to natural lodging. Yield potential of the ‘semi-leafless’ plant type (afaf STST) was less than that of the conventional type but, due to its better standing ability, the yield of the unsupported, ‘semi-leafless’ crop, on average, was less reduced by lodging than was the yield of the conventional one. With the additional reduction in stipule size by the gene st, the decrease in yield potential was too large to be counterbalanced by the positive effects of an improved standing ability. For the released cultivars, the effects of both genes on crop performance were smaller than for the isogenic lines.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 123 , Issue 3 , December 1994 , pp. 357 - 361
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

Cardi, T., Frusciante, L. & Monti, L. M. (1987). Allelic and nonallelic interactions of af, st, and tl w genes in pea. Crop Science 27, 852–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, I. L. & Gritton, E. T. (1992). Evaluation of the afila-tendriled acacia (afaf–tactac) pea foliage type under minimal competition. Crop Science 32, 851–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, I. L., Gritton, E. T. & Flannery, P. J. (1992). Evaluation of the afila-tendriled acacia (afaf-taclac) pea foliage type under high competition. Crop Science 32, 855–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, M. J. R. & Westmacott, M. (1956). Missing values in experiments analyzed on automatic computers. Applied Statistics 5, 203–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, M. C., Knott, C. M., Dyer, C. J. & Rogers-Lewis, D. (1991). Optimum plant densities for three semi-leafless combining pea (Pisum sativum) cultivars under contrasting field conditions. Annals of Applied Biology 118, 671–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedley, C. L. & Ambrose, M. J. (1981). Designing ‘leafless’ plants for improving yields of the dried pea crop. Advances in Agronomy 34, 225–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovinen, S. (1988). Breeding of a protein pea ideotype for Finnish conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science in Finland 60, 1–72.Google Scholar
Kielpinski, M. & Blixt, S. (1982). The evaluation of the ‘afila’ character with regard to its utility in new cultivars of dry peas. Acta Hortique Genetica 40, 51–74.Google Scholar
Lafond, G., Ali-Khan, S. T. & Evans, L. E. (1981). Comparison of near-isogenic leafed, leafless, semi-leafless, and reduced stipule lines of peas for yield and associated traits. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 61, 463–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullan, M. R. & Hebblethwaite, P. D. (1990). The interaction between lodging and plant population in combining peas. Annals of Applied Biology 117, 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snoad, B. (1985). The need for improved pea-crop plant ideotypes. In The Pea Crop – A Basis for Improvement (Eds Hebblethwaite, P. D., Heath, M. C. & Dawkins, T. C. K.), pp. 31–41. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Snoad, B. & Hedley, C. L. (1981). Potential for redesigning the pea crop using spontaneous and induced mutations. In Proceedings of an International Symposium ‘Induced Mutations – A Tool in Plant Research', pp. 111–125. IAEA, Vienna, 9–13 03, 1981.Google Scholar
Snoad, B., Caston, D. & Negus, S. (1976). The effects of the genes af st and tl upon the yield of peas in near-isogenic backgrounds. Annual Report, John Innes Institute 76, 33–35.Google Scholar
Snoad, B., Frusciante, L. & Monti, L. M. (1985). The effects of three genes which modify leaves and stipules in the pea plant. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 70, 322–329.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stelling, D. (1989). Problems of breeding for improved standing ability in dried peas, Pisum sativumL. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 163, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stelling, D. & Ebmeyer, E. (1990). Selection in early generations in dried peas, Pisum sativumL. I. Values of heritability and efficiency of indirect selection. Plant Breeding 105, 169–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stelling, D., Ebmeyer, E. & Snoad, B. (1990). Selection in early generations of dried peas, Pisum sativum L. II. Significance of the environment of selection. Plant Breeding 105, 179–188.Google Scholar
Taylor, B. R., Richards, M. C., Mackay, J. M.& Cooper, J. (1991). Plant densities for combining peas in Scotland. In Production & Protection of Legumes, Aspects of Applied Biology 27, 309–312.Google Scholar