Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:04:32.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Controlled Environments as an Adjunct to Field Research on Lentils (Lens culinaris). IV. Cultivar Responses to Above- and Below-average Temperatures during Vegetative Growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

R. J. Summerfield ,
F. J. Muehlbauer  and
R. W. Short
R. J. Summerfield
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of Agriculture, Plant Environment Laboratory, Shinfield Grange, Cutbush Lane, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AD, England
F. J. Muehlbauer
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Legume Genetics and Physiology Research, 215 Johnson Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA
R. W. Short
Affiliation:
USDA-ARS, Legume Genetics and Physiology Research, 215 Johnson Hall, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The climates to which lentil (Lens culinaris) crops are exposed can vary appreciably depending on location and date of sowing. The effects on growth, development and seed yield when three USA cultivars experienced relatively warmer or cooler day/night temperatures during the vegetative period were investigated in growth cabinets. Plants were nodulated and supplied with either 20 or 80 ppm inorganic N; they differed appreciably in morphology and vegetative vigour, and so in their potential for subsequent pod production, depending on pre-flowering temperature and on nitrogen nutrition. Variations in seed yield were largely a consequence of treatment and cultivar effects on pod number per plant, and a pre-flowering temperature regime of 21°/7°C (mean 14.9°C) was supra-optimal. The pre-flowering environment clearly affects potential pod production and has persistent effects on the capability of plants to fill the pods produced.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 119 - 134
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

Covell, S., Ellis, R. H., Roberts, E. H. & Summerfield, R. J. (1986). The influence of temperature on seed germination rate in grain legumes. I. A comparison of chickpea, lentil, soyabean and cowpea at constant temperatures. Journal of Experimental Botany 37:705–715.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 14:457–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, L. T. (1976). The role of phytotrons in agricultural research. In Climate and Rice (Ed. Yoshida, S.) 11–27. The Philippines: IRRI.Google Scholar
Hardy, R. W. F., Holsten, R. D., Jackson, E. K. & Burns, R. C. (1968). The acetylene–ethylene assay for N2 fixation: laboratory and field evaluation. Plant Physiology 43:1185–1207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawtin, G. C., Singh, K. B. & Saxena, M. C. (1980). Some recent developments in the understanding and improvements of Cicer and Lens. In Advances in Legume Science (Eds Summerfield, R. J. and Bunting, A. H.), 613–623. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Kumar, M., Pandey, R. K. & Saxena, M. C. (1977). Physiological analysis of variation in yield of lentil (Lens esculenta Moench). Pantnagar Journal of Research 2:127–132.Google Scholar
Lawn, R. J. (1981). Ecophysiological basis of adaptation in the summer grain legumes. In Interpretation of Plant Response and Adaptation to Agricultural Environments, 199–219. Australian Institute of Agricultural Science (Queensland Branch), Brisbane.Google Scholar
Malhotra, R. S., Singh, K. B. & Singh, J. K. (1974). Genetic variability and genotype-environmental interaction studies in lentil. Journal of Research, Punjab Agricultural University 10:17–21.Google Scholar
Minchin, F. R., Witty, J. F., Sheehy, J. E. & Muller, M. (1983). A major error in the acetylene reduction assay: decreases in nodular nitrogenase activity under assay conditions. Journal of Experimental Botany 37:1581–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1972). Solar radiation and productivity in tropical ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology 9:747–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1975). Times, rates and limits in crop ecology. In Proceedings Physiology Program Formulation Workshop (Ed. Treharne, K. J.), 5–10. Ibadan, Nigeria: IITA.Google Scholar
Muehlbauer, F. J. (1987). Registration of ‘Brewer’ and ‘Emerald’ lentil. Crop Science 27:1088–1089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muehlbauer, F. J., Cubero, J. I. & Summerfield, R. J. (1985). Lentil (Lens culinaris Medic). In Grain Legume Crops (Eds Summerfield, R. J. and Roberts, E. H.), 266–311. London: Collins.Google Scholar
Pandey, R. K. & Singh, V. B. (1980). Distribution and utilization of 14C assimilate in lentil. Journal of Nuclear Agriculture and Biology 9:47–49.Google Scholar
Pate, J. S. & Minchin, F. R. (1980). Comparative studies of carbon and nitrogen nutrition of selected grain legumes. In Advances in Legume Science (Eds Summerfield, R. J. and Bunting, A. H.), 105–114. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Pavlov, P. & Ganeva, D. (1973). Effect of day-length on growth and development of the local common lentil. C. R. Acad. Agric. G. Dimitrov (Sofia, Bulgarie) 6:311–316.Google 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 the accumulated daylength above the critical photoperiod. Annals of Botany 58:235–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saint-Glair, P. M. (1972). Mededelingen Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen 72–10, pp. 1–84. H. Veenman and Zonen N. V., Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J. (1980). The contribution of physiology to breeding for increased yields in grain legume crops. In Opportunities for Increasing Crop Yields (Eds Hurd, R. G., Biscoe, P. V. and Dennis, C.), 51–69. London: Pitmans.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J. (1981). Environmental adaptation. In Lentils (Eds Webb, C. and Hawtin, G.), 91–110. Farnham Royal: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J. & Muehlbauer, F. J. (1982). Controlled environments as an adjunct to field research on lentils (Lens culinaris). II. Research strategy. Experimental Agriculture 18:3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summerfield, R. J., Muehlbauer, F. J. & Short, R. W. (1982). Description and Culture of Lentils. USDA-ARS Production Research Report No. 181, Washington.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J., Muehlbauer, F. J. & Roberts, E. H. (1984). Controlled environments as an adjunct to field research on lentils (Lens culinaris). III. Photoperiodic lighting and consequences for flowering. Experimental Agriculture 20:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summerfield, R. J., Pate, J. S., Roberts, E. H. & Wien, H. C. (1985). The physiology of cowpeas. In Cowpea: Research, Production and Utilization (Eds Singh, S. R. and Rachie, K. O.), 65–102. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J., Roberts, E. H., Erskine, W. & Ellis, R. H. (1985). Effects of temperature and photo-period on flowering in lentils (Lens culinaris Medic.). Annals of Botany 56:659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, V. E. & Law, A. G. (1972). Registration of Tekoa lentil. Crop Science 12:255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar