Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T20:46:35.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Control of Water Use by Pearl Millet (Pennisetum typhoides)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

G. R. Squire ,
P. J. Gregory ,
J. L. Monteith ,
M. B. Russell  and
Piara Singh
G. R. Squire
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leics LE12 5RD, England
P. J. Gregory
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leics LE12 5RD, England
J. L. Monteith
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leics LE12 5RD, England
M. B. Russell
Affiliation:
ICRISAT, Patancheru P.O., Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India
Piara Singh
Affiliation:
ICRISAT, Patancheru P.O., Andhra Pradesh 502 324, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

At Hyderabad, India, stands of pearl millet were grown after the monsoon (a) with no irrigation after establishment and (b) with irrigation as needed to avoid stress. Increases of dry matter and leaf area were determined by regular harvesting. The interception of radiation by the foliage, uptake of water from the soil and stomatal conductance were monitored. Before anthesis at 42 days after sowing (DAS), the rate of dry matter production and the transpiration rate in the unirrigated stand were about 80% of the corresponding rates for the irrigated control, mainly because of a smaller stomatal conductance from 30 DAS. After anthesis, the unirrigated stand grew little and used only 10% of the water transpired by the control. This large difference was partitioned between loss of leaf area and smaller stomatal conductance in the ratio of approximately 2:1. Radiation intercepted by foliage in the irrigated stand produced 2.0 g of dry matter per MJ compared with 2.5 g MJ−1 for the same variety growing in the monsoon, a difference consistent with a smaller stomatal conductance in drier air.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , April 1984 , pp. 135 - 149
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

Gregory, P. J. & Squire, G. R. (1979). Irrigation effects on roots and shoots of pearl millet. Experimental Agriculture 15: 161–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henson, I. E., Alagarswamy, G., Bidinger, F. R. & Mahalakshmi, V. (1982). Stomatal response of pearl millet. Plant, Cell and Environment 5: 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1981). Evaporation and surface temperature. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 197: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, M. S. & Willey, R. W. (1981). Growth and resource use studies in an intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut. Field Crops Research 4: 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, J. T. (1972). Model for predicting evaporation from a row crop. Water Resources Research 8: 1204–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, G. R. (1979). The response of stomata of pearl millet to atmospheric humidity. Journal of experimental Botany 30: 925–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szcicz, G., Monteith, J. L. & dos Santos, J. M. (1964). Tube solarimeter to measure radiation among plants. Journal of applied Ecology 1: 169–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. B. & McGowan, M. (1980). The water balance of an agricultural catchment. Journal of Soil Science 31: 217–230.Google Scholar
Wong, S. C., Cowan, I. R. & Farquhar, G. D. (1978). Leaf conductance in relation to assimilation in Eucalyptus pauciflora. Plant Physiology 62: 670–674.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed