Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:10:37.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Plant Density and Thinning on High-Yielding Dry Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) in Mexíco

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

Aguilar M. Immer ,
R. A. Fischer  and
Joshue Kohashi S.
Aguilar M. Immer
Affiliation:
Botany Department, Graduate College, National School of Agriculture, Chapingo, Mexico
R. A. Fischer
Affiliation:
Botany Department, Graduate College, National School of Agriculture, Chapingo, Mexico
Joshue Kohashi S.
Affiliation:
Botany Department, Graduate College, National School of Agriculture, Chapingo, Mexico
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The influence of leaf area and inter-plant competition on the growth and yield of a crop of high-yielding dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in central Mexico was studied, using density and thinning treatments. The highest seed yield (4210 kg/ha at 14% moisture) was obtained with the highest density (28·8 plants/m2). Thinning showed that pods/plant was sensitive to inter-plant competition between 36 and 78 days after seeding (first flower at 50 days), but seeds/pod, and especially seed weight, were not sensitive. It is suggested that the close positive relation between yield and leaf area duration derives from the influence of photosynthate supply upon pod number.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , October 1977 , pp. 325 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

Agudelo, O., Hernandez, A. & Bastidas, G. (1972). Ada agronomica 22, 39.Google Scholar
Alvim, R. & Alvim, P de T. (1969). Turrialba 19, 389.Google Scholar
Crookston, R. K., O'Toole, J., Lee, R., Ozbun, J. L. & Wallace, D. H. (1974). Crop Sci. 14, 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R. A. & Laing, D. R. (1976). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 87, 113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R. A., Aguilar, I., Maurer, R. & Rivas, S. (1976). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 87, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friend, D. J. C. (1961). Ecology 42, 577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, L. H. (1967). Agric. Prog. 42, 32.Google Scholar
Koller, H. R., Nyquist, W. E. & Chorush, I. A. (1970). Crop Sci. 10, 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leakey, C. L. A. (1972). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 79, 259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, R. S. & Williams, W. A. (1963). Crop Sci. 3, 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magalhaes, A. C., Montojos, J. C. & Miyasaka, S. (1971). Expl Agric. 7, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montojos, J. C. & Magalhaes, A. C. (1971). Pl. Soil 35, 217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shibles, R. M., Anderson, I. C. & Gibson, A. H. (1975). In Crop Physiology (Ed. Evans, L. T.), p.151. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wien, H. C. (1972). Diss. Abstracts International B 32, 4965.Google Scholar
Wien, H. C., Sansted, R. F. & Wallace, D. H. (1973). J. Am. Soc. Hart. Sci. 98, 45.Google Scholar