Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:06:39.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental and Agronomic Effects on the Growth of Four Peanut Cultivars in a Sub-tropical Environment. I. Dry Matter Accumulation and Radiation Use Efficiency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

M. J. Bell ,
G. C. Wright  and
G. R. Harch
M. J. Bell
Affiliation:
Queensland Department of Primary Industries, PO Box 23, Kingaroy, 4610 Queensland, Australia
G. C. Wright
Affiliation:
Queensland Department of Primary Industries, PO Box 23, Kingaroy, 4610 Queensland, Australia
G. R. Harch
Affiliation:
Queensland Department of Primary Industries, PO Box 23, Kingaroy, 4610 Queensland, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Four peanut cultivars of Spanish or Virginia botanical type and varying time to maturity were grown at a range of plant densities (44 000 to 352 000 plants ha-1) and spatial arrangements under irrigated conditions in sub-tropical southern Queensland, Australia. Total and pod dry matter production of the very early maturing Spanish cultivar Chico showed strong positive responses to increased plant density up to the highest density tested. Responses were less pronounced for the later maturing Spanish cultivar McCubbin and were minimal for the Virginia cultivars Early Bunch and Mani Pintar. All cultivars were insensitive to spatial arrangements. Accumulation of total dry matter, adjusted for the higher synthesis costs of oil and protein during seed filling, was well correlated to intercepted photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). Much of the variation in dry matter production among cultivars and plant populations could be accounted for by the effects of differing leaf area duration on cumulative intercepted PAR. Radiation use efficiency was negatively associated with the canopy extinction coefficient (k) within most sowing dates, and also negatively associated with minimum temperature across sowing dates for all cultivars except Mani Pintar.

Crecimiento y eficacia del use de radiación en el maní

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , October 1993 , pp. 473 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Bagnall, D. J. (1990). Environmental Regulation of Processes Controlling Yield in Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Bagnall, D. J., King, R. W. & Farquhar, G. D. (1988). Temperature-dependent feedback inhibition of photosynthesis in peanut. Planta 175:348–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bagnall, D. J. & King, R. W. (1991). Response of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) to temperature, photoperiod and irradiance. I. Effect on flowering. Field Crops Research 26:263–277.Google Scholar
Bell, M. J., Muchow, R. C. & Wilson, G. L. (1987). The effect of plant population on peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) in a monsoonal tropical environment. Field Crops Research 17:91–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, M. J., Harch, G. R. & Wright, G. C. (1991). Plant population studies in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in subtropical Australia. I. Water non-limiting conditions. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 31:535–543.Google Scholar
Bell, M. J., Wright, G. C. & Hammer, G. L. (1992). Night temperature affects radiation use efficiency in peanut. Crop Science 32:1329–1335.Google Scholar
Bell, M. J., Wright, G. C. & Harch, G. (1993). Environmental and agronomic effects on the growth of four peanut cultivars in a sub-tropical environment. II. Dry matter partitioning. Experimental Agriculture 29:491–501.Google Scholar
Bhagsari, A. S. (1974). Photosynthesis in peanut (Arachis) genotypes. PhD Thesis, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia. Dissertation Abstracts International 35:47.Google Scholar
Charles-Edwards, D. A. (1982). Physiological Determinants of Crop Growth. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cox, F. R., Adams, F. & Tucker, W. J. (1982). Liming, fertilization and mineral nutrition. In Peanut Science and Technology (Eds Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T.). Yoakum, Texas, USA: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google 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.Google Scholar
Duncan, W. G., McCloud, D. E., McGraw, R. L. & Boote, K. J. (1978). Physiological aspects of peanut yield improvement. Crop Science 18:1015–1020.Google Scholar
Gardner, F. P. & Auma, E. O. (1989). Canopy structure, light interception and yield and market quality of peanut genotypes as influenced by planting pattern and planting date. Field Crops Research 20:13–29.Google Scholar
Grantz, D. A. (1989). Effect of cool temperatures on photosynthesis and stomatal conductance of field grown sugar cane in Hawaii. Field Crops Research 22:143–155.Google Scholar
Hammer, G. L. & Vanderlip, R. L. (1989 a). Genotype-by-environment interaction in grain sorghum. I. Effects of temperature on radiation use efficiency. Crop Science 29:370–376.Google Scholar
Hammer, G. L. & Vanderlip, R. L. (1989 b). Genotype-by-environment interaction in grain sorghum. III. Modelling the impact in field environments. Crop Science 29:385–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, D., Natarajan, M. & Willey, R. W. (1987). Physiological basis for yield advantage in a sorghum/groundnut intercrop exposed to drought. I. Dry-matter production, yield and light interception. Field Crops Research 17:259–272.Google Scholar
Jaaffar, Z. & Gardner, F. P. (1988). Canopy development, yield and market quality in peanut as affected by genotype and planting pattern. Crop Science 28:299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketring, D. L. (1984). Temperature effects on vegetative and reproductive development of peanut. Crop Science 24:877–882.Google Scholar
Ketring, D. L., Brown, R. H, Sullivan, G. A. & Johnson, R. B. (1982). Growth physiology. In Peanut Science and Technology (Eds Pattee, H. E. & Young, C. T.). Yoakum, Texas, USA: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar
Leong, S. K. & Ong, C. K. (1983). The influence of temperature and soil water deficit on the development and morphology of the groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Journal of Experimental Botany 34:1551–1561.Google Scholar
Marshall, B. & Willey, R. W. (1983). Radiation interception and growth in an intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut. Field Crops Research 7:141–160.Google Scholar
Mathews, R. B., Harris, D., Williams, J. H. & Nageswara Rao, R. C. (1988). The physiological basis for yield differences between four genotypes of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) in response to drought. II. Solar radiation interception and leaf movement. Experimental Agriculture 24:203–213.Google Scholar
Middleton, K. J., Bell, M. J. & Thompson, J. P. (1989). Effects of soil sterilization, inoculation with vesicular-arbuscular myccorhizal fungi and cropping history on peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in an Oxisol from subtropical Australia. Plant and Soil 117:41–48.Google Scholar
Monsi, M. & Saeki, T. (1953). Über den lichtfaktor in den pflanzen gesellschaften and seine bedeutung für die stoffproduction. Japanese Journal of Botany 14:22–52.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1977). Climate and efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, B. 281:277–294.Google Scholar
Muchow, R. C. (1985). An analysis of the effects of water deficits on grain legumes grown in a semi-arid tropical environment in terms of radiation interception and its efficiency of use. Field Crops Research 11:309–323.Google Scholar
Muchow, R. C. (1988). Effect of nitrogen supply on the comparative productivity of maize and sorghum in a semi-arid tropical environment. I. Leaf growth and leaf nitrogen. Field Crops Research 18:1–16.Google Scholar
Ono, Y., Ozaki, K. & Nakayama, K. (1974). Effects of air temperature on flowering of peanut plants. Proceedings of the Crop Science Society of japan 43:237–241.Google Scholar
Pasternak, D. & Wilson, G. L. (1973). After-effects of night temperatures on stomatal behaviour and photosynthesis of sorghum. New Phytologist 71:683–689.Google Scholar
Penning de Vries, F. W. T., Van Laar, H. H. & Chardon, M. C. M. (1983). Bioenergetics of growth of seeds, fruits and storage organs. In Potential Productivity of Field Crops Under Different Environments, 37–59. LosBanos, Laguna, Philippines:IRRI.Google Scholar
Roy, R. C., Tanner, J. W., Hatley, O. E. & Elliot, J. M. (1980). Agronomic aspects of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) production in Ontario. Canadian journal of Plant Science 60:679–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, T. H., Schubert, A. M. & Pattee, H. E. (1982). Maturity methodology and post-harvest physiology. In Peanut Science and Technology (Eds Pattee, H. E. and Young, C. T.). Yoakum, Texas, USA: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar
Schenk, R. J. (1961). Development of the peanut fruit. Georgia Experiment Stations Technical Bulletin 22.Google Scholar
Sinclair, T. R. (1986). Water and nitrogen limitations in soybean grain production. I. Model development. Field Crops Research 15:125–141.Google Scholar
Williams, J. H., Wilson, J. H. H. & Bate, G. C. (1975). The growth of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L. cv. Makulu Red) at three altitudes in Rhodesia. Rhodesian journal of Agricultural Research 13:33–43.Google Scholar
Wright, G. C., Hubick, K. T. & Farquhar, G. D. (1991). Physiological analysis of peanut cultivar response to timing and duration of drought stress. Australian journal of Agricultural Research 42:1–18.Google Scholar