Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T06:52:45.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Environmental and Agronomic Effects on the Growth of Four Peanut Cultivars in a Sub-tropical Environment. II. Dry Matter Partitioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

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

Summary

The partitioning of dry matter between vegetative and reproductive yield components was analysed for four diverse peanut cultivars at a range of sowing dates and plant populations in sub-tropical Queensland, Australia. Rates of accumulation of pods (pod addition) varied significantly with both cultivar and sowing date. Within cultivars, much of this variation could be attributed to variation in crop growth rate during the critical pod addition period. The proportion of current assimilate distributed to pods depended on inherent cultivar characteristics and also correlated well with the current crop growth rate relative to the crop growth rate during pod addition (that is, with relative source activity). Neither plant density nor spatial arrangement had any significant effects on patterns of assimilate distribution. All cultivars appeared capable of remobilizing stored assimilate to maintain constant rates of pod yield increase despite fluctuations in crop growth rate which might be expected to produce short term source limitations to pod yield accumulation. The harvest index (HI) increased linearly during the entire pod fill period in all cultivars except the very early maturing Spanish cultivar Chico. Neither density nor spatial arrangement affected rate of increase in HI except in Chico, where increased density produced increased rates of increase in HI. Variation in the rate of HI increase among sowing dates was small.

Distributión de la materia seca en el maní

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , October 1993 , pp. 491 - 501
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

Azu, J. N. (1978). Growth and Development of Spanish Peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) in Southern Ontario. PhD dissertation, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.Google Scholar
Bell, M. J. (1986). Effect of foliage pathogens on growth of peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.) in a monsoonal tropical environment. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 37:31–42.CrossRefGoogle 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 a). Plant population studies on peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in subtropical Australia. I. Water non-limiting conditions. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 33:535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, M. J., Shorter, R. & Mayer, R. (1991 b). Cultivar and environmental effects on growth and development of peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). II. Reproductive development. Field Crops Research 27:35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, M. J., Harch, G. & Wright, G. C. (1993). Environmental and agronomic effects on the growth of four peanut cultivars in a sub-tropical environment. I. Dry matter accumulation and radiation use efficiency. Experimental Agriculture 29:473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, A. H. & Elston, J. (1980). Ecophysiology of growth and adaptation in the groundnut: an essay on structure, partition and adaptation. In Advances in Legume Science. Proceedings, International Legume Conference, Kew, England 1978, 495–500 (Eds Summerfield, R. J. and Bunting, A. H.). Kew Botanical Gardens, London.Google Scholar
Coffelt, T. A., Seaton, M. L. & Van Scoyoc, S. W. (1989). Reproductive efficiency of 14 Virginia-type peanut cultivars. Crop Science 29:1217–1220.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, D. A. & Wynne, J. C. (1970). The efficiency of peanut. The Peanut Farmer 6:6:26–27.Google Scholar
Emery, D. A., Wynne, J. C. & Rice, P. W. (1973). Can reproductive efficiency in peanuts be improved? Oleagineux 28:399–403.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. and Young, C. T.). Yoakum, Texas, USA: American Peanut Research and Education Society.Google Scholar
McCloud, D. E., Duncan, W. G., McGraw, R. L., Sibale, P. K., Ingram, R. I., Dreyer, J. & Campbell, I. S. (1980). Physiological basis of increased yield potential in peanuts. In Proceedings, International Workshop on Groundnuts, 125–132 (ed. by Mertin, J. W.). Hyderabad, India: ICRISAT.Google Scholar
Muchow, R. C. (1988). Effects 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muchow, R. C. (1990). Effect of high temperature on grain-growth in field-grown maize. Field Crops Research 23:145–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muchow, R. C. & Sinclair, T. R. (1986). Water and nitrogen limitations in soybean grain production. II. Field and model analyses. Field Crops Research 15:143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, R. B. & Sutton, B. G. (1982). Effect of defoliation on Virginia Bunch peanuts at Camden, N.S.W. Australian journal of Agricultural Research 33:1037–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, T. R. (1986). Water and nitrogen limitations in soybean grain production. I. Model development. Field Crops Research 15:125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. H., Wilson, J. H. H. & Bate, G. C. (1975) The growth of groundnut (Arachic hypogaea L. cv. Makulu Red) at three altitudes in Rhodesia. Rhodesian Journal of Agricultural Research 13:33–43.Google Scholar
Wright, G. C. & Bell, M. J. (1992). Plant population studies in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in subtropical Australia. III. Growth and water use during a terminal drought stress. Australian journal of Experimental Agriculture 32:197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, G. C., Hubkick, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar