Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:31:03.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and Productivity of Tapioca (Manihot utilissima) II. Stomatal Functioning and Yield

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

C. N. Williams
C. N. Williams
Affiliation:
University of Malaya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The stomatal functioning of high, medium and low yielding clones of tapioca was examined to see whether yield could be associated with conductivity and/or resistance to moisture stress. A sensitive falling pressure porometer was used to measure stomatal conductivity to the viscous flow of air at small pressure differences. No marked differences were observed which could account for the large range in yields shown by the varieties, but stomatal functioning could be related to canopy type and to planting conditions. In general the conductivity values of all three varieties were very low compared to many other crop species, which suggests that increases in canopy efficiency and yield could be obtained in certain environments by an increase in leaf conductivity.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , January 1971 , pp. 49 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

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

Ekern, P. C. (1965). Pl. Physiol. 40, 736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glover, J. (1959). J. agric. Sci. 53, 412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, M. C., Bayer, J. S. & Kramer, P. J. (1965). Bot. Gaz. 126, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, P. J. (1959). Adv. Agron. 11, 51.Google Scholar
Maskell, E. J. (1928). Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 102, 488.Google Scholar
Milthorpe, F. L. & Penman, H. L. (1967). J. exp. Bot. 18, 422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nieuwolt, S. (1965). J. Trop. Geog. 20, 118.Google Scholar
Penman, H. L. (1942). Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 130, 416.Google Scholar
Rees, A. R. (1962). Nature, Lond. 195, 118.Google Scholar
Salter, P. J. & Goode, J. E. (1967). Crop Responses to Water at Different Stages of Growth. U.K.: Comm. Agr. Bureau.Google Scholar
Stalfelt, M. G. (1955). Physiologia Pl. 8, 572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. N. & Ghazali, S. M. (1969). Expl Agric. 5, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, C. N. & Sinclair, R. (1969). J. exp. Bot. 20, 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar