Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T13:39:14.058Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The growth of vining peas: I. The effect of time of sowing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. M. Milbourn  and
R. C. Hardwick
G. M. Milbourn
Affiliation:
Wye College (University of London), Ashford, Kent
R. C. Hardwick
Affiliation:
Wye College (University of London), Ashford, Kent
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Yield and growth analysis have been applied to the results of an experiment comparing early and late sown peas. Yield analysis showed that in this experiment late sown peas had:

(i) fewer podding nodes per main stem,

(ii) fewer pods per podding node, and

(iii) a slower rate of increase in pod weight.

The physiological origins of these differences are discussed.

The first component is determined by the stage at which node production is terminated by the death of the apical bud.

The second is determined by morphogenetic factors at the apical meristem early in in the life of the plant, when (in the variety DSP) either a single or a double flowered raceme is initiated, and also during the harvesting period when some pods are lost from the lower-most flowering nodes.

The differences in the third component, the rate of increase in pod weight, could not be explained by conventional growth analysis. Pod growth rate was not a simple function of leaf area index.

It is suggested that the relationship between leaf area and pod growth rate is complicated by the existence of other sources of materials for pod growth such as stored products in the roots and stems, and photosynthesis by the fruit itself.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , June 1968 , pp. 393 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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

Anslow, R. C. & Back, H. L. (1967). Grass growth in mid-summer and light interception and growth rate of a perennial ryegrass sward. J. Br. Qrassld Soc. 22, 108–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agricultural Statistics 1964/1965. United Kingdom. H.M.S.O. London, 1967.Google Scholar
Ashton, J. L. (1967). Special agronomic considerations in crops for processing. Agric. Prog,(in the Press).Google Scholar
Bell, R. D. & Smith, R. S. (1964). A modified construction of a Jenkins airflow planimeter. J. scient. Instrum. 42, 428–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. & Thompson, R. (1964). Rep. Natn Veg. Res. St., Wellesbourne, England, 39.Google Scholar
Boswell, V. R. (1926). The influence of temperature upon the growth and yield of garden peas. Proc. Am. Soc. hort. Sci. 23, 162–8.Google Scholar
Brougham, R. W. & Glenday, A. C. (1967). Grass growth in mid-summer: a re-interpretation of published data. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 22, 100–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. C.Hughes, A. P. (1961). Plant growth and the aerial environment. I. Effect of artificial shading on Impatiens parviflora. New Phytol. 60, 150–80.Google Scholar
Evans, G. C. & Hughes, A. P. (1962). Plant growth and the aerial environment. III. On the computation of unit leaf rate. New Phytol. 61, 322–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, H. F., Ormrod, D. P., Maurer, A. R. & Stanfield, B. (1966). Response of peas to environment. I. Planting date and location. Can. J. PI. Sci. 46, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kertesz, Z. I. (1935). The chemical determination of the quality of canned green peas. N.Y. St. agric. exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 233.Google Scholar
King, J. M. (1966). Row widths and plant population in vining peas. Pea Growing Research Organisation, Yaxley, England. Misc. Publ. no. 18.Google Scholar
Maurer, A. R., Jaffray, D. E. & Fletcher, H. F. (1966). Response of peas to environment. III. Assessment of the morphological development of peas. Can. J. Pl. Sci. 46, 285–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, T. C. & Bonde, E. K. (1962). Physiology of flowering in peas. PI. Physiol. 37, 149–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearsall, W. H. (1927). Growth studies. VI. On the relative sizes of growing plant organs. Ann. Sot. 41, 549–56.Google Scholar
Proctor, J. M. (1963). An experiment to determine the effects of date of sowing on the yield and quality of harvesting peas. J. agric. Soc., Camb. 61, 281—9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putter, J., Yaron, D. & CcBielobai, H. (1966). Quadratic equations as an interpretive tool in biological research. Agron. J. 58, 103–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, P. J. & Drew, D. H. (1965). Root growth as a factor in the response of Pisum salivum to irrigation. Nature, Lond. 206, 1063–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, P. J. & Williams, J. B. (1967). The effect of irrigation on pea crops grown at different plant densities. J. hort. Sci. 42, 59–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1947). Comparative physiological studies on the growth of field crops. I. Variation in net assimilation rate and leaf area between species and varieties, and within and between years. Ann. Sot. N.S. 11. 41–76,Google Scholar
Whitehead, F. H. & Myerscotjgb, P. J. (1962). Growth analysis of plants. The ratio of mean relative growth rate to mean relative rate of leaf area increase. New Phytol. 61, 314–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. F. (1946). The physiology of plant growth with special reference to the concept of net assimiletion rate. Ann. Bot. N.S. 10, 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar