Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T23:54:31.617Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Photoperiod on the Reproductive Development of a Photoperiod Sensitive Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Cv. NC Ac 17090

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

Marie-Luise Flohr ,
J. H. Williams  and
F. Lenz
Marie-Luise Flohr
Affiliation:
Institut Fuer Obstbau und Gemuesebau, University of Bonn, Auf dem Huege1 6, 5300 Bonn, West Germany
J. H. Williams
Affiliation:
ICRISAT Sahelian Centre, BP 12404, Niamey, Niger
F. Lenz
Affiliation:
Institut Fuer Obstbau und Gemuesebau, University of Bonn, Auf dem Huege1 6, 5300 Bonn, West Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The physiological basis for responses to daylength of a photoperiod sensitive groundnut genotype (NC Ac 17090) was investigated by comparing its growth and development in natural daylength with that in an artificially manipulated photoperiod in three field experiments. Photoperiod did not influence the thermal time to flowering, or the subsequent appearance of flowers until 900–950 flowers m−2 had appeared. Thereafter flowers continued to appear in short, but not in long, days. In each experiment, long days increased the thermal time between the initiation of each peg and pod, and the thermal time required for each fruit to mature. These fruit initiation and developmental changes were reflected in the partitioning of assimilates to pods, this being substantially less in long days than in short. Changes in pod initiation rate, partitioning co-efficient, and the thermal time taken for a pod to mature were related to mean daylength.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 1990 , pp. 397 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Bell, M. (1986). Effect of sowing date on growth and development of irrigated peanuts, Arachis hypogaea L. cv. Early Bunch, in a monsoonal tropical environment. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 37: 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunting, A. H. & Elston, J. (1980). Ecophysiology of growth and adaptation in the groundnut: an essay on structure, partitioning and adaptation. In Advances in Legume Science, 495–500 (Eds Summerfield, R. J. and Bunting, A. H.). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Duncan, W. G., McCloud, D. E. & McGraw, R. L. (1978). Physiological aspects of peanut yield improvement. Crop Science 18: 1015–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, D. A., Sherman, M. E. & Vickers, J. W. (1981). The reproductive efficiency of cultivated peanuts IV. The influence of photoperiod on the flowering, pegging and fruiting of Spanish-type peanuts. Agronomy Journal 73: 619–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flohr, M. L. (1989). Growth behaviour of groundnut as influenced by daylength, gibberellin and inhibitor treatments. PhD thesis, University of Bonn.Google Scholar
Fortanier, E. J. (1957). Control of flowering in Arachis hypogaea L., Mededelingen van de Landbouwhogeschool, Wageningen 57: 1–116.Google Scholar
Mohamed, H. A., Clark, J. A. & Ong, C. K. (1988). Genotype differences in the temperature responses of tropical crops. Journal of Experimental Botany 39: 1121–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1981). Climatic variation and the growth of crops. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society 107: 744–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, E. H. & Summerfield, R. J. (1987). Measurement and prediction of flowering in annual crops. In Manipulation of Flowering (Proceedings of the 45th Easter School, Faculty of Agricultural Science, University of Nottingham), 17–50 (Ed. Atherton, J. G.). London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. W. (1950). Arachis hypogaea. Aerial flower and subterranean fruit. American Journal of Botany 37: 802–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summerfield, R. J. & Roberts, E. H. (1987). Effects of illuminance on flowering in long- and short-day grain legumes: A reappraisal and unifying model. In Manipulation of Flowering (Proceedings of the 45th Easter School, Faculty of Agricultural Science, University of Nottingham), 17–50 (Ed. Atherton, J. G.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Williams, J. H. (1979). The physiology of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L. cv. Egret) 4. The growth of groundnut fruit set at the start and end of pod setting. Rhodesian Journal of Agricultural Research 17: 63–66.Google Scholar
Witzenberger, A., Williams, J. H. & Lenz, F. (1985). Yield, components of yield and quality responses of groundnut cultivars (Arachis hypogaea L.) as influenced by photoperiod and a growth regulator. Field Crops Research 12: 347–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witzenberger, A., Williams, J. H. & Lenz, F. (1988). Influence of daylength on yield-determining processes in six groundnut cultivars (Arachis hypogaea). Field Crops Research 18: 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wynne, J. C., Emery, D. A. & Downs, R. J. (1973). Photoperiodic responses of peanuts. Crop Science 13: 511–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar