Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T20:52:01.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative productivity and drought response of semi-tropical hybrids and open-pollinated varieties of sorghum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. Blum ,
G. Golan ,
J. Mayer ,
B. Sinmena  and
T. Obilana
A. Blum
Affiliation:
Institute of Field and Garden Crops, The Volcani Centre, PO Box 6, Bet Dagan, Israel
G. Golan
Affiliation:
Institute of Field and Garden Crops, The Volcani Centre, PO Box 6, Bet Dagan, Israel
J. Mayer
Affiliation:
Institute of Field and Garden Crops, The Volcani Centre, PO Box 6, Bet Dagan, Israel
B. Sinmena
Affiliation:
Institute of Field and Garden Crops, The Volcani Centre, PO Box 6, Bet Dagan, Israel
T. Obilana
Affiliation:
SADCC/ICR1SAT SMIP, PO Box 778, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

While the relative advantage of hybrids over open-pollinated varieties has long been established for temperate sorghums in developed countries, similar information for semi-tropical sorghums used in Africa and India is relatively scant, especially under conditions of drought stress. This study compared 23 hybrids with 21 open-pollinated varieties, all developed in India and/or Southern Africa. Materials were field-tested under conditions of stored soil moisture at two levels of drought stress (dryland or one supplemental irrigation) at Bet Dagan, Israel in 1989.

Irrespective of the water regime, grain yield and harvest index increased and leaf area index decreased with a shorter growth duration of the genotypes. Hybrids were earlier, had a larger leaf area index, more than double the harvest index and produced more grain compared with varieties. In spite of their longer growth duration, varieties were less water-stressed than hybrids, as judged by their midday leaf water potential, relative water content and the extent of leaf rolling. The relatively poor plant water status of the hybrids could be partly ascribed to their larger leaf area index. Hybrids produced more biomass per day than varieties under low stress while varieties produced more biomass per day than hybrids under high stress. Thus, in terms of plant water status and mean daily biomass production, varieties were more drought resistant than hybrids. However, the physiological superiority of the varieties under drought stress did not result in a higher grain yield because of their inherent relatively poor harvest index, typical of the tall and late African sorghums. The superior physiological resistance to drought stress of these varieties could be translated into a yield advantage under drought stress if their potential harvest index is improved.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 118 , Issue 1 , February 1992 , pp. 29 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

Arnon, I. & Blum, A. (1963). Factors responsible for yield superiority of hybrid sorghum. Israel Journal of Agricultural Research 12, 95–105.Google Scholar
Blum, A. (1970). Effects of plant density and growth duration on sorghum yield under limited water supply. Agronomy Journal 62, 333–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, A. & Sullivan, C. Y. (1986). The comparative drought resistance of landraces of sorghum and millet from dry and humid regions. Annals of Botany 57, 835–846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, A., Sullivan, C. Y. & Eastin, J. D. (1973). On the pressure chamber technique for estimating leaf water potential in sorghum. Agronomy Journal 65, 337–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, A., Mayer, J. & Golan, G. (1989). Agronomic and physiological assessments of genotypic variation for drought resistance in sorghum. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 40, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, A., Ramaiah, S., Kanemasu, E. T. & Paulsen, G. M. (1990). The physiology of heterosis in sorghum with respect to environmental conditions. Annals of Botany 65, 149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, T. T., Loresto, G. C, O'toole, J. C, & Armentasoto, J. L. (1982). Strategy and methodology of breeding rice for drought-prone areas. In Drought Resistance in Crops With Emphasis on Rice, pp. 217–244. Manila: International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, U. N., Deaton, M. L., Kanemasu, E. T., Wall, G. W., Marcarian, V. & Dobrenz, A. K. (1986). A procedure to select drought-tolerant sorghum and millet genotypes using canopy temperature and vapor pressure deficit. Agronomy Journal 78, 490–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flower, D. J., Rani, A. U. & Peacock, J. M. (1990). Influence of osmotic adjustment on the growth, stomatal conductance and light interception of contrasting sorghum lines in a harsh environment. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 17, 91–105.Google Scholar
Goldsworthy, P. R. (1970). The growth and yield of tall and short sorghum in Africa. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 75, 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, H. G. (1979). Visual estimation of plant water status in cereals. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 83–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, M. M., Santamaria, J. M. & Fukai, S. (1990). Contribution of osmotic adjustment to grain yield in Sorghum bicolor (L) Moench under water-limited conditions. 2. Water stress after anthesis. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 41, 67–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, R. B., Reddy, D. M., Rani, A. U., Azam-Ali, S. N. & Peacock, J. M. (1990 a). Response of four sorghum lines to mid-season drought. I. Growth, water use and yield. Field Crops Research 25, 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, R. B., Azam-Ali, S. N. & Peacock, J. M. (1990 b). Response of four sorghum lines to mid-season drought. II. Leaf characteristics. Field Crops Research 25, 297–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, J. T. & Burnett, E. (1971). Dryland evaporative flux in a subhumid climate: II. Plant influences. Agronomy Journal 63, 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenow, D. T., Quisenberry, J. E. & Wendt, C. W. (1983). Drought tolerant sorghum and cotton germplasm. Agricultural Water Management 7, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, R. W. & Basiime, D. R. (1973). Studies on the physiological determinants of grain yield in five varieties of sorghum. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 537–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar