Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T23:15:02.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nitrogen Nutrition of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)*

II. Effects of Short-term Applications of Inorganic Nitrogen on Growth and Yield of Nodulated and Non-nodulated Plants

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

P. J. Dart
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, Plant Environment Laboratory, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AD, UK
P. A. Huxley
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, Plant Environment Laboratory, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AD, UK
A. R. J. Eaglesham
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, Plant Environment Laboratory, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AD, UK
F. R. Minchin
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, Plant Environment Laboratory, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AD, UK
R. J. Summerfield
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, Plant Environment Laboratory, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AD, UK
J. M. Day
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, Plant Environment Laboratory, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AD, UK

Summary

Average seed yields of effectively nodulated cowpea plants were 38% greater than those of non-nodulated plants when both received applied nitrogen at concentrations ranging from 60 to 240 ppm during one of three periods: emergence to first flower, first flower to mid pod-fill, or mid pod-fill to maturity. Nodulation increased seed yields by 45% when plants received a ‘basal’ level of 30 ppm N throughout growth. None of the combined nitrogen treatments could compensate non-nodulated plants for the loss of symbiotic nitrogen fixation. Non-nodulated plants relying on applied N branched less, produced fewer peduncles and set fewer pods on each peduncle than nodulated plants.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

Beard, B. H. & Hoover, R. M. (1971). Agron. J. 63, 815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dart, P. J. & Wildon, D. C. (1970). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 21, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaglesham, A. R. J., Day, J. M. & Dart, P. J. (1974). A. Rep. Rothamsted Experimental Station (1973) Pt. 1, 85.Google Scholar
Ezedinma, F. O. C. (1964). Trop. Agric. (Trin.) 41, 243.Google Scholar
Hardy, R. W. F., Burns, R. C. & Holsten, R. D. (1973). Soil Biol. Biochm. 5, 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nangju, D. (1973). Proc. Grain Legume Workshop, IIIA, Nigeria, 122.Google Scholar
Pate, J. S. & Dart, P. J. (1961). Plant & Soil 15, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rachie, K. O. & Rockwood, W. G. (1973). Span 16, 9.Google Scholar
Schlesier, G. & Muntz, K. (1974). Biochem. Physiol. Pflanzen 166, 87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, T. R. & de Wit, C. T. (1975). Science (N.Y.) 189, 565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summerfield, R. J., Huxley, P. A., Dart, P. J. & Hughes, A. P. (1976). Plant & Soil 44, 527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Summerfield, R. J., Dart, P.J., Huxley, P. A., Eaglesham, A R.J., Minchin, F. R. & Day, J. M. (1977). Expl Agric. 13, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar