Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T23:15:30.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Physiological Basis for Yield Differences between Four Genotypes of Groundnut (Arachis Hypogaea) in Response to Drought. I. Dry Matter Production and Water Use†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

R. B. Matthews ,
D. Harris ,
R. C. Nageswara Rao ,
J. H. Williams  and
K. D. R. Wadia
R. B. Matthews
Affiliation:
ODA Microclimatology Group, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire, England
D. Harris
Affiliation:
ODA Microclimatology Group, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire, England
R. C. Nageswara Rao
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru PO, Andhra Pradesh 502324, India
J. H. Williams
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru PO, Andhra Pradesh 502324, India
K. D. R. Wadia
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru PO, Andhra Pradesh 502324, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Four genotypes of groundnut grown with limited irrigation in a medium depth Alfisol in Central India transpired similar total amounts of water (220–226 mm) over the season, but produced different amounts of shoot dry matter (390–490 g m−2). The extraction front of Kadiri 3 moved most rapidly down the soil profile which may have enabled it to maintain the fastest rates of transpiration when soil water depletion was greatest. Tap root extension rates of Kadiri 3 in the first 32 days after sowing were also the fastest. NC Ac 17090 was more efficient than the other genotypes in extracting water immediately after irrigation from the upper 40 cm of the soil, but this had little value in determining the pattern of water availability in this experiment. Differences in the water extraction characteristics of these genotypes explain little of the variation in dry matter:water ratio, and do not account for the major variation in harvest index associated with drought.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 191 - 202
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Angus, J. F., Hasegawa, S., Hsaio, T. C., Libbon, S. P & Zandstra, H. G. (1983). The water balance of post-monsoonal dryland crops. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101:699–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begg, J. E. & Turner, N. C. (1976). Crop water deficits. Advances in Agronomy 28:161–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bierhuizen, J. F. & Slatyer, R. O. (1965). Effect of atmospheric concentration of water vapour and CO2 in determining transpiration-photosynthesis relationships of cotton leaves. Agricultural Meteorology 2:259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boote, K. J., Stansell, J. R., Schubert, A. M. & Stone, J. F. (1982). Irrigation, water use and water relations. In Peanut Science and Technology (Eds Patee, H. E. and Young, L. T.). American Peanut Research and Education Society, Yoakum, Texas.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. A. (1978). The effect of water stress on crop yield in semi-arid regions. In Adaptation of Plants to Water and High Temperature Stress (Eds Turner, N. C. and Kramer, P. J.). New York: Wiley Interscience.Google Scholar
Gibbons, R. W. (1977). An international approach to peanut improvement. Proceedings of the American Peanut Research and Education Association 9:97–100.Google Scholar
Gibbons, R. W. (1980). In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Groundnuts, International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, 13–17th October.Patancheru, AP, India:ICRISAT.Google Scholar
Harris, D., Matthews, R. B., Rao, R. C. N. & Williams, J. H. (1988). The physiological basis for yield differences between four genotypes of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) in response to drought. III. Developmental processes. Experimental Agriculture 24:215–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICRISAT (1984). Annual Report. Patancheru, AP, India: ICRISAT.Google Scholar
Kassam, A. H., Kowal, J. M. & Harkness, C. (1975). Water use and growth of groundnut at Samaru, Northern Nigeria. Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad 52:105–112.Google Scholar
Ketring, D. L. (1984). Root diversity amongst genotypes. Crop Science 24:229–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landsberg, J. J. (1977). Some useful equations for biological studies. Experimental Agriculture 13:273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGowan, M. (1974). Depths of water extraction by roots. Application to soil water balance studies. In Isotope and Radiation Techniques in Soil Physics and Irrigation Studies, 1973, 435–445. Proceedings of a symposium organized by IAEA and FAO.Google Scholar
Matthews, R. B., Harris, D., Williams, J. H. & Rao, R. C. N. (1988). The physiological basis for yield differences between four genotypes of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) in response to drought. II. Solar radiation interception and leaf movement. Experimental Agriculture 24:203–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passioura, J. B. (1972). The effect of root geometry on the yield of wheat growing on stored water. Australian Journal of Agricultural Reseach 23:745–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penman, H. (1948). Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proceedings of the Royal Society, London A. 193:120–145.Google Scholar
Russell, M. B. (1978). Profile moisture dynamics of soil in vertisols and alfisols. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Agroclimatological Research Needs of the Semi-arid Tropics. Hyderabad, India: ICRISAT.Google Scholar