Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T00:56:22.547Z 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. II. Solar Radiation Interception and Leaf Movement†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

R. B. Matthews ,
D. Harris ,
J. H. Williams  and
R. C. Nageswara Rao
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
J. H. Williams
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru PO, Andhra Pradesh 502324, India
R. C. Nageswara Rao
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 during the post-rainy season in Central India produced similar amounts of dry matter per unit of intercepted solar radiation (e) before pod-filling, although different e values were observed during pod-filling. The relation between cumulative transpiration and intercepted radiation was similar for all genotypes. When drought became severe, fractional radiation interception (f) was reduced by folding of leaves, with little decrease in leaf area (L). The ratio f/√L was used as an index of the degree of leaf folding and was correlated with leaf water potential. The degree of folding varied with genotype and may have contributed to the observed differences in e and the dry matter:water ratio (q). The genotype EC76446(292) had the smallest q and largest f/√L ratio (the poorest radiation avoidance), while Kadiri 3 had the largest q and smallest value of f/√L.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , April 1988 , pp. 203 - 213
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

Babu, V. R., Murty, P. S. S., Reddy, G. H. S. & Reddy, T. Y. (1983). Leaflet angle and radiation avoidance by water-stressed groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) plants. Environmental and Experimental Botany 23:183–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, J. M., Boote, K. J. & Hammond, L. C. (1984). Relationships among water potential components, relative water contents, and stomatal resistance of field-grown peanut leaves. Peanut Science 11:31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, W. G., McCloud, D. E., McGraw, R. L. & Boote, K. J. (1978). Physiological aspects of peanut yield improvement. Crop Science 18:1015–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehleringer, J. & Forseth, I. (1980). Solar tracking by plants. Science 210:1094–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gates, D. M. (1968). Transpiration and leaf temperatures. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 12:21–238.Google Scholar
Grancher, C. V. & Bonhomme, R. (1972). The use of solar energy by a crop of Vigna sinensis. I. Theoretical study of the effect of leaf heliotropism on the interception of radiation. Annales Agronomiques 23:407–417.Google Scholar
Harris, D., Matthews, R. B., Rao, R. C. Nageswara & 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 24:215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, M. M. & Bjorkman, O. (1984). Paraheliotropic leaf movement in Siratro as a protective mechanism against drought induced damage to primary photosynthetic reactions: damage by excessive light and heat. Planta 161:505–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthews, R. B., Harris, D., Rao, R. C. Nageswara, Williams, J. H. & Wadia, K. D. R. (1988). The physiological basis for yield differences between four genotypes of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) in response to drought. I. Dry matter production and water use. Experimental Agriculture 24:191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, H. A.Ehleringer, J. & Bjorkman, O. (1977). The energy balance of leaves of the evergreen desert shrub Atriplex hymenelytra. Oecologia, Berlin 29:301–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pallas, J. E. Jr & Samish, Y. B. (1974). Photosynthetic response of peanut. Crop Science 14:478–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajendrudu, G., Singh, M. & Williams, J. H. (1983). Hydraulic press measurements of leaf water potential in groundnuts. Experimental Agriculture 19:287–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shackell, K. A. & Hall, A. E. (1979). Reversible leaf movements in relation to drought adaptation of cowpeas, Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 6:265–76.Google Scholar
Sullivan, C. Y., Norcio, N. V. & Eastin, J. D. (1977). Plant responses to high temperatures. In Genetic Diversity in Plants, 301–317 (Eds Muhammad, A., Aksel, R. and von Borstel, R. C.). New York, USA: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Wainwright, C. M. (1977). Suntracking and related leaf movements in a desert lupin (Lupinus arizonicus). American Journal of Botany 64:1032–1041.Google Scholar