Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-19T04:16:00.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seasonal responses and genotype-by-season interactions for the growth dynamic and development traits of peanut

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 February 2008

N. PHAKAMAS ,
A. PATANOTHAI ,
K. PANNANGPETCH ,
S. JOGLOY  and
G. HOOGENBOOM
N. PHAKAMAS
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science and Agricultural Resources, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
A. PATANOTHAI*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science and Agricultural Resources, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
K. PANNANGPETCH
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science and Agricultural Resources, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
S. JOGLOY
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science and Agricultural Resources, Faculty of Agriculture, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
G. HOOGENBOOM
Affiliation:
Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, University of Georgia, Griffin, GA 30223–1797, USA
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: aran@kku.ac.th
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Information on the interactions between genotypes and environments for physiological traits of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is limited. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effects of seasons and genotype×season (G×S) interactions for dynamic growth and development traits of peanut. Fifteen peanut lines varying in maturity duration, seed type and yield level were grown in a field experiment at the Khon Kaen University in Northeast Thailand during the 2002 and 2003 rainy seasons and the 2003 and 2004 dry seasons. Data were recorded on phenological development stages, pod yield and final biomass, and leaf area index (LAI), crop growth rate (CGR), pod growth rate (PGR), partitioning coefficient (PC), pod harvest index (HI), shelling percentage, and specific leaf area (SLA) were determined. Seasonal effects were found for all development and growth traits of the test peanut lines. Crop duration for the dry season was much longer than for the rainy season because of low temperatures during the early growth stage, causing a delay in flowering and a longer period of pod formation. The test peanut lines showed small differences in the duration of vegetative development and pod formation, but varied greatly in the seed filling duration. This period also showed the greatest differential responses to seasons between the peanut genotypes. Crop yields for the 2003 rainy and the 2004 dry seasons were much lower than for the other two seasons because of late leaf spot disease in the 2003 rainy season and cool temperatures at flowering in the 2004 dry season, resulting in poor pod setting, low PGR and low HI. The test peanut lines differed considerably in pod and biomass yields and all the growth traits measured. Significant G×S interactions were also found for all of these traits, though were much smaller than season effect. Regression analyses identified PGR as the dominant physiological trait determining the G×S interaction for pod yield. Exploring marker-assisted selection for this trait is suggested.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 146 , Issue 3 , June 2008 , pp. 311 - 323
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Abeledo, L. G., Calderini, D. F. & Slafer, G. A. (2003). Genetic improvement of barley yield potential and its physiological determinants in Argentina (1944–1998). Euphytica 130, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banterng, P., Patanothai, A., Pannangpetch, K., Jogloy, S. & Hoogenboom, G. (2003). Seasonal variation in the dynamic growth and development traits of peanut lines. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 141, 51–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basford, K. E. & Cooper, M. (1998). Genotype×environment interactions and some considerations of their implications for wheat breeding in Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 49, 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basford, K. E., Williams, E. R., Cullis, B. R. & Gilmour, A. (1996). Experimental design and analysis of variety trials. In Plant Adaptation and Crop Improvement (Eds Cooper, M. & Hammer, G. L.), pp. 125–138. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
Bell, M. J., Shorter, R. & Mayer, R. (1991). Cultivar and environmental effects on growth and development of peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). I. Emergence and flowering. Field Crops Research 27, 17–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, M. J., Wright, G. C. & Harch, G. R. (1993). Environmental and agronomic effects on the growth of four peanut cultivars in a subtropical environment. I. Dry matter accumulation and radiation use efficiency. Experimental Agriculture 29, 473–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boote, K. J. (1982). Growth stages of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Science 9, 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boote, K. J., Kropff, M. J. & Bindraban, P. S. (2001). Physiology and modelling of traits in crop plants: implications for genetic improvement. Agricultural Systems 70, 395–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, I. S. (1980). Growth and development of florunner peanuts as affected by temperature. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.Google Scholar
Cooper, M. & Delacy, I. H. (1994). Relationships among analytical methods used to study genotypic variation and genotype-by-environment interaction in plant breeding multi-environment experiments. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 88, 561–572.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cox, F. R. (1979). Effect of temperature treatment on peanut vegetative and fruit growth. Peanut Science 6, 14–17.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
Gomez, K. A. & Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Jackson, P., Robertson, M., Cooper, M. & Hammer, G. (1996). The role of physiological understanding in plant breeding: from a breeding perspective. Field Crops Research 49, 11–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, M. S. (1990). Understanding and utilization of genotype-by-environment interaction in plant breeding. In Genotype-by-environment Interaction and Plant Breeding (Ed. Kang, M. S.), pp. 52–68. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University.Google Scholar
Kang, M. S. (1998). Using genotype-by-environment interaction for crop cultivar development. Advances in Agronomy 62, 199–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kang, M. S. (2002). Genotype-environment interaction: progress and prospects. In Quantitative Genetics, Genomics and Plant Breeding (Ed. Kang, M. S.), pp. 221–243. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketring, D. L. & Wheless, T.G. (1989). Thermal time requirements for phenological development of peanut. Agronomy Journal 81, 910–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnamurthy, L., Johanson, C. & Sethi, S. C. (1999). Investigation of factors determining genotypic differences in seed yield of non-irrigated and irrigated chickpea using a physiological model of yield determination. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 183, 9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, D., Subramanyam, P., Gibbons, R. W. & Smith, D. H. (1985). Early and Late Leafspots of Groundnut. ICRISAT Information Bulletin No. 21. Patancheru, A.P., India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics.Google Scholar
Ntare, B. R., Williams, J. H. & Ndunguru, B. J. (1998). Effect of seasonal variation in temperature and cultivar on yield and yield determination of irrigated groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) during the dry season in the Sahel of West Africa. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 131, 439–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nutter, F. W. & Littrell, R. H. (1996). Relationships between defoliation, canopy reflectance and pod yield in the peanut-late leafspot pathosystem. Crop Protection 15, 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Subrahmanyam, P., Moss, J. P., McDonald, D., Rao, P. V. S. & Rao, P. R. (1985). Resistance to leaf spot caused by Cercosporidium personatum in wild Arachis species. Plant Disease 69, 951–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vara Prasad, P. V., Craufurd, P. Q. & Summerfield, R. J. (2000). Effect of high air and soil temperature on dry matter production, pod yield and yield components of groundnut. Plant and Soil 222, 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, D. H., Baudoin, J. P., Beaver, J. S., Coyne, D. P., Halseth, D. E., Masaya, P. N., Munger, H. M., Myers, J. R., Silbernagel, M., Yourstone, K. S. & Zobel, R. W. (1993). Improving efficiency of breeding for higher crop yield. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 86, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, J. H. & Saxena, N. P. (1991). The use of non-destructive measurement and physiological models of yield determination to investigate factors determining differences in seed yield between genotypes of desi chickpeas (Cicer arietum). Annals of Applied Biology 119, 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, G. C., Nageswara Rao, R. C. & Basu, M. S. (1996). A physiological approach to the understanding of genotypes by environment interactions – a case study on improvement of drought adaptation in peanut. In Plant Adaptation and Crop Improvement (Eds Cooper, M. & Hammer, G. L.), pp. 365–381. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.Google Scholar