Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T09:26:30.053Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of density of planting on the growth of two Phaseolus vulgaris varieties in England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. O. Lucas  and
G. M. Milbourn
E. O. Lucas
Affiliation:
Wye College (University of London), Ashford, Kent
G. M. Milbourn
Affiliation:
Wye College (University of London), Ashford, Kent
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The growth and development of two varieties of Phaseolus vulgaris (Purley King and Limelight) were compared in two experiments in 1973 and 1974 at a range of planting density from 20 to 100 seeds/m2. Within this range, the relationship between seed yield and density in Purley King was asymptotic, although there was a suggestion that if even higher densities had been tested, a downward trend in yield might have occurred. The optimum density of planting for Purley King in Expt 1 was 50 seeds/m2 while that for Limelight was 40 seeds/m2. The corresponding densities in Expt 2 were 75 and 50 seeds/m2 respectively. Although number of branches per plant generally decreased with increasing density, there was no significant density effect on the number of nodes per plant. Thus stabilization of seed yield occurred even at quite low densities. Although in the low-density treatments, less vegetative tissue was produced, the peak of dry-matter yield occurred later after flowering and the slower subsequent senescence ensured the presence of active photosynthetic tissue throughout the pod-fill stage. Less pod retention occurred at high density which, combined with the ability of widely spaced plants to produce pods over a longer period, resulted in a similar number of pods per unit area over a wide range of density.

Although the variety Purley King produced more than double the number of mature pods from its extra nodes and branches, it was outyielded by Limelight by 35% from the combined effect of more seeds per pod and a higher mean seed weight. Limelight also produced this high yield with less vegetative tissue. In both varieties it appeared that pod photosynthesis could take place, in Purley King because the pods were borne on higher nodes above the canopy and in Limelight due to the earlier senescence of its smaller leaf area. However, in spite of the apparent physiological advantages of Limelight, the pods are not borne high enough on this plant to enable satisfactory mechanical harvesting.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 87 , Issue 1 , August 1976 , pp. 89 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

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

Adams, M. W. (1967). Basis of yield component compensation in crop plants with special reference to the field bean, Phaseolus vulgaris. Crop Science 7, 505–10.Google Scholar
Allen, E. J., Morgan, D. G. & Ridgman, W. J. (1971). A physiological analysis of the growth of oil seed rape. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 77, 339–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkins, J. D. (1961). Row spacing influences on yield of snap and dry beans. Farm Research 27, 13.Google Scholar
Duarte, R. A. & Adams, M. W. (1972). A path coefficient analysis of some yield component interrelations in field beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Crop Science 12, 579–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, A. M., Hamblin, J. & Davis, J. H. (1974). Phaseolus vulgaris as a grain legume for Britain. (Summary.) Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 25, 1058–9.Google Scholar
Flinn, A. M. & Pate, J. S. (1970). A quantitative study of carbon transfer from pod and subtending leaf to the ripening seeds of the field pea (Pisum arvense L.). Journal of Experimental Botany 21, 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froussios, G. (1970). Genetic diversity and agricultural potential in Phaseolus vulgaris L. Experimental Agriculture 6, 129–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Innes, N. L. & Hard Wick, R. C. (1975). Possibilities for genetic improvement of Phaseolus beans in U.K. Outlook in Agriculture 8, 126–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, L. H. (1967). Factors affecting the productivity of dwarf french beans. Agricultural Progress 42, 32–52.Google Scholar
Kemp, G. A. (1968). Limelight – green shell bean. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 48, 219–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovell, P. H. & Lovell, P. J. (1970). Fixation of CO2 and export of photo-synthate by the carpel in Pisum sativum. Physiologia Plantarum 23, 316–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, E. O. (1975). Agronomic and physiological studies on two varieties of Phaseolus vulgaris. Ph.D. thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Milbourn, G. M. & Hardwick, R. C. (1968). The growth of vining peas. I. The effect of time of sowing. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 70, 393–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, J. M. (1972). Some aspects of the growth and development of Vicia faba L. Ph.D. thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Ojehomon, O. O. (1966). A comparison of the physiology of different varieties of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Picard, J. & Sigwalk, C. (1960). Belationship between plant density and grain yield in field beans (Vicia faba). Annales de Vamelioration des plantes 10, 169–75.Google Scholar
Processors' And Growers' Research Organisation (1973). Notes on Growing Navy Beans, no. 21, pp. 1–3.Google Scholar
Scarisbrick, D. H. & Wilkes, J. M. (1973). The effect of drilling date on seed yield of Navy beans, Phaseolus vulgaris. Nature 242, 619–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallace, D. H. (1968). The relationship of yielding ability to dry matter accumulation and its distribution for several varieties of dry bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. H. (1973). Commentary upon plant architecture and physiological efficiency in the field bean symposium on ‘Potentials of field beans and other food legumes in Latin America’. Series Seminar, No 2E, CIAT Cali Columbia, 1973.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. H. & Munger, H. M. (1966). Studies of the physiological basis for yield difference. II. Variation in dry matter distribution among aerial organs for several bean varieties. Crop Science 6, 503–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wien, H. C. (1971). The influence of spacing on light interception growth and seed yield of Phaseolus vulgaris under temperate and tropical conditions Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar