Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T21:26:15.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of autumn sowing dates on growth and yield of indeterminate and determinate field beans (Vicia faba)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. J. Pilbeam ,
P. D. Hebblethwaite ,
H. E. Ricketts  and
O. A. Hassan
C. J. Pilbeam
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire LEI2 5RD, UK
P. D. Hebblethwaite
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire LEI2 5RD, UK
H. E. Ricketts
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire LEI2 5RD, UK
O. A. Hassan
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham, Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, Loughborough, Leicestershire LEI2 5RD, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Determinate forms of field bean (Vicia faba L.), because of their altered growth habit, may differ in phenology from indeterminate cultivars and so their responses to environmental conditions may necessitate different optimum sowing dates. This was studied in autumn-sown field beans at the University of Nottingham at Sutton Bonington by standard growth analysis techniques, final yield components and monitoring of crop growth stages in an indeterminate cultivar, Bourdon, and two determinate populations, 858 and 796 (provided by Plant Breeding International, Cambridge), in three consecutive seasons beginning in 1985/86.

Bourdon yielded significantly more (2·4 t/ha, on average) than the determinate selections as a result of more pod-bearing nodes per stem and seeds per pod and a greater individual seed weight. There was, however, no correlation between seed yield and canopy size, either in total or during pod filling. Determinacy, contrary to expectation, did not increase harvest index. In fact, the reproductive stems of Bourdon had higher harvest indices than those of 858. The yield disadvantage of determinates was therefore exacerbated by the existence of reproductive stems, which, by prolonging the maturation phase, may also detract from a further potential benefit of the determinate habit, namely an increase in yield stability.

There seemed to be no cultivar differences in the temperature requirement for the initiation of developmental processes. An average accumulation of 1239 °C days was required from sowing to flowering. Differences between this and other work in the calculated base temperature for flowering were cautiously explained by the lack of data distinguishing day and night temperature in this experiment and by the use of autumn-sown rather than spring-sown cultivars. It is also suggested that photoperiod may be important in initiating flowering.

Both determinate and indeterminate forms gave the greatest seed yields from the earliest sowing dates.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 114 , Issue 3 , June 1990 , pp. 339 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Allen, E. J. & Scott, R. K. (1980). An analysis of growth of the potato crop. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archer, J. (1988). Crop Nutrition and Fertilizer Use, 2nd edn.Ipswich: Farming Press.Google Scholar
Austin, R. B., Morgan, C. L. & Ford, M. A. (1981). A field study of the carbon economy of normal and ‘topless’ field beans (Vicia faba). In Vicia faba: Physiology and Breeding (Ed. Thompson, R.), pp. 60–77. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Barker, D. A., Chapman, G. P., Standish, M. J. & Bailey, M. P. (1984). Growth habit in relation to assimilate partitioning and some consequences for field bean breeding. In Vicia faba: Agronomy, Physiology and Breeding (Eds Hebblethwaite, P. D., Dawkins, T. C. K., Heath, M. C. & Lockwood, G.), pp. 23–28. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barry, P. & Storey, T. S. (1979). Influence of some cultural practices on the yield, development and quality of field beans (Vicia faba L.). Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 18, 77–88.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. H., Roberts, E. H. & Summerfield, R. J. (1988 a). Photothermal time for flowering in faba bean (Vicia faba) and the analysis of potential vernalisation responses. Annals of Botany 61, 73–82.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. H., Summerfield, R. J. & Roberts, E. H. (1988 b). Effects of temperature, photoperiod and seed vernalisation on flowering in faba bean Vicia faba. Annals of Botany 61, 17–27.Google Scholar
Evans, L. T. (1959). Environmental control of flowering in Vicia faba L. Annals of Botany 23, 521–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Free, J. B. & Williams, I. H. (1976). Pollination as a factor limiting the yield of field beans (Vicia faba L.). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 87, 395–399.Google Scholar
Graf, R. J. & Rowland, G. G. (1987). Effect of plant density on yield and components of yield of faba bean. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 67, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwood, H. N. (1959). Investigations into field beans at the National Institute of Agricultural Botany. Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society of England 120, 70–77.Google Scholar
Hebblethwaite, P. D., Hawtin, G. C. & Lutman, P. J. W. (1983). The husbandry of establishment and maintenance. In The Faba Bean (Ed. Hebblethwaite, P. D.), pp. 271–312. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Husain, M. M., Hill, G. D. & Gallagher, J. N. (1988 a). The response of field beans (Vicia faba L.) to irrigation and sowing date. 1. Yield and yield components. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 111, 221–232.Google Scholar
Husain, M. M., Hill, G. D. & Gallagher, J. N. (1988 b). The response of field beans (Vicia faba L.) to irrigation and sowing date. 2. Growth and development in relation to yield. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 111, 233–254.Google Scholar
Kambal, A. E. (1969). Components of yield in field beans, Vicia faba L. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 72, 359–363.Google Scholar
Kondra, Z. P. (1975). Effects of row spacing, seeding rate and date of seeding on faba beans. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 55, 211–214.Google Scholar
Marcellos, H. & Constable, G. A. (1986). Effects of plant density and sowing date on grain yield of faba beans (Vicia faba L.) in northern New South Wales. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 26, 493–496.Google Scholar
McEwen, J., Yeoman, D. P. & Moffitt, R. (1988). Effect of seed rates, sowing dates and methods of sowing on autumn-sown field beans (Vicia faba L.). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 110, 345–352.Google Scholar
Newton, S. D. & Hill, G. D. (1987). Response of field beans (Vicia faba L. cv Maris Bead) to time of sowing, plant population, nitrogen and irrigation. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 15, 411–418.Google Scholar
Pilbeam, C. J., Hebblethwaite, P. D. & Clark, A. S. (1989 a). Effect of different inter-row spacings on faba beans of different form. Field Crops Research 21, 203–214.Google Scholar
Pilbeam, C. J., Hebblethwaite, P. D. & Ricketts, H. E. (1989 b). The response of determinate and semi-determinate faba bean varieties to different sowing dates in the spring. Annals of Applied Biology 114, 377–390.Google Scholar
Plancquaert, Ph. & Raphalen, J. L. (1984). Components of the yield and yield of Vicia faba. In Vicia faba: Agronomy, Physiology and Breeding (Eds Hebblethwaite, P. D., Dawkins, T. C. K., Heath, M. C. & Lockwood, G.), pp. 1–8. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Scriven, W. A., Cooper, B. A. & Allen, H. (1961). Pollination of field beans. Outlook on Agriculture 3, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silim, S. N., Hebblethwaite, P. D. & Heath, M. C. (1985). Comparison of the effects of autumn and spring sowing date on growth and yield of combining peas (Pisum sativum L.). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 104, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjödin, J. (1971). Induced morphological variation in Vicia faba L. Hereditas 67, 155–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skjelvag, A. O. (1981). Effects of climatic factors on the growth and development of the field bean (Vicia faba L. var. minor). II. Phenological development in outdoor experiments. Ada Agriculturae Scandinavica 31, 372–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stülpnagel, R. (1984). Proposal of a growth stages key for Vicia faba. In Vicia faba: Agronomy, Physiology and Breeding (Eds Hebblethwaite, P. D., Dawkins, T. C. K., Heath, M. C. & Lockwood, G.), pp. 9–14. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Thompson, R. & Taylor, H. (1977). Yield components and cultivar, sowing date and density in field beans (Vicia faba). Annals of Applied Biology 86, 313–320.Google Scholar