Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T14:40:09.697Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phenological development in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) at alternate exposure to 12 and 14 h photoperiods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. R. Linnemann
A. R. Linnemann
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Wageningen Agricultural University, Haarweg 333, 6709 RZ Wageningen, The Netherlands
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The developmental phase in which photoperiod sensitivity for podding occurs was determined for two bambara groundnut genotypes grown in 1987 and 1990 in glasshouse experiments in the Netherlands, namely genotypes ‘Tiga Nicuru’ from Mali (day-neutral for flowering and photoperiod-sensitive for podding) and ‘Ankpa 4’ from Nigeria (photoperiod-sensitive for both flowering and podding). Eighteen photoperiod treatments were given to each genotype. Two treatments consisted of a constant 12 or 14 h photoperiod and started 21 days after sowing for ‘Tiga Nicuru’ and 18 days after sowing for ‘Ankpa 4’. Eight treatments were introduced by transferring plants with at least 20 flower buds (33-day-old plants of ‘Tiga Nicuru’ and 35-day-old plants of ‘Ankpa 4’) from a 12 to a 14 h photoperiod or vice versa. In ‘Tiga Nicuru’ transference was for 4, 8, 12 days or until harvest, and in ‘Ankpa 4’ it was for 8, 12, 16 days or until harvest. Another eight similar treatments were given to plants transferred after having had at least 20 open flowers (48-day-old plants of ‘Tiga Nicuru’ and 62-day-old plants of ‘Ankpa 4’). Transferring plants of ‘Tiga Nicuru’ to the 12 h photoperiod for at least 8 days induced podding. Plants were susceptible to podding induction for nearly 4 weeks: podding was induced in plants which had been in the natural photoperiod (≥ 15·5 h) for 21 days, followed by 12 days in the 12 h photoperiod and subsequently in the 14 h photoperiod until harvest, and it could still be induced in 48-day-old plants that had had > 20 open flowers. However, transference to the 12 h photoperiod for 16 days did not induce podding in ‘Ankpa 4’. Transferring plants from the 12 to the 14 h photoperiod or vice versa caused differences in the number of flowers and pods/plant, petiole length and leaf area. The influence of photoperiod was most obvious on the number of pods/plant. Leaf area and number of pods/plant seem suitable parameters for modelling crop growth under different photoperiods. Leaf area development correlated with the number of developing pods/plant, but was also more directly influenced by the prevailing photoperiod.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 123 , Issue 3 , December 1994 , pp. 333 - 340
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Collinson, S. T., Summerfield, R. J., Ellis, R. H. & Roberts, E. H. (1993). Durations of the photoperiodsensitive and photoperiod-insensitive phases of development to flowering in four cultivars of soyabean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill]. Annals of Botany 71, 389–394.Google Scholar
IBPGR/IITA/GTZ (1987). Descriptors for Bambara Groundnut. Rome: International Board for Plant Genetic Resources.Google Scholar
Linnemann, A. R. (1991). Preliminary observations on photoperiod regulation of phenological development in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea). Field Crops Research 26, 295–304.Google Scholar
Linnemann, A. R. (1993). Phenological development in bambara groundnut (Vigna subterranea) at constant exposure to photoperiods of 10 to 16 h. Annals of Botany 71, 445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, D. J. & Kiniry, J. R. (1991). Predicting daylength effects on phenological processes. In Predicting Crop Phenology (Ed. Hodges, T.), pp. 15–28. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Rachie, K. O. & Silvestre, P. (1977). Grain legumes. In Food Crops of the Lowland Tropics (Eds Leakey, C. L. A. & Wills, J. B.), pp. 41–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shanmugasundaram, S. & Lee, M. S. (1981). Flowerinducing potency of different kinds of leaves in soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr. Botanical Gazette 142, 36–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, G. R. (1990). The Physiology of Tropical Crop Production. Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J. & Wien, H. C. (1980). Effects of photoperiod and air temperature on growth and yield of economic legumes. In Advances in Legume Science (Eds Summerfield, R. J. & Bunting, A. H.), pp. 17–35. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. H., Zobel, R. W. & Yourstone, K. S. (1993). A whole-system reconsideration of paradigms about photoperiod and temperature control of crop yield. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 86, 17–26.Google Scholar
Wareing, P. F. (1987). Juvenility and cell determination. In Manipulation of Flowering (Ed. Atherton, J. G.), pp. 83–92. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar