Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:13:54.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CONSIDERING EFFECTS OF TEMPERATURE AND PHOTOPERIOD ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF LABLAB PURPUREUS (L.) SWEET IN THE SEARCH OF SHORT-SEASON ACCESSIONS FOR SMALLHOLDER FARMING SYSTEMS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2016

A. SENNHENN ,
J. J. O. ODHIAMBO ,
B. L. MAASS  and
A. M. WHITBREAD
A. SENNHENN*
Affiliation:
Section of Crop Production Systems in the Tropics, Department for Crop Sciences, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Grisebachstr. 6, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
J. J. O. ODHIAMBO
Affiliation:
Soil Science, University of Venda, University Road, Thohoyandou, Limpopo Province, 0950, South Africa
B. L. MAASS
Affiliation:
Section of Crop Production Systems in the Tropics, Department for Crop Sciences, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Grisebachstr. 6, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
A. M. WHITBREAD
Affiliation:
Section of Crop Production Systems in the Tropics, Department for Crop Sciences, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Grisebachstr. 6, 37077 Göttingen, Germany International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru 502324, Telengana, India
*
Corresponding author. Email: asennhe@gwdg.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Legumes have gained increased importance in smallholder farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa due to their contribution to household nutrition and health and their ability to grow in low fertility soils. With unpredictable and highly variable rainfall characteristics of the semi-arid areas, short-season grain types are seen as a promising option for drought avoidance. Knowledge of phenological development and, in particular, time to flowering is crucial information needed for estimating the possible production success of new accessions to new environments. The photoperiod-sensitivity of 10 promising short-season Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet accessions (CPI 525313, CPI 52533, CPI 52535, CPI 52535, CPI 52552, CPI 52554, CPI 60795, CPI 81364, CQ 3620, Q 6880B) were evaluated for their response to varying temperature and daylength regimes in field trials in Limpopo province, South Africa and under controlled conditions in growth chamber experiments in Göttingen, Germany. Photoperiod sensitivity was quantified using the triple-plane rate model of flowering response with time to flowering expressed in thermal time (Tt, °Cd). Additionally, piecewise regression analysis was conducted to estimate the critical photoperiod (Pc) above which time to flowering was delayed significantly. Relatively high variation of time to flowering amongst and within accessions in days after planting (DAP) was observed, ranging from 60 to 120 DAP depending on sowing date or daylength/temperature regime. Furthermore, a clear positive effect of temperature on growth and development of the tested accessions was found and time to flowering expressed as thermal time were consistent for the tested accessions, ranging from 600 to 800 °Cd for daylength <13 h. Only at daylength of ≥13 h and temperatures above 28 °C, development towards flowering was delayed significantly for accessions CPI 52513, CPI 52535, CPI 52554 and CPI 60795 with vegetative growth continuing for >110 DAP. The tested lablab accessions are therefore considered photoperiod insensitive, or weakly photoperiod responsive and are classified as short-day plants (SDP). Since daylength does not exceed 13 h between the latitudes 30 N to 30 S, these lablab accessions are recommended for further testing as short-duration grain legumes.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , July 2017 , pp. 375 - 395
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Bhattacharya, A. and Vijaylaxmi, (2010). Physiological responses of grain legumes to stress environments. In Climate Change and Management of Cool Season Grain Legume Crops, 35–206 (Eds Yadav, S., McNeil, D., and Redden, R.). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blum, A. (2005). Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential—are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive?. Australien Journal of Agricultural Research 56:1159–1168.Google Scholar
Blum, A. (2009). Effective use of water (EUW) and not water-use efficiency (WUE) is the target of crop yield improvement under drought stress. Field Crops Research 112:119–123.Google Scholar
Carberry, P., Ranganathan, R., Reddy, L., Chauhan, Y. and Robertson, M. (2001). Predicting growth and development of pigeonpea: flowering response to photoperiod. Field Crops Research 69:151–162.Google Scholar
Craufurd, P. Q. and Wheeler, T. R. (2009). Climate change and the flowering time of annual crops. Journal of Experimental Botany 60:2529–2539.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. H, Summerfield, R. J, Omanga, P. A, Qi, A. and Roberts, E. H. (1998). Flowering in Pigeonpea in Kenya: sensitivity to photoperiod and temperature during pre-flowering development. Experimental Agriculture 34:249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folliard, A., Traoré, P. C. S., Vaksmann, M. and Kouressy, M. (2004). Modeling of sorghum response to photoperiod: a threshold–hyperbolic approach. Field Crops Research 89:59–70.Google Scholar
Gaynor, L., Lawn, R. and James, A. (2011). Agronomic studies on irrigated soybean in southern New South Wales. I. Phenological adaptation of genotypes to sowing date. Crop and Pasture Science 62:1056–1066.Google Scholar
Grotelüschen, K. (2014). Lablab purpureus L. Sweet: A promising multipurpose legume for enhanced drought resistance and improved household nutritional status in smallholder farming systems of Eastern Kenya, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Georg-August University Göttingen, Germany.Google Scholar
Hadley, P., Roberts, E. H., Summerfield, R. J. and Minchin, F. R. (1983). A quantitative model of reproductive development in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) in relation to photoperiod and temperature, and implications for screening germplasm. Annuals of Botany 51:531–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadley, P., Roberts, E. H., Summerfield, R. J. and Minchin, F. R. (1984). Effects of temperature and photoperiod on flowering in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill): a quantitative model. Annuals of Botany 53:669–681.Google Scholar
Hendricksen, R. E. and Minson, D. J. (1985). Lablab purpureus—a review. Herbage Abstracts 55:215–228.Google Scholar
Hill, J. O., Robertson, M. J., Pengelly, B. C., Whitbread, A. M. and Hall, C. A. (2006). Simulation modelling of lablab (Lablab purpureus) pastures in northern Australia. Australien Journal of Agricultural Research 57:389–401.Google Scholar
Iannucci, A., Terribile, M. R. and Martiniello, P. (2008). Effects of temperature and photoperiod on flowering time of forage legumes in a Mediterranean environment. Field Crops Research 106:156–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imaizumi, T. and Kay, S. (2006). Photoperiodic control of flowering: not only by coincidence. Trends in Plant Science 11:550–558.Google Scholar
James, A. and Lawn, R. (2011). Application of physiological understanding in soybean improvement. II. Broadening phenological adaptation across regions and sowing dates. Crop and Pasture Science 62:12–24.Google Scholar
Jones, C. A. and Kiniry, J. R. (1986). CERES-Maize: A Simulation Model of Maize Growth and Development. College Station, TX, USA: Texas A&M University Press.Google Scholar
Keatinge, J., Qi, A., Wheeler, T., Ellis, R. and Summerfield, R. (1998). Effects of temperature and photoperiod on phenology as a guide to the selection of annual legume cover and green manure crops for hillside farming systems. Field Crops Research 57:139–152.Google Scholar
Kim, S. E. and Okubo, H. (1995). Control of growth habit in determinate lablab bean (Lablab purpureus) by temperature and photoperiod. Scientia Horticulturae 61:147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. E., Okubo, H. and Kodama, Y. (1992). Growth response of dwarf lablab bean (Lablab purpureus (L.) sweet) to sowing date and photoperiod. Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science 61:589–594.Google Scholar
Lawn, R. J. and James, A. (2011). Application of physiological understanding in soybean improvement. I. Understanding phenological constraints to adaptation and yield potential. Crop and Pasture Science 62:1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maass, B. L., Jamnadass, R. H., Hanson, J. and Pengelly, B. C. (2005). Determining sources of diversity in cultivated and wild Lablab purpureus related to provenance of germplasm by using amplified fragment length polymorphism. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 52: 683–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maass, B. L., Knox, M. R., Venkatesha, S. C., Angessa, T. T., Ramme, S. and Pengelly, B. C. (2010). Lablab purpureus - a crop lost for Africa?. Tropical Plant Biology 3:123–135.Google Scholar
Mabapa, P. M., Ogola, J. B. O., Odhiambo, J. J. O., Whitbread, A. M. and Hargreaves, J. N. (2010). Effect of phosphorus fertilizer rates on growth and yield of three soybean (Glycine max) cultivars in Limpopo province. African Journal of Agricultural Research 5:2653–2660.Google Scholar
Maundu, P. M., Ngugi, G. W. and Kabuye, C. H. S. (1999). Traditional food plants of Kenya. National Museums of Kenya, 270 Nairobi: English Press.Google Scholar
Muggeo, V. M. R. (2003). Estimating regression models with unknown break-points. Statistical Medicine 22:3055–3071.Google Scholar
Muggeo, V. M. R. (2008). Segmented: an R package to fit regression models with broken-line rela- tionships. R News 8:20–25.Google Scholar
Mzezewa, J. and van Rensburg, L. D. (2011). Effects of tillage on runoff from a bare clayey soil on a semi-arid ecotope in the Limpopo province of South Africa. Water SA 37:165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, M. N., Berger, J. D. and Erskine, W. (2010). Flowering time control in annual legumes: prospects in a changing global climate. CAB reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources 5:14–16.Google Scholar
Omanga, P. A., Summerfield, R. J. and Qi, A. (1995). Flowering of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) in Kenya: responses of early-maturing genotypes to location and date of sowing. Field Crops Research 41:25–34.Google Scholar
Papastylianou, P. and Bilalis, D. (2011). Flowering in Sulla (Hedysarum coronarium L. cv. Carmen) and Persian clover (Trifolium resupinatum L. cv. Laser) as affected by sowing date in a mediterranean environment. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5:1298–1304.Google Scholar
Pengelly, B. C. and Maass, B. L. (2001). Lablab purpureus (L.) sweet – diversity, potential use and determination of a core collection of this multi-purpose tropical legume. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 48:261–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putterill, J., Laurie, R. and Macknight, R. (2004). It's time to flower: the genetic control of flowering time. Bioessays 26:363–373.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team (2008). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.URL http://www.R-project.org. (Accessed 3 May 2013).Google Scholar
Roberts, E. H., Hadley, P. and Summerfield, R. J. (1985). Effects of temperature and photoperiod on flowering in chickpeas (Cicer arietinum). Annals of Botany 55:881–892.Google Scholar
Roberts, E. H. and Summerfield, R. J. (1987). Measurements and predictions of flowering in annual crops. In Manipulation of Flowering, 17–50 (Ed. Atherton, J. G.). London, UK: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Soil Classification Working Group (1991). Soil classification—a taxonomic system for South Africa. Memoirs on the Agricultural Natural Resources of South Africa No. 15. Pretoria: Department of Agricultural Development, Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
Subbarao, G. V., Johansen, C., Slinkard, A. E., Nageswara, R. R. C., Saxena, N. P., Chauhan, Y. S. and Lawn, R. J. (1995). Strategies for improving drought resistance in grain legumes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 14:469–523.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J., Roberts, E. H. and Hadley, P. (1987). Photothermal effects on flowering in chickpea and other grain legumes. In Adaptation of Chickpea and Pigeonpea to Abiotic Stresses, 33–48. Proceedings of the Consultants' Workshop, 19–21 December 1984, ICRISAT Center, Patancheru, India.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J., Roberts, E. H., Ellis, R. H. and Lawn, R. J. (1991). Toward the reliable prediction of time to flowering in six annual crops I. The development of simple models for fluctuating field environments. Experimental Agriculture 27:11–31.Google Scholar
Teets, D. A. (2003). Predicting sunrise and sunset times. The College Mathematics Journal 34:317–321.Google Scholar
Trudgill, D. L., Honek, A., Li, D. and Straalen, N. M. (2005). Thermal time - concepts and utility. Annals of Applied Biology 146:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vadez, V., Berger, J. D., Warkentin, T., Asseng, S., Ratnakumar, P., Rao, K. P. C., Gaur, P. M., Munier-Jolain, N., Larmure, A., Voisin, A.-S., Sharma, H. C., Pande, S., Sharma, M., Krishnamurthy, L. and Zaman, M. A. (2012). Adaptation of grain legumes to climate change: a review. Agronomy for Sustainainable Development 32:31–44.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. H. and Yan, W. (1998). Plant breeding and whole-system physiology. Improving Adaptation, Maturity and Yield. CABI, UK: Wallingford.Google Scholar
Whitbread, A. M., Ayisi, K., Mabapa, P., Odhiambo, J. J. O., Maluleke, N. and Pengelly, B. C. (2011). Evaluating Lablab purpureus (L.) sweet germplasm to identify short-season accessions suitable for crop and livestock farming systems in southern Africa. African Journal Range and Forage Science 28:21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L., Wang, R. and Hesketh, J. D. (2000). Effects of photoperiod on growth and development of soybean floral bud in different maturity. Agronomy Journal 93:944–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Sennhenn supplementary material

Supplementary Figure

Download Sennhenn supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 186.8 KB