Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:52:44.242Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adaptation of Lentil to the Mediterranean Environment. I. Factors Affecting Yield Under Drought Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

S. N. Silim ,
M. C. Saxena  and
W. Erskine
S. N. Silim
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
M. C. Saxena
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
W. Erskine
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Lentil frequently suffers from drought stress towards the end of the growing season in rainfed Mediterranean farming systems. This study aimed to quantify the contribution of yield potential under irrigated conditions and of drought escape to the adaptation of lentils to drought, and to identify traits of value in selection for adaptation to a rain-fed Mediterranean environment. Twenty-five diverse lentil lines were sown under both irrigated and rainfed conditions in the 1987/88 and 1988/89 seasons in northern Syria. In 1987/88 the total seasonal rainfall was 403 mm and average rainfed biomass and seed yields were 5.0 and 1.8 t ha-l, respectively. In contrast, in 1988/89 the total season rainfall was 180 mm and average biomass and seed yields were only 0.67 and 0.12 t ha-1, respectively. Early vigour (estimated as a visual score) and percentage ground cover were strongly associated with final biomass, and were of value in predicting economic yield (seed + straw). Early maturity was correlated with seed yield. In the dry season 1988/89, 49% of the variation in seed yield among lines was accounted for by variation in flowering time. Drought escape was clearly the key response to drought. For severely drought-prone areas, selection for early flowering is therefore required. Variation in flowering time and seed yield under irrigated conditions accounted for 62% of seed yield variation under drought stress.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 9 - 19
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Acevedo, E. (1987). Assessing crop and plant attributes for cereal improvement in water limited environments. In Drought Tolerance in Winter Cereals, 303–320. (Eds Srivastava, J. P., Porceddu, E., Acevedo, E. and Varma, S.). Salisbury: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Acevedo, E. & Ceccarelli, S. (1989). Role of physiologist-breeder in a breeding program for drought resistance conditions. In Drought Resistance in Cereals-Theory and Practice, 115–139. (Ed. Baker, F. W. G.) Wallingford: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International.Google Scholar
Bell, J. P. (1969). A new design principle for neutron soil moisture gauges: the ‘Wallingford’ neutron probe. Soil Science 108: 160–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidinger, F. R., Mahalakshmi, V. & Rao, G. D. P. (1987a). Assessment of drought resistance in pearl millet [Pennisetum americanum (L.) Lecke]. I. Factors affecting yield under stress. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 38:37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bidinger, F. R., Mahalakshmi, V. & Rao, G. D. P. (1987 b). Assessment of drought resistance in pearl millet [Pennisetum americanum (L.) Leeke]. II. Estimation of genotype response to stress. Australian journal of Agricultural Research 38:49–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, J. M. (1987). Use of physiological and morphological traits in breeding programmes to improve drought resistance of cereals. In Drought Tolerance in Winter Cereals, 171–190. (Eds Srivastava, J. P., Porceddu, E., Acevedo, E. and Varma, S.) Salisbury: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Cooper, P. J. M., Gregory, P. J., Tully, D. & Harris, H. C. (1987). Improving water use efficiency of annual crops in the rainfed farming systems of West Asia and North Africa. Experimental Agriculture 23:113–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R. A. (1981). Optimizing the use of water and nitrogen through breeding crops. Plant and Soil 58:249–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, S. C., Cox, D. J. & Frey, K. J. (1986). Association of two measures of vegetative growth rate with other traits in inter and intraspecific matings of oats. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 72:756–760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hanks, R. J., Keller, J., Rasmussen, V. P. & Wilson, G. D. (1976). Line-source sprinkler for continuous variable irrigation-crop production studies. Soil Science Society of America Journal 40:426–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedley, C. L. & Ambrose, M. J. (1981). Designing ‘leafless’ pea plants for improving yields of the dry pea crop. Advances in Agronomy 34:255–277.Google Scholar
ICARDA (International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas) (1989 a). Food Legume Improvement Program Annual Report 1988, 63–65. Aleppo, Syria: ICARDA.Google Scholar
ICARDA (International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas) (1989 b). Meteorological Reports for ICARDA Experiment Station in Syria: 1987/88 Season. Aleppo, Syria: ICARDA.Google Scholar
Jordan, W. R., Dugas, W. A. & Shouse, P. J. (1983). Strategics for crop improvement for drought-prone regions. In Plant Production and Management under Drought Conditions, 281–299 (Eds Stone, J. F. and Willis, W. O.). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludlow, M. M. & Muchow, R. C. (1988). Critical evaluation of the possibilities for modifying crops for high production per unit precipitation. In Drought Research Priorities for Dryland Tropics, 179–211 (Eds Bidinger, F. R. and Johansen, C.). Patancheru, AP: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT).Google Scholar
Muchow, R. C. & Sinclair, T. R. (1986). Water and nitrogen limitations in soybean grain production. II. Field and model analysis. Field Crops Research 15:143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penman, H. L. (1962). Woburn irrigation; 1951–59. II. Results for grass. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 4:9–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, R. A. (1982). Breeding and selecting for drought resistance in wheat. In Drought Resistance in Crops with Emphasis on Rice, 303–316. Los Banos: International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).Google Scholar
Saxena, M. C., Silim, S. N. & Singh, K. B. (1990). Effect of supplementary irrigation during reproductive growth on winter and spring chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in a Mediterranean environment. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 114:285–294.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. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 104:35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silim, S. N., Saxena, M. C. & Erskine, W. (1989). Effect of cutting height on the yield and straw quality of lentil and on a succeeding wheat crop. Field Crops Research 21:49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silim, S. N., Saxena, M. C. & Erskine, W. (1993). Adaptation of lentil to the Mediterranean environment. II. Response to moisture supply. Experimental Agriculture 29:21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. C. G. & Harris, H. C. (1981). Environmental resources and restraints to agricultural production in a Mediterranean-type environment. Plant and Soil 58:31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takeda, K. & Frey, K. J. (1976). Contributions of vegetative growth rate and harvest index to grain yield of progenies from Avena sativa × A. sterilis crosses. Crops Science 16:817–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wych, R. D., McGraw, R. L. & Stuthman, D. D. (1982). Genotype × year interaction for length and rate of grain filling in oats. Crop Science 22:1025–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar