Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-27T08:49:31.393Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Clone and Irrigation on the Stomatal Conductance and Photosynthetic Rate of Tea (Camellia sinensis)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

B. Gail Smith ,
Paul J. Burgess  and
M. K. V. Carr
B. Gail Smith
Affiliation:
Unilever Plantations, Plant Breeding International (Cambridge), Maris Lane, Trumpington, Cambridge CB2 2LQ, England
Paul J. Burgess
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Water Management, Silsoe College (Cranfield University), Silsoe, Bedford, MK45 4DT, England Ngwazi Tea Research Unit, Mufindi, c/o PO Box 4955, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania
M. K. V. Carr
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Water Management, Silsoe College (Cranfield University), Silsoe, Bedford, MK45 4DT, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Stomatal conductances (g) and photosynthetic rates (A) were monitored in six tea clones planted in a clone X irrigation experiment in the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Measurements were made during the warm dry seasons of 1989 and 1990. There was no genotype X treatment interaction in the response in A or g of the various clones to irrigation. Irrigation increased A more than it increased g. Irrigation also increased the temperature optimum for photosynthesis and decreased photo-inhibition at high illuminance. Clones differed in g and A, and in the relationship between leaf temperature and A. The implications of these findings for clone selection are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 1994 , pp. 1 - 16
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

arap Rono, J. K., Kenduyiwa, J. & Corley, R. H. V. (1991). Clone X environment interactions in tea. Paper presented at Workshop on Genotype X Environment Interactions in Perennial Crops, Kuala Lumpur, 12–13 September, 1991.Google Scholar
Barua, D. N. (1961). Shoot production in cultivated tea (Camellia sinensis L.). II. The branch system. Phytomorphology 11:98–109.Google Scholar
Barua, D. N. & Sharma, P. C. (1962). Effect of leaf pose and shade on yield of cultivated tea. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 52:653–656.Google Scholar
Burgess, P. J. (1992). Responses of Tea Clones to Drought in Southern Tanzania. PhD Thesis, Silsoe College (Cranfield Institute of Technology), England.Google Scholar
Carr, M. K. V. (1971). The internal water status of the tea plant (Camellia sinensis): Some results illustrating the use of the pressure chamber technique. Agricultural Meteorology 9:447–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, M. K. V. (1977 a). Changes in the water status of tea clones during dry weather in Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89:297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, M. K. V. (1977 b). Responses of seedling tea bushes and their clones to water stress. Experimental Agriculture 13:317–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
El-Sharkawi, Mabrouk A., Cock, J. H. & Held, A. (1984). Water Use Efficiency of cassava. II. Differing sensitivity of stomata to air humidity in cassava and other warm-climate species. Crop Science 24:503–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, M. J. (1962). Report of the Tea Research Institute of East Africa, 1962, 12–15.Google Scholar
Green, M. J. (1971). An evaluation of some criteria used in selecting large-yielding tea clones. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 76:143–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadfield, W. (1968). Leaf temperature, leaf pose and productivity of a tea bush. Nature 219:282–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handique, A. C. & Manival, L. (1986). Shoot water potential in tea II. Screening Toklai cultivars for drought tolerance. Two and a Bud 33:39–42.Google Scholar
Hanks, R. J., Keller, J., Ramussen, V. P. & Wilson, G. D. (1976). Line source sprinkler for continuously variable irrigation-crop production studies. Soil Science Society of America Journal 44:89–92.Google Scholar
Nagarajah, S. (1979). Differences in cuticular resistance in relation to transpiration in tea (Camellia sinensis). Physiologia Plantarnm 46:89–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagarajah, S. & Ratnasuriya, G. B. (1981). Clonal variability in root growth and drought resistance in tea (Camellia sinensis). Plant and Soil 60:153–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyirenda, H. E. (1989). Effectiveness ofassessment of vigour and productivity in young vs old bushes and mature clones of tea (Camellia sinensis). Annals of Applied Biology 115:327–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyirenda, H. E. (1991). Use of growth measurements and foliar nutrient content as criteria for clonal selection in tea. Experimental Agriculture 27:47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyirenda, H. E. & Grice, W.J. (1990). TRF(CA) recommended clones. In Tea Planters Handbook, Section 2. 2:1–5. Mulanje, Malawi: Tea Research Foundation (Central Africa).Google Scholar
Othieno, C. O. (1978). Supplementary irrigation of young clonal tea in Kenya II. Internal water status. Experimental Agriculture 14:309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Othieno, C. O. (1979). Shoot/root ratios and yields of clonai tea. Tea in East Africa 19:6–7.Google Scholar
Othieno, C. O. (1982). Supplementary irrigation of young clonai tea in Kenya III. Comparative dry matter production and partition. Tea in East Africa 3:15–25.Google Scholar
Oyama, C. A. (1992). The golden clone in a golden field. Tea 13 (in press).Google Scholar
Pochet, P. & Flemal, J. (1982). Relationship between leaf anatomy and yield in tea. Café Cacao Thé 26:161–182.Google Scholar
Renard, C., Flémal, J. & Barampama, D. (1979). Évaluation de la résistance à la sécheresse chez le théier ai Burundi. Café Cacao Thé 23:175–181.Google Scholar
Saikia, D. N. & Dey, S. K. (1984). Leaf-water potential and stomatal resistance of tea leaf as influenced by soil moisture and potash application. Indian journal of Agricultural Science 54:727–732.Google Scholar
Schulze, E. D. (1986). Carbon dioxide and water vapour exchange in response to drought in the atmosphere and in the soil. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 37:247–274.Google Scholar
Smith, B. G. (1989). The effect of soil water and atmospheric vapour pressure deficit on stomatal behaviour and photosynthesis in the oil palm. journal of Experimental Botany 40:647–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. G., Stephens, William, Burgess, P. J. & Carr, M. K. V. (1993). Effects of light, temperature, irrigation and fertiliser on the photosynthetic rate of tea. Experimental Agriculture 29:291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, G. R. (1985). Ten years of tea physiology. Tea 6:431–48.Google Scholar
Stephens, William & Carr, M. K. V. (1991 a). Responses of tea to irrigation and fertiliser. I. Yield. Experimental Agriculture 27:177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, William & Carr, M. K. V. (1991 b). Responses of tea to irrigation and fertiliser. II. Water Use. Experimental Agriculture 27:193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tardieu, F. & Davies, W. J. (1992). Stomatal response to abscisic acid is a function of current plant water status. Plant Physiology 98:540–545.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wight, W. & Barua, D. N. (1954). Calcium oxalate crystals as an indicator of nutrient balance in the tea plant (Camellia sinensis). Current Science 23:78–79.Google Scholar
Zeigler, H. (1986). Stomatal evolution. In Stomatal Function (Eds Zeigler, E., Farquhar, G. D. and Cowan, I. R.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar