Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:38:19.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

PHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS OF YIELD VARIATION OF TEA (CAMELLIA SINENSIS) DURING DIFFERENT YEARS OF THE PRUNING CYCLE IN THE CENTRAL HIGHLANDS OF SRI LANKA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2009

W. A. J. M. DE COSTA ,
D. M. S. NAVARATNE  and
A. ANANDACOOMARASWAMY
W. A. J. M. DE COSTA*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya 20400, Sri Lanka Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya
D. M. S. NAVARATNE
Affiliation:
Postgraduate Institute of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya Tea Research Institute, Talawakelle, Sri Lanka
A. ANANDACOOMARASWAMY
Affiliation:
Tea Research Institute, Talawakelle, Sri Lanka
*
†Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The objective of this study was to elucidate the physiological basis of the significant yield decline that occurs during the fourth year of the pruning cycle of tea. Biomass partitioning, which was hypothesized to be a major factor in causing this yield decline, was measured by destructive harvests of entire tea bushes, in two contrasting, mature, field-grown tea cultivars (TRI 2025 and DT1) at the end of different years of the pruning cycle. In both cultivars, yield showed continuous increases from year 1 to 3, followed by reductions of 44% and 35% in TRI2025 and DT1 respectively in the fourth year. Patterns of biomass partitioning to roots, stems or branches did not correlate with the above yield variation whereas harvest index, canopy leaf area index and mature leaf dry weight showed variations which paralleled the yield variation. The fourth-year decline in harvest index was brought about by reductions in both shoot number per m2 and mean individual shoot weight, which indicate a reduction in sink strength. Both cultivars showed reductions in light-saturated photosynthetic rate of maintenance foliage during the second half of the pruning cycle, indicating reduced source capacity. Hence, a combined reduction of both sink strength and source capacity during the fourth year could have brought about the significant yield reduction in tea. A significant increase of root starch in the fourth year indicated a down-regulation of physiological activities of the bush towards the end of the pruning cycle. Mechanisms responsible for this down-regulation need to be elucidated by further research.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 45 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 429 - 450
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Alvim, P. de T. and Kozlowski, T. T. (1977). Ecophysiology of Tropical Crops. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anonymous (1986). Pruning. In Tea Growers Handbook, 4th Edn, 83–87. Kericho,: Tea Research Foundation of Kenya.Google Scholar
Anonymous (2001). Application of ergonomics to improve harvesting of tea, worker productivity, income and working conditions. Report of the Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka – 2000. Talawakelle: Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka.Google Scholar
Bore, J. K., Isutsa, D. K., Itulya, F. M. and Ng'etich, W. K. (2003). Effects of pruning time and resting period on total non-structural carbohydrates, regrowth and yield of tea (Camellia sinensis L.). Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 78: 272–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Botwright, T. L., Menary, R.C. and Brown, P. H. (1998). Photosynthesis and assimilate partitioning during rhythmic growth of green tea (Camellia sinensis var. sinensis). Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 73: 806–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, P. J. and Carr, M. K. V. (1993). Response of tea (Camellia sinensis) clones to drought. I. Yield, dry matter production and partitioning. Aspects of Applied Biology 34: 249–258.Google Scholar
Burgess, P. J. and Carr, M. K. V. (1996a). Responses of young tea (Camellia sinensis) clones to drought and temperature. I. Yield and yield distribution. Experimental Agriculture 32: 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, P. J. and Carr, M. K. V. (1996b). Responses of young tea (Camellia sinensis) clones to drought and temperature. II. Dry matter production and partitioning. Experimental Agriculture 32: 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, P. J., Carr, M. K. V., Mizambwa, F. C. S., Nixon, D. J., Lugusi, J. and Kimambo, E. I. (2006). Evaluation of simple hand-held mechanical systems for harvesting tea (Camellia sinensis). Experimental Agriculture 42: 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, M. K. V. and Stephens, W. (1992). Climate, weather and the yield of tea. In Tea: Cultivation to Consumption, 87–135. (Eds Willson, K. C. and Clifford, M. N.). London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dassanayake, A. R. and Hettiarachchi, L. S. K. (1999). Soils of the Up Country Wet Zone. In Soils of the Wet Zone of Sri Lanka: Morphology, Characterization and Classification, 122–137. (Eds Mapa, R. B., Somasiri, S. and Nagarajah, S.). Peradeniya: Soil Science Society of Sri Lanka.Google Scholar
De Costa, W. A. J. M., Mohotti, A. J. and Wijeratne, M. W. (2007). Ecophysiology of tea. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology 19: 299–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrar, J. F. (1992). The whole plant: carbon partitioning during development. In Carbon Partitioning: within and between organisms, 163–179. (Eds Pollock, C. J., Farrar, J. F. and Gordon, A. J.). Oxford: Bios Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
Fordham, R. and Palmer-Jones, R. W. (1977). Simulation of intraseasonal yield fluctuations of tea in Malawi. Experimental Agriculture 13: 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, W. J., Malenga, N. E. A. and Mkwaila, B. (1984). Pruning of mature seedling tea. Quarterly Newsletter, Tea Research Foundation (Central Africa) 86: 4–9.Google Scholar
Huxley, P. (1996). Biological factors affecting form and function in woody-non-woody plant mixtures. In Tree-Crop Interactions, 235–298. (Eds Ong, C. K. and Huxley, P.). Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
Kandiah, S. (1971). Studies on the physiology of pruning of tea. 1. Turnover of resources in relation to pruning. Tea Quarterly 42: 89–100.Google Scholar
Kandiah, S. (1975). Studies on the physiology of pruning of tea. 2. The effects of soil conservation and resting on recovery after pruning. Tea Quarterly 45: 7–15.Google Scholar
Kandiah, G. and Wimaladharma, S. (1978). Root-shoot interaction in the turnover of reserves in tea (Camellia sinensis L.) roots. Annals of Botany 42: 931–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandiah, G. and Wimaladharma, S. (1980). Studies on the physiology of pruning tea. 3. The implications of renovating ageing plants ‘rejuvenation’ pruning and infilling. Tea Quarterly 49: 13–19.Google Scholar
Kaptich, F. K. K. (1985). Effect of reduction pruning on tea yields in Kenya. Tea 6: 32–38.Google Scholar
Kulasegaram, S. (1986). Pruning. In Handbook on Tea, 82–86. (Eds Sivapalan, P., Kulasegaram, S. and Kathiravetpillai, A.). Talawakelle: Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka.Google Scholar
Jayakody, J. A. A. M. (1995). Optimum length of pruning cycle. In Proceedings of the 189th Meeting of the Experiment and Extension Forum, 9–12. Talawakelle: Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka.Google Scholar
Magambo, M. J. S. (1983). Dry matter production and partitioning in clonal tea (Camellia sinensis L.) in Kenya. PhD thesis, University of Nairobi.Google Scholar
Magambo, M. J. S. and Cannell, M. G. R. (1981). Dry matter production and partition in relation to yield of tea. Experimental Agriculture 17: 33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magambo, M. J. S. and Waithaka, K. (1985). The effect of pruning at different heights on yields, dry matter production and partitioning in clonal tea (Camellia sinensis) in Kenya. Experimental Agriculture 21: 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manivel, L. (1980). Time of pruning of tea bushes in relation to movement of photosynthates. Two and a Bud 27: 8–10.Google Scholar
Manivel, L. and Hussain, S. (1986). Relative sink capacity of developing tea shoots. Two and a Bud 33: 30–33.Google Scholar
Marcelis, L. F. M. (1996). Sink strength as a determinant of dry matter partitioning in the whole plant. Journal of Experimental Botany 47: 1281–1291.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCready, R. M., Guggolz, J., Silvievre, V. and Owen, H. S. (1950). Determination of starch and amylase. Analytical Chemistry 22: 1156–1158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murty, R. S. R. and Sharma, V. S. (1986). Canopy architecture in tea (Camellia L. spp.). Journal of Plantation Crops 14: 119–125.Google Scholar
Nagarajah, S. and Pethiyagoda, U. (1965). The influence of ‘lungs’ on carbohydrate reserves and growth of shoots. Tea Quarterly 36: 88–102.Google Scholar
Ng'Etich, W. K. and Stephens, W. (2001). Responses of tea to environment in Kenya. 2. Dry matter production and partitioning. Experimental Agriculture 37: 343–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ng'Etich, W. K., Stephens, W. and Othieno, C. O. (2001). Responses of tea to environment in Kenya. 3. Yield and yield distribution. Experimental Agriculture 37: 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panabokke, C. R. (1996). Soils and Agro-ecological Environments of Sri Lanka. Colombo: Natural Resources, Energy and Science Authority of Sri Lanka.Google Scholar
Selvendran, R. R. (1970). Changes in the composition of the xylem exudate of tea plants (Camellia sinensis L.) during recovery from pruning. Annals of Botany 34: 825–833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, G. R. (1990). The Physiology of Tropical Crop Production. Wallingford: C.A.B. International.Google Scholar
Stephens, W. and Carr, M. K. V. (1990). Seasonal and clonal differences in shoot extension rates and numbers in tea (Camellia sinensis). Experimental Agriculture 26: 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanton, T. W. (1979). Some factors limiting yields of tea (Camellia sinensis). Experimental Agriculture 15: 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanton, T. W. (1982). Environmental factors influencing the yield of tea (Camellia sinensis). I. Effects of air temperature. Experimental Agriculture 18: 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tubbs, F. R. (1937). On the growth and carbohydrate supply of the tea plant after pruning. Journal of Pomology 14: 317–346.Google Scholar
van Noordwijk, M., Lawson, G., Soumaré, A., Groot, J. J. R. and Hairiah, K. (1996). Root distribution of trees and crops: competition and/or complementarity. In Tree-Crop Interactions, 319–364. (Eds Ong, C. K. and Huxley, P.). Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
Wijeratne, M. W. (1994). Effect of climatic factors on the growth of tea (Camellia sinensis L.) in the low country wet zone of Sri Lanka. PhD thesis, Wye College, University of London.Google Scholar
Wijeratne, M. W. (2001). Shoot Growth and Harvesting of Tea. Talawakelle: Tea Research Institute of Sri Lanka.Google Scholar
Willson, K. C. (1992). Field Operations: 2. In Tea: Cultivation to Consumption, 227–267. (Eds. Willson, K. C. and Clifford, M. N.). London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar