Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T23:08:12.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses of Young Tea (Camellia sinensis) Clones to Drought and Temperature. II. Dry Matter Production and Partitioning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

P. J. Burgess  and
M. K. V. Carr
P. J. Burgess*
Affiliation:
Ngwazi Tea Research Unit, ℅ PO Box 4955, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania
M. K. V. Carr
Affiliation:
Department of Water Management, Silsoe College, Cranfield University, Silsoe, Bedfordshire, MK45 4DT, UK
*
‡ Address for Correspondence
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The physiological basis for differences in yields from well-watered and draughted plants of four contrasting clones of tea was studied in terms of light interception, dry matter production and partitioning at a high altitude site in Southern Tanzania where there are marked seasonal variations in rainfall and temperature. The plant dry weights, including roots, were measured eight months after field planting and subsequently at intervals of three to four months, corresponding to the different seasons, during the following two years. Fully irrigated plants of one clone (S15/10) were also harvested after four years in the field. Clones differed in the rates of canopy spread and hence in their capacity to intercept solar radiation. The ‘radiation use efficiency’ (the net total dry matter production per unit of intercepted short-wave radiation) was similar for the four well-watered clones and ranged from 0.40 to 0.66 g MJ−1, which corresponds closely to values reported for other woody tropical plants. A 16-week drought treatment imposed two years after planting reduced the mean light interception of the four clones by about 25% and the mean radiation use efficiency by 78% to 0.09 g MJ−1. Clone S15/10, a cultivar from Kenya which produces large yields, partitioned a greater proportion of dry matter to leaves and harvested shoots than the other clones, and correspondingly less to large structural roots. This resulted in a maximum harvest index of 24%, substantially greater than other values reported in the literature. There were seasonal differences in partitioning, with more dry matter being diverted to roots and less to shoots during the cool season. Although the drought treatments had no significant effect on root growth, the amount of dry matter partitioned to leaves, stems and harvested shoots declined by 80–95%. The roots of all four clones extended in depth at similar rates (about 2 mm d−1), those of Clone S15/10 reaching 2.8m after four years. The results are discussed in terms of appropriate field cultural practices and possible selection criteria for high yielding clones.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , October 1996 , pp. 377 - 394
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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

Azam-Ali, S. N., Simmonds, L. P., Rao, R. C. N. & Williams, J. H. (1989). Population, growth and water use of groundnut maintained on stored water. III. Dry matter, water use and light interception. Experimental Agriculture 25:77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, P. J. & 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. & Carr, M. K. V. (1996b). Responses ofyoung tea (Camellia sinensis) clones to drought and temperature III. Shoot extension and development. Experimental Agriculture. (In press.)Google Scholar
Cannell, M. G. R. (1985) Dry matter partitioning in tree crops. In Attributes of Trees as Crop Plants, 160–193 (Eds Cannell, M. G. R. and Jackson, J. E.). Huntingdon, England: Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.Google Scholar
Cannell, M. G. R., Milne, R., Sheppard, L. J. & Unsworth, M. H. (1987). Radiation interception and productivity of willow. Journal of Applied Ecology 24:261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, M. K. V. (1971) An assessment of some results of tea–soil–water studies in Southern Tanzania. In Water and the Tea Plant, 21–48 (Eds Carr, M. K. V. and Susan, Carr). Kericho, Kenya: Tea Research Institute of East Africa.Google Scholar
Chamuah, G. S. (1988). The effect of nitrogen on root growth and nutrient uptake of young tea plants (Camellia sinensis L.) grown in sand culture. Fertilizer Research 16:59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charles-Edwards, D. A. (1982). Physiological Determinants of Crop Growth. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cloughley, J. B., Grice, W. J. & Ellis, R. T. (1983). Effects of harvesting policy and nitrogen application rates on the production of tea in central Africa. I: Yield and crop distribution. Experimental Agriculture 19:33–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corlcy, R. H. V. (1983). Potential productivity of tropical perennial crops. Experimental Agriculture 19:217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corley, R. H. V., Gray, B. S. & Ng, S. K. (1971). Productivity of the oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) in Malaysia. Experimental Agriculture 7:129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fordham, R. (1972). Observations on the growth of roots and shoots of tea (Camellia sinensis L.) in Southern Malawi. Journal of Horticultural Science 47:221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadfield, W. (1974). Shade in north-east Indian tea plantations. II: Foliar illumination and canopy characteristics. Journal of Applied Ecology 11:179–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herd, Elizabeth M. & Squire, G. R. (1976). Observations on the winter dormancy of tea (Camellia sinensis L.) in Malawi. Journal of Horticultural Science 51:267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J. E. & Palmer, J. W. (1979). A simple model of light transmission and interception by discontinuous canopies. Annals of Botany 44:381–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kulasegaram, S. & Kathiravetpillai, A. (1976). Effect of shade and water supply on growth and apical dominance in tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze). Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 53:161–172.Google Scholar
Magambo, M. J. S. & Cannell, M. G. R. (1981). Dry matter production and partitioning in relation to yield of tea. Experimental Agriculture 17:33–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manivel, L. & Hussain, S. (1982). Photosynthesis in tea II: Direction of movement of photosynthates. Two and a Bud 29:49–52.Google Scholar
Murty, R. S. R. & Sharma, V. S. (1986). Canopy architecture in tea (Camellia L. spp). Journal of Plantation Crops 14:119–125.Google Scholar
Ng'etich, W. K. (1995). Evaluation of she Responses of Some Tea Clones to Environment in Kenya. PhD thesis, Silsoe College, Cranfield University, UK.Google Scholar
Nyirenda, H. E. (1990). Root growth characteristics, and rootstock vigour in tea (Camellia sinensis). Journal of Horticultural Science 65:461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Othieno, C. O. (1982). Supplementary irrigation of young clonal tea in Kenya. III: Comparative dry matter production and partition. Tea 3(1): 15–25.Google Scholar
Pethiyagoda, V. & Ragendram, N. S. (1965). The determination of leaf areas in tea. Tea Quarterly 36:48–58.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K., Jaggard, K. W. & Sylvester-Bradley, R. (1994). Resource capture by arable crops. In Resource Capture by Crops, 279–302 (Eds Monteith, J. L., Scott, R. K. and Unsworth, M. H.). Nottingham: Nottingham University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, B. G., Burgess, P. J. & Carr, M. K. V. (1994). Effects of clone and irrigation on the stomatal conductance and photosynthetic rate of tea (Camellia sinensis). Experimental Agriculture 30:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. G., Stephens, W., Burgess, P. J. & Carr, M. K. V. (1993). Effects of light, temperature, irrigation and fertilizer on photosynthetic rate in tea (Camellia sinensis). Experimental Agriculture 29:291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Squire, G. R. (1985). Ten years of tea physiology. Tea 6:43–48.Google Scholar
Squire, G. R. (1990). The Physiology of Tropical Crop Production. Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
Stephens, W. & 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
Stephens, W. & Carr, M. K. V. (1991). Responses of tea (Camellia sinensis) to irrigation and fertilizer. I. Yield. Experimental Agriculture 27:177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanton, T. W. (1979). Some factors limiting yields of tea (Camellia sinensis). Experimental Agriculture 15:187–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanton, T. W. (1982). Environmental factors affecting the yield of tea (Camellia sinensis). I. Effects of air temperature. Experimental Agriculture 18:47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar