Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:53:18.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of plant population and fertility level on yield and its components in two determinate cultivars of Phaseolus vulgaris(L.) Savi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. L. A. Leakey
C. L. A. Leakey
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Science, Makerere University, P.O. Box 7062, Kampala, Uganda(British Overseas Development Administration I Makerere drain Legume Project)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The biological and useful yield of Phaseolus vulgariscv. ‘Banja’ and cv. ‘Diacol Nima’ were compared when sown at populations, in row spacings, equivalent to 5–4–32–3 plants m~2, at four levels of fertility achieved by the use of zero, five, ten and 20 cwt ae-1 respectively of a fertilizer mixture containing by weight 2:2:1 calcium ammonium nitrate, single superphosphate and muriate of potash. Yield and its components were determined at final harvest. The two cultivars behaved generally similarly. Crop Index, while highest in the plants with no fertilizer, was more or less constant for each cultivar over a wide range of biological yields in those plants receiving fertilizer. Yield is determined to the extent of 85–7% and 86–1% respectively for 'Diacol Nima’ and ‘Banja’ by the product of pods/plant and plants surviving to harvest. High densities, although giving the highest grain yields, are wasteful of seed in that the percentage of plants surviving to contribute to yield is much reduced.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 79 , Issue 2 , October 1972 , pp. 259 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1972

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

Anon. (1964). Agricultural Production Programme1964, 24 pp. Govt. Printer, Entebbe, Uganda.Google Scholar
Burke, D. W. & Nelson, C. E. (1965). Effect cf rows and plant spacings on yields of dry beans in Fusarium infested and non-infested fields. Bulletin Washington Agric. Exp. Sta.no. 664, 6 pp.Google Scholar
Cardona, C., Camacho, L. H. & Orozco, S. H. (1969). Diacol Nima, variedad mejorada de frijol.Bol. de divulg. 8, 24 pp. Departamento de investigation, Palmira, Colombia.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. & Cox, G. M. (1957). Experimental Design, 2nd ed.611 pp. New York and London: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Duarte, R. A. (1967). Effect of leaf removal on yield and its components in field beans. Ann. Sept. Bean Improvement Cooperative 10, 11–13.Google Scholar
Enoeldow, F. L. & Wadham, S. M. (1924). Investigations on yield in cereals. I. Part 2. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 14, 287–324.Google Scholar
Froussios, G. (1970). Genetic diversity and agricultural potential in Phaseolus vulgaris 1L. Expl Agric. 6, 129–44.Google Scholar
Eck, W. A. Van (1970). Agro-meteorological data for Maherere University College Farm, Kabanyolo, Uganda1968 and1969, 51 pp. Meterological Bulletin No. 7, Makerere University.Google Scholar
Gritton, E. T. & Eastin, J. A. (1968). Response of peas (Pisum sativumL.) to plant population and spacing. Agron. J. 60, 482–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrop, J. F. (1962). In Atlas of Uganda. Uganda Govt. Printer, Entebbe.Google Scholar
Hodgson, G. L. & Blackman, H. E. (1956). An analysis of the influence of plant density on the growth of Viciafaba.1. The influence of density on the pattern of development.Google Scholar
Holliday, R. (1960). Plant population and crop yield. Fid Crop Abstr. 13, 1–16.Google Scholar
Holliday, R. (1966). Solar energy consumption in relation to crop yield. Agric. Prog. 41, 24–34.Google Scholar
Holliday, R. (1972). Agriculture, Development and Education. Inaugural lecture, Makerere University, Kampala.Google Scholar
Huxley, P. A. (1965). Climate and agriculture in Uganda. Expl Agric. 1, 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kambal, A.E. (1969). Components of yield in field beans (Vicia fabaL.). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 72, 359–63. Two determinate cultivars ofPhaseolus vulgaris (L.) Savi 267Google Scholar
Leakey, C. L. A. (1971). Ed. Crop Improvement in East Africa, 280 pp. C.A.B. Farnham Royal.Google Scholar
Leakey, C. L. A. & Simbwa-Bunnya, (1972). Races of Colletotrichum lindemuthianum(Sacc. & Magn.) Brio. & Cav. and implications for bean breeding in Uganda. Ann. appl. Biol. 70, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovett, J. V. & Kirby, E. J. M. (1971). The effect of plant population and CCC on spring wheat varieties with and without a dwarfing gene. J. agric. Sci., Oamb. 77, 499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macartney, J. C. (1964). A spacing trial on haricot boans. Report No. 83 of the Northern Region Research Centre, Tongoru, Tanzania (mimeo).Google Scholar
Manning, H. L. (1956). The statistical assessment of rainfall probability and its application in Uganda agriculture. Proc. R. Soc.B 144, 460–80.Google Scholar
Mascarenhas, H. A. A., Ique, T., Alves, S. & Viega, A. DE A. (1966)… Espacamento para feijao ‘Goiano Precoce'. Bragantia 52, Nota No. 11.Google Scholar
Meadley, J. T. & Milbourn, G. M. (1970). The growth of vining peas. 11. The effect of density of planting. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 74, 273–78.Google Scholar
Mukasa, S. K. (1965). Bean spacing trials in Uganda. Contrib. to 1 lth Meeting of the East African Specialist Committee for Agricultural Botany, Arusha, Tanzania (mimeo).Google Scholar
Ortega, S. Y. & Barrios, A. G. (1969). Sistema de sioniba on hiloras pares en caraota (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agronomia Trop. 18, 357–61.Google Scholar
Radwanski, S. A. (1960). The soils and land use of Buganda. Mem. Res. Dev. Ser. 1, no. 4. Uganda Dopt. Agric. (mimeo).Google Scholar
Robins, J. W. & Domingo, A. E. (1956). Moisture deficits in relation to the growth and development of dry beans. Agron. J. 48, 67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, P. J. (1963). Irrigation of peas – the effect of irrigation on the components of yield. A. Rep. Nat. Veg. Res. Stn Wellesbourne, pp. 43–4.Google Scholar
Salter, P. J. & Goode, J. E. (1967). Crop Responses to Water at Different Stages of Growth, 246 pp. C.A.B. Farnham Royal.Google Scholar
Stephens, D. (1967). The effects of ammonium sulphate and other fertilizer and inoculum treatments on beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). E. afr. agric. for. J. 32, 411–17.Google Scholar
Vieira, C. & Almeida, L. A. De (1965). Experimento de ospaQamento de semeadura do feijao (Phaseolus vulgarisL.). Rev. Ceres 12, 219–28.Google Scholar
Vieira, C. (1968). Efeitos da densidade de plantio sôbre a cultura do feijoeiro. Rev. Ceres 15, 44—53.Google Scholar
Vieira, C. & Gomez, F. R. (1968). Correlação entre o pèso da o das sementes, em variedades de feijao (Phaseolus vulgarisL.). Rev. Ceres 16, 81–7.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. H. & Munger, H. M. (1966). Studies on the physiological basis for yield differences 11. Variations in dry matter distribution among aerial organs for several dry bean varieties. Crop Sci. 6, 503–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, C. R., Shibles, R. M. & Byth, D. E. (1966). Effect of plant population and row spacing on soybean development and production. Agron. J. 58, 99–102.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. & Heath, S. B. (1969). The quantitative relationships between plant population and crop yield. Adv. Agron. 21, 281–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1935). Complex experiments. Jl R. Stat. Soc.Suppl. 2, 181–241.Google Scholar