Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:20:09.417Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth, development and yield of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) in the lowland tropics:2. Effect of reduced assimilatory capacity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

T. O. Tayo
T. O. Tayo
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Biology, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

In two field trials in 1980, 33, 67 or 100% of the leaves on pigeon pea (cv. Cita-1) plants were removed either at the vegetative stage, the onset of flowering, or at the rapid pod-filling stage, in order to evaluate the effect of reduced assimilatory capacity on the growth and yield characteristics of the crop.

Reduction in the assimilatory capacity of the plant led to significant reduction in the vegetative growth, dry-matter accumulation and seed yield of the defoliated plants compared with the undefoliated control such that 33, 67 or 100% defoliation led to 15–55, 40–60 and 75–80% reduction in seed yield respectively, at both trials. Also, defoliation was more damaging to crop performance if carried out from the onset of flowering than at the vegetative stage. Thus, the seed yields of plants defoliated at the onset of flowering and the rapid pod-filling stage were 30–80 and 40–45 % lower than the yield from plants defoliated at the vegetative stage in both trials.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 98 , Issue 1 , February 1982 , pp. 71 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

Egli, D. B. & Leggett, J. E. (1976). Rate of dry matter accumulation in soybean seeds with varying sourcesink ratios. Agronomy Journal 68, 371–374.Google Scholar
Hammerton, J. L. (1972). Effects of weed competition, defoliation and time of harvesting on soybeans. Experimental Agriculture 8, 333–338.Google Scholar
Hammerton, J. L. (1975). Effects of defoliation on pigeon peas Cajanus cajan L. Experimental Agriculture 11, 177–182.Google Scholar
Lockwood, J. L., Percich, J. A. & Maduewesi, J. N. C. (1977). Effect of leaf removal simulating pathogeninduced defoliation on soybean yield. Plant Disease Reporter 61, 458–462.Google Scholar
Poston, P. L. & Pedigo, L. P. (1976). Simulation of painted ludy and green cloverworm damage to soybeans. Journal of Economic Entomology 69, 423–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, K. A., Summerfield, R. J. & Ndunguru, B. J. (1978). Effects of source-sink manipulations on seed yield of cowpea (Vignaunguiculata (L.) Walp.). I. Defoliation. Tropical Agriculture 55, 117–125.Google Scholar
Tayo, T. O. (1982). Growth, development and yield of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.) in the lowland tropics. 1. Effect of plant population density. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 98, 65–69.Google Scholar
Thomas, G. D., Ignoffo, C. M. & Smith, D. B. (1976). Influence of defoliation and depodding on quality of soybeans. Journal of Economic Entomology 69, 737–740.Google Scholar
Turnipseed, S. G. (1972). Response of soybeans to foliage losses in South Carolina. Journal of Economic Entomology 65, 224–229.Google Scholar