Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:35:41.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth, yield and water use of lentils (Lens culinaris) in Canterbury, New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

B. A. McKenzie  and
G. D. Hill
B. A. McKenzie
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand
G. D. Hill
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Lentils (Lens culinaris Medik.) were sown on eight sowing dates from April to November in two seasons in Canterbury, New Zealand. In 1984/85, six sowing dates were combined with two lentil cultivars (Olympic and Titore) and two irrigation treatments. In 1985/86, Titore was sown on two dates, with four irrigation treatments. An additional experiment grown under rain shelters examined the response of Titore to four irrigation regimes. The 1984/85 season was dry and rainfall was only 70% of the long-term mean. In this season, seed yield was high, 3·3 t/ha from the May sowing. The 1985/86 season was wetter than average and seed yields were lower, ranging from 0·6 to 1·5 t/ha. Under rain shelters, seed yield ranged from the equivalent of 0·32 to 2·5 t/ha.

Sowing date had the most marked effect on seed yield. In the 1984/85 season, all autumn and winter sowings yielded 2·4–3·3 t/ha, whereas the spring sowings yielded 0·5–1·5 t/ha. In 1985/86, unirrigated plots from the May sowing yielded 1·5 t/ha, whereas all other plots yielded c. 0·8 t/ha.

Generally, the small-seeded cultivar Titore outyielded Olympic. Dry matter (DM) accumulation followed similar trends to seed yield. Seasonal DM accumulation followed a sigmoidal curve. Functional growth analysis indicated that plants from autumn/winter sowings had a weighted mean absolute growth rate of 110–171 kg/ha per day, whereas spring-sown plants grew at 96–137 kg/ha per day. The maximum crop growth rate was 230 kg/ha per day in the July 1984 sowing.

There was little positive response to irrigation in both seasons. Under rain shelters, there was a linear increase in both dry matter and seed production with increased total water. Fully irrigated plants produced 1·27 g DM and 0·72 g seed/m2 per mm of water received.

In the field experiments there was no relationship between maximum potential soil moisture deficit (D) and yield. Under rain shelters, however, there was a linear relationship which indicated a limiting deficit of c. 130 mm. The relationship showed that, for each millimetre increase in D above D1, 0·39% of the maximum yield was lost.

Under the rain shelters, there was a strong relationship between yield and actual evapotranspiration (ET). Water-use efficiency (WUE) ranged from 2·81 g DM/m2 per mm ET in unirrigated plots to 0·69 g seed/m2 per mm ET.

The results showed that lentil growers in Canterbury, and presumably in similar environments, are unlikely to benefit from irrigating their crops. In such environments, lentils appear to be an ideal dryland crop.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 114 , Issue 3 , June 1990 , pp. 309 - 320
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Abdel-Rahman, K. A., Shalaby, E. M. & Abdullah, M. M. (1980). Seed yield and quality of lentils as affected by different sowing dates and irrigation frequency. Ain Shams University Research Bulletin No. 1234, 1–10. (Field Crops Abstracts 33, abstract 10338).Google Scholar
Attiya, H. J. (1985). The effects of plant population, growth regulators and irrigation on development and yield of spring-sown field beans (Vicia faba L.). PhD thesis, Lincoln College, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Australian Meteorological Department (1988). Station Data. Kununurra, Western Australia: Station 002014.Google Scholar
Bell, J. P. & McCulloch, J. (1983). Soil moisture content. In Guidebook on Nuclear Techniques in Hydrology, pp. 187–193. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency.Google Scholar
Doss, B. D., Pearson, R. W. & Rogers, H. T. (1974). Effect of soil stress at various growth stages on soybean yield. Agronomy Journal 66, 297–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Effendi, H., Hill, G. D. & Field, R. J. (in press). The effect of plant population and growth regulators on the yield of lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) cv. Olympic. Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand 19.Google Scholar
Erskine, W., (1983). Relationship between the yield of seed and straw in lentil. Field Crops Research 7, 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, B. K. & Legg, B. J. (1979). Rothamsted irrigation 1964–76. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 92, 15–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, J. N. & Robson, A. B. (1984). Fitting Growth Sigmoidal Curves Using MLP – an Interim Guide. Lincoln, New Zealand: Lincoln College.Google Scholar
Hawtin, G. C., Singh, K. B. & Saxena, M. C. (1980). Some recent developments in the understanding and improvement of Cicer and Lens. In Advances in Legume Science. (Eds Summerfield, R. J. & Bunting, A. H.), pp. 613–623. Proceedings of the International Legume Conference, Kew, 31 July–4 August 1978 1.Google Scholar
Herbert, S. J. & Hill, G. D. (1978). Plant density and irrigation studies on lupin. I. Growth analysis of Lupinus angustifolius WAU 11B. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 21, 467–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernandez, L. G. & Hill, G. D. (1985). Effect of sowing date and plant population on growth and yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand 15, 81–85.Google Scholar
Husain, M. M. (1984). The response of field bean (Vicia faba L.) to irrigation and sowing date. PhD thesis, Lincoln College, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Husain, M. M., Hill, G. D. & Gallagher, J. N. (1988 a). The response of field beans (Vicia faba L.) to irrigation and sowing date. 1. Yield and yield components. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 111, 221–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husain, M. M., Hill, G. D. & Gallagher, J. N. (1988 b). The response of field beans (Vicia faba L.) to irrigation and sowing date. 2. Growth and development in relation to yield. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 111, 233–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, P. D., Wilson, D. R. & Hanson, R. (1984). Analysis of responses of field peas to irrigation and sowing date. 2. Models of growth and water use. Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand 14, 75–81.Google Scholar
Jermyn, W. A., Goulden, D. S., Lancaster, I. M. & Banfield, R. A. (1981). Lentil evaluation in New Zealand. Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand 11, 77–81.Google Scholar
Krogman, K. K., McKenzie, R. C. & Hobbs, E. H. (1980). Response of faba bean yield, protein production, and water to irrigation. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 60, 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kumar, M., Pandey, R. K. & Saxena, M. C. (1977). Physiological analysis of variation in yield of lentil (Lens esculenta Moench). Pantnagar Journal of Research 2, 127–132.Google Scholar
McKenzie, B. A. (1987). The growth development and water use of lentils (Lens culinaris Medik.). PhD thesis, Lincoln College, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.Google Scholar
McKenzie, B. A. & Hill, G. D. (1989). Environmental control of lentil (Lens culinaris) crop development. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 113, 67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, B. A., Hill, G. D., White, J. G. H., Meijer, G., Nieuwenhuyse, A., Sikken, G. & Kausar, A. G. (1986). The effect of sowing date and population on yield of lentils (Lens culinaris Medik.). Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand 16, 29–33.Google Scholar
McKenzie, B. A., Miller, M. E. & Hill, G. D. (in press). The relationship between lentil crop population and weed biomass production in Canterbury. Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand.Google Scholar
McKenzie, B. A., Sherrell, C., GallagherJ, N. J, N. & Hill, G. D. (1985). Response of lentils to irrigation and sowing date. Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand 15, 47–50.Google Scholar
Mehrotra, O. N., Pal, M. & Singh, B. (1977). Note on the irrigation requirement of lentil varieties in relation to fertility. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 11, 125–126.Google Scholar
Murari, K. & Pandey, S. L. (1985). Influence of soil moisture regimes, straw mulching, and kaolin spray on yield-attributing characters, and correlation between yield and yield attributes in lentils. Lens Newsletter 12, 18–20.Google Scholar
New Zealand Soil Bureau (1967). Soils of the downs and plains of Canterbury and North Otago. S.B. 686L. Sheet 2. Wellington, New Zealand: DSIR.Google Scholar
Newton, S. D. & Hill, G. D. (1987). Response of field beans (Vicia faba L. cv. Maris Bead) to time of sowing, plant population, nitrogen and irrigation. New Zealand Journal of Experimental Agriculture 15, 411–418.Google Scholar
Pandey, R. K. (1980). Physiology of seed yield in lentil: growth and dry matter production. Legume Research 3, 7–11.Google Scholar
Penman, H. L. (1962). Woburn irrigation. 1951–1959. III. Results for rotation crops. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 58, 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penman, H. L. (1971). Irrigation at Woburn. VII. Rothamsted Experimental Station Report for 1970. Part 2, 147–170.Google Scholar
Ross, G. J. S., Jones, R. D., Kempton, R. A., Laukner, F. B., Payne, R. W., Hawkins, D. & White, R. B. (1979). MLP: Maximum Likelihood Program. Harpenden: Rothamsted Experimental Station.Google Scholar
Rothamsted Experimental Station (1980). Genstat–a general statistical package. Harpenden: Rothamsted Experimental Station.Google Scholar
Saxena, M. C., Murinda, M. V., Turk, M. & Trabulsi, N. (1983). Productivity and water-use of lentil as affected by date of sowing. Lens Newsletter 10, 28–29.Google Scholar
Saraf, C. S. & Baitha, S. P. (1979). Effect of varying soil moisture regimes and phosphorus levels on growth, yield and consumptive use of water by lentils planted on different dates under Delhi conditions. Lens Newsletter 6, 1–7.Google Scholar
Saraf, C. S. & Baitha, S. P. (1985). Water use patterns and water requirement of lentil planted on different dates. Lens Newsletter 12, 12–15.Google Scholar
Sharma, S. N. & Prasad, R. (1984). Effect of soil moisture regimes on the yield and water use of lentil (Lens culinaris Medic). Irrigation Science 5, 285–293.Google Scholar
Sherrell, C. P. A. (1986). The growth, yield and water use responses of lentils (Lens culinaris Medic.) to irrigation. M.Appl.Sc. thesis, Lincoln College, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Sinha, R. P. & Chowdhury, S. K. (1984). Late-sown lentil in Bihar, India. Lens Newsletter 11, 24–25.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J. (1981). Adaptation to environments. In Lentils (Eds Webb, C. & Hawtin, G.), pp. 91–110. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. R. (1985). The value of water for crop production. New Zealand Agricultural Science 19, 174–179.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. R., Jamieson, P. D. & Jermyn, W. A. (1981). Growth and water use of conventional and semi-leafless peas. Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand 11, 35–39.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. R., Jamieson, P. D., Jermyn, W. A. & Hanson, R. (1984). Models of growth and water use of field peas (Pisum sativum L.). In The Pea Crop: A Basis for Improvement. (Eds Hebblethwaite, P. D., Heath, M. C. & Dawkins, T. C. K.), pp. 139–151. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Zain, Z. M. (1984). The effect of irrigation on radiation absorption, water use efficiency and yield of commercial and semi-leafless peas. M.Agr.Sc. thesis. Lincoln College, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Zain, Z. M., Gallagher, J. N., White, J. G. H. & Reid, J. B. (1983). The effect of irrigation on radiation absorption, water use and yield of conventional and semi-leafless peas. Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand 13, 95–102.Google Scholar