Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:17:47.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intercepted radiation and yield 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 were grown in 1984/85, 1985/86 and 1988/89 in Canterbury, New Zealand. Results showed that lentil canopies were capable of intercepting a maximum of 95% of incident solar radiation at a leaf area index of 7. Autumn sowings attained canopy closure, but late spring sowings did not. At the highest population density used (500 plants/m2), only 65% of incident solar radiation was intercepted by a late spring-sown crop. In all three growing seasons there was a highly significant positive relationship between cumulative absorbed radiation and dry matter (DM) production. Over all seasons, 1·6 g DM/m2 was produced per MJ of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). The final utilization coefficient (u) was not affected by sowing date but in a late-sown, diseased crop, u was 38% less than in a disease free crop. In 1984/85, dryland crops had a utilization coefficient of 1·39 while irrigated crops had a u of 1·54. Growth efficiency of lentils was low, at 2·5%.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 117 , Issue 3 , December 1991 , pp. 339 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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

Allen, E. J. & Scott, R. K. (1980). An analysis of growth of the potato crop. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 583–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyes, J. S. (1970). Differing sensitivity of photosynthesis to low leaf water potentials in corn and soybean. Plant Physiology 46, 236–239.Google Scholar
El-Nadi, A. H. (1969). Water relations of beans. I. Effects of water stress on growth and flowering. Experimental Agriculture 5, 195–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasheun, A. & Dennett, M. D. (1982). Interception of radiation and growth efficiency in field beans (Vicia faba L.). Agricultural Meteorology 26, 221–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, J. N. & Biscoe, P. V. (1978). Radiation absorption, growth and yield of cereals. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernandez, L. G. (1986). Study of the agronomy of chickpea (Ciccr arietinum) in Canterbury. PhD thesis, Lincoln College, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Hipps, L. E., Asrar, G. & Kanemasu, E. T. (1983). Assessing the interception of photosynthetically active radiation in winter wheat. Agricultural Meteorology 28, 253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffman, G. J., Rawlins, S. L., Garber, M. J. & Cullen, E. M. (1971). Water relations and growth of cotton as influenced by salinity and relative humidity. Agronomy Journal 63, 822–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, G., Keatinge, J. D. H. & Scott, S. P. (1981). Pigeon pea as a dry season crop in Trinidad, West Indies. II. Interception and utilization of solar radiation. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 58, 191–199.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). 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
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. (1990). Growth, yield and water use of lentils (Lens culinaris) in Canterbury, New Zealand. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 114, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, B. A., Leiffering, M. & Hill, G. D. (1990). A preliminary investigation into root-shoot growth relationships of lentils (Lens culinaris Medik.). Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand 20.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1977). Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, B281, 277–294.Google Scholar
New Zealand Soil Bureau (1954). Soils of the downs and plains of Canterbury and Otago. SB 686L. Sheet 2. Wellington, New Zealand: DSIR.Google Scholar
Pyke, K. A. & Hedley, C. L. (1985). Growth and photosynthesis of different pea phenotypes. In The Pea Crop, A Basis for Improvement (Eds Hebblethwaite, P. D., Heath, M. C. & Dawkins, T. C. K.), pp. 297–305. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Scott, J. T. & Gallagher, J. N. (1985). An assessment of infra-red thermometry for scheduling irrigation of bean crops. Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand 15, 27–34.Google Scholar
Shibles, R. M. & Weber, C. R. (1965). Leaf area, solar radiation interception and dry matter production by soybeans. Crop Science 5, 575–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szeicz, G. (1965). A miniature tube solarimeter. Journal of Applied Ecology 2, 145–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szeicz, G. (1974). Solar radiation in crop canopies. Journal of Applied Ecology 11, 1117–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, W. A., Loomis, R. S. & Lepley, C. R. (1965). Vegetative growth of corn as affected by population density. I. Productivity in relation to interception of solar radiation. Crop Science 5, 211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. R., Jermyn, W. A. & Hanson, R. (1983). Lentil growth analysis. Lens Newsletter 10 (2), 17.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. W. (1960). Influence of spatial arrangement of foliage area on light interception and pasture growth. In Light Interception of Herbage Grasses. Proceedings of the 8th International Grassland Congress, 1960 (Ed. Skidmore, C. L.), pp. 275–279. Reading, UK: Alden Press.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 semileafless peas. Proceedings of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand 13, 95–102.Google Scholar