Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:16:52.045Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Water deficit during panicle development in pearl millet: yield compensation by tillers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

V. Mahalakshmi  and
F. R. Bidinger
V. Mahalakshmi
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru P.O., 502324 A.P., India
F. R. Bidinger
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru P.O., 502324 A.P., India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Water deficit during the panicle development stage reduced the grain yield of the main shoot panicle of pearl millet but this loss was compensated by increased grain yield of the tillers. The potential extent of compensation in grain yield components by tillers was investigated by removing the main shoot at panicle initiation (PI) and flowering stages respectively, for both irrigated and water-stressed plants. Grain yield loss by removal of the main shoot of plants at PI was fully compensated by tiller grain yield in both the irrigated and water-stressed plants. The compensation was, however, only partial when the main shoot was removed at flowering. The compensation for the grain yield loss in the main shoot due to either water stress or removal was through an increase in number of grains on the tillers. This increase was due to an increase in the number of productive tillers in the case of water stress and to both an increase in the number of productive tillers and an increase in the number of grains per panicle in the case of main shoot removal. This compensatory mechanism by tillers plays an important role in overcoming the effects of pre-flowering water stress damage to the main shoot.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 106 , Issue 1 , February 1986 , pp. 113 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Bidinger, F. R., Mahalakshmi, V., Talukdar, B. S. & Alagarswamy, G. (1982). Improvement of drought resistance in pearl millet. In Drought Resistance in Crops with Emphasis on Rice, pp. 357–375Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
Damptey, H. B., Coombe, B. G. & Aspinall, D. (1978 a). Water deficit and inflorescence development in Zea mays: the role of the developing tassel. Annals of Botany 42, 849–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damptey, H. B., Coombe, B. G. & Aspinall, D. (1978 b). Apical dominance, water deficit and axillary inflorescence growth in Zea mays: the role of abscisic acid. Annals of Botany 42, 1447–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1968). The breeding of crop ideotypes. Euphytica 17, 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eghabevba, P. N. (1977). Tiller number and millet grain productivity. Cereal Research Communications 5, 235–247.Google Scholar
Hanson, A. D. & Nelson, C. E. (1981). Water: adaptation of crops to drought-prone environments. In The Biology of Crop Productivity (ed. Carlson, P. S.), pp. 78–152. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Henson, I. E., Mahalakshmi, V., Bidinger, F. R. & Alagarswamy, G. (1981). Genotypic variation in pearl millet [Pennisetum americanum (L.) Leeke] in the ability to accumulate abscisic acid in response to water stress. Journal of Experimental Botany 32, 1211–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M. & Jones, H. G. (1977). The relations between the main shoot and tillers in barley plants. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahiri, A. N. (1978). Plant water relations as a basis for maximizing plant production in the arid areas. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy B 44, 344–356.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A. N. & Kharabanda, B. C. (1965). Studies of plant–water relationships: effects of moisture deficit at various developmental stages of bullrush millet. Proceedings of National Institute of Science, India B 31, 14–24.Google Scholar
Lahiri, A. N. & Kumar, V. (1966). Studies on plant water relationship. Further studies on drought mediated alterations in performance of bulrush millet. Proceedings of National Institute of Science, India B 32, 116–129.Google Scholar
Mahalakshmi, V. & Bidinger, F. R. (1985). Flowering response of pearl millet to water stress during panicle development. Annals of Applied Biology (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, D. C. (1968). For a better understanding of the growth and development of pennisetum millets. Agronomie Tropicale 23, 844–863.Google Scholar
Seetharama, N., Mahalakshmi, V., Bidinger, F. R. & Singh, Sardar (1982). Response of sorghum and millet crops to drought stress in semi-arid India. In International Symposium on Agrometeorology of Sorghum and Millet in Semi-Arid Tropics, pp. 159–175. Patancheru, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi Arid Tropics.Google Scholar
Turner, N. C. (1982). The role of shoot characteristics in drought resistance of crop plants. In Drought Resistance in Crops with Emphasis on Rice, pp. 115–134. Los Baños. Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
Wilson, G. L. & Whiteman, P. C. (1965). The influence of shoot removal on drought survival of sorghum. University of Queensland Papers 4, 223–229.Google Scholar