Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:49:42.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of leaf and flower removal on seed yield of lentil [Lens esculenta(L.)]

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. K. Pandey
R. K. Pandey
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Field studies were carried out to determine the sources of photosynthate for developing pods and to assess the effect of defoliation and flower removal at different stages on the performance of lentil. The leaves of flowering nodes were the primary source of assimilate to pods. Removal of 25–75% of leaves reduced seed yield by varying degrees depending on crop growth stage. The plants compensated for the loss of foliage to some extent, possibly through increased efficiency of the remaining leaves. One complete or 50% defoliation reduced seed yield to different extents at the vegetative, flowering, early pod formation and late pod formation stages, the greatest effect being seen at flowering and early pod formation. Plants compensated considerably by production of new leaves when defoliated at the vegetative phase. Increased moisture supply greatly enhanced the compensation ability of the lentil plants.

Removal of all flowers up to 1–2 weeks after an thesis under unirrigated conditions and up to 3 weeks after anthesis in irrigated conditions did not adversely affect the seed yield. Flower removal beyond this period resulted in a significant reduction in seed yield. Little seed yield was obtained when flower removal was continued for either 6 or 8 weeks under unirrigated conditions. The plants compensated for the loss of earlier-formed flowers by setting pods from later-formed flowers. Compensation was greatly enhanced when the crop was irrigated during the reproductive phase. There was relatively little or no effect of the deflowering treatments on the number of seeds per pod or weight per seed. The flowering period of the deflowered plants was extended and their senescence was delayed. When 25% of the flowers were removed at different intervals during the reproductive phase, seed yield was not adversely affected. An increased intensity of flower removal decreased yield but the decrease was not proportional to the degree of flower removal. The plants apparently compensated by setting new pods.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 100 , Issue 2 , April 1983 , pp. 493 - 503
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Egli, D. B. & Leggett, J. E. (1976). Rate of dry matter accumulation in soybean seeds with varying source and sink relations. Agronomy Journal 68, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezedinma, F. O. C. (1973). Effects of defoliation and topping on semi-upright cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) in a humid tropical environment. Experimental Agriculture 9, 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, W. R., Lawrence, B. K. & Thompson, T. A. (1981). Critical stages of development for defoliation of soybean. Crop Science 21, 259–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammerton, J. L. (1975). Effects of defoliation on pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan). Experimental Agriculture 11, 177–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, D. R. & Pendleton, J. W. (1969). Effect of floral bud removal on performance of soybeans. Crop Science 9, 435–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, P. A. & Summerfield, R. J. (1976). Leaf area manipulation with vegetative cowpea plants (Vignaunguiculata (L.) Walp.). Journal of Experimental Botany 27, 1223–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAllister, D. F. & Traber, D. A. (1958). Response of soybeans to leaf and pod removal. Agronomy Journal 11, 674–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NDunguru, B. J., Summerfield, R. J. & Stewart, K. A. (1978). Effect of source-sink manipulation on seed yield of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L.) Walp.). II. Depodding. Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad 55, 297–305.Google Scholar
Ojehomon, O. O. (1970). Effect of continuous removal of open flowers on the seed yield of two varieties of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 74, 357–381.Google Scholar
Pandey, R. K. (1979). Physiology of yield of lentil and utilization of 14C assimilate. Legume Research 2, 73–78.Google Scholar
Sheldrake, A. R., Narayanan, A. & Venkataratnam, M. (1979). The effects of flower removal on the seed yield of pigeon peas (Cajanus cajan). Annals of Applied Biology 91, 383–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, B. K. & Pandey, R. K. (1980). Production and distribution of assimilate in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 7, 727–735.Google Scholar
Stewart, K. A., Summerfield, R. J. & NDeunguru, B. J. (1978). Effect of source-sink manipulation on seed yield of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata(L.) Walp.). I. Defoliation. Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad 55, 117–125.Google Scholar
Tayo, T. O. (1979). Effect of flower or pod removal on the performance of soybeans (Olycine maxL.). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Steveninck, R. F. M. (1957) Factors affecting the abscission of reproductive organs in yellow lupins (Lupinus luteus L.). I. The effects of different patterns of flower removal. Journal of Experimental Botany 9, 373–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wein, H. C. (1975). Legume physiology. In Grain Legume Improvement Program. In-House Report (1974), pp. 101–110. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria.Google Scholar
Wein, H. C. & Tayo, T. O. (1978). The effect of defoliation and removal of reproductive structures on growth and yield of tropical grain legumes. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Pests of Grain Legumes, International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nigeria.Google Scholar