Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:36:54.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The physiological basis for mixing varieties and seed ‘ages’ in potato crops

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Lindsay Burstall  and
P. M. Harris
Lindsay Burstall
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, Reading University, Earley Gate, Reading, RO6 2AT
P. M. Harris
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, Reading University, Earley Gate, Reading, RO6 2AT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Three techniques designed to increase radiation interception, and thus yield, in potato crops by extending the duration of the crop canopy were investigated over a period of 2 years. These were: mixing contrasting varieties; mixing seed tubers of contrasting physiological ages of the same variety, and early planting with protection from frost.

The first technique was partially successful; increases in total tuber fresh weight of the mixture over either of its components grown alone were recorded but the mixtures generally did not have any advantage in terms of ware yield (40–80 mm tubers) and total yield advantages were found in only 1 year. The second technique was unsuccessful in both years with all seven varieties tested. The third technique was successful with the long-lived variety Cara; large advantages both in ware yield and total tuber dry weight yield were obtained under two irrigation regimes. No advantages from early planting were obtained with the shorter-lived variety King Edward.

Radiation interception was estimated for all treatments by means of relationships established between intercepted radiation and percentage ground cover. None of the three techniques increased radiation interception; the yield advantages obtained could be ascribed either to an increase in the proportion of assimilates allocated to tubers or possibly to improvements in the efficiency of use of intercepted radiation.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 106 , Issue 2 , April 1986 , pp. 411 - 418
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

Allen, E. J. & Scott, R. K. (1980). An analysis of growth of the potato crop. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 583–606.Google Scholar
Burstall, L. (1983). The physiological basis of intercropping in the potato. Ph.D. thesis, Reading University.Google Scholar
Burstall, L. & Harris, P. M. (1983). The estimation of percentage light interception from leaf area index and percentage ground cover in potatoes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100, 241–244.Google Scholar
Charles-Edwabds, D. E. (1982). Physiological Determinants of Crop Growth. Sydney: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, A. R. (1980). Studies on the growth, development and yield of pure and mixed crops of potato cultivars. Ph.D. thesis, Leeds University.Google Scholar
Dhillon, G. S. & Kler, D. S. (1981). Relation of shape of canopy to interception of radiation and yield of wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 97, 135–142.Google Scholar
Ismael, F. M. (1981). Water use of three potato varieties grown in monoculture and mixture. M.Sc. thesis, Reading University.Google Scholar
Khurana, S. C. & McLaren, J. S. (1982). The influence of leaf area, light interception and season on potato growth and yield. Potato Research 25, 329–342.Google Scholar
Littleton, E. J., Dennett, M. D., Monteith, J. L. & Elston, J. (1979). The growth and development of cowpeas (Vigna unguiculata) under tropical field conditions. 2. Accumulation and partition of dry weight. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 309–320.Google Scholar
Marshall, B. & Willey, R. W. (1983). Radiation interception and growth in an intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut. Field Crops Research 7, 141–160.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1977). Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, series B 281, 277–294.Google Scholar
Natarajan, M. & Willey, R. W. (1980). Sorghumpigeonpea intercropping and the effects of plant population density. 2. Resource use. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95, 59–65.Google Scholar
Schepers, A. & Sibma, L. (1976). Yield and dry matter content of early and late potatoes, as affected by monoculture and mixed cultures. Potato Research 19, 73–90.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K. & Wilcockson, S. J. (1978). Application of physiological and agronomic principles to the development of the potato industry. In The Potato Crop: the Scientific Basis for Improvement (ed. Harris, P. M.), pp. 678–704. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. (1980). Competition effects within mixed stands. In Opportunities for Increasing Crop Yields (ed. Hurd, R. G., Biscoe, P. V. and Dennis, C.) pp. 219–231. Boston, London, Melbourne: Pitman.Google Scholar
Volenec, J. J., Nguyen, H. T., Nelson, C. J. & Sleper, D. A. (1984), Potential for genetically modifying dark respiration of tall fescue leaves. Crop Science 24, 938–943.Google Scholar
Vorasoot, N. (1982). A biological study of the benefits of intercropping in England and India. Ph.D. thesis, Reading University.Google Scholar
Wilson, D. (1975). Variation in leaf respiration in relation to growth and photosynthesis of Lolium. Annals of Applied Biology 80, 323–338.Google Scholar
Wurr, D. C. E. (1978). ‘Seed’ tuber production and management. In The Potato Crop: the Scientific Basis for Improvement (ed. Harris, P. M.), pp. 327–364. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar