Advertisement

Euphytica

, Volume 86, Issue 1, pp 31–40 | Cite as

Yield components, harvest index and plant type in relation to yield differences in field pea genotypes

  • Derrick Jan Moot
  • David Leslie McNeil
Article

Summary

The effectiveness of yield components, harvest index and morphological characteristics as selection criteria among four field pea (Pisum sativum L.) genotypes was examined. Genotypes were grown at a wide range of plant populations (9 to 400 plants m-2) to maximise environmental diversity.

Both biological and seed yields approximately doubled from 9 to 100 plants m-2. This response flattened from 100 to 400 plants m-2. Differences among the genotypes were found only at 225 and 400 plants m-2. Analysis of the yield components highlighted the plasticity and large genotype by environment interactions of field peas. The numbers of pods per plant and peas per pod were maximised when each genotype was grown as spaced plants, but the low plant numbers meant seed yields per unit area were at their lowest.

Genotypic differences for plant harvest index (PHI) were also only found at 225 and 400 plants m-2. Broad sense heritability estimates indicated that direct selection for PHI was not feasible. The inference from the yield component and PHI results was that alternative selection criteria such as physiological or morphological characteristics may be necessary for improved yield potential. Classification of each genotype indicated that low seedling vigour may be a positive attribute for crop plants of semi-leafless and conventionally leafed field peas. Selection based on any single plant attribute is unlikely to lead to dramatic improvements in the yield potential of field peas. Selection should be based on plant characteristics rather than on differences in yield components.

Key words

conventionally leafed field peas Pisum sativum harvest index semi-leafless stability analysis yield components 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, M.W., 1967. Basis of yield component compensation in crop plants with special reference to the field bean, Phaseolus vulgaris L. Crop Sci. 7: 505–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartlett, M.S., 1937. Some examples of statistical methods of research in agriculture and applied biology. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B 4: 137–170.Google Scholar
  3. Cochran, W.G. & G.M. Cox, 1957. Experimental designs. John Wiley and Sons Inc, New York. 611 p.Google Scholar
  4. Cousin, R., A. Messinger & Annie Vingere, 1985. Breeding for yield in combining peas. p. 115–129. In: P.D. Hebblethwaite, M.C. Heath & T.C.K. Dawkins (Eds). The Pea Crop—A Basis for Improvement, Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
  5. Donald, C.M., 1968. The breeding of crop ideotypes. Euphytica 17: 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Finlay, K.W. & Wilk Wilkinson, 1963. Analysis of adaptation in a breeding programme. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 14: 742–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ford, E.D. & P.J. Diggle, 1981. Competition for light in a plant monoculture modelled as a spatial stochastic process. Ann. Bot. 48: 481–500.Google Scholar
  8. Gordon, I.L., D.E. Buth & L.N. Balaam, 1972. Variance of hertabiliity ratios estimated from phenotypic variance components. Biometrics 28: 401–415.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heath, M.C., C.M. Knott, C.J. Dyer & D. Rogers-Lewis, 1991. Optimum plant densities for three semi-leafless combining pea (Pisum sativum) cultivars under contrasting field conditions. Ann. Appl. Biol. 118: 671–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hedley, C.L. & M.J. Ambrose, 1985. The application of plant physiology to the development of dried pea crop plants. Effect of plant interaction on crop harvest index. p. 95–104. In: P.D. Hebblethwaite, M.C. Heath & T.C.K. Dawkins (Eds). The Pea Crop—A Basis for Improvement. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
  11. Holliday, R., 1960. Plant population and crop yield: Part I. Field Crop Abstr. 13: 159–167.Google Scholar
  12. Jermyn, W.A., 1976. Genotypic and environmental variation in protein content in field peas. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sadkatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.Google Scholar
  13. Jermyn, W.A., 1984. Pea management and cultivar guide. Crop Res. Div., Dep. Sci. Ind. Res. NZ 95 5 p.Google Scholar
  14. Lamadji, S., 1991. Towards a breeding strategy for yield improvement in selected lines of hexaploid triticale (X. triticosecale Wittmack). Ph.D. Thesis, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  15. McNeil, D.L., 1991. Changes in yield components of Plantago ovata Forsk, in northern Western Australia in response to sowing date and sowing rate. Trop. Agric. (Trinidad) 68: 191–195.Google Scholar
  16. Meadley, J.T. & G.M. Milbourn, 1970. The growth of vining peas. II. The effect of density of planting. J. Agric. Sci. 74: 273–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moot, D.J., 1993. Harvest index variability within and between field pea (Pisum sativum L.) crops. Ph.D. Thesis, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  18. Moot, D.J., 1995. The influence of individual pea performance on yields of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) crops. IV. Practical implications of the principal axis model (PAM) for discriminating between crops and in the selection of field pea genotypes. Ann. Bot. (Submitted).Google Scholar
  19. Moot, D.J., D.L. McNeil & G.B. Love, 1995. The influence of individual pea performance on yields of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) crops. II. Theoretical analysis of yield using frequency distributions for individual growth parameters. Ann. Bot. (Submitted).Google Scholar
  20. Moot, D.J., D.L. McNeil & D.R. Wilson, 1995. The influence of individual pea performance on yield pf field pea (Pisum sativum L.) crops. I. Plant to plant variability within field pea crops. Ann. Bot. (Submitted).Google Scholar
  21. Petersen, R.G., 1985. Design and analysis of experiments. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, USA.Google Scholar
  22. Pilbeam, C.J., P.D. Hebblethwaite, H.E. Ricketts & T.E. Nyongeas, 1991. Effects of plant population density on determinate and indeterminate forms of winter field beans (Vicia faba) I. Yield and yield components. J. Agric. Sci. 116: 375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Samad, M.A., A.G. Fautrier & D.L. McNeil, 1989. Phenotypic stability of formation and abortion of reproductive organs and other yield factors in pea, and their value for genetic improvement. NZ J. Crop and Hort. Sci. 17: 129–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sedgley, R.H., 1991. An appraisal of the Donald ideotype after 21 years. Field Crops Res. 26: 93–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singh, R.K. & B.D. Chaundhary, 1985. Biometrical methods in quantitative genetic analysis. New Delhi: Kalyani Publishers.Google Scholar
  26. Snoad, B., 1985. The need for improved pea-crop plant ideotypes. p. 31–41. In: P.D. Habblethwaite, M.C. Heath & T.C.K. Dawkins (Eds). The Pea Crop—A Basis for Improvement. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
  27. Weiner, J., E.B. Mallory & C. Kennedy, 1990. Growth and variability in crowded and uncrowded populations of Dwarf Marigolds (Tagetes patula). Ann. Bot. 65: 513–524.Google Scholar
  28. White, J.G.H., 1987. The importance of peas in arable agriculture. p. 7–11. In: W.A. Jermyn & G.S. Wratt (Eds). Peas: Management for quality. Agronomy Society of New Zealand Special Publication No. 6.Google Scholar
  29. Wilson, D.R., P.D. Jamieson, W.A. Jermyn & R. Hanson, 1985. Models of growth and water use in field peas (Pisum sativum L.). p. 95–104. In: P.D. Hebblethwaite, M.D. Heath & T.C.K. Dawkins (Eds). The Pea Crop—A Basis for Improvement. Butterworths, London.Google Scholar
  30. Wilson, D.R., 1987. New approaches to understanding the growth and yield of pea crops. p. 23–28. In: W.A. Jermyn & G.S. Wratt (Eds). Peas: Management for quality. Agronomy Society of New Zealand Special Publication No. 6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Derrick Jan Moot
    • 1
  • David Leslie McNeil
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant ScienceLincoln UniversityCanterburyNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations