Advertisement

Plant and Soil

, Volume 81, Issue 1, pp 119–132 | Cite as

The response of sorghum and sunflower to short-term waterlogging

I. Effects of stage of development and duration of waterlogging on growth and yield
  • P. W. Orchard
  • R. S. Jessop
Article

Summary

The effect of waterlogging on sunflower and sorghum was investigated in relation to stage of development (sunflower-6-leaf, buds-visible, anthesis; sorghum-5-leaf, initiation, anthesis) and duration of waterlogging (3, 6 and 9 days) under glasshouse conditions. Additionally, the potential adaptation of the two crops was observed by waterlogging some plants at all three growth stages. With sunflower, leaf expansion and stem extension were inhibited by waterlogging at the 6-leaf and buds-visible stage although these effects did not always persist until maturity while, with anthesis waterlogging, rapid desiccation of leaves was observed. Yield was most affected by the anthesis waterlogging but no consistent effect on seed number or 1000 seed weight was recorded.

Waterlogging sorghum plants suppressed normal tillering but had little effect on dry weight of the main stem. Late tillering was stimulated by waterlogging. Reductions in leaf area occurred at all stages of development in response to waterlogging with these effects being more marked at initiation. Similarly, yield was most reduced by the initiation waterlogging largely as a result of reduced seed number.

In neither species was there a clear relationship between duration of waterlogging and subsequent reduction in growth and yield. With respect to yield, stage of development seemed to be of greater importance than the duration of waterlogging. The growth and yield of multiple-waterlogged sunflowers was less affected by the anthesis treatment than that in plants experiencing a single waterlogging, suggesting that some form of adaptation was induced. In contrast, no such response was seen in sorghum.

Key words

Duration of waterlogging Leaf area Plant height Sorghum Sunflower Yield 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Burrows W J and Carr D J 1969 Effects of flooding the root system of sunflower plants on the cytokinin content of the xylem sap. Physiol. Plant. 22, 1105–1112.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cannell R Q 1977 Soil aeration and compaction in relation to root growth and soil management. Appl. Biol. 2, 1–86.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carr D J and Reid D M 1968 The physiological significance of the synthesis of hormones in roots and of their export to the shoots.In Biochemistry and Physiology of Plant Growth Substances, Eds. F Wightman and G Setterfield, Runge Press, Hawaii, pp 1169–118.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cornish P S 1979 Effects of the soil physical environment on root development of two perennial grasses. Ph. D. Thesis, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    English S D 1977 Light interception, photosynthesis and development of sunflower. Ph. D. Thesis, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Finn B J, Bourget S J, Nielson K F and Dow B K 1961 Effects of different soil moisture tensions on grass and legume species. Can. J. Soil Sci. 41, 16–23.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Francis C M and Poole M L 1973 Effect of waterlogging on the growth of annual Medicago species. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 13, 711–713.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gilbert W B and Chamblee D S 1965 Effect of submersion on water in tall fescue, orchardgrass and ladino clover. Agron. J. 57, 502–504.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heinrichs D H 1970 Flooding tolerance of legumes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 50, 435–438.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hoveland C S and Donelly E D 1966 Response of Vicia genotypes to flooding. Agron. J. 58, 342–345.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Howell T A, Hilder E A and Zolezzi O 1976 Grain sorghum response to inundation at three growth stages. Trans. ASAE 19, 876–880.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jackson M B 1979 Rapid injury to peas by soil waterlogging. J. Sci. Food Agric. 30, 143–152.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kawase M 1978 Aerenchyma formation: How plants adapt to waterlogging. Ohio Rep. 63, Ohio Ag. Res. Dev. Center Wooster Ohio pp 14–15.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leyshon A J and Sheard R W 1978 Growth and yield of barley in flooded soil: ethylene generation and Eh relationships. Can. J. Soil Sci. 58, 346–355.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Orchard P W 1976 The potential use of chlormequat in sunflower cropping. M. Sc. Ag. Thesis, University of New England, Armidale Australia.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reid D M, Crozier A and Harvey B M R 1969 The effects of flooding on the export of gibberellins from the root to the shoot. Planta Berlin 89, 376–379.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Russell M B 1959 Water and its relation to soils and crops. Adv. Agron. 11, 1–131.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wample R L and Reid D M 1978 Control of adventitious root production and hypocotyl hypertrophy of sunflower (Helianthus annuus) in response to flooding. Physiol. Plant 44, 351–358.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wright G C 1981 Adaptation of grain sorghum to drought stress. Ph. D. Thesis, University of New England, Armidale, Australia.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff/Dr W. Junk Publishers 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. W. Orchard
    • 1
  • R. S. Jessop
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agronomy and Soil ScienceUniversity of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia

Personalised recommendations