Role of physiology in pulse crop improvement: a plant breeding perspective

  • A. E. Slinkard
  • J. S. Sindhu
Chapter
Part of the Current Plant Science and Biotechnology in Agriculture book series (PSBA, volume 5)

Abstract

Traditional plant breeders seek to exploit repeatable (heritable) variations in economic traits, whereas traditional plant physiologists attempt to determine the underlying causes of these repeatable variations. Historically, plant breeders have prided themselves on their independence; occasionally, they have called upon physiologists, pathologists and chemists to assist in a service capacity — such as with the screening for stress tolerance, disease resistance, or improved product quality. However, plant breeders can no longer afford this ‘luxury’. Instead, a multidisciplinary team is required to plan, organize and conduct a modern plant breeding programme. This team approach to crop improvement is slowly being adopted throughout the world.

Keywords

Nitrogen Fixation Yield Component Harvest Index Pulse Crop Crop Physiologist 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Adams, M. W. (1967). Crop Science 7: 505–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, M. W. (1973). In Potentials of Field Beans and Other Food Legumes in Latin America, pp. 266–278. OAT Seminar Series No. 2E, Cali, Colombia.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, M. W. (1982). Iowa State Journal of Research 56: 225–254.Google Scholar
  4. Atkins, I. M. and Norris, M. J. (1955). Agronomy Journal 47: 218–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bingefors, S., Johansson, N. and Rydberg, I. (1986). In Svalof 1886–1986: Research and Results in Plant Breeding (Ed. G. Olsson), pp. 185–195. LTs forlag, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  6. Boyer, J. S. (1982). Science 218: 443–448.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, A. W. A., Byerly, T. C, Gibbs, M. and San Pietro, A. (eds) (1975). Crop Productivity — Research Imperatives. C. F. Kettering Foundation, Yellow Springs, Ohio.Google Scholar
  8. Donald, C. M. (1968). Euphytica 17: 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donald, C. M. and Hamblin, J. (1966). Advances in Agronomy 18: 361–405.Google Scholar
  10. Evans, L. T. (1980). American Scientist 68: 388–397.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, L. T. (1984). In Gene Manipulation in Plant Improvement (Ed. J. P. Gustafson), pp. 121–146. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grafius, J. E. (1965). Michigan State University Agriculture Experiment Station Research Bulletin No. 7. 59 pp.Google Scholar
  13. Hedley, C. L. and Ambrose, M. J. (1981). Advances in Agronomy 34: 225–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heichel, G. H. (1982). Iowa State Journal of Research 56: 255–280.Google Scholar
  15. Khanna, R. and Sinha, S. K. (1974). Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 34A: 1041–1047.Google Scholar
  16. Mahon, J. D. (1982). Canadian Journal of Plant Science 62: 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nooden, L. D., Kahanak, G. M. and Okatan, Y. (1979). Science 206: 841–843.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pandey, R. K. and Saxena, M. C. (1974). Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 34A: 1012–1015.Google Scholar
  19. Passioura, J. B. (1980). In Wheat Science — Today and Tomorrow (Eds L. T. Evans and W. J. Peacock), pp. 191–201. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Pate, J. S. (1977). In The Physiology of the Garden Pea (Eds J. F. Sutcliffe and J. S. Pate), pp. 469–484. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Paul, E. A. and Kucey, R. M. N. (1981). Science 213: 473–474.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Qualset, C. O., Schaller, C. W. and Wiliams, J. C. (1965). Crop Science 5:489–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rasmusson, D. C. (1984). In Gene Manipulation in Plant Improvement (Ed. J. P. Gustafson), pp. 95–119. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schaller, C. W., Qualset, C. O. and Rutger, J. N. (1972). Crop Science 12: 531–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shannon, J. C. (1982). Iowa State Journal of Research 56: 307–322.Google Scholar
  26. Sinclair, T. R. and de Wit, C. T. (1975). Science 189: 565–567.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sinha, S. K. (1974). Indian Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 34A: 988–994.Google Scholar
  28. Stoy, V. (1963). In Recent Plant Breeding Research (Eds E. Akerberg and A. Hagberg), pp. 264–275. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  29. Sutcliffe, J. F. and Pate, J. S. (eds) (1977). The Physiology of the Garden Pea. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  30. Summerfield, R. J. (1980). In Opportunities for Increasing Crop Yields (Eds R. G. Hurd, P. V. Biscoe and C. Dennis), pp. 51–69. London: Pitmans.Google Scholar
  31. Summerfield, R. J., Roberts, E. H., Erskine, W. and Ellis, R. H. (1985). Annals of Botany 56: 659–671.Google Scholar
  32. Watson, D. J. (1952). Advances in Agronomy 4:101–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilson, D. (1981). In Plant Breeding II (Ed. K. J. Frey), pp. 233–290. Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. E. Slinkard
    • 1
  • J. S. Sindhu
    • 2
  1. 1.Crop Development CentreUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Division of Plant Breeding and GeneticsS. K. University of Agricultural Sciences and TechnologyShalimarIndia

Personalised recommendations