Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T20:44:12.869Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Balance between Leaf Area and Photosynthetic Activity in Determining Productivity of Fox-tail Millet (Setaria italica) under Rain-fed Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

V. R. Sashidhar ,
T. G. Prasad ,
S. J. Patil ,
M. Udaya Kumar  and
K. S. Krishna Sastry
V. R. Sashidhar
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Physiology, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore-560065, India
T. G. Prasad
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Physiology, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore-560065, India
S. J. Patil
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Physiology, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore-560065, India
M. Udaya Kumar
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Physiology, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore-560065, India
K. S. Krishna Sastry
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Physiology, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore-560065, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The relationship of leaf weight ratio (LWR), leaf area ratio (LAR), stomatal frequency and dry matter (DM) production with yield and with photosynthetic efficiency, as reflected by 14CO2 fixation rate, was studied in fox-tail millet (Setaria italica) for three consecutive years. Several genotypes were identified which combined small leaf area and/or low stomatal numbers per plant with productivity under rain-fed conditions equal to that of genotypes with large stomatal numbers. 14CO2 studies in these genotypes showed that the rate of carbon fixation by the leaves was greater, at any canopy position, than in the corresponding large LA/large DM types. Genotypes with consistently small stomatal numbers per plant, associated with good dry matter accumulation and productivity, may also show small transpirational water loss under rain-fed or drought conditions. It is concluded that such genotypes are desirable for better productivity under these conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , July 1985 , pp. 241 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Bierhuzin, J. F. (1976). Irrigation and water use efficiency. In Water and Plant life, 421–431 (Eds Lange, O. L., Kappen, L. & Schulze, E. D.). New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dobrenz, A. K., Wright, L. N., Humphry, A. B., Massengale, M. A. & Kneelbone, W. R. (1969). Stomatal density and its relationship to water use efficiency of blue panic grass (Panicum antidotale Rotz). Crop Science 9:354–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enyi, B. A. C. (1977). Physiology of grain yield in groundnut. Experimental Agriculture 13:101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaastra, P. (1959). Photosynthesis of crop plants as influenced by light, carbon dioxide, temperature, and stomatal diffusion resistance. Mededelingen Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen 59:1–68.Google Scholar
Grubben, G. J. H. (1975). La culture d'amaranthe, legume feuiles tropicals avec reference special an Sud-Dahomey. Mededelingen Landbouwhogeschool Wageningen 75:1–223.Google Scholar
Jones, H. G. (1977). Transpiration in barley lines with differing stomatal frequencies. Journal of Experimental Botany 28:162–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, P. J. (1983). Drought tolerance and water use efficiency. In Water Relations in Plants, 390–408 (Ed. Kramer, P. J.). London: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miskin, K. E., Rasmusson, D. C. & Moss, L. M. (1972). Inheritance and physiological effects of stomatal frequency in barley. Crop Science 12:780–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parlenge, J. Y. & Waggoner, P. E. (1970). Stomatal dimensions and resistance to diffusion. Plant Physiology 46:337–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sastry, K. S.Krishna, Udaya Kumar, M. & Viswanath, N. R. (1982). Desirable plant characteristics in genotypes of finger millet (Eleusine coracana Gaertn.) for rainfed conditions. Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy 48:264–270.Google Scholar
Schantz, H. L. & Piemeisel, L. N. (1927). The water requirements of plants at Akron, Colorado. Journal of Agricultural Research 34:1093–1189.Google Scholar
Slatyer, R. O. (1973). The effect of internal water status on plant growth development and yield. In Plant Responses to Climatic Factors, 177–188 (Ed. Slatyer, R. O.). Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Welbank, P. J., French, S. W. & Witts, K. J. (1966). Dependence of yield of wheat varieties on their leaf duration. Annals of Botany 30:291–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. (1975). Leaf growth, stomatal diffusion resistance and photosynthesis during droughting of L. perenne populations selected for contrasting stomatal length and frequency. Annals of Applied Biology 79:67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, S. C., Crown, L. R. & Farquhar, G. D. (1979). Stomatal conductance correlates with photosynthetic capacity. Nature 288:424–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar