CSIRO Publishing Home Books & CDs Journals About Us Shopping Cart
Crop & Pasture Science
  Continuing Australian Journal of Agricultural Research
You are here: Journals > Crop & Pasture Science   
Search
 
 
  Advanced Search
   
Journal Home
General Information
Scope
Editorial Board
Editorial Contacts
Sites of Interest
Print Publication Dates
Online Content
For Authors
For Referees
How to Order

 Most Read
Visit our Most Read page regularly to keep up-to-date with the most downloaded papers in this journal.

 Early Alert
Subscribe to our email Early Alert or RSS feeds for the latest journal papers.

 

Response to terminal water deficit stress of cowpea, pigeonpea, and soybean in pure stand and in competition

A. A. Likoswe A B and R. J. Lawn A C

A School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, Qld 4811, Australia.
B Formerly Grain and Legume Development Project, PO Box 1034, Lilongwe, Malawi; now deceased.
C Corresponding author. Email: robert.lawn@jcu.edu.au


Abstract

The response to terminal water deficit stress of three grain legumes, soybean, cowpea and pigeonpea, was evaluated in plants grown in large tubes, in competition with either the same species or one of the other two species. The aim was to explore how species differences in drought response affected water use, growth and survival of plants in pure stand and in competition. Two plants, comprising the test species and its competitor, were grown in each tube. Water was withheld 26 days after sowing by which time each plant had at least three fully expanded trifoliolate leaves. Leaf water status and plant growth were measured through destructive samples when 80% and 90% of the estimated plant available water (PAW) was depleted and at plant death, while PAW depletion, node growth and leaf survival were monitored at 2–3 day intervals until the last plants died (61 days after water was withheld). In pure stand, the rate of PAW depletion was initially slowest in cowpea despite its much larger leaf area, and fastest in soybean. Node growth was most sensitive in cowpea, ceasing at 65% PAW depletion compared with 85% PAW depletion in pigeonpea and soybean, so that the latter two species produced relatively more nodes after water was withheld. However, senescence of the lower leaves was most rapid in soybean and slowest in cowpea. Cowpea and pigeonpea extracted almost all PAW and died an average 18 days and 14 days, respectively, after maximum PAW depletion. In contrast, soybean died before 90% of PAW was depleted and so in pure stand used less water. There were otherwise only minor differences between the species combinations in the timing and maximum level of PAW depletion. The ability of cowpea and pigeonpea to maintain leaf water status above lethal levels for longer was achieved through different means. Cowpea relied primarily on dehydration avoidance and maintained tissue water status higher for longer, whereas pigeonpea demonstrated greater dehydration tolerance. While significant levels of osmotic adjustment (OA) were identified in soybean and pigeonpea, OA appeared to be of limited benefit to leaf survival in soybean. Pigeonpea invested significantly more total dry matter (TDM) in roots than either cowpea or soybean. Cowpea survived longest in pure stand whereas pigeonpea and soybean survived shortest in pure stand, suggesting that the dehydration avoidance response of cowpea was more effective in competition with like plants whereas the dehydration tolerance strategies of pigeonpea and soybean were least effective when competing against like plants. On average, TDM per plant ranked in the order cowpea > soybean > pigeonpea, largely reflecting initial differences in plant size when water was withheld. However, there was an inverse relation between TDM of a species and that of its competitor, so that in effect, water not used by a given plant to produce TDM was used by its competitor and there were no differences in TDM production per tube.

Keywords: drought resistance, leaf water status, physiological traits.

Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 59(1) 27–37    doi:10.1071/AR07155
Submitted: 17 April 2007    Accepted: 31 August 2007    Published: 14 January 2008





   
Subscriber Login
Username:
Password:  

 View
Issue Contents
PDF (289 KB) $25
Export Citation
Cited by
 Tools
Print
Email this page
    


 
Top  Email this page
 


Legal & Privacy | Sitemap | Contact Us | Help

CSIRO

© CSIRO 1996-2010