eprod u ced by Sabin et G atew ay u n d er licen ce gran ted by th e P u blish er (d ated. 2012) .... sequence as described by Jolliffe et al. (1982) to plant; removal ...
Reproduced by Sabinet Gateway under licence granted by the Publisher (dated 2012)
Two:-Dimensionrui~PartitiOning . ()f Gr.ouncmut"(Amc!Ji~~.lJYPf!gaea .L~).
Response to Plan~· Density and ThinninglIntensity after Flowering:. .. ':rf:.:r ... .... , ' .. ~
::; ....~ ·· ..... ·.\rpt,·,
..
~
....
_A'
.~(~j.-'
'--
JL~~
~~+.,-~ i._
.~.
";• • ~ ".
~
~':_:""'_~:_
~ :'~'.'" -~
..
Tarimo, A.J,P., :',,~ ", .'.
",1.1 ,." .... ~._ 1;, ...... , .,,' "'J' ".''''. ,'. Department' 9f Crop.Sdence and-p,roducti9n, Sok.QiP.!! Uniy.~~.§i~Y:oQfAgr:ic~lture; :l?-.9d}o~),3Q05,::~9f9goro,..:;( .. Tanzania ...:.:.. ":/-" I _ ~;'" ~ .,' 2~>._. . \..lv·· "". ~~ "'~~ ,»~!.~ ;. . ~I -;~·-~c~ r: t -::::.: . '." :,~-t~' :r~ 0-
""
•
, .... ,
j
,
Abstract ';'
... '> :'J ~.,; ~'" .~_ The two-dimensional partitioning (TPEJtechniq~e ofyieldcomponent an~lysis:(y"C;4) was -evaluated using a grou1}dnut, (1.rachiihlp"~1;f!.ef!L)/ro.pat jour pl~n! pop,ulqt!on ~ensities orfive't~in~ing' i~te~sities (%) after fiQwering. The experirn.ents were carried out during the 1989/90 cropping season atthe University of Queeiisllmd's Reli,icmd Bay'Pq.rm, AUstralia. Two cultivars '(Improved Virginia Bunch and Red Spanish) were gi~'Wn~.in Experiment)'- th'e'pia~i densiTies were lo, 21, 28.or 42 m,2 w~ile ilJ Experim~nt 2, the five thinnilig.,?n!i!nsities were 0%, 33 %,50%, 66'% 0" 75%,'jrorn an (lJitial densityoj'42 planis'm-2~ Thinizing was-earned oui 32 daysiafter.plahttng. Total dry mass (TDM), -kernel y{eld and some plant morphological-ch~racteristics we~e measured. The res~lts show th,ar vaTititi011s in TDM and kernel yield m,2 were slgn{ficantli'ln./luenced by ihiJntri{l:~ic'" variances'Of yield 'components 'an/ilyzedin this study.' For exa."!p}e:-i,!. b.?th, eXf!.er{ln~ilt,S,~v~rjq~(9~ /;( iDM m~~esu~~edfr?'!l., vari,gtions. obs'ervea in -the planting. density, [V~!c1 irfiuenced gro,wth r,erfo!l1}~nce ofplan.~ mo.rp,hologiC~1 c?ml{0izents du'1ng tht ~;ason. The components,included, TDM/m!-mb?r.ofpegs+pod~, ratio ofpeg+pod numberlleaj'w:ea., and the number oj brmTch~s/plan(. Similarly,;dljjer?nces' in keme{yieid m,2 were,ass~ciated with tlie variatio,il i~I __ . . . . . ., .... • the above components in addition to number'of kernels/pod and kernel mass. Thus, TDP-YCA gawFa 1_ better analysis of groundnut response. to planting density and thinning intensity ajt'er fiqweri1J'g than when the analy~is 'afvariance (ANOVA) tec/1.nique was 1f.se,t! alone: ' , ,. . ...., .. " ''-' ' ,'.' '..,•.
r..tr\_l
.
-~
~
•
..._ h.., \'
~
••
~..J"\'
•.
i
I.
• • - ....
~:~":)
~
._'
!;f__ ;~:')Cj:
r
';
...
"
i~,:..-' ..~:'
" ..
!:..
f ..
l
tj ...
",.;
:~
.'
!~:r! ,..:,.::~
_~ -~ '"~~". . ~'?~..~).~ :·l-.,~~r: .~~r
-,
I
•
"'I·_.'''~
I,. 'o/) '.
.., ... "'-
;(-.2"
~ ... -
...
I...
....',. ~
...
~
1"'-
....... -'
_
\.
. ......
/
~I
\
. '_~.
v .. ./
.l
••
. .......
.",.
..
_'
..;
• ,.
.~
.
_.;
"
".
iJ,..~'
.'
.1 n~n!i.l!.n.~I~~i.~ (TqP~ y
