Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for
a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and
private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without
the permission of the Author.
T J., \
in Hortic~ltur~l Science at
~2ssey tniversity.
P:S .. AM.'.:A 1/.LLu
,9sc
A CKNO','l'LEDG~·'.ZNTS
I wish to thank ~y s~pervisor Dr. M.l . Nichols for his guidance and encoura€ement; the staff of
tr,e Dep~.rt.11ent of Horticulture for their heJ_p; the
staff of the library for t elp v:i t::-1 r-eferer.ce ma t erisl;
tte "J. 2. I. n. 2.nc:1. Artt.~r Yat es Ccr::::;:2.r:y Lir financi 2.l
.:_:;rojE:ct, 2.r-:l '11J sister :!;::,mer.ti for ty:i_.-in~ the thesis.
.. .
• ! i; ! -
{I
Lis: of Tatles
Atstrsct
Revie~ of the Lit£rature 1. Sr.ap be2.r. fr.ysio:'._oQ'
1.1 !~~reduction
1 .2 Seei Aspects
, . 3
Fertilizer use1 • 4 32.rvef ting
1. 7 P:~otosyn:hesis 2. Pl2.n-: Sp2.cing 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Plant isnsity
;,: '
.
2.~ m, .J..,' . ...,; '""\
ji Hi
V Vii vii(
i
3 3
4
5
6 10 12
~
,.,,
C:15
16
~,.,
I I
/
('Y!J ., j,.,il! --:
:! 1
.,,
. .
"Z. .. ,....
.,,,
.
'.
.,;..7 A
.,,,
. . .
.,,,7 ,..,. 1
__,i • t::. • I
1\1' ,· .,.,.,,... '.."'", ... ..,r . .... .J...i....-l- V - -'O.J
v· .., . _ l €.L:
4.1 Rcsul ts
4 .1. 1 Gro·.,tl: .~,al;ysis
t;.1.3 Yield
4.2 Discussion
~.~.1 !iGl~-dens~ty rela~io~ships
CO~;CLDSIOI:S
FUTURE i-/C.,K
• t.J.
. , / '
_,,.
;c
43
49
54 57
6 .7
LIST O~· ThEL~S
i.~ Seed lengt~! sieve sizes, %see~ we~fht and seed
indicies for various size bra~es
2.1 Pl~nt density and Sfacin~ of the fcur treatme~ts 2.~ Sa,m.ple size and plot size of each ~ensity
2 .3
The fertilizer level of each density3 .1 Ti:ne trends of
RGR,
tiAR,UR ,
SLA' LWii, ::..nd.m
Fage
Q '>'
9
31
33
- - -
3 .
2 Ef fee ts of density on RGR, NAP., LAR, SLA, L\-iR, and LAI34 3 . 3
Effects of density on the mor;holo6y of plants3.4 :''lature bean data at harvest 10
Effects of d.ensi ty -::.n tte rncrpholot;ical components of yielc./unit area
,
Total bean yielo./plant (gm) and per ha (tonnes) at harvest 9 and 10
3. 7 r-:ature bean yield/plc::nt (gn)
ar.c.
per h2.. ( tonnes) at :C-.arvest 103 . 8
B and log 1 at ::arvest 4 to· rn
B
3 . 9
A and. log 1 at harvests 4 to 1CA
3 .10 A and B para11eters for bean dry 'nei61:ts at harvests 9 a.--id 1C
4. 1 rtGR at ea.ch harvest fer ec: ~., density (. ,,..,-7)
\-'· v at eac~ harvcs~ f-P aaoh
-
~.5 L~!--:. .. G.~ eacr.. !".2.rvest fur ec:.c!_ dens:.t~r
35 35
36
37
41 41
42 43
,c::
..,. .,
,1 . 7 L''fffi : or eacL : eve::. :::if ferti :.: zer at e2.ci. c.e.:1si t / 4 .
.
0 LAn ... r,....,_ ~ ... of fertilizer at eac'. .t. ,;: Effect of :~ert:.:'..izer l evel. en SI.A a.nJ LAI
4.10 Ef.:\:c: of c.e:-:si ty c:;. tl-:e :J..::r';:C-.ol.:::i.:..:,y of t~e 1=::.e..."lt
<,11 ~ea~ ~ature ~ean t at~ fro~ harvest s
7
t o 1047
•O
..,__.
413
'-;/Q .,
':._('.
..,v c::r
,I,._
i_,E:::'
51
t, .13 Effsct of fErtilL:.er C!1 tne nucb1::r of beans per 1,l2nt 51 4.14 Flokers/plant at each harvest jate for each fe.r~ilizer
level 51
4.15 Flowers/plant at each density for each harvest date 52 4.16 :Seans/:;::12.nt fo::: eac!'". dens:.t~- a.t e2.cl·, h2.rvest 53 4.17 Me2_11 tctal ber,..r1 wei~t t (i:,) for eacr. densi ty at e&ch
harvest
4. '18 Number of :nc>.ture beans/ _Jlcm t at each h2.rvest fer eac:,.
density 54
4.19 Weeks to ::!12.turity from first r.arveet for each dens:.t:· _55
4.20 Cor::~one!1tE of yiel-i at opti.:ium :naturity f~r each
4.21 Yielc. of :iature end total oear:.s (tcnnH/ha) at o:;::ti:r:uo:
~.2~ 4-23
.nah:.ri
:y
A anc.
B anc3.
lo.s log
1
A'
1 A
1
3at ta::::-vests 7 to 10
~+ harvest s ,; to 10
c:;.., ..,
r ~
•• I ,l 1
:S2
F:'.0ure
, a
~ . l
A r,
"-+ • ..:..
·
" 7
~1-. _,.
(2·_,• r,cm ..,•r , r,rLv ,.~ ._..,1/ ~
clcsE
"
See3 lrngtt. VS t::.rae fo.r- 4C0 :;l2r,ts/:nc
"
fo~ 1"v0 1:-.;..,., ~ ~r--'-.L \,.,,_.,. "' j.,,J. c
')
Cs .. -'"-f'' - -C-1 ,_, c'-n•<.> ;:·t'.r. ":"V-. f:_-0_'7'.8 .l. &-,) ~ - ,1 _. , 'f•'-f'-7 1-' p1 .;.-C:: • • n+s/~~ . i l ~ rcr
54-:S
~4-55
~/- ~'="
.... ·; ., . /
5~-55
0verse2.s ;-,on. suggests that substar:ti2..l yiel :l increase~ c2.n cccur when t:r1e der:.si ty i s increased :>n,: tne rectan€,Ulari ty is ch2nge-:i to unity. Two trials •,:ere carri
ec
0u t t::> ex2-:11ine sc:::eeffects 0f gr0wing snap be;:,ns ?.t f.::mr dens:. t ies.
The R. G • .i:i.. fell with ti:ne until _poc. swell ,;ht..re i t showed '"' Sl; -e,H, .. 'h+ :ncre~.L , <'-se 0c.,. »n~ <.... then fell ac::,c..-'--'--. ..,;..., • T'h_.e • ~~• .A.rt·. J"'cllo_ 1.-•e, ."! _ a !"'.l·.~t:..,r _ ---c..
pa tter:i .,,hcreas tr.e
m.
increased a'.'ld th er. fell earlier th2.n either the N.A.d. or the R.G.rl., indicatine the de~en~encc 0£ theR.G.n. on the N.A.n. T~e L.A.rt. ~;pears to be dep~ncent o:i the L.'..i-.E.. co·npor.er.t ratl::.er tr.'ln the ~ A. C'.)::i~o:ient.
Fertilizer tad no effect on tte R.(;..n. or t1--:e ~1
. :~ . n .
As the l ·-vel of ferti2.izer incre".~ES, t~--~e S.L.J~. de.cYeases and· the .u. ·N ... °1. :.:icreascs, ir,jicating t:C:.=:t 11-)re le::ves .s.:r:t= 1-.rc-:1.:ced 2.:-:d tt.E. :'..E:aVE:.s".re ' tnic~~er' . Bott. the 1.·-f .• .n. a.!'ld th€ l.A.F.. are :r-.2intained 2t 2.
1,:~:ere2.s
~ r.s
L.A.t ., S.L.A. a,,d :!:..P .. I. al l :.ncr eas2. Thi s sl'.01,;s densities, ~or~ l eaveEr- .... _ ... ..,....
..1.._ ...,. t".L
'II,. \ ,
are ;rciuced tut ttey
-
... -'-·- ....
1 . • ::. ••.•
8..:
SC 8.viii
1'~2 reci rricol yiF.:~.r. censi ty rel::-t iom:~i;,s shc\\e11 fertilL .. er to h:: ve no ef feet on the A ~nri B p:o. ra.met ers fo.i: either tot = 1 pl nt dry :na.tter or bes.n dry 112,tter. 'l'he allometric loe- pl?..nt weight to log "bean weiP,ht s!.owed t:Le ratio of bea....YJ.s to total pl2nt weight decreases wit~ increasinc density.
Fertilizer had no effect on the yield of be2..ns. Density wo.s also sr.own t c hc-.ve no effect on the yield of beans when t~e yi elds were compared at the same seed l ength. When yields were com:r2.red at the same chronological t i:ne, densi ty iid have an effect. The mear. -nature be~.:n yield was 13.95 t onnes/ha but the mean h~.rvestable yield ,:;R.s 18 .6 tonnes/ha.
IX
IN'l'rtCDDCT:::CN
15i8 ha of snap oeans (Phaseolus vulg-a=is 1.) were grown in
New Zea.l~";.d in 197e. 1416 ha of these were grown fo= trocessing;
67
%
fo:: c;,uici.. freezing and 335·~ for ca11ning. The average y.:;.eld of snap beans in 1978 was 7.~8 t/ha. 21% of the frozen snap bea.~s were exported to 22 cour.tries wi.th Australia im}:ortint, 50% of the exportei bea~s. The area of beans grown for processing has al.most doubled between 1971 and 1977 as has the 5ross ·yield, but the yield per ha has shown littie change over this ;eriod. (Anon_ 1978) .Horticulture has moved towards systems of high yield and intensive production. The rapid increases in the cost of prod- uction .'.!lust be Jlet by more eff.:;.cient production and higl:er yields.
The scarcity of good land close to pro-eessing fa.ctories, with an abundant supply of water, tends to put a premium on high produc- tivity per unit area. According to Bleasdale (1969), this is one incentive for having a comprehensive :aiowledge of the yield-density relationships of vegetable crops and to use the knowledge to devise highly productive cultural systa~s.
Overseas work has suggested that y~elds may be increased significantly by reducing the rectangulari ty and increa.sing the plant population (Jones, 1967, Mack and Hatch, 1968). A parabolic relationship between pod yield and density is apparent. The density at.--which. :naximum yield occurs will vary with the environment, cul- tural practices an~c~ltivar. The time taken for the crop to mature, which .aries with density, irrigation practices, and other factors, must be taken into consideration when comparing yield differences.
1
... ··-... """
Cl.- /_.J.. ..J .. .&.-
+ f .f' .a..·~ · . . ., +...., .... --·,., . t'4"' ,.. ... ·. -~--. __ . , ,: /Trr·-
?.I.Ct:.ni... : .. ,r\/:__izcr 1.2 re~'.:~.:rec vv .A/rJ~\.ACC n ... :lC""'.-\.l.J°!v.Jl ~il€.J.. .... \--c .. J.c,
Pe:.dldon ar:::3. Dur.can, 1956). factor, co~bine~ with t~e effsct cf roil t:,r;,e .:,n fertiliz1:.r res~cnsc, has ,"Ja.d.e tr:e in:t;er;-retat.:.or: of fertilizer trial results difficult.
Gro":th ar.alysi s is a technique that :nay te used to gain a.n insig~t into tte physiological basis for yiEld differences using relative e;-rowth rates, net assi:nilation rat1:;s. leaf area ratios,
specific leaf areas and leaf weight ratios. Yield c.ifferences may a~so be ar,alysec ~orpholo6ically using the number of pods m 2
ani the ~ean weight per bec:n.
Tr.e aim of the project was to atte~pt to relate yield diffe- rences due t0 de:isi ty and. fertili2.er to physiological and
11orpnological chan6"es.
