4.7 Article

Root foraging and yield components underlying limited effects of Partial Root-zone Drying on oilseed rape, a crop with an indeterminate growth habit

Journal

PLANT AND SOIL
Volume 323, Issue 1-2, Pages 163-176

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11104-009-9922-3

Keywords

Partial root-zone drying; Oilseed rape; Shallow groundwater; Soil water content; Root foraging; Seed yield

Funding

  1. Dutch Ministry of Education, National Basic Research Priorities Program of China [2006CB403406]
  2. National 863 High Technology Research Plan Project of China [2006AA100203]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We report on two experiments with oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) to test if partial root-zone drying techniques improve yield in a crop in which vegetative and reproductive growth overlap (indeterminate growth habit), and to investigate what plant morphological responses contribute to the yield that is realized. Deficit irrigation resulted in smaller plants with smaller yields but larger seeds compared to treatments with shallow groundwater (first experiment) and with fully watered conditions (second experiment). Different partial root-zone drying treatments (water supply patterns) under deficit irrigation, however, had little effect on plant growth and yield components (number of branches, branch lengths, number of pods, etc.). Our results suggest that partial root-zone drying doesn't work well with oilseed rape. Detailed measurements of soil water contents and root distribution indicate that roots were extremely plastic, effectively foraging for water, and these root responses may have overwhelmed physiological effects of partial root drying on the shoot. Furthermore, in crops with indeterminate growth with a short vegetative growth phase, partial root-zone drying may be ineffective in enhancing the major yield components. Further reasons for the lack of success are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available