Advertisement

The Physiology of Survival at the Limits of Farming in the Dry Tropics

  • G. R. Squire
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 16)

Abstract

The dominant form of agriculture changes systematically along any spatial gradient of increasing dryness in the tropics. Between humid and arid regions, dense stands of perennial trees give way to annual or biennial cereals, legumes and root crops, and these in turn to mixed arable and animal husbandry, and eventually to extensive rangeland. Such transitions reflect changes in two main attributes of the commonest plants. One is the ‘return’ of resources intercepted by dry matter invested in the resource- capturing structures (τ), a value that decreases as the resources become scarcer. For example, if expressed as total radiation intercepted per unit of vegetative dry matter in shoots, τ is typically 5 MJ g-1 for perennial palms and 1 MJ g-1 for short-season dryland cereals. The other major attribute is the minimum dry mass (Wv) that plants must accumulate before any economic yield is produced. Wv ranges from 105 g plant-1 for some tree crops to 10–20 g plant-1 for large annuals, 1–4 g plant -1 for small cereals and legumes, and a small fraction of a gram for rangeland grasses. In contrast to these two attributes, the conversion ratios change much less systematically in relation to aridity. Transitions — whether from maize to millet, or arable to rangeland — increase the chance that the returns of dry matter will exceed Wv, and therefore that surplus dry matter will be available for economically important structures. For example, the transition from arable cropping to rangeland seems to occur when the total dry matter per plant is similar to Wv for the most adaptable dryland cereals, τ and Wv are inherently determined by physiological attributes of the plant. Particularly important are the longevity of leaves and roots, their expansion rates and area/mass or length/mass relations, the determinacy of growth habit, and the sensitivity of reproduction to drought and high temperature. Generally, longevity is the most important attribute and the one that can perhaps be most influenced by husbandry, water-harvesting practices or by reducing stand density. This paper examines the way these physiological attributes discriminate both between species and among stands of the same species, using examples from different tropical environments.

Keywords

Pearl Millet Coconut Palm Bambara Groundnut Investment Efficiency Field Crop Research 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akita K (1982) Studies on competition and compensation of crop plants. IX. Effect of planting density of the characters of rice plant. Scientific report of the Faculty of Agriculture, Kobe University, Japan 15: 5–10 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  2. Allison JCS (1969) Effect of plant population on the production and distribution of dry matter in maize. Annals of Applied Biology 63: 135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cooper PJM, Gregory PJ, Keatinge JDH, Brown SC (1987) Effects of fertilizer, variety and location on barley production under rainfed conditions in northern Syria. 2. Soil water dynamics and crop water use. Field Crops Research 16: 67–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corley RHV (1973) Effects of plant density on growth and yield of oil palm. Experimental Agriculture 9: 169–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Enyi BAC (1972) Effects of spacing on growth, development and yield of single and multi-shoot plants of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). 2. Physiological factors. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 38: 27–34Google Scholar
  6. Gregory PJ (1979) Uptake of N, P and K in irrigated and unirrigated pearl millet (Pennisetum typhoides). Experimental Agriculture 15: 217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kasanga H, Monsi M (1954) On the light transmission of leaves, and its meaning for the production of dry matter in plant communities. Japanese Journal of Botany 14: 304–324Google Scholar
  8. Linnemann AR, Azam Ali SN (1993) Bambara groundnut (Vigna subterránea (L) Verde). In: Underutilised crops, series II. Vegetables and pulses. Chapman and Hall, London (in press)Google Scholar
  9. Mbugua SW (1986) Monitoring livestock and wildlife in Kenya. In: Hansen R M, Woie B M, Child R D (eds) Range development and research in Kenya. Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, Morrilton, Arizona, pp 413–430Google Scholar
  10. Moss JRJ (1992) Measuring light interception and the efficiency of light utilisation by the coconut palm (Cocos nucífera). Experimental Agriculture 28: 273–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Natarajan M, Willey RW (1980) Sorghum-pigeonpea intercropping and the effects of plant population density. 2. Resource use. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95: 59–65Google Scholar
  12. Penninkhoff P (1984) The prospects of growing proso millet in arid and semi-arid areas of Kenya. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 44: 298–305Google Scholar
  13. Reddy MS, Willey RB (1980) Growth and resource-use studies in an intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut. Field Crops Research 4: 13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rees DJ (1986) The effects of population density, row spacing and intercropping on the interception and utilisation of solar radiation by Sorghum bicolor and Vigna unguiculata in semi-arid conditions in Botswana. Journal of Applied Ecology 23: 917–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Robinson D (1986) Compensatory changes in the partitioning of dry matter in relation to nitrogen uptake and optimal variations in growth. Annals of Botany 58: 841–848Google Scholar
  16. Rowden R, Gardiner D, Whiteman P, Wallis ES (1981) Effects of planting density on growth, light interception and yield of a photoperiod-insensitive pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan). Field Crops Research 4: 210–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Simmonds LP, Azam Ali SN (1989) Population, growth and water use of groundnut maintained on stored water. 4. The influence of population on water supply and demand. Experimental Agriculture 25: 87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Squire GR (1990a) Effects of changes in climate and physiology around the dry limits of agriculture in the tropics. In: Jackson M T, Ford-Lloyd B, Parry M (eds) Climatic change and plant genetic resources. Belhaven Press, London New York, pp 116–147Google Scholar
  19. Squire GR (1990b) The physiology of tropical crop production. CAB International, Wallingford Squire GR, Corley RHV (1987) Oil palm. In: Sethuraj M R, Raghavendra A S (eds) Tree crop physiology. Elsevier Science Publishers BV, Amsterdam, pp 141–167Google Scholar
  20. Squire GR, Gregory PJ, Monteith JL, Russell MB, Piara Singh (1984) Control of water use by pearl millet (Pennisetum typhoides S & H) Experimental Agriculture 20: 135–139Google Scholar
  21. Stewart JI, Kashasha DAR (1984) Rainfall criteria to enable response farming through crop-based climate analysis. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 44: 58–79Google Scholar
  22. Tessema S, Emojong EE (1984) The influence of stocking rates and grazing management on liveweight changes in cattle, sheep and goats grazing natural pastures. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 44: 383–399Google Scholar
  23. Thesiger, W. (1959) Arabian sands. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Veltkamp HJ (1985) Physiological causes of yield variation in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Agricultural University Wageningen Papers 85–6. Agricultural University, WageningenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. R. Squire
    • 1
  1. 1.Scientific Adviser’s UnitScottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries DepartmentEdinburghUK

Personalised recommendations