Advances in agronomy volume 26

ADVANCES IN AGRONOMY VOLUME 26 CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS VOLUME HERMAN BOUWER K RACHIE R L CHANEY L M ROBERTS M E HARWARD C W STUBER SHERWOOD B IDSO B R TRENBATH R H MOLL KOJI WADA F J ZILLINSKY ADVISORY BOARD w L COLVILLE, CHAIRMAN (1973) G W KUNZE(1973) D G BAKER(1974) D E WEIBEL(1974) G R DUTT (1975) H J GORZ(1975) N c BRADY, EX OFFICIO M STELLY,EX OFFICIO ASA Headquarters ADVANCES IN AGRONOMY Prepared under the Auspices of the AMERICAN SOCIETYOF AGRONOMY VOLUME 26 Edited by N C BRADY International Rice Research Institute Manila, Philippines 1974 ACADEMIC PRESS New York San Francisco London A Subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers COPYRIGHT @ 1974, BY ACADEMIC PRESS,INC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR ANY INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLISHER ACADEMIC PRESS, INC 111 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003 United Kingdom Edition published by ACADEMIC PRESS, INC (LONDON) LTD 24/28 Oval Road, London N W l LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER:5 0-55 98 ISBN 0-12-000726-6 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONTENTS iX PREFACE xi CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 26 GRAIN LEGUMES OF THE LOWLAND TROPICS K RACHIEAND L M ROBERTS I Importance and Production Peanuts Pigeon Peas Cowpeas Mung Beans Secondary Species Conclusions References I1 Botanical 111 IV V VI VII VIII 11 32 44 62 77 91 118 LAND TREATMENT OF WASTEWATER HERMANBOWER 111 IV I I1 AND R L CHANEY Introduction Fate of Wastewater Constituents in Soil Crop Response Selection and Design of System References 133 135 164 167 169 BIOMASS PRODUCTIVITY OF MIXTURES B R TRENBATH I I1 111 IV V VI Introduction Comparison of Yields of Mixtures and Monocultures Theoretical Considerations Types of Interaction Causing Nontransgressive Deviations of Mixture Yields from Mid-Monoculture Values Mechanisms Capable of Causing Transgressive Yielding by Mixtures Conclusions References V 177 179 183 186 196 205 206 vi CONTENTS AMORPHOUS CLAY CONSTITUENTS OF SOILS KOJI WADA I I1 111 IV V VI VII AND M E HARWARD Introduction Definition and Scope Nature of Materials Identification and Quantitative Estimation Formation and Transformation Relationship to Soil Properties Summary References THE CALIBRATION AND USE 211 212 213 230 233 242 253 254 OF NET RADIOMETERS SHERWOOD B IDSO I I1 111 IV V VI Introduction Instruments Calibration Methods Utilizing the Basic Net Radiometer Modifications for Different Applications Summary References 261 262 263 268 269 272 272 QUANTITATIVE GENETICS-EMPIRICAL RESULTS RELEVANT TO PLANT BREEDING R H MOLL AND C W STUBER I Introduction Genetic Variability Inbreeding Depression and Heterosis Genotype-Environmental Interactions Response to Selection Implications of Quantitative Genetics to Breeding Methodology References I1 I11 IV V VI 277 278 284 287 295 305 310 THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRlTlCALE F J ZILLINSKY I Historical Review I1 Breeding and Research in Eastern Europe 315 318 CONTENTS I11 IV V VI Breeding and Research in Western Europe Breeding and Research in North America Triticale Improvement at CIMMYT Recent International Developments References SUBJECTINDEX vii 322 324 326 338 346 349 This Page Intentionally Left Blank CONTRIBUTORS TO VOLUME 26 Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the authors' contributions begin HERMANBOUWER( 3 ) , U S Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, U S Water Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona R L CHANEY(133), US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Biological Waste Management Laboratory, Beltsville Agricultural Research Center, Beltsville, Maryland M E HARWARD (21 ), Soil Science Department, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon SHERWOOD B IDSO(26 ), U S Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, US Water Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona R H MOLL(277), Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina K RACHIE( ), International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria, and The Rockefeller Foundation, New York, New York L M ROBERTS ( l ) , The Rockefeller Foundation, New York, New York C W STUBER(277), Department of Genetics, North Carolina State University, and US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Raleigh, North Carolina B R TRENBATH ( 177), Waite Agricultural Research Institute, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia' KOJIWADA(21 ), Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan F J ZILLINSKY ( 315), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center ( C I M M Y T ) , Mexico City, Mexico * Present address: Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra City, Australia ix 342 F J ZILLINSKY of the total protein for chicks, broilers, and laying hens and also for young turkeys Elliott ( 1973) proposed that meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus) could be used effectively as a screening technique for better nutritional quality in the early generations of breeding programs An evaluation from five animals can be obtained in week with about 100 g of grain Bauer ( 1973) observed that the heterozygosity of the population produced a wide range in feed efficiency values There was also a strong preference for triticale and wheat over corn by most animals in the colony Weiringa ( 1967) reported that growth-inhibiting substances occurring in rye grain caused growth depression when the rye content exceeded 50% of the diet fed to rats and swine The growth-inhibiting substances were found to be soluble in petroleum ether and acetone and was identified as a mixture of alkyl resorcinols Villegas et al (1973) and Larter (1973) found that, among the triticale strains analyzed, the levels of resorcinol compounds were much too low to cause growth depression Munck ( 1964), McGinnis (1973) and Elliott (1974) have indicated that protein content, and growth efficiencies are influenced by variety, location, environment, and agronomic practices Disease organisms, such as ergot and scab (Gibberella fujikori) , produce toxins that influence growth responses Nutritional evaluations should be based on disease-free seed of a specific cultivar Since triticale strains have a considerable range in values that influence nutritional quality, it is quite possible to improve the nutritional quality by breeding, provided adequate screening techniques are available Pomeranz et al (1970) studied several strains of triticale grain from four different locations in North America for suitability in malting and brewing Some lines produced malts with high extract values, high amylase activity, and satisfactory brew yields and wort runoff times The wort and beer colors were slightly dark Some beers had excellent gas-stability and clarity-stability indexes along with acceptable taste C RECENTCYTOLOGICAL RESEARCH Most of the early cytological investigations on triticale dealt with the nature and frequency of cytological disturbances, particularly on octoploid triticale OMara (1940) reported that triticale could be used to develop chromosome addition lines of wheat He was able to produce wheat lines with three different rye chromosome additions More recent cytological research indicates that some earlier concepts need revision Merker (1971, 1973b) and Larter and Hsam (1973) have reported fertility and meiotic instability are independent However, the most fertile selections in terms THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRITICALE 343 of number of viable seeds produced per floret, are also among the most stable meiotically (Muntzing, 1972) Larter (1973) and Merker (1973b) observed that aneuploidy in hexaploid triticale involved both wheat and rye chromosomes more or less at random, indicating imperfect genetic control in chromosome pairing during meiosis Bennett et al (1971 ), Kaltsikes (1971 ), and Bennett and Kaltsikes (1973) studied the duration of meiosis in triticale and the parental species to determine whether this was a factor causing meiotic instability It was observed that meiosis in hexaploid bread wheats (24 hours) was shorter than in the tetraploid wheats (30 hours), hexaploid triticale (34 to 37 hours), or diploid rye (51 hours) Bennett ( 1973) suggested that the difference between the rate of meiotic development of rye chromosomes in triticale might be a major cause of meiotic instability He pointed out that genome incompatibility and subsequent aberrant endosperm formation might also be due to the presence of segments of late-replicating heterochromatin at the telomeres of the rye chromosomes, but not of the smaller chromosomes of wheat Kaltsikes (1973) suggested that since rye chromosomes are larger, and carry 1.5 times the amount of DNA compared to wheat chromosomes, it seems likely that differences in rates of meiotic development could result in meiotic abnormalities The presence of chromosome substitutions between chromosomes of the R genome of rye and the D genome of bread wheat opens up a new field of triticale research Gustafson and Zillinsky (1973) reported that a single pair of rye chromosomes of the hexaploid triticale Armadillo had been substituted by a pair of D genome chromosomes (2D) The substitution appears to be highly beneficial agronomically Further substitutions are possible A hexaploid derivative from a cross between octoploid triticale X Armadillo “S” identified as “Camel” was found to possess two substituted chromosomes (Merker, 1973a,b) ; Bennett, 1973) The chromosome substitutions are usually accompanied by distinct morphological changes in plant development The “Camel” strain also has a distinctly shaped kernel with more vitreous textured endosperm Chromosome substitutions which provide a competitive advantage are useful in plant improvement although they tend to create difficulties in gene transfer How far this chromosome substitution can continue, and still maintain characteristics that are of agronomic advantage, is not known Antagonism between the cytoplasms and nuclear constitution has been implicated in abnormal cytological and endosperm development (Muntzing, 1935, 1939) Recently Larter (1968), Sisodia and McGinnis (1970), Lacadena and Perez (1973), Kies and Fox (1973), and Brandes et al (1973) have observed cytoplasmic influences in triticales It appears that cytoplasm for hexaploid wheat is more compatible with the hexaploid 344 F J ZILLINSKY and octoploid triticale nuclei than cytoplasms from either tetraploid wheat or rye O’Mara (1940) studied the influence of rye chromosome additions to the genome of hexaploid wheat as a possible means of plant improvement Darvey ( 1973 ) used chromosome addition lines to determine the influence of individual rye chromosomes on seed shriveling Rupert et at (1973) observed that improvement in fertility and seed quality could be obtained by using F, durum hybrids as female parent in the development of primary amphiploids and also by using self-fertile ryes as male parents, as suggested by Sinchez-Monge (1959, 1968) Hybrid necrosis, a physiological disorder resulting from a combination of genes occurring in a single genotype, has created breeding and research problems in wheat (Hermsen, 1963) Gregory (1973) pointed out that similar problems occur in triticale, especially when crossing hexaploid triticale with bread wheats or octoploid triticale He is now studying methods of overcoming these problems in triticale breeding D NOMENCLATURE Triticale has become widely accepted as a common name to designate all allopolyploids derived from crosses between wheat (genus Triticum), and rye (genus Secale) It includes octoploid, hexaploid, and tetraploid forms and both primary and secondary strains The name triticale was reported by Lindschau and Oehler (1935) to have been coined on a suggestion by Tchermak for Triticum and Secale amphiploids, which at that time were all octoploids They also proposed to add the name of the scientist developing the new form as a means of identifying different strains According to Baum (1971 ), Wittmack proposed the name Tritico-secale for Rimpau’s stable derivatives from wheat-rye crosses in 1899 The scientific designation Triticum secalotriticum saratoviense Meister was proposed by Meister in 1930 (in Lewitsky and Benetzkaya, 1931) Kiss (1966) proposed that the scientific name be shortened to Triticum triticale Larter et al (1970) proposed Triticale hexaploide and Triticale octoploide for hexaploid and octoploid forms Baum (1971 ) claimed that this nomenclature was unacceptable, but his proposal of Triticale turgidocereale appears to have been no more acceptable The use of triticale as a generic name assumes the status of genus for the rye-wheat amphiploids There appears to be little justification for a generic differentiation Triticales and wheats cross readily, form partially fertile hybrids and possess two (AABB) or three (AABBDD) genomes from the genus Triticum Furthermore as a result of meiotic irregularities, rye chromosomes are occasionally eliminated and the plants revert to wheat (Muntzing, 1957; Stutz, 1962) Such reverted forms are being used in THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRITICALE 345 breeding programs at CIMMYT and at Michigan State University by F Elliott Furthermore the use of Triticale as a generic name introduces confusion by having the same word as the common and scientific name Triticales should remain in the genus Triticum as proposed by Meister [Lewitsky and Benetzkaja (1931)l and Kiss (1966) The easiest solution would be to utilize the earliest suggestion by Wittmack (in Baum, 1971) and change it only sufficiently to make it scientifically acceptablefor example, Triticum secalum instead of Tritico-secale The different polyploid forms could be differentiated by adding ploidy level names as suggested by Larter et al (1970), that is f.s octoploide for octoploids, f.s hexaploide for hexaploids, and f,s tetraploide for the tetraploid forms If necessary, credit could be given to the first scientist to report the production of that particular form of triticale It appears that Rimpau (1891) produced the first octoploid, Derzhavin (1938) the fmt hexaploid, and Krolow (1973) the first stable tetraploid form E GENERAL COMMENTS Although the first relatively stable triticale was produced in 1890, concerted breeding efforts to develop a commercial crop were not started until the early 1940’s The development of new techniques in doubling chromosome numbers and culturing excised embryos made possible the development of primary hexaploid triticale in unlimited numbers Muntzing developed octoploid winter triticales which were as productive as bread wheats on the poorer, sandier soils of southern Sweden Kiss and Sinchez-Monge in Europe and Larter and Jenkins in North America developed hexaploid triticale strains that were competitive with bread wheats under some conditions The greatest improvement in fertility was obtained among secondary hexaploids derived from crosses between octopIoid 2n = 56 and hexaploid 2n = 42 triticales or between bread wheat and hexaploid triticale Triticale does not yet have a competitive advantage over wheat or other cereal grains except in some specific environments, such as high elevations, in areas where cool early growth temperatures prevail, and on sandy or low fertility soils Considerable breeding work still remains to be done The most serious agronomic problems are grain shriveling, preharvest germination, the tendency to produce few tillers under stress conditions, a narrow range of adaptation, and susceptibility to ergot Considerable research is still required to improve its physical properties for the production of commercial food products Unethical tactics used in the promotion of seed sales and overenthusiastic reporting have created a distorted image of the crop Most research scientists agree that it has potential but is not yet ready for general produc- 346 F J ZILLINSKY tion in competition with adapted varieties of other cereal crops Rapid improvements in grain yield usually occur during the early years of triticale breeding programs but tend to fall off as the grain yields approach those of other cereals However, this is being offset by the increasing number of scientists devoting their efforts to improving the crop Initially the crop will be used as animal feed, both as grain and forage Its use as human food will develop more slowly New techniques are required if triticale flour is used as a substitute for wheat flour Development research will be needed for the creation of new food products Its potential for better balance in essential amino acids could be of great benefit in improving the nutrition of people in food-deficit areas of the world ACKNOWLEDGMENT I wish to express my sincere appreciation to Dr Arne Muntzing for permission to use freely from his historical review of triticale in the preparation of this manuscript, and for his encouragement, advice, and cooperation in the CIMMYT triticale program I wish to thank Mr Gil Olmos of the CIMMYT photography section for the preparation of photographs and charts REFERENCES Amaya, A 1973 Int Triticale Symp., C I M M Y T , 1973 Avila, E., Cuca, M., and Pro., A 1971 A L P A M e m 6, 29-35 Bauer, R 1973 C l M M Y T Res Bull 24, 64-67 Baum, B R 1971 Euphytica 20,302-306 Bennett, M D 1973 Int Triticale Symp., C I M M Y T , 1973 Bennett, M D., and Kalsikes, P J 1973 Can J Genet Cytol 15, 671-679 Bennett, M D Chapman, J., and Riley, J 1971 Proc R o y SOC.,Ser B 178, 259-275 Borlaug, N E 1968 Proc lnt Wheat Genet Symp., 3rd, 1968 1-36 Bragg, D B., and Sharby, T F 1970 Poultry Sci 44, No 4, 1022-1027 Brandes, D., Rimpau, J., and Robhelen, G 1973 Proc lnt Wheat Genet Symp., 1973 Briggle, L W 1969 Crop Sci 9, 197-202 Briggs, C 1973 Int Triticale Symp., C I M M Y T , 1973 Chauhan, K P S., and Srivastava, J P 1973 lnt Triticale Symp., C I M M Y T , 1973 Darvey, N L 1973 Proc Int Wheat Genet Symp 1973 Derzhavin, A 1938 Izv Akad Nauk SSSR Ser Biol No 3, pp 663-665 Elliott, F C 1973 “Evaluation of Protein in Triticales.” Report to the Triticale Symposium at Lubbock, Texas Elliott, F C 1974 “Triticale, First Man-Made Cereal” (C C Tsen, ed.) pp, 212-222 Amer Assoc Cereal Chem Florell, V H 1936 J Agr Res 52, 199-204 Fuentes, S 1973 CIMMYT Res Bull 24, 34-38 Gregory, R S 1973 Int Triticale Symp., C I M M Y T , 1973 THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRITICALE 347 Gustafson, J R., and Zillinsky, F J 1973 Proc In! Wheat Genet Symp 1973 Hermsen, J G 1963 Euphytica 12, 1-16 Ingold, M., Oehler, E., and Nogler, G A 1968 Z Pflanzenzuch 60, 41-88 Jenkins, B C 1969 Wheat Inform Ser 28, 18-20 Jenkins, B C 1974 “Triticale: First Man-Made Cereal” (C C Tsen, ed.), pp 56-61 Amer Assoc Cereal Chem Kaltsikes, P J 1971 Can J Genet Cytol 13, 656-662 Kaltsikes, P J 1973 In! Triticale Symp C I M M Y T , 1973 Kaltsikes, P J Evans, L E,, and Larter, E N 1969 Can J Genet Cytol 11, 65-7 Kerber, E R 1964 Science 143, 253-255 Kies, C and Fox, H M 1970 Cereal Chem 47, 671 Kies, C., and Fox, H 1973 Abstr Annu Meet Amer Assoc Cereal Chem Kiss, A 1958 Dis KecskemCt (Sta Bull.) Kiss, A 1965 Actu Agr (Budapest) 14, 189-201 Kiss, A., 1966 Z Pflanzenzuecht, 55, 309-329 Kiss, A 1968 “Triticale.” Mezogazdasagi Kiad6, Budpest Kiss, A 1970 Wheat Inform Serv (Jap.) No 31, pp 24-25 Kiss, A 1973 Int Triticale Symp C I M M Y T , 1973 Kostoff, D 1938 Nature (London) 142, 573 Krolow, K D 1962 Z Pflanzenzuecht 48, 177-196 Krolow, K D 1963 Z Pflanzenzuecht 49, 210-242 Krolow, K D 1973 Int Triticale Symp C I M M Y T , 1973 Lacadena, J R., and Perez, M 1973 Proc In! Wheat Genet Symp 1973 Larter, E N 1968 Agr Insf Rev 33, No 2, 12-15 Larter, E N 1973 In! Triticale Symp., C I M M Y T , 1973 Larter, E N Hsam, S L 1973 Proc Int Wheat Genet Symp 1973 Larter, E N., Tsuchiya, T., and Evans, L 1968 I n t Wheal Genet Symp., 3rd, 1968, pp 213-221 Aust Acad Sci., Canberra Larter, E N., Shebeski, L H., McGinnis, R C., Evans, E., and Kaltsikes, P J., 1970 Can f Plant Sci 50, 122-124 Lebedeff, V.N 1934 Pflanzenzrcechtung 509-525 Lebsock, K 1972 PSR-32-72, USDA, ARS Beltsville, Maryland Lewitsky, G A,, and Benetzkaja, F K 1931 Bull Appl Bot., Genet Plant Breed 27, No 1, 241-264 Lindschau, M U., and Oehler, E., 1935 Zurchter 7, 228-233 Lorenz, K., Welsh, J., Normann, R., and Maga, J 1972 Cereal Chem 49, 187-193 Lukyanenko, P P 1972 Proc In! Winter Wheat Conf 1972 pp 13-21 USDA MacDonald, C E and Ahmend, S R 1973 Abstr Annu Meet AACC McGinnis, J 1973 Int Triticale Symp., C I M M Y T , 1973 MacAuliffe, T., and McGinnis, J 1971 Poultry Sci 1, No 4, 1130-1134 MacKenzie, D R 1972 C I M M Y T Inform Bull No Merker, A 1971 Hereditas 68, 281-290 Merker, A 1973a Hereditas (in press) Merker, A 1973b Int Triticale Symp., C I M M Y T , 1973 Munck, L 1964 Hereditas 52, 151-165 Muntzing, A 1935 Hereditas 20, 137-160 Muntzing, A 1936 Zeuchter 8, 188-191 Muntzing, A 1939 Hereditas 25, 387-430 Muntzing, A 1956 Conf Chromosomes Wageningen pp 161-197 48 F J ZILLINSKY Muntzing, A 1957 Cytologia, Suppl 51-56 Muntzing, A 1963 In “Recent Plant Breed Research at Svalof” (E Abebert et al., eds.), pp 167-178 Almquist and Wiksell, Stockholm Muntzing, A 1972 Biol Zentralbl 91, No 1, 69-80 Muntzing, A 1973a Int Triticale Symp., C I M M Y T , 1973 Muntzing, A 1973b Hereditas 74, 41-56 Nakajima, G 1942 Proc Imp Acad (Tokyo) 18, No 2, 100-106 Nakajima, G 1952 Bot Mag 65, 288-294 Nakajima, G 1958 Kromosomo 34-36, 1194-1206 Nakajima, G 1963 Kromosomo 55-56, 1829-1850 O’Mara, J G 1940 Genetics 25, 401-408 O’Mara, J G 1948 Rec Genet Sac Amer 17, 52 Pinto, F F 1973 Int Triticale Symp., CIMMYT, 1973 Pissarev, V 1963 Hereditas, Suppl 2, 279-290 Pissarev, V., and Vinogradova, N M 1944 Akad Nauk URSS 45(3) Pomeranz, Y., Burkhart, B A., and Moon, L C 1970 Proc Amer SOC Brew Chem., 1970 pp 40-46 Quiiiones, M A 1967 CIMMYT Res Bull Quiiiones, M A., and Rodriguex, R 1973 Int Triticale Symp., CIMMYT 1973 Quiiiones, M A., Larter, E N., and Samborski, D J 1972 Can J Genet Cytol 14, 495-505 Rajaram, S., Zillinsky, F J., Borlaug, N E 1972 Indian Phytopathol 35, No 3, 442-448 Richardson, M J., and Walker, J M 1973 Int Triticale Symp., C I M M Y T , 1973 Richardson, M J., and Zillinsky, F J 1972 Plant Dis Rep 56, No 9, 803-804 Rimpau, W 189 “Kreuzungsprodukte landwirtschaftlicher Kulturpflanzen,” pp 1-39 Parey, Berlin Rupert, E A., Rupert, J A., and Beatty, K D 1973 Proc Int Wheat Genet Symp 1973 SSlnchez-Monge, E 1956 An Aula Dei 4, 191-207 SSlnchez-Monge, E 1959 Proc Int Wheat Genet Symp., 1st 1958 pp 181-194 SSlnchez-Monge, E 1969 Proc Int Wheat Genet Symp., 3rd 1968, pp 371-372 SSlnchez-Monge, E 1973 Int Triticale Symp., CIMMYT 1973 Sisodia, N S., and McGinnis, R C 1970 Crop Sci 10, 161-164 Shulyndin, A F 1972 Ukr Res Inst Plant Breed Genet Tech Bull Vol 7, NO 12, 61-74 Shulyndin, A F 1973 EUCARPIA Triticale Conf Leningrad 1973 Strand, R D 1973 “Grade Standards for Triticale.” Report Amer Ass Cereal Chem., St Louis, Missouri Stutz, H C 1962 Genetics 47, 988 (abstr.) Tsen, C C., Hoover, W J and Farrel, E P 1971 Abstr 56th Annu Meet AACC Villegas, E., Amaya, A., and Bauer, R 1973 CIMMYT Res Bull 24, 55-62 Wabwoto, N 1973 Int Triticale Symp., CIMMYT, 1973 Weiringa, G W 1967 Publ 156 pp 1-68 Inst Storage Processing Agric Produce, Wageningen Wilson, A S 1875 Trans Proc Bot SOC.Edinburgh 12, 286-288 Zillinsky, F J and Borlaug, N E (1971) CIMMYT Res Bull 17, 1-27 Zillinsky, F J 1973 Int Triticale Symp., CIMMYT, 1973 Zillinsky, F J., and Liipez, B A 1973 CIMMYT Res Bull 24, 12-32 Subject Index Barley, 164, 180, 187, 197, 286, 293, 333 Barley yellow dwarf virus, 333 Abscissic acid, 70 Bean, African locust, 100 Acanthomia, 51 African yam, 87, 89-90, 95, 102 Aegilops sp., 323, 325 American yam, 102 Agromyza obtusa, 38 broad, Agropyron cristatum, 284 cluster, 10, 78-79, 96, 99 Albedometer, 269 common, 83 Alfalfa, 204, 285, 304 Congo, 32 Alfisol, 243 dry, 2, 5, 6, 97 Allelopathy, 191-193, 201-202, 204 Egyptian kidney, 81 Allophane, 216, 217, 218-219, 221, four-angled, 88 223-224, 225, 227-230, 231, 232, goa, 88 233, 234, 235-2429 243, 244-246, haricot, 10 248, 249, 250, 251 horse-eye, 102 Allophane A, 227 hyacinth, 6, 7, 10, 76, 81-82, 95, 100 Allophane B, 226, 227 India butter, 81 Ancylostomia stercorea, 38 jack, 2, 83, 86, 87, 92, 93, 96, 101 Andosol, 248 jugo, 79 Anion exchange, amorphous clay, lima, 10, 87-88, 92, 95, 102 242-247 locust, 2, 81, 82-83 Anoplocnemis, 51 Manila, 88 Anthracnose, 53, 88 mat, 78 Aphis craccivora, 21 Mexican yam, 2, 87, 90-91 Arachis, moth, 6, 7, 10, 78, 92, 96, 99 Arachis glabrata, 16, 20 mung, see mung bean Arachis hagenbeckii, 20 rice, 6, 7, 10, 11, 83, 86, 87, 92, 94, Arachis hypogaea, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 101 16, 80, 97, 100 sword, 83, 86, 101 Arachis monticola, 16 tepary, 94, 99 Arachis repens, 20 velvet, 2, 10, 11, 91, 94, 96, 102 Arachis villosa, 16, 20 winged, 87, 88-89, 96, 102 Arhar, 32, 35 yam, 10, 11 Armyworm, fall, 23 Bean fly, 50 Ascorbic acid, 26 Bean leaf beetle, 51 Aspergillus gavus, 20, 22, 23 Bean mosaic virus, southern, 116 Aspergillus niger, 20, 23 Beetle, pulse, 69 Atylosia lineata, 33, 37 Belonlaimus gracilis, 53 Atylosia scarabaeoides, 33, 37 Benefin, 30 Aty losia sericea, 33, 37 Benomyl, 53, 54 Azinophosmethyl, 51 N-Benzyl-0-fluorophenoxy-acetamide, 70 Bermudagrass, 168 B Berseem, 76 Beta vulgaris, 284 Bacteria, soil retention of, 141-146 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), Bacterial pustule, 53, 84, 116 137-141, 145 A 349 350 SUBJECT INDEX Biomass, productivity of mixtures, 177-210 soil, 138 Blackgram, 283 Boehmite, 214 Bonavist, 81 Boron, 28, 155-156 Botryodiplodia theobromae, 52 Brachiaria, 30 Breeding methodology, 305-3 10 cowpea, 46-50 5-Bromodeoxyuridine, 70 Bromus inermis, 282 Bruchideae, SO Brughus sp., 38, 52 C Choenephora sp., 53 Chromium, 157, 158, 161 Cicer, Cicer arietinum, , 97 Claviceps purpurea, 33 Clavigralla gibbosa, 38 Clay, amorphous, 21 1-260 cation and anion exchange, 242-247 Cobalt, 73, 157, 162 Cochliobolus sativus, 333 Cocksfoot, 286 Colletotrichum cajanae, 39 Colletotrichum lindemuthianum, 53, 88 Colletotrichum sp., 52 Copper, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162 Corn, 153, 165, 166, 297, 299, 300, 301, 307, 308 see also maize Corn rootworm, southern, 22 Cornstalk borer, lesser, 22 Cotton, 82, 94, 203, 283, 285, 287, 290 coupc, 44 Cowpea, 2, 6, 7, 10, 44-61, 76, 84, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 100, 283 description, 45 management, 58-60 physiology, 54-58 pests and diseases, 50-54 plant improvement, 46-50 utilization, 60-61 Cowpea curculia, 51 Cowpea mottle virus, 116 Cowpea yellow mosaic, 116 p-CPA, 75 Cucumber mosaic virus, 116 Cyamopsis, 93 Cyamopsis psoralides, 78 Cyamopsis tetragonolobus, 78, 99 Cyst nematode, 84 Cadmium, 157, 158, 160 Cajanus, 9, 35, 37, 39, 41 Cajanus cajan, 6, 10, 32, 33, 97, 100, 103-107 Calcium, 27, 57, 73, 155 Callosobruchus chinensis, 69 Canarygrass, Reed, 153, 165, 168 Canavalia, 10, 93 Canavalia ensiformis, 86, 101 Canavalia gladiata, 86, 101 Canavalia plagiosperma, 86 Canavalia spp., 101 Carbofuran, 52 Caterpillar, hairy, 69 Cassava, 45 Cation exchange, amorphous clay, 242-247 Ceratoma trifurcata, 117 Cercospora arachidicola, 15, 20, 22 Cercospora canescens, 22, 53 Cercospora cruenta, 53, 116 Cerospora leaf spot, 13, 14, 22, 23 Cercospora personata, 22 D Cercospora sp., 39, 69 Cerotoma ruficornis, 51 Dactylb glomerata, 286-287, 294 Chalsodermus aeneus, 51 DDT, 75 Chemical oxygen demand (COD), Demosan, 54 137-141, 149 Dendorix sp., 51 Chick-pea, 5, 6, 76, 97 Diabrotica sp., 22 Chloramben, 60 Diacrisia obliqua, 69 Chlorite, 233 Diaporthe phaseolorum, 88 Chloroneb, 54 2,2-Dichloropropionic acid, 66 35 SUBJECT INDEX Digitaria, 30 Dimethoate, 51 Dioclea, 10, 93 Dioclea reflexa, 91 Dioscorea spp., 89 Dithane M-45, 54 Dolichos, Dolichos biflorus, 7, 10, 81 Dolichos lablab, 81-82 Dolichos uniflorus, 81, 82, 100 Dormancy, 26 Downy mildew, 88 E Elasmopalpus lignosellus, 22 Elasmopalpus rubedinellus, 38 Eleusine corocana, 82 Endosulfan, 51 Environment-genotype interactions, 287-29 Ergot, 331, 342 Erisphe graminis, 333 Erisiphe polygoni, 69 Ethephon, 70 Ethylene, 25 Exelastis atomosa, 37, 38 F Fescue, tall, 285 Festuca arundinaceae, 285 Field crops, mixture, productivity of, 177-210 Flax-linseed, 182, 187 Fluorine, 155 0-Fluorophenoxyoc-methylaceticacid, 70 Fly, bean, 69 Frijble, 44 Fungicide, 54 Furadan, 52 Fusarium graminearum, 333 Fusarium nivale, 333 Fusarium oxysporum, 115 Fusarium root rot, 88 Fusarium sp., 52, 203 Fusarium udum, 37, 38 Fusarum wilt, 115 G Gandul, 32 Gardona, 51, 52 Genetics, cowpea, 67-68 peanut, 15-20 pigeon pea, 36-38, 103-118 quantitative relevance to breeding, 277-3 11 Gibberella fujikori, 342 Gibberillic acid, 70, 71 Gibberellin, 25 Gibbsite, 215, 232, 238, 241, 243, 250 Glycine, 10 Glycine max, 6, 10, 11, 83, 97, 101 Glyricidia, Goober, Congo, 79 Gram, Asian, 6, 7, 8, 97, 98 black, 6, 7, 44, 62, 63, 65, 67, 73, 75, 76, 91, 100 golden, 62, 75 green, 7, 62, 63, 65, 67, 75, 76, 91 horse, 7, 10, 81, 92, 94, 96, 100 madras, 81 red, 32 yellow, Grasses, 180, 182, 187 Groundnut, 10 Bambarra, 79-80, 95, 99 Kersting, 80, 99 Guar, 78-79, 94 Guerte, 79 Gusathion, 51 Gyarnopsis tetragoizolobus, 10 H Halloysite, 222, 223, 233, 237, 241, 243 Halo bright, 69 Helicotylenchus pseudorobructus, 53 Heliothis armicera, 38 Heliothis sp., 38, 50 Heliothis virescens, 38 Helminthosporium sp., 53 Hemiptera spp., 50 Heterodera sp., 84 Heterosis, 285-287 Hisingerite, 217-218, 236 352 SUBJECT INDEX Horsegram, 10 see also gram, horse Humate, sodium, 73 I Imogolite, 218, 219-221, 224, 225-226, 227-230, 232, 233, 236, 237, 238, 243, 244-246, 249 Indoleacetic acid, 70 Infrared radiation, 66 Insecticides, 21, 38, 51-52 Iron, 28, 159, 161 K Kaolin, 217 Kaolinite, 227, 243 Kerstingielia, 9, 93 Kerstingiella geocarpa, 80, 99 Kinetin, 70 Lablab, 81 Lablab, Lablab niger, 10, 76, 81, 100 Labtab vulgaris, 82 Lampides sp., 51 Lannate, 52 Laspegresis pychora, 38, 50 Lathyrus, Latosol, 241 Lead, 157,158, 161 Leaf blight, 333 Leaf blotch, 333 Leaf rust, 331 Leaf spot, 53, 69, 116 Leaf stripe, 332 Legume, taxonomy, 8-10 tropical grain, 1-132 Lens, Lens esculenta, 6, 97 Lentil, 6, 97, 283 Leptosphearula sp., 53 Leveillula taurica, 39 Limonite, 214 Lindane, 51 Linuron, 30 Lodging, 329-331 Lolium perenne, 282 Lotus tetragonolobus, 88 Lubia, 44 Lubia, seim, 81 Lysine, 341 M Macrophomina, 23 Macrophomina phaseoli, 20, 39, 69 Magnesium, 57, 73 Maize, 45, 59, 81, 285, 286, 287, 302, 303 see also corn Manganese, 28, 73, 159, 161 Maruca testulalis, 38, 50 MCPE, 76 Melangromyza phaseoli, 50, 69 Melanagromyza vignalis, 50 Meloidogyne incognita, 53, 84, 117 Mercury, 157, 158 Methomyl, 52 Mildew, downy, 69 Millet, 45, 58 pear, 78 pearl, 283 Molybdenum, 28, 41,73 Monoculture, 179-183, 193-194 Montmorillonite, 233, 244, 251 Mucuna, 9, 93 Mucuna sloanet, 102 Mucuna pruriens, 91 Mucuna pruriens var utilis, 11, 102 Mucuna sloanei, 11, 91 Mucuna spp., 10 Mucuna urens, 91 Mullite, 227 Mung bean, 62-76, 91, 95, 100, 283 description, 63-65 management, 75-77 physiology, 70-75 plant improvement, 65-68 N NAA, 75 Nematode, 23, 53 cyst, 69 root knot, 53 Neoscosmopora vasinfecta, 53 SUBJECT INDEX Nickel, 157, 158, 160, 161 Nicotiana otophora, 286 Nicotiana rustica, 293 Nicotiana tabacum, 286 Nicotiana tomenfosiformis, 286 Niebe, 44 Nitrofen, 30 Nitrogen, 27, 135, 146-151, 162, 189, 190 waste water, 146-151, 164-165 Nitrogen fixation, cowpea, 57-58 mung bean, 74-75 NOA 75 Oat, 164, 166, 197, 283, 303, 333 Ootheca mutabilis, 50 Opaline silica, 213-214, 233-234 Ophiobolus graminis, 333 Orthene, 52 Oxisol, 243 Oxygen, soil, 138-141 P Pachyrrhizus, 9, 93 Pachyrrhizus erosus, 90, 91, 102 Pachyrrhizus spp., 88 Pachyrrhizus tuberosus, 90, 91 Parkia, 93 Parkia biglabosa, 82 Parkia clappertonia, 82 Parkia filicoides, 82 Parkia oliveri, 82 Parkia spp., 100 Pea, asparagus, 88 Australian, 82 blackeye, 44 dry, earth, 79 kaffir, 79 pigeon, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 32-44, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 100, 103-118 princess, 88 southern, 44 Peanut, 2, 6-7, 11-32, 91, 93, 97, 97, 98, 100 botanical, 12-14 diseases, 22-24 growth process, 24-29 353 insect pests, 21-22 management, 29-3 plant improvement, 14-20 seed composition, Pesticide, plant uptake, 165-166 Phaseolus, 9, 92, 93, 96 Phaseolus acontifolius, 8, 74, 78 Phaseolus acutifolius var latifolius, 79, 99 Phaseolus angularis, Phaseolus aureus, 8, 62, 74, 75 Phaseolus calcaretus, 8, 11 Phaseolus lunatus, 87, 93, 102 Phaeolus manihotis, 39 Phaseolus mungo, 8, 74 Phaseolus radiatus, Phaseolus vulgaris, 6, 10, 75, 83, 97, 101 Phosphate, 246 Phosphorus, 27, 41, 57, 58, 59, 60,72-73, 189 wastewater, 151-1 55 Photoperiod, 55, 110 Physalospora cajanae, 39 Phytophthora phaseoli, 88 Piezotrachelus varium, 51 Pigeon pea, 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 32-44, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 100, 103-118 botanical, 33-34 genetics, 103-118 pests and diseases, 38-40 physiology and management, 40-44 plant improvement, 34-38 Pisum, Pisum spp., 6, 97 Plant relative yield (PRY), 185 Pod blight, 88 Polychlorinated biphenyl, 166 Potash, 27, 57, 59 Potassium, 57, 60, 73, 74, 189 Potassium azide, 54 Potato, 294 Powdery mildew, 116, 333 Pratylenchus brachyurus, 23 Pratylenchus sp., 53 Prometryne, 30 Pseudomonas phaseolicola, 69 Pseudomonas solancearum, 20 Pseudomonas striafaciens, 332 Psophocarpus, 10, 94 Psophocarpus tetragonolobus, 88, 102 354 Puccinia Puccinia Puccinia Puccinia Pumice, Pythium Pythium SUBJECT INDEX arachidis, 20, 22 glumarum, 33 graminis, 33 recondita, 3 218, 221, 225, 236, 237 aphanidermatum, 52 sp., 54 R Radiometer, calibration and use, 261-275 Ragi, 82 Relative yield total (RYT), 186, 193, 195, 196, 199, 200-204 Rhizobial symbiosis, 27, 42 Rhizobium, 75 Rhizobium japonicum, 84 Rhizoctonia bataticola, 23, 53, 115 Rhizoctonia solani, 52, 204 Rhizocotnia sp., 54 Rhizopus nigricuns, 23 Rice, 63, 75, 81, 93, 180, 187, 202 Rogor, 40, 51 Root knot nematode, 84, 117 Rosette virus, 21, 23 Rotylenchus reniformis, 39 Rush, 144, 168 Rye, 180, 187, 285, 316, 322, 328, 339 Ryegrass, 181 S Salt, waste water, 162-163 Scirpus lacustris, 144, 168 Sclerophthora macrospora, 333 Sclerotium bataticola, 20 Sclerotium rolfsii, 20, 22, 54, 69 Secale cereak, 318 Secale montanum, 18 Septoria tritici, 333 Sericothrips occipetalis, 50 Short-wave balance meter, 269 Silica, opaline, 213-214, 233-234 Smut, 333 Soil, amorphous clay, 21 1-260 Solarimeter, 269 Sorghum, 45, 59, 78, 82, 92, 283, 294 Soybean, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 83-85, 87, 93, 95, 97, 101, 166, 194, 283, 290, 303 Soybean mosaic, 84 Spartina Townsendii, 144 Sphenoptera sp., 51 Sphenostylis, 9, 93 Sphenostylis stenocarpa, 10, 11, 89, 102 Spodoptera frugipcrda, 22 Spodoptera spp., 50 Spodozol, 23 Stem blight, 53 Stem rust, 331 Striga gesnerioides, 53 Stripe rust, 331, 332 Subterranean clover, 187 Sudangrass, 59 Sugar beet, 284 Sulfur, 28, 73 Sweet potato, 87 T Taeniothrips sjostedi, 50 Tassidedes, Thiodan, 51, 52 Thrip, 52 2-Thiouracil, 70 Thymidine, 70 Tobacco, 283, 285, 286, 290, 301 Tobacco ringspot virus, 117 Total organic content (TOC), 137, 138, 141 Trifluralin, 30, 60 Triticale, development of, 15-348 Triticum aestivum, 294 Triticum monococcum, 324 Triticum secalotricum saratoviense, 16, 344 Triticum secalum, 345 Triticum timopheevi, 323 Triticum triticale, 344 Triticum turgidum, 17, 18 Tropical agricultural, grain legume, 1-132 Tur, 32, 35 Tylenchorhyachus sp., 39 U Ultraviolet radiation, 66 Uracil, 70 Uromyccs appendiculatus, 53, 69 355 SUBJECT INDEX Uromyces piiaseofi, 88 Uromyces phaseoli var vignae, 54 Uromyces sp., 39 Ustilago spp., 333 V Vermiculite, 23 Verticillium dahliae, 20 Vicia, Vicia faba, 6, 97 Vigna, 8, 9, 81, 92 Vigna acontifolia, 10, 78, 99 Vigna embellata, 93 Vigna radiata, 62, 100 Vigna radiata var aureus, 10 Vigna radiata var mungo, 10 Vigna sesquipedalis, 47 Vigna sp., Vigna trinervius, 62 Vigna umbellata, 10, 11, 101 Vigna unguiculata, 6, 10, 44, 69, 97, 100 Virus, barley yellow dwarf, 333 cowpea mottle, 116 cowpea yellow mosaic, 53, 54, 116 cucumber mosaic, 54, 116 green mottle, 53, 54 rosette, 21, 23 soil retention of, 141-146 southern bean mosaic, 116 soybean mosaic, 84 tobacco ringspot, 117 A C € F G O H 1 J yellow bean mosaic, 54, 84 yellow mosaic, 53 Voandzeia, 9, 80, 93 Voandzeia subterranea, 10, 79, 99 Voandza, 79 Volcanic ash, 218, 219, 223, 225, 233, 235-239, 247, 249, 250-251 W Wastewater, land treatment, 133-176 Water, 201 land disposal, 133-176 Weedicide, 76 Wheat, 164, 166, 180, 187, 283, 290, 316, 332, 333, 342 bread, 340 dururn, 318 hard red winter, 294 Wheatgrass, crested, 284 White clover, 190 X Xanthemonas phaseoli, 84 Xanthomonas translucens, 332 Xanthomonas vignicota, 53, 1I6 L Zinc, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162 Zonocerus spp., 50 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ... Headquarters ADVANCES IN AGRONOMY Prepared under the Auspices of the AMERICAN SOCIETYOF AGRONOMY VOLUME 26 Edited by N C BRADY International Rice Research Institute Manila, Philippines 1974 ACADEMIC... in Latin America, Brazil produced 4.6% of the world crop Between 1961-1965 and 1971, total production in the Americas increased by 36.6%, in Africa by 7.8%, and in Asia (omitting mainland China... grain legume production and population in tropical regions based on information in Volumes 24 and 25 of the F A Production Yearbook (1971-1972) in order to gain perspective on the problems involved