Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T11:50:32.152Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses of Young Tea (Camellia Sinensis) Clones to Drought and Temperature. I. Yield and Yield Distribution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

Paul J. Burgess  and
M. K. V. Carr
Paul J. Burgess
Affiliation:
Ngwazi Tea Research Unit, c/o PO Box 4955, Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, UK Department of Water Management, Silsoe College, Cranfield University, Silsoe, Bedfordshire, MK45 4DT, UK
M. K. V. Carr
Affiliation:
Department of Water Management, Silsoe College, Cranfield University, Silsoe, Bedfordshire, MK45 4DT, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The yield response to drought and temperature of six contrasting tea clones was studied in a line-source irrigation experiment in Southern Tanzania. The selected clones, all commercially and/or scientifically important in eastern Africa, embrace a range of morphological and physiological types. The bushes were planted in August 1988 and differential drought treatments were imposed for 16 and 13 weeks towards the end of the dry seasons in 1990 and 1991, respectively. The resulting soil water deficits were successfully simulated using a water balance model. Under well-watered conditions Clone S15/10 (from Kenya) gave the highest yield of dry tea, reaching 5600 kg ha−l in the fourth year after planting (1991/92) compared with 3640–4420 kg ha−1 for the other five clones. During the cool season Clone SFS150 (from Malawi) yielded more than Clones 1, 207, 6/8 and K35. Although annual yields decreased curvi-linearly as the maximum soil water deficit increased, single values for the drought sensitivity of each clone could be derived by using stress time as an index of drought. On this basis Clones S15/10 and 207 were identified as being the most sensitive to drought; Clones SFS150 and 1 were drought resistant. The reasons for these differences in yield responses and the importance of determining drought sensitivity over an appropriate time period are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 32 , Issue 3 , July 1996 , pp. 357 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Amoozegar, A., Martin, K. C. & Hoover, M. T. (1989). Effects of access hole properties on soil water content determination by neutron thermalization. Soil Science Society of America journal 53:330–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, P. J. (1992). Responses of Tea Clones to Drought in Southern Tanzania. PhD thesis, Silsoe College (Cranfield Institute of Technology).Google Scholar
Burgess, P. J. & Carr, M. K. V. (1996 a). Responses of young tea (Camellia sinensis) clones to drought and temperature. II. Dry matter production and partitioning. Experimental Agriculture (in press).Google Scholar
Burgess, P. J. & Carr, M. K. V. (1996 h). Responses of young tea (Camellia sinensis) clones to drought and temperature. III. Shoot extension and development. Experimental Agriculture (in press).Google Scholar
Cannell, M. G. R., Harvey, F. J., Smith, R. I. & Deans, J. D. (1990). Genetic Improvement of Tea. Final report to the Overseas Development Administration, February 1987–January 1990. Penicuik, Midlothian, Scotland: Edinburgh Research Station, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology.Google Scholar
Carr, M. K. V. (1971). The internal status of the tea plant (Camellia sinensis): some results illustrating the use of the pressure chamber technique. Agricultural Meteorology 9:447–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, M. K. V. (1974). Irrigating seedling tea in Southern Tanzania: effects on total yields, distribution of yield and water use. journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 83:363–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, M. K. V. (1977). Changes in the water status of tea clones during dry weather in Kenya. journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89:297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, M. K. V. & Stephens, W. (1992). Climate, weather and the yield of tea. In Tea: Cultivation to Consumption, 87–135 (Eds Willson, K. C. and Clifford, M. N.). London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, M. K. V., Dale, M. O. & Stephens, W. (1987). Yield distribution in irrigated tea (camellia sinensis) at two sites in Eastern Africa. Experimental Agriculture 23:75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hanks, R. J., Keller, J., Rasmussen, V. P. & Wilson, G. D. (1976). Line source sprinkler for continuous variable irrigation-crop production studies. Soil Science Society of America journal 40:426–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. D. V. & Carr, M. K. V. (1988). Analysing line source irrigation experiments. Experimental Agriculture 24: 169–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyirenda, H. E. (1988). Performance of new clones. Tea Research Foundation of Central Africa Quarterly Newsletter 91:11.Google Scholar
Nyirenda, H. E. & Grice, W. J. (1989). TRF(CA) recommended clones. In Tea Planter's Handbook. Malawi: Tea Research Foundation of Central Africa.Google Scholar
Othieno, C. O. (1978). Supplementary irrigation of young clonal tea in Kenya. I. Survival, growth and yield. Experimental Agriculture 14:229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Othieno, C. O. (1992). Soils. In Tea: Cultivation to Consumption, 137–172. (Eds Willson, K. C. and Clifford, M. N.). London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyamo, J. (1992). The golden clone in a golden field. Tea 13:1.Google Scholar
Shanmuganathan, N. & Rodrigo, W. R. F. (1967). Studies on collar and branch canker of young tea (Phomopsis theae Petch). II. Influence of soil moisture on the disease. Tea Quarterly 38:320–330.Google Scholar
Stephens, W. & Carr, M. K. V. (1989). A water stress index for tea (Camellia sinensis L.). Experimental Agriculture 25:545–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, W. & Carr, M. K. V. (1990). Seasonal and clonal differences in shoot extension rates and numbers in tea (Camellia sinensis). Experimental Agriculture 26:83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, W. & Carr, M. K. V. (1991 a). Responses of tea (Camellia sinensis) to irrigation and fertilizer. I. Yield. Experimental Agriculture 27:177–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephens, W. & Carr, M. K. V. (1991 b). Responses of tea (Camellia sinensis) to irrigation and fertilizer. II. Water use. Experimental Agriculture 27:193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanton, T. W. (1982). Environmental factors affecting the yield of tea (Camellia sinensis). II. Effects of soil temperature, day length, and dry air. Experimental Agriculture 18: 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tea Research Foundation of Kenya (1986). Tea Growers Handbook, 4th Edition. Kericho, Kenya: The Tea Board of Kenya.Google Scholar
Wickramaratne, M. R. T. (1981). Genotype-environment interactions in tea (Camellia sinensis L.) and their implications in tea breeding and selection. journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96:471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar