Abstract
Many Arachis species collections do not produce pegs in North Carolina even though they flower profusely. To investigate reasons for the failure of fruiting, nine wild peanut species of section Arachis and three A. hypogaea cultivars representing spanish, valencia and virginia types were evaluated for response to short and long-day treatments in the North Carolina State Phytotron Unit of the Southeastern Environmental Laboratories. The objective of this investigation was to determine the flowering and fruiting responses of Arachis species to short and long-day photoperiods. Plant collections grown under a 9-hour short-day treatment were generally less vigorous, but produced more pegs than corresponding plants grown in long-day treatments which were produced by 9 hours of light plus a 3-hour interruption of the dark period. Annual species produced significantly more flowers and pegs than perennial species during both long and short days. The total number of flowers produced ranged from 0 during short days for A. correntina to more than 300 for A. cardenasii in long-day treatments. Only one plant of each species A. chacoense and A. villosa, and no plants of A. correntina, flowered in short days. Total numbers of pegs produced in short-day treatments were generally greater than in long-day treatments and the ratio of total number of pegstotal number of flowers was consistently greater during short-day treatments. A general trend was observed for more flowers produced in long-day treatments, but more pegs produced in short days. This study indicated that photoperiod can be manipulated to increase the seed set of some species and the success rate of obtaining certain interspecific hybrids. Furthermore, introgression from wild to cultivated species may possibly alter the reproductive capacity of A. hypogaea to photoperiod.
Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature
Keywords: Arachis, Flowering, photoperiod, Pegging
How to Cite:
Stalker, H. & Wynne, J., (1983) “Photoperiodic Response of Peanut Species¹”, Peanut Science 10(2), p.59-62. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-10-2-4