Essential to understanding any plant is basic knowledge of its life cycle. This investigation was designed to determine if the Florunner cultivar of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an annual or perennial from a strictly botanical standpoint. In order to investigate this aspect of the life cycle, it was necessary to determine if signs of monocarpic senescence were evident at the end of the customary growing season, and to determine how long Florunner specimens would live when disease, temperature and water were not permitted to become fatally stressful. To monitor for signs of senescence, shoot growth and N content were measured until the best harvest date (146 days after planting, DAP). Carbon assimilation and distribution, flower and fruit development also were determined at the best harvest date. No signs of monocarpic senescence were noted. Shoot N concentration was found to initially decline and then level off to a steady state of 28 mg N g-1 of tissue. At harvest, proportions of recently assimilated carbon were measured in root, shoot and fruit tissue. In the longevity portion of the experiment, individual Florunner plants were field-grown for 1158 days under protection from disease and cold injury. At 1158 DAP, the plants still showed no sign of senescence. Fruit of all maturity classes were present on every plant from 90 DAP until the experiment ended (1158 DAP). Throughout the experiment, most of the plant's assimilate appeared to go into fruit production. Tissue samples examined throughout the experiment showed considerable secondary phloem and xylem in older shoot and root tissue. Cork, derived from the phellogen, formed around older portions of the stem and root. Growth of xylem, phloem and phellogen were similar to other perennial herbaceous dicots.
Full Article Available as PDF only - Use Download Feature
Keywords: Arachis hypogaea, life cycle, Groundnut, growth and development, perennial, carbon partitioning
How to Cite:
Kvien, C. & Ozias-Akins, P., (1991) “Lack of Monocarpic Senescence in Florunner Peanut”, Peanut Science 18(2), p.86-90. doi: https://doi.org/10.3146/i0095-3679-18-2-6