Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T02:34:05.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of single and repeated applications of chlormequat on early crop development, lodging resistance and yield of winter oats

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. H. Leitch  and
J. D. Hayes
M. H. Leitch
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 3DD, UK
J. D. Hayes
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed SY23 3DD, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effects of single and repeated early applications of chlormequat (at up to and including Zadoks growth stage (GS) 32) on the growth and development of the winter oat cultivar Bulwark were investigated in two seasons of field experiments at Tenby, UK. Early dry matter production, shoot initiation and subsequent shoot survival were unaffected by all treatments. At maturity, reductions in stem length and lodging were best achieved by chlormequat applied at GS 32; this treatment shortened stems by an average of 24% in 1985/86 and 31% in 1986/87. Earlier applications were significantly less effective.

Grain yields were unaffected by single and repeated early applications of chlormequat. However, in both seasons, yields were significantly reduced by repeated treatments with chlormequat, including application at GS 32. Individual grain weight was the yield component principally affected.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 115 , Issue 1 , August 1990 , pp. 11 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

Batch, J. J. (1981). Recent developments on growth regu-lators for cereal crops. Outlook on Agriculture 10, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, C. F. (1986). Modifications to the growth and development of cereals using chlorocholine chloride in the absence of lodging: a synopsis. Field Crops Research 14, 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, C. F. & Dawkins, T. C. K. (1986). Influence of nitrogen fertilizer and chlormequat on two spring wheat cultivars. Crop Research, UK 25, 89–101.Google Scholar
Kettlewell, P. S., Whitley, E. A., Meredith, W. S. & Sylvester-Bradley, R. (1983). Effects of early applica-tions of chlormequat on tillering and yield of winter wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100, 735–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koranteng, G. O. & Matthews, S. (1982). Modifications of the development of spring barley by early applications of CCC and GA3 and the subsequent effects on yield components and yield. In Chemical Manipulation of Crop Growth and Development (Ed. McLaren, J. S.), pp. 343–357. London: Butterworth Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitch, M. H. & Hayes, J. D. (1989). Effects of chlormequat application on stem characteristics, yield and panicle conformation of winter oats. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 113, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, S., Koranteng, G. O. & Thomason, W. J. (1982). Tillering and ear production: opportunities for chemical regulation. In Opportunities for Manipulation of Cereal Productivity (Eds Hawkins, A. F. & Jeffcoat, B.), pp. 88–96. Monograph, 7, British Plant Growth Regulator Group, Wantage.Google Scholar
Tennenhouse, A. N. & Lacroix, L. J. (1972). Effects of (2-chloroethyl) trimethylammonium chloride (CCC) on certain agronomic traits of oats and triticale. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 52, 559–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, W. D. (1983). Plant growth regulators. In Yield of Cereals, pp. 119–131. Course Papers, National Agri-cultural Centre Arable Unit, Stoneleigh, UK.Google Scholar
Zadoks, J. S., Chang, T. T. & Konzak, C. F. (1974). A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14, 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar