Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T07:57:45.406Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modification of yield components and stem length in spring barley by the application of growth retardants prior to main shoot stem elongation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. R. Waddington  and
Phyllis Cartwright
S. R. Waddington
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Botany, Plant Science Laboratories, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 2AS
Phyllis Cartwright
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Botany, Plant Science Laboratories, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 2AS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The ability of mepiquat chloride and chlormequat growth retardants to modify grain yield components and stem length in two contrasting spring barley cultivars was evaluated in 2 years of small scale field experiments in central southern England. Interactions with plant population density and sowing date were studied.

The mid-tall cv. Koru was more responsive than the shorter high tillering ‘erectoides’ cv. Goldmarker. Early treatments of mepiquat chloride (applied before the start of main shoot stem elongation) on Koru raised grain yield/plant in both years. Early treatments with chlormequat and later applications (during main shoot stem elongation) of either retardant were largely ineffective. Yield increases were achieved by raising the number of spikes/plant along with the number of grains/spike and the above-ground biomass in certain later-formed, lower ranking shoots.

A medium plant population density (250 plants/m2) allowed the best response to early treatment with mepiquat chloride, as did a normally-timed sowing in contrast to a late one. Retardant-induced improvements in yield components in Koru were positively correlated with plant height, the result of over-compensation in the length of upper internodes.

It appears that effective treatments reduced the dominance of the main shoot during tillering, allowing greater initiation and survival of florets (grain sites) in smaller shoots.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 107 , Issue 2 , October 1986 , pp. 367 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Batch, J. J. (1981). Recent developments in growth regulators for cereal crops. Outlook on Agriculture 10, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cartwbight, P. M. & Waddington, S. R. (1982). Growth regulators and grain yield in spring cereals. In Opportunities for Manipulation of Cereal Productivity, Monograph 7 (ed. Hawkins, A. F. and Jeffcoat, B.), pp. 61–70. Wantage: British Plant Growth Regulator Group.Google Scholar
Francis, A. L. (1974). Time of sowing spring barley and spring wheat. Experimental Husbandry 26, 76–89.Google Scholar
Heyland, K. U., Solansky, S. & Aufhammer, W. (1975). Einflüsse von CCC und Gibberellinsäurebehandlungen auf die Ertragsbildung der Sommergerste. Zeitschrift fiir Acker- und Pflanzenbau 141, 109–199.Google Scholar
Höfner, W. & Kühn, H. (1982). Effect of growth regulator combinations on ear development, assimilate translocation and yield in cereal crops. In Chemical Manipulation of Crop Qrowth and Development. 33rd Easter School in Agricultural Science, University of Nottingham (ed. McLaren, J. S.), pp. 376–390. London: Butterworths.Google 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. 33rd Easter School in Agricultural Science, University of Nottingham (ed. McLaren, J. S.), pp. 343–357. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larter, E. N., Samii, M. & Sosulski, F. W. (1965). The morphological and physiological effects of (2-chloroethyl)trimethylammonium chloride on barley. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 45, 419–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linser, H. (1968). Influence of CCC on lodging and behaviour of cereal plants. Euphytica 17 (Supplement 1), 215–238.Google Scholar
Linser, H. & Kühn, H. (1962). Lagerungshemmende bzw, standfestigkeitsstarkende Dungemittel auf Basis von gibberellinsaureantagonistisehen Stoffen der Gruppe CCC (Chloroholinchlorid). Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenerndhrung, Dungung, Bodenkunde 96, 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, P. R. & Caldicott, J. J. B. (1981). The effect of chlormequat chloride formulated with choline chloride on the height and yield of winter wheat. Annals of Applied Biology 97, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, S., Kokanteno, G. O. & Thomson, W. J. (1982). Tillering and ear production: opportunities for chemical regulation. In Opportunities for Manipulation of Cereal Productivity, Monograph 7 (ed. Hawkins, A. F. and Jeffcoat, B.), pp. 88–96. Wantage: British Plant Growth Regulator Group.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. & Thomson, W. J. (1984). Growth regulation: control of growth and development. In Cereal Production, Proceedings of the Second International Summer School in Agriculture held by the Royal Dublin Society (ed. Gallagher, E. J.), pp. 259–266. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Pinthus, M. J. & Rudich, J. (1967). Increase in grain yield of CCC-treated wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in the absence of lodging. Agrochimica 11, 565–570.Google Scholar
Primost, E. (1977). Wirkung von Stabilan (Chlorcholinchlorid, CCC) auf die Länge der Einzelnen Internodien von Wintergerste im Feldversuch. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenernährung und Bodenkunde 140, 387–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffer, K., Dippel, V., Hartung, E. G. & Karpenstein, M. (1983). Der Einfluss eines Wachstumsregulators auf Ertrag und Ertragskomponenten bei Sommergerste unter Ausschaltung von Lager. Zeitschrift für Acker- und Pflanzenbau 152, 284–292.Google Scholar
Tottman, D. R., Makepeace, R. J. & Broad, H. (1979). An explanation of the decimal code for the growth stages of cereals, with illustrations. Annals of Applied Biology 93, 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, S. R., Cartwright, P. M. & Wall, P. C. (1983). A quantitative scale of spike initial and pistil development in barley and wheat. Annals of Botany 51, 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. H. & Cartwright, P. M. (1980). The effect of applications of a synthetic cytokinin on shoot dominance and grain yield in spring barley. Annals of Botany 46, 445–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar