Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:38:52.003Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yield characters of selected oat varieties in relation to cereal breeding technique1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. G. Stephens
S. G. Stephens
Affiliation:
Formerly Scottish Society for Research in Plant Breeding, Edinburgh, Now Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, Cotton Research Station, Trinidad, British West Indies
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Results obtained from two seasons' population studies of selected spring oat varieties in Scotland indicated that extent of tillering had little or no effect on yield. These results are in sharp contrast with those obtained by workers with wheat.

2. The yield of individual plants under the conditions of the experiments became adjusted to differences in population density primarily by variation in number of grains per panicle. Spikelet weight tended to be negatively correlated both with population density (external competition) and with number of grains per panicle (intrapanicle competition). These factors tended to neutralize each other.

3. The decrease in size of additional grains in spikelets with more than one grain was balanced by increased weight of the basal grains as compared with the weight of a single grained spikelet. Average grain weight per spikelet therefore tends to remain constant.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , April 1942 , pp. 217 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1942

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

Bell, G. D. H. (1937). J. agric. Sci. 27, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, R. A. (1920). J. agric. Sci. 10, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnett, O. T. (1935). J. agric. Res. 51, 451.Google Scholar
Bonnett, O. T. (1936). J. agric. Res. 53, 445.Google Scholar
Bonnett, O. T. (1937). J. agric. Res. 54, 927.Google Scholar
Bonnett, O. T. & Woodworth, C. M. (1931). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 23, 311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boonstra, A. E. (1936). Z. Zücht. (A), 21, 115.Google Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. (1919). Ann. appl. Biol. 6, 142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridgeford, R. O. & Hayes, H. K. (1931). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 23, 106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doughty, L. R. & Engledow, F. L. (1928). J. agric. Sci. 18, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dungan, G. H. (1931). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 23, 662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engledow, F. L. (1925). J. agric. Sci. 15, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engledow, F. L. (1926). J. agric. Sci. 16, 166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engledow, F. L. & Ramiah, K. (1930). J. agric. Sci. 20, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engledow, F. L. & Wadham, S. M. (1923). J. agric. Sci. 13, 390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1936). Statistical Methods for Research Workers. 6th ed. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Forster, H. C. & Vasey, A. J. (1931). J. agric. Sci. 21, 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankel, O. H. (1935). J. agric. Sci. 25, 466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopkins, J. W. (1932). Canad. J. Res. 7, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, P. S. (1934). Z. Zücht. (A), 19, 70.Google Scholar
Hunter, H. (1938). J. agric. Sci. 28, 472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H. W. & Meng, C. J. (1937). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 29, 577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, T. G. (1922). Ann. Bot., Land., 36, 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murneek, A. E. (1926). Plant Physiol. 1, 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearsall, W. H. (1923). Ann. Bot., Lond., 37, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peh, S. C. (1937). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 29, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purvis, O. N. (1934). Ann. Bot., Lond., 48, 919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purvis, O. N. & Gregory, F. G. (1937). Ann. Bot, Lond. (New Series), 1, 569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayns, F. (1930). J. Roy. agric. Soc. 91, 95.Google Scholar
Smith, H. F. (1935). Rep. Melbourne Intg. Aust. Ass. Adv. Sci.Google Scholar
Smith, H. F. (1937). J. Coun, sci. industr. Res. Aust. Bull. no. 109.Google Scholar
Sprague, H. B. & Farris, N. F. (1931). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 23, 516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thayer, J. W. & Rather, H. C. (1937). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 29, 754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tincker, M. A. & Jones, M. G. (1931). Ann. appl. Biol. 18, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tippett, L. H. (1931). The Methods of Statistics. London: Williams and Norgate.Google Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1936). J. agric. Sci. 26, 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. & Norman, A. G. (1939). J. agric. Sci. 29, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiebe, G. A. (1937). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 29, 713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1933). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 1, 129.Google Scholar
Yates, F. (1936). J. Minist. Agric. 43, 156.Google Scholar