Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-c9gpj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T20:30:54.390Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of some factors on growth, development and yield of winter wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. C. Holmes  and
W. M. Tahir
J. C. Holmes
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Edinburgh University
W. M. Tahir
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Edinburgh University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The effect of three factors (nitrogen level, time of nitrogen application and weed control) and their interactions on three different plant densities of winter wheat have been measured. Data concerning the growth, development and yield have been examined.

2. Plant populations of 104,000, 155,000 and 281,000 per acre produced on the average of all treatments 21·3, 22·4 and 23·2 cwt. grain per acre, respectively.

3. An increase in nitrogen fertilizer to the 2 cwt. sulphate of ammonia per acre level increased the grain yield of all populations. This response followed an increase in the number of tillers and an increase in the percentage of tillers producing ears. There was no significant interaction between nitrogen level and plant density. The nitrogen content of the grain increased with nitrogen level.

4. Time of nitrogen application did not affect the grain yield, although it did cause considerable differences in the growth and development of the plants. There was no significant interaction betweentime of application and plant density. The late application of nitrogen produced a lower yield of straw and a higher nitrogen content in the grain.

5. Weed control increased the grain yield of all plant populations, this increase following an increase in the number of ears per plant. There was a significant interaction between weed control and plant density. Weed control raised the yield of the low plant population by 3·9 cwt. per acre compared with 0·9 and 2·0 cwt. for the medium and high populations. Weed control also increased the nitrogen content of the grain.

6. The only other interaction concerning grain yield which was significant was that of weed control with time of nitrogen application. Weed control increased the yield of the early and late applications but inexplicably reduced the yield of the intermediate date.

7. It is concluded (a) that the experiment provided no evidence that the yield of a thin stand of winter wheat can be increased further by altering normal nitrogen fertilizer application or by altering the time of application of the fertilizer; (b) that for good results weed control is essential where the plant population is low.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , October 1956 , pp. 115 - 123
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1956

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

Blackman, G. E. (1934). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 2, 213.Google Scholar
Blackman, G. E. & Templeman, W. G. (1938). J. Agric. Sci. 28, 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, G. A. (1940–1). J. Minist. Agric. 47, 107.Google Scholar
Davies, C. (1931). J. S. E. Agric. Coll. Wye, no. 28, 243.Google Scholar
Doughty, L. R. & Engledow, F. L.(1928). J. Agric. Sci. 18, 317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eire Manurial Trials (1936). Eire J. Dep. Agric. 34, 77.Google 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. (1928). J. Agric. Sci. 18, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engledow, F. L. (1931). Scot. Agric. 14, 240.Google Scholar
Engledow, F. L. & Ramiah, K. (1930). J. Agric. Sci. 20, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, H. C. & Vasey, A. J. (1930). J. Dep. Agric. Victoria, 28, 458.Google Scholar
Frankel, O. H. (1930). Wheat Research Institute, New Zealand, First Annual Report, p. 52.Google Scholar
Garner, F. H. & Sanders, H. G. (1936). J. Agric. Sci. 26, 317.Google Scholar
Garner, H. V. (1928–1929). J. Minist. Agric. 35, 68.Google Scholar
Garner, H. V. (1929–1930). J. Minist. Agric. 36, 1209.Google Scholar
Garner, H. V. (1948). Farming, 2, 268.Google Scholar
Glynne, M. D. (1951). Ann. Appl. Biol. 38, 665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, F. G. (1949). Proc. Specialist Conference in Agriculture, Australia, p. 114. H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Halliday, D. J. (1948). Bull. Jealott's Hill Res. Sta. no. 6.Google Scholar
Hudson, H. G. (1941 a). J. Agric. Sci. 31, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, H. G. (1941 b). J. Agric. Sci. 31, 138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesselbach, T. A. & Weihing, R. M. (1933). J. Agric. Res. 47, 399.Google Scholar
Mann, H. H. & Barnes, T. W. (1950). Ann. Appl. Biol. 37, 139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Painter, C. G. & Leamer, R. W. (1953). Agron. J. 45, 261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayns, F. (1930). J. R. Agric. Soc. 91, 109.Google Scholar
Salt, G. A. (1953). Ann. Appl. Biol. 40, 224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, H. F. (1937). Res. Bull. Aust. Coun. Sci. Industr. Res. no. 109.Google Scholar
Vengris, J., Drake, M., Colby, W. G. & Bart, J. (1953). Agron. J. 45, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1936). J. Agric. Sci. 26, 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1939). J. Agric. Sci. 29, 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1937). Imp. Bur. Soil Sci. Tech. Comm. no. 35.Google Scholar