Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T06:31:58.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of the year of wheat variety release on productivity and stability of performance on two organic and two non-organic farms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2010

H. JONES ,
S. CLARKE ,
Z. HAIGH ,
H. PEARCE  and
M. WOLFE
H. JONES*
Affiliation:
Crops Research Unit, Department of Agriculture, The University of Reading, Earley Gate, PO Box 237, ReadingRG6 6AR, UK
S. CLARKE
Affiliation:
The Organic Research Centre – Elm Farm, Hamstead Marshall, Newbury, BerkshireRG20 0HR, UK
Z. HAIGH
Affiliation:
The Organic Research Centre, Wakelyns Agroforestry, Fressingfield, Eye, SuffolkIP21 5SD, UK
H. PEARCE
Affiliation:
The Organic Research Centre, Wakelyns Agroforestry, Fressingfield, Eye, SuffolkIP21 5SD, UK
M. WOLFE
Affiliation:
The Organic Research Centre, Wakelyns Agroforestry, Fressingfield, Eye, SuffolkIP21 5SD, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Nineteen wheat cultivars, released from 1934 to 2000, were grown at two organic and two non-organic sites in each of 3 years (2004–05, 2005–06 and 2006–07). Assessments included grain yield, grain protein concentration, protein yield, disease incidence and green leaf area (GLA). The superiority of each cultivar (the sum of the squares of the differences between its mean in each environment and the mean of the best cultivar there, divided by twice the number of environments; CS) was calculated for yield, grain protein concentration and protein yield, and ranked in each environment. The yield and grain protein concentration CS were more closely correlated with cultivar release date at the non-organic sites than at organic sites. This difference may be attributed to higher yield levels with larger differences among cultivars at the non-organic sites, rather than to improved stability (i.e. similar ranks) across sites. The significant difference in the correlation of protein yield CS and cultivar age between organic and non-organic sites would support evidence that the ability to take up mineral nitrogen (N) compared to soil N has been a component of the selection conditions of more modern cultivars (released after 1989). This is supported by assessment of GLA, where more modern cultivars in the non-organic systems had greater late-season GLA, a trend that was not identified in organic conditions. This effect could explain the poor correlation between age and protein yield CS in organic compared to non-organic conditions where modern cultivars are selected to benefit from later nitrogen (N) availability which includes the spring nitrogen applications tailored to coincide with peak crop demand. Under organic management, N release is largely based on the breakdown of fertility-building crops incorporated (ploughed-in) in the previous autumn. The release of nutrients from these residues is dependent on the soil conditions, which includes temperature and microbial populations, in addition to the potential leaching effect of high winter rainfall in the UK. In organic cereal crops, early resource capture is a major advantage for maximizing the utilization of nutrients from residue breakdown. It is concluded that selection of cultivars under conditions of high agrochemical inputs selects for cultivars that yield well under maximal conditions in terms of nutrient availability and pest, disease and weed control. The selection conditions for breeding have a tendency to select cultivars which perform relatively better in non-organic compared to organic systems.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 148 , Issue 3 , June 2010 , pp. 303 - 317
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Addisu, M., Snape, J. W., Simmonds, J. R. & Gooding, M. J. (2009). Reduced height (Rht) and photoperiod insensitivity (Ppd) allele associations with establishment and early growth of wheat in contrasting production systems. Euphytica 166, 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Addisu, M., Snape, J. W., Simmonds, J. R. & Gooding, M. J. (2010). Effects of reduced height (Rht) and photoperiod insensitivity (Ppd) alleles on performance of wheat in different production systems. Euphytica 172, 169–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, R. B. (1999). Yield of wheat in the United Kingdom: recent advances and prospects. Crop Science 39, 1604–1610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baresel, J-P., Zimmermann, G. & Reents, H. J. (1998). Effect of genotype and environment on N uptake and N partition in organically grown winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in Germany. Euphytica 163, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baresel, J.-P. & Reents, H.-J. (2007). The pattern of N uptake in time, N translocation and root growth as possible factors determining genotype×environment interactions in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). In Plant Breeding for Organic and Sustainable, Low-input Agriculture: Dealing with Genotype-environment Interactions. Book of Abstracts, Eucarpia Symposium of the Working Group Organic Plant Breeding, 7–9 November 2007 (Eds Lammerts van Bueren, E. T., Goldringer, I., Scholten, O. & Østergård, H.), p. 24. Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Calderini, D. F. & Slafer, G. A. (1999). Has yield stability changed with genetic improvement of wheat yield? Euphytica 107, 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S. (1996). Adaptation to low/high input cultivation. Euphytica 92, 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulkes, M. J., Sylvester-Bradley, R. & Scott, R. K. (1998). Evidence for differences between winter wheat cultivars in acquisition of soil mineral nitrogen and uptake and utilization of applied fertilizer nitrogen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 130, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoad, S., Topp, C. & Davies, K. (2008). Selection of cereals for weed suppression in organic agriculture: a method based on cultivar sensitivity to weed growth. Euphytica 163, 355–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kichey, T., Hirel, B., Heumez, E., Dubois, F. & Le Gouis, J. (2007). Wheat genetic variability for post-anthesis nitrogen absorption and remobilisation revealed by 15N labelling and correlations with agronomic traits and nitrogen physiological markers. Field Crops Research 102, 22–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, C. S. & Binns, M. R. (1988). A superiority measure of cultivar performance for cultivar×location data. Canadian Journal of Plant Sciences 68, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAFF (1988). The Nitrogen Cycle on Organic Farms. Final Report CSA 974. University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. M., Campbell, K. G., Lyon, S. R. & Jones, S. S. (2007). Evidence of varietal adaptation to organic farming systems. Field Crops Research 102, 172–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. M., Dawson, J. C. & Jones, S. S. (2008). Relationship among phenotypic growth traits, yield and weed suppression in spring wheat landraces and modern cultivars. Field Crops Research 105, 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pang, X. P. & Letey, J. (2000). Challenge of timing nitrogen availability to crop nitrogen requirements. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64, 247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przystalski, M., Osman, A., Thiemt, E. M., Rolland, B., Ericson, L., Østergård, H., Levy, L., Wolfe, M., Büchse, A., Piepho, H.-P. & Krajewski, P. (2008). Comparing the performance of cereal varieties in organic and non-organic cropping systems in different European countries. Euphytica 163, 417–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verma, V., Foulkes, M. J., Worland, A. J., Sylvester-Bradley, R., Caligari, P. D. S. & Snape, J. W. (2004). Mapping quantitative trait loci for flag leaf senescence as a yield determinant in winter wheat under optimal and drought-stressed environments. Euphytica 135, 255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, M. S., Baresel, J. P., Desclaux, D., Goldringer, I., Hoad, S., Kovacs, G., Löschenberger, F., Miedaner, T., Østergård, H. & Lammerts Van Bueren, E. T. (2008). Developments in breeding cereals for organic agriculture in Europe. Euphytica 163, 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T. & Konzak, C. F. (1974). A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14, 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar