Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T07:19:40.812Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some effects of leaf posture on the yield and water economy of winter wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. Innes  and
R. D. Blackwell
P. Innes
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge, CB2 2LQ
R. D. Blackwell
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge, CB2 2LQ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Selections for erect-(E) and lax-leaf (L) posture in winter wheat were made from a cross between parents which contrasted in the character. By the F5 generation there were consistent, heritable differences between E and L lines. The lines were evaluated in three field experiments and a glasshouse experiment.

In an experiment in which plots were automatically sheltered from rain and in which there were three irrigation treatments, there was no treatment-posture interaction, and over all treatments E lines outyielded L lines by 0·26 t/ha. When fully irrigated the water use of both E and L lines between 1 May and maturity was approximately 280 mm. Withholding water caused a reduction in water use and a corresponding reduction in grain yield for both E and L lines.

When the four most erect- and the four most lax-leaved lines were considered over all three field experiments, E lines maintained a slight, though not significant, grain yield advantage of 0·17 t/ha over L lines. However, the E lines produced significantly more biomass, averaging 0·7 t/ha more than L lines, and this extra biomass was not produced at the expense of additional water requirement. However, results from the glasshouse experiment suggested that the E lines may be more susceptible to a substantial pre-anthesis drought.

It is concluded that varieties of winter wheat with the erect-leaf habit may provide an opportunity of increasing biomass production. In an environment in which a preanthesis drought is unlikely to occur, such varieties may give the highest yields. However, on light soils prone to early drought or at sites which would not permit the maximum expression of leaf area index at anthesis, varieties with a lax-leaf posture may give greater yield.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 101 , Issue 2 , October 1983 , pp. 367 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Angus, J. F., Jones, R. & Wilson, J. H. (1972). A comparison of barley cultivars with different leaf inclinations. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 945–957.Google Scholar
Austin, R. B. (1982). Crop characteristics and the potential yield of wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 98, 447–453.Google Scholar
Austin, R. B., Bingham, J., Blackwell, R. D., Evans, L. T., Ford, M. A., Morgan, C. L. & Taylor, M. (1980). Genetic improvements in winter wheat yields since 1900 and associated physiological changes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 675–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, R. B., Ford, M. A., Edrich, J. A. & Hooper, B. E. (1976). Some effects of leaf posture on photosynthesis and yield in wheat. Annals of Applied Biology 83, 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
David, H. A. (1952). Upper 5 and 1 per cent points of the maximum. F-ratio. Biometrika 39, 422–424.Google Scholar
de Wit, C. T. (1965). Photosynthesis of leaf canopies. Agricultural Research Reports, No. 663, pp. 1–57. Wageningen: PUDOC.Google Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1968). The breeding of crop ideotypes. Euphytica 17, 385–403.Google Scholar
Hadfield, H. (1968). Leaf temperature, leaf pose and productivity of the tea bush. Nature, London 219, 282–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Innes, P. & Blackwell, R. D. (1981). The effect of drought on the water use and yield of two spring wheat genotypes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96, 603–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Innes, P., Blackwell, R. D., Austin, R. B. & Ford, M. A. (1981). The effects of selection for number of ears on the yield and water economy of winter wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 97, 523–532.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1965). Light distribution and photosynthesis in field crops. Annals of Botany 29, 17–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pendleton, J. W., Smith, G. E., Winter, S. E. & Johnston, T. J. (1968). Field investigations of the relationships of leaf angle in corn (Zea mays L.) to grain yield and apparent photosynthesis. Agronomy Journal 60, 422–424.Google Scholar
Rawson, H. M. & Hofstra, G. (1969). Translocation and remobilisation of 14C assimilated at different stages by each leaf of the wheat plant. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 22, 321–331.Google Scholar
Tanner, J. W., Gardener, C. J., Stoskopf, N. C. & Reinbergs, E. (1966). Some observations on upright-leaf-type small grains. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 46, 690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J., Thorne, G. N. & French, S. A. W. (1963). Analysis of growth and yield of winter and spring wheats. Annals of Botany 27, 1–22.Google Scholar
Watson, D. J. & Witts, K. J. (1959). The net assimilation rates of wild and cultivated beets. Annals of Botany 23, 431–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar