Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T02:47:21.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Wheat cultivar yield response to some organic and conventional farming conditions and the yield potential of mixtures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2017

A. C. NEWTON ,
D. C. GUY  and
K. PREEDY
A. C. NEWTON*
Affiliation:
Cell and Molecular Sciences, The James Hutton Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA, UK
D. C. GUY
Affiliation:
Cell and Molecular Sciences, The James Hutton Institute, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA, UK
K. PREEDY
Affiliation:
Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland (BioSS), Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 5DA, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A range of wheat cultivars, including elite cultivars, older cultivars and some preferred by organic growers, were trialled under high and low nitrogen (N) conventional and organic conditions to determine whether cultivars that yield highly under organic conditions have the same relative yield under conventional conditions. A range of cultivar mixtures was also assessed to see whether these gave yield advantages or superiority in either farming system. The conventional trials were grown with and without full fungicide programmes, which largely controlled disease. Amongst the cultivars, Alchemy showed superior yield under organic conditions as did Pegassos, but under conventional conditions Pegassos was always one of the low-ranking cultivars. Under conventional conditions the more recent cultivars Alchemy, Glasgow and Istabraq yielded highly, while an older one, Consort, yielded highly under low fertilizer conditions, and both Ambrosia and Deben also yielded highly generally. Fungicide and high N favoured the disease-susceptible, high-yield cultivars such as Glasgow whereas Consort, an older susceptible cultivar, was favoured by fungicide and low N. Together this demonstrates that whilst the yield characteristics of some elite germplasm are also expressed under organic conditions, at least one cultivar that yielded poorly under conventional conditions showed adaptation towards the organic conditions of these trials. Other cultivars yielding poorly under conventional conditions also gave poor yield under organic conditions. The equal proportion mixtures of cultivars grown under conventional conditions showed no evidence of differences in yield from the mean of the component cultivars grown separately, but combinations of Glasgow, Alchemy and Istabraq gave consistently high yield.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 155 , Issue 7 , September 2017 , pp. 1045 - 1060
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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

AHDB (2009). HGCA Recommended List 2009/10 for Cereals and Oilseeds. Stonleigh Park, Warwickshire, UK: Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board.Google Scholar
Annicchiarico, P., Chiapparino, E. & Perenzin, M. (2010). Response of common wheat varieties to organic and conventional production systems across Italian locations, and implications for selection. Field Crops Research 116, 230–238.Google Scholar
Carr, P. M., Kandel, H. J., Porter, P. M., Horsley, R. D. & Zwinger, S. F. (2006). Wheat cultivar performance on certified organic fields in Minnesota and North Dakota. Crop Science 46, 1963–1971.Google Scholar
Chapagain, T., Super, L. & Riseman, A. (2014). Root architecture variation in wheat and barley cultivars. American Journal of Experimental Agriculture 4, 849–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czembor, H. J. & Gacek, E. S. (1996). The use of cultivar and species mixtures to control diseases and for yield improvement in cereals in Poland. In Integrated Control of Cereal Mildews and Rusts: Towards Coordination of Research across Europe. Proceedings of a COST 817 Meeting, Kappel am Albis, Zurich, 5210 November 1994 (Eds Limpert, E., Finckh, M. R. & Wolfe, M. S.), pp. 177–184. Brussels, Belgium: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission.Google Scholar
Fang, Y., Xu, B., Liu, L., Gu, Y., Liu, Q., Turner, N. C. & Li, F. M. (2014). Does a mixture of old and modern winter wheat cultivars increase yield and water use efficiency in water-limited environments? Field Crops Research 156, 12–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finckh, M. R., Gacek, E. S., Goyeau, H., Lannou, C., Merz, U., Mundt, C. C., Munk, L., Nadziak, J., Newton, A. C., de Vallavieille-Pope, C. & Wolfe, M. S. (2000). Cereal variety and species mixtures in practice, with emphasis on disease resistance. Agronomie 20, 813–837.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. A. & Edmeades, G. O. (2010). Breeding and cereal yield progress. Crop Science 50 (Suppl. 1), S85–S98.Google Scholar
Foulkes, M. J., Sylvester-Bradley, R. & Scott, R. K. (1998). Evidence for differences between winter wheat cultivars in acquisition of soil nitrogen and uptake and utilisation of applied fertiliser nitrogen. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 130, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hildermann, I., Thommen, A., Dubois, D., Boller, T., Wiemken, A. & Mäder, P. (2009). Yield and baking quality of winter wheat cultivars in different farming systems of the DOK long-term trial. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89, 2477–2491.Google Scholar
Hildermann, I., Messmer, M., Dubois, D., Boller, T., Wiemken, A. & Mäder, P. (2010). Nutrient use efficiency and arbuscular mycorrhizal root colonisation of winter wheat cultivars in different farming systems of the DOK long-term trial. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 90, 2027–2038.Google Scholar
Kamran, A., Kubota, H., Yang, R.-C., Randhawa, S. & Spaner, D. (2014). Relative performance of Canadian spring wheat cultivars under organic and conventional field conditions. Euphytica 196, 13–24.Google Scholar
Kirk, A. P., Fox, S. L. & Entz, M. H. (2012). Comparison of organic and conventional selection environments for spring wheat. Plant Breeding 131, 687–694.Google Scholar
Kitchen, J. L., McDonald, G. K., Shepherd, K. W., Lorimer, M. F. & Graham, R. D. (2003). Comparing wheat grown in South Australian organic and conventional farming systems. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 54, 889–901.Google Scholar
Kokare, A., Legzdina, L., Beinarovica, I., Maliepaard, C., Niks, R. E. & Lammerts van Bueren, E. T. (2014). Performance of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) varieties under organic and conventional conditions. Euphytica 197, 279–293.Google Scholar
Lammerts van Bueren, E. T., Jones, S. S., Tamm, L., Murphy, K. M., Myers, J. R., Leifert, C. & Messmer, M. M. (2011). The need to breed crop varieties suitable for organic farming, using wheat, tomato and broccoli as examples: a review. NJAS – Wageningen Journal of Life Science 58, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Campion, A., Oury, F.-X., Morlais, J. Y., Walczak, P., Bataillon, P., Gardet, O., Gilles, S., Pichard, A. & Rolland, B. (2014). Low-input management system a good selection environment to screen winter wheat genotypes adapted to organic farming? Euphytica 199, 41–56.Google Scholar
Lin, C. S. & Binns, M. R. (1988). A superiority performance measure of cultivar performance for cultivar location data. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 68, 193–198.Google Scholar
Mason, H. E., Navabi, A., Frick, B. L., O'Donovan, J. T. & Spaner, D. M. (2007). The weed competitive ability of Canada western red spring wheat cultivars grown under organic management. Crop Science 47, 1167–1176.Google Scholar
Mikó, P., Löschenberger, F., Hiltbrunner, J., Aebi, R., Megyeri, M., Kovács, G., Molnár-Láng, M., Vida, G. & Rakszegi, M. (2014). Comparison of bread wheat varieties with different breeding origin under organic and low input management. Euphytica 199, 69–80.Google Scholar
Muellner, A. E., Mascher, F., Schneider, D., Ittu, G., Toncea, I., Rolland, B. & Löschenberger, F. (2014). Refining breeding methods for organic and low-input agriculture: analysis of an international winter wheat ring test. Euphytica 199, 81–95.Google Scholar
Mundt, C. C., Brophy, L. S. & Schmitt, M. S. (1995). Disease severity and yield of pure-line wheat cultivars and mixtures in the presence of eyespot, yellow rust, and their combination. Plant Pathology 44, 173–182.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.Google Scholar
Nass, H. G., Ivany, J. A. & MacLeod, J. A. (2003). Agronomic performance and quality of spring wheat and soybean cultivars under organic culture. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 18, 164–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newton, A. C. & Hackett, C. A. (1994). Subjective components of mildew assessment on spring barley. European Journal of Plant Pathology 100, 395–412.Google Scholar
Newton, A. C. & Guy, D. C. (2011). Scale and spatial structure effects on the outcome of barley cultivar mixture trials for disease control. Field Crops Research 123, 74–79.Google Scholar
Newton, A. C. & Guy, D. C. (2009). The effects of uneven, patchy cultivar mixtures on disease control and yield in winter barley. Field Crops Research 110, 225–228.Google Scholar
Newton, A. C., Begg, G. & Swanston, J. S. (2009). Deployment of diversity for enhanced crop function. Annals of Applied Biology 154, 309–322.Google Scholar
Paynter, B. & Hills, A. (2008). Mixing feed barley cultivars did not decrease leaf diseases or increase grain yield. Australasian Plant Pathology 37, 626–636.Google Scholar
Piliksere, D., Strazdiņa, V., Vîcupe, Z., Jansone, Z., Legzdiņa, L., Beinaroviča, I. & Kronberga, A. (2013). Cereal breeding for organic farming: crop traits related with competitiveness against weeds. Proceedings of the Latvian Academy of Science, Section B. Natural, Exact, and Applied Sciences 67, 272–276.Google 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.Google Scholar
Pswarayi, H. A., Kubota, H., Estrada, H. & Spaner, D. (2014). Evaluation of wheat cultivars to test indirect selection for organic conditions. Agronomy Journal 106, 441–451.Google Scholar
Purchase, J. L., Hatting, H. & van Deventer, C. S. (2000). Genotype x environment interaction of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in South Agrica: II. Stability analysis of yield performance. South African Journal of Plant and Soil 17, 101–107.Google Scholar
Reid, T. A., Yang, R. C., Salmon, D. F. & Spaner, D. (2009). Should spring wheat breeding for organically managed systems be conducted on organically managed land? Euphytica 169, 239–252.Google Scholar
Schöb, C., Kerle, S., Karley, A. J., Morcillo, L., Pakeman, R. J., Newton, A. C. & Brooker, R. W. (2015). Intra-specific genetic and composition modify species-level diversity-productivity relationships. New Phytologist 205, 720–730.Google Scholar
Tottman, D. R. (1987). The decimal code for the growth stages of cereals, with illustrations. Annals of Applied Biology 110, 441–454.Google Scholar
VSN International (2013). GenStat for Windows, 16th edn. Hemel Hempstead, UK: VSN International.Google 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. L. (2008). Developments in breeding cereals for organic agriculture. Euphytica 163, 323–346.Google Scholar
Zeller, S. L., Kalinina, O., Flynn, D. F. B. & Schmid, B. (2012). Mixtures of genetically modified wheat lines outperform monocultures. Ecological Applications 22, 1817–1826.Google Scholar