Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T15:36:38.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of genotype and position in the ear on carpel and grain growth and mature grain weight of spring barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. R. Scott ,
Margaret Appleyard ,
Gwynneth Fellowes  and
E. J. M. Kirby
W. R. Scott
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge, CB2 2LQ
Margaret Appleyard
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge, CB2 2LQ
Gwynneth Fellowes
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge, CB2 2LQ
E. J. M. Kirby
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge, CB2 2LQ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Grain growth and final weight per grain were measured in 12 genotypes of spring barley, the parents and progeny of two six-row × two-row crosses. Weight of carpels or grains from node 10 on the main shoot ear was measured from shortly after meiosis until grains were at maximum dry weight. Similar measurements were made at representative node positions along the ear of Proctor and of Midas spring barley cultivars.

From about 10 days after anthesis grains grew at a constant rate for about 3 weeks. Amongst genotypes growth rate of the median grain ranged from 1·4 to 2'2 mg/day and there was a very highly significant positive correlation between growth rate and final grain weight. A similar relationship was found among grain positions on the ear. For about 10 days after anthesis growth was exponential and although relative growth rate did not differ between genotypes or grain positions there was a highly significant difference between caryopsis weights during this phase. There were significant correlations between final grain weight and carpel weight at anthesis and between final grain weight and husk weight at anthesis. In the period between meiosis and anthesis growth was exponential and the relative growth rate did not differ between genotypes or node positions on the ear. There were significant differences between carpel weights during this phase. Carpel weight at anthesis and carpel linear dimensions at meiosis were correlated.

These data suggest that the initial size of carpel is an important factor in determining growth rate and potential grain weight. Potential grain size in barley may be determined by physical limitations imposed by the lemma and palea or may be causally related to the size of the carpel. The relative size of the carpel is determined by the time of meiosis and potential size may also be affected by pre-anthesis conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 100 , Issue 2 , April 1983 , pp. 383 - 391
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

Briggs, D. E. (1978). Barley, p. 46. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Buttrose, P. M. & May, L. H. (1959). Physiology of cereal grain. I. The source of carbon for the developing barley kernel. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 12, 40–52.Google Scholar
Day, W., Leog, B. J., Frenoh, B. K., Johnston, A. E., Lawlor, D. W. & Jeffers, W. De C. (1978). A drought experiment using mobile shelters: the effect of drought on barley yield, water use and nutrient uptake. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 599–623.Google Scholar
European Brewery Convention (1976). Barley Varieties. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier Publishing Company.Google Scholar
European Economic Community (1969). Council Regulation No. 768/69, 22 04 1969.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. A. & Hillerislambers, D. (1978). Effect of environment and cultivar on source limitation to grain weight in wheat. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 29, 443–458.Google Scholar
Gallagher, J. N., Biscoe, P. V. & Scott, R. K. (1976). Barley and its environment. VI. Growth and development in relation to yield. Journal of Applied Ecology 13, 563–583.Google Scholar
Murata, Y. & Matsushima, S. (1975). Crop Physiology (ed. Evans, L. T.), p. 79. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nösberger, J. & Thorne, G. N. (1965). The effect of removing florets or shading the ear of barley on production and distribution of dry matter. Annals of Botany 29, 635–644.Google Scholar
Porter, H. K., Pal, N. & Martin, R. V. (1950). Physiological studies of plant nutrition. XV. Assimilation of carbon by the ear of barley and its relation to the accumulation of dry matter in the grain. Annals of Botany 14, 55–68.Google Scholar
Riggs, T. J. & Gothard, P. G. (1976). The development of barley grain: comparisons between cultivars for growth rate and a-amylase activity. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 86, 603–608.Google Scholar
Sprent, P. (1969). Models in Regression. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Walpole, P. R. & Morgan, D. G. (1971). Quantitative study of grain filling in three cultivars of Hordeum vulgare L. Annals of Botany 35, 301–310.Google Scholar
Walpole, P. R. & Morgan, D. G. (1972). Physiology of grain filling in barley. Nature 240, 416–417.Google Scholar