Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T22:05:19.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of manipulation of number of tillers and water supply on grain yield in barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. G. Jones  and
E. J. M. Kirby
H. G. Jones
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge OBI 2LQ
E. J. M. Kirby
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge OBI 2LQ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summaey

The effects of several detillering treatments on dry-matter production and grain yield in barley were investigated in a series of pot experiments using two water regimes. When ample water was provided, even quite severe reductions in the number of tillers only slightly reduced grain yield in spite of large effects on total shoot dry weight. When all the plants were grown with the same amount of water, however, the plants with few tillers tended to have greater grain yield, higher water use efficiency (in terms of grain yield) and higher harvest index than the plants permitted to tiller freely. This effect was probably related to the greater transpiration rates from the freely tillering plants which led to their suffering a greater degree of water stress than the plants with few tillers. This led to the freely tillering plants having a greater proportion of sterile ears and a lower harvest index. Water stress apparently had no effect on the grain yield of the main shoot or first tiller. It is concluded that genotypes which produce few large tillers having a high rate of survival should be able to achieve relatively high yields in drought conditions without sacrificing yield potential under optimal conditions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 88 , Issue 2 , April 1977 , pp. 391 - 397
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

Donald, C. M. (1968). The breeding of crop ideotypes. Euphytica 17, 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, H. G. (1974). Assessment of stomatal control of plant water status. New Phytohgist 72, 1089–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M. (1969). The effect of sowing date and plant density on barley. Annals of Applied Biology 63, 513–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M. (1973a). The control of leaf and ear size in barley. Journal of Experimental Botany 24, 567–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M. (1973b). The effect of temperature on ear abnormalities in uniculm barley. Journal of Experimental Botany 24, 935–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerby, E. J. M. & Faris, D. G. (1972). The effect of plant density on tiller growth and morphology in barley. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 78, 281–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M. & Jones, H. G. (1977). The relations between the main shoot and tillers in barley plants. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 381–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Passioura, J. B. (1972). The effect of root geometry on the yield of wheat growing on stored water. Australian Journal of Agricultural Besearch 23, 745–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rackham, O. (1972). Responses of the barley crop to soil water stress. In Crop Processes in Controlled Environments (ed. Rees, A. R., Cockshull, K. E., Hand, D. W. and Hurd, R. G., pp. 127–38. London: Academio Press.Google Scholar
Rawson, H. M. & Donald, C. M. (1969). The absorption and distribution of nitrogen after floret initiation in wheat. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 799–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Thorne, G. N. (1962). Survival of tillers and distribution of dry matter between ear and shoot of barley varieties. Annals of Botany 26, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar