Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T16:54:08.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

High biomass genotypes in spring barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. R. Hanson ,
T. J. Riggs ,
S. J. Klose  and
R. B. Austin
P. R. Hanson
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge, CB2 2LQ
T. J. Riggs
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge, CB2 2LQ
S. J. Klose
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge, CB2 2LQ
R. B. Austin
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge, CB2 2LQ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Three experiments were carried out to measure grain and biomass yields of spring barley breeding lines and varieties. Leaf diseases were controlled by applying proprietary fungicides and in some treatments plants were supported by nets to prevent lodging. The trials, grown in 1982 and 1983, compared the grain and biomass yields of 14 breeding lines and two varieties with and without support. In a third experiment, comparing three lines and the varieties Triumph and Egmont, all the plots were supported and in addition each experimental plot was flanked by guard plots of the same genotype to minimize inter-plot competition.

In the supported plots of all three experiments, three breeding lines, SB 543–3, SB 71–2 and HSB 258–93 produced significantly greater biomass yields than the mean of the varieties Triumph and Egmont. All three breeding lines were taller and had lower ratios of grain to grain + straw than the controls. Measurements were made of the accumulation of dry matter, chlorophyll content at anthesis and date of ear emergence but no single factor could be identified which was associated with increased biomass in these lines.

The grain yield of the semi-dwarf, lodging-resistant variety Triumph was reduced by an average of 0·24 t/ha by the support treatment compared with the non-supported control. The results from the third experiment suggested that the yield of Triumph was reduced by inter-plot competition by about 10% in relation to the other entries in the trial.

It is suggested that the high biomass lines identified here could be used as parents in a breeding programme to produce varieties with high yield if this high biomass could be combined with a high ratio of grain to above-ground dry-matter yield.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 105 , Issue 1 , August 1985 , pp. 73 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Arnon, D. I. (1949). Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts. Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiology, Lancaster 24, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. & Blackwell, R. D. (1980). Edge and neighbour effects in cereal yield trials. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 731–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, R. B., Morgan, C. L., Ford, M. A. & Bhagwat, S. G. (1982). Flag leaf photosynthesis of Triticum aestivum and related diploid and tetraploid species. Annals of Botany 49, 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1962). In search of yield. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 28, 171–178.Google Scholar
Donald, C. M. & Hamblin, J. (1976). The biological yield and harvest index of cereals as agronomic and plant breeding criteria. Advances in Agronomy 28, 361–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, R. A. (1978). Are your results confounded by intergenotypic competition? Proceedings of the Fifth International Wheat Genetics Symposium, New Delhi, pp. 767–777.Google Scholar
Hanson, P. R., Jenkins, G. & Westcott, B. (1981). Early generation selection in a cross of spring barley. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenzüchtung 83, 64–80.Google Scholar
Riggs, T. J., Hanson, P. R., Start, N. D., Miles, D. M., Morgan, C. L. & Ford, M. A. (1981). Comparison of spring barley varieties grown in England and Wales between 1880 and 1980. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 97, 599–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggs, T. J. & Hayter, A. M. (1975). A study of the inheritance and inter-relationships of some agronomically important characters in spring barley. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 46, 257–264.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanca, A. M., Jenkins, G. & Hanson, P. R. (1979). Varietal responses in spring barley to natural and artificial lodging and to a growth regulator. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 449–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Syme, J. R. (1972). Single plant characters as a measure of field plot performance of wheat cultivars. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 23, 753–760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar