Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T08:19:54.672Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in grain skinning among spring barley varieties induced by a controlled environment misting screen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

M. BRENNAN Open the ORCID record for M. BRENNAN [Opens in a new window] ,
C. F. E. TOPP  and
S. P. HOAD
M. BRENNAN*
Affiliation:
Scotland's Rural College, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
C. F. E. TOPP
Affiliation:
Scotland's Rural College, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
S. P. HOAD
Affiliation:
Scotland's Rural College, King's Buildings, West Mains Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JG, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: Maree.Brennan@sruc.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The current study investigated use of a controlled misting environment to simulate field conditions that have been implicated in high levels of the malting barley defect, grain skinning. More than 200 spring barley varieties were assessed to identify those varieties that were particularly resistant or susceptible to the defect. Relationships between skinning severity and the traits ear length, floret number, grain number and grain weight were examined among the varieties. In a panel of seven varieties chosen as treatment controls, misting was found to significantly increase skinning severity. The misting treatment had no effect on measured ear traits of these varieties. Among the 200 varieties grown under the misting treatment, there was a continuous spectrum of skinning severities, which were not correlated with ear length, floret number, grain number or grain weight. Using the misting treatment, differences in susceptibility to grain skinning could be determined among varieties. As the misting treatment did not affect measured ear traits, and no correlation was found between ear traits and skinning severity among varieties, the effect of misting on skinning severity must be mediated through other physiological characteristics.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 155 , Issue 2 , March 2017 , pp. 317 - 325
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Aidun, V. L., Harvey, B. L. & Rossnagel, B. G. (1990). Heritability and genetic advance of hull peeling in two-row barley. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 70, 481–485.Google Scholar
Bryce, J. H., Goodfellow, V., Agu, R. C., Brosnan, J. M., Bringhurst, T. A. & Jack, F. R. (2010). Effect of different steeping conditions on endosperm modification and quality of distilling malt. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 116, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duan, R., Xiong, H., Wang, A. & Chen, G. (2015). Molecular mechanisms underlying hull-caryopsis adhesion/separation revealed by comparative transcriptomic analysis of covered/naked barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). International Journal of Molecular Science 16, 14181–14193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
European Brewery Convention (2004). Visual examination of damaged barley kernels. In Analytica-EBC (Ed. Welten, E.), Section 3.11.2. Nuremberg, Germany & Brussels, Belgium: Fachverlag Hans Carl GmbH & EBC. Available from http://analytica-ebc.com/index.php?mod=contents&method=292 (verified 12 April 2016).Google Scholar
Froment, M. & South, J. B. (2003). Technical paper 3: causes of skinning in grains of spring malting barley. I. Report of trials in 1999 and II. Report of trials in 2000. In HGCA Project Report No. 298. Causes and Control of Gape, Splitting and Skinning in Grains of Malting Spring Barley (Eds Hoad, S. P., Ellis, R. P., Cochrane, M. P., Thomas, W. T. B., Wilson, G., Rajasekaran, P., Froment, M., South, J. B. & Cranstoun, D. A. S.), pp. 152–175. London: HGCA.Google Scholar
Gaines, R. L., Bechtel, D. B. & Pomeranz, Y. (1985). A microscopic study on the development of a layer in barley that causes hull-caryopsis adherence. Cereal Chemistry 62, 35–40.Google Scholar
Harlan, H. V. (1920). Daily development of kernels of Hannchen barley from flowering to maturity, at Aberdeen, Idaho. Journal of Agricultural Research 19, 393–429.Google Scholar
Hoad, S. P., Brennan, M., Wilson, G. W. & Cochrane, P. M. (2016). Hull to caryopsis adhesion and grain skinning in malting barley: identification of key growth stages in the adhesion process. Journal of Cereal Science 68, 8–15.Google Scholar
Knoche, M. & Peschel, S. (2006). Water on the surface aggravates microscopic cracking of the sweet cherry fruit cuticle. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 131, 192–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legge, W. G., Noll, J. S. & Rossnagel, B. G. (2005). Comparison of hull peeling resistance of barley and malt in western Canadian two-row barley lines. In 18th North American Barley Researchers Workshop and 4th Canadian Barley Symposium Poster Abstracts, p. 23. Red Deer, Canada: Agriculture and Rural Development.Google Scholar
Matas, A. J., Cuartero, J. & Heredia, A. (2004). Phase transitions in the biopolyester cutin isolated from tomato fruit cuticles. Thermochimica Acta 409, 165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matas, A. J., Lopez-Casado, G., Cuartero, J. & Heredia, A. (2005). Relative humidity and temperature modify the mechanical properties of isolated tomato fruit cuticles. American Journal of Botany 92, 462–468.Google Scholar
Meredith, W. O. S. (1959). Note on the malting quality of peeled barley. Journal of the Institute of Brewing 65, 31–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, F. S., Caldwell, F. & Hampson, G. (1958). Influence of the enclosing protective tissues on the metabolism of barley grain. Nature 181, 1270–1271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olkku, J., Kotaviita, E., Salmenkallio-Marttila, M., Sweins, H. & Home, S. (2005). Connection between structure and quality of barley husk. Journal of the American Society of Brewing Chemists 63, 17–22.Google Scholar
Psota, V., Lukšíčková, E., Ehrenbergerová, J. & Hartmann, J. (2011). The effect of the genotype and environment on damage of barley grains (Hordeum vulgare L.). Cereal Research Communications 39, 246–256.Google Scholar
Rajasekaran, P., Thomas, W. T. B., Wilson, A., Lawrence, P., Young, G. & Ellis, R. P. (2004). Genetic control over grain damage in a spring barley mapping population. Plant Breeding 123, 17–23.Google Scholar
Reinbergs, E. & Huntley, D. N. (1957). Some factors affecting hull adherence in barley. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 37, 262–273.Google Scholar
Shepherd, T. & Griffiths, D. W. (2006). The effects of stress on plant cuticular waxes. New Phytologist 171, 469–499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taketa, S., Amano, S., Tsujino, Y., Sato, T., Saisho, D., Kakeda, K., Nomura, M., Suzuki, T., Matsumoto, T., Sato, K., Kanamori, H., Kawasaki, S. & Takeda, K. (2008). Barley grain with adhering hulls is controlled by an ERF family transcription factor gene regulating a lipid biosynthesis pathway. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105, 4062–4067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T. & Konzak, C. F. (1974). A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14, 415–421.Google Scholar