Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T16:35:56.431Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison between maize and wheat in respect of leaf area after flowering and grain growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. C. S. Allison
J. C. S. Allison
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, Salisbury, S. Rhodesia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A comparison of leaf-area index (L) in the postflowering period was made between a single cross maize hybrid in Rhodesia and a winter and a spring wheat variety in England. At the beginning of the period L of the maize was lower than that of the wheat but it remained near its initial value for a relatively long time, whereas L of the wheat decreased rapidly. The proportion of L consisting of sheath was much lower in the maize than in wheat. Grain yield was higher in the maize largely because of its longer period of grain growth. In Rhodesia maize might benefit from a greater L than that recorded in this study. The high yields achieved by maize are partly due to the relatively long life of its leaves.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , August 1964 , pp. 1 - 4
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

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

Archbold, H. K. (1946). Nature, Lond., 156, 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archbold, H. K. & Mukerjee, B. N. (1942). Ann. Bot., Lond., N.S., 6, 1.Google Scholar
Blanco, J. L. & Blanco, M. (1956). Paper (FAO/56/11/8537) presented at 9th hybrid maize meeting, 1956 of the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Mimeographed.Google Scholar
Hoyt, P. & Bradfield, R. (1962). Agron. J. 54, 523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rattray, A. G. H. (1957). Rhod. Agric. J. 54, 56.Google Scholar
Rattray, A. G. H. (1963). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Shaw, R. H. & Loomis, W. E. (1950). Plant Physiol. 25, 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaw, R. H. & Thom, H. C. S. (1951). Agron. J. 43, 541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, W. R. & Donald, C. M. (1961). Nature, Lond., 189, 597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, G. N. (1959). Ann. Bot., Lond., N.S., 23, 365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1937). J. Agric. Sci. 27, 474.Google Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1952). Advanc. Agron. 4, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1956). The Growth of Leaves, p. 178. Ed. by Milthorpe, F. L..Google Scholar
Watson, D. J., Thorne, G. N. & French, S. A. W. (1963). Ann. Bot., Lond., N.S., 27, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinmann, H. (1956). Bhod. Agric. J. 53, 168.Google Scholar