Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T20:48:26.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effect of applying nitrogen to cereals in the spring or at ear emergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Gillian N. Thorne
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts

Extract

Nitrogen applied at ear emergence to winter wheat or spring barley grown in pots with various levels of basal nitrogen fertilizer, increased grain and total dry weight much less than similar amounts of nitrogen applied in March or April. No nitrogen was absorbed after ear emergence from unfertilized soil, or from the early application, and at maturity equal amounts of nitrogen had been absorbed from early and late applications.

Early nitrogen increased final ear number by increasing the number at emergence and also increased grain size. Late nitrogen had negligible effect on yield of ears present when it was applied and caused the production of new shoots with small ears. Nitrogen applied at both times increased leaf area duration after ear emergence similarly; early nitrogen by increasing area at ear emergence and late nitrogen by delaying senescence of existing shoots and causing production of new shoots. The efficiency in grain production of the leaf area present after ear emergence was less with late than with early nitrogen, mainly because of the low efficiency of the shoots produced after ear emergence.

These results differed from those of field experiments in which early and late nitrogen usually increased grain yield similarly, probably because in the field there were no late unproductive tillers and all the late nitrogen was utilized in increasing grain yield of existing shoots. Another difference was that nitrogen uptake from soil in the field continued until maturity.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

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

Blackett, G. A. (1957). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 25, 19.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. C. & Tahir, W. M. (1956). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamel, M. S. (1959). Meded. LandHoogesch., Wageningen, 59, 1.Google Scholar
Lewis, A. H., Proctor, J. & Trevains, D. (1938). J. Agric. Sci. 28, 618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, P. C. (1958). New Phytol. 57, 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, H. K., Pal, N. & Martin, R. V. (1950). Ann. Bot., Lond., N.S. 14, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rep. Rothamst. (1951). Rep. Rothamst. Exp. Sta. for 1951, p. 134.Google Scholar
Rep. Rothamst. (1952). Rep. Rothamst. Exp. Sta. for 1952, p. 140.Google Scholar
Rep. Rothamst. (1953). Rep. Rothamst. Exp. Sta. for 1953, p. 144.Google Scholar
Salt, G. A. (1953). Ph.D. Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Salt, G. A. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, G. N. & Watson, D. J. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, T. W., Adams, A. R. F. & Orchiston, H. D. (1956). Soil Sci. 81, 339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1936). J. Agric. Sci. 26, 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1939). J. Agric. Sci. 29, 379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. & Norman, A. G. (1939). J. Agric. Sci. 29, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J., Thorne, G. N. & French, S. A. W. (1958). Ann. Bot. Lond., N.S. 22, 322.Google Scholar
Witts, K. J. (1961). Ph.D. Thesis, University of London.Google Scholar