Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T12:01:50.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pre-maturity gradients in shoot size and in number and size of florets for spring barley treated with mepiquat chloride

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. R. Waddington  and
Phyllis Cartwright
S. R. Waddington
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Botany, Plant Science Laboratories, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 2AS
Phyllis Cartwright
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Botany, Plant Science Laboratories, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, RG6 2AS
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Effects of mepiquat chloride on gradients of shoot growth within spring barley plants (cv. Koru) were determined in two small-scale field experiments. Mepiquat chloride was applied at either the lemma primordium stage or the late carpel primordium stage of spike development in the main shoot. The shoot dry weight, stem length, spike length, number and size of florets and floret developmental score were measured for all shoots, over the period from the lemma primordium stage of main shoot spike development to the late milk stage of grain development.

Lemma primordium mepiquat chloride increased the size and developmental score of later-formed shorter shoots pre-anthesis while delaying the spike development of the main shoot and other longer shoots by up to 4 days. The overall effect was to produce plants with a reduced range of shoot and spike sizes from the end of floret initiation in the main shoot until maturity. In addition, there was a slight increase in the number of shoots per plant in both experiments. Gradients of carpel development and carpel width along the spike were reduced in all treated spikes by the time of floret abortion in the main shoot but the effects were more noticeable in shorter shoots. The number of florets initiated per plant was increased by 21–22%. All shoots contributed to the larger number of florets but again the major additions came from the shorter shoots. The few extra florets initiated in longer shoots were lost during abortion of distal florets while the 2–5 extra florets on shorter shoots were retained to give extra grains at maturity.

Application of mepiquat chloride at the late carpel primordium stage had little effect on gradients of spike size or on number, size and development of florets.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 110 , Issue 3 , June 1988 , pp. 633 - 639
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

Appleyard, M., Kirby, E. J. M. & Fellowes, G. (1982). Relationships between the duration of phases in the preanthesis life cycle of spring barley. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 33, 917–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, R. B. & Jones, H. G. (1975). The physiology of wheat. Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge, Annual Report for 1974, pp. 20–73.Google Scholar
Cartwright, P. M. & Waddington, S. R. (1982). Growth regulators and grain yield in spring cereals. In Opportunities for Manipulation of Cereal Productivity. Monograph 7 (ed. Hawkins, A. F. and Jeffcoat, B.), pp. 61–70. Wantage: British Plant Growth Regulator Group.Google Scholar
Cottrell, J. E. & Dale, J. E. (1984). Variation in size and development of spikelets within the ear of barley. New Phytologist 97, 565–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottrell, J. E., Easton, R. H., Dale, J. E., Wadsworth, A. C., Adam, J. S., Child, R. D. & Hoad, G. V. (1985). A comparison of spike and spikelet survival in mainstem and tillers of barley. Annals of Applied Biology 106, 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. P. & Russell, G. (1984). Plant development and grain yield in spring and winter barley. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 102, 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, L. T. (1981). Yield improvement in wheat: empirical or analytical? In Wheat Science – Today and Tomorrow(ed. Evans, L. T. and Peacock, W. J.), pp. 203–222. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Faris, M. A.Klink, H. R. (1982). Comparison between different methods of measuring synchrony of ear emergence in barley, oat and spring wheat cultivars. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenzuchtung 88, 79–88.Google Scholar
Fischer, R. A. & Stockman, Y. M. (1980). Kernel number per spike in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): responses to preanthesis shading. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 7, 169–180.Google Scholar
Gallagher, J. N. & Biscoe, P. V. (1978). A physiological analysis of cereal yield. II. Partitioning of dry matter. Agricultural Progress 53, 51–70.Google Scholar
Höfner, W., Nau, W. & Feucht, D. (1985). Einfluss der Wachstumsregulatoren CCC und Ancymidol auf die Fertilitat von genetisch einhalmiger Sommergerste (Hordeum vulgare L.) Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenernahrung und Bodenkundt 148, 618–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, E. S. & Andersen, A. S. (1981). Effects of the growth regulator Terpal (BAS 098 00W) on morphology and yield of three spring barley varieties. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 31, 415–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koranteng, G. O. & Matthews, S. (1982). Modifications of the development of spring barley by early applications of CCC and GA3 and the subsequent effects on yield components and yield. In Chemical Manipulation of Crop Growth and Development. Proceedings of the 33rd Easter School in Agricultural Science, University of Nottingham (ed. McLaren, J. S.), pp. 343–357. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, S., Koranteng, G. O. & Thomson, W. J. (1982). Tillering and ear production: opportunities for chemical regulation. In Opportunities for Manipulation of Cereal Productivity. Monograph 7 (ed. Hawkins, A. F. and Jeffcoat, B.), pp. 88–96. Wantage: British Plant Growth Regulator Group.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. & Thomson, W. J. (1984). Growth regulation: control of growth and development. In Cereal Production. Proceedings of the Second International Summer School in Agriculture held by the Royal Dublin Society (ed. Gallagher, E. J.), pp. 259–266. London: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paroda, R. S. (1972). The impact of synchrony of ear emergence on grain yield and components of yield, and the path coefficient analysis in spring barley. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenzuchtung 67, 145–160.Google Scholar
Scheffer, K., Dippel, V., Hartuno, E. G. & Karpenstein, M. (1983). Der Einfluss eines Wachstumsregulators auf Ertrag und Ertragskomponenten bei Sommergerste unter Ausschaltung von Lager. Zeitschrift für Acker- und Pflanzenbau 152, 284–292.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R., Appleyard, M., Fellowes, G. & Kirby, E. J. M. (1983). Effect of genotype and position in the ear on carpel and grain growth and mature grain weight of spring barley. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 100, 383–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoskopf, N. C. & Fairey, D. T. (1975). Asynchronous tiller maturity – a potential problem in the development of dwarf winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant Breeding Abstracts 45, 467–472.Google Scholar
Tottman, D. R. (1987). The decimal code for the growth stages of cereals, with illustrations. Annals of Applied Biology 110, 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, S. R. & Cartwright, P. (1986). Modification of yield components and stem length in spring barley by the application of growth retardants prior to main shoot stem elongation. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107, 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waddington, S. R., Cartwright, P. M. & Wall, P. C. (1983). A quantitative scale of spike initial and pistil development in barley and wheat. Annals of Botany 51, 119–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T. & Konzak, C. F. (1974). A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14, 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar