Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T22:23:57.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The response of diploid and tetraploid rye genotypes to phosphate treatments and to cold temperature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Janice M. Hutto
Janice M. Hutto
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Botany, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth*
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

As an indication of heritable variation between genotypes, the response of diploid and autotetraploid homozygous inbred lines of rye to varying applications of inorganic nutrients and to temperature ‘shocks’ during growth was studied. The results indicated first that developmental differences occur between lines and between diploids and tetraploids under comparable conditions of growth. Secondly, the consequences of altering growing conditions can differ between lines and between diploids and tetraploids. Thirdly, the effect of polyploidy upon the response to these treatments was shown to vary between lines. It is concluded that an assessment of plant growth and development must take into consideration the genie, chromosomal and environmental interactions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 82 , Issue 2 , April 1974 , pp. 353 - 356
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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

Hazarika, M. H. & Rees, H. (1967). Genotypic control of chromosome behaviour in rye. X. Chromosome pairing and fertility in autotetraploids. Heredity 22, 317–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutto, J. M. (1971). Endogenous and external factors affecting growth in Lolium perenne L. and Secale cereale L., pp. 278–301. Ph.D thesis, University of Wales.Google Scholar
Kostoff, D. (1938). Directed heritable variations conditioned by euploid chromosome alterations. Journal of Genetics 36, 447–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löve, A. & Löve, D. (1943). The significance of differences in the distribution of diploids and polyploids. Hereditas 29, 145–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müntzing, A. (1935). The evolutionary significance of autopolyploidy. Hereditas 21, 282–3.Google Scholar
Rees, H. (1955). Genotypic control of chromosome behaviour in rye. I. Inbred lines. Heredity 9, 93–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Single, W. V. (1961). Studies on frost injury to wheat. I. Laboratory freezing tests in relation to behaviour of varieties in the field. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 12, 767–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjøseth, H. (1957). Studies on frost hardiness in diploid and autotetraploid red clover (Trifolium pratense) and winter rye (Secale cereale). Hereditas 43, 679–82.Google Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. & Cochran, W. G. (1956). Statistical Methods, 5th edn., pp. 45–7, 314–21. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Stebbins, G. L. (1950). Variation and Evolution in Plants, pp. 301–8, 342–50. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troughton, A. (1968). The influence of genotype and mineral nutrition on the distribution of growth within plants of Lolium perenne L. grown in soil. Annals of Botany 32, 411–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar