Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-glrdx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T16:45:14.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Yield response of barley to rainfall and temperature in Mediterranean environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. J. Van Oosterom ,
S. Ceccarelli  and
J. M. Peacock
E. J. Van Oosterom
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
S. Ceccarelli
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
J. M. Peacock
Affiliation:
International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), PO Box 5466, Aleppo, Syria
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Grain yield of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in northern Syria is limited by water stress and extremes of temperature. The present study compared the grain yield of two barley cultivars, Harmal (spring type, cold-sensitive, early heading) and Arabi Aswad (winter type, cold-tolerant, medium early heading), under varying rainfall and temperature. Grain yield was obtained from three sites in northern Syria for seven seasons (1984/85 to 1990/91), resulting in 18 site × season combinations, here called environments. Multiple regression models, containing one rainfall and one temperature variable, were used to quantify yield responses to environmental fluctuations.

Total seasonal rainfall was the variable most strongly correlated with the grain yield of Harmal, accounting for 62·8% of the variance. For Arabi Aswad, rainfall from November to January gave the best fit, accounting for 61·8% of the variance. December and January rainfall had the highest contribution to the yield of both cultivars; the contribution of March rainfall tended to be negative. The overall yield response to seasonal rainfall was 11·89 kg/ha/mm for Harmal and 8·57 kg/ha/mm for Arabi Aswad; the expected grain yield at the driest site was c. 1270 kg/ha for both cultivars. The addition of a temperature variable gave a better fit, accounting for c. 80% of the variance in grain yield for both cultivars if winter rainfall was combined with number of night frosts in spring. It reduced the expected yields at the driest site to c. 986 kg/ha. Arabi Aswad had a lesser response to both rainfall and frost than Harmal.

In environments where low yields are due to both water and temperature stress, farmers are advised to grow Arabi Aswad because its lesser sensitivity to environmental fluctuations will ensure a better yield stability.

Information

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 121 , Issue 3 , December 1993 , pp. 307 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Biscoe, P. V. & Gallagher, J. N. (1977). Weather, dry matter production and yield. In Environmental Effects on Crop Physiology (Eds Landsberg, J. J.Cutting, C. V.), pp. 75–100. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Blum, A. & Pnuel, Y. (1990). Physiological attributes associated with drought resistance of wheat cultivars in a Mediterranean environment. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 41, 799–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, S. C., Keatinge, J. D. H., Gregory, P. J. & Cooper, P. J. M. (1987). Effects of fertilizer, variety and location on barley production under rainfed conditions in northern Syria. 1. Root and shoot growth. Field Crops Research 16, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S., Acevedo, E. & Grando, S. (1991). Breeding for yield stability in unpredictable environments: single traits, interaction between traits, and architecture of genotypes. Euphytica 56, 169–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S., Grando, S. & Hamblin, J. (1992). Relationship between barley grain yield measured in lowand high-yielding environments. Euphytica 64, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, P. J. M., Keatinge, J. D. H. & Hughes, G. (1983). Crop evapotranspiration – a technique for calculation of its components by field measurements. Field Crops Research 7, 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erskine, W. & El Ashkar, F. (1993). Rainfall and temperature effects on lentil (Lens culinaris)seed yield in Mediterranean environments. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 121, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, J. N., Biscoe, P. V. & Scott, R. K. (1975). Barley and its environment. V. Stability of grain weight. Journal of Applied Ecology 12, 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadjichristodoulou, A. (1982). The effects of annual precipitation and its distribution on grain yield of dryland cereals. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Center for Agricultural Research In The Dry Areas (1990). Farm Resource Management Program: Annual Report 1989. Aleppo, Syria: 1CARDA.Google Scholar
International Center For Agricultural Research In The Dry Areas (1991). Cereal Improvement Program: Annual Report 1990. Aleppo, Syria: ICARDA.Google Scholar
Ketata, H. (1987). Actual and potential yields of cereal crops in moisture-limited environments. In Drought Tolerance in Winter Cereals (Eds Srivastava, J. P., Porceddu, E., Acevedo, E.Varma, S.), pp. 55–62. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Marshall, D. R. (1987). Australian plant breeding strategies for rainfed areas. In Drought Tolerance in Winter Cereals (Eds Srivastava, J. P., Porceddu, E., Acevedo, E.Varma, S.) 89–99. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Nix, H. A. (1982). Aspects of drought from an agroclimatic perspective. In Drought Resistance in Crops with Emphasis on Rice, pp. 3–15. Los Baños, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).Google Scholar
Rosielle, A. A. & Hamblin, J. (1981). Theoretical aspects of selection for yield in stress and non-stress environments. Crop Science 21, 943–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistical Analysis System (1988). SAS/STAT User's Guide, Release 6.03 edn.Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Van Oosterom, E. J. & Acevedo, E. (1992 a). Adaptation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) to harsh Mediterranean environments. I. Morphological traits. Euphytica 62, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oosterom, E. J. & Acevedo, E. (1992 b). Adaptation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) to harsh Mediterranean environments. II. Apical development, leaf, and tiller appearance. Euphytica 62, 15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar