Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T07:28:07.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Barley development as affected by rate of change of photoperiod

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. C. Kernich ,
G. A. Slafer  and
G. M. Halloran
G. C. Kernich
Affiliation:
Centre for Crop Improvement, Department of Agriculture, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
G. A. Slafer
Affiliation:
Centre for Crop Improvement, Department of Agriculture, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
G. M. Halloran
Affiliation:
Centre for Crop Improvement, Department of Agriculture, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The rate of leaf appearance of barley varies substantially with time of sowing. This variation has been related to both the length and the rate of change of photoperiod at the time of plant emergence. An outdoor pot experiment was conducted to test if rate of change of photoperiod directly affects phasic development and rate of leaf emergence of spring barley. Two photoperiod-sensitive cultivars (Bandulla and Galleon) were subjected to five photoperiod regimes: two constant photoperiods, of 14 and 15·5 h, and three different rates of change of photoperiod of c. 2, 9 and 13 min/day from seedling emergence to awn initiation.

Photoperiod treatments significantly affected the duration from seedling emergence to awn initiation in both cultivars. Rate of change of photoperiod did not affect the rate of development towards awn initiation independently of the absolute daylength it produced. Although Bandulla had a longer duration than Galleon at any photoperiod regime, the cultivars did not vary in their sensitivity to photoperiod. When this phase was divided into the leaf initiation (LI) and spikelet initiation (SI) phases, it was evident that the sensitivity to photoperiod was not constant, being in general higher during the SI than during the LI phase. However, the magnitude of the change in sensitivity was cultivar-dependent, indicating that sensitivity to photoperiod during the different phases could be under independent genetic control.

Final numbers of primordia (leaves together with maximum spikelet number) were negatively affected by increasing photoperiods, but once again, there was no evidence of any effect of the rate of change of photoperiod which was independent of the average photoperiod. Both cultivars showed similar sensitivities for final leaf number but maximum spikelet number was more sensitive to photoperiod in Galleon than in Bandulla.

Highly significant linear relationships between leaf number and thermal time were found for all combinations of cultivars and photoperiod regimes (r2 > 0·98). The rate of leaf appearance (RLA) was similar for both cultivars (c. 0·0185 leaves/°Cd) and did not alter during plant development or in response to the change in photoperiod at awn initiation. The range in RLA was greater for Galleon (0·0170–0·0205 leaves/°Cd) than for Bandulla (0·0173–0·0186 leaves/°Cd). Neither of these cultivars exhibited a significant relationship between rate of leaf emergence and photoperiod or rate of change of photoperiod. The lack of significant relationships between RLA and length or rate of change of photoperiod is in contrast with previous reports using time of sowing as a main treatment.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 124 , Issue 3 , June 1995 , pp. 379 - 388
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Allison, J. C. S. & Daynard, T. B. (1976). Effect of photoperiod on development and number of spikelets of a temperate and some low-latitude wheats. Annals of Applied Biology 83, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aspinall, D. & Paleg, L. G. (1963). Effects of daylength and light intensity on growth of barley. 1. Growth and development of apex with a fluorescent light source. Botanical Gazette 124, 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. K., Gallagher, J. N. & Monteith, J. L. (1980). Daylength change and leaf appearance in winter wheat. Plant, Cell and Environment 3, 285–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonhomme, R., Derieux, M., Kiniry, J. R., Edmeades, G. O. & Ozier-Lafontaine, H. (1991). Maize leaf number sensitivity in relation to photoperiod in multilocation field trials. Agronomy Journal 83, 153–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, W. & Moss, D. N. (1989). Daylength effect on leaf emergence and phyllochron in wheat and barley. Crop Science 29, 1021–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constable, G. A. & Rose, I. A. (1988). Variability of soybean phenology response to temperature, daylength and rate of change in daylength. Field Crops Research 18, 57–69.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. D., Johnson, M. P., Weaver, S. E., Martin, T. D. & Blair, A. M. (1992). Comparative rates of emergence and leaf appearance in wild oats (Avenafatua), winter barley (Hordeum sativum) and winter wheat (Triticwn aestivum). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 118, 149–156.Google 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.Google Scholar
Craufurd, P. Q. & Cartwright, P. M. (1989). Effect of photoperiod and chlormequat on apical development and growth in a spring wheat (Triticwn aestivum) cultivar. Annals of Botany 63, 515–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delecolle, R., Couvreur, F., Pluchard, P. & Varletgrancher, C. (1985). About the leaf-daylength model under French conditions. In Wheat Growth and Modelling (Eds Day, W. & Atkin, R. K.), pp. 25–31. New York: Plenum Press.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.Google Scholar
Fairey, D. T., Hunt, L. A. & Stoskopf, N. C. (1975). Daylength influence on reproductive development and tillering in ‘Fergus’ barley. Canadian Journal of Botany 83, 2770–2775.Google Scholar
Gallagher, J. N. & Biscoe, P. V. (1978). Radiation absorption, growth and yield of cereals. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haun, J. R. (1973). Visual quantification of wheat development. Agronomy Journal 65, 116–119.Google Scholar
Hay, R. K. M. & Abbas Al-Ani, M. K. (1983). The physiology of forage rye (Secale cereale). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 63–70.Google Scholar
Hay, R. K. M. & Kirby, E. J. M. (1991). Convergence and synchrony – a review of the coordination of development in wheat. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 42, 661–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, R. K. M. & Tunnicliffe Wilson, G. (1982). Leaf appearance and extension in field-grown winter wheat plants: the importance of soil temperature during vegetative growth. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99, 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. L. & Allen, E. J. (1986). Development in barley (Hordeum sativum). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 107, 187–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernich, G. C., Halloran, G. M. & Flood, R. G. (1993). The effect of photoperiod on reproductive development and culm elongation rate in barley. In Proceedings of the 10th Australian Plant Breeding Conference. Vol. 2 (Ed. Imrie, B. C.), pp. 101–102. University of Queensland Printing Service.Google Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M. & Appleyard, M. (1980). Effects of photoperiod on the relation between development and yield per plant of a range of spring barley varieties. Zeitschrift für Pftanzenzüchtung 85, 226–239.Google Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M. & Appleyard, M. (1987). Cereal Development Guide. Stoneleigh, UK: NAC Cereal Unit.Google Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M. & Ellis, R. P. (1980). A comparison of spring barley grown in England and in Scotland. 1. Shoot apex development. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M. & Perry, M. W. (1987). Leaf emergence rates of wheat in a Mediterranean environment. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 38, 455–464.Google Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M., Appleyard, M. & Fellowes, G. (1982). Effect of sowing date on the temperature response of leaf emergence and leaf size in barley. Plant, Cell and Environment 5, 477–484.Google Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M., Appleyard, M. & Fellowes, G. (1983). Rate of change of daylength and leaf emergence. 1982 Annual Report Plant Breeding Station, Cambridge, p. 115.Google Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M., Appleyard, M. & Fellowes, G. (1985). Effect of sowing date and variety on main shoot leaf emergence and number of leaves of barley and wheat. Agronomie 5, 117–126.Google Scholar
Major, D. J. (1980). Photoperiod response characteristics controlling flowering of nine crop species. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 60, 777–784.Google Scholar
Masle, J., Doussinault, G., Farquhar, G. D. & Sun, B. (1989). Foliar stage in wheat correlates better to photothermal time than to thermal time. Plant, Cell and Environment 12, 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, J. R. (1985). Approaches to modelling canopy development in wheat. In Wheat Growth and Modelling (Eds Day, W. & Atkin, R. K.), pp. 69–81. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, J. R. & Delecolle, R. (1988). Interaction of temperature with other environmental factors in controlling the development of plants. In Plants and Temperature (Eds Long, S. P. & Woodward, F. I.), pp. 133–156. Cambridge: Company of Biologists.Google Scholar
Rahman, M. S. (1980). Effect of photoperiod and vernalization on the rate of development and spikelet number per ear in 30 varieties of wheat. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 46, 68–70.Google Scholar
Rahman, M. S. & Wilson, J. H. (1977). Determination of spikelet number in wheat. 1. Effect of varying photoperiod on ear development. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 28, 565–574.Google Scholar
Rawson, H. M. (1993). Radiation effects on rate of development in wheat grown under different photoperiods and high and low temperatures. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 20, 719–727.Google Scholar
Rawson, H. M. & Richards, R. A. (1993). Effects of high temperature and photoperiod on floral development in wheat isolines differing in vernalisation and photoperiod genes. Field Crops Research 32, 181–192.Google Scholar
Roberts, E. H., Summerfield, R. J., Cooper, J. P. & Ellis, R. H. (1988). Environmental control of flowering in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). I. Photoperiod limits to long-day responses, photoperiod-insensitive phases and effects of low-temperature and short-day vernalization. Annals of Botany 62, 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slafer, G. A. & Rawson, H. M. (1994). Sensitivity of wheat phasic development to major environmental factors: a reexamination of some assumptions made by physiologists and modellers. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 21, 393–426.Google Scholar
Stapper, M. & Fischer, R. A. (1990). Genotype, sowing date and plant spacing influence on high-yielding irrigated wheat in southern New South Wales. I. Phasic development, canopy growth and spike production. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 41, 997–1019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, P. C. & Cartwright, P. M. (1974). Effects of photoperiod, temperature and vernalization on the phenology and spikelet numbers of spring wheats. Annals of Applied Biology 76, 299–309.Google Scholar
Wright, D. & Hughes, Ll. G. (1987). Relationships between time, temperature, daylength and development in spring barley. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 109, 365–373.Google Scholar