4.7 Review

Critical period for grain number establishment of near isogenic lines of two- and six-rowed barley

Journal

FIELD CROPS RESEARCH
Volume 107, Issue 3, Pages 196-202

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2008.02.009

Keywords

critical period; grain set; yield potential; intercepted radiation; two- and six-rowed barley (Hordeum vulgare L.)

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In barley no studies have attempted to pinpoint the critical period for grain number determination, and it is frequently stated that the critical period is similar to that of wheat. However, there are important differences between the species and among barley genotypes (i.e. two- and six-rowed types) suggesting that this assumption requires testing. The objectives of this paper were (i) to determine the critical period for grain number determination in two- and six-rowed barleys, and (ii) to identify which yield components were more sensitive to changes in incident radiation during that period. Two held experiments were conducted using two pairs of near isogenic lines differing only in the spike type. Shading was imposed at different periods throughout the crop cycle (from 60 days before heading to 15 days after) to reduce incident solar radiation approximately 70%. The critical period for grain number determination tended to be slightly earlier in two- (ca. between 40 and 10 days before heading) than in six-rowed barleys (ca. between 30 days before heading until that stage). In terms of the external phenology, the beginning of the critical period for setting grains was 10 days after the beginning of stem elongation, and 10 days before flag leaf appearance in two- and six-rowed lines, respectively. Changes in the number of grains per unit area were correlated with crop growth rate during the critical period for yield determination. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available