4.7 Article

The critical period for yield determination in oat (Avena sativa L.)

期刊

FIELD CROPS RESEARCH
卷 199, 期 -, 页码 109-116

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.09.021

关键词

Grain number; Grain weight; Harvest index; Stress

类别

资金

  1. Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) [DAS00133]
  2. South Australian Grain Industries Trust (SAGIT) [S12/07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Annual crops accommodate environmental variation through grain number, whereas grain weight is more stable. Grain number is determined in a species-specific window which has been established for many crops, but not for oat. Field trials were established at two sites in southern Australia and in one site in southern Chile where successive, single 14-d shading periods were applied from crop establishment to maturity to identify the developmental window when the crop is most responsive to stress. Three oat varieties were compared in Australia (Mitika, Williams and Wintaroo) and two in Chile (Mitika and Yallara). Unshaded controls yielded from 327 gm(-2) in Australia to 747 gm(-2) in Chile. The overall pattern of yield response to time of stress was similar to that of wheat; it spanned the period from stem elongation (GS31) to about 10 days after anthesis. In line with theory, most of the yield response was mediated through response in grain number; further, the two environments in Australia where reduction in grain number in response to stress shortly before anthesis was larger, individual grain weight increased with shading. Grains per panicle was more responsive to stress than panicles per m(2), in contrast to other cereals. The critical period is often assumed to be species-specific. However, our limited comparison of varieties suggests that there might also be varietal differences in oat. Interaction between time of shade and variety was significant for harvest index in all locations. Hence, we propose genotype-dependent response to time of stress is worth exploring. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据