4.5 Article

Spectral reflectance indices as a potential indirect selection criteria for wheat yield under irrigation

期刊

CROP SCIENCE
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 578-588

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2005.0059

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objectives of this study were to assess the potential of using spectral reflectance indices (SRI) as an indirect selection tool to differentiate spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes for grain yield under irrigated conditions. This paper demonstrates only the first step in using the SRI as indirect selection criteria by reporting genetic variation for SRI among genotypes, the effect of phenology and year on SRI and their interaction with genotypes, and the correlations between SRI and grain yield and yield components of wheat. Three field experiments-15 CIMMYT globally adapted genotypes (GHIST), 25 random F-3 derived lines (RLs1), and 36 random F-3-derived lines (RLs2) -were conducted under irrigated conditions at the CIMMYT research station in northwest Mexico in three different years. Five previously developed SRI (photochemical reflectance index [PRI], water index [WI], red normalized difference vegetation index [RNDVI], green normalized difference vegetation index [GNDVI], simple ratio [SR]) and two newly calculated SRI (normalized water index-1 [NWI-1] and normalized water index-2 [NWI-2]) were evaluated in the experiments. In general, genotypic variation for all the indices was significant. Near infrared radiation (NIR)-based indices (WI, NWI-1, NWI-2) gave the highest levels of association with grain yield during the 3 yr of the study. A clear trend for higher association between grain yield and the NIR-based indices was observed at heading and grainfilling than at booting. Overall, NIR-based indices were more consistent and differentiated grain yield more effectively compared to the other indices. The results demonstrated the potential of using SRI as a tool in breeding programs for selecting for increased genetic gains for yield.

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

4.5
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