Dry Matter Accumulation in Soft Red Winter Wheat Seeds 1

Crop Science ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Housley ◽  
Allen W. Kirleis ◽  
Herb W. Ohm ◽  
Fred L. Patterson
1981 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 525-534 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. L. HOUSLEY ◽  
A. W. KIRLEIS ◽  
H. W. OHM ◽  
F. L. PATTERSON

Four cultivars and five lines of soft red winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) representing Arthur and Knox types and Arthur by Knox types were grown in the field. The rate of duration of dry matter, carbohydrate and protein accumulation during seed maturation, the weight of the seed at 10 days post-anthesis and the weight of 200 seeds at maturity were measured in seeds from the central spikelet. The Arthur types (Arthur, Oasis, Beau) had relative and maximal rates of dry matter, carbohydrate and protein accumulation that were greater than the Knox types (Monon, 65256, 65309). The duration over which dry weight, carbohydrates and protein accumulated in the seeds was consistently longer in the Knox types. The rate and duration of dry matter, carbohydrate and protein accumulation in the Arthur by Knox types (6413, 71586 and 72483) were more similar to the Arthur types. Ranking each cultivar or line with regard to the measured parameters of seed growth favored the Arthur types with the following ranking from the seeds that were the greatest sinks to those that were the poorest: 71586, Arthur, Beau, 72483, Oasis, 6413, Monon, 65309 and 65256.


Crop Science ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 871-876 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen W. Kirlies ◽  
Thomas L. Housley ◽  
Abdallah M. Emam ◽  
Fred L. Patterson ◽  
Martin R. Okos

2007 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Clayton R. Bailey ◽  
Lathan B. Daniels ◽  
Wayne K. Coblentz ◽  
Elizabeth B. Kegley ◽  
Levi J. McBeth ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Mohamed Mergoum ◽  
Jerry W. Johnson ◽  
James W. Buck ◽  
Steve Sutton ◽  
Benjamin Lopez ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 100 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. A. Paul ◽  
M. P. McMullen ◽  
D. E. Hershman ◽  
L. V. Madden

Multivariate random-effects meta-analyses were conducted on 12 years of data from 14 U.S. states to determine the mean yield and test-weight responses of wheat to treatment with propiconazole, prothioconazole, tebuconazole, metconazole, and prothioconazole+tebuconazole. All fungicides led to a significant increase in mean yield and test weight relative to the check (D; P < 0.001). Metconazole resulted in the highest overall yield increase, with a D of 450 kg/ha, followed by prothioconazole+tebuconazole (444.5 kg/ha), prothioconazole (419.1 kg/ha), tebuconazole (272.6 kg/ha), and propiconazole (199.6 kg/ha). Metconazole, prothioconazole+tebuconazole, and prothioconazole also resulted in the highest increases in test weight, with D values of 17.4 to 19.4 kg/m3, respectively. On a relative scale, the best three fungicides resulted in an overall 13.8 to 15.0% increase in yield but only a 2.5 to 2.8% increase in test weight. Except for prothioconazole+tebuconazole, wheat type significantly affected the yield response to treatment; depending on the fungicide, D was 110.0 to 163.7 kg/ha higher in spring than in soft-red winter wheat. Fusarium head blight (FHB) disease index (field or plot-level severity) in the untreated check plots, a measure of the risk of disease development in a study, had a significant effect on the yield response to treatment, in that D increased with increasing FHB index. The probability was estimated that fungicide treatment in a randomly selected study will result in a positive yield increase (p+) and increases of at least 250 and 500 kg/ha (p250 and p500, respectively). For the three most effective fungicide treatments (metconazole, prothioconazole+tebuconazole, and prothioconazole) at the higher selected FHB index, p+ was very large (e.g., ≥0.99 for both wheat types) but p500 was considerably lower (e.g., 0.78 to 0.92 for spring and 0.54 to 0.68 for soft-red winter wheat); at the lower FHB index, p500 for the same three fungicides was 0.34 to 0.36 for spring and only 0.09 to 0.23 for soft-red winter wheat.


2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-112
Author(s):  
Amir M. H. Ibrahim ◽  
Russell Sutton ◽  
Jerry W. Johnson ◽  
Mohamed Mergoum ◽  
Bryan Simoneaux ◽  
...  

Crop Science ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 844-847 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. L. McKendry ◽  
D. N. Tague ◽  
K. E. Miskin

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document