Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:43:05.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of optimum heading date and its stability on yield and consistency of performance of barley and durum wheat in dry areas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. Hadjichristodoulou
A. Hadjichristodoulou
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Data from several trials with large numbers of barley and durum wheat varieties conducted mainly under dryland conditions in a Mediterranean climate were used to study the effects of heading date and its stability on consistency of performance.

Heading date was expressed in relation to one or more control varieties, because of the significant genotype × environment interactions. Data from trials during 1969–85 were used to determine optimum heading date in order to aid selection for consistently high-yielding varieties. For rainfed barley in Cyprus this optimum range was between 2 days after and 5–8 days before heading of Kantara barley and for rainfed wheat 1 day after to 4 days before heading of Karpasia durum wheat. It is suggested that by selecting at one environment single plants from segregating populations or lines from nurseries and yield trials, having heading date within the optimum range, the chances of selecting consistently high-yielding lines are increased.

The genotype and environment significantly affected heading date. Stability of heading date was genetically controlled. Early varieties tended to be more variable than late varieties of both barley and durum wheat. Lines with the lowest values for variance of heading date gave low yields under variable conditions because they were very late. The consistently high-yielding lines of barley and durum wheat had variance of log transformed heading (s2log2) 0·025–0·050.

In durum wheat, lines with the lowest variance were later in heading date than the optimum for Cyprus environments. The absolute values of variance of heading date of varieties varied with year, but significant positive correlations were obtained between years (r = 0·84 for durum wheat and r = 0·55 for barley, P < 0·01).

Barley, which is considered a safer crop for the driest parts of the Mediterranean countries, heads a few days earlier than durum wheat but its better performance may be attributed also to its ability to grow faster than wheat in the winter months.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 108 , Issue 3 , June 1987 , pp. 599 - 608
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

Anon. (1937). Cereal crops-barley. The Cyprus Agricultural Journal 32, 6–7.Google Scholar
Brennan, P. S., Byth, D. E., Drake, D. W., De Lacy, I. H. & Butler, G. (1981). Determination of the location and number of test environments for a wheat cultivar evaluation programme. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derera, N. F., Marshall, D. R. & Balaam, L. N. (1969). Genetic variability in root development in relation to drought tolerance of spring wheat. Experimental Agriculture 5, 327–337.Google Scholar
Evans, S. A. & Hough, M. (1984). The effects of several husbandry factors on the growth and yield of winter sown barley at four sites in each of three years. Journal of gricultural Science, Cambridge 103, 555–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadjichristodoulou, A. (1982). The effects of annual precipitation and its distribution on grain yield of dryland cereals. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99, 261–270.Google Scholar
Hadjichristodoulou, A. (1985). The stability of the number of tillers of barley varieties and its relation with consistency of performance under semi-arid conditions. Euphytica 34, 641–649.Google Scholar
Hadjichristodoulou, A., Josephides, C. & Della, A. (1980). Improvement of grain barley varieties in Cyprus — Kantara a new variety. Technical Bulletin No. 32, 14 pp. Cyprus Agricultural Research Institute.Google Scholar
Hadjichristodoulou, A. & Kari, A. (1984). Karpasia, a high yielding new durum wheat variety with improved grain quality characteristics. Technical Bulletin No. 57, 7 pp. Cyprus Agricultural Research Institute.Google Scholar
Hurd, E. A. (1971). Can we breed for drought resistance? In Drought Injury and Resistance in Crops, pp. 77–88. Crop Science Society of America, Special Publication, No. 2.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. C. (1966). On the measurement of relative variability. Systematic Zoology 15, 141–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkelman, D. (1977). Farmers and markets; is barley the answer? In Barley II, Proceedings of the Fourth Regional Winter Cereal Workshop, pp. 99–107. Amman, Jordan.Google Scholar
Yasuda, S. (1981). The physiology of earliness in barley. In Barley Genetics 1V, Proceedings of the Fourth International Barley Genetics Symposium, pp. 507–517. Edinburgh, U.K.Google Scholar
Yoshida, H. & Kamio, M. (1985). Differences between wheat and barley varieties in earliness characteristics of each developmental stage. Japanese Journal of Breeding 35, 323–331.Google Scholar