Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T03:19:13.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The basis of variation in date of ear emergence under field conditions among the progeny of a cross between two winter wheat varieties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. Hoogendoorn
J. Hoogendoorn
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge, CB2 2LQ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

From the progeny of a cross between the winter wheat varieties Norman and Talent early and late F5 lines were selected in the field. These selections and the two parental varieties were grown in controlled environment cabinets to assess their sensitivity to photoperiod and vernalization.

The F5 selections and Norman and Talent were also grown in field trials, at the Plant Breeding Institute in Trumpington, and at The Murrays Experimental Farm of the Scottish Crop Research Institute, near Edinburgh.

Norman was more sensitive to photoperiod and vernalization than Talent. The early F5 lines were relatively insensitive to photoperiod and/or vernalization. The late lines were sensitive to both photoperiod and vernalization. Differences in date of ear emergence among the selections were found which were independent of photoperiod and vernalization sensitivity. This variation in ear emergence, described as earliness per se, was similar under controlled environment conditions and in the field, and was also shown to be similar in magnitude to that due to differences in sensitivity to photoperiod and vernalization. Both sources of variation can be exploited to modify time of ear emergence under field conditions in Great Britain.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 104 , Issue 3 , June 1985 , pp. 493 - 500
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Austin, R. B., Bingham, J., Blackwell, R. D., Evans, L. T., Ford, M. A., Morgan, C. L. & Taylor, M. (1980). Genetic improvements in winter wheat yields since 1900 and associated physiological changes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 94, 675–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. K. & Gallagher, J. N. (1983). The development of winter wheat in the field. 2. The control of primordium initiation rate by temperature and photoperiod. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 337–344.Google Scholar
Bernier, G., Kinet, J. & Sachs, R. M. (1981). The Physiology of Flowering, Vol. I, 149 pp. Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Ford, M. A., Austin, R. B., Angus, W. J. & Sage, G. C. M. (1981). Relationships between the responses of spring wheat genotypes to temperature and photoperiodic treatment and their performance in the field. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 96, 623–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halse, N. J. & Weir, R. N. (1970). Effects of vernalization, photoperiod and temperature on phonological development and spikelet number of Australian wheat. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 21, 383–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoogendoorn, J. (1984). A comparison of different vernalization techniques in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Journal of Plant Physiology 116, 11–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunt, L. A. (1979). Photoperiodic responses of winter wheats from different climatic regions. Journal of Plant Breeding 82, 70–80.Google Scholar
Innes, P., Hoogendoorn, J. & Blackwell, R. D. (1985). Effects of differences in date of ear emergence and height on yield of winter wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge (in the Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klaimi, Y. Y. & Qualset, C. O. (1973). Genetics of heading time in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). I. The inheritance of photoperiodic response. Genetics 74, 139–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klaimi, Y. Y. & Qualset, C. O. (1974). Genetics of heading time in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). II. The inheritance of vernalization response. Genetics 76, 119–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Law, C. N. & Scarth, R. (1984). Genetics and its potential for understanding the action of light in flowering. In Light and the Flowering Process(ed. Vince-Prue, D.). London: Academic Press (in the Press).Google Scholar
Levy, J. & Peterson, M. L. (1972). Responses of spring wheat to vernalization and photoperiod. Crop Science 21, 487–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pugsley, A. T. (1971). A genetic analysis of the springwinter habit of growth in wheat. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 22, 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pugsley, A. T. (1972). Additional genes inhibiting winter habit in wheat. Euphytica 21, 547–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarth, R. & Law, C. N. (1984). The control of the daylength response in wheat by the group 2 chromosomes. Journal of Plant Breeding 92, 140–150.Google Scholar
Syme, J. R. (1968). Ear emergence of Australian, Mexican and European wheats in relation to time of sowing and their response to vernalization and daylength. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 8, 578–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yasuda, S. & Shimoyama, H. (1965). Analysis of internal factors influencing the heading time of wheat varieties. Berichte des Ohara Institut für Landwirtschaftliche Biologie, Okayama Unive.rsitat 13, 23–38.Google Scholar