Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-09T17:57:12.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Effects of nitrogen applied at different dates, and of other cultural treatments on eyespot, take-all and yield of winter wheat (field experiment, 1953)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. A. Salt
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts

Extract

A field experiment to test effects of cultural treatments on eyespot (Cercosporella herpotrichoides Fron.), lodging and yield of winter wheat, begun in 1952 (Salt, 1955), was continued on the same site in 1953. In 1952 only eyespot and lodging were severe, but in 1953 take-all (Ophiobolus graminis Sacc.) and weeds were severe also.

Squareheads Master 13/4 and Cappelle, each sown at 1½ and 3 bushels/acre, were top-dressed at four different dates with ammonium sulphate at 0, 2 and 4 cwt./acre. Sulphuric acid (12½% b.o.v. at 100 gal./ acre) was sprayed on four of the eight blocks of ten plots in March to control eyespot.

Halving the seed rate decreased the percentage of severe eyespot from 63 to 52%, decreased the area stunted by take-all from 36 to 14% and increased yield by amounts ranging from 8·3 cwt. in nitrogendeficient plots to 2·6 cwt./acre in plots well supplied with ammonium sulphate. The fertilizer applied to Squareheads Master at 0, 2 and 4 cwt./acre had little effect on the incidence of eyespot lesions at harvest, but increased the area lodged from 23 to 53 and 60% respectively; it decreased the area stunted by takeall from 47 to 19 and 10% respectively, and increased yield from 13 to 17 and 18 cwt./acre. Cappelle did not lodge and the fertilizer decreased take-all patches from 51 to 28 and 18% respectively, and increased grain from 15 to 20 and 21 cwt./acre. The time when nitrogen was applied to either variety had no important effect on disease incidence or yield.

Sulphuric acid sprayed in 1953 on blocks unsprayed in 1952 and so having a higher initial infection of eyespot and weeds, decreased the area lodged and the area covered by weeds, but did not decrease the percentage of straws with eyespot below that in unsprayed plots.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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

REFERENCES

Batts, C. C. V. & Fiddian, W. E. H. (1955). Plant Path. 4, 25.Google Scholar
Dion, W. M. (1943). Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Science, University of London.Google Scholar
Garbett, S. D. (1948). Ann. Appl. Biol. 35, 14.Google Scholar
Gaudineau, Mlle. & Guyot, L. (1925). C. R. Acad. Agric. 11, 122.Google Scholar
Glynne, Mary D. (1951 a). Ann. Appl. Biol. 38, 665.Google Scholar
Glynne, Mary D. (1951 b). Personal communication.Google Scholar
Lupton, F. G. H. & Macer, R. C. F. (1955). Agriculture, Lond., 62, 54.Google Scholar
Salt, G. A. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 407.Google Scholar
Simmonds, P. M. & Sallans, B. J. (1933). Sci. Agric. 13, 439.Google Scholar
Vincent, A., Ponchet, J. & Koller, J. (1952). Ann. Inst. nat. Rech. agron., Paris, B, 3, 459.Google Scholar