Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T22:18:22.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relative importance of embryo size and endosperm size in causing the effects associated with seed size in wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

P. M. Bremner ,
R. N. Eckersall  and
R. K. Scott
P. M. Bremner
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Nottingham
R. N. Eckersall
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Nottingham
R. K. Scott
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Nottingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The growth of wheat plants at two depths of planting, from seed in which embryo size and endosperm size were varied independently was studied.

2. Embryo size was shown to have a negligible effect on growth, whilst endosperm size had a considerable effect; the influence of neither embryosize nor endosperm size appeared to be in any way modified by depth of planting. It is suggested that the relationship between seed size and plant size is governed by the amount of reserve material present in the seed.

3. During the first 6 days of growth small embryos had a higher relative growth rate than large ones, apparently regardless, within wide limits, of the amount of reserve material in the seed. Thereafter until the exhaustion of reserves growth appeared to be related to the amount of reserve material present.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 61 , Issue 1 , August 1963 , pp. 139 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

Ashby, E. (1930). Ann. Bot., Lond., 44, 457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, E. (1932). Ann. Bot., Lond., 46, 1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, E. (1937). Ann. Bot., Lond. (N.S.), 1, 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Black, J. N. (1959). Herb. Abstr. 29, no. 4, 235.Google Scholar
Edelman, J., Shibki, S. I. & Keys, A. J. (1959). J. Exp. Bot. 10, 178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatcher, E. S. J. & Purvis, O. N. (1945). J. Agric. Sci. 35, 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, A. L. (1940). New Phytol. 39, 133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidd, F. & West, C. (1918). Ann. Appl. Biol. 5, pt. 1, 1; pt. 2, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kibsop, B. H. & Pollock, J. R. A. (1958). J. Inst. Brew. 64, 227.Google Scholar
Nutman, P. S. (1941). Ann. Bot., Lond. (N.S.), 5, 353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schander, H. (1934). Z. Bot. 27, 433.Google Scholar
Scott, R. K. (1961). Thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Sprague, G. F. (1936). J. Agric. Res. 53, 819.Google Scholar
Toole, E. H., Hesdricks, S. B., Borthwick, H. A. & Toole, V. K. (1956). Ann. Rev. Pl. Physiol. 7, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar