Advertisement

Some Metabolic Constraints to Oat Productivity

  • David M. Peterson
Chapter
  • 72 Downloads
Part of the World Crops: Production, Utilization, Description book series (WCPU, volume 12)

Abstract

The yield of oats and other cereals has been increased considerably over the years through plant breeding. To a large extent this has been accomplished through the elimination of defects, such as insect and disease susceptibility and weak straw. However, yield per se has been increased, largely through the breeding of cultivars that have a higher proportion of their dry matter at maturity in the grains. This has been called the harvest index, and has been defined as: grain wt/(grain wt + straw wt). This trend was demonstrated by Wych and Stuthman(1) who compared nine oat cultivars released over six decades in Minnesota. They found a correlation coefficient of 0.90 between grain yield and harvest index (Table 1). Biological yield was also positively correlated with grain yield, but the correlation coeffecient was lower (0.67). Lawes(2) found that grain yield of European cultivars introduced since 1908 was also highly correlated with harvest index, although the harvest indices of the European cultivars averaged considerably higher than the American ones.

Keywords

Sucrose Concentration Harvest Index Unit Leaf Area Metabolic Constraint Total Leaf Nitrogen 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Wych RD and DD Stuthman: Crop Sci. 23, 879–881, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lawes DA: J. Agric. Sei. 89, 751–757, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Austin RB, J Bingham, RD Blackwell, LT Evans, MA Ford, CL Morgan and M Taylor: J. Agric. Sci. 94, 675–689, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evans LT and RL Dunstone: Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 23, 725–741, 1970.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jordan DB and WL Ogren: Nature 291, 513–515, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jordan DB and WL Ogren: Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 227, 425–433, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yeoh HH, MR Badger and L Watson: Plant Physiol. 66, 1110–1112, 1980.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Evans JR and JR Seemann: Plant Physiol. 74, 759–765, 1984.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lambers H: Physiol. Plant. 55, 478–485, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Azcon-Bieto J, H Lambers and DA Day: Plant Physiol. 72, 598–603, 1983.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilson D: Ann. Bot. 49, 303–312, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilson D and JG Jones: Ann. Bot. 49, 313 - 320, 1982.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosielle AA and KJ Frey: Crop Sci. 15, 544–547, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brocklehurst PA: Nature 266, 348–349, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brocklehurst PA, JP Moss and W Williams: Ann. Appl. Biol. 90, 265–276, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bingham J: J. Agric. Sci. 68, 411–422, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fischer RA and D HilleRisLambers: Aust. J. Agric. Res. 29, 443–458, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nosberger J and GN Thorne: Ann Bot. 29, 635–644, 1965.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peterson DM: Field Crops Res. 7, 41–50, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Singh BK and CF Jenner: Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 11, 151–163, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Geiger DR: Bot. Gaz. 140, 241–248, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Helsel DB and KJ Frey: Crop Sci. 18, 765–769, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jenner CF and AJ Rathjen: Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 2, 311–322, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sofield I, IF Wardlaw, LT Evans and SY Zee: Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 4, 799–810, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cochrane MP: Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 10, 473–491, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pinthus MJ and H Nerson: Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 11, 17–22, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Klinck HR and SL Sim: Can. J. Bot. 55, 96–106, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Warner RL, A Kleinhofs and KR Narayanan: In, JE Harper et al. (eds). Exploitation of physiological and genetic variability to enhance crop productivity. Amer. Soc. Plant Physiologists, Rockville, Md. p. 92, 1985.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lesar LE and DM Peterson: Crop Sci. 21, 741–747, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Dalling MJ: In, JE Harper et al (eds). Exploitation of physiological and genetic variability to enhance crop productivity. Amer. Soc. Plant Physiologists, Rockville, Md. p. 92, 1985.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Eagles HA, RM Haslemore and CA Stewart: N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 21, 65–72, 1978.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peterson DM, LE Schrader, DA Cataldo, VL Youngs and D Smith: Can. J. Plant Sei. 55, 19–28, 1975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Welch RW and YY Yong: J. Sci. Food Agric. 31, 541–548, 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • David M. Peterson
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Cereal Crops Research Unit, Agricultural Research ServiceUnited States Department of AgricultureUSA
  2. 2.Department of AgronomyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations