Paper · 1984 · The Journal of Agricultural Science

A comparison of the root and shoot growth of winter barley and winter wheat, and the effect of an early application of chlormequat

P. L. Bragg; P. Rubino; F. K. G. Henderson; et al.

9
claims
13
verbatim quotes
28
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

SUMMARY In a field experiment where winter wheat and winter barley were sown on the same date, the patterns of root growth of the two species were similar, with a few roots reaching a depth of at least 120 cm. Roots senesced sooner in barley, in association with earlier maturity of the shoots and grain. The number of shoots and leaf area index of the barley were greater than for the wheat, but rates of dry-matter production until anthesis of the barley were similar in both species. The grain yield of wheat was about 10% heavier than for barley. Where chlormequat had been applied in early December at the 3- to 4-leaf stage, when shoot apices of both species were still vegetative, root density of the winter wheat in the following March and April was slightly greater than for untreated plants, but the difference disappeared later. For winter barley there was no effect of chlormequat on root growth until July when root length tended to be greater at depth after the chlormequat treatment. The chlormequat treatment significantly shortened stem length, but did not significantly affect the number of shoots, crop dry weight or grain yield of either species.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The two cereals had similar root growth patterns, with a few roots reaching at least 120 cm.

Taxon
winter barley and winter wheatHordeum vulgareTriticum aestivumt0
Outcome
patterns of root growthe0
Value
at least 120 cme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the patterns of root growth of the two species were similar, with a few roots reaching a depth of at least 120 cm”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 95–208 · show in text ↑
t0

“A comparison of the root and shoot growth of winter barley and winter wheat, and the effect of an early application of chlormequat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–130 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Barley roots senesced sooner, associated with earlier shoot and grain maturity.

Organ / stage
Rootse0
Outcome
Roots senescede0
Direction
soonere0
Qualifier
earlier maturity of the shoots and graine0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Roots senesced sooner in barley, in association with earlier maturity of the shoots and grain”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 210–303 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Barley had more shoots and greater leaf area index than wheat.

Outcome
number of shoots and leaf area indexe0
Direction
greatere0
Comparator
wheate0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The number of shoots and leaf area index of the barley were greater than for the wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 305–391 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Barley and wheat had similar dry matter production rates until anthesis.

Outcome
rates of dry-matter productione0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
both speciese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“rates of dry-matter production until anthesis of the barley were similar in both species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 397–485 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat grain yield was about 10% greater than barley grain yield.

Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
heaviere0
Value
10%e0
Comparator
barleye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The grain yield of wheat was about 10% heavier than for barley”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 487–549 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Early chlormequat slightly increased wheat root density in March and April, with the difference disappearing later.

Taxon
winter wheatTriticum aestivume0
Treatment
chlormequatt0
Outcome
root densitye0
Direction
slightly greatere0
Qualifier
difference disappeared latere0
Comparator
untreated plantse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“root density of the winter wheat in the following March and April was slightly greater than for untreated plants, but the difference disappeared later”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 688–838 · show in text ↑
t0

“A comparison of the root and shoot growth of winter barley and winter wheat, and the effect of an early application of chlormequat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–130 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chlormequat tended to increase deep barley root length in July.

Taxon
winter barleyHordeum vulgaree0
Treatment
chlormequat treatmente0
Outcome
root lengthe0
Direction
greatere0
Qualifier
until Julye0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“For winter barley there was no effect of chlormequat on root growth until July when root length tended to be greater at depth after the chlormequat treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 840–997 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Chlormequat significantly shortened stem length in both cereals.

Taxon
winter barley and winter wheatHordeum vulgareTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
chlormequat treatmente0
Outcome
stem lengthe0
Direction
shortenede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The chlormequat treatment significantly shortened stem length”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 999–1060 · show in text ↑
t0

“A comparison of the root and shoot growth of winter barley and winter wheat, and the effect of an early application of chlormequat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–130 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Chlormequat did not significantly affect shoot number, crop dry weight, or grain yield in either cereal.

Taxon
winter barley and winter wheatHordeum vulgareTriticum aestivumt0
Treatment
chlormequatt0
Outcome
number of shoots, crop dry weight or grain yielde0
Direction
did not significantly affecte0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“did not significantly affect the number of shoots, crop dry weight or grain yield of either species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1066–1165 · show in text ↑
t0

“A comparison of the root and shoot growth of winter barley and winter wheat, and the effect of an early application of chlormequat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 0–130 · show in text ↑

chlormequat chloride · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Results differ

13 papers: 9 positive, 4 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

9 papers more in this group

See all 13 papers →

chlormequat chloride · growth · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Results differ

14 papers: 7 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

chlormequat chloride · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

49 papers: 37 positive, 12 negative or no effect

36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

45 papers more in this group

See all 49 papers →

chlormequat chloride · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

71 papers: 53 positive, 18 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 53 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. positive

67 papers more in this group

See all 71 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.