Abstract
Abstract Seasonal variability in climate within and between the major spring wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.) growing regions of the world causes large differences in plant development patterns. A major need of models attempting to describe crop growth as a dynamic process is an evaluation of phenological development. Researchers modeling growth and yield would benefit from a meteorologically‐based phenological index that accurately and reliably predicts the development stage. The objective of this study was to develop capability to estimate leaf growth rate and crop growth stage from planting to anthesis under variable management and climatic conditions. Aboveground morphological entities of 16 hard red spring (HRS) and 3 durum ( T. durum Desf.) wheats were rated in Haun scale designations in seven field trials grown on Williams loam (fine‐loamy, mixed Typic Argiboroll). These designations were regressed with growing degree‐days (GDD), photothermal units (PTU), and days (DAYS) after emergence. Time to emergence did not differ among cultivars within a trial. Among the seven trials, emergence occurred 7 to 15 days after planting; accumulated GDD ranged from 94 to 138, and averaged 106. Eighteen of the cultivars produced eight leaves, ‘James’ produced seven. Main‐stem phyllochron interval was 73 GDD for the HRS cvs. Butte and Waldron combined for analysis, and about 81 GDD for either “other” eight‐leaved HRS cultivars or for the durums combined for analysis, and for James. The R 2 value for any combined analysis was no less than 0.970 ** , significant at the 0.01 level. Soil water level and fertilizer N rate had no effect on main stem development rate, but did affect the maximum number of tillers produced per plant. The GDD accumulated per plant growth unit from emergence to anthesis (leaves plus four stages after expansion of the flag leaf) was the same as from emergence through full expansion of the flag leaf. Precision of estimating growth rates and stages with GDD was the same as with PTU, and both were superior to DAYS.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Spring wheat emerged 7 to 15 days after planting.
- Taxon
- spring wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Organ / stage
- emergencee0
- Outcome
- emergence occurrede0
- Value
- 7 to 15 dayse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the seven trials, emergence occurred 7 to 15 days after planting; accumulated GDD ranged from 94 to 138, and averaged 106.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Growing degree days to emergence ranged from 94 to 138 and averaged 106.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Organ / stage
- emergencee0
- Outcome
- accumulated GDDe0
- Value
- 94 to 138e0
- Qualifier
- averaged 106e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Among the seven trials, emergence occurred 7 to 15 days after planting; accumulated GDD ranged from 94 to 138, and averaged 106.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Time to emergence did not differ among cultivars within trials.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Time to emergencee0
- Direction
- did not differe0
- Comparator
- cultivars within a triale0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Time to emergence did not differ among cultivars within a trial.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Eighteen of the cultivars produced eight leaves.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- Eighteen of the cultivarse0
- Outcome
- produced eight leavese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Eighteen of the cultivars produced eight leaves, ‘James’ produced seven.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
‘James’ produced seven.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- ‘James’e0
- Outcome
- produced sevene0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Eighteen of the cultivars produced eight leaves, ‘James’ produced seven.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
HRS cvs. Butte and Waldron had a main-stem phyllochron interval of 73 GDD.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- HRS cvs. Butte and Waldrone0
- Outcome
- Main‐stem phyllochron intervale0
- Value
- 73 GDDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Main‐stem phyllochron interval was 73 GDD for the HRS cvs. Butte and Waldron combined for analysis, and about 81 GDD for either “other” eight‐leaved HRS cultivars or for the durums combined for analysis, and for James.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
“other” eight‐leaved HRS cultivars had a main-stem phyllochron interval of 81 GDD.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- “other” eight‐leaved HRS cultivarse0
- Outcome
- Main‐stem phyllochron intervale0
- Value
- 81 GDDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Main‐stem phyllochron interval was 73 GDD for the HRS cvs. Butte and Waldron combined for analysis, and about 81 GDD for either “other” eight‐leaved HRS cultivars or for the durums combined for analysis, and for James.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
durums had a main-stem phyllochron interval of 81 GDD.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- durumse0
- Outcome
- Main‐stem phyllochron intervale0
- Value
- 81 GDDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Main‐stem phyllochron interval was 73 GDD for the HRS cvs. Butte and Waldron combined for analysis, and about 81 GDD for either “other” eight‐leaved HRS cultivars or for the durums combined for analysis, and for James.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
James had a main-stem phyllochron interval of 81 GDD.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- Jamese0
- Outcome
- Main‐stem phyllochron intervale0
- Value
- 81 GDDe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Main‐stem phyllochron interval was 73 GDD for the HRS cvs. Butte and Waldron combined for analysis, and about 81 GDD for either “other” eight‐leaved HRS cultivars or for the durums combined for analysis, and for James.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined analyses had an R-squared value at least 0.970, significant at 0.01.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- R 2 valuee0
- Value
- 0.970e0
- Qualifier
- 0.01 levele0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The R 2 value for any combined analysis was no less than 0.970 ** , significant at the 0.01 level.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water level had no effect on main stem development rate.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Soil water levele0
- Outcome
- main stem development ratee0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil water level and fertilizer N rate had no effect on main stem development rate, but did affect the maximum number of tillers produced per plant.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
fertilizer N rate had no effect on main stem development rate.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- fertilizer N ratee0
- Outcome
- main stem development ratee0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil water level and fertilizer N rate had no effect on main stem development rate, but did affect the maximum number of tillers produced per plant.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water level affected maximum tiller number per plant.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Soil water levele0
- Outcome
- maximum number of tillers produced per plante0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil water level and fertilizer N rate had no effect on main stem development rate, but did affect the maximum number of tillers produced per plant.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
fertilizer N rate affected maximum tiller number per plant.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- fertilizer N ratee0
- Outcome
- maximum number of tillers produced per plante0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil water level and fertilizer N rate had no effect on main stem development rate, but did affect the maximum number of tillers produced per plant.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Growing degree days per growth unit were equal across the two developmental periods.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- GDD accumulated per plant growth unite0
- Direction
- was the samee0
- Comparator
- from emergence through full expansion of the flag leafe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The GDD accumulated per plant growth unit from emergence to anthesis (leaves plus four stages after expansion of the flag leaf) was the same as from emergence through full expansion of the flag leaf.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
GDD and PTU estimated growth rates and stages with equal precision.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Precision of estimating growth rates and stages with GDDe0
- Direction
- was the samee0
- Comparator
- PTUe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Precision of estimating growth rates and stages with GDD was the same as with PTU, and both were superior to DAYS.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
GDD and PTU estimates were more precise than DAYS.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Outcome
- Precision of estimating growth rates and stagese0
- Direction
- superiore0
- Comparator
- DAYSe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Precision of estimating growth rates and stages with GDD was the same as with PTU, and both were superior to DAYS.”
t0“Spring Wheat”
The same questions in other papers
irrigation · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 177 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
238 papers more in this group
See all 242 papers →nitrogen · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
124 papers in the same direction as this paper · 426 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
547 papers more in this group
See all 551 papers →fertilization · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
91 papers in the same direction as this paper · 663 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
751 papers more in this group
See all 755 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.