Abstract
Eight wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars including soft white spring, hard red spring, Canada Prairie Spring (CPS) and durum types were grown on rain-fed and irrigated land from 1987 to 1990 at Lethbridge, AB, to assess the relationship between yield components and radiation-use efficiency. Canopy reflectance measurements were used to estimate seasonal absorption of photosynthetically active radiation (APAR). At maturity, yield components including tillers per plant, heads per plant, kernels per head and kernel weight were determined. Whole-plant phytomass and grain yield were also determined. Harvest index was determined from the ratio of grain yield to whole-plant (excluding roots) phytomass and radiation-use efficiency (RUE) was calculated from the ratio of whole-plant phytomass to APAR. Significant grain yield differences confirmed that soft white and CPS wheats yielded more and responded more to irrigation than hard red or durum wheats. The yield components that were consistently different among cultivars were kernels per head and kernel weight which would be expected to increase if a consistent supply of assimilate was available during grain filling. Soft white and CPS wheats had higher harvest indices than the hard red or durum wheats, particularly under irrigation. Whole-plant phytomass was closely related to APAR and there were few differences among cultivars for RUE. There was no difference in RUE between rain-fed and irrigated treatments, indicating that there was probably no crop water stress on the rain-fed plots. RUE estimates for 1988 were lower than for the succeeding years, indicating an environmental or edaphic stress in that year.Key words: Remote sensing, radiation-use efficiency, yield components
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Soft white and CPS wheats yielded more grain than hard red or durum types.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Material
- soft white and CPS wheatse1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- moree1
- Comparator
- hard red or durum wheatse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars”
e1“Significant grain yield differences confirmed that soft white and CPS wheats yielded more and responded more to irrigation than hard red or durum wheats.”
Claim · model-written summary
Soft white and CPS wheats responded more to irrigation than hard red or durum types.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Material
- soft white and CPS wheatse1
- Treatment
- irrigatione1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- moree1
- Comparator
- hard red or durum wheatse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars”
e1“Significant grain yield differences confirmed that soft white and CPS wheats yielded more and responded more to irrigation than hard red or durum wheats.”
Claim · model-written summary
Kernels per head differed consistently among wheat cultivars.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Material
- cultivarse1
- Outcome
- kernels per heade1
- Direction
- differente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars”
e1“The yield components that were consistently different among cultivars were kernels per head and kernel weight”
Claim · model-written summary
Kernel weight differed consistently among wheat cultivars.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Material
- cultivarse1
- Outcome
- kernel weighte1
- Direction
- differente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars”
e1“The yield components that were consistently different among cultivars were kernels per head and kernel weight”
Claim · model-written summary
Soft white and CPS wheats had higher harvest indices than hard red or durum wheats, especially under irrigation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Material
- Soft white and CPS wheatse1
- Outcome
- harvest indicese1
- Direction
- highere1
- Qualifier
- particularly under irrigatione1
- Comparator
- hard red or durum wheatse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars”
e1“Soft white and CPS wheats had higher harvest indices than the hard red or durum wheats, particularly under irrigation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Whole-plant phytomass was closely related to absorbed photosynthetically active radiation.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- Whole-plant phytomasse1
- Qualifier
- closely related to APARe1
- Comparator
- APARe1
Not reportedCompoundDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars”
e1“Whole-plant phytomass was closely related to APAR”
Claim · model-written summary
Radiation-use efficiency differed little among cultivars.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Material
- cultivarse1
- Outcome
- RUEe1
- Direction
- few differencese1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars”
e1“there were few differences among cultivars for RUE”
Claim · model-written summary
Radiation-use efficiency did not differ between rain-fed and irrigated treatments.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- irrigated treatmentse1
- Outcome
- RUEe1
- Direction
- no differencee1
- Comparator
- rain-fede1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars”
e1“There was no difference in RUE between rain-fed and irrigated treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors infer little crop water stress on rain-fed plots.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- probably no crop water stresse1
- Setting
- rain-fed plotse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars”
e1“there was probably no crop water stress on the rain-fed plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Radiation-use efficiency estimates in 1988 were lower than in succeeding years.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- RUE estimatese1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Comparator
- succeeding yearse1
- Setting
- 1988e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars”
e1“RUE estimates for 1988 were lower than for the succeeding years”
Claim · model-written summary
The lower 1988 radiation-use efficiency suggests environmental or edaphic stress.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- environmental or edaphic stresse1
- Qualifier
- in that yeare1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars”
e1“RUE estimates for 1988 were lower than for the succeeding years, indicating an environmental or edaphic stress in that year.”
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 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
238 papers more in this group
See all 242 papers →irrigation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
797 papers in the same direction as this paper · 184 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
985 papers more in this group
See all 989 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.