Paper · 2011 · Crop and Pasture Science

Effects of sowing date and cultivar on radiation use efficiency in durum wheat

Simona Bassu; Francesco Giunta; Rosella Motzo

8
claims
16
verbatim quotes
15
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Field studies were conducted on durum wheat to assess the effects of three sowing dates and three cultivars with different flowering times on the stability of the biomass accumulated per unit of solar radiation intercepted that is usually considered constant in crop-simulation models. Aboveground dry matter varied widely, with minimum values ranging from 292 g m–2 at booting to 384 g m–2 at maturity and maximum values ranging from 1452 g m–2 at booting to 2565 g m–2 at maturity. The cumulative intercepted radiation at each phenological stage decreased as sowing was delayed. The leaf area index (LAI) ranged from 1.5 to 7.6 at booting and from 0.1 to 4.6 at the beginning of grain filling across treatments. Sowing dates and cultivars did not differ significantly in extinction coefficient values (0.38 ± 0.015). The estimated radiation use efficiency (eRUE) differed significantly between the two seasons (1.16 ± 0.09 g MJ–1 in 2000 and 1.61 ± 0.08 g MJ–1 in 2001) due to waterlogging in 2000 but did not differ among sowing dates and cultivars within each season. Under optimal growing conditions, eRUE of different cultivars of durum wheat were relatively stable across sowing dates, confirming their reliability for crop modelling in durum wheat as well as in bread wheat. Although eRUE was constant over the whole crop cycle regardless of the sowing date, it was lower at pre-anthesis in the latest sowing, in parallel with the variation in LAI. This study indicates that pre-anthesis eRUE may vary with sowing date under some conditions, depending on the variation in LAI in the period before anthesis.

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 8

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Aboveground dry matter varied widely from booting to maturity.

Outcome
Aboveground dry mattere0
Value
292 g m–2e0

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

Triticum turgidum subsp. durum
Triticum turgidum subsp. durum · TaxonSten Porse · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Aboveground dry matter varied widely, with minimum values ranging from 292 g m–2 at booting to 384 g m–2 at maturity and maximum values ranging from 1452 g m–2 at booting to 2565 g m–2 at maturity.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 286–483 · show in text ↑
t0

“durum wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercepted radiation decreased with later sowing.

Treatment
sowing was delayede0
Outcome
cumulative intercepted radiatione0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum turgidum subsp. durum
Triticum turgidum subsp. durum · TaxonSten Porse · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The cumulative intercepted radiation at each phenological stage decreased as sowing was delayed.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 484–580 · show in text ↑
t0

“durum wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf area index ranged from 1.5 to 7.6 at booting.

Organ / stage
bootinge0
Outcome
leaf area index (LAI)e0
Value
1.5 to 7.6e0

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

Triticum turgidum subsp. durum
Triticum turgidum subsp. durum · TaxonSten Porse · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The leaf area index (LAI) ranged from 1.5 to 7.6 at booting and from 0.1 to 4.6 at the beginning of grain filling across treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 581–713 · show in text ↑
t0

“durum wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf area index ranged from 0.1 to 4.6 at grain filling.

Organ / stage
beginning of grain fillinge0
Outcome
leaf area index (LAI)e0
Value
0.1 to 4.6e0

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

Triticum turgidum subsp. durum
Triticum turgidum subsp. durum · TaxonSten Porse · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The leaf area index (LAI) ranged from 1.5 to 7.6 at booting and from 0.1 to 4.6 at the beginning of grain filling across treatments.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 581–713 · show in text ↑
t0

“durum wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Extinction coefficient did not differ significantly among sowing dates and cultivars.

Treatment
Sowing dates and cultivarse0
Outcome
extinction coefficient valuese0
Direction
did not differe0
Value
0.38 ± 0.015e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum turgidum subsp. durum
Triticum turgidum subsp. durum · TaxonSten Porse · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Sowing dates and cultivars did not differ significantly in extinction coefficient values (0.38 ± 0.015).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 714–818 · show in text ↑
t0

“durum wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–78 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Estimated radiation use efficiency was significantly higher in 2001 than 2000.

Outcome
estimated radiation use efficiency (eRUE)e0
Direction
differede0
Value
1.61 ± 0.08 g MJ–1e0
Qualifier
1.16 ± 0.09 g MJ–1e0
Comparator
2000e0

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

Triticum turgidum subsp. durum
Triticum turgidum subsp. durum · TaxonSten Porse · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The estimated radiation use efficiency (eRUE) differed significantly between the two seasons (1.16 ± 0.09 g MJ–1 in 2000 and 1.61 ± 0.08 g MJ–1 in 2001) due to waterlogging in 2000”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 819–999 · show in text ↑
t0

“durum wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 67–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Estimated radiation use efficiency did not differ among sowing dates and cultivars within a season.

Treatment
sowing dates and cultivarse0
Outcome
radiation use efficiencyt0
Direction
did not differe0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum turgidum subsp. durum
Triticum turgidum subsp. durum · TaxonSten Porse · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“but did not differ among sowing dates and cultivars within each season.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1000–1071 · show in text ↑
t0

“radiation use efficiency in durum wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–78 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pre-anthesis radiation use efficiency was lower at the latest sowing.

Organ / stage
pre-anthesise0
Treatment
latest sowinge0
Outcome
radiation use efficiencyt0
Direction
lowere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum turgidum subsp. durum
Triticum turgidum subsp. durum · TaxonSten Porse · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“it was lower at pre-anthesis in the latest sowing, in parallel with the variation in LAI.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1367–1456 · show in text ↑
t0

“radiation use efficiency in durum wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 39–78 · show in text ↑

sowing time · growth · Triticum turgidum (rivet wheat)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 3 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 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.