Abstract
Dual-purpose wheat forage yield potential is linked with plant stature and growth habit. An experiment was established at Launceston, Tasmania, to study the relationship between plant structure, forage yield and crop recovery. Four wheat varieties (Tennant, Revenue, Chara and Bolac) were planted in a greenhouse. Five cutting treatments were applied at Zadoks Growth Stage (GS25) or the five-tiller stage to estimate forage yield. These included Clipping at 50% and 75% of leaf length (LL50% and LL75%), and Crash treatments, which were cut at the end or half way along the leaf sheath (LL100% and LS50%), and were compared to an uncut control (C0). Total dry matter was estimated by cutting all treatments to ground level at terminal spikelet (GS31). Plant height was monitored at GS25, fortnightly after GS25 and at GS31. Clipping treatments had positive effects on the plant height and biomass. Compared to the Crash and control treatments, Clipping treatments increased the height of Tennant (25% at LL50% and 17% at LL75%) and Revenue (1.8% at LL50%, 4.4% at LL75%) at GS31. Moreover, Clipping had positive effects on regrowth and increased crop height by 15% when compared to Control treatments. Forage production at GS25 and total biomass yield at GS31 were not significantly influenced by cutting treatment or variety. This study has shown that Crash treatments produced greater forage yield than Clipping, but the former generally reduces final recovery and biomass. We found that irrespective of growth habit, wheat plants defoliated at mid tillering can potentially produce more forage than unclipped plants followed by a rapid increase in plant height, provided plants are clipped above the leaf sheath.
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
Clipping increased Tennant height at GS31 by 25% at LL50% compared with Crash and control treatments.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Material
- Tennante0
- Treatment
- LL50%e0
- Outcome
- heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 25%e0
- Comparator
- Crash and control treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat”
e0“Compared to the Crash and control treatments, Clipping treatments increased the height of Tennant (25% at LL50% and 17% at LL75%) and Revenue (1.8% at LL50%, 4.4% at LL75%) at GS31”
Claim · model-written summary
Clipping increased Tennant height at GS31 by 17% at LL75% compared with Crash and control treatments.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- Tennante0
- Treatment
- LL75%e0
- Outcome
- heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 17%e0
- Comparator
- Crash and control treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat”
e0“Compared to the Crash and control treatments, Clipping treatments increased the height of Tennant (25% at LL50% and 17% at LL75%) and Revenue (1.8% at LL50%, 4.4% at LL75%) at GS31”
Claim · model-written summary
Clipping increased Revenue height at GS31 by 1.8% at LL50% compared with Crash and control treatments.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- Revenuee0
- Treatment
- LL50%e0
- Outcome
- heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.8%e0
- Comparator
- Crash and control treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat”
e0“Compared to the Crash and control treatments, Clipping treatments increased the height of Tennant (25% at LL50% and 17% at LL75%) and Revenue (1.8% at LL50%, 4.4% at LL75%) at GS31”
Claim · model-written summary
Clipping increased Revenue height at GS31 by 4.4% at LL75% compared with Crash and control treatments.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Material
- Revenuee0
- Treatment
- LL75%e0
- Outcome
- heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 4.4%e0
- Comparator
- Crash and control treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat”
e0“Compared to the Crash and control treatments, Clipping treatments increased the height of Tennant (25% at LL50% and 17% at LL75%) and Revenue (1.8% at LL50%, 4.4% at LL75%) at GS31”
Claim · model-written summary
Clipping increased crop height by 15% relative to control treatments.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Clippinge0
- Outcome
- crop heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 15%e0
- Comparator
- Control treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat”
e0“Clipping had positive effects on regrowth and increased crop height by 15% when compared to Control treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Clipping had positive effects on wheat regrowth.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Clippinge0
- Outcome
- regrowthe0
- Direction
- positive effectse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat”
e0“Clipping had positive effects on regrowth”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting treatment and variety did not significantly influence forage production at GS25.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- cutting treatmente0
- Outcome
- Forage production at GS25e0
- Direction
- not significantly influencede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat”
e0“Forage production at GS25 and total biomass yield at GS31 were not significantly influenced by cutting treatment or variety”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting treatment and variety did not significantly influence total biomass yield at GS31.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- cutting treatmente0
- Outcome
- total biomass yield at GS31e0
- Direction
- not significantly influencede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat”
e0“Forage production at GS25 and total biomass yield at GS31 were not significantly influenced by cutting treatment or variety”
Claim · model-written summary
Crash treatments produced greater forage yield than Clipping.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Crash treatmentse0
- Outcome
- forage yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- Clippinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat”
e0“Crash treatments produced greater forage yield than Clipping”
Claim · model-written summary
Crash treatments generally reduced final recovery and biomass relative to Clipping.
- Taxon
- WheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- Crash treatmentse0
- Outcome
- final recovery and biomasse0
- Direction
- reducese0
- Comparator
- Clippinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Wheat”
e0“Crash treatments produced greater forage yield than Clipping, but the former generally reduces final recovery and biomass”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors inferred that wheat clipped above the leaf sheath at mid tillering may yield more forage than uncut plants and recover height rapidly.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Outcome
- more forage than unclipped plantse0
- Qualifier
- provided plants are clipped above the leaf sheathe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat plants defoliated at mid tillering can potentially produce more forage than unclipped plants followed by a rapid increase in plant height, provided plants are clipped above the leaf sheath”
The same questions in other papers
mechanical · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.