Abstract
Severe lodging of irrigated spring-wheat in sub-tropical Australia has previously caused yield loss of between 1.7 and 4.6 t ha -1 (20-60% of potential yield). In response, agronomic management options were assessed for their ability to reduce lodging and increase grain yield, namely plant growth regulators (PGRs), timing of nitrogen (N) application, row spacing and sowing date, in combination with long and short duration cultivars across 15 irrigated environments from 2012 to 2016. Our study identified significant interaction between genotype, environment and agronomic management (G E M) for grain yield and lodging, although some combinations of agronomic techniques were broadly applicable across cultivars. PGR application improved grain yield of most cultivars in well-irrigated fields that had more than 120 kg ha -1 N (mineral N + fertiliser N) at sowing, with yield gains of up to 0.5 t ha -1 observed in both lodged and non-lodged fields. However, PGRs had little effect on grain yield when soil + fertiliser N at sowing was less than 80 kg ha -1 N. In-crop N application (compared to sowing N application) often improved grain yield of short duration, lodging resistant cultivars, but reduced the yield of long-duration, lodging susceptible cultivars in some environments. Narrow row spacing of 19 cm had the highest grain yield across cultivars in low lodging environments. At a severely lodged environment, narrow rows were the highest yielding for five out of six cultivars when PGRs were used, but was the highest yielding for only half of the tested cultivars when PGRs were not used. Cultivar sowing date interaction for grain yield was also associated with the occurrence of lodging. Neither early nor late sowing had a consistent yield benefit across a range of cultivars, as lodging severity varied between sowing date depending on the timing of storm-induced lodging events. Lodging resistant long-duration cultivars had more stable grain yield across
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
Genotype, environment and management interacted significantly for wheat yield and lodging.
- Taxon
- spring wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Material
- genotypee0
- Outcome
- grain yield and lodginge0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significant interaction between genotype, environment and agronomic management (G E M) for grain yield and lodging”
t0“spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
PGR application improved yield of most cultivars in well-irrigated, high-N fields by up to 0.5 t ha -1.
- Taxon
- cultivarse0
- Treatment
- PGR applicatione0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- up to 0.5 t ha -1e0
- Qualifier
- more than 120 kg ha -1 N (mineral N + fertiliser N) at sowinge0
- Setting
- well-irrigated fieldse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“PGR application improved grain yield of most cultivars in well-irrigated fields that had more than 120 kg ha -1 N (mineral N + fertiliser N) at sowing, with yield gains of up to 0.5 t ha -1 observed in both lodged and non-lodged fields”
Claim · model-written summary
PGRs had little yield effect below 80 kg ha -1 N at sowing.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- PGRse0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- little effecte0
- Qualifier
- less than 80 kg ha -1 Ne0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“PGRs had little effect on grain yield when soil + fertiliser N at sowing was less than 80 kg ha -1 N”
t0“spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
In-crop N often improved yield of short-duration, lodging-resistant cultivars relative to sowing N.
Verbatim
e0“In-crop N application (compared to sowing N application) often improved grain yield of short duration, lodging resistant cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
In-crop N reduced yield of long-duration, lodging-susceptible cultivars in some environments relative to sowing N.
Verbatim
e0“In-crop N application (compared to sowing N application) often improved grain yield of short duration, lodging resistant cultivars, but reduced the yield of long-duration, lodging susceptible cultivars in some environments”
Claim · model-written summary
Nineteen-centimetre rows gave the highest yield across cultivars in low-lodging environments.
- Taxon
- cultivarse0
- Treatment
- Narrow row spacing of 19 cme0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Qualifier
- low lodging environmentse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Narrow row spacing of 19 cm had the highest grain yield across cultivars in low lodging environments”
Claim · model-written summary
With PGRs in a severely lodged environment, narrow rows gave highest yield for five of six cultivars.
- Taxon
- cultivarse0
- Treatment
- narrow rowse0
- Outcome
- highest yieldinge0
- Direction
- highest yieldinge0
- Value
- five out of sixe0
- Qualifier
- when PGRs were usede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“At a severely lodged environment, narrow rows were the highest yielding for five out of six cultivars when PGRs were used”
Claim · model-written summary
Without PGRs in a severely lodged environment, narrow rows gave highest yield for half the cultivars.
- Taxon
- cultivarse0
- Treatment
- narrow rowse0
- Outcome
- highest yieldinge0
- Direction
- highest yieldinge0
- Value
- halfe0
- Qualifier
- when PGRs were not usede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“At a severely lodged environment, narrow rows were the highest yielding for five out of six cultivars when PGRs were used, but was the highest yielding for only half of the tested cultivars when PGRs were not used”
Claim · model-written summary
The sowing-date effect on yield depended on cultivar and lodging occurrence.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Cultivar sowing date interaction for grain yield was also associated with the occurrence of lodging”
Claim · model-written summary
Neither early nor late sowing consistently improved yield across cultivars because lodging varied with storm timing.
- Taxon
- cultivarse0
- Treatment
- early nor late sowinge0
- Outcome
- yield benefite0
- Direction
- Neithere0
- Qualifier
- depending on the timing of storm-induced lodging eventse0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Neither early nor late sowing had a consistent yield benefit across a range of cultivars, as lodging severity varied between sowing date depending on the timing of storm-induced lodging events”
Claim · model-written summary
Long-duration lodging-resistant cultivars had more stable yield across the reported range.
Verbatim
e0“Lodging resistant long-duration cultivars had more stable grain yield across”
The same questions in other papers
class · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
99 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
113 papers more in this group
See all 117 papers →sowing time · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 266 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
458 papers more in this group
See all 462 papers →density · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
375 papers in the same direction as this paper · 115 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- no effect
494 papers more in this group
See all 498 papers →nitrogen · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1,736 papers in the same direction as this paper · 285 in the opposite direction · 39 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
2,057 papers more in this group
See all 2,061 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.