Waterlogging differentially affects yield and its components in wheat, barley, rapeseed and field pea depending on the timing of occurrence

Mostrar otras versiones (1)

Waterlogging on croplands is increasing in various areas of the world. This study evaluated the yield penalty by early and late waterlogging on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Plants cultivated outdoors were ex...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Otros Autores: Ploschuk, Rocío Antonella, Miralles, Daniel Julio, Colmer, Timothy David, Striker, Gustavo Gabriel
Formato: Artículo
Lenguaje:Inglés
Materias:
FLOODING
GRAIN PRODUCTION
TILLERING
WINTER CROPS
Acceso en línea:http://ri.agro.uba.ar/files/intranet/articulo/2020ploschuk1.pdf
LINK AL EDITOR
Aporte de:Registro referencial: Solicitar el recurso aquí
Biblioteca Central (FAUBA) de Universidad de Buenos Aires
LEADER 04175nab a22004337a 4500
001 20201218093953.0
003 AR-BaUFA
005 20220915101521.0
008 201218t2020 xxu|||||o|||| 00| | eng d
999 |c 53966  |d 53966 
999 |d 53966 
999 |d 53966 
999 |d 53966 
999 |d 53966 
999 |d 53966 
999 |d 53966 
999 |d 53966 
999 |d 53966 
999 |d 53966 
022 |a 0931-2250 
024 |a 10.1111/jac.12396 
040 |a AR-BaUFA  |c AR-BaUFA 
245 1 0 |a Waterlogging differentially affects yield and its components in wheat, barley, rapeseed and field pea depending on the timing of occurrence 
520 |a Waterlogging on croplands is increasing in various areas of the world. This study evaluated the yield penalty by early and late waterlogging on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) and field pea (Pisum sativum L.). Plants cultivated outdoors were exposed to a 14-day waterlogging during vegetative (at 65 days after sowing (DAS)) or reproductive (at 85/87 DAS) stages, followed by drained conditions until maturity. Yield (seed weight per plant) and its components (number of spikes/siliques/pods per plant, number of grains per spike/silique/pod and 1,000 grain weight) were assessed at maturity, along with morphological (number of tillers/branches) and shoot and root dry weight responses after waterlogging and during recovery. Wheat was the most tolerant species achieving 86% and 71% of controls in yield with early and late waterlogging, related to fewer grains per spike. Barley and rapeseed tolerated early waterlogging (yields 85% and 79% of controls) as compared to late waterlogging (32% and 26% of controls), mainly due to fewer spikes per plant (barley) or reductions in seeds per silique (rapeseed). Field pea was greatly affected by waterlogging at both timings, attaining a yield of only 6% of controls on average due to much fewer pods and fewer seeds per pod. So, wheat could be an option for areas facing either winter or spring transient waterlogging (i.e. early or late stages); barley and rapeseed are recommended only with if water excess occurs in early stages and field pea is intolerant to waterlogging. 
650 |2 Agrovoc  |9 26 
653 |a FLOODING 
653 |a GRAIN PRODUCTION 
653 |a TILLERING 
653 |a WINTER CROPS 
700 1 |9 37262  |a Ploschuk, Rocío Antonella  |u Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |u CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina. 
700 1 |9 6438  |a Miralles, Daniel Julio  |u Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |u CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina. 
700 1 |a Colmer, Timothy David  |u The University of Western Australia. School of Agriculture and Environment. Faculty of Science. Crawley, Australia.  |9 68326 
700 1 |9 11986  |a Striker, Gustavo Gabriel  |u Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Agronomía. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |u CONICET – Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Investigaciones Fisiológicas y Ecológicas Vinculadas a la Agricultura (IFEVA). Buenos Aires, Argentina.  |u The University of Western Australia. School of Agriculture and Environment. Faculty of Science. Crawley, Australia. 
773 0 |t Journal of agronomy and crop science  |w SECS000107  |g Vol.206, no.3 (2020), p.363-375, grafs., tbls. 
856 |f 2020ploschuk1  |q application/pdf  |i en reservorio  |x ARTI202103  |u http://ri.agro.uba.ar/files/intranet/articulo/2020ploschuk1.pdf 
856 |z LINK AL EDITOR  |u https://www.wiley.com/ 
942 |c ARTICULO 
942 |c ENLINEA 
976 |a AAG 

Ejemplares similares