Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:27:17.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and yield responses of UK wheat cultivars to winter waterlogging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

E. DICKIN ,
S. BENNETT  and
D. WRIGHT
E. DICKIN*
Affiliation:
Henfaes Research Centre, Bangor University, Abergwyngregyn, Llanfairfechan, Gwynedd LL33 0LB, UK
S. BENNETT
Affiliation:
Henfaes Research Centre, Bangor University, Abergwyngregyn, Llanfairfechan, Gwynedd LL33 0LB, UK
D. WRIGHT
Affiliation:
School of the Environment and Natural Resources, Bangor University, Deiniol Road, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: e.t.dickin@bangor.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Winter waterlogging is expected to become an increasingly serious problem due to climate change. It is therefore important to find whether differences in tolerance to waterlogging exist between wheat cultivars grown in the UK. Screening experiments were conducted outdoors and in a glasshouse to investigate the yield response to waterlogging and waterlogging tolerance at the seedling stage. The experiments suggested that differences in tolerance existed between cultivars, in the form of digression of some cultivars from their expected yield in the outdoor experiment and a significant interaction between cultivar and waterlogging for shoot and root dry weight in the seedling experiment. Cultivars that appeared to differ in their responses to waterlogging were further tested in a field experiment over two seasons and in a second glasshouse seedling experiment. However, there was no significant relationship between measurements taken at the seedling stage and grain yield at maturity; also the field experiment did not provide compelling evidence of differences in tolerance. Cultivars with the largest yield suffered the largest decrease due to waterlogging, and the yield of the cultivar with the lowest yield potential was unaffected. All cultivars showed considerable ability to compensate for winter waterlogging damage by vigorous spring growth. All cultivars produced nodal roots in response to waterlogging, and these displayed evidence of aerenchyma tissue by penetrating below the water level, but no cultivar was any better in this respect than any other. The results of these experiments suggest that screening for waterlogging tolerance at the seedling stage is not representative of final yield. It is suggested that the lack of diversity for tolerance is a result of the inbred nature of UK wheat cultivars and that the overall good level of tolerance and ability to compensate has been selected for, either inadvertently, or as a result of selecting the best cultivars in UK conditions, where tolerance to waterlogging is a part of the general winter hardiness required.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 147 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 127 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anon (1999). Claire Winter Wheat – Husbandry Guidelines. Market Rasen, Lincolnshire, UK: Nickerson (UK) Ltd. Available online at http://www.nickersonseeds.co.uk/products/details/12.html (verified 17 October 2008).Google Scholar
BBSRC (2004). Review of BBSRC-Funded Research Relevant to Crop Science – A Report for BBSRC Council. Swindon, UK: BBSRC.Google Scholar
Belford, R. K. (1981). Response of winter wheat to prolonged waterlogging under outdoor conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 97, 557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Box, J. E. (1986). Winter wheat grain yield responses to soil oxygen diffusion rates. Crop Science 26, 355–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cai, X., Jones, S. S. & Murray, T. D. (2001). Molecular cytogenetic characterization of Thinopyrum genomes conferring perennial growth habit in wheat-Thinopyrum amphiploids. Plant Breeding 120, 21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannell, R. Q., Belford, R. K., Gales, K., Dennis, C. W. & Prew, R. D. (1980). Effects of waterlogging at different stages of development on the growth and yield of winter wheat. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 31, 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannell, R. Q., Belford, R. K., Gales, K., Thomson, R. J. & Webster, C. P. (1984). Effects of waterlogging and drought on winter wheat and winter barley grown on a clay and a sandy loam soil. I. Crop growth and yield. Plant and Soil 80, 53–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannell, R. Q., Belford, R. K., Blackwell, P. S., Govi, G. & Thomson, R. J. (1985). Effects of waterlogging on soil aeration and on root and shoot growth and yield of winter oats (Avena sativa L.). Plant and Soil 85, 361–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collaku, A. & Harrison, S. A. (2002). Losses in wheat due to waterlogging. Crop Science 42, 444–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curry, D. (2002). Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future. Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. London: Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. Available online at http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/farming/pdf/PC20Report2.pdf (verified 17 October 2008).Google Scholar
Dai, A., Trenberth, K. E. & Karl, T. R. (1998). Global variations in droughts and wet spells: 1990–1995. Geophysical Research Letters 25, 3367–3370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimmock, J. P. R. E. & Gooding, M. J. (2002). The effects of fungicides on rate and duration of grain filling in winter wheat in relation to maintenance of flag leaf green area. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 138, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimmock, J. P. R. E., Bennett, S. J., Wright, D., Edwards-Jones, G. & Harris, I. M. (2005). Agronomic evaluation and performance of flax varieties for industrial fibre production. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 143, 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekstrom, M., Fowler, H. J., Kilsby, C. G. & Jones, P. D. (2005). New estimates of future changes in extreme rainfall across the UK using regional climate model integrations. 2. Future estimates and use in impact studies. Journal of Hydrology 300, 234–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdmann, B., Hoffman, P. & Wiedenroth, E. M. (1986). Changes in the root system of wheat seedlings following root anaerobiosis: I. Anatomy and respiration in Triticum aestivum L. Annals of Botany 58, 597–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauch, H. G. (1992). Statistical Analysis of Regional Yield Trials: AMMI Analysis of Factorial Designs. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Greenway, H. & Gibbs, J. (2003). Mechanisms of anoxia tolerance in plants. II. Energy requirements for maintenance and energy distribution to essential processes. Functional Plant Biology 30, 999–1036.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Griffiths, S., Sharp, R., Foote, T. N., Bertin, I., Wanous, M., Reader, S., Colas, I. & Moore, G. (2006). Molecular characterisation of Ph1 as a major chromosome pairing locus in polyploid wheat. Nature 439, 749–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grime, J. P. & Hunt, R. (1972). Relative growth-rate: its range and adaptive significance in local flora. Journal of Ecology 63, 393–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HGCA (2003). Wheat Disease Management – 2003 Update. London: The Home-Grown Cereals Authority.Google Scholar
Huang, B., Johnson, J. W., Nesmith, S. & Bridges, D. C. (1994 a). Growth, physiological and anatomical responses of two wheat genotypes to waterlogging and nutrient supply. Journal of Experimental Botany 45, 193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, B., Johnson, J. W., Nesmith, S. & Bridges, D. C. (1994 b). Root and shoot growth of wheat genotypes in response to hypoxia and subsequent resumption of aeration. Crop Science 34, 1538–1544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, B., Johnson, J. W. & Nesmith, D. S. (1997). Responses to root-zone CO2 enrichment and hypoxia of wheat genotypes differing in waterlogging tolerance. Crop Science 37, 464–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, M., Jenkins, G. J., Lu, X., Turnpenny, J. R., Mitchell, T. D., Jones, R. G., Murphy, J. M., Hassell, D., Boorman, P., Mcdonald, R. & Hills, S. (2002). Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Briefing Report. Norwich, UK: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.Google Scholar
Kindred, D. R. & Gooding, M. J. (2004). The effects of seed rate and nitrogen regime on heterosis for yield in commercial hybrids. In Proceedings of the VIII ESA Congress, Copenhagen 11–15 July, pp. 113–114. Copenhagen: European Society for Agronomy.Google Scholar
Knupffer, H., Terentyeva, I., Hammer, K., Kovaleva, O. & Sato, K. (2003). Ecogeographical diversity – a Vavilovian approach. In Diversity in Barley (Edsvon Bothmer, R., van Hintum, T., Knupffer, H. & Sato, K.), pp. 53–76. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lambers, H. & Poorter, H. (1992). Inherent variation in growth rate between higher plants: a search for physiological causes and ecological consequences. Advances in Ecological Research 23, 187–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luxmoore, R. J., Fischer, R. A. & Stolzy, L. H. (1973). Flooding and soil temperature effects on wheat during grain filling. Agronomy Journal 65, 361–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MAFF (2000). Climate Change & Agriculture in the United Kingdom. London, UK: HMSO.Google Scholar
Malik, A. I., Colmer, T. D., Lambers, H. & Schortemeyer, M. (2001). Changes in physiological and morphological traits of roots and shoots of wheat in response to different depths of waterlogging. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 28, 1121–1131.Google Scholar
Musgrave, M. E. & Ding, N. (1998). Evaluating wheat cultivars for waterlogging tolerance. Crop Science 38, 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NIAB (2002). Cereal Variety Handbook 2002. Cambridge, UK: NIAB.Google Scholar
Reynolds, M. P. & Borlaug, N. E. (2006). Applying innovations and new technologies for international collaborative wheat improvement. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 144, 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, J. T. (1973). Influence of soil water status and meteorological conditions on evaporation from a corn canopy. Agronomy Journal 65, 893–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruske, R. E., Gooding, M. J. & Jones, S. A. (2003). The effects of triazole and strobilurin fungicide programmes on nitrogen uptake, partitioning, remobilisation and grain N accumulation in winter wheat cultivars. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 140, 395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setter, T. L. & Waters, I. (2003). Review of prospects for germplasm improvement for waterlogging tolerance in wheat, barley and oats. Plant and Soil 253, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Setter, T. L., Burgess, P., Waters, I. & Kuo, J. (1999). Genetic diversity of barley and wheat for waterlogging tolerance in Western Australia. In Proceedings of the Ninth Australian Barley Technical Symposium, 1999, Melbourne, Australia. pp. 2171–2177.Google Scholar
Shearman, V. J., Sylvester-Bradley, R., Scott, R. K. & Foulkes, M. J. (2005). Physiological processes associated with wheat yield progress in the UK. Crop Science 45, 175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, D. K. & Singh, V. (2003). Seed size and adventitious (nodal) roots as factors influencing the tolerance of wheat to waterlogging. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 54, 969–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. B., Cullis, B. R. & Thompson, R. (2005). The analysis of crop cultivar breeding and evaluation trials: an overview of current mixed model approaches. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 143, 449–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, L. P. & Trafford, B. D. (1976). Climate and Drainage, MAFF Technical Bulletin, No. 34. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Taeb, M., Koebner, R. M. D. & Forster, B. P. (1993). Genetic variation for waterlogging tolerance in the Triticeae and the chromosomal location of genes conferring waterlogging tolerance in Thinopyrum elongatum. Genome 36, 825–830.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tottman, D. R., Makepeace, R. J. & Broad, H. (1979). An explanation of the decimal code for the growth stages of cereals, with illustrations. Annals of Applied Biology 93, 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trought, M. C. T. & Drew, M. C. (1980). The development of waterlogging damage in wheat seedlings (Triticum aestivum L). Plant and Soil 54, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vartapetian, B. B. & Jackson, M. B. (1997). Plant adaptations to anaerobic stress. Annnals of Botany 79 (Suppl. A), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villareal, R. L., Sayre, K., Baneulos, O. & Mujeeb-Kazi, A. (2001). Registration of four synthetic hexaploid wheat (Triticum turgidum/Aegilops tauschii) germplasm lines tolerant to waterlogging. Crop Science 41, 274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkin, E. L. J., Thomson, C. J. & Greenway, H. (1998). Root development and aerenchyma formation in two wheat cultivars and one triticale cultivar grown in stagnant agar and aerated nutrient solution. Annals of Botany 81, 349–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiedenroth, E. M. & Erdmann, B. (1985). Morphological changes in wheat seedlings (Triticum aestivum L.) following root anaerobiosis and partial pruning of the root system. Annals of Botany 56, 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar