About Us | Help Videos | Contact Us | Subscriptions
 

Members of ASA, CSSA, and SSSA: Due to system upgrades, your subscriptions in the digital library will be unavailable from May 15th to May 22nd. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause, and thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, please call our membership department at 608-273-8080.

 

Institutional Subscribers: Institutional subscription access will not be interrupted for existing subscribers who have access via IP authentication, though new subscriptions or changes will not be available during the upgrade period. For questions, please email us at: queries@dl.sciencesocieties.org or call Danielle Lynch: 608-268-4976.

Abstract

 

This article in CS

  1. Vol. 47 No. 5, p. 1841-1850
     
    Received: Dec 18, 2006


    * Corresponding author(s): Mohamed.Mergoum@ndsu.edu
 View
 Download
 Alerts
 Permissions
Request Permissions
 Share

doi:10.2135/cropsci2006.12.0809

Developing Evaluation Methods for Kernel Shattering in Spring Wheat

  1. Guorong Zhang and
  2. Mohamed Mergoum *
  1. Dep. of Plant Sciences, North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105-5051

Abstract

Kernel shattering (KS) is known to cause yield loss in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). The introduction of Fusarium head blight (caused by Fusarium graminearum Schwabe) resistant genotypes has recently elevated KS importance. This study aimed to identify appropriate methods to measure and evaluate KS variation among spring wheat genotypes. Four field and two laboratory methods were developed and compared using 24 wheat genotypes in five environments. Large variation for KS among genotypes was observed. The field kernel shattering method and the kernel shattering from spikes method (SS), both field methods, showed large CVs and were inconsistent across environments. Similarly, the direct yield loss method and the visual score method, also field methods, had relatively low range/LSD0.05 ratio values, leading to difficulty in discriminating between genotypes. Among the field methods, SS appears to be the most suitable method due to its high range/LSD0.05 values and fewer input requirements. All field methods, however, were time and labor consuming. The laboratory methods, induced random impact and glume strength, were moderately to strongly correlated with the field methods. The laboratory methods were more consistent across environments, and required only a small sample size. Hence, they were more effective and efficient in evaluating KS and could be of interest for wheat researchers to indirectly screen for KS resistance.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © 2007. Crop Science Society of AmericaCrop Science Society of America