Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-08T07:12:21.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Components Analysis of Yield Responses to Drought of Sorghum Hybrids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

A. Blum
A. Blum
Affiliation:
The Volcani Centre, Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Drought resistance in terms of yield and its components was studied in the field in twenty-one agronomically-adapted high-performance grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor Moench) hybrids. Resistance was considered to be indicated by a minimal decrease in yield under stress as compared with non-stress conditions. Water stress, imposed by a decreasing amount of stored soil moisture during the growing season, decreased grain yield and number of panicles per unit area, increased the number of grains per panicle, the number of branches per whorl and the number of grains per branch, and decreased the number of whorls per panicle. Thus a compensatory effect was observed in some components for reduction in tillering under stress. Resistant hybrids performed better than susceptible ones under stress by producing a relatively higher number of panicles per unit area, and more grains per panicle branch. Susceptible hybrids performed better than resistant ones under non-stress (irrigated) conditions due to the relatively higher number of panicles per unit area and larger 1000-grain weight. Some of the implications regarding selection for yield performance under drought are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , April 1973 , pp. 159 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

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

Arnon, I. & Blum, A. (1962). Israel J. agric. Res. 12, 95.Google Scholar
Asana, R. D. (1961). Arid Zone Research, UNESCO 16, 183.Google Scholar
Aspinal, D., Nicholls, P. B. & May, L. H. (1964). Aust. J. agric. Res. 15, 729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielorai, H., Arnon, I., Blum, A., Elkana, Y. & Reiss, A. (1964). Israel J. agric. Res. 14, 227.Google Scholar
Blum, A. (1967). Agron. J. 59, 400.Google Scholar
Blum, A. (1970a). Crop Sci. 10, 28.Google Scholar
Blum, A. (1970b). Agron. J. 62, 333.Google Scholar
Blum, A. & Sullivan, C. Y. (1972). Photosynthetica 6, 18.Google Scholar
Day, A. D. & Suhbawatr, I. (1970). Agron. J. 62, 27.Google Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1963). Advan. Agron. 12, 4.Google Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1968). Proc. 3rd Int. Wheat Symp., 377.Google Scholar
Frey, K. J. (1964). Crop Sci. 4, 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd, E. A. (1969). Euphytica 18, 217.Google Scholar
Johnson, G. R. & Frey, K. J. (1967). Crop Sci. 7, 43.Google Scholar
Liang, G. H. L., Overley, C. B. & Casady, A. J. (1969). Crop Sci. 9, 299.Google Scholar
Pallas, J. E. & Bertrand, A. R. (1966). Prod. Res. Rep. 89, ARS, USDA, Georgia agric. Exp. Sta. and Meteor. Dept., US Army Elect. Res. Dev. Actic.Google Scholar
Plaut, Z., Blum, A. & Arnon, I. (1969). Agron. J. 61, 344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, N. N. & Murty, B. R. (1970). Euphytica 19, 509.Google Scholar
Sullivan, C. Y. & Blum, A. (1970). 25th A. Corn & Sorghum Res. Conf., 55. Chicago: Am. Seed Trade Assoc.Google Scholar
Sullivan, C. Y., Yoshikawa, F., Eastin, J. D., Ross, W. M., Clegg, M. D., Maranville, J. W. & Hollister, A. L. (1971). In Research in the Physiology of Yield and Management of Sorghum in Relation to Genetic Improvement. A. Rep. 5 Coop. Res. Univ. Neb. CRD, ARS, USDA, and Rockefeller Foundation.Google Scholar
Wells, S. A. & Dubetz, S. (1966). Can. J. Pl. Sci. 46, 507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitman, P. C. & Wilson, G. L. (1965). Univ. Queensland Pap. (Botany Dept.) 4, 233.Google Scholar