Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T07:01:20.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developmental consequences of two-row and six-row ear type in spring barley: 2. Shoot apex, leaf and tiller development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. J. M. Kirby  and
T. J. Riggs
E. J. M. Kirby
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Maris Lane, Trumpington, Cambridge CB2 2LQ
T. J. Riggs
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Maris Lane, Trumpington, Cambridge CB2 2LQ
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Leaf and tiller production, ear development and ear growth were measured on a two-row and a six-row spring barley genotype, on the F1 between them and on the first backcrosses.

Among the developmental differences between the parental genotypes the following appeared to be of particular significance: the two-row genotype bore more leaves on the main shoot than the six-row genotype and these were initiated more slowly, but emerged more rapidly; the two-row genotype had a proportionately longer ear initiation phase than the six-row; the apical dome was bigger in the six-row than in t he tworow; the two-row genotype produced more tillers.

The association of characteristics with ear type may depend on a pleiotropic effect of the ear type (V – v) locus or, alternatively, some of these characteristics may be under independent genetic control. The latter hypothesis was supported by the developmental pattern of the F1.

It may be that well-adapted two-row and six-row genotypes have patterns of development balanced for the particular ear type. Hybridization between ear types may disrupt these balanced developmental patterns producing a high frequency of poorly adapted genotypes in the progeny.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 91 , Issue 1 , August 1978 , pp. 207 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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

Bonnett, O. T. (1966). Inflorescences of maize, wheat, rye, barley and oats: their initiation and development. University of Illinois College of Agriculture, Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 721.Google Scholar
Cannell, R. Q. (1969). The tillering pattern in barley varieties. I. Production, survival and contribution to yield by component tillers. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 72, 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, G. M. & Dale, J. E. (1977). A comparison of main-stem and tiller growth in barley; apical development and leaf-unfolding rates. Annals of Botany 41, 109–116.Google Scholar
Harlan, J. R. (1976). Barley. In Evolution of Crop Plants (ed Simmonds, N. W.), pp. 93–98. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Harlan, J. V., Martini, M. L. & Stevens, H. (1940). A study of methods in barley breeding. USD A Technical Bulletin 720.Google Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M. (1977). The growth of the shoot apex and the apical dome of barley during ear initiation. Annals of Botany 41, 1297–1308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirby, E. J. M. & Jones, H. G. (1977). The relations between the main shoot and tillers in barley plants. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 88, 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggs, T. J. & Kirby, E. J. M. (1978). Developmental consequences of the two-row and the six-row ear type in spring barley. 1. Genetical analysis and comparison of mature plant characters. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 91, 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, G. N. (1962). Survival of tillers and distribution of dry matter between ear and shoot of barley varieties. Annals of Botany 26, 37–54.Google Scholar