EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,623,987
Abstracts:
29,492,080
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Differential responses to defoliation of grain sorghum yield components and yield-related traits



Differential responses to defoliation of grain sorghum yield components and yield-related traits



Crop science 31(3): 561-567



Leaf removal can significantly reduce yield of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Genotype X defoliation interactions for yield have been reported in other crops, but limited information is available in sorghum. This study was conducted on eight sorghum hybrids to evaluate hybrid responses of yield components and grain-fill traits to N application and post-anthesis defoliation. A factorial arrangement of three defoliation levels and three N fertilization rates was used in experiments conducted in five Nebraska and Kansas environments. Defoliation treatments (0, 50, and 100%) were applied at 10 d post anthesis. Removal of 50 and 100% of the leaves caused curvilinear reductions in all measured traits. Significant N effects were not observed in all environments. Defoliation X N interactions did not occur for the traits studied. Genotype X defoliation interactions occurred for grain yield, seed weight, seed number, duration of grain fill, and rate of grain fill, indicating that hybrids did not respond the same to defoliation treatments. Hybrids with higher seed number and longer preanthesis period maintained higher grain yields with defoliation. Responses of seed number to N application were similar for all hybrids. Genotype X defoliation X environment interactions were observed for all traits. Environmental interactions need to be considered when using defoliation to differentiate among hybrids in their components of yield and the relationships of these traits to grain yield.

(PDF 0-2 workdays service: $29.90)

Accession: 002072813

Download citation: RISBibTeXText



Related references

Effect of defoliation on grain yield and yield components of sorghum submitted to drought. Sorghum Newsletter 34: 47, 1993

Leaf removal in grain sorghum. 1. Effects of certain defoliation treatments on yield and components of yield. Agron. J, 53: 2, 99-102. bibl. 10, 1961

Association of yield components and developmental traits in grain sorghum sorghum bicolor. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 53(1): 5-8, 1983

Genetic variation for grain yield and related traits in sorghum sorghum bicolor introgression populations. Theoretical & Applied Genetics 68(1-2): 145-154, 1984

Effects of planting geometry and plant population on yield and yield components of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench). Cereal Research Communications 6(3): 329-341, 1978

Efect of row spacing and fertilizer application on yield and yield components of grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) in Portuguesa, Venezuela. Revista Unellez de Ciencia y Tecnologia, Produccion Agricola 17(1): 108-124, 2000

Effect of different methods and timing of weed control on the yield and yield components of grain sorghum sorghum bicolor. Annals of Tropical Research 2(3): 156-164, 1980

Effect of row and hill spacings on yield and yield components of some grain sorghum cultivars (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench). Assiut Journal of Agricultural Sciences 28(4): 131-142, 1997

Variability for yield and yield components in IAP1R grain sorghum random-mating population. II. Correlations, estimated gains from selection, and correlated responses to selection. Crop Science 25(2): 240-244, 1985

Genetic potentialities of 20 grain sorghum genotypes sorghum bicolor l. moench for yield and yield components. Egyptian Journal of Agronomy 15(1-2): 229-238, 1990

Effect of intensity and timing of defoliation on growth yield components and grain yield in maize. Experimental Agriculture 27(2): 137-144, 1991