Comparison of Different Planting Methods in Relation to Grain Yield of Wheat
The objective of this paper was to evaluate the adequacy of different methods of planting in small plots and compared with the grain yield rank of wheat genotypes in large plots under different planting densities. Significant differences were found among cultivars, same cultivars under different planting densities, years of testing and planting densities. The estimated values of heritability in narrow sense for grain yield were high and varied from 68 to 99%, depending on the method of planting and planting density. Comparison of correlation among cultivar’s rank between Method 1 (planting with drilling machine) and other Methods (manual planting) revealed that these relationships were dependant upon the year of testing and varied from low to high, positive or negative and from significant to non-significant. The highest correlation was found between Method 1 and Method 3 (20 kernels/hill) in both years of testing. If we wish to test a larger number of genotypes from gene bank collections or advanced lines in early phase of breeding program for grain yield on small plots we can recommend the use of hill plots with planting density as close as possible to those in large plots.
Keywordswinter wheat genotype grain yield planting method planting density
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Drezner, G. 1996. Selekcija pšenice (T. aestivum L.) u ranim generacijama zavisno o kriterijima izbora (Effects of selection in relation to different selection criteria in early generations of wheat). PhD thesis, University of Zagreb, Osijek.Google Scholar
- SAS Institute Inc. 1999. SAS/STAT Software, Version 8. SAS Institute, Cary, NC.Google Scholar
- Seitzer, J.F., Evans, L.E. 1978. Yield gains in wheat by the pedigree method of selection and two early yield tests. Z. Pflanzenzüchtg. 80:1–10.Google Scholar
- Sidwell, R.J., Smith, E.L., McNew, R.W. 1978. Heritability and genetic advance of selected agronomic traits in a winter cross. Cereal Res. Comm. 6 (2):103–111.Google Scholar