Nitrogen uptake and utilisation efficiency of two-row and six-row winter barley cultivars grown at two N levels

Abstract In order to limit overproduction and pollution risks, low N fertiliser agricultural systems are likely to be advocated in Europe. An experiment was carried out in 1994 and 1995 to compare N uptake and N utilisation of two-rowed and six-rowed winter barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.). Two sets of two-rows and six-rows, composed of 18 varieties each, were cultivated in northern France on a haplic luvisol without (N1) and with 100–110 kg/ha (N2) N fertiliser. Mean grain yield was 596 g/m 2 at N1 and 779 g/m 2 at N2. On average six-rows outyielded two-rows by 4% (34 g/m 2 ) at N2 and 11% at N1 (70 g/m 2 ). Ears/m 2 was the yield component which fell most sharply between N2 and N1 (718 and 510 ears/m 2 on average). Six-rows had fewer ears/m 2 at both N levels but they lost more ears than two-rows (−33% and −26%, respectively). While the number of grains/ear was approximately the same for two-rows at both N levels (21.9 grains/ear on average) in 1995, it was significantly higher at N1 than at N2 for six-rows (44.7 and 38.5, respectively). Thousand kernel weight was higher at N1 than at N2, the difference being higher for six-rows (+7%) than for two-rows (+4%). N uptake efficiency (total plant N/soil N supply) was identical at N2 and higher for six-rows at N1 in 1995. Total N utilisation efficiency (total above-ground dry weight/total plant N) was equal at both N levels. HI (grain yield/total above-ground dry weight) was higher at N1 in both years and at N2 in 1994 for six-rows. Six-rows outyielded two-rows at high and low N levels. This was therefore associated mainly with higher HI and not with better N uptake or utilisation efficiency.

[1]  R. J. Makepeace,et al.  An explanation of the decimal code for the growth stages of cereals, with illustrations , 1979 .

[2]  B. Wells,et al.  Genetic variability in nitrogen utilization at four growth stages in soft red winter wheat , 1995 .

[3]  E. Justes,et al.  Wheat, Barley, and Durum Wheat , 1997 .

[4]  J. Gouis,et al.  A comparison between two- and six-row winter barley genotypes for above-ground dry matter production and distribution , 1992 .

[5]  C. Mackown,et al.  Cultivar differences in nitrogen remobilization during grain fill in soft red winter wheat , 1987 .

[6]  P. Cornelius,et al.  Genetic Variation for Nitrogen Use in Soft Red ✕ Hard Red Winter Wheat Populations , 1991 .

[7]  E. Kirby,et al.  The effect of plant density upon the growth and yield of barley , 1967, The Journal of Agricultural Science.

[8]  L. Jestin.  Some aspects of adaptation and adaptability of barley in European conditions , 1985 .

[9]  E. Kirby,et al.  Developmental consequences of two-row and six-row ear type in spring barley: 2. Shoot apex, leaf and tiller development , 1978, The Journal of Agricultural Science.

[10]  Gilles Lemaire,et al.  Diagnosis of the Nitrogen Status in Crops , 1997, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[11]  G. Lemaire,et al.  N Uptake and Distribution in Plant Canopies , 1997 .

[12]  D. Rains,et al.  Genetic Variation for Nitrogen Assimilation and Translocation in Wheat. III. Nitrogen Translocation in Relation to Grain Yield and Protein 1 , 1985 .

[13]  J. D. Hayes,et al.  Relationships between photosynthetic area and other growth attributes with grain yield in 6- and 2-row barley genotypes , 1979 .

[14]  F. Maidl,et al.  Effect of varied N rates and N timings on yield, N uptake and fertilizer N use efficiency of a six-row and a two-row winter barley , 1996 .

[15]  R. Busch,et al.  Grain and Plant Protein Relationships in Hard Red Spring Wheat 1 , 1985 .

[16]  J. Ramos,et al.  Tillering Dynamics of Water Barley as Influenced by Cultivar and Nitrogen Fertilizer: A Field Study 1 , 1984 .