HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Krenzer, E. G. Articles by Carver, B. F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Krenzer, E. G., Jr. Articles by Carver, B. F. Agricola Articles by Krenzer, E. G. Articles by Carver, B. F.

Partitioning of Genotype x Environment Interactions of Winter Wheat Forage Yield

Dep. of Agronomy, Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Dep. of Agronomy, Louisiana State Univ., Baton Rouge, LA 70803

^* Corresponding author.

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L. emend. Thell) is used as a dual-purpose crop in the southern Great Plains, with 35 to 55% of the acreage grazed in the fall and winter, followed by grain harvest in late spring. Cultivar selection is primarily based on grain yield. This study was conducted to characterize genotype x environment (GE) interactions for fall and winter forage production in hard red winter wheat and to identify cultivars with favorable levels of stable forage production. Eighteen cultivars were grown in six environments. Forage was clipped until the early joint stage (Feeke's 5–6), when canopy height reached 20 cm. Fall forage produced prior to winter dormancy, and winter regrowth before early joint, were both influenced by GE interactions. The mean correlation of each cultivar with all other cultivars ranged from 0.91 to 0.97 for fall forage and 0.84 to 0.93 for winter forage. Based on Shukla's stability variance (²₁), three cultivars were unstable (²₁ > 0) for fall forage, whereas 10 cultivars were unstable for winter forage. Cultivars with low mean correlations were also classified as unstable. Rank stability differences for fall forage resulted primarily from three genotypes (Agripro ‘Wrangler’, AGSECO ‘7846’, and ‘TAM W-101’) showing exceptionally high stability rather than lack of stability. Changes in rank order would not be expected to hinder selection of hard red winter wheat genotypes stable for fall forage production. Fall forage yield differences were sufficiently large to be important to wheat-stocker cattle producers.

Received for publication February 7, 1991.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. W. Sij, W. E. Pinchak, D. P. Malinowski, D. L. Robinson, S. J. Bevers, T. A. Baughman, and R. J. Gill Yield and Economic Responses to Phosphorus Fertilizer Placement in Dual-Use and Grain-Only Wheat Production Systems Agron. J., May 11, 2007; 99(3): 773 - 778. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. T. MacKown and B. F. Carver Nitrogn Use and Biomass Distribution in Culms of Winter Wheat Populations Selected from Grain-Only and Dual-Purpose Systems Crop Sci., February 6, 2007; 47(1): 350 - 358. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. T. MacKown and B. F. Carver Fall Forage Biomass and Nitrogen Composition of Winter Wheat Populations Selected from Grain-Only and Dual-Purpose Environments Crop Sci., January 1, 2005; 45(1): 322 - 328. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. C. Emebiri, V. Matassa, and D. B. Moody GENSTAT Programs for Performing Muir's Alternative Partitioning of Genotype-by-Environment Interaction J. Hered., January 1, 2005; 96(1): 78 - 79. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. Lyon, D. D. Baltensperger, and M. Siles Wheat Grain and Forage Yields are Affected by Planting and Harvest Dates in the Central Great Plains Crop Sci., March 1, 2001; 41(2): 488 - 492. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]