Crop Science
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online 27 March 2006
Published in Crop Sci 46:1124-1129 (2006)
© 2006 Crop Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lee, K.-M.
Right arrow Articles by Lingenfelser, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lee, K.-M.
Right arrow Articles by Lingenfelser, J.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Lee, K.-M.
Right arrow Articles by Lingenfelser, J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Wheat
Right arrow Crop Ecology

Blending Hard White Wheat to Improve Grain Yield and End-Use Performances

Kyung-Min Leea, James P. Shroyerb, Timothy J. Herrmanc,* and Jane Lingenfelserd

a Dep. of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
b Dep. of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS66506
c Office of the Texas State Chemist, College Station, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77841
d Dep. of Grain Science and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS 66506


Figure 1
View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Relative difference (‘Betty’ and ‘Trego’ blend response – Trego response) for test weight (kg hL–1) among blends with different percentage of Betty at three Kansas locations (Colby [linear, P = 0.0005], Hays [linear, P < 0.0001], and Tribune [linear, P < 0.0001]).

 

Figure 2
View larger version (15K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Relative difference (‘Betty’ and ‘Trego’ blend response – Trego response) for SKCS single kernel weight (mg) among blends with different percentage of Betty at three Kansas locations (Colby [linear, P < 0.0001], Hays [linear, P = 0.0086], and Tribune [linear, P < 0.0001]).

 

Figure 3
View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Relative difference (‘Betty’ and ‘Trego’ blend response – Trego response) for grain protein concentration (g kg–1) among blends with different percentage of Betty at three Kansas locations (Colby [linear, P < 0.0001], Hays [linear, P < 0.0001], and Tribune [not significant]).

 

Figure 4
View larger version (16K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 4. Relative difference (‘Betty’ and ‘Trego’ blend response – Trego response) for grain yield (kg ha–1) among blends with different percentage of Betty at three Kansas locations (Colby [linear, P < 0.0001], Hays [not significant], and Tribune [not significant]).

 

Figure 5
View larger version (17K):

[in a new window]
  		Fig. 5. Relative difference (‘Betty’ and ‘Trego’ blend response – Trego response) for flour extraction (g kg–1) among blends with different percentage of Betty at three Kansas locations (Colby [linear, P = 0.0030], Hays [linear, P < 0.0001], and Tribune [linear, P = 0.0022]).

 




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2006 by the Crop Science Society of America.