Abstract
The effects of cutting stage on plant recovery and grain‐yield formation were analyzed in three barley and three spring triticale genotypes for two sowing dates and two sites in northeastern Spain. Harvesting treatments were (i) uncut or control, (ii) cut at the pseudostem erection stage, and (iii) cut at the first node detectable stage. Plant recovery after forage removal was affected by environmental conditions, sowing date, and plant stage at cutting. There were genotypic differences in the rate of recovery after cutting. The later the plant stage at cutting, the greater were the reductions in dry‐matter accumulation, leaf‐area expansion, leaf‐area duration after anthesis and grain‐yield components, and the increases in the inverse of leaf area ratio (1/LAR) and in grain:leaf ratio. In barley, photosynthesis after anthesis was the main source of assimilates for grain filling. Photosynthesis after anthesis, which was a greater contributor than reserve remobilization to grain filling in both uncut and cut at the pseudostem erection stage treatments in triticale, was reduced when the plants were subjected to the stress of forage removal at the first‐detectable‐node stage.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Recovery after forage removal varied with environment, sowing date and cutting stage.
- Taxon
- Barley and Triticale
.jpg?width=60)
Hordeum vulgare
×Triticosecalet0 - Treatment
- forage removale0
- Outcome
- Plant recoverye0
- Setting
- environmental conditionse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Plant recovery after forage removal was affected by environmental conditions, sowing date, and plant stage at cutting”
t0“Barley and Triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotypes differed in recovery rate after cutting.
- Taxon
- Barley and TriticaleHordeum vulgare×Triticosecalet0
- Material
- genotypice0
- Outcome
- rate of recoverye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“There were genotypic differences in the rate of recovery after cutting”
t0“Barley and Triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Later cutting caused greater reductions in dry matter, leaf area traits and grain yield components.
- Taxon
- Barley and TriticaleHordeum vulgare×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- later the plant stage at cuttinge0
- Outcome
- dry‐matter accumulation, leaf‐area expansion, leaf‐area duration after anthesise0
- Direction
- reductionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The later the plant stage at cutting, the greater were the reductions in dry‐matter accumulation, leaf‐area expansion, leaf‐area duration after anthesis and grain‐yield components”
t0“Barley and Triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Later cutting increased inverse leaf area ratio and grain to leaf ratio.
- Taxon
- Barley and TriticaleHordeum vulgare×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- cuttinge1
- Outcome
- inverse of leaf area ratio (1/LAR) and in grain:leaf ratioe0
- Direction
- increasese0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the increases in the inverse of leaf area ratio (1/LAR) and in grain:leaf ratio”
e1“Plant recovery after forage removal was affected by environmental conditions, sowing date, and plant stage at cutting”
t0“Barley and Triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Post anthesis photosynthesis was the principal grain filling assimilate source in barley.
- Taxon
- barleyHordeum vulgaree0
- Outcome
- main source of assimilates for grain fillinge0
- Qualifier
- photosynthesis after anthesise0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In barley, photosynthesis after anthesis was the main source of assimilates for grain filling”
Claim · model-written summary
Post anthesis photosynthesis contributed more than remobilization in uncut and early cut triticale.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- cut at the pseudostem erection stagee0
- Outcome
- grain fillinge0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- reserve remobilizatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Photosynthesis after anthesis, which was a greater contributor than reserve remobilization to grain filling in both uncut and cut at the pseudostem erection stage treatments in triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting at first detectable node reduced post anthesis photosynthesis in triticale.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- forage removal at the first‐detectable‐node stagee0
- Outcome
- Photosynthesis after anthesise0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- uncute0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Photosynthesis after anthesis, which was a greater contributor than reserve remobilization to grain filling in both uncut and cut at the pseudostem erection stage treatments in triticale, was reduced when the plants were subjected to the stress of forage removal at the first‐detectable‐node stage”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Results differ
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
20 papers more in this group
See all 24 papers →pruning · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.