Next Article in Journal
Identifying Within-Field Spatial and Temporal Crop Water Stress to Conserve Irrigation Resources with Variable-Rate Irrigation
Next Article in Special Issue
Antioxidant Response and Calcium-Dependent Protein Kinases Involvement in Canola (Brassica napus L.) Tolerance to Drought
Previous Article in Journal
Overcompensation Can Be an Ideal Breeding Target
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of the Pesticide Endosulfan and Two Different Biostimulants on the Stress Responses of Phaseolus leptostachyus Plants Grown in a Saline Soil
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 7
10.3390/agronomy11071378
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Sowing Mode on Lodging Resistance and Grain Yield in Winter Wheat

by
Lifeng Wu
1,†,
Xiaowei Han
1,†,
Shahidul Islam
2,
Shengnan Zhai
3,
Hui Zhao
4,5,
Guoshun Zhang
1,
Gangzhu Cui
1,
Feng Zhang
1,
Wenliang Han
1,
Xiaosheng You
1,
Zhengchun Ju
6,
Peng Lv
6,
Jiangming Zhou
1,
Qi Gao
1,
Baoming Cui
1,
Yanfang Wu
1,
Zhichao Yang
1,7,
Qier Liu
2,
Fan Yang
2,8,
Jingjuan Zhang
2,* and
Hang Liu
1,2,*add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
1
Binzhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Binzhou 256603, China
2
Australia—China Joint Centre for Wheat Improvement, Western Australian State Agriculture Biotechnology Center, College of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, Murdoch University, Perth, WA 6150, Australia
3
Crop Research Institute, Shandong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Jinan 250100, China
4
College of Plant Health and Medicine, Qingdao Agricultural University, Qingdao 265200, China
5
Jiangsu Sevencontinent Green Chemical Co., Ltd., Suzhou 215600, China
6
Shandong Agricultural Technology Extending Station, Shandong Agricultural and Rural Hall, Jinan 215600, China
7
School of Molecular Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6907, Australia
8
Triticeae Research Institute, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu 625014, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to the work.
Agronomy 2021, 11(7), 1378; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071378
Submission received: 12 May 2021 / Revised: 5 July 2021 / Accepted: 5 July 2021 / Published: 7 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants: Towards a Sustainable Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
For improving lodging resistance and increasing grain yield in wheat in the Yellow-Huai River Basin in China, different sowing modes have been investigated. Conventionally, the small-flat-plot sowing mode has been adopted in wheat cultivation. However, this sowing mode leads to heavy lodging and low land use efficiency. In this study, a new sowing mode, high-low-plot sowing mode with two more rows sowed on the high plot, was investigated. Two cultivars, Hengguan 35 and Jimai 44 were used for two seasonal field experiments from 2018 to 2020. The results showed that grain yield improved with the high-low sowing mode by as much as 25% since more spikes per unit area were observed concomitant with reduced stem lodging. The grain yield increase was mainly due to the enhanced spike number per m2, while the lodging resistance was improved through the lowered plant height and the center of gravity height. This research proves that the high-low-plot sowing mode is an improved sowing mode for producing greater grain yield with better lodging resistance in the wheat production area in northern China.

1. Introduction

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), as one of the most important staple crops along with rice [1], supplies about 20% of calories and protein for human consumption worldwide [2,3]. As the largest wheat producer and consumer in the world, wheat production in China is crucial for local markets and for the global wheat industries [4]. In particular, the North China Plain (NCP) is playing an important role by producing over 50% of the national wheat harvest [5] from only 21% of the total wheat acreage in China. Thus, stability and improvement in wheat grain yield in NCP are very important for national food security, as well as for global food supply chains.
In NCP, the annual precipitation is about 400–500 mm. Each year, two crops of maize and wheat are planted in summer and winter, respectively. During the wheat growing season, the total rainfall is only about 200 mm [6,7]. About half of the water required for wheat cultivation is sourced from underground aquifers and is called well irrigation. An amount of 50–70 mm of water is applied at the tillering, jointing, and grain-filling stages, and the total amount of water used is about 150–210 mm [8]. On average, each farm comprises 1–3 ha of cultivated land. Winter wheat is conventionally sown with machinery in narrowly spaced rows on small flat plots (SFP, Figure 1a,d) (30–100 m long and 2–4 m wide) in the well-irrigated area of the Yellow River Delta, in the North China Plain. Probably due to irrigation and heavy nitrogen utilization, lodging has become a limiting factor reducing grain yield and grain quality in wheat. It also impairs the machine harvesting of wheat [9,10,11,12,13]. Thus, this problem needs to be solved for cost-effective wheat production [14,15]. Stem lodging is highly associated with the strength of the second basal internode [11,16,17,18,19,20]. For improving stem lodging resistance, a range of topics have been investigated including sowing modes, ways of irrigation and fertilization, and control of stem diseases and pests [13,21,22,23,24]. Among them, Shah et al. [23] reported that different methods of sowing and tillage showed a significant improvement in lodging resistance in wheat. As an example, compared with the flat sowing mode, raised-bed sowing resulted in over 50% less lodging [24,25]. Furthermore, raised-bed sowing significantly increased grain yield by reducing the lodging score. Si et al. [22] showed that the strength of the basal internodes in raised-bed cropping was greater than in the flat cropping method and that the grain yield in the raised beds increased by over 11%.
To date, the studies on wheat lodging in China have focused on different effects between raised-bed sowing and flat sowing [8,22,26,27,28]. For a long time, the small-flat-plot sowing mode has been used in the well-irrigated area of the Yellow River Delta (Figure 1a,d). Even though high-yielding, drought-tolerant wheat cultivars such as Hengguan 35 are being used in this sowing mode, lodging and the low ratio of land utility remain limiting factors affecting yield performance [27]. For increasing yield and reducing lodging, a high-low-plot sowing mode (Figure 1b,e) with an increased land use rate has been developed at Binzhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences. To investigate how this mode increased grain yield and lodging resistance, two different sowing modes, high-low-plot sowing mode (HLP) and small-flat-plot sowing mode (SFP), were used in two seasonal field experiments in this study. The physiological and phenotypical results provided evidence that the HLP sowing mode reduced wheat lodging and achieved desirable grain yield with an increase in overall land usage in the North China Plain.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site

Field experiments were carried out in 2018–2020 at Boxing Mazhuang experimental site (118.29° E, 37.06° N) of Binzhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, which is located on the eastern side of the North China Plain, Shandong Province, China. The average annual precipitation of the experimental site is 580 mm and the average annual temperature is 12.5 °C. The total yearly sunshine duration is 2595 h and the nonfrost period is 180 days. The local soil type is silt loam containing organic matter (1.3%), alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen (59.7 mg/kg), available phosphorus (10.7 mg/kg), and available potassium (127.6 mg/kg).

2.2. Materials and Experimental Design

Winter wheat cultivars, Hengguan 35 (HG35) and Jimai 44 (JM44), were used in the experiments. HG35 is a high-yielding cultivar with a relatively low height of 70–80 cm and high lodging resistance. JM44 is also a high-yielding cultivar with a high gluten level. The height of JM44 ranges from 70 to 90 cm.
Two sowing modes were applied: high-low-plot sowing (HLP) (high border of 42.5 cm width and low border of 88 cm width and 15 cm depth) and small-flat-plot sowing (SFP) (border of 100 cm width with 15 cm depth). For the HLP sowing mode, two rows of wheat were sowed in the high border and four rows were sowed in the low plot. For the SFP sowing mode, four rows of wheat were sowed in the small flat plot. In both HLP and SFP sowing modes, the row space between neighboring plants was 25 cm. A schematic diagram of the sowing modes is presented in Figure 1. For the HLP mode, a special sowing machine was designed, in which the height of the planter is able to be adjusted with the height of the border (Figure 1c). The HLP planter integrates five processes of making the high-low border, ditching, fertilizing, seeding, and suppression, and completes all the procedures at once. For the SFP mode, a normal sowing machine was used, and the above sowing processes were included except for making the high-low border.
The experiments were carried out in two wheat-growing seasons (2018/2019; 2019/2020). The two cultivars under two sowing modes with three replicates led to 12 large plots. The large plots were randomly located on 8000 m2, with each plot area of 666.7 m2. The seeding rate was 120 kg/ha. A total of 120 kg/ha nitrogen, 120 kg/ha superphosphate (P2O5), and 120 kg/ha potassium sulfate (K2SO4) were applied as basal fertilizer. An additional 120 kg/ha nitrogen was applied at the wheat jointing stage. Local standard procedures were used for irrigation and pests management [7,29]. Irrigation was applied (75 mm at each watering) at tillering, jointing, and grain-filling stages. Pesticide and fungicide were mainly applied at the jointing and booting stages. There was no pest incidence in the two growing seasons.

2.3. Measurements and Data Analysis

Before harvesting, a subplot of three m2 (2.0 m × 1.5 m) was randomly selected in each large plot. Spike number (SN) per unit area (m2) was recorded before harvesting. A total of 20 spikes were randomly collected from each subplot and threshed. Grain number per spike (GNS) was recorded. Thousand kernel weight (TKW) was determined by the weight of 200 kernels. Grain yield (GY) was collected for each plot.
From each subplot, 30 main tillers were randomly collected at maturity for plant height and second basal internode measurements at the ripening stage according to the methods of Wei et al. [30]. Plant height (PH) was measured from the base of the plant to the tip of spikes excluding awns. After detaching the leaves together with the leaf sheath, the length, diameter, and wall thickness of the second basal internode were measured with a digital caliper with an accuracy of 0.001 mm (the midpoint of the internode was used for the diameter and wall thickness measurements). The dry weight of the second internode of subsamples was recorded after oven drying for 30 min at 105 °C, followed by 75 °C to constant weight. The stem-filling degree was scored with the formula: dry weight of second basal internode/length of second basal internode × 1000 [20].
A stalk strength tester (YDD-1; Zhejiang Top Instrument Co., Hangzhou, China) was used to measure the breaking strength of the second basal internode. The second basal internodes without sheath were placed on the groove of the support pillars at 50 mm and then set the tester perpendicular to the stem at the middle. The mechanical breaking strength was recorded based on the breaking point on the culm internode. The center of gravity height (COGH) refers to the distance from the culm (with spike, leaf, and sheath) base to the balance fulcrum. The culm lodging resistance index (CLRI) according to Li et al. [13] was calculated as follows: CLRI = N/M × 100, where the values of N and M were the mechanical breaking strength and the center of gravity height, respectively.
Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22 and GraphPad Prism 8 software [31,32]. The means and significant differences among different sowing modes, cultivars, and years were computed by analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Tukey’s multiple range test was used for the equal variance analysis at the significant level of 0.05. Two-way and three-way ANOVA were performed using the multiple comparisons procedure under GraphPad Prism 8 software, where each trait was treated as the fixed effect, and sowing modes, cultivars, years, and their interactions were all treated as random effects. The “rcorr” function in the R package Hmisc [33] was used for the pairwise correlation analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Sowing Mode Effects on Wheat Yield and Yield-Related Components

The effects of sowing mode and cultivar on yield and yield components were highly significant (p < 0.001) (Table 1), while there was no significant effect of year. The interactions between sowing mode and cultivar were also significant on SN, GNS, and TKW, whereas the interaction between year and cultivar was significant (p < 0.01) on SN only. The interactions between year and sowing mode were not significant.
Significantly higher grain yield and spike number per m2 were observed in the HLP sowing mode in both cultivars across both growing seasons (Figure 2 and Table 1). Compared with SFP, grain yield was increased in HLP by 11.1–24.7% and 12.9–21.7% in 2019 and 2020, respectively. In both modes, the grain yield of HG35 was higher than JM44, with an increment of 36.6–53.4% and 41.1–52.1%, in 2019 and 2020, respectively.
Among the yield components, the spike number per m2 (SN) was significantly higher in HLP mode in both cultivars and years. In 2019 and 2020, SN in HLP increased by 13.2–37.7% and 16.7–37.7% (Figure 2 and Table 1), respectively. No significant differences were observed in grain number per spike (GNS) and thousand kernel weight (TKW) between HLP and SFP in the case of HG35, while in JM44, GNS was reduced, and TKW was increased in HLP. Based on cultivars, SN and TKW of JM44 were significantly higher than those of HG35 in HLP, whereas GNS was significantly lower than that of HG35. In SFP, same as in HLP, the TKW of JM44 was significantly higher than that of HG35. The overall variations in yield-related traits in HLP and SFP were generally consistent over the two seasons.

3.2. Effects of Sowing Modes on Lodging Resistance

The culm lodging resistant index (CLRI) was used to measure plant lodging. Compared with SFP, the CLRI in HLP was increased in 2020, while the enhanced level did not reach a significant level in 2019. In 2020, the CLRI of plants in HLP was significantly higher than in SFP by 8.9 and 24.9% in HG35 and JM44, respectively (Figure 3). In HLP, samples from high plots (HP) and low plots (LP) were investigated further. The CLRI of plants in HP increased 23.0 and 29.8% in comparison to LP and SFP, respectively (Figure 3), while it was similar in LP and SFP. The increment of CLRI in HLP mode stems from the high CLRI levels of plants in HP. The CLRI levels of HG35 were significantly higher than JM44 in both HLP and SFP modes in 2020 (Figure 3).

3.3. Effects of Sowing Modes on Stem Strength

In both growing seasons, plant height and the center of gravity height (COGH) were lower in the HLP mode than in the SFP mode (Figure 4 and Table 2). Within the HLP mode, plant height and COGH in HP were reduced significantly by 1.8–21.6% and 0.3–21.8%, respectively, in comparison to the SFP mode plants (Figure 4). Plant mechanical strength levels were similar for the two sowing modes (Figure 4), but they were significantly higher in HG35 than in JM44 (Figure 4 and Table 2).

3.4. Effects of Sowing Modes on the Second Basal Internode

The strength of the second basal internode was identified to be highly associated with plant lodging. The internode length, diameter, wall thickness, dry weight, and stem-filling degree were measured. Based on the ANOVA analysis, the influence of sowing modes on internode diameter and dry weight were significant, and there was an interaction between cultivar and sowing mode for diameter (Table 3). Moreover, sowing mode affected internode diameter and dry weight in JM44 but not in HG35 (Figure 5 and Table 3). Plants of JM44 in HP had the lowest stem diameter and dry weight in the second basal internode, while the dry weight of HG35 was lower in HP in 2019, in comparison to LP and SFP (Figure 5).

3.5. Correlation of Morphological Parameters

Correlation analysis was performed between parameters (Figure 6). The stem mechanical strength in the second basal internode was significantly positively correlated with wall thickness, stem filling degree, and culm lodging resistance index (CLRI), and significantly negatively correlated with internode length and dry weight. The CLRI was positively and significantly correlated with wall thickness and the mechanical breaking strength of the second basal internode, while negatively associated with plant height, the center of gravity height, internode length, and dry weight. Significantly positive correlations were found between the center of gravity height and plant height, together with the second internode-related traits such as internode diameter and dry weight. Internode dry weight was positively associated with the internode length, internode diameter, and plant height. Correlation analysis demonstrated that the culm lodging resistance index of wheat was positively and significantly correlated with wall thickness and the mechanical breaking strength of the second basal internode and negatively and significantly correlated with plant height, the center of gravity height, and the length and dry weight of the second basal internode (Figure 6).

4. Discussion

Increasing grain yield is a priority in wheat production in China [34,35]. The grain yield components mainly include spike number per unit area (SN), grain number per spike (GNS), and thousand kernel weight (TKW) [36,37,38]. These three components are influenced by a set of factors such as cultivar, seeding rate, fertilization, irrigation, and sowing mode [5,35,39,40]. Many researchers have suggested that effective sowing modes could enhance grain yield via the adjustment of field structure, such as the soil’s physical status [8,22,41,42,43]. Raised-bed sowing is one of the sowing modes that can be used for the adjustment of field structure. The benefits of growing winter wheat using a raised-bed sowing mode, in comparison with flat sowing, were reported by Wang et al. [8], who suggested that raised beds can eliminate soil crusts and improve soil physical status. Soil structure has also been found to have an important effect on lodging, as it has been predicted to be directly proportional to the anchorage strength of the crop [44]. Other studies have shown that the bedding process can increase soil aggregate formation and maintain optimal ratios of solid, liquid, and gaseous phases in agricultural soil [43,45], as well as optimization of water holding capacity [46,47]. Based on field observations, HLP mode helps to improve soil physical characteristics such as soil bulk density and soil porosity, compared with the SFP mode. Meanwhile, we suggest that the HLP mode plays a positive role in the maintenance of soil moisture, water, and soil conservation. Indeed, these changes will all favor wheat growth. Additionally, the more favorable field microclimate in the HLP crop is likely to reduce the incidence of disease and pests as well as decrease lodging, which directly and indirectly improves grain yield.
For a long time, the flat sowing mode has been adopted in well-irrigated areas in wheat production along the Yellow River Basin. The disadvantages of flat sowing mode are land wastage and a high frequency of diseases, pests, and weeds, which reduce grain yield. Therefore, our research group proposed another sowing mode—the HLP mode, which has the same effect as the raised-bed sowing pattern. The HLP mode is a combination sowing system of high and low plots in order to increase the utilization of farmland, thus enhancing grain yield through an increase in spike number per unit area [48,49,50]. In this study, HG35 and JM44 in HLP from 2019 to 2020 produced significantly higher grain yield, (Figure 2 and Table 1). A number of studies have reported that increases in plant density (spike number per unit area) would result in a decrease in grain number per spike and thousand kernel weight [48,51,52,53]. However, high spike density did not cause any loss in TKW and grain number per spike in our study.
For improving the output of grain yield, producers in China prefer to use more nitrogen than in many other nations. The overuse of nitrogen fertilizer results in low nitrogen use efficiency and economic losses [54,55] and contributes to environmental pollution [56,57,58]. Meanwhile, the heavy application of nitrogen could increase the risk of lodging [18]. Controlling the soil nitrogen level under a certain limit could improve lodging resistance and ultimately reduce the likelihood of lodging [59]. Compared with the traditional flat bed, the raised bed improved grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency by 10% or more [8]. Wheat on the high plot would eliminate the luxury consumption of nitrogen taken by plants on the low plot, which could reduce plant lodging on the low plot. Similar findings were reported by Limon-Ortega et al. [41].
Culm morphological features and culm lodging resistance index (CLRI) have been the major physical parameters to evaluate wheat stem lodging resistance [19,20,30,60,61]. Significant positive correlations were evident between CLRI and other morphological traits of the second basal internode including wall thickness, and mechanical breaking strength (Figure 6), especially, the high correlation (r = 0.87**) between CLRI and mechanical strength. These results are in agreement with previous studies, which reported that culm morphological characteristics are highly correlated with lodging resistance [60,62,63]. The results of the present study also showed that mechanical breaking strength was not affected by the sowing mode (Figure 4 and Table 2). In this study, the CLRI was significantly negatively correlated with plant height, the center of gravity height (COGH), the length of the second basal internode, and its dry weight. The COGH plays an important role in improving lodging resistance among different sowing modes, and the decreases in COGH usually decrease the lodging rate. Therefore, the increased CLRI in HLP indicates a decrease in the lodging rate. Several studies have shown that shortening plant height is one of the most effective methods to reduce the risk of lodging [64,65]. Generally, plant height, as one of the lodging-related traits, is mainly affected by cultivars, years, sowing modes, and their interactions. Results of ANOVA showed that there were significant height differences between HG35 and JM44 in SFP, while no significance was detected in HLP. The plant height of both HG35 and JM44 was significantly reduced in HLP compared with SFP. Within the HLP mode, the plant height of JM44 was reduced significantly in both HP and LP, while the significant reduction in HG35 was only in HP. The results indicate that the reduced plant height in both cultivars under the HLP mode may also contribute to lodging resistance.

5. Conclusions

Comparison of two types of sowing modes (HLP and SFP) using two wheat cultivars revealed considerable improvements in lodging resistance and grain yield in the HLP sowing. An increase in spike number per unit area contributes to the grain yield in the HLP mode. Furthermore, an improvement on lodging resistance derived from the reductions in the center of culm gravity height and plant height benefited the efficient grain filling and effective mechanical harvesting. Therefore, this study showed that the high-and-low-combination plot sowing system is an optimized sowing mode in well-irrigated areas in the Yellow River Basin for increasing wheat production. Broadly, the HLP mode provides an option to similar worldwide agroecological zones to reduce the yield loss caused by lodging.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.L. and L.W.; methodology, L.W. and X.H.; cultivar resources, S.Z.; experiment conduction and phenotype measurements, L.W., X.H., G.Z., G.C., F.Z., W.H., X.Y., Z.J., P.L., J.Z. (Jiangming Zhou), Q.G., B.C. and Y.W.; field management, H.Z.; data analysis, Y.W., S.Z. and Q.L.; visualization, Z.Y. and F.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, L.W. and X.H.; writing—review and editing, H.L., J.Z. (Jingjuan Zhang), and S.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA, Grant Number CARS–03.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data have been included.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Binzhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences in China, and Murdoch University in Australia. We would like to thank Jun-Zhan Liu in Binzhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, and Wu-Jun Ma in Australia China Centre for Wheat Improvement at Murdoch University for their support and assistance. We thank Bernard Dell at Murdoch University for his revision.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Curtis, T.; Halford, N. Food security: The challenge of increasing wheat yield and the importance of not compromising food safety. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2014, 164, 354–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Shiferaw, B.; Smale, M.; Braun, H.-J.; Duveiller, E.; Reynolds, M.; Muricho, G. Crops that feed the world 10. Past successes and future challenges to the role played by wheat in global food security. Food Secur. 2013, 5, 291–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Dong, Q.; Chen, X.; Chen, J.; Zhang, C.; Liu, L.; Cao, X.; Zang, Y.; Zhu, X.; Cui, X. Mapping Winter Wheat in North China Using Sentinel 2A/B Data: A Method Based on Phenology-Time Weighted Dynamic Time Warping. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Han, J.; Zhang, Z.; Cao, J.; Luo, Y.; Zhang, L.; Li, Z.; Zhang, J. Prediction of Winter Wheat Yield Based on Multi-Source Data and Machine Learning in China. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Kan, Z.R.; Liu, Q.Y.; He, C.; Jing, Z.H.; Virk, A.L.; Qi, J.Y.; Zhao, X.; Zhang, H.L. Responses of grain yield and water use efficiency of winter wheat to tillage in the North China Plain. Field Crops Res. 2020, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Lv, L.; Yao, Y.; Zhang, L.; Dong, Z.; Jia, X.; Liang, S.; Ji, J. Winter wheat grain yield and its components in the North China Plain: Irrigation management, cultivation, and climate. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 73, 233–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Li, J.; Inanaga, S.; Li, Z.; Eneji, A.E. Optimizing irrigation scheduling for winter wheat in the North China Plain. Agric. Water Manag. 2005, 76, 8–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, F.; Wang, X.; Ken, S. Comparison of conventional, flood irrigated, flat planting with furrow irrigated, raised bed planting for winter wheat in China. Field Crops Res. 2004, 87, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Acreche, M.M.; Slafer, G.A. Lodging yield penalties as affected by breeding in Mediterranean wheats. Field Crops Res. 2011, 122, 40–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vera, C.; Duguid, S.; Fox, S.; Rashid, K.; Dribnenki, J.; Clarke, F. Comparative effect of lodging on seed yield of flax and wheat. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2012, 92, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Berry, P.; Sterling, M.; Spink, J.; Baker, C.; Sylvester-Bradley, R.; Mooney, S.; Tams, A.; Ennos, A. Understanding and reducing lodging in cereals. Adv. Agron. 2004, 84, 215–269. [Google Scholar]
  12. Liu, T.; Li, R.; Zhong, X.; Jiang, M.; Jin, X.; Zhou, P.; Liu, S.; Sun, C.; Guo, W. Estimates of rice lodging using indices derived from UAV visible and thermal infrared images. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2018, 252, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Li, J.; Yin, J.; Wei, F. Effects of planting density on characters of culm and culm lodging resistant index in winter wheat. Zuo Wu Xue Bao 2005, 31, 662–666. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ahmad, I.; Kamran, M.; Guo, Z.; Meng, X.; Ali, S.; Zhang, P.; Liu, T.; Cai, T.; Han, Q. Effects of uniconazole or ethephon foliar application on culm mechanical strength and lignin metabolism, and their relationship with lodging resistance in winter wheat. Crop Pasture Sci. 2020, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Erndwein, L.; Cook, D.D.; Robertson, D.J.; Sparks, E.E. Field-based mechanical phenotyping of cereal crops to assess lodging resistance. Appl. Plant Sci. 2020, 8, e11382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, C.; Hu, D.; Liu, X.; She, H.; Ruan, R.; Yang, H.; Yi, Z.; Wu, D. Effects of uniconazole on the lignin metabolism and lodging resistance of culm in common buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum M.). Field Crops Res. 2015, 180, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dai, X.; Wang, Y.; Dong, X.; Qian, T.; Yin, L.; Dong, S.; Chu, J.; He, M. Delayed sowing can increase lodging resistance while maintaining grain yield and nitrogen use efficiency in winter wheat. Crop J. 2017, 5, 541–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, M.; Wang, H.; Yi, Y.; Ding, J.; Zhu, M.; Li, C.; Guo, W.; Feng, C.; Zhu, X. Effect of nitrogen levels and nitrogen ratios on lodging resistance and yield potential of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0187543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chen, X.; Shi, C.; Yin, Y.; Wang, Z.; Shi, Y.; Peng, D.; Ni, Y.; Cai, T. Relationship between lignin metabolism and lodging resistance in wheat. Zuo Wu Xue Bao 2011, 37, 1616–1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Peng, D.; Chen, X.; Yin, Y.; Lu, K.; Yang, W.; Tang, Y.; Wang, Z. Lodging resistance of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): Lignin accumulation and its related enzymes activities due to the application of paclobutrazol or gibberellin acid. Field Crops Res. 2014, 157, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Piñera-Chavez, F.; Berry, P.; Foulkes, M.; Jesson, M.; Reynolds, M. Avoiding lodging in irrigated spring wheat. I. Stem and root structural requirements. Field Crops Res. 2016, 196, 325–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Si, J.; Wang, F.; Li, S.; Feng, B.; Kong, L. Effect of Different Planting Patterns on Population Quality and Yield Structure of Wheat. J. Triticeae Crops 2006, 6, 136–139. [Google Scholar]
  23. Shah, L.; Yahya, M.; Shah, S.M.A.; Nadeem, M.; Ali, A.; Ali, A.; Wang, J.; Riaz, M.W.; Rehman, S.; Wu, W.; et al. Improving Lodging Resistance: Using Wheat and Rice as Classical Examples. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Tripathi, S.C.; Sayre, K.D.; Kaul, J.N. Planting Systems on Lodging Behavior, Yield Components, and Yield of Irrigated Spring Bread Wheat. Crop Sci. 2005, 45, 1448–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ahmad, R.; Mahmood, N. Impact of raised bed technology on water productivity and lodging of wheat. Pak. J. Bot. 2005, 9, 29–32. [Google Scholar]
  26. Li, Q.; Zhou, X.; Chen, Y.; Yu, S. Water consumption characteristics of winter wheat grown using different planting patterns and deficit irrigation regime. Agric. Water Manag. 2012, 105, 8–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, F.; He, Z.; Sayre, K.; Li, S.; Si, J.; Feng, B.; Kong, L. Wheat cropping systems and technologies in China. Field Crops Res. 2009, 111, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Feng, W.; Li, S.; Wang, Y.; Kang, G.; Duan, J.; Guo, T. Effects of spacing intervals on the ageing process and grain yield in winter wheat under wide bed planting methods. Acta. Ecol. Sin. Shengtai Xuebao 2015, 35, 2686–2694. [Google Scholar]
  29. He, Z. A History of Wheat Breeding in China; Cimmyt: Mexico City, Mexico, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wei, F.; Li, J.; Wang, C.; Qu, H.; Shen, X. Effects of nitrogenous fertilizer application model on culm lodging resistance in winter wheat. Zuo Wu Xue Bao 2008, 34, 1080–1085. [Google Scholar]
  31. Mavrevski, R.; Traykov, M.; Trenchev, I.; Trencheva, M. Approaches to modeling of biological experimental data with GraphPad Prism software. WSEAS Trans. Syst. Control 2018, 13, 242–247. [Google Scholar]
  32. Swift, M.L. GraphPad prism, data analysis, and scientific graphing. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 1997, 37, 411–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Harrell, F.E., Jr. Package ‘hmisc’. CRAN2018 2019, 2019, 235–236. [Google Scholar]
  34. He, G.; Cui, Z.; Ying, H.; Zheng, H.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, F. Managing the trade-offs among yield increase, water resources inputs and greenhouse gas emissions in irrigated wheat production systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 567–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Xi, L.; Liao, Y.; Han, J. Ridge-furrow planting promotes wheat grain yield and water productivity in the irrigated sub-humid region of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 231, 105935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Donmez, E.; Sears, R.; Shroyer, J.; Paulsen, G. Genetic gain in yield attributes of winter wheat in the Great Plains. Crop Sci. 2001, 41, 1412–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Brancourt-Hulmel, M.; Doussinault, G.; Lecomte, C.; Bérard, P.; Le Buanec, B.; Trottet, M. Genetic improvement of agronomic traits of winter wheat cultivars released in France from 1946 to 1992. Crop Sci. 2003, 43, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Li, F.; Wen, W.; He, Z.; Liu, J.; Jin, H.; Cao, S.; Geng, H.; Yan, J.; Zhang, P.; Wan, Y.; et al. Genome-wide linkage mapping of yield-related traits in three Chinese bread wheat populations using high-density SNP markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2018, 131, 1903–1924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wang, J.; Wang, E.; Yang, X.; Zhang, F.; Yin, H. Increased yield potential of wheat-maize cropping system in the North China Plain by climate change adaptation. Clim. Chang. 2012, 113, 825–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, J.; Sun, J.; Duan, A.; Wang, J.; Shen, X.; Liu, X. Effects of different planting patterns on water use and yield performance of winter wheat in the Huang-Huai-Hai plain of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2007, 92, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Limon-Ortega, A.; Sayre, K.D.; Francis, C.A. Wheat nitrogen use efficiency in a bed planting system in northwest Mexico. Agron. J. 2000, 92, 303–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Raun, W.R.; Solie, J.B.; Johnson, G.V.; Stone, M.L.; Mullen, R.W.; Freeman, K.W.; Thomason, W.E.; Lukina, E.V. Improving nitrogen use efficiency in cereal grain production with optical sensing and variable rate application. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 815–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Govaerts, B.; Sayre, K.; Lichter, K.; Dendooven, L.; Deckers, J. Influence of permanent raised bed planting and residue management on physical and chemical soil quality in rain fed maize/wheat systems. Plant Soil 2007, 291, 39–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Berry, P.; Sterling, M.; Baker, C.; Spink, J.; Sparkes, D. A calibrated model of wheat lodging compared with field measurements. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2003, 119, 167–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, X.; Ma, L.; Gilliam, F.S.; Wang, Q.; Li, C. Effects of raised-bed planting for enhanced summer maize yield on rhizosphere soil microbial functional groups and enzyme activity in Henan Province, China. Field Crops Res. 2012, 130, 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hemmat, A.; Eskandari, I. Conservation tillage practices for winter wheat–fallow farming in the temperate continental climate of northwestern Iran. Field Crops Res. 2004, 89, 123–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Patiño-Zúñiga, L.; Ceja-Navarro, J.; Govaerts, B.; Luna-Guido, M.; Sayre, K.; Dendooven, L. The effect of different tillage and residue management practices on soil characteristics, inorganic N dynamics and emissions of N2O, CO2 and CH4 in the central highlands of Mexico: A laboratory study. Plant Soil 2009, 314, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bastos, L.M.; Carciochi, W.; Lollato, R.P.; Jaenisch, B.R.; Rezende, C.R.; Schwalbert, R.; Vara Prasad, P.V.; Zhang, G.; Fritz, A.K.; Foster, C.; et al. Winter Wheat Yield Response to Plant Density as a Function of Yield Environment and Tillering Potential: A Review and Field Studies. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Hochman, Z.; Horan, H. Causes of wheat yield gaps and opportunities to advance the water-limited yield frontier in Australia. Field Crops Res. 2018, 228, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lollato, R.P.; Ruiz Diaz, D.A.; DeWolf, E.; Knapp, M.; Peterson, D.E.; Fritz, A.K. Agronomic practices for reducing wheat yield gaps: A quantitative appraisal of progressive producers. Crop Sci. 2019, 59, 333–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Geleta, B.; Atak, M.; Baenziger, P.; Nelson, L.; Baltenesperger, D.; Eskridge, K.; Shipman, M.; Shelton, D. Seeding rate and genotype effect on agronomic performance and end-use quality of winter wheat. Crop Sci. 2002, 42, 827–832. [Google Scholar]
  52. Valério, I.P.; Carvalho, F.I.F.d.; Benin, G.; Silveira, G.d.; Silva, J.A.G.d.; Nornberg, R.; Hagemann, T.; Luche, H.d.S.; Oliveira, A.C.d. Seeding density in wheat: The more, the merrier? Sci. Agric. 2013, 70, 176–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lloveras, J.; Manent, J.; Viudas, J.; López, A.; Santiveri, P. Seeding rate influence on yield and yield components of irrigated winter wheat in a Mediterranean climate. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 1258–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wang, H.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, A.; Liu, H.; Zhai, L.; Lei, B.; Ren, T. An optimal regional nitrogen application threshold for wheat in the North China Plain considering yield and environmental effects. Field Crops Res. 2017, 207, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schachtman, D.P.; Shin, R. Nutrient sensing and signaling: NPKS. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2007, 58, 47–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Yin, L.; Dai, X.; He, M. Delayed sowing improves nitrogen utilization efficiency in winter wheat without impacting yield. Field Crops Res. 2018, 221, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Palme, K.; Li, X.; Teale, W.D. Towards second green revolution: Engineering nitrogen use efficiency. J. Genet. Genom. 2014, 41, 315–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Davidson, E.A. The contribution of manure and fertilizer nitrogen to atmospheric nitrous oxide since 1860. Nat. Geosci. 2009, 2, 659–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fischer, R.; Stapper, M. Lodging effects on high-yielding crops of irrigated semidwarf wheat. Field Crops Res. 1987, 17, 245–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Zheng, M.; Chen, J.; Shi, Y.; Li, Y.; Yin, Y.; Yang, D.; Luo, Y.; Pang, D.; Xu, X.; Li, W.; et al. Manipulation of lignin metabolism by plant densities and its relationship with lodging resistance in wheat. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 41805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Tripathi, S.C.; Sayre, K.; Kaul, J.; Narang, R. Growth and morphology of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) culms and their association with lodging: Effects of genotypes, N levels and ethephon. Field Crops Res. 2003, 84, 271–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Islam, M.S.; Peng, S.; Visperas, R.M.; Ereful, N.; Bhuiya, M.S.U.; Julfiquar, A. Lodging-related morphological traits of hybrid rice in a tropical irrigated ecosystem. Field Crops Res. 2007, 101, 240–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kong, E.; Liu, D.; Guo, X.; Yang, W.; Sun, J.; Li, X.; Zhan, K.; Cui, D.; Lin, J.; Zhang, A. Anatomical and chemical characteristics associated with lodging resistance in wheat. Crop J. 2013, 1, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Verma, V.; Worland, A.; Savers, E.; Fish, L.; Caligari, P.; Snape, J. Identification and characterization of quantitative trait loci related to lodging resistance and associated traits in bread wheat. Plant Breed. 2005, 124, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhang, H.; Li, T.; Liu, H.; Mai, C.; Yu, G.; Li, H.-l.; Yu, L.; Meng, L.; Jian, D.; Yang, L.; et al. Genetic progress in stem lodging resistance of the dominant wheat cultivars adapted to Yellow-Huai River Valleys Winter Wheat Zone in China since 1964. J. Integr. Agric. 2020, 19, 438–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 11 01378 g001a 550Agronomy 11 01378 g001b 550
Figure 1. Sowing structures, sowing processes, and different field trials: (a) small-flat-plot mode; (b) high-low-plot mode; (c) sowing process by high-low border planter; (d) wheat plants grown in the small-flat-plot mode; (e) wheat plants grown in the high-low plot mode.
Figure 1. Sowing structures, sowing processes, and different field trials: (a) small-flat-plot mode; (b) high-low-plot mode; (c) sowing process by high-low border planter; (d) wheat plants grown in the small-flat-plot mode; (e) wheat plants grown in the high-low plot mode.
Agronomy 11 01378 g001aAgronomy 11 01378 g001b
Agronomy 11 01378 g002 550
Figure 2. Effects of sowing modes, cultivars, and their interactions on wheat yield and yield components. HG35: Hengguan 35; JM44: Jimai 44; HLP: high-low-plot sowing mode; SFP: small-flat-plot sowing mode. The same lowercase letters indicate that the difference between sowing modes was not significant. The same uppercase letters mean the difference between cultivars was not significant.
Figure 2. Effects of sowing modes, cultivars, and their interactions on wheat yield and yield components. HG35: Hengguan 35; JM44: Jimai 44; HLP: high-low-plot sowing mode; SFP: small-flat-plot sowing mode. The same lowercase letters indicate that the difference between sowing modes was not significant. The same uppercase letters mean the difference between cultivars was not significant.
Agronomy 11 01378 g002
Agronomy 11 01378 g003 550
Figure 3. Effects of sowing modes on culm lodging resistance index (CLRI). HG35: Hengguan 35; JM44: Jimai 44. HLP: high-low-plot sowing mode; SFP: small-flat-plot sowing mode. The same lowercase letters indicate that the difference between sowing modes was not significant. The same uppercase letters mean the difference between cultivars was not significant.
Figure 3. Effects of sowing modes on culm lodging resistance index (CLRI). HG35: Hengguan 35; JM44: Jimai 44. HLP: high-low-plot sowing mode; SFP: small-flat-plot sowing mode. The same lowercase letters indicate that the difference between sowing modes was not significant. The same uppercase letters mean the difference between cultivars was not significant.
Agronomy 11 01378 g003
Agronomy 11 01378 g004 550
Figure 4. Effects of sowing modes, cultivars, and their interactions on plant height, the center of gravity of height, and mechanical strength. HG35: Hengguan 35; JM44: Jimai 44. HLP: high-low-plot sowing mode; SFP: small-flat-plot sowing mode. The same lowercase letters indicate that the difference between sowing modes was not significant. The same uppercase letters mean the difference between cultivars was not significant.
Figure 4. Effects of sowing modes, cultivars, and their interactions on plant height, the center of gravity of height, and mechanical strength. HG35: Hengguan 35; JM44: Jimai 44. HLP: high-low-plot sowing mode; SFP: small-flat-plot sowing mode. The same lowercase letters indicate that the difference between sowing modes was not significant. The same uppercase letters mean the difference between cultivars was not significant.
Agronomy 11 01378 g004
Agronomy 11 01378 g005 550
Figure 5. Effects of sowing mode, cultivars, and their interactions on the morphological characteristics of culm second basal internodes. HG35: Hengguan 35; JM44: Jimai 44. HLP: high-low-plot sowing mode; SFP: small-flat-plot sowing mode. The same lowercase letters indicate that the difference between sowing modes was not significant. The same uppercase letters mean the difference between cultivars was not significant.
Figure 5. Effects of sowing mode, cultivars, and their interactions on the morphological characteristics of culm second basal internodes. HG35: Hengguan 35; JM44: Jimai 44. HLP: high-low-plot sowing mode; SFP: small-flat-plot sowing mode. The same lowercase letters indicate that the difference between sowing modes was not significant. The same uppercase letters mean the difference between cultivars was not significant.
Agronomy 11 01378 g005
Agronomy 11 01378 g006 550
Figure 6. Correlation analysis of morphological characteristics. COGH: the center of gravity height; MS: mechanical strength; CLRI: culm lodging resistance index; ellipse indicates significant difference at 0.01 level.
Figure 6. Correlation analysis of morphological characteristics. COGH: the center of gravity height; MS: mechanical strength; CLRI: culm lodging resistance index; ellipse indicates significant difference at 0.01 level.
Agronomy 11 01378 g006
Table
Table 1. Analysis of variance for sowing modes, cultivars, and their interactions on wheat yield and yield components.
Table 1. Analysis of variance for sowing modes, cultivars, and their interactions on wheat yield and yield components.
YearsCultivarsModesGY (ton/ha)SN (m−2)GNSTKW (g)
2019HG35HLP10.66 ± 0.16 aA788.33 ± 8.61 aB31.76 ± 0.27 aA42.70 ± 0.26 aB
SFP9.60 ± 0.031 bA696.67 ± 2.73 bA31.96 ± 0.39 aA42.75 ± 0.33 aB
JM44HLP7.80 ± 0.11 aB836.67 ± 6.77 aA18.50 ± 0.37 bB50.31 ± 0.66 aA
SFP6.25 ± 0.16 bB607.78 ± 6.48 bB22.09 ± 0.17 aB46.47 ± 0.58 bA
2020HG35HLP10.88 ± 0.13 aA795.00 ± 3.88 aB32.02 ± 0.67 aA42.32 ± 0.11 aB
SFP9.63 ± 0.06 bA690.00 ± 13.85 bA33.47 ± 0.85 aA41.52 ± 0.30 aB
JM44HLP7.71 ± 0.047 aB826.67 ± 2.60 aA18.74 ± 0.10 bB50.50 ± 0.38 aA
SFP6.33 ± 0.15 bB573.46 ± 3.53 bB23.50 ± 0.90 aB47.06 ± 0.68 bA
F-value
Year (Y) 0.5310.0410.0420.528
Cultivar (C) <0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Mode (M) <0.001<0.001<0.001<0.001
Y × C 0.4990.0050.9390.084
Y × M 0.9820.0760.1350.731
C × M 0.129<0.0010.001<0.001
Y × C × M 0.3710.6560.9630.344
HG35: Hengguan 35; JM44: Jimai 44; HLP: high-low-plot sowing mode; SFP: small-flat-plot sowing mode; GY: grain yield; SN: spike number per m2; GNS: grain number per spike; TKW: thousand kernel weight. The same lowercase letters indicate that the difference between sowing modes was not significant. The same uppercase letters mean the difference between cultivars was not significant.
Table
Table 2. Analysis of variance for sowing modes, cultivars, and their interactions on plant height, the center of gravity of height, and mechanical strength.
Table 2. Analysis of variance for sowing modes, cultivars, and their interactions on plant height, the center of gravity of height, and mechanical strength.
YearsCultivarsModesPH (cm)COGH (cm)MS
2019HG35HP70.57 ± 1.03 b49.29 ± 1.25 b5.67 ± 0.24 a
LP77.71 ± 0.97 a53.51 ± 0.82 ab6.45 ± 0.70 a
HLP74.14 ± 1.00 A51.4 ± 1.035 A6.06 ± 0.47 A
SFP79.54 ± 0.65 aB56.93 ± 0.58 aA5.94 ± 0.44 aA
JM44HP72.19 ± 2.86 b49.25 ± 1.45 b4.53 ± 0.26 a
LP73.87 ± 2.61 b51.03 ± 1.70 b5.10 ± 0.26 a
HLP73.03 ± 2.74 A50.14 ± 1.58 A4.82 ± 0.26 B
SFP85.24 ± 0.98 aA56.53 ± 1.53 aA5.24 ± 0.25 aA
2020HG35HP69.28 ± 1.96 b48.13 ± 1.48 b6.74 ± 0.34 a
LP78.37 ± 1.34 a55.70 ± 0.57 a6.00 ± 0.34 a
HLP73.83 ±1.65 A51.92 ± 1.03 A6.37 ± 0.34 A
SFP79.81 ± 0.53 aB55.89 ± 0.36 aA6.37 ± 0.23 aA
JM44HP69.35 ± 1.27 c46.94 ± 1.26 c5.06 ± 0.38 a
LP82.58 ± 1.95 b53.99 ± 2.63 b5.05 ± 0.31 a
HLP75.97 ± 1.61 A50.47 ± 1.95 A5.06 ± 0.35 B
SFP88.48 ± 0.50 aA59.99 ± 0.55 aA4.87 ± 0.36 aB
F-value
Year (Y) 0.1230.3830.37
Cultivar (C) 0.0060.714< 0.001
Mode (M) < 0.001< 0.0010.84
Y × C 0.0970.3790.47
Y × M 0.020.0850.13
C × M 0.0080.1280.81
Y × C × M 0.1210.3280.48
HG35: Hengguan 35; JM44: Jimai 44. HLP: high-low-plot sowing mode; SFP: small-flat-plot sowing mode. PH: plant height; COGH: the center of gravity height; MS: mechanical strength. The same lowercase letters indicate that the difference between sowing modes was not significant. The same uppercase letters mean the difference between cultivars was not significant.
Table
Table 3. Analysis of variance for sowing modes, cultivars, and their interactions on the morphological characteristics of culm second basal internodes.
Table 3. Analysis of variance for sowing modes, cultivars, and their interactions on the morphological characteristics of culm second basal internodes.
YearsCultivarsModesSecond Basal Internode
Length (mm)Diameter (mm)Wall Thickness (mm)Dry Weight (mg)Stem Filling
Degree (mg/mm)
2019HG35HP 68.93 ± 4.53 a 3.55 ± 0.07 a 0.42 ± 0.00 a 85.85 ± 4.23 b 1.29 ± 0.09 a
LP 77.33 ± 3.77 a 3.82 ± 0.09 a 0.48 ± 0.05 a 102.71 ± 5.12 a 1.35 ± 0.06 a
HLP 73.13 ± 4.15 B 3.69 ± 0.08 A 0.45 ± 0.03 A 94.28 ± 4.68 A 1.32 ± 0.08 A
SFP 79.4 ± 7.10 aB 3.83 ± 0.12 aB 0.45 ± 0.02 aA 96.51 ± 4.31 abB 1.25 ± 0.09 aA
JM44HP 99.60 ± 5.97 a 3.77 ± 0.06 b 0.37 ± 0.01 a 103.52 ± 6.32 b 1.06 ± 0.07 b
LP 92.78 ± 7.68 a 3.99 ± 0.06 b 0.43 ± 0.02 a 113.81 ± 5.24 ab 1.31 ± 0.10 a
HLP 96.19 ± 6.83 A 3.88 ± 0.06 A 0.40 ± 0.02 A 108.67 ± 5.78 A 1.19 ± 0.09 A
SFP 101.33 ± 5.44 aA 4.46 ± 0.13 aA 0.37 ± 0.00 aB 128.17 ± 5.14 aA 1.22 ± 0.07 aA
2020HG35HP 71.07 ± 3.96 a 3.66 ± 0.06 a 0.44 ± 0.00 a 87.49 ± 3.63 a 1.26 ± 0.07 a
LP 72.93 ± 2.61 a 3.67 ± 0.06 a 0.47 ± 0.03 a 98.62 ± 2.56 a 1.40 ± 0.03 a
HLP 72.00 ± 3.29 B 3.67 ± 0.06 A 0.46 ± 0.02 A 93.06 ± 3.10 A 1.33 ± 0.05 A
SFP 75.67 ± 2.88 aB 3.82 ± 0.05 aB 0.47 ± 0.00 aA 94.15 ± 4.23 aB 1.29 ± 0.05 aA
JM44HP88.53 ± 2.97 b3.65 ± 0.02 b0.39 ± 0.01 a101.81 ± 6.23 b 1.20 ± 0.05 a
LP98.67 ± 3.00 ab4.09 ± 0.18 a0.37 ± 0.02 a118.19 ± 5.78 ab 1.20 ± 0.05 a
HLP93.60 ± 2.99 A3.97 ± 0.10 A0.38 ± 0.02 B110.00 ± 6.01 A 1.20 ± 0.05 A
SFP104.93 ± 5.04 aA4.18 ± 0.09 aA0.37 ± 0.02 aB128.49 ± 5.34 aA 1.26 ± 0.06 aA
F-value
Year (Y) 0.660.640.960.810.81
Cultivar (C) <0.001<0.001<0.001<0.0010.09
Mode (M) 0.07<0.0010.12<0.0010.07
Y × C 0.800.860.340.320.79
Y × M 0.720.260.150.920.71
C × M 0.760.020.530.090.25
Y × C × M 0.200.020.650.190.20
HG35: Hengguan 35; JM 44: Jimai 44. HLP: high-low-plot sowing mode; SFP: small-flat-plot sowing mode. The same lowercase letters indicate that the difference between sowing modes was not significant. The same uppercase letters mean the difference between cultivars was not significant.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wu, L.; Han, X.; Islam, S.; Zhai, S.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, G.; Cui, G.; Zhang, F.; Han, W.; You, X.; et al. Effects of Sowing Mode on Lodging Resistance and Grain Yield in Winter Wheat. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1378. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071378

AMA Style

Wu L, Han X, Islam S, Zhai S, Zhao H, Zhang G, Cui G, Zhang F, Han W, You X, et al. Effects of Sowing Mode on Lodging Resistance and Grain Yield in Winter Wheat. Agronomy. 2021; 11(7):1378. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071378

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wu, Lifeng, Xiaowei Han, Shahidul Islam, Shengnan Zhai, Hui Zhao, Guoshun Zhang, Gangzhu Cui, Feng Zhang, Wenliang Han, Xiaosheng You, and et al. 2021. "Effects of Sowing Mode on Lodging Resistance and Grain Yield in Winter Wheat" Agronomy 11, no. 7: 1378. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11071378

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop