Next Article in Journal
CLT-YOLOX: Improved YOLOX Based on Cross-Layer Transformer for Object Detection Method Regarding Insect Pest
Next Article in Special Issue
Metals Contained in Various Formulations of Mineral Nitrogen Fertilizers Determined Using Portable X-ray Fluorescence
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Sea Rice Planting on Enzymatic Activity and Microbial Community of Coastal Soils: Focus on Proteinase
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Long-Term Soil Management Practices on Carbon Emissions from Corn (Zea mays L.) Production in Northeast Croatia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/agronomy13082090
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

Comparing the Grain Yields and Other Properties of Old and New Wheat Cultivars

by
Darija Bilandžija
1,*,
Željka Zgorelec
1,
Marija Galić
1,
Mateja Grubor
2,
Tajana Krička
2,
Zvonimir Zdunić
3 and
Nikola Bilandžija
2
1
Division of Agroecology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska cesta 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
2
Division for Agricultural Engineering and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zagreb, Svetošimunska cesta 25, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
3
Agricultural Institute Osijek, Južno predgrađe 17, 31000 Osijek, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2023, 13(8), 2090; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13082090
Submission received: 30 June 2023 / Revised: 2 August 2023 / Accepted: 7 August 2023 / Published: 9 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Circular Agricultural Food Production Systems)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Selecting cultivars with greater biomass results in higher yields and greater carbon sequestration. Storage of atmospheric carbon in the plant/soil pool contributes not only to food security but also to mitigating climate change and other agroecological benefits. The objective of this study was to determine: (1) grain, residue, and root biomass yields; (2) harvest indexes; (3) residue-to-product ratio; (4) root-to-shoot ratio; (5) biomass carbon and nitrogen contents; and (6) C:N ratios for two new and two old winter wheat cultivars. The greatest yield difference was found between old Srpanjka (the lowest) and new Kraljica (the highest) cultivar where grain, residue, root, and total biomass yield was higher by 38%, 91%, 71%, and 64%, respectively. Total biomass was composed of 40–47% grain, 10–11% roots, 32–36% stems + leaves, 9–11% chaff, and 1–2% spindle. The range of HI was 0.45–0.53, RPR 0.91–1.25, and R:S ratio 0.12–0.13. For all cultivars, positive carbon and negative nitrogen balance within the plant pool was determined. Still, root biomass and rhizodeposition carbon remain open questions for a better understanding of agroecosystems’ C dynamics.

1. Introduction

Climate change is affecting the entire world, with extreme weather conditions such as drought, heat waves, heavy rains, floods, landslides, ocean acidification, and loss of biodiversity. Humanity must make enormous efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and prevent further warming of the Earth’s atmosphere and other negative impacts of climate change. Limiting global warming to 2 °C requires global carbon neutrality by 2070, while a 1.5 °C target requires global carbon neutrality by 2050 [1]. To achieve a net-zero emissions target, every possible solution is important if unprecedented climate change is to be halted. In addition to transitioning to clean energy systems and decarbonizing emissions-intensive practices, methods such as biological carbon sequestration show how we can work with the natural environment to address the climate crisis.
Biological carbon sequestration is the storage of atmospheric carbon in vegetation such as annual and perennial plants, grasslands, or forests, as well as in soils and oceans. Soil, as a potential carbon (C) sink, can be a key factor in addressing climate change [2], as it is the second largest carbon sink, contains twice as much carbon as the atmosphere, three times as much carbon as vegetation, and is also an important sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) [3]. Storing carbon in the plant/soil pool not only achieves the goal of reducing atmospheric CO2, but also improves soil health, leading to higher yields, nutrient contents, and other agroecological benefits such as reduced soil erosion and soil moisture retention [4].
In addition, nitrogen (N) input from crop residues is an important source of the soil N pool [5], the concentration of which largely determines the rate of residue decomposition. Taken together, C and N from crop residues contribute significantly to the belowground food web [6]. Therefore, precise and accurate estimation of C and N inputs from crop residues is critical for agroecological models and studies assessing nutrient pools, cycles, budgets, and soil quality [7,8] for designing sustainable agricultural food production systems.
Predicting changes in carbon stocks (especially in soils) therefore depends on reliable estimates of net primary productivity (NPP) and the fraction of NPP that is returned to the soil [9,10,11,12,13]. Ref. [14] defined NPP as the increase in plant mass plus losses (such as mortality) summed for above- and belowground fraction per unit area per unit time. Annual NPP in agroecosystems and the distribution of C and N in plant parts are usually calculated from agricultural yield, the most commonly measured plant component. C input from aboveground residues after harvest (i.e., straw) is estimated from grain yields using ‘harvest index’ (HI) or similar regression relationships, and C input from belowground residues is calculated from root-to-shoot (R:S) ratios [12,15]. These approaches are useful, but better estimates of crop NPP are needed to adequately assess regional and national contributions of agriculture to the global nutrient budget [16].
Therefore, the aim of this study is to determine morphological properties, total annual NPP, biomass distribution, harvest indexes, residue-to-product ratio, root-to-shoot ratio, carbon and nitrogen allocation patterns, and C:N ratio for two old and two new winter wheat cultivars (old: Srpanjka and Renata, new: El Nino and Kraljica) grown in the continental part of Croatia. The results of this study can be used to define future strategies for sustainable field management, breeding programs, decision making and modeling, to estimate changes in soil C and N content in winter wheat agroecosystems of continental Croatia and elsewhere.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site, Soil Properties, Climate Conditions, Agrotechnical Measures

A study of four different winter wheat cultivars was conducted during the 2020/2021 growing season at experimental site near Osijek city, continental Croatia (φ = 45°31′56.47″ N, λ = 18°44′16.07″ E; 90 m a.s.l).
In 2020, before the beginning of the research, soil samples (0–30 cm) were collected to determine the physical and chemical soil properties. The soil at the experimental site has a silty-loam texture with a content of 2.33% sand, 56% silt, and 41.67% clay. The water holding capacity is 37.7%, air holding capacity is 10.2%, soil porosity is 47.8%, and bulk density is 1.39 g cm−3. The soil pHKCl amount is 7.24, and the soil contains 2.3% of humus, 0.11% of total nitrogen, 1.25% of total carbon, 0.06% of total sulfur, 17.9 mg of P2O5, and 15.5 mg of K2O per 100 g of soil.
The studied area has a continental climate [17]. The multi-year average air temperature (1991–2018) is 11.7 °C, precipitation 707 mm, evapotranspiration 590 mm per year, soil water deficit occurs in the period from July to September, and water surplus in the period from December to March [18]. The climatic analysis of the studied vegetation period is conducted according to climate elements data (mean air temperature and precipitation amount) of the Croatian Meteorological and Hydrological Service, main meteorological station Osijek-Čepin (φ = 45°30′9″ N, λ = 18° 33′41″ E; 89 m a.s.l). Climatic conditions in the 2020/2021 growing season differed from those of the 1991–2018 multiyear average according to [19]. The average air temperature of the 2020/2021 growing season was 10.8 °C, which was 0.9 °C lower than the 1991–2018 average. A difference was also observed in precipitation between the studied growing season and the multi-year average, with 56 mm less precipitation in 2020/2021 compared to the 1991–2018 period. Moreover, evapotranspiration was lower in the studied period and soil water deficit occurred only in June by 98 mm, while in the recent period 1991–2018 evapotranspiration averaged 415 mm and soil water deficit occurred already in April [19]. For more on climatic conditions in the 2020/2021 growing season, see [19].
The culture on the field before the experiment was establishment was soybean. Agrotechnical measures at the experimental field, i.e., tillage, fertilization, planting/harvesting dates, weed, and pest control, can be found in [19].

2.2. Wheat Cultivars

The experiment includes a control plot and 4 different winter wheat cultivars bred by the Agricultural Institute Osijek. The studied variants were:
  • C—control, bare soil—black fallow
  • S—winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Srpanjka cultivar—old cultivar, very early growing cultivar with average yield of 10 t ha−1, very low habitus (64 cm), plant density 9,110,000 plants ha−1
  • R—winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Renata cultivar—old cultivar, medium early growing cultivar with average yield of 11 t ha−1, low habitus (65 cm), plant density 11,170,000 plants ha−1
  • EN—winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) El Nino cultivar—new cultivar, early growing cultivar ty with average yield of 11 t ha−1, high habitus (73 cm), plant density 10,670,000 plants ha−1
  • K—winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Kraljica cultivar—new cultivar, medium early growing cultivar with average yield of 11 t ha−1, high habitus (75 cm), plant density 12,320,000 plants ha−1
More on wheat cultivars can be found at [20].

2.3. Biomass Sampling

NPP includes all plant fractions, so plant biomass was divided into three fractions (gr-grains; res-residues; r-roots), expressed in units of mass per unit area. Biomass sampling was conducted during the wheat harvest in July 2021 by destructively harvesting plant biomass from randomly selected 1 m2 to a depth of 30 cm in three replicates. Biomass samples of each wheat cultivar (Srpanjka, Renata, El Nino, Kraljica) were stored in sampling bags and transported to the laboratory, where plants were divided into above- and belowground biomass. Aboveground biomass was separated into grains and vegetative aboveground biomass (stem + leaves + chaff + spindle), air-dried and weighed. Belowground biomass was cleaned (washed) from soil particles, air-dried and weighed. Part of the stem and tillers that were beneath the soil surface are considered as part of the belowground biomass in this study and extra-root C was not taken into account (rhizodeposition).

2.4. Harvest Index (HI), Residue-to-Product Ratio (RPR) and Root-to-Shoot Ratio (R:S)

Grain yields of major crops in Croatia are available in the national database [21], but neither their vegetative shoot nor root biomass is available. Prior to 1970, HI was neither measured nor reported in the literature [22]. However, since its introduction for comparing improvements in cereal varieties through plant breeding, HI has been widely estimated for a variety of species, cultivars, and growing conditions. The harvest index, residue-to-product ratio, and root-to-shoot ratio are calculated as follows:
Harvest index (HI):
HI = Ygr/Ygr + Yres
The residue-to-product ratio (RPR):
RPR = Yres/Ygr
The root-to-shoot ratio (R:S):
R:S = Yr/Ygr + Yres
where:
Ygr—yield of grain biomass (t/ha)
Yres—yield of aboveground residue biomass (stem + leaves + chaff + spindle—the total aboveground biomass excluding the harvested grain) (t/ha)
Yr—yield of belowground biomass (root) (t/ha)

2.5. Carbon and Nitrogen Balances

The carbon and nitrogen balances represent the difference between the carbon/nitrogen sink and source. The carbon/nitrogen sink represents the amount of carbon/nitrogen that remains in the agroecosystem, and the carbon/nitrogen source represents the amount of carbon/nitrogen that is removed from the agroecosystem. In this analysis, only the grain was considered to be source of carbon i.e., nitrogen, so balances of carbon (CBp) and nitrogen (NBp) within the plant pool were calculated as follows:
CBp = (Cres + Cr) − Cgr
NBp = (Nres + Nr) − Ngr

2.6. Laboratory Analysis

Total carbon and nitrogen content in above- and belowground biomass were determined simultaneously using the dry combustion method. Samples of biomass were dried in an oven (Nueve, FN 120, Turkey) at 105 °C to a constant weight, weighed (Sartorius CP 64; d = 0.1 mg, Germany), and analyzed using the Vario Macro CHNS analyzer (Elementar, Germany). Total biomass carbon content was determined according to the protocol [23] and total nitrogen content according to the protocol [24]. To obtain carbon and nitrogen yields in t/ha, the dry matter yield of each biomass fraction is multiplied by the carbon and nitrogen concentrations of each fraction.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SAS 9.1 statistical software (SAS Inst. Inc., 2002–2004, Cary, NC, USA). Variability among the studied plant cultivars was analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and, if necessary, tested with the Fisher post-hoc t test. The significance threshold for all analyses was 5%. The quality management system (QM) is in accordance with good laboratory practices and includes internal and external quality controls (QC).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Morphological Properties and NPP

Analysis of variance showed that the different wheat cultivars had significantly different morphological characteristics (Table 1). The number of stems per m2 ranged from 729–945, with an average stem height of 64–73 cm and 6.4–7.6 cm ear height. The greatest difference in the number of stems was found between Srpanjka (old cultivar—the lowest number) and Kraljica (new cultivar—the highest number). The lowest cultivar is Srpanjka and the highest is El Nino, while the lowest ear length was determined for Renata and the highest for El Nino (Table 1). The number of stems is consistent with the plant density of the studied cultivars [20]. The stem height of the studied cultivars is also consistent with [20], with the exception of Kraljica, whose height is expected to be the highest among the other studied cultivars [20].
Analysis of variance showed that average dry matter yields of residues, roots, and total biomass differ statistically significantly for different wheat cultivars while average dry matter grain yield did not (Table 2). Grain, residue, root, and total biomass yields ranged from 6.8–9.4 t/ha, 6.1–11.7 t/ha, 1.5–2.6 t/ha, and 14.4–23.6 t/ha, respectively (Table 2).
Data on crop yields are readily available, while data on residue yields are very limited, because the goal of agricultural production has always been to maximize yields, while total biomass yield has not been considered important. Based on a large data set, Ref. [25] determined a range of 1.4–22.25 t/ha shoot dry matter (n = 1015) and grain yield of 1.9–8.6 t/ha (n = 14,535) for Australian wheat varieties. Ref. [26] determined shoot dry matter of 4.9–6.22 t/ha and root yield of 2.61–3.97 t/ha for Australian wheat cultivars at anthesis. The lower root dry matter values obtained could be partly due to weight loss during storage between collection of roots and weighing or measuring, and washing techniques. Significant differences were found between Srpanjka and Kraljica cultivars in yields of residues, roots, and total biomass, while yields of the other cultivars studied were not significantly different (Table 2). When comparing the yields of Srpanjka (the lowest) and Kraljica (the highest), Kraljica was found to have higher yields of grain, residue, root and in total by 38%, 91%, 71%, and 64%, respectively. In several studies, the yield of modern cultivars was higher than that of older ones [26,27,28]. In addition to the development of new cultivars, management practices, pest and disease control, and fertilization are the most important factors contributing to increased crop yields [28,29,30]. Selecting varieties with greater biomass helps mitigate climate change by removing a greater amount of carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it in the plant biomass, which eventually is stored in the long-term into the soil pool. In addition to biomass yields, specific root characteristics or rhizodeposition processes should be investigated in further research in order to better understand carbon storage dynamics in agroecosystems. In this study, the observed differences in grain, residue, and root biomass yields between old and new wheat cultivars can be attributed solely to genetic factors, since all agrotechnical measures and agroecological conditions were the same for all cultivars studied.
Depending on the wheat cultivar, the proportion of each fraction in the total biomass is 40–47% of the grain, 10–11% of the root, 32–36% of the stem and leaves, 9–11% of the chaff, and 1–2% of the spindle (Figure 1). This similar plant fraction distribution in new and old cultivars differs from the study by [26], who found that old cultivars had a significantly higher proportion of root dry matter in the top 40 cm of soil than new cultivars. Crop partitioning studies of wheat biomass in Canada suggest that the proportion of root, grain, and residue biomass is 19%, 38%, and 44%, respectively, at a dry matter grain yield of 8 t/ha [31,32].
The greatest uncertainty in deriving NPP may lie in estimating belowground NPP (including inputs from roots, exudates, and other root-derived organic materials from root turnover), one of the most poorly understood properties of terrestrial ecosystems [33]. Quantifying these belowground C inputs, particularly from exudates and other ephemeral root materials, is difficult and remains a focus of research [10,34,35,36].

3.2. Harvest Index (HI), Residue-to-Product Ratio (RPR) and Root-to-Shoot Ratio (R:S)

Harvest index (HI) and residue-to-product ratio (RPR), as opposed to root-to-shoot ratio (R:S), differed significantly among the studied wheat cultivars (Table 3). The highest HI was determined for Srpanjka (0.53), and the lowest for the Kraljica (0.45). Srpanjka and El Nino have the lowest residue-to-product ratio (0.91 and 0.98, respectively) and Kraljica has the highest one (1.25). Root-to-shoot ratio does not differ significantly among the studied cultivars and ranges from 0.12–0.13.
Globally, HI has increased since the Green Revolution [37] due to genetic improvement through plant breeding [38,39]. Some studies found that the HI increase of various crops was significantly correlated with grain yield [37,40], while other studies showed little or no correlation between residues and grain yield [41]. Recently, ref. [37] found an average increase in HI for cereals from 0.35 in 1951–1955 to 0.45 in 1995–2010 in Germany. The average HI estimated for Australia (n = 1266) ranged from 0.08–0.56 [20]. Although HI has generally increased over time, in this study, the average HI of old cultivars (0.50) is higher than the average of modern cultivars (0.48). This can be attributed to greater plant height of modern cultivars compared to old ones, which have decreased harvest index and increased root size.
The residue-to-product ratio is very specific to the crop type and cultivar. It is very difficult to make a simple estimate of this ratio, because it is influenced by climatic and soil conditions and agricultural practices such as tillage, planting density, fertilization, etc. [42,43,44]. Available data on RPR have a large scatter as they are reported for different crop cultivars, cropping methods, climatic conditions, etc., and the correlations found vary accordingly. The literature reports a wide range of variation in the RPR from 0.6 to 1.8 [39,42,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51] and the RPR determined in this study is within this indicated range (average 1.01 for old cultivars and 1.11 for modern ones).
Root growth and R:S ratio in one study in any environment cannot reveal the full extent of genetic variation among crops and cultivars. The R:S ratio at maturity for many cultivars is about 0.10 [52], and the RSR for a soil depth of 0–30 cm for wheat in Canada was 0.157 [32], which is consistent with the results of this study. A study in Western Australia [26] found a higher average R:S ratio (about 0.40) at maturity than reported elsewhere, and the authors suggested that the large soil moisture deficits and high temperatures around anthesis and in the post-anthesis period were the cause.

3.3. Biomass Carbon and Nitrogen

Carbon content in total biomass ranged from 6.1–10.4 t/ha, and a significant difference in total carbon content was found only between Srpanjka and Kraljica (Table 4). Considering the distribution of carbon, all studied cultivars store the smallest amount of carbon in the root system, with a range of 0.6–1 t/ha. The Srpanjka and El Nino store a greater amount of carbon in the grain (2.9 and 4.3 t/ha, respectively) than in the residue (2.6 and 4.1 t/ha, respectively). Conversely, the Renata and Kraljica store less carbon in the grain (3.6 and 4.3 t/ha, respectively) than in the residue (3.9 and 5 t/ha, respectively). The average percentage of carbon in grain is 45.3%, in residue 43.9%, in root 40.5% and in total biomass 43.4%.
Even if total root biomass were accurately measured at maturity, biomass alone would still underestimate the total amount of C derived from roots, because rhizodeposition was not measured. Estimates suggest that 2.5 to 6 times the amount of C taken up into root biomass can be represented as rhizodeposition [53], while [7] estimated that this additional C input represents about 65% of soil biomass for all crops, based on measured roots.
Nitrogen content in total biomass was not significantly different among the studied cultivars and ranged from 0.19 to 0.28 t/ha (Table 5). No differences were also observed in the nitrogen content in the root, which ranged from 0.0013 to 0.0018 t/ha. All studied cultivars had the highest amount of nitrogen in the grain (on average 2.18%), then in root (on average 0.66%), and the lowest amount in residue (on average 0.57%), respectively.
Similar to the results of this study, wheat biomass nitrogen concentration studies in Canada estimate that the average N concentration in grain, residue, and root biomass is 2.6% 0.66%, and 1.1%, respectively [31,32]. Similar results were obtained by [54], who found nitrogen concentrations of 2.7% in grain and 0.44% in straw.
The significant difference between the studied cultivars in the C:N ratio was found for all studied plant parts (Table 6). On average, the highest C:N ratio was in, respectively, residue (78:1), root (63:1) and grain (21:1), while average C:N ratio of total biomass is 44:1.
C:N ratios vary by environment and growth stage. A study shows that tissues with lower C:N ratios decompose relatively faster compared to tissues with higher C:N ratios [55]. Although it is often assumed that a low C:N ratio promotes nutrient release and SOM stabilization, results are contradictory and a study suggests that the formation and stabilization of SOC is more influenced by the quantity of residue input and its interaction with the soil than by the quality of residue input [56]. Root characteristics such as specific root length could be important factors contributing to these conflicting results, as fine roots may lead to greater microbial C-use efficiency and soil organic matter stabilization than coarse roots [57]. Root C:N ratio, which is critical for predicting soil organic matter (SOM) dynamics, also varies by environment and growth stage. Root C:N ratio is the most important indicator of crop residue quality, which influences nutrient availability and SOM stabilization in the short and long term [56,57,58,59,60]. The timing of root measurements is also a very important aspect as postharvest measurements are not accurate, as roots have already undergone some decomposition [61].
The carbon and nitrogen balances that represent difference between the carbon/nitrogen sink (in root and residue biomass) and source (in grain biomass) are presented in Table 7. The carbon balances of the plant pool are positive for all studied wheat cultivars, where the lowest carbon balance is determined for the Srpanjka cultivar (0.3 t/ha) and the highest one for the Kraljica cultivar (1.7 t/ha). Nitrogen balances of all studied wheat cultivars are negative, and are in the range of −0.09 (Srpanjka)–−1.15 t/ha (El Nino).

4. Conclusions

Determined variations within studied wheat cultivars represents important information for selecting genotypes aimed at providing food security, increasing soil carbon and nitrogen stocks, mitigating climate change, and bringing other agroecological benefits. Depending on the wheat cultivar, yields of grain, residue, root and total biomass were in the range of 6.8–9.4 t/ha, 6.1–11.7 t/ha, 1.5–2.6 t/ha and 14.4–23.6 t/ha, respectively. Although harvest indexes of wheat cultivars have increased over the last century, in this study, the average HI of old cultivars (0.50) is higher than the average of new ones (0.48), while root-to-shoot ratios remained the same. The carbon and nitrogen balances within the plant pool showed that, by careful selection of genotypes, higher carbon inputs to the soil or reduced nitrogen losses can be achieved.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.B.; Methodology, D.B., N.B. and Ž.Z.; Software, Ž.Z. and D.B.; Formal analysis, D.B.; Investigation, D.B., M.G. (Marija Galić), M.G. (Mateja Grubor), Z.Z. and N.B.; Writing—original draft, D.B.; Writing—review & editing, Ž.Z. and N.B.; Supervision, T.K. and Z.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by European union from Operational Program Competitiveness and cohesion of European Regional Development Fund via project via project “Production of food, biocomposites and biofuels from cereals in the circular bioeconomy” (grant number KK.05.1.1.02.0016). The publication was supported by the Open Access Publication Fund of the University of Zagreb Faculty of Agriculture.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Global Warming of 1.5 °C: An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C above Pre-Industrial Levels and Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 1–631. [Google Scholar]
  2. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Land Use, Land Use Change, and Forestry; Watson, R.W., Noble, I.A., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N.H., Verardo, D.J., Dokken, D.J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bilandžija, D.; Zgorelec, Ž.; Kisić, I. Influence of Tillage Practices and Crop Type on Soil CO2 Emissions. Sustainability 2016, 8, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Wang, X.; McConkey, B.G.; VandenBygaart, A.J.; Fan, J.; Iwaasa, A.; Schellenberg, M. Grazing improves C and N cycling in the Northern Great Plains: A meta-analysis. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 33190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Cassman, K.G.; Dobermann, A.; Walters, D.T. Agroecosystems, nitrogen-use efficiency, and nitrogen management. Ambio 2002, 31, 132–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Malhi, S.S.; Nyborg, M.; Goddard, T.; Puurveen, D. Long-Term Tillage, Straw Management, and Nitrogen Fertilization Effects on Organic Matter and Mineralizable Carbon and Nitrogen in a Black Chernozem Soil. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2012, 43, 2679–2690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bolinder, M.; Janzen, H.; Gregorich, E.; Angers, D.; VandenBygaart, A. An approach for estimating net primary productivity and annual carbon inputs to soil for common agricultural crops in Canada. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 118, 29–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fan, J.; McConkey, B.; Wang, H.; Janzen, H. Root distribution by depth for temperate agricultural crops. Field Crops Res. 2016, 189, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Paustian, K.; Collins, H.P.; Paul, E.A. Management controls on soil carbon. In Soil Organic Matter in Temperate Agroecosystems; Long-Term Experiments in North, America; Paul, E.A., Paustian, K.H., Elliott, E.T., Cole, V.C., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1997; pp. 15–49. [Google Scholar]
  10. Grogan, P.; Matthews, R. A modelling analysis of the potential for soil carbon sequestration under short rotation coppice willow bioenergy plantations. Soil Use Manag. 2002, 18, 175–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bolinder, M.A.; VandenBygaart, A.J.; Gregorich, E.G.; Angers, D.A.; Janzen, H.H. Modelling soil organic carbon stock change for estimating whole-farm greenhouse gas emissions. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2006, 86, 419–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Campbell, C.; Zentner, R.P.; Liang, B.-C.; Roloff, G.; Gregorich, E.C.; Blomert, B. Organic C accumulation in soil over 30 years in semiarid southwestern Saskatchewan—Effect of crop rotations and fertilizers. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2000, 80, 179–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Izaurralde, R.; McGill, W.; Robertson, J.; Juma, N.; Thurston, J. Carbon Balance of the Breton Classical Plots over Half a Century. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2001, 65, 431–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Scurlock, J.M.; Olson, R.J. Terrestrial net primary productivity—A brief history and a new worldwide database. Environ. Rev. 2002, 10, 91–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bolinder, M.A. Contribution to the Understanding of Soil Organic C Dynamics for Eastern Canadian Agroecosystems. Ph.D. Thesis, Université Laval, Ste-Foy, QC, USA, 2004; 125p. [Google Scholar]
  16. Prince, S.D.; Haskett, J.; Steininger, M.; Strand, H.; Wright, R. Net primary production of U.S. Midwest croplands from agricultural harvest yield data. Ecol. Appl. 2001, 11, 1194–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gajić-Čapka, M.; Zaninović, K. Climate. In Climate Atlas of Croatia 1961–1990. 1971–2000; Zaninović, K., Ed.; Meteorological and Hydrological Service: Zagreb, Croatia, 2008; pp. 11–15. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bilandžija, D.; Martinčić, S. Agroclimatic conditions of the Osijek area during referent (1961–1990) and recent (1991–2018) climate periods. Hrvat. Meteorološki Časopis 2021, 54/55, 55–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bilandžija, D.; Zgorelec, Ž.; Bilandžija, N.; Zdunić, Z.; Krička, T. Contribution of Winter Wheat and Barley Cultivars to Climate Change via Soil Respiration in Continental Croatia. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. AIO (Agricultural Institute Osijek). Catalogue—Wheat, Barley Triticale; Peas Cultivars: Osijek, Croatia, 2021; p. 48. Available online: https://www.poljinos.hr/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/POLJINOS_KATALOG_JESEN_2021.pdf (accessed on 22 May 2023).
  21. Croatian Bureau of Statistics. 2018 Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Croatia; Croatian Bureau of Statistics: Zagreb, Croatia, 2018; p. 582. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hay, R.K.M. Harvest index: A review of its use in plant breeding and crop physiology. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1995, 126, 197–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. HRN ISO 10694 2004; Kakvoća tla—Određivanje Organskoga i Ukupnog Ugljika Suhim Spaljivanjem (Elementarna Analiza). (ISO 10694:1995). Croatian Standards Institute: Zagreb, Croatia, 2004.
  24. HRN ISO 13878:2004; Kakvoća tla—Određivanje Sadržaja Ukupnog Dušika Suhim Spaljivanjem (“Elementarna Analiza”). (ISO 13878:1998). Croatian Standards Institute: Zagreb, Croatia, 2004.
  25. Unkovich, M.J.; Baldock, J.; Forbes, M. Australian Crop Yields and Harvest Indices (Microsoft Access Database); CSIRO Land and Water: Adelaide, Australia, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  26. Siddique, K.H.M.; Belford, R.K.; Tennant, D. Root: Shoot ratio of old and modern, tall and semidwarf wheat in a Meditertanean environment. Plant Soil 1990, 121, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, X.; Chen, S.; Sun, H.; Wang, Y.; Shao, L. Root size, distribution and soil water depletion as affected by cultivars and environmental factors. Field Crops Res. 2009, 114, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhou, Y.; He, Z.H.; Sui, X.X.; Xia, X.C.; Zhang, X.K.; Zhang, G.S. Genetic Improvement of Grain Yield and Associated Traits in the Northern China Winter Wheat Region from 1960 to 2000. Crop. Sci. 2007, 47, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Evans, L.T. Crop Evolution, Adaptation and Yield; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hubbart, S.; Peng, S.; Horton, P.; Chen, Y.; Murchie, E.H. Trends in leaf photosynthesis in historical rice varieties develped in the Philippines since 1966. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 3429–3438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Janzen, H.; Beauchemin, K.; Bruinsma, Y.; Campbell, C.; Desjardins, R.; Ellert, B.; Smith, E. The fate of nitrogen in agroecosystems: An illustration using Canadian estimates. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2003, 67, 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Thiagarajan, A.; Fan, J.; McConkey, B.G.; Janzen, H.H.; Campbell, C.A. Dry matter partitioning and residue N content for 11 major field crops in Canada adjusted for rooting depth and yield. Can. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 98, 574–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Laurenroth, W.K. Methods of estimating belowground net primary production. In Methods in Ecosystem Ecology; Sala, O.E., Jackson, R.B., Mooney, H.A., Howarth, R.W., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2000; pp. 58–71. [Google Scholar]
  34. Balesdent, J.; Balabane, M. Major contribution of roots to soil carbon storage inferred from maize cultivated soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1996, 28, 1261–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gill, R.A.; Kelly, R.H.; Parton, W.J.; Day, K.A.; Jackson, R.B.; Morgan, J.A.; Scurlock, J.M.O.; Tieszen, L.L.; Castle, J.V.; Ojima, D.S.; et al. Using simple environmental variables to estimate below-ground productivity in grasslands. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 2002, 11, 79–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kuzyakov, Y.; Domanski, G. Carbon input by plants into the soil. Rev. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2000, 163, 421–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wiesmeier, M.; Hübner, R.; Dechow, R.; Maier, H.; Spörlein, P.; Geuß, U.; Hangen, E.; Reischl, A.; Schilling, B.; von Lützow, M.; et al. Estimation of past and recent carbon input by crops into agricultural soils of southeast Germany. Eur. J. Agron. 2014, 61, 10–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kumudini, S. Trials and tribulations: A review of the role of assimilate supply in soybean genetic yield improvement. Field Crop. Res. 2002, 75, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Johnson, J.M.F.; Allmaras, R.R.; Reicosky, D.C. Estimating source carbon from crop residues, roots and rhizodeposits using the grain-yield database. Agron. J. 2006, 98, 622–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Wilhelm, W.W.; Johnson, J.M.F.; Hatfield, J.L.; Voorhees, W.B.; Linden, D.R. Crop and soil productivity response to corn residue removal: A literature review. Agron. J. 2004, 96, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lee, C.; Grove, J. Straw Yields from Six Small Grain Varieties 2003–2004 and 2004–2005 Growing Seasons; University of Kentucky: Lexington, KY, USA, 2006; Available online: http://www.uky.edu/Ag/GrainCrops/Research/Research_pdf/SmallGrains_StrawYields2005.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2023).
  42. Patterson, P.E.; Makus, L.; Momont, P.; Robertson, L. The Availability, Alternative Uses and Value of Straw in Idaho; Final Report of the Project BDK251; Idaho Wheat Commission, College of Agriculture, University of Idaho: Moscow, ID, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  43. Linden, D.; Clapp, C.; Dowdy, R. Long-term corn grain and stover yields as a function of tillage and residue removal in east central Minnesota. Soil Tillage Res. 2000, 56, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Graham, R.L.; Nelson, R.; Sheehan, J.; Perlack, R.D.; Wright, L.L. Current and Potential U.S. Corn Stover Supplies. Agron. J. 2007, 99, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ericsson, K.; Nilsson, L.J. Assessment of the potential biomass supply in Europe using a resource focussed approach. Biomass Bioenergy 2006, 30, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Kadam, K.L.; McMillan, J.D. Availability of corn stover as a sustainable feedstock for bioethanol production. Bioresour. Technol. 2003, 88, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Koopmans, A.; Koppejan, J. Agricultural and Forest Residues—Generation, Utilization and Availability. In Proceedings of the Regional Consultation on Modern Applications of Biomass Energy, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 6–10 January 1997. [Google Scholar]
  48. Koukios, E.G. Agriculture As a Source of Biomass in Western Europe; Report for Biomass for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction (BRED) Project; Bioresource Technology Unit, National Technical University of Athens: Athens, Greece, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nelson, R.G. Resource assessment and removal analysis for corn stover and wheat straw in the Eastern and Midwestern United States—Rainfall and wind-induced soil erosion methodology. Biomass-Bioenergy 2002, 22, 349–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Petersen, C.T.; Jørgensen, U.; Svendsen, H.; Hansen, S.; Jensen, H.E.; Nielsen, N.E. Parameter assessment for simulation of biomass production and nitrogen uptake in winter rape. Eur. J. Agron. 1995, 4, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Kaltschmitt, M.; Hartmann, H. Energie aus Biomasse: Grundlagen. Techniken und Verfahren; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2000; ISBN 3-540-64853-4. [Google Scholar]
  52. O’Toole, J.C.; Bland, W.L. Genotypic Variation in Crop Plant Root Systems. Adv. Agron. 1987, 41, 91–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Molina, J.A.E.; Clapp, C.E.; Linden, D.R.; Allmaras, R.R.; Layese, M.F.; Dowdy, R.H.; Cheng, H.H. Modeling the incorporation of corn (Zea mays L.) carbon from roots and rhizodeposition into soil organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2001, 33, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Campbell, C.A.; Zentner, R.P.; Selles, F.; Biederbeck, V.O.; McConkey, B.G.; Lemke, R.; Gan, Y.T. Cropping frequency effects on yield of grain, straw, plant N, N balance and annual production of spring wheat in the semiarid prairie. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2004, 84, 487–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Parton, W.; Silver, W.L.; Burke, I.C.; Grassens, L.; Harmon, M.E.; Currie, W.S.; King, J.Y.; Adair, E.C.; Brandt, L.A.; Hart, S.C.; et al. Global-Scale Similarities in Nitrogen Release Patterns During Long-Term Decomposition. Science 2007, 315, 361–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gentile, R.; Vanlauwe, B.; Six, J. Litter quality impacts short- but not long-term soil carbon dynamics in soil aggregate fractions. Ecol. Appl. 2011, 21, 695–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sprunger, C.D.; Culman, S.W.; Palm, C.A.; Thuita, M.; Vanlauwe, B. Long-term application of low C:N residues enhances maize yield and soil nutrient pools across Kenya. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2019, 114, 261–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Córdova, S.C.; Olk, D.C.; Dietzel, R.N.; Mueller, K.E.; Archontoulis, S.V.; Castellano, M.J. Plant litter quality affects the accumulation rate, composition, and stability of mineral associated soil organic matter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2018, 125, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Gentile, R.; Vanlauwe, B.; Chivenge, P.; Six, J. Trade-offs between the short- and long-term effects of residue quality on soil C and N dynamics. Plant Soil 2011, 338, 159–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Cotrufo, M.F.; Wallenstein, D.M.; Boot, C.M.; Denef, K.; Paul, E. The Microbial Efficiency Matrix Stabilization (MEMS) framework integrates plant litter decomposition with soil organic matter stabilization: Do labile plant inputs form stable soil organic matter? Gob. Chang. Biol. 2013, 19, 988–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Dietzel, R.; Liebman, M.; Ewing, R.; Helmers, M.; Horton, R.; Jarchow, M.; Archontoulis, S. How efficiently do corn- and soybean-based cropping systems use water? A systems modeling analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 666–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agronomy 13 02090 g001
Figure 1. Distribution of plant parts within total biomass of different wheat cultivars.
Figure 1. Distribution of plant parts within total biomass of different wheat cultivars.
Agronomy 13 02090 g001
Table 1. Morphological properties (number of stems per m2, stem and ear height) of four different wheat cultivars in Osijek, Croatia.
Table 1. Morphological properties (number of stems per m2, stem and ear height) of four different wheat cultivars in Osijek, Croatia.
CultivarStem Number
(LSD = 213.92)		Stem Height (cm)
(LSD = 4.1513)		Ear Length (cm)
(LSD = 0.4429)
p = 0.0071p = 0.0068p = 0.0019
Srpanjka729.1 B64.6 C6.9 B
Renata893.3 AB67.2 BC 6.4 C
El Nino853.9 AB73.2 A7.6 A
Kraljica945.0 A70.6 AB6.9 B
Average values marked with the same letters are not statistically significantly different at p ≤ 0.05; LSD—least significant difference.
Table 2. NPP of different wheat cultivars.
Table 2. NPP of different wheat cultivars.
CultivarYgr (t/ha)
(LSD = 3.1712)		Yres (t/ha)
(LSD = 3.605)		Yr (t/ha)
(LSD = 0.9815)		Ytotal (t/ha)
(LSD = 7.3219)
p = 0.2324p = 0.0451p = 0.0325p = 0.0459
Srpanjka6.8 A6.1 B1.5 B14.4 B
Renata7.8 A8.6 AB2.1 AB18.5 AB
El Nino9.4 A9.1 AB2.2 AB20.7 AB
Kraljica9.4 A11.7 A2.6 A23.6 A
Average values marked with the same letters are not statistically significantly different at p ≤ 0.05; LSD—least significant difference.
Table 3. Harvest index (HI), residue-to-product ratio (RPR) and root-to-shoot ratio (R:S).
Table 3. Harvest index (HI), residue-to-product ratio (RPR) and root-to-shoot ratio (R:S).
CultivarHI
(LSD = 0.0556)		RPR
(LSD = 0.2498)		R:S
(LSD = 0.0276)
p = 0.0498p = 0.0383p = 0.8254
Srpanjka0.53 A0.91 B0.12 A
Renata0.48 AB1.11 AB0.12 A
El Nino0.51 A0.98 B0.12 A
Kraljica0.45 B1.25 A0.12 A
Average values marked with the same letters are not statistically significantly different at p ≤ 0.05; LSD—least significant difference.
Table 4. Carbon content in biomass (% and t/ha).
Table 4. Carbon content in biomass (% and t/ha).
CgrCresCrCtotal
Cultivar(%)
(LSD = 0.50)		(t/ha)
(LSD = 1.45)		(%)
(LSD = 1.30)		(t/ha)
(LSD = 1.55)		(%)
(LSD = 1.90)		(t/ha)
(LSD = 0.40)		(%)
(LSD = 1.0084)		(t/ha)
(LSD = 3.2046)
p < 0.0001p = 0.1639p = 0.0136p = 0.0426p = 0.0203p = 0.1974p = 0.0105p = 0.0468
Srpanjka43.1 C2.9 A42.8 B2.6 B40.8 AB0.6 A42.4 C6.1 B
Renata46.6 A3.6 A45.0 A3.9 AB39.4 B0.8 A44.0 AB8.3 AB
El Nino45.3 B4.3 A44.6 A4.1 AB42.4 A0.9 A44.1 A9.3 AB
Kraljica46.4 A4.3 A43.2 B5.0 A39.4 B1.0 A43.1 BC10.4 A
Average values marked with the same letters are not statistically significantly different at p ≤ 0.05; LSD—least significant difference.
Table 5. Nitrogen content in biomass (% and t/ha).
Table 5. Nitrogen content in biomass (% and t/ha).
NgrNresNrNtotal
Cultivar%
(LSD = 0.0111)		(t/ha)
(LSD = 0.0003)		%
(LSD = 0.0232)		(t/ha)
(LSD = 0.02)		%
(LSD = 0.1211)		(t/ha)
(LSD = 0.0006)		%
(LSD = 0.0213)		(t/ha)
(LSD = 0.0917)
p < 0.0001p = 0.0351p < 0.0001p = 0.0174p = 0.0460p = 0.2777p < 0.0001p = 0.2079
Srpanjka 2.1 D0.0007 B0.6 A0.0391 B0.7 AB0.0013 A1.0 B0.1917 A
Renata2.3 A0.0010 AB0.6 A0.0536 AB0.7 A0.0018 A1.1 A0.2436 A
El Nino2.2 C0.0008 B0.5 C0.0436 AB0.6 AB0.0016 A0.9 D0.2613 A
Kraljica2.2 B0.0012 A0.5 B0.0621 A0.661 B0.0017 A1.0 C0.2825 A
Average values marked with the same letters are not statistically significantly different at p ≤ 0.05; LSD—least significant difference.
Table 6. C:N ratio in biomass.
Table 6. C:N ratio in biomass.
CultivarC:N gr
(LSD = 0.2946)		C:N res
(LSD = 3.9947)		C:N r
(LSD = 11.724)		C:N Total
(LSD = 1.2975)
p = 0.0020p < 0.0001p = 0.0468p < 0.0001
Srpanjka20.5:1 C67.0:1 D63.3:1 AB41.9:1 C
Renata20.6:1 BC72.5:1 C53.8:1 B41.6:1 C
El Nino20.9:1 AB92.9:1 A68.5:1 A47.2:1 A
Kraljica21.2:1 A81.4:1 B64.4:1 AB44.6:1 B
Average values marked with the same letters are not statistically significantly different at p ≤ 0.05; LSD—least significant difference.
Table 7. Carbon and nitrogen balances in plant pool.
Table 7. Carbon and nitrogen balances in plant pool.
CultivarCBp (t/ha)
LSD (0.9195)		NBp (t/ha)
LSD (0.0495)
p = 0.0394p = 0.0147
Srpanjka0.31 B−0.0942 A
Renata1.08 AB−0.1062 AB
El Nino0.70 B−0.1472 B
Kraljica1.71 A−0.1269 AB
Average values marked with the same letters are not statistically significantly different at p ≤ 0.05; LSD—least significant difference.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bilandžija, D.; Zgorelec, Ž.; Galić, M.; Grubor, M.; Krička, T.; Zdunić, Z.; Bilandžija, N. Comparing the Grain Yields and Other Properties of Old and New Wheat Cultivars. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2090. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13082090

AMA Style

Bilandžija D, Zgorelec Ž, Galić M, Grubor M, Krička T, Zdunić Z, Bilandžija N. Comparing the Grain Yields and Other Properties of Old and New Wheat Cultivars. Agronomy. 2023; 13(8):2090. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13082090

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bilandžija, Darija, Željka Zgorelec, Marija Galić, Mateja Grubor, Tajana Krička, Zvonimir Zdunić, and Nikola Bilandžija. 2023. "Comparing the Grain Yields and Other Properties of Old and New Wheat Cultivars" Agronomy 13, no. 8: 2090. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13082090

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