The information contained in this publication is based on knowledge and understanding at the time of writing (June2018) and may not be accurate, current or complete. The State of New South Wales (including the NSW Department of Industry), the author and the publisher take no responsibility, and will accept no liability, for the accuracy, currency, reliability or correctness of any information included in the document(including material provided by third parties). Readers should make their own inquiries and rely on their own advice when making decisions related to material contained in this publication. The product trade names in this publication are supplied on the understanding that no preference between equivalent products is intended and that the inclusion of a product name does not imply endorsement by the department overany equivalent product from another manufacturer.
Researcher(s) |
Warren Bartlett Felicity Harris Hugh Kanaley Danielle Malcolm Greg McMahon Jessica Simpson |
---|---|
Year(s) | 2017 |
Contributor | Department of Primary Industries NSW |
Trial location(s) |
Matong, NSW
|
Further information | View external link |
To investigate the sowing date effect on phenology and grain yield of 15 commercially relevant barley varieties compared with nine wheat varieties.
• The highest grain yields in 2017 were obtained from the first sowing date.
• In 2017, frost and rainfall had a significant influence on grain yield responses to sowing date.
• Seasonal conditions altered expected phenology responses of genotypes in 2017.
Fifteen barley and nine wheat varieties were sown on three sowing dates: 24 April, 9 May and 30 May
The extreme frosts and below average rainfall throughout the growing season in 2017 significantly influenced the phenology and grain yield of genotypes in response to sowing date. The yield responses to sowing date for genotypes are different from those recorded in the 2014–16 experiments at Matong. Matching genotype and sowing time to achieve flowering at an appropriate time is the most effective strategy for optimising grain yield responses; the results reported for 2017 highlights the importance of making decisions based on results from a number of seasons.
Lead research organisation |
Department of Primary Industries NSW |
---|---|
Host research organisation | N/A |
Trial funding source | GRDC DAN00173 |
Trial funding source | DPI NSW |
Related program | N/A |
Acknowledgments |
This experiment was part of the project ‘Management of barley and barley cultivars for the southern region’, DAN00173, 2013–18, with joint investment by GRDC and NSW DPI. We acknowledge the cooperation of Stephen, Michelle and Rod Hatty 'Yarrawonga', Matong for hosting the experiment and technical support from Hayden Petty, John Bromfield, Sharni Hands, Mary Matthews, Dylan Male, Kathleen Bernie and Eliza Anwar. |
Other trial partners | Not specified |
Crop types | Cereal (Grain): Barley Cereal (Grain): Wheat |
---|---|
Treatment type(s) |
|
Trial type | Experimental |
Trial design | Replicated |
Sow rate or Target density | 150 plants/m2 |
---|---|
Sowing machinery |
Direct drilled with DBS tynes spaced at 250 mm using a GPS auto-steer system |
Sow date | Multiple - please see report |
Harvest date | Unknown |
Plot size | Not specified |
Plot replication | Not specified |
Fertiliser |
80 kg/ha mono-ammonium phosphate (MAP) (sowing) 40 kg/ha urea (surface spread) 24 April |
Herbicide |
Knockdown: Paraquat 250® 2.0 L/ha Pre-emergent: Boxer Gold® 2.5 L/ha Post emergent: LVE MCPA 600® 600 mL/ha + Archer® 150 mL/ha (2 August) |
Fungicide |
Flutrialfol-treated fertiliser 400 mL/ha In-crop: Prosaro® 300 mL/ha (12 July) |
Seed treatment | Hombre Ultra® 200 mL/100kg |
Other trial notes |
This research paper is an extract from the publication Southern NSW Research Results 2018, available at |
Sow rate or Target density | Not specified |
---|---|
Sowing machinery | Not specified |
Sow date | Not specified |
Harvest date | Not specified |
Plot size | Not specified |
Plot replication | Not specified |
Fertiliser | Not specified |
Herbicide | Not specified |
Fungicide | Not specified |
Seed treatment | Not specified |
Other trial notes |
This research paper is an extract from the publication Southern NSW Research Results 2018, available at |
@T1: | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
# |
Treatment 1
|
Treatment 2
|
Grain yield (t/ha) | Yield rank (.) |
1 | █ Barley | █ AGTB0015 | 1.31 | 11 |
1 | █ Barley | █ Biere | 1.29 | 12 |
2 | █ Barley | █ Bottler | 1.58 | 7 |
2 | █ Barley | █ Commander | 1.24 | 14 |
3 | █ Barley | █ Compass | 1.74 | 5 |
3 | █ Barley | █ Fathom | 1.96 | 4 |
4 | █ Barley | █ La Trobe | 1.57 | 8 |
4 | █ Barley | █ Navigator | 1.26 | 13 |
5 | █ Barley | █ Oxford | 1.59 | 6 |
5 | █ Barley | █ RGT Planet | 1.17 | 15 |
6 | █ Barley | █ Rosalind | 2.19 | 1 |
6 | █ Barley | █ Spartacus CL | 2 | 2 |
7 | █ Barley | █ Urambie | 1.96 | 3 |
7 | █ Barley | █ Westminster | 1.45 | 9 |
8 | █ Barley | █ WI4592 | 1.35 | 10 |
8 | █ Wheat | █ Beckom | 1.32 | 5 |
9 | █ Wheat | █ Condo | 0.84 | 9 |
9 | █ Wheat | █ Cutlass | 1.95 | 1 |
10 | █ Wheat | █ EGA Eaglehawk | 1.14 | 7 |
10 | █ Wheat | █ Emu Rock | 0.91 | 8 |
11 | █ Wheat | █ LongReach Kittyhawk | 1.18 | 6 |
11 | █ Wheat | █ LongReach Lancer | 1.61 | 3 |
12 | █ Wheat | █ Scepter | 1.81 | 2 |
12 | █ Wheat | █ LongReach Trojan | 1.58 | 4 |
13 | █ | █ | ||
13 | █ | █ | ||
14 | █ | █ | ||
14 | █ | █ | ||
15 | █ | █ | ||
15 | █ | █ | ||
16 | █ | █ | ||
16 | █ | █ | ||
17 | █ | █ | ||
17 | █ | █ | ||
18 | █ | █ | ||
18 | █ | █ | ||
19 | █ | █ | ||
19 | █ | █ | ||
20 | █ | █ | ||
20 | █ | █ | ||
21 | █ | █ | ||
21 | █ | █ | ||
22 | █ | █ | ||
22 | █ | █ | ||
23 | █ | █ | ||
23 | █ | █ | ||
24 | █ | █ | ||
24 | █ | █ |
# |
Treatment 1
|
Treatment 2
|
Grain yield (t/ha) | Yield rank (.) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | █ Barley | █ AGTB0015 | 1.16 | 8 |
2 | █ Barley | █ Biere | 1.04 | 10 |
3 | █ Barley | █ Bottler | 0.81 | 12 |
4 | █ Barley | █ Commander | 0.73 | 15 |
5 | █ Barley | █ Compass | 1.61 | 1 |
6 | █ Barley | █ Fathom | 1.24 | 5 |
7 | █ Barley | █ La Trobe | 1.2 | 7 |
8 | █ Barley | █ Navigator | 0.79 | 13 |
9 | █ Barley | █ Oxford | 1.54 | 2 |
10 | █ Barley | █ RGT Planet | 0.84 | 11 |
11 | █ Barley | █ Rosalind | 1.45 | 3 |
12 | █ Barley | █ Spartacus CL | 1.26 | 4 |
13 | █ Barley | █ Urambie | 0.75 | 14 |
14 | █ Barley | █ Westminster | 1.06 | 9 |
15 | █ Barley | █ WI4592 | 1.24 | 5 |
16 | █ Wheat | █ Beckom | 1.01 | 8 |
17 | █ Wheat | █ Condo | 1.16 | 3 |
18 | █ Wheat | █ Cutlass | 1.28 | 2 |
19 | █ Wheat | █ EGA Eaglehawk | 1.11 | 4 |
20 | █ Wheat | █ Emu Rock | 1.04 | 6 |
21 | █ Wheat | █ LongReach Kittyhawk | 0.88 | 9 |
22 | █ Wheat | █ LongReach Lancer | 1.06 | 5 |
23 | █ Wheat | █ Scepter | 1.46 | 1 |
24 | █ Wheat | █ LongReach Trojan | 1.03 | 7 |
# |
Treatment 1
|
Treatment 2
|
Grain yield (t/ha) | Yield rank (.) |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | █ Barley | █ AGTB0015 | 0.97 | 12 |
2 | █ Barley | █ Biere | 1 | 10 |
3 | █ Barley | █ Bottler | 0.99 | 11 |
4 | █ Barley | █ Commander | 1.59 | 1 |
5 | █ Barley | █ Compass | 1.12 | 7 |
6 | █ Barley | █ Fathom | 1.47 | 3 |
7 | █ Barley | █ La Trobe | 1.58 | 2 |
8 | █ Barley | █ Navigator | 0.87 | 14 |
9 | █ Barley | █ Oxford | 1.07 | 9 |
10 | █ Barley | █ RGT Planet | 0.77 | 15 |
11 | █ Barley | █ Rosalind | 1.18 | 5 |
12 | █ Barley | █ Spartacus CL | 1.18 | 5 |
13 | █ Barley | █ Urambie | 0.97 | 12 |
14 | █ Barley | █ Westminster | 1.19 | 4 |
15 | █ Barley | █ WI4592 | 1.1 | 8 |
16 | █ Wheat | █ Beckom | 1.2 | 2 |
17 | █ Wheat | █ Condo | 0.89 | 8 |
18 | █ Wheat | █ Cutlass | 1.19 | 3 |
19 | █ Wheat | █ EGA Eaglehawk | 1.14 | 4 |
20 | █ Wheat | █ Emu Rock | 0.94 | 7 |
21 | █ Wheat | █ LongReach Kittyhawk | 1.12 | 5 |
22 | █ Wheat | █ LongReach Lancer | 0.83 | 9 |
23 | █ Wheat | █ Scepter | 1.57 | 1 |
24 | █ Wheat | █ LongReach Trojan | 0.98 | 6 |
Rainfall avg gsr (mm) | 319mm |
---|---|
Rainfall trial gsr (mm) | 134.7mm |
SILO weather estimates sourced from https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/silo/
Jeffrey, S.J., Carter, J.O., Moodie, K.B. and Beswick, A.R. (2001). Using spatial interpolation to construct a comprehensive archive of Australian climate data , Environmental Modelling and Software, Vol 16/4, pp 309-330. DOI: 10.1016/S1364-8152(01)00008-1.