An investigation of long coleoptile wheat for WA farming systems

2021 - 2022

Research organisaton
Funding source

Trial details

Researcher(s) Michael Lamond
Kate Witham
Year(s) 2021 - 2022
Contributor SLR Agriculture
Trial location(s) Ballidu, WA
Beacon, WA
Bodallin, WA
Esperance, WA
Hines Hill, WA
Holt Rock, WA
Latham, WA
Meckering, WA
Muntadgin, WA
Pingaring, WA
York, WA
Yuna, WA
An investigation of long coleoptile wheat for WA farming systems locations
Aims

This trial was designed as a scoping study to investigate various aspects of long coleoptile wheat relative to WA farming systems for eventual grower integration. However, this report outlines both observations as well as extensive data that was collected and analysed, despite the original aim of the trail to be more investigatory than data-driven in nature.
The main area of research was investigating the novel Rht18 gene in wheat, which allows for an elongated coleoptile: a protective sheath around the emerging shoot from a seed. Mace/Scepter typically have 40-60 mm coleoptiles (depending on environmental factors). New varieties developed by CSIRO with the Rht18 gene can extend to 12-140 mm by comparison.

This 2-year project has assessed long coleoptile wheat applications to farming systems in WA across emergence, establishment, weed competition, rhizoctonia impacts, herbicide interactions and yield. Extension across sites has aided in discussions with growers and areas requiring further study for integration to grower systems. While investigatory in nature, 2022 trials outlined in this report aimed to be more data driven in nature than trials conducted in 2021.

The two-year scoping study aimed to achieve the following objectives for investigate various aspects of long coleoptile wheat relative to WA farming systems for eventual grower integration:
• Extend long coleoptile findings and discussions to growers across agricultural regions of Western Australia
• Quantify differences in emergence from deep and shallow sown varieties with varying coleoptile lengths.
• Investigate emergence through furrow fill from wind and rain events.
• Investigate emergence from uneven soil platforms, such as from deep-ripping
• Investigate emergence through both low and high soil temperatures.
• Explore biomass and vigour differences between varieties with and without the Rht18 gene.
• Quantify differences in annual ryegrass competition and wheat vigour interactions with grass weeds.
• Explore herbicide interactions across depths of sowing to investigate crop safety and ways of adjusting/changing IBS and EPE herbicides.
• Explore rhizoctonia wheat root infection between depths of sowing.
• Analyse grain yield of various varieties and coleoptile lengths, including Rht18 wheat.

Key messages

Overall, there was a positive relationship with coleoptile length and wheat emergence in both 2021 and 2022 trials, where Halberd, Rht13 variety Magenta-13, and Rht18 varieties Mace-18 and Yitpi-18 consistently had 95-100% emergence when sown at depth. Shorter coleoptile varieties had significantly less plants emerge by comparison, such as Scepter (60-75% emergence from depth), and Mace (50-70% emergence from depth). Emergence was significantly faster for Mace-18 compared to varieties such as Scepter and Calibre when sown at depth (120 mm) into soil temperatures below 10 degrees Celsius. Mace-18’s coleoptile elongated twice as much as Calibre’s at 8 DAS.
The 2022 Muntadgin trial exhibited how longer coleoptile wheat had significantly more plants emerged and emergence at faster rates than shorter coleoptile varieties (100mm+ sowing) across uneven soil platforms following soil amelioration.
Rhizoctonia was prevalent in most shallow-sown plant samples (sown 35 mm dry) compared to deep sown wheat (100 mm into moisture) which exhibited very few spear-tipping symptoms in various 2021 trials, and at Ballidu in 2022.
More vigorous Rht18 varieties such as Mace-18 had significantly less annual ryegrass weeds in deep sown plots compared to Mace sown deep across three assessed locations (2022). Shallow-sown Mace-18 was more vigorous than Mace, also leading to weed out competition in conventional sowing situations. In Ballidu, deep-sown mace had significantly higher weed infestation (nearly three times the weed counts) than Mace-18 sown deep.
Overall, there was the same yield result (100-200 kg/ha difference) between shallow sown Mace and Mace-18 at 5 locations. At three of the five locations, Mace-18 yielded better than Mace when sown deep in 2022.
There were few differences in emergence and yield where various IBS and EPE herbicides were applied to shallow and deep sown wheat. Long coleoptile wheat was shown to improve crop safety where trifluralin was applied IBS, with 90 mm sown wheat, demonstrating reduced coleoptile thickening and greater seedling vigour across multiple treatments compared to 35 mm sown plots. Field walk discussions were made around exploiting the absence of nodal roots with pre-emergent herbicides when sowing deep, as mobile pre-emergent herbicides (Sakura, Luximax and Overwatch) may cause greater crop damage when washed into the root zone of shallow sown crops.

Lead research organisation SLR Agriculture
Host research organisation N/A
Trial funding source GRDC SLR2103-001RTX
Related program N/A
Acknowledgments N/A
Other trial partners Not specified
Download the trial report to view additional trial information

Method

Crop type Cereal (Grain): Wheat
Treatment type(s)
  • Crop: Variety
  • Sowing: Placement
Trial type Experimental
Trial design Randomised,Replicated,Blocked

Ballidu 2022

Sow rate or Target density 175 plants/m2
Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication 4
Plot blocking 4
Plot randomisation yes

Beacon 2021

Sow rate or Target density Not specified
Sow date Please see trial report for details
Harvest date Unknown
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication 4
Plot blocking 4
Plot randomisation yes

Bodallin 2021

Sow rate or Target density Not specified
Sow date Please see report
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication 4
Plot blocking 4
Plot randomisation yes

Esperance 2022

Sow rate or Target density 175 plants/m2
Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication 4
Plot blocking 4
Plot randomisation yes

Hines Hill 2021

Sow rate or Target density Not specified
Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication 4
Plot blocking 4
Plot randomisation yes

Holt Rock 2021

Sow rate or Target density Not specified
Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication 4
Plot blocking 4
Plot randomisation yes

Latham 2021

Sow rate or Target density Not specified
Sow date Please see report
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication 4
Plot blocking 4
Plot randomisation yes

Meckering 2022

Sow rate or Target density 175 plants/m2
Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication 4
Plot blocking 4
Plot randomisation yes

Muntadgin 2022

Sow rate or Target density 175 plants/m2
Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication 4
Plot blocking 4
Plot randomisation yes

Pingaring 2022

Sow rate or Target density 175 plants/m2
Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication 4
Plot blocking 4
Plot randomisation yes

York 2021

Sow rate or Target density Not specified
Sow date Please see report
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication 4
Plot blocking 4
Plot randomisation yes

Yuna 2022

Sow rate or Target density 175 plants/m2
Sow date Not specified
Harvest date Not specified
Plot size Not specified
Plot replication 4
Plot blocking 4
Plot randomisation yes
Download the trial report to view additional method/treatment information
Trial source data and summary not available
Check the trial report PDF for trial results.
Observed trial site soil information
Trial site soil testing
Not specified
Soil conditions
Trial site Soil texture
Ballidu, WA Not specified
Beacon, WA Not specified
Bodallin, WA Not specified
Esperance, WA Not specified
Hines Hill, WA Not specified
Holt Rock, WA Not specified
Latham, WA Not specified
Meckering, WA Not specified
Muntadgin, WA Not specified
Pingaring, WA Not specified
York, WA Not specified
Yuna, WA Not specified
Derived trial site soil information
Australian Soil Classification Source: ASRIS
Trial site Soil order
Ballidu, WA Sodosol
Beacon, WA Sodosol
Bodallin, WA Kandosol
Esperance, WA Calcarosol
Hines Hill, WA Sodosol
Holt Rock, WA Kandosol
Latham, WA Sodosol
Meckering, WA Sodosol
Muntadgin, WA Kandosol
Pingaring, WA Sodosol
York, WA Sodosol
Yuna, WA Tenosol
National soil grid Source: CSIRO/TERN
NOTE: National Soil Grid data is aggregated information for background information on the wider area
Actual soil values can vary significantly in a small area and the trial soil tests are the most relevant data where available

Soil properties

Loading

Climate

Derived climate information

No observed climate data available for this trial.
Derived climate data is determined from trial site location and national weather sources.

Ballidu WA

Beacon WA

Bodallin WA

Esperance WA

Hines Hill WA

Holt Rock WA

Latham WA

Meckering WA

Muntadgin WA

Pingaring WA

York WA

Yuna WA

Ballidu WA

Loading
Loading
Loading

Beacon WA

Loading
Loading
Loading

Bodallin WA

Loading
Loading
Loading

Esperance WA

Loading
Loading
Loading

Hines Hill WA

Loading
Loading
Loading

Holt Rock WA

Loading
Loading
Loading

Latham WA

Loading
Loading
Loading

Meckering WA

Loading
Loading
Loading

Muntadgin WA

Loading
Loading
Loading

Pingaring WA

Loading
Loading
Loading

York WA

Loading
Loading
Loading

Yuna WA

Loading
Loading
Loading

Some data on this site is sourced from the Bureau of Meteorology

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.

Trial report and links

2021 trial report



Trial last modified: 22-05-2023 16:21pm AEST