Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,295

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses

Fischer, RA, Maurer, R·1978·Australian Journal of Agricultural Research

Abstract

With a view to understanding the basis of cultivar differences in yield under drought, a wide range of cereal cultivars representing durum wheats (Triticum turgidum L.), triticales (X Tritosecale Wittmack), barleys (Hordeum vulgare), and especially tall and dwarf bread wheats (T. aestivum L.) were studied in field experiments in north-western Mexico over three seasons. Drought was created in this rain-free environment by permanently terminating irrigation at various stages before anthesis. Control treatments were well watered throughout the growing period. Detailed measurements of plant water status, leaf area and dry matter production, anthesis date, yield components and grain yield were made. This paper presents primarily the grain yield data. Drought levels were such that the mean yield of all cultivars under drought ranged from 37 to 86% of control yield, corresponding to irrigation cut-offs varying from 69 days before mean anthesis date to only 10 days before. In each experiment the grain yield under drought showed highly significant cultivar differences, which appeared consistent between years. Yields were adjusted for drought escape by using a correction factor which ranged from 2.9 to 8.5 g/m2 per day advance in flowering, being greater in experiments with less severe drought. The demonstration of linear relationships between cultivar yield and drought intensity, as indicated by the mean yield of some or all cultivars, prompted the consideration of cultivar yield under drought as the function of yield potential (Yp, yield without drought), drought susceptibility index (S), and intensity of drought. The cultivar groups showing lowest S values (most droughtresistant) were tall bread wheats and barleys; dwarf bread wheats were intermediate, and durum wheats and triticales were the most susceptible. However, because dwarf wheats have a higher yield potential (Yp) than tall bread wheats, it is suggested that, as a group, tall bread wheats would outyield dwarf wheats only under very severe drought. Also there was considerable within-group variability of S and Yp. Cultivar S values were consistent across experiments. Yield responses of tall and dwarf bread wheat groups obtained in these experiments agreed with those seen in extensive international trials under dryland conditions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1071/ar9780897

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 2,295

Metadata

Authors
Fischer, R., & Maurer, R.
Venue
Australian Journal of Agricultural Research
Published
1978-10-01
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
897-912
ISSN
  • 0004-9409 (ISSN-L)
  • 1444-9838
OpenAlex
W1985308880
Cited by
2,295
References
0
FWCI
5.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/ar9780897
The paper
Fischer, R., & Maurer, R. (1978). Drought resistance in spring wheat cultivars. I. Grain yield responses. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research. https://doi.org/10.1071/ar9780897

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.