The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Sensitivity of Wheat Phasic Development to Major Environmental Factors: a Re-Examination of Some Assumptions Made by Physiologists and Modellers
Abstract
In this review we assess the universality of several assumptions that are commonly made about development in wheat. The assumptions tested are that: (1) wheat is most sensitive to the environmental variables of temperature and photoperiod during the vegetative period; (2) any responses to vernalisation and photoperiod are complete by the time that the apex has become reproductive and the stems begin to elongate; (3) cultivars differ little in their responses to temperature aside from any responses to vernalisation; (4) cultivar differences in 'intrinsic earliness' or 'basic development rate' are unaffected by temperature; (5) photoperiod and vernalisation responses are quantitative and that these responses are well understood and can be generalised. We show that, in terms of development, all wheats are responsive to temperature throughout their life cycles though to differing degrees, most are responsive to photoperiod at least until heading and, contrary to expectations, with potentially increasing sensitivity once the flowering process is triggered, and many are responsive to a memory of vernalising temperatures to well beyond the double ridge stage. In all these responses we show that there is considerable genotypic variation and that it is usually difficult to guess the responses of one genotype to the main environmental variables from the responses of another. This is partially because overall sensitivity to each of the main variables can differ, and the responses can be interactive, but also because the primary responses and interactions can differ between developmental phases. This can result in a high level of complexity of response whenever any variable is changed. The level of complexity is a negative feature when it comes to modelling and forecasting responses across widely differing environments but a highly positive feature when considering the enormous genotypic variation available for selection.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Simulating the impact of extreme heat and frost events on wheat crop production: A review
Barlow, K. M., Christy, B. P., O’Leary, G. J., Riffkin, P. A., & Nuttall, J. G. (2015) · Field Crops Research · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2014.11.010 · Cited by 546
Coarse and fine regulation of wheat yield components in response to genotype and environment
Slafer, G. A., Savin, R., & Sadras, V. O. (2014) · Field Crops Research · doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2013.12.004 · Cited by 487
Self-citationHeat stress in cereals: Mechanisms and modelling
Eyshi Rezaei, E., Webber, H., Gaiser, T., Naab, J., & Ewert, F. (2015) · European Journal of Agronomy · doi:10.1016/j.eja.2014.10.003 · Cited by 313
Modulation of Wheat Yield Components in Response to Management Intensification to Reduce Yield Gaps
Jaenisch, B. R., Munaro, L. B., Jagadish, S. V. K., & Lollato, R. P. (2022) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2022.772232 · Cited by 51
Bogard, M., Biddulph, B., Zheng, B., Hayden, M., Kuchel, H., Mullan, D., Allard, V., Gouis, J. L., & Chapman, S. C. (2020) · Crop Science · doi:10.1002/csc2.20113 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Slafer, G., & Rawson, H.
- Venue
- Functional Plant Biology
- Publisher
- CSIRO Publishing
- Published
- 1994
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 393
- ISSN
- 1445-4408 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2324376194
- Cited by
- 481
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.15
- 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: Sensitivity of Wheat Phasic Development to Major Environmental Factors: a Re-Examination of Some Assumptions Made by Physiologists and Modellers. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1071/pp9940393
- The paper
- Slafer, G., & Rawson, H. (1994). Sensitivity of Wheat Phasic Development to Major Environmental Factors: a Re-Examination of Some Assumptions Made by Physiologists and Modellers. Functional Plant Biology. https://doi.org/10.1071/pp9940393
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.