CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 170Crop Yield and Soil FertilityWheat and Barley Genetics and PathologySoil Management and Crop Yield

Patterns of tillering and grain production of winter wheat at a wide range of plant densities.

Open access
Darwinkel, A.·1978·Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science
DOI 10.18174/njas.v26i4.17081
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The effect of plant density on the growth and productivity of the various ear-bearing stems of winter wheat was studied in detail to obtain information on the pattern of grain production of crops grown under field conditions. Strong compensation effects were measured: a 160-fold increase in plant density (5-800 plants/m2) finally resulted in a 3-fold increase in grain yield (282 to 850 g DM/m2). Max. grain yield was achieved at 100 plants/m2, which corresponded to 430 ears/m2 and to about 19 000 grains/m2. At higher plant densities more ears and more grains were produced, but grain yield remained constant. Tillering/plant was largely favoured by low plant densities because these allowed tiller formation to continue for a longer period and a greater proportion of tillers produced ears. However, at higher plant densities more tillers/unit area were formed and, despite a higher mortality, more ears were produced. The productivity of individual ears, from main stems as well as from tillers, decreased with increasing plant density and with later emergence of shoots. In the range from 5 to 800 plants/m2 grain yield/ear decreased from 2.40 to 1.14 g DM. At 800 plants/m2 nearly all ears originated from main stems, but with decreasing plant density tillers contributed increasingly to the number of ears. At 5 plants/m2, there were 23 ears/plant and grain yield/ear ranged from 4.20 (main stem) to 1.86 g DM (late-formed stems). Grain number/ear was reduced at higher densities and on younger stems, because there were fewer fertile spikelets and fewer grains in these spikelets. At the low density of 5 plants/m2, plants developed solitarily and grain yield/ear was determined by the number of grains/ear as well as by grain wt. Above 400 ears/m2, in this experiment reached at 100 plants/m2 and more, grain yield/ear depended solely on grain number, because the wt. of grains of the various stems were similar. The harvest index showed a max. of about 44% at a moderate plant density; at this density nearly max. grain yield was achieved. At low plant densities the harvest index decreased from 45% in main stems to about 36% in late-formed stems. However, no differences in harvest index existed between the various ear-bearing stems if the number of ears exceeded 400/m2. (Abstract retrieved from CAB Abstracts by CABI’s permission)

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 · 10.18174/njas.v26i4.17081

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All previous studies dealing with plant density have assumed constant variance.

    “To our knowledge, all previous studies dealing with plant density have assumed constant variance.”

    From A Bayesian framework to model variance of grain yield response to plant density (2025) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Results and Discussion passages describe how plant density affects tillering and grain production, but do not address the statistical assumptions of previous studies. Searches for “constant variance,” “variance,” and related terms found no passage supporting the claim; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Darwinkel, A.
Corresponding author
Darwinkel, A.
Venue
Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science
Publisher
Wageningen University and Research
Published
1978-11-01
Volume
26
Issue
4
Pages
383-398
ISSN
0028-2928 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.18174/njas.v26i4.17081
OpenAlex
W2587001172
Cited by
170
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agronomy and Crop Science › Crop Yield and Soil Fertility
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Wheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Management and Crop Yield
Keywords
winter wheat, plant density, tillering, grain yield, compensatory growth, tiller mortality, grain number per ear, grain weight, harvest index, main stem, spikelet fertility, grain yield per unit area, yield components, plant competition, grain yield per plant

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