Post on 04-Jul-2020
Kernel Weight
Science and Simulation
Tony HuntUniversity of Guelph
Canada
Greg McMasterUSDA-ARS
USA
Why consider kernel weight, kernel weight uniformity and kernel shape?
….. Because they are important quality traits …. And they do have a value in the market-placeCurrently, payment generally based on measurement of a ‘surrogate’ aspect, specific weight (test weight, bushel weight). But, now have equipment to measure rapidly kernel size and its variability .… and this equipment already being used by some breeders, and being considered for use at mills and possibly also, elevators.
Why are they important quality traits?
….. Because millers can obtain more flour per unit weight of grain from:
Large, ‘round’, kernelsUniform kernels lotsWell-filled kernels
(Hence kernel weight not the sole criteria)
….. Because maltsters can obtain moreenzyme from small kernels
….. Because maltsters and brewers canobtain more extract from large kernels
Kernel size determination
1. Large genetic component
Cereal cultivars 20 - 50 mg Easy recurrent selection
(eg.Wiersma et al., 2001)
2. But, big environmental effects also
Pre-anthesis On flower sizesPost-anthesis On kernel development
and growth
Pre-anthesis effects mediated through:
Size of main shootTiller number per plantSpikelet number per shootFloret number per spikelet
Known for many years but recently receiving renewed attention (eg.Calderini et al.)
Effects of flower size apparent throughout kernel growth … as shown in many studies … for example, that of Hanft and Wych:
Time for Development vs. Temperature
Growth of top, middle, and bottom kernels Data from Hanft and Wych
0510152025303540
0 10 20 30 40 50Days after anthesis
Wei
ght
mg
Top Middle Bottom
The overall effects of the pre-anthesis environment on floret sizes …. and henceon potential kernel sizes in a crop …. havenot yet been associated with any simple variable
….. However, it may be possible to start with kernel number per plant:
Time for Development vs. Temperature
Kernel weight vs kernel number per plant Data from files in Dssat package
05101520253035404550
0 50 100 150Kernel number per plant
Ker
nel w
eigh
t m
g
USA;Ks England Canada
Post-anthesis effects determine both:
The size of the ‘sac’ (Not implying a fixed ‘bin’ but the maximum size of a ‘baloon’)
The filling of the ‘sac’
But within the framework set by flower size.
Effects could differ depending on the phase of grain development …. and thus there have been a number of attempts to develop staging schemes (eg. Rogers and Quatrano; Noda et al).
Staging of grain development.
Many schemes based around dry weight curve … but others (eg.Geslin and Jonard, Jonard) place emphasis on water content:
Sac formation …. water content increasesWater plateauPhase of dessication … water content
decreases:
Time for Development vs. Temperature
Pattern of Kernel Growth After Rogers and Quatrano and others
0102030405060708090100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Days after anthesis
Wei
ght
mg
Fresh Dry Water
Post-anthesis environmental effects.
Most studies of environmental effects deal with the duration and rate of dry matter accumulation during the water plateau (or the linear phase of dry matter accumulation) ….
but, environment can affect the level of thewater plateau:
Time for Development vs. Temperature
Patterns of Kernel GrowthIrrigated and Unirrigated (After Ballot)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Days after anthesis
Wei
ght
mg
DryWt Ir DryWt U WaterWt Ir WaterWt U
Post-anthesis environmental effects.
All studies show a big effect of temperature on the duration of the linear (or overall) phase
… but, where the development rate approaches zero (or if it does?) is unclear:
Time for Development vs. Temperature
Kernel development rate vs temperature
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Temperature
Dev
elop
men
t rat
e / M
axim
um
Spiertz74 Spiertz77 Sofield PoortenWarrington Linear (Spiertz74) Linear (Sofield)
Post-anthesis environmental effects.
Most studies show a big effect of temperature up to about 23-25C on the rate of dry matter accumulation during the linear (or overall) phase:
Time for Development vs. Temperature
Kernel growth rate vs temperature
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Temperature
GR
OW
TH R
ATE
/ M
AXI
MU
M
Spiertz Sofield Poorten Linear (Spiertz) Linear (Sofield)
Post-anthesis environmental effects.
As expected from the effects on duration and rate, many studies show a big effect of temperature on kernel weight, as shown in theclassic data of Wiegand and Cuellar:
Time for Development vs. Temperature
Kernel weights of winter and spring wheats After Wiegand and Cuellar
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 5 10 15 20 25 30Temperature
Wei
ght
mg
Springs Winters Linear (Springs) Linear (Winters)
Post-anthesis environmental effects.
… but, the situation with kernel weight may not be as ‘clean’ as at first sight ….
There is some indication that the response depends on which kernels are considered:
Time for Development vs. Temperature
Kernel size vs temperatureAFRC, Ceres3.5, and Swheat models
00.20.40.60.81
1.21.41.6
0 10 20 30 40Temperature
Ker
nel s
ize
(Rel
ativ
e)
AFRC Ceres3.5 Swheat Field data
Kernel weight vs temperatureGrowth chamber data
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 10 20 30 40Temperature
Ker
nel w
eigh
t (R
elat
ive)
Spiertz Poorten
Post-anthesis environmental effects.
Thus, the temperature response of grain grain growth rate may be an ‘emergent’ aspect … with the real drivers being development and assimilate supply!!!
Such a concept may make it easier to understand why under some circumstances we can find kernels that appear to have ‘burst’ !
Simulation
Pre-anthesis conditions and kernel weight (via carpel size)
Not accounted for in most models.But:Spikegro calculates kernel weight for each floret. Assigns different sink strengths depending on day of anthesis.Cropsim calculates potential kernel weight depending on kernel number per plant:
Time for Development vs. Temperature
Calculated vs measured kernel weightsPotential adjusted for kernels/plant
05101520253035404550
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Measured kernel weight mg
Cal
cula
ted
kern
el w
eigh
t m
g
USA;Ks England Canada
Simulation
Post-anthesis conditions and final weight
Temperature effects on development and growth accounted for in most models.
But, responses used differ markedly amongmodels:
Time for Development vs. Temperature
Kernel development rate vs temperatureAFRC, Ceres3.5, and Swheat models
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
0 10 20 30 40Temperature
Ker
nel d
evel
opm
ent r
ate
(Rel
ativ
e)
AFRC Ceres3.5 Swheat
Time for Development vs. Temperature
Kernel growth rate vs temperatureAFRC, Ceres3.5, and Swheat models
00.20.40.60.81
1.21.41.61.82
0 10 20 30 40Temperature
Ker
nel g
row
th ra
te (R
elat
ive)
AFRC Ceres3.5 Swheat
Simulation
Post-anthesis conditions and final weight
The temperature responses of development and growth embedded in the models considered would produce (in the absence of assimilate limitations) some ‘strange’ kernel weights responses:
Time for Development vs. Temperature
Kernel size vs temperatureAFRC, Ceres3.5, and Swheat models
00.20.40.60.81
1.21.41.6
0 10 20 30 40Temperature
Ker
nel s
ize
(Rel
ativ
e)
AFRC Ceres3.5 Swheat Field data
Kernel weight vs temperatureAFRC, Ceres3.5, and Swheat models
00.20.40.60.81
1.21.41.6
0 10 20 30 40Temperature
Ker
nel w
eigh
t (R
elat
ive)
AFRC Ceres3.5 Swheat
Simulation
Post-anthesis conditions and final weight
In operation, the models considered do not produce such ‘strange’ kernel weight patterns …. so emphasizing the controlling importance of photosynthesis and reserve build-up and utilization.But, the impact of environment on photosynthesis, on the pattern of senescence, and on reserve accumulation and use differ markedly among models.
Conclusions
Basic knowledgeGood fund of (classical) information. But not yet clear on the extent to which the water content plateau is really an indicator of ‘sac’ size (kernel volume increases throughout the plateau)
SimulationModels generally do not account for pre-anthesis effects, and differ markedly in post-anthesis temperature responses. Of these, the grain growth responses could well be artifacts that simply help account for assimilate limitations to distal kernels.
Concluding Thought
Simulation models should be able to account for as much of the observed variability as regression models - and be able to provide some information onuniformity.
The challenge for simulation modellers is thus to account for 80% of the reported variation in kernel weight, this being the level achieved anumber of years ago by a regression model for small(but not large!) kernel weight cultivars in France(Masse)
And Yes ….
Because kernel weight and its uniformity are important ‘milling’ quality traits …. it will be worthwhile to take up this challenge and attemptto develop models that simulate ‘packaging’ as well as production.