Impact of cultivation technologies on yield and grain quality of winter wheat Triticum aestivum L. in Moscow region

Cover Page

Abstract


The current study is aimed at evaluating the reaction of winter wheat varieties according to cultivation technologies at a different level of intensity i.e. basic, intensive and high intensive. The cultivation technologies included fertilizers, pesticides and growth regulators at different combinations and concentrations. The experiment was established in order to determine the optimum conditions of winter wheat cultivation. Three winter wheat varieties were studied: Moskovskaya 40 (V1), Nemchinovskaya 17 (V2) and Nemchinovskaya 85 (V3). Yield performances and grain quality (measured through protein and gluten content) were determined according to the tested cultivation technologies. The results showed that the cultivation technology affected grain wheat productivity and quality on all varieties studied, since the highest yields were obtained using high intensive cultivation technology for all varieties studied, Moskovskaya 40 - 9.65 t/h, Nemchinovskaya 17 - 8.58 t/h and Nemchinovskaya 85 - 9.87 t/h. However, according to the basic technology, the yield was lower by 20…64 %. The tested cultivation technologies demonstrated that high intensive cultivation technology increased wheat quality. The highest protein content (18 %) was recorded in Nemchinovskaya 85 variety. The present results give real opportunities for a largescale application of the tested cultivation technologies in different agricultural lands of Russia.


Full Text

Introduction Winter wheat occupies a significant proportion in the whole agricultural system, this crop is grown in an area of 10 million hectares in the Central Non-black region [1]. This crop is considered as the most important food crop in Russia, providing daily protein and food calories [2]. The new cultivation technologies used provide to obtain 10 t/ha yield or more through decreasing pests damage, disease infections and weed populations, since, direct yield losses caused by phytopathogens are between 30 and 65 % of global agricultural productivity [3]. Modern cultivation technologies include a set of agricultural techniques aimed at reducing the negative effects of climate conditions, development of diseases and pests [4]. In this case, new approaches are used in application of scientific modern methods for regulating growth and plant development. They include the use of mineral fertilizers, considering the need for basic plant nutritive elements based on soil and plant diagnostics, the use of modern plant protection products, compliance with optimal grain seeding standards for the cultivated variety, and the use of retardants [5]. Influence of different cultivation technologies on winter wheat varieties grown on sod-podzolic soils of the Central non Chernozem region was studied [5, 6]. It was found that using optimal cultivation technologies improves soil agrochemical and agrophysical indicators, phytosanitary condition of fields and plants, and increases fertility of sodpodzolic soil [4-14]. The rational use of agrotechnical methods, mineral fertilizers and plant protection chemicals contributes to obtaining desired yield with high grain quality [9-10]. In this case, such technological approaches as fertilization based on soil and plant diagnostics, development of an integrated plant protection system, use of biological agrochemicals and other technological solutions are considered. Thus, the research was aimed to study the impact of three cultivation technologies on winter wheat varieties. Three different cultivation technologies identified as basic, intensive and high intensive with different pesticide combinations, fertilizers and growth regulators were investigated. Yield and protein content were measured in three winter wheat varieties. Materials and methods Plant Material. In the experiment, three winter wheat varieties were studied: Moskovskaya 40 (V1), Nemchinovskaya 17 and Nemchinovskaya 85 (V3). Experimental Field. Intensive farming was conducted during 2016-2019 under the conditions of nonchernozem zone at Nemchinovka Research Institute of Agriculture located in Moscow region, Odintsovskiy district, Russia. (55° 45′ N, 37° 37′ E and 200 m altitude). Soil Characteristics. Samples were taken randomly from different spots at 0…15 cm to record the initial soil characteristics. The soil was typically loamy with 1.73 % organ- 2 5 ic matter. Soil pH was within the limits of 5.6…6.1. P O concentration was from 105 2 to 350 mg/kg and K O from 65 to 125 mg/kg characterizing the soil as mid and high provided with phosphorus and mid and low provided with potassium. Climatic Conditions. The climate in the Moscow region is mid-continental with soft winter, occasional flaw and warm damp summer. The average annual temperature is +4.20 °C. The average temperature of warm season (May - October) is +14.40 °C; and the average monthly temperature in January and July is -10.40 °C and +18, 10 °C, respectively. The average time of a positive air temperature period is near 215 days. The average period with temperature more than +10 °C (vegetation season) is 130 days. The average temperature of cool season (November - March) is -6.70 °C. The average annual precipitation is 628 mm: 56 % in spring-summer season and 26 % in autumn. The average precipitation rate from May to September is 339 mm (Fig. 1). Fig. 1. Average monthly rainfall and temperature during 2016-2019 in the Moscow region Cultivation technologies. Experiments were conducted during three years from 2016 to 2019. Three different cultivation technologies were tested: basic, intensive and highly intensive which included fertilizers, fungicides, herbicides, insecticides and growth regulators at different combinations and concentrations (Table 1). Applied treatments in cultivation technologies Table 1 Cultivation technology Fertilizers, kg ha-1 Crop protection details 1. Basic T1 Basal application N P K kg ha-1, 30 40 60, in pre-sowing and N , kg ha-1, 30 in the germination phase · Fungicide: Vincyt Forte 1.25 l/t + Fundazol 0.5 kg /h · Insecticide: Picus 1 l/t+DITOX 1.0 l/ h · Herbicide: Lintur 180 g/h 2. Intensive T2 Basal application N P K , kg ha-1, in 30 90 120 pre-sowing, Top dressing, at germination and tillering phases, N60 and N , kg ha-1, respectively 30 · Fungicide: Vincyt Forte 1.25 l/t (+ Impact 0.5 l/h + Super Alto 0.5 l/h + Consul 1 l/h · Insecticide: Picus 1 l/t + Danadim Expert 1.0 l/h + Danadim Power 0.6 l/h + Danadim Expert 0.6 l/h · Herbicide: Ditox 1.0 l/h + Accurate Extra 25 g/h · Growth regulator: Perfect 0.3 l/h + Perfect Retarders 3. High Intensive T3 Basal application N30P120K180, kg ha-1, in pre-sowing, Top dressing, at germination, tillering and elongation of stem phases, N , N and N , kg ha-1, 60 30 30 respectively · Fungicides: Vincit Forte 1.25 l/t +Exclusive Impact 0.5 l/h + Super Impact 0.75 l/h + CONSUL 1.0 l/h • Herbicide: Accurate Extra 35 g/h +Foxtrot 1.0 l/h · Insecticide: Picus 1 l/t + Danadim Power 0.6 l/h + Vantex 60 ml/h · Growth regulator: SAPRESS0.3 l/h + Perfect 0.3 l/h The experiment was carried out in a systematic way, repetition blocks consisted of 160 m2 plots, replication was triple, with seeding rate of 5 million grains/ha. After the previous harvest (2015-2016), tillage was done by a BDT-10 disc truck in a single lane. Seeding was realized with a SN16 PM seeder. The harvesting was carried out with Sampo-500 tractor. Results and discussions Yield and productivity of the winter wheat varieties according to the tested cultivation technologies. Yield performance of the three studied winter wheat varieties according to the three tested cultivation technologies (T1 - basic, T2 - intensive, T3 - highly intensive) was shown in the figure 2. When comparing wheat varieties according to cultivation technology 3 (T3, highly intensive), Nemchinovskaya 85 (V3) showed the highest values (9.87 t/ha), Moskovskaya 40 (V1), Nemchinovskaya 17 (V2), yielded 9.65 t/ha 8.58 t/ha, respectively. However lowest yield was achieved using basic technology for all studied varieties - Nemchinovskaya 85 (V3) (7.81 t/ha), Moskovskaya 40 (V1) (7.72 t/ha), Nemchinovskaya 17 (V2) (7.28 t/ha). Fig. 2. Yields of winter wheat varieties (V1 (Moskovskaya 40), V2 (Nemchinovskaya 17), V3 (Nemchinovskaya 85)) according to the tested cultivation technologies (T1 (basic), T2 (intensive) and T3 (high-intensive)) in 2016-2019 The results showed that the cultivation technologies had a significant effect on yield in 2017, 2018 and 2019: P ≤ 0,01, P ≤ 0,001, P ≤ 0.001, respectively. It was shown that the variety also affected grain yield, since P-values were P ≤ 0.01, P ≤ 0.01 and P ≤ 0.001 for 2017, 2018 and 2019, respectively. However, the interaction cultivation technologies-variety had a significant effect on yield in all studied years 2017, 2018 and 2019 - P = 0.04, P ≤ 0.01 and P = 0.03 respectively (Table 2). Table 2 Yield of durum wheat varieties under different cultivation technologies. Values represent the average of 4 replicates ± SE (standard errors). P-values from ANOVA (cultivation technology, variety and cultivation technology × variety) Cultivation technology Variety Y2017 Y2018 Y2019 T1 V1 6.8±0.05d 6.7±0.04d 6±0.05d V2 9±0.02d 9.5±0.06bc 7.2±0.02d V3 8.3±0.05cd 10.5±0.04bc 8.2±0.06c T2 V1 11±0.02bc 8.3±0.05c 6.7±0.06d V2 10.6±0.05c 10.7±0.05bc 8.4±0.03c V3 10.8±0.04c 11.4±0.06b 10.9±0.1b T3 V1 11.7±0.05b 9.5±0.04bc 7.6±0.06c V2 12.3±0.03b 12.7±0.04b 9.01±0.01bc V3 13.6±0.05ab 13.3±0.05a 13.6±0.1a p value C.tech ≤0.01 ≤0.001 ≤0.001 Variety ≤0.01 ≤0.01 ≤0.001 C. tech×Var 0.04 ≤0.01 0.03 Winter wheat crop occupies the largest area among other crops worldwide; it is one of the leading food sources [15-22]. Increasing grain yields to supply food to the world’s ever growing population is one of the main goals [8]. Many researchers have determined that achieving high winter wheat grain yields depends on the use of fertilizers, growth regulators, and crop protection products [4, 6, 7, 16-22, 24]. To obtain a high winter wheat yield, it is necessary to use the optimal nitrogen fertilizer doses in the soil. Ma C. et al. [21] recommends the combined use of organic fertilizers with 150 kg/ha of nitrogen fertilizers. Our results were similar to those reported by this author, since we used 150 kg/ha of nitrogen fertilizers in cultivation technology 3 (high intensive technology), this allowed to obtain high yield for all studied varieties 9.65 t/ha (V1T3), 8.58t/ha (V2T3) and 9.87 t/ha (V3T3), this is probably due to the influence of nitrogen fertilizers on photosynthesis physiology [17]. However, compared to the high insensitive technology, the obtained wheat yield recorded using the basic technology (T1) was lowest when applying 60 kg/ha of nitrogen - 7.76 t/ha (V1T1), 7.48 t/ha (V2T1) and 8.034 t/ha (V3T1). Many studies showed that growth regulators significantly improved root growth and leaf biomass. They also increased photosynthesis, stomatal conductivity, transpiration rate, and water use efficiency [20]. In our study, the growth regulator (perfect (phase GS21-22), Sapress (phase GS31-32)) from the active molecule Trinexapac ethyl was used in intensive and high-intensity technologies, which explains the high yield compared to the yield obtained by applying the basic technology, without growth regulators. On the other hand, it was previously shown that high-intensive technology is most effective for controlling phytopathogens in winter wheat crops, which explains the high yield achieved with this technology, since optimal protection from phytopathogen increases grain quality and productivity [9]. Protein Content of the winter wheat varieties according to the tested cultivation technologies. The grain quality was evaluated on the basis of protein and gluten content in the different varieties according to the tested cultivation technologies. The results showed that no significant difference was observed using cultivation technology 1 and 2 regardless of the investigated variety (Fig. 3). However, cultivation technology 3 seems to increase systematically protein content in the three winter wheat varieties studied. According to the tested technologies, the protein content in the grain of winter wheat varieties was the highest using the high intensive technology, since 18.33 % (V1T3), 1. % (V2T3) and 17.16 % (V3T3). However, the lowest protein content was observed using the basic technology16.45 % (V1T1), 14.30 % (V2T1) and 15.30 % (V3T1) (Fig. 3). Fig. 3. Protein and gluten content of winter wheat varieties (V1 (Moskovskaya 40), V2 (Nemchinovskaya 17), V3 (Nemchinovskaya 85)) according to the tested cultivation technologies (T1 (basic), T2 (intensive) and T3 (high-intensive)). 2016-2019 The ‘cultivation technology’ and ‘variety’ had a significant effect on protein and gluten contents in the three year trials (P ≤ 0.001), however the analysis reveals that the interaction ‘variety-cultivation technology’ is not significant for protein and gluten content in 2017 (P = 0.9), while on 2018 and 2019 the effect was significant on the protein and gluten content (P ≤ 0.001) (P =0.02), respectively (Table 3). Table 3 Protein content observed in wheat varieties under different studied cultivation technologies. Values represent the average of 4 replicates ± SE (standard errors). P-values from ANOVA (cultivation technology, variety and cultivation technologyÏvariety) Cultivation technology Variety Y2017 Y2018 Y2019 T1 V1 16.45±0.4ab 15. 80±2a 15.95±0.6ab V2 14.30±0.4cd 14.70±0.5b 14.60±0.3b V3 15.30±1.1b 15.90±0.7b 16.10±0.2ab T2 V1 16.66±0.7cd 16.10±0.3c 16.78±0.2b V2 14.76±1.1c 14.20±0.7c 14.96±0.04c V3 15.86±0.6cd 15.95±0.3d 16.10±0.04c T3 V1 18.33±0.9c 18.10±0.3c 18.65±0.001c V2 16.14±0.4d 16.26±0.1d 16.75±0.07c V3 17.16±0.4d 17.15±0.1d 17.60±0.001c End of Table 3 Cultivation technology Variety Y2017 Y2018 Y2019 p value C.tech ≤0.001 ≤0.001 ≤0.001 Variety ≤0.001 ≤0.001 ≤0.01 C. tech×Var 0.9 ≤0.001 0.02 Grain quality (especially protein and gluten content) and high yield are the main goals in the wheat crop production [1, 3-11, 15-24] achievable by managing water resources, applying nitrogen, and controlling plant pathogens. The results showed that using basic and intensive technology, no significant differences were observed regardless of the studied varieties (Fig. 3). However, under high-intensive technology, it seems that the protein and gluten content in the three studied varieties of winter wheat increased systematically. The results obtained (Fig. 3) showed that the high content of protein and gluten in the grain for all studied varieties was observed in high-intensive technology, where the use of nitrogen (N) was increased in pre-sowing processing, during tillering, stem elongation of and earing stage. Therefore, the obtained results are similar to those reported by Marino et al. [24] and Ercoli et al. [19] testing the effect of nitrogen application on protein and amino acid composition of wheat. These authors showed that increasing doses of nitrogen could significantly increase protein content of wheat grains. However, recent research by Curci et al. [18] where they studied wheat performance under nitrogen deficiency showed that quality of wheat grain evaluated on the basis of protein content was mediocre. This is similar to the results obtained, since the protein content in wheat was significantly reduced in plants grown under the basic technology. Vaccino et al. [12] also reported that grains infested by pests record low content of protein and gluten. In our previous study, where we investigated the impact of three cultivation technologies on pest infestation rate, protein content in wheat decreased significantly at the highest percentages of pest infestation [10], this was associated with negative effects on plant growth and development, as reported by Wratten [13] which explains the high protein content value obtained under high intensive technology in the current study. Conclusions With an increase in intensity of cultivation of winter wheat varieties, grain quality and yield performance increased by 3.8 t/ha. This was observed in all varieties studied. The results showed that setting up a production system, normative method should consider varietal features, conditions of plant nutrition, agrochemical characteristics of soil and meteorological factors. The current results open real opportunities for a largescale application of the tested cultivation technologies in different regions of Russia and pointed out new varieties - Nemchinovskaya 85 that could offer high productivity.

About the authors

Nazih Y. Rebouh

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Author for correspondence.
Email: n.rebouh@outlook.fr
Moscow, Russian Federation

PhD student, Agrobiotechnological Department

Petr M. Polityko

Nemchinovka Federal Research Center

Email: niicrnz@mail.ru
Moscow region, Russian Federation

Doctor of Agricultural Sciences, Professor, Head of the Laboratory of Varietal Technologies of Winter Grain Crops

Vladimir N. Kapranov

Nemchinovka Federal Research Center

Email: niicrnz@mail.ru
Moscow region, Russian Federation

Doctor of Agricultural Sciences, Leading Researcher, Laboratory of Varietal Technologies of Winter Grain Crops

Viktor N. Fedorischev

Nemchinovka Federal Research Center

Email: fer@gmail.ru
Moscow region, Russian Federation

Doctor of Agricultural Sciences

Nina J. Garmasch

Nemchinovka Federal Research Center

Email: ni.juriev@yandex.ru
Moscow region, Russian Federation

Doctor of Biological Sciences

Gaik P. Atmachian

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

Email: atmachian@gmail.com
Moscow, Russian Federation

PhD candidate, Agroengineering Department

References

  1. Sandukhadze BI, Zhuravleva EV, Kochetygov GA. Ozimaya pshenitsa Nechernozem’ya v reshenii prodovol’stvennoi bezopasnosti Rossiiskoi Federatsi [Non-chernozem winter wheat in addressing the food security of the Russian Federation]. Moscow, Voshod - A publ., 2011; 156. (In Russ.)
  2. Alcamo J, Dronin N, Endejan M, Golubev G, Kirilenko A. A new assessment of climate change impacts on food production shortfalls and water availability in Russia. Global Environmental Change. 2007; 17(3- 4):429-444. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.12.006
  3. Savary S, Ficke A, Aubertot JN, Clayton Hollier. Crop losses due to diseases and their implications for global food production losses and food security. Food Sec. 2012; 4(4):519-537. doi: 10.1007/s12571-012-0200-5
  4. Pakhomov VI, Rykov VB, Kambulov SI, Kambulov IA, Demina EB, Kolesnik VV. The quality of winter wheat grain in dependence to the cultivation technologies. Grain Economy of Russia. 2016; 48(6):55-59. (In Russ.)
  5. Polityko PM, Zhilyaev AM, Parygina MN, Volpe AA. Influence of growing conditions on germination, overwintering and productivity of new varieties of winter wheat. Herald of Russian State Agrarian Correspondence University. 2007; (4):48-51. (In Russ.)
  6. Polityko PM, Matyuta SV, Zyablova MN, Kiselev EF, Volpe AA, Bogdanov AY, et al. Varietal agrochemical and phytosanitary technologies of winter wheat cultivation in the central region of Russia. Problemy agrohimii i ekologii. 2012; (4):22-28. (In Russ.)
  7. Oliinyk KM, Davydiuk GV, Blazhevych LY, Khudoliy LV. Impact of cultivation technologies elements on winter wheat grain productivity and quality. Plant Varieties Studying and Protection. 2016; (4):45-50. (In Ukrainian) doi: 10.21498/2518-1017.4(33).2016.88671
  8. Ray DK, Mueller ND, West PC, Foley JA. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8(6): e66428. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066428
  9. Rebouh NY, Polityko PM, Pakina E, Plushikov VG, Norezzine A, Gadzhikurbanov A, et al. Impact of three integrated crop protection treatments on the varieties of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) in Moscow area, Russia. Research on Crops. 2019; 20(1):161-168. doi: 10.31830/2348-7542.2019.022
  10. Rebouh NY, Polityko P, Latati M, Pakina E, Kapranov V, Imbia A, et al. Infl of three-pest management treatments against aphid, Sitobionavenae in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under Moscow area conditions. Research on Crops. 2019; 20(2):381-388. doi: 10.31830/2348-7542.2019.056
  11. Shi R, Zhang Y, Chen X, Sun Q, Zhang F, Roemheld V. Influence of longterm nitrogen fertilization on micronutrient density in grain of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). J. Cereal Sci. 2010; 51(1):165-170. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2009.11.008
  12. Vaccino P, Corbellini M, Reffo G, Zoccatelli G, Migliardi M, Tavella L. Impact of Eurygaster maura (Heteroptera: Scutelleridae) feeding on quality of bread wheat in relation to attack period. J Econ Entomol. 2006; 99(3):757-763. doi: 10.1093/jee/99.3.757
  13. Wratten SD. The nature of the effects of the aphids, Sitobion avenae and Metopolophium dirhodum on the growth of wheat. Ann Appl Biol. (1975). 79(1):27-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1975.tb01518.x
  14. Zargar M, Polityko P, Pakina E, Bayat M, Vandyshev V, Kavhiza N, et al. Productivity, quality and economics of four spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cultivars as affected by three cultivation technologies. Agronomy Research. 2018; 16(5):2254-2264. doi: 10.15159/AR.18.204
  15. Belamkar V, Guttieri MJ, Hussain W, Jarquín D, El-basyoni I, Poland J, et al. Genomic selection in preliminary yield trials in a winter wheat breeding program. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics. 2018; 8(8):2735- 2747. doi: 10.1534/g3.118.200415
  16. Chen XX, Zhang W, Liang XY, Liu YM1, Xu SJ, Zhao QY, et al. Physiological and developmental traits associated with the grain yield of winter wheat as affected by phosphorus fertilizer management. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):16580. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-53000-z
  17. Cramer MD, Lewis OAM. The influence of nitrate and ammonium nutrition on the growth of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and maize (Zea mays) plants. Ann Bot. 1993; 72(4):359-365. doi: 10.1006/anbo.1993.1119
  18. Curci PL, Cigliano RA, Zuluaga DL, Janni M, Sanseverino W, Sonnante G. Transcriptomic response of durum wheat to nitrogen starvation. Scientific Reports. 2017; 7:1176. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01377-0
  19. Ercoli L, Masoni A, Pampana S, Mariotti M, Arduini I. As durum wheat productivity is affected by nitrogen fertilization management in Central Italy. European J Agron. 2013; 44:38-45. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2012.08.005
  20. Jaleel CA, Gopi R, Panneerselvam R. Growth and photosynthetic pigments responses of two varieties of Catharanthus roseus to triadimefon treatment. Comptes Rendus Biologies. 2008; 331(4):272-277. doi: 10.1016/j.crvi.2008.01.004
  21. Ma C, Liu YN, Liang L, Zhai BN, Zhang HQ, Wang ZH. Effects of combined application of chemical fertilizer and organic manure on wheat yield and leaching of residual nitrate-N in dryland soil. The Journal of Applied Ecology. 2018; 29(4):1240-1248. (In Chineese) doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.201804.023
  22. Makino A. Photosynthesis, grain yield, and nitrogen utilization in rice and wheat. Plant Physiology. 2010; 155(1):125-129. doi: 10.1104/pp.110.165076
  23. Anderson WK. Closing the gap between actual and potential yield of rainfed wheat. The impacts of environment, management and cultivar. Field Crops Research. 2010; 116(1-2):14-22. doi: 10.1016/j. fcr.2009.11.016
  24. Marino S, Tognetti R, Alvino A. Effects of varying nitrogen fertilization on crop yield and grain quality of emmer grown in a typical Mediterranean environment in central Italy. European J Agron. 2011; 34(3):172-180. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2010.10.006

Statistics

Views

Abstract - 272

PDF (English) - 24

Cited-By


PlumX

Dimensions


Copyright (c) 2020 Rebouh N.Y., Polityko P.M., Kapranov V.N., Fedorischev V.N., Garmasch N.J., Atmachian G.P.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies