Premium
Effect of Depth of Seeding on the Occurrence of Covered and Loose Smuts in Winter Barley 1
Author(s) -
Taylor J. W.,
Zehner Marion Griffiths
Publication year - 1931
Publication title -
agronomy journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.752
H-Index - 131
eISSN - 1435-0645
pISSN - 0002-1962
DOI - 10.2134/agronj1931.00021962002300020004x
Subject(s) - citation , seeding , history , horticulture , library science , mathematics , agronomy , computer science , biology
Covered smut (Ustilago hordei (Pets.) Kell. and Sw.) and loose smut (Ustilago nuda (Jens.) Kell. and Sw.) are the most common plant diseases affecting fall-sown barley. Their importance as measured by reduced grain yield can only be estimated. However, in a 4-year experiment at the Arlington Experiment Farm, Rosslyn, Va., the reduced grain yield of two smut-susceptible varieties grown from untreated seed as compared to the yield of the two vdrieties from treated seed was approximately equal to the combined percentages of the loose and covered smuts present in the untreated plats. The breeding of smut-resistant varieties of barley has been handicapped by lack Of a satisfactory technic for obtaining infection. Investigators also have reported unsatisfactory results in varietal tests for covered smut, as infection has been either too low or too variable to be conclusive. Therefore, any factors which influence infection of the barley plant by smut are important. The seedbed for the varietal experiments with winter barley at the Arlington Experiment Farm in ~922 was prepared in such a manner that a back furrow ran across the middle of each plat. It was observed that in this back-furrow area the barley plants were heavily infected with both smuts, whereas the remainder of the plat contained few smutty plants. Similar non-uniform distribution of infected plants was commonly observed when taking smut records on seed treatment experiments. As a result of these observations depth-of-seeding experiments were begun in ~924, the results of which are reported in this paper. Tisdale3 reports unsatisfactory results in obtaining infection of barley with covered smut when the seed was smutted at sowing. Mackie4 states, "Experiments in California have for three years failed in an attempt to create heavy smut attacks by artificially inoeu. lating barley seed." He further states that low lying river or lake bottom lands usually show the most barley smut.