Effect of foliar application of Cu, Zn, and Mn on yield and quality indicators of winter wheat grain

Micronutrients are part of many crucial physiological plant processes. The combined application of N and micronutrients helps in obtaining grain yield with beneficial technological and consumer properties. The main micronutrients needed by cereals include Cu, Mn, and Zn. The subject of this study was to determine yield, quality indicators (protein content and composition, gluten content, grain bulk density, Zeleny sedimentation index, and grain hardness), as well as mineral content (Cu, Zn, Mn, Fe) in winter wheat grain ( Triticum aestivum L.) fertilized by foliar micronutrient application. A field experiment was carried out at the Educational and Experimental Station in Tomaszkowo, Poland. The application of mineral fertilizers (NPK) supplemented with Cu increased Cu content (13.0%) and ω, α/β, and γ (18.7%, 4.9%, and 3.4%, respectively) gliadins in wheat grain. Foliar Zn fertilization combined with NPK increased Cu content (14.9%) as well as high (HMW) and low molecular weight (LMW) glutenins (38.8% and 6.7%, respectively). Zinc fertilization significantly reduced monomeric gliadin content and increased polymeric glutenin content in grain, which contributed in reducing the gliadin:glutenin ratio (0.77). Mineral fertilizers supplemented with Mn increased Fe content in wheat grain (14.3%). It also significantly increased protein (3.8%) and gluten (4.4%) content, Zeleny sedimentation index (12.4%), and grain hardness (18.5%). Foliar Mn fertilization increased the content of ω, α/β, and γ gliadin fractions (19.9%, 9.5%, and 2.1%, respectively), as well as HMW and LMW glutenins (18.9% and 4.5%, respectively). Mineral NPK fertilization, combined with micronutrients (Cu + Zn + Mn), increased Cu and Zn content in grain (22.6% and 17.7%, respectively). The content of ω, α/β, and γ gliadins increased (20.3%, 10.5%, and 12.1%, respectively) as well as HMW glutenins (7.9%).

Competitive ability of cultivated rice against weedy rice biotypes – A review

Weedy rice has been identified as a threat to rice production worldwide. Its phenotypic and genotypic diversity and its potential to compete against rice in all development stages from germination to maturity have resulted in a loss of rice yield and grain quality, which is remarkably high in directseeded rice cultivation. Weedy rice dormancy varies, it has a higher germination rate, and tolerates deeper germination depth compared to rice cultivars. Interactions of weedy rice with cultivars often reflect early vigor, more tillering, nutrient utilization ability for shoot development with respect to rice cultivars even though the latter also show an improvement in shoot development under competition. An exponential relationship has been reported between cultivated rice loss and weedy rice density: this is true for all rice cultivars. The degree of loss is dependent on the competitive ability of the rice cultivar being studied, and each weedy rice biotype also interacts differently. Hence, the need for a comprehensive study of the biology of various weedy rice variants. Difficulties arise in the management of weedy rice due to its physiological, anatomical, and morphological similarities to cultivated rice. The manipulation of the environment to improve cultivated rice production and suppress the emergence of weedy rice variants is important in the management of weedy rice, as well as other cultural practices and use of pesticides. The development of herbicide-resistant rice cultivars is necessary to totally eliminate the weedy rice variants. This review provides information on the competitive ability of weedy rice against rice cultivars; this information is essential to create management options to control weedy rice.

SUSCEPTIBILITY TO BRUCHIDS AMONG COMMON BEANS IN UGANDA

The bean bruchids, Acanthoscelides obtectus Say and Zabrotes subfasciatus Boheman (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), are cosmopolitan pests of stored dry common beans ( Phaseolus vulgaris L. ), causing damage through reduction of grain quality and seed germination. Biological resistance to these bruchids was definitively established in non-cultivated bean accessions, and has been introgressed into a range of drybean market classes. However, existing resistance to bruchids in Uganda’s common bean germplasm has not been systematically studied. In this study, 45 bean genotypes from the National Bean-Breeding Programme (25 genotypes) and agroecologically diverse bean growing areas in Uganda (20 genotypes), were evaluated for postharvest bruchid resistance. None of the evaluated bean genotypes expressed resistance to either bruchid species, with all the 45 bean genotypes supporting bruchid development, reproduction and feeding. All genotypes were severely damaged by bruchids feeding, resulting in significant (P<0.05) reduction of seed germination. Reduction in seed germination was related to the number of emergence holes and seed size; small bean seeds damaged by up to 2 bruchid emergence holes had a 7.1% reduction in germination, while large bean seeds with a similar number of emergence holes showed a 25% reduction in germination. Whereas this study further confirms bruchids as important storage pests of beans causing direct loss through consumption of the seed and indirect loss through viability deterioration, the resistance to bruchids in the evaluated range of Uganda’s dry bean germplasm is inadequate for direct exploitation in a breeding programme.