Intensive management simultaneously reduces yield gaps and improves milling and baking properties of bread wheat

Abstract

Genotype (G), environment (E), management (M), and their interactions determine grain yield, biochemical composition, and quality of wheat. However, we are not aware of studies evaluating whether intensive management can simultaneously reduce yield gaps and improve wheat milling and baking attributes, which were our main objectives. A factorial experiment of five genotypes × four management intensities (farmer practice, high-input, high-input minus nitrogen, and high-input minus fungicide) was conducted in six Kansas (United States) environments resulting from the combination of four locations and three seasons. Grain yield and 13 parameters characterizing the grain (test weight [TWT], thousand kernel weight [TKW], grain protein [GP]), flour (e.g., ash, protein), dough (e.g., water absorption [WA],dough stability [DS]), and baking qualities (loaf volume [LV]) were measured. For most variables, the primary contributor of the variance was E while M and G were secondary and tertiary contributors, except for LV in which G was a larger moderator. High input practices increased yield (4206 kg ha −1 ) compared to farmer practice (3347 kg ha −1 ) suggesting a yield gap of 859 kg ha −1 . Management intensities receiving foliar fungicides improved grain properties related to milling characteristics (i.e., TKW and TWT), while management intensities receiving more nitrogen improved baking characteristics (e.g., WA and DS). Across sources of variation, yield response to improved management associated positively with the responses of TKW, TWT, and in some cases, GP, and WA. Our results showed the possibility of simultaneously improving grain yield and selected milling and baking attributes of bread wheat genotypes through intensive management.Abbreviations: DDT, dough development time (min); DS, dough stability (min); FA, flour ash (%); FNV, falling number (s); FST, farinograph stability (min); FY, flour yield (%); G, genotype; GP, grain protein (%); GY, grain yield (kg ha −1 ); HWW, hard winter wheat; LV, loaf volume (mL); MTI, mixing tolerance index (BU); TKW, thousand kernel weight (g); TWT, test weight (kg hl −1 ); WA, water absorption.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Investigating the Contribution of Blending on the Dough Rheology of Roller-Milled Hard Red Wheat

“…In general, the quality of wheat is determined to a great extent by the environment and management practices [11][12][13][14]. These factors result in wheat (of any variety) exhibiting a range of quality characteristics.…”

Tillage and nitrogen rate effects on winter wheat yield in a wheat–sorghum rotation

“…With the global trend of increasing fertilizer prices, efficient crop management practices are necessary to improve crop yield and fertilizer use efficiency to reduce input costs and nutrient loss. Practices that improve wheat grain yields, grain quality, and resource use efficiency are necessary for sustainable production (Raj et al 2023). This further ensures food availability for the growing population (Lüder et al 2020) as well as increasing N use efficiency in wheat (Habbib et al 2017;Lollato et al 2021).…”

Bibliometric Network Analysis of Crop Yield Gap Research over the Past Three Decades

“…Model-based studies have estimated large yield gaps and a global genetic yield potential of wheat ranging from 30% to 70% [26], similar to global rice yields under the influence of climate change [27]. Regionally, in large crop production areas such as Pakistan, Iran, and China, factors pertaining to yield gaps include nitrogen fertilizer input, irrigation, and sowing date, for instance crop variety for canola [28], appropriate cultivation management for sugar beet [29], genotypes and management measures of wheat [30], and sowing advances and nitrogen fertilizer for rice [31]. Moreover, yield gaps also depend on the characteristics and the socioeconomic conditions in which farmers and the agricultural chains operate, information that is not typically available or considered in most yield gap studies [32].…”