Search

The United States (US) is the largest alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) producer in the world. More than 44% of the US alfalfa is produced under rainfed conditions, although it requires a relatively high amount of water compared to major field crops. Considering that yield and production of rainfed alfalfa have been relatively stagnant in the country for decades, there is a need to better understand the magnitude of yield loss due to water limitation and how far from yield potential current yields are. In this context, the main objective of this study was to estimate the current yield gap of rainfed alfalfa in the US. We collected 10 year (2009–2018) county-level government-reported yield and weather data from 393 counties within 12 major US rainfed alfalfa producing states and delineated alfalfa growing season using probabilistic approaches based on temperature thresholds for crop development. We then calculated county-level growing season rainfall (GSR), which was plotted against county-level yield to determine attainable yield (Ya) using frontier function analysis, and water-limited potential yield (Yw) using boundary function analysis. Average and potential water use efficiencies (WUE) were estimated, and associated yield gap referring to attainable (YGa) or water-limited yields (YGw) were calculated. Finally, we used conditional inference trees (CIT) to identify major weather-related yield-limiting factors to alfalfa forage yield. The frontier model predicted a mean Ya of 9.6 ± 1.5 Mg ha−1 and an associated optimum GSR of 670 mm, resulting in a mean YGa of 34%. The boundary function suggested a mean Yw of 15.3 ± 3 Mg ha−1 at the mean GSR of 672 ± 153 mm, resulting in a mean yield gap of 58%. The potential alfalfa WUE was 30 kg ha−1 mm−1 with associated minimum water losses of 24% of mean GSR, which was three times greater than the mean WUE of 10 kg ha−1 mm−1. The CIT suggested that GSR and minimum temperature in the season were the main yield-limiting weather variables in rainfed alfalfa production in the US. Our study also revealed that alfalfa was only limited by water availability in 21% of the environments. Thus, future research on management practices to narrow yield gaps at current levels of water supply is necessary.

Appropriate genotype selection and management can impact wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) yield in dryland environments, but their impact on yield components and their role in yield modulation are not well understood. Our objectives were to evaluate the yield response of commercial winter wheat genotypes to different management practices reflecting a stepwise increase in management intensity (including a reduction in crop density under high input), and to quantify how the different yield components modulate wheat yield. A factorial experiment evaluated six management (M) intensities [“farmer practice” (FP), “enhanced fertility” (EF), “ecological intensification” (EI), “increased foliar protection” (IFP), “water-limited yield” (Yw), and “increased plant productivity” (IPP)] and four winter wheat genotypes (G) in four Kansas environments (E). Average grain yield was 4.9 Mg ha–1 and ranged from 2.0 to 7.4 Mg ha–1, with significant two-way interactions (E × M and E × G). The EF usually maximized yields in dry environments, while EI, which consisted of EF plus one fungicide application, maximized yields in environments with greater water availability. Across all sources of variation, kernels m–2 and aboveground biomass were the strongest modulators of yield as compared to kernel weight and harvest index, while spikes m–2 and kernels spike–1 modulated yields at a similar magnitude. Foliar fungicides improved yield through increased green canopy cover duration and greater radiation intercepted during grain filling. When crop density was reduced from 2.7 to 1.1 million plants per hectare in an otherwise high-input system, plants produced more productive tillers (with genotype-specific response); however, reduced green canopy cover at anthesis and reduced cumulative solar radiation intercepted during grain filling limited wheat yield—although large differences in canopy cover or intercepted radiation were needed to cause modest changes in yield. Treatments more intensive than EI were not warranted as EF or EI maximized yields at all environments, and practices that promote biomass and kernels m–2 are to be targeted for future increases in wheat yield.

The Wheat Initiative (WI) and the WI Expert Working Group (EWG) for Agronomy (www.wheatinitiative.org) were formed with a collective goal to “coordinate global wheat research efforts to increase wheat production, quality, and sustainability to advance food security and safety under changing climate conditions.” The Agronomy EWG is responsive to the WI’s research need, “A knowledge exchange strategy to ensure uptake of innovations on farm and to update scientists on changing field realities.” The Agronomy EWG aims to consolidate global expertise for agronomy with a focus on wheat production systems. The overarching approach is to develop and adopt a systems-agronomy framework relevant to any wheat production system. It first establishes the scale of current yield gaps, identifies defensible benchmarks, and takes a holistic approach to understand and overcome exploitable yield gaps to complement genetic increases in potential yield. New opportunities to increase productivity will be sought by exploiting future Genotype × Environment × Management synergies in different wheat systems. To identify research gaps and opportunities for collaboration among different wheat producing regions, the EWG compiled a comprehensive database of currently funded wheat agronomy research (n = 782) in countries representing a large proportion of the wheat grown in the world. The yield gap analysis and research database positions the EWG to influence priorities for wheat agronomy research in member countries that would facilitate collaborations, minimize duplication, and maximize the global impact on wheat production systems. This paper outlines a vision for a global WI agronomic research strategy and discusses activities to date. The focus of the WI-EWG is to transform the agronomic research approach in wheat cropping systems, which will be applicable to other crop species.

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grain yield response to plant density is inconsistent, and the mechanisms driving this response are unclear. A better understanding of the factors governing this relationship could improve plant density recommendations according to specific environmental and genetics characteristics. Therefore, the aims of this paper were to: i) execute a synthesis-analysis of existing literature related to yield-plant density relationship to provide an indication of the need for different agronomic optimum plant density (AOPD) in different yield environments (YEs), and ii) explore a data set of field research studies conducted in Kansas (USA) on yield response to plant density to determine the AOPD at different YEs, evaluate the effect of tillering potential (TP) on the AOPD, and explain changes in AOPD via variations in wheat yield components. Major findings of this study are: i) the synthesis-analysis portrayed new insights of differences in AOPD at varying YEs, reducing the AOPD as the attainable yield increases (with AOPD moving from 397 pl m-2 for the low YE to 191 pl m-2 for the high YE); ii) the field dataset confirmed the trend observed in the synthesis-analysis but expanded on the physiological mechanisms underpinning the yield response to plant density for wheat, mainly highlighting the following points: a) high TP reduces the AOPD mainly in high and low YEs, b) at canopy-scale, both final number of heads and kernels per square meter were the main factors improving yield response to plant density under high TP, c) under varying YEs, at per-plant-scale, a compensation between heads per plant and kernels per head was the main factor contributing to yield with different TP.

Plant breeding has increased the yield of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) over decades, and the rate of genetic gain has been faster under high fertility in some countries. However, this response is not universal, and limited information exists on the physiological traits underlying the interaction between varieties and fertilization. Thus, our objectives were to identify the key shifts in crop phenotype in response to selection for yield and quality, and to determine whether historical and modern winter wheat varieties respond differently to in-furrow fertilizer. Factorial field experiments combined eight winter wheat varieties released between 1920 and 2016, and two fertilizer practices [control versus 112 kg ha-1 in-furrow 12 -40-0-10-1 (N-P-K-S-Zn)] in four Kansas environments. Grain yield and grain N-removal increased nonlinearly with year of release, with greater increases between 1966 and 2000. In-furrow fertilizer increased yield by ~300 kg ha-1 with no variety × fertility interaction. Grain protein concentration related negatively to yield, and the residuals of this relationship were unrelated to year of release. Yield increase was associated with changes in thermal time to critical growth stages, as modern varieties had shorter vegetative period and longer grain filling period. Yield gains also derived from more kernels m-2 resultant from more kernels head-1. Historical varieties were taller, had thinner stems, and allocated more biomass to the stem than semidwarf varieties. Yield gains resulted from increases in harvest index and not in biomass accumulation at grain filling and maturity, as shoot biomass was similar among varieties. The allometric exponent (i.e., the slope between log of organ biomass and log of shoot biomass) for grain increased with, and for leaves was unrelated to, year of release. The ability of modern varieties to allocate more biomass to the kernels coupled to an early maturity increased grain yield and grain N-removal over time. However, increases in grain yield were greater than increases in grain N-removal, reducing grain protein concentration in modern varieties.

A great majority of dryland wheat producers are reluctant to intensify management due to the assumption that lack of water availability is the most critical factor limiting yield and thus, the response to management intensification would be limited. We conducted on-farm field experiments across three locations and two growing seasons in Kansas using 21 modern winter wheat genotypes grown under either standard (SM) or intensified management (IM) systems. The goals of this study were to (i) determine whether the SM adopted is adequate to reach achievable yields by farmers in the region and (ii) identify differences in responsiveness to IM among a range of modern genotypes. Across all sites-years and genotypes, the IM increased yield by 0.9 Mg ha-1, outyielding the SM system even in the lowest yielding conditions. As expected, the yield response to IM increased with the achievable yield of the environment and genotype. Across all sources of variation, the yield responsiveness to IM was related to increased biomass rather than harvest index, strongly driven by improvements in grain number (and independent of changes in grain weight), and by improvements in N uptake which resulted from greater biomass and shoot N concentration. The IM system generally also increased grain N concentration and decreased the grain N dilution effect from increased yield. Genotypes varied in their response to IM, with major response patterns resulting from the combination of response magnitude (large vs. small) and consistency (variable vs. consistent). Genotypes with high mean response and high variability in the response to IM across years could offer greater opportunities for producers to maximize yield as those genotypes showed greater yield gain from IM when conditions favored their response. For the background conditions evaluated, intensifying management could improve wheat yield in between c. 0.2 and 1.5 Mg ha-1 depending on genotype.