Comparison of Different Planting Methods to Determine the Precision of Phenotyping Wheat in Field Experiments

  • Davinder Sharma
  • Jagadish Rane
  • Rajender Singh
  • Vijay Kumar Gupta
  • Ratan Tiwari


Lack of uniformity of plant stand while conducting a field experiment can substantially contribute to errors in the prediction of association between plant phenotype and genotype. Among the several factors that can contribute to experimental errors, inconsistent seed depth and plant spacing often occur due to lack of precision when seeds are sown by hand or seed drills. Hence, we compare three planting methods, novel dibbling, seed drill, and hand sowing, to determine the most efficient method for precision phenotyping in field. We showed the advantage of the new methods over conventional methods of sowing, viz., seed drill and by hand. Compared with conventional methods, the new method improved the consistency in plant spacing substantially as indicated by reduction in standard deviation at least by three times. The desired seed depth (6.5 cm) and plant spacing (10 cm intra- and 20 cm inter-row spacing) could be maintained with greater precision in dibbling method than in seed drill or hand sowing method. The reduction in error and the least coefficient of variation (CV%) for the plant traits measured in the new method relative to other methods indicated possibility of enhancing precision in phenotyping responses of wheat plants under field condition.


Precision phenotyping Planting methods Plant stand Coefficient of variation 



We gratefully acknowledge the financial support from ICAR for the Network Project on Transgenic in Crop: Functional Genomics in Wheat.


  1. 1.
    Nielsen RL (1991) Stand establishment variability in Corn. Purdue University AGRY-91-01Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lauer J (1994) Should I be planting my corn at a 30-inch row spacing? Wisconsin crop manager. Crop Agron 1(6):311–314Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tollenaar M, Deen W, Echarte L, Liu W (2006) Effect of crowding stress on dry matter accumulation and harvest index in maize. Agron J 98(4):930–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sharma D, Singh R, Rane J, Gupta VK, Mamrutha HM, Tiwari R (2016) Mapping quantitative trait loci associated with grain filling duration and grain number under terminal heat stress in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant Breed 135(5):538–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharma D, Tiwari R, Gupta VK, Rane J, Singh R (2018) Genotype and ambient temperature during growth can determine the quality of starch from wheat. J Cereal Sci 79:240–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zadoks JC, Chang TT, Konzak CF (1974) A decimal code for growth stages of cereals. Weed Res 14(6):415–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sinclair TR, Muchow RC (1999) Radiation use efficiency. Adv Agron 65:125–265Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Casper BB, Jackson RB (1997) Plant competition underground. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 28:545–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blackmer TM, Schepers JS, Vigil MF (1993) Chlorophyll meter readings in corn as affected by plant spacing. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 24(17–18):2507–2516CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Davinder Sharma
    • 1
  • Jagadish Rane
    • 2
  • Rajender Singh
    • 3
  • Vijay Kumar Gupta
    • 4
  • Ratan Tiwari
    • 3
  1. 1.Presenting authorICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley ResearchKarnalIndia
  2. 2.School of Drought StressICAR-National Institute of Abiotic Stress ManagementBaramatiIndia
  3. 3.ICAR-Indian Institute of Wheat & Barley ResearchKarnalIndia
  4. 4.Department of BiochemistryKurukshetra UniversityKurukshetraIndia

Personalised recommendations