Ausf. J. Agric. Res.

, 1984, 35, 743-64

Water Use Efficiency of Wheat

in a Mediterranean-type Environment. I
The Relation between Yield,
Water Use and Climate

R. J. French and J. E. Schultz

South Australian Department of Agriculture, Box 1671, G.P.O., Adelaide, S.A. 5001

Abstract
The relations between wheat yield and water use were determined from field measurements in South
Australia. Highest production of dry matter was 37 kg ha-' per mm of water use and of grain was 12.7
kg ha-' per mm. More than 70% of the total water use occurred by anthesis. Time of sowing and soil
water content at sowing had a big influence on yield.
The loss of water by direct evaporation was estimated to be 110 mm, equal to about one-third of
the water use. The maximum efficiency of water transpired was 55 kg ha-' mm-' for dry matter and
20 kg ha-' mm-' for grain. The efficiencies of most of the crops were below this level.
Yield (Y), water use (W) and evaporation (Ep)could be fitted to the de Wit formula Y = m W / E p ,
but the m factor varied with the proportion of water use that was lost by direct evaporation.

Introduction
Wheat is grown in Australia in environments that range from subtropical to
Mediterranean. The climates have been described by Nix (1975) and the soils by
McGarity (1975). Rainfall in the growing season is highly variable and usually
limits production. In the northern wheat areas of Australia most of the water used
by the wheat crop falls as rain before the growing season, and is stored in the
subsoil after fallowing. In southern Australia, although fallowing adds to the water
supply in some soils in some districts, most of the water used by wheat comes from
rain during April-October (this period is normally called the growing season, but
it includes 1-2 months in which soil preparation for sowing is carried out). Total
water use, as described in this paper, is equivalent to evapotranspiration.
In South Australia about 65% of the variation in wheat yield has been
associated with the variability of the April-October rainfall, and rainfall in the
winter months (June-August) is more effective in producing high yields than is
rain at other times (Cornish 1950). However, Seif and Pederson (1978) found that
in the central west of New South Wales the spring rainfall, from 3 weeks before
anthesis to 2 weeks after, accounted for 86% of the variation in yield. Other
climatic and edaphic factors in this area were of minor importance in contributing
to differences in yield. As seasonal rainfall can vary by three- to fourfold between
seasons, the variation in wheat yield from year to year is also large (Russell 1975),
although factors other than rainfall can contribute to this variation (Goodchild and
Boyd 1975).
 R. J. French and J . E. Schultz

Many studies in the wheatlands of Australia have measured the yield of wheat
and its relation to total water use (evapotranspiration) or to rainfall in the growing
season (Richardson 1923; Allen and George 1956; Waring et al. 1958; Fischer and
Kohn 1966a; Schultz 1971 ; French 1978; Doyle and Fischer 1979; Angus et al. 1980;
Tennant 1981; Woodruff 1983). Water use efficiencies in these studies have ranged
from 10 to 54 kg ha-' dry matter per mm of water use and from 4 to 19 kg ha-'
grain per mm. It is important to understand the causes of this variation, so that
strategies can be devised to give a more efficient and comistent use of water.
This paper aims to define the quantitative relations between wheat yield and
water use in the Mediterranean environment of South Australia. These relations
can be used as a basis for developing crop growth models, predicting yields and
providing guidelines for farming strategies. In a second paper we discuss factors
that limit yield and water use efficiency in this environment.

Materials and Methods

Sites and Seasons
Measurements were made at 61 field locations in South Australia during the years 1964-75. Average
annual rainfall at these sites ranges from 275 t o 450 mm, of which about 75% normally falls in the
growing season. Daily maximum screen temperatures at sowing (May-June) range from 12 to 16'C, at
anthesis (September-October), from 22 to 25'C, and at maturity (November-December) from 28 to
35°C. The soil types included red-brown earths (Northcote (1979) classification Dr, Db), solonized
brown soils (Gr, Gn), calcareous sands (Gc) and black earths (Ug). The location and April-October
rainfall of the sites during the experiments are listed in Table 1. Some of the sites were specific field
experiments, and others were pegged areas of 0.: ha within farmers' fields. The sites were selected to
avoid water loss by run-off or deep drainage.

Measurements
Weather variables
Rainfall was measured with a standard gauge on site.
Temperatures, both air and soil, were taken daily from chart recorders at the site or occasionally
from a nearby official station.
Evaporation was recorded daily from a bird-guarded class A pan at the site or a nearby station.
Radiation was measured by automatic recording instruments at the site or a nearby station.

Soil variables
Soil moisture was measured either gravimetrically or with a neutron moisture meter in 15-30 cm
intervals to a depth of 120 cm, at sowing, several times during the growing season and at maturity.

Plant variables
The most common cultivar of wheat was Halberd, but Heron, Insignia and Gabo were grown at a
few sites because they were the recommended cultivars at the time of the experiment. The crops were
sown with 50-70 kg ha-' of seed and with 100-150 kg ha-' superphosphate, depending on district
recommendation. The dates of sowing at the sites are shown in Table 1.
Dry matter was measured by cutting four quadrats (each 0 . 5 m2) at ground level in each replicate
several times during the growing season; grain was harvested by machines, or, in a few cases, yield was
determined from the quadrat of dry matter taken at maturity.
Samples of dry matter at the various growth stages, and of grain at maturity, were analysed for
nitrogen, phosphorus and 11 other elements (see Schultz and French 1976). Plant growth stages were
recorded from the Feekes Scale (Large 1954), and soil and dry matter measurements were related to the
growth stage at the time of sampling.
Measurements of rainfall, evaporation and grain yield were made at all sites. Owing to lack of
equipment or labour in the early years of the experiment, dry matter and water use were measured at
only 53 sites, and it was not possible to make measurements at the nominated growth stages at all sites.
These variations account for small differences in the number of recordings and the average values of
variables during growth intervals.
 Table 1. Location of sites, date of sowing, rainfall and yield of wheat grown in the South Australian experiments, 1964-75

Location Year Rain Date of Period from sowing to maturity Dry matter yield Grain yield
Apr.- Sowing Anthesis No. of Rain ASA Water use Pan evap. (kg ha-') (kg ha-')
Oct. days (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Max." Maturity
(mm)

Eyre Peninsula
Minnipa 196 7
209 35
138 42
Kimba 193 43
195 73
307 18
239 109
Kimba 350 n.d.
250 n.d.
250 n.d.
240 n.d.
237 n.d.
235 n.d.
235 n.d.
24 1 37
Wharminda 137 52
Ungarra 239 88
239 65
Cockaleechie 268 84
Upper North
Caltowie 358 30
Jamestown 338 37
359 111
Gulnare 363 102
Manoora 223 n.d.
303 74
151 78
389 67
 Table 1. - Continued

Location Year Rain Date of Period from sowing to maturity Dry matter yield Grain yield
Apr.- Sowing Anthesis No. of Rain ASA Water use Pan evap. (kg ha- I ) (kg ha-')
Oct. days (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) MaxR Maturity
(mm)

Saddleworth 340 101 44 1 846

422 81 503 819
Lower North
Northfield

Parafield

Pinery

Reeves Plain

Stockport
Tarlee
Two Wells
Water Use Efficiency of Wheat. I

+ggg;;~qzggaa+ d r
o m- ? d o \ +
d m m d m m ~ d d m d d d m m C ~ N
 R. J. French and J. E. Schultz

Results and Discussion

The Relation between Yield, Water Use and Seasonal Rainfall
Yield, soil water change from sowing to maturity, rainfall and pan evaporation
for the sites are shown in Table 1. The standard deviations given in this table apply
approximately to the data used in other Tables.
Water use is defined by adding the change in soil water content between sowing
and maturity to the rainfall in the same period. It incorporates both the water lost
by direct evaporation from the soil and the crop, and the water transpired by the
crop.
Calculations of water use efficiency have been included in the paper. These were
made by dividing the yield by the water use, or in some cases, by dividing the yield
by an estimate of the water transpired; the different calculations are clearly
indicated in Figs 5 and 6 .
The average yields of dry matter (grain and straw) and of grain per mm of water
use and per mm of April-October rainfall are shown in Table 2. The data have been
grouped to compare the efficiency of the best crop (at Kimba in 1973), the efficiency
of a group containing the eight highest yielding crops (sites listed in Table 3), the
average of all crops, and the efficiency of a group of eight low yielding crops from
different districts.
Table 2. Water use efficiency for dry matter and grain production expressed on the basis of
water use (evapotranspiration) and rainfall
Values in parenthesis are the number of observations

Relation Dry matter Grain

(kg ha- mm- I) (kg ha-' mm-I)

Yield v. water use (mm)

Most efficient crop (1)
High-yielding group (8)
Average of all sites (53)
Low-yielding group (8)
Yield v. Apr.-Oct. rainfall
Most efficient crop (1)
High-yielding group (8)
Average of all sites (61)
Low-yielding group (8)

In general, there is a close relation between the yield per mm water use and the
yield per mm of growing season rainfall (April-October). Best yields of dry matter
exceeded 37 kg ha-' mm-' water use and best grain yields reached 12.7 kg ha-'
mm-'. Over 53 sites, the water use was equal to 0.82 (April-October rainfall), but
when some abnormal values are excluded (viz. the 10 sites where long fallowing
accumulated more than 50 mm water at sowing and the five sites where rainfall
exceeded 475 mm), the relation is more direct. Thus:
Water use (mm) = - 18.4 + 1.04 (April-October rainfall, mm) (3 = 0.87).
Within these constraints, and where no run-off occurs, the April-October
rainfall can be used as an approximation of crop water use.
The dry matter production of the three groups of crops - high, average and low
yields - during four growth intervals (viz. sowing to the end of tillering (Feekes
Water Use Efficiency of Wheat. I

scale FS 5 ) , tillering to anthesis (FS 10.5.2) anthesis to soft dough (FS 11.2), and
soft dough to maturity (FS 11.4)), and the accompanying weather variables, are
summarized in Table 3.
Comparison between the data for the high-yielding and the low-yielding group
of crops indicates that the key factors contributing to yield are an early sowing
date, a long interval with lower daily evaporation from sowing to anthesis, a higher
water supply particularly before anthesis, and a higher harvest index (ratio of grain
to dry matter) of 0.35-0.28. There was little difference in the accumulated
temperatures.
In this environment, rainfall exceeds water use only in the interval from sowing
to the end of tillering, and crops from tillering to maturity rely greatly on water
stored in the subsoil.

Table 3. Weather inputs and yield data for three groups of crops for four intervals of growth
Interval No. of Rain Water use Pan evap. Sum of daily air temp. Dry matter
days (mm) (mm) (mm) Max. air Min. air yield
("c) ("C) (kg ha-')

Sowing to end of rillering

High-yielding groupA
Average of all sites
Low-yielding groupB
Tillering to anthesis
High-yielding group
Average of all sites
Low-yielding group
Anthesis to soft dough
High-yielding group
Average of all sites
Low-yielding group
Soft dough to maturity
High-yielding group
Average of all sites
Low-yielding group

Yield group Sowing date Days Apr.-Oct. Water Pan evap. Dry matter Grain Harvest
(Day of year) (Sowing to rain (mm) use (mm) at maturity (kg ha-') index
maturity) (mm) (kg ha-')

High 151 191 360 391 740 11210 3900 0.35

Average 161 182 340 336 710 7810 2300 0.29
Low 190 159 239 236 788 3840 1060 0.28
- -

*High-yielding group: Gulnare 1970; Saddleworth 1970; Turretfield 1970; Reeves Plain 1970; Maitland
1971; Turretfield 1972 (a); Kimba 1973; Kimba 1974.
BLow-yieiding group: Pinery 1965; Parafield 1967; Wanbi 1971; Minnipa 1972; Manoora 1972;
Turretfield 1972 (d); Maitland 1972; Kimba 1975.

About 72% of the total water use occurs by anthesis, and 40% or more is used
in the interval from the end of tillering to anthesis, the interval where most of the
dry matter is produced. The importance of a greater water supply before anthesis
is probably determined by the relation between the production per mm and the
daily evaporative demand. On average this demand, measured by pan evaporation,
is 2 mm day-' from sowing to tillering, 3.5 mm day-' from tillering to anthesis,
5 . 7 mm day-' from anthesis to soft dough, and 8.4 mm day-' from soft dough
to maturity (from Table 3). Greater efficiency is achieved when the water use occurs
at lower daily pan evaporation rates and when the ratio of actual to potential
water use is high. Using pan evaporation as an estimate of potential water
 R. J. French and J. E. Schultz

use, calculations of the ratio of water use to pan evaporation from mean data in
Table 3 show a ratio of 0.69 before anthesis and 0.26 after anthesis. Changes in
the value of this ratio during the growing season at five sites are shown in Fig. 1.
The comparison is between two sites with favourable growing seasons (Gulnare,
Turretfield), two sites with dry seasons (Manoora, Minnipa) and one site (Reeves

Sum of daily maximum air temperatures from sowing (OC)

-.-.-.-
Fig. 1. A comparison of the variation in the ratio of water use t o evaporation derived
from measurements at five to seven times between sowing and maturity for sites with
different rainfall. -Gulnare 1970, --- Turretfield 1972a, -@-@-0-Reeves
Plain 1970, -A-A-A- Manoora 1972, Minnipa 1972.

Plain) with an early dry period but with favourable late rains (Fig. 1). From sowing
to anthesis, values for the ratio range from 0.10 to 1 10, a range similar to that
reported by Doorenbos and Kassam (1979). The average values of the ratio over
the whole growing season and the consequent dry matter and grain yield for the

Table 4. Variation in the ratio of water use (E,) to pan evaporation (E,) in the growing season and
the effect on yield of wheat

Site Year Days Water use (E,) Evaporation (Ep) Ea Dry matter Grain
-
Total per day Ep yield yield
Sowing- (mm) (mm) (kg ha-') (kg ha-')
maturity

Gulnare 1970 189 465 663 3.5 0.70 13400 4970

Turretfield 1972a 177 400 672 3.8 0.60 12150 3760
Reeves Plain 1970 182 306 638 3.5 0.48 10640 3190
Manoora 1972 146 229 805 5.5 0.28 3960 1340
Minnipa 1972 146 180 906 6.2 0.20 2660 990

five sites are given in Table 4. In our environment high yielding crops can be grown
when this ratio is above 0.5.
Graphs showing the relation between dry matter production and water use
(Fig. 2) and between grain yield and water use (Fig. 3) are derived from data in
Table 1.
Water Use Efficiency of Wheat. I

Water use (mm)

Fig. 2. The relation between total dry matter production of wheat and water use (soil water plus
rainfall). The sloping line is our estimate of the potential production.

Water use (mm)

Fig. 3. The relation between grain yield of wheat and water use (soil water plus rainfall). The
sloping line indicates the potential yield from water transpired, after allowing for a loss of 110
mm water by direct evaporation.

The data in Figs 2 and 3 can be analysed by regression analysis to give a best
fit relationship, but because of the data spread the coefficient of determination is
low, e.g. the grain yield v. water use relation had an 9 of only 0.31. Other results
have also shown that regression and correlation have failed to give a biological
understanding of the complex effect of weather variables on crop growth (Biscoe
and Gallagher 1977). Therefore, in Figs 2 and 3, we have drawn an arbitrary line
 R. J. French and J . E. Schultz

which encloses almost all the highest yielding crops at different levels of water use
and thereby defines a linear relation between potential yield and water use. The
spread of data below this line indicates sites where yield was limited by factors such
as extremes of temperature, agronomic deficiencies, the effect of pests and diseases
and possibly soil erosion. Other evidence (presented in part I1 (French and Schultz
1984)) suggests that this linearity continues up to about 500 mm water use, provided
waterlogging does not occur.

Estimation of the Value of the Two Components of Water Use

The two components of water use, viz. evaporation from soil and plant, and
transpiration, are essentially independent (Denmead 1973), but they are difficult to
separate in the field because both are influenced by radiant energy. Evaporation is
particularly influenced by the amount and distribution of rainfall, the amount
falling on bare soil, and the interception by plant growth. Transpiration is
influenced by the rainfall not intercepted, the subsoil moisture supply and the
stage of growth of the crop. Additional water losses can occur due to run-off or
deep drainage, but in our experiments, sites were selected so that these latter effects
were minimal.
Hanks et al. (1969) have shown that an estimate of the amount of water lost by
direct evaporation can be obtained from the intercept on the water use axis of the
linear relation between yield and water use. From Figs 2 and 3 this method
estimates that, for crops with high yield and efficient water use, the lower limit for
soil evaporation is 110 mm, equal to about a third of the average total water use.
Values beyond this intercept represent the amount of water transpired by the crop.
The slope of the linear relation in Figs 2 and 3, shows that, after 110 mm water
use, the potential yield is 55 kg ha-' mm-' of dry matter and 20 kg ha-' mm-I
of grain. The latter value is practically the same as that obtained from transpiration
experiments in a glasshouse (Passioura 1976). That the relationship between yield
and transpiration is linear where other factors do not limit growth, is supported by
de Wit (1958) and Hanks et al. (1969) (see also reviews by Monteith and Scott
(1982); Tanner and Sinclair (1983)). The graph can be regarded as a valid basis for
defining potential yield. The production of grain per mm of water transpired can
be compared with the maximum values of 15.8 kg ha-' mm-' obtained by Allen
and George (1956), Doughty (1958) and Angus et al. (1980), the 18.5 kg ha-'
mm-I by Leggett (1959) and Greb et al. (1979), and the 23.4 kg ha-' mm-' by
Arkley (1963), from calculations of the results of Power et al. (1961).
Our estimate of the loss of 110 mm by evaporation is similar to that obtained
in Western Australia (Tennant 1981) and to the 100-120 mm reported for the
Central Great Plains of America (Hanks and Rasmussen 1982). The loss, as a
percentage of total water use, is similar to that obtained in old crop experiments
(Richardson 1923) and is within the 18-41% loss recorded at Tamworth, N.S.W.
(Doyle and Fischer 1979).
Our relations were established where the rainfall from sowing to maturity
exceeded 150 mm at most of the sites. However, yield and water use data were also
available from other experiments (French 1978; French unpublished data) where
rainfall from sowing to maturity was less than 150 mm. Examination of these low
rainfall sites (open circles, Fig. 4) showed that whilst the linear relation between
yield and water use had the same slope as for sites with more than 150 mm rainfall,
the intercept on the water use axis was at 60 mm (line DE).
Water Use Efficiency of Wheat. I

In Queensland, where crops depend mainly on the water in the subsoil at sowing
and rainfall from sowing to maturity can be as low as 50 mm, the loss by
evaporation is even lower. Thus Angus et a[. (1980) estimated a soil evaporation
loss of 27 mm equal to 14% of the total water use, and D. R. Woodruff (personal
communication) recorded an evaporation loss of 25 mm, equal to 18% of the total
water use. The linear relation between these sites and the intercept on the water use
axis is shown by the line BC in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. The relation between grain yield of wheat and water use (soil water plus rainfall) showing
variation in the loss of water by direct evaporation (intercept on the horizontal axis) in different
environments. OA is from transpiration experiments (Passioura 1976); BC, Queensland
environment; DE, low rainfall sites (open circles) in southern environment; FG, average value from
our data; HJ, hard-setting soils (solid circles).

We therefore postulate that where rainfall from sowing to maturity is greater

than 150 mm, the evaporation loss under high-yielding crops with efficient water
use is 110 mm. Where the growing season rainfall is below 150 mm, the evaporation
loss is about 60% of this rainfall.
Our data also show that in normal seasons with more than 150 mm rainfall,
inefficiencies in water use can lead to soil evaporation losses much higher than the
110 mm. This occurs in our hard-setting soils, red-brown earths (Dr) or solonetzic
soils (Dy), with less than 18% clay and a poor surface structure. The yield v. water-
use relation for these soils (solid circles, Fig. 4) indicates an evaporation loss of
about 170 mm (line HJ), probably because of poor infiltration, surface ponding
and run-off.
Thus, the loss of water by direct evaporation from crop and soil can vary from
30 to 170 mm, depending on rainfall and soil type. The evaporation loss needs to
be defined for each environment before water use efficiencies can be compared.
The relation between dry matter yield and water use within two growth intervals
was also determined. In the interval from sowing to the end of tillering, the loss
 R. J. French and J. E. Schultz

by evaporation was estimated to be 40 mm, and the subsequent potential

production was 25 kg ha-' mm-'. For the sowing to anthesis interval, the
evaporation loss was 80 mm and the subsequent potential production was 60 kg
ha-' mm-' (Table 5). The loss by evaporation from sowing to anthesis represents
about 30-40% of both the rainfall and water use in this interval. Our value of
80 mm loss by evaporation in this interval is similar to the 70 mm recorded by
Fischer and Turner (1978).
Table 5. The water use threshold and the maximum production for
each millimetre of water transpired in crop intervals

Water use Subsequent

Crop interval threshold production
(mm) (kg ha-' mm- I)
Dry matter
Sowing to end of tillering 40 25
Sowing to anthesis 80 60
Sowing to maturity 110 55
Grain
Sowing to maturity 110 20

Water is also lost by evaporation during tillage before sowing. In Western

Australia, most of the rain from initial cultivation to crop emergence is lost by
evaporation (A. P. Hamblin and M. L. Poole, personal communication). In our
time-of-sowing trial at Turretfield in 1972, 74% of the 162 mm of rain that fell in
the 80 days between the first and last sowing date was lost to the last sown crop
by evaporation.
Water Use EJgiciency in Relation to Pan Evaporation
Water use efficiencjr is influenced by the accompanying evaporation demand, and
the relation between production, water supply and daily evaporation has been
quantified by de Wit (1958) in the formula:
Y = mW/Ep,
where Y is dry matter yield (kg ha-'), W is water use (mm), E p is average pan
evaporation (mm day-') from sowing to maturity and rn is a constant. By using
this approach, the dry matter production per mm water use was related to the daily
average pan evaporation for 36 sites in this experiment and a further 18 sites from
previous experiments where rainfall from sowing to maturity was less than 150 mm
(Fig. 5 4 . The highest productions per mm water use were linked to the daily pan
evaporation by an arbitrary curve. This curve fits the de Wit formula when a value
of 115 is ascribed to the rn factor.
Similarly, dry matter production per mm water transpired was related to daily
pan evaporation (Fig. 5b). The amount (mm) of water transpired was estimated
from (water use - 110) or for the sites with less than 150 mm rain from sowing to
maturity, from (water use -60% of the rainfall). The arbitrary curve relating
production per mm and pan evaporation fits the de Wit formula if a value of 190
is ascribed to the m factor. For comparison, the relationship derived by Fischer
(1979) between transpiration of tops and roots, and evaporation, viz.
Water Use Efficiency of Wheat. I

where T is g m - 2 mm-' and Ep is daily class A pan evaporation (mm), is included

in Fig. 5b.
It is considered that the relation in Fig. 5b for estimating dry matter production
applies in different environments. For example, under European conditions,
evaporation may be only 3 mm day-' (Monteith and Scott 1982), and with ample
water supply, the transpiration is also 3 mm day-'. From the graph this gives
about 60 kg ha-' mm-' or about 180 kg ha-' day-'. This production is similar
to that obtained by Sibma (1968) and Greenwood et al. (1977) for a range of crops
and vegetables.

Fig. 5. (a) The relation between total

dry matter production per mm water use
and the average daily pan evaporation
from sowing to maturity.
5 4 3 2
Average pan evaporation (mm day-') ( 0 data from sites in Table 1;
0 data from other experiments.)
The solid curved line has been drawn
to fit the highest efficiencies
of water use.
(b) The relation between total
dry matter production per mm
water transpired and the average
daily pan evaporation from sowing to maturity.
The solid curved line fits
the highest efficiencies of
water transpired.
The broken curved line (fl is
the relation derived for roots
and top growth by Fischer (1979).

'1
O 6 Average pan evaporation (mm3day-')

Under South Australian conditions, our best production in the interval from
tillering to anthesis was 140 kg ha-l day-', with an average of 116 kg ha-' day-'
for the high yielding group (Table 3). Whilst the average pan evaporation was 3.3
mm day-', water use was only 2.7 mm day-', but this was reduced to 2 . 2 mm
day-' of water transpired when evaporation losses were considered. Thus the
production per mm water transpired at this daily pan evaporation rate is similar in
both environments.
Grain production per mm water use was also related to the daily average pan
evaporation (Fig. 6). The data are scattered but the highest productions per mm
were related to the evaporation by an arbitrary curve (a) which fits the de Wit
 R. J. French and J. E. Schultz

formula if a value of 42 is ascribed to the rn factor. Selected data from sites in other
States are also shown in Fig. 6. Most of these sites fit the same curve as the South
Australian data, except for the two Queensland sites, where the crop derives the
maj,or water supply from subsoil moisture. The relationship for this environment
is shown by curve (b) which fits the de Wit formula if rn = 52.

2 . 0
0
6 5 4 3 2
Average pan evaporation (mm day-')

Fig. 6. The relation between grain yield per millimetre and the
average daily pan evaporation. The relations are shown for the
mm water transpired (-) and the mm water use (---) in
two regions: (a) southern Australia and (b) Queensland.
The solid circles are from sites listed in Table 1, the open
ones are from other unpublished data for low rainfall sites.
Selected data from high yielding sites in Australia are also
shown: M , Millicent; N, Naracoorte (D. C. Lewis, personal
communication); Ru, Rutherglen (Connor 1975); WG, Wagga;
C , Coolamon (Greacen and Hignett 1984); L, Leeton (Cooper
1980); T, Tamworth (A. D. Doyle, personal communication);
Na, Narayen (Angus et a/. 1980); Ro, Roma (D. R. Woodruff,
personal communication); W, Wongan Hills (M. Perry,
personal communication).

Fig. 6 also shows the arbitrary curve relating production per mm water
transpired to the daily pan evaporation. The water transpired was estimated as
described earlier, viz. (water use - 110) or (water use - 60% of the rainfall) for
sites with low rainfall. This arbitrary curve fits the de Wit formula if a value of 65
is ascribed to the rn factor.
We propose that all the relations between water use efficiency and daily average
pan evaporation can fit the de Wit formula if the value of rn is determined for each
situation, i.e. rn is dependent on the proportion of rainfall lost by evaporation and
the soil type. For grain yield it can be defined as:
rn = 65 (1 - (loss by evaporation (mm)/total water use (mm)).
In the Queensland environment, the evaporation loss is about 18% of water use
and rn = 52. In southern Australia, the loss is 33% of water use and rn = 42;
Water Use Efficiency of Wheat. I

on our hard-setting soils, the loss is 50% of water use and m = 32. The de Wit
formula can therefore be used as an index of potential yield for wheat in many
different areas, confirming the views of Hanks et al. (1969) and Fischer and Turner
(1978). Actual yields and potential yields calculated from the formula for some
selected sites in South Australia are given in Table 6.

Table 6. Some actual and potential wheat yields in South Australia

Potential yield calculated from de Wit formula using m = 115 for dry matter and m = 42
for grain

Site Year Sowing Sowing to maturity Actual yield Potential yield

date Water (kg ha- ') (kg ha- ')
Days use Evap. D.M. Grain D.M. Grain
(mm) (mm)
--

Reeves Plain 1970 28.v

Turretfield 1972 6.vi
19.vii
3 .viii
2 1.viii
Gulnare 1970 1.vi
Kimba 1973 7.v
Northfield 1967 5.vii

The Eflect of Time of Sowing on Water Use Eficiency

The effect of time of sowing on yield has been recognized since the early
experiments of Richardson and Trumble (1928). We have also studied this effect in
over 200 experiments during 1958-68 in three districts in South Australia and found
that, for each week's delay in sowing, grain yield was reduced by 200-250 kg ha-'
(Table 7).

Table 7. Effect of time of sowing on yield of wheat for three districts in South
Australia during 1958-68

Average Optimum Rate of decline of grain

rainfall time of yield for each week's delay
District Apr.-Oct. sowing in sowing
(mm)

County Le Hunte 220 10-20.v 5% (90 kg ha-' week-') until

(Eyre Peninsula) mid-June and then 12%
(250 kg ha-' week-')
County Fergusson 400 10-25.vi 5% (200 kg ha-' week-I)
(Yorke Peninsula)
County Light 380 1-15.vi 8% (200 kg ha-' week-')
(Mid-North)

Four time-of-sowing experiments were included in our data (Table 1). Data from
two of these, one in a dry growing season at a normally high rainfall site (at
Turretfield in 1972), and the other in a very moist season at a normally low rainfall
site (at Kimba in 1974), are shown in Table 8. The data illustrate that early sowing
gives higher yield because there are more tillers and more grains per unit area, a
 Table 8. The effect of time of sowing on components of yield and water use efficiency

Location Sowing Date of Days from Water Evap. Tillers No. of No. of Grain Yield (kg ha-') Water use efficiency
date anthesis sowing to useA per day per m2 grains grains weight (kg ha-' mm-l)
anthesis at per head per m2 Dry Grain Dry Grain
(mm) (mm) maturity (mg) matter matter

Turretfield 1972
Mid-North
(rainfall Apr.-
Oct. 307 mm)
Kimba
(Eyre Peninsula)
(rainfall Apr.-
Oct. 397 mm)

A Water use: soil moisture change between sowing and maturity plus rainfall in the period.
HMaximum yield in growing season: yield at maturity was slightly lower (Table 1).
'Production per millimetre of April-October rain.
Water Use Efficiency of Wheat. I

longer interval from sowing to anthesis, and a lower daily average pan evaporation
rate from sowing to maturity. The data for Turretfield 1972 also show the marked
difference in water use from the different times of sowing.
The effect of accumulated daily air temperature on the crop phenology of
Halberd wheat was also measured in the Turretfield time-of-sowing experiment in
1972 (Fig. 7). For the first time of sowing, anthesis occurred at 2330°C day degrees
from sowing; for the last time of sowing, anthesis occurred after only 1780°C day
degrees and the date of anthesis was 26 days later. The longer duration from sowing
to anthesis in the first sowing gave more than twice as many grains m - 2 as did the
last sowing (Table 8).
Sowina Grain
date- yield
(t ha-')

12

c
b 1 9 July 2.86

=9 8-

3 Aug. 2.08
B .
+
2 4- 2 1 Aug. 1.55

ii

0
1000 2 000 3 000
Sum of daily maximum air temperatures from sowing (W

Fig. 7. The relation between cumulative day degrees of

temperature and dry matter production of wheat for the
different times of sowing at Turretfield 1972. The curves are
derived from measurements made at seven times between
sowing and maturity. The date of anthesis (F), the end of the
maximum rate of growth ( A ) and the grain yields are shown.

Fig. 7 shows the curves of dry matter production for each of the four sowing
dates. The curves were derived from harvests made at seven times during the
growing season. The stage of anthesis (fl and the estimated point ( A ) at which the
growth rate fell below the maximum of 55 kg ha-' per mm water use for each
sowing date are also shown. This change in growth rate occurred in the same week
(second week of October) for each sowing date irrespective of the growth stage.
This week was the first week in the growing season to accumulate 40 mm class A
pan evaporation or 160°C day degrees of maximum temperature, i.e. the week with
a daily average maximum temperature of 23°C. The date of6his week is defined
as the stress date after which senescence is accelerated. Maximum yields are
obtained only when anthesis is completed after the frost period but before the onset
of the stress date.
In South Australia this stress date usually occurs in mid-September in the
Murray Mallee, in mid-October in the Lower North and at the end of October in
the Upper South East. The optimum sowing date and the date of anthesis can be
predicted from calculations of day degrees of maximum screen temperature (French
et al. 1979).
 R. J. French and J. E. Schultz

The recommendation from our time-of-sowing studies was that anthesis should
be completed before the first week with a daily maximum air temperature of 23°C
(and an accompanying daily minimum of 10°C). In general terms this field result
fits within the criteria obtained from specialized studies. Thus Halse and Weir
(1974) obtained maximum spikelet numbers with day/night temperatures of
22/17"C, and Davidson and Birch (1978) obtained an increase in grain yield from
18/13"C to 21/16"C, but recorded a decline in yield at 24/19OC.
The data in Table 8 show a decline in grain yield of 200 kg ha-' for each week's
delay in sowing at Turretfield and a decline rate at Kimba, of 480 kg ha-' for each
week's delay after the date giving the maximum yield. The lower yields with the two
earliest sowings were probably due to frost damage.
At Turretfield, each day's delay in sowing also reduces the period of maximum
growth rate by 0.6-0.7 day, and the duration from sowing to anthesis by 0.7 day,
and it delays the onset of anthesis by 0.3-0.4 day. These results can be compared
with those obtained at Wagga Wagga where each week's delay in sowing delays
anthesis by 2 days (Fischer and Kohn 1966b), and reduces yield by 3.7% or 80-230
kg ha-' grain (Kohn and Storrier 1970). At Tamworth, each day's delay in sowing
delays anthesis by 0.47 day and reduces yield by 33 kg ha-' (Doyle and Fischer
1979). In Western Australia, each week's delay in sowing reduces yield by 60-70
kg ha-' (A. P. Hamblin and M. L. Poole, personal communication), while in
Queensland each day's delay in sowing reduces yield by 1.2% or approximately 30
kg ha-' (Woodruff 1983).

The Eflect of Soil Moisture Supply at Sowing on Yield

There is evidence that in South Australia a wheat crop needs about 475 mm
water use for maximum yield (French 1978). At no site did the rainfall from sowing
to maturity exceed that value (Table 1). Even in the high-yielding group of crops
(Table 3), the average rainfall in this period was just below 300 mm. The high yields
were obtained where the rainfall was supplemented by an average 100 mm water
present in the subsoil at sowing date. Twelve of the 53 sites where soil moisture was
measured contained 100 mm or more at sowing, while 21 sites had less than 50 mm
at sowing.
It was difficult to assess the relative importance of stored water and rainfall from
sowing to maturity on yield by regression analysis. Analysis of our data gave
only a low coefficient of determination (9= 0-35) due to the scatter of values.
However, when the analysis was confined to sites with less than 260 mm rainfall,
the relation was

where Y is grain yield (kg ha- I), x , is change in stored water (mm) and x, is rainfall
(mm).
The results indicate the importance of stored water at sowing to supplement
seasonal rainfall and show that stored water is more effective in promoting yield
than rainfall from sowing to maturity, presumably because it is not subject to
evaporation loss. The water use efficiency has been shown to increase as soil water
at sowing increases to 150 mm (Ramig and Rhoades 1963), while Smith and Harris
(1981) have indicated an increase in the length of the growing season from 151 to
168 days when soil water content at sowing increased from 76 to 150 mm.
Water Use Efficiency of Wheat. I

Our data in Table 3 show that rainfall only exceeds water use in the interval from
sowing to the end of tillering. A key aim of wheatgrowing should be to carry out
practices that maximize the soil water content at sowing and so provide some
insurance against drought. Long fallowing can add substantially to subsoil
moisture under specific soil and climatic conditions, provided there is no erosion
hazard. On the other hand, some reduced tillage practices allow pastures and weeds
to grow from the opening rains and thereby reduce the soil water content and
increase the reliance on good seasonal rain.
Where the soil water content at sowing makes up most of the total water use by
the crop, efficient use of this water has been obtained by adjusting the plant density
to the water content at sowing (Fawcett and Carter 1973). Water loss may occur
through deep drainage, particularly in coarse-textured soils, and Sedgley et al.
(1981) recorded a loss of 9% of 103 mm rain during a 12-week period in the middle
of the growing season.

The Eflect of Water Use before and after Anthesis on Yield

Both our high- and low-yielding crops used more than 70070 of their total water
by anthesis (Table 3). Production of dry matter per mm was most efficient in the
interval from tillering to anthesis.
Other studies have emphasized the importance of adequate water supply at or
after anthesis (Fischer and Kohn 196627; Nix and Fitzpatrick 1969; Passioura 1977)
for high grain yields. Ways of achieving this could be to select those crops with
resistance in the seminal roots to restrict water flow in the early growth stages and
thereby favour post-anthesis growth (Passioura 1977; Richards 1983) or to plant
deeper with appropriate varieties (Cornish 1981). Our data, however, show that the
high-yielding group used more water than the low-yielding group, both before and
after anthesis. Fischer (1979) has calculated that, for Wagga Wagga, the optimum
amount of dry matter at anthesis is about 7000 kg ha-'. Our average value is
similar to this, but the high-yielding crops had over 8000 kg ha-'. Greater amounts
than this have caused the 'haying off effect in which the plants collapse owing to
insufficient water in the post-anthesis period.
Passioura (1983) suggests that, when the supply of water is limited, the ratio of
water use before anthesis to water use after anthesis should be 2:l. However, the
value of this ratio for our data is 2.4-2-7:l. We were unable to relate grain yield
to any combinations of water use and evaporation in the post-anthesis period. This
may be due to the high daily evaporation rates of 5-6 mm-I day-' from anthesis
to soft dough followed by 8-9 mm-' day-' from soft dough to maturity.
We believe that in our environment the major determinant of yield is the growth
and water use before anthesis. After allowing for the 80 mm of water loss by
evaporation from sowing to anthesis, each additional mm water transpired can
produce 60 kg ha-' dry matter and 100 grains m-2. In the best crops this dry
matter production converts to 30 kg ha-' grain at maturity, i.e. 50% conversion,
but the conversion may be as low as 15% where crops are diseased. A reduction
of 1 mm of water use before anthesis can therefore reduce grain yields by up to
30 kg ha- . '
The production of dry matter per mm water use found in this study during the
pre-anthesis period is similar to that obtained in Queensland by Woodruff (1983),
although he recorded only up to 60 grains m-2 per mm water use. Nevertheless,
 R. J. French and J. E. Schultz

he also found that savings in water use before anthesis did not offset the lower dry
weight and spikelet number at anthesis, and lower yield resulted.
Our explanation is that grain yield is highly correlated with grain numbers
(kg ha- grain = 0.28 grains m-2; 9 = 0.78), and grain numbers are determined
mainly by the water use in the interval from floral initiation to anthesis. Water
stress in this interval reduces both grain numbers and yield (Aspinall et al. 1964;
Salter and Goode 1967; Connor 1975; Fischer 1979; Sutton and Dubbelde 1980).
Our data show a threefold range in grain numbers (4 000-13 000 grains m-') but
only a 50% range in grain weight (22-34 mg per grain).
Even under irrigation of wheat at Leeton, southern New South Wales, Cooper
(1980) found that irrigation before anthesis had a greater effect on promoting yield,
than irrigation after anthesis, mainly because more spikes m-2 were produced.
Similarly in England, Innes and Blackwell (1981) found that a crop with early
drought produced only 65% of the grain numbers and 69% of the yield compared
with a fully irrigated crop, while the late drought crop produced 95% of the grain
numbers and 75% of the yield. Our data support the concept that highest yields
are obtained with greater water use before anthesis.
The data presented here show a wide range in yield and water use efficiency.
Possible reasons for the limitation of yield will be discussed in part I1 of this series.

Acknowledgments
We thank Mr R. N. Pederson and Mr A. M. Weir for their help with the field
and laboratory work and collation of data; Mr J. M. Jacka for the analyses of
plant and soil samples; the farmers who cooperated by providing land for many of
the experiments and for recording weather data; and Dr P. S. Cornish, Agricultural
Research Institute, Wagga Wagga, and Dr G. Schrale, Department of Agriculture,
Adelaide, for helpful comments on the manuscript.

References
Allen, G. H., and George, R. W. (1956). Wheat investigations at Biloela Regional Experiment Station,
Central Queensland. Qld J. Agric. Sci. 13, 19-46.
Angus, J. F., Nix, H. A., Russell, J. S., and Kruizinga, J. G. (1980). Water use, growth and yield of
wheat in a sub-tropical environment. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 31, 873-86.
Arkley, R. J. (1963). Relations between plant growth and transpiration. Hilgardia 34, 559-84.
Aspinall, D., Nicholls, P . B., and May, L. H. (1964). The effect of soil moisture stress on the growth
of barley. I. Vegetative development and grain yield. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 15, 729-45.
Biscoe, P. V., and Gallagher, J. N. (1977). Weather, dry matter production and yield. In
'Environmental Effects on Crop Physiology'. (Eds J. J. Landsberg and C. V. Cutting.) pp. 75-100.
(Academic Press: London.)
Connor, D. J. (1975). Growth, water relations and yield of wheat. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 2, 353-66.
Cooper, J. L. (1980). The effect of nitrogen fertilizer and irrigation efficiency on a semi-dwarf wheat
in south-east Australia. I. Growth and yield. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anirn. Husb. 80, 359-64.
Cornish, E. A. (1950). The influence of rainfall on the yield of wheat in South Australia. Aust. J. Sci.
Res. B3, 178-218.
Cornish, P . S. (1981). Resistance to water flow in the intra-coleoptile internode of wheat. Plant Soil.
59, 119-25.
Davidson, J. L., and Birch, J. W. (1978). Responses of a standard Australian and a Mexican wheat
to temperature and water stress. Aust. J. Agric. Sci. 29, 1091-106.
Denmead, 0 . T. (1973). Relative significance of soil and plant evaporation in estimating
evapotranspiration. In 'Plant Response to Climatic Factors'. (Ed. R. 0.Slatyer.) Proc. Uppsala
Symp. 1970, pp. 505-11. (UNESCO: Paris.)
Water Use Efficiency of Wheat. I

Doorenboos, J., and Kassam, A. H. (1979). Yield response to water. Irrigation and Drainage P . No.
33. (FAO: Rome.)
Doughty, J. L. (1958). Twenty-five years progress in the theory and practice of moisture conservation.
Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 26, 85-91.
Doyle, A. D., and Fischer, R. A. (1979). Dry matter accumulation and water use relationships in wheat
crops. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 30, 815-29.
Fawcett, R. G., and Carter, 0. G. (1973). Effect of plant density, time of sowing and fallow water on
available soil water under spring wheat. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 13, 714-17.
Fischer, R. A. (1979). Growth and water limitations to dryland wheat yield in Australia; a physiological
framework. J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 45, 83-95.
Fischer, R. A., and Kohn, G. D. (1966a). The relationship between evapotranspiration and growth in
a wheat crop. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 17, 255-67.
Fischer, R. A,, and Kohn, G. D. (1966b). The relationship of grain yield to vegetative growth and post-
flowering leaf area in the wheat crop under conditions of limited soil moisture. Aust. J. Agric. Res.
17, 281-95.
Fischer, R. A., and Turner, N. C. (1978). Plant productivity in the arid and semi-arid zones. Annu.
Rev. Plant Physiol. 29, 277-317.
French, R. J. (1978). The effect of fallowing on the yield of wheat. 11. The effect on grain yield. Aust.
J. Agric. Res. 29, 669-84.
French, R. J., and Schultz, J. E. (1984). Water use efficiency of wheat in a Mediterranean-type
environment. 11. Some limitations to efficiency. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 35, 765-75.
French, R. J., Schultz, J. E., and Rudd, C. L. (1979). Effect of time of sowing on wheat phenology
in South Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 19, 89-96.
Goodchild, N. A., and Boyd, W. J. R. (1975). Regional and temporal variations in wheat yield in
Western Australia and their implication in plant breeding. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 26, 209-17.
Greacen, E. L., and Hignett, C. T . (1984). Water balance under wheat modelled with limited soil data.
Agric. Water Manage. 8, 291-304.
Greb, B. W., Smika, D. E., and Welsh, J. R. (1979). Technology and wheat yields in the Central Great
Plains: Experiment Station Advances. J. Soil Water Conserv. 34, 264-8.
Greenwood, D. J., Cleaver, T. J., Loquens, S. M. H., and Niendorf, K. B. (1977). Relationship
between plant weight and growing period for vegetable crops in the United Kingdom. Ann. Bot. 41,
987-97.
Halse, N. J., and Weir, R. N. (1974). Effects of temperature on spikelet numbers of wheat. Aust. J.
Agric. Res. 25, 687-95.
Hanks, R. J., Gardner, H. R., and Florian, R. L. (1969). Plant growth-evapotranspiration relations for
several crops in the Central Great Plains. Agron. J. 61, 30-4.
Hanks, R. J., and Rasmussen, V. P . (1982). Predicting crop production as related to plant water stress.
Adv. Agron. 35, 193-216.
Innes, P., and Blackwell, R. D. (1981). The effect of drought on the water use and yield of two spring
wheat genotypes. J. Agric. Sci. 96, 603-10.
Kohn, G. D., and Storrier, R. R. (1970). Time of sowing and wheat production in southern New South
Wales. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 10, 604-9.
Large, E. C. (1954). Growth stages in cereals. Plant Pathol. 3, 128-9.
Leggett, G. E. (1959). The relation between wheat yield and available moisture and available nitrogen
in Eastern Washington dryland areas. Wash. Agric. Exp. Bull. No. 609.
McGarity, J . W. (1975). Soils of Australian wheat-growing areas. In 'Australian Field Crops. I. Wheat
and Other Temperate Cereals'. (Eds A. Lazenby and E. M. Matheson.) pp. 153-82. (Angus &
Robertson: Sydney.)
Monteith, J. L., and Scott, R. K. (1982). Weather and yield variation of crops. In 'Food Nutrition and
Climate'. (Eds K. Blaxter and L. Foden.) pp. 127-53. (Appl. Sci. Publ.: London, New York.)
Nix, H. A. (1975). The Australian climate and its effect on grain yield and quality. In 'Australian Field
Crops Vol. 1. Wheat and Other Temperate Cereals'. (Eds A. Lazenby and E. M. Matheson.) pp.
183-266. (Angus & Robertson: Sydney.)
Nix, H. A., and Fitzpatrick, E. A. (1969). An index of crop water stress related to wheat and grain
sorghum yields. Agric. Meteorol. 6, 321-37.
Northcote, K. H. (1979). 'A Factual Key for the Recognition of Australian Soils.' 4th Edn. (CSIRO
Aust.: Melbourne; Rellim Tech. Publ.: Glenside, S.A.)
 R. J. French and J . E. Schultz

Passioura, J. B. (1976). Physiology of grain yield in wheat growing on stored water. Aust. J. Plant
Physiol. 3, 559-65.
Passioura, J. B. (1977). Grain yield, harvest index and water use of wheat. J. Aust. Znst. Agric. Sci.
43, 117-20.
Passioura, J . B. (1983). Roots and drought resistance. Agric. Water Manage. 7, 265-80.
Power, J. F., Grunes, D. L., and Reichman, G. A. (1961). The influence of phosphorus fertilisation
and moisture on growth and nutrient absorption by spring wheat. I. Plant growth, N uptake and
water use. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 25, 207-10.
Ramig, R. E., and Rhoades, H. F. (1963). Inter-relationships of soil moisture level at planting time and
nitrogen fertilisation on winter wheat production. Agron. J. 55, 123-7.
Richards, R. A. (1983). Manipulation of leaf area and its effect on grain yield in droughted wheat. Aust.
J. Agric. Sci. 34, 23-32.
Richardson, A. E. V. (1923). The water requirements of farm crops. Influence of environment on the
transpiration ratio. J. Dep. Agric. Vict. 21, 193-284.
Richardson, A. E. V., and Trumble, H. C. (1928). The transpiration ratio of farm crops and pasture
plants in the Adelaide district. J. Dep. Agric. S. Aust. 32, 224-44.
Russell, J . S. (1975). Yield trend of different crops in different areas and reflections on the sources of
crop yield improvement in the Australian environment. J. Au.qI. Znst. Agric. Sci. 41, 156-66.
Salter, P . J . , and Goode, J . E. (1967). Crop responses to water at different stages of growth. Commonw.
Bur. Hortic., East Malling, G B Res. Rev. No. 2.
Schultz, J. E. (1971). Soil water changes under fallow crop treatments in relation to soil type, rainfall
and yield of wheat. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 11, 236-42.
Schultz, J . E., and French, R. J . (1976). Mineral content of herbage and grain of Halberd wheat in
South Australia. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 16, 887-92.
Sedgley, R. H., Smith, R. E., and Tennant, D. (1981). Management of soil water budgets of recharge
areas for control of salinity in South-Western Australia. Agric. Water Manage. 4, 313-34.
Seif, E., and Pederson, D. G. (1978). Effect of rainfall on the grain yield of spring wheat with an
application to the analysis of adaptation. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 29, 1107-15.
Sibma, L. (1968). Growth of closed green crop surfaces in the Netherlands. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 16,
211-16.
Smith, R. C. G., and Harris, H. C. (1981). Environmental resources and restraints to agricultural
production in a Mediterranean-type environment. Plant Soil 58, 31-57.
Sutton, B. G., and Dubbelde, E. A. (1980). Effects of water deficit on yield of wheat and triticale. Aust.
J. Exp. Agric. Anim. Husb. 20, 594-8.
Tanner, C. B., and Sinclair, T. R. (1983). Efficient water use in crop production; research or re-search.
In 'Limitations to Efficient Water Use in Crop Production'. (Eds H. M. Taylor and W. R. Jordan.)
Am. Soc. Agron. Monograph.
Tennant, D. (1981). Effect of fallowing on cereal yield. J. West. Aust. Dep. Agric. 22, 38-41.
Waring, S. A . , Fox, W. E., and Teakle, L. J. H. (1958). Fertility investigations on the black earth
wheatlands of the Darling Downs, Queensland. 11. Moisture and evapotranspiration in relation to
the wheat crop. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 9, 717-29.
de Wit, C. T. (1958). Transpiration and crop yields. Versl. Landbouwk. Onderz 64(6), 1-88.
Woodruff, D. R. (1983). The effect of common date of either anthesis or planting on the rate of
development and grain yield of wheat. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 34, 13-22.

Manuscript received 13 March 1984, accepted 29 June 1984