Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2024-05-15T23:42:08.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The response to inoculation of the three chromosome races of Trifolium ambiguum sown with and without a companion grass. I. The effect of inoculation on yield of clover and grass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Alice M. Evans  and
D. Gareth Jones
Alice M. Evans
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth, Great Britain
D. Gareth Jones
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth, Great Britain
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Evidence is provided that T. ambiguum, in common with other legumes, responds to inoculation with an effective strain of Rhizobium both in the field and in the glasshouse. There were consistent differences between the responses of 2x, 4x; and 6x: chromosome races to inoculation. Grass plants grown alongside effectively nodulated T. ambiguum plants gave significantly higher yields than those grown with ineffectively nodulated plants. The higher percentage germination associated with inoculation may be due to an effect of the skim milk used as inoculum carrier.

We wish to thank Professor P. T. Thomas and Mr W. Ellis Davies of the Welsh Plant Breeding Station, for their interest and advice, and Professor A. H. Bunting, of Reading University, for reading and correcting the manuscript.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 66 , Issue 3 , June 1966 , pp. 315 - 319
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Butler, G. W. & Bathurst, N. O. (1956). VIIth Internat. Grass. Congr. Proc. 169.Google Scholar
Dilz, K. & Mulder, E. G. (1962). Pl. Soil, 16, 229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdman, L. W. & Means, U. M. (1956). Agron. J. 48, 341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Alice M. & Jones, D. Gareth (1964). Ann. Bot. (N.S.), 28, 221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hely, F. W. (1957). Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 10, 1.Google Scholar
Jones, D. Gareth (1962). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 13, 598.Google Scholar
Sears, P. D. (1961). Proc. 23rd Conf. N.Z. Grassld Ass. 39.Google Scholar
Vincent, J. M. (1954). Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 79, 4.Google Scholar
Virtanen, A. I., Hausen, S. von & Laine, T. (1937). J. Agri. Sci. 27, 584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar