Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T14:48:43.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection criteria in grass breeding. VI. Effects of defoliation on plants growing in small plots in field and controlled environment conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Alec Lazenby  and
H. H. Rogers
Alec Lazenby
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
H. H. Rogers
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. This paper reports on two experiments, one conducted in the field, the other in a cold cabinet. These had three objectives: (i) to examine the effects, on yield and some components of yield in certain grass varieties, of various combinations of frequency and intensity of defoliation, (ii) to compare these effects in the two environments, and (iii) to assess the value of very small plots.

2. Records were taken of the major environmental variables in the field; the chosen environment in the cabinet was quantified.

3. In the field trial, the cutting treatments comprised all combinations of two frequencies (herbage cut when 8 in. and 4 in. in length) and two intensities (cut back to tiller lengths of 2 in. and 1 in.) plus a fifth treatment of cutting at a silage stage back to a tiller length of 1 in. The first four treatments were also used in the cold cabinet trial. S170 and North African tall fescue were common to both experiments; in addition, S22 Italian rye-graes was included in the field trial. In both trials, plots consisted of four rows of seven plants, square planted at 2 in. x 2 in.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 65 , Issue 3 , December 1965 , pp. 397 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

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

Alberda, Th. (1962). Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 10, 325.Google Scholar
Alberda, Th. (1965). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 20, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appadurai, R. R. & Holmes, W. (1964). J. Agric. Sci. 62, 327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, M. J. (1965). Met. Office Res. Unit, Cambridge. (Private communication.)Google Scholar
Brougham, R. W. (1955). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 6, 804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brougham, R. W. (1959). N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 2, 1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brougham, R. W. (1960). Ann. Bot., Lond., 24, 463.Google Scholar
Crocker, R. L. & Martin, P. M. (1964). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 19, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, S. T. (1956). Advanc. Agron. 8, 203.Google Scholar
Gardner, A. L. (1960). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr. p. 322.Google Scholar
Ibánez, M. P. (1963). Versl. Landbouwk. Onderz. 69, 17.Google Scholar
Jones, Li I, (1959). Contribution to Measurement of Grassland Productivity (ed. Ivins, J. D.), p. 34. Butterworth.Google Scholar
Lazenby, A. & Rogers, H. H. (1962). J. Agric. Sci. 59, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazenby, A. & Rogers, H. H. (1963). Crop Sci. 3, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loomis, R. S. & Williams, W. A. (1963). Crop Sci. 3, 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lusignan, . (1963). Rep. Sta. d'amélioration des plantes fourragères, 1963, Lusignan (Vienna), France.Google Scholar
Norman, M. J. T., Kemp, A. W. & Tayler, J. E. (1957). Met. Mag. 86, 148.Google Scholar
Peake, R. W. (1964). Canad. J. Plant Sci. 44, 538.Google Scholar
Rogers, H. H. (1962). Rep. Pl. Breed. Inst. 1961–62. Cambridge, p. 71.Google Scholar
Rogers, H. H. & Lazenby, A. (1966). J. Agric Sci. (In the Press.)Google Scholar
Wolf, D. D. (1964). Agron. J. 56, 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar