Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:26:11.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of density and nitrogen in seed production stands of S 37 cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. A. Lambert
D. A. Lambert
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berkshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Seed production stands of S 37 cocksfoot were obtained with varying plant densities by utilizing two drill widths, removing sections of drill, or over-sowing drilled material. All density treatments were operative at two levels of N, 87 or 174 lb. N per acre per annum.

2. Tillers in selected quadrats were labelled at monthly intervals during autumn and/or winter for 3 years. Performances of tiller populations were assessed from these quadrats.

3. Seed yields were increased in many cases by reducing plant density from a continuous drill pattern. Increased plant density reduced yields. With plant communities on a 1 ft. square arrangement at the high level of nitrogen, an increase of 33%, or 243 lb. seed, per year over a 3-year period was obtained compared with continuous rows at any level of N. The yield of gapped stands increased over the 3-year period, whilst the yields of continuous rows dropped in the final year.

4. Nitrogen significantly increased the yield of cocksfoot, except in the third year, by increasing the weight of seed per ear.

5. Tiller numbers per quadrat increased in most treatments over the course of the experiment, both within years and from year to year; seasonal peaks of tillering were apparent. The effect of N on tiller numbers differed each year, presumably due to the state of the populations when the N was applied.

6. Higher tiller numbers per plant were obtained with lower plant numbers per unit area. Percentage fertility of tillers was generally higher with lower plant densities, and lower tiller numbers per plant, other factors being equal. The only significant effect of N on fertility was to decrease it in the third year.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , November 1963 , pp. 361 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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. (1957). Plant & Soil, 8, 199.Google Scholar
Andersen, J. C. (1949). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 4, 281.Google Scholar
Anslow, R. C. (1962). Mimeo. Publ. 1/1962, Comm. Agric. Bur.Google Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1954). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 5, 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1958). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 9, 421.Google Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1955). Biometrics, 11, 1.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1934). Welsh J. Agric. 10, 131.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1959). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 27, 291.Google Scholar
Evans, T. A. (1953). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 8, 245.Google Scholar
Evans, T. A. (1954). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 9, 53.Google Scholar
Evers, A. & Sonneveld, A. (1953). Gestenc. Meded. 12, Cent. Inst. Landbouwk. Onderz., Wageningen, 43.Google Scholar
Langer, R. H. M. & Lambert, D. A. (1959). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 14, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, K. J. (1953). Physiol. Plant. 6, 21.Google Scholar
Moriya, N., Hoshimo, M. & Kanabu, F. (1956). Proc. Crop Sci. Soc. Japan, 24, 227.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. M. (1961). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 16, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, G. J. A. (1961). Nature, Lond., 191, 196.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. R. (1959). N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 2, 915.Google Scholar