Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:36:51.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of density and nitrogen in seed production stands of S48 timothy (Phleum pratense L.) and S215 meadow fescue (Festuca pratensis 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

Seed production stands of S 48 timothy and S 215 meadow fescue were obtained with varying plant densities by utilizing two driE widths, removing sections of drill, or oversowing drilled material.

Annual tiller counts were made in preselected quadrats, and performances of tiller populations were assessed from these quadrats.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 63 , Issue 1 , August 1964 , pp. 35 - 42
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

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

Anslow, R. C. (1962). Mimeo. Publ. 1/1962, Comm. Agric. Bur.Google Scholar
Calder, D. M. (1963). Nature, Lond., 197, 882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1954). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 5, 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, D. B. (1956). Biometrics, 11, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. (1959). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 27, 291.Google Scholar
Evans, G. (1962). Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 30, 181.Google Scholar
Evans, T. A. (1953). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 8, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, T. A. (1954). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 9, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, T. A. (1955). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 10, 254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evbes, A. & Sonneveld, A. (1953). Gestenc. Meded. 12. Cent. Inst. Landbouwk. Onderz., Wageningen,Google Scholar
Evers, A. & Sonneveld, A. (1954). Gestenc. Meded. 9. Cent. Inst. Landbouwk. Onderz., Wageningen,Google Scholar
Gardneb, F. P. & Looms, W. E. (1953). Plant Physiol. 28, 201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, J. O. & Evans, T. A. (1956). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 11, 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashimoto, Y., Takiguchi, S. & Isoda, R. (1956). Proc. Crop Sci. Soc. Japan, 24, 166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, P. J. (1953). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 8, 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, D. A. (1963a). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 18, 154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, D. A. (1963b). J. Agric. Sci. 61, 361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, R. H. M. (1956). Ann. Appl. Biol. 44, 166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, R. H. M. (1959). Ann. Appl. Biol. 47, 740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, R. H. M. & Lambert, D. A. (1959). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 14, 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rep. Nat. Inst. Agric. Bot. (1961). 42, 39.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. M. (1961). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 16, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, G. J. A. (1963). Ann. Bot., Lond., N.S. 27, 467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryle, G. J. A. & Langer, R. H. M. (1963). Ann. Bot., Lond., N.S., 27, 213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sohwakbom, N. & Froier, K. (1949). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 4, 233.Google Scholar
Sonneveixd, A. & Evers, A. (1954). Proc. Europ. Grassl. Congr. p. 141.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. R. (1959). N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 2, 915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar