Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:18:57.655Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The problem of assessing strains: A study in grass-breeding technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Alec Lazenby
Alec Lazenby
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. This paper reports a study of the behaviour of five strains of ryegrass (Devon Eaver, Irish S. 24 and New Zealand certified mother perennial ryegrass and H.I) under three different conditions of spacing and two types of management. Strain performances are compared on the basis of green and dry-weight data of total herbage, and green weight of sown strain contributions under the three techniques of evaluation.

2. Under both managements, the total annual production per unit area was greatest from broadcast and least from single-plant areas. Some individual cut yields were, however, greater than those from broadcast plots, with the drill-row production intermediate.

3. Yield differences between the four perennial ryegrasses were greatest as spaced plants and least in broadcast plots. Single plants and broadcast plots of H. 1 were outstanding compared with the perennial strains. Under neither management were there significant interactions between strains and sowing method in 1952, though such interactions were detected in both cases during 1953.

4. The relative yield performance of strains under similar spacing conditions were almost identical under both managements.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , February 1957 , pp. 294 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1957

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

Ahlgren, H. L., Smith, D. C. & Nielsen, E. L. (1945). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 37, 268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atwood, S. S. & Garber, R. J. (1942). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 34, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchill, B. R. (1947). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 39, 750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, R. (1953). J. Agric. Soc. Univ. Coll. Wales, 34, 39.Google Scholar
Jenkin, T. J. (1943). J. Minist. Agric. 50, 343.Google Scholar
Kramer, H. H. (1947). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 39, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, H. H. (1952). Proc. VIth Int. Grassl. Congr. 1, 341.Google Scholar
Kramer, H. H. & Davies, R. L. (1949). Agron. J. 41, 470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milton, W. E. J. (1938). Welsh J. Agric. 14, 203.Google Scholar
Myers, W. M. & Garber, R. J. (1942). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 34, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stapledon, R. G. & Davies, W. (1930). Bull. Welsh. Pl. Breed. Sta. H. 10, 5.Google Scholar
Thomas, H. L. & Hayes, H. K. (1947). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 39, 192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torrie, J. H. & Allison, J. L. (1945). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 37, 852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, M. G. & Mukerji, S. K. (1950). Agron. J. 42, 555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, W. (1948). Unpublished information.Google Scholar
Wilsie, C. P. (1949). Agron. J. 41, 412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar