Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:38:14.992Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the yield of three grass species at various levels of nitrogenous fertilizer sown alone or in a mixture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. W. Cowling  and
D. R. Lockyer
D. W. Cowling
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berkshire
D. R. Lockyer
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berkshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The production of herbage dry matter harvested from a mixture of S. 24 perennial ryegrass, S. 37 cocksfoot and S. 48 timothy is compared with the yields of the same species sown alone. Various levels of fertilizer nitrogen were applied to the grasses which were harvested by cutting fourteen times over a 3-year period.

The possibility that the mixture produced a greater yield than swards of pure species (after taking into account that the three species are not present in equal proportions in herbage harvested from the mixture) was examined using the concept of ‘the sum of the relative yields’. There was no evidence of a beneficial or antagonistic effect of one species on another; rather, the species seemed to be ‘mutually exclusive’ (de Wit & van den Bergh, 1965).

The botanical composition of the mixture changed through the course of the experiment, e.g. cocksfoot became increasingly dominant, particularly at the highest level of nitrogen. Changes in composition accounted for any tendency for the yield of the mixture to deviate from the mean of the pure-sown swards.

Some of the advantages and disadvantages of using mixtures are discussed and it is concluded that a rational approach to grassland husbandry should be based on swards sown to a single grass variety.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 71 , Issue 1 , August 1968 , pp. 127 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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. & Green, J. O. (1967). The seasonal growth of pasture grasses. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 68, 109–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, S. F. (1937). British Grasses and Their Employment in Agriculture. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, H. K. & David, G. L. (1963). Winter damage to grass. Agriculture, Lond. 70, 380–2.Google Scholar
Cowling, D. W. & Lockyer, D. R. (1965). A comparison of the reaction of different grass species to fertilizer nitrogen and to growth in association with white clover. I. Yield of dry matter. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 20, 197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Wit, C. T. (1960). On competition. Versl. landbouwk. Onderz. Ned. 66, 8, pp. 82.Google Scholar
de Wit, C. T. & van den Bergh, J. P. (1965). Competition between herbage plants. Neth. J. agric. Sci. 13, 212–21.Google Scholar
De Wit, C. T., Tow, P. G. & Ennik, G. C. (1966). Competition between legumes and grass. Versl. landbouwk. Onderz. Ned. 687, pp. 30.Google Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1963). Competition among crop and pasture plants. Adv. Agron. 15, 1–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliot, R. H. (1908). The Clifton Park System of Farming. London: Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent and Co.Google Scholar
England, F. J. W. (1965). Interactions in mixtures of herbage plants. Rep. Scot. PI. Breed. Stn 1965, 125–49.Google Scholar
Grassland Research Institute (1965). Exp. Prog. No. 17, p. 44.Google Scholar
Harper, J. L. (1964). The nature and consequence of interference amongst plants. Proc. Wth Int. Conf. Genet., p. 465–82.Google Scholar
Hughes, G. P. (1952). The comparative seasonal output of ultra-simple and general-purpose seeds mixtures. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 42, 413–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, H. H. (1966). Breeding and blending. J. Br. Grassld Soc. 21, 102–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar