Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T19:49:18.698Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of rainfall on the yield and botanical composition of permanent grass at Rothamsted

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Rose O. Cashen
Rose O. Cashen
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The influence of rainfall during the growing season on the yield of the Park Grass plots at Rothamsted, which are cut for hay every year, has been investigated.

The average yields in the period 1858–1902 on the thirteen plots examined were from 18 cwt./acre on an unmanured plot to 61 cwt./acre on a plot receiving a complete fertilizer including a heavy dressing of nitrogen. All the plots showed some deterioration in yield. The effect of the total amount of rainfall from 5 March to 8 July was very substantial on all plots, the average increase in yield for each additional inch of rain varying between 0·7 and 2·4 cwt./acre; the benefit was greatest on the plots dressed with sulphate of ammonia. The rainfall effects reached a maximum in the latter part of April and early May, but the distribution of the rain appeared to be of relatively small importance.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , January 1947 , pp. 1 - 10
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1947

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

Boyd, D. A. (1940). The influence of meteorological factors on arable crop yields, Saxmundham. Ph.D. Thesis, London.Google Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. (1924). Manuring of Grassland for Hay. Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. (1925). J. Minist. Agric. 32, 504.Google Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. (1930). J. Minist. Agric. 37, 663.Google Scholar
Brenchley, W. E. (1935). Ann. Appl. Biol. 22, 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W. G. (1935). J. Agric. Sci. 25, 510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W. G. (1936). Fifty Years of Field Experiments at Woburn, Chap. XI. Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Crowther, E. M. (1925). J. Agric. Sci. 15, 222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1924). Philos. Trans. B, 213, 89.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1944). Statistical Methods for Research Workers, 9th ed.Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. & Yates, F. (1943). Statistical Tables for Biological, Agricultural and Medical Research, 2nd ed. Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
Hooker, R. H. (1922). Quart. J. R. Met. Soc. 48, 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalamkar, R. J. (1933). J. Agric. Sci. 23, 571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawes, J. B. & Gilbert, J. H. (1880). Philos. Trans. 171, 289.Google Scholar
Lawes, J. B. & Gilbert, J. H. (1899). Philos. Trans. 192, 139.Google Scholar
Lawes, J. B., Gilbert, J. H. & Masters, M. T. (1882). Philos. Trans. 173, 1181.Google Scholar
Wishaet, J. & Mackenzie, W. A. (1930). J. Agric. Sci. 20, 417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1939). Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinb. 59, 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar