Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T16:57:23.798Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpopulational and intervarietal F1 hybrids in Lolium perenne: heterosis under simulated-sward conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. A. Foster
C. A. Foster
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Division, Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, Loughgall, Co. Armagh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The performance of a series of intervarietal F1 hybrid populations was determined in simulated swards in a range of environmental conditions. On average the hybrids were more stable in performance than their parental varieties, but they showed no general yield advantage. Several hybrids were markedly heterotic at the higher-parental level, however. More heterosis was exhibited in high productivity conditions than in less favourable environments. A generally poor correlation between parental and F1 hybrid performance under competitive simulated-sward conditions and performance in noncompetitive spaced-plant conditions was found.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 76 , Issue 3 , June 1971 , pp. 401 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1971

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

Foster, C. A. (1971). Interpopulational and intervarietal hybridisation in Lolium perenne breeding: heterosis under non-competitive conditions. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 76, 107–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhodes, I. (1968). Yield of contrasting ryegrass varieties, in monoculture and mixed culture. J. Br. Grassld. Soc. 23, 156–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, A. J. (1969). Yields and tiller numbers of four perennial ryegrass varieties grown as monocultures and certain mixtures in micro plots. J. agric. Sci. Camb. 73. 321–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar