Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T00:01:02.658Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A study of growth in swards of timothy and meadow fescue. I. Uninterrupted growth

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. H. M. Langer
R. H. M. Langer
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berkshire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Swards of S. 48 timothy and S. 215 meadow fescue growing alone or together were sampled at intervals of 3 weeks throughout the season. The number and weight of leaves, stems and ears were determined, and leaf area was estimated.

2. Despite high rainfall, the total number of tillers in both species declined from the beginning of the experiment until early July, but increased again from then onwards until the original complement had been approximately restored. The number of leaves failed to show a corresponding increase in the autumn because each tiller carried fewer leaves than earlier in the year.

3. In the spring total dry weight increased more rapidly in meadow fescue than in timothy which in turn out-yielded meadow fescue later in the season. Both species attained their greatest dry weight soon after ear emergence, a period which was marked by considerable crop growth and relative growth rates.

4. Leaf area index reached a maximum before total dry weight had increased to its highest level, but then declined in both species. Meadow fescue differed from timothy by producing a second crop of foliage after the summer with a leaf area index of about 7. This second rise appeared to be due mainly to increased leaf size in contrast to timothy whose leaves became progressively smaller towards the end of the season.

5. The differences in growth between the species discussed with reference to their dates of ear emergence which in this experiment differed by about 6 weeks.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , December 1958 , pp. 347 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1958

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

Baker, H. K. (1957). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 12, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brougham, R. W. (1956). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 7, 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garwood, E. A. (1958). Exp. Progr. No. 10, Grassl. Res. Inst. Hurley.Google Scholar
Gregory, F. G. (1937). Annu. Rev. Biochem. 6, 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hiesey, W. M. (1953). Amer. J. Bot. 40, 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, R. H. M. (1954). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 9, 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, R. H. M. (1956 a). In The Growth of Leaves, p. 197, ed. Milthorpe, . Butterworth.Google Scholar
Langer, R. H. M. (1956 b). Ann. Appl. Biol. 44, 166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langer, R. H. M. (1957). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 12, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwass, R. H. & Jacques, W. A. (1956). N. Z. J. Sci. Tech. 38A, 109.Google Scholar
Stuckey, I. H. (1942). Amer. J. Bot. 29, 92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorne, G. N. (1957). Rep. Rothamst. exp. Sta. for 1956, p. 83.Google Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1947). Ann. Bot., Lond. N.S. 11, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1952). Advanc. Agron. 4, 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. & Norman, A. G. (1939). J. Agric. Sci. 29, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. F. (1946). Ann. Bot., Lond. N.S. 10, 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar