Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:30:58.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of water by six grass species. 1. Dry-matter yields and response to irrigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

E. A. Garwood ,
K. C. Tyson  and
J. Sinclair
E. A. Garwood
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research InstituteHurley, Maidenhead, Berks
K. C. Tyson
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research InstituteHurley, Maidenhead, Berks
J. Sinclair
Affiliation:
The Grassland Research InstituteHurley, Maidenhead, Berks
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The yield and quality of herbage produced by six grasses (perennial ryegrass, cocksfoot, timothy, rough-stalked meadow grass, tall fescue and Italian ryegrass) were examined both without irrigation and under two irrigation regimes. Water was applied according to the potential soil water deficit (potential SWD): the soil was either partially returned to field capacity (FC) after each cut or fully returned to FC whenever the potential SWD reached 25 mm. The swards were cut either at 3 (C3) or 6 (C6) week intervals over a 2 year period.

Partial irrigation increased yields by 12–14% in the first year and by 36–58% in the second. Full irrigation produced little more growth than partial irrigation in the first year (maximum SWD, 188 mm) but increased yield by 78–93% in the second, very dry, year (maximum SWD, 311 mm). Under treatment C3 response per unit of water applied was similar with both partial and full irrigation, but under C6 the response was greater with partial (2·86 kg D.M./m3) than with full irrigation (1·79 kg D.M./m3).

There were marked differences between the species in their ability to grow under drought conditions in the second year of the experiment. Without irrigation, roughstalked meadow grass and Italian ryegrass did not survive the drought. The performance of tall fescue was markedly superior to both perennial ryegrass and cocksfoot in these conditions. Of the surviving grasses timothy made least growth.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 93 , Issue 1 , August 1979 , pp. 13 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

Cooper, J. P. & Saeed, S. W. (1949). Studies in growth and development in Lolium. 1. Relation of the annual habit to head production under various systems of cutting. Journal of Ecology 37, 233–259.Google Scholar
Garwood, E. A. (1974). Use of water by grassland and response to partial irrigation. Proceedings of the 12th International Grassland Congress, Moscow, 1974, pp. 640–647.Google Scholar
Garwood, E. A. & Sinclair, J. (1979). Use of water by six grass species. 2. Root distribution and use of soil water. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 25–35.Google Scholar
Garwood, E. A. & Tyson, K. C. (1973 a). Losses of nitrogen and other plant nutrients to drainage from soil under grass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 80, 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garwood, E. A. & Tyson, K. C. (1973 b). The response of S24 perennial ryegrass swards to irrigation. 1. Effects of partial irrigation on yield and on utilization of applied nitrogen. Journal of the British Grassland Society 28, 223–233.Google Scholar
Garwood, E. A. & Tyson, K. C. (1975). The response of S24 perennial ryegrass swards to irrigation. 2. Variation in soil- and plant-water status. Journal of the British Grassland Society 30, 51–62.Google Scholar
Garwood, E. A. & Tyson, K. C. (1977). High loss of nitrogen in drainage from soil under grass following a prolonged period of low rainfall. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 89, 767–768.Google Scholar
Garwood, E. A. & Williams, T. E. (1967). Growth, water use and nutrient uptake from the subsoil by grass swards. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 69, 125–130.Google Scholar
Goode, J. E. (1956). Soil moisture deficits under swards of different grass species in an orchard. Report East Mailing Research Station, 1955, pp. 69–72.Google Scholar
Grassland Research Institute (1961). Research techniques in use at the Grassland Research Institute, Hurley. Bulletin 45, Commonwealth Bureau of Pastures and Field Crops: Farnham Royal.Google Scholar
Hubbard, C. E. (1954). Grasses: a Guide to their Structure, Identification, Uses and Distribution in the British Isles. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Johns, G. C. & Lazenby, A. (1978). Effect of irrigation and defoliation on the herbage production and water efficiency of four temperate pasture species. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 24, 797–808.Google Scholar
Low, A. J. & Armitage, E. R. (1959). Irrigation of grassland. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 52, 256–262.Google Scholar
Penman, H. L. (1952). Experiments on the irrigation of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 42, 286–292.Google Scholar
Penman, H. L. (1962). Woburn irrigation, 1951–9. 2. Results for grass. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 58, 349–364.Google Scholar
Stiles, W. (1966). Ten years of irrigation experiments. Annual Report Grassland Research Institute, 1965, pp. 57–66.Google Scholar
Stiles, W. & Williams, T. E. (1965). The response of ryegrass/white clover sward to various irrigation regimes. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 65, 351–364.Google Scholar
Tayler, R. S. (1965). The irrigation of grassland. Outlook on Agriculture 4, 234–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tilley, J. M. W. & Terry, R. A. (1963). A two-stage technique for in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar