Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:55:34.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selection Criteria in Grass Breeding. II. Effect, on Lolium perenne, of differences in population density, variety and available moisture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Alec Lazenby  and
H. H. Rogers
Alec Lazenby
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, University of Cambridge
H. H. Rogers
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A summary of the objectives of the present studies has been presented in a previous paper (Lazenby & Rogers, 1962): traditional methods used in the selection of improved grass varieties were reviewed together with a history of varietal assessment and some recent research developments of importance to both grass breeder and grassland agronomist. For full evaluation of selection criteria, the performance of the grass plant should be studied when the variables potentially affecting growth and development are controlled individually and in combination. Results were reported of an experiment designed to study the behaviour of one variety of Lolium perenne, S. 24, grown in different densities and under two moisture règimes. Data presented were total yield per unit area and the botanical components of such yield—number of plants, yield por plant, number and weight of sterile and fertile tillers—together with a statistical appraisal of their interrelationships (Campbell, 1962).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 62 , Issue 2 , April 1964 , pp. 285 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

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

Campbell, R. C. (1962). J. Agric. Sci. 59, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
England, F. J. W. (1961). Rep. Scot. PI. Breed. Sta. p. 52.Google Scholar
Fejer, S. O. (1958). N.Z.J. Agric. Res. 1, 86.Google Scholar
Fejer, S. O. (1959). N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 2, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R. P. (1958). J. Nat. Inst. Agric. Bot. 9, 433.Google Scholar
Knight, R. (1961). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 12, 566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazenby, A. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazenby, A. & Rogers, H. H. (1962). J. Agric. Sci. 59, 51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proudfoot, K. G. (1957). Res. Exp. Rec. Min. Agric. N.I. 6, 9.Google Scholar
Stickler, F. C. & Pauli, A. W. (1961). Agron. J. 53, 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar