Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:06:28.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth cabinet studies into cold-tolerance of Festuca arundinacea populations*: II. Responses to pretreatment conditioning and to number and duration of low temperature periods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. D. Thomas  and
Alec Lazenby
W. D. Thomas
Affiliation:
Gezira Research Station, Wad Medani, Sudan
Alec Lazenby
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of New England, Armidale, N.S.W.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Following three differing pre-stress temperature treatments, potted plants of three populations of Festuca arundinacea, syn. 1 and syn. 2 (North African) and S. 170 (British) were subjected to a cold stress of 20 h at – 8 °C in a growth cabinet.

In all populations, survival was greatest when the cold stress followed continuous low temperatures for 2 weeks, was intermediate after part-day low temperatures for the same period, and poorest after continuous warmth. The hardening response, especially after the fluctuating regime, was greater in S. 170 than in either syn. 1 or syn. 2, between which little difference was detectable.

There was no overall difference in survival between spring-sown and autumn-sown material, nor any apparent relationship between survival and relative growth rate.

In a further trial, the same three populations were subjected to differing periods of cold stress at — 9 °C-single exposure for 12 or 18 h periods, or one, two or three 6 h periods.

The synthetics were progressively weakened by repeated stresses, and were almost completely killed out by 12 or 18 h exposure. Differences in mortality following short and longer periods of exposure were associated with differences in soil temperatures.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 70 , Issue 3 , June 1968 , pp. 347 - 353
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1968

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. & David, G. L. (1963). Winter damage to grass. Agriculture, Lond. 70, 380–2.Google Scholar
Birch, P. D. W. (1967). A comparative study of the growth of North African and indigenous varieties of Festuca arundinacea under winter conditions of temperature and light. Ph.D. thesis. Univ. Cambridge.Google Scholar
Chattbkjee, B. N. (1961). Analysis of eeotypic differences in tall fescue and their agronomic significance. Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Reading.Google Scholar
Cooper, J. P. (1963). Species and population differences in climatic response. In Environmental Control of Plant Growth (ed. Evans, L. T.), pp. 381–403. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, J. P. (1964). Climatic variation in forage grasses. I. Leaf development in climatic races of Lolium and Dactylis. J. appl. Ecol. 1, 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dexter, S. T. (1941). Effects of periods of warm weather upon the winter hardened condition of a plant. Pl. Physiol. 16, 181–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, J. O., Anslow, R. C, Corrall, A. J. & David, G. L. (1964). Exp. Prog. 16; Ann. Rep. Orassld Res. Inst. 1962–3, pp. 15–17.Google Scholar
Henricksbn, J. B. (1961 a). On the sugar contents of wheat plants and their resistance to cold. Ada Agric. Scand. 11, 291–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henricksen, J. B. (1961 b). On the development of wheat and its resistance to cold. Ada Agric. Scand. 11, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodgson, H. J. (1964). Effect of photoperiod on development of cold resistance in alfalfa. Crop Sci. 4, 302–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keim, F. D. & Beadle, G. W. (1927). Winter survival of grasses and legumes. Ecology 8, 247–64.Google Scholar
Klebesedal, L. J., Wilton, A. C, Taylor, R. L. & Koranda, J. J. (1964). Fall growth behaviour and winter survival of Festuca rubra and Poa pratensis in Alaska as influenced by latitude of adaptation. Crop Sci. 4, 340–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, H. & Levitt, J. (1965). Frost hardiness studies on cabbage grown under controlled conditions. Pl. Physiol. 40, 476–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazbnby, A. & Rogers, H. H. (1963). A technique for for herbage management studies under controlled low temperature. Crop Sci. 3, 179–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazenby, A. & Rogers, H. H. (1965). Selection criteria in grassbreeding. VI. Effects of defoliation on plants growing in small plots in field and controlled environment conditions. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 65, 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, J. (1956). The Hardiness of Plants. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milthorpe, F. L. (1956). The relative importance of leaf growth in determining the resultant area. In The Growth of Leaves (ed. Milthorpe, F. L.), pp. 141–50. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Peltier, G. L. & Tysdal, H. M. (1932). A method for the determination of comparative hardiness in seedling alfalfas by controlled hardening and artificial freezing. J. agric. Res. 44, 429–44.Google Scholar
Rogers, H. H. (1962). Rep. Pl. Breed. Inst. Camb. 1960–61, pp. 71–3.Google Scholar
Rogers, H. H. (1963). Rep. Pl. Breed. Inst., Camb. 1961–62, pp. 66–7.Google Scholar
Sohwabe, W. W. (1957). The study of plant development in controlled environments. In Control of the Plant Environment (ed. Hudson, J. P.), pp. 16–35. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Smith, D. (1964). Winter injury and survival of forage plants. Herb. Abstr. 34, 203–9.Google Scholar
Thomas, W. D. & Lazenby, A. (1968 a). Growth cabinet studies into cold tolerance of Festuca arundinacea populations. I. Effects of low temperature and defoliation. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 70, 339–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, W. D. & Lazenby, A. (1968 c). Growth cabinet studies into cold tolerance of Festuca arundinacea populations. III. Cold tolerance of roots and shoots. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 70, 355–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar