Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T14:49:59.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The liability of seed crops of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) to contamination by wind-borne pollen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

D. J. Griffiths
D. J. Griffiths
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Some aspects of intervarietal crossing in Lolium perenne have been studied.

Using a number of experimental designs with non-red plants as the tester variety, results have been obtained as to the effects of isolation distance on intervarietal crossing.

In all cases contamination decreases rapidly, at first with increasing distance, but there is a progressive reduction in the rate of decrease produced by repeated increases in isolation distance. The actual rate of decrease varies with the number and arrangement of plots.

The effect of intravarietal pollen in reducing intervarietal crossing appears similar to that of distance in its mode of action. Within short distances from the contaminant, additional rows of intervening plants are highly effective in reducing contamination. This suggests that pollination within a population of plants occurs chiefly between neighbouring plants.

The flowering periods of the different strains of Lolium perenne and L. italicum overlap to varying degrees. Several early strains flower at the same time, e.g. British commercial, New Zealand Certified Mother Seed and Station-bred S24 perennial rye-grass; others, such as Kentish indigenous perennial ryegrass and strains of L. italicum, which are intermediate in date of flowering, overlap with both the early- and late-flowering strains.

Intervarietal crossing is considerably reduced when varieties which differ widely in date- of flowering are grown in close proximity to one another, but even in the case of extreme early and late strains some spatial isolation, or discarding of border rows, is necessary for maintaining varietal purity.

In certain instances when seed crops of early-flowering strains are endangered by late-flowering plants growing in adjoining leys, satisfactory isolation may be achieved through cutting back the contaminant crop just before flowering. When seed crops of late-flowering strains are grown alongside leys containing early-contaminant varieties, cutting back should be delayed until a few days prior to commencement of flowering in the seed crop.

The practical application of the results to grass seed production has been discussed. Existent isolation requirements appear not too great for grass seed crops intended for further seed multiplication, but for commercial seed crops the spatial isolation distance generally recommended may be reduced to 100, or even 50 yd., in the case of large fields.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 40 , Issue 1-2 , January 1950 , pp. 19 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1950

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

Armstrong, S. F. (1937). British Grasses, 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bateman, A. J. (1947 a). J. Genet. 48, no. 2, 257–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, A. J. (1947 b). Heredity, 1, Pt. II, 235–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, A. J. (1947 c). Heredity, 1, Pt. III, 303–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, M. B. & Mather, K. (1943). Ann. Appl. Biol. 30, no. 4, 301–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdtman, G. (1937). Medd. Göteborgs Bot. Trädg. 12, 185–96.Google Scholar
Evans, Gwilym (1937). Bull. Imp. Agric. Bur. Herb. Publ. Ser., no. 22.Google Scholar
Evans, Gwilym (1942). J. R. Agric. Soc. 103, 137–49.Google Scholar
Gregory, P. H. (1945). Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 28, Pts. 1 and 2, 26–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffiths, D. J. (1949). M.Sc. Thesis, Univ. of Wales. (Unpublished.)Google Scholar
Haskell, G. (1943). Nature, Lond., 152, 591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, H. K. & Immer, F. R. (1942). Methods of Plant Breeding. McGraw Hill Book Co.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heribert-Nilsson, N. (1917). Z. Pflanzenz. 5, 89–114.Google Scholar
Hesselman, H. (1919). Medd. Skogsförsöksanst. Stockh. no. 16, 27–60.Google Scholar
Hyde, H. A. & Williams, D. A. (1944). New Phytol. 43, no. 1, 49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyde, H. A. & Williams, D. A. (1945). New Phytol. 44, no. 1, 83–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Crop Improvement Association (1943). Seed Cert. Standards, p. 39.Google Scholar
International Crop Improvement Association (1946). Seed Cert. Standards, Publ. no. 16, p. 44.Google Scholar
Jenkin, T. J. (1930 a). J. Genet. 22, no. 3, 389–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkin, T. J. (1930 b). Welsh J. Agric. 11, 164–71.Google Scholar
Jenkin, T. J. (1931 a). Bull. 3. Imp. Bur. Plant Genet. Herb. Pl. pp. 5–34.Google Scholar
Jenkin, T. J. (1931 b). Bull. Welsh Pl. Breed. Sta. Ser. H, no. 12, 121–5.Google Scholar
Jensen, I. & Bøgh, H. (1941). Tidsskr. Planteavl. 46, 238–68.Google Scholar
Jessen, K. & Rasmussen, R. (1922). Danm. Geol. Unders. 4, R. 1, no. 13, 1–32.Google Scholar
Jones, M. D. & Newell, L. C. (1946). Bull. Neb. Agric. Exp. Sta. Res. no. 148.Google Scholar
Malström, C. (1923). Medd. Skogsförsöksanst. Stockh. no. 20, 1–206.Google Scholar
National Institute of Agricultural Botany (1942). J. Minist. Agric. 49, 116–17.Google Scholar
Rempe, H. (1938). Planta, 27, 93–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, W. (1918). Öst. hot. Z. 67, 313–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, W. (1925). Probl. kosm. Phys. 7, 1–118.Google Scholar
Sprague, H. B. (1938). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 30, 287–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar