Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T22:47:41.875Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Establishment Studies. I. The effect on spring oats of undersowing with a one-year ley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Allen H. Charles
Allen H. Charles
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A field experiment was carried out to study the effect on spring oats of undersowing with broad red clover, Italian rye-grass and a mixture of both. Two levels of nitrogen were used, namely, no nitrogen and 3 cwt. per acre of ‘Nitro-Chalk’.

1. Oat shoot weight was reduced by undersowing, Italian rye-grass having a greater effect than red clover, particularly where nitrogen was applied.

2. In the absence of nitrogenous fertilizer undersowing did not reduce oat plant height, but where nitrogen had been given, Italian rye-grass either alone or in a mixture with the clover, reduced the height; the legume alone had no effect.

3. Undersowing generally reduced the number of oat panicles. Italian rye-grass had no effect when nitrogen was not applied, but a marked reduction was observed when nitrogen was applied. The legume had the greater influence where nitrogen was not applied.

4. Red clover increased the number of whorls, and the number of single-grained spikelets per panicle. Grass sown alone or with clover reduced the number of single-grained spikelets per head.

5. The total number of grains per panicle, 1000 grain weight, percentage husk and the percentage of saleable grain were not influenced by undersowing.

6. No lodging occurred but there was an indication that resistance to bending of the straw was affected by undersowing with Italian rye-grass.

7. Seeding herbage under the oats had a bigger influence on the yield of straw than grain. Italian rye-grass sown alone or with clover reduced the yield of straw where nitrogen had been applied. The legume alone had no effect. Grain yields showed a similar trend.

8. Yield and percentage crude protein in the straw were reduced by Italian rye-grass alone or in a mixture with clover when nitrogen was applied, but there was no effect where nitrogen was withheld. The grass had a greater effect than red clover while a mixture of both was intermediate to the legume and grass sown separately. Italian rye-grass greatly reduced the recovery of applied nitrogen by the cereal.

9. The percentage moisture in the oat sheaves was increased by undersown herbage and red clover had a bigger influence than the grass. The application of nitrogen reduced the bulk of clover under the cereal and its adverse influence on the harvesting of the oats. In the absence of undersowing, nitrogen had no effect on the percentage moisture in the sheaves.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 1960 , pp. 179 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1960

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

Berry, R. A. (1920). J. Agric. Sci. 10, 359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blaser, R. E., Taylor, T., Griffeth, W. & Skrdla, W. (1956). Agron. J. 48, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonnett, O. T. (1935). J. Agric. Res. 51, 451.Google Scholar
Bonnett, O. T. (1936). J. Agric. Res. 53, 445.Google Scholar
Bonnett, O. T. (1937). J. Agric. Res. 54, 927.Google Scholar
Brougham, R. W. (1954). N.Z. J. Sci. Tech. A, 36, 47.Google Scholar
Chippindale, H. G. (1958). Private communication.Google Scholar
Davies, W. (1927). Bull. Welsh Pl. Breed. Sta. series H, no. 6.Google Scholar
Davies, W. (1928). Bull. Welsh Pl. Breed. Sta. series H, no. 8.Google Scholar
Dent, J. W. (1957). J. Agric. Sci. 48, 336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Development Commission (1953). Survey Agric. Products, etc. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Engledow, F. L. & Wadham, S. M. (1923). J. Agric. Sci. 13, 390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. (1933). Welsh J. Agric. 9, 142.Google Scholar
Grafius, J. E. & Brown, H. M. (1954). Agron. J. 46, 414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, P. S. (1934). Z. Zücht. (A), 19, 70.Google Scholar
Jackobs, J. A. & Gossett, D. M. (1956). Agron. J. 48, 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D. J. Columbus (1957). Agriculture, Land., 63, 509.Google Scholar
Kurtz, T., Melsted, S. W. & Bray, R. H. (1952). Agron. J. 44, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, H. H. & Barnes, T. W. (1947). Ann. Appl. Biol. 34, 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClelland, C. K. (1928). Ark. agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 229.Google Scholar
Mooers, C. A. (1927). Tennessee agric. Exp. Sta. Bull. 137.Google Scholar
Moore, H. I. (1945). J. Minist. Agric. 52, 245.Google Scholar
Neilsen, N. J. (1929). Tidsskr. Planteavl. 35, 269.Google Scholar
Pendleton, J. W., Jackobs, J. A., Sliffe, F. W. & Bateman, H. P. (1957). Agron. J. 49, 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaller, F. W. & Larsen, W. E. (1955). Agron. J. 47, 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statens Planteavlsudvalg. Denmark (1917). Tidsskr. Planteavl. 24, 614.Google Scholar
Stephens, S. G. (1942). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, R. K. (1956). Agron. J. 48, 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, D. C. (1958). Private communication.Google Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1936). J. Agric. Sci. 26, 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welton, F. A. & Morris, V. A. (1931). Ohio State University, Bull. 471.Google Scholar
Willard, C. J., Jones, E. & Haynes, J. L. (1954). Ohio State University, Bull. 261.Google Scholar