Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:44:24.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experiments comparing yield, and residual effects on winter wheat, of 1-year clover, rye-grass and clover-rye-grass leys

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

F. V. Widdowson ,
A. Penny  and
R. J. B. Williams
F. V. Widdowson
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station
A. Penny
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station
R. J. B. Williams
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. In 1958, leys of late flowering red clover (S. 151) and of Italian rye-grass (S. 22) were undersown in barley. In 1959, yield and N and K uptake by clover, and by rye-grass given 0·0, 0·75 or 1·5 cwt. N/acre, were compared; rye-grass, given 1·5 cwt. N/acre, yielded most dry matter and removed three times as much K, but rather less N than did clover.

2. In 1960, wheat given 0·0, 0·25, 0·5 or 0·75 cwt. N/acre as a top-dressing measured residual effects of the N left by each ley. When no N was given to wheat, most grain and straw was obtained after clover ley and least after rye-grass given no N. The residual N from clover was equivalent to 0·14 cwt. N/acre as a fresh top-dressing; N given to rye-grass left only a small residue. When the wheat had 0·5 or 0·75 cwt. N/acre as a top-dressing, N given to rye-grass in 1959 decreased yield, probably because the rye-grass removed much K, but K uptake at harvest was independent of ley.

3. In 1960, leys of early flowering red clover (Dorset Marl) and of Italian rye-grass (S. 22) and a mixture of the two were under-sown in barley. In 1961, yields and N and K uptakes of clover, and of rye-grass given 0·0, 1·0 or 2·0 cwt. N/acre and of clover-rye-grass given 0·0 or 1·0 cwt. N/acre were compared. Rye-grass given 2·0 cwt. N/acre yielded most dry matter and removed one-third more K than did clover, but clover yielded one-third more N.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , November 1963 , pp. 397 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1963

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

Boyd, D. A., Cooke, G. W., Dyke, G. V., Moffatt, J. R. and Warren, R. G. (1961). Rep. Rothamst. exp. Sta. 1961, p. 172.Google Scholar
Gasser, J. K. R. (1961). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 12, 562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, W. B. & Orchard, E. R. (1940). S. Afr. Dept. Agric. Pamphlet 222.Google Scholar
Green, J. O. & Cowling, D. W. (1960). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr. 5/A 1. 2.Google Scholar
Holmes, W. & MacLusky, D. S. (1955). J. Agric. Sci. 46, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orchard, E. R. (1933). Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, London.Google Scholar
Patterson, H. D. & Watson, D. J. (1959). Rep. Rothamst. exp. Sta. 1959, p. 167.Google Scholar
Russell, E. W. (1961). Soil Conditions and Plant Growth, p. 351. 9th ed.London: Longmans, Green and Co.Google Scholar
Sears, P. D. (1960). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr. 5/A2. 6.Google Scholar
Walker, T. W. (1956). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 7, 66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, R. G. & Johnston, A. E. (1962). Proc. Fertil. Soc. no. 72, 22.Google Scholar
Widdowson, F. V., Penny, A. & Cooke, G. W. (1963). J. Agric. Sci. 60, 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, T. E., Clement, C. R. & Heard, A. J. (1960). Proc. 8th Int. Grassl. Congr. 10/A2. 5.Google Scholar