Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:15:38.636Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lucerne investigation I. Identification and classification of lucerne ‘varieties’ and ‘strains’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

A. Zaleski
A. Zaleski
Affiliation:
National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Detailed investigations on identification and classification of lucerne varieties and strains were conducted at Cambridge for four years, 1949–52, on lucerne sown in row plots and on twelve typical varieties planted out in replicated trials as single spaced plants, using 200 plants of each variety. A number of physiological and morphological characters were examined and the resulting data was analysed statistically.

The characteristics used for classification are those which showed considerable variation between varieties, but at the same time these differences were maintained consistently from year to year. They proved to be unaffected by a different way of growing the plants or by small differences in soil fertility or season. The results are shown in Tables 1–17, and three basic classifications with distinguishing features of types and varieties are given. The correlations established between various characters on twelve varieties are given under the heading ‘Correlations’ at the end of the results.

(a) The first classification into early, mid-season, late and extra-late types, based on the time of flowering, spring and autumn growth, gives a fair indication to the growers regarding earliness and productivity of various varieties.

(b) The behaviour of certain varieties from South America, and in particular Saladina, an Argentine variety, which is vigorous and productive under native country conditions but has lost this ability under Cambridge conditions, indicates plainly that classification based on these three characters can be applied only to the country under whose conditions it was established. Therefore any variety especially obtained from a country of extremely different environmental conditions and management system should be checked in these respects even if a description is given.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , April 1954 , pp. 199 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1954

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

Beukenkamp, R. L. (1948). Herb. Abstr. 18, 73.Google Scholar
Boerger, A. (1950). J. Brit. Grassl. Soc. 5, 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlson, F. A. (1925). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 17, 336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danish Government Report 478 meddelelse (1952). Statens Forsøgsvirksomhed i Plantekultur, Tidsskrift for Planteavl, Avlssteds- og stammeforsøg med lucerne 1947–1951, pp. 159–62.Google Scholar
Davies, W. (1949). Fmrs' Wkly, 31, 51.Google Scholar
Davies, W. (1952). The Grass Crop, p. 197. London: E. and F. N. Spon, Ltd.Google Scholar
Gilmour, J. S. L. (1933). Rep. Bot. (Soc.) Exch. Cl. Manchr, 10, 1932–1934, p. 393.Google Scholar
Gregor, J. W. & Horne, F. R. (1935). Agric. Progr. 12, 89.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. P. & Zaleski, A. (1953). J. Nat. Inst. Agric. Bot. 6, 212.Google Scholar
Hector, J. M. (1936). Introduction to the Botany of Field Crops, 2, 710. Johannesburg S. Africa: Central News Agency Ltd.Google Scholar
Jones, F. R. (1950). Agron. J. 42, no. 9, 432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiesselbach, T. A., & Anderson, A. (1926). Res. Bull. Univ. Neb. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 36, p. 1.Google Scholar
Kirk, L. E. & Armstrong, J. M. (1935). Mem. Imp. Bur. Pl. Genet., Herb. Plants, no. 6, p. 51.Google Scholar
Klinkowski, M. (1933). Bull. Herb. Pull. Ser. no. 12, p. 5.Google Scholar
Lesins, K. (1950). Ann. Roy. Agric. Coll., Sweden, 17, 442.Google Scholar
Mayer, Vincent & Ecochard, (1951). Ann. Inst. not. Rech. agron., Paris, Série B, 1, 210.Google Scholar
Nilan, R. A. (1951). Sci. Agric. 31, 123.Google Scholar
Sokolov, Ovčinnikov, & Makas, (1935). Herb. Rev. 3, 175.Google Scholar
Upchurch, R. P. & Lovvorn, R. L. (1951). Agron. J. 43, 493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tysdal, H. M. & Kiesselbach, T. A. (1941). Bull. Neb. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 331, p. 1.Google Scholar
Williams, R. D. (1935). Mem. Imp. Bur. Pl. Genet., Herb. Plants, no. 5, p. 69.Google Scholar
Woods, J. J. (1951). Mimeo. Dom. Exp. Sta., Saanichton, B.C. no. 126, p. 6.Google Scholar