Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:31:58.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in oil-seed crops I. Factors controlling seed production in linseed (Linum usitatissimum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. E. Blackman  and
E. S. Bunting
G. E. Blackman
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council Unit of Experimental Agronomy, Department of Agriculture, University of Oxford
E. S. Bunting
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Council Unit of Experimental Agronomy, Department of Agriculture, University of Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Between 1941 and 1946 some twenty-five field experiments were carried out at various centres in England to assess the factors which determine the yield level and seed composition of linseed (oil flax). The experiments were of multifactorial design, and the main variables studied were varietal differences, levels of mineral nutrient supply and plant population. Additions of nitrogen (35 lb./acre) over all experiments raised the yield of seed by 10%, whereas additional phosphorus (50 lb. P2O5/acre) or potassium (80 lb. K2O/acre) had small and inconsistent effects. A significant interaction between nitrogen and variety was recorded in one trial, but in twelve out of fourteen experiments the varieties reacted uniformly to a combined application of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, while in the remaining two experiments the interactions were contradictory.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , July 1951 , pp. 256 - 270
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1951

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

Andersson, G. & Tedin, O. (1945). Sverig. Utsädesfören. Tidskr. H6, 444.Google Scholar
Ashton, F. L. (1936). J. Agric. Sci. 26, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagge, H. (1947). Tidsskr. Planteavl. 51, 310.Google Scholar
Blackman, G. E. & Holly, K. (1948). J. Minist. Agric. 54, 538.Google Scholar
Bravo, M. V. (1948). Rev. Fac. Agron. B. Aires, 26, 78.Google Scholar
Dillman, A. C. & Goar, L. G. (1937). Fmrs' Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 1793.Google Scholar
Ermakov, A. I. (1934). Bull. Appl, Bol. Gen. Pl. Breed. Leningrad, Ser. 3, (5), 33.Google Scholar
Eyre, J. V. (1914). J. Bd Agric. Suppl. 12.Google Scholar
Eyre, J. V. & Fisher, E. A. (1915). J. Agric. Sci. 7, 120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabian, H. (1928). Faserforschung, 7, 69.Google Scholar
Garner, W. W., Allard, H. A. & Foubert, C. L. (1915). J. Agric. Res. 3, 227.Google Scholar
Ivanov, N. N. (1926). Bull. Appl. Bot. Gen. Pl. Breed. Leningrad, 16, no. 3, 3.Google Scholar
Johnson, I. J. (1932 a). J. agric. Res. 45, 239.Google Scholar
Johnson, I. J. (1932 b). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 24, 537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klages, K. H. (1932). J. Amer. Soc. Agron. 24, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landon, I. K. (1934). Circ. Kans. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 173.Google Scholar
McGregor, W. G. (1937). Canad. J. Res. C–D, 15, 362.Google Scholar
McGregor, W. G. (1946). Fmrs' Bull. Dom. Canada Dep. Agric. no. 23.Google Scholar
MacIsaac, F. M. & McGregor, W. G. (1941). Sci. Agric. 22, 195.Google Scholar
Opitz, K., Bogulawski, E. V., Brouwer, W., Ruden, E. V., Kuhnke, A. & Gassner, A. (1940). Landw. Jb. 89, 508.Google Scholar
Opitz, K. (1945). Pflanzenbau, 20, 61, 109.Google Scholar
Post, A. H. & Litzenberger, S. C. (1945). Bull. Mont. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 429.Google Scholar
Reddy, C. S. & Burnett, L. C. (1936). Bull. la Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 344.Google Scholar
Robinson, B. B. & Weidemann, A. G. (1932). Quart. Bull. Mich. Agric. Exp. Sta. 14, no. 3, 158.Google Scholar
Schmalfuss, K. (1937). Bodenk. Pflanz. 5, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar