About Us | Help Videos | Contact Us | Subscriptions
 

Abstract

 

This article in AJ

  1. Vol. 84 No. 3, p. 366-370
     
    Received: Feb 25, 1991


    * Corresponding author(s):
 View
 Download
 Alerts
 Permissions
Request Permissions
 Share

doi:10.2134/agronj1992.00021962008400030003x

Response of Three Quackgrass Biotypes to Nitrogen Fertilization

  1. Francois J. Tardif and
  2. Gilles D. Leroux 
  1. D ep. of Crop Protection, Univ. of Adelaide, Waite Agricultural Research Institute, P.M.B. 1, Glen Osmond 5064, South Australia
    D épartement de phytologie, Université Laval, Ste-Foy, Québec, Canada, G1K 7P4

Abstract

Abstract

Variability in the response of quackgrass [Elytrigia repens (L.) Nevski] biotypes to N is worth considering if quackgrass is to be used as a forage crop. This study was conducted to determine whether the growth response of quackgrass to different N rates varies among biotypes. The effect of 0, 150, 250 kg N ha−1 on the number of tillers and rhizome buds, total biomass, shoot and rhizome biomass, and shoot to rhizome biomass ratio of three biotypes grown on a St-Nicolas gravelly loam (loamy, mixed mesic, Typic Dystrochrept) was measured at Ste-Foy, Québec, Canada, in 1985 and 1986. The response of biotypes to N differed for all variables. At Harvest 1 of 1985 and at Harvests 1 and 2 of 1986, dry matter production of Biotype 3 was at least two times more important at 250 kg N ha−1 than at 0 kg N ha−1. Biotype 1 response to N was comparable to that of Biotype 3 in 1986, but not in 1985. Biotype 2 response to N was inferior to that of the other biotypes and was significant only at the first harvest of 1986. Variations found between years are attributed to differences in rainfall regime. The response of a quackgrass biotype to N is to be considered if it is to be used as a forage crop or in a breeding program.

  Please view the pdf by using the Full Text (PDF) link under 'View' to the left.

Copyright © .