Texas, USA 2010 - International Herbage Seed Group

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 1. Salinity damage ratings in field at Pecos, TX in 2009.Date of RatingEntry 4 February 21 March 8 MayPhenom PR ‡ 4.3 † 3.0 † 3.7 †Sidewinder TF 4.7 4.0 4.3Cochise IV TF 5.3 5.3 5.0TF – 152 TF 6.0 4.3 5.3K 31 TF 2.3 2.7 2.3Gulf AR 2.3 3.0 4.0TXR2004-TF-EM IR 1.7 2.3 4.006 B Lp PR 5.3 4.0 3.7PSG-4MSH PR 6.0 2.7 4.008-8 Lh IR 4.7 4.3 3.3IS-PR 385 BLK PR 4.7 4.3 5.0TMI-Puccinella dis AlG 6.3 1.7 1.0TXR2008-TF-PR-85 IR 4.0 2.0 1.3TXR2008-PR-1 PR 4.3 3.3 4.7RKS PR 5.7 4.7 5.0Soprano PR 5.3 3.7 4.0Soprano Myco PR 5.7 3.7 5.7TXR2006-TF-AxP IR 4.7 2.7 3.7TXR2008-TF-AxP F4 IR 5.0 3.3 3.3TXR2006-TF-PR-LS IR 2.7 3.0 3.7Panterra AR 1.3 3.0 4.7SS3 AR 4.0 2.0 2.7TAMTBO AR 4.0 3.3 3.3TFCT-1 AR 4.0 2.7 2.7TF-F-LM AR 3.7 2.7 2.7PSB (Pecos BLK) AR 4.3 2.7 2.7Pecos BLK 07-08 AR 2.0 2.0 2.7Mean 4.2 3.2 3.6C.V. 33.8 35.3 36.8LSD (0.05) 1.9 1.5 1.8Planted Oct 28, 2008.† Ratings were taken on a 1-9 scale where 1 = best and 9 = most stunted.‡ Indicates turf species where PR = perennial ryegrass; AR = annual ryegrass; TF = tall fescue; IR =intermediate ryegrass; and AlG = alkali grass.97
Table 2. Greenhouse salinity screening experiment A and B, Overton, TX 2009.Date plants were rated for salt damageExperiment AExperiment BEntry 26 Jan 9 Feb 22 Apr 22 MayAct † Cor ‡ Act † Cor ‡ Act † Cor ‡ Act † Cor ‡Phenom PR § 4.2 3.2 7.6 4.6 5.8 1.8 7.4 2.2Sidewinder TF 4.8 3.8 6.6 4.6 3.6 0.6 5.8 1.8Cochise IV TF 3.6 1.6 6.2 4.2 3.8 0.8 5.2 1.2TF – 152 TF 3.6 1.6 6.2 2.2 4.6 2.6 5.6 3.6K 31 TF 4.6 2.6 7.2 4.2 4.0 3.0 5.6 3.6Gulf AR 4.2 3.2 8.0 5.0 4.6 1.6 8.0 4.4TXR2004-TF-EM IR 5.0 3.0 7.6 3.6 5.6 1.6 8.0 4.006 B Lp PR 3.6 2.6 7.0 6.0 4.6 2.6 7.2 3.6PSG-4MSH PR 4.0 3.0 6.6 3.6 6.6 1.6 8.2 3.208-8 Lh IR 6.0 5.0 9.0 6.0 5.6 2.4 7.2 2.4IS-PR 385 BLK PR 4.4 3.4 7.6 5.6 4.8 0.8 8.2 3.2TMI-Puccinella dis AlG 4.4 3.4 5.4 1.4 3.6 0.8 6.2 1.2TXR2008-TF-PR-85 IR 5.0 4.0 8.2 5.2 5.2 1.2 8.4 4.4TXR2008-PR-1 PR 3.6 0.8 6.8 3.2 5.2 2.2 8.4 3.4RKS PR 3.8 2.8 7.2 5.2 5.0 1.0 6.8 2.8Soprano PR 3.4 2.4 5.4 3.6 5.0 1.0 7.6 3.6Soprano Myco PR 3.2 2.2 6.8 4.2 4.6 0.6 8.0 4.0TXR2006-TF-AxP IR 4.4 3.4 7.8 4.8 5.8 1.8 8.0 3.0TXR2008-TF-AxP F4 IR 4.6 2.6 8.0 4.0 5.8 1.8 7.8 2.8TXR2006-TF-PR-LS IR 4.6 3.4 7.8 4.8 6.0 2.0 7.6 3.6Panterra AR 4.8 3.8 8.2 5.2 6.4 2.4 7.8 1.8SS3 AR 4.6 1.6 8.0 3.0 7.0 1.2 8.4 2.4TAMTBO AR 4.8 3.8 8.0 5.0 4.4 2.4 8.0 3.4TFCT-1 AR 4.8 4.0 8.2 5.2 5.8 1.8 8.0 3.0TF-F-LM AR 4.2 3.2 7.8 4.8 5.0 1.0 7.8 3.8PSB (Pecos BLK) AR 5.2 4.2 8.2 6.2 6.2 1.2 8.0 2.0Pecos BLK 07-08 AR 5.0 4.0 8.4 5.4 5.0 1.0 7.6 3.6Mean 4.4 3.1 7.4 4.5 5.2 1.6 7.4 3.0C.V. 29.8 42.8 13.6 22.8 21.8 61.5 15.4 29.5LSD (0.05) NS 1.4 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.2 0.9†Actual salt damage rating on a 1 to 9 scale, where 1 = best and 9 = dead.‡Corrected rating were actual ratings minus rating for untreated plants of that genotype.§PR = perennial ryegrass, AR = annual, IR = intermediate, TF = tall fescue, and AlG = alkali grass.98
Page 1 and 2:
Proceedings of the 7th Internationa
Page 3 and 4:
Table of ContentsORAL PRESENTATIONS
Page 5 and 6:
Seed yield components and yield per
Page 7 and 8:
International Herbage Seed Conferen
Page 9 and 10:
16:15 - 16:30 Reliability of salini
Page 11 and 12:
Hotel expense is covered for night
Page 13 and 14:
40,000 were slaves (McDonald, 2007)
Page 15 and 16:
Fig. 1. Texas AgriLife Research and
Page 17 and 18:
$7 billion for cattle, $3 billion f
Page 19 and 20:
principle and encourages both AgriL
Page 21 and 22:
eceived by growers, the above perce
Page 23 and 24:
seed conditioning plants are locate
Page 25 and 26:
Table 4.Hectares of open-field burn
Page 27 and 28:
system, a seed crop is produced fro
Page 29 and 30:
Fig. 1. Land resource areas of Texa
Page 31 and 32:
y land owners. Seed yields are low
Page 33 and 34:
The influence of planting density o
Page 35 and 36:
Simple correlation and regression a
Page 37 and 38:
Variation in seed shattering in a g
Page 39 and 40:
Seed retention (SR) was calculated
Page 41 and 42:
mm160120Precipitation8040020Km h -1
Page 43 and 44:
Young, B. A. (1986). A Source of Re
Page 45 and 46:
Several methods are commonly used f
Page 47 and 48:
Table 3. Effect of the length of ha
Page 49 and 50:
Alfalfa seed production in semi-hum
Page 51 and 52:
Rather near the meteorological stat
Page 53 and 54:
ReferencesBolaños-Aguilar E.D., Hu
Page 55 and 56:
ased bioenergy conversion plants wa
Page 57 and 58: Table 1. Average distances required
Page 59 and 60: Figure 1. Optimized locations for 1
Page 61 and 62: Perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne
Page 63 and 64: Relative Seed Yieldsingle composite
Page 65 and 66: Flowers, M.D.; Hart, J.M.; Young II
Page 67 and 68: Thus, similar to tissue tests, remo
Page 69 and 70: Conclusion:Perhaps our most importa
Page 71 and 72: Modelling critical NDVI curves in p
Page 73 and 74: The five spectral reflectance measu
Page 75 and 76: Harvest loss in ryegrass seed crops
Page 77 and 78: Larger than expected harvest losses
Page 79 and 80: Rolston, P.; Trethewey, J.; McCloy,
Page 81 and 82: Optical sensors have the potential
Page 83 and 84: Figure 2. Seed yield response to ap
Page 85 and 86: Flowers, M. D., Hart, J.M., Young I
Page 87 and 88: In 2010, France has launched the fo
Page 89 and 90: Yield (% maximum)ConclusionThe resu
Page 91 and 92: Plant N uptakeN unavailableSoil nit
Page 93 and 94: Stresses associated with germinatio
Page 95 and 96: correspond to electrical conductivi
Page 97 and 98: applied later in the fall was more
Page 99 and 100: Figure 2. Establishment of five ove
Page 101 and 102: The seed vigour testing was perform
Page 103 and 104: Table 1. Germination index (GI) for
Page 105 and 106: Reliability of salinity screening L
Page 107: AcknowledgmentThis research was sup
Page 111 and 112: The seeds were collected from the A
Page 113 and 114: increases germination to its potent
Page 115 and 116: Light, lodging and flag leaves-what
Page 117 and 118: Relative seed yieldSeed yield (kg/h
Page 119 and 120: Hampton, J.G.; Clemence, T.G.A.; He
Page 121 and 122: The seed set is of major importance
Page 123 and 124: In grass species with poor seed ret
Page 125 and 126: support system to optimize fungicid
Page 127 and 128: weather stations in grass seed fiel
Page 129 and 130: ust resistance loci in Lolium peren
Page 131 and 132: Seed yield variation in a red clove
Page 133 and 134: 100Seed yield plant -1 (g)806040200
Page 135 and 136: Marden, J. H. 1984. Remote percepti
Page 137 and 138: Crimson clover seed production in t
Page 139 and 140: Piper, C.V. 1935. Forage plants and
Page 141 and 142: deal of investigation into the caus
Page 143 and 144: genes and subsequent ability to pro
Page 145 and 146: Gatenby, W.A., S.C. Munday-Finch, A
Page 147 and 148: Control of Vulpia myuros in red fes
Page 149 and 150: The strip design provides an opport
Page 151 and 152: The pot experiments did not reveale
Page 153 and 154: CharacterWeed abundance1 A few plan
Page 155 and 156: Jensen, P. K. (2010) Longevity of s
Page 157 and 158: Effects of intraspecific competitio
Page 159 and 160:
flowering, Gangi accumulated a high
Page 161 and 162:
The seed yield of Gangi was, on ave
Page 163 and 164:
Seed yield components and yield per
Page 165 and 166:
ResultsVariation among populations
Page 167 and 168:
Table 2. Means of total seeds per p
Page 169 and 170:
Ryle, G. J. (1970). Partition of As
Page 171 and 172:
Control of Apion trifolii in red cl
Page 173 and 174:
Number of seeds /inflorescencesimil
Page 175 and 176:
population. However, in spite of th
Page 177 and 178:
Corvallis where they were debearded
Page 179 and 180:
Table 1. Effect of Palisade growth
Page 181 and 182:
Variations on potential and harvest
Page 183 and 184:
Determination of optimum desiccatio
Page 185 and 186:
Relative seed yield (%)Flowers/m225
Page 187 and 188:
Harvesting too soon after peak flow
Page 189 and 190:
Annual ryegrass seed production in
Page 191 and 192:
seed yield, kg/haExtractable Al, mg
Page 193 and 194:
ReferencesHaby, V.A. (1995). Soil m
Page 195 and 196:
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L
Page 197 and 198:
urn residue management (Fig. 1 and
Page 199 and 200:
Comparing herbicide selectivity in
Page 201 and 202:
Development of new tetraploid Chlor
Page 203 and 204:
Following 4 (or 5) cycles of select
Page 205 and 206:
Loch, D.S., Rethman, N.F.G. & van N
Page 207 and 208:
KBGcocksfootHykorLofatimothymeadowf
Page 209 and 210:
Figure 2 Relative seed yield (%) se
Page 211 and 212:
and GA 4 . In consequence this inac
Page 213 and 214:
Table 1 The effect of trinexapac-et
Page 215 and 216:
Silberstein, T.B., Young, W.C. III,
Page 217 and 218:
inflorescece number and seed yield
Page 219 and 220:
Germination of Lolium multiflorum g
Page 221 and 222:
Effect of sowing density on seed yi
Page 223 and 224:
y-products of this grass seed crop
Page 225 and 226:
Table 2. Effect of PGR on seed yiel
Page 227 and 228:
Further culm length measurements ga
Page 229 and 230:
chlorophyllometer. Measurements wer
Page 231 and 232:
Table 2. Photosynthesis rate of fla
Page 233 and 234:
Organization of grass seed research
Page 235 and 236:
Path Coefficient and Ridge Regressi
Page 237 and 238:
through y4 (0.133). Increasing y 1
Page 239 and 240:
Newell G.J., Lee B. (1981)Ridge reg
Page 241 and 242:
Relative humidity, seed moisture co
Page 243 and 244:
Ergovaline contents in grasses from
Page 245 and 246:
11.8 % (Central East) to 40.0% (Nor
Page 247 and 248:
ReferencesBony, S. & Delatour, P. (
Page 249 and 250:
Long-term Evaluation of Annual Ryeg
Page 251 and 252:
seed yield. All systems of establis
Page 253 and 254:
Preliminary results after four year
Page 255 and 256:
Casals, Marie-LaureFNAMSImpasse du
Page 257 and 258:
Mao, PeishengForage Seed LabChina A
Page 259 and 260:
Vanasche, DavidVanasche Farm36130 N
show all

Texas, USA 2010 - International Herbage Seed Group

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?