Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:22:46.834Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The physiology of forage rye (Secale cereale)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

R. K. M. Hay  and
M. K. Abbas Al-Ani
R. K. M. Hay
Affiliation:
Botany Department, West of Scotland Agricultural College, Auchincruive, Ayr, KA6 5HW
M. K. Abbas Al-Ani
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, Agricultural College, University of Baghdad, Iraq
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Field and pot investigations of the vegetative and early reproductive growth of a winter wheat and a winter rye cultivar over three seasons (1978–9, 1980–2) have shown that higher and earlier forage yields of rye are due to a combination of factors, notably more rapid rates of germination, crop emergence, leaf appearance and leaf expansion coupled with higher leaf area ratios. There was no evidence, from studies of net assimilation rate, that the photosynthetic apparatus of rye plants is better adapted than wheat to the low temperature and light conditions of winter and early spring. However, the earlier initiation of rye stem extension was associated with significant increases in net assimilation rate, which compensated for reductions in the leaf area ratio. Practical aspects of these results are discussed briefly.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 101 , Issue 1 , August 1983 , pp. 63 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

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

Baker, C. K., Gallagher, J. N. & Monteith, J. L. (1980). Daylength change and leaf appearance in winter wheat. Plant, Cell and Environment 3, 285–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, A. R. & Almodares, A. (1976). Quantity and quality of triticale forage compared to other small grains. Agronomy Journal 68, 264–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deinum, B. (1976). Photosynthesis and sink size: an explanation for the low productivity of grass swards in autumn. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 24, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, B. R. & Folland, C. J. (1970). Soils of Lancashire. Bulletin 5, Soil Survey of England and Wales.Google Scholar
Hay, R. K. M. & Heide, O. M. (1983). Specific photoperiodic stimulation of dry matter production in a high latitude cultivar of Poa pratensisL. Physiologia Plantarum 57, 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, R. K. M. & Tunnicliffe, Wilson G. (1982). Leaf appearance and extension in field-grown winter wheat plants: the importance of soil temperature during vegetative growth. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99, 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, R. & Parsons, T. (1974). A computer program for deriving growth functions in plant growthanalysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 11, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerby, E. J. M. & Appleyard, M. (1981). Cereal Development Guide. Cereal Unit, National Agricultural Centre, U.K.Google Scholar
Large, E. C. (1954). Growth stages in cereals, illustration of the Feekes Scale. Plant Pathology 3, 128–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, H. H. (1967). Breeding for maximum production. Occasional Symposia of the British Grassland Society 3, 66–73.Google Scholar
Tottman, D. R., Makepeace, R. J. & Broad, H. (1979). An explanation of the decimal code for the growth stages of cereals, with illustrations. Annals of Applied Biology 93, 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J. (1968). A prospect of crop physiology. Annals of Applied Biology 62, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, D. J., Thorne, G. N. & French, S. A. W. (1963). Analysis of growth and yield of winter and spring wheats. Annals of Botany 27, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woledge, J. (1979). Effect of flowering on the photosynthetic capacity of ryegrass leaves grown with and without natural shading. Annals of Botany 44, 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar