Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b6zl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-19T12:35:56.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Differential susceptibility to pest damage in agricultural grasses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. F. Henderson  and
R. O. Clements
I. F. Henderson
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts., and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berks.
R. O. Clements
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts., and Grassland Research Institute, Hurley, Berks.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Plots were sown with six varieties of perennial ryegrass, one each of Italian, Westerwolds and hybrid ryegrass, and one each of cocksfoot and timothy, in April 1974. D.M. yield was assessed at four cuts each year, on plots receiving 300 kg N/ha annually, for 4 years. Invertebrate populations and plant survival were monitored at intervals. Half the plots were treated regularly from sowing onwards with the systemic insecticide, phorate. Insecticide treatment increased output generally, but the extent varied from year to year and between grass varieties. The persistence of Italian and hybrid ryegrass varieties was dramatically improved by insecticide treatment. The three diploid varieties of perennial ryegrass studied appeared to be less susceptible to pest damage than the three tetraploid varieties. Shoot-fly larvae (Diptera: Chloropidae) were the major obvious cause of damage.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 93 , Issue 2 , October 1979 , pp. 465 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

Clements, R. O. & Hendekson, I. F. (1976). Some consequences of a prolonged absence of invertebrates from a perennial ryegrass sward. Proceedings of XIII International Grassland Congress, Leipzig1, 1976, pp. 129–134.Google Scholar
Henderson, I. F. & Clements, R. O. (1977). Grass growth in different parts of England in relation to invertebrate numbers and pesticide treatment. Journal of the British Grassland Society 32, 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, I. V. (1962). Productivity, persistence and response to nitrogen of Italian ryegrass varieties. Journal of the British Grassland Society 17, 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazenby, A. & Rogers, H. H. (1965a). Selection oriteria in grass breeding. V. Performance of Lolium perenne genotypes grown at different nitrogen levels and spacings. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 65, 79–89.Google Scholar
Lazenby, A. & Rogers, H. H. (1965b). Selection criteria in grass breeding. VI. Effects of defoliation on plants growing in small plots in field and controlled environment conditions. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 65, 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe-Willetts, L. (1962). The development and morphology of the oat plant (Avena sativa L.) in relation to attacks by the frit fly (Oscinella frit L.). M.So. thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Lynch, P. B. (1950). Herbage production of short rotation ryegrass. New Zealand Journal of Agriculture 81, 545–549.Google Scholar
Raw, F. (1955). A flotation extraction process for soil microarthropods. In Soil Zoology, pp. 341–346. Proceedings of the University of Nottingham Second Easter School in Agricultural Science, 1955 (ed. Kevan, D. K. Mce.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Raw, F. (1959). Estimating earthworm populations by using formalin. Nature, London 184, 1661–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, T. E. (1947). Short rotation ryegrass. Agriculture, London 54, 13–15.Google Scholar