Archived
This content is available here strictly for research, reference, and/or recordkeeping and as such it may not be fully accessible. If you work or study at University of Kentucky and would like to request an accessible version, please use the SensusAccess Document Converter.
Publication Date
1993
Location
New Zealand
Description
Seed production of smooth meadow grass (Poa pratensis L.) cv. Lavang was compared at 3 sowing rates (2.5, 5.0 and l0.0 kg/ha) and at 2 row spacings (16.5 and :n cm), the wider used in conjunction with carbon banding. Results varied between fields according to temperature after planting and the weed content of the soil, but, on average, 5.0 kg/ha proved to be the optimal sowing rate. 33 cm row spacing and carbon banding caused a higher proportion of tillers to develop panicles and gave a higher seed yield with a better weed control in the first and third harvest year, but the method was inadequate for the control of Poa amma and Alopecurus geniculatus L. in the second year.
Citation
Aamlid, Trygve S., "Sowing Rate and Row Spacing in Pure Stand Establishment of Smooth Meadowgrass for Seed Production" (1993). IGC Proceedings (1985-2023). 25.
(URL: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/igc/1993/session45/25)
Included in
Agricultural Science Commons, Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons, Plant Biology Commons, Plant Pathology Commons, Soil Science Commons, Weed Science Commons
Sowing Rate and Row Spacing in Pure Stand Establishment of Smooth Meadowgrass for Seed Production
New Zealand
Seed production of smooth meadow grass (Poa pratensis L.) cv. Lavang was compared at 3 sowing rates (2.5, 5.0 and l0.0 kg/ha) and at 2 row spacings (16.5 and :n cm), the wider used in conjunction with carbon banding. Results varied between fields according to temperature after planting and the weed content of the soil, but, on average, 5.0 kg/ha proved to be the optimal sowing rate. 33 cm row spacing and carbon banding caused a higher proportion of tillers to develop panicles and gave a higher seed yield with a better weed control in the first and third harvest year, but the method was inadequate for the control of Poa amma and Alopecurus geniculatus L. in the second year.
