Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T17:27:44.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some effects of clipping the tops upon the root development of lucerne (Medicago sativa L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

H. G. Thornton  and
Hugh Nicol
H. G. Thornton
Affiliation:
(Bacteriology Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.)
Hugh Nicol
Affiliation:
(Bacteriology Department, Rothamsted Experimental Station, Harpenden, Herts.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

V. summary and abstract

1. Inoculated lucerne was grown in pots of sand and watered with nitrogen-free food solution. In some of the pots the lucerne was clipped once, in some twice and in some it was left unclipped. Pots were harvested on four dates at intervals of about three weeks. Counts and measurements of nodules were made and dry weights and nitrogen contents of tops and roots were obtained.

2. Clipping did not significantly alter the nodule numbers, their mean size, or the total nitrogen contents of the plants, i.e. in tops, including clippings, plus roots.

3. Clipping, however, resulted in a decrease in the nitrogen content of the roots of about 40 per cent, as compared with undipped plants. This nitrogen was transferred to the tops where it was removed in the clippings.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , October 1934 , pp. 532 - 539
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1934

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

REFERENCES

(1)Rocque, B.A Practical Treatise of Cultivating Lucern. London: 1761. A Practical Treatise on Cultivating Lucern Grass. London: 1765. (Both citations from 1765 edition.)Google Scholar
(2)McKee, R.J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1916), 8, 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(3)Graber, L. F., Nelson, N. T., Luekel, W. A. and Albert, W. B.Wisc. Agric. Exp. Sta. Research Bull. No. 80 (1927).Google Scholar
(4)Sundelin, G. and Franck, O.Centralanstalt. f. försöksv. på jordbruksomr. Stockholm (1928), Medd. No. 335.Google Scholar
(5)Graber, L. F.J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1924), 16, 169.Google Scholar
(6)Grandfield, C. O.J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1934), 26, 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(7)Janssen, G.J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1929), 21, 895.Google Scholar
(8)Albert, W. B.J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1927), 19, 624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(9)Salmon, S. C., Swanson, C. O. and McCampbell, C. W.Kansas Agric. Exp. Sta. Techn. Bull. (1925), No. 15.Google Scholar
(10)Nelson, N. T.J. Amer. Soc. Agron. (1925), 17, 100.Google Scholar
(11)Kiesselbach, T. A. and Anderson, Arthur. Univ. Nebr. Agric. Exp. Sta. Research Bull. (1926), No. 36.Google Scholar
(12)Nicol, Hugh. Yield, duration, and drought-resistance of lucerne as influenced by frequency and time of cutting. Emp. J. Exp. Agric. (In the press.)Google Scholar