Trinexapac‐Ethyl and Burning Effects on Seed Yield Components in Strong Creeping Red Fescue
Open‐field burning has been used to remove post‐harvest residue for high seed yield and quality in strong creeping red fescue (CRF) (Festuca rubra L. subsp. rubra) but concern over air pollution and safety issues has resulted in legislatively mandated reductions of this practice in Oregon. The effec...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Agronomy journal 2014-07, Vol.106 (4), p.1371-1378 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1378 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 1371 |
container_title | Agronomy journal |
container_volume | 106 |
creator | Zapiola, Maria L. Chastain, Thomas G. Garbacik, Carol J. Young, William C. |
description | Open‐field burning has been used to remove post‐harvest residue for high seed yield and quality in strong creeping red fescue (CRF) (Festuca rubra L. subsp. rubra) but concern over air pollution and safety issues has resulted in legislatively mandated reductions of this practice in Oregon. The effects of spring and fall applications of the plant growth regulator trinexapac‐ethyl (TE), and burning (burn) and mechanical removal (flail) of post‐harvest residue on seed yield components, were evaluated in strong CRF over a 4‐yr period. Response to treatments was different among years but burn was critical for maintaining high potential seed yields as the stand aged. Burn increased panicles m−2 and spikelets panicle−1 by up to 120 and 22%, respectively, over flail, and in turn, resulted in higher seed yields. Spring TE applications increased florets spikelet−1 by up to 14% in Years 1, 3, and 4. Fertile tiller height and lodging were reduced by spring‐applied TE. The combination of burn and spring TE produced highest seed yields in Years 3 and 4 as a result of increased seed number m−2 and seed weight. Fall TE did not affect seed yield components or yield and therefore, is not an effective management tool in strong CRF seed production. |
doi_str_mv | 10.2134/agronj14.0053 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1552012642</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3396522441</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3173-b4bd8b50d882798b55b3b0c82401bfcfcf648b8d9ba97d3b2db26759db3c3cee3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKA0EQRRtRMEaX7htcj_ZzHriKQxINwUCMCxfSTD8mTpj0jN0TNDs_wW_0S-wY3UotquCeqktdAM4xuiSYsqti6Rq7wuwSIU4PQA8zyiMUM34IegghEuEsJsfgxPsVQhhnDPfA88JV1rwXbaG-Pj6H3cu2hoXV8GbjbGWXcFiWRnUeNhY-GKPhU2VqDfNm3TbW2CBUQeiC7xLmzph2tzMP3Mh4tTGn4Kgsam_OfnsfPI6Gi_w2ms7Gd_lgGimKExpJJnUqOdJpSpIsTFxSiVRKGMKyVKFilspUZ7LIEk0l0ZLECc-0pIoqY2gfXOzvtq553RjfiVUTHgiWAnNOECYxI4GK9pRyjffOlKJ11bpwW4GR2CUo_hIUuwQDf73n36rabP-HxWA8IYPxfHY_wexn-xtFGnhz</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1552012642</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Trinexapac‐Ethyl and Burning Effects on Seed Yield Components in Strong Creeping Red Fescue</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Zapiola, Maria L. ; Chastain, Thomas G. ; Garbacik, Carol J. ; Young, William C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Zapiola, Maria L. ; Chastain, Thomas G. ; Garbacik, Carol J. ; Young, William C.</creatorcontrib><description>Open‐field burning has been used to remove post‐harvest residue for high seed yield and quality in strong creeping red fescue (CRF) (Festuca rubra L. subsp. rubra) but concern over air pollution and safety issues has resulted in legislatively mandated reductions of this practice in Oregon. The effects of spring and fall applications of the plant growth regulator trinexapac‐ethyl (TE), and burning (burn) and mechanical removal (flail) of post‐harvest residue on seed yield components, were evaluated in strong CRF over a 4‐yr period. Response to treatments was different among years but burn was critical for maintaining high potential seed yields as the stand aged. Burn increased panicles m−2 and spikelets panicle−1 by up to 120 and 22%, respectively, over flail, and in turn, resulted in higher seed yields. Spring TE applications increased florets spikelet−1 by up to 14% in Years 1, 3, and 4. Fertile tiller height and lodging were reduced by spring‐applied TE. The combination of burn and spring TE produced highest seed yields in Years 3 and 4 as a result of increased seed number m−2 and seed weight. Fall TE did not affect seed yield components or yield and therefore, is not an effective management tool in strong CRF seed production.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-1962</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-0645</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2134/agronj14.0053</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Madison: The American Society of Agronomy, Inc</publisher><subject>Crop yield</subject><ispartof>Agronomy journal, 2014-07, Vol.106 (4), p.1371-1378</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2014 by the American Society of Agronomy, Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright American Society of Agronomy Jul/Aug 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3173-b4bd8b50d882798b55b3b0c82401bfcfcf648b8d9ba97d3b2db26759db3c3cee3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3173-b4bd8b50d882798b55b3b0c82401bfcfcf648b8d9ba97d3b2db26759db3c3cee3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2134%2Fagronj14.0053$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2134%2Fagronj14.0053$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,1414,27907,27908,45557,45558</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zapiola, Maria L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chastain, Thomas G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garbacik, Carol J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, William C.</creatorcontrib><title>Trinexapac‐Ethyl and Burning Effects on Seed Yield Components in Strong Creeping Red Fescue</title><title>Agronomy journal</title><description>Open‐field burning has been used to remove post‐harvest residue for high seed yield and quality in strong creeping red fescue (CRF) (Festuca rubra L. subsp. rubra) but concern over air pollution and safety issues has resulted in legislatively mandated reductions of this practice in Oregon. The effects of spring and fall applications of the plant growth regulator trinexapac‐ethyl (TE), and burning (burn) and mechanical removal (flail) of post‐harvest residue on seed yield components, were evaluated in strong CRF over a 4‐yr period. Response to treatments was different among years but burn was critical for maintaining high potential seed yields as the stand aged. Burn increased panicles m−2 and spikelets panicle−1 by up to 120 and 22%, respectively, over flail, and in turn, resulted in higher seed yields. Spring TE applications increased florets spikelet−1 by up to 14% in Years 1, 3, and 4. Fertile tiller height and lodging were reduced by spring‐applied TE. The combination of burn and spring TE produced highest seed yields in Years 3 and 4 as a result of increased seed number m−2 and seed weight. Fall TE did not affect seed yield components or yield and therefore, is not an effective management tool in strong CRF seed production.</description><subject>Crop yield</subject><issn>0002-1962</issn><issn>1435-0645</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtKA0EQRRtRMEaX7htcj_ZzHriKQxINwUCMCxfSTD8mTpj0jN0TNDs_wW_0S-wY3UotquCeqktdAM4xuiSYsqti6Rq7wuwSIU4PQA8zyiMUM34IegghEuEsJsfgxPsVQhhnDPfA88JV1rwXbaG-Pj6H3cu2hoXV8GbjbGWXcFiWRnUeNhY-GKPhU2VqDfNm3TbW2CBUQeiC7xLmzph2tzMP3Mh4tTGn4Kgsam_OfnsfPI6Gi_w2ms7Gd_lgGimKExpJJnUqOdJpSpIsTFxSiVRKGMKyVKFilspUZ7LIEk0l0ZLECc-0pIoqY2gfXOzvtq553RjfiVUTHgiWAnNOECYxI4GK9pRyjffOlKJ11bpwW4GR2CUo_hIUuwQDf73n36rabP-HxWA8IYPxfHY_wexn-xtFGnhz</recordid><startdate>201407</startdate><enddate>201407</enddate><creator>Zapiola, Maria L.</creator><creator>Chastain, Thomas G.</creator><creator>Garbacik, Carol J.</creator><creator>Young, William C.</creator><general>The American Society of Agronomy, Inc</general><general>American Society of Agronomy</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201407</creationdate><title>Trinexapac‐Ethyl and Burning Effects on Seed Yield Components in Strong Creeping Red Fescue</title><author>Zapiola, Maria L. ; Chastain, Thomas G. ; Garbacik, Carol J. ; Young, William C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3173-b4bd8b50d882798b55b3b0c82401bfcfcf648b8d9ba97d3b2db26759db3c3cee3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Crop yield</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zapiola, Maria L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chastain, Thomas G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garbacik, Carol J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Young, William C.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Agronomy journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zapiola, Maria L.</au><au>Chastain, Thomas G.</au><au>Garbacik, Carol J.</au><au>Young, William C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Trinexapac‐Ethyl and Burning Effects on Seed Yield Components in Strong Creeping Red Fescue</atitle><jtitle>Agronomy journal</jtitle><date>2014-07</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>106</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1371</spage><epage>1378</epage><pages>1371-1378</pages><issn>0002-1962</issn><eissn>1435-0645</eissn><abstract>Open‐field burning has been used to remove post‐harvest residue for high seed yield and quality in strong creeping red fescue (CRF) (Festuca rubra L. subsp. rubra) but concern over air pollution and safety issues has resulted in legislatively mandated reductions of this practice in Oregon. The effects of spring and fall applications of the plant growth regulator trinexapac‐ethyl (TE), and burning (burn) and mechanical removal (flail) of post‐harvest residue on seed yield components, were evaluated in strong CRF over a 4‐yr period. Response to treatments was different among years but burn was critical for maintaining high potential seed yields as the stand aged. Burn increased panicles m−2 and spikelets panicle−1 by up to 120 and 22%, respectively, over flail, and in turn, resulted in higher seed yields. Spring TE applications increased florets spikelet−1 by up to 14% in Years 1, 3, and 4. Fertile tiller height and lodging were reduced by spring‐applied TE. The combination of burn and spring TE produced highest seed yields in Years 3 and 4 as a result of increased seed number m−2 and seed weight. Fall TE did not affect seed yield components or yield and therefore, is not an effective management tool in strong CRF seed production.</abstract><cop>Madison</cop><pub>The American Society of Agronomy, Inc</pub><doi>10.2134/agronj14.0053</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-1962 |
ispartof | Agronomy journal, 2014-07, Vol.106 (4), p.1371-1378 |
issn | 0002-1962 1435-0645 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1552012642 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Crop yield |
title | Trinexapac‐Ethyl and Burning Effects on Seed Yield Components in Strong Creeping Red Fescue |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T15%3A49%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Trinexapac%E2%80%90Ethyl%20and%20Burning%20Effects%20on%20Seed%20Yield%20Components%20in%20Strong%20Creeping%20Red%20Fescue&rft.jtitle=Agronomy%20journal&rft.au=Zapiola,%20Maria%20L.&rft.date=2014-07&rft.volume=106&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1371&rft.epage=1378&rft.pages=1371-1378&rft.issn=0002-1962&rft.eissn=1435-0645&rft_id=info:doi/10.2134/agronj14.0053&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3396522441%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1552012642&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |