HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pikul, J. L. Articles by Cochran, V. L. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Pikul, J. L., Jr. Articles by Cochran, V. L. Agricola Articles by Pikul, J. L. Articles by Cochran, V. L. Related Collections Forage Management Water Use Evapotranspiration Dryland Cropping Systems Other Forage Crops

Water Use and Biomass Production of Oat–Pea Hay and Lentil in a Semiarid Climate

^a USDA-ARS, Northern Grain Insects Res. Lab., 2923 Medary Ave., Brookings, SD 57006
^b USDA-ARS, Northwest Irrig. and Soils Res. Lab., 3793 N. 3600 E., Kimberly, ID 83341
^c USDA-ARS, Northern Plains Agric. Res. Lab., 1500 N. Central Ave., Sidney, MT 59270

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Growing season evapotranspiration (ET) and plant mass (at final harvest) for black lentil grown as a green manure (BL) and oat–pea hay (OPH) at Site 1 for years 1992–1995. The linear regression model for plant mass production as a function of growing season ET was significantly (P = 0.05) different between BL and OPH.

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Cumulative evapotranspiration (ET) and plant mass for black lentil grown as a green manure (BL) and oat–pea hay (OPH) at Site 1 (soil water balance studies) during 1995. Error bars show ±1 standard deviation at 75 d after planting. The linear regression model for cumulative plant mass production as a function of cumulative ET was significantly (P < 0.001) different between BL and OPH.

View larger version (28K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Cumulative evapotranspiration (ET) and plant mass for black lentil grown as a green manure (BL) during 1993 and 1994 and oat–pea hay (OPH) during 1995 and 1996 at Site 2 (precision-weighing lysimeter studies). Error bars show ±1 standard deviation at the end of the growing season for each of 4 yr. Open symbols identify data points for 1994 and 1996. The linear regression model for cumulative plant mass production as a function of cumulative ET was significantly (P = 0.05) different between BL and OPH.

View larger version (51K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Cumulative evapotranspiration (ET) for oat–pea hay (OPH), evaporation from fallow, and rain during (a) 1995 and (b) 1996 at Site 2 (precision-weighing lysimeter studies).

View larger version (26K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Comparison of relative feed value (RFV) for oat–pea hay (OPH) at Sites 1 (soil water balance studies) and 2 (precision-weighing lysimeter studies) during 1995. For comparison purposes, RFV for black lentil grown as a green manure (BL) at Site 1 is shown. Error bars show ±1 standard deviation. Open symbols identify data points for Site 1.