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 ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Franzluebbers, A. J. Articles by Stuedemann, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Franzluebbers, A. J. Articles by Stuedemann, J. A. Agricola Articles by Franzluebbers, A. J. Articles by Stuedemann, J. A. Related Collections Forage Management Grazing Management Other Forage Crops Production Agriculture Animal Waste

Bermudagrass Management in the Southern Piedmont USA

X. Coastal Productivity and Persistence in Response to Fertilization and Defoliation Regimes

USDA-ARS, 1420 Experiment Station Rd., Watkinsville, GA 30677-2373

View larger version (46K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Long-term mean (65-yr) cumulative (line) and monthly (bars) precipitation at Watkinsville, GA, and precipitation received at the site during 1994 to 1998.

View larger version (25K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Forage mass throughout the summer as affected by defoliation regime (UH is unharvested, HFM is grazing to maintain high forage mass, LFM is grazing to maintain low forage mass, and Hay is hayed) when averaged across fertilization regimes from 1994 to 1998. Vertical bars at the top of each panel indicate the least significant difference (P = 0.1) among defoliation regimes within each month of sampling.

View larger version (55K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Ground cover as affected by defoliation regime within each fertilization regime throughout the summer. An asterisk above a set of values within a botanical category, fertilization regime, and month of sampling indicates a significant difference (P = 0.01) between at least two defoliation regime means.

View larger version (38K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Annual forage productivity as affected by defoliation regime averaged across fertilization regimes during 1994 to 1998 and treatment deviations from annual means (to account for differences in climatic conditions) as a function of years since initiation of the study among defoliation regimes.