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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zapiola, M. L. Articles by Young, W. C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Zapiola, M. L. Articles by Young, W. C., III Agricola Articles by Zapiola, M. L. Articles by Young, W. C. Related Collections Plant Growth Regulators Residue management Other Crops Seed Production

Trinexapac-Ethyl and Open-Field Burning Maximize Seed Yield in Creeping Red Fescue

^a Dep. of Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State Univ., 107 Crop Science Bldg., Corvallis, OR 97331
^b Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, Pontificia Univ. Católica Argentina, Freire 183, C1426AVC Buenos Aires, Argentina
^c Marion County Extension Office, Oregon State Univ., 3180 Center NE Rm. 1361, Salem, OR 97301

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Cumulative seed yield for residue management (RM) and trinexapac-ethyl (TE) treatment combinations. RM treatments: burn, flail. TE treatment legend: CK = check; EF = average of two early fall rates; LF = average of two late fall rates; ES = early spring; LS = late spring. Vertical bars represent LSDs (p = 0.05). LSD 1 is for comparison of TE treatment at same level of RM. LSD 2 is for comparison of RM at same or different level of TE treatment.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Yearly seed yield responses to residue management (RM) and trinexapac-ethyl (TE) treatment combinations for 4 yr. RM treatments: burn, flail. TE treatment legend: CK = check; EF = average of two early fall rates; LF = average of two late fall rates; ES = early spring; LS = late spring. Vertical bars represent LSDs (p = 0.05). LSD 1 is for comparison of TE treatment at the same level of RM within each year. LSD 2 is for comparison of RM at the same or different level of TE treatment within each year. In 2002, LSD TE and RM are for comparison between TE and between RM treatments, respectively, averaged across all the levels of the other factor.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Effect and interaction of residue management (RM) and trinexapac-ethyl (TE) treatment on total aboveground dry matter in first year (2001), second year (2002), third year (2003), and fourth year (2004). RM treatments: burn; flail. TE treatment legend: CK = check; EF = average of two early fall rates; LF = average of two late fall rates; ES = early spring; LS = late spring. Vertical bars represent LSDs (p = 0.05) in years where significant differences were found. LSD RM and TE are for comparison between RM and between TE treatments, respectively, averaged across all the levels of the other factor within each year. In 2004, LSD 1 is for comparison of TE treatment at the same level of RM. LSD 2 is for comparison of RM at the same or different level of TE treatment. T bars represent one SEM for each treatment combination.

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Effect of residue management (RM) treatment in 2003 and 2004 on (A) fertile tiller dry matter, (B) fertile tiller proportion, and (C) fertile tiller individual weight. RM treatments: burn, flail. Vertical bars represent LSDs (p = 0.05) for comparison between RM treatments within each year.

View larger version (15K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Effect and interaction of residue management (RM) and trinexapac-ethyl (TE) treatment on harvest index in first year (2001), second year (2002), third year (2003), and fourth year (2004). RM treatments: burn, flail. TE treatment legend: CK = check; EF = average of two early fall rates; LF = average of two late fall rates; ES = early spring; LS = late spring. Vertical bars represent LSDs (p = 0.05) in years where significant differences were found. LSD TE is for comparison between TE treatments averaged across RM in 2002. In 2003 and 2004, LSD 1 is for comparison of TE treatment at the same level of RM within each year. LSD 2 is for comparison of RM at the same or different level of TE treatment within each year. T bars represent one SEM for each treatment combination.