4.3 Article

Hard seed breakdown patterns of unprocessed forage legume seed sown into dry soil in summer in southern Australia

Journal

GRASS AND FORAGE SCIENCE
Volume 76, Issue 1, Pages 82-92

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/gfs.12526

Keywords

eco‐ geographic variation; forage legumes; G x E interaction; hard seed; pasture renovation; summer sowing

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The patterns and extent of hard seed breakdown of dormant seeds and pods of annual forage legumes buried in the soil in February varied across different accessions. However, some cultivars showed reproducible patterns across all sites, while others showed desirable patterns only in certain regions of Australia. The experiments demonstrated a pragmatic approach for selecting forage legume accessions suited for evaluation in a summer sowing program.
The patterns and extent of hard seed breakdown of dormant seeds and pods following burial in the soil in February (summer) varied for up to 19 accessions of 12 species of annual forage legumes. The experiments, at six sites across southern Australia, were designed to identify legumes whose patterns of hard seed breakdown would suit them to agronomic evaluation in a summer sowing research program. For a subset of accessions, sufficient hard seed breakdown was demonstrated between February and April to allow a high proportion of seed to germinate in late autumn-a desirable pattern for summer sowing. Although there was a large G x E interaction, some cultivars of Ornithopus sativus Brot., O. compressus L. and Trifolium spumosum L. had a pattern that was reproducible at all sites. The experiments also identified accessions of Biserrula pelecinus L. and T. glanduliferum Boiss., which had the desirable pattern in regions of south-eastern Australia, but not Western Australia. A pragmatic approach for selection of forage legume accessions in situ for evaluation within a summer sowing program was demonstrated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available