4.5 Article

Alfalfa root carbohydrates and regrowth potential in response to fall harvests

期刊

CROP SCIENCE
卷 42, 期 3, 页码 754-765

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2135/cropsci2002.0754

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The adverse effect of harvesting alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) during a critical fall test period on the persistence and the following spring regrowth has been historically attributed to a reduction in the levels of root organic reserves, especially total nonstructural carbohydrates (TNC). Recent reports also pointed out the role of specific carbon (C) reserve components in winter survival. This study assessed the effect of the timing of a fall harvest on the regrowth potential in relation to quantitative changes in C reserves in alfalfa roots during fall and winter. The experiment was conducted under simulated winter conditions in an unheated greenhouse with two alfalfa cultivars (AC Caribou and WL 225) subjected to four fall harvest treatments: two summer harvests (control) and a third harvest taken in the fall at 400, 500, or 600 growing degree days (GDD) after the second harvest. Shoot regrowth was reduced by a fall harvest, especially when plants were harvested at 400 or 500 GDD. Root soluble sugar concentrations (sucrose, raffinose, and stachyose) measured during the overwintering period were higher in plants harvested in the fall than in those harvested only twice; these concentrations were also higher in the more hardy cultivars AC Caribou compared with WL 225. A fall harvest did not consistently affect root TNC concentrations, but decreased markedly the total amount of TNC in roots, especially in plants harvested at 400 GDD. In both cultivars, shoot regrowth in spring was correlated positively to the total amounts of root starch (r = 0.54 and 0.61) and TNC (r = 0.55 and 0.56), but not correlated to their concentrations. Our results suggest that the total amount of C organic reserves in alfalfa roots rather than their concentrations can be determinant factors of shoot regrowth.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据