2002
DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0706.2002.980113.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of defoliation on grass growth. A quantitative review

Abstract: The diversity of responses of individual grasses to defoliation created a controversy about 15 years ago, which still needs clarification. We quantitatively assessed the evidence of defoliation effects on individual grass growth, addressing two main questions: 1) what is the average and variability of the effect of defoliation on plant growth? and 2) what are the associated conditions accounting for the diversity of effects? Regarding the first question, the results showed a negative overall effect of defoliat… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

21
213
2
10

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 265 publications
(246 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
21
213
2
10
Order By: Relevance
“…This was particularly so in the less fertile sandy soil, where plant growth was in any case much weaker, and the contribution of plant-derived C to total soil respiration became negligible. Diminished net C fixation and root growth with clipping are consistent with previous studies summarised by Ferraro and Oesterheld (2002). Diminished root exudation and plant-derived soil respiration with clipping are also consistent with previous work (Shahzad et al, 2012;Schmitt et al, 2013), including in Kikuyu grass (Roper et al, 2013).…”
Section: Actual Rhizodepositionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…This was particularly so in the less fertile sandy soil, where plant growth was in any case much weaker, and the contribution of plant-derived C to total soil respiration became negligible. Diminished net C fixation and root growth with clipping are consistent with previous studies summarised by Ferraro and Oesterheld (2002). Diminished root exudation and plant-derived soil respiration with clipping are also consistent with previous work (Shahzad et al, 2012;Schmitt et al, 2013), including in Kikuyu grass (Roper et al, 2013).…”
Section: Actual Rhizodepositionsupporting
confidence: 81%
“…In fact, in all species, the 20-cm cutting-height produced >100% more forage DM than its 10-cm counterpart. The treatment differences in forage biomass were actually consistent with reported negative effects of severe defoliation on plant growth (Ferraro & Oesterheld, 2002 warm-season grasses by over 60% (Mullahey, 1990;Forwood & Magai, 1992). This is so because proportions of photosynthetic tissue retained on defoliated plants usually influence how quickly they repair their damaged tissues (Oesterheld & McNaughton, 1991;Lee et al, 2000;Ferraro & Oesterheld, 2002).…”
Section: Forage Biomasssupporting
confidence: 74%
“…The expression of these relationships results from an interaction with the level of resource availability (Ferraro and Oesterheld 2002;Wise and Abrahamson 2005). For example, high tissue turnover and resource acquisition rates are important strategies for plants with high growth rates (del-Val and Crawley 2005) and occurring at high resource availability (Grime et al 1997).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%