Residue Management in Kentucky Bluegrass (<i>Poa pratensis</i> L.) and Red Fescue (Festuca rubra L.) Seed Fields<sup>1</sup>

Pumphrey, F. V.

doi:10.2134/agronj1965.00021962005700060013x

Cited by 19 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Open‐field burning may maintain stand productivity for several years longer than mechanical residue removal (Canode and Law, 1979) However, smoke‐related health and environmental concerns have necessitated exploring mechanical post‐harvest residue removal methods (Canode and Law, 1977; Chilcote and Young, 1991; Coats et al, 1995; Murray, 1994, 1996). With complete residue removal, Pumphrey (1965) found no significant difference in Kentucky bluegrass seed yields between burning, or mowing the grass followed by raking. Canode and Law (1977) determined that thoroughly removing the majority of stubble by mechanical methods following straw removal, resulted in higher seed yield than removal of only excess straw.…”

mentioning

confidence: 82%

Kentucky Bluegrass Seed and Vegetative Responses to Residue Management and Fall Nitrogen

Lamb

Murray

1999

Crop Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open‐field burning to remove post‐harvest residue from Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) seed fields was essentially eliminated in Washington in 1998, and may be banned in Idaho and Oregon because of health concerns. Regulations banning burning necessitated exploring non‐thermal residue management. Seed and vegetative responses of six Kentucky bluegrass cultivars to three post‐harvest residue removal methods, and three timings of fall applied N in second‐ and third‐year seed crops were evaluated. Residue removal methods were burn, vacuum, and rake. Split fall timings of N applications were 70% September, 30% October; 30% September, 70% October; and 100% October. Post‐harvest residue management did not significantly influence second‐year seed crop yields; however, with mechanical residue removal, third‐year seed crop yields of ‘Glade’, ‘Huntsville’, and ‘South Dakota’ were 42 to 62% of seed yields with open‐field burning. Seed yield of ‘Baron’, ‘Limousine’, and ‘Georgetown’ was not affected by residue management in the third‐year seed crop. As larger portions of N were October applied, second‐year seed yields of Georgetown and Huntsville were higher. Third‐year seed crop yields were not influenced by timing of N application. Overall, seed production was correlated with panicle number true(r=0.77**true), but not with above ground biomass, rhizome biomass, or weight per 100 seeds. These data suggest that seed yield of relatively short‐statured, small‐seeded cultivars producing modest amounts of above ground biomass may be sustained by mechanical residue removal through three seed crop years when 70 or 100% the N is applied in October.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 82%

Kentucky Bluegrass Seed and Vegetative Responses to Residue Management and Fall Nitrogen

Lamb

Murray

1999

Crop Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intermediate wheatgrass also produces vegetative biomass in the spring and the fall that can be harvested as high‐quality hay (Hendrickson et al., 2005). In addition to producing hay, defoliating vegetative growth has also been shown to increase seed yield in perennial grass seed production (e.g., Green & Evans, 1957; Hebblethwaite & Clemence, 1981; Pumphrey, 1965). Removing fall biomass may also help preclude overwintering habitat for black grass bug ( Labops spp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of defoliation and row spacing on intermediate wheatgrass II: Forage yield and economics

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Management systems that produce both grain and biomass coproducts could enhance the profitability of the novel perennial grain crop Kernza intermediate wheatgrass [Thinopyrum intermedium (Host) Barkworth & D.R. Dewey] (IWG). Harvesting IWG for grain typically results in a straw harvest; in addition, vegetative biomass can be cut in spring, fall, or both for hay production. We evaluated the interacting effects of defoliation and row spacing on yield, forage quality, and economic return across the 3-yr life of a conventionally managed IWG stand in St. Paul, MN. We measured straw and hay yield and forage quality and then used recent hay auction results to model forage price and total potential value. We then used estimated production costs to calculate potential net return from straw production alone and with additional hay harvests. Overall, straw was more valuable than hay, despite being of much lower quality, since yields were 3-4 times greater. Straw potential value was similar to the cost of producing both straw and grain, greatly reducing the financial risk in Kernza grain production. Hay production was almost always profitable. Straw and hay yield and value were greater in 15-and 30-cm rows than in 61-cm rows. Defoliating in both spring and fall led to lower hay and straw yields in the third year. Our results indicate that the best strategy for achieving consistent high net return to biomass production is to plant in 15-or 30-cm rows and only cut hay in the fall.Abbreviations: ADF, acid detergent fiber; CP, crude protein; Ctrl, no defoliation; Fa, defoliation only in fall; GDD, growing degree days; IWG, intermediate wheatgrass; NIRS, near-infrared reflectance spectroscopy; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; RFV, relative feed value; Sp, defoliation only in spring; SpFa, defoliation in spring and fall.

show abstract

“…Musser (1947) showed that fall burning of creeping red fescue increased seed yields because of reduced disease and insect problems. Work by Pumphrey (1965) demonstrated that nonthermal removal of postharvest residues produced seed yield in red fescue that was equivalent to burning. However, Young et al (1998) reported that the success of nonthermal management in fine fescues was species specific; seed yield was equivalent with either burning or nonthermal management in CF, but in strong CRF burning was the best practice to maintain economic seed yields.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Seed Production Characteristics of Three Fine Fescue Species in Residue Management Systems

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field-burning based residue management is an important but controversial tool in seed production of three fi ne fescue species: Chewings fescue (CF) [Festuca rubra L. subsp. fallax (Th uill.) Nyman], strong creeping red fescue (strong CRF) (F. rubra L. subsp. rubra), and slender creeping red fescue (slender CRF) [F. rubra L. var. littoralis (Vasey)]. Th e objective of this study was to characterize seed productivity responses of fi ne fescue species to residue management in on-farm and experiment station trials. Th ree cultivars each of CF and strong CRF were subjected to fi ve postharvest residue management treatments at six on-farm sites in two diff erent environments in Oregon, while four cultivars of CF and strong CRF, and two slender CRF cultivars were treated with two postharvest residue management treatments in experiment station trials at one location. Seed yield responses to residue management was similar among production environments. Removal of residue by several methods improved seed yields, whereas yield declined aft er the second year of the stand in all three species. In second year stands, burning increased seed yields in all strong CRF cultivars, but caused mixed responses in CF and slender CRF cultivars. Burning increased seed yield in third year stands in all CF and strong CRF cultivars, but reduced yield by 9% in slender CRF. Burning increased yield over nonthermal treatment in strong CRF by 32% and by 84%, in second and third year stands, respectively. Benefi cial eff ects of burning increased with stand age, resulting in greater seed yields in fi ne fescue species except slender CRF.

show abstract

Residue Management in Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) and Red Fescue (Festuca rubra L.) Seed Fields¹

Cited by 19 publications

References 2 publications

Kentucky Bluegrass Seed and Vegetative Responses to Residue Management and Fall Nitrogen

Kentucky Bluegrass Seed and Vegetative Responses to Residue Management and Fall Nitrogen

Effects of defoliation and row spacing on intermediate wheatgrass II: Forage yield and economics

Seed Production Characteristics of Three Fine Fescue Species in Residue Management Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Residue Management in Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) and Red Fescue (Festuca rubra L.) Seed Fields1

Cited by 19 publications

References 2 publications

Kentucky Bluegrass Seed and Vegetative Responses to Residue Management and Fall Nitrogen

Kentucky Bluegrass Seed and Vegetative Responses to Residue Management and Fall Nitrogen

Effects of defoliation and row spacing on intermediate wheatgrass II: Forage yield and economics

Seed Production Characteristics of Three Fine Fescue Species in Residue Management Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Residue Management in Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis L.) and Red Fescue (Festuca rubra L.) Seed Fields¹