EFFECT OF REDUCED SOIL MOISTURE AVAILABILITY ON LEAF MORPHOLOGY AND <i>IN VITRO</i> DRY MATTER DIGESTIBILITY OF <i>FESTUCA ARUNDINACEA</i> GENOTYPES WITH CONTRASTING LEAF TENSILE STRENGTH

Silcock, R. G.; Wilson, D.

doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.1982.tb03312.x

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Buxton and Casler (1993) reviewed this subject and suggested that: (i) long-term unconscious selection has led to decreased nutritive value of forage crops due to emphasis on yield and vigor traits, and (ii) increased forage nutritive value, if accomplished by reducing the concentration of cell wall constituents such as lignin or phenolics, may lead to reduced pest resistance. On the other hand, selection for reduced leaf cellulose concentration or tensile strength, both associated with increased IVDMD, led to increased tolerance to freezing and drought (Lancashire et aI., 1977;Silcock & Wilson, 1982;Wilson, 1981). Silcock and Wilson (1982) speculated that greater cell wall flexibility may be partially responsible for both increased drought and freezing tolerance.…”

Section: Forage Nutritional Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, selection for reduced leaf cellulose concentration or tensile strength, both associated with increased IVDMD, led to increased tolerance to freezing and drought (Lancashire et aI., 1977;Silcock & Wilson, 1982;Wilson, 1981). Silcock and Wilson (1982) speculated that greater cell wall flexibility may be partially responsible for both increased drought and freezing tolerance.…”

Section: Forage Nutritional Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Germplasm and Cultivar Development

Casler

Pedersen

Eizenga

et al. 2015

Agronomy Monographs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cool-season forage grasses have evolved, and continue to evolve, in natural ecosystems subject to environmental factors both in the presence and absence of human influences. The literature often lacks facts describing the evolution and domestication of forage grasses. Furthermore, the literature on this subject mainly deals with evolution of species in the broad scope, i.e., on a scale of hundreds of thousands or millions or years. Thus, some of our conclusions are necessarily speculative and are highly subject to the nature of the research that has been reported. We describe the forces of selection that act upon cool-season forage grasses and attempt to place each in historical perspective and in relation to each other. Because most economically important cool-season forage grasses are perennial, our principal focus will be on perennial species. There has been very little effort to quantify economic values of selection criteria or to empirically compare different breeding procedures in cool-season forage grasses. We attempt to summarize and compare some of the more important and thoroughly reported approaches used since the advent of formal breeding strategies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. These selection criteria and breeding procedures are as varied as the individual researchers who developed them. Examples are cited to illustrate principles and phenomena of historical or practical importance. More details of the agriculturally important species are discussed in the later chapters of this book. Space limitations prevent 1 Common names for plants have been used throughout the chapter. Refer to the appendix for the scientific name.

show abstract

Section: Forage Nutritional Valuementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Forage Nutritional Valuementioning

confidence: 99%