2004
DOI: 10.1658/1402-2001(2004)007[0011:upttcs]2.0.co;2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using plant traits to compare sward structure and composition of grass species across environmental gradients

Abstract: Plant traits which may give an indication of a plant's strategy for nutrient acquisition and regeneration are known for numerous grassland species. This study aimed to establish whether there is any relationship between two plant traits: specific leaf area (SLA) and number of reproductive tillers, and sward structural characteristics which influence herbage intake by grazers (bulk density and digestibility, leaf:stem ratio). Comparison is made for nutrient-rich (Dactylis glomerata) and nutrient-poor (Festuca r… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
3

Year Published

2004
2004
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
9
0
3
Order By: Relevance
“…We focused on shoot competition, as it is known to be central in determining a plant community’s response to nitrogen deposition ( Hautier, Niklaus & Hector, 2009 ). We used the fast-growing Dactylis glomerata L., which is favoured by nutrient-rich soils, and the slow-growing Festuca rubra L., favoured by nutrient-poor soils ( Van der Werf et al, 1993 ; Duru, Cruz & Magda, 2004 ). These species commonly coexist in European grasslands.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We focused on shoot competition, as it is known to be central in determining a plant community’s response to nitrogen deposition ( Hautier, Niklaus & Hector, 2009 ). We used the fast-growing Dactylis glomerata L., which is favoured by nutrient-rich soils, and the slow-growing Festuca rubra L., favoured by nutrient-poor soils ( Van der Werf et al, 1993 ; Duru, Cruz & Magda, 2004 ). These species commonly coexist in European grasslands.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While canopy structure strongly influences the photosynthetic capacity of a plant community (Monsi et al, 1973; Sheehy and Cooper, 1973), the structure of a pasture canopy can also have a large impact on herbage intake by grazing animals (Barrett et al, 2003). Individual bite weight of a grazing animal is a product of bite volume and canopy density (Casey and Brereton, 1999), which is influenced by canopy height, tiller density, proportion of leaf and stem, and physical characteristics of the leaf such as the angle of attachment to the tiller, dimensions, and rigidity (Rhodes and Collins, 1993; Duru et al, 2004). The canopy structure of grasses also influences the energy required to graze them (Griffiths and Gordon, 2003; Illius et al, 1995).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A higher proportion of leaves in the basal stratum represents a greater distribution of leaves along the canopy height and a greater leaf mass for the LI 95% swards, which resulted in greater residual LAI. The leaf area has been found to correlate positively to digestibility and nutritive value (Duru et al, 2004;Pontes et al, 2007). Therefore, the increased residual LAI associated with greater leaf availability resulted in a greater allowance of high-quality forage on LI 95% swards.…”
Section: Forage Nutritive Valuementioning
confidence: 99%