Abstract
Abstract Enhancement of growth following short periods of drought stress has been reported in several crop species. If such enhancement follows summer drought‐stress of cool‐season forage grasses, the increased yield from summer irrigation may be offset partially by compensatory growth during fall. Therefore, a 3 year field study was conducted to compare growth responses of tall fescue ( Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) grown with and without supplemental irrigation from June through August. Soil was Mexico silt loam (Udollic Ochraqualf) and fertilizer was applied in spring and following each cutting. Plots were harvested six times in 1971, five times in 1972, and four times in 1973. A residual harvest was made on 21 May 1974. During summer the plants that were irrigated had greater forage yields, greater tiller density, greater weight per tiller, higher leaf elongation rates, and higher concentration of water‐soluble carbohydrates (WSC) in leaf tissue as compared with plants that were water‐stressed. Concentration of WSC in stem bases during summer was higher in the water‐stressed plants. Fall growth of plants that had been water‐stressed during summer was greater than that of those that had been irrigated. The enhancement of growth or compensatory effect was associated with higher concentration of WSC in stem bases during late summer, and faster leaf elongation and greater weight per tiller during fall of the previously water‐stressed plants as compared with the summer‐irrigated plants. Compensatory growth following drought stress was still evident the following spring, as indicated by the higher tiller density and greater forage yield. However, the collective compensatory yield of the water‐stressed plants during fall and spring was not great enough to compensate for lower yields during summer. In the third year of the study normal rainfall during summer was higher than duing the first 2 years, and no compensatory growth was noted during fall or the following spring. During the 3‐year study, total yield for the irrigated treatments was 4% larger than that for the water‐stressed treatment. The major response to irrigation was a shift in season of production. Management and breeding objectives should consider the effect of summer irrigation or summer drought on the subsequent performance of cool‐season forage grasses.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 12
Claim · model-written summary
Summer irrigation increased forage yield, tiller density, and tiller weight versus water stress.
Verbatim
e0“During summer the plants that were irrigated had greater forage yields, greater tiller density, greater weight per tiller, higher leaf elongation rates, and higher concentration of water‐soluble carbohydrates (WSC) in leaf tissue as compared with plants that were water‐stressed.”
Claim · model-written summary
Summer irrigation increased leaf elongation rate.
Verbatim
e0“During summer the plants that were irrigated had greater forage yields, greater tiller density, greater weight per tiller, higher leaf elongation rates, and higher concentration of water‐soluble carbohydrates (WSC) in leaf tissue as compared with plants that were water‐stressed.”
Claim · model-written summary
Summer irrigation increased leaf water soluble carbohydrate concentration.
Verbatim
e0“During summer the plants that were irrigated had greater forage yields, greater tiller density, greater weight per tiller, higher leaf elongation rates, and higher concentration of water‐soluble carbohydrates (WSC) in leaf tissue as compared with plants that were water‐stressed.”
Claim · model-written summary
Summer water stress increased stem-base water soluble carbohydrate concentration.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee0
- Treatment
- water‐stressede0
- Outcome
- Concentration of WSC in stem basese0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Concentration of WSC in stem bases during summer was higher in the water‐stressed plants.”
Claim · model-written summary
Previously water-stressed plants had more fall growth than irrigated plants.
Verbatim
e0“Fall growth of plants that had been water‐stressed during summer was greater than that of those that had been irrigated.”
Claim · model-written summary
Compensatory fall growth was associated with late-summer stem-base WSC and faster leaf elongation and heavier tillers.
Verbatim
e0“The enhancement of growth or compensatory effect was associated with higher concentration of WSC in stem bases during late summer, and faster leaf elongation and greater weight per tiller during fall of the previously water‐stressed plants as compared with the summer‐irrigated plants.”
Claim · model-written summary
Following drought stress, spring tiller density and forage yield were higher.
- Taxon
- Tall Fescue
Lolium arundinaceume0t0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compensatory growth following drought stress was still evident the following spring, as indicated by the higher tiller density and greater forage yield.”
t0“Tall Fescue”
Claim · model-written summary
Fall and spring compensatory yield did not offset lower summer yield.
- Taxon
- plantsViridiplantaee0
- Outcome
- collective compensatory yielde0
- Direction
- not great enoughe0
Verbatim
e0“the collective compensatory yield of the water‐stressed plants during fall and spring was not great enough to compensate for lower yields during summer.”
Claim · model-written summary
In the higher-rainfall third year, compensatory growth was absent in fall and spring.
- Taxon
- Tall FescueLolium arundinaceume0t0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the third year of the study normal rainfall during summer was higher than duing the first 2 years, and no compensatory growth was noted during fall or the following spring.”
t0“Tall Fescue”
Claim · model-written summary
Three-year total yield was 4% larger under irrigation.
- Taxon
- Tall FescueLolium arundinaceume0t0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the 3‐year study, total yield for the irrigated treatments was 4% larger than that for the water‐stressed treatment.”
t0“Tall Fescue”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigation chiefly shifted the season of production.
- Taxon
- Tall FescueLolium arundinaceume0t0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The major response to irrigation was a shift in season of production.”
t0“Tall Fescue”
Claim · model-written summary
Management and breeding should account for subsequent performance after summer irrigation or drought.
Verbatim
e0“Management and breeding objectives should consider the effect of summer irrigation or summer drought on the subsequent performance of cool‐season forage grasses.”
The same questions in other papers
drought · yield · Lolium arundinaceum (tall fescue)Results differ
13 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →irrigation · yield · Lolium arundinaceum (tall fescue)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →irrigation · yield · Viridiplantae (plants)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →drought · growth · Viridiplantae (plants)Positive and negative results
6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →irrigation · growth · Viridiplantae (plants)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.