Abstract
Genetic variation for quality of early headed forage is well documented, as is the decline in quality with advancing maturity of spring growth forage. The objectives of this research were to i) evaluate nine polycross families of the B8HD smooth bromegrass ( Bromus inermis Leyss.) experimental synthetic for differences in response to advancing maturity (RTM) for the forage cell wall fractions neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), acid detergent lignin (ADL), cellulose, hemicellulose, and insoluble ash on spring growth forage and ii) determine whether differences in RTM among the nine families were consistent across locations, years, and stand types (pure stands vs. alfalfa, Medicago sativa L., mixtures). Nine polycross families of B8HD were established in solid seeded plots, both with and without an alfalfa overseeding, at Hancock and Lancaster, WI in late August 1981. In 1982 and 1983, smooth bromegrass forage was sampled every 7 days for 7 weeks, beginning in early May. Quality of smooth bromegrass forage was reduced significantly in mixtures with alfalfa compared to pure stands. At most growth stages, polycross families in mixed stands averaged 10 to 15 g kg −1 higher in NDF, ADF, and cellulose, as compared to pure stands. Average differences between stand types for ADL and hemicellulose were too small to be of practical value. Polycross families differed significantly in their linear RTM effects for NDF, ADF, ADL, cellulose, and hemicellulose, and in their quadratic RTM effects for NDF, ADF, ADL, and cellulose. Differences among families for RTM involved both changes in rank value at different growth stages and differences in the magnitude of response. For each trait, interactions of families with locations, years, and stand types were nonsignificant for RTM. Improved forage quality of B8HD would be expected as a result of selection for a slow RTM for NDF, ADF, or cellulose. Families selected for a slow RTM in pure stands should also have a slow RTM in mixed stands.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Smooth bromegrass forage quality was significantly reduced in mixtures with alfalfa compared with pure stands.
- Taxon
- Smooth Bromegrass
Bromus inermist0 - Treatment
- mixtures with alfalfae0
- Interactor
- alfalfa
Medicago sativae0other - Outcome
- Quality of smooth bromegrass foragee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- pure standse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smooth Bromegrass”
e0“Quality of smooth bromegrass forage was reduced significantly in mixtures with alfalfa compared to pure stands”
Claim · model-written summary
At most growth stages, polycross families in mixed stands were 10 to 15 g per kg higher in NDF, ADF and cellulose than in pure stands.
- Taxon
- Smooth BromegrassBromus inermist0
- Material
- polycross familiese1
- Treatment
- mixed standse1
- Outcome
- NDF, ADF, and cellulosee1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 10 to 15 g kg −1e1
- Comparator
- pure standse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smooth Bromegrass”
e1“polycross families in mixed stands averaged 10 to 15 g kg −1 higher in NDF, ADF, and cellulose, as compared to pure stands”
Claim · model-written summary
Average differences between stand types for ADL and hemicellulose were too small to be of practical value.
- Taxon
- Smooth BromegrassBromus inermist0
- Treatment
- stand typese2
- Outcome
- ADL and hemicellulosee2
- Direction
- too smalle2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smooth Bromegrass”
e2“Average differences between stand types for ADL and hemicellulose were too small to be of practical value”
Claim · model-written summary
Polycross families differed significantly in linear response to advancing maturity for NDF, ADF and ADL.
- Taxon
- Smooth BromegrassBromus inermist0
- Outcome
- NDF, ADF, ADLe3
- Qualifier
- linear RTM effectse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smooth Bromegrass”
e3“Polycross families differed significantly in their linear RTM effects for NDF, ADF, ADL, cellulose, and hemicellulose”
Claim · model-written summary
Polycross families differed significantly in linear response to advancing maturity for cellulose and hemicellulose.
- Taxon
- Smooth BromegrassBromus inermist0
- Outcome
- cellulose, and hemicellulosee3
- Qualifier
- linear RTM effectse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smooth Bromegrass”
e3“Polycross families differed significantly in their linear RTM effects for NDF, ADF, ADL, cellulose, and hemicellulose”
Claim · model-written summary
Families differed significantly in quadratic response to advancing maturity for NDF, ADF and ADL.
- Taxon
- Smooth BromegrassBromus inermist0
- Outcome
- NDF, ADF, ADLe4
- Qualifier
- quadratic RTM effectse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smooth Bromegrass”
e4“and in their quadratic RTM effects for NDF, ADF, ADL, and cellulose”
Claim · model-written summary
Families differed in quadratic response to advancing maturity for cellulose.
- Taxon
- Smooth BromegrassBromus inermist0
- Outcome
- cellulosee4
- Qualifier
- quadratic RTM effectse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smooth Bromegrass”
e4“and in their quadratic RTM effects for NDF, ADF, ADL, and cellulose”
Claim · model-written summary
Differences among families in response to advancing maturity involved changes in rank at different growth stages and differences in magnitude of response.
- Taxon
- Smooth BromegrassBromus inermist0
- Outcome
- Differences among families for RTMe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smooth Bromegrass”
e5“Differences among families for RTM involved both changes in rank value at different growth stages and differences in the magnitude of response”
Claim · model-written summary
Interactions of families with locations, years and stand types were nonsignificant for response to advancing maturity.
- Taxon
- Smooth BromegrassBromus inermist0
- Outcome
- interactions of families with locations, years, and stand typese6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smooth Bromegrass”
e6“interactions of families with locations, years, and stand types were nonsignificant for RTM”
Claim · model-written summary
Selection for a slow response to advancing maturity for NDF, ADF or cellulose is expected to improve forage quality of B8HD.
- Taxon
- Smooth BromegrassBromus inermist0
- Outcome
- Improved forage qualitye7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smooth Bromegrass”
e7“Improved forage quality of B8HD would be expected as a result of selection for a slow RTM for NDF, ADF, or cellulose”
Claim · model-written summary
Families selected for slow response to advancing maturity in pure stands should also be slow in mixed stands.
- Taxon
- Smooth BromegrassBromus inermist0
- Outcome
- slow RTM in mixed standse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Smooth Bromegrass”
e0“Families selected for a slow RTM in pure stands should also have a slow RTM in mixed stands”