IW' EFFECTS OF FREQUENCY AND RATE OF IRRIGATION, FERTILIZATION, AND CLEPPING TREATMENTS ON YIELD AND BOTANICAL COMPOSITION OF SEVERAL ‘ FORAGE SPECIES Thai: for Tho Dogroo of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATEUNIVERSITY Robert Francis Lucoy 1959 mm This is to certify that the thesis entitled EFFECT OF FREQUENCY AND RATE OF IRRIGATION, FERTILIZATION, AND CLIPPING TREATMENT ON YIELD AND BOTANICAL COMPOSITION OF SEVERAL FORAGE SPECIES. presented by ROBERT F. LUCEY has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree m Farm CrOps Major professor Date MEL—— 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University war-Ir: v ' "-7 ’1‘ ‘ ’3" "‘ Fl'n ‘ ’1 ‘I"1 ‘ ‘ ‘ ’ 3333U15 D; 1L3 U5 Cf A D A Am) ULIPFIL‘U r'. ISATi‘EE. 1.3 Clix 1'71 1311.) ALL} JUTrI‘IIIL—QIIL IL" r‘« I ~~~~~ ~ UL MU l:.LCl\ 0P uJLJI/ 131%. LL bk'ihXLI’AJ quCl 13 By Aobert Erancis Lucey AII AtrijlfilAcrlj Suinited to the School i'or Advanced GraduaLe jtuuie of ilcrIv‘n JLat 3 University oi Ag ricultuxe AId AWOlIea science in ;)artial iulfillmcnt oi‘ the requirenm ants i'or the deEree of DOCTOR OE PHILOSOEMY Department of farm Crops /r f ,T ‘ \_, {3 "/ .’ / . ‘ '. r I. .’ (I .f' EEgrovea I g. , » 1 . L- .< .E " Ur J..E1'I‘..Lfli.—JE'.L\A\, 1‘11“;1LJLOE-‘E'l‘1‘se-i‘u2 ‘x . v‘fifl 1 ALL A1‘IJ11L1UJ. Greenh: use and fielc. stuiies were c3 ucieo to outain funda— mental information on t}3 rate and freeuency of irri;ation on the gro— duction of Vernal alfalfa, Lincoln brunetrass, an' La.dino ci"l-‘JL CL. VL/l.i 4‘ LU :‘(iF‘T"‘T Liv .L iLmi Ci? 191‘ yx--~.~.~.; 1*1‘ ’1 1‘12 ‘3 r7 'r‘ * - r: i‘ i. --.4..'u.'_un\/.L n.‘ t} .‘Li'.\,vi. L LII 1.”;ch quiiwi‘. Ln /‘ ‘I‘ \f! " v-“..‘,(‘.’.“\[r Cfi~'/"\ CT ~~“z}'7.. “‘T i?» '.V' s a. ‘ . 4 ‘T- ‘ .4 ti- gilt. i._L\./.\i ‘. Q._JU..Ji-..1.L1 i vii.» .iJ Ji .JU_L.3-J~.) 7.». L1,. i. A: I. —' —. “Cr. Liter CQU‘... i. Livnb h. . r. 3— .31 gxuerimenial we:ui ff" *‘ '- f ‘ ”": "n31 tvv' "m" ~I'_,v"711-r-~~ Pr? :1 .‘x L w. 'r~ " 5:; .‘JLIALJ lilJ} ibL '. l-’.4_.>...u. "K' .L bi‘. \41 .‘L .J. ii i. f". ‘\.-AL\.’.'Iiu .“L‘ 17’, ‘77“ " I} :l‘ '1 'x‘ I .‘I-J’ " f I“ "CC ‘ (1“ .'L.. glut. V .1; Li .L'n.‘ X :.D...L‘.1.‘“.l .1-K. 1. LA.) 111.1.) M Ling: Iii-4‘ A‘J- we? ‘_314 \r,; ,,' i c. .. p- 17.. .‘HCL‘- e} 14.10 (li'id i".‘?tvf.0(_._c~ ~-‘ ~---.. .17, r“ x .“L . deBFanhuai we Li-3 Discus31Lw1 "WV‘a' » a: v-v i.) LUJ. LAT‘} .‘ 7. 1‘ C: ‘ ’— ‘ ”(In E ‘3‘ H 1“ a‘ I ‘- " T KI'IU‘H V ’ ’ Ir ‘ ~ .11.: J ’i ./_.".i 1' . qua JJ’ 3-; .11.; x. n! L.’ inuii~.‘v' pi \. \4 .iil. i}. i‘ - 'fi‘“? T ‘, 'v (y. 3—... .. lov’.- “f.“ V. ‘ - ’c ‘ L' Li, ‘u' JLJ'J it“. Is.) .1. I 11v. . .\4‘ J-u3 l L, 4L4." 17 '.J a, ‘_ ’J 3 Eva rj'v"- r'w‘f JLoA‘. 0-1 "x _ :.. ~.. ’1 73,. . .‘L j‘&‘_‘.er‘LJ genta... L‘v, ’bJL.—L»JS ciover :D- .L_J * *3 3.) r...) *- J u: ‘H h r 1 2.. H q- C ,3 0 Discussion r‘ _ , .3 Lu; Lirl 1C1 lay Fe; \,1) ‘C 2“ \n H J i, '7‘ Li. 3 kid. :I I “‘ *7 "v .‘L"‘r"'.' C'.‘ 7 g T<~""'v‘ - "W ‘i‘ . :J L. x I“ .L' 'J- -‘ .‘JA - ;_-_..ui.l'._ J, - I ‘.-.LJ.4-- -J.“.-.“_..-. hi' i-;4¢_; .ziJJ O? “V“¢Tfir Wu vh° VT“’J 1““ ffi'fiTT"‘r“3'.C.T - ‘J~'LL.LAV‘-I Kn. L!A.J_J 4+4.“ ....L) )_J g../-'.~J.c JA.‘J 1 k- .L«. -. 7 L? ‘\ '3. )(‘-""*!“‘q~ R ‘ 1 ' ‘ _.,-\(‘.-~- ‘V‘ "I?" {l ist- .u... :1“. icbg‘. .1‘.I-L.:1JQ \vJ‘- J..L.'\L_LKJA\ ,’ « :,:~.“. Pi. ‘ .. Q daiiieil end Irr1;;tiun 9, "u... r, ,;,.j y 5» Sign QFIILSAV". c “or, it; "‘2; 5') Discwcsisn 4/ S‘zwcelrgr IJJA 'rnpvfi'xrrfil ,Y" ‘T'V’1D lf\'7 . . 4 ‘1‘ LJI‘ ‘J-.. LL'-L.LJ (4.1.; ‘3 -. INTnCDUCTICN Irregular seasonal production and low annual yields character- ize the productive performance of a number of plant species grown for forage. The use of timothy, bromegrass, and alfalfa to replace Kentucky bluegrass, white clover, and red clover, the utilizatiOn of summer and winter annuals, and the adOption of effective fertility and management practices have accounted for hi;ner annual yields and have modified irregularities in seasonal production. In the humid Kortheast, periods occur during the summer months in which a lack of availaple moisture limits plant growth. The use of light-weight, portable irrigation systems now provides a means to supply moisture to plants during these periods of insufficient rainfall. There is little doubt of the value and necessity of irriiation in the arid regions of the world; it has also been used to advantage in humid areas in increasing the production of horticultural crois. Irri;ation studies in this region (37) (38) have demonstrated that annual yields of forage and livestock products are increased when moisture is availacle to plants throughout the growing season but the value of these products provided from irrigation just covered the expense of irriéation. The question of the time and amount of irriwation of foraée crops has not been clearly established. hence, the primary objectives of the studies reported herein were to obtain information on the rate and frequency of irrigation of forage crops grown under varying soil and fertility conditions. A field experiment was conducted to deter- mine the yield reSponse of alfalfa (Ledicago sativa L.), Ladino clover (Trifolium repens L.), and bromegrass (jromus inerais Leyss.) to varying irrigation treatments. In addition, a greenhouse study was conducted to determine the effects of varying soil moisture levels upon the growth, persistence, and production of alfalfa. with respect to the field experiment, two assumptions were made: first, that an annual top dressing of 800 pounds of 0—20-20 fertilizer per acre would meet the requirements of the plant for phOSphorcus and potash; second, that three harvests per year would be an Optimum management practice. Due to the uncertainty of these assumptions and recognizing that an insufficient supply of plant nutrients and too frequent defoliation can markedly limit plant growth, additional studies were carried on. The first study was established to determine the production of alfalfa, bromegrass, and Ladino clover grown at 6 levels of fertility and at 2 moisture levels. The second study was conducted to determine the per- sistence and yield response of an alfalfa—promegrass association when maintained at 2 moisture levels, 2 levels of phosphorous and potassium, 2 nitrogen levels, and 3 cutting frequencies. ‘ ”UTIXW’ ‘ ""1 ‘. WV" '. "‘ d-ZJBLLJ=i OJ LLLLLUianLflJ Considerable evidence has shown that moisture in the r.n¢e from field capacity to the wiltin' point is available to plants. hendricason and Veihmeyer (1L) 39) concluded from experiments with deciduous fruit trees that water throughout this range was equally available to plants. Their conclusion was supported by hagan et al. (l3) who found that dry weight production of vepetative material, photosynthesis, and respiration‘ rates of Ladino clover were not affected appreciably until the moisture content in the entire root zone pproached the permanent wilting per- centage. Green weight production and shoot clon;ation were reduced significantly when the soil moisture content fell into the lower half of the available range. hhen clover was irrigated fresuertly, it consistently had taller plants with larger leaves than when not irrigated, the erroneous impression that these plants 'roduced more forage. A leaving Shaw and Swezey (30) stated that sugar cane maintained a normal rate of growth indepvndent of the moisture content above the wilting percentage. Other worxers, however, do not agree that water is egually available to plants grown between field capacity and the wilting point. Lewis et al. (22 showed that when the soil moisture in a heavy soil was reduced to 20 to 353 of the available ce:*.,.‘»acit‘r in the upper 3 feet of soil, the rate of grorth of pears was AC; less than the normal rate of growth. Work and Lewis (A5) observed that a pear tree on a clay adObe soil wilted and became partially defoliated when the average JBJth of soil and almost all individual L ’\ moisture contents 0; each foot soil samples were well above the permanent tilting percentage. From this Observation, they postulnted that the soil moisture content of soil in contact with the feeding roots may be at or near the permanent wilting percentaoe, while at the sane time the moisture content at some distance away (perhaps only a few millimeters) may be much higher. Wadleiéh and Ayer (AD) found that growth of beans was retarded as the soil moisture tension increased even though in some treatments the soil moisture was always above the wiltin; range. Similarly Scofield (:9) found that alfalfa grown in containers at various moisture levels made more growth when irrigated frequently (when 50 to 605 of the soil mois- ture had been used up) than when irritated when the available soil water was depleted. Maximum production was attained when soil in the cans was sub-irrigated continuously. Cthers (l8) (19) suggested that differences in soil moisture tension curves emplain why some disagreement has arisen as to whether water is equally available to plants over the entire range between fiel capacity to the permanent wilting percentage. In fairly coarse—textured soils in which most of the water in this range is held with a tension of less than one atmosphere, practically all of the moisture is equally available between field capacity and the wilting point. In fine- textured soils in which less than one-half of the available moisture is held with a force of less than one atmosphere, the available water is not equally available to plants between field capacity and the wilting point. Veihmeyer and hendrickson (39), in their review of soil mois- ture in relation to plant growth, stated that there is abundant work to support either contention. They emphasized that host of the Opinions concerning the influence of moisture on plant growth have been obtained by growing plants in small containers. They and many investiyators believe that container experiments may be valuable to indicate trends or to measure end points such as permanent wilting percentage, but they should not be taken as conclusive until they are verified by field trials. If the assumption is correct that water is not egually available to plants between field capacity and the permanent wilting percentage, then what is the soil moisture tension above which plant growth is markedly affected? Clements (6) found that when more than but of the available soil water is used up, growth is reduced in sugar cane. in terms of soil moisture tension, this point is at about 0.25 atmospheres. hhitaker and Lytle (Al) determined that irrigation water should be applied to pastures whenever the available moisture remaining in the soil drops to 35». For maximum production they believe that this value should be higher, possibly as high as 50%. According to McKibben et al. (z3), irrigation of a Ladino clover—grass pasture should be started when the available soil moisture in the upper 12 inches of soil is reduced to about 355. Conrad and Veihmeyer (7) noted that plants did not show evidence of a lack of water when the upper few feet of soil (which presumably con— tained the greater portion of roots) were dry, if lower layers of soil in which the ends of the roots were located were moist. They stated that when the upper soil layers became dry there was no reason to assume www- 'w ”27.2.1239 “VP?“ "5"- " -- that plant growth could not be sustained from the water absorbed by the roots located in the deeper layers in Which moisture was more abundant. Hunter and Kelly (15) showed that alfal‘a put forth new shoots when the upper 32 inches of soil was at or below the permanent wilting percentage. however, they remarked that growth was considerably less luxuriant than when moisture was available to the plants throughout the soil column. Burton et al. (5) found that when any appreciable quantity of the soil had become dry under the sod of several southern grasses, production was reduced even though part of the root system of these grasses was still in soil that was near field capacity in moisture content. A total of 62.5; of the available soil moisture is sufficient for the maintenance of rapid crop growth according to Shockley (31). He reported that when available soil moisture in a significant portion (approximately 253) of the root zone profile was exhausted, plants were unable to maintain rapid growth during periods of maximum transpiration. From his moisture-extraction data, ShocKley concluded that most irrigated crops have a common extraction pattern with about not of the extracted moisture coming from the upper quarter of the root zone, 50p from the second quarter, 20; from the third quarter and lOfi from the bettom quarter. Soil moisture studies carried on in hichiban (44) disclosed that two-thirds to three-fourths of the water used by clover and grasses came from the surface ? inches of soil while alfalfa used 57$ from the upper 9 inches. Houston (16) found that alfalfa obtained to, 2;, ll, 10 and 93 of its water needs from the 1-, 2-, 3-, 4—, and 5-foot soil depths, respectively. Hagan and Peterson (12) found that the legwue component in a mixture clearly influenced the moisture extrac; on pastern. Laaino clover plants exoracted tater the LOSt rajidly, mixtur:s containind birdsfoot trefoil were inte mediate, while mixtures containinc alfalfa were the slowest. Plantinis containing birdsf ot trefoil and alfalfa did not reduce the moisture to the wilting percentage for the surface two feet of soil within the sampling period. with resvect to depth, these two workers noted that at the A—foot depth, extraction oy the trefoil plantings was faster and more complete than under plantin;s of Ladino clover. Extraction oy birdsfoot trefoil and alfalfa continued at the 5-foot depth but nearly ceases under Ladino clover. goth alfalfa and birdsfoot refoil extracted moisture at the o—foot depth, alfalfa showed active extraction at the 7-foot depth, but extraction Mas slow at the 8-foot degth. host of the water was extracted from the upper part of the soil profile durin; the second and third weeks alter irrigation; the zone of most rapid absorption shifted to greater depths with time. This SLift was particularly noticeaole in the birdsfoot tre- foil and alfalfa plantings. neferrin; to the zone of most rapid absorp— tion, hunter and Kelly (15) showed that alfalfa roots extracted moisture held in the top soil at relatively high tensions while noisture was availaole at lower tensions in the subsoil. Hillits and firicfison (4;) concluded from heir studies that plants used water from the horizon from which, within the limits of their roots, it was host available. As a method of scheduling irritations, scientists have attempted to determine the daily consunptive use of forage plants. 3n ave‘a;e water use of 0.13 and 0.11 inches per day in 1955 and 1954, respectively, was obtained in New York State(10). The maximum daily consumptive use ,- for a 5-day period was 0.;0 inches of water ysr day. hiliits and Erickson (Lt) showed that the maximum water use was 0.15 incnes per day for alfalfa, 0.12 inches for Kertucky bluegrass, and 0.11 inches for red fescue. These consumgtive use rates whicn were detenrined in humid climates are lower than those recorded by Leonard and himich in South Dakota (20). ihev determined that alfalfa used practically no meter for about a week followiné defoliation, but imaediatel, after this period, the consumptive use rate increased to shout 0.20 inches of water per day and remained at that level until the cron was harveSted. In California (la), consumptive use rates were only slightly affected by height of resrowth or even oy reuoval of most of the shoot growth by U Q clipping. Plants cut at a hei ht of about 3 inches extracted soil mois~ ture at a proximately the same rate as unclitped plants. vations substantiate the concept that waximum rate of water loss from ." J1! plants supplied with ample available aoisture depends almost entir; (U H R: on metereological conditions (primarily incident solar radiation or wind) and scarcely at all on the nature of the vegetation as 10nd as it covers the soil (29). Dreibelbis and Harrold (8) found that evaporation increased steadily from April throu;h July and diminished rapidly after August. The treatest consumptive use values occurred in tag, June and July; there was very little difference in these values despite the removal of the hay crop. Allison et al. (1) agree that when moisture is abundant, the evapo-transpiration rate is influenced mainly by climatic conditions. The nature of the vegetation is of minor importance as long as it thoroughly covers the soil and is actively growing, but they pointed out that whiter stress in agricultural soils, even though irrigated, is the more natural condition. Conseguently, these wormers believe that it would be incorrect to conclude that evapo-transoiration is not appre- ciably affected under a given set of soil and climatic conditions by the kind and cuality of crop grown at widely—varying levels of moisture. Lysimeter studies that were conducted by these tnree men at Columbia, South Carolina, revealed that depth of rooting, soil depth, fertility and other factors whicn limited dry matter production would limit the efficiency of water use. By comparing the water utilization of alfalfa and Kentucky blue- grass grown under greenhouse conditions with optimum conditions for moisture and under frequent and deferred cutting, Sprague and Grader (32) determined that the daily rate of water utilization was low in the vegetative stages of growth. It increased directly with the rate of top growth accumulation and was high when the plants were allowed to approach maturity. hater use ranged from 119 to 200 grads per day during the early sta‘es of growth, but increased from 200 to jo5 grams per day when the increments of accumulated growth became very larde. With weekly clippings of alfalfa at a 2 l/Z—inch level, the daily rate of water use ranged from bi to 167 grams. Widtsoe and lerrill (AZ) (43) noted that the method employed by Utah farmers with respect to the irriyation of hay fields was to cover the field early each spring with immense quantities of water ( l to 2 feet) which often stayed on the field for days. After evaluating this practice, they concluded that the grasses cersistint in these i meadows were easilv injured oy an excess of water and that the best 0 .11 w *1. c; .J ~ yields could be obtained only with very moderate irriQ Lions. ‘hey dete*:1n d that the best quantity of water to a,,l; o; irrivatLon was between 1; and 23 inches per year for the various crops Crown and that most plants of economic ingortance to the farmer are very sensitive to water. If an excess is agilied, small yields ma; 0e expected. Stewart (34) in Utah etermined that ilom 2 to 7; »lications a pl-ied at the rate of 3 to 4 inches of water per irrigation (a total 0: from 10 to 35 inches of water) were the most suitaole irrigation treatments for alfalfa. Soils w ich v.ere extrehe y sand; or gravell; required frequent, light agplications wlile deep, fine-drained soils hiph in their power to hold water reguired heavy a,olications at lonver intervals. A In California (2), a seasonal agpiication of 50 inches of water resulted in an average maximum production of alfalfa. however, the yield difference bet ween seasonal aiylications of 30 or )6 inches of water was not significant. When the seasonal rate was increased to as incnes, yields vere lower than when 36 inches were applied. iall differences in yield were attained by varyin; the numoe: of irriwati us from 3 to as the total seasonal rate of )0 inches was aoolied. At least 2 inches of water (natural rainfall or irrigation} were reguired during a 2-week period to maintain asundant plant growth of pastures in Illinois (Al). nobinson and Sprague (:7) reported that the addition OI Litroben to both irriLit ed and non—irrirrted Ladino-grass pastures creatlj in- . E ‘ " .‘ ' " “ IA u/ v v . fi ' ‘ ic‘ ’ “3 l "“ creased Vl’i‘lub tI.I‘Oll {131113 L118 :~ 101T; {36515011. .._.L\.z_.L..~4 (/1. O‘wal-CAI" J H V ~_‘ I] averaQed 2,9 50 potuii e annually on plots receiving :3“ (D '1 O' m ‘ M (D (‘1 U} *3 (T: d (1: O ’1 neither nitrogen nor irrigation; either nitrogen fertilizer alone or ll a 'wn 3“ '1 ~‘.—.. w: »_«_~ 1 ' ,,,-, 4', . ,2: 2—. m- lel‘+ge_ulozl 84.0118 UniuJJJZ‘J. Jlelggo vilufi U051] lill_.u-f_oll all“... (“Lul'cvt‘ul 3‘ -.2' .' .L: 1... . m a ' .. JV ..-.. 2-: ‘ “r" “M -.r.,. lefblllZ-lbaOn, tire averaQe 2.1.2311; was .L;LCI':".V‘C3».. to 2:1,J,-L’ i.iJi.llipoo LeVllxe U ('f‘ e al. (al) found that the addition of 10d and LOO pounds of actual nitr09en yer acre to an elialfa—bromegrass association increased the yields 760 and 1,200 pounds per acre, respectively in 1953 and 1,1?0 and 2,430 pounds, resoectively, in l95n. The increased forage produced by the addition of nitrogen was alnost entirely due to the setter growth of the bromegrass. Sprafue and Garner :3) showed that an agiljcation of 60 pounds of nitTOQCK a.1lied in April increased total yield of hcrna;e under various cuttin; treatments. The arowth of Ladino clover was reduced o; the a plicetion of KltPOLZU; this reduction oecame more A acute as the rass aggroached maturity. In measuring the resyonse of a Ladino-graos pasture to irrigation and nitroien fertilization, Kchiboen et al. (Z3) found that the addition of nitrogen increased the yield 0: dry matter slirhtly and that the use of nitrOQen tended to reduce the anount of Ladino clover and to increase the amount of :rass. nelson and zoning (24) deternined that a 5 acre a pliCation of 100 pounds of nitro en ar; ied in eoual increments in April, June, and At ust pronuced a greater total yield of clever and brass than vhsn 50-pound nitro;en increments were a;;lied in April 230-pound nitro;en treat ent with four 50—pound incre ents :5. and June. during the season troduced significantlg less clover and did not produce a greater total yield than the ltd-pound nitroten treatnent agtiied in three 33.j-pound monthly increnents. '— Parsons (25) found that a brome;rass-alfalfa associat on anc a p. 9“ 4' W . P. ' 7 " . '1 l. a ‘1 '0: ' ‘ ' ‘ ”‘J. ‘ . in». .\ 1-. ‘ v.) 1‘ ." ‘\ allri aobOCch‘LlOJ L11.“ FOL; £31102: an / bakcrilllCdnt hi .‘i c; CECE} U 1:1“ .2“ 4. « 2’" , .'.I-.‘. -: . ,— ,. ‘. ~..V' .. ’ Mal—Ur) revieCU t-) J l- St-C1JL 14-1.n .LelClS (In- J 1.‘ ethical. Cb: A“ WJ—LULJKI l‘:l.cn fer ,-" ' \- r‘ r. h , A -’ V/w‘ M 1 1 3" .’.' a . . _ .. x w ,— n ‘ md vitn o, 25, 30, 75, and loO nuance OJ filEIOLEh {er acxe. €1- t_J With increasing rates of nitrogen, the e: CELard rass cong2oxent 0; an orcharonra=-—alfalfa association increased to the detri1.ert of the alfalfa fraction. Peterson and nQ an (26) fcir nted out that the manut:ant oi' gratin: frequently has a greater influ nce upon the condition of a pas— 7 ‘n any of the factors of management. Lnt .111t, trOVth, wccuincos, (+ C *‘5 (D (-6- 13‘ Q‘ or presence of coarse, unoala taole herbage often results from uncontrolled grazing. sze f: and that the average herha;e production for a pasture 1ixtures then cut every 2 weeks was 4.56 tons per acre. Yields were increased 23$ when 3 weeks were allowed oetween cuttings, and 569 when the cutting fzejuency was ever; A weeks. Allowing 5 weeks oetween t: a total production of cuttin 3 increased yields 92; which aiounted , g V 8.77 tons per acre. All mixtures produced higher yields as the growth C" 0 intervals were extended from 2 5 weeks. The Ladino clove r mixtures showed the least total increase (Agg) and the alfalfa-grass mixtures showed the greatest increase (177;). From their evaluation of the effect of height and frequency of cutting on the productivity and sur- vival of Ladino clover, Tesar an Mhl ren (36) determined that plants cut 4 times to a height of 3 1/2 inches produced higher yields and had higher stolon yields per unit area than did plants that were cut either 2 or 6 times annually. In Iowa, an exoerimsnt designed to measure the response of alfalfa varieties to fertilization and cuttin; treatments showed that all the vari ties in the study produced LOTS when cut for hay (cut 3 times per season at one-tenth gloom) than then cut more frequently (A to 5 times per year at an 8-inch height of growth) (ll). The various cutting managenents had no siénificant averake effect on stand. harra- gansett, A 224, and Vernal alfalfa tended to have lower stand counts when cut for hay than when harveSLed frequently. however, plant meas- urements showed that plants cut frequently had smaller crowns and root diameters, fewer stems per crown, and were less vigoreus than when the plants wsre defoliated 3 times per season. Teel (35) reported that the perfo'nance of oromecrass is hithy tillers (D dependent on prOper management. In ensive defoliation of th during a theorized phase of juvenility induced bromegrass into a semi- dormant condition. The growth sta;e was characte‘ized as follows: rapid vegetative growth, low carbohydrate reserves in the storage tissue, internode elontation resulting in an elevated apical meristem, and absence of growth of new tillers from adventitious rhizome buds. Teel noted that bromegrass had a low tolerance to mowing or intensive grazing during this growth stage because the apical meristem was de- stroyed prior to the advent of new tiller growth from adventitious rhizome buds. Pasture irrigation studies in New fork (Ll) SHOMGd that irriga- tion resulted in a relatively small increase in yield of dry matter. Average yield increases due to suppl.mental irrigation averaged 6&0 and 720 pounds of dry matter during the summer months of 1953 and 1994, respectively. The authors made the comment that the increase in succulence and green matter production due to irrigation made it appear that irrigation was causing a much greater increase in production than ?-1-_ ~. .——— _‘._.—_.-_. :— . “r" w-Ww‘ .- 1.... lb the dry hatter measurenent revealed. Jones and haneland (l7) found during a 6-year period that animal Lains were 347 pounds on irriLated and 236 pounds on non—irrifiated pastures, an increase o- 111 pounds or A7Q. The value of the gain in animal weight was aoout w2-70 an acre less than the operation and maintenance cost with no marbin for interest on the investment in equipment, depreciation, or profit. They concluded that it was doubtful whether the gains from irrigation would allow a profitable operation. Tesar et al. (57) reported that during a 4-year perioo, a Ladino clover-bromegrass mixture produced acre yields of 3.81 tons of forage containing 125 moisture when irrigated and 3.09 t‘ns when not irrigated. Sheep gained LAB pounds on the irriwated pastures and 368 pounds per 0 acre on the non—irrigated pastures. This was a difference of ;0 pounds, f‘ a 21.51 increase in animal gains in favor of the irrigated plots. now- ever, this increased production was not sufficient to cover the cost of irrigation. When Tesar et al. (38) measured the response of an alfalfa, Ladino clover, and bromegrass dairy pasture to irrigation, they deter- mined that the irrigated pastures produced an averaQe of n.69 tons of forage containing 12; :oisture per acre. This was a significant increase of 16.7% over the non-irrigated pastures which produced L.02 tons. Cattle on the irrigated pasture produced 3A.O and 14.55 more milk than those on the non-irrigated pastures in 1953 and 195A. This in- creased milk production resulted entirely from greater carrjinp capacity of the irriLated pasture and was not the result of increased production per animal. PAnT I EFFECT Oi? Fftl‘lan‘ELC‘I Al D A;"'.QLLL.'I' Or‘ Ifiitl—Lihil‘lt—JN m 7 " l 1" ON ACDUCTION OF SLVEAAL EUnnCE JPQCIAS f E; The objectives of tnis field stud; were to measure the grovth response of 3 forage species and l association to various frequencies and amounts of irrigation and to determine the soil moisture extraction pattern of the alfalfa plants during the growing seasons of 1956 and 1957. Materials and hethods A Conover silt loam with a ph of 6.2, tile—drained, and hiLh in fertility was used in this study. The land was plowed and limed kith one ton of dolomitic limestone per acre. Prior to seeding, the lime- stone was incorporated into the soil by disking. The field was culti- packed before and after seeding. Seesings of the follouing here made on Kay 15, 1955, at the following rates in pounds per acre: a. Vernal alfalfa alone 12 b. Lincoln oromegrass alone 16 c. Certified Ladino clover alone 3 d. Vernal alfalfa with brome;rass 10 e. Lincoln bromegrass with alfalfa 6 A grain drill fitted with band seeding tuoes was used to band seed the legume S)eCi€S. The bromegrass was seeded in comoination with oats which had previously been placed in an autoclave for 30 minutes to 15 make them non-viable. Durini the s;e€in; year, the plots were clipped closel, three times to control weed growth. I: the sprina Of l956, Bouyoucos plaster of Paris moistuie "lochs were placed in each alfalfa alot (A). Five holes 3 inches in diaxeter were dug in each location to facilitate the placement of the olocks at depths of 6, 12, 18, 2A, and 36 inches. Each block was fitted with lead wires which allowed the readin” stations -' .r' v to be placed on the border of the bluerrass al eye that adjoined the .— \— plots. Before growth began each sprinQ, 400 pounds of an OeéQ-ZO fer— tilizer were applied per acre and an additional AUO pounds were applied after the first harvest to all plots. A total of ZUO ounds of nitrOgen *0 in the form of ammonium.nitrate was applied to bromegrass when grown alone in increments of as pounds in early spring and after the first and second harvests. A split-plot design with four replications was used. The irrigation treatments which occurred at random in each replicate occupied the whole plots which were 24 b] 24 feet in size. Aestricted randomization was employed when designating the placement of the sub- plots in each replicate. handomization was followed in the placement of the sub—plots in the first irriLated whole plot in a blocx that contained five irrigation treatments. The arrangement of the sub—plots that were located within the four regaining irrigation treatnents followed the pattern that was established for the first irrigated plot. Restricting the placements of the sub—plots facilitated seeding and fertilization of the estaolished stands. ) was L551 to read the olocas. \ C A Louyoucos meisture neter ( DurlnL periods of a ple rainfall, moisture readin,s aere tanen at weenly intervals. As rainfall diminished and soil moisture tensions increased, moisture readings were made more freguently, SOnetimes daily. When the blocks placed at the 6—, l2—, and 15-inch depths in all replicates were reduced to an avera;e moisture percentage s)eci- fied for a particular treatnent, water was a plied. The moisture treatments were: Treatment Time and amount of water applied Available soil moisture,‘§ lncncs Check hatural rainfall only source of moisture. 20-1 20 20-2 20 20-3 40 LO—l #0 AO-Z A0 AO-E LO ) \QAJH wlvt—J 60—1 60 60-2 60 60-3 60 DUMP A 16-foot blue;rass alleyway, (figure 1), separated the blooms that contained five irriéation treatments. The irrigation variables within a block were separated by either an 8— or a 10-foot border strip. By using 8- and lO-foot borders between the irri,ation treat- ments within a block, it was possible to place the plots between the drainage tile lines. This procedure minimized but did not 00mpletely eliminate the influence of tiling on plant growth. Part-circle, Rain gird, low-angle (7°) sprinklers (Lodel 253) fitted with 9/lo-inch nozzles were used to apply water to the plots. T's - WEIEII'EfirE'm 18 Figure l. Pictorial View of the arrangement of one replicate. July 26, 1957. Placing one sprinkler in the border strip opposite each corner of a 2A by 2h foot plot allowed water to be applied at the rate of 1 inch in A5 minutes. This Sprinkler pattern provided for uniform distri- bution. Because water distribution was drastically altered 0y moderate winds, it was necessary to irrigate from 5 to 9 a.m. or from 6 to 9 p.m. Frequently the wind would prevent the application of water during these periods. Three cuttings were made in 1956 and 1957. The plots Were cut in the first and second harvest in all treatments when the alfalfa was in 1/10 bloom; the third cutting was made in early September. A power- driven, sickle bar type Jari mower with a cutting width of 2.875 feet 1? waS'used to harvest all individual plots. Production for each individual plot was determined op weighing the forage ootained from a harvest scrip 2.L75 feet wide and zl.lz5 feet in lenpth. Prior to the r‘ oval and weighing of the breen forage, H) a 2-pound moisture sample was taaen. After weighint, the moisture samples from the Ladino clover, alfalfa, and bromegrass plots were oven- dried at a temperature of lAOOE. Since it was difficult to make a vis— ual estimate of the botanical composition of the alfalfa-bromeprass mixture, moisture sanples containing this nixture were separated by hand into the various sge 1:8 present before being dr ed. Unless other- wise designated, all yields are eXpressed in tons per acre of weed-free material on a 125 moisture basis. The Duncan multiple range test was applied (9) to deternine significance of data. In calculating the values at the 5 and 15 levels of significances, only the maximum and mininum.values were computed for a group of means. A difference between two means that was greater than the maximum range of equality value was considered to be a significant difference. A difference between two means that was less than the minimum range of equality value (Kin. R. E. = L.S.D.) denoted a difference that was not significant. A difference between these two limits was consid- ered to be of questionable significance. Weather Conditions The rainfall data in taole l were provided by a United States lieather Bureau recording station located about one—half mile from the experimental area. Table l. honthly precipitation in incnes and deviation from the mean durin; the growing seasons of 1950 and 1957. v honth 1956 1957 Normal* Total Deviation Total Deviation 3;. *3 *‘S H H p) O \s H O H -\l \xJ O 03 O H O O p— (\‘\ O O, I“) Pay 6.26 2.5" 6.12 2.;0 j.76 June 2.30 - .58 2.44 - .96 5.,8 JUIy 2.5a - .16 7.22 4.52 2.70 August 5.20 2.36 1.55 - 1.29 2.34 TOTAL 20.79 5.29 21.17 5.67 15.50 *47—year average. Precipitation from the beginning of the growing season to the end of the harvest period in 1956 and 1957 was 5.29 and 5.67 inches above normal, respectively. nainfall W's slightly below the averaLe in June ‘ V and July of 1956 out this deficit was overcome o, the precioitation that occurred during Augus . Precipitation was below normal in June and AUfiUSt in 1957 but well above normal in Na, and July. Experimental Results Freouent, light showers occurred between July 2 and 24, 1956. No precipitation was recorded, (figures 2 and 3), during the period from July 23 to August 23, 1957. The soil moisture readings for these periods showed that it was necessary to irrigate during these periods. The irri;ation schedule was adhered to in 19:? out not in 1956. Per- sistent winds and competition for irrifiation eouigment were responsible .\ - \ a a I J r .. r. .4. .7 I I}; ...,....I .. 3., ...- an. a I I M I m I I .1....-.I\ ..-. .3. ,. . a- 73“.. ...-..-. «magma. .51). 33.4. «:......§..,..:-..;n.-.1. r I .I m , w nwpko oz_ocouu¢ cufliukawn hm303( >433 ulna. a. on n. on n. on n. p l I k I I GO 1 0.0 I IQ. L 10.. 1 1.3 l 18 Nuoo h I :00 l II....|.III 3a TflN l'Il to. 1 II :n. 10» J3 .. thauo 10040 ) I. [llffrit .. .Inl. Irll | F 1.00— 1 'fl~ 1 1°” 1 19. . I “I“ .P ‘ LI 1 ‘3’! I I. too. .. r3 1 loo 1 L2. lI' III; ’I | g I I III -.. ---- I. i. iv- .3. - ... E. II? II E [00. 109.0 h2g5???— 1 \ :3 1 Ion , z - I- ( ‘2 grll‘ oo. SJHDNI NI WWVJNIVU 3UOLSIOW WIOS 310V'IIVAV 1N33 U36 Li. r' /N A I I; \v I - \ \ . . i I .. ‘. x4 I .1 . I.‘ . I. a .\I \4 . J .I ..o I ‘.n‘h . I. 44411 ,I .I. .1\ . . v . . ..I . \ .4. -\ L a ’4 n “It «a J IV ' \. \ I. )4} I\I ' I. A \ ~ )'44 ‘44 ~ . _ ... . . _ ¢ ,5 f _r .I/I _ ‘ r > \ K _ l n . {y IL «41.91)... \ I! ~I4II‘ 1. l .111 II 4.1.4. \-I ....I 4 I I )‘II’; . 140%! “It! .I nan-.1) I I1: A. .41.; \ \1... III I I. III. ‘4 .\ \ a] ii. .4 . II .. . J . . ... I1. .. : .. I. ....)4... ... . .9. a4. \A.IdrH.I.. .JIV ... . . .... .. . I. . , . . ...r . r. . . .. . . . I.... 4 .k.1\ .. J . . .p. (I .. II. . I +Iu .rx . _ .. .I .. I W I ... pir, fr.‘ 0 O I . o I I V l .. I! “UBKO I 02-OCOUUK (NOSUknwm hm303( >433 UZDfi >(5 J.¢Q( on n. on a. on . n. on n. o. F _ _ loo 8 V I [no N 1 10. V 1 1 Io.~ m 1 IN N 1 Ian M. S 3 3 ~Ioo p hlullozs l ruflN I II 't‘ '''' :0- l QIOIIIO:N_ [On I '30 Ihnuo KUOJO .... 161. 1 o I 100. NIOQ H N U I raw 3 3 1 to... m. m I . 1:. w . .. .. . 1 III. .\)IHV§..\ /... ,. HIHIIIIIIHHIIII .v. I I . ; - . , : Ir. . -...I too. ouh(0.¢¢_o3 NIO~ H ...H. .. Io~ m I \/ I3 1 \ ../ m \ / \ Ins. an). \ l \\ I.‘ II.‘ \ \ 1/1.. ll \ \ I / II I II I |||||| ' \ \1. m ‘UULU h2!k(w¢.r I I00 4 . 105 I .1. T8. j . 991 . ‘* l w. . .- t L -.~ -‘ ..A, ‘ ’7‘} r- ‘l‘ .1 " - . t‘ L . . > b: - for the oeiiQs in the iiriLicion LLASQJld chit too“ plmCd in l&,o. r '. .,.4 v ', . . . ,. .. '..n.' . s ' . ...- .... -L. L. ‘ ) fne soil mOisttIe data lhiiCuted that hues MoistiIe Mas neio e;' was aosoroea 0v the Er at low tensions throuLhout the root zone, plants at a more r: id rate it the u oer ost lever oi the soil proiile, (fig‘res 2, 3, and A). s the soil mois ture t;:sion incxe s i, the J zone of 33st rapid assorptien sciited t; Q eater degths. lie moisture reamiii s Ior the bouyoucos siocks sliced at the beinch depths inuicated that 70 to 75% of the availaole soil moisture was re ac ily availaOle to N “r. fi fl ~~ :- ('3 .‘y.’1 ‘ . . '1 y‘.‘ ’ ."' I" II '\ " ‘ n. ' V -' ‘ '.‘ " 1‘ ‘ the aliaiia plants. suiON this Larcent.Le, tnc rate 01 oeyietion oe— cam sluggish. A graphic presentation of this apyears in figure A and " it is narticularlj ev1.dent :or treatments irri; ted Mith l, 2, or 3 avaiiaule 3:11 maisture drogLed to 205 (trea t— (L inches of vwat 3 when th A r ...-t 'we ': u'flé, Gull L‘J‘") . [\1‘ ments 20-1, The SCi l moisture recur ian durinL the gg—gi; gerisd in 17;? in which precipitation did not occur, (fiLtre A), shoMed tn.;t 14, c3, and 28 daQrs were necessary t3 reduce the aversLe s;il wIischi' in the upper 19 inches from an avers: availaule soil moisture of 97; to an r r. , n 'l\ "I I . ' "I (A‘V " s . a v v " ‘) ‘ r - .l u , ‘ v r“ average 0; so s0 and Ava res ectiVe1«. b“ nd act 9 Mate: Ma c. ) ) . 3 v / ) >(j ajplied to those areas that were desi nIted to he irriLated Mhen the 5-, 12~, and lB—inck depths were reduced to an averaLe moisture per- entiLe of 69. A period of 13 and 17 days elapsc d beiore the moisture readings again indicated that the soil moisture Mas at the 6&5 level in treatments 50-1 and 60—2, respectively. This indicated that durinL this g—eay perioi oetMeen irriL: tions on the plots that received 1 inch of water, an ave Ia L~e of 0.09 of an inch of hater was used per as; by the n r‘ alfalfa plants. Alfaiia that received 4 irones o: Mater for irri'.c-~n o \ ... I ...: I \I I .. a 3.. ....HI r.-. ..-“, - 3., I- GUgUPlUfl hWDOD< >433 0. on n. On n. p h P o flit: n-8.k I. ..I l.v~ ..ou IIIIII to. .3 In“. It o 1.3.8 50.3 I v r00 OO— «J, 3 n.ov.h n. nuh(o UZBCOUHK augwkuwm bug On _ n. p >433 N0 0' .h ON 10' v00 foo .Ioo. ON 10' auguhuwm 0. >433 0. TOO.» ON .IO' I8 P b 3801€|ON WIOC 319V'IIVAV 1N3? 83d Ow» (0.1!. n 3 ON b2N§hpmc vaza pme>gsc 0200mm wmmbpmz umgHm . AvmgflHmecdv mmmmpo>m mmHomAN 4 :mmsomo mdeN> \uHHszvm w mmcmx NINA NI NNK NN.N N. 3.4 Na. NA .34... NA 3.... I New 84 SN 5:. 0%.w NH.¢ N.“ s>.n mH.w mw.w sx.m mo.n Hn.m ne.n we m >m.n so.q FH.4 m®.n 3..4 Cc NN.N Nm.n 4N.n NN.N Nn.w nN.n nN.I es.m sm.m NN.u mN.m Nm.m ON.N Ne.m mo.¢ NN.N cs os.m nn.m oo.n an.n 0N.m o..m Nm.n ma.n 5N.n 3N.N eN.m OH.m NN.m Im.m sm.m se.m om ma.¢ III: III: :::: ow.m III: III: I::: sq.m III: ::I: ::II NH.4 III: III: III: someo NNNN .meNNNN Nepoa a». d». O». r». NN. 3w. H». 4%. mm. ms. mm. mm. HH.H OH.H NH.H 5?.H .o>¢ Na. mm. mw. sw. mm. .m. mm. em. .5. No. 4m. 4m. OH.H >H.H HH.H Nn.H ow mN. sm. 4%. NQ.H or. my. -m. N3.H em. H0. 0». s0. NH.H wo.H MH.H >H.H 04 NN. NN. -.. NN. NN. Nm. No.N NN. NN.. NN.. Nm.. NN. No.N NO.N N.N NO.N ON mo.H III: III: III: om. IIII III: III: oo.H IIII III: III: mH.H III: III: IIII xomgu Om unjust «pmm>pmn UAHcH q¢.H 3:.H m¢.H ad.H MH.H 5H.H mH.H NH.H mm. Hm. Q©.H mo.H Hw.H om.H No.H oo.H .m>< wq.H n¢.H 3N.H m:.H HN.H wH.H ow.H HN.H 40.H oO.H dw. HH.H mw.H s@.H mm.H m@.H ow n¢.H m .H N4.H >¢.H 0H.H ow.H HH.H OH.H mm. “m. mo.H 4w. Ho.H mq.H om.H qn.H 04 4n.H au.H dm.H O¢.H >H.H wo.H mH.H 0N.H Hm. ms. ma. OO.H qw.H Hm.H mm.H Mm.H ON cm H m H 0% H mm mHsm Newm> gs: ozoomm mN.N HQ.N NN.N NN.N NH.N mN.N ON.H NQ.N NN.N 4N.N oN.H ms.a N ON.N NN.N NN.N on.N NN.N NN.H 0N.N 0N. ON.H ON.N 9N.N NN.N Hm.a mm.a NN.N mm.a ow NN.N 9N.N ©4.H NO.N 9N.N No.N 0N.N Nm.N 0N.N ON.H NN.H NN.N N.H NH.N ON.N m.N ON NN.N NN.H NN.N N4.N N9.N NN.N NN.N MN. NN.H NN.N NN.N mm.N .N.H NN.N sN.N NH.H ON 4N.N III: III: III: No.H III: :II: :III NN.N I mN.N III: III: III: Nomgo N mesa Nwmm>pmz pmpHm .m>< {NI .m>< N H om>dfi m H H W «Umpmm IHNLH cog: whom peg mmsocH NsOHpmeppH mgsIIHoE Haom +u. . oHemHHm>q mmsgmosopoINMstHd pm>oHo omHvMH mmsymeepm NMstHm lllvl i .coHpmuwNLH HcpcmsmHsozm mo mpd:ofiw .N mHnwe ‘IA uuuurlllllllllllllllll ..I;- . .. . :. I .II .tm+w.prH ass was peoppmmp+ scqzu Use mmHocmdvmum mchhs> News: QSOLw mmHommm mmngom Hmpm>mm mo whom pom mcop CH mvHlo omsH mwmgm>< 46 (I mo. 03. . No. m. wH : m3. 00. 00. N. Am Q a HH.H.m .CHM HH. mo. mo. 44. RH : U 34.0 No.) . No.0 NN.o a. ..N.N sNENNNN HI. Ho. pmm>gwc us H pm :>N.: wcoomm mm>pmg HmLHm N 4. I 3 a4 a . 3 AUmNHNHmLCS VM mNN m>m mc.o®:m q semapmo mmJHN> NHHHNSQm mo mmcm: NN.N NN.N N..N No.N MMNN. oo.n NH.m co.I Im.m NN.N Nm.I NN.N om.. N..N om.N om.N .m>x NN.N N0.N No.N NN.N 3H.N N3.N NN.N 9:.I no.m -N.N HI.N mm.m NN.N NH. 0 2N.N NN.N 0N Hg.m 0N.N NH.N NN.N ma.w No.n No.n oa.n mm.m mo.¢ .o.m Nm.n mN.N mm.N 0N.N NN.N oq mo.N NN.N N..N AN.N N3.I 0H.m H:.n NH.m HN.N Nm.I 4m.¢ 00.; «N.N m .N No.m m.N 0N o~.n IIII IIII IIII m%.I IIII IIII IIII MH.J III: III: IIII Hm.m IIII IIII IIII xomzo \NNH .INN N NNNOH NV.H NN.H NH.H oe.H x». NN. IN. NN. NN. HN. mN. do. mN.H NN.H NH.H 0N.H .m>< 3N.N 3H.H AN.H HN.H N». No. NN. TN. NN. an. NN. n9.H «N.H Nm.H mm.H NN.H ow HI.N NN.H NN.H NN.H NN. Na. IN. .N. 0N. N3.H Na. NN. NI.H HN.H 4N.H om.H mg NH.H NI.H NH.H NH.H N». N. NN. NN. no. NN. ou.H ma. NH.H NN.H NQ.H mN.H ON 0N.N IIII IIII IIII NN. IIII IIII IIII 9N. III: III: IIII NN.N IIII III: III: Nocco mH mm:.IHan «unv>. m; UNHzH :>.H o>.H ¢N.H NN.H OJ.H 5m. Dm.H HQ. H mm. 04. mm. .m. mm.H mN.H Nm.H 70.H .m>m ¢>.H n>.H as.H >>.H Nu. hm. mm. HQ.H ma. wm. m4. m0. um.H Hw.H um.H mn.H 0w M».H mN.H N>.H mo H wm. Hm. $0.H om. mm. ex. m4. 00. mm.H mm.H o«.H m«.H 04 n>.H ¢>.H mH.H H> H H3.H H3.H 5N. QO.H mm. Mn. N@.. «m. qm.H mm.H 5N.H mm.H ON fin.H IIII IIII IIII MO.H IIII IIII IIII Ob. IIII IIII IIII 4m.H IIII IIII IIII Momzo 0N NHsm «Hmm>gug Ucoomm HHJM ¢>.M Um.N m>.u Dn.H NM.H MM.H OI.H ow.m mN.N mm.w «n.w am.v 3m.w m.w w5.m .mbr $0.N H».N 05.N .m.w mn.H mw.H :M.H mN.H N.a ov.u HH.N om.w w..m 5m.m IN N mm.w 00 ow.u N:.m mw.w II.I Nm.H mN.H uw.H mn.H Nw.w q¢.m mm.m mm.m q... ma.w m.w nm.m 0: AN.» «a. v r>.N m;.I 3m.H UI.H NW.H WM.H dd.w mo.m ww.w Nn.N mu. N nw.m nm N on.m ON >w.v :III III: III: mw.H III: III: :II: wn.w III: III: III: mm.m xoozo d mszw «pmm>pm; pmgHm .m>: w a H .v>< m m H .m>m m m H .m>m m N H R «@mpmm mpom hag nmcocH «codemngH IHNNH sags mNSHmHoE HHom mmmpnoEONQImHHNHHt pm>0Ho oQHUwH mmmpmmiopm meNMHa mHanHm>m IIIIII‘IIIIIIII l 11% I. .cm. Hp H +0: a: Hz. pa NH Aomzo .:0HNN H H Hmpcmsz:;:m No m LL npdsnsm UCN anozmdvoum mCHHNN> pong: mmHommm mHNLOH Hwam>mm Ho @905 4mm mung :H mUHmHh mmmH mmsgm>< .m mHgmH J." ‘< ' -. .. .. . F- ”: ~" ....1 1', ‘, 1‘." . . 1.1, .-.. -.. _ , ‘f '7 1‘, . Lil-9’1 a1- :wer».;_e 01 11.1.”. 01 :11 11.81. \11 3-11.31 lsf t» -. 1.1:! II. L116 11"udy irwt3rua1 oetwc .n irii ations. By omitting replicate 1 Mijn was atypicel of the checn 5iots, it can be st ted t the e was no vi: +1 difference in the egge1r1nce of plants bein grown in the various irri_ ted and non—irriheted clocks. Il’,. ..1,‘ 1. 1 ‘- 7' -. I : w- .\ J.“‘ +l-A ‘ l 1' 12 11‘ " f1 fl‘.-)-\ ~r . 1'“. Lnat A1nnt EPOhUh has 061nm 311ectec c, a 11cm 01 QV114dulG soil Muis- ture in replicate A of the chic; was verified when yields vere tahen on ,1. ‘/ 1-1:- ‘4... ' ,3 1'7: -1. .14.. 2-. n ' n r (A July 10, 1950. In thlb C1JP1C51 repi1cdce, Jielos 01 1.11, u.47, O.ou and 1.16 tons per acre vere obtained for 111111a, brome fir ass, 11d1no clover, and the alfalfa-bromegress mixture, res e011111J, the average yields for the 9 irri ati_on treatnerts for this period were consimle aoly hi:her—-— 1.61, O. 97, 1.18 and 1.14 tons, resr ectively. Dnrln; the 32-113 period of no rainfall in lgp7, glents in rep- of water stress, but the yields t b) 2.“. (“D :21. ’- I :3 (I that were obtained from this area on September 11 were similar to those obtained from the remaining tygic1l replications. No significant differences in yields due to irri~1tion were found for the various harvests that vere t-ke :1 during the brewing seasons of 195 6 and 195 This held true for the yields from treat1ent 60-2 which received 22 .79 and 25.17 inches of water between Agril and Septem- ber l in 1956 and 1957, respectively. The water availaole to this treat- ment during these 5-month periods exceeded the normal pr eci 11111on ov 7.29 and 9.6? inches in 1956 and 1957, respectively. Heroage production fiiures for the 2-year pe 110 d (tsoie A) Show tr'at maximum yields were obtained irom 1111111 (Z./l tons) but that the sl1alf1—br0uc rass yields (5.81 tons) were egual to or just — -a—n [‘3 (D Slightly below these yields. brome;rass fertilized with 2&3 pounds of nitrogen per season was less wroductive (2.;7 tons) than eitner slialfa or the allllfa-olc.s¢rass Iiiture but was significantly Lore productive tn nLadino clover (3.14 tons); however, Ladino clover out-yielded L-r. bromeLrass durin Ju13r and Aurust of 1956 and in July of 1%)/. Taole A. Average;iee1ds in tzns per acre of 956 and 1957 harvests of severa-1f01aée s ecies grown at varying frequencies and amounts of supple;ental irri ation Axera:e of all irri ation treatmgnts. Harvest ()1 .L) (D O P. (u U} lst Zn‘ 3rd Total Alfalfa 2.31 1.73 1.17 4.91 Brorwe ra s 1.94 .7o .57 3.57 Ladino Clover 1.21 1.09 .84 5.14 Alfalfa-bromegrass 2.15 1.59 1.03 A.P2 Ran;e of equality values bettee. species: lst 2nd 3rd Total Max. 3.3., 55 .31 .32 ~95 '11 n n is .53 .34 .99 -12 1:51.11. :{.:3. =1: .3 0D. 5") o 23 o 2.4. 0 CH.) 0 QC; 1: u n u l; .25 ..i3 “)7 .09 Forage production was maintained at a LOTS nearly uniform level during the three harvests from the legumes and tne legume-grass associ- kw: at ion than from fertilized OJOMG rass Lro.n a one. The average seasonal CL :3 U *‘3 < (u U} C" (f; *4) C! H .L (0 production removed in the first, second, and thir 1e u es and legume-grass mixture was 40, 33, and 25;, respectively, of the 2-year average seasonal production. Durin; the 2—year period, 54, 21, and 253 of the total seasonal production of bromegrass was harvested 1 a in the :irst, second, and third cuttings, reSpectivelv. The yield contrisution of bromscrass when rown in association with alfalfa was surprisingly small. The bromegrass fraction was esti- mated to be 265 in 1956 and only 13; in 1957. Irrigation aspeered to have an adverse effect on the survival of bromegrass when it was grown in as ociition with alfalfa. The legume-grass plots that were not irri- (I) gated had 29 and 215 grass in 1956 and 1957, respectively; plots that were irricated had 26 and 85 grass in 1956 and 1957, respectively. Weed growth was of minor importance. From visual estimates, it was dete mined that the weed population in plots of alfalfa, Ladino clover, and in the legume-grass association was 5% or less and in the bromegrass plots it was aonut 15%. Discussion The soil moisture extraction pattern of alfalfa indicated that water was acsorbed from the uppermost layer of the soil profile wher moisture was held at low tensions throughout the root zone. As the soil moisture tension increased in this layer, the zone of most rapid absorp— tion shifted to greater depths. These results are in agreement with the findings of Hagan and Peterson (12) who found that most of the water was extracted f'om the upper layers of the soil profile during the second and third weeks after irrigation and that the zone of most rapid absorption shifted to greater depths with time. These results supgort the conclusion that when water within the limits of the root area was held at varying tensions, the plants used water from the horizon in which it was most available (44). hoissure renovai in tne 0- to 6-inch soil 1aJer was rapid when 25 to 3os or more of the availaole soil moisture was present. at avail- able soil moisture l-svels oelow these pgrcentsges, mcisture was oe- at a much slower rate. This su;Lests that water from field capacity to the wiltin, percentage is not eguall; availa61e to plants. Due to the lack of significance in herbage production for the various irri tion t-eat1-ncs, it hl ht be concluded that an iirQ ation schedule in which water was awplied each time the soil moiSture at the 6-, 12-, and 13-inch depths was reduced to an avara;e of AC} mould be one where water (.0 ust as effective in maintaining re; d heroa e ai outn a was agplied at either an average availaoie soil moisture level of 40 or 60%. This conclusion would have merited some consideration if the root zones of the plants in Question had been restricted to the ugger 18 inches of the soil. however, this was not the case. not onl, did the data as presented in fi ures 2, 3, and A rev e-l that the alfalfa plants were removing vat er from a depth of 36 inches, Out the results of haoan and Peterson (12) also showed th 1t Ladino clover and alfalfa eatracted moisture Ieidilv to tegths of A and 7 feet, respectively. On the 31st day of a 32-day period of no rainfall, the averabe available soil moisture of the O— to 3—foot zone was reduced to a3, to, a in treatn lents 40-1, 23-2 and LU-B, resgectively; it was get for ‘ . h) \L) and w ' ‘ ' " “ - ‘fi H. ~. 3 ' ~ 1- / w v . ~. '1 r r-1 1“ \ I the Ch$Cu area. Thus, in all treatments, the a era e avaiiaoie soil moisture in the zone of the roots of the allalla was consideraoly aoove 20f 2. \0 d of no rainfall in 195 /, a te eruod of l 0 During the 32—dav gel; 1, 4 . v .' _; _. !.. .1]. fl 9 . v.5. ‘. - 4. _ , ' .. .' _ -‘ '1 " and 17 d: js al.:sef D'Bb‘eed irrgdLbLJno 101 riots twat received i or 4 . «- w 'r -‘- ’V" \ ."' H‘: 7“ - --1'\ .1 v “: ‘ ""'s’ . w "‘\ - '1 "‘ "v I? - i‘ ’2 L‘ inches of page? when the available soil mdlhbule in the u,,er la inches ' ‘ I' w _-I -~ - o - . -\ . - eusu am: gw F~£~ ‘, . . 5 'v . —- ~ . ~ 1 'w in this SbUGJ. ;xauu1es the checa (non—irli slang}, there were nine {lots that received either 1, 4, or 3 inches of water when the aVeraue avail— ‘ . s x ‘ . v‘ ' g ' i 1 .“~V ‘ j ‘5 ‘ '- \- r'. "\ w c- J r‘ - - .\ -_-~ 11 ’ —‘ ~ ',:’~‘: J'- .:‘- \,‘ .— ‘ able 8011 amistul e in the 11,1331 l2) inches 0.1. seal Was . Stucco to cltmsl fin 5 _‘ A 1' 4o, a0, or 043. -.. "\s‘~» an. A.» . (“'l‘ ‘ ~ IN" N --. .‘ - ~‘ r- 4‘ 1 :r‘ ,n a. ‘1 4 I, . . nuuyOUCob moisture QlOkhb «laced at depths Oi 9, la, if, an, and h. / . " " “ . ‘ K" '\:" I" T‘- 1 ¢ ‘\-‘ V ‘ . ‘_‘ "V I v-t r' v'. .-‘<‘-‘-— "r" f‘ P '. " I‘ ‘x- C! -' QC) ll”:Cl.c:;- 1T; €n©fx ulldLL-l yiOt Mela Used LL) nuJasL/gf‘: c118 anl-c1u_LC gull \A“ 2\ .» T« 'v~« :-°'a ~', 11.. ‘+ an. ~ w~ ~7 :..f ,. V «v- ;fi* H-hotll'€. MBJLUCJ lH'lLdLlJL udcg 1v “a; vi“: 3) ltll;¢c8 d b;UClAlC tr’ "- +‘ ' .Jp'? " i" o . ‘f -:"‘ ,'43 “a )nl' 3 1/9 -,'_\ ‘- 2’ :34 L ‘ > x W 5‘. .51 .. a"? v . Lud;lid .U, V‘- 1 v 1’;‘\).L~J LL! tr lJlC kill.) VVI u L~I(1k4. Asa .’ [K CLJL‘K ~k Ull‘v v-DL—L ‘1.(»)..-D Hill 8 _ .. . 4“ u. '” 4-“ or.” A .i... “A. n ,_ f. 3‘ v” : dot‘all’; OI ”31.1.1115... 1-15 I‘Lhi‘u“ OJ. ..ulu bout} ale .‘JN ‘tllued r. - ‘r'V '5 a; ICllva: l t (:1 (‘4‘ ’3 If!“ - .. ~ “th .- - .‘fi 7“\ i"~.«.vw ' L. I) ‘\~ 1' ,. o “3.. er ‘3 <15 ate Jk>1 by “ du :3. Av \. L f‘,‘ Ina-1C1 I. ~‘., 2., [’9’ (I .L LC-LJ_.L‘A l .1" . L..;'/ \.""" bk) 5: . .1 Q * ‘ 1 " ‘-"' 4 ‘ L a" V '1‘ ‘ -. . I .*' 4' ‘ ‘1"‘1‘ "r .’ ’ ‘ 1' ~ .. '.~. ‘\N L 3 ‘I' "3 w ' c-inci la er LMQH n.1seu-e was nele at luw buJoldh; thigupJ cc 1.; loot ‘1 ‘. r- ‘ '1 ... ‘ .-.. q .3“ . ,— .. .- ‘. ,, ,_. , ‘ TOKG. ho tre $011 mwlocUIe ten on ixcreased 131 LL14 sled, the “JL8 Ol . \ ... ‘ :9 . W. , u..2t st re id 3, or i:on has sciited to Lzueter Heftbs. ,—' 41 ; 30- - g n. , V r- -' . ~ ' ‘f ;—\ ‘ pi. I . v ‘1 -~ -‘ ~./ " ‘ .\ P 4 7' 7’ ‘ I, f, 4. d&o€I re 0141 in tne o- to w-lnCL liJer wis [drlQ at o1 duOVG a) to "grxv' , ° 1A3" , ' ,..' 3 , .1 ' ' ,° , " Inf) , :11 .. , . ,_ yr... 3 ml ,U‘LJ al./rilllblt: Sk/ll rlll-'-l_bturt3o .rleO‘w! unlit) 163V 0., 1mm.) bhle Was 1 ClinJVBd at; v, ‘r~ ‘1 w' -\ I ' 3 “JACzi Slowel Tulle. ‘ 3. Alfalfa irrigated hitn 1 inch of water when fire available soil nois- .‘ ttre was reduced to so; uscd an average 01 0.68 of an inc; oi hater per dy'nirwi a l-- -d;y;vxfiod in.u4 :t lUfZ. aveilanle m 4. Alfalfa irrigated kith 2 inches of water eec h tine t1 soil moisture was recuced to 60$ used an averi;e of 0.12 of an inch of water per day durin; a 17—day yerjod in AuLust 1957. 5. none of the ir'i stion treatnonts resulted in si;nificent incress in forage yields over non-irri4a,ed trgeclclts in l9;o or 1997 when rein- fall was 5.29 and 5.67 inches shove noJHe , respectivelg, for the 5- a. Uher grown alone or niez growz in as: oc iepion with bromeQrass, -ljelia vas more gredccpive than either bromegrass grown alone or Lee no clover grown alone. 7. Sromegrass wes more p.oductive than Ladino clover, out the dietriou— tion of seasonal procuctior lacked tne uniTormity of slielfa grown al orxe fr) 1) n , w-” ». p44 a “ « 1 .. .7 or Vlth b?» ledbu or L¢“;np CLUVdI Elahh &¢Ouc. . The Dram: rass fracLion o; the alfiglfa-Dromugraas aiSCCiatiOh h/ .3 f/ v 4w 1 *- I"“~r- rv.-\.- \‘l' " .»..-4~ .. . u~1-. - -- 40g 1n 19)o aha lup 4d Ly;7. ;u‘ cam,onpuu 0L Lracs 01 llanpbed 1nr~1 v" 3V)! V. " "'1‘qu - ..‘v-~ { ' . ‘ 1!: (L l’ -". . ‘. ~ _" IXC'Vo WW 'I b " ‘ o 'v-"\'- a- Ir.» _J.a"tJ..‘\u;Lx:}_'IuQ;: my”; 4(4) 111 ,-,>o and 1;,» ..le .L;/.' , uhucl’ IlQh-l;1.l-b r ,_ q. u A. _\ _ ‘- » .‘ r- _‘ r\.']'- A‘ '2 :r‘ f‘ ~ _‘ g '1. ‘._ L- I '- ._ V, . 7.. . ‘ "r con‘vL-J— L} J. )nb ’ 4UIL j 1 [I‘Q OS C‘»"A}lk: I‘v'n’x-Int V-C‘LS’ 49/() 1n .LKJI‘IO K1IA(V£ '\~l”1) ill lk’J j .7 . A f" 9: m P EU LT I I YIELD ALB hLQT DijTiluLleK CF aLFnLfia Sibhn Uhuss ‘__fi,lr. Ly,fiuriyin "1 W a T. .,U ~;2" bu,_3l laailidl IAMJJdilth lay/duo linings figuAMHLJLuA The pur ose of this stud, was to determine under carefully— controlled environmental conditions in the Lreenhouse the (l) efiiect of availaole soil moisture on the Lrotth, productivity and persist— ence of alfalfa, (2) moisture extraction pattern of alfalfa, and (;) root distriOution of alfalfa grown at varying irrigation levels. haterials and hethods Soil representing the O— to 8-, 8— to 15-, lc- to 2A-, g4- to 32-, and 32— to LR-inch depths of a Conover silt loam soil was arranged to make a profile section in L-foot long, 10-inch dianeter Open-end tile. Each tile was placed in a metal pan Which had a 2—inch rim. As the various depths were being arranied in each tile, gougoucos uoisture blocks (A) were placed at depths of 0, l2, 18, 2A, and 36 inches. To facilitate watering, harvesting, and recording of moisture data, the 3 replicates wxich contained 10 tiles each were separated by a L—foot alley. The tiles in each replicate, (figure 5), were arran$ed in two rows and the treatnents were assigred at random in each replicate. Prior to seeding and after the moisture content 01 the soil within the column was brouiht to field capacity, 0-25-25 fertilizer has incorporated into the O- to 6-inch layer of soil at the rate of 1500 pounds per acre. After the second cutting on hag LA, an additional 3A \0 U1 1-1!“ . , uE'Ilnfuiln «an. .I‘ 5"! ‘»' Figure 5. View of replicate 3 on February l5, l$57 Snowing growth of alfalfa Seeded on December ll, l9jo. ADO pounds per acre of fertilizer was applied. Vernal alfalfa treated wit n arasa and properly inoculated was planted at the rate of 100 seeds per tile on Decemoer ll, 1956. During the period of seedling emergence and for several weeKs after emergence, just enough water was added to keep the soil surface moist. after estab- is ten Ja er 'as d e‘ 4 'e o' is an‘ he mesa can a l h; t, v t w a d o to tn 8 il sur ce 0 to t t l 1 t ' e ‘0, om eacn i e. Ea er as uov ie‘ when 18 soi o a etuh th b +t of ‘ t l l t w 8 All a t} l t d ,t of 18 inches was reduced to an average of 00; availaole moisture. On March 8, 9, and 10, water was added until the soil moisture throurhout the column was at or near field cauacit‘. From Larch 10 to L - 15, the plants reduced the average availaole soil moisture in the 0 to 13—inch level to 60k. At this time, the alfalfa plants were starting \) ) 0‘» to bloom and their roots had penetrated to a depth of no inches. The plants were defoliated to a height of z inches and wat r was added to the tiles that were designated to receive water at this time. The moisture blocks were read daily with a Bouyoucos moisture meter (3) to determine the available moisture content of the soil. The averato of triplicate readings of the blocks placed at the 6-, l:-, and 13—inch degtns was used to indicate the need for irribation. Ihe various watering treat ents are summarized as follows: Treatment Time and arount of water applied Available soil moisture, t Inches 0-3 0 20-1 20 20-2 20 20-3 20 40-1 A0 uO-Z LO AO-B #0 \MNH WNH W 60-1 60 sc-z so 6‘-3 60 MON!“ ”he avera e plant height in millineters was deteruined twice each weeK to estimate the rate of growth for the plants in eacn tile. When the plants that were irri;ated at the 60p availaole seil moisture level were starting to oloom, all plants were defoliated to a heiéht of 2 inches. Accordingly, the plants were defoliated A times at the end of 35-day growth periods ending on April l9, hay 2h, June is, and AuLust 2, 1957. Dry matter yields were determined 0y weithinb the heroaoe from . q . . . . . of each tile alter it was oven-dried at a temperature 01 lhO r. Ugon the can letion of this stupJ, the tiles were split length- t A V. f. l‘ ’ ’V“ - '\‘|‘ ‘I‘ “W . \ ' " I H" 4 V‘ .‘I' ' "( f or 7 r3 : ,3?" “ ’- ‘ . 3‘ ,- wise and the lioos in each 5*lJCH lager here red ved o, screenin e and .. W. L. . - . , .,oq , washing. Alter one ryot samples were oven-dried at ldO r, they were wei;hed. The number of plants per tile was determined at the time the roots were removed. ed, yields of roots and tors are re- L}. Unless otherwise srecif A ported in grams or dry matter ter tile which will be referred to as a A test was used to deterhine which GI "pot". The Duncan multiele ran; means differed significantly, (see Part I Experimental hesults The total amount of water supplied to alfalfa grown at Varying irrigation levels ran so from a low of 2A inches for treatnert 0—3 to a high of 75 inches for treatment éJ-Z, (tails 7). Durin: th first (D ’\ growth period from Karen 15 to April la, the u-j treat ent received only 3 inches of water; 6 inches of water were supplied during the second growth period from April 23 to Ray 2h. The soil moisture data for these 2 growth periods, (figure a), show that 39 days elapsed before there was no available soil moisture to a depth of 18 incnes. At the 24- and 36-inch depths, the available th soil (l‘ C) (D moisture was nearly absent. Since no water was sugglied during this 59-day period, plant growth was sustained by depleting the soil's ava'lable moisture supply. The moisture data disclosed thgt at low soil moisture tensions, water was renoved host rapidly from the C- to 6—inch layer. The rate of absorption in this zone was harhedly reduced after defoliation on harsh 15. On this date, the aViilaole {33.018 50 Inches of rater agplied to alfalfa brown in the Lrsenhouse and average total yields of alfalfa éPOWD at these varying irrigation levels 0 Inches applied (1) Inches of water for 35-day growth periods ending total yield, grams/pot b.) \'~)I\)l'--J Average 1 2 3 Average 1 2 3 Average 0% available soil moistur 20% available soil moisture O\O\.P‘ \n \o 405 available soil moisture (I) \O(D\7 60% available soil moisture NCQCD (1) whenever available soil moisture reached 0, 20, LO, or out Top growth per inch of soil moisture in the O to o-inch layer was between 25 and jog. from Larch 15 until April 19 when 3 inches of water were supplied, moisture extraction in this upper lager was slow. hith time, the zone of most rapi‘ absorption of water shifted to Creater depths where soil moisture was more abundant. Plants brown under treatients 20-1, iu-2, and 20—3 disolayed similar soil moisture absorption pattesns, (fipure 7;. then 3 inches of water were supplied to treatment 0—} on April 1 \O , the soil reached field capacity at a point between the 12- and is- inch depths. The moisture depletion curves, (figure 6), indicated that water was absorbed readily from the upper foot which was replenished with water and that absorption was maintained at a hiwh rate at avail- able soil moisture levels above 15%. At this point, the slope of the curve suggests that further water absorption occurred at a reduced rate. In support of this su bestion it was noted, without exception, that plants displayed definite signs of beinQ under moisture stress each time the average available moisture in the entire column was re- duced to lfifl. t was at this perconta;e that a warned reducsion in the rate of stem elongation occurred. As expected, the volume of soil restored to field capacity in- creased when additional increments of water were provided per irrigation. This is confirmed by the moisture data in figure 7. hitn added cuanti- ties of water per irrigation, moisture penetr ted to depths of o, 1:, and 13 inches for treataents 20-1, zo—z, and 20—3, reapeCLively. This same trend prevailed when plants were irrigated wnen the available 0011 moisture was no or 60s. Since none of the irrigation treatments prevented a decrease in ‘v . it V\. V x) I.) )O) \ \ I‘ I \1 \.do 1 ) \ \l V 5.. ‘ 994 \. OI . I .. . n- .-. L ., : .4. . o ... .... on 92.3.-.. ... H. . .. .93.... .I-. ... b .. -... ark}... no m-....... I \ ‘ I 4 SC . \ \l I 1 v a . \ i \ D It- .1 I 3 4 \I I { )4 I. \I V .‘ Id! I \\\- ) IF {I I A .‘l u» Wu P4 4 cl \ a a) TA.” cf «IL .fl or <1L _r ‘ v \ L1. LDIN. H1...“ «WE-fwlflrrh {KR I1)”, «I! Q .I. (r I c - a . f r C r r . r. . r WUP(2 J_QQ( IUQ<§ on n. on n_ h + P h 034.9373- IIUII/ I no 592sz z / .l'llllizwm '0- II I l...vm I I I I I I I :0. olulolo..m_ :0 Ira MO «.0040 ION 10m 10a. 1.00 100 [Oh T00 00 BUOJSIOW "HOS BWQVWIVAV .LN33 83d is» «...: Al d 3 II! .. -..: DI: \1 \ a \. I $137.51. _ _ . ..H 1...? we“... 0 - 3% S t L. y:- J.¢s( g e 4 Im 4 a - a-..» I . . ' ' U . Clot-0* . I. 'cc. 1.- '.I.'III.. I f... f I nomad I l.- / IK. ..oo / _ x l . \ \u\- I\ L x ’ , I: l I -. / \\ i I. ., . 4/ f _ I /.(.. I ...... «.Md fib»..n4.l. 3" .- a rI_~l _ .r v .HIAM .Hlmm a: 1:0. )1 do; ‘8‘ e a e a e “I.. F . . . . - . . a f. . l r 1.. ... I i i». ... .r. ... .. /. _ s Q I r N 7 .. s I I \ — _ .I I/ . I a .n. MN gunkm Adso ma mmruMfln: Aflom .w ma. Au 2.. so} .03.! a R. e a e . .-.. a '. ' . . . .' . . ' . 5. I .5.‘.. \. | I ’ .| .\ — 1‘ \ (I . II\ 7 l .3 z . ’1 , >I a I I _z\ I I: to. . 4 I/ To. / .3. b ..o~ .1111'. 3-3.... unqun not I'VIV‘IIVAV m: an 42 sub—soil moisture, the plants that were provided with 3 inches of water at to; available soil moisture had a larger soil volume from which they could and did aosoro water. Growth measureaents, (figure 8), demonstrated that plants irri- gated when the available soil moisture was either to or not trew at similar rates during the first growth period. his similarity con— tinued to be evident in the 2nd and 3rd growth periods for the plants 'hich received 1 inch of water at each irrigation and in the 2nd growth period for the plants which received 2 inches of water per irri— gation. In the final growth period, there was no difference in height between plants that were irrigated with either 1 or 2 inches of tater when the available mois ure was 605 or plants whiCh received these of yacer at 40$ available soil moisture. at the 3-130“ (0 quantitie irrigation rate, there was a difference in plant elon9ation in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th growing periods. The rate of elongation was greatest when the available soil moisture was 605 at irrivaticn, it decreased pretrea— sively as the level of soil moisture when water was applied decreased from AD to 20 or Oh. Accumulated growth curves for the four growinfi periods, (IiQure 8), show that differences between treatnents were snailer when the sub- soil contained a supply of available moisture. As this sugply was ' J- diminished and the plants were r:lyin¢ on the moisture that was provided by irritation, greater diifercnces were obtained. The yields for each growth period were significantly lower when .1. f. > - w J-:.rm1. .4 a; $5.). .. in; al.} a . a. -.. .23. A... - t .J , a ....r .. ... .4. J... 4 . o ... .N I r t. 'l . - afl>3 8: kn; CUP5( th’g .8 b2§< Ihcnou 08....» 0200“.” pal: v.85: thgoao On. On ON o. 01 0... cm o. O? on Om o. 0' on ow o. P p P h p b b. b h b b b .P P b 0 I4 . lico— \ ICON 1 ‘00“ J 100' z. m. 205.315“: mun cart! '00. room Icon 100.. z. N 202.4033. awn anti; 7)? h toow 1+3 00 I02. T++|O 0' ON . 11". 00 33...? «(3 a??? 19:. 295’ uCDhmzvq‘ 4.0m u;0¢.:(>( :33 cum 2.. 295123.. a! :35: (IBLVWONDDDV '\ ~ HLMOU (‘H'H NI ) Ah ‘ j ‘ .' .. If .3 1 ‘ - V‘ ‘r' .- r- '. .-»'~ . -~ .~ ‘. " ' r" “ v .3 A K ‘ the eiants were irri*aceu when the 8V1llaOic soil moisture was so” than . n when they were irriLated when the soil had hi her mois tuie levels, (table 8). Similar \ie ld 3 were obtained in the lst and 2nd growth periods from elants thzt mere i ri atcd w. 311 there has no or so” avail- able soil moi sture. 1n the 3rd and nth growth periods and for the total 1 3131Q3, Slkhl :“J J .‘o ‘ 1 - o — 3" .f- 1" / ‘~Lr':' _ \ '. - ' f +1. 1 .'\'. r» n . 4 icwncly hlkhul Jlbluo wele ootained when ai-alla Las irri- gated when the available soil moisture was 60 or AUN than when it was 40p. when expre egsei on a r ati 2 total yield oasi:, nilhlia irribated ‘ ‘ _o V a . ‘ - ‘ r " (w 1' _,\ . .\‘ -" .-\I vv‘c V ‘ - - 1 . > 3-1" I.) V ‘ ._ . I 4’ _ ‘i 'V'qfien tile SC'Ll 1110:]:Jt14I (.3 V‘sC.; C’ ', 41v, or .L—U’ 7) J'_L‘C:.1.QC:Q 1—K,"J’ kaJ’ CLIAQ (0‘3”, there was no sL ni; ic nt di;:ereuce oecwesn yields of alialia o“: '1'“ 5-: 3 A ‘ r -.1‘-~ ‘- 1 0 .-~ -- rv..~.v1 . . a" -‘ .' .~ I I- 3- - "“ "v . .' 'v -l\ ’chn Lil. ferent sank.) an ob Oi ‘:«..£ul" A» a: 13.1 .L‘; at 1.0;] .LII L110 .2 lr‘ot gt a) "—1qu “’owon Lerioos, jldldo of ’1 W W HJ (J l—‘J M A (+- (L 3.“- t J 0) Fr, V o M O *1 (‘7' H (I) hi H L, \- \ W {L \a 3‘ b O 4: ( H I plants that recaivei 3 inches of water were significantly higher than those that received 1 inch of water per i ri;etion. The avera-e Wield; obtained in the Lth yeriod for the wiants tkat vere sugplied with 9 inches of rate? per irriiwtion (37.2 drags) were digniLlCflfltlJ hi;he than those Chet vere outained irtm wiants lTTlLath ritn 4 inChes of v I] ' ~ .3- :~,~ ~_ ‘ D .— ’ ‘ 1.. .‘I- 1.- ‘A . r\ r - - .‘ '1 ,- alfalia irrL ated IQ tn , lMCHBS oi Laos: when one aVailaoie /‘(‘h ' l "p ‘\: V‘ .l ‘ 7‘ '3 1"." 2 (t I + Y"-:".'+ ‘5'- + ,\'-—‘ \\ 3" :1 ‘ .— : v2“ 3; '. II" \' ‘ -l w‘f‘ (/ :17 '|.. '3‘“ ii 3 v l Jab. is— Lak‘ 3; \‘D-U w'l‘) U- . 'Cx V..;‘/$1U \J /) .L vC{./_‘. ~1‘.& kl UQ ~J' --—— (- * ~~"?- iIlCIlu/LJ C) ,4 {d ( I 0 W o '3 :j‘ t L—l @ H ‘1) ( 1* -A d a (J- (_| (‘1‘ ‘\ I“, w L's were lac, 5i, 03, and g7, ier glants 'I ’2'. ated wit n 3 i1cfi1 o mater when the availaolc soil moisture was ; U I\ d :A d“ .M‘ ii 5: ‘ , ‘ a .,.g,fl‘ o x; ...- -x . V, 4b, LU or b”, “C: ECU;VQL:. A COLLaquUn Ol one Lfcr&he LUtdl pro iuction witL the total inche; of Mater a55iied, (taole 7), cHQUS ‘ ... J- 1‘ _.-‘ fl 9 i : _.-‘ ‘r‘ r v . A rfi r i, ',I.- -' r~ . ,- -. e. ‘1 a‘ ,r.‘ ; tfldu tug C31r3L6ULUn weoweeb anIC. “It: Ol hater dfifiLleQ &nh “UPUE LS Table 6. ' house at 10 moisture 1ev #5 Avera e yields in grams for ’a Lroen in the green- )3 Of jbCIQS. Available soil moisture Inches of water per 1TF1;HthH when irrigated, fl 1 2 3 ave. First harvest, 3,ril 1w 0 13.7 20 20.0 24.3 23.0 22.A A0 25.7 25.3 23.7 2b.o 60 25.3 25.7 26.7 2o.6 Average 23.7 25.1 2o.8 Second harvest, hag 2t 0 12.0 20 15.0 1$.0 16.7 1C.9 A0 22.0 19.7 22.0 21.2 60 21.0 15.7 20.3 22.3 Average 19.3 19.5 2 .7 Third harvest, June 23 0 L.7 20 20.7 24.7 2A.? 23.4 L0 ea.) 22.7 30.3 27.0 60 29.3 42.0 #3.? ‘4.0 AveraLe 2o.1 25.1 32.? Fourth harvest, Autust 2 0 1h.0 20 19.7 23.7 27.7 2;.h LO 23.7 29.3 37.0 31.7 o0 35.3 34.3 A7.0 38.9 Average 27.9 30.6 3r.2 0 20 96.7 99.0 103.7 101.5 Total 5h.h 92.1 118.0 E." '7 14/) 0 1 1.1.3.6) aetween treat— ment ave. I'iaXihilUH ft 0 E . 5-) n n 4 .5 H n 9 r I I l 1 Finimum E.E. 5 1 between rate and x .‘ 1“ 1 31 , (1) mOistuie eve ave. Paxinum h.E. St n n 13 1:1I111fi a it.:fi. 5f3 II I! l f 2“) I .1?- \.O b k.) lst NH-I—‘h‘ 2nd 1 A“ (V {U CDUQFJ .o Ath \ 0 I\." k.) {\3 O O O O CDA>A)U: (l)Percenta;e available soil moisture when irrigated. Range of eguality values for various harvests 3rd Iotal Table 7. distribution of roots in dirferent zones. Avera e weights in grams per pot of alfalfa roots and averate Average available Inches of vater agplied and root degtu in inches soil mois- ture when irrigated, 1 2 3 Ave. 1 2 3 Ave. 0 to 8 8 to lo 0 20.6 6.9 20 32.9 2.1.; 35.8 36.7 5.5 8.5 9.8 7.9 40 38.3 31.9 40.3 36.8 8.7 3.9 0.8 5.8 60 36.0 32.9 37.6 33.5 7.9 7.1 10.5 8.5 Average 35.7 35.1. ;7.9 35.40) 7.1. 8.2 9.7 8.3 685(2) 16 to 24 24 to 32 O 3.0 1.4 20 302+ 301 [+014 306 291 1.7 4.0 1.09 40 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.1 2.5 1.6 2.1 2.1 60 3.8 4.6 5.0 4.5 2.2 1.8 2.3 2.1 Average 3.8 3.9 4.5 4.0 2.3 1.7 2.1 2.0 85 4% 32 to 40 40 to 48 0 1.0 .7 20 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.2 1.) 1.3 40 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.7 1.2 1.2 1.4 60 1.3 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.4 Average 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.3 2:50 2}?» (1)The over—all average of treatments for each root depth do not in- clude the treatment irrigated with 3 inches of mater when the available soil moisture was op. (Z)Average percentage of total roots present in different 8—inch layers. 47 Table 8. Effect of frequency and rate of irrigation on average 'waoer of plants per pot and average weiLht of each root. :. C3 I L: ..- _ ‘ ‘ ,_ “V“?dbefl hummer of plants Grams per raot (1) availaoie soil mois- ture when Inches of water per irrigation irrigated, % 1 2 3 Ave. 1 2 3 Ave. 0 89 0.29 20 91 93 85 90 0.37 3.45 0.42 0.41 A0 31 7f) 33 x 0 0.21.0 004,4 o‘io-C‘ \JoAé 60 x6 73 74 70 0.47 0.42 0.51 0.47 Average 83 32 81 0.44 0.43 0.47 Plants oer pot meet weight Fax. 3. E. values between: 55 1« 5» 1, Treatments 9.2 12.7 0.10 0.14 Levels (2) 4.9 6.7 ns kin. 3.3. values (3) bet/ween: Treatments 8.0 11.0 0.09 Levels .4.7 6.4 ns 1) Crown and 8 inches of ap roots. 2) Percentage availacle soil moisture when irriiated. 3) Comnarison of the 10 maisture treatments. k A ( ( ( pro‘uction Jas not sibnificant. Over the 4 growth :sex iods, when alial a was irrigated when the available soil moisture was 20, 40, or 605, the grams of tOp growth produced per inch of applied water were fairly sim— .7. tie (f- ilar--l. 95, 2. 08 , or 1. 93 grams, resgz wot; vely. "i‘zis su; eats the p water requirement for tOp growth LPOCUCElOD was similar regardless OI the soil moisture content when irri . tion be an. RJOt distribution for the various de Ht 5, (taole 9), was not affected by the variation in frequency and rate of irrigation. Sixty- eight percent of the roots were in the upper 3 inches of soil; 54. were in the upper 16 inches of soil. The remaining 16w of the roots were between the depths of 16 and 43 incnes; only 45 were in the depth between 32 and 4% inches Plant nrumoers were not influenced by the anornt of water agplied per irri;ation, (table 10). The number of plants decreased and root its increased significa Ltly, hOLever, as iiriéation fre uency was in— creased. It is significant that alfalfa did not die when gioin in soil depleted tc' the :01 nt where nract cally no soil moisture (0 to 3 ) was available in the ugper 3 feet, (figure 6). In fact, under this severe moisture deficiency, there were more plants, although sualler, than when the available soil moisture was eiéher 20, 40, or 60p when plants were irri;ated. Discussion When noistLre wis islt at lOu ensions throu;hout the root zone, water was as: oroed nzost r1 idly Iron the 0— to 6-inch layer. As the available soil moisture in this layer was reduced to 2:5, the zone of 3 s l , .V . ‘ ,.‘ »' « ' ‘. ‘ F‘uL I .->- r‘v’x‘ ' “I . ‘ ,'~ .. 1‘. ‘1‘ 1’ H" " .""'j' ‘ {-3 l'., 1‘ 110313 I'fiégld aDpOI‘ptlQn SILJ. 09.11130 gPCT'Lijf page“; WJBTC I1.U.LQ 01.1.1 ; Mu”: .l‘~- more aoundant. inese iindin; are in agreement vitn the results of the -: R - r! 'l i ‘ - 7 "/- V" " I "J" 1“ I \ 1‘ v I', ': ‘1 ‘: 1:" (‘ v x V _ y‘- —r~ field study (kart 1), E3534 and Peterson (1;), and willics 1nd LLlCmQOn V The moisture deflation curves during the first growth period " Y for treatments 0-3, Zd-l, 23—2, and 89-} s.owed that moisture was de— pleted at a mucn slower rate vheh the available soil moisture was below 25$ than when it was above this level. This reduced rate of water absorption was evident in the rowth measurements that were aide during this neriod, (fi ure 3). Plants irrigated when the available soil mois- ture was either 40 or 005 were taller and were Lore productive than those V plants that were irrigated when the available soil moisture ma 0 or ( 1') Even though grertn of alfalfa did occur at a somewhat reduced ited with l, 2, or 3 inches of water when the o . rate when Clint" were irri available soil moisture was 405, the plants did not exhibit signs of (11 being under moisture strass. ihe only plants which showed signs of mois- ture stress were in the treatment irrigated with 3 inches of water when the available soil moisture was 05; the first moisture stress was evi- dent when the entire A-foot profile was reduced to an averabe of 155 available moisture. The visual signs of moisture stress were accompa- nied by an almost complete cessation in the rate of stem elonCation. As illustrated in figure 6, water was absorbed readil, from the upper 12-inch zone that was replenished with moisture each time 3 inches of water were atelied to this treatment. Absorption of water was main- tained at a high rate at moisture levels aoove lb“. salow be, the J. lepe of the moisture ”epletion curves suggested that water absorption 50 occurred at a reduced rate. The accumulated growth measurenents and tne yield data for each growth period revealed that alfalfa was taller and produced hiwher yields when irrigated when the soil was at the to or 40% available mois— ture level than when irrigated at lower moisture levels. for the aver- age of all rates of irri¢ation (l, 2, and 3 inches , the amounts of top growth produced per inch of water agplied were fairly sinilar (1.95 to 2.08 grams), however, reL rdless of whether irriuatlon oe_an when the available soil moisture was 23, so, or no“. When availaole soil mois- ture was present throughout the soil column, differences in the rate of stem elongation and in dr; matter production were small. As the avail- able moisture in the soil became restricted to the area that was replen- ished with water oy irrihatlon, greater differences were Obtained. with time, the variation in irrigation created a situation in which plant growth was limited not only by the supply of available soil moisture, but it was also retarded by the volume of soil (replenished to field capacity at each irrigation) in contact with the plant's root sgstah. I o o s n ‘. ‘ V. . m N -" ' — f: ’r. f: ~.. r. . ‘ - ‘~' a - . “ I V l 1 It .LS Lil‘tll SCI. 11" till: VI wt? :11 alll'v. ." l' :lki (ell-tr; TJIA 1U (.1311. 1'11er Elle " apollcation 0‘ kite? until 305 of the available soil moisture to a .1 depth of 13 inches was depleted would result in reduced yields. This \ 9 supports the contention that 'rrig;tlon water Should oe anlied to alfalfa whenever the available moisture in the soil droLs to 353 (hO) in order that a field could be completely 'rri;ited before rate of growth was decreased. Plants irrigated each time the available soll nListur (D -r 93 U) ”'5 (it I duced to AOL were less productive than when supplied with water when 00; 51 of the soil moisture was available. A comparison of the yields for the tth growth period, table 5), for treatments 40-3, oo-i, eo—z, and oO-3 su;gests that the foregoing inference is not valid. Jinilar yields were obtained for treatments LQ-S, bQ—l, and 69-2 and significantly higher yields were recorded for treatment 53-3. This information, together with the results which shoked that the average yields for those slants J. that were supplied with 3 inches of water per irritation were si;nifi- h-J cantly hi her than those that received 1 or 2 inches of water per irri- C gation, su;;ests that the degth to vnich the soil is wetted per irriga— tion has a marked influence on plant performance. A study by burton et al. (5) indicated that when an appreciable quantity of the sail had become dry under the sod of several southern grasses, production was reduced even though part of their root systems was in soil that was near field capacity in moisture content. Shockley's experiments (30) indicated that when the available soil moisture in a significant portion of the root zone profile was exhausted (approxiaately 25p), pasture plants were unable to naintain rapid growth during periods of maximum transpiration. In this greenhouse study as in many irrigation studies, the treatments which were supplied vith water at available soil moisture levels of AD, 20, and 0; were penalized because the rates of either l, 2, or 3 inches of water were constant for each moisture level. This procedure created a situation in which the volume of soil replenished to field capacity at each irrigation varied. In general, the plants in those treatments that received either 1, 2, or 3 inches of hater each time the available soil moisture was reduced to be; had a vreater SJil \. ' 'r‘y'Tv‘E'?‘ w-.. v 2' L'.’ E. “Stain—L. ' ‘- ' ficWWIa-fm' _. --- . .—r1.—‘ - ,3 ‘ .r m ..."... mm _,-,u__ u. my”. .9 - - ~ 3-1“ aw_::.-~g-‘- ~ . 52 fi‘” ‘ VA. " - '. ' - \qV v- '~v“‘\ I. r741: < r ‘1 . .71. r (v,.‘—<- . VOLJLLe l 1.0. . V’:1_'..Lli t‘flz aUQDrD .il‘DLD LIKA e t'l 3&1 'JL‘J. UA.\J e i‘J-’_:«[l‘ux) 14115. La 1vIeII‘e Ul irrigated at lower 0:11 moisture levees. The data indicate that in studies deei;ned to evaluate the availabilitg oi wate t1 glents, an eizual volume of sail a: ould be 18: st31ed to field capacitJ at each irri- 39 t.L on ior each treat ent. This Mould neen tn; agplic;tion of larger euentities of he er par irrL at Jon to tHOSG treetme nts that were desig— nated to receive water at lower levels of soil moisture. Loreo ver, the water Cu“ ’101 per irri_.t ions heuld 0e sufiicier t t3 restore the soil moisture to 11.11 cegacity t:1r2u_h3ut the plant's root zone. Sugmary A greenhous stud; has conducted between Decemuer 11, 1’50, and Au ust 2, L W, und;r closely-controlled env1xon1~nt11 coneitiuns to detaxmine the (1) effect of available soil moisture on the Crouth, yield, and persiutence of Vernal alfalfa, (1) msisture extraction gettern of alfalfa, and (2) 1cot distrLeution of elfelLe ;rohn at Verjin; moisture levels. Bougoucoe “wiutuxe bloci u I 1 g 1 ,-\ . ~ .. - 7 , u I I- V‘ ’ I' 1"“ " r- L" ‘r ‘ ' ‘ “ \‘ or ' ‘ - "~ ' "1'0 "r ’~ 1 ‘ 1‘ ,"‘ ‘ x " V Y ' ' ‘ ‘ I J 112'“ 4A. tile dthlxlyLLe .‘1U1bvbie 111 LIL-3 LU 1‘" 1!. J- ‘1 .1.1.‘.L/Lief3 VJ. vv.‘--L I Clb ()w“') £1.11 ‘ - .- ' ,- .-. ‘ _ . . ..-,_1 .3 .L -. 1: " 1 ‘ , ‘ y ‘ 1 1 -’ .' \ ,1 '. ' _ the 11111...; mere devuLLHbCk t) a Lu111r1 moi ”u oi 4 lLLJUp. n1- Jimhts . (1 1" l: . 1- .1 r‘ 1- 1 .' ,1 g. . , 1 V ,3: ’1’ , .. .. x J ,‘ ,3, ,1 - :- , V _' . “i 7‘11- were he; J .I ct: J .1 _) 91.1.; ... 1-..: {191. .1; - u u 1.. 21.». x-.'_ 'Jicli 01 1+ 8. L4 .V:...1. 1119 £.y‘OI'—CV] ”.11"! fl)\,’k\ (Di ;/ d‘yj e:1cn. fl ‘ - 1 ‘ o \ ... ~. — . n. - - ~ 7“ . ,- . . 3 ,. . L" l‘ a 111; Yes..‘ Us 01 uni; emu—3T1 311‘; 11'6 3111.1-1—111‘1ZeC1 as 11.} Ll-V~c;: - ‘ .- 1. A -‘,_ .1 '_ f, -1- “ 1._. 1 Wt, 1. ‘. ' 1 '. : . -. 1. i'.lfi?- L:.u'_l-., v\« C ":51 iAI--J—-‘\‘L .4 V J—erL" VT.---~J_'_‘v’rls will‘vz\i‘_ 11‘) \(‘U 'vltut p~3ot zone, it was aosoroeo LOSt ra,1mlg 1.11 one o- to o-ixcn 1a er. n1th U ' . ‘ - I ‘ ' r'« ' '1 V- " :4 ‘ . ‘7 "\ "‘f' >\ ' ‘. "H‘ I’ " 'I , ' 1' ‘ -1 - " “ ‘4'y: ', +‘, “I ‘,v I; - 3“ time, 13119. 23118 01 11.3.31; I J.,l‘.. 0.1);31'" LL11? W21.) 3:111 LQCL ea 9- 8* o..rl '. r: ,_ the where T"13L1fie was more abundxnt; however, tnei the u. er o~ihCn layer . was replenisnei uith Quietnre, absorption was a ain most Tfifii in this layeru 2. At available soil moisture levels uTJOV 25 to BOfi, moisture renoval w s slug;ish in the upper o—inch layer. Above these percentages, moisture extraction was Tthdo 3. Xater was aosoroeo reecily iron the soil area tnst has replenished with mater 1-'n~:2.r_a algalia vas yTQVl;8 11th 3 inches 01 1 water each time the avera:e availaole soil acisture in the upger 18 inches was reduced to zero. Aosorpt101 was maintaired at a ni:n rate at availanle moisture levels auove lip- » . 1*. 5. .~--- v r4- ‘. .- m v.1 .\ 3 - - -..- -'~ r- r ~' . — I ~ U . . ‘ 1+. During, e Ln ;I‘~D «- Lu. ,1‘51 1 16., C116; 1.:1 LL; 0 ._ etc-’11.. SLOHV- L101: occu-red it a reduced rate when ylsnts here irri_ated Lien 3 inches of water when the availaole soil Moisture was Op than vaen irriketed wltn l, a, or 5 incnes 0; meter the” tne avaiiauie maisture u:s so”. Plan;s ’-. r” ..— " ,.,.,J 1 1 V _ 1. 1 J. dlaqlay 31 We 01 be1n~ unuer L1 sture so 3-5. 11e onld 1:71-; . ~u o '- v , r-., _ « J" i-o ,” .H , ‘,¢ , :._ ,i .V._‘ ;, J .1...CI.‘3.. O; v‘udtr'i’l’ citiC.» '._1.'.‘.r.’ 7...; .-. 476‘}; 9-4.1 ...tzletug'z‘ ‘ 93 Ann, HS ll! . no 1:} Jr,“ ;.<- ..(. r -, V,-\ q: .4 -. an ,,,. ...,QJ . ‘., ' .. q; ‘2‘ t. [a N1 . L3 i.-.,I‘ . -L:1L,.'.t_/.; v a.) [451.-. . i;.q.:: uoptr I Vkl 5.1-;12 gnu effiil-idlo ..Ji m« ".L I‘ .' ‘ ~ - is s l' ‘l ‘ \ A ’ 1. L ‘ b .‘1 E ‘ I“ I. " ' I‘ «'2’.- ~ I "I .1 M ' .“l' glare in‘rfifiln‘. H \‘J‘u ...rld Q—lZ‘CL v.33}; L .U Q :Ct Lair.“ xPEI-3 IL‘JL-Ce‘:fiz to .L;.,. hp .'_ -... H‘ “....J— +.‘ . ' LL." this E ‘1 ~ xit~tw . «,~~ ~ ,:~. * ~ . . . . .~ - t . nx‘ /. V..Aeli 1,.LJ..L_.'LJLA} e h‘x'LC aJd.J..u<'1.;.;U LJ.:.r JLfi Il'fiuu g! '5? {-I.-.L‘u_t ‘II )_LJ__L.e’ Lrewtn rates were sinilar ior fldflei lrrlkéled VLCH tne anllabLe s .....‘fiv; .. .P . ,.‘ w: ,1 ,... é v a . "1-1‘ ' I—' lechI6 Vda 3.. er e' 31 uoN. H.8L tn: avaiiaole leotufe in tne soil was defletec gnc tre wlen,3 were eageroent uyon tne meistu'e t“ 'I\ ~ '\~~ ‘ > I --. ~/ 1." 4 . - ‘V f . -‘ V\ 1' (‘\ I‘ J- A ‘ ‘ 3‘ . ‘I n . ‘ » " ' ‘ “. ‘ qu bu .iied ud irri .tion, llguba tere taller Vheu i:1i_ateu “Len ‘ ' ‘ "":ln}\l ." \J l rm,“ ' ’74.. .‘3 x.“ f. 5-11“ ,ng gm -1. 1' fl '_' a JOLJ. GA} 8 ~)~ .1. {A‘AJl-JvLLI v I\J-S -"-"v VAA\&. '-Albl‘ 1U [(10 ‘yw'l‘u. / . -\ ., N f, _. ~ I . -‘ fl . . I -. — V ’ o a ‘ -. ,. _h o. Miliita irri_eteo «we. tne availaote soil nUldbufe Isa 43, or 290 produced average «ields 01 let, 5:, ago imp, re;.ectivel r“ C r_ l C U: L! IL_.'. H F- - T1 A . .. ,- .' v .~ ' ‘3 - - ' . .- V >]' h I‘" , nvrr ': .1 amen ) ncnes Oi water ve.e apolieo arenever tne exalt ture was 00, a“, 2), and Up, the relative averaye total 3ielde here Jil sue- HE; Que 7. The anonnt of BOP grovtn uroduced yer inch of water agilied L a. for the avera;e of as liCations of l, 2, or 3 inches was similar (1 k g, .95 to 2.03 gre.s) re;aroless of unetner irri atiin eeg'n tnen the avail- able sail mo'szure was 20, 43, or o03. 8. Yielu differences between rates 0* hater ageiiCation we not si4rificant in the first narvest. For tne 2nd, 3rd, and Lth 3‘ m *1 < m U) C+ \o 9? U- m ”V g gated vith 3 inches of water tnan Mnen irri ated wjth 1 inch of rat In the fourth harvest, yie as oi gliélfe increased as tun anount of water per irriiation increased from 1 Lo 2 to inches. 9. flzot distrioutien was not affecteo oy the various irri- éatfon treatments. re lds were diLnlfiCRUtl" hi her then the plants were irri— er. . . - d . ‘ - ¥ .- . r‘ , ‘ r, 1 V .~ I _‘ ‘ . .J .L (l-.— .o. I” »J \I. \f.‘ J 4 _, o ' “ I” ’1‘ l r- -: 7 Wwe 40 or uw avdL¢ matter 8.1),)-‘3; the gvallasle ggli mals J "1 Dub fir)... 3-..E_~L_L-L8I' Ggil unisture th 1&3 AU OF PQQLS tnen 1 .' .~,u ASVBL thud 1" v. [.41. iv "Y 1 J ri— ea PAiT Ill YIELD OF inCLLGAASS, ALFALFA ALB LADILC CLoVAi “T TWO MCIJTULE LEVELJ ALB 51A EEnTILlfI LfianJ Field studies were conducted durinQ laid and 1957 to determine the production, protein percentage, and persistence of Lincoln brome- grass grown at 6 nitro9en levels and 2 moisture levels, and the yield and persistence of Vernal alfalfa and Ladino clover grown at o phos- phorous and potassium levels and 2 moisture levels. haterials and Methods The experiment was located on the Kicnigan State trivcrsity Farms near East Lansin¢, Richi;an, on two soil types-—-a Gonover silt loam soil which is fairly heavy, imperfectly drained, and generally hi;h in inherent fertility and a Seward fine sandy loan which is a light soil with good drainaQe and with medium to low inherent fertility. In the spring of 1955, both soils were plowed and lined. Five tons of dolomitic limestone were applied per acre to the éeward soil which had a pH 5.A and one ton per acre was agpiied to the Conover soil which had a pH 6.2. hith the exception of the non-fertilized check plots, AGO pounds per acre of an 0-20-20 fertilizer were drilled into the soil. Seedings were made on May 9, 1955, at the following rates in pounds per acre: Vernal alfalfa - 12, Lincoln broneprass — lo, and certified Ladino clover - 3. The fertilizer. three times Conover soil location would have to we nutgrass population. '1._ species were band seeded at ri ht (1; C l. I /'/, V. A. the summe of l the slots were clipped closely Durin; to control weeds. In June, 'ecame evident that the uurer fallowed to reduce the U) J area was res-eded on July 28, 1955. ( Analysis of soil samples obtained on Agril a, 1956, the year L) for pH and res rve phoephorvus and fotassium as meas- after seedin ured by the Sturway Ssil tvte Conover silt Seward fine Plot ing amounts Treatment 1 \Q 5 According to soil test Conover P205 Ixzo P205 7r \ r Ab ‘4 quick test ave the folloVin lesults: Pounds per acre _;:l PhoSQLQrous Potassium loan 6.9 75 120 sandy loan 75 5 containing al’alfa and Ladino clover received the follow- v, Ago: -4 each in pounds per acre of £205 an Time of application l950 ly Sprf ng 51’I'int. O 1955 Spring 0 7 QquJXLer \J 1 Summer fetal 0 O A U 9O 10 10 o O 190 80 L0 30 30 3Q Adv 8 L} :i O 8 0 (ii) :3 i) All!" RD 130 180 133 130 530 so 50 so a; o 473 so its so 00 90 410 so ,0 up 35 3“ '3 so 1;o 120 105 so :45 \h 0; Soil saicles were tanen eacn sprin and after the first harvest each yeir from he plots Cntb were fertilized a.cordin: to Sail test. The am unts of reserve phosphorous anu potassium ,er acre was deter ined oy the 5_urwag test and fertilizer was a;plied in ac- cordance with recommendations made by the soil testing laeoratcry at Nicnigan State University. Bromegrass, in addition to receiving the initial goo-pound application of an 0—20-20 fertiliser per acre, was top—dressed annually with 900 pounds per acre of this fertilizer. One-half was applied early each spring and the renainder Was applied after the first harvest. V The bromegrass was fertilized annually with ammonium nitrate to sutply - 1"- A 1W 1 'F.‘ I: - ‘.-~ 3 I ”7“ 9‘ A s d ‘1 ‘ ' V' ./ , * . u. v‘ ‘ - 1‘ ' ’fll ' " 3’“ ' - . ‘ z‘ , So, loo, (oo, ,co, OI eou pounds oi nitrogen yer acre. -ne leiciliser (D 'l .'\ s agrlied in ejual increnents each string and alter the first and 2 {J second harvests. The moisture veriaoles were (1) natural rainfall and (~) natural rainfall plus the aidltion of from 2 to 2 1/2 incnes of water wnen the a ' '1 availaoie 'l moisture in the top is inches was reduced to 50p. (D Q ) F" Bouyoucos moisture blocxs placed at depths of C, is, and 18 incnes and read with a jougouccs moisture reter were used to determine the moisture status of the soil. These blocks were placed in each alfalfi {lot that was fertilized with 290 pounds each of FgO5 and n2“ durin; the )-gear A split—plot desi;n with 3 replications was used. The moisture treataents whicn occurred at random occupied the whole plots thich were 1 a (K. ‘ ‘v. r n , -_ 71-. V" ‘ r u ’ ’ > J. l‘ V_ “ - V'Ic f ,. ’: -1 'I .- r‘. ~— .7 : ‘ ¥~ ‘. ‘ l ‘ 1+3 D“; [4 lest. ...‘Zeiae Irrilll LIQUO Mere UlefllB'J .lJLQ SUkJ“I-‘J~\3Lq int-trig" '1 .- w“ 'w— 4e“ " , ~\ '. g '.":‘.' the t;nmee s-ecies. line e Merc alwfdfi ey- 'r n ‘s -' A ' ,— v - f.) ' r) ' ‘.L GaCH ok,CldS -lot, ciA o a 44 fee. . w 4 W . V L. c .C‘ ‘ Varyin anmuncs oi ierciiizer. On tne Ccnvver sol f seoirsted the irritated and non—irrig alleyways were used between the main plots on the minimize the influence of the drainage tile in plots were la'ed out in sucn a has over a tile line. A Spri maler was each aller 0 two vere placed in u , long axis of the plot. water per hour. Since calm ity in water distribution, in the evenini. The procedure; used tL I. in Part. In 19:62, the saroles were analyzed for total procedure. mahner that as described in rart I were Six smrinhlers MBTE used :or placed in the alleyway ugosite This sprinnl COKJlthHS were the luUJtS 1 , h .—' .-, 5 _ __ Geodrmlue lOIcyd C‘T‘l' Viiildly’r Thiil. Protein content was deter ined oy Lulti ( PV‘ .2 that were treated hl' r :r'. ‘u ‘, .4-\J Us.) ’1, lo— oot Kentucky hiue;rass alleyways ,ated main plots, whereas 20-foot \ -- ,. 1 .. . .‘ 1 4'1 Jb‘t’idl‘Q ini. 3.0 the Conover area, the the center oi each alleyway water to 72 foot eacn correr and each other ET arran;’ necessary to ootain uniform- ’ 1 were irvi ated early in the Lorning L. :roduction were described 1" ’ t ' 1‘?» v j I '\ L1H: Vt3.f...i,(.>u.3 diff/Ca ()1. ., -L- .: ‘ vT‘C)53_iLJ_LC)Ilf3 L\ A err: ~ ’- ‘. 1 ‘ ~. I wv- 1 t . ~ ' r . s 1». a (nil in ij/1 o; imuul :e (retgnw the . .‘! .. ,3 " A“: z. i v. '1 LAKL‘L J LJle [y‘J K; vi (lwe J ‘ {l‘ .1134 (1;; moisture). for each cronegraes ylm; more After Using chund, nitroien oy the macro-Ageldahl the total r l». -.t . ,1) ‘J-Lll' L w u. O -_ . .- V _ .;‘ . ' I I: ' _: nitrulen a. the i=ctar c.4;. U: m fi-p- ,, . _ ‘ .-,‘ 7L1 ,‘, .-. algrlilcahce nezkusn tr itbb has Hefsn c; JMuLmL' ,. .‘ ,fi .3 \ ..y. m «5-,, _ 5" t; as cescxlued in Lart l. m mult jple 11r e te ¥ Aainfall and Irri" Htltn The t ited States heather surest whicu prO'ided the rainfall data in table 1 and in figures 2 and 3 (Part I) Was located acout 1/2 mile and 11/2 miles from the Conover and Seward soil locations, resyec- tively. In 1935, the irri;ated ”lots on the Usnaver 5011 received 1, 2, and 2 inches of water on June 1;, Jul; 0, July 19, res cccivelg - a total f 5 inches. The plots on the Seward soil Vere irrisated with 2 inches 0 h f.“ O k—q O’\ H * v '4 0 LB U) o F :3 H ‘ E ‘ _ 'Q of water on June 21, July 7, July 20 - a tot 2 I no precifitation occurred between July 43 and anwcst 23, and the irri- gated areas on both soil types were irritated with 2 1/2 inches of Vvater. 1 ‘\ W I \ . ‘ '\ "N ' “\L - ,‘. - .‘L / 1* A r. 3 . . ‘ ‘ '. ... L \ ~)’ :- rxom April 1 Lv sentencer 1, 18/0 thc irrikated glass 0n the - I .79 inches, I Conover and Beward sails received 3 tot “ 01 25.79 and 20 resgectively, of water as a result of natcr l precigitacion and irri— gation which exceec ed the 47—year average precigitation by 10.;9 and 11.29 inches for the two soil tfines, recyectivelg. The arourt of w:at resulting from precipitation and irrikation on irrigated plats on 00th 7 exceeded the LV—year avera e 0y 8.17 inches. G \h soil types in 19’ Between April 1 and Septegcer l, the ion—irrigated plots on both seil tjges received 23.:9 and 21.17 inches of water in 1936 and 1957, res ectivels. These :cantLt ies of water exceeded the 47-year 19/0 35d 5-57 inches in 1957. \v H. :3 O- 5 (J) p S averaie (15.53 inches) by 5.2‘ .r‘ _ N ' V, . -'. V; ' l ‘ .9, A. alrerinehcal lesults Irriiation mid not significantly influence the average annual ..-' a J» A“, .. \ ...,m 1, 4 ' i’ ... '- " fic‘r v. M .v. ,, ‘ -~ 0.. ' r .- chlho, calls: 9 and 10, in 1;:0 and 193/ hash annual rainlall aVer~ - ’\ . v‘ ' (1 1 . ,A ' »~ ~~ ‘(-. h‘ L- ‘-‘ 7— «s w -. f. x. r. ~ <. ‘ ~ '- . w . j ‘ ,fi aged 5.40 ihcnes aoov: nor al. On the conuvei soil, annual yields of 3.86 and b.33 tons of weed free material of 1;; moisture here ter acre from the non-irrigated and irri‘ated plots in 1996. In 1937, averaLe annual acre yields of 2.36 and 2.1? tons were ob- tained from the non-irriyated and irritated areas, respectively. for this year, the irrigated bromegrass on this soil was not as productive as the non-irrigated bromegrass. The differential in growth that was evident between the irri;ated and non—irrigated brometrass for the first groath period of 1957 is shown in fiéure 9. Yields of 2.35 and 2.57 tons per acre were obtained from the non-irrigated and irrigated brome;rass on the Seward soil in l95c, respectivelf, and in l957 U ields of 3.16 and 3.26 tons per acre were obtained from the non-irri— :4 gated and irrigated areas, resnectively. Second harvest production fron the irriLIted bromeg‘ass plots was significantly higher than the average yields from the non—irri- gated plots for this harvest in l956, tables 9 and 10. The data in these tables Show that the non—irri;ated filots on the Conover and Seward soils produced average acre yields of 0.49 and 0.30 tons, while the irriLated bromegrass plots on the Conover and Seward soils yielded 0.97 and 0.8h tons, respectively. In 1957, the non-irritated bromcgrass plots on the Seward soil produced an average yield of 0.2a tons per acre in the third harvest . ‘0 »)o \ \' :1 . 1 u; .1; N\. J»... .. . 3%. {\o )x. . - .. r . .\.~ T5,. xl\o ..- a on... «uni. 05.0); r ( . .. _ . .(H . _ l v. .-..CH... . \4\ .\4. ..1 ..U r._ .n: . 62 WA“. «do ...]... ...)Mo \. ....) \ .L , A c. ,s. «a. ix. Hp. al. a.. Na. .m.a :.:.:.:4. WC”. m)\ 0 W))\ o .74.... \.\ o ..., o N \o 4 o . ‘\ .\ .' .. _ -.. .. . .. . .. ., .. myfi L N N m) 0 Ali 0 5,241. o 4. odd al.]: «J.\ o ‘J o .1 . , he s. 5. .- f L . ml ed on. um. 0o. 4%. ov. ix. :0. \v. is. . . .r ::. : 02mah>n bds.|¢ _. ix, ..23ww l- . o: N. m c .m .e.w.efi, ),.. o ccxa usmc>uwz Gama anamo>hmz m®.dh0>fl CmiTyaflS 3 QmGJQWO $051.2 Ugfidefim wW.MJ§Ni ; AJWIO w\ “.3“... mfiw o wau. o \ “V0. Wu ~.w\.o. \ _ 0 .)Jr. )\ .. I \.o No. J4 r. r f ¢D.\ oi. 3N. 1r.u l. .0 Le c. g «a 0 he 0s. am.“ mists»: M- . l\ .c n. w We 4 ad. OH.H bd.v oo.fl Nd. nu. \<.V ) . O.) o \. OJ. +w . 0+4 .0. 33. \ ..(N o o . k \\\ . L .IC 0 ( OFJ . <_ r _, .. so a as N so.“ as. an. al.. . O\.\ fl\o D\. 4... x.\ I ., , ; .T L .k 00 ..J ...u (3 «h N NO .0 Md. $7.4. 3W..V 4.7.4 am. Ne. w. o). O .\ 3+4. 9). . . x r - r. k r.. a. r. wt .0 DON xH d at (x 03 w NO M 3W. m,. m®.H Q\.\ SK. TR. . ®\.V 0V. 1. ix. 1\. -r r\ , ,o c as dd 0H N OWH u t s: O. o3 H on N JN. V4. oo.H DO.u H\. J\. N4.v fit ‘0) \ K \ x \ (L. -. _v\ {1.1 t v \ O 0 x. 0 V\ O 1.‘\on O \ C L r /\ VL A -. u x . . . . . I .. a o; (c H a. m; NH H“. so.“ aw.m am. an. o».a o .-..flhmxwaw .Hmmw. IV \ , C H:.N QM. do. No.a >H.V u. an. HW.H ow.c \1. a. \. ) OH.\ 0V. +4on 370V +4 0 \\.o t. o . . . C C; H.-. Lru H m.r..im.rm.mwkra..w 7 ,.. .L .‘9 m 30 fix. O$.H OH.“ WH. \\. . 2. NW. \ VJ. 3m . x \ . D. . ( f O. OH N CCN . o c 04 H d, N \n. Qx. “At“. OJ.\ . . a . - . +4\O \ \. JWI. 0 . KL . r\ f tn» ..U. MN ..m. H m N N \1A2\ 7d 1 n ma...“ NA. v. Ox. .V )J . \fi . \ . 1 . \ w . - L . .-. a- g ( l r a. as a as 3 am \a. mm.v saw N“ J. U\ .9 . 33.4 \mv..fi mu... .\.\. GMTH nQ.V. m\.. M... \ ( .../ix . . _ v . 1\ r0“ . f .1 z 0:1 .. oe.a «a. Na. av.a \a. \ . 3:. w . ,. L s c. (a . ova \. . ... i a- H to so as sm.m 5H. cs. so.a 3a . i .1... O \J . \ \ I . o- a HH oi ”3 «3.H so. am. as. ua.a .4. 3v. 3H.H 0L \\ \ I .\ i ( alk‘ Nag OH Or.¢ AA. flN. N0.N fim.¢ ea. In. no.u Oz.\ a). x.. _. ) ONoI +43. +1 o \ . \ . CC «-... ( \T as r\ 0.4 mm? W m.~.mpH®>f. avg \ _ ..\J A. 3.4 V 4). 1V 0 q 0 o . OJ.J o1 . \v . r 4 f0 L+N H JD m OHIN N.» . $3. ANSV A13.-. . 2N rad. ow.v \O.J a . \. ,\ - r. x x . c “(I . , I... k . A yd $1 fl. 0V .7, O z\ 0 \ O ..\ 03.14 WU. an). JmoV \vC.+N \\. lc . ..H «..J. t «.O J H-.. um m0.“ 00m \V. 1A .fi.1 .244 3.. w L. c f . L; «N H Tm N DM.4 9n. H0. 06.4 J? .i: 1 . ..u. j. \ Of 0 \JO. “30).. n..\zo+4\ M\o LN). H.0J. \o\ \c o \\ .7. \L hCN 3‘ . \ .. . x. L A.,(. . I.” A1 2 _ .Y . O .\ as. \a .a.: .xs. se.\ as. as. v... Ha.m as. an. ex.“ mt » as ac am.m 09H . .. ., _ I. . .1... u (k .. 4 O _ O \ . Onwd pnm>pd2 onv oq.w we. 1\. vn.v \o.\ da. «w. \c M in a mu om. 05.N Om , . r L x _ z .-. k 0.... 13 ( .4 fl. ( I a. TV. 0 O omswl LH o lc m mm mm os.m o \ (» knflmwzphzw H 7“ +\ C [-4 m N H mo;scv>w awash m N H Hmpoe m N H coepxoflpafl QZoam>HSTm mu:td . made . he; .mc . . .. .rm>< L . .H .. 0 .m .d .I; U u appH ecpmcfiaafilco: .cmuopow: .Hflom Shea paflm pc>ccoo «mam>ca GFHHF 1'.» mp _H O r# “H (Hm. v: _®Lrflv_ _h® .n-Hp n: . m b (vak FHNF rur m'H. Mu _rn\_JHn— C _ 00hH HI- HO GPFOR IHC ' H; V“ _O _L' 0 \ .(H" .a “V m _AU *5 . u n o _L .,. . I I n o r o r L \5’ _ ( r F 63 Hm. mm. HH. NH. Om. OH. OH. OH. Nm. mm. Hw. Om. OH ..O.O.H u.m.m.cHH OH. Hm. OH. OH. HH. OO. Om. mm. mm. ON. mH. Hm. mm ..O.O.H u.H,...H.:..nH Om. OO. OH. Hm. NO. OH. O. OH. Om. I- mm. Hm. OH = = HH. ON. ON. OH. OH. OO. mm. mm. NH. I- OH. mm. wm ..H.O.HHH munpm>w hdmhlm umma .mpmm>pm: wmma .mumo>hm: mwuwhm>m Cauchpflc m cmngmo mmzad> hpflawdcm mo mficmm HO.N Om. Om. OO.H NO.N Om. OO. mO.H mO.m Om. OOH. NO.N ..mhmpH OO.m mm. OO. OO.N mO.H Om. HO.H HO.m mm.m OH. OH. HO.N OOH OO.m mm. NO. NO.N HH.H HH. HO.H OO.~ HH.m ON. OO. Om.w OOm OO.m mm. OO. mm.m OO.m mm. mm. ON.m OO.m Om. OO. HH.N OON HO.~ om. Hm. OO.H OH.N OH. mm. OO.H OO.~ NH. Om. OO.H OOH NO.H NH. Om. mH.H OO.H OH. Om. OO.H mO.H OO. mm. Nm.H Om OO.H OO. om. OO. mm.H OO. mm. OO.H OO.H OO. OH. OO. O mmdpm>< gmowlm H~.m Hm. mm. Om.m Om.m mm. mm. m.m OH.m Hm. Om. Om.m wmmpm>H OO.m mm. OH. OH.m mO.H Om. Hm. mH.m mO.m HH. OH. OH.m OOH Om.H mm. HO. mN.m Hm.H OH. HO. Hm.m HO.H Om. OO. OH.m OOm O~.H OO. OO. HO.N OH.H HO. HO. mm.~ OO.H Hm. HO. mO.m OON OO. mm .m.m.cHz NO.m om. mm. Oo.m OO.m Om. HH. OO.H mH.m mm. OO. HH.~ OOH OO. mm .m.m.x.2 OH.N OH. OH. HO.H OH.N mm. OH. OO.H mH.m OH. NH. OO.H Om OmOH pmo>ams Ohm Hm.H OO. Hm. OH.H HO.H OH. ON. HO.H Hm.H OO. om. OO.H O OmOH OH.m Om. NO. Om.H Om.m ON. HO. Hm.H mm.m Om. OH. mO.H mOdfim>H OO.m NH. OO.H Hm.w mO.H Om. mm.H mH.~ Om.m HH. mm. mm.m OOH Om.m m. HO. OO.H HO.m NH. mm.H OO.H HO.~ mm. mm. OO.N OOm OO.m Hm. NO. HO.H mm.m mm. mH.H OO.H HO.m OH. Hm. HO.H OON mm. «m .H.H .HHE Om.~ on. a . mm.H mH.H HH. OO. HH.H mH.m Om. mm. OO.H OOH mm. mm .m.m .xmz OO.H OO. Om. OO.H OO.H OH. mm. OO.H HH.H NO. ON. HH.H Om OmOH Hmo>hmz ucm HO.H mo. OH. OO. OO. OO. OH. OO. mH.H OO. HH. OO. O OmOH mammgo>w HOHoO m m H Hmpoa m N H proa m N H OHHHEEm soapmmanhfl mpm0>hdm «whom qmmzuon mmsHm> pmm .mnH pnoaw>fiswm omcdm ommum>< UmdeHngH vmpamflhpwtcoz «ammonpfiz agapmflos 03p and mHm>mH :mmogpfic me Amusd mmmpHmEOLD caoocwq no whom hog meow :fi muamfih mmwao>< .Hflom amoa Muzmm mafia chasmm .mHm>wH .OH manme _ u u . v . 7 ‘ . ~ _ - o » ~ ~ . ‘ _ , . A . ~ ~ . . . . . . _ . . . x « — . o v . A _ . ‘ . o - . - . - , . A a .. > . ~ . u - ~ — V » . . n ‘ - - ‘ A- ‘ v . < 1 - u a . \ ‘ ‘ . - u . - a — ‘ - 1 - ~ . v a , . . . ‘ g - ‘ . o _ 0 ~ y - a - o 1 - ~ I - - - - a x \. . < . . ‘ _ ~ r ‘ ‘ > . ‘ - o n ‘ o . - . ~ . . q ‘ , Irrigated Eon-irrigated Figure 9. Growth of Lincoln bromegrass Vhicn has top—dressed annually kith 200 pounds of nitrogen, on a Conover silt loam soil. Photograghed June 2, 1957. , w, . S' "A. V min, " I III... A illl‘ 1! 0'\ \ft vhereas the i; ri 'ited or3msgrass yielded 0.33 tsns oer acre. The s all differ nce oetween th ese tr; yields vas statistically significant. Wit h one exception, the 31 ield of orometrass on both soil tynes increased SiifiifiCaLtly Ior the Z—gear average as the amount of nitr3 ~en applied increased from 0 up t3 230 pounds. Yields, however, did not in— crease as applications 3: nitrogen increased from 233 to 430 pounds on either ssil type. when expressed on a relative yield basis for the 2—vear period, the avera;e yields for 3r3ne;rass fertilized with 433, 300, 2&0 100, 50, or 0 pounds of nitrogen oer acre annually were 133, d62fi on the Conover soil and lOO, 130, 96, 69, Bl, H C H V F. J C,- K») b O\ \3 and 34;, respectively, on the dehard soil. On a per harvest oasis, the seasonal application or :0 pedlds oi nitroien per acre atolied in 3 equal incre ;ents old not produce yi3lds that Her S‘”nlflCcfltl M _ner than the ones that were ootained from the check areas. Yields ior the plots iert ilized tith either 230, 330, or ADO pounds of ritrogen were quite similar for eaCn harvest, unlle the (b r gear ’7‘; yields for the bromeérass treated with LO ponids oi nitrofien were 5 nerallg slower. The irrigation x fertilization interact on haS si niiic no for the yields obtained in the second harvest of ly;t and in tJG fird halvest of l937. On the Conover soil, forage production in the second harvest of 1956 was sinilar for the non—irriQated bromebrass fertilized with either 150, 233, 530 or 400 pounds of nitro;e en. The yields for the bromegrass fertilized at the se rates (with the exception of the areas fertilized with 203 or 300 pounds of nit r3 en per year w icn were gtite sirilar), differed —i&riiic itly. The aver be acre yield ior the Oi L J non-irrigated cromeura s fertilized with 133, Lee, loo, or too pounds of nitrogen per sea331 was t.o0 ton thereas the azeraie production oo- *1 tained in the second harvest of 1956 for the irri ated dronehrass fertilized at these rates has 1.23 tons. The increase of o.s3 was attributable to irri ation. A sinilar yield trend was evident for the bromegrass plots on the Seward soil. The second harvest yield of 1956 for the non~irri— Lated bromefrass fertilized with either 1&0, Lad, 303, or 400 pounds of nitrogen was 0.49 tons per acre. For the irrigated brOmeLrass ferti- lized at these rates, the avera e yield was 1.15 tons of dry matter oer acre, an increase of 0.36 ton over non-irribated broiegrass. The average seasonal distrihution of yields of Dronegrass for the 2-year period for the non—irrifiated areas on the Seward soil was 73, 17, and 105, and for the irrigated areas it was as, 24, 133 for the first, second and third harvests, respectively. 02 the Conover soil, 7d, 18, and 123 of the average seasonal yields for tr e (x 1 I Q 1 (D p.) *3 ’ .1 (t n O Q. <‘ (D *3 (D ootained in the fires, second and third harvests for the non-irrigated plots and 65, 24, and llg were obtained plots for the respective harvests. As shown in taole ll, an annual anglication of 133 or more pounds of nitroLen per year improved the seasonal distribution of Drone- grass slightly; however, the seasonal production was still largely concentrated in the first cutting. The weed population in the tromegrass plots on the Conover soil was small, figure 10. Eight gercent of the total yields obtained from both the irri ated and non—irri ated areas in 1993 was composed of 6? weedy soccies. In 1357 this percentage remained constant for the non- irrigated plots, while the average Weed content on the irrivated areas rose to 21%. The deviation from this average percentage was Small with respect to the Various nitroben treatments. Table 11. 'Percentage distribution of yields of Lincoln bromegrass. Average of non-irrigated and irrigated plots for the 2-year period. Nitrogen, Soil type lbs. per ,; acre, Seward Conover ,_ A Average annually Harvest l 2 3 1 2 3 4 l 2 a 3 o 76 17 7 82 13 5' 79 15 6 5O 73 19 8 72 ' 18 10 73 18 9 100 71 21 8 65 2A. 3 68 22 10 200 60 25 15 59 26 15 59‘ 26' 15 300 64 25 11 59 28 13 62 2o 12 LOO 65 26 9 '61 27 12 63 26 11 Average 68 22 10 oo 22 12 67 22 ll The weed population in the bromeLrass plots on the 5eward soil was greater than on the Conover soil, figure 10. in 1956 the amount of the total seasonal yields composed of weedy species was 22% for the non- irrigated bromegrass and 32% for the izriLated bromegrass. In 1957, the Weed contents for the non-irri;ated and irrigated oromegrass plots here 22 and 24S, respectively. From 1 to 2 tons of weeds per acre were liarvested on the plots that here fertilized with either 200, 3CD, or 1+00 pounds of nitrogen per acre per year. The response of crabgrass, nu¢0( Kan aggmv ZuOOFEZ IOONI too. I .LGtzoo Sm; II- 500. gallons owh(0_mm_ I... Be. ”-182 ow._.OZOU (3801.6IOW ./0 2|) BELLVW A80 JO 383V 83d SNOJ. t-v I <- ‘wmw: {Fm-I , v' “ - \. 1‘ w . at-.. : .. ,. , 4 -. wt”... i 4- 1. ....' 2 ,..n . ,. tile i»f@‘-.'-‘.’l;lfl:fl.t W831 .;1-',13_‘,C.Lei> 1:1 b;.b.;3 1.1. 1‘ a, to [11511 1.13912 01 111L1'-'1\_€Il in the iresehce of atvle Loisture i- ahead in Si ure ll. 1 -. .. 1‘r+vv . rav+ '“ir1s 1 ~ }.-‘ , 1a " .=> . 1..111 n... - 1: - ,...+-x 1‘; J v l. ‘ 1. ~./.l vlL ..‘J-.;»‘1..‘On .ICQ d. (Ax/j. llliv‘b i111 .L\-.\1L.IC'J (J11 bi;c ‘ JVCLII A .1. ..- -e .1»..- 1.-.. ,1-“ ‘1. 1.", 1,..- , g. 1.1.- - :.1, «"11 CUFC'Jtu (-11 1.11:) Ips'f'wt e, on..--‘c3 iii-o ;ue 11ro.11.e;1‘ass I!31"L.l..__1.4.t.;d I .tn ass or gore VOLIC- o; ultro en ger gear had a llLHCfi protein Cuubsht - 1‘ r ; y’ .- ‘x ya 1. ,q. “ ‘ V I" r.—‘ - v" .. -: i -‘ s. ‘ u. _ —-_v’ . 1' ‘1. 4‘ 1- 1 v y- 1' than th brbmfiérabb LJaL :as leztllLZed at LJWCF rabbu 01 nicro er. - "‘ ’ I t; l‘ -\ ’1 . -‘ . “/"J "'l ‘1 r- . ~"‘\ ’\ . W 4‘ v -. .¢ 4.: .-. -. ‘ " I’ 1, - z- -. ‘ ror -.e l-year gflflfio div -wf Hath soil t.»es, th1 t1 1:1; ce 1L -rass fffih the non—lertitlzed areas and 1F0m t.e 1L ‘rfiD 1‘ ' ~1.¢ + ‘1 '3 .. \- -; r , A} L 1-1 ~ .(; -~'\(~ 3\11r .‘1 C v.‘ XV '. . l 14- ..r chg)“ ‘-_ ) Cvl. 1. A .4-( ‘.\ ‘1‘- A. V 8; UL) . 1 ‘1-‘1'. \r‘ ‘ I 1" 1 .- '1 ‘. '7 v. ‘ "‘ 4' ‘ I '- r“ ,' «. “ - 1 i ‘. v . |’ I . '1‘I‘ .r ‘ 'HU 1./T‘--’l:-3_1111.,b Hut» 141:0. 11,1 LII13 J'J’COILQ 6411-4 pull (1 IL~1VCLL Vmib VHS T13; -Q’V' “ " *1" ...J (7‘ "S 1...) (71 — Z‘ O \r' (1‘ D {1 1—\ C; x C) l1" . , 3 c " kL (‘1 y-‘ :2 \k C 5 I») CC ‘3 ._ H £13 I) U‘ (-1" C (I 1,... x. . :3 V 1 ”"1 ‘ "‘- ‘~ ‘. v'\ . I :— . ' ~-. r“ ' E L . \_ , ' r\ t— r' V. | . r l' '. ~ v N 1 . ,fi -'6- , , . tLe llrst LQCVELt. nor MJCL 5w11 b‘,63 and 1&1 oat» ,~ar-, the av r— age H:;.’_1L.Iit 0.1. 51.101.01.11 in 5.1:) UFO“ :;_ 151:.) I":.11)V'3J .1. 1. Lin} 1.1-1 ;:. L. ..:.;,I V'Bo .1 15 , 1 1 .. . . . ,- . ,. .~ - . - 151220 ‘-.J.&’ ’ 3 [j 9. r ) J—e‘ :1 v.1rxlv‘ U.l~—9L ' LJCA- VC\J i; Ilt.) ‘-)VSQ I J tha : J( \DI '. ('z'u P‘ O (‘1 (+- \ Q. :1 (l \J p...) H. o1 L .1 (D U) H ("1“ (L T \a .L‘.: ..,‘ 1. .-....1... .'.'-- . . 1 , un11t1.eaLchgt-, InesherthJle. 11- .,- . 3 J .‘ ' .1 1. ' :11. ' ,1 4 "1‘1 .-. . 1.. .7 “.1. .' - - 1rr1.:.gta th 11.tla 1nxlquce on tie grocelh ,cherta e. 7'3 Fiéure 11. Need ;rowtn in non-irrigated plots of Lincoln jeward fine sandJ loai fertilized hlth oi nitr3¥en annually. Photoiraphed 57, after two harvest gears. broncgrass on a varying anounts Serte oer 10, 19 ,q. at V 7' .g’gnwu‘vy.xv ’ Y w NN.NH Nv.oa 0N.NN Nm.nm ,n.\N NH.5H ma.aa co. NH mn.pa o».NN mo.g\ 0c .oa mo.oa mH.MN mm.m ngm>m ON.NN @3.HN :3.NN mm.$N m.mN OO.NN OH.NH w. NH ON.NN AN. ~N NN. Ho.NN mo.mm mm. . mm.m OON nN.ON mm.ma N3.NN mv.oN N».DN mH.ON mfi.NH N3.NH NO.HN «n.0N m\.mm m>.\N mm.NN m.wa m@.NH OOm mm.wa mm.:4 Wfi.NN Nn.ma mo.%H @4.>H ON.HH on. N ma.ma NN.NN 00. r1 mN.\H 00.3N >3. Nm.NH OON NN.N4 \4.Na .ma mw.. OO.NH mm.NH nN.w mm.OH Nm.ma MO.HN mm.ma mm.:a pm.ma OO.\ mm.OH OOH Q,.m+ mm.na \$.ma N>.NN 50.0H mm.xa mm.m mw.ua mO.NH Nm.ma Hm.ma mi. uH Oo.Na m\.o 0H.OH Om NO. NH mO.NH N3.ma yo. 0H Hm.nH ON.na O0.0 NN.©H ma.NH OH.MH Om.7a mw.ma m.NH OH. OH $5.0 O mNmpm>< n.LH >m.ma wo.NN mo.wa OuNmH OH.>H No.0H OO.MH Hm.ma HN.mN m>.ma Nm.ma mm.ma mo.aa Hm.NH mwmpm>d Nw.\N aN.wN oa.»N mw.mN ma.ow mH.NN 0m.¢. mm.o mn.nm Hm.Nn m>.mN ma.om mm.NN NN.mH Hw.ma OON Nm.vN so.ma «n.0N 09.0N mo.>a om.ON mn.aa OH.AH um.aN O0.0M mN.NN Om.NN OO.NN OO.MH NN.NH OOm mn.>H mo.>a N .NN mN.3N mN.mH no.5 ma.oa om.NH Nw.ma mn.mN cm.oN m.ma ma.wa mo.aa mo.ma com MN.NH Hm.ma H@.ma OO.m mN.oH mm.NH mn.m Hw.aa NO.NH 0m.HN OO1: mN.oa OH.>H O0.0H Om.OH OOH >>.w4 m.ma os.m mH.VH mo.ma mN.nH oO.m 00.4H MN.NH ma.ON H:.NH ma.ma m.NH Hm.m 00.0H Om mN.:H no.Na 11.HN mn.wa OO.QH mH.NH 00.9 HN.OH ON.NH mm.ma mN.mH oa.ma OO.Na N©.m 9.0 O ENOH pHHm pm>ocoo m3.>a Hw.0H NN.» 4 ON.HN 90.0N HN.>H mo.HH NO.HH m.>a mm.ON ON.HN 5N.ma w©.OH OO.HH MH.NH mmmgm>< OO.HN H\.ON NN. ea OO.®N Om.mN Hm.MN mm.ma Na.ma HN.HN Om.nN MH.NN wo.mw Om.NN OO.mH Nm.mH OON mm. N \n.>N mm.NN on.oN mN.NN am.ma Nw.ma mm.NH NN.ON mm.NN NN. N oo.mm om.mN mo.ma mm. NH com AN.>H om.sa NO.AN mm.mH O0.0N m>.@H OO.NH mN.HH 0m.§a Om.ON Hm.ON m>.ma OO.NN mN.OH OO.NH OON No.ma nm.NN mm.wa \0. ea m».ua O>.NH aw.m mw.w mm.ma ac.am mo.wa oo.§a No.5H 0a.» mc.oa OOH m3.NH $4.NH mw.>a an. \H NN.0H Hw.na M0.0H OO.m 5w.» m>.>H OO.~H Om.m mm.NH mw.w no.0 Om Hm.NH mm.b Oa.ma On. 3H om.ca n.NH Hw.m mw.m Om.NH Hm.wa mw.ma Om.OH mo.mfi mm.OH no.0 O fimoa mwcmn mCNM vpmswm mama onma >m®H 0m ma wmwa omma bmwa Quad bmwa Omma bmma Omma maawsccm .m>m u:m mam pmH .m>< wan ucm “ma .ogom mug pmm>pmx pom .mQH lpm>m 1 Emmoppwz vm N NLAH team Nppflucoz .maw>ma ohdpmfloi 03p USN mam>ma :muogpac Nflm gonad mmmhwoaopp caoocflq CH :flmpopm mo momwpcoopom mwmpm>< .NH manme K? I" Alfalia and Ladino clover a The average "ieids for the 2—year period and for 1357 from the non-irri;;ted ahd irri; ted pints were szatisticaliy similar, taoles 13 and 14. In 1956, however, avera¢e seasonal yields of 2.39 and 2.02 were obtained from the non-irrigated and irrigated areas on the dehard soil, taole 1L. The difference, which was significant, between these yields was 0.63 tons per acre. Rhee considering the yielcs for the various harvests, (tasles 1; and ll), it beeches evident that irri- gation increased the average yields taxen in the second harvest of 1y5o. On the Seward sail, yields of 0.90 and 0.43 tons were obtained when alfalfa and clover plots were irriiated and non—irri;ated, reapectively. On the Conover soil, avera e yields of 1.A7 and 1.21 tons were obgained from the irrigated and non-irrigated areas, taole 13. uith a few minor exceptions, Vernal alfalfa was acre productive than Ladino clover under ooth irrigatzd and non-irritated conditions. As shown by the data in tables 13 and 14, 1ar¢e differences in production were recorded. On the Conover soil, alfalfa produced y'elds of 4.64 and 4.73 tons of dry matter per acre in 1956 and 1957, whereas Ladino clover produced average yields of 3.A8 and 2.61 tons of dry matter per acre in these 2 years, respectively. On the Semard soil, the yields of dry -s I matter per acre from alfalfa (2.92 tons) and Ladino clover (2.-* tons) Ira \) were qtite similar in 1956. In 1957, however, the alfalfa plots were more producti*e. An avera e yield of ;.35 tons of dry matter per acre was obtained from the alfalfa slots in 1957; the average yield for ¢L Ladino clover in 1957 was 1.38 tons, table 1;. Table 13 average yields in tons per acre of alfalfa and Ladino clover under two moisture levels and six phosghoruus and potassium levels. Conover silt loam soil. LbS.P205 and K20 per acre applied, 1955-57 1956 Alfalfa Ladino clover Average 1 2 3 Tot. 1 2 3 Tot. 1 2 3 Tot. Non—irrigated O 2.12 1.35 .30 4.27 1.66 1.03 .68 3.42 1.39 1.2 .74 3.54 100 2.23 1.28 .84 4.35 1.7' 1.15 .62 3.53 2.00 1.22 .73 3.95 200 2.24 1.33 .96 4.43 1.37 .93 .53 3.33 2.05 1.13 .72 3.90 40C 2.11 1.39 1.0? 4.53 1.55 1.20 .74 3.49 1.33 1.50 .91 4.04 3; 2.20 1.42 1.0% 4.70 1.43 .93 .81 3.17 1.51 1.13 .94 3.9) Accord. to soil test 2.56 1.37 1.05 4.98 1.60 1.07 .70 3.37 ~.03 1.22 .57 4.17 Average 2.24 1.36 .95 4.55 1.65 1.06 .69 3.39 1.94 1.21 .32 3.;7 Irritated 0 2.13 1.65 .83 4.61 1.75 1.16 .66 3.57 1.94 1.40 .75 4.09 130 2.04 1.51 .83 4.43 1.54 1.13 .62 3.29 1.79 1.37 . 3 3.”9 20’ 2.3 1.66 .91 4.57 1.57 1.30 .64 3.51 1.79 1.43 .77 4.C4 400 2.04 1.76 .93 4.73 1.57 1.31 .67 5.55 1.s0 1.54 .13 4.17 805 2.20 1.63 1.34 4.92 1.66 1.30 .7) 3.69 1.53 1.49 .79 4.31 Accord. to soil test 2.17 1.77 1.36 5.00 1.69 1.36 .70 3.75 1.93 1.57 .33 4.33 Average 2.10 1.69 .54 4.73 1.63 1.26 .67 3.56 1.66 1.47 .81 4.15 Average 0 2.15 1.50 .22 4.45 1.71 1.12 .57 5.50 1.92 1.31 .74 3.97 120 2.1. 1.44 .04 4.42 1.65 1.14 .62 3.41 1.89 1.29 .73 3.:1 2:0 2.L 1.49 .83 4.49 1.72 1.12 .61 3.45 1.92 1.31 .75 5.53 400 2.09 1.5% 1.03 4.69 1.56 1.26 .71 5.53 1.52 1.42 .97 4.11 300 2.20 1.55 1.06 4.3' 1.54 1.12 .77 3.43 1.37 1.35 .92 4.12 accarl. to s:i1 test 2.37 1.37 1.05 4.99 1.64 1.22 .70 3.56 2.01 1.3; .33 4.1 Averu 2 2.17 1.52 .55 4.64 1.64 1.13 .65 3.48 1.50 1.34 .d2 4.36 Range of eouality values between averages of: Irrigation Species “arti-it Harvest Harvest rarVeet 1 2 3 Tot. 1 2 3 Tot. 1 2 3 fat. IE:X.R.E.53 n.s. .19 . . n.s. .16 .25 .12 .51 n.s. n.s. .48 .23 " " 1; n.o. n.s. n.s. .s. .26 .s. .20'.84 n.s. n.s. .11 n.s. lfiiru?.E.5S n.s. .19 n.s. n.s. .1 .28 .12 .51 n.s. 1.5. .37 .21 " " 13 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .26 n.s. .20 .84 n.s. n.s. .10 h.s. Table.13(continued) and 420 per acre 1957 Alfalfa Laoino clover 1955-57 1 2 3 Tot. 1 2 3 Tot. 1 2 3 Tot. Eon-irrigated C 1.96 1.34 .80 4.00 .9? 1.05 .47 2.51 1.43 1.19 .64 3.26 100 1.97 1.44 .8 4.24 1.04 .80 .56 2.40 1.50 1.12 .70 3.32 20! 2.04 1.63 .91 4.53 1.05 .83 .65 2.53 1.54 1.26 .'3 3.5: 430 2.16 1.76 1.13 5.05 1.14 .90 .75 2.79 1.65 1.33 .94 5.92 800 2.33 1.66 1.26 5.30 1.10 .90 .66 2.66 1.74 1.23 .96 5.9a Accord. to soil test 2.4( 1.69 1.06 5.15 1.03 .91 .58 2.57 1.74 1.30 .82 3.36 Average 2.13 1.59 1.00 4.72 1.07 .91 .61 2.59 1.60 1.25 .81 5.65 Irrigated 0 1.79 1.33 .81 5.93 1.00 .89 .59 2.48 1.39 1.11 . 0 3.20 100 1.87 1.41 .75 4.63 1.64 .94 .62 2.60 1.10 1.18 .60 5.3; 200 2.24 1.63 .90 4.77 1.17 .92 .55 2.64 1.70 1.28 .73 3.71 400 2.34 1.74 1.12 5.20 1.08 .51 .72 2.61 1.71 1. 7 .92 5.90 800 2.32 1.92 1.25 5.39 1.11 .80 .75 2.66 1.71 1.31 1.00 4.02 Accord. to soil test 2.23 1.69 1.03 5.05 1.12 .99 .67 2.78 1.70 1.34 .65 3.92 Average 2.14 1.60 .93 4.'3 1.09 .89 .65 2.63 1.61 1.25 .52 3.63 Average 0 1.32 1.33 .81 3.96 1.00 .97 .53 2.50 1.41 1.15 .67 3.23 100 1.92 1.43 .79 4.14 1.04 .67 .59 2.50 1.48 1.15 .69 3.32 200 2.14 1.63 .91 4.68 1.11 .‘0 .60 2.61 1.62 1.27 .75 3.64 400 2.25 1.75 1.12 5.12 1.11 .86 .73 2.70 1.66 1.30 .92 3.90 800 2.35 1.74 1.26 5.35 1.10 .65 .71 2.66 1.73 1.29 .96 4.00 Accord. to soil test 2.34 1.69 1.0 5.10 1.10 .95 .63 2.66 1.72 1.32 .35 3.59 Average 2.14 1.59 .99 4.73 1.08 .9- .63 2.61 1.61 1.25 .(1 3.66 Range of equality values between averages of: Irridation 55e013s Fertilitg Harvest Harvect harve¢t l 2 3 Tot. 1 2 3 Tot. 1 2 3 Tot. Fax.R.E.5$ n.s. n.s. n.s. n.r. .04 .08 .12 .24 .13 .10 .08 .18 ” " 1% n.s. n.s. n.s. 6.5. .06 .13 .20 .40 .17 .1“ .11 .24 Lin.£.3.5§ n.s. n.s. U.S. n.s. .04 .08 .12 .24 .11 .09 .07 .16 " ” 15 n.s. n.s. n.5. 6.8. .06 .13 .20 .40 .15 .12 .10 .;2 75 Table.13(continued) L‘C‘S 0P205 ,.. 2-year average and K20 cr per a e Alfalfa Ladino clover Average applied, 1955-57 1 2 3 Tot. 1 2 3 Tot. l 2 3 Tot. Non—irritated 0 1.99 1.35 .50 L.1A 1.33 1.07 .56 2.98 1.66 1.10 .6? 3.15 100 2.10 1.36 .66 6.;0 1.60 .98 .59 2.97 1.75 1.17 .72 3.6L 200 2.14 1.43 .89 4.51 1.66 .91 .62 2.99 1.60 1.20 .75 3.75 600 2.16 1.38 1.11 6.63 1.35 1.05 .75 3.15 1.7h 1.32 .93 3.99 .00 2.29 1.5A 1.1" 5.00 1.27 .92 .76 2.93 1.78 1.23 .95 5.90 Accora. to soil test 2.4‘ 1.53 1.06 5.07 1.34 .99 .61 2.97 1.91 1.26 .09 4.62 Avereje .1‘ 1.45 .98 h.0L 1.36 .99 .65 3.00 1.77 1.2; .52 3.02 Irri,eted 0 .96 . 9 .62 4.2' .; 1.03 .63 .0a .67 .20 .7; 3.06 100 .9 . .7‘ n.26 .2 1.04 .62 .“5 .6 .71 3.62 O .. >3 .75 2.65 06.7 £+OUC-) ”r , .9) 4.17 200 100 800 Accord. to soil test Average A \ 1.06 .70 1.0 .74 Ht—‘i—‘P—‘H Pb‘x C CLJ O FJCDC)\ ozmzo k0 \A‘ \1‘ [\3 K.)- 1 3 0 1 9 .90 h.03 1.37 1.11 .60 . 1 3 i 9 FJFJF‘FJFJ NNNHH O\-\7 -\)-\)CJ‘~\J~.J-“ ADP-4H O\\Om 3. \n‘mv F4 [...J O r \O \C (T . \C' 91.16 0 8x). 14.. 16 .‘ ~l (\‘I‘: 0C" J 0 )4 M (\J -’ M N K») o F— \JKKA) F4 C) Q .J' 1.41 1.18 .' 1.36 1.05 . Average 1.05 .60 3.01 1.01 .61 2.97 1.01 .61 3.06 1. kaJ O. k x- rJn (St; FJFJ L: r~ F‘F‘ \L. c \ kl «: o 1:20 20 H r 07]. 00.1. .71 .61 .75 3.8 ‘xl \ ‘x. O A) A) (\7 \C m b; ADAJADAJFJ ho +4 L4 (b \o O>O\b)k57' FJFJF‘FJ 7\ F‘F‘F‘F‘FJ c,~:;Jo\o\ \11 "Q.’ 0,— F’F‘f-FJF‘ 0 W \n N O\.l>‘ P) o \O C J?‘ o ' 0‘ J . C \' n F‘P’F‘F‘F‘ o \L‘ \L‘ I“ \D \) AGO . .0 1.09 b.9l . 06 .72 3.12 . .36 .90 A.Cl 800 . .6 1.16 5.06 . .99 .76 3.05 . 0 .31 .95 n.66 Accord. to soil test 2.,6 1.63 1.06 5.05 1.37 1.09 .67 3. 3 1.87 1.36 .87 A.10 Average 2.16 1.56 .97 6.69 1.36 1.03 .66 3.05 1.76 1.30 .82 3.67 flange of equality va1ues between averages of: Irritation Species Ferti1ity Harvest Harvest Harvest l 2 3 TOto l 2 5 Tot. l 2 3 tot. KaX.?.E.Sfi n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .09 .21 .12 .39 .15 n.s. .03 .21 " ” 13 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .16 .3L .20 .65 n.s. n.s. .11 .26 E':inol.t....;o5ft; {1.5. 17.5. 11.3. 11.3. .09 .2]. cl: 0/? o’-O 11.5. 01.27 0L9 " " 10 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. .16 .3A .20 .65 n.s. n.5. .10 .26 'I r‘ n14"; ‘ :16; t, 01 ”I 7 1:515:71-1'273 "1} L15 .,‘ -1 4" \H I", '. .. I * ,. . ,- ,- r ‘1 . * C1.J._'.'4-.'.J_‘_i aItC. 1.121.111.) C10 7'81" I_ . ";". ~. J’L\1v$1.3 .4411... ' 1 r " - It .1. 1.61.1. :3 N \o '~.r\ IV} V, a P‘ 260 I 'v “V r\" ' 2 4.; U0 Accord. soil test Avera;e O 100 230 LCD 9C0 Accord. soil te Averag i (J t-) (__j. ( d C)C>C>C)C) , I \— O ’I ._ D -O (Dif 10F“ U) IL" L O < w (3) E--‘ ‘ "3‘ in (‘r' O. (D U) rxv <+ C" d ‘3‘ \I‘! \A) \J) ex] mrrbr4m F’F’FJFJ F4 H O \x.‘ K.) \O \J.) ab H O\\In P HP F’F’FJFJFJ o ’\..l 0) (7'\\h (\3 H’F’ O (‘\"Q 0 \0.) \‘n ) o (I J ##1414 O r‘ \I‘l 4 o H: 1.70 1.69 1.74 1.31 Q I: 9 / .*+/' (“It 1’0 o u o-«-,' 4 (‘r‘ o -1.) 0:44 o C ‘0 ID C.) o C ‘\. C '3' .1) ../1+ / f" DC 0 )4 \fl ‘4 C) ngor-q~q 0 Of LA.- ‘3 O ,- I v (,x .) 0 CU P Q» 0 ‘9 (__J O O r\~:oxow ‘\"1\.0 C) O ‘1:- a} '54; 1 1 I I I ‘7‘) U 0 — O / .76 C}! o .3 o t '13 R] ‘Q 0 \L‘ \ C 0‘ ‘- , b.1- \_.‘ (n (m H \A‘ 1.07 .74 :7 \0 \ o (‘0 H 7‘“; C.) (VF-J \n \) F‘F’RFO\\3 cn~oro b \D Ui‘. \_L_.: I T F’F‘F’F‘FJ o \\ J U‘x 0% \n O h)kw O 1.x I‘-‘- \1 H l——‘ ("A \0 }-‘ M.) \O ’5 4 J on~irr' at 1; : f. O ’J‘ C J ‘v’ I‘ \‘ O ‘4 o .... l. o .1, . bl; it ,_) Irrj,ate .67 .57 .37 .6‘15 rw / 'N 1.33 .7: . 5 .82 . ‘— D. o \-; \C) H i\‘) 0 CJ M I“ H (U l (\T {\‘r \-i I ‘6 ). .v7 0 c _. H H t" F4 i-J \n \n I.“ K-) H k PA \f‘t F4 F4 H ;~ 1...) 0 KJ J \o F‘h’k‘k’k’ m (I; A.» F- O \n .5 \0 0 \ \r O\ \c +4+4 O x ~;. ‘3‘ LI" LXaJKQ -1. o ._'J o ,g H II 3'4- —. -. c“ 1".-LIL.1~LQ.D. 11.8. {1.8. 11.3. 19 n.s. AS n.s. 11.5. 11.5. i“ 1’4 \fi \0 11.8. {1.5. a "~ -'.~- H Iloxl. '_-.\.«O n05. {108. n.5. {1.5. Ix 1' o \C) \ .1 5. ix. :\. I*--‘ \A) (\3 \- .Y‘... x,’ (‘1‘ C. ‘\) \h L‘ \n \p I\') N C; re a "(‘1 C;}-‘ o 0 0'63 0‘ \C. 77 T3013 11.(ccn:inu9d) LbS.F205 and K20 per acre applied, 1955-57 1957 Ladino c1over Let. \LI 03 b I\‘- H C ‘7.) (_- Q O O O O O 1 4 w w m m U 0 10:) 2:30 ADO ‘\ y" I \ Q J 'J Accord. to soil test Average w C 1..) F4 (—1 (D 9 6-d- o (\J "\7 "\) \k)C\\1 1..) O F-r-UJM F.) 1"“l . DO 0 M luaJl. Lo 3. H H 1. ‘5 W LC all". 011.. "J. ,',O hon-i rri L_f_--;Tt, ed 0 9C) .21... 0 ll 0 1:9 . 13 Q 1.1+ . 1‘2. 1 .9? .51 .2? 1.73 .28 .21 .09 1.99 .95 .43 3.34 .7' .53 .03 l 2.1)») lot’Z :1..UC' L/ol“; 0:3,? g'.7:<. 01.114. 1. 2."é 1.63 1.11 5.40 .55 .03 .65 2. 2.77 1.94 1.1} 5.5L 1.ub .u/ 4.07 l 0911...: J— o " o ()5) :05117 0 01.7 Q Q 4,) A " Irr ted 09“ 051+ 0/7 1091— 0:0 to: o 1071 .85 0:3 301A 045 .06 o 1.32 1.13 .75 3.70 .60 17 l. 201.]— 1.5L} 101.”; [.10-‘13 loll . _1.. 2.35 1.60 1.39 5.35 1.Q9 Q 2. /- / rr‘ ’ F. "~' 4.LO 10L? 1.44 501' loUU 44 lo 1.91 1.19 .92 Lou; 077 15 Average 07 0,9 .25 lo;b 0;) 0U? 1. 31+ . (.13 0 [-1.4 2.. .14-0 0/7 Q {)8 1090 1.0% 05 3.31 0&3 adj i036 10;;3 1.09 L/obij .917 Q‘JS“; 4.AO 1.32 1.51 5.38 .97 .52 2.1a 206’]. 1.057 1.17: 5.36} 100/ 1.90 loll-'4. .83 3.135 07¢ .19 Mange of Irr11at1:n Species marvect it 1 2 , fob. 1 2 3 H.530 11.5. 11.5. 11.3. .23 [7’8 n.s. n.s. n.s. r.s. .35 c2 nod. n.3. n03. n05. 033 0:8 no 0 n98. nos. Dog. .35 002 ”mu- ,.“. . ,1 .- ..-, ,. .-. . emhdley Va1ueb uebWeUn averdgeQ Q 1"“ Fertiiity harvest IN ‘\ F—J ‘-: I—"\r kk; \J”: o M) J (11-1 3&013 1A(continued) 78 \ \h (D 0 (V) F." 7'“! \n fit” :3 O' Q.w (D L;_J I F’m*d \O ":3 w ' 3 w-m ~Q£L*1 C3C) \I \\ \n l Z—yaar average I0 Lamina clever l 4 3 3t, AVC r7193 A1 \3 100 2&0 433 i} ‘3 \JL' u Accord. to O ‘ -5 m_w Su;l peat Average 0 ICU ;‘ V,:’\ 4:. ‘J 403 I" (W ’“3 6." UV J. Accord. c sail te;t Avern_e 0 ~ r—J (:"\ AEFJFJ O Ox 0 C.) ' ‘3 :47. ‘J1 \fr FJFJ fig 0 c: }.. Ex) 0 o u-% \I‘t U1 F-J o E._J ’) \‘ o C 33V \f’: ’\. ' r F‘h‘ A‘F'F‘P‘ O O r 1 t h) P \) F—J O ‘ \ \l U\n$> V k4 F4 51 \r \c l‘"? \\n i.._J . !_-3 ‘ C‘ “u ;D 0 KA‘ ”‘37:? V3 QW /V 1% *0 ’\ {3, J v 3' I; 1‘ \ .L ‘ -‘z 'r-' \n x‘ *T P) r. (x) r- \f; I\) 4 I O H F—‘VD \7 W‘kfikflfi‘ '1‘ \(3 I\‘ \7‘. \A.‘: .1 o f, 3 0 :49) -L 0 131+ . ., f‘ " -L o .J.\.‘ Ron-irri(at3d "'1 015 94L " .I : f: 041+ 0H) . W ’. * 0/9 0/4 .35 .)d / x .Ay .co 1 L"; r / . .~ .29 .4} lrrliatea .44 .)Q 03L 01,—": ..I.‘ 71 '\J 01+? 04') .05 001 of} I 'l 054 “"4 FAR“ H 1;.-3 0‘ I; \(w F.J 9,. N V'\_ L : 1 ~‘ .‘I. ’3 _L . j\_) r r— \ O (‘ \\C3\Y 3‘- L. ,_ - 0.; \f. K] \h \f I" .r" \k, C \A) \ a -\‘:3 " tut Ci -‘ ~ -2 .? 3.10.44 0.1. "J. u n 1% "—0 I". ': g1 31.0.». to H H n;e o; lrri;at;cn T."' «4" th‘VG; L; e 7111 z ()3 I,‘ T‘J ‘\7‘( :3 O U3 0 D (J S 5 L.( 3 l- y 0 , . "1 s-’ O \x,‘ n.“ H. n. U s.) -4 (I: 0 (3‘3 0 4- .3 .j'w . H's. . .-./N 0/» \J‘. \JI \(r I“. r~&: 1'*ti‘L'i.'tJ' vv,» J .3. I A; L; I" r4_i (”F ‘ .\l ‘41. ‘-‘- f—J ’Q \o m". "' ‘ '\ fl . ' D -\ DP _ ‘1‘ ‘— ‘* r \ u I. 'a w w I ‘ \r‘.‘.‘ v- < >', . '\ p19 T3VLJL £38 01 V Elihil 3.1-: «iiid uO grim.) Lita 1‘ .'Lb (LLU. . a- wish 1;; . ~ h+ VJ . \ '.-: ~ 1‘ )fi ‘ f. ‘ - ‘ V“ , ~f’— - 1‘ A .; .-\ ‘- " :v- o I w - ,. - V 3' illusorateu in ii_are in. yer the 4-Jaar ,ezite, VAC averaQe annual 1 the JihaEQ soil was a‘ . - . 4;: -.~ I“ i - r- 4‘4. D. I". -r‘ T h.-"‘ .« - prsdsccion o; tn: al-rlii ant n~dino clover o "J :\ r‘. (‘3 F I: :- ‘ f. I) I t ’:, . P, .‘\ ‘ ~ ‘ . a '. _“ r- -1 ."\ l.,a, 4.; , <.,,, ,.OJU 02.0(4 . O.V (3BOLSIOW °/oZl) HBLLVW A80 .40 383V 83d SNOL -. ‘ '. .‘ ': "' ‘ e "’1‘ r~.'- ‘. fir: ‘, Y‘V I \f“ ,ervou, u¢u dz, ,erioa ULEMBSN oune 9 and r.“ . C :“.L‘:’ .rn - 44 ,. - -1 u ... M1. 1 1 1 . 11‘ 1 L) L!-L2' ~Z+’ l; (..‘l'v‘, ‘V-‘dg ti‘e 0121.“: UL?‘ e Llr‘u’v' L111 ‘\':1:—‘:‘ 161C L"~'J';..LCKI .II'GI in Glut—1.19. Dur L610 ,1 .n .' ,4. 1' ,_ 7‘ v 4. . .. ‘- 7' ' 1 .-. N ., '- - n .. ‘- ‘, .. . .-' ,. agglicacion oi weue-. A tot2- 01 6 inches 0: water afi-Lled dullnb t:‘.’_‘ “"‘“I“. "; 'v-\ r‘ . 9‘ . ‘- I’\ ‘fi to 1 “ L":*r‘ "3 V In.1 1') (x :1 .~-:.-4- if! 11....) =-\;‘L.1.Q‘c. l“ 4‘11’1CH lILCI 3.11171 .2 eaCh V-L_1L;U bib; Elf-.1116») t, 30.1. In- 1:. 61.118 to a degan of is incwes HES recuced to an average HVQliHOLG moisture T ' i . ._'_"‘. "'1. 1, .-'1 tile avera'e 'ldiub OI --)IO'K.U\_I‘(:1..;.J, (1i.l-'L_l.l‘i. p-.4 percenta;e of 505 increase: and Ladino Clover on the sev.ard sail bJ 6.44, 0.;2, and 0.71 tons, 1 11,-- ...-:11: ~.. . ,1: .. .: . .0 L' . v-pa or this Thxflbw- the a33:ricatlon oi ,2Ll: ches 01 141t«r '7. . N. 7"" . 3 r‘ 1 v‘ 2 .F- “1 f" ‘ ‘\ ‘ I ‘ " . —I 1' ' ‘K “ -| r I to the lrrlucgcfl areas on the pOJchT soil inc1e.se:1 u'e avora - acre 1" . Qfi F1 ‘ ’fl *1 P a r v t 4 1' a q "m ‘nr " ’ '5‘ f“ 1 'I v“ Q ‘-- (-n' c M" JlJJ J O; V 1.,“ 541‘. {AC v.1. Kl UL-'e(4-LtrQ ‘0‘ K-I.L!.'_-i’ UQJJ, df.‘.). Q‘uld L1 ‘41-). Llle _ ....- -..‘c 'r, [2:0, " , .3 , . ‘, ‘~ .1 ,‘,\-.'v tn, '(DLELl(JvAOLi U1 1.:‘.‘-‘.Ii-0 CJOJ'GI 0f. t1.e sew-arm D‘.../.1...L II-Jln |._: ’1‘ O *5 (D h (I) H :3 Ft 6 l H irri31tTon of 0.71 tons of dry Latter was a sursten tial ircrease. however, if we consider that the avers e c<3ts of irri3nt'on are ¢6.03 per acre inch and the value oi‘ a ton of hay on a 123 moisture basis $25.03 which we re the valuzs arrived at by iesar et al. (37), the increased production of 0.71 tone (at 12p moisture) would have a value of 317.75. The average cost of applying 6 inches of Later per acre would oe glh.18; hence, the loss di e to irri3ation, even for this La" Hum resoonse, mould be 96.43. Thus, it is very evident that irri- gation of fora3e craps uould rot he a profitaole 3 ectice es ecially under the conditions of this experiuent when rai nia 1 was above nornsl. The data in table 9, which showed that the non—irri3ated bronc- l 4 grass on the Conove r soil was gore productive than irri3atcd orche— rass su33est that irri3atier had an adverse eiieCL uxon tne growth of bromegrass. A comes ri; on of the yields in the sp in; 01'1937 irom the various replicates, novever, uisclosec that the ave1a1e ;F0htfi in :~r ‘J// L‘. ' f .. 1 :~ 1 , -_- - 1 1 . 01:8 ll'I‘-L‘-_.:5T,€C1 :11‘::n:. 01 1‘39; LCrl'et: l .J‘ll '«v 1 151:8 1.] e1 L10 VC‘L‘Walux \ L U1“). \‘avl (1.1: .l I; Uta... ’ C ..1 .18 1.. .~-.V<;J. 1.1 {.3 .1; e131: 0 L .L. 1.1!, at v.1 1 .11‘; our...) cl." ac I"? 1’5-3 ‘53 ODLéilT-C’]. l T7019 ""3"" 11051185 1. £12112. / , Wit} C21. were VCZ'J Vet (1-21111 " t} 3‘ ' ‘2 " :| I ' [9"; ‘ 7""; 1'3 ' a 7 3 f..\ r) , Wt’ w . 3- " v -. '6' ' we .-111‘1‘11. 0.- 1 , , s ..I. .1, :11- 114612;: ., ' 1t-)--'.L.C’v.i0.; v.1 1L. -7 k_.~ Jx 1.“ r 341" qd : 71( \1'A,“ ’. .r- I' 3 f; ‘r."' '- . 1 -.~. ~”‘ . \ ‘L 'i' a 1' rm ' v ‘ -" ~' /\’. ‘ -‘. '3" . '1 :- vCiJ-le/ l. .. -)If. I 1"11..L(’CJ viz L, val.l.CLl v’if',..o L)ev Vklr L'.r (1.1.1 aikl ‘3..-”4’. (II .1 K], 0 Jul..- '\ qr "a' -. ' . ‘1 r ”'1'”; 2‘“ ~ v '1 m7 ‘ " ‘ .:"'|”\ 'r '~ 4 “r‘ " f V" 'n - ‘ ' D,“ ”‘1" ’ lHl.» nation LQLet..€I‘ lel LIN; $435.10 {Strainz-ztfiCe 01 the.“ 010149;? c1120 01! F. the drier Seaard sail (taoie 1L), MLiCH e owed the“ the Wields were sinilar in 1957 for the non—irri.ated are irri;1ted areas, inmi ates that an eicessive axount of soil Leisture during the sgring months of >‘ 1‘57 was resfflnsihle for the poorer performance of th; irri aged eroge— irass in i957. d It is im*ortant to note that the average acre yields of urone- grass lertilized annually with 200 pounds of nitrogen eer acre were $.06 ard A.6O tons for the Seward and Conover soils, resyectively, in 1956; in 1957, the average acre yields for the respective soils were 4.90 and 3.34 t2ns. A greater diiference is evident when a coayarison is had” of the irri;ated broneérass fertilized at :reviously nextiored rates. In 1966, the hromearass on the Seward and Conover soils which was irrigated and fertiiized annually with 200 pounds of nitro;en pro- duced 3.22 and L-39 tons rer acre, resgectivelg. In 193/, these alots had an average production of 4.10 and 2.90 tons yer acre. Lhe ,reater production of the brcmzegrass or. the :SeIJard fine sand, loam. thick. has , ’J \ 0 V3“ ...- . \ ‘\( var 1“"; ‘ I" ~rn I‘ . -“-'I’ ': ‘2 Q 3:. " I: 7 ..fiv I '2 "I fin {OOH dI'Fili..-xi.;_d, rind ti”? luclmb‘l C4'jCLdCLSS 1T1 ‘EIIQctUCtJKDH 01 Lfie CM Ulnbpi 8.133 4 ‘ . - “ ~ i.' f‘ o-\’. ‘ .‘ ‘ A. (w '. -‘- ' 'f -' V'v..\ plots on tne heavy, JHPBCJBCtlJ a ained tonove: JOLl suguest enet sive sail noisture conditions. (I. bromeérass is senSitive to exce' \ o a .1 .. y” ‘1: r-\A‘~~*‘-’. __g _ -,‘ 'Y‘w '_-_ ‘ per .1_ w 11rOJg-e ‘rass Qld pI‘OCLuCG Iii-p11 dLLA‘LLC...L JILC-LCAQ '2. La ..LLL) QJdJOILCLJ. ‘-5'1~$-5.-'5‘ _+—I ’ :’" I“, 5‘ —g 1» -. .5 1 ..«_ ,, ‘ ”r. 5 "11, 1, .~.. 1; . -_ H .v ' 1‘- 5 ,-- Q43 UL .LU‘JVAQU OJ LIFLFH «A1 WCLS .L.Li" 5.: «.z‘arJO. bk 1. L vi L):— JIl l €er..L_L£4-'JLI_J-KJALO null/.GVUI‘, - ‘ or ' a. \ <~..r~ ‘L' l‘ ‘. — ‘ — n“: ' . .-; . \ " c- 4 w‘ n‘ V“. : L‘ — ‘ " ,x- .x 2- ' I .‘\\‘1 tne 1a11u1e 01 this statics to maintain a hlin 14Vbl 01 h1ouuct1oh on the i perfectly drained soil ani the snail perc e11La e (ll and 1;”) of the total annual yield that was Obtained in the third cutting leaves some doret as to its roantaoilitr to an intensive foraLe pro ram Vhere irri - e‘t1on ix; ogtijr: sed. 1 ‘1’ 5Icne Qass at51ined an ogtin‘“ eve1 of yroduction when fliETOhcn was a ”lied at the r-a e of a tetal of 200 pounCs per acre a flied in t1is re Enonse to fertiiizer was evic ent 1n the firs5 har- vest yields that mere taken on the Conover a1i_l in 19:6. 9.: When alfali was fertilized 1th 30 p011nds o1 P~O and 120 each Spriné aid after the removal of the first harvest, or then it was ferti- .5 lized according to soil test, hi;h leveis of production were outained on both soil types. The amount of zhoephorous and potassium provided A hese fertility treatments was necessary to maintain optimum aromth :3. . (‘1’ of alfalfa in goth vvars on the Seward soil, taole la; hohever, as indicated by the data in taole 13, the phosphorous and potassium pro- vide by these fe tility treat euts was beyond the amount necessary to / attain a hi_h field of croftct ion on the Conover soil in 1950, the first year after seed1115_at whi 101 time 80 pounds each of P;.Og aha 120 were added. 19 m ,l. . (.MJ A L t-n \ H T — «w I v , rabs Jeruu; a; Li ”- CU} n t3r:ur.~:—‘:\, \ 5“} .-.. ‘ .. . . . -.4 4 v. “ .-. oUll were LTOMU a $61p1LLt; leve;; ., ' . .. -, , J “ ‘ , n - ‘ 1 r!“ 'r rOrlr)‘.;eanLS \LL l3 ~>5guw ;;7. She -< E: I'lQ oil» 7610' V g r. d. ‘ 'r .—~ 381"; T‘Cl ?r0duction, botanical conjw n.- i 111:3 x: A. Av 54 .‘w ' L . 9 ~ ‘ -. . ‘ - '. _ v . —. .— < ‘- .,‘ A . ,v .3 \. - . — ~. .~ .. ,7 .C‘ | .1; SpcflC~ o; Vnabe ;LSC¢CS fPOwb dL tne V;1LudS m~L;Lure afd i-rt;' Q' N ‘L' I - 'n “ Iv \‘ ‘ -" 'L‘ 0 ' ‘ ‘ _ ‘ L " " 'l : ’fV " I.“ I ,~\ R A “I f“ 1(2—‘JCJE’ . 4‘? ‘3.j.t—: T t“: ‘4 g 1‘13” Li Y \;"‘.t 6‘ V '. L1 .1 1.)] LI 3 1 er t-" “‘~‘v‘ l .‘ *-' CUO I ‘v'lv’ - J J 9 ) . "3 . Y -‘ . d ,‘f‘ f tr “'1',“ ”a. ,. V, , 1 f ‘ ., J , 1 - H , i , _ .1. -42‘- \.'Ln\ 5 L‘ IL]. -0531: L Ll" r:( L c1 2 Jig“) 1&1 CI ual JTLCI’KJHKLHVJ Cd. 11 a ' , - . .11 " 12‘ - .‘ ‘ . .‘ M“ .J.,. J'lnr‘ 111C} Eutgr 2.4:" 4.1"5; 3’ '_3 WWJUC‘ Hr: [‘Vx:;vb¢.. " 5 ‘v "3‘. H G; ,1 - ‘. ~ "‘. r- -V ' - -\ ,-\ '7. - . ' —, 7 '7. “, ‘ .‘JIII‘LP: LV” ", l ' 'j\_ ’ in‘.‘ _L: / {) Like K 1;.)‘4 ;‘ C.‘r.lb(-‘.-L.rl]llxn 1.1 1.! d 4 k; ‘ ~: A . r n , ,- .-‘ 1" '— -'. " 3. . v . - .\ -- r‘ '- ., 4' ; v "' ‘ _‘ W I ' “.LF'.) C L\)‘V A‘ L, “3rd .LeI‘LLLJ get' 3' '_L/11 {3. LI‘ ’LJ .1. ('1'. .\KAI L 0;. k]; .L“ 4’ ~-\_"’ . -L} '_ .' .. ‘ , ‘ :- \ ‘ _~ ‘ , ‘ -. ,: ' ., ' ._- ‘1 .h .1. , ‘»;3 :(wlMQo :uyr wcr:<<7_ P Lu; 'LC.I&3O cq~.;ccainiix I,» sgx-L page Irr- ~ / ~ ”' :‘FP‘ ‘W'T-I T‘s‘“ T“ ’ ‘ " "=1 ~-' w “ r.‘ .- I .L 4‘- l ..4‘./ .. J" 'V-’ . Ll J \LQ .V’ ' -/U|1V~ 'LL. C ”‘V fl < w a: 1‘ ~ ’."‘ ' ,.° , '3‘ , x" 4 . w ‘ ~ ' '- ', 1 - 1 ‘H‘t ‘ 1-0:;- 1. L', ‘ :‘_I 4. .’f‘ 11;), .1 . ‘_‘ v'. L U; l ‘1 -, pkf- ' LVL .1. 9‘) A. t‘,L ,'- P 1‘ . ' ~ P ‘ i. —- w '. ‘ ‘ j V—~ _» AA . 1 _, >7 . _ ‘7 ~.. a ‘ v f . ~= ‘ __ . ‘ . K,vi LIV k)... AL! [I I“ tL“ .‘. VE‘; '1wf--1._L_'L 1.LJ.L.U -—..(—)l.i. I \Jlxc 911.1 A; I 5 Lilla :t’;' 3'1 :1 "CK.I\.3 ‘-- ~ /- 3 q 3 J - _7 v" ‘- . .x - -\ -. .\ +~ ~ 7‘ 7~ N‘ \ q ‘ —,-‘ v A ‘ — — f z - 1 ~ —‘ Q I‘d‘.'\1L’ urn L‘.) /V v‘ . ‘u ;\,-.\r1‘ '1: T .‘g'1j_v VLl L e 3.) ;(-‘ki;tfi:l “. E41 ‘3 - W“). :t‘.;. .-A L (J 4“ ‘sa :3 1 : u~ ~1 m : ,4 -.fl ,- -. 7, 7, ... _ »~. . 4 ’ ’ 1‘.) I ) V! ’—~ .L ,"w—v' .1--[\.:; 1‘4 j ‘_. C; ~“; ..‘ .. .i.'~ J» ‘ -’~J TV u ‘ 7 ~. .L~2£ Vin-L ‘41 ‘ ‘3 > "N - v " '3 "7 g r w . ( - .' ‘\ -' 7- 1. A ‘ " - "uh" x \-‘ '1 ' ‘ "-0 _’fl 7.. y y r-'».'\,l I‘.) JAJ, ~. ‘1'. f -A :1 =L,._‘ 1__ ,' ni‘jj C4,C.. Ln. H ‘KW'J k )L(.;U-J | _ J vhf .1 ’ ~/Vl4- ‘ ‘fi _‘ .1 _ , 1| ,‘ , . I _ ‘ ‘ 1‘ A ‘ > _ 1 .'_ _‘ :‘l |_. 5 '7“ ,_ '_ V ..,_ |‘ . , A‘ .‘ 3 uoed Lo “ead thy ;1uvnd. ;;: rHLAJu: 01 thy pLJ4‘ a1: 4Q-.11:L; .x‘ 1 .\ 4OJ]OV:: .‘ . A. L ' . J -. .~ ‘ , ,., . ,, I 7' . _ Yo y 7" -. r' .w "x .» -‘- t ,3 ‘r 1 ~‘ - . ‘.v , T 1:31, 4103 O;J you ;;_hl;lL‘fiL-~ LLCPGaod p4; 4VchLV go+u3 L ., r ‘ . ’x .‘ I -.— --. A 1‘1‘H'r' ‘ In';1~p «. 'fi 3 fig 1 ‘- u 'L "‘.w‘ 1‘1 3k. 110 «1.0.1 (’| IDLQJL ' I. 7.1.\ ~) ._ Ll? ‘_-'_ L ‘11 ‘S'A‘Jxk" CJJJVTIT. L J1 LL12; A'fig'baf‘ A . ~ . ‘ ‘~, - I" “ ' r‘ “. ‘ {‘V ’1 V '- ‘ AV ‘ 1 . . r‘ l,\ y A -\-r, .. _' m‘ n UPI‘lDCL 11(1331- Q~r;fl]u_ki :";-L‘]..C...l-]. IVAN"; 50‘. 2 11:.(11 i...) (Du/(3 :3 Mai .C...J- ‘- ‘1} ELL, ; J- 1~ C .. ,‘4- ‘... ~ u: .1“ f- .' ‘7 " ' ‘D ' V ‘ v bile ‘,—‘1‘1“:\L;~J.C.‘| LJF‘—‘.‘l'.l.r:“ ;’\|r.LOd. ..LI‘Ifl.LV’1YL—I 10:1 ( 1‘ J Ilowever" ....-‘J- M O (\3 111‘ grovdflw of fur}, k’f pecies between dupe 9 and Jul; AA, 4 - .\ -' - D.' 'r ,~ -‘ - -. 'V- -. ‘r w‘ w. 4 I I‘- r» \ ' P: ‘ ’- . thl’l T‘difi; a ll "st-lo 1-.LI..1 ;. -.l . bll‘f‘; 1']; t; ‘..3 . :1 .(.-v. if; 3‘ (34‘. " " 1‘ . * A -« v” r J L ‘ “‘ v ‘ .-. A -: - V“ OL m tOLml Q; A lffhnz 0; ‘zper 0: L03 DBafiTd 3;;1 14 f) ‘4 Li;- I‘ 4 p l t: '. --‘ ‘ ‘1 r! : --,. " XV: ‘u .—-‘ '. / w , '-,4—~ r‘ « w.r‘ -v- ‘ . A r -, w‘. a t-’1r-l 01 /= .LF‘LCLSD Cr; hat/31‘ (".41 m; L..x.L:; ‘1":Y‘LQQ 1_'!Cr.cv1&+:'_l .13": ‘ I"; ‘ 'V‘ ‘ ‘3 7 'v‘. “ ‘ j ' ' ' I‘ ‘ v . ' ' r ’1 ~ ~- » - .- - -\ ‘ ._‘r' I 4 .w. ,. I. ’- IR ugtpev J1czqg .0r pne TQVLGCL1V3 Ji304cb o~ v.99, u./, and u.;¢ tOIk;"3P acre. \_ ,_‘ g ‘ '. ' .- ., " ' , _ . . ..‘ w , . .‘ 7' . .H .P n M -‘ , '. .,. ' ’ ; “ ,, p .'. IUJB "VHF-‘CVI~H‘ Oi DTIH d‘lr‘s; -%1; JJ-C1xwtac(&.:;;-fll,iL,U‘LLJ .33 11ltIIQ;e 4.: " -. L -. .N .. fl 4 ,- ..A ‘ m. v ”x . ~ \ N .5 , x . “x ,, fCTQL: 'auLQh Mib JWCF@3;CC l”0n w :0 4UU {Quflfiv UP aCFe G Yuglid ‘ .L. :_I 1‘ a ‘ ’ .. _ y c ' V _r .f ‘ - .- ' u ‘7 ‘ A’ - ...... . ‘ 77d- ? ” iif‘O’A+* h? -T"~WTI‘lei (“WC I jFI'Lt LI' .1”.Cf',“““1 £TIKN;h(,blk)Ho y". v ‘ . . ”I ‘ " -. n -»- r -‘, H D" L. fl...'-- \ _' ‘M‘ .1 .“'1 ”1.63. OTTH..-: «1:3 0.7. the” LJOHW 31‘ sull 14‘ ;.cT‘L,_1-l1uoU n1I1!L'1149' LLLM I \ '3 ‘37, : -,‘\ 1 h/‘l £11“ I ('7' W y‘r‘ ,r1, «.2. u r; \Y‘ 4 5' IWY‘“ ’ “ 1 " "‘V‘” D L, ,'|\_, ’ J"- _, J I- v. " .L‘VL , /\.) 9,. 0.1 L! I l 'l I" - ..1 L ' \w 1 (‘C4 8 J .L V .5 4 21") Ll,Ce“41 (1v :1 L FA.va .. 5 P. A " '\ .\' A, ._ .- "if " . .L _ - ~ ‘ 1‘ ~ ”-1 1‘:- I I: I r l "W (J ‘ )‘l / ()7 '. fl. ‘ I' -‘ '£\ ‘1.) 1‘. ‘7f ;.. y' ’1 "‘ 1 ‘9 “VA V-L(av \. 4 1v!» ) -.., _: , ..-L/ ’ -’ _ . t.i.-, ..g LJa‘.’ ’ I \4C’ulv 4.4L" ) V... .-... 011 54.7.1 .‘ ‘ . 1 a . y ~ ‘ Io \ ’ ’ ‘- . »~.r ,, ~ » , ~r Mn H :-—l x U . , 9:11.? :!19_ 1V :.nfim,mp+1 avxv-1 C J1 . a; (a, lu,g -L-g5 ,2, , ,, ,4. .. ’3 »~' V " \ ‘ I ‘ x ' ' " r " v . " ~‘ * " - " ‘ \ " ’ ~' JI‘I' v71; L- :-L. c. LA” 1 Ga; GCLLV‘? ’ g".‘ ‘. "it'fiJo ‘fi‘ : ,,'V . r , :1 ‘Lf‘w‘n 'i- ’ .-.. ,. 1,. -4 . .f ,.' fl“ 2. if e LI‘LL L. ‘7“ ".1 T'J 7 t“‘ vL-‘..‘;-1L4.lwf‘. 1hb'qy'1hpl'dfl wig“; oJ-;.-.],1 1‘ T u 04-. -v .-: _ .' :. ‘- _., 7 F .4. [n'j/ \ 4-){ 9'1»: 0' 'Ai Tuv L 321,]. ”in: T!) ghv‘ JL‘3C.-‘,L‘_L LNT'V54L. 0;. 4.7:;0 C1 1.1.11. 6‘. -‘M ,m+~ , .3, r' 7" ~- ‘ ”a; ”s +,‘ “A .. n df’flW ; 1.. . “‘37" "'o “34x13 ‘CJ. ‘Jo -‘J -.H‘]. 105—.) v"T‘~-5 ‘1“ .CI‘C (421‘le 1. e or u U A L ‘_ L ‘ ’_ _ _q 1 1 ~ (3‘ ‘ r ‘ .— w“. A. W '. r .A ‘ ‘ 4 l I.“ 1 , \‘V . nu /, ‘. .3 r V . 4‘ DLAG "" ) :3 [(41 L4 .Jf. PO. LII-1 ‘1’ 2‘1 e=~*~ rm h 2 M‘ ' -. “. Lgv, 4L» gnu w;b dgdhu: CL and nwv ‘ 4 :1) \ LI L‘T O CI‘OTIOUIICBC‘L responsa .,‘ - .: \. J. .,-~ . a . ,-.. ' 1a; evJuenL on uhe Conover evil. ’I .‘ ' .¢\ ‘1' -- ’K“ ~ v. .v‘\ llxbeIdCblafl'fl 533C} gx mi , . ,: 1.x .. ‘ A .- N " t**r7° \rmyw urn "‘Tr‘ao v'; 3‘3 -u'ilveubo, L'L‘u Up' \ ‘ o u . v - »--'. ,4 ,— 4. .. \ ... .» ‘4 _, 377. 1.4»... d. Lb“. 4.1L; we 1-11;. -. . q n rntm- -W— «-,v,.,— _, w.) <3.-- or:\.13k)ll.1_f, Arthur; L: ooteca1uu v ' . 1" L, .LL 'LZB'L‘. inf—'14»: L ‘ 0V5 I" Rikki??? _: v V,‘\ J- {.3118 a .L-.i.“; OJ. L;.'u7 ww-un =J 0‘ of 11th ., - \ A g.- u (4 g r- VL .4 - 4. - \d l (’1‘ ‘3‘»: -;‘-w- .1- n‘ VJ‘ 33‘ ‘y .o_~ .~_ {3 C. 3,38 -.1. k .4 ~ .1 . , (..A. ‘4 L A" r, (.u 1 A . \ 3 were OUL;;L"' (H 5: a\ :3 L“ . (D . . A_ _~ ;y.-‘ 7" ~_/ V C‘ x ”"114..-“Cfulv 1d. neci a :‘a J-) JD 0‘1 Utlb 11. 10 MI . .34 4 .1 , ..-... .,. .- .4 1.1. . -‘ 1‘5- 1 {"18 £312,111 by X. L‘. c:C.. ‘ :5 1711.9 CJ c1Cc1ufJ km...) 31‘. {1.1-1. :1 C11 Lu J UI‘ (1.1 .L J 1.61m: v3/1C;3;21~.v MAN: J 10.1.0.5; tam.» A818 13.411131. OIL u 1:) CU URUV 61' are; 1.1 -LT,1\.'o cm rer1;e acre yieje; o: Jau;nc c1ever a; Lne (+— (D C‘ C ’2) <: C rs (I ,3 }~v F. \l (—r (b it (a r, a. (‘ 1 :fi—:? «~— ‘3 3*? N A ~ ~‘ 1' ~ I'. -- r n I‘.'.' ’ "7 ' n “'-- .J -‘ 0 .‘ ‘1 VWI 1 L 101’1511114“. -LGVc.J-b 1 OJ“ Lin; .4-93 c331 £ch JOLJ Mel‘s QLJ1.J.-.«'1.1 (,J .U.L Q .; . ,4 .-;'*...1:~... -—~ - .4,‘ to 5.15 JAMIE}, LOWSVGI‘, do tn: «11I.<1-c1a We. .:3 larci1 12.6.1 ‘nl-wl I’,br dJlQ £20 at rates 01 from Q to 490 rounds each in tn> ;—Veer period, the (\ ‘ d. O \I I O C \O (+ 3 :5 LI‘ 1‘ ‘1 {L O "L‘ C o C C C annua1 y1e1ds 1rcrease” Iron 4.4 1 CLOVET‘. Optimum ;rowtn of alfalfa was outained Wuen it was fertilized w1th LOO paunds of P and h J Carin; the 5—year Jer‘oc, or fertil1zed h / ‘v according t3 sail test whicn suppiie aggrsxiretely 2/5 a6 nucn phosghorWus and asset 1/5 more >Otaesium tngn the 400 pound treet- ("f- 3011 type, -ertiliz -J 1cm, and species affected the weed copulation. On the Conover sail, 1w ed: were not a pr001en. 0n the SGvJId soil, the aliulfa glots had am aware e weed percentage of aQOUt éUy in 1956 and 1957. The Ladino clover plate on this 3011 med an averabe weed percentage of lQo and 516 in 1956 and 195], reecec31vc'; 1ne wece co ont3nt in the La: ino cJover p13ts decxe Jsec pro;ree:1vely fTOL 75 to 536 as fertiliz Lion ineleéJ; 01 from O to 800 pounce of f), and an durine the 3-year 93110 4 1 PM": 1 J T‘t'j'_‘fi'; ‘l, g'fi f“ '1 ‘0’ T "t‘. ' ;' w -\ _~_."\‘I‘W -"1‘}“r £1- - “DU; \2 T A (.1 .LJLL’YLJJ, I. J.EL-J.LILA‘1£-L'\JL . V ‘ ' *1 ' 4 .7 : _1 . 1 ,;'1 - ‘ . . . ’ 3&1 L’ FL44ULJ,'J“(J.L ‘d’-l LJ‘tzALijWJ L’L‘. -i.-.J --;1"' I" gv 1 .15" .7 1"] ". ". .‘1 ’- ‘ .I" ‘Ifi ‘ 'lfl.‘ ‘~ . ' :-,.’ . _' - _ « ‘ -./~."v‘ :1'I Y1 JLJLJ £1.11.) I .L. .J4.'.JL .4“ u .5 CF 4“» nLI‘ .11—u A‘.-I LL'L 4.1:-de nJJDx/ia- -LDD. ‘ ‘3' "n V:". va'n‘n -v ’\ \'~ "’ ’,l¢‘ ‘ x " ' n ‘ f f ’ .' L "I . " ‘~ :- “ " ‘ I ’1 ’ r .4: Lield nyerlMCub was cauuuctcd to dupelmlflc LLC C-LBLt u; f‘, ‘ :"+“‘/‘" “’3‘ P I“ ’h a ‘7’ N _‘ -’~‘ ... ‘ _ . . — ,. -‘ ’ '. ' , 4. mo 1.; .44" 2: .LL Jen; , 4 nuggfuor all.) ciI-\.L AJx-JtaLJL'DALLi- LcVQL- , 4 I21 way-en ‘. 4, 9 _.4 -' .- o.__ “.4, _:,|_ . , -f ~3 -_ s.“ g . . “114° V l‘BVGJL, 9.117]. 2 CULLlnL L‘r'ao“1nij'..‘(z_ll"3 ON the J¢(:-1U, LJOVaTTLCQl LU;.-i.'O...LU.LUL!, r ‘: V' ,~' . ‘ " 7‘ ‘- \\-' V r- » . .1 V 0‘; h t i - ' F .‘ ~ r« ‘ 4 - ' "' z r' ', cil’lm. 136.7 .: .1,L’)L41:‘..Ce 01 41.14 -..LL:;lfc.-u)1’CNHQHI‘z-ioo dsJ-JOCl‘J.LJ.LU$1. Laterials and LBtMOi” A Conover 5th 101; evil witl a rH 01 v.5, tilc-Qrained, h1.n I in fertilitg, and located 3 the Kicnipan State Lniversit; Earn MAS ‘~ W. ' w, ' 4 4 '. .W..'1 4 I-"N 4'4 n -: T-I ~ ,4 .- .-.,..- , . 44,4; 1¢ed 1n Lula ShUfluo JeruQ; QLLdiia gnu uLnCUln UFOMC;F&QD «ere bdcued ~' ‘ _, ‘- 4 ~ 0 . .‘ " yams» .‘ . n . .4 t 4 - .- 2 ;av 7, l9 9, at rates 0; 10 dnq o tvthua ye gels, reJJCCtLVLJJo A I ‘~- 1-_ r .' ..,_,.,‘3 — -- ‘, ...... - ,- . ,j -.‘ ‘ '. 1w '4 ‘ L 3,- '4 , ‘ '._ . ,. (I U-L-Jlu Sdctian LU|J~3b Vd-J 12.5.4 L0 L3 “ i380. IULAfl 5.14.1. (INLLCJLQ grain drill fitted wi creme r355 war Arillei in canninaticn Mith oats incn mad been autoclaveu to man: that non-Vinnie. Jesiges atantin the lCQHfiQ and 0‘oge;r33; seeds, the drill ha; usaa to at the rate o; :00 pounds per acre 1 inch ‘eiov the rats of alfalfa J "h .t—jiot arran;euent hit“ lour rep¢;0';;ons was used. Cue f0 )w—< K] Fl p main mlots were the irrihation treatments thch mere 7; b; a4 feet in \ 0 Q P“ FL (D t—v d e:- k *3 (:0 {J {D 6 [>- (D (J) .“ (D "S (D 3. m ‘ ‘ «L «I ‘a’l .T,—‘ Lu L ' OLZS. he 1rrlguteu LLOCA: _arvestea at a o _-_ A . > ,~. V‘.' f ‘ ’ ,- f" - . ‘v I“ : scllt 13.0 a sum—filots EmLCfl Leru 44 a; 44 ‘ I 1‘ \O n y,- -' .: ‘-': 4 , ...HA ‘- ,7, on. -giv,. :.\.. i. i. _-j , ‘I-ds ‘lVlQCQ LHVQ Lug 1‘; lb! {.14 .LuOt 1:40;“: .Luf.‘ L119 Ln-O [L4LL(--’L);;li cICrit" ‘ ex;- r‘ 1- 1.: ‘A r ‘ ‘r‘ -\ —-‘ .v 'w 7‘ f .: ,C‘_ A r .~ , ~~ 3.;— ‘ ~ ~' -b~ ‘~ -‘« Elects . .18 i laial ‘1‘.)to here 6 U.) 44+ i set 1.3 gla3 ant; d; z 14:” mi within I H. 4- ‘ -4 ~ v) I» 1 AN -\ l- L. . L- ‘y In L ~ -, A- - L1 , “I 'A; V I ‘. < ‘ a: " A ’ . GdCh micro uh tleatmert lQI tdb L;O levels oi ‘4“5 anc nib. he meisture v riaoles were natural rainfall and natural rain— Or‘ 1 " 1 ‘ P «‘ P ‘. "I“ . '\ ‘ ’V‘I‘ I A I. . " u ‘ ' ‘ ' ‘t'a ‘ '1' \ i iail plus tn~ addi-icn oi liom 2 1/4 to 3 lLChES oi Mabei “Len tne available soil moisture in tne tcp l5 incnes has reducec to Let. a ‘ . ‘ scuyoucos n isturc olocx: ilacec at cegtns o: o, la, are ls incnes th read hith a Bonyoucos moisture meter mere user to determine been tnc availaule suil moisture in the top 13 inches was re;uced to the Set level. These olo‘ks were placed in the non—irri‘ ted and irriQated plots which here harvested three times per year, top~areesed annually with 30 pounds of F205, and not fertilized with nitraten. Irriuution facilities were arranied in a manner similar to that descrited in Part I and Ill. clots that here cut A, 5, and 2 times per year were made on La; 25 (bud ste;e), June ’8 (75¢ bloom), and June 23 (late bloom), resyectivglv. The last cutting for all Flats Was made on Seohexer A. titroLen was agglied at an annual acre rate of ego pognos to I one-aalf o H: ‘ ~- r~ .51" ' 7" r ' r‘ ‘ " '\ .~ .‘~ . . v.. - w 'y‘ 1‘ ‘n ~~10 \ . -, tne ylote. Lne llots HwIV:aLeQ 4 tlmeb gel dear wexe tug- dressed early each spring and after the firrt, seconi, and tnird cuttin; witr £0 pounjs of nitrogen per acre. sixty-six pounds of nitrOQen Mere apolieo early each syring anc after the first and second harvests to U) the plots that were harve ted 3 times oer wear. The plots harvested twice per year were fertilized with 100 pounds per acre earlg eacn crrL'LnL and after the first Harvest. HI ‘1 _ -‘ D \ 1J1 \ AQ Th no plots v.it1in eacn nitro;en treatlent were ten-dressed annuallr witn ghosgnorous and gotassiuy at a moaerate rate (90 pounds each of } 2'5 and EEO) or at a high rate (;20 pOUHGb each of P205 and AZL . One—half or the annual agplication was au lied early each snrin; and the remainder was agtlied acout July 1. Forage production was oeter ined by the same procedures that were described in Part I. The cotanical com os ition of each slot was eter ired by hand separating the green forage. Unless otnernise sgec- ified, yields are Ktr sse d in tons of weed ‘ ree materi l per acre (lip ure). ‘53 O H. (.0 c «- Significance between treatments was measured c; Luncan's multi— ple range test as described in Part I. a Rainfall and Irrigation uata Table l and figures 2 and 3 in Part I show the amount and A distribution 01 rainfall during the E‘Jhinf seasons of l95o and ls, . The United states Heather sureau whicn provided this data was located ‘V about one—half mile from the experimental site. Three inches 01' water were annlied to the irritated areas on J». L July lj, 1956; in 1967, 2 l/Z inches of water were apolied to these I I a areas on August 19th. Com1emue11tlg, between April 1 and oegtehber l, ater were received my the irrigated blocks |~—+) 23.79 and 23.67 inches 0 in 1956 azd 1957, re; .ectively. These quantities exceeded the eY-Jear average (15.50 incnes) by 8.29 incnes in 1956 an' b.l7 incnes in l957. The non-irrigated areas received 20.79 and Ll.l7 incnes of rainfall in r' / ' ‘ I ~° A :\~r en " v: (A. H' .- - - . -. - ‘l~ , 'V 1930 and l957 Kthfi exceeded the 47-Jear avelé;e og ,.a3 and b.c7 thnqo .. mtfl'fiVM'fl—win ~‘- '. " ' - \f‘. 45‘. ' ”L. .. -- 93,». in he twe sd1ive veers. U ‘\}:.\ -~ .1 N «>1 "- r-\ H er Luental nebults ’5‘ “.r-1. 1?“. '3,j_‘ D ' r/-r "‘2 . I 1 ‘ fi 1 “'5 ‘ ."Yl. .1 ‘ AVE-2111;}? '.l1'....LK3LC.J OJ. 143.03 allu 1;.Jl +\)Ii b 1.818 OUpwllIC lUI' li'i lvv’lveq ‘ ' :14.) and non—irrigated plot3,1 espectively, in l9bc, taalel l:. free dilier- ence of 0.37 tons between 3hese Yields has not significant. in i957, the irri_ited areas p ofuced 3.33 of a ten ner acre less than the 10n— \ ~- v L ,.._ ‘ r . v. N v -,—.'. xx). ", :r -‘ v‘, , .-'--: V .I :7. .m L '.' ~, r1~ .. a. 3-. -‘ 1 llll.'b1.t..c(l c 781.11) HLIJLKJL. -‘~VS«J 110C blr.l1l_lCaYl-. A CU1i1i’CLI 113017 0.1. the [ll/€13; .8 “ the com onents of the assec iat on ( caeles 15 and 17) \"v \1 k; P. (D '1...) a r‘: O H shaws that alfalfa and brome: a;e were u.l ike in tncir lessens to irri— gation. When irrigated, yields of 3.92 and 0.74 tons per acre were falfa and bIele rass fr lotions oi the association, and rhen not irri."at ed, alfalfa and eremegrass had average yields of 3.6L and l.0l, res ectjvely. Freguency of defoliation influenced the avera e annual ;ields. The avera;ea annual acre yiel3 for he plots tha' were harvested A times ’2‘ r" r~ r‘ ,' ' ~“ . r-ve- 4 '4 r $‘~ ' '1' .‘ - 7.‘ P. U1 ' vv ' n! 1.! -r\"‘ r '1 7 ‘3" ‘H ‘ L- ‘-1 (5.17 tans) kas OlgdlllCdutl lover Ldau tne JlBlQD cctalnem irem the plots -hat Kere hiT‘ESCGd t ice (L.99 tan:) and 3 time s (5.04 tOIIL) Her \ r year. This difference in production was eV?:ert in iy;b and 19:7, table 15. z: +‘ ' 1":;/' 1. ‘ :C' ...: w. . - 1 -- 1. .. ,. seen in 1730 and l3» GHQ fOl the average 0: the tLu Jeers, L. a "”19. :1 in a o 1” ‘nm- .ma Puaa fL+i~ r~ .-»~ ’av‘ .J' 1.1113 1Lll-ld-ld. 4.1". L518 u]_i3.llcc-Df'1-‘113 Fab.) 11bo'b~Cchp,1.()n 1"‘_Z.-:) 1; 01'": 1.)? OcLiCLIlVB *" ' .' r‘ ”5 ‘ ' “I . .. --u fwfi’L ~'. ‘I' ‘3" "' » ‘ \I‘z - '. ‘l‘ r ' J" 5“ " ’7' ‘ L . —. ' yb‘J‘ ' ‘v'\' Uddf' LIA; j—Chlullfll: bin/:21» I..b;..’. LlhuCI' 0.1.1.46? LIA? A..- CT i."CLL;tll1 ovrbrbbn.. C. a ’: L M L. 1. .' L 4 w .‘I “ .«1, L -'. . 1 " l J. .\ ¢ 1 F uI" ti 8 k.-~vrbc;.r :3: .LVLL, Uli'- {1.1..._14.18. ..f-ZCLLO.) W615 14,0\J UQIiQ 4110.8? U120 '2‘— Cu-L f -; ‘ i.‘ "j ‘ (1 + C): r: 7/: d ’4 "- i] r- )"1’2 5., r; I, ‘- [Dr 'L.‘ \ 1 1 ‘ 3"". t l~ Q L - n I» , 7 i _C . i. +. : T“ J J‘L“C_1 m‘JJ u ’ '.L.l / .C/ Clultpi / o N '4' 1., d1 A‘-‘k" 1...! ‘~ ‘1. \l |-Q [Av '. 1..! a9 ‘.r . r.u‘wwr"mm z- 1 ' P o v u o v u A . n . n x . - ~ ~ a ‘ 4 - - 7 » - ‘ A « < , , q - , . , v 3 ‘ , 1 l 1 . . ‘ , , . . , . a v . l , 1 n . . . n - .. . 1 ~ ~ - a c v s p- > a . v - ~ 0 . ' . ~ Q . '- . g _ ‘ -. . . . ’ ‘ A t - < . - , u ' . . 4 . -\ . . - ¢ , , I ‘ t a l . n a - A ' .. < n V ~ _ . a , - . ... 3 , . K ‘ . . . q - . . 1 . 1 l . . .A _ 3 . , ‘ . - . 4 . u .1 firmly ~- ..—- 3.5;! F .2 ML / s>.: $5.1 94.1 >H.n e>.¢ Hn.m >H.n wx.m oo.q wo.m mH.m “H.m mlmpo>e m>.q a).w qH.n $3.0 m».: 0H. e NH.n Oe.m No.¢ m.m HH.m mo.“ 06m uc.: 3&.1 eu.\ 9H.“ gm.¢ we.“ my.“ es.a me.e Nu.n ow.m 0H.m o meacm>< q1.: VH.¢ 1m.“ m..a o..q NH.¢ an.“ a. ©$.¢ Ha.q m“.n Hm.“ memgm>< mn.q nu.¢ >9.n -M.a ma.A ew.q mq.a a\.m w».: mu.¢ .q.a w©.m 90m 09.1 :;.w on.m mm.m ow.4 mm.n mo.a Qa.m 33.x mu.m mm.m mm.m 0 0mm we.q ew.w we.¢ \3.n H\.: 3n.q Hm.¢ HM.“ um.¢ xv.w ew.e m«.q m.mpm>i AA.4 No.1 95.: o..a .1. i am.. >L.¢ ie.u 33.4 mq.m $>.q mo.m ocm m».¢ a;.w we. >m.e u».4 4H.n ex.q >w.q qw.e ee.m my.q mw.q 0 9m \\\ .uQH m:.¢ m>.w w$.4 H».q Hn.¢ mo.\ ul.q oc.: me.4 om.m «w.m $9.4 mumpm>m mm.3 .o.\ :y.e 3;.3 nw.i or.q n¢.¢ x¢.q Hn.e m$.m mm.c mw.q 05m 33.: w:.w 9.: Hg.¢ mm.e nm.n $0.4 m;.¢ no.4 nm.w 0 .m 9.4 o m mgo>m New Dd \nx... Wu V.v\ OJ \.w.o+N ~\d.\o+.‘¢ ...N. O (\u 3U..\\0+N » 30+; “Kagoq “Arvoq NH 00 N.©O+N www.mrHOkV‘flq no.¢ ao.e \m.q e1. oq.¢ em.m H..4 1..: ye.e oi.q .m.m mo.e com 3:.1 Je.w b..¢ :\.¢ m.¢ \>.\ w>.q wn.q nc.H om.n 33.0 am.d 0 cum 1... 11.1 .g.¢ .... ma.¢ mm.m ol.e q... me.e mH.H 1... 1m.¢ .. 1m>1 we.¢ mo.1 03.: e.T mH.e 41.n mx.e :n.. mo.e e~.m mm.m m.q 00m \IJ 0...... A4...” 0 1\ H1». 0.41.... Wmu .3 “M. ad H+No ,W Jud 0+.N Mlygod ...) 00.4% ”\UO 0 m 9H. m Hm 0+N 0 Kb \ QLOH .m>< J x v .m>< d n N .m>d d m N . 1 - meow .1 1 0. 3... 3,1 . L z . a pea. co; : -Hp+30 mo pmoed, pmc meow cw? an. OmCH O WCH «VIA mimgm>t Umpmaprchou empwqupH «a Ucm womb ucHwH€> n 9Q L1Ha1>car mm; 23H; 3b N am vmb4jiiic aw: ax;H :OHJ:HQOmmm nmxp 0H933I11Hw4H1 :: mo wguv gm- uzw cmsoq.H- cam «isHmneaom vum usegocgnozg meow :H mUHmHm .meocm .mcnwmfiei ac norm. mumpm>w 3.3.6.5 m. N- D>m4r. 0H MHDQH _...' 96 It 4 l.‘ .\ NH . Om . AH . Mm... w . +Nm . n. H : : : HH. mH. 0H. mN. mm. 4w. mm .a.n.4 u .m.m .cflu NH. 0%. JH. fl. Wm. 0m. TH : : nH. nH. 0H. mu. qw. ow. mm .m.m .xwu ) x L. .. s _\ .\ ..x .\ .a:a wamH 0mmH .m>m muoH quH mLmNHHHuhwz mMCprso "gow nmvmpm>m Haviuwmpp Cmmzpmo nman> w4HHmswm mo muzmfi 00.. Hp.m .3.“ HH.. an.q mn.n a... :..4 $0.. mw.m ma.m m“.m m...m>« no.q Ny.» «o.m v0.0 oo.q fim.n Hw.s mq.a mo.q mm.m wH.m am.q oow 4a.¢ Hg.m 03.0 mm.: qn.q nfl.u mm.¢ cm. 4o.¢ mw.m NH.m ro.m o mgmgm>H 55.4 mo.q a... no.“ No.q mm.m NH.m «0.. mm.q $0.4 Nm.m d4.“ mwmgm>¢ Hm.4 >H.: N».m do.“ o>.q VH.q «o.a mo.m mm.q Hw.q am.m oo.m 00m N>.: @w.m nu.m 03.m mm.¢ ww.m mH.m nw.q m.q ma.m mm.m ww.m O omm n¢.¢ am.u 09.4 um.q mw.q Hn.m oo.x um.¢ m¢.¢ >q.m .o.m H$.q mwmum>4 %¢.¢ oo.w Hg.d mm.q #4.: m\.fi mm.q mw.4 Wm.d @m.fl MU.A W%.4 do on.¢ mm.m 0%.; dm.4 $4.4 pm.n n§.: xm.q ms.< pm.n mj.m mm.q o co wmeloAbH Low mwmpm>¢ $W". w—- --v-.. an.“ am.w ¢ .¢ a... ox.“ oo.n a... oa.n mm.“ H4.H m... mo.m mump.>< 55.. o\.n 4... >H.H a... s... ou.q ...» ...“ um.n a... ...n on. a... sn.n .... Ho.m o5.n a... a... .m.m OO.. ou.m a... «w m o mama... ... \ ; + \ x \ x . \ ..u. . a... a... .... H .q om.n .... q».q «0.. a... m«.m a... .m.m .....>4 . Hm.w $3.: ¢>.q Hm.u gm.w mH.: ma.¢ aw.» .m.n mm.m «5.4 o».n sow m $4.104“. DIN.“ HQ...“ “00‘ M%O\ ”NOW ”wad. ”(Mofl .IW\\0+\. PM...“ hum...“ N.O.om 0 COMM F. \o\ .x. o\. )044 o\. \o\ )..o\ 0+ 9\ o\ \o-.. \.o.« o\. 1. \ .. m a. . g. . 1. p. . a; N. , as x .H . m. H. >. N 5. c m ...>. .. \. o\ \\ \ \o\ \ \ \ \ ..1 \ \ . \ \ ,\. ... \ m .3 Q .. Dw.¢ 5 mg.. ufi.n :A.u 00.5 m>.n mo.» $0.4 mu.o DON -. \o\ \n... .\o \0 +0 .\ ad. . 0+ o\ 1. o\ _ o ,\\.o. .\o\ I u 0.. . .... 1 D... +4. #4.. fl A. .... Jr. .. m4“ 4. .N 0 r0 . bx. N w... d m 0 O Om. . 4 x m meH w n... \H.m >¢.q No.n mo.\ mn.q w».m ow.» on.n 0H.m no.“ pu.q mmap®>¢ x n>.\ Qw.\ mJ.\ up.u \n.d O).W nh.d bm.v av.d m3.w mm.w mH.W 03V . . .. . . . k; k . l. 1.. 1. .x x \ (\ . .y. l .\ . (\ .(.(~ 9 _ -1 1 - - x. . . . ... . WM» , \o..\ 4%.”.wa Kurd.” ...01 «\v o.\ HA.“ Win/w.“ ...—lo“ “440% MUN.“ meom. «1qu O inanimmkkan h. ,\.I ¢ .. mu.\ n1.\ 04.x H4.m mH.w an.“ ow.m zo.u n¢.m aw.n os.m mm.m ommgc>c . \H.\ J%.W ud.\ i».d Hm.d CH.\ H%.V Ab.\ ¢W.W wd.W 70.fi fir.w 33% w . x 1 . x I. a .. . (K 1 \ ..s :\ \\ «ax ..-. I I. \ . 1.-.. .1 \ i. . \ I. \. - .\ \.. \ x \ 1 .. . ...w a .u H>.n su.m Hu.\ wu.. 4w.. J:.. 34.. w,.\ om.n md.m 0 0mm ..HoW m)...w).o\ .330.“- J.)o\. a-..” \flov. l_yu.\.0W. DMZ-N WHOM .P\_m/.om.\. J49...“ MU...“ mmumtfimukvdw ...- ¢;.; .u.n %\.u «m.u .®.2 ao.n .¢.m 0H.m qa.u .¢.m 0H.m mud ..\. 1 . \ \ J \ \.\ 1 . \. r. \ \. 1 \. \ - A..\ H..\ ...x 3 .n ”N.. 0... g.-. NH.u L: 4u.u 4H... 3a.w 0 up \ omoH ...: t x . ..>4 J n N .... q A N MPHONv -. .Hu.)>. pHuwf... .0../.l.)):0 HO H.14)- .. 4 mrHom ..Hmrr ‘ .4. . . .. r . Q P ., 4. y m \ . C n . ... . _ .. ;H 04 (p .nCH .nLH n0<4 depm>t Um» 24p Hlsom Umqfi.Hng «a Usm mgmm ..1.‘ .d 1.. .xu .om_g:m:;cpa L :pc> w «1 I).‘. 7“ 1.... \,..I,. . ..ldl.n .C1.1 v: ,. u. . ... c. .. \ _ ; ..1 ...:a . u: , _|.. 41. ;. 4 l 4 )1... . . . ... ‘ .. a .\ \.vl .I A- la .\ a. p ):c. -.44- 4 :._.4.. - ,u tng; r... .,Hw;mnn. ri_.. :.fi;:; -5. q :43..Ln_.4o ;orq.er>uH d »m .mLpr » r r .4'rr..-‘ .‘ . . . . . . J. I; .~ .. 1a \A , |., ......I; I I . .. ..... u 4 x; _ 1.. VI (I {.41 I. ... ll 1; ... 1‘ I1 1‘. .I II I1 I Z... 1r.” 1:.) :1... ”m... .fi 1.... .... HEM ,.._..H._ lfi: .. 4.x. r... CH .....H.. t. .4. .. 23>. Z 4. ...... ,, U H. ..0 3.4.4.1. ... 0 ..m.....»..... ctr mu. _ 35m; u . I . ... O , l I . . I . \ o4. mH. ...: xw. ...c mw. Hm. NH. AH. .m.c >H. .m.z MH. ow. OH. mH. ...: gm. ...: Aw. wn. NH. MA”. omog NI»... omoc MwHo NW0 .m>m mmmH owHH .m>m ummH mwa .m>m HT OIO\ 0 Hr mMmNHHprmm QmwopHHu "pom mmmmam>m pamawmmpp cmmxamn mman> thHmscm mo mMCHszo é Ui91 5c. ~ . ..n H0.q my. J\ N \ A \ ‘\ N n a a m% A , C .n mm.A N0.m mN.m m¢.m mm.m d>.N .M 0H.J M¢.m 0d.fi HN.M 00.4 HN.M , .fl NH.4 HN.M Hm.\ Fm.fi 00.4 >$.N flo.m N).A mm.w fim.m 00.M mw.m d>.N n.n on.q o¢.m do.a bq.m 0N.4 om.m ..m mw.m qw.m 5N m NH.m mo.m mm.w ..q N».n ma.n WH.n on.“ mm.m 4m.m .u >m.n sq.n 4n n qa.n om.n Hy.“ wmetmmw Low mumpm>¢ oo.m on.“ no.« JQ.N o®.N ‘0 ‘rH 0 «J- N O (\1 C) O 0 4‘4 \O~ o {\2 ("\ o )CDox O I.) o . I o [\(N c>o« \r O o ~¢Cfi~¢ ~i~i~i MC“ (‘W LAO\(\- uDCV—d r—i\O D—Hj O <‘\(‘\(“\ O ‘.’\ O .‘ \2 -M O mmm u\ 0 k . #54 J ~« Awmchpcoovnle mHLmH § . ‘ u - . D O o I I “ v . . I C V a Q ' A r V . > . - s a V ‘ . o ' . ' Q ' " ‘ I § ' I ‘ ) _ h ' c . . . . 1 ,. . ¢ . y n - . ~ - . A A ~ ‘ ~ 0 v ‘ ¢ " - ' ‘ . .. . 4 ‘ \ . j . c 1 . g . a - . 4 Q g o . l n a . r I . I p ‘ o Q . ‘ O . ' 3 I l I . O J O . . A v c v d I 1‘ n K ‘ ' ' V ‘ ' - . ‘ - . . - - u ~ ~ I a ' . v . I “In... id“. .42.... x 50H. 3.3..” ._.).o \.\.o 4A.}? 3H \..o \.N.o 2T.“ o dlwofi m...H....H®b..c HO.H 9.. ea. Ha.m mH.H H1. ... mH.H «a. H». mm. Ho.H 9mm n». .v. 3;. n..H H.. H». u». H».H mo. mm. HH. HN.H o m...m>¢ n». «a. ... xx.H .>.H pH. mp. ou.~ 4m. Hm. Hm. m>.H whwgm>< op.H m.. “H. a... H..H H.. ex. mo.c a». mm. mm. H..H ouw N”. «H. m. m:.H Hm. HH. .5. mH.H a». yH. mm. wa.H o own \. o ..I... \O ).).o .0 \J‘O \ O +\..o..V HH.. \0 “+0 \..0 )fiJwJJ. yam .. >\ H. ., H Ho H .c .w . - H. H p. m_ H a.-;m:, .\ o 4 o .. Jo ...). 4.1.4 o ,)\o \3. _ \oJ. .. o .T.\o \\o 34...... )0. ...... \v .- 2... H .. r H w .. ( H ... .3. ...... .. . H. 0.....- \ O .1... .11.. .\\o o It. I 2. O \O .1. .\O ...... .1114 .N. o. 1 H m. an .H. 3> H M-. n.. n. m: o .,< .\\ PmJH o H). 0 +4 0 \{o _\o \\o- _).}.o )4\o -:_o r\. ... o ... 4.3 ... H. \.u. H m . A4... H L H .. x H Cu .. ... H .. H ... H L. ml H D... H 0; 5.7.5.... .-..-.o 4H... \)04. \_mo' ....0 V. ....o ”3.). -4..J. In. \.4o ... 1,.)J. C .. H ... 1,. . ... .. fl v; H Dr W.-. H . . ... Rik «.... H \Lx: H r .l 1 o ....o »nv... \\o ... 0.13. \.....o J.\o- 1.-....1 ..\o .\.\o1 7“. .) -..“.H). L « \2 A. «A. . A. H...“ H. 9 H , _ g. H . g Hr . H- _r ...u U U .r N; H C 0. H...(b.4, ..lul / r - 1 ) , 1 t .-- . \. x. . I - - 41 . . ...H ... ;¢.H u..H ...H .n. a... o>.H HH.H a». m..H «..H m ...s. \ \.o .. ... .o )x. ...). ..To- ...\0 ... .o I D... .H V . J... H N? H min H H). CD H .4. n. m. . H .3 a... H N“... H 2N. ..)o. \..u - ... \o .... 0.4.4. 4.1.4. ......J... 3.1. +4.). 1..-.-1 \..\o H ..-- \ :_. H H H H H. H Had . . L- r . . I H . . r. H mm .H O .x a )I..-n \r.‘ +1.0 \\ 0J1 )vV. W\\O \ 0 +4.0 \\0 Mn). \..4u ).O ) filfiwU aw i 4 .. H H .5» H H H .5 HMH H .... H .. H C... .3... r f... H a. a: <5... 14 ) .\ ).\ nil )\ P. \..c .1 .\ . a 4 . .v ...\u 0.4.. . O x. . 014m ...). \4..v\¢H 3.x... H OH \HOV.‘ J: 0H H.r...‘ll... fi./ .14... HR aim! \I. N \.10 I. «If. \\0 I.). .41. .1.’ \v\\. 11.1. .L. \\\O :11. ) 1-4 J .- A 4 H. H .... H H 4. .. .. H .. H ..... . H a: H ,1. ... 0.. H 5.. H C .., \\ GHQH .05.... .... w u. .m.>..... ... w. v. .m>.1 ..H ..\ v. mLH. ...m H 1‘- \- 1..4 .111. a 4‘ I 1 ‘4 a \wa {a}. p20. H1. , CHunso mo pmour. pr: er :Mc .)‘_udi “WA .0544: .y F ‘4 * u. c . \JJJI 44 ...). ...)... .1 4. A.-. JJT r\ a...“ O r.Lw>f. Hrvm 1.... WSSfl'M‘ ( .h "Kr +4.. 4 w.pHrH F .1. .. I 1.0! a. 1 .v i. In {1. . \ \J) .noHo:®zumL% ucw:;u> M pm ©¢nv-> . .\ J \: ..|I 1 I. i 1.) q . y \4 1A 1 .‘ 4 .. I . 4 4 \l (I . \I a \ . I ‘ \I. . I) ‘1 .1. 2|! ) . s I a IHn: wrfl :qup 3:; art CHHH. rgm Cde.mH.; bsfi njozcxrmozc «angan; as some nHa>oH w aw roLHu+LHT . I 141. . \I . J ‘4: .I a}! 4 I . .v . \ .14. l . ‘nl... ... . Inil) ‘0 \I I; .1 \ . mm; HigH coauiHur..fi "mm; m opslquwuHm am CH opom H.: mgup SH mmv;-ogop3 mo ntroap owua¢>< .ur mHLHH ..r \O \o o 3.x. ... ... 04 .. ..H : : : )1. \u. \\\\ ...10. I '0 CW. 0. O H- 4.4 , Hf RU A,” ’1. 1H ....I r.. .. r um F CO 1 {7\ J .1“ ' \1 ~.‘\ v -4 '/\1 ~‘«‘ , , I“ V H x ‘4 O rHrfirH U‘H r4 \ I...) q C). NW. 3m cm”... ...».-. \ \ \ § .1 .... . .....Cr 9.4).. ..D H.. u, 4.47.0 ‘ \ \ ujfill‘liJ .0 ...O n. : . ...... 3.... \to .-.. 2.)... 5H...1 0... ...... . .C H ...,Tu. r 0C 4r. r"... ff. F. mu r C. TQCbflH ...... nlo). \ ...- -...-. \..o... 3...... -J) a: H .. A LH p .c «H r rs r rcm \. , \ . .1 \).xj. . \l 3‘. a;.H H.. HHH. H-u HH.H o c ¢HQ>H. mH.H ...H mm.H Hm. m». mH.H mwmgm>m mm.H HH.- 1w.a m. HH.H Hn.a 00m ...... m... .H ...m. HH. ...... . . .H o 2...“ m0. HH.H mm. an. mo.H HH.H mwmgo>4 o;.H a... 0H.H mo. HH.H en.H saw v. q¢.H mm. «a. m&. mH.H 0 0w At@::HHuoovlle magma . ~ - , 4 . h . n o ‘ . A . o , . u . . , ‘ . , . . - . o ‘ . . . o - v . _ - \ a . . ~ ‘ - A . » a - - . \ . 1 . . . s . ‘ — . - g . s ... ‘0 xvn A cuttings were made W35 16 lJlLi‘Jj 4, 3, or 1 w, ,_. W has irmt J diabe. yield of brcneQraa I .L uni bee auLa ev1uenc In 1957, tie rela+ive yie‘ds for the I the 19%? grod1ction of ‘ A \ .A ‘>‘ a what tue cutt; nQ X level. When 2 harv 1.113 gbfizi, 1.11431; lT‘I‘J. w r- l L4 Lon: yer acre, ‘:~1‘:J\3L Of P O 25 ugr y5ar. re; 1 componant in l9LQ an‘ F: H: my 13;? in (‘.(;’ (‘2...1‘Ll‘. (41.5:— 1 . 31.10“ \‘Ifif'e :-;._ . t f - A” Jug“... ~.I::- VINO) "1 UN; in] ILL are '5 reduction under the 3-Cut- I ' ' r a . Vv_,~ o- 1 .« ”QIEL5S Lfm1C51LH1 I. Q ‘3 ‘tM-‘l n, I A qu cLJ 2.4.7: rilfli ,,- 1 . ,I‘ .e vlsLQL OL , r 5‘ 1. a _1LLJ{1 has not LiQ’SCL’ gectiveig, hauls: u ‘ -\ U ‘ F“ ‘7 ,fi ~ ‘ *- ‘L hiki‘ “"d3 b -4'.’ LL—i ..L— 4. 'W C‘ L 1" ‘1“ .‘W. V ' ‘ “ 1., x7 mm has I acre than Mncn .1 gLLa yleLus 1n " '1 T - A an: LUMB 1 U2 fertility level when harveeted 3 enfi true in these plots M1 rle :te ed twice ticn cut 3 times, ave"' e alfa fa "i acre were OULALn3( Pram the plot“ 5e of phoephorjus and potassium; when A dragged to 3.09 and 5.90 t3ne, re 3‘3 in teqle 1%, avera e yields of the a ti e3 per year were ”“73ter at the h Fit 3. Iiitro ,n affected the :r3wth A ”LL; :3 ;.dI‘.)7:1T. ;;;;3 Vfinj Iflflt - ,\‘ «—‘,r ‘7. - I i l ' 'V I . ce' . -. In 11,? in tne aeeccl1— elc: 1 4.Ll emu 3.57 2333 per .rtilized at the low an: hiQh rates cuttirQe 1ere made, 3L3 Lcre yields cti veL . A5 indicaced b; tLe data lfalfa-Qracs :533CL1VLon cut 3 or 4 iQher tree at the lever fert‘lity of the chLe ‘Iess fraction in goth " Vr'I p f r‘ 0 I 4 '. n w ‘ ‘ ~, A l" n 'r‘ yezrc, eole Z. eld increas 93 o; 0.33 anfl v.44 ten: per acre 0L oro e race were octeinec 1r3u an e¢nu3l L30 l tiOI1 oi ~33 :cugne of \_« A - ' 1 z" .. , ' .' 1 .2 ,y- . 1,. A4. ' , nitr013r per acre in lygo 1n«%7,rreechCL veL . A ellinc r:uecui n ‘ e A “V 4 ’\ ‘p 1 qr 1 ‘.’l 0‘ ‘\ f'k“\ ‘~“ ‘r I‘ O" ‘ -' V! in tne pr3cectlen UL alialfa occaired Mleh LUU guanla o: 1ivroQ,n LeLs a? lieu cer acre durins1tne prouin‘ seleon 01 l\ 33Le 10. L a 5 k mu ' . 1,. .5. _- . -‘H .L : _ _ (1 ' PM: o: , VJ. 9-." ' ,3 , - lile nltro ”Kan XL CubLan n'JCL’1CUJ./Dn V(&~J Q-L:/{L_.L.L-LCZ:IA1U id; tll'J J: .Lta 3*]. ~ \ ~‘L fl -. [WI—Tr, “h~ -y~ ‘6 [‘1' 'x . It r a .-. -‘»~ ~. of 33U1 co“ 0391c; in l:,(. ”new cem:ereq to n“ LO- JQeu treichent, .. y ‘1 , . -1 : L.1 0 rw . .L-‘.v.:r n ,;.+ , ‘ 1 .1 I, a 1“: 1 the agnu-L agilic‘cion oi 400 gccuuQ CL Li.r_ :n i.Ier were cegre33ed tue “a" f. —-\ \" ‘ ,1 w ‘ a. M- '\—y.'- ’3‘ (\v ”V ' ‘ r aLIaL a e1w Ceceine d.u3m :I‘ixre 4~C3Ltinh qQQth.cuKi HGT d~ec tne I— (’1 the H3 K) harveste:i tflice per veer erLeQraee tive when fertilized with 400 )Qunds ‘. When cut 3 year chier V 3(1 " D T' J \ 1 - ie 5 ir the associ3t on broneQrac L-cuttin; ., table lg. 11’] 11 -‘;z " VL¢J a530c1 etien he; LDFB {reduc- J.“ n of nitrates t” not 1C rtil either nitrchn Lev 1, however, the \J DlSCUSSl‘n r (‘~ - !_ “. _~ i N .IV . p } ‘1.“ n. .... , ..A "_‘ .~. ‘4 - J I, " r‘he sii ht Jleld response Oi tne dllalld-b qJQWIQJb asstciaciin ul- -'~1 y.' of 0.37 tons per acre in 1956 and the neLative yield response to irri- gation in 1957 mere mainly due to the auove-average rainfall of 5.29 and 5.67 inches which occurred during the resgective a,I'm'3".~."i1';c seasons. A comparison 0: the production 01 the alfalfa fraction in the irri— -ated areas snows that it produced 0.55 tons more iorabe in 1537, table 16, than in l?56. In contrast, the bronegrass fraction in the irrigated plots produced 0.:8 tons less in i957 tnan in 3353. These data indicate tnat irritation (5 incnes in Last and 2 1/2 inches in l957) adversely affected the yield oi oromegrass in l957. However, the data do not show in what matn r it modified the performance of this species. The Question of utether it reduced the vegetative growth of individual plants, created a situation whicn led to a reduced stand, or stimulated the growth of the alfalfa fraction to the goint where it conjeted for li_ht remains uninswered. There is a relation- ship between the persistence of bromeQrass and the height and freeuency of cutting and ,r0ttn stage at which it is harvested. however, it is surprising that the bromegrass fraction in l95 when cut twice was less productive on the irrig~ted areas than on the non-irriwated. For this year under the Z-cutting system, the bromeLrass fraction had an aVera;e yield of l.A4 and 2.12 tons per acre when green tith and without irri- gation, table 17. When brone¢rass was grown in association with alfalfa at various moisture levels, (Part I), and when it was grown at o nitropcn levels "H" ' t A V" '1‘1" ‘O l") 31" .3 ’7‘ -—MT\ .‘f‘ v ‘3 .Q'z . er '7 I 3n“? 'v "'3 "‘-m chlU. Clu 4 hi‘OlO 41112, LVL, D (A (alt iii), lu iJVTLOI‘Hcitl 1*] d bluiJnLdl hLuIlll-ur as described aucve. dat a inC licwi 3 that Cutting effect upon the productive L) ("311-133; -~or~ ~ ff HIV}; ‘ 3. ’4 v (J b\3 t ,, AC) ILLS '5 ency cf the le;ume—Qrass l + U\./ in J Gamer" of the ‘ C‘)" vb, the in D T'Ou.€ 5?. 1" 2,- K—d had a as contonemt unon the Lrowth f the alfalfa c3n30nenc. Tue Cfintr13uti3ns o: the bromegrasc t3 the average yieL”s for the 2-year periom Here )5, ;L, 339 123 when 2, 3, ”ad A harvests Aere made each year. Alfalfa yields in the assocj-tion were :reater for the 4—333r per 03 u‘ er the 3- than Lam r the 3- 0 4—cuttin¢ cysteus. for the 2»y33r “efiiod, aver3¢3 annu'l alialfa ;131d5 of 3.2;, 4.31, and 3.3; tons 33? acre were otaineu ire“ tne areas tn t tere . ..A- . ‘3' m‘. , =' , .. ‘. and L times rer y33r, tmuie lu. 1L8 oe3Le. Crou3h tr33tu3nts tnat were h:rve3ted3 tLLGS rwer‘ gear co (‘3 A ’ 3 Y" ‘-’ ‘v' p '7' A / " "t 7" a“ .1 n w .1 ~‘ ‘2" (3 new; (3.2».‘31 C; ..i. nr‘_».«.1€;‘r“c1:3L3...3ea..s..-33.», of]... 333301u+ on W93 3 nail» troaactive VLSH to.- rav.tn times per year. In creas :1; A . ~ I‘ ‘ .u ‘ -: 3—? h r 1 'L' ‘ J' ‘3- «33uqe eacn 333 not aLbeI bwe I“ 1 r 1 4‘ v .’ 3‘ ~ ‘ v . ‘ l :N ‘. "1 3f3333 r33 33 MBTC 0033in33 a 7 - :._ 3. . 3evel 1n t¢ose 1:1333 .21.,L 4.33 3”” r ,- --.; V163U LJIAV FCI AIL-3.1.1: [Tl‘lu .—. ? CA , ',, C’ cree3ew L;3I the are I w -' 7‘ 7‘. ‘7 .K‘ . - ‘- — .. ,- 931.8(3) OJ. T1-.-‘_I.;; uufl'“ D , ‘ 3 , . ‘ .3: 3 ..ro’mmu c; :x)‘t33 3 .3 . {1'1"} .1133 1,. ....1.‘ DaTV¢3ucu r, ,' _ ' "‘ ' 2’3 ' ‘ r. . id .A. \J._'. .4 A . . . f‘ ne.cJ 0. -1U ‘YA’1H ‘ ' 4.; 9 ‘\ ’\ rLLC33LOH 0; P73 ‘ 4. gron3h OL gr333, utt .-- 3‘, ‘ .‘ w. r .. u UHF} (13L .|"\r tlidl Cit 1“ (P14 herveete \ C 3 W-.. -.-1D.- ". o- tub 33-3333 1L 3¢e ensatee for the re- 1 i‘ a. -~ - ~ . . 3 . aLLalla-orahe; 333 1“ ’ 1 13; r3¢oved 2 or g t[.\} ..L\I"~'v er J38 I) 1 r? . . ‘ . . - "-’\ : ‘3. '; ‘ ,: ' '\ " - “ .1" ViILKL A v.4.ilvw "war 1} .4. r. l 1.....) ILV.LLk-V\IQ .‘I‘ "l" (VJ-7'31”. {1‘35 “in? "~ Vat} all-’3. .Q '3 ...3 31-13.11. 1.11- . . 5 '. ’ . , - —. ,_‘. 3 - ‘ . ‘ - ,. -. ,_ -. T"? . 0V3 L 01 130;)";‘I'gu‘311 v.33; LLC. 23-1313".- 1 J‘.44.:. - uA‘Jv + .~ . 1‘ 21 ‘1 i; :1 .' 1. »‘ 3, ..- —' r 4‘. ,4 Euqu.>J..L./-C'-. 1L- 3a,); LU -_ ‘Jukail-x_4..] - LA ".3 (fl. " '13? “3.13 L 1'; «a 3.1.3.3531." "I 3'. “cu-'33.. < A h .. L _ ‘ . ’ ‘ iv 0 ‘ «s o t‘nr .3» nzww=.'q 3 ,. . t»~..1.. J\— nil—U , -“ “'--“ “"'J 3.1.3 L‘;' be L‘... mil . ’¢ .,1 m ‘i;-./‘ 33 were .1. -4 u U. n \ I 3 A L O " H- _ . ‘1f . ‘ V s]- ~J I. - A \. 1.1; \/ r7111 IO '10 4‘ hi v. {1 ' 12 m y i» C 2” av C :. v. e “t. . i .\l ... l- \/ Di I; ‘1. .4 .1. ‘uk 2 . J y. P Ix IL fl. .1. x. ’\r\ \ ’ ‘ ) 14‘4“ i "¥ nq-.(~x .L _ A" b ‘J C( it .r . VINIA n_| ..rv . ., h. .9 u; D, C ( .. a C 1 any Av .1“ A. ~ C P. ..u av Q T nT. 3.. ‘1 :3 u“, ..I.. \4 t4— {. f. . Utgl‘] ; -i {. ,‘. J. n“ ‘L. a. T'E‘l '. 1'3 :1 T .L v\ AH L . A 0 U2. _ - .1 ‘ . _ ... A )1 I. . 7. i) Z J .7! "L n. .1 2K U, .5 .J u‘ .‘ ,. “a. u 3 _ _ 1 u_,:_ .5, I ..U 2.4 . [5‘4 0 .4— 4... “I x . ...H. .1“ E. H .. cA. “ .. w; - b v. .T. ‘ .5. 3 k A )1 x) «:1. r , ‘_ fl. ~'L ‘ .. v4 1.-.. u L !. 1-1 . 1)’.‘ ~4'u ._:11 fl » .l‘ 4 U.:, U J. v 14“ ‘ C‘ .\:.xvy A V) ‘- x: C c s.) " .3 ' "f ." - I.\\/L I ;L-a' k.) m-‘ .‘3 “w“- n1}? V J a..-.,'.-./ 113 rt r... at" 7"" ced \ H". «H‘V: ll LIT" '7' u) y I 7 W V -5 5": Pet?" ‘9 L01; 1. . #4. 4 .L r. ‘ ._‘.1 3 rl. :2 {.3 \l v ‘7 pf, cal“ I‘B FOR-id} gin . I- \— 1i (.i 5 .t'lgL l U . u”) .3 4 V 3f flv' fill r‘z .~Ll “ J 1 1d. [Rf KIM—37] / I \‘ ‘v C '7 5 O ’: l a. : \ f '7 ‘ ’ ., ~ ’. ‘ ... .. ’ ,‘ . {of-...!“ L‘l' v J-<..\/~: 'f " .,, ‘ - l: —‘X.‘ "‘ _ \; .L - “ ) 4’ ‘4} j'_& J .../.1. ‘.-‘~ \ " . . . 1 w '- _‘ '7 ' ,4 F L 4 ... I 4 ' -‘ ~ * ’ V “ ‘r ' ‘ if 3 A .. '4-L.I. Al .71‘dvltla I‘ n L’l bl c: '1¥$.JF‘C] L ‘ ){’ ‘7‘“); ¥{ , - 1,4 'x, 3‘ .4] 6i. 4 Iv /_ ¢ ‘- r ’1 >\ r; 3?. r ‘7 .-a ..- ’fi"‘ ~ - ‘ I ..L I‘ _" fl ’ "‘ — :1} 7- x ‘ f“ ’-q J‘- . ') -' ‘ -‘ ‘7'. -II." ‘A‘ ‘1 ~‘ w‘ ‘71 1_~"~.Cll vn‘k w —.L L‘Y Clxu'ulfl; ~V-«v‘v .-.. .‘. I. DA --- r~ u . .1 L‘ .0 -1 {I j [‘5 . j‘ n. " ..‘x L I .r‘ v‘ ‘ q r‘ I —, f— f I j I ‘ w .- lfi " X ‘ , 1 -. o ‘3 ’ ‘ n '“l ; _I_. ~ . ‘ ‘ rL «. Tic .1 ‘ ; f .3 J ..;a" ’ if. - F) r7“.“ '1 ./~ u . 1L ‘ I CAL/1 I ‘ ._ 1’ Aw. .I ~ + ‘ ’ ’ ' V ' ‘H '1 4 - 2'“ 1‘ u *1 ' '_' U 9 V312. k.) 1 , :1» mg ..4 t- . L ) 7 4._~ 4C1; fr. .1 . ".71 .7) _ f- ’\ '.,,. ' (3'3 f‘ [,5 ..fi ' A . ,‘f: f‘ . .3 3,.- F »1 ; >Jv. 3'7; 'fi ,‘su * ‘ ‘ I ,..'T_,. /~. ~ /‘ - 52' ..3‘ *1; & -k {- (14. I- ‘-\r‘\-/ ‘ [I r: “'7 ‘ Lg" * 4} A. I k ‘ ‘ ‘ 7 .4 , L \ /' ‘ . A U -‘Q '. ~ +}‘ - l n, 1 p. F ‘r. ~, 1') ‘ .4 431-4 .-'. ‘ «ya ‘ ..‘ "J) ‘4‘"‘rw‘ . k .-:~_ - .. Aw U. C ‘1 ~4—a‘.‘1-"L ' -’\. I ;¢-.4"U .l v a )(J "\.\ ,1 .'_-’ll‘ \ 7‘ u . “‘ ‘ b I, C 14' J D q..‘a-‘ - 7‘ ' \J j— A} ‘ _ r a" _ , ‘ pv.‘3 ‘1 ‘I ' 2) ' "1 I -1 w ' ‘ ‘_ 5' i 1‘ ." . * - . ‘}"J y ‘ , ,4- x A a.) K... :51”: .' I. Q CL '1 v o -A.Lo o Lt.’.‘- 0-1. LI.C {1 w I V, J. ”..C'y-~ 11’ ‘ - ‘ ‘ ' ‘1 |’ " "‘ “ A ‘ " I» o ’ Q " 'l 'v . . -‘- ' 1. ‘ r ’) f V a ‘\ n. ‘ (‘- - ‘ ‘ ‘r LLCI'. 'ZxV 1:1," ‘ .3 1 “JV 4.1 v .1 Lv(.zl.i Q4\ AL.» 1.‘1 -. -..-b 0 11C, 1‘1. ._ ‘j 1. war. \)I. Ari w ill ‘- ~ ,— —" | ' . _ a. . A ,— ' J J , , ‘ ‘ n . 4,. | -' 7. ' tt-v vL..3.‘C11LH'IJ 1'; ”V3“ tap" ,/ LI.-‘ 1+ LI...I‘<,._2 “JIAV ‘ ..“u'. ' 1“,, .‘UT'D’ "HH.,LC LaiVC , , ’3‘“ T1 .‘4 r: r .. ‘ 1‘ ‘ 1’ 4 ,. .... V. I "4 V .4 f t" 4: A. ([1. ,3 i 33,. t 3 _ ,1 f. 3 '1" : l ‘- .. _ . ti.” ‘ 1! .. 41.4, uh? (ALE 141,1 Luk- Ai Cbu .v .Vnpl 1.1. k, U4. .L'VI V_LJ_‘_LIU.. v ‘ N 4 .- , 4 V . . . ‘ I 4 f A _ - . A. . ,4 4 HIMJL L‘ )‘-* “H.411 “-1.: .4”; 'H r ‘J. 91163 i ’T' 0"":"7, Lin? 51‘ ‘ 1&0 le 1 .1. «HHJ 7' ‘N V‘- ”i _" I“ ‘. 4‘ "L’fl ‘. "» ’. n I- - 3.,3 ". _, . '1. r~ - " 'L _, -- . ’ ‘ -‘ *‘ 4 .« ‘x ,. , . i)‘./lilm-.~J O.~ rldLLJT _/.L 1 dc A V .1.ILLI (.../(15; C(JA VllEA ‘f' .‘_ $4.1 0] b1;: Li; a" 1.L~ T \.~~D fl\’- ‘ HQ ukfir‘ .' 1‘": ’: 2Q ‘ 1': {"JW :. \ ‘I "‘ ', "‘ ‘ "A." ’ I. 'I I L 3 "r ‘ 1' V? '4'- r;..;O. CélCI x—LiQ Jlk-c‘L JAAV U. _'_ ’4‘ C'.~ [elk V' CAJ.‘.C'A._L.L':L .11 ‘U‘A v (,LL\DJ\~)V1‘ I». h‘JJ‘. ‘IA ~11) 3 '- V‘ar" o i l. ‘i‘ "v '3":- fis'n ","_‘: w 4 r 1‘ "V'v‘fl 4' ) " I“ ‘II ‘ «‘ - n m .. ,'* r .. 'T 1 r3 1 11F ..1— LI \J t ~1- v -‘.HL'~1~4 A. \JL J \1'43, ) L/Jle C..L .5 :Aa---.L I- .L _ CLK’ L: J. \Jll VLJIQ £.L\-“ LI AI k~-"'—© QC‘ v...‘ 1., 1L! 11v I'L‘d u. ,-I,,uS guo u were u‘JL- L4 . v- 4L,“ «x1 .l’;L«,r,g ;$'J l._l, V1; I..\J\.' \I'Lg‘fjsz l ‘ ,4: .' ,4 LITE; TnTLdLE Cl TDD 1. Allison, F. E., no-ller, E. E., and bane , a. A. melationenip DGtV 88H €VEZ.UOtl‘EiflS )lI'EtL on and 'Jielcs Oi. crons ELTON“ in lysimeters zeceivinb natuial rain;ail. Agron. Jour. 50:536-507. 1958. 2. Beckett, 3. 5., and huberty, A. R. Irri at.}on investi eticns wit field crops at De Vis and at D 121i, UdLLLanld. h California A;r. EXp. St a. nul. 450. l$~$o ‘ SC exit-1': 3.0 All“. 2+2: 1v :Q-lL'7o 3. Bouyoucos, G. J. A pra ctic al soil moisture net guide to irrigation practices. Abron. J to. A. Bouyoucos, G. J. Electrical resistance methods as linally per- fected for making continuous neasurenent of soil mois— ture content unuer field conditions. unart. :ul. Kicnigaa Agr. Exp. Sta. 57:152-149. 1954. 5. Burton, u. L., Irine, S. E., and Jackson, J. 3. Studies of droutnt tolerance and water use of several southern grasses. A3 ron. Jour. 49: 493 —SQ3. 1957. o. Clements, H. E., and Materhouse, A. D. Irriéabion control on a Hawaiian surar plantation. Agron. Jour. A6:97-95. 1954. 70 COTII‘ad, J. P0,. and Tjeihhezrer, 1?. J. iLQOC QeVeloi);hent arui Soil m‘is “1 “ileardia Azlls-lBA. 1929. Q. i‘ is . it. a "ti ‘ L. T. Z'Jatc‘-‘S Li" L: ‘\ 3 Dre oelbi , F 3 , nd arrolo, L 01 u e e‘ 1c1°1c of corn, wheat, and meadow crOgs. Agron. Jour. 50:50Q- 503. 1958. 9. Duncan, David 3. rultiple ran;e and multiple F tests. diometrics 11:1-42019550 10. Gray, H. E., Levine, 6., and hennedy, h. E. Use of water by pQStULl e CI‘OQS. AL). Ema. /OoSC/_5310 17):). ll. Gross, H. D., Wilsie ., and Pesek, J. Some responses of V) alfalfa varie ti fertilization and cutting treat- ments. Agron. Jour. 50:101-104. 1958. 107 :9-“ ; . .. ‘w‘ w-‘s _..—-. u 12. ru )0 11+. 15. 16. (.90 (/g Ha1an, H. L., and Peterson, A. L. 8311 moisture ex tract ion by irri5ated oasture mixtures as iniiuenced c5 cli;pin5 \- 1,1 in frequency. A5ron. Jour. 15:2s8 -4,4. 14C? /)/o Ha5an, &. E., Feterscn, n. L., bpcnurch, d. 1., and Luther, lationship of soil moisture stress to diziElefl 1 C. J. Re asaects o 510Mtn 01 Ladino clover. Proc. ooii oci. Soc. A1er. 21:3oQ-3o5. 195/. Hendrickson, A. E., and Veihmeyer, F. J. The maintenance of predetermined soil moisture conditions in irritation experinents. Proc. Am. Soc. for nort. Sci. 3Q: A21- 126. 1933. hunter, A. 3., and nelly, C. J. A new technique for studyin5 tne absorption of n.oisture and nutrients from soil by plant roots. Soil Sci. 62:441-450. 1946. Houston, C. E. Corr sumptive use of water y alfalfa in western hevada. Levad.a A+r. EXp. ota. jul. 191. 1955. Jones, 5. A., and Kakeland, H. L. Suptlosonoal i:ri acicn oi pastures. A". En5. gozlsl-lsh. 1935. k . -.~ T ' ‘ l"'\-. .r 4- r V! w- M ,1... I- ~ L .‘w Kraner, P. J. Ilant ar.d so1l Lace- zelao sli s. 1st gu. A U 1 r 1cniaw—“11lm.lok Co. Eew Zora, 1 ronto, London. 1919. Lenane, J. J., and Staple, h. J. Hater r tention and avail- ability in soils relate uto drou5 ' Can. J'~7ur. ACZI'. SCi. 3/: $5-27). 19:30 C" (D *‘5 (D U} 1.1. . U) C { ) H y.) C ( 0 Leonard, J. E., and Uimicx, h. A. 3311 moisture depletion by 11T1’ ated crops 5rown in Soutn Dane ta. Soutn Dagota Levine, G., Kennedv, N. E., a:1c Gray, 5. E. Irri5ation of pastu es. A3. Eng. Bozhfl -A.3. 1955. Lewis, L. n., dork, n. A., and Aldrich, n. A. Influences of different quantities of moist re in a neavv soi rate of growtn of pears. rlant Er ysiol. 10:309-343. 1935. LcfiibOen, G. E., Gard, L. E., Van Doren, C. A., and Fuelleman, R. F. Soil moisture availacilit] in irri5ated and non- 'rri5ated pastures. A5ron. Jour. 42:565-570. 1953. . - ‘ ' v n . , . -. . a . o . . . . , . v v . . 1 . ‘ . 1 u . . v . - 9 ' . . . u . a 1 - .. . 1 . p . . c . n . . r e c u . a n C \ v o o . «3 1" r‘ Ru 0 f0 \0 \D \o O 109 Kelson, C. 3., and gagins, J. 5. “Que effects of ~ 1‘; re, n1Lr3;eu fertilizab1on and 011 min, on yield aid botanicel campo5ition of Ladino clover-orch¢.rdgrass pasture under irri;-:10n. Agron. J ur. 43:99-102. lcr/ ,1 )U . " (‘ . ”‘ T T‘ ' . ' .4- " L . I I (‘7 1 ‘1' . ~ I. f‘. - '1‘. 1’» r—‘r- ' r ‘ v 1 FQrQOEQ, d. L. Alt,>»en 1Crp111adu13fl O1 c11¢11a-3FGES mix ules. A r01. your. /v:>8;-:94. 19:5. , 7“ .- I". ~ I‘ r“ T} 4’. 'c V‘ M 1'1 a ‘ ‘ 'A" A ~ ' 7‘ .~. I“ _\' ‘: L " ‘ "" Peter5on, L. L., .na naLdu, 1. 3. Iauuc.1oH and jLa_1pg 01 1£r1;aLed vasture 1x:u135 as 1nz1uezcea 0. c11p11ng p u’ - x 4 I r" T‘ "‘1 r: F..\':‘ ”'1 \ Z .L “(‘11:3 C 41 311. U'Jhl o L/zlvq/-L~J Q l$:’/o ' .- . ‘ ‘. -1 1 "1 ‘ . 1.. ‘A y- r. ... -“ . n .. - . A .5 ‘ (‘\ dublnson, 1. 1., anq 3915 ue, V. m. ABLNOHQCD 01 011“; ¢.r155- n r“ . v‘ M 1 h . xi '1 ~‘L -: A '. ‘ - 4 7‘ 1~ ' I“ '1 1 ‘ t I r v 0‘ ‘. n"- 1531113 c15v11‘1;3 ilrufir111u1 rmgxl1v1oy,11.131u113..151 1h 1 a 1 . . I'M.‘ n j “I! 7 F‘. I Ag: On 0 L. ~J L41 0 L114. : 4-;4'44. Z . 19 52 ‘ Schofield, A. h. L3ntr .1 of eras 15rd 1rr1i t1on based wea';ne r daea. Pr‘c. dirt; 111:;311ona1 Grassland pdnireas :737-702. 1951. \) ‘ p ' " ' I“ ' ‘1' ‘I‘I ’\ '. ‘ 'I 1 ‘ -. '*' .-. ~‘ 1'14 p.\ :‘i '.‘ ,h' 30011e1d, C. 5. Tue Maue1 13 h1zement 01 1111111. 5.3.u.A. ‘\.' .. 4' ’_.-‘ H " ‘ ‘ {4er. 7/5. lBL-i. ‘l T “U r~ ’-.‘ I" 'p' ’1 4:. r‘ r v 1" + . “'W. ‘ . ‘ NV ‘1 . r 2‘ w ' ~‘- I n“;- JLJE, h. 1., dJu aweady, J. A. J019U1L111C frltlt10n mamapsmohu. .: .L r‘ «v- '. ‘-" V‘ \ -\r r\ ‘1‘ v: 1 o r\ "I "v ‘ 1‘ ‘ V“ ‘ 1"» }~_LC‘AJI_(V‘\,L: .LI. v.1“ L..8.:1C31_L J81:LV~J L.‘e llCiviid .‘__L4..;L‘l ’3')“; CLI’ . oi F11ntcrs 1-5»01551wn. 351. 52. 193 ,- A, ., ,,_ -.;..r o 3-,°3 y, .1 , . ~ onOC“--h, U. a. CdJuCibJ 01 111 to nuld 15151u13. 1;. 11:. r /\. - ‘r‘, \1 ;(-;:lv(;*".1_.1»;. lei/'5. Sprahue, V. 5., and Graber, L. E. The util iza ;ion of xat e1 Dy alfalfa Leoicazo sativa and bluevrass Poa DI¥1t€ 1515 ,— t.) 1 . in relation Lo malagerial predtgean. Jour. A” r 5:0. rague, V. C., and Larger, L. J. Effect of t1me and heiLht of cuttina and IitTO 1 en fertilization on the ge‘sistence of the le fl‘me and proaxction o1 orci.ard ra-5—Ladino a17.d w ... - ' r ,3. ,. _., ...,w. ‘l " . bI‘OlY '. raJQ-'delnk‘ ab Duel/31+; Lx): :CJ 0 :12)- \4‘ r1 . JQUI‘. 14.11.. f\1I'-' EC)”; Ori- ///011)VO Stewart, C. Alfalfa procucbion under irr1L1L1-:»n. Utah ngr. Eup. 3*a. Sire. AS. 1911. reel, 1. 1. The physinl3;1m;1 a e of Dromegrass ( I 15 ine*mis Leycs) as it rlfects arowtn rate foLloxin: Ce10111t1on. P .‘. Diggert;:;? on Fuliue pniv. 19,0. (”~77 KL) 0) O \ Q \0 L5. ‘ IN . \ r~ 3 ‘i ’H' ... (393.: ’ 1‘. ..‘o Ci.:.'-1 of cuttinh r1 clover (firi | '1 ....._1. ~v I: ~_. -. » 1" 1_ . 1 _ .- - f0 rI;_L_,1;‘;I, L. .p. 2J4...~‘-1' 01. £161.; {1.. on Lnf §"HC res; onueg :xqtlle la “iCnigafl. 3‘ 1, n T. I“ i’.‘ 4:“ {- I 5‘ :‘ nwrun. uDUT. JuzgiA-,l/. 13,1. p." a 7- r) ._. _. i‘jJElr, 3;. ;:'0 ’ ILL! 7 aiIaIEa-ua 3; ran . Jam Veihmeyer, F. J., tion to 1:235—5e-L. 0 :‘L. f‘ ’.' U. 1-., ion of an Whitarer, a. fi., pastures. fliridtbLDe, J. A. J different Exp. Sta. Widtsoe, J. crop I35. , a produ Sta. A., a several ;‘.O to pear tr AIL-D v I’D do 0 O ”r. §C>::l7-5;U. v" -‘ " ‘ :11'11 and fierrill, L. A. .,-.‘ A r~ ‘ '0 r‘ it. JL‘LO ’ of“: LeTvVl-D, L'... 63.11 Irrigation cf s . :‘1 '- .: F1: pk'lSvui t3 .LIL 1‘-_LCJAJ_ .. . l‘io V e " i ‘u r P urn]... ~' 0 der, 1. E., and hard, 0. dine CLOVCF-OTJmJLraSB 19530 rI 7‘ VM‘A. reia- jail moisture in P1 ant Ix h“siolo;; 11d hendl ‘icxaon, A. 11. Annual &evie h of l€fLC chemicai CO seil moisture 21:106- f\.. , .‘ I A I -. ' .. ulf).-:Lii CLIIu. ULU D. conditioned 0; Plant fnysiol. a1d Ayers, A. beam plants as d salt concep tration. and Lytle, w. E. 5n}-lexental irrikatio 10f .4 J A . fng. lelbj-lCS. 921. The L Of irrivst 1312. vields of crops with :iua gitie 'on hater. Utah Air. nul. 117. sing the C1Ii-1\:ro nd L cing pone 01 C Bul. 113. A. hetnoa for incre 'igation hater. ut F—l \FJ I\) O 5“ L5. Loisture utilization by nd Erickson, A. “ il Sci. Soc. Agar. 20: Le crops. Proc. 00 h‘57. 13, g‘ " &. ee wilting in a hea‘ A;ron. A8:l£4—lg#. The reiation of soil moisture y clay soil. Jaur. ' Hr, / 1330. W._ m 4'— ‘ “‘- . . _.--~~ “‘3 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ann«mgMimi»Imluiuuflluimwlfltmm