Potential for improving adaptation of Lolium perenne L. to continental climates in Norway

  • E. T. Solberg
  • O. A. Rognli
  • L. Østrem
Part of the Developments in Plant Breeding book series (DIPB, volume 2)

Summary

Breeding of perennial ryegrass has been conducted in Norway for more than 30 years. The little progress achieved so far can, most probably, be explained by a restricted enetic variation within our indigeneous plant material. In order to increase the variation in the Norwegian ryegrass germplasm, we have tested populations of diverse origin and adaptations under contrasting climatic conditions in Norway. Data is presented for winter survival and dry matter yield obtained in two experiments, one in a dense stand with 20 populations of Norwegian and Russian origin, and one as a spaced plant experiment with 26 populations of Norwegian, Russian and Swiss origin. In both cases commercial foreign cultivars and breeding populations were included.

The results show that the commercial varieties were superior when grown in dense stand. The Norwegian material showed, however, a significant better adaptation at the continental location, measured as plant cover after three years. There was considerable variation between populations in all characters. In the spaced plant experiment, the Norwegian diploid breeding populations were the highest yielding. The commercial cultivars also performed well. Winter survival was generally good in this experiment, and only small differences between populations could be detected. Winterhardy and productive populations of different origin and contrasting adaptations have been selected, and breeding populations constructed. Surprisingly enough, Swiss Alp populations, presumably adapted to long lasting snow-cover, do not show any better adaptation to the continental climates in Norway than indigeneous ryegrass populations.

Keywords

Dense Stand Perennial Ryegrass Commercial Cultivar Continental Climate Winter Survival 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alcoc, M.B. & A. Harvey, 1985. The response of perennial ryegrass varieties to fertiliser nitrogen. Proceedings of the British Grassland Society’s Winter Meeting 1985: 1–8.Google Scholar
  2. Cooper, J.P., 1961. Selection for production characters in ryegrass. Proceedings of the 8th. International Grassland Congress 1960: 41–44.Google Scholar
  3. Fuller, M.P. & C.F. Eagles, 1978. A seedling test for cold hardiness in Lolium perenne L. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 95: 77–81.Google Scholar
  4. Gray, E.G. & G.J.F. Copeman, 1975. The role of snow-mould in winter damage to grassland in northern Scotland. Annals of Applied Biology 81: 247–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hayward, M.D. & J.L. Vivero, 1984. Selection for yield in Lolium perenne. II. Performance of spaced plant selections under competitive conditions. Euphytica 33: 787–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Humphreys, M.O. & C.F. Eagles, 1988. Assessmentof perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) for breeding. Freezing tolerance. Euphytica 38: 75–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Larsen, A., 1979. Freezing tolerance in grasses. Variation within populations and response to selection. Meld. Norg. LandbrHogsk. 58 (42): 28 pp.Google Scholar
  8. Lee, C.J., L.H. Davies, E.R. Armitage & A.E.M. Hood, 1977. The effects of rates of nitrogen application on seven perennial ryegrass varieties. Journal of the British Grassland Society 32: 83–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lorenzetti, F., B.F. Tyler, J.P. Cooper & E.L. Breese, 1971. Cold tolerance and winter hardiness in Lolium perenne L. I. Development of screening techniques for cold tolerance and survey of geographical variation. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 76: 199–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Marum, P., S. Rimmereid & T. Lunnan, 1992. Resultat av verdiprøving i fôrvekster 1992. Sæykk fra Statens forskingsstasjoneri landbruk. 130 pp.Google Scholar
  11. SAS, 1987. SAS/STAT Guide for personal computers, version 6 edition, Cary, NC, SAS Institute Inc., 1028 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Simonsen, Ø., 1971. Forsøk ed raigrassorter. Forskning og fors/ok i landbruket 22: 103–117.Google Scholar
  13. Simonsen, Ø., 1976. Genetic variation in diploid and autotetraploid populations of Lolium perenne L. Hereditas 84: 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Tcaccnco, F.A., C.F. Eagles & B.F. Tyler, 1989. Evaluation of winter hardiness in Romanian introductions of Lolium perenne. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 112: 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tronsmo, A.M., 1984. Induced resistance to biotic stress factors in grasses by frost hardening. Plant Production in the North. Proceedings from a Plant Adaptation Workshop in Tromsø, Norway, 4–10th September 1983.Google Scholar
  16. Van Bogaert, G., 1975. A comparison between colchicine induced tetraploid and diploid cultivars of Lolium species. In: B. Nüesch (Ed.) Ploidy in Fodder Crops. Report of the Fodder Crops Section Meeting in Zürich, April 23–25, 1975: 61–78.Google Scholar
  17. Van Dijk, G.E., 1980. Breeding Lolium perenne L. for yield and persistence under heavy nitrogen and infrequent cutting. Report of Eucarpia Fodder Crop Section Meeting in Perugia, Italy, 1979: 131–135.Google Scholar
  18. Wilkins, P.W., 1987. Genotype/management interactions for plot dry matter yield in Lolium perenne L. Report of Eucarpia Fodder Crop Section Meeting in Lusignan, France, 1987: 153–159.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. T. Solberg
    • 1
  • O. A. Rognli
    • 2
  • L. Østrem
    • 3
  1. 1.State Agricultural Research Station LøkenHeggenesNorway
  2. 2.Dept. of Biotechnological SciencesAgricultural University of NorwayÅsNorway
  3. 3.State Agricultural Research Station FurenesetFureNorway

Personalised recommendations