HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Garcia-Diaz, C.A. Articles by Steiner, J.J. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Garcia-Diaz, C.A. Articles by Steiner, J.J. Agricola Articles by Garcia-Diaz, C.A. Articles by Steiner, J.J.

Birdsfoot Trefoil Seed Production

II. Plant-Water Status on Reproductive Development and Seed Yield

^a Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales y Agropecuarias, CE Pabellon, Carretera Ags.-Zac. km. 32.5, Apdo. Postal 20, Pabellon de Arteaga, Ags. C.P. 20660, Mexico
^b National Forage Seed Production Research Center, USDA-ARS, 3450 SW Campus Way, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1 Causal relationships of the path-coefficient analysis for birdsfoot trefoil seed production; six irrigation treatments were used. Doubled-arrowed lines indicate mutual associations that are measured by correlation coefficients (rij), and single-arrowed lines represent direct influence as measured by path-coefficients (Pij)

View larger version (43K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2 Number of flowers and crop water stress index until harvest time for six birdsfoot trefoil irrigation treatments in 1994 and 1995, and two treatments in 1996. Treatment codes are indicated on the upper-right corner of each graph. Arrows and vertical lines indicate time of irrigation application (not shown for LS treatment) and standard error of the mean (SEM), respectively. Data symbols without SEM have errors smaller than the size of the symbol

View larger version (24K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3 Total seed yield (harvested plus shattered seeds) as a function of fraction of available water used (FAWU) at time of irrigation for six birdsfoot trefoil irrigation treatments in 1994, and two treatments in 1996. Symbols indicate: LS (, , ) and C (+, *, open plus sign) for 1994, 1995, and 1996, respectively. Symbols indicate: D30–F(50, 100) (, •), and (, ); and D60–F (50, 100) (, ) and (, ) for 1994 and 1995, respectively. Broken line between two irrigation treatments in 1996 is for identification purposes and not for interpolation

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4 Total above-ground phytomass (TAGP) as a function of average estimated crop evapotranspiration (ETc) for six birdsfoot trefoil irrigation treatments in 1994 and 1995, and two treatments in 1996. Symbols indicate: LS (, , ) and C (+, *, open plus sign) for 1994, 1995, and 1996, respectively. Symbols indicate: D30–F(50, 100) (, •), and (, ); and D60–F (50, 100) (, ) and (, ) for 1994 and 1995, respectively

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5 Total above-ground phytomass (TAGP) as a function of average seasonal crop water stress index (CWSI) for six birdsfoot trefoil irrigation treatments in 1994, 1995, and two treatments in 1996. Symbols indicate: LS (, , ) and C (+, *, open plus sign) for 1994, 1995, and 1996, respectively. Symbols indicate: D30–F(50, 100) (, •), and (, ); and D60–F (50, 100) (, ) and (, ) for 1994 and 1995, respectively

View larger version (18K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6 Relationship of seasonal estimated crop evapotranspiration (ETc) and amount of water applied for six birdsfoot trefoil irrigation treatments in 1994 and 1995. Symbols indicate: LS (, , ) and C (+, *, open plus sign) for 1994, 1995, and 1996, respectively. Symbols indicate: D30–F(50, 100) (, •), and (, ); and D60–F (50, 100) (, ) and (, ) for 1994 and 1995, respectively