Crop Science
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Byrd, G.T.
Right arrow Articles by May, P.A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Byrd, G.T.
Right arrow Articles by May, P.A., II
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Byrd, G.T.
Right arrow Articles by May, P.A.

Physiological Comparisons of Switchgrass Cultivars Differing in Transpiration Efficiency

G.T. Byrd and P.A. May, II

II, Department of Biology, St. Michael's College, Winooski Park, Colchester, VT 05439 USA



View larger version (26K):

[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1 Relationship between transpiration efficiency (TE) and specific leaf weight (SLW) in switchgrass. Data from mean values of TE and SLW of nine cultivars (A); TE and SLW for cultivars Alamo and Greenville grown under well-watered or water-deficit conditions (B); TE and SLW for Alamo and Greenville grown in solutions containing 0.3, 1.0, or 10 mM N (C)

 





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality
The Plant Genome
Copyright © 2000 by the Crop Science Society of America.