Assessing Yield, Biomass Production, and Forage Quality of Red Clover (Trifolium pratense L.) in Agroforestry System: One-Year Study in Szarvas, Hungary
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site Description
2.2. Red Clover Cultivation Technology
2.3. Experimental Design and Sampling Locations
2.4. Assay of Phenologycal Parameters
2.5. Forage Quality of Red Clover
2.6. Soil Moisture Measurements
2.7. Statistical Analyses
3. Results
3.1. Phenology
3.2. Forage Quality
3.3. Yield
3.4. Soil Moisture
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tripathi, J.; Variyar, P.S. Food Safety and Methods to Ensure Food Security in the Face of Climate Change. CABI Rev. 2021, 16, 1–11, PAVSNNR202116015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Faye, J.B.; Braun, Y.A. Soil and Human Health: Understanding Agricultural and Socio-Environmental Risk and Resilience in the Age of Climate Change. Health Place 2022, 77, 102799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Malézieux, E.; Crozat, Y.; Dupraz, C.; Laurans, M.; Makowski, D.; Ozier-Lafontaine, H.; Rapidel, B.; Tourdonnet, S.; Valantin-Morison, M. Mixing Plant Species in Cropping Systems: Concepts, Tools and Models. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, J.; Pearce, B.D.; Wolfe, M.S. Reconciling Productivity with Protection of the Environment: Is Temperate Agroforestry the Answer? Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2013, 28, 80–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dmuchowski, W.; Baczewska-Dąbrowska, A.H.; Gworek, B. The Role of Temperate Agroforestry in Mitigating Climate Change: A Review. For. Policy Econ. 2024, 159, 103136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaccaro, C. Environmental and Biological Implications for Understorey Crop Growth in Temperate Silvoarable Agroforestry Systems. Ph.D. Thesis, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETZ), Zürich, Switzerlan, 2023; p. 122. [Google Scholar]
- Ehret, M.; Graß, R.; Wachendorf, M. The Effect of Shade and Shade Material on White Clover/Perennial Ryegrass Mixtures for Temperate Agroforestry Systems. Agrofor. Syst. 2015, 89, 557–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cardinael, R.; Chevallier, T.; Barthès, B.G.; Saby, N.P.A.; Parent, T.; Dupraz, C.; Bernoux, M.; Chenu, C. Impact of Alley Cropping Agroforestry on Stocks, Forms and Spatial Distribution of Soil Organic Carbon — A Case Study in a Mediterranean Context. Geoderma 2015, 259–260, 288–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y.; Bi, H.; Xu, H.; Duan, H.; Peng, R.; Wang, J. Below-Ground Interspecific Competition of Apple (Malus pumila M.)–Soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) Intercropping Systems Based on Niche Overlap on the Loess Plateau of China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coleman, B.R.; Martin, A.R.; Thevathasan, N.V.; Gordon, A.M.; Isaac, M.E. Leaf Trait Variation and Decomposition in Short-Rotation Woody Biomass Crops under Agroforestry Management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 298, 106971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Q.; Han, S.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, D.; Van Der Werf, W.; Evers, J.B.; Sun, H.; Su, Z.; Zhang, S. Density Responses and Spatial Distribution of Cotton Yield and Yield Components in Jujube (Zizyphus jujube)/Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Agroforestry. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 79, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pardon, P.; Reubens, B.; Reheul, D.; Mertens, J.; De Frenne, P.; Coussement, T.; Janssens, P.; Verheyen, K. Trees Increase Soil Organic Carbon and Nutrient Availability in Temperate Agroforestry Systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 247, 98–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kun, Á.; Simon, B.; Zalai, M.; Kolozsvári, I.; Bozán, C.; Jancsó, M.; Körösparti, J.T.; Kovács, G.P.; Gyuricza, C.; Bakti, B. Effect of Mulching on Soil Quality in an Agroforestry System Irrigated with Reused Water. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zalai, M.; Keresztes, Z.; Dorner, Z. Effects of Field Margins on the Weed Composition of Organic Cereals. Landsc. Manag. Funct. Biodivers. 2014, 100, 147–152. [Google Scholar]
- Reid, R.; Ferguson, I.S. Development and Validation of a Simple Approach to Modelling Tree Shading in Agroforestry Systems. Agrofor. Syst. 1992, 20, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, R.; Yadav, M.R.; Arif, M.; Mahala, D.M.; Kumar, D.; Ghasal, P.C.; Yadav, K.C.; Verma, R.K. Multiple Agroecosystem Services of Forage Legumes towards Agriculture Sustainability: An Overview. Indian J. Agri. Sci. 2020, 90, 1367–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosenstock, T.; Tully, K.; Arias-Navarro, C.; Neufeldt, H.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Verchot, L. Agroforestry with N2-Fixing Trees: Sustainable Development’s Friend or Foe? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2014, 6, 15–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenna, P.; Cannon, N.; Conway, J.; Dooley, J.; Davies, W.P. Red Clover (Trifolium pratense) in Conservation Agriculture: A Compelling Case for Increased Adoption. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 2018, 16, 342–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sousa, D.O.; Hansen, H.H.; Hallin, O.; Nussio, L.G.; Nadeau, E. A Two-year Comparison on Nutritive Value and Yield of Eight Lucerne Cultivars and One Red Clover Cultivar. Grass Forage Sci. 2020, 75, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McKenna, P.; Cannon, N.; Conway, J.; Dooley, J. The Use of Red Clover (Trifolium pratense) in Soil Fertility-Building: A Review. Field Crops Res. 2018, 221, 38–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoddard, F.L.; Watson, C.A. (Eds.) Legumes in Cropping Systems; CABI: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-1-78064-675-6. [Google Scholar]
- Vleugels, T.; Saleem, A.; Dubey, R.; Muylle, H.; Borra-Serrano, I.; Lootens, P.; De Swaef, T.; Roldán-Ruiz, I. Phenotypic Characterization of Drought Responses in Red Clover (Trifolium pratense L.). Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 14, 1304411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yates, S.A.; Swain, M.T.; Hegarty, M.J.; Chernukin, I.; Lowe, M.; Allison, G.G.; Ruttink, T.; Abberton, M.T.; Jenkins, G.; Skøt, L. De Novo Assembly of Red Clover Transcriptome Based on RNA-Seq Data Provides Insight into Drought Response, Gene Discovery and Marker Identification. BMC Genom. 2014, 15, 453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nadeem, S.; Steinshamn, H.; Sikkeland, E.H.; Gustavsson, A.; Bakken, A.K. Variation in Rate of Phenological Development and Morphology between Red Clover Varieties: Implications for Clover Proportion and Feed Quality in Mixed Swards. Grass Forage Sci. 2019, 74, 403–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Den Hollander, N.G.; Bastiaans, L.; Kropff, M.J. Clover as a Cover Crop for Weed Suppression in an Intercropping Design. Eur. J. Agron. 2007, 26, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nkoa, R.; Owen, M.D.K.; Swanton, C.J. Weed Abundance, Distribution, Diversity, and Community Analyses. Weed Sci. 2015, 63, 64–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanciu, A.S.; Berchez, O. Research Regarding the Water Consumption on the Production of Red Clover. Analele Univ. Din Oradea Fasc. Protecţia Mediu. 2016, 27, 79–84. [Google Scholar]
- Kolozsvári, I.; Kun, Á.; Jancsó, M.; Palágyi, A.; Bozán, C.; Gyuricza, C. Agronomic Performance of Grain Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) Cultivars under Intensive Fish Farm Effluent Irrigation. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quinkenstein, A.; Wöllecke, J.; Böhm, C.; Grünewald, H.; Freese, D.; Schneider, B.U.; Hüttl, R.F. Ecological Benefits of the Alley Cropping Agroforestry System in Sensitive Regions of Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy 2009, 12, 1112–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burner, D.M.; Ashworth, A.J.; Laughlin, K.F.; Boyer, M.E. Using SketchUp to Simulate Tree Row Azimuth Effects on Alley Shading. Agron. J. 2018, 110, 425–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolozsvári, I.; Kun, Á.; Jancsó, M.; Bakti, B.; Bozán, C.; Gyuricza, C. Utilization of Fish Farm Effluent for Irrigation Short Rotation Willow (Salix alba L.) under Lysimeter Conditions. Forests 2021, 12, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luque De Castro, M.D.; Garcı́a-Ayuso, L.E. Soxhlet Extraction of Solid Materials: An Outdated Technique with a Promising Innovative Future. Anal. Chim. Acta 1998, 369, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saadat, D.; Siller, A.; Hashemi, M. Phenology, Nitrogen Status, and Yield of Red Clover (Trifolium pretense L.) Affected by Application of Vitamin B12, Humic Acid, and Enriched Biochar. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radinovic, I.; Vasiljevic, S.; Brankovic, G. Correlations of Morpho-Agronomic Traits and Forage Quality Properties in Diverse Red Clover (Trifolium pratense L.) Collections. J. Agric. Sci. BGD 2022, 67, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monostori, I.; Árendás, T.; Hoffman, B.; Galiba, G.; Gierczik, K.; Szira, F.; Vágújfalvi, A. Relationship between SPAD Value and Grain Yield Can Be Affected by Cultivar, Environment and Soil Nitrogen Content in Wheat. Euphytica 2016, 211, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tyutereva, E.V.; Dmitrieva, V.A.; Voitsekhovskaja, O.V. Chlorophyll B as A Source of Signals Steering Plant Development (Review). Sel’skokhozyaistvennaya Biol. [Agric. Biol.] 2017, 52, 843–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sinka, L.; Zsembeli, J.; Ragán, P.; Duzs, L.; Hájos, M.T. Effect of Different Seedling Growing Methods on the SPAD, NDVI Values and Some Morphological Parameters of Four Sweet Corn (Zea mays L.) Hybrids. Agriculture 2021, 67, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tucak, M.; Ravlić, M.; Horvat, D.; Čupić, T. Improvement of Forage Nutritive Quality of Alfalfa and Red Clover through Plant Breeding. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikhailov, A.L.; Timofeeva, O.A.; Ogorodnova, U.A.; Stepanov, N.S. Effect of Soil and Growth Climatic Conditions on Vitamin Content of Red Clover (Trifolium pratense L.). J. Exp. Biol. Agric. Sci. 2020, 8, S292–S297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marković, J.; Lazarević, Đ.; Bekčić, F.; Prijović, M.; Vasić, T.; Živković, S.; Štrbanović, R. Protein and Carbohydrate Profiles of a Diploid and a Tetraploid Red Clover Cultivar. Agric. Food Sci. 2022, 31, 113478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blaser, R.E. Forage-Animal Management Systems; Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station: Blacksburg, Virginia, 1986; Volume Bulletin 86-7. [Google Scholar]
- Marković, J.; Štrbanović, R.; Petrović, M.; Dinić, B.; Blagojević, M.; Milić, D.; Spasić, N. Estimation of Red Clover (Trifolium pratense L.) Forage Quality Parameters Depending on the Cut, Stage of Growth and Cultivar. Agro-Knowl. J. 2012, 13, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baystruk-Hlodan, L. Productivity of Red Clover (Trifolium pratense L.) in Various Ways of Use in Soil and Climatic Conditions of the Western Region of Ukraine. Agrivita. J. Agr.Sci 2023, 45, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keenan, L.; Mills, A.; Smith, M.; Brown, H.; McKenzie, S.; Moot, D. Predicitng Yield of Irrigated Red Clover (Trifolium pratense L.) Pastures in Response to Temperature. J. N. Z. Grassl. 2023, 85, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mustafa, M.; Szalai, Z.; Divéky-Ertsey, A.; Gál, I.; Csambalik, L. Conceptualizing Multiple Stressors and Their Consequences in Agroforestry Systems. Stresses 2022, 2, 242–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Variable (Unit) | Factor | SS | df | MS | F | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Length of shoots (cm) | ||||||
Line Spacing | 1332.70 | 2 | 666.35 | 11.71 | <0.001 | |
Orientation | 2528.29 | 2 | 1264.15 | 22.22 | <0.001 | |
Line Spacing*Orientation | 3110.44 | 4 | 777.61 | 13.67 | <0.001 | |
Shoots (pcs plant−1) | ||||||
Line Spacing | 48.50 | 2 | 24.25 | 4.34 | 0.014 | |
Orientation | 25.19 | 2 | 12.59 | 2.25 | 0.108 | |
Line Spacing*Orientation | 75.92 | 4 | 18.98 | 3.40 | 0.01 | |
Mass (g plant−1) | ||||||
Line Spacing | 477.53 | 2 | 238.77 | 6.20 | 0.002 | |
Orientation | 1467.03 | 2 | 733.52 | 19.04 | <0.001 | |
Line Spacing*Orientation | 449.64 | 4 | 112.41 | 2.92 | 0.022 | |
SPAD | ||||||
Line Spacing | 301.59 | 2 | 150.79 | 4.53 | 0.012 | |
Orientation | 689.98 | 2 | 344.99 | 10.36 | <0.001 | |
Line Spacing*Orientation | 316.97 | 4 | 79.24 | 2.38 | 0.053 | |
Total number of flowers (pcs) | ||||||
Line Spacing | 111.95 | 2 | 55.97 | 3.47 | 0.033 | |
Orientation | 1480.35 | 2 | 740.18 | 45.83 | <0.001 | |
Line Spacing*Orientation | 193.95 | 4 | 48.49 | 3.00 | 0.02 |
Length of Shoots (cm) | Shoots (pcs Plant−1) | Mass (g Plant−1) | SPAD | Total Number of Flowers | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
X | North | 68.2 ± 6.7 bB | 5.4 ± 1.8 aA | 9.5 ± 3.5 aA | 55.6 ± 5.4 bAB | 3.8 ± 1.7 aA |
Middle | 69.4 ± 6.4 bA | 6.6 ± 2.2 aA | 16.4 ± 5.7 bA | 55.2 ± 5.8 abB | 11.2 ± 4.2 bA | |
South | 51.4 ± 8.4 aA | 6.6 ± 1.8 aA | 7.1 ± 3.6 aA | 51.7 ± 3.9 aA | 5.2 ± 3.8 aA | |
Y | North | 62.1 ± 10.4 aA | 8.0 ± 2.8 bB | 10.4 ± 5.5 aA | 57.1 ± 5.4 bB | 3.9 ± 3.3 aA |
Middle | 71.7 ± 7.1 bA | 5.9 ± 2.4 aA | 18.0 ± 8.0 bA | 52.5 ± 8.3 aAB | 10.7 ± 5.4 bA | |
South | 65.7 ± 6.4 aB | 7.8 ± 2.1 bA | 14.4 ± 7.0 abB | 50.0 ± 4.8 aA | 8.7 ± 4.1 bB | |
Z | North | 68.7 ± 7.1 aB | 8.0 ± 2.6 aB | 14.4 ± 5.7 aB | 53.4 ± 4.1 bA | 5.0 ± 2.8 bA |
Middle | 70.5 ± 7.1 aA | 6.7 ± 2.4 aA | 16.7 ± 9.3 aA | 49.0 ± 6.2 aA | 10.5 ± 5.4 aA | |
South | 68.7 ± 7.5 aB | 7.2 ± 2.9 aA | 12.2 ± 4.0 aB | 51.3 ± 6.3 abA | 10.2 ± 4.1 bB |
LS | SP | PW | SPAD | TF | PF | BF | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LS | 1 | ||||||
SP | 0.002 | 1 | |||||
PW | 0.536 ** | 0.434 ** | 1 | ||||
SPAD | 0.045 | −0.034 | −0.022 | 1 | |||
TF | 0.359 ** | 0.228 ** | 0.778 ** | −0.131 | 1 | ||
PF | 0.274 ** | 0.192 ** | 0.248 ** | 0.201 ** | 0.028 | 1 | |
BF | 0.274 ** | 0.169 * | 0.688 ** | −0.181 ** | 0.963 ** | −0.242 ** | 1 |
Variables Actors | SS | df | MS | F | Sig. | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Crude Protein (%) | ||||||
Line Spacing | 2.174 | 2 | 1.087 | 2.477 | 0.103 | |
Orientation | 13.104 | 2 | 6.552 | 14.932 | <0.001 | |
Line Spacing*Orientation | 3.464 | 4 | 0.866 | 1.974 | 0.127 | |
Crude Fat (%) | ||||||
Line Spacing | 0.111 | 2 | 0.055 | 1.964 | 0.160 | |
Orientation | 1.774 | 2 | 0.887 | 31.510 | <0.001 | |
Line Spacing*Orientation | 0.241 | 4 | 0.060 | 2.141 | 0.103 | |
Crude Fiber (%) | ||||||
Line Spacing | 20.736 | 2 | 10.368 | 11.068 | <0.001 | |
Orientation | 11.577 | 2 | 5.789 | 6.179 | 0.006 | |
Line Spacing*Orientation | 5.378 | 4 | 1.344 | 1.435 | 0.249 | |
Crude Ash (%) | ||||||
Line Spacing | 0.534 | 2 | 0.267 | 1.724 | 0.197 | |
Orientation | 26.191 | 2 | 13.095 | 84.587 | <0.001 | |
Line Spacing*Orientation | 2.548 | 4 | 0.637 | 4.114 | 0.010 |
Line Spacing | Crude Protein | Crude Fiber | Crude Fat | Crude Ash | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Line Spacing | 1 | ||||
Crude Protein | 0.265 | 1 | |||
Crude Fiber | −0.549 ** | −0.710 ** | 1 | ||
Crude Fat | 0.052 | 0.553 ** | −0.381 * | 1 | |
Crude Ash | 0.082 | 0.703 ** | −0.503 ** | 0.788 ** | 1 |
Variable | Factors | SS | df | MS | F | Sig. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yield (t/ha) | ||||||
Line spacing | 0.635 | 2 | 0.318 | 1.326 | 0.284 | |
Orientation | 18.67 | 2 | 9.335 | 38.978 | <0.001 | |
Repetition | 1.037 | 3 | 0.346 | 1.443 | 0.255 | |
Line Spacing*Orientation | 1.45 | 4 | 0.362 | 1.513 | 0.23 |
Dry Matter (m/m%) | Biomass d.m. 1 (t ha−1) | Specific Yield d.m. 2 (t ha−1) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
X | North | 18.0 ± 0.8 aA | 1.33 ± 0.22 aA | |
Middle | 20.2 ± 0.7 bAB | 3.01 ± 0.73 bA | ||
South | 20.0 ± 0.8 bA | 2.27 ± 0.48 abA | ||
∑ | 2.897 ± 0.669 A | |||
Y | North | 19.2 ± 1.0 aA | 1.35 ± 0.27 aA | |
Middle | 20.6 ± 1.0 aB | 2.56 ± 0.57 bA | ||
South | 20.0 ± 0.6 aA | 2.08 ± 0.53 abA | ||
∑ | 2.325 ± 0.394 A | |||
Z | North | 18.0 ± 0.6 aA | 1.03 ± 0.13 aA | |
Middle | 19.0 ± 0.3 bA | 3.40 ± 0.59 bA | ||
South | 19.3 ± 0.5 bA | 2.52 ± 0.64 bA | ||
∑ | 2.687 ± 0.267 A |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dlamini, Z.; Jancsó, M.; Székely, Á.; Kolozsvári, I.; Túri, N.; Bakti, B.; Zalai, M.; Kun, Á. Assessing Yield, Biomass Production, and Forage Quality of Red Clover (Trifolium pratense L.) in Agroforestry System: One-Year Study in Szarvas, Hungary. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1921. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14091921
Dlamini Z, Jancsó M, Székely Á, Kolozsvári I, Túri N, Bakti B, Zalai M, Kun Á. Assessing Yield, Biomass Production, and Forage Quality of Red Clover (Trifolium pratense L.) in Agroforestry System: One-Year Study in Szarvas, Hungary. Agronomy. 2024; 14(9):1921. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14091921
Chicago/Turabian StyleDlamini, Zibuyile, Mihály Jancsó, Árpád Székely, Ildikó Kolozsvári, Norbert Túri, Beatrix Bakti, Mihály Zalai, and Ágnes Kun. 2024. "Assessing Yield, Biomass Production, and Forage Quality of Red Clover (Trifolium pratense L.) in Agroforestry System: One-Year Study in Szarvas, Hungary" Agronomy 14, no. 9: 1921. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy14091921