Skip to main content
Log in

Shade effects on forage crops with potential in temperate agroforestry practices

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Thirty forages, including eight introduced cool-season grasses, four native warm-season grasses, one introduced warm-season grass, eight introduced cool-season legumes, five native warm-season legumes, and four introduced warm-season legumes, were grown in 7.6 L (two gallon) pots in full sun, 50%, and 80% shade created by shade cloth over a greenhouse frame. Experiments were conducted during summer--fall 1994, spring--early summer 1995, and summer--fall 1995. A complete randomized experimental design was used and above ground dry weight was measured in each shade environment. Tukey's studentized range test was used to compare mean dry weights (MDW) within a species. Warm-season grasses displayed significant reductions in MDW under shade regardless of growing season. All cool-season forages grown during spring--early summer showed a decrease in MDW under shade; however, the reductions in dry weights of ‘Benchmark’ and ‘Justus’ orchardgrass, ‘KY 31’ tall fescue, Desmodium canescens and D. paniculatum were not significant under 50% shade. Cool-season grasses showed more shade tolerance when grown during the summer--fall than when grown during the spring--early summer. Seven of the selected cool-season grasses grown during the summer--fall did not display significant reductions in MDW under 50% shade as compared to full sun. Smooth bromegrass grown under 50% shade showed a significantly increased MDW production compared to growth in full sun. With the exception of Justus orchardgrass and smooth bromegrass, growth of cool-season grasses was inhibited at 80% shade. Among the legumes harvested during the fall, the dry weights of both Desmodium species tested and hog peanut (Amphicarpaea bracteata L.) increased significantly under 50% and 80% shade. In addition, ‘Cody’ alfalfa, white clover, slender lespedeza and ‘Kobe’ lespedeza showed no significant reductions in MDW under 50% shade.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Al-khatib K and Paulsen GM (1989) Enhancement of thermal injury to photosynthesis in wheat plants and thylakoids by high light intensity. Plant Physiology 90: 1041–1048

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson GW and Batini FE (1979) Clover and crop production under 13 to 15-year-old Pinus radiata, Aust. J. Experimental Agric. Animal Husbandry 19: 362–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azcon-Bieto J, Farquhar GD and Caballero A (1981) Effects of temperature, oxygen concentration, leaf age and seasonal variations on CO2 compensation point of Lolium perenneL. Planta 152: 497–504

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Baker BS and Jung GA (1968) Effect of environmental conditions on the growth of four perennial grasses. I. Response to controlled temperature. Agronomy Journal 60: 155–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björkman O and Holmgren P (1963) Adaptability of the photosynthetic apparatus to light intensity in ecotypes from exposed and shaded habitats. Physiology of Plant 16: 889–914

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blenkinsop PG and Dale JE (1974) The effects of shade treatment and light intensity on ribulose-1,5-diphosphate carboxylase activity and fraction I protein level in the first leaf of barley. J Exp Bot 25: 899–912

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman NK (1977) Comparative photosynthesis of sun and shade plants. Annual Review Plant Physiology 28: 355–377

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brown RH and Radcliffe DE (1986) Comparison of apparent photosynthesis in sericea lespedeza and alfalfa. Crop Science 26: 1208–1211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards G and Walker D (1983) C3, C4: Mechanisms, and Cellular and Environmental Regulation, of Photosynthesis. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Gist GR and Mott GO (1956) Some effects of light intensity, temperature, and soil moisture on the growth of alfalfa, red clover and birdfoot trefoil seedlings. Agronomy Journal 49: 33–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hupe SC (1980) The effects of pole-size black walnut trees on six forage species. Dissertation. University of Missouri at Columbia, 127 pp

  • Kephart KD, Buxton DR and Taylor SE (1992) Growth of C3 and C4 perennial grasses in reduced irradiance. Crop Science 32: 1033–1038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyle DJ (1987) The biochemical basis for photoinhibition of photosystem II. In: Kyle DJ, Osmond CB and Arntzen CJ (eds) Photoinhibition, pp 197–226. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Martsolf JD (1966) Microclimatic modification through shade induced changes in net radiation. Dissertation. University of Missouri-Columbia, 96 pp

  • McQuigg JD and Decker WL (1958) Solar energy: a summary of records at Columbia, Missouri. University of Missouri College of Agriculture Agricultural Experiment Station. Research Bulletin 671: 4–27

  • Pearcy W and Franceschi VR (1986) Photosynthetic characteristics and chloroplast ultra-structure of 3-carbon photosynthetic pathway and 4-carbon photosynthetic pathway tree species grown in high and low light environments. Photosynthesis Research 9: 317–332

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson HA (1983) Forest grazing in the southern United States. In: Hannaway DB (eds) Foothills for Food and Forests, pp 247–260. Oregon State University, College of Agricultural Sciences symposium Series No.2. Timber Press, Beaverton, Oregon, 383 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Powels SB (1984) Photoinhibition of photosynthesis induced by visible light. Annual Review of Plant Physiology 35: 15–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith MA and Whiteman PC (1983) Evaluation of tropical grasses in increasing shade under coconut canopies. Experimental Agriculture 19: 153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson VH, Hagedorn C, Knight WE and Pearson HA (1984) Shade tolerance of grass and legume germplasm for use in the southern forest range. Journal of Range Management 37: 229–232

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, C.H., McGraw, R.L., George, M.F. et al. Shade effects on forage crops with potential in temperate agroforestry practices. Agroforestry Systems 44, 109–119 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006205116354

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006205116354

Navigation