Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Date of pruning of Guazuma ulmifolia during the rainy season affects the availability, productivity and nutritional quality of forage during the dry season

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Guazuma ulmifolia was experimentally pruned to determine when pruning should begin during the rainy season in order to extend the production of green tree-forage during the dry season. Three prunings (P-1, P-2, and P-3) were performed (5 weeks apart) during the rainy season (August, September, and October) and four forage harvests (C-a, C-b, C-c, and C-d) (3 weeks apart) took place during the dry season (February, March, and April). Over 2 years, forage biomass production was evaluated as total biomass (g dry matter tree−1), biomass of the morphological components (leaves, stems, and dead matter), and nutritional quality (crude protein, fiber, lignin, and digestibility). Date of pruning affected the production of total biomass (P = 0.001) with the earliest pruning (P-1) yielding the greatest forage quantity, while stems (P = 0.022) and dead matter (P = 0.032) varied due to a year by pruning interaction. Total biomass, leaves, stems, and dead matter varied by the interaction between forage harvest and year for all four variables (P < 0.037). In both years, the largest forage harvest occurred in C-b (P < 0.05), leaf production was highest in C-a and C-b (P < 0.001), stem production was greatest in C-b (P = 0.013) and dead matter was highest in C-b and C-d (P = 0.002). Leaf crude protein ranged between 10 and 19 %, and the interaction of pruning by forage harvest by year was significant (P = 0.035). Digestibility, neutral and acid detergent fiber and lignin differed significantly because of the interaction between forage harvest and year (P < 0.005), with February showing the lowest values for fiber and the highest digestibility. The best time to prune G. ulmifolia is in August so that the young trees will produce more total biomass with a higher crude protein content. The most suitable moment for forage harvest is in February when the trees have more leaves with greater digestibility and less fiber.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ANKOM (2010) ANKOM technology instrument manuals. http://www.ankom.com/instrument-manuals.aspx. Accessed 12 Feb 2012

  • AOAC (1980) Official method 4.2.11. Protein (crude) in animal feeds, forage (plant tissue), grain, and oilseeds. In: Official methods of analysis of AOAC International, 13th edn. AOAC International, Washington, DC

  • AOAC (1997) Official method 973.18. Fiber (acid detergent) and lignin in animal feed. In: Official methods of analysis of AOAC International, 16th edn. AOAC International, Washington, DC

  • Boschini FC (2006) Nutrientes digeribles, energía neta y fracciones proteicas de la morera (Morus alba) aprovechables en vacas lecheras. Agronomía Mesoamericana 17(2):141–150

    Google Scholar 

  • CONAGUA (2008) Base de datos electrónica de la Comisión Nacional del Agua. Boca de Río, Veracruz, México

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyne PI, Trlica MJ, Owensby EO (1995) Carbon and nitrogen dynamics in range plants. In: Bedunah DJ, Sosebee RE (eds) Wildland plants: physiological ecology and developmental morphology. Society for Range Management, Colorado, pp 59–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Ella A, Jacobsen C, Stür WW, Blair G (1989) Effect of plant density and cutting frequency on the productivity of four tree legumes. Trop Grasslands 23(1):28–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Ella A, Blair GJ, Stür WW (1991) Effect of forage tree legumes at the first cutting on subsequent production. Trop Grasslands 25(3):275–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Enkerlin E, Cano G, Garza R, Vogel E (1997) Ciencia Ambiental y Desarrollo Sostenible. International Thomson Editores, Polanco

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrer O, Higuera A, Castro C, García B, López Y, Soto R, Carrillo G, Mogollon M, Urdaneta J (1996) Efecto de la altura y tiempo de corte sobre la digestibilidad in vitro, el valor energético y el contenido de carbohidratos estructurales y no estructurales en hojas y tallos de tres variedades forrajeras de quichoncho (Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.). Interciencia 21(1):42–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Francisco AG (2003) Manejo estratégico de las defoliaciones en especies arbóreas. Pastos y Forrajes 26(3):185–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Grisvard P (1994) La poda en árboles frutales: peral-manzano. Mundi-Prensa Libros, Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Herms DA, Mattson WJ (1992) The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Q Rev Biol 67(3):283–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández M, Benavides J (1994) Podas estratégicas en cercos vivos de piñón cubano (Gliricidia sepium) para la producción de forraje en la época seca. In: Benavides JE (ed) Árboles y Arbustos Forrajeros en América Central, vol II. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza (CATIE), Serie Técnica. Turrialba, Costa Rica. Informe Técnico No. 236, pp 559–582

  • Hernández I, Benavides J, Simón L (1996) Manejo de las podas de Leucaena leucocephala para la producción de forraje en el periodo seco en Cuba. Agroforestería en las Americas 3(11–12):28–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman PC, Lundberg KM, Bauman LM, Shaver DR (2003) The effect of maturity on NDF digestibility. In: Focus on forage fact sheets, vol 5, No 15. University of Wisconsin Team Forage

  • Jiménez-Ferrer G, López-Carmona M, Nahed-Toral J, Ochoa-Gaona S, de Jong B (2008) Árboles y arbustos forrajeros de la región Norte-Tzotzil de Chiapas, México. Revista Electrónica Veterinaria México 39(2):199–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Lizárraga SH, Solorio SF, Sandoval CC (2001) Agronomic evaluation of tree species for forage production in the Yucatán Peninsula. Livest Res Rural Dev 13(6):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Manríquez-Mendoza LY, López-Ortiz S, Olguín-Palacios C, Pérez-Hernández P, Díaz-Rivera P, López-Tecpoyotl ZG (2011) Productivity of a silvopastoral system under intensive mixed species grazing by cattle and sheep. Trop Subtrop Agroecosyst 13(3):573–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshal PJ, Krausman RP, Bleich CV (2005) Rainfall, temperature, and forage dynamics affect nutritional quality of desert mule deer forage. Rangel Ecol Manag 58(4):360–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murgueitio E (2005) Silvopastoral systems in the Neotropics. In: Mosquera RM, McAdam J, Regueiro-Rodriguez A (eds) Silvopastoralisms and sustainable land management. CAB International Publishing, Wallingford, pp 24–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Nygren P, Kiema P, Rebottaro S (1996) Canopy development, CO2 exchange and carbon balance of a modeled agroforestry tree. Tree Physiol 16(9):733–745

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ortega-Vargas E (2012) Potencial productivo de Guazuma ulmifolia Lam. en bancos de forraje y asociado a gramíneas tropicales. Tesis de Maestría en Ciencias, Programa de Postgrado en Agroecosistemas Tropicales. Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Veracruz, Veracruz, México

  • Paterson RT, Karanja GM, Nyaata OZ, Kariuki IW, Roothaert RL (1998) A review of tree fodder production and utilization within smallholder agroforestry systems in Kenya. Agrofor Syst 41(2):181–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peter I, Lehmann J (2000) Pruning effects on root distribution and nutrient dynamics in acacia hedgerow planting in northern Kenya. Agrofor Syst 50(1):59–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pezo D, Ibrahim M (1998) Sistemas silvopastoriles. Colección Módulos de Enseñanza Agroforestal No. 2. Centro Agronómico Tropical de Investigación y Enseñanza, Turrialba

  • Ruiz-Rodríguez JM (2004) Potencial de árboles y arbustos forrajeros para la alimentación animal tropical. Documento presentado en 3er. Seminario de producción intensiva de ovinos. Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, Tabasco, México, pp 42–49

  • SAS (2010) Statistical analysis system, Enterprise Guide ver. 4.3.0. SAS Institute, Cary

  • Toledo V, Batiz A, Becerra R, Martínez E, Ramos HC (1995) La selva útil: Etnobótanica cuantitativa de los grupos indígenas del trópico húmedo de México. Interciencia 20(4):177–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Toral O, Iglesias JM (2007) Efecto de la poda en el rendimiento de biomasa de 20 accesiones de especies arbóreas. Pastos y Forrajes 30(3):341–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres F (1983) Role of woody perennials in animal agroforestry. Agrofor Syst 1(2):131–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velázquez-Martínez M, López-Ortiz S, Hernández-Mendo O, Díaz-Rivera P, Pérez-Elizalde S, Gallegos-Sánchez J (2010) Foraging behavior of heifers with or without social models in an unfamiliar site containing high plant diversity. Livest Sci 131:73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villa-Herrera A (2009) Productividad del sistema silvopastoril con Guazuma ulmifolia Lam. y la utilización de la especie en agroecosistemas de Angostillo, Veracruz. Tesis de Maestría en Ciencias, Programa de Postgrado en Agroecosistemas Tropicales. Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Veracruz, Veracruz, México

  • White ML (1973) Carbohydrate reserves of grasses: a review. J Range Manag 26(1):13–18

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research received funding from the Fondo Sectorial SAGARPA-CONACyT through project 12294/2005—Evaluación del pastoreo mixto de ovino y bovinos manejados en un sistema silvopastoril gramíneas-guácimo (Guazuma ulmifolia Lam.), from the Fondo de Apoyo a Investigadores Nacionales para el Fortalecimiento de Actividades de Tutoría con Estudiantes de Licenciatura 2008, and the Línea Prioritaria de Investigación en Agroecosistemas Sustentables (LPI2) from Colegio de Postgraduados.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Colegio de Postgraduados, Campus Veracruz, Km. 88.5 de la Carretera Federal Xalapa -Veracruz (vía Paso de Ovejas), Predio Tepetates, Municipio de Manlio Fabio Altamirano, 91690, Veracruz, Mexico

    Eloisa Ortega-Vargas, Silvia López-Ortiz & W. Bruce Campbell

  2. Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo (CIMMYT), Estación Experimental El Batán, Km. 45 Carretera México-Veracruz, El Batán, 56130, Texcoco, Edo. de México, Mexico

    Juan Andrés Burgueño-Ferreira

  3. Centro de Enseñanza, Investigación y Extensión en Ganadería Tropical (CEIEGT), Km. 5.5 Carretera Federal Martínez de la Torre-Tlapacoyan, Municipio de Tlapacoyan, 93600, Veracruz, Mexico

    Jesús Jarillo-Rodríguez

Authors
  1. Eloisa Ortega-Vargas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Silvia López-Ortiz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Juan Andrés Burgueño-Ferreira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. W. Bruce Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jesús Jarillo-Rodríguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia López-Ortiz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ortega-Vargas, E., López-Ortiz, S., Burgueño-Ferreira, J.A. et al. Date of pruning of Guazuma ulmifolia during the rainy season affects the availability, productivity and nutritional quality of forage during the dry season. Agroforest Syst 87, 917–927 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-013-9608-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-013-9608-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation