Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Responses of legumes and grasses to non-, moderate, and dense shade in Missouri, USA. II. Forage quality and its species-level plasticity

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

From a series of shade tolerance screening trials conducted in an outdoor Shade Tolerance Screening Laboratory, 22 forages (16 grasses and 6 legumes) were selected for quality evaluation. The forages were grown under non-shade (100% of full sun, the control), moderate shade (45%), and dense shade (20%) with adequate water and nutrients and free of competition from other plants. All 22 forages had equal or higher percent crude protein (%CP) and CP yield (g pot−1) under moderate shade than in the control. Under dense shade, 22 and 18 forages had equal or higher %CP and CP yield than in the control, respectively. Under moderate and dense shade, 14 and 15 forages, respectively, maintained relative feed value (RFV) equal to that in the control. Legumes had higher %CP and RFV than grasses with no differences for CP yield. Relative distance plasticity index (RDPI), an indicator of a species’ adaptability to different environments, suggested grasses maintained RFV better than legumes under shade, while legumes were more resilient under shade in maintaining %CP than grasses. Our results suggest most grass and legume forages will maintain or have improved quality when grown in agroforestry practices with light to moderate shade compared to forages grown in open pastures.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abraham EM, Kyriazopoulos AP, Parissi ZM, Kostopoulou P, Karatassiou M, Anjalanidou K, Katsouta C (2014) Growth, dry matter production, phenotypic plasticity, and nutritive value of three natural populations of Dactylis glomerata L. under various shading treatments. Agrofor Syst 88:287–299. doi:10.1007/s10457-014-9682-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allard G, Nelson CJ, Pallardy SG (1991) Shade effects on growth of tall fescue: I. leaf anatomy and dry matter partitioning. Crop Sci 31:163–167. doi:10.2135/cropsci1991.0011183X003100010037x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball DM, Collins M, Lacefield GD, Martin NP, Mertens DA, Olson KE, Putnam DH, Undersander DJ, Wolf MW (2001) Understanding forage quality. American Farm Bureau Federation, Park Ridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonin CL, Tracy BF (2011) Forage yield, nutritive value, and elemental composition of ten native prairie plant species. Forage Grazinglands. doi:10.1094/FG-2011-1103-01-RS

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton GW, Jackson JE, Knox FE (1959) The influence of light reduction upon the production, persistence and chemical composition of coastal bermudagrass, Cynodon dactylon. Agron J 51:537–542. doi:10.2134/agronj1959.00021962005100090009x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway R (2007) Positive interactions and interdependence in plant communities. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Chabot BF, Chabot JF (1977) Effects of light and temperature on leaf anatomy and photosynthesis in Fragaria vesca. Oecologia 26:363–377. doi:10.1007/BF00345535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Contreras-Govea FE, Albrecht KA (2006) Forage production and nutritive value of oat in autumn and early summer. Crop Sci 46:2382–2386. doi:10.2135/cropsci2005.12.0458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Pozo A, Garnier E, Aronson J (2000) Contrasted nitrogen utilization in annual C3 grass and legume crops: physiological explorations and ecological considerations. Acta Oecol 21:79–89. doi:10.1016/S1146-609X(00)00113-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett HE, Kurtz WB (1983) Silvicultural and economic relationships of integrated forestry-farming with black walnut. Agrofor Syst 1:245–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hancock DW, Saha U, Stewart Jr., RL, Bernard JK, Smith III, RC, Johnson JM (2014) Understanding and improving forage quality. The University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension. http://extension.uga.edu/publications/detail.cfm?number=B1425

  • Henning JC, Lacefield GD, Amaral-Phillips D (1991) Interpreting forage quality reports. Cooperative Extension Service, University of Kentucky. http://www2.ca.uky.edu/agcomm/pubs/id/id101/id101.pdf

  • Hight GK, Sinclair DP, Lancaster RJ (1968) Some effects of shading and of nitrogen fertiliser on the chemical composition of freeze-dried and oven-dried herbage, and on the nutritive value of oven-dried herbage fed to sheep. N Z J Agric Res 11:286–302. doi:10.1080/00288233.1968.10431428

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Houx JH, McGraw RL, Fritschi FB, Navarrete-Tindall NE (2009) Effects of shade on growth and nodulation of three native legumes with potential for use in agroforestry. Native Plants J 10:232–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeranyama P, Garcia AD (2004) Understanding relative feed value (RFV) and relative forage quality (RFQ). South Dakota State University. http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ExEx8149.pdf

  • Kallenbach RL, Kerley MS, Bishop-Hurley GJ (2006) Cumulative forage production, forage quality and livestock performance from an annual ryegrass and cereal rye mixture in a pine walnut silvopasture. Agrofor Syst 66:43–53. doi:10.1007/s10457-005-6640-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyriazopoulos AP, Abraham EM, Parissi ZM, Koukoura Z, Nastis AS (2013) Forage production and nutritive value of Dactylis glomerata and Trifolium subterraneum mixtures under different shading treatments. Grass Forage Sci 68:72–82. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2494.2012.00870.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lin CH, McGraw RL, George MF, Garrett HE (1999) Shade effects on forage crops with potential in temperate agroforestry practices. Agrofor Syst 44:109–119. doi:10.1023/A:1006205116354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin CH, McGraw RL, George MF, Garrett HE (2001) Nutritive quality and morphological development under partial shade of some forage species with agroforestry potential. Agrofor Syst 53:269–281. doi:10.1023/A:1013323409839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martsolf JD (1966) Microclimatic modification through shade induced changes in net radiation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Missouri-Columbia

  • Masuda Y (1977) Comparisons of the in vitro dry matter digestibility of forage oats grown under different temperatures and light intensities. J Fac Agric Kyushu Univ 21:17–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton BW, Wilson JR, Shelton HM, Hill KD (1991) The effect of shade on forage quality. Forages Plant Crops Camberra 32:83

    Google Scholar 

  • Pang K, Van Sambeek JW, Navarrete-Tindall NE, Lin CH, Jose S, Garrett HE (2017) Responses of legumes and grasses to non-, moderate, and dense shade in Missouri, USA. I. Forage yield and its species-level plasticity. Agrofor Syst. doi:10.1007/s10457-017-0067-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peri PL, Lucas RJ, Moot DJ (2007) Dry matter production, morphology and nutritive value of Dactylis glomerata growing under different light regimes. Agrofor Syst 70:63–79. doi:10.1007/s10457-007-9029-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redfearn D, Zhang H, Caddel J (2010) Forage quality interpretations. Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid RL, Jung GA, Allison DW (1988) Nutrition quality of warm season grasses in the Northeast. West Virginia Agriculture and Forestry Experiment Station, Morgantown

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivera JD, Parish JA (2010) Interpreting forage and feed analysis reports. Mississippi State University Extension Service, Mississippi

    Google Scholar 

  • Saha UK, Sonon LS, Hancock DW, Hancock DW, Hill NS, Stewart L, Heusner GL, Kissel DE (2010) Common terms used in animal feeding and nutrition. The University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension

    Google Scholar 

  • Samarakoon SP (1988) The effects of shade on quality, dry matter yield and nitrogen economy of Stenotaphrum secundatum compared with Axonopus compressus and Pennisetum clandestinum. Master thesis, University of Queensland

  • Samarakoon SP, Wilson JR, Shelton HM (1990) Growth, morphology and nutritive quality of shaded Stenotaphrum secundatum, Axonopus compressus and Pennisetum clandestinum. J Agric Sci 114:161–169. doi:10.1017/S0021859600072154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Team, Greensboro. http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed 25 Apr 2016

  • Valladares F, Sanchez-Gomez D, Zavala MA (2006) Quantitative estimation of phenotypic plasticity: bridging the gap between the evolutionary concept and its ecological applications. J Ecol 94:1103–1116. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2006.01176.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong C, Wilson J (1980) Effects of shading on the growth and nitrogen content of green panic and Siratro in pure and mixed swards defoliated at two frequencies. Aust J Agric Res 31:269–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry under cooperative agreement AG-02100251 with the USDA—ARS Dale Bumpers Small Farm Research Center, Booneville, AR, and CR 826704-01-0 with the US EPA. We want to express our appreciation to the HARC staff, especially Steve Kirk for maintaining the studies in the STSL and harvesting the forages. Others include Robert McGraw, our retired agronomist, Marissa Huck for chemical analyses to determine forage quality, and John Stanovick, USDA FS statistician.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Agroforestry, University of Missouri, 203 Natural Resource Bldg., Columbia, MO, 65211-7270, USA

    Kejia Pang, Chung-Ho Lin, Shibu Jose & H. E. Garrett

  2. Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 202 Natural Resource Bldg., Columbia, MO, 65211-7260, USA

    J. W. Van Sambeek

  3. Cooperative Extension, Lincoln University, 306 Allen Hall Bldg., 900 Chestnut Street, Jefferson City, MO, 65101, USA

    Nadia E. Navarrete-Tindall

Authors
  1. Kejia Pang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. W. Van Sambeek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nadia E. Navarrete-Tindall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chung-Ho Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shibu Jose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. H. E. Garrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kejia Pang.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 106 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pang, K., Van Sambeek, J.W., Navarrete-Tindall, N.E. et al. Responses of legumes and grasses to non-, moderate, and dense shade in Missouri, USA. II. Forage quality and its species-level plasticity. Agroforest Syst 93, 25–38 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0068-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0068-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation