Forage accumulation in Lotus corniculatus L. as a function of harvest strategy

Álvarez Vázquez, Perpetuo; Guerrero Rodríguez, Juan de Dios; García De Los Santos, Gabino; Ortega Cerrilla, María Esther; Mendoza Pedroza, Sergio Iban; Joaquín Cancino, Santiago; Álvarez Vázquez, Perpetuo; Guerrero Rodríguez, Juan de Dios; García De Los Santos, Gabino; Ortega Cerrilla, María Esther; Mendoza Pedroza, Sergio Iban; Joaquín Cancino, Santiago

doi:10.22319/rmcp.v11i4.4950

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Cited by SciELO
Access statistics

Revista mexicana de ciencias pecuarias

On-line version ISSN 2448-6698Print version ISSN 2007-1124

Rev. mex. de cienc. pecuarias vol.11 n.4 Mérida Oct./Dec. 2020 Epub Mar 02, 2021

https://doi.org/10.22319/rmcp.v11i4.4950

Articles

Forage accumulation in Lotus corniculatus L. as a function of harvest strategy

Perpetuo Álvarez Vázquez^a

Juan de Dios Guerrero Rodríguez^b^*

Gabino García De Los Santos^c

María Esther Ortega Cerrilla^d

Sergio Iban Mendoza Pedroza^d

Santiago Joaquín Cancino^e

^{^a} Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro. Departamento de Recursos Naturales Renovables. México.

^{^b} Colegio de Postgraduados. Campus puebla, Desarrollo Agrícola Regional. México.

^{^c} Colegio de Postgraduados. Campus Montecillo, Recursos Genéticos y Productividad - Producción de Semillas. México.

^{^d} Colegio de Postgraduados. Campus Montecillo, Recursos Genéticos y Productividad-Ganadería. Estado de México, México.

^{^e} Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas. Facultad de Ingeniería y Ciencias. México.

Abstract

Different harvest strategies can substantially affect yield in forages. A study was carried out to determine the optimum harvest strategy for Lotus corniculatus, genotype 255301, during two production periods among four tested strategies: three determined by the percentage of light intercepted by the canopy (90, 95 and 100 % IL), and one season-defined fixed cut (FC). The treatments (IL and FC) were distributed in a randomized block design with three repetitions. Forage yield in the FC was 27 % lower than the 95 % IL in the first period (19,915 vs 28,417 kg DM ha^-1), and 29 % lower than the average of all three IL treatments in the second period (19,100 vs 26,952 kg DM ha^-1). Average seasonal yield in both periods was higher in spring (9,447 kg DM ha^-1) than in autumn (3,120 kg DM ha^-1). The leaf was the component that contributed most (56 %) to yield, particularly in spring in the 95 % IL treatments. Plant height was greatest in the 90, 95 and 100 % IL treatments (average= 21.5 cm) and lowest in the FC treatments (average= 17 cm). By season, plant height was greatest (average= 24 cm) in spring and lowest in winter (average= 17 cm). In both periods, average leaf:stem ratio was highest in the FC treatment (2.3) followed by the 90, 95 and 100 % IL treatments. Lotus corniculatus genotype 255301 yield was optimum when harvested using intercepted light percentages as an indicator; leaf production was highest in the 95 % intercepted light treatments.

Key words Lotus corniculatus L.; Forage production; Harvest strategy; Intercepted light

Resumen

El objetivo del estudio fue determinar la mejor estrategia de cosecha en Lotus corniculatus, dependiente de diferentes porcentajes de luz interceptada (LI) por el dosel y una denominada corte fijo (CF) definido estacionalmente, en dos periodos de producción. Los tratamientos (LI y CF) se distribuyeron en un diseño de bloques al azar, con tres repeticiones. El rendimiento de forraje del CF fue 27 % menor al 95 % de LI en el primer periodo (19,915 vs 28,417 kg MS ha^-1), y 29 % al promedio de los porcentajes de LI en el segundo periodo (19,100 vs 26,952 kg MS ha^-1). El rendimiento promedio estacional fue mayor en primavera (9,447 kg MS ha^-1), comparado con otoño (3,120 kg MS ha^-1), en ambos periodos. La hoja fue el componente que mayor aporte tuvo (56 %), principalmente en primavera con 95 % de LI. Con 90, 95 y 100 % de LI se registraron las alturas mayores (21.5 cm) y con un CF las alturas menores (17 cm). Entre estaciones, las alturas mayores (24 cm) se presentaron en primavera y las menores en invierno (17 cm). En ambos periodos, se presentó la relación promedio hoja:tallo mayor en el CF (2.3), seguido del 90, 95 y 100 % de LI. El comportamiento mejor de Lotus corniculatus genotipo 255301, se presentó cuando éste fue cosechado usando los porcentajes de luz interceptada como indicador; sin embargo, la mayor cantidad de hoja se produjo con 95 % de luz interceptada.

Palabras clave Lotus corniculatus L.; Producción de forraje; Estrategia de cosecha; Luz interceptada

Introduction

Lotus corniculatus L., commonly known as bird’s-foot trefoil, is the most important forage species of its genus. This includes about 200 species, both annuals and perennials¹, which occupy approximately 90 % of the planet’s crop surface². Its yield and nutritional quality (between 18.9 to 21.8 % of crude protein, dry basis) are similar or superior to alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and white clover (Trifolium repens L.)³. It also contains less cellulose and more non-structural carbohydrates than these species⁴, additionally, due to its concentration of condensed tannins does not produce bloat in grazing ruminants⁵. As with all other forage species, productivity and persistence in L. corniculatus are a function of forage accumulation, and both are influenced by harvest strategy and efficiency⁶^,⁷.

Plant growth and management practices are variables which interact with soil and climate⁸. In forages, competition between individuals occurs as growth progresses, particularly during regrowth periods when pasture light quantity and quality are reduced⁹. For example, the point when 95 % intercepted light is reached in a pasture is optimum for harvest since it is when optimum productivity is obtained¹⁰. In other words, proper management of intercepted light in a pasture ensures the best forage productivity¹¹. High correlations have been found between forage accumulation and intercepted light in temperate climate legumes¹². Only limited research has been done on L. corniculatus in this regard, therefore, the present study objective was to identify optimum harvest strategy for Lotus corniculatus (genotype 255301) in four harvest interval scenarios: three light interception-dependent scenarios and one seasonally-defined fixed cutoff.

Material and methods

Two experiments were carried out under field conditions at the College of Postgraduates (Colegio de Posgraduados), Texcoco, Mexico (19°29’N, 98°54’W; 2,250 m asl): one in autumn-summer 2014-2015 (POV1); and a second in autumn-summer 2015-2016 (POV2). Soil texture at the experimental field is sandy loam and slightly alkaline, with 7.8 pH¹³. Regional climate is temperate subhumid with summer rains, average annual precipitation 645 mm and average annual temperature of 15 °C¹⁴.

During the study periods, air temperature (minimum and maximum) and precipitation data were collected at the meteorological station of the Autonomous University of Chapingo (Universidad Autónoma de Chapingo) (Figure 1), located 2 km from the experimental field. During period POV1 accumulated rainfall was 1,043 mm, while during POV2 it was 877 mm. Maximum temperatures occurred in the spring-summer in both periods.

POV1= Autumn 2014-Summer 2015; POV2 = Autumn 2015-Summer 2016. Data from Autonomous University of Chapingo meteorological station.

Figure 1 Maximum and minimum mean monthly temperature, and monthly accumulated rainfall

The experimental field consisted of Lotus corniculatus L. genotype 255301 established by transplanting in March 2014 at a planting interval of 33 cm. Plants were from greenhouse material. No fertilizer was applied. In seasons with little or no rainfall the field was irrigated to field capacity every two weeks. At the beginning of the study (5 September 2014), a manual cut was made 7 cm above ground level to standardize forage height. Experimental units were 4 m² plots. The treatments consisted of four manual harvest strategies: cutting intervals when intercepted light percentages reached 90, 95 and 100 %; and fixed cut intervals implemented by season (i.e. autumn= 35-d interval, winter = 42-d interval, spring-summer = 28-d interval). Residual forage height was 7 cm in all treatments³. Intercepted light percentages were monitored prior to cutting, by taking six readings in each plot at 1200 h with a ceptometer (Accupar LP-80, Decagon Devices, USA). The four treatments were randomly assigned to four 4 m² plots in a completely randomized block design with three replicates, and four plots per block, creating twelve experimental plots.

Forage yield (kg DM ha^-1) was measured using the biomass harvested in two fixed 0.25 m² quadrants per replicate, established at the beginning of the experimental period. Harvested material was placed in labeled bags and dehydrated at 60 °C to constant weight in a forced air oven (Felisa, Mod. FE-243A). The botanical and morphological composition (BMC) of the harvested forage was quantified by taking an approximately 10 % subsample and separating it into leaves, stems, dead (senescent) material and weeds. Each fraction’s contribution to yield was calculated in kg DM ha^-1. Leaf and stem data from the BMC were used to calculate the leaf:stem ratio by dividing the weight of the leaf fraction by the weight of the stem fraction. Estimation of average plant height was done by taking twelve measurements one day before cutting at random within each replicate using a 50 cm long graduated ruler. The values of the cuts from each season were averaged and these averages used to calculate the equivalence in forage yield per centimeter of plant height, dividing yield by plant height by the number of cuts¹⁵.

The effect of the treatments (harvest strategy) on the response variables was analyzed by grouping the data seasonally and by study period. The data were analyzed using a randomized block experimental design with four treatments and three replicates. Comparison of means was done with a Tukey test (P≤0.05). All statistical analyses were run with the PROC GLM procedure in the SAS statistical package¹⁶.

Results and discussion

Forage yield

Average seasonal yield was highest in spring (9,447 kg DM ha^-1), although this did not differ with that of summer in POV1. This variable was lowest in autumn (3,120 kg), which did not differ from winter in the same period (Table 1). Yield behavior was directly related to optimal temperatures (22 °C) for growth in L. corniculatus³. Temperatures were favorable in spring (Figure 1), which benefited growth and production. This agrees with yield behavior reported in a study of five populations of L. corniculatus using grazing intervals of 20 and 40 d¹⁷. Seasonal changes in forage species growth performance can therefore be attributed to seasonal environmental conditions¹⁸. For instance, in L. corniculatus seasonal distributions in forage production have been reported of 32 % in spring, 30 % in summer, 23 % in winter and 15 % in autumn; 62 % of production occurred in spring-summer¹⁹. Slightly lower average yields (7,700 kg DM ha^-1) have been reported for L. corniculatus at a 45-d cutting interval in Texcoco, which were influenced by climate, management and genotype growth habit³.

Table 1 Forage yield (kg DM h^-1) of L. corniculatus, genotype 255301, as a function of intercepted light (IL) and seasonally-defined fixed cut

IL (%)	Autumn	Winter	Spring	Summer	Accumulated	SEM
POV1
90	4527 Ab	2736 Bb	10326 Aa	9746 Aa	27336 AB	1271
95	4956 Ab	4422 Ab	10346 Aa	9942 Aa	28417 A	481
100	4235 Ab	2716 Bb	11002 Aa	9178 Aa	27132 AB	802
FC	3300 Ab	2431 Bb	8147 Aa	6851 Ba	20730 B	529
Average	4255 b	3076 b	9956 a	8929 a	25904	564
SEM	683	522	1432	637	2461
POV2
90	4749 Ac	3247 Ad	9953 Aa	8565 Ab	26515 A	355
95	4676 Ab	3835 Ab	9087 ABa	9515 Aa	27113 A	505
100	5501 Ac	3749 Ad	9732 Aa	8246 Ab	27227 A	477
FC	4603 Ab	1826 Bc	6982 Ba	5689 Bb	19100 B	402
Average	4882 c	3164 d	8938 a	8004 b	24989	306
SEM	628	329	940	668	2397

FC = Fixed cut (autumn = 35-day interval, winter = 42-day interval, spring-summer = 28-day interval). POV1= Autumn 2014-Winter 2015; POV2= Autumn 2015-summer 2016. SEM = standard error of the mean.

Significant difference (P(0.05) is indicated by different uppercase letters between columns and different lowercase letters between rows.

Accumulated forage production differed between treatments (P≤0.05) (Table 1). In POV1, yield was lowest in the FC treatment, with 27 % less production than in the 95 % IL treatment (28,417 vs 20,730 kg DM ha^-1). In POV2 the FC treatment had a cumulative yield 29 % less than the average of the three IL treatments (26,952 vs 19,100 kg DM ha^-1). This may be related to the shorter harvest interval (< 33 d) in the FC treatments versus the longer average harvest interval (70 d) in the IL treatments (Figure 2). This coincides with a study in which L. corniculatus (cultivar 202700) grown in Texcoco exhibited a lesser adaptation to a season-defined fixed cut than cuts based on IL percentages; the fixed cut yielded 29 % less forage than the IL treatments²⁰. In some forage species, frequent cuts decrease yield and foliar area, leading to greater presence of undesirable species²¹, and consequent greater competition with the desired species and depletion of their carbohydrate reserves²².

90 = 90 % IL; 95 = 95 % IL; 100 = 100 % IL; CF = season-defined fixed cut (autumn = 35-d interval, winter = 42-d interval, spring-summer = 28-d interval).

Figure 2 Average cut intervals for L. corniculatus, genotype 255301

Botanical and morphological composition

The morphological component contributing most to yield was the leaf (average= 14,273 kg DM ha^-1; 56 %), followed by the stem (30.5 %), dead material (8.5 %) and weeds (4.5 %). Of the IL treatments, the 95 % IL produced the highest average leaf yield (16,526 kg DM ha^-1), which was higher (P≤0.05) than the other IL treatments during POV2. The FC treatments in both study periods produced the lowest average yields of leaves (12,276 kg DM ha^-1) and stems (4,710 kg DM ha^-1). Dead material and weed percentages did not differ between treatments (P ≥ 0.05) in either period (Table 2).

Table 2 Accumulated seasonal forage yield (kg DM h^-1) by botanical and morphological component in L. corniculatus, genotype 255301, as a function of intercepted light (IL) and season-defined fixed cut

IL (%)	Leaf	Stem	Dead Material	Weeds	SEM
POV1
90	13829 Aa	8426 Ab	3337 Ac	459 Ad	961
95	15979 Aa	9450 Ab	2051 Ac	937 Ac	836
100	14540 Aa	7964 ABb	4622 Ac	1291 Ac	754
FC	12715 Aa	5364 Bb	2616 Ab	1329 Ab	1692
Average	14266 a	7801 b	3156 c	1004 d	753
SME	1332	1048	971	662
POV2
90	14315 ABa	7996 Bb	1608 Ac	970 Ac	1022
95	17074 Aa	9412 ABb	969 Ac	719 Ac	877
100	13893 ABa	10403 Ab	2326 Ac	605 Ad	533
FC	11838 Ba	4056 Cb	1718 Ac	2053 Abc	748
Average	14280 a	7967 b	1655 c	1087 c	565
SEM	1102	757	570	750

FC = fixed cut (autumn = 35-day interval, winter = 42-day interval, spring-summer = 28-day interval). POV1= Autumn 2014-Summer 2015; POV2= Autumn 2015-Summer 2016. SEM = standard error of the mean.

Significant difference (P( 0.05) is indicated by different uppercase letters between columns and different lowercase letters between rows.

The higher leaf and stem production observed in the 95% IL treatment may be related to greater crop growth age²³. In addition, the higher leaf production in the 95% IL versus the FC treatment may have resulted from a compensation for greater stem biomass caused by a longer growth period, which implies more time producing photosynthates²⁴.

The leaf component also contributed most to forage yield in different seasons (Figure 3). Average yield in both periods was highest in the spring (5,141 kg DM ha^-1) and lowest in the winter (1,580 kg DM ha^-1), with the 95% IL treatment having the highest yield (5,852 kg DM ha^-1) and the FC the lowest (1,163 kg DM ha^-1). Stem yield was also highest in the spring (3,347 kg DM ha^-1) and lowest in the winter (772 kg DM ha^-1). These variations in component yields are probably responses to changes in environmental conditions between different seasons (Figure 1). For example, changes in stem production are known to be a function of seasonal variations in pasture light quantity and quality, precipitation and temperature¹⁸. Dead material (873 kg DM ha^-1) and weed (268 kg DM ha-¹) production was highest in summer, although these yields did not differ (P≥0.05) from the corresponding spring yields during POV1. These yields were lowest in autumn (237 and 133 kg DM ha^-1, respectively). This may result from self-shading of the basal area by the plant since growth is greater in seasons with favorable development conditions²⁵.

Figure 3 Botanical and morphological composition of L. corniculatus, genotype 255301, as a function of intercepted light (90, 95 and 100 %) and season-defined fixed cut (FC) (autumn = 35-d interval, winter = 42-d interval, spring-summer = 28-d interval)

Plant height

Plant height differed between treatments and seasons (P≤(0.05). Height was greatest in the 90, 95 and 100 % IL treatments, which averaged 21.5 cm. This is slightly taller (P≥0.05) than in the 90 % IL treatment in POV2 and noticeably taller than the 17 cm average for the FC treatments in both periods (Table 3). These results are related to pasture age because in the IL treatments the plants had 70 d for regrowth compared to the FC treatments with an average of 33 d in both periods (Figure 2). In the FC treatments, plants were younger and cut more frequently, resulting in lower forage yield¹⁷. Greater height is reported to correspond to higher forage yield¹⁵, and for L. corniculatus yield and height have also been linked to erect and prostrate growth habits³.

Table 3 Plant height (cm) in L. corniculatus, genotype 255301, as a function of intercepted light (%) and season-defined fixed cut

IL (%)	Autumn	Winter	Spring	Summer	Average	SEM
POV1
90	21 ABa	18 Ab	23 Aa	24 Aa	22 A	0.9
95	23 Aa	17 Aa	23 Aba	24 Aa	22 A	2.4
100	18 Bc	20 Abc	24 Aa	23 Aab	21 A	1.6
FC	24 Aa	12 Bc	21 Bab	18 Bb	19 B	1.5
Average	21 a	17 b	23 a	22 a	21	1.5
SEM	1.6	1.1	0.6	0.7	0.8
POV2
90	19 Ab	13 Bc	24 Ba	24 ABa	20 B	1.0
95	17 ABc	22 Ab	30 Aa	24 Ab	23 A	1.1
100	19 Ac	26 Ab	31 Aa	22 ABbc	25 A	1.2
FC	15 Bb	8 Cc	16 Cb	22 Ba	15 C	0.8
Average	18 c	17 c	25 a	23 b	21	0.4
SME	1.2	1.3	0.9	0.9	0.5

FC = fixed cut (autumn = 35-d interval, winter = 42-d interval, spring-summer = 28-d interval). POV1= Autumn 2014-Winter 2015; POV2= Autumn 2015-summer 2016. SEM = standard error of the mean.

Significant difference (P(0.05) is indicated by different uppercase letters between columns and different lowercase letters between rows.

In both study periods the highest average height (24 cm) was recorded in spring, although this did not differ (P≥0.05) from average height in the summer and autumn in POV1. Average height was lowest in winter (17 cm), which, in POV2, did not differ (P≥0.05) from autumn. Plant height was greatest during the seasons with optimal humidity and temperature conditions for growth and yield in L. corniculatus (Figure 1). These results coincide with those in a study of twelve L. corniculatus genotypes in the State of Mexico, Mexico³. Adequate photoperiod, temperature and humidity can allow forage plants to accelerate growth and exhibit changes in height between seasons²⁶. This directly affects forage yield¹², which, in L. corniculatus genotype 255301, is associated with its prostrate growth habit³. Pasture height is therefore predictive of forage production⁸. Based on this assumption and using the present results, calculations were done of the equivalence (per centimeter of plant height) of the highest yields by season and treatment. In the spring each centimeter of height corresponded to a yield of 167 kg DM ha^-1, as an average of both study periods. In POV1, height in the 95 % IL treatment corresponded to a 144 kg DM ha^-1 yield, while in POV2 the height in the 90, 95 and 100 % IL treatments corresponded to an average yield of 192 kg DM ha^-1.

Leaf:stem ratio

Average leaf:stem ratio values in both periods were highest in the fixed cut treatment (P≤0.05), followed by the 90, 95 and 100 % IL treatments (Table 4). In POV1, this ratio in the FC treatment was 36 % higher than the average of the 90, 95 and 100 % IL treatments (2.8 vs 1.8), while in POV2 the ratio in the FC was 44 % higher than in the 100% IL treatment (3.2 vs 1.4). The larger leaf:stem ratio in the FC treatments was caused by more frequent harvests (average= 33-d interval)(Figure 2). Lotus corniculatus is in the accelerated growth phase at this interval, which is not optimal for harvest, since it exhibits the highest percentage of young leaves and fewer stems²⁷. In addition, post-cut incident light quality and quantity in a pasture are altered by cutting interval, leading to variations in leaf and stem production and consequent changes in the leaf:stem ratio¹⁰.

Table 4 Leaf:stem ratio in L. corniculatus, genotype 255301, as a function of intercepted light (%) and season-defined fixed cut

IL (%)	Autumn	Winter	Spring	Summer	Average	SEM
POV1
90	2.5 Aa	2.0 Bab	1.7 Bb	1.5 Ab	1.9 B	0.2
95	1.9 Aa	2.3 Ba	1.5 Ba	1.4 Aa	1.8 B	0.3
100	2.1 Aa	2.2 Ba	1.8 Ba	1.8 Aa	1.8 B	0.2
FC	2.5 Ab	4.0 Aa	2.6 Ab	2.1 Ab	2.8 A	0.4
Average	2.3 ab	2.6 a	1.9 b	1.7 b	2.1	0.2
SEM	0.2	0.3	0.2	0.4	0.2
POV2
90	2.1 Ab	2.9 Ba	1.7 Bb	1.7 Bb	2.1 B	0.1
95	3.0 Aa	1.8 Cb	1.0 Cc	1.7 Bb	1.9 B	0.1
100	2.3 Aa	1.3 Cb	1.0 Cb	1.2 Cb	1.4 C	0.2
FC	2.9 Aa	3.7 Aa	3.4 Aa	2.7 Aa	3.2 A	0.3
Average	2.6 a	2.4 a	1.8 b	1.8 b	2.2	0.1
SEM	0.3	0.2	0.2	0.1	0.1

FC= fixed cut (autumn = 35-d interval, winter = 42-d interval, spring-summer= 28-d interval). POV1= Autumn 2014-Winter 2015; POV2= Autumn 2015-summer 2016. SEM= standard error of the mean.

Significant difference (P( 005) is indicated by different uppercase letters between columns and different lowercase letters between rows.

The leaf:stem ratio was higher in winter (P≤0.05): 2.6 in winter POV1; 2.5 average in autumn and winter POV2. In some forage species leaf:stem ratio values are lower in seasons when plant growth is lower (e.g. autumn and winter) due to higher stem density coupled with lower weight²⁷. The lower ratio values (P≤0.05) observed here during the spring and summer in both periods resulted from higher individual stem weight²⁶, which is a possible response to greater translocation of assimilates from the leaves to the stems during these seasons⁷.

Conclusions and implications

The harvest strategies dependent on the percentage of intercepted light exhibited similar forage yields and plant heights, both markedly superior to the seasonally-defined fixed cut strategy. However, the latter had a higher leaf:stem ratio. The leaf was the morphological component that the made largest contribution to forage yield in all treatments, but particularly in the 95 % intercepted light harvest strategy.

Literatura citada

1. Lagler JC. Lotus: Un género que no acaba en dos especies. Rev Forrajes y Granos 2003;(62):72-76. [ Links ]

2. Escaray FJ, Menendez AB, Gárriz A, Pieckenstain FL, Estrella MJ, Castagno LN, et al. Ecological and agronomic importance of the plant genus Lotus. Its application ingrassland sustainability and the amelioration of constrained and contaminated soils. Plant Sci 2012;(182):121-133. [ Links ]

3. García BDV, Guerrero RJD, García DSG. Lagunes RSA. Rendimiento y calidad de forraje de genotipos de Lotus corniculatus L., en el Estado de México. Nova Scientia 2014;7(13):170-189. [ Links ]

4. Grant FW. Lotus corniculatus. Sci Topics. 2009. http://www.scitopics.com/Lotus_corniculatus.html . Accessed Sep 30, 2017. [ Links ]

5. MacAdam JW, Bruner J, Islam A, Shewmaker G. The benefits of tannin-containing forages. Plants, Soils and Climate, Utah State University AG/Forages 2013;03. [ Links ]

6. Da Silva NIM, Lima DSA, De Moura ZA, Gonçalves DAJ, De Jesus FD, Buranelo TFL, et al. Morphogenetic and structure characteristics of marandu grass subjected to grazing management strategies. Biolog Rhythm Res 2017;929-1016. [ Links ]

7. Giacomini AA, Da-Silva CS, Sarmento DLDO, Zeferino VC, Souza JS, Da-Trindade KJ, et al. Growth of marandu palisadegrass subjected to strategies of intermittent stocking. Sci Agric Piracicaba 2009;66(6):733-741. [ Links ]

8. Parsons A, Rowarth J, Thornley J, Newton P. Primary production of grassalands, herbage accumulation and use, and impacts of climate change. In: Lemaire G, et al. editors. Grassland productivity and ecosystems services. CABI, 2011:1-18. [ Links ]

9. Da Silva SC, Hernández GA. Manejo del pastoreo en praderas tropicales. En: Velazco ZME et al. editores. Los forrajes y su impacto en el trópico. 1ra. ed. Chiapas, México: Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas; 2010:63-95. [ Links ]

10. Montagner DB, Nascimento-Jr D, Vilela HH, Sousa MLB, Euclides BVP, Da-Silva CS, et al. Tillering dynamics in pastures of guinea grass subjected to grazing severities under intermittent stocking. Rev Bras Zootec 2012;41(3):544-549. [ Links ]

11. Difante GS, Nascimento-Jr D, Da-Silva SC, Bautista EVP, De-Moura ZA, Adese B. Dinâmica do perfilhamento do capim-marandu cultivado em duas alturas e três intervalos de corte. Rev Bras Zootec 2008;37(2):89-196. [ Links ]

12. Rojas GAR, Hernández GA, Joaquín CS, Maldonado PMA, Mendoza PSI, Álvarez VP, et al. Comportamiento productivo de cinco variedades de alfalfa. Rev Mex Cienc Agríc 2016;7(8):1855-1866. [ Links ]

13. Delgado R, Escalante J, Díaz R, Trinidad SA, Morales E, Sosa E. Defoliación en maíz y su efecto sobre el rendimiento de frijol-maíz en asociación. Rev Mex Cienc Agríc 2014;5(6):1015-1027. [ Links ]

14. García E. Modificación al sistema de clasificación climática de Köppen. 4ta ed. Instituto de Geografía, Universidad Autónoma de México; 2004. [ Links ]

15. Hakl J, Hrevusˇova´ Z, Hejcman M, Fuksa P. The use of a rising plate meter to evaluate lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) height as an important agronomic trait enabling yield estimation. Grass Forage Sci 2012;67:589-596. [ Links ]

16. SAS Institute. SAS/STAT® 9.2. User Guide Release. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc. USA. 2009. [ Links ]

17. Scheffer BMS, Brustolin R, Dall AM. Performance of Lotus corniculatus L. genotypes submitted to cutting interval: subsidies to a breeding program. Rev Bras Zootec 2011;40(8):1645-1650. [ Links ]

18. Sbrissia AF, Da-Silva CS, Sarmento DOL, Molan LK, Andrade MF, Goncalves CA, et al. Tillering dynamics in palisadegrass swards continuously stocked by cattle. Plant Eco 2010;(206):349-359. [ Links ]

19. Álvarez VP, Hernández GA, García DSG, Guerrero RJD, Mendoza PSI, Ortega CME, et al. Potencial forrajero de Lotus corniculatus L. con diferentes estrategias de manejo. Rev Agroproductividad 2018;11(5):24-28. [ Links ]

20. Álvarez VP, García DSG, Guerrero RJD, Mendoza PSI, Ortega CME, Hernández GA. Comportamiento productivo de Lotus corniculatus L. dependiente de la estrategia de cosecha. Rev Agrociencia 2018;52(8):1081-1093. [ Links ]

21. Mendoza PSI, Hernández GA, Pérez PJ, Quero CAR, Escalante EJAS, Zaragoza RJL, et al. Respuesta productiva de la alfalfa a diferentes frecuencias de corte. Rev Mex Cienc Pecu 2010;1(3):287-296. [ Links ]

22. Teixeira EI, Derrick JM, Hamish BB, Fletcher LA. The dynamics of lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) yield components in response to defoliation frequency. Eur J Agron 2007;(26):394-400. [ Links ]

23. Gomide AMC, Chavesb SC, Ribeiroc KG, Sollenbergerd EL, Paciulloa SCD, Pereirae TP, et al. Structural traits of elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum.) genotypes under rotational stocking strategies. Afr J Range Forage Sci 2014:1-7. [ Links ]

24. Pereira JC, Gomes FK, Oliveira DBLM, Lara ASM, Bernardes TF, Casagrande DR. Defoliation management affects morphogenetic and structural characteristics of mixed pastures of brachiaria grass and forage peanut. Afr J Range Forage Sci 2017;34(1):13-19. [ Links ]

25. Baguet HA y Bavera GA. Fisiología de la planta pastoreada. Facultad de Agronomía y Veterinaria. Universidad Nacional del Río Cuarto. Provincia de Córdoba, Argentina 2001. http://www.produccionovina.com.ar/produccioymanejopastras/pastoreosistemas/04fisiologia_de_la_planta_pastoreada.htm . Accessed Sep 10, 2017. [ Links ]

26. Villegas AY, Hernández GA, Pérez PJ, López CC, Herrera HJG, Enríquez QJF, et al. Patrones estacionales de crecimiento de dos variedades de alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). Téc Pecu Méx 2004;42(2):145-158. [ Links ]

27. Barbosa RA, Nacimiento-Jr D, Vilela HH, Da-Silva CS, Batista-Euclides PV, Sbrissia FA, Da-Lana SB. Morphogenic and structural characteristics of guinea grass pastures submitted to three frequencies and two defoliation severities. Rev Bras Zootec 2011;(40):947-954. [ Links ]

Received: June 15, 2018; Accepted: October 23, 2019

Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons