Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T04:18:06.742Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of functional traits of perennial ryegrass cultivars on forage quality in mixtures and pure stands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2020

Martin Komainda Open the ORCID record for Martin Komainda [Opens in a new window]  and
Johannes Isselstein Open the ORCID record for Johannes Isselstein [Opens in a new window]
Martin Komainda*
Affiliation:
Grassland Science, Department of Crop Sciences, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Von-Siebold-Str. 8, D-37075 Göttingen, Germany
Johannes Isselstein
Affiliation:
Grassland Science, Department of Crop Sciences, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Von-Siebold-Str. 8, D-37075 Göttingen, Germany Centre of Biodiversity & Sustainable Land Use, D-37075 Göttingen, Germany
*
Author for correspondence: Martin Komainda, E-mail: martin.komainda@uni-goettingen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Plant breeding has brought about improvements in the herbage yield potential, forage quality and functional traits of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.). Under conditions of low external inputs, grassland swards based on perennial ryegrass often contain dicotyledonous species (legume and non-legume). Cultivar-specific functional traits such as growth form or phenology affect the competitive ability and yield in mixtures, but the extent to which cultivars with different functional traits affect forage quality in mixtures compared with pure stands is unknown. Therefore, we analysed four perennial ryegrass cultivars, each representing a combination of two functional traits with respect to phenology (early v. late heading) and growth form (upright v. prostrate) on forage quality, in a field experiment over 5 years. Each cultivar was grown in binary-mixtures with Trifolium repens L., as four-species mixtures with Taraxacum officinale L. and Plantago lanceolata L., and as grass monocultures. The effect of functional traits was dominant in the primary growth and persisted in pure stands but not in the mixtures from the third year onwards. Prostrate cultivars allowed the development of a greater proportion of clover and forbs within the mixtures, resulting in increased protein and energy and reduced fibre contents. In mixtures, forage quality was generally higher in the last regrowth. In conclusion, the indirect effects of growth form on forage quality due to modifications of botanical composition were more important than direct effects on forage quality.

Keywords

Forbslegumeslow-input grasslandnutritive valuespecies richness
Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 158 , Issue 3 , April 2020 , pp. 173 - 184
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agricultural Chambers (2018) Qualitätsstandard Mischungen für Grünland, Sortenempfehlungen 2018–2020. Available at https://www.lksh.de/fileadmin/dokumente/AADownloadcenter/Archiv_Gruenland/Ansaatmischungen_Gruenland_2018-2020_gruenes_Faltblatt.pdf.Google Scholar
Assaf, TA and Isselstein, J (2009) Evaluation of dandelion as a potential forage species in mixed-species swards. Crop Science 49, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, K (2018) MuMIn: Multi-Model Inference. R package version 1.42.1 Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/MuMIn/MuMIn.pdf.Google Scholar
Bretz, F, Hothorn, T and Westfall, P (2011) Multiple Comparison Using R. London: Chapman &Hall CRC.Google Scholar
Brink, GE, Sanderson, MA and Casler, MD (2015) Grass and legume effects on nutritive value of complex forage mixtures. Crop Science 55, 1329–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruinenberg, MH, Valk, H, Korevaar, H and Struik, PC (2002) Factors affecting digestibility of temperate forages from seminatural grasslands: a review. Grass and Forage Science 57, 292–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BSA (2016) Beschreibende Sortenliste 2016. Futtergräser, Esparsette, Klee, Luzerne. Bundessortenamt.Google Scholar
Buxton, DR (1996) Quality-related characteristics of forages as influenced by plant environment and agronomic factors. Animal Feed Science and Technology 59, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlsson, M, Merten, M, Kayser, M, Isselstein, J and Wrage-Mönnig, N (2017) Drought stress resistance and resilience of permanent grasslands are shaped by functional group composition and N fertilization. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 236, 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherney, JH, Ketterings, Q and Cherney, DJR (2016) Soil contamination of grass biomass hay: measurements and implications. Bioenergy Research 9, 773–781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cong, W-F, Suter, M, Lüscher, A and Eriksen, J (2018) Species interactions between forbs and grass-clover contribute to yield gains and weed suppression in forage grassland mixtures. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 268, 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, IA and Robson, MJ (1986) Effect of temperature and nitrogen supply on the growth of perennial ryegrass and white clover. 2. A comparison of monocultures and mixed swards. Annals of Botany 57, 709–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrick, RW, Moseley, G and Wilman, D (1993) Intake, by sheep, and digestibility of chickweed, dandelion, dock, ribwort and spurrey, compared with perennial ryegrass. Journal of Agricultural Science 120, 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dineen, M, Delaby, L, Gililand, T and McCarthy, B (2018) Meta-analysis of the effect of white clover inclusion in perennial ryegrass swards on milk production. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 1804–1816.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DLG (1997) Futterwerttabellen Wiederkäuer, 7th Edn. Frankfurt am Main: DLG-Verlags-GmbH, ISBN: 3-7690-0547-3.Google Scholar
Duru, M (1994) Mineral nutritional status and botanical composition of pastures. II. Effects on nitrogen concentration and digestibility of herbage. European Journal of Agronomy 3, 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duru, M, Lemaire, G and Cruz, P (1997) The nitrogen requirement of major agricultural crops. 3 Grasslands. In Lemaire, G (ed). Diagnosis of the Nitrogen status in Crops. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, pp. 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, M, Lynch, MB and Hennessy, D (2017) Including white clover in nitrogen fertilized perennial ryegrass swards: effects on dry matter intake and milk production of spring calving dairy cows. Journal of Agricultural Science 155, 657–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egan, M, Galvin, N and Hennessy, D (2018) Incorporating white clover (Trifolium repens L.) into perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) swards receiving varying levels of nitrogen fertilizer: effects on milk and herbage production. Journal of Dairy Science 101, 3412–3427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elgersma, A and Schlepers, H (1997) Performance of white clover/perennial ryegrass mixtures under cutting. Grass and Forage Science 52, 134–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgersma, A and Søegaard, K (2016) Effects of species diversity on seasonal variation in herbage yield and nutritive value of seven binary grass-legume mixtures and pure grass under cutting. European Journal of Agronomy 78, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ergon, Å, Kirwan, L, Fystro, G, Bleken, MA, Collins, RP and Rognli, OA (2016 b) Species interactions in a grassland mixture under low nitrogen fertilization and two cutting frequencies. II. Nutritional quality. Grass and Forage Science 72, 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, L (1988) Herbs in pastures. Development and research in Britain, 1850–1984. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 5, 97–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fothergill, M and Davies, DA (1993) White clover contribution to continuously stocked sheep pastures in association with contrasting perennial ryegrasses. Grass and Forage Science 48, 369–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frame, J and Boyd, AG (1986) Effect of cultivar and seed rate of perennial ryegrass and strategic fertilizer nitrogen on the productivity of grass/clover swards. Grass and Forage Science 41, 359–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grace, C, Boland, TM, Sheridan, H, Lott, S, Brennan, E, Fritch, R and Lynch, MB (2018) The effect of increasing pasture species on herbage production, chemical composition and utilization under intensive sheep grazing. Grass and Forage Science 73, 852–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helgadóttir, Á, Suter, M, Gylfadóttir, TÓ, Kristjánsdóttir, TA and Lüscher, A (2018) Grass-legume mixtures sustain strong yield advantage over monocultures under cool maritime growing conditions over a period of 5 years. Annals of Botany 00, 1–12.Google Scholar
Heshmati, S, Tonn, B and Isselstein, J (2016) Does the variety of Lolium perenne affect the performance of binary and multi-species mixtures? In Höglind, M, Bakken, AK, Hovstad, KA, Kallioniemi, E, Riley, H, Steinshamn, H, Østrem, L (eds), The Multiple Roles of Grassland in the European Bioeconomy. Trondheim, Norway, Grassland Science in Europe, 21, pp. 660–662.Google Scholar
Hofer, D, Suter, M, Haughey, A, Finn, JA, Buchmann, N and Lüscher, A (2016) Yield of temperate forage grassland species is either largely resistant or resilient to experimental summer drought. Journal of Applied Ecology 53, 1023–1034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofer, D, Suter, M, Buchmann, N and Lüscher, A (2017) Nitrogen status of functional different forage species explains resistance to severe drought and post-drought overcompensation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 236, 312–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ineichen, S, Marquardt, S, Wettstein, H-R, Kreuzer, M and Reidy, B (2019) Milk fatty acid profile and nitrogen utilization of dairy cows fed ryegrass-red clover silage containing plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.). Livestock Science 221, 123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judson, HG, Fraser, PM, Peterson, ME and Edwards, GR (2018) Specific genotypes of plantain (Plantago lanceolata) vary in their impact on sheep urine volume and nitrification in the urine patch. Journal of New Zealand Grasslands 80, 125–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalscheur, KF, Vandersall, JH, Erdman, RA, Kohn, RA and Russek-Cohen, E (1999) Effects of dietary crude protein concentration and degradability on milk production responses of early, mid, and late lactation dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 82, 545–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirwan, L, Lüscher, A, Sebsatià, MT, Finn, JA, Collins, RP, Porqueddu, C, Helgadóttir, A, Baadshaug, OH, Brophy, C, Coran, C, Dalmannsdóttir, S, Delgado, I, Elgersma, A, Fothergill, M, Frankow-Lindberg, BE, Golinski, P, Grieu, P, Gustavsson, AM, Höglind, M, Huguenin-Elie, O, Iliadis, C, Jørgensen, M, Kadziuliene, Z, Karyotis, T, Lunnan, T, Melengier, M, Maltoni, S, Meyer, V, Nyfeler, D, Nykanen-Kurki, P, Parente, J, Smit, HJ, Thumm, U and Connolly, J (2007) Evenness drives consistent diversity effects in intensive grassland systems across 28 European sites. Journal of Ecology 95, 530–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenth, R, Singmann, H, Love, J, Buerkner, P and Herve, M (2019) Emmeans: Estimated marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.3.3 Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/index.html.Google Scholar
Losand, B, Pries, M, Menke, A, Tholen, E, Gruber, L, Hertwig, F, Jilg, T, Kluth, H, Spiekers, H, Steingaß, H and Südekum, K-H (2007) Schätzung des Energiegehaltes in Grasprodukten – Bericht zum Stand neuer Ableitungen. Forum Angewandte Forschung 2007, 105–109.Google Scholar
Lowry, JL, Bosworth, SC, Goslee, SC, Kersbergen, RJ, Pollnac, FW, Skinner, RH, Warren, ND and Smith, RG (2020) Effects of expanding functional trait diversity on productivity and stability in cultivar mixtures of perennial ryegrass. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 287, 106691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahaut, L, Fort, F, Violle, C and Freschet, GT (2019) Multiple facets of diversity on plant productivity: species richness, functional diversity, species diversity and intraspecific competition. Functional Ecology 34, 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pembleton, KG, Hills, JL, Freeman, MJ, McLaren, DK, French, M and Rawnsley, RP (2016) More milk from forage: milk production, blood metabolites, and forage intake of dairy cows g razing pasture mixtures and spatially adjacent monocultures. Journal of Dairy Science 99, 3512–3528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez-Harguindeguy, N, Díaz, S, Garnier, E, Lavorel, S, Poorter, H, Jaurequiberry, P, Bret-Harte, MS, Cornwell, WK, Craine, JM, Gurvich, DE, Urcelay, C, Veneklaas, EJ, Reich, PB, Poorter, L, Wright, IJ, Ray, P, Enrico, L, Pausas, JG, de Vos, AC, Buchmann, N, Funes, G, Quétier, F, Hodgson, JG, Thompson, K, Morgan, HD, ter Steege, H, van der Heijden, MGA, Sack, L, Blonder, B, Poschlod, P, Varietti, MV, Conti, G, Stavem, AC, Aquino, S and Cornelissen, JHC (2016) New handbook for standardised measurement of plant functional traits. Australian Journal of Botany 64, 715–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peyraud, JL, Le Gall, A and Lüscher, A (2009) Potential food production from forage legume-based-systems in Europe: an overview. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 48, 115–135.Google Scholar
Pinheiro, J, Bates, D, DebRoy, S and Sarkar, D (2015) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models, R Core Team. Available at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=nlme.Google Scholar
Pjilman, J, Berger, SJ, Lexmond, F, Bloem, J, Van Groenigen, JWM, Visser, EJW, Erisman, JW, Van Eekeren, N (2019) Can the presence of plantain (Plantago lanceolata) improve nitrogen cycling of dairy grassland systems on peat soils? New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 20, 106–122. doi: 10.1080/00288233.2019.1698620.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2018) A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R, Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at https://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Roche, JR, Berry, DP, Bryant, AM, Burke, CR, Butler, ST, Dillon, PG, Donaghy, DJ, Horan, B, Macdonald, KA and Macmillan, KL (2017) A 100-year review: a century of change in temperate grazing dairy systems. Journal of Dairy Science 100, 10189–10233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sampoux, J-P, Baudouin, P, Bayle, B, Béguier, V, Bourdon, P, Chosson, J-F, Deneufbourg, F, Galbrun, C, Ghesquière, M, Noël, D, Pietraszek, W, Tharel, B and Viguié, A (2011) Breeding perennial grasses for forage usage: an experimental assessment of trait changes in diploid perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) cultivars released in the last four decades. Field Crops Research 123, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanderson, M (2010 a) Stability of production and plant species diversity in managed grasslands: a retrospective study. Basic and Applied Ecology 11, 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanderson, M (2010 b) Nutritive value and herbage accumulation rates of pastures sown to grass, legume, and chicory mixtures. Agronomy Journal 102, 728–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanderson, MA and Elwinger, GF (1999) Grass species and cultivar effects on establishment of grass-white clover mixtures. Agronomy Journal 91, 889–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanderson, MA, Skinner, RH, Barker, DJ, Edwards, GR, Tracy, BF and Wedin, DA (2004) Plant species diversity and management of temperate forage and grazing land ecosystems. Crop Science 44, 1132–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, PL, de Klein, CAM, Worth, W, Rutherford, AJ and Dieckow, J (2019) The efficacy of Plantago lanceolata for mitigating nitrous oxide emissions from cattle urine patches. Science of the Total Environment 691, 430–441.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smidt, NW and Brimer, L (2005) The use of herbs in pastures: an interview survey among bio-dynamic and organic farmers with dairy cattle. Agriculture and Human Values 22, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soder, K, Sanderson, MA, Stack, JL and Muller, LD (2006) Intake and performance of lactating dairy cows grazing diverse forage mixtures. Journal of Dairy Science 89, 2158–2167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stewart, AV (1996) Plantain (Plantago lanceolata) – a potential pasture species. Proceedings of the New Zealand Grassland Association 58, 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suter, D, Rosenberg, E, Mosimann, E and Frick, R (2017) Standardmischungen für den Futterbau. Revision 2017–2020. Agrarforschung Schweiz 8, 1–16.Google Scholar
Tillmann, P (2010) Anwendung der Nahinfrarotspektroskopie (NIRS) an Grünlandproben. VDLUFA Schriftenreihe 66, 145–150.Google Scholar
Trott, H, Wachendorf, M, Ingwersen, B and Taube, F (2004) Performance and environmental effects of forage production on sandy soils. I. Impact of defoliation system and nitrogen input on performance and N balance of grassland. Grass and Forage Science 59, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dobben, HF, Quik, C, Wiger Warnelink, GW and Lantinga, EA (2019) Vegetation composition of Lolium perenne-dominated grasslands under organic and conventional farming. Basic and Applied Ecology 36, 45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wachendorf, M and Taube, F (2001) Artenvielfalt, Leistungsmerkmale und bodenchemische Kennwerte des Dauergrünlands im konventionellen und ökologischen Landbau Nordwestdeutschlands. Pflanzenbauwissenschaften 5, 75–86.Google Scholar
Wilkins, PW and Humphreys, MO (2003) Progress in breeding perennial forage grasses for temperate agriculture. Journal of Agricultural Science 140, 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilkins, PW and Lovatt, JA (2011) Gains in dry matter yield and herbage quality from breeding perennial ryegrass. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research 50, 23–30.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, JM, Lee, MRF, Rivero, MJ and Chamberlain, AT (2019) Some challenges and opportunities for grazing dairy cows on temperate pastures. Grass and Forage Science 75, 1–17. doi: 10.1111/gfs.12458.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zuur, A, Leno, EN, Walker, N, Saveliev, AA and Smith, GM (2009) Mixed Effects Models and Extensions in Ecology with R. New York, NY, USA: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Komainda and Isselstein supplementary material

Table S1 and Figure S1

Download Komainda and Isselstein supplementary material(File)
File 270.3 KB