Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:50:29.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEFOLIATION ENHANCES GREEN FORAGE PERFORMANCE BUT INHIBITS GRAIN YIELD IN BARLEY (HORDEUM VULGARE L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

XIAODONG CHEN ,
BIN ZHAO ,
LIANG CHEN ,
RUI WANG  and
CHANGHAO JI
XIAODONG CHEN
Affiliation:
Crop Research Institute, Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hefei 230031, China
BIN ZHAO
Affiliation:
Crop Research Institute, Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hefei 230031, China
LIANG CHEN
Affiliation:
Key Laboratory of Plant Germplasm Enhancement and Specialty Agriculture and Wuhan Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430074, China
RUI WANG
Affiliation:
Crop Research Institute, Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hefei 230031, China
CHANGHAO JI*
Affiliation:
Crop Research Institute, Anhui Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Hefei 230031, China
*
§Corresponding author. Email: ahjch6699@126.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

To evaluate the effects of defoliation on green forage performance and grain yield (GY) variation in barley, five barley genotypes were imposed on three levels of defoliation treatments over two consecutive growing seasons in this study. The results indicated that green forage yields were significantly improved by repeated defoliation. The traits of green forage quality, including the ratio of dry weight to fresh weight, crude ash and calcium content were improved, while crude protein and crude fat were reduced, and crude fiber and phosphorus contents appeared not to be influenced by repeated defoliation. Plant height (PH), GY and other yield components, grain number per spike and thousand kernel weight, were significantly reduced by defoliation over the two growing seasons, while internode length below spike was less affected. Reduction in spike length and the number of spikes per plant were identified in only one year. Correlation analysis revealed that only PH exhibited a positive correlation with GY. Effects of genotype, interaction between genotype and defoliation, and environments on changes of forage yield and quality and GY were also discussed. Our current work provides a feasible approach to select elite barley cultivars with optimal defoliation treatments for both forage and grain uses in barley breeding programme.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 391 - 404
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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

REFERENCES

Birhan, M. (2013). Evaluation of barley green forage as animal feed intercropping with vetch in North Gondar Zone, Ethiopia. European Journal of Biological Sciences 5:50–54.Google Scholar
Boschma, S. P., Murphy, S. R. and Harden, S. (2014). Herbage production and persistence of two tropical perennial grasses and forage sorghum under different nitrogen fertilization and defoliation regimes in a summer-dominant rainfall environment, Australia. Grass and Forage Science 70:381–393.Google Scholar
Chen, X., Zhao, B., Wang, R. and Ji, C. (2015). Effects of different cuts and defoliation timing on the yield and quality of barley forage. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin 31:36–39 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Editorial Office No. 1, China Standards Press. (2010). The Assembly of China's Agricultural Standard: Method for Feed Detection. Methods GB/T 6432–1994, 6433–2006, 6434–2006, 6435–2006, 6436–2002, 6437–2002, 6438–2007. China: China Standards Press. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
El-Shatnawi, M. K. J., Al-Qurran, L. Z., Ereifej, K. I. and Saoub, H. M. (2004). Management optimization of dual-purpose barley (Hordeum spontaneum C. Koch) for forage and seed yield. Journal of Range Management 57:197–202.Google Scholar
El-Shatnawi, M. K. J., Al-Qurran, L. Z., Ereifej, K. I. and Turk, M. (2003). Defoliation of wall barley under sub-humid Mediterranean conditions. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 54:53–58.Google Scholar
El-Shatnawi, M. K. J., Ghosheh, H. Z., Shannag, H. K. and Ereifej, K. I. (1999). Defoliation time and intensity of wall barley in the Mediterranean range land. Journal of Range Management 52:258–262.Google Scholar
Fulkerson, W. J., Slack, K., Hennessy, D. W. and Hough, G. M. (1998). Nutrients in ryegrass (Lolium spp.), white clover (Trifolium repens) and kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum) pastures in relation to season and stage of regrowth in a subtropical environment. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 38:227–240.Google Scholar
Gu, J. and Marshall, C. (1988). The effect of tiller removal and tiller defoliation on competition between the main shoot and tillers of spring barley. Annals of Applied Biology 112:597–608.Google Scholar
Hamilton, S. A., Kallenbach, R. L., Bishop-Hurley, G. J. and Roberts, C. A. (2013). Stubble height management changes the productivity of perennial ryegrass and tall fescue pastures. Agronomy Journal 105:557–562.Google Scholar
Jebbouj, R. and El Yousfi, B. (2009). Barley yield losses due to defoliation of upper three leaves either healthy or infected at boot stage by Pyrenophora teres f. teres . European Journal of Plant Pathology 125:303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkyn, J. F. and Anilkumar, T. B. (1990). Effects of defoliation at different growth stages and in different grain-filling environments on the growth and yield of spring barley. Annals of Applied Biology 116:591–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleen, J., Taube, F. and Gierus, M. (2011). Agronomic performance and nutritive value of forage legumes in binary mixtures with perennial ryegrass under different defoliation systems. The Journal of Agricultural Science 149:73–84.Google Scholar
Pal, D. and Kumar, S. (2009). Evaluation of dual purpose barley for fodder and grain under different cutting schedules. Range Management and Agroforestry 30:54–56.Google Scholar
Pitman, W. D. (2013). Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flugge) management combining nitrogen fertilizer rate and defoliation frequency to enhance forage production efficiency. Grass and Forage Science 68:479–484.Google Scholar
Rawnsley, R. P., Donaghy, D. J., Fulkerson, W. J. and Lane, P. A. (2002). Changes in the physiology and feed quality of cocksfoot (Dactylis glomerata L.) during regrowth. Grass and Forage Science 57:203–211.Google Scholar
Royo, C. (1999). Plant recovery and grain-yield formation in barley and triticale following forage removal at two cutting stages. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 182:175–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royo, C., López, A., Serra, J. and Tribó, F. (1997). Effect of sowing date and cutting stage on yield and quality of irrigated barley and triticale used for forage and grain. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 179:227–234.Google Scholar
SAS Institution. (2004). SAS/STAT 9.1 users guide. Available at: http://support.sas.com/documentation/onlinedoc/stat/chapters91.html; accessed August 2014.Google Scholar
Shao, L., Zhang, X., Hideki, A., Tsuji, W. and Chen, S. (2010). Effects of defoliation on grain yield and water use of winter wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science 148:191–204.Google Scholar
Ullrich, S. E. (2010). Barley: Prodction, Improvement and Uses. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zhu, G. X., Midmore, D. J., Radford, B. J. and Yule, D. F. (2004). Effect of timing of defoliation on wheat (Triticum aestivum) in central Queensland: 1. Crop response and yield. Field Crops Research 88:211–226.Google Scholar