Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems?
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2021 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
DOI: | 10.1371/journal.pone.0247931 |
Texto Completo: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247931 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/209249 |
Resumo: | Palisadegrass [Urochloa brizantha (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) R. D. Webster cv. Marandu] is widely used in Brazil and is typically managed with little or no N fertilizer, which often leads to pasture decline in the long-term. The current relationship between beef price and fertilizer cost in Brazil does not favor fertilizer use in pastures. Legume inclusion is an alternative to adding fertilizer N, but often legumes do not reach a significant proportion (> 30%) in pasture botanical composition. This study evaluated herbage responses to N inputs and pasture species composition, under intermittent stocking. Treatments included palisadegrass-forage peanut (Arachis pintoi Krapov. & W.C. Greg. cv. Amarillo) mixture (mixed), unfertilized palisadegrass (control), and palisadegrass fertilized with 150 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1) (fertilized). Treatments were applied over two rainy seasons with five growth cycle (GC) evaluations each season. Response variables included herbage biomass, herbage accumulation, morphological components, total aboveground N of forage peanut (TAGN(FP)), and contribution of biological N-2 fixation (BNF). Herbage biomass was greater for fertilized palisadegrass [5850 kg dry matter (DM) ha(-1)] than for the palisadegrass-forage peanut mixture (3940 kg DM ha(-1)), while the unfertilized palisadegrass (4400 kg DM ha(-1)) did not differ from the mixed pasture. Nitrogen fertilizer increased leaf mass of palisadegrass (2490 kg DM ha(-1)) compared with the control and mixed treatments (1700 and 1310 kg DM ha(-1), respectively). The contribution of BNF to the forage peanut ranged from 79 to 85% and 0.5 to 5.5 kg N ha(-1) cycle(-1). Overall, benefits from forage peanut were minimal because legume percentage was less than 10%, while N input in the system by N-fertilizer increased palisadegrass herbage biomass. |
id |
UNSP_2fcc76581b9897ee01abe7ce847ef66d |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/209249 |
network_acronym_str |
UNSP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository_id_str |
2946 |
spelling |
Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems?Palisadegrass [Urochloa brizantha (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) R. D. Webster cv. Marandu] is widely used in Brazil and is typically managed with little or no N fertilizer, which often leads to pasture decline in the long-term. The current relationship between beef price and fertilizer cost in Brazil does not favor fertilizer use in pastures. Legume inclusion is an alternative to adding fertilizer N, but often legumes do not reach a significant proportion (> 30%) in pasture botanical composition. This study evaluated herbage responses to N inputs and pasture species composition, under intermittent stocking. Treatments included palisadegrass-forage peanut (Arachis pintoi Krapov. & W.C. Greg. cv. Amarillo) mixture (mixed), unfertilized palisadegrass (control), and palisadegrass fertilized with 150 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1) (fertilized). Treatments were applied over two rainy seasons with five growth cycle (GC) evaluations each season. Response variables included herbage biomass, herbage accumulation, morphological components, total aboveground N of forage peanut (TAGN(FP)), and contribution of biological N-2 fixation (BNF). Herbage biomass was greater for fertilized palisadegrass [5850 kg dry matter (DM) ha(-1)] than for the palisadegrass-forage peanut mixture (3940 kg DM ha(-1)), while the unfertilized palisadegrass (4400 kg DM ha(-1)) did not differ from the mixed pasture. Nitrogen fertilizer increased leaf mass of palisadegrass (2490 kg DM ha(-1)) compared with the control and mixed treatments (1700 and 1310 kg DM ha(-1), respectively). The contribution of BNF to the forage peanut ranged from 79 to 85% and 0.5 to 5.5 kg N ha(-1) cycle(-1). Overall, benefits from forage peanut were minimal because legume percentage was less than 10%, while N input in the system by N-fertilizer increased palisadegrass herbage biomass.Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ)Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq)Sao Paulo State Univ, Dept Anim Sci, Jaboticabal, SP, BrazilEmbrapa Agrobiol, Antiga Rodovia Rio Sao Paulo, Seropedica, RJ, BrazilUniv Florida, North Florida Res & Educ Ctr, Marianna, FL USASao Paulo State Univ, Dept Anim Sci, Jaboticabal, SP, BrazilFAPESP: 2016/11086-1FAPESP: 2017/11274-5FAPESP: 2015/16631-5CNPq: 404169/2013-9Public Library ScienceUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp)Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA)Univ FloridaLonghini, Vanessa Z. [UNESP]Cardoso, Abmael S. [UNESP]Berca, Andressa S. [UNESP]Boddey, Robert M.Reis, Ricardo A. [UNESP]Dubeux, Jose C. B.Ruggieri, Ana C. [UNESP]2021-06-25T11:54:05Z2021-06-25T11:54:05Z2021-03-03info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/article14http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247931Plos One. San Francisco: Public Library Science, v. 16, n. 3, 14 p., 2021.1932-6203http://hdl.handle.net/11449/20924910.1371/journal.pone.0247931WOS:000625981500062Web of Sciencereponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESPinstname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)instacron:UNESPengPlos Oneinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2021-10-23T19:23:41Zoai:repositorio.unesp.br:11449/209249Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://repositorio.unesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:29462024-08-05T22:24:42.208840Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems? |
title |
Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems? |
spellingShingle |
Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems? Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems? Longhini, Vanessa Z. [UNESP] Longhini, Vanessa Z. [UNESP] |
title_short |
Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems? |
title_full |
Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems? |
title_fullStr |
Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems? Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems? Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems? |
title_sort |
Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems? |
author |
Longhini, Vanessa Z. [UNESP] |
author_facet |
Longhini, Vanessa Z. [UNESP] Longhini, Vanessa Z. [UNESP] Cardoso, Abmael S. [UNESP] Berca, Andressa S. [UNESP] Boddey, Robert M. Reis, Ricardo A. [UNESP] Dubeux, Jose C. B. Ruggieri, Ana C. [UNESP] Cardoso, Abmael S. [UNESP] Berca, Andressa S. [UNESP] Boddey, Robert M. Reis, Ricardo A. [UNESP] Dubeux, Jose C. B. Ruggieri, Ana C. [UNESP] |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Cardoso, Abmael S. [UNESP] Berca, Andressa S. [UNESP] Boddey, Robert M. Reis, Ricardo A. [UNESP] Dubeux, Jose C. B. Ruggieri, Ana C. [UNESP] |
author2_role |
author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (EMBRAPA) Univ Florida |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Longhini, Vanessa Z. [UNESP] Cardoso, Abmael S. [UNESP] Berca, Andressa S. [UNESP] Boddey, Robert M. Reis, Ricardo A. [UNESP] Dubeux, Jose C. B. Ruggieri, Ana C. [UNESP] |
description |
Palisadegrass [Urochloa brizantha (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) R. D. Webster cv. Marandu] is widely used in Brazil and is typically managed with little or no N fertilizer, which often leads to pasture decline in the long-term. The current relationship between beef price and fertilizer cost in Brazil does not favor fertilizer use in pastures. Legume inclusion is an alternative to adding fertilizer N, but often legumes do not reach a significant proportion (> 30%) in pasture botanical composition. This study evaluated herbage responses to N inputs and pasture species composition, under intermittent stocking. Treatments included palisadegrass-forage peanut (Arachis pintoi Krapov. & W.C. Greg. cv. Amarillo) mixture (mixed), unfertilized palisadegrass (control), and palisadegrass fertilized with 150 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1) (fertilized). Treatments were applied over two rainy seasons with five growth cycle (GC) evaluations each season. Response variables included herbage biomass, herbage accumulation, morphological components, total aboveground N of forage peanut (TAGN(FP)), and contribution of biological N-2 fixation (BNF). Herbage biomass was greater for fertilized palisadegrass [5850 kg dry matter (DM) ha(-1)] than for the palisadegrass-forage peanut mixture (3940 kg DM ha(-1)), while the unfertilized palisadegrass (4400 kg DM ha(-1)) did not differ from the mixed pasture. Nitrogen fertilizer increased leaf mass of palisadegrass (2490 kg DM ha(-1)) compared with the control and mixed treatments (1700 and 1310 kg DM ha(-1), respectively). The contribution of BNF to the forage peanut ranged from 79 to 85% and 0.5 to 5.5 kg N ha(-1) cycle(-1). Overall, benefits from forage peanut were minimal because legume percentage was less than 10%, while N input in the system by N-fertilizer increased palisadegrass herbage biomass. |
publishDate |
2021 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2021-06-25T11:54:05Z 2021-06-25T11:54:05Z 2021-03-03 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247931 Plos One. San Francisco: Public Library Science, v. 16, n. 3, 14 p., 2021. 1932-6203 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/209249 10.1371/journal.pone.0247931 WOS:000625981500062 |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247931 http://hdl.handle.net/11449/209249 |
identifier_str_mv |
Plos One. San Francisco: Public Library Science, v. 16, n. 3, 14 p., 2021. 1932-6203 10.1371/journal.pone.0247931 WOS:000625981500062 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
Plos One |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
14 |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Public Library Science |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Public Library Science |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Web of Science reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNESP instname:Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) instacron:UNESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
instacron_str |
UNESP |
institution |
UNESP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UNESP - Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1822218586610991104 |
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1371/journal.pone.0247931 |