Could forage peanut in low proportion replace N fertilizer in livestock systems?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Longhini, Vanessa Z. [UNESP]
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Cardoso, Abmael S. [UNESP], Berca, Andressa S. [UNESP], Boddey, Robert M., Reis, Ricardo A. [UNESP], Dubeux, Jose C. B., Ruggieri, Ana C. [UNESP]
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