Next Article in Journal
Ethanolic Extract from Fruits of Pintoa chilensis, a Chilean Extremophile Plant. Assessment of Antioxidant Activity and In Vitro Cytotoxicity
Next Article in Special Issue
The Role of Plant Ubiquitin-like Modifiers in the Formation of Salt Stress Tolerance
Previous Article in Journal
Hypoglycemic Effects of Extracts Obtained from Endemic Betonica bulgarica Degen and Neič
Previous Article in Special Issue
Isolation and Characterization of Plant-Growth-Promoting, Drought-Tolerant Rhizobacteria for Improved Maize Productivity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 13
Issue 10
10.3390/plants13101407
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Growth, Productivity, Yield Components and Seasonality of Different Genotypes of Forage Clover Lotus corniculatus L. under Varied Soil Moisture Contents

by
Sahara Xolocotzi-Acoltzi
1,
Aurelio Pedroza-Sandoval
1,*,
Gabino García-De los Santos
2,
Perpetuo Álvarez-Vázquez
3 and
Isaac Gramillo-Ávila
1
1
Unidad Regional Universitaria de Zonas Áridas de la Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Km. 40 Carretera Gómez Palacio—Ciudad Juárez, Bermejillo C.P. 35230, Durango, Mexico
2
Departamento de Recursos Naturales del Colegio de Posgraduados, Campus Montecillo, Km. 36.5 Carretera México-Texcoco, Montecillo, Texcoco C.P. 56230, Estado de México, Mexico
3
Departamento de Recursos Naturales de la Universidad Autónoma Agraria Antonio Narro, Calzada Antonio Narro 1923, Buenavista, Saltillo C.P. 25315, Coahuila, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2024, 13(10), 1407; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13101407
Submission received: 19 April 2024 / Revised: 8 May 2024 / Accepted: 15 May 2024 / Published: 18 May 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mitigation Strategies and Tolerance of Plants to Abiotic Stresses)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to evaluate the response to water deficit of different ecotypes and a variety of Lotus corniculatus on growth, productivity, and yield components, through seasonal times. A randomized block experimental design in a 2 × 5 factorial arrangement with three replicates was used. The first variation factor was soil moisture contents: field capacity (FC) was 26.5% ± 1.5, and water deficit (WD) was 85% of FC (22.5% ± 1.5); the second variation factor was the ecotypes identified with the codes 255301, 255305, 202700 and 226792 and of the variety Estanzuela Ganador. The best responses in plant cover and weight of accumulated fresh biomass were obtained in the ecotype 202700 under WD, with values of 1649.0 cm2 and 583.7 g plant−1, and 1661.2 cm2 and 740.1 g plant−1 in ecotype 255305 under FC. The leaf clover was the main component of yield during the summer and autumn seasons. Ecotype 226792 was tolerant to low temperatures during the winter season with better leaf development. Ecotype 202700 is the best option for forage clover production when water is limited, and ecotype 255305 when water is not resource-limited, but these preliminary conclusions need to be confirmed in field studies.

1. Introduction

Climate change and environmental impact are some of the causes of the degradation of natural resources, in addition to anthropogenic action, which compromises the stability of agroecosystems and the consequent agri-food productivity given the increase in the world population [1]. Agriculture is the productive activity with the greatest demand for resources and inputs, especially water resources, with a consumption of 85% of the water available used for agri-food production [2].
Water scarcity is the most recurrent problem due to the lack of rain with increasingly intense and frequent droughts in the world [3]. Due to droughts, bodies of water are reduced, and the recharge of aquifers is poor due to the overexploitation of water resources in irrigation areas with deep well water, with negative effects of low quantity and quality of the water for various domestic and productive uses [4,5].
This imbalance between the volume of water extracted and the increasingly diminished recharge of aquifers already has serious economic, social, and environmental impacts in different forage-producing regions [6,7,8]. An alternative to the problem of forage monoculture with high water requirements in areas with low availability of quality water is the diversification of crops with the same forage type, with productive potential but with lower water demand [9,10,11]. Biodiversity through the introduction of alternative forages holds promise in mitigating these challenges due to their drought tolerance and adaptability to various environmental conditions [12,13,14]. In contexts such as those observed by this study, livestock producing milk and meat on a large scale are the most demanding of forage for feed under stable conditions [15]. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) is a forage crop that is excellent at producing great quantities of fresh matter with high nutritional content to produce milk and meat; however, this species is a semi-perennial crop requiring irrigation throughout the year. Alfalfa is a plant with the greatest water demand for growing and development, which makes it a crop species with low efficiency in water use [7,16].
The diversification of forage crops with productive potential but with lower water demand is an alternative to the problem of monoculture with high water requirements in areas with low availability of water [10]. Some alternatives are native crops such as nopal [17,18] or introduced crops such as forage clover [19,20] which are viable alternatives for irrigated agricultural areas affected by the problem of water scarcity.
Recently, the performance of legume species has taken on special relevance, which have diverse adaptation properties to marginal conditions and contribute to sustainable agriculture and agri-food systems [11,21]. Different forage species of clover are being explored through research and technological development programs that can compete with crops such as alfalfa to maintain productive quality and quantity with more efficient use of water [22]; bird’s foot clover Lotus corniculatus L. is the most outstanding of these. This forage species is a forage legume of Mediterranean European and African origin, which has a high capacity to adapt to different environments, such as water deficit, nutritional deficiencies, low temperatures, and tolerance to soils with acidic pH, as well as to high levels of aluminum and manganese [23]. This species has a productive performance comparable to alfalfa or forage clover Trifolium repens L. [24]. The growth of L. corniculatus is successful in countries with dry summers and marked seasonality, such as New Zealand and Uruguay, where it has shown good response behavior as a forage crop [25] and tolerance to water deficit by drought [26].
Bird’s-foot trefoil, a prevalent grass-legume, thrives in poorly drained acid soils and demonstrates adaptability to sandy soils [27,28]. Unlike other forage legumes in eastern North America, it does not induce bloat in ruminants [29]. The species has three distinct growth habit types—prostrate, erect, and semi-erect—with each type catering to specific agricultural purposes. Seedling vigor is comparatively lower, and the species utilizes root reserves for early spring growth, unlike most legumes that replenish root reserves in late summer [27]. However, the widespread establishment of this crop has not been easy to solve since the complexity of its reproduction by seed and its relatively slow growth make it difficult to expand it in intensive production systems [30]. This study aimed to evaluate different genotypes of L. corniculatus in their capacity to respond to growth, production, and yield under water deficit through seasonal times.

2. Results

2.1. Climatic Conditions within the Shade Mesh

According to the temperature report during the study time, an average maximum of 42.3 °C and an average minimum of 7.7 °C were identified, with a maximum of 46.9 °C and a minimum of −4.6 °C. The average relative humidity recorded ranged between 44 and 73%, with a minimum between 5 and 10% in the months from May to July and a maximum of 100% in the rainy periods distributed across the months July, August, and September; both variables were measured during the period from April 2021 to May 2022 (Figure 1).

2.2. Stem Length

The length of stems did not vary significantly (p ≤ 0.05) in soil moisture content at FC in the different genetic materials of L. corniculatus that were evaluated, while in the WD treatments, a genotypic variation was recorded with better behavior of ecotype 202700, with a length of 23 cm, compared to ecotypes 255305, 226792 and the Estanzuela Ganador variety, which recorded the lowest growth with values of 19.5, 19.1 and 19.7 cm, respectively (Table 1).

2.3. Plant Coverage

Plant cover was significantly greater (p ≤ 0.05) in ecotypes 255305 and 202700 under FC and WD, with values of 1661.2 and 1649 cm2, respectively, compared to ecotypes 226792 and 255301, which showed the lowest values of 1249 and 1299 cm2 in FC, respectively. The ecotype 226792 and the Estanzuela Ganador variety had the lowest values under WD, with values of 1121.5 and 1117.1 cm2, respectively (Table 1).

2.4. Production of Accumulated Fresh Biomass (PAFB)

The PAFB of different Lotus genotypes was like that of plant coverage (p ≤ 0.05) due to the relationship between both variables; ecotypes 255305 and 202700 were the ones with the best response, with values of 740.1 and 583.7 g plant−1 under FC and WD, respectively. Ecotype 255301 was the one with the lowest response, with 410.6 g plant−1. The rest of the genetic materials had an intermediate behavior across both response effects (Table 1).

2.5. Performance Components

The contribution of the components to the forage yield of the genetic materials evaluated showed variability depending on the season but was similar in both soil moisture contents FC and WD. The range of contribution of leaves was 50–80%, stems 15–40%, and dry stems 1–10%. Inflorescences showed percentages of 0.5–4%, but only in 202700 and Estanzuela Ganador in the periods from Spring to Summer (SP-SU) under FC, and SU under both FC and WD.
The winter was the period with the lowest contribution of leaves to the yield, with a range of 46–60%, except for ecotype 226792, which maintained a contribution of 60–70% under FC and WD. Ecotypes 255301 and 226792 registered the highest values of leaf contribution with 60–80%, stems 15 to 25%, and dry stems 0–5% on the day of cutting; ecotype 202700 recorded the lowest values in this variable, with 45–55%, stems 20–45%, dry stems 0–30%, and inflorescences 0–4% (Figure 2).

2.6. Temporal Dynamics of Plant Growth

The variables stem length, plant cover, and accumulated fresh biomass did not have a significant difference (p ≤ 0.05) between genotypes, but they did differ according to the harvest period. The highest values of stem length corresponded to the Summer–Winter (SU-W) periods, where lengths of 25.7 cm were observed under WD and 29.1 cm under FC. The vegetation cover on the day of cutting in the SU-W period observed very similar behavior in both moisture contents, with values of 2363.2 cm2 and 2300.7 cm2 under FC and WD, respectively (Figure 3).
The lowest values of this variable occurred in the SP-SU periods, with 443.2 and 396.2 cm2, and W, with 992.8 and 960.6 cm2, in both soil moisture contents FC and WD, respectively. In terms of PAFB at 85% CC, the Summer–Autumn (SU-A) and SP times were the most productive, and the winter period had the lowest productivity; however, in W-SP and SP, there was a similar production in both soil moisture contents (Figure 3).

3. Discussion

According to Tyree et al. [31] the first stages of plant development are critical, as in the results obtained in our study, since the materials evaluated showed a pattern of slow growth and low productivity in the first months of evaluation, tolerating abiotic stress factors, mainly thermal with the presence of high temperatures (46.9 °C) and low temperatures (−4.6 °C). These results coincide with those reported by García-Bonilla et al. [32] when evaluating different genetic materials of L. corniculatus, but in temperate climates, where the highest values of plant height (23–24 cm) were recorded in periods with temperatures above 30 °C, and less growth (10 cm) in the winter season, with temperatures of 0–14 °C. Álvarez-Vázquez et al. [33] point out that the optimal growth temperature for Lotus is 22 °C, which corresponds to average temperatures that occur in most of the year in the region of this study.
The low response effect on L. corniculatus growth, measured in terms of stem length, indicates that, although the plants are different in growth habit, all ecotypes/varieties develop at similar growth rates under an optimal regime of soil moisture, but with variation between genotypes under deficient irrigation. That means that the genetic materials identified in this study differ in their tolerance to water deficit, which allows us the opportunity to select the best phytogeneric materials to tolerate water stress in plants in regions with dry climates [34]. Plant covering was favored by the optimal irrigation condition (FC) in the ecotype 255305, which stood out, while 202700 was the most tolerant to WD (85% FC).
The best effect in PAFB in ecotype 202700 under water-deficient conditions suggests the good performance of the plant’s metabolism under these restrictive conditions of soil moisture content. Tolerance to water deficit depends largely on the characteristics of the species, related to the ability to optimize carbon assimilation processes and moderate levels of transpiration [35]. Reports from IICA [26] show that L. corniculatus registered the highest values of stomatal conductance and the highest water potentials under water stress, which suggests that this species increases efficiency in water use under water deficit.
The best response in terms of yield components is a high leaf, which is the main forage component of the evaluated plants, and the ecotypes 255301 and 226792 stood out the most in this regard. This effect was maintained in terms of plant covering, but not in the production of accumulated fresh biomass. The importance of leaf production in forages greater than 50% lies in the fact that it is the most active organ of metabolism in the plant, and consequently has the highest concentration of easily degradable metabolites [36], proteins, and other nitrogenous compounds [37].
Regarding PAFB, the ecotypes with the best response were 255305 and 202700 under FC and WD, respectively; however, 202700 under water deficit had a high percentage of stem (>35%) as a component of the forage yield, which is considered an undesirable characteristic since stems are relatively rigid and contain more lignified tissues that are less digestible [36].
The results obtained coincide with those reported by Álvarez-Vázquez et al. [38], whereby the productive evaluation of ectype 202700 showed that the leaf component was 53% of the annual yield, followed by stems with 32%, dry steams 8%, and weeds 7%. Similar values were reported by the same authors in another study, where leaves contributed 56%, stems 30.5%, dry steams 8.5%, and weeds 4.5% [33]. In the case of our study, the presence of dead material was greater in the periods W, W-SP, and SU, with low-temperature stress being the one that notably affected the productivity of clover L. corniculatus. However, ecotype 226792 was identified as the most tolerant to this type of stress, regardless of the soil moisture content established in this study.
The seasonal effects on forage growth and the variation of the components of its yield are influenced by environmental conditions such as temperature variation rather than the moisture content in the soil, which coincides with Festo et al. [39] who reported that plants increase leaf coverage in temperatures between 20 and 35.2 °C, but decrease when they exceed 35 °C.
In the results obtained, a significant contribution of dry stems of up to 10% was observed on the day of cutting in the winter and spring periods, which could affect the quality of the forage, since the age of the plant is a determining factor in the distribution of dry matter in the tissues; with increasing plant age, the proportion of stems and senescent material increases, and leaf formation decreases [40]. Therefore, the growing periods of L. corniculatus are reduced to less than 45 days in summer and autumn and less than 90 days in winter.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Geographic Location of the Study Area

The experiment was carried out at the Unidad Regional Universitaria de Zonas Áridas of the Universidad Autónoma Chapingo in Bermejillo, Durango, Mexico, located at 25.8° LN and 103.6° LW at an altitude of 1130 m. The area corresponds to a desert climate, with rain in summer and cool winters, an average annual rainfall of 258 mm, an average annual potential evaporation of 2000 mm, and an average annual temperature of 21 °C, with a maximum of 33.7 °C and a minimum of 7.5 °C [41].

4.2. Preparing the Experiment

In the experiment, rigid plastic pots of 20 kg capacity with dimensions of 35 cm in diameter and 31.3 cm in height were used, each one containing 18 kg of a substrate mixture: 50% soil, 30% compost, and 20% sand (Figure 4). The physical and chemical characteristics were 22% silt, pH of 8.69, electric conductance (EC) of 10.76 dS m−1, and apparent density of 1.46 g cm−3.
Transplanting each ecotype/variety into a pot was completed using a seedling rhizome, which was previously grown in a black plastic bag of 1 kg capacity for 90 days; after this time, the transplant was carried out into the pot when the rhizome of the seedling had sufficient growth, development, and vigor. For 62 days after transplanting, irrigation was maintained at FC, and subsequently, a standardization foliage cut was made at a height of 6 cm from the base of the substrate.
For irrigation of the clover plants in each pot, the soil moisture content was monitored in real time with the use of the Model HB-2 digital tensiometer equipment (Ontario, Canada). Once the soil moisture content treatments were differentiated (FC, and 85% FC), the moisture content of each treatment decreased to a minimum level corresponding to 25% and 21% in FC and WD conditions, respectively, and water levels were manually raised to their maximum levels, corresponding to 28% (0.5% more than FC) and 24% in the WD condition, applying 0.54 L for 18 kg of soil per pot for each period of irrigation to raise the maximum level of each pot’s soil moisture content. This volume of water was applied at each irrigation time, varying the interval time according to the evaporation rate of the season. A margin of 3.5% of the usable moisture range (17.5–21%) was left to prevent reaching PWP.

4.3. Experimental Design

A randomized block experimental design in split plot arrangement was used with three replicates, under shade mesh conditions. This experimental design was used for practical reasons, where each row of pots, named large plots, corresponded to a soil moisture content in an experimental field, and within each row (large plot), the five Lotus ecotypes were placed. Then, the large plots were assigned two soil moisture contents: field capacity (FC), maintaining an interval of soil moisture content of 26.5% ± 1.5 (25–28%), and water deficit (WD: 85% FC), 22.5% ± 1.5 (21–24%), according to the soil moisture properties obtained using the pot method membrane [42], where FC was 27.5% and the permanent wilting point (PWP) was 17.5% (Figure 5). For the optimal level of soil moisture, the field capacity was maintained between the range of 25 and 28%, where the upper limit is slightly higher than FC, only 0.5% more, due to ongoing evaporation. This is not a significant excess, and nor does it imply a water leak, since it soon dropped to its lower limit (25%), almost always remaining at an average level of 26.5%, which corresponds to the FC. Small plots were four ecotypes and one variety of Lotus corniculatus, with IDs 255301, 255305, 202700, 226792, and Estanzuela Ganador variety (Table 2).
An ORIA brand digital thermometer–hygrometer (Model OUS-WA62, China) was placed inside the shade mesh, with which the daily maximum and minimum temperatures and relative humidity were recorded during the study period from March 2021 to May 2022.
The experiment was covered with a plastic roof during the rainy period to avoid alterations in the soil moisture content. The measurements of the respective variables began in April 2021, and a total of seven harvest cuts of fresh foliage (forage) were made across the seasons of the year and the periods between them: spring–summer, summer, summer–autumn, autumn, winter, winter–spring, and spring. The first cut was carried out on 20 July 2021, and the last one on 12 May 2022. No fertilizer application was carried out in the experiment.

4.4. Measured Variables

4.4.1. Stem Length

Stem length (cm) was measured with a graduated ruler from the basal part of the plant for both the erect and prostrate ecotypes/variety.

4.4.2. Plant Coverage

Plant coverage (cm2), which is an area obtained from the diameters of the foliage crown measured from the center of the bud with a tape measure, was obtained using the following equation [43]:
P C = π ∗ d 1 ∗ d 2 4
where PC = plant cover (cm2); d1 = diameter in the north–south direction (cm); and d2 = diameter in the east–west direction.

4.4.3. Production Accumulated Fresh Biomass

The production of accumulated fresh biomass (PAFB) (g plant−1) was quantified by making foliage cuts from a height of 6 cm above the ground on each sampling date, and the accumulated production was obtained by summing all the cuts made during the year.

4.4.4. Yield Components of Forage

Yield components of forage refer to the proportion of each morphological component of the plant in its contribution to biomass production, for which 10 stems were taken at random per treatment, separating the inflorescences, dry stems, leaves, and stem, each part used as subsamples of the total return component. The subsamples were dried in a HAFO® Brand forced air oven (Model 1600, SHEL-LAB, Cornelius, OR, USA) at a temperature of 60 °C for 24 h or until constant weight. After this time, the partial and total dry weight were recorded to determine the percentage contribution to yield, for which the following equation was used [33]:
P M C = S C T D M × 100
where PMC = percentage per morphological component (%), SC = subsample of the component (g of dry matter), and TDM = total dry matter (g dry matter).

4.5. Analysis of Data

The database was processed using Statistical Analysis System Software [44] version 9.0, with which an analysis of variance and multiple range test of Tukey means (p ≤ 0.05) were performed to identify the treatment effect. Additionally, Excel program version 6.0 was used for regression analysis.

5. Conclusions

The best response in plant cover and weight of accumulated fresh biomass with values of 1649.0 cm2 and 583.7 g plant−1 was obtained in the 202700 ecotypes under water deficit and 1661.2 cm2 and 740.1 g plant−1 in ecotype 255305 under optimum soil moisture content. The leaf clover was the main component of yield during the summer and autumn seasons. Ecotype 226792 was tolerant to low temperatures during the winter season, with better leaf development. Thus, ecotype 202700 is the best option for forage clover production when water is limited, and ecotype 255305 when water is not resource-limited, but these preliminary conclusions need to be confirmed in field studies

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.P.-S., S.X.-A. and G.G.-D.l.S.; methodology, A.P.-S. and S.X.-A.; software, P.Á.-V. and I.G.-Á.; validation, A.P.-S., S.X.-A. and G.G.-D.l.S.; formal analysis, A.P.-S. and S.X.-A.; investigation, A.P.-S., S.X.-A. and I.G.-Á.; resources, A.P.-S.; data curation, P.Á.-V. and I.G.-Á.; writing—original draft preparation, A.P.-S., S.X.-A. and G.G.-D.l.S.; writing—review and editing, A.P.-S. and S.X.-A.; visualization, P.Á.-V. and I.G.-Á.; supervision, A.P.-S.; project administration, A.P.-S.; funding acquisition, A.P.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by Dirección General de Investigación y Posgrado—Universidad Autónoma Chapingo through the project ID: 21017-EI.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request to the corresponding author’s email with appropriate justification.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the Postgraduate College for the donation of Lotus genetic materials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Martin, M.L.; Rivera, A.J.Y.; Castizo, R.R. Cambio Climático y Desarrollo Sustentable. Informe La Rábida, Huelva. 2018, p. 13. Available online: https://www.fundacioncarolina.es (accessed on 22 March 2023).
  2. Neri, G.M.C.Y.; Ortega, M.A. Cultivos alternativos como un mecanismo para el desarrollo de zonas áridas: El caso de jojoba en el Altiplano Potosino. Rev. Int. Estadística Geogr. 2019, 10, 44–63. [Google Scholar]
  3. Pedrozo, A.A. Escasez de Agua, Disponibilidad y Agricultura; Perspectivas IMTA, Medio Ambiente: 2022; p. 5. [CrossRef]
  4. Corral-Bermudez, M.L.; Sánchez-Ortiz, E.; Álvarez-Bernal, D.; Gutiérrez-Montenegro, M.O.; Cassio-Madrazo, E. Scenarios of availability of water due to overexploitation of the aquifer in the basin of Laguna de Santiaguillo, Durango, Mexico. PeerJ 2019, 7, e6814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Azpilcueta-Pérez, M.E.; Pedroza-Sandoval, A.; Trejo-Calzada, R.; Sánchez-Cohen, I.Y.; Jacobo-Salcedo, M.; Del, R. Chemical residuality in maize (Zea mays L.) fields irrigated with deep well water. Rev. Ecosistemas Recur. Agropecu. 2018, 5, 111–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Varijakshapanicker, P.; Mckune, S.; Miller, L.; Hendrickx, S.; Balehegn, M.; Dahl, G.E.; Adesogan, A.T. Sustainable livestock systems to improve human health, nutrition, and economic status. Anim. Front. 2019, 9, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ramírez Barraza, B.A.; González Estrada, A.; Valdivia Alcalá, R.; Salas González, J.M.; García Salazar, J.A. Tarifas eficientes para el agua de uso agrícola en la Comarca Lagunera. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agrícolas 2019, 10, 539–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Çakmakçı, R.; Salık, M.A.; Çakmakçı, S. Assessment and Principles of Environmentally Sustainable Food and Agriculture Systems. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Scott, R.C.; Murari, J.; Serkan, A.; Faik, Y.B.; Mohamed, K.O.; Loss, S. Potential legume alternatives to fallow and wheat monoculture for Mediterranean environments. Crop Pasture Sci. 2014, 66, 113–121. [Google Scholar]
  10. Capstaff, N.; Miller, A. Improving the Yield and Nutritional Quality of Forage Crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hasanuzzaman, M. Plant Ecophysiology and Adaptation under Climate Change: Mechanisms and Perspectives I; Springer: Singapore, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  12. Yimer, E.A.; De Trift, L.; Lobkowicz, I.; Villani, L.; Nossent, J.; van Griensven, A. The underexposed nature-based solutions: A critical state-of-art review on drought mitigation. J. Environ. Manag. 2024, 352, 119903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sinclair, F.; Wezel, A.; Mbow, C.; Chomba, S.; Robiglio, V.; Harrison, R. The Contribution of Agroecological Approaches To Realizing Climate-Resilient Agriculture; Global Commission on Adaptation to Inform Its 2019 Flagship Report; GCA: Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Washington, DC, USA, 2019; Volume 46, Available online: https://gca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/TheContributionsOfAgroecologicalApproaches.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2023).
  14. Grant, W.F.; Small, E. The origin of the Lotus corniculatus (Fabaceae) complex: A synthesis of diverse evidence. Can. J. Bot. 1996, 74, 975–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Qi, A.; Whatford, L.; Payne-Gifford, S.; Cooke, R.; Van Winden, S.; Häsler, B.; Barling, D. Can 100% Pasture-Based Livestock Farming Produce Enough Ruminant Meat to Meet the Current Consumption Demand in the UK? Grasses 2023, 2, 185–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Sitterson, J.M.; Andales, A.A.; Mooney, D.F.; Capurro, M.C.; Brummer, J.E. Developing a Crop Water Production Function for Alfalfa under Deficit Irrigation: A Case Study in Eastern Colorado. Agriculture 2023, 13, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Flores-Hernández, A.; Araújo-Filho, J.T.; Gomes da Silva, F.; Ramírez-Ordoñez, S.; Murillo-Amador, B. Dietas a base de forraje tradicional y nopal (Opuntia spp.) enriquecido con proteínas para alimentar cabras. Nova Sci. 2017, 9, 149–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bacarrillo-López, R.; Pedroza-Sandoval, A.; Inzunza Ibarra, M.A.; Flores-Hernández, A.; Macías-Rodríguez, F.J. Productividad de forraje de variedades de nopal (Opuntia spp.) bajo diferentes regímenes de humedad del suelo. Ecosistemas Recur. Agropecu. 2021, 8, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Pedroza-Sandoval, A.; Xolocotzi-Acoltzi, S.; Trejo-Calzada, R.; García-De Los Santos, G.; Álvarez-Vázquez, P.Y.; Arreola-Ávila, J.G. Leaf area index and forage productivity indicators of Lotus corniculatus L. at different soil moisture contents and seasons of the year. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2024, 15, 17–31. [Google Scholar]
  20. González-Espíndola, L.A.; Pedroza-Sandoval, A.; de los Santos, G.G.; Trejo-Calzada, R.; Álvarez-Vázquez, P.Y.; María del Rosario Jacobo-Salcedo, M. Secondary Metabolites and Their Antioxidant Activity Enhance the Tolerance to Water Deficit on Clover Lotus corniculatus L. through Different Seasonal Times. Int. J. Plant Biol. 2024, 15, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Voisin, A.S.; Guéguen, J.; Huyghe, C.; Jeuffroy, M.H.; Magrini, M.B.; Meynard, J.M.; Mougel, C.; Pellerin, S.; Pelzer, E. Legumes for feed, food, biomaterials and bioenergy in Europe: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 361–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ventura Ríos, J.; Hernández Moreno, E.; Santiago Ortega, M.A.; Wilson García, C.Y.; Maldonado Peralta, M.D.L.Á.; Rojas García, A.R. Rendimiento de trébol blanco asociado con pasto ovillo a diferentes frecuencias de pastoreo. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agrícolas 2020, 11, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sujkowska-Rybkowska, M.; Kasowska, D.Y.; Gediga, K. Lotus corniculatus-rhizobia symbiosis under Ni, Co and Cr stress on ultramafic soil. Plant Soil 2020, 451, 459–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Marley, C.L.; Fychan, R.; Jones, R. Yield, persistency and chemical composition of Lotus species and varieties (birdsfoot trefoil and greater birdsfoot trefoil) when harvested for silage in the UK. Grass Forage Sci. 2006, 61, 134–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Barry, T.N.; Kemp, P.D.; Ramírez-Restrepo, C.A.Y.; López-Villalobos, N. Sheep production and agronomic performance of Lotus corniculatus under dryland farming. Res. Pract. Ser. 2003, 11, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. IICA. LOTASSA: Un Puente Entre la Genómica y las Pasturas del Siglo XXI; PROCISUR: Montevideo, Uruguay, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  27. Casler, M.D.; Undersander, D.J. Identification of temperate pasture grasses and legumes. In Horse Pasture Management; Sharpe, P., Ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2018; pp. 11–36. [Google Scholar]
  28. Clua, A.; Paez, M.; Orsini, H.; Beltrano, J. Incidence of drought stress and rewatering on Lotus tenuis. Effects on cell membrane stability. Lotus Newsl. 2009, 29, 21–27. [Google Scholar]
  29. Christensen, R.G.; Eun, J.S.; Yang, S.Y.; Min, B.R.; MacAdam, J.W. In vitro effects of birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) pasture on ruminal fermentation, microbial population, and methane production. Prof. Anim. Sci. 2017, 33, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ixtaina, V.Y.Y.; Mujica, M.M. Seedling vigor response of Lotus tenuis populations to contrasting variations of water and nutrient availability. Agrociencia 2010, 44, 31–41. [Google Scholar]
  31. Tyree, M.T.; Engelbrecht, B.M.; Vargas, G.; Kursar, T.A. Desiccation tolerance of five tropical seedlings in Panama: Relationship to a field assessment of drought performance. Plant Physiol. 2003, 132, 1439–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. García-Bonilla, D.V.; Guerrero-Rodríguez, J.D.; García-de los Santos, G.Y.; Lagunes-Rivera, S. Rendimiento y calidad de forraje de genotipos Lotus corniculatus L., en el Estado de México. Nova Sci. 2014, 7, 170–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Álvarez-Vázquez, P.; García-de los Santos, G.; Guerrero-Rodríguez, J.; Mendoza-Pedroza, S.I.; Ortega-Cerilla, M.Y.; Hernández-Garay, A. Productive performance of Lotus corniculatus L. dependent on harvest strategy. Agrociencia 2018, 52, 1081–1093. [Google Scholar]
  34. Corrêa, T.R.; Picoli, E.A.d.T.; Pereira, W.L.; Condé, S.A.; Resende, R.T.; de Resende, M.D.V.; da Costa, W.G.; Cruz, C.D.; Zauza, E.A.V. Very Early Biomarkers Screening for Water Deficit Tolerance in Commercial Eucalyptus Clones. Agronomy 2023, 13, 937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Medrano, H.; Bota, J.; Cifre, J.; Flexas, J.; Ribas-Carbó, M.Y.; Gulías, J. Eficiencia del uso del agua por las plantas. Investig. Geográficas 2007, 43, 63–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Moore, K.J.; Lenssen, A.W.; Fales, S.L. Factors Affecting Forage Quality. In Forages: The Science of Grassland Agriculture II; Moore, K.J., Collins, M., Nelson, C.J., Redfearn, D., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 701–717. [Google Scholar]
  37. Andrzejewska, J.; Ignaczak, S.; Albrecht, K.A.; Surucu, M. Fractional harvest of perennial legumes can improve forage quality and their exploitation. Grassl. Sci. Eur. 2017, 22, 509–511. [Google Scholar]
  38. Álvarez-Vázquez, P.; Hernández-Garay, A.; García-de los Santos, G.; Guerrero-Rodríguez, J.D.; Mendoza-Pedroza, S.I.; Ortega-Cerilla, M.E.; Rojas-García, A.R.Y.; Wilson-García, C.Y. Potencial Forrajero de Lotus corniculatus L. con diferentes estrategias de manejo. Agroproductividad 2018, 11, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
  39. Festo, J.M.; Sabed, N.A.Y.; Jeremy, A.R. The impact of temperature on leaf appearance in bamba groundnut landraces. Crop Sci. 2003, 43, 1375–1379. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tafolla-Arellano, J.C.; González-León, A.; Tiznado-Hernández, M.E.; Zacarías-García, L.Y. Báez-Sañudo, R. Composición, fisiología y biosíntesis de la cutícula en plantas. Rev. Fitotec. Mex. 2013, 36, 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  41. Medina, G.; Díaz, G.; López, J.; Ruíz, J.A.Y.; Marín, M.S. Estadísticas Climatológicas Básicas del Estado de Durango (Periodo 1961–2003); Libro Técnico No. 1; Campo Experimental Valle del Guadiana, CIRNOC-INIFAP: Durango, Mexico, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  42. Richards, L.A. Porous plate apparatus for measuring moisture retention and transmission by soil. Soil Sci. 1948, 66, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Caleño, R.B.L. Caracterización de Poblaciones y Producción Silvestre de Frutos de Agraz (Vaccinium meridionale Sw.) en Ráquira, Boyacá: Bases para su Protocolo de Manejo Sostenible en el Altiplano Cundiboyacense; Instituto de Investigación de Recursos Biológicos Alexander von Humboldt: Bogotá, Colombia, 2022; p. 87. [Google Scholar]
  44. SAS, Institute. SAS/STAT® 9.2. Use’s Guide Release; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
Plants 13 01407 g001
Figure 1. Variation in temperature (°C), and relative humidity (%) within the shadow mesh of the experimental area from June 2021 to May 2022.
Figure 1. Variation in temperature (°C), and relative humidity (%) within the shadow mesh of the experimental area from June 2021 to May 2022.
Plants 13 01407 g001
Plants 13 01407 g002
Figure 2. Performance components of different genetic materials of L. corniculatus according to season at field capacity (FC) and water deficit (WD: 85% FC).
Figure 2. Performance components of different genetic materials of L. corniculatus according to season at field capacity (FC) and water deficit (WD: 85% FC).
Plants 13 01407 g002
Plants 13 01407 g003
Figure 3. Temporal dynamics of stem length (A), plant cover, and (B) accumulated fresh biomass production (PAFB) (C) of L. corniculatus at different seasonal times of the year in optimal content (CF) and water deficit (WD: 85% FC) during the period from April 2021 to May 2022. Spring–Summer (S-SU), Spring (SP), Summer (SU), Summer–Autumn (SU-A), Autumn (A), Winter (W), and Winter–Spring (W-SP) correspond to periods of harvest seasons.
Figure 3. Temporal dynamics of stem length (A), plant cover, and (B) accumulated fresh biomass production (PAFB) (C) of L. corniculatus at different seasonal times of the year in optimal content (CF) and water deficit (WD: 85% FC) during the period from April 2021 to May 2022. Spring–Summer (S-SU), Spring (SP), Summer (SU), Summer–Autumn (SU-A), Autumn (A), Winter (W), and Winter–Spring (W-SP) correspond to periods of harvest seasons.
Plants 13 01407 g003
Plants 13 01407 g004
Figure 4. General view of the experiment of different ecotypes and a variety of Lotus corniculatus L. at different soil moisture contents under mesh-shade conditions. WD is water deficit; FC is field capacity; I, II, and III are the replicates. Each pot row is a large plot, and each pot is an ecotype/variety of L. corniculatus L.
Figure 4. General view of the experiment of different ecotypes and a variety of Lotus corniculatus L. at different soil moisture contents under mesh-shade conditions. WD is water deficit; FC is field capacity; I, II, and III are the replicates. Each pot row is a large plot, and each pot is an ecotype/variety of L. corniculatus L.
Plants 13 01407 g004
Plants 13 01407 g005
Figure 5. Soil moisture abatement curve [42] of the substrate used in the pots containing Lotus corniculatus L. under shade mesh conditions.
Figure 5. Soil moisture abatement curve [42] of the substrate used in the pots containing Lotus corniculatus L. under shade mesh conditions.
Plants 13 01407 g005
Table 1. Growth, development, and forage productivity of different ecotypes and varieties of L. corniculatus under two soil moisture contents.
Table 1. Growth, development, and forage productivity of different ecotypes and varieties of L. corniculatus under two soil moisture contents.
Ecotypes/VarietyStem Length
(cm)		Plant Coverage
(cm2)		PAFB
(g plant−1)
FCWDFCWDFCWD
25530120.5 a ± 6.021.6 ab ± 7.21299.7 b ± 643.71252.8 ab ± 880.1605.8 ab ± 54.5410.6 b ± 118.7
25530522.0 a ± 5.219.5 b ± 4.81661.2 a ± 875.51244.3 ab ± 681.4740.1 a ± 58.9497.6 ab ± 94.6
20270021.8 a ± 7.023.0 a ± 4.31530.0 ab ± 920.21649.0 a ± 756.5571.3 b ± 160.9583.7 a ± 45.7
22679220.3 a ± 5.819.1 b ± 5.31249.0 b ± 589.11121.5 b ± 597.7554.7 b ± 322.2497.7 ab ± 278.5
Estanzuela Ganador21.2 a ± 4.619.7 b ± 4.41334.1 ab ± 671.81117.1 b ± 498.9640.4 ab ± 116.9486.5 ab ± 283.0
Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05). Figures with the same letters within the same column are statistically equal. FC is field capacity (26.5% ± 1.5); WD is water deficit at 85% FC (22.5% ± 1.5); PAFB is the production of accumulated fresh biomass; values after ± are standard deviations.
Table 2. The relationship, origin, and growth habit of Lotus corniculatus ecotypes were evaluated in the experiment.
Table 2. The relationship, origin, and growth habit of Lotus corniculatus ecotypes were evaluated in the experiment.
Ecotypes/VarietyCountry of OriginGrowth Habit
255301FranciaSemi erecto
255305ItaliaSemi erecto
202700UruguayErecto
226792CanadáSemi erecto
Estanzuela GanadorUruguayErecto
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xolocotzi-Acoltzi, S.; Pedroza-Sandoval, A.; García-De los Santos, G.; Álvarez-Vázquez, P.; Gramillo-Ávila, I. Growth, Productivity, Yield Components and Seasonality of Different Genotypes of Forage Clover Lotus corniculatus L. under Varied Soil Moisture Contents. Plants 2024, 13, 1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13101407

AMA Style

Xolocotzi-Acoltzi S, Pedroza-Sandoval A, García-De los Santos G, Álvarez-Vázquez P, Gramillo-Ávila I. Growth, Productivity, Yield Components and Seasonality of Different Genotypes of Forage Clover Lotus corniculatus L. under Varied Soil Moisture Contents. Plants. 2024; 13(10):1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13101407

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xolocotzi-Acoltzi, Sahara, Aurelio Pedroza-Sandoval, Gabino García-De los Santos, Perpetuo Álvarez-Vázquez, and Isaac Gramillo-Ávila. 2024. "Growth, Productivity, Yield Components and Seasonality of Different Genotypes of Forage Clover Lotus corniculatus L. under Varied Soil Moisture Contents" Plants 13, no. 10: 1407. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13101407

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop