Next Article in Journal
Soil Pollution by Petroleum-Derived Substances and its Bioremediation: The Effect on Aphis fabae Scop. Infestation and Antioxidant Response in Vicia faba L.
Next Article in Special Issue
Genotype and Planting Date Influence on Establishment and Growth of Bassia prostrata (L) A.J. Scott in a Semiarid Subtropical Dry Winter Region
Previous Article in Journal
Ultraviolet Index (UVI) inside an Almería-Type Greenhouse (Southeastern Spain)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Functional Analysis of Three miRNAs in Agropyron mongolicum Keng under Drought Stress
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 10
Issue 1
10.3390/agronomy10010146
agronomy-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

Evaluation of Different Fall Dormancy-Rating Alfalfa Cultivars for Forage Yield in a Semiarid Environment

by
Koffi Djaman
1,*,
Curtis Owen
1,
Komlan Koudahe
2 and
Michael O’Neill
1
1
Agricultural Science Center at Farmington, Department of Plant and Environmental Sciences, New Mexico State University, P.O. Box 1018, Farmington, NM 87499, USA
2
ADA Consulting Africa, 07 BP 14284 Lomé, Togo
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2020, 10(1), 146; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010146
Submission received: 23 December 2019 / Revised: 15 January 2020 / Accepted: 17 January 2020 / Published: 19 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Breeding and Genetics of Forages for Semi-Arid and Arid Rangelands)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Alfalfa is one of the most important, nutritive, and high yielding forage legumes planted across the US. Fall dormancy in alfalfa influences forage yield characteristics and the plants persistence mostly under the cold and temperate climate. The objective of this study was to evaluate alfalfa cultivars with different fall dormancy-ratings for their forage yield at each cut and the annual forage yield. Two sets of 24 alfalfa cultivars were evaluated in a field experiment conducted at the Agricultural Science Center at Farmington, NM. The first set of 24 cultivars was planted late fall 2007 at seeding rate of 22.4 kg ha−1 and managed for the 2007–2011 period and the second set was planted late fall 2009 and managed during the 2009–2013 period. Average forage yield varied with years from 7.6 to 2.9 Mg ha−1, 6.8 to 4.3 Mg ha−1, 9.2 to 4.2 Mg ha−1, and 7.9 to 3.2 Mg ha−1 during the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th alfalfa cut, respectively. The results showed no statistical differences between the moderately dormant, dormant, and the non-dormant alfalfa cultivars while they showed higher forage yield than the very dormant and semi-dormant alfalfa cultivars. There was a decreasing trend in forage yield from the first cut to the fourth cut in each growing season. However, the very dormant cultivars showed the lowest forage yield. Alfalfa forage yield decreased from the cut 1 to the cut 4 which represented on average 33, 29, 22, and 16% of the annual yield. The semi-dormant cultivars obtained the lowest forage yield at the first and second cutting while there was no difference between the cultivars for the third and fourth harvests. Average forage yields per harvest were 5.7, 5.9, 6.0, 5.5, and 5.9 Mg ha−1 for the very dormant, dormant, moderately dormant, semi-dormant, and non-dormant alfalfa cultivars, respectively. Annual forage yield varied with alfalfa fall dormancy-ratings and ranged from 15.5 to 29.9 Mg ha−1 with the highest forage yield achieved during the third years of the production. The moderately dormant and the non-dormant cultivars showed the highest yield during the first harvest year while the very dormant cultivars and dormant cultivars had the lowest forage yield. Alfalfa cultivars with a fall dormancy range 4–5 may be considered for alfalfa production in northwest New Mexico however, the good agricultural practices (conservation tillage, fertilizer management based on soil residual available nutrient and crop requirement, recommended planting rate, weed and pest management, irrigation scheduling to match crop evapotranspiration) should be the most important to maximize alfalfa forage yield in the southwest US.

1. Introduction

Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) is one of the widest grown perennial forage crops in the world with high nutritive value and is preferred by livestock compared to grasses [1]. Alfalfa is well-regarded for providing high-quality forage with high protein content and nutritive value [2]. It offers additional advantages as it widely adapts to different climates, has good biological nitrogen fixation capacity and produces high biomass yield with exceptional nutritive value [3,4,5,6]. Fall dormancy is defined as the reduction in shoot growth in the autumn due to decreasing day length and air temperatures [7].
Fall dormancy is considered an adaptation trait to different climatic conditions [8]. The more dormant the cultivar is less forage yield it produces but has better longevity [9]. Alfalfa genotypes are grouped in 11 classes called fall dormancy-ratings (FD) according to their ability to survive throughout winter and regrowth. These fall dormancy classes are: very dormant (FD 1, 2), dormant (FD 3, 4), moderately dormant (FD 5), semi-dormant (FD 6, 7), non-dormant (FD 8, 9), and very non-dormant (FD10, 11) [7]. Brummer et al. [10] and Lauriault et al. [11] described other fall dormancy-rating as fall dormant (FD 1–3), semi-fall dormant (FD 4–6), non-fall dormant (FD 7–9), and extremely non-fall dormant (FD 10–11). Photoperiodism and air temperature in fall and throughout winter determine alfalfa fall dormancy which is related to plant growth, biomass accumulation and abiotic stresses tolerance of the alfalfa plant [7,12,13,14,15]. Fall dormant alfalfa cultivars go dormant the earliest, have reduced shoot elongation in the fall and survive better throughout winter, whereas extremely non-fall dormant cultivars continue to grow, have the tallest plant height in the fall, and generally do not have good survival over the winter [16,17].
Alfalfa forage productivity is impacted by its fall dormancy-rating that has correlation with forage nutritive value, plant survival, root characteristics, and persistence [8,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Efforts have been made to improve alfalfa forage yield with improvement in the first/second harvests of newly released varieties and yield improvement is dependent on identification of the genes controlling yield and yield components such as canopy height, herbage, stubble, stem population, which is quite complex due to the involvement of several genes in the agronomic traits like forage yield [25,26]. Moreover, Arshad et al. [27] and Lei et al. [28] reported that drought tolerance in alfalfa is a key challenge in improving its productivity. Forage yield of alfalfa could be tremendously affected by salinity [29,30,31,32,33]. Li and Su [34] reported alfalfa annual forage yield as function of irrigation amount and which varied from 11.7 to 18.6 Mg ha−1 in China with increasing trend in seasonal irrigation [35,36]. Bolger and Matches [37] reported alfalfa first cut yield to be 41–46% of the annual yield while Li and Su [34] indicated the first cut yield as 35–50% of the annual forage yield as function of irrigation rates. Cavero et al. [38] reported that the maximum alfalfa forage yield was lower the first year (17 Mg ha−1) than in the two following years (20–22 Mg ha−1).
Alfalfa is the second most important crop gown across New Mexico State after pecans with total harvested area of 76,890 ha with a total production of 950,000 Mg corresponding to a value of $171 million in 2017 [39]. Alfalfa hay is the most important hay in the San Juan county as it was $162 per Mg while other hay was $139 per Mg in 2016 [40]. Alfalfa average yield in New Mexico State is 11.4 Mg ha−1 and its average yield in San Juan county was 10.6 Mg ha−1 in 2016. San Juan county is the largest alfalfa producing county of the State of New Mexico with alfalfa harvested area of 9308 ha. It is therefore important to improve alfalfa forage yield to increase hay production and promote the dairy industry across the San Juan county and the neighboring counties. Local adaptation coupled with high yield potential are the main sustainability traits for a wide adoption of alfalfa varieties and on-farm evaluation of fall dormancy categories might provide information on cultivar adaptation with good agronomic performance in correlation to fall dormancy-rating and persistence. With regard to the importance of alfalfa in New Mexico high desert environment, this research aims to investigate forage yield of different fall dormancy-rating alfalfa cultivars under late summer planting at the high desert region of the Colorado Plateau of the US.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This study was conducted at the New Mexico State University (NMSU) Agricultural Science Center at Farmington (36.69°, 108.31°, elev. 1720 m) during the 2007–2013 period. The soil type at the study site is Doak fine sandy loam. Climatic variables [minimum temperature (Tmin), maximum temperature (Tmax), average temperature (Tmean), and precipitation] were collected daily from an automated weather station installed at the study site and summarized in Figure 1. The long-term average annual Tmax and Tmin at the site are 17.2 and 2.2 °C, respectively and the long-term average annual precipitation is 216 mm.

2.2. Crop Management

Two sets of 24 selected alfalfa cultivars were planted in fall 2007 and fall 2009 at the seeding rate of 22.4 kg ha−1 (Table 1). Some well-known alfalfa varieties such as African Common, Ameristand, Archer II, Dona Ana, Legend, Malone, NM Common, Ranger, Wilson, and Lahontan were used across both plantings, but not all in each planting. Alfalfa cultivars were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Plot size was 1.2 m × 4.9 m. Plots were irrigated three times a week through a solid set sprinkler irrigation system. Irrigation depth was estimated by the FAO reference evapotranspiration and crop coefficient method [41]. Preplant fertilizer was applied before both plantings and a combination of ammonium nitrate, potassium chloride, triple superphosphate and zinc sulfate was used. The applied nutrient units rates were 11.2-52-61-3.4-6.7 for N-P2O5-K2O-S-Zn in 2007 and 11.2-58.5-67.3 for N-P2O5-K2O in 2009. Alfalfa forage was harvested each time when alfalfa plants visually reached 10% flowering stage. Each plot was combine harvested using a self-propelled harvester Almaco SPFH85001 (Almaco, Nevada, Iowa) with provided the plot fresh weight. A sample was collected from the harvested fresh biomass and the plot sample was forced-air oven dried at 72 °C up to a constant weight (about 13% standard moisture content). The plot dry weight was estimated from the sample dry weight and moisture content. Plot yield was determined from the plot dry weight which was extrapolated to Mg ha−1.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Cultivars with the same fall dormancy rating were combined and forage yield was averaged by fall dormancy rating range. Three factors were considered in this study: fall dormancy-rating range, cut (harvest time) and the production year (the three independent variables) and the dependent variable is the forage yield. With the assumption of normal distribution of forage yield data set with independence of observations and homogenous variances, the data was tested using Bartlett’s test and the probability was greater than 0.05, which confirms our assumption of homogeneity of variances. Three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to analyze the main effects of these three factors and their interactions using the statistical SAS software [42]. The mean forage yields were cross-paired and compared using Fisher’s protected least significance difference (LSD) test at the 95% level of probability to identify significant differences between alfalfa fall dormancy ratings for forage yield relative to the cut period and production years.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Weather Conditions during the Study Period

During the study period, maximum temperature varied from −10 to 39 °C, the minimum temperature varied from −23 to 26 °C and the daily average temperature varied from −16 to 32 °C (Figure 1a). The highest temperatures were registered late June–late July or early August and the coldest temperatures were registered in late December–early January. With alfalfa base temperature of 5 °C [43], alfalfa plants were physiologically active by the end of February throughout late spring, summer and early fall and went dormant mid-November as the daily mean temperature dropped below the base temperature (5 °C). Average annual thermal unit accumulated was 1292 °C that allowed four cut and four regrowth cycles of alfalfa. Annual precipitation was 169, 183, 120, 258, 209, and 121 mm in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013, respectively (Figure 1b), and averaged 215 mm a year of which only 41 mm occurred during the period of mid-October to mid-April when the irrigation system is off at the study site putting the plants under severe drought conditions (Figure 1c). With the limited annual precipitation, irrigation is therefore recommended as alfalfa production could not be possible under rainfed conditions at the study site.

3.2. Trend in Alfalfa Forage Yield Per Cut

The results of the 2007–2011 experiment ANOVA revealed non-significant effect Fall dormancy-rating on alfalfa forage yield at each cut (p = 0.2445) while the year and cut showed highly significant effect on alfalfa forage yield (Table 2). The interaction of fall dormancy-rating and alfalfa cut was significant like the interaction year and cut while the interaction of fall dormancy-rating and year was not significant (p = 0.6277) (LSD0.05 = 0.17). The highest forage yield at each cut was obtained in in the third year of production 2010 (6.40 Mg/ha) followed by second year of production 2009 (5.91 Mg/ha) and the fourth year of production 2011 (5.63 Mg/ha) (LSD0.05 = 0.19). The lowest yield was obtained in 2008 (4.55 Mg/ha) which was the first year of production. Overall, the first cut showed the highest yield (7.19 Mg/ha) followed by the second (6.47 Mg/ha), third (4.94 Mg/ha), and fourth cut (3.88 Mg/ha).
The analysis of the 2009–2013 experiment data showed that all three simple factors such alfalfa fall dormancy-rating, production year, and alfalfa cut were highly significant and their interactions except the fall dormancy-rating-production year and the cut (p = 0.3393) (Table 3). The moderately dormant, dormant, and non-dormant ratings showed statistically similarly high forage yield while the very dormant and the semi dormant ratings showed the lowest forage yield (LSD0.05 = 0.17). Like the 2007–2011 experiment, the third year of production (2012) registered the highest forage yield at each cut followed by the second year of production (2011), the fourth year (2013), and first year of production. However, the third year of production which showed the highest forge yield at each cut, all other productions years showed statistically similar forage yield (LSD0.05 = 0.15). On average, alfalfa forage yield significantly decreased from the first cut to fourth cut during each production year.
There were no significant differences between the alfalfa dormancy-ratings in terms of forage yield at each alfalfa cut. Forage yields averaged 7.3, 6.5, 4.9, and 3.8 Mg ha−1 for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th cut for the 2007–2011 experiment and 7.9, 6.8, 4.9, and 3.7 Mg ha−1 for the 2009–2013 experiment. On average alfalfa forage yield during the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th cut represented 33, 29, 22 and 16% of the annual yield. However, the semi-dormant alfalfa cultivars showed the lowest forage yield at the first cut and the very dormant cultivars showed the lowest forage yield at the fourth cut. Alfalfa forage yield decreased from the cut 1 to the cut 4 (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). Average forage yield varied with years and varied from 7.6 to 2.9 Mg ha−1, 6.8 to 4.3 Mg ha−1, 9.2 to 4.2 Mg ha−1, and 7.9 to 3.2 Mg ha−1 during the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th cut for all cuts (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). The highest yields were obtained during the third year of forage harvest. Over the four-year 2009–2013 experiment, average forage yields were 5.7, 5.9, 6.0, 5.5, and 5.9 Mg ha−1 for the very dormant, dormant, moderately dormant, semi-dormant, and non-dormant alfalfa cultivars, respectively, and 5.6, 5.7 and 5.6 Mg ha−1 for the very dormant, dormant and moderately dormant alfalfa cultivars, respectively, for the 2007–2011 experiment. The four-year pooled data for each experiment showed that the semi-dormant cultivars obtained the lowest forage yield at the first and second cutting while there were no significant differences between the cultivars in terms of forage yield for the third and fourth harvests (Figure 3). The results of this study agreed with Liu et al. [44] who found no significant difference in above ground biomass production among alfalfa cultivars with different fall dormancy-ratings. Fall dormancy might have little effect on forage yield under the current study conditions as reported by Liu et al. [44]. Similar results were reported by Malinowski et al. [45] who indicated that alfalfa productivity is not related to fall dormancy under a supplementary irrigation production system in a semiarid and sub-humid environment of the southern Great Plains. The drought conditions during the off season from late October to early April when the irrigation water is off at the research site and the hardness of winter at high elevation might have resulted in the induction of drought-related dormancy in all cultivars regardless of their fall dormancy-ratings [46]. In contrast, other studies demonstrated that non-dormant alfalfa cultivars showed lower yield compared to dormant cultivars [11,47]. Fransen et al. [48] reported that the first cutting usually represents 35–38% of the alfalfa annual forage yield. Volenec et al. [25] reported that there was not improvement in alfalfa first and second cut forage yields however, the yield of the fourth cut had shown some increasing trend due to the reduction in fall dormancy.

3.3. Alfalfa Annual Forage Yield as Function of Fall Dormancy-Rating

Annual forage yield varied with cultivars and fall dormancy and ranged from 15.5 to 22.5, from 20.2 to 25.7, from 21.7 to 27.9, and from 19.2 to 22.9 Mg ha−1 in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 for the 2007–2011 experiment and from 21.6 to 23.2, from 21.1 to 24.1, from 23.6 to 29.9, from 16.0 to 25.7 Mg ha−1 in 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 for the 2009–2013 experiment (Figure 5). The coefficient of variation was less than 10% in both experimentations and there were significant differences between alfalfa cultivars in terms of forage yield in all years except the first year of harvest for both experiments (Figure 5). The moderately dormant and the non-dormant cultivars showed the highest yield during the first harvest year while the very dormant cultivars and dormant cultivars had the lowest forage yield. During the second, third, and fourth year, the semi dormant cultivars obtained the lowest forage yield (Figure 5). Overall, the average annual forage yield for the 2007–2011 and 2009–2013 experiments showed that alfalfa cultivar Mountaineer 2.0, 4S417, SW435, HybriForce 2400, and Lahontan with fall dormancy-rating range [4,5] yielded the highest for the 2007-2011 experiment while other cultivars within the same fall dormancy-rating range such as Archer II, Archer III, and WL343HQ are among the lowest yielding cultivars (Table 4). Similarly, for the 2009–2013 experiment, Mountaineer 2.0, 4S417, SW435, HybriForce 2400, and Lahonton with fall dormancy-rating range [4,5] were the high yielding cultivars. Alfalfa cultivars 6422Q and WL363HQ within the same fall dormancy-rating were among the low yielding cultivars (Table 5).
The reported yield data in this study are higher than some of the reported yield data in the literature. Pembleton et al. [49] reported lower irrigated alfalfa annual forage yield than the present study which varied from 14.63 to 15.74 Mg ha−1 in Australia. Attram et al. [50] reported very low yield of four alfalfa cultivars with maximum annual yield of 6.77 Mg ha−1 in southern Alberta (Canada) while Dill et al. [51] reported annual alfalfa yields ranging from 8.4 to 15.6 Mg ha−1 in the same region. Bolger and Matches [37] reported alfalfa yield of 20.70 Mg ha−1. Grimes et al. [52] reported that irrigated alfalfa cultivars CUF 101, Moapa 69, and WL 318 can yield as high as 26.3 Mg ha-1 in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Lipson [53] reported 0.5% increase in seasonal forage yield a year using 114 alfalfa cultivars over a 30-year experiment while Holland and Bingham [54] reported 0.18% increase in seasonal forage yield from 3-year experiment with 12 alfalfa cultivars in Wisconsin. Winter survival might play tremendous role in the alfalfa yield in consecutive years mostly under the semiarid dry climate of the north western region of New Mexico and similar regions. Wang et al. [47] reported that the greatest average annual forage yield of 24.4 Mg ha−1 was achieved with ‘Runner’ (FD2), while the smallest yields were found in ‘Defi’ (FD5) with no statistical difference in annual forage yields of varieties among FD ratings 3 and 5–9 from the evaluation of 42 varieties of eight fall dormancy-ratings (2–9). They pointed out the importance of early season management to achieve great annual total forage yields rather than considering fall dormancy-ratings as the main criteria for alfalfa variety choice and adoption in temperate regions. However, Rimi et al. [55] found non-dormant alfalfa cultivars with the highest forage yield (18.2 Mg ha−1) followed by less non-dormant cultivars (17.1 Mg ha−1) and very non-dormant cultivars (16.9 Mg ha−1) in the Po Valley, Italy. Pembleton et al. [56] also reported the superior yield performance of fall dormant alfalfa cultivars compared with non-fall dormant cultivars in the cool and temperate region of Australia.

4. Conclusions

This study evaluated different fall dormancy-rating alfalfa cultivars for their forage yield at each cut in two experiments. The results showed no statistical differences between the moderately dormant, dormant, and the non-dormant alfalfa cultivars while they showed higher forage yield than the very dormant and semi-dormant alfalfa cultivars. There was a decreasing trend in forage yield from the first cut to the fourth cut. Annual forage yield significantly increased from the first year to the third year of production and decreased in the fourth year of the production. All fall dormancy-ratings showed statistically similar annual forage yields however, the semi dormant cultivars obtained the lowest forage yield. In light of this study, alfalfa cultivars choice should not only focus on the fall dormancy-rating however, the dormant (FD 3, 4) and moderately dormant (FD 5) alfalfa cultivars may be appropriate for the high desert region of the Colorado Plateau of the US. Thus, Mountaineer 2.0, 54V09, Masterpiece, 4S417, SW435, and HybriForce 2400 could be considered by producers within the study region.

Author Contributions

M.O. and C.O. designed and conducted all field trials with field data collection. K.D., M.O., and K.K. analyzed the data, wrote, and revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The APC was funded by the New Mexico State University.

Acknowledgments

This work was completed with the support of New Mexico State University (NMSU) and the Agricultural Science Center at Farmington and all the staff. We appreciated Margaret West, Nathan Begay, Franklin Jason Thomas, Jonah Joh, and Dallen Begay who had worked very hard on plot layout, management, and data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Andrieu, J.; Demarquilly, C.; Sauvant, D. Tables de la valeur nutritive des aliments. In Alimentation des Bovins, Ovins et Caprins; Jarridge, R., Ed.; Inra: Paris, France, 1988; pp. 356–443. [Google Scholar]
  2. Duke, J.A. Handbook of Legumes of World Economic Importance; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1981; p. 345. [Google Scholar]
  3. Russelle, M.P.; Lamb, J.F.S.; Turyk, N.B.; Shaw, B.H.; Pearson, B. Managing nitrogen contaminated soils. Agron. J. 2007, 99, 738–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Li, Y.; Fu, J.; Wang, B.D. Effects of sea buckthorn on carcass and meat quality of AA broilers. Chin. J. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2008, 21, 1217–1223. [Google Scholar]
  5. Annicchiarico, P.; Barrett, B.; Brummer, E.C.; Julier, B.; Marshall, A.H. Achievements and challenges in improving temperate perennial forage legumes. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2015, 34, 327–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Biazzi, E.; Nazzicari, N.; Pecetti, L.; Brummer, E.C.; Palmonari, A.; Tava, A.; Annicchiarico, P. Genome-wide association mapping and genomic selection for alfalfa (Medicago sativa) forage quality traits. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0169234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Teuber, L.R.; Taggard, K.L.; Gibbs, L.K.; McCaslin, M.A.; Peterson, M.A.; Barnes, D.K. Fall dormancy. In Standard Tests to Characterize Alfalfa Cultivars (Revised 1998). Available online: http://www.naaic.org/stdtests/Dormancy2.html (accessed on 12 September 2019).
  8. Ventroni, L.M.; Volenec, J.J.; Cangiano, C.A. Fall dormancy and cutting frequency impact on alfalfa yield and yield components. Field Crop. Res. 2010, 119, 252–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. García, A.I.; de Blas, A.J.C.; Carabaño, R. Comparison of different methods for nitrogen and amino acid evaluation in rabbit diets. Anim. Sci. 2005, 80, 169–178. [Google Scholar]
  10. Brummer, E.C.; Moore, K.J.; Bjork, N.C. Agronomic Consequences of Dormant–Nondormant Alfalfa Mixtures. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 782–785. [Google Scholar]
  11. Lauriault, L.; Kirksey, R.; VanLeeuwen, D. Year-round irrigation and fall dormancy affects alfalfa yield in a semiarid, subtropical environment. Forage Grazinglands 2009, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Brummer, E.C.; Shah, M.M.; Luth, D. Reexamining the relationship between fall dormancy and winter hardiness in alfalfa. Crop Sci. 2000, 40, 971–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Olsen, J.E. Light and temperature sensing and signaling in induction of bud dormancy in woody plants. Plant Mol. Biol. 2010, 73, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tanino, K.K.; Kalcsits, L.; Silim, S.; Kendall, E.; Gray, G.R. Temperature-driven plasticity in growth cessation and dormancy development in deciduous woody plants: A working hypothesis suggesting how molecular and cellular function is affected by temperature during dormancy induction. Plant Mol. Biol. 2010, 73, 49–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Adhikari, L.; Lindstrom, O.M.; Markham, J.; Missaoui, A.M. Dissecting Key Adaptation Traits in the Polyploid Perennial Medicago sativa Using GBS-SNP Mapping. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Sprague, M.; Fuelleman, R. Measurements of recovery after cutting and fall dormancy of varieties and strains of alfalfa, Medicago sativa. J. Am. Soc. Agron. 1941, 33, 437–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Brown, W.H.; Khalaf, S.S.; Marmolejo, A.; Swingle, A.S.; Whiting, F.M. Partial replacement of alfalfa hay with chopped wheat straw in diets for lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1990, 73, 3172–3177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Volenec, J.J. Leaf area expansion and shoot elongation of diverse alfalfa germplasms. Crop Sci. 1985, 25, 822–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kallenbach, R.L.; Nelson, C.J.; Coutts, J.H. Yield, quality, and persistence of grazing- and hay-type alfalfa under three harvest frequencies. Agron. J. 2002, 94, 1094–1103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Cunningham, S.M.; Nadeau, P.; Castonguay, Y.; Laberge, S.; Volenec, J.J. Raffinose and stachyose accumulation, galactinol synthase expression, and winter injury of contrasting alfalfa germplasms. Crop Sci. 2003, 43, 562–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Haagenson, D.M.; Cunningham, S.M.; Volenec, J.J. Root physiology of less dormant, winter hardy alfalfa selections. Crop Sci. 2003, 43, 1441–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Malinowski, D.P.; Pinchak, W.E.; Kramp, B.A.; Zuo, H.; Butler, T.J. Supplemental Irrigation and Fall Dormancy Effects on Alfalfa Productivity in a 28 Semiarid, Subtropical Climate with a Bimodal Precipitation Pattern. Agron. J. 2007, 99, 621–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rimi, F.; Macolino, S.; Leinauer, B.; Lauriault, L.M.; Ziliotto, U. Fall dormancy and harvest stage effects on alfalfa nutritive value in a subtropical climate. Agron. J. 2012, 104, 415–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rimi, F.; Macolino, S.; Leinauer, B.; Lauriault, L.M.; Ziliotto, U. Fall dormancy and harvest stage impact on alfalfa persistence in a subtropical climate. Agron. J. 2014, 106, 1258–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Volenec, J.J.; Cunningham, S.M.; Haagenson, D.M.; Berg, W.K.; Joern, B.C.; Wiersma, D.W. Physiological genetics of alfalfa improvement: Past failures, future prospects. Field Crop. Res. 2002, 75, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Aung, B.; Gruber, M.Y.; Amyot, L.; Omari, K.; Bertrand, A.; Hannoufa, A. MicroRNA156 as a promising tool for alfalfa improvement. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2015, 13, 779–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Arshad, M.; Feyissa, B.A.; Amyot, L.; Aung, B.; Hannoufa, A. MicroRNA156 improves drought stress tolerance in alfalfa (Medicago sativa) by silencing SPL13. Plant Sci. 2017, 258, 122–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lei, Y.; Hannoufa, A.; Yu, P. The use and gene modification and advanced molecular structure analyses towards improving alfalfa forage. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Sanden, B.; Sheesley, B. Salinity tolerance and management for alfalfa. In Proceedings of the 38th California Alfalfa & Forage Symposium; UC Cooperative Extension, Agronomy Research and Extension Center, Plant Science Department, University of California: Davis, CA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mouradi, M.; Latrach, L.; Farissi, M.; Bouizgarne, A.; Ghoulam, C. Impact of the Salt Stress on the Agronomic Potential of the Moroccan Populations of Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) Under the Field Conditions of Marrakesh. Appl. J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2018, 4, 309–320. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sandhu, D.; Cornacchione, M.V.; Ferreira, J.F.; Suarez, D.L. Variable salinity responses of 12 alfalfa genotypes and comparative expression analyses of salt-response genes. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 42958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cornacchione, M.V.; Suarez, D.L. Emergence, forage production, and ion relations of alfalfa in response to saline waters. Crop Sci. 2015, 55, 444–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Cornacchione, M.V.; Suarez, D.L. Evaluation of Alfalfa (Medicago Sativa L.) Populations’ Response to Salinity Stress. Crop Sci. Available online: https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/cs/abstracts/57/1/137 (accessed on 3 August 2019). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Li, Y.; Su, D. Alfalfa water use and yield under different sprinkler irrigation regimes in north arid regions of China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ismail, S.M.; Almarshadi, M.H. Maximizing productivity and water use efficiency of alfalfa under precise sub-surface drip irrigation in arid regions. Irrig. Drain. 2013, 62, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Li, Z.; Li, Z.; Combs, D.; Undersander, D. Effect of Reduced Lignin Alfalfa on Forage Quality at Three Harvest Intervals. Available online: https://www.jtmtg.org/JAM/2015/abstracts/675.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2019).
  37. Bolger, P.T.; Matches, A.G. Water-use efficiency and yield of sainfoin and alfalfa. Crop Sci. 1990, 30, 143–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Cavero, J.; Faci, M.; Medina, E.T.; Martínez-Cob, A. lfalfa forage production under solid-set sprinkler irrigation in a semiarid climate. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 191, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. USDA United States Department of Agriculture. New Mexico Agricultural Statistics 2016 Annual Bulletin; USDA: Las Cruces, NM, USA, 2018.
  40. USDA United States Department of Agriculture. New Mexico Agricultural Statistics 2016 Annual Bulletin; USDA: Las Cruces, NM, USA, 2017.
  41. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements-FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  42. SAS/STAT 9.3 User’s Guide; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2011.
  43. Sharratt, B.S.; Sheaffer, C.C.; Baker, D. Base temperature for the application of the growing-degree-day model to field-grown alfalfa. Field Crop. Res. 1989, 21, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Liu, Z.; Li, X.; Wang, Z.; Sun, Q. Contrasting Strategies of Alfalfa Stem Elongation in Response to Fall Dormancy in Early Growth Stage: The Tradeoff between Internode Length and Internode Number. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0135934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Malinowski, D.P.; Butler, T.J.; Belesky, D.P. Competitive Ability of Tall Fescue against Alfalfa as a Function of Summer Dormancy, Endophyte Infection, and Soil Moisture Availability. Crop Sci. 2011, 51, 1282–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Williams, R.W.; Boschma, S.P. Identifying persistent lucernes for dryland pastures. In Proceedings of the 8th Australian Agronomy Conference, Toowoomba, Queensland, 30 January–2 February 1996; pp. 586–689. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wang, C.; Ma, B.; Yan, X.; Han, J.; Guo, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, P. Yields of alfalfa varieties with different fall-dormancy levels in a temperate environment. Agron. J. 2009, 101, 1146–1152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fransen, S.; Kugler, J.; Evans, D.W.; Ford, W.P. Alfalfa irrigation management, 2 pgs. In Drought Advisory, EM4824, Washington State University Cooperative Extension; 2001; Available online: http://pubs.wsu.edu type “drought” in the search box for downloadable files (accessed on 20 May 2019).
  49. Pembleton, K.G.; Rawnsley, R.P.; Donaghy, D.J. Yield and water-use efficiency of contrasting lucerne genotypes grown in a cool temperate environment. Crop Pasture Sci. 2011, 62, 610–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Attram, J.; Surya, N.A.; Shelley, A.; Woods, E.S.; James, E.T. Yield and net return from alfalfa cultivars under irrigation in Southern Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2016, 96, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Dill, G.H.; Olson, B.M.; Riewe, V.R.; Acharya, N.A.; Harms, T.E.; Morrison, L. Irrigation management effects on consumptive use, yield, and quality of alfalfa at Picture Butte. In Irrigation Branch; Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development: Lethbridge, AB, Canada, 2007; p. 31. [Google Scholar]
  52. Grimes, D.W.; Wiley, P.L.; Sheesley, W.R. Alfalfa yield and plant water relations with variable irrigation. Crop Sci. 1992, 32, 1381–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lipson, C. Why Are Some International Agreements Informal? Int. Organ. 1991, 45, 495–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Holland, J.B.; Bingham, E.T. Genetic improvement for yield and fertility of alfalfa cultivars representing different eras of breeding. Crop Sci. 1994, 34, 953–957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rimi, F.; Macolino, S.; Leinauer, B.; Lauriault, L.M.; Ziliotto, U. Alfalfa yield and morphology of three fall-dormancy categories harvested at two phenological stages in a subtropical climate. Agron. J. 2010, 102, 1578–1585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pembleton, K.G.; Donaghy, D.J.; Volenec, J.J.; Smith, R.S.; Rawnsley, R.P. Yield, yield components and shoot morphology of four contrasting alfalfa (Medicago sativa) cultivars grown in three cool temperate environments. Crop Pasture Sci. 2010, 61, 503–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 10 00146 g001 550
Figure 1. Evolution of the (a) maximum, minimum, and mean air temperatures, (b) precipitation during the 2007–2013 period, and (c) the 2007–2013 average maximum, minimum, and mean air temperatures, and daily precipitation.
Figure 1. Evolution of the (a) maximum, minimum, and mean air temperatures, (b) precipitation during the 2007–2013 period, and (c) the 2007–2013 average maximum, minimum, and mean air temperatures, and daily precipitation.
Agronomy 10 00146 g001
Agronomy 10 00146 g002 550
Figure 2. Average forage yield per harvest of the very dormant, dormant, moderately dormant alfalfa cultivars during 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Figure 2. Average forage yield per harvest of the very dormant, dormant, moderately dormant alfalfa cultivars during 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.
Agronomy 10 00146 g002
Agronomy 10 00146 g003 550
Figure 3. Average forage yield per harvest of the very dormant, dormant, moderately dormant, semi-dormant, non-dormant alfalfa cultivars during 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Figure 3. Average forage yield per harvest of the very dormant, dormant, moderately dormant, semi-dormant, non-dormant alfalfa cultivars during 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.
Agronomy 10 00146 g003
Agronomy 10 00146 g004 550
Figure 4. Average forage yield per harvest of the (a) very dormant, dormant, moderately dormant alfalfa cultivars for 2007–2011 and (b) very dormant, dormant, moderately dormant, semi-dormant, non-dormant alfalfa cultivars during 2009–2013 experiments.
Figure 4. Average forage yield per harvest of the (a) very dormant, dormant, moderately dormant alfalfa cultivars for 2007–2011 and (b) very dormant, dormant, moderately dormant, semi-dormant, non-dormant alfalfa cultivars during 2009–2013 experiments.
Agronomy 10 00146 g004
Agronomy 10 00146 g005 550
Figure 5. Average annual forage yield of the (a) very dormant, dormant, and moderately dormant alfalfa cultivars for 2007–2011 and (b) very dormant, dormant, moderately dormant, semi-dormant, non-dormant alfalfa cultivars during 2009–2013 experiments.
Figure 5. Average annual forage yield of the (a) very dormant, dormant, and moderately dormant alfalfa cultivars for 2007–2011 and (b) very dormant, dormant, moderately dormant, semi-dormant, non-dormant alfalfa cultivars during 2009–2013 experiments.
Agronomy 10 00146 g005
Table
Table 1. Alfalfa cultivars and the associated fall dormancy level used in the 2007–2011 and 2009–2013 experiments.
Table 1. Alfalfa cultivars and the associated fall dormancy level used in the 2007–2011 and 2009–2013 experiments.
2007–20112009–2013
Alfalfa CultivarsFall Dormancy *Alfalfa CultivarsFall Dormancy *
Mountaineer 2.05Mountaineer 2.05
54V0944S4174
Masterpiece4SW4354
PGI4594HybriForce 24004
FSG 528SF5Lahontan4
CW 95026563Q1053
Grandstand4HybriForce 2420/wet4
Wilson6Dura 8438
A-5225N/AArtesian Sunrise7
African CommonN/AAmeriStand 201 + Z2
NM03067WL440HQ6
Ranger3Maxi-Graze GT2
AmeriStand 407TQ4Rugged3
Integra 84004Malone7
NM03077LegenDairy 5.03
Medalist4Ranger3
Dona Ana7Velvet2
Legend46422Q4
AmeriStand 444NT4WL363HQ5
Archer ll5Dona Ana7
NM0313N/ANM CommonN/A
Archer III5SW63306
WL343HQ4African CommonN/A
NM CommonN/AWilson6
* (1,2 = very dormant, 3,4 = dormant, 5 = moderately dormant, 6,7 = semi dormant. 8,9 = non-dormant, 10,11 = very non-dormant). N/A = not applicable.
Table
Table 2. Summary of the analysis of variance (Three-way ANOVA) of the 2007–2011 experiment.
Table 2. Summary of the analysis of variance (Three-way ANOVA) of the 2007–2011 experiment.
SourcedfTyoe III SSMSFPSignif.
Blocs30.450.140.66060.5776ns
Main Effects
Fall Dormancy Rating20.640.321.42270.2445ns
Year388.3629.45130.14970.0000***
Cut3320.56106.87472.19790.0000***
Interaction
Fall Dormancy Rating × Year60.990.160.72810.6277ns
Fall Dormancy Rating × Cut63.180.532.33820.0349*
Year × Cut6150.7916.7574.03080.0000***
Fall Dormancy Rating × Year × Cut183.370.190.82660.6667ns
Error14131.910.23
Total191600.28
Model50568.3711.3750.22850.0000***
R2 = SSmodel/SStotal = 0.94684108657
Root MSerror = sqrt(MSerror) = 0.47572495221
Mean Y = 5.62207288767
Coefficient of Variation = (Root MSerror)/abs(Mean Y) × 100% = 8.4617358%
Significance: ns = non-significant; * = significant at p value = 0.05; *** = significant at p value = 0.001.
Table
Table 3. Summary of the analysis of variance (Three-way ANOVA) of the 2009–2013 experiment.
Table 3. Summary of the analysis of variance (Three-way ANOVA) of the 2009–2013 experiment.
SourcedfTyoe III SSMSFPSignif.
Blocs32.170.723.1560.0255*
Main Effects
Fall Dormancy Rating46.431.617.0060.0000***
Year355.7418.5880.9730.0000***
Cut3702.93234.311021.0780.0000***
Interaction
Fall Dormancy Rating × Year129.060.763.2910.0002***
Fall Dormancy Rating × Cut128.620.723.1320.0004***
Year × Cut970.487.8334.1270.0000***
Fall Dormancy Rating × Year × Cut369.020.251.09240.3393ns
Error23754.390.23
Total319918.85
Model82864.4710.5445.94130.0000***
R2 = SSmodel/SStotal = 0.94081195029
Root MSerror = sqrt(MSerror) = 0.47903329536
Mean Y = 5.2991597581
Coefficient of Variation = (Root MSerror)/abs(Mean Y) × 100% = 9.0397972%
Significance: ns = non-significant; * = significant at p value = 0.05; *** = significant at p value = 0.001.
Table
Table 4. Alfalfa cultivar forage yield (Mg ha−1) for the 2007–2011 experiment.
Table 4. Alfalfa cultivar forage yield (Mg ha−1) for the 2007–2011 experiment.
Alfalfa CultivarsFall Dormancy2008200920102011Average
Mountaineer 2.0522.525.727.922.924.7
54V09422.525.726.922.824.5
Masterpiece420.525.727.223.524.3
PGI459419.023.726.825.523.7
FSG 528SF519.126.126.522.523.5
CW 95026519.524.525.924.123.5
Grandstand418.422.526.124.823.0
Wilson621.022.825.722.222.9
A-5225N/A17.523.826.323.622.8
African CommonN/A19.323.323.123.122.2
NM0306719.024.225.719.922.2
Ranger318.523.225.021.722.1
AmeriStand 407TQ419.822.724.421.522.1
Integra 8400416.722.225.923.021.9
NM0307715.523.223.924.821.9
Medalist416.022.324.724.221.8
Dona Ana717.323.525.420.921.8
Legend413.522.626.824.121.7
AmeriStand 444NT416.123.125.921.621.7
Archer ll516.123.723.521.721.2
NM0313N/A18.221.522.321.420.8
Archer III513.921.825.521.720.7
WL343HQ418.320.823.420.220.7
NM CommonN/A15.520.221.819.319.2
Average 18.123.325.322.622.3
LSD.05 5.70.52.83.42.5
CV% 21.86.98.010.68.07
P 0.1186<0.00010.00190.02700.0072
Significant ns********
Significance: ns = non-significant; * = significant at p value = 0.05; ** = significant at p value = 0.01; *** = significant at p value = 0.001.
Table
Table 5. Alfalfa cultivar forage yield (Mg ha−1) for the 2009–2013 experiment.
Table 5. Alfalfa cultivar forage yield (Mg ha−1) for the 2009–2013 experiment.
Alfalfa CultivarsFall Dormancy2010201120122013Average
Mountaineer 2.0523.224.128.725.725.4
4S417422.923.329.924.125.0
SW435422.123.828.525.525.0
HybriForce 2400422.923.228.624.624.8
Lahontan423.625.027.821.424.5
63Q105321.322.927.525.024.2
HybriForce 2420/wet421.923.027.923.424.1
Dura 843823.222.126.821.923.5
Artesian Sunrise722.721.128.521.523.4
AmeriStand 201 + Z221.023.226.822.223.3
WL440HQ622.022.026.821.123.0
Maxi-Graze GT220.422.126.323.022.9
Rugged321.221.726.422.422.9
Malone721.622.027.719.422.7
LegenDairy 5.0322.122.125.021.222.6
Ranger321.522.125.321.322.6
Velvet221.722.024.621.622.5
6422Q420.721.625.222.222.4
WL363HQ522.421.224.121.222.2
Dona Ana722.222.125.718.222.1
NM CommonN/A22.222.424.717.021.6
SW6330622.321.125.816.621.4
African CommonN/A22.722.023.616.621.2
Wilson621.621.123.916.020.7
Average 22.122.426.521.423.7
LSD.05 1.92.13.22.91.9
CV % 6.246.838.509.475.83
p Value 0.13900.04690.0031<0.0001<0.0001
Significant ns*********
Significance: ns = non-significant; * = significant at p value = 0.05; ** = significant at p value = 0.01; *** = significant at p value = 0.001.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Djaman, K.; Owen, C.; Koudahe, K.; O’Neill, M. Evaluation of Different Fall Dormancy-Rating Alfalfa Cultivars for Forage Yield in a Semiarid Environment. Agronomy 2020, 10, 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010146

AMA Style

Djaman K, Owen C, Koudahe K, O’Neill M. Evaluation of Different Fall Dormancy-Rating Alfalfa Cultivars for Forage Yield in a Semiarid Environment. Agronomy. 2020; 10(1):146. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010146

Chicago/Turabian Style

Djaman, Koffi, Curtis Owen, Komlan Koudahe, and Michael O’Neill. 2020. "Evaluation of Different Fall Dormancy-Rating Alfalfa Cultivars for Forage Yield in a Semiarid Environment" Agronomy 10, no. 1: 146. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10010146

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