The Effect of Sowing Density and Different Harvesting Stages on Yield and Some Forage Quality Characters of the White Sweet Clover (Melilotus albus)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Field Conditions
2.2. Weather and Soil Conditions
2.3. Field Measurements
2.4. Laboratory Measurements
2.4.1. Chemical Composition
2.4.2. Mineral Composition
2.4.3. Coumarin Content
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Stefanović, O.D.; Tešić, J.D.; Čomić, L.R. Melilotus albus and Dorycnium herbaceum extracts as a source of phenolic compounds and their antimicrobial, antibiofilm, and antioxidant potentials. J. Food Drug Anal. 2015, 23, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Sowa, P.; Jarecki, W.; Dżugan, M. Nostrzyk (Melilotus)—Zapomniana roślina o dużym znaczeniu gospodarczym (Sweet clover (Melilotus)—A forgotten plant with a large economic importance). Zesz. Probl. Postęp. Nauk Rol. 2018, 593, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sherif, E.A.A. Melilotus indicus (L.) All., a salt-tolerant wild leguminous herb with high potential for use as a forage crop in salt-affected soils. Flora 2009, 204, 737–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, L.; Wu, F.; Zhang, J. NAC and MYB Families and Lignin Biosynthesis-Related Members Identification and Expression Analysis in Melilotus albus. Plants 2021, 10, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baidalin, M.E.; Zhumagulov, I.I.; Sagalbekov, E.U.; Sagalbekov, U.M. Ways of Increasing Seed Germination of Sweet Clover and Methods of Reducing the Amount of Coumarin in the Leaf-Stem Mass. OnLine J. Biol. Sci. 2017, 17, 128–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wolf, J.J.; Rohrs, J. The influence of physical soil conditions on the formation of root nodules of Melilotus officinalis in the montane zone of Rocky Mountain National Park. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2001, 37, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luo, K.; Wu, F.; Zhang, D.; Dong, R.; Fan, Z.; Zhang, R.; Yan, Z.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, J. Transcriptomic profiling of Melilotus albus near-isogenic lines contrasting for coumarin content. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Moyer, J.R.; Blackshaw, R.E.; Huang, H.C. Effect of sweetclover cultivars and management practices on following weed infestations and wheat yield. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2007, 87, 973–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sowa, P.; Grabek-Lejko, D.; Wesołowska, M.; Swacha, S.; Dżugan, M. Hydrogen peroxide-dependent antibacterial action of Melilotus albus honey. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2017, 65, 82–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dashkevich, S.; Filippova, N.; Utebayev, M.; Abdullaev, K. Assessing the Influence of the Initial Forms of Melilot on the Quality of Fodder Mass in the Conditions of Northern Kazakhstan. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2018, 10, 2564–2567. [Google Scholar]
- Nair, R.M.; Whittall, A.; Hughes, S.J.; Craig, A.D.; Miller, S.M.; Powell, T.; Auricht, G.C. Variation in coumarin content of Melilotus species grown in South Australia. N. Zeal. J. Agr. Res. 2010, 53, 201–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goplen, B.P. Sweetclover Production and Agronomy. Can. Vet. J. 1980, 21, 149–151. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Muir, A.D.; Goplen, B.P. Quantitative reversed-phase HPLC analysis of dicumarol in sweetclover hay and silage samples. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1992, 40, 820–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kitchen, J.L.; Mclachln, D.; Hughes, S.; Revell, D.K. Wariation in coumarin concentration between lines of Melilotus sp. Anim. Prod. Aust. 2002, 24, 318. [Google Scholar]
- Abbasi, M.R.; Hosseini, S.; Pourakbar, L. Coumarin Variation in Iran Biennial Melilotus Genetic Resources and its Relationship with Agro-morphophonological Traits. J. Crop. Sci. Biotechnol. 2017, 20, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanderson, M.A.; Meyer, D.W.; Casper, H.H. Dicoumarol concentrations in sweetclover hay treated with preservatives and in spoiled hay of high- and low-coumarin cultivars of sweetclover. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1986, 14, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kintl, A.; Huňady, I.; Vymyslický, T.; Ondrisková, V.; Hammerschmiedt, T.; Brtnický, M.; Elbl, J. Effect of Seed Coating and PEG-Induced Drought on the Germination Capacity of Five Clover Crops. Plants 2021, 10, 724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nelson, D.W.; Sommers, L.E. Total Carbon, Organic Carbon, and Organic Matter. In Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 3 Chemical Methods; SSSA: Madison, WI, USA, 1996; Volume 5, pp. 961–1010. [Google Scholar]
- Mehlich, A. Mehlich 3 Soil Test Extractant: A Modification of Mehlich 2 Extractant. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1984, 15, 1409–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ditzler, C.; Scheffe, K.; Monger, H.C. Soil Science Division Staff. Soil Survey Manual. USDA Handbook 18; Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2017; p. 603.
- Hermida, M.; Rodriguez, N.; Rodríguez-Otero, J.L. Determination of Moisture, Starch, Protein, and Fat in Common Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) by Near Infrared Spectroscopy. J. AOAC Int. 2006, 89, 1039–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tenikecier, H.S.; Ates, E. Determination of seeding rate in the blue melilot (Melilotus caeruleus (L.) Desr.) for forage yield and some quality features under subtropical conditions. Turk. J. Field Crops. 2020, 25, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdel-Rahman, E.M.; Suwar, A.O.A. Effect of seeding rate on growth and yield of two alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) cultivars. Int. J. Sudan Res. 2012, 2, 141–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, P.M.; Kearney, G.A. Melilotus albus (Medik.) is productive and regenerates well on saline soils neutral to alkaline reaction in the high rainfall zone of south-western Victoria. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2003, 43, 349–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kosolapov, V.M.; Cherniavskih, V.I.; Dumacheva, E.V.; Tseiko, L.M. The use of biological fabaceae resources of the cretaceous south of Russia in breeding on the example of the species Melilotus albus medik. BIO Web Conf. 2021, 39, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orlova, L.D. Chemical composition of Melilotus (Fabaceae) of the Poltava region. Vìsn. Dnìpropetr. Unìv. Ser. Bìol. Ekol. 2008, 16, 122–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Luo, K.; Di, H.Y.; Zhang, J.Y.; Wang, Y.R.; Li, Z.Q. Preliminary evaluation of agronomy and quality traits of nineteen Melilotus accessions. Pratacult. Sci. 2014, 8, 2125–2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerrero-Rodríguez, J.D.; Revell, D.K.; Bellotti, W.D. Mineral composition of lucerne (Medicago sativa) and white melilot (Melilotus albus) is affected by NaCl salinity of the irrigation water. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 170, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kara, K. Nutrient matter, fatty acids, in vitro gas production and digestion of herbage and silage quality of yellow sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis L.) at different phenological stages. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2021, 30, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çaçan, E.; Aydın, A.; Başbağ, M. Determination of quality features of some legume forage crops in Bingöl University Campus. Turk. J. Agric. Nat. Sci. 2015, 2, 105–111. [Google Scholar]
- Schlegel, P.; Wyss, U.; Arrigo, Y.; Hess, H.D. Mineral concentrations of fresh herbage from mixedgrassland as influenced by botanical composition, harvesttime and growth stage. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 219, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Frame, J.; Charlton, J.F.L.; Laidlaw, A.S. Temperate Forage Legumes; CAB International: Wallingford, England, 1998; pp. 48–56. [Google Scholar]
- Tekieli, A.S.; Ateş, E.; Varol, F. Nutritive values of some annual clovers (Trifolium sp.) at different growth stages. J. Cent. Eur. Agric. 2005, 6, 323–330. [Google Scholar]
- Marković, J.; Štrbanović, R.; Cvetković, M.; Anđelković, B.; Živković, B. Effects of growth stage on the mineral concentrations in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) leaf, stem and the whole plant. Biotechnol. Anim. Husb. 2009, 25, 1225–1231. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.; Di, H.; Luo, K.; Jahufer, Z.; Wu, F.; Duan, Z.; Stewart, A.; Yan, Z.; Wang, Y. Coumarin Content, Morphological Variation, and Molecular Phylogenetics of Melilotus. Molecules 2018, 23, 810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Jasińska, Z.; Kotecki, A. Szczegółowa uprawa roślin; Wydawnictwo Akademii Rolniczej we Wrocławiu: Wrocław, Poland, 2003; pp. 219–221. [Google Scholar]
- Maggi, F.; Barboni, L.; Caprioli, G.; Papa, F.; Ricciutelli, M.; Sagratini, G.; Vittori, S. HPLC quantification of coumarin in bastard balm (Melittis Melissophyllum L., Lamiaceae). Fitoterapia 2011, 82, 1215–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pereira, A.M.S.; Câmara, F.L.A.; Celeghini, R.M.S.; Vilegas, J.H.Y.; Lanças, F.M.; França, S.C. Seasonal Variation in Coumarin Content Mikania glomerate. J. Herbs Spices Med. Plants 2000, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lake, B.G. Coumarin: Metabolism, Toxicity and Carcinogenicity: Relevance for Human Risk Assessment. Food Chem. Toxicol. 1999, 37, 423–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abraham, K.; Wohrlin, F.; Lindtner, O.; Heinemeyer, G.; Lampen, A. Toxicology and risk assessment of coumarin: Focus on human data. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2010, 54, 228–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Felter, S.P.; Vassallo, J.D.; Carlton, B.D.; Daston, G.P. A safety assessment of coumarin into account species-specificity of toxicokinetics. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2006, 44, 462–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food on a request from the European Commission on Coumarin in flavourings and other food ingredients with flavouring properties. EFSA J. 2008, 793, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- (E.C.). Regulation, no 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on flavorings and certain food ingredients with flavoring properties for use in and on foods and amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1601/91. Off. J. Eur. Communities 2008, L354, 34–50. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Y.H.; Avula, B.; Dhammika, N.P.; Nanaykkara, N.P.D.; Zhao, J.; Khan, I.A. Cassia cinnamon as a source of coumarin in cinnamon-flavored food and food supplements in the United States. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 4470–4476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Measurement | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
---|---|---|---|
pH in H2O | 7.67 | 6.97 | 6.94 |
EC [mS cm−1] | 0.52 | 0.14 | 0.19 |
Organic carbon [%] | 1.42 | 3.02 | 2.77 |
Content of available nutrients [mg 100 g−1 of soil] | |||
P2O5 | 30.26 | 20.50 | 19.05 |
K2O | 27.60 | 22.40 | 20.90 |
Mg | 7.82 | 7.23 | 7.18 |
Content of elements [mg kg−1 of soil] | |||
Fe | 2762.60 | 1827.50 | 2022.00 |
Mn | 239.48 | 506.18 | 452.20 |
Zn | 19.90 | 18.20 | 17.34 |
Cu | 5.58 | 6.13 | 4.29 |
Year | Fractions | The Proportion of Fractions [%] | Texture (USDA) |
---|---|---|---|
2018 | sand (2–0.05 mm) | 11 | silt loam |
silt (0.05–0.002 mm) | 77 | ||
clay (<0.002 mm) | 12 | ||
2019 | sand (2–0.05 mm) | 3 | silt |
silt (0.05–0.002 mm) | 92 | ||
clay (<0.002 mm) | 6 | ||
2020 | sand (2–0.05 mm) | 1 | silt loam |
silt (0.05–0.002 mm) | 88 | ||
clay (<0.002 mm) | 11 |
Factor | Plant Height [cm] | Share of Leaves [%] | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S-Sowing density [pcs m−2] | |||||
500 | 333.34 ± 22.31 a | 91.43 ± 52.42 a | 1.66 ± 0.43 a | 0.37 ± 0.08 a | 30.83 ± 3.76 a |
1000 | 524.77 ± 34.65 b | 90.33 ± 50.93 a | 1.91 ± 0.55 a,b | 0.42 ± 0.03 a,b | 30.26 ± 3.49 a |
1500 | 736.62 ± 44.87 c | 87.67 ± 48.72 a | 2.29 ± 0.63 b | 0.52 ± 0.07 b | 30.31 ± 3.69 a |
H-Harvesting stage | |||||
A | 541.22 ± 235.30 a | 46.90 ± 8.21 a | 1.11 ± 0.49 a | 0.18 ± 0.08 a | 40.73 ± 1.46 c |
B | 532.19 ± 240.10 a | 68.93 ± 8.33 b | 1.69 ± 0.66 a | 0.32 ± 0.11 b | 31.31 ± 2.19 b |
C | 521.32 ± 248.70 a | 153.59 ± 21.17 c | 3.06 ± 0.89 b | 0.80 ± 0.22 c | 19.37 ± 3.80 a |
Y-Year | |||||
2018 | 554.32 ± 254.30 a | 89.78 ± 60.96 a | 1.92 ± 0.33 a | 0.40 ± 0.13 a | 31.55 ± 3.33 a |
2019 | 530.15 ± 247.60 a | 99.29 ± 49.90 a | 1.52 ± 0.23 a | 0.42 ± 0.19 a | 28.63 ± 2.13 a |
2020 | 510.26 ± 236.70 a | 80.37 ± 36.28 a | 2.43 ± 0.44 b | 0.49 ± 0.17 a | 31.21 ± 3.80 a |
Factor | Total Protein | Crude Fat | Fiber | Ash |
---|---|---|---|---|
S-Sowing density (pcs·m−2) | ||||
500 | 18.14 ± 3.58 a | 2.06 ± 0.56 a | 38.52 ± 6.44 a | 10.70 ± 2.11 a |
1000 | 17.67 ± 2.65 a | 2.04 ± 0.54 a | 39.71 ± 4.83 a | 10.45 ± 2.06 a |
1500 | 17.80 ± 4.10 a | 2.11 ± 0.62 a | 39.42 ± 4.78 a | 10.49 ± 2.27 a |
H-Harvesting stage | ||||
A | 21.72 ± 1.50 c | 2.41 ± 0.61 b | 34.55 ± 3.29 a | 12.10 ± 1.68 b |
B | 17.08 ± 1.66 b | 2.08 ± 0.45 a,b | 40.27 ± 3.36 b | 11.05 ± 0.73 b |
C | 14.81 ± 1.99 a | 1.71 ± 0.32 a | 42.82 ± 5.01 b | 8.44 ± 1.58 a |
Y-Year | ||||
2018 | 18.32 ± 3.50 a | 2.15 ± 0.55 b | 35.94 ± 3.64 a | 12.11 ± 1.80 b |
2019 | 16.55 ± 3.90 a | 1.62 ± 0.27 a | 41.41 ± 5.38 a | 9.27 ± 1.99 a |
2020 | 18.74 ± 2.53 a | 2.44 ± 0.39 b | 40.31 ± 5.24 a | 10.21 ± 1.41 a |
Factor | Ca | K | Mg | P | S |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S-Sowing density (pcs·m−2) | |||||
500 | 12.15 ± 2.09 a | 21.46 ± 6.23 a | 2.69 ± 0.55 a | 3.97 ± 1.15 a | 3.11 ± 0.66 a |
1000 | 12.13 ± 2.29 a | 21.30 ± 6.39 a | 2.91 ± 0.59 a | 3.99 ± 0.93 a | 3.19 ± 0.69 a |
1500 | 11.84 ± 2.41 a | 21.59 ± 5.12 a | 3.04 ± 0.47 a | 4.19 ± 1.02 a | 3.12 ± 0.66 a |
H-Harvesting stage | |||||
A | 13.51 ± 2.02 b | 24.95 ± 3.99 b | 2.82 ± 0.26 a | 4.36 ± 0.98 b | 3.54 ± 0.45 b |
B | 12.27 ± 1.76 b | 24.32 ± 3.90 b | 2.90 ± 0.39 a | 4.24 ± 0.67 b | 3.31 ± 0.53 b |
C | 10.34 ± 1.60 a | 15.08 ± 2.47 a | 2.91 ± 0.28 a | 3.55 ± 1.19 a | 2.56 ± 0.52 a |
Y-Year | |||||
2018 | 11.94 ± 2.06 a,b | 24.94 ± 6.82 b | 3.36 ± 0.51 a | 2.91 ± 0.62 a | 2.94 ± 0.57 a |
2019 | 10.48 ± 1.35 a | 19.94 ± 5.77 a | 2.94 ± 0.47 a | 4.34 ± 0.59 b | 2.74 ± 0.44 a |
2020 | 13.70 ± 1.89 b | 19.46 ± 2.37 a | 2.34 ± 0.53 a | 4.90 ± 0.38 b | 3.73 ± 0.46 b |
Factor | Fe | Mn | Mo | Cu | Zn |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
S-Sowing density (pcs·m−2) | |||||
500 | 103.48 ± 55.07 a | 15.22 ± 3.91 a | 2.76 ± 1.68 a | 7.11 ± 2.26 a | 17.89 ± 1.93 a |
1000 | 93.27 ± 42.34 a | 15.00 ± 3.49 a | 3.08 ± 1.69 a | 6.46 ± 1.27 a | 16.61 ± 2.69 a |
1500 | 95.31 ± 41.92 a | 15.49 ± 4.10 a | 3.22 ± 1.74 a | 5.80 ± 1.25 a | 17.77 ± 2.82 a |
H-Harvesting stage | |||||
A | 134.02 ± 44.43 c | 17.80 ± 3.39 b | 3.35 ± 1.90 b | 7.37 ± 1.37 b | 17.50 ± 2.26 a |
B | 98.65 ± 36.89 b | 15.71 ±2.83 a,b | 3.59 ± 1.72 b | 7.02 ± 1.28 b | 17.56 ± 1.59 a |
C | 59.39 ± 13.34 a | 12.21 ± 2.54 a | 2.12 ± 0.90 a | 4.98 ± 1.11 a | 17.20 ± 3.52 a |
Y-Year | |||||
2018 | 71.20 ± 38.05 a | 17.42 ± 3.43 b | 3.76 ± 1.31 b | 6.32 ± 2.38 a | 14.75 ± 2.24 a |
2019 | 95.07 ± 26.46 b | 12.07 ± 2.53 a | 4.06 ± 1.26 b | 6.29 ± 1.34 a | 18.49 ± 0.63 b |
2020 | 125.80 ± 53.05 c | 16.22 ± 2.83 b | 1.24 ± 0.04 a | 6.76 ± 0.90 a | 19.02 ± 1.57 b |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Sowa-Borowiec, P.; Jarecki, W.; Dżugan, M. The Effect of Sowing Density and Different Harvesting Stages on Yield and Some Forage Quality Characters of the White Sweet Clover (Melilotus albus). Agriculture 2022, 12, 575. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050575
Sowa-Borowiec P, Jarecki W, Dżugan M. The Effect of Sowing Density and Different Harvesting Stages on Yield and Some Forage Quality Characters of the White Sweet Clover (Melilotus albus). Agriculture. 2022; 12(5):575. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050575
Chicago/Turabian StyleSowa-Borowiec, Patrycja, Wacław Jarecki, and Małgorzata Dżugan. 2022. "The Effect of Sowing Density and Different Harvesting Stages on Yield and Some Forage Quality Characters of the White Sweet Clover (Melilotus albus)" Agriculture 12, no. 5: 575. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12050575