Next Article in Journal
Differential Responses of Two Sorghum Genotypes to Drought Stress at Seedling Stage Revealed by Integrated Physiological and Transcriptional Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Cabbage Stink Bug (Eurydema ventralis Kolenati, 1846) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae)—An Increasingly Important Pest in Europe
Previous Article in Special Issue
Local or Ecological? An Agri-Food Choice Experiment for Extra Virgin Olive Oil
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Cutting Age on Seed Production of Flemingia Macrophylla for the Optimisation of Cropping Systems, Cotopaxi-Ecuador

by
Ricardo Luna-Murillo
1,
Joselyne Solórzano
2,3,
Idalia Pacheco-Tigselema
4,
Jairo Dueñas-Tovar
2,3,5,
Lady Bravo-Montero
2 and
María Jaya-Montalvo
2,3,6,*
1
Facultad de Ciencias Agropecuarias y Recursos Naturales, Universidad Técnica de Cotopaxi, Extensión La Maná, Av. Los Almendros y calle Pujilí Sector La Virgen, La Maná 170150, Ecuador
2
Centro de Investigación y Proyectos Aplicados a las Ciencias de la Tierra, ESPOL, Campus Gustavo Galindo, ESPOL Polytechnic University, Km. 30.5 Vía Perimetral, Guayaquil 090902, Ecuador
3
Facultad de Ingeniería en Ciencias de la Tierra, ESPOL, Campus Gustavo Galindo, ESPOL Polytechnic University, Km. 30.5 Vía Perimetral, Guayaquil 090902, Ecuador
4
Facultad de Ciencias de Ingeniería y Aplicadas, Universidad Técnica de Cotopaxi, Extensión Latacunga, Av. Simón Rodríguez s/n, Barrio El Ejido Sector San Felipe, Latacunga 050102, Ecuador
5
Geo-Recursos y Aplicaciones, ESPOL, Campus Gustavo Galindo, ESPOL Polytechnic University, Km. 30.5 Vía Perimetral, Guayaquil 090902, Ecuador
6
Facultad de Ingeniería en Mecánica y Ciencias de la Producción, ESPOL, Campus Gustavo Galindo, ESPOL Polytechnic University, Km. 30.5 Vía Perimetral, Guayaquil 090902, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(16), 1781; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15161781
Submission received: 24 December 2024 / Revised: 23 January 2025 / Accepted: 24 January 2025 / Published: 20 August 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Strategies for Resilient and Sustainable Agri-Food Systems)

Abstract

The tropical shrub legume Flemingia macrophylla is a specie that influences higher forage production, increases protein content, and reduces nitrogen fertiliser and animal protein supplement use. However, there is little scientific literature on the influence of the cutting age of Flemingia macrophylla on the nutritional-productive behaviour of the plant and soil microbiology. Therefore, this study addresses the interaction between high-value forages and coffee cropping systems under agroecological management. The study aims to evaluate the seed production of Flemingia macrophylla and its association with the crops of “Geisha Coffee” and “Sarchimor Coffee” at the Sacha Wiwa Experimental Centre (Cotopaxi-Ecuador) through the analysis of growth and bromatology of the seeds at cutting ages of 30, 45, 60, and 75 days for their potential use in the local agro-industry. The methodology was composed of three phases: (i) crop experimental design, (ii) crop sampling, and (iii) agroecological management strategies. The results suggest that Flemingia macrophylla can be integrated into agroforestry systems with coffee, reducing dependence on chemical fertilisers and improving seed productivity. Seed production peaked at 60 days, with the highest levels of protein (31.44%), nitrogen (5.03%), potassium (1.17%), and calcium (0.78%), making it an excellent forage source. Fibre content, however, was highest at 75 days (11.20%), making this cycle preferable when higher fibre is required. Notably, soil organic matter depletion in plots associated with Sarchimor coffee suggested higher nutrient demands. This study demonstrated the potential of Flemingia macrophylla to diversify agroecological systems with improved productivity and nutritional quality.

1. Introduction

Food security is emerging as a global imperative issue because it is essential for the well-being of communities by contributing to ending hunger, improving nutrition, and promoting agricultural sustainability [1,2]. The global demand for food is expected to increase by 35–56% between 2010 and 2050 [3], making it necessary to include more efficient and sustainable production methods that can adapt to climate change [4]. Given the projected protein demand for 2050, transitioning from a conventional agriculture model to agroecological practices is required [5].
In recent years, United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 2, have focused on areas with extreme poverty and hunger [6]. These areas are predominantly rural sectors, inhabited by smallholder farmers and their families making up a significant proportion of low incomes and food scarcity within nearby geographies. Therefore, eradicating poverty and hunger is simultaneously linked to boosting food production, agricultural productivity, and rural economic wellness [7].
To address the aforementioned issue, Agroecology contributes a transdisciplinary science that applies ecological concepts and principles to agri-food systems at multiple scales [8], to minimise synthetic and toxic external inputs [9]. Agroecology, accompanied by biodiversity-fostering approaches like crop diversity, contributes to the resilience of agricultural systems and constitutes an essential strategy within all productive chains involving sustainable farming practices, whereas monocultures make them more vulnerable to ecological, political, and economic shocks [10].
Within crop diversity approaches, grasses and forages are the basis for more economical cattle feeding [11]. Particularly, forage provides nutrients by increasing the amount of protein [12]. However, forage-cutting ages are generally determined based on insights gathered from other countries’ examples, without knowing the optimum amount to be fed for optimal nutrient utilisation [13]. Moreover, among the agroecological practices related to forage, the use of local forage (e.g., herbaceous plants or trees) adapted to drought and acidic soils stands out, in addition to the biological functions of legumes and their symbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria [14].
In Ecuador, an example of local leguminous forage is the Flemingia macrophylla (Willd.) Kuntze ex Merr. a member of the Fabaceae family [15], also known as “Guinan”. This species is recognised for its potential to achieve high forage yields [16], typically growing to an average height of 1.5–3.0 m and a width of 1.0–2.5 m [17]. F. macrophylla is native to South and Southeast Asia, southern China, and Indonesia [18]. It is widely distributed in subtropics such as Taiwan, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Malaysia due to its rapid adaptability to climatic conditions and soil types (e.g., drought, flooding, and acid soils) [14]. This species also presents the biological functions of legumes and their symbiosis with nitrogen-fixing bacteria [19]. In tropical America, specifically Bolivia, F. macrophylla was evaluated for acid, low-fertility soils, presenting high agronomic potential on the Ultisols and Inceptisols [20]. In Indonesia, the F. macrophylla is used for soil restoration [21].
Globally, F. macrophylla is used for forage supplementation, living soil cover or mulch, erosion barriers, flood resistance, shade in young coffee and cocoa plantations, and firewood [22,23,24]. Andersson et al. [25], reported that legume forages, such as F. macrophylla, exhibit high protein content, ranging between 16.9% and 23.7% of dry matter. For other authors, such as Kang et al. [26], these forages have a protein content of 25.8% dry matter and 5.8% condensed tannins (CT), produce fresh biomass of approximately 55 tons/hectare/year, and thrive under various climatic conditions [27].
The case study of this article compromises the plot of F. macrophylla in the “Sacha Wiwa” Experimental Centre. This rural area belongs to the “La Maná” canton, Cotopaxi province in Ecuador. Flemingia has high tolerance and regrowth after cutting and develops well in acidic, poorly drained, low-fertility soils [18]. These species are characterised by their ability to fix nitrogen in the soil, reducing the need for inorganic N fertiliser [28]. Studies have shown that legumes such as F. macrophylla, a multipurpose perennial forage legume that, in association with other species (e.g., cassava, rubber plantations, pitahaya and Naranjilla), increase biomass yield and improve soil fertility and crop production [29,30]. However, there is little scientific literature on the potential of this shrub forage species in an agroecological context. This study contributes to the knowledge of the cutting age of F. macrophylla and its influence on the productive nutritional behaviour of plant and soil microbiology. In this context, the following research question is raised: How does the productivity and nutritional quality of F. macrophylla seeds vary as fodder in association with coffee crops over four growth cycles? How does F. macrophylla contribute to the sustainability of coffee monocultures in terms of soil management and productive diversification? This study aims to investigate the effect of different cutting ages (30, 45, 60, and 75 days) on the seed production and nutritional quality of F. macrophylla when integrated with coffee crops (‘Geisha’ and ‘Sarchimor’) in a tropical agroecological system. The research seeks to address the gap in understanding how Flemingia can enhance productivity and soil management in diversified cropping systems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Case Study

The research was conducted at the “Sacha Wiwa” Experimental Centre, owned by the “Jatari Unancha” Educational Unit, located in the Guasaganda parish. This area belongs to the “La Maná” canton, Cotopaxi province, in the Sierra or Inter-Andean region of Ecuador (Figure 1). This area has a humid tropical climate (23–24.5 °C) and sandy-loam to clayey soils, conditions that favour agricultural development and growth [31]. The area has two seasons: rainy and dry; rainfall is recorded from December to July, with annual precipitation varying between 250 and 600 mm [32]. The relative humidity is approximately 88% with a daylight-saving time of 570.30 h/light/year. The Cotopaxi Province is a highly agricultural area [33], and the major occupation of this activity is concentrated in rural areas, where abiotic factors severely affect crops generally used for animal feed [34]. Farmers are looking for new forage as easy-to-manage and economically profitable food alternatives for small- and medium-sized livestock producers [32].

2.2. Methods

This study used an experimental approach to analyse the variability in growth, production, and chemical composition of the leaves and seeds of F. macrophylla in the “Sacha Wiwa” Experimental Centre. The methodological design was divided into three study phases (Figure 2). First, experimental plots were established in a composite agricultural system that combined F. macrophylla and coffee crops. The plots were prepared by soaking the seeds for 24 h, planting them in nursery bags, and transplanting seedlings after 45 days. Second, the crop was monitored across four cutting periods (30, 45, 60, and 75 days). Leaves and seeds were collected from marked plants in each plot, and variables, such as seed production, number of leaves, and leaf weight, were measured directly in the field. Third, the chemical and nutritional compositions of the seeds and leaves were analysed in the laboratory. Nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and other macro- and micronutrients were quantified using standard methods such as the Kjeldahl method for nitrogen and spectrophotometry for phosphorus. Additionally, the ecological benefits of F. macrophylla and the challenges associated with its implementation in the local environment were evaluated, and agroecological strategies for optimising its production were established.

2.2.1. Crop Experimental Design

  • Site selection, land preparation, and crop establishment
This phase compromises the land preparation and crop establishment. First, in January 2021, the Experimental Centre was selected, containing five experimental plots of coffee crops (three varieties: Geisha, Sarchimor, and Manabi 01). The seeds of F. macrophylla were sourced from the pasture and forage garden of the Technical University of Cotopaxi (UTC) in Ecuador. These seeds, originally obtained from Colombia, underwent a scarification process to improve germination. The seeds went through a scarification process, were soaked for 24 h in water, and then two seeds were sown per hole in 8 × 12 cm nursery bags. After 21 days, thinning was performed, leaving one seedling per bag. At 45 days after sowing, when the seedlings reached approximately 15 cm in height with six true leaves, they were transplanted to the final location. The maintenance of the experimental plots of F. macrophylla was carried out manually (using a machete) to control weeds or unwanted plants. During the dry season, irrigation was carried out with a watering can, placing 1000 cc around the plant. Bioabor high-quality organic fertiliser was applied to the holes during the transplanting process after germination. Garlic, onion, and chilli extract were used to control insect pests such as leafcutter ants. Two months after the initial transplant, 200 g of Biobar was applied to each plant in a crescent shape, evidencing a continuous focus on using biological products for plant care.
The experiment of F. macrophylla implanted in coffee crops was conducted from October 2021 to August 2022. The case study contains two plots of F. macrophylla (48 m2/plot). The dimensions of each plot were 8 m long and 6 m wide, and the distance between coffee rows and F. macrophylla was 1 m (Figure 3).
  • Experimental design and statistical analysis
In the distribution of the experimental units, the Randomised Complete Block Design (RCBD) was used to control the environmental variations between repetitions and ensure reliability [35]. This distribution positively influenced the growth and development of the plants, providing an efficient use of the available space. The plots were arranged in an RCBD with five replicates, each including four treatments (one per cutting age), with six experimental units, for a total of 120 plants (Table 1). Two months after the F. macrophylla was established, pruning occurred when the plant was between 70 and 80 cm tall, and its root system was well supported. The cutting age (30, 45, 60, and 75 days) began to be measured once the first equalising cut in the forage was carried out.
For the analysis of the variance, the Tukey multiple comparison test [36] was used with a significance level of p < 0.05 (5%) using the InfoStat statistical program (version 2020) [37].
At each treatment age, the forage biomass (leaves and stems) was cut with pruning shears. Once collected, they were weighed and placed in a cooler with ice to preserve the samples and transport them to the chemical analysis laboratories. The variables considered in this study were (i) F. macrophylla seed production, (ii) number of leaves, (iii) leaf weight, (iv) leaf area index, and (v) chemical composition of F. macrophylla seeds and leaves. The details of the procedure for measuring each variable are shown in Table 2.

2.2.2. Crop Sampling

In this Section, we performed the recognition of the land where the F. macrophylla crop was one year old. Weeds were removed, and legume formation was pruned.
At this stage, two soil analyses were performed (beginning and end of the trial) to determine the availability of soil nutrients. Ten subsamples were taken from the soil surface up to the first 20 cm of depth; each sample had a quantity of 1 kg; these were homogenised in a bucket, and a 1 kg sample was taken to analyse them in the laboratory. Subsequently, the treatments were sorted and identified using ribbons of different colours. The variables established in Table 2 were evaluated with four treatments (cutting ages of 30, 45, 60, and 75 days) and five replications, each with six experimental units.

2.2.3. Agroecological Management Strategies

In this Section, we performed the descriptive statistics of the biological parameters of the plants using RStudio software (Version 2024.09.1+394). It includes the growth and bromatological analysis of leaves and seeds. This phase compromises the sampling of macronutrients (e.g., Ca, K, Mg, N, S) and micronutrients (e.g., B, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn) in leaves and seeds of the F. macrophylla crop for the analysis of the chemical composition by treatment. The determination of the N content was by sulphuric digestion, according to the Kjeldahl method and reading by titration, while the methodologies applied for the other nutrients are mentioned in Table 3. We also developed a Strengths–Weaknesses–Opportunities–Threats (SWOT) matrix, including an analysis of internal (strengths and weaknesses) and external factors (opportunities and threats) for the establishment of strategies [38], in this case, oriented to agroecological management.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Soil Analysis

Table 4 summarises the physical and chemical characteristics of the soil. The pH for soil samples varies from 5.62–5.71 and 5.78–5.70 at the beginning and end of the experiment, respectively, which corresponds to the “moderately acidic” category. The electrical conductivity indicates a low concentration of soluble salts in the soil, which is favourable for plant growth. The percentage of organic matter was medium for the crop of Lot 1 associated with “Geisha Coffee” at the beginning and end of the experiment. In contrast, for the crop of Lot 2 associated with “Sarchimor Coffee”, it varied from 4.56% (beginning) to 2.78% (end). This decrease could be due to plants’ consumption of organic matter and decomposition during cultivation. The sulphur values changed from “low” to “high”, reaching 24.20 and 24.99 ppm values. At the same time, calcium values increased from 3.00 meq/100 mL to 6.00 meq/100 mL (Lot 1) and 8.00 meq/100 mL (Lot 2).

3.2. Analysis of Biological Parameters of the Plant

The highest production of shelled seeds was recorded at 60 days (age of cutting) with a weight of 225.80 g (Figure 4), while the weight of classified seed is presented at 75 days with a value of 32.84 g, a relatively low production during the first year. Regarding the number of leaves, at 30 days, 1593.802 leaves were obtained with a weight of 804.57 g and a leaf index with an average of 227.16 at 60 days of its cutting period. In this study, a no-cut (control) treatment was not included because the primary focus was assessing the differences in seed production, chemical composition, and growth parameters of F. macrophylla. Although a no-cut treatment could have allowed for additional comparisons with natural plant growth without interference, the experimental design focused on practical scenarios that reflect typical forage crop management conditions in mixed coffee–legume systems [39,40,41]. In these systems, plants are typically managed by periodic cutting to maximise productivity, justifying the exclusion of a no-cut treatment at this early stage of research [42,43]. However, future research should include a no-cut treatment to isolate the effects of cutting and further explore the natural growth patterns of F. macrophylla.

3.3. Variation in the Chemical Composition of Leaves and Seeds

Figure 5 shows the analysis of the chemical composition of F. macrophylla leaves. At 60 days, the highest values in nitrogen reached 4.51%, phosphorus had an increase from 0.20% to 0.24% at 45 days and, then decreased at 60 and 75 days to 0.23%, and in potassium its highest percentage was at 60 days with 0.92% (Table S1). N concentrations less than 3.0% are similar to the results obtained by Palm et al. [44], comparing other crop legumes in tropical environments emphasising that variability has close ties with the sampling at different ages. In addition, it evidences plant effectiveness in their capacity of nitrogen fixation within the intermediate stages, and highlights the need for its incorporation during the initial stages for enhancing maximum levels at the medium stages [45]. On the other hand, their use in soils with poor or lacking concentrations of potassium might be accompanied by appropriate additional complements, as seen in techniques applied by other studies (e.g., microorganisms, biofertilisers) [46,47].
In addition, previous research has evidenced that macro and micronutrients decrease (e.g., Ca, Mg, Fe, and Mn) due to a variety of factors including ozone exposure, inoculation, and growth dilution [48,49]. Specifically, some of them (Fe, Cu, and B) have outstanding concentrations during the intermediate stages; nevertheless, their high variations suggest the need for effective and prudent inclusion in the system, according to the specific needs given by crop and soil properties due to nutritional imbalances [50]. Furthermore, in recent years, studies have concluded that non-specific plant mechanisms within nutrient recycling such as autophagy may play a role in nutrient remobilisation from leaves to seeds [51], allowing the management under limited availability of nutrients in coffee crops [52].
Figure 6 shows the analysis of the chemical composition of the seeds of F. macrophylla. The highest nitrogen concentration was recorded at 60 days with 5.03%, the highest amount of phosphorus was identified at 45 days with 0.51%, and at 60 days, the highest potassium percentage was obtained at 1.17% (Table S2). As expected, this “medium” period coincides with the maximum metabolic activity related to the seed development, where almost 80% of nutrient accumulation occurs [53], playing an essential role in other aspects such as energy transfer, synthesis of proteins needed for seed maturation, and root development. The peak concentrations for these nutrients evidenced the optimisation of the seed growth conditions leading to an efficient maturation in the plant. Moreover, interactions among elements gave insights regarding absorption and nutritional features; for example, Ca and Mg could indicate either the displacement of Mg, or the usage of Ca for developing cellular walls [54,55]. In addition, the decrease in micronutrients as Fe, Zn, and Cu might expose a limited availability of micronutrients, probably given by internal competence of elements (e.g., Phosphorus/Zn and Fe) [56,57,58].
As a general approach, in this case, the nutrient dynamics are more intensive than leaf nutrient dynamics in legumes [59], similar to previous research, which exhibited evident decreases in seed nutrient concentrations because of factors including a high demand for nutrients during seed development, storage organ maturation, energy storage, and extent of environmental considerations such as climate and droughts [60,61,62], in addition to internal interactions among macro- and micronutrients.
The sandy loam soil in this study provided a well-drained environment that supported root development; however, it required external inputs to compensate for its low nutrient retention capacity. The phosphorus concentration observed in F. macrophylla seeds (0.51% at 45 days) highlights the effectiveness of organic fertilisers such as Biobar in enhancing phosphorus availability and mitigating potential losses due to leaching. This concentration contrasts with the findings of Sauvadet et al. [63], who reported phosphorus fixation as a key limitation in Ferralsols due to high iron and aluminium oxide concentrations. Unlike Ferralsols, sandy loam soils exhibit lower fixation but greater susceptibility to nutrient losses, underscoring the importance of frequent and targeted applications of organic amendments. These results suggest that tailored management practices are essential to optimise the performance of legumes like F. macrophylla in varying soil types.
Table 5 shows the bromatological composition of Flemingia seeds. The highest moisture concentration of the seeds was identified at 45 days at 29.02%, the percentage of fibre experienced an increase from 8.17% at 30 days to 11.20% at 75 days. The highest ash rate was recorded at 30 days at 7.80%. Specifically, the seeds collected at 60 days exhibited the highest protein levels (31.44%), indicating a higher nutritional quality at this stage of plant development. Additionally, the 60-day cutting age of the seeds presents the highest content of nitrogen, potassium, and calcium (Figure 6). These high protein levels contrast with the study by Andersson et al. [25], where the crude protein content in different accessions was found in a range between 169 and 237 g kg−1 (16.9% to 23.7%), which is comparatively lower than that reported in this study. The conditions of the experimental area of the case study (annual rainfall and higher relative humidity conditions) could have favoured a higher nutrient content, as evidenced in similar conditions along with other legume crops, where F. macrophylla treatments stood out due to high protein content and low quantity of fibres [42].

3.4. SWOT Analysis of Production of F. macrophylla in the Local Context

The results of the SWOT analysis were conducted to contextualise the findings and explore the practical implications of F. macrophylla in agroecological systems. This analysis is provided as Supplementary Material in Table S3. The SWOT analysis compiled the needs of the study area as well as the improvement potentials of F. macrophylla for sustainable fodder cultivation and soil management. This approach considered the experiences of farmers in the sector and the expert opinion of the co-authors of this study and members of the “Sacha Wiwa” Experimental Centre to address the challenges of mono-cropping and the need for sustainable agricultural practices. As a result, agro-ecological strategies were established to offer alternatives to improve rural communities’ well-being.

4. Conclusions

The present research highlights the positive impact of F. macrophylla as an agroecological solution to diversify and optimise tropical agricultural systems, particularly in association with coffee crops (Geisha and Sarchimor). The study identified that a 60-day cutting maximises seed production (225.80 g) and nutritional quality, with high levels of protein (31.44%) and potassium (1.17%). These results exceed previous values reported in the literature for forage legumes, contributing to the advancement of knowledge in the sustainable management of mixed crops. Furthermore, these results underline the potential of F. macrophylla to diversify agricultural systems, improve sustainability and reduce dependence on chemical inputs. A higher consumption of organic matter was observed in plots associated with Lot 2 (“Sarchimor Coffee”), suggesting the need for differentiated management according to the coffee variety.
For future studies, we recommend studies aimed at evaluating the tannin content and its impact on the nutritional quality of the leaves and seeds of this legume. Although there are experimental studies in Ecuador on the benefits of F. macrophylla in agricultural activities, many farmers are still unaware of its nutritional value, especially in the dry season, when this legume can be a valuable source of protein and fodder. In addition, its use contributes to the reduction in nitrogen fertiliser and is commonly used as a protein supplement for grazing and weed control. It is recommended that a pilot program is implemented to train farmers in the integrated management of F. macrophylla and to conduct future research that evaluates its long-term effects on soil quality, including a no-cut treatment, to compare its natural growth with intensive management regimes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture15161781/s1, Table S1: Chemical composition of F. macrophylla leaves; Table S2: Chemical composition of F. macrophylla seeds; Table S3. SWOT matrix for agroecological management strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.L.-M., I.P.-T. and J.S.; methodology, R.L.-M., J.S., M.J.-M., J.D.-T. and L.B.-M.; software, M.J.-M. and J.D.-T.; validation, R.L.-M., J.S., M.J.-M. and J.D.-T.; formal analysis, R.L.-M., J.S., M.J.-M. and J.D.-T.; investigation, R.L.-M., J.S., M.J.-M., J.D.-T. and L.B.-M.; resources, R.L.-M. and I.P.-T.; data curation, M.J.-M. and J.D.-T.; writing—original draft preparation, R.L.-M., J.S., M.J.-M., J.D.-T. and L.B.-M.; writing—review and editing, R.L.-M., J.S., M.J.-M., J.D.-T. and L.B.-M.; visualization, M.J.-M., L.B.-M. and J.D.-T.; supervision, R.L.-M.; project administration, R.L.-M.; funding acquisition, R.L.-M. and I.P.-T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Universidad Técnica de Cotopaxi (UTC) under the research project titled “Sistemas agro-productivos de fabáceas en asociación con cacao y café en un contexto de economía circular para el desarrollo sostenible”, code No. FIASA-CA-2023-013.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article/supplementary material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author(s).

Acknowledgments

The present study extends gratitude to Paul Carrión and Miguel Quilambaqui for their invaluable advice and guidance throughout this research. Additionally, the applied research project “Agro-productive Systems of Fabaceae in Association with Cocoa and Coffee in a Circular Economy Context for Sustainable Development” provided the necessary resources to carry out this study and the academic institutions that offered logistical and technical support. We would like to express our gratitude to the participating farming communities, whose collaboration and knowledge were essential to the success of this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wiebe, K.; Robinson, S.; Cattaneo, A. Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security. In Sustainable Food and Agriculture; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 55–74. [Google Scholar]
  2. Herrera-Franco, G.; Sánchez-Arizo, V.; Escandón-Panchana, P.; Caicedo-Potosí, J.; Jaya-Montalvo, M.; Zambrano-Mendoza, J. Analysis of Scientific Contributions to Agricultural Development and Food Security in Ecuador. Int. J. Des. Nat. Ecodynamics 2023, 18, 1129–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Van Dijk, M.; Morley, T.; Rau, M.L.; Saghai, Y. A meta-analysis of projected global food demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dittmer, K.M.; Rose, S.; Snapp, S.S.; Kebede, Y.; Brickman, S.; Shelton, S.; Egler, C.; Stier, M.; Wollenberg, E. Agroecology Can Promote Climate Change Adaptation Outcomes Without Compromising Yield In Smallholder Systems. Environ. Manag. 2023, 72, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sijpestijn, G.F.; Wezel, A.; Chriki, S. Can agroecology help in meeting our 2050 protein requirements? Livest. Sci. 2022, 256, 104822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. UNESCO. WWAP Informe Mundial de las Naciones Unidas Sobre el Desarrollo de los Recursos Hídricos 2019. No Dejar a Nadie Atrás; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2019; ISBN 978-92-3-300108-4. [Google Scholar]
  7. Pretty, J.; Morison, J.I.; Hine, R. Reducing food poverty by increasing agricultural sustainability in developing countries. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 95, 217–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wezel, A.; Herren, B.G.; Kerr, R.B.; Barrios, E.; Gonçalves, A.L.R.; Sinclair, F. Agroecological principles and elements and their implications for transitioning to sustainable food systems. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 40, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wezel, A.; Casagrande, M.; Celette, F.; Vian, J.-F.; Ferrer, A.; Peigné, J. Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Isbell, F. Agroecology: Agroecosystem diversification. Nat. Plants 2015, 1, 15041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Lowe, J.K.; Boyer, C.N.; Griffith, A.P.; Waller, J.C.; Bates, G.E.; Keyser, P.D.; Larson, J.A.; Holcomb, E. The cost of feeding bred dairy heifers on native warm-season grasses and harvested feedstuffs. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 634–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Lagrange, S.P.; MacAdam, J.W.; Villalba, J.J. The Use of Temperate Tannin Containing Forage Legumes to Improve Sustainability in Forage–Livestock Production. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Alvarez-García, W.Y.; Diaz Herrera, A.; Becerra, Y.; Vallejos-Fernández, L.A.; Florián, R.; Carrasco-Chilón, W.; Cervantes-Peralta, M.; Quilcate, C.; Muñoz-Vilchez, Y. Sustainability Potential of Kikuyu Grass (Pennisetum clandestinum) in Livestock Farming of Peru’s Highland Regions. Sustainability 2024, 16, 11021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alexandre, G.; Rodriguez, L.; Arece, J.; Delgadillo, J.; Garcia, G.W.; Habermeier, K.; Almeida, A.M.; Fanchone, A.; Gourdine, J.-L.; Archimède, H. Agroecological practices to support tropical livestock farming systems: A Caribbean and Latin American perspective. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2021, 53, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Merrill, E.D. Flemingia macrophylla (Willd.) Merr. Philipp. J. Sci. 1910, 5, 130. [Google Scholar]
  16. Sharma, A.; Sharma, C.; Shah, O.P.; Chigurupati, S.; Ashokan, B.; Meerasa, S.S.; Rashid, S.; Behl, T.; Bungau, S.G. Understanding the mechanistic potential of plant based phytochemicals in management of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2023, 163, 114850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Heider, B.; Andersson, M.S.; Schultze-Kraft, R. RAPD variation among North Vietnamese Flemingia macrophylla (Willd.) Kuntze ex Merr. accessions. In Plant Conservation and Biodiversity; Hawksworth, D.L., Bull, A.T., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 43–57. [Google Scholar]
  18. Phesatcha, B.; Viennasay, B.; Wanapat, M. Potential use of Flemingia (Flemingia macrophylla) as a protein source fodder to improve nutrients digestibility, ruminal fermentation efficiency in beef cattle. Anim. Biosci. 2021, 34, 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Yun, J.; Wang, C.; Zhang, F.; Chen, L.; Sun, Z.; Cai, Y.; Luo, Y.; Liao, J.; Wang, Y.; Cha, Y.; et al. A nitrogen fixing symbiosis-specific pathway required for legume flowering. Sci. Adv. 2023, 9, eade1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vallejos, A.; Cardona, R. AGRIS—International System for Agricultural Science and Technology. Available online: https://agris.fao.org/search/en/providers/123819/records/64735b192c1d629bc97bdf8f (accessed on 20 January 2025).
  21. Tjahjandarie, T.S.; Tanjung, M.; Saputri, R.D.; Aldin, M.F.; Susanti, R.A.; Pertiwi, N.P.; Wibawa, R.S.; Halizah, I.N. Cytotoxicity evaluation of two new chalcones from the leaves of Flemingia macrophylla (Willd.) Merr. Phytochem. Lett. 2021, 44, 78–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Weeraratna, S. Control of Land Degradation. In Understanding Land Degradation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 39–51. [Google Scholar]
  23. Oppong, F.; Osei-Bonsu, K.; Amoah, F.; Acheampong, K. Potential use of Flemingia macrophylla as mulch for managing weeds in young cocoa in Ghana. Ghana J. Agric. Sci. 1998, 31, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Andersson, M.S.; Schultze-Kraft, R.; Peters, M.; Hincapié, B.; Lascano, C.E. Morphological, agronomic and forage quality diversity of the Flemingia macrophylla world collection. Field Crops Res. 2006, 96, 387–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Andersson, M.S.; Lascano, C.E.; Schultze-Kraft, R.; Peters, M. Forage quality and tannin concentration and composition of a collection of the tropical shrub legume Flemingia macrophylla. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2006, 86, 1023–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kang, S.; Wanapat, M.; Phesatcha, K.; Norrapoke, T.; Foiklang, S.; Ampapon, T.; Phesatcha, B. Using krabok (Irvingia malayana) seed oil and Flemingia macrophylla leaf meal as a rumen enhancer in an in vitro gas production system. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2017, 57, 327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Binh, D.; Tien, N.; Mui, N. Study on biomass yield and quality of Flemingia macrophylla and on soil fertility. Proc. Work. Anim. Nutr. Sci. 1998, 137. [Google Scholar]
  28. Becker, M.; Johnson, D.E. Legumes as dry season fallow in upland rice-based systems of West Africa. Biol. Fertil. Soils 1998, 27, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wanapat, M. Potential uses of local feed resources for ruminants. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2009, 41, 1035–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Vargas-Tierras, Y.; Díaz, A.; Caicedo, C.; Macas, J.; Suárez-Tapia, A.; Viera, W. Benefits of Legume Species in an Agroforestry Production System of Yellow Pitahaya in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hinojosa, L.; Leguizamo, A.; Carpio, C.; Muñoz, D.; Mestanza, C.; Ochoa, J.; Castillo, C.; Murillo, A.; Villacréz, E.; Monar, C.; et al. Quinoa in Ecuador: Recent Advances under Global Expansion. Plants 2021, 10, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Caulfield, M.; Bouniol, J.; Fonte, S.J.; Kessler, A. How rural out-migrations drive changes to farm and land management: A case study from the rural Andes. Land Use Policy 2019, 81, 594–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hess, C.G. “Moving up-Moving down”: Agro-Pastoral Land-Use Patterns in the Ecuadorian Paramos. Mt. Res. Dev. 1990, 10, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Mihai, R.A.; Melo Heras, E.J.; Terán Maza, V.A.; Espinoza Caiza, I.A.; Pinto Valdiviezo, E.A.; Catana, R.D. The Panoramic View of Ecuadorian Soil Nutrients (Deficit/Toxicity) from Different Climatic Regions and Their Possible Influence on the Metabolism of Important Crops. Toxics 2023, 11, 123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Del Vecchio, R.J. Design of Experiments. In Handbook of Vinyl Formulating, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 515–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tukey, J.W.T. The problem of multiple comparisons. In The Collected Works of John W.Tukey: Volume VIII. Multiple Comparisons: 1948–1983; Braun, H.I., Ed.; Chapman and Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1953; pp. 1–300. ISBN 0-412-98281-1. [Google Scholar]
  37. Di Rienzo, J.A.; Casanoves, F.; Balzarini, M.G.; Gonzalez, L.; Tablada, M.; Robledo, C.W. Infostat. Available online: https://www.infostat.com.ar/ (accessed on 10 December 2024).
  38. Carrión-mero, P.; Borja-bernal, C.; Herrera-franco, G.; Morante-carballo, F.; Jaya-montalvo, M.; Maldonado-zamora, A.; Paz-salas, N.; Berrezueta, E. Geosites and geotourism in the local development of communities of the andes mountains. A case study. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Salonius, P.O.; Fisher, R.A.; Mahendrappa, M.K. An alternative method of measuring fertilizer effects in forest stands. Can. J. For. Res. 1982, 12, 146–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Siahaan, A.S.A.; Harahap, E.M.; Hanum, C.; Karim, A. The growth and yield of coffee arabica in shade conditions on different treatment of pruning and fertilizing. Russ. J. Agric. Socio-Econ. Sci. 2020, 3, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schnabel, F.; de Melo Virginio Filho, E.; Xu, S.; Fisk, I.D.; Roupsard, O.; Haggar, J. Shade trees: A determinant to the relative success of organic versus conventional coffee production. Agrofor. Syst. 2018, 92, 1535–1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Luna Murillo, R.A.; Cadme Arévalo, M.L.; Reyes Bermeo, M.R.; Zambrano Burgos, D.A.; Vargas Burgos, J.C.; Chacón Marcheco, E.; Ramírez de la Ribera, J.L. Calidad y microorganismos asociados de cuatros especies forrajeras en dos regiones del Ecuador. REDVET Rev. Electrónica Vet. 2016, 17, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  43. Siegenthaler, A.; Buttler, A.; Grosvernier, P.; Gobat, J.-M.; Mitchell, E. Discrepancies in Growth Measurement Methods of Mosses: An Example from Two Keystone Species Grown under Increased CO2 and N Supply in a Restored Peatland. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2014, 05, 2354–2371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Palm, C.A.; Gachengo, C.N.; Delve, R.J.; Cadisch, G.; Giller, K.E. Organic inputs for soil fertility management in tropical agroecosystems: Application of an organic resource database. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2001, 83, 27–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Barat-Carnino, M.; Santachiara, G.A.; Borras, L.; Rotundo, J.L. Sowing date affects soybean biological nitrogen fixation. Crop Sci. 2022, 62, 2428–2438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Padbhushan, R.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, U.; Kumar, A.; Kumari, R.; Kohli, A. Novel Potassium Management Strategies for Improvement of Soil Health. In Soil Management For Sustainable Agriculture; Apple Academic Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2022; pp. 355–377. [Google Scholar]
  47. Das, I.; Pradhan, M. Potassium-Solubilizing Microorganisms and Their Role in Enhancing Soil Fertility and Health. In Potassium Solubilizing Microorganisms for Sustainable Agriculture; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 281–291. [Google Scholar]
  48. Bērtiņš, M.; Klūga, A.; Dubova, L.; Petrēvics, P.; Alsiņa, I.; Vīksna, A. Study of Rhizobia Impact on Nutritional Element Concentration in Legumes. Proc. Latv. Acad. Sci. Nat. Exact Appl. Sci. 2021, 75, 457–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Sale, P.W.G.; Campbell, L.C. Patterns of mineral nutrient accumulation in soybean seed. Field Crops Res. 1980, 3, 157–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Andrew, D.M.; Adewale, A.L.; Aminu, H.; Aliyu, S.H. Evaluation of micronutrient status of unburnt and burnt coffee plantation in Ibadan. Glob. J. Res. Sci. Technol. 2022, 1, 022–025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pottier, M.; Masclaux-Daubresse, C.; Yoshimoto, K.; Thomine, S. Autophagy as a possible mechanism for micronutrient remobilization from leaves to seeds. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Li, Y.; Xu, X.; Qi, G.; Cui, D.; Huang, C.; Sui, X.; Li, G.; Fan, Q. Mechanisms of autophagy function and regulation in plant growth, development, and response to abiotic stress. Crop J. 2023, 11, 1611–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ferreira, A.C.M.; de Souza, H.A.; Sagrilo, E.; Barbosa da Silva Júnior, G.; Natale, W.; Sobral, A.H.S.; de Souza Vera, G.; da Conceicao Borges dos Santos, S.F. Absorption, partitioning, and export of nutrients by phenological stage in maize cultivated in Eastern Maranhão, Brazil. J. Plant Nutr. 2024, 47, 240–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Zharare, G.E.; Asher, C.J.; Blamey, F.P.C. Magnesium antagonizes pod-zone calclum and zinc uptake by developing peanut pods. J. Plant Nutr. 2010, 34, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. White, P.J.; Broadley, M.R.; El-Serehy, H.A.; George, T.S.; Neugebauer, K. Linear relationships between shoot magnesium and calcium concentrations among angiosperm species are associated with cell wall chemistry. Ann. Bot. 2018, 122, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Gao, Y.-M.; Ma, B.L. Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Zinc Supply on Seed and Metal Accumulation in Canola Grain. J. Plant Nutr. 2015, 38, 473–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Atar, B.; Uygur, V.; Sukusu, E. Effects of Priming with Copper, Zinc and Phosphorus on Seed and Seedling Composition in Wheat and Barley. Türk Tarım Doğa Bilim. Derg. 2020, 7, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Rose, T.; Kretzschmar, T.; Liu, L.; Lancaster, G.; Wissuwa, M. Phosphorus Deficiency Alters Nutrient Accumulation Patterns and Grain Nutritional Quality in Rice. Agronomy 2016, 6, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Garcia, C.B.; Grusak, M.A. Mineral accumulation in vegetative and reproductive tissues during seed development in Medicago truncatula. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wysokinski, A.; Lozak, I.; Kuziemska, B. The Dynamics of Molybdenum, Boron, and Iron Uptake, Translocation and Accumulation by Pea (Pisum sativum L.). Agronomy 2022, 12, 935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sinha, A.; Haider, T.; Narula, K.; Ghosh, S.; Chakraborty, N.; Chakraborty, S. Integrated Seed Proteome and Phosphoproteome Analyses Reveal Interplay of Nutrient Dynamics, Carbon–Nitrogen Partitioning, and Oxidative Signaling in Chickpea. Proteomics 2020, 20, 1900267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Li, J.; Tian, D.; Yu, K.; Guo, H.; Zhang, R.; Wang, J.; Zhou, Q.; Niu, S. Seed nutrient is more stable than leaf in response to changing multiple resources in an alpine meadow. Ecol. Process. 2023, 12, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sauvadet, M.; Trap, J.; Damour, G.; Plassard, C.; Van den Meersche, K.; Achard, R.; Allinne, C.; Autfray, P.; Bertrand, I.; Blanchart, E.; et al. Agroecosystem diversification with legumes or non-legumes improves differently soil fertility according to soil type. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 795, 148934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Study Zone. (a) Location of the “Sacha Wiwa” Experimental Centre in the South American continent; (b) Study area in the Cotopaxi province; (c) Location in the Guasaganda parish and F. macrophylla plots.
Figure 1. Study Zone. (a) Location of the “Sacha Wiwa” Experimental Centre in the South American continent; (b) Study area in the Cotopaxi province; (c) Location in the Guasaganda parish and F. macrophylla plots.
Agriculture 15 01781 g001
Figure 2. Methodological approach. Abbreviations: DBCA: Randomised Complete Block Design.
Figure 2. Methodological approach. Abbreviations: DBCA: Randomised Complete Block Design.
Agriculture 15 01781 g002
Figure 3. (a) Configuration of plots in the experimental study; (b) F. macrophylla (spacing between blocks).
Figure 3. (a) Configuration of plots in the experimental study; (b) F. macrophylla (spacing between blocks).
Agriculture 15 01781 g003
Figure 4. Measured biological parameters for a single individual of F. macrophylla at different cutting periods (days). Abbreviations: (SD) Standard deviation.
Figure 4. Measured biological parameters for a single individual of F. macrophylla at different cutting periods (days). Abbreviations: (SD) Standard deviation.
Agriculture 15 01781 g004
Figure 5. Measured concentrations of macro and micronutrients in F. macrophylla leaves by treatment. Abbreviations: SD—Standard deviation.
Figure 5. Measured concentrations of macro and micronutrients in F. macrophylla leaves by treatment. Abbreviations: SD—Standard deviation.
Agriculture 15 01781 g005
Figure 6. Measured concentrations of macro and micronutrients in F. macrophylla seeds by treatment. Abbreviations: SD—Standard deviation.
Figure 6. Measured concentrations of macro and micronutrients in F. macrophylla seeds by treatment. Abbreviations: SD—Standard deviation.
Agriculture 15 01781 g006
Table 1. Experimental design in the “Sacha Wiwa” Experimental Centre.
Table 1. Experimental design in the “Sacha Wiwa” Experimental Centre.
TreatmentsReplications *
(Number of Blocks)
Experimental Units
(Plants)
Total
T1: Flemingia at 30 days5630
T2: Flemingia at 45 days5630
T3: Flemingia at 60 days5630
T4: Flemingia at 75 days5630
Total 120
* Replication refers to the number of experimental blocks, with each block containing six individual plants for each treatment.
Table 2. Details of the variables considered in the experiment.
Table 2. Details of the variables considered in the experiment.
VariableExperimental CharacteristicsMeasurement Units
Seed productionSeed collection and weight for each experimental unit and treatment at different cutting ages.Grams (g)
Number of leavesThe number of leaves for each treatment, repeti-tion, and experimental unit at the different cutting ages was recorded.Unit
Leaf weightLeaf weight was recorded using a scale for each treatment.Grams (g)
Leaf area indexThe study used an LI-3100C Leaf Area (LA) Meter, which was measured by introducing each of the samples of green leaf blades taken for each treatment (100 leaves in total). The Leaf Area Index (LAI) was calculated by dividing the measured LA by the plantation area. The equation was used: LAI = Total   Leaf   Area Ground   Area m2 m−2
Chemical composition of F. macrophylla seeds and leaves/Nutrition characteristics of the seedsSamples of 800 g of leaves and 100 g of F. macrophylla seeds were taken for each experimental unit, evaluated at 30, 45, 60, and 75 days, and sent to the AGROLAB laboratory.
a.
Chemical composition of seeds and leaves
Nitrogen: N (%)
Phosphorus: P (%)
Potassium: K (%)
Calcium: C (%)
Magnesium: Mg (%)
Sulphur: S (%)
Copper: Cu (ppm)
Boron: B (ppm)
Iron: Fe (ppm)
Zinc: Zn (ppm)
Manganese: Mn (ppm)
b.
Nutrition characteristics of seeds
Humidity (%)
Dry matter (%)
Protein (%)
Fatty ether extract (%)
Ash (%)
Table 3. Technical specifications of the tests on soil samples analysed in the Agricultural Chemical Analysis Laboratory in Santo Domingo-Ecuador.
Table 3. Technical specifications of the tests on soil samples analysed in the Agricultural Chemical Analysis Laboratory in Santo Domingo-Ecuador.
DeterminationMethodologyExtractant
P, NH4ColourimetryModified Olsen pH 8.5
K, Ca, Mg, Zn, Cu, Fe, MnAtomic absorption
STurbidimetry Ca phosphate
BColourimetryMonobasic
ClVolumetric analysisSaturated Paste
Organic MatterWalkley and BlackNot Applicable
Table 4. Physical and chemical characteristics of the soil at the beginning and end of the experiment.
Table 4. Physical and chemical characteristics of the soil at the beginning and end of the experiment.
PlotLot 1 (“Geisha Coffee”)Lot 2 (“Sarchimor Coffee“)
CropBeginning
Crop: Lot 1
Date: 5 May 2022
Depth: 20 cm
End
Crop: F. macrophylla
(Lot 2)
Date: 23 July 2022
Beginning
Crop: Lot 2
Date: 5 May 2022
Depth: 20 cm
End
Crop: F. macrophylla
(Lot 2)
Date: 23 July 2022
ParametersReadingReadingReadingReading
pH5.71Moderately acidic5.78Moderately acidic5.62Moderately acidic5.70Moderately acidic
Electrical Conductivity (ds/m)0.05Non-saline0.05Non-saline0.04Non-saline0.03Non-saline
Organic Matter (%)4.56Medium4.12Medium4.56Medium2.78Low
NH4 (ppm)25.15Low19.34Low24.50Low17.41Low
Phosphorus (ppm)7.89Low3.63Low9.08Low2.35Low
Sulphur (ppm)5.26Low24.99High5.50Low24.20High
Potassium (meq/100 g)0.20Medium0.30Medium0.22Medium0.20Medium
Calcium (meq/100 g)3.00Low 8.90Medium3.00Low6.00Medium
Magnesium (meq/100 g)0.48Low1.01Low0.45Low0.57Low
Σ bases (meq/100 g)3.68Medium-Low10.21Low3.67Medium-Low6.77Low
Copper (ppm)4.00Medium3.50Medium4.20High3.20Medium
Boron (ppm)0.28Low0.37Medium0.27Low0.21Medium
Iron (ppm)223.6High102.0High217.8High74.00High
Zinc (ppm)1.30Low1.30Low1.40Low1.10Low
Manganese (ppm)17.80Medium3.60Low7.20Low1.40Low
Ca/Mg6.25High8.81High6.67High10.53High
Mg/K2.40Low3.37Optimal2.05Low2.85Optimal
(Ca + Mg)/K17.40Optimal33.03Optimal15.68Optimal32.85Optimal
Table 5. Bromatological composition of F. macrophylla seeds.
Table 5. Bromatological composition of F. macrophylla seeds.
ParametersBromatological Composition of Seeds
30 Days45 Days60 Days75 Days
Humidity (%)23.3029.0223.1720.15
Dry matter (%)76.7070.9876.8379.85
Protein (%)29.2030.1031.4426.22
Fatty ether extract (%)7.227.746.986.66
Ash (%)7.804.007.306.80
Fiber (%)8.179.6010.4011.20
Non-Nitrogenous free extract-others47.6148.5643.8849.12
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

Luna-Murillo, R.; Solórzano, J.; Pacheco-Tigselema, I.; Dueñas-Tovar, J.; Bravo-Montero, L.; Jaya-Montalvo, M. Effect of Cutting Age on Seed Production of Flemingia Macrophylla for the Optimisation of Cropping Systems, Cotopaxi-Ecuador. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1781. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15161781

AMA Style

Luna-Murillo R, Solórzano J, Pacheco-Tigselema I, Dueñas-Tovar J, Bravo-Montero L, Jaya-Montalvo M. Effect of Cutting Age on Seed Production of Flemingia Macrophylla for the Optimisation of Cropping Systems, Cotopaxi-Ecuador. Agriculture. 2025; 15(16):1781. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15161781

Chicago/Turabian Style

Luna-Murillo, Ricardo, Joselyne Solórzano, Idalia Pacheco-Tigselema, Jairo Dueñas-Tovar, Lady Bravo-Montero, and María Jaya-Montalvo. 2025. "Effect of Cutting Age on Seed Production of Flemingia Macrophylla for the Optimisation of Cropping Systems, Cotopaxi-Ecuador" Agriculture 15, no. 16: 1781. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15161781

APA Style

Luna-Murillo, R., Solórzano, J., Pacheco-Tigselema, I., Dueñas-Tovar, J., Bravo-Montero, L., & Jaya-Montalvo, M. (2025). Effect of Cutting Age on Seed Production of Flemingia Macrophylla for the Optimisation of Cropping Systems, Cotopaxi-Ecuador. Agriculture, 15(16), 1781. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15161781

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