Ecophysiological Management Using Light Interception Technology with the AccuPar Equipment: Quality Versus Quantity of Forage
by
, , , , and
Anderson de Moura Zanine
1,*
,
Tomaz Melo Neto
2
,
Daniele de Jesus Ferreira
1,
Edson Mauro Santos
2,
Henrique Nunes Parente
1,
Michelle Oliveira Maia Parente
3,
Francisco Naysson de Sousa Santos
1,
Fleming Sena Campos
4
,
Francisca Claudia Silva Sousa
2,
Sara Silva Reis
2,
Dilier Olivera-Viciedo
5
and
Arlan Araújo Rodrigues
6 1
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Maranhão, Chapadinha, Maranhão 65.500-00, Brazil
2
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Paraíba, Areia 74.690-900, Brazil
3
Department of Animal Science, Federal University of Piauí, Teresina 64.049-550, Brazil
4
Southwest Bahia State University, Postgraduate Program in Animal Science, Itapetinga 45.700-000, Brazil
5
Instituto de Ciencias Agroalimentarias, Animales y Ambientales, Universidad de O’Higgins, San Fernando 3070000, Chile
6
Department of Animal & Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
AgriEngineering 2025, 7(7), 224; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering7070224
Submission received: 23 May 2025
/
Revised: 1 July 2025
/
Accepted: 1 July 2025
/
Published: 8 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Agriculture 5.0: A New Perspective in Agricultural Engineering)
Abstract
Background: Understanding canopy light interception is essential for optimizing forage production and improving the efficiency of grazing systems. Accurate quantification of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) intercepted by the canopy allows for better estimation of crop coefficients and growth dynamics. This study aimed to assess the forage mass and nutritional value of Guinea grass pastures managed under two grazing frequencies, defined by 90% and 95% light interception (LI) measured using AccuPar equipment, and two post-grazing stubble heights (30 and 50 cm). Evaluations were conducted during both the rainy season and a dry year to capture seasonal variability in pasture performance. Methods: The experimental design was of completely randomized blocks with four replications. Results: The treatment whit 90% LI resulted in higher values of crude protein and digestible. However, 95% LI resulted in higher values of neutral detergent insoluble nitrogen and acid detergent insoluble nitrogen values in grass pastures Guinea. The highest value of forage mass in Guinea grass was reported with 95% LI in association with a post-grazing height of 30 cm. Conclusions: Management of light interception at 90% provided a reduced amount of forage with better nutritional value. Pasture management considering the light interception technology with the AccuPar equipment was efficient as a pattern for interrupting pasture regrowth in the vegetative phase.
1. Introduction
The potential for pasture-based livestock production under tropical conditions is well recognized, given the extensive land availability and climatic conditions that favor rapid and vigorous grass growth [1,2,3,4].
However, in Brazil and other tropical countries, production efficiency per unit area and per animal remains low. This is largely due to structural limitations such as widespread pasture degradation, low adoption of improved forage species, suboptimal stocking rates, and limited use of integrated pasture management practices. These challenges reduce the sustainable use of available resources and hinder productivity gains in pasture-based systems [5,6].
Without proper adjustment of defoliation intensity and frequency, forage plants may progress to more advanced developmental stages. This results in an increased accumulation of stem and senescent material, which negatively alters canopy structure and reduces the nutritive value of the forage. Therefore, understanding how management practices influence plant structure and light interception is essential for maintaining both productivity and forage quality in pasture-based systems [7,8,9].
The grazing management based on light interception is an effective way to get a higher forage biomass production with greater chemical composition quality, allowing to the animal production maximization. This new way on grazing management is based on ecophysiological criteria by AccuPar system, based on light interception to graze start and height of canopy to the exit of the animals.
The difference from to the fixed calendars of picket with animals to ecophysiological criteria is mainly because using light interception there is a more efficient control of the stem, providing that the forages are always kept in a vegetative stage, offering the animals a forage with a higher leaf: stem ratio, and with better value of chemical components. Making less effect of the environment on the nutritional quality of forage.
The goal of 90% LI could allow flexibility in the management of this type of grass, that is, it could allow a greater number of grazing cycles to be established at certain times of the year or in management decision situations, generating few impacts on production and improving nutritional value of this grass in relation to the management of the grass with input of the animals based on the 95% LI.
The best method for measuring fractional PAR (photosynthetically active radiation) is by AccuPar equipment. It is a highly accurate method to determinate the canopy growth and light interception, as well as calculating fractional interception and crop coefficient. This method is automated, it avoids intense manual work and saving time. The photon flow sensor measures the flow of photosynthetic photons in µmol·m−2s−1 from a 180-degree field of view. The diffusion disc is composed with pigments characterized for a great spectral response.
It has a set of light, portable and linear PAR sensors, developed for IAF readings in real time and in a non-destructive way, thus offering trusty results, along with saving time, labor and costs.
As there is little information currently available in published literature regarding the 90% LI target, the present experiment will compare the 90% and 95% LI managements, in order to maximize practical implications, with respect to the ecophysiological limits of this forage species. This study aimed to determine the forage mass and nutritional value of Guinea grass pastures under light interception strategies using AccuPar (METER, München, Germany).
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Site
The study was carried out on land associated with the Department of Animal Science at the Federal University of Viçosa, located in Viçosa, Minas Gerais, Brazil (20°45′ S, 42°51′ O and 651 m), with guinea grass, in the period of two agricultural year. The experimental area is located in a region classified as Cwa, according to the Köppen-Geiger system, which corresponds to a humid subtropical climate with hot summers and a well-defined dry season occurring in autumn and winter. Meteorological data were recorded at a weather station situated approximately 1000 m from the experimental site (Figure 1).
A soil water retention capacity of 50 mm was used as a reference for calculating the monthly water balance (Figure 2).
The soil in the experimental area is classified as a Red-Yellow Argisol with a loamy-clayey texture. To assess its chemical properties, soil samples were collected at a depth of 0–20 cm. Due to the naturally high fertility of the soil, its elevated pH (above 6.4), and the absence of exchangeable aluminum, no liming or fertilization was required for the establishment of the forage crop (Table 1).
The establishment of Guinea grass took place in January through seeding at a rate of 3 kg of pure viable seeds per hectare. In March, the area was subjected to light grazing to promote tillering. Following the removal of the animals, nitrogen fertilization was performed using urea at a rate of 60 kg/ha. From that point onward, weed control was conducted manually, and the pasture was maintained under continuous grazing by crossbred cattle until early spring. At the beginning of October, the pasture was standardized by cutting the forage to a height of 35 cm above the soil surface using a backpack mower. After the regrowth period, data collection commenced.
The experimental design followed a 2 × 2 factorial arrangement, combining two regrowth frequencies—defined by the time required for the canopy to intercept 90% or 95% of incident light—with two post-grazing residue heights (30 cm and 50 cm). This resulted in four distinct grazing management strategies: 90/30 (90% light interception with a 30 cm post-grazing height), 90/50, 95/30, and 95/50. These treatments were randomly assigned to paddocks of 144 m2 each, within a completely randomized block design with four replications per treatment.
2.2. Assessment of Light Interception, Nitrogen Application, and Grazing Management
Light interception (LI) by the pasture canopy was monitored using an AccuPar Linear PAR/LAI ceptometer (METER Group, Inc., Pullman, WA, USA). Measurements were taken every seven days during the regrowth phase until the canopy reached approximately 90% and 95% light interception. Once these thresholds were approached, the monitoring frequency increased to every two days to accurately determine the point at which pre-grazing targets were attained. In each paddock, 16 sampling points were evaluated, with one reading taken above and one below the canopy at each point, using the soil surface as the reference.
Nitrogen was applied at a total rate of 150 kg/ha in the form of urea, distributed across three applications of 50 kg/ha each. These applications were carried out after the animals exited the paddocks. Due to variability in grazing intervals and the timing of animal entry across treatments, the dates of nitrogen application also differed. However, care was taken to ensure that all treatments received the same cumulative nitrogen input by the end of the experimental period (Table 2).
Grazing was carried out using crossbred cattle with an average body weight of approximately 460 kg. Elevated stocking densities were adopted to ensure that defoliation was completed within a single day, allowing the sward to be reduced to the specific post-grazing height defined for each treatment. Following grazing, the animals were relocated to a reserve paddock and remained there until the experimental units once again reached the predetermined light interception thresholds (90% or 95%) for the next grazing cycle.
2.3. Assessment of the Mass Forage and Chemical Composition
Forage was cut at a height of 5 cm. A forage subsample of 1.5 kg was collected and weighed. Chemical composition and digestibility analyses were performed at the Federal University of Maranhão, Chapadinha Campus. To determine the chemical composition, the forage was dried in an oven at 55 °C and ground in a Wiley mill with a 1 mm sieve. These samples were used to determine the concentrations of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), extract ethereal (EE), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF) and liginin (LIG), according to the (AOAC) [10]. Acid detergent insoluble nitrogen (ADIN) was determined according to Licitra et al. [11], and NDF corrected for ash and protein (NDFap) according to the method of Van Soest et al. [12].
Total carbohydrate (TC) and non-fibrous carbohydrate (NFC) content was established using the method of Hall [13]. Content of NFC was calculated as the difference between TC and NDF, also according to Hall [13]. In vitro DM digestibility was determined using the technique proposed by Tilley and Terry [14].
2.4. Statistical Analysis
Given the variability in grazing intervals among treatments, data were grouped by seasonal period. To achieve this, weighted means were calculated based on the number and duration of grazing cycles per replicate. The results were then classified into the following seasonal categories: late spring (November and December), summer (January to March), autumn (April to June), and winter/early spring (July to October). These grouped data were analyzed using variance analysis via the Generalized Linear Models (GLM) procedure of the SAS statistical software (version 6.4) [15]. When significant effects were detected, treatment means were compared using Tukey’s test at a 5% significance level.
3. Results
3.1. Number of Cycles and Grazing Intervals
Grazing cycles were affected by post-grazing height of plants and LI. The post-grazing height of 50 cm resulted in a greater number of grazing cycles than with 30 cm. The same behavior was observed for LI levels in the pre-grazing conditions, with 90% LI treatments resulting in a greater number of grazing cycles than with 95% LI. The 90/50 treatment resulted in a greater number of grazing cycles, and 95/30 the lowest among the evaluated (Table 3).
3.2. Pre and Post-Grazing Heights and Grazing Intervals
Table 4 presents the average grazing intervals during the year. The lowest values were recorded for the 90/50 treatment. The pre-grazing heights of the pastures varied very little throughout the experimental period; the mean values were 65 cm and 75 cm for 90% and 95% of LI, respectively (Figure 3A,B).
Figure 4 shows the average post-grazing heights for the evaluated treatments. For the post-grazing height goal of 30 cm, there was a small variation which did not exceed 5 cm.
In the post-grazing conditions, interception of light by the canopy in pastures with grass of 30 cm height was 40%, while in pastures with grass of 50 cm it was 67% (Figure 3). The variation in light interception levels benefited the regrowth of pastures managed under less intense grazing (50 cm post-grazing height), leading to shorter average regrowth intervals and an increased frequency of grazing cycles (Table 3 and Table 4).
In the pre-grazing conditions, pastures managed with 90% LI reached a lower development compared to those subjected to 95% LI conditions. This justifies the shortest grazing interval (Figure 3) and, therefore, the highest number of grazing cycles in managed pastures with 90% LI.
The highest values for forage mass in the pre-grazing conditions were recorded during the summer and the end of spring, and the lowest values in winter/beginning of the spring. There was an effect of post-grazing height during the end of the spring, summer and fall, with higher forage mass values recorded with the post-grazing height of 30 cm. During the summer, this effect was only demonstrated with 95% IL. In relation to the winter/beginning of the spring period, the situation was reversed, with the highest forage mass values being recorded with the post-grazing height of 50 cm (Table 5).
Pastures with 95% LI resulted in higher values of pre-grazing forage mass in late end of the spring and summer. The 95/30 treatment resulted in the highest value of forage mass in the pre-grazing condition during the seasons, except for the winter/early spring period when the highest value was recorded for treatment 90/50 (Table 5).
3.3. Forage Mass and Pre-Grazing Morphological Composition
Although this study focused on the seasonal variation in the morphological composition of the pre-grazing canopy, it is important to highlight that changes in the proportion of leaf blades, stems, and dead material are closely associated with forage quality. Typically, higher leaf blade content is positively correlated with crude protein levels and digestibility, while increased stem and dead matter content is associated with greater fiber concentration and reduced nutritional value. Therefore, future studies should integrate compositional and nutritional assessments to better evaluate the impact of seasonal dynamics on forage quality and livestock performance (Table 6).
In general, there was no difference between the 90% and 95% LI targets in terms of the percentage of leaf blades in the pre-grazing forage mass. The post-grazing height of 30 cm had a lower proportion of stems than with 50 cm. With regard to the dead material, the highest percentages were recorded with the post-grazing height of 50 cm (Figure 5).
4. Discussion
4.1. Number of Cycles and Grazing Intervals
The grazing interval and number of cycles observed during the experiment were shaped by post-grazing height and levels of light interception. Due to the lower grazing intervals, the post-grazing height of 50 cm resulted in an additional cycle of grazing when compared to the post-grazing height of 30 cm (Table 3). These findings are consistent with previously reported results by Difante et al. [16] and Barbosa et al. [7] for the Panicum maximum cv. Guinea, and by for Panicum maximum cv. Mombasa [17].
While these results provide relevant insights into pasture management under subtropical conditions, it is important to acknowledge that the present study did not evaluate long-term environmental variables such as changes in soil fertility or the impacts of climate change. These factors may significantly influence forage productivity and ecosystem resilience. Future studies that integrate these components will be essential to broaden the applicability and ecological relevance of pasture management recommendations
4.2. Pre and Post-Grazing Heights and Grazing Intervals
The highest number of grazing cycles was observed with 90% IL treatments (Table 3) due to the lower grazing intervals (Table 4). During the end of the spring and summer, characterized by good growth conditions, the mean grazing intervals were 27 days and 33 days for 90% and 95% LI treatments, respectively. For the winter/beginning of the spring period, marked by less favorable growth conditions, the mean grazing intervals were 93 days and 118 days, respectively, for treatments of 90% and 95% LI (Table 4).
On average, the number of grazing cycles in the end of the spring and summer was 3.5 times higher than the winter/beginning of the spring period. This shows the great seasonality of this grass throughout the seasons, indicating that management goals that fix dates can hinder the management of this fodder plant. In another study with Guinea grass, Barbosa et al. [7] reported grazing intervals during spring and summer of 29 days and 32 days for treatments of 90% and 95% LI, respectively; the number of grazing cycles was 3.6 times higher in the summer in relation to winter, consistent with results obtained in this experiment.
The highest number of grazing cycles was observed at the end of the spring and summer, a season with higher temperature (Figure 1), rainfall (Figure 2) and solar radiation, and also when nitrogen fertilization took place (Table 1). Therefore, favorable climatic conditions were observed in the high growth seasons, reducing increasing grazing recovery time after grazing, which resulted in reduced intervals and increased grazing cycles (Table 3 and Table 4).
Introduction of animals onto the pastures was determined by the proportion of incident light that was intercepted by the canopy during regrowth. It was established that grazing would be initiated when there was 90% and 95% LI, with the goals for post-grazing heights of 30 cm and 50 cm. The mean post-grazing height was very consistent with each treatment during the whole experimental period (Figure 3 and Figure 4). Regardless of the level of LI during the pre-grazing period, it was possible to maintain the post-grazing height of 50 cm throughout the experimental period. Regarding the post-grazing height of 30 cm, there was a slightly greater variation, mainly with 95% LI, but this did not exceed 5 cm.
As observed by some authors [18], there is a positive relationship between light trapping during regrowth and height of the pre-grazing forage canopy in tropical grasses. In this experiment, the height of the pre-grazing pasture was homogeneous, with values close to 65 cm and 75 cm for the 90% and 95% LI management, respectively (Figure 4). These results are close to those reported by Barbosa et al. [7], who obtained values of pre-grazing height around 60 cm and 70 cm for treatments of 90% and 95% LI, respectively, and Difante et al. [16], who reported values close to 70 cm for the 95/30 treatment in Guinea grass pastures. As observed by some authors [18], there is a positive relationship between light trapping during regrowth and height of the pre-grazing forage canopy in tropical grasses.
The highest values of pre-grazing forage mass were, in general, verified for the target of 95% of LI and for the post-grazing height of 30 cm in the end of the spring, summer and fall periods year (Table 5). For winter/beginning of the spring, grass management at post-grazing height 50 cm produced a higher forage mass, with the 90/50 treatment preducing the highest value. Barbosa et al. [7], in an evaluation of Guinea grass, did not demonstrate differences between post-grazing heights of 25 cm and 50 cm in winter/beginning of the spring period for pre-grazing forage mass.
4.3. Forage Mass and Pre-Grazing Morphological Composition
The pastures managed with 95% LI, in addition to producing a greater mass of forage, showed, with respect to the morphological composition, little contribution of stem and dead material and no difference in relation to those management with 90% of LI (Figure 5). This is an indication that the 95% LI pre-grazing target may be appropriate for the management of this species, as it promoted a higher amount of forage mass, with a high percentage of leaves and a low percentage of stalk and dead material. Pre-grazing management using LI over 100%, as in the case of Barbosa et al. [7] for the same forage plant, resulted in a higher value of forage mass, but with reduced nutritional value caused by higher proportion of stem and dead material.
The of post-grazing height of 30 cm, in general, was higher value of forage mass during the most productive periods, with the seasons of the end of the spring, summer and fall, responsible for an average increment greater than 15 kg DM/ha.day, at the post-grazing height of 30 cm in relation to that of 50 cm (Table 5). However, the number of grazing cycles was lower with the 30 cm target (Table 3), due to the lower post-grazing height that led to a lower regrowth and provided a longer grazing interval. This means that the forage mass may higher, but there were fewer grazing cycles.
Despite this, the evaluation of the morphological composition of the forage at the lowest post-grazing height (30 cm) indicated a lower contribution of stem and dead material (Figure 5). Difante et al. [16], in an experiment with two post-grazing heights of 25 cm and 50 cm associated with 95% LI pre-grazing management, did not report differences between the post-grazing heights in Guinea grass. In the present experiment, it was only during the winter/beginning of the spring period that the post-grazing height of 50 cm resulted in pre-grazing forage mass values that were higher than the post-grazing height of 30 cm, probably due to the longer grazing interval during this period increasing the contribution of dead material to the forage mass.
Thus, as can be seen in Table 5, the association between the highest grazing interval and the lowest post-grazing height represented by the 95/30 treatment, presented basically the highest forage mass values in relation to the other treatments. Considering the values of the morphological components in this treatment, there seems to be a good relationship between high forage mass and nutritive value (Table 7 and Table 8). Consequence of the high percentage of leaf blades and low contribution of stalk and dead material (Figure 5).
Of all the seasons of the year, the higher value of pre-grazing pasture mass was recorded in end of the spring and summer (Table 5), which may be a consequence of the higher growth rate observed during these periods, i.e., higher of leaf elongation, appearance of leaves and stem [7].
The highest proportion of dead material occurred in the winter/beginning of the spring period (38.7%) (Table 6), a consequence of the higher senescence rates recorded at that time of the year. A similar result was observed by Barbosa et al. [19] that registered values of 40% of dead material in the winter/spring period.
Content of DM, NDF, ADF, LIG, NDIN and ADIN had values higher than 2.62, 1.67, 3.14, 1.39, 2.51 and 1.81 g/kg, respectively, in relation to the handling with 90% LI (Table 7 and Table 8); this superiority, is possibly related to the maturity of leaves and stems of the plants managed with the longest interval between grazing (95 LI). According to Zanine et al. [20], DM, NDF, ADF, hemicellulose and lignin content were higher in stems, senescent leaves and expanded (mature) leaves in Guinea grass, and higher CP levels and lower levels of NDF and ADF occurred in growing leaves and recently expanded leaves. The authors concluded that in terms of nutritional value, there was a decreasing hierarchy as follows: growing leaf, expanded leaf, whole plant and stem; this indicated that the longer the interval between grazing, the greater the nutritional losses from the pasture.
In general, the treatments did not present differences between the 90% and 95% LI managed, in terms of the proportion of leaf blades in the pre-grazing forage mass (Figure 5); therefore, the best nutritional value of pasture managed with 90% IL, not be related only to pasture structure. Possibly, the best nutritional value of this treatment would also be related to the proportion of growing leaves, recently expanded leaves and new stem, with lower maturity, inherent in the management of 90% LI, since this forage was harvested earlier than the management of 95% LI. Smaller plants have higher levels of soluble carbohydrates [8], justifying also the superiority in the nutritional value of 90% LI management.
According to Machado o et al. [21], when considering the development stages of plants, it has been demonstrated that, as they grow, they decrease in density and the proportion of leaves and increase the proportion of the stem. This means that there is an increase in the content of structural compounds, such as cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin, and, in parallel, a decrease in the cellular content. These changes lead to reduced intake and digestibility and, consequently, reduced supply of energy, as well as that of other nutrients.
The result of this management with less grazing frequency (90% LI) is a forage harvest with higher nutritional value, which in the present study was marked by the highest TC, NFC, CP and in vitro digestible dry matter (IVDDM) (Table 7 and Table 8). Results that agree with Valente et al. [22], who investigated the nutritional value, digestibility and degradability of Guinea grass pastures with different grazing frequencies with sheep. The authors concluded that the increase in the interval between grazing decreases the nutritional characteristics of pasture, especially when this value exceeds 95% LI.
In the present study, it is worth noting that the best nutritional values were demonstrated in the management of grazing frequency with 90% LI. However, nutritional values in the management of 95% LI were satisfactory, and it represents the greater productivity of Forage mass (Table 5), with a good percentage of leaf blade (Table 6, Figure 5) in the most productive periods, such as end of the spring and summer.
The CP levels below 7% are limiting for animal production, as they are associated with lower voluntary intake, reduced digestibility and negative nitrogen balance [22]. It is noteworthy that Guinea grass would satisfactorily meet ruminant protein crude requirements independent of the seasons, and the management of 90 or 95% LI.
The increase of approximately 2 g/kg of Guinea grass IVDDM in the management of 90% of LI in the pasture is associated with the maintenance of a slightly lower pasture, favoring constant regrowth, with maintenance of young leaves and tillers; in higher pastures, there is maintenance of leaves in phase of greater maturation. This is shown by the slightly higher increase of NDF, ADF, lignin, NDIN and ADIN in the Guinea grass forage mass when managed at a greater length (95% LI) (Table 7 and Table 8).
Thus, the management of Guinea grass pastures under rotational grazing should involve introducing the animals when 95% of the incident light is being intercepted, that is when grass is at a height of 75 cm, and remove stock when grass is at a height of 30 cm. This would be this case if the main intention of the producer was to improve the animal gain per unit area, that is, more forage with a slightly lower nutritional value. However, if the desire was to improve the gain per animal, management could be made more flexible by introducing the animals a little earlier, with 90% LI or grass at a height of 65 cm. This would reduce the amount of forage by reducing the rest period and, as a consequence, provide earlier forage with better nutritional value and without damage to pasture productivity.
5. Conclusions
Light interception-based management using AccuPar proved to be an efficient strategy for regulating grazing cycles and optimizing pasture productivity. The choice between 90% and 95% LI targets, as well as post-grazing height, should be guided by seasonal conditions and the desired balance between forage quantity and quality.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, A.d.M.Z. and D.d.J.F.; methodology, A.d.M.Z.; software, F.S.C.; validation, T.M.N. and D.d.J.F.; formal analysis, T.M.N., F.C.S.S. and S.S.R. investigation, A.d.M.Z., T.M.N., D.d.J.F., H.N.P. and M.O.M.P. resources, A.d.M.Z.; data curation, D.d.J.F. and T.M.N.; writing—original draft preparation, A.d.M.Z. and T.M.N.; writing—review and editing, E.M.S.; F.N.d.S.S., D.O.-V. and A.A.R. visualization, E.M.S. and F.N.d.S.S.; supervision, A.d.M.Z.; project administration, A.d.M.Z.; funding acquisition, A.d.M.Z. and D.d.J.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The authors wish to thanks the national Council for Scientific (CNPQ), Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)—Finance Code 001 and Foundation to Support Research and Scientific and Technological Development of Maranhão (FAPEMA) for their financial support.
Data Availability Statement
Dataset available on request from the authors.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Silveira, M.L.; Vendramini, J.M.B.; Sollenberger, L.E.; Dubeux, J.C.B.; Interrante, S.M. Animal Performance and Environmental Efficiency of Cool- and Warm-Season Annual Pastures in the Southern United States. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 223, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pezzopane, J.R.M.; Santos, P.M.; Evangelista, S.E.M.; Bosi, C.; Cavalcante, A.C.R.; Bettiol, G.M.; Miranda, C.A.; Pellegrino, G.Q. Panicum maximum cv. Tanzania: Climate Trends and Regional Pasture Production in Brazil. Grass Forage Sci. 2017, 72, 104–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Camacho, P.A.G.; Pinto, C.E.; Lopes, C.F.; Tomazelli, D.; Werner, S.S.; Garagorry, F.C.; Baldissera, T.C.; Schirmann, J.; Sbrissia, A.F. Intensification of Pasture-Based Animal Production System Has Little Short-Term Effect on Soil Carbon Stock in the Southern Brazilian Highland. Agronomy 2023, 13, 850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bolfe, É.L.; Victoria, D.C.; Sano, E.E.; Bayma, G.; Massruhá, S.M.F.S.; de Oliveira, A.F. Potential for Agricultural Expansion in Degraded Pasture Lands in Brazil Based on Geospatial Databases. Land 2024, 13, 200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, L.E.T.; Paiva, A.J.; Geremia, E.V.; Da Silva, S.C. Regrowth Patterns of Elephant Grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum.) Subjected to Strategies of Intermittent Stocking Management. Grass Forage Sci. 2015, 70, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocha, J.R.; Prado, R.M.; Piccolo, M.C. Mitigation of Water Deficit in Two Cultivars of Panicum maximum by the Application of Silicon. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2022, 233, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbosa, R.A.; Nascimento Júnior, D.; Vilela, H.H.; Sousa, B.M.L.; Silva, S.C.; Euclides, V.P.B.; Silveira, M.C.T. Características morfogênicas e estruturais de perfilhos de capim-tanzânia em diferentes idades sob pastejo intermitente. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2012, 41, 1583–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedreira, C.G.S.; Silva, V.J.; Pedreira, B.C.; Sollenberger, L.E. Herbage Accumulation and Organic Reserves of Palisadegrass in Response to Grazing Management based on Canopy Targets. Crop Sci. 2017, 57, 2283–2293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reis, E.G.; de Paula, R.C.; de Souza Júnior, J.P. Silicon attenuates nutritional disorder of phosphorus in seedlings of Eucalyptus grandis × Eucalyptus urophylla. BMC Plant Biol. 2024, 24, 471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed.; AOAC: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Licitra, G.; Hernandez, T.M.; Van Soest, P.J. Standardization of Procedures for Nitrogen Fractionation of Ruminant Feeds. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 1996, 57, 347–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Soest, P.J.; Robertson, J.B.; Lewis, B.A. Methods for Dietary Fiber, Neutral Detergent Fiber, and Nonstarch Polysaccharides in Relation to Animal Nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 1991, 74, 3583–3597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hall, M.B.; Lewis, B.A.; Van Soest, P.J.; Chase, L.E.A. Simple Method for Estimation of Neutral Detergent-Soluble Fiber. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1997, 74, 441–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilley, J.M.A.; Terry, R.A. A Two-Stage Technique for the In Vitro Digestion of Forage Crops. Grass Forage Sci. 1963, 18, 104–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SAS Institute. SAS/STAT User’s Guide: Statistics, Version 6, 4th ed.; SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USA, 1993; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
- Difante, G.S.; Nascimento, D.; Euclides, V.P.B.; Da Silva, S.C.; Barbosa, R.A.; Goncalves, W.V. Sward Structure and Nutritive Value of Tanzania Guineagrass Subjected to Rotational Stocking Managements. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2009, 38, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Euclides, V.P.B.; Montagner, D.B.; Difante, G.S.; Barbosa, R.A.; Fernandes, W.S. Sward Structure and Livestock Performance in Guinea Grass cv. Tanzania Pastures Managed by Rotational Stocking Strategies. Sci. Agric. 2014, 71, 451–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, C.S.; Chiavegato, M.B.; Pena, K.S.; Silveira, M.C.T.; Barbero, L.M.; Souza, J.S.J.; Rodrigues, C.S.; Limão, V.A.; Pereira, L.E.T. Tillering Dynamics of Mulato Grass Subjected to Strategies of Rotational Grazing Management. J. Agric. Sci. 2017, 155, 1082–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbosa, R.A.; Nascimento, J.D.; Euclides, V.P.B.; Silva, S.C.; Zimmer, A.H.; Torres, J.R.; Almeida, R.A. Guinea Grass Submitted to Combinations between Intensity and Grazing Frequency. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 2007, 42, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanine, A.M.; Santos, E.M.; Ferreira, D.J.; Pereira, O.G. Microbial Populations and Nutritional Components in Tanzania Grass Organs before and after Silage. Semina Ciênc. Agrár. 2007, 28, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machado, A.O.; Cecato, U.; Mira, R.T.; Pereira, L.A.F.; Damasceno, J.C. Evaluation of the Chemical Composition and In Vitro Digestibility of the Dry Matter of Cultivars and Accessions of Panicum maximum Jacq under Two Cutting Heights. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 1998, 27, 1057–1063. [Google Scholar]
- Valente, B.S.M.; Cândido, M.J.D.; Cutrim, J.; Bomfim, M.A.D.; Feitosa, J.V. Chemical Composition, Digestibility and In Situ Degradation of the Diet of Sheep in Tanzania Grass under Three Frequencies of Defoliation. Rev. Bras. Zootec. 2010, 39, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Minimum, average, and maximum air temperatures.
Figure 2.
Monthly water balance.
Figure 3.
Average height (cm) of Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) before grazing (pre-grazing) throughout the experimental period, under rotational management with two levels of light interception (LI): (A) 90% LI with an average height of approximately 65 cm; (B) 95% LI with an average height of approximately 75 cm.
Figure 3.
Average height (cm) of Guinea grass (Panicum maximum) before grazing (pre-grazing) throughout the experimental period, under rotational management with two levels of light interception (LI): (A) 90% LI with an average height of approximately 65 cm; (B) 95% LI with an average height of approximately 75 cm.
Figure 4.
Mean height (cm) of Guinea grass pasture in the post-grazing condition was 30 cm, for treatments with pre-grazing targets of 90% (A) and 95% of IL (B) and, post grazing of 50 cm, for treatments with pre-grazing targets of 90% (C) and 95% of IL (D), during the seasons.
Figure 4.
Mean height (cm) of Guinea grass pasture in the post-grazing condition was 30 cm, for treatments with pre-grazing targets of 90% (A) and 95% of IL (B) and, post grazing of 50 cm, for treatments with pre-grazing targets of 90% (C) and 95% of IL (D), during the seasons.
Figure 5.
Components of forage mass (B, blade; S, stem; DM, dead material), in pre-grazing of Guinea grass under rotational stocking during the seasons. The standard error of the mean is in parentheses.
Figure 5.
Components of forage mass (B, blade; S, stem; DM, dead material), in pre-grazing of Guinea grass under rotational stocking during the seasons. The standard error of the mean is in parentheses.
Table 1.
Chemical characteristics of soil samples from the 0–20 cm layer of the experimental area.
| Treat 1 | Pasture | pH | P 2 | K 3 | Ca 4 | Mg 5 | Al 6 | H + Al | CEC 7 | BS 8 | O.M. 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H2O | mg/dm3 cmolc/dm3 | % | dag/kg | ||||||||
| Block I | |||||||||||
| 95/30 | 1 | 6.9 | 28.1 | 298 | 6.8 | 1.1 | 0 | 1.6 | 10.3 | 80 | 3.7 |
| 95/50 | 2 | 6.7 | 26.2 | 315 | 6.4 | 0.9 | 0 | 1.5 | 10.1 | 84 | 3.4 |
| 90/30 | 3 | 6.4 | 27.3 | 325 | 6.9 | 0.9 | 0 | 1.4 | 9.9 | 82 | 3.7 |
| 90/50 | 4 | 6.9 | 27.9 | 343 | 6.5 | 1.0 | 0 | 1.5 | 10.2 | 80 | 3.5 |
| Block II | |||||||||||
| 95/30 | 5 | 6.9 | 21.7 | 299 | 5.4 | 0.8 | 0 | 1.4 | 9.9 | 79 | 3.5 |
| 95/50 | 6 | 6.4 | 24.5 | 286 | 6.2 | 0.9 | 0 | 1.5 | 9.6 | 78 | 3.2 |
| 90/30 | 7 | 6.4 | 22.9 | 334 | 5.8 | 1.0 | 0 | 1.3 | 9.7 | 80 | 3.3 |
| 90/50 | 8 | 6.8 | 27.5 | 302 | 6.7 | 1.1 | 0 | 1.2 | 10.1 | 83 | 3.7 |
| Block III | |||||||||||
| 95/30 | 9 | 7.1 | 27.3 | 289 | 6.5 | 1.1 | 0 | 2.4 | 10.2 | 70 | 3.4 |
| 95/50 | 10 | 6.9 | 24.5 | 277 | 5.9 | 0.9 | 0 | 2.0 | 9.7 | 73 | 3.2 |
| 90/30 | 11 | 6.5 | 27.3 | 259 | 6.1 | 0.8 | 0 | 1.5 | 9.8 | 78 | 3.0 |
| 90/50 | 12 | 6.5 | 25.3 | 301 | 8.8 | 1.0 | 0 | 1.8 | 9.6 | 78 | 3.4 |
1 Treatment = Light interception (%)/grazing intensity (cm); 2 Phosphorus; 3 Potassium; 4 Calcium; 5 Magnesium; 6 Aluminum; 7 Cation-exchange capacity; 8 Base saturation; 9 organic matter.
Table 2.
Date of application of nitrogen fertilizer in each experimental unit during the experimental period.
Table 2.
Date of application of nitrogen fertilizer in each experimental unit during the experimental period.
| Treat 1 | Block | Date | 1st Dose (kg/ha) | Date | 2nd Dose (kg/ha) | Date | 3rd Dose (kg/ha) | Total (kg/ha) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 90/30 | I | 07/11 | 50 | 28/12 | 50 | 03/02 | 50 | 150 |
| 90/30 | II | 07/11 | 50 | 28/12 | 50 | 03/02 | 50 | 150 |
| 90/30 | III | 07/11 | 50 | 28/12 | 50 | 03/02 | 50 | 150 |
| 95/30 | I | 07/11 | 50 | 28/01 | 50 | 01/03 | 50 | 150 |
| 95/30 | II | 07/11 | 50 | 28/01 | 50 | 01/03 | 50 | 150 |
| 95/30 | III | 07/11 | 50 | 28/01 | 50 | 01/03 | 50 | 150 |
| 90/50 | I | 07/11 | 50 | 20/12 | 50 | 23/02 | 50 | 150 |
| 90/50 | II | 07/11 | 50 | 20/12 | 50 | 23/02 | 50 | 150 |
| 90/50 | III | 07/11 | 50 | 20/12 | 50 | 23/02 | 50 | 150 |
| 95/50 | I | 07/11 | 50 | 06/01 | 50 | 09/02 | 50 | 150 |
| 95/50 | II | 07/11 | 50 | 06/01 | 50 | 09/02 | 50 | 150 |
| 95/50 | III | 07/11 | 50 | 06/01 | 50 | 09/02 | 50 | 150 |
1 Treatment = Light interception (%)/grazing intensity (cm).
Table 3.
Average number of grazing cycles in Guinea grass pastures managed under different rotational stocking strategies.
Table 3.
Average number of grazing cycles in Guinea grass pastures managed under different rotational stocking strategies.
| Post-Grazing Height (cm) | Light Interception (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | 95 | Mean | |
| 30 | 7.0 Ba | 6.0 bB | 6.5 b |
| (0.15) | (0.86) | (0.09) | |
| 50 | 8.0 Aa | 7.0 aB | 7.5 a |
| (0.93) | (0.93) | (0.09) | |
| Means | 7.5 B | 6.5 B | |
| (0.09) | (0.09) | ||
Means followed by the same uppercase letter in the rows and lowercase letter in the columns do not differ statistically according to Tukey’s test (p > 0.05). Values in parentheses represent the standard error of the mean.
Table 4.
Mean interval of grazing (days) for treatments of 30 and 50 cm of post-grazing height with 90 and 95% of light interception, during the seasons.
Table 4.
Mean interval of grazing (days) for treatments of 30 and 50 cm of post-grazing height with 90 and 95% of light interception, during the seasons.
| Treatments | End of the Spring | Summer | Fall | Winter/Beginning of the Spring |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30/90 | 24 | 34 | 63 | 114 |
| 30/95 | 32 | 39 | 66 | 123 |
| 50/90 | 21 | 30 | 62 | 72 |
| 50/95 | 30 | 31 | 66 | 114 |
Table 5.
Forage mass (kg DM/ha.day) in Guinea grass pastures under rotational stocking strategies.
| Post-Grazing Height (cm) | Light Interception (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | 95 | Mean | |
| End of the spring | |||
| 30 | 124.66 aB | 135.33 aA | 129.99 a |
| (3.46) | (2.77) | (74) | |
| 50 | 88.83 bB | 107.30 bA | 98.06 b |
| (2.18) | (166) | (103) | |
| Mean | 106.74 B | 121.31 A | 114.02 A’ |
| (2.01) | (1.58) | (1.88) | |
| Summer | |||
| 30 | 71.77 aB | 82.77 aA | 77.77 a |
| (1.84) | (2.33) | (0.99) | |
| 50 | 73.55 aB | 76.77 bA | 75.11 b |
| (1.41) | (2.81) | (2.43) | |
| Mean | 72.66 B | 79.77 A | 76.44 A’ |
| (2.86) | (1.68) | (1.75) | |
| Fall | |||
| 30 | 65.66 aB | 72.77 aA | 69.21 a |
| (1.02) | (0.87) | (0.80) | |
| 50 | 52.66 bB | 62.01 bA | 57.33 b |
| (1.46) | (0.90) | (0.70) | |
| Mean | 59.16 B | 67.39 A | 63.27 B’ |
| (0.91) | (0.98) | (1.03) | |
| Winter/beginning of the spring | |||
| 30 | 26.58 bA | 28.08 bA | 27.33 b |
| (0.27) | (0.79) | (0.57) | |
| 50 | 41.25 aA | 34.75 aB | 38.01 a |
| (0.61) | (0.59) | (0.55) | |
| Mean | 33.91 A | 31.41 A | 32.66 C’ |
| (0.62) | (0.75) | (0.48) | |
Means followed by the same uppercase letter in the rows and lowercase letter in the columns do not differ statistically according to Tukey’s test (p > 0.05). Values in parentheses represent the standard error of the mean. Averages followed by capital letter plus (’) compare season.
Table 6.
Morphological composition of forage mass (%) in Guinea grass pastures under rotational stocking strategies.
Table 6.
Morphological composition of forage mass (%) in Guinea grass pastures under rotational stocking strategies.
| Seasons | Morphological Composition (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Leaf Blade | Stem | Dead Material | |
| End of the spring | 59.7 b | 12.9 c | 27.4 b |
| (0.80) | (0.59) | (0.39) | |
| Summer | 69.6 a | 16.6 b | 13.8 c |
| (0.81) | (0.33) | (0.48) | |
| Fall | 38.9 d | 31.0 a | 30.1 b |
| (0.59) | (0.55) | (0.53) | |
| Winter/beginning of the spring | 47.5 c | 13.8 b | 38.7 a |
| (0.51) | (0.40) | (0.16) | |
Means followed by the same lowercase letters do not differ statistically according to Tukey’s test (p > 0.05). Values in parentheses represent the standard error of the mean.
Table 7.
Nutritional characteristics (g/kg) in Guinea grass pastures under rotational stocking strategies.
Table 7.
Nutritional characteristics (g/kg) in Guinea grass pastures under rotational stocking strategies.
| Post-Grazing Height (cm) | Light Interception (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 90 | 95 | Mean | |
| Dry matter (g/kg) | |||
| 30 | 238.1 aB | 269.0 Aa | 253.5 a |
| (6.1) | (7.2) | (6.8) | |
| 50 | 253.0 bB | 274.5 Aa | 26.35 a |
| (7.1) | (5.9) | (7.0) | |
| Mean | 245.5 B | 271.7 A | |
| (7.5) | (6.6) | ||
| Total carbohydrates (g/kg) | |||
| 30 | 774.5 aA | 798.7 Ab | 786.6 a |
| (4.8) | (3.9) | (4.0) | |
| 50 | 779.4 aA | 802.1 Ab | 790.7 a |
| (5.3) | (4.2) | (5.1) | |
| Mean | 776.9 a | 800.4 B | |
| (4.5) | (3.8) | ||
| Non-fibrous carbohydrates (g/kg) | |||
| 30 | 47.5 aA | 31.5 Ab | 39.5 a |
| (2.1) | (1.8) | (1.7) | |
| 50 | 46.8 aA | 30.1 Ab | 38.4 a |
| (2.8) | (1.9) | (2.3) | |
| Mean | 47.1 a | 30.8 B | |
| (2.3) | (2.1) | ||
| Neutral detergent fibre (g/kg) | |||
| 30 | 684.2 aB | 710.8 Aa | 697.5 a |
| (6.1) | (5.9) | (5.9) | |
| 50 | 687.9 aB | 724.1 Aa | 706.1 a |
| (7.0) | (6.4) | (6.3) | |
| Mean | 686.0 B | 717.4 A | |
| (6.4) | (6.1) | ||
| Acid detergent fibre (g/kg) | |||
| 30 | 356.6 aA | 369.2 Aa | 362.9 a |
| (2.5) | (3.4) | (3.3) | |
| 50 | 351.8 aB | 372.6 Aa | 362.2 a |
| (3.3) | (2.7) | (2.5) | |
| Mean | 354.2 B | 370.9 A | |
| (2.8) | (3.1) | ||
| Lignin (g/kg) | |||
| 30 | 38.8 aB | 52.5 Aa | 45.6 a |
| (2.1) | (1.7) | (1.7) | |
| 50 | 40.2 aB | 54.3 Aa | 47.2 a |
| (2.3) | (2.5) | (2.1) | |
| Mean | 39.5 B | 53.4 A | |
| (2.4) | (1.9) | ||
Means followed by the same uppercase letter in the rows and lowercase letter in the columns do not differ statistically according to Tukey’s test (p > 0.05). Values in parentheses represent the standard error of the mean.
Table 8.
Nutritional value (g/kg) in rotationally grazed Guinea grass pastures.
| Post-Grazing Height (cm) | Light Interception (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Crude Protein (g/kg) | |||
| 90 | 95 | Mean | |
| 30 | 112.0 Aa | 94.9 Ab | 103.4 a |
| (1.9) | (1.2) | (1.5) | |
| 50 | 117.3 Aa | 104.2 Ab | 110.7 a |
| (1.7) | (1.5) | (2.1) | |
| Mean | 114.6 A | 9.95 B | |
| (1.5) | (1.3) | ||
| Neutral detergent insoluble nitrogen (g/kg) | |||
| 30 | 720.3 Ab | 748.7 Aa | 734.5 a |
| (3.1) | (2.8) | (2.4) | |
| 50 | 732.2 Ab | 753.7 Aa | 742.9 a |
| (2.8) | (3.3) | (1.9) | |
| Mean | 726.2 B | 751.2 A | |
| (3.3) | (2.8) | ||
| Acid detergent Insoluble nitrogen (g/kg) | |||
| 30 | 427.2 Aa | 442.8 Aa | 435.0 a |
| (2.1) | (1.8) | (1.7) | |
| 50 | 432.0 Ab | 452.4 Aa | 442.2 a |
| (2.4) | (1.9) | (2.3) | |
| Mean | 429.6 B | 447.6 A | |
| (1.9) | (1.7) | ||
| Ethereal extract (g/kg) | |||
| 30 | 24.5 Aa | 22.3 Aa | 23.4 a |
| (0.9) | (0.6) | (0.8) | |
| 50 | 25.5 Aa | 22.7 Aa | 24.1 a |
| (1.3) | (0.9) | (1.1) | |
| Mean | 25.0 A | 22.5 A | |
| (1.4) | (0.7) | ||
| in vitro digestible dry matter (g/kg) | |||
| 30 | 578.9 Aa | 555.3 aB | 567.1 a |
| (2.8) | (2.1) | (2.2) | |
| 50 | 574.8 Aa | 559.0 aB | 566.9 a |
| (3.3) | (2.6) | (2.3) | |
| Mean | 576.8 A | 557.1 B | |
| (2.5) | (2.0) | ||
Means followed by the same uppercase letter in the rows and lowercase letter in the columns do not differ statistically according to Tukey’s test (p > 0.05). Values in parentheses represent the standard error of the mean.
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. |
© 2025 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
MDPI and ACS Style
Zanine, A.d.M.; Neto, T.M.; Ferreira, D.d.J.; Santos, E.M.; Parente, H.N.; Parente, M.O.M.; Santos, F.N.d.S.; Campos, F.S.; Sousa, F.C.S.; Reis, S.S.; et al. Ecophysiological Management Using Light Interception Technology with the AccuPar Equipment: Quality Versus Quantity of Forage. AgriEngineering 2025, 7, 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering7070224
AMA Style
Zanine AdM, Neto TM, Ferreira DdJ, Santos EM, Parente HN, Parente MOM, Santos FNdS, Campos FS, Sousa FCS, Reis SS, et al. Ecophysiological Management Using Light Interception Technology with the AccuPar Equipment: Quality Versus Quantity of Forage. AgriEngineering. 2025; 7(7):224. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering7070224
Chicago/Turabian StyleZanine, Anderson de Moura, Tomaz Melo Neto, Daniele de Jesus Ferreira, Edson Mauro Santos, Henrique Nunes Parente, Michelle Oliveira Maia Parente, Francisco Naysson de Sousa Santos, Fleming Sena Campos, Francisca Claudia Silva Sousa, Sara Silva Reis, and et al. 2025. "Ecophysiological Management Using Light Interception Technology with the AccuPar Equipment: Quality Versus Quantity of Forage" AgriEngineering 7, no. 7: 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering7070224
APA StyleZanine, A. d. M., Neto, T. M., Ferreira, D. d. J., Santos, E. M., Parente, H. N., Parente, M. O. M., Santos, F. N. d. S., Campos, F. S., Sousa, F. C. S., Reis, S. S., Olivera-Viciedo, D., & Rodrigues, A. A. (2025). Ecophysiological Management Using Light Interception Technology with the AccuPar Equipment: Quality Versus Quantity of Forage. AgriEngineering, 7(7), 224. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriengineering7070224
