Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T09:35:58.825Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Water use efficiency and yield responses of Cenchrus purpureus genotypes under irrigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 September 2023

R. E. P. Ribeiro ,
A. C. L. Mello ,
M. V. Cunha ,
M. V. F. Santos ,
S. B. M. Costa ,
J. J. Coelho Open the ORCID record for J. J. Coelho [Opens in a new window] ,
R. O. Carvalho  and
V. J. Silva Open the ORCID record for V. J. Silva [Opens in a new window]
R. E. P. Ribeiro
Affiliation:
Department of Support for Research and Agricultural Projects, Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Pará (IFPA), Campus Castanhal, Pará, Brazil
A. C. L. Mello
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil
M. V. Cunha
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil
M. V. F. Santos
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil
S. B. M. Costa
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil
J. J. Coelho*
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil
R. O. Carvalho
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil
V. J. Silva
Affiliation:
Departamento de Zootecnia, Universidade Federal Rural de Pernambuco (UFRPE), Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil
*
Corresponding author: J. J. Coelho; Email: janersoncoelhozoo@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In tropical regions, water stress is one of the main causes of the reduction in forage productivity, and irrigation strategies can mitigate the problem, especially for highly productive species. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of irrigation, genotype and plant size on productive responses and water use efficiency (WUE) of elephant grass (Cenchrus purpureus [Schumach.] Morrone), in the rainy and dry season. The experimental design was randomized in blocks, arranged in split plots, the main plots were established based on the use of irrigation and the subplots were the tall-sized genotypes (IRI 381 and Elephant B) and dwarfs (Taiwan A-146 2.37 and Mott). The genotypes were evaluated for two years and harvested every 60 days. Water use efficiency, total forage accumulation per year and harvest, forage accumulation rate and forage density were evaluated. There was a significant difference between the genotypes in terms of total forage accumulated (P < 0.05). The most productive genotype was IRI 381, which showed the greatest total forage accumulation (42 168 kg of DM/ha in two years) in the irrigated plots. During the rainy seasons, IRI 381 stood out in terms of forage accumulated (24 667 kg of DM/ha). Irrigation favoured increases in forage accumulation around 60%, in both years of evaluation. Irrigation and plant size influenced the productivity and WUE of elephant grass harvested in 60-day intervals. Tall genotypes and Taiwan A-146 2.37 (dwarf size) stood out in most of the productive traits analysed, while Mott was highlighted by its forage density.

Keywords

cut-and-carryelephant grassplant sizewater use efficiency
Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 161 , Issue 4 , August 2023 , pp. 572 - 580
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, RG, Pereira, LS, Raes, D and Smith, M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO, Rome 300, D05109.Google Scholar
Barbosa, VV, Souza, WM, Galvíncio, JDC and Costa, VSOC (2016) Análise da variabilidade climática do município de Garanhuns, Pernambuco – Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Geografia Física 9, 353–367.Google Scholar
Carvalho, APS, Arruda, RM, Abreu, JG, Souza, AL, Rodrigues, RC, Lima, LR, Cabral, LS and Neto, AB (2018) Agronomic features of elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum.) cv. roxo under irrigation. Semina: Ciências Agrárias 39, 275–286.Google Scholar
Daher, RF, Rodrigues, EV, Araújo, MSB, Pinheiro, LS, Gravina, GA, Lédo, FJS and Pereira, AV (2017) Variação sazonal na produção de forragem de clones intra e interespecíficos de capim-elefante. Revista Agrarian 10, 294–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freitas, EV (2009) Capim-elefante ‘IRI-381’. In Galdino, AADES (ed.), Cultivares recomendadas pelo IPA para a Zona da Mata de Pernambuco, 1° ed. Recife: IPA, p. 150.Google Scholar
Hodgson, J (1990) Herbage production and utilization. In Hodgson and John et al (eds), Grazing Management – Science into Practice. Longman Scientific and Technical. New York: J. WileyGoogle Scholar
Jimoh, SO, Adeleye, OO and Olanite, JA (2010) Influence of sward characteristics on grazing behaviour and short-term intake of cattle. A review. Nigerian Journal of Animal Science 19, 283–297.Google Scholar
Koetz, M, Lemes, CS, Pacheco, AB, Castro, WJR, Crisostomo, WL and Silva, EMB (2017) Produção e eficiência no uso da água do capim paiaguás sob tensões de água no solo. Revista Brasileira de Agricultura Irrigada 11, 1223–1232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lima, ES, Silva, JFC, Vásquez, HM, Andrade, EN, Deminicis, BB, Morais, JPG, Costa, DPB and Araújo, SAC (2010) Características agronômicas e nutritivas das principais cultivares de capim-elefante do Brasil. Veterinária e Zootecnia 17, 343–347.Google Scholar
Maranhão, TD, Cândido, MJD, Lopes, MN, Pompeu, RCFF, Carneiro, MS, Furtado, RN, Silva, RR and Silveira, FGA (2018) Biomass components of Pennisetum purpureum cv. roxo managed at different growth ages and seasons. Revista Brasileira de Saúde e Produção Animal 19, 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martuscello, JA, Majerowicz, N, Cunha, DNFV, Amorim, PL and Braz, TGS (2016) Características produtivas e fisiológicas de capim-elefante submetido à adubação nitrogenada. Archivos de Zootecnia 65, 565–570.Google Scholar
Na, CI, Sollenberger, LE, Erickson, JE, Woodard, KR, Vendramini, JMB and Silveira, ML (2015) Management of perennial warm-season bioenergy grasses. I. Biomass harvested, nutrient removal, and persistence responses of elephantgrass and energycane to harvest frequency and timing. Bioenergy Research 8, 581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, AV, Daher, RF, Silva Menezes, BR, Amaral Gravina, G, Sousa, LB, Silva Gonçalves, AC and Oliveira, MLF (2013) Avaliação do desenvolvimento de 73 genótipos de capim-elefante em Campos dos Goytacazes-RJ. Boletim de Indústria Animal 70, 119–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, ES, Daher, RF, Ponciano, NJ, Gravina, GA, Sant'ana, JAA, Silva, VB, Gottardo, RD, Rocha, AS, Menezes, BR, Silva Novo, AAC, Souza, PM and Souza, CLM (2015) Variation of morpho-agronomic and biomass quality traits in elephant grass for energy purposes according to nitrogen levels. American Journal of Plant Sciences 6, 1685–1696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payero, JO, Tarkalson, DD, Irmak, S, Davison, D and Petersen, JL (2008) Effect of irrigation amounts applied with subsurface drip irrigation on corn evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency, and dry matter production in a semiarid climate. Agricultural Water Management 95, 895–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, AV, Lédo, FJS and Machado, JC (2017) BRS Kurumi and BRS Capiaçu – New elephant grass cultivars for grazing and cut-and-carry system. Crop Breeding and Applied Biotechnology 17, 59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, FM and Nair, PKR (2018) Silvopasture in the Caatinga biome of Brazil: a review of its ecology, management, and development opportunities. Forest Systems 27, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rengsirikul, K, Ishii, Y, Kangvansaichol, K, Sripichitt, P, Punsuvon, V, Vaithanomsat, P, Nakamanee, G and Tudsri, S (2013) Biomass yield, chemical composition and potential ethanol yields of 8 cultivars of napier grass (Pennisetum purpureum Schumach) harvested 3-monthly in central Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems 3, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, EG, Fontes, CAA, Palieraqui, JGB, Cóser, AC, Martins, CE and Silva, RC (2009) Influência da irrigação, nas épocas seca e chuvosa, na produção e composição química dos capins napier e mombaça em sistema de lotação intermitente. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 38, 1432–1442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, REP, Mello, ACLD, Cunha, MVD, Costa, SBDM, Coelho, JJ, Souza, RTDA and Santos, MVFD (2022) The genotype does not influence the establishment of elephantgrass (Pennisetum purpureum Schum.). Acta Scientiarum. Animal Sciences 44, e54986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ribeiro, REP, Mello, ACL, Cunha, MV, Costa, SBM, Coelho, JJ, Souza, RTDA and Santos, MVF (2023) Irrigation effects on elephant grass morphology, and its genotype-dependent responses. Grass and Forage Science, 78, 194–203,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, HGD, Jacomine, PKT, Anjos, LHC, Oliveira, VA, Lumbreras, JF, Coelho, MR and Cunha, TJF (2018) Sistema brasileiro de classificação de solos, Embrapa Solos. Available at https://www.embrapa.br/solos/sibcs (accessed 9 July 2022).Google Scholar
Schoo, B, Kage, H and Schittenhelm, S (2017) Radiation use efficiency, chemical composition, and methane yield of biogas crops under rainfed and irrigated conditions. European Journal of Agronomy 87, 8–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, SHB, Santos, MVF, Lira, MA, Dubeux, JCB Jr., Freitas, EV and Ferreira, RLC (2009) Uso de descritores morfológicos e herdabilidade de caracteres em clones de capim-elefante de porte baixo1. Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia 38, 1451–1459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, MA, Lira, MA, Santos, MVF, Dubeux, JCB Jr., Freitas, EV and Araújo, GGL (2011) Rendimento forrageiro e valor nutritivo de clones de Pennisetum sob corte, na zona da mata seca. Archivos de Zootecnia 60, 63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silva, JKB, Cunha, MV, Santos, MVF, Magalhães, ALR, Mello, ACL, Silva, JRC, Rocha Souza, CI, Carvalho, AL and Souza, EJO (2021) Dwarf versus tall elephant grass in sheep feed: which one is the most recommended for cut-and-carry? Tropical Animal Health and Production 53, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sirait, J (2017) Rumput Gajah Mini (Pennisetum purpureum cv. Mott) sebagai Hijauan Pakan untuk Ruminansia. Indonesian Bulletin of Animal and Veterinary Sciences 27, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sollenberger, LE, Prine, GM, Ocumpaugh, WR, Hanna, WW, Jones, CS, Schank, SC and Kalmbacher, RS (1989) Registration of ‘Mott’ dwarf elephantgrass. Crop Science 29, 827–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souza, RTA, Santos, MVF, Cunha, MV, Gonçalves, GD, Silva, VJ, Mello, ACL, Muir, JP, Ribeiro, REP and Dubeux, JCB Jr. (2021) Dwarf and tall elephantgrass genotypes under irrigation as forage sources for ruminants: herbage accumulation and nutritive value. Animals 11, 2392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tekletsadik, T, Tudsri, S, Juntakool, S and Prasanpanich, S (2004) Effect of dry season cutting management on subsequent forage yield and quality of ruzi (Brachiaria ruziziensis) and dwarf Napier (Pennisetum purpureum L.) in Thailand. Kasetsart Journal. Natural Science 38, 457–467.Google Scholar
Viana, BL, Mello, ACL, Guim, A, Lira, MA, Dubeux, JCB Jr., Santos, MVF and Cunha, MV (2018) Morphological characteristics and proportion of leaf blade tissues of elephant grass clones under sheep grazing. Pesquisa Agropecuaária Brasileira 53, 1268–1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zailan, MZ, Yaakub, H and Jusoh, S (2016) Yield and nutritive value of four Napier (Pennisetum purpureum) cultivars at different harvesting ages. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America 7, 213–220.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Ribeiro et al. supplementary material

Ribeiro et al. supplementary material
Download Ribeiro et al. supplementary material(File)
File 6.9 MB