Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-5qg8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-11T02:19:10.543Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth, morphology and nutritive quality of shaded Stenotaphrum secundatum, Axonopus compressus and Pennisetum clandestinum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

S. P. Samarakoon ,
J. R. Wilson  and
H. M. Shelton
S. P. Samarakoon
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, University of Ruhuna, Matara, Sri Lanka
J. R. Wilson
Affiliation:
CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures, 306 Carmody Road, St Lucia 4067, Australia
H. M. Shelton
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Queensland, St Lucia 4067, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The response to shade in growth and nutritive quality of buffalo grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum) was compared with that of two other stoloniferous grasses, mat grass (Axonopus compressus) and kikuyu grass (Pennisetum clandestinum). The grasses were grown outdoors in Brisbane, Australia, in soil in pots over two growing seasons in 1985/86. Treatments in the first season (Expt 1) were shading at 0 (full sun), 42, 59 and 68% with moderate N (two spaced applications of 50 kg/ha) and, in the second season (Expt 2), 0 and 59% shade with high (50 kg/ha every 2 weeks) and low (5 kg/ha every 2 weeks) N.

Unusually for tropical grasses, the top yield of all species was higher under shade than in full sun, except for S. secundatum at high N in Expt 2. S. secundatum and A. compressusshowed an increase in top yield up to 68% shading whereas P. clandestinum reached a maximum at 42% shading. Shade increased shoot:root ratio and specific leaf area in all species but had little effect on leaf:stem ratio and the proportion of dead material in the tops. Stubble yield (stem bases and stolons) was reduced under shade but to a much smaller extent than root yield. S. secundatum and A. compressus had similar morphological characteristics. Their yield was lower than that of P. clandestinum in Expt 1 (autumn growth) but was similar to that of P. clandestinum in Expt 2 (summer growth). These grasses had a higher leaf:stem ratio and lower proportion of dead material in tops than P. clandestinum.

Shade generally increased herbage nutritive value through an increase in N concentration and drymatter digestibility. The latter response was somewhat variable and mostly small (1–3% units). Under shade, the general trend was towards a decrease in total nonstructural carbohydrates, cell-wall content and insoluble ash, and an increase in lignin content. A. compressus was higher in digestibility and soluble carbohydrates than the other grasses.

S. secundatum was not clearly superior in response to shade and its nutritive quality was lower than that of A. compressus.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 114 , Issue 2 , April 1990 , pp. 161 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Blair, G. J., Ivory, D. A. & Evans, T. R. (Eds) (1986). Forages in Southeast Asian and South Pacific Agriculture. Proceedings, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research No. 12. Canberra: ACIAR.Google Scholar
Burton, G. W., Jackson, J. E. & Knox, F. E. (1959). The influence of light reduction on the production, persistence and chemical composition of coastal bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon). Agronomy Journal 51, 537–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, C. P. (1985). The research and development of pastures in Peninsular Malaysia. Tropical Agriculture Research Series No. 18, pp. 33–51.Google Scholar
Child, R., Morgan, D. C. & Smith, H. (1981). Morphogenesis in simulated shadelight quality. In Plants and the Daylight Spectrum (Ed. Smith, H.), pp. 409–420. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Deregibus, V. A., Sanchez, R. A., Casal, J. J. & Trlica, J. M. (1985). Tillering responses to enrichment of red light beneath the canopy in a humid natural grassland. Journal of Applied Biology 22, 199–206.Google Scholar
Eriksen, F. I. & Whitney, A. S. (1981). Effects of light intensity on growth of some tropical forage species. 1. Interaction of light intensity and nitrogen fertilization on six forage grasses. Agronomy Journal 73, 427–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaskin, T. A. (1965). Light quality under Sarlon shade cloth. Agronomy Journal 57, 313–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goering, H. K. & Van Soest, P. J. (1970). Forage Fibre Analyses. USDA Handbook No. 379, 1–19. Washington DC: United States Department of Agriculture.Google Scholar
Henderson, M. S. & Robinson, D. L. (1982). Environmental influences on yield and in vitro true digestibility of warmseason perennial grasses and the relationships to fibre components. Agronomy Journal 74, 943–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, M. G. (1981). Spectral distribution of radiation within plant canopies. In Plants and the Daylight Spectrum (Ed. Smith, H.), pp. 147–158. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. D., Simons, J. G., Hansen, R. W. & Daniel, R. A. (1985). Chemical procedures for the analysis of plant material: multielement, oil, sugars and gum. Tropical Agronomy Technical Memorandum, Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures, CSIRO No. 40.Google Scholar
Jones, C. A. (1985). C4Grasses and Cereals. Growth, Development and Stress Response. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ludlow, M. M. (1978). Light relations of pasture plants. In Plant Relations in Pastures (Ed. Wilson, J. R.), pp. 35–49. Melbourne: CSIRO.Google Scholar
McFarlane, D. & Shelton, M. H. (1986). Pastures in Vanuatu. ACIAR Technical Report Series No. 2. Canberra: Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research.Google Scholar
McLeod, M. N. & Minson, D. J. (1978). The accuracy of the pepsin cellulase technique for estimating the digestibility in vivo of grasses and legumes. Animal Feed Science and Technology 2, 247–253.Google Scholar
Mears, P. T. (1970). Kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum) as a pasture grass – a review. Tropical Grasslands 4, 139–152.Google Scholar
Reynolds, S. G. (1981). Grazing trials under coconuts in Western Samoa. Tropical Grasslands 15, 3–10.Google Scholar
Rika, I. K., Nitis, I. M. & Humphreys, L. R. (1981). Effects of stocking rate on cattle growth, pasture production and coconut yield in Bali. Tropical Grasslands 15, 149–157.Google Scholar
Samarakoon, S. P., Shelton, H. M. & Wilson, J. R. (1990). Voluntary feed intake by sheep and digestibility of shaded Stenotaphrum secundatum and Pennisetum clandestinum herbage. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 114, 143–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shelton, H. M., Humphreys, L. R. & Batello, C. (1987). Pastures in the plantations of Asia and the Pacific: performance and prospect. Tropical Grasslands 21, 159–168.Google Scholar
Shelton, H. M., Raurela, M. & Tupper, G. J. (1986). Forages in the south Pacific and papua New Guinea. In Forages in Southeast Asian and South Pacific Agriculture. Proceedings, Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research No. 12, pp. 89–95. Canberra: ACIAR.Google Scholar
Smith, M. A. & Whiteman, P. C. (1983). Evaluation of tropical grasses in increasing shade under coconut canopies. Experimental Agriculture 19, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. A. & Whiteman, P. C. (1985). Animal production from rotationally grazed natural and sown pastures under coconut at three stocking rates in the Solomon Islands. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 104, 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stace, H. C. T., Hubble, G. D., Brewer, R., Northcote, K. H., Sleeman, J. R., Mulcany, M. J. & Hallsworth, E. G. (1968). A Handbook of Australian Soils. Adelaide: Rellim Technical Publications.Google Scholar
Tajuddin, I. (1986). Integration of animals in rubber plantations. Agroforestry Systems 4, 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, S. E. & Whiteman, P. C. (1981). Animal production from naturalized and sown pastures at three stocking rates under coconuts in the Solomon Islands. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 97, 669–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weier, K. L., Wilson, J. R. & White, R. J. (1977). A semiautomated procedure for estimating total non-structural carbohydrates in grasses, and comparison with two other procedures. Technical Paper, Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures, CSIRO No. 20.Google Scholar
Whiteman, P. C. (1980).Tropical Pasture Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. R. (1982). Environmental and nutritional factors affecting herbage quality. In Nutritional Limits to Animal Production from Pastures (Ed. Hacker, J. B.), pp. 111–31. Slough: Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. R. (1989). Ecophysiological constraints to production and nutritive quality of pastures under tree crops. Proceedings, International Livestock - Tree Cropping Workshop, Serdang, Malaysia, 5–9 December (1988). Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. R., Catchpoole, V. R. & Weier, K. L. (1986). Stimulation of growth and nitrogen uptake by shading a rundown green panic pasture on Brigalow clay soil. Tropical Grasslands 20, 134–143.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. R. & Ng, T. T. (1975). Influences of water stress and parameters associated with herbage quality of Panicum maximum var. trichoglume. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 26, 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wong, C. C., Mohd. Sharudin, M. A. & Rahim, H. (1985). Shade tolerance potential of some tropical forages for integration with plantations. 1. Grasses. MARDI Research Bulletin 13, 225–247.Google Scholar
Wong, C. C., Shokri, A. & Nantha, K. (in press). The influence of shade on in vivo dry matter digestibility, nitrogen and mineral composition of tropical grasses. MARDI Research Journal 17.Google Scholar
Wong, C. C. & Wilson, J. R. (1980). Effects of shading on the growth and nitrogen content of green panic and siratro in pure and mixed swards defoliated at two frequencies. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 31, 269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar