PERSISTENCE OF LEGUMES IN DEHESA SYSTEM: INFLUENCE ON PRODUCTIVITY AND PASTURE QUALITY

Transcription

1 PERSISTENCE OF LEGUMES IN DEHESA SYSTEM: INFLUENCE ON PRODUCTIVITY AND PASTURE QUALITY Ana Hernández-Esteban, María Lourdes López-Díaz, Yonatan Cáceres, Gerardo Moreno Instituto de Investigación de la Dehesa (INDEHESA) University of Extremadura (Spain)

2 the DEHESA system pasture forage M O T I V AT I O N

3 ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT PASTURES RICH IN LEGUMES AGFORWARD AGroFORestry that Will Advance Rural Development Livestock breeders INTERESTS Mitigate seasonal differences Reduce critical period REDUCE FARMERS DEPENDENCE QUALITY OF FEED DIVERSIFY FORAGE OFFER

4 Exclusion by shade OBJECTIVE S P E C I F I C S E L E C T I O N O F S E E D M I X T U R E S S U I TA B L E F O R S I LVO PA S TO R A L P U R P O S E S Competition from deep rooting grasses and trees Self reseeding Cope with long summer Cope with cattle pressure

5 comparison of different forages rich in legumes assessment of the response of legume species to shade influence on productivity and quality pasture evaluation of the persistence in the long-term of legume species in dehesas

6 E X P E R I M E N T A L D E S I G N D E H E S A FA R M S I N E X T R E M A D U R A ( C W S PA I N ) w i t h a c h r o n o s e q u e n c e o f p a s t u r e s r i c h i n l e g u m e s s o w n i n p r e v i o u s y e a r s - LA VILLA (1996, 2003, 2010, 2015) - VALDELACASA (2002, 2003, 2014, 2015) - ATOQUEDO (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014) - LA CIERVINA (2005, 2011, 2014) - LAS CASILLAS (2002, 2007, 2012, 2014) - LAS CAÑAS (2002, 2005, 2011) - LA CABRA (2005, 2007, 2008, 2013) * Farms provided by ASEDAGRO-FERTIPRADO

7 E X P E R I M E N T A L D E S I G N BIOMASS PRODUCTION DEHESA FARM (4) YEAR OF SOWING (diverse ages) MICROHABITAT (canopy-out of canopy) SAMPLES (8) BOTANICAL INVENTORY TRANSECTS DEHESA FARM (7) YEAR OF SOWING (diverse ages) MICROHABITAT (canopy-out of canopy) TRANSECTS (104 SAMPLES)

8 E X P E R I M E N T A L D E S I G N BIOMASS PRODUCTION View of the exclusion cages installed to monitor the abundance and biomass of pasture legume species sown in the previous years. In every plot (age), 6 cages under canopy and 6 cages beyond canopy were placed

9 EXPERIMENTAL D E S I G N BIOMASS PRODUCTION Pasture sampling: samples were taken in May (just before pasture becomes dry) in 50 cm x 50 cm squares View of pasture rich in legumes sown in November 2015 (picture taken in June 2016).

10 E X P E R I M E N T A L D E S I G N B OTA NICAL I N V E N T O R Y T R A N S E C T S - One plant was collected every meter randomly plants per plot (104 beyond canopy and 104 beneath canopy) in 8 transects with 25 m length - Identified and separated in LEGUMES, GRASSES and FORBS

11 RESULTS PRODUCTION SPECIES RICHNESS LEGUMES REPLACEMENT

12 R E S U L T S P R O D U C T I O N Fig.1: Yield in t/ha along the different sowing ages in the different dehesa farms.

13 YIELD (Kg/ha) DV_1 YIELD DV_1 YIELD (Kg/ha) YIELD (Kg/ha) 3000 R E S U L T S P R O D U C T I O N AGE; LS Means Current effect: F(5, 60)=6.6772, p= Effective hypothesis decomposition Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals 8000 AGE*HABITAT; LS Means Current effect: F(5, 178)=.36362, p= Effective hypothesis decomposition Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals CONTROL AGE HABITAT; LS Means Current effect: F(1, 60)=.05169, p= Effective hypothesis decomposition Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals AGE: p= CANOPY HABITAT: p= HABITAT OUT CONTROL AGE Fig.2: Yield in kg/ha in the chronosequence in ATOQUEDO dehesa farm under canopy and out of canopy (p=0,87292) HABITAT CANOPY HABITAT OUT

14 YIELD (Kg/ha) DV_1 R E S U L T S P R O D U C T I O N 5000 TYPE*AGE; LS Means Current effect: F(10, 120)=5.3606, p= Effective hypothesis decomposition Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals Fig.3: Yield in kg/ha in the chronosequence in ATOQUEDO dehesa farm separated into forbs, grasses and legumes. (p=0,0000) CONTROL AGE TYPE FORBS TYPE GRASSES TYPE LEGUMES

15 SPECIES RICHNESS SPECIES RICHNESS AGE; LS Means Current effect: F(4, 126)=.40875, p= Effective hypothesis decomposition Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals R E S U L T S S P E C I E S R I C H N E S S AVERAGE CONTROL SAMPLES VERY OLD OLD MATURE YOUNG CONTROL 200 AGE 150 HABITAT; LS Means Current effect: F(1, 126)=.86087, p= Effective hypothesis decomposition Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals GRASSES SPECIES LEGUMES SPECIES FORBS SPECIES 11.0 CANOPY OUT CANOPY HABITAT OUT Fig. 4 : Promedium species richness in all the dehesa farms: - Clustered by maturity (left top) - Under canopy and out of canopy (left bottom) - Initial distribution at control parcels (right)

16 SPECIES RICHNESS SPECIES RICHNESS R E S U L T S S P E C I E S R I C H N E S S TYPE*AGE; LS Means Current effect: F(8, 126)=1.3159, p= Effective hypothesis decomposition Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals HABITAT*AGE; LS Means Current effect: F(4, 126)=.44905, p= Effective hypothesis decomposition Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals VERY OLD OLD MATURE YOUNG CONTROL AGE TYPE GRASSES TYPE LEGUMES TYPE FORBS VERY OLD OLD MATURE YOUNG CONTROL AGE HABITAT CANOPY HABITAT OUT Fig.5 : Average number of species richness per group (grasses, legumes, forbs) clustered by maturity in all the farms (p=0,24146) Fig.6 : Average number of species richness under and out of canopy clustered by maturity in all the farms (p=0,77292)

17 Y O U N G P A S T U R E S ( 3 y e a r s ) V E R Y O L D P A S T U R E S ( 2 0 y e a r s ) R E S U L T S L E G U M E S R E P L A C E M E N T Hymenocarpos lotoides Lathyrus angulatus Lotus conimbricensis Lotus corniculatus Lotus parviflorus Lupinus luteus Medicago polymorpha Micropyrum tenellum Ornithopus compressus Ornithopus pinnatus Ornithopus sativus Trifolium angustifolium Trifolium arvense Trifolium campestre Trifolium cernum Trifolium cherleri Trifolium glomeratum Trifolium hirtum Trifolium incarnatum Trifolium michelianum Trifolium resupinatum Trifolium scabrum Trifolium stellatum Trifolium striatum Trifolium strictum Trifolium subterraneum Trifolium tomentosum Trifolium vesiculosum Vicia angustifolia Vicia benghalensis Vicia cracca Vicia lutea Vicia sativa Vicia villosa B O T H P A S T U R E S Hymenocarpos lotoides Lathyrus angulatus Lotus conimbricensis Lotus parviflorus Medicago polymorpha Ornithopus compressus Ornithopus pinnatus Trifolium angustifolium Trifolium arvense Trifolium campestre Trifolium cernum Trifolium cherleri Trifolium glomeratum Trifolium hirtum Trifolium michelianum Trifolium resupinatum Trifolium stellatum Trifolium striatum Trifolium strictum Trifolium subterraneum Trifolium tomentosum Trifolium vesiculosum Vicia sativa Astragalus pelecinus Hymenocarpos lotoides Lathyrus angulatus Lathyrus sphaericus Lotus conimbricensis Lotus parviflorus Medicago polymorpha Ornithopus compressus Ornithopus pinnatus Trifolium angustifolium Trifolium arvense Trifolium campestre Trifolium cernum Trifolium cherleri Trifolium glomeratum Trifolium hirtum Trifolium michelianum Trifolium resupinatum Trifolium stellatum Trifolium striatum Trifolium strictum Trifolium subterraneum Trifolium tomentosum Trifolium vesiculosum Vicia sativa

18 C O N C L U S I O N S : P R O D U C T I O N - The pasture production of the farms increases with the stablishment of pastures rich in legumes. This improvement is due to the greater productive capacity of the sown legumes and their rizhobium inoculation, that permits a better development of the native species. - The yield levels of grasses and legumes species remain higher than control ones along the time. - In all the farms studied, the increase of production is not significant with the habitat (production beneath canopy and beyond canopy). This could be an important fact to be taken into account in future Common Agricultural Policy agreements.

19 C O N C L U S I O N S : S P E C I E S R I C H N E S S a n d S P E C I E S R E P L A C E M E N T - In terms of species richness, there is no significant difference among habitats or ages so we could say that the management of farms with pastures rich in legumes for a long period does not affect species biodiversity in the dehesa system. - When considering the separation in FORBS, GRASSES AND LEGUMES, there is no significant difference but it is observed in very young pastures an increase in legume species and a light decrease in forbs that tends to the initial situation (control) - There is not an evident species replacement in the dehesa farms with stablished pastures rich in legumes.

20 Thank you for your attention Acknowledgements: - This research is a contribution to the project FP-7 AGFORWARD and GR15184