Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:15:06.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of alfalfa cultivars under rainfed Mediterranean conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2021

D. Baxevanos Open the ORCID record for D. Baxevanos [Opens in a new window] ,
D. Loka  and
I. T. Tsialtas
D. Baxevanos*
Affiliation:
Hellenic Agricultural Organization-‘Demeter’, Institute of Industrial and Forage Crops, Larissa 413 35, Greece
D. Loka
Affiliation:
Hellenic Agricultural Organization-‘Demeter’, Institute of Industrial and Forage Crops, Larissa 413 35, Greece
I. T. Tsialtas
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Laboratory of Agronomy, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki 541 24, Greece
*
Author for correspondence: D. Baxevanos, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Twenty alfalfa cultivars were tested, under rainfed conditions in central Greece, for forage yield, agronomic and nutritive value in order to identify adaptive responses contributing to high resilience and productivity. From 2014 to 2017, five harvests (H1 to H5) per season were conducted. Two cultivars were also grown as irrigated checks. Annual and total dry matter (DMA and DMT) and harvest ratios (RH) were estimated. DMT was reduced by 42.9–48.1% under ambient rainfall compared to irrigated checks, which received 50.2% more water. The seasonal yield distribution demonstrated two contrasting strategies, however, equally effective for high resilience under rainfed conditions. The winter-active imported cultivars were the most resilient in the driest year, potentially due to their ability to exploit autumn rains, whereas the locally adapted genotypes were more productive in summer. The spring harvest ratio (RH1) was more indicative (r = 0.94, P < 0.01) of cultivar productivity, compared to plant survival (r = 0.65, P < 0.01), whereas the autumn harvest ratio (RH5) was representative of productivity under extreme drought (r = 0.53, P < 0.05). RH1 and RH5 were increased by 11.8 and 12.3%, respectively, whereas the summer ratios (RH3, RH4) were reduced by 47.3%, under rainfed v. irrigated conditions. Two Australian cultivars (‘Blue Ace’, ‘Icon’) achieved the highest RH5 suggesting an adaptive response by being more productive in autumn. However, the development of specifically adapted cultivars in terms of higher summer yield and plant survival may be necessary to cope with future climatic changes in the Mediterranean region.

Keywords

Crop yieldforage qualityMedicago sativastand persistence
Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 159 , Issue 3-4 , April 2021 , pp. 281 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. 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

Achir, C, Annicchiarico, P, Pecetti, L, Khelifi, H, M'Hammedi-Bouzina, M, Abdelguerfi, A, Meriem Laouar, M and Annicchiarico, P (2020) Adaptation patterns of sixteen alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) cultivars across contrasting environments of Algeria and implications for the crop improvement. Italian Journal of Agronomy 15, 57–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annicchiarico, P (1992) Cultivar adaptation and recommendation from a set of alfalfa trials in Northern Italy. Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 46, 269–278.Google Scholar
Annicchiarico, P (2002) Genotype×Environment Interactions: Challenges and Opportunities for Plant Breeding and Cultivar Recommendations. Plant Production and Protection Paper 174. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Annicchiarico, P and Piano, E (2005) Use of artificial environments to reproduce and exploit genotype × location interaction for lucerne in northern Italy. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 110, 219–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Annicchiarico, P, Scotti, C, Carelli, M and Pecetti, L (2010) Questions and avenues for lucerne improvement. Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 46, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annicchiarico, P, Pecetti, L, Abdelguerf, A, Bouizgaren, A, Carroni, AM, Hayek, T, M'Hammadi Bouzina, M and Mezni, M (2011) Adaptation of landrace and variety germplasm and selection strategies for lucerne in the Mediterranean basin. Field Crops Research 120, 283–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annicchiarico, P, Pecetti, L and Tava, A (2013) Physiological and morphological traits associated with adaptation of lucerne (Medicago sativa) to severely drought-stressed and to irrigated environments. Annals of Applied Biology 162, 27–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annicchiarico, P, Barrett, B, Brummer, EC, Julier, B and Marshal, AH (2015) Achievements and challenges in improving temperate perennial forage legumes. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 34, 327–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annicchiarico, P, Bottazzi, P, Ruozzi, F, Russi, L and Pecetti, L (2020) Lucerne cultivar adaptation to Italian geographic areas is affected crucially by the selection environment and encourages the breeding for specific adaptation. Euphytica 216, 50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anonymous (2018) Towards the Common Agricultural Policy beyond 2020: comparing the reform package with the current regulations. Policy Department for Structural and Cohesion Policies Authors: Albert MASSOT and Francois NEGRE Directorate-General for Internal Policies PE 617.494 – September 2018.Google Scholar
Anower, MR, Boe, A, Auger, D, Mott, IW, Peel, MD, Xu, L, Kanchupati, P and Wu, Y (2017) Comparative drought response in eleven diverse alfalfa accessions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 203, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
AOAC (2000) Official Methods of Analysis, 17th Edn. Gaithersburg, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.Google Scholar
Baxevanos, D, Goulas, C, Tzortzios, S and Mavromatis, A (2007) Interrelationship among and repeatability of seven stability indices estimated from commercial cotton Gossypium hirsutum L. variety evaluation trials in three Mediterranean countries. Euphytica 161, 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beuselinck, PR, Bouton, JH, Lamp, WO, Marches, AG, McCaslin, MH, Nelson, CJ, Rhodes, LH, Sheaffer, CC and Volenec, JJ (1994) Improving legume persistence in forage crop systems. Journal of Production Agriculture 7, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolger, PT and Matches, AG (1990) Water-use efficiency and yield of sainfoin and alfalfa. Crop Science 30, 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouizgaren, A, Farissi, M, Ghoulam, C, Kallida, R, Faghire, M, Barakat, M and Najib Al Feddy, M (2013) Assessment of summer drought tolerance variability in Mediterranean alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) cultivars under Moroccan fields conditions. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 59, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campiglia, E, Caporali, F, Barberi, R and Mancinelli, R (1999) Influence of 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year stands of alfalfa on winter wheat yield. In Olesen, JE, Eltun, R, Goodlimg, MJ, Jensen, ES and Köpke, U (eds), Designing and Testing Crop Rotations for Organic Farming, Proceedings International Workshop. DARCOF, Tjele, DK, pp. 165–171.Google Scholar
Carter, PR and Sheaffer, C (1983) Alfalfa response to soil water deficit. I. Growth, forage quality, yield, water use, and water-use efficiency. Crop Science 23, 669–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S (1989) Wide adaptation: how wide? Euphytica 40, 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceccarelli, S (1996) Positive interpretation of genotype by environment interaction in relation to sustainability and biodiversity. In Cooper, M and Hammer, GL (eds), Plant Adaptation and Crop Improvement. CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 467–486.Google Scholar
Enriquez-Hidalgo, D, Cruz, T, Teixeira, DL and Steinfort, U (2019) Phenological stages of Mediterranean forage legumes, based on the BBCH scale. Annals of Applied Biology 176, 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frutos, E, Galindo, MP and Leiva, V (2014) An interactive biplot implementation in R for modeling genotype-by-environment interaction. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 28, 1629–1641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giannakopoulos, C, Kostopoulou, E, Varotsos, KV, Tziotziou, K and Plitharas, A (2011) An integrated assessment of climate change impacts for Greece in the near future. Regional Environmental Change 11, 829–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakl, J, Mofidian, SMA, Kozova, Z, Fuksa, P and Jaromír, S (2019) Estimation of lucerne yield stability for enabling effective cultivar selection under rainfed conditions. Grass Forage Science 74, 687–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halim, RA, Buxton, DR, Hattendorf, MJ and Carlson, RE (1990) Crop water stress index and forage quality relationships in alfalfa. Agronomy Journal 82, 906–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellenic Statistical Authority (2019) http://www.statistics.gr/.Google Scholar
Hoy, MD, Moore, KJ, George, JR and Brummer, EC (2002) Alfalfa yield and quality as influenced by establishment method. Agronomy Journal 94, 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humphries, AW and Auricht, GC (2001) Breeding lucerne for Australia's southern dryland cropping environments. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 52, 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huyghe, C (2003) Les fourrages et la production de proteines. Fourrages 174, 145–162.Google Scholar
Jeranyama, P and Garcia, AD (2004) Understanding relative feed value RFV and relative forage quality RFQ. ExEx8149, College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, South Dakota State University, USDA. Access at http://agbiopubs.sdstate.edu/articles/ExEx8149.pdf.Google Scholar
Johnson, RC and Tieszen, LL (1994) Variation for water-use efficiency in alfalfa germplasm. Crop Science 34, 452–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenney, BC (1982) Beware of spurious self-correlations! Water Resources Research 18, 1041–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kontsiotou, K (2005) Alfalfa Cultivation and use. Athens, Greece: Publications Agrotypos SA, pp. 168 (in Greek).Google Scholar
Metochis, C (1980) Irrigation of lucerne under semi-arid conditions in Cyprus. Irrigation Science 1, 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moghaddam, Α, Raza, Α, Vollmann, J, Reza Ardakani, M, Wanek, W, Gollner, G and Friedel, JK (2015) Biological nitrogen fixation and biomass production stability in alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) genotypes under organic management conditions. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 31, 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nie, A and Norton, MR (2009) Stress tolerance and persistence of perennial grasses: the role of the summer dormancy trait in temperate Australia. Crop Science 49, 2405–2411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, MR, Li, GD, Xu, B, Price, A, Tyndall, P and Hayes, RC (2021) Differences in dehydration tolerance affect survival of white clover (Trifolium repens) and lucerne (Medicago sativa) during a drying cycle. Crop and Pasture Science. https://doi.org/10.1071/CP20300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pecetti, L, Carroni, AM, Annicchiarico, P, Manunza, P, Longu, A and Congiu, G (2008) Adaptation, summer survival and autumn dormancy of lucerne cultivars in south European Mediterranean region Sardinia. Options Méditerranéennes 79, 471–474.Google Scholar
Pecetti, L, Annicchiarico, P, Scotti, C, Paolini, M, Nanni, V and Palmonari, A (2016) Effects of plant architecture and drought stress level on lucerne forage quality. Grass and Forage Science, 72, 714–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peel, MC, Finlayson, BL and McMahon, TA (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11, 1633–1644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petit, HV, Pesant, AR, Barnett, GM, Mason, WN and Dionne, JL (1992) Quality and morphological characteristics of alfalfa as affected by soil moisture, pH and phosphorous fertilization. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 72, 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picasso, VD, Casler, MD and Undersander, D (2019) Resilience, stability, and productivity of alfalfa cultivars in rainfed regions of North America. Crop Science 59, 800–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotili, P, Gnocchi, G, Scotti, C and Kertikova, D (2001) Breeding of the alfalfa plant morphology for quality. Options Méditerranéennes 45, 25–27.Google Scholar
Sheaffer, CC, Tanner, CB and Kirkham, MB (1988) Alfalfa water relations and irrigation. In Hanson, AA, Barnes, DK and Hill, RR (eds), Alfalfa and Alfalfa Improvement. Madison, WI: ASA-CSSA-SSSA Publishers, pp. 373–409.Google Scholar
Teuber, LR, Taggard, KL, Gibbs, LK, McCaslin, MA, Peterson, MA and Barnes, DK (1998) Fall dormancy: standard tests to characterize alfalfa cultivars. Available online http://www.naaic.org/stdtests/Dormancy2.html (accessed on 12 September 2019).Google Scholar
Undersander, D (2003) The New Relative Forage Quality Index-Concept and Use. World's Forage Superbowl Contest, University of Wisconsin Extended Campus.Google Scholar
Van Oosterom, EJ, Whitaker, ML and Weltzien, E (1996) Integrating genotype by environment interaction analysis, characterization of drought patterns, and farmer preferences to identify adaptive plant traits for pearl millet. In Cooper, M and Hammer, GL (eds), Plant Adaptation and Crop Improvement. CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp. 383–402.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ventroni, LM, Volenec, JJ and Cangiano, CA (2010) Fall dormancy and cutting frequency impact on alfalfa yield and yield components. Field Crops Research 119, 252–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlachostergios, D and Baxevanos, D (2015) Greek Legume and Forage Cultivars. Larissa, Greece: Institute of Industrial and Fodder Crops, pp. 4–7 (in Greek).Google Scholar
Volaire, F (2008) Plant traits and functional types to characterise drought survival of pluri-specific perennial herbaceous swards in Mediterranean areas. European Journal of Agronomy 29, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volenec, JJ, Cunningham, SM, Haagenson, DM, Berg, WK, Joern, BC and Wiersma, DW (2002) Physiological genetics of alfalfa improvement: past failures, future prospects. Field Crops Research 75, 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, W and Kang, MS (2003) GGE Biplot Analysis: A Graphical Toll for Breeders, Geneticists, and Agronomists. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Zhang, TJ, Kang, JM, Guo, WS, Zhao, ZX, Xu, YP, Yan, XD and Yang, QC (2014) Yield evaluation of twenty-eight alfalfa cultivars in Hebei province of China. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 13, 2260–2267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar