Morphological Characteristics and Forage Productivity of Irrigated Cactus Pear Under Different Cutting Intensities

Abstract

-This study evaluated the effect of different cutting intensities and years of harvesting on the morphological characteristics and production of fresh (FMP) and dry matter (DMP) of cactus pear cv. Gigante (Opuntia ficus-indica Mill) under conditions of irrigation, high planting density and fertilization, with 12 months of regrowth. The experimental was completely randomized in a factorial design (3 × 2) with 12 replicates. The treatments were three cutting intensities (preserving the mother cladode (PMC), primary cladodes (PPC), or secondary cladodes (PSC)), and two years of harvesting. The soil was classified as Cambisol Haplicum and the irrigation water was classified as C4S1 (EC 5.25 dS.m -1 ) density of 50,000 plants ha -1 . The research evaluated plant height, number of cladodes per plant (NCP), length, width, perimeter and thickness of the cladodes, cladode area (CA), cladode area index (CAI), FMP and DMP. There was no significant interaction between treatments (P > 0.05) for the variables plant height, NCP, CAI and FMP. The variables related to cladode morphology showed a significant interaction (P < 0.05). The treatment PSC resulted in a greater DMP (P < 0.05) with a mean of 27.17 Mg ha -1 yr -1 , compared to PPC (18.58 Mg ha -1 yr -1 ) or PMC (11.78 Mg ha -1 yr -1 ). The treatment PSC promoted greater NCP and forage productivity at harvest and can be considered as a management practice for the sustainability of cactus pear cv. Gigante under irrigation. The more important morphological characteristics were also influenced by the lower cutting intensities.

Phenophases and cutting time of forage cactus under irrigation and cropping systems

“…The forage cactus is traditionally harvested every two years, under non-irrigated conditions (Silva et al 2015a, Lima et al 2016. However, the climatic conditions and agronomic practices adopted during cropping may accelerate or delay the onset and duration of each development phase, anticipating or postponing harvest and therefore altering yields.…”

“…In Brazil, this method has been used in the States of Rio Grande do Norte, Pernambuco and Ceará (Queiroz et al 2015, Santos et al 2013. Lima et al (2016) harvested Opuntia ficus-indica Mill cv. 'Gigante' at one and two years after planting, under irrigated conditions, observing that the highest yields were obtained when harvested at two years.…”

Aplicabilidade de indicadores agrometeorológicos para análise do incremento de água por irrigação em sistemas de produção da palma forrageira, cv. Miúda

“…De acordo com estudos anteriores Lima et al, 2016), a menor deficiência de água induz a um aumento significativo da massa fresca e seca da Miúda, contudo, nesses estudos evidenciou-se um detrimento do conteúdo de massa seca. Na presente pesquisa, o conteúdo foi de 8%, bem inferior aos valores relatados por Santos et al (2006b) (11,73%) e Leite (2009), que, nas condições do semiárido paraibano, encontrou um valor de 14% de conteúdo de matéria seca para a palma Miúda.…”

“…Na palma forrageira, apenas recentemente tem se estimulado o uso de irrigação como opção de incremento produtivo no Semiárido brasileiro. Essa tendência é evidenciada para outras plantas forrageiras (Vale & Azevedo, 2013), e embora não seja comum para essa espécie, há registros bem sucedidos nos estados do Rio Grande do Norte e de Pernambuco (Queiroz et al, 2015;Lima et al, 2016). Em outras regiões do mundo, o uso de irrigação mesmo que de forma complementar tem permitido a obtenção de maiores produtividades (Flores-Hernández et al, 2004).…”

Optimal plot size for experimental trials with Opuntia cactus pear

“…Recent studies with cactus pear have been developed to optimize agricultural resources for various technological levels. These works are associated with mineral fertilization , organic fertilization (Donato, Donato, Silva, Pires, & Silva Júnior, 2017), economic viability of irrigated and narrow rows (Dantas et al, 2017), harvest intensity and correct harvest management (Lima et al, 2016), animal feed (Aguiar et al, 2015), among others (Guimarães, Donato, Azevedo, Aspiazú, & Silva Junior, 2018).…”