Forage production by two Lotus species as influenced by companion grass species

Abstract

A small‐plot experiment was carried out with grass‐lotus (Lotus spp.) swards on a lowland (185 m) clay‐soil site in S‐W England. Two species of lotus (Lotus corniculatus cv. Leo and L. pedunculatus, syn, L. uliginosus, cv. Maku) were each sown at 10 kg seed ha−1 with lour grass species each at two grass‐seed rates: Festuca pratensis at 6 or 3 kg ha−1 and Phleum pratense, Agrostis capillaris and Poa pratensis at 4 or 2 kg ha−1. Assessments were made over three harvest years (1992–94). during which no fertilizers were applied. Mean total herbage dry matter (DM) harvested from cv. Leo swards was 90 t ha−1 in year 1, 8–9 t ha−1 in year 2 and 4 0 t ha−1 in year 3. and from cv. Maku swards 6–6 t ha−1 in year 1. 8–9 t ha−1 in year 2 and 3–9 t ha−1 in year 3. Highest three‐year mean total yields were with F. pratensis as the companion grass (7–4 t ha−1 year−1), followed by Phleum pratense (7–0 t ha−1), A. capillaris (6–9 t ha−1) and Poa pratensis (6–2 t ha−1). The lower grass‐seed rate resulted in a greater proportion of lotus in the total harvested DM in year I. The higher grass‐seed rate resulted in higher yields from F. pratensis swards in year 1, but there were no significant effects for other species or in subsequent years. Lotus as a proportion of harvested DM declined from about 70% in year 1 to about 20% in year 3. The mean DM yield of lotus herbage in years 1, 2 and 3, respectively, was 5–5, 2–8 and 0–8 t ha−1 from cv. Leo swards, and 4–0, 3–3 and 0–8 t ha−1 from cv. Maku swards. Lotus herbage was of higher digestibility from cv. Leo [digestible organic matter (DOM) of 661 g kg−1 of lotus DM] compared with cv. Maku (551 g kg−1 DM). Mean N content of lotus herbage was 35 g N kg−1 DM. Digestibility of companion grass herbage was highest for Phleum pratense (557 g kg−1 DM) and lowest for A. capillaris (493 g kg−1 DM). It is concluded that lotus may be an alternative legume to white clover for low‐input, low‐fertility situations. However, further research is needed to evaluate its performance on different sites and under different management regimes, particularly grazing, and to overcome the apparent problems of its persistence.

Grazing legumes in Europe: a review of their status, management, benefits, research needs and future prospects

“…, 2000b) or conventional livestock farming systems. Research with Lotus species ( L. corniculatus and L. pedunculatus ) has shown relatively high levels of forage production in low‐input systems (Hopkins et al. , 1996).…”

Forage legumes for future dry climates: Lower relative biomass losses of minor forage legumes compared to Trifolium repens under conditions of periodic drought stress

“…Thus, with the inclusion of minor forage species in mixtures, the resilience of grass‐based systems may be improved, especially in regions suffering from low water availability (Ergon et al., ; Frame et al., ). In this context, minor forage legumes, native usually to less favourable environmental conditions, represent a promising future option (Skerman, , Klebesadel, ; Hopkins, Martyn, Johnson, Sheldrick, & Lavender, ; Frame et al., ; Rochon et al., ; Sheppard et al., ). Recently, Malisch et al.…”

Establishment and Early Yield Development of Five Possible Alternatives to Trifolium repens as a Grassland Legume

“…Currently, the agronomic knowledge, including early stages of establishment in monoculture and in mixture with grasses, of other legumes of permanent grasslands is limited (Hopkins, Martyn, Johnson, Sheldrick, & Lavender, 1996;Rochon et al, 2004;Hopkins & Wilkins, 2006;Sölter, Hopkins, Sitzia, Goby, & Greef, 2007) and their cultivation and use insignificant. Early development determines to a great deal the successful establishment and yield contribution of legumes especially when sown in mixture with grasses (Petersen, 1967).…”