Influence of pruning frequency of Albizia lebbeck, Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena leucocephala on nodulation and potential nitrogen fixation

Kadiata, B. D.; Mulongoy, K.; Isirimah, N. O.

doi:10.1007/s003740050240

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, the most frequent pruning treatment (PF3) was found to decrease nodule DM and nodule numbers of S. sesban (Table 4). The finding is consistent with data of [24] which showed that pruning frequency of 3 times in 16 months decreased nodule mass of A. lebbeck, G. sepium and L. leucocephala by 34.8, 26.8 and 11.6%, respectively, as compared with unpruned controls. In an experiment with E. poeppigiana, Chesney and Nygren (2000) found a 71% decline in nodule mass of completely pruned plants as compared with partially pruned plants.…”

Section: Reserve Carbohydrate Concentrationssupporting

confidence: 92%

“…In the present study, frequent pruning was found to decrease root DM and root length in S. sesban (Table 2), a finding consistent with data of many studies conducted on other important N2-fixing agroforestry legumes [14,24,25]. For example, Kadiata et al (1997) found that shoot removal reduced root biomass of Albizia lebbeck and L. leucocephala by 40 and 20%, respectively. The reduction in root DM and length of the most frequently pruned plants (PF3) observed in this study could result from cessation of root growth and their decomposition.…”

Section: Above-and Belowground Biomass Productivitysupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Pruning Frequency on Biomass Productivity, Nonstructural Carbohydrates and Nitrogen Fixation Rates of <em>Sesbania Sesban</em>

Makhubedu¹,

Letty²,

Mafongoya³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tree pruning is a management tool in agroforestry systems for reducing shade, enhancing nutrient cycling or providing fodder. However, little information is available on the effect of pruning management on plant growth, non-structural carbohydrate (NSC) levels in the roots and N2 fixation of Sesbania sesban. A glasshouse experiment was conducted to assess the effect of pruning frequency on biomass production, NSC levels and N2 fixation of Sesbania sesban. Treatments included pruning at (i) 3 months only, (ii) 3 and 6 months, and (iii) 3, 6 and 9 months, with each pruning removing shoot biomass above 50% of the initial height. Increased pruning frequency decreased above- and belowground dry matter (DM), and root NSC levels. The decrease in aboveground DM correlated with reduced levels of starch, sugar and total non-structural carbohydrates. Pruning more frequently significantly decreased nodulation, the percentage N derived from the atmosphere and N2 fixed. It could be concluded that more frequent prunings decreases biomass and NSC levels which could reduce the regeneration capacity of trees since they rely on NSCs to regrow. The suppressive effects of increased pruning frequency on N2 fixation could decrease the desirable benefits of legume trees on soil N fertility improvement.

show abstract

Section: Reserve Carbohydrate Concentrationssupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Above-and Belowground Biomass Productivitysupporting

confidence: 92%

Effects of Pruning Frequency on Biomass Productivity, Nonstructural Carbohydrates and Nitrogen Fixation Rates of <em>Sesbania Sesban</em>

Makhubedu¹,

Letty²,

Mafongoya³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Complete removal of the lower three-quarters of the branches (heavy pruning) resulted in a reduced sink for dry matter allocation but also reduced the maintenance respiration. Similarly, Kadiata et al (1997) observed higher biomass production in repeatedly pruned Albizia lebbeck, Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena leucocephala trees, while a single pruning in their studies failed to induce a stimulatory effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…In our study, pruning increased the photosynthetic rate and hence, biomass growth, linearly with increasing pruning intensity. Responses of plants to defoliation either by pruning or lopping vary greatly (see Belsky, 1986;Singh & Thompson, 1995;Kadiata et al, 1997;Patch et al, 1998;Verdaguer et al, 2000). Increase in total biomass has been observed in most cases, e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Effect of pruning on Prosopis juliflora: considerations for tropical dryland agroforestry

Elfadl

Luukkanen

2003

Journal of Arid Environments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…If wood is a primary goal, however, management must favor the tree (Muir, 1998) to the detriment of herbaceous species. If tree browse or soil amendments are a priority, then these may have to be pruned more often, taking care to maintain carbohydrate reserves and rhizobium viability (and consequent biologically fixed N levels) (Kadiata et al, 1997;Latt et al, 2000).…”

Section: Challenges Of Multi-purpose Treesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tree legumes: an underexploited resource in warm-climate silvopastures

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

-Tree legumes are an underexploited resource in warm-climate silvopastures. Perceived benefits of tree legumes include provisioning (browse/mast, timber, fuel, human food, natural medicines, and ornamentals), regulating (C sequestration, greenhouse gas mitigation, soil erosion control and riparian buffers, shade, windbreaks, and habitat for pollinators), supporting (biological N 2 -fixation, nutrient cycling, soil fertility and soil health, photosynthesis, and primary productivity), and cultural ecosystem services. Tree legumes, however, have not been assessed to the same extent as herbaceous legumes. Once tree legumes are established, they are often more persistent than most herbaceous legumes. There are limitations for extended research with tree legume silvopastures, but extensive research has been done in Africa and Australia and recent efforts have been reported in South America. Economic benefits must be demonstrated to land managers to increase adoption. These benefits are apparent in the research and successes already available, but more long-term research, including the livestock component is necessary. Other factors that reduce adoption include paucity of domesticated germplasm, lag in research/technology, challenges of multipurpose trees and management complexity, challenges to mechanization, dangers of invasive weeds, and social and cultural barriers. In the current scenario of climate change and the need to increase food security, tree legumes are a key component for the sustainable intensification of livestock systems in warm-climate regions.Key Words: biological N 2 fixation, ecosystem services, grassland, nutrient cycling, tropical Revista Brasileira de Zootecnia

show abstract

Influence of pruning frequency of Albizia lebbeck, Gliricidia sepium and Leucaena leucocephala on nodulation and potential nitrogen fixation

Cited by 7 publications

References 8 publications

Effects of Pruning Frequency on Biomass Productivity, Nonstructural Carbohydrates and Nitrogen Fixation Rates of <em>Sesbania Sesban</em>

Effects of Pruning Frequency on Biomass Productivity, Nonstructural Carbohydrates and Nitrogen Fixation Rates of <em>Sesbania Sesban</em>

Effect of pruning on Prosopis juliflora: considerations for tropical dryland agroforestry

Tree legumes: an underexploited resource in warm-climate silvopastures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About