Irrigation and Nitrogen Treatments Slightly Affected Teff Yield and Quality in the Southwestern USA

Lauriault, Leonard M.; VanLeeuwen, Dawn; Turner, John P.

doi:10.1094/fg-2013-0326-01-rs

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Canopy height comparisons were based on 10 physically-measured canopy height classes at ten centimeter increments. These comparisons were performed using PROC MIXED [ 34 ] in combination with the PDMIX800 macro [ 41 , 42 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of Biomass and Canopy Height in Bermudagrass, Alfalfa, and Wheat Using Ultrasonic, Laser, and Spectral Sensors

Pittman

Arnall

Interrante

et al. 2015

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Non-destructive biomass estimation of vegetation has been performed via remote sensing as well as physical measurements. An effective method for estimating biomass must have accuracy comparable to the accepted standard of destructive removal. Estimation or measurement of height is commonly employed to create a relationship between height and mass. This study examined several types of ground-based mobile sensing strategies for forage biomass estimation. Forage production experiments consisting of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), bermudagrass [Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.], and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) were employed to examine sensor biomass estimation (laser, ultrasonic, and spectral) as compared to physical measurements (plate meter and meter stick) and the traditional harvest method (clipping). Predictive models were constructed via partial least squares regression and modeled estimates were compared to the physically measured biomass. Least significant difference separated mean estimates were examined to evaluate differences in the physical measurements and sensor estimates for canopy height and biomass. Differences between methods were minimal (average percent error of 11.2% for difference between predicted values versus machine and quadrat harvested biomass values (1.64 and 4.91 t·ha−1, respectively), except at the lowest measured biomass (average percent error of 89% for harvester and quad harvested biomass < 0.79 t·ha−1) and greatest measured biomass (average percent error of 18% for harvester and quad harvested biomass >6.4 t·ha−1). These data suggest that using mobile sensor-based biomass estimation models could be an effective alternative to the traditional clipping method for rapid, accurate in-field biomass estimation.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimation of Biomass and Canopy Height in Bermudagrass, Alfalfa, and Wheat Using Ultrasonic, Laser, and Spectral Sensors

Pittman

Arnall

Interrante

et al. 2015

Sensors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the study site, optimum temperature for teff production can be observed from April to June and September, while temperatures are higher than optimum from July to August (Table 1). Typically, the first harvest of teff averaged 68 DAP (range: 48–95 DAP) with subsequent harvest at an average of 38 days (range: 25–48 days after harvest [DAH]) (Hall & Cherney, 2010; Hancock & Durham, 2009; Lauriault et al., 2014; Roseberg et al., 2005). The average DAP and DAH for the present study were 64 DAP with cut 2 at 42 DAH and cut 3 at 53 DAH.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Roseberg et al (2005) reported no nitrogen response of teff under little or no irrigation in Oregon. Most studies reported no yield advantages with nitrogen rates greater than 50 lb a −1 cut −1 (Abaye et al, 2009;Hancock et al, 2009;Hunter et al, 2009;Lauriault et al, 2014;Roseberg et al, 2005). The present study also showed the yield advantage with nitrogen application at 50 lb a −1 and not with 100 lb a −1 in dryland trial.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has gained popularity in the United States as an emergency summer forage for livestock due to its heat and drought tolerance and rapid growth habit (Barretto et al., 2021; Girma et al., 2012; Hancock & Durham, 2009; Hunter et al., 2009). It has been successfully produced in the Pacific Northwest region (Norberg et al., 2008; Roseberg et al., 2005), and also in the states of South Dakota (Twidwell et al., 2002), New York (Hunter et al., 2009), Nevada (Davison, 2006; Davison & McKnight, 2004; Davison & Peraldo, 2005), Utah (Laca, 2021), New Mexico (Lauriault et al., 2014), and Oklahoma (Girma et al., 2012). No report of teff production has been reported in the Texas Rolling Plains, where prolonged summer heat provides stressful environment for crop and forage production.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The optimal soil temperature for teff establishment is 55–65°F (McIntosh & Bates, 2020). With the successful establishment, studies reported that the first harvest can be made at average 68 days after planting (DAP) with subsequent harvesting at an average 38 days interval (Hall & Cherney, 2010; Hancock & Durham, 2009; Lauriault et al., 2014; Roseberg et al., 2005). A yield response to nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers has been observed in multiple studies (Ayalew et al., 2011; Gedamu et al., 2023; Girma et al., 2012; Hunter et al., 2009; Roseberg et al., 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Teff grass increases summer forage availability in the Rolling Plains of Texas

Kimura,

Ramirez

2024

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teff [Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] grass has gained popularity in the United States as an emergency summer forage for livestock due to its drought tolerance and rapid growth habit. An alternative forage would benefit Texas Rolling Plains growers due to the summer forage shortage caused by drought conditions. However, among the teff research conducted in the United States, there is great variability in the forage yields and nutritive values depending on the amount of nitrogen and available water. The objective of the study was to evaluate forage productivity and nutritive value of teff in the Texas Rolling Plains under irrigated and dryland conditions with two nitrogen rates and application timings. Nitrogen fertilizer treatments included single applications of either 50 or 100 lb a−1 applied at planting and a split application of either 50 or 100 lb a−1 applied both at planting and after the first harvest. No differences were observed among nitrogen rates and application methods in the irrigated trial (5286 lb a−1). The split application of 100 lb a−1 produced the greatest total yield in the dryland trial (3096 lb a−1) with no yield advantage of 100 lb N a−1 over 50 lb N a−1 at the first cutting. Forage nutritive values were similar to the warm‐season forage species utilized in the region. This study showed that teff can be an alternative forage species in the region. Future research will include planting dates, nitrogen application timing, cutting height, and the interaction of these factors on yield and nutritive values of teff.

show abstract

Yield, Nutritive Value, and Profitability of Direct‐Seeded Annual Forages following Spring‐Terminated Alfalfa

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Core Ideas Forage yield increased with fertilizer N only when conditions were cool and wet. Weed biomass was frequently increased with the addition of fertilizer N. Fertilizer N did not increase economic net return in 2 of 3 site‐years. Annual ryegrass often resulted in consistent establishment and greatest economic return. Winter‐kill of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) causes substantial yield losses in northern environments, requiring alternative forages to meet livestock needs. This study explores the forage yield, nutritive value, and N response of seven annual forage species and one grass–legume biculture, no‐till planted into spring‐terminated alfalfa. Forages were planted in late May at Rosemount, MN, in 2014 and 2015 and at Waseca, MN, in 2015 with split‐plot factors of three N fertilizer rates (0, 56, and 112 kg N ha−1) and were harvested on approximately 30‐d intervals. When successfully established, teff [Eragrotis tef (Zuccagni) ‘Summer Lovegrass’] and sudangrass [Sorghum bicolor (L.) subsp. drummondii (Nees ex Steud.) ‘PCS 3010’] were among the highest‐yielding species, with yields ranging from 4.2 to 9.9 Mg DM ha−1 and 6.8 to 8.9 Mg DM ha−1, respectively. Fertilizer N increased yields of all species at Rosemount in 2014; however, N needs were met by terminated alfalfa at both locations in 2015. Weed biomass increased with added fertilizer N in site‐years when weeds were present. Nitrogen fertilization improved forage nutritive value through decreased neutral detergent fiber concentration and increased crude protein concentration and neutral detergent fiber digestibility (48‐h in‐vitro) in all site‐years. However, N fertilization had no effect on economic net return in 2 of 3 site‐years. Annual ryegrass [Lolium multiflorum (Lam.) ‘Jumbo’] most consistently resulted in the greatest net return. No‐till planting annual forages into terminated alfalfa can provide forage to offset losses and utilize alfalfa N in situations of alfalfa winter‐kill.

show abstract

Irrigation and Nitrogen Treatments Slightly Affected Teff Yield and Quality in the Southwestern USA

Cited by 3 publications

References 12 publications

Estimation of Biomass and Canopy Height in Bermudagrass, Alfalfa, and Wheat Using Ultrasonic, Laser, and Spectral Sensors

Estimation of Biomass and Canopy Height in Bermudagrass, Alfalfa, and Wheat Using Ultrasonic, Laser, and Spectral Sensors

Teff grass increases summer forage availability in the Rolling Plains of Texas

Yield, Nutritive Value, and Profitability of Direct‐Seeded Annual Forages following Spring‐Terminated Alfalfa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About