Responses of legumes and grasses to non-, moderate, and dense shade in Missouri, USA. I. Forage yield and its species-level plasticity

Pang, Kejia; Sambeek, J. W. Van; Navarrete-Tindall, Nadia E.; Lin, Chung‐Ho; Jose, Shibu; Garrett, H. E.

doi:10.1007/s10457-017-0067-8

Cited by 74 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…On a few days with low wind speed or high solar radiation, the temperatures underneath the panel tended to be higher (Marrou et al 2013b). However, other studies found that soil temperature (Ehret et al 2015) and maximum air temperature (Pang et al 2017) decreased under shaded compared to full-sun conditions. This inconsistency may be due to the direct effects of the solar panels on air temperature observed in studies with ground-mounted solar parks (Barron-Gafford et al 2016;Hassanpour Adeh et al 2018) and the heterogeneous shading conditions underneath APV facilities.…”

Section: Microclimatic Alterations and Their Impact On Crop Cultivationmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…In wheat, the maximum leaf area index was found to be unaffected by shading (Artru et al 2017;Dufour et al 2013), while the straw biomass of some varieties increased (Artru et al 2017). For certain temperate grassland species, pot experiments with shading cloths showed that, depending on the variety, consistent or even higher yields can be achieved under moderate shade conditions (Pang et al 2017;Semchenko et al 2012). These findings were confirmed in the first year of our own APV experiments, where shading to the extent of about one third of PAR led to an increased vegetative plant biomass in wheat and celeriac, but barely affected total yields of clover grass.…”

Section: Effect Of Shading On Yield and Qualitymentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Agrophotovoltaic systems: applications, challenges, and opportunities. A review

Weselek

Ehmann

Zikeli

et al. 2019

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

311

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The expansion of renewable energies aims at meeting the global energy demand while replacing fossil fuels. However, it requires large areas of land. At the same time, food security is threatened by the impacts of climate change and a growing world population. This has led to increasing competition for limited land resources. In this context, the combination of photovoltaics and plant productionoften referred to as agrophotovoltaic (APV) or agrivoltaic systemshas been suggested as an opportunity for the synergistic combination of renewable energy and food production. Although this technology has already been applied in various commercial projects, its practicability and impact on crop production have hardly been investigated. In this review, we give a short summary of the current state of the art and prospective opportunities for the application of APV systems. In addition, we discuss microclimatic alterations and the resulting impacts of APV on crop production. Our main findings are that (1) crop cultivation underneath APV can lead to declining crop yields as solar radiation is expected to be reduced by about one third underneath the panels. However, microclimatic heterogeneities and their impact on crop yields are missing reference and thus, remain uncertain. (2) Through combined energy and crop production, APV can increase land productivity by up to 70%. (3) Given the impacts of climate change and conditions in arid climates, potential benefits are likely for crop production through additional shading and observed improvements of water productivity. (4) In addition, APV enhances the economic value of farming and can contribute to decentralized, off-grid electrification in developing and rural areas, thus further improving agricultural productivity. As such, APV can be a valuable technical approach for more sustainable agriculture, helping to meet current and prospective needs of energy and food production and simultaneously sparing land resources.

show abstract

Section: Microclimatic Alterations and Their Impact On Crop Cultivationmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Effect Of Shading On Yield and Qualitymentioning

confidence: 98%

Agrophotovoltaic systems: applications, challenges, and opportunities. A review

Weselek

Ehmann

Zikeli

et al. 2019

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

311

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, there are several arrangement possibilities (species of trees and planting density), which promsote contrasting understorey microclimate (Karvatte et al, ) and may affect pasture and livestock production. Most grass and legume forages in a treed system could present similar herbage accumulation and nutritive value (Fannon, Fike, Greiner, Feldhake, & Wahlberg, ) when compared with a grass monoculture, as long as root competition for nutrients and water remained minimal (Pang et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Forage and animal production on palisadegrass pastures growing in monoculture or as a component of integrated crop–livestock–forestry systems

Carvalho

Domiciano

Mombach

et al. 2019

Grass and Forage Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To meet the global demand for animal protein, sustainable intensification of existing livestock systems may be possible, especially through integration of livestock with crops or forestry. Thus, our objective was to compare forage production and animal performance in grass monoculture and integrated systems in the Brazilian Amazon biome. The four systems were (a) livestock (L) with Marandu palisadegrass {Brachiaria brizantha (Hochst. ex A. Rich.) R. D. Webster} as monoculture, (b) palisadegrass pastures integrated with eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus urograndis; hybrid of Eucalyptus grandis W. Hill ex Maiden and Eucalyptus urophylla S. T. Blake) arranged in three‐row groves with groves spaced 30 m apart (livestock–forestry; LF), (c) palisadegrass after two years of crops (crop–livestock; CL) and (d) palisadegrass after two years of crops with single rows of eucalyptus trees spaced 37 m apart (crop–livestock–forestry; CLF). From July 2016 to July 2017, all experimental units were continuously stocked using a variable stocking rate. Greater herbage accumulation (HA) occurred in CL and CLF in comparison with L and LF (21,310, 24,050, 19,500 and 18,890 kg DM/ha respectively). The gain per hectare of L, LF and CL (average of 932 kg ha–1) was less than CLF (1,190 kg ha–1). Average daily gain was similar among systems (0.69 kg/day). We conclude that integrated systems can support similar (LF or CL) or greater (CLF) levels of animal production than palisadegrass monocultures while increasing diversity of outputs, thereby providing a greater range of viable systems for livestock production in the Brazilian Amazon biome.

show abstract

“…Isso pode afetar as características das plantas forrageiras fazendo com que as pastagens sombreadas não apresentem produtividades em níveis equivalentes às das pastagens sem sombra. Todavia, estudos realizados por Pang et al (2017) testando o efeito da sombra moderada (45% da luz solar) e densa (20% da luz solar) sobre a produção forrageira, mostrou que a maioria das gramíneas e leguminosas forrageiras podem ter um bom desempenho tanto na agrossilvicultura como em pastagens sem árvores, desde que a competição dos sistemas radiculares seja mínima. Em sistemas silvipastoris, o sombreamento tem reduzido o estresse térmico melhorando o desempenho e a produtividade dos animais em pastejo, mesmo quando a oferta de pastagem é inferior (Peri et al, 2007;Domiciano et al, 2016;Deniz et al, 2019).…”

Section: Resultados Eunclassified

Estoques de carbono e nitrogênio no Sistema Silvipastoril com Núcleos: a nucleação aplicada viabilizando a pecuária de baixo carbono

Silva

Filho

Kazama

et al. 2020

RSD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A agricultura tem se mostrado um dos principais emissores dos gases de efeito estufa (GEE). Grande parte dessa emissão está relacionada ao sistema de produção e/ou manejo inadequado. Este estudo avaliou os efeitos do Sistema Silvipastoril com Núcleos (SSPnúcleos) na massa do dossel forrageiro (pasture cover), e nos estoques de carbono e nitrogênio quando implantado em pastagens sem árvores (PSA). As variáveis foram mensuradas em três situações, duas áreas dentro do SSPnúcleos - área próximo dos núcleos (APN) e área ensolarada entre os núcleos (AEN), e pastagem sem árvores (PSA). A participação proporcional das variáveis das áreas APN (30%) e AEN (60%) em cada hectare de pastagem originou as variáveis do SSPnúcleos como um todo. O SSPnúcleos não afetou a massa do dossel forrageiro e os estoques de carbono e nitrogênio (p<0,05). AEN apresentou valores superiores de biomassa e estoque de carbono que a PSA. O SSPnúcleos manteve a massa do dossel e o estoque de carbono por hectare, mesmo em 90% da área, já que 10% são o interior dos núcleos. O SSPnúcleos tem potencial para mitigar a emissão dos GEE da pecuária convencional minimizando o impacto nas mudanças climáticas.

show abstract

Responses of legumes and grasses to non-, moderate, and dense shade in Missouri, USA. I. Forage yield and its species-level plasticity

Cited by 74 publications

References 18 publications

Agrophotovoltaic systems: applications, challenges, and opportunities. A review

Agrophotovoltaic systems: applications, challenges, and opportunities. A review

Forage and animal production on palisadegrass pastures growing in monoculture or as a component of integrated crop–livestock–forestry systems

Estoques de carbono e nitrogênio no Sistema Silvipastoril com Núcleos: a nucleação aplicada viabilizando a pecuária de baixo carbono

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About