Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:22:04.612Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of landrace germplasm, non-conventional habit and regional cultivar selection on forage and seed yield of organically grown lucerne in Italy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2011

P. ANNICCHIARICO ,
L. PECETTI  and
R. TORRICELLI
P. ANNICCHIARICO
Affiliation:
CRA – Research Centre for Fodder Crops and Dairy Productions, viale Piacenza 29, 26900 Lodi, Italy
L. PECETTI*
Affiliation:
CRA – Research Centre for Fodder Crops and Dairy Productions, viale Piacenza 29, 26900 Lodi, Italy
R. TORRICELLI
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Biology, University of Perugia, Borgo XX Giugno 74, 06121 Perugia, Italy
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Organically grown lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) should ensure sufficiently high forage and seed yields to sustain the profitability of organic production chains. Twenty lucerne populations were evaluated for forage dry matter (DM) yield over 3 years (2005–7), and for seed yield and its components in the third year, under organic management and a mowing regime in Lodi (sub-continental climate with sandy-loam soil) and Perugia (sub-Mediterranean climate with silty-clay soil). The objectives were to assess the impact on lucerne forage and seed yield of: (i) type of germplasm (landrace or commercial cultivar); (ii) plant growth habit (erect or non-conventional); (iii) area of germplasm origin or selection (northern Italy north of the Po river, NI-N; northern Italy south of the Po river, NI-S; central Italy, CI). The populations included seven cultivars selected under conventional management and one selected under organic management, seven landraces and five breeding selections, of which one was semi-erect and one was semi-prostrate. On average, cultivar and landrace germplasm types did not differ for forage or seed yield in any geographic set of populations (NI-N, NI-S or CI), except for the higher seed yield of landraces in one set. Compared with erect germplasm, semi-prostrate germplasm exhibited distinctly lower forage and seed yield, especially where weed competition was severe (Lodi) because of poor competitive ability. Semi-erect germplasm tended to have lower forage yield across locations. Specific adaptation was the main determinant of forage and seed yield responses of landraces and cultivars. Erect populations originated in NI-N were high yielding in the test site similar to NI-N environments (Lodi) and low yielding in the location representing CI environments (Perugia). Populations that originated in CI, including the cultivar selected under organic management, displayed the opposite adaptive response. Populations that originated in NI-S, whose major environmental characteristics were somewhat intermediate between NI-N and CI, tended to be mid-ranking for forage and seed yield in each site. The large cross-over population×location interaction was confirmed by the lack of genetic correlation for forage yield (rg=−0·25, P>0·20) and the negative genetic correlation for seed yield (rg=−0·68, P<0·05) of populations across locations. No genetic correlation across locations was found for density of fertile tillers and pod fertility. The association of population seed yield with its component traits was site-specific. Cropping and seed multiplication of locally adapted erect cultivars have paramount importance for mown organically grown lucerne in Italy.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 150 , Issue 3 , June 2012 , pp. 345 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Annicchiarico, P. (1992). Cultivar adaptation and recommendation from a set of alfalfa trials in Northern Italy. Journal of Genetics and Breeding 46, 269–278.Google Scholar
Annicchiarico, P. (2003). Breeding white clover for increased ability to compete with associated grasses. Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Cambridge 140, 255–266.Google Scholar
Annicchiarico, P. (2006). Diversity, genetic structure, distinctness and agronomic value of Italian lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) landraces. Euphytica 148, 269–282.Google Scholar
Annicchiarico, P. (2007 a). Wide- versus specific-adaptation strategy for lucerne breeding in northern Italy. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 114, 647–657.Google Scholar
Annicchiarico, P. (2007 b). Lucerne shoot and root traits associated with adaptation to favourable or drought-stress environments and to contrasting soil types. Field Crops Research 102, 51–59.Google Scholar
Annicchiarico, P. (2007 c). Inter- and intra-population genetic variation for leaf:stem ratio in landraces and varieties of lucerne. Grass and Forage Science 62, 100–103.Google Scholar
Annicchiarico, P. & Piano, E. (2005). Use of artificial environments to reproduce and exploit genotype×location interaction for lucerne in northern Italy. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 110, 219–227.Google Scholar
Annicchiarico, P. & Pecetti, L. (2010). Forage and seed yield response of lucerne cultivars to chemically-weeded and non-weeded managements and implications for germplasm choice in organic farming. European Journal of Agronomy 33, 74–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annicchiarico, P., Pecetti, L. & Romani, M. (2007). Seed yielding ability of landraces of lucerne in Italy. Grass and Forage Science 62, 507–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annicchiarico, P., Chiapparino, E. & Perenzin, M. (2010 a). Response of common wheat varieties to organic and conventional production systems across Italian locations, and implications for selection. Field Crops Research 116, 230–238.Google Scholar
Annicchiarico, P., Scotti, C., Carelli, M. & Pecetti, L. (2010 b). Questions and avenues for alfalfa improvement. Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 46, 1–13.Google Scholar
Battini, F., Pecetti, L., Romani, M., Annicchiarico, P., Ligabue, M., & Piano, E. (2007). Persistence of lucerne cultivars under grazing in organic farms of northern and central Italy. In Breeding and Seed Production for Conventional and Organic Agriculture. Proceedings of the XXVI Meeting of the EUCARPIA Fodder Crops and Amenity Grasses Section; XVI Meeting of the EUCARPIA Medicago spp. Group, Perugia, Italy, 2–7 September 2006 (Eds Rosellini, D. & Veronesi, F.), pp. 145–149. Perugia, Italy: University of Perugia.Google Scholar
Brummer, E. C. (1999). Capturing heterosis in forage crop cultivar development. Crop Science 39, 943–954.Google Scholar
Brummer, E. C. & Bouton, J. H. (1991). Plant traits associated with grazing-tolerant alfalfa. Agronomy Journal 83, 996–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burdon, R. D. (1977). Genetic correlation as a concept for studying genotype-environment interaction in forest tree breeding. Silvae Genetica 26, 168–175.Google Scholar
Campbell, B. D., Grime, J. P., MacKey, J. M. L. (1991). A trade-off between scale and precision in resource foraging. Oecologia 87, 532–538.Google Scholar
Campiglia, E., Caporali, F., Barberi, R. & Mancinelli, R. (1999). Influence of 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-year stands of alfalfa on winter wheat yield. In Proceeding of the International Workshop ‘Designing and Testing Crop Rotations for Organic Farming.’ (Eds Olesen, J. E., Eltun, R., Gooding, M. J., Jensen, E. S. & Köpke, U.), pp. 165–171. Tjele, DK: DARCOF.Google Scholar
Carr, P. M., Kandel, H. J., Porter, P. M., Horsley, R. D. & Zwinger, S. F. (2006). Wheat cultivar performance on certified organic fields in Minnesota and North Dakota. Crop Science 46, 1963–1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casler, M., Riday, H. & Undersander, D. (2007). Organic vs. conventional fodder crops in the USA: A challenge for breeders? In Breeding and Seed Production for Conventional and Organic Agriculture. Proceedings of the XXVI Meeting of the EUCARPIA Fodder Crops & Amenity Grasses Section; XVI Meeting of the EUCARPIA Medicago spp. Group, Perugia, Italy, 2–7 September 2006 (Eds Rosellini, D. & Veronesi, F.), pp. 17–23. Perugia, Italy: University of Perugia.Google Scholar
Falcinelli, M. & Martiniello, P. (1998). Forage seed production in Italy. Journal of Applied Seed Production 16, 61–66.Google Scholar
Falcinelli, M. & Torricelli, R. (2001). Costituzione di una varietà di erba medica per l'agricoltura biologica. Sementi Elette 47, 36–39.Google Scholar
Fick, G. W., Holt, D. A. & Lugg, D. G. (1988). Environmental physiology and crop growth. In Alfalfa and Alfalfa Improvement (Eds Hanson, A. A., Barnes, D. K. & Hill, R. R. Jr), pp. 163–194. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA.Google Scholar
Julier, B., Barre, P., Hébert, Y., Huguet, T. & Huyghe, C. (2003). Methodology of alfalfa breeding: a review of recent achievements. Czech Journal of Genetics and Plant Breeding 39, 71–81.Google Scholar
Li, X., Wei, Y., Moore, K. J., Michaud, R., Viands, D. R., Hansen, J. L., Acharya, A. & Brummer, E. C. (2011). Association mapping of biomass yield and stem composition in a tetraploid alfalfa breeding population. Plant Genome 4, 24–35.Google Scholar
Lorenzana, R. E. & Bernardo, R. (2008). Genetic correlation between corn performance in organic and conventional production systems. Crop Science 48, 903–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, K. M., Campbell, K. G., Lyon, S. R. & Jones, S. S. (2007). Evidence of varietal adaptation to organic farming systems. Field Crops Research 102, 172–177.Google Scholar
Newton, A. C., Akar, T., Baresel, J. P., Bebeli, P. J., Bettencourt, E., Bladenopoulos, K. V., Czembor, J. H., Fasoula, D. A., Katsiotis, A., Koutis, K., Koutsika-Sotiriou, M., Kovacs, G., Larsson, H., Pinheiro De Carvalho, M. A. A., Rubiales, D., Russell, J., Dos Santos, T. M. M. & Vaz Patto, M. C. (2009). Cereal landraces for sustainable agriculture. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30, 237–269.Google Scholar
Pecetti, L., Romani, M. & Piano, E. (2006). Persistence of morphologically diverse lucerne under continuous stocking and intensive grazing. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 57, 999–1007.Google Scholar
Pecetti, L., Romani, M., De Rosa, L., & Piano, E. (2008). Selection of grazing-tolerant lucerne cultivars. Grass Forage Science 63, 360–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahmann, G. & Böhm, H. (2005). Organic fodder production in intensive organic livestock production in Europe: recent scientific findings and the impact on the development of organic farming. In Integrating Livestock–Crop Systems to Meet the Challenges of Globalisation − Volume 2 (Eds Rowlinson, P., Wachirapakorn, C., Pakdee, P. & Wanapat, M.), pp. 471–485. Penicuik, UK: British Society of Animal Science.Google Scholar
Rincker, C. M., Marble, V. L., Brown, D. E. & Johansen, C. A. (1988). Seed production practices. In Alfalfa and Alfalfa Improvement (Eds Hanson, A. A., Barnes, D. K. & Hill, R. R. Jr), pp. 985–1021. Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, SSSA.Google Scholar
Russi, L. & Falcinelli, M. (1997). Characterization and agronomic value of Italian landraces of lucerne (Medicago sativa). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 129, 267–277.Google Scholar
Simon, U. (1997). Environmental effects in seed production of forage legumes. In Proceedings of the XVIII International Grassland Congress, Vol. 3, pp. 455–460. Winnipeg, MB and Saskatoon, SK, Canada: International Grassland Congress.Google Scholar
Smith, S. R. Jr. & Bouton, J. H. (1989). Seed yield of grazing tolerant alfalfa germplasm. Crop Science 29, 1195–1199.Google Scholar
Tomasoni, C., Borrelli, L. & Pecetti, L. (2003). Influence of fodder crop rotations on the potential weed flora in the irrigated lowlands of Lombardy, Italy. European Journal of Agronomy 19, 439–451.Google Scholar
Woodfield, D. R. & Brummer, E. C. (2001). Integrating molecular techniques to maximize the genetic potential of forage legumes. In Molecular Breeding of Forage Crops (Ed. Spangenberg, G.), pp. 51–65. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Zhang, T., Wang, X., Han, J., Wang, Y., Mao, P. & Majerus, M. (2008). Effects of between-row and within-row spacing on alfalfa seed yields. Crop Science 48, 794–803.Google Scholar