EFFECTS OF SUPPRESSION APPLICATIONS ON SUMMER ASPHODEL (Asphodelus aestivus Brot.) DENSITY, BOTANICAL COMPOSITION, FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY OF AEGEAN RANGELANDS

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 27 Sayı: 1, 61 - 70, 20.06.2022

Mustafa Sürmen Emre Kara

https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.1051111

Cited By: 3

Öz

Summer asphodel (Asphodelus aestivus Brot.) has an underground storage organ that enables the plant to
survive extreme conditions and contains alkaloids that are toxic to the livestock in rangelands. For this reason,
the experiment was carried out in the rangeland of Aydin province (Turkey) in order to determine the most
effective methods of weed management where there is an increase in the summer asphodel (Asphodelus aestivus
Brot.) population. In the study, the effects of 8 different control methods (control, mowing, fertilization,
paraquat, glyphosate, 2,4-D, 2,4-D + Picloram, grubbing) on yield, quality and botanical composition were
investigated. Result of the findings in this study shows that the grasses increased more in vegetation. The highest
values of hay yield were observed in paraquat and fertilization applications. High values of crude protein yield
were found in fertilization and grubbing applications. The lowest population of summer asphodel (Asphodelus
aestivus Brot.) was obtained grubbing and paraquat applications. Together with these results, grubbing,
fertilization, paraquat and glyphosate applications come to the fore. However, due to the high workforce, it is
significant to choose an application considering the size of the rangeland and the population of the indicator
weed species.

Anahtar Kelimeler

forage quality, herbicide, rangeland vegetation, summer asphodel, weed control

Destekleyen Kurum

ADÜ-BAP

Proje Numarası

ZRF-15035

Teşekkür

The research was carried out with the project BAP-ZRF-15035 supported by Adnan Menderes University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit. Thanks to the lecturers who organized the scientific activity by 1059B291500384 Project that funded by TUBITAK-2229 Scientific Human Resource Support Program for the analysis of PCA.

Kaynakça

• Alaturk, F., A. Gokkus., A. Baboo., S. Birer and B. Tonga. 2018. The effects of dıfferent herbıcıdes and theır applıcatıon seasons on controllıng of Asphodelus aestıvus. New Knowledge Journal of Science 7(2): 105-111.
• Altin, M. and M. Tuna. 1991. Effects of Different Improvement Methods on Yield and Vegetation of Banarlı Village Natural Pasture. Turkey 2nd Rangeland and Forage Crops Congress. Izmir. 95-105.
• Altin, M. 1992. Rangeland Improvement. Trakya University, Faculty of Agriculture in Tekirdag.Tekirdag.
• AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis association of official analytical chemists. Arlington. VA.USA.
• Aydin, I and F. Uzun. 2000. Effect of Different Improvement Methods on Yield and Botanical Composition of Natural Pasture in Salur Village of Ladik Town. Turkish Journal of Agricultural Forestry 24: 301-307.
• Balabanli, C., S. Albayrak and O. Yuksel. 2010. Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizatıon on the quality and yield of native rangeland. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 15(2): 164-168.
• Barnes, R. F., D.A. Miller and C. J. Nelson. 1995. Forages Volume 1: An introduction to grassland agriculture fifth edition. Iowa State University Press. Iowa. USA.
• Calis I., S. Birincioglu., H. Kırmızıbekmez., H. Pfeiffer and J. Heilmann 2006. Secondary metabolites from Asphodelus aestivus. Z. Naturforsch 61b: 1304-1310.
• Cetiner, M., A. Gokkus and M. Parlak. 2012. Effect of grazing on vegetation and soil traits of an artificial rangeland. Anadolu J Agr Sci 27 (2): 80–88.
• Cinar, S., R. Hatipoglu and M. Avci. 2015. Effects of Some Weed Control Methods on Hay Yield, Botanical Composition and Forage Quality of a Rangeland in the Mediterranean Region. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 21:39-49.
• Cook, C.W. and J. Stubbendieck. 1986. Range research: basic problems and techniques. Society for Range Management. Colorado. 317.
• Darrell, L. D. and W. Leon. 2005. Weed control in pasture & range, College of Agriculture & Biological Sciences. Cooperative Extension Service. South Dakota State University. USA.
• Días Lifante, Z. and B. Valdés 1996. Revisión del género Asphodelus L. (Asphodelaceae) en el Mediterráneo Occidental. Boissiera 52: 11–189.
• DiTomaso, J. M., R.A. Masters and V.F. Petersen 2010. Rangeland Invasive Plant Management. Society for Range Management, Rangelands 32(1): 43-47.
• Genckan, M. S., R. Avcıoglu., H. Soya and O. O. Dogan 1990. The use of Turkey pasture, preservation and problems and solutions related to the development. Turkey Agricultural Engineering III.Technical Congress. January 8 to 12, Ankara, 53-61.
• Gokkus, A. and A. Koc. 1996. Effects of different herbicides applied at different times on yield and botanical composition of rangelands. Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 20: 305-308.
• Horrocks, R. D. and J.F. Vallentine. 1999. Harvested Forages. Academic Press. San Diego. California. USA.
• Kir, B. 1997. Rangeland, forage crops and livestock development project, Rangeland Improvement and Management Techniques In-Service Training Seminar. İzmir. 74-77.
• Kowaljow, E., J.M. Mazzarion., P. Satti and C. Jimenez-Rodriguez. 2010. Organic and inorganic fertilizer effects on a degraded Patagonian rangeland. Plant Soil 332:135–145.
• Mack, R. N., D. Simberloff., W.M. Lonsdale., H. Evans., M. Clout and F.A. Bazzaz 2000. Biotıc invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. Ecological Applications 10(3): 689-710.
• Masters, R. A. and R.L. Sheley. 2001. Principles and practices for managing rangeland invasive plants J. Range Manage. 54: 502-517.
• MGM. 2019. Long years meteorological datas of Aydin Province / Turkey.
• Mut, H., I. Ayan., Z. Acar., U. Basaran and O. Onal-Asci. 2010. The effect of different improvement methods on pasture yield and quality of hay obtained from the abandoned rangeland. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 15(2):198-203.
• Rhizopoulou, S., J.P. Pantis., E. Triantafyl and D. Vokou. 1997. Ecophysiological adaptations of Asphodelus aestivus to Mediterranean climate periodicity: water relations and energetic status. Ecography 20: 626-633.
• Rinella, M. J., J.S. Jacobs., R.L. Sheley and J. J. Borkowski. 2001. Spotted knap- weed response to season and frequency of mowing. J. Range Manage 54: 52-56.
• Sahinoglu, O. and F. Uzun. 2016. Efficiency of different methods in improvement of base rangeland: I. Agronomic traits Anadolu J Agr Sci 31: 423-432.
• SAS Institute. 1998. INC SAS/STAT users’ guide release 7.0, Cary, NC, USA.
• Sheley, R.L., J.S. Jacobs and D. Lucas. 2001. Revegetating spotted knapweed infested rangeland in a single entry. J. Range Manage 54: 144-151.
• Sheley, R. L. 2010. Rangeland Weed Management. Montana State University Extension. MontGuide. USA.
• Surmen, M. and A. Koc. 2016. Impact of settlement points on some properties of a highland rangeland vegetation of Eastern Anatolia region of Turkey. Scientific Papers. Series A. Agronomy LIX: 426-430.
• Tranel, L. 2000. Nitrogen fertilizer on grass pastures. Iowa State University. ISU Fact Sheet LT-107: 1-2.
• Turan, N., M.A. Ozyazici and G. Yalcin Tantekin. 2015. Production Potential of Fodder Obtained from the Meadow-Rangelands and Forage Crops Fields in Siirt Province. Turk. J. Agric. Res 2: 69-75.
• Turk, M., G. Bayram., E. Budakli and N. Celik. 2005. The effects of fertılızatıon on hay yıeld and plant covered area on secondary pasture vegetatıon. Journal of AARI 15(1): 16-26.
• USDA. 2018. Grasslands and Rangelands. https://nifa.usda.gov/topic/grasslands-and-rangelands (Accessed at January 01, 2019).
• Yavuz, T., U. Buyukburc and Y. Karadag. 2008. The Effects of Fertilization, Resting and Artifi cial Range Establishment Methods on Yield and Quality of Natural Ranges. Tabad 1(1): 37-42.
• Vallentine, J. F. 1989. Range Development and Improvements. Academic Pres Inc. New York. s. 523.
• Van Soest, P. J., J.B. Robertson and B. A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, non–starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 71(10): 3583-3597.