Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T02:32:09.090Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Influence of row spacing and harvest date on Cephalaria joppensis performance as a forage crop

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2025

Aharon Bellalou ,
Lior Rubinovich Open the ORCID record for Lior Rubinovich [Opens in a new window] ,
Aviv Asher ,
Tova Deutch-Traubman ,
Liel Galili ,
Ishashim Malede  and
Shmuel Galili Open the ORCID record for Shmuel Galili [Opens in a new window]
Aharon Bellalou
Affiliation:
Field Crops and Vegetables, Institute of Plant Sciences, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Rishon LeZiyyon, Israel
Lior Rubinovich
Affiliation:
Northern Agriculture R&D, MIGAL – Galilee Research Institute, Kiryat Shmona, Israel
Aviv Asher
Affiliation:
Northern Agriculture R&D, MIGAL – Galilee Research Institute, Kiryat Shmona, Israel
Tova Deutch-Traubman
Affiliation:
Field Crops and Vegetables, Institute of Plant Sciences, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Rishon LeZiyyon, Israel
Liel Galili
Affiliation:
Field Crops and Vegetables, Institute of Plant Sciences, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Rishon LeZiyyon, Israel
Ishashim Malede
Affiliation:
Field Crops and Vegetables, Institute of Plant Sciences, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Rishon LeZiyyon, Israel
Shmuel Galili*
Affiliation:
Field Crops and Vegetables, Institute of Plant Sciences, Agricultural Research Organization, The Volcani Center, Rishon LeZiyyon, Israel
*
Corresponding author: Shmuel Galili; Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cephalaria joppensis Rchb. (CJ) has recently been domesticated as a new forage crop in Israel. Feeding trials with dairy cows and sheep have shown that CJ silage can replace wheat silage for these animals. The current work tested the effect of row spacing on the growth, yield, chemical composition and digestibility of CJ for forage. Two field trials were performed at a research farm in Acre to test three row spacings: (T1) 16 cm between rows (narrow row spacing), (T2) pairs of adjacent (16 cm apart) rows with 32 cm spacing between pairs (alternated row spacing) and (T3) 32 cm between rows (wide row spacing). T1 row spacing had the advantage of a better area coverage rate, which may be beneficial at the beginning of growth, reflected by the rapid establishment of the plants in the field, as well as in the competition with weeds. The growth rate was more significant in T2 and T3 row spacings. In the first year, a higher yield was obtained for T2 and T3 row spacings; in the second year, no differences in yield were found among the row spacing treatments. Row spacing did not affect the plant’s digestibility or chemical nutrition for ruminants. There was no uniformity in plant quality among the cultivars between the two years. Thus, we should define the phenological stages of Cephalaria joppensis and their relationship to nutritional quality at different sites having different climate conditions, in both small and semi-commercial plots.

Keywords

chemical compositiondigestibilityforage yieldgrowth rate
Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , First View , pp. 1 - 9
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Aharon, S, Peleg, Z, Argaman, E, Ben-David, R and Lati, RN (2020) Image-based high-throughput phenotyping of cereals early vigor and weed-competitiveness traits. Remote Sensing 12, 3877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annicchiarico, P (2007) Inter-and intra-population genetic variation for leaf: stem ratio in landraces and varieties of lucerne. Grass and Forage Science 62, 100–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arvind, K, Satish, V, Shalabh, D, Bhagirath, C, Jerome, B, Ramaiah, V, Dule, Z and Shrivastava, MN (2009) Yield and yield-attributing traits of rice (Oryza sativa L.) under lowland drought and suitability of early vigor as a selection criterion. Field Crops Research 114, 99–107.Google Scholar
Asher, A, Dagan, R, Galili, S and Rubinovich, L (2022) Effect of row spacing on quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) growth, yield and grain quality under Mediterranean climate. Agriculture 12, 1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baath, GS, Sarkar, S, Sapkota, BR, Flynn, KC, Northup, BK and Gowda, PH (2024) Forage yield and nutritive value of summer legumes as affected by row spacing and harvest timing. Farming System 2, 100069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellalou, A, Amir-Segev, O, Richker, I, Badani, H, Dekalo-Keren, M, Abu-Aklin, W, Cohen, O, Sidan, G and Galili, S (2018) Commercial examination of Cephalaria joppensis as forage crop Nir-Am 2017. Meshek Habakar VeHachalav 391, 64–68.Google Scholar
Bellalou, A, Badani, H, Amir-Segev, O, Deutch, T, Singer, A, Asher, A, Rubinovich, L, Shemesh, D and Galili, S (2017) Pre-examination of Cephalaria joppensis lines Acre 2017. Nir Vatelem 76, 22–25.Google Scholar
Ben-Moshe, E, Brener, S, Baram, H, Barkai, D, Dvash, L, Yonatan, R, Lifshitz, L, Landau, S, Leshem, Y and Nitzan, R (2003) Optimal stand density of safflower grown for forage in the Negev. Gan Sade and Meshek 3, 17–21.Google Scholar
Bilgili, U, Cifci, EA, Hanoglu, H, Kl, Yagdi and Acikgoz, ET (2009) Yield and quality of triticale forage. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment 7, 556–560.Google Scholar
Bolmgren, K and Cowan, PD (2008) Time–size tradeoffs: a phylogenetic comparative study of flowering time, plant height and seed mass in a north-temperate flora. Oikos 117, 424–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacan, E and Kokten, K (2017) The effect of different row spacing on the yield and quality of forage rape (Brassica napus L. ssp. oleifera Metzg). Eurasian Journal of Biology and Ecology 2, 7–13.Google Scholar
Dos Passos Bernardes, A, Tremblay, GF, Bélanger, G, Seguin, P, Brégard, A and Vanasse, A (2016) Bagasse silage from sweet pearl millet and sweet sorghum as influenced by harvest dates and delays between biomass chopping and pressing. BioEnergy Research 9, 88–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easlon, HM and Bloom, AJ (2014) Easy leaf area: automated digital image analysis for rapid and accurate measurement of leaf area. Applications in Plant Sciences 2, 1400033.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foster, JL, Adesogan, AT, Carter, JN, Sollenberger, LE, Blount, AR, Myer, RO, Phatak, SC and Maddox, MK (2009) Annual legumes for forage systems in the United States Gulf Coast region. Agronomy Journal 101, 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galili, S, Hovav, R, Bellalou, A, Amir-Segev, O, Badani, H, Deutch, T, Rubinovich, L, Asher, A, Faraj, T and Singer, A (2018) Utilization of natural variation in Cephalaria joppensis to diversify wheat forage crop rotation in Israel. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences 65, 195–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galili, S, Levana, D and Leshem, Y (1998) Quantitative and qualitative changes in berseem clover cv. Tabor from the flowering stage to packing stage in bales. Meshek Habakar VeHachalav 276, 31–35.Google Scholar
Gokturk, RS and Sumbul, H (2014) A taxonomic revision of the genus Cephalaria (Caprifoliaceae) in Turkey. Turkısh Journal of Botany 38, 927–968.Google Scholar
Hamoda, AM, Sary, GA, Shoker, E and Roshdy, A (2017) Effect of some weed control treatments and plant density on two soybean varieties and associated weeds. Annals of Agricultural Science, Moshtohor 55, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harder, DB, Sprague, CL and Renner, KA (2007) Effect of soybean row width and population on weeds, crop yield, and economic return. Weed Technology 21, 744–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, YF, Gao, XL, Nan, ZB and Zhang, ZX (2017) Potential value of the common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) as an animal feedstuff: a review. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition 101, 807–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huang, YF, Matthew, C, Li, F and Nan, ZB (2021) Common vetch varietal differences in hay nutritive value, ruminal fermentation, nutrient digestibility and performance of fattening lambs. Animal 15, 100244.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jahanzad, E, Jorat, M, Moghadam, H, Sadeghpour, A, Chaichi, MR and Dashtaki, M (2013) Response of a new and a commonly grown forage sorghum cultivar to limited irrigation and planting density. Agricultural Water Management 117, 62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joshi, AM, Patel, PM, Dharaviya, RG and Patel, JK (2024) Response of summer forage cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) to spacing and seed rate. International Journal of Plant & Soil Science 36, 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karadeniz, E and Bengisu, G (2022) Effects of row spacing on yield and quality of forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense). Turkish Journal of Range and Forage Science 3, 30–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kebede, H, Subudhi, PK, Rosenow, DT and Nguyen, HT (2001) Quantitative trait loci influencing drought tolerance in grain sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 103, 266–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuai, J, Sun, Y, Zuo, Q, Huang, H, Liao, Q, Wu, C, Lu, J, Wu, J and Zhou, G (2015) The yield of mechanically harvested rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) can be increased by optimum plant density and row spacing. Scientific Reports 5, 18835.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kumar, S, Hash, CT, Singh, G, Nepolean, T and Srivastava, RK (2021) Mapping QTLs for important agronomic traits in an Iniadi-derived immortal population of pearl millet. Biotechnology Notes 2, 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kusvuran, A and Tansi, V (2011) The effects of different row spacing on herbage and seed yields of annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum cv. Caramba). Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science 17, 744–754.Google Scholar
Larbi, A, Abd El-Moneim, AM, Nakkoul, H, Jammal, B and Hassan, S (2011) Intra-species variations in yield and quality determinants in Vicia species: 4. Woolly-pod vetch (Vicia villosa ssp. dasycarpa Roth). Animal Feed Science and Technology 164, 252–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leibovich, H, Zenou, A, Yosef, E, Nikbachat, M, Kaadan, S, Eshtiwi, H, Nashef, K, Kushnir, U and Miron, J (2013) Digestibility by lambs and nutritive value for lactating ewes of a total mixed ration containing Cephalaria joppensis silage as wheat silage substitute. Small Ruminant Research 112, 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahmood, A and Honermeier, B (2012) Chemical composition and methane yield of sorghum cultivars with contrasting row spacing. Field Crops Research 128, 27–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malek, MA, Shafiquzzaman, M, Rahman, MS, Ismail, MR and Mondal, MMA (2012) Standardization of soybean row spacing based on morpho-physiological characters. Legume Research 35, 138–143.Google Scholar
Mattera, J, Romero, LA, Cuatrín, AL, Cornaglia, PS and Grimoldi, AA (2013) Yield components, light interception and radiation use efficiency of lucerne (Medicago sativa L.) in response to row spacing. European Journal of Agronomy 45, 87–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miron, J, Raviv, I, Weinberg, ZG, Bloch, A, Porat, Y, Nahim, E, Miron, D, Yosef, E, Nikbachat, M, Zenou, A, Adin, G, Portnik, Y, Yakobi, S, Chen, Y, Nashaf, C and Kushnir, U (2010) Cephalaria—a new forage plant. Meshek Habakar VeHachalav 346, 70–72.Google Scholar
Miron, J, Weinberg, ZG, Chen, Y, Miron, D, Raviv, Y, Bloch, A, Yosef, E, Nikbahat, M, Zenou, A and Daklo, M (2012) Novel use of the wild species Cephalaria joppensis for silage preparation and its nutritive value for feeding lactating dairy cows. Journal of Dairy Science 95, 4501–4509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moshaver, E, Emam, Y, Madani, H, NourMohamadi, G and Heidari-Sharifabad, H (2015) Comparison of qualitative and quantitative performance of forage crops maize, sorghum and amaranth as affected by planting density and date. Trends in Life Sciences 4, 97–105.Google Scholar
Nadav, I, Tarchitzky, J, Lowengart-Aycicegi, A and Chen, Y (2013) Soil surface water repellency induced by treated wastewater irrigation: physico-chemical characterization and quantification. Irrigation Science 31, 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakano, H, Hattori, I and Morita, S (2014) Yield and nutritive value response to row spacing and cultivar in forage rice. Grassland Science 60, 55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Northup, BK and Rao, SC (2015) Green manure and forage potential of lablab in the U.S. southern plains. Agronomy Journal 107, 1113–1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porfirio, MD, Neres, MA, Fuhr, CA, da Silva, TH and Guimarães, ICDSB (2021) Effects of row spacing and planting density of forage sorghum on DM yield, morphologic parameters, nutritive value, and predicted milk yield of dairy cows. Research, Society and Development 10, e36101119374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rajab, MN and Kasem, ES (2022) Influence of planting methods and seeding rates on productivity of Egyptian clover forage and some water relations. Journal of Plant Production 13, 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, S and Northup, BK (2012) Pigeon pea potential for summer grazing in the southern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 104, 199–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reta-Sánchez, DG, Serrato-Corona, JS, Quiroga-Garza, HM, Gaytán-Mascorro, A and Cueto-Wong, JA (2015) Effects of plant height and row spacing on kenaf forage potential with multiple harvests. International Journal of Experimental Botany 84, 262–271.Google Scholar
Salem, AK, El-Naby, A, Zeinab, M and Nasr, N (2012) Influence of seeding rate and row spacing on forage yield and quality of cowpea (Vigna sinenses L.) grown in three locations. Journal of Plant Production 3, 217–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seiter, S, Altemose, CE and Davis, MH (2004) Forage soybean yield and quality responses to plant density and row distance. Agronomy Journal 96, 966–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaani, Y, Bellalou, A, Asher, A, Rubinovich, L, Spirer, Y, Falach, I, Sabag, G, Liberman, O and Galili, S (2022) Examining of the use of Cephalaria joppensis hay in feeding trial of dairy cows and its effect on milk yield and its components. Meshek Habakar VeHachalav 418, 79–81.Google Scholar
Sievers, T and Cook, RL (2018) Aboveground and root decomposition of cereal rye and hairy vetch cover crops. Soil Science Society of America Journal 82, 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snider, JL, Raper, RL and Schwab, EB (2012) The effect of row spacing and seeding rate on biomass production and plant stand characteristics of non-irrigated photoperiod-sensitive sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench). Industrial Crops and Products 37, 527–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stagnati, L, Busconi, M, Soffritti, G, Martino, M, Lanubile, A and Marocco, A (2021) Molecular and phenotypic characterization of a collection of white grain sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] for temperate climates. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 68, 2931–2942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenikecier, HS (2021) Effect of a sowing date on the DM yield, tetany ratio, fiber and mineral content of two vetch species (Vicia sp.). Journal of Elementology 26, 1011–1024.Google Scholar
Troyer, AF and Larkins, JR (1985) Selection for early flowering in corn: 10 late synthetics. Crop Science 25, 695–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Volenec, JJ, Cherney, JH and Johnson, KD (1987) Yield components, plant morphology, and forage quality of alfalfa as influenced by plant population. Crop Science 27, 321–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar