Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
CM Feldhake, DP Belesky (2009)
Photosynthetically active radiation use efficiency of Dactylis glomerata and Schedonorus phoenix along a hardwood tree-induced light gradientAgrofor Syst, 75
EM Abraham, AP Kyriazopoulos, ZM Parissi, P Kostopoulou, M Karatassiou, K Anjalanidou, C Katsouta (2014)
Growth, dry matter production, phenotypic plasticity, and nutritive value of three natural populations of Dactylis glomerata L. under various shading treatmentsAgrofor Syst, 88
Y Jiang, RR Duncan, RN Carrow (2004)
Assessment of low light tolerance of seashore paspalum and bermudagrassCrop Sci, 44
CC Wong, H Rahim, MAM Sharudin (1985)
Shade tolerance potential of some tropical forages for integration with plantations. 1. grassesMardi Res Bull, 13
M Semchenko, M Lepik, L Götzenberger, K Zobel (2012)
Positive effect of shade on plant growth: amelioration of stress or active regulation of growth rate?J Ecol, 100
M Ehret, R Graß, M Wachendorf (2015)
The effect of shade and shade material on white clover/perennial ryegrass mixtures for temperate agroforestry systemsAgrofor Syst, 89
KD Kephart, DR Buxton, ES Taylor (1992)
Growth of C3 and C4 perennial grasses under reduced irradianceCrop Sci, 32
F Valladares, D Sanchez-Gomez, MA Zavala (2006)
Quantitative estimation of phenotypic plasticity: bridging the gap between the evolutionary concept and its ecological applicationsJ Ecol, 94
W Yang, F Liu, L Zhou, S Zhang, S An (2012)
Growth and photosynthetic responses of Canarium pimela and Nephelium topengii seedlings to a light gradientAgrofor Syst, 87
AC Varella, DJ Moot, KM Pollock, PL Peri, RJ Lucas (2010)
Do light and alfalfa responses to cloth and slatted shade represent those measured under an agroforestry system?Agrofor Syst, 81
JM Albaugh, TJ Albaugh, RR Heiderman, Z Leggett, JL Stape, K King, KP O’Neill, JS King (2014)
Evaluating changes in switchgrass physiology, biomass, and light-use efficiency under artificial shade to estimate yields if intercropped with Pinus taeda LAgrofor Syst, 88
CH Lin, RL McGraw, MF George, HE Garrett (1999)
Shade effects on forage crops with potential in temperate agroforestry practicesAgrofor Syst, 44
R Callaway (2007)
Positive interactions and interdependence in plant communities
BR Christie, AR McElroy (1995)
Forages
CT Blake, DS Chamblee, WW Woodhouse (1966)
Influence of some environmental and management factors on the persistence of Ladino clover in association with orchardgrassAgron J, 58
VH Watson, C Hagedorn, WE Knight, HA Pearson (1984)
Shade tolerance of grass and legume germplasm for use in the southern forest rangeJ Range Manag, 37
RE Gaussoin, AA Baltensperger, BN Coffey (1988)
Response of 32 bermudagrass clones to reduced light intensityHortScience, 23
PL Peri, DL McNeil, DJ Moot, AC Varella, RJ Lucas (2002)
Net photosynthetic rate of cocksfoot leaves under continuous and fluctuating shade conditions in the fieldGrass Forage Sci, 57
JB Beard (1965)
Factors in the adaption of turfgrass to shadeAgron J, 57
NR Devkota, PD Kemp, J Hodgson (1997)
Screening pasture species for shade toleranceProc Agron Soc NZ, 27
F Valladares, Ü Niinemets (2008)
Shade tolerance, a key plant feature of complex nature and consequencesAnnu Rev Ecol Evol Syst, 39
MA Gold, HE Garrett (2009)
North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice
K Loach (1970)
Shade tolerance in tree seedlings. II. Growth analysis of plants raised under artificial shadeNew Phytol, 69
HA Pearson (1983)
Proceedings of the international hilllands symposium foothills for food and forests
Annual screenings of forage grasses and legumes for shade tolerance were conducted from 1996 to 2001 in the outdoor Shade Tolerance Screening Laboratory at the Horticulture and Agroforestry Research Center, University of Missouri. Forty-three forages were grown under non-shade (100% of full sunlight), moderate shade (45%), and dense shade (20%) without competition for water and nutrients. Annual forage yield (g pot−1) was equal to or higher under moderate shade for all 43 forages and under dense shade for 31 forages than the non-shade control. Relative distance plasticity index (RDPI), a measure of a species’ adaptability to different environments, ranged from 0.104 to 0.567. Cool season grasses had the lowest RDPI (0.183), followed by warm season grasses (0.252), warm season legumes (0.274), and cool season legumes (0.314), indicating grasses tend to be more shade tolerant than legumes in terms of forage yield. Overall, most grass and legume forages have the potential to produce equivalent or higher yields in agroforestry practices featuring light to moderate shade than forages in open pastures when competition from tree roots is minimized.
Agroforestry Systems – Springer Journals
Published: Jan 25, 2017
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.