Establishment techniques affect productivity,nutritive value and atmospheric N2 fixation of two sunn hemp cultivars

Nitrogen fertilization is a common practice for sustaining forage production in forage systems in southeastern United States. Warm-season annual legumes may be an alternative forage to warm-season perennial grasses that do not require N fertilization. Sunn hemp (Crotalaria juncea L.) is a fast-growing, warm-season annual legume native to India and Pakistan. The objective of this 2-year study was to assess the herbage accumulation (HA), atmospheric N₂ fixation (ANF) and nutritive value of sunn hemp. Treatments were the factorial arrangement of two sunn hemp cultivars (“Crescent Sun” and “Blue Leaf”), three seeding rates (17, 28 and 39 kg seed/ha) and seed inoculation (inoculated or non-inoculated seeds), distributed in a randomized complete block design with four replicates. Crescent sun had greater HA (3,218 vs. 1764 kg DM/ha) and ANF (41 vs. 25 kg N/ha). Blue leaf had greater crude protein (CP) (188 vs. 176 g/kg) and in vitro digestible organic matter (IVDOM) concentrations (564 vs. 531 g/kg) than crescent sun. Non-inoculated seed had greater CP than inoculated seed, 188 and 177 g/kg, respectively, and inoculation did not affect HA. Intermediate seeding rate (28 kg/ha) decreased HA (2002 kg DM/ha), while HA from high and low seeding rates (17 and 39 kg/ha, respectively) did not differ (2,863 and 2,615 kg DM/ha respectively). Planting non-inoculated crescent sun at 17 kg/ha seeding rate is a feasible management practice to produce sunn hemp in subtropical regions; however, inoculation should always be recommended for proper establishment.     

Effects of Different Factors on Concentration of Functional Components of Aronia and Saskatoon Berries

Plant Foods for Human Nutrition - Effects of different factors on the content of phenolics, anthocyanins, antioxidants and colour parameters in two varieties of Aronia and three varieties of...     

How climate change might affect tree regeneration following fire at northern latitudes: a review

New Forests - Climate change is projected to increase fire severity and frequency in the boreal forest, but it could also directly affect post-fire recruitment processes by impacting seed...     

Electrokinetic-enhanced remediation of actual arsenic-contaminated soils with approaching cathode and Fe0 permeable reactive barrier

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the remediation efficiency of actual arsenic-contaminated soils by electrokinetic (EK)-enhanced remediation with approaching cathode and Fe⁰ permeable reactive barrier (PRB).

Materials and methods

Experiments were conducted in a lab-made apparatus consisting of the anode reservoir, the soil specimen chamber, and the cathode reservoir.

Results and discussion

In this study, the enhanced combination methods (approaching cathode and Fe⁰-PRB) were assisted for EK remediation of actual arsenic-contaminated soils under a voltage gradient of 1 V/cm and a treatment period of 96 h. Experimental results showed that arsenic accumulated in the anode sections (I, II) of the soil by employing EK alone with an arsenic removal rate of less than 5%. In contrast, EK-enhanced remediation with either approaching cathode (EK/AC) or Fe⁰-PRB (EK/PRB) reduced the arsenic concentrations in both central and anode sections of the soil and afforded the removal rates of 20% in both cases. However, EK-enhanced remediation with the combination of approaching cathode and Fe⁰-PRB (EK/PRB/AC) reached the removal efficiency of 45% without arsenic accumulation in any soil sections. This phenomenon is mainly caused by the approaching cathode that creates an alkaline environment to promote the migration of arsenic, as well as PRB filled with Fe⁰ that achieves the adsorption and immobilization of arsenic.

Conclusions

The highest remediation efficiency was achieved in the EK/PRB/AC test, which was attributed to the fact that the combination of this two methods solved the problem of arsenic accumulation in treated soil and ensured a more thorough arsenic removal. Furthermore, enhanced remediation efficiency does not elevate the costs.