Forage potential of Salsola species in arid-saline rangelands

Objective & Hypothesis:We investigated the forage potential of 12 Salsola species including S. arbuscula, S. abarghuensis, S. dendroides, S. crassa, S. imbricata, S. incanescens, S. nitraria, S. kerneri, S. orientalis, S. richteri, S. tomentosa, and S. yazdiana in the Southern rangelands of the Great Salt Desert.

📊

Key Findings & Data:The results showed a great significant variation among forage quality and quantity of the Salsola species.

💡

Conclusion & Impact:However, forages of these species should be used in mix with common forages due to the low energy level.

🔬Design:Research Article

📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample

⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

We investigated the forage potential of 12 Salsola species including S. arbuscula, S. abarghuensis, S. dendroides, S. crassa, S. imbricata, S. incanescens, S. nitraria, S. kerneri, S. orientalis, S. richteri, S. tomentosa, and S. yazdiana in the Southern rangelands of the Great Salt Desert. The results showed a great significant variation among forage quality and quantity of the Salsola species. The greatest fresh and dry forages were obtained in S. yazdiana (4.54 and 1.53 kg m–2, respectively) followed by S. dendroides (3.02 and 1.13 kg m–2, respectively). The S. tomentosa had the greatest ash content by 20.2%, which significantly was higher than others; whereas the greatest crude protein was observed in S. incanescens and S. crassa. The lower acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) as appropriate forage quality indices were achieved in S. dendroides, S. imbricata, and S. arbuscula. Furthermore, S. dendroides and S. incanescens had the greatest dry matter digestibility (59%) and metabolizable energy (8%). Tissue water content in halophytes was a valuable index for salinity tolerance and forage quality, which is missed in the literature. Higher tissue water content (72.0% in S. crassa and 71.4% S. kerneri) could probably lead to lower water consumption in small ruminants. Based on the finding, Salsola species had low energy (7.1% on average) and approximately high protein content (8.5% on average), but some species such as S. incanescens and S. dendroides followed by S. imbricata had better forage quality; so they could be considered alternative forage plants in arid land regions. However, forages of these species should be used in mix with common forages due to the low energy level.

🔖

Cite This Article

PIRASTEH-ANOSHEH, H., MIRHOSSEINI, A., AKRAM, N. A., HASANUZZAMAN, M. (2022). Forage potential of Salsola species in arid-saline rangelands. Turkish Journal of Botany, Cilt: 45 - Sayı: 3, 203–215. https://ajindex.com/articles/600753

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

Open in New Tab ↗

↗New Tab

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

Abd El-Rahman HH (2008). Improvement of the nutritive value of some unpalatable desert plants by ensiling treatment with palatable plants and molasses additives. Mansoura University Journal of Agricultural Sciences 33: 8001-8010.
Abtahi M, Zandi E (2017). Effects of phenological stage on forage quality of halophyte species Salsola arbuscula Pall. in the central desert of Iran. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research 15 (3): 901-909.
Akhani H (2006). Biodiversity of halophytic and sabkha ecosystems in Iran. In: Khan MA, Boer B, Kust GS, Barth HJ (editors). Sabkha ecosystems, Vol. II: West and Central Asia. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 71-88.
Akhani H, Edwards G, Roalson EH (2007). Diversification of the old world Salsoleae sl (Chenopodiaceae): molecular phylogenetic analysis of nuclear and chloroplast data sets and a revised classification. International Journal of Plant Sciences 168: 931-956.
Arzani H, Zohdi M, Fish E, Zahedi-Amiri G, Nikkhah A, Wester D (2004). Phenological effects on forage quality of five grass species. Rangeland Ecology and Management 57: 624-629.
Asaadi AM, Yazdi AK (2011). Phenological stage effects on forage quality of four forbs species. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment 9 (2): 380-384.
Attia-Ismail SA (2018) Halophytes as forages. In: Edvan RL, Bezerra L (editors). New perspectives in forage crops. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech Open, pp. 69-87.
Gihad EA, Shaer HE (1994). Utilization of halophytes by livestock on rangelands: problems and prospects. In: Squires VR, Ayoub AT (editors). Halophytes as a resource for livestock and for rehabilitation of degraded lands. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer pp. 77-96.
Gillson L, Hoffman MT (2007). Ecology: rangeland ecology in a changing world. Science 315: 53-54.
Mauseth JD (2016). Botany: An Introduction to Plant Biology. 6th ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett publishers. Norman HC, Revell DK, Mayberry DE, Rintoul AJ, Wilmot MG et al. (2010). Comparison of in vivo organic matter digestion of native Australian shrubs by sheep to in vitro and in sacco predictions. Small Ruminant Research 91: 69-80. doi: 10.1016/j. smallrumres.2009.11.019 Norman HC, Masters DG, Barrett-Lennard EG (2013). Halophytes as forages in saline landscapes: interactions between plant genotype and environment change their feeding value to ruminants. Environmental and Experimental Botany 92: 96-109. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2012.07.003 Hakimi Meybodi MH, Sadeghinia M (2009). Identification of Iranian rangeland