Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

The Nutritional Dynamics of Common Weeds in the Rangelands of the Akdağ Mountains, Samsun

Year 2022, Volume: 5 Issue: 3, 240 - 247, 01.07.2022

İbrahim Aydın Nuh Ocak

https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1081932

Abstract

In this study, common weed species (Anthemis sp., Anthemis tinctoria L., Pilosella hoppeana Schultes, Doranicum orientale Hoffm, Muscari neglectum Guss. ex Ten., Ornithogalum armeniacum Baker, Ornithogalum narbonense L., Ornithogalum wiedemannii Boiss., Anchusa azurea Miller, Echium plantagineum L., Echium vulgare L., Ajuga orientalis L., Stachys germenica L., Juncus sp., Anacamptis pyramidalis L., Ophrys apifera Huds., Carex panicea L., Ranunculus sp., Hypericum perforatum L., Primula elatior L. Hill., and Galium rotundifolium L.) of the rangelands of Akdağ mountains, Samsun were evaluated by principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis (CA). These species were collected at least three times in two consecutive years. The proximate nutrients (organic matter, ash, crude protein, ether extract, neutral and acid detergent fibre, non-fibrous carbohydrate and hemicellulose), neutral detergent fibre properties (nitrogen-free neutral detergent fibre and in vitro neutral detergent fibre digestibility), and forage quality indicators (digestible dry matter, dry matter intake, metabolizable energy, net energy lactation, estimated net energy, total digestible nutrients, relative feed value, and relative forage quality) were assessed by chemical analysis and empirical equations. There were significant variations in the nutritional dynamics among the weed species. The PCA results demonstrated a relationship between the dietary dynamics assessed. Component 1 (65.5%) and component 2 (14.5%) described 80.0% of the total variation, with eigenvalues of 11.788 and 2.609 in the weed species, respectively. The loadings plot of components shows that most forage quality indicators were distributed to Quadrant 1 and Quadrant 4. Three clusters are observed from the CA for the weeds with significant linkage distance, indicating relatively high independence for each cluster. Due to high variation in their nutritional dynamics, the weed species (P. elatior, O. wiedemannii, O. narbonense, and G. rotundifolium) were more similar on component 1 ordination and in Cluster 1 of the dendrogram. In conclusion, our results suggest that the highlighted species have significant potential for grazing livestock as forages and could fulfilling the possible forage gap in the grazing system.

Keywords

Invader species Weedy forbs Proximate composition Nutritive value Energy value Forage quality

Supporting Institution

TUBİTAK

Project Number

214 O 228

Thanks

The Scientific and Technological Research Council-TUBITAK funded the project (TOVAG-214O228), from which this study was obtained. The authors would like to acknowledge B. Pak, R.P. Süzer and C. Topçugil for data collection.

References

  • Abaye AO, Scaglia, G Teutsch C. 2009. The nutritive value of common pasture weeds and their relation to livestock nutrient requirements. Virginia Cooperative Extension, Blacksburg Pub 418-150, Virginia, US, pp: 3.
  • AOAC International. 2005. Official Method of Analysis of AOAC International, 18th ed.; AOAC Int.: Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
  • Algan D, Aydın İ, Olfaz M, 2017. Nutritive value of rangeland in the grazing maturity on the family basis. Anadolu J Agric Sci, 32: 367-373.
  • Aydın İ, Pak B, Algan D, Ocak N. 2020. Floristic patterns and qualities of forage species from mountainous rangeland in the Middle Black Sea Region of Turkey. Tr J Agric-Food Sci Technol, 8: 733-740.
  • Aydın İ, Uzun F. Algan D. 2015. Yield and nutritive values of some wild annual medic species collected from different geographical location. Anadolu J Agric Sci, 30: 275-280.
  • Aydin I, Algan D, Pak B, Ocak N. 2019. Similarity analysis with respect to some quality indicators and quality categories based on relative forage quality ranges of desirable rangeland forages. Fresen Environ Bull, 28: 5926-5936.
  • Aydın İ, Pak B, Ocak N. 2022. Comparison of cultivated and wild relatives of several forage species in mixed rangeland based on some nutritional characteristics. BSJ Agri, 5(2): 91-99.
  • Bunton G, Trower Z, Roberts C, Bradley KW. 2020. Seasonal changes in forage nutritive value of common weeds encountered in Missouri pastures. Weed Technol, 34: 164-171.
  • Burritt B, Hart RA. 2014. Nutritional value and toxins in various noxious weeds. All Current Publications. Paper 795. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/extension_curall/795 (access date: February 15, 2022).
  • Collins M, Newman YC. 2018. Forage quality. In Collins M, Nelson CJ, Barnes RF, Moore KJ eds. Forages, Volume 1: An Introduction to Grassland Agriculture.7th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken NJ, US, pp: 269-285.
  • Diaz-Medina LK, Colín-Navarro V, Arriaga-Jordán CM, Brunett-Pérez L, Vázquez-de-Aldana BR, Estrada-Flores JG. 2021. In vitro nutritional quality and antioxidant activity of three weed species as feed additives for sheep in the Central Highlands of Mexico. Trop Anim Health Prod, 53: 1-9.
  • Fırıncıoğlu H K, Adıgüzel N, Bani B, Şahin B. 2010. Assessment of grazing effect on two sub-shrubs (Astragalus schottianus and Thymus sipyleus) dominated mountain Bozoğlan grasslands in the semi-arid central-southern Anatolian region of Turkey. Arid Land Res Manag, 24: 282-300.
  • Frost RA, Wilson LM, Launchbaugh KL, Hovde EM. 2008. Seasonal change in forage value of rangeland weeds in Northern Idaho. Invasive Plant Sci Manag, 1: 343-351.
  • Gutiérrez D, Mendoza S, Serrano V, Bah M, Pelz R, Balderas P, Leon F. 2008. Proximate composition, mineral content, and antioxidant properties of 14 Mexican weeds used as fodder. Weed Biol Manag, 8: 291-296.
  • Hall BH, Seay WW, Baker SM. 2009. Nutrition and feeding of the cow-calf herd: Production cycle nutrition and nutrient requirements of cows, pregnant heifers and bulls. VirginiaTech. Blacksburg: Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 400-012, Virginia, US, pp: 8.
  • Hassan S, Tanveer A. 2020. Nutritional dynamics in some forage weeds regarding to the phenological stages. J Res Weed Sci, 3: 1-8.
  • Hoffman PC, Shaver RD, Combs DK, Undersander D, Bauman LM, Seeger TK. 2001. Understanding NDF digestibility of forages. Madison, WI, USA: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Focus on Forage, 3: 1-3.
  • Jayanegara A, Wina E, Soliva CR, Marquardt S, Kreuzer M, Leiber F. 2011. Dependence of forage quality and methanogenic potential of tropical plants on their phenolic fractions as determined by principal component analysis. Anim Feed Sci Technol, 163: 231-243.
  • Jolliffe IT. 2002. Principal Component Analysis, 2nd ed, Springer‐Verlag, New York, NY, US, pp: 488.
  • Kazemi M, Valizadeh R. 2019. Nutritive value of some rangeland plants compared to Medicago sativa. J Rangel Sci, 9: 136-150.
  • Khan R, Khan MA, Sultan S, Marwat KB, Khan I, Hassan G, Shah HU. 2013. Nutritional quality of sixteen terrestrial weeds for the formulation of cost-effective animal feed. J Anim Plant Sci, 23: 75-79.
  • Khan R, Khan MN, Ullah H, Basit A, Razzaq A, Ahmad M, Zafar M, Kilic O, Ozdemir FA. 2017. A comparative assessment of proximate and elemental composition six weedy grasses for their potential use as fodder. Prog Nutr, 20: 182-190.
  • Kirilov A, Georgieva N, Stoycheva I. 2016. Determination of composition and palatability of certain weeds. Int J Agric Sci Food Technol, 2: 41-43.
  • Koç A, Gökkuş A, Güllap MK, Erkovan Hİ, Sürmen M. 2021. Changes in Rangeland Condition and Health of Palandoken Mountain Rangelands Over two Decades. Tr J Range Forage Sci, 2: 37-43.
  • Kohl MT, Hebblewhite M, Cleveland SM, Callaway RM. 2012. Forage value of invasive species to the diet of Rocky Mountain elk. Rangelands, 34: 24-28.
  • Maduro Dias, CSAM, Vouzela CFM, Rosa HJD, Madruga JS, Borba AES. 2020. Nutritional potential of some invasive species of Macaronesia for ruminants. Am J Agric Res, 5: 102.
  • Mayland HF, Shewmaker GE, Harrison PA, Chatterton NJ. 2000. Nonstructural carbohydrates in tall fescue cultivars: Relationship to animal preference. Agron J, 92: 1203-1206.
  • Pelletier S, Tremblay GF, Bélanger G, Bertrand A, Castonguay Y, Pageau D, Drapeau R. 2010. Forage nonstructural carbohydrates and nutritive value as affected by time of cutting and species. Agron J, 102: 1388-1398.
  • Pflueger NP, Redfearn DD, Volesky JD, Bolze R, Stephenson MB. 2020. Influence of oat and spring pea mixtures on forage characteristics in different environments. Agron J, 112: 1911-1920.
  • Sampaio CB, Detmann E, Paulino MF, Valadares Filho SC, de Souza MA, Lazzarini I, Paulino PVR, de Queiroz AC. 2010. Intake and digestibility in cattle fed low-quality tropical forage and supplemented with nitrogenous compounds. Trop Anim Health Prod, 42: 1471-1479.
  • Tan ZL, Lu DX, Hu M, Niu WY, Han CY, Ren XP, Na R, Lin, SL. 2002. Effect of dietary structural to nonstructural carbohydrate ratio on rumen degradability and digestibility of fiber fractions of wheat straw in sheep. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci, 15: 1591-1598.
  • Töngel MÖ, Ayan İ. 2005. Some detrimental plants growing in rangeland and meadows of Samsun province and their effects on livestock. Anadolu J Agric Sci, 20: 84-93.
  • Undersander D, Moore JE, Schneider N. 2010. Relative forage quality. Madison, WI, USA: University of Wisconsin–Madison. Focus on Forage, 12: 1-3.
  • Uzun F, Dönmez HB, Ocak N. 2015. Genetic potential of wild birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) seeds collected from different geographical locations regarding to nutrient composition and nutritive value. Agroforest Syst, 89: 963-972.
  • Uzun F, Ocak N. 2019. Some vegetation characteristics of rangelands subjected to different grazing pressures with single- or multi-species of animals for a long time (A case of Zonguldak province, Turkey). Anadolu J Agr Sci, 34: 360-370.
  • Uzun F, Ocak N. 2022. Chemometric approach to the nutritive value of some sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) cultivars. Anadolu J Agr Sci, 37: 67-82.
  • Zhai X, Zhang Y, Wang K, Chen Q, Li S, Huang D. 2018. Grazing effects on the nutritive value of dominant species in steppe grasslands of northern China. BMC Ecol, 18: 1-9.
  • Zhao D, MacKown CT, Starks PJ, Kindiger BK. 2008. Interspecies variation of forage nutritive value and nonstructural carbohydrates in perennial cool‐season grasses. Agron J, 100: 837-844.
  • Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci, 74: 3583-3597.

Year 2022, Volume: 5 Issue: 3, 240 - 247, 01.07.2022

İbrahim Aydın Nuh Ocak

https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1081932

Abstract

Project Number

214 O 228

References

  • Abaye AO, Scaglia, G Teutsch C. 2009. The nutritive value of common pasture weeds and their relation to livestock nutrient requirements. Virginia Cooperative Extension, Blacksburg Pub 418-150, Virginia, US, pp: 3.
  • AOAC International. 2005. Official Method of Analysis of AOAC International, 18th ed.; AOAC Int.: Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
  • Algan D, Aydın İ, Olfaz M, 2017. Nutritive value of rangeland in the grazing maturity on the family basis. Anadolu J Agric Sci, 32: 367-373.
  • Aydın İ, Pak B, Algan D, Ocak N. 2020. Floristic patterns and qualities of forage species from mountainous rangeland in the Middle Black Sea Region of Turkey. Tr J Agric-Food Sci Technol, 8: 733-740.
  • Aydın İ, Uzun F. Algan D. 2015. Yield and nutritive values of some wild annual medic species collected from different geographical location. Anadolu J Agric Sci, 30: 275-280.
  • Aydin I, Algan D, Pak B, Ocak N. 2019. Similarity analysis with respect to some quality indicators and quality categories based on relative forage quality ranges of desirable rangeland forages. Fresen Environ Bull, 28: 5926-5936.
  • Aydın İ, Pak B, Ocak N. 2022. Comparison of cultivated and wild relatives of several forage species in mixed rangeland based on some nutritional characteristics. BSJ Agri, 5(2): 91-99.
  • Bunton G, Trower Z, Roberts C, Bradley KW. 2020. Seasonal changes in forage nutritive value of common weeds encountered in Missouri pastures. Weed Technol, 34: 164-171.
  • Burritt B, Hart RA. 2014. Nutritional value and toxins in various noxious weeds. All Current Publications. Paper 795. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/extension_curall/795 (access date: February 15, 2022).
  • Collins M, Newman YC. 2018. Forage quality. In Collins M, Nelson CJ, Barnes RF, Moore KJ eds. Forages, Volume 1: An Introduction to Grassland Agriculture.7th ed. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken NJ, US, pp: 269-285.
  • Diaz-Medina LK, Colín-Navarro V, Arriaga-Jordán CM, Brunett-Pérez L, Vázquez-de-Aldana BR, Estrada-Flores JG. 2021. In vitro nutritional quality and antioxidant activity of three weed species as feed additives for sheep in the Central Highlands of Mexico. Trop Anim Health Prod, 53: 1-9.
  • Fırıncıoğlu H K, Adıgüzel N, Bani B, Şahin B. 2010. Assessment of grazing effect on two sub-shrubs (Astragalus schottianus and Thymus sipyleus) dominated mountain Bozoğlan grasslands in the semi-arid central-southern Anatolian region of Turkey. Arid Land Res Manag, 24: 282-300.
  • Frost RA, Wilson LM, Launchbaugh KL, Hovde EM. 2008. Seasonal change in forage value of rangeland weeds in Northern Idaho. Invasive Plant Sci Manag, 1: 343-351.
  • Gutiérrez D, Mendoza S, Serrano V, Bah M, Pelz R, Balderas P, Leon F. 2008. Proximate composition, mineral content, and antioxidant properties of 14 Mexican weeds used as fodder. Weed Biol Manag, 8: 291-296.
  • Hall BH, Seay WW, Baker SM. 2009. Nutrition and feeding of the cow-calf herd: Production cycle nutrition and nutrient requirements of cows, pregnant heifers and bulls. VirginiaTech. Blacksburg: Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 400-012, Virginia, US, pp: 8.
  • Hassan S, Tanveer A. 2020. Nutritional dynamics in some forage weeds regarding to the phenological stages. J Res Weed Sci, 3: 1-8.
  • Hoffman PC, Shaver RD, Combs DK, Undersander D, Bauman LM, Seeger TK. 2001. Understanding NDF digestibility of forages. Madison, WI, USA: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Focus on Forage, 3: 1-3.
  • Jayanegara A, Wina E, Soliva CR, Marquardt S, Kreuzer M, Leiber F. 2011. Dependence of forage quality and methanogenic potential of tropical plants on their phenolic fractions as determined by principal component analysis. Anim Feed Sci Technol, 163: 231-243.
  • Jolliffe IT. 2002. Principal Component Analysis, 2nd ed, Springer‐Verlag, New York, NY, US, pp: 488.
  • Kazemi M, Valizadeh R. 2019. Nutritive value of some rangeland plants compared to Medicago sativa. J Rangel Sci, 9: 136-150.
  • Khan R, Khan MA, Sultan S, Marwat KB, Khan I, Hassan G, Shah HU. 2013. Nutritional quality of sixteen terrestrial weeds for the formulation of cost-effective animal feed. J Anim Plant Sci, 23: 75-79.
  • Khan R, Khan MN, Ullah H, Basit A, Razzaq A, Ahmad M, Zafar M, Kilic O, Ozdemir FA. 2017. A comparative assessment of proximate and elemental composition six weedy grasses for their potential use as fodder. Prog Nutr, 20: 182-190.
  • Kirilov A, Georgieva N, Stoycheva I. 2016. Determination of composition and palatability of certain weeds. Int J Agric Sci Food Technol, 2: 41-43.
  • Koç A, Gökkuş A, Güllap MK, Erkovan Hİ, Sürmen M. 2021. Changes in Rangeland Condition and Health of Palandoken Mountain Rangelands Over two Decades. Tr J Range Forage Sci, 2: 37-43.
  • Kohl MT, Hebblewhite M, Cleveland SM, Callaway RM. 2012. Forage value of invasive species to the diet of Rocky Mountain elk. Rangelands, 34: 24-28.
  • Maduro Dias, CSAM, Vouzela CFM, Rosa HJD, Madruga JS, Borba AES. 2020. Nutritional potential of some invasive species of Macaronesia for ruminants. Am J Agric Res, 5: 102.
  • Mayland HF, Shewmaker GE, Harrison PA, Chatterton NJ. 2000. Nonstructural carbohydrates in tall fescue cultivars: Relationship to animal preference. Agron J, 92: 1203-1206.
  • Pelletier S, Tremblay GF, Bélanger G, Bertrand A, Castonguay Y, Pageau D, Drapeau R. 2010. Forage nonstructural carbohydrates and nutritive value as affected by time of cutting and species. Agron J, 102: 1388-1398.
  • Pflueger NP, Redfearn DD, Volesky JD, Bolze R, Stephenson MB. 2020. Influence of oat and spring pea mixtures on forage characteristics in different environments. Agron J, 112: 1911-1920.
  • Sampaio CB, Detmann E, Paulino MF, Valadares Filho SC, de Souza MA, Lazzarini I, Paulino PVR, de Queiroz AC. 2010. Intake and digestibility in cattle fed low-quality tropical forage and supplemented with nitrogenous compounds. Trop Anim Health Prod, 42: 1471-1479.
  • Tan ZL, Lu DX, Hu M, Niu WY, Han CY, Ren XP, Na R, Lin, SL. 2002. Effect of dietary structural to nonstructural carbohydrate ratio on rumen degradability and digestibility of fiber fractions of wheat straw in sheep. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci, 15: 1591-1598.
  • Töngel MÖ, Ayan İ. 2005. Some detrimental plants growing in rangeland and meadows of Samsun province and their effects on livestock. Anadolu J Agric Sci, 20: 84-93.
  • Undersander D, Moore JE, Schneider N. 2010. Relative forage quality. Madison, WI, USA: University of Wisconsin–Madison. Focus on Forage, 12: 1-3.
  • Uzun F, Dönmez HB, Ocak N. 2015. Genetic potential of wild birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) seeds collected from different geographical locations regarding to nutrient composition and nutritive value. Agroforest Syst, 89: 963-972.
  • Uzun F, Ocak N. 2019. Some vegetation characteristics of rangelands subjected to different grazing pressures with single- or multi-species of animals for a long time (A case of Zonguldak province, Turkey). Anadolu J Agr Sci, 34: 360-370.
  • Uzun F, Ocak N. 2022. Chemometric approach to the nutritive value of some sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) cultivars. Anadolu J Agr Sci, 37: 67-82.
  • Zhai X, Zhang Y, Wang K, Chen Q, Li S, Huang D. 2018. Grazing effects on the nutritive value of dominant species in steppe grasslands of northern China. BMC Ecol, 18: 1-9.
  • Zhao D, MacKown CT, Starks PJ, Kindiger BK. 2008. Interspecies variation of forage nutritive value and nonstructural carbohydrates in perennial cool‐season grasses. Agron J, 100: 837-844.
  • Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci, 74: 3583-3597.
There are 39 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Subjects Zootechny (Other)
Journal Section Research Articles
Authors

İbrahim Aydın 0000-0002-5372-6222

Nuh Ocak 0000-0001-7393-1373

Project Number 214 O 228
Publication Date July 1, 2022
Submission Date March 2, 2022
Acceptance Date May 9, 2022
Published in Issue Year 2022 Volume: 5 Issue: 3

Cite

APA Aydın, İ., & Ocak, N. (2022). The Nutritional Dynamics of Common Weeds in the Rangelands of the Akdağ Mountains, Samsun. Black Sea Journal of Agriculture, 5(3), 240-247. https://doi.org/10.47115/bsagriculture.1081932
 Download Cover Image

                                                  24890