Skip to main content
ARS Home » Southeast Area » Auburn, Alabama » Soil Dynamics Research » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #155162


item Kang, Hua
item Shannon, Dennis
item Arriaga, Francisco
item Prior, Stephen - Steve

Submitted to: World Agroforestry Congress
Publication Type: Abstract Only
Publication Acceptance Date: 10/10/2003
Publication Date: 6/27/2004
Citation: Kang, H., Shannon, D., Arriaga, F.J., Prior, S.A. 2004. Hedgerow pruning effects on alley cropped maize: light interception, water relations, and yield. p 186. In Working Together for Sustainable Land-Use Systems, Book of Abstracts of the 1st World Congress of Agroforestry. Orlando, FL, June 27-July 2.

Interpretive Summary:

Technical Abstract: Competition between year-old mimosa (Albizia julibrissin) hedgerows and maize (Zea mays) was assessed under alley cropping in Shorter, AL. Treatments consisted of presence or absence of pruning at 30, 30-60 or 30-90 days after planting (DAP) and at two heights (5 cm and 50 cm). To minimize competition for nutrients, 189 kg N/ha, 9 kg P/ha, and 73 kg K/ha were applied. Water status in plant and soil were assessed using a porometer and time domain reflectometry (TDR), respectively. Reduction in photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) was assessed periodically. Rainfall was abundant throughout the season and there was no significant difference in soil water content among treatments. Significant treatment and row differences in stomatal conductance (SCD) and transpiration (TR) for maize leaves were observed only after the 3rd pruning. Rows close to trees had high SCD and TR, which suggest water loss that might reduce final yields. Light interception was lower in rows nearest to hedgerows than in adjacent rows especially at the 2nd pruning (silk stage). Pruning increased light interception, maize grain and stover yields compared to unpruned plots. There were no significant differences in grain yield among pruning treatments. Rows next to hedgerow had 24% lower yield than did adjacent rows. Interaction of treatment by row was not significant. It appears that in this season, competition for light was more important than competition for other factors.