Determination of Optimal Cropping System for White-tailed Deer in the Southeast and Chufa Response to Nutrient Additions by Alexander L. Johnson A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Science Auburn, Alabama May 9, 2011 Keywords: white-tailed deer, food plot, tillage, southeast, chufa, nutrient response Copyright 2010 by Alexander L. Johnson Approved by C. Wesley Wood, Co-Chair, Professor of Agronomy and Soils David B. Weaver, Co-Chair, Professor of Agronomy and Soils Edzard van Santen, Professor of Agronomy and Soils Stephen S. Ditchkoff, Professor of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences ii Abstract White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginuanus) are an economically important wildlife resource in the Southeast. A significant portion of expenditures related to white- tailed deer goes towards food plot production and management, yet concise information from the scientific community regarding food plot cropping systems is scarce. The objective of this research was to determine the optimal cropping system for white-tailed deer by evaluating forage yield, preference, and quality of 10 warm season and 12 cool season forage treatments. Plots were harvested two times per year during late summer and early spring. Cool season forage production ranged from 11 to 4331 kg dry matter (DM) ha-1 with percent dry DM removed by deer estimated between 14 and 85%. Excluding wheat and wheat in wheat mix, cool season forages met or exceeded concentration requirements for nitrogen (N), calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), and sodium (Na). Nearly all forages had low fiber values and exhibited good forage quality. Wheat was observed as being preferred during the cool season. Warm season forage production ranged from 0 to 18441 kg DM ha-1 with percent DM removed falling between negative 38 and 92%. Warm season forages generally exceeded tissue N concentration requirements for growth and development. All forages excluding sorghum in sorghum mix and chufa met or exceeded Ca, P, and Na concentration requirements. Observation data suggested preference for soybean and cowpeas during the warm season. It is iii recommended that wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) be planted along with a companion forage in cool season food plots while soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.), iron & clay cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.), or lablab (Lablab purpureus L. Sweet) be planted in warm season food plots. Chufas (Cyperus esculentus L. var.sativus Boeck) are a common wildlife planting in the Southeast. Tubers from chufa plants are a preferred food for wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). However information regarding fertilization of chufa is inconclusive. During the summer of 2009 a greenhouse experiment was performed to determine chufa response to fertilization. Chufas were planted in 11-L pots, thinned to four plants per pot and fertilized with either nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), or potassium (K). Nitrogen and K rates were; 0, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, or 800 kg ha-1. Phosphorus rates were; 0, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640 kg ha-1. Each treatment received a standard rate of micronutrient solution, N, P, or K as needed. Above ground growth and tubers were harvested, weighed and analyzed for nutrient uptake. Chufa exhibited an above ground yield response to N fertilization but not P or K. Nitrogen, P, and K uptake increased in above ground growth with nutrient application. Tuber weight did not respond to the treatments, while tuber count increased with N addition. No response was observed in tuber count owing to P or K addition. Tubers had no increase in either N, P, or K uptake owing to fertilization. Results suggest that limited practical response to nutrient application to chufa can be expected. However, field studies to verify these results are warranted. iv Acknowledgments The author would like to express his gratitude to his major professor, Dr. C. Wesley Wood, for his direction and support throughout the study. Appreciation is also extended to the remainder of his committee: Dr. David B. Weaver, Dr. Edzard van Santen, and Dr. Stephen S. Ditchkoff for their guidance on all aspects of the experiment. The author would also like to sincerely thank Brenda Wood, Susan Sladden and Jane Farr for their technical and laboratory assistance. Thanks are also offered to Dr. D. Ball for his extensive counsel during the project. Lastly the author would like to thank his family and friends for their support and patience throughout the study. v Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... iv List of Tables.................................................................................................................vii List of Figures .............................................................................................................. xiv List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... xv I. Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 1 Determination of Optimal Food Plot Cropping System for White-tailed Deer in the Southeast Chufa Response to Nutrient Additions .......................................... 1 Warm season forages ................................................................... 3 Cool season forages ..................................................................... 7 Chufa Response to Nutrient Additions .............................................................. 14 II. Determination of Optimal Cool Season Food Plot Cropping Systems for White-tailed Deer in the Southeast ......................................................................................... 21 Abstract ........................................................................................................... 21 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 22 Materials and Methods ..................................................................................... 23 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................... 27 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................... 36 vi III. Determination of Optimal Warm Season Food Plot Cropping Systems for White- tailed Deer in the Southeast ................................................................................ 70 Abstract ........................................................................................................... 70 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 71 Materials and Methods ..................................................................................... 72 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................... 76 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................... 83 IV. Chufa Response to Nutrient Additions ................................................................... 114 Abstract ......................................................................................................... 114 Introduction ................................................................................................... 114 Materials and Methods ................................................................................... 115 Results and Discussion ................................................................................... 118 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................. 119 References ................................................................................................................. 129 vii List of Tables Table 1. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for cool season conventional and no-till single and mixed forage treatment dry matter yields. ........................ 38 Table 2. Lowland dry matter (DM) yield estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for fall conventional tillage single and mixed forage treatments .......................................................................................................... 39 Table 3. Upland dry matter (DM) yield estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season conventional tillage single and mixed forage treatments. ......................................................................................................... 40 Table 4. Dry matter (DM) yield estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season no-till single and mixed forage treatments. ..... 41 Table 5. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for cool season conventional and no-till single and mixed forage treatment percent dry matter removed. ........ 41 Table 6. Percent dry matter (DM) removed estimates, standard errors, and simulated pairwise adjusted P-values for cool season single and mixed forage treatments. ......................................................................................................... 42 Table 7. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for warm season tissue nitrogen concentration. ....................................................................................... 43 viii Table 8. Lowland, 2008 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season no-till single and mixed species forages. .................................................................................................. 44 Table 9. Upland, 2008 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season no-till single and mixed species forages. .................................................................................................. 45 Table 10. Lowland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season no-till single species forages. .............................................................................................................. 46 Table 11. Lowland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season no-till mixed species forages. .............................................................................................................. 47 Table 12. Upland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season no-till single species forages. .............................................................................................................. 48 Table 13. Upland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted Pairwise P-values for cool season no-till mixed species forages. .............................................................................................................. 49 Table 14. Tissue nitrogen concentration for 2008 estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for conventional tillage single and mixed species forages ................................................................................................... 50 ix Table 15. . Tissue N concentration for 2009 estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for conventional tillage single and mixed species forages ............................................................................................................... 51 Table 16. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for cool season calcium (Ca), sodium (Na), and phosphorus (P) elemental concentration ......................... 52 Table 17. Least square means comparisons of cool season forage calcium concentration ..................................................................................................... 53 Table 17. continued. ...................................................................................................... 54 Table 17. continued. ...................................................................................................... 55 Table 18. Least square means comparisons of cool season forage phosphorus concentration ..................................................................................................... 56 Table 18. continued. ...................................................................................................... 57 Table 19. Least square means comparisons of cool season forage sodium concentration ..................................................................................................... 58 Table 19. continued. ...................................................................................................... 59 Table 20. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for cool season neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) concentration .......................................................................................... 60 Table 21. Least square means comparisons of cool season forage neutral detergent fiber concentration ..................................................................................................... 61 Table 22. Least square means comparisons of cool season forage acid detergent fiber concentration ..................................................................................................... 62 Table 22. continued. ...................................................................................................... 63 x Table 22. continued. ...................................................................................................... 64 Table 23. Least square means comparisons of cool season forage acid detergent lignin concentration. .................................................................................................... 65 Table 24. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for cool season feeding observations. ...................................................................................................... 66 Table 25. Estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for log transformed cool season observations. ................................................................ 67 Table 25. continued. ...................................................................................................... 68 Table 26. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for warm season conventional and no-till single and mixed forage treatment yields. ..................... 86 Table 27. Lowland dry matter (DM) yield estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season no-till single and mixed forage treatment species ................................................................................................ 87 Table 28. Upland dry matter (DM) yield estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season no-till single and mixed forage treatment species ................................................................................................ 88 Table 29. Warm season conventional tillage dry matter (DM) yield estimates and standard errors. .................................................................................................. 89 Table 30. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for warm season conventional and no-till single and mixed forage treatment percent dry matter removed. ............................................................................................................ 90 xi Table 31. Percent dry matter (DM) removed for 2008 estimates, standard errors, and simulated pariwise adjusted P-values for warm season conventional tillage single and mixed forage treatment species. ................................................................... 90 Table 32. Percent dry matter (DM) removed for 2009 estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pariwise P-values for warm season conventional tillage single and mixed forage treatment species. ................................................................... 91 Table 33. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for warm season forage tissue nitrogen concentration .............................................................................. 92 Table 34. Lowland, 2008 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season single species treatments .......................................................................................................... 93 Table 35. Lowland, 2998 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season mixed species treatments .......................................................................................................... 94 Table 36. Upland, 2008 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season single species treatments .......................................................................................................... 95 Table 37. Upland, 2008 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season mixed species treatments .......................................................................................................... 96 Table 38. Lowland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season single species treatments .......................................................................................................... 97 xii Table 39. Lowland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season mixed species treatments .......................................................................................................... 98 Table 40. Upland, 2009, tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season single species treatments .......................................................................................................... 99 Table 41. Upland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season mixed species treatments ........................................................................................................ 100 Table 42. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for warm season forage calcium (Ca), sodium (Na), and phosphorus (P) elemental concentration.......... 101 Table 43. Least square means comparisons of warm season forage calcium concentration ................................................................................................... 102 Table 43. continued ..................................................................................................... 103 Table 44. Least square means comparisons of warm season forage phosphorus concentration ................................................................................................... 104 Table 44. continued. .................................................................................................... 105 Table 44. continued.. ................................................................................................... 106 Table 45. Least square means comparisons of warm season forage sodium concentration ................................................................................................... 106 Table 46. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for warm season neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) concentration ........................................................................................ 107 xiii Table 47. Least square means comparisons of warm season neutral detergent fiber concentration ................................................................................................... 108 Table 48. Least square means comparisons of warm season acid detergent fiber concentration ................................................................................................... 109 Table 48. continued.. ................................................................................................... 110 Table 49. Least square means comparisons of warm season forage acid detergent lignin concentration ................................................................................................... 111 Table 50. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for warm season feeding observations ..................................................................................................... 112 Table 51. Estimates and standard errors for log transformed warm season observations ..................................................................................................... 112 Table 52. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) values for the effect of fertilizer on nutrient uptake and dry matter yield (DMY) of chufa above ground growth, chufa tubers, and tuber count ............................................................... 121 xiv List of Figures Figure 1. Average air temperature at 2 m and daily precipitation in Auburn, AL over the study period. ...................................................................................................... 69 Figure 2. Average air temperature at 2 m and daily precipitation in Auburn, AL over the study period. .................................................................................................... 113 Figure 3. Chufa above ground dry matter yield (DMY) as a function of nitrogen (N) rate. Bars are standard errors of means. .................................................................... 122 Figure 4. Chufa tuber count as a function of nitrogen (N) rate. Bars are standard errors of means. .............................................................................................................. 123 Figure 5. Chufa above ground nitrogen (N) uptake as a function of N rate. Bars are standard errors of means................................................................................... 124 Figure 6. Chufa above ground phosphorus (P) uptake as a function of P rate. Bars are standard errors of means................................................................................... 125 Figure 7. Chufa above ground potassium (K) uptake as a function of K rate. Bars are standard errors of means................................................................................... 126 Figure 8. Chufa tuber nitrogen (N) uptake as a function of N rate. Bars are standard errors of means. ......................................................................................................... 127 Figure 9. Chufa tuber nitrogen (N) concentration as a function of N rate. Bars are standard errors of means. ............................................................................................. 128 xv List of Abbreviations ADF Acid detergent fiber ADL Acid detergent lignin AE Aeschynomene AL Alfalfa BA Ball clover BR Brassica mixture BR_M Brassicas in Biologic mixture Ca Calcium CH Chicory CH_M Chicory in the Biologic mixture CHU Soybean CL_M Clovers in the Biologic mixture CO_CO Corn in corn and cowpea mixture CP Cowpea CP_CO Cowpea in corn and cowpea mixture CP_SO Cowpea in sorghum and cowpea mixture CP_SU Cowpea in sunflower and cowpea mixture CR_M Crimson in wheat and crimson mixture xvi dm Dry matter ha hectare ICAP Inductively coupled argon plasma spectrophotometry K Potassium Kg Kilogram LL Lablab LU Lupin m meter mg milligram N Nitrogen NDF Neutral detergent fiber P Phosphorus PE Peanut RC Red clover SH Sunnhemp SO_SO Sorghum in sorghum and cowpea mixture SU_SU Sunflower in sunflower and cowpea mixture WC-I intermediate white clover WC-L Ladino white clover WH Wheat WH_M Wheat in wheat and crimson mixture WP Winter pea 1 I. Literature Review Determination of Optimal Food Plot Cropping System for White-tailed Deer in the Southeast The state of Alabama is rich in sustainable natural resources. One of the most sought after of these is the white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus virginianus). In the wildlife business there is the saying ?deer pay the bills?. Keegan et al., (1989) noted that white-tails are the most sought after and economically important game species in the U.S. Revenue from hunting generated 678 million dollars in 2006 in Alabama alone (U.S. DoI-FWS, 2006). Stribling et al., (1989) estimated that over 34 million dollars were spent on food plots for wildlife, with the majority being used to attract white-tailed deer during hunting season. Sources of this revenue range from fuel used during transportation and planting to specialty seed blends and consulting services. Big game made up more than 458 million dollars of the 678 million dollar total, the majority of which comes from white-tailed deer (U.S. DoI-FWS, 2006). This includes sales of firearms, ammunition, primitive weapons such as bows and black powder, treestands, scents, clothing, and much more. The sales of food plot fertilizer, seed and supplies are one of the largest sources of economic inputs from hunting and help support local economies during a generally non-profitable season. A food plot is an area of land, managed or manipulated, to provide one or more crop plant species for feeding purposes. These areas may be simply top sown with winter 2 annuals such as annual ryegrass (Lolium multiforum Lam.) and crimson clover (Trifolium incarnatum L.) or be a part of a detailed management plan where areas are maintained year round, similar to conventional row cropping. The extent to which a food plot is developed depends largely on a compromise between its goal and available funding. Originally, food plots began as a means to attract deer to an area during hunting season, and attraction remains the main purpose most individuals have for food plots (Kammermeyer et al., 2006). The other direction food plots are taking is towards herd management. With this objective, plots are established with more emphasis on herd health and habitat improvement. For several reasons such as heat stress, lack of available quality forage, insect pests, gestation, lactation, fawn survival, antler development, and overall reduced forage intake, late summer is one of the most stressful times for deer in the Southeast (Goodrum and Reid, 1962; Hafez, 1967; Ockenfels and Bissonette, 1982; Blair et al., 1984; Keegan et al., 1989). Many individuals are striving to increase overall health of their herd by ensuring sufficient quantity and quality of browse is available throughout the year, not just during hunting season. There is, however, little scientific information regarding what is best to plant (Davis, 1961; Webb, 1963; Larson, 1966; Lunceford, 1986; Waer, 1992; Waer et al., 1992). The majority of information regarding food plot plantings is often anecdotal or from less than dependable sources. Many times information is simply inter- species applied, such as using recommendations for deer that come from cattle literature. While this is at least often backed scientifically, the fact remains that deer are a different animal than cattle, with much different nutritional needs and preferences. 3 Warm Season Forages Soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) is highly preferred by deer (Watt et al., 1967). Its benefits are ease of cultivation, high yield and high forage quality (Scheaffer et al., 2001). These benefits may be offset by its susceptibility to early browse pressure and management costs (Hintz et al., 1992). Soybean has several drawbacks with regard to food plot application, the main ones being low browse and low drought tolerance (Garrison and Lewis, 1987; Specht et al., 2001). Seiter et al., (2004) found yields of forage soybean up to 13.9 Mg ha?1. Such large yields increase the potential for sustained browse availability under high deer densities and concurrent low acreages of food plots. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) has been a staple of summer food plots for several years (Edwards et al., 2004). However, like soybean it does not persist under heavy browse pressure. Cowpea has potential to supply quality late summer forage when it is most limiting (Rao and Northup, 2009). Its benefits are similar to other warm season legumes in that it has good forage quality, requires little fertilization, has a short growing season and is easily cultivated in a wide range of locations (Ball et al. 2002). Rao and Northup, (2009) estimated cowpea forage yields up to 2405 kg ha?1. Cowpea is often planted with companion forages, such as corn (Zea mays L.) or sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) that have more vertical growth habit. The purpose of vertical forages is to provide structure for the vine to climb on. Without vertical structure cowpea yield can be reduced (Ball et al., 2002). A wildlife forage variety of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) is commonly used for the added benefits of increasing cowpea yield and diversifying food sources during late summer (Yarrow and Yarrow, 2005). Sorghum seeds are a good source of 4 carbohydrates and have the possibility to last long into the winter months, providing an energy rich food source when others may be lacking. Being highly drought tolerant and requiring low amounts of fertilizer, sorghum has been shown to grow well in many environments with little input (Ball et al., 2002). Limitations to sorghum use include intolerance of acidic pH and grassy weed suppression problems (Kammermeyer et al., 2006). In combination with warm season legumes such as cowpea, fertilizer requirements can be partially supplied by legume nitrogen (N) fixation furthering the benefit of sorghum-cowpea intercropping (Gilbert et al., 2003; Ncube et al., 2007). Black oil (Peredovik) sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) is often planted along with cowpea for its added vertical structure. Sunflower is commonly chosen because of its relative ease of cultivation, supposed high preference by deer, and current use in food plots (Cook and Gray, 2005; Kammermeyer et al., 2006). Sunflower has drawbacks that may reduce its usefulness in food plots: 1) somewhat low forage quality especially after reproductive initiation (Heady, 1964), 2) its vertical structure is not as sturdy as that of corn or sorghum, resulting in lodging during high winds, and 3) low browse tolerance during early stages of growth (Cook and Gray, 2005; Yarrow and Yarrow, 2005; Kammermeyer et al., 2006). Corn (Zea mays L.) is another common companion crop with cowpea. Corn grain has the advantages of lasting long into the winter, thus providing a carbohydrate rich food source when others may not be available, and being highly preferred over many other food sources (Nixon et al., 1970). Corn can, however, be difficult to grow, require a large amount of fertilizer to get good yields, and have little or no forage benefits during the summer (Kammermeyer et al., 2006). Residue left from corn production works well 5 with no-till and annual clover systems and helps to improve soil quality (Troeh et al., 2004). Lab-lab (Lablab purpurius L. Sweet) is another warm season legume that has recently become popular for food plot use. Lab-lab has been shown to have high yields in the Southeast and is tolerant of low rainfall environments (Fribourg et al., 1984; Hehman and Fulbright, 1997). Hehman and Fulbright, (1997) have shown lablab?s ability to withstand browse pressure better than other warm season legumes. Increased browse tolerance is especially important during the late summer when food resources are less available. Lablab forage quality is comparable to other warm season legumes and capable of producing yields in excess of 6600 kg ha-1 (Gonzalez, 1987; Beals et al., 1993; Feather and Fulbright, 1995). Although it has been shown to grow well in low moisture environments, it is necessary for adequate moisture to be present at time of planting for proper establishment (Kammermeyer et al., 2006). Aeschynomene ( Aeschynomene americana L.) is a warm season tropical legume adapted to the southeastern U.S. that has good forage quality (Moore and Hillman 1969; Moore, 1978; Keegan et al., 1989 Aiken et al., 1991). Stand establishment can be very difficult under low soil moisture conditions (Kalmbacher et al., 1993; Kammermeyer et al., 2006). The species is especially adapted to wet soils and is relatively browse tolerant (Chaparro et al., 1992). Under heavy browsing it will likely be prevented from producing enough seed to allow for self re-seeding (Keegan et al., 1989; Chaparro et al., 1992). Sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea L.) is a warm season annual legume that shows promise as a high yielding forage during the summer (Rotar and Joy, 1983; Mansoer et al., 1997). Sunnhemp will continue to exhibit rapid growth until frost leaving the 6 possibility for providing high quality, late summer forage (Mansoer et al., 1997). Although stems are poor quality, sunnhemp leaves have nutritional value similar to that of most clovers (Ranells and Wagger, 1992; Mansoer et al., 1997). This attribute shows potential to provide adequate browse when quality forage may be limiting (Meyer et al., 1984; Barnes, 1988; Waer, 1992). Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is a commonly planted row crop in the Southeast. The benefit of peanut as a food plot crop is its ease of establishment, high yield and good forage quality (Larbi et al., 1999). Since peanut development is of secondary concern, less fertilizer can be used to attain adequate above ground growth. So long as the previous or following crop species is adequately fertilized, peanuts will require very little additional fertilization (Mitchell and Adams, 1994). The benefits of increased fertilization on peanut yield will likely be offset by the detrimental effects of browsing (Omokanye et al., 2001). With proper management peanut has the ability to provide high quality summer forage as well as an energy rich food source during the cool season if the peanuts are exposed. Chufa (Cyperus esculentus L. var.sativus Boeck) is a warm season sedge more commonly used as a food source for waterfowl and turkey (Kelley and Fredrickson, 1991). Chufa tubers are a favorite food source of many species of wildlife when available (Ball and Lacefield, 2006). Being high in starch content, they have the potential to provide a high level energy rich food source during the fall and winter (Abdel-Nabey, 2001). Little is known about chufa fertilizer requirements in relationship to tuber production in the southeastern U.S. Deer are known to feed heavily on the tubers once 7 they have been exposed by light tillage after which individuals will continue to seek them out by digging (Yarrow and Yarrow, 2005). Cool Season Forages White clover (T. repens L.) has three growth forms, small, intermediate, and large (Ball et al., 2002). Two of the more common cultivars are Durana and RegalGraze. Durana is an intermediate cultivar with increased persistence and hardiness as compared to ladino cultivars (Andrae, 2004; Kammermeyer et al., 2006). RegalGraze is a large leafed ladino cultivar. Ladino types typically have higher yield than intermediate but lack in persistence, reseeding ability, and browse tolerance (Andrae, 2004). According to Ball et al., (2002), white clovers offer the advantage of being planted in fall thus providing increased forage availability. These clovers require adequate soil moisture and exhibit reduced if any production under droughty conditions (Waer, 1992; Waer et al., 1992). White clover is easily established, provides high quality forage, and grows well in a wide range of locations excluding those previously mentioned (Ball et al., 2002). Red clover (T. pratense L.) is adapted to a wide range of environmental conditions, shows exceptional seedling survival and vertical growth compared to many others (Stewart et al., 2008). These benefits may amplify red clover?s potential as a good food plot forage. Red clovers are, however, less persistent than other perennial clover types in part due to their limited reseeding ability when subjected to high stress such as browsing (Ball et al., 2002). Limited reseeding ability necessitates the practice of low rate over seeding during fall to boost stand potential. Red clover has long been regarded as 8 one of the best choices of clover types in areas where it is adapted (Ball et al., 2002; Kammermeyer et al., 2006). Chicory (Cichorium intybus L.) is a cool season perennial forb adapted to a wide range of environments. Chicory can have forage attributes similar to alfalfa when properly managed (Lancashire, 1978). Yield is greatest during early spring when growth resumes (Guangdi and Kemp, 2005). Such early growth allows for an increase in overall forage quality by diversifying forage distribution throughout the year (Kusmartonto et al., 1996; Barry, 1998). Chicory has a relatively high fertilizer requirement for maximum production, but is very tolerant of browse pressure once established and produces continuously high quality forage (Collins and McCoy, 1997). Foster et al. (2002), showed high variability among chicory cultivars with regard to deer browsing preference. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) can be an excellent crop for food plots but management requirements can be intensive in the Southeast (Ball et al., 2002). Allen, (1968), Martinka, (1968), Robbins et al., (1975), and Ball et al., (2002), also noted its high forage quality, browse tolerance and deer preference. In the Southeast however, there are several limitations to its current use, these being specific pH and fertilizer requirements, soil compaction and moisture, heat, disease, necessity for large amounts of fertilizer, and insect stress (Ball et al., 2002; Kammermeyer et al., 2006). Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is one of the most commonly planted winter annual grasses in food plots in the Southeast (Waer et al., 1992; Kammermeyer et al., 2006). Its use often comes as result of its ease of cultivation and adaptability to multiple environments. Wheat has the added benefit of being highly browse tolerant although cool weather will reduce re-growth (Ball et al., 2002). While it may be highly preferred 9 early during the growing season, forage quality and, thus, use by deer rapidly declines as the plant matures (Heady, 1964; Ball et al., 2002). Commercially available Biologic Premium Perennial is a widely used food plot mix. The mix contains eleven species consisting of Rivendel White clover, Axi Berseem clover, Border Balansa Clover, Six Point chicory, Molina rape, FSG 9601 Red clover, Kurow rape, Teumka White clover, Mairaki rape, Browtine chicory, and Timaru II chicory. It is marketed as a highly preferred blend with increased forage quality as compared to their more commonly available constituent varieties. Little information is known on the actual effectiveness of such commercial mixes. A brassica mix comprised of Purple Top turnips (Brassica napus L.) and Dwarf Essex rape (B. napus. L.) can be used to give some comparison to the commercial blend. Each of these are heavily planted winter annuals in the Southeast with significant forage production (Waer, 1992). They have relatively high forage quality, are easily established and adapted to a wide range of environments (Jung et al., 1984). Kammermeyer et al., (2006), also denotes the benefits of having both top and tuber growth. Crimson clover (T. incarnatum L.) is likely the most widely planted food plot legume in the Southeast. This is in part due to its good forage quality, ease of establishment, low management requirements, good re-seeding capability, and seed availability (Pedersen and Ball, 1991; Waer, 1992; Waer et al., 1992; Ball et al., 2002). It has excellent early spring production under grazing conditions and has higher yield potential under low pH soils when compared to other clover species (Waer, 1992; Ball et al., 2002). With proper management enough seed is produced to allow for partial or full re-seeding (Ball et al., 2002). 10 Wheat and Crimson clover are two classic food plot components in the Southeast (Cook and Gray, 2005). The combination of these two forages has the potential to provide high quality forage throughout the cool season and into early summer (Waer et al., 1992). The purpose for this treatment choice would be to evaluate differences between the single species plots and the wheat crimson mix. Arvika winter pea (Pisum sativum L.) is a cool season annual legume very similar to the more commonly known Austrian winter pea. Winter pea has been shown to be readily browsed by deer and has excellent forage quality (Ball et al., 2002). It is a common component of commercially available mixes, but generally is over-browsed before it reaches full potential (Kammermeyer et al., 2006). Winter pea is mostly thought of as a highly sought after, high quality species for attractive purposes during fall and early winter similar to white clover. The species in the winter pea group are high level N fixers, which reduces their need for fertilizer application. Ball clover (T. nigrescens Viv.) is a highly browse tolerant cool season annual clover that is thought to be one of the originating sources for white clover (Williams et al., 2001). Unlike many other species this clover has the ability to reseed very well even after heavy grazing (Ball et al., 2002). Ball et al., (2002), also denotes the added advantage of being more tolerant to a wider range of soil pH with good germination in cooler temperatures when compared to other clovers. Brink et al., (2001) demonstrated the capability for Ball clover to out yield many other species during the first season, after which yield decreased to a level more comparable to that of other species. Lupins (Lupinus albus L.) were once planted extensively in the Southeast as a winter cover/ grazing crop (Kammermeyer et al., 2006). These cool season annual 11 legumes have the advantage of growing well in limited phosphorus (P) soils (Schulze et al., 2006). This is in part due to the formation of proteoid roots which exude compounds that increase soil P solubility (Dinkelaker et al., 1989; Neumann et al., 1999; Marschner, 2006). Like many cool season legumes they can easily be over-browsed early in the growing season. There are several facets of traditional agriculture that can be applied to the production of food plots for deer. In agricultural experiments, tillage is often of major concern. Food plots are no different with regard to detrimental impacts that tillage can have on the soil. No-till systems have the ability to minimize degradation and loss of soil but these practices have been tested very little on food plots (Troeh et al., 2004). There is potential with no-till systems to reduce plot establishment cost and improve all aspects of soil quality (Karlen et al., 1994). The majority of food plots are prepared via conventional tillage. Under conventional tillage, soil quality is degraded with every pass over the field (Troeh et al., 2004; Brady and Weil, 2002). Conventional tillage has the benefit of being more plastic in its applicability. There is less need for precision from a soil moisture perspective compared to no-till practices and therefore a greater window of opportunity for seed bed preparation. Food plots tend to be on a small scale which helps to reduce damage caused by erosive and soil destructive aspects of conventional tillage (Cook and Gray, 2005; Kammermeyer et al., 2006). Many individuals already possess or have access to necessary tillage equipment such as disks, chisel plows, cultipackers, and rotary tillers. They may not be willing to purchase different equipment required to adequately no-till. 12 Under no-till systems there is the potential for yields to decrease during the first years of practice until the system has matured (Brady and Weil, 2002). No-till systems also tend to decrease yields in poorly drained areas when there is a cool wet spring (Lal et al., 2007). With reduced tillage systems such as no-till there is a greater need for herbicidal or other no-till weed suppression (Wiese, 1985; Brady and Weil, 2002). The foremost benefit of conversion to a reduced tillage system is overall improvement of all facets of soil quality (Troeh et al., 2004). This process is attained by reducing runoff and soil erosion, increasing moisture retention ability, and improving soil structure, microbial and chemical composition (Wiese, 1985; Karlen et al., 1994; Uri, 1999; El Titi, 2003; Troeh et al., 2004; Brady and Weil, 2002). No-till systems have the disadvantage of being sensitive to soil moisture and type. Soil moisture changes with soil type which affects the planter?s ability to ensure good seed to soil contact (El Titi, 2003; Troeh et al., 2004). Proper no-till application necessitates the user to be ready to plant when conditions are optimal, which the average hunter may not be able to accomplish. The greatest benefit to hunters is reduction of planting costs due to reduced trips across the field (Uri, 1999; El Titi, 2003; Lal et al., 2007). Conclusive literature on the subject of optimal food plot cropping systems is scarce. Waer, (1992) estimated optimal food plot forages by evaluating preference, yield, and forage quality of six warm season forages (Davis soybean, Quail Haven soybean, combine cowpea, catjang pea (Vigna sinensis L. Walp.), velvetbean (Mucuna pruriens L. DC.), and aeschynomene) and eleven cool season forages (Coker 820 oats (Avena sativa L.), Wren?s Abruzzi rye (Secale cereal L.), Marshall ryegrass, Pioneer 2551 wheat, 13 Civastro forage turnip, Osceola ladino white clover, Regal ladino white clover, Imperial Whitetail ladino white clover, Tibbee crimson clover, Mt. Barker subterranean clover (T. subterraneum L.), and Redland II red clover) with captive deer. Throughout the year it was determined that small grains during the fall, crimson clover during winter into early spring, ladino clover from spring into early summer, and soybeans and red clover during summer would provide the best forage for deer use in food plots (Waer, 1992). Stephens et al., (2005) recommend Durana white clover be established in food plots based on production, use by deer, and crude protein level. Lablab is often purposed to be the most adequate warm season forage in the Southeast. Out of three warm season legumes (lablab, soybean, and cowpea) lablab was found most applicable to food plot use due to browse tolerance, forage quality, and productivity (Beals et al., 1993). A similar study by Feather and Fulbright (1995) on four warm season legumes (lablab, tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray), siratro (Macroptilium atropurpureum Moc. & Sess? ex DC. Urb., and cowpea) concluded lablab was the best of those tested based on nutritional quality and palatability to deer. Studies seem limiting in their comprehensiveness regarding the necessary variable interactions and dynamics associated with deer food plots. Researchers often inaccurately design experiments to determine optimal food plot cropping systems by not seeing the big picture. Use of captive deer, lack of crop mixtures, biased planting techniques and plot management, lack of tillage considerations and too few forages chosen, are common place in food plot experiments but fail to depict the true situation and may present false information (Waer et al., 1992; Beals et al., 1993; Kammermeyer et al., 1993; Feather and Fulbright, 1995; McDonald and Miller, 1995; Stephens et al., 2005; Kammermeyer et al., 2006). 14 In summary, there is conflicting information regarding best recommendations for food plots in the Southeast. A lack of scientifically credible sources on such recommendations does not help landowners and service providers. The goal of our research was to develop recommendations for the best food plot system for white-tailed deer in the Southeast based on three classifications: biomass production, forage quality, and deer preference. Chufa Response to Nutrient Additions Chufa (Cyperus esculentus L. var.sativus Boeck) is a species of sedge native to the Middle East but currently found in over 30 countries, including all of North and Central America, several European countries, South American, the Middle East, Asia and Africa (Holm et al., 1977; de Vries, 1991; Pascual et al., 2000; Li et al., 2001). Chufa also goes by the names tiger nut, ground nut, earth almond and the more commonly known yellow nutsedge (Pascual et al., 2000; Coskuner et al., 2002). Cyperus esculentus has two ecotypes, which at present strongly influences usage, yellow nutsedge being a particularly troublesome invasive weed and chufa being a cultivated variety with no apparent invasive nature (Pascual et al., 2000). Differences between weed types and cultivated types have been described since pre-Linnean times and are distinguished based on their physical characteristics (Lobelius, 1581; Robinson and Fernald, 1908; de Vries, 1991). Mitchell and Martin (1986) describe chufa as being a vigorous perennial sedge with rapid growth. The stems are triangular, smooth, yellowish, 20 to 61 cm tall. The leaves appear bright green, are approximately 8 cm wide, and are rigid early on but take on a somewhat wilted and pliable appearance as the plant matures. Three to seven prominent, unequal bracts, 5 cm to 21 cm in length 15 arise from the base of the inflorescence, with some being much longer than others. When formed, the inflorescence may be five to ten stalks varying in length with pinnate spikelets on terminal spikes. Although infrequently viable, the achenes are three-sided, yellowish and small (Mitchell and Martin, 1986). Tubers are found at the end of rhizomes and can be 0.6 cm to 1 cm long, range in shape from nearly round to oblong, and are tan to black although newly formed tubers are white (Mitchell and Martin, 1986; Kelley and Frederickson, 1991; Gifford and Bayer, 1995; Li et al., 2003). Other factors such as tuber size, color, oil content, frost tolerance, and taste help to discern between the chufa and weedy individuals (Robinson and Fernald, 1908; de Vries, 1991; Pascual et al., 2000). In reality, the invasive potential of chufa cannot be ignored, as it has the ability to propagate asexually from tubers produced at the end of rhizomes (Thullen and Keeley, 1975; Gifford and Bayer, 1995; Li et al., 2003). Studies have reported as many as 1900 shoots and 6848 tubers being generated in one year from a single tuber (Tumbleson and Kommedahl, 1961; Gifford and Bayer, 1995; Li et al., 2001). In the U.S., however, chufas are most often thought of as more of a weed species than a crop partially due to the weedy variety being present in all 50 states (Wills, 1987; Gifford and Bayer, 1995). Most research to date on C. esculentus has occurred on the physiological and ecological characteristics in order to better understand control of the weed types. Chufas have been used as a food source in the Nile Valley region of Africa for thousands of years and are thought to be one of the first cultivated forages (Zohary, 1986; de Vries, 1991; Pascual et al., 2000). Cultivation of chufa has been ongoing in Europe for several centuries (de Vries, 1991; Pascual et al., 2000). Currently several countries restrict movement of root crops and other commodities that may contain nutsedge tubers 16 to prevent further spread of the invasive biotype (Naber and Rotteveel, 1986; de Vries, 1991). As a crop, chufas have been used as a food source for both wildlife and livestock. Planting of chufa for hogs was a common practice in parts of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama during the early to mid 1900?s (Killinger and Stokes, 1951, Pascual et al., 2000). Hogs were given access to the fields after tubers matured and allowed to feed in a manner similar to feeding in peanut fields. By far the most common use of chufa in recent times has been planting as a food source for wildlife. Specifically, tubers produced by chufa provide an excellent source of energy and are readily sought after by game animals (Mitchell and Martin, 1986; Kelley and Frederickson, 1991). Although many species of mammals and birds utilize chufas, wild turkey and waterfowl are the most prevalent beneficiaries of chufa plantings (Mitchell and Martin, 1986). Billingsley and Arner (1970) found chufas to be second only to spice bush (Lindera benzoin L.) in preference, use, and nutritive value by wild turkeys in Mississippi. The majority of information on chufa cultivation in the U.S. is for the purpose of providing food for turkeys and waterfowl. At present, several seed companies market chufas towards hunters for turkeys (Mitchell and Martin, 1986). Chufas should be planted in lighter sandy soils to allow for turkeys to more easily scratch them up (Billingsley and Arner, 1970; Mitchell and Martin, 1986). Turkeys utilize chufa plantings to such an extent that stand establishment can be difficult in areas with high turkey populations (Billingsley and Arner, 1970; Mitchell and Martin, 1986). Those tubers not consumed during the winter will germinate the following spring and 17 produce new chufa plants (Davis, 1976; Mitchell and Martin, 1986; Kelley and Frederickson, 1991). Chufa tubers are one of the most sought after food sources by waterfowl (McAtee, 1939; Anderson, 1959; Kelly and Frederickson, 1991; Coskuner et al., 2002; Taylor and Smith, 2003). Wild varieties are commonly found in many areas, including agricultural fields and moist soil wetlands where waterfowl forage and loaf (Taylor and Smith, 2003) in all states of the country (Merrell, 1975; Thullen and Keeley, 1980; Kelly 1986). It is suspected that waterfowl are initially attracted to above ground food sources after which time they readily utilize belowground foods (Taylor and Smith, 2003; Taylor and Smith, 2005). Many species of waterfowl show a strong preference for chufa tubers (Martin and Uhler, 1939; McAtee, 1939; Stanton, 1957; Anderson, 1959; Mitchell and Martin, 1986). Martin and Uhler, (1939) report chufas as being the third most important food source for waterfowl along the Mississippi flyway and tenth overall in the U.S. Chufas are used to produce a milky drink in Spain known as horchata de chufa (Pascual et al., 2000; Coskuner et al., 2002). This dairy drink is a low acid vegetable beverage with high nutritional quality due to oleic acid content (Cortes et al., 2004). Horchata can be found in several countries of the world including France, the United States, Mexico, Venezuela, Panama, and several others in the Dominican Republic (Cortes et al., 2004). In other parts of the world the tubers are often roasted or eaten raw (Coskuner et al., 2002). Tubers may also be used as flavoring in ice cream or dried and made into cakes (Pascual et al., 2000; Coskuner et al., 2002). Cultivation via disking is the most prominent management practice utilized in chufa stands throughout their range (Reid et al., 1989; Kelley, 1990). Production is 18 stimulated by disking, which removes tubers from parent plants and scarifies dormant tubers (Tumbleson and Kommedahl, 1962; Taylorson, 1967; Sanchez Tames and Vieitez, 1970; Thullen and Keeley, 1975; Taylor and Smith, 2003). Those tubers removed will then develop into additional plants and tubers in as little as 18 days (Tumbleson and Kommedahl, 1962; Sanchez Tames and Vieitez, 1970; Kelley, 1990; Taylor and Smith, 2003). Disking also increases above and belowground biomass (Kelly, 1990). Disking also serves to uncover tubers to allow wildlife such as turkeys and waterfowl to find and utilize them. Chufa tuber size increases when less competition is present, either in the form of a denser chufa stand or weed interactions (Taylor and Smith, 2003). Tillage has the added benefit of decreasing the density of compacted soils thereby increasing water infiltration, aerating the soil, raising elevation and allowing for better tuber acquisition by foraging individuals (Peters and Afton, 1993). Increased elevation has direct effects on duration of flooding and water holding capacity. Disking can be beneficial in areas that remain wet for longer periods by reducing the duration of flooding on emerging seedlings (Kelley and Frederickson, 1991; Peters and Afton, 1994). Chufa is relatively intolerant of shade (Bell et al., 1962; Keeley and Thullen, 1978; Mitchell and Martin, 1986; Peters and Afton, 1993). Keeley and Thullen (1978) found chufa yields reduced by as little as 30% shade. A reduction in either amount or quality of light sharply decreases production (Dale and Causton, 1992; Li et al., 2001). Along with decreased overall production, shading influences other physiological factors such as, flowering, rhizome length and differentiation, aerial shoot development, and tuber production (Li et al., 2001). It is suspected that evolving alongside competitive wetland species that reduce light availability resulted in the rapid growth and 19 development now found in chufa (Kelley, 1990). The natural occurrence of seasonal flooding allows for tubers to germinate and develop before competing species shade out chufa plants (Kelley, 1990). Chufa has the ability to tolerate short periods of inundation which is beneficial in decreasing weed competition when established in wet areas (Kelley and Frederickson, 1991; Peters and Afton, 1993Taylor and Smith, 2003; Taylor and Smith 2005). It should be noted that chufas require moist conditions for proper germination and seedling development. Lack of adequate soil moisture drastically reduces tuber yields (Day and Russell, 1955; Taylorson, 1967; Kelley, 1990). Germination is reduced under prolonged flooding or saturated periods as well as if soil moisture is too low (Peters and Afton, 1993). Merrell (1975) noted that at least a three month period of non-flooded conditions are necessary for good tuber production (Mitchell and Martin, 1986). Peters and Afton (1993) found 51 and 95% of tubers present in the top 10 cm and 20 cm of the soil profile respectively. Bundy et al. (1960) found tubers occurring below 15 cm of the soil surface to have a low germination rate. Placement within the soil profile has implications for the depth to which individuals can adequately feed on tubers. In heavier clay soils individuals will likely be restricted to the more upper profile while sandy and loam type soils will allow for feeding deeper in the soil (Peters and Afton, 1993). Tubers may remain dormant for up to 3.5 years when left in the soil profile (Kelley and Frederickson, 1991). While there is adequate information regarding management practices for chufas, little information exists on chufa fertilizer response. Literature in previous studies presents inconclusive results regarding chufa response to fertilizer additions (Killinger 20 and Stokes, 1951; Maroto et al., 1986; Pascual et al., 2000). Killinger and Stokes (1951) reported what was termed ?erratic responses? to nutrient additions. Nitrogen applications between 250 ? 400 kg ha-1 produced no significant results on tuber production while applications over 520 kg ha-1 led to a decrease in tuber production (Maroto et al., 1986). Pascual et al., (2000) suggests no detectable relationship can be made regarding fertilization and plant response in chufa. Most publications on chufa management recommend addition of 260 - 560 kg ha-1 of 10-10-10 or a similar fertilizer blend (Mitchell and Martin, 1986; Yarrow and Yarrow, 2005). This pattern seems true for both above and below ground production. With this in mind it seems necessary to more accurately determine chufa fertilizer response. The objective of the experiment was to determine chufa response to nutrient additions. 21 II. Determination of Optimal Cool Season Cropping System for White-tailed Deer in the Southeast Abstract White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginuanus) have a large economic impact on the Southeast. A significant portion of this comes from food plot establishment and management. However, information regarding cropping systems for deer is inconclusive. The objective of this study was to determine the optimal cool season cropping system for white-tailed deer by evaluating forage dry matter (DM) yield, preference, and quality of 12 cool season forage treatments during 2008 through 2010. Plots were harvested during March of both years. Forage production ranged from 11 to 4331 kg dry matter (DM) ha-1 with wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) components consistently exhibiting the highest yields. Percent DM removed by deer was estimated to be between 14 and 85%, with wheat components having the highest estimates. Excluding wheat and wheat in wheat mix, cool season forages met or exceeded all requirements for nitrogen (N), calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), and sodium (Na) concentrations. Forage fiber analyses suggested that nearly all forages had good digestibility at the time of harvest. Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) values ranged from 159 g kg-1 for brassica to 526 g kg-1 for wheat in wheat mix. Acid detergent fiber (ADF) values ranged from 115 g kg-1 for brassica (Brassica napus L.) in Biologic mix to 240 g kg-1 for wheat in wheat mix. Acid detergent lignin (ADL) values were more variable among treatments although wheat and wheat in wheat mix 22 tended to have lower fraction of ADL than most other treatments. Forage establishment under no-till proved difficult in both years of the experiment. From our findings, it is recommended that wheat be planted in cool season food plots along with a companion forage. Introduction The white-tailed deer is the nation?s most profitable natural resource from a wildlife perspective. Each year millions of dollars are spent towards the pursuit of white- tailed deer in the United States (U.S. DoI-FWS, 2006). Alabama ranks fifth in hunting expenditures in the country. A significant portion of the investment made towards deer involves production and maintenance of food plots, and food plot expenditures likely exceed the amount spent towards hunting (Stribling et al., 1989). Knowledge regarding food plot implementation has been borrowed from the animal science field since the first wildlife forages were also livestock forages. Research on food plots first began during the golden age of wildlife management in the 1940?s and 50?s as the wildlife management profession began to grow and new information on game species such as white-tailed deer was introduced (Webb, 1963; Kammermeyer et al., 2006). Food plots were established primarily to attract deer during hunting seasons, but plots now serve the dual purpose of attraction and habitat improvement (Waer et al., 1994; Kammermeyer et al., 2006). Many studies have examined various forages and their use by deer (Davis, 1961; Webb, 1963; Waer, 1992; Waer et al., 1992; Kammermeyer et al., 1993; Waer et al., 1994; Stephens et al., 2005), while other research has appraised the value of forages from a nutritional quality perspective (French et al., 23 1956; Waer et al., 1992; Waer et al., 1994; Stephens et al., 2005). Forage preference has been documented, but often in less than natural environments. Tillage practices in food plots have also been poorly explored. Studies that tie all factors of food plot development and management are nearly non-existent. Thus, concise information regarding cropping systems for white-tailed deer is scarce. This study evaluated cool season cropping systems for white-tailed deer in the Southeast based on forage yield, quality and deer preference. Materials and Methods The study was conducted from 2008 through 2010 on an upland and lowland site at the Auburn University Deer Lab at the Piedmont Substation (32?49?24.17??N, 85?39?19.87?W, 216M elevation) near Camp Hill, AL. The soil at the upland site was a Lloyd loam, with 2 to 6 percent slopes (Fine kaolinitic thermic rhodic kanhapludult). The majority of the lower site consisted of Gwinnette ? Lloyd complex, with 6 to 15 percent slopes, with both Gwinnette and Lloyd being Fine kaolinitc thermic rhodic kanhapludults. Both 0.85 ha sites (64 x 128 m) were surrounded by 3.04 m high wildlife fencing. Each site had three 3.04 m x 4.08 m double gates spaced evenly along the long sides of the site. These gates allowed for prevention of deer access during planting and stand establishment. The gates were opened to allow deer access approximately one month after planting to help ensure stand longevity throughout the growing season. A randomized complete block design with tillage (conventional vs. no-till) and season (warm season vs. cool season) as blocks was established at both sites beginning in summer 2008 and continued through winter of 2010. Forage treatments were assigned to 24 tillage blocks within season based on perceived performance with regard to planting method. Each treatment was replicated four times. Each plot was 3.6 x 9.1 m. Conventional tillage plots were first disked with a 1.5 m wide disk harrow, and then tilled with a rotary tiller until a smooth seed bed was prepared. No-till plots received no tillage as the treatment. Cool season plots were planted the first week of October 2008 and the last week of September 2009. Cool season no-till plots included: ladino white clover (Trifolium repens L.), intermediate white clover (T. repens L.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), chicory (Cichorium intybus L.), red clover (T. pretense L.), Biologic Premium Perennial that consisted of a combination of Rivendel white clover (T. repens L.), Axi berseem clover (T.alexandrinum L.), Border balansa clover (T. michelianum Savi.), Six point chicory (C. intybus L.), Molina rape (B. napus L.), FSG 9601 red clover (T. pratense L.), Kurow rape (B. napus L.), Temuka white clover (T. repens L.), Mairaki rape (B. napus L.), Browtine chicory (C. intybus L.), and Timaru II chicory (C. intybus L.), wheat mixture that consisted of crimson clover (T. incarnatum L.) and wheat(Tricum aestivum L.), a brassica mixture that consisted of Brassica rapa L. and B. napus L., Arvika winter pea (Pisum sativum L.), and ball clover (T. nigrescens). Cool season conventional tillage plots included: Arvika winter pea, Biologic Premium Perennial, wheat mix, lupin (Lupinus albus L.), ball clover, wheat, and the brassica mixture. Treatments were established with a 2.4 m Great Plains no-till drill. Due to small seed size ball clover was hand seeded. Each site was soil sampled prior to the start of the experiment and limed and fertilized according to Auburn University Soil Testing 25 recommendations. Subsequent soil testing did not show need for liming other than the initial sampling. A 1 m diameter exclosure made from 5.1 x 10.2 cm mesh welded wire was placed at random in each plot after germination to prevent deer browsing. Biomass yield samples were harvested by hand clipping appropriate planted species from a randomly selected 0.25 m2 quadrat area in both the open and exclosed portion of the plot and placed in paper bags. The gates to each site were opened the first week of December during both years which gave deer access to the plots for approximately 3 months. The upland site was harvested on 3 March 2009 and 30 March 2010. The lowland site was harvested on 6 March 2009 and 24 March 2010. Biomass samples were dried in a forage drier at 55?C to a common moisture content and weighed to determine dry matter production. Yields were calculated from the exclosed sample area from each plot and are reported as kg dry matter (DM) ha-1. Percent DM removed was calculated as the open DM yield divided by the exclosed DM yield x 100, and is used as an estimate of deer preference. For sampling purposes, species mixtures were separated into their respective species components. Forage quality samples were collected on the same days as biomass harvest. Quality samples were collected by hand picking only those portions of plants that were seen to be browsed by deer (leaves, pods, and petioles). These samples were taken from open areas to assess forage quality of plant material consumed by deer. As with biomass samples, each species component of the treatment was kept separate for the quality samples to allow for species comparisons among treatments. All plant biomass samples were dried in a forage drier at 55?C to a common moisture content, and ground to pass a 1 mm screen with a Wiley mill. Nitrogen was determined by dry combustion using a 26 LECO TruSpec CN (Leco Corp, St. Joseph, MI). Phosphorus, Ca, and Na concentrations were determined via inductively coupled argon plasma spectrophotometry (ICAP) (SPECTROCIROS CCD, Side-on plasma. Germany). Neutral detergent fiber, ADF and ADL were determined using methods described by Van Soest and Wine (1968). Observation data was collected from fully enclosed box blinds elevated 4.5 m above ground level. For each site, eight dates were randomly chosen throughout the growing season as observation dates. The blinds were placed approximately halfway down the length of the longest side of each site and 3 m from the fence. The blinds were entered at least three hours before sunset to allow for roughly one hour for the area to settle down prior to a two-hour observation period. The observation period was started as soon as deer entered the site. Since individuals had free access to the sites there were many observation days when deer were observed but did not enter the site. A tripod mounted spotting scope with a 20-60 power lens was used to identify 0.12 x 0.17 m plot markers printed with plot number and ear tags on deer. Deer were identified by freeze branded numbers on the front shoulder and rear hip, ear tags, and/or body features. Those individuals not tagged were recorded by sex and age class. During the observation period, data was taken on each individual within the site every five minutes such that there was a total of 24 intervals in the two hour period. Individuals were recorded as feeding, walking, standing, or bedded. Feeding was defined as those individuals actively biting on forage. Individuals that were taking a bite while moving were recorded as feeding rather than walking. Standing was defined as those individuals standing but not taking a bite. Deer that were chewing cud were not recorded as feeding. Location was recorded as either the plot number in which the observation occurred or as alley. Alley 27 consisted of all non-planted border areas within the site. The number of observation days was equally divided between the two sites so that there were 8 days at each site during the season. Treatment effects and interactions were deemed significant at the P < 0.05 level by analysis of variance using PROC GLIMMIX in SAS 9.1.3 (SAS, 2003). Simulated adjusted pairwise comparisons were performed where applicable to denote differences between forage yields, percent removed, feeding observations, and forage quality. Due to the low number of feeding observations, tillage was not taken into account during statistical analyses. Observation data was log transformed to achieve a normal distribution. Winter pea treatments were omitted from all analyses except feeding observations due to winter kill prior to harvest. Red clover treatments were omitted from all yield and percent removed analyses due to poor stand establishment. Results and Discussion Production Analysis of variance indicated the Site x Year x Forage interaction was significant for conventional tillage treatment dry matter yields, while only the forage treatment effect was significant for no-till treatment yields (Table 1). Production in conventional tillage plots at the upland site differed less than those at the lowland site (Tables 2 and 3). Production also differed between years at each site with differences occurring less frequently in 2009 than in 2008. Overall production was less in 2009, and was likely the result of below average temperatures and above average rainfall (Figure 1). This decreased production may have led to the fewer differences in 2009. 28 Wheat had the greatest production of single forage treatments for all sites and years under conventional tillage (Tables 2 and 3). Similar studies found small grains to out-produce other common food plot species (Waer 1992; Waer et al., 1992; and Stephens et al., 2005). Wheat had greater production when compared to all other forages (both single and mixed) for each Site x Year effect excluding the upland site in 2009 when wheat production was not different from any other treatment component. Lupin production was greater than brassica in Biologic mix, but less than wheat, and wheat in wheat mix at the lowland site in 2008. At the upland site in 2008 lupin production was less than wheat and wheat in wheat mix but greater than clover in Biologic mix. Lupin production in 2009 was less when compared to wheat at the lowland site. Excessive soil moisture is known to reduce stand establishment in N fixing forages, and lupin can be particularly susceptible to waterlogged soils (Sarlistyaningsih et al., 1996). Excessive rainfall in 2009 (Figure 1), may have decreased lupin production resulting in fewer differences compared to other treatment components. Brassica production was less than wheat at each site during both years except for the upland site in 2009 when there was no difference. Brassica production was also less than wheat in wheat mix at the lowland site in 2008 and clover in Biologic mix and crimson clover in wheat mix at the upland site in 2008. Production of wheat in wheat mix was greater than any other mixed forage component for all sites and years. Wheat in wheat mix production was generally above that of all other mixed forage components excluding brassica in Biologic mix and crimson clover in wheat mix at both sites in 2009. Production was greater for wheat in wheat mix than any other no-till forage treatment component (Table 4). No other differences occurred regarding no-till forage 29 treatments. Due to poor stand establishment, alfalfa, brassica in Biologic mix, chicory in Biologic mix, chicory, and red clover were not used in the analyses. Lack of differences among forage treatments most likely occurred because of poor stand establishment under no-till in the soils at the two sites. Percent Dry Matter Removed For each tillage regime, forage treatment was the only significant effect, indicating that percent DM removed be analyzed across all years and sites within tillage (Table 5). Treatment components containing wheat had the greatest percent DM removed estimate of the forage treatments suggesting a high degree of preference for wheat (Table 6). Waer (1992) also found wheat to be utilized more heavily by deer when compared to other forages. No difference was found between wheat in wheat mix and wheat in conventional tillage plots, suggesting the presence of crimson clover in wheat mix had no impact on wheat in wheat mix percent DM removed. Percent DM removed for wheat was above that of ball clover, clover in Biologic mix, and crimson clover in wheat mix in conventional tillage plots. Percent DM removed for wheat in wheat mix was above that of ball clover, clover in Biologic mix, and crimson clover in wheat mix in conventional tillage plots but not different from any percent DM removed estimates in no-till plots. Lupin exhibited the second highest percent DM removed estimate of conventional tillage plots suggesting preference for lupin over other species excluding wheat. This pattern follows anecdotal evidence from other studies where deer showed preference for lupin (Reeves et al., 1995; Noffsinger et al., 1998). Lupin percent DM removed was greater than ball clover and clover in Biologic mix. Brassica percent DM removed estimates fell in the middle of the range but were not different from any other 30 forage. No comparisons were made with brassica in Biologic mix or chicory in Biologic mix in either tillage regime as result of poor stand establishment. It is likely under better stand establishment similar findings may have occurred regarding brassica and brassica in Biologic mix, since little preference for these types of forages has been reported (Waer, 1992; Waer et al. 1992). No differences were found between percent DM removed for any no-till forage treatment (Table 5). Wheat in wheat mix tended (P=0.0695) to have the greatest percent DM removed estimate while ladino white clover had the least for no-till treatments (Tables 5 and 6). Other research suggests ladino white clover preference is greater than we observed (Waer, 1992; Waer et al., 1992; Stephens et al., 2005). Percent DM removed estimates for both ball clover and clover in Biologic mix were numerically greater under no-till than conventional tillage. Wheat in wheat mix and crimson in wheat mix percent DM removed estimates were less under no-till than conventional tillage. Brassica, alfalfa, red clover, brassica in Biologic mix, chicory in Biologic mix, and chicory were omitted from percent removed analysis due to lack of yield that resulted in a non-estimable percent DM removed. Lack of comparison differences under no-till may be owing to the increased variability and difficulty with stand establishment under no-till. Tissue Nitrogen Concentration Analysis of variance indicated the three way interaction of Year x Site x Forage was significant for tissue N concentration in cool season forages (Table 7). Overall there was little variability in tissue N concentration for cool season forages (Tables 8-15). All forage components regardless of tillage met or exceeded N requirements for lactating does and weaned fawns (22.4 and 35.2 g N kg-1), which are the greatest physiological 31 requirements during a deer?s life cycle (French et al., 1956; McEwen et al., 1957; Ullrey et al., 1967; Holter et al., 1979). There was less variation in tissue N concentration for no-till (Tables 8 - 13) than conventional tillage (Tables 14 and 15). The only disparities in tissue N concentration for no-till species occurred at the upland site in 2009 (Tables 12 and 13), but no defining theme could be established with regards to the differences in tissue N concentration for no-till components. There was more variation in tissue N concentration under conventional tillage. There was more variation at the lowland site than the upland site as well as more variation in 2009 than 2008. Ball clover tissue N concentration exceeded that of all other cool season treatment species during 2009 at the lowland site (Table 15). Lupin had the second greatest tissue N concentration in 2009 at both sites (Table 15). While trends in tissue N concentration were noted, the majority of variation seemed to be random among forage treatment components. Forages that exceed requirements for maintenance may serve to supply a large portion of the nutritional requirements for developing individuals such as fawns and yearlings during the cool season, a time when natural browse can be limiting. Mineral Analyses Analysis of variance for cool season forage mineral concentration indicated the Year x Site x Tillage x Forage interaction was significant for Ca, while the Site x Forage and Site x Tillage x Forage interactions were significant for Na and P, respectively (Table 16). Calcium concentration ranged from 1.8 to 32.7 g kg-1(Table 17). Brassica and brassica in Biologic mix tended to have greater Ca concentrations (13.2 to 32.7 g kg-1) than other forages while wheat and wheat in wheat mix tended to have the least Ca (1.8 to 6.8 g kg-1). Clover Ca ranged from 9.6 to 18.7 g kg-1. Lupin Ca concentration fell 32 between 4.1 and 6.8 g kg-1. Calcium requirements have been reported as 4 to 6.4 g kg- 1for optimal growth (McEwen et al., 1957; Ullrey et al., 1975; Ullrey, 1981). Excluding wheat, wheat in wheat mix and lupin, all forages either met or exceeded the proposed requirements. Calcium is most needed during antlerogenesis in males and lactation in females (Grassman and Hellgren 1993; Atwood and Weeks 2003). Harvest timing likely influenced Ca concentration. Since individuals are typically in physiological maintenance during the fall and winter, Ca concentration for wheat, wheat in wheat mix and lupin may be sufficient. During periods of increased Ca requirement individuals go through an osteoporotic like state in which minerals, especially Ca and P, are resorbed to meet elevated demand (Banks et al., 1968; Grassman and Hellgren 1993). It is during other times of year that these mineral banks are restocked. The greater Ca concentration of the brassica forages could serve to more rapidly restore mineral reserves. There are discrepancies regarding the range of P in forage required for white- tailed deer. The requirement range for P as reported by McEwen et al., (1957), Ullrey et al., (1975) and Ullrey (1981), is from 2.8 to 5.6 g kg-1 while Grassman and Hellgren (1993) report requirements as 1.2 to 1.8 g kg-1. Regardless of the proposed range, all cool season forages exceeded the proposed P requirements, suggesting P should not be a limiting factor in cool season forages (Table 18). Similar to Ca concentration, brassica and brassica in Biologic mix forages tended to have greater P concentration when compared to other forages. Phosphorus is the second most limiting mineral to white- tailed deer behind only Na (Grassman and Hellgren 1993; McDowell 1985). The dramatic seasonal shifts in P requirements follow the same trend previously mentioned for Ca requirements. Increased P needs during antlerogenesis and lactation are 33 ameliorated through seasonal osteoporotic resorption of minerals. Forages with elevated levels of P could serve to more efficiently restock P deposits within the body. Sodium has been described as the most limiting mineral to white-tailed deer (Grassman and Hellgren 1993; Hellgren and Pitts 1997; Atwood and Weeks 2003). Forages can be low in Na as result of its ease of leaching from the soil. Hellgren and Pitts (1997) described Na requirements for maintenance as 0.023 to 0.075 g kg-1. According to this range, all cool season forages exceeded the requirements at the time of sampling and were in fact one to two orders of magnitude greater than that of proposed requirements for physiological maintenance (Table 19). Following the same trend for Ca and P, wheat and wheat in wheat mix tended to have a low Na concentration compared to most other forages. Chicory and chicory in Biologic mix exhibited greater Na levels than other forages used regardless of tillage. Peak Na requirements occur during lactation and antlerogenesis (Atwood and Weeks 2003). These two physiological seasons do not coincide with the presence of cool season forages and therefore Na concentration in fall forages may not be a driving factor with regard to an individual?s preference for one forage over the other. However, forages with elevated Na concentration such as chicory and chicory in Biologic mix may more efficiently supply Na throughout the growing season. Fiber Concentration Since forage digestibility depends on fiber concentration, an estimation of forage quality can be made from fiber determination (Van Soest 1994). Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) is the amount of total fiber in a forage or the insoluble components of the cell wall, constituted mostly of hemicelluloses, cellulose, and lignin. Acid detergent fiber 34 (ADF) is a measure of indigestible fiber, which is mostly cellulose and lignin or the least soluble portions of the cell wall. Acid detergent lignin (ADL) is a measure of completely indigestible fiber which is predominately lignin. Analysis of variance indicated Site x Forage interaction as significant for NDF (Table 20). The four way interaction of Year x Site x Tillage x Forage was found significant for ADF values while ADL values were affected by the interaction of Year x Forage. Cool season NDF had little variation (Table 21). However, NDF values for wheat and wheat in wheat mix were greater than that of all other forages. Brassica and brassica in Biologic mix NDF values were less than all other forages. As expected, wheat and wheat in wheat mix ADF values were greater than that of other forages (Table 22). Acid detergent fiber was greater in 2009 than 2008 for most forages. This may be due to a slightly later harvest date in 2009. Similar to NDF values, the ADF values for brassica and brassica in Biologic mix tended to be less than that of other forages. Analysis of ADL indicated that wheat and wheat in wheat mix had less proportions of lignin than most other forages (Table 23). Acid detergent lignin values were greater in 2009 than in 2008. This suggests that the fiber fraction found in wheat and wheat in wheat mix was comprised proportionally of more cellulose than lignin. These values are similar to those presented by Waer et al. (1992) and suggest that most forages were adequately digestible at the time of harvest. Deer Feeding Observations Analysis of variance for cool season feeding observations indicated forage treatment, year and site as significant effects while no interactions were significant (Table 35 24). Tillage was considered in the analyses due to the low number of feeding observations. Deer were observed in all forage treatments except chicory at some point during the cool season (Table 25). The data suggest that Biologic mix treatments were less preferred when compared to other treatments and non-planted areas. Biologic mix observations ha-1 were less than all treatments excluding wheat mix, ladino white clover, and the alley. Wheat observations ha-1 were above that of wheat mix suggesting there was preference for wheat over wheat mix. Observations for wheat mix were surprisingly low when considering the percent DM removed data for wheat mix (Table 6). Lupin, which had one of the top estimates for percent DM removed (Table 6), had greater observations ha-1 only when compared to wheat mix and Biologic mix. Several of the treatments that experienced low yields had high numbers of observations ha-1. Individuals could have been feeding on volunteer winter annuals that were present in large amounts in some plots. These treatments include red clover, chufa, alfalfa, white clover intermediate, and ladino white clover. Chufa did not have a winter treatment. Therefore, feeding observations reflect only the volunteer plants found in a winter fallow system. The occurrence of feeding observations in nearly all treatments implies that deer will utilize nearly any forage provided during the cool season. One aspect that must be taken into account is the access deer had to the plots with regard to observation data taken. Individuals were not forced into the sites as was the case in other published studies. The lower number of observations ha-1 do not necessarily reflect a lower preference for some treatments. Individuals could have simply visited the sites at times other than during observation periods. Overall, observations ha-1 were not different between treatments except when compared to Biologic mix for which feeding 36 observations were less, and wheat mix and wheat for which feeding observations were greater. Summary and Conclusions The wheat and wheat in wheat mix treatment components had the greatest production of the cool season treatments. These same treatment components also had the greatest percent DM removed of cool season treatments which suggests a strong preference for wheat in this study. This preference may be linked to the greater production exhibited by wheat and wheat in wheat mix. Deer were observed feeding in all treatments except chicory during the cool season feeding observation period. Of the treatments with high numbers of feeding observations, wheat was the only forage in which a large amount of volunteer vegetation was not present. Few differences were found when comparing between treatments, implying less reliance on forage preference and more on forage availability. Cool season tissue N concentration estimates varied little among treatments and exceeded the proposed requirements for a deer?s physiological maintenance. Lupin tissue N concentration was consistently above that of other forages. All cool season forages met the concentration requirement for Ca except wheat, wheat in wheat mix and lupin. The Ca estimates for brassica and brassica in Biologic mix were above that of other treatments which may allow these forages to more efficiently restock physiological reserves. These same forages also exhibited greater levels of P than did other treatments which, would also allow for more efficient P replenishment of skeletal reserves. All other cool season forages met or exceeded proposed P requirements. Although Na is 37 often limiting in natural systems, all cool season forages contained adequate Na concentrations. Similarly to Ca and P estimates, wheat and wheat in wheat mix tended to have lower Na concentration than did other forages. The estimates for chicory and chicory in Biologic mix were greater than that of other treatments suggesting these forages may better serve to provide Na than other forages. Cool season forages had little variation in fiber concentration. Wheat and wheat in wheat mix exhibited greater fiber concentration than all other forages while brassica and brassica in Biologic mix tended to have lower fiber concentrations than other cool season forages. Overall, most forages proved to have low fiber fractions suggesting good digestibility at the time of harvest. Establishment of no-till treatments proved difficult throughout all seasons and years. It is not recommended that food plots be established via no-till methods without a proper herbicide program. Care must be taken when selecting forages if mixtures are to be planted to retain the capability for weed control. If complex forage mixtures are used, weed control may prove difficult. Based on our findings, there are certain aspects of food plot establishment and management that should be noted. Cool season food plots may benefit by inclusion of wheat along with a companion forage. A companion forage will help to diversify the timing of forage production, increase forage quality, and improve overall nutrition. The choice of companion forages is largely based on personal preference and environmental conditions. The choice of which companion forage to use should be made based on several factors including management goals, environmental conditions, food plot size and perceived deer densities. 38 Table 1. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for cool season conventional and no-till single and mixed forage yields. Effect Conventional tillage No-till ---------------------Pr>F------------------ Site 0.9071 0.3862 Forage <0.0001 <0.0001 Site x Forage 0.0690 0.0733 Year <0.0001 0.9565 Site x Year <0.0001 0.7642 Year x Forage <0.0001 0.3241 Site x Year x Forage 0.0001 0.0870 39 Table 2. Lowland dry matter (DM) yield estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season conventional tillage single and mixed forage treatments. Year Forage? Estimate StdErr BR BR_M CL_M CH_M LU WH WH_M CR_M ---kg DM ha-1--- -------------------------------------------------Adjusted P--------------------------------------------- 2008 BA 525 277 0.9986 0.8113 1 ? 0.7677 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.9997 BR 255 373 ? 0.9992 0.9996 ? 0.5455 <0.0001 0.0001 1 BR_M 22 214 0.9992 ? 0.7955 ? 0.015 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.944 CL_M 459 214 0.9996 0.7955 ? ? 0.4667 <0.0001 <0.0001 1 LU 1078 237 0.5455 0.015 0.4667 ? ? <0.0001 0.0018 0.3623 WH 3727 373 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 ? <0.0001 ? 0.042 <0.0001 WH_M 2384 237 0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 ? 0.0018 0.042 ? <0.0001 CR_M 373 237 1 0.944 1 ? 0.3623 <0.0001 <0.0001 ? 2009 BA 1420 277 0.8544 0.1764 0.0215 0.0012 0.2777 0.0094 1 0.1548 BR 7340 373 ? 0.9999 0.974 0.7354 1 0.0003 0.8625 0.9996 BR_M 510 224 0.9999 ? 0.9968 0.7588 1 <0.0001 0.1318 1 CL_M 265 214 0.974 0.9968 ? 0.9944 0.9893 <0.0001 0.0101 0.9993 CH_M 11 214 0.7354 0.7588 0.9944 ? 0.6777 <0.0001 0.0003 0.8578 LU 566 237 1 1 0.9893 0.6777 ? <0.0001 0.2298 1 WH 3081 373 0.0003 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 ? 0.0025 <0.0001 WH_M 1378 237 0.8625 0.1318 0.0101 0.0003 0.2298 0.0025 ? 0.1193 CR_M 470 237 0.9996 1 0.9993 0.8578 1 <0.0001 0.1193 ? ? ball clover (BA), brassica mix (BR), brassica in Biologic mix (BR_M), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), lupin (LU), wheat (WH), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M) ?Indicates a self comparison; ? Data does not exist for 2008 due to poor stand establishment 40 Table 3. Upland dry matter (DM) yield estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season conventional tillage single and mixed forage treatments. Year Forage? Estimate StdErr BR BR_M CL_M CH_M LU WH WH_M CR_M ----kg DM ha-1---- -----------------------------------------------Adjusted P-------------------------------------------- 2008 BA 633 277 0.3837 0.0441 0.8333 ? 0.7585 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.9712 BR 1608 373 ? 1 0.0117 ? 0.9763 0.0001 0.2661 0.0451 BR_M 1677 2146 1 ? 0.0001 ? 0.7401 <0.0001 0.0443 0.0004 CL_M 149 214 0.0117 0.0001 ? ? 0.0161 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.9998 LU 1187 237 0.9763 0.7401 0.0161 ? ? <0.0001 0.0005 0.0913 WH 4331 373 0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 ? <0.0001 ? 0.0022 <0.0001 WH_M 2622 237 0.2661 0.0443 <0.0001 ? 0.0005 0.0022 ? <0.0001 CR_M 276 237 0.0451 0.0004 0.9998 ? 0.0913 <0.0001 <0.0001 ? 2009 BA 930 277 0.8167 0.4633 0.2324 0.1607 0.7798 1 1 0.8385 BR 213 373 ? 1 1 1 1 0.6824 0.5513 1 BR_M 216 214 1 ? 1 0.9992 1 0.4063 0.1263 0.9998 CL_M 82 214 1 1 ? 1 0.9939 0.2265 0.0396 0.9854 CH_M 24 214 1 0.9992 1 ? 0.9779 0.1676 0.0213 0.9587 LU 352 237 1 1 0.9939 0.9779 ? 0.6548 0.3901 1 WH 1141 373 0.6824 0.4063 0.2265 0.1676 0.6548 ? 1 0.715 WH_M 1070 237 0.5513 0.1263 0.0396 0.0213 0.3901 1 ? 0.4628 CR_M 389 237 1 0.9998 0.9854 0.9587 1 0.715 0.4628 ? ? ball clover (BA), brassica mix (BR), brassica in Biologic mix (BR_M), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), lupin (LU), wheat (WH), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M) ? Indicates a self comparison ? Data not included due to poor stand establishment 41 Table 4. Dry matter (DM) yield estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season no-till single and mixed forage treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr CL_M WC-I WC-L WH_M CR_M ---kg DM ha-1--- -------------------------Adjusted P----------------------- BA 436 113 0.304 0.7348 0.6866 <0.0001 0.8116 CL_M 141 86 ? 0.9999 1 <0.0001 0.9451 WC-I 173 155 0.9999 ? 1 <0.0001 0.9971 WC-L 158 155 1 1 ? <0.0001 0.9944 WH_M 1714 95 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 ? <0.0001 CR_M 254 95 0.9451 0.9971 0.9944 <0.0001 ? ? ball clover (BA), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), white clover intermediate (WC- I), ladino white clover (WC-L), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M) ? Indicates a self comparison Table 5. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for cool season conventional and no-till single and mixed forage treatment percent dry matter removed. Effect Conventional tillage No-till --------------------Pr>F-------------------- Site 0.4853 0.8331 Forage 0.0000 0.0695 Site x Forage 0.5443 0.9275 Year 0.8760 0.1011 Site x Year 0.6998 0.4084 Year x Forage 0.6657 0.7330 Site x Year x Forage 0.9869 0.8300 42 Table 6. Percent dry matter (DM) removed estimates, standard errors, and simulated pairwise adjusted P-values for cool season single and mixed forage treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr BR CL_M LU WC-I WC-L WH WH_M CR_M -% DM removed- -----------------------------------------------Adjusted P---------------------------------------------- Conventional tillage BA 23 10 0.8376 1 0.0299 ? ? 0.0055 <0.0001 0.8751 BR 51 19 ? 0.7627 0.9975 ? ? 0.7962 0.6564 0.9969 CL_M 21 9 0.7627 ? 0.0111 ? ? 0.0029 <0.0001 0.7399 LU 64 9 0.9975 0.0111 ? ? ? 0.8573 0.5243 0.3361 WH 84 14 0.7962 0.0029 0.8573 ? ? ? 1 0.0584 WH_M 85 8 0.6564 <0.0001 0.5243 ? ? 1 ? 0.0015 CR_M 39 8 0.9969 0.7399 0.3361 ? ? 0.0584 0.0015 ? No -till BA 55 21 ? 0.9964 ? 0.8557 0.8005 ? 0.8978 0.8265 CL_M 43 17 ? ? ? 0.9668 0.9265 ? 0.5077 0.9641 WC-I 20 24 ? 0.9668 ? ? 1 ? 0.2617 1 WC-L 14 25 ? 0.9265 ? 1 ? ? 0.2309 0.998 WH_M 79 13 ? 0.5077 ? 0.2617 0.2309 ? ? 0.0732 CR_M 26 14 ? 0.9641 ? 1 0.998 ? 0.0732 ? ? ball clover (BA), brassica mix (BR), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), lupin (LU), wheat (WH), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), white clover intermediate (WC-I), ladino white clover (WC-L) ? Indicates self comparison ? Treatment did not exist in this tillage ?Yield prevented data from being included 43 Table 7. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for cool season forage tissue nitrogen concentration. Effect ---Pr>F--- Year 0.4037 Site 0.7335 Year x Site 0.4551 Forage 0.0000 Year x Forage 0.0730 Site x Forage 0.1221 Year x Site x Forage 0.0120 Tillage 0.0056 Year x Tillage 0.1152 Site x Tillage 0.3671 Year x Site x Tillage 0.8391 Tillage x Forage 0.0880 Year x Tillage x Forage 0.4963 Site x Tillage x Forage 0.3432 Year x Site x Tillage x Forage 0.3746 44 Table 8. Lowland, 2008 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season no-till single and mixed species forage treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr BA BR_M CL_M CR_M WCI WCL WH_M -------g kg-1------ ---------------------------------Adjusted P------------------------------ BA 46.4 1.9 ? 0.9999 0.9999 0.4396 1 0.7936 0.2752 BR_M 44.5 5.5 0.9999 ? 1 0.9983 0.9999 0.9986 0.9956 CL_M 45.0 3.2 0.9999 1 ? 0.9519 0.9999 0.9785 0.8926 CR_M 41.5 1.7 0.4396 0.9983 0.9519 ? 0.9588 1 1 WCI 47.0 5.5 1 0.9999 0.9999 0.9588 ? 0.9685 0.9274 WCL 41.3 3.2 0.7936 0.9986 0.9785 1 0.9685 ? 1 WH_M 40.9 1.6 0.2752 0.9956 0.8926 1 0.9274 1 ? ? ball clover (BA), brassica in Biologic mix (BR_M), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), white clover intermediate (WCI), ladino white clover (WCL) ? Indicates a self comparison 45 Table 9. Upland, 2008 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season no-till single and mixed species forage treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr BA BR BR_M CL_M CR_M RC WCI WCL WH_M -------g kg-1------- ------------------------------------------------Adjusted P-------------------------------------------- AL 43.5 5.5 1 0.9998 1 1 1 0.9967 0.9993 0.9999 0.9998 BA 45.9 2.1 ? 0.7944 0.9993 0.9529 0.9998 0.8423 0.6731 0.9078 1 BR 39.7 3.2 0.7944 ? 0.9806 0.9994 0.9353 1 1 1 0.5683 BR_M 43.8 2.1 0.9993 0.9806 ? 0.9999 1 0.961 0.9428 0.9944 0.9749 CL_M 42.3 2.1 0.9529 0.9994 0.9999 ? 0.9986 0.9929 0.9961 0.9998 0.7661 CR_M 44.4 1.7 0.9998 0.9353 1 0.9986 ? 0.9303 0.8631 0.9795 0.9868 RC 36.7 5.5 0.8423 1 0.961 0.9929 0.9303 ? 1 1 0.7311 WCI 38.9 3.2 0.6731 1 0.9428 0.9961 0.8631 1 ? 1 0.4188 WCL 39.7 3.9 0.9078 1 0.9944 0.9998 0.9795 1 1 ? 0.7831 WH_M 46.8 1.7 1 0.5683 0.9749 0.7661 0.9868 0.7311 0.4188 0.7831 ? ? alfalfa (AL), ball clover (BA), brassica (BR), brassicas in Biologic mix (BR_M), clovers in Biologic mix (CL_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), red clover (RC), white clover intermediate (WCI), ladino white clover (WCL) ? Indicates a self comparison 46 Table 10. Lowland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season no-till single species forage treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr BA BR CH RC WCI WCL ------g kg-1------ --------------------------------Adjusted P------------------------------- AL 41.1 2.4 0.9024 0.857 0.9973 0.9996 0.9024 0.9517 BA 47.5 3.2 ? 0.1255 0.3609 0.8121 1 1 BR 34.4 3.2 0.1255 ? 0.9994 1 0.1012 0.1723 BR_M 39.1 1.9 0.4858 0.9775 1 1 0.4292 0.6075 CH 37.7 2.4 0.3609 0.9994 ? 1 0.3118 0.4703 CH_M 39.9 2.1 0.6559 0.9472 0.9998 1 0.6182 0.7659 CL_M 40.0 2.1 0.6828 0.9364 0.9998 0.9999 0.6474 0.7892 CR_M 43.3 1.5 0.9871 0.2914 0.7049 0.9818 0.9882 0.9968 RC 36.3 5.5 0.8121 1 1 ? 0.8268 0.8625 WCI 47.0 2.7 1 0.1012 0.3118 0.8268 ? 1 WCL 46.9 3.2 1 0.1723 0.4703 0.8625 1 ? WH_M 39.8 1.6 0.5423 0.9231 0.9998 0.9999 0.4793 0.6731 ? alfalfa (AL), ball clover (BA), brassica (BR), brassicas in Biologic mix (BR_M), clovers in Biologic mix (CL_M), chicory (CH), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), red clover (RC), white clover intermediate (WCI), ladino white clover (WCL) ? Indicates a self comparison 47 Table 11. Lowland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season no-till mixed species forage treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr BR_M CH_M CL_M CR_M WH_M --------g kg-1-------- --------------------------------Adjusted P---------------------- AL 41.1 2.4 0.9999 1 1 0.9998 1 BA 47.5 3.2 0.4858 0.6559 0.6828 0.9871 0.5423 BR 34.4 3.2 0.9775 0.9472 0.9364 0.2914 0.9231 BR_M 39.1 1.9 ? 1 1 0.8434 1 CH 37.7 2.4 1 0.9998 0.9998 0.7049 0.9998 CH_M 39.9 2.1 1 ? 1 0.9655 1 CL_M 40.0 2.1 1 1 ? 0.9741 1 CR_M 43.3 1.5 0.8434 0.9655 0.9741 ? 0.8896 RC 36.3 5.5 1 1 0.9999 0.9818 0.9999 WCI 47.0 2.7 0.4292 0.6182 0.6474 0.9882 0.4793 WCL 46.9 3.2 0.6075 0.7659 0.7892 0.9968 0.6731 WH_M 39.8 1.6 1 1 1 0.8896 ? ? alfalfa (AL), ball clover (BA), brassica (BR), brassicas in Biologic mix (BR_M), clovers in Biologic mix (CL_M), chicory (CH), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), red clover (RC), white clover intermediate (WCI), ladino white clover (WCL) ? Indicates a self comparison 48 Table 12. Upland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season no-till single species forage treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr BA BR CH RC WCI WCL -------g kg-1 ------- -----------------------------------Adjusted P------------------------------ Al 41.1 2.4 0.8808 1 0.7493 1 0.9107 0.9468 BA 47.5 3.2 ? 0.9763 0.004 1 1 0.0194 BR 34.4 3.2 0.9763 ? 0.1388 1 0.9864 0.3958 BR_M 39.1 1.9 0.0062 0.358 0.9919 0.9046 0.0086 1 CH 37.7 2.4 0.004 0.1388 ? 0.6139 0.0055 1 CH_M 39.9 2.1 0.2708 0.9939 0.4207 0.9996 0.334 0.8148 CL_M 40.0 2.1 0.1724 0.9668 0.6808 0.9972 0.2213 0.9548 CR_M 43.3 1.5 0.2543 0.995 0.3586 0.9996 0.3175 0.7702 RC 36.3 5.5 1 1 0.6139 ? 1 0.8286 WCI 47.0 2.7 1 0.9864 0.0055 1 ? 0.0258 WCL 46.9 3.2 0.0194 0.3958 1 0.8286 0.0258 ? WH_M 39.8 1.6 0.0561 0.8214 0.854 0.9874 0.0777 0.9925 ? alfalfa (AL), ball clover (BA), brassica (BR), brassicas in Biologic mix (BR_M), clovers in Biologic mix (CL_M), chicory (CH), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), red clover (RC), white clover intermediate (WCI), ladino white clover (WCL) ? Indicates a self comparison 49 Table 13. Upland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season no-till mixed species forage treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr BR_M CH_M CL_M CR_M WH_M ------g kg-1------- ---------------------------Adjusted P-------------------------- Al 41.1 2.4 0.9821 1 1 1 0.9999 BA 47.5 3.2 0.0062 0.2708 0.1724 0.2543 0.0561 BR 34.4 3.2 0.358 0.9939 0.9668 0.995 0.8214 BR_M 39.1 1.9 ? 0.8271 0.9824 0.7472 0.9992 CH 37.7 2.4 0.9919 0.4207 0.6808 0.3586 0.854 CH_M 39.9 2.1 0.8271 ? 1 1 0.9987 CL_M 40.0 2.1 0.9824 1 ? 1 1 CR_M 43.3 1.5 0.7472 1 1 ? 0.9972 RC 36.3 5.5 0.9046 0.9996 0.9972 0.9996 0.9874 WCI 47.0 2.7 0.0086 0.334 0.2213 0.3175 0.0777 WCL 46.9 3.2 1 0.8148 0.9548 0.7702 0.9925 WH_M 39.8 1.6 0.9992 0.9987 1 0.9972 ? ? alfalfa (AL), ball clover (BA), brassica (BR), brassicas in Biologic mix (BR_M), clovers in Biologic mix (CL_M), chicory (CH), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), red clover (RC), white clover intermediate (WCI), ladino white clover (WCL) ? Indicates a self comparison 50 Table 14. Tissue nitrogen concentration for 2008 estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P- values for cool season conventional tillage single and mixed species forage treatments. Site Forage? Estimate StdErr BR BR_M CL_M CR_M LU WH WH_M ------g kg-1------- ------------------------------------Adjusted P--------------------------------- Lowland BA 47.6 1.8 0.9969 0.0122 0.9004 0.1135 0.9741 0.0334 0.0005 BR 44.0 5.0 ? 0.7048 1 0.9998 0.9999 0.9208 0.9253 BR_M 33.9 3.5 0.7048 ? 0.0738 0.5143 0.0506 0.9975 0.9741 CL_M 44.8 1.3 1 0.0738 ? 0.6632 0.9999 0.1975 0.0104 CR_M 41.4 1.5 0.9998 0.5143 0.6632 ? 0.522 0.8698 0.6691 LU 45.4 1.4 0.9999 0.0506 0.9999 0.522 ? 0.1445 0.0061 WH 37.0 2.9 0.9208 0.9975 0.1975 0.8698 0.1445 ? 1 WH_M 37.7 1.5 0.9253 0.9741 0.0104 0.6691 0.0061 1 ? Upland BA 44.5 1.8 0.3432 0.5348 0.3511 0.9999 0.9999 0.1557 0.3223 BR 37.7 2.5 ? 0.986 0.9971 0.454 0.137 0.9999 0.999 BR_M 40.2 1.3 0.986 ? 1 0.6846 0.1495 0.8863 0.9997 CL_M 39.7 1.3 0.9971 1 ? 0.4751 0.0664 0.9476 1 CR_M 43.6 1.5 0.454 0.6846 0.4751 ? 0.9899 0.2155 0.4363 LU 45.4 1.4 0.137 0.1495 0.0664 0.9899 ? 0.0471 0.066 WH 36.5 2.5 0.9999 0.8863 0.9476 0.2155 0.0471 ? 0.9762 WH_M 39.3 1.4 0.999 0.9997 1 0.4363 0.066 0.9762 ? ? ball clover (BA), brassica (BR), brassicas in Biologic mix (BR_M), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), lupin (LU), wheat (WH) ? Indicates a self comparison 51 Table 15. Tissue nitrogen concentration for 2009 estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for cool season conventional tillage single and mixed species forage treatments. Site Forage? Estimate StdErr BR BR_M CH_M CL_M CR_M LU WH WH_M ------g kg-1------- ------------------------------------------Adjusted P----------------------------------------------- Lowland BA 53.5 1.8 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0085 0.0347 <0.0001 <0.0001 BR 32.9 2.5 ? 0.8539 0.9296 0.1146 0.0011 0.0008 0.9949 0.7189 BR_M 37.0 1.2 0.8539 ? 1 0.4436 0.001 0.0006 1 1 CH_M 36.6 1.4 0.9296 1 ? 0.4272 0.0015 0.001 1 0.9991 CL_M 40.7 1.3 0.1146 0.4436 0.4272 ? 0.3489 0.2201 0.7176 0.8547 CR_M 45.1 1.4 0.0011 0.001 0.0015 0.3489 ? 1 0.0397 0.0144 LU 45.8 1.6 0.0008 0.0006 0.001 0.2201 1 ? 0.0232 0.0082 WH 35.9 2.5 0.9949 1 1 0.7176 0.0397 0.0232 ? 0.9982 WH_M 37.9 1.4 0.7189 1 0.9991 0.8547 0.0144 0.0082 0.9982 ? Upland BA 46.6 1.9 0.2044 0.0086 0.0968 0.9805 0.3936 0.9896 0.4806 0.0493 BR 37.8 2.9 ? 1 0.9998 0.6201 0.9783 0.0264 0.9998 1 BR_M 38.0 1.4 1 ? 0.9961 0.0953 0.7963 <0.0001 0.9985 0.9999 CH_M 39.7 1.5 0.9998 0.9961 ? 0.5527 0.9985 0.0025 1 1 CL_M 44.0 1.6 0.6201 0.0953 0.5527 ? 0.9441 0.4389 0.9234 0.3514 CR_M 41.3 1.5 0.9783 0.7963 0.9985 0.9441 ? 0.0248 0.9999 0.9775 LU 49.1 1.8 0.0264 <0.0001 0.0025 0.4389 0.0248 ? 0.0782 0.001 WH 40.1 2.5 0.9998 0.9985 1 0.9234 0.9999 0.0782 ? 0.9999 WH_M 38.9 1.6 1 0.9999 1 0.3514 0.9775 0.001 0.9999 ? ? ball clover (BA), brassica (BR), brassicas in Biologic (BR_M), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), lupin (LU), wheat (WH) ? Indicates a self comparison 52 Table 16. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for cool season forage calcium (Ca), sodium (Na), and phosphorus (P) elemental concentration. Effect Ca Na P ---------------------Pr > F------------------ Year 0.0001 <0.0001 0.3235 Site <0.0001 0.3188 0.6862 Year x Site 0.0029 <0.0001 <0.0001 Forage <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 Year x Forage <0.0001 0.6127 0.0014 Site x Forage 0.1309 0.0240 0.0597 Year x Site x Forage 0.0317 0.1150 0.3603 Tillage 0.0982 0.0530 0.2224 Year x Tillage 0.1365 0.0258 0.0619 Site x Tillage 0.5864 0.3551 0.4405 Year x Site x Tillage 0.0895 0.0652 0.9254 Tillage x Forage 0.2725 0.3065 0.8366 Year x Tillage x Forage 0.0017 0.1667 0.7358 Site x Tillage x Forage 0.2782 0.7334 0.0478 Year x Site x Tillage x Forage 0.0019 0.9548 0.5212 53 Table 17. Least square means comparisons of cool season forage calcium concentration. Year x Site x Tillage? Forage? Estimate --g kg-1-- 2009 x Upland x NT BR 32.71 A? 2009 x Upland x CT BR 32.67 A 2009 x Upland x CT BR_M 26.55 B 2009 x Upland x NT BR_M 23.32 C B 2009 x Lowland x NT BR 23.14 C B 2009 x Lowland x CT BR 22.98 C B 2008 x Lowland x CT BR 22.67 C B D 2008 x Upland x NT BR 21.09 C D 2009 x Upland x NT BR_M 20.65 C D 2008 x Upland x CT BR 19.83 C E D 2009 x Lowland x CT BR_M 19.10 E D 2009 x Lowland x NT BR_M 18.46 F E D 2009 x Upland x CT CL_M 18.17 F G E D 2009 x Upland x NT CH 17.59 H F G E D 2009 x Upland x CT BA 16.96 H F G E 2008 x Upland x CT BR_M 15.83 H F G E I 2009 x Upland x NT CH_M 15.31 H F G E I 2008 x Upland x CT CL_M 15.15 H F G E I 2009 x Upland x CT CH_M 15.10 H F G E I 2009 x Upland x NT CL_M 14.96 H F G E I 2009 x Upland x NT BA 14.72 H F G E I 2009 x Upland x NT WCI 14.08 H F G E I J 2008 x Lowland x NT BR_M 14.02 H F G E K I J 2009 x Lowland x CT CL_M 13.86 H F G K I J 2009 x Upland x CT CR_M 13.83 H F G K I J 2009 x Lowland x NT CL_M 13.53 H F G K I J 2009 x Upland x NT AL 13.51 H F G K I J 2009 x Lowland x CT BA 13.40 H F G K I J 2009 x Lowland x NT RC 13.31 H F G K I J 2008 x Lowland x CT BR_M 13.20 H G K I J 2008 x Upland x CT BA 13.14 H G K I J 2009 x Upland x NT WCL 12.96 H G K I J 2009 x Upland x NT RC 12.82 H G K I J 2008 x Lowland x CT CL_M 12.75 H K I J ? Conventional tillage (CT), No-till (NT) ? ball clover (BA), brassica (BR), brassica in Biologix mix (BR_M), clover in Biologic (CL_M), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), chicory (CH), red clover (RC), white clover intermediate (WCI), ladino white clover (WCL), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), alfalfa (AL) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 54 Table 17. continued. Year x Site x Tillage? Forage? Estimate --g kg-1-- 2009 x Lowland x NT CH 12.67 H? K I J 2008 x Upland x NT WCI 12.65 H K I J 2009 x Lowland x NT BA 12.44 H K I J 2008 x Upland x NT BA 12.24 H K I J 2008 x Lowland x CT BA 12.17 H K I J 2008 x Lowland x NT WCI 12.11 H L K I J 2008 x Lowland x NT BA 12.04 H L K I J 2009 x Upland x NT CR_M 11.98 H L K I J 2009 x Lowland x CT CH_M 11.73 H L K I J 2008 x Lowland x NT CL_M 11.61 H L K I J 2008 x Upland x NT WCL 11.60 H L K I J 2008 x Upland x NT AL 11.56 H L K I J 2008 x Lowland x NT WCL 11.02 L K I J 2008 x Upland x NT CL_M 10.89 L K I J 2009 x Lowland x NT WCI 10.68 L K I J 2008 x Upland x NT RC 10.67 M L K I J 2008 x Lowland x CT CR_M 10.45 M L K J 2009 x Lowland x NT WCL 10.05 M L K J 2009 x Lowland x NT CR_M 10.03 M L K 2008 x Lowland x NT CR_M 9.97 M L K 2009 x Lowland x NT CH_M 9.92 M L K 2008 x Upland x NT CR_M 9.88 M L K 2009 x Lowland x CT CR_M 9.72 M L K 2008 x Upland x CT CR_M 9.69 M L K 2009 x Lowland x NT AL 8.84 M L K 2008 x Upland x CT WH_M 6.85 M L 2008 x Upland x CT LU 6.81 M L 2009 x Upland x CT LU 6.77 M L N 2008 x Lowland x CT LU 5.04 M O N 2008 x Upland x CT WH 5.00 M P O N 2009 x Upland x NT WH_M 4.30 P O N 2009 x Lowland x CT LU 4.17 P O 2008 x Upland x NT WH_M 3.69 P O 2008 x Lowland x CT WH_M 3.37 P O ? Conventional tillage (CT), No-till (NT) ? ball clover (BA), clover in Biologic (CL_M), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), lupin (LU), red clover (RC), white clover intermediate (WCI), ladino white clover (WCL), wheat (WH), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), alfalfa (AL) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 55 Table 17. continued. Year x Site x Tillage? Forage? Estimate --g kg-1-- 2009 x Upland x CT WH_M 3.13 P? O 2008 x Lowland x NT WH_M 2.96 P O 2009 x Upland x CT WH 2.90 P O 2008 x Lowland x CT WH 2.79 P O 2009 x Lowland x NT WH_M 2.04 P 2009 x Lowland x CT WH_M 1.92 P 2009 x Lowland x CT WH 1.86 P ? Conventional tillage (CT), No-till (NT) ? ball clover (BA), clover in Biologic (CL_M), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), lupin (LU), red clover (RC), white clover intermediate (WCI), ladino white clover (WCL), wheat (WH), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), alfalfa (AL) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 56 Table 18. Least square means comparisons of cool season forage phosphorus concentration. Site x Tillage? Forage? Estimate --g kg-1-- 2 x CT WH 5.1 A? 1 x CT BR 5.1 A 2 x NT BR 5.1 A 2 x CT BR 5.0 A 1 x NT BR 4.7 B A 1 x CT WH 4.6 B A 2 x CT WH_M 4.6 B A 1 x NT CH 4.6 B A 2 x NT WH_M 4.6 B A 2 x NT CH_M 4.5 B A 1 x NT BR_M 4.5 B A 2 x CT BR_M 4.3 B A 1 x NT BA 4.2 B A 1 x CT BA 4.2 B A 1 x NT WH_M 4.2 B A 2 x NT CR_M 4.1 B A 2 x NT BA 4.1 B A 1 x CT CR_M 4.0 B A 2 x NT WCI 4.0 B A 1 x NT CR_M 4.0 B A 2 x NT RC 4.0 B A 2 x CT CH_M 4.0 B 1 x CT WH_M 3.9 B 2 x CT CR_M 3.9 B 1 x CT CL_M 3.9 B 1 x NT WCL 3.9 B 2 x CT BA 3.8 B 2 x NT CL_M 3.8 B ? Conventional tillage (CT), No-till (NT) ? ball clover (BA), brassica (BR), brassica in Biologic mix (BR_M), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), chicory (CH), red clover (RC), white clover intermediate (WCI), ladino white clover (WCL), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), wheat (WH), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), lupin (LU) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 57 Table 18. continued. Site x Tillage? Forage? Estimate --g kg-1-- 2 x NT WCL 3.8 B? 1 x NT CL_M 3.8 B 1 x NT WCI 3.8 B 2 x NT CH 3.8 B 1 x CT CH_M 3.8 B 2 x NT BR_M 3.7 B 1 x CT BR_M 3.7 B 2 x CT CL_M 3.7 B 1 x NT CH_M 3.6 B 2 x NT AL 3.4 B 1 x NT AL 3.3 B 1 x CT LU 3.1 B 2 x CT LU 3.0 B 1 x NT RC 3.0 B ? Conventional tillage (CT), No-till (NT) ? brassica in Biologic mix (BR_M), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), chicory (CH), red clover (RC), white clover intermediate (WCI), ladino white clover (WCL), alfalfa (AL), lupin (LU) ?Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 58 Table 19. Least square means comparisons of cool season forage sodium concentration. Site Forage? Estimate --g kg-1-- Conventional tillage Upland CH_M 4.4 A? Lowland CH_M 3.2 B Upland BR_M 1.6 C Upland BA 1.6 C Lowland BR_M 1.3 D C Lowland LU 1.3 D C Upland LU 1.2 D C Upland CL_M 1.2 D C Lowland BA 1.2 D C E Lowland CL_M 1.2 D C E Lowland BR 1.0 D F C E Upland BR 1.0 D F C E Lowland CR_M 0.9 D F E Upland CR_M 0.8 D F E Lowland WH 0.8 D F E Lowland WH_M 0.8 F E Upland WH_M 0.5 F Upland WH 0.4 F No-till Upland CH_M 4.0 A Upland CH 3.6 B A Lowland CH_M 2.8 B C Upland BR_M 2.0 D C Lowland CH 1.9 D C E Upland BA 1.7 D C E Upland BR 1.6 D C E Lowland BA 1.5 D C E Lowland BR_M 1.5 D C E ? ball clover (BA), brassica (BR), brassica in Biologic mix (BR_M), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), chicory (CH), red clover (RC), white clover intermediate (WCI), ladino white clover (WCL), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), wheat (WH), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), lupin (LU) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 59 Table 19. continued. Site Forage? Estimate --g kg-1-- Lowland CR_M 1.1 D? F C E Lowland CL_M 1.1 D F C E Lowland WCL 1.1 D F C E Upland WCL 1.0 D F C E Upland CR_M 0.9 D F C E Lowland RC 0.9 D F C E Upland AL 0.9 D F E Upland WCI 0.9 F E Upland CL_M 0.9 F E Lowland WH_M 0.8 F E Upland WH_M 0.6 F E Lowland WCI 0.6 F E Upland RC 0.6 F E Lowland BR 0.5 F E Lowland AL 0.4 F ? crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), brassica (BR), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), red clover (RC), white clover intermediate (WCI), ladino white clover (WCL), wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), alfalfa (AL) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 60 Table 20. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for cool season forage neutral detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) concentration. Effect NDF ADF ADL -------------Pr>F----------- Year 0.0021 0.0008 0.0000 Site 0.0525 0.0013 0.0059 Year x Site 0.3124 0.1276 0.0000 Forage 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Year x Forage 0.0014 0.2746 0.0000 Site x Forage 0.0000 0.0097 0.8983 Year x Site x Forage 0.1856 0.8660 0.5105 Tillage 0.4048 0.1197 0.4700 Year x Tillage 0.3273 0.2997 0.1009 Site x Tillage 0.3465 0.1287 0.7270 Year x Site x Tillage 0.4699 0.7826 0.6663 Tillage x Forage 0.9440 0.4504 0.8324 Year x Tillage x Forage 0.0964 0.6273 0.5803 Site x Tillage x Forage 0.6799 0.1397 0.3988 Year x Site x Tillage x Forage 0.8249 0.0004 0.7423 61 Table 21. Least square means comparisons of cool season forage neutral detergent fiber concentration. Site Forage? Estimate -----g kg-1----- Lowland WH_M 526 A? Upland WH 505 B A Lowland WH 461 B C Upland WH_M 448 C Upland AL 280 D Upland WCL 256 D Upland CR_M 253 D Lowland AL 249 D Lowland CR_M 235 D Upland CL_M 233 D Upland RC 230 D Upland CH 227 D Lowland LU 225 D Lowland CH 219 D Upland LU 217 D Lowland WCI 210 D Upland CH_M 208 D Upland BA 201 D Upland WCI 200 D Lowland WCL 196 D Lowland CL_M 190 D Lowland CH_M 186 D Lowland RC 182 D Upland BR_M 171 D Lowland BR_M 171 D Upland BR 167 D Lowland BA 167 D Lowland BR 159 D ? wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), wheat (WH), alfalfa (AL), white clover ladino (WCL), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), red clover (RC), chicory (CH), lupin (LU), white clover intermediate (WCI), ball clover (BA), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), brassica in Biologic mix (BR_M), brassica (BR) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (?=0.05) 62 Table 22. Least square means comparisons of cool season forage acid detergent fiber concentration. Year x Site x Tillage? Forage? Estimate ----g kg-1---- 2009 x Upland x CT WH_M 240 A? 2009 x Upland x CT WH 239 A 2009 x Lowland x CT WH 234 A 2009 x Upland x NT CH 232 B A 2009 x Upland x CT CH_M 226 B A C 2009 x Lowland x CT WH_M 225 B A C 2009 x Upland x NT WH_M 222 B A C 2009 x Lowland x NT WH_M 222 B A C 2008 x Upland x CT WH 210 B D A C 2008 x Lowland x NT WH_M 203 B D A C 2008 x Upland x NT WH_M 201 E B D A C 2009 x Upland x CT CR_M 199 E B D A C 2008 x Lowland x CT WH_M 198 E B D A C 2008 x Lowland x CT WH 198 E B D A C 2008 x Lowland x NT CL_M 197 E B D A C F 2008 x Upland x CT WH_M 197 E B D A C F 2008 x Upland x NT RC 196 E B D A G C F 2008 x Upland x NT AL 192 E B D A G C F 2009 x Lowland x NT CH 191 E B D G C F 2009 x Lowland x NT AL 190 E B D G C F 2009 x Upland x CT LU 190 E D G C F 2009 x Lowland x CT LU 185 E D G C F 2009 x Upland x NT CL_M 184 E D G C F 2009 x Upland x CT BA 184 E D G F 2009 x Upland x NT CH_M 183 E D G F 2009 x Upland x NT CR_M 181 E D G F 2008 x Upland x CT CL_M 179 E D G F 2009 x Upland x CT CL_M 178 E D G F ? Conventional tillage (CT), No-till (NT) ? wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), wheat (WH), alfalfa (AL), white clover ladino (WCL), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), red clover (RC), chicory (CH), lupin (LU), white clover intermediate (WCI), ball clover (BA), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), brassica in Biologic mix (BR_M), brassica (BR) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (?=0.05) 63 Table 22.continued. Year x Site x Tillage? Forage? Estimate ----g kg-1---- 2008 x Upland x NT WCL 172 E? D H G F 2009 x Lowland x NT CL_M 167 E D H G F 2009 x Lowland x CT CL_M 166 E D H G F 2009 x Upland x NT BR 166 E D H G F 2008 x Upland x CT CR_M 166 E D H G F 2009 x Lowland x CT CH_M 165 E D H G F 2009 x Upland x NT WCL 163 E D H G F 2008 x Lowland x CT LU 159 E D H G F 2009 x Upland x CT BR 159 E I D H G F 2008 x Upland x CT LU 156 E I D H G F 2009 x Lowland x NT RC 156 E I D H G J F 2009 x Upland x NT WCI 156 E I H G J F 2008 x Lowland x CT BR 155 E I H G J F 2009 x Lowland x NT CR_M 154 E I H G J F 2009 x Lowland x CT CR_M 150 E I H G J F 2009 x Lowland x CT WCL 150 E I H G J F 2009 x Lowland x NT CH_M 150 I H G J F 2008 x Upland x NT WCI 149 I H G J F 2008 x Lowland x CT CR_M 148 I H G J F 2008 x Upland x CT CR_M 148 I H G J F 2009 x Upland x NT BR_M 147 I H G J F 2009 x Lowland x NT WCI 147 I H G J F 2008 x Upland x NT BA 146 I H G J F 2009 x Lowland x CT BR 145 I H G J F 2008 x Lowland x NT CR_M 143 I H G J F 2008 x Lowland x NT WCL 143 I H G J F 2009 x Upland x CT BR_M 142 I H G J F 2008 x Upland x CT BA 140 I H G J F ? Conventional tillage (CT), No-till (NT) ? wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), wheat (WH), alfalfa (AL), white clover ladino (WCL), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), red clover (RC), chicory (CH), lupin (LU), white clover intermediate (WCI), ball clover (BA), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), brassica in Biologic mix (BR_M), brassica (BR) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (?=0.05) 64 Table 22.continued. Year x Site x Tillage? Forage? Estimate ----g kg-1---- 2009 x Upland x NT AL 140 I? H G J F 2008 x Upland x NT CL_M 139 I H G J 2009 x Lowland x CT BR_M 139 I H G J 2008 x Lowland x CT CL_M 138 I H G J 2009 x Lowland x NT WCL 137 I H G J 2009 x Lowland x NT BR_M 137 I H G J 2009 x Upland x NT BA 134 I H G J 2008 x Upland x CT BR 133 I H G J 2009 x Lowland x CT BA 133 I H G J 2008 x Lowland x CT BA 132 I H G J 2008 x Lowland x NT WCI 128 I H G J 2009 x Lowland x NT BA 128 I H J 2009 x Lowland x NT BR 127 I H J 2008 x Lowland x NT BA 124 I J 2008 x Upland x NT BR 122 I J 2008 x Upland x CT BR_M 121 I J 2008 x Upland x NT BR_M 115 J ? Conventional tillage (CT), No-till (NT) ? wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), wheat (WH), alfalfa (AL), white clover ladino (WCL), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), red clover (RC), chicory (CH), lupin (LU), white clover intermediate (WCI), ball clover (BA), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), brassica in Biologic mix (BR_M), brassica (BR) ? Entries with the same letter are not signifcantly different (?=0.05) 65 Table 23. Least square means comparisons of cool season forage acid detergent lignin concentration. Year Forage? Estimate ------g kg-1------- 2009 CH 52 A? 2009 WCL 46 B A 2009 AL 46 B A 2009 WCI 44 B C 2009 CH_M 37 B C 2009 BA 36 B C 2009 CL_M 35 B C D 2009 RC 34 B C D 2009 LU 33 C D 2009 CR_M 32 C D 2008 WCL 30 C D 2008 RC 30 E C D 2009 BR_M 29 E D 2009 BR 28 E D 2008 WCI 27 E D 2008 CL_M 26 E D 2008 CR_M 25 E D 2008 BA 25 E D 2009 WH 25 E D 2009 WH_M 24 E D 2008 LU 24 E D 2008 WH_M 24 E D 2008 WH 23 E D 2008 AL 21 E D 2008 BR 18 E 2008 BR_M 16 E ? wheat in wheat mix (WH_M), wheat (WH), alfalfa (AL), white clover ladino (WCL), crimson clover in wheat mix (CR_M), clover in Biologic mix (CL_M), red clover (RC), chicory (CH), lupin (LU), white clover intermediate (WCI), ball clover (BA), chicory in Biologic mix (CH_M), brassica in Biologic mix (BR_M), brassica (BR) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (?=0.05) 66 Table 24. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for cool season feeding observations. Effect --Pr>F-- Forage <0.0001 Year 0.0017 Site 0.014 Year x Forage 0.2691 Forage x Site 0.1724 Year x Site 0.2529 Year x Forage x Site 0.4587 67 Table 25. Estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for log transformed cool season observations. Forage? Estimate ? Estimate StdErr BA BR CHU LU RC AL observations ha-1 log observations ha-1 ----------------------------------Adjusted P-------------------------------- WP 54.02 1.73 0.11 0.775 1 0.8201 1 0.9524 0.9818 BA 30.44 1.48 0.08 ? 0.9479 0.017 0.3293 0.4457 0.3286 BR 46.22 1.66 0.10 0.9479 ? 0.4664 0.9998 0.8677 0.8998 CHU 108.41 2.04 0.13 0.017 0.4664 ? 0.8762 1 1 LU 59.51 1.77 0.09 0.3293 0.9998 0.8762 ? 0.9736 0.9927 RC 151.52 2.18 0.29 0.4457 0.8677 1 0.9736 ? 1 AL 107.14 2.03 0.20 0.3286 0.8998 1 0.9927 1 ? WH 131.05 2.12 0.09 0.0001 0.0367 1 0.217 1 1 WH _ CR 23.11 1.36 0.04 0.9741 0.1636 0.0002 0.0023 0.181 0.0684 BIO 16.02 1.20 0.06 0.1929 0.0057 <0.0001 0.0001 0.0497 0.0095 WC-I 125.83 2.10 0.12 0.0013 0.1572 1 0.5257 1 1 WC-L 75.76 1.88 0.20 0.8067 0.9991 1 1 0.9998 1 Alley 43.26 1.64 0.14 0.9994 1 0.6421 0.9998 0.8704 0.9127 ? winter pea (WP), ball clover (BA), brassica mix (BR), chufa (CHU), lupin (LU), red clover (RC), alfalfa (AL), wheat (WH), wheat and crimson clover mix (WH_CR), Biologic mix (BIO), white clover intermediate (WC-I), ladino white clover (WC-L), non planted borders and alleys (Alley) ? Estimates were back-transformed to observations ha-1 for interpretation ? Indicates self comparison 68 Table 25. continued. Forage? WH WH _ CR BIO WC-I WC-L Alley -------------------------------------Adjusted P----------------------------------- WP 0.2235 0.0795 0.0026 0.4745 1 1 BA 0.0001 0.9741 0.1929 0.0013 0.8067 0.9994 BR 0.0367 0.1636 0.0057 0.1572 0.9991 1 CHU 1 0.0002 <0.0001 1 1 0.6421 LU 0.217 0.0023 0.0001 0.5257 1 0.9998 RC 1 0.181 0.0497 1 0.9998 0.8704 AL 1 0.0684 0.0095 1 1 0.9127 WH ? <0.0001 <0.0001 1 0.9967 0.1723 WH _ CR <0.0001 ? 0.6668 <0.0001 0.3505 0.8129 BIO <0.0001 0.6668 ? <0.0001 0.0748 0.211 WC-I 1 <0.0001 <0.0001 ? 0.9994 0.3388 WC-L 0.9967 0.3505 0.0748 0.9994 ? 0.999 Alley 0.1723 0.8129 0.211 0.3388 0.999 ? ? winter pea (WP), ball clover (BA), brassica mix (BR), chufa (CHU), lupin (LU), red clover (RC), alfalfa (AL), wheat (WH), wheat and crimson clover mix (WH_CR), Biologic mix (BIO), white clover intermediate (WC-I), ladino white clover (WC-L), non planted borders and alleys (Alley) ? Indicates self comparison 69 Figure 1. Average air temperature at 2 m and daily precipitation in Auburn, AL over the study.period. Month (April 2008 ? March 2010) 70 III. Determination of Optimal Warm Season Cropping System for White-tailed Deer in the Southeast Abstract Each year millions of dollars are spent on food plots for white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginuanus) in the Southeast. Much of this is directed towards the establishment of warm season forages. The objective of this study was to determine the optimal warm season cropping system for white-tailed deer by evaluating forage dry matter (DM) yield, preference, and quality of 15 warm season and 7 cool season forage treatments with warm season persistence during 2008 through 2010. Plots were harvested during August of each year. Forage production ranged from 0 to 18441 kg dry matter (DM) ha-1 with percent DM removed by deer ranging between -38 and 92%, with soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) having the highest estimates. Warm season forages generally exceeded nitrogen (N) requirements for growth and development of white- tailed deer. All forages excluding sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench ssp. Bicolor) in sorghum mix and chufa (Cyperus esculentus (L.) var. sativus Boeck) met or exceeded calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), and sodium (Na) concentration requirements. Nearly all forages had low fiber fractions which indicated good forage quality. Observation data suggested preference for soybean and cowpea during the warm season. Forage establishment under no-till proved difficult, and lower yields were observed under no-till than those established under conventional tillage in both years of the experiment. Our 71 findings indicate that soybean, iron & clay cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.), or lablab (Lablab purpurieus L. Sweet) be planted in warm season food plots in the Southeast. Introduction The white-tailed deer is the nation?s most profitable natural resource from a wildlife perspective. Each year millions of dollars are spent towards the pursuit of white- tailed deer in the United States (U.S. DoI-FWS, 2006). Alabama ranks fifth in hunting expenditures in the country. A significant portion of the investment made towards deer involves production and maintenance of food plots, and food plot expenditures likely exceed the amount spent towards hunting (Stribling et al., 1989). Knowledge regarding food plot implementation has been borrowed from the animal science and agronomic field, and the first deer plantings were chosen from the wide range of livestock forages and conventional forages deer were known to utilize naturally (Kammermeyer, et al., 2006). Food plots were originally established primarily to attract deer during hunting seasons. However, plots now serve the dual purpose of attraction and habitat improvement (Higginbotham and Kroll, 1990; Beals et al., 1993; Waer et al., 1994; Kammermeyer et al., 2006). Specifically, warm season plots are often directed towards improving a herd?s nutrition (Waer et al., 1992; Beals et al., 1993; Waer et al., 1994; Feather and Fulbright, 1995; Hehman and Fulbright, 1997). Many studies have examined various warm season forages and their usage by deer (Davis, 1961; Webb 1963; Keegan et al., 1989; Waer et al., 1992; Feather and Fulbright, 1995). Other research has appraised the value of forages from a nutritional quality 72 perspective (French et al., 1956; Waer et al., 1992; Beals et al., 1993). Forage preference has been documented, but often in less than natural environments. Tillage practices in food plots have been poorly explored. Studies that example all of these factors of food plot development and management are nearly non-existent. Thus, concise information regarding warm season cropping systems for white-tailed deer is scarce. This study evaluated warm season cropping systems for white-tailed deer in the Southeast based on forage yield, quality and deer preference. Materials and Methods The study was conducted from 2008 through 2010 on two sites at the Auburn University Deer Lab at the Piedmont Substation (32?49?24.17??N, 85?39?19.87?W, 216M elevation) near Camp Hill, AL The soil at the upland site was a Lloyd loam with 2 to 6 percent slopes (Fine kaolinitic thermic rhodic kanhapludult). The majority of the lower site consisted of Gwinnette ? Lloyd complex, with 6 to 15 percent slopes, with both Gwinnette and Lloyd being Fine kaolinitc thermic rhodic kanhapludults. Both 0.85 ha sites were surrounded by 3.04 m high wildlife fencing. Each site had three 3.04 m x 4.08 m double gates spaced evenly along the long sides of the site. These gates allowed for prevention of deer access during planting and stand establishment. The gates were opened to allow deer access approximately one month after planting to help ensure stand longevity throughout the growing season. A randomized complete block design with tillage (conventional vs. no-till) and season (warm season vs. cool season) as blocks was established beginning in summer 2008 and continued through winter of 2010. Each plot was 3.6 x 9.1 m. Forage 73 treatments were assigned to tillage blocks within season based on perceived performance with regards to planting method. Each treatment combination was replicated four times at each site. Conventional tillage plots were first disked with a 1.5 m wide disk harrow, and then tilled with a rotary tiller until a smooth seed bed was prepared. No-till plots received no tillage as the treatment. Warm season treatments were planted during the second and third weeks of May 2008 and the fourth week of April and first week of May 2009. Warm season conventional tillage treatments included: corn (Zea mays L.) in combination with iron & clay cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp), grain sorghum in combination with iron & clay cowpea, sunflower in combination with iron & clay cowpea, chufa, soybean, iron & clay cowpea, sunnhemp (Crotalaria juncea L.), lablab (Lablab purpureus L. Sweet), and peanut (Arachis hypogeae L.). Cool season forages with warm season persistence that were established in no-till plots include: ladino white clover (Trifolium repens L.), intermediate white clover (T. repens L.), alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), chicory (Cichorium intybus L.), and red clover (T. pratense L.). Corn in combination with iron & clay cowpea, sorghum in combination with iron & clay cowpea, sunflower in combination with iron & clay cowpea, soybean, iron & clay cowpea, lablab, peanut, and aeschynomene (Aeschynomene americana L.) were planted as forage treatments in no-till plots. Treatments were established with a 2.4 m wide Great Plains no-till drill with 0.19- m row spacing, excluding cowpea and corn in combination with cowpea, which were planted with a four row John Deere MaxEmerge TM XP planter with 0.91-m row spacing. Each site was soil sampled prior to the start of the experiment and limed and fertilized 74 according to Auburn University Soil Testing recommendations. Subsequent soil testing did not show need for liming other than the initial sampling. A 1-m diameter exclosure made from 0.05 x 0.010-m mesh welded wire was placed at random in each plot after germination to prevent deer browsing. Biomass yield samples were harvested by hand clipping appropriate planted species from a randomly selected 0.25-m2 quadrat area in both the open and exclosed portion of the plot and placed in paper bags. The lowland site was harvested on 12 August in 2008 and 4 August in 2009. Harvest occurred on the upland site on 15 August, 2008, and 4 September, 2009. The biomass samples were dried in a forage drier at 55?C to a common moisture content and weighed to determine dry matter production. Percent DM removed was calculated as the open DM yield divided by the exclosed DM yield x 100, and was used as an estimate of deer preference. For sampling purposes, species mixtures were separated into their respective species components. Forage quality samples were collected on the same days as biomass samples. Quality samples were collected by hand picking only those portions of plants that were seen to be browsed by deer (leaves, pods, and petioles). These samples were taken from open areas to assess forage quality of plant material eaten by deer. As with biomass samples, each species component of the treatment was kept separate for the quality samples to allow for species comparison among and within treatments. All samples were dried in a forage drier at 55?C to a common moisture content, and ground to pass a 1-mm screen with a Wiley mill. Nitrogen was determined by dry combustion using a LECO TruSpec CN (Leco Corp, St. Joseph, MI). Phosphorus, Ca, and Na concentrations in forages were determined via inductively coupled argon plasma spectrophotometry 75 (ICAP), (SPECTROCIROS CCD, Side-on plasma. Germany). Neutral detergent fiber, ADF and ADL values were determined using methods described by Van Soest and Wine (1968). Deer feeding observation data was collected from fully enclosed box blinds elevated 4.5 m above the ground. For each site, eight dates were randomly chosen on which to collect observation data. The blinds were placed approximately halfway down the length of the longest side of the site and 3 m from the fence. The blinds were entered at least three hours before sunset to allow for roughly one hour for the area to settle down prior to the two hour observation period. The observation period was started as soon as deer entered the site. Since individuals had free access to the sites there were many observation days when deer were observed but did not enter the site. A tripod mounted spotting scope equipped with a 20-60x lens was used to identify individuals by freeze branded numbers on the front shoulder and rear hip, ear tags, and/or body features. Those individuals not tagged were recorded by sex and age class. During the observation period, data was taken on each individual within the site every five minutes such that there was a total of 24 intervals in the two hour period. Individuals were recorded as feeding, walking, standing, or bedded. Feeding was defined as those individuals actively biting on forage. Individuals that were taking a bite while moving were recorded as feeding rather than walking. Standing was defined as those individuals standing but not taking a bite. Deer that were chewing cud were not recorded as feeding. Location was recorded as either the plot number in which the observation occurred or as alley. Alley consisted of all non-planted border areas within the site. The number of observation days 76 was equally divided between the two sites so that there were eight days at each site during each season. Treatment effects and interactions were deemed significant at the P < 0.05 level by analysis of variance using PROC GLIMMIX in SAS 9.1.3 (SAS, 1993). Simulated adjusted pairwise comparisons were performed where applicable to denote differences between forage yields, percent DM removed, observations, and forage quality data. Excluding chicory, cool season forages were not found to have adequate warm season persistence and were not able to be accounted for in statistical analyses. It is believed this is due, in part, to the management practices chosen such as lack of herbicide use in clover plots. Interactions and tillage could not be considered in the statistical analyses due to the low number of feeding observations on warm season forages. Observation data was log transformed to achieve a normal distribution. Results and Discussion Production Analysis of variance on warm season forage treatment DM yields indicated no significant effects for conventional tillage plots, while the three way interaction Site x Year x Forage was significant for no-till plots (Table 26). Overall production for no-till plots was less in 2009 than 2008 (Tables 27 and 28). No differences in production were found at the upland site. Cowpea production was greater at the lowland site in 2008 than any other Site x Year combination. Cowpea production was greater than all other no-till treatment components at the lowland site in 2008, except soybean. Sorghum in sorghum mix production was less than other treatment species. Sorghum in sorghum mix 77 production was less than cowpea, cowpea in corn mix, soybean, and cowpea in sunflower mix. Lablab production was less than that of all soybean and all cowpea components at lowland site in 2008. Soybean production was second only to cowpea at the lowland site during 2008. Similar studies indicated that soybean, lablab, and cowpea yields are greater than other warm season food plot species (Waer, 1992; Waer et al. 1992; Beals et al., 1993; Feather and Fulbright, 1995; Hehman and Fulbright, 1997). Feather and Fulbright (1995) reported greater production of cowpea than other forages used including lablab. Feather and Fulbright (1995) found lablab to have greater production than cowpea during dry conditions, an advantage that often directs use of lablab in food plots in the Southeast (Beals et al., 1993). Production estimates for conventional tillage plots are shown in Table 29. Percent Dry Matter Removed Analysis of variance indicated that warm season percent DM removed was impacted by the interaction of Year x Forage (Table 30). No effects or interactions were found to be significant for no-till treatments. All differences found for percent DM removed under conventional tillage occurred in 2009 (Tables 31 and 32). Soybean exhibited the greatest percent DM removed in 2009. Studies including soybean have consistently found deer preference for soybean to be greater than for other warm season forages (Waer, 1992; Waer et al., 1992, Beals et al., 1993). While preference may be biased towards soybean, less browse tolerance than other forages such as cowpea and lablab may reduce soybean?s acceptability for food plot usage (Beals et al., 1993; Feather and Fulbright, 1995). Percent DM removed for lablab was only greater than corn in corn mix, sorghum in sorghum mix, and sunnhemp in 2009. Lablab was not found to be 78 preferred, as indicated by percent DM removed, over conventional tillage cowpea or soybean. The lack of preference may be the result of low production due to dry conditions (Figure 2), which reinforces the idea that preference is dependent on forage productivity (Waer, 1992; Beals et al., 1993; Waer et al., 1994; Hehman and Fulbright, 1997). During periodic evaluations of our forages for deer browsing, corn in corn mix, sorghum in sorghum mix, and sunnhemp were rarely found to be browsed, which partially accounts for the low estimates of percent DM removed. Both peanut and sunflower in sunflower mix were excluded from the 2009 percent DM removed comparisons due to poor stand establishment. No-till percent DM removed estimates and standard errors were only estimable for cowpea in sorghum mix (64 + 19) and cowpea in sunflower mix (37 + 33). The amount of variability in stand establishment following the measures an average hunter might exercise suggests no-till during the warm season will likely be extremely difficult in the Piedmont physiographic region of the Southeast. The lack of differences in utilization during 2008 did not come as a surprise. Very little browsing was evident on the majority of treatment species until near the end of the season. One explanation for the lack of browsing is the effect of social influence on browse preference. Many species of animals are thought to pass on forage preferences and biases to their young through social interactions (Provenza et al., 1992; Mirza and Provenza, 1994). Since 2008 was the first year these individuals had seen the majority of these forages, they had to determine which forages were palatable and which were not. During the second year, adults and yearlings had experience with the forages and were more inclined to utilize them. 79 Tissue Nitrogen Concentration Warm season tissue N concentration was impacted by the three way interaction Year x Site x Forage (Table 33). For warm season forages there was more variation in tissue N concentration during 2008 (Tables 34 to 37) than 2009 (Tables 38 to 41). During 2008 there was more variation in tissue N concentration at the lowland site than at the upland site. While differences in tissue N concentration did occur, there seemed to be few distinct patterns excluding legume estimates being greater than those of non- legumes. Both sorghum in sorghum mix and chufa exhibited low tissue N concentration estimates when compared to other forages. This information reinforces percent DM removed and observation data that suggests there may have been a low preference for these forages. All tissue N concentration estimates for forages excluding chufa and sorghum in sorghum mix were above the requirement of 20.8 to 27.2 g kg-1 for favorable growth and development (French et al., 1956; McEwen et al., 1957; Ullrey et al., 1967; Holter et al., 1979). Only chufa, chicory, and sorghum in sorghum mix estimates fell short of requirements for growth and development. However, all tissue N concentration estimates meet the requirements for maintenance, which fall between 6 and 16 g kg-1 N (French et al., 1956; McEwen et al., 1957; Ullrey et al., 1967; Holter et al., 1979). Since samples were taken during the same period in which does were lactating, emphasis should be to meet protein requirements of lactation between 22.4 and 35.2 g kg-1 N (French et al., 1956; McEwen et al., 1957; Ullrey et al., 1967; Holter et al., 1979). Nearly all forages met or exceeded this proposed range, suggesting that forage plantings can provide adequate protein during the late summer, a period of significant nutritional demand. 80 Mineral Analyses Analysis of variance indicated the four way interaction of Year x Site x Tillage x Forage as significant for Ca and P concentration (Table 42). No significant interactions were found for Na concentration, therefore Na concentration was analyzed among forages. Excluding sorghum in sorghum mix and chufa, all forages met or exceeded the proposed requirements of 4 to 6.4 g kg-1(McEwen et al., 1957; Ullrey et al., 1975; Ullrey, 1981) for Ca concentration (Table 43). Soybean Ca concentration was low compared to other forages, yet still exceeded requirements for optimal growth and development. Sunflower in sunflower mix exhibited the greatest Ca levels for warm season forages. These data suggest that Ca will not be a limiting factor if forage is present in sufficient quantity. Phosphorus requirements for white-tailed deer have been estimated as either 1.2 to 1.8 g ka-1 or 2.8 to 5.6 g kg-1 (McEwen et al., 1957; Ullrey et al., 1975; Ullrey 1981; Grassman and Hellgren 1993). Forage P levels generally exceeded the lower proposed range and fell within the upper range (Table 44). No trends in forage P concentration were noted except that peanut had consistently less P compared to other forages. All other forages appeared to be randomly distributed with regard to P concentration. Waer et al. (1992) estimated forage P levels for similar forages as being below the 2.8 to 5.6 g ka-1 range and attributed this to low soil P. The data suggest that P concentration in forages at the time of sampling was sufficient to meet or exceed requirements for deer if forages are not over browsed. All forages exceeded the proposed requirements of 0.023 to 0.075 g kg-1 (Hellgren and Pitts 1997) for Na concentration (Table 45). Sodium concentration for 81 chicory was greater than all other warm season forages. Since harvest coincided with lactation, it is likely that warm season forages could supply the necessary requirements to meet increased demands during the most stressful physiological season for female white- tailed deer as long as forage yields are sufficient (Grassman and Hellgren 1993; Hellgren and Pitts 1997; Atwood and Weeks 2003). Fiber Concentration Since forage quality and therefore digestibility depends extensively on the amount of fiber present, an estimation of forage quality is obtainable from estimates of fiber fraction (Van Soest 1994). Neutral detergent fiber (NDF) is a measure of the insoluble portions of the cell wall which is often referred to as total fiber within the forage. Neutral detergent fiber is composed primarily of hemicellulose, cellulose, and lignin (Van Soest 1994). The acid detergent fiber (ADF) values provide a partitioning of indigestible fibers or cell wall components which are primarily cellulose and lignin. The acid detergent lignin (ADL) values provide a further breakdown into the completely indigestible lignin fraction (Van Soest 1994). Analyses of variance indicated Site x Forage as significant for NDF and ADF, while ADL was impacted by the interaction of Year x Forage (Table 46). Neutral detergent fiber exhibited little variation in warm season forages, excluding chufa and sorghum in sorghum mix. Neutral detergent fiber values in these forages were greater than all other forages (Table 47). These findings are not surprising and are consistent with those presented by Van Soest (1994) for grain sorghum silage. Information on NDF of chufa above ground growth is not available in the literature, because chufas are valued for their tuber production as opposed to their forage value. Values for soybean NDF 82 were at the high end of those sampled (excluding chufa and sorghum in sorghum mix). Interestingly, sunflower in sunflower mix values were on the low end of NDF measurements suggesting excellent digestibility. There was generally more variation among ADF values than NDF values (Table 48). As expected, chufa and sorghum in sorghum mix values were greater than those of the other forages. Values for sunnhemp ADF were among the greatest in this study, again excluding chufa and sorghum in sorghum mix, which implies a greater proportion of cellulose and lignin in the fiber fraction than was found in most other forages. Values for no-till forages appeared to be slightly less than those of conventional tillage forages. The ADL values followed the same trend as NDF and ADF with chufa and sorghum in sorghum mix estimates being greatest (Table 49). Overall, there was little discrepancy with regards to ADL values between forages other than soybean and lablab. Estimates for those forages were greatest in this study, while treatments containing cowpea were the least. This suggests that the lignin portion of soybean and lablab is somewhat above that of treatments containing cowpea. Deer Feeding Observations Analysis of variance indicated no effects for warm season feeding observations (Table 50). Interactions could not be considered due to the low number of feeding observations. There were 51 total observations during both warm seasons, 29 of which were feeding, 29 were walking, 12 were standing, and 1 was bedded. Warm season feeding observations did not reflect other data that suggested there was more utilization during the second year. This is likely due to the overall low number of observations during the warm seasons. The low number of observations may be the result of nocturnal 83 activity. Deer are known to be active during the cooler times of day and at night during the summer. Deer were only observed feeding in chufa, cowpea in corn mix, cowpea, cowpea in sorghum mix, soybean, cowpea in sunflower mix, and the alley. The number of feeding observations were converted to observations ha-1 to normalize the data for the given forage treatments and alleys. Warm season feeding observation estimates and standard errors can be found in Table 51. As indicated by the lack of effects in the analysis of variance, no differences were found regarding observations ha-1, and forage treatment in which observations occurred. Four of the seven forages where feeding observations occurred during the warm season had cowpea as a component. This suggests that cowpea may have been preferred over non cowpea containing forage treatments. Feeding observations occurring in chufa were likely not the result of deer feeding on chufa. Since chufa is not commonly utilized as a forage, it is possible that individuals were feeding on volunteer vegetation present within the plots rather than chufa since these plots tended to have many weedy forbs present. These same weeds were observed to be browsed when found in the alley. Summary and Conclusions Establishment of no-till treatments proved difficult for all warm season forages during both years. It is not recommended that food plots be established via no-till methods without the proper herbicide program. Care must be taken when selecting forages if mixtures are to be planted and volunteer weeds are controlled. Warm season production and percent DM removed was inconsistent among treatments. The conventional forage legumes (soybean, lablab, and cowpea) tended to 84 have greater production and be the most preferred. Sunnhemp production exceeded that of all other treatments. Due to the management practices chosen, the cool season forages with perceived warm season production had poor yields. Such forages are not recommended unless weed management occurs. In this study, graminaceous weeds choked out nearly all stands of these cool season forages. Few distinct patterns were seen with regard to tissue N concentration in warm season forages. Although not readily observed as being fed on, sunnhemp estimates of tissue N concentration were similar to that of other legumes suggesting the potential as a good forage. All forages met the proposed N concentration requirement for maintenance. Warm season forages met or exceeded Ca concentration requirements with the exception of sorghum in sorghum mix and chufa. Few trends were observed concerning P concentration in warm season forages. Forage P levels tended to exceed the lower proposed requirement for white-tailed deer and fell within the range of the upper proposed requirements. Although Na is often limiting in natural systems, Na concentration was adequate for all warm season forages. Chicory had the greatest Na concentration. Little variation was found with regards to warm season fiber estimates. Fiber values (NDF, ADF, and ADL) for sorghum in sorghum mix and chufa were consistently greater than in all other warm season forages. Overall most forages proved to have low fiber concentration and therefore good digestibility at the time of harvest. Warm season feeding observations occurred in all treatments containing cowpea, soybean and chufa as well as in the alleys. This proposes a degree of preference for these treatments over the others. Chufa is known to have poor forage quality, therefore it is 85 probable that chufa feeding observations were not actually on chufa, and likely reflected individuals feeding on volunteer vegetation similar to feeding in the alleys. Based on our findings, there are certain aspects of food plot establishment and management that should be of concern. Warm season food plots should include either soybean, lablab or cowpea. The choice as to which of these is planted should be made based on several factors including management goals, environmental conditions, food plot size and perceived deer densities. A companion forage such as sorghum or sunflower could be beneficial to supply additional nutrition, and increase production over time. The presence of a companion forage will complicate weed management, which may not be feasible for some individuals 86 Table 26. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for warm season conventional and no-till single and mixed forage treatment yields. Effect Conventional tillage No-till ---------------------Pr>F------------------- Site 0.1978 0.0003 Forage 0.2464 0.0001 Site x Forage 0.6779 0.0009 Year 0.4846 0.0000 Site x Year 0.4974 0.0000 Year x Forage 0.5943 0.0001 Site x Year x Forage 0.8261 0.0193 87 Table 27. Lowland dry matter (DM) yield estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season no-till single and mixed forage treatment species. Year Forage? Estimate StdErr CP_CO CP LL PE SO_SO CP_SO SB SU_SU CP_SU ---kg DM ha-1--- -----------------------------------------------Adjusted P-------------------------------------------------- 2008 CO_CO 7295 857 0.9729 0.0005 0.9116 0.1237 0.0098 1 0.976 0.2524 0.956 CP_CO 5983 857 ? 0.0001 0.9991 0.4987 0.1491 0.9224 0.6682 0.7287 0.5908 CP 15327 1632 0.0001 ? 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0075 0.1903 <0.0001 0.23 LL 4770 1632 0.9991 0.0002 ? 0.9768 0.9345 0.8364 0.5664 0.996 0.5084 PE 2193 1632 0.4987 <0.0001 0.9768 ? 1 0.1072 0.0547 1 0.0417 SO_SO 2148 1174 0.1491 <0.0001 0.9345 1 ? 0.0149 0.011 1 0.0083 CP_SO 7897 1174 0.9224 0.0075 0.8364 0.1072 0.0149 ? 0.9988 0.209 0.9967 SB 9339 1632 0.6682 0.1903 0.5664 0.0547 0.011 0.9988 ? 0.1115 1 SU_SU 2795 1632 0.7287 <0.0001 0.996 1 1 0.209 0.1115 ? 0.0919 CP_SU 9534 1632 0.5908 0.23 0.5084 0.0417 0.0083 0.9967 1 0.0919 ? 2009 CO_CO 212 607 1 0.7025 1 1 0.2726 1 1 1 0.9963 CP_CO 230 607 ? 0.7127 1 1 0.2829 1 1 1 0.997 CP 2529 1154 0.7127 ? 0.8444 0.8444 1 0.8871 0.8444 0.8444 0.999 LL 0 1154 1 0.8444 ? 1 0.6481 1 1 1 0.998 PE 0 1154 1 0.8444 1 ? 0.6481 1 1 1 0.998 SO_SO 2650 830 0.2829 1 0.6481 0.6481 ? 0.6366 0.6481 0.6481 0.9926 CP_SO 468 830 1 0.8871 1 1 0.6366 ? 1 1 0.9998 SB 0 1154 1 0.8444 1 1 0.6481 1 ? 1 0.998 SU_SU 0 1154 1 0.8444 1 1 0.6481 1 1 ? 0.998 CP_SU 1316 1154 0.997 0.999 0.998 0.998 0.9926 0.9998 0.998 0.998 ? ? corn in corn mixture (CO_CO), cowpea in corn mixture (CP_CO), cowpea (CP), lablab (LL), peanut (PE), sorghum in sorghum mixture (SO_SO), cowpea in sorghum mixture (CP_SO), soybean (SB), sunflower in sunflower mixture (SU_SU), cowpea in sunflower mixture (CP_SU) ? Indicates a self comparison 88 Table 28. Upland dry matter (DM) yield estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season no-till single and mixed forage treatment species. Year Forage? Estimate StdErr CP_CO CP LL PE SO_SO CP_SO SB SU_SU CP_SU ----kg DM ha-1---- --------------------------------------------Adjusted P------------------------------------------ 2008 CO_CO 3941 857 0.9158 0.5411 0.4959 0.4295 0.7978 0.8349 0.9906 0.4295 0.7759 CP_CO 2348 857 ? 0.9718 0.9601 0.9378 1 1 0.6537 0.9378 0.9984 CP 254 1632 0.9718 ? 1 1 0.9998 0.9994 0.3006 1 1 LL 136 1632 0.9601 1 ? 1 0.9991 0.9987 0.271 1 1 PE -35 1632 0.9378 1 1 ? 0.9978 0.9962 0.2332 1 1 SO_SO 1620 1174 1 0.9998 0.9991 0.9978 ? 1 0.5132 0.9978 1 CP_SO 1714 1174 1 0.9994 0.9987 0.9962 1 ? 0.5445 0.9962 1 SB 5743 1632 0.6537 0.3006 0.271 0.2332 0.5132 0.5445 ? 0.2332 0.4797 SU_SU -35 1632 0.9378 1 1 1 0.9978 0.9962 0.2332 ? 1 CP_SU 881 1632 0.9984 1 1 1 1 1 0.4797 1 ? 2009 CO_CO 0 607 1 1 1 1 0.9877 1 0.9944 1 0.9999 CP_CO 317 607 ? 1 1 1 0.9994 1 0.9995 1 1 CP 0 1154 1 ? 1 1 0.9992 1 0.9992 1 1 LL 0 1154 1 1 ? 1 0.9992 1 0.9992 1 1 PE 0 1154 1 1 1 ? 0.9992 1 0.9992 1 1 SO_SO 1026 830 0.9994 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 ? 0.9999 1 0.9992 1 CP_SO 378 830 1 1 1 1 0.9999 ? 0.9998 1 1 SB 1188 1154 0.9995 0.9992 0.9992 0.9992 1 0.9998 ? 0.9992 1 SU_SU 0 1154 1 1 1 1 0.9992 1 0.9992 ? 1 CP_SU 646 1154 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ? ? corn in corn mixture (CO_CO), cowpea in corn mixture (CP_CO), cowpea (CP), lablab (LL), peanut (PE), sorghum in sorghum mixture (SO_SO), cowpea in sorghum mixture (CP_SO), soybean (SB), sunflower in sunflower mixture (SU_SU), cowpea in sunflower mixture (CP_SU) ? Indicates a self comparison 89 Table 29. Warm season conventional tillage yield estimates and standard errors. Forage? Estimate StdErr ----------kg DM ha-1---------- CHU 1060 2371 CO_CO 14012 1418 CP_CO 5303 1418 CP 7733 2371 LL 10162 2371 PE 2617 2371 SO_SO 5443 1795 CP_SO 4173 1795 SB 6374 2371 SU_SU 1006 2371 CP_SU 3003 2371 SH 18441 1555 ? chufa (CHU), corn in corn mix (CO_C), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea (CP), lablab (LL), peanut (PE), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), soybean (SB), sunflower in sunflower mix (SU_SU), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), sunnhemp (SH) Table 30. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for warm season conventional and no-till single and mixed forage treatment percent dry matter removed. Effect Conventional tillage No-till -----------------Pr>F------------------- Site 0.2252 0.4979 Forage 0.0001 0.1450 Site x Forage 0.2236 0.8062 Year 0.0011 0.3112 Site x Year 0.2724 0.4836 Year x Forage 0.0001 0.7000 Site x Year x Forage 0.4297 0.4622 90 90 Table 31. Percent dry matter (DM) removed for 2008 estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season conventional tillage single and mixed forage treatment species. Forage? Estimate StdErr CO_CO CP_CO CP LL PE SO_SO CP_SO SB SU_SU CP_SU SH percent DM removed ---------------------------------------------------------------Adjusted P----------------------------------------------------- CHU 23 29 1 0.7672 1 0.9976 1 0.9842 1 0.9921 0.9975 0.9993 0.9998 CO_CO 3 17 ? 0.8228 0.9993 0.8251 1 0.9993 1 0.7221 1 1 1 CP_CO -38 16 0.8228 ? 0.58 0.0981 0.9317 1 0.6827 0.0599 1 1 0.9484 CP 32 29 0.9993 0.58 ? 0.9998 1 0.9422 1 0.9991 0.9871 0.9939 0.9955 LL 62 29 0.8251 0.0981 0.9998 ? 0.9811 0.4909 0.9821 1 0.7792 0.8403 0.7339 PE 11 29 1 0.9317 1 0.9811 ? 0.9989 1 0.9606 0.9998 1 1 SO_SO -23 24 0.9993 1 0.9422 0.4909 0.9989 ? 0.9856 0.3841 1 1 1 CP_SO 17 22 1 0.6827 1 0.9821 1 0.9856 ? 0.9594 0.9987 0.9997 0.9998 SB 67 29 0.7221 0.0599 0.9991 1 0.9606 0.3841 0.9594 ? 0.7027 0.7693 0.6198 SU_SU -22 35 1 1 0.9871 0.7792 0.9998 1 0.9987 0.7027 ? 1 1 CP_SU -17 35 1 1 0.9939 0.8403 1 1 0.9997 0.7693 1 ? 1 SH -3 18 1 0.9484 0.9955 0.7339 1 1 0.9998 0.6198 1 1 ? ? chufa (CHU), corn in corn mixture (CO_CO), cowpea in corn mixture (CP_CO), cowpea (CP), lablab (LL), peanut (PE), sorghum in sorghum mixture (SO_SO), cowpea in sorghum mixture (CP_SO), soybean (SB), sunflower in sunflower mixture (SU_SU), cowpea in sunflower mixture (CP_SU), sunnhemp (SH) ? Indicates a self comparison 91 Table 32. Percent dry matter (DM) removed for 2009 estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season conventional tillage single and mixed forage treatment species. Forage? Estimate StdErr CO_CO CP_CO CP LL PE SO_SO CP_SO SB SU_SU CP_SU SH percent DM removed -------------------------------------------------------Adjusted P------------------------------------------------------- AE 62 23 0.0121 1 1 0.9999 ? 0.2029 1 0.9997 ? 1 0.1238 CO_CO -34 12 ? <0.0001 0.0009 0.0006 ? 0.9794 0.0001 0.0255 ? 0.0006 0.9697 CP_CO 69 12 <0.0001 ? 1 1 ? 0.0027 1 0.9999 ? 1 0.0001 CP 80 23 0.0009 1 ? 1 ? 0.0372 1 1 ? 1 0.0177 LL 82 23 0.0006 1 1 ? ? 0.0309 1 1 ? 1 0.0152 SO_SO -12 16 0.9794 0.0027 0.0372 0.0309 ? ? 0.022 0.1626 ? 0.0381 1 CP_SO 75 19 0.0001 1 1 1 ? 0.022 ? 1 ? 1 0.0072 SB 92 35 0.0255 0.9999 1 1 ? 0.1626 1 ? ? 1 0.1215 CP_SU 76 22 0.0006 1 1 1 ? 0.0381 1 1 ? ? 0.017 SH -13 12 0.9697 0.0001 0.0177 0.0152 ? 1 0.0072 0.1215 ? 0.017 ? ? corn in corn mixture (CO_CO), cowpea in corn mixture (CP_CO), cowpea (CP), lablab (LL), peanut (PE), sorghum in sorghum mixture (SO_SO), cowpea in sorghum mixture (CP_SO), soybean (SB), sunflower in sunflower mixture (SU_SU), cowpea in sunflower mixture (CP_SU), sunnhemp (SH), aeschynomene (AE) ? Data not included due to poor stand establishment ? Indicates a self comparison 92 Table 33. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for warm season forage tissue nitrogen concentration. Effect --Pr>F-- Year 0.0214 Site 0.0001 Year x Site 0.0006 Forage 0.0000 Year x Forage 0.3634 Site x Forage 0.0128 Year x Site x Forage 0.0425 Tillage 0.0831 Year x Tillage 0.9773 Site x Tillage 0.1305 Year x Site x Tillage 0.2080 Tillage x Forage 0.5152 Year x Tillage x Forage 0.0653 Site x Tillage x Forage 0.2111 Year x Site x Tillage x Forage 0.6240 93 Table 34. Lowland, 2008 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season single species treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr CP LL PE SB SH ------g kg-1------- ------------------------Adjusted P---------------------- CHU 19.0 3.2 <0.0001 0.0677 0.6507 0.0004 <0.0001 CP 43.9 2.0 ? 0.0161 <0.0001 0.7079 1 CP_CO 40.1 1.2 0.8683 0.1372 0.0002 0.9987 0.8141 CP_SO 38.8 1.7 0.6848 0.4836 0.0106 1 0.6171 CP_SU 43.1 2.3 1 0.0507 0.0001 0.8762 1 LL 31.9 2.6 0.0161 ? 0.9598 0.886 0.0114 PE 27.1 2.6 <0.0001 0.9598 ? 0.1384 <0.0001 SO_SO 20.4 1.1 <0.0001 0.0033 0.3817 <0.0001 <0.0001 SB 37.7 2.6 0.7079 0.886 0.1384 ? 0.6653 SU_SU 29.7 2.6 0.0013 1 0.9997 0.5171 0.0006 SH 43.9 1.9 1 0.0114 <0.0001 0.6653 ? ? chufa (CHU), cowpea (CP), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), lablab (LL), peanut (PE), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO), soybean (SB), sunflower in sunflower mix (SU_SU), sunnhemp (SH) ? Indicates a self comparison 94 Table 35. Lowland, 2008 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season mixed species treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr CP_CO CP_SO CP_SU SO_SO SU_SU ------g kg-1------- -----------------------Adjusted P----------------------- CHU 19.0 3.2 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 1 0.2454 CP 43.9 2.0 0.8683 0.6848 1 <0.0001 0.0013 CP_CO 40.1 1.2 ? 1 0.9835 <0.0001 0.0144 CP_SO 38.8 1.7 1 ? 0.9007 <0.0001 0.1233 CP_SU 43.1 2.3 0.9835 0.9007 ? <0.0001 0.0073 LL 31.9 2.6 0.1372 0.4836 0.0507 0.0033 1 PE 27.1 2.6 0.0002 0.0106 0.0001 0.3817 0.9997 SO_SO 20.4 1.1 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 ? 0.0409 SB 37.7 2.6 0.9987 1 0.8762 <0.0001 0.5171 SU_SU 29.7 2.6 0.0144 0.1233 0.0073 0.0409 ? SH 43.9 1.9 0.8141 0.6171 1 <0.0001 0.0006 ? chufa (CHU), cowpea (CP), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), lablab (LL), peanut (PE), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO), soybean (SB), sunflower in sunflower mix (SU_SU), sunnhemp (SH) ? Indicates a self comparison 95 Table 36. Upland, 2008 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season single species treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr CP LL PE SB SH ------g kg-1------- ---------------------------Adjusted P--------------------------- CHU 18.7 4.5 <0.0001 0.0042 0.0163 <0.0001 <0.0001 CP 50.4 2.6 ? 0.0693 0.0964 0.9993 1 CP_CO 49.1 1.2 1 0.0191 0.0496 1 1 CP_SO 47.2 1.9 0.991 0.2533 0.318 1 0.9957 CP_SU 40.1 2.3 0.0834 1 1 0.4347 0.05 LL 39.1 2.6 0.0693 ? 1 0.3552 0.0446 PE 38.3 3.2 0.0964 1 ? 0.3925 0.08 SB 47.7 2.6 0.9993 0.3552 0.3925 ? 0.9999 SU_SU 50.7 3.2 1 0.1321 0.1546 0.9993 1 SH 49.7 2.0 1 0.0446 0.08 0.9999 ? ? chufa (CHU), cowpea (CP), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), lablab (LL), peanut (PE), soybean (SB), sunflower in sunflower mix (SU_SU), sunnhemp (SH) ? Indicates a self comparison 96 Table 37. Upland, 2008 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season mixed species forage treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr CP_CO CP_SO CP_SU SU_SU ------g kg-1------- --------------------Adjusted P----------------- CHU 18.7 4.5 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0012 <0.0001 CP 50.4 2.6 1 0.991 0.0834 1 CP_CO 49.1 1.2 ? 0.9966 0.0167 1 CP_SO 47.2 1.9 0.9966 ? 0.3033 0.9947 CP_SU 40.1 2.3 0.0167 0.3033 ? 0.1661 LL 39.1 2.6 0.0191 0.2533 1 0.1321 PE 38.3 3.2 0.0496 0.318 1 0.1546 SB 47.7 2.6 1 1 0.4347 0.9993 SU_SU 50.7 3.2 1 0.9947 0.1661 ? SH 49.7 2.0 1 0.9957 0.05 1 ? chufa (CHU), cowpea (CP), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), lablab (LL), peanut (PE), soybean (SB), sunflower in sunflower mix (SU_SU), sunnhemp (SH) ? Indicates a self comparison 97 Table 38. Lowland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season single species forage treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr CH CP LL SB SH ------g kg-1------- ----------------------------Adjusted P------------------------- AE 40.2 3.2 0.9529 0.999 0.9999 0.9737 0.9269 CH 34.3 3.2 ? 0.3415 0.9929 0.1929 0.0667 CP 42.9 1.7 0.3415 ? 0.6848 0.9998 0.9941 CP_CO 38.2 1.1 0.9794 0.3708 1 0.217 0.0042 CP_SO 43.2 1.4 0.2464 1 0.5023 0.9999 0.9968 CP_SU 40.3 1.9 0.8228 0.9889 0.9973 0.8829 0.5582 LL 38.0 2.0 0.9929 0.6848 ? 0.4324 0.1104 SO_SO 18.3 1.4 0.0002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 SB 44.7 2.3 0.1929 0.9998 0.4324 ? 1 SH 44.9 1.3 0.0667 0.9941 0.1104 1 ? ? aeschynomene (AE), chicory (CH), cowpea (CP), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), lablab (LL), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO), soybean (SB), sunnhemp (SH) ? Indicates a self comparison 98 Table 39. Lowland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season mixed species forage treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr CP_CO CP_SO CP_SU SO_SO ------g kg-1------- --------------------Adjusted P------------------ AE 40.2 3.2 0.9999 0.9967 1 <0.0001 CH 34.3 3.2 0.9794 0.2464 0.8228 0.0002 CP 42.9 1.7 0.3708 1 0.9889 <0.0001 CP_CO 38.2 1.1 ? 0.1413 0.9896 <0.0001 CP_SO 43.2 1.4 0.1413 ? 0.9627 <0.0001 CP_SU 40.3 1.9 0.9896 0.9627 ? <0.0001 LL 38.0 2.0 1 0.5023 0.9973 <0.0001 SO_SO 18.3 1.4 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 ? SB 44.7 2.3 0.217 0.9999 0.8829 <0.0001 SH 44.9 1.3 0.0042 0.9968 0.5582 <0.0001 ? aeschynomene (AE), chicory (CH), cowpea (CP), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), lablab (LL), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO), soybean (SB), sunnhemp (SH) ? Indicates a self comparison 99 Table 40. Upland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season single species forage treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr CH CP LL SB SH ------g kg-1------- --------------------------Adjusted P--------------------------- AE 36.6 2.3 0.0528 0.3786 1 1 0.0112 CH 26.5 2.3 ? <0.0001 0.2056 0.2235 <0.0001 CP 44.5 2.6 <0.0001 ? 0.2913 0.6316 0.9998 CP_CO 41.7 1.0 <0.0001 0.9909 0.4273 0.8634 0.177 CP_SO 42.4 1.4 <0.0001 0.9992 0.3472 0.7912 0.5939 CP_SU 42.1 2.0 <0.0001 0.9991 0.5809 0.8934 0.7959 LL 35.5 2.6 0.2056 0.2913 ? 1 0.0117 SO_SO 17.9 1.4 0.0443 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 SB 36.6 3.2 0.2235 0.6316 1 ? 0.144 SH 46.2 1.3 <0.0001 0.9998 0.0117 0.144 ? ? aeschynomene (AE), chicory (CH), cowpea (CP), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), lablab (LL), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO), soybean (SB), sunnhemp (SH) ? Indicates a self comparison 100 Table 41. Upland, 2009 tissue nitrogen concentration estimates, standard errors, and simulated adjusted pairwise P-values for warm season mixed species forage treatments. Forage? Estimate StdErr CP_CO CP_SO CP_SU SO_SO ------g kg-1------- ----------------Adjusted P--------------------- AE 36.6 2.3 0.5376 0.4458 0.7089 <0.0001 CH 26.5 2.6 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.0443 CP 44.5 2.6 0.9909 0.9992 0.9991 <0.0001 CP_CO 41.7 1.0 ? 1 1 <0.0001 CP_SO 42.4 1.4 1 ? 1 <0.0001 CP_SU 42.1 2.0 1 1 ? <0.0001 LL 35.5 2.6 0.4273 0.3472 0.5809 <0.0001 SO_SO 17.9 1.4 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 ? SB 36.6 3.2 0.8634 0.7912 0.8934 <0.0001 SH 46.2 1.3 0.177 0.5939 0.7959 <0.0001 ? aeschynomene (AE), chicory (CH), cowpea (CP), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), lablab (LL), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO), soybean (SB), sunnhemp (SH) ? Indicates a self comparison 101 Table 42. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for warm season forage calcium (Ca), sodium (Na), and phosphorus (P) elemental concentration. Effect Ca Na P ----------------Pr > F--------------- Year 0.7161 0.0269 <0.0001 Site 0.3630 0.0014 0.1643 Year x Site 0.0001 0.0256 0.7132 Forage <0.0001 0.0318 <0.0001 Year x Forage 0.0386 0.7747 0.0182 Site x Forage 0.0005 0.8603 0.0459 Year x Site x Forage 0.0260 0.8875 0.7021 Tillage 0.3623 0.5428 0.0046 Year x Tillage 0.2006 0.2637 0.2543 Site x Tillage 0.0007 0.0910 0.1681 Year x Site x Tillage 0.0406 0.1114 0.7371 Tillage x Forage <0.0001 0.9465 0.9605 Year x Tillage x Forage <0.0001 0.6030 0.3271 Site x Tillage x Forage <0.0001 0.4843 0.9116 Year x Site x Tillage x Forage 0.0001 0.5784 0.0188 102 Table 43. Least square means comparisons of warm season forage calcium concentration. Year x Site x Tillage? Forage? Estimate --g kg-1-- 2008 x Upland x CT SU_SU 37.5 A? 2008 x Lowland x NT SU_SU 33.6 B A 2009 x Lowland x CT CP_SU 31.0 B A 2009 x Lowland x CT CP 28.8 B A C 2008 x Upland x CT CP 28.7 B D A C 2008 x Lowland x CT SU_SU 28.1 B D A C 2008 x Upland x NT CP_SO 27.7 B D C 2009 x Lowland x CT CP_CO 27.1 B D C 2008 x Upland x NT CP 26.6 B D E C 2009 x Upland x CT LL 26.5 B D E C 2008 x Upland x CT CP_SU 26.5 B D E C 2008 x Upland x NT CP_SU 26.4 B D E C 2009 x Lowland x NT CH 26.3 B D E C 2009 x Lowland x NT CP_CO 26.2 B D E C 2009 x Upland x NT CP 25.8 F B D E C 2009 x Lowland x CT CP_SO 24.9 F D E C 2009 x Lowland x CT LL 24.5 F D E C 2009 x Lowland x NT LL 24.4 F D E C 2008 x Lowland x NT CP_CO 23.3 F D E C 2008 x Lowland x CT CP_CO 23.1 F D E C 2008 x Upland x CT CP_CO 22.8 F D E C 2008 x Lowland x CT CP_SU 22.7 F G D E C 2008 x Lowland x CT CP_SO 22.5 F G D E C 2009 x Upland x CT CP_SO 22.4 F G D E C 2009 x Lowland x NT CP_SU 22.0 F G D E C 2008 x Upland x NT LL 21.9 F G D E C H 2008 x Lowland x NT CP_SU 21.6 F G D E C H 2008 x Lowland x CT CP 21.6 F G D E C H 2009 x Upland x CT CP_SU 21.4 F G D E H 2008 x Upland x CT CP_SO 20.1 F G D E H 2008 x Lowland x NT LL 19.2 F G D E I H 2009 x Upland x NT CP_CO 18.7 F G E I H 2009 x Upland x CT CP_CO 18.7 F G E I H ? Conventional tillage (CT), no-till (NT) ? cowpea (CP), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), sunflower in sunflower mix (SU_SU), lablab (LL) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 103 Table 43. continued. Year x Site x Tillage? Forage? Estimate --g kg-1-- 2009 x Upland x NT CP_SO 18.0 F? G E I H 2008 x Upland x CT LL 18.0 F G E I H 2009 x Lowland x NT CP 17.9 F G E I H 2008 x Upland x CT PE 17.8 F G J E I H 2008 x Upland x NT CP_CO 17.2 F G J I H 2008 x Lowland x NT CP_SO 16.6 F G J I H 2009 x Lowland x NT CP_SO 16.5 F G J I H 2009 x Upland x NT CH 16.5 F G J I H 2008 x Lowland x CT LL 16.3 F G J K I H 2008 x Lowland x NT CP 15.8 F G J K I H 2009 x Upland x NT CP_SU 15.7 G J K I H 2008 x Upland x CT SB 15.4 G J K I H 2008 x Lowland x CT PE 15.1 G J K I H 2009 x Upland x CT CP 14.9 G J K I H 2008 x Upland x CT SH 14.8 G J K I H 2008 x Lowland x NT PE 14.5 G J K I H 2009 x Lowland x CT SB 12.3 J K I H 2009 x Upland x CT SB 12.1 L J K I H 2008 x Upland x NT SB 12.0 L J K I 2009 x Upland x NT SB 10.6 L J K I 2008 x Lowland x CT SH 10.4 L J K I 2008 x Lowland x NT SB 10.4 L J K I 2009 x Upland x CT AE 10.2 L J K I 2009 x Upland x CT SH 9.4 L J K 2008 x Lowland x CT SB 8.5 L J K 2009 x Lowland x CT SH 7.8 L J K 2009 x Lowland x CT AE 7.7 L J K M 2008 x Upland x CT CHU 4.7 L K M 2008 x Lowland x NT SO_SO 2.7 L M 2008 x Lowland x CT CHU 2.7 L M 2009 x Lowland x CT SO_SO 1.2 M 2009 x Lowland x NT SO_SO 1.2 M 2009 x Upland x CT SO_SO 1.0 M 2009 x Upland x NT SO_SO 0.9 M 2008 x Lowland x CT SO_SO 0.7 M ? Conventional tillage (CT), no-till (NT) ? cowpea (CP), chufa (CHU), chicory (CH), aeschynomene (AE), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO), soybean (SB), peanut (PE), sunnhemp (SH), lablab (LL) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 104 Table 44. Least square means comparisons of warm season forage phosphorus concentration. Year x Site x Tillage? Forage? Estimate --g kg-1-- 2009 x Upland x NT CH 3.7 A? 2009 x Upland x CT CP_SO 3.7 A 2009 x Upland x CT SH 3.6 A 2009 x Lowland x CT SH 3.6 A 2009 x Upland x NT CP_SU 3.6 B A 2009 x Lowland x CT SO_SO 3.5 B A 2009 x Lowland x NT SO_SO 3.5 B A 2009 x Upland x CT CP 3.5 B A 2008 x Upland x CT CP_SU 3.4 B A 2009 x Upland x NT CP_SO 3.4 B A 2008 x Lowland x CT CP 3.3 B A 2009 x Lowland x NT CH 3.2 B A 2009 x Lowland x CT CP_SO 3.2 B A 2008 x Lowland x CT SO_SO 3.2 B A 2009 x Lowland x NT CP 3.2 B A 2009 x Lowland x NT CP_SO 3.2 B A 2008 x Lowland x CT SU_SU 3.1 B A C 2009 x Upland x CT SO_SO 3.1 B A C 2008 x Upland x CT CP_SO 3.1 B A C 2009 x Upland x CT CP_CO 3.1 B A C 2009 x Upland x CT CP_SU 3.0 B A C 2009 x Upland x NT SO_SO 3.0 B A C 2009 x Upland x NT CP_CO 3.0 B D A C 2008 x Lowland x NT SO_SO 3.0 E B D A C 2008 x Lowland x CT CP_SU 2.9 E B D A C F 2009 x Lowland x NT CP_SU 2.9 E B D A C F 2009 x Lowland x CT CP 2.9 E B D A C F 2009 x Lowland x CT CP_SU 2.9 E B D A C F 2009 x Lowland x CT LL 2.9 E B D A C F 2009 x Lowland x NT CP_CO 2.9 E B D A G C F 2009 x Lowland x CT SB 2.9 E B D A G C F 2008 x Lowland x NT CP_SU 2.7 E B D A G C F ? Conventional tillage (CT), no-till (NT) ? chicory (CH), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), sunnhemp (SH), cowpea in sunflower (CP_SU), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO), cowpea (CP), sunflower in sunflower mix (SU_SU), lablab (LL), soybean (SB) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 105 Table 44. continued. Year x Site x Tillage? Forage? Estimate --g kg-1-- 2009 x Lowland x NT LL 2.7 E? B D H A G C F 2009 x Upland x CT LL 2.7 E B D H G C F 2009 x Lowland x CT AE 2.7 E B D H G C F 2009 x Lowland x CT CP_CO 2.6 E B D H G C F 2008 x Upland x CT CP_CO 2.6 E B D H G C F 2008 x Lowland x CT CP_SO 2.6 E B D H G C F 2008 x Upland x CT SH 2.6 E B D H G C F 2008 x Lowland x NT CP_SO 2.5 E B D H G C F 2008 x Lowland x NT CP 2.5 E B D H G C F 2008 x Lowland x CT SH 2.5 E B D H G C F 2008 x Lowland x NT SU_SU 2.5 E B D H I G C F 2008 x Upland x CT LL 2.5 E B D H I G C F 2008 x Upland x CT CP_SO 2.5 E B D H I G C F 2009 x Upland x CT SB 2.4 E B D H I G C F 2008 x Lowland x CT CP_CO 2.4 E B D H I G C F 2008 x Upland x CT LL 2.4 E B D H I G C F 2008 x Upland x CT CP_SU 2.4 E B D H I G C F 2009 x Upland x CT AE 2.3 E B D H I G C F 2008 x Lowland x CT SB 2.3 E B D H I G C F 2008 x Upland x CT CP 2.3 E B D H I G C F 2008 x Upland x CT CP 2.3 E B D H I G C F 2008 x Upland x CT SU_SU 2.3 E D H I G C F 2008 x Upland x CT SB 2.2 E D H I G F 2008 x Lowland x CT LL 2.1 E D H I G F 2008 x Lowland x NT CP_CO 2.1 E D H I G F 2008 x Lowland x NT SB 2.0 E J D H I G F 2009 x Upland x NT SB 2.0 E J D H I G F 2008 x Lowland x NT LL 1.9 E J H I G F 2008 x Lowland x CT CHU 1.9 J H I G F 2008 x Upland x CT SB 1.9 J H I G F 2009 x Upland x NT CP 1.7 J H I G ? Conventional tillage (CT), no-till (NT) ? lablab (LL), aeschynomene (AE), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), sunnhemp (SH), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), soybean (SB), cowpea (CP), sunflower in sunflower mix (SU_SU), chufa (CHU) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 106 Table 44. continued. Year x Site x Tillage? Forage? Estimate --g kg-1-- 2008 x Upland x CT PE 1.7 J? H I 2008 x Lowland x CT PE 1.5 J I 2008 x Upland x CT CP_CO 1.5 J I 2008 x Lowland x NT PE 1.3 J I 2008 x Upland x CT CHU 0.9 J ? Conventional tillage (CT), no-till (NT) ? peanut (PE), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), chufa (CHU) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) Table 45. Least square means comparisons of warm season forage sodium concentration Forage? Estimate --g kg-1-- CH 1.2 A? AE 0.8 B A CP 0.7 B A SB 0.7 B A SH 0.7 B A CP_SO 0.6 B A CP_CO 0.6 B A CP_SU 0.6 B A LL 0.5 B A C SU_SU 0.3 B A C CHU 0.3 B A C PE 0.2 B C SO_SO 0.2 C ? chicory (CH), aeschynomene (AE), cowpea (CP), soybean (SB), sunnhemp (SH), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), lablab (LL), sunflower in sunflower mix (SU_SU), chufa (CHU), peanut (PE), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 107 Table 46. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for warm season forage natural detergent fiber (NDF), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and acid detergent lignin (ADL) concentration. Effect NDF ADF ADL -------------Pr>F-------------- Year 0.0277 0.0007 0.0722 Site 0.7674 0.3821 0.6936 Year x Site 0.5759 0.0232 0.0435 Forage 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Year x Forage 0.0000 0.0000 0.0297 Site x Forage 0.0025 0.0005 0.0723 Year x Site x Forage 0.9809 0.8052 0.2500 Tillage 0.4932 0.0067 0.3496 Year x Tillage 0.7514 0.0637 0.0764 Site x Tillage 0.8051 0.2539 0.3342 Year x Site x Tillage 0.0676 0.5937 0.3211 Tillage x Forage 0.8899 0.0586 0.6072 Year x Tillage x Forage 0.7290 0.0857 0.2577 Site x Tillage x Forage 0.9635 0.2296 0.9413 Year x Site x Tillage x Forage 0.4266 0.8793 0.7798 108 Table 47. Least square means comparisons of warm season forage neutral detergent fiber concentration. Site Forage? Estimate ------g kg-1------- Upland CHU 642 A? Lowland CHU 589 B A Upland SO_SO 518 B C Lowland SO_SO 482 C Upland AE 305 D Upland SB 297 D Lowland LL 295 D Lowland AE 286 E D Lowland SB 272 E D Lowland SH 269 E D Upland LL 268 E D Upland SH 265 E D Upland CP_CO 264 E D Upland CP 262 E D Lowland CP_SU 251 E D Upland CP_SO 242 E D Upland PE 239 E D Upland CP_SU 231 E D Lowland CP_SO 227 E D Lowland SU_SU 225 E D Lowland CP 222 E Lowland CP_CO 221 E Lowland PE 212 E Upland SU_SU 203 E ? chufa (CHU), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO), aeschynomene (AE), soybean (SB), lablab (LL), sunnhemp (SH), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea (CP), peanut (PE), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), sunflower in sunflower mix (SU_SU) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 109 Table 48. Least square means comparisons of swarm season forage acid detergent fiber concentration. Site Forage? Estimate ------g kg-1------- Conventional Tillage Lowland CHU 317 A? Upland CHU 299 A Upland SO_SO 284 A Lowland SO_SO 282 A Lowland SH 209 B Upland PE 203 C B Upland SH 202 C B Upland SB 189 C B D Upland AE 187 C B D Lowland SB 182 C B D Lowland PE 181 C B D Lowland LL 174 C D Upland LL 171 C D Upland CP 158 C E D Lowland AE 154 C E D Lowland CP_SU 154 E D Upland SU_SU 151 E D Upland CP_CO 148 E D Lowland SU_SU 144 E D Upland CP_SO 140 E Lowland CP 137 E Upland CP_SU 136 E Lowland CP_SO 135 E Lowland CP_CO 134 E No-till Lowland SO_SO 251 A Upland SO_SO 229 B A Upland SB 184 B C Lowland SB 183 B C ? chufa (CHU), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO), aeschynomene (AE), soybean (SB), lablab (LL), sunnhemp (SH), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea (CP), peanut (PE), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), sunflower in sunflower mix (SU_SU), chicory (CH) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 110 Table 48. continued. Site Forage? Estimate ------g kg-1------- Lowland SU_SU 167 B? C D Lowland LL 166 B C D Lowland CH 162 B C D Lowland CP_CO 154 C D Lowland CP_SU 153 C D Upland CP_CO 147 C D Upland LL 146 C D Upland CP_SU 146 C D Upland CP 143 C D Upland CP_SO 134 C D Lowland CP_SO 132 C D Lowland PE 131 C D Lowland CP 122 D ? chufa (CHU), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO), aeschynomene (AE), soybean (SB), lablab (LL), sunnhemp (SH), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea (CP), peanut (PE), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), sunflower in sunflower mix (SU_SU), chicory (CH) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 111 Table 49. Least square means comparisons of warm season forage acid detergent lignin concentration. Year Forage? Estimate ------g kg-1------- 2009 SO_SO 74 A? 2009 CH 72 B A 2008 SO_SO 67 B A 2008 CHU 62 B A 2009 SB 51 B C 2008 CP_SU 47 C 2009 LL 47 D C 2009 AE 44 D C E 2008 LL 41 D C E 2008 SB 40 D C E 2008 SU_SU 39 D F C E 2008 SH 37 D F E 2009 SH 37 F E 2009 CP_SO 37 F E 2009 CP_CO 36 F E 2009 CP_SU 35 F E 2008 CP_SO 34 F E 2009 CP 34 F E 2008 CP_CO 33 F E 2008 CP 33 F E 2008 PE 27 F ? chufa (CHU), sorghum in sorghum mix (SO_SO), aeschynomene (AE), soybean (SB), lablab (LL), sunnhemp (SH), cowpea in corn mix (CP_CO), cowpea (CP), peanut (PE), cowpea in sunflower mix (CP_SU), cowpea in sorghum mix (CP_SO), sunflower in sunflower mix (SU_SU), chicory (CH) ? Entries with the same letter are not significantly different (? = 0.05) 112 Table 50. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) for warm season feeding observations. Effect --Pr>F-- Forage 0.3984 Year 0.3155 Site 0.5603 Table 51. Estimates and standard errors for log transformed warm season observations. Forage? Estimate ? Estimate StdErr --observations ha-1-- -log observations ha-1- CHU 75 1.8 0.32 CO_CP 17 1.2 0.16 CP 53 1.7 0.23 SO_CP 37 1.5 0.32 SB 37 1.5 0.32 SU_CP 53 1.7 0.23 Alley 8 0.9 0.23 ? Chufa (CHU), corn and cowpea mix (CO_CP), cowpea (CP), sorghum and cowpea mix (SO_SP), soybean (SB), sunflower and cowpea mix (SU_CP), non planted borders and alleys (Alley) ? Estimates were back-transformed to observations ha-1 for interpretation 113 Figure 2. Average air temperature at 2 m and daily precipitation in Auburn, AL over the study period. 114 III. Chufa Response to Nutrient Additions Abstract Chufas (Cyperus esculentus L. var.sativus Boeck) are a common wildlife planting in the Southeast, and are a preferred food of the wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). However, published information regarding fertilization of chufa is inconclusive. During the summer of 2009 a greenhouse experiment was conducted to determine chufa response to fertilization. Chufas were planted in 11-L pots, thinned to 4 plants per pot and fertilized with either nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), or potassium (K). Nitrogen and K rates were 0, 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, or 800 kg ha-1 and P rates were 0, 20, 40, 80, 160, 320, 640 kg ha-1. Each treatment received a standard rate of micronutrient solution, N, P, or K as needed. Above ground growth and tubers were harvested, weighed, and analyzed for nutrient uptake. Chufa exhibited an above ground yield response to N fertilization but not P or K. Nitrogen, P, and K uptake increased in above ground growth with nutrient application. Tuber weight did not respond to the treatments, while tuber count increased with N addition. No response was observed in tuber count owing to P or K addition. Tubers had no increase in either N, P, or K uptake owing to fertilization. Results suggest that limited response to nutrient application of chufa tubers can be expected. However, field studies are warranted to verify these results. Introduction Chufa is a popular wildlife crop in the southeastern U.S. that is primarily planted for wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) or in moist soil impoundments for waterfowl (Martin and Uhler, 1939; Mitchell and Martin, 1986; Kelley and Frederickson, 1991). 115 Chufa plants produce tuber like growths below ground that provide an excellent source of carbohydrates for wildlife (Billingsley and Arner, 1970; Mitchell and Martin, 1986; and Kelley and Frederickson, 1991) and serve as the cornerstone for their use in wildlife plantings. Management practices for chufa such as cultivation, flooding, and stand establishment have been well described (Reid et al., 1989; Kelley, 1990; Kelley and Frederickson, 1991; Peters and Afton, 1993; Taylor and Smith, 2003; Taylor and Smith 2005). Chufa use in moist soil systems stems from its ability to tolerate periods of flooding without reducing tuber production (Kelley and Frederickson, 1991; Peters and Afton, 1993; Taylor and Smith, 2003; and Taylor and Smith 2005). Since reproduction occurs predominately from the tubers, cultivation is often used to redistribute tubers and increase established stands (Tumbleson and Kommedahl, 1962; Taylorson, 1967; Sanchez Tames and Vieitez, 1970; Thullen and Keeley, 1980; Taylor and Smith, 2003). Information regarding chufa fertilization is scarce in the published literature, and available recommendations regarding fertilization of chufa are variable (Killinger and Stokes, 1951; Maroto et al., 1986; and Pascual et al., 2000). Recommendations range from 560 kg ha-1 of 10-10-10 fertilizer to no fertilizer application (Killinger and Stokes, 1951; Yarrow and Yarrow, 2005; and Mitchell and Martin, 1986). The objectives of this study were to examine chufa response to nutrient additions in a greenhouse setting. Materials and Methods Three fertilization studies were conducted from April to September 2009 at the Plant Science Research Center Greenhouse in Auburn, Alabama to examine chufa response to N, P, and K additions. Principle guidelines for these experiments were 116 followed from those published by Tennessee Valley Authority National Fertilizer Development Center, Muscle Shoals, Al (Allen et al., 1976). The potting medium was fritted clay, which is suitable for greenhouse experiments due to its retention of plant- available water, ease of removal from roots, and lack of nutrients (van Bavel et al., 1978; Biondini et al., 1988). The medium had an initial pH of 9.0 to 13.0 and was washed with water until a pH between 6.0 and 6.5 was obtained. The pH was monitored with each rinsing cycle to prevent over-washing the potting medium, which would result in pH less than desirable. Garden fabric was placed in the bottom of 11.3 L pots into which the potting medium was placed. National Wild Turkey Federation, Turkey Gold chufas were acquired from a local farm supply store. A germination test was performed using a Pro-Grow Propagation Chamber Model PC-70 dual zone from Pro Gro Supply (Brookfield, Wisconsin) and results indicated 97% germination. The pots were planted on 29 May 2009 with germination and emergence occurring within one week. Upon reaching 5 cm in height, all pots were thinned to 4 plants per pot and fertilized with a micronutrient solution and a half rate of macronutrient solution. The micronutrient solution was made with reagent grade magnesium sulfate (MgSO4), iron sulfate (FeSO4), manganese sulfate (MnSO4), zinc sulfate (ZnS04), copper sulfate (CuSO4), and sodium borate (Na2B4O7) to supply 14 mg, 14 mg, 11 mg, 12 mg, 4 mg, 1.4 mg, and 38 mg of magnesium (Mg), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), boron (B), and sulfur (S), respectively, per 100 ml of solution. For the N experiment, a N solution was made with reagent grade ammonium nitrate (NH4NO3) to a concentration of 15.3 g NH4NO3 L-1. A 31.25 ml aliquot of 117 solution was equal to a rate of 50 kg N ha-1 while 500 ml of solution was equal to 800 kg N ha-1. For the P experiment, the treatment solution was made with reagent grade monocalcium phosphate (Ca(H2PO4)2) to a concentration of 34.89 g Ca(H2PO4)2 L-1. A 15.625 ml aliquot of solution was equal to 20 kg P ha-1 while 500 ml of solution was equal to 640 kg P ha-1. The K treatment solution was made with reagent grade potassium chloride (KCl) to a concentration of 10.24 g KCl L-1. A 31.25 ml aliquot of solution equaled 50 kg K ha-1 rate while 500 ml of solution was equal to 800 kg K ha-1. The N experiment received. Standard rates of 44 kg P ha-1 and 44 kg K ha-1 from each solution respectively. The P experiment received standard rates of 134 kg N ha-1, and 44 kg K ha- 1. The K experiment received 134 kg N ha-1, and 44 kg P ha-1. Fertilizer solutions were measured in graduated cylinders to ensure accurate solution aliquots were dispensed for each pot. The second split rate application was applied on June 26 following the previously described rates and methods. Harvest and Analysis Above ground growth of chufa was harvested by clipping plants 1.2 cm above the soil level. Chufa tops were dried at 55? C to a common moisture content and weighed to determine dry matter production. The samples were then ground to pass a 1 mm screen using a Wiley mill and analyzed for total N concentration by dry combustion using a LECO TruSpec CN (Leco Corp, St. Joseph, MI). Phosphorus and K concentrations were determined according to Hue and Evans (1986) via inductively coupled argon plasma spectrophotometry (ICAP), (SPECTROCIROS CCD, Side-on plasma. Germany). Chufa tubers were harvested within one week after top growth harvest by washing roots over a 3 118 mm screen to prevent washing off loose tubers. The tubers were removed from the roots, washed, counted, dried at 55? C to a common moisture content and ground with a coffee grinder. Ground tubers were analyzed following the same method as for the above ground growth. Nutrient uptake was calculated as the product of nutrient concentration and dry matter yield (DMY) of chufa tops or tubers. Data were analyzed using linear regression in PROC MIXED provided by Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS, 2003). Effects and interactions were determined using F-tests, and R2 values resulting from regression analyses were calculated with PROC GLM (SAS, 2003). Results and Discussion Application of N fertilizer increased above ground dry matter yield in a curvilinear fashion (Table 52, Figure 3). Fertilizer requirement for maximum agronomic above ground yield was calculated as 568 kg N ha-1, resulting in a dry matter yield of 139 g pot-1. Dry matter yield increased from 72 to 133 g pot-1 with the addition of N rates from 0 to 800 kg N ha-1. These findings contradict findings of Maroto et al., (1986) and Pascual et al., (2000) that indicate there is no relationship between N fertilization rate and chufa above ground production. Chufa above ground growth did not respond to addition of P or K. Tuber dry matter yield did not respond to application of N, P, or K. Tuber count increased with application of N fertilizer (Figure 4). The N requirement for maximum tuber count was calculated as 568 kg N ha-1. Again, these findings contradict previous findings that imply there is no response in tuber production with N application (Maroto et al., 1986). The lack of response in tuber yield along with the response in tuber 119 count suggests an inverse relationship exists between tuber weight and tuber count as N application rates increase. Neither P, nor K influenced tuber count. Chufa above ground growth exhibited a response in N uptake to N application. Nitrogen uptake in above ground growth increased with N fertilization rate from 488 to 2921 mg pot-1 with a maximum N uptake calculated at 743 kg N ha-1(Figure 5). This finding is explained by the direct response in above ground yield to increased N rate. Uptake of both P and K exhibited a linear response as their fertilization rates increased (Figure 6 and Figure 7). Response in P and K uptake in above ground growth ranged from 117 to 176 mg P pot-1 and 2940 to 3502 mg K pot-1 ,respectively. This suggests luxury uptake of P and K for above ground growth in chufa because no yield increases owing to P or K additions were observed. The application of N increased N uptake in chufa tubers from 179 to 558 mg N pot-1 (Figure 8). This is partially due to an increase in N concentration as rate increased (Figure 9). Neither P nor K fertilizer rates influenced uptake in chufa tubers. Summary and Conclusions Overall, chufa exhibited little practical response to nutrient additions. Chufa above ground growth responded to N fertilization while no response to P or K additions was observed. While tuber count had a response to N fertilization, no response was shown in tuber weight to either N, P, or K suggesting an inverse relationship between count and weight under N application. A response in tuber weight may be recognized under field conditions where plants may be more spread out (Taylor and Smith, 2003). 120 Tuber count did not respond to either P or K addition. Uptake of N, P, and K in above ground growth was found to increase with application of nutrients. N uptake increased in tubers with addition of N fertilizer. Neither P nor K uptake was influenced by fertilizer additions. Since tuber production and not above ground growth is the primary concern for planting of chufa, application of fertilizer may not be necessary. However, differences may be found in non-greenhouse settings. In conclusion, our results indicate that little practical response to N, P, or K fertilization is realized for chufa production. However, field studies to verify these results are warranted. 121 Table 52. Analysis of variance probability of greater F (Pr>F) values for the effect of fertilizer on dry matter yield (DMY) and nutrient uptake of chufa above ground growth (tops), tubers, and tuber count. Tops Tubers Tuber count DMY Uptake DMY Uptake Element Effect --Pr> F-- N Rate 0.0057 <.0001 0.5541 0.0026 0.0879 Rate*Rate 0.0121 <.0001 0.7600 0.0320 0.1709 P Rate 0.1314 0.7170 0.9239 0.1037 0.7426 Rate*Rate 0.1243 0.5392 0.9045 0.2509 0.9673 K Rate 0.1779 0.0471 0.4256 0.4244 0.7235 Rate*Rate 0.2349 0.1945 0.5533 0.6201 0.6341 122 Figure 3. Chufa above ground dry matter yield (DMY) as a function of N rate. Bars are standard errors of means. y = 80.832+ 0.2046x+ - 0.00018x2 R2=0.73 123 Figure 4. Chufa tuber count as a function of N rate. Bars are standard errors of means. y = 80.832+0.2046x+-0.00018x2 R2=0.29 124 Figure 5. Chufa above ground nitrogen (N) uptake as a function of N rate. Bars are standard errors of means. y = 380.71+ 6.9568x+ -0.00468x2 R2=0.93 125 Figure 6. Chufa above ground phosphorus (P) uptake as a function of P rate. Bars are standard errors of means. y = 132.09+ 0.07768x R2= 0.26 126 Figure 7. Chufa above ground potassium (K) uptake as a function of K rate. Bars are standard errors of means. y = 3049.72+ 0.626x R2=0.54 127 Figure 8. Chufa tuber nitrogen (N) uptake as a function of N rate. Bars are standard errors of means. y = 214.39+1.2017x+-0.00097x2 R2=0.44 128 y = 3.724+0.002871x+-0.000002x2 R2=0.92 Figure 9. Chufa tuber nitrogen (N) concentration as a function of N rate. Bars are standard errors of means. 129 References Abdel-Nabey, A.A., 2001. Chemical and technological studies on chufa (tiger nut) tubers (Cyperus esculentus L.). Alexandria J. Agric. Res. 46(3):71-80. Aiken, G.E., W.D. Pitman, C.G. Chambliss, and K.M. Portier. 1991. Plant Responses to Stocking Rate in a Sub-Tropical Grass Legume Pasture. Agron. J. 83:124-129. Allen ,E. O., 1968. Range Use, Foods, Condition, and Productivity of White-Tailed Deer in Montana. J.Wildl. Manage. 32(1):130-141. Allen1 S.E., G.L Terman., and L.B Clements. 1976. Greenhouse techniques for soil- plant-fertilizer research. Nation. Fert. Devel. Cent., Tenn. Vall. Author. Bull. Y- 104. Muscle Shoals, AL. Anderson, H.G. 1959. Food habits of migratory ducks in Illinois. Ill. Nat. Hist. Sur. Bull. 27:285-344. Andrae,J., 2004. White Clover Establishment and Management Guide. Univ. Ga. Coop. Ext. Ser. Bull. 1251. Atwood, T.C., and H.P. Weeks, Jr. 2003. Sex-specific patterns of mineral lick preference in white-tailed deer. Northeast. Natural. 10(4):409-414. Ball, D.M., and G.D. Lacefield, 2006. Growing Forage Crops for Wildlife. Proc. Heart Amer. Graz. Conf. Ball, D.M., C.S. Hoveland, and G.D. Lacefield, 2002. Southern Forages: Modern Concepts for Forage Crop Management. Potash & Phosphate Institute. Norcross, Georgia. 130 Banks, W.J., Jr., G.P. Glenwood, P. Epling, R.A. Kainer, and R.W. Davis. 1968. Antler growth and osteoporosis. I. Morphological and morphometric changes in the costal compacta during the antler growth cycle. Anatom. Rec. 162:387-398. Barnes, T.G., 1988. Digestion dynamics in white-tailed deer. Ph.D. Thesis, Texas A&M University, College Station. 153pp. Barry,T.N., 1998. The feeding value of chicory (Cichorium intybus) for ruminant livestock. J.Agric. Sci. (Cambridge). 131:2251-2257. Beals, N.M., T.E. Fulbright, R.L. Bingham. 1993. Nutritional Quality and White-tailed Deer Use of Warm-season Forages. Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies. 47:24-32. Bell, R.S., W.H. Lachman, E.M. Rahn, and R.D. Sweet. 1962. Life history studies as related to weed control in the northeast. 1. Northern nutgrass. Rhode Island Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull.. 364, Kingston, Rhode Island. 33pp. Billingsley, B.B., Jr., and D.H. Arner. 1970. The nutritive value and digestibility of some winter foods of the eastern wild turkey. J. Wildl. Manage. 34:176-182. Biondini, M., D.A. Klein, and E.F. Redente. 1988. Carbon and nitrogen losses through root exudation by Agropyron cristatum, A. smithii and Bouteloua gracilis.Soil Biol. Biochem. 20(4) 477-482. Blair, R.M., R. Alcaniz, and H.F. Morris Jr. 1984. Yield, nutrient composition, and ruminant digestibility of fleshy fungi in southern forests. J. Wildl. Manage. 48:1344-1352. Brady, N.C., and R.R. Weil. 2002. The Nature and Property of Soils. 13th ed. Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, N.J. 131 Brink, G.E., G.A. Pederson, K.R. Sistani, and T.E. Fairbrother, 2001. Uptake of Selected Nutrients by Temperate Grasses and Legumes. Agron. J. 93:887-890. Bundy, O.M., W.F. Donnalley, and E.M. Rahn. 1960. Growth and development of northern nutgrass as affected by certain environmental conditions. Proc. Northeast Weed Cont. Conf. 14:44. Chaparro, C.J., L.E. Sollenberger, and C.S. Jones Jr., 1992. Limpograss sod management and aeschynomene seed reserve effects on legume establishment. Agron. J. 84(2):195-200. Collins,M., and J.E. McCoy, 1997. Chicory Productivity, Forage Quality, and Response to Nitrogen Fertilization. Agron. J. 89:232-238. Cook, C., and B. Gray. 2005. Effective Food Plots for White-tailed Deer in Alabama. Al. Dep. Cons. and Nat. Res. Div. Wildl and Freshw Fish. 48pp. Cortes, C., M.J. Esteve, A.Frigola, and F. Torregrosa. 2004. Physical and chemical properties of different commercially available types of ?horchata de chufa?. Italian J. Food Sci. 16(1):113-121. Coskuner, Y., R. Ercan, E. Karababa, and A.N. Nazlican. 2002. Physical and chemical properties of chufa (Cyperus esculentus L.) tubers grown in the Curkurova region of Turkey. J. Sci.Food and Agric. 82:625-631. Dale, M.P., and D.R. Causton. 1992. The ecophysiology of Veronica chamaedrys, V. Montana and V. officinalis. I. Light quality and light quantity. J. Ecol. 80:483- 492. Davis, J.R. 1976. Management for Alabama wild turkeys. Al. Dep. Cons. and Nat. Res. Spec. Rep. No. 5. 53pp. 132 Davis, R.W., 1961. Utilization and management of prepared food plots. Ann. Rep. 1961 Al. Dep. Cons. Montgomery, Alabama. Day, B.E., and R.C. Russell. 1955. The effect of drying on survival of nutgrass tubers. California Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 751, Riverside, California. de Vries, F.T. 1991. Chufa (Cyperus esculentus, Cyperaceae): a weedy cultivar or a cultivated weed?. Econ. Bot. 45:27-37. Dinkelaker, B., V. Romheld, and H. Marschner. 1989. Citric acid excretion and precipitation of calcium citrate in the rhizosphere of White Lupin (Lupinus albus L.). Plant Cell Environ. 12:285-292. Edwards,S.L., S. Demarais, B. Watkins, and B.K Strickland, 2004. White-tailed deer forage production in managed and unmanaged pine stands and summer food plots in Mississippi. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 32(3):739-745. El Titi, A., 2003. Soil tillage in agroecosystems. CRC Press. Boca Raton, Florida. Feather,C.L.,and T.E. Fulbright, 1995. Nutritional quality and palatability to white-tailed deer of four warm-season forages. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 23(1):238-244. Foster,J.G., J.M. Fedders, W.M. Clapham, J.M. Robertso, D.P. Bligh, and K.E. Turner. 2002. Nutritive Value and Animal Selection of Forage Chicory Cultivars Grown in Central Appalachia. Agron. J. 94:1034-1042. French, C.E., L.C. McEwen, N.D. Magrudder, R.H. Ingram, and R.W. Swift. 1956. Nutrient requirements for growth and antler developments in the white-tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 20:221-232. Fribourg,H.A., J.R. Overton, W.W. McNeill, E.W. Culvahouse, M.J. Montgomery, M. Smith, R.J. Carlisle, and N.W. Robinson. 1984. Evaluations of the potential of 133 hyacinth bean as an annual warm-season forage in the mid-south. Agron. J. 76:905-910. Garrison,R.L., and J.C. Lewis. 1987. Effects of Browsing by White-Tailed Deer on Yields of Soybeans. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 15(4):555-559. Gifford, E.M., and D.E. Bayer. 1995. Developmental anatomy of cyperus esculentus (yellow nutsedge). Int. J. Plant Sci. 156(5):622-629. Gilbert,R.A., J.L. Heilman, and A.S.R. Juo. 2003. Diurnal and Seasonal Light Transmission to Cowpea in Sorghum-Cowpea Intercrops in Mali. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 189(1):21-29. Gonzalez,C.L. 1987. Screening and establishment of forage legumes in South Texas. J. Rio Grande Valley Hort. Soc. 40:39-53. Goodrum, P.D., and V.H. Reid. 1962. Browsing habits of white-tailed deer in the western gulf region. Proc. National White-tailed Deer District Symp., University of Georgia Center for Continuing Education, Athens. Grassman, B.T., and E.C. Hellgren. 1993. Phosphorus nutrition in white-tailed deer: nutrient balance, physiological responses, and antler growth. Ecol. 74(8):2279- 2296. Guangdi,L., and P.D. Kemp. 2005. Forage Chicory (Cichorium Intybus L.) : A Review of its Agronomy and Animal Production. Adv. Agron. 88:187-222. Hafez, H.S.E., 1967. Bioclimatological aspects of animal productivity. World Rev. Anim. Prod. 3:22-37. Heady, H.F., 1964. Palatability of herbage and animal preference. J. Range Manage. 17:76-82. 134 Hehman,M.W., and T.E. Fulbright. 1997. Use of Warm-Season Food Plots by White- tailed Deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 61(4):1108-1115. Hellgren, E.C., and W.J. Pitts. 1997. Sodium economy in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Physiolog. Zoo. 70(5):547-555. Hintz,R.W., K.A. Albrecht, and E.S. Oplinger. 1992. Yield and quality of soybean forage as affected by cultivar and management practices. Agron. J. 84:795-798. Holm, L.G., D.L. Pluckne tt, J.V. Pancho, and J.P. Herberger. 1977. The world?s worst weeds. Distribution and biology. Hawaii University Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. Holter, J.B., H.H. Hays, and S.H. Smith. 1979. Protein requirement of yearling white- tailed deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 43:872-879. Hue, N. V. and C.E. Evans. 1986. Procedures used for soil and plant analysis by the Auburn University Soil Testing Laboratory. Alabama Agric. Expt. Stn., Auburn University, AL. Jung, G.A., R.E. Kocher, and A. Glica. 1984. Minimum Tillage Forage Turnip and Rape Production on Hill Land as Influenced by Sod Suppression and Fertilizer. Agron. J. 76(3):404-408. Kalmbacher, R.S., F.G. Martin, L.C. Hammond, K.J. Boote, and P. Mislevy. 1993. Bahiagrass Canopy Size, Soil Water, and Establishment of Aeschynomene. Agron. J. 85:535-540. Kammermeyer, K.E., K.V. Miller, and L. Thomas Jr. 2006. Quality Food Plots: Your Guide to Better Deer and Better Deer Hunting. Quality Deer Management Association. Bogart, Georgia. 310 pp. 135 Kammermeyer, K.E., W.M. Lentz, E.A. Padgett, and R.L. Marchinton. 1993. Comparison of three ladino clovers used for food plots in northeastern Georgia. Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies. 47:44-52. Karlen, D.L., N.C. Wollenhaupt, D.C. Erbach, E.C. Berry, J.B. Swan, N.S. Eash, J.L. Jordahl, and USDA, ARS. 1994. Crop residue effects on soil quality following 10-years of no-till corn. Soil Tillage Res. 31(2-3):149-167. Keegan, T.W., M.K. Johnson, and B.D. Nelson. 1989. American jointvetch improves summer range for white-tailed deer. J. Range Manage. 42(2):128-135. Kelley, Jr., J.R., and L.H. Frederickson. 1991. Chufa biology and management. Waterfowl Management Handbook. Fish and Wildl. Leaf. 13.4.18. U. S. Dep. Inter. Fish and Wildl. Ser. Washington, D.C. Keely, P.E., and R.J. Thullen. 1978. Light requirements of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and light interception by crops. Weed Sci. 26:10-16. Kelly, J.R. 1990. Biomass production of chufa (Cyperus esculentus) in a seasonally flooded wetland. Wetland. 10:61-67. Killinger, G.B., and W.E. Stokes. 1951. Chufas in Florida. Univ. Fl. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 419. 16pp. Kusmartonto, T.N. Barry, P.R. Wilson, P.D. Kemp, and K.J. Stafford. 1996. Effects of grazing chicory (Cichorium intybus) and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne)/ white clover (Trifolium repens) pasture upon the growth and voluntary feed intake of red and hybrid deer during lactation and post-weaning growth. J. Agric. Sci. (Cambridge). 127:387-401. 136 Lal, R., D.C. Reicosky, and J.D. Hanson. 2007. Evolution of the plow over 10,000 years and the rationale for no-till farming. Soil Tillage Res. 93(1):1-12. Lancanshier,J.A., 1978. Improved species and seasonal pasture production. Proc. Agron. Soc. New Zealand. 8:123-127. Larbi, A., D.D. Dung, P.E. Olorunju, J.W. Smith, R.J. Tanko, I.R. Muhammad, and I.O. Adekunle. 1999. Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) for food fodder in crop-livestock systems: forage and seed yields, chemical composition and rumen degradation of leaf and stem fractions of 38 cultivars. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 77:33-47. Larson, J.S., 1966. Problems in measuring food production on forest wildlife clearings. Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 20:33-36. Li, B., T. Shibuya, Y. Yogo, T. Hara, and K. Matsuo. 2001. Effects of light quantity and quality on growth and reproduction of a clonal sedge, Cyperus esculentus. Plant Spec. Biol. 16:69-81. Lobelius, M. 1581. Plantarum seu stirpium icons. Vol. 1. Chr. Plantijin, Antwerpen. 78pp. Lunceford. J.C., 1986. Production and utilization and deer preference of agricultural food plantings and native vegetation on Marion County Wildlife Management Are. M.S. Thesis, Mississippi State University, Mississippi. Mansoer, Z., D.W. Reeves, and C.W. Wood. 1997.Suitability of Sunn Hemp as an Alternative Late-Summer Legume Cover Crop. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 61:246- 253. 137 Maroto, J.V., B. Pascual, J. Alagarda, and S. Lopez-Galarza. 1986. Respuesta productive a distintos abonados nitrogenados en el cultivo de la chufa (Cyerus esculentus L.). ITEA. 6:105-110. Marschner, H. 2006. Mineral Nutrition of Higher Plants. Second Edition. Academic Press. Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Martin, A.C., and F.M. Uhler. 1939. Food of game ducks in the United States and Canada. U.S. Dep. Agric. Tech. Bull. 634. 156pp. Martinka, C.J., 1968. Habitat Relationships of White-Tailed and Mule Deer in Northern Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 32(3):558-565. McAtee, W.L. 1939. Wildlife Food Plants. Collegiate Press, Inc. Ames, Iowa. 141pp. McDonald, J.S., and K.V. Miller. 1995. An evaluation of supplemental plantings for deer in the Georgia Piedmont. Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies. 49:399-413. McDowell, L.R., ed. 1985. Nutrition of grazing ruminants in warm climates. Acad. Press, Inc. Orlando, Florida. McEwen, L.C., C.E. French, N.D. Magrudder, R.W. Swift, and R.H. Ingram. 1957. Nutrient requirements of white-tailed deer. Trans. N. Amer. Will. And Nat. Resour. Conf. 22:119-132. Merrell, J.L. 1975. The effects of flooding on chufa (Cyperus esculentus L.). M.S. Thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. 116pp. Meyer, M.W., R.D. Brown, and M.W. Graham. 1984. Protein and energy content of white-tailed deer diets in the Texas Coastal Bend, J. Wildl. Manage., 48:527-534. 138 Mirza, S.N., and F.D. Provenza. 1994 Socially induced food avoidance in lambs: direct or indirect maternal influence? J. Anim. Sci. 72:899-902. Mitchell, C.C., and J.F. Adams., 1994. Research-Based Soil Testing Information and Fertilizer Recommendations for Peanuts on Coastal Plain Soils. South. Coop. Ser. Bull. Mitchell, W.A., and C.O. Martin. 1986. Chufa (Cyperus esculentus): Section 7.4.1, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources Management Manual, Technical Report EL-86-22. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Exp. Stn. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Moore, W.H. 1978. Managing jointvetch for deer and cattle. U.S. Forest Service, Southeast. For. Exp. Stn. Res. Note SE259, Atlanta, Georgia. Moore, W.H., and J.B. Hillman. 1969. Jointvetch: native legume in a new role for deer and cattle. U.S. Forest Service, Southeast. For. Exp. Stn. Res. Note. SE-114, Atlanta, Georgia. Naber, H., and A.J.W. Rotteveel. 1986. Legal measurements concerning Cyperus esculentus L. on the Netherlands. Ned. Fac. Landbouwwet, Rijksuniv. Gent. 52/2a:355-357. Ncube,B., S.J. Twomlow, M.T. van Wijk, J.P. Dimes, and K.E. Giller. 2007. Productivity and residual benefits of grain legumes to sorghum under semi-arid conditions in southwestern Zimbabwe. Plant Soil. 299:1-15. Neumann, G., A. Massonneau, E. Martinoia, and V. Romheld. 1999. Physiological adaptations to phosphorus deficiency during proteoid root development in white lupin. Planta. 208:373-382. 139 Nixon,C.M., M.W. McClain, and K.R. Russel. 1970. Deer Food Habits and Range Characteristics in Ohio. J. Wildl. Manage. 34(4):870-886. Noffsinger, S.L., D.E. Starner, and E. van Santen. 1998. Planting date and seeding rate effects on white lupin yield in Alabama and Virginia. J. Prod. Agric. 11(1) 100- 107. Ockenfels, R.A., and J.A. Bissonette. 1982. Estimates of white-tailed deer activity in Oklahoma. Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies. 36: 445-453. Omokanye, A.T., O.S. Onifade, P.E. Olorunju, A.M. Adamu, R.J. Tanko, and R.O. Balogun. 2001. The evaluation of dual purpose groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) varities for fodder and seed production at Shika, Nigeria. J. Agric. Sci. 136(1): 75- 79. Pascual, B., J.V. Maroto, S. Lopez-Galarza, A. Sanbautista, and J. Alagarda. 2000. Chufa (Cyperus esculentus L. var. sativus Boeck.): an unconventional crop. Studies related to applications and cultivation. Econ. Bot. 54(4):439-448. Pedersen, J.F., and D.M. Ball. 1991. Seasonal performance of several clovers grown as annuals in Southern Alabama. J. Prod. Agric. 4:105-110. Peters, M.S., and A.D. Afton. 1993. Effects of deep tillage on redistribution of lead shot and chufa flatsedge at Catahoula Lake, Louisiana. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:471-479. Provenza, F.D., J.A. Pfister, and C.D. Cheney. 1992. Mechanisms of learning in diet selection with reference to phytotoxicosis in herbivores. J. Range Manage. 45(1) 36-45. 140 Ranells, N.N., and W.G. Wagger. 1992. Nitrogen release from crimson clover in relation to plant growth stage and composition. Agron. J. 84:424-430. Rao,S.C., and B.K. Northup. 2009. Capabilities of Four Novel Warm Season Legumes in the Southern Great Plains: Biomass and Forage Quality. Crop Sci. 49(3):1096- 1102. Reeves, D.W., G.L. Mullins, E. van Santen, J.R. Crews, B.R. Moss, P.L Mask, D.L. Wright, R.K. Spernkel, and W.W. Hanna. 1995 Sustainable whole grain/silage production systems for the Southeast. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Annu. Rep. LS93-53 25-26. Reid, F.A., J.R. Kelly, T.S. Taylor, and L.H. Frederickson. 1989. Upper Mississippi valley wetlands-refuges and moist-soil impoundments. p. 181-202 in L.M. Smith, R.L. Pederson, and R.M. Kaminski, editors. Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas. Robbins, C.T., P.J. Van Soest, W.W. Mautz, and A.N. Moen. 1975. Feed Analysis and Digestion with Reference to White-Tailed Deer. J. Wildl. Manage. 39(1): 67-79. Robinson, B.L., and M.L. Fernals. 1908. Gray?s New Manual of Botany. 7th ed. American Book Company, New York, New York. P. 176. Rotar, P.P., and R.J. Joy. 1983. ?Tropic Sun? sunn-hemp (Crotalaria juncea L.) Res. Ext. Series 36. Hawaii Institute Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. 1-7. 141 Sanchez Tames, R., and E. Vieitez. 1970. Estudios sobre la brotadura de tuberculos de Cyperus esculentus Ten. Var. aureus Richt. Anales de Edafologia y Agrobiologia.29:775-781. Sarlistyaningsih, L., K. Sivasithamparam and T.L. Setter. 1996. The role of limited oxygen supply and soil microorganisms on germination and survival of lupin seeds (Lupinus angustifolius L. cv. Gungurru) in waterlogged soil. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 36(3) 323 ? 329. SAS Institute. 2003. SAS system for Windows release 9.1.3. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C. Scheaffer,C.C., J.H. Orf, T.E. Devine, and J.G. Jewett. 2001. Yield and Quality of Forage Soybean. Agron. J. 93:99-106. Schulze, J., G. Temple, S.J. Temple, H. Beschow, and C.P. Vance. 2006. Nitrogen Fixation by White Lupin under Phosphorous Deficiency. Ann. Bot. 98(4): 731- 740. Seiter, S., C.E. Altemose, and M.H. Davis. 2004. Forage Soybean Yield and Quality Responses to Plant Density and Row Distance. Agron. J. 96:966-970. Specht,J.E., K. Chase, M. Macrander, G.L. Graef, J. Chung, J.P. Markwell, M. Germann, J.H. Orf, and K.G. Lark. 2001. Soybean Response to Water: A OTL Analysis of Drought Tolerance. Crop Sci. 41(2):493-509. Stanton, F.W. 1957. Planting food for waterfowl. Oregon State Game Commission. Misc Wildl. Pub. No. 1. 17 pp. Stephens, O.L., M.T. Mengak, K.E. Kammermeyer, and K.V. Miller. 2005. Forage Production, Use by White-tailed Deer, and Seasonal Crude Protein Level of Three 142 Cool Season Forages in Georgia. Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies. 59:66-78. Stewart,C.B., P.A. Beck, and P.K. Capps. 2008. Establishment and Survival of Red, White, and Berseem Clover on a Sandy Soil. Ar. Anim. Sci. Dep. Rep. 20-21. Stribling, H.L., M.S. Wallace, and H.A. Clonts, Jr. 1989. Hunting is Big Business in Alabama. Highl. Agric. Res. 36 pp. Taylor, J.P., and L.M. Smith. 2003. Chufa management in the middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 31(1):156-162. Taylor, J.P., and L.M. Smith. 2005. Migratory bird use of belowground foods in moist- soil managed wetlands in the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico. Wildl Soc. Bull. 33(2):574-582. Taylorson, R.B. 1967. Seasonal variation in sprouting and available carbohydrates in yellow nutsedge tubers. Weeds. 15:22-24. Thullen, R.J., and P.E. Keeley. 1975. Yellow nutsedge sprouting and resprouting potential. Weed Sci. 23:333-337. Thullen, R.J., and P.E. Keeley. 1980. Competition between yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) and Japanese millet (Echinochloa crus-galli var. frumentacea). Weed Sci. 28:24-26 Troeh,F.R., J.A. Hobbs, and R.L. Donahue. 2004. Soil and Water Conservation for Productivity and Environmental Protection. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey. Tumbleson, M., and R. Kommedahl. 1961. Reproductive potential of Cyperus esculantus by tubers. Weeds. 9:646-653. 143 U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2006 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. Ullrey, D.E. 1981. Nutrition and antler development in white-tailed deer. P. 49-60 in R. Brown, ed., Antler development in Cervidae. Caesar Kleberg Wildl. Res. Inst., Kingsville, Texas. Ullrey, D.E., W.G. Youatt, H.E. Johnson, A.D. Cowan, L.D. Fay, R.L. Covert, W.T. Magee, and K.K. Keahey. 1975. Phosphorus requirements of weaned white-tailed deer fawns. J. Wildl. Manage. 39:590-595. Ullrey, D.E., W.G. Youatt, H.E. Johnson, L.D. Fay, and B.L. Bradley. 1967. Protein requirements of weaned white-tailed deer fawns. J. Wildl. Manage. 31:679-685. Uri, N.D., 1999. Conservation Tillage in U.S. Agriculture: Environmental, Economic, and Political Issues. Food Products Press. Binghamton, New York. van Bavel, C.H., R. Lascow, and D.R. Wilson. 1978. Water relations of fritted clay. Proc. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. 42:647-659. Van Soest, P.J., 1994. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant. 2nd ed. Cornell Univ. Press. Ithaca, New York. Van Soest, P.J., and R.H. Wine. 1968. Determination of lignin and cellulose in acid- detergent fiber with permanganate. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 51:780-785. Waer,N.A. 1992. Production, Nutritional Quality, Utilization, and White-Tailed Deer Preference of Selected Forage Plantings. M.S. Thesis. Auburn University, Alabama. 144 Waer,N.A., H.L. Stribling, and M.K. Causey. 1992. Production and Nutritional Quality of Selected Plantings for White-tailed Deer. Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies. 46:274-286. Watt, P.G., G.L. Miller, and R.J. Robel. 1967. Food Habits of White-Tailed Deer in Northeastern Kansas. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 70(2):223-240. Webb, L.G., 1963. Utilization of domestic forage crops by deer and wild turkey with notes on insects inhabiting the crop. Proc. Ann. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 17: 92-99. Wiese, A.F., 1985. Weed Control in Limited Tillage Systems. Monograph Series of the Weed Sci. Soc. Amer. Champaign, Illinois. Williams, W.M., H.A. Ansari, N.W. Ellison, and S.W. Hussain. 2001. Evidence of Three Subspecies in Trifolium nigrescens Viv. Ann. Bot. 87: 683-691. Wills, G.D. 1987. Description of purple and yellow nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus and C. esculentus L.). Weed Technol. 1:2-9. Yarrow, G.K., and D.T. Yarrow. 2005. Managing Wildlife: on private lands in Alabama and the Southeast. Alabama Wildlife Federation. Sweetwater Press. Montgomery, Alabama. Zohary, D. 1986. The origin and early spread of agriculture in the Old World. P. 3-20 in C. Barigozzi, editor. The origin and domestication of cultivated plants. Elsevier, Amsterdam.