Growth dynamics and agronomic-economic benefits of pea–oat and pea–barley intercrops

Article

<< Previous

Next >>

Contents Vol 63(1)

doi:10.1071/CP11181

Plant Sciences, Sustainable Farming Systems & Food Quality

	Search




	Advanced Search



	Journal Home

	About the Journal

	New Editor-in-Chief

	Editorial Board

	Contacts



	Content

	Online Early

	Current Issue

	Just Accepted

	All Issues

	Special Issues

	Research Fronts

	Farrer Reviews

	Sample Issue



	For Authors

	General Information

	Notice to Authors

	Submit Article

	Open Access



	For Referees

	Referee Guidelines

	Review Article

	Annual Referee Index



	For Subscribers

	Subscription Prices

	Customer Service

	Print Publication Dates

e-Alerts

Subscribe to our Email Alert or

feeds for the latest journal papers.

Connect with us

Farrer Reviews

Invited Farrer Review Series. More...

PrometheusWiki

Protocols in ecological and environmental plant physiology

Growth dynamics and agronomic-economic benefits of pea–oat and pea–barley intercrops

Christos A. Dordas ^A ^D , Dimitrios N. Vlachostergios ^B and Anastasios S. Lithourgidis ^C

^A Labaratory of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece.
^B National Agricultural Research Foundation (N.AG.RE.F.), Fodder Crops and Pastures Institute, 413 35 Larissa, Greece.
^C Department of Agronomy, Aristotle University Farm of Thessaloniki, 570 01 Thermi, Greece.
^D Corresponding author. Email: chdordas@agro.auth.gr

Crop and Pasture Science 63(1) 45-52 http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/CP11181
Submitted: 15 July 2011 Accepted: 3 February 2012 Published: 7 March 2012





	Full Text



	PDF (279 KB)



	Export Citation

Print

Abstract

Pea (Pisum arvense L.) is an important legume in many areas of the world, which is used for forage and grain production and could be used in intercropping systems. Intercropping of pea with oat (Avena sativa L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), in two seeding ratios 60 : 40 and 80 : 20, was compared with pea and two cereal monocrops for two growing seasons (2008–10), at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. The effect of the intercropping systems was determined on growth rate, plant height, chlorophyll content, DM, and N yield. Also, several competition and economic indices were used to evaluate the intercropping systems, such as land equivalent ratio (LER), relative crowding coefficient (K), aggressivity (A), competitive ratio (CR), actual yield loss (AYL), system productivity index (SPI), monetary advantage index (MAI), and intercropping advantage (IA). Growth rate of pea and cereals was lower by an average of 39 and 64%, respectively, in the intercrops than in the monocrops. DM yield was the highest in barley monocrop (13.00 Mg ha^–1) followed by P₈₀O₂₀ intercrop (11.73 Mg ha^–1). Pea monocrop, and P₈₀O₂₀ and P₈₀B₂₀ intercrops showed the highest crude protein (CP) concentration (137, 132 and 130 g kg^–1 DM, respectively), whereas P₈₀O₂₀ intercrop also produced the highest CP yield (1552 kg ha^–1). The LER, K, and AYL values (average 1.09, 1.75 and 0.29, respectively), were greater for both pea-oat intercrops compared with the pea-barley intercrops (average 0.98, 0.92 and 0.06, respectively), indicating that in these systems there was an advantage of intercropping for exploiting the resources of the environment. The A, CR, and partial AYL values in all intercrops were greater for oat and barley than pea, which indicated that cereals were more competitive partners than pea. The highest MAI, IA, and SPI values were recorded for P₈₀O₂₀ followed by P₆₀O₄₀ intercrops indicating that these intercropping systems were the most profitable. The results from this study showed that both pea-oat intercrops were more productive with high CP yield, and also they showed the best land-use efficiency.

Additional keywords: aggressivity, competition, forage, intercropping advantage, LER, monetary advantage.

References

Agegnehu G, Ghizaw A, Sinebo W (2006) Yield performance and land-use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. European Journal of Agronomy 25, 202–207.
| CrossRef |

Banik P, Sasmal T, Ghosal PK, Bagchi DK (2000) Evaluation of mustard (Brassica campestris var. Toria) and legume intercropping under 1 : 1 and 2 : 1 row-replacement series systems. Journal of Agronomy & Crop Science 185, 9–14.
| CrossRef |

Bedoussac L, Justes E (2010) Dynamic analysis of competition and complementarity for light and N use to understand the yield and the protein content of a durum wheat–winter pea intercrop. Plant and Soil 330, 37–54.
| CrossRef | CAS |

Caballero R, Goicoechea EL, Hernaiz PJ (1995) Forage yields and quality of common vetch and oat sown at varying seeding ratios and seeding rates of common vetch. Field Crops Research 41, 135–140.
| CrossRef |

Carr PM, Martin GB, Caton JS, Poland WW (1998) Forage and nitrogen yield of barley–pea and oat–pea intercrops. Agronomy Journal 90, 79–84.
| CrossRef |

Carr PM, Horsley RD, Poland WW (2004) Barley, oat, and cereal–pea mixtures as dryland forages in the Northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 96, 677–684.
| CrossRef |

Chen C, Westcott M, Neill K, Wichman D, Knox M (2004) Row configuration and nitrogen application for barley–pea intercropping in Montana. Agronomy Journal 96, 1730–1738.
| CrossRef |

Corre-Hellou G, Crozat Y (2005) Assessment of root system dynamics of species grown in mixtures under field conditions using herbicide injection and ¹⁵N natural abundance methods: a case study with pea, barley and mustard. Plant and Soil 276, 177–192.
| CrossRef | CAS |

Corre-Hellou G, Faure M, Launay M, Brisson N, Crozat Y (2009) Adaptation of the STICS intercrop model to simulate crop growth and N accumulation in pea–barley intercrops. Field Crops Research 113, 72–81.
| CrossRef |

Dhima KV, Lithourgidis AS, Vasilakoglou IB, Dordas CA (2007) Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100, 249–256.
| CrossRef |

Dordas CA, Lithourgidis AS (2011) Growth yield and nitrogen performance of faba bean intercrops with oat and triticale at varying seeding ratios. Grass and Forage Science 66, 569–577.
| CrossRef | CAS |

Dordas CA, Lithourgidis AS, Matsi TH, Barbayiannis N (2008) Application of liquid cattle manure and inorganic fertilizers affect dry matter, nitrogen accumulation, and partitioning in maize. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 80, 283–296.
| CrossRef |

Fageria NK, Baligar VC (2005) Enhancing nitrogen use efficiency in crop plants. Advances in Agronomy 88, 97–185.
| CrossRef | CAS |

Ghosh PK (2004) Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops Research 88, 227–237.
| CrossRef |

Hair J, Anderson R, Tatham R, Black W (1995) ‘Multivariate data analysis with readings.’ (Prentice-Hall International, Inc.: New Jersey)

Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Ambus P, Jensen ES (2001) Interspecific competition, N use and interference with weeds in pea–barley intercropping. Field Crops Research 70, 101–109.
| CrossRef |

Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Ambus P, Jensen ES (2003) The comparison of nitrogen use and leaching in monocropped versus intercropped pea and barley. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 65, 289–300.
| CrossRef | CAS |

Izaurralde RC, Juma NG, McGill WB (1990) Plant and nitrogen yield of barley-field pea intercrop in cryoboreal-subhumid central Alberta. Agronomy Journal 82, 295–301.
| CrossRef |

Jensen ES (1996) Grain yield, symbiotic N₂-fixation and interspecific competition for inorganic N in pea–barley intercrops. Plant and Soil 182, 25–38.
| CrossRef | CAS |

Karlidag H, Yildirim E (2007) The effects of nitrogen fertilization on intercropped strawberry and broad bean. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 29, 61–74.
| CrossRef |

Li L, Sun J, Zhang F, Guo T, Bao X, Smith FA, Smith SE (2006) Root distribution and interactions between intercropped species. Oecologia 147, 280–290.
| CrossRef |

Lithourgidis AS, Dordas CA (2010) Forage yield, growth rate and nitrogen uptake of wheat, barley and rye-faba bean intercrops in three seeding ratios. Crop Science 50, 2148–2158.
| CrossRef | CAS |

Lithourgidis AS, Dhima KV, Vasilakoglou IB, Dordas CA, Yiakoulaki MD (2007) Sustainable production of barley and wheat by intercropping common vetch. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 27, 95–99.
| CrossRef | CAS |

Lithourgidis AS, Dordas CA, Damalas CA, Vlachostergios DN (2011a) Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5, 396–410.

Lithourgidis AS, Vlachostergios DN, Dordas CA, Damalas CA (2011b) Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea–cereal intercropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy 34, 287–294.
| CrossRef |

López-Bellido RJ, López-Bellido L (2001) Efficiency of nitrogen in wheat under Mediterranean conditions: effect of tillage, crop rotation and N fertilization. Field Crops Research 71, 31–46.
| CrossRef |

Mariotti M, Masoni A, Ercoli L, Arduini I (2009) Above- and below-ground competition between barley, wheat, lupin and vetch in a cereal and legume intercropping system. Grass and Forage Science 64, 401–412.
| CrossRef |

Mead R, Willey RW (1980) The concept of a land equivalent ratio and advantages in yields for intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 16, 217–228.
| CrossRef |

Odo PE (1991) Evaluation of short and tall sorghum varieties in mixture with cowpea in the Sudan savanna of Nigeria. Land equivalent ratio, grain yield and system productivity index. Experimental Agriculture 27, 435–441.
| CrossRef |

Steel RGD, Torrie JH, Dickey DA (1997) ‘Principles and procedures of statistics: a biometrical approach.’ 2nd edn. (McGraw-Hill: New York)

Stern WR (1993) Nitrogen fixation and transfer in intercrop systems. Field Crops Research 34, 335–356.
| CrossRef |

Vasilakoglou I, Dhima K, Lithourgidis A, Eleftherohorinos I (2008) Competitive ability of winter cereal-common vetch intercrops against sterile oat. Experimental Agriculture 44, 509–520.
| CrossRef |

Willey RW, Rao MR (1980) A competitive ratio for quantifying competition between intercrops. Experimental Agriculture 16, 117–125.
| CrossRef |

Legal & Privacy | Contact Us | Help