Competitive Ability in Mixtures of Small Grain Cereals

Abstract

1990; Jedel et al., 1998), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) mixtures (Khalifa and Qualset, 1974; Tapaswi et al., Morphological and physiological differences in competitive ability 1991), and barley-oat mixtures (Taylor, 1978; Fejer et among species and genotypes can affect the growth, development, and subsequent composition and value of feedstuffs produced from al., 1982). Change in the composition of mixtures means small grain cereal mixtures. Our objective was determine the final that for specific uses they may need to be reconstituted grain yields of the components of mixtures and compare these yields on a regular basis. The change is attributed to differwith those expected based on the yields of the monocrops. Three ences in competitive ability between genotypes. field studies were conducted to evaluate the productivity of barley Blijenberg and Sneep (1975) found that competitive (Hordeum vulgare L.), oat (Avena sativa L.), triticale (ϫ Triticosecale ability of seven of eight cultivars of barley was related rimpaui Wittm.), and rye (Secale cereale L.) grown as monocrops to their yielding ability in monocultures. For triticale and mixtures. Seeding rates ranging from 250 seeds m Ϫ2 to 750 seeds mixtures, Mergoum et al. (1998) found that the compom Ϫ2 were evaluated to determine their effect on competitive ability nent with the best "mixing ability" or contribution to of genotypes and species of small grains. Differences in competitive grain yield of the mixture was the highest-yielding tritiability were found. The semi-dwarf barley 'Kasota' was less competitive than the standard-height 'AC Lacombe' and 'Seebe'. 'Noble'cale advanced line in their test. However, Jokinen barley was more competitive than 'AC Mustang' oat or 'Wapiti' triti- (1991a, 1991b) and Jedel et al. (1998) found that competcale. 'Prima' winter rye was more competitive than 'Pika' winter itive ability in barley was not related to yield potential triticale. Relative grain yields were generally not different than 1.0 of the monocrops. Valentine (1982) found that a barley g g Ϫ1 , but when significantly different they were usually higher than genotype with erect growth habit had the competitive one, indicating that the yields of those mixtures were better than edge over a prostrate, short genotype. Jedel et al. (1998) expected based on yields when the cultivars were grown as pure found that for barley, the tallest cultivar in mixtures stands. Seeding rates had little effect on competitive ability. The was dominant in four of six location-years. However, specific factors that lead to better than expected grain yields of mixheight alone did not explain competitive ability, as the tures and to good competitive ability of cultivars and species are semi-dwarf cultivar was also highly competitive. Comdifficult to predict and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Competition and Productivity in Mixture of Oats and Wheat

“…More intense competition caused by increasing seeding rates did not greatly affect RY of the species or their relative competitive abilities. These data agree with findings of Juskiw et al. (2000) for binary substitutive mixtures of spring barley, oats and triticale grown under a wide range of seeding rates.…”

Suitability of intercropping of sesame with Mukhikachu

“…The results revealed that LER>1.00 in intercropping rendered better productivity than their sole stand. The results are in agreement with the findings of Juskiw et al (2000), Hashem et al (1990), Hossain and Bari, (1996) and Quayyum et al (1987).…”

On-farm study on intercropping of hybrid maize with short duration vegetables

“…Greater value of relative yield showed more competitive ability in intercrop situation compared to its monoculture (Juskiw et al, 2000). The relative yields of maize were 0.97, 0.95, and 0.95 when maize was intercropped with red amaranth, bush bean and garden pea, respectively (Table 2).…”