Row Configuration and Nitrogen Application for Barley–Pea Intercropping in Montana

Abstract

1960; Walton, 1975; Carr et al., 1998; Chapko et al., 1991). Robinson (1960) reported that pea improved oat (Avena Intercropping barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) with Austrian winter sativa L.) forage yield. In a 2-yr pea-barley and pea-oat pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L. Poir) may increase the use efficienintercropping study, Carr et al. (1998) found that total cies of growth resources and reduce fertilizer N requirements. The forage yield was unaffected by intercropping when the objectives of this study were to determine (i) row configuration and (ii) fertilizer N effects on yield, protein content, and the land equiva-cereal crop was sown at a rate equal to or greater than lent ratio (LER) of barley-pea intercropping systems. A 3-yr barleythe sole crop seeding rate. However, less forage was pea intercropping study was conducted at the Western and Central produced when the cereal component was sown at half Agricultural Research Centers (WARC and CARC) of Montana State the sole crop seeding rate. They also found that the University from 2000 to 2002 with three row configurations (4 rows intercropping forage yield was unaffected by the pea barley ϫ 4 rows pea, 2 rows barley ϫ 2 rows pea, and barley-pea mixed seeding rate. In other studies, forage and grain yield of within rows) and three N application treatments (0, 67, and 134 kg legumes were suppressed by cereal components (Ofori N ha Ϫ1 ). Barley biomass production increased 41% at WARC and and Stern, 1987; Hauggaard-Nielsen and Jensen, 2001; CARC, whereas pea biomass production decreased 34% at WARC Hauggaard-Nielsen et al., 2001). Seeding rates for comand 46% at CARC with the row configuration changing from the 4 ϫ 4 ponent crops in cereal-pea mixtures are commonly less to the mixed configuration. The LER ranged from 1.05 to 1.24 on a biomass basis and from 1.05 to 1.26 on a protein basis, indicating a than when either the cereal crop or pea is sown alone production advantage of intercropping. Barley is a more competitive (Carter and Larson, 1964; Droushiotis, 1989). component than pea. Separated row arrangements are advantageous The efficiency of an intercropping system can be evalwhere the desired outcome is a greater pea component in the harvested uated by the land equivalent ratio (LER), defined as forage, but the mixed arrangement has a greater total biomass yield the total area required under sole cropping to produce and LER. Fertilizer N increased total biomass yield and protein level the equivalent yields obtained under intercropping (De in barley-pea intercrops, but high N rates could decrease the LER Wit and Van Den Bergh, 1965; Willey, 1979; Mohta and and result in toxic levels of nitrate in the forage. De, 1980). It is expressed as:

Intercropping Barley (Hordeum vulgar L.) and Lentil (Lens culinaris L.): Yield and Intercropping Advantages

“…Minimum economical yield for lentil (15.3 g/m 2 ) was recorded in plots of sole lentil (Table 3) ) was recorded in plots where 2 rows B + 4 rows L but Maximum biological yield for barley (626.4 g/m 2 ) was recorded in plots where 3 rows B + 3 rows L were sown. Chen et al (2004) found that, under low fertility conditions, a 50:50 mixture of barley and pea yielded as well as pure stands of barley that agree by this results. Maximum weight of 1000 seed for lentil (15.1 g) was recorded in plots where 2 rows B + 4 rows L were sown but the maximum weight of 1000 seed for barley (38.9 g) was recorded in plots where 4 rows B + 2 rows L were sown.…”

Evaluation of Yield and Competition Indices for Intercropped Eight Maize Varieties, Soybean and Cowpea in the Zone of Savanna of South-West RD Congo

“…In these cases, total LER was significantly different (P < 0.01) and values were higher than one showing the advantage of intercropping over sole stands in regard to the use of environmental sources for plant growth [32]. Similar results were reported for mix-proportions of pea-barley [19], bean-wheat [10], and maize-faba bean [43]. Partial LER values also showed that, compared to soybean, cowpea appears to have more beneficial land use efficiency in all mixtures.…”

“…On the other hand, all partial LER of cowpea was lower than 0.5 except intercrops with 07SADVE, Samaru and VP0538 which indicates that there was a disadvantage for cowpea. The partial LER of soybean were higher than 0.5 for all intercrops which indicates that there was an advantage for soybean [19], except intercrops with 07SADVE and Samaru. LER showed the positive influences on growth and yield of maize and legumes intercrops (LER > 1) in maize-soybean intercrops with the greater for 08SADVE 1-soybean (1.66).…”

“…Intercropping of cereals with legumes has been popular in tropics [10] [11] and rain-fed areas of the world [12] [13] [14] [15] due to its advantages for soil conservation [16], weed control [17] [18], lodging resistance, yield increase [16] [ 19], and legume root parasite infections control [20].…”

Evaluation of Australian wheat genotypes for response to variable nitrogen application

“…To meet this challenge, we need a detailed understanding of available genetic variation in N response, using field and controlled environment approaches to assess the responsiveness of genotypes to supplied N, and dissection of N metabolic pathways. However, NUE and N response are complex traits which show inconsistent trends across years and sites (Hirel et al 2001;Chen et al 2004;Brennan et al 2014). Accordingly, the integration of agronomic, physiological and molecular data will be important for selection of the best genotypes with high NUE in specific environments (Hirel et al 2007;Pathak et al 2008;Sylvester-Bradley and Kindred 2009).…”