Structure of weed communities occurring in monoculture and intercropping of field pea and barley

Poggio, Santiago L.

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.019

Cited by 133 publications

(102 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, a study of chickpea and wheat intercrops in India found significant weed suppression as compared with the monocrops, and this resulted in higher net income and more efficient resource use in the intercrop system despite the need Biotic interactions in agroecosystems C. Shennan 723 for some hand weeding (Banik et al 2006). In a barleypea intercrop study, the weed community in the intercrop was similar, but more stable than in the barley monoculture and than the pea monocrop that was less suppressive and had highly variable weed communities (Poggio 2005). Work with vegetable intercrops has demonstrated increased weed suppression, but maintaining crop quality (often related to size) is also critical (Baumann et al 2001(Baumann et al , 2002a.…”

Section: Intercropping and Residue Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge and agriculture

Shennan

2007

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

175

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper discusses biotic interactions in agroecosystems and how they may be manipulated to support crop productivity and environmental health by provision of ecosystem services such as weed, pest and disease management, nutrient cycling and biodiversity conservation. Important elements for understanding biotic interactions include consideration of the effects of diversity, species composition and food web structure on ecosystem processes; the impacts of timing, frequency and intensity of disturbance; and the importance of multitrophic interactions. All of these elements need to be considered at multiple scales that depend in part on the range of the movement of the organisms involved. These issues are first discussed in general, followed by an examination of the application of these concepts in agricultural management. The potential for a greater use of ecological management approaches is high; however, owing to the nature of complex interactions in ecosystems, there is some inherent unpredictability about responses to management interventions under different conditions. Such uncertainty needs to be accommodated in the development of recommendations for farm management. This requires an increased emphasis on the effective synthesis of complex and often apparently contradictory information and on field-based adaptive research, monitoring and social learning by farmer/researcher collaborations.

show abstract

Section: Intercropping and Residue Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge and agriculture

Shennan

2007

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

175

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9; Anil et al 1998). These mechanisms for acquisition/interception which are intimately linked and dependent on the temporal and spatial growth dynamics of the shoot and root system (Dreccer et al 2000) could therefore explain both the intercrop yield gains and weed reduction (Poggio 2005;Banik et al 2006). It is important to bear in mind that an intercropped cereal is a valuable component to improve competitive ability towards weeds and also providing a physical support to reduce pea lodging.…”

Section: Intercropping Reduce Weeds Compared To the Sole Cropped Legumesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the absence of limiting abiotic and biotic factors such as water, nutrients, pests, diseases and weeds, the crop dry matter yield depends mainly on the absorbed radiation (Loomis and Williams 1963) under both the sole crop (Shibles and Weber 1966;Monteith 1977;Kiniry et al 1989) and the intercrop growing conditions Willey 1980a, 1980b;Sivakumar and Virmani 1980;1984). Species differences and interspecific complementarities could allow a better dynamic occupation of the spacewhen crops differ in their shoot architecture-and time-when crop life cycles differs (Trenbath 1986;Tsubo et al 2001;Tsubo and Walker 2002;Poggio 2005). Then, intercrops could allow an increase in light interception throughout the growth of the intercrop and be more efficient than sole crops for light use (Jahansooz et al 2007; Bedoussac and Justes 2010b) allowing higher biomass and yield production of the whole intercrop compared to the sole crops.…”

Section: Improved Light Interceptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological principles underlying the increase of productivity achieved by cereal-grain legume intercrops in organic farming. A review

Bedoussac¹,

Journet

Hauggaard-Nielsen

et al. 2015

Agron. Sustain. Dev.

516

460

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

World population is projected to reach over nine billion by the year 2050, and ensuring food security while mitigating environmental impacts represents a major agricultural challenge. Thus, higher productivity must be reached through sustainable production by taking into account climate change, resources rarefaction like phosphorus and water, and losses of fertile lands. Enhancing crop diversity is increasingly recognized as a crucial lever for sustainable agro-ecological development. Growing legumes, a major biological nitrogen source, is also a powerful option to reduce synthetic nitrogen fertilizers use and associated fossil energy consumption. Organic farming, which does not allow the use of chemical, is also regarded as one prototype to enhance the sustainability of modern agriculture while decreasing environmental impacts. Here, we review the potential advantages of eco-functional intensification in organic farming by intercropping cereal and grain legume species sown and harvested together. Our review is based on a literature analysis reinforced with integration of an original dataset of 58 field experiments conducted since 2001 in contrasted pedo-climatic European conditions in order to generalize the findings and draw up common guidelines. The major points are that intercropping lead to: (i) higher and more stable grain yield than the mean sole crops (0.33 versus 0.27 kg m −2 ), (ii) higher cereal protein concentration than in sole crop (11.1 versus 9.8 %), (iii) higher and more stable gross margin than the mean sole crops (702 versus 577€ha −1 ) and (iv) improved use of abiotic resources according to species complementarities for light interception and use of both soil mineral nitrogen and atmospheric N 2 . Intercropping is particularly suited for low-nitrogen availability systems but further mechanistic understanding is required to propose generic crop management procedures. Also, development of this practice must be achieved with the collaboration of value chain actors such as breeders to select cultivars suited to intercropping.

show abstract

“…The main principle of better resource use in intercropping is that if crops differ in the way they utilize environmental resources when grown together, they can complement each other and make better combined use of resources than when they grown separately (Ghanbari-Bonjar, 2000). Weed suppression in intercropping through more efficient use of environmental resources by component crops has been reported (Liebman and Dyck, 1993;Mashingaizde et al, 2000;Mashingaizde, 2004;Poggio, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intercropping generate beneficial biological interactions between crops, increasing grain yield and stability, more efficient using available resources and reducing weed pressure ( Jenson et al, 2006;Kadziuliene et al, 2009). Many authors indicate the limiting effect of intercropping on the number and biomass of weeds (Amanullah et al, 2006;Banik et al, 2006;Carruthers et al, 1998;Gharineh and Moosavi, 2010;Poggio, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weed Control in Maize-Cowpea Intercropping System Related to Environmental Resources Consumption

Eskandari¹,

Kazemi

2011

Not Sci Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A field experiment was carried out in Ramhormoz, Iran during the 2008-2009 growing season to investigate the effects of different planting pattern of intercropping on environmental resource consumption and weed biomass. A randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three replications was employed to compare the treatments. Treatments included maize sole crop (M), cow pea sole crop (C), within row intercropping (I 1 ), row intercropping (I 2 ) and mix cropping (I 3 ). The density of intercropping was according to replacement design (one maize replaced by three cow pea plants). The results showed that environmental resource consumption was significantly (P≤0.05) affected by cropping system, where PAR interception, moisture and nutrients uptake were higher in intercropping systems compared to sole crop systems. Regarding to weed control, intercrops were more effective than sole crops and it was related to lower availability of environmental resources for weeds in intercropping systems.

show abstract

Structure of weed communities occurring in monoculture and intercropping of field pea and barley

Cited by 133 publications

References 36 publications

Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge and agriculture

Biotic interactions, ecological knowledge and agriculture

Ecological principles underlying the increase of productivity achieved by cereal-grain legume intercrops in organic farming. A review

Weed Control in Maize-Cowpea Intercropping System Related to Environmental Resources Consumption

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About