Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-23T23:00:44.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

FORAGE YIELD, PROTEIN CONCENTRATION AND INTERSPECIFIC COMPETITION IN RED PEA-CEREAL INTERCROPS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2015

D. N. VLACHOSTERGIOS ,
C. A. DORDAS  and
A. S. LITHOURGIDIS
D. N. VLACHOSTERGIOS*
Affiliation:
Hellenic Agricultural Organization – Demeter, Fodder Crops and Pastures Institute 413 35 Larissa, Greece
C. A. DORDAS
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece
A. S. LITHOURGIDIS
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Aristotle University Farm of Thessaloniki, 570 01 Thermi, Greece
*
‡Corresponding author. Email: vlahostergios@mycosmos.gr; Contact address: Hellenic Agricultural Organization – Demeter, Fodder Crops and Pastures Institute 413 35 Larissa, Greece.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Red pea (Lathyrus cicera L.) is an underutilized protein crop with broad adaptability. Intercrops of red pea with winter cereals have not been studied. A two years field study was conducted with the objective to determine the productivity of intercropping systems of red pea with barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and triticale (xTriticosecale Wittmack) in two seeding ratios (60:40 and 80:20). Growth rate, dry matter yield, protein content and yield were determined. Several indices were used to evaluate the intercropping systems and analyse competition and interrelationships between mixture components. Growth rate of cereals was lower in the mixtures than in the monocrops. Dry matter yield were the highest in barley monocrop and its intercrop with red pea at 60:40 seeding ratio. Red pea monocrop showed the highest crude protein concentration followed by its intercrops. The land equivalent ratio, relative crowding coefficient (K), actual yield loss (AYL) and system productivity index values were greater for the red pea-barley 60:40 mixture, indicating an advantage of intercropping. The partial K, aggressivity, competitive ratio and partial AYL values indicated red pea as the dominated species in the intercrops. The highest monetary advantage value was recorded for the red pea-barley mixture (60:40). The results indicate that red pea-barley mixture (60:40) was the most productive and produced better forage quality and thus could be adopted by the farmers as alternative option for forage production.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 51 , Issue 4 , October 2015 , pp. 635 - 650
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Agegnehu, G., Ghizaw, A. and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Assefa, G. and Ledin, I. (2001). Effect of variety, soil type and fertilizer on the establishment, growth, forage yield, quality and voluntary intake by cattle of oats and vetches cultivated in pure stands and mixtures. Animal Feed Science and Technology 92:95–111.Google Scholar
Banik, P., Midya, A., Sarkar, B. K. and Ghose, S. S. (2006). Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: Advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy 24:325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banik, P., Sasmal, T., Ghosal, P. K. and Bagchi, D. K. (2000). Evaluation of mustard (Brassica campestris var. Toria) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row-replacement series systems. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 185:9–14.Google Scholar
Berkenkamp, B. and Meeres, , , J. (1987). Mixtures of annual crops for forage in central Alberta. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 67:175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caballero, R., Goicoechea, E. L. and Hernaiz, P. J. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corre-Hellou, G. and Crozat, Y. (2005). Assessment of root system dynamics of species grown in mixtures under field conditions using herbicide injection and N-15 natural abundance methods: a case study with pea, barley and mustard. Plant and Soil 276:177–192.Google Scholar
Dordas, C. A. and Lithourgidis, A. S. (2012). Growth, yield and nitrogen performance of faba bean intercrops with oat and triticale at varying seeding ratios. Grass and Forage Science 66:569–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dordas, C. A., Vlachostergios, D. N. and Lithourgidis, A. S. (2012). Growth dynamics and agronomic-economic benefits of pea-oat and pea-barley intercrops. Crop and Pasture Science 63:45–52.Google Scholar
Fageria, N. K. and Baligar, V. C. (2005). Enhancing nitrogen use efficiency in crop plants. Advances in Agronomy 88:97–185.Google Scholar
Finlayson, J. D., Lawes, R. A., Metcalf, T., Robertson, M. J. and Ferris, D., Ewing, M. A. (2012). A bio-economic evaluation of the profitability of adopting subtropical grasses and pasture-cropping on crop–livestock farms. Agricultural Systems 106:102–112.Google Scholar
Getahun, H., Lambein, F., Vanhoorne, M. and Vander Stuyft, P. (2003). Food-aid to reduce neurolathyrism related to grass-pea preparations during famine. Lancet 362:1808–1810.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ghosh, P. K. (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.Google Scholar
Ghosh, P. K., Bandyopadhyay, K. K., Wanjari, R. H., Manna, M. C., Misra, A. K., Mohanty, M. and Subba Rao, Α. (2007). Legume effect for enhancing productivity and nutrient use-efficiency in major cropping systems–an Indian perspective: A review. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 30:59–86.Google Scholar
Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall International, Inc.Google Scholar
Hanbury, C. D., White, C. L., Mullan, B. P. and Siddique, K. H. M. (2000). A review of the potential of Lathyrus sativus L. and L. cicera L. grain for use as animal feed. Animal Feed Science and Technology 87:1–27.Google Scholar
Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Gooding, M., Ambus, P., Corre-Hellou, G., Crozat, Y., Dahlmann, C., Dibet, A., Von Fragstein, P., Pristeri, A., Monti, M. and Jensen, E. S. (2009). Pea–barley intercropping and short-term subsequent crop effects across European organic cropping conditions. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 85:141–155.Google Scholar
Heidari, S., Azizi, K., Mofrad, A. D. and Ahmadi, A. (2011). Study of quantitative and qualitative traits of triticale (X. triticosecale Wittmack) and rough pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) in sole and mixed cropping in dry farming conditions of Iran. Research on Crops 12 (2):312–319.Google Scholar
Izaurralde, R. C., Juma, N. G. and McGill, W. B. (1990). Plant and nitrogen yield of barley-field pea intercrop in cryoboreal-subhumid central Alberta. Agronomy Journal, 82:295–301.Google Scholar
Jensen, E. S. (1996). Grain yield, symbiotic N2-fixation and interspecific competition for inorganic N in pea–barley intercrops. Plant and Soil 182:25–38.Google Scholar
Karadag, Y. and Buyukburc, U. (2004). Forage qualities, forage yields and seed yields of some legume-triticale mixtures under rainfed conditions. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B-Soil & Plant Science 54:140–148.Google Scholar
Larbi, A. M. A., El-Moneim, H., Nakkoul, J. B. and Hassan, S. (2010). Intra-species variations in yield and quality in Lathyrus species: 2. Dwarf chickling (L. cicera L.). Animal Feed Science and Technology 161:19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, L., Sun, J., Zhang, F., Guo, T., Bao, X., Smith, F. A. and Smith, S. E. (2006). Root distribution and interactions between intercropped species. Oecologia 147:280–290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lithourgidis, A. S. and Dordas, C. A. (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.Google Scholar
Lithourgidis, A. S., Dhima, K. V., Vasilakoglou, I. B., Dordas, C. A. and Yiakoulaki, M. D. (2007). Sustainable production of barley and wheat by intercropping common vetch. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 27:95–99.Google Scholar
Lithourgidis, A. S., Dordas, C. A., Damalas, C. A. and Vlachostergios, D. N. (2011a). Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal Crop Science 5 (4):396–410.Google Scholar
Lithourgidis, A. S., Vasilakoglou, I. B., Dhima, K. V., Dordas, C. A. and Yiakoulaki, M. D. (2006). Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios. Field Crops Research 99:106–113.Google Scholar
Lithourgidis, A. S., Vlachostergios, D. N., Dordas, C. A. and Damalas, C. A. (2011b). Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea-cereal intercropping systems. European Journal Agronomy 34:287–294.Google Scholar
López-Bellido, R. J. and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malézieux, E., Crozat, Y., Dupraz, C., Laurans, M., Makowski, D., Ozier-Lafontaine, H., Rapidel, B., de Tourdonnet, S. and Valantin-Morison, M. (2009). Mixing plant species in cropping systems: Concepts, tools and models. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29:43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, R. and Willey, R. W. (1980). The concept of a land equivalent ratio and advantages in yields for intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 16:217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Midya, A., Bhattacharjee, K., Ghose, S. S. and Banik, P. (2005). Deferred seeding of blackgram (Phaseolus mungo L.) in rice (Oryza sativa L.) field on yield advantages and smothering of weeds. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 191:195–201.Google Scholar
MSTAT-C. (1988). A Microcomputer Program for the Design, Management, and Analysis of Agronomic Research Experiments. Crop and Soil Sciences Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Odo, P. E. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osman, A. E. and Nersoyan, N. (1986). Effect of the proportion of species on the yield and quality of forage mixtures, and on the yield of barley in the following year. Experimental Agriculture 22:345–351.Google Scholar
Patto, M., Skiba, B., Pang, E., Ochatt, S., Lambein, F. and Rubiales, D. (2006). Lathyrus improvement for resistance against biotic and abiotic stresses: From classical breeding to marker-assisted selection. Euphytica 147:133–147.Google Scholar
Santalla, M., Casquero, P. A. and de Ron, A. M. (1999). Yield and yield components from intercropping improved bush bean cultivars with maize. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science-Zeitschrift Fur Acker Und Pflanzenbau 183 (4):263–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spencer, P. S., Ludolph, A., Dawivedi, M. P., Roy, D. M. N., Hugon, J. and Shamburg, H. H. (1986). Evidence for role of the neuroexcitatory amino acid BOAA. Lancet 2:1066–1067.Google Scholar
SPSS. (1998). SPSS Base 8.0 user's Guide and SPSS Applications Guide. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Steel, R. G. D., Torrie, J. H. and Dickey, D. A. (1997). Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach, 2nd edn. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Vandermeer, J. H. (1990). Intercropping. In Agroecology, 481–516 (Eds Caroll, C. R., Vandermeer, J. H. and Rosset, P. M.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Vasilakoglou, I., Dhima, K., Lithourgidis, A. and Eleftherohorinos, I. (2008). Competitive ability of winter cereal-common vetch intercrops against sterile oat. Experimental Agriculture 44:509–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, B. C., Xu, W. Z., Huang, J., Shan, L. and Li, F. M. (2011). Biomass production and relative competitiveness of a C-3 legume and a C-4 grass co-dominant in the semiarid Loess Plateau of China. Plant and Soil 347 (1–2):25–39.Google Scholar
Yolcu, H., Polat, M. and Aksakal, V. (2009). Morphologic, yield and quality parameters of same annual forages as sole crops and intercropping mixtures in dry conditions for livestock. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 7:594–599.Google Scholar