Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T15:07:27.187Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grain legume–cereal intercropping: The practical application of diversity, competition and facilitation in arable and organic cropping systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2008

Henrik Hauggaard-Nielsen ,
Bjarne Jørnsgaard ,
Julia Kinane  and
Erik Steen Jensen
Henrik Hauggaard-Nielsen*
Affiliation:
Biosystems Department, Risø National Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark.
Bjarne Jørnsgaard
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, DK-2630 Taastrup, Denmark.
Julia Kinane
Affiliation:
Biosystems Department, Risø National Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark.
Erik Steen Jensen
Affiliation:
Biosystems Department, Risø National Laboratory, Technical University of Denmark, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark.
*
*Corresponding author: henrik.hauggaard-nielsen@risoe.dk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intercropping is the simultaneous cultivation of more than one crop species on the same piece of land and is regarded as the practical application of basic ecological principles such as diversity, competition and facilitation. Field experiments were carried out on a sandy loam soil and a sandy soil in Denmark over three consecutive cropping seasons including dual grain legume (pea, faba bean and lupin)–barley intercropping as compared to the respective sole crops (SC). Yield stability of intercrops (IC) was not greater than that of grain legume SC, with the exception of the IC containing faba bean. Faba bean and lupin had lower yield stability than pea and fertilized barley. However, the different IC used environmental resources for plant growth up to 50% (LER=0.91–1.51) more effectively as compared to the respective SC, but with considerable variation over location, years and crops. The SC performance supported the interspecific interactions within the IC stand. On the sandy loam 13% greater grain yield of pea cv. Agadir (520 g m−2) was observed as compared to cv. Bohatyr. Faba bean and lupin yielded similarly (340 g m−2) in the sandy loam soil, with decreasing yields on the sandy soil (320–270 g m−2). Nitrogen fixation was very constant in grain legume SC over species and location, varying from 13.2 to 15.8 g N m−2, being lowest in peas and highest in faba bean and lupin. The intercropped grain legumes increased the proportion of plant N derived from N2-fixation by on average 10–15% compared to the corresponding SC. However, especially lupin was suppressed when intercropping, with a reduced N2-fixation from 15 to 5–6 g N m−2. The IC were particularly effective at suppressing weeds, capturing a greater share of available resources than SC. Weed infestation in the different crops was comparable; however, it tended to be the highest in sole cropped faba bean, lupin and unfertilized barley, where the application of urea to barley reduced the weed infestation by around 50%. Reduction in disease was observed in all IC systems compared to the corresponding SC, with a general disease reduction in the range of 20–40%. For one disease in particular (brown spot on lupin) disease reduction was almost 80% in the IC. Intercropping practices offer many advantages but improved understanding of the ecological mechanisms associated with planned spatial diversity, including additional benefits with associated diversity, is needed to enhance the benefits achieved.

Keywords

intercroppinggrain legumescerealsyield advantageresource usenitrogen fixationleaf diseasesweedsgrain quality
Type
Research Papers
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 23 , Special Issue 1: Researching Sustainable Agricultural Systems, ISOFAR 2005 , March 2008 , pp. 3 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

1 Altieri, M.A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 74:19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Willey, R.W. 1979. Intercropping – its importance and research needs. Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts 32:1–10.Google Scholar
3 Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. and Jensen, E.S. 2005. Facilitative root interactions in intercrops. Plant and Soil 274:237–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Crews, T.E. and Peoples, M.B. 2004. Legume versus fertilizer sources of nitrogen: ecological tradeoffs and human needs. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 102:279–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Ambus, P., and Jensen, E.S. 2001. Interspecific competition, N use and interference with weeds in pea–barley intercropping. Field Crops Research 70:101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 Corre-Hellou, G. and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8 Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Ambus, P., and Jensen, E.S. 2001. Temporal and spatial distribution of roots and competition for nitrogen in pea–barley intercrops – a field study employing 32P technique. Plant and Soil 236:63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9 Knudsen, M.T., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Jornsgard, B., and Jensen, E.S. 2004. Comparison of interspecific competition and N use in pea–barley, faba bean–barley and lupin–barley intercrops grown at two temperate locations. Journal of Agricultural Science 142:617–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Andersen, M.K., Jornsgaard, B., and Jensen, E.S. 2006. Density and relative frequency effects on competitive interactions and resource use in pea–barley intercrops. Field Crops Research 95:256–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11 Izaurralde, R.C., Mcgill, W.B., and Juma, N.G. 1992. Nitrogen fixation efficiency, interspecies N transfer, and root growth in barley–field pea intercrop on a black chernozemic soil. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Agronomy Society of New Zealand 13:11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12 Iqbal, A., Khalil, I.A., Ateeq, N., and Khan, M.S. 2006. Nutritional quality of important food legumes. Food Chemistry 97:331–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13 Gdala, J. 1998. Composition, properties, and nutritive value of dietary fibre of legume seeds. A review. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences 7:131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14 Jensen, E.S. 1994. Availability of nitrogen in 15N-labelled mature pea residues to subsequent crops in the field. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 26:465–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Jensen, E.S. and Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. 2003. How can increased use of biological N2 fixation in agriculture benefit the environment? Plant and Soil 252:177–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16 Trenbath, B.R. 1993. Intercropping for the management of pests and diseases. Field Crops Research 34:381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17 Jensen, E.S. 1998. Competition for and utilization of nitrogen sources by intercrops of pea and barley. In van Cleemput, O., Haneklaus, S., Hofman, G., Schnug, E., and Vermoesen, A. (eds.) 11th International World Fertilizer Congress, 7–13 September 1997, Fertilization for Sustainable Plant Production and Soil Fertility, Gent, Belgium. p. 652–659.Google Scholar
18 Heath, M.C. and Hebblethwaite, P.D. 1985. Agronomic problems associated with the pea crop. In Hebblethwaite, P.D., Heath, M.C., and Dawkins, T.C.K. (eds.) The Pea Crop. Butterworth, London, UK. p. 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecological Applications 3:92–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20 Hebblethwaite, P.D. 1982. The effects of water stress on the growth, development and yield of Vicia faba L. In Hawtin, G. and Webb, C. (eds). Faba Bean Improvement. Martinus Nijhoff, The Netherlands. p. 165–175.Google Scholar
21 Bulson, H.A.J., Snaydon, R.W., and Stopes, C.E. 1997. Effects of plant density on intercropped wheat and field beans in an organic farming system. Journal of Agricultural Science 128:59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22 Jensen, E.S. 1986. Intercropping field bean with spring wheat. Vorträge für Pflanzenzüchtung 11:67–75.Google Scholar
23 Palmason, F., Danso, S.K.A., and Hardarson, G. 1992. Nitrogen accumulation in sole and mixed stands of sweet-blue lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.), ryegrass and oats. Plant and Soil 142:135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24 De Wit, C.T. and Van den Bergh, J.P. 1965. Competition between herbage plants. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Sciences 13:212–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25 Shearer, G. and Kohl, D.H. 1986. N2-fixation in field settings – estimations based on natural 15N abundance. Australian Journal of Plant Physiology 13:699–756.Google Scholar
26 Unkovich, M.J., Pate, J.S., Sanford, P., and Armstrong, E.L. 1994. Potential precision of the δ15N natural abundance method in field estimates of nitrogen fixation by crop and pasture legumes in South west Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 45:119–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27 Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Ambus, P., and Jensen, E.S. 2003. The comparison of nitrogen use and leaching in sole cropped versus intercropped pea and barley. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 65:289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28 Mayer, J., Buegger, F., Jensen, E.S., Schloter, M., and Hess, J. 2003. Estimating N rhizodeposition of grain legumes using a N-15 in situ stem labelling method. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 35:21–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29 SAS. 1990. SAS Procedure Guide. SAS Institute.Google Scholar
30 Callaway, R.M. 1995. Positive interactions among plants. The Botanical Review 61:306–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31 Ofori, F. and Stern, W.R. 1987. Cereal–legume intercropping systems. Advances in Agronomy 41:41–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32 Vandermeer, J. 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. p. 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33 Natarajan, M. and Willey, R.W. 1980. Sorghum–pigeonpea intercropping and the effects of plant-population density. 1. Growth and yield. Journal of Agricultural Science 95:51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34 Giller, K.E. and Cadisch, G. 1995. Future benefits from biological nitrogen fixation: an ecological approach to agriculture. Plant and Soil 174:255–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35 van Kessel, C. and Hartley, H. 2000. Agricultural management of grain legumes: has it led to an increase in nitrogen fixation? Field Crops Research 65:165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36 Jensen, C.R., Joernsgaard, B., Andersen, M.N., Christiansen, J.L., Mogensen, V.O., Friis, P., and Petersen, C.T. 2004. The effect of lupins as compared with peas and oats on the yield of the subsequent winter barley crop. European Journal of Agronomy 20:405–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37 Braum, S.M. and Helmke, P.A. 1995. White lupin utilizes soil phosphorus that is unavailable to soybean. Plant and Soil 176:95–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38 Peoples, M.B., Ladha, J.K., and Herridge, D.F. 1995. Enhancing legume N2 fixation through plant and soil management. Plant and Soil 174:83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39 Carr, P.M., Martin, G.B., Caton, J.S., and Poland, W.W. 1998. Forage and nitrogen yield of barley–pea and oat–pea intercrops. Agronomy Journal 90:79–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40 Corre-Hellou, G., Fustec, J., and Crozat, Y. 2006. Interspecific competition for soil N and its interaction with N2 fixation, leaf expansion and crop growth in pea–barley intercrops. Plant and Soil 282:195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41 Godding, M.J., Kasyanova, E., Ruske, R., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Jensen, E.S., Dahlmann, C., Von Fragstein, P., Dibet, A., Corre-Hellou, G., Crozat, Y., Pristeri, A., Romeo, M., and Monti, M. 2007. Intercropping with pulses to concentrate nitrogen and sulphur in wheat. Journal of Agricultural Science, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 Midmore, D.J. 1993. Agronomic modification of resource use and intercrop productivity. Field Crops Research 34:357–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43 Liebman, M. and Davis, A.S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Research 40:27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44 Rydberg, N.T. and Milberg, P. 2000. A survey of weeds in organic farming in Sweden. Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 18:175–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
45 Kinane, J. and Lyngkjær, M. 2002. Effect of barley–legume intercrop on disease frequency in an organic farming system. Plant Protection Science 38:227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar