4.7 Article

Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea-cereal intercropping systems

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF AGRONOMY
Volume 34, Issue 4, Pages 287-294

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.007

Keywords

Actual yield loss; Aggressivity; Intercrops; Competitive ratio; LER; Monetary advantage

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Intercrops of pea (Pisum arvense L), a popular legume used in intercropping systems with winter cereals for forage and silage production, with wheat (Triticum aestivum L), rye (Secale cereale L), and triticale (x Triticosecale Wittmack) in two seeding ratios (60:40 and 80:20) were compared with monocrops of pea and cereals for two growing seasons. Growth rate, dry matter yield, and N uptake were determined in each intercropping system. Furthermore, several indices were used to evaluate the intercropping systems and analyze the competition and the interrelationships between mixture components. Growth rate of cereals was lower in the mixtures than in the monocrops. Dry matter yield was higher in triticale monocrop, followed by its two intercrops, and the pea-wheat 80:20 intercrop. Moreover, triticale monocrop, pea-triticale intercrops, and pea-wheat 80:20 intercrop showed the highest crude protein yield and N uptake. The land equivalent ratio (LER), relative crowding coefficient (K), actual yield loss (AYL), and system productivity index (SPI) values were greater for the pea-triticale mixtures and the pea-wheat and pea-rye mixtures (80:20), indicating an advantage of intercropping. In most intercrops, the values of partial K. AYL, aggressivity, and competitive ratio (CR) indicated that the cereal was more competitive than pea. The highest values of monetary advantage index (MAI) and intercropping advantage (IA) were recorded for the pea-triticale and the pea-wheat mixtures (80:20). Overall, pea-triticale and pea-wheat mixtures (80:20) were more productive and produced better forage quality than the other mixtures and thus could be adopted by the farmers as alternative options for forage production. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available