Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T11:24:43.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Oat genotypic requirement for intercropping with vetch under Mediterranean conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2021

D. Baxevanos Open the ORCID record for D. Baxevanos [Opens in a new window] ,
I. T. Tsialtas ,
O. Voulgari ,
C. I. Pankou ,
D. Vlachostergios  and
A. S. Lithourgidis
D. Baxevanos*
Affiliation:
Hellenic Agricultural Organization – “Demeter”, Institute of Industrial and Fodder Crops, 413 35Larissa, Greece
I. T. Tsialtas
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Lab. of Agronomy, 541 24Thessaloniki, Greece
O. Voulgari
Affiliation:
Hellenic Agricultural Organization – “Demeter”, Institute of Industrial and Fodder Crops, 413 35Larissa, Greece
C. I. Pankou
Affiliation:
Faculty of Agriculture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Lab. of Genetics and Plant Breeding, 541 24Thessaloniki, Greece
D. Vlachostergios
Affiliation:
Hellenic Agricultural Organization – “Demeter”, Institute of Industrial and Fodder Crops, 413 35Larissa, Greece
A. S. Lithourgidis
Affiliation:
Farm of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 570 01Thermi, Greece
*
Author for correspondence: D. Baxevanos, E-mail: baxevano@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Oat (Avena spp. L.) intercropped with common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) has shown high forage yield and crude protein content (CP) in rainfed Mediterranean environments of Greece. The objective was to study the oat genotypic interactions for yield, quality and agronomic traits of four oat accessions (cv. Flega and lines B2, B3 and B4) grown as intercrops with a common vetch cultivar (Pegasus) and as monocrops without or with nitrogen (N) supplementation (100 kg N/ha). In all mixtures, the land equivalent ratio exceeded the unit indicating that there was a yield advantage. Intercrops produced, on average, 5.0% less dry matter (DM) and 38.9% more crude protein yield (CPY) compared to monocropped oats with N fertilization and 3.4% more DM and 75.5% more CPY compared to monocropped oats without N fertilization. The DM, CP and quality differences between the intercropped and monocropped oats were attributed to oats by vetch cultivar interactions. The oat B2 intercropped was the shortest, the latest flowering and the less vigorous early in the season, a trait that allowed common vetch to dominate in the intercrop (vetch participation 770 g/kg). The high vetch fragment in the intercrop contributed to high CP, CPY, acid detergent lignin, total digestible nutrients, relative feeding value, relative forage quality, net energy for lactation and to low neutral detergent fibre, acid detergent fibre and hemicellulose. The replacement value index indicated that the intercrop was 21% more economically viable in comparison to the fertilized monocrop.

Keywords

Common vetchintercropMediterranean environmentsOat
Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 158 , Issue 8-9 , November 2020 , pp. 695 - 706
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Anil, L, Park, J, Phipps, RH and Miller, FA (1998) Temperate intercropping of cereals for forage: a review of the potential for growth and utilization with particular reference to the UK. Grass and Forage Science 53, 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annicchiarico, P (2002) Genotype × Environment Interactions: Challenges and Opportunities for Plant Breeding and Cultivar Recommendations. Plant Production and Protection Paper 174. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
AOAC (2006) Official Methods of Analysis, 18th Edn., Gaithersburg, MD, USA: AOAC International.Google Scholar
Asif, M, Iqbal, M, Randhawa, H and Spanner, D (2014) Managing and Breeding Wheat for Organic Systems, Enchaining Competitiveness Against Weeds. Springer, New York.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banik, P, Sasmal, T, Ghosal, PK and Bagchi, DK (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baudoin, JP, Camarena, F and Lobo, M (1997) Improving Phaseolus genotypes for multiple cropping systems. Euphytica 96, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baxevanos, D, Tsialtas, IT, Vlachostergios, DN, Hadjigeorgiou, I, Dordas, C and Lithourgidis, A (2017) Cultivar competitiveness in pea-oat intercrops under Mediterranean conditions. Field Crops Research 214, 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedoussac, L and Justes, E (2010) The efficiency of a durum wheat-winter pea intercrop to improve yield and wheat grain protein concentration depends on N availability during early growth. Plant and Soil 330, 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertholdsson, NO (2005) Early vigour and allelopathy-two useful traits for enhanced barley and wheat competitiveness against weeds. Weed Research 45, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bladenopoulos, K (2010) Greek barley and oat cultivars for organic farming and organic rotation systems. Agricultural Research 30, 6–17, (in Greek).Google Scholar
Bulson, HAJ, Snaydon, RW and Stopes, CE (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
Buxton, DR and Redfearn, DD (1997) Plant limitations to fiber digestion and utilization. Journal of Nutrition 127, 814S–818S.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caballero, R, Goicoechea, EL and Hernaiz, PJ (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
Carpita, N and McCann, M (2000) The cell wall. In Buchanan, BB, Gruissem, W and Jones, RL (eds), Biochemistry and Molecular Biology of Plants. Rockville, MD: American Society of Plant Biologists, pp. 52–108.Google Scholar
Choudhary, M and Prabhu, G (2016) Response of fodder oat (Avena sativa L.) varieties to irrigation and fertilizer gradient. Range Management and Agroforestry 37, 201–206.Google Scholar
Cousens, RD, Barnett, AG and Barry, GC (2003) Dynamics of competition between wheat and oat: I. Effects of changing the timing of phenological events. Agronomy Journal 95, 1295–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, JHC and Woolley, JN (1993) Genotypic requirement for intercropping. Field Crops Research 34, 407–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, GJ (2001) Production of forage crops in frost-prone areas. In: Proceedings of the 10th Agronomy Conference. Australian Society of Agronomy, Hobart, Tasmania, p. 123.Google Scholar
Dhima, KV, Lithourgidis, AS, Vasilakoglou, IB and Dordas, CA (2007) Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100, 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Droushiotis, DN (1985) Effect of variety and harvesting stage on forage production of vetch in a low rainfall environment. Field Crops Research 10, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francia, E, Pecchioni, N, Destri Nicosia, OL, Paoletta, G, Taibi, L, Franco, V, Odoardi, M, Stanca, AM and Delogu, G (2006) Dual-purpose barley and oat in a Mediterranean environment. Field Crops Research 99, 158–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, CA, Flor, CA and Temple, SP (1976) Adapting varieties for intercropping systems in the tropics. In Papandick, RI, Sanchez, PA and Triplett, GB (eds), Multiple Cropping. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, pp. 235–253.Google Scholar
Fukai, S and Trenbath, BR (1993) Processes determining intercrop productivity and yields of component crops. Field Crops Research 34, 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galwey, NW, De Queiroz, MA and Willey, RW (1986) Genotypic variation in the response of sorghum to intercropping with cowpea, and in the effect on the associated legume. Field Crops Research 14, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebeyehu, S, Simane, B and Kirkby, R (2006) Genotype × cropping system interaction in climbing beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) grown as sole crop and in association with maize (Zea mays L.). European Journal of Agronomy 24, 396–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, PK (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacomini, SJ, Vendruseolo, ERO, Cubilla, M, Nicoloso, RS and Fries, MR (2003) Dry matter, C/N ratio and nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium accumulation in mixed soil cover crops in Southern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Ciência do Solo 27, 325–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadjichristodoulou, A (1978) Genotype, environment and rainfall effects on common vetch varieties in a semiarid region. Experimental Agriculture 14, 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, LE (1970) Nutrition research techniques for domestic and wild animals, An International Record System and Procedures for analyzing samples. Lorin E. Harris, 1408 Highland Drive, Logan Utah, USA Vol. 1.Google Scholar
Hauggaard-Nielsen, H, Ambus, P and Jensen, ES (2001) Interspecific competition, N use and interference with weeds in pea-barley intercropping. Field Crops Research 70, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horrocks, RD and Vallentine, JF (1999) Harvested Forages. UK: Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Iqbal, MF, Sufyan, MA, Aziz, MM, Zahid, IA, Qamir-ul-Ghani, and Aslam, S (2009) Efficacy of nitrogen on green fodder yield and quality of oat (Avena sativa L.). Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 19, 82–84.Google Scholar
Karpenstein-Machan, M and Stuelpnagel, R (2000) Biomass yield and nitrogen fixation of legumes monocropped and intercropped with rye and rotation effects on a subsequent maize crop. Plant and Soil 218, 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancashire, PD, Bleiholder, H, Langelüddecke, P, Stauss, R, Van den Boom, T, Weber, E and Witzenberger, A (1991) A uniform decimal code for growth stages of crops and weeds. Annals of Applied Biology 119, 561–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lithourgidis, AS, Vasilakoglou, IB, Dhima, KV, Dordas, CA and Yiakoulaki, MD (2006) Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios. Field Crops Research 99, 106–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lithourgidis, AS, Dhima, KV, Vasilakoglou, IB, Dordas, CA and Yiakoulaki, MD (2007) Sustainable production of barley and wheat by intercropping common vetch. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 27, 95–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lithourgidis, AS, Dordas, CA, Damalas, CA and Vlachostergios, DN (2011) Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5, 396–410.Google Scholar
Mead, R and Willey, RW (1980) The concept of a land equivalent ratio and advantages in yields for intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 16, 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moseley, WG (1994) An equation for the replacement value of agroforestry. Agroforestry Systems 26, 47–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, SC and Robichaux, RH (1997) Identifying plant architectural traits associated with yield under intercropping: implications of genotype–cropping system interactions. Plant Breeding 116, 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papakosta, DK and Gagianas, AA (1991) Nitrogen and dry matter accumulation, remobilization, and losses for Mediterranean wheat during grain filling. Agronomy Journal 83, 864–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papastylianou, I (2004) Effect of rotation system and N fertilizer on barley and common vetch grown in various crop combinations and cycle lengths. Journal of Agricultural Science 142, 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramos, ME, Altieri, MA, Garcia, PA and Robles, AB (2011) Oat and oat-vetch as rainfed fodder cover crops in semiarid environments: effects of fertilization and harvest time on forage yield and quality. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 35, 726–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, CA, Moore, KJ and Johnson, KD (1989) Forage quality and yield of wheat-vetch at different stages of maturity and vetch seeding rates. Agronomy Journal 81, 57–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, RC (1969) Annual legume:cereal mixtures for forage and seed. Agronomy Journal 61, 759–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadeghpour, A, Jahanzad, E, Lithourgidis, AS, Hashemi, M, Esmaeili, A and Hosseini, MB (2014) Forage yield and quality of barley-annual medic intercrops in semi-arid environments. International Journal of Plant Production 8, 77–89.Google Scholar
Singh, RJ, Ahalawat, IPS and Sharma, NK (2015) Resource use efficiency of transgenic cotton and peanut intercropping system using modified fertilization technique. International Journal of Plant Production 9, 523–540.Google Scholar
Smith, ME and Francis, CA (1986) Breeding varieties for multiple cropping. In Francis, CA (ed.), Multiple Cropping Systems. New York, USA: Macmillan Publ. Company, pp. 96–132.Google Scholar
Stevens, EJ, Armstrong, KW, Bezar, HJ, Griffin, WB and Hampton, JG (2004) Fodder oats: an overview (Chapter II). In: Suttie, J. M. & Reynolds, S. G. Fodder oats: a world overview. Plant Production and Protection Series No. 33, FAO, Rome. Web. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5765e/y5765e0f.htm.Google Scholar
Stuart, P, Slatter, J, Elliott, B and Busby, G (2002) The Forage Book: A Comprehensive Guide to Forage Management, 2nd Edn., Toowoomba, Australia: Pacific Seeds Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
Tilley, JMA and Terry, RA (1963) A two stage technique for the in vitro digestion of forage crops. Journal of the British Grassland Society 18, 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsialtas, JT, Kassioumi, M and Veresoglou, DS (2001) N-niche spatiotemporal differentiation, 15N uptake rates and community structure in a Mediterranean grassland. Journal of Mediterranean Ecology 2, 93–105.Google Scholar
Tsialtas, JT, Baxevanos, D, Vlachostergios, DN, Dordas, C and Lithourgidis, A (2018) Cultivar complementarity for symbiotic nitrogen fixation and water use efficiency in pea-oat intercrops and its effect on forage yield and quality. Field Crops Research 226, 28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuna, C and Orak, A (2007) The role of intercropping on yield potential of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.)/oat (Avena sativa L.) cultivated in pure stand and mixtures. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 2, 14–19.Google Scholar
Undersander, D and Moore, JE (2002) Relative forage quality. UW Extension. Focus on Forage. Vol. 4., No. 5.Google Scholar
Unkovich, MJ, Baldock, J and Peoples, MB (2010) Prospects and problems of simple linear models for estimating symbiotic N2 fixation by crop and pasture legumes. Plant and Soil 329, 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandermeer, JH (1990) Intercropping. In Caroll, CR, Vandermeer, JH and Rosset, PM (eds), Agroecology. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 481–516.Google Scholar
Van Soest, PJ, Robertson, JB and Lewis, BA (1991) Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74, 3583–3597.CrossRefGoogle 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
Westhoek, H, Rood, T, van den Berg, M, Janse, J, Nijdam, D, Reudink, M and Stehfest, E (2011) The Protein Puzzle. The Consumption and Production of Meat, Dairy and Fish in the European Union. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.Google Scholar
Williams, AC and McCarthy, BC (2001) A new index of interspecific competition for replacement and additive designs. Ecological Research 16, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Y, Stomph, TJ, Makowski, D, Zhang, L and van der Werf, W (2016) A meta-analysis of relative crop yields in cereal/legume mixtures suggests options for management. Field Crops Research 198, 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar