Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Subscribe now for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Grain yield, symbiotic N2 fixation and interspecific competition for inorganic N in pea-barley intercrops

Grain yield, symbiotic N2 fixation and interspecific competition for inorganic N in pea-barley... The effect of mixed intercropping of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), compared to monocrop cultivation, on the yield and crop-N dynamics was studied in a 4-yr field experiment using 15N-isotope dilution technique. Crops were grown with or without the supply of 5 g 15N-labeled N m-2. The effect of intercropping on the dry matter and N yields, competition for inorganic N among the intercrop components, symbiotic fixation in pea and N transfer from pea to barley were determined. As an average of four years the grain yields were similar in monocropped pea, monocropped and fertilized barley and the intercrop without N fertilizer supply. Nitrogen fertilization did not influence the intercrop yield, but decreased the proportion of pea in the yield. Relative yield totals (RYT) showed that the environmental sources for plant growth were used from 12 to 31% more efficiently by the intercrop than by the monocrops, and N fertilization decreased RYT-values. Intercrop yields were less stable than monocrop barley yields, but more stable than the yield of monocropped pea. Barley competed strongly for soil and fertilizer N in the intercrop, and was up to 30 times more competitive than pea for inorganic N. Consequently, barley obtained a more than proportionate share of the inorganic N in the intercrop. At maturity the total recovery of fertilizer N was not significantly different between crops, averaging 65% of the supplied N. The fertilizer N recovered in pea constituted only 9% of total fertilizer-N recovery in the intercrop. The amount of symbiotic N2 fixation in the intercrop was less than expected from its composition and the fixation in monocrop. This indicates that the competition from barley had a negative effect on the fixation, perhaps via shading. At maturity, the average amount of N2 fixation was 17.7 g N m-2 in the monocrop and 5.1 g N m-2 in the intercropped pea. A higher proportion of total N in pea was derived from N2 fixation in the intercrop than in the monocrop, on average 82% and 62%, respectively. The 15N enrichment of intercropped barley tended to be slightly lower than of monocropped barley, although not significantly. Consequently, there was no evidence for pea N being transferred to barley. The intercropping advantage in the pea-barley intercrop is mainly due to the complimentary use of soil inorganic and atmospheric N sources by the intercrop components, resulting in reduced competition for inorganic N, rather than a facilitative effect, in which symbiotically fixed N2 is made available to barley. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Plant and Soil Springer Journals

Grain yield, symbiotic N2 fixation and interspecific competition for inorganic N in pea-barley intercrops

Plant and Soil , Volume 182 (1) – Apr 4, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/grain-yield-symbiotic-n2-fixation-and-interspecific-competition-for-le0Hh1mLQI

References (50)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright
Subject
Life Sciences; Plant Sciences; Soil Science & Conservation; Plant Physiology; Ecology
ISSN
0032-079X
eISSN
1573-5036
DOI
10.1007/BF00010992
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The effect of mixed intercropping of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), compared to monocrop cultivation, on the yield and crop-N dynamics was studied in a 4-yr field experiment using 15N-isotope dilution technique. Crops were grown with or without the supply of 5 g 15N-labeled N m-2. The effect of intercropping on the dry matter and N yields, competition for inorganic N among the intercrop components, symbiotic fixation in pea and N transfer from pea to barley were determined. As an average of four years the grain yields were similar in monocropped pea, monocropped and fertilized barley and the intercrop without N fertilizer supply. Nitrogen fertilization did not influence the intercrop yield, but decreased the proportion of pea in the yield. Relative yield totals (RYT) showed that the environmental sources for plant growth were used from 12 to 31% more efficiently by the intercrop than by the monocrops, and N fertilization decreased RYT-values. Intercrop yields were less stable than monocrop barley yields, but more stable than the yield of monocropped pea. Barley competed strongly for soil and fertilizer N in the intercrop, and was up to 30 times more competitive than pea for inorganic N. Consequently, barley obtained a more than proportionate share of the inorganic N in the intercrop. At maturity the total recovery of fertilizer N was not significantly different between crops, averaging 65% of the supplied N. The fertilizer N recovered in pea constituted only 9% of total fertilizer-N recovery in the intercrop. The amount of symbiotic N2 fixation in the intercrop was less than expected from its composition and the fixation in monocrop. This indicates that the competition from barley had a negative effect on the fixation, perhaps via shading. At maturity, the average amount of N2 fixation was 17.7 g N m-2 in the monocrop and 5.1 g N m-2 in the intercropped pea. A higher proportion of total N in pea was derived from N2 fixation in the intercrop than in the monocrop, on average 82% and 62%, respectively. The 15N enrichment of intercropped barley tended to be slightly lower than of monocropped barley, although not significantly. Consequently, there was no evidence for pea N being transferred to barley. The intercropping advantage in the pea-barley intercrop is mainly due to the complimentary use of soil inorganic and atmospheric N sources by the intercrop components, resulting in reduced competition for inorganic N, rather than a facilitative effect, in which symbiotically fixed N2 is made available to barley.

Journal

Plant and SoilSpringer Journals

Published: Apr 4, 2004

There are no references for this article.