Paper · 2011 · The Journal of Agricultural Science

Legumes intercropped with spring barley contribute to increased biomass production and carry-over effects

V. A. PAPPA; R. M. REES; R. L. WALKER; et al.

9
claims
9
verbatim quotes
53
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

SUMMARY Intercropping systems that include legumes can provide symbiotically fixed nitrogen (N) and potentially increase yield through improved resource use efficiency. The aims of the present study were: (a) to evaluate the effects of different legumes (species and varieties) and barley on grain yield, dry matter production and N uptake of the intercrop treatments compared with the associated cereal sole crop; (b) to assess the effects on the yields of the next grain crop and (c) to determine the accumulation of N in shoots of the crops in a low-input rotation. An experiment was established near Edinburgh, UK, consisting of 12 hydrologically isolated plots. Treatments were a spring barley ( Hordeum vulgare cvar Westminster) sole crop and intercrops of barley/white clover ( Trifolium repens cvar Alice) and barley/pea ( Pisum sativum cvar Zero4 or cvar Nitouche) in 2006. All the plots were sown with spring oats ( Avena sativa cvar Firth) in 2007 and perennial ryegrass in 2008. No fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides were used at any stage of the experiment. Above-ground biomass (barley, clover, pea, oat and ryegrass) and grain yields (barley, pea and oat) were measured at key stages during the growing seasons of 2006, 2007 and 2008; land equivalent ratio (LER) was measured only in 2006. At harvest, the total above-ground biomass of barley intercropped with clover (4·56 t biomass/ha) and barley intercropped with pea cvar Zero4 (4·49 t biomass/ha) were significantly different from the barley sole crop (3·05 t biomass/ha; P <0·05). The grain yield of the barley (2006) intercropped with clover (3·36 t grain/ha) was significantly greater than that in the other treatments ( P <0·01). The accumulation of N in barley was low in 2006, but significantly higher ( P <0·05) in the oat grown the following year on the same plots. The present study demonstrates for the first time that intercrops can affect the grain yield and N uptake of the following crop (spring oats) in a rotation. Differences were also linked to the contrasting legume species and cultivars present in the previous year's intercrop. Legume choice is essential to optimize the plant productivity in intercropping designs. Cultivars chosen for intercropping purposes must take into account the effects upon the growth of the partner crop/s as well as to the following crop, including environmental factors.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Barley with clover produced 4·56 t biomass/ha, significantly different from barley alone at 3·05 t biomass/ha.

Treatment
intercropped with clovere0
Outcome
total above-ground biomasse0
Value
4·56 t biomass/hae0
Qualifier
3·05 t biomass/ha; P <0·05e0
Comparator
barley sole crope0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the total above-ground biomass of barley intercropped with clover (4·56 t biomass/ha) and barley intercropped with pea cvar Zero4 (4·49 t biomass/ha) were significantly different from the barley sole crop (3·05 t biomass/ha; P <0·05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1320–1553 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Barley with pea cultivar Zero4 produced 4·49 t biomass/ha, significantly different from barley alone at 3·05 t biomass/ha.

Treatment
intercropped with pea cvar Zero4e0
Outcome
total above-ground biomasse0
Value
4·49 t biomass/hae0
Qualifier
3·05 t biomass/ha; P <0·05e0
Comparator
barley sole crope0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the total above-ground biomass of barley intercropped with clover (4·56 t biomass/ha) and barley intercropped with pea cvar Zero4 (4·49 t biomass/ha) were significantly different from the barley sole crop (3·05 t biomass/ha; P <0·05)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1320–1553 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Barley intercropped with clover yielded 3·36 t grain/ha, significantly above other treatments.

Treatment
intercropped with clovere0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
greatere0
Value
3·36 t grain/hae0
Qualifier
P <0·01e0
Comparator
other treatmentse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The grain yield of the barley (2006) intercropped with clover (3·36 t grain/ha) was significantly greater than that in the other treatments ( P <0·01).”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1555–1706 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen accumulation in barley was low in 2006.

Outcome
accumulation of Ne0
Direction
lowe0
Qualifier
2006e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Hordeum vulgare
Hordeum vulgare · TaxonJackyM59 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The accumulation of N in barley was low in 2006, but significantly higher ( P <0·05) in the oat grown the following year on the same plots.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1707–1846 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Nitrogen accumulation was significantly higher in the following year’s oats than in barley in 2006.

Outcome
accumulation of Ne0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
the following year on the same plotse0
Comparator
barleye0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The accumulation of N in barley was low in 2006, but significantly higher ( P <0·05) in the oat grown the following year on the same plots.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1707–1846 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The study concludes that intercrops affect subsequent spring-oat grain yield.

Taxon
spring oatsAvena sativae0
Treatment
intercropse0
Outcome
grain yielde0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“intercrops can affect the grain yield and N uptake of the following crop (spring oats) in a rotation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1902–2002 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The study concludes that intercrops affect subsequent spring-oat nitrogen uptake.

Taxon
spring oatsAvena sativae0
Treatment
intercropse0
Outcome
N uptakee0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena sativa
Avena sativa · TaxonSendelbach ( talk ) · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“intercrops can affect the grain yield and N uptake of the following crop (spring oats) in a rotation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1902–2002 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Differences in following-crop effects were linked to prior legume species and cultivars.

Material
legume species and cultivarse0
Outcome
Differencese0

Not reportedTaxonDirection

Verbatim

e0

“Differences were also linked to the contrasting legume species and cultivars present in the previous year's intercrop.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2004–2122 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend choosing intercrop legumes to optimize plant productivity and accounting for effects on partner and following crops.

Treatment
Legume choicee0
Outcome
plant productivitye0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“Legume choice is essential to optimize the plant productivity in intercropping designs. Cultivars chosen for intercropping purposes must take into account the effects upon the growth of the partner crop/s as well as to the following crop, including environmental factors.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 2123–2394 · show in text ↑

intercropping · yield · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Results differ

49 papers: 36 positive, 13 negative or no effect

35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

45 papers more in this group

See all 49 papers →

intercropping · growth · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results

14 papers: 9 positive, 5 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

10 papers more in this group

See all 14 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.