IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i2p99-d486856.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition Effects and Productivity in Oat–Forage Legume Relay Intercropping Systems under Organic Farming Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Viktorija Gecaitė

    (Joniškėlis Experimental Station, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Pasvalys Distr., 39301 Joniškėlis, Lithuania)

  • Aušra Arlauskienė

    (Joniškėlis Experimental Station, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Pasvalys Distr., 39301 Joniškėlis, Lithuania)

  • Jurgita Cesevičienė

    (Institute of Agriculture, Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Instituto 1, Kėdainiai Distr., 58344 Akademija, Lithuania)

Abstract

Cereal-legume intercropping is important in many low-input agricultural systems. Interactions between combinations of different plant species vary widely. Field experiments were conducted to determine yield formation regularities and plant competition effects of oat ( Avena sativa L.)–black medick ( Medicago lupulina L.), oat–white clover ( Trifolium repens L.), and oat–Egyptian clover ( T. alexandrinum L.) under organic farming conditions. Oats and forage legumes were grown in mono- and intercrops. Aboveground dry matter (DM) measured at flowering, development of fruit and ripened grain, productivity indicators, oat grain yield and nutrient content were established. The results showed that oats dominated in the intercropping systems. Oat competitive performance (CP o ), which is characterized by forage legumes aboveground mass reduction compared to monocrops, were 91.4–98.9. As the oats ripened, its competitiveness tendency to declined. In oat–forage legume intercropping systems, the mass of weeds was significantly lower compared to the legume monocrops. Oats and forage legumes competed for P, but N and K accumulation in biomass was not significantly affected. We concluded that, in relay intercrop, under favourable conditions, the forage legumes easily adapted to the growth rhythm and intensity of oats and does not adverse effect on their grain yield.

Suggested Citation

  • Viktorija Gecaitė & Aušra Arlauskienė & Jurgita Cesevičienė, 2021. "Competition Effects and Productivity in Oat–Forage Legume Relay Intercropping Systems under Organic Farming Conditions," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-15, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:2:p:99-:d:486856
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/2/99/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/2/99/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. K. Ann Bybee-Finley & Matthew R. Ryan, 2018. "Advancing Intercropping Research and Practices in Industrialized Agricultural Landscapes," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-24, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mugula, Joseph J & Ahmad, Athman Kyaruzi & Msinde, John & Kadigi, Michael, 2023. "Determinants of Adoption of Bundled Sustainable Agriculture Practices among Small-Scale Maize Farmers in Mvomero and Kilosa Districts, Tanzania," African Journal of Economic Review, African Journal of Economic Review, vol. 11(4), September.
    2. Ilaria Marotti & Anne Whittaker & Reyhan Bahtiyarca Bağdat & Pervin Ari Akin & Namuk Ergün & Giovanni Dinelli, 2023. "Intercropping Perennial Fruit Trees and Annual Field Crops with Aromatic and Medicinal Plants (MAPs) in the Mediterranean Basin," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-23, August.
    3. Sabine Andert, 2021. "The Method and Timing of Weed Control Affect the Productivity of Intercropped Maize ( Zea mays L.) and Bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-13, April.
    4. Fateh Mamine & M’hand Farès, 2020. "Barriers and Levers to Developing Wheat–Pea Intercropping in Europe: A Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-19, August.
    5. Schomberg, Harry H. & White, Kathryn E. & Thompson, Alondra I. & Bagley, Gwendolyn A. & Burke, Allen & Garst, Grace & Bybee-Finley, K. Ann & Mirsky, Steven B., 2023. "Interseeded cover crop mixtures influence soil water storage during the corn phase of corn-soybean-wheat no-till cropping systems," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    6. Moritz von Cossel & Yasir Iqbal & Iris Lewandowski, 2019. "Improving the Ecological Performance of Miscanthus ( Miscanthus × giganteus Greef et Deuter) through Intercropping with Woad ( Isatis tinctoria L.) and Yellow Melilot ( Melilotus officinalis L.)," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-12, September.
    7. Eugene P. Law & Sandra Wayman & Christopher J. Pelzer & Steven W. Culman & Miguel I. Gómez & Antonio DiTommaso & Matthew R. Ryan, 2022. "Multi-Criteria Assessment of the Economic and Environmental Sustainability Characteristics of Intermediate Wheatgrass Grown as a Dual-Purpose Grain and Forage Crop," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-24, March.
    8. Denise M. Finney & Samantha Garritano & Matthew Kenwood, 2021. "Forage Species Identity Shapes Soil Biota in a Temperate Agroecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-15, May.
    9. Danilo Scordia & Salvatore Luciano Cosentino, 2019. "Perennial Energy Grasses: Resilient Crops in a Changing European Agriculture," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-19, August.
    10. Rajia Kchaou & Salah Benyoussef & Sihem Jebari & Kalthoum Harbaoui & Ronny Berndtsson, 2022. "Forage Potential of Cereal–Legume Mixtures as an Adaptive Climate Change Strategy under Low Input Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-8, December.
    11. Uttam Khanal & Kerry J. Stott & Roger Armstrong & James G. Nuttall & Frank Henry & Brendan P. Christy & Meredith Mitchell & Penny A. Riffkin & Ashley J. Wallace & Malcolm McCaskill & Thabo Thayalakuma, 2021. "Intercropping—Evaluating the Advantages to Broadacre Systems," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-20, May.
    12. Johannes Timaeus & Ties Ruigrok & Torsten Siegmeier & Maria Renate Finckh, 2022. "Adoption of Food Species Mixtures from Farmers’ Perspectives in Germany: Managing Complexity and Harnessing Advantages," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-22, May.
    13. Fatch, Paul & Masangano, Charles & Hilger, Thomas & Jordan, Irmgard & Mambo, Isaac & Kamoto, Judith Francesca Mangani & Kalimbira, Alexander & Nuppenau, Ernst-August, 2021. "Holistic agricultural diversity index as a measure of agricultural diversity: A cross-sectional study of smallholder farmers in Lilongwe district of Malawi," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:2:p:99-:d:486856. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.