Next Article in Journal
Farming Practices and Disease Prevalence among Urban Lowland Farmers in Cameroon, Central Africa
Next Article in Special Issue
Agronomical and Physiological Responses of Faba Bean Genotypes to Salt Stress
Previous Article in Journal
A Lightweight Attention-Based Convolutional Neural Networks for Tomato Leaf Disease Classification
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Tytanit on Fibre Fraction Content in Medicago x varia T. Martyn and Trifolium pratense L. Cell Walls
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/agriculture12020229
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Peas and Barley Grown in the Strip-Till One Pass Technology as Row Intercropping Components in Sustainable Crop Production

by
Iwona Jaskulska
1,
Dariusz Jaskulski
1,2,* and
Lech Gałęzewski
1
1
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture and Biotechnology, Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology, 7 Prof. S. Kaliskiego St., 85-796 Bydgoszcz, Poland
2
Research & Development Centre Agro-Land Marek Różniak Smielin, 89-110 Sadki, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2022, 12(2), 229; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12020229
Submission received: 7 January 2022 / Revised: 2 February 2022 / Accepted: 2 February 2022 / Published: 4 February 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Legumes: Advances in Breeding, Productivity and Quality)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Simplified, ploughless tillage and multi-species, multifunctional crop production are important components of sustainable agriculture. Technologies that combine these components can play an even greater pro-ecological role in modern agriculture. The claim is made that row intercropping of spring barley and peas, along with strip tillage, is an alternative to traditional methods of sowing cereals and legumes. This hypothesis was verified in a three-year field experiment in which row intercropping of barley and peas (alternating every row) was compared with traditional mixed-crop, within-row cropping (plants of each species in each row) and pure sowing of each species. Row intercropping of barley and peas using strip-till, one-pass technology, as compared with mixed-crop, within-row, improved the uniformity of plant emergence and plant density of peas before harvesting and reduced weed infestation. The productivity of barley and peas was higher than with pure sowing by 8.5% and 10.2%, respectively, and the productivity of peas was also higher by 38.9% than when sowing in mixed-crop, within-row. The yield of barley grain/seeds and peas under row-intercropping was 1.75 t ha−1 higher than the yield of pea seeds with pure sowing, and 0.79 t ha−1 lower than the yield of barley in pure sowing. On the other hand, the yield of grain/seed protein under this mixture was similar to the pea protein yield with pure sowing and 109 kg ha−1 higher than the barley protein yield with pure sowing. The positive results should inspire further research to obtain a better understanding of the conditions and effects of growing grains with legumes with strip-till one-pass technology.

1. Introduction

Contemporary societies increasingly perceive the negative impact of industrial agriculture on their sustainable development [1]. Intensive agriculture is leading to, for example, the degradation of soil and water sources, and a reduction in biodiversity in the soil and in agricultural ecosystems [2]. Yields do not always justify the high social and environmental costs of agricultural production [3], especially the high energy inputs and greenhouse gas emissions [4]. Equally high yields can be obtained in sustainable agriculture, the main elements of which are no-till, crop rotations and a continuous soil cover [5].
Understanding of the need to green our agricultural production is rapidly increasing the proportion of conservational farming and sustainable plant growing practices. According to a study by Kassam et al. [6] and their estimated pace of growth in conservation agriculture, this currently accounts for 15% of the world’s arable area. In Europe, according to ECAF [7], conservation agriculture covers about 3.0 million ha. The analysis of habitat factors (soil properties, water conditions, risk of erosion), economic factors (field size, degree of mechanisation, economic size of farms) and social factors indicates that Europe and many other parts of the world are particularly predestined for the development of conservation agriculture [8]. Its features, such as no-till methods and multifunctional crop production, are increasingly being introduced into other agricultural systems, thus positively influencing the environment and landscape [9,10,11].
Ploughless soil cultivation, including strip-till, increases the efficiency of water use, organic carbon content, biomass and activity of microorganisms, has a positive effect on the physical properties of the soil, and reduces erosion. These tillage methods also affect the soil weed seed bank and the weed infestation of the plant canopy [12,13] and lower plant production costs [14]. Strip-till one-pass is a particularly advantageous ploughless tillage method and simplified plant cultivation technology. One pass of a multi-functional machine loosens strips of soil, applies fertilisers and sows seeds [15,16]. The deep tillage of narrow strips of soil in which seeds are sown reduces the adverse effects of no-till that result from its hindering the growth of plant roots in unturned soil, but retains the benefits of no-till in inter-rows and the presence of plant residues as a surface mulch [17,18]. This method is increasingly used in the cultivation of plants in rows with both wide and narrow spacings [19,20]. However, there is no scientific information on the cultivation of mixed annual crops using strip-till one-pass. The authors of this study put forward the hypothesis that it is possible to grow cereals and legumes in alternating adjacent strips of tilled soil in accordance with the strip-till method, instead of simply mixing these crops within each row of the field.
In modern agriculture, crop mixtures provide very important nutritional, economic and ecological services [21,22]. Plants of different genotypes (cultivars, species) may exist in the same rows, in alternative rows or in strips. Depending on the spatial and temporal distribution of plants, they can differ in proximity, mutual influence and environmental impact [23]. According to Malézieux et al. [24], the benefits of mixed crops are: increasing and stabilising plant productivity, preserving and increasing biodiversity, protecting soil and water, sequestering carbon, and controlling harmful organisms. Growing mixtures allows for a better use of the production area (as measured by the Land Equivalent Ratio—LER). Bacchi et al. [25] indicate, based on fodder crop and protein yields, that LER is 16.0% and 11.5% higher, respectively. One feature of crop mixtures as compared to pure sowing is that they have higher yields [26,27] but, very importantly, greater yield stability under various environmental conditions, including stress conditions [28]. Creissen et al. [29] show, using the example of a mix of barley cultivars, that the greater yield stability results from the plants’ reduced susceptibility to diseases and lodging. Boudreau [30], based on the results of over 200 studies, found that cultivating plants in mixtures reduced the occurrence of leaf diseases by over 70%. A diverse agricultural ecosystem hampers the spread not only of diseases and pests, but also of weeds [31,32]. Mixed crops are indicated by many authors as an effective non-chemical method for reducing the occurrence of organisms damaging the crops [33].
An important role of crop mixtures in agroecosystems, especially those including leguminous species, is that of improving the exploitation and protection of abiotic environmental resources, including a beneficial influence on the physical [34,35,36] and chemical properties of soil [37,38]. Cultivating mixtures also increases the number, variety and activity of microorganisms [39,40]. This is because it causes complementary niches to be occupied in time and/or space, phenotypic plasticity, and differentiation in the structure and development of the roots of individual plant species within the mixture [41,42].
In view of the significant role of simplified, no-till cultivation and crop mixes in environmentally friendly agriculture, as well as the adopted research hypothesis relating to the strip-till method, the aim of the research was to determine, by experiment, the possibility of growing barley and peas by row intercropping using strip-till technology and comparing the results with mixed crops and pure sowing of these species.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site

The research was carried out in the agricultural company Agro-Land Marek Różniak, Research & Development Centre Agro-Środki-Technika-Technologia in Śmielin (53°09′04.0″ N; 17°29′10.7″ E), Kuyavia-Pomerania Voivodeship, Poland in cooperation with the Department of Agronomy at the Bydgoszcz University of Technology.
Three-year field experiments were carried out on soil classified by the WRB [43] as Luvisol. The soil grain-size composition was: 50.6% sand (2–0.05 mm), 43.4% silt (0.05–0.002 mm), 6.0% clay (<0.002 mm). The soil in the 0–20 cm layer contained: organic carbon (g C kg−1 soil)—12.1; total nitrogen (g N kg−1 soil)—1.15; PEgner-Riehm (mg P kg−1 soil)—116.7; KEgner-Riehm (mg K kg−1 soil)—160.8; MgSchatschabel (mg Mg kg−1 soil)—61.5; and the pHKCL index was 6.14.
According to the Köppen–Geiger classification [44], the research area lies in a humid continental climate zone classified as Dfb (cold, without dry season, warm summer). Where field experiments were carried out, the average annual air temperature in recent decades was 8.1 °C, and the sum of precipitation was 485 mm. Meteorological conditions (monthly mean air temperatures and sums of precipitation) during the study period are presented in Table 1.

2.2. Field Experiments

In a three-year, single-factor field experiment, the possibility of cultivating spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and peas (Pisum sativum L.) by mixed crops within-row and by row intercropping was investigated. Four treatments were compared:
-
Spring barley, pure sowing, Bp.
-
Pea, pure sowing, Pp.
-
Mixed-crop within-row (BPmc), barley (Bmc) + peas (Pmc).
-
Row intercropping (BPri), barley (Bri) + peas (Pri).
Each method of sowing (growing) barley and peas was carried out on plots of 4 m × 100 m, randomly distributed in four blocks. Barley, peas and any kind of mixture of these plants were set up in four plots with an area of 400 m2. Plants were harvested from the entire plot area. After harvesting, the mixture yield was separated into its components—barley grain and pea seeds.
All agrotechnical procedures (loosening soil strips, application of nitrogen–phosphorus fertiliser, sowing seeds) were performed with a single pass of a Mzuri-Pro Til 4T multifunctional machine. Potassium fertiliser only was applied across the entire experimental field before barley and peas were sown, using an Amazone ZG-TS 8200 spreader. Irrespective of the treatment, the mineral fertilisation was: nitrogen 27 kg N ha−1, ammonium phosphate 69 kg P2O5 ha−1, and potassium chloride 90 kg K2O kg ha−1. In pure sowing, spring barley was additionally fertilised in the BBCH 32 stage of 50 kg N ha−1. Spring barley cv. KWS Vermont (pure sowing), pea cv. Batuta (pure sowing), and the two species together were sown on 27 March, 2 April and 12 April of the successive study years. Sowing density (seeds m−2) was, depending on experiment: barley, pure sowing—280; peas, pure sowing—120; mixed crop within-row (barley + peas)—140 + 60; mixed crops by row intercropping—140 + 60. Strips of loosened soil, the same for each of the four treatments of the experiment, were about 12 cm wide, and untilled inter-rows were 24 cm wide. A 6-cm-wide strip of seeds was sown along the centre of the loosened soil strip to a depth of 20 cm. Barley grain was sown to a depth of 3 cm, and peas to a depth of 6 cm. The mixture of barley grain and pea seeds (BPmc treatment) was sown to a depth of 4 cm in every row. In the first year, barley and peas were alternately sown (one row of barley/one row of peas)—BPri by one pass of a machine with a row spacing of 72 cm sowing peas and a second pass shifted across by 36 cm sowing barley. In the years 2020 and 2021, the same effect was obtained by both plant species sown with a single pass of the sower, with alternating rows of barley and peas and adjacent rows spaced 36 cm apart (Figure 1). For this, the Mzuri machine was modified and the sowing method was developed at the Research & Development Centre Agro-Środki-Technika-Technologia in Śmielin.
The occurrence of pests was chemically reduced with the minimum number of treatments and amount of active ingredients. The fungicide azoxystrobin was applied at 200 g ha−1 in the BBCH 39 stage in 2020 and 2021, and the insecticide deltamethrin was applied at 7.5 g ha−1 in the BBCH 21 stage in each study year, and in the BBCH 49 stage in 2019 and 2021. Crop protection products were applied in accordance with current recommendations and instructions.
The grain/seed yield was harvested by combine harvester from the entire plot in the BBCH 89 full maturity stage and expressed in t ha−1 with a water content of 15%.

2.3. Measurements and Assessments

After the emergence of the plants in the BBCH 12 stage, and before harvesting at BBCH 89, plant/ear density was determined on each plot at four places of 1 m2. The density after emergence relative to assumed sowing density was used to calculate the field emergence capacity, while canopy density before harvest, after considering yield features, was used to determine weight of grain/seeds per area. In the BBCH 31–32 and 60–61 development stages, the physiological parameters of plants and the canopy were measured. Photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) and leaf area index (LAI) were determined. PAR and LAI measurements were made using an AccuPAR LP-80 m (METER Group, Inc., Pullman, WA, USA). The measuring probe was placed perpendicular to the crop rows. The evaluations of the PAR index above the crop canopy and near the soil surface beneath the canopy were used to calculate the intercepted photosynthetic active radiation index (IPAR%). At the same developmental stages, leaf stomatal conductance and relative chlorophyll content were evaluated. These measurements were taken on fully shaped upper leaves using a Leaf Porometer SC-1 (METER Group, Inc.) and a CM1000 chlorophyll meter (Spectrum Technologies, Inc.), respectively. Stomatal conductivity was expressed in mmol H2O m−2 s−1, and the content of chlorophyll as a unitless quantity in the range 0–999.
In the BBCH 60–61 and BBCH 89 stages, weed infestation was determined at two locations within each plot. Above-ground weed biomass was collected and dried for 72 h at 70 °C using a Solid Line FD-S 115 dryer (BINDER GmbH). The result is expressed in g d.m. m−2.
Prior to harvest, biometric measurements were also performed on 20 representative barley and pea plants in each plot. Determinations were made of the following: stem/shoot length, number of grains per ear, weight of grain per ear, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod, and weight of seeds per plant. After harvesting, an assessment was made of the weight of a thousand grains/seeds, weight of a hectolitre of grain/seeds, and grain/seed protein content. The grain/seed parameters were assessed using a grain counter (Sadkiewicz Instruments) for the weight of a thousand grains/seeds, and an Infratec NOVA analyser (Foss Analytical). Protein yield was calculated based on grain/seed yield and protein content.
Intercropping efficiency was assessed using land equivalent ratio (LER). The LER index is commonly used in comparative studies of the effectiveness of mixed crops and pure sowing [22,25].
LER = ( LERa + LERb ) ;   LERa = Ya ( b ) / Yaa ,   LERb = Yb ( a ) / Ybb
where: Yaa and Ybb—yield of barley and peas in pure sowing, respectively; Ya(b)—yield of barley by mixed crops; Yb(a)—yield of peas by mixed crops.

2.4. Statistical Data Analysis

The dataset of measurements and evaluations of plant parameters was subjected to statistical analysis. The normality of distribution of results for each feature was checked using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The uniformity of barley and pea field emergence capacity by sowing method was determined using standard error, standard deviation, outliers and extreme results of plant emergence in 16 places in each experimental treatment (4 measurement places in a plot × 4 repetitions). The results are graphically presented in box-and-whisker charts. Due to the variability of the results in subsequent years, results are presented separately for each year. The column figure shows the mean values of the field emergence capacity of barley and peas, which allowed for conclusions to be generalized, regardless of the variability in the years. Such conclusions, the most valuable for science, were carried out on the basis of the mean value of plant features in the years of research presented in the tables and figures. This procedure was also justified by the fact that barley and peas were only found to have different responses to experimental treatments in the following years in terms of a few plant features, e.g., the ear/plant density before harvesting. However, no such reaction was found for the grain/seed and protein yield.
Normally distributed data were subjected to ANOVA. The statistical significance of the influence of experimental treatments on given plant features was evaluated with the F test. Tukey’s post-hoc test (at p < 0.05) was used to assess the significance of differences between the mean values of each feature.
The results were statistically analysed in the Statistica.PL 12 computer software package [45].

3. Results

The field emergence capacity of spring barley intercropped with rows of pea (Bri) was 85.8%; this did not differ from the emergence of barley in pure sowing (Bp) and was significantly higher than the emergence capacity of barley sown as mixed crops (Bmc) (Figure 2). Similarly, the emergence of peas in the mixed crop (Pmc) was smaller than that of pure-sown peas (Pp) or that of pea intercropped with barley (Pri).
In period of the research, despite the different value in each year, the lowest field emergence capacity was for barley sown in the Bmc mix. At the same time, its field emergence capacity was highly spatially variable. The standard deviation (as a measure of variability) was 4.08–5.70 depending on the year (Figure 3A). In 2019 and 2020, the differentiation of the emergence of Bp and Bri barley within the experimental field was similar. In 2021, the field emergence capacity of Bri was less variable than that of Bp. The standard deviations were 2.75 and 3.58, respectively.
The row intercropping of barley with peas (BPri) resulted in lower variability (i.e., greater uniformity) in the field emergence capacity of peas Pri within the experimental field, especially as compared to Pmc (Figure 3B). In 2020 and 2021, the variability in field emergence capacity was also lower for Pri than for Pp. This is indicated by lower standard deviations (shorter whiskers in the chart). In 2021, these were 1.92 and 2.84, respectively.
Plant species and sowing (growing) method significantly influenced the canopy’s structure and the light conditions within it. In the initial stages of development, BBCH 31–32, the LAI and IPAR indices were highest in pure sowing (Pp) and the mixed crop of barley with pea (BPmc). However, in the BBCH 60–61 stage, the LAI index was highest for Pp and BPri, and the IPAR index was highest for BPri. In the flowering stage, 87.5–100.3 g d.m. m−2 of weeds were found. Weed infestation was, nevertheless, not related to the growing method. Before harvesting, Pp and BPmc were the most infested (Table 2).
In the initial stage of barley growth, BBCH 31–32, the coexistence of pea plants, regardless of the sowing method (Bmc, Bri), did not significantly affect the leaf stomatal conductance or leaf chlorophyll content (Table 3). Later, at BBCH 60–61, Bp stomatal conductance was the same as in the presence of pea (Bri). Leaf chlorophyll content in Bp was similar to Bri, but 42 units lower than in Bmc. Peas intercropped with barley (Pri) only had a significant increase in leaf stomatal conductance relative to Pp in the BBCH 31–32 stage, and, when sown as Pmc and Pri, had a greater stomatal conductance than Pp in the BBCH 60–61 stage.
The Bmc spring barley had longer stems than the Bp, a greater ear density and greater grain mass per area. However, the same comparison of peas shows the mixed crop to have shorter shoots, lower plant density at harvest, fewer pods, and lower seed weight per plant and per area. The weights per thousand seeds and seed protein content were also lower (Table 4). The biometric features of row-intercropped barley (Bri) did not differ from those of Bp, except for a greater number of ears and per area grain weight. Pri pea plants produced more pods with more seeds than did Pp, as well as greater seed weight per plant and per area. However, the protein content in the seeds from these plants was lower. Intercropped BPri plants benefitted from increases in some yield features as compared to BPmc, i.e., in the weight of grain per ear for Bri, and in plant density at harvest, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod and weight of seeds per plant for Pri. These plant features differed by 0.04 g; 8.8 pcs m−2; 0.60 pcs; 0.27 pcs, 0.88 g, respectively.
The sowing method significantly differentiated the yields of spring barley and pea. The yield of Bp barley was 2.54 t ha−1 higher than the yield of Pp pea. Conversely, however, the yield of barley when row-intercropped with peas (BPri) was 0.46 t ha−1 higher than for BPmc (Figure 4A). The LER values of the mixed crop within-row and row intercropping were 0.93 and 1.13, respectively. This indicates that a more efficient use of growth resources was only obtained by the row intercropping of barley + peas, compared to pure sowing of these species.
The protein yield of BPri plants did not significantly differ for pea when compared to the yield of Pp protein, but, for barley, this was higher than the yield of barley protein in pure-sown Bp or barley sown mixed with peas (BPmc) (Figure 4B). The differences were 0.109 t ha−1 and 0.080 t ha−1, respectively.

4. Discussion

The solutions proposed in the presented research are in line with the short-term and long-term assumptions of intercropping improvement presented in the synthetic paper by Brooker et al. [42]. The machine is designed for the simultaneous cultivation of plants of different genotypes and various agrotechnical practices (sowing density, sowing depth, fertilisation) and allows for the creation of different ecological niches for plant species in the adjacent rows. This distribution of plants enables a better use of the resources of the habitat and is an example of the currently promoted “sustainable intensification” of agriculture.
The collective and simultaneous cultivation of several crop species or varieties at in a field is one of the more important ways of increasing biodiversity and gross energy production in agroecosystems [46,47]. The hope that is being placed in these agricultural practices is reflected by the creation of special cultivation programmes for mixed crops [48]. The environmental impact of mixed crops depends, inter alia, on the genetic composition of plant mixtures and the method of sowing/cultivation [49,50,51]. Spring barley, as an important fodder plant, is one component in mixtures grown in various parts of the world. It features in mixes with other cereals, e.g., oats [52], wheat [53] and triticale [54]. It often constitutes fields of fodder plants along with peas [55,56] and other species of legumes [57], including vetch, field beans and lentils [58,59,60]. However, studies show that barley is an aggressive species that often dominates in multi-species canopy of plants [61]. The high competitive power of barley is evidenced by the results of research on plant competition in multi-species fields in which it is included. Treder et al. [62] showed that barley had a stronger negative effect on wheat than vice versa, as shown in smaller increases in the dry weight of plants from tillering to heading. The competitive advantage of barley results from, inter alia, its uptake of nutrients such as nitrogen [63] or phosphorus [64], which is better and more efficient than that of co-occurring plants. Tosti et al. [65] confirmed the aggressiveness and dominance of barley including in mixture with legumes, especially under conditions of high nitrogen content in the soil. However, the effects of competitive interaction between barley and peas can depend on soil conditions. Michalska et al. [66] found that, on light soil, barley outperformed pea in the initial development stages, while, on heavy soil, barley also had a competitive advantage in the heading stage. In the presented research, having barley in their immediate vicinity within the same row significantly limited growth for peas—the plants were shorter and had fewer pods. The weight of seeds from the pea plant mixed with barley was 13.3% lower than that of pure-sown plants.
In-field interactions between plants, including competition, also depend on their mutual spatial distribution, which results from sowing density, row spacing and other agricultural operations [67,68,69]. Furthermore, plants in multi-species fields may facilitate as well as limit the mutual growth and increase productivity and yield. Zhang and Li [70] provide an example of mixed crops of wheat with maize and wheat with soybean, in which wheat yield exceeded that of pure-sown wheat. However, plants were sown in rows or strips of several rows separated according to species. This layout of plants in the field enables an edge effect to occur, as well as below-ground and above-ground interactions between plants. The yield (grain weight) of wheat in rows immediately adjacent to maize or soybean was higher than in inner rows within the sowing strip. The increase in wheat yield in the row adjacent to maize was 74%, with 47% being due to above-ground interspecies interactions and 27% to below-ground interactions. Accordingly, a 53% increase in wheat yield in rows bordering soybean was 30% due to above-ground interaction and 23% to below-ground interaction. However, the interaction between plants cultivated as strip (row) intercropping and the effects of this cultivation depend on the species reactions of plants and their spatial distribution, and are not always positive [71]. These conclusions result from, for example, the study by Li et al. [72] into sowing maize and soybeans according to a 2/2 and 3/6 pattern (maize rows/soybean rows). Therefore, in the present research, it was assumed that separating barley from co-occurring peas by planting it in adjacent rows might, but does not necessarily, reduce the adverse effect on the legume, or even stimulate pea growth as compared to the within-row mixing of barley and peas. To maximise the interaction of plants between rows, the pattern of one row of barley/one row of peas was used. Since row intercropping and, especially, mixed intercropping within-row are common methods for growing annuals together [73], but have not been tested in combination with strip-tillage, these methods were adapted to cultivate spring barley and peas in our experiments. It was assumed that if the results were positive, this field crop cultivation technique, and row intercropping with strip-till one pass in particular, might constitute an important aspect of sustainable agriculture.
The row-intercropping of peas helped avoid the aggressive competition of barley seen in within-row mixed cropping. There were more pods on the pea plants and more seeds in the pods. The increases in the weight of seeds per plant as compared to pure sowing and to within-row mixing with barley were 9.2% and 25.9%, respectively. At the same time, the similarity between plant density and pure sowing (which results from the optimal placement of the seeds in the soil and the lack of aggressive barley in the direct vicinity) explains why the yields and protein yields of this combination were higher than those for mixed intercropping within-row.
The high LAI index maintained in the late developmental stages after flowering, and the observed lack of lodging affecting the light conditions in the canopy (especially for peas in row intercropping), were probably the main reasons that the weight of weeds before harvest in this mixture was lower than the more lodging pure-sown peas and the peas grown as a mixed crop within-row. Corre-Hellou et al. [74], after analyzing the results of studies from many countries, indicate that the weight of weeds in pure-sown peas was three times greater than in peas mixed with barley, which has a high potential to suppress weeds in the canopy.

5. Conclusions

The conducted field experiments show that strip-till one-pass technology allows for the row intercropping of multiple plant species as an alternative to traditional mixed sowing. Mzuri Pro-Til machines allow for individual agrotechnical practices to be adjusted, e.g., selection of plant type and different sowing depths in adjacent strips of cultivated soil. This method of sowing spring barley and peas resulted in more uniform emergence of both plant species in different field habitat conditions than mixed crop within-row. The productivity of barley and peas was higher than that obtained with pure sowing. The LER value of more than 1.0 for this method of growing barley with peas indicates a better use of growth resources compared to pure sowing of these species. The total yield of grains/seeds barley and peas cultivated under row intercropping, according to a 1/1 pattern, was 1.75 t ha−1 greater than the yield of pea seeds under pure sowing and only 0.79 t ha−1 lower than the yield of barley under pure sowing. At the same time, the grain/seed protein yield of these plants was similar to the pure-sown pea protein yield and more than 100 kg ha−1 higher than the pure-sown barley protein yield.
The production of a high amount of fodder (grain/seeds), protein yield similar to pea protein yield, as well as reduced weed infestation before harvesting despite the lack of application of herbicides, makes the row intercropping of cereals and legumes a suitable practice in sustainable crop production.
However, the positive results of this three-year series of field experiments do not negate the need for further research to optimize the technology for various habitat and agrotechnical conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.J. and I.J.; methodology, D.J., I.J. and L.G.; formal analysis, D.J., I.J. and L.G.; investigation, D.J., I.J. and L.G.; data curation, I.J. and D.J.; writing—original draft preparation, D.J., I.J.; writing—review and editing, I.J., D.J. and L.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Research & Development Center Agro-Land Marek Różniak in Śmielin for the opportunity to perform the research and using the Mzuri ProTil-4 machine.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hardeman, E.; Jochemsen, H. Are There Ideological Aspects to the Modernization of Agriculture? J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 2012, 25, 657–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Singh, R. Environmental consequences of agricultural development: A case study from the Green Revolution state of Haryana, India. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 82, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ponisio, L.C.; Ehrlich, P.R. Diversification, Yield and a New Agricultural Revolution: Problems and Prospects. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Townsend, T.J.; Ramsden, S.J.; Wilson, P. Analysing reduced tillage practices within a bio-economic modelling framework. Agric. Syst. 2016, 146, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Pittelkow, C.M.; Liang, X.; Linquist, B.A.; van Groenigen, K.J.; Lee, J.; Lundy, M.E.; van Gestel, N.; Six, J.; Venterea, R.T.; van Kessel, C. Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture. Nature 2015, 517, 365–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Kassam, A.; Friedrich, T.; Derpsch, R. Global spread of conservation agriculture. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2018, 76, 29–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. ECAF. Available online: https://ecaf.org/adoption-of-conservation-agriculture-in-europe/ (accessed on 18 November 2021).
  8. Porwollik, V.; Rolinski, S.; Heinke, J.; Müller, C. Generating a rule-based global gridded tillage dataset. Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 2019, 11, 823–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Zikeli, S.; Gruber, S. Reduced Tillage and No-Till in Organic Farming Systems, Germany—Status Quo, Potentials and Challenges. Agriculture 2017, 7, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Biberdzic, M.; Barac, S.; Lalevic, D.; Djikic, A.; Prodanovic, D.; Rajicic, V. Influence of soil tillage system on soil compactionand winter wheat yield. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2020, 80, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bybee-Finley, K.A.; Ryan, M.R. Advancing Intercropping Research and Practices in Industrialized Agricultural Landscapes. Agriculture 2018, 8, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Krauss, M.; Berner, A.; Perrochet, F.; Frei, R.; Niggli, U.; Mäder, P. Enhanced soil quality with reduced tillage and solid manures in organic farming – a synthesis of 15 years. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 4403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Khursheed, S.; Simmons, C.; Wani, S.A.; Ali, T.; Raina, S.K.; Najar, G.R. Conservation tillage: Impacts on soil physical conditions–an overview. Adv. Plants Agric. Res. 2019, 9, 342–346. [Google Scholar]
  14. Calcante, A.; Oberti, R. A Technical-Economic Comparison between Conventional Tillage and Conservative Techniques in Paddy-Rice Production Practice in Northern Italy. Agronomy 2019, 9, 886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Morrison, J.E., Jr.; Sanabria, J. One-pass and two-pass spring strip tillage for conservation row-cropping in adhesive clay soils. Trans. ASABE 2002, 45, 1263–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jaskulska, I.; Jaskulski, D. Strip-Till One-Pass Technology in Central and Eastern Europe: A MZURI Pro-Til Hybrid Machine Case Study. Agronomy 2020, 10, 925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Soane, B.D.; Ball, B.C.; Arvidsson, J.; Basch, G.; Moreno, F.; Roger-Estrade, J. No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: A review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment. Soil Tillage Res. 2012, 118, 66–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Guan, D.; Zhang, Y.; Al-Kaisi, M.M.; Wang, Q.; Zhang, M.; Li, Z. Tillage practices effect on root distribution and water use efficiency of winter wheat under rain-fed condition in the North China Plain. Soil Tillage Res. 2015, 146, 286–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jaskulska, I.; Romaneckas, K.; Jaskulski, D.; Gałęzewski, L.; Breza-Boruta, B.; Dębska, B.; Lemanowicz, J. Soil Properties after Eight Years of the Use of Strip-Till One-Pass technology. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jaskulska, I.; Jaskulski, D. Winter Wheat and Spring Barley Canopies under Strip-Till One-Pass Technology. Agronomy 2021, 11, 426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Snyder, L.D.; Gómez, M.I.; Power, A.G. Crop Varietal Mixtures as a Strategy to Support Insect Pest Control, Yield, Economic, and Nutritional Services. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2020, 4, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Maitra, S.; Hossain, A.; Brestic, M.; Skalicky, M.; Ondrisik, P.; Gitari, H.; Brahmachari, K.; Shankar, T.; Bhadra, P.; Palai, J.B.; et al. Intercropping—A Low Input Agricultural Strategy for Food and Environmental Security. Agronomy 2021, 11, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gaudio, N.; Escobar-Gutiérrez, A.J.; Casadebaig, P.; Evers, J.B.; Gérard, F.; Louarn, G.; Colbach, N.; Munz, S.; Launay, M.; Marrou, H.; et al. Current knowledge and future research opportunities for modeling annual crop mixtures. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 39, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Malézieux, E.; Crozat, Y.; Dupraz, C.; Laurans, M.; Makowski, D.; Ozier-Lafontaine, H.; Rapidel, B.; De Tourdonnet, S.; Valantin-Morison, M. Mixing plant species in cropping systems: Concepts, tools and models. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Bacchi, M.; Monti, M.; Calvi, A.; Lo Presti, E.; Pellicanò, A.; Preiti, G. Forage Potential of Cereal/Legume Intercrops: Agronomic Performances, Yield, Quality Forage and LER in Two Harvesting Times in a Mediterranean Environment. Agronomy 2021, 11, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Reiss, E.R.; Drinkwater, L.E. Cultivar mixtures: A meta-analysis of the effect of intraspecific diversity on crop yield. Ecol. Appl. 2018, 28, 62–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Pużyńska, K.; Pużyński, S.; Synowiec, A.; Bocianowski, J.; Lepiarczyk, A. Grain Yield and Total Protein Content of Organically Grown Oats–Vetch Mixtures Depending on Soil Type and Oats’ Cultivar. Agriculture 2021, 11, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Creissen, H.; Jorgensen, T.; Brown, J. Stabilization of yield in plant genotype mixtures through compensation rather than complementation. Ann. Bot. 2013, 112, 1439–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Creissen, H.E.; Jorgensen, T.H.; Brown, J.K.M. Increased yield stability of field-grown winter barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) varietal mixtures through ecological processes. Crop Prot. 2016, 85, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Boudreau, M.A. Diseases in intercropping fystems. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2013, 51, 499–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Borg, J.; Kiær, L.P.; Lecarpentier, C.; Goldringer, I.; Gauffreteau, A.; Saint-Jean, S.; Barot, S.; Enjalbert, J. Unfolding the potential of wheat cultivar mixtures: A meta-analysis perspective and identification of knowledge gaps. Field Crop. Res. 2017, 221, 298–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Florence, A.M.; Higley, L.G.; Drijber, R.A.; Francis, C.A.; Lindquist, J.L. Cover crop mixture diversity, biomass productivity, weed suppression, and stability. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0206195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Verret, V.; Gardarin, A.; Pelzer, E.; Médiène, S.; Makowski, D.; Valantin-Morison, M. Can legume companion plants control weeds without decreasing crop yield? A meta-analysis. Field Crop. Res. 2017, 204, 158–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Layek, J.; Das, A.; Mitran, T.; Nath, C.; Meena, R.S.; Yadav, G.S.; Shivakumar, B.G.; Kumar, S.; Lal, R. Cereal + legume intercropping: An option for improving productivity and sustaining soil health. In Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 347–386. [Google Scholar]
  35. Nyawade, S.O.; Gachene, C.K.; Karanja, N.N.; Gitari, H.I.; Schulte-Geldermann, E.; Parker, M.L. Controlling soil erosion in smallholder potato farming systems using legume intercrops. Geoderma Reg. 2019, 17, e00225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Klima, K.; Lepiarczyk, A.; Chowaniak, M.; Boligłowa, E. Soil protective efficiency of organic cultivation of cereals. J. Elem. 2019, 24, 357–368. [Google Scholar]
  37. Postma, J.A.; Lynch, J.P. Complementarity in root architecture for nutrient uptake in ancient maize/bean and maize/bean/squash polycultures. Ann. Bot. 2012, 110, 521–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Gérard, F.; Blitz-Frayret, C.; Hinsinger, P.; Pagès, L. Modelling the interactions between root system architecture, root functions and reactive transport processes in soil. Plant Soil 2017, 413, 161–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Qiao, Y.; Li, Z.; Wang, X.; Zhu, B.; Hu, Y.; Zeng, Z. Effect of legume-cereal mixtures on the diversity of bacterial communities in the rhizosphere. Plant Soil Environ. 2012, 58, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Li, S.; Wu, F. Diversity and Co-occurrence Patterns of Soil Bacterial and Fungal Communities in Seven Intercropping Systems. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 1521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Barot, S.; Allard, V.; Cantarel, A.; Enjalbert, J.; Gauffreteau, A.; Goldringer, I.; Lata, J.C.; le Roux, X.; Niboyet, A.; Porcher, E. Designing mixtures of varieties for multifunctional agriculture with the help of ecology. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 37, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Brooker, R.W.; Bennett, A.E.; Cong, W.-F.; Daniell, T.J.; George, T.S.; Hallett, P.D.; Hawes, C.; Iannetta, P.P.M.; Jones, H.G.; Karley, A.J.; et al. Improving intercropping: A synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytol. 2015, 206, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; IUSS Working Group WRB, World Soil Resources Reports No. 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  44. Peel, M.C.; Finlayson, B.L.; McMahon, T.A. Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2007, 11, 1633–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Statistica. Data Analysis Software System, Version 12; TIBCO Software INC: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2017; Available online: http://sta-517tistica.io (accessed on 15 January 2019).
  46. Martin-Guay, M.O.; Paquette, A.; Dupras, J.; Rivest, D. The new Green Revolution: Sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 615, 767–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Brooker, R.W.; George, T.S.; Homulle, Z.; Karley, A.J.; Newton, A.C.; Pakeman, R.J.; Schöb, C. Facilitation and biodiversity–ecosystem function relationships in crop production systems and their role in sustainable farming. J. Ecol. 2021, 109, 2054–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bourke, P.; Evers, J.B.; Bijma, P.; van Apeldoorn, D.F.; Smulders, M.J.M.; Kuyper, T.W.; Mommer, L.; Bonnema, G. Breeding Beyond Monoculture: Putting the “Intercrop” Into Crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 734167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jalilian, J.; Najafabadi, A.; Zardashti, M.R. Intercropping patterns and different farming systems affect the yield and yield components of safflower and bitter vetch. J. Plant Interact. 2017, 12, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kamara, A.Y.; Tofa, A.I.; Ademulegun, T.; Solomon, R.; Shehu, H.; Kamai, N.; Omoigui, L. Maize–soybean intercropping for sustainable intensification of cereal–legume cropping systems in northern Nigeria. Exp. Agric. 2019, 55, 73–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Gu, C.; Bastiaans, L.; Anten, N.P.R.; Makowski, D.; van der Werf, W. Annual intercropping suppresses weeds: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 322, 107658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Leszczyńska, D.; Klimek-Kopyra, A.; Patkowski, K. Evaluation of the Productivity of New Spring Cereal Mixture to Optimize Cultivation under Different Soil Conditions. Agriculture 2020, 10, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Molla, A.; Birhan, D. Competition and resource utilization in mixed cropping of barley and durum wheat under different moisture stress levels. World J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 6, 713–719. [Google Scholar]
  54. Sobkowicz, P.; Tendziagolska, E.; Lejman, A. Performance of multi-component mixtures of spring cereals. Part 1. Yields and yield components. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2016, 15, 25–35. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sahota, T.S.; Malhi, S.S. Intercropping barley with pea for agronomic and economic considerations in northern Ontario. Agric. Sci. 2012, 3, 889–895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Soufan, W.; Al-Suhaibani, N.A. Optimizing Yield and Quality of Silage and Hay for Pea–Barley Mixtures Ratio under Irrigated Arid Environments. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Darch, T.; Giles, C.D.; Blackwell, M.S.A.; George, T.S.; Brown, L.K.; Menezes-Blackburn, D.; Shand, C.A.; Stutter, M.I.; Lumsdon, D.G.; Mezeli, M.M.; et al. Inter- and intra-species intercropping of barley cultivars and legume species, as affected by soil phosphorus availability. Plant Soil 2018, 427, 125–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kinane, J.; Lyngkjar, M.F. Effect of barley-legume intercrop on disease frequency in an organic farming system. Plant Protect. Sci. 2002, 38, 227–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Dahmardeh, M. Intercropping Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and Lentil (Lens culinaris L.): Yield and intercropping advantages. J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 4, 208–213. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mariotti, M.; Masoni, A.; Ercoli, L.; Arduini, I. Nitrogen leaching and residual effect of barley/field bean intercropping. Plant Soil Environ. 2015, 61, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Wahla, I.H.; Ahmad, R.; Ehsanullah, A.A.; Jabbar, A. Competitive functions of components crops in some barley based intercropping systems. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2009, 11, 69–72. [Google Scholar]
  62. Treder, K.; Wanic, M.; Nowicki, J. Competition between spring wheat and spring barley under conditions of diversified fertilization part II. Influence on biomass of plants and rate of its accumulation. Acta Agroph. 2008, 11, 781–797. [Google Scholar]
  63. Treder, K.; Wanic, M. Competition for nitrogen between spring wheat and spring barley in the conditions of various NPK fertilization. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2011, 10, 87–96. [Google Scholar]
  64. Kostrzewska, M.K.; Jastrzębska, M.; Treder, K.; Wanic, M. Phosphorus in Spring Barley and Italian Rye-Grass Biomass as an Effect of Inter-Species Interactions under Water Deficit. Agriculture 2020, 10, 329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tosti, G.; Benincasa, P.; Guiducci, M. Competition and facilitation inhairy vetch-barley intercrops. Ital. J. Agron. 2010, 5, 239–247. [Google Scholar]
  66. Michalska, M.; Wanic, M.; Jastrzębska, M. Competition between spring barley and field peas under diversified soil conditions. Pt. 1. Biomass accumulation and plants growth rate. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2008, 7, 87–99. [Google Scholar]
  67. Murphy, S.D.; Yakubu, Y.; Weise, S.F.; Swanton, C.J. Effect of planting patterns and inter-row cultivation on competition between corn (Zea mays) and late emerging weeds. Weed Sci. 1996, 44, 865–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ford, E.D.; Sorrensen, K.A. Theory and models of inter-plant competition as a spatial process. In Individual-Based Models and Approaches in Ecology: Populations, Communities, and Ecosystems; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 1992; pp. 363–407. [Google Scholar]
  69. Lepik, A.; Abakumova, M.; Davison, J.; Zobel, K.; Semchenko, M. Spatial mapping of root systems reveals diverse strategies of soil exploration and resource contest in grassland plants. J. Ecol. 2021, 109, 652–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, F.; Li, L. Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant Soil 2003, 248, 305–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Feng, L.; Yang, W.T.; Zhou, Q.; Tang, H.Y.; Ma, Q.Y.; Huang, G.Q.; Wang, S.B. Effects of interspecific competition on crop yield and nitrogen utilisation in maize-soybean intercropping system. Plant Soil Environ. 2021, 67, 460–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Li, S.; Evers, J.B.; van der Werf, W.; Wang, R.; Xu, Z.; Guo, Y.; Li, B.; Ma, Y. Plant architectural responses in simultaneous maize/soybean strip intercropping do not lead to a yield advantage. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2020, 177, 195–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lithourgidis, A.S.; Dordas, C.A.; Damalas, C.A.; Vlachostergios, D.N. Annual Intercrops: An Alternative Pathway for Sustainable Agriculture. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2011, 5, 396–410. [Google Scholar]
  74. Corre-Hellou, G.; Dibet, A.; Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Crozat, Y.; Gooding, M.; Ambus, P.; Dahlmann, C.; von Fragstein, P.; Pristeri, A.; Monti, M.; et al. The competitive ability of pea-barley intercrops against weeds and the interactions with crop productivity and soil N availability. Field Crop. Res. 2011, 122, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Agriculture 12 00229 g001 550
Figure 1. Scheme of plant distribution (A) and photo (B) of rows of barley and peas cultivated as row intercropping.
Figure 1. Scheme of plant distribution (A) and photo (B) of rows of barley and peas cultivated as row intercropping.
Agriculture 12 00229 g001
Agriculture 12 00229 g002 550
Figure 2. Field emergence capacity of spring barley and peas, depending on the growing method: Bp—spring barley, pure sowing; Bmc—spring barley, mixed crop within-row; Bri—spring barley, row intercropping; Pp—pea, pure sowing; Pmc—pea, mixed crop within-row; Pri—pea, row intercropping. a, b—letters indicate significant difference at p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Field emergence capacity of spring barley and peas, depending on the growing method: Bp—spring barley, pure sowing; Bmc—spring barley, mixed crop within-row; Bri—spring barley, row intercropping; Pp—pea, pure sowing; Pmc—pea, mixed crop within-row; Pri—pea, row intercropping. a, b—letters indicate significant difference at p < 0.05.
Agriculture 12 00229 g002
Agriculture 12 00229 g003 550
Figure 3. Uniformity of field emergence capacity of spring barley—(A) and peas—(B) depending on the growing method in 2019-2021: Bp—spring barley, pure sowing; Bmc—spring barley, mixed-crop within-row; Bri—spring barley, row intercropping; Pp—pea, pure sowing; Pmc—pea, mixed-crop within-row; Pri—pea, row intercropping.
Figure 3. Uniformity of field emergence capacity of spring barley—(A) and peas—(B) depending on the growing method in 2019-2021: Bp—spring barley, pure sowing; Bmc—spring barley, mixed-crop within-row; Bri—spring barley, row intercropping; Pp—pea, pure sowing; Pmc—pea, mixed-crop within-row; Pri—pea, row intercropping.
Agriculture 12 00229 g003
Agriculture 12 00229 g004 550
Figure 4. Grain/seeds yield and the LER value for mixed crops—(A) and protein yield—(B) of barley and peas depending on the growing method: Bp—spring barley, pure sowing; Pp—pea, pure sowing; BPmc—mixed crop within-row, barley + peas; BPri—row intercropping, barley + peas. a, b, c, d—letters indicate significant difference at p < 0.05.
Figure 4. Grain/seeds yield and the LER value for mixed crops—(A) and protein yield—(B) of barley and peas depending on the growing method: Bp—spring barley, pure sowing; Pp—pea, pure sowing; BPmc—mixed crop within-row, barley + peas; BPri—row intercropping, barley + peas. a, b, c, d—letters indicate significant difference at p < 0.05.
Agriculture 12 00229 g004
Table
Table 1. Meteorological conditions during the field experiment period.
Table 1. Meteorological conditions during the field experiment period.
Year
Month20192020202130-Year Mean201920202021 30-Year Mean
Air Temperature (°C)Monthly Precipitation (mm)
January-2.6−1.1−1.8-37.728.326.8
February-3.6−1.8−0.9-36.00.820.7
March5.43.93.72.528.826.121.731.9
April9.38.26.27.91.50.730.727.0
May12.111.212.213.389.234.275.249.3
June21.917.920.116.117.7142.030.152.8
July18.618.320.918.622.467.261.769.8
August19.719.917.417.937.7114.438.162.6
September13.515.1-13.198.566.7-46.0
October9.810.5-8.235.972.9-31.5
November5.56.0-2.969.612.4-32.4
December2.71.8--0.621.133.8-34.0
Table
Table 2. The value of the LAI, IPAR indices of barley and peas canopies, and weed biomass depending on the growing method: Bp—spring barley, pure sowing; Pp—pea, pure sowing; BPmc—mixed crop within-row, barley + peas; BPri—row intercropping, barley + peas.
Table 2. The value of the LAI, IPAR indices of barley and peas canopies, and weed biomass depending on the growing method: Bp—spring barley, pure sowing; Pp—pea, pure sowing; BPmc—mixed crop within-row, barley + peas; BPri—row intercropping, barley + peas.
Growing MethodGrowth Stage, BBCH
31–3260–6189
LAIIPAR
(%)		LAIIPAR
(%)		Weeds
(g d.m. m−2)		Weeds
(g d.m. m−2)
Bp1.38 b74.3 a3.24 c83.9 b94.6 a116.5 b
Pp1.51 a72.7 b4.16 a85.4 ab87.5 a160.7 a
BPmc1.50 a72.5 b3.65 b 100.3 a145.5 a
BPri1.43 b75.0 a4.31 a82.6 b
88.3 a		95.7 a108.4 b
a, b—letters in columns indicate significant difference at p < 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Stomatal conductance and chlorophyll content in leaf barley and peas depending on the growing method: Bp—spring barley, pure sowing; Bmc—spring barley, mixed-crop within-row; Bri—spring barley, row intercropping; Pp—pea, pure sowing; Pmc—pea, mixed-crop within-row; Pri—pea, row intercropping.
Table 3. Stomatal conductance and chlorophyll content in leaf barley and peas depending on the growing method: Bp—spring barley, pure sowing; Bmc—spring barley, mixed-crop within-row; Bri—spring barley, row intercropping; Pp—pea, pure sowing; Pmc—pea, mixed-crop within-row; Pri—pea, row intercropping.
Growing MethodGrowth Stage, BBCH
31–3260–61
Stomatal Conductance
(mmol H2O m−2 s−1)		Chlorophyll
(Relative Unit)		Stomatal Conductance
(mmol H2O m−2 s−1)		Chlorophyll (Relative Unit)
Spring barley
Bp276 a582 a327 a526 b
Bmc265 a560 a275 b568 a
Bri277 a580 a314 a545 ab
Pea
Pp357 b488 a411 c526 a
Pmc372 ab493 a430 b521 a
Pri383 a485 a454 a539 a
a, b, c—letters in columns indicate significant difference at p < 0.05.
Table
Table 4. Features of plants and canopies of barley and peas depending on the growing method: Bp—spring barley, pure sowing; Bmc—spring barley, mixed-crop within-row; Bri—spring barley, row intercropping; Pp—pea, pure sowing; Pmc—pea, mixed-crop within-row; Pri—pea, row intercropping.
Table 4. Features of plants and canopies of barley and peas depending on the growing method: Bp—spring barley, pure sowing; Bmc—spring barley, mixed-crop within-row; Bri—spring barley, row intercropping; Pp—pea, pure sowing; Pmc—pea, mixed-crop within-row; Pri—pea, row intercropping.
FeatureUnitSpring Barley
BpBmcBri
Stem lengthcm65.2 b70.1 a65.8 b
Ear densitypcs m−2614 b663 a654 a
Grains per earpcs23.0 a22.7 a23.2 a
Weight of grain per earg1.05 ab1.04 b1.08 a
Weight of grain per areag m−2645 b690 a700 a
Weight of a thousand grainsg44.9 a45.5 a45.7 a
Weight of a hectolitre of grainskg hl−1678 a685 a681 a
Grain protein contentg kg−1114.6 a117.1 a116.3 a
FeatureUnitPea
PpPmcPri
Shoot lengthcm92.6 a84.7 b93.5 a
Plant densitypcs m−262.6 a58.4 b60.5 ab
Pods per plantpcs5.02 b4.71 c5.31 a
Seeds per podpcs3.09 b2.96 b3.23 a
Weight of seeds per plantg3.92 b3.40 c4.28 a
Weight of seeds per areag m−2363 b288 c400 a
Weight of a thousand seedsg251 a240 b247 ab
Weight of a hectolitre of seedskg hl−1816 a804 a809 a
Seed protein contentg kg−1223.4 a214.6 b208.9 b
a, b, c—letters in rows indicate significant difference at p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jaskulska, I.; Jaskulski, D.; Gałęzewski, L. Peas and Barley Grown in the Strip-Till One Pass Technology as Row Intercropping Components in Sustainable Crop Production. Agriculture 2022, 12, 229. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12020229

AMA Style

Jaskulska I, Jaskulski D, Gałęzewski L. Peas and Barley Grown in the Strip-Till One Pass Technology as Row Intercropping Components in Sustainable Crop Production. Agriculture. 2022; 12(2):229. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12020229

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jaskulska, Iwona, Dariusz Jaskulski, and Lech Gałęzewski. 2022. "Peas and Barley Grown in the Strip-Till One Pass Technology as Row Intercropping Components in Sustainable Crop Production" Agriculture 12, no. 2: 229. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12020229

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop