Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems

, Volume 77, Issue 2, pp 143–153 | Cite as

Competition for and utilisation of sulfur in sole and intercrops of pea and barley

  • Mette Klindt Andersen
  • Henrik Hauggaard-Nielsen
  • Henning Høgh-Jensen
  • Erik Steen Jensen
Original Paper

Abstract

Deficiency of plant available sulfur (S) has been recognised as a limiting factor for crop production in many regions of the world. However, knowledge of the effect that low S availability has on the growth dynamics and nitrogen (N) use of cereal–legume intercrops is limited. Pea (Pisum sativum L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) were grown in a pot experiment as sole crops and intercrops with or without the addition of S in the form of gypsum. At three consecutive harvests total aboveground biomass and corresponding soil samples were taken for analysis. Harvested biomass was analysed for total S and N content and soil samples for their sulfate content. The cumulative Relative Efficiency Index (REIc) was used to study the interspecies growth, N and S dynamics in the intercrop and the Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) was used to evaluate intercrop performance. In the initial growth phase earlier germination gave barley a growth and nutrient use advantage compared to pea (REIc values < 1). However, shortly after this pioneer phase, the importance of initial size differences decreased relative to the effect of species identity in determining the competitive strength of the two species and by the end of the growth period pea was very dominant (REIc values > 1). The limited availability of soil N played a pivotal role in creating the nutrient and growth dynamics observed in the intercrop and increasing the availability of S did not change this markedly. Most likely as a result of its N2 fixing ability the pea component came to dominate the intercrop both with respect to yield and nutrient accumulation, accounting for 77% of total dry matter production, 90% of N uptake and 85% of S uptake, averaged across S treatments. LER values calculated on the basis of total aboveground dry matter, and N and S accumulation all exceeded 1, indicating that available growth resources were used more efficiently by the intercrop than the average sole crop.

Keywords

Biomass production cumulative Relative Efficiency Index (REIc) Intercropping Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) Nitrogen Sulfur 

References

  1. Adu-Gyamfi JJ, Ito O, Yoneyama T, Devi G, Katayama K (1997) Timing of N fertilization on N2 fixation, N recovery and soil profile nitrate dynamics on sorghum/pigeonpea intercrops on Alfisols on the semi-arid tropics. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 48:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ae N, Arihara J, Okada K, Yoshihara T, Johansen C (1990) Phosphorus uptake by pigeon pea and its role in cropping systems of the Indian subcontinent. Science 248:477–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen MK, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Ambus P, Jensen ES (2004) Biomass production, symbiotic nitrogen fixation and inorganic N use in dual and tri-component annual intercrops. Plant Soil 266:273–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anil L, Park RHP, 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 Forage Sci 53:301–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bellostas N, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Andersen MK, Jensen ES (2003) Early interference dynamics in intercrops of pea, barley and oilseed rape. Biol Agric Hortic 21:337–348Google Scholar
  6. Connolly J (1987) On the use of response models in mixture experiments. Oecologia 72:95–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Corre-Hellou G, Crozat Y (2004) Interspecific competition for soil N in pea–barley mixtures during the vegetative phase and consequences of N2 fixation. In: AEP (ed) 5th European conference on grain legumes—legumes for the benefit of agriculture, nutrition and the environment: their genomics, their products, and their improvement. Dijon, France, June 7–11, pp 65–66Google Scholar
  8. DeBoer DL, Duke SH (1982) Effects of sulphur nutrition on nitrogen and carbon metabolism in lucerne (Medicago sativa L). Physiol Plant 54:343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Duke SH, Reisenauer HM (1986) Roles and requirements of sulfur in plant nutrition. In: Tabatabai MA (ed) Sulfur in agriculture. Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp 123–168Google Scholar
  10. Eriksen J (1997) Sulphur cycling in Danish agricultural soils: inorganic sulphate dynamics and plant uptake. Soil Biol Biochem 29:1379–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eriksen J, Nielsen M, Mortensen JV, Schjorring JK (2001) Redistribution of sulphur during generative growth of barley plants with different sulphur and nitrogen status. Plant Soil 230:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fukai S, Trenbath BR (1993) Processes determining intercrop productivity and yields of component crops. Field Crops Res 34:247–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ghanbari-Bonjar A, Lee HC (2002) Intercropped field beans (Vicia faba) and wheat (Triticum aestivum) for whole crop forage: effect of nitrogen on forage yield and quality. J Agric Sci 138:311–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Ambus P, Jensen ES (2001a) Interspecific competition, N use and interference with weeds in pea–barley intercropping. Field Crops Res 72:185–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Ambus P, Jensen ES (2001b) Temporal and spatial distribution of roots and competition for nitrogen in pea–barley intercrops—a field study employing P-32 technique. Plant Soil 236:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jensen ES (1986) The influence of rate and time of nitrate supply on nitrogen fixation and yield in pea (Pisum sativum L). Fert Res 10:193–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jensen ES (1996) Grain yield, symbiotic N2 fixation and interspecific competition for inorganic N in pea–barley intercrops. Plant Soil 182:25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keeney DR, Nelson DW (1982) Nitrogen-inorganic forms. In: Page AL (ed) Methods of soil analysis part 2 chemical and microbiological properties. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 643–698Google Scholar
  19. Li L, Zhang FS, Li XL, Christie P, Sun JH, Yang SC, Tang CX (2003) Interspecific facilitation of nutrient uptake by intercropped maize and faba bean. Nutr Cycl Agroecosys 65:61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lisle L, Lefroy R, Anderson G, Blair G (1994) Methods for the measurement of sulphur in plants and soil. Sulphur Agric 18:45–54Google Scholar
  21. Marschner H, Romheld V, Horst WJ, Martin P (1986) Root-induced changes in the rhizosphere - importance for the mineral-nutrition of plants. Z Pflanz Bodenkunde 149:441–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McGrath SP, Zhao FJ (1996) Sulphur uptake, yield responses and the interactions between nitrogen and sulphur in winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus). J Agric Sci 126:53–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Midmore DJ (1993) Agronomic modification of resource use and intercrop productivity. Field Crops Res 34:357–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mortensen J, Eriksen J (1994) Effect of sulphur deficiency on amino acid composition. Nor J Agric Sci 15:135–142Google Scholar
  25. Nes P (1979) Routine measurement of total sulphur in biological material. N Z J Sci 22:269–272Google Scholar
  26. O’Donnell AG, Wu J, Syers JK (1994) Sulphate-S amendments in soil and their effects on the transformation of soil sulphur. Soil Biol Biochem 26:1507–1514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ofori F, Stern WR (1987) Maize cowpea intercrop system—effect of nitrogen-fertilizer on productivity and efficiency. Field Crops Res 14:247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Randall PJ, Wrigley CW (1986) Effects of sulfur supply on the yield, composition, and quality of grain from cereals, oilseeds, and legumes. Adv Cereal Sci Technol 8:171–206Google Scholar
  29. Rauber R, Schmidtke K, Kimpel-Freund H (2001) The performance of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) and its role in determining yield advantages in mixed stands of pea and oat (Avena sativa L). J Agron Crop Sci 187:137–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Raven JA (1986) Biochemical disposal of excess H+ in growing plants. New Phytol 104:175–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reuveny Z, Dougall DK, Trinity PM (1980) Regulatory coupling of nitrate and sulfate assimilation pathways in cultured tobacco cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77:6670–6672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. SAS SAS/STAT Software (8.02) (1999) SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Tischner R (2000) Nitrate uptake and reduction in higher and lower plants. Plant Cell Environ 23:1005–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tofinga MP, Paolini R, Snaydon RW (1993) A study of root and shoot interactions between cereals and peas in mixtures. J Agric Sci 120:13–24Google Scholar
  35. Weiner J (1990) Asymmetric competition in plant–plant populations. Trends Ecol Evol 5:360–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Willey R (1979) Intercropping - its importance and its research needs. I. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crops Abstr 32:1–10Google Scholar
  37. Withers PJA, Tytherleigh ARJ, O’Donnell FM (1995) Effect of sulphur fertilizers on the grain yield and sulphur content of cereals. J Agric Sci 125:317–324Google Scholar
  38. Wu J, O’Donnell AG, He ZL, Syers JK (1994) Fumigation-extraction method for the measurement of soil microbial biomass-S. Soil Biol Biochem 26:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang FS, Li L (2003) Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant Soil 248:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhao FJ, Hawkesford MJ, McGrath SP (1999a) Sulphur assimilation and effects on yield and quality of wheat. J Cereal Sci 30:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhao FJ, Wood AP, McGrath SP (1999b) Effects of sulphur nutrition on growth and nitrogen fixation of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Plant Soil 212:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mette Klindt Andersen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Henrik Hauggaard-Nielsen
    • 1
  • Henning Høgh-Jensen
    • 2
  • Erik Steen Jensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Biosystems DepartmentRISØ National LaboratoryRoskildeDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural SciencesThe Royal Veterinary and Agricultural UniversityTaastrupDenmark

Personalised recommendations