, Volume 185, Issue 1, pp 123–138 | Cite as

Effects of inter-varietal diversity, biotic stresses and environmental productivity on grain yield of spring barley variety mixtures

  • Lars P. KiærEmail author
  • Ib M. Skovgaard
  • Hanne Østergård


Varietal seed mixtures tend to increase and stabilize crop yields, yet their application is sparse. Large-scale cultivation of variety mixtures may require a better understanding of how inter-varietal interactions and their interaction with the environment may influence the grain yield of variety mixtures relative to their component varieties. For this purpose, six variety mixtures of spring barley and 14 component varieties were grown in each of 17 trial environments. A total of 28 observed and a priori plant characteristics, including grain yield, disease severity and weed competitiveness, were derived for each component variety in each trial. The relationship between inter-varietal diversity of each characteristic and the mixing effect on grain yield was analysed. Additionally, various types of yield stability were estimated and compared among mixtures and component varieties. One mixture out-yielded all of its component varieties in almost half of the trial environments. Inter-varietal diversity in grain yield potential correlated significantly with mixing effect, as did straw length diversity when weighted with weed pressure. The grain yields of most mixtures were more stable across environments than their component varieties when accounting also for the general response to environmental productivity. Hence, most mixtures adapted slightly better to environmental productivity and were less sensitive to environmental stress than their component varieties. We conclude that the efficacy of variety mixtures may be enhanced by mixing relatively high-yielding varieties differing in responsiveness to environmental productivity.


Compensation Complementarity Disease severity Environmental response Weed infestation Yield stability 



Data were obtained from the BAR-OF project (DARCOF II, 2000–2005), funded by the International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems (ICROFS, Denmark). We would like to thank Kristian Kristensen, Maria Finckh and two anonymous reviewers for useful comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript.


  1. Aastveit AH, Buraas T, Gullord M (1989) Interplot competition in oats and barley variety trials. Acta Agric Scand 39(2):159–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ainsley AE, Dyke GV, Jenkyn JF (1995) Inter-plot interference and nearest-neighbour analysis of field experiments. J Agric Sci Camb 125:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Allard RW, Bradshaw AD (1964) Implications of genotype environment interactions. Crop Sci 4:503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bowen KL, Teng PS, Roelfs AP (1984) Negative interplot interference in field experiments with leaf rust of wheat. Phytopath 74:1157–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Broers LHM (1995) Effect of interplot interference on the assessment of partial resistance to stem rust in durum wheat. Phytopath 85:233–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ceccarelli S (1996) In: Cooper M, Hammers GL (eds) Plant Adaptation and Crop Improvement. CAB International, Wallingford U.K., Icrisat, Andra Pradesh, India, IRRI, Manila, Philipines. pp 467-486Google Scholar
  7. Clarke FR, Baker RJ, DePauw RM (1998) Interplot interference distorts yield estimates in spring wheat. Crop Sci 38:62–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clay RE, Allard RW (1969) A comparison of the performance of homogeneous and heterogeneous barley populations. Crop Sci 9:407–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowger C, Weisz R (2008) Winter wheat blends (mixtures) produce a yield advantage in North Carolina. Agron J 100(1):169–177Google Scholar
  10. de Oliveira SJR, Storck L, Lopes SJ, Lúcio AD, Feijó S, Damo HP (2005) Plot size and experimental unit relationship in exploratory experiments. Sci Agric 62(6):585–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Durban M, Currie ID, Kempton RA (2001) Adjusting for fertility and competition in variety trials. J Agric Sci Camb 136:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eberhart SA, Russell WA (1966) Stability parameters for comparing varieties. Crop Sci 6:36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Finckh MR, Gacek ES, Goyeau H, Lannou C, Merz U, Mundt CC, Munk L, Nadziak J, Newton AC, Wolfe MS (2000) Cereal cultivar and species mixtures in practice, with emphasis on disease resistance. Agronomie 20:813–837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finlay KW, Wilkinson GN (1963) The analysis of adaptation in a plant-breeding programme. Austr J Agric Res 14:742–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallandt ER, Dofing SM, Reisenauer PE, Donaldson E (2001) Diallel analysis of cultivar mixtures in winter wheat. Crop Sci 41:792–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen PK, Kristensen K, Willas J (2008) A weed suppressive index for spring barley (Hordeum vulgare) varieties. Weed Res 48:225–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Juskiw PE, Helm JH, Burnett PA (2001) Three-component barley mixtures: ratio effects in replacement series. Can J Plant Sci 81:651–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kaut AHEE, Mason HE, Navabi A, O’Donovan JT, Spaner D (2009) Performance and stability of performance of spring wheat variety mixtures in organic and conventional management systems in Western Canada. J AgricSci 147:141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kempton RA (1982) Adjustment for competition between varieties in plant breeding trials. J Agric Sci Camb 98:599–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kempton RA (1985) Statistical models for interplot competition. Asp Appl Biol 10:110–120Google Scholar
  21. Kempton RA, Howes CW (1981) The use of neighbouring plot values in the analysis of variety trials. Appl Stat 30:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kempton RA, Lockwood G (1984) Inter-plot competition in variety trials of field beans (Vicia faba L.). J Agric Sci Camb 103:293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kiær LP, Skovgaard IM, Østergård H (2009) Grain yield increase in cereal variety mixtures: a meta-analysis of field trials. Field Crop Res 114:361–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Langer I, Frey KJ, Bailey T (1979) Associations among productivity, production response and stability indexes in oat varieties. Euphytica 28:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lin CS, Binns MR, Lefkovitch LP (1986) Stability analysis: where do we stand? Crop Sci 26:894–900Google Scholar
  26. Lipps PE, Madden LV (1992) Effects of plot size and border width on assessment of powdery mildew of winter wheat. Plant Dis 76(3):299–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lopez CG, Mundt CC (2000) Using mixing ability analysis from two-way cultivar mixtures to predict the performance of cultivars in complex mixtures. Field Crops Res 68:121–132Google Scholar
  28. Mundt CC, Brophy LS, Schmitt MS (1995) Choosing crop cultivars and cultivar mixtures under low versus high disease pressure: a case study with wheat. Crop Prot 14(6):509–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newton AC, Thomas WTB (1992) The effect of specific and non-specific resistance in mixtures of barley genotypes on infection by mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei) and on yield. Euphytica 59:73–81Google Scholar
  30. Newton AC, Guy DC, Nadziak J, Gacek ES (2002) The effect of inoculum pressure, germplasm selection and environment on spring barley cultivar mixtures efficacy. Euphytica 125:325–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Newton AC, Hackett CA, Swanston JS (2008) Analysing the contribution of component cultivars and cultivar combinations to malting quality, yield and disease in complex mixtures. J Sci Food Agric 88:2142–2152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nurminiemi M, Rognli OA (1996) Regression analysis of yield stability is strongly affected by companion test varieties and locations: examples from a study of Nordic barley lines. Theor Appl Genet 93:468–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nurminiemi M, Bjørnstad A, Rognli OA (1996) Yield stability and adaptation of Nordic barleys. Euphytica 92:191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Østergård H, Jensen JW (2005) DARCOFenews, newsletter from Danish research centre for organic farming, September 2005. Accessed 22 August 2011
  35. Østergård H, Kristensen K, Jensen JW (2005) In: Bueren ETL van, Goldringer I, Østergård, H (eds) Proceedings of the COST SUSVAR/ECO-PB Workshop on organic plant breeding strategies and the use of molecular markers, Driebergen, The Netherlands, 17–19 January, pp 28–30Google Scholar
  36. Østergård H, Kristensen K, Pinnschmidt HO, Hansen PK, Hovmøller MS (2008) Predicting spring barley yield from variety-specific yield potential, disease resistance and straw length, and from environment-specific disease loads and weed pressure. Euphytica 163:391–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Parlevliet JE, Van Ommeren A (1984) Interplot interference and the assessment of barley cultivars for partial resistance of leaf rust, Puccinia hordei. Euphytica 33:685–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Patterson HD, Williams ER, Hunter EA (1978) Block designs for variety trials. J Agric Sci 90:395–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piepho H-P (1998) Methods for comparing the yield stability of cropping systems. J Agron Crop Sci 4:193–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robert N (2002) Comparison of stability statistics for yield and quality traits in bread wheat. Euphytica 128:333–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sage GCM (1971) Inter-varietal competition and its possible consequences for the production of F1 hybrid wheat. J Agric Sci 77:491–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Smithson JB, Lenné JM (1996) Varietal mixtures: a viable strategy for sustainable productivity in subsistence agriculture. Ann Appl Biol 128:127–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stützel H, Aufhammer W (1990) The physiological causes of mixing effect in cultivar mixtures: a general hypothesis. Agr Syst 32:41–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Talbot M, Milner AD, Nutkins MAE, Law JR (1995) Effect of interference between plots on yield performance in crop variety trials. J Agric Sci Camb 124:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Valentine J (1982) Variation in monoculture and in mixture for grain yield and other characters in spring barley. Ann Appl Biol 101:127–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson JB (1988) Shoot competition and root competition. J Appl Ecol 25:279–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wolfe MS (2006) In: Østergård H, Fontaine L (eds) Proceedings of the COST SUSVAR workshop on cereal crop diversity: Implications for production and products, La Besse, France, 13–14 June, pp 8–40Google Scholar
  48. Wolfe MS, Baresel JP, Desclaux D, Goldringer I, Hoad S, Kovacs G, Löschenberger F, Miedaner T, Østergård H, Lammerts van Bueren ET (2008) Developments in breeding cereals for organic agriculture. Euphytica 163:323–346Google Scholar
  49. Yates F, Cochran WG (1938) The analysis of groups of experiments. J Agric Sci 28:556–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang R, Warrick AW, Myers DE (1994) Heterogeneity, plot shape effect and optimum plot size. Geoderma 62:183–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars P. Kiær
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Ib M. Skovgaard
    • 2
  • Hanne Østergård
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Biosystems Division, Risø National Laboratory for Sustainable EnergyTechnical University of Denmark, DTURoskildeDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Basic Sciences and EnvironmentUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Agriculture and EcologyUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark
  4. 4.Department of Chemical and Biochemical EngineeringTechnical University of Denmark, DTUKgs. LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations