Advertisement

Agronomy for Sustainable Development

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 357–365 | Cite as

Undersowing wheat with different living mulches in a no-till system. II. Competition for light and nitrogen

  • Matthieu Carof
  • Stéphane de Tourdonnet
  • Patrick Saulas
  • Dominique Le Floch
  • Jean Roger-Estrade
Original Article

Abstract

No-till wheat management systems with a living mulch is a possible means to improve agricultural sustainability. Nonetheless living mulches may affect wheat production by competition for light and nutrients. Therefore, here we studied competition for light and nitrogen between wheat and different living mulches under no-till. We grew wheat using three different practices: (1) conventionally-tilled wheat, (2) no-till wheat and (3) wheat undersown with various living mulches. Living mulches were: red fescue, sheep’s fescue, alfalfa, bird’s-foot-trefoil, black medic, and white clover. We measured: leaf area index and height of wheat and living mulch, and radiation partitioning between species; above-ground biomass of wheat and living mulch; nitrogen uptake of wheat and living mulch; and wheat nitrogen status using a nitrogen nutrition index. Our results showed that at flowering, competition for light between mixed species occurred in sixteen out of the eighteen situations, i.e. in three experiments times six no-till/living mulch treatments. Further, the biomass of wheat grown with living mulches was 24–84% lower than no-till wheat alone. At flowering, competition for nitrogen only occurred in seven out of the eighteen situations. Our findings showed that competition for light was due to light partitioning between mixed species. Furthermore, we found that the light competitive ability of wheat undersown with a living mulch was the highest when wheat was much taller than living mulch, and also when wheat leaf area in the mixed canopy layer was greater than that of living mulch. We conclude that the negative effects of living mulches on wheat yield should be solved by a careful choice of living mulch species and the control of living mulches by mechanical or chemical means.

no-tillage undersowing winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) leguminous and grass living mulches interspecific competition canopy structure radiation partitioning nitrogen status 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abramoff M.D., Magelhaes P.J., Ram S.J. (2004) Image Processing with Image J, Biophotonics Int. 11, 36–42.Google Scholar
  2. Basic F., Kisic I., Mesic M., Nestroy O., Butorac A. (2004) Tillage and crop management effects on soil erosion in central Croatia, Soil Till. Res. 78, 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackshaw R.E. (1994) Differential competitive ability of winter wheat cultivars against downy brome, Agron. J. 86, 649–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond W., Grundy A.C. (2001) Non-chemical weed management in organic farming systems, Weed Res. 41, 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carof M., de Tourdonnet S., Saulas P., Le Floch D., Roger-Estrade J. (2007) Undersowing wheat with different living mulches in a no-till system. I. Yield analysis, Agron. Sustain. Dev. 27, 347–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cousens R.D., Barnett A.G., Barry G.C. (2003) Dynamics of competition between wheat and oat: I. Effects of changing the timing of phenological events, Agron. J. 95, 1295–1304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cruz P., Soussana J.F. (1997) Mixed crops, in: Lemaire G. (Ed.), Diagnosis of the nitrogen status in crops, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 131–144.Google Scholar
  8. Cruz P.A., Sinoquet H. (1994) Competition for light and nitrogen during a regrowth cycle in a tropical forage mixture, Field Crop. Res. 36, 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dong S.K., Long R.J., Hu Z.Z., Kang M.Y. (2005) Productivity and persistence of perennial grass mixtures under competition from annual weeds in the alpine region of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, Weed Res. 45, 114–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dumas J.B.A. (1831) Procédés de l’analyse organique, Ann. Chim. Phys. 2, 198–213.Google Scholar
  11. Eslami S.V., Gill G.S., Bellotti B., McDonald G. (2006) Wild radish (Raphanus raphanistrum) interference in wheat, Weed Sci. 54, 749–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. FAO-UNESCO (1974) Soil map of the world, 1:5 000 000, FAO, Roma (Italy).Google Scholar
  13. Ghaley B.B., Hauggaard-Nielsen H., Hogh-Jensen H., Jensen E.S. (2005) Intercropping of wheat and pea as influenced by nitrogen fertilization, Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosys. 73, 201–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hartwig N.L., Ammon H.U. (2002) Cover crops and living mulches, Weed Sci. 50, 688–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hashem A., Radosevich S.R., Roush M.L. (1998) Effect of proximity factors on competition between winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) and Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), Weed Sci. 46, 181–190.Google Scholar
  16. Hauggaard-Nielsen H., Ambus P., Jensen E.S. (2001) Interspecific competition, N use and interference with weeds in pea-barley intercropping, Field Crop. Res. 70, 101–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hernánz J.L., Girón V.S., Cerisola C. (1995) Long-term energy use and economic evaluation of three tillage systems for cereal and legume production in central Spain, Soil Till. Res. 35, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jeuffroy M.-H., Bouchard C. (1999) Intensity and duration of nitrogen deficiency on wheat grain number, Crop Sci. 39, 1385–1393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jumpponen A., Hogberg P., Huss-Danell K., Mulder C.P.H. (2002) Interspecific and spatial differences in nitrogen uptake in monocultures and two-species mixtures in north European grasslands, Funct. Ecol. 16, 454–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Justes E., Jeuffroy M.H., Mary B. (1997) Wheat, barley, and durum wheat, in: Lemaire G. (Ed.), Diagnosis of the nitrogen status in crops, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 73–91.Google Scholar
  21. Kinsella J. (1995) The effects of various tillage systems on soil compaction, in: Soil and Water Conservation Society (Ed.), Farming for a better environment, Ankeny, USA, pp. 15–17.Google Scholar
  22. Lampurlanés J., Cantero-Martínez C. (2003) Soil bulk density and penetration resistance under different tillage and crop management systems and their relationship with barley root growth, Agron. J. 95, 526–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lantinga E.A., Nassiri M., Kropff M.J. (1999) Modelling and measuring vertical light absorption within grass-clover mixtures, Agr. Forest Meteorol. 96, 71–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nakamoto T., Tsukamoto M. (2006) Abundance and activity of soil organisms in fields of maize grown with a white clover living mulch, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 115, 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Olesen J.E., Hansen P.K., Berntsen J., Christensen S. (2004) Simulation of above-ground suppression of competing species and competition tolerance in winter wheat varieties, Field Crops Res. 89, 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Recous S., Machet J.-M., Mary B. (1992) The partitioning of fertilizer-N between soil and crop — Comparison of ammonium and nitrate applications, Plant Soil 144, 101–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sánchez-Gíron V., Serrano A., Hernánz J.L., Navarrete L. (2004) Economic assessment of three long-term tillage systems for rain-fed cereal and legume production in semiarid central Spain, Soil Till. Res. 78, 35–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. SAS Institute Inc. (1999) SAS OnlineDoc®, Version 8, SAS Institute Cary, NC.Google Scholar
  29. Seavers G.P., Wright K.J. (1999) Crop canopy development and structure influence weed suppression, Weed Res. 39, 319–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sinoquet H., Cruz P. (1993) Analysis of light interception and use in pure and mixed stands of Digitaria decumbens and Arachis pintoi, Acta Œcol. 14, 327–339.Google Scholar
  31. Sinoquet H., Caldwell R.M. (1995) Estimation of light capture and partitionning in intercropping systems, in: Sinoquet H., Cruz P. (Eds.), Ecophysiology of tropical intercropping, INRA éditions, Paris, pp. 79–97.Google Scholar
  32. Sinoquet H., Rakocevic M., Varlet-Grancher C. (2000) Comparison of models for daily light partitioning in multispecies canopies, Agr. Forest Meteorol. 101, 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Teasdale J.R. (1996) Contribution of cover crops to weed management in sustainable agricultural systems, J. Prod. Agr. 9, 475–479.Google Scholar
  34. Tremmel D.C., Bazzaz F.A. (1995) Plant architecture and allocation in different neighborhoods — Implications for competitive success, Ecology 76, 262–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vandermeer J.H. (1989) The ecology of intercropping, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  36. Wallace J.S., Batchelor C.H., Dabeesing D.N., Teeluck M., Soopramanien G.C. (1991) A comparison of the light interception and water-use of plant and first ratoon sugar-cane intercropped with maize, Agr. Forest Meteorol. 57, 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer S+B Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthieu Carof
    • 1
  • Stéphane de Tourdonnet
    • 1
  • Patrick Saulas
    • 2
  • Dominique Le Floch
    • 1
  • Jean Roger-Estrade
    • 1
  1. 1.AgroParisTech, UMR211INRA/AgroParisTechThiverval-GrignonFrance
  2. 2.INRA, UMR211INRA/AgroParisTechThiverval-GrignonFrance

Personalised recommendations