PLANT-PLANT INTERACTIONS IN PEA-CEREAL MIXTURES UNDER HEAT STRESS CONDITIONS OF SECOND CROP SEASON

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 26 Sayı: 2, 147 - 156, 27.12.2021

Onur İleri , Şule Erkovan , Halil İbrahim Erkovan , Ali Koç

https://doi.org/10.17557/tjfc.886003

Cited By: 2

Öz

Plant-plant interactions could shift from facilitation to competition or vice versa depending on stress conditions. Many researchers are investigating these interactions among the plant species but knowledge about the effect of these interactions on the establishment and growth is limited. Therefore, the effect of plant-plant interactions on forage yield and quality were investigated in pea-cereal mixtures under Central Anatolia conditions during the 2018 and 2019 years. Forage pea were sown using different densities (80, 100, 120 plants m-2) and as binary mixtures with 50-75 % reduced seeding ratio of oat, silage maize, and Sudangrass as a mixture. Dry matter yield was the highest in pea density of 100 plants m-2. All mixtures increased dry matter yield but decreased the crude protein content concerning forage pea monoculture. The highest dry matter yield was 7224,7 kg ha-1 and it was recorded in the mixture that 50 % reduced silage maize used. Sudangrass mixtures negatively affect the crude protein content in the mixture and decreased it down to 14,58 % but it was, nevertheless, considerably high. Forage NDF and ADF contents were generally higher in Sudangrass mixtures. Above-and belowground relative neighbor effects (ABRNE and BGRNE respectively) were facilitative under stressful climate conditions of 2018 but they shifted into competition in 2019. The cereals used in the mixtures caused a competitive effect on forage pea in terms of BGRNE. The results indicated that plant-plant interactions could significantly affect the forage yield, quality, and competition. Forage pea (100 plants m-2) could be cultivated as a second crop when sown as a binary mixture using 50% reduced silage maize (5000 plants m-2).

Anahtar Kelimeler

Forage pea, mixture, forage quality, plant-plant interaction, plant density

Kaynakça

• Acikgoz, E. 2001. Forage Crops. VIPAS Publication Number 58. Bursa (In Turkish).
• Acikgoz, E., M. Sincik, G. Wietgrefe, M. Surmen, S. Cecen, T. Yavuz, C. Erdurmus and A.T. Goksoy. 2013. Dry matter accumulation and forage quality characteristics of different soybean genotypes. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 37(1): 22-32.
• Arzani, H., M. Basiri, F. Khatibi and G. Ghorbani. 2006. Nutritive value of some Zagros Mountain rangeland species. Small Ruminant Research 65(1-2): 128-135.
• Basaran, U., E. Gulumser, H. Mut and M. Copur Dogrusoz. 2018. Determination of silage yield and quality of grasspea+cereal intercrops. Turkish Journal of Agriculture – Food Science and Technology 6(9): 1237-1242. Baxevanos, D., I.T. Tsialtas, D.N. Vlachostergios, I. Hadjigeorgiou, C. Dordas and A. Lithourgidis. 2017. Cultivar competitiveness in pea-oat intercrops under Mediterranean conditions. Field Crops Research 214: 94-103.
• Bhattacharya, A. 2019. Changing Climate and Resource Use Efficiency in Plants. Academic Press, London, UK. Bowker, M.A., S. Soliveres and F.T. Maestre. 2010. Competition increases with abiotic stress and regulates the diversity of biological soil crusts. Journal of Ecology 98(3): 551-560.
• Brooker, R.W., F.T. Maestre, R.M. Callaway, C.L. Lortie, L.A. Cavieres, G. Kunstler, P. Liancourt, K. Tielborger, J.M.J. Travis, F. Anthelme, C. Armas, L. Coll, E. Corcket, S. Delzon, E. Forey, Z. Kikvidze, J. Olofsson, F. Pugnaire, C.L. Quiroz, P. Saccone, K. Schiffers, M. Seifan, B. Touzard and R. Michalet. 2008. Facilitation in plant communities: the past, the present, and the future. Journal of Ecology 96: 18-34.
• Carr, P.M., R.D. Horsley and W.W. Poland. 2004. Barley, oat, and cereal–pea mixtures as dryland forages in the northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 96(3): 677-684.
• Collins, M. and J.O. Fritz. 2003. Forage quality. In: Forages: An Introduction to Grassland Agriculture (6th ed.), ed. Barnes, R.F., Nelson, C.J., Collins, M. and Moore, K.J., 363-390, Iowa State Press, Ames.
• Cook, D., A.M. Rimando, T.E. Clemente, J. Schroder, F.E. Dayan, N.P.D. Nanayakkara, Z. Pan, B.P. Noonan, M. Fishbein, I. Abe, S.O. Duke and S.R. Baerson. 2010. Alkylresorcinol synthases ecpressed in Sorghum bicolor root hairs play an essential role in the biosynthesis of the allelopathic benzoquinone sorgoleone. The Plant Cell 22(3): 867-887.
• Corre-Hellou, G., J. Fustec and Y. Crozat. 2006. Interspecific competition for soil N and its interaction with N 2 fixation, leaf expansion and crop growth in pea–barley intercrops. Plant and Soil 282(1-2): 195-208.
• Grant, K., J. Kreyling, H. Heilmeier, C. Beierkuhnlein and A. Jentsch. 2014. Extreme weather events and plant–plant interactions: shifts between competition and facilitation among grassland species in the face of drought and heavy rainfall. Ecological Research 29(5): 991-1001.
• He, Q., M.D. Bertness and A.H. Altieri. 2013. Global shifts towards positive species interactions with increasing environmental stress. Ecology Letters 16: 695-706.
• Jacob, C.E., E. Tozzi and C.J. Willenborg. 2017. Neighbour presence, not identity, influences root and shoot allocation in pea. PLoS One 12(3): e0173758.
• Jiang, Y., R. Lahlali, C. Karunakaran, S. Kumar, A.R. Davis and R.A. Bueckert. 2015. Seed set, pollen morphology and pollen surface composition response to heat stress in field pea. Plant, Cell & Environment 38(11): 2387-2397.
• Kavut, Y.T. and H. Geren. 2017. Effects of different harvest dates and mixture rates on the yield and some silage quality characteristics of legume mixtures with annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum L.). Journal of Agriculture Faculty of Ege University 54(2): 115-124 (In Turkish).
• Koc, A., S. Erkovan H.I. Erkovan, U. Oz, M.M. Birben and R. Tunc. 2013. Competitive effects of plant species under different sowing ratios in some annual cereal and legume mixtures. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances 12: 509-520.
• Kocer, A. and S. Albayrak. 2012. Determination of forage yield and quality of pea (Pisum sativum L.) mixtures with oat and barley. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 17(1): 96-99.
• Kontturi, M., A. Laine, M. Niskanen, T. Hurme, M. Hyovela and P. Peltonen-Sainio. 2011. Pea–oat intercrops to sustain lodging resistance and yield formation in northern European conditions. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B-Soil and Plant Science 61(7): 612-621.
• Lithourgidis, A.S., I.B. Vasilakoglou, K.V. Dhima, C.A. Dordas and M.D. Yiakoulaki. 2006. Forage yield and quality of common vetch mixtures with oat and triticale in two seeding ratios. Field Crops Research 99(2-3): 106-113.
• Lithourgidis, A.S., D.N. Vlachostergios, C.A. Dordas and C.A. Damalas. 2011. Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea–cereal intercropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy 34(4): 287-294.
• Liu, N., C. Karunakaran, R. Lahlali, T. Warkentin and R.A. Bueckert. 2019. Genotypic and heat stress effects on leaf cuticles of field pea using ATR-FTIR spectroscopy. Planta 249(2): 601-613.
• Lopez, S., D.R. Davies, F.J. Giraldez, M.S. Dhanoa, J. Dijkstra and J. France. 2005. Assessment of nutritive value of cereal and legume straws based on chemical composition and in vitro digestibility. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 85(9): 1550-1557.
• Mao, L., L. Zhang, W. Li, W. van der Werf, J. Sun, H. Spiertz and L. Li. 2012. Yield advantage and water saving in maize/pea intercrop. Field Crops Research 138: 11-20.
• Mihailovic, V., A. Mikic and B. Cupina. 2007. Potential of annual legumes for utilization in animal feeding. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 23: 573-581.
• Moreira, F.B., I.N. Prado, U. Cecato, F.Y. Wada and I.Y. Mizubuti. 2004. Forage evaluation, chemical composition, and in vitro digestibility of continuously grazed star grass. Animal Feed Science and Technology 113(1-4): 239-249.
• Neumann, A., K. Schmidtke and R. Rauber. 2007. Effects of crop density and tillage system on grain yield and N uptake from soil and atmosphere of sole and intercropped pea and oat. Field Crops Research 100(2-3): 285-293.
• Oksanen, L., M. Sammul and M. Merike. 2006. On the indices of plant-plant competition and their pitfalls. Oikos 112: 149-155.
• Pflueger, N.P., D.D. Redfearn, J.D. Volesky and R. Bolze, M.B. Stephenson. 2020. Influence of oat and spring pea mixtures on forage characteristics in different environments. Agronomy Journal 112(3): 1911-1920.
• Planton, S., P. Lionello, V. Artale, R. Aznar, A. Carillo, J. Colin, L. Congedi, C. Dubois, A. Elizalde, S. Gualdi, E. Hertig, J. Jacobeit, G. Jorda, L. Li, A. Mariotti, C. Piani, P. Ruti, E. Sanchez-Gomez, G. Sannino, F. Sevault, S. Somot and M. Tsimplis. 2012. The climate of the Mediterranean region in future climate projections. In: Mediterranean Climate Variability, ed. Lionello P., 449-502, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Elsevier.
• Podgorska-Lesiak, M. and P. Sobkowicz. 2013. Prevention of pea lodging by intercropping barley with peas at different nitrogen fertilization levels. Field Crops Research 149: 95-104.
• Rogelj, J., M. Meinshausen and R. Knutti. 2012. Global warming under old and new scenarios using IPCC climate sensitivity range estimates. Nature Climate Change 2(4): 248-253.
• SAS Institute Inc. 2011. Base SAS 9.3 Procedures Guide, NC.
• Smitchger, J. and N. Weeden. 2019. Quantitative trait loci controlling lodging resistance and other important agronomic traits in dry field peas. Crop Science 59(4): 1442-1456.
• Tan, M., A. Koc, Z. Dumlu Gul, E. Elkoca and I. Gul. 2013. Determination of dry matter yield and yield components of local forage pea (Pisum sativum ssp. arvense L.) ecotypes. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 19: 289-296. Tafesse, E.G., T.D. Warkentin and R.A. Bueckert. 2019. Canopy architecture and leaf type as traits of heat resistance in pea. Field Crops Research 241: 107561.
• Turgut, I., A. Duman, U. Bilgili and E. Acikgoz. 2005. Alternate row spacing and plant density effects on forage and dry matter yield of corn hybrids (Zea mays L.). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 191(2): 146-151.
• Uzun, A., U. Bilgili, M. Sincik, I. Filya and E. Acikgoz. 2005. Yield and quality of forage type pea lines of contrasting leaf types. European Journal of Agronomy 22(1): 85-94.
• Uzun, A. and F.F. Asik. 2012. The effect of mixture rates and cutting stages on some yield and quality characters of pea (Pisum sativum L.)+oat (Avena sativa L.) mixture. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 17(1): 62-66.
• Van Soest, P.J., J.B Robertson and B.A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74: 3583-3597.
• Weigelt, A. and P. Jolliffe. 2003. Indices of plant competition. Journal of Ecology 91(5): 707-720.
• Weston, L.A., I.S. Alsaadawi and S.R. Baerson. 2013. Sorghum allelopathy—from ecosystem to molecule. Journal of Chemical Ecology 39(2): 142-153.
• Yang, C., Z. Fan and Q. Chai. 2018a. Agronomic and economic benefits of pea/maize intercropping systems in relation to N fertilizer and maize density. Agronomy 8(4): 52.
• Yang, C., P. Gao, F. Hou, T. Yan, S. Chang, X. Chen and Z. Wang. 2018b. Relationship between chemical composition of native forage and nutrient digestibility by Tibetan sheep on the Qinghai–Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Animal Science 96(3): 1140-1149.
• Yavuz, T. 2017. The effects of different cutting stages on forage yield and quality in pea (Pisum sativum L.) and oat (Avena sativa L.) mixtures. Journal of Central Research Institute for Field Crops 26(1): 67-74 (In Turkish).
• Zhai, L.C., R.Z. Xie, B. Ming and S.K. Li. 2018. Evaluation and analysis of intraspecific competition in maize: A case study on plant density experiment. Journal of Integrative Agriculture 17(10): 2235-2244.
• Zhang, J., B. Yin, Y. Xie, J. Li, Z. Yang and G. Zhang. 2015. Legume-cereal intercropping improves forage yield, quality and degradability. PLoS One 10(12): e0144813.
• Zhu, J., L. Jiang, Y. Zhang, Y. Jiang, J. Tao, L. Tian, T. Zhang and Y. Xi. 2015. Below ground competition drives the self thinning process of Stipa purpurea populations in northern Tibet. Journal of Vegetation Science 26(1): 166-174.