Legume choice and planting configuration influence intercrop nutrient and yield gains through complementarity and selection effects in legume-based wheat intercropping systems
Muhammad Ali Raza , Atta Mohi Ud Din , Ghulam Abbas Shah , Wang Zhiqi , Ling Yang Feng , Hina Gul , Hassan Shehryar Yasin , Mohammad Shafiq ur Rahman , Chen Juan , Xue Liang , Raheela Rehman , Amal Mohamed Al Garawi , Wopke van der Werf , Ruijun Qin , Liu Xin , Muhammad Hayder Bin Khalid , Ma Zhongming
{"title":"Legume choice and planting configuration influence intercrop nutrient and yield gains through complementarity and selection effects in legume-based wheat intercropping systems","authors":"Muhammad Ali Raza , Atta Mohi Ud Din , Ghulam Abbas Shah , Wang Zhiqi , Ling Yang Feng , Hina Gul , Hassan Shehryar Yasin , Mohammad Shafiq ur Rahman , Chen Juan , Xue Liang , Raheela Rehman , Amal Mohamed Al Garawi , Wopke van der Werf , Ruijun Qin , Liu Xin , Muhammad Hayder Bin Khalid , Ma Zhongming","doi":"10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>CONTEXT</h3><p>By exploiting the complementarities between intercrops, cereal/legume intercropping provides an opportunity to increase legume production with sustained cereal yield. However, little is known about how legume choice and spatial configurations affect the performance and economic viability of legume-based wheat intercropping, especially in arid-irrigated conditions.</p></div><div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><p>We conducted this study to investigate the complementarity of three different legumes (chickpea, soybean, and pea) with wheat and determine the appropriate strip width for intercrops.</p></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><p>A three-year study (2021−2023) was conducted to evaluate the effects of legume choice and spatial configuration (narrow strips of 0.6 m (NS) and partially wide strips of 1.2 m (pWS) for each intercrop) on wheat/soybean, wheat/pea, and wheat/chickpea intercropping, and results were compared with their sole systems for dry matter, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) uptake, yield, and economic returns. We also quantified the intensity of the net biodiversity effect (NE), complementarity effect (CE), and selection effect (SE) for yield, N (NE<sub>N</sub>, CE<sub>N</sub>, and SE<sub>N</sub>), and P (NE<sub>P</sub>, CE<sub>P</sub>, and SE<sub>P</sub>) gains of legume-based wheat intercropping systems.</p></div><div><h3>RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS</h3><p>Our results show that intercrops achieved the highest dry matter, nutrient uptake, and grain yield with pWS compared to NS. The intercropped chickpea, soybean, and pea achieved 67–71%, 55–62%, and 62–70% of their sole system yield. The intercropped wheat with chickpea, soybean, and pea produced 66–69%, 57–62%, and 62–66% of sole wheat yield, respectively. Results also confirmed a positive NE with both NS and pWS, mainly due to the higher CE, which ranges from 37% to 104% of NE under all intercropping systems. The nutrient uptake gain with NS and pWS ranged from −3.4 kg ha<sup>−1</sup> to 101.5 kg ha<sup>−1</sup> (NE<sub>N</sub>) and − 0.2 kg ha<sup>−1</sup> to 13.8 kg ha<sup>−1</sup> (NE<sub>P</sub>). On average, maximum LER (1.36), NE (1012 kg ha<sup>−1</sup>), NE<sub>N</sub> (86 kg ha<sup>−1</sup>), and NE<sub>P</sub> (12 kg ha<sup>−1</sup>) were obtained with pWS in wheat/chickpea, followed by wheat/pea and wheat/soybean intercropping. Overall, wheat/pea intercropping with pWS generated the highest net profit (2014, 1533, and 1394 USD ha<sup>−1</sup> in 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively), which was primarily linked to the high market price of pea than chickpea and soybean.</p></div><div><h3>SIGNIFICANCE</h3><p>These results imply that legume choice and spatial configurations influenced complementary and facilitation interactions between intercrops, and wheat/chickpea and wheat/pea intercropping with pWS could be adopted as a productive cropping strategy for obtaining higher and diverse crop yields with reduced land and nutrients than the sole wheat system.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7730,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Systems","volume":"220 ","pages":"Article 104081"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Systems","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X24002312","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
CONTEXT
By exploiting the complementarities between intercrops, cereal/legume intercropping provides an opportunity to increase legume production with sustained cereal yield. However, little is known about how legume choice and spatial configurations affect the performance and economic viability of legume-based wheat intercropping, especially in arid-irrigated conditions.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted this study to investigate the complementarity of three different legumes (chickpea, soybean, and pea) with wheat and determine the appropriate strip width for intercrops.
METHODS
A three-year study (2021−2023) was conducted to evaluate the effects of legume choice and spatial configuration (narrow strips of 0.6 m (NS) and partially wide strips of 1.2 m (pWS) for each intercrop) on wheat/soybean, wheat/pea, and wheat/chickpea intercropping, and results were compared with their sole systems for dry matter, nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) uptake, yield, and economic returns. We also quantified the intensity of the net biodiversity effect (NE), complementarity effect (CE), and selection effect (SE) for yield, N (NEN, CEN, and SEN), and P (NEP, CEP, and SEP) gains of legume-based wheat intercropping systems.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Our results show that intercrops achieved the highest dry matter, nutrient uptake, and grain yield with pWS compared to NS. The intercropped chickpea, soybean, and pea achieved 67–71%, 55–62%, and 62–70% of their sole system yield. The intercropped wheat with chickpea, soybean, and pea produced 66–69%, 57–62%, and 62–66% of sole wheat yield, respectively. Results also confirmed a positive NE with both NS and pWS, mainly due to the higher CE, which ranges from 37% to 104% of NE under all intercropping systems. The nutrient uptake gain with NS and pWS ranged from −3.4 kg ha−1 to 101.5 kg ha−1 (NEN) and − 0.2 kg ha−1 to 13.8 kg ha−1 (NEP). On average, maximum LER (1.36), NE (1012 kg ha−1), NEN (86 kg ha−1), and NEP (12 kg ha−1) were obtained with pWS in wheat/chickpea, followed by wheat/pea and wheat/soybean intercropping. Overall, wheat/pea intercropping with pWS generated the highest net profit (2014, 1533, and 1394 USD ha−1 in 2021, 2022, and 2023, respectively), which was primarily linked to the high market price of pea than chickpea and soybean.
SIGNIFICANCE
These results imply that legume choice and spatial configurations influenced complementary and facilitation interactions between intercrops, and wheat/chickpea and wheat/pea intercropping with pWS could be adopted as a productive cropping strategy for obtaining higher and diverse crop yields with reduced land and nutrients than the sole wheat system.
期刊介绍:
Agricultural Systems is an international journal that deals with interactions - among the components of agricultural systems, among hierarchical levels of agricultural systems, between agricultural and other land use systems, and between agricultural systems and their natural, social and economic environments.
The scope includes the development and application of systems analysis methodologies in the following areas:
Systems approaches in the sustainable intensification of agriculture; pathways for sustainable intensification; crop-livestock integration; farm-level resource allocation; quantification of benefits and trade-offs at farm to landscape levels; integrative, participatory and dynamic modelling approaches for qualitative and quantitative assessments of agricultural systems and decision making;
The interactions between agricultural and non-agricultural landscapes; the multiple services of agricultural systems; food security and the environment;
Global change and adaptation science; transformational adaptations as driven by changes in climate, policy, values and attitudes influencing the design of farming systems;
Development and application of farming systems design tools and methods for impact, scenario and case study analysis; managing the complexities of dynamic agricultural systems; innovation systems and multi stakeholder arrangements that support or promote change and (or) inform policy decisions.