Crop mixtures Adrian Newton, David Guy, Christine Hackett, Bill - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Adrian Newton, David Guy, Christine Hackett, Bill Thomas, Roger Ellis, Stuart Swanston, Steve Hoad (SRUC) Hartwood: John Rattray Balruddery: John Bennett, Derek Matthew, Euan Caldwell

Crop mixtures

Cereal variety mixtures:  Increase yield  Reduce disease  Maintain quality  Increase yield stability Limitations…? Demonstrated in:

• Winter wheat for distilling (and baking)
• Winter barley for feed
• Spring barley for malting and feed

 More resilient, efficient crops

Monoculture  variety mixtures

Questions:

Within species 1. How many components? 2. What proportions? 3. What spatial arrangements (structured/random/connectivity/patches)? 4. How diverse can/should components be? 5. What traits complement best (e.g. canopy types, weed competitiveness…) ? 6. Straw biomass effects (/harvest index)? 7. Nutrition and pathogen interactions (nitrogen & fungicides)? Between species

•  How different crop species interact (cereal-legume etc.), for either biomass

(for anaerobic digestion) or silage use Practicalities

• Quality… As good / better / less variable than monoculture

Mixtures: Disease reduction, yield increase and stability

y = 7.2x + 13.6 R2 = 0.931

10 20 30 40 50 60 2 3 4 5 6 Mixture component number % Disease reduction

Winter barley Rhynchosporium Winter barley

y = 1.083x + 2.185 R2 = 0.8753 y = 0.716x + 1.61 R2 = 0.8383

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 6 Mixture component number % yield increase

Fungicide Control

Yield

Chalice Chariot Prisma Mixture Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 280 330 380 430 Litres/tonne

Spirit Yield

• Convergence of heading

dates, maturity and height

• Less lodging in mixtures –

structural support

1

Component proportions

• 80
• 70
• 60
• 50
• 40
• 30
• 20
• 10

10 20 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Disease % cf. monoculture mean Proportion of second component Optic-Westminster Concerto-Quench Optic-Waggon

2

A A A A ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ C Y ABC ABD B B B B ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ W A ACD B C C C C ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ BCD WXY C WXZ D D D D ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABD BCD Z WYZ W W W W ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ WXZ W XYZ D X X X X ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ B ABC X XYZ Y Y Y Y ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ACD D A Y Z Z Z Z ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ ABC DWX YZ X Z WYZ WXY

a) Monoculture b) Homogeneous c) Structured Selection for: a) Simple b) Complex c) Simple and Complex and Groups 1 2

Structured resistance gene deployment

Mildew1 4.09a 4.69a 2.61b

LSD 1.06

1 Percentage whole plant infection.

3

Thoroughly mixed or patchy?

Structure and scale

• Random

Homogeneous or patchy?

• Regular

Small or large areas?

• Structure

Complex and simple?

• Proportions

Connectivity and ratio?

A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A B B B B A A A A

3

But on a REAL farm…

Pre-mixed Drill hopper Sequential In situ B Simultaneous A B C 3 different varieties

3

Pa Si Pe Ins Pre Seq Sim

Yield In situ Pre-mix Mixtures cf. mono mean: 2005 +13%***

• 4%

2006 +17%*** +10%

R1 R2 R3 R4

Patchy arrangements in the field

Rhynchosporium In situ Pre-mix Mixtures cf. mono mean: 2005

• 34%***

+10% 2007

• 58%***
• 35%

3

Canopy types

Tall Erectoid

5

Mixed canopy habits

5

Are mixtures always beneficial?

Trial Crop +f N1 +f N2

• f N1 -f N2

+f N1 +f N2

• f N1
• f N2

DC WW

• 2.3

5.6 3.2 2.8

• 2.3 -->

5.6 3.2 <-- 2.8 DP WW

• 6.0

0.8 5.0

• 2.1
• 6.0 -->

0.8 5.0 <--

• 2.1

DZ WW 1.0 4.3 2.0 0.2 1.0 --> 4.3 2.0 <-- 0.2 CU SB

• 2.0

4.8 4.7 3.5

• 2.0 -->

4.8 4.7 <-- 3.5 GCh WB 0.9 0.8 5.7 2.3 0.9 0.8 5.7 <-- 2.3 DC WB 5.4 5.1

• 0.1
• 5.1

5.4 5.1

• 0.1 <--
• 5.1

EV WB 2.5

• 1.8

0.5 3.4 2.5 <--

• 1.8

0.5 --> 3.4 DP WB 3.0 0.2

• 1.3

5.2 3.0 <-- 0.2

• 1.3 -->

5.2 EK WB 2.3 1.6

• 3.3
• 1.8

2.3 <-- 1.6

• 3.3 -->
• 1.8

GCb WB 1.3 0.3 2.2 8.5 1.3 <-- 0.3 2.2 --> 8.5 EL WW 2.2

• 1.5
• 3.8

1.5 2.2 <--

• 1.5
• 3.8 -->

1.5 CX WW 4.0 0.7

• 6.2

4.9 4.0 <-- 0.7

• 6.2 -->

4.9 GL SB 10.0 5.4

• 0.4

4.5 10.0 <-- 5.4

• 0.4 -->

4.5 DK SB 0.2

• 0.2
• 0.5

1.1 0.2 <--

• 0.2
• 0.5 -->

1.1

7

7

Within species 1. How many components? 2. What proportions? 3. What spatial arrangements (structured/random/connectivity/patches)? 4. How diverse can/should components be? 5. What traits complement best (e.g. canopy types, weed competitiveness…)? 6. Straw biomass effects (/harvest index)? 7. Nutrition and pathogen interactions (nitrogen & fungicides)? Between species  How different crop species interact (cereal-legume etc.), for either biomass (for anaerobic digestion) or silage use Practicalities

• Quality… As good / better / less variable than monoculture

Cereals with legumes…

8

Barley-pea Rye-pea

8

8

Oats Ryegrass

8

WHEAT Wheat, Barley, Oats

Digestibility: NCGD: neutral cellulose gammanese enzymes

RYE Rye

Top biomass Rye+Oats+Vetch 452 combinations 2016: Rye+Oats 448 (Wheat not in 2016 trial) Rye+Oats+Pea 433 Oats+Barley+Pea 444 Pea very +ve if N reduced Oats+Barley+Vetch 428 (LAE increased) Oats+Triticale+Pea 434

2015 trial:

8

200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 BEAN-mix CLOVER-mix IRG-mix mix PEA-mix VETCH-mix

Biomass (kg/plot) Crop mixture

Balruddery-N0.5 Balruddery-N1.0 Hartwood-N0.5 Hartwood-N1.0

Winter cereal-legume biomass crops

8

45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61 63 65

Crude protein (g/kg)

N x 0.5 N x 1.0

8

Conclusions

Many… Practical and beneficial…