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

Crop mixtures 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

Monoculture  variety mixtures Cereal variety mixtures:  Increase yield  Reduce disease  Maintain quality  Increase yield stability Demonstrated in:  Winter wheat for distilling (and baking)  Winter barley for feed  Spring barley for malting and feed  More resilient, efficient crops Limitations…?

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 60 y = 7.2x + 13.6 Winter barley 50 R 2 = 0.931 Spirit Yield % Disease reduction Rhynchosporium 40 30 430 20 10 380 Litres/tonne 0 2 3 4 5 6 Mixture component number 330 Winter barley 8 y = 1.083x + 2.185 Site 3 Yield R 2 = 0.8753 7 Site 2 280 Fungicide 6 Chalice Control Site 1 Chariot y = 0.716x + 1.61 % yield increase Prisma R 2 = 0.8383 5 Mixture 4 • Less lodging in mixtures – 3 2 structural support 1 • Convergence of heading 0 2 3 4 5 6 dates, maturity and height 1 Mixture component number

Component proportions 20 10 0 0 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 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 Optic-Westminster Concerto-Quench Optic-Waggon 2 -80

Structured resistance gene deployment ABC ABC ABC ABC A A A A DWX DWX DWX DWX C Y ABC ABD YZ YZ YZ YZ ABC ABC ABC ABC B B B B DWX DWX DWX DWX W A ACD B 1 YZ YZ YZ YZ ABC ABC ABC ABC C C C C DWX DWX DWX DWX BCD WXY C WXZ YZ YZ YZ YZ ABC ABC ABC ABC D D D D DWX DWX DWX DWX ABD BCD Z WYZ YZ YZ YZ YZ ABC ABC ABC ABC W W W W DWX DWX DWX DWX WXZ W XYZ D YZ YZ YZ YZ ABC ABC ABC ABC X X X X DWX DWX DWX DWX B ABC X XYZ 2 YZ YZ YZ YZ ABC ABC ABC ABC Y Y Y Y DWX DWX DWX DWX ACD D A Y YZ YZ YZ YZ ABC ABC ABC ABC Z Z Z Z DWX DWX DWX DWX X Z WYZ WXY YZ YZ YZ YZ a) Monoculture b) Homogeneous c) Structured Selection for: a) Simple b) Complex c) Simple and Complex and Groups Mildew 1 4.09 a 4.69 a 2.61 b 1 Percentage whole plant infection. 3 LSD 1.06

Thoroughly mixed or patchy? Structure and scale • Random Homogeneous or patchy? • Regular Small or large areas? 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 • Structure 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 Complex and simple? 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 • Proportions 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 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 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

3 different varieties But on a REAL farm… A B C Drill hopper Pre-mixed Sequential B Simultaneous In situ 3

Patchy arrangements in the field Pe Pa Si Ins Sim Pre Seq R1 R2 R3 R4 Yield In situ Pre-mix Mixtures cf. mono mean: 2005 +13%*** -4% 2006 +17%*** +10% Rhynchosporium In situ Pre-mix Mixtures cf. mono mean: 2005 -34%*** +10% 3 2007 -58%*** -35%

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 7 DK SB 0.2 -0.2 -0.5 1.1 0.2 <-- -0.2 -0.5 --> 1.1

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

Rye-pea Barley-pea 8

8

Ryegrass Oats 8

2015 trial: Digestibility: NCGD: neutral cellulose gammanese enzymes Wheat, RYE Barley, Oats WHEAT 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 8

Winter cereal-legume biomass crops 550 500 450 Biomass (kg/plot) Balruddery-N0.5 Balruddery-N1.0 400 Hartwood-N0.5 Hartwood-N1.0 350 300 250 200 BEAN-mix CLOVER-mix IRG-mix mix PEA-mix VETCH-mix Crop mixture 8

65 N x 0.5 63 N x 1.0 61 Crude protein (g/kg) 59 57 55 53 51 49 47 45 8

Conclusions Many… Practical and beneficial…