PISUM GENETICS
2011-VOLUME 43
RESEARCH PAPERS
Intercropping pea with eight cereals for forage production
Mihailovic, V.1, Mikic, A.1, institute of Field and Vegetable Crops, Novi Sad, Serbia
Kobiljski, B.1, Cupina, B.2, 2University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
Antanasovic, S.2, Krstic, D.2 and Katanski, S.2
Introduction
Pea (Pisum sativum L.) is widely distributed in both wild and agricultural flora of Serbia and other
Southeast European countries. P. sativum subsp. sativum var. arvcnsc (L.) Poir., appears as a weed in cereals,
especially fall-sown wheat in southeastern Serbia (1). it is also cultivated for forage production and has
been successfully used for developing fall-sown cultivars of forage pea highly resistant to low
temperatures (2).
Cultivated area of forage pea in Serbia has been about 4000 ha for several decades (3). Forage pea is
traditionally used in fall-sown mixtures with cereals (4) such as common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.
subsp. aestivum), barley (HordeumvulgareL.), oat (Avenasativa L.) and triticale (xTriticosecale spp.). The seed
mixture of forage pea and cereals depends on local recommendations and is 50:50 in Lithuania (5) and
France (6) and 75:25 (pea:cereal) in Serbia (7) and Bulgaria (8).
The goal of this research was to assess the potential of pea intercrops with various cereals for forage
production in temperate regions of Serbia.
Materials and methods
A small-plot trial was carried out at the Experimental Field of the Institute of Field and Vegetable Crops
at Rimski Sancevi during the growing seasons of 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 (Table 1) and on a chernozem
Table 1. Average monthly temperatures (°C) and monthly rainfall (mmm) during the 2009/2010and2010/2011growing seasons.
Temperature
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
Average
2009/2010
12
9
3
0
2
7
13
17
20
9
2010/2011
10
10
1
0
0
6
13
17
18
8
Long-term
12
6
2
-1
2
6
11
17
20
8
Rainfall
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
Sum
2009/2010
83
64
96
73
65
38
71
95
174
605
2010/2011
67
44
66
29
35
28
23
65
61
375
Long-term
43
50
48
37
32
38
47
59
85
374
soil (Table 2). it included intercrops of forage pea with eight cereals, namely einkorn (Triticum monococcum
L.), emmer (Triticum turgidum L. subsp. dicoccon (Schrank) Thell.), spelt (Triticum aestivum L. subsp. spelta
(L.) Thell.), durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum (Desf.) Husn.), common wheat, barley, oat
and triticale. The sole crops of each intercrop species were also included in the trial.
Table 2. Chemical composition of the chernozem soil at Rimski Sancevi in 2009.
pH
(H2O)
pH
(KCl)
N
(%)
P2O5
(mg 100 g-1)
K2O
(mg 100 g-1)
CaCO3
(%)
Humus
(%)
7.9
7.41
0.196
17.99
21
5.61
2.97
in both trial years, all sole crops and their intercrops were sown in the second half of October, with plot
size of 5 m2 and three replicates. All sole crop treatments were harvested at full bloom or first pod
formation in pea and in the full flag leaf stage for the cereal crops. The intercrop treatments were
harvested when the first crop of the mixture reached the desired stage (9). in the majority of treatments
both component crops reached the desired stage concurrently.
33
PISUM GENETICS
2011-VOLUME 43
RESEARCH PAPERS
The green forage yield in all intercrops and sole crops was measured directly after cutting. Forage dry
matter yield was determined after allowing the harvested samples to dry to a constant mass in a drier at
105 °C. The agronomic and economic reliability of green forage yield and forage dry matter production in
each intercrop was determined by calculating their Land Equivalent Ratio (LERGFY and LERFDMY)
according to (10):
LERGFY = GFY(p)ic / GFY(p)sc + GFY(c)c / GFY(C)SC,
where GFY(p)ic is the green forage yield of pea in the intercrop, GFY(p)sc is the green forage yield of pea
in its sole crop, GFY(c)IC is the green forage yield of a cereal in the intercrop and GFY(c)SC is the green
forage yield of a cereal in its sole crop. Similarly, LERFDMY was calculated.
The results were analyzed using Statistica 8.0 software, with analysis of variance (ANOVA) performed
and a Fisher's Least Significant Difference (LSD) calculated at P = 0.05.
Results and discussion
There were significant differences in the two-year average green forage yield among both sole crops of
pea and cereals and their intercrops (Table 3).
Table 3. Average green forage yield (t ha1) in sole crop (GFYsc) and intercrop (GFYCC) treatments
of peea (GFYp) and cereals (GFYc) in 2009/2010and2010/2011at Rimski Sancevi. _
Sole crop
GFYSC
Intercropping
GFYP
GFYC
GFYIC
LERGFY
Pea
43.5
-
-
-
-
-
Einkorn
34.5
Pea + einkorn
19.5
18.0
37.5
0.97
Emmer
51.0
Pea + emmer
9.0
37.5
46.5
0.94
Spelt
52.5
Pea + spelt
7.5
43.5
51.0
1.00
Durum wheat
34.5
Pea + durum wheat
28.5
12.0
40.5
1.00
Common wheat
42.0
Pea + common wheat
13.5
34.5
48.0
1.13
Barley
55.5
Pea + barley
7.5
48.0
55.5
1.04
Oat
36.0
Pea + oat
13.5
34.5
48.0
1.27
Triticale
45.0
Pea + triticale
16.5
30.0
46.5
1.05
C.V.
LSD0.05
4.8
LSD0.05
4.8
0.09
The average green forage yield in the intercrops ranged from 37.5 t ha-1 in pea + einkorn to 55.5 t ha-1 in
pea + barley, confirming that in temperate conditions barley produces the highest forage yields, although
with poorer quality (11). The largest proportion of pea was in its intercrop with durum wheat (28.5 t ha-
1), followed by einkorn (19.5 t ha-1). The two-year average green forage yield in pea sole crop treatments
was comparable to previous data under the same conditions (12). The intercrops of pea with einkorn,
emmer, spelt and durum were not economically justified with LERGFY values either lower or equal to 1.0.
The intercrop of pea with oat had a significantly higher LERGFY value (1.27) than the other seven
intercrops.
In general, the two-year average forage dry matter yield (Table 4) followed similar trends as the two-year
average forage dry matter yield. In sole crops, barley (11.2 t ha-1), spelt (11.1 t ha-1), emmer (11.0 t ha-1) and
pea (10.7 t ha-1) had significantly higher forage dry matter yield in comparison to the remaining four
cereals. The two-year average forage dry matter yield in the intercrops varied between 8.5 t ha-1 in pea +
einkorn and 11.5 t ha-1 in pea + barley, the latter being lower than at the same pea and barley ratio in the
temperate regions of North America (13). The forage dry matter proportion of each crop may differ
slightly in a pure stand compared to an intercrop. For this reason, the values of LERFDMY were slightly
different than LERGFY, with a maximum in the pea + oat intercrop (1.23) and a minimum in the pea + spelt
intercrop (0.97).
34
PISUM GENETICS
2011-VOLUME 43
RESEARCH PAPERS
Table 4. Average forage dry matter yield (thai1) in sole crop (FDMYSC) and intercrop (FDMYCC) treatments
ofpea (FDMYp) and cereals (FDMY) hi 2009/2010 and2010/2011at Rimski Sancevi.
Sole crop
FDMYSC
Intercropping
FDMYp
FDMYc
FDMYIC
LERFDMY
Pea
10.7
-
-
-
-
-
Einkorn
7.1
Pea + einkorn
4.6
3.9
8.5
0.98
Emmer
11.0
Pea + emmer
2.1
8.8
10.9
1.00
Spelt
11.1
Pea + spelt
1.8
8.9
10.7
0.97
Durum wheat
7.0
Pea + durum wheat
6.7
2.6
9.3
1.00
Common wheat
9.5
Pea + common wheat
3.2
7.7
10.8
1.11
Barley
11.2
Pea + barley
1.8
9.7
11.5
1.03
Oat
7.7
Pea + oat
3.2
7.2
10.4
1.23
Triticale
9.2
Pea + triticale
3.9
6.3
10.2
1.05
C.V.
LSD0.05
0.9
LSD0.05
0.9
0.10
Conclusions
This study confirmed that the traditional practice of intercropping pea with common wheat, barley, oat
and triticale have the greatest potential for forage production in comparison to less traditional or
forgotten crops such as durum wheat, spelt, einkorn and emmer. However, this study should be
continued with a more detailed study on forage dry matter quality, with emphasis on crude protein and
crude fiber as well as with all important underground aspects of intercropping, primarily plant-microbial
interactions and nutrient availability.
Acknowledgements
This research is a part of the project TR-31016 of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of
Serbia and the EU project SEELEGUMES 168 within the SEE-ERA.NET plus program and under the
auspices of the EU Seventh Framework Programme (FP7).
References
1. Mikic, A. and Cupina, B. 2011. pers. comm.
2. Mihailovic, V. and Mikic, A. 2010. Proceedings, XII International Symposium on Forage Crops of
Republic of Serbia, Krusevac, Serbia, 26-28 May 2010, 1, 81-90.
3. Mihailovic, V., Mikic, A. and Cupina, B. 2007. Biotechnology in Animal Husbandry 23:5-6:1: 573-
581.
4. Mikic, A., Cupina, B., Katic, S. and Karagic, D. 2006. Ratarstvo i povrtarstvo / Field and Vegetable
Crops Research 42:I: 91-103.
5. Kadziuliene, Z., Sarunaite, L. and Deveikyte I. 2011. Ratarstvo i povrtarstvo / Field and Vegetable
Crops Research 48: 183-188.
6. Bedoussac, L. and Justes, E. 2010. Plant and Soil 330: 37-54.
7. Mihailovic, V., Cupina, B., Eric, P. and Trifunovic, T. 1993. Ratarstvo i povrtarstvo / Field and
Vegetable Crops Research 21: 517-523.
8. Angelova, S. and Sabeva M. 2011. pers. comm.
9. Mihailovic, V., Mikic, A., Katic, S. and Karagic, D. 2009. Pisum Genetics 41: 26-28.
10. Cupina, B., Krstic, D., Antanasovic, S., Eric, P., Pejic, B., Mikic, A. and Mihailovic, V. 2010. Pisum
Genetics 42: 11-14.
11. Mihailovic, V., Eric, P. and Mikic, A. 2004. Grassland Science in Europe 9: 457-459
12. Mikic, A., Mihailovic, V., Cupina, B., Dordevic, V., Milic, D., Duc, G., Stoddard, F.L., Lejeune-
Henaut, I., Marget, P. and Hanocq E. 2011. Euphytica 180: 57-67.
13. Strydhorst, S.M., King, J.R., Lopetinsky, K.J. and Harker, K.N. 2008. Agronomy Journal 100:182-
190.
35