Effects of Stand Density and N Fertilization on the Performance of Maize (Zea mays L.) Intercropped with Climbing Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Sites
2.2. Experimental Design
2.3. Crop management and Measurements
2.4. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Total Dry Matter Yield
3.2. Dry Matter Bean Yield
3.3. Crude Protein Content
3.4. Crude Protein Yield
3.5. Crude Protein Bean Yield
3.6. Nmin Content at Harvest
4. Discussion
4.1. Effects of Stand Density on Yield Performance of Maize–Bean Intercropping
4.2. Comparison of Yields between Maize–Bean Intercropping and Pure Maize
4.3. Effects of N fertilization on Yield Performance of Maize–Bean Intercropping and Pure Maize
4.4. Effects of Stand Density × N fertilization on Nmin at Harvest after Maize–Bean Intercropping and Pure Maize
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
References
- Statistisches Bundesamt. Arable Land after the Main Groups and Crops. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterprises/Agriculture-Forestry-Fisheries/Field-Crops-Grassland/Tables/arable-land-after-the-main-groups-and-crops.html (accessed on 15 March 2022).
- Lithourgidis, A.S.; Dordas, C.A.; Damalas, C.A.; Vlachostergios, D.N. Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2011, 5, 396–410. [Google Scholar]
- Hufnagel, J.; Reckling, M.; Ewert, F. Diverse approaches to crop diversification in agricultural research. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrmann, A. Biogas Production from Maize: Current State, Challenges and Prospects. 2. Agronomic and Environmental Aspects. Bioenerg. Res. 2013, 6, 372–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Volkers, K.C. Auswirkungen einer variierten Stickstoff-Intensität auf Leistung und Stickstoff-Bilanz von Silomais in Monokultur sowie einer Ackerfutterbau-Fruchtfolge auf sandigen Böden Norddeutschlands. Ph.D. Thesis, Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit BMU; Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. Nitratbericht 2020. Available online: https://www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Download_PDF/Binnengewaesser/nitratbericht_2020_bf.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2022).
- Bundes-Ministerium der Justiz. Verordnung über die Anwendung von Düngemitteln, Bodenhilfsstoffen, Kultursubstraten und Pflanzenhilfsmitteln nach den Grundsätzen der guten fachlichen Praxis beim Düngen: Düngeverordnung vom 26 Mai 2017 (BGBl. I S. 1305), die zuletzt durch Artikel 97 des Gesetzes vom 10 August 2021 (BGBl. I S. 3436) geändert worden ist, 2017; Bundes-Ministerium der Justiz: Berlin, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, J.; Böhm, H.; Heβ, J. Maize-bean intercropping yields in Northern Germany are comparable to those of pure silage maize. Eur. J. Agron. 2020, 112, 125947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Ambus, P.; Jensen, E.S. The comparison of nitrogen use and leaching in sole cropped versus intercropped pea and barley. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2003, 65, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdollah, J.; Adel, D.; Mohammadi, N.; Aziz, J.; Hosein, J. Forage yield and quality in intercropping of maize with different legumes as double- cropped. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2009, 7, 163–166. [Google Scholar]
- Moreno-Calles, A.I.; Casas, A.; García-Frapolli, E.; Torres-García, I. Traditional agroforestry systems of multi-crop “milpa” and “chichipera” cactus forest in the arid Tehuacán Valley, Mexico: Their management and role in people’s subsistence. Agrofor. Syst. 2012, 84, 207–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nassary, E.K.; Baijukya, F.; Ndakidemi, P.A. Assessing the Productivity of Common Bean in Intercrop with Maize across Agro-Ecological Zones of Smallholder Farms in the Northern Highlands of Tanzania. Agriculture 2020, 10, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Morgado, L.B.; Willey, R.W. Optimum plant population for maize-bean intercropping system in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Sci. Agric. 2008, 65, 474–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Albino-Garduño, R.; Turrent-Fernández, A.; Cortés-Flores, J.I.; Livera-Muñoz, M.; Mendoza-Castillo, M.C. Root distribution and solar radiation in maize-bean intercropping systems. Agrociencia 2015, 49, 513–531. [Google Scholar]
- Molatudi, R.L. Grain yield and biomass response of a maize/dry bean intercrop to maize density and dry bean variety. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2012, 7, 3139–3146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, S.M.; Da Silva, P.M.; Cabezas, W.L.; Bonetti, R. Variability in nitrogen fixation of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) intercropped with maize. In Enhancement of Biological Nitrogen Fixation of Common Bean in Latin America: Results from an FAO/IAEA Co-ordinated Research Programme, 1986–1991; Bliss, F.A., Hardarson, G., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993; pp. 93–101. ISBN 978-94-011-2100-2. [Google Scholar]
- Moreira, L.P.; Oliveira, A.P.S.; Ferreira, E.P.d.B. Nodulation, contribution of biological N2 fixation, and productivity of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) inoculated with rhizobia isolates. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2017, 11, 644–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ndungu-Magiroi, K.W.; Wortmann, C.S.; Kibunja, C.; Senkoro, C.; Mwangi, T.J.K.; Wamae, D.; Kifuko-Koech, M.; Msakyi, J. Maize-bean intercrop response to nutrient application relative to maize sole crop response. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2017, 109, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latati, M.; Bargaz, A.; Belarbi, B.; Lazali, M.; Benlahrech, S.; Tellah, S.; Kaci, G.; Drevon, J.J.; Ounane, S.M. The intercropping common bean with maize improves the rhizobial efficiency, resource use and grain yield under low phosphorus availability. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 72, 80–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmidt, W. Gemengeanbau von Mais mit Bohnenarten—Neuer koevolutiver Züchtungsansatz. Available online: https://www.landwirtschaftskammer.de/duesse/znr/pdfs/2014/2014-06-26-energiepflanzentag-03.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2022).
- Dawo, M.I.; Wilkinson, J.M.; Sanders, F.E.T.; Pilbeam, D.J. The yield and quality of fresh and ensiled plant material from intercropped maize (Zea mays) and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). J. Sci. Food Agric. 2007, 87, 1391–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dawo, M.I.; Wilkinson, J.M.; Pilbeam, D.J. Interactions between plants in intercropped maize and common bean. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2009, 89, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nurk, L.; Graß, R.; Pekrun, C.; Wachendorf, M. Effect of Sowing Method and Weed Control on the Performance of Maize (Zea mays L.) Intercropped with Climbing Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agriculture 2017, 7, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- von Cossel, M.; Möhring, J.; Kiesel, A.; Lewandowski, I. Methane yield performance of amaranth (Amaranthus hypochondriacus L.) and its suitability for legume intercropping in comparison to maize (Zea mays L.). Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 103, 107–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulz, V.S.; Schumann, C.; Weisenburger, S.; Müller-Lindenlauf, M.; Stolzenburg, K.; Möller, K. Row-Intercropping Maize (Zea mays L.) with Biodiversity-Enhancing Flowering-Partners—Effect on Plant Growth, Silage Yield, and Composition of Harvest Material. Agriculture 2020, 10, 524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, J.; Höppner, F.; Böhm, H. Gemengeanbau von Mais mit Phaseolus-Bohnen: Einfluss von Sorte und Saatdichte der Bohnen auf die Bestandszusammensetzung. Mitt. Ges. Pflanzenbauwiss. 2015, 27, 177–178. [Google Scholar]
- Fischer, J.; Böhm, H. Ertrag und Futterwert von Mais-Bohnen Gemengen als Ganzpflanzensilage in der Milchviehfütterung. In Beiträge zur 12. Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau: Ideal und Wirklichkeit: Perspektiven ökologischer Landbewirtschaftung; Neuhoff, D., Ed.; Köster: Berlin, Germany, 2013; pp. 470–471. ISBN 9783895748158. [Google Scholar]
- Böhm, H.; Aulrich, K.; Barth, K.; Bussemas, R.; Fischer, J.; Höppner, F.; Kälber, T.; Meyer, U.; Weißmann, F. Verbesserung der Protein- und Energieversorgung bei Wiederkäuern und Monogastriern durch Gemengeanbau von Mais mit Stangen- und Feuerbohnen. In Tagungsband: Kongress „Hülsenfrüchte—Wegweiser für eine nachhaltigere Landwirtschaft“; 3. und 4. November 2016 in Berlin; Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, Ed.; Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft: Bonn, Germany, 2016; pp. 46–48. [Google Scholar]
- Jilg, T.; Jilg, A.; Ismail, M.; Brugger, D. Einsatz von Mais-Stangenbohnen-Silage in der Milchviehfütterung, Ergebnisse des Silocontrollings. In Mais-Bohnen-Gemenge; Tagung des Ausschusses für Futterkonservierung und Fütterung im Deutschen Maiskomitee e.V. (DMK); DMK, Ed.; Deutsches Maiskomitee e. V. (DMK): Bonn, Germany, 2021; pp. 45–51. [Google Scholar]
- Nurk, L.; Graβ, R.; Pekrun, C.; Wachendorf, M. Methane Yield and Feed Quality Parameters of Mixed Silages from Maize (Zea mays L.) and Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Bioenerg. Res. 2017, 10, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoppe, C. Development of biogas maize cultivars for intercropping with climbing beans. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Starke, M. Selection of climbing bean varieties (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) for mixed cropping with maize. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Andert, S. The Method and Timing of Weed Control Affect the Productivity of Intercropped Maize (Zea mays L.) and Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agriculture 2021, 11, 380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FAO. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014: International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, D.B. Factors for Converting Percentages of Nitrogen in Foods and Feeds into Percentages of Proteins; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1931.
- Möhring, J.; Piepho, H.-P. Comparison of Weighting in Two-Stage Analysis of Plant Breeding Trials. Crop Sci. 2009, 49, 1977–1988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piepho, H.-P.; Michel, V. Considerations on regional evaluation of cultivar trials (in German: Überlegungen zur regionalen Auswertung von Landessortenversuchen). Inform. Biom. Und Epidemiol. Med. 2000, 31, 123–136. [Google Scholar]
- Piepho, H.-P. A SAS macro for generating letter displays of pairwise mean comparisons. Commun. Biometry Crop Sci. 2012, 7, 4–13. [Google Scholar]
- Leiser, W. Mehr Leistung durch Züchtung: Mais-Stangenbohnen-Ergebnisse aus 2019 und 2020. In Mais-Bohnen-Gemenge; Tagung des Ausschusses für Futterkonservierung und Fütterung im Deutschen Maiskomitee e.V. (DMK); DMK, Ed.; Deutsches Maiskomitee e. V. (DMK): Bonn, Germany, 2021; pp. 5–8. [Google Scholar]
- Peter, R. Effekte von N-Düngung auf die Ausbildung von Knöllchen bei Stangenbohnen (Phaseolus vulgaris) im Gemengeanbau mit Mais (Zea mays). Master’s Thesis, Nürtingen-Geislingen University, Nürtingen, Germany, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Villwock, D.; Müller-Lindenlauf, M. Auswirkungen des Mais-Stangenbohnen-Gemengeanbaus auf den Stickstoffhaushalt. In Mais-Bohnen-Gemenge; Tagung des Ausschusses für Futterkonservierung und Fütterung im Deutschen Maiskomitee e.V. (DMK); DMK, Ed.; Deutsches Maiskomitee e. V. (DMK): Bonn, Germany, 2021; pp. 28–32. [Google Scholar]
- Niehoff, T.-K. Einfluss der N-Düngung auf Ertrag, Protein und Rest Nmin-Werte des Mais-Stangenbohnen-Mischbestandes. In Mais-Bohnen-Gemenge; Tagung des Ausschusses für Futterkonservierung und Fütterung im Deutschen Maiskomitee e.V. (DMK); DMK, Ed.; Deutsches Maiskomitee e. V. (DMK): Bonn, Germany, 2021; pp. 23–27. [Google Scholar]
- Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. Ökologische und ökonomische Bewertung des Gemengeanbaus von Mais (Zea mays L.) mit Stangenbohnen (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Auswirkungen auf Stickstoffbilanz und Biodiversität—Akronym: GeMaBo. Available online: https://www.fnr.de/index.php?id=11150&fkz=22027716 (accessed on 4 March 2022).
- Landwirtschaftliches Technologiezentrum Augustenberg. Diversifizierung im Silomaisanbau. Available online: https://ltz.landwirtschaft-bw.de/pb/,Lde/1816954_1933290_1921233_5014658_4689642_5908116 (accessed on 4 March 2022).
- Hüber, C.; Zettl, F.; Hartung, J.; Müller-Lindenlauf, M. The impact of maize-bean intercropping on insect biodiversity. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2022, 61, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameter | Site | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Tachenhausen (TH) | Haus Düsse (HD) | Wehnen (WN) | Obershagen (OH) | |
Elevation above sea level (m) | 360 | 70 | 10 | 43 |
Long-term mean annual temperature (°C) | 10.2 | 10.5 | 9.3 | 9.2 |
Long-term total annual rainfall (mm) | 802 | 651 | 759 | 652 |
Soil texture, according to [34] | clay/silty loam (CL/SiL) | silty clay (SiC) | sand (S) | loamy sand (LS) |
Factor | Level | Trial Series | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | ||
System 1 | MB 7.5/7.5 | X 3 | ||
MB 7.5/5.5 | X | |||
MB 8/4 | X | |||
M 7.5–8 | X | X | X | |
M 10 | X | |||
N Fertilization 2 | Without | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Reduced | 50% | 66% | 40% | |
Full | 100% | 100% | 100% |
Parameter | Trial | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | |
Trial series 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Year | 2017 | 2017 | 2018 | 2018 | 2018 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | 2020 | 2019 | 2019 | 2020 | 2020 |
Site 2 | TH | HD | TH | WN | OH | WN | OH | WN | OH | TH | HD | TH | HD |
Soil texture, according to [34] 3 | CL | SiC | CL | S | LS | S | LS | S | LS | SiL | SiC | SiL | SiC |
pH | 6.7 | 6.6 | 6.9 | 4.9 | 6 | 5 | 6.3 | 5 | 6.1 | 6.2 | 6.6 | 6 | 6.5 |
P2O5 (mg/100 g) | 24 | 33 | 21 | 12 | 4 | 10.5 | 7 | 8 | 5.7 | 10 | 18 | 9 | 23 |
K2O (mg/100 g) | 25 | 14 | 23 | 5 | 8 | 6.1 | 14.5 | 7.9 | 19.6 | 38 | 22 | 14 | 19 |
MgO (mg/100 g) | 7.75 | 7 | 9.47 | 2 | 9 | 5.6 | 7 | 6 | 6.9 | 13 | 8 | 13 | 10 |
N demand (kg/ha) 4 | 230 | 242 | 230 | 177 | 206 | 159 | 180 | 189 | 216 | 230 | 230 | 230 | 230 |
Nmin spring (kg/ha) 4 | 122 | 53 | 76 | 23 | 51 | 27 | 104 | 12 | 42 | 98 | 70 | 56 | 59 |
Norg (kg/ha) 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 26 | 0 | 38 | 0 | 26 |
Full N fertilizer amount, according to GFO 4 (kg/ha) | 108 | 189 | 154 | 154 | 155 | 132 | 76 | 160 | 148 | 132 | 122 | 174 | 145 |
Reduced N fertilizer amount 5 (kg/ha) | 54 | 95 | 103 | 102 | 102 | 87 | 50 | 107 | 97 | 53 | 49 | 70 | 58 |
Nmin sampling date | Apr. 20 | Apr. 26 | Apr. 24 | Mar. 23 | Apr. 13 | Mar. 22 | Mar. 28 | Mar. 15 | Apr. 27 | May 13 | Mar. 20 | Mar. 18 | Apr. 21 |
Sowing date | May 11 | May 9 | Apr. 27 | May 16 | May 14 | May 13 | May 15 | May 7 | May 13 | May 17 | May 7 | Apr. 16 | Apr. 27 |
Harvest date | Sep. 13 | Sep. 21 | Aug. 31 | Sep. 12 | Sep. 4 | Oct. 10 | Oct. 2 | Oct. 12 | Sep. 30 | Sep. 17 | Sep. 18 | Sep. 15 | Sep. 24 |
Plant age at harvest (Days after sowing) | 125 | 135 | 126 | 119 | 113 | 150 | 140 | 158 | 140 | 123 | 134 | 152 | 150 |
Factor Level | DMY | DMYB | CPC | CPY | CPYB | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(t/ha) | (t/ha) | (%) | (t/ha) | (t/ha) | ||||||
System | ||||||||||
MB 7.5/7.5 | 18.7 c | ±0.8 | 3.5 | ±0.9 | 7.4 | ±0.5 | 1.4 | ±0.1 | 0.4 | ±0.1 |
MB 7.5/5.5 | 17.9 c | ±0.6 | 2.8 | ±0.8 | 7.6 | ±0.4 | 1.3 | ±0.1 | 0.4 | ±0.1 |
MB 8/4 | 19.2 c | ±0.5 | 1.6 | ±0.6 | 6.7 | ±0.4 | 1.3 | ±0.1 | 0.2 | ±0.0 |
M 7.5–8 | 20.3 b | ±0.5 | 6.4 | ±0.3 | 1.3 | ±0.1 | ||||
M 10 | 22.3 a | ±0.8 | 6.1 | ±0.5 | 1.4 | ±0.1 | ||||
p-value | 0.0026 | 0.4194 | 0.0859 | 0.8592 | 0.1194 | |||||
N fertilization | ||||||||||
without | 18.8 b | ±0.6 | 2.3 | ±0.6 | 6.2 c | ±0.3 | 1.1 b | ±0.1 | 0.3 | ±0.1 |
reduced | 20.3 a | ±0.6 | 2.6 | ±0.6 | 6.8 b | ±0.3 | 1.4 a | ±0.1 | 0.3 | ±0.1 |
full | 19.9 a | ±0.6 | 3.0 | ±0.6 | 7.5 a | ±0.3 | 1.5 a | ±0.1 | 0.4 | ±0.1 |
p-value | 0.0041 | 0.6361 | 0.0024 | 0.0024 | 0.2235 | |||||
System × N fertilization | ||||||||||
p-value | 0.3536 | 0.707 | 0.7841 | 0.8646 | 0.7258 |
System | N fertilization | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Without | Reduced | Full | ||||
MB 7.5/7.5 | 28.2 aA | ±10.2 | 40.1 aA | ±10.2 | 37.6 bA | ±10.2 |
MB 7.5/5.5 | 23.1 aA | ±7.5 | 25.2 aA | ±7.5 | 37.8 bA | ±7.5 |
MB 8/4 | 25.3 aB | ±6.2 | 33.7 aB | ±6.1 | 54.2 abA | ±6.1 |
M 7.5–8 | 23.3 aB | ±5.7 | 33.4 aB | ±5.7 | 59.2 aA | ±5.6 |
M 10 | 20.9 aB | ±10.2 | 19.6 aB | ±10.2 | 60.3 aA | ±10.2 |
p-value | 0.0027 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Villwock, D.; Kurz, S.; Hartung, J.; Müller-Lindenlauf, M. Effects of Stand Density and N Fertilization on the Performance of Maize (Zea mays L.) Intercropped with Climbing Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agriculture 2022, 12, 967. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12070967
Villwock D, Kurz S, Hartung J, Müller-Lindenlauf M. Effects of Stand Density and N Fertilization on the Performance of Maize (Zea mays L.) Intercropped with Climbing Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agriculture. 2022; 12(7):967. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12070967
Chicago/Turabian StyleVillwock, Daniel, Sabine Kurz, Jens Hartung, and Maria Müller-Lindenlauf. 2022. "Effects of Stand Density and N Fertilization on the Performance of Maize (Zea mays L.) Intercropped with Climbing Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)" Agriculture 12, no. 7: 967. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture12070967