Next Article in Journal
Strip Tillage Improves Productivity of Direct-Seeded Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus) in Rice–Oilseed Rape Rotation Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Conservation Practices Boost Soil-Protected Organic Carbon Stocks in Olive Orchards
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 14
Issue 8
10.3390/agriculture14081355
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploiting the Yield Potential of Spring Barley in Poland: The Roles of Crop Rotation, Cultivar, and Plant Protection

by
Marta K. Kostrzewska
* and
Magdalena Jastrzębska
Department of Agroecosystems and Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Plac Łódzki 3, 10-718 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2024, 14(8), 1355; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081355
Submission received: 25 July 2024 / Revised: 12 August 2024 / Accepted: 12 August 2024 / Published: 13 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effect of Cultivation Practices on Crop Yield and Quality)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The need to better exploit crop yield potential through agronomic practices is driven by the necessity to feed a growing population in a changing climate. In this regard, cereals, including barley, represent strategic crops. Barley grain yield in Poland is comparable to the European average. Under good habitat and agronomic conditions, it can exceed the average. The effects of cropping system (continuous cropping, CC; crop rotation, CR), cultivar (Radek, Skald), plant protection level (control treatment, CT; herbicide, H; herbicide and fungicide, HF), and the interactions among these factors on spring barley yield were evaluated in northeast Poland in 2017–2022. Growing spring barley in the CR system promoted higher yields compared to the CC system due to increased spike density and 1000-grain weight (TGW). Skald, with a higher TGW, yielded more than Radek. H treatment increased barley yield by improving the spike density and TGW, while fungicide inclusion (HF) contributed to further yield increase by improving the TGW. The interaction of CR and HF practices contributed to the greatest realization of the yield potential of both cultivars. The study confirmed the strong contribution of inter-annual weather variability in modifying the effects of cropping system, cultivar, and plant protection strategy on barley yield.

1. Introduction

Feeding the world’s growing population without compromising the sustainability of the planet is one of the most important challenges facing human civilization today [1,2]. It has been predicted that the global population will reach over 9 billion by 2050 [1]. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set in 2015 encourage nations to substantially increase food production to achieve zero hunger (SDG 2) while preserving life on land (SDG 15). A key question is how to reconcile these potentially competing goals spatially [3]. According to Gerten et al. [4], within the strictly respected existing four interlinked planetary boundaries (biosphere integrity, land-system change, freshwater use, nitrogen flows), the current food system can only provide a sustainable diet (2355 kcal per person per day) for 3.4 billion people. However, a transformation toward more sustainable production and consumption patterns could support 10.2 billion people within these planetary boundaries.
Currently, it is agriculture that secures 97.0% of the world’s food supply (93.5% and 98.6% of the global protein and calorie supply, respectively) [5]. Agricultural land now accounts for 36.8% of the total land area and it is shrinking. Between 2000 and 2021, a decrease of 56 million ha was observed [5]. Zhang et al. [3] estimate that intensifying existing cropland to maximum yield before allocating new cropland would reduce land requirements by 43% versus cropland expansion without intensification.
Two important ways to sustainably maximize food and feed supply from cropland are to increase the yield potential and close the yield gap [6]. The maximum yield potential of crops is genetically determined, and breeders and biotechnologists strive to reach this level when developing new crop varieties (cultivars) [7]. In a given region, a well-adapted cultivar (genotype) can achieve its yield potential under optimal habitat and management. The yield gap of a crop is identified as the difference between the so defined yield level and actual farm yield [6,8]. Yield gaps can be attributed to a multitude of factors, with suboptimal management practices related to nutrient deficiencies and poor management of water, diseases, pests, and weeds being the primary causes [6].
Crop rotation, i.e., the practice of planting different crops on the same land in consecutive growing seasons, has been used since ancient times as an effective tool for protecting crop yields by controlling diseases, pests, and weeds, and improving soil fertility and health [9]. The productive and environmental benefits of crop rotation have been extensively reported [10,11,12]. This “old” agricultural practice was neglected in the twentieth century due to easy access to synthetic inputs and farmer’s attraction to short-term solutions and immediate economic returns. It was replaced by short rotations of two crop species, sometimes even with only one crop grown season after season (continuous cropping, monoculture), intensively supported by agrochemical use [13]. This strategy, however, failed to offset the long-term advantages of crop rotation, while also having an adverse impact on the environment [9]. In recent years, there has been a notable shift toward sustainable agriculture, which has led to a renewed interest in crop rotation [9,10,13]. Well-planned crop rotations, especially those that are longer and more species-rich (diversified crop rotations), are thought to solve many of modern agriculture’s problems: socio-economic, human nutrition, and environmental [11,12].
Despite the many benefits of using diversified crop rotation, it is not a remedy for all yield-limiting factors and does not always allow the crops to realize their full potential [9]. For example, the competitiveness of crops against weeds varies between species and even between varieties [14]. For genotypes that are less competitive, the use of herbicides to maximize yield may be justified, even when crops are grown in a diversified crop rotation [15]. Moreover, diversified crop rotation controls host-specific diseases and pests, while generalized pests may persist across a range of crops [9]. Thus, it may be necessary to involve other control approaches, including use of synthetic chemicals.
The cultivation of high-yielding, nutrient-efficient, weed-competitive, pathogen- and pest-resistant, and abiotic stress-tolerant cultivars represents a crucial means by which crop rotation performance can be enhanced and yields increased [11,15,16]. A wide range of cultivars is provided by national and community catalogs, which are regularly updated [17,18]. Furthermore, the practice of cultivar replacement (also known as cultivar rotation) is believed to enhance the yield-forming and yield-protecting potential of crop rotation [15].
There is widespread agreement that the adoption of diversified crop rotation and careful choice of cultivars allows for a substantial reduction in pesticide use [19]. Despite the negative connotations attached to pesticides in recent times, many pathways toward sustainable agriculture do not prohibit the use of these chemicals [20]. However, their application is recommended only after the benefits of proper crop rotation, resistant varieties, and biological and ecological processes in agroecosystems (e.g., beneficial predation, plant competition) have been fully exploited [21]. Moreover, pesticides with acceptable toxicological and environmental profiles should be used [22], based on continuous pest monitoring and economic and environmental-impact thresholds [21]. It is claimed that the implementation of a diverse crop rotation that integrates a diverse set of yield-forming and yield-protecting tactics, while not excluding pesticides, is a necessary condition for achieving high crop productivity in sustainable agricultural systems [20,23,24].
The improvement and integration of sustainable agricultural practices, including diversified crop rotation, the cultivation of suitable varieties, and the rational use of pesticides, are also regarded as ways of enhancing the resilience of the agroecosystem to the effects of climate change and variability [25,26]. Worldwide, agriculture production intrinsically depends on climate, but with global warming, different meteorological anomalies are observed at global, regional, and local levels [27], and increasing frequency of climate extremes, such as droughts, heat waves, and excess moisture, is expected in the future [25]. Extreme weather events frequently cause severe crop yield losses, affecting food security and farmers’ incomes. For instance, a single drought day in Central Europe can reduce winter wheat yields by up to 0.36% [28]. Studying farming practices in the face of year-to-year weather variability can help to design more sustainable cropping systems that will provide more stable crop production [26].
Cereals are regarded as strategic crops for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of zero hunger by 2030 (SDG 2), ending extreme poverty (SDG 1), and mitigating climate change impacts (SDG 13) [1]. Among these crops, barley is one of the most important in terms of global production and area harvested, ranking fourth in the world behind maize, wheat, and rice [29]. Due to its short vegetation period and poorly developed root system, it is demanding of soil conditions and sensitive to both excess and deficit moisture [30,31]. However, it has also been suggested that with climate change, barley could potentially replace wheat as the dominant cereal crop in arid regions due to its relatively lower susceptibility to drought stress [32]. In addition, barley has high susceptibility to stem base diseases and poor competitiveness against weeds, making it highly susceptible to cultivation in a simplified crop sequence [33]. Achieving high barley yields often requires the use of pesticides, especially under unfavorable habitat conditions [33,34,35]. Nevertheless, according to Adamiak et al. [33], barley cultivated in a diversified crop rotation exhibited greater productivity when additionally protected with chemical agents. On the other hand, unfavorable environmental conditions, primarily meteorological, can diminish the yield-protective efficacy of pesticides, while highly resistant and competitive cultivars may reduce the need for pesticides [36].
Despite extensive research on the impacts of various agricultural practices on barley yields, including crop rotation, cultivar selection, and pesticide use, the necessity for continued investigation into these practices and their interactions persists. This is particularly relevant considering the introduction of new cultivars and pesticides, coupled with the unpredictability of weather patterns influenced by climate change. This paper aimed to assess the effects of two contrasting cropping systems (continuous cropping and diversified crop rotation), two cultivars, three levels of plant protection, and the interactions among these practices on the yields of spring barley over a six-year period of the long-term experiment. It was hypothesized that the optimal combination of these practices would enable the maximum realization of the production potential of this cereal under the habitat conditions of northeastern Poland.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Location

The study is based on a long-term field experiment conducted at the Production and Experimental Plant “Bałcyny” Sp. z o.o. in Bałcyny (Poland, Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship, 53.60° N, 19.85° E). The experiment is situated on slightly undulating terrain, on Luvisolic soil formed from light silty clays. The particle size distribution of the soil in the top 30 cm (0–30 cm) was determined to be 26–39% silt (with diameters between 0.1 and 0.02 mm), 17–22% floatable particles (with diameters between 0.02 and 0.002 mm), and 2–4% clay particles (with diameters of below 0.002 mm) [37]. The region’s climate is distinguished by high levels of weather variability and pronounced fluctuations in seasonal patterns from year to year. Rainfall is relatively evenly distributed throughout the year, although there are irregular, brief periods of drought, as well as heavy precipitation [38]. Monthly precipitation totals and average monthly air temperatures during the study period, as recorded by the Meteorological Station in Bałcyny, are presented in Table 1.
The experiment was established in the fall of 1967, at which time continuous cropping of nine crop species (winter rye, winter wheat, spring barley, oats, corn, sugar beet, faba bean, winter rape, and fiber flax) was initiated in the fields. The level of inputs (lower and higher) was introduced as a source of variation. This cropping sequencing system (cropping system) was maintained for five years. Thereafter, the continuous cropping fields were divided into two parts. Continuous cropping was maintained in one part of each field, while the other part underwent crop rotation. A field of continuous potato was introduced, and based on ten crop species, two five-field crop rotations were initiated as a point of contrast to the continuous cropping system. The continuous cropping fields remained a fixed component of the experiment throughout the study period. By contrast, the crops grown in crop rotation(s) each year (season) were cultivated in a different field, in accordance with the designated crop rotation pattern. In subsequent years of operation, the experiment underwent further modifications. In 1983, cultivars and levels of crop protection were introduced as variability sources. Since that time, three experimental factors were investigated: (i) cropping system (continuous cropping vs. crop rotation), (ii) cultivar (two for each crop), and (iii) plant protection level (three levels: no herbicide or fungicide treatments, herbicide, herbicide + fungicide). Starting in 1993, the crop rotations were expanded from five to six fields (winter triticale and peas fields were included). The arrangement of continuous cropping and crop rotation fields in the experiment for 2022 is shown in Figure 1, while Figure S1 illustrates the arrangement of these fields for subsequent years during the period of 2017–2022. The arrangement of cultivars and plant protection levels in a single field of continuous cropping or crop rotation was established as illustrated in Figure 2 for spring barley, and this pattern has remained constant each year since 1983. Each treatment combination (cropping system × cultivar × plant protection level) is represented by three plots, which serve as replications. The area of a single plot is 27 m2, and the entire experiment covers approximatively 1 ha.

2.2. Experiment Description

The subject of this study was spring barley, constituting part of a larger experiment described in Section 2.1. The study employed a factorial experimental design (2 × 2 × 3), with an additional factor (year, 6). The experimental factors were: (i) a cropping system (CS), comparing spring barley continuous cropping (grown in the same field since 1967; CC) versus spring barley growing in a diversified crop rotation (sugar beet–corn–spring barley–peas–winter rape–winter wheat; CR), (ii) the cultivar of spring barley (Cv), with the Radek cultivar and the Skald cultivar being tested, and (iii) the plant protection level (PP), including control treatment with no herbicide or fungicide protection (CT), herbicide protection (H), and herbicide and fungicide protection (HF). The analysis included data from 2017 to 2022. This period represents the entire last completed crop rotation cycle. The study year (Yr) in the six-year study period was adopted as an additional fourth (iv) factor, representing an uncontrolled source of variability. The levels (treatments) of the particular experimental factors were arranged in the fields as illustrated in Figure 1, Figure S1, and Figure 2. In each year of the present study, a total of twelve treatment combinations were investigated (two cropping systems × two cultivars × three plant protection levels), with three replications each.
The selection of cultivars was based on the recommendations of the Research Center for Cultivar Testing (COBORU) in Słupia Wielka. The main characteristics of the cultivars are shown in Table 2. The potential yield of barley, including the Radek and Skald cultivars, was assumed based on the results of the national Post-Registration Variety Testing System (Table 3).
The selection of herbicides and fungicides, as well as other pesticides, was based on the recommendations of the Institute for Plant Protection—National Research Institute in Poznań, Poland. During the period covered by the present study, weed control was achieved through the use of Mustang 306 SE (florasulam + 2,4-D; Dow AgroSciences Polska, Spółka z o.o., Warsaw, Poland), while fungal pathogens were treated with Capalo 337.5 SE (fenpropimorph + epoxiconazole + metrafenone; BASF Polska Sp. z o.o. Crop Protection, Warsaw, Poland) and Amistar 250 SC (azoxystrobin; Syngenta Polska Spółka z o.o., Warsaw, Poland) combined with Artea 330 EC (propiconazole + cyproconazole; Syngenta Polska Spółka z o.o., Warsaw, Poland). Table S1 contains detailed information on these and other pesticide treatments applied in the study. Other basic agricultural data for spring barley in the study years are presented in Table S2. Since 1983, farmyard manure (FYM) has been used in the experiment: in continuous barley every three years (15 t ha−1), whereas in crop rotation before sugar beet sowing (30 t ha−1). The application of FYM occurred in the fall, followed by the implementation of pre-winter plowing. The spring barley was harvested using a plot combine harvester (Wintersteiger CLASSIC, Ried im Innkreis, Austria). Following harvest, the straw was removed from the field.

2.3. Data Collection

The grain yield of spring barley was evaluated based on the amounts of grain harvested in individual plots. Grain was harvested separately from each plot. The grain was weighed and afterward the results were converted and expressed in terms of 1 hectare and 15% grain moisture. The following yield components were identified and quantified: spike density, defined as the density of productive tillers per 1 m2; grain number per spike; and 1000-grain weight (TGW). Spike density was quantified prior to barley harvest via the frame method. This entailed the designation of four 0.50 m × 0.50 m quadrats at random within each plot for manual spike counting, with the values in the quadrats subsequently summed. The grain number per spike was derived from the measurements of 20 plants sampled from each plot shortly before harvest. The TGW was established based on approximately 1 kg of grain samples taken from each plot during combine harvesting. In the laboratory, 1000 grains were randomly picked from each such sample and weighed.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The data on barley yield and yield components were analyzed using four-way ANOVA (analysis of variance) for the experiment conducted in a completely randomized design. The effects of the cropping system (CS), cultivar (Cv), plant protection level (PP), year (Yr), and their interactions (two-way: CS × Cv, CS × PP, Cv × PP, CS × Yr, Cv × Yr, PP × Yr; three-way: CS × Cv × PP, CS × Cv × Yr, CS × PP × Yr, Cv × PP × Yr, and four-way: CS × Cv × PP × Yr) were evaluated for their individual and combined contribution to maximizing barley yield. The Shapiro–Wilk W-test was employed to ascertain the normality of variable distributions, while Levene’s test was utilized to validate the homogeneity of variance. To ascertain the differences between the means for the treatments, Duncan’s test was employed. Furthermore, Pearson’s simple correlation coefficients were utilized to illustrate the relationships between the variables. In all cases, a p-value of less than 0.05 was employed as a criterion for statistical significance. The analysis was performed using the Statistica 13.3 program.

3. Results

The grain yield of spring barley observed in the present study exhibited a range of 3.95–8.04 t ha−1. It was found to be significantly influenced by all three main experimental factors: cropping system (CS), cultivar (Cv), and plant protection level (PP). Furthermore, the interactions CS × PP and Cv × CS × PP were identified as contributing sources of yield variability (Table 4). The study year (Yr) and its interaction with the main controlled factors, namely, CS × Yr, Cv × Yr, PP × Yr, and Cv × PP × Yr, also had a significant effect. The factor with the strongest impact was CS, followed by PP, Yr, and Cv.
All sources of variation exhibited a statistically significant effect on the TGW, whereas CS, PP, and Yr demonstrated significant impacts on spike density. Only Yr had a notable effect on grain number per spike. Furthermore, the TGW was significantly affected by the following interactions: CS × Cv, CS × PP, Cv × PP, Cv × Yr, CS × Cv × PP, and CS × Cv × Yr. Spike density was also significantly influenced by the Cv × PP interaction. Study year proved to be the factor with the strongest effect on all yield components.
Spring barley grown in the CR system demonstrated superior yield relative to that grown in CC. This outcome can be attributed to the higher spike density and TGW (Table 5). The Skald cultivar exhibited enhanced performance compared to the Radek cultivar, with the former demonstrating a higher TGW. The application of herbicide (H) resulted in a statistically significant increase in yield when compared to the control treatment (CT). The additional incorporation of fungicide in plant protection (HF) resulted in a further significant enhancement in yield. Protection of the plants via H and HF treatments resulted in increased spike density and TGW in comparison to CT treatment, while the number of grains per spike remained unaffected.
Spring barley exhibited the highest yield in 2020 and the lowest yields in 2021 and 2017 (Table 5). During the six-year study period, the highest spike density was recorded in 2022, the highest number of grains per spike was recorded in 2021, and the best grain filling (TGW) was observed in 2017 and 2021.
The application of H and HF treatments resulted in increased yields in both the CC and CR systems (Figure 3a). The greatest yield difference was observed between CC-CT and CR-CT treatments (1.44 t ha−1). Under CC-HF treatment, barley yielded a level comparable to that observed under CR-CT treatment.
Each year, barley yields were higher in the CR system than in the CC system, with significant differences observed (Figure 3b). However, the largest discrepancy between these cropping systems was recorded in 2021, with a yield difference of 1.72 t ha−1. In that year, there was a substantial decline in yield in the CC system. Only in 2020 did the Radek cultivar produce a significantly lower yield (by 0.83 t ha−1) than the Skald cultivar (Figure 3c). In all other years, no yield differences between these cultivars were confirmed. In relation to CT treatment, H application resulted in increased yields in 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2022. However, the profitable effect of HF treatment in comparison to H treatment was only recorded in 2017 and 2020 (Figure 3d).
Analysis of the CS × Cv × PP interaction revealed that, irrespective of the study year, the highest barley yields were achieved by cultivation in the CS system with the application of HF treatment (Table 6), with no significant difference between the two cultivars. Details of the effects of the Cv × PP × Yr and CS × Cv × PP × Yr interactions on barley yield are shown in Tables S3 and S4, respectively. It is noteworthy that during the study period, the highest yields, exceeding 7 t ha−1, were most often obtained by growing the Skald cultivar under CR-H and CR-HF conditions (Table S4). However, the Skald cultivar also exhibited the lowest yield in the presented research, with a value of 3.95 t ha−1 obtained under CC-CT treatment conditions in 2021. In none of the research years did the yield of the Radek cultivar under CC-CT conditions exceed 6 t ha−1, and in three out of six years, the yield was below 5 t ha−1.
Under H treatment, the spike density of the compared cultivars was found to be similar, with no significant differences observed. However, under CT and HF treatments, the Skald cultivar was characterized by a higher spike density compared to the Radek cultivar (Figure 4).
The TGW of the Skald cultivar was observed to be greater than that of the Radek cultivar in the CC system. However, in the CR system, no differences were noted between the cultivars (Figure 5a).
In comparison to CT treatment, H and HF treatments resulted in an increase in the TGW in the CC system (Figure 5b). By contrast, in the CR system, only HF treatment demonstrated an improvement in this attribute, with the TGW under CC-HF treatment being comparable to that observed under CR-CT and CR-H treatments. No effect of H treatment was observed on the TGW of the tested cultivars (Figure 5c). By contrast, HF treatment resulted in an increase in the TGW of the Skald cultivar, with values exceeding those of Radek under these conditions. During the six-year study period, grain filling of both cultivars was most advantageous in 2017 and 2021, while the smallest TGW was recorded in 2022 (Figure 5d). Regardless of CS and PP factors, the TGW of the Skald cultivar was greater than that of the Radek cultivar in only two years (2019 and 2020), with no differences between cultivars in the other study years.
Details of the effects of the interactions CS × Cv × PP and CS × Cv × Yr on the TGW are presented in Tables S5 and S6, respectively.
Grain yield exhibited a significant positive correlation with all yield components. The strongest relationship was observed between grain yield and spike density (r = 0.471, p = 0.000), followed by that between grain yield and TGW (r = 0.260, p = 0.000) and that between grain yield and number of grains per spike (r = 0.154, p = 0.024). At the same time, a negative correlation was identified between spike density and TGW (r =−0.165, p = 0.015).

4. Discussion

Among the agricultural practices tested in the present study, the cropping system (CS) proved to be the most influential factor affecting barley yield, exhibiting a stronger impact than plant protection (PP) and cultivar (Cv) factors, as well as year-to-year variability (Yr). Although Krzymuski [41] assigned a higher ranking to cultivar than to the choice of previous crop among cereal yield factors, the result obtained in the present research was not unexpected. This is because spring barley was cultivated in a diversified crop rotation system (CR), which was juxtaposed to long-term continuous cropping of this cereal (CC). Despite prolonged continuous cropping being far from a practical reality, it is a useful experimental approach as it allows for a full elucidation of the benefits of crop rotation by contrasting it with the cultivation of the crop under the most unfavorable crop succession system [42].
The advantages of crop rotation over continuous cropping are usually less evident in spring cereals during the initial years but subsequently increase in a linear manner over time. By contrast, the impact of crop rotation on winter cereals is initially pronounced but then remains constant over time [43]. The diversity of crop species in a field, particularly their functional richness, is regarded as an effective strategy for enhancing grain yield [13]. The substantial increase in cereal yield resulting from crop rotation in comparison to continuous cropping was proven in the present study and in other previous ones [15,33,34,42,44]. The present study reported an average increase in barley yield of 16% (0.97 t ha−1). However, this value can reach 20–25% [43,45]. Taking CC with a low external N input in the starting year as a baseline, Smith et al. [13] demonstrated that the maximum yield increase occurred 35 years after the implementation of diversification, reaching 0.94 t ha−1 for spring fine grain cereals. This value aligns with the average yield increase observed in the present study. In the present study, barley exhibited a higher yield in the CR system than in the CC system each year, although the magnitude of the differences varied considerably from year to year. The relatively smallest differences were recorded in 2017 and 2020, which may be attributed to the response of yield in the CC system to FYM application in the fall of the previous year. The largest difference between these cropping systems was recorded in 2021 (1.72 t ha−1). In that year, the unfavorable rainfall distribution during the growing season (a shortage followed by an excess) amplified the effect of the adverse cropping system (i.e., CC). Barley grown in the CR system proved to be less sensitive to changing weather conditions [26].
Growing crops in diversified crop rotation reduces weed infestation [34,42,46] and disease occurrence [47]. This improves the conditions for barley growth and development, which in turn has a positive effect on yield components [33,48]. The present study revealed that barley cultivated in the CR system exhibited a higher number of spikes (by 11.4%) and a higher TGW (by 4.1%) than that in the CC system. However, the impact of the cropping system on the number of grains per spike of barley was not evident, a finding that aligns with the results of other studies [33].
The effect of the cultivar factor in the present study was significant, but rather weak (the weakest among the main controlled sources of variability). In consideration of the variability in yield potential among barley cultivars [34,49], in the experiment, two distinct cultivars with varying characteristics were usually selected for investigation. For the rotation cycle started in 2017 (and simultaneously for continuous cropping), the Skald cultivar, registered in the Polish National List in 2009, and the relatively then-new Radek cultivar, registered in 2015, were selected for comparison. National post-registration tests indicate that, in general, the Radek cultivar has higher yield potential despite a slightly lower TGW than the Skald cultivar [40], and only in 2015 did they record higher yields of the Skald cultivar than Radek [40]. In the present study, however, regardless of the other experimental factors, the Skald cultivar yielded at a higher rate than the Radek cultivar (6.39 and 6.28 t ha−1, respectively). The present study favors the Skald cultivar mainly due to the year 2020, as this is the only year in which the Skald cultivar showed a significantly higher yield than the Radek cultivar. The year 2020 turned out to be particularly favorable for the Skald cultivar; it took better advantage of the less rainy July for grain filling than the Radek cultivar, achieving a higher TGW. Genotypic variability in tolerance to unfavorable habitat conditions is a notable feature of barley [50]. Under water deficit conditions, genotypes that are susceptible exhibit greater reductions in biomass compared to those that are resistant. However, no studies comparing this trait were found in the Radek and Skald cultivars. Despite its favorable performance, the Skald cultivar was removed from the Polish National List in 2022 by a breeder’s decision. It is also noteworthy that the Radek and Skald cultivars exhibited a similar response to the cropping system and plant protection employed (no CS × Cv and Cv × PP interactions). Apparently, the differences between these cultivars in terms of competitiveness against weeds and susceptibility to pathogens were too small to matter against the strongly contrasting levels of the CS and PP factors.
The chemical protection of barley from weeds and diseases was identified as a highly significant factor in differentiating barley yields in the present study. While this factor was found to be less influential than the cropping system, it was observed to have a stronger impact than the cultivar factor. By contrast, Krzymuski [41] ascribed a lesser impact to chemical plant protection than to both previous crop and cultivar selection. The significant increase in yield observed in crops treated with herbicides can be attributed to the fact that spring barley is a relatively weak competitor against weeds [34,51]. Other authors have demonstrated that weed infestation can result in a reduction in spring barley yield by 5–19% [52] while the use of herbicides has been identified as a key strategy for maintaining yield [33,49,51].
The yield-forming effect of the herbicide was expressed as an increase in grain yield (on average, by 10%) owing to increases in the spike density and TGW. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the application of herbicides can lead to improvements in yield components [33,42,53]. The positive effect of H-protection was more pronounced in the CC system than in the CR system, with yield increases of 18.4% and 3.7%, respectively. This result is not unexpected, given that competition from weeds is typically more intense in the CC system than in the CR system [15,34,42]. Therefore, the reduction in weeds in barley grown in the CC system exerted a more pronounced yield-forming effect. Furthermore, diversified crop rotations have been observed to result in a reduction in weed infestation [9,15,33,42]. This is attributed to the implementation of different agronomic treatments at varying times (e.g., tillage, sowing date) and the availability of weed control measures specific to each crop species. Over time, this multifaceted approach may potentially lead to a reduction in the soil seed bank [54].
The present study demonstrated that the inclusion of a fungicide in barley protection (HF level) resulted in a further increase in yield (by an average of 5.1% in relation to H treatment). This was mainly due to the TGW improvement, which was also confirmed by another study [55] in which fungicide application resulted in an average yield increase of 6.1 to 26.1% compared to the control, along with an increase in the TGW (up to 9.9%). These findings highlight the necessity of protecting barley from pathogens. The most significant fungal diseases affecting barley are leaf rust and net blotch, caused by the pathogens Puccinia hordei and Pyrenophora teres f. terreus, respectively [56]. Furthermore, under Polish conditions, a notable reduction in spring barley yield is attributed to the presence of powdery mildew (Blumeria graminis f. sp. hordei) and barley scald (Rhynchosporium commune) [57].
Fungicide treatment application is recommended in both CC and CR systems, as numerous studies indicate a significant effect of the crop succession system on pathogen infestation. According to Sawinska et al. [58], the cultivation of barley in the CC system is associated with a heightened incidence of infestation by Gaeumannomyces graminis in comparison to the CR system. However, this practice does not appear to influence the prevalence of Fusarium infestation. Kurowski et al. [47] demonstrated that Pyrenophora teres f. terreus and Rhynchosporium commune exhibited more pronounced infestations of barley cultivated in the CC system compared to the CR system. Conversely, pathogens associated with spike fusariosis (Fusarium ssp.) and cereal eyespot (Oculimacula acuformis and O. yallundae) demonstrated more pronounced infestations of plants grown in the CR system compared to the CC system.
The present study revealed that HF treatment resulted in a more pronounced yield increase in the CC system than in the CR system. This was observed in relation to the H level, with increases of 5.4% and 4.9%, respectively. It can be attributed to the fact that the reduction in weed and pathogen infestation via HF treatment in the CC system supported plant development [33], thereby exerting a positive effect on grain yield. Ultimately, the yields achieved under CC-HF treatment were comparable to those attained under CR-CT conditions.
During the six-year study period, the yield-forming effect of the herbicide was recorded four times (in 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2022), which may indicate the strong weed pressure on barley crops, especially in continuous cropping [34], and therefore the importance of herbicide protection. At the same time, there were no significant differences in the yield of barley protected by H and HF treatments in these growing seasons. This can be attributed to the fact that the herbicides, by reducing competition from weeds, strengthened the crop condition [59]. Plants in good condition were less susceptible to pathogens [60], and consequently, the effect of the fungicide was no longer significant. On the other hand, it was also proved that synthetic herbicides can affect plant diseases [61]. They can either exacerbate diseases or protect plants from pathogens due to direct effects on the microorganisms, effects on the plant, or effects on both organisms. Finally, both weed and pest intensities, as well as the efficacy of herbicides and fungicides, depend on a multitude of factors, including the prevailing weather conditions each year [61,62,63].
The high inter-annual variability in yield observed in the present study was an expected consequence of the influence of weather conditions. It is well established that the magnitude and distribution of temperatures and precipitation during the growing season exert a profound influence on the development of crops [35] and weeds [63], as well as on the appearance and intensity of pathogens [64], which consequently manifest in the yield volume [57,65]. Krzymuski [41] places a high value on this factor, ranking it alongside the influence of the previous crop and cultivar but above that of chemical plant protection. In the present study, this uncontrolled factor demonstrated a weaker influence than the CS and PP factors, yet a stronger one than the Cv factor.
In the 2020 growing season, the highest yield (6.82 t ha−1 on average) was observed. This volume resulted from the complex contribution of all three yield components, namely, spike density, number of grains per spike, and TGW. All three parameters exhibited high values that year, even though individually, they did not represent the highest values observed during the study period. Favorable rainfall in May and June, during the barley development period from tillering to heading, positively influenced the number of spikes, grain setting, and filling. Such weather conditions were conducive particularly for the Skald cultivar (7.23 t ha−1). In addition, in 2020, the application of HF treatment strongly supported the yield of the cereal. By contrast, the yields were notably diminished during the 2021 and 2017 growing seasons due to barley plants encountering insufficient or excessive precipitation during the critical stages of intensive growth and development. Leszczyńska and Kostiw [66] found that rainfall amount had a significant impact on yield, while temperature was less influential. Spring barley is particularly susceptible to prolonged drought or excessive soil moisture, particularly at the beginning of the growing season or during heading [67]. Dry and warmer growing seasons typically result in reduced grain yield [68,69]. If stress occurs only in the early growth stages, its consequences are less severe than when it occurs in later growth stages [70].
The range of yield values recorded in the present study was wide, which is explained by the contrasts of levels of factors tested (agricultural practices) and the contribution of an uncontrolled factor, namely, the inter-annual variability in weather conditions. The results of post-registry testing at the national level indicate that the climatic conditions in Poland, as well as in the region where the experiment is located, are conducive to the production of high yields of spring barley [40]. Even the lowest yield (3.95 t ha−1) obtained in the present study under rather harsh conditions for the cereal, since it was grown under continuous cropping for a long time and without plant protection, was higher than the world mean barley yield and only slightly lower than the country mean yield, i.e., obtained under varying real production conditions (not in experiments). The highest yields obtained in the present study (~7–8 t ha−1) did not fully exploit the production potential of the tested cultivars or spring barley in general (Table 7). As reported by Verstegen et al. [71], the highest on-farm yield potential of winter barley is approximately 13 tons per hectare, while yields of spring types exceed 10 tons per hectare.
Nevertheless, a yield of 7 t ha−1 is deemed satisfactory [71,73]. In the present study, this level of yield was achieved by growing barley in the CR system with the application of HF treatment, with a slight advantage of one of the tested cultivars (specifically Skald). Previous studies have indicated that the use of chemical protection against weeds and diseases does not result in enhanced yields of rye grown in a diversified crop rotation [74]. However, the present study has confirmed that the interaction between a crop rotation system and a level of crop protection allows for significantly improved exploitation of the production potential of spring barley cultivars compared to diversified crop rotation alone.
Given the rapid progress in breeding [75], the small number of cultivars tested and their maintenance over the years of the rotation cycle is a peculiar limitation of the present study. However, this is due to the general assumptions of the long-term experiment on which the present study is based. The same applies to mineral fertilization and soil quality, which are considered to be the most powerful yield-determining factors in cereal production [41], and were kept constant in the present study.

5. Conclusions

Growing spring barley in the CR system promoted higher yields compared to the CC system due to increased spike density and TGW. The cultivar Skald, with a higher TGW, yielded more than Radek. H treatment increased barley yield by improving the spike density and TGW, while the inclusion of a fungicide (HF) in the plant protection strategy contributed to further yield increases by improving the TGW. The interaction between CR and HF practices contributed to the greatest realization of the yield potential of both cultivars. Under the conditions of a long-term CC system, the application of HF treatment can result in barley yield levels that are comparable to those achieved through cultivation in the CR system without protection against weeds and pathogens (CT). The study also confirmed the strong contribution of inter-annual weather variability in modifying the effects of the cropping system, cultivar, and plant protection strategy on barley yields. The yield of barley grown in the CR system demonstrated greater resilience to fluctuations in weather patterns.
Considering the anticipated changes in climate and the advances in cultivar breeding and chemical crop protection, studies on integrating methods and tools to support the maximization of grain yields under variable weather conditions remain a pertinent and valuable area of research.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture14081355/s1, Figure S1: The arrangement of continuous cropping (gray plots; CC) and crop rotation (white plots; CR) fields in the Bałcyny experiment in the following years in the period of 2017–2022; Table S1: Pesticide treatments applied to spring barley plots in the growing seasons under study; Table S2: Basic agricultural data for spring barley in the study years; Table S3: Effect of the interaction of cultivar × plant protection × year on spring barley yield (means and standard errors); Table S4: Effect of the interaction of cropping system × cultivar x plant protection × year on spring barley yield (means and standard errors); Table S5: Effect of the interaction of cropping system × cultivar × plant protection on 1000-grain weight of spring barley (means and standard errors); Table S6: Effect of the interaction of cropping system x cultivar x year on 1000-grain weight of spring barley (means and standard errors).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K.K.; methodology, M.K.K. and M.J.; validation, M.K.K. and M.J.; formal analysis, M.K.K. and M.J.; investigation, M.K.K. and M.J.; resources, M.K.K. and M.J.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K.K. and M.J.; writing—review and editing, M.K.K. and M.J.; visualization, M.K.K.; funding acquisition, M.K.K. and M.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The results presented in this paper were obtained as part of a comprehensive study financed by the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Agroecosystems and Horticulture (grant no. 30.610.015-110) and funded by the Minister of Science under the Regional Initiative of Excellence Program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors kindly acknowledge the technical support of employees from the Department of Agroecosystems and Horticulture of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn and from the Production and Experimental Plant ‘Bałcyny’ Sp. z o.o.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Akanmu, A.O.; Akol, A.M.; Ndolo, D.O.; Kutu, F.R.; Babalola, O.O. Agroecological techniques: Adoption of safe and sustainable agricultural practices among the smallholder farmers in Africa. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1143061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Li, S.; Zhang, Y. More unequal food distribution in low-income countries exacerbates global hunger risk. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2024, 46, 108–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhang, Y.; Runting, R.K.; Webb, E.L.; Edwards, D.P.; Carrasco, L.R. Coordinated intensification to reconcile the ‘zero hunger’ and ‘life on land’ Sustainable Development Goals. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 284, 112032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Gerten, D.; Heck, V.; Jägermeyr, J.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Fetzer, I.; Jalava, M.; Kummu, M.; Lucht, W.; Rockström, J.; Schaphoff, S.; et al. Feeding ten billion people is possible within four terrestrial planetary boundaries. Nat. Sustain. 2020, 3, 200–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. FAO. FAOSTAT Database; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2021; Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed on 12 June 2024).
  6. Senapati, N.; Semenov, M.A. Large genetic yield potential and genetic yield gap estimated for wheat in Europe. Glob. Food Sec. 2020, 24, 100340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Begna, T.; Gichile, H.; Yali, W. Genetic diversity and its impact in enhancement. Glob. J. Agric. Res. 2022, 10, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rattalino Edreira, J.I.; Andrade, J.F.; Cassman, K.G.; van Ittersum, M.K.; van Loon, M.P.; Grassini, P. Spatial frameworks for robust estimation of yield gaps. Nat. Food 2021, 2, 773–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Tariq, M.; Ali, H.; Hussain, N.; Nasim, W.; Mubeen, M.; Ahmad, S.; Hasanuzzaman, M. Fundamentals of crop rotation in agronomic management. In Agronomic Crops: Volume 1: Production Technologies; Hasanuzzaman, M., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 545–559. [Google Scholar]
  10. Shah, K.K.; Modi, B.; Pandey, H.P.; Subedi, A.; Aryal, G.; Pandey, M.; Shrestha, J. Diversified crop rotation: An approach for sustainable agriculture production. Adv. Agric. 2021, 2021, 8924087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Liu, C.; Plaza-Bonilla, D.; Coulter, J.A.; Kutcher, H.R.; Beckie, H.J.; Wang, L.; Floc’h, J.-B.; Hamel, C.; Siddique, K.H.M.; Li, L.; et al. Chapter Six—Diversifying crop rotations enhances agroecosystem services and resilience. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; Volume 173, pp. 299–335. [Google Scholar]
  12. Liang, Z.; Xu, Z.; Cheng, J.; Ma, B.; Cong, W.-F.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, F.; van der Werf, W.; Groot, J.C.J. Designing diversified crop rotations to advance sustainability: A method and an application. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 40, 532–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Smith, M.E.; Vico, G.; Costa, A.; Bowles, T.; Gaudin, A.C.M.; Hallin, S.; Watson, C.A.; Alarcón, R.; Berti, A.; Blecharczyk, A.; et al. Increasing crop rotational diversity can enhance cereal yields. Commun. Earth Environ. 2023, 4, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chauhan, B.S. Grand Challenges in Weed Management. Front. Agron. 2020, 1, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jastrzębska, M.; Kostrzewska, M.K.; Marks, M. Is diversified crop rotation an effective non-chemical strategy for protecting triticale yield and weed diversity? Agronomy 2023, 13, 1589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fang, Q.; Zhang, H.; He, J.; Li, H.; Wang, H.; Li, D.; Lv, X.; Li, R. Water use strategies and shoot and root traits of high-yielding winter wheat cultivars under different water supply conditions. Agronomy 2024, 14, 826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. COBORU. Krajowy Rejestr Odmian Roślin Rolniczych; Centralny Ośrodek Badania Odmian Roślin Uprawnych: Słupia Wielka, Poland, 2023. Available online: https://coboru.gov.pl/pl/kr/kr_gat (accessed on 25 June 2024).
  18. CCA. Common Catalogue of Varieties of Agricultural Plant Species. Consolidated Version 27.01.2023. 2023. Available online: https://food.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2023-02/plant-variety-catalogues_agricultural-plant-species_0.pdf (accessed on 25 June 2024).
  19. Pergner, I.; Lippert, C. On the effects that motivate pesticide use in perspective of designing a cropping system without pesticides but with mineral fertilizer—A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2023, 43, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Jastrzębska, M.; Kostrzewska, M.; Saeid, A. Sustainable agriculture: A challenge for the future. In Smart Agrochemicals for Sustainable Agriculture; Chojnacka, K., Saeid, A., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 29–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jastrzębska, M.; Kostrzewska, M.; Saeid, A. Conventional agrochemicals: Pros and cons. In Smart Agrochemicals for Sustainable Agriculture; Chojnacka, K., Saeid, A., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lykogianni, M.; Bempelou, E.; Karamaouna, F.; Aliferis, K.A. Do pesticides promote or hinder sustainability in agriculture? The challenge of sustainable use of pesticides in modern agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 795, 148625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Adeux, G.; Vieren, E.; Carlesi, S.; Bàrberi, P.; Munier-Jolain, N.; Cordeau, S. Mitigating crop yield losses through weed diversity. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 1018–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bargués-Ribera, M.; Gokhale, C.S. Eco-evolutionary agriculture: Host-pathogen dynamics in crop rotations. PLoS Comput. Biol. 2020, 16, e1007546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Wheaton, E.; Kulshreshtha, S. Environmental sustainability of agriculture stressed by changing extremes of drought and excess moisture: A conceptual review. Sustainability 2017, 9, 970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mylonas, I.; Stavrakoudis, D.; Katsantonis, D.; Korpetis, E. Better farming practices to combat climate change. In Climate Change and Food Security with Emphasis on Wheat; Ozturk, M., Gul, A., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wang, X.; Jiang, D.; Lang, X. Future extreme climate changes linked to global warming intensity. Sci. Bull. 2017, 62, 1673–1680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Schmitt, J.; Offermann, F.; Söder, M.; Frühauf, C.; Finger, R. Extreme weather events cause significant crop yield losses at the farm level in German agriculture. Food Policy 2022, 112, 102359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. FAO. FAOSTAT Database; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2022; Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed on 12 July 2024).
  30. Pecio, A.; Wach, D. Grain yield and yield components of spring barley genotypes as the indicators of their tolerance to temporal drought stress. Pol. J. Agron. 2015, 21, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hakala, K.; Jauhiainen, L.; Rajala, A.A.; Jalli, M.; Kujala, M.; Laine, A. Different responses to weather events may change the cultivation balance of spring barley and oats in the future. Field Crops Res. 2020, 259, 107956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bouajila, A.; Ammar, H.; Chahine, M.; Khouja, M.; Hamdi, Z.; Khechini, J.; Salem, A.-F.Z.M.; Ghorbel, A.; López, S. Changes in phytase activity, phosphorus and phytate contents during grain germination of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars. Agrofor. Syst. 2020, 94, 1151–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Adamiak, J.; Adamiak, E.; Stępień, A. Reaction of spring barley to long-term monoculture in diversified conditions of chemical protection. Pol. J. Nat. Sci. 2019, 34, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
  34. Adamiak, E.; Adamiak, J.; Szałczyńska, D. Reakcja odmian jęczmienia jarego na poziom ochrony w dwóch systemach następstwa roślin. Progr. Plant Prot. 2015, 55, 405–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bartosiewicz, B.; Jadczyszyn, J. The impact of drought stress on the production of spring barley in Poland. Pol. J. Agron. 2021, 45, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Stetkiewicz, S.; Burnett, F.J.; Ennos, R.A.; Topp, C.F.E. The impact of fungicide treatment and Integrated Pest Management on barley yields: Analysis of a long term field trials database. Eur. J. Agron. 2019, 105, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Rychcik, B.; Adamiak, J.; Wójciak, H. Dynamics of the soil organic matter in crop rotation and long-term monoculture. Plant Soil Environ. 2006, 52, 15–20. [Google Scholar]
  38. Hutorowicz, H.; Grabowski, J.; Olba-Zięty, E. Frequency of occurrence of dry spells and droughts in two mesoregions of Masurian Lakeland. Acta Agrophys. 2008, 12, 663–673. [Google Scholar]
  39. COBORU. Lista Opisowa Odmian Roślin Rolniczych 2019. Zbożowe; Centralny Ośrodek Badania Odmian Roślin Uprawnych: Słupia Wielka, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  40. COBORU. Post-Registration Variety Testing System and Variety Recommendation; Centralny Ośrodek Badania Odmian Roślin Uprawnych: Słupia Wielka, Poland, 2024. Available online: https://www.coboru.gov.pl/pdo (accessed on 10 July 2024).
  41. Krzymuski, J. Ocena działania czynników plonowania zbóż. Zesz. Probl. Post. Nauk Rol. 1984, 305, 33–64. [Google Scholar]
  42. Jastrzębska, M.; Kostrzewska, M.K.; Marks, M.; Jastrzębski, W.P.; Treder, K.; Makowski, P. Crop rotation compared with continuous rye cropping for weed biodiversity and rye yield. A case study of a long-term experiment in Poland. Agronomy 2019, 9, 644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Marini, L.; St-Martin, A.; Vico, G.; Baldoni, G.; Berti, A.; Blecharczyk, A.; Malecka-Jankowiak, I.; Morari, F.; Sawinska, Z.; Bommarco, R. Crop rotations sustain cereal yields under a changing climate. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 124011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Darguza, M.; Gaile, Z. The productivity of crop rotation depending on the included plants and soil tillage. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wożniak, A. Production efficiency of different crop rotations and tillage systems. Span. J. Agric. Res. 2021, 19, e0907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Orzech, K.; Wanic, M.; Stępień, A.; Kostrzewska, M.K. Weed infestation of spring barley in crop rotations with its different share. Pol. J. Nat. Sci. 2016, 31, 7–20. [Google Scholar]
  47. Kurowski, T.P.; Kotlarz, K.; Kwiatkowska, E.; Damszel, M.; Przemieniecki, S.W.; Mastalerz, J.; Preuss, J.; Wodzyński, P. Zdrowotność dwóch odmian jęczmienia jarego uprawianego w wieloletniej monokulturze. Progr. Plant Prot. 2019, 59, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wozniak, A.; Nowak, A.; Haliniarz, M.; Gaweda, D. Yield and economic results of spring barley grown in crop rotation and in monoculture. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 28, 2441–2448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Bhullar, M.S.; Kaur, S.; Kaur, T.; Singh, T.; Singh, M.; Jhala, A.J. Control of broadleaf weeds with post-emergence herbicides in four barley (Hordeum spp.) cultivars. Crop Prot. 2013, 43, 216–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cai, K.F.; Chen, X.H.; Han, Z.G.; Wu, X.J.; Zhang, S.; Li, Q.; Nazir, M.M.; Zhang, G.P.; Zeng, F.R. Screening of worldwide barley collection for drought tolerance: The assessment of various physiological measures as the selection criteria. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Głowacka, A. Skuteczność chwastobójcza wybranych herbicydów stosowanych w jęczmieniu jarym. Agron. Sci. 2021, 76, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kauppi, K.; Rajala, A.; Huusela, E.; Kaseva, J.; Ruuttunen, P.; Jalli, H.; Alakukku, L.; Jalli, M. Impact of pests on cereal grain and nutrient yield in boreal growing conditions. Agronomy 2021, 11, 592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Al-Khafaji, M.J.; Safi, S.M.A.; Hammood, W.F. Effect of herbicides on growth, grain yield and quality of barley. Iraqi J. Agric. Sci. 2023, 54, 1094–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Schumacher, M.; Ohnmacht, S.; Rosenstein, R.; Gerhards, R. How management factors influence weed communities of cereals, their diversity and endangered weed species in central Europe. Agriculture 2018, 8, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kaniuczak, Z. Ocena ekonomiczna efektywności zwalczania wybranych chorób i szkodników w uprawie jęczmienia jarego. Progr. Plant Prot. 2015, 55, 409–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lenartowicz, T.; Bujak, H.; Przystalski, M.; Mashevska, I.; Nowosad, K.; Jończyk, K.; Feledyn-Szewczyk, B. Assessment of resistance of barley varieties to diseases in Polish organic field trials. Agriculture 2024, 14, 789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Czembor, E.; Kaczmarek, Z.; Pilarczyk, W.; Mańkowski, D.; Czembor, J.H. Simulating spring barley yield under moderate input management system in Poland. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sawinska, Z.; Blecharczyk, A.; Malecka-Jankowiak, I.; Strzelinska, J.; Grzes, S. Porażenie jęczmienia jarego przez choroby w zależności od następstwa roślin i nawożenia w doświadczeniu wieloletnim. Fragm. Agron. 2016, 33, 123–133. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kieloch, R.; Marczewska-Kolasa, K. Możliwość łącznego stosowania herbicydów z regulatorami wzrostu w uprawie jęczmienia jarego. Progr. Plant Prot. 2021, 61, 290–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Metodyka Integrowanej Ochrony Jęczmienia Ozimego i Jarego dla Doradców; Instytut Ochrony Roślin—Państwowy Instytut Badawczy: Poznań, Poland, 2017; p. 199.
  61. Duke, S.O.; Wedge, D.E.; Cerdeira, A.L.; Matallo, M.B. Interactions of synthetic herbicides with plant disease and microbial herbicides. In Novel Biotechnologies for Biocontrol Agent Enhancement and Management; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 277–296. [Google Scholar]
  62. Turenko, V.P.; Bilyk, M.O.; Zhukova, L.V.; Stankevych, S.V.; Zayarna, O.Y.; Lukhanin, I.V.; Oleynikov, Y.S.; Batova, O.M.; Goryainova, V.V.; Poedinceva, A. Dependence of species composition and development of root rots pathogens of spring barley on abiotic factors in the Eastern Forest-Steppe of Ukraine. Ukr. J. Ecol. 2019, 9, 179–188. [Google Scholar]
  63. Wanic, M.; Jastrzebska, M.; Kostrzewska, M.K. Influence of crop rotation and meteorological conditions on density and biomass of weeds in spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Acta Agrobot. 2010, 63, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bartosiak, S.F.; Arseniuk, E.; Szechyńska-Hebda, M.; Bartosiak, E. Monitoring of natural occurrence and severity of leaf and glume blotch diseases of winter wheat and winter triticale incited by necrotrophic fungi Parastagonospora spp. and Zymoseptoria tritici. Agronomy 2021, 11, 967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Paluszkiewicz, M.; Torzyński, M.; Bielecki, J.; Abdullaieva, S.; Kryszak, Ł. Impact of weather conditions on cereal yields in Poland. Zag. Ekon. Rol. 2024, 379, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Leszczyńska, D.; Kostiw, P. Wpływ czynników agrotechnicznych i siedliskowych na plonowanie i jakość ziarna jęczmienia w warunkach zmieniającego się klimatu. Stud. I Rap. IUNG-PIB 2018, 57, 37–48. [Google Scholar]
  67. Hakala, K.; Jauhiainen, L.; Himanen, S.J.; Rötter, R.; Salo, T.; Kahiluoto, H. Sensitivity of barley varieties to weather in Finland. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 150, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Vánová, M.; Palík, S.; Hajslová, J.; Buresová, I. Grain quality and yield of spring barley in field trials under variable growing conditions. Plant Soil Environ. 2006, 52, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Vánová, M.; Jirsa, O.; Hledík, P. Influence of sugar beet as pre-crop, crop rotation and weather on yield and quality of spring barley. Listy Cukrov. Repar. 2019, 135, 353–357. [Google Scholar]
  70. Svobodová, I.; Misa, P. Effect of drought stress on the formation of yield elements in spring barley and the potential of stress expression reduction by foliar application of fertilizers and growth stimulator. Plant Soil Environ. 2004, 50, 439–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Verstegen, H.; Köneke, O.; Korzun, V.; von Broock, R. The World Importance of Barley and Challenges to Further Improvements. In Biotechnological Approaches to Barley Improvement; Kumlehn, J., Stein, N., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 3–19. [Google Scholar]
  72. Highest Barley Yield. Available online: https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/68919-highest-barley-yield (accessed on 18 July 2024).
  73. Zalewski, D.; Liszewski, M. Wysokość plonu ziarna jęczmienia jarego przy zróżnicowanym poziomie agrotechniki na glebie kompleksu pszennego dobrego. Biul. Inst. Hod. Aklim. Rośl. 2016, 279, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kostrzewska, M.; Zawiślak, K. Plonowanie żyta ozimego w różnych warunkach następstwa i ochrony roślin. Fragm. Agron. 2002, 19, 96–103. [Google Scholar]
  75. Podleśny, J.; Grabiński, J. Wybrane zagadnienia dotyczące postępu biologicznego i technologicznego w produkcji zbóż i roślin strączkowych. Stud. I Rap. IUNG-PIB 2019, 60, 9–23. [Google Scholar]
Agriculture 14 01355 g001
Figure 1. The arrangement of continuous cropping (CC) and crop rotation (CR) fields in the Bałcyny experiment on 19 July 2022.
Figure 1. The arrangement of continuous cropping (CC) and crop rotation (CR) fields in the Bałcyny experiment on 19 July 2022.
Agriculture 14 01355 g001
Agriculture 14 01355 g002
Figure 2. The arrangement of cultivars and plant protection levels in a single field of spring barley grown in continuous cropping or crop rotation in the experiment in Bałcyny in 2017–2022. CT—plots with no herbicide or fungicide treatments; H—plots with herbicide application; HF—plots with the application of herbicide and fungicide.
Figure 2. The arrangement of cultivars and plant protection levels in a single field of spring barley grown in continuous cropping or crop rotation in the experiment in Bałcyny in 2017–2022. CT—plots with no herbicide or fungicide treatments; H—plots with herbicide application; HF—plots with the application of herbicide and fungicide.
Agriculture 14 01355 g002
Agriculture 14 01355 g003
Figure 3. Effects of the interactions of cropping system × plant protection (a), cropping system × year (b), cultivar × year (c), and plant protection × year (d) on spring barley yield (means and standard errors). Different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 3. Effects of the interactions of cropping system × plant protection (a), cropping system × year (b), cultivar × year (c), and plant protection × year (d) on spring barley yield (means and standard errors). Different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Agriculture 14 01355 g003
Agriculture 14 01355 g004
Figure 4. Effect of the interaction of cultivar × plant protection on spike density of spring barley (means and standard errors); different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 4. Effect of the interaction of cultivar × plant protection on spike density of spring barley (means and standard errors); different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Agriculture 14 01355 g004
Agriculture 14 01355 g005aAgriculture 14 01355 g005b
Figure 5. Effect of the interactions of cropping system × cultivar (a), cropping system × plant protection (b), cultivar × plant protection (c), and cultivar × year (d) on 1000-grain weight of spring barley (means and standard errors). Different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 5. Effect of the interactions of cropping system × cultivar (a), cropping system × plant protection (b), cultivar × plant protection (c), and cultivar × year (d) on 1000-grain weight of spring barley (means and standard errors). Different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Agriculture 14 01355 g005aAgriculture 14 01355 g005b
Table 1. Atmospheric precipitation and daily air temperature during the study period (2017–2022) according to the Meteorological Station in Bałcyny, Poland.
Table 1. Atmospheric precipitation and daily air temperature during the study period (2017–2022) according to the Meteorological Station in Bałcyny, Poland.
YearMonthSum/Mean
III–VIII
IIIIVVVIVIIVIII
Precipitation, mm
201753.052.134.0109.9106.154.8409.9
201825.028.141.064.7140.731.2330.7
201930.20.097.892.085.864.8370.6
202025.41.164.099.339.7107.2336.7
202123.636.4109.031.3128.4147.4476.1
20220.220.047.789.663.3134.2355.0
1991–202030.929.062.472.591.966.1352.8
Air temperature, °C
20175.16.713.116.717.318.712.9
2018−0.511.916.517.920.020.414.4
20194.98.612.221.417.619.514.0
20203.36.910.117.917.719.212.5
20212.45.711.619.421.116.712.8
20221.96.212.117.918.120.812.8
1991–20202.18.113.116.418.518.312.8
Table 2. Major characteristics of spring barley cultivars used in the experiment according to COBORU [39].
Table 2. Major characteristics of spring barley cultivars used in the experiment according to COBORU [39].
CharacteristicsUnitRadekSkald
Breeder/owner Hodowla Roślin Strzelce sp. z o.o. Grupa IHARHodowla Roślin Strzelce sp. z o.o. Grupa IHAR
Entry into the Polish National List of Agricultural Plant Varietiesyear20152009
Plant height cm7371
From 1.01 to heading days159157
From 1.01 to maturationdays203202
Resistance to lodging9-point scale6.57.2
Weight of 1000 grainsg49.150.7
Yield potential 1t ha−17.1056.815
1 Compared to the yields of control cultivars with high levels of inputs (increased nitrogen fertilization, foliar multi-nutrient preparations, and protection against lodging and diseases) in 2016.
Table 3. The highest spring barley yields achieved in post-registration variety testing experiments conducted in Poland between 2009 and 2023, including the Radek and Skald cultivars, t ha−1 [40].
Table 3. The highest spring barley yields achieved in post-registration variety testing experiments conducted in Poland between 2009 and 2023, including the Radek and Skald cultivars, t ha−1 [40].
LocationHighest Yield for
Spring BarleyRadek CultivarSkald Cultivar
In Poland10.0
(2022)		9.29
(2022)		9.33
(2014)
In region10.0
(2022)		9.29
(2022)		8.68
(2014)
Table 4. Analysis of variance (F values) for spring barley yield and yield components.
Table 4. Analysis of variance (F values) for spring barley yield and yield components.
Source of VariationYieldSpike DensityGrain Number per Spike1000-Grain Weight (TGW)
Cropping system (CS)315.49 ***34.42 ***0.9490.7 ***
Cultivar (Cv)4.05 *3.841.845.3 *
Plant protection (PP)95.69 ***16.88 ***2.4927.5 ***
Year (Yr)20.20 ***36.97 ***20.04 ***93.1 ***
CS × Cv1.400.970.058.4 **
CS × PP18.27 ***2.590.156.0 **
Cv × PP2.193.71 *0.113.4 *
CS × Yr14.91 ***0.251.392.2
Cv × Yr7.86 ***1.980.765.3 ***
PP × Yr4.15 ***0.701.611.4
CS × Cv × PP4.07 *0.862.084.3 *
CS × Cv × Yr2.191.090.873.6 **
CS × PP × Yr1.851.500.551.5
Cv × PP × Yr2.05 *1.080.440.8
CS × Cv × PP × Yr2.28 *0.371.441.4
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 5. Effects of cropping system, cultivar, plant protection, and year on yield and yield components (means and standard errors).
Table 5. Effects of cropping system, cultivar, plant protection, and year on yield and yield components (means and standard errors).
Source of VariationYield,
t ha−1		Spike Density,
No. m−2		Grain Number per Spike, No.1000-Grain
Weight (TGW), g
Cropping system (CS)
Continuous cropping (CC)5.85 ± 0.08 b569 ± 12 b20.5 ± 0.21 a46.32 ± 0.29 b
Crop rotation (CR)6.82 ± 0.06 a634 ± 11 a20.2 ± 0.26 a48.24 ± 0.26 a
Cultivar (Cv)
Radek6.28 ± 0.08 b591 ± 12 a20.5 ± 0.22 a47.04 ± 0.31 b
Skald6.39 ± 0.09 a613 ± 11 a20.1 ± 0.25 a47.51 ± 0.27 a
Plant protection (PP)
CT5.83 ± 0.12 c556 ± 14 b19.9 ± 0.27 a46.49 ± 0.34 c
H6.42 ± 0.08 b628 ± 13 a20.6 ± 0.28 a47.04 ± 0.34 b
HF6.75 ± 0.08 a621 ± 14 a20.4 ± 0.32 a48.28 ± 0.37 a
Year (Yr)
20175.96 ± 0.09 c529 ± 14 c18.5 ± 0.30 d49.73 ± 0.25 a
20186.29 ± 0.13 b532 ± 13 c19.8 ± 0.22 c46.45 ± 0.26 c
20196.37 ± 0.14 b626 ± 14 b19.7 ± 0.32 c47.37 ± 0.40 b
20206.82 ± 0.12 a641 ± 20 b21.1 ± 0.40 b47.83 ± 0.50 b
20216.08 ± 0.19 c545 ± 12 c23.0 ± 0.40 a49.21 ± 0.32 a
20226.47 ± 0.15 b738 ± 20 a19.8 ± 0.47 c43.04 ± 0.35 d
Different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Table 6. Effect of the interaction of cropping system × cultivar × plant protection on spring barley yield, t ha−1 (means and standard errors).
Table 6. Effect of the interaction of cropping system × cultivar × plant protection on spring barley yield, t ha−1 (means and standard errors).
Cropping System (CS)Cultivar (Cv)Plant Protection (PP)
CTHHF
CCRadek4.99 i5.99 h6.30 fg
Skald5.23 i6.12 gh6.46 def
CRRadek6.72 cd6.66 cde7.01ab
Skald6.38 efg6.93 bc7.22 a
Different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Table 7. Selected world statistics and records for barley yields 1.
Table 7. Selected world statistics and records for barley yields 1.
ItemYield, t ha−1YearPlaceReference
Mean global yield 3.292022World[29]
Mean yield in Poland4.352022Poland[29]
The highest mean yield in the world 14.232022Oman[29]
The highest mean yield in Europe8.152022Ireland[29]
The highest yield of barley noted16.202022UK[72]
1 Data sources do not distinguish winter and spring forms.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kostrzewska, M.K.; Jastrzębska, M. Exploiting the Yield Potential of Spring Barley in Poland: The Roles of Crop Rotation, Cultivar, and Plant Protection. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1355. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081355

AMA Style

Kostrzewska MK, Jastrzębska M. Exploiting the Yield Potential of Spring Barley in Poland: The Roles of Crop Rotation, Cultivar, and Plant Protection. Agriculture. 2024; 14(8):1355. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081355

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kostrzewska, Marta K., and Magdalena Jastrzębska. 2024. "Exploiting the Yield Potential of Spring Barley in Poland: The Roles of Crop Rotation, Cultivar, and Plant Protection" Agriculture 14, no. 8: 1355. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14081355

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop