Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:44:15.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of rotations in which barley for grain follows woollypod vetch or forage barley

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

I. Papastylianou  and
Th. Samios
I. Papastylianou
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus
Th. Samios
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Using data from rotation studies in which barley or woollypod vetch were included, both cut for hay and preceding barley for grain, it is shown that forage barley gave higher dry-matter yield than woollypod vetch (3·74 v. 2·92 t/ha per year). However, the latter gave feedingstuff of higher nitrogen concentration and yield (86 kg N/ha per year for vetch v. 55 kg N/ha per year for barley). Rainfall was an important factor in controlling the yield of the two forages and the comparison between them in different years and sites. Barley following woollypod vetch gave higher grain yield than when following forage barley (2·36 v. 1·91 t/ha). Rotation sequences which included woollypod vetch had higher output of nitrogen (N) than input of fertilizer N with a positive value of 44–60 kg N/ha per year. In rotations where forage barley was followed by barley for grain the N balance between output and input was 5–6 kg N/ha. Total soil N was similar in the different rotations at the end of a 7-year period.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 108 , Issue 3 , June 1987 , pp. 609 - 615
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

De, R., Salim Khan, M. A., Katti, M. S. & Raja, V. (1985). Fodder legumes affecting sequential crop production and fertilizer N use efficiency. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 105, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Droushiotis, D. N. (1984). Effect of variety and harvesting stage on forage production of vetch in a low rainfall environment. Field Crops Research 10, 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenland, D. J. (1971). Changes in the nitrogen status and physical condition of soils under pastures, with special reference to the maintenance of the fertility of Australian soils used for growing wheat. Soil and Fertilizers 34, 237–251.Google Scholar
Hadjichristodoulou, A. (1973). Production of forage from cereals, legumes and their mixtures under rainfed conditions in Cyprus. Technical Bulletin, no. 14, 18 pp. Cyprus Agricultural Research Institute.Google Scholar
Hadjichristodoulou, A. (1975). Effect of seed rate on forage production of cereals and legumes under rainfed conditions. Technical Bulletin, no. 19, 11 pp. Cyprus Agricultural Research Institute.Google Scholar
Hanley, F., Ridoman, W. J. & Barker, M. G. (1957). The effect of leys on soil fertility. I. The effect of management of clover aftermath on the yield of the succeeding wheat crop. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 49, 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krentos, V. D. & Orphanos, P. I. (1979). Nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers for wheat and barley in a semi-arid region. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 93, 711–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Littlejohn, L. (1946). Some aspects of soil fertility in Cyprus. Empire Journal of Experimental Agriculture 14, 123–134.Google Scholar
Papastylianou, I. (1980). Nitrate concentration in cereal stems and its use in evaluation rotations and predicting nitrogen fertilizer requirements. Ph.D. thesis, University of Adelaide, South Australia.Google Scholar
Papastylianou, I. (1987). The role of legumes in agricultural production in Cyprus. Proceedings of the 1CARDA/UNDP Workshop on Biological Nitrogen Fixation in Mediterranean-type Agriculture, Aleppo, 04 1986 (in the Press).Google Scholar
Papastylianou, I. & Puokridge, D. W. (1981). Nitrogen nutrition of cereals in short-term rotation. I. Single season treatments as a source of nitrogen for subsequent cereal crops. Australian, Journal of Agricultural Research 32, 703–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papastylianou, I.Puckridge, D. W. & (1983). Stem nitrate nitrogen and yield of wheat in a permanent rotation experiment. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 34, 599–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samios, Th. (1979). Constraints to cereal production and possible solutions in Cyprus. In The Oap between Present Farm Yield and the Potential. Major Constraints and Possible Solutions, vol. II, pp. 88–92. Proceedings Fifth Cereal Workshop, Algiers, 5–9 05 1979.Google Scholar
Sas, (1985). SAS User's Guide, Basics, version 5 edition. SAS Institute Inc. North Carolina, U.S.A.Google Scholar
Sims, H. J. (1977). Cultivation and fallowing practices. In Soil Factors in Crop Production in a Semi-arid Environment (ed. Russell, J. S. and Greasen, E. L.), pp. 243–261. University of Queensland Press.Google Scholar
Watson, E R., Lapins, P. & Barron, R. J. W. (1980). Effects of subterranean, rose and cupped clovers on soil nitrogen and on a subsequent cereal crop. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 14, 632–639.Google Scholar