Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T09:45:00.097Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Maintaining grain yields of the perennial cereal intermediate wheatgrass in monoculture v. bi-culture with alfalfa in the Upper Midwestern USA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2018

Nicole E. Tautges*
Affiliation:
Agricultural Sustainability Institute, University of California-Davis, One Shields Avenue, Davis, CA 95616, USA
Jacob M. Jungers
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Cir., St. Paul, MN 55108, USA
Lee R. DeHaan
Affiliation:
The Land Institute, 2440 E. Water Well Road, Salina, KS 67401, USA
Donald L. Wyse
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Cir., St. Paul, MN 55108, USA
Craig C. Sheaffer
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota, 411 Borlaug Hall, 1991 Upper Buford Cir., St. Paul, MN 55108, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Nicole E. Tautges, E-mail: netautges@ucdavis.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Intermediate wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium; IWG) is a perennial cereal crop undergoing development for grain production; however, grain yield declines of >75% are often observed after year 2 of the perennial stand and may be linked to soil nutrient depletion. Intercropping IWG with a perennial legume such as alfalfa (Medicago sativa) could benefit nutrient cycling while increasing agroecological diversity. Intermediate wheatgrass was established at five environmentally diverse sites in Minnesota, USA in (1) bi-culture with alfalfa, (2) non-fertilized monoculture and (3) monoculture fertilized annually in the spring with 80 kg N/ha. At northern sites where alfalfa growth was favoured, IWG grain yields were reduced in year 2 by growing IWG in bi-culture with alfalfa, relative to the monoculture systems. Across all sites IWG grain yield decreased by 90% in the non-fertilized monoculture, 80% in the fertilized monoculture and 65% in the bi-culture from year 2 to 4 and plant macronutrient concentrations decreased by 25–70%. In year 4, IWG grain yield was similar or greater in the bi-culture than the fertilized monoculture at three of the five sites and alfalfa biomass was correlated positively with grain yield, harvest index and nutrient uptake in the year 4 bi-culture. Chemical-nitrogen fertilization increased grain yields in year 2 but did not mitigate the decline in yields as stands aged. Intermediate wheatgrass in the bi-culture had similar yields and nutrient uptake and lower yield declines than the chemically fertilized stand at sites where alfalfa growth was maintained throughout the life of the stand.

Information

Type
Crops and Soils Research Paper
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 
Figure 0

Table 1. Seasonal mean temperature and total annual precipitation for five sites (Crookston, Lamberton, Morris, Roseau and Waseca) in Minnesota during 2013, 2014 and 2015

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Intermediate wheatgrass (IWG) grain yield in years 2, 3 and 4 of a non-fertilized monoculture (MC), fertilized monoculture (MC + F) and an IWG + alfalfa bi-culture (BC) at five sites across Minnesota from 2013 to 2015. No harvest grain samples were obtained from the Morris site in year 3. Error bars depict the standard error of the mean. Cro, Crookston; Lam, Lamberton; Mor, Morris; Ros, Roseau; Was, Waseca.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Intermediate wheatgrass (IWG) herbaceous biomass yields at the time of grain harvest (mid-August) in years 2, 3 and 4 of a non-fertilized monoculture (MC), fertilized monoculture (MC + F) and an IWG + alfalfa bi-culture (BC) at five sites across Minnesota from 2013 to 2015. Error bars depict the standard error of the mean. Cro, Crookston; Lam, Lamberton; Mor, Morris; Ros, Roseau; Was, Waseca.

Figure 3

Table 2. Above-ground biomass production of the alfalfa component in years 2, 3 and 4 of an intermediate wheatgrass (IWG) + alfalfa bi-culture grown at five sites across Minnesota from 2013–2015

Figure 4

Fig. 3. Intermediate wheatgrass (IWG) harvest index in years 2, 3 and 4 of a non-fertilized monoculture (MC), fertilized monoculture (MC + F) and an IWG + alfalfa bi-culture (BC) at five sites across Minnesota from 2013 to 2015. Error bars depict the standard error of the mean. Cro, Crookston; Lam, Lamberton; Mor, Morris; Ros, Roseau; Was, Waseca.

Figure 5

Fig. 4. Intermediate wheatgrass (IWG) above-ground plant nitrogen (N) concentration in years 2 and 4 of the perennial stand at five sites across Minnesota from 2013 to 2015. Error bars depict the standard error of the mean. Cro, Crookston; Lam, Lamberton; Mor, Morris; Ros, Roseau; Was, Waseca; MC, non-fertilized IWG monoculture; MC + F, fertilized IWG monoculture; BC = IWG + alfalfa, no N fertilizer applied.

Figure 6

Fig. 5. Intermediate wheatgrass (IWG) above-ground plant phosphorus (P) concentration in years 2 and 4 of the perennial stand at five sites across Minnesota from 2013–2015. Error bars depict the standard error of the mean. Cro, Crookston; Lam, Lamberton; Mor, Morris; Ros, Roseau; Was, Waseca; MC, non-fertilized IWG monoculture; MC + F, fertilized IWG monoculture; BC = IWG + alfalfa, no N fertilizer applied.

Figure 7

Fig. 6. Intermediate wheatgrass (IWG) above-ground plant potassium (K) concentration in years 2 and 4 of the perennial stand at five sites across Minnesota from 2013 to 2015. Error bars depict the standard error of the mean. Cro, Crookston; Lam, Lamberton; Mor, Morris; Ros, Roseau; Was, Waseca; MC, non-fertilized IWG monoculture; MC + F, fertilized IWG monoculture; BC = IWG + alfalfa, no N fertilizer applied.

Figure 8

Table 3. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) and significance tests (P, where P = 0.05)