Next Article in Journal
The Influence of 1-Methylcyclopropene on the Quality Parameters of Idared Apples after 8 Weeks of Storage Simulating Long-Distance Transportation
Next Article in Special Issue
Controlled Release of Zinc from Soy Protein-Based Matrices to Plants
Previous Article in Journal
Soil Disinfestation Efficacy against Soil Fungal Pathogens in Strawberry Crops in Spain: An Overview
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sources of Nitrogen for Winter Triticale (Triticosecale Wittm. ex A.Camus) Succeeding Pea (Pisum sativum L.)

Faculty of Agrobioengineering and Animal Husbandry, Institute of Agriculture and Horticulture, Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, 08110 Siedlce, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(3), 527; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030527
Submission received: 22 January 2021 / Revised: 3 March 2021 / Accepted: 9 March 2021 / Published: 11 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Improving Nutrient Use Efficiency from Lab to Field)

Abstract

:
Atmospheric nitrogen biologically reduced in legumes root nodule and accumulated in their postharvest residues may be of great importance as a source of this macronutrient for succeeding crops. The aim of the study was to determine nitrogen uptake by winter triticale from pea postharvest residues, including N fixed from atmosphere, using in the study fertilizer enriched with the 15N isotope. Triticale was grown without nitrogen fertilization at sites where the forecrops had been two pea cultivars (multi-purpose and field pea) and, for comparison, spring barley. The triticale crop succeeding pea took up more nitrogen from the soil (59.1%) and less from the residues of the forecrop (41.1%). The corresponding values where the forecrop was barley were 92.1% and 7.9%. In the triticale, the percentage of nitrogen derived from the atmosphere, introduced into the soil with pea crop residues amounted to 23.8%. The amounts of nitrogen derived from all sources in the entire biomass of triticale plants grown after harvesting of pea were similar for both pea cultivars. The cereal took up more nitrogen from all sources, when the soil on which the experiment was conducted had higher content of carbon and nitrogen and a greater amount of N was introduced with the pea residues. Nitrogen from pea residues had high availability for winter triticale as a succeeding crop cultivated on sandy soils.

1. Introduction

Recent years have seen increased interest in the cultivation and use of legumes. The seeds of pea, soybean and lupine have high protein content, which makes them useful and difficult to replace in many branches of industry, especially the food and feed industries [1]. Furthermore, leguminous plants are an extremely important element in the crop rotation, leaving a valuable site for the succeeding crops: cereals, root crops and industrial crops [2,3,4]. Legumes are usually grown using low levels of nitrogen fertilizer, because they can live in symbiosis with bacteria that reduce atmospheric nitrogen N2 to ammonium forms available for the plant in its root nodules [5].
Cultivation of legumes can play an important role in reducing the negative effects of intensified crop production by introducing sustainable production methods that make the most efficient use of fertilizers and natural processes [3,6,7]. The most important benefit of leguminous plant cultivation is enrichment of soil with nitrogen from the nitrogen fixation process (biological reduction of atmospheric nitrogen), which is also utilized by the succeeding plants in the crop rotation [3,8,9]. The amounts of nitrogen taken up from this source by legumes and the factors determining them are fairly well documented in the literature [10,11,12,13,14,15]. However, there is a lack of current data describing the utilization of nitrogen introduced to the soil in the form of residues of legume crops, including nitrogen derived from biological reduction.
In addition to their high nitrogen content, the biomass of whole legume plants has a small C:N ratio, which accelerates the rate of mineralization of organic matter and significantly increases utilization of nitrogen and other nutrients by succeeding crops [16]. A long interval between the pea crop and the succeeding crop can lead to losses of mineral nitrogen released in the mineralization process, and thus reduce the role of the forecrop as a source of this macronutrient [17]. Cultivation of plants sown shortly after harvesting of the forecrop (winter crops) improves utilization of nitrogen left in the soil by legumes in comparison to spring crops [17,18,19]. Therefore, to limit losses of nitrogen left by pea in the autumn, the succeeding crop used in the present study was winter triticale.
The aim of the study was to determine nitrogen uptake by winter triticale from soil reserves and from spring barley as well as pea crop residues, including N fixed by pea from the atmosphere.
It was hypothesized that different amounts of nitrogen introduced into the soil with post-harvest residues of the forecrops (pea and spring barley) would differentiate the yield, as well as the amount of nitrogen taken up from various sources by the succeeding crop—winter triticale.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Experiment

The wield experiment was carried out in 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 in Siedlce, Poland (52°10′12″ N, 22°17′15″ E). This experiment was conducted on soil whose selected properties are given in Table 1. The soil was classified among Luvisols (LV), consisting of 81% sand, 17% silt and 2% clay. Plots with an area of 1 m2 were marked out in a growing crop of winter triticale (Triticosecale Wittm. ex A.Camus) in a traditional soil cultivation system. In this cultivation system, plowing, cultivating and harrowing were performed before sowing the seeds. In the single-factorial experiment, in three replications, three factor levels in two successive years were tested (Table 2). Factor levels were kind of forecrop: two pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars (“Milwa” (field pea) and “Batuta” (multi-purpose) cultivars) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) (“Ella” cultivar) as reference plant. All forecrops plants were sown on 8 April on both years and harvested on 28 July in 2015 and on 26 July in 2016, at full maturity stage separately from each plot. All plants on seeds/grain and crop residues (roots and all aboveground parts, without seeds/grain) were divided. Crop residues were introduced and mixed with the soil on the same plots on which they were grown.
Before peas and barley sowing (forecrops plants) in first decade of April nitrogen was introduced into the soil at a dose corresponding to 30 kg N·ha−1, in a water solution in the form of (NH4)2SO4, with 10% excess of 15N isotope. This gave the possibility to calculate the amount of nitrogen taken up by peas from the atmosphere, mineral fertilizer and soil reserves by the isotope dilution method, as well as by barley from mineral fertilizer and soil reserves. The detailed description of these studies was presented in the manuscript of Wysokinski and Lozak [20]. Moreover, the amounts of nitrogen taken up from these sources and introduced into the soil with their crop residues (both species as forecrops) were determined (Table 2).
Triticale grain, “Borowik” variety, were sown in the second decade of September in both years of the experiment in the amount of 500 germinating grains per 1 m2. No additional nitrogen fertilization was used in its cultivation, and the sources of this macronutrient were pea or barley crop residues and soil reserves. The phosphorus and potassium doses were determined after specifying the available amounts for plants of these element forms in soil (Table 1). Potassium was applied in an amount corresponding to 100 kg K·ha−1. Phosphorus fertilization was not applied because the soil showed a very high content of this macronutrient in forms available to plants. No herbicides were used in all plants cultivation, and weeds were removed manually.
All triticale plants were harvested at full maturity phase by hand, being dug out from the soil with a spade to a depth of 0.25 m, separately from each plot.

2.2. Laboratory Analyses

Plant’s materials into roots, grain and remaining aboveground part were separated. The aboveground part included all the aboveground organs of triticale, except for the yield of grain.
The following was determined in all samples of the test plants:
Dry matter yield (i.e., d.m.)—70 °C
Total nitrogen content—by Kjeldahl method
Enrichment with the 15N isotope—on the NOI-6e emission spectrometer (Leipzig, Germany), after prior wet mineralization of samples using the Kiejdahl method and distillation to an acid solution (5% HCl);

2.3. Weather Conditions

Analyzing the course of weather during the growing season of triticale, it was found that the thermal and humidity conditions in given years were variable (Table 3). The Selyaninov’s hydrothermal index indicates that the 2016 months of vegetation were: April, moderately wet; May and June, dry; and July, wet. In 2017, they were: April, extremely wet; and May, June and July, moderately dry.

2.4. Calculations of Nitrogen Sources

The percentages of nitrogen derived from different sources: from forecrop’s residues (Ndfcr; in the from of: atmosphere (Ndfcr_a), i.e., only from pea’s crop residues, and mineral fertilizer (Ndfcr_f)) and from soil reserves (Ndfs). In triticale, they were calculated using the formulas given by Harris and Hesterman [21], Wysokinski et al. [19] and own study:
  • Percentage of nitrogen derived in triticale (successive plant) from pea’s crop residues, %Ndfcr:
    %Ndfcr = 15N_triticale/15N_pea·100
    where 15N_triticale is the 15N isotope in enrichment triticale mass (%) and 15N_pea is the 15N isotope enrichment in pea’s crop residues (%);
  • The amount of nitrogen derived in triticale from pea’s crop residues, Ndfcr:
    Ndfcr = %Ndfcr·TN/100
    where %Ndfcr is the percentage of nitrogen derived in triticale from forecrop’s residues and TN is the total nitrogen uptake by triticale.
  • The amount of nitrogen derived in triticale from the atmosphere, introduced into the soil with pea’s crop residues (N2 biologically reduced in nitrogen fixation process), Ndfcr_a:
    Ndfcr_a = %Ndfa·Ndfcr/100
    where %Ndfa is the percentage of nitrogen derived from atmosphere (biologically reduced) in pea’s crop residues and Ndfcr is the amount of nitrogen derived in triticale from pea’s crop residues.
  • The amount of nitrogen derived in triticale from mineral fertilizer, introduced into the soil with pea’s crop residues, Ndfcr_f [own study based on Point 3]:
    Ndfcr_f = %Ndff·Ndfcr/100
    where %Ndff is the percentage of nitrogen derived from mineral fertilizer in pea’s crop residues and Ndfcr is the amount of nitrogen derived in triticale from pea’s crop residues.
  • Nitrogen utilization by triticale from pea’s crop residues, %NU:
    %NU = Ndfcr/N_cr·100
    where Ndfcr is the amount of nitrogen derived in triticale from pea’s crop residues and N_cr is the amount of nitrogen introduced into the soil with pea’s crop residues;
In these calculations, the succeeding crop is assumed to utilize nitrogen introduced to the soil in the forecrop residues proportionally to the amount accumulated by the forecrop from various sources, and thus the values calculated for the coefficient of nitrogen utilization from the forecrop residues simultaneously describe the utilization of nitrogen derived from the atmosphere and mineral fertilizer.
  • The amount of nitrogen taken up by winter triticale from the soil is a value that includes nitrogen from all sources other than forecrop residues introduced to the soil. Hereafter, this is referred to as “nitrogen from the soil”, “nitrogen from soil reserves”, or Ndfs:
    Ndfs = TN − Ndfcr
    where TN is the total nitrogen uptake by triticale and Ndfcr is the amount of nitrogen derived in triticale from pea’s crop residues.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The results of the experiments were analyzed by two-way ANOVA:
yijk = µ + ai + bj + (ab)ij + eijk
where µ is the mean value of all treatments; ai is the effect of forecrops; bj is the effect of research years (second source of variability); abij is the interaction of forecrops and years; and eijk is the random effect (error).
The significance of sources of variation was checked with the Fisher–Snedecor test, and mean values were separated with the Tukey’s test at the significance level of p < 0.05. The Polish version of Statistica 13.1 PL (StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA) was used for these calculations.

3. Results

3.1. Dry Weight, Nitrogen Content and 15N Enrichment of Triticale

The weight of the above-ground crop residues, grain and whole triticale plant was significantly dependent on the species of the forecrop (Table 4). The weight of these parts and the entire plant did not differ between triticale crops succeeding the two cultivars of pea, but it was higher than where the forecrop was spring barley. The weight of the triticale roots did not depend significantly on the species of the forecrop.
The weight of all separated parts and of the entire triticale plants was significantly different in the two years of the study (Table 4). In the growing conditions of 2016, the weight of the above-ground residues, grain yield and total weight were greater than in 2017. In the case of root weight, the pattern was reversed.
The nitrogen content in all separate parts and on average in the whole triticale plants was not significantly dependent on the species and cultivar of the forecrop (Table 5). The 15N isotope enrichment of all separate parts and on average for the whole triticale plants was greater when it was preceded by both pea cultivars than when the forecrop was spring barley. The values of this parameter were similar for the triticale crops succeeding both pea cultivars. The nitrogen content in the roots, grain and on average in the whole triticale plants was greater in the experimental conditions of 2016 than in 2017. The 15N enrichment of the roots, grain and whole triticale plants on average was greater in 2017 than in 2016. Nitrogen content and enrichment with the 15N isotope in the above-ground crop residues did not differ significantly between the two years of the study.

3.2. Amount and Percentage of Nitrogen Uptake from Different Sources

The amount of nitrogen in the winter triticale (separate parts and whole plants) derived from soil reserves and from pea residues, including from biological reduction of N2 and mineral fertilizer, as well as the total uptake of this macronutrient, were not significantly dependent on the pea cultivar (Table 6). Accumulation of nitrogen from the above-mentioned sources and the total uptake by the whole triticale plant on average for both pea cultivars was 48.54, 33.56, 19.54, 2.37 and 85.10 kg ·N ha−1, respectively (Figure 1). The amount of nitrogen taken up by triticale (all separate parts and whole plants) from spring barley residues, including N derived from mineral fertilizer, were lower than in the crop succeeding pea, but this dependency was reversed in the case of the amount of nitrogen taken up from soil reserves.
The year of the research was found to significantly affect the amount of nitrogen from each source and the entire amount accumulated in the whole triticale plants (Table 7). The level of nitrogen uptake from soil reserves and from forecrop residues, including from mineral fertilizer and from nitrogen fixation by pea, as well as the total accumulation of this macronutrient in the whole triticale plant, was lower in 2017 than in 2016, by 30.9%, 19.3%, 17.1%, 38.4% and 27.5%, respectively. The amount of nitrogen from these sources in the above-ground crop residues and grain of the triticale was greater in the first year of the experiment than in the second year, but, in the case of the roots, the tendency was reversed. The year of the study was not shown to affect the percentage of nitrogen in the triticale derived from soil reserves and from pea residues, including N from mineral fertilizer. In the entire biomass of the succeeding crop, the percentage of nitrogen from nitrogen fixation by pea was higher in the conditions of the 2016 experiment than those in 2017.

3.3. Coefficient of Nitrogen Utilization from the Forecrop

The values for the coefficient of utilization of nitrogen introduced to the soil with the pea crop, calculated for the roots, aerial parts, grain and entire triticale plant, were significantly dependent on the species of the forecrop (Table 8). Nitrogen utilization calculated for all separate parts and the whole triticale plant was similar in the case of both pea cultivars as the forecrop. The values for this parameter for the separate parts and whole triticale plant grown after spring barley were lower than in the case of the two pea cultivars. The average value of the coefficient obtained for the entire triticale plant in the crop succeeding pea was 62.7%, of which the greatest amount (40.1%) was noted for the grain, less for the above-ground residues (17.9%) and the least (4.7%) for the roots (Figure 2). In the case of the triticale crop succeeding barley, the corresponding values were 21.8%, 12.2%, 6.6% and 2.7%, respectively. According to the methodology of the experiment, the values for the coefficient of nitrogen utilization from the forecrop residues simultaneously describe the utilization of nitrogen in the forecrop residues derived from the atmosphere (only in the case of pea) and from fertilizer (for both forecrop species).
Utilization of nitrogen introduced to the soil with forecrop residues, calculated for the above-ground residues, grain and entire triticale plants, did not differ significantly between the years of the study (Table 8). The value of the coefficient of nitrogen utilization calculated for the roots of the cereal grown in 2017 was higher than for those in 2016.

4. Discussion

Many authors have reported that succeeding crops produce higher yield when legumes are included in the crop rotation [2,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. In our study, the conditions left by pea as the forecrop were more beneficial for the yield of winter triticale than the conditions left by spring barley. The grain yield and the total harvested weight of the triticale crop succeeding pea were 40.1% and 18.6% higher, respectively, than in the case of the crop succeeding spring barley. The beneficial effect of legumes as forecrops on the yield of winter triticale is well described in the literature [29,30]. Buraczyńska and Ceglarek [31] showed an increase in the grain yield of winter triticale succeeding field pea relative to the grain yield of crops succeeding spring triticale and spring wheat, by 25.5% and 18.6%, respectively. The yield of winter triticale depends not only on the forecrops but also on many other factors, e.g., weather conditions during the growing season [32,33,34,35]. In the present study, the grain yield and total weight of winter triticale was greater in 2016 than in 2017, by 0.634 and 1.448 Mg·ha−1, respectively (on average for the crops succeeding the two pea cultivars and barley). This may have been due to the somewhat higher nitrogen content in the soil on which the experiment was conducted in the first year than in the second year, as well as the slightly larger amount of nitrogen introduced to the soil with the forecrop residues in the first year (on average 47.0 kg·ha−1 for both cultivars) than in the second year (on average 38.6 kg·ha−1). The moisture and temperature conditions for cultivation of triticale in the first and second years of the experiment were not optimal, and it is difficult to say which growing season was more favorable in this respect. In 2016, after a fairly wet April, the next two months were dry, while July was wet, with an air temperature higher than the long-term average in every month of the growing season. In 2017, after an extremely wet April, the next three months were dry, and the temperature was lower than the long-term average in April and July but higher in June. Substantial variation in winter triticale grain yield depending on the year of research (air temperatures and rainfall) has been reported by other authors [36]. Factors influencing the yield can also affect the amount of nitrogen uptake by this cereal from various sources. In the total pool of nitrogen taken up by winter triticale succeeding pea, nitrogen from soil reserves accounted for a higher percentage (on average 59.1%) than nitrogen from pea residues (on average 40.9%). Of the total nitrogen uptake by triticale, on average 23.8% was from the atmosphere, and thus this pool was the effect of symbiosis of pea and rhizobia. Different results may be obtained in experiments conducted on different types of soil than in this study. Wysokiński et al. [19], in an experiment conducted in field conditions, obtained a lower percentage of nitrogen (17.2%) taken up from residues of the forecrop—yellow lupine—including N derived from nitrogen fixation (11.8%), in the total accumulation of this element in spring triticale. In similar studies [18], in which winter rye was the subsequent plant cultivated after yellow lupine, these values were 59.2% and 40.6%, respectively. In that study, however, 100.2 kg N·ha−1 had been introduced with yellow lupine residues. The smaller amounts of nitrogen introduced to the soil in the present study (on average 53.5 kg N·ha−1 for both pea cultivars and 21.4 kg N·ha−1 for spring barley) may explain the lower percentage of this macronutrient taken up by triticale from the forecrop residues in this study than in the one cited. In comparison with the present study, a pot experiment conducted in a greenhouse, in which the succeeding crop—spring barley—was sown in the spring, found a much lower percentage of nitrogen from pea residues (37.3%), including N from nitrogen fixation (4.1%), in the total uptake [17]. Our data and those cited from the literature [17,19] clearly indicate that plants should be sown within a short time after legumes have been harvested.
In the present study, the average nitrogen uptake by winter triticale from pea residues was 33.6 kg N, of which 19.5 kg was nitrogen from the atmosphere. These values were 37.7 and 24.2 kg N·ha−1, respectively, in the first year of the study and 29.4 and 14.9 kg N·ha−1 in the second year. The higher nitrogen uptake in 2016 than in 2017 from the sources described may be indicative of the effect of the somewhat greater amount of nitrogen introduced into the soil with the forecrop postharvest residues in the first year of the study (on average 59.1 kg N·ha−1 for both pea cultivars, including 37.9 kg N·ha−1 from the atmosphere) than in the second year (on average 47.8 kg N·ha−1 for both cultivars, including 24.2 kg N·ha−1 from the atmosphere). In the study cited above [18], in which more nitrogen was introduced (100.2 kg N·ha−1) with the yellow lupine residues, including 65.3 kg N·ha−1 from atmosphere, uptake of this macronutrient by winter rye was greater, amounting to 85.8 and 54.9 kg N·ha−1 from these sources. The results of research using the 15N isotope show that succeeding crops take up less than 30% of nitrogen from residues of legume crops [19,37,38,39]. Jensen [40] determined that winter barley recovered about 15% of the nitrogen from pea residues, while Stevenson and van Kessel [23] reported a value of 12% for wheat. In the present study on winter triticale, the coefficient of utilization of nitrogen introduced to the soil with pea residues, including nitrogen from the atmosphere, was on average 62.7% and did not depend on the cultivar of the forecrop or on the year of research. These results indicate that nitrogen from pea residues has high availability for winter triticale as a succeeding crop cultivated on sandy soils.
The average given above (33.6 kg N·ha−1), specifying the nitrogen uptake by triticale from pea residues, corresponds to the content of nitrogen in 100 kg of ammonium nitrate. However, after taking into account the coefficient of nitrogen utilization from mineral fertilizers, amounting to about 50%, in order for the plant to take up 34 kg N·ha−1, 200 kg of this fertilizer would have to be applied to the soil. Of this amount (33.6 kg N·ha−1), on average 19.5 kg N·ha−1 was nitrogen from the atmosphere, which can be regarded as a net gain of pea cultivation, while the remainder (14.1 kg N·ha−1) was recovery of nitrogen derived from soil and fertilizer. The amount of nitrogen from pea residues available for the succeeding crop should be taken into account in planning fertilization with this nutrient.

5. Conclusions

The pea cultivar grown as a forecrop was not shown to significantly affect the total weight or grain yield of the succeeding crop (winter triticale) or the percentage and amount of nitrogen taken up by the plant from pea residues (including N from nitrogen fixation) and soil reserves. The total uptake and the amount of nitrogen derived from each source by winter triticale were greater in the conditions of the experiment conducted in 2016 than those in 2017, i.e., on soil with higher nitrogen content and following the introduction of more nitrogen into the soil with forecrop residues. Given the high nitrogen utilization of pea crop residues, when planning fertilization with this macronutrient of the subsequent plant, the amount of nitrogen available from the forecrop residue should be taken into account in order to rationally manage this biogenic element.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.W.; methodology, A.W., I.L. and B.K.; resources, A.W., I.L and B.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.W., B.K. and I.L.; writing—review and editing, A.W. and B.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education, grant number 143/15/MN and 37/20/B.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Florek, J.; Czerwińska-Kayzer, D.; Jerzak, M. Current state of production and use of leguminous crops. Fragm. Agron. 2012, 29, 45–55. [Google Scholar]
  2. Fowler, C.J.E.; Condron, L.M.; McLenaghen, R.D. Effects of green manures on nitrogen loss and availability in an organic cropping system. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 2004, 47, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Stagnari, F.; Maggio, A.; Galieni, A.; Pisante, M. Multiple benefits of legumes for agriculture sustainability: An overview. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2017, 4, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Uzoh, I.; Igwe, C.; Okebalama, C.B.; Babalola, O.O. Legume-maize rotation effect on maize productivity and soil fertility parameters under selected agronomic practices in a sandy loam soil. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 8539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Podleśny, J.; Podleśna, A.; Nędzi, M. Forecrop value of blue and yellow lupine for winter wheat. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2018, 63, 70–74. [Google Scholar]
  6. Yang, C.; Bueckert, R.; Schoenau, J.; Diederichsen, A.; Zakeri, H.; Warkentin, T.D. Evaluation of growth and nitrogen fixation of pea nodulation mutants in western Canada. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2017, 97, 1121–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Raza, A.; Zahra, N.; Hafeez, M.B.; Ahmad, M.; Iqbal, S.; Shaukat, K.; Ahmad, G. Nitrogen fixation of legumes: Biology and physiology. In The Plant Family Fabaceae; Hasanuzzaman, M., Araújo, S., Gill, S.S., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 43–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Mundus, S.; Jensen, E.S. Nitrogen dynamics following grain legumes and subsequent catch crops and the effects on succeeding cereal crops. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2009, 84, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hong, Y.; Ma, Y.; Wu, L.; Maki, M.; Qin, W.; Chen, S. Characterization and analysis of nifH genes from Paenibacillus sabinae T27. Microbiol. Res. 2012, 167, 596–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Holdensen, L.; Wulfsohn, D.; Jensen, E.S. Spatial variation of N2-fixation in field pea (Pisum sativum L.) at the field scale determined by the 15N natural abundance method. Plant Soil 2010, 327, 167–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kalembasa, S.; Wysokiński, A.; Kalembasa, D. Quantitative assessment of the process of biological nitrogen reduction by yellow lupine (Lupinus luteus L.). Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2014, 13, 5–20. [Google Scholar]
  12. Sulieman, S.; Tran, L.S. Symbiotic nitrogen fixation in legume nodules: Metabolism and regulatory mechanisms. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2014, 15, 19389–19393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Schwember, A.R.; Schulze, J.; del Pozo, A.; Cabeza, R.A. Regulation of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in legume root nodules. Plants 2019, 8, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Wysokinski, A.; Kuziemska, B. The sources of nitrogen for yellow lupine and spring triticale in their intercropping. Plant Soil Environ. 2019, 65, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Rymuza, K.; Radzka, E.; Wysokiński, A. Nitrogen uptake from different sources by non-GMO soybean varieties. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wanic, M.; Nowicki, J.; Bielski, S. Reaction of spring barley and oats mixture to different forecrops and frequency of cultivation in crop rotation. Part II. Mass and quality of harvest residue. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2004, 3, 177–186, (In Polish, Abstract in English). [Google Scholar]
  17. Wysokinski, A.; Kalembasa, S.; Kuziemska, B.; Lozak, I.; Mucus, Ł. The sources of nitrogen for spring barley cultivation after harvested field pea. Pol. J. Agron. 2016, 27, 3–8, (In Polish, Abstract in English). [Google Scholar]
  18. Wysokinski, A. The Amount If Nitrogen Biologically Reduced by Yellow Lupine (Lupinus luteus L.) and Its Utilization by Subsequent Plant—Winter Rye (Secale cereale L.); UPH: Siedlce, Polnd, 2013; Monograph 126; p. 133, (In Polish, Summary in English). [Google Scholar]
  19. Wysokiński, A.; Kalembasa, D.; Kalembasa, S. Utilization of nitrogen from different sources by spring triticale (Triticosecale Wittm. ex. A. Camus) grown in the stand after yellow lupine (Lupinus luteus L.). Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2014, 13, 79–92. [Google Scholar]
  20. Wysokinski, A.; Lozak, I. The Dynamic of Nitrogen Uptake from Different Sources by Pea (Pisum sativum L.). Agriculture 2021, 11, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Harris, G.H.; Hesterman, O.B. Quantifying the nitrogen contribution from alfalfa to soil and two succeeding crops using nitrogen-15. Agron. J. 1990, 82, 129–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Peoples, M.B.; Craswell, E.T. Biological nitrogen fixation: Investments, expectations, and actual contributions to agriculture. Plant Soil 1992, 141, 13–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Stevenson, F.C.; van Kessel, C. Nitrogen contribution of pea residues in a hummocky terrain. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1997, 61, 494–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chalk, P.M. Dynamics of biologically fixed N in legume-cereal rotations: A review. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1998, 49, 303–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Aslam, M.; Mahmood, I.A.; Peoples, M.B.; Schwenke, G.D.; Herridge, D.F. Contribution of chickpea nitrogen fixation to increased wheat production and soil organic fertility in rainfed cropping. Biol. Fert. Soils 2003, 38, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shah, Z.; Shah, S.H.; Peoples, M.B.; Schwenke, G.D.; Herridge, D.F. Crop residue and fertiliser N effects on nitrogen fixation and yields of legume-cereal rotations and soil organic fertility. Field Crops Res. 2003, 83, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jensen, C.R.; Joernsgaard, B.; Andersen, M.N.; Christiansen, J.L.; Morgensen, V.O.; Friis, P.; Petersen, C.T. The effect of lupins as compared with peas and oats on the yield of the subsequent winter barley crop. Eur. J. Agron. 2004, 20, 405–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kirkegaard, J.; Christen, O.; Krupinsky, J.; Layzell, D. Break crop benefits in temperate wheat production. Field Crops Res. 2008, 107, 185–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zajac, T.; Szafranski, W.; Gierdziewicz, M.; Pieniek, J. Winter triticale yielding cultivated after differing forecrops. Fragm. Agron. 2006, 2, 174–183, (In Polish, Abstract in English). [Google Scholar]
  30. Buraczyńska, D.; Ceglarek, F. Previous crop value of post-harvest residues and straw of spring wheat, field pea and their mixtures for winter triticale. Part II. Winter triticale yield. Acta Sci. Pol. Agric. 2011, 10, 19–32. [Google Scholar]
  31. Buraczyńska, D.; Ceglarek, F. Winter triticale yielding according to the previous crop. Fragm. Agron. 2009, 26, 9–18. [Google Scholar]
  32. Bezabih, A.; Girmay, G.; Lakewu, A. Performance of triticale varieties for marginal highlands of Wag-Lasta, Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric. 2019, 5, 1574109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dumbrava, M.; Ion, V.; Epure, L.I.; Basa, A.G.; Ion, N.; Dusa, E.M. Grain yield and yield components at triticale under different technological conditions. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2016, 10, 94–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Prusiński, J.; Borowska, E.; Olszak, G. The after-effect of chosen Fabaceae forecrops on the yield of grain and protein in winter triticale (Triticosecale sp. Wittmack ex A. Camus 1927) fertilized with mineral nitrogen. Plant Soil Environ. 2016, 62, 571–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Wójcik-Gront, E.; Studnicki, M. Long-term yield variability of triticale (×Triticosecale Wittmack) tested using a CART model. Agriculture 2021, 11, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nogalska, A.; Sienkiewicz, S.; Czapla, J.; Skwierawska, M. The effect of multi-component fertilizers on the yield and mineral composition of winter triticale. Pol. J. Natur. Sci. 2012, 27, 125–134. [Google Scholar]
  37. Giller, K.E.; Cadisch, G. Future benefits from biological nitrogen fixation: An ecological approach to agriculture. Plant Soil 1995, 174, 255–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fillery, I.R.P. The fate of biologically fixed nitrogen in legume-based dryland farming systems: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2001, 41, 361–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Crews, T.E.; Peoples, M.B. Can the synchrony of nitrogen supply and crop demand be improved in legume and fertilizer-based agroecosystems? A review. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2005, 72, 101–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Jensen, E.S. Availability of nitrogen in 15N-labelled mature pea residues to subsequent crops in the field. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1994, 26, 465–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Nitrogen uptake from different sources by winter triticale succeeding pea (means for pea cultivars), kg N·ha−1. Ndfs, N derived from soil reserves; Ndfcr, N derived from peas or barley crop residues, respectively; Ndfcra, N derived from the atmosphere, introduced into soil with peas crop residues; Ndfcrf, N derived from fertilizer, introduced into soil with peas or barley crop residues.
Figure 1. Nitrogen uptake from different sources by winter triticale succeeding pea (means for pea cultivars), kg N·ha−1. Ndfs, N derived from soil reserves; Ndfcr, N derived from peas or barley crop residues, respectively; Ndfcra, N derived from the atmosphere, introduced into soil with peas crop residues; Ndfcrf, N derived from fertilizer, introduced into soil with peas or barley crop residues.
Agronomy 11 00527 g001
Figure 2. Utilization coefficient of nitrogen introduced into the soil with pea residues by winter triticale (means for peas cultivars), %.
Figure 2. Utilization coefficient of nitrogen introduced into the soil with pea residues by winter triticale (means for peas cultivars), %.
Agronomy 11 00527 g002
Table 1. Some properties of soil in the layer 0–0.25 m before foundation of experiment in 2015 and 2016.
Table 1. Some properties of soil in the layer 0–0.25 m before foundation of experiment in 2015 and 2016.
Soil PropertiesUnitYear
20152016
pHof soil in KCl solution (1:2.5 ratio)-6.66.5
Ctotalg·kg−134.223.5
Ntotal2.101.45
N-NH4+mg·kg−15.754.06
N-NO31.210.74
PEgnera-Rhiema309.0301.0
KEgnera-Rhiema86.0111.0
Fe *13271189
Mo *0.0150.013
B *0.8060.278
Sorption capacitymmol(+)·kg−1484425
* It was extracted in 1 mol·dm−3 HCl solution.
Table 2. Scheme of experiment and the amount of nitrogen introduced into soil with postharvest residues of forecrops, kg N·ha−1.
Table 2. Scheme of experiment and the amount of nitrogen introduced into soil with postharvest residues of forecrops, kg N·ha−1.
Forecrop—Studied FactorYear of Forecrop CultivationThe Amount of Nitrogen Introduced into Soil with Postharvest Residues, kg N·ha−1Successive Plant in 2016 and 2017—Tested Plant in Study
TotalIn This Derived from
AtmosphereMineral FertilizerSoil Reserves
Pea Milwa cv201557.037.23.716.1Winter triticale,
Borowik cv
201642.919.93.219.8
Pea Batuta cv201561.238.64.218.4
201652.828.53.420.9
Spring barley Ella cv201522.7-4.218.5
201620.1-2.817.3
Hyphens indicate not determined.
Table 3. Values of the Selyaninov hydrothermal index (k) during the vegetation periods of triticale and moisture characteristics (wm) of individual months.
Table 3. Values of the Selyaninov hydrothermal index (k) during the vegetation periods of triticale and moisture characteristics (wm) of individual months.
MonthYear
20162017
kwmkwm
IV1.9mw3.9ew
V0.8d1.1md
VI1.0d1.1md
VII2.2w1.3md
k ≤ 0.4, extremely dry (ed); 0.4 < k ≤ 0.7, very dry (vd); 0.7 < k ≤ 1.0, dry (d); 1.0 < k ≤ 1.3, moderately dry (md); 1.3 < k ≤ 1.6, optimum (o); 1.6 < k ≤ 2.0, moderately wet (mw); 2.0 < k ≤ 2.5, wet (w); 2.5 < k ≤ 3.0, very wet (vw); k > 3.0, extremely wet (ew).
Table 4. Dry weight of winter triticale, Mg·ha−1 (averages ± SD).
Table 4. Dry weight of winter triticale, Mg·ha−1 (averages ± SD).
Studied FactorPlant’s PartSum
RootAboveground Crop ResiduesGrain
ForecropPea “Milwa”0.914 ± 0.269 a4.906 ± 0.839 b2.800 ± 0.495 b8.620 ± 1.123 b
Pea “Batuta”0.954 ± 0.307 a4.951 ± 0.693 b2.933 ± 0.370 b8.838 ± 1.066 b
Spring barley0.923 ± 0.219 a4.391 ± 0.590 a2.046 ± 0.294 a7.360 ± 0.761 a
Year20160.683 ± 0.068 a5.404 ± 0.463 b2.910 ± 0.518 b8.997 ± 1.002 b
20171.178 ± 0.129 b4.095 ± 0.286 a2.276 ± 0.379 a7.549 ± 0.880 a
Interactions: forecrop/years are not significant. a, b, different letters in each column indicate significant differences between averages for studied factor, p < 0.05.
Table 5. Nitrogen content (Nc) (g N·kg−1) and enrichment with 15N (15Nen) (%) in winter triticale’s dry weight (averages ± SD).
Table 5. Nitrogen content (Nc) (g N·kg−1) and enrichment with 15N (15Nen) (%) in winter triticale’s dry weight (averages ± SD).
Studied FactorPlant’s PartWeighted Averages
RootAboveground Crop ResiduesGrain
Nc (g N·kg−1)15Nen (%)Nc (g N·kg−1)15Nen (%)Nc (g N·kg−1)15Nen (%)Nc (g N·kg−1)15Nen (%)
ForecropPea “Milwa”7.38 a ± 0.840.241 b ± 0.0265.00 a ± 0.490.255 b ± 0.02417.53 a ± 2.080.288 b ± 0.0289.32 a ± 0.0990.274 b ± 0.019
Pea “Batuta”6.93 a ± 1.050.244 b ± 0.0334.94 a ± 0.690.280 b ± 0.02417.66 a ± 2.410.294 b ± 0.0309.37 a ± 1.310.286 b ± 0.024
Spring barley7.34 a ± 1.130.128 a ± 0.0164.68 a ± 0.580.118 a ± 0.01217.40 a ± 2.140.118 a ± 0.0178.54 a ± 1.130.120 a ± 0.014
Year20167.83 b ± 0.880.182 a ± 0.0405.13 a ± 0.540.205 a ± 0.05618.79 b ± 1.830.214 a ± 0.0659.73 b ± 1.080.210 a ± 0.057
20176.60 a ± 0.860.227 b ± 0.0514.61 a ± 0.560.229 a ± 0.06016.26 a ± 1.820.252 b ± 0.0678.42 a ± 0.960.242 b ± 0.059
Interactions: forecrop/years are not significant. a, b, different letters in each column indicate significant differences between averages for studied factor, p < 0.05.
Table 6. Nitrogen uptake by winter triticale from different sources depending on the forecrop, kg N·ha−1 (averages ± SD).
Table 6. Nitrogen uptake by winter triticale from different sources depending on the forecrop, kg N·ha−1 (averages ± SD).
N SourcesForecropPlant’s PartWhole Mass
RootAboveground Crop ResiduesGrain
NdfcrPea “Milwa”2.29 ± 0.68 b9.01 ± 2.52 b20.47 ± 5.67 b31.77 ± 8.47 b
Pea “Batuta”2.46 ± 0.97 b10.23 ± 2.76 b22.66 ± 6.92 b35.35 ± 10.00 b
Spring barley0.56 ± 0.20 a1.48 ± 0.34 a2.58 ± 0.46 a4.62 ± 0.92 a
NdfcraPea “Milwa”1.22 ± 0.23 a5.20 ± 1.98 a11.85 ± 4.73 a18.27 ± 7.55 a
Pea “Batuta”1.40 ± 0.61 a6.05 ± 1.85 a13.36 ± 3.58 a20.81 ± 4.54 a
NdfcrfPea “Milwa”0.16 ± 0.06 b0.62 ± 0.14 b1.41 ± 0.29 b2.19 ± 0.49 b
Pea “Batuta”0.17 ± 0.12 b0.69 ± 0.22 b1.51 ± 0.37 b2.37 ± 0.51 b
Spring barley0.09 ± 0.03 a0.24 ± 0.05 a0.41 ± 0.06 a0.74 ± 0.15 a
NdfsPea “Milwa”4.34 ± 1.38 a15.62 ± 3.65 a29.07 ± 7.69 a49.03 ± 10.43 a
Pea “Batuta”3.98 ± 1.15 a14.47 ± 5.81 a29.59 ± 11.40 a48.04 ± 15.55 a
Spring barley6.06 ± 1.16 b19.19 ± 5.16 b33.26 ± 8.49 b58.51 ± 13.45 b
Total uptake (Ndfcr + Ndfs)Pea “Milwa”6.63 ± 1.97 a24.63 ± 5.74 b49.54 ± 14.32 b80.80 ±19.75 b
Pea “Batuta”6.44 ± 2.42 a24.70 ± 7.47 b52.25 ± 12.49 b83.39 ± 27.07 b
Spring barley6.62 ± 1.17 a20.67 ± 4.67 a35.84 ± 9.55 a63.13 ± 14.37 a
Interactions: forecrop/years for all N sources are not significant. a, b, different letters separately for each nitrogen source (Ndfcr, Ndfcra, Ndfcrf, Ndfs and total uptake, respectively) and separately in each column (root, aboveground crop residues, grain and whole mass, respectively) indicate significant differences between averages for studied factor, p < 0.05. Ndfcr, nitrogen derived from peas or barley crop residues, respectively; Ndfcra, nitrogen derived from the atmosphere, introduced into soil with peas crop residues; Ndfcrf, nitrogen derived from fertilizer, introduced into soil with peas or barley crop residues; Ndfs, nitrogen derived from soil reserves, i.e., sources other than Ndfcr.
Table 7. Nitrogen uptake by winter triticale from different sources depending on the year of research, kg N·ha−1 (averages ± SD).
Table 7. Nitrogen uptake by winter triticale from different sources depending on the year of research, kg N·ha−1 (averages ± SD).
N SourceYearPlant’s PartWhole Mass
RootAboveground Crop ResiduesGrain
Ndfcr20161.22 ± 0.66 a7.94 ± 5.06 b17.31 ± 11.52 b26.47 ± 17.60 b
20172.32 ± 1.19 b5.88 ± 3.42 a13.15 ± 9.60 a21.35 ± 12.90 a
Ndfcra20161.06 ± 0.23 a7.18 ± 1.42 b15.95 ± 2.63 b24.19 ± 5.30 b
20171.56 ± 0.51 b4.07 ± 0.93 a9.26 ± 2.12 a14.89 ± 3.08 a
Ndfcrf20160.10 ± 0.04 a0.59 ± 0.28 b1.24 ± 0.65 b1.93 ± 0.93 b
20170.18 ± 0.07 b0.44 ± 0.19 a0.98 ± 0.44 a1.60 ± 0.71 a
Ndfs20164.13 ± 1.41 a19.83 ± 4.83 b37.40 ± 7.84 b61.36 ± 12.87 b
20175.46 ± 1.28 b13.03 ± 3.29 a23.88 ± 5.29 a42.37 ± 7.29 a
Total uptake (Ndfcr + Ndfs)20165.35 ± 1.16 a27.77 ± 5.76 b54.71 ± 13.54 b87.83 ± 23.40 b
20177.78 ± 1.76 b18.91 ± 2.89 a37.03 ± 8.06 a63.72 ± 14.49 a
Interactions: forecrop/years for all N sources are not significant. a, b, different letters separately for each nitrogen source (Ndfcr, Ndfcra, Ndfcrf, Ndfs and total uptake, respectively) and separately in each column (root, aboveground crop residues, grain and whole mass, respectively) indicate significant differences between averages for studied factor, p < 0.05. Ndfcr, nitrogen derived from peas or barley crop residues, respectively; Ndfcra, nitrogen derived from the atmosphere, introduced into soil with peas crop residues; Ndfcrf, nitrogen derived from fertilizer, introduced into soil with peas or barley crop residues; Ndfs, nitrogen derived from soil reserves, i.e., sources other than Ndfcr.
Table 8. Utilization coefficient of nitrogen introduced into the soil with forecrop residues by winter triticale, % (averages ± SD).
Table 8. Utilization coefficient of nitrogen introduced into the soil with forecrop residues by winter triticale, % (averages ± SD).
Studied FactorPlant’s PartSum
RootAboveground Crop ResiduesGrain
Forecrop plantPea “Milwa”4.9 ± 2.2 b17.9 ± 2.5 b40.5 ± 6.3 b63.3 ± 7.8 b
Pea “Batuta”4.5 ± 1.7 b17.8 ± 3.6 b39.7 ± 5.6 b62.0 ± 7.7 b
Spring barley2.7 ± 1.0 a6.9 ± 1.0 a12.2 ± 3.0 a21.8 ± 4.6 a
Year20162.4 ± 0.9 a14.7 ± 8.3 a31.4 ± 20.3 a48.5 ± 29.4 a
20175.6 ± 1.9 b13.8 ± 5.7 a30.2 ± 13.8 a49.5 ± 21.3 a
Averages4.0 ± 2.214.2 ± 7.230.8 ± 17.649.0 ± 25.8
Interactions: forecrop/years are not significant. a, b, different letters in each column indicate significant differences between averages for studied factor, p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wysokinski, A.; Lozak, I.; Kuziemska, B. Sources of Nitrogen for Winter Triticale (Triticosecale Wittm. ex A.Camus) Succeeding Pea (Pisum sativum L.). Agronomy 2021, 11, 527. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030527

AMA Style

Wysokinski A, Lozak I, Kuziemska B. Sources of Nitrogen for Winter Triticale (Triticosecale Wittm. ex A.Camus) Succeeding Pea (Pisum sativum L.). Agronomy. 2021; 11(3):527. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030527

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wysokinski, Andrzej, Izabela Lozak, and Beata Kuziemska. 2021. "Sources of Nitrogen for Winter Triticale (Triticosecale Wittm. ex A.Camus) Succeeding Pea (Pisum sativum L.)" Agronomy 11, no. 3: 527. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030527

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