Effect of planting ratio on the stability of forage yield and population density in two alfalfa-grass mixtures

doi:10.11686/cyxb2022205

Abstract

Abstract:

The planting ratio is one of the main factors affecting the suitability and stability of mixed forage crop plantings， and it differs among different regions and areas because of differences in climate and soil conditions. In the rainfed area of the Longdong Loess Plateau of China， it is urgent to generate mixed alfalfa （Medicago sativa） forage crop plantings with an optimized combination and mixing ratio. In this study， to reveal the stability of mixed grasslands under different combinations and mixing ratios， we analyzed the dynamics of forage yield and population density in two different mixtures； alfalfa-smooth bromegrass （Bromus inermis）（MB） and alfalfa-timothy grass （Phleum pratense）（MP）. Three alfalfa∶grass planting ratios were established： 7∶3， 5∶5 and 3∶7. The controls were alfalfa only and grass only. The planting ratio significantly affected the stability of forage yield and the population density of MP and MB， and the stability of community structure decreased with grassland age. The yield of alfalfa and grass and total yield were significantly higher for MB than for MP at all ages except 2 years and 5 years. As the proportion of alfalfa increased in the two mixtures， the total forage yield initially increased and then decreased at the 2-， 4- and 5-year ages， but only increased at the 3-year age. With the increase in the proportion of alfalfa in the two types of mixture， the relative yield dissimilarity coefficient of alfalfa decreased and then increased （except for 3-year MB）， while there were inconsistent changes for the grasses. In MP， the relative population density dissimilarity coefficient of alfalfa and grass initially decreased and then increased with increasing proportions of alfalfa， and the stability of community structure was the weakest in the 5∶5 MP treatment. In MB， the relative population density dissimilarity coefficient of alfalfa and grass increased with increasing proportions of alfalfa only in the 5-year grasslands. In conclusion， compared with MP， MB can significantly increase forage yield and better maintain community stability. In the rainfed Loess Plateau area， it is recommended to establish an alfalfa-smooth bromegrass mixture with a planting ratio of 7∶3， and to replant or supply fertilizer in the fifth year.

Key words: alfalfa, timothy, smooth bromegrass, mixing ratio, productivity, structure stability

Ting YE, Xiao-juan WU, Yi-xiao LU, Sheng-juan LIU, Zhuo-hui JIANG, Hui-min YANG. Effect of planting ratio on the stability of forage yield and population density in two alfalfa-grass mixtures[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2023, 32(5): 127-137.

Figures/Tables 10

References 41

1	Ren J Z， Zhang Y J. Grassland resources in the south of China and its development strategy. Journal of China Institute of Metrology， 2002， 13（3）： 11-17.
	任继周，张英俊. 中国南方草地资源及其发展战略. 中国计量学院学报， 2002， 13（3）： 11-17.
2	Rolando J L， Dubeux J C B， Ramirez D A， et al. Land use effects on soil fertility and nutrient cycling in the Peruvian High-Andean Puna grasslands. Soil Science Society of America Journal， 2018， 82（2）： 463-474.
3	Hadidi M， Ibarz A， Pagan J. Optimisation and kinetic study of the ultrasonic-assisted extraction of total saponins from alfalfa （Medicago sativa） and its bioaccessibility using the response surface methodology. Food Chemistry， 2020， 309： 125786.
4	Chen L， He F， Long R C， et al. A global alfalfa diversity panel reveals genomic selection signatures in Chinese varieties and genomic associations with root development. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology， 2021， 63（11）： 1937-1951.
5	Liu M G， Wang Z K， Mu L， et al. Effect of regulated deficit irrigation on alfalfa performance under two irrigation systems in the inland arid area of midwestern China. Agricultural Water Management， 2021， 248： 106764.
6	Ali G， Wang Z K， Li X R， et al. Deep soil water deficit and recovery in alfalfa fields of the Loess Plateau of China. Field Crops Research， 2021， 260： 107990.
7	Wang J， Liu W Z， Zhong L P， et al. Spatial variability of soil moisture and aboveground biomass of Medicago sativa under long term continuous planting. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2009， 18（4）： 41-46.
	王俊，刘文兆，钟良平，等. 长期连续种植苜蓿草地地上部分生物量与土壤水分的空间差异性. 草业学报， 2009， 18（4）： 41-46.
8	Lin H L， Dong S K. Effective analysis of interspecific in mixed grassland of cultivated perennial grasses in alpine region of Qinghai-Tibetan plateau of China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2003， 12（3）： 79-82.
	林慧龙，董世魁. 高寒地区多年生禾草混播草地种间竞争效应分析. 草业学报， 2003， 12（3）： 79-82.
9	Zhao J Q. The sustainable utilization study of 18 introduced excellent cultivars mixture pastures productivity and community stability. Lanzhou： Lanzhou University， 2007.
	赵俊权. 18种引进优良牧草混播草地生产力和群落稳定性及可持续利用研究. 兰州：兰州大学， 2007.
10	Rodriguez C， Mrtensson L M D， Jensen E S， et al. Combining crop diversification practices can benefit cereal production in temperate climates. Agronomy for Sustainable Development， 2021， 41（4）： 48.
11	Xie K Y， Wang Y X， Wan J C， et al. Mechanisms and factors affecting nitrogen transfer in mixed legume/grass swards： A review. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2020， 29（3）： 157-170.
	谢开云，王玉祥，万江春，等. 混播草地中豆科/禾本科牧草氮转移机理及其影响因素. 草业学报， 2020， 29（3）： 157-170.
12	Yang H M， Unkovich M， McNeill A， et al. Symbiotic N₂ fixation and nitrate utilisation in irrigated lucerne （Medicago sativa） systems. Biology and Fertility of Soils， 2011， 47（4）： 377-385.
13	Duan B H， Lu J Y， Liu M G， et al. Relationships between biological nitrogen fixation and leaf resorption of nitrogen， phosphorus， and potassium in the rain-fed region of eastern Gansu， China. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2016， 25（12）： 76-83.
	段兵红，陆姣云，刘敏国，等. 陇东雨养农区紫花苜蓿叶片氮、磷、钾重吸收与生物固氮的偶联关系. 草业学报， 2016， 25（12）： 76-83.
14	Lu Y X， Mu L， Yang H M. Advances in improved soil fertility with legume-grass mixtures. Chinese Journal of Grassland， 2019， 41（1）： 94-100.
	芦奕晓，牟乐，杨惠敏. 豆科与禾本科牧草混播改良土壤的研究进展. 中国草地学报， 2019， 41（1）： 94-100.
15	Zhang F S， Li L. Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant and Soil， 2003， 248（1/2）： 305-312.
16	Li H B. The dynamic process of plant responses to heterogeneous nutrient environments and the strategies of root management for nutrient acquisition. Beijing： Chinese Agriculture University， 2014.
	李洪波. 植物响应养分空间异质性分布的动态过程及调控根系获取养分的策略研究. 北京：中国农业大学， 2014.
17	Chen W L， Koide R T， Eissenstat D M. Root morphology and mycorrhizal type strongly influence root production in nutrient hot spots of mixed forests. Journal of Ecology， 2017， 106（1）： 148-156.
18	Silva L S D， Sollenberger L E， Mullenix M K， et al. Soil carbon and nitrogen stocks in nitrogen-fertilized grass and legume-grass forage systems. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems， 2022， 122： 105-117.
19	Zhang Y L， Zhang L J. A study on forage yield dynamics of Medicago varia/Bromus inermis mixture and single grassland. Chinese Journal of Grassland， 2006， 28（5）： 23-28.
	张永亮，张丽娟. 苜蓿、无芒雀麦混播及单播草地产草量动态研究. 中国草地学报， 2006， 28（5）： 23-28.
20	Berti M T， Lukaschewsky J， Samarappuli D P. Intercropping alfalfa into silage maize can be more profitable than maize silage followed by spring-seeded alfalfa. Agronomy， 2021， 11（6）： 1196.
21	Zheng W， Zhu J Z， Jianaerguli， et al. Effects of different mixed sowing patterns on production performance of legume-grass mixture. Chinese Journal of Grassland， 2011， 33（5）： 45-52.
	郑伟，朱进忠，加娜尔古丽，等. 不同混播方式对豆禾混播草地生产性能的影响. 中国草地学报， 2011， 33（5）： 45-52.
22	Liu M， Gong J R， Wang Y H， et al. Effects of legume-grass mixes sowing on forage grass yield and quality in artificial grassland. Arid Zone Research， 2016， 33（1）： 179-185.
	刘敏，龚吉蕊，王忆慧，等. 豆禾混播建植人工草地对牧草产量和草质的影响. 干旱区研究， 2016， 33（1）： 179-185.
23	Zhang H H， Shi S L， Wu B， et al. A study of yield interactions in mixed sowing of alfalfa and three perennial grasses. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2022， 31（2）： 159-170.
	张辉辉，师尚礼，武蓓，等. 苜蓿与3种多年生禾草混播效应研究. 草业学报， 2022， 31（2）： 159-170.
24	Qi J， Zheng W， Zhang X H， et al. Determination and comparison of the production performance of pastures among different spatial structure of legume-grass mixtures. Pratacultural Science， 2016， 33（1）： 116-128.
	祁军，郑伟，张鲜花，等. 不同豆禾混播模式的草地生产性能. 草业科学， 2016， 33（1）： 116-128.
25	Wang P， Zhou D W， Zhang B T. Coexistence and inter-specific competition in grass-legume mixture. Acta Ecologica Sinica， 2009， 29（5）： 2560-2567.
	王平，周道玮，张宝田. 禾-豆混播草地种间竞争与共存. 生态学报， 2009， 29（5）： 2560-2567.
26	Goldberg D E， Barton A M. Patterns and consequences of interspecific competition in natural communities： A review of field experiments with plants. The American Naturalist， 1992， 139（4）： 771-801.
27	Meza K， Vanek S J， Sueldo Y， et al. Grass-legume mixtures show potential to increase above-and belowground biomass production for Andean forage-based fallows. Agronomy， 2022， 12（1）： 142.
28	Liu Q Y， Yun L， Chen Y F， et al. The dynamic analysis of forage yield and interspecific competition in alfalfa-grass mixed pasture. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2022， 31（3）： 181-191.
	刘启宇，云岚，陈逸凡，等. 苜蓿-禾草混播草地牧草产量及种间竞争关系的动态研究. 草业学报， 2022， 31（3）： 181-191.
29	Aponte A， Samarappuli D， Berti M T. Alfalfa-grass mixtures in comparison to grass and alfalfa monocultures. Agronomy Journal， 2019， 111（2）： 628-638.
30	Zheng W， Jianaerguli， Tang G R， et al. Determination and comparison of community stability in different legume-grass mixes. Acta Prataculturae Sinica， 2015， 24（3）： 155-167.
	郑伟，加娜尔古丽，唐高溶，等. 不同混播方式下豆禾混播草地群落稳定性的测度与比较. 草业学报， 2015， 24（3）： 155-167.
31	Zhang Y L， Yu T F， Hao F， et al. Effects of fertilization and mixed sowing ratio on the production performance of grass-alfalfa mixed forage. Chinese Journal of Grassland， 2020， 42（6）： 115-124.
	张永亮，于铁峰，郝凤，等. 施肥与混播比例对豆禾混播牧草生产性能的影响. 中国草地学报， 2020， 42（6）： 115-124.
32	Jiang W T， Yuan G Y， Shen Y Y， et al. Effects of temperatures and mixed sowing ratios on growth and interspecific competition of Onobrychis viciaefolia and Elymus nutans community. Chinese Journal of Grassland， 2021， 43（4）： 22-29.
	蒋汶桃，苑广源，沈禹颖，等. 温度和混播比例对红豆草-垂穗披碱草群体生长及种间竞争的影响. 中国草地学报， 2021， 43（4）： 22-29.
33	Sturludóttir E， Brophy C， Berlanger G， et al. Benefits of mixing grasses and legumes for herbage yield and nutritive value in Northern Europe and Canada. Grass and Forage Science， 2014， 69（2）： 229-240.
34	Li Q， Huang Y X， Zhong R Z， et al. Influence of Medicago sativa proportion on its individual nitrogen fixation efficiency and underlying physiological mechanism in legume-grass mixture grassland. Scientia Agriculture Sinica， 2020， 53（13）： 2647-2656.
	李强，黄迎新，钟荣珍，等. 豆-禾混播草地中紫花苜蓿比例对其固氮效率的影响及潜在生理机制. 中国农业科学， 2020， 53（13）： 2647-2656.
35	Ledgard S F， Steele K W. Biological nitrogen fixation in mixed legume/grass pastures. Plant and Soil， 1992， 141（1/2）： 137-153.
36	Feng T X， De K J， Xiang X M， et al. Effects of different mixtures and proportions of Avena sativa and pea on forage yield and quality in alpine cold region. Acta Agrestia Sinica， 2022， 30（2）： 487-494.
	冯廷旭，德科加，向雪梅，等. 高寒地区燕麦与豌豆不同混播组合和比例对饲草产量及品质的影响. 草地学报， 2022， 30（2）： 487-494.
37	Li Q， Song Y T， Li G D， et al. Grass-legume mixtures impact soil N， species recruitment， and productivity in temperate steppe grassland. Plant and Soil， 2015， 394（1/2）： 271-285.
38	Duan L H， Liu X L， Han B， et al. Effects of native species reseeding on the community stability of alpine meadow in the Tibet Plateau. Acta Agrestia Sinica， 2021， 29（8）： 1793-1800.
	段丽辉，刘晓丽，韩冰，等. 乡土物种补播对青藏高原高寒草甸群落稳定性的影响. 草地学报， 2021， 29（8）： 1793-1800.
39	Chen J S， Zhu R F， Gao C， et al. Interspecific competition of mixed grassland of bromegrass （Bromus inermis L.） and alfalfa （Medicago sativa L.） . Acta Agrestia Sinica， 2013， 21（6）： 1157-1161.
	陈积山，朱瑞芬，高超，等. 苜蓿和无芒雀麦混播草地种间竞争研究. 草地学报， 2013， 21（6）： 1157-1161.
40	Tilman D. Causes， consequences and ethics of biodiversity. Nature， 2000， 405（6783）： 208-211.
41	Wang S P， Lamy T， Hallett L M， et al. Stability and synchrony across ecological hierarchies in heterogeneous metacommunities： linking theory to data. Ecography， 2019， 42（6）： 1200-1211.

土层 Soil layer （cm）	全磷 Total phosphorus （mg·g^-1）	速效磷 Available phosphorus （mg·kg^-1）	全钾 Total potassium （mg·g^-1）	速效钾 Available potassium （mg·kg^-1）	全氮 Total nitrogen （mg·g^-1）	铵态氮 Ammonium nitrogen （mg·kg^-1）	硝态氮 Nitrate nitrogen （mg·kg^-1）
0~10	0.6	19.2	4.6	272.5	1.0	2.6	23.3
10~20	0.5	20.2	5.7	101.6	0.9	3.0	21.1
20~30	0.6	12.7	5.5	84.5	0.7	2.6	17.3
30~60	0.3	5.5	7.3	124.3	0.7	2.3	18.7
60~90	0.3	1.9	7.6	94.5	0.7	3.0	21.9

土层 Soil layer （cm）	全磷 Total phosphorus （mg·g^-1）	速效磷 Available phosphorus （mg·kg^-1）	全钾 Total potassium （mg·g^-1）	速效钾 Available potassium （mg·kg^-1）	全氮 Total nitrogen （mg·g^-1）	铵态氮 Ammonium nitrogen （mg·kg^-1）	硝态氮 Nitrate nitrogen （mg·kg^-1）
0~10	0.6	19.2	4.6	272.5	1.0	2.6	23.3
10~20	0.5	20.2	5.7	101.6	0.9	3.0	21.1
20~30	0.6	12.7	5.5	84.5	0.7	2.6	17.3
30~60	0.3	5.5	7.3	124.3	0.7	2.3	18.7
60~90	0.3	1.9	7.6	94.5	0.7	3.0	21.9

种植模式Planting pattern	牧草组合及比例Forage combination and mixing ratio	播量Sowing rate （kg·hm^-2）	处理编号Code
混播Mixture	苜蓿∶猫尾草7∶3 Alfalfa∶timothy 7∶3	10.5，4.5	M₇P₃
	苜蓿∶猫尾草5∶5 Alfalfa∶timothy 5∶5	7.5，7.5	M₅P₅
	苜蓿∶猫尾草3∶7 Alfalfa∶timothy 3∶7	4.5，10.5	M₃P₇
	苜蓿∶无芒雀麦7∶3 Alfalfa∶smooth bromegrass 7∶3	10.5，9.0	M₇B₃
	苜蓿∶无芒雀麦5∶5 Alfalfa∶smooth bromegrass 5∶5	7.5，15.0	M₅B₅
	苜蓿∶无芒雀麦3∶7 Alfalfa∶smooth bromegrass 3∶7	4.5，21.0	M₃B₇
单播Monoculture	100%苜蓿Pure alfalfa	15.0	M
	100%猫尾草Pure timothy	15.0	P
	100%无芒雀麦Pure smooth bromegrass	30.0	B

种植模式Planting pattern	牧草组合及比例Forage combination and mixing ratio	播量Sowing rate （kg·hm^-2）	处理编号Code
混播Mixture	苜蓿∶猫尾草7∶3 Alfalfa∶timothy 7∶3	10.5，4.5	M₇P₃
	苜蓿∶猫尾草5∶5 Alfalfa∶timothy 5∶5	7.5，7.5	M₅P₅
	苜蓿∶猫尾草3∶7 Alfalfa∶timothy 3∶7	4.5，10.5	M₃P₇
	苜蓿∶无芒雀麦7∶3 Alfalfa∶smooth bromegrass 7∶3	10.5，9.0	M₇B₃
	苜蓿∶无芒雀麦5∶5 Alfalfa∶smooth bromegrass 5∶5	7.5，15.0	M₅B₅
	苜蓿∶无芒雀麦3∶7 Alfalfa∶smooth bromegrass 3∶7	4.5，21.0	M₃B₇
单播Monoculture	100%苜蓿Pure alfalfa	15.0	M
	100%猫尾草Pure timothy	15.0	P
	100%无芒雀麦Pure smooth bromegrass	30.0	B

因素 Effector	苜蓿产量Alfalfa yield		禾草产量Grass yield		总产量Total yield
因素 Effector	F	P	F	P	F	P
年龄Age	128.802	<0.001	205.109	<0.001	395.374	<0.001
混播组合Combination	2.528	0.116	34.782	<0.001	20.373	<0.001
混播比例Mixing ratio	226.270	<0.001	221.625	<0.001	149.782	<0.001
年龄×混播组合Age×combination	9.419	<0.001	104.355	<0.001	14.403	<0.001
年龄×混播比例Age×mixing ratio	36.332	<0.001	21.239	<0.001	36.686	<0.001
混播组合×混播比例Combination×mixing ratio	1.588	0.186	13.213	<0.001	2.264	0.070
年龄×混播组合×混播比例Age×combination×mixing ratio	5.821	<0.001	45.838	<0.001	2.372	0.011