HOW MULTISPECIES INTERCROP ADVANTAGE RESPONDS TO WATER STRESS: A YIELD-COMPONENT ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION

doi:10.15302/J-FASE-2021412

Front. Agr. Sci. Eng.

2021, Vol. 8

Issue (3) : 416-431 https://doi.org/10.15302/J-FASE-2021412

RESEARCH ARTICLE

HOW MULTISPECIES INTERCROP ADVANTAGE RESPONDS TO WATER STRESS: A YIELD-COMPONENT ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION

Luis GARCIA-BARRIOS¹(

), Yanus A. DECHNIK-VAZQUEZ²

¹. The South Frontier College, Panamerican and South Peripheric Avenues (w/o number), San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas 29290, México
². Pre-Planning Center of the Gulf, Federal Electricity Comission, Diego de Ordaz 593, Boca del Río, Veracruz 94295, México

Download: PDF(18388 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

● A framework for multicrop advantage under varying watering conditions is provided.

● This framework clarifies the relation between multicrop overyielding and land use efficiency.

● A novel experimental setup was used to evaluate these theoretical developments.

● Theory and experiment conveyed precise understanding of overyielding scenarios.

Absolute yield and land use efficiency can be higher in multicrops. Though this phenomenon is common, it is not always the case. Also, these two benefits are frequently confused and do not necessarily occur together. Cropping choices become more complex when considering that multicrops are subject to strong spatial and temporal variation in average soil moisture, which will worsen with climate change. Intercropping in agroecosystems is expected to buffer this impact by favoring resistance to reduced humidity, but there are few empirical/experimental studies to validate this claim. It is not clear if relatively higher multicrop yield and land use efficiency will persist in the face of reduced soil moisture, and how the relation between these benefits might change. Here, we present a relatively simple framework for analyzing this situation. We propose a relative multicrop resistance (RMR) index that captures all possible scenarios of absolute and relative multicrop overyield under water stress. We dissect the ecological components of RMR to understand the relation between higher multicrop yield and land use efficiency and the ecological causes of different overyield scenarios. We demonstrate the use of this framework with data from a 128 microplot greenhouse experiment with small annual crops, arranged as seven-species multicrops and their corresponding monocrops, all under two contrasting watering regimes. We applied simple but robust statistical procedures to resulting data (based on bootstrap methods) to compare RMR, and its components, between different plants/plant parts. We also provide simple graphical tools to analyze the data.

Keywords agroecosystem sustainability crop overyielding intercrop drought resistance overyield ecological components

Corresponding Author(s): Luis GARCIA-BARRIOS

Just Accepted Date: 15 July 2021 Online First Date: 20 August 2021 Issue Date: 26 September 2021

Cite this article:

Luis GARCIA-BARRIOS,Yanus A. DECHNIK-VAZQUEZ. HOW MULTISPECIES INTERCROP ADVANTAGE RESPONDS TO WATER STRESS: A YIELD-COMPONENT ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK AND ITS EXPERIMENTAL APPLICATION[J]. Front. Agr. Sci. Eng. , 2021, 8(3): 416-431.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/10.15302/J-FASE-2021412
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fase/EN/Y2021/V8/I3/416

Fig.1 Simulated examples of overyielding scenarios: monocrop individual plant weights (species 1 weighed 1 g per individual on average, while species 7 weighed 7 g per individual on average) of a set of seven species and their relative individual performances (in relation to monocrop weight) in the seven-species multicrop (The dots (●) in each graph represent species 1–7 from left to right, respectively). In parts (a–d), RYT = 1.33; in (e–h), RYT = 0.8. The same RYT (relative yield total) value can be related to a positive, zero or negative ?Y (overyield) value, depending on the correlation between monocrop productivity of a set of species and their relative performances (RY _i − RYE _i ) in multicrop, which can vary due to complementarity or selection effects. In part (h), for example, there is a strong positive correlation between plant size and its competitive capacity when in multicrop, a selection effect which leads to overyielding even when RYT < 1.

Fig.2 Five hypothetical multicrop-resistance scenarios. The x-axis is qualitative. Empty circles, average monocrop yield; filled circles, multicrop yield; Mo _H, monocrop yield in high moisture conditions; Mo _L, monocrop yield in low moisture conditions; Mu _H, Multicrop yield in high moisture; Mu _L, multicrop yield in low moisture; ?Y _H, multicrop overyield in high moisture; and ?Y _L, multicrop overyield in low moisture. In scenario 3, for example, the relative yield is the same ((140 − 100)/100) = 0.4 and ((112 − 80)/80) = 0.4 in both high and low moisture. Each scenario is explained in detail in the main text (Section 1.1.4). ?Y _H is fixed and ?Y _L = Mu _L − Mo _L; ?Y _L is exemplified for scenario 2.

Fig.3 A graphical tool for representing with ordered pairs (RMR, relative multicrop resistance; and R?Y _H, relative multicrop overyield under humid conditions) all drought resistance outcomes of a multicrop and its associated monocrops. The small outer plots show the soil moisture tension vs yield for each of the six points in the central plot. The upper plots with R?Y _H > 0 are scenarios 5 and 3 from Fig. 2, and an intermediate scenario between scenarios 1 and 2, also from Fig. 2. The three lower plots (not considered in Fig. 2) have the same RMR values but R?Y _H < 0. Empty circles, average monocrop yield; filled circles, multicrop yield; and in the gray area, R?Y _L > 0.

Fig.4 Relation of relative multicrop resistance index (RMR) to relative changes in over-yield components. Hypothetical examples show that multicrop A and B are equally resistant and above neutrality; however, A owes it to an increase in RYT (relative yield total, which reflects trait-independent complementarity) and a decrease in SEL (selection effect), while B owes it to the opposite situation. C resistance is lower than neutral; this is caused exclusively by less RYT, as SEL remains unchanged.

Fig.5 (a) Schematic setup of the experiment; (b) The rainbow design for a seven-species substitutive multicrop. This guarantees that everyone effectively interacts with the other six species in the first three neighborhoods. Numbers label individuals according to their species (species 1 is not included).

Tab.1 Framework parameters for fruit, shoot and total ADM (average dry mass)

Fig.6 Relative overyield in moist soil (R?Y _H) and its three ecological components. Bootstrap distributions of average values are represented by their medians and 95% confidence limits: (a1) fruit; (a2) shoot; (a3) total ADM. (b) Covariate bootstrap distributions of shoot, fruit and total ADM averages in the RMR vs R?Y _H (RMR, relative multicrop resistance index; and R?Y _H, relative multicrop overyield in humid conditions) plane. Points beyond 95% confidence limits not included. Distributions differ significantly. In all cases, R?Y _H > 0, but average fruit RMR is not significantly different from zero (scenario 3), while average shoot R?Y_L is lower than zero (scenarios 4 and 5). Total R?Y _L is higher than zero (scenarios 4 and 5). (c) Observed covariate bootstrap distributions of shoot, fruit and total ADM average in the sqrt(|RMR|) vs. sqrt(|?RYT|) plane (where, ?RYT is change in relative yield total). Points are scaled to the square roots of their absolute values for visual purposes.

Tab.2 RMR (relative multicrop resistance) scenarios for fruit, shoot and total ADM (average dry mass)

Fig.7 Observed covariate bootstrap distributions of species average RMR _i and ?RYT _i values for fruit (a), shoot (b) and total ADM (c). M, millet; P, pea; L, lentil; C, chickpea; Y, canarygrass; F, flax; W, wheat; and V, vetch.

1	T Gomiero, D Pimentel, M G Paoletti. Is there a need for a more sustainable agriculture?. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 2011, 30( 1−2): 6– 23 https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2011.553515
2	D Tilman, P B Reich, J Knops, D Wedin, T Mielke, C Lehman. Diversity and productivity in a long-term grassland experiment. Science, 2001, 294( 5543): 843– 845 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1060391
3	D U Hooper, F S III Chapin, J J Ewel, A Hector, P Inchausti, S Lavorel, J H Lawton, D M Lodge, M Loreau, S Naeem, B Schmid, H Setälä, A J Symstad, J Vandermeer, D A Wardle. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 2005, 75( 1): 3– 35 https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0922
4	L E Jackson, U Pascual, L Brussaard, P de Ruiter, K S Bawa. Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: investing without losing interest. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2007, 121( 3): 193– 195 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.011
5	J D Fridley. Resource availability dominates and alters the relationship between species diversity and ecosystem productivity in experimental plant communities. Oecologia, 2002, 132( 2): 271– 277 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-002-0965-x
6	M Giampietro. Socioeconomic constraints to farming with biodiversity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 1997, 62( 2−3): 145– 167 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(96)01137-1
7	García-Barrios L E. Plant-plant interactions in tropical agriculture. In: Vandermeer J H, ed. Tropical Agroecosystems. New York: CRC Press, 2003, 11–58
8	L E García-Barrios, C K Ong. Ecological interactions, management lessons and design tools in tropical agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems, 2004, 61( 1−3): 221– 236 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:AGFO.0000029001.81701.f0
9	B R Trenbath. Multispecies cropping systems in India: predictions of their productivity, stability, resilience and ecological sustainability. Agroforestry Systems, 1999, 45( 1/3): 81– 107 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006285319817
10	K S Amanullah, S Khalid, F Khalil. Influence of irrigation regimes on competition indexes of winter and summer intercropping system under semi-arid regions of Pakistan. Scientific Reports, 2020, 10( 1): 8129 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-65195-7
11	A Kahmen, J Perner, N Buchmann. Diversity-dependent productivity in semi-natural grasslands following climate perturbations. Functional Ecology, 2005, 19( 4): 594– 601 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2005.01001.x
12	C T De Wit. On competition. Verslagen Landbouwkundige Onderzoekingen, 1960, 66 : 1– 82
13	M O Martin-Guay, A Paquette, J Dupras, D Rivest. The new Green Revolution: sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 615 : 767– 772 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.024
14	Schultz B. Ecological aspects of stability in polyculture versus sets of monocultures of annual crops. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Ann Arbor, USA: University of Michigan, 1984
15	M R Rao, R W Willey. Evaluation of yield stability in intercropping:studies on sorghum/pigeonpea. Experimental Agriculture, 1980, 16( 2): 105– 116 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700010796
16	M Natarajan, R W Willey. The effects of water stress on yield advantages of intercropping systems. Field Crops Research, 1986, 13 : 117– 131 https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(86)90015-8
17	N V Thevathasan, A M Gordon. Moisture and fertility interactions in a potted poplar-barley intercropping. Agroforestry Systems, 1995, 29( 3): 275– 283 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00704874
18	A J Symstad, D Tilman, J Willson, J M H Knops. Species loss and ecosystem functioning: effects of species identity and community composition. Oikos, 1998, 81( 2): 389– 397 https://doi.org/10.2307/3547058
19	M A Huston. Hidden treatments in ecological experiments: re-evaluating the ecosystem function of biodiversity. Oecologia, 1997, 110( 4): 449– 460 https://doi.org/10.1007/s004420050180
20	M Loreau, A Hector. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature, 2001, 412( 6842): 72– 76 https://doi.org/10.1038/35083573
21	J W Fox. Interpreting the ‘selection effect’ of biodiversity on ecosystem function. Ecology Letters, 2005, 8( 8): 846– 856 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00795.x
22	S Yachi, M Loreau. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 1999, 96( 4): 1463– 1468 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.96.4.1463
23	D Tilman, P B Reich, J M H Knops. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature, 2006, 441( 7093): 629– 632 https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04742
24	A B Pfisterer, B Schmid. Diversity-dependent production can decrease the stability of ecosystem functioning. Nature, 2002, 416( 6876): 84– 86 https://doi.org/10.1038/416084a
25	Vandermeer J, Lawrence D, Symstad A, Hobbie S. Effect of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning in managed ecosystems. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, eds. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, 221–236.
26	Schmid B, Hector A, Huston M A, Inchausti P, Nijs I, Leadley P W, Tilman D. The design and analysis of biodiversity experiments. In: Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, eds. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning: Synthesis and Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002, 61–75
27	C Li, E Hoffland, T W Kuyper, Y Yu, H Li, C Zhang, F Zhang, W van der Werf. Yield gain, complementarity and competitive dominance in intercropping in China: a meta-analysis of drivers of yield gain using additive partitioning. European Journal of Agronomy, 2020, 113 : 125987 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2019.125987
28	M Loreau. Separating sampling and other effects in biodiversity experiments. Oikos, 1998, 82( 3): 600– 602 https://doi.org/10.2307/3546381
29	B Efron, E Tibshirani. Confidence intervals based on bootstrap percentilesIn: B Efron, R J Tibshirani, eds. An introduction to the bootstrap1st ed. London: Chapman & Hall/ CRC, 1993, 168– 177
30	Manly B F J. Randomization, Bootstrap and Monte Carlo Methods in Biology. 3rd ed. London: Chapman & Hall/ CRC, 1997, 358
31	Little T M, Hills F J. The split-plot design. In: Little T M, Hills F J, eds. Agricultural experimentation: Design and Analysis. USA: Wiley, 1978, 90–100
32	M T van Genuchten. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 1980, 44( 5): 892– 898 https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x
33	Mussel H, Staples R C. Selecting the drought and heart resistance in grain sorghum. In: Mussel H, Staples R C, eds. Stress Physiology in Crop Plants. New York: Wiley, 1979, 263–328
34	Resampling Stats Inc. Resampling Stats Add-in for Excel User’s Guide, 2003. Available at Resampling Stats website on June 8, 2021
35	L Van Peer, J Nijs, D Reheul, B De Cauwer. Species richness and susceptibility to heat and drought extremes in synthesized grassland ecosystems: compositional vs physiological effects. Functional Ecology, 2004, 18( 6): 769– 778 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0269-8463.2004.00901.x

[1]

Download

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed