Wheat and Faba Bean Intercropping Together with Nitrogen Modulation Is a Good Option for Balancing the Trade-Off Relationship between Grain Yield and Quality in the Southwest of China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Experimental Site and Growing Conditions
2.2. Experimental Design
2.3. Field Experiment Management
2.4. Data Collection and Analyses
2.5. Statistic Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Mono- and Inter-Cropped Wheat Grain Protein Content and Yield under Different N Levels
3.2. Mono- and Inter-Cropped Wheat Grain Protein Composition under Different N Levels
3.3. Mono- and Inter-Cropped Wheat Grain Amino Acids Content and Yield under Different N Levels
3.4. Mono- and Inter-Cropped Wheat Grain NEAAs and EAAs Content under Different N Levels
3.5. Mono- and Inter-Cropped Wheat Grain AAs Fraction Content under Different N Levels
3.6. Co-Relationship of Between Grain Yield, Grain Protein Content, and Amino Acids Content for Mono- and Inter-Cropped Wheat
4. Discussion
4.1. Effect of Cereal and Legume Intercropping on Grain Protein Content
4.2. Effect of Cereal and Legume Intercropping on Grain Amino Acids Content
4.3. Cereal and Legume Intercropping Modulated the Relationship between Grain Yield and Quality
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Beillouin, D.; Ben-Ari, T.; Makowski, D. Evidence map of crop diversification strategies at the global scale. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020, 15, 19601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin-Guay, M.; Paquette, A.; Dupras, J.; Rivest, D. The new green revolution: Sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 615, 767–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Raseduzzaman, M.; Jensen, E.S. Does intercropping enhances yield stability in arable crop production? Ameta-analysis. Eur. J. Agron. 2017, 91, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aydemir, S.K.; Kızılşimşek, M. Assessing yield and feed quality of intercropped sorghum and soybean in different planting patterns and in different ecologies. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 16, 5141–5146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ullah, M.A.; Hussain, N.; Schmeisky, H.; Rasheed, M.; Anwar, M.; Rana, A.S. Foder quality improvement through intercropping and fertilizer applicaiton. Pak. J. Agri. Sci. 2018, 55, 549–554. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, J.; Yin, B.; Xie, Y.; Li, J.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, G. Legume-cereal intercropping improves forage yield, quality and degradability. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0144813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, C.; Dong, Y.; Li, H.; Shen, J.; Zhang, F. Shift from complementarity to facilitation on P uptake by intercropped wheat neighboring with faba bean when available soil P is depleted. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 18663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Belel, M.D.; Halim, R.A.; Rafii, M.Y.; Saud, H.M. Intercropping of orn with some selected legumes for improved forage production: A review. J. Agr. Sci. 2014, 6, 44. [Google Scholar]
- Lepse, L.; Sandra, D.; Zeipina, S.; Domínguez-Perles, R.; Eduardo, A.S. Evaluation of vegetable-faba bean (Vicia faba L.) intercropping under Latvian agro-ecological conditions. J. Sci. Food Agr. 2017, 97, 4334–4342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salem, A.K.; Fadia, M.; Sultan, F.M.; El-Douby, K.A. Effect of intercropping cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) with teosinte (Zea mexicana Schrad) on forage yield productivity and its quality. Egypt J. Agron. 2019, 41, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Putnam, D.H.; Herbert, S.J.; Vargas, A. Intercropped corn-soyabean density studies. II. Yield composition and protein. Exp. Agric. 1986, 22, 373–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdel Magid, H.M.; Ghoneim, M.F.; Rabie, R.K.; Sabrah, R.E. Productivity of wheat and alfalfa under intercropping. Exp. Agr. 1991, 27, 391–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, B.; Zhang, X.; Ren, S.; Duan, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, X.; Wang, Y.; Ma, Y.; Fan, W. Characteristics of soil nutrients, heavy metals and tea quality in different intercropping patterns. Agroforest Syst. 2019, 94, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qiao, X.; Chen, X.; Lei, J.; Sai, L.; Xue, L. Apricot-based agroforestry system in Southern Xinjiang Province of China: Influence on yield and quality of intercropping wheat. Agroforest Syst. 2020, 94, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gafurova, D.A.; Tursunkhodzhaev, P.M.; Kasymova, T.D.; Yuldashev, P.K. Fractional and amino-acid composition of wheat grain cultivated in Uzbekistan. Chem. Nat. Compd. 2002, 38, 462–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoltz, E.; Nadeau, E. Effects of intercropping on yield, weed incidence, forage quality and soil residual N in organically grown forage maize (Zea mays L.) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Field Crop Res. 2014, 169, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mthembu, B.E.; Everson, T.M.; Everson, C.S. Intercropping for enhancement and provisioning of ecosystem services in smallholder, rural farming systems in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa: A review. J. Crop Improv. 2018, 33, 145–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wenefrida, I.; Utomo, H.S.; Blanche, S.B.; Linscombe, S.D. Enhancing essential amino acids and health benefit components in grain crops for improved nutritional values. Recent Pat. DNA Gene Seq. 2009, 3, 219–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Uauy, C.; Brevis, J.C.; Dubcovsky, J. The high protein content gene Gpc-B1 accelerates senescence and has pleiotropic effects on protein content in wheat. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 2785–2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhong, Y.; Xu, D.; Hebelstrup, K.H.; Yang, D.; Cai, J.; Wang, X.; Zhou, Q.; Cao, W.; Dai, T.; Jiang, D. Nitrogen topdressing timing modifies free amino acids profiles and storage protein gene expression in wheat grain. BMC Plant Biol. 2018, 18, 353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, J.; Yin, X.; Ren, J.; Zhang, M.; Tang, L.; Zheng, Y. Complementation drives higher growth rate and yield of wheat and saves nitrogen fertilizer in wheat and faba bean intercropping. Field Crop Res. 2018, 221, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tosti, G.; Guiducci, M. Durum wheat–faba bean temporary intercropping: Effects on nitrogen supply and wheat quality. Europ. J. Agron. 2010, 33, 157–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Stefanis, E.; Sgrulletta, D.; Pucciarmati, S.; Ciccoritti, R.; Quarant, F. Influence of durum wheat-faba bean intercrop on specific quality traits of organic durum wheat. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 2016, 33, 28–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pellegrini, F.; Carlesi, S.; Nardi, G.; Bàrberi, P. Wheat–clover temporary intercropping under Mediterranean conditions affects wheat biomass, plant nitrogen dynamics and grain quality. Eur. J. Agron. 2021, 130, 126347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tari, A. The effects of different deficit irrigation strategies on yield, quality, and water-use efficiencies of wheat under semi-arid conditions. Agric. Water Manag. 2016, 167, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sieling, K.; Kage, H. Apparent fertilizer N recovery and the relationship between grain yield and grain protein concentration of different winter wheat varieties in a long-term field trial. Eur. J. Agron. 2021, 124, 126246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vrignon-Brenas, S.; Celette, F.; Piquet-Pissaloux, A.; Corre-Hellou, G.; David, C. Intercropping strategies of white clover with organic wheat to improve the trade-off between wheat yield, protein content and the provision of ecological services by white clover. Field Crop Res. 2018, 224, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, J.; Zhu, Y.; Bai, W.; Liu, Z.; Tang, L.; Zheng, Y. Yield performance and optimal nitrogen and phosphorus application rates in wheat and faba bean intercropping. J. Integr. Agr. 2021, 20, 3012–3025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berecz, K.; Simon-Sarkadi, L.; Ragasits, I.; Hoffmann, S. Comparison of protein quality and mineral element concentrations in grain of spelt (Triticum spelta L.) and common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2001, 47, 389–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Triboi, E.; Martre, P.; Triboi-Blondel, A. Environmentally-induced changes in protein composition in developing grains of wheat are related to changes in total protein content. J. Exp. Bot. 2003, 54, 1731–1742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adebiyi, A.P.; Aluko, R.E. Functional properties of protein fractions obtained from commercial yellow field pea (Pisum sativum L.) seed protein isolate. Food Chem. 2011, 128, 902–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markwell, M.A.K.; Haas, S.M.; Bieher, I.I.; Tonbert, N.E. A modification of the Lowry procedure to simplify protein determination in membrane and lipoprotein samples. Ann. Biochem. 1978, 117, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, G. Amino acids: Metabolism, functions, and nutrition. Amino Acids 2009, 37, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metho, L.; Taylor, J.; Hammes, P.S.; Randal, P.G. Effects of cultivar and soil fertility on grain protein yield, grain protein content, flour yield and breadmaking quality of wheat. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1999, 79, 1823–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, J.; Xiao, Y.; Hou, L.; He, Y. Combining protein content and grain yield by genetic dissection in bread wheat under low-input management. Foods 2021, 10, 1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Baumann, D.T.; Bastiaans, L.; Goudriaan, J.; van Laar, H.H.; Kropff, M.J. Analysing crop yield and plant quality in an intercropping system using an eco-physiological model for interplant competition. Agr. Syst. 2002, 73, 173–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rozbicki, J.; Ceglińska, A.; Gozdowski, D.; Jakubczak, M.; Cacak-Pietrzak, G.; Madry, W.; Golba, J.; Piechocinski, M.; Sobczynski, G.; Studnicki, M.; et al. Influence of the cultivar, environment and management on the grain yield and bread-making quality in winter wheat. J. Cereal Sci. 2015, 61, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, Z.; Wu, X.; Tang, L.; Zheng, Y.; Li, H.; Pan, H.; Zhu, D.; Wang, J.; Huang, S.; Qin, X.; et al. Dynamics of N acquisition and accumulation and its interspecific N competition in a wheat-faba bean intercropping system. J. Plant Nutr. Fertil. 2020, 26, 1284–1294. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Dong, Y.; Tang, L.; Zheng, Y.; Xiao, J. Interspecies interaction for nitrogen use efficiency via up-regulated glutamine and glutamate synthase under wheat-faba bean intercropping. Field Crop Res. 2021, 274, 108324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcello, G.; Giacomo, T.; Beatrice, F.; Paolo, B. Sustainable management of nitrogen nutrition in winter wheat through temporary intercropping with legumes. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 31. [Google Scholar]
- Malik, A.H.; Kuktaite, R.; Johansson, E. Combined effect of genetic and environmental factors on the accumulation of proteins in the wheat grain and their relationship to bread-making quality. J. Cereal Sci. 2013, 57, 170–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barak, S.; Mudgil, D.; Khatkar, B.S. Biochemical and functional properties of wheat gliadins: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 55, 357–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, C.; Sadras, V.O.; Lu, G.; Zhang, P.; Han, Y.; Liu, L.; Xie, J.; Yang, X.; Zhang, S. A global meta-analysis of split nitrogen application for improved wheat yield and grain protein content. Soil Till. Res. 2021, 213, 105111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, X.; Wu, P.; Tian, J. Genetic analysis of amino acid content in wheat grain. J. Genet. 2014, 93, 451–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hassan, A.E.; Heneidak, S.; Gowayed, S. Comparative studies of some Triticum species by grain protein and amino acids analyses. J. Agron. 2007, 6, 286–293. [Google Scholar]
- Anderson, W.K.; Shackley, B.J.; Sawkins, D. Grain yield and quality: Does there have to be a trade-off? Euphytica 1997, 100, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, J.; Dong, Y.; Yin, X.; Ren, J.; Tang, L.; Zheng, Y. Wheat growth is stimulated by interspecific competition after faba bean attains its maximum growth rate. Crop Sci. 2018, 58, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eppendorfer, W.H. Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium on amino acid composition and on relationships between nitrogen and amino acids in wheat and oat grain. J. Sci. Food Agr. 1978, 29, 995–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sriperm, N.; Pesti, G.M.; Tillman, P.B. The distribution of crude protein and amino acid content in maize grain and soybean meal. Anim. Feed Sci. Tech. 2010, 159, 131–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
N Levels | Planting Patterns | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(NL) | (PP) | GY | Protein Content | Protein Yield | GY | Protein Content | Protein Yield | TAAs Content | TAAs Yield | TAAs Content | TAAs Yield |
t ha−1 | % | g m−2 | t ha−1 | % | g m−2 | mg g−1 | g m−2 | mg g−1 | g m−2 | ||
N0 | 1.69 d | 13 a | 2.17 d | 1.90 c | 10 c | 1.97 d | 92 c | 1.55 d | 81 d | 1.56 d | |
N1 | 3.08 c | 13 a | 4.11 c | 3.24 b | 10 c | 3.41 c | 99 b | 3.10 c | 86 c | 2.78 c | |
N2 | 4.02 b | 14 a | 5.45 b | 3.72 a | 12 b | 4.53 b | 95 bc | 3.81 b | 103 b | 3.85 b | |
N3 | 4.62 a | 13 a | 6.19 a | 3.92 a | 14 a | 5.37 a | 117 a | 5.41 a | 113 a | 4.41 a | |
. | |||||||||||
MW | 3.08 b | 13 a | 3.92 b | 2.86 b | 11 b | 3.30 b | 100 a | 3.20 b | 96 a | 2.88 b | |
IW | 3.63 a | 14 a | 5.04 a | 3.53 a | 12 a | 4.34 a | 102 a | 3.74 a | 95 a | 3.42 a | |
N0 | MW | 1.41 a | 13 a | 1.80 a | 1.41 a | 10 a | 1.43 a | 93 c | 1.32 e | 78 e | 1.11 e |
IW | 1.98 a | 13 a | 2.54 a | 2.39 a | 11 a | 2.50 a | 91 cd | 1.79 d | 84 d | 2.01 d | |
N1 | MW | 2.67 a | 13 a | 3.44 a | 2.87 a | 9 a | 2.70 a | 85 d | 2.26 c | 85 d | 2.45 c |
IW | 3.49 a | 14 a | 4.78 a | 3.63 a | 11 a | 4.12 a | 113 b | 3.95 b | 86 d | 3.11 b | |
N2 | MW | 3.72 a | 13 a | 4.94 a | 3.43 a | 11 a | 3.90 a | 98 bc | 3.66 b | 100 c | 3.42 b |
IW | 4.32 a | 14 a | 5.97 a | 4.01 a | 13 a | 5.15 a | 92 cd | 3.96 b | 107 b | 4.29 a | |
N3 | MW | 4.50 a | 12 a | 5.51 a | 3.74 a | 14 a | 5.17 a | 124 a | 5.56 a | 122 a | 4.56 a |
IW | 4.74 a | 14 a | 6.87 a | 4.09 a | 14 a | 5.56 a | 111 b | 5.26 a | 105 bc | 4.27 a | |
Sig | |||||||||||
NL | *** | ns | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | |
PP | *** | ns | *** | *** | * | *** | ns | *** | ns | *** | |
NL × PP | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | *** | *** | *** | *** |
2019 | 2020 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Albumin | Globulin | Gliadin | Glutelin | Albumin | Globulin | Gliadin | Glutelin | |
N levels (NL) | ** | * | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** |
Planting patterns(PP) | * | ns | ** | * | ns | ns | *** | ns |
NL×PP | ns | ns | ns | Ns | ns | ns | ** | ns |
2019 | 2020 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NEAAs | EAAs | EAAs/TAAs | NEAAs | EAAs | EAAs/TAAs | |
N levels (NL) | *** | *** | ** | *** | *** | *** |
Planting patterns (PP) | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns |
NL × PP | *** | *** | ** | *** | *** | *** |
N Levels (NL) | Planting Patterns (PP) | 2019 | 2020 | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thr | Val | Met | Ile | Leu | Phe | His | Lys | Thr | Val | Met | Ile | Leu | Phe | His | Lys | ||
% | |||||||||||||||||
N0 | MW | 3.45 d | 0.94 b | 7.98 c | 3.45 d | 6.13 d | 4.43 e | 2.20 c | 2.70 a | 2.86 a | 0.16 e | 5.56 c | 3.34 a | 5.39 a | 4.58 a | 1.37 d | 1.50 c |
IW | 3.51 cd | 0.80 bc | 5.59 e | 3.54 d | 6.26 d | 4.68 e | 2.04 c | 1.96 c | 3.21 a | 0.50 cd | 5.72 c | 3.36 a | 5.97 a | 4.29 a | 1.92 c | 1.94 b | |
N1 | MW | 3.44 d | 0.65 cd | 6.70 d | 3.45 d | 6.14 d | 4.38 e | 1.84 d | 2.33 b | 3.23 a | 0.53 cd | 6.21 bc | 3.26 a | 5.91 a | 4.46 a | 1.53 d | 1.96 b |
IW | 4.38 a | 1.24 a | 10.80 a | 4.20 abc | 8.40 a | 6.00 c | 2.43 b | 2.68 a | 3.34 a | 0.38 d | 5.48 c | 3.44 a | 6.06 a | 4.81 a | 1.88 c | 1.84 b | |
N2 | MW | 3.86 bc | 0.65 cd | 7.98 c | 3.88 bc | 7.23 bc | 5.39 d | 1.73 d | 2.46 ab | 3.63 a | 0.72 b | 7.20 b | 3.57 a | 7.05 a | 5.13 a | 2.33 b | 1.85 b |
IW | 3.69 cde | 0.49 e | 5.70 e | 3.70 cd | 6.66 cd | 5.16 d | 1.85 d | 1.84 c | 3.69 a | 0.94 a | 9.67 a | 3.83 a | 7.25 a | 5.13 a | 2.55 a | 2.52 a | |
N3 | MW | 4.51 a | 0.92 b | 9.05 b | 4.70 a | 8.47 a | 7.20 a | 2.45 b | 2.17 b | 4.20 a | 0.96 a | 9.39 a | 4.58 a | 7.78 a | 6.24 a | 2.60 a | 2.65 a |
IW | 3.98 b | 0.55 de | 9.21 b | 4.33 ab | 7.99 ab | 6.70 b | 2.69 a | 1.99 c | 3.95 a | 0.66 bc | 6.74 b | 4.14 a | 7.26 a | 5.88 a | 2.25 b | 1.94 b | |
N0 | 3.48 c | 0.87 a | 6.79 b | 3.49 b | 6.20 c | 4.55 c | 2.12 b | 2.33 b | 3.04 c | 0.33 c | 5.64 b | 3.35 b | 5.68 b | 4.43 c | 1.65 b | 1.72 c | |
N1 | 3.91 b | 0.95 a | 8.75 a | 3.82 b | 7.27 b | 5.19 b | 2.14 b | 2.50 a | 3.28 c | 0.45 b | 5.84 b | 3.35 b | 5.99 b | 4.63 c | 1.70 b | 1.90 b | |
N2 | 3.78 b | 0.57 c | 6.84 b | 3.79 b | 6.95 b | 5.28 b | 1.79 c | 2.15 c | 3.66 b | 0.83 a | 8.44 a | 3.70 b | 7.15 a | 5.13 b | 2.44 a | 2.19 a | |
N3 | 4.25 a | 0.73 b | 9.13 a | 4.51 a | 8.23 a | 6.95 a | 2.57 a | 2.08 c | 4.07 a | 0.81 a | 8.06 a | 4.36 a | 7.52 a | 6.06 a | 2.43 a | 2.29 a | |
MW | 3.82 a | 0.79 a | 7.93 a | 3.87 a | 6.99 a | 5.35 b | 2.06 b | 2.41 a | 3.48 a | 0.59 a | 7.09 a | 3.68 a | 6.53 a | 5.10 a | 1.96 b | 1.99 a | |
IW | 3.89 a | 0.77 a | 7.82 a | 3.94 a | 7.33 a | 5.64 a | 2.25 a | 2.12 b | 3.55 a | 0.62 a | 6.90 a | 3.69 a | 6.63 a | 5.03 a | 2.15 a | 2.06 a | |
Sig | |||||||||||||||||
NL × PP | *** | *** | *** | * | *** | *** | *** | *** | ns | *** | *** | ns | ns | ns | *** | *** | |
NL | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | |
PP | Ns | ns | ns | Ns | ns | * | *** | *** | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | *** | ns |
N Levels (NL) | Planting Patterns (PP) | 2019 | 2020 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Asp | Glu | Ser | Arg | Gly | Pro | Ala | Cys | Tyr | Asp | Glu | Ser | Arg | Gly | Pro | Ala | Cys | Tyr | ||
N0 | MW | 5.81 ab | 26.30 de | 4.47 ef | 5.14 bc | 3.24a | 9.22 c | 5.33 abc | 1.07 a | 1.22 b | 4.03 d | 22.64d | 4.08 a | 4.27 e | 2.80 e | 9.81 a | 3.72c | 1.32a | 0.87 c |
IW | 4.87 cd | 26.56 cde | 4.50 ef | 4.59 ef | 3.23 a | 10.83 b | 5.39 ab | 1.09 a | 1.17 b | 4.67 bc | 24.09 cd | 4.44 a | 4.73 d | 3.07 d | 9.55 a | 4.16bc | 1.03b | 1.30 b | |
N1 | MW | 5.16 bcd | 21.98 e | 4.20 f | 4.59 c | 3.20 a | 9.34 c | 5.03 bc | 1.13 a | 1.10 b | 4.54 bc | 24.96 c | 4.38 a | 4.77 cd | 3.09 d | 10.27a | 4.26 bc | 0.77 bc | 1.27 b |
IW | 6.03 ab | 32.97 b | 5.87 ab | 5.49 ab | 3.58 a | 11.35 b | 6.01 a | 0.47 c | 1.42 b | 4.45 c | 24.60 cd | 4.34 a | 4.92 cd | 3.24 cd | 10.31 a | 3.88 c | 1.42a | 1.28 b | |
N2 | MW | 6.15 a | 25.79 de | 5.11 cd | 5.13 bc | 3.61 a | 11.79 b | 5.78 a | 0.21 d | 1.36 b | 4.60 bc | 31.56 b | 4.97 a | 5.22 bc | 3.39 c | 11.43 a | 4.63 b | 0.98 b | 1.30 b |
IW | 4.36 d | 27.66 cd | 4.81 de | 5.07 cd | 3.45 a | 11.16 b | 4.42 d | 0.70 b | 1.14 b | 6.27 a | 32.50 b | 4.92 a | 5.09 bcd | 3.49 bc | 11.72 a | 5.60 ab | 0.42 d | 1.20 b | |
N3 | MW | 5.53 abc | 38.36 a | 6.10 a | 5.82 a | 4.20 a | 16.50 a | 5.42 ab | 0.50 c | 1.76 a | 6.42 a | 38.62 a | 5.59 a | 6.19 a | 4.19 a | 14.40 a | 5.82 a | 0.76 bc | 1.52 a |
IW | 5.24 abcd | 31.40 bc | 5.45 bc | 5.63 bc | 3.93 a | 15.50 a | 4.67 cd | 0.59 bc | 1.43 b | 4.97 b | 32.23 b | 5.36a | 5.47 b | 3.72 b | 13.32 a | 4.64 b | 0.57cd | 1.46 a | |
N0 | 5.34 a | 26.43 b | 4.48 c | 3.24 b | 3.24 c | 10.03 c | 5.36 a | 1.08 a | 1.20 b | 4.35 b | 23.36 d | 4.26 c | 4.50 d | 2.94 d | 9.68 c | 3.94 b | 1.17 a | 1.09 c | |
N1 | 5.60 a | 27.48 b | 5.04 b | 3.20 b | 3.39 bc | 10.34 c | 5.52 a | 0.80 b | 1.26 b | 4.49 b | 24.78 c | 4.36 c | 4.84 c | 3.17 c | 10.29 c | 4.07 b | 1.09 a | 1.27 b | |
N2 | 5.26 a | 26.73 b | 4.96 b | 3.61 b | 3.53 b | 11.48 b | 5.10 a | 0.45 c | 1.25 b | 5.43 a | 32.03 b | 4.95 b | 5.15 b | 3.44 b | 11.58 b | 5.12 a | 0.70 b | 1.25 b | |
N3 | 5.39 a | 34.88 a | 5.77 a | 4.20 a | 4.06 a | 16.00 a | 5.05 a | 0.55 c | 1.60 a | 5.69 a | 35.42 a | 5.48 a | 5.83 a | 3.95 a | 13.86 a | 5.23 a | 0.66 b | 1.49 a | |
MW | 5.66 a | 28.11 a | 4.97 a | 5.17 a | 3.56 a | 11.71 b | 5.39 a | 0.73 a | 1.36 a | 4.90 b | 29.45 a | 4.76 a | 5.11 a | 3.37 a | 11.48 a | 4.61 a | 0.96 a | 1.24 b | |
IW | 5.13 b | 29.65 a | 5.16 a | 5.19 a | 3.55 a | 12.21 a | 5.12 a | 0.71 a | 1.29 a | 5.09 a | 28.36 b | 4.77 a | 5.05 a | 3.38 a | 11.23 a | 4.57 a | 0.86 a | 1.31 a | |
Sig | |||||||||||||||||||
NL × PP | ** | *** | *** | ** | ns | *** | *** | *** | * | *** | *** | ns | *** | *** | ns | *** | *** | *** | |
NL | Ns | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | ns | *** | ** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | *** | |
PP | * | ns | ns | ns | ns | * | ns | Ns | ns | * | * | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | * |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zhu, Y.-a.; He, J.; Yu, Z.; Zhou, D.; Li, H.; Wu, X.; Dong, Y.; Tang, L.; Zheng, Y.; Xiao, J. Wheat and Faba Bean Intercropping Together with Nitrogen Modulation Is a Good Option for Balancing the Trade-Off Relationship between Grain Yield and Quality in the Southwest of China. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2984. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122984
Zhu Y-a, He J, Yu Z, Zhou D, Li H, Wu X, Dong Y, Tang L, Zheng Y, Xiao J. Wheat and Faba Bean Intercropping Together with Nitrogen Modulation Is a Good Option for Balancing the Trade-Off Relationship between Grain Yield and Quality in the Southwest of China. Agronomy. 2022; 12(12):2984. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122984
Chicago/Turabian StyleZhu, Ying-an, Jianyang He, Zhongying Yu, Dong Zhou, Haiye Li, Xinyu Wu, Yan Dong, Li Tang, Yi Zheng, and Jingxiu Xiao. 2022. "Wheat and Faba Bean Intercropping Together with Nitrogen Modulation Is a Good Option for Balancing the Trade-Off Relationship between Grain Yield and Quality in the Southwest of China" Agronomy 12, no. 12: 2984. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12122984