Next Article in Journal
Balancing Productivity and Environmental Sustainability in Pomelo Production Through Controlled-Release Fertilizer Optimization
Previous Article in Journal
Driving by a Publicly Available RGB Image Dataset for Rice Planthopper Detection and Counting by Fusing Swin Transformer and YOLOv8-p2 Architectures in Field Landscapes
Previous Article in Special Issue
Response of Winter Wheat to 35-Year Cereal Monoculture
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/agriculture15131368
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Hybrid Cultivar and Crop Protection to Support Winter Rye Yield in Continuous Cropping

by
Marta K. Kostrzewska
and
Magdalena Jastrzębska
*
Department of Agroecosystems and Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Plac Łódzki 3, 10-718 Olsztyn, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(13), 1368; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131368
Submission received: 20 May 2025 / Revised: 16 June 2025 / Accepted: 24 June 2025 / Published: 25 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Effects of Crop Rotation and Continuous Cropping on Soil Health and Crop Yields)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Continuous cropping (CC) of cereals leads to reduced yields due to cumulative biotic and abiotic stresses. Winter rye, Secale cereale L., is considered relatively CC-tolerant, yet it may still suffer under prolonged monocropping. This six-year study (2017–2022) aimed to assess the effects of cropping systems (CC vs. crop rotation, CR), cultivar type (hybrid vs. population), and chemical plant protection (control treatment, herbicide, herbicide plus fungicide) on winter rye yield and yield components. The study was conducted as part of a long-term field experiment in northeastern Poland that started in 1967. Two cultivars, KWS Binntto (hybrid) and Dańkowskie Diament (population), were evaluated across treatments. Overall, CR led to significantly higher yields and better performance of all yield components than CC. The hybrid cultivar consistently outperformed the population cultivar. Chemical plant protection improved yield under CC, but was redundant under CR. The hybrid cultivar cultivated in CC protected by rational chemical treatments produced equal or greater yields than the population cultivar grown in CR. In CC conditions, hybrid rye exhibited greater yield stability and resilience to interannual weather variation than the population cultivar. These findings support the use of hybrid rye with rational chemical protection as a practical strategy to sustain productivity in CC systems without relying solely on crop rotation.

1. Introduction

Continuous cropping (CC) is a system in which the same crop is grown continuously in the same field for two or more consecutive years [1,2,3,4]. Typically, after several years, the adverse effects of such a cropping system become apparent, despite following normal agronomic practices [1,5,6,7,8,9]. CC consequences are widely known and often called continuous cropping obstacles (CCOs) [1,10,11]. Long-term CC leads to aggravation of specialized weeds, crop diseases, pests, and soil fatigue (or soil sickness) [1,7,8,9,10,12]. The latter complex phenomenon includes nutrient imbalances and deficiencies, toxic substance accumulation from decomposing plant matter, reduced soil enzyme activity, harmful soil organism proliferation, declining beneficial ones, and an overall negative shift in the soil’s properties [7,13,14,15]. Such conditions have a significant negative impact on plant development, manifesting mainly in weaker photosynthesis, delayed growth, reduced resistance, and finally reduced yield and worsened crop quality [1,7,8,14].
Many of the mechanisms underlying CCOs are known from long-term experiments, such as the famous continuous winter wheat, Triticum aestivum L. (Broadbalk, since 1843) and continuous spring barley, Hordeum vulgare L. (Hoosfield, since 1852) at Rothamsted (UK) [16], eternal rye in Halle (Germany, since 1878) [17], and many others [18,19], including those conducted in Poland [7].
Growing crops in the same field for so many years, as in the long-term experiments mentioned above, is far from practical. Although individual crop species show different sensitivities to continuous growing [7], it is generally recommended that crops not be grown continuously for more than three years [11]. Nevertheless, short-term CC has become a common practice in intensive, large-scale agricultural production and adopted by farmers for a variety of reasons (e.g., limited arable land, economic benefits, climatic conditions, large proportion of arable land used for other crops) [2,10]. Moreover, in some regions of the world, CC for 10–20 years or even longer is not unusual [3,20]. This makes CCO mitigation strategies critical to maintaining soil health and productivity.
Naturally, the most effective method of eliminating the negative consequences of CC is to cease the practice and switch to crop rotation (CR), the more diversified the better [21,22]. Neglected in the 20th century due to farmers’ easy access to synthetic agrochemicals that facilitated profitable production in short rotations [21], CR has recently been rediscovered as a more sustainable agricultural production method [22,23]. However, since CC remains the most common cropping system worldwide [24], effective environmentally sound strategies are needed to mitigate its negative effects without abandoning the practice.
The most obvious tools for alleviating CCOs used to be fertilizers and pesticides, but their application gives rise to negative consequences related to the effects of overuse. Nevertheless, many pathways toward sustainable agriculture do not exclude the utilization of synthetic agrochemicals, provided that the 4R approach (right source/chemical, right dose, right time, right place) is followed [25]. Furthermore, it is recommended that they should only be used after the benefits of crop diversification (e.g., crop rotation, intercropping, catch crops), and resistant and nutrient-efficient cultivars, organic fertilizers, biological and ecological processes in agroecosystems (e.g., biological nitrogen fixation, mycorrhizae, microbial solubilization) have been exploited. It must also be added that conventional agrochemicals, including pesticides, are being gradually replaced by more environmentally friendly products worldwide [25,26].
Apart from agrochemicals, several non-controversial sustainable practices have been shown to mitigate CCOs. These include the application of organic fertilizers, the cultivation of catch crops, and the thoughtful selection of cultivars [1,11,27]. Previous studies [28,29,30] showed that different cultivars of the same crop species had different tolerance to CC and yield loss was lower when CC-tolerant cultivars were grown continuously. The authors of the studies attributed this phenomenon primarily to a more beneficial microbial community structure in the rhizosphere of CC-tolerant cultivars, related to the quality of rhizosphere soil metabolites. It should be added that the tolerance of cultivars to CC also encompasses their nutrient use efficiency, resistance to abiotic stresses, pathogens and pests, and competitiveness against weeds [1,31]. Along with selecting suitable cultivars, their relatively frequent replacement can alleviate CCOs [31,32].
Winter rye is a crop considered quite tolerant to growing season after season on the same field. However, under long-term continuous growing conditions, even this species can be expected to experience yield losses [7,8,17].
Rye has played an important role throughout human civilization due to its versatile uses (food, beverage, fodder, bedding, biogas, cover crop, green manure, and more) and low habitat requirements (tolerance of cool and dry climates, less fertile soils, biotic stresses) [33,34,35,36]. Although rye can be grown in almost all parts of the world, it is currently considered a secondary cereal worldwide [37], with greater importance in central and northern Europe [33,35]. In some countries, however, there is growing interest in cultivating it to increase agrobiodiversity and food diversity, as well as to exploit the low-quality soils of the country [34,37].
In Poland, winter rye used to play an important economic role due to its winter hardiness [38]. As the climate has become milder in recent years, farmers have been more willing to grow other winter cereals. While rye no longer dominates the Polish cereal list [39], the country remains one of the world leaders in its cultivation. According to recent statistics, Poland ranks second in the world for rye area (after the Russian Federation) and rye production (after Germany) [40]. The potential for using rye biomass as an energy source and adopting rye cover crops as “greening” practices could revive interest in rye cultivation [33,35]. Rye can be grown with less fertilizer and pesticide, resulting in lower emissions and carbon footprint than wheat [41]. Therefore, increasing rye production could be a small step toward meeting the European Green Deal goals [42].
Considering its intensive biomass production and low cultivation costs, rye appears to be a highly attractive crop for agricultural biogas production in regions with low fertility and sandy soils, where it could also be grown continuously for several years [33]. However, rye’s relatively moderate demands have not precluded its susceptibility to climate change. Being a cool-season crop, rye is vulnerable to temperature shifts, altered precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events. These changes can affect rye phenology, yield, and quality [35]. Ensuring the continued viability of rye in the face of changing climate conditions requires implementing sustainable agronomic practices that enhance resilience, advancing breeding techniques to develop climate-resilient varieties, and formulating adaptive policies that support farmers and foster innovations [35].
Hybrid rye holds promise for the future owing to its high yield and greater resilience to climate variability [33,35]. Hybrid cultivars of rye have been reported to outperform population cultivars by as much as 20%–30% for both biomass and grain yield [33]. Breeders have been making significant efforts to develop new rye cultivars with improved productivity and resistance that could help shift rye’s current status as a minor cereal to a more important crop for grain production in a changing climate [42]. According to the most recent version of the Commission’s EU Plant Variety Portal (EUPVP) [43], there are 240 rye cultivars registered in the “Common catalogue of varieties of agricultural plant species”, of which 64 are identified as hybrids. In the Polish National List of Varieties (NLI) [44], there are currently 85 winter rye cultivars and 10 spring rye cultivars, of which 33 and 4, respectively, are hybrids. Hybrid rye acreage has been increasing for several years and is expected to continue to grow [33]. The interest in the cultivation of hybrid rye cultivars is particularly high in Western European countries, where they account for more than 80% of total rye grain production [38,45]. Although there are no official statistics for Poland, the share of hybrid rye is estimated at 10% of the total rye area and is also forecast to increase [46].
The high performance of hybrid rye cultivars suggests that they may be more tolerant to CC than population cultivars. The available literature provides limited direct evidence addressing this comparison. The resilience of hybrid rye cultivars to CC, as well as the specific mechanisms of their response in such systems, has not yet been studied. Nevertheless, the above assumption may be supported by some rationales. The multifaceted genetic mechanisms underlying hybrid rye heterosis promote the development of increased below- and aboveground biomass, including tiller number, grain number per spike, and 1000-grain weight [33,34,42,45]. These mechanisms also underpin other beneficial agronomic traits that improve adaptability and resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses [42,45,47,48]. All these characteristics may help plants cope with adverse conditions caused by extremely unfavorable crop sequence systems. Larger and more vigorous root systems can facilitate enhanced access to water and nutrients by hybrid plants. This can help them cope with nutrient deficiency and imbalanced ratios associated with CC [7,13]. Well-developed roots and shoots can strengthen the competitiveness of hybrid rye against weeds, which become more abundant when the crop is grown continuously. Rye is inherently more resistant to fungal pathogens than other cereals [36] and usually requires less pesticides [45]. However, resistance to fungal diseases, especially Septoria leaf blotch, stem rust, and stem-based diseases, may strongly affect the stability of rye yield under less conducive agroecological conditions [49]. Disease resistances remain the major hybrid rye breeding goals [50,51,52]. The root metabolites of hybrid and population cultivars, along with their associated soil microbial communities, may differ [28,29,30], which could potentially lead to varied responses of these cultivars to continuous cultivation. The ultimate macroscopic manifestation of the proven and potential differences between cultivars is expected to be the winter rye yield volume and its stability under continuous cropping conditions. Studies specifically comparing the tolerance of hybrid and population rye cultivars to continuous cropping are needed to provide definitive answers. The present study may contribute to clarifying part of the matter based on a more than 50-year experiment of continuous and rotational growing of crops, including winter rye, carried out in northeastern Poland. As part of the cyclical change of cultivars in the experiment, a hybrid rye cultivar was introduced in the fall of 2016. It was used as a contrast to the population cultivar for the subsequent six years. In addition to crop sequence and cultivar, the level of crop protection was also manipulated in the experiment. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effects of CC versus diversified CR and of three levels of plant protection on the yields of two winter rye cultivars, hybrid and population, over a six-year period of the long-term experiment. Assuming yield levels as a measure of cultivar tolerance to CC, it was hypothesized that the hybrid winter rye cultivar would demonstrate greater resilience to CC compared to the population cultivar, particularly when supported by rational chemical weed and disease control.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Site Characteristics

The study was grounded in a long-term field experiment conducted in northeastern Poland (53.60° N, 19.85° E, Bałcyny Production and Experimental Plant Sp. z o.o., Poland, owned by the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Poland) since 1967. The experimental terrain is characterized by slight undulations of post-glacial origin [53] and Luvisol soils [54] consisting of light silty clays. Table S1 shows the chemical properties of the soil from the experimental area based on the 2016 analysis performed before the start of the crop rotation cycle under study. According to this analysis, the soil was characterized by an average pH of 5.5 and an average organic carbon content of 9.9 g kg−1. The climate is temperate (Cfb according to the Köppen climate classification), with a mean annual air temperature of 8.1 °C and mean annual precipitation of 614.6 mm, distributed relatively evenly throughout the year (average data for 1991–2020; Table S2). High levels of weather variability and pronounced interannual variations in seasonal patterns are also typical of the region, including irregular, brief periods of drought (mostly in July and August) and heavy precipitation. During the study period, total precipitation during the growing season ranged from 570.4 to 844.5 mm, with monthly variations from 0 to 211.1 mm. January was the coldest month, and the hottest months were June, July, or August. Table S2 demonstrates the monthly precipitation totals and average monthly air temperatures recorded by the Bałcyny Meteorological Station during the study period.

2.2. Overview of the Basic Long-Term Field Experiment

The fundamental concept of the basic field experiment in Bałcyny was to study the response of selected crops (initially nine, then finally twelve) to continuous cropping (CC), which was soon contrasted with growing said crops in diversified, multi-field crop rotations (CRs) (see [55] for a detailed description of the history and design of the experiment). Throughout its over 50 years of operation, the experiment had also tested additional factors (e.g., different cultivars, fertilization strategies, crop protection options) that were changed or modified to address emerging scientific questions. The CC fields were maintained as a constant component of the experiment, while the crops grown in CRs were grown in a different field each year (growing season) according to the established rotation patterns. Additional research factors were implemented within the CC and CR fields. Since the last modification (1993), the experiment has examined the following factors: (i) cropping system—CC vs. CR, (ii) cultivar—two for each crop, and (iii) chemical plant protection—three levels. Therefore, for each of the twelve crops, a total of twelve treatment combinations (two cropping systems × two cultivars × three protection levels) were evaluated. Each treatment combination was replicated using three 27 m2 plots. The arrangement of the CC and CR fields in the experiment for subsequent years during the period from 2017 to 2022 can be found in Figure S1. The arrangement of the plots representing levels (treatments) of factors (ii) and (iii) within each CC and CR field was fixed for the duration of the research project (Figure S2). The entire experiment included 432 plots and covered about 1 hectare. Crop cultivars were renewed before the start of each new rotation cycle throughout the experiment. They were selected based on the recommendations of the Center for Crop Variety Research (COBORU) in Słupia Wielka, Poland, for the region. In selecting two cultivars for each crop species, priority was given to achieving maximal contrast in such traits as yield potential, competitiveness against weeds, and resistance to pathogens. The pesticides utilized in the experiment have undergone regular updates, in accordance with the recommendations provided by the Institute for Plant Protection—National Research Institute in Poznań, Poland.

2.3. Study Design and Agronomic Management

The present study was focused on the productivity of winter rye, the fields of which constitute an integral part of the long-term experiment described in Section 2.2. A factorial experimental design (2 × 2 × 3 × 6) was utilized to investigate the effect of three controlled factors, i.e., cropping system, cultivar, and chemical plant protection, with two, two, and three levels, respectively, and year as an additional, uncontrolled source of variability with six levels on winter rye yield and yield components (spike density, grain number per spike, and thousand-grain weight). The analysis focused on data from 2017 to 2022. This interval encompassed the last completed cycle of the crop rotation. Research factors and their levels are summarized in Table 1, while cultivar characteristics are presented in Table 2. In total, in each year of the present study, twelve treatment combinations (two cropping systems × two cultivars × three protection levels) were tested, each with three replications (see Figures S1 and S2 for treatment arrangement). Overall, the study included 36 plots from a long-term experiment, with each plot measuring 27 m2.
All agricultural practices other than research factors were conventional and uniform for all fields of winter rye (Table S4). Mineral fertilization was adjusted to crop requirements. Details on nutrient doses and application terms are shown in Table S4. Farmyard manure (FYM) was applied to continuous winter rye at a rate of 15 t ha−1 every three years. During the study period, this was conducted in the fall of 2016 and 2019 before pre-sowing plowing. Winter rye grown in rotation benefited from FYM applied before potato planting (30 t ha−1 once per rotation cycle). Insecticides and plant growth regulators were applied in all plots and only when necessary (Table S3). The harvest of winter rye was executed using a plot combine harvester (Wintersteiger CLASSIC, Wintersteiger AG, Ried im Innkreis, Austria). Having been harvested, the straw was removed from the field.

2.4. Data Collection

In the present study, data on winter rye grain yield and its components were collected and assessed. The yield components were identified as: spike density, expressed as the number of productive tillers per 1 m2, grain number per spike, and 1000-grain weight. The evaluation of winter rye grain yield was based on the amount of grain harvested from each plot separately. Subsequent to harvesting, the grain was weighed and the results were converted to tons per 1 hectare at 15% grain moisture content. Spike density was quantified prior to the winter rye harvest through direct spike counting within four 0.50 m × 0.50 m quadrats randomly established in each plot. The values in the quadrats were summed. The grain number per spike was established by counting the grains from 20 plants sampled from each plot shortly before harvest. To determine the 1000-grain weight, approximately 1 kg of grain was sampled from each plot during the combine harvest. Once in the laboratory, 1000 grains were randomly taken from each sample and weighed.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The data on rye grain yield, spike density, grain number per spike, and 1000-grain weight were statistically processed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), variation coefficients (CVs) and Pearson’s simple correlation coefficients (r). A four-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for a completely randomized design experiment was utilized to evaluate the individual effects of the cropping system (CS), cultivar (Cv), chemical plant protection (PP), and year (Yr) on the aforementioned variables, as well as the collective contribution of the main factors, i.e., their two-way, three-way, and four-way interactions. A linear fixed model with fixed effects of all four factors was employed. Before performing the ANOVA, the normality of the data distributions and the homogeneity of variances were confirmed using the Shapiro–Wilk and Levene tests, respectively. When the ANOVA results were significant, the means for the treatments were compared using Duncan’s post hoc multiple range test. Variation coefficients were utilized to assess the interannual variability in rye yield. Pearson’s coefficients were applied to express the nature of the relationships between yield and yield components. The statistical significance level was set at 0.05 for each test. All statistical tests were executed with the program STATISTICA 13.3 [57].

3. Results

The winter rye grain yield obtained in the present study ranged from only 1.56 to 10.41 t ha−1 (Table S5). It was differentiated by all the main experimental factors, i.e., cropping system (CS), cultivar (Cv), and plant protection level (PP), as well as by an uncontrolled source of variability, i.e., year of study (Yr) (Table 3). The strongest influencing factor was Cv, followed by CS, Yr, and PP. In addition, all of the two-way interactions (CS × Cv, CS × PP, Cv × PP, CS × Yr, Cv × Yr, PP × Yr) and one of the three-way interactions (CS × Cv × Yr) contributed to the variability in yield. The two components of rye yield—spike density and grain number per spike—were also determined by all the main adopted sources of variation (controlled—CS, Cv, PP, and uncontrolled—Yr), with Cv being the strongest contributor. In contrast, the 1000-grain weight was strongly influenced by CS and Yr and considerably more weakly by PP. Notably, the Cv factor did not appear to affect the 1000-grain weight. Additionally, spike density was found to be significantly influenced by the interactions CS × PP, CS × Yr, Cv × Yr, PP × Yr, and Cv × PP × Yr, grain number per spike by the CS × Yr, and Cv × PP × Yr interactions, and 1000-grain weight by the Cv × PP, CS × Yr, Cv × Yr, PP × Yr, and CS × PP × Yr.
The cultivation of winter rye in the CR system resulted in higher yields compared to the CC system (Table 4). This result was attributed to the higher performance of all yield components. The hybrid cultivar KWS Binntto exhibited higher productivity compared to the population cultivar Dańkowskie Diament (by almost 2 t ha−1 on average), attributable to its superior spike density and increased number of grains per spike. The application of herbicide (H) resulted in a statistically significant increase in yield compared to the control treatment (CT), which was driven by higher spike density and grain number per spike. The incorporation of fungicide in plant protection (HF) further enhanced yield, as it contributed to an increase in 1000-grain weight compared to the H treatment, leaving the other yield components uninfluenced. The highest yield of winter rye was obtained in 2019, with maximum spike density and 1000-grain weight, but with the lowest grain number per spike at the same time. Conversely, the lowest rye productivity was achieved in 2018, with the lowest spike density and also low 1000-grain weight and grain number per spike.
The two rye cultivars exhibited lower yields in the CC system than in the CR system; however, the yield level of the hybrid cultivar in the CC system was equal to that of the population cultivar grown in the CR system (Figure 1a). In the CC system, the H application enhanced rye productivity relative to the CT treatment, and the HF treatment augmented rye yield over the H treatment. However, the yield was not as high as when this crop was grown in the CR system. Conversely, in the CR system, neither the H nor the HF treatments improved productivity significantly, thereby validating their unnecessary application (Figure 1b). A comparison of the two cultivars revealed an increased yield in response to the H treatment compared to the CT treatment. However, the hybrid cultivar (KWS Binntto) exhibited an augmented yield following the HF treatment, a response not observed in the population cultivar (Dańkowskie Diament) (Figure 1c).
Winter rye yields were consistently lower in the CC system compared with the CR system across the years; however, not only the level of yield but also the magnitude of the differences between the systems varied from year to year (Figure 1d). The largest discrepancy between the cropping systems was recorded in 2017 (yield difference of 2.65 t ha−1), when rye grown in the CR system showed its highest performance. Conversely, the least pronounced difference was observed in 2021 (a mere 0.54 t ha−1 favoring the CR system). The yield of the KWS Binntto cultivar exceeded that of the Dańkowskie Diament cultivar every year, while the size of the differences between the cultivars fluctuated from year to year (Figure 1e). The largest discrepancy between the cultivars in favor of the hybrid cultivar was recorded in 2020 (3.08 t ha−1), followed by 2017 (2.57 t ha−1), and the smallest in 2022 (1.33 t ha−1). In 2017, the PP factor did not differentiate the level of rye yield (Figure 1f). However, in 2018, 2021, and 2022, rye protected with H or HF yielded more than unprotected rye (CT), with no difference between the two treatments. In 2019 and 2020, only the HF treatment increased rye grain yield compared to the CT treatment.
The analysis of the CS × Cv × Yr interaction revealed that irrespective of the level of plant protection, the hybrid cultivar cultivated in the CC system typically equaled (2017, 2018, and 2019) or exceeded (2020 and 2021) the yield of the population cultivar in the CR system. A lower yield was observed only in 2022. Under the CR system and favorable weather conditions, the hybrid usually yielded more than 8 t ha−1, except for 2018, when the yield was lower (Table 5).
In consideration of the agronomic sources of variability, that is, CS, Cv, and PP, it was demonstrated that the cultivation of the hybrid cultivar and the implementation of plant protection with H and HF treatments exerted a yield-protective and yield-forming effect on rye cultivated in the CC system. The KWS Binntto cultivar, supported by H and HF protection in the CC system, yielded more (6.94 and 7.49 t ha−1, respectively) than the Dańkowskie Diament cultivar grown in the CR system (6.40 and 6.53 t ha−1, respectively) (Table 6).
Winter rye of both cultivars grown under CC-CT conditions exhibited the highest interannual yield variability (Table 7). In turn, the hybrid cultivar under CC-H and CC-HF conditions showed year-to-year yield variability comparable to that presented under CR-H and CR-HF conditions, yet lower than the population cultivar under CC-H and CC-HF conditions.
The effects of the identified interactions between the experimental factors on the individual yield components are described and documented (Tables S6–S17) in Supplementary Information.
A correlation analysis revealed a positive relationship between yield and spike density (r = 0.5862, p = 0.000), grain number per spike (r = 0.3953, p = 0.000), and 1000-grain weight (r = 0.4127, p = 0.000). Concurrently, a positive correlation was identified between spike density and grain number per spike (r = 0.2841, p = 0.000), while a negative correlation was observed between grain number per spike and 1000-grain weight (r = −0.1864, p = 0.006).

4. Discussion

The present study focused on the cultivation of a hybrid rye cultivar with chemical protection against weeds and fungal pathogens as a strategy to maintain the yield level of this species when grown continuously in the same field over a long period of time. The significance of the crop sequence system (cropping system) for the yield of population rye cultivars has been well documented [5,6,27,58]. Winter rye is regarded as exhibiting greater tolerance to long-term CC in comparison to winter wheat, spring barley, and spring oats [6]. The present study found that the grain yield in the CC system was on average 24% lower than in the CR system. The magnitude of the adverse response of winter rye to CC was estimated to range from 17% to 25% [5,6,59], yet in certain years, it was observed to reach up to 36% [27]. There are also occasional reports of no adverse impact of CC on rye grain yield [14]. The pivotal role in determining grain yield is attributed to spike density and the number of grains per spike [60] or the number of grains per unit area [61]. Conversely, grain weight, which is predominantly determined by genetic factors, plays a less significant role in yield formation [60]. The present study demonstrated that the yield decline observed in CC was due to a deterioration of all yield components, including spike density, grain number, and 1000-grain weight. This finding is consistent with those of previous studies [5,27].
In the present study, cultivar emerged as the most significant factor influencing grain yield. The yield of the hybrid cultivar KWS Binntto was found to exceed that of the population cultivar Dańkowskie Diament by an average of 34%. This outcome aligns with the findings of other studies that have compared the yield of population and hybrid cultivars [48,49,62,63]. In light of the preceding studies, the predominant genetic factor contributing to the substantial increase in grain yield of hybrid rye is the augmentation in tillering productivity, manifesting as an elevated number of spikes [42,49,62], a finding that was also validated by the present study. Furthermore, the KWS Binntto cultivar demonstrated a higher grain number per spike. However, the 1000-grain weights of the hybrid and population cultivars were comparable. According to Podolska and Aleksandrowicz [64], the 1000-grain weight values of rye cultivars exhibit low variability, and no significant differences in 1000-grain weight were observed between hybrid and population cultivars.
The response of hybrid rye cultivars to long-term CC has not yet been studied. The present study demonstrated that the relative yield loss of hybrid and population cultivars in response to CC was analogous, with 23.9% and 23.3% loss, respectively. The national post-registration tests by COBORU conducted in 2017–2020 [65] also evidenced a comparable relative response of rye cultivars KWS Binntto and Dańkowskie Diament to cereal versus non-cereal previous crops. The present study found that the higher yield potential of the hybrid cultivar KWS Binto compensated for the yield loss resulting from an unfavorable crop sequence system (CC) such that it matched the yield level of the cultivar Dańkowskie Diament grown under the CR system.
Numerous studies have demonstrated that chemical plant protection against weeds and pathogenic fungi has a significant effect on grain yield [6,27,66]. In the present study, it was also identified as a significant factor, though it had the weakest effect on rye yield among the examined factors. It should be noted that the positive effects of H and HF protection were significant only in the CC system. This system was previously demonstrated to promote an increase in weed abundance in cereal fields [12,58,67] and to exacerbate disease intensity in these crops [68,69]. Competition between weeds and crops for nutrients [70] was proven to have a substantial negative effect on crop yield [27]. The most problematic weeds in winter cereals were reported to be Apera spica-venti, Centaurea cyanus, and Galium aparine [12,27]. A study by Butkevičienė et al. [58] confirmed a very strong linear negative response of rye yield and 1000-grain weight to increased weed density and biomass. A decline in cereal yield resulting from fungal diseases is primarily attributable to a reduction in the assimilative area of the affected plants [71]. Puccinia recondita was identified as the primary threat to rye [72,73]. Furthermore, the occurrence of Blumeria graminis, Puccinia graminis, Rhynchosporium secalis, and stem base disease pathogens was documented [74]. Compared to CR, growing cereals in the CC system was shown to increase the infection of stem base diseases caused by Gaeumannomyces graminis and Fusarium spp. [9,69,75]. The present study demonstrated that rye cultivated under the CR system did not increase in yield in response to the H or HF treatments. This outcome can be attributed to the multifaceted regulatory functions of crop rotation, which include [76], including the mitigation of weed infestation and the weed seed bank [58], the enhancement of weed species diversity [27], and the reduction in disease severity [9,75]. These mechanisms are particularly well manifested in the winter rye field, as reported previously [6,27,77]. Crop rotation was identified as a suitable means to reduce the frequency of herbicide and fungicide applications [78] or to reduce the dosage of these chemicals [79]. Therefore, the fact that H and HF treatments were not justified to be used when rye was cultivated in the CR system was not surprising. A notable observation was a decline in yield under conditions of herbicide-only protection (H), a phenomenon that was not observed when a fungicide was incorporated into the crop protection strategy (HF). The utilization of herbicide may have facilitated the development of fungal pathogens on rye plants [9], consequently resulting in a reduction in yield. The enhanced development of fungal diseases in crops may be attributed to both the herbicidal suppression of plant immunity and the direct herbicide stimulation of certain pathogens [80,81]. The application of fungicides in conjunction with herbicides likely suppressed disease development [9], thereby contributing to an increase in yield. The level of yield obtained under these conditions was comparable to that observed under CT conditions.
The KWS Binntto and Dańkowskie Diament demonstrated a favorable reaction to the H protection, resulting in increased yield by 7.4% and 13.0%, respectively. The more pronounced yield-protective effect of the H treatment observed in the population cultivar Dańkowskie Diament may be related to the slightly higher weed infestation resulting from the cultivar’s weaker tillering, which in turn provided better conditions for weed development. According to other studies [42,49], hybrid cultivars are distinguished by a higher tillering rate, which can enhance the plant’s competitive ability against weeds. Consequently, the efficacy of the applied herbicide may be diminished, as was found in the present study. The importance of HF protection was more evident for the KWS Binntto cultivar due to an observed improvement in its 1000-grain weight. This outcome could be attributable to the KWS Binntto cultivar’s inferiority in terms of disease resistance when compared to the Dańkowskie Diament cultivar. Yield losses in hybrid rye caused by pathogenic fungi can range from 19.8% to 28.5% [82]. COBORU trials [56] demonstrated that the cultivar KWS Binntto exhibited a higher degree of infection by Puccinia recondita, Puccinia graminis, and Rhynchosporium secalis compared to the cultivar Dańkowskie Diament. There are also reports of both similar disease resistance of population and hybrid cultivars [74] and lower susceptibility of population cultivars to rye leaf diseases [45,71]. Ongoing genetic studies of inbred lines and cultivars hold promise for enhancing disease resistance in new rye cultivars [73,83].
The observed variability in rye yield across the study years was attributable to the influence of uncontrolled meteorological factors. The 2017–2018 growing season was particularly disadvantageous for rye development. The heavy rainfall in September (211.1 mm) and October (160.3 mm) impeded optimal soil preparation and delayed rye sowing. Consequences of the delayed sowing included weak rooting and tillering of plants in the fall [84], which may have also led to an earlier flowering time [85]. Moreover, the region experienced low temperatures and an absence of snow cover during the winter months. In April and May, precipitation levels were sparse (28.1 and 41.0 mm, respectively) and temperatures were relatively high (11.9 °C and 16.5 °C, respectively) (Table S2). These weather conditions were not conducive to further rye development either: they further reduced tillering and shortened the period of spikelet formation [60]. The lower density of rye plants resulted in increased weed emergence. Consequently, the grain yield obtained in the 2017–2018 growing season under the CR system was lower than that recorded under the CC system in the most favorable 2018–2019 season (6.05 and 6.69 t ha−1, respectively). Under such unfavorable moisture and thermal conditions in the 2017–2018 season, the lowest spike density was recorded, especially in the CC system. There was also a low grain number per spike and the lowest 1000-grain weight. It is noteworthy that during this growing season, the spike density of both cultivars reached its lowest levels (Table S8), suggesting that both exhibited a weak tillering response to the prevailing weather conditions. Overall, unfavorable weather conditions lowered the productivity of both cultivars, population and hybrid, in both cropping systems. The yields obtained in all other years of the six-year study period can be considered satisfactory (6.83–7.40 t ha−1), yet the highest average yield (7.40 t ha−1) was recorded in 2019 (the 2018–2019 growing season). In the fall of 2018, the rye plants had already developed robust roots and exhibited vigorous tillering. This enabled them to effectively utilize the post-winter water reserves during the spring drought conditions [60] that prevailed in April 2019 (Table S2). According to Chloupek et al. [86], rainfall from April to June that is not very abundant favors higher rye yields. Heavy precipitation during the period from flowering to the end of the crop’s vegetation is not conducive to optimal outcomes either, although an absence of water deficits during these phases is essential [87]. In our 2019 study, however, heavy rainfall in June (shortly after flowering) combined with elevated temperatures (21.4 °C vs. an average of 16.4 °C from 1991 to 2020) did not hinder grain yield. This weather pattern contributed to an increase in 1000-grain weight.
The substantial range of yield variability observed in the present study is attributable to the distinct genetic potential of the population and hybrid cultivars, as well as the considerable contrast in cropping and crop protection systems. This variability is further exacerbated by the substantial impact of interannual weather fluctuations. Even under the most favorable agro-environmental conditions, none of the cultivars in the present study matched the record yields of population and hybrid cultivars obtained in the country (Table 8). However, the highest yield of the hybrid cultivar exceeded the national record yield of the population cultivar. Furthermore, the highest yield of the hybrid cultivar under the CC system with HF protection (8.34 t ha−1) closely approximated the latter.
Chloupek et al. [86] analyzed multi-year data (1960–2000) for the Czech Republic and found that compared to other crops, cereals have relatively low interannual yield variability. In the case of rye, this variability was determined to be 9.7%. The present study recorded higher yield variability over a period of only six years, especially under CC-CT conditions. It can be posited that this phenomenon is related to increasing weather fluctuations associated with global warming. This suggests that their impact intensifies under suboptimal agricultural management conditions.
Hybrid rye is often considered more resilient to climate variability [33,35], a finding that was confirmed in the present study under extremely adverse crop sequence (CC) conditions. This phenomenon may be attributed to the increased adaptive potential resulting from heterosis, which confers an advantage to such cultivars under challenging agroecological conditions [42]. This potential presumably consists of traits determining their competitiveness against weeds and their resistance to diseases, pests, and abiotic stresses. It can also involve biochemical secretions that affect the bioenergetic status of the soil. These aspects require further elucidation through specialized research. However, some studies indicate that hybrid cultivars demonstrate lower yield stability compared to population ones. This lower stability is presumed to be a consequence of their greater sensitivity to environmental conditions [87], particularly weather [49,62]. Furthermore, a study by Dopierała and Kordas [62] revealed that the population cultivar Dańkowskie Diament exhibited a lower yield than the hybrid cultivar (Balistic); however, it demonstrated high yield stability under diverse soil and climate conditions. Such opposing reports support the claim that there are pronounced genotype-by-environment interactions in this regard [47,88]. In the present study, the hybrid cultivar KWS Binntto generally had higher yields, and the population and hybrid cultivars exhibited similar interannual yield variability when cultivated in crop rotation. Under continuous cropping conditions, however, the hybrid cultivar KWS Binntto demonstrated greater yield stability than the population cultivar Dańkowskie Diament, irrespective of the level of plant protection. The implementation of chemical protection (H and HF treatments) led to a reduction in yield variation among both cultivars under continuous cropping conditions, yet interannual variability in the yield of hybrid cultivars was still lower and similar to that observed under crop rotation conditions.
The findings obtained in the present study indicate that employing hybrid rye in conjunction with rational chemical protection can serve as a pragmatic strategy to maintain winter rye productivity in the CC system, thereby reducing reliance on crop rotation. The recommendation of this strategy should be supported by an economic assessment confirming that the expected gain in yield will more than offset the higher cost of hybrid rye seed material. This evaluation was not the focus of the present paper, and remains an area for further elaboration.

5. Conclusions

The six-year field study confirmed the expected individual effects of the cropping system, cultivar selection, and plant protection level on winter rye productivity. Continuous cropping (CC) resulted in substantially lower yields than crop rotation (CR) and deteriorated all yield components, most severely reducing 1000-grain weight. The hybrid cultivar was more productive than the population cultivar due to greater spike density and number of grains per spike. Chemical plant protection supported rye productivity by improving all yield components. Both cultivars, hybrid and population, experienced similar relative yield losses in response to continuous cropping. These losses were significantly mitigated by herbicide, and in the case of the hybrid cultivar, fungicide protection. In the crop rotation system, neither the hybrid nor the population rye required chemical protection.
Growing in the crop rotation system, even without chemical protection against weeds and pathogens, allowed the hybrid rye’s higher yield potential to be better exploited. However, using the hybrid cultivar (KWS Binntto) with rational chemical crop protection (herbicide and fungicide) made it possible to achieve yields that equaled or exceeded those of the population cultivar (Dańkowskie Diament) grown in crop rotation. The study further confirmed the pronounced influence of interannual weather variability on winter rye yield and yield components, as well as its considerable contribution to modifying the effects of cropping systems, cultivars, and plant protection options on these attributes. In the continuous cropping system, the hybrid cultivar protected against weeds and pathogens showed greater resilience to fluctuating weather patterns than the population cultivar.
The findings imply that in areas where continuous cropping of rye is justified for various reasons, the use of hybrid cultivars with well-designed plant protection strategies can be an effective means to mitigate yield losses associated with continuous cropping obstacles and also contribute to yield stability under increasing climate variability. This solution may be particularly viable on sandy soils of medium to low fertility.
Advances in plant breeding provide an argument for expanding the scope of analogous research to include a wider range of hybrid cultivars of rye and other cereal species. Future studies focusing on soil microbial communities, nutrient cycling, and other environmental and economic aspects associated with continuous cropping of hybrid rye/cereals under different levels of plant protection would also be of great value.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture15131368/s1. Table S1: Chemical properties of the soil in the experiment in 2016 after harvesting of crops (mean ± standard error); Table S2: Atmospheric precipitation and daily air temperature during the study periods according to the Meteorological Station in Bałcyny, Poland; Figure S1: The arrangement of continuous cropping (gray plots; CC) and crop rotation (white plots; CR) fields in the Bałcyny experiment in the following years during 2017–2022; Figure S2: The arrangement of cultivars and plant protection levels on each single field of continuous crops (CC) or crop rotation (CR) shown in Figure S1; Table S3. Pesticide treatments applied to winter rye plots in the growing seasons under study; Table S4: Basic agricultural data for winter rye in the growing seasons under study; Table S5: Effect of the interaction of cropping system × cultivar × plant protection × year on winter rye yield, t ha−1 (means and standard errors). The effects of the identified interactions between the experimental factors on the individual yield components of winter rye; Table S6: Effect of the interaction of cropping system × plant protection on the spike density of winter rye, No. m−2 (means and standard errors); Table S7: Effect of the interaction of cropping system × year on the spike density of winter rye, No. m−2 (means and standard errors); Table S8: Effect of the interaction of cultivar × year on the spike density of winter rye, No. m−2 (means and standard errors); Table S9: Effect of the interaction of plant protection × year on the spike density of winter rye, No. m−2 (means and standard errors); Table S10: Effect of the interaction of cultivar × plant protection × year on the spike density of winter rye, No. m−2 (means and standard errors); Table S11: Effect of the interaction of cropping system × year on the grain number per spike of winter rye, No. (means and standard errors); Table S12: Effect of the interaction of cultivar × plant protection × year on the grain number per spike of winter rye, No. (means and standard errors); Table S13: Effect of the interaction of cultivar × plant protection on the 1000-grain weight of winter rye, g (means and standard errors); Table S14: Effect of the interaction of cropping system × year on the 1000-grain weight of winter rye, g (means and standard errors); Table S15: Effect of the interaction of cultivar × year on the 1000-grain weight of winter rye, g (means and standard errors); Table S16: Effect of the interaction of plant protection × year on the 1000-grain weight of winter rye, g (means and standard errors); Table S17: Effect of the interaction of cropping system × plant protection × year on the 1000-grain weight of winter rye, g (means and standard errors).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K.K. and M.J.; methodology, M.K.K. and M.J.; validation, M.K.K. and M.J.; formal analysis, M.K.K. and M.J.; investigation, M.K.K. and M.J.; resources, M.K.K. and M.J.; writing—original draft preparation, M.K.K. and M.J.; writing—review and editing, M.K.K. and M.J.; visualization, M.K.K. and M.J.; funding acquisition, M.K.K. and M.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The results presented in this paper were obtained as part of a comprehensive study financed by the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Agroecosystems and Horticulture (grant 30.610.015-110).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the technical support of employees from the Department of Agroecosystems and Horticulture of the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn and from the Bałcyny Production and Experimental Plant Sp. z o.o.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ANOVAanalysis of variance
CCcontinuous cropping
CCOscontinuous cropping obstacles
COBORUCentralny Ośrodek Badania Odmian Roślin Uprawnych (Research Center for Cultivar Testing)
CRcrop rotation
CScropping system
CTcontrol treatment
Cvcultivar
EUPVPEuropean Union Plant Variety Portal
FYMfarmyard manure
Hherbicide protection
HFherbicide and fungicide protection
NLIPolish National List (of agricultural plant varieties)
PPplant protection
Yryear

References

  1. Ma, Z.; Guan, Z.; Liu, Q.; Hu, Y.; Liu, L.; Wang, B.; Huang, L.; Li, H.; Yang, Y.; Han, M.; et al. Chapter Four—Obstacles in continuous cropping: Mechanisms and control measures. In Advances in Agronomy; Sparks, D.L., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; Volume 179, pp. 205–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tan, G.; Liu, Y.; Peng, S.; Yin, H.; Meng, D.; Tao, J.; Gu, Y.; Li, J.; Yang, S.; Xiao, N.; et al. Soil potentials to resist continuous cropping obstacle: Three field cases. Environ. Res. 2021, 200, 111319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Ma, L.; Ma, S.; Chen, G.; Lu, X.; Chai, Q.; Li, S. Mechanisms and mitigation strategies for the occurrence of continuous cropping obstacles of legumes in China. Agronomy 2024, 14, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Guo, F.; Zhou, J.; Qi, C.; Chen, L.; Wu, J. Effects of vermicompost on rhizosphere metabolomics and bacterial community structures by the continuous cropping of scallion (Allium ascalonicum L.). Hortic. Environ. Biotechnol. 2025, 66, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Blecharczyk, A.; Malecka, I.; Pudelko, J.; Piechota, T. Effect of long-term fertilization and cropping systems on yield and macroelements content in winter rye. Ann. UMCS Sec. E Agric. 2004, 59, 181–188. [Google Scholar]
  6. Adamiak, E. Struktura Zachwaszczenia i Produktywność Wybranych Agrocenoz Zbóż Ozimych i Jarych w Zależności od Systemu Następstwa Roślin i Ochrony Łanu; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego: Olsztyn, Poland, 2007; Volume 129, p. 146. [Google Scholar]
  7. Marks, M.; Rychcik, B.; Treder, K.; Tyburski, J. 50-letnie badania nad uprawą roślin w płodozmianie i monokulturze -źródło wiedzy i pomnik kultury rolnej. In Eksperymenty Wieloletnie w Badaniach Rolniczych w Polsce; Marks, M., Jastrzębska, M., Kostrzewska, M., Eds.; Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Warmińsko-Mazurskiego: Olsztyn, Poland, 2018; pp. 41–56. [Google Scholar]
  8. Blecharczyk, A.; Małecka-Jankowiak, I.; Sawińska, Z.; Piechota, T.; Waniorek, W. 60-letnie doświadczenie nawozowe w Brodach z uprawą roślin w zmianowaniu i monokultutrze. In Eksperymenty Wieloletnie w Badaniach Rolniczych w Polsce; Marks, M., Jastrzębska, M., Kostrzewska, M.K., Eds.; Wydawnictwo UWM: Olsztyn, Poland, 2018; pp. 27–40. [Google Scholar]
  9. Kurowski, T.P.; Adamiak, E. Occurrence of stem base diseases of four cereal species grown in long-term monocultures. Pol. J. Nat. Sci. 2007, 22, 574–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chen, Y.; Du, J.; Li, Y.; Tang, H.; Yin, Z.; Yang, L.; Ding, X. Evolutions and managements of soil microbial community structure drove by continuous cropping. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 839494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Wang, K.; Lu, Q.; Dou, Z.; Chi, Z.; Cui, D.; Ma, J.; Wang, G.; Kuang, J.; Wang, N.; Zuo, Y. A review of research progress on continuous cropping obstacles. Front. Agric. Sci. Eng. 2024, 11, 253–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Woźniak, A. Effect of cropping systems on quantitative changes in prevailing weed species. Agron. Sci. 2023, 78, 121–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cesarano, G.; Zotti, M.; Antignani, V.; Marra, R.; Scala, F.; Bonanomi, G. Soil sickness and negative plant-soil feedback: A reappraisal of hypotheses. J. Plant Pathol. 2017, 99, 545–570. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bogužas, V.; Skinulienė, L.; Butkevičienė, L.M.; Steponavičienė, V.; Petrauskas, E.; Maršalkienė, N. The effect of monoculture, crop rotation combinations, and continuous bare fallow on soil CO2 emissions, earthworms, and productivity of winter rye after a 50-year period. Plants 2022, 11, 431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Pervaiz, Z.H.; Iqbal, J.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, D.; Wei, H.; Saleem, M. Continuous cropping alters multiple biotic and abiotic indicators of soil health. Soil Syst. 2020, 4, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Johnston, A.E.; Poulton, P.R. The importance of long-term experiments in agriculture: Their management to ensure continued crop production and soil fertility; the Rothamsted experience. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2018, 69, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Merbach, W.; Deubel, A. Long-term field experiments—Museum relics or scientific challenge? Plant Soil Environ. 2008, 54, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Debreczeni, K.; Körschens, M. Long-term field experiments of the world. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2003, 49, 465–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. BonaRes. Long-term Field Experiments in EUROPE. Overview of Long-Term Experiments. Available online: https://tools.bonares.de/ltfe/ (accessed on 25 April 2025).
  20. Liu, Z.; Liu, J.; Yu, Z.; Yao, Q.; Li, Y.; Liang, A.; Zhang, W.; Mi, G.; Jin, J.; Liu, X.; et al. Long-term continuous cropping of soybean is comparable to crop rotation in mediating microbial abundance, diversity and community composition. Soil Tillage Res. 2020, 197, 104503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Smith, M.E.; Vico, G.; Costa, A.; Bowles, T.; Gaudin, A.C.M.; Hallin, S.; Watson, C.A.; Alarcón, R.; Berti, A.; Blecharczyk, A.; et al. Increasing crop rotational diversity can enhance cereal yields. Commun. Earth Environ. 2023, 4, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Liang, Z.; Xu, Z.; Cheng, J.; Ma, B.; Cong, W.-F.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, F.; van der Werf, W.; Groot, J.C.J. Designing diversified crop rotations to advance sustainability: A method and an application. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2023, 40, 532–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shah, K.K.; Modi, B.; Pandey, H.P.; Subedi, A.; Aryal, G.; Pandey, M.; Shrestha, J. Diversified crop rotation: An approach for sustainable agriculture production. Adv. Agric. 2021, 2021, 8924087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Lal, R. Cropping Systems. In Principles of Soil Conservation and Management; Blanco-Canqui, H., Lal, R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 165–193. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jastrzębska, M.; Kostrzewska, M.; Saeid, A. Conventional agrochemicals: Pros and cons. In Smart Agrochemicals for Sustainable Agriculture; Chojnacka, K., Saeid, A., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ghose, S.; Bhattacharjee, B.; Rynjah, D.; Laloo, D. Pesticides and Allergens. In Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry; Odoh, U.E., Gurav, S.S., Chukwuma, M.O., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2025; pp. 315–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jastrzębska, M.; Kostrzewska, M.K.; Marks, M.; Jastrzębski, W.P.; Treder, K.; Makowski, P. Crop Rotation compared with continuous rye cropping for weed biodiversity and rye yield. A case study of a long-term experiment in Poland. Agronomy 2019, 9, 644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gu, S.; Xiong, X.; Tan, L.; Deng, Y.; Du, X.; Yang, X.; Hu, Q. Soil microbial community assembly and stability are associated with potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) fitness under continuous cropping regime. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 1000045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, W.; Wang, N.; Yao, X.; He, D.; Sun, H.; Ao, X.; Wang, H.; Zhang, H.; St. Martin, S.; Xie, F.; et al. Continuous-cropping-tolerant soybean cultivars alleviate continuous cropping obstacles by improving structure and function of rhizosphere microorganisms. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 13, 1048747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Yao, X.; He, D.; Zhao, X.; Tan, Z.; Zhao, H.; Xie, F.; Wang, J. Integrated microbiology and metabolomics analysis reveal how tolerant soybean cultivar adapt to continuous cropping. Agronomy 2025, 15, 468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kostrzewska, M.K.; Jastrzębska, M. Exploiting the yield potential of spring barley in Poland: The roles of crop rotation, cultivar, and plant protection. Agriculture 2024, 14, 1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cao, T.; Manolii, V.P.; Zhou, Q.; Hwang, S.-F.; Strelkov, S.E. Effect of canola (Brassica napus) cultivar rotation on Plasmodiophora brassicae pathotype composition. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2019, 100, 218–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Korzun, V.; Ponomareva, M.L.; Sorrells, M.E. Economic and academic importance of rye. In The Rye Genome; Rabanus-Wallace, M.T., Stein, N., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Altai, D.S.; Noaema, A.H.; Alhasany, A.R.; Hadházy, Á.; Mendler-Drienyovszki, N.; Abido, W.A.E.; Magyar-Tábori, K. Effect of sowing date on some agronomical characteristics of rye cultivars in Iraq. Agronomy 2024, 14, 1995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ghafoor, A.Z.; Karim, H.; Studnicki, M.; Raza, A.; Javed, H.H.; Asghar, M.A. Climate change and rye (Secale cereale L.) production: Challenges, opportunities and adaptations. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2024, 210, e12725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shchekleina, L.M.; Sheshegova, T.K. Winter rye varieties that can be used as sources of resistance against fungal diseases in phytoimmunity breeding. Russ. Agric. Sci. 2024, 50, 142–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Dibrova, A.; Baidala, V.; Mirzoieva, T.; Stepasyuk, L.; Chmil, A.; Dibrova, L. Forecasting and modelling the rye market, as a niche grain crop, under conditions of increasing mineral fertiliser costs. Sci. Horiz. 2024, 27, 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Różewicz, M. Use and importance of rye grain in Poland. Pol. Tech. Rev. 2024, 3, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
  39. GUS. Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of Poland 2024; Statistics Poland: Warsaw, Poland, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  40. FAO. FAOSTAT Database; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2023; Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC (accessed on 4 March 2025).
  41. Riedesel, L.; Laidig, F.; Hadasch, S.; Rentel, D.; Hackauf, B.; Piepho, H.P.; Feike, T. Breeding progress reduces carbon footprints of wheat and rye. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 377, 134326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hackauf, B.; Siekmann, D.; Fromme, F.J. Improving Yield and Yield Stability in Winter Rye by Hybrid Breeding. Plants 2022, 11, 2666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. EUPVP. EUPVP—Common Catalogue—Varieties of Agricultural Plant and Vegetable Species; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2024; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/plant-variety-portal/ (accessed on 6 March 2025).
  44. COBORU. Krajowy Rejestr Odmian Roślin Rolniczych; Centralny Ośrodek Badania Odmian Roślin Uprawnych: Słupia Wielka, Poland, 2025. Available online: https://coboru.gov.pl/pl/kr/kr_gat (accessed on 22 April 2025).
  45. Miedaner, T.; Lauenstein, S.; Lieberherr, B. Comparison of hybrid rye and wheat for grain yield and other agronomic traits under less favourable environmental conditions and two input levels. Agriculture 2025, 15, 163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Barowicz, T. Świnie lubią żyto. In Żyto w Żywieniu Trzody Chlewnej; Wiadomości Rolnicze Polska: Poznań, Poland, 2022; Available online: https://www.wrp.pl/swinie-lubia-zyto-zyto-w-zywieniu-trzody-chlewnej/ (accessed on 25 April 2025).
  47. Haffke, S.; Wilde, P.; Schmiedchen, B.; Hackauf, B.; Roux, S.; Gottwald, M.; Miedaner, T. Toward a selection of broadly adapted germplasm for yield stability of hybrid rye under normal and managed drought stress conditions. Crop Sci. 2015, 55, 1026–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Laidig, F.; Feike, T.; Klocke, B.; Macholdt, J.; Miedaner, T.; Rentel, D.; Piepho, H.P. Long-term breeding progress of yield, yield-related, and disease resistance traits in five cereal crops of German variety trials. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2021, 134, 3805–3827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ghafoor, A.Z.; Wijata, M.; Rozbicki, J.; Krysztofik, R.; Banaszak, K.; Karim, H.; Derejko, A.; Studnicki, M. Influence of crop management on stability rye yield and some grain quality traits. Agron. J. 2024, 116, 2263–2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Miedaner, T.; Laidig, F. Hybrid breeding in rye (Secale cereale L.). In Advances in Plant Breeding Strategies: Cereals; Al-Khayri, J.M., Jain, S.M., Johnson, D.V., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 343–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Madsen, M.D.; Kristensen, P.S.; Mahmood, K.; Thach, T.; Mohlfeld, M.; Orabi, J.; Sarup, P.; Jahoor, A.; Hovmøller, M.S.; Rodriguez-Algaba, J.; et al. Scald resistance in hybrid rye (Secale cereale): Genomic prediction and GWAS. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1306591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mekonnen, T.W.; Labuschagne, M. Production, utilization, and breeding of winter rye. In Rye: Processing, Nutritional Profile and Commercial Uses; Singh Purewal, S., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2025; pp. 23–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Marks, L. Pleistocene glacial limits in the territory of Poland. Przegl. Geol. 2005, 53, 988–993. [Google Scholar]
  54. Anjos, L.; Gaistardo, C.; Deckers, J.; Dondeyne, S.; Eberhardt, E.; Gerasimova, M.; Harms, B.; Jones, A.; Krasilnikov, P.; Reinsch, T.; et al. World reference base for soil resources 2014. In International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  55. Jastrzębska, M.; Kostrzewska, M.K.; Marks, M. Over 50 years of a field experiment on cropping systems in Bałcyny, Poland: Assessing pesticide residues in soil and crops from the perspective of their field application history. Eur. J. Agron. 2024, 159, 127270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. COBORU. Lista Opisowa Odmian Roślin Rolniczych 2019. Zbożowe; Centralny Ośrodek Badania Odmian Roślin Uprawnych: Słupia Wielka, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  57. Statsoft, I. Statistica (Data Analysis Software System), Version 13.3; TIBCO Software Inc.: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2017.
  58. Butkevičienė, L.M.; Skinulienė, L.; Auželienė, I.; Bogužas, V.; Pupalienė, R.; Steponavičienė, V. The influence of long-term different crop rotations and monoculture on weed prevalence and weed seed content in the soil. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Moitzi, G.; Neugschwandtner, R.W.; Kaul, H.-P.; Wagentristl, H. Energy efficiency of continuous rye, rotational rye and barley in different fertilization systems in a long-term field experiment. Agronomy 2021, 11, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Chmielewski, F.M.; Köhn, W. Impact of weather on yield components of winter rye over 30 years. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 2000, 102, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Carrera, C.S.; Savin, R.; Slafer, G.A. Critical period for yield determination across grain crops. Trends Plant Sci. 2024, 29, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Dopierała, P.; Kordas, L. Znaczenie interakcji genotypowo-środowiskowej na plonowanie i cechy składowe plonu u wybranych gatunków zbóż ozimych. Biul. Inst. Hod. Aklim. Rośl. 2009, 253, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sułek, A.; Cacak-Pietrzak, G.; Studnicki, M.; Grabiński, J.; Nieróbca, A.; Wyzińska, M.; Różewicz, M. Influence of nitrogen fertilisation level and weather conditions on yield and quantitative profile of anti-nutritional compounds in grain of selected rye cultivars. Agriculture 2024, 14, 418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Podolska, G.; Aleksandrowicz, E. Postęp odmianowy w zbożach chlebowych. Stud. I Rap. IUNG-PIB 2019, 60, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. COBORU. Post-Registration Variety Testing System and Variety Recommendation; Centralny Ośrodek Badania Odmian Roślin Uprawnych: Słupia Wielka, Poland, 2024. Available online: https://www.coboru.gov.pl/pdo (accessed on 4 April 2025).
  66. Keller, M.; Böhringer, N.; Möhring, J.; Rueda-Ayala, V.; Gutjahr, C.; Gerhards, R. Changes in weed communities, herbicides, yield levels and effect of weeds on yield in winter cereals based on three decades of field experiments in South-Western Germany. Gesunde Pflanz. 2015, 67, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Saulic, M.; Oveisi, M.; Djalovic, I.; Bozic, D.; Pishyar, A.; Savić, A.; Prasad, P.V.; Vrbničanin, S. How Do long term crop rotations influence weed populations: Exploring the impacts of more than 50 years of crop management in Serbia. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ramanauskienė, J.; Semaškienė, R.; Jonavičienė, A.; Ronis, A. The effect of crop rotation and fungicide seed treatment on take-all in winter cereals in Lithuania. Crop Prot. 2018, 110, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Woźniak, A.; Rachoń, L.; Soroka, M. Impact of cropping and tillage system on take-all disease of winter wheat (Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici). Agron. Sci. 2023, 78, 5–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zawiślak, K.; Kostrzewska, M. Konkurencja pokarmowa chwastów w łanach żyta ozimego uprawianego w płodozmianie iw wieloletniej monokulturze. II. Zawartość i pobranie makroelementów w nadziemnej biomasie żyta ozimego i chwastów. Ann. UMCS Sect. E Agric. Suppl. 2000, 33, 269–275. [Google Scholar]
  71. Sawinska, Z. Influence of powdery mildew and brown rust on winter rye yielding. Prog. Plant Prot. 2011, 51, 1193–1197. [Google Scholar]
  72. Łącka, A.; Nowosad, K.; Bocianowski, J. Ocena porażenia żyta przez rdzę brunatną (Puccinia recondita f. sp. secalis) w warunkach sztucznej inokulacji. Agron. Sci. 2019, 74, 113–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Vendelbo, N.M.; Mahmood, K.; Sarup, P.; Hovmøller, M.S.; Justesen, A.F.; Kristensen, P.S.; Orabi, J.; Jahoor, A. Discovery of a novel leaf rust (Puccinia recondita) resistance gene in rye (Secale cereale L.) using association genomics. Cells 2022, 11, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Piechota, T.; Sawinska, Z.; Kowalski, M.; Majchrzak, L.; Świtek, S.; Dopierała, A. Plonowanie i zdrowotność wybranych odmian żyta ozimego uprawianego przeznaczeniem na biogaz. Fragm. Agron. 2017, 34, 67–74. [Google Scholar]
  75. Sawinska, Z.; Blecharczyk, A.; Małecka-Jankowiak, I. Wpływ wieloletniej monokultury na porażenie żyta ozimego przez choroby w zależności od nawożenia. Fragm. Agron. 2019, 36, 59–69. [Google Scholar]
  76. Tanveer, A.; Ikram, R.M.; Ali, H.H. Crop rotation: Principles and practices. In Agronomic Crops: Volume 2: Management Practices; Hasanuzzaman, M., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Zawiślak, K. Regulacyjna funkcja płodozmianu wobec chwastów w agrofitocenozach zbóż. Acta Acad. Agric. Tech. Olst. Agric. 1997, 64, 81–99. [Google Scholar]
  78. Andert, S.; Bürger, J.; Stein, S.; Gerowitt, B. The influence of crop sequence on fungicide and herbicide use intensities in North German arable farming. Eur. J. Agron. 2016, 77, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Klocke, B.; Wagner, C.; Krengel-Horney, S.; Schwarz, J. Potential of pesticide reduction and effects on pests, weeds, yield and net return in winter rye (Secale cereale L.). Landbauforschung–Ger. 2023, 72, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sanyal, D.; Shrestha, A. Direct effect of herbicides on plant pathogens and disease development in various cropping systems. Weed Sci. 2008, 56, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Martinez, D.A.; Loening, U.E.; Graham, M.C. Impacts of glyphosate-based herbicides on disease resistance and health of crops: A review. Environ. Sci. Eur. 2018, 30, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Jańczak, C.; Pawlak, A. Podatność żyta mieszańcowego Esprit na choroby grzybowe i efektywność ich zwalczania fungicydami w latach 2000–2002. Biul. Inst. Hod. Aklim. Rośl. 2004, 231, 287–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Bujak, H.; Nowosad, K. Poszukiwanie źródeł genetycznej odporności na mączniaka i rdzę w kolekcji linii, rodów i odmian żyta. Biul. Inst. Hod. I Aklim. Rośl. 2021, 286, 181–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Szuleta, E.; Phillips, T.; Knott, C.A.; Lee, C.D.; Van Sanford, D.A. Influence of planting date on winter rye performance in Kentucky. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Blecharczyk, A.; Sawinska, Z.; Małecka, I.; Sparks, T.H.; Tryjanowski, P. The phenology of winter rye in Poland: An analysis of long-term experimental data. Int. J. Biometeorol. 2016, 60, 1341–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chloupek, O.; Hrstkova, P.; Schweigert, P. Yield and its stability, crop diversity, adaptability and response to climate change, weather and fertilisation over 75 years in the Czech Republic in comparison to some European countries. Field Crops Res. 2004, 85, 167–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hadasch, S.; Laidig, F.; Macholdt, J.; Bönecke, E.; Piepho, H.P. Trends in mean performance and stability of winter wheat and winter rye yields in a long-term series of variety trials. Field Crops Res. 2020, 252, 107792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Rembe, M.; Reif, J.C.; Ebmeyer, E.; Thorwarth, P.; Korzun, V.; Schacht, J.; Boeven, P.H.G.; Varenne, P.; Kazman, E.; Philipp, N.; et al. Reciprocal recurrent genomic selection is impacted by genotype-by-environment interactions. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 703419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 15 01368 g001
Figure 1. Effects of the interactions of cropping system × cultivar (a), cropping system × plant protection (b), cultivar × plant protection (c), cropping system × year (d), cultivar × year (e), and plant protection × year (f) on winter rye yield (means and standard errors). Legend: CC—continuous cropping; CR—crop rotation system; CT—no herbicide or fungicide treatments; H—herbicide application; HF—herbicide and fungicide application. Different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Figure 1. Effects of the interactions of cropping system × cultivar (a), cropping system × plant protection (b), cultivar × plant protection (c), cropping system × year (d), cultivar × year (e), and plant protection × year (f) on winter rye yield (means and standard errors). Legend: CC—continuous cropping; CR—crop rotation system; CT—no herbicide or fungicide treatments; H—herbicide application; HF—herbicide and fungicide application. Different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Agriculture 15 01368 g001
Table 1. Research factors examined in the present study and their levels.
Table 1. Research factors examined in the present study and their levels.
FactorFactor LevelCharacteristics
Cropping system (CS)CC—continuous croppinggrowing winter rye in the same field since 1967–1968
CR—crop rotationgrowing winter rye in a crop rotation with the following crop sequence: potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)—spring oats (Avena sativa L.)—fiber flax (Linum usitatissimum L.)—winter rye—faba bean (Vicia faba L.)—winter triticale (× Triticosecale Wittm. ex A. Camus)
Cultivar (Cv)KWS Binnttohybrid cultivar
Dańkowskie Diamentpopulation cultivar
Chemical plant protection (PP)CT—control treatmentno herbicide or fungicide treatments
H—herbicide applicationtreatments with chemical agents recommended for weed regulation in winter rye 1
HF—herbicide and fungicide applicationtreatments with chemical agents recommended for weed regulation and pathogen control and in winter 1
Year (Yr)201719 September 2016–4 August 2017
20182 October 2017–23 July 2018
201918 September 2018–27 July 2019
202012 September 2019–2 August 2020
202112 September 2020–27 July 2021
202221 September 2021–28 July 2022
1 Detailed information on all pesticide treatments applied in the study are shown in Table S3.
Table 2. Major characteristics of winter rye cultivars used in the experiment [56].
Table 2. Major characteristics of winter rye cultivars used in the experiment [56].
CharacteristicsUnitKWS BinnttoDańkowskie Diament
Type hybridpopulation
Breeder/maintainer KWS Lochow GmbH, Kondratowice, PolandDANKO Hodowla Roślin sp. z o.o., Choryń, Poland
Addition to NLI 1year20162005
Plant heightcm137150
Heading (from 1.01)days134132
Maturation (from 1.01)days201201
Resistance to lodging9-point scale6.65.6
Resistance to disease9-point scale7.2–8.36.6–8.3
Weight of 1000 grainsg35.434.4
Yield potentialt ha−19.8187.670
1 Polish National List of Agricultural Plant Varieties.
Table 3. Analysis of variance (F values) for winter rye yield and yield components.
Table 3. Analysis of variance (F values) for winter rye yield and yield components.
Source of VariationYieldSpike DensityGrain Number
per Spike		1000-Grain
Weight
Cropping system (CS)691.07 ***12.16 ***13.20 ***328.0 ***
Cultivar (Cv)824.77 ***57.19 ***39.46 ***0.5
Plant protection (PP)65.95 ***15.27 ***14.76 ***4.4 *
Year (Yr)100.71 ***13.45 ***19.05 ***216.3 ***
CS × Cv11.64 ***2.262.070.3
CS × PP67.82 ***4.54 *1.500.8
Cv × PP3.41 *1.881.136.9 **
CS × Yr18.51 ***7.88 ***3.51 **78.8 ***
Cv × Yr17.81 ***2.95 *2.173.3 **
PP × Yr11.38 ***2.41 *1.224.0 **
CS × Cv × PP0.180.211.000.6
CS × Cv × Yr3.60 **2.210.231.4
CS × PP × Yr1.670.911.163.0 **
Cv × PP × Yr1.701.99 *2.30 *1.4
CS × Cv × PP × Yr1.800.920.840.4
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. Effects of cropping system, cultivar, plant protection, and year on yield and yield components (means and standard errors).
Table 4. Effects of cropping system, cultivar, plant protection, and year on yield and yield components (means and standard errors).
FactorFactor LevelYield,
t ha−1		Spike Density, No. m−2Grain Number per Spike1000-Grain
Weight, g
Cropping system (CS)Continuous cropping (CC)5.79 ± 0.16 b,1426 ± 9 b45.8 ± 0.8 b30.17 ± 0.35 b
Crop rotation (CR)7.58 ± 0.14 a453 ± 7 a48.3 ± 0.5 a33.09 ± 0.30 a
Cultivar (Cv)KWS Binntto7.66 ± 0.16 a470 ± 8 a49.2 ± 0.7 a31.57 ± 0.37 a
Dańkowskie Diament5.70 ± 0.13 b410 ± 7 b44.9 ± 0.6 b31.69 ± 0.34 a
Plant
protection (PP)		CT6.16 ± 0.25 c409 ± 11 b44.5 ± 0.9 b31.55 ± 0.46 b
H6.77 ± 0.18 b452 ± 8 a48.7 ± 0.7 a31.39 ± 0.43 b
HF7.11 ± 0.20 a459 ± 10 a48.0 ± 0.8 a31.95 ± 0.42 a
Year (Yr)20176.91± 0.32 b429 ± 15 b48.0 ± 0.8 b33.01 ± 0.58 b
20185.03 ± 0.26 c374 ± 16 c43.8 ± 1.1 c29.76 ± 0.48 d
20197.42 ± 0.21 a470 ± 13 a42.1 ± 1.1 c36.59 ± 0.22 a
20207.00 ± 0.33 b469 ± 11 a48.5 ± 1.1 b31.06 ± 0.56 c
20216.83 ± 0.20 b457 ± 8 ab52.6 ± 0.9 a28.23 ± 0.28 e
20226.91 ± 0.30 b440 ± 15 ab47.5 ± 1.1 b31.11 ± 0.33 c
1 Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments within individual factors at p < 0.05.
Table 5. Effects of the interaction of cropping system × cultivar × year on winter rye yield, t ha−1 (means and standard errors).
Table 5. Effects of the interaction of cropping system × cultivar × year on winter rye yield, t ha−1 (means and standard errors).
YearContinuous Cropping (CC)Crop Rotation (CR)
KWS BinnttoDańkowskie DiamentKWS BinnttoDańkowskie Diament
20176.71 ± 0.24 gh,14.47 ± 0.12 n9.69 ± 0.21 a6.80 ± 0.10 fg
20184.86 ± 0.30 mn3.15 ± 0.41 o6.81 ± 0.23 fg5.30 ± 0.22 lm
20197.52 ± 0.22 e5.85 ± 0.13 jk9.04 ± 0.20 bc7.27 ± 0.14 ef
20207.58 ± 0.20 e4.43 ± 0.29 n9.50 ± 0.31 ab6.48 ± 0.18 ghi
20216.96 ± 0.45 fg6.16 ± 0.35 ij8.14 ± 0.13 d6.06 ± 0.15 ij
20226.27 ± 0.69 hij5.49 ± 0.43 kl8.87 ± 0.30 c7.00 ± 0.25 fg
1 Different letters indicate significant differences at p < 0.05.
Table 6. Effects of the interaction of cropping system × cultivar × plant protection on winter rye yield, t ha−1 (means and standard errors) 1.
Table 6. Effects of the interaction of cropping system × cultivar × plant protection on winter rye yield, t ha−1 (means and standard errors) 1.
Cropping System (CS)Cultivar (Cv)Plant Protection (PP)
CTHHF
CCKWS Binntto5.52 ± 0.346.94 ± 0.247.49 ± 0.26
Dańkowskie Diament3.90 ± 0.305.38 ± 0.265.50 ± 0.26
CRKWS Binntto8.72 ± 0.268.37 ± 0.288.92 ± 0.29
Dańkowskie Diament6.52 ± 0.196.40 ± 0.206.53 ± 0.21
1 Interaction not significant at p < 0.05.
Table 7. Interannual variation of winter rye yields under cropping system × cultivar × plant protection treatments, variation coefficient (CV), %.
Table 7. Interannual variation of winter rye yields under cropping system × cultivar × plant protection treatments, variation coefficient (CV), %.
Cropping System (CS)Cultivar (Cv)Plant Protection (PP)
CTHHF
CCKWS Binntto24.812.113.4
Dańkowskie Diament31.818.619.0
CRKWS Binntto11.512.412.8
Dańkowskie Diament11.09.512.1
Table 8. The highest yields of population and hybrid winter rye achieved in post-registration variety testing experiments conducted in Poland between 2005 and 2024, t ha−1 [65] 1.
Table 8. The highest yields of population and hybrid winter rye achieved in post-registration variety testing experiments conducted in Poland between 2005 and 2024, t ha−1 [65] 1.
Cultivar TypeCultivarIn PolandIn RegionIn This Study
Populationall tested9.74
(2022)		9.74
(2022)		–
Dańkowskie Diament9.27
(2020)		9.27
(2008)		7.60
(2019)
Hybridall tested12.1
(2022)		12.1
(2022)		–
KWS Binntto11.2
(2019)		11.2
(2019)		10.4
(2017)
1 Including the Dańkowskie Diament and KWS Binntto cultivars according to [65] and in this study.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kostrzewska, M.K.; Jastrzębska, M. Hybrid Cultivar and Crop Protection to Support Winter Rye Yield in Continuous Cropping. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1368. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131368

AMA Style

Kostrzewska MK, Jastrzębska M. Hybrid Cultivar and Crop Protection to Support Winter Rye Yield in Continuous Cropping. Agriculture. 2025; 15(13):1368. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131368

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kostrzewska, Marta K., and Magdalena Jastrzębska. 2025. "Hybrid Cultivar and Crop Protection to Support Winter Rye Yield in Continuous Cropping" Agriculture 15, no. 13: 1368. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131368

APA Style

Kostrzewska, M. K., & Jastrzębska, M. (2025). Hybrid Cultivar and Crop Protection to Support Winter Rye Yield in Continuous Cropping. Agriculture, 15(13), 1368. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15131368

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