Next Article in Journal
Digital Finance and Sustainability: Impacts, Challenges, and Policy Priorities
Previous Article in Journal
The Comparability of Financial Information in Insurance Companies Using NiCE Qualitative Characteristics Measurement
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 20
10.3390/su152014829
sustainability-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Sowing Method on Yield of Different Plants Grown as a Catch Crop

by
Edward Wilczewski
* and
Lech Gałęzewski
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture and Biotechnology, University of Science and Technology, 7 Prof. S. Kaliskiego St., 85-796 Bydgoszcz, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(20), 14829; https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014829
Submission received: 29 August 2023 / Revised: 28 September 2023 / Accepted: 10 October 2023 / Published: 13 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Agriculture)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Currently, the most important task of stubble catch crops, as an element of sustainable agriculture, is to provide the soil with organic matter. The basic problem in the implementation of this task is the shortage of precipitation during the sowing period, which, combined with high temperatures in Europe in August, results in the loss of soil water and, consequently, weakening of germination and delay in plant emergence. The development of agrotechnics to increase the reliability of germination of seeds of plants grown as a catch crops is very important for the use of this valuable source of organic matter in regions with low and irregular rainfall, especially in the case of light soils with low water retention capacity. The aim of the study was to evaluate the response to furrow sowing of plants from various botanical groups grown as a stubble catch crop. Field studies were carried out on lessive soil in 2013–2015 at the Research Station in Mochełek near Bydgoszcz. The subject of the research was the sowing method (factor I): furrow sowing versus traditional (row) sowing. Sowing methods were tested for four crops (factor II): white mustard, tansy phacelia, common buckwheat, and common vetch. Certain plants reacted differently to the use of furrow sowing, and this reaction was different in various years of the study. In years with average soil moisture during the sowing period, furrow sowing made it possible to increase the yield of green mass and post-harvest residues of catch crop. In a year with very low soil moisture in this period, the desired effect of this method was not obtained. Furrow sowing allows seeds to be placed in a deeper, more moist soil layer, which can contribute to the acceleration of plant emergence. However, it requires refinement in terms of the precision of covering the sown seeds with soil.

1. Introduction

Catch crops are currently an important source of organic matter for the soil in Europe and an important element in shaping favorable soil conditions for the development of agricultural plants, especially in regions with a low stocking density of farm animals [1,2,3,4]. These crops play a special role in sustainable agriculture, where they could improve the biodiversity of agricultural fields, and they are one of the few substantial sources of organic matter for the soil [5,6]. The importance of soil organic matter for plant yield is greater in continental than oceanic climate conditions [7]. Central and Eastern Europe are in the transition zone between these two types of climate. Therefore, the cultivation of stubble catch crops for green manure plays an important role here. An important element determining the beneficial effect of catch crops on soil properties is the production of a high yield of biomass and, consequently, the introduction of a significant mass of organic matter and nutrients contained in it to the soil [8,9]. Particularly valuable plants for improving the chemical, physical, and biological properties of the soil are legumes, the residues of which undergo rapid mineralization in the soil, and the nutrients released during this mineralization are used by plants grown in the following year from early spring [3,4,8]. Obtaining a biomass yield of significant fertilizing importance for successive plants is difficult due to the short period of catch crop growth, frequent shortages of precipitation, and high temperatures in August in Europe, which weaken the dynamics of germination and plant growth [10,11]. Due to the predicted future temperature increase of 2 to 6 °C over the next 100 years [12,13], this problem will intensify. This is of particular importance in the case of legumes, whose water demand during the germination period is much higher than that of brassicas and phacelia. This is a significant problem due to the high value of legumes for soil fertilization [14,15]. Therefore, it is important to search for such technological solutions that will enable the improvement of seed germination, especially in the years characterized by rainfall deficiency in July and August. One of these possibilities is furrow sowing [16]. It allows the seeds to be placed in a deeper, more moist soil layer, while keeping the seeds shallowly covered with soil [16,17]. This method can play a particularly important role, especially in the cultivation of stubble catch crops with the use of legumes, sensitive to soil moisture during seed germination [18,19].
The aim of this study was to assess the dynamics of emergence and yielding in a stubble catch crop of plants from various botanical groups, depending on the sowing method and related development conditions. The research hypothesis assumed the improvement of the dynamics of plant emergence and obtaining a higher biomass yield as an effect of furrow sowing and thus placing the seeds in a deeper and more moist soil layer. An unequal response to the method of sowing plants belonging to different botanical groups was also assumed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experiment Site

The field experiments were carried out in 2013–2015, at the Research Station of the Faculty of Agriculture and Biotechnology in Mochełek (53°13′ N; 17°51′ E) in the Kuyavian–Pomeranian Voivodeship of Poland (Figure 1). Field experiments were performed on Albic Luvisols (LVab) with a fine sandy loam texture [20] of the very good rye complex. The soil was formed of a sandy loam and contained 6% of clay, 15% of silt, and 79% of sand [21]. The soil reaction was neutral (pH in 1M KCl was 7.1), and very high abundances of assimilable phosphorus (82.30 mg P in 1 kg), potassium (192.4 mg K in 1 kg), and magnesium (119.0 mg Mg in 1 kg) were found in the soil. During the research period, different weather conditions occurred in particular years (Table 1). In 2013 and 2014, a relatively high amount of precipitation occurred in July and August. In 2015, a substantial deficit of precipitation occurred in August. Precipitation in September was higher in 2013 and 2015, whereas in 2014 it was lower compared to the multiyear averages. In October, the amount of precipitation was very low in all years of the study.
The individual years differed in terms of thermal conditions (Table 1). In 2013, the air temperature in September was substantially lower, whereas in October it was similar compared to the long-term averages. However, frosts occurred on 6 October 2013, causing damage to common buckwheat plants and forcing earlier harvesting of this plant. In 2014, September and October were much warmer than the average for this region. In 2015, air temperatures were unfavorable because of the hot August and cold October (Table 1).

2.2. Experiment Design

The field experiments were carried out in the randomized split-plot design, with four replications. A single plot area was 30 m2 (3 m × 10 m).
Experimental factors:
Factor I—sowing method:
-
Furrow sowing (FS)—sowing in 6–8 cm-deep farrows [24],
-
Traditional (row) sowing (TS).
Factor II—plant species grown as a catch crop:
-
White mustard cv. ‘Warta’,
-
Tansy phacelia cv. ‘Anabela’,
-
Common buckwheat cv. ‘Panda’,
-
Common vetch cv. ‘Fama’.

2.3. Agrotechnical Practices

Catch crops were sown after spring barley. The soil cultivation was performed traditionally, including ploughing to a depth of 18 cm using a plough with a skim-plough. Before sowing, the soil was prepared using the cultivation set consisting of a cultivator and a string roller. Catch crops have been grown without fertilization.
The seeds of the studied crops were sown using the Famarol seed drill, with a row spacing of 21 cm, in the amounts: white mustard—15 kg ha−1, tansy phacelia—10 kg ha−1, and common buckwheat and common vetch—110 kg ha−1. The sowing depth in objects with traditional sowing was 2–4 cm. In the case of furrow sowing, coulters with a widened wingspan angle were used [25], and seeds were covered by soil slipping down gravitationally from the ridges formed by coulters. Stubble catch crops were sown on 12, 8, and 9 August in 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively.

2.4. Samples and Measurements

After sowing, the soil temperature and moisture content in the vicinity of the sown seeds were measured using the FDR method of the WET-1 probe and the HH2 reader (Delta-T Devices). The measurements were carried out 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10 days after sowing (in 2013, up to 22 days after sowing). On each of these dates, the WET-1 probe’s pins were placed in the soil to the full depth, in the plant rows, at two representative locations in each plot (eight locations per treatment). Next, the volumetric moisture content was read using the HH2 reader. The measurement was performed each time around 9:00 A.M. During vegetation, the plant density was measured 5, 10, and 15 days after sowing. To determine the plant density, two row sections on the fifth day after sowing, with a total length of 476 cm, were marked on each plot. The beginning and end of each section were marked with plastic sticks and the number of plants on the row sections were counted, corresponding to the number of plants per m2 (row spacing = 21 cm). The plant number on subsequent dates (10 and 15 days after sowing) was counted on the same row sections. Immediately before harvest, the height of the plants was measured. The measurement was carried out using a 150 cm-long metal measuring strip, on 10 randomly selected plants from each plot. Catch crops were harvested in the second half of October, after 70 days of vegetation. The harvest was carried out on 21, 16, and 17 October in 2013, 2014, and 2015, respectively. In the case of common buckwheat in 2013, the harvest was performed after 57 days of vegetation (on 8 October) due to frost damage to the plants. The plants were mowed with a belt mower. The fresh matter yield from each plot was weighed on an electronic scale and calculated in Mg per ha. After harvesting, green mass samples (about 1 kg) were taken from each plot, based on which the dry matter yield of the plants was determined. The fresh samples were weighed on the scale, drying in the dryer at 70 °C, and again weighed to determine the dry mass of the samples. The dry mass yield of the catch crops for each plot was calculated using the formula:
Dry mass yield [Mg ha−1] = fresh mass yield [Mg ha−1] × sample dry mass [g]:sample fresh mass [g].
The yield of post-harvest residues was determined based on 25 × 25 × 25 cm soil monoliths taken from each plot. The monoliths were sieved, rinsed with water to remove soil, and left on tissue paper to drain. The post-harvest residues were weighed on a scale, then dried in a dryer at 70 °C and weighed again to determine the dry mass of the post-harvest residues.

2.5. Data Analysis

The dataset of measurements was subjected to statistical analysis. Plant biometrics were subjected to two-ways analysis of variance (ANOVA). ANOVA was carried out separately for each growing season, and a synthesis of ANOVA was performed for the three years of research in a mixed model (vegetation seasons—random, experimental factors—fixed). Plant density during emergence was treated as a dynamic variable, the first-order factor was the method of sowing, and the second-order factor was the time from sowing to full emergence (15 days after sowing). The results of the ANOVA synthesis (F-values and significance level) for the individual species are presented in Table 2. The biometric features (yield of green mass, mass of post-harvest residues, and height of plants) were also subjected to ANOVA. The first-order factor was the sowing method, and the second-order factor was the species (Table 3). Tukey’s post-hoc test (at p < 0.05) was used to assess the significance of differences between the mean values of each feature. In the figures, means that did not differ significantly are marked with the same lowercase or capital letters. Soil moisture data—a dynamic feature—are presented as line charts for each year, separately (Figure 2). Data from each measurement term were analyzed using the Student’s t-test (n = 32, p = 0.05). Statistical analyses were performed according to the formulas published by Gomez and Gomez [26] using an Excel spreadsheet.

3. Results

Statistical analysis showed a significant effect of the studied factors on the plant density after emergence, with no interaction between the experimental factors and the years of research (Table 2). For this reason, these data are presented in the paper in the form of averages from the years of research, taking into account the impact of individual research factors and the date of the plant density measurement. In the case of the remaining features (except the yield of post-harvest residues), an interaction was found between the plant species and the years of research (Table 3). Therefore, these results are presented separately for each year of the study.

3.1. Seedbed Moisture Content and Plant Density

The seedbed moisture content on the first day after sowing was relatively low. It was dependent on the sowing method and significantly different in individual years (Figure 2). The seedbed moisture content was moderately low in 2013 and 2014, and very low in 2015. In all years of the research, the moisture content of the seedbed at that time was significantly higher in the plots with furrow sowing than with traditional sowing. The moisture content of the seedbed on the third day after sowing was higher in all years than on the first date. In 2013, it was not dependent on the method of sowing, while in the remaining years it was significantly higher in objects with furrow sowing than after traditional sowing. On the fifth day after sowing, regardless of the year of the study, the moisture content of the seedbed was significantly higher after furrow sowing than with traditional sowing. In addition, it decreased compared to the previous measurement. In 2013 and 2014, the moisture of the seedbed increased between the fifth and seventh day after sowing, and in 2015 it decreased. At this time, a positive effect of furrow sowing on this feature was only found in 2015. The moisture content of the seedbed within 10 days after sowing was relatively high in 2013 and significantly dependent on the sowing method, and in the remaining years it was much lower (especially in 2015) and independent of this factor. In 2013, a gradual decrease in seedbed moisture was found between the 12th and 20th day after sowing, and an increase in the value of this parameter was seen on the 22nd day after sowing. On the 12th and 22nd days after sowing, the moisture of the seedbed was significantly higher in the variant with furrow sowing than after traditional sowing. Due to the lack of significant differences in plant density between the 10th and 15th day after sowing, in the following years of research (2014 and 2015), the measurement of seedbed moisture was carried out only until the 10th day after sowing.
The seedbed temperature during germination was relatively high in all years of the study (Figure 3). In 2013, it was dependent on the sowing method on the 1st, 5th, and 12th days after sowing. On the mentioned measurement dates, the temperature of the seedbed was significantly lower after furrow sowing than in the variant with traditional sowing. The same was the case in 2015 on the 3rd, 5th, and 10th days after sowing. On other dates in 2013 and 2015, as well as on all measurement dates in 2014, the sowing method did not affect the seedbed temperature.
The studied plants were characterized by different emergence dynamics (Figure 4A). The density of white mustard plants in the first measurement period was 65% of the density achieved after 15 days. In the case of tansy phacelia, it was 49%, and in the case of common buckwheat and common vetch, 19% and 9%, respectively. The plants density after 15 days from sowing was not significantly higher in any of the tested plants than after 10 days from sowing. Furrow sowing made it possible to obtain a significantly higher final density of white mustard and tansy phacelia than traditional sowing (Figure 4B). There was no significant effect of the sowing method on the final plant density rate of common buckwheat and vetch.

3.2. Plants Height and Yields

The height of the plants before harvest was dependent on the plant species and the year of the study (Figure 5). The method of sowing usually did not affect this feature, except for the height of white mustard in 2014, which was significantly lower after furrow sowing compared to traditional sowing. In all years of the research, white mustard reached the highest height, and common vetch the lowest. Common buckwheat was significantly lower than white mustard, but higher than tansy phacelia in all years of the study. The highest plant height was reached in 2013 (average 64 cm), lower in 2014 (average 50 cm), and the lowest in 2015 (average 44 cm).
The yield of the green mass of catch crops, similarly to their height, mainly depended on the plant species and the year of research (Figure 6). The method of furrow sowing had a positive effect on the yield of green mass of common vetch in 2013 and 2014, and on the yield of tansy phacelia and common buckwheat in 2013. In 2015, the yield of green mass was very low, and it was not dependent on the method of sowing and was only slightly dependent on the plant species. In 2013, yields of green mass of white mustard and tansy phacelia were significantly higher than yields of other plants. In 2014, common vetch yielded the most, white mustard yielded significantly less, and buckwheat yielded the least. In 2015, the yields of green mass of white mustard and common vetch were significantly higher than the yield of tansy phacelia.
The dry matter yield of post-harvest catch crop residues mainly depended on the species grown and the year of the study (Figure 7). The method of furrow sowing had a positive effect only on the yield of dry matter of post-harvest residues of common vetch in 2013. In 2014 and 2015, the highest dry matter yields of post-harvest residues were obtained from common vetch, and significantly lower yields were obtained from white mustard and common buckwheat in 2014 and only from common buckwheat in 2015. Relatively high yields of post-harvest residues, regardless of the year of research, were obtained from tansy phacelia, while common buckwheat produced the smallest mass of post-harvest residues in all years.

4. Discussion

The sowing method is a factor of great importance for plant initial growth and yield [27,28,29,30,31]. An important issue is the even distribution of seeds to a depth adapted to the needs of the species and the current soil moisture [32]. The research carried out showed that furrow sowing results in an increase of the seedbed moisture content, especially in the conditions with rainfall deficiency during the sowing period (2015). Furrow sowing sometimes also results in a seedbed temperature decrease. This feature was mainly affected by weather conditions; however, as it was shown in Figure 3, in furrow sowing, the seedbed temperature may sometimes be significantly lower compared to traditional sowing. These results are consistent with other studies conducted in the same location for winter oilseed rape [16]. Our study showed that a higher moisture content in the vicinity of sown seeds did not ensure a significant improvement in green matter yield in the year with the greatest rainfall deficiency. In the light of studies by other authors [33,34], the improvement of seedbed moisture may be the cause of greater emergence. In our research, furrow sowing also allowed for obtaining a significantly greater number of white mustard and tansy phacelia plants after emergence. However, only in one of the three years of research did this affect an increase in the yield of tansy phacelia green matter. The reason for the unsatisfactory reaction of the plants to the improvement of the moisture conditions of the seedbed could be the incomplete and uneven seed coverage with soil in plots with furrow sowing, which is consistent with the statement that the soil texture has a large impact on emergence [34].
The tested method of sowing assumes only a gravitational mechanism of covering the seeds with soil, sliding down from the ridges formed between the rows during furrow sowing. The disadvantage of this system is the uneven coverage of the seeds and, as a result, some seeds remain on the soil surface. Due to the high temperatures occurring during the sowing of catch crops, seeds remaining on the soil surface or covered with too shallow layer of soil cannot absorb and retain sufficient water for proper germination. Based on the observations of germination of seeds sown in furrows, a modified coulter for furrow sowing was developed, which supports the removal of soil from the walls of the ridges and makes it possible to eliminate the described problem [35].
This seems particularly justified in the light of studies by other authors [36]. A similar furrow effect was obtained after sowing using the strip-till technology, with the Pro-Til 4T aggregate, manufactured by Mzuri Limited. Sowing with this aggregate resulted in the formation of a furrow, at the bottom of which a seedbed was formed, compacted with a press wheel. The study by Szatkowski et al. [36] proved that this method of sowing, resulted in a higher number of rosette leaves (by 9–14%), thicker root collars (by 11%), longer epicotyls (by 8%), longer taproots (by 12%), and a higher DM content of leaf rosettes (by 35%) and roots (by 21%). It was resulted by greater and more uniform density of winter rapeseed plants than the plants grown in conventional tillage and low-till systems. This system can create good conditions for the initial development of rapeseed plants.
Later research [37] on this sowing technology showed that it provides a higher moisture content of the seedbed and smaller fluctuations than traditional technologies, which explains the obtained effect. These observations, therefore, confirm the hypothesis that furrow sowing, thanks to the retention of greater water resources in the seedbed, is justified, especially in conditions of rainfall deficiency. However, in the year with extremely low precipitation and, as a result, very low moisture content of the seedbed during the sowing period, no positive effect of this sowing method was demonstrated in our own research. In other studies, such an effect was usually obtained at a seedbed moisture content of 6.3–10.9% [16]. In our research, in the unfavorable year 2015, the soil moisture content in the sowing period was only 2.5–3.5%. In 2013 and 2014, under conditions of a seedbed moisture content of 5–6% (2013) and 6–8% (2014), furrow sowing had a positive effect on the yield of winter vetch, and in 2013 also of tansy phacelia and common buckwheat.
Furrow sowing usually did not significantly affect the height of the examined plants before harvest, which is generally typical for the plant species and is modified by the amount of precipitation in particular years. The importance of the weather factor in forming the yields of catch crops is well known [3,11]. The optimum amount of precipitation in the period from the beginning of July to the end of August is about 150 mm. The rainfall totals that occurred in these months in the study area were too low in two of the three years of research (2014 and 2015), of which in 2015 it was in fact at a very low level (70.7 mm).
The yield of post-harvest residues’ dry mass was less dependent on the year of research than the yield of green matter. In the very dry year (2015), even higher yields of post-harvest residues of white mustard, tansy phacelia, and common vetch were found than in the years with higher rainfall. Under conditions of too-low rainfall and, consequently, low soil moisture, these plants developed a very strong root system at the expense of green mass, the yield of which in 2015 was respectively 58% and 37% lower than that in 2013 and 2014. However, in 2015, a large variation was found in terms of the yield of post-harvest residues between individual repetitions. Taking into account the yields of green mass and post-harvest residues, the plants forming a relatively large biomass were common vetch, white mustard, and tansy phacelia. They were clearly worse in the case of common buckwheat, which, as a plant with high thermal requirements, was exposed to the negative effects of low temperatures in October, especially in 2013.
Considering the advantages of furrow sowing presented in the manuscript and the limitations of its application, it is necessary to continue research in this area using a modified furrow sowing coulter [35]. This modified coulter should effectively help with covering seeds with the soil from the ridges, and thus eliminate the problem of seeds drying out, which leads to a reduced germination efficiency. Better seed coverage should contribute to a greater germination efficiency, and thus a greater number of plants per unit area, and as a result, to the production of a higher biomass yield. The final effect should be a more beneficial influence of catch crops on shaping the physical, chemical, and biological properties of the soil. This is especially important in conditions of light soils.

5. Conclusions

The furrow sowing of catch crops makes it possible to place the seeds in a deeper, more moist soil layer, which may contribute to the acceleration of germination and plant emergence. However, it requires refinement in terms of the precision of covering the seeds sown with soil. It is an essential element of maintaining favorable conditions for germination in the vicinity of sown seeds. Furrow sowing is a promising method of sowing, supporting catch crop cultivation in sustainable agriculture. In this study, certain plants reacted unequally to the use of furrow sowing, and this reaction was different in various years of the study. In years with a relatively favorable soil moisture content during sowing (5.5–8.0%), furrow sowing allowed for increasing the yield of green matter of common vetch, and in one of these years, also tansy phacelia and common buckwheat. In the year with a very low soil moisture content in this period (2.5–3.5%), the desired effect of this sowing method was not achieved.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.W. and L.G.; methodology, E.W.; investigation, E.W.; data curation—compiled and analyzed the results, E.W. and L.G.; writing—original draft preparation, E.W. and L.G.; review and editing, E.W. and L.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Bydgoszcz University of Science and Technology for supporting this work. Much gratitude is due to Jacek Żarski and the entire team of the Melioration and Agrometeorology Laboratory of the Faculty of Agriculture and Biotechnology for providing data on the weather conditions in the study area.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kahimba, F.C.; Sri Ranjan, R.; Froese, J.; Entz, M.; Nason, R. Cover crop effects on infiltration, soil temperature, and soil moisture distribution in the Canadian prairies. Appl. Eng. Agric. 2008, 24, 321–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kocira, A.; Staniak, M.; Tomaszewska, M.; Kornas, R.; Cymerman, J.; Panasiewicz, K.; Lipińska, H. Legume cover crops as one of the elements of strategic weed management and soil quality improvement. A Review. Agriculture 2020, 10, 394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Wanic, M.; Żuk-Gołaszewska, K.; Orzech, K. Catch crops and the soil environment—A review of the literature. J. Elem. 2019, 24, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Khangura, R.; Ferris, D.; Wagg, C.; Bowyer, J. Regenerative Agriculture—A Literature Review on the Practices and Mechanisms Used to Improve Soil Health. Sustainability 2023, 15, 2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jaskulski, D.; Jaskulska, I. Diversity and dominance of crop plantations in the agroecosystems of the Kujawy and Pomorze region in Poland. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B–Soil Plant Sci. 2011, 61, 633–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Żuk-Gołaszewska, K.; Wanic, M.; Orzech, K. The role of catch crops in field plant production—A review. J. Elem. 2019, 24, 575–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vonk, W.; Ittersum, M.; Reidsma, P.; Zavattaro, L.; Bechini, L.; Guzmán, G.; Pronk, A.; Spiegel, H.; Steinmann, H.; Ruysschaert, G.; et al. European survey shows poor association between soil organic matter and crop yields. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2020, 118, 325–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Thorup-Kristensen, K.; Nielsen, N.E. Modelling and measuring the effect of nitrogen catch crops on the nitrogen supply for succeeding crops. Plant Soil 1998, 203, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Qi, Y.; Zhou, R.; Nie, L.; Sun, M.; Wu, X.; Jiang, F. The Effects of Catch Crops on Properties of Continuous Cropping Soil and Growth of Vegetables in Greenhouse. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lipiec, J.; Doussan, C.; Nosalewicz, A.; Kondracka, K. Effect of drought and heat stresses on plant growth and yield: A review. Int. Agrophys. 2013, 27, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tribouillois, H.; Dürr, C.; Demilly, D.; Wagner, M.-H.; Justes, E. Determination of Germination Response to Temperature and Water Potential for a Wide Range of Cover Crop Species and Related Functional Groups. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0161185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ciscar, J.C. The impacts of climate change in Europe (the PESETA research project). Clim. Chang. 2012, 112, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hulme, M.; Doherty, R.; Ngara, T.; New, M.; Lister, D. African climate change: 1900–2100. Clim. Res. 2001, 17, 145–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Stagnari, F.; Maggio, A.; Galieni, A.; Pisante, M. Multiple benefits of legumes for agriculture sustainability: An overview. Chem. Biol. Technol. Agric. 2017, 4, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yuvaraj, M.; Pandiyan, M.; Gayathri, P. Role of Legumes in Improving Soil Fertility Status; Intech Open: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  16. Sun, J.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, T.; Yu, L.; Jin, K. Effects of a Furrow-Bed Seeding System on Stand Establishment, Soil Bacterial Diversity, and the Yield and Quality of Alfalfa Under Saline Condition. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 919912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Wilczewski, E.; Sokół, B.; Nowicki, R.; Jug, I.; Pietrzykowski, K.; Gałęzewski, L. Response of Field Pea and Common Vetch, Grown as a Catch Crop, on the Sowing Method. Agriculture 2023, 13, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Keeler, A.M.; Rafferty, N.E. Legume germination is delayed in dry soils and in sterile soils devoid of microbial mutualists: Species-specific implications for upward range expansions. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e9186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Müller, F.; Masemola, L.; Britz, E.; Ngcobo, N.; Modiba, S.; Cyster, L.; Samuels, I.; Cupido, C.; Raitt, L. Seed Germination and Early Seedling Growth Responses to Drought Stress in Annual Medicago L. and Trifolium L. Forages. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2960. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. WRB. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, Update 2015. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps; World Soil Resources Reports No. 106; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  21. Piotrowska-Długosz, A.; Wilczewski, E. Influence of catch crops and its incorporation time on soil carbon and carbon related enzymes. Pedosphere 2015, 25, 569–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wikimedia.org. Poland. Available online: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/Poland_in_Europe.svg (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  23. Wikimedia.org. Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuyavian-Pomeranian_Voivodeship#/media/File:Kujawsko-pomorskie_(EE,E_NN,N).png (accessed on 25 September 2023).
  24. Wilczewski, E.; Harasimowicz-Hermann, G. Bruzdowy Sposób Siewu Rzepaku Ozimego. (Furrow Method of Sowing WinterOilseed Rape). Patent No. PL 215714, 31 January 2014. [Google Scholar]
  25. Harasimowicz-Hermann, G.; Kaszkowiak, J.; Wilczewski, E. Redlica Do Bruzdowego Wysiewu Nasion. (Coulter for Furrow Sowing of Seeds). Patent No. PL 68430, 30 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gomez, K.A.; Gomez, A.A. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1984. Available online: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAR208.pdf (accessed on 28 August 2023).
  27. Jambor, M. Effect of seeding rate and seeding date on creation of yield of selected winter oilseed rape varieties and hybrids. J. Agric. Sci. 2007, 53, 49–57. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lääniste, P.; Joudu, J.; Eremeev, V.; Mäeorg, E. Effect of sowing date and increasing sowing rates on plant density and yield of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) under Nordic climate conditions. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B-Soil Plant Sci. 2008, 58, 330–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kazemeini, S.A.; Edalat, M.; Shekoofa, A.; Hamidi, R. Effects of nitrogen and plant density on rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) yield and yield components in Southern Iran. J. Appl. Sci. 2010, 10, 1461–1465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. French, R.J.; Seymour, M.; Malik, R.S. Plant density response and optimum crop densities for canola (Brassica napus L.) in Western Australia. Crop Past. Sci. 2016, 67, 397–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Harker, K.N.; O’Donovan, J.T.; Smith, E.G.; Johnson, E.N.; Peng, G.; Willenborg, C.J.; Gulden, R.H.; Mohr, R.M.; Gill, K.S.; Weber, J.D.; et al. Canola growth, production, and quality are influenced by seed size and seeding rate. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2017, 97, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Romaneckas, K.; Steponavičius, D.; Jasinskas, A.; Kazlauskas, M.; Naujokiene, V.; Bručiene, I.; Švereikaite, A.; Šarauskis, E. How to Analyze, Detect and Adjust Variable Seedbed Depth in Site-Specific Sowing Systems: A Case Study. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Rinaldi, M.; Di Paolo, E.; Richter, G.M.; Payne, R.W. Modelling the effect of soil moisture on germination and emergence of wheat and sugar beet with the minimum number of parameters. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2005, 147, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kutcher, H.R.; Malhi, S.S. Residue burning and tillage effects on diseases and yield of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and canola (Brassica napus). Soil Till. Res. 2010, 109, 153–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kaszkowiak, J.; Wilczewski, E. Utility Model, Redlica do Siewu Bruzdowego z Regulowaną Głębokością Przykrycia” (Coulter for Furrow Sowing with Adjustable Cover Depth). Patent No. PL Ru 73139Y1, 2 October 2023. [Google Scholar]
  36. Szatkowski, A.; Sokólski, M.; Załuski, D.; Jankowski, J.J. The effects of agronomic management in different tillage systems on the fall growth of winter oilseed rape. Agriculture 2023, 13, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gałęzewski, L.; Jaskulska, I.; Kotwica, K.; Lewandowski, Ł. The Dynamics of Soil Moisture and Temperature—Strip-Till vs. Plowing—A Case Study. Agronomy 2023, 13, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 14829 g001
Figure 1. Site of the field experiment [22,23].
Figure 1. Site of the field experiment [22,23].
Sustainability 15 14829 g001
Sustainability 15 14829 g002
Figure 2. Seedbed moisture content (% vol). a,b—The data marked with different letters within particular measurement times were significantly different at p = 0.05, according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 2. Seedbed moisture content (% vol). a,b—The data marked with different letters within particular measurement times were significantly different at p = 0.05, according to Tukey’s test.
Sustainability 15 14829 g002
Sustainability 15 14829 g003
Figure 3. Seedbed temperature (°C). a,b—The data marked with different letters within particular measurement times were significantly different at p = 0.05, according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 3. Seedbed temperature (°C). a,b—The data marked with different letters within particular measurement times were significantly different at p = 0.05, according to Tukey’s test.
Sustainability 15 14829 g003
Sustainability 15 14829 g004
Figure 4. Plant density during and after emergence (pcs.∙m−2) depending on measurement time (part (A)) and sowing method (part (B))—averages from 2013 to 2015. a,b—The data marked with different letters within particular plants were significantly different at p = 0.05, according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 4. Plant density during and after emergence (pcs.∙m−2) depending on measurement time (part (A)) and sowing method (part (B))—averages from 2013 to 2015. a,b—The data marked with different letters within particular plants were significantly different at p = 0.05, according to Tukey’s test.
Sustainability 15 14829 g004
Sustainability 15 14829 g005
Figure 5. Plant height before harvest (cm). The data marked with different small letters within particular plants and different capital letters within particular sowing methods were significantly different at p = 0.05, according to Tukey’s HSD test.
Figure 5. Plant height before harvest (cm). The data marked with different small letters within particular plants and different capital letters within particular sowing methods were significantly different at p = 0.05, according to Tukey’s HSD test.
Sustainability 15 14829 g005
Sustainability 15 14829 g006
Figure 6. Green matter (dry mass) yield of the catch crops (Mg ha−1). The data marked with different small letters within particular plants and different capital letters within particular sowing methods were significantly different at p = 0.05, according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 6. Green matter (dry mass) yield of the catch crops (Mg ha−1). The data marked with different small letters within particular plants and different capital letters within particular sowing methods were significantly different at p = 0.05, according to Tukey’s test.
Sustainability 15 14829 g006
Sustainability 15 14829 g007
Figure 7. Post-harvest residue dry matter yield of the catch crops (Mg ha−1). The data marked with different small letters within particular plants and different capital letters within particular sowing methods were significantly different at p = 0.05, according to Tukey’s test.
Figure 7. Post-harvest residue dry matter yield of the catch crops (Mg ha−1). The data marked with different small letters within particular plants and different capital letters within particular sowing methods were significantly different at p = 0.05, according to Tukey’s test.
Sustainability 15 14829 g007
Table 1. Precipitation and air temperature (2013–2015) at the site of the field experiment.
Table 1. Precipitation and air temperature (2013–2015) at the site of the field experiment.
2013201420152013–20151949–20192013201420152013–20151949–2019
MonthPrecipitation—Sum (mm)Temperature—Mean (°C)
July79.055.450.461.674.318.921.518.519.618.1
August56.657.320.344.753.218.117.220.918.717.6
September64.125.952.447.542.110.714.413.813.013.3
October18.618.020.919.234.38.29.66.48.18.2
Sum/mean
VII–X		218.3156.6144.0173.0203.914.015.714.914.914.3
Table 2. Statistical differences (F-values and significance level) between means of plant density by two-way ANOVA with factors (catch crop species and sowing method), years, and the interactions.
Table 2. Statistical differences (F-values and significance level) between means of plant density by two-way ANOVA with factors (catch crop species and sowing method), years, and the interactions.
FactorPlant Density
White MustardTansy PhaceliaCommon BuckwheatCommon Vetch
Sowing9.79 *1.18 NS3.30 NS0.81 NS
Sowing × years2.96 NS5.20 **1.84 NS1.51 NS
Time7.95 **3.86 NS132.70 ***176.20 ***
Time × years3.10 *11.08 ***1.54 NS2.27 NS
Interaction0.09 NS0.00 NS0.25 NS0.15 NS
Interaction × years0.62 NS0.24 NS0.60 NS0.51 NS
NS—not significant; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Table 3. Statistical differences (F-values and significance level) between means of variables by two-way ANOVA with factors and their interactions.
Table 3. Statistical differences (F-values and significance level) between means of variables by two-way ANOVA with factors and their interactions.
FactorYieldPlant Height
Dry MassPost-Harvest Residues
Sowing4.14 NS0.59 NS0.12 NS
Sowing × years0.55 NS0.10 NS0.42 NS
Species1.82 NS20.71 ***43.54 ***
Species × years7.71 ***1.35 NS3.63 **
Interaction0.29 NS0.50 NS0.06 NS
Interaction × years0.37 NS0.25 NS0.50 NS
NS—not significant; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
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

Wilczewski, E.; Gałęzewski, L. Effect of Sowing Method on Yield of Different Plants Grown as a Catch Crop. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14829. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014829

AMA Style

Wilczewski E, Gałęzewski L. Effect of Sowing Method on Yield of Different Plants Grown as a Catch Crop. Sustainability. 2023; 15(20):14829. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014829

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wilczewski, Edward, and Lech Gałęzewski. 2023. "Effect of Sowing Method on Yield of Different Plants Grown as a Catch Crop" Sustainability 15, no. 20: 14829. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014829

APA Style

Wilczewski, E., & Gałęzewski, L. (2023). Effect of Sowing Method on Yield of Different Plants Grown as a Catch Crop. Sustainability, 15(20), 14829. https://doi.org/10.3390/su152014829

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