Next Article in Journal
Using Principal Component Analysis and RNA-Seq to Identify Candidate Genes That Control Salt Tolerance in Garlic (Allium sativum L.)
Next Article in Special Issue
Mlo Resistance to Powdery Mildew (Blumeria graminis f. sp. hordei) in Barley Landraces Collected in Yemen
Previous Article in Journal
Winter Wheat Adaptation to Climate Change in Turkey
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 4
10.3390/agronomy11040690
agronomy-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

Crop Diversification to Control Powdery Mildew in Pea

by
Ángel M. Villegas-Fernández
1,*,
Ahmad AlAshqar Amarna
1,
Juan Moral
2 and
Diego Rubiales
1
1
Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), 14004 Córdoba, Spain
2
Unit of Excellence Maria de Maeztu, Department of Agronomy, University of Córdoba, 14003 Córdoba, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(4), 690; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040690
Submission received: 28 February 2021 / Revised: 30 March 2021 / Accepted: 31 March 2021 / Published: 5 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Crop Powdery Mildew)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Pea is a temperate grain legume cultivated worldwide that can be severely constrained by powdery mildew infection. Control by fungicides and the use of resistant cultivars is possible, but there is a growing interest in alternative control methods such as crop diversification, particularly in low input agriculture. The aim of this work was to assess the potential of intercropping pea with other crops and of pea cultivar mixtures for powdery mildew management on pea crop. Results show a reduction of powdery mildew on pea when intercropped by replacement at a 50:50 ratio with barley or with faba bean, but not when intercropped with wheat. A barrier effect seems to explain a major part of this decrease, especially in the pea/barley intercrop. This hypothesis was further supported by inoculated seedlings under controlled conditions, where powdery mildew infection on pea decreased with the distance to the inoculation point, this decrease being larger in the intercrop with barley than in the intercrop with wheat and in the pea monocrop. Powdery mildew was also reduced in the mixture of resistant and susceptible cultivars, with infection decreasing with the increasing proportions of the resistant one. Overall, this work shows that crop diversification may be a good strategy to reduce powdery mildew in pea.

1. Introduction

Pea (Pisum sativum L.) is a major temperate grain legume widely cultivated worldwide [1]. Its high protein content makes pea highly suitable for animal feed and a good alternative to meat as a source of proteins for human diets [2]. Like other legumes, pea fixes atmospheric nitrogen, enriching soils and contributing towards sustainability. However, as with any crop, pea production can be constrained by a number of pests and diseases [3]. Powdery mildew is an air-borne fungal disease caused by the biotrophic pathogen Erysiphe pisi DC. Infection affects all aerial parts of the plant, with losses that may reach 50% of yield [4]. Although methods such as planting early in the season or using early-maturing cultivars can be implemented for promoting escape from the disease, effective control is really achieved by using chemical fungicides or resistant cultivars. The problem with chemicals is that their use entails damage to the ecosystems and increases the economic costs of the farmers. As for resistant cultivars, only a limited number of them are available, and with a resistance that relies on a narrow genetic basis. Only three genes for resistance have been described, namely er1, er2 and Er3, with only the first one being widely used in breeding programs all over the world [5]. The risk of the pathogen overcoming these resistances is high, especially when they occur in large areas of genetically homogeneous plants [5]. Even more, in addition to E. pisi, other species such as E. trifolii Grev. or E. baeumleri U. Braun and S. Takam. Magnus might also affect pea under certain conditions and are reported to overcome er1 resistance [6,7,8].
Crop diversification, either by intercropping, i.e., mixing two or more crops, or by mixtures of genotypes of the same crop, has proven useful to reduce disease pressure in several crops [9,10]. The objective is to modify the traditional monocrop environment in such a way that it hampers the process of infection and the extension of the pathogen, or that it provides additional strengths to the host crop to fight the infection. This effect on diseases adds to other known advantages of diversification, such as an increase of yield and reduction of fertilizers, or the positive effects on beneficial insects and pollination [11,12,13].
Legumes are popular components in diversification strategies, given the ecological services they provide to other crops and to the environment as a whole. In particular, cereal–legume intercrops are of great interest because of the synergies they deliver and have been the subject of several studies, including their effects on disease reduction [14,15,16]. On the contrary, mixtures of legume cultivars have been less studied, with only some studies on common bean available so far.
Intercropping pea with cereals can reduce pea diseases such as ascochyta blight (Peyronellaea pinodes (Berk. and A. Bloxam) Avesk., Gruy. and Verkl.) [17,18,19] and broomrape (Orobanche crenata Forsk.) [20]. As for powdery mildew, only one experiment has been reported, which presented unclear effects of pea/oat mixtures on disease reduction [21].
With the objective to assess benefits of diversification in the control of powdery mildew in pea, we established a series of experiments, first to identify the most efficient intercrop, and second to determine the optimal proportion of resistant and susceptible pea cultivars in a mixture.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Field Trials

Six field trials were carried out in two different locations in the South of Spain (Córdoba and Almodóvar del Río) from 2015 to 2019 (Table 1) to study the effect of various intercrops on pea powdery mildew infection.
Each trial consisted of monocrops of pea, wheat, barley and faba bean (cvs. Messire, Califa, Henley and Brocal, respectively), intercrops of pea with each one of the other crops; and a monocrop of pea at 50% density (doubling the distance between rows). Each plot consisted of eight 3-m long rows (except for the plots with pea at 50% density, with only four rows), with 35 cm between rows. Sowing densities were 30 seeds/row for legumes, and 200 seeds/row for cereals. The intercropping system was alternate with replacement at 50%. This means that a row of each crop was alternatively sown, thus ending up with a rate of 50/50 in the plot (Figure 1). A randomized complete block design with four replications was used.
Disease severity (DS) was visually estimated as the percentage of whole plant canopy covered by powdery mildew. A single severity value was assigned to each plot as the overall DS on the two middle rows (discarding those plants at the extremes of the rows). Evaluations were made one week after first symptoms started and repeated every 7–10 days till plant senescence. The area under disease progress curve (AUDPC) was subsequently calculated with the following formula:
AUDPC   =   ∑ i = 1 ½   { ( y i + 1   +   y i ) ( x i + 1   −   x i ) }
where yi = value of evaluated parameter at day 1, xi = time (days) and n = total number of observations
Crop height was assessed at full maturity of crops in trials Cord1-18(i), Alm1-19(i) and Cord2-19(i). Five plants of each crop per plot were measured from the ground to the top of plants, not stretching them, with the help of a ruler. Differences between the height of the companion crops and of pea in the intercropped plots were then calculated. The two central rows of each crop in each plot were harvested. Plants were dried in an oven at 60 °C for 3 days, and then plant biomass was assessed by weighing dry plants from each row. After this, plants were threshed and seeds were weighed. Biomass data were available for trials Alm1-19(i), Cord1-19(i) and Cord2-19(i), and grain yield data were available for trials Alm1-19(i) and Cord2-19(i).
The land equivalent ratios (LERs) of grain and biomass yield values were calculated as follows [22]:
LERpx = Yip/Ymp + Yix/Ymx
where LERpx represents the LER value (either for grain yield or biomass yield) of a given combination of pea and other crop “x” (faba bean, wheat or barley). Yip and Ymp are the yields of pea intercropped and in monocrop, respectively; Yix and Ymx are the yields of the other crops in intercrop or monocrop, respectively.
Additional field trials were performed over four seasons (Table 2) in which the powdery mildew susceptible pea cv. Messire and its resistant isoline Eritreo [8] were mixed at different ratios (100/0, 75/25, 50/50, 25/75 and 0/100). Mixtures were made by alternating different rows of each cultivar (Figure 2). Disease severity (DS) in cv. Messire was evaluated as described above for the intercropping trials.

2.2. Controlled Conditions Experiment

An experiment was performed on seedlings under controlled conditions to investigate possible barrier effects of cereals on powdery mildew dispersal. Seeds were planted in 4 rows separated 7 cm in polystyrene boxes (34 × 55 × 16 cm, width:length:height) filled with a mixture of sand and peat at a 1:3 ratio (v:v) following three treatments: pea monocrop, pea/wheat intercrop and pea/barley intercrop. The numbers of seeds per row were 18 for pea and 150 for the cereals. Treatments were replicated five times. In the intercrops, the first row was always a cereal, with pea in the second and fourth rows (Figure 3).The fifteen boxes were placed in a growth chamber with a photoperiod of 12 h of visible light (150 μmol m−2 s−1 photon flux density) at 25 °C, and 12 h of darkness at 20 °C. Seventeen days after sowing, seedlings were inoculated with Erysiphe pisi isolate CO-07. The isolate originated from infected pea crop in Córdoba and was maintained on living pea plants at IAS-CSIC. E. pisi spores from infected leaves were blown with the help of an air compressor in a perpendicular direction towards the first row of each box, distributing them homogenously along the line of the row. Numbers of leaves of cereal plants at the time of inoculation were counted. Ten days after inoculation, pea plants on the second and fourth row of each box were evaluated for severity of powdery mildew. Then, dry biomass of cereal plants was measured as described above for the field trials.

2.3. Statistical Analysis

For the intercropping trials, areas under the disease progress curves (AUDPCs) were calculated using data of powdery mildew severity by trapezoidal integration. Data of AUDPC were standardized (SAUDPC), considering the length of the evaluation period [23]. The effect of the treatment (pea monocrops and the different combinations) on the dependent variable (area under disease progress curve) was examined for each environment (i.e., year × location) using Dunn’s test, while Friedman’s test was used to compare the effect of the treatment for the set of environments. Both tests were used because the data did not satisfy the requirements of parametric tests regarding normality, homogeneity of variance or sphericity. The O’Brien test was used to study the homogeneity of the variances, while the Shapiro–Wilk Test was used to examine whether data conformed to a normal distribution. The means were compared using Dunn’s test with a Bonferroni adjustment at p = 0.05 [24].
The effects of treatment and environment on LER values (grain and biomass yields) were subject to two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) because these data satisfied the normality and homogeneity of variance requirements of ANOVA. To test whether the LER value of each treatment differed from the hypothesized value (µ ≠ 1), the confidential interval (C.I.) for the mean of each treatment was calculated, and one-sample t-test was performed. Factorial ANOVAs were also carried out for biomass of the companion crops and height differences.
The effect of the percentage of sowed resistant cultivar (cv. Eritreo) with respect to the susceptible one (cv. Messire) was studied employing the exponential equation of Kiyosawa and Shiyomi [25]:
∂y/(∂r) = −by
where y represents the severity of symptoms on the susceptible cultivar (SAUDPC), r represents the ratio of the resistant cultivar and b is the rate of decrease in disease per unit increase in the resistant cultivar (i.e., slope). Overall, with higher disease severity, there is a higher effect due to the resistant cultivar. The previous equation was linearized as Lny = a − b × r, in which a is a constant. For each ambient, the linearized equation fit the data well based on the coefficient of determination (R2 > 0.620; p < 0.001) and the pattern of residuals [26]. Subsequently, we linearized the selected model and compared the regression lines for each ambient based on their homogeneity of variances, slopes and intercepts.
In the experiment conducted under controlled conditions, the effect of the treatment on the disease severity on pea leaves was subject to ANOVA. Previously, the data were arcsin-transformed to satisfy the normality and homogeneity of variance. Because we were more interested to compare the treatments, the sowing rows were used as blocks. Treatment and environment means were compared using Tukey’s HSD test at p = 0.05. Biomass and number of leaves of barley and wheat were compared by ANOVA. All the data were analyzed using the software Statistix 10 (Tallahassee, FL, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Intercropping in the Pathosystem Pea/Powdery Mildew

3.1.1. Field Trials

Powdery mildew disease was present in pea in all trials, with a wide range of incidence across them (Table 3).
The global analysis revealed significant differences (p < 0.05) among treatments for SAUDPC (Figure 4). Powdery mildew infection on pea was reduced when pea was intercropped with barley or with faba bean (a decrease of 44% and 32% in SAUDPC, respectively). Powdery mildew was not significantly reduced on pea intercropped with wheat or when grown in monocrop at 50% density.
Pea/barley intercrops presented LER values slightly higher than those of pea/wheat, but differences were not significant. Likewise, no LER values significantly deviated from 1 (Table 4).
The factorial analysis for biomass of the companion crops, with crop and cultivation system (intercrop or monocrop) as fixed factors, revealed a significant interaction between factors (p < 0.05); barley biomass was higher than that of the other crops, but even higher when intercropped with pea, which did not occur with the others (Figure 5). ANOVA for plant height differences also detected significant differences between crops (p < 0.05), with barley showing a higher height difference with pea than wheat or faba bean (Table 5).

3.1.2. Controlled Conditions Experiment

Factorial analysis showed significant differences (p < 0.05) for powdery mildew severity for factors treatment and row (distance to the focus of inoculum), with no interaction among them. Powdery mildew severity was highest in pea monocrop, followed by pea intercropped with wheat, and lowest in pea intercropped with barley (Table 6). In all treatments, powdery mildew severity decreased with distance to the inoculation point, being lower in the fourth than in the second pea row. Dried biomass and number of leaves of barley were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than those of wheat (Figure 6).

3.2. Cultivar Mixtures in the Pathosystem Pea/Powdery Mildew

A wide range of disease severity was found (Table 7). In all trials, powdery mildew decreased in susceptible cv. Messire as the proportion of the resistant cv. Eritreo increased in the mixture. No powdery mildew was recorded in the plots with 100% of Eritreo. The results were adjusted to a non-linear regression curve, with a pseudo R2 of 0.5829 (Figure 7).

4. Discussion

Crop diversification, consisting of growing different crops or cultivars simultaneously in the same piece of land, is considered to increase crop resilience [27]. Cereal–legume intercropping might be particularly interesting in low-input systems by reducing the requirements for fossil-based fertilizer N [14,28]. A number of reports has shown reduction of pests and diseases [10,29,30,31,32]. However, these effects are only quantitative and influenced by environmental factors, therefore requiring monitoring and case by case adjustments. In this work we quantified the reduction of powdery mildew on pea under different cropping systems, either intercropped with barley, wheat or faba bean, monocropped at reduced plant density, or in mixtures of resistant and susceptible pea cultivars. We opted for alternate-row, replacement intercropping at 50% proportion. An addition intercropping system (i.e., introducing rows of the second crop in between the rows of the first crop, so in practice halving the distance between rows) was not studied, but we speculate that doubling plant density would reduce aeration and increase relative humidity around leaves, thus favoring the infection and proliferation of the pathogen [10].
Our results show a significant reduction of powdery mildew on pea when intercropped with barley or with faba bean (44% and 32% SAUDPC reduction, respectively). This tendency was consistent across six field trials, in two different sites, within a time span of four years, under an ample range of disease pressures. It is the first time that such a wide study on the effect of intercropping on pea powdery mildew has been reported. Zivanov et al. carried out one field trial of pea intercropped with oat, with inconclusive effects on powdery mildew; they reported a 20–30% disease reduction in pea leaves, but no effect on global disease on pea plants [21]. Our results are in line with what has been found for other diseases in grain–legume intercropping systems, with disease reductions in the range of 20–50% [10]. It is also similar to the described reduction of Ascochyta blight on pea when intercropped with barley [19], although Fernández-Aparicio et al. reported higher reductions in mixtures with triticale and faba bean [18].
Numerous mechanisms have been suggested to explain the effect on intercropping on plant diseases [10,33]: morphological and physiological changes in host, reduced density of the host crop (dilution effect), a barrier effect to spore dispersion, alteration of the microclimate or inhibition of the pathogen by allelochemicals. One or more of these mechanisms may be present in a particular intercropping system. From our field experiments, it is difficult to elucidate the mechanisms behind the powdery mildew reduction. We might speculate on the dilution effect, as host plants are reduced to 50% in the mixture, so the production of secondary inoculum would be reduced. Additionally, pea rows are at twice the distance from one another, so it is more difficult for the fungal spores to travel to produce new infections. However, the fact that there were no significant differences in pea monocrops at 100% and 50% density does not support this dilution effect. Moreover, the better aeration in pea monocrop at 50% density did not result in a reduction of powdery mildew.
The barrier effect by the non-host crop, then, may play an important role in hampering the spread of the disease, especially with this alternate-row design. The non-host crop acts as a physical barrier to spore movement from row to row, hindering the development of successive cycles of infection. In this case, barley and faba bean were more effective than wheat in reducing powdery mildew on pea. Barley produced more biomass than wheat and faba bean, making it a denser barrier; it also produced more biomass in intercrops with pea than as a monocrop, which may indicate that barley benefits from the synergy with pea but also benefits from the lower sowing density, with less barley plants competing with each other from resources in the same space. As for plant height, the difference between barley and pea is greater than that of wheat and faba bean. This suggests a strong barrier effect by barley in the decrease of powdery mildew. The role of faba bean, on the other hand, seems more complex to clarify, but it is also likely that the barrier effect plays an important role, as has been described for the reduction of diseases in wheat intercropped with faba bean [16]. The barrier effect of barley was further supported by the results of the experiment under controlled conditions. This effect could be assessed independently by controlling the direction of the flow of spores through the rows of the cereal before reaching the pea plants. Evaluated symptoms were those originated from the primary infection, avoiding the complexities of second cycles of infection that would be accumulative. Results of biomass and number of leaves in this experiment confirm faster and greater development of barley over that of wheat, even at the seedling stage, which may account for its higher efficiency as a barrier despite the similarities between both crops.
It has been reported in many cases that the combination of pea with cereals confers benefits in terms of LER (grain and forage), although it is not always so [12,34]. Combining pea and faba bean is less common, but again, positive and negative effects on yield have been described [35,36]. In our experiments, no grain or biomass yield advantage or disadvantage was found. This neutral effect of intercropping on yield facilitates its use in the control of powdery mildew in pea.
The use of varietal mixtures offers a different approach to biodiversity when it is not desired to grow different crops in the same field. The employment of resistant cultivars is an efficient and sustainable strategy to control diseases, but they pose some drawbacks if they are not properly managed. One of the main problems is the overcoming of resistance by the pathogen. The chance of this happening is higher with the multiplication in space and time of the resistant variety; the resistant genes are repeatedly exposed to the pathogen, which by competitive selection may finally find a way to surmount the resistance [37]. The rationale behind the utilization of cultivar mixtures is to have in the field a sufficient “amount” of resistance genes to prevent the disease from causing important damage, but not so many as to exert too high a selection pressure on the pathogen that might finally lead to the overcoming of the resistance. For these mixtures to be effective, it is important that there exist contrasting resistance levels to the disease [38]. Cultivar Eritreo is a near-isogenic line of cultivar Messire carrying gene Er3, which confers hypersensitive resistance to powdery mildew [8]. Given that it is a monogenic resistance, there exists a high risk of being overcome by the pathogen, so the mixture with another variety appears as a good strategy to safeguard the resistance [9]. The results show that the SAUDPC values adjust to a non-linear regression with the percentage of resistant cultivar in the mixture, so disease symptoms in the susceptible cultivar decreases as the proportion of the resistant one increases. It is possible to get a remarkable reduction of disease even with a small percentage of the resistant variety (25%), as previously described for Septoria tritici blotch in wheat [39,40]. This significant disease decrease with the introduction of just one row of the resistant variety may also point to the importance of the barrier effect, which has been observed in other cultivar mixtures in which the resistant cultivar hampers the movement of spores to other rows of susceptible cultivars [41]. Determining the final optimal proportions of the components of the mixtures may be a complex task that takes into account different factors [34,42], although the expected levels of disease in the area may condition the proportion of the resistant variety required.
In conclusion, in this work it has been established for the first time that diversification is a good tool for the control of powdery mildew in pea, whether it is by mixing pea with another crop or by mixing two cultivars of pea. This adds up to the known advantages of diversification for agriculture, which is of great importance in the context of sustainable agriculture and especially when it comes to organic farming, where the use of fungicides is not accepted. Future work should focus on other diseases of pea, such as rust, and on identifying the best options to simultaneously face different biological stresses, including weeds.

Author Contributions

Formal analysis, J.M., Á.M.V.-F. and A.A.A.; investigation, D.R., Á.M.V.-F., A.A.A. and J.M.; writing—original draft preparation, Á.M.V.-F. and D.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Spanish Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI) grant AGL2017-82019 and H2020-DiVERSify 727284.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Antonio Nadal and Pedro Luna for their hard work on the establishment and maintenance of the field trials.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT Statistical Database; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Dahl, W.J.; Foster, L.M.; Tyler, R.T. Review of the health benefits of peas (Pisum sativum L.). Br. J. Nutr. 2012, 108, S3–S10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Rubiales, D.; Fondevilla, S.; Chen, W.; Gentzbittel, L.; Higgins, T.J.V.; Castillejo, M.A.; Singh, K.B.; Rispail, N. Achievements and Challenges in Legume Breeding for Pest and Disease Resistance. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2015, 34, 195–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Warkentin, T.D.; Rashid, K.Y.; Xue, A.G. Fungicidal control of powdery mildew in field pea. Can. J. Plant Sci. 1996, 76, 933–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fondevilla, S.; Rubiales, D. Powdery mildew control in pea. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 32, 401–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Ondrěj, M.; Dostálová, R.; Odstrčilová, L. Response of Pisum sativum germplasm resistant to Erysiphe pisi to inoculation with Erysiphe baeumleri, a new pathogen of pea. Plant Prot. Sci. 2010, 41, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Attanayake, R.N.; Glawe, D.A.; McPhee, K.E.; Dugan, F.M.; Chen, W. Erysiphe trifolii—A newly recognized powdery mildew pathogen of pea. Plant Pathol. 2010, 59, 712–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fondevilla, S.; Chattopadhyay, C.; Khare, N.; Rubiales, D. Erysiphe trifolii is able to overcome er1 and Er3, but not er2, resistance genes in pea. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2013, 136, 557–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mundt, C.C. Use of Multiline cultivars and Cultivar mixtures for Disease management. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2002, 40, 381–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Boudreau, M.A. Diseases in Intercropping Systems. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2013, 51, 499–519. [Google Scholar]
  11. Newton, A.; Begg, G.; Swanston, J. Deployment of diversity for enhanced crop function. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2009, 154, 309–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lithourgidis, A.S.; Dordas, C.A.; Damalas, C.A.; Vlachostergios, D.N. Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Aust. J. Crop. Sci. 2011, 5, 396–410. [Google Scholar]
  13. Brooker, R.W.; Bennett, A.E.; Cong, W.-F.; Daniell, T.J.; George, T.S.; Hallett, P.D.; Hawes, C.; Iannetta, P.P.M.; Jones, H.G.; Karley, A.J.; et al. Improving intercropping: A synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytol. 2015, 206, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bedoussac, L.; Journet, E.-P.; Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Naudin, C.; Corre-Hellou, G.; Jensen, E.S.; Prieur, L.; Justes, E. Ecological principles underlying the increase of productivity achieved by cereal-grain legume intercrops in organic farming. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 911–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Daryanto, S.; Fu, B.; Zhao, W.; Wang, S.; Jacinthe, P.-A.; Wang, L. Ecosystem service provision of grain legume and cereal intercropping in Africa. Agric. Syst. 2020, 178, 102761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, C.; Dong, Y.; Tang, L.; Zheng, Y.; Makowski, D.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, F.; Van Der Werf, W. Intercropping cereals with faba bean reduces plant disease incidence regardless of fertilizer input; a meta-analysis. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2019, 154, 931–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kinane, J.; Lyngkjaer, M. Effect of barley-legume intercrop on disease frequency in an organic farming system. Plant Prot. Sci. 2002, 38, 227–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Fernández-Aparicio, M.; Amri, M.; Kharrat, M.; Rubiales, D. Intercropping reduces Mycosphaerella pinodes severity and delays upward progress on the pea plant. Crop. Prot. 2010, 29, 744–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Schoeny, A.; Jumel, S.; Rouault, F.; LeMarchand, E.; Tivoli, B. Effect and underlying mechanisms of pea-cereal intercropping on the epidemic development of ascochyta blight. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2009, 126, 317–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fernandez-Aparicio, M.; Sillero, J.C.; Rubiales, D. Intercropping with cereals reduces infection by Orobanche crenata in legumes. Crop. Prot. 2007, 26, 1166–1172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zivanov, D.; Jevtic, R.; Tancic, S.; Vasiljevic, S.; Masirevic, S. Control of winter forage pea diseases by pea-oat intercropping under field conditions. Pestic. I Fitomed. 2014, 29, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fetene, M. Intra- and inter-specific competition between seedlings of Acacia etbaica and a perennial grass (Hyparrenia hirta). J. Arid. Environ. 2003, 55, 441–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Madden, L.V.; Hughes, G.; Bosch, F.V.D. The Study of Plant Disease Epidemics; APS Press: St. Paul, MN USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Demsar, J. Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 2006, 7, 1–30. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kiyosawa, S.; Shiyomi, M. A Theoretical Evaluation of the Effect of Mixing Resistant Variety with Susceptible Variety for Controlling Plant Diseases. Jpn. J. Phytopathol. 1972, 38, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Madden, L.V.; Madden, L.V.; Campbell, C.L.; Campbell, C.L. Nonlinear Disease Progress Curves. In Biogeography of Mycorrhizal Symbiosis; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1990; pp. 181–229. [Google Scholar]
  27. Lin, B.B. Resilience in Agriculture through Crop Diversification: Adaptive Management for Environmental Change. Bioscience 2011, 61, 183–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Jensen, E.S.; Carlsson, G.; Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. Intercropping of grain legumes and cereals improves the use of soil N resources and reduces the requirement for synthetic fertilizer N: A global-scale analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2020, 40, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Finckh, M.R.; Gacek, E.S.; Goyeau, H.; Lannou, C.; Merz, U.; Mundt, C.C.; Munk, L.; Nadziak, J.; Newton, A.C.; De Vallavieille-Pope, C.; et al. Cereal variety and species mixtures in practice, with emphasis on disease resistance. Agronomie 2000, 20, 813–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Andersen, M.; Jørnsgaard, B.; Jensen, E. Density and relative frequency effects on competitive interactions and resource use in pea–barley intercrops. Field Crop. Res. 2006, 95, 256–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Malezieux, E.; Crozat, Y.; Dupraz, C.; Laurans, M.; Makowski, D.; Lafontaine, H.O.; Rapidel, B.; De Tourdonnet, S.; Valantin-Morison, M. Mixing plant species in cropping systems: Concepts, tools and models. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 29, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Mikić, A.; Ćupina, B.; Rubiales, D.; Mihailović, V.; Šarūnaitė, L.; Fustec, J.; Antanasović, S.; Krstić, Đ.; Bedoussac, L.; Zorić, L.; et al. Models, Developments, and Perspectives of Mutual Legume Intercropping. In Advances in Agronomy Volume 40; Elsevier BV: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; Volume 130, pp. 337–419. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kun, D.; Yan, D.; Zhi-xian, Y.; Jin-hui, Z. Advances in the mechanism of crop disease control by intercropping. Chin. J. Ecol. 2017, 36, 1117–1126. [Google Scholar]
  34. Fletcher, A.L.; Kirkegaard, J.A.; Peoples, M.B.; Robertson, M.J.; Whish, J.; Swan, A.D. Prospects to utilise intercrops and crop variety mixtures in mechanised, rain-fed, temperate cropping systems. Crop. Pasture Sci. 2016, 67, 1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Abera, T.; Feyisa, D. Faba bean and field pea seed proportion for intercropping system in Horro highlands of Western Ethiopia. Afr. Crop. Sci. J. 2010, 16, 243–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Živanov, D.; Savić, A.; Katanski, S.; Karagić, Đ.; Milošević, B.; Milić, D.; Đorđević, V.; Vujić, S.; Krstić, Đ.; Ćupina, B. Intercropping of field pea with annual legumes for increasing grain yield production. Zemdirb. Agric. 2018, 105, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Parlevliet, J.E. Durability of resistance against fungal, bacterial and viral pathogens; present situation. Euphytica 2002, 124, 147–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gigot, C.; Saint-Jean, S.; Huber, L.; Maumené, C.; Leconte, M.; Kerhornou, B.; De Vallavieille-Pope, C. Protective effects of a wheat cultivar mixture against splash-dispersed septoria tritici blotch epidemics. Plant Pathol. 2012, 62, 1011–1019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ben M’Barek, S.; Karisto, P.; Abdedayem, W.; Laribi, M.; Fakhfakh, M.; Kouki, H.; Mikaberidze, A.; Yahyaoui, A. Improved control of septoria tritici blotch in durum wheat using cultivar mixtures. Plant Pathol. 2020, 69, 1655–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vidal, T.; Boixel, A.-L.; Durand, B.; De Vallavieille-Pope, C.; Huber, L.; Saint-Jean, S. Reduction of fungal disease spread in cultivar mixtures: Impact of canopy architecture on rain-splash dispersal and on crop microclimate. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2017, 246, 154–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Borg, J.; Kiaer, L.; LeCarpentier, C.; Goldringer, I.; Gauffreteau, A.; Saint-Jean, S.; Barot, S.; Enjalbert, J. Unfolding the potential of wheat cultivar mixtures: A meta-analysis perspective and identification of knowledge gaps. Field Crop. Res. 2018, 221, 298–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mikaberidze, A.; McDonald, B.A.; Bonhoeffer, S. Developing smarter host mixtures to control plant disease. Plant Pathol. 2014, 64, 996–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agronomy 11 00690 g001 550
Figure 1. Experimental design for the intercropping experiments.
Figure 1. Experimental design for the intercropping experiments.
Agronomy 11 00690 g001
Agronomy 11 00690 g002 550
Figure 2. Experimental design for cultivar mixture experiments. Proportions are for Messire/Eritreo cultivars.
Figure 2. Experimental design for cultivar mixture experiments. Proportions are for Messire/Eritreo cultivars.
Agronomy 11 00690 g002
Agronomy 11 00690 g003 550
Figure 3. Pea monocrop (A) and pea intercropped with barley (B) in the experiment under controlled conditions.
Figure 3. Pea monocrop (A) and pea intercropped with barley (B) in the experiment under controlled conditions.
Agronomy 11 00690 g003
Agronomy 11 00690 g004 550
Figure 4. Standardized area under disease progress curve (SAUDPC) for severity of powdery mildew in pea in the different treatments evaluated across the six intercropping field trials. Different letters mean significant differences (Dunn’s test corrected by Bonferroni, p < 0.05). Bars for standard errors are shown.
Figure 4. Standardized area under disease progress curve (SAUDPC) for severity of powdery mildew in pea in the different treatments evaluated across the six intercropping field trials. Different letters mean significant differences (Dunn’s test corrected by Bonferroni, p < 0.05). Bars for standard errors are shown.
Agronomy 11 00690 g004
Agronomy 11 00690 g005 550
Figure 5. Biomass for the different companion crops (I: intercrop; M: monocrop) in trials Alm1-19(i), Cord1-19(i) and Cord2-19(i). Different letters mean significant differences (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). Bars for standard errors are shown.
Figure 5. Biomass for the different companion crops (I: intercrop; M: monocrop) in trials Alm1-19(i), Cord1-19(i) and Cord2-19(i). Different letters mean significant differences (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05). Bars for standard errors are shown.
Agronomy 11 00690 g005
Agronomy 11 00690 g006 550
Figure 6. Dry biomass (A) and number of leaves (B) of barley and wheat in the experiments under controlled conditions. Different letters mean significant differences (Tukey test, p < 0.05). Bars for standard errors are shown.
Figure 6. Dry biomass (A) and number of leaves (B) of barley and wheat in the experiments under controlled conditions. Different letters mean significant differences (Tukey test, p < 0.05). Bars for standard errors are shown.
Agronomy 11 00690 g006
Agronomy 11 00690 g007 550
Figure 7. Nonlinear regression fitted curve for powdery mildew SAUDPC in susceptible cultivar Messire with varying proportions of resistant cultivar Eritreo across five different experiments.
Figure 7. Nonlinear regression fitted curve for powdery mildew SAUDPC in susceptible cultivar Messire with varying proportions of resistant cultivar Eritreo across five different experiments.
Agronomy 11 00690 g007
Table
Table 1. Field trials carried out for the study of the effect of intercropping on the pathosystem pea/powdery mildew.
Table 1. Field trials carried out for the study of the effect of intercropping on the pathosystem pea/powdery mildew.
TrialCord1-15(i)Cord1-16(i)Cord1-17(i)Alm1-19(i)Cord1-19(i)Cord2-19(i)
LocationCórdobaCórdobaCórdobaAlmodóvarCórdobaCórdoba
Max. T (°C)35.331.732.235.235.735.7
Min. T (°C)−3.3−2.3−3.4−0.8−2.8−2.8
Mean T (°C)12.312.614.314.212.512.5
Rain (mm)150336143.8107.2110.4110
Table
Table 2. Field trials carried out for the study of the effect of cultivar mixtures on the pathosystem pea/powdery mildew.
Table 2. Field trials carried out for the study of the effect of cultivar mixtures on the pathosystem pea/powdery mildew.
TrialCord1-15(c)Cord1-16(c)Alm1-19(c)Cord1-19(c)Cord2-19(c)
LocationCórdobaCórdobaAlmodóvarCórdobaCórdoba
Max. T (°C)35.331.735.231.231.2
Min. T (°C)−2.2−2.3−0.8−2.8−0.7
Mean T (°C)13.812.913.512.012.9
Rain (mm)121.8281.8107.8110109.4
Table
Table 3. Final powdery mildew disease severity (DS) for each treatment of the different intercropping trials carried out (SE: standard error).
Table 3. Final powdery mildew disease severity (DS) for each treatment of the different intercropping trials carried out (SE: standard error).
Cord1-15(i)Cord1-16(i)Cord1-17(i)Alm1-19(i)Cord1-19(i)Cord2-19(i)
Pea 100% 29.365.764.930.069.969.5
Pea/barley 13.847.753.35.159.443.8
Pea/faba bean 15.033.766.615.063.351.0
Pea/wheat 17.359.259.210.464.157.1
Pea 50% 12.053.648.830.069.249.4
SE5.56.06.04.211.95.8
Table
Table 4. Land equivalent ratio (LER) values for grain yield (trials Alm1-19(i) and Cord2-19(i)) and biomass (trials Alm1-19(i), Cord1-19(i) and Cord2-19(i)). No significant differences between any of them in each case were detected, and they did not significantly deviate from 1.
Table 4. Land equivalent ratio (LER) values for grain yield (trials Alm1-19(i) and Cord2-19(i)) and biomass (trials Alm1-19(i), Cord1-19(i) and Cord2-19(i)). No significant differences between any of them in each case were detected, and they did not significantly deviate from 1.
LER Grain YieldLER Biomass
Pea/barley 1.061.07
Pea/faba bean 1.030.92
Pea/wheat 0.850.96
Table
Table 5. Height differences between the companion crops and pea in each intercropped plot in trials Cord1-18(i), Alm1-19(i) and Cord2-19(i). Different letters on the same crop mean significant differences (LSD test, p < 0.05).
Table 5. Height differences between the companion crops and pea in each intercropped plot in trials Cord1-18(i), Alm1-19(i) and Cord2-19(i). Different letters on the same crop mean significant differences (LSD test, p < 0.05).
Height Difference with Pea (cm)
Barley20.0 a
Wheat12.9 b
Faba bean12.3 b
Table
Table 6. Powdery mildew disease severity (%) on pea seedlings grown in rows 2 and 4 of the boxes. Different letters per treatment (pea monocrop, pea/wheat and pea/barley intercrops) mean significant differences (Tukey test, p < 0.05).
Table 6. Powdery mildew disease severity (%) on pea seedlings grown in rows 2 and 4 of the boxes. Different letters per treatment (pea monocrop, pea/wheat and pea/barley intercrops) mean significant differences (Tukey test, p < 0.05).
Row 2Row 4
Pea33.5 a24.1 b
Pea/wheat11.9 c10.5 d
Pea/barley5.2 e3.6 f
Table
Table 7. Final powdery mildew disease severity (%) in cultivar Messire for each treatment of the different cultivar mixtures trials carried out (S/R: proportions of susceptible cultivar Messire and resistant cultivar Eritreo; SE: standard error).
Table 7. Final powdery mildew disease severity (%) in cultivar Messire for each treatment of the different cultivar mixtures trials carried out (S/R: proportions of susceptible cultivar Messire and resistant cultivar Eritreo; SE: standard error).
S/R in Mixture (%)Cord1-15(c)Cord1-16(c)Alm1-19(c)Cord1-19(c)Cord2-19(c)
100/019.066.728.654.541.6
75/2510.852.630.434.637.1
50/507.345.118.818.09.6
25/756.533.916.118.917.0
SE2.81.74.72.75.3
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Villegas-Fernández, Á.M.; Amarna, A.A.; Moral, J.; Rubiales, D. Crop Diversification to Control Powdery Mildew in Pea. Agronomy 2021, 11, 690. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040690

AMA Style

Villegas-Fernández ÁM, Amarna AA, Moral J, Rubiales D. Crop Diversification to Control Powdery Mildew in Pea. Agronomy. 2021; 11(4):690. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040690

Chicago/Turabian Style

Villegas-Fernández, Ángel M., Ahmad AlAshqar Amarna, Juan Moral, and Diego Rubiales. 2021. "Crop Diversification to Control Powdery Mildew in Pea" Agronomy 11, no. 4: 690. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040690

APA Style

Villegas-Fernández, Á. M., Amarna, A. A., Moral, J., & Rubiales, D. (2021). Crop Diversification to Control Powdery Mildew in Pea. Agronomy, 11(4), 690. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11040690

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