Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp4 (2025): Recent Advances in Agriculture by Young Minds - III

Residual effect of cropping system and nutrient sources on growth, yield and quality of fodder oat (Avena sativa L.)

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.9477
Submitted
17 May 2025
Published
05-11-2025

Abstract

Residual effects of intercropping in maize-soybean systems on subsequent crop growth, yield and quality are highly significant. This study was conducted to evaluate the influence of maize + soybean intercropping and various nutrient management strategies on fodder oat (Avena sativa L.) production. The experiment, established at Lovely Professional University's agricultural research farm, utilized a split-plot design with three replications. Treatments comprised sole maize, sole soybean and maize-soybean intercrops at different row proportions, each combined with distinct nutrient sources. Results demonstrated that the residual effect of sole soybean as the preceding crop with 100 % RDF produced the most favorable outcomes across all measured parameters. This treatment enhanced plant height by 23.65 %, dry matter accumulation by 44.04 %, fodder quality by 40.0 % and biomass yield by 39.87 %, compared to other treatment combinations. Among nutrient management strategies, alternatives such as 70 % RDF combined with two foliar applications of nano-NPK, homemade NPK and plant extracts proved to be effective supplements to conventional fertilization. Correlation analyses revealed that biomass yield was strongly and positively linked to improvements in fodder oat quality and various crop growth parameters. This study indicates the potential of sustainable intercropping systems with optimized nutrient management to maximize agricultural resource use, reduce dependence on synthetic fertilizers and enhance fodder productivity. These findings support the adoption of more effective and environmentally friendly agricultural practices and contribute valuable insights toward addressing challenges in fodder production as well as soil health.

References

  1. 1. Liu X, Meng L, Yin T, Wang X, Zhang S, Cheng Z, et al. Maize/soybean intercrop over time has higher yield stability relative to matched monoculture under different nitrogen application rates. Field Crops Res. 2023;301:109015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2023.109015
  2. 2. Matse DT, Huang C, Huang Y, Yen M. Effects of coinoculation of Rhizobium with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on the nitrogen fixation and nutrient uptake of Trifolium repens in low-phosphorus soil. J Plant Nutr. 2020;43(5):739–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2019.1702205
  3. 3. Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute. IGFRI vision 2050. Jhansi: IGFRI; 2014. 40 p.
  4. 4. Singh TI, Tetarwal AS, Dev RNP, Anand KB. Varietal evaluation of fodder oat through front-line demonstration in the Kachchh region of Gujarat. Forage Res. 2024;50(1):93–7.
  5. 5. Kumari VV, Balloli SS, Ramana DBV, Kumar M, Maruthi V, Prabhakar M, et al. Crop and livestock productivity, soil health improvement and insect dynamics: impact of different fodder-based cropping systems in a rainfed region of India. Agric Syst. 2023;208:103646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2023.103646
  6. 6. Blessing DJ, Gu Y, Cao M, Cui Y, Wang X, Asante-Badu B. Overview of the advantages and limitations of maize-soybean intercropping in sustainable agriculture and future prospects: a review. Chil J Agric Res. 2022;82(1):177–88. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392022000100177
  7. 7. Singh UK, Korav S, Kumar S, Sujatha HT. Influence of planting systems and nutrient management on maize growth, yield and light interception in a maize-soybean intercropping system. Indian J Agric Res. 2025;1–6. https://doi.org/10.18805/IJARe.A-6286
  8. 8. Jadhav VD, Korav S, Sujatha HT, Rajanna GA. Impact of weed management methods on growth, productivity and economics of spring maize under north-western Indo-Gangetic plains of India. Ecol Environ Conserv. 2023;29:7–13. https://doi.org/10.53550/EEC.2023.v29i04s.002
  9. 9. Umesh SK, Santhosh K, Paramesh V, Biswajyoti B. Impact of planting systems and nutrient management on growth and yield of maize and soybean in a maize + soybean cropping system. Plant Sci Today. 2024;11(4):451–7. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.4451
  10. 10. Singh UK, Sujatha HT, Korav S, Jadhav KP, Adishesha K. Impact of maize-legume intercropping on soil fertility management: a review. Agric Rev. 2025;1–11. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.R-2709
  11. 11. Jadhav VD, Korav S, Sujatha HT, Mehta CM. Effect of integrated weed management on weed dynamics in spring maize. Bhartiya Farmers J. 2022;14(2):1434–8.
  12. 12. Kumar D, Singh M, Kumar S, Meena RK, Kumar R. Fodder quality and nitrate estimation of oat grown under different nutrient management options. Indian J Dairy Sci. 2021;74(4):365–71. https://doi.org/10.33785/IJDS.2021.v74i04.00
  13. 13. Xu Z, Li C, Zhang C, Yu Y, van der Werf W, Zhang F. Intercropping maize and soybean increases efficiency of land and fertilizer nitrogen use; a meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2020;246:107661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107661
  14. 14. Ukaogo PO, Ewuzie U, Onwuka CV. Environmental pollution: causes, effects and remedies. In: Brar SK, Dhillon S, Al-Tawaha MNNA, editors. Microorganisms for a sustainable environment and health. Cambridge (MA): Elsevier; 2020. p. 419-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819001-2.00021-8
  15. 15. Dangi S. Oat as green fodder and its intercropping benefits: a review. Agric Rev. 2020;42(1):66–72. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.R-168
  16. 16. Shen L, Wang X, Liu T, Wei W, Zhang S, Keyhani AB, et al. Border row effects on the distribution of root and soil resources in maize–soybean strip intercropping systems. Soil Tillage Res. 2023;233:105812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2023.105812
  17. 17. Li C, Stomph TJ, Makowski D, Li H, Voisin AS, Zhang C, et al. The productive performance of intercropping. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023;120(2):e2201886120. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2201886120
  18. 18. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official methods of analysis. 11th ed. Washington (DC): Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 1970.
  19. 19. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed. Washington (DC): Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 1990.
  20. 20. Besra SE, Sharma RM, Gomes A. Anti-inflammatory effect of petroleum ether extract of leaves of Litchi chinensis Gaertn (Sapindaceae). J Ethnopharmacol. 1996;54(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8741(96)01440-7
  21. 21. Van Soest PJ, Robertson JB, Lewis BA. Methods for dietary fibre, neutral detergent fibre and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J Dairy Sci. 1991;74:3583–97. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(91)78551-2
  22. 22. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1984. 680 p.
  23. 23. de Notaris M, Peixoto C, Mortensen L, Rasmussen J. Cover crop biomass production as a predictor of nitrogen fertilizer replacement value-legumes secure positive effects. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2025;381:109446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2024.109446
  24. 24. Adeleke MA, Haruna IM. Residual nitrogen contributions from grain legumes to the growth and development of succeeding maize crop. Int Sch Res Notices. 2012;2012:213729. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/213729
  25. 25. Miller J, Beasley B, Drury C, Larney F, Hao X. Influence of long-term application of composted or stockpiled feedlot manure with straw or wood chips on soil cation exchange capacity. Compost Sci Util. 2016;24:54–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/1065657X.2015.1055009
  26. 26. Wang J, Cheng Y, Jiang Y, Sun B, Fan J, Zhang J, et al. Effects of 14 years of repeated pig manure application on gross nitrogen transformation in an upland red soil in China. Plant Soil. 2017;415:161–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-3156-y
  27. 27. Hayat M, Ali S, Siddique MT, Chatha TH. Biological nitrogen fixation of summer legumes and their residual effects on subsequent rainfed wheat yield. Pak J Bot. 2008;40(3):711–22.
  28. 28. Hartmann TE, Yue S, Schulz R, Chen X, Zhang F, Müller T. Nitrogen dynamics, apparent mineralization and balance calculations in a maize–wheat double cropping system of the North China Plain. Field Crops Res. 2014;160:22–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.02.014
  29. 29. Yong Y, Shahrajabian MH. Effects of intercropping and rotation on forage yield and quality of oat and common vetch in Jilin province, China. Res Crop Ecophysiol. 2017;12:9–23. https://journals.iau.ir/article_539172.html.
  30. 30. Helander CA. Residual nitrogen effects on a succeeding oat (Avena sativa L.) crop of clover species and ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) undersown in winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Acta Agric Scand B Soil Plant Sci. 2004;54:67–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/09064710410024390
  31. 31. Yadav MR, Singh M, Kumar R, Ram H, Meena RK, Makarana G, et al. Inclusion of legume and integrated use of organic and inorganic nutrient sources can improve the productivity and qualitative traits of oat straw. J Plant Nutr. 2022;45:1991–2002. https://doi.org/10.1080/01904167.2022.2063137
  32. 32. Qamar IA, Ahmad M, Riaz G, Khan S. Performance of summer forage legumes and their residual effect on subsequent oat crop in subtropical subhumid Pothwar. Pak J Agric Res. 2014;51(1):27–32.
  33. 33. Louarn G, Pereira E, Fustec J, Mary B, Voisin AS, de Carvalho PC. The amounts and dynamics of nitrogen transfer to grasses differ in alfalfa and white clover-based grass-legume mixtures as a result of rooting strategies and rhizodeposit quality. Plant Soil. 2015;389:289–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-014-2354-8
  34. 34. Costa NR, Crusciol CA, Trivelin PCO, Pariz CM, Costa C, Castilhos AM, et al. Recovery of 15N fertilizer in intercropped maize, grass and legume and residual effect in black oat under tropical conditions. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2021;310:107226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2020.107226
  35. 35. Stomph TJ, Dordas C, Baranger A, de Rijk J, Dong B, Evers JB, et al. Designing intercrops for high yield, yield stability and efficient use of resources: are there principles. Adv Agron. 2020;160(1):1–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2019.10.002
  36. 36. Tribouillois H, Cohan JP, Justas E. Cover crop mixtures including legume produce ecosystem services of nitrate capture and green manuring: assessment combining experimentation and modelling. Plant Soil. 2016;401:347–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-015-2734-8
  37. 37. Kour M, Dwivedi MC, Rahimzai AA, Kour S, Singh P, Bochalya RS. Productivity and profitability of fodder oat (Avena sativa L.) as affected by integrated nutrient management: a review. J Exp Agric Int. 2024;46(6):120–30. https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2024/v46i62464

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.