Post on 22-Mar-2017
transcript
1
Michele PisanteDeputy Commissioner, Council for Agricultural Research and
Economics, RomaChair, Agronomy and crop sciences research and education center
University of Teramo, Italy
PULSE CROPS FOR SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION INTENSIFICATION
SOIL FERTILITY
N biological fixation
Atmospheric N Pulses feed human
Pulses feed soils
PULSE CROPS FOR
SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION INTENSIFICATION
Relationship between the C cost of seed production for selected legume and non-legume crops. In order to compare crop production performance, various isoproduction curves expressing the product of the energy cost of 1 g of seed by the yield have been indicated
Munier-Jolain and Salon, (2005); Jensen et al. (2012)
1962 1972 1982 1992 2002 2012
Cool-season legumesChickpea 12.2 10.5 10.3 9.3 10.4 12.1
Pea 10.3 8.0 7.4 7.2 6.0 6.3Faba bean 6.1 4.2 3.3 2.9 2.7 2.4
Lentil 1.6 1.8 2.6 3.3 3.6 4.2Vetches 2.4 1.7 1.0 1.0 0.9 0.6Lupins 1.4 0.8 0.6 1.2 1.2 0.9
Warm-season legumesCommon bean 23.5 22.8 26.2 24.8 27.5 28.8
Cowpea 2.7 4.2 3.9 8.5 9.9 10.7Pigeonpea 2.7 2.7 3.4 4.2 4.4 5.3
Major cereals, for comparisonWheat 207.6 213.8 238.5 222.5 213.8 216.7
Rice 119.5 132.2 141.6 147.4 147.6 163.5Maize 103.5 114.9 124.4 136.8 137.6 177.0
Trend for word acreage (Million hectares)
Rubiales and Mikic (2015) - Source: FAOSTAT, 2013
Plant breeding progress on the Pea
Plant architecture(semi-dwarf habit;
leaflessness)
Improved standing abilityImproved winter survival
under autumn sowing
Cultivars Years of release Relative yield, t ha-1
Spacial - Fraser 2011 - 2012 1.6
Spirale - Isard 2003 - 2005 1.2
Sydney - Cheyenne 1998 - 1999 1.0
Average grain yield increase of varieties bred in different years across sites of north, centre and southern Italy (Annichiarico et al., unpublished data)
Mean grain, crude protein and energy (Milk Feed Units) yield of 4 grain legumes across Italian subcontinental-and Mediterranean-climate sites a
a As represented by the locally top-yielding cultivar out of 49 pea, 24 faba bean, 11 white lupin and 16 narrow-leafed lupin varieties (Annichiarico, 2008).
Species Yield (t ha-1)
Protein (%)
Crude protein (t ha-1)
Milk Feed(UNITS ha-1)
Pea 4.4 22.8 1.0 5080
Faba bean 3.4 29.4 1.0 3806
White lupin 3.5 38.8 1.4 4339
Narrow-leafed lupin
3.1 30.6 0.9 3807
Alkaloids Aster Lublanc Luxor Lutteur Multitalia Rosettalupanine 60.8 11218.6 30.4 863.2 1377.9 361.813-α-tigloyloxylupanine 37.4 102.0 6.7 44.4 11.8 6.4albine 30.2 1012.4 11.5 162.0 136.8 29.313-OH-lupanine 17.4 491.7 3.1 157.4 12.4 4.7tetrahydrhorombifoline 12.8 24.1 1.0 8.8 2.9 1.1ammodendrine 12.1 70.5 2.5 20.9 8.9 3.4angustifoline 12.1 268.4 3.6 65.0 20.7 6.4isolupanina 10.1 59.7 2.4 15.9 7.8 3.33-β-tigloyloxylupanine 6.2 16.6 2.4 7.5 1.5 1.511,12-dehydrolupanine - 23.7 - - - -11,12-dehydrosparteine - 28.8 - - - -17-oxolupanine - 25.2 - - - -isosparteine - 14.5 - - - -N-formylalbine - 13.0 - - - -N-formylangustifoline - 18.5 - - - -
Shar
edU
nsha
red
L. a
lbus
gro
up
Values expressed as mg/Kg
Aster Lublanc Lutteur Multitalia
(3- 6 year crop rotations in 5 case studies across Europe)
21 - 88 kg ha-1 of N fertilizers could be saved on average in grain legume rotations compared to rotations without legumes
Preissel et al. (2015)
Farm-economically relevant pre-crop effects that increase GMs of subsequent crops
Process Protein crop Farm Agri-food system Global
Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF)
No N fertiliser requiredReduced N2O emissionsBelow ground biodiversity changes
Reduced N fertilizer requirement
Reduced fossil energy (natural gas) useReduced CO2 emissions from industry
Reduced global GHG emissions
Grain protein synthesis
Lower crop yield (compared with cereals) due to resource demands of protein synthesis
Increased on-farm supply of protein
Increased diversity of ‘protein’ crop commodity supplies
Reduced demand for globally traded soyaReduced direct land-use change pressures
N transformation in soil
Reduced N2O emissions Effect in both direction on nitrate leaching Reduced global GHG emissions
Soil development
Improved water infiltration, reduced cultivation energy, increased crop yields
Phosphorous transformations
Increased mobilisation of soil P
Reduced optimum levels of plant-available P
Reduced mining of phosphate rock (minor effect)
Soil carbon transformations Positive soil carbon balance
Increased soil organic matter, higher and more stable crop yields
Increased soil carbon sequestration (minor effect)
Weed, pest and disease development
Increased cropping system yield.Reduced emissions of pesticides to water
Species interactions
Increased pollen and nectar provision. Increased soil fauna diversity
Larger population of insects supporting wider wildlife
Resource and Environmental effects of legumes arising from key agroecological processes operating at four levels of scale
Reckling et al. (2014)
11