Exploring options for managing strategies for pea-barley intercropping using a modeling approach

A modeling Study was carried out into pea-barley intercropping in northern Europe. The two objectives were (a) to compare pea-barley intercropping to sole cropping in terms of grain and nitrogen yield amounts and stability, and (b) to explore options for managing pea-barley intercropping systems in order to maximize the biomass produced and the grain and nitrogen yields according to the available resources, such as light, water and nitrogen. The study consisted of simulations taking into account soil and weather variability among three sites located in northern European Countries (Denmark, United Kingdom and France), and using 10 years of weather records. A preliminary stage evaluated the STICS intercrop model's ability to predict grain and nitrogen yields of the two species, using a 2-year dataset from trials conducted at the three sites. The work was carried out in two phases, (a) the model was run to investigate the potentialities of intercrops as compared to sole crops, and (b) the model was run to explore options for managing pea-barley intercropping, asking the following three questions: (i) in order to increase light capture, Would it be worth delaying the sowing dates of one species? (ii) How to manage sowing density and seed proportion of each species in the intercrop to improve total grain yield and N use efficiency? (iii) How to optimize the use of nitrogen resources by choosing the most suitable preceding crop and/or the most appropriate soil? It was found that (1) intercropping made better use of environmental resources as regards yield amount and stability than sole cropping, with a noticeable site effect, (2) pea growth in intercrops was strongly linked to soil moisture, and barley yield was determined by nitrogen uptake and light interception due to its height relative to pea, (3) sowing barley before pea led to a relative grain yield reduction averaged over all three sites, but sowing strategy must be adapted to the location, being dependent on temperature and thus latitude, (4) density and species proportions had a small effect on total grain yield, underlining the interspecific offset in the use of environmental growth resources which led to similar total grain yields whatever the pea-barley design, and (5) long-term strategies including mineralization management through organic residue supply and rotation management were very valuable, always favoring intercrop total grain yield and N accumulation. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

The EU societal awareness of landscape indicator: a review of its meaning, utility and performance across different scales

There is increasing recognition that agricultural landscapes meet multiple societal needs and demands beyond provision of economic and environmental goods and services. Accordingly, there have been significant calls for the inclusion of societal, amenity and cultural values in agri-environmental landscape indicators to assist policy makers in monitoring the wider impacts of land-based policies. However, capturing the amenity and cultural values that rural agrarian areas provide, by use of such indicators, presents significant challenges. The EU social awareness of landscape indicator represents a new class of generalized social indicator using a top-down methodology to capture the social dimensions of landscape without reference to the specific structural and cultural characteristics of individual landscapes. This paper reviews this indicator in the context of existing agri-environmental indicators and their differing design concepts. Using a stakeholder consultation approach in five case study regions, the potential and limitations of the indicator are evaluated, with a particular focus on its perceived meaning, utility and performance in the context of different user groups and at different geographical scales. This analysis supplements previous EU-wide assessments, through regional scale assessment of the limitations and potentialities of the indicator and the need for further data collection. The evaluation finds that the perceived meaning of the indicator does not vary with scale, but in common with all mapped indicators, the usefulness of the indicator, to different user groups, does change with scale of presentation. This indicator is viewed as most useful when presented at the scale of governance at which end users operate. The relevance of the different sub-components of the indicator are also found to vary across regions.