Breeding Beyond Monoculture: Putting the “Intercrop” Into Crops

Bourke, Peter M.; Evers, Jochem B.; Bijma, P.; Apeldoorn, Dirk van; Smulders, M.J.M.; Kuyper, Thomas W.; Mommer, Liesje; Bonnema, Guusje

doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.734167

Cited by 64 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 142 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These different breeding targets present novel opportunities and challenges for existing breeding programs, especially when considering plant–plant and plant–environment interactions ( Gaba et al, 2015 ). Breeding for Category 1 traits fits readily into existing breeding programs, although selection in sole crops does not necessarily produce genotypes best suited to intercrops ( Litrico and Violle, 2015 ; Bourke et al, 2021 ). Category 2 breeding traits are also likely to be identified within existing breeding programs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent advances in breeding tools and approaches highlight the growing interest in their potential use for intercrop breeding. Application of Function-Structural Plant Models (FSPM) and process-based minimalistic models could significantly reduce the complexity of intercrop breeding, and minimize the need for experimental evaluation of multiple crop genotype combinations and spatial designs ( Berghuijs et al, 2020 ; Blanc et al, 2021 ; Bourke et al, 2021 ). While simulation has shown the utility of genomic selection for intercrop breeding ( Bančič et al, 2021 ), using both phenotypic and genomic selection tools is strongly recommended ( Annicchiarico et al, 2021 ; Wolfe et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the diversification of agroecosystems through intercropping is gaining attention, the widespread adoption and integration of intercrops will only be successful through the inclusion and collaboration of all supply chain actors, and the application of different breeding approaches. This requires challenging the “predominant monoculture agricultural paradigm” prevalent in breeding programs ( Bourke et al, 2021 ), and implementing diversification strategies in every process from field to fork.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Selection for “species synergy” ( Table 1 ), that is, traits and trait combinations that optimize complementary interactions above and belowground, is expected to “force the positive relation between diversity and yield” ( Litrico and Violle, 2015 ). Aboveground traits include plant morphology, physiology, phenology, and developmental trajectories ( Lithourgidis et al, 2011 ; Isaacs et al, 2016 ; Saxena et al, 2018 ; Bourke et al, 2021 ; Nelson et al, 2021 ). Belowground traits (summarized in Homulle et al, 2021 ) include rooting patterns and architecture ( Lithourgidis et al, 2011 ; Streit et al, 2019 ; Bourke et al, 2021 ; Timaeus et al, 2021 ), nutrient-releasing or pathogen-suppressive root exudates, and associations with beneficial microbes including common mycorrhizal networks ( Barto et al, 2012 ; Brooker et al, 2015 ; Bourke et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Desirable Breeding Traits In Intercrop Supply Chainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Aboveground traits include plant morphology, physiology, phenology, and developmental trajectories ( Lithourgidis et al, 2011 ; Isaacs et al, 2016 ; Saxena et al, 2018 ; Bourke et al, 2021 ; Nelson et al, 2021 ). Belowground traits (summarized in Homulle et al, 2021 ) include rooting patterns and architecture ( Lithourgidis et al, 2011 ; Streit et al, 2019 ; Bourke et al, 2021 ; Timaeus et al, 2021 ), nutrient-releasing or pathogen-suppressive root exudates, and associations with beneficial microbes including common mycorrhizal networks ( Barto et al, 2012 ; Brooker et al, 2015 ; Bourke et al, 2021 ). A positive effect of increased plant diversity on soil communities and plant microbiomes ( Strecker et al, 2015 ; Tiemann et al, 2015 ; Saleem et al, 2020 ) can act as a driver for the diversity–productivity relationship ( Raynaud et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Desirable Breeding Traits In Intercrop Supply Chainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Supply Chain Perspectives on Breeding for Legume–Cereal Intercrops

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Compared to sole crops, intercropping—especially of legumes and cereals—has great potential to improve crop yield and resource use efficiency, and can provide many other ecosystem services. However, the beneficial effects of intercrops are often greatly dependent on the end use as well as the specific species and genotypes being co-cultivated. In addition, intercropping imposes added complexity at different levels of the supply chain. While the need for developing crop genotypes for intercropping has long been recognized, most cultivars on the market are optimized for sole cropping and may not necessarily perform well in intercrops. This paper aims to place breeding targets for intercrop-adapted genotypes in a supply chain perspective. Three case studies of legumes and cereals intercropped for human consumption are used to identify desirable intercrop traits for actors across the supply chains, many of which are not targeted by traditional breeding for sole crops, including certain seed attributes, and some of which do not fit traditional breeding schemes, such as breeding for synchronized maturity and species synergies. Incorporating these traits into intercrop breeding could significantly reduce complexity along the supply chain. It is concluded that the widespread adoption and integration of intercrops will only be successful through the inclusion and collaboration of all supply chain actors, the application of breeding approaches that take into account the complexity of intercrop supply chains, and the implementation of diversification strategies in every process from field to fork.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Desirable Breeding Traits In Intercrop Supply Chainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Desirable Breeding Traits In Intercrop Supply Chainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Supply Chain Perspectives on Breeding for Legume–Cereal Intercrops

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Molecular analysis of St. Augustinegrass cultivar mixtures composition over time and latitude

van der Laat,

Leon,

Dale

et al. 2024

Crop Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

St. Augustinegrass [Stenotaphrum secundatum (Walt.) Kuntze] is commonly planted in residential and commercial landscapes as a cultivar monoculture predisposing this lawn to pest invasion and high‐maintenance inputs. Researchers have suggested that increasing genetic diversity by growing cultivars in mixtures may increase turfgrass stress resilience. However, the stability and uniformity of those mixtures has not been studied. The present study was carried out to evaluate the stability of St. Augustinegrass cultivars mixtures over time and across three latitudes. The study was conducted in Citra and Fort Lauderdale, FL, and Jackson Springs, NC. Simple‐sequence repeats markers were used to genotype leaf samples of St. Augustinegrass cultivars planted in two‐ and four‐cultivar mixtures. Leaf samples were collected 1 and 3 years after establishment. In all locations, cultivar richness and evenness declined over time. Similarly, the relative abundance of the least persistent cultivars decreased approximately 50%–100% depending on cultivar and location. Differences in growth patterns among cultivars resulted in cultivar displacement and the predominance of a single cultivar. Cultivars that covered the ground faster or formed dense canopies early after establishment were dominant at the end of the study. Locally developed cultivars tended to be more dominant in their original latitude. The use of cultivar mixtures may help the identification of vigorous, competitive, and stress tolerant cultivars in turfgrass breeding programs. However, their commercial use remains challenging as if the patterns observed here for 3 years are representative of a continuous trend, and they do not persist over time.

show abstract

Performance of a winter wheat composite cross population in two temperate agroforestry systems – a Swiss case study

den Hond-Vaccaro,

Mascher,

Six

et al. 2024

Agroforest Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In agroforestry systems (AFS), where environmental conditions are highly variable at small spatial scales, the use of uniform genetic material of a single cultivar commonly grown in monoculture cropping might not be optimal. However, the use of composite cross populations (CCPs) that contain an inherent genetic variability might be a promising approach under the environmental variability created by trees in AFS. In this experimental trial, the performance of a CCP (‘CC-2 k’) of winter wheat was compared to a commercial variety (‘Wiwa’) in a split-plot design at two AFS (Feusisberg and Wollerau) in Central Switzerland. Yield of CC-2k (1.9 ± 0.7 Mg ha−1) was higher than yield of Wiwa (0.7 ± 0.4 Mg ha−1) in Wollerau, but yields did not differ between CCP and variety in Feusisberg (1.9 ± 0.7 Mg ha−1 and 2.0 ± 0.8 Mg ha−1, respectively). The interaction of site and variety was significant (p < 0.05). Wiwa had a higher protein, Fe and Ca content than CC-2k. Therefore, while the CC-2k outperformed Wiwa in terms of yield in one of the two AFS, Wiwa outperformed CC-2k in terms of quality. In this one-year field experiment, the composite cross population might have been better adapted to the heterogenous environment of agroforestry systems (found in one out of two sites) but failed to reach the high-quality product of modern cultivars. These initial results must be seen as first insights which need to be complemented by larger field experiments for generalisation. The findings of this study may be interpreted as an indication that further improvements in terms of quality might make CCPs a viable option for diversified agricultural systems with larger environmental heterogeneity than common monoculture cropping systems.

show abstract

Breeding Beyond Monoculture: Putting the “Intercrop” Into Crops

Cited by 64 publications

References 142 publications

Supply Chain Perspectives on Breeding for Legume–Cereal Intercrops

Supply Chain Perspectives on Breeding for Legume–Cereal Intercrops

Molecular analysis of St. Augustinegrass cultivar mixtures composition over time and latitude

Performance of a winter wheat composite cross population in two temperate agroforestry systems – a Swiss case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About