EDITED BY : Antonio M. De Ron, Francesca Sparvoli, José J. Pueyo and Didier Bazile
PUBLISHED IN : Frontiers in Plant Science
licensed to Frontiers Media SA (“Frontiers”) or its licensees and/or subcontractors. The copyright in the text of individual articles is the property of their respective authors, subject to a license granted to Frontiers. The compilation of articles constituting
this e-book, wherever published, as well as the compilation of all other content on this site, is the exclusive property of Frontiers. For the conditions for downloading and copying of e-books from Frontiers’ website, please see the Terms for Website Use. If purchasing Frontiers e-books from other websites or sources, the conditions of the website concerned apply. Images and graphics not forming part
of user-contributed materials may not be downloaded or copied without permission. Individual articles may be downloaded
and reproduced in accordance with the principles of the CC-BY licence subject to any copyright or other notices. They may not be re-sold as an e-book. As author or other contributor you grant a CC-BY licence to others to reproduce your articles, including any graphics and third-party materials supplied by you, in accordance with the Conditions for Website Use and subject to any copyright notices which you include in connection with your articles and materials. All copyright, and all rights therein,
are protected by national and international copyright laws. The above represents a summary only. For the full conditions see the Conditions for Authors and the Conditions for Website Use.
ISSN 1664-8714 ISBN 978-2-88945-162-3 DOI 10.3389/978-2-88945-162-3
permanent online open access to all its publications, but this alone is not enough to realize our grand goals.
Frontiers Journal Series
The Frontiers Journal Series is a multi-tier and interdisciplinary set of open-access, online journals, promising a paradigm shift from the current review, selection and dissemination processes in academic publishing. All Frontiers journals are driven by researchers for researchers; therefore, they constitute a service to the scholarly community. At the same time, the Frontiers Journal Series operates on a revolutionary invention, the tiered publishing system, initially addressing specific communities of scholars, and gradually climbing up to broader public understanding, thus serving the interests of the lay society, too.
Dedication to Quality
Each Frontiers article is a landmark of the highest quality, thanks to genuinely collaborative interactions between authors and review editors, who include some of the world’s best academicians. Research must be certified by peers before entering a stream of knowledge that may eventually reach the public - and shape society; therefore, Frontiers only applies the most rigorous and unbiased reviews.
Frontiers revolutionizes research publishing by freely delivering the most outstanding research, evaluated with no bias from both the academic and social point of view. By applying the most advanced information technologies, Frontiers is catapulting scholarly publishing into a new generation.
What are Frontiers Research Topics?
Frontiers Research Topics are very popular trademarks of the Frontiers Journals Series: they are collections of at least ten articles, all centered on a particular subject. With their unique mix of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Frontiers Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author by contacting the Frontiers Editorial Office: [email protected]
Topic Editors:
Antonio M. De Ron, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Spain Francesca Sparvoli, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (CNR), Italy José J. Pueyo, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Spain
Didier Bazile, French Agricultural Research and International Cooperation Organization
(CIRAD) & Research Unit Management of Renewable Resources and the Environment (UPR GREEN) (CIRAD), France
Grain legumes, together with quinoa and amaranth (pseudocereals) and other crops are attrac-tive candidates to satisfy the growing demand for plant protein production worldwide for food and feed. Despite their high value, many protein crops have not been adequately assessed and numerous species are underutilized. Special attention has to be paid to genetic diversity and
Seeds of common bean and maize. Seeds of legume and cereal crops are the main source of plant proteins for food and feed.
a key role in the crop diversification and sustainable intensification of agriculture, particularly in light of new and urgent challenges, such as climate change and food security. In addition, the role of legumes in nutrition has been recognized as a relevant source of plant protein, together with other benefits for health. Chapters dealing with common bean, lupine, soybean, lentil, cowpea and Medicago are included in this book. Most contributions deal with legumes, but the significant number of papers on different aspects of quinoa gives an idea of the increasing importance of this protein crop. Pseudocereals, such as quinoa and amaranth, are good sources of proteins. Quinoa and amaranth seeds contain lysine, an essential amino acid that is limited in other grains. Nutritional evaluations of quinoa indicate that it constitutes a source of com-plete protein with a good balance among all of the amino acids needed for human diet, and also important minerals, vitamins, high quality oils and flavonoids. Other protein crops also included in this book are hemp, cotton and cereals (maize, wheat and rice). Although cereals protein content is not high, their seeds are largely used for human consumption.
In this book are included articles dealing with all different aspects of protein crops, including nutritional value, breeding, genetic diversity, biotic and abiotic stress, cropping systems or omics, which may be considered crucial to help provide the plant proteins of the future. Overall, the participation of 169 authors in 29 chapters in this book indicates an active scientific community in the field, which appears to be an encouraging reflect of the global awareness of the need for sustainability and the promising future of proteins crops as a source of food and feed.
Citation: De Ron, A. M., Sparvoli, F., Pueyo, J. J., Bazile, D., eds. (2017). The Challenge of Protein
Crops as a Sustainable Source of Food and Feed for the Future. Lausanne: Frontiers Media. doi: 10.3389/978-2-88945-162-3
07 Editorial: Protein Crops: Food and Feed for the Future
Antonio M. De Ron, Francesca Sparvoli, José J. Pueyo and Didier Bazile
Chapter 1. Grain Legumes
11 Trade-Offs between Economic and Environmental Impacts of Introducing Legumes into Cropping Systems
Moritz Reckling, Göran Bergkvist, Christine A. Watson, Frederick L. Stoddard, Peter M. Zander, Robin L. Walker, Aurelio Pristeri, Ion Toncea and Johann Bachinger
26 Proteomics and Metabolomics: Two Emerging Areas for Legume Improvement
Abirami Ramalingam, Himabindu Kudapa, Lekha T. Pazhamala, Wolfram Weckwerth and Rajeev K. Varshney
47 Enhancing Legume Ecosystem Services through an Understanding of Plant– Pollinator Interplay
María J. Suso, Penelope J. Bebeli, Stefanie Christmann, Célia Mateus, Valeria Negri, Miguel A. A. Pinheiro de Carvalho, Renzo Torricelli and Maria M. Veloso
65 Influence of Rhizoctonia solani and Trichoderma spp. in growth of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and in the induction of plant defense-related genes
Sara Mayo, Santiago Gutiérrez, Monica G. Malmierca, Alicia Lorenzana, M. Piedad Campelo, Rosa Hermosa and Pedro A. Casquero
76 Development of a qPCR Strategy to Select Bean Genes Involved in Plant Defense Response and Regulated by the Trichoderma velutinum – Rhizoctonia solani Interaction
Sara Mayo, Eleonora Cominelli, Francesca Sparvoli, Oscar González-López, Alvaro Rodríguez-González, Santiago Gutiérrez and Pedro A. Casquero
88 Seedling Emergence and Phenotypic Response of Common Bean Germplasm
to Different Temperatures under Controlled Conditions and in Open Field
Antonio M. De Ron, Ana P. Rodiño, Marta Santalla, Ana M. González, María J. Lema, Isaura Martín and Jaime Kigel
100 Exploitation of Common Bean Flours with Low Antinutrient Content for Making Nutritionally Enhanced Biscuits
Francesca Sparvoli, Monica Laureati, Roberto Pilu, Ella Pagliarini, Ivan Toschi, Gianluca Giuberti, Paola Fortunati, Maria G. Daminati, Eleonora Cominelli and Roberto Bollini
114 The future of lupin as a protein crop in Europe
M. Mercedes Lucas, Frederick L. Stoddard, Paolo Annicchiarico, Juana Frías, Cristina Martínez-Villaluenga, Daniela Sussmann, Marcello Duranti, Alice Seger, Peter M. Zander and José J. Pueyo
Eliot M. Herman and Monica A. Schmidt
130 Agricultural practices altered soybean seed protein, oil, fatty acids, sugars, and minerals in the Midsouth USA
Nacer Bellaloui, H. Arnold Bruns, Hamed K. Abbas, Alemu Mengistu, Daniel K. Fisher and Krishna N. Reddy
144 Additive interactions of unrelated viruses in mixed infections of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp)
Imade Y. Nsa and Kehinde T. Kareem
157 Genetic Diversity of Cultivated Lentil (Lens culinaris Medik.) and Its Relation to the World’s Agro-ecological Zones
Hamid Khazaei, Carolyn T. Caron, Michael Fedoruk, Marwan Diapari, Albert Vandenberg, Clarice J. Coyne, Rebecca McGee and Kirstin E. Bett
164 Transcriptional profiling of Medicago truncatula during Erysiphe pisi infection
Miguel Curto, Franziska Krajinski, Armin Schlereth and Diego Rubiales
Chapter 2. Quinoa and Amaranth
176 The Global Expansion of Quinoa: Trends and Limits
Didier Bazile, Sven-Erik Jacobsen and Alexis Verniau
182 Development of a Worldwide Consortium on Evolutionary Participatory Breeding in Quinoa
Kevin M. Murphy, Didier Bazile, Julianne Kellogg and Maryam Rahmanian
189 Worldwide Evaluations of Quinoa: Preliminary Results from Post International Year of Quinoa FAO Projects in Nine Countries
Didier Bazile, Cataldo Pulvento, Alexis Verniau, Mohammad S. Al-Nusairi, Djibi Ba, Joelle Breidy, Layth Hassan, Maarouf I. Mohammed, Omurbek Mambetov, Munira Otambekova, Niaz Ali Sepahvand, Amr Shams, Djamel Souici, Khaled Miri and Stefano Padulosi
207 Quinoa for Marginal Environments: Toward Future Food and Nutritional Security in MENA and Central Asia Regions
Redouane Choukr-Allah, Nanduri K. Rao, Abdelaziz Hirich, Mohammad Shahid, Abdullah Alshankiti, Kristina Toderich, Shagufta Gill and Khalil Ur Rahman Butt
218 Elevated Genetic Diversity in an F2:6 Population of Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa) Developed through an Inter-ecotype Cross
Ouafae Benlhabib, Noura Boujartani, Peter J. Maughan, Sven E. Jacobsen and Eric N. Jellen
227 Quinoa Seed Quality Response to Sodium Chloride and Sodium Sulfate Salinity
Geyang Wu, Adam J. Peterson, Craig F. Morris and Kevin M. Murphy
235 New Insight into Quinoa Seed Quality under Salinity: Changes in Proteomic and Amino Acid Profiles, Phenolic Content, and Antioxidant Activity of Protein Extracts
Iris Aloisi, Luigi Parrotta, Karina B. Ruiz, Claudia Landi, Luca Bini, Giampiero Cai, Stefania Biondi and Stefano Del Duca
264 How Integrated Management Strategies Promote Protein Quality of Cotton Embryos: High Levels of Soil Available N, N Assimilation and Protein Accumulation Rate
HongKun Yang, YaLi Meng, BingLin Chen, XingYue Zhang, YouHua Wang, WenQing Zhao and ZhiGuo Zhou
278 Cottonseed protein, oil, and mineral status in near-isogenic Gossypium hirsutum cotton lines expressing fuzzy/linted and fuzzless/linted seed phenotypes under field conditions
Nacer Bellaloui, Salliana R. Stetina and Rickie B. Turley
292 Where do Protein Bodies of Cereal Seeds Come From?
Emanuela Pedrazzini, Davide Mainieri, Claudia A. Marrano and Alessandro Vitale
299 Bacterial Communities in the Rhizosphere of Amilaceous Maize (Zea mays L.) as Assessed by Pyrosequencing
David Correa-Galeote, Eulogio J. Bedmar, Antonio J. Fernández-González, Manuel Fernández-López and Gregorio J. Arone
307 Variations in Protein Concentration and Nitrogen Sources in Different Positions of Grain in Wheat
Xiangnan Li, Longjing Zhou, Fulai Liu, Qin Zhou, Jian Cai, Xiao Wang, Tingbo Dai, Weixing Cao and Dong Jiang
317 Variability in Seed Traits in a Collection of Cannabis sativa L. Genotypes
Incoronata Galasso, Roberto Russo, Sergio Mapelli, Elena Ponzoni, Ida M. Brambilla, Giovanna Battelli and Remo Reggiani
Edited and reviewed by: Diego Rubiales, Instituto de Agricultura Sostenible (CSIC), Spain *Correspondence: Antonio M. De Ron [email protected] Specialty section: This article was submitted to Crop Science and Horticulture, a section of the journal Frontiers in Plant Science Received: 21 December 2016 Accepted: 18 January 2017 Published: 06 February 2017 Citation: De Ron AM, Sparvoli F, Pueyo JJ and Bazile D (2017) Editorial: Protein Crops: Food and Feed for the Future. Front. Plant Sci. 8:105. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00105
Editorial: Protein Crops: Food and
Feed for the Future
Antonio M. De Ron1*, Francesca Sparvoli2, José J. Pueyo3and Didier Bazile4, 5
1Biology of Agrosystems, Misión Biológica de Galicia, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Pontevedra,
Spain,2Institute of Agricultural Biology and Biotechnology, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Milan, Italy,3Institute of
Agricultural Sciences (ICA), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Madrid, Spain,4Directorate General in
Charge of Research and Strategy, French Agricultural Research and International Cooperation Organization (CIRAD), Montpellier, France,5Research Unit Management of Renewable Resources and the Environment (UPR GREEN) (CIRAD),
Montpellier, France
Keywords: cereals, legumes, plant proteins, quinoa
Editorial on the Research Topic
Protein Crops: Food and Feed for the Future
Because of the protein content of their seeds, grain legumes, pseudocereals, and other crops are candidates to satisfy the growing demand for plant protein for food and feed. Crop production worldwide is highly specialized and currently relies on a very small number of species, raising questions about the sustainability of farming (Tilman et al., 2002). The role of legumes in nutrition has been recognized as a relevant source of plant protein together with other benefits for health. Soybean, peanut, common bean, pea, lupine, chickpea, faba bean, lentil, grass pea, cowpea, and pigeon pea are currently the most important legumes for human consumption and animal feed (De Ron, 2015). The integration of legumes into agriculture could reduce the current protein deficit and contribute to the transition to more sustainable agricultural systems. Legumes contribute to the sustainable improvement of the environment due to their ability to fix nitrogen and their beneficial effects on the soil (Drevon et al., 2015), having a tremendous potential in the reclamation of poor and marginal lands for agriculture (Coba de la Pe-a and Pueyo, 2012). Other protein crops include some minor crops, such as flax, hemp, or caraway, and some cereals have a certain potential, for they are quite abundant in food and feed. However, most importantly, chenopods called pseudocereals, such as amaranth and quinoa are recognized as excellent sources of protein and their seeds contain in particular the lysine, an essential amino acid that is limited in cereals. Nutritional evaluations of quinoa indicate that it constitutes a source of complete protein with a good balance of all of the amino acids needed for human diet, and also important minerals, vitamins, high quality oils, and flavonoids.
In this Research Topic (Protein crops: Food and feed for the future), were included papers dealing with different aspects of protein crops, such as breeding and selection of varieties for high yield or specific traits, biodiversity, sustainable cultivation, food and feed uses, nutritional value, health benefits, and socio-economic or environmental issues, which may be considered crucial to help provide the plant proteins of the future.
A novel assessment framework was developed by Reckling et al. and applied in five case study regions across Europe with the objective of evaluating trade-offs between economic and environmental effects of integrating legumes into cropping systems. Cropping systems with legumes significantly reduced nitrous oxide emissions and N fertilizer use in arable and forage systems. However, grain legumes reduced gross margins in 3 of 5 regions, while forage legumes
intercropping with bur clover.
Therefore, increasing the cultivation of legumes could lead to economic competitive cropping systems and positive environmental impacts, but achieving this aim requires the development of novel management strategies informed by the involvement of advisors and farmers and it is often necessary to support farmers in their efforts to improve the biodiversity level on their farms. Since many legumes are bee-pollinated, the importance of the plant–pollinator interplay (PPI) in legumes lies in a combination of the importance of pollination for the production service and breeding strategies, plus the increasing urgency in mitigating the decline of pollinators through the development and implementation of conservation measures. The study by Suso et al. about PPI encompasses a range of reviews, opinions and perspectives and two basic approaches are proposed: (a) farming with alternative pollinators and (b) crop design system.
Lucas et al. focus on the future of lupin as a protein crop in Europe and conclude that lupin can be capable of promoting socio-economic growth and environmental benefits in Europe, provided that advanced breeding techniques deliver new productive lupin varieties, and novel processes are optimized to obtain high-quality protein ingredients for marketable foods to be offered to consumers. The need for optimizing lupin protein processing for increased nutritional value and food safety is also addressed byBartkiene et al.
There is a growing awareness of the necessity to consider seed quality traits in breeding programs of protein crops. Bellaloui et al. discuss an agronomic study aimed to analyse the effects of management practices (planting date and seeding rate) on soybean seed composition. Seed storage proteins are a valuable source of essential amino acids for the diet; however in many legume seeds they often possess biological activities that might be either beneficial or detrimental to the consumer. Sparvoli et al. show how genetic removal, in common bean, of lectins and retention of α-amylase inhibitor together with the reduction of phytate accumulation, may prove useful to produce bean composite flours for the preparation of novel foods, biscuits, with improved nutritional properties. Herman and Schmidtdiscuss on the potential for engineering soybeans for aquaculture feed by removing anti-nutritional proteins and increasing beneficial compounds.
Almost 50% of the global food protein supply comes from cereal seeds (faostat.fao.org). Most of these proteins (prolamins) accumulate in protein bodies (PB), large polymers formed in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER). On the contrary, the most common classes of seed storage proteins, the 2S albumins and the 7S/11S globulins accumulate in protein storage vacuoles (PSVs), which are the first subcellular compartment that evolved to store seed proteins. As the ER is mainly a compartment of transit, the permanent ER residence of proteins that do not play a role in typical ER functions seems a feature unique to prolamins. Based on the presence of specific domains in the different classes of
variation of albumin, globulin, and glutenin contents in wheat grains as related to nitrogen application rates during different growth stages, which could be an effective approach to modulate the distribution of protein fractions for specific end-uses.
Ramalingam et al.review several proteomic and metabolomic studies on model and crop legumes, and discuss how integration of “omics” will contribute to the identification of accurate biomarkers in legume smart breeding programs. They discuss different methodological approaches, together with bioinformatics, and show how these could be used to tackle biological questions for understanding stress response mechanisms, cellular, and developmental processes and symbiosis.
Other protein crops also deserve attention. Hemp is an ancient crop that has been cultivated worldwide until the early twentieth century, after which its cultivation declined. Recently, interest in this multipurpose crop delivering fibers, shives, and seeds, has been renewed by an increasing demand not only for natural fibers but also for the high content and quality of seed protein and oil. Galasso et al. studied the composition of a collection of hemp genotypes of different geographical origins in order to identify potential genotypes to improve hemp cultivars. Their results reveal noticeable differences among hemp seed genotypes for antinutritional components, oil, and protein content. Collectively, this study suggests that the hemp seed is an interesting product in terms of protein, oil and antioxidant molecules, but a reduction of phytic acid would be desirable for both humans and monogastric animals.Bellaloui et al.and
Yang et al.investigated the nutritional value of cotton, regarding protein content in seeds and embryos, respectively.
Crops growth is confronted by a variety of pathogens. Remaining healthy depends on their ability to recognize pathogens and to activate defense mechanisms against them. The plant defense responses are regulated by a broad number of signaling pathways. Transcription factors (TFs) control the transfer of genetic information from DNA to RNA by activation or repression of transcription, playing important roles in plant development and defense by regulating different signaling pathways (Singh et al., 2002; Udvardi et al., 2007).
Curto Rubio et al. used high-throughput quantitative real-time PCR (qPCR) technology to screen more than 1000 Medicago truncatula TFs in susceptible and resistant genotypes of M. truncatula after infection by the pathogen fungus Erysiphe pisi (powdery mildew). Seventy-nine TF genes, belonging to 33 families showed a significant transcriptional change in response to E. pisi infection. Forty eight TF genes were differentially expressed in the resistant genotypes compared to the susceptible one in response to E. pisi infection, including pathogenesis-related transcriptional factors. The results suggest that these TF genes are among the E. pisi responsive genes in resistant M. truncatula that may constitute a regulatory network which controls the transcriptional changes in defense genes involved in resistance to E. pisi.
studied how the interaction of bean plants with R. solani and/or Trichoderma affect the plants growth and the level of expression of defense-related genes. Trichoderma isolates were evaluated in vitro for their potential to antagonize R. solani. The interaction of plants with R. solani and/or Trichoderma affects the level of expression of seven defense-related genes. Later on,
Mayo et al. propose the use of biocontrol agents (BCAs) as a strategy to control bean diseases, mainly those caused by fungi. They combined in silico analysis and real time PCR to detect additional bean defense-related genes, regulated by the presence of Trichoderma velutinum and/or R. solani. Based in this strategy, from the 48 bean genes initially analyzed, 14 were selected, and only WRKY33, CH5b, and hGS showed an up-regulatory response in the presence of T. velutinum. The strategy described in this work has shown to be effective to detect genes involved in plant defense, which respond to the presence of a BCA or to a pathogen and also to the presence of both.
Common bean is sensitive to low temperatures. Rapid and uniform seed germination and seedling emergence under diverse environmental conditions is a desirable characteristic for crops. Common bean genotypes differ in their low temperature tolerance regarding growth and yield. Cultivars tolerant to low temperature during the germination and emergence stages and carriers of the grain quality standards demanded by consumers are needed for the success of the bean crop.De Ron et al.studied the performance of 28 dry bean genotypes in open field and in growth chamber under low, moderate, and warm temperature. Screening of seedling emergence and phenotypic response of the bean germplasm under a range of temperatures in controlled growth chambers and under field conditions showed several genotypes with low temperature stress-tolerance at emergence and high yield potential that could be valuable genetic material for breeding programs.
Cowpea is a warm season legume that accounts for a huge portion of the dietary protein of the people in sub-Saharan Africa; however it is affected by many virus diseases that reduce yields.
Nsa et al.studied the effects in three cowpea cultivars of single infections and co-infections of three unrelated viruses: Cowpea aphid-borne mosaic virus (CABMV), genus Potyvirus, cowpea mottle virus (CMeV), genus Carmovirus, and Southern bean mosaic virus (SBMV), genus Sobemovirus. The treated plants were assessed for susceptibility to the viruses, growth, and yield. In all cases, early inoculation resulted in higher disease severity compared with late infection. Single, double and triple infections by CABMV, CMeV, and SBMV led to a complete loss of seeds in the three cowpea cultivars; only cultivar White produced some seeds at 30 DAP.
Lentil is the third most important cool-season grain legume in the world after chickpea and pea.Khazaei et al.studied the genetic diversity and population structure of lentil germplasm collection of 352 accessions from 54 countries to estimate genetic diversity and genetic structure using 1194 polymorphic single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers which span the
temperate. Based on the results from this study, it is also clear that breeding programs still have considerable genetic diversity to mine within the cultivated lentil.
A number of articles focus on the importance of quinoa as a climate resilient grain option for climate change (Ruiz et al., 2014). This recent international recognition, for an underutilized crop from the Andean highlands, is largely due to its high nutritional value but underlines the importance of its high genetic diversity for adaptation to new environments (Bazile et al., 2015).
Bazile et al.give a critic of trends on the global expansion of quinoa. After centuries of neglect, the potential of quinoa was rediscovered during the second half of the twentieth century, and now more than 100 countries are testing or cultivating quinoa worldwide. Thanks to the high levels of genetic diversity, the crop is highly resilient to agro-ecological extremes and is tolerant to frost, drought, and salinity. The geographical increase in distribution of quinoa has highlighted the difficulty of access to quality seed, which is a key factor for testing the crop outside the Andes. In this context, research partnerships have allowed trials to be undertaken in non-traditional areas of cultivation.
Following the International Year of Quinoa in 2013, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) initiated various trials at global level.Bazile et al.present field evaluations that were conducted in Asia and the Near East and North African countries. In each of the nine countries involved, the trials were carried out in different locations that globally represent the diversity of 19 agrarian systems for comparing 21 genotypes of quinoa using the same experimental protocol across the locations. Some genotypes showed higher yields for some specific locations when other genotypes were evaluated with stable and satisfactory levels of yield in each of the different trial sites. This production stability is of considerable importance especially under climate change uncertainty.
Choukr-Allah et al.consider the high tolerance and resistance of quinoa to many stresses and various cultivars have been screened for tolerance to salinity, water-use efficiency and nutritional quality. The authors summarized 15 years of studies on assessing the potential for introducing the crop in countries of the Middle East and North Africa and Central Asia and describe the key constraints for scaling-up the production under marginal growing conditions. Quinoa maintains productivity in poor soils and under water stress conditions and high salinity. Nevertheless, higher yields do not guarantee quinoa’s success in the region and to be successful it must fit in the current cropping patterns, farming systems, marginal lands affected by salinity and alkalinity, and in the areas where the majority of the food crops could not be produced economically.
Also related to salt stress,Aloisi et al.reported the changes in proteomic and amino acid profiles, phenolic content and antioxidant activity in different quinoa cultivars when subjected to salinity stress. Wu et al. address the question of how the fertilization level influences salinity tolerance of quinoa and
of 72 F2:6 recombinant-inbred lines and parents developed
through hybridization between highland and coastal germplasm groups of quinoa and evaluated for quantitative and qualitative traits. The study highlighted the extended diversity regenerated among the 72 lines and helped to identify potentially adapted quinoa genotypes for production in the Moroccan coastal environment, in particular with some lines resistant to downy mildew. Stetter et al. present a complementary research to Benlhabib et al. focused on amaranth. It appears of evidence that for the improvement of minor crops, efficient crossing methods are the basis of breeding programs. The authors developed three different crossing methods and compared their efficiency validated with genetic markers. The rapid production of segregating populations makes amaranth an attractive model for improvement by plant breeding.
threat to farmers if the spread is generated with a narrow genetic base. Evolutionary participatory breeding (EPB) appears as a useful tool to develop new quinoa genetic material in cooperation with farmers. The global collaborative network on quinoa (GCN-Quinoa) could be the baseline for participatory plant breeding programs to meet the needs of farmers across a diversity of agrosystems.
While these results on quinoa research suggest that this Andean crop is able to grow in many different environments, social, and cultural considerations remain crucial regarding its possible introduction in new cropping systems worldwide.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
AD, FS, JP, and DB: drafting and revising the work and approval of the version to be published.
REFERENCES
Bazile, D., Bertero, H. D., and Nieto, C. (Ed.) (2015). State of the Art Report on Quinoa Around the World in 2013. Rome: FAO and CIRAD, 603. Available online at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4042e.pdf
Coba de la Pe-a, T., and Pueyo, J. J. (2012). Legumes in the reclamation of marginal soils, from cultivar and inoculant selection to transgenic approaches. Agron. Sust. Dev. 32, 65–91. doi: 10.1007/s13593-011-0024-2
De Ron, A. M. (Ed.) (2015). Grain Legumes. Series: Handbook on Plant Breeding. NewYork, NY; Dordrecht; Heidelberg; London: Springer.
Drevon, J. J., Alkama, N., Bargaz, A., Rodi-o, A. P., Sungthongwises, K., and Zaman-Allah, M. (2015). “The legume-rhizobia symbiosis,” in Grain Legumes. Series: Handbook of Plant Breeding, ed A. M. De Ron (NewYork, NY; Dordrecht; Heidelberg; London: Springer), 267–290.
Ruiz, K. B., Biondi, S., Oses, R., Acu-a-Rodríguez, I. S., Antognoni, F., Martinez-Mosqueira, E. A., et al. (2014). Quinoa biodiversity and sustainability for food security under climate change. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 349–359. doi: 10.1007/s13593-013-0195-0
Singh, K. B., Foley, R. C., and Oñate-Sánchez, L. (2002). Transcription factors in plant defense and stress responses. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 5, 430–436. doi: 10.1016/S1369-5266(02)00289-3
Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., and Polasky, S. (2002). Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677. doi: 10.1038/nature01014
Udvardi, M. K., Kakar, K., Wandrey, M., Montanari, O., Murray, J., Andriankaja, A., et al. (2007). Legume transcription factors: global regulators of plant development and response to the environment. Plant Physiol. 144, 538–549. doi: 10.1104/pp.107.098061
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 2017 De Ron, Sparvoli, Pueyo and Bazile. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Edited by: Antonio M. De Ron, Spanish National Research Council -Misión Biológica de Galicia, Spain Reviewed by: Salvador Nadal Moyano, Junta de Andalucía, Spain Francisco Javier Ibarra Perez, Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales Agrícolas y Pecuarias, Mexico *Correspondence: Moritz Reckling [email protected] † Present Address: Frederick L. Stoddard, Department of Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland Specialty section: This article was submitted to Crop Science and Horticulture, a section of the journal Frontiers in Plant Science Received: 31 March 2016 Accepted: 01 May 2016 Published: 23 May 2016 Citation: Reckling M, Bergkvist G, Watson CA, Stoddard FL, Zander PM, Walker RL, Pristeri A, Toncea I and Bachinger J (2016) Trade-Offs between Economic and Environmental Impacts of Introducing Legumes into Cropping Systems. Front. Plant Sci. 7:669. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00669
Trade-Offs between Economic and
Environmental Impacts of
Introducing Legumes into Cropping
Systems
Moritz Reckling1, 2*, Göran Bergkvist2, Christine A. Watson2, 3, Frederick L. Stoddard4 †, Peter M. Zander5, Robin L. Walker3, Aurelio Pristeri6, Ion Toncea7and Johann Bachinger1 1Institute of Land Use Systems, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Müncheberg, Germany,2Department of
Crop Production Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden,3Crop and Soil Systems,
Scotland’s Rural College, Aberdeen, UK,4Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 5Institute of Socio-Economics, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Müncheberg, Germany,6Department of
Agricultural Science, Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy,7National Agricultural Research and
Development Institute, Fundulea, Romania
Europe’s agriculture is highly specialized, dependent on external inputs and responsible for negative environmental impacts. Legume crops are grown on less than 2% of the arable land and more than 70% of the demand for protein feed supplement is imported from overseas. The integration of legumes into cropping systems has the potential to contribute to the transition to a more resource-efficient agriculture and reduce the current protein deficit. Legume crops influence the production of other crops in the rotation making it difficult to evaluate the overall agronomic effects of legumes in cropping systems. A novel assessment framework was developed and applied in five case study regions across Europe with the objective of evaluating trade-offs between economic and environmental effects of integrating legumes into cropping systems. Legumes resulted in positive and negative impacts when integrated into various cropping systems across the case studies. On average, cropping systems with legumes reduced nitrous oxide emissions by 18 and 33% and N fertilizer use by 24 and 38% in arable and forage systems, respectively, compared to systems without legumes. Nitrate leaching was similar with and without legumes in arable systems and reduced by 22% in forage systems. However, grain legumes reduced gross margins in 3 of 5 regions. Forage legumes increased gross margins in 3 of 3 regions. Among the cropping systems with legumes, systems could be identified that had both relatively high economic returns and positive environmental impacts. Thus, increasing the cultivation of legumes could lead to economic competitive cropping systems and positive environmental impacts, but achieving this aim requires the development of novel management strategies informed by the involvement of advisors and farmers.
Keywords: crop rotation, framework, land use and impacts, multi-criteria assessment, protein crops, resource-efficiency, rotation generator
about the sustainability of farming (Tilman et al., 2002). Furthermore, less than 30% of the demand for protein feed supplement is produced within Europe (Bouxin, 2014). The reintegration of legumes into European agriculture could reduce the current protein deficit and contribute to the transition to more sustainable agricultural systems (Voisin et al., 2013).
The use of legumes also affects the performance of cropping systems and their environmental impacts, including (i) nitrogen supply via biological nitrogen fixation (BNF), reducing the demand for external nitrogen fertilizers, (ii) positive pre-crop benefits through a combination of residual nitrogen and break-crop effects (Angus et al., 2015; Preissel et al., 2015), (iii) reduced fossil energy consumption in crop production (Jensen et al., 2011), and (iv) increased crop diversification and biodiversity (Köpke and Nemecek, 2010).
Despite these benefits, there are good reasons why European farmers grew grain legumes on only 1.6% of the arable land in 2014 (FAOstat, 2015). These include specialization in a few crops (Zander et al., 2016), low and unstable yields of grain legumes (Von Richthofen et al., 2006; Cernay et al., 2015; Reckling et al., 2015), low and unpredictable policy support (Bues et al., 2013), and lack of awareness of, and inability to evaluate the benefits of including legumes in the cropping system (Preissel et al., 2015). As a consequence, the area under grain legumes declined from 4.7% of arable land in 1961 to currently below 2% (FAOstat, 2015). Organic farms used 6.8% of their arable land for production of grain legumes in 2014 (Eurostat, 2015). Forage legume areas also declined because of a transformation of the ruminant feeding system toward maize silage and soybean oil cakes, and geographical separation between cereal and cattle-rearing areas (Voisin et al., 2013).
By introducing legumes into the cropping system, farmers also introduce more complexity into their planning. To maximize the benefits of legumes while minimizing potential threats, a number of issues need to be taken into account. The preceding crop in a rotation should have a high ability to take up available nitrogen in order to reduce residual soil N levels and allow BNF of the legumes to be optimized. Legume crops need to be kept several years apart in the rotation because of their susceptibility to soil-borne diseases. The following crop should take up the residual N of the legume quickly, in order to minimize opportunities for nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emission. Legume crops, their management and their effects on other crops in the rotation are specific to different climatic and edaphic conditions (Döring, 2015), e.g., narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.) is considered suitablefor sandy soils with low soil pH, whereas faba bean (Vicia faba L.) is typically grown on clay soils with sufficient rainfall, soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) requires appropriate daylength to flower and sufficient growing degree-days to mature, and pea (Pisum sativum L.) is suitable for many different soil types. Therefore, the design of cropping systems needs to be site-specific and based on regional expert knowledge.
these effects are difficult to formalize and are rarely considered in modeling (Bergez et al., 2010). Life cycle assessments comparing rotations with and without legumes have been carried out (e.g.,
Nemecek et al., 2008; Köpke and Nemecek, 2010) but these work with a limited set of rotations and do not include the detailed levels of field management required to evaluate all rotational effects.
In order to focus research and policy intervention, a method is needed to assess the economic and environmental effects of changes to cropping system design, such as the integration of legumes. To identify novel practices that achieve high economic and environmental benefits the method should provide a range of crop combinations and evaluate management options beyond current farming practices.
We earlier (Reckling et al., 2016) formulated an assessment framework that allows a systematic analysis of a large range of cropping options. It operates on the cropping system scale and takes rotational effects of crops such as legumes into account.
The objective of this study is to assess the economic and environmental effects of integrating legumes into cropping systems, in order to identify potentials and limitations of increasing legume cultivation in Europe. For the analysis we apply the cropping system framework byReckling et al. (2016)
in case studies in Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, Romania, and Sweden. We hypothesize that the integration of legumes increases positive environmental impacts and at the same time reduces economic returns, thus leading to greater trade-offs between economic and environmental benefits.
METHODS
The static and rule-based framework developed by Reckling et al. (2016) was used to assess cropping systems in five case studies following three steps: (i) generate crop rotations (using a rule-based rotation generator), (ii) calculate the impact of crop production activities (using environmental and economic indicators), and (iii) assess and compare cropping systems with and without legumes. FollowingBergez et al. (2010), we used a multi-criteria analysis for the identification of trade-offs.
Case Studies
Five contrasting regions were selected across Europe (Figure 1): Brandenburg (BB) in north-eastern Germany, Calabria (CB) in southern Italy, eastern Scotland (ES) in the United Kingdom, Sud-Muntenia (SM) in Romania, and Västra Götaland (VG) in western Sweden. The regions are characterized by contrasting climatic conditions and cropping systems, and were selected to represent a broad range of bio-physical and socio-economic conditions and possible roles of legume production. In all regions, legumes occupy less than 2.5% of the arable land. Within case studies, land capability types were defined by regional classifications and differences in soil texture (Table 1).
FIGURE 1 | Case study regions across Europe, Brandenburg (BB) in north-eastern Germany, Calabria (CB) in southern Italy, eastern Scotland (ES) in the United Kingdom, Sud-Muntenia (SM) in Romania, and Västra Götaland (VG) in western Sweden (adapted fromEurostat, 2010).
These determine the choice of the crops, their management and performance.
In Brandenburg, soil types are classified according toLELF (2010). Arable framing concentrates on Type 1–2 with higher yield potential and forage oriented farming on Type 3–4 with a lower yield potential. Soil Type 2 was selected for arable and Type 3 for forage systems. In Calabria, the assessment focused on arable rainfed systems in the lowlands, where pea and faba bean are the main annual legume crops. In Eastern Scotland, mixed cropping is common across soil Types 1–3, and forage production on Types 3 and 4 (classified according to Bibby et al., 1982). For the assessment, Type 1 and 2 were selected for arable and Type 3 for forage systems. Cereals occupy 23% and grassland 73% of the agricultural land, while faba bean and pea together account for only 0.3% ( Scottish-Agricultural-Census, 2010). Arable farmers in the lowlands grow large shares of cereals and relatively few break crops, mainly winter and spring oilseed rape, potato, and swede. In the hilly areas, farms are dominated by grassland with low shares of clover. In Sud-Muntenia, Chernozem soils with high humus contents were selected, as they underlie the major cropping areas with medium-and large-scale farms. The study considered only arable farms, because information on forage grass production was limited. Legumes already grown include pea and soybean for feed and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) for the food market. In Västra Götaland, soils with high clay contents were selected for this study, because they represent the major cropping areas with both arable and mixed farms. Arable farmers use 80–100% of their land for cereals, and legumes and other break crops play minor roles (1.7 and 1.5% of the arable land). In forage-oriented
tested legumes. Wheat, barley and oilseed rape were the most common non-legume crops (Table 1).
Generate Crop Rotations
Crop rotations were generated with the previously described static and rule-based rotation generator (Reckling et al., 2016) that produces fixed and cyclical “agronomically sound rotations” for arable fields, following a fixed set of site-specific agronomic rules. In each region, agronomists defined suitable crops and then the restriction values for crop sequence, including suitability of crop-crop combinations, the minimum cultivation break and frequency restrictions (% of a crop and crop type in a rotation) to allow the site-specific generation of rotations. In addition, a rotation of current farming (“business as usual”) was based on the most common crops grown.
The rotation generator combined crops to produce all possible 3- to 6-year sequences following the criteria (i) crop sequence suitability (e.g., pea-rye), (ii) maximum frequency of a crop in the rotation (e.g., 20% for pea), (iii) minimum break between the same crop (4 years for pea), and (iv) maximum frequency of crops of the same crop type (e.g., 25% grain legumes). Duplicates and multiples were removed and rotations were filtered by soil type. Agronomists checked the plausibility of the results in comparison to the existing sequences.
Calculate Impact Indicators
The crop production activities (CPA) covered the crop, preceding crop and site-specific crop management. CPA were designed by collecting management data in a structured survey among 2–4 experienced agronomists in each case study in 2013. The data included inputs (seed, N-P-K fertilizer and pesticides), outputs (grain yield, forage yield, and straw yield) and management characteristics (fertilizer intensity, machinery use, and harvesting method) for each crop. In order to consider rotational effects, pre-crop types were defined according to their ability to influence the yield of the following crop through N from residue decomposition. Besides the effect on yield, differences in fertilization and agro-chemical applications were considered for each pre-crop type. The following types were separated, in the order of increasing N residue levels and positive effect on yield of subsequent crops: (i) spring cereals, winter cereals and maize; (ii) grain legumes, rapeseed and grass (<10% legumes); (iii) forage legumes in pure stands and in mixtures with grass (>30% legumes).
We selected five indicators to assess the economic and environmental performance of cropping systems. Nitrogen is not only important in crop production, it also contributes to environmental pollution of the atmosphere and water bodies, so nitrous oxide emission and nitrate leaching were selected as indicators. Nitrogen fertilizer use and nitrogen fertilizer efficiency were selected as indicators of resource use efficiency. Gross margins provided the standard indicator for economic
BB Type 2 50 25 22 WW, WR, SB, WB, WT, WOR, SM, SO FP, FB CB Type 3 47 23 36 WB, DW, SO, WOR, WW, WT FP, FB ES Type 1/2 78 14 21 SB, WB, SO, WO, SOR, WOR, SW, WW FP, FB SM Type 1 65 18 42 WW, WOR, GM, SF, WB FP, CB, SY VG Type 1 17 33 50 SB, SO, SW, WW, SOR, WOR, WR, WT FP, FB
FORAGE CROPPING SYSTEMS
BB Type 3 70 20 37 WW, WR, WOR, SM, SO, SB FP, LU, GC, AF ES Type 3 68 17 10 SB, WB, SOR, WOR, SW, WW, SO, WO, GR GC
VG Type 1 17 33 50 SM, SB, SO, SW, WW, SOR, WOR, WR, WT, GR FP, FB, FP-SO, GC
BB, Brandenburg; CB, Calabria; ES, Eastern Scotland; SM, Sud-Muntenia; and VG, Västra Götaland. Types represent different land capabilities. AF, Alfalfa; CB, common bean; DW, durum wheat; FB, faba bean; FP, field pea; GC, grass-clover; GM, grain maize; GR, grass; LU, lupin; SB, spring barley; SF, sunflower; SM, silage maize; SO, spring oat; SOR, spring oilseed rape; SW, spring wheat; SY, soybean; WB, winter barley; WO, winter oat; WOR, winter oilseed rape; WR, winter rye; WT, winter triticale; WW, winter wheat.
performance of crops. All impacts were calculated on a per-hectare and per-year basis.
Calculation of Nitrate Leaching
Nitrate leaching is calculated as nitrate-N based on the soil type, preceding crop and crop management as a function of the soil leaching probability and the nitrogen surplus. Adapted from
Gäth and Wohlrab (1992) and Bachinger and Zander (2007), nitrate leaching is calculated as:
Nleaching=Nsurplus∗LP
where LP is the leaching probability during the winter (mean
winter precipitation divided by the water holding capacity at rooting depth and a crop-specific leaching coefficient) and the Nsurplusis calculated as:
Nsurplus= NmanureP+Nfertilizer+Nmineralization−Ndfs
where NmanureP is the plant-available N content in solid and
liquid manure and Nmineralizationis calculated as a function of the
total organic N content (typical contents per soil type) and a region-specific mean annual mineralization rate modified by the pre-crop specific N supply level. Ndfsis the nitrogen derived from
soil and is calculated as:
Ndfs=Nuptake−Nfixation
Where Nuptake is the nitrogen accumulated by the crop
and Nfixation is BNF of grain and forage legumes calculated
as a function of the yield, the N content, the crop-specific ratio of above and below ground plant N, the percentage of N derived from the atmosphere (%Ndfa) depending on soil mineral N content using minimum and maximum %Ndfa values (Peoples et al., 2009), the percentage of legumes in crop mixtures (grass-clover and cereal-legume intercropping), and the ratio of fixed N transferred to grass in grass-clover mixtures. The soil mineral N content is estimated taking into account possible N mineralization from preceding crop residues in spring, along with N inputs from plant-available N in manure and mineral N
fertilizer (Reckling et al., 2016). Atmospheric nitrogen deposition and non-symbiotic nitrogen fixation were not considered because reliable data was not available.
Calculation of Nitrogen Fertilizer Efficiency and Use Nitrogen fertilizer efficiency was calculated as the ratio of the N output in harvested grain or biomass to the N input from mineral and organic fertilizer and N in seed. N fertilizer use was calculated as the average N applied from organic and mineral N fertilizer. Calculation of Nitrous Oxide Emissions
Soil-based nitrous oxide emission from crop cultivation was calculated with the IPCC 2006 Tier 1 methodology, including direct and indirect emission from applied fertilizer, manure and crop residues using standard factors and parameters, and assuming no emission from nitrogen fixation (IPCC, 2006). Calculation of Gross Margins
Gross margins are calculated by subtracting variable costs (inputs, variable costs of machinery and services) from the revenues (yield multiplied by the product price). Labor costs, subsidies, interest and insurance were not taken into account. Data for the economic analysis were obtained from regional statistics (KTBL, 2010; LELF, 2010; Scottish-Agricultural-Census, 2010; SJV, 2011; ISTAT, 2013; MADR, 2013; SAC, 2013; Eurostat, 2015).
Analysis of Cropping Systems
Cropping systems were generated for each land capability and evaluated using the impact indicators. The evaluated systems were grouped as either arable, including only grain crops, or forage, including at least one forage crop, and the groups were further divided into those with legumes or without legumes. The dataset was analyzed by plotting environmental impacts against economic impacts of all single cropping systems and by calculating the mean impact and difference between arable and forage systems with and without legumes.
Trade-offs were analyzed between economic and environmental impacts using multi-criteria analysis based on five indicators: (i) Gross margin, (ii) nitrate leaching,
system by the overall mean. Trade-offs were analyzed for selected cropping systems:
1) current farming without legumes
2) economic-environmental optimized systems without legumes 3) economic-environmental optimized systems with legumes Current farming without legumes represents the most common cropping system per land capability based on the crop proportions and expert knowledge. Economic-environmental optimized cropping systems with and without legumes are selected from the large range of generated systems according to the criteria:
• Gross margin is equal to or 50e lower than the system with the highest gross margin
• Nitrate leaching is equal to or lower than the system with the highest gross margin
• Nitrous oxide emission is equal to or lower than system with the highest gross margin
The selected cropping systems were compared in radar charts to identify trade-offs and to evaluate the performance from a systems perspective.
Model Evaluation
Generated rotations were compared by agronomists and advisors with current and plausible cropping patterns. Algorithms for nitrate leaching were already validated byBachinger and Zander (2007) using HERMES, a dynamic model that simulates water
simple and static, so is open to criticism (Philibert et al., 2012). Nevertheless, it is widely used in GHG inventories and emission models (Lokupitiya and Paustian, 2006; Berdanier and Conant, 2012) because it can be relatively easily applied with only a few input parameters. The model outputs were checked by a specialist in nitrous oxide emission measurements and models (B. Rees, pers. communication). Calculations of impacts at the cropping systems scale were evaluated by a panel of 12 agronomists who discussed the generated systems and compared the results with current management practices in their regions.
RESULTS
Integration of legumes affected the economic and environmental performance of cropping systems. The environmental performance was evaluated in terms of reduced leaching and nitrous oxide loss and lower fertilizer use, and economic performance was evaluated in terms of higher gross margin. On average across all regions, arable cropping systems with legumes had 18% less nitrous oxide emission, 24% less N fertilizer use, no increase in nitrate leaching and no decrease in gross margin (Table 2). In forage cropping systems, average effects were stronger, namely 33% less nitrous oxide emission, 38% less N fertilizer use, 22% less nitrate leaching and 21% higher gross margin (Table 2). Effects varied between the case studies due to the different crop management, bio-physical and socio-economic conditions, and between arable and forage systems.
TABLE 2 | Average economic and environmental impacts for cropping systems with and without legumes.
Region Site Legume Generated systems [no.] Gross margin [e/ha] NO3-N leaching [kg/ha] N fertilizer use [kg/ha] N2O emissions [kg/ha] ARABLE CROPPING SYSTEMS
BB Type 2 +legume 249 14 21 88 3.0 -legume 68 51 23 114 3.6 CB Type 1 +legume 328 195 24 32 1.3 -legume 12 263 23 53 1.9 ES Type 1/2 +legume 1237 637 23 107 4.1 -legume 227 600 30 132 4.6 SM Type 1 +legume 220 476 13 86 3.0 -legume 20 369 13 108 3.6 VG Type 1 +legume 10,127 420 30 100 3.5 -legume 1756 452 31 121 4.0
FORAGE CROPPING SYSTEMS
BB Type 3 +legume 102 130 18 53 2.2 −legume 89 80 37 126 4.7 ES Type 3 +legume 18 733 24 220 7.4 -legume 23 715 30 311 9.7 VG Type 1 +legume 146 482 15 146 4.7 -legume 108 483 14 201 6.1
nitrous oxide emission by 12–30% (Table 2). The smallest effects were found in VG for N fertilizer use and ES for nitrous oxide emission and the greatest in CB for N fertilizer use and nitrous oxide emission. Gross margins were 6 and 29% higher in ES and SM, and 7, 26, and 73% lower in VG, CB and BB, respectively (Table 2). Nitrate leaching was similar or slightly reduced in arable systems. Cropping systems with high gross margin tended to have higher nitrous oxide emissions than cropping systems with low gross margin. No relationship was observed between gross margin and nitrate leaching (Figure 2).
The current farming scenario without legumes achieved high economic returns in BB, CB and ES and resulted in relatively high nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emission in all regions (Figure 2). In VG and SM the current farming system achieved a low economic and environmental performance although it is practiced by a large share of farmers according to crop share statistics. The inclusion of oilseed rape improved gross margins in BB and VG and environmental benefits in cropping systems with and without legumes. The economic-environmental optimized system without legumes performed economically better than current farming in ES, SM and VG and environmentally better in all regions (Table 3).
The optimized system with legumes achieved 12 and 97% higher gross margins in ES and SM than the optimized system without legumes, because of the high yield and high market value (for food use) of pea and common bean in the two regions (Table 3). Besides, adding a legume as another break crop to the cropping system led to an increased yield of the subsequent crop and hence to a higher gross margin. In VG, CB, and BB the gross margin was 4–21% lower in the optimized system with legumes than in the optimized system without legumes, mainly due to low yields and low prices for pea and faba bean (Table 3). The optimized system with legumes had 12–25% lower N fertilizer use, 9–28% lower nitrate leaching (except in CB) and 9–23% lower nitrous-oxide emissions than that without legumes (Table 3). The major contributory factors to the improved environmental effects were that no N fertilizer was applied to the legume crop, the N fertilizer dose to the subsequent crop was reduced and substitution of winter wheat with crops that received smaller amounts of fertilizer. In CB, the optimized system with and without legumes reduced nitrate leaching by 72– 81% compared to common practice, because higher leaching was calculated for winter oat than for winter oilseed rape (Table 3). In BB and CB, a proportion of legume-supported systems resulted in negative gross margins because they did not include a sufficient proportion of profitable crops such as oilseed rape (Figure 2).
Effects of Integrating Legumes into Forage
Cropping Systems
The inclusion of forage legumes such as grass-clover and alfalfa and grain legumes in forage cropping systems reduced N fertilizer
VG and ES where perennial grasses with low legume content were replaced by grass-clover including 30% clover in the crop biomass. Gross margins were similar between systems with and without legumes in VG and ES and 62% higher with legumes in BB (Table 2). Nitrate leaching was similar in both systems in VG and was reduced by the introduction of legumes in ES and BB. Similar to arable systems, forage cropping systems with high gross margins tended to have high nitrous oxide emissions, but no relationship was observed between gross margin and nitrate leaching (Figure 3).
The current cropping systems without legumes achieved high economic returns in BB and VG and resulted in relatively high nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide emission in all regions (Figure 3). In ES the current farming system with an additional cereal crop in the cropping system did not perform as well as the optimized systems economically or environmentally (Table 3), although it is practiced by a large proportion of farmers. Silage maize dominates current farming in BB, and has the best economic performance. Maize yields relatively well on these soils and the economic value of silage maize for feed and biogas is high. The optimized system without legumes performed better economically than current farming in ES and VG and better environmentally in all regions (Table 3). In BB, the optimized system with a lower share of silage maize resulted in improved environmental performance than the current system, but with lower gross margin.
The optimized system with legumes achieved 3–4% higher gross margins than without legumes in VG and ES because of the similar yield and price of grass-clover compared to grass, lower costs of fertilization, and a better pre-crop effect that led to a yield increase in the subsequent crop (Table 3). In BB, the integration of grass-clover resulted in 40% higher gross margin due to the high price of grass-clover forage, lower fertilizer costs and a greater pre-crop effect compared to silage maize, and despite the higher costs of harvesting 3 cuts of grass-clover rather than one crop of silage maize (Table 3). Across the regions, the optimized system with legumes had 23–54% lower N fertilizer use, 21–58% lower nitrous-oxide emissions, and, in BB, 70% lower nitrate leaching than that without legumes (Table 3). The major reasons for this difference include that no N was applied to the legume crop, the reduced N fertilizer doses to the subsequent crop and changes in the crop sequence.
Trade-Offs between Economic and
Environmental Impacts
In all arable cropping systems, trade-offs were found between gross margin and environmental impacts (Figure 4). In BB, CB, and ES current farming had a high, above-average, economic and a low, below-average, environmental performance. The optimized system without legumes performed similarly in environmental terms to current farming in BB and ES. In CB, SM, and VG the optimized systems without legumes performed better on at least
FIGURE 2 | Gross margin plotted against N2O emissions and NO3-N leaching for arable cropping systems with and without legumes in Brandenburg (BB), Calabria (CB), Eastern Scotland (ES), Sud-Muntenia (SM), and Västra Götaland (VG). Blank and dotted arrows indicate economic-environmental optimized systems with and without legumes and dashed arrows indicate current farming.
[kg/ha] ARABLE CROPPING SYSTEMS
BB Type 2 Current −legume WW WB OR 128 26 139 4.7 Econ.−env. optimized −legume WR WR WR SB OR 82 20 125 3.7 Econ.−env. optimized +legume WW WR WR WR FP 64 15 94 2.9 CB Type 1 Current −legume WB WO WB WO 383 37 49 1.8 Econ.−env. optimized −legume WB OR WB OR 335 7 46 1.7 Econ.−env. optimized +legume WB OR WB FB OR 287 10 34 1.4 ES Type 1/2 Current −legume WB OR WW WW WB 776 27 192 6.6 Econ.−env. optimized −legume WB OR WB WO SB 780 26 156 5.4 Econ.−env. optimized +legume WB OR WB WO FP 869 20 130 4.7 SM Type 1 Current −legume GM WW SF 272 15 102 3.3 Econ.−env. optimized −legume GM WB OR 430 10 103 3.5 Econ.−env. optimized +legume GM WB OR CB 848 9 80 2.8 VG Type 1 Current −legume WW WW SO 459 35 124 4.1 Econ.−env. Optimized −legume WW SB OR WR SB 598 31 143 4.6 Econ.−env. optimized +legume WW SB OR WR FB 573 28 126 4.1 FORAGE CROPPING SYSTEMS
BB Type 3 Current −legume SM SM SM WR 262 40 166 6.9 Econ.−env. optimized −legume SM WR SM SO WR 131 34 131 4.8 Econ.−env. optimized +legume GC GC WR WR WR SB 184 10 60 2.0 ES Type 3 Current −legume GR GR GR SB SO 664 29 293 9.1 Econ.−env. optimized −legume GR GR GR SB 767 18 340 10.5 Econ.−env. optimized +legume GC GC GC SB 795 12 235 8.0 VG Type 1 Current −legume GR GR GR WW SO 535 12 222 6.6 Econ.−env. optimized −legume GR GR GR OR WT SO 551 12 212 6.3 Econ.−env. optimized +legume GC GC GC OR WR SO 567 13 163 5.0
BB, Brandenburg; CB, Calabria; ES, Eastern Scotland; SM, Sud-Muntenia; and VG, Västra Götaland. Types represent different land capabilities. CB, Common bean; FB, faba bean; FP, field pea; GC, grass-clover; GM, grain maize; GR, grassland; OR, winter oilseed rape; SB, spring barley; SF, sunflower; SM, silage maize; SO, spring oat; WB, winter barley; WO, winter oat; WR, winter rye; WW, winter wheat; legumes are highlighted in bold.
one of the environmental measures, particularly nitrate leaching. The optimized systems with legumes performed economically well in all regions, except in BB, and reached above-average scores for all environmental indicators (Figure 4).
Trade-offs between gross margin and environmental impacts were found for forage cropping systems without legumes (Figure 5). All systems without legumes performed below average, except regarding gross margin and nitrate leaching. The legume-supported systems reached above-average scores on all indicators, including gross margin. The environmental performance was generally good, especially considering nitrate leaching (Figure 5).
DISCUSSION
Environmental and Economic Impacts
The reduction in the use of N fertilizer when legumes were integrated into cropping systems, 17–40% in arable and 27–58% in forage systems (Table 2), is mainly attributable to the nitrogen added through the BNF of legume crops (Peoples et al., 2009).
The greatest savings were made in forage systems, because the perennial legumes included (clover and alfalfa) could fix more than 350 kg ha−1(Carlsson and Huss-Danell, 2003), which
is much more than the corresponding figures for the annual legumes, pea and faba bean, that fix about 130 kg ha−1(Peoples et al., 2009). In BB, the N fertilizer savings were particularly large (58%), because unfertilized grass-clover replaced silage maize that received high doses of N fertilizer. In VG and ES, less N fertilizer was saved (27 and 29%, respectively) (Table 2), because the grass-clover was fertilized, even if the doses were quite low. The different management of grass-clover represents common farming practice in the respective regions. The potential of BNF in grass-clover could be exploited more effectively than is common practice in VG and ES if N fertilizer doses to grass-clover were reduced and/or distributed in time in a way that allows a sufficient share of legumes, as well as reducing losses (Eriksen et al., 2015). Nitrogen fertilizer savings in subsequent crops depend on the economic trade-off between securing maximum yields and maximizing N savings (Preissel et al., 2015). In our study, we used N fertilizer prices that were relatively
FIGURE 3 | Gross margin plotted against N2O emissions and NO3-N leaching for forage cropping systems with and without legumes in Brandenburg (BB), Eastern Scotland (ES), and Västra Götaland (VG). Blank and dotted arrows indicate economic-environmental optimized systems with and without legumes and dashed arrows indicate current farming.
low in relation to product prices. Therefore maintaining high yields came out as more important than saving N fertilizer, which means that we estimated small fertilizer savings, but high yield increases in subsequent crops. However, the framework allows new applications, such as to maximize N fertilizer savings, and the results of this analysis would have been different with this aim. The average nitrous oxide emissions in cropping systems with legumes were 18 and 30% lower in arable and forage systems, respectively (Table 2). The differences among regions were greater for forage systems than for arable systems. The difference was greatest in BB (52%) due to the lower amounts of N applied to grass-clover than to silage maize. There is a direct relationship between N fertilizer input and nitrous oxide emissions, as shown by several studies compiled byBuckingham et al. (2014). However, we have used the assumption that 1% of each kg of N fertilizer is released as field-based nitrous oxide emission (IPCC, 2006), and this is currently under consideration.
Philibert et al. (2012)calculated lower emission factors (EF) when
the amount of N applied was below 160 kg N ha−1,Hinton et al.
(2015)estimated EF to be between 0.28 and 1.35% of applied N depending on the N input, andRees et al. (2012)concluded from a meta-analysis using measured data from Europe that annual emissions from arable sites were significantly greater than predicted by IPCC. Besides N fertilizer inputs, field-based nitrous oxide emissions are influenced by soil, management and environmental conditions (Ball et al., 2014). It seems clear that the EF used in the present study is approximate, but there is no consensus on how to modify it to better represent actual emissions.
The risk of nitrous oxide emission is generally considered to be lower from legumes than from cereals, oilseed rape and grassland (Stehfest and Bouwman, 2006; Schwenke et al., 2015). In a meta-analysis,Jensen et al. (2011)calculated that emissions from legume crops were around 40% lower than those from N-fertilized crops, and similar to unplanted soils or crops that were not N fertilized. The reason is that legume N inputs through BNF
FIGURE 4 | Multi-criteria assessment of arable cropping systems in Brandenburg (BB), Calabria (CB), Eastern Scotland (ES), Sud-Muntenia (SM), and Västra Götaland (VG), for scenarios with and without legumes. Values are the ratio of the single impact relative to the average impact calculated for that indicator across all cropping systems per region (outside values represent positive impacts). Absolute values are shown in Figure 2.
supplement the uptake of soil mineral N to meet crop N demand. The preferential use of soil mineral N leads to low availability of nitrate N for potential denitrification losses (Schwenke et al., 2015).
Nitrate leaching was similar with and without legumes in arable cropping systems (Table 2). Similarly to nitrous oxide emissions, nitrate leaching is soil-dependent and influenced by tillage, which did not differ between cropping systems with and without legumes. Tillage operations could in some circumstances be reduced before and after grain legumes (Luetke-Entrup et al.,
2003; López-Bellido et al., 2003, 2004), which could reduce losses of nitrogen and increase gross margins of legume-supported systems (Preissel et al., 2015). The lower leaching in CB in the optimized cropping systems than in the current system was a result of the substitution of winter oat by winter oilseed rape (Table 3). The latter can take up more N before winter and thus reduce the risk of nitrate leaching (Sieling and Kage, 2012).
In forage systems, management factors such as soil tillage, nitrogen fertilization and the management of legumes in grass-clover mixtures influence nitrate leaching significantly (Eriksen
