Pavlenko, M., Kovalenko, V., Pikovska, O., & Tonkha, O.
(2025).
Productivity of binary crops under the application of different cultivation technology elements.
Plant and Soil Science,
16(1),
61-73.
https://doi.org/10.31548/plant1.2025.61
Enhancing cultivation technologies adapted to climate change while maintaining soil fertility is a key objective in the agricultural sector. Particular attention is given to implementing intercropping systems and selecting the most effective technological elements to maximise agroecosystem productivity. This study aimed to examine the effects of various biopreparations on the productivity of a barley-pea binary crop and the mineral nitrogen content in the soil. The research was conducted in 2023-2024 at the experimental field of the Separate Subdivision of the National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine, “Agronomic Research Station” in the Kyiv Region. The experiment comprised five treatments: control, biochar, humus extract, EM-5 preparation, and LF 20 humate. Plant samples for biomass assessment were collected on the 30th, 60th, and 90th days after emergence. Soil samples from the 0-10 cm, 10-20 cm, and 20-30 cm layers of typical medium loam chernozem were analysed for mineral (nitrate and ammonium) nitrogen content following DSTU 4729:2007. It was established that the best seedling emergence in the pea-barley intercropping system was observed with the application of biochar, reaching 64 and 140 plants per m2, respectively. However, by the 30th day, biochar application suppressed plant growth, whereas the highest values were recorded in the humus extract treatment, followed by the EM-5 treatment. A similar trend was observed on the 60th day after emergence. Pea yield in the LF 20 humate treatment was 1.56 t/ha, while in the humus extract treatment, it was 1.52 t/ha. The corresponding barley yields were 4.52 t/ha and 5.19 t/ha. Biochar application was the least effective in enhancing crop productivity in intercropping; the pea yield increase relative to the control was negligible, while barley yield decreased by 0.23 t/ha. This decline was attributed to the deterioration of the soil nitrogen regime, as mineral nitrogen content in this treatment was the lowest on the 60th day after crop emergence, ranging from 31.1 to 34.8 mg/100 g of soil. The findings hold practical significance for improving organic fertilisation systems in binary cropping and enhancing agroecosystem resilience. They may be utilised by agricultural producers across various ownership structures
intercropping; pea; barley; biochar; humates; biopreparations
[1] Abbas, M., Abdel-Lattif, H., Badawy, R., Abd El-Wahab, M., & Shahba, M. (2022). Compost and biostimulants versus mineral nitrogen on productivity and grain quality of two wheat cultivars. Agriculture, 12(5), article number 699. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12050699.
[2] Abdollah, J., Yosef, N., & Fariborz, S. (2014). Competition and dry matter yield in intercrops of barley and legume for forage. Albanian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 13(1), 22-32.
[3] AgroPlant. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://agroplant.com.ua/gumat-lf-20.
[4] Ahmad, Z., Mosa, A., Zhan, L., & Gao, B. (2021). Biochar modulates mineral nitrogen dynamics in soil and terrestrial ecosystems: A critical review. Chemosphere, 278, article number 130378. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.130378.
[5] Atero-Calvo, S., Navarro-León, E., Rios, J.J., Blasco, B., & Ruiz, J.M. (2024). Humic substances-based products for plants growth and abiotic stress tolerance. In A. Husen (Ed.), Biostimulants in plant protection and performance (pp. 89-106). Amsterdam: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-443-15884-1.00025-7.
[6] Balayev, A.D., Pikovska, O.V., Tonkha, O.L., & Trofimenko, P.I. (2023). Carbon sequestration in chernozems of the forest steppe of Ukraine. Kyiv: Komprynt.
[7] Balayev, A.D., Tonkha, O.L., Pikovska, O.V., Havryliuk, M.V., & Shemetun, K.I. (2020). Humus and physicochemical properties of Forest-Steppe chernozems at minimization of treatments and biologization of the fertilizer system. Bulletin of Agricultural Science, 98(11), 24-31. doi: 10.31073/agrovisnyk202011-03.
[8] Biochar. (n.d.). Retrived from https://cluboz.net/uk/kramnyczja/dobryva/mineralni-dobriva/biochar-ideale/.
[9] Chapagain, T., & Riseman, A. (2014). Barley-pea intercropping: Effects on land productivity, carbon and nitrogen transformations. Field Crops Research, 166, 18-25. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2014.06.014.
[10] Convention on Biological Diversity. (1992, June). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/995_030#Text.
[11] Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. (1973, June). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_129#Text.
[12] Cowden, R.J., Shah, A.N., Lehmann, L.M., Kiær, L.P., Henriksen, C.B., & Ghaley, B.B. (2020). Nitrogen fertilizer effects on pea-barley intercrop productivity compared to sole crops in Denmark. Sustainability, 12(22), article number 9335. doi: 10.3390/su12229335.
[13] Darch, T., et al. (2018). Inter- and intra-species intercropping of barley cultivars and legume species, as affected by soil phosphorus availability. Plant and Soil, 427, 125-138. doi: 10.1007/s11104-017-3365-z.
[14] DSTU 4287:2004. (2005). Soil quality. Sampling. Retrieved from https://online.budstandart.com/ua/catalog/doc-page?id_doc=54569.
[15] DSTU 4729:2007. (2008). Soil quality. Determination of nitrate and ammonium nitrogen in the modification of the NSC IGA named after O.N. Sokolovsky. Retrieved from https://online.budstandart.com/ua/catalog/doc-page?id_doc=72836.
[16] DSTU ISO 11464:2007. (2009). Soil quality. Pretreatment of samples for physicochemical analysis (ISO 11464:2006, IDT). Retrieved from https://online.budstandart.com/ua/catalog/doc-page?id_doc=52911.
[17] EM-Ukraine. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://embio.in.ua/uk/product/em-5/.
[18] Fan, Y., et al. (2020). Uptake and utilization of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium as related to yield advantage in maize-soybean intercropping under different row configurations. Scientific Reports, 10, article number 9504. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-66459-y.
[19] Han, F., et al. (2023). Rotation of planting strips and reduction in nitrogen fertilizer application can reduce nitrogen loss and optimize its balance in maize-peanut intercropping. European Journal of Agronomy, 143, article number 126707. doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2022.126707.
[20] Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., et al. (2009). Pea-barley intercropping for efficient symbiotic N2-fixation, soil N acquisition and use of other nutrients in European organic cropping systems. Field Crops Research, 113(1), 64-71. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.04.009.
[21] Jaskulska, I., Jaskulski, D., & Gałęzewski, L. (2022). Peas and barley grown in the strip-till one pass technology as row intercropping components in sustainable crop production. Agriculture, 12(2), article number 229. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12020229.
[22] Lin, S., Pi, Y., Long, D., Duan, J., Zhu, X., Wang, X., He, J., & Zhu, Y. (2022). Impact of organic and chemical nitrogen fertilizers on the crop yield and fertilizer use efficiency of soybean-maize intercropping systems. Agriculture, 12(9), article number 1428. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12091428.
[23] Ma, Y., Cheng, X., & Zhang, Y. (2024). The impact of humic acid fertilizers on crop yield and nitrogen use efficiency: A meta-analysis. Agronomy, 14(12), article number 2763. doi: 10.3390/agronomy14122763.
[24] Malhi, S. (2012). Improving crop yield, N uptake and economic returns by intercropping barley or canola with pea. Agricultural Sciences, 3(8), 1023-1033. doi: 10.4236/as.2012.38124.
[25] Oberson, A., Jarosch, K.A., Frossard, E., Hammelehle, A., Fliessbach, A., Mäder, P., & Mayer, J. (2024). Higher than expected: Nitrogen flows, budgets, and use efficiencies over 35 years of organic and conventional cropping. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 362, article number 108802. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2023.108802.
[26] Sahota, T.S., & Malhi, S.S. (2012). Intercropping barley with pea for agronomic and economic considerations in northern Ontario. Agricultural Sciences, 3(7), 889-895. doi: 10.4236/as.2012.37107.
[27] Scavo, A., Fontanazza, S., Restuccia, A., Pesce, G.P., Abbate, C., & Mauromicale, G. (2022). The role of cover crops in improving soil fertility and plant nutritional status in temperate climates. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 42, article number 93. doi: 10.1007/s13593022-00825-0.
[28] Solomiychuk, M., & Pikovskyi, M. (2021). Influence of biostimulants and biostimulating complexes on the growth and development of soybeans in the Western Forest-steppe of Ukraine. Interdepartmental Thematic Scientific Collection of Plant Protection and Quarantine, 67, 251-269. doi: 10.36495/1606-9773.2021.67.251-269.
[29] Tang, C., Yang, J., Xie, W., Yao, R., & Wang, X. (2023). Effect of biochar application on soil fertility, nitrogen use efficiency and balance in coastal salt-affected soil under barley-maize rotation. Sustainability, 15(4), article number 2893. doi: 10.3390/su15042893.
[30] Vakhnyak, V., Khomovyi, M., Trach, I., Yavorov, V., & Petryshche, O. (2025). The role of restoring degraded soils in ensuring food security in the agro-industrial sector. Scientific Horizons, 28(2), 73-88. doi: 10.48077/scihor2.2025.73.
[31] Walker, S., Stigter, C.J., Ofori, E., & Kyei-Baffour, N. (2011). Intercropping and its implications for soil management. In J.L. Hatfield & T.J. Sauer (Eds.), Soil management: Building a stable base for agriculture (pp. 339-350). Madison: American Society of Agronomy and Soil Science Society of America. doi: 10.2136/2011.soilmanagement.c22.
[32] Xiao, C., Chen, J., & Cao, J. (2023). Intercropping increases soil N-targeting enzyme activities: A meta-analysis. Rhizosphere, 26, article number 100686. doi: 10.1016/j.rhisph.2023.100686.
[33] Yu, R.-P., Dresbøll, D.B., Finckh, M.R., Justes, E., van der Werf, W., Fletcher, A., Carlsson, G., & Li, L. (2025). Intercropping: Ecosystem functioning and sustainable agriculture. Plant and Soil, 506, 1-6. doi: 10.1007/s11104-024-07111-w.