Soybean introduction in Mediterranean cropping systems can reduce their carbon footprint.

Abstract

Contribution (oral presentation) in the European Society for Agronomy Congress 2020

Full text

2 3
INDEX
Page
Welcome 5
Committees 6
Program 8
Abstracts of Oral Communications 24
Plenary Session 24
Session 1. Crop functioning and crop quality 25
1.1. Crop physiology 25
1.2. Crop interaction with biotic and abiotic factors 29
1.3. Modelling crop-environment interactions 35
Session 2. Farming systems and ecosystem services 45
2.1. Farming system design for conventional and organic production 45
$SPQEJWFSTJmDBUJPO 
2.3. Crop-Livestock integration 71
2.4. Mitigating climate change: modelling, prediction, and strategies 72
2.5. Protecting natural resources and the human environment 81
4FTTJPO&GmDJFOUVTFPGSFTPVSDFTJOBHSJDVMUVSF 
4VTUBJOBCMFJOUFOTJmDBUJPOJOGBSNJOHTZTUFNT 
&GmDJFOUSFTPVSDFNBOBHFNFOUTPJMTXBUFSOVUSJFOUTBOEFOFSHZ 
Page
3.3. Instruments for resource management:
models, monitoring, and decision-making tools 105
3.4. New avenues for managing biotic and abiotic stresses 111
Abstracts of Poster Communications 113
Session 1. Crop functioning and crop quality 113
1.1. Crop physiology 113
1.2. Crop interaction with biotic and abiotic factors 115
1.3. Modelling crop-environment interactions 121
1.4. Sensory, nutritional and technological quality 123
/FXQSPEVDUTBOETFSWJDFTGVODUJPOBMGPPEDIFNJDBMTmCFSTBOEFOFSHZ 
Session 2. Farming systems and ecosystem services 125
2.1. Farming system design for conventional and organic production 126
$SPQEJWFSTJmDBUJPO 
2.3. Crop-Livestock integration 136
2.4. Mitigating climate change: modelling, prediction, and strategies 137
2.5. Protecting natural resources and the human environment 141
4FTTJPO&GmDJFOUVTFPGSFTPVSDFTJOBHSJDVMUVSF 
4VTUBJOBCMFJOUFOTJmDBUJPOJOGBSNJOHTZTUFNT 
&GmDJFOUSFTPVSDFNBOBHFNFOUTPJMTXBUFSOVUSJFOUTBOEFOFSHZ 

4 5
Page
3.3. Instruments for resource management:
models, monitoring, and decision-making tools 169
3.4. New avenues for managing biotic and abiotic stresses 173
Workshop (extended parallel sessions) 177
Session 2:
5PXBSETFGmDJFOUSFTPVSDFVTFTJUFTQFDJmDNBOBHFNFOU 
Session 3:
&GmDJFOUVTFPGSFTPVSDFTJOBHSJDVMUVSF 
Sustainable, intensive horticulture production systems 181
AUTHORS INDEX 189
WELCOME
Dear participant in the ESA congress,
First, on behalf of the Organizing Committee, I would like to apologize for the alteration of the expected organi-
]DWLRQRIWKH (6$FRQJUHVVGXHWR WKH&29,'SDQGHPLF VLWXDWLRQ2XUÀUVW LGHDZDVWR PDLQWDLQDIDFHWRIDFH
HYHQW(YHQZHWKRXJKLQD\HDUGHOD\ZKLFKZDVQRWSRVVLEOH GXHWRWKHRYHUODSZLWKRWKHUVFLHQWLÀFHYHQWV
These circumstances and uncertainty led to a low number of abstracts received after the submission deadline.The
FKDQJHWRDYLUWXDOFRQJUHVVHQFRXUDJHVSHRSOHWRSDUWLFLSDWHDQGWKHÀQDOQXPEHURIFRPPXQLFDWLRQVLVÀQDOO\
similar to previous congresses. This is not the type of congress we thought and planned, however we considered
that this was the best format to keep the event. The change, the extended deadline, and the preparation of the
virtual platform for the congress explain the delay in reviewing and accepting abstracts and in the preparation of
WKHÀQDOSURJUDP$JDLQ,ZRXOGOLNHWRDSRORJL]HIRUWKLV
$URXQG DEVWUDFWV ZHUHÀQDOO\ UHFHLYHGZKLFK ZLOO EHRUJDQL]HG DVRUDO DQG SRVWHUSUHVHQWDWLRQV <RXZLOO
access oral sessions organized in three virtual rooms through the webpage of the congress where you can also
GRZQORDGWKHGHÀQLWLYHSURJUDPDQG WKHDEVWUDFWERRN<RXZLOODFFHVVXVLQJ\RXUHPDLODQGSDVVZRUG$QDG-
vantage of the virtual format is that you will not miss any oral presentation: this will be available for you for 30 days.
In any case, we have tried to avoid the overlap between keynotes. After the presentation, queries to authors will
be possible by chat under the supervision of the chairman of the session.
For posters, all will be available along the 3 days of congress and you can use the platform for sending questions
to the corresponding author that will receive this by e-mail. As for oral presentations, we would try to maintain
available for you during a time.
In all the ESA congress it is always very relevant the Field trips. In this edition, we expected to show you relevant
and innovative Mediterranean agrosystems. We have not renounced to this, and you will have available three
YLUWXDOÀHOGWULSVDVYLGHRV:LWKWKHVHYLGHRV\RXZLOOJHWDQLGHDRIWKHXVHRIWKHUHFODLPHGPDUVKODQGDUHDRI
the Guadalquivir Valley (intensive irrigated land, with around 40000 ha of rice), the new intensive tree orchards
systems, and new tools for precision agriculture.
)LQDOO\ZHZRXOGOLNH WRH[SUHVV RXUJUDWLWXGHIRU \RXUFRQÀGHQFHLQWKHFHOHEUDWLRQ RIWKHFRQIHUHQFH LQWKHVH
GLIÀFXOWWLPHV
Antonio Delgado
On behalf of the Organizing Committee

6 7
COMMITTEES
Local organizing committee (University of Sevilla)
• Antonio Delgado García. ESA president 2018-2020
• Manuel Pérez Ruíz.
• José María Urbano Fuentes-Guerra
• María Teresa Moreno Aguirre.
• Eusebio Carmona Chiara
$PSFTDJFOUJmDDPNNJUUFF
• Antonio Delgado García (University of Sevilla)
• Manuel Pérez Ruiz (University of Sevilla)
• José María Urbano (University of Sevilla)
• Francisco Villalobos (University of Córdoba)
• Roberto Confalonieri (University of Milán)
• Marisa Gallardo (University of Almería)
• Santiago Bonachela (University of Almería)
4DJFOUJmD$PNNJUUF
• Senholt Asseng, University of Florida, USA
• Bruno Basso, Michigan State University, USA
• Goran Bergkvist, Agricultural University (SLU), Sweden
• Davide Camarano, Purdue University, USA
• Christoph Carlen, Agroscope, Switzerland
• Natalie Colbach, INRA-Dijon, France
• David Connor, University of Melbourne, Australia
• Julián Cuevas, University of Almería, Spain
• Jose Paulo de Melo Abreu, Instituto Superior de Agronomía, Portugal
• Marcelo Donatelli, CREA, Italy
• Christos Dordas, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
• Thomas Döring, University of Bonn, Germany
• José Enrique Fernández, CSIC-IRNAS, Spain
• Helena Gómez-Macpherson, CSIC-IAS, Spain
• Marie-Helene Jeuffroy, INRA, France
• Eric Justes, CIRAD, France
• Thomas Keller, Agricultural University (SLU), Agroscope, Sweden, Switzerland
• Rafael López, CSIC-IRNAS, Spain
• Alvaro López Bernal, CSIC-IAS, Spain
• Rafael López-Bellido, Universidad de Córdoba, Spain
• Engracia Madejón, CSIC-IRNAS, Spain
• Marco Moriondo, CNR, Italia
• Abdul M. Mouazen, University of Gent, Belgium
• Vinay Nangia, ICARDA, Jordan
• Claas Nendel, ZALF, Germany
• Mathias Neumann Andersen, Aarhus University, Denmark
• Jorgen E Olesen, Aarhus/Copenhage universities, Denmark
• Pirjo Peltonen-Sainio, LUKE, Finland
• Miguel Quemada, Universidad Politécnica Madrid, Spain
• Pytrik Reidsma, Wageningen Agricultural University, The Netherlands
• 0DULDQD&5XÀQRLancaster University, UK
• Antonio Rafael Sánchez-Rodríguez, Universidad de Córdoba, Spain
• Roxana Savin, Universidad de Lleida, Spain
• Urs Schmidhalter, Technical University Munich, Germany
• Gustavo Slafer, Universidad de Lleida, Spain
• Massimo Tagliavini, Free University of Bolzano, Italy
• Francesco Tei, University of Perugia, Italy
• Christine Watson,6FRWKODQG·V5XUDO&ROOHJH8.
KEYNOTE SPEAKERS
• Elías Fereres. University of Córdoba, IAS CSIC.
• Gustavo Slafer, ICREA (Catalonian Institution for Research and Advanced Studies) at AGROTECNIO Center
and the University of Lleida, Spain.
• Nathalie Colbach, Agroécologie, AgroSup Dijon, INRA, Univ. Bourgogne, Franche-Comté, Dijon, France.
• Pytrik Riedsma, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
• Marco Moriondo, CNR, Italy.
• Bruno Basso, Michigan State University, USA.
• Miguel Quemada, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Spain.
• Roberto Confalonieri, University of Milan, Italy.
• Urs Schmidhalter, Technical University of Munich, Germany.
• David Connor, University of Melbourne.
• Abdul M. Mouazen, University of Ghent.

60 61
Abstracts of Oral Communications
evaluate the performance of different species as cover
crops interseeded into maize, and the impact on maize
productivity. Moreover, performance of interseeded
species was compared to cover crops sown in autumn.
The evaluated species included eight legumes: burr
medic (Medicago polymorpha L.), barrel medic (Medi-
cago truncatula L.), yellow sweetclover (0HOLORWXVRIÀF-
inalis L.), berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L.),
balansa clover (Trifolium michelanium L.), red clover
(Trifolium pratense L.), Persian clover (Trifolium resu-
pinatum L.), and common vetch (Vicia sativa L.), as
well as annual ryegrass (/ROLXPPXOWLÁRUXP L.). A bare
soil (interrows without interseeding) was included as a
control. After the maize harvest, the four interseeded
species with the best performance were also sown as
cover crops in adjacent plots. The ground cover evo-
lution, biomass and N content of each species were
determined in the autumn and in the following spring.
The soil inorganic N was determined in spring.
Annual ryegrass, common vetch, barrel medic and yel-
low sweetclover were the interseeded species with the
best performance. None of the species had a negative
impact on maize productivity. In autumn, interseeeded
species had a higher biomass and covered more the
ground than cover crops sown in October. Therefore,
the longer soil coverage of interseeded species implies
a greater potential for soil quality increase and weed
suppression. Moreover, the higher biomass accumulat-
ed when interseeded, ensured the survival of yellow
sweetclover, which was winter killed when sown in au-
tumn. In spring, the interseeded treatments showed a
lower soil inorganic N content than autumn cover crops,
and differences were observed between species.
7KHH[SHULPHQWKLJKOLJKWVWKHEHQHÀWV RILQWHUVHHGLQJ
cover crops, a promising strategy to diversify rotations
DQGLQFUHDVHHQYLURQPHQWDO EHQHÀWVLQ0HGLWHUUDQHDQ
regions.
Project founded by the Spanish Ministry (AGL2017-
83283-C2-1/2-R), Comunidad de Madrid (AGRISOST-
CM S2018/BAA-4330) and EU Structural Funds. Avail-
able in: Alonso-Ayuso, M. et al. (2020) “Interseeding
cover crops into maize: Characterization of species
performance under Mediterranean conditions” Field
Crops Res. 249: 107762.
Keywords:LQWHUFURSSLQJGLYHUVLW\OHJXPHVU\HJUDVV
vetch
0068
CROP YIELD AND WATER USE
EFFICIENCY IN THREE IRRIGATED
MAIZE CROPPING SYSTEMS
UNDER DIFFERENT NITROGEN
FERTILIZATION RATES
JORGE ÁLVARO-FUENTES 1- SAMUEL FRANCO-
LUESMA 1 - VICTORIA LAFUENTE 1- FERNANDO
CARRASQUER 1 - EVA MEDINA 1 - JOSÉ LUIS
ARRÚE 1
1Soil and Water Department, Estación Experimental de Aula
Dei (EEAD), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC),
Avda. de Montañana 1005, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain.
In NE Spain, traditional management of irrigated maize
(Zea mays L.) includes monocultures and large addi-
tions of N fertilizers. Monocultures have been marked
for their detrimental effects on the sustainability and
resource conservation of these agroecosystems. This
VWXG\SUHVHQWV WKHÀUVW VHDVRQGDWD RIDQ H[SHULPHQW
established in fall 2018 in Zaragoza (Spain), under the
framework of the H2020 project Diverfarming, to eval-
XDWHWKHHIIHFWV RIWKHDGRSWLRQRIGLYHUVLÀHGFURSSLQJ
systems and adjusted N rates on maize grain yield
DQGZDWHU XVHHIÀFLHQF\:8( 7KXVWZRGLYHUVLÀHG
cropping systems, pea (Pisum sativum L.)-maize and
barley (Hordem vulgare L.)-maize, were compared with
WKH WUDGLWLRQDO PDL]H PRQRFXOWXUH LQ D ÁRRG LUULJDWHG
V\VWHP &RQFXUUHQWO\ WKUHH 1 UDWHV  FRQWURO 01
PHGLXP UDWH +1 KLJK UDWH ZHUH DOVR FRPSDUHG LQ
each cropping system.
Maize under monoculture produced greater grain
yields compared with the maize after barley or pea.
The mean maize grain yields (averaged for the three N
rates) were: 12.5, 7.4 and 7.0 Mg ha-1 for maize mono-
culture, maize after barley and maize after pea, respec-
tively. However, it is important to highlight the barley
and pea yields obtained during the season (4.3 and 7.1
Mg ha-1, respectively, as average values for the three N
rates). Differences among N rates were only observed
between the unfertilized and the fertilized treatments
with the lowest maize yields observed in the control
(unfertilized) plots. No differences were observed be-
tween the medium and the high N rates.
The water use (WU) of the maize phase was similar in
WKHWZR GLYHUVLÀHGPDL]HV\VWHPVDQG PP
for maize after barley and maize after pea, respective-
ly) but greater compared with the maize monoculture
(800 mm). Nitrogen rates did not affect WU in any crop-
SLQJV\VWHP6LJQLÀFDQWO\JUHDWHU:8(ZDVPHDVXUHG
in the maize monoculture system compared with the
GLYHUVLÀHGPDL]HV\VWHPVPDL]HSKDVH$YHUDJHGIRU
the three N rates, WUE values were 15.6, 7.6 and 7.0
respectively for maize monoculture, maize after barley
and maize after pea. Furthermore, addition of N fertil-
izer resulted in an increase of WUE compared with the
control treatment.
7KHVHÀUVWVHDVRQUHVXOWVVKRZHGWKDWWKH DGRSWLRQRI
GLYHUVLÀHGV\VWHPVDV DQDOWHUQDWLYHWRWKHWUDGLWLRQDO
maize monoculture, did not increase maize yields and
WUE. However, this study only showed data from one
cropping season and it did not consider possible posi-
WLYHHIIHFWVRIFURSSLQJGLYHUVLÀFDWLRQRQRWKHUHFRV\V-
tem services.
Keywords: ,UULJDWHG PDL]H FURSSLQJ GLYHUVLÀFDWLRQ
nitrogen fertilization
0072
SOYBEAN INTRODUCTION IN
MEDITERRANEAN CROPPING
SYSTEMS CAN REDUCE THEIR
CARBON FOOTPRINT
GENÍS SIMON-MIQUEL 1* - CARLOS CANTERO-
MARTÍNEZ 1 - ETIENNE-PASCAL JOURNET2,3 -
DANIEL PLAZA-BONILLA 1
1 Department of Crop and Forest Sciences, Associated Unit
EEAD-CSIC, Agrotecnio, University of Lleida, 25198 Lleida,
Spain. 2 University of Toulouse, INRAE, UMR AGIR, 31326
Castanet Tolosan, France. 3 University of Toulouse, INRAE,
CNRS, UMR LIPM 31326 Castanet Tolosan, France
Maize monocropping in Mediterranean irrigated areas
can lead to agronomic and environmental problems
due to high N demand and intensively tilled winter fal-
lows. Crop GLYHUVLÀFDWLRQ ZLWK VR\EHDQ PLJKW EH an
alternative to deal with these problems and, mean-
ZKLOH FRQWULEXWLQJ WR WKH (8 SURWHLQ VHOIVXIÀFLHQF\
:HTXDQWLÀHGWKHFDUERQIRRWSULQW&)3IRUWKHPDL]H
or soybean rotation phase of four cropping systems:
maize monocropping (MM) and soybean-maize rota-
tion (SM) as single cropping systems (during winter,
these systems include rye as a cover crop), and bar-
ley-maize (BM) and barley-soybean (BS) as double
FURSSLQJ V\VWHPV LQ DQ RQIDUP ÀHOG H[SHULPHQW OR-
cated in Sucs (Lleida, Spain) in the framework of the
EU project LegumeGap. Aboveground biomass, grain
yield, yield components, and biomass N, grain N and
soil N contents were measured. All the inputs and crop
operations were recorded, and external (Eem) and on-
site (Oem) GHG emissions were calculated. Emission
factors were obtained from the literature and soil pro-
cesses such as NO3
- leaching, NH3 volatilization and
N2O emissions were simulated using STICS model.
Maize phase in MM and BM had a higher CFP (9642
and 9182 kg CO2 eq ha-1, respectively) compared to
soybean phase in SM and BS (6990 and 7271 kg CO2
eq ha-1, respectively). Eem accounted, on average, for
the 74 % of total CFP for all treatments. Manure Eem
were 4190 kg CO2 eq ha-1 in the four systems, repre-
senting 44 and 58 % of the total CFP in maize and
soybean, respectively. Also, Eem linked to top-dress N
fertilization in maize represented up to 15 % of the CFP
in MM and BM. Regarding Oem (which represented on
average 26 % of the total CFP), STICS simulations
showed that cropping systems including soybean had
50% lower N2O emissions. MM and SM showed very
similar CFP:grain N ratio (42 and 46 kg CO2 eq kg-1
N, respectively) and so did BM and BS (57 kg CO2 eq
kg-1 N for both). The next step will be to gather and
analyze data for the full three-year rotations: (i) evalu-
DWHRWKHU SRWHQWLDO EHQHÀWVRI VR\EHDQLQWURGXFWLRQ LQ
cropping systems (e.g. increases in maize productivity,
weed control,…) and (ii) account for soil organic carbon
changes and potential carbon sequestration into the
CFP. Our preliminary results show that systems includ-
ing soybean might be a suitable alternative to break
maize monocropping while reducing GHG emissions
DQGFRQWULEXWLQJWRWKH(8SURWHLQVHOIVXIÀFLHQF\
Keywords:(8 SURWHLQVHOIVXIÀFLHQF\ 67,&6PRGHO
FURSGLYHUVLÀFDWLRQVR\EHDQSURGXFWLRQ
0081
PERENNIAL GRAIN ROOTS
DIFFER FROM ANNUAL ONES,
AFFECTING SOIL FUNCTIONING
AND MICROBIOLOGY
OLIVIER DUCHENE1, FLORIAN CELETTE1,
ANA BARREIRO2, LINDA-MARIA DIMITROVA
MÅRTENSSON2, GRÉGOIRE T. FRESCHET3,
CHRISTOPHE DAVID1
1 ISARA, Agroecology and Environment Research Unit,
23 Rue Jean Baldassini, 69364, Lyon cedex 07, France.
2 Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department
of Biosystems and Technology P.O. Box 103, SE-230 53 Al-
narp, Sweden. 36WDWLRQG·(FRORJLH7KpRULTXHHW([SpULPHQ-
tale, CNRS, Université Toulouse III, 2 route du CNRS, 09200
Moulis, France
$UDQJHRI¶DJURHFRORJLFDOSUDFWLFHV·DUHFXUUHQWO\SUR-
posed to increase the sustainability of intensive grain
systems. However, little attention has been paid to the
use of perennial grains in the crop successions. The
XVH RI WKH SHUHQQLDO JUDLQ ¶LQWHUPHGLDWH ZKHDWJUDVV·
(Thinopyrum intermedium (Host) Barkworth & D.R.
Dewey) may have the potential to sustain soil fertility
through the development of an extensive root system
EHQHÀFLDOWRDUDQJHRI VRLOIXQFWLRQV,QWKHFRQWH[WRI
cereal grain crop rotation, we compared young stands
of intermediate wheatgrass to annual grains during two
SOYBEAN INTRODUCTION IN
SOYBEAN
INTRODUCTION
IN
MEDITERRANEAN CROPPING
MEDITERRANEAN
CROPPING
SYSTEMS CAN REDUCE THEIR
SYSTEMS CAN REDUC
C
ARB
O
N F
OO
TPRINT
G
ENÍ
S
S
IM
O
N
-
M
I
Q
UEL
MARTÍNEZ
1
ETIENNE

SPONSORS