Growing Legumes / Fabaceae
1. Presentation
Characterization of the technique
Description of the technique:
| Anne Schneider | UNIP | A.schneider(at)unip.fr | Paris (75) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nathalie Blosseville | UNIP | N.blosseville(at)unip.fr | Paris (75) |
| Alexandra Cherifi | Auxerre-La Brosse Agri-viticultural Farm | alexandra.cherifi(at)educagri.fr | Auxerre (89) |
| Marc Moraine | INRA | marc.moraine(at)toulouse.inra.fr | Toulouse (31) |
| Rémy Ballot | INRA | remy.ballot(at)grignon.inra.fr | Grignon (78) |
Spam prevention: To use these addresses, replace (at) with @
Introduce plants from the legumes family into the crop sequence as crops for sale or forage crops: grain legumes, forage legumes or pulses.
Example of implementation: Introduction of grain legumes in rotations based on cereal straw crops and oilseeds
Details on the technique:
Introducing legumes into the rotation simultaneously diversifies botanical families and sowing periods.
Implementation period On established crop
Spatial scale of implementation Farm
Application of the technique to...
All crops: Not applicable
All soil types: Easily generalizable
Nuances must be considered depending on the species: pea not recommended on highly dusty soil (harvesting issues), field bean not recommended on shallow soil, lupin not recommended on soil with high active limestone content, alfalfa not recommended on acidic or hydromorphic soil...
All climatic contexts: Easily generalizable
In climatic contexts characterized by insufficient water availability, irrigation can compensate for water deficits.
Regulation
POSITIVE influence
Coupled aid for grain legumes (EU)
Additional aid for grain legumes (FR)
Rotational or crop diversity MAE
MAET linked to catchment basins imposing maximum nitrogen dose thresholds and IFT reductions
2. Services provided by the technique
3. Effects on the sustainability of the cropping system
"Environmental" criteria
Effect on air quality: Increasing
acidification: DECREASE
GHG emissions: DECREASE
Effect on water quality: Increasing
N.P.: DECREASE
Effect on fossil resource consumption: Decreasing
fossil energy consumption: DECREASE
Other: No effect (neutral)
Pollutant transfer to water (N, P, pesticides ...): Decrease
Phytosanitary products (break in the cycles of diseases and weeds allowing pesticide savings). For nitrogen, effect more variable: on one hand lower consumption of industrial or organic nitrogen fertilizers, on the other hand higher post-harvest residues and winter entry often just after pea due to shallower rooting but less after the crop following pea (second year), hence an additional nitrate leaching risk after pea but lower risk after the crop following pea. (Note: higher post-harvest or winter residues are generally not due to crop residues: relatively rich in nitrogen but less voluminous, pea residues generally return an equivalent amount of nitrogen as cereal or rapeseed residues).
Pollutant transfer to air (N, P, pesticides ...): Decrease
Less acidification and less ozone formation potential for rotations with legumes.
Fossil energy consumption: Decrease
Significant decrease in fossil energy consumption (no nitrogen fertilizers in legume crops and reduced in the crop sequence)
GHG emissions: Decrease
Significant reduction of GHG emissions from the rotation (notably N2O before and during crop): a three-year rotation including pea reduces field emissions by 20%. Explanation: very low emissions on legumes (absence of N2O emissions linked to symbiotic nitrogen fixation, no nitrogen fertilizers hence no emissions associated with these inputs) and less emissions from other crops in the rotation with legumes (mainly due to reduced nitrogen fertilizer use).
Biodiversity: increase
Crop diversity, diversity of associated fauna and flora
Water consumption: Decrease
Decrease in water consumption for spring grain legumes compared to winter crops. The introduction of perennial legumes (alfalfa…) in rotations based on winter crops can however lead to increased water consumption due to prolonged uptake.
"Agronomic" criteria
Productivity: Increasing
The impact is measured at the crop sequence scale: pea wheat yields are on average 8.4 q higher compared to wheat after wheat. Rapeseed also has higher yields after pea. The previous effect of legumes varies little from one pedo-climatic context to another.
Soil fertility: Increasing
Legumes, through nitrogen fixation, contribute to enriching the soil in nitrogen and ultimately increasing mineralization potential. Legumes allow better nitrogen use efficiency: both absorption AND utilization of fertilizer for yield are always higher (or equal) after pea (compared to after rapeseed and wheat). Some legumes also have a positive effect on soil structure notably via their taproot system (alfalfa, field bean).
Water stress: No effect (neutral)
Functional biodiversity: Increasing
Legumes are papilionaceous-flowered plants often rich in nectar favorable to pollinators.
Other agronomic criteria: Variable
Disease pressure: variable
Introducing legumes into cereal-dominated rotations limits pressure from certain diseases on these crops (take-all, fusarium head blight…). However, too frequent return of some legumes can increase pressure from other diseases: aphanomyces in pea or lentil and some species sown in cover crops, sclerotinia in rotations also including rapeseed...
Weed pressure: Decrease
For example, blackgrass in cereals
"Economic" criteria
Operating costs: Decreasing
Nitrogen (lower consumption of nitrogen fertilizers by the rotation, enabled by symbiotic fixation and better nitrogen use efficiency in the following crop), phytosanitary products (break in disease and weed cycles). In crop-livestock systems, introducing legumes can reduce animal feed costs.
Mechanization costs: No effect (neutral)
Margin: Variable
Margins for grain legumes (pea, field bean, soybean, lupin) are currently less attractive than other crops (wheat, rapeseed) but the margin of the following crop in the rotation is better than the non-rotated crop (better yield and reduced costs), which is also true for other crops in the rotation with grain legumes compared to rotation without grain legumes. Therefore, in several studied cases, considering the above effects, the margin is maintained, slightly decreased, or improved if rotation management and ITK allow access to specific premiums (rotational MAET, or measures with nitrogen dose thresholds or IFT reduction). Including a pea between two wheats is always beneficial.
"Social" criteria
Working time: Variable
Pea harvest may involve higher workload in case of lodging (cleaning the combine, risk of breakage…).
Peak period: Increasing
Work schedule easier to manage due to spreading
Required technical skills: increasing
Learning necessary if new crop: acquisition of specific technical skills (sowing, harvesting) and risk-taking in managing a new crop.
Effect on farmer health: Increasing
Contribution to environmental respect: increasing
Maintaining diversity, no nitrogen fertilizers on legumes and reduced doses on following crops, reduction of phytosanitary products over the entire rotation
Observation time: Variable
Some legume species require more observation than cereal straw but no more than rapeseed (monitoring insects in spring on pea, field bean…).
4. Favored or disadvantaged organisms
Favored Pests
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged pests
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Favored Beneficials
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged beneficials
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Type | Details |
|---|
Favored climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
Disadvantaged climatic and physiological accidents
| Organism | Impact of the technique | Details |
|---|
5. For further information
- Nitrogen availability from the effect of the previous legume, cover crop and organic fertilizer
- -Prieur L. (CREAB), Justes E. (INRA)
AlterAgri n°80, p13-17, Press article, 2006
- Diversifying cereal rotations notably with pea and rapeseed – Recent experimental and study data.
- -Schneider A (UNIP)., Flénet F., Dumans P (CETIOM)., Bonnin E. (CA 58), De Chezelles E., Jeuffroy M.H. (INRA), Hayer F., Nemecek T. (Agroscope), Carrouée B. (UNIP)
OCL n°17-5, p301-311, Peer-reviewed journal article, 2010
- Economy and environment - The interest of pea is revealed at the cropping system scale
- -Schneider A., Carrouée B. (UNIP)
Perspectives agricoles n°380, p4-7, Press article, 2011
- Environmental impacts of introducing grain legumes into European crop rotations
- -Nemecek T. (Agroscope)
European Journal of Agronomy, n°28, p380-393., Peer-reviewed journal article, 2008
- Evaluation with the AlomySys model quantifying the effect of cropping systems on a grass weed
- -Colbach N. (INRA), Schneider A., Ballot R. (UNIP), Vivier C. (CA89)
OCL n°17, p292-300, Peer-reviewed journal article, 2010
- Grain legumes for European growers - LINK production survey analysis
- -Pahl H., Funk T. (Technical university of Munich), Krüpl C. (Agricultural university of Vienna)
Grain legumes n°30, p22-24, Peer-reviewed journal article, 2000
- Pea in the rotation, an altruistic crop
- -Tiers N. (Cultivar), Schneider A., Ballot R. (UNIP)
Cultivar n°633 , p32-34, Press article, 2010
- Taking previous effects into account in crop profitability - To earn more with rapeseed, place it after pea!
- -Dumans P., Flenet F., Wagner D. (Cetiom), Bonnin E. (CA58), Schneider A. (UNIP)
Perspectives agricoles n°368, p4-8, Press article, 2010
- Grain legumes - The economic interest of diversified rotations
- -Carrouée B. (UNIP)
Perspectives agricoles n°303, p12-15, Press article, 2004
- Grain legumes in crop rotation - A previous effect not limited to yield gain
- -Dubois G. (UNIP)
Perspectives agricoles n°336, p64-66, Press article, 2007
- Profitability of grain legumes in rotation - What economic value for the previous effect?
- -Schneider A., Ballot R., Carrouée B. (UNIP), Berrodier M. (Arvalis)
Perspectives agricoles n°360, p6-11, Press article, 2009
- Pea/wheat rotations: comparison of nitrogen balances
- -Aveline A., Crozat Y. (ESA Angers), Carrouée B. (UNIP), Gillet J.P. (ITCF)
Perspectives Agricoles, n°239, p36-40, Press article, 1998
- UNIP
- -UNIP
Website
6. Keywords
Pest control method: Cultural control
Mode of action: Action on initial stock
Type of strategy regarding pesticide use: Redesign
Annexes
Est complémentaire des leviers
