Published November, 2004
CROPPING SYSTEMS
Intercropping Berseem Clover with Barley and Oat Cultivars for Forage
Shirley M. Ross,* Jane R. King, John T. O’Donovan, and Dean Spaner
ABSTRACT
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.
Intercrops of berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L.) and
silage cereals offer potential for high quality forage and partitioning
of yield between silage harvest and fall grazing. Forage yield and
quality of cereal–berseem clover intercrops may differ among oat
(Avena sativa L.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars and with
semidwarf or early maturing cereal cultivars. Berseem clover was
intercropped with five oat and four barley cultivars at Edmonton,
Alberta, in 2000 and 2001 on orthic black chernozem (Typic Cryobor-
oll) soil. Forage yield, composition, and quality were measured with
a two-cut harvest. Silage-stage yield (Cut 1) averaged 9.9 Mg ha⫺1 of
dry matter (DM) with 18% berseem clover by dry weight. Berseem
clover regrowth (Cut 2) averaged 2.8 Mg ha⫺1 DM with crude protein
(CP) of 215 g kg⫺1. Intercrops with oat cultivars had greater Cut 1 DM
yield, and intercrops with barley had greater yields of Cut 2 DM and
total CP. The earlier maturity of barley provided for longer periods
of berseem clover regrowth. Intercrops with semidwarf barley had
equal yields of total DM and CP and greater Cut 2 DM yield than
those with conventional-stature barley. Intercrops with early maturing
oat cultivars had equal total DM yield and greater yields of Cut
2 DM and total CP than those with late-maturing oat cultivars. Forage
quality indicators suggested that intercrops with barley were superior
to those with oat. To maximize fall forage and increase the legume
component of silage harvest, early maturing and shorter-stature cul-
tivars of oat and barley are recommended for cereal–berseem clover
intercrops.
A substantial amount of barley and oat production
in western Canada is used for forage. Forage pro-
duction from annual crops in Alberta is typically about
0.6 million hectares (1.5 million acres), with barley and
oat as the predominant crops for greenfeed and silage
(AAFRD, 2003). In 2003, approximately 10% of the
area seeded to annual grain, oilseed, and pulse crops in
Alberta was harvested for forage.
Potential benefits of intercropping berseem clover
with cereal crops include increased total DM yields,
improved forage quality, reduced fertilizer needs, and
increased subsequent crop yield (Reynolds et al., 1994;
Ghaffarzadeh, 1997; Stout et al., 1997). Intercropping
berseem clover with silage cereals offers potential to
partition forage yield between silage harvest and fall
regrowth (Ross et al., 2004). There is considerable inter-
S.M. Ross, Dep. of Renewable Resour., 751 GSB, Univ. of Alberta,
Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2H1; J.R. King and D. Spaner, Dep.
of Agric., Food and Nutritional Sci., 4-10 Agric.-Forestry Cent., Univ.
of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2P5; and J.T. O’Donovan,
Northern Agric. Res. Cent., Agric. and Agri-Food Canada, Beaver-
lodge, AB, Canada T0H 0C0. Received 6 Jan. 2004. *Corresponding
author (shirley.ross@ualberta.ca).
Published in Agron. J. 96:1719–1729 (2004).
© American Society of Agronomy
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
1719
est in extending the fall grazing period in Alberta, and
the potential of intercropping winter cereals with spring
cereals has been explored as a means to extend forage
production (Baron et al., 1992; Jedel and Salmon, 1995).
Choice of cereal species affects the performance of
intercrops grown for forage. Jedel and Helm (1993)
found that intercropping oat with pulse crops produced
greater DM yield than intercropping barley or triticale
(⫻ Triticosecale rimpaui Wittm.) with pulse crops, but
intercrops with barley or triticale gave a better combina-
tion of quality and protein content than intercrops with
oat. In a study of berseem clover intercropped with one
cultivar each of oat, barley, or triticale, biomass yields,
species composition, and forage quality were affected
by cereal species (Ross et al., 2004). Berseem clover
intercrops with triticale and oat had greater Cut 1 silage-
stage yields and a greater percentage of berseem clover
in Cut 1 than intercrops with barley. However, in-
tercrops with barley had greater yields of Cut 2 berseem
clover regrowth and total CP.
Cultivars of oat and barley have been studied to deter-
mine the effects of companion crop growth habit on the
establishment of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) (Brink and
Marten, 1986a, 1986b; Nickel et al., 1990; Chapko et al.,
1991; Simmons et al., 1995). A few studies have assessed
oat or barley cultivar effects in intercrops with annual
forage crops (Thompson et al., 1992; Moynihan et al.,
1996; Holland and Brummer, 1999). Holland and Brum-
mer (1999) evaluated eight cultivars of oat and seven
cultivars of berseem clover in intercrops in Iowa, with
harvest at oat grain maturity and subsequent forage
regrowth. ‘Bigbee’ berseem clover performed better than
the other clover cultivars in intercrops. Oat cultivars
varied for oat traits, effects on clover stands and yield,
and total intercrop biomass. It was concluded that mono-
culture evaluation of oat cultivars can be used to predict
the traits of oat in berseem clover–oat intercrops but
cannot reliably predict the effects on berseem clover
growth.
Semidwarf cereal cultivars may provide advantages
over conventional-stature cultivars in forage intercrops.
Simmons et al. (1995) recommended semidwarf culti-
vars as companion crops because of less potential for
lodging. Semidwarf cultivars of oat and barley were
less competitive than conventional-stature cultivars as
companion crops for alfalfa (Nickel et al., 1990; Sim-
mons et al., 1995). Thompson et al. (1992) found that
semidwarf barley caused less suppression of annual rye-
Abbreviations: ADF, acid detergent fiber; CP, crude protein; DM,
dry matter; NDF, neutral detergent fiber; PAR, photosynthetically
active radiation.
 1720 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 96, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2004

grass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.) than did conventional-
stature barley in barley–ryegrass intercrops.
Holland and Brummer (1999) suggested that oat
heading date may be more strongly associated with com-
petitiveness than oat height in oat–berseem clover inter-
crops. Based on relative grain yields, Juskiw et al. (2000c)
concluded that barley cultivars with early maturity were
less competitive than late-maturing barley cultivars in
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.
‘AC Lacombe’, ‘Niska’, and ‘Seebe’) were seeded at 60 viable
seeds m⫺2 in 2000. In 2001, the cereal seeding rate was in-
creased to 69 viable seeds m⫺2 to better ensure a cereal plant
density of approximately 60 plants m⫺2 in plots. The decision
to seed the cereals at 25% of the recommended full rate for
cereal monocrops of 240 plants m⫺2 was based on seeding rate
experiments with cereal–berseem clover intercrops (Ross et
al., 2003, 2004). Cereal cultivars are described in Table 1.
Cereals were seeded with a four-row disc drill at 23-cm row

barley mixtures. However, the use of early maturing spacing. Bigbee berseem clover was inoculated with the appro-
cereal cultivars may decrease initial forage yields of inter- priate Rhizobium trifolii and seeded at 15 kg ha⫺1. Berseem
crops (Thompson et al., 1992; Juskiw et al., 2000b). Juskiw clover was cross-seeded at a depth of approximately 1.5 to
et al. (2000b) concluded that per-plant biomass yields 2 cm with a six-row disc drill at 18-cm row spacing. Plot size
of barley, oat, and triticale were affected by genotype, was 1.8 by 6 m, with eight rows of cereal in each plot. Berseem
production practices, and time of harvest, with the latter clover sole crop plots were also grown. Plots were seeded on
18 May in 2000 and on 23 May in 2001. In 2001, plots were
having the greatest effect.
irrigated before and after seeding to counter dry soil con-
The effects of barley and oat cultivars in cereal– ditions.
berseem clover intercrops grown for forage have not The experimental design was a randomized complete block
been studied. The objectives of this study were to (i) with intercrop and sole berseem clover treatments replicated
determine the effects of barley and oat cultivars on four times. In 2000, one 0.5- by 1-m quadrat was permanently
forage yield, berseem clover component of yield, and marked in each plot. In 2001, two such 0.5-m2 quadrats were
forage quality of cereal–berseem clover intercrops grown marked in each plot. Quadrats were placed away from the
in a short-season growing environment and (ii) determine plot margins but were otherwise randomly placed in plots. The
the effects of oat and barley cultivar stature and maturity, desired cereal density of 30 plants per quadrat was achieved
including semidwarf and early maturing cultivars, on the through placement of the quadrat and thinning of the cereal
plants. Plots were hand-weeded, with particular attention to
performance of cereal–berseem clover intercrops.
quadrat areas. On 6 July 2001, light interception was deter-
mined using a 1-m-long line quantum sensor connected to a
MATERIALS AND METHODS model LI-188B LI-COR quantum meter (LI-COR, Lincoln,
Intercrops of berseem clover with oat and barley were NE). At approximately solar noon, the probe was used to
grown at Edmonton (53⬚ 25⬘ N, 113⬚ 33⬘ W), Alberta, Canada, measure the amount of incident photosynthetically active radi-
on a Malmo silty clay loam [orthic Black Chernozem (Typic ation (PAR), first at the top of the cereal canopy (full sunlight),
Cryoboroll)] in 2000 and 2001. Experiments followed tilled then underneath the cereal canopy at the level of the top of
fallow, and fields were disked and harrowed before seeding. the berseem clover, and at soil level. Light levels within the
Soil pH was 6.6 to 7.0, with soil levels of 48 to 56 mg nitrate canopy were expressed as a percentage of full sunlight. Cut
kg⫺1, 14 to 37 mg P kg⫺1, 200 to 270 mg K kg⫺1, and 14 to 1 harvest was at the silage-stage of cereals (milk to soft dough
37 mg sulfate kg⫺1, at a depth of 0 to 30 cm. To meet soil stage) on dates listed in Table 1. Further information on silage
nutrient recommendations for legume–cereal forage, triple production practices in Alberta and the timing of cereal har-
superphosphate 0–45–0 at approximately 28 kg ha⫺1 of P2O5 vest can be found in Juskiw et al. (2000a). Cereal canopy
was added in 2000. Initial soil N levels were more than ade- height was determined by random measurement from ground
quate for cereal silage production, but no N fertilizer would level in each plot at the time of harvest. Biomass in quadrats
have been added had soil N been inadequate because adding was cut by hand at approximately 6 cm above soil level, with
N would promote cereal domination of the clover. separation of the berseem clover and cereal biomass. The
Five oat cultivars (‘AC Juniper’, ‘Jasper’, ‘AC Mustang’, number of cereal tillers in each quadrat was determined by
‘Waldern’, and ‘Murphy’) and four barley cultivars (‘Kasota’, counting tiller bases after harvest. Immediately after sampling,
Table 1. Description of oat and barley cultivars and dates for Cut 1 silage-stage harvest, with number of days after planting† in
parentheses, for cereal–berseem clover intercrops and berseem clover sole crops at Edmonton, AB, in 2000 and 2001.
Cut 1 harvest
Treatment Description of cereal cultivar 2000 2001
date (days after planting)
Barley intercrops
Kasota early maturing, semidwarf, feed, six-row 2 Aug. (76) 27 July (65)
Niska midmaturing, semidwarf, feed, six-row 3 Aug. (77) 2 Aug. (71)
AC Lacombe midmaturing, conventional height, feed, six-row 3 Aug. (77) 1 Aug. (70)
Seebe late-maturing, conventional height, feed, two-row 3 Aug. (77) 3 Aug. (72)
Oat intercrops
AC Juniper early maturing, short, general purpose 8 Aug. (82) 6 Aug. (75)
Jasper early maturing, general purpose 8 Aug. (82) 7 Aug. (76)
AC Mustang midmaturing, good yield silage/feed 11 Aug. (85) 8 Aug. (77)
Murphy late-maturing, high yield silage/feed 14 Aug. (88) 10 Aug. (79)
Waldern late-maturing, high yield silage/feed 14 Aug. (88) 10 Aug. (79)
Berseem clover sole crops
Early cut (BE1)‡ – 27 July (65)
Midcut (BE2)‡ 4 Aug. (78) 3 Aug. (72)
Late cut (BE3)‡ 14 Aug. (88) 10 Aug. (79)
† Plots were seeded on 18 May in 2000 and on 23 May in 2001.
‡ Harvest of BE1 and BE2 coincided with barley intercrop harvest, and BE3 coincided with harvest of late-maturing oat intercrops.
 ROSS ET AL.: BERSEEM CLOVER WITH BARLEY AND OAT
treatment plots were cut using a small sickle mower and then
hand-raked to remove growth. The harvest procedure was re-
peated for Cut 2 at the end of the growing season on 6 October
in both years. Samples were dried for 72 h at 52⬚C and then
weighed. Species composition and DM yields were determined
from the samples harvested from quadrats. Samples of Cut 1
oat, barley, and berseem clover and a subset of samples of
Cut 1 intercrop mixtures and Cut 2 berseem clover were ana-
lyzed for forage quality indicators. Nitrogen was determined
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.
by the Kjeldahl mixed Cu/Ti catalyst method and multiplied
by 6.25 for CP (AOAC, 1990). Acid detergent fiber (ADF)
was determined according to Goering and Van Soest (1970)
and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) according to Undersander
et al. (1993).
Data were subjected to analyses of variance (ANOVA)
using the General Linear Model (GLM) procedure of SAS
with all effects considered fixed, except replication, which was
considered random (SAS Inst., 2000). Year effect was tested
against the year ⫻ block error term. The total sum of squares
of each model effect was thereafter partitioned into percent-
ages of the total sum of squares for an estimation of relative
importance of each effect to the total experimental variation.
Data from each year are presented separately because year ⫻
treatment interactions were significant for the majority of
variables. A priori contrasts were used to compare least square
means of barley with oat treatments, early maturing with late-
maturing oat treatments, semidwarf with conventional-stature
barley treatments, and berseem clover sole crops with in-
tercrop treatments. A significance level of P ⱕ 0.05 was used
for all statistical tests. Pearson correlation coefficients were
calculated on treatment means by the CORR procedure of
SAS to determine the relationship between berseem clover
DM yield and harvest date, cereal canopy height, cereal DM
yield, or cereal tiller density (SAS Inst., 2000).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The treatment effects of oat and barley cultivars in
intercrops were significant for all variables of cereal
characteristics, yields, species composition, and forage
quality indicators (Table 2). The effects of year ⫻ treat-
ment interactions represented over 10% of the total
sum of squares for Cut 1 cereal DM yield, percentage
of berseem clover in Cut 1, total DM yield, total CP
yield, percentage of berseem clover in total yield, and
forage quality indicators (CP, ADF, and NDF) of Cut 1.
There were some differences in moisture availability
and crop emergence between years. Rainfall for May
to September was near the 30-yr average (326 mm)
in 2000 (330 mm) but was lower than normal in 2001
(267 mm). Seasonal 5-mo mean temperatures for May
to September were near the 30-yr average of 14.5⬚C in
both years. In 2000, timely rainfall and early emergence
of berseem clover, relative to cereal emergence, may
have provided more favorable conditions for berseem
clover establishment and decreased the early competi-
tive effects of cereals. In 2001, irrigation of the plots
promoted rapid emergence of the cereals, but soil crust-
ing appeared to cause some inhibition of berseem clover
emergence. Fukai and Trenbath (1993) suggested that
the relative performance of crops in intercrops can be
greatly affected by small changes in the growth envi-
ronment.
Total DM yields of cereal–berseem clover intercrops
1721
were relatively high, averaging 14.4 Mg ha⫺1 in 2000
and 11.6 Mg ha⫺1 in 2001 (Table 3). Greater total yields
in 2000 than in 2001 were largely due to greater yields
of Cut 1 berseem clover. Intercrop Cut 1 DM yield of
berseem clover averaged 3.1 Mg ha⫺1 in 2000 and 0.8 Mg
ha⫺1 in 2001, with mean percentage of berseem clover
in Cut 1 by dry weight of 27% in 2000 and 9% in 2001.
Cereals caused substantial suppression of the berseem
clover in intercrops. Compared with yields in berseem
clover sole crops, berseem clover DM yields in inter-
crops were reduced on average by about 60 and 85%
in Cut 1 and about 30 and 60% in Cut 2, in 2000 and
2001, respectively. Total intercrop DM yields equaled
or exceeded those reported for cereal–pulse intercrops
in central Alberta of 8.2 to 12.3 Mg ha⫺1 (Berkenkamp
and Meeres, 1987) and 9 to 11 Mg ha⫺1 (Jedel and Helm,
1993) for oat or barley intercropped with pea (Pisum
sativum L.) or fababean (Vicia faba L.) and 8.9 Mg
ha⫺1 for barley–pea intercrops (Izaurralde et al., 1993).
Although the cereal seeding rates used in this study
were 25% of the full seeding rate, yields compared fa-
vorably with total DM yields of about 12 Mg ha⫺1 for
cereal–berseem clover intercrops with oat or barley at
full rates of 240 plants m⫺2 (Ross et al., 2004).
Barley and Oat Comparisons
Oat–berseem clover intercrops had greater yield of
Cut 1 DM than barley–berseem clover intercrops
(Table 3). Barley–berseem clover intercrops had greater
yields of Cut 2 DM and total CP and greater percentage
of berseem clover in total yield. In associated research
with Waldern oat and AC Lacombe barley at a range
of seeding rates in cereal–berseem clover intercrops, oat
intercrops had greater Cut 1 DM yields in 3 of 4 yr, and
barley intercrops had greater Cut 2 DM yield in 2 of
3 yr, greater total CP yield in 3 of 4 yr, and greater
percentage of berseem clover in total yield in 2 of 4 yr
(Ross et al., 2004).
Other intercrop studies in Alberta have reported
greater forage yields for oat intercrops than barley inter-
crops (Berkenkamp and Meeres, 1987; Jedel and Helm,
1993; Jedel and Salmon, 1994). The 21 to 25% greater
Cut 1 DM yield for oat–berseem clover intercrops than
for barley–berseem clover intercrops was largely due to
the cereal component (Table 3). Barley cultivars reached
soft dough stage earlier than oat cultivars, with silage-
stage harvest (Cut 1) of barley intercrops averaging 7
to 8 d earlier than oat intercrops (Table 1). Mean canopy
height of oat cultivars at Cut 1 was 50 to 56 cm higher
than that of barley cultivars (Table 4). Mean tiller weight
of barley cultivars at Cut 1 was only 40 to 47% of that of
oat cultivars, but mean tiller production (tillers plant⫺1)
of oat cultivars was 55 to 58% of that of barley cultivars.
Greater Cut 2 berseem clover DM yield for barley–
berseem clover intercrops than for oat–berseem clover
intercrops may be partly explained by earlier maturity
of barley and longer periods of regrowth (Tables 1 and
3). Total DM yields from two cuts of oat intercrops
were greater than barley intercrops in 2000, largely due
to greater Cut 1 cereal DM yield (Table 3). In 2001,
 Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.

1722

Table 2. Percentage of total sum of squares (TSS) from the analysis of variance for canopy height, tillers per plant, and tiller weight of cereals; dry matter (DM) yields of cereal,
berseem clover (BE), intercrop, and crude protein (CP); percentage BE; and CP, acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) concentrations for oat or barley
cultivars intercropped with berseem clover and berseem clover sole crops sampled at the silage stage of cereals (Cut 1) and at the end of the growing season (Cut 2) at Edmonton,
AB, in 2000 and 2001.

Cut 1 cereal characteristics Cut 1 yield Cut 1 and Cut 2 yield

Cut 2 yield
Canopy Tillers Tiller Cereal Intercrop Percentage Total Percentage
df height per plant weight DM df BE DM DM df BE† df BE DM df DM CP df BE
TSS, % TSS, % TSS, % TSS, % TSS, % TSS, %
Year (y) 1 5*** 9* 11*** 10 1 20*** 42*** 1 59*** 1 6 1 32** 11* 1 21**
Error a 6 1*** 6*** 1 11*** 6 1 3** 6 5** 6 3** 6 9* 8** 6 7***
Treatment (t) 8 93*** 72*** 77*** 49*** 11 71*** 46*** 8 11*** 11 77*** 11 13* 37*** 8 43***
y⫻t 8 0* 6*** 5*** 11** 10 2 2 8 14*** 10 9*** 10 14** 18*** 8 17***
Error b 48 1 7 6 20 57 6 8 48 11 57 6 57 32 24 48 12
TSS, numeric 61 713 536 103 200 537 692 9 257 414 329 11.9 9 772
CV, % 3 13 16 11 25 10 25 19 10 10 14
Concentrations of forage quality indicators
Cut 1 cereals Cut 1 intercrops and components Cut 2 berseem clover
df CP ADF NDF df CP ADF NDF df CP ADF NDF
TSS, % TSS, % TSS, %
y 1 1 5** 6 1 8 22 5* 1 58 13* 5
Error a 2 11** 0 3 3 11 6* 9 2 1 1 7
t 8 69*** 50*** 23* 8 61*** 38*** 67*** 4 35* 74** 70*
y⫻t 8 10 29* 57*** 7 14** 27*** 15*** 1 3 2 5
Error b 16 10 16 11 14 6 7 3 5 4 9 12
TSS, numeric 11 260 47 988 68 925 38 154 81 552 188 117 6 495 12 481 17 817
AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 96, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2004

CV, % 6 7 4 8 6 5 5 3 3
* Significant at the 0.05 probability level.
** Significant at the 0.01 probability level.
*** Significant at the 0.001 probability level.
† Percentage of berseem clover in intercrop by dry weight.
 Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.

Table 3. Cut 1, Cut 2, and total dry matter (DM) yields; percentage of berseem clover (BE) by dry weight; crude protein yields for cereal–berseem clover intercrops and berseem
clover sole crops; and grouped means for barley, oat, early maturing oat, late-maturing oat, semidwarf barley, and conventional-height barley cultivar intercrops at Edmonton,
AB, in 2000 and 2001.
Cut 1 Cut 2 Cut 1 and Cut 2
Cereal DM BE DM Intercrop DM Percentage BE BE DM Cereal DM Total DM Percentage BE Crude protein
Treatment 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001
Mg ha⫺1 % Mg ha⫺1 % Mg ha⫺1
Barley intercrops
Kasota 6.6 5.6 3.3 0.6 9.9 6.2 33 9 4.1 5.7 0.7 14.0 12.6 53 50 2.25 1.96
Niska 5.8 6.9 4.0 0.3 9.7 7.3 40 5 3.9 2.4 1.5 13.6 11.2 57 25 2.43 1.75
AC Lacombe 8.3 7.9 2.5 0.4 10.8 8.3 23 5 3.1 3.0 0.8 14.0 12.2 39 28 2.16 1.86
Seebe 7.5 7.3 2.7 0.5 10.2 7.8 26 7 3.7 2.5 0.7 13.8 11.0 46 27 2.34 1.70
Oat intercrops
AC Juniper 8.5 7.1 3.2 1.2 11.7 8.3 27 15 2.7 3.0 0.5 14.4 11.8 41 36 2.08 1.83
Jasper 9.3 7.7 3.6 1.2 12.9 8.8 28 13 2.6 2.5 0.2 15.5 11.5 40 32 2.25 1.67
AC Mustang 9.4 8.1 3.8 1.1 13.2 9.2 29 12 2.3 2.2 0.3 15.5 11.7 40 28 2.17 1.72
Murphy 10.4 8.2 2.0 0.7 12.4 8.9 16 8 1.4 1.5 0.1 13.9 10.5 25 20 1.79 1.43
Waldern 11.0 8.3 2.3 1.1 13.3 9.5 17 12 1.8 2.2 0.1 15.1 11.7 27 28 2.01 1.64
Berseem clover sole crops
Early cut (BE1)† – – – 2.9 – 2.9 – – – 10.4 – – 13.3 – – – 2.60
Midcut (BE2)† – – 6.8 4.8 6.8 4.8 – – 4.5 7.1 – 11.3 11.9 – – 2.09 2.42
Late cut (BE3)† – – 9.5 7.1 9.5 7.1 – – 3.0 5.5 – 12.5 12.6 – – 1.98 2.26
LSD‡ 1.7 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.6 1.1 9 2 0.9 1.0 0.5 2.0 1.7 9 5 0.33 0.26
MEANS
Barley intercrops 7.0 7.0 3.1 0.4 10.2 7.4 31 6 3.7 3.4 0.9 13.9 11.7 49 32 2.30 1.82
Oat intercrops 9.7 7.9 3.0 1.1 12.7 9.0 24 12 2.2 2.3 0.2 14.9 11.5 35 29 2.06 1.66
Early maturing oat 8.9 7.4 3.4 1.2 12.3 8.6 28 14 2.6 2.7 0.3 14.9 11.7 41 34 2.16 1.75
intercrops (EO)§
Late-maturing oat 10.7 8.3 2.2 0.9 12.9 9.2 17 10 1.6 1.8 0.1 14.5 11.1 26 24 1.90 1.53
intercrops (LO)¶
Semidwarf barley 6.2 6.3 3.6 0.5 9.8 6.7 37 7 4.0 4.1 1.1 13.8 11.9 55 37 2.34 1.85
intercrops (S)#
Conventional barley 7.9 7.6 2.6 0.4 10.5 8.1 25 6 3.4 2.7 0.7 13.9 11.6 43 27 2.25 1.78
intercrops (C)††
BE sole crops – – 8.2 4.9 8.2 4.9 – – 3.8 7.7 – 11.9 12.6 – – 2.03 2.43
Intercrops 8.5 7.5 3.1 0.8 11.6 8.3 27 9 2.8 2.8 0.5 14.4 11.6 41 30 1.56 1.60
CONTRASTS
Barley vs. oat *** *** ns‡‡ *** *** *** ** *** *** *** *** * ns *** ** ** *
intercrops
ROSS ET AL.: BERSEEM CLOVER WITH BARLEY AND OAT

EO vs. LO ** ** ** *** ns ns ** *** *** ** ns ns ns *** *** * *

Early vs. late-maturing ns *** ns ns ns *** ns ** ns *** ns ns * ns *** ns *
barley§§
S vs. C ** *** * ns ns *** *** * ** *** ns ns ns *** *** ns ns
BE sole crops vs. – – *** *** *** *** – – *** *** – *** * – – ns ***
intercrops
* Significant at the 0.05 probability level.
** Significant at the 0.01 probability level.
*** Significant at the 0.001 probability level.
† Harvest of BE1 and BE2 coincided with barley intercrop harvest, and BE3 coincided with harvest of late-maturing oat intercrops.
‡ Least significant difference at P ⱕ 0.05.
§ EO ⫽ AC Juniper and Jasper oat.
¶ LO ⫽ Murphy and Waldern oat.
# S ⫽ Kasota and Niska barley.
†† C ⫽ AC Lacombe and Seebe barley.
‡‡ ns, not significant.
§§ Early maturing barley ⫽ Kasota; late-maturing barley ⫽ Seebe.
1723
 1724 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 96, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2004

Table 4. Canopy height, tillers per plant, and tiller weight for barley and oat cultivars at silage stage of cereals (Cut 1) and grouped
means for barley, oat, early maturing oat, late-maturing oat, semidwarf barley, and conventional-height barley cultivars at Edmonton,
AB, in 2000 and 2001.
Canopy height Tillers per plant Tiller weight
Genotype 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001
cm no. plant⫺1 g tiller⫺1
Barley
Kasota 85 65 8 9 1.3 1.0
Niska 85 70 7 12 1.3 1.0
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.

AC Lacombe 100 85 7 9 1.9 1.6

Seebe 105 95 10 12 1.3 1.0
Oat
AC Juniper 130 115 6 8 2.5 1.6
Jasper 140 130 6 7 2.7 1.7
AC Mustang 145 140 3 4 4.6 3.4
Murphy 160 150 5 5 3.6 2.6
Waldern 145 130 4 5 4.7 2.8
LSD† 7 4 0.8 1.7 0.7 0.3
MEANS
Barley cultivars 93 77 8.2 10.6 1.5 1.1
Oat cultivars 143 133 4.7 5.8 3.6 2.4
Early maturing oat cultivars (EO)‡ 135 124 5.8 7.4 2.6 1.7
Late-maturing oat cultivars (LO)§ 150 139 4.4 5.1 4.1 2.7
Semidwarf barleys (S)¶ 83 66 7.7 10.9 1.3 1.0
Conventional barleys (C)# 104 89 8.6 10.2 1.6 1.3
CONTRASTS
Barley vs. oat cultivars *** *** *** *** *** ***
EO vs. LO *** *** *** *** *** ***
Early vs. late-maturing barley†† *** *** *** ** ns‡‡ ns
S vs. C *** *** ** ns ns **
** Significant at the 0.01 probability level.
*** Significant at the 0.001 probability level.
† Least significant difference at P ⱕ 0.05.
‡ EO ⫽ AC Juniper and Jasper oat.
§ LO ⫽ Murphy and Waldern oat.
¶ S ⫽ Kasota and Niska barley.
# C ⫽ AC Lacombe and Seebe barley.
†† Early maturing barley ⫽ Kasota; late-maturing barley ⫽ Seebe.
‡‡ ns, not significant.

total DM yields did not differ between oat and barley
intercrops as greater Cut 1 yields for oat intercrops were
countered by greater Cut 2 yields for barley intercrops.
The greater percentage of berseem clover in total yields
of barley–berseem clover intercrops averaged 41% com-
pared with an average of 32% berseem clover in oat–
berseem clover intercrops. Greater total CP yields for
barley intercrops than for oat intercrops was probably
due to a combination of greater CP concentration in
barley cultivars than in oat cultivars and greater yield
contribution from high quality berseem clover regrowth
in barley intercrops (Tables 3 and 5).
Cereal biomass was a consistent factor in suppression
of berseem clover by barley and oat cultivars. Within
barley intercrops, there were negative correlations be-
tween Cut 1 berseem clover DM yield and barley DM
yield (r ⫽ ⫺0.75 in 2000; r ⫽ ⫺0.63 in 2001). Within oat
intercrops, there were somewhat weaker correlations
between Cut 1 berseem clover DM yield and oat DM
yield (r ⫽ ⫺0.51 in 2000; r ⫽ ⫺0.34 in 2001). Cut 2
berseem clover DM yield was negatively correlated with
Cut 1 cereal DM yield among barley cultivars in both
years (r ⫽ ⫺0.59 in 2000; r ⫽ ⫺0.37 in 2001) and among
oat cultivars in 2000 (r ⫽ ⫺0.51). Holland and Brummer
(1999) found that oat straw yield was negatively corre-
lated with berseem clover yield. Negative linear rela-
tionships between Cut 1 berseem clover DM yield and
either oat DM yield or oat tiller density (tillers m⫺2)
occurred in experiments with Waldern oat at a range
of seeding rates intercropped with berseem clover (Ross
et al., 2003). In the present study, cereal tillering (tillers
plant⫺1) was only a factor in berseem clover suppression
among barley cultivars in 2001, with a moderate negative
correlation between Cut 1 berseem clover DM yield
and barley tiller production (r ⫽ ⫺0.44).
Some studies comparing the effects of oat and barley
in crop mixtures have concluded that barley caused
greater suppression of a companion crop than did oat
when grown with alfalfa (Brink and Marten, 1986b;
Nickel et al., 1990) or with other small-grain cereals
(Juskiw et al., 2000c). Our results in 2001 suggested
greater suppression of berseem clover by barley than
by oat cultivars. Cut 1 DM yield of berseem clover in
barley intercrops was 58% less than that in oat inter-
crops, and the percentage of berseem clover in barley
intercrops was less than in oat intercrops (Table 3).
Brink and Marten (1986b) reported that alfalfa seedling
DM yield (g m⫺2) was less with barley than with oat
cultivars. They found that barley cultivars frequently
had greater leaf area than did oat cultivars and thus had
greater potential for competition for light with under-
sown alfalfa. Simmons et al. (1995) reported that PAR
available at the top of alfalfa averaged 51% of full sun
with oat companion crops and 41% of full sun with
barley companion crops at 40 to 48 d after crop emer-
gence. Our light readings taken at 44 d after planting in
 ROSS ET AL.: BERSEEM CLOVER WITH BARLEY AND OAT 1725

Table 5. Cereal plant crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) concentrations at Cut 1 for
barley and oat cultivars and grouped means for barley, oat, early maturing oat, late-maturing oat, semidwarf barley, and conventional-
height barley cultivars at Edmonton, AB, in 2000 and 2001.
Cut 1 cereals
CP ADF NDF
Genotype 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001
g kg⫺1
Barley
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.

Kasota 130 135 325 275 575 495

Niska 170 145 285 305 515 540
AC Lacombe 130 140 335 295 585 495
Seebe 150 145 310 365 525 590
Oat
AC Juniper 110 125 305 340 500 540
Jasper 115 120 340 350 550 550
AC Mustang 110 125 370 385 600 590
Murphy 110 120 315 385 475 615
Waldern 110 115 335 380 520 600
LSD† 20 17 ns‡ 48 27 76
MEANS
Barley cultivars 144 140 314 309 550 530
Oat cultivars 112 120 334 367 529 579
Early maturing oat cultivars (EO)§ 114 123 324 343 524 545
Late-maturing oat cultivars (LO)¶ 111 116 324 383 498 608
Semidwarf barleys (S)# 147 140 306 291 545 516
Conventional barleys (C)†† 141 141 322 328 555 544
CONTRASTS
Barley vs. oat cultivars *** *** ns *** ** *
EO vs. LO ns ns ns * * *
Early vs. late-maturing barley‡‡ * ns ns ** ** *
S vs. C ns ns ns * ns ns
* Significant at the 0.05 probability level.
** Significant at the 0.01 probability level.
*** Significant at the 0.001 probability level.
† Least significant difference at P ⱕ 0.05.
‡ ns, not significant.
§ EO ⫽ AC Juniper and Jasper oat.
¶ LO ⫽ Murphy and Waldern oat.
# S ⫽ Kasota and Niska barley.
†† C ⫽ AC Lacombe and Seebe barley.
‡‡ Early maturing barley ⫽ Kasota; late-maturing barley ⫽ Seebe.

2001, with cereals in stages of stem elongation, indicated
that more PAR was available to berseem clover in the
intercrops with oat cultivars (47%) than with barley
cultivars (33%) (Table 6). The greater tiller density of
barley, and likely greater leaf area in early stages of
growth, may explain greater shading by barley. Compe-
tition for light could greatly decrease berseem clover
yield because the relative growth rates of clover plants
decrease rapidly in response to shading (Kendall and
Stringer, 1985).
A significant year ⫻ treatment interaction for per-
centage of berseem clover in Cut 1 can partly be ex-
plained by differing effects of oat and barley between
years. In 2000, the percentage of berseem clover in Cut 1
of barley intercrops was greater than that in oat inter-
crops, a reversal of the results in 2001 (Table 3). The
results in 2000 countered trends observed in associated
cereal–berseem clover experiments of greater Cut 1 per-
centage of berseem clover with Waldern oat than with
AC Lacombe barley in 3 of 4 yr (Ross et al., 2004).
Greater percentage of berseem clover in barley inter-
crops in 2000 may have been related to conditions that
generally increased berseem clover growth in 2000. Al-
though much of the literature suggests that barley is
more competitive than oat, contrary conclusions have
been reported. Based on the percentage composition
of forage dry weight, Berkenkamp and Meeres (1987)
concluded that oat caused greater suppression of pea,
fababean, or sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) than did
barley in intercrops. Further study of the relative com-
petitive abilities of oat and barley cultivars in intercrops
is warranted.
Cereal Stature Effects
The mean canopy height of conventional-stature bar-
ley cultivars (AC Lacombe, Seebe) was 21 to 23 cm
greater than semidwarf barley cultivars (Kasota, Niska)
(Table 4). Cut 1 DM yields of the cereal component of
intercrops were greater for conventional-stature barley
cultivars than for semidwarf cultivars (Table 3). In 2001,
Cut 1 intercrop yields for conventional-stature barley
intercrops were greater than those of semidwarf barley
intercrops, with 22% greater cereal DM yield. In 2000,
conventional-stature intercrops and semidwarf intercrops
had equal Cut 1 DM yields as the 28% greater cereal
DM yield for conventional-stature intercrops was bal-
anced by the 40% greater berseem clover DM yield for
semidwarf intercrops.
Holland and Brummer (1999) reported that oat height
at grain maturity did not correlate with total berseem
clover DM yield in oat–berseem clover intercrops. Our
findings were more consistent with studies indicating
that shorter-stature barley or oat cultivars are less sup-
 1726 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 96, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2004

Table 6. Relative levels of photosynthetically active radiation Cut 2 berseem clover DM yields were greater for
(PAR) at the top of the berseem clover (BE) and at soil level semidwarf barley intercrops than for conventional-stat-
within berseem clover–cereal intercrops at 44 d after planting
in 2001, with cereals in stages of stem elongation, at Edmon- ure barley intercrops (Table 3). Greater Cut 2 yield for
ton, AB. semidwarf intercrops may have related to less initial
PAR at PAR at
suppression of berseem clover by semidwarf cultivars.
Treatment top of BE soil level Also, earlier Cut 1 harvest of semidwarf intercrops al-
full-sun PAR, %
lowed for more days of regrowth in some cases (Table 1).
Barley intercrops Moynihan et al. (1996) concluded that biomass yields
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.

Kasota 44 14 for intercrops of barley and annual medic species (Med-

Niska 32 8 icago spp.) were similar with semidwarf or conventional-
AC Lacombe 31 6
Seebe 27 7 stature barley. In our study, there were no differences
Oat intercrops in total DM or CP yields between semidwarf barley
AC Juniper 54 19
Jasper 48 16 intercrops and conventional-stature barley intercrops
AC Mustang 39 16 (Table 3). Advantages in Cut 1 cereal DM yield with
Murphy 49 19 conventional-stature cultivars were balanced by advan-
Waldern 46 12
LSD† 17 ns‡ tages in Cut 2 berseem clover DM yield with semidwarf
MEANS cultivar intercrops.
Barley intercrops 33 9
Oat intercrops 47 16
Early maturing oat intercrops (EO)§ 51 18 Early versus Late-Maturing Cultivars
Late-maturing oat intercrops (LO)¶ 48 16
Semidwarf barley intercrops (S)# 38 11 The Cut 1 harvest was 3 to 6 d earlier for early matur-
Conventional barley intercrops (C)†† 29 7
CONTRASTS ing oat cultivars (AC Juniper and Jasper) than late-
Barley vs. oat intercrops ** ** maturing oat cultivars (Murphy and Waldern) and was
EO vs. LO ns ns 1 to 7 d earlier for the early maturing barley cultivar
Early vs. late-maturing barley‡‡ §§ ns
S vs. C ns ns (Kasota) than the late-maturing barley cultivar (Seebe)
(Table 1). The canopy height at Cut 1 of late-maturing
* Significant at the 0.05 probability level.
** Significant at the 0.01 probability level. genotypes was greater than early maturing genotypes
† Least significant difference at P ⱕ 0.05. (Table 4). The tiller characteristics associated with late
‡ ns, not significant. maturity differed between oat and barley. The late-
§ EO ⫽ AC Juniper and Jasper oat.
¶ LO ⫽ Murphy and Waldern oat. maturing oat cultivars had fewer but heavier tillers than
# S ⫽ Kasota and Niska barley. early maturing oat cultivars. The late-maturing barley
†† C ⫽ AC Lacombe and Seebe barley. had more tillers than the early maturing barley but did
‡‡ Early maturing barley ⫽ Kasota; late-maturing barley ⫽ Seebe.
not differ in tiller weight.
The cereal DM yield of Cut 1 was greater for late-
pressive as companion crops than taller cultivars (Nickel
maturing oat intercrops in both years and was greater
et al., 1990; Thompson et al., 1992). In barley–berseem
for the late-maturing barley in 2001 (Table 3). Greater
clover intercrops, mean percentage of berseem clover
Cut 1 cereal yield would be expected for late-maturing
in Cut 1 was greater with semidwarf cultivars in both cultivars. Juskiw et al. (2000b) observed that per-plant
years, Cut 1 berseem clover DM yield was greater with biomass yields of barley, oat, and triticale harvested at
semidwarf cultivars in 2000, and barley canopy height the same growth stage increased with increasing matu-
was negatively correlated with Cut 1 berseem clover rity date. In 2000, when the harvest dates for the early
DM yield (r ⫽ ⫺0.54) in 2000 (Table 3). In oat–berseem maturing and late-maturing barley intercrops differed
clover intercrops, oat canopy height was negatively cor- by only 1 d, there were no differences in Cut 1, Cut 2,
related with Cut 1 berseem clover DM yield (r ⫽ ⫺0.60) or total yields for these intercrops. In 2000, Cut 1 DM
in 2001. The shorter-stature cultivars may have caused yields did not differ between early and late-maturing
less shading of the berseem than the taller cultivars. oat intercrops as greater Cut 1 cereal DM yield for
Simmons et al. (1995) reported that the amount of PAR late-maturing intercrops was balanced by greater Cut 1
available to alfalfa was greater with semidwarf barley berseem clover DM yield for early maturing intercrops.
cultivars (averaging 46% of full sun) than with conven- In 2001, late-maturing cereal intercrops had greater Cut 1
tional-stature barley cultivars (averaging 35% of full DM yield than the early maturing cereal intercrops. Simi-
sun). Although our limited assessment of light intercep- larly, Thompson et al. (1992) reported that late-maturing
tion in 2001 did not indicate significant contrast between barley cultivars intercropped with ryegrass had greater
semidwarf and conventional-stature barley intercrops, first-cut intercrop yields than a medium-maturing barley
greater levels (P ⱕ 0.06) of PAR were available at the intercrop.
top of berseem clover with Kasota than with Seebe There were indications of less berseem clover sup-
barley (Table 6). Kasota barley represented a combina- pression by early maturing cereal cultivars. Cut 1 ber-
tion of semidwarf stature and early maturity, and Seebe seem clover DM yields and percentages of berseem
represented a combination of conventional stature and clover in Cut 1 were greater for early maturing oat
late maturity. Juskiw et al. (2000c) found that Kasota intercrops in both years (Table 3). Cut 1 berseem clover
was less competitive than Seebe or AC Lacombe in DM yield was negatively correlated with days of growth
barley mixtures and suggested that differences may have of oat cultivars (r ⫽ ⫺0.60 in 2000; r ⫽ ⫺0.44 in 2001).
been due to stature or earliness. In 2001, the early maturing barley intercrop had a greater
 ROSS ET AL.: BERSEEM CLOVER WITH BARLEY AND OAT 1727

percentage of berseem clover in Cut 1 than did the late-
maturing barley intercrop.
Holland and Brummer (1999) did not measure oat
tillering, but they suggested that the greater competi-
tiveness of late-maturing oat cultivars might be associ-
ated with greater tillering in the vegetative phase. Some
of our results for barley cultivars support this hypothesis.
The late-maturing barley had greater tiller production,
and barley tillering was negatively correlated with Cut 1
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.
early maturing oat intercrops than for late-maturing oat
intercrops in both years (Table 3). In 2001, total DM
and CP yields were greater for the early maturing barley
intercrop than the late-maturing barley intercrop due
to greater berseem clover yield. Cereals with a combina-
tion of late-maturity and taller stature may be a poor
choice for cereal–berseem clover forage intercrops. The
tallest late-maturing oat, Murphy, had the lowest yields
of Cut 2 DM, total DM, and total CP amongst the oat

berseem clover DM yield in one year. However, oat
tiller production did not correlate with Cut 1 berseem
clover DM yield, and late-maturing oat cultivars had
fewer tillers per plant than did early maturing oat culti-
vars. Thus, tiller production was not consistently associ-
ated with late maturity or with berseem clover suppres-
sion. Jedel et al. (1998) concluded that competitive ability
of barley cultivars in intraspecific barley mixtures was
not associated with tillering. Greater competitiveness
of late-maturing cereal cultivars may be associated with
greater partitioning of biomass into leaves. Juskiw et al.
(2000b) found that early maturing barley cultivars had
lower proportions of biomass as leaf and stem, and
higher proportions as spike, compared with late-matur-
ing cereal cultivars at stages between heading and
soft dough.
Cut 2 berseem clover DM yields were greater for
early maturing oat intercrops than for late-maturing oat
intercrops (Table 3). In 2001, the early maturing barley
intercrop also had greater Cut 2 clover yield than did
the late-maturing barley intercrop. Greater Cut 2 yield
may be partly explained by less initial suppression and
by more days of regrowth. Cut 2 berseem clover yield
was negatively correlated with the date of Cut 1 among
oat cultivars in both years (r ⫽ ⫺0.73 in 2000; r ⫽ ⫺0.54
in 2001) and among barley cultivars in 2001 (r ⫽ ⫺0.85).
Total DM and CP yields of early maturing cereal
intercrops were equal or greater than those of late-
maturing intercrops. Total CP yields were greater for
intercrops. Juskiw et al. (2000c) cautioned that inclusion
of a highly competitive cultivar or species in a mixture
may not lead to any overall yield advantage. Cereals
with both early maturity and shorter stature may be the
best choice for cereal–berseem clover intercrops.
Forage Quality
Based on forage quality indicators for the cereal com-
ponents of intercrops, the forage quality of barley culti-
vars was superior to that of oat cultivars (Table 5). Barley
cultivars had greater CP and less or equal ADF com-
pared with oat cultivars at Cut 1. There were no consis-
tent quality advantages related to cereal cultivar matu-
rity or stature. Differences in forage quality between the
early and late-maturing cultivars varied between years.
There were few differences in quality between semi-
dwarf and conventional-stature barley cultivars. Forage
quality advantages of cereal cultivars may be more re-
lated to individual cultivars than to a particular growth
habit. For example, the semidwarf Niska barley had
higher CP and lower NDF than the semidwarf Kasota
and the conventional-stature AC Lacombe barley in
2000.
The forage quality of berseem clover at Cut 1 was
better than the mean quality of oat and barley cultivars,
with equal or greater CP and lower NDF (Tables 5 and
7). Berseem clover sole crops harvested at the same time
as Cut 1 of barley intercrops (BE1 and BE2) had greater

Table 7. Herbage crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) concentrations for intercrops of
berseem clover (BE) with Niska barley or Waldern oat and berseem clover sole crops for Cut 1 and Cut 2 at Edmonton, AB, in 2000
and 2001.
Cut 1 intercrops Cut 2 berseem clover
CP ADF NDF Days regrowth CP ADF NDF
Sample 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001 2000 2001
g kg⫺1 d g kg⫺1
Niska barley intercrop
Barley 170 145 285 305 515 540 – – – – – – – –
BE 140 190 390 280 470 390 64 66 225 175 265 215 370 300
Barley–BE mixture 165 145 340 285 490 485 – – – – – – – –
Waldern oat intercrop
Oat 110 115 335 380 520 600 – – – – – – – –
BE 170 170 380 335 465 435 53 57 240 215 205 175 300 275
Oat–BE mixture 125 120 365 380 535 580 – – – – – – – –
Berseem clover sole crops
Early cut (BE1)† – 225 – 230 – 325 – 71 – 190 – 230 – 350
Midcut (BE2)† 160 220 365 275 460 350 63 64 – 195 – 240 – 350
Late cut (BE3)† 130 155 385 315 470 405 53 57 – 210 – 200 – 310
LSD‡ 22 36 43 51 ns§ 51 ns 14 ns ns 13 ns
Mean of BE samples 150 192 379 286 465 381 – – 232 196 236 212 335 317
CONTRAST
Mixtures vs. cereals ns ns * ns ns ns – – – – – – – –
* Significant at the 0.05 probability level.
† Harvest of BE1 and BE2 coincided with harvest of barley intercrops, and BE3 coincided with harvest of Waldern oat intercrops.
‡ Least significant difference at P ⱕ 0.05.
§ ns, not significant.
 1728 AGRONOMY JOURNAL, VOL. 96, NOVEMBER–DECEMBER 2004
CP and less or equal ADF and NDF compared with
those harvested at the same time as late-maturing oat
intercrops (BE3) (Table 7). Berseem clover regrowth
in Cut 2 had high nutritional quality with mean CP of
215 g kg⫺1. In 2001, the CP of Cut 2 berseem clover
declined with increasing days of regrowth.
A subset of cereal–berseem clover mixtures had dif-
ferences in forage quality that reflected the differences
between oat and barley cultivars. Niska barley–berseem
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.
clover intercrops had greater CP and less or equal ADF
and NDF compared with Waldern oat–berseem clover
intercrops (Table 7). Brink and Marten (1986a) con-
cluded that barley–alfalfa mixtures usually provided su-
perior quality forage at five-leaf, flag-leaf, or dough
stage than did oat–alfalfa mixtures. Jedel and Helm
(1993) reported greater forage CP values for barley–
pulse intercrops than for oat–pulse intercrops. Con-
versely, Chapko et al. (1991) reported greater CP for
oat–pea mixtures than for barley–pea mixtures, with
harvest at emergence of spikelets from the boot.
Results for intercrops with Niska barley and Waldern
oat indicated that adding berseem clover to cereals gen-
erally had little effect on forage quality at silage stage
(Table 7). The limited impact of berseem clover on inter-
crop quality was likely due to a combination of small
percentage of berseem clover in some mixtures and
relatively high CP levels for cereals. Mean CP levels of
oat cultivars and barley cultivars were greater than in
some studies of silage cereals in central Alberta: 70 to
100 g kg⫺1 CP for oat and barley (Juskiw et al., 2000a)
and 90 to 125 g kg⫺1 CP for barley (Jedel and Salmon,
1995). The high CP values for cereals were likely related
to high initial soil N levels at Edmonton. Carr et al.
(1998) found that adding pea to oat or barley did not
increase forage CP in high-soil-N environments but did
increase CP in low-soil-N environments.
The contribution of berseem clover to decreased NDF
values for cereal–berseem clover silage may improve
forage quality and increase intake. The NDF levels of
oat and barley cultivars at Cut 1 were ⱖ550 g kg⫺1
(Table 5) in half the cases. Baron et al. (1992) cited Van
Soest (1965) in stating that NDF levels ⱖ 550 g kg⫺1
could severely reduce voluntary intake of forage. In
related experiments at Edmonton, berseem clover com-
ponents of about 20% in intercrops with oat, barley, or
triticale reduced NDF by 25 to 45 g kg⫺1 compared with
cereals alone at silage stage (Ross et al., 2004).
Berseem Clover Sole Crops versus Intercrops
Berseem clover sole crops had lower Cut 1 yields
and greater Cut 2 yields compared with intercrop yields
(Table 3). These results were consistent with findings
in related experiments with cereal–berseem clover inter-
crops (Ross et al., 2004). The lower midseason forage
yields of berseem clover sole crops would make them
less attractive for silage production than the intercrops.
Sole crops of berseem clover might be preferable to
producers wanting greater yield of high quality late-
season forage. Total seasonal yields of berseem clover
sole crops compared well with those of intercrops. Mean
total DM yields from two cuts of berseem sole crops
were 17% less than intercrops in 2000 and 9% greater
than intercrops in 2001. However, findings in other ex-
periments suggest that cereal–berseem clover intercrops
provide greater yield stability than berseem clover sole
crops (Ross et al., 2004).
CONCLUSIONS
Cereal–berseem clover intercrops offered potential
to partition forage yield between silage harvest and fall
regrowth. Berseem clover regrowth in intercrops pro-
vided an average of 2.8 Mg ha⫺1 DM of high quality
forage. This late-season growth could provide extra for-
age at a time when forage quality and quantity is often
limited. The N yield of the berseem clover regrowth bio-
mass would be about 90 kg N ha⫺1. Although the addi-
tional berseem clover growth could reduce soil water
reserves, it could provide soil and environmental bene-
fits of increased soil N, greater soil cover and weed
suppression, reduced potential for soil erosion and N
losses, and improved soil quality.
Juskiw et al. (2000c) cautioned against using plant
height, biomass production, or a formula of traits to
predict cereal cultivar competitive ability in mixtures.
It would not be appropriate to draw general conclusions
about oat and barley cultivars in mixtures from this
study, but some comments can be made about the effects
of cereal growth habit on berseem clover in intercrops at
our particular site. Within cereal species, an association
between increases in initial cereal DM yield and greater
suppression of berseem clover was evident for Cut 1
and Cut 2 DM yields of berseem clover. This association
was consistent with other experiments we conducted
over several years with berseem clover intercrops on
highly productive soils. An association between earlier
Cut 1 and substantial increase in Cut 2 yield was also
consistent with findings in other experiments. Although
it might be specific to our short growing season, a few
days difference in the silage-stage harvest had potential
for considerable impact on berseem regrowth yield. Our
finding that tiller production by cereals was not consis-
tently associated with late maturity or with suppression
of berseem clover may be of interest to crop breeders.
Further research is needed on differences in competitive
ability between oat and barley cultivars and between
early maturing and late-maturing cultivars.
Our findings suggest that deficits in initial cereal for-
age yields that may occur with early maturing or shorter-
stature cereal cultivars in intercrops may be balanced
by gains in season-long berseem clover yields. It was true
of our experiment that greater total yields sometimes
occurred with oat or barley cultivars that caused less
suppression of berseem clover. Advantages in total in-
tercrop yield observed with less competitive cereal culti-
vars, and with reduced seeding rates of cereals, are con-
trary to conventional crop production approaches. In
monocrop cereal production, yield advantage is often
associated with greater seeding rates and more competi-
tive cultivars. The findings in this study illustrate that
the theory and approaches in intercrop production will
differ from those used in monocrop production. To max-
 ROSS ET AL.: BERSEEM CLOVER WITH BARLEY AND OAT
imize fall forage and increase the legume component
of silage harvest, early maturing and shorter-stature cul-
tivars of oat and barley are recommended for cereal–
berseem clover intercrops.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The technical assistance of C. Martin, G. Rawluk, J. Deeks,
R. Davy, G. Su, and J. Zhao is gratefully acknowledged. Our
Reproduced from Agronomy Journal. Published by American Society of Agronomy. All copyrights reserved.
thanks to P. Juskiw and the late S. Kibite for advice on barley
and oat cultivars. We also acknowledge the financial support of
the Alberta Agriculture Research Institute and the Canadian
Wheat Board scholarship program.
REFERENCES
[AAFRD] Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. 2003.
Alberta 2002 greenfeed and silage production survey results
[Online]. Available at www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.
nsf/all/sdd6003?opendocument (verified 8 July 2004). AAFRD,
Edmonton, AB, Canada.
AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis. 15th ed. AOAC, Arling-
ton, VA.
Baron, V.S., H.G. Najda, D.F. Salmon, and A.C. Dick. 1992. Post-
flowering forage potential of spring and winter cereal mixtures.
Can. J. Plant Sci. 72:137–145.
Berkenkamp, B., and J. Meeres. 1987. Mixtures of annual crops for
forage in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 67:175–183.
Brink, G.E., and G.C. Marten. 1986a. Barley vs. oat companion crops:
I. Forage yield and quality response during alfalfa establishment.
Crop Sci. 26:1060–1067.
Brink, G.E., and G.C. Marten. 1986b. Barley vs. oat companion crops:
II. Influence on alfalfa persistence and yield. Crop Sci. 26:1067–
1071.
Carr, P.M., G.B. Martin, J.S. Caton, and W.W. Poland. 1998. Forage
and nitrogen yield of barley–pea and oat–pea intercrops. Agron.
J. 90:79–84.
Chapko, L.B., M.A. Brinkman, and K.A. Albrecht. 1991. Oat, oat–pea,
barley, and barley–pea for forage yield, forage quality, and alfalfa
establishment. J. Prod. Agric. 4:486–491.
Fukai, S., and B.R. Trenbath. 1993. Processes determining intercrop
productivity and yields of component crops. Field Crops Res. 34:
247–271.
Ghaffarzadeh, M. 1997. Economic and biological benefits of intercrop-
ping berseem clover with oat in corn–soybean–oat rotations. J.
Prod. Agric. 10:314–319.
Goering, H.K., and P.J. Van Soest. 1970. Forage fiber analysis (appara-
tus, reagents, procedures, and some applications). Agric. Handb.
379. USDA-ARS, Washington, DC.
Holland, J.B., and E.C. Brummer. 1999. Cultivar effects on oat-ber-
seem clover intercrops. Agron. J. 91:321–329.
Izaurralde, R.C., N.G. Juma, W.B. McGill, D.S. Chanasyk, S. Pawluk,
and M.J. Dudas. 1993. Performance of conventional and alternative
1729
cropping systems in cryolboreal subhumid central Alberta. J. Agric.
Sci. (Cambridge) 120:33–41.
Jedel, P.E., and J.H. Helm. 1993. Forage potential of pulse–cereal
mixtures in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73:437–444.
Jedel, P.E., J.H. Helm, and P.A. Burnett. 1998. Yield, quality and
stress tolerance of barley mixtures in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant
Sci. 78:429–436.
Jedel, P.E., and D.F. Salmon. 1994. Forage potential of Wapiti triticale
mixtures in central Alberta. Can. J. Plant Sci. 74:515–519.
Jedel, P.E., and D.F. Salmon. 1995. Forage potential of spring and
winter cereal mixtures in a short-season growing area. Agron. J.
87:731–736.
Juskiw, P.E., J.H. Helm, and D.F. Salmon. 2000a. Forage yield and
quality for monocrops and mixtures of small grain cereals. Crop
Sci. 40:138–147.
Juskiw, P.E., J.H. Helm, and D.F. Salmon. 2000b. Postheading biomass
distribution for monocrops and mixtures of small grain cereals.
Crop Sci. 40:148–158.
Juskiw, P.E., J.H. Helm, and D.F. Salmon. 2000c. Competitive ability
in mixtures of small grain cereals. Crop Sci. 40:159–164.
Kendall, W.A., and W.C. Stringer. 1985. Physiological aspects of clo-
ver. p. 111–159. In N.L. Taylor (ed.) Clover science and technology.
Agron. Monogr. 25. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, Madison, WI.
Moynihan, J.M., S.R. Simmons, and C.C. Sheaffer. 1996. Intercropping
annual medic with conventional height and semidwarf barley grown
for grain. Agron. J. 88:823–828.
Nickel, S.E., S.R. Simmons, C.C. Sheaffer, and S.R. Radosevich. 1990.
Addition series approach to assessing competition in a small grain-
alfalfa companion crop community. Crop Sci. 30:1139–1141.
Reynolds, M.P., K.D. Sayre, and H.E. Vivar. 1994. Intercropping
wheat and barley with N-fixing legume species: A method for
improving ground cover, N-use efficiency and productivity in low
input systems. J. Agric. Sci. (Cambridge) 123:175–183.
Ross, S.M., J.R. King, J.T. O’Donovan, and R.C. Izaurralde. 2003.
Seeding rate effects in oat–berseem clover intercrops. Can. J. Plant
Sci. 83:769–778.
Ross, S.M., J.R. King, J.T. O’Donovan, and D. Spaner. 2004. Forage
potential of intercropping berseem clover with barley, oat, or triti-
cale. Agron. J. 96:1013–1020.
SAS Institute. 2000. SAS/STAT user’s guide Version 8e. SAS Inst.,
Cary, NC.
Simmons, S.R., C.C. Sheaffer, D.C. Rasmussen, D.D. Stuthman, and
S.E. Nickel. 1995. Alfalfa establishment with barley and oat com-
panion crops differing in stature. Agron. J. 87:268–272.
Stout, D.G., B. Brooke, J.W. Hall, and D.J. Thompson. 1997. Forage
yield and quality from intercropped barley, annual ryegrass and
different annual legumes. Grass Forage Sci. 52:298–308.
Thompson, D.J., D.G. Stout, T. Moore, and Z. Mir. 1992. Yield and
quality of forage from intercrops barley and annual ryegrass. Can.
J. Plant Sci. 72:163–172.
Undersander, D., D.R. Mertens, and N. Thiex. 1993. Forage analyses
procedures. Natl. Forage Testing Assoc., Omaha, NE.
Van Soest, P.J. 1965. Symposium on factors influencing the voluntary
intake of herbage by ruminants: Voluntary intake in relation to
chemical composition and digestibility. J. Anim. Sci. 24:834–843.