Effects of Nitrogen and Different Intercropping Arrangements of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and Pea (Pisum sativum L.) on Forage Yield and Competitive Indices

بوم شناسی کشاورزی

Article 3, Volume 8, Issue 1 - Serial Number 27, March 2016, Pages 47-58   

Document Type: Scientific - Research

DOI: 10.22067/jag.v8i1.12534

Author

Ali Nakhzari Moghaddam^*

Department of Crop Production, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Gonbad Kavos University, Gonbad Kavos, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Intercropping, the agricultural practice of cultivating two or more crops in the same space at the same time, is an old and commonly used cropping practice which aims to match efficiently crop demands to the available growth resources (Agegnehu et al., 2006; Dhima et al., 2007). Intercropping of chickpea with linseed reduced the chickpea yield by 60.3%, although linseed occupied only 33% of the total area. The loss of chickpea yield was compensated by the additional yield of linseed, and thus the system productivity of chickpea + linseed intercropping was increased by 43.4% compared with sole chickpea (Ahlawat & Gangaiah, 2010).
The objectives of the present study were to study the competition indices of barley and pea intercropping and effects of nitrogen and different intercropping arrangements on forage yield.
Materials and methods
In order to evaluate effects of nitrogen and different intercropping arrangements of barley and pea on yield and competitive indices, an experiment was conducted as factorial based on Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications on farm research on Gonbad Kavous University (37°26’N, 55°21’E, and 45m above sea level) in 2011-2012. Different intercropping arrangement levels were a sole crop of barley, intercropping of one line barley and one line pea, intercropping of two lines of barley and two lines of pea, intercropping of three lines of barley and three lines of pea and sole crop of pea and nitrogen consumption was in four levels of none application of nitrogen and application of 25, 50 and 75 kg.ha-1.
Seed planting was done during the first week of December 2011. Sowing was performed manually by planting twice more seeds of pea than the expected plant density. Sole barley (cv. Sahra) planted at the rate of 160 kg.ha-1 and sole pea (cv. Sungro) planted at the rate of 500000 plants.ha-1. Row spacing was 20 cm. The experimental plots for a sole crop of barley, a sole crop of pea and one row of barley + one row of pea were 4 rows and for two rows of barley + two rows of pea and three rows of barley + three rows of pea were 6 and 8 rows, respectively.
50% of urea was applied during sowing. The other 50% of urea was side banded when the barley plants were at flowering stage. Weed control was performed manually. Forage yield was determined by harvesting each crop from 2, 4 and 6 rows. Barley was harvested at soft drought and the pea was harvested at seed filling stage in 3 May 2012. Data were analyzed using SAS software. Analysis of variance was performed for the forage yield and Equal Yield of barley.
Results and discussion
The results showed the effects of different intercropping arrangements, nitrogen application and interaction of different intercropping arrangements × nitrogen application on forage yield and Equivalent Yield of barley was significant (α= 1%). The high forage yield and Equivalent Yield of barley belonged to a sole crop of barley with application of 75 and 50 kg Nha-1 with 14.51 and 14.3 tonha-1, respectively. The minimum dry weight and Equivalent Yield of barley was obtained from the sole crop of pea without consumption of nitrogen with 3.76 and 4.7 tha-1, respectively. Increasing the pea and barley rows in intercropping treatments decreased forage yield because of lower yield of pea. Land Equivalent Ratio in intercropping treatments was less than 1. This index in barley was greater than pea (0.643, 0.588 and 0.543 for barley and 0.198, 0.247 and 0.362 for pea in 1, 2 and 3 rows, respectively). Other indices (Relative Crowding Coefficient, Aggressivity, Competitive Ratio, Actual Yield addition, Intercropping Advantage and Equivalent Yield of barley) in barley were also greater than pea in intercropping. Barley was the dominant crop in this study.
Conclusion
Forage dry weight and Equivalent Yield of barley in a sole crop of barley with consumption of 75 and 50 kgN.ha-1 was the maximum and in sole crop of pea with non-consumption of N was minimum. All indices in barley in this study were greater than pea. This indicated that barley was the dominant crop.

Keywords

Aggressivity; Equivalent yield; Land equivalent ratio; Relative crowding coefficient

References

1- Agegnehu, G., Ghizaw, A., and Sinebo, W. 2006. Yield performance and land-use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. European Journal of Agronomy 25: 202-207.

2- Ahlawat, I.P.S., and Gangaiah, B. 2010. Effect of land configuration and irrigation on sole and linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.) intercropped chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 80(3): 250-253.

3- Awal, M.A., Pramanik, M.H.R., and Hossen, M.A. 2007. Interspecies competition growth and yield in barley peanut intercropping. Asian Journal of Plant Science 6(4): 577-584.

4- Azam Khan, M. 2002. Production efficiency of pea (Pisum sativum L.) as affected by inoculation phosphorus levels and intercropping, MSc Thesis, Pakistan: Faisalabad University.

5- Banik, P. 1996. Evaluation of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row-replacement series system. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 176(5): 289-294.

6- Banik, P., Midya, A., Sarkar, B.K., and Ghose, S.S. 2006. Barley and pea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: Advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy 24(4): 325-332.

7- Banik, P., Sasmal, T., Ghosal, P.K., and Bagchi, D.K. 2000. Evaluation of mustard (Brassica campestris var. Toria) and legume in 1:1 and 2:1 replacement series system. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 185(1): 9-14.

8- Campillo, R., Jobet, C., and Undurraga, P. 2010. Effect of nitrogen on productivity, grain quality, and optimal nitrogen rates in winter barley cv kumpa-inia in andisols of southern chile. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 70(1): 122-131.

9- Dhima, K.V., Lithourgidis, A.S., Vasilakoglou, I.B., and Dordas, C.A. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding rasio. Field Crops Research 100(2-3): 249-256.

10- Fallah, S.A., Baharlouie, S., and Abbasi Surki, A. 2014. Evaluation of competitive and economic indices in canola and pea intercropping at different rates of nitrogen fertilizer. Journal of Agroecology 6(3): 571-581. (In Persian with English Summary)

11- Hassanzadeh Gorttapeh, A., Fathollahzadeh, A., Nasrollahzadeh Asl, A., and Akhondi, N. 2008. Agronomic nitrogen efficiency in different wheat genotypes in west Azerbaijan province. Electronic Journal of Crop Production 1(1): 82-100. (In Persian with English Summary)

12- Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., and Jensen, E.S. 2001. Evaluating pea and barley cultivars for complementarity in intercropping at different levels of soil N availability. Field Crops Research 72(3): 185-196.

13- Javanshir, A., Dabbagh, A., Hamidi, A., and Gholypour, M. 2000. The Ecology of Intercropping. Mashhad University Press Mashhad, Iran 222 pp. (In Persian)

14- Lithourgidis, A.S., Dordas, C.A., Damalas, C.A., and Vlachostergios, W. 2006. Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5(4): 396-410.

15- Mandal, B.K., Dasgupta, S., and Roy, P.K. 2002. Effect of intercropping on yield components of barley, pea and mustard under diferent moisture regions. Asian Journal of Plant Science 155: 261-267.

16- Mashhadi, T. 2011. Influence of different N supply and intercropping patterns of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) on grain yield and yield components. MSc Thesis. Plant Production Group, University of Gonbad Kavous 131 pp. (In Persian with English Summary)

17- Mazaheri, D. 1998. Intercropping (2nd Eds.), Tehran University Press, Tehran, Iran 262 pp. (In Persian)

18- Pooramir, F., Koocheki, A., Nassiri Mahallati, M., and Ghorbani, R. 2012. Evaluation the yield and yield components of intercropping sesame and chickpea in replacement series. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 8(5): 757-767. (In Persian with English Summary)

19- Sadeghipoor, O., and Monem, R. 2009. Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus deficit on percent and yield of mung bean protein. Environmental Stress in Plant Sciences 1(2): 159-167.

20- Thakur, N.S. 2003. Identification in pea (Pisum sativum L.) based intercropping system under irrigated condition of Satpura Plateau. Journal of Crop Science 4: 310-312.

21- Thomas, A., Thenua, O.V.S., and Shivakumar, B.G. 2010. Impact of levels of irrigation and fertility gradients on dry matter production, nutrient uptake and yield of pea (Pisum sativum L.) intercropping system. Legume Research 33(1): 10-16.

22- Wahla, I.H., Ahmad, R., Ehsanullah Ahmad, A., and Jabbar, A. 2009. Competitive functions of components crops in some barley based intercropping systems. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 11: 69-72.

23- Waraich, E.A., Ahmad, R., and Ali, A. 2007. Effects irrigation and nitrogen effects on grain development and yield in wheat (Tritticum aestivum L.). Pakistan Journal of Botany 39(5): 1663-1672.

24- Willey, R.M. 1979. Intercropping, its importance and research needs, competition and yield advantages. Journal of Crop Science 32: 1-10.

25- Willey, R.M., and Rao, M.R. 1980. A competitive ratio for quantifying competition between intercrops. Experimental Agriculture 16: 105-117.

26- Yilmaz, S., Atak, M., and Erayman, M. 2008. Identification of advantages of maize legume intercropping over solitary cropping through competition incides in the east Mediterranean region. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 32: 111-119.