Evaluation of the Competitive Indices and Economical Adavantage of Corn (Zea mays L.)- Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Intercropping under the influence of Tillage Levels, Crop Residues, and Planting Patterns

پژوهشهای زراعی ایران

Article 7, Volume 23, Issue 3 - Serial Number 79, September 2025, Pages 341-357   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/jcesc.2025.90594.1358

Authors

F Akbari¹; M Dahmardeh^{* 1}; A Morshedi²; A Ghanbari¹; S Khorramdel³

¹Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Zabol, Zabol, Iran

²Soil and Water Research Department, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari Agricultural and Natural Resources Research and Education Center, Education and Extension Organization, Shahrekord, Iran

³Department of Agrotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Intercropping is considered as one of the components of sustainable agriculture, where two or more species are grown in the same location to take advantage of the beneficial effects between the species. The competition among species for resource use can be facilitative, conflicting, or neutral. In many intercropping systems, plants from the legume and cereal families are cultivated with the aim of creating a complementary relationship between species and to enhance resource use efficiency. One practical way to increase organic matter in agricultural lands is through conservation tillage and returning plant residues to the soil. Corn (Zea mays L.) is the third most important cereal in the world, after wheat and rice. Pinto beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) are among the most consumed legumes, playing a crucial role in providing the protein that humans need. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the performance, competitive indicators, and economic benefits of intercropping of corn and beans influenced by tillage systems, crop residues, and planting patterns in the conditions of Shahrekord.
Materials and Methods
The experiment was performed using split-split plot based on a randomized complete block design with three replications in Agricultural Research Field of Shahrekord during 2016–2018. Tillage with two levels (minimum, and no-tillage) and three levels of crop residues (30, 60, and 90% of straw yield of wheat) and five intercropping patterns including corn and bean sole cropping, corn and bean ratio with 2:2, 3:1 and 1:3 were considered as main, sub and sub-sub plots, respectively. After measuring the yield of corn and beans, in order to evaluate the efficiency and competition in intercropping, the indices of land equivalent ratio, relative crowding coefficient, aggressivity and competition ratio were calculated. Also, in order to measure the economic usefulness of intercropping, system productivity index, Intercropping Advantage, and Monetary Advantage Index were used.
Results and Discussion
Based on the results obtained, the interaction of tillage × crop residues × plant patterns had a significant effect on the yield of corn and beans (P ≤ 0.05). Based on the average comparison results, the highest corn yield was obtained in sole corn cultivation under no-till conditions and using 60% of residues in the second year of the experiment (1.9317 kg ha^-1). The yield of bean seeds, the highest yield was related to sole bean cultivation in low tillage conditions and the use of 60% plant residues (2933.91 kg ha^-1). The interaction of tillage × crop residues × plant patterns on total land equivalent ratio was significant (P≤0.05). The plant pattern of 2 corn: 2 beans had the highest amount of LER (1.71) compared to other intercropping patterns. The maximum value of total relative crowding coefficient and competition index for corn was obtained in the plant pattern of 2 corn: 2 beans. Also, the positive values of the aggressivity index for the corn showed the competitive advantage of this plant compared to beans. The corn canopy has a larger volume and height compared to the bean canopy, so corn is a stronger competitor in absorbing light and other resources than beans. The corn canopy has a larger volume and height compared to the bean canopy, so corn is considered a stronger competitor in absorbing light and other resources than beans. The system productivity index was positive across all intercropping ratios, indicating the overall effectiveness of intercropping. The highest intercropping advantage (5859.42) and monetary advantage index (5988.62) were observed in the 2 corn: 2 beans planting pattern. The increased monetary advantage index in this ratio can be attributed to the higher land equivalent ratio and total relative crowding coefficient achieved in this treatment.
Conclusion
According to the results obtained from the evaluation of the land equivalent ratio and the relative crowding coefficient, intercropping advantage and monetary advantage index, it can be stated that the 2 corn: 2 bean planting pattern was superior in terms of competition and economic usefulness compared to other intercropping patterns. Based on the findings of this research, the positive values of the aggressivity index and the increase in the competition index indicate a competitive advantage of corn over beans in intercropping. Therefore, it can be said that the 2 corn: 2 beans, in addition to creating diversity and sustainability through maximizing the biological potential of the species, is significantly effective in enhancing financial advantage and the efficiency of using agricultural lands.

Keywords

Cereal; Land equivalent ratio; Monetary advantage; Relative crowding coefficient; Yield

References

1. Aasim, M., Umer, E. M., & Karim, A. (2008). Yield competition indices of intercropping cotton (Gossypium hirsutum ) using different planting patterns. Tarim Bilimleri Dergisi, 14(4), 326-333.
2. Agegnehu, G., Ghizaw, A., & Sinebo, W. (2006). Yield performance and land-use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. European Journal of Agronomy, 25(3), 202–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2006.05.002
3. Asadi, G., Khorramdel, S., Shahriary, R., Ranjbar, F., & Aghhavani Shajari, M. (2017). Effect of replacement intercropping ratios of sweet corn with bean varieties on yield and yield components. Iranian Journal of Pulses Research, 8(2), 192-204. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/IJPR.V8I2.50084
4. Behgam, M., Amini, R., & Dabagh Mohammadi Nesab, A. (2018). The effect of integrated weed management methods on yield and yield components of pinto bean. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 23(4), 175-190. (in Persian with English Abstract)
5. Beillouin, D., Ben-Ari, T., & Makowski, D. (2019). A dataset of meta-analyses on crop diversification at the global scale. Data in Brief, 24, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2019.103898
6. Bergtold, J., & Sailus, M. (2020). Conservation Tillage Systems in the Southeast. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE), SARE Handbook Series. by the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture under Award No. 2019-38640-29881. p. 310. https://doi.org/10.13016/dq71-irmm
7. Blackshaw, R. E., O'donovan, J. T., Harker, K. N., Clayton, G. W., & Stougaard, R. N. (2006). Reduced herbicide doses in field crops: A review. Weed Biology and Management, 6(1), 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-6664.2006.00190.x
8. Blanco, H., & Lal, R. (2023). Crop residue management. Soil Conservation and Management,In book: 185-210. https://doi.org/1007/978-3-031-30341-8_9
9. Brooker, R. W., Hawes, C., Iannetta, P. P., Karley, A. J., Renard, D., & Schmid, B. (2023). Plant diversity and ecological intensification in crop production systems. Journal of Plant Ecology, 16(6), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rtad015
10. Cimmyt & IITA. (2010). Maize – Global alliance for improving food security and the livelihoods of the resource-poor in the developing world. Draft Proposal Submitted by CIMMYT and IITA to the CGIAR Consortium Board. El Batan, Mexico. pp. 91.
11. Claassen, R., Bowman, M., McFadden, J., Smith, D., & Wallander, S. (2018). Tillage intensity and conservation cropping in The United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 197, 1-28. https://doi.org/22004/ag.econ.277566
12. Crews, T. E., Carton, W., & Olsson, L. (2018). Is the future of agriculture perennial? Imperatives and opportunities to reinvent agriculture by shifting from annual monocultures to perennial polycultures. Global Sustainability, 1(11), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2018.11
13. Dhima, K. V., Lithourgidis, A. A., Vasilakoglou, I. B., & Dordas, C. A. (2007). Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research, 100(2-3), 249-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2006.07.008
14. Diaz, Ch. A. (2023). The sustainable role of agricultural residues in future bioeconomy strategies and its dependency upon carbon returns to arable soils. Chemical and Process Engineering, INSA de Toulouse,D. Thesis, 383 pp.
15. DeWit, C. T. (1960). On competition. Verslag Landbouwkundige Onderzoek, 66, 1–28.
16. Doodeman, A., Mirshekari, B., Taheri, M., Farahvash, F., & Moradi, P. (2020). Effects of P organic and chemical fertilizers on yield and productivity indicators in barley and grass pea intercropping under rainfed conditions. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 51(3), 139-149. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijfcs.2019.269565.654546
17. Esfahani, A. R., Amir Shekari, H., Zand, B., & Fotovkiyan, M. H. (2017). Effect of plant density and arrangement on corn (Zea mays) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) row intercropping.‏ Agronomic Research in Semi Desert Regions, 14(1), 13-22. (in Persian with English Abstract).
18. Esmaeili, A., Sadeghpour, A., Hosseini, S. M. B., Jahanzad, E., Chaichi, M. R., & Hashemi, M. (2011). Evaluation of seed yield and competition indices for intercropped barley (Hordeum vulgare) and annual medic (Medicago scutellata). International Journal of Plant Production, 5(4), 395-404. https://doi.org/10.22069/ijpp.2012.749
19. Fan, Z., An, T., Wu, K., Zhou, F., Zi, S., Yang, Y., Xue, G., & Wu, B. (2016). Effects of intercropping of maize and potato on sloping land on the water balance and surface runoff. Agricultural Water Management, 166, 9-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.12.006
20. (2022). Statistical Pocketbook. FAOSTAT database. http://faostat.fao.org
21. FAO. (2017). The Future of Food and Agriculture, Trends and Challenges. (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).
22. Fatemi Devin, R., Hosseini, S. B., Moghadam, H., & Motesharezadeh, B. (2020). Effect of organic and bio-fertilizers and additive and replacement intercropping systems on corn (Zea maize) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) yields. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science, 51(4), 133-145. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/ijfcs.2020.286433.654634
23. Gaba, S., Alignier, A., Aviron, S., Barot, S., Blouin, M., Hedde, M., Jabot, F., Vergnes, A., Bonis, A., Bonthoux, S., Bourgeois, B., Bretagnolle, V., Catarino, R., Coux, C., Gardarin, A., Brice Giffard, Gal, A. L., Lecomte, J., Miguet, P., Piutti, S., Rusch, A., Zwicke, M., & Couvet, D. (2018). Ecology for sustainable and multifunctional agriculture. Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 28: Ecology for Agriculture, Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 S. Gaba et al. (eds.), Sustainable Agriculture Reviews 28, Ecology for Agriculture 28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90309-5
24. Gaudio, N., Escobar-Gutiérrez, J., Casadebaig, P., Evers, J. B., Gérard, F., Louarn, G., Colbach, N., Munz, S., Launay, M., Marrou, H., Barillot, R., Hinsinger, P., Bergez, J. E., Combes, D., Durand, J. L., Frak, E., Pagès, L., Pradal, C., Saint-Jean, S., Van Der Werf, W., & Justes, E. (2019). Current knowledge and future research opportunities for modeling annua crop mixtures. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 39(20), 1-20.
25. Gaudio, N., Violle, C., Gendre, X., Fort, F., Mahmoud, R., Pelzer, E., Médiène, S., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Bedoussac, L., Bonnet, C., Corre-Hellou, G., Couëdel, A., Hinsinger, Ph., Steen Jensen, E., Journet, E. P., Justes, E., Kammoun, B., Litrico, I., Moutier, N., Naudin, Ch., & Casadebaig, P. (2021). Interspecific interactions regulate plant reproductive allometry in cereal–legume intercropping systems. Journal of Applied Ecology, 58(11), 2579-2589.‏ https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13979
26. Ghatari, A. S., Roozbahani, A., & Yaghoobi, S. R. (2019). Integration of mechanical and chemical methods in red bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) weeds management. Journal of Plant Ecophysiology, 11(39), 58-70. (in Persian with English Abstract)
27. Ghazinejad, M., monjezi, N., Rahnama Ghahfarokhi, A., & Sheikhdavoodi, M. J. (2022). Effect of tillage method and wheat residues on physical productivity of water and corn yield in Dezful city. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustanable Production, 32(1), 17-32. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22034/saps.2021.43900.2604
28. Grote, U., Fasse, A., Nguyen, T. T., & Erenstein, O. (2021). Food security and the dynamics of wheat and maize value chains in Africa and Asia. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems,4, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.617009
29. Haghaninia, M., Javanmard, A., & Mollaaliabasiyan, S. (2018). Evaluation of forage yield and quality and advantages of barley (Hordeum vulgare)- grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) intercropping using mycorrhiza. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustanable Production, 28(3), 221-242. (in Persian with English Abstract)
30. Jahansooz, M. R., Yunusa, I. A. M., Coventry, D. R., Palmer, A. R., & Eamus, D. (2007). Radiation- and water-use associated with growth and yields of wheat and chickpea in sole and mixed crops. European Journal of Agronomy, 26(3), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2006.10.008
31. Javanmard, A., Amani Machiani, M., & Mousavi, S. B. (2018). Evaluation of competition and advantage in barley (Hordeum vulgare) and forage pea (Pisum sativum L.) intercropping under rainfed condition. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable, 28(3), 1-17. (in Persian with English Abstract).
32. Jensen, E. S., Carlsson, G., & Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. (2020). Intercropping of grain legumes and cereals improves the use of soil N resources and reduces the requirement for synthetic fertilizer N: A global-scale analysis. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 40(5), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-0607-x
33. Koocheki, A., Nassiri Mahallati, M., Deihimfard, R., Mirzaei Talarposhti, R., & Kheirkhah, M. (2014). Evaluating the competitiveness and productivity in a maize-bean intercropping system using some indices. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 12(4), 535-542. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/gsc.v12i4.45134
34. Koocheki, A., Nassiri Mahallati, M., Mondani, F., Feizi, H., & Amirmoradi, S. (2009). Evaluation of radiation interception and use by maize and bean intercropping canopy. Journal of Agroecology, 1(1), 13-23. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v1i1.2650
35. Koohafkan, P., & Altieri, M. A. (2016). Forgotten agricultural heritage: Reconnecting food systems and sustainable development. Taylor & Francis, 296. In book: p. 296. Publication Location London. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315470092
36. Kopittke, P. M., Menzies, N. W., Wang, P., McKenna, B. A., & Lombi, E., (2019). Soil and the intensification of agriculture for global food security. Environment International, 132, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.105078
37. Lithourgidis, A. S., Vlachostergios, D. N., Dordas, C. A., & Damalas, C. A. (2011). Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea-cereal intercropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 34(4), 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.007
38. Maitra, S., Hossain, A., Brestic, M., Skalicky, M., Ondrisik, P., Gitari, H., Brahmachari, K., Shankar, T., Bhadra, P., Palai, J. B., Jena, J., Bhattacharya, U., Duvvada, S K., Lalichetti, S., & Sairam, M. (2021). Intercropping-A low input agricultural strategy for food and environmental security. Agronomy, 11, https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020343
39. Margenot, A. J., Paul, B. K., Sommer, R. R., Pulleman, M. M., Parikh, S. J., Jackson, L. E., & Fonte, S. J. (2017). Can conservation agriculture improve phosphorus (P) availability in weathered soils? Effects of tillage and residue management on soil P status after 9 years in a Kenyan Oxisol. Soil and Tillage Research, 166, 157-166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2016.09.003
40. Mushagalusa, G. N., Ledent, J. F., & Draye, X. (2008). Shoot and root competition in potato/maize intercropping: Effects on growth and yield. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 64(2), 180-188.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2008.05.008
41. Odo, P. E. (1991). Evaluation of short and tall sorghum varieties in mixtures with cowpea in the Sudan savanna of Nigeria: Land equivalent ratio, grain yield and system productivity index. Experimental Agriculture, 27(4), 435-‏ https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700019426
42. Ogieriakhi, M. O., & Woodward, R. T. (2022). Understanding why farmers adopt soil conservation tillage: A Systematic review. Soil Security, 9, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soisec.2022.100077
43. Pellicano, A., Romeo, M., Pristeri, A., Preiti, G., & Monti, M. (2015). Cereal-pea intercrops to improve sustainability in bioethanol production. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(2), 827-835. https://doi.org/1007/s13593-015-0294-1
44. Piri, I., Zendehdel, B., & Tavassoli, A. (2017). Study of agronomical and ecological parameters of additive and replacement intercropping systems of corn (Zea maize) and soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.). Journal of Agroecology, 9(3), 705-721. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v9i3.45737
45. Rahimi Darabad, G., Barmaki, M., & Seyed Sharifi, R. (2015). Investigation of some growth indices in mixed potato and safflower cultivation. Applied Agricultural Research, 27(104), 173-179. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22092/aj.2014.101838
46. Rastgoo, M., Asadi, G., Sorkhsaraei, A. D., & Rahimi, S. (2021). Evaluation of competitive indices and cultivation efficiency of cotton-fodder beet intercropping under weed interference conditions.‏ Journal of Plant Protection, 35(3), 373-387. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/JPP.2021.32834.0
47. Rezaei-Chiyaneh, E., & Gholinezhad, E. (2015). Agronomic characteristics of intercropping of additive series of chickpea (Cicer arietinum ) and black cumin (Nigella sativa L.). Journal of Agroecology, 7(3), 381-396. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22067/JAG.V7I3.35858
48. Rosataei, M., Fallah, S., & Abbasi Surki, A. (2018). Effect of different fertilization systems (chemical, organic and integrated) on competitive and economic indices of fenugreek and black cumin intercropping, Plant Production Thecnology, 10(1), 159-174. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22084/ppt.2018.8046.1461
49. Sadra, T., & Hamzei, J. (2021). Evaluation of the fficiemcy of triticale (Triticosecale Wittmack) intercropping with winter vetch (Vicia villosa) by competitive indices under different tillage systems. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 31(3), 1-18. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22034/SAPS.2021.41625.2541
50. Salehi Sheikhi, M., Nakhzari Moghaddam, A., Rahemi Karizaki, A., & Mohamad Eamaeili, M. (2021). Effect of pea cultivar and replacement and additive intercropping ratios of pea and spinach on yield and competition indices. Journal of Crops Improvement, 23(4), 952-939. (in Persian with English Abstract). https://doi.org/10.22059/jci.2020.302557.2395
51. Sorkheh, M., Zaefarian, F., & Gharineh, M. H. (2020). Effect of green manure under different conditions of tillage on weed characteristics and corn (Zea mays) yield. Plant Productions, 43(2), 281-294. (in Persian with English Abstract).
52. Stevens, A. W. (2018). Review: The economics of soil health. Food Policy, 80, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2018.08.005
53. Toker, P., Canci, H., Turhan, I., Isci, A., Scherzinger, M., Kordrostami, M., & Yol, E. (2024). The advantages of intercropping to improve productivity in food and forage production–a review. Plant Production Science, 27(3), 155-169.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/1343943X.2024.2372878
54. UNFPA. (2023). Peace, dignity and equality on a healthy planet. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/population
55. Willey, R. W., & Rao, M. R. (1980). A competitive ratio for quantifying competition between intercrops. Experimental Agriculture, 16(2), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700010802
56. Willey, R. W. (1979). Intercropping its importance and research needs. Competition and yield advantage. Field Crop Abstracts, 32(1), 1-10.
57. Yali, W. (2022). Review of the genetic variability in maize genotypes (Zea mays). Plant, 10(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.plant.20221001.11
58. Yilmaz, S., Ozel, A., Atak, M., & Eraymanm, M. (2015). Effects of seeding rates on competition indices of barley and vetch intercropping systems in the eastern Mediterranean. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 39(1), 135-143. https://doi.org/10.3906/tar-1406-155
59. Zhang, X., Zhu, A., Xin, X., Yang, W., Zhang, J., & Ding, S. (2018). Tillage and residue management for long-term wheat-maize cropping in the North China Plain: I. Crop yield and integrated soil fertility index. Field Crops Research, 221, 157–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.02.025