Effect of Row Intercropping Patterns on Yield, Yield Components, and Weed Control of Fenugreek (Trigonellafoenumgreacum L.) and Anise (Pimpinellaanisum L.)

پژوهشهای زراعی ایران

Article 9, Volume 13, Issue 3 - Serial Number 39, October 2015, Pages 623-636   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/gsc.v13i3.29670

Authors

F Mardani; H Balouchi^* ; A Yadavi; A Salehi

Yasouj University

Abstract

Introduction
Due to population growth and food shortage agricultural production is on increasing demand. In this order increasing cultivation area and yield per unit area are two ways of obtaining higheragricultural production (20). There is another important way that without incurring additional costs and use of water and fertilizer could result in higher production. This approach is increasing agricultural production per unit area by growing more than one crop in a year. Intercropping will be successful when competition for sources issless than competition within a species. Plants in the mixture can be chosen in a way that a species benefits from environmental changes caused by other species in mixed cultures directly (7, 15). Intercropping inhibits the growth and development of weeds and leads to increased production. Since the system will reduce the pesticide use, environmental pollution will be also less proportionally (37).
Materials and Methods
In order to evaluate the yield, yield components and potential weeds control under intercropping fenugreek and anise, an experiment was carried out based on a randomized complete block design with three replicationsat the Agricultural Research Field of Yasouj University during growing season of 2012-2013. Treatments included pure cultures of fenugreek and anise, single-row, double-row and three-tier intercropping of fenugreek and anise at no weed control and weed control conditions.
Results and Discussion
The results showed that different intercropping treatments had significant effects on pod number per plant, grain weight and grain and biological yield of fenugreek and also, on number of lateral branches, number of grains per plant and grain and biological yield of anise. There were nosignificant effects on plant height, number of lateral branches, number of grain per pod, harvest index of fenugreek, as well as plant height, number of umbel let per plant, seed weight and harvest index of anise. The lowest weed dry weight was observed in two rows intercropping and the maximum dry weight of weeds in fenugreek monoculture, respectively. Evaluation of land equivalent ratio showed that intercropping of fenugreek and anise is superior to pure culture and single-row intercropping had highest land equivalent ratio (1.39). Index values of the actual yield loss were also positive, which indicates the usefulness of mixed culture compared to monoculture of each plant. Among the different treatments tested AYL's highest were allocated by single-row intercropping treatments in the absence of weed. AYL minimum belonged to two rows intercropping treatments and without weed. All positive values of AYL indicated the utility of intercropping. Therefore it can be concluded that intercropping in all proportions, combined with the principle of protection, is benefiial. The effect of weed control on grain yield in the absence of fenugreek was observed in single-row, double and triple rows cultivation without weed control, respectively. This resulted in a decrease of 3%, 21% and 18% yield, and indicates a greater impact of single row cultivation on the weed control. It speculated that the higher nitrogen fixation under the triple rows may help higher weed growth.
Conclusions
Results showed that higher yield in treatments of intercropping compared to pure culture. Other indicators also showed the utility of intercropping, mixed farming profitability. In this study for all treatments, intercropping, and land equivalent ratio was greater than single cultivation. Thus achieving higher LER than one indicates that mixed cultures compared with pure cultures of environmental resources, such as light and nutrients more effectively used as components of mixed cultures were complementary. This advantage is due to physiological and morphological differences between the components that are in mixed cultures. It seems to increase the diversity of crop species and increases the competition between crops and weed species, more efficient allocation of resources and their distribution among crop species occurs, resulting in reduced weed infestation. Absorption of light by a dense canopy of intercropping, reduces the amount of light loss by the canopy and thus reduces weed growth and seed germination. Fenugreek and anise single-row intercropping is better than pure cropping.

Keywords

Actual yield loss; Essential oil; Land equivalent ratio; Mix crop; Weed

References

1. Abasi Ali Kamar, R., Hejazi, A., Akbari, G., Kafi, M., and Zand, E. 2009. Study on different densities of cumin and chickpea intercropping with emphasis on weed control. Journal of Iranian Field Crop Research 4 (1): 83-95. (in Persian with English abstract).

2. Ahmadi, A., Dabbagh Mohammdi Nasab, A., Zehtab Salmasi, S., Amini, A., and Janmohammadi, H. 2010. Evaluation of yield and advantage indices in barley and vetch intercropping. Sustainable Agriculture and Production Science 20 (4): 78-87. (in Persian with English abstract).

3. Alizadeh, Y., Koocheki, A., and Nassiri Mahallati, M. 2010. Yield, yield components and potential weed control of intercropping bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) with sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum). Journal of Iranian Field Crop Research 7 (2): 541-553. (in Persian with English abstract).

4. Alizadeh, Y., Koocheki, A., and Nassiri mahallati, M. 2011. Investigating of growth characteristics, yield, yield components and potential weed control in intercropping of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and vegetative sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). Agroecology 2 (3): 383-397. (in Persian with English abstract).

5. Banik, B., Midya, A., Sarkar, B. K., and Ghose, S. S. 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: Advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy 24: 325-332.

6. Bigonah, R., Rezvani Moghaddam, P., and Jahan, M. 2014. Effects of intercropping on biological yield, percentage of nitrogen and morphological characteristics of Coriander and Fenugreek. Journal of Iranian Field Crop Research 12 (3): 369-377. (in Persian with English abstract).

7. Bulson, H. A. J., Snaydon, R. W., and Stopes, C. E. 1997. Effect of plant density on intercropped wheat and field beans in on organic farming system. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 128: 59-71.

8. Dahmardeh, M. 2013. Intercropping Barley (Hordeum vulgar L.) and Lentil (Lens culinaris L.): yield and intercropping advantages. Journal of Agricultural Science 5: 209-213.

9. Darzi, M. T., Hadjseyed Hadi, M. R., and Rejali, F. 2011. Effects of vermicompost and phosphate biofertilizer application on yield and yield components in Anise (Pimpinella anisum L.). Iranian Journal of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants 26 (4): 452-435. (in Persian with English abstract).

10. Dini, M. 2005. Scientific names of plants used in traditional medicine. Research Institute of forests and pastures press. (in Persian).

11. Dua, V. K., Lal, S. S., and Govindakrishnan, P. M. 2005. Production potential and competition indices in potato- French bean intercropping system in Shimla Hills. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 75: 321-323.

12. Fernandez-Aparicio, M., Emeran, A. A., and Rubiales, D. 2008. Control of (Orobanch crenata) in legumes intercropping with fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-greacum L.). Crop Protection 27: 653-659.

13. Ghannadi, A. 2006. Iranian Herbal Pharmacopoeia. Ministry of Health. Iran. (in Persian).

14. Giller, K. E., and Wilson, K. J. 1991. Nitrogen Fixation and Tropical Cropping Systems. CAB International, Wallingford, pp: 10-120.

15. Hussain, S. A., Ali, N., Rab, A., and Hashmi, A. 2005. Intercropping effect on growth and yield of winter vegetables. Sarhad Journal Agriculture 21: 345-350.

16. Jahani, M., Koochaki, A., and Nassiri Mahalati, M. 2009. Comparison of different intercropping arrangements of cumin (Cuminum cyminum) and lentil (Lens culinaris). Journal of Iranian Field Crop Research 6 (1): 67-78. (in Persian with English abstract).

17. Kandhro, M. N., Tunio, S. D., Memon, H. R., and Ansari, M. A. 2007. Growth and yield of sunflower under influence of mungbean intercropping. Pakistan Journal Agricultural Research 23: 9-13.

18. Karnataka, J. 2008. Effect of intercropped vegetables on maize and associated weeds in Maize vegetable Intercropping systems. Agricultural Science 21 (2): 159-161.

19. Maffei, J., and Mucciarelli, M. 2003. Essential oil yield in pepper mint-soybean strip-cropping. Field Crops Research 84: 229-240.

20. Mazaheri, D. 1998. Intercropping. Tehran, Iran. 262 pp. (in Persian).

21. Mirhashemi, S. M., Koocheki, A., Parsa, M., and Nassiri Mahallati, M. 2010. Evaluating the benefit of Ajowan and Fenugreek intercropping in different levels of manure and planting pattern. Journal of Iranian Field Crop Research 7 (1): 269-278. (in Persian with English abstract).

22. Nezami, A., and Bagheri, A. 2009. Responsiveness of cold tolerant chickpea characteristics in fall and spring planting: I- phenology and morphology. Journal of Iranian Field Crop Research 3 (1): 143-155. (in Persian with English abstract).

23. Omid-Beigi, R. 1997. Findings about Production and Process of Medicinal Plants. Tarahane Nashr Publication, Iran. 424 pp. (in Persian).

24. Rajeswara Rao, B. R. 2002. Biomass yield, essential oil yield and essential oil composition of Rose-scented geranium (Pelargonium species) as influenced by row spacing and inter cropping with cornmint (Mentha arrensis L.f. piperascens Malinv.EX Holmes). Industrial Crops and Products 16: 133-144.

25. Rezvani moghadam, P., and Moradi, R. 2012. Assessment of planting date, biological fertilizer and intercropping on yield and essential oil of Cumin and Fenugreek. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science 43 (2): 217-230. (in Persian with English abstract).

26. Sadrabadi Haghighi, R. 1999. Effect of supplemental irrigation and cultivation of wheat interferes with hairy vetch Dryland farming in a low input system. PhD dissertation of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research. (in Persian).

27. Saleem, R., Umar, F. M., and Ahmed, R. 2003. Bioeconomic assessment of different sunflower based intercropping systems at different geometric configurations. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 6: 1187-1190.

28. Salehi Surmaghi, M. H. 2008. Medicinal plants and herbal therapy. 1: 253-254.

29. Santiago, L., and Poggio, B. 2005. Structure of weed communities occurring in monoculture and intercropping of field pea and barley. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 109: 48-58.

30. Saudy, H. S., and Elmetwally, I. M. 2009. Weed management under different patterns of sunflower- soybean intercropping. Journal of Central European Agriculture 10: 41-52.

31. Sharma, S. K. 2000. Response of nitrogen and spacing on fenugreek seed production. Horticultural Journal 13 (2): 39-42.

32. Singh, J. K. 2007. Response of sunflower (Helianthus annuus) and French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Intercropping to different row ratios and nitrogen levels under rain fed conditions of temperate Kashmir. Indian Journal of Agronomy 52: 36-39.

33. Tuna, C., and Orak, A. 2007. The role of intercropping on yield potential of common vetch (Vicia sativa L.) / oat (Avena sativa L.) cultivated in pure stand and mixtures. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 2: 14-19.

34. Weston, L. A. 1996. Utilization of allelopathy for weed management in agroecosystems. Agronomy Journal 88: 860-866.

35. Xu, J. 2007. Scientists’ fiend why intercropping of faba bean with maize increases yields, Available at http://www.Horizoninter national tv.org, pp: 12-19.

36. Zargari, A., 1997. Medicinal plants, Volume 3. Tehran Univ. 925 pages. (in Persian).

37. Zulfiqar, A., AsgharMalik, M., and Cheema, M. A. 2000. Studies on determining a suitable canola–wheat intercropping pattern. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 2 (1): 42-44.