Effect of Different Treatments of Mixed and Row Intercropping on Yield and Yield Components of Sesame and Bean

پژوهشهای زراعی ایران

Article 6, Volume 15, Issue 3 - Serial Number 47, October 2017, Pages 588-602   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/gsc.v15i3.49345

Authors

Sh Ghale Noyee^* ; A Koocheki; M. T Naseri poor yazdi; M Jahan

Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

Abstract

Introduction
Intercropping is a kind of multi-culture system where two or more plants are cultivated in a piece of land simultaneously. The aim of intercropping is optimizing the use of space, time and physical resources in both the top and under of the soil surface through maximizing positive relationship and minimizing negative relationship between the components of agricultural ecosystems. In intercropping due to better use of available resources such as land, labor, time, light, water and nutrients, as well as reducing damages caused by pests and diseases and socio-economic advantages, increase in production per unit area can be expected. In this study, yield and yield components of sesame and bean in additive and replacement intercropping with mixed and row planting type was evaluated and the possible advantages of intercropping to monoculture as well as the types of intercropping were compared.
Materials and Methods
This experiment was conducted in Agricultural Research Station of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, located in 10 kilometers south-east of the city of Mashhad, Iran (latitude 36° 17′ N, longitude 59° 35′ E and 985 m elevation) in 2013 and 2014. Climate of the area is cold and dry. A Split-Plot experiment based on randomized complete block design with three replications was used with the factor of cropping system (as main plot) and intercropping proportions (as sub plot). The cropping system was included; mixed and row cropping and intercropping proportions were included; monoculture of bean (100b), 25% sesame- 75% bean (25s75b), 50% sesame- 50% bean (50s50b), 75% sesame- 25% bean (75s25b), monoculture of sesame (100s), 10% bean- 100% sesame (10b100s), 20% bean- 100% sesame (20b100s), 30% bean- 100% sesame (30b100s), 100% bean- 10% sesame (100b10s), 100% bean- 20% sesame (100b20s), and 100% bean- 30% sesame (100b30s). Planting was done using common varieties of the region (Esfarayen and Derakhshan varieties for sesame and bean, respectively). Hand-weeding method was used for controlling weeds. The first was done when most plants were, in the 6 leaf stage and in the height about 15cm, continued every 13 days until the growth of the canopy limited the growth of weeds. There was not used any fertilizer during the growing season. At the end of the growing season traits such as 1000 seed weight, number of capsules or pods per plant, number of seeds per capsule or pod, biological yield, seed yield and harvest index were recorded. In addition, the land equivalent ratio (LER) was calculated to determine the advantages of intercropping. Analysis of variance and Duncan's mean comparison were used for statistical analysis.
Results and Discussion
The results showed that intercropping had a significant effect on all traits, in sesame and bean. 1000 seed weigh, number of capsules or pods per plant, number of seeds per capsule or pod and harvest index in the treatments of 25s75b, 50s50b and 75s25b, were the highest amounts. Number of seed per plant, seed yield and harvest index in sesame and 1000 seed weight, biological yield and seed yield in bean were affected by planting type which row planting had higher value than mixed planting. This can be due to better use of resources and avoid inter and intra species competition, in the circumstances stated above. The results showed that the total LER, LER of sesame, and LER of bean were higher in replacement intercropping planting than mixed planting. In addition, replacement intercropping had better performance in total LER, LER of sesame, and LER of bean, to additive intercropping. Also, total LER was more than 1 which highest values were observed in the treatments of 25s75b, 50s50b, 30s100b, 75s25b, 100s 30b and 10s100b (1.22, 1.19, 1.15, 1.15 and 1.14, respectively). It seems that better utilize of the growth resource in the inter cropping led to reach this result. The results showed that presence of bean in intercropping had positive effects on sesame, so that the symbiosis of bean roots with nitrogen-fixing bacteria could be the main reason.
Conclusions
In general, the results showed that seed yield of sesame and bean in monoculture were higher than other combinations of intercropping; However higher LER was observed in the treatments of intercropping. This shows more exploitation of unit area in intercropping. In addition, greater amount of LER in replacement intercropping than additive intercropping highlights the necessity of appropriate density of plants per unit area in the intercropping. Also row planting showed better performance compared with mixed planting that suggests the effect of planting correct arrangement for further exploitation of resources in the intercropping.

Keywords

Economical yield; Harvest index; Land equivalent ratio (LER); Multi-culture

References

1. Abbasi Ali Kamar, R. 2004. Evaluation of different culture cumin and chickpea mixture with emphasis on weed control in Mashhad,Thesis, Department of Agronomy. Tehran University. (in Persian with English abstract).

2. Abraham, C. T., and Singh, S. P. 1984. Weed management in sorghum-legume intercropping systems. Journal of Agricultural Science 103: 103-115.

3. Akmal, M., and Janssens, M. J. J. 2004. Productivity and light use efficiency of perennial ryegrass with contrasting water and nitrogen supplies. Field Crops Research 88: 143-155.

4. Alizadeh, Y., Koocheki, A., Nassiri Mahallati, M., and Rezvani Moghaddam, P. 2009. Effects of intercropping beans and basil on yield and weed control. Master Thesis. College of Agriculture. Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. (in Persian with English abstract).

5. Awal, M., Koshi, H., and Ikeda, T. 2006. Radiation interception and use by maize/peanut intercrop canopy. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 139: 74-83.

6. Carr, P. M., Schatz, B. G., Gardner, J. C., and Zwinger, S. F. 1992. Intercropping sorghum and pinto bean in cool semi-arid region. Agronomy Journal 84: 810-812.

7. Chen, C., Westcott, M., Neill, K., Wichman, D., and Knox, M. 2004. Row configuration and nitrogen application for barley–pea intercropping in Montana. Agronomy Journal 96: 1730-1738.

8. Çiftçi, V., and Ulker, M. 2005. Effect of mixed cropping lentil with wheat and barley at different seeding ratios. Journal of Agronomy 4: 1-4.

9. Ebwongu, M., Adipala, E., Ssekabembe, C., Kyamanywa, S., and Bhagsari, A. 2001. Effect of intercropping maize and solanum potato on yield of the component crops in central Uganda. African Crop Science Journal 9: 83-96.

10. Gholdani, M., and Rezvani Moghaddam, P. 2004. Effect of drought and sowing date on yield and yield components of rainfed and irrigated beans in Mashhad. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 2 (2): 229 to 239. (in Persian with English abstract).

11. Jahan, M. 2004. Ecological aspects of intercropping chamomile and calendula Chamomilla matricaria L. Chalendula officinalis L. with manure. Thesis of Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. (in Persian with English abstract).

12. Javanshir, A., Dabbagh Mohammadi Nasab, A., Hamidi, A., and Gholipour, M. 2000. Ecology of Intercropping (Translation). Publication of Jihad-e Daneshgahi of Masshad. (in Persian with English abstract).

13. Khajehpour, M. 2004. Industrial plants. Publication of Jihad-e Daneshgahi of Isfahan 0.580 Center's publications. (in Persian with English abstract).

14. Koocheki, A., and Zand, E. 1996. From the Viewpoint of Ecological Agriculture. Publication of Jihad-e Daneshgahi of Masshad. (in Persian with English abstract).

15. Koocheki, A., Zarif Ketabi, H., and Nakh Foroosh, A. 2001. Ecological Approaches to Weed Management. University of Mashhad. (in Persian with English abstract).

16. Koocheki, A., Gholami, A., Tabrizi, L., and Mahdavi Damghani, A. 2005. Principles of biological agriculture (organic). University of Mashhad. (in Persian).

17. Li, L., Sun, J., Zhang, F., Li, X., Yang, S., and Rengel, Z. 2001. Wheat/maize or wheat/soybean strip intercropping: I. Yield advantage and interspecific interactions on nutrients. Field Crops Research 71: 123-137.

18. Mushagalusa, G. N., Ledent, J. F., and Draye, X. 2008. Shoot and root competition in potato/maize intercropping: Effects on growth and yield. Environmental and Experimental Botany 64: 180-188.

19. Najafi, A., and Ghafari, K. H. 2005. Evaluation of intercropping of maize and beans 704 single digits School of Business. Articles First National Conference beans. Research Institute of Plant Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. November 29-30. S144-146. (in Persian with English abstract).

20. Ndakidemi, P. A. 2006. Manipulating legume/cereal mixtures to optimize the above and below ground interactions in the traditional African cropping systems. African Journal of Biotechnology 5: 2526-2533.

21. Nezami, A., and Bagheri, A. 2005. The effect of cold tolerant chickpea genotypes characteristics of autumn and spring: phonological and morphological characteristics. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Research 3 (1): 143-155. (in Persian with English abstract).

22. Nielsen, H. H., Ambus, P., and Jensen, E. S. 2001. Interspecific competition N use and interference with weeds in pea– barley intercropping. Field Crop Research 70 (2): 101-109.

23. Pandita, A. K., Saha, M. H., and Bali, A. S. 2000. Effect of row ratio in cereal-legume intercropping systems on productivity and competition functions under Kashmir conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy 45: 48-53.

24. Pendleton, J. W., Bolen, C. D., and Seif, R. D. 1963. Alternating strips of corn and soybeans vs. sole planting. Agronomy Journal 55: 293-295.

25. Pitan, O. O. R., and Debiyi, G. A. O. 2001. The effect of intercropping with maize on the level of infestation and damaged by pod – sucking bugs in cowpea. Crop Protection 20: 367-372.

26. Pooramir, F., Koocheki, A., Nasiri Mahalatti, M., and Gorbani, R. 2010. Evaluation of yield and yield components in sesame and pea intercropping replacement series. Iranian Journal of Agricultural Research 8 (5): 757-747. (in Persian with English abstract).

27. Putnam, D. H., and Allen, D. L.1992. Mechanism for over yielding in sunflower-mustard intercrop. Agronomy Journal 84: 188-195.

28. Rangasamy, A., Krishamurti, V. V., Rajkannan, B., Iruthagaraj, M. R., and Ajyaswamy, M. 1988. Intercropping of rows of green gram in cotton. Seed and Farms 14 (4): 20-23.

29. Rezvani Moghaddam, P., Norooz pour, G., Nabati, J., and Mohammad Abadi, A. 2005. Morphological characteristics, grain yield and sesame oil in plant density and irrigation intervals. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 3 (1): 57-68. (in Persian with English abstract).

30. Saxena, M. 1990. Problems and potential of chickpea production in the nineties. Chickpea in the Nineties, Patancheru: ICRISAT. 13-25 p.

31. Shivaramu, H., and Shivashankar, K. 1994. A new approach of canopy architecture in assessing complementarity of intercrops. Indian Journal of Agronomy 39: 179-187.

32. Soltani, A. 2004. Revision of the application of statistical techniques in agricultural research. Press Mashhad SID. 55 p.

33. Thakur, N. S., Pannase, S. K., and Sharma, R. S. 2000. Production potential of gram (Cicer arietinum)-based intercropping systems under rainfed condition. Indian Journal of Agronomy 45: 534-539.

34. Walker, S., and Ogindo, H. O. 2003. The water budget of rainfed maize and bean intercrop. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 28: 919-926.

35. Willey, R. 1990. Resource use in intercropping systems. Agricultural Water Management 17: 215-231.

36. Zougmor, R., Kambou, F. N., Ouattara, K., and Guillobez, S. 2000. Sorghum– cowpea intercropping; an effective technique againstrun off and soil erosion in the Sahel (Saria, Burkina Faso). Arid Soil Research and Rehabili 14: 329-342.