The effect of growing barley-faba bean on weed control and their yield

پژوهش‌های حبوبات ایران

Volume 13, Issue 2 - Serial Number 26, December 2022, Pages 79-90   

Document Type: Original Article

DOI: 10.22067/ijpr.v13i2.2111-1015

Authors

Vahid Thabih; Saeed Saeedipour^*

Department of Agronomy, Shoushtar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shoushtar, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Mixed cultivation is part of the crop rotation program and a suitable solution for weed control, especially in low-income agricultural systems. The usefulness of intercropping compared to sole cultivation in weed control is due to the deprivation of weeds in the use of resources and higher yield usefulness. By creating diversity through intercropping, the stability of cropping systems increases. In such systems, optimal conditions are created for pest management, nutrient rotation, resource utilization, and increased yield. Therefore, the need to use ecological principles such as intercropping to increase the productivity of arable land seems necessary. After cereals, legumes are the second most important source of human food and have a special place among crops. These plants have an effective role in increasing soil fertility and reducing greenhouse gases due to their coexistence with nitrogen-fixing bacteria. They are one of the most important grain legumes in the world. In 2017, the global area under bean cultivation (Vicia faba L.) is estimated at 2.463 million hectares and its global production is estimated at 4.840 million tons. The area under cultivation and its production in Iran in 2017 has also been reported to be 217.28 thousand hectares with a production of 17.882 thousand tons. The present study aimed to compare single cultivation and incremental bean mixture in a mixed bean cultivation system (barley-bean) concerning the yield of each plant and the rate of weed suppression.
     
Materials and Methods
This research is carried out at the research farm of the Faculty of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Shushtar Branch, with a geographical location of 32 degrees and 3 minutes north and 48 degrees and 50 minutes east and an arid and semi-arid climate, with an average rainfall of 321.4 mm and an average temperature. The annual minimum and maximum were 9.5 and 46.3 °C, respectively. Treatments included sole and mixed cultivation of barley (Valfajr cultivar) and beans (Barakat cultivar). In sole cultivation, barley density of 400 plants per square meter and bean density of 20 plants per square meter were considered based on the recommended seed amount. Treatments included sole and mixed cultivation of barley (Valfajr cultivar) and beans (Barakat cultivar). In sole cultivation, barley density of 400 plants per square meter and bean density of 20 plants per square meter were considered based on the recommended seed amount. In mixed cultivation, barley density was fixed (400 plants per square meter) and bean density was determined as a percentage of net cultivation including (12.5, 25, 37.5, 50, and 62.5%). The research was conducted based on randomized complete blocks with four replications based on the incremental method in the mixed system in the 2009-2010 crop years.
 
Results and Discussion
The net crop yield of each plant was higher compared to its mixed crop. The highest barley yield 2496 kg/ha was observed in sole cultivation. By increasing the ratio of beans in intercropping from 12.5 to 62.5%, barley grain yield decreased from 93 to 73% compared to its sole crop. The highest yield of beans was obtained in its net cultivation with 2621 kg/ha. A comparison of cultivation mixing treatments showed that by increasing the ratio of beans in mixed cultivation from 12.5 to 62.5%, bean seed yield increased from 12 to 48%. Although the grain yield of crops in the mixture was lower compared to their net cultivation, the total productivity of the land in mixed cultivation improved as a result of the higher parity ratio of the whole land. The average values ​​of land parity ratio were obtained from 1.05 to 1.23 in different ratios of barley and bean intercropping. This means that the net cultivation of each plant requires 5 to 23% more land to produce the same yield compared to mixed cultivation, which indicates that the efficiency of land use in mixed cultivation is higher than in sole cultivation. The effect of different crop ratios on dry weight and weed density was significant compared to sole barley at the 1% probability level. The highest and lowest dry weight of weeds with 71 and 47 g/m², respectively, were related to sole barley and the ratio of 62.5: 100 (beans: barley). However, the comparison of weed dry weight in different proportions of intercropping showed no significant difference.
 
Conclusion
Mixed barley and bean farming can be economically and environmentally promising in most parts of Iran, with high population density, small farms and limited income. In this study, despite the decrease in barley yield due to the increase in the ratio of the associated crop (beans) to barley, intercropping was more productive according to the results of total grain yield and land parity ratios.

Keywords

Density coefficient; Grain yield; Land parity ratio; Productivity index; Sole culture

References

1. Banik, P., Midya, A.B., Sarkar,, K., and Ghose, S.S. 2016. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: Advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy 24: 325-332.
2. Baumann, D.T., Bastians, L., and Kropff, M.J. 2014. Intercropping system optimization for yield, quality and weed suppression combining mechanistic and descriptive models. Agronomy Journal 94: 734-742.
3. Bilalis, D., Papastylianou, P., Konstantas, A., Patsiali, S., Karkanis, A., and Efthimiadou, A. 2017. Weed-suppressive effects of maize-legume intercropping in organic farming. International Journal of Pest Management 56: 173-181.
4. Bulson, H.A.J., Snaydon, R.W., and Stopes, C.E. 1997. Effects of plant density on intercropped wheat and field beans in an organic farming system. Journal of Agricultural Science 128: 59-
5. Chen, C., Westcott, M., Neill, K., Wichmann, D., and Knox, M. 2004. Row configuration and nitrogen application for barley-pea intercropping in Montana. Agronomy Journal 96: 1730-
6. Dwivedi, A., Dev, I., Kumar, V., Yadav, R.S., Yadav, M., Gupta, D., Singh, A., and Tomar, S.S. 2015. Potential role of maize-legume intercropping systems to improve soil fertility status under smallholder farming systems for sustainable agriculture in India. International Journal of Life Sciences Biotechnology and Pharma Research 4(3): 145.
7. 2020. Crop Production and Trade Data. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data (accessed December 30, 2020).
8. 2017. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation. Quarterly bulletin of Statistics. Remote, Italy
9. Fernandez, O.N., Vignolio, O.R., and Requesens, E.C. 2002. Competition between corn (Zea mays) and bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon) in relation to the crop plant arrangement. Agronomy Journal 22: 293-305.
10. Ghale-Noyee, S., Koocheki, A., Yazdi, M.N.P., and Jahan, M. 2016. Effect of different treatments of mixed and row intercropping on yield and yield components of sesame and bean. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 15(3): 588-602. (in Persian with English abstract).
11. Ghanbari, A., Dahmardeh, M., Siahsar, B.A., and Ramroudi, M. 2016. Effect of maize (Zea mays ) - cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) intercropping on light distribution, soil temperature and soil moisture in and environment. Journal of Food and Agricultural Environment 8: 102-108.
12. Ghosh, P.K. 2004. Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops Research 88: 227-237.
13. Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Ambus, P., and Jensen, E.S. 2015. Interspecific competition, N use and interference with weeds in pea-barley intercropping. Field Crops Research 70: 101-109.
14. Haymes, R., and Lee, H.C., 1999. Competition between autumn and spring planted grain intercrops of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and field bean (Vicia faba L.). Field Crops Research 62: 167-176.
15. Holland, J.B., and Brummer, E.C. 1999. Cultivar effects on oat-berseem clover intercrops. Agronomy Journal 91: 321-
16. Iqbal, J., Cheema, Z.A., and An, M. 2017. Intercropping of field crops in cotton for the management of purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus ). Plant Soil 300: 163-171.
17. Jensen, E.S. 1996. Grain yield, symbiotic N₂ fixation and interspecific competition for inorganic N in pea-barley intercrops. Plant Soil 182: 5-
18. Kallu, B.A., and Erhabor, P.O. 1990. Barley, lentil and flax yield under different intercropping systems. Agronomy Journal 82: 1066-
19. Kaut, A.H., Mason, H.E., Navabi, A., O’Donovan, J.T., and Spaner, D. 2018. Organic and conventional management of mixtures of wheat and spring cereals. Agronomy Sustainable Development 28: 363-371.
20. Li, M., Zhang, J., Liu, S., Ashraf, U., Zhao, B., and Qui, S. 2018. Mixed- cropping systems of different rice cultivars have grain yield and quality advantages over mono-cropping systems. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 99(7): 3326-3334.
21. Li, L., Yang, S., Li, X., Zhang, F., and Christie, F. 1999. Interspecific complementary and competitive interactions between intercropped maize and faba bean. Plant Soil 212: 105-114.
22. Liebman M., and Dyck E. 2011. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecological Application 3: 92-122.
23. Majnoun-Hosseini, N. 2008. Agriculture and Livestock Production. Tehran University Press, Iran. (In Persian).
24. Mazaheri, D. 2008. Intercropping. (2^nd). Tehran, Iran. (In Farsi).
25. Midega, C.A.O., Khan, Z.R., Amudavi, D.M., Pittchar, J., and Pickett, J.A. 2010. Integrated management of Striga hermonthica and cereal stemborers in finger millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.] through intercropping with Desmodium intortum. International Journal of Pest Management 56: 145-151.
26. Midmore, D.J. 2009. Agronomic modification of resource use and intercrop productivity. Field Crops Research 34: 357-380.
27. Morris, R.A., and Garrity, D.P. 2011. Resource capture and utilization in intercropping-water. Field Crops Research 34: 303-317.
28. Mouradi, M., Farissi, M., Makoudi, B., Bouizgaren, A., and Ghoulam, C. 2018. Effect of faba bean (Vicia Faba) rhizobia symbiosis on barley's growth, phosphorus uptake and acid phosphatase activity in the intercropping system. Annals of Agrarian Science 16(3): 297-303.
29. 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: 435-
30. Olorunmaiye, P.M. 2015. Weed control potential of five legume cover crops in maize/cassava intercrop in a Southern Guinea savanna ecosystem of Nigeria. Australian Journal of Crop Science 4: 324-329.
31. Qamar, I.A., Keating, J.D.H., Normohammad, T., Ali, A., and Ajmalkhan, M. 1999. Interdunction and management of vetch/barley forage mixture in the rainfed areas of Pakistan: Forage yield. Journal Agriculture Research 50: 1-9.
32. Rezaei-Chiyaneh, E., and Gholinezhad, E. 2015. Study of agronomic characteristics and advantage indices in 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).
33. Saucke, H., and Ackermann, K. 2016. Weed suppression in mixed cropped grain peas and false flax (Camelina sativa). Weed Research 46: 453-461.
34. Steinmaus, S., Elmore, C.L., Smith, R.J., Donaldson, E., Weber, A., Roncoroni, J.A., and Miller, P.R.M. 2008. Mulched cover crops as an alternative to conventional weed management systems in vineyards. Weed Research 48(1): 273-281.
35. Szumigalski, A., and Van Acker, R. 2015. Weed suppression and crop production in annual intercrops. Weed Science 53: 813-825.
36. Tsubo, M., Walker, S., and Mukhala, E. 2001. Comparisons of radiation use efficiency of mono-/inter-cropping systems with different row orientations. Field Crops Research 71: 17-29.
37. Willey, R.S. 1979. Intercropping-its importance and research needs. Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstract 32: 1-