Effect of Different Intercropping Patterns of Common millet and Cowpea on Yield and Yield Components

Document Type : scientific research article

Authors

1 M.Sc. Graduate, Dept. of Genetic and Crop Production, Agriculture College, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran

2 Corresponding Author, Associate Prof., Dept. of Genetic and Crop Production, Agriculture College, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran

3 Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Genetic and Crop Production, Agriculture College, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Rafsanjan, Iran. E-mail: minarafiee1989@gmail.com

Abstract

Effect of Different Intercropping Patterns of Common millet and Cowpea on Yield and Yield Components

Introduction
Intercropping systems play an important role in increasing crop quality, yield and environmental quality through the optimal use of soil, light and water nutrients. Due to the importance of intercropping for sustainable agricultural development, this study will be conducted in order to investigate the intercropping of common millet- cowpea under the alternative and incremental model.
Materials and Methods
This experiment was conducted based on a randomized complete block design with three replications to evaluate the yield and yield components of common millet (v. Pishahang) and cow pea (v. Mashhad) in intercropping. Treatments included 100% common millet (control), 100% cow pea(control), 25% common millet + 75% cow pea, 50% common millet + 50% cow pea, 75% common millet + 25% cow pea, 100% common millet +25% cow pea, 25% common millet + 100% cow pea, 100% common millet + 50% cow peaand 50% common millet + 100% cow pea. The studied traits were yield and yield components for both plants. Also, LER calculated for both plants.
Results and Discussion
The results of mean comparison of common millet showed that tiller number in common millet in 75% common millet + 25% cowpea and 100% common millet + 50% cowpea and seed number in plant in 25% common millet + 100% cowpea as compared to control (100% common millet) had the highest increase (41% and 40%, respectively) and the highest decrease (86%) among studied traits, respectively.It was also found that seed yield of common millet in 75% common millet + 25% cowpea and 25% common millet + 100% cowpea when compared to control (100% common millet) had the most increase (24%) and the most decrease (31%). Also, the results of cluster analysis in common millet showed that eight cultivated ratios were divided into three clusters and two cultivated ratios 50% common millet + 50% cowpea and 50% common millet + 100% cowpea were introduced as the best cultivated ratios in common millet. In addition, it was found that seed yield of cowpea decreased in all cultivatied ratios with compared to control. However, the greatest decrease was in the cultivatied ratios 25% cowpea+ 100% common millet and 25% cowpea+ 75% common millet. The cluster analysis results in cowpea showed that the eight cultivatied ratios were divided into two clusters, and two cultivatied ratios, control (100% cowpea) and 100% cowpea+ 25% common millet were known as the best cultivated ratios of cowpea. By calculating the land equivalent ratio found that this parameter was more than one in all cultivated ratios, which showed the superiority of mixed cultivation. However, the land equivalent ratio in the cultivated ratios 75% millet + 25% cowpea and 25% millet + 100% cowpea had the highest and lowest land equivalent ratio, respectively.
Conclusions
The results showed that the common millet with cowpea intercropping increased yield and yield components compared to monoculture. The best additive intercropping treatment was 50% common millet + 50% cowpea and 50% common millet + 100% cowpea. LER was much higher than one in all of the intercropping ratios, which indicates an increase in agricultural efficiency and usefulness of different ratios of intercropping crops of common millet and cowpea compared to their pure culture.

Keywords

References

 1.Mousavi, S.R. and Eskandari, H. 2011. A general overview on intercropping and its advantages in sustainable agriculture. J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. 1: 482-486.
2.Najafi, N., Mostafaei, M., Dabbagh, A. and Oustan, Sh. 2013. Effect of intercropping and farmyard manure on the growth, yield and protein concentration of corn, bean andbitter vetch. J. Agric. Sci .Sustain. Prod. 23: 1. 99-115.
3.Layek, J., Das, A., Mitran, T., Nath, C., Meena, R.S., Yadav, G.S., Shivakumar, B., Kumar, S. and Lal, R. 2018. Cereal+ legume intercropping: An option for improving productivity and sustaining soil health. In: (Ed.), Legumes for Soil Health and Sustainable Management. Springer. pp. 347-386.
4.Xue, Y., Xia, H., Christie, P., Zhang, Z., Li, L. and Tang, C. 2016. Crop acquisition of phosphorus, iron and zinc from soil in cereal/legume intercropping systems: a critical review. Ann. Bot.117: 363-377.
5.Khanal, U., Stott, K.J., Armstrong, R., Nuttall, J.G., Henry, F., Christy, B.P., Mitchell, M., Riffkin, P.A., Wallace, A.J. and McCaskill, M. 2021. Intercropping-Evaluating the advantages to broadacre systems. Agric. 11: 1-20.
6.Tang, X., Zhang, C., Yu, Y., Shen, J.,van der Werf, W. and Zhang, F. 2021. Intercropping legumes and cereals increases phosphorus use efficiency; a meta-analysis. Plant Soil, 460: 89-104.
7.Ghimire, B.K., Yu, C.Y., Kim, S.H. and Chung, I.M. 2019. Diversity in accessions of Panicum miliaceum L. based on
agro-morphological, antioxidative, and genetic traits. Molecules, 24: 1-25.
8.Flajsman, M., Stajner, N. and Acko, D.K. 2019. Genetic diversity and agronomic performance of slovenian landraces of proso common millet (Panicum miliaceum L.). Turk. J. botany. 43: 185-195.
9.Tadayon, M.R. and Karimzadeh Soureshjani, H. 2019. Effect of zeolite on growth and physiological parameters of proso common millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) under deficit irrigation management. Env. Stress. Crop. Sci.12: 2. 415-427. (In Persian)
10.Gomes, A.M.F., Draper, D., Nhantumbo, N., Massinga, R., Ramalho, J.C., Marques, I. and Ribeiro Barros, A.I. 2021. Diversity of cow pea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp] landraces in mozambique: new opportunities for crop improvement and future breeding programs. J. Agron. 11: 1-12.
11.Hutchinson, M.J., Muniu, F., Ambuko, J., Mwakangalu, M., Mwangâ, A.W., Okello, J., Olubayo, F. and Kirimi, J. 2017. Morphological and agronomic characterization of local vegetable cow peaaccessions in Coastal Kenya. Afr. J. Hort. Sci. 11: 47-58.
12.Molosiwa, O.O., Gwafila, C., Makore, J. and Chite, S.M. 2016. Phenotypic variation in cow pea (Vigna unguiculata [L.] Walp.) germplasm collection from Botswana. Int. J. Biodivers. Conserv.8: 153-163.
13.Sekhavat, R., Ghanbari Birgani, D. and Mirzashahi, K. 2018. Instructions for sowing, growing and harvesting cow pea in khuzestan. Seed. Plant. Improv. Inst. (In Persian)
14.Lamei Harvani, J. 2013. Assessment of dry forage and crude protein yeilds, competition and advantage indices in mixed cropping of annual forage legume crops with barley in rainfed comditions of zanjan province in Iran. Seed. J. Plant Prod. 29: 2. 169-183. (In Persian)
15.Khatamipour, M., Asgharipour, M.R. and Sirousmehr, A. 2014. Intercropping benefits of foxtail common millet (Setaria italica) with mungbean (Vigna radiata) as influenced by application of different manure levels. J. Agric. Sci. Sustain. Prod. 24: 3. 75-86. (In Persian)
16.Baributsa, D.N., Foster, E.F., Thelen, K., Kravchenko, D.R. and Ngouajio, M. 2008. Corn and cover crop response to corn density in an interseeding system. Agron. J. 100: 981-987.
17.Ajeigbe, H.A. and Oseni, T.O. 2006. Effect of planting pattern crop variety and insecticide on the productivity of cow pea–cereal sysems in Northern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria. J. Food. Agr. Environt. 4: 1. 145-150.
18.Alizadeh, N., Sarabi, V. and Hazrati, S. 2021. Evaluation of faba bean (Vicia faba L.) and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.) intercropping advantage under row-replacement and additive series.J. Plant Prod. Res. 28: 3. 183-204.(In Persian)
19.Abdollahpour, K., Koocheki, A., Nassiri Mahallati, M. and Khorramdel, S. 2020. Effect of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) and black seed (Nigella sativa L.) additive intercroppingon yield and yield components. Iran.J. Field. Crop. Sci. 18: 1. 31-47.(In Persian)
20.Norouzi, S., Akbari, Gh., Alahdadi, I., Soltani, E. and Norouzian, M. 2021. The effect of nitrogen fertilizer and different strains of symbiosis bacterium on quantitative and qualitative traits ofguar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) under various water regimes. J. Agric. Sci. Sustain. Prod. 31: 2. 339-359. (In Persian)
21.Arjmand, A., Fateh, E. and Ainehband, A. 2014. Evaluation the time incorporation to the soil and green manure crop on chemical soil properties and wheat seedling primary growth.J. Agron. 110: 110-118. (In Persian)
22.Vandermeer, J.H. 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping, Cambridge University Press.
23.Linn, J.G. and Martin, N.P. 1999. Forage quality tests and interpretations. University of Minnesota Extension Service; Minneapolis: 1989. MN AG-FO-02637.
24.Jafari, A., Connolly, V., Frolich, A. and Walsh, E.J. 2003. A note on estimation of quality parameters in perennial ryegrass by near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Irish. J. Agric. Food. Res. 105: 293-29.
25.Badakhshan, S., Amirinejad, M., Allah Tphodinejad, A. and Parsa Motlagh, B. 2018. Evaluation of alternative series of tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolus) and tow common millet (Panicum miliaceum) intercropping effects on some quantitative and quality traits and forage yield. J. Crop. Prod. 11: 2. 151-167. (In Persian)
26.Kithan, L. and Longkumer, L.T. 2017. Economics of maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) intercropping. Int. J. Bio-Resour. Stress Manag. 8: 401-404.
27.Hajinia, S., Ahmadvand, G. and Mehrabi, A.A. 2019. Evaluation of yield and yield components of common millet and soybean in different intercropping ratios under deficit irrigation levels in hamden region. Iran. J. Field. Crop. Res. 16: 4. 761-779. (In Persian)
28.Dulur, N.W.D., Wangiyana, W., Farida, N. and Kusnarta, I.G.M. 2019. Improved growth and yield formation of red rice under aerobic irrigation system and intercropping with peanuts. J. Agric. Vet. Sci. 12: 12-17.
29.YuanKai, Ch., LingYang, F., Muhammad, A.R., YuanFang, F., JunXu, Ch., TaiWen, Y., WenYu, Y. and Feng, Y. 2019. Effect of maize/soybean relay strip intercropping system on soybean morphology, chlorophyll fluorescence, and yield in Sichuan area. J. Eco-Agric. 27: 870-879.
30.Pakgohar, N., Ghanbari, A. and Farahbakhsh, H. 2014. Investigation of quantitative and qualitative characteristics of green pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) and nutrifed common millet (Pennisetum sp.) forage in different cultivation patterns. J. Agroecol. 6: 1. 108-117.
31.Rezaei Chiyaneh, E. 2016. Intercropping of flax seed (Linum usitatissimum L.) and pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under foliar application of iron nano chelated and zinc. J. Agric. Sci. Sustain. Prod. 26: 1. 39-56. (In Persian)
32.Rad, S.V., Valadabadi, S.A.R., Pouryousef, M., Saifzadeh, S., Zakrin, H.R. and Mastinu, A. 2020. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of Sorghum bicolor L. under intercropping with legumes and different weed control methods. Hort. 6: 1-15.
33.Diatta, A.A., Abaye, O., Thomason, W.E., Lo, M., Thompson, T.L., Vaughan, L.J., Gueye, F. and Diagne, N. 2020. Evaluating pearl millet and mungbean intercropping in the semi‐arid regions of Senegal. Agron. J. 112: 4451-4466.
34.Kubota, A., Safina, S.A., Shebl, S.M., Mohamed, A.E.D.H., Ishikawa, N., Shimizu, K., Abdel Gawad, K. and Maruyama, S. 2015. Evaluation of intercropping system of maize and leguminous crops in the Nile Delta of Egypt. Trop. Agric. Dev. 59: 14-19.
35.Ghahramani Ghalejoq, V., Naseripoor Yazdi, M.T. and Kamaei, R. 2017. Yield of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) in the intercropping with cumin (Cuminum cyminum) on different planting date.J. Crop. Ecophysiol. 11: 2. 399-412.(In Persian)
36.Layek, J., Shivakumar, B., Rana, D., Munda, S. and Lakshman, K. 2015. Effect of nitrogen fertilization on yield, intercropping indices and produce quality of different soybean (Glycine max) + cereal intercropping systems. Indian. J. Agron. 60: 230-235.
37.Kheradmand, S., Mahmodi, S. and Ahmadi, A. 2014. Quantitative and qualitative performance evaluation of green pea and barley forage intercropping. Agron. J. 105: 111-118. (In Persian)
38.Javanmard, A., Rostami, A., Nouraein, M. and Gharekhany, Gh. 2016. Agronomical, ecological and economical evaluation of wheat- chickpea intercropping under rainfed condition of maragheh. J. Agric. Sci. Sustain. Prod. 26: 1. 19-37. (In Persian)
39.Karimian, M.A., Mir, B., Bidranameni, F. and Keshtehgar, A. 2020. Effects of manure and different intercropping patterns on quantitative and qualitative yield of roselle (Hibiscus Sabdariffa) and cow pea (Phasaeolous vulgaris).J. Crop. Sci. Res. Arid. Region.2: 113-124. (In Persian)
40.Gholipour, M. and Sharifi, P. 2016. Yield and productivity indices of common bean and sunflower intercropping in different planting ratios. J. Plant. Ecophysiol. 10: 33. 127-137. (In Persian)
41.Hamzei, J. and Davoudian, R. 2019. Evaluarion of agrophysiological indices and yield performance in canola/ chickpea intercropping. J. Agroecol.11: 1. 245-259. (In Persian)
42.Alemayehu, D., Shumi, D. and Afeta, T. 2018. Effect of variety and time of intercropping of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) with maize (Zea mays L.) on yield components and yields of associated crops and productivity of the system at mid-land of Guji, Southern Ethiopia. Adv. Crop. Sci. Tech. 6: 324.
43.Lulie, B., Worku, W. and Beyene, S. 2016. Determinations of haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) planting density and spatial arrangement for staggered intercropping with maize (Zea mays L.) at Wondo Genet, Southern Ethiopia. Acad. Res. J. Agric. Sci. Res. 4: 297-320.
44.Amani Machiani, M., Javanmard, A.and Shekari, F. 2017. The Effect of intercropping patterns on peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) dry biomass yield and essential oil content and faba bean (Vicia faba L.) seed yield. J. Crop. Prod. Proces. 7: 3. 79-97. (In Persian)
45.Mahallati, M.N., Koocheki, A., Mondani, F., Feizi, H. and Amirmoradi, S. 2015. Determination of optimal strip width in strip intercropping of maize (Zea mays L.) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in northeast Iran. J. Clean. Prod. 106: 343-350. (In Persian)
46.Gutu, T., Tana, T. and Geleta, N. 2015. Effect of varieties and population of intercropped soybean with maize on yield and yield components at haro sabu, Western Ethiopia. Sci. Technol. Arts Res. J. 4: 31-39.
47.Chipomho, J., Mapope, N., Masuka, B., Ngezimana, W. and Chipomho, C. 2015. The influence of cropping systems and maize-bean intercrop spatial patterns on companion crop yield, weed densityand biomass. Int. J. Agric. Crop. Sci.8: 697-705.
48.Habte, A., Kassa, M. and Sisay, A. 2016. Maize (Zea mays L.)-common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) intercropping response to population density of component crop in Wolaita Zone Southern Ethiopia. J. Nat. Sci. Res. 6: 69-74.
49.Bekele, G., Belet, K. and Sharma, J.J. 2013. System productivity of forage legumes intercropped with maize and performance of the component crops in kombolcha, eastern Ethiopia. East. Afr. J. Sci. 7: 2. 99-108.
50.Htet, M.N.S., Yaqin, P., Yadong, X., Soomro, R.N. and Jiangbo, H. 2016. Effect of intercropping maize (Zea mays L.) with soybean (Glycine max L.)on green forage yield, and quality evaluation. J. Agric. Vet. Sci.9: 2319-2372.
51.Javanmard, A., Dabbagh Mohammadi Nasab, A., Javanshir, A., Moghaddam, M. and Janmohammade, H. 2012. Effects of maize intercropping with legumes on forage yield and quality. J. Agric. Sci. Sustain. Prod. 22: 3. 137-149. (In Persian)
52.Wu, G.L., Liu, Y., Tian, F.P. andShi, Z.H. 2017. Legumes functional group promotes soil organic carbonand nitrogen storage by increasingplant diversity. Land Degrad. Dev.28: 1336-1344.
53.Daliri, T., Joukar, M. and Taei Samiromi, J. 2016. The effect of sesbania (Sesbania sesban L.) and millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) intercropping on weeds control. Weed Res. J.8: 1. 73-91. (In Persian)
54.Nasrollahzadeh Asl, A., Chavoshgoli, A., Valizadegan, E., Valiloo, R. and Nasrollahzadeh Asl, V. 2012. Evaluation of sunflower (Heliantus annus L.) and pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) intercropping based on additive method. J. Agric. Sci. Sustain. Prod. 2: 2. 79-90. (In Persian)
55.Khammar, Z., Dahmardeh, M. and Khamari, I. 2014. The evaluation of density and weeds control in millet (Pennisetum americanum L.) and peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) intercropping by competition indices. Res. J. Crop. Sci. Arid Area. 1: 1. 1-18.
Journal of Plant Production Research
Volume 29, Issue 4
January 2023
Pages 205-230

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics