Land, biological and economic evaluation of intercropping systems involving barley (Hordeum vulgare), Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum) under different spatial arrangements
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v62i4.5548Keywords:
Aggresivity, Barley, Chickpea, Crop equivalent ratio, Indian mustard, Intercropping, Land equivalent ratio, Monetary advantage index, Relative crowding coefficientAbstract
A field experiment was conducted during the winter (rabi) seasons of 2011–12 and 2012–13 at Hisar, Haryana, in randomized block design with 9 treatments replicated thrice, to evaluate the intercropping of Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czernj & Cosson] and chickpea (Cicer arietinum) with barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in re placement series. Results revealed that seed and straw yields of barley was reduced in barley + Indian mustard intercropping system as compared to barley + chickpea because Indian mustard was found to be more competi tive and dominant over barley, as evident from higher partial relative crowding coefficient (RCC), competitive ratio (CR), actual yield loss (AYL) and positive aggresivity (A) values of Indian mustard in all the planting patterns com pared to barley and chickpea. Among the intercropping treatments, barley + Indian mustard (6 : 3) was found most economical and efficient intercropping system with the highest barley-equivalent yield (BEY, 7.93 t/ha), land-use efficiency (LUE, 135%), area-time equivalent ratio (ATER, 1.34), land-equivalent ratio (LER, 1.36), land-euivalent coefficient (LEC, 0.44), crowding coefficient (K, 5.82), actual yield loss (AYL, + 1.10), intercropping advantages in dex (IAI, + 3624.3), monetary advantage index (MAI, + 17,975.4), income-equivalent ratio (IER, 1.24), system productivity index (SPI, 65.4), relative net returns index (RNRI, 1.27), monetary-equivalent ratio (MER, 1.33), net returns ( 56,321/ha), benefit: cost rato (B:C, 3.41) and profit margin (71%). Among different row patterns, on the basis of total crop-performance ratio (CPR) values, barley intercropped with either of the intercrop at 6:3 row ratio performed better. Hence barley + Indian mustard (6:3) intercropping system can be a best option to get more mon etary returns and resource-use efficiency.
References
Abu-Bakar, Ahmad, M., Ehsanullah, R. and Zahir, A.Z. 2014. Comparison of barley-based intercropping system for productivity and net economic return. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 16: 1,183–1,188.
Adetiloye, P.O., Ezedima, F.O.C. and Okigbo, B.N. 1983. A land equivalent coefficient concept for the evaluation of competitive and productive interactions in simple to complex crop mixtures. Ecological Modelling 19: 27–39.
Ahlawat, I.P.S., Gangaiah, B. and Singh, O. 2005. Production potential of chickpea (Cicer arietinum)-based intercropping systems under irrigated conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy 50(1): 27–28.
DAC. 2014. Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, New Delhi.
Antti Tuulos, Marja, T., Kleemola, J. and Maakelaaa, P. 2015. Yield of spring cereals in mixed stands with undersown winter turnip rape. Field Crops Research 174: 71–78.
Banik, P., 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.
Dhaka, A.K., Pannu, R.K., Kumar, Satish, Poddar, Ratneshwar, Singh, Bhagat and Dhindwal, A.S. 2014. Performance of seed crop of prickly sesban or dhaincha (Sesbania aculeata) when intercropped with pearlmillet (Pennisetum glaucum). Indian Journal of Agronomy 59(1): 70–75.
Dhima, K.V., Lithourgidis, A.S., Vasilakoglou, I.B. and Dordas, C.A. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratios. Field Crops Research 100: 249–256.
Faroda, A.S., Joshi, N.L., Singh, R. and Saxena, A. 2007. Resource management for sustainable crop production in arid zone-A review. Indian Journal of Agronomy 52(3): 181–193.
Ghosh, P.K., Bandyopadhyay, K.K., Wanjari, R.H., Manna, M.C., Misra, A.K., Mohanty, M. and Subba Rao, A. 2007. Legume effect for enhancing productivity and nutrient use-efficiency in major cropping systems-An Indian perspective: A review. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 30(1): 61–85.
Jain, T.C. and Rao, G.N. 1980. Note on a new approach to analysis of yield data in intercropping system. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 50(12): 970–972.
Khan, M.B., Khan, M., Hussain, M., Farooq, M., Jabran, K. and Lee, D.J. 2012. Bio-economic assessment of different wheat–canola intercropping systems. International Journal of Agricultural Biology 14: 769–774.
Mbah, E.U. and Ogidi, E. 2012. Effect of soybean plant populations on yield and productivity of cassava and soybean grown in a cassava-based intercropping system. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 15: 241–248.
Megawer, E.A., Sharaan, A.N. and EL Sherif, A.M. 2010. Effect of intercropping patterns on yield and its components of barley, lupin or chickpea grown in newly reclaimed soil. Egyptian Journal of Applied Science 25(9): 437–452.
Midya, A. Bhattacharjee, K., Ghose, S.S. and Banik, P. 2005. Deferred seeding of blackgram (Phaseolus mungo L.) in rice (Oryza sativa L.) field on yield advantages and smothering of weeds. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 191: 195–201.
Okigbo, B.N. 1979. Effects of seedbed preparation and mulching on cassava yield. (In) Soil Tillage and Crop Production. La1, R. (Ed.), IITA Series 2, Ibadan, Nigeria, pp. 75–92.
Ram, M., Ram, D., Singh, M. and Yaseen, M. 2012. Sustainable production of pigeonpea and sarpagandha (Rauvolfia serpentina) by intercropping. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 58(10): 1129–1137.
Seth, M., Rameshwar, Saini, J.P., Sharp, R.P. and Sharma, K.D. 2016. Productivity and economics of wheat (Triticum aestivum)–chickpea (Cicer arietinum) intercropping under irrigation and nutrient management. Indian Journal of Agronomy 61(3): 286–291.
Singh, A.K. and Bohra, J.S. 2012. Competitive indices of wheat + compact-Indian mustard intercropping in a 5 : 1 row proportion as influenced by fertilizer doses and seed rates of wheat varieties. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 58(12): 1399–1412.
Singh, G. 2014. Presidential address (In) XX Biennial National Symposium on “Agricultural Diversification for Sustainable Livelihood and Environmental Security”, 18–20, November 2014, organized by Indian Society of Agronomy at Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, pp 1–28.
Singh, R.K., Singh, U. and Upadyay, U.K. 2016. Production potential and competitive ability of wheat (Triticum aestivum) Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) intercropping under varying row ratio, farmyard manure and fertilizer level of middle Gangetic Plains of India. Indian Journal of Agronomy 61(4): 460–466.
Willey+, R.W. and Rao, M.R. 1980. A competitive ratio for quantifying competition between intercrops. Experimental Agriculture 16: 117–125.
Yahuza, I. 2011. Review of some methods of calculating intercrop efficiencies with particular reference to the estimates of intercrop benefits in wheat/faba bean system. International Journal of Bioscience 1(50): 18–30.
