Study of Agronomic Traits, Yield Performance and Economical Indices in Intercropping of Spinach with Chickpea

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

• Javad Hamzei
• Masud Khishvand

Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jhs.2022.75899.1153

Abstract

Introduction
 Due to the limits of the conventional agricultural system, intercropping is important in terms of production sustainability. Intercropping plays an important role in increasing production and performance stability to improve the use of resources and environmental factors. Spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) is an important leafy vegetable, of which the leaves and tender shoots are consumed fresh or processed. Spinach is native to Iran. Spinach contains different flavonoids that function as antioxidants and anticancer agents. Also, spinach may be used in the prevention of Alzheimer's disease. It is an annual plant and as well as chickpea, spinach is grown as both an early spring and late fall crop in order to have growth at the coolest parts of the season. Spinach seed yield varies based on the climatic conditions, optimum sowing date and chose of the best planting pattern. Considering that the intercropping of this plant has not been studied with legumes such as chickpe, this experiment was designed to determine the possibility of intercropping spinach with chickpea using agronomical and economical indices, as well as determining the best planting pattern.
 
Materials and Methods
 In order to investigate agronomic traits, yield and economical indices in spinach intercropping with chickpea, an experiment was carried out as a randomized complete block design with four treatments and three replications in 2017-18 growing season in Tuyserkan city, Hamedan province. In this city, spinach is mainly cultivated for seed production. Experimental treatments included additive intercropping of 20% chickpea with spinach, replacement intercropping of 60% spinach + 40% chickpea and pure stand of spinach and chickpea. Plant height, number of branches per plant, number of seeds per plant, 1000 seed weight, grain yield and biological yield in spinach, as well as plant height, number of branches per plant, number of pods per plant, number of seeds per pod, 1000 seed weight, grain yield and biological yield in chickpea were measured. To compare the advantages of intercropping of spinach with chickpea, the land equivalent ratio (LER), dry matter equivalent ratio (DMER), system productivity index (SPI), competitive ratio (CR), aggressivity (AG), actual yield loss (AYL ), relative value total (RVT), monetary advantage index (MAI) and intercropping advantage (IA) were calculated and evaluated. SAS 9.1 software were used for analysis of variance (ANOVA) calculations. The difference between the means was evaluated by the least significant difference (LSD) method at the level of 5% probability.
 
Results and Discussion
Plant height, number of branches per plant, 1000 grain weight and grain and biological yields of spinach were significantly affected by intercropping. The highest plant height and the lowest number of branches per spinach plant were obtained from the replacement intercropping. Additive intercropping and pure stand of spinach without significant difference had the lowest plant height and the highest number of branches per plant. The highest 1000 grain weight and grain yield of spinach were associated with the additive intercropping method. However, in terms of biological yield, the pure stand of spinach showed the highest results. Notably, there were no significant differences between the treatments of additive intercropping and pure stand of spinach concerning grain and biological yield of spinach. On the other hand, in chickpeas plants, intercropping had a notable impact on various parameters. Specifically, plant height, number of branches per plant, number of pods per plant, 1000 grain weight, and both grain and biological yields were affected by the intercropping method. Among these, the additive intercropping treatment resulted in the highest plant height, while it had the lowest number of branches and number of pods per chickpeas plant.The highest 1000 grain weight and grain yield of spinach were related to the additive intercropping. Pure stand of spinach had the maximum biological yield. Treatments of additive intercropping and pure stand of spinach were not significantly different in terms of grain and biological yield of spinach. In chickpeas plant, plant height, number of branches per plant, number of pods per plant, 1000 grain weight, grain and biological yields were affected by intercropping. The highest plant height and the lowest number of branches and number of pods per chickpeas plant were obtained at the treatment of additive intercropping. Maximum grain and biological yields of chickpea were belonged to the pure stand of chickpea. Spinach and chickpea were dominant and recessive plants, respectively. Evaluation of the economical indices also showed the advantages of spinach intercropping with chickpea at both intercropping design (replacemet and additive intercropping). So that the highest values for land equivalent ratio, dry matter equivalent ratio, system productivity index, actual yield loss, relative value total and monetary advantage index were achieved at additive intercropping system. But, the lowest values for these indices (1.13, 1.06, 1.20 and 1321 for LER, DMER, RVT and MAI, respectively) were revealed at replacement intercropping.
 
Conclusion
 Overall, the results indicate that chickpea is a suitable plant for intercropping with spinach. So that the intercropping of 20% chickpea with spinach improved the yield performance of spinach and land-use efficiency and can lead to the greatest economical profit.

Keywords

• Beans
• Land use efficiency
• Multiple cropping
• Vegetables
• Yield

20.1001.1.20084730.1402.37.2.6.2

Main Subjects

• Growing vegetables

References

1. Asadi, G.H., KHorramdel, S., & Hatfifarajian, M.H. (2016). The effects of row intercropping ratios of chickpea and saffron on their quantitative characteristics and yield. Journal of Saffron Agronomy and Technology, 4, 93-103. (In Persian with English abstract). https://doi.org/10.22048/jsat.2016.17360
2. Banik, P., Midya, A., Sarkar, B.K., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2005.10.010
3. Barker, S., & Dennet, M.D. (2013). Effect of density, cultivar and irrigation on sprihng sown monocrops and intercrop if wheat (Triticum aestivum ) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.). European Journal of Agronomy, 51, 108-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.08.001
4. Bedoussac, L., & Justes, E. (2011). A comparison of commonly used indices for evaluating species interactions and intercrop efficiency: Application to durum wheat–winter pea intercrops. Field Crops Research, 124, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.05.025
5. Bigonah, R.,Rezvani Moghaddam, P., & Jahan, M. (2015). Effects of intercropping on biological yield, percentage of nitrogen and morphological characteristics of coriander and fenugreek. Iranian Journal of  Field Crops Research, 12, 574-581. (In Persian with English abstract)
6. Borghi, E., Crusciol, C.A.C., Nascente, A.S., Sousa, V.V., Martins, P.O., Mateus, G.P., & Costa, C. (2013). Sorghum grain yield, forage biomass production and revenue as affected by intercropping time. European Journal of Agronomy, 51, 130-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2013.08.006
7. Chapagain, T., & Riseman, A. (2014). Barley–pea intercropping: Effects on land productivity, carbon and nitrogen transformations. Field Crops Research, 166, 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.06.014
8. Dhima, K.V., Lithourgidis, A.A., Vasilakoglou, I.B., & Dordas, C.A. (2007). Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research, 100, 249-256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2006.07.008
9. Dordas, C.A., Vlachostergios, D.N., & Lithourgidis, A.S. (2012). Growth dynamics and agronomic-economic benefits of pea–oat and pea–barley intercrops. Crop and Pasture Science, 63, 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1071/CP11181
10. Erik, S.J., Peoples, M.B., & Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. (2010). Faba bean in cropping systems. Field Crops Research, 115, 203-216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.10.008
11. Fatemi, R., Hoseini, S.M.B., & Motasharezadeh, B. (2021). Evaluation of light consumption efficiency in a mixture of maize and beans cultivation under the influence of biologic and organic fertilizers. Journal of Crops Improvement, 23(4), 699-712. (In Persian with English abstract)
12. Gholinejad, , Yadavi, A.R., Movahhedi Dehnavi, M., & Farajee, H. (2018). The effect of additive intercropping on yield and yield components of sweet corn (Zea mays L. Var. Saccharata) and mungbean (Vigna radiate L.) and weed biomass. Journal of Agroecology, 10, 120-134. (In Persian with English abstract)
13. Hakan, G., Riza, A., Hikmet, S., & Behcet, K. (2008). Intercropping of corn with cowpea and bean: Biomass yield and silage quality. African Journal of Biotechnology, 7, 4100-4104.
14. Hamzei, J., & Seyedi, M. (2013). Evaluation of barley (hordeum vulgare) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum) intercropping systems using advantageous indices of intercropping under weed interference conditions. Daneshe Zeraat, 5(9), 1-12.
15. Hamzei, J., & Ghamari Rahim, N. (2016). Economical evaluation of faba bean (Vicia faba) and maize (Zea mays) intercropping based on total relative value index and weeds growth reduction. Journal of Crop Production and Processing, 6, 97-109. (In Persian with English abstract)
16. Ibrahim, M., Ayub, M., Maqbool, M.M., Nadeem, S.M., Haq, T., Hussain, S., Ali, A., & Lauriault, L.M. 2014. Forage yield components of irrigated maize-legume mixtures at varied seed ratios. Field Crops Research, 169, 140-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.08.013
17. Iqbal, N., Hussain, S., Ahmed, Z., Yang, F., Wang, X., Liu, W., & Liu, J. (2019). Comparative analysis of maize–soybean strip intercropping systems: a review. Plant Production Science, 2, 131-142.‏ https://doi.org/10.1080/1343943X.2018.1541137
18. Javanmard, A., Rostami, A., Nouraein, M., & Gharekhany, G.H. (2016). Agronomical, ecological and economical evaluation of wheat- chickpea intercropping under rainfed condition of Maragheh. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 26, 19-37. (In Persian with English abstract)
19. Kimura, E., Fransen, S.C., Collins, H.P., Stanton, B.J., Himes, A., Smith, J., & Johnston, W.J. (2018). Effect of intercropping hybrid poplar and switchgrass on biomass yield, forage quality, and land use efficiency for bioenergy production. Biomass and Bioenergy, 111, 31-38.‏ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.01.011
20. Koocheki, A., Nasiri Mahallati, M., Borumand Rezazadeh, Z., Jahani, M., & Jafari, L. (2014). Yield responses of Black Cumin (Nigella sativa ) to intercropping with chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 12, 1-8.
21. Koocheki, , Nassiri Mahaalati, M., Mansoori, H., & Moradi, R.A. (2014). Assessing agricultural sustainability in Iran by relative advantage approach. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 23, 179-197. (In Persian with English abstract)
22. Koocheki, A., Solouki, , & Karbor, S. (2017). Study of ecological aspects of sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) and mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) intercropping in weed control. Iranian Journal of Pulse Research, 7, 27-44. (In Persian with English abstract)
23. Latati, M., Dokukin, P., Aouiche, A., Rebouh, N.Y., Takouachet, R., Hafnaoui, E., & Ounane, S.M. (2019). Species interactions improve above-ground biomass and land use efficiency in intercropped wheat and chickpea under low soil inputs. Agronomy, 11, 750-765.‏ https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy9110765
24. Lithourgidis, A.S., Vlachostergios, D.N., Dordas, C.A., & Damalas, C.A. (2011). Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea-cereal intercropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy, 34, 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.007
25. Mei, P.P., Gui, L.G., Wang, P., Hung, J., Long, H.Y., Christie, P., & Li, L. (2012). Maize/faba bean intercropping with rhizobia inoculation enhances productivity and recovery of fertilizer p in reclaimed desert soil. Field Crops Research, 130, 19-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.02.007
26. Mosapour, H., Ghanbari, A., Sirousmehr, A.R., & Asgharipour, M.R. (2015). Effect of sowing time on seed yield, advantage and competitive indices in ajwain (Carum copticum ) and isabgol (Plantago ovate Forsk.) intercropping. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences, 17, 139-152. (In Persian with English abstract)
27. Nawar, H.S., & Khalil, H.E. (2020). Additive intercropping of sunflower and soybean to improve yield and land use efficiency: Effect of thinning interval and nitrogen fertilization. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research, 2, 142-152.‏ http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-58392020000200142
28. Sadri, S., Pouryousef, M., & Soleimani A. (2015). Evaluation of yield, essential oil and productivity indices in fennel and fenugreek intercropping. Journal of Crops Improvement, 16, 921-932.
29. Sakhavi, S., Amini, R., Shakiba, M.R., & Dabbagh Mohammadi, A. (2017). Effect of bio- and chemical fertilizers on grain and essential oil yield of cumin (Cuminum cyminum ) in intercropping with faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 27, 49-63.
30. Salama, H.S.A., Nawar, A.I., & Khalil, H.E. (2022). Intercropping pattern and n fertilizer schedule affect the performance of additively intercropped maize and forage cowpea in the Mediterranean region. Agronomy, 12, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010107
31. Salehi Sheikhi, M., Nakhzari Moghaddam, A., Rahemi Karizaki, A., & Mohammad Esmaili, M. (2020). Effect of pea cultivar and replacement and additive intercropping ratios of pea and spinach on yield and competition indices. Journal of Crop Improvement, 23(4), 939-952.
32. Seyedi, M., & Hamzei, J. (2017). Effect of conservation and conventional tillage on weeds biodiversity and water and nitrogen use efficiency in sole and additive intercropping of soybean with sunflower. Journal of Agroecology, 7, 120-133. (In Persian with English abstract)
33. Soleimanpur, L., Naderi, A., Bijanzadehe, A., & Emam, Y. (2017). Response of faba bean and pea yield components to cereal-legume intercropping under weed competitions. Iranian Journal of Pulse Research, 8, 150-163. (In Persian with English abstract)
34. Undie, U., Uwah, F.D., & Attoe, E.E. (2012). Effect of intercropping and crop arrangement on yield and productivity of late season maize/soybean mixtures in the humid environment of south southern Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4, 37-50. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v4n4p37
35. Vrignon-Brenas, S., Celette, F., Piquet-Pissaloux, A., Jeuffroy, M.H., & Davi, C. (2016). Early assessment of ecological services provided by forage legumes in relay intercropping. European Journal of Agronomy, 75, 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2016.01.011
36. Wahla, I.H., Ahmad, R., Ehsanullah Ahmad, A., & Jabbar, A. (2009). Competitive functions of components crops in some barley based intercropping systems. International Journal of Agricultural Biology, 11(1), 69-72.
37. Yang, F., Huang, S., Gao, R., Liu, W., Yong, T., Wang, X., Wu, X., & Yang, W. (2014). Growth of soybean seedling in relay strip intercropping systems in relation to light quantity and red: far-red ratio. Field Crops Research, 155, 245-253. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.08.011