Agronomical, Ecological and Economical Evaluation of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and Vetch (Vicia panonica) Intercropping in Rotation with Rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Paddy Fields

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

Mohammad Rabiee ¹

Sajjad Shaker Kouhi ²

¹ Department of Seed Improvement, Rice Research Institute, Rasht, Iran.

² Department of Seed Improvement, Rice Research Institute, Rasht, Iran

10.22067/agry.2026.98402.1272

Abstract

Introduction
Intercropping is the growing of two or more crop species simultaneously in the same field during a growing season. This system has been considered as a method in which resources can be utilized more efficient consequently improving plant production. Intercropping annual forage legumes with winter cereals after rice (Oryza sativa L.) harvesting in paddy fields of the Northern provinces of Iran can be an effective strategy to provide fodder for livestock, increase land productivity, sustainability of rice production, increase paddy farmers' income, and thus prevent migration of villagers. Therefore, this study was carried out with the aim of agronomical, ecological and economical evaluation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and vetch (Vicia panonica) intercropping in rotation with rice in paddy fields of Guilan province.

Materials and Methods
This study was conducted based on a Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications at the research fields of Rice Research Institute of Iran in Rasht during two cropping seasons of 2023-2024 and 2024-2025. The experimental treatments were included intercropping of barley and vetch with replacement ratios of 3:1 (three row of barley + one row of vetch), 1:3 (one row of barley + three row of vetch), 1:1 (one row of barley + one row of vetch) and 2:2 (two row of barley + two row of vetch) and sole cropping of barley and vetch. In this study, traits such as fresh and dry forage yield, crude protein content, protein yield and forage ash were evaluated. The beneficial indicators of intercropping including land equivalent ratio[1], actual yield loss[2], relative crowding coefficient[3], intercropping advantage[4], monetary advantage index[5] and system productivity index[6], were calculated.

Results and Discussion
The results of combined analysis of variance indicated that the cropping pattern had significant effect on all studied traits. Mean comparison showed that the first year of the experiment had higher fresh and dry forage yields (40661 and 9977 kg.ha^-1, respectively) compared to the second year. Among different planting patterns, the highest fresh forage yield (42325 kg.ha^-1) and dry forage yield (11550 kg.ha^-1) were obtained from 1:1 barley: vetch intercropping. The ratio of 3:1 barley: vetch was in the next position. The lowest fresh forage yield (36535 kg.ha^-1) and dry forage yield (7095 kg.ha^-1) were related to monoculture of vetch. Increasing vetch percentage in intercropping resulted crude protein content, forage ash, and consequently, forage quality increase. The maximum protein yield (1548 kg.ha^-1) was obtained from 1:1 barley: vetch intercropping. LER in all intercropping treatments was more than one, except 1:3 barley: vetch treatment. The highest value of this index was obtained in the 1:1 and 3:1 barley: vetch treatments, respectively. The total AYL values was positive for ratios of 3:1, 1:1 and 2:2 barley: vetch. The ratio of 1:1 barley: vetch had the highest total AYL (0.68). The higher values of the K index for barley indicates the competitive superiority of barley over vetch. The maximum value of total K (5.55) was revealed at ratio of 1:1 barley: vetch. The ratio of 3:1 barley: vetch was also ranked next. The ratios of 3:1, 1:1 and 2:2 barley: vetch with IA (7554), (6230) and (3446) were ranked first to third, respectively. The highest MAI was observed in the ratios of 1:1 (29449141) and 3:1 (20246333) barley: vetch, respectively. The increased MAI index in these ratios can be attributed to the higher LER and total K. The SPI was positive across all intercropping ratios, indicating the overall effectiveness of intercropping. According to the results, the maximum value of SPI was obtained from 1:1 (1579) and 3:1 (1511) barley: vetch treatments, respectively.

Conclusion
According on the results of present study, to achieve optimal yield, as well as greater economic advantage, the ratios of 1:1 and 3:1 barley: vetch are recommended as the most suitable intercropping combinations for second crop after rice harvesting in paddy fields of Guilan province, respectively.

Keywords

Advantage

Forage yield

Land equivalent ratio

Second crop

System productivity

Subjects

• Sustainable agriculture and food production systems

---

Authors retain the copyright. This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0)

References

1.       Ahmadi, A., Dabbagh Mohammdi Nasab, A., Zehtab Salmasi, S., Amini, R., & Janmohammadi, H. (2009). Evaluation of yield and advantage indices in barley and vetch intercropping. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 20(4), 77-87. (In Persian).

2.       Akbari, F., Dahmardeh, M., Morshedi, A., Ghanbari, A., & Khoramdel, S. (2025). Evaluation of the competitive indices and economical advantage of corn (Zea mays L.)- bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) intercropping under the influence of tillage levels, crop residues, and planting patterns. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research, 23(3), 341-357. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/jcesc.2025.90594.1358

3.       Benintende, M. C., Sterren, M. A., & Battista, J. J. D. (2008). Soil microbiological indicators of soil quality in four rice rotation system. Ecological Indicators, 8(5), 704-708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.12.004

4.       Contreras Paco, J. L., Ramírez Rivera, H., Tunque Quispe, M., Aroni Quintanilla, Y. R., & Curasma Ccente, J. (2020). Productive and nutritional aspects of forages oats and barley alone and consociated to vetch in high Andean conditions. MOJ Food Processing and Technology, 8(2), 56-65. https://doi.org/10.15406/mojfpt.2020.08.00243

5.       Cuartero, J., Pascual, J. A., Vivo, J. M., Özbolat, O., Sánchez-Navarro, V., Egea-Cortines, M., Zornoza, R., Mena, M. M., Garcia, E., & Ros, M. (2022). A first-year melon/cowpea intercropping system improves soil nutrients and changes the soil microbial community. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 328, 107856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2022.107856

6.       Darabi, A. (2025). The effects of planting patterns and density on yield and monetary benefits in intercropping of onion and lettuce. Journal of Crop Production and Processing, 15(1), 71-87. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.47176/jcpp.15.1.22317

7.       Esmaeilian, Y., Eshghizadeh, M., & Tavassoli. A. (2022). Agronomic and economic evaluation of intercropping systems of barley (Hordeum vulgare) with two medicinal plants, fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) and garlic (Allium sativum). Journal of Agroecology, 14(3), 467-484. (In Persian).

8.       Javanmard, A., Rostami, A., Nouraein, M., & Gharekhany, G. (2015). Agronomical, ecological and economical evaluation of wheat- chickpea intercropping under rainfed condition of Maragheh. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 26(1), 19-37. (In Persian).

9.       Javanmard, A., Amani Machiani, M., & Mousavi, S. B. (2018). Evaluation of competition and advantage in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and forage pea (Pisum sativum L.) intercropping under rainfed condition. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable, 28(3), 1-17. (In Persian).

10.    Javanmard, A., Amani Machiani, M., & Eskandari, H. (2019). Evaluation of forage quantity and quality of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and pea (Pisum sativum L.) intercropping system in Maragheh rainfed conditions. Journal of Agroecology, 11(2), 435-452. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/jag.v11i2.65105

11.    Jeylani, M., Ajam Norouzi, H., & Rabiee, M. (2015). Effect of planting bed on quantity and quality of hay in different mixing ratio of barley and vetch in rainfed condition of Rasht area. Research in Crop Ecosystems, 2(3), 23-35. (In Persian).

12.    Kheradmand, S., Mahmodib, S., & Ahmadi, E. (2014). Quantitative and qualitative performance evaluation of green pea and barley forage intercropping. Applied Field Crops Research, 27(105), 111-118. https://doi.org/10.22092/aj.2014.103358

13.    Khraryan, B., Farahvash, F., Mohammadi, S., Mirshekari, B., & Rashidi, V. (2024). Evaluation of quantitative and qualitative of forage yield in intercropping of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) with vetch (Vicia villosa Roth). Crop Physiology Journal, 16(63), 59-77. (In Persian).

14.    Kugbe, X. J., Yaro, R. N., Soyel, J. K., Kofi, E. S., & Ghaney, P. (2018). Role of intercropping in modern agriculture and sustainability: A review. British Journal of Science, 16(2), 67-75.

15.    Lameie-Harvani, J. (2013). Assessment of dry forage and crude protein yields, competition and advantage indices in mixed cropping of annual forage legume crops with barley in raifed conditions of Zanjan province in Iran. Seed and Plant Production Journal, 2(29), 169-183. (In Persian).

16.    Lan, Y., ZhangHe, Y., Jiang, C., Yang, M., & Ye, S. (2023). Legume-bacteria-soil interaction networks linked to improved plant productivity and soil fertility in intercropping systems. Industrial Crops and Products, 196(3), 116504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2023.116504

17.    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(4), 287-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.007

18.    Maitra, S., Hossain, A., Brestic, M., Skalicky, M., Ondrisik, P., Gitari, H., Brahmachari, K., Shankar, T., Bhadra, P., Palai, J. B., Jena, J., Bhattacharya, U., Duvvada, S. K., Lalichetti, S., & Sairam, M. (2021). Intercropping-a low input agricultural strategy for food and environmental security. Agronomy, 11(2), 311-343. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020343

19.    Nassiri Mahallati, M., Koocheki, A., Mondani, F., Feizi, H., & Amirmoradi, S. (2015). Determination of optimal strip width in strip intercropping of maize (Zea mays L.) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in Northeast Iran. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106, 343-350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.099

20.    Rabiee, M., & farahdahr, F. (2020). Evaluation of yield and advantages of forage legumes with cereals intercropping as second crop in paddy fields. Plant Productions, 43(3), 363-374. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22055/ppd.2019.27838.1689

21.    Rabiee, M., & Shaker Kouhi, S. (2025). Best intercropping systems after rice harvesting in paddy fields of Guilan province. Strategic Research Journal of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources, 10(1), 33-44. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22067/ijpr.2024.89419.1096

22.    Rezaei Noupashani, S., & Aminpanah, H. (2018). Effect of different crops rotation with rice, N rate and N split application on crop grain yield. Journal of Plant Ecophysiology, 9(31), 95-106. (In Persian).

23.    Sadra, T., & Hamzei, J. (2021). Evaluation of the efficiency of triticale (Triticosecale Wittmack) intercropping with winter vetch (Vicia villosa L.) by competitive indices under different tillage systems. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 31(3), 1-18. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22034/saps.2021.41625.2541  

24.    Salehi, Z., Amirnia, R., Rezaeichiyaneh, E., & Khalilvandi Behrozyar, H. (2018). Evaluation of yield and some qualitative traits of forage in intercropping of triticale with annual legumes. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 28(4), 59-76. (In Persian).

25.    Shafagi, A., Abbas Dokht, H., & Gholipoor, M. (2020). Effect of nitroxin and urea fertilizers on some quantitative and qualitative traits of corn and fenugreek forage based on additive intercropping in south Khorasan. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 30(1), 257-277. (In Persian).

26.    Shakour Zadeh, A., Alizadeh, K., Pour Yousef, M., & Ghaffari, A.A. (2012). Study of density and nixed ratios on forage qualitative and quantitative yield in intercropping of barley and vetch under dryland conditions. Iranian Journal of Dry Land Farming, 1, 63-74. (In Persian).

27.    Tabatabaei, S. A., & Ranjbar, G. H. (2012). Effect of different levels of nitrogen and potassium on grain yield and protein of triticale. International Research Applied and Basic Sciences, 3(2), 390-393.

28.    Tzemi, D., Peltonen-Sainio, P., Palosuo, T., Rämö, J., & Lehtonen, H. (2025). Profitability of intercropping legumes with cereals: A farm-level analysis. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 21, 101804. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2025.101804

29.    Ul-Allah, S., Khan, A. A., Fricke, T., Buerkert, A., & Wachendorf, M. (2014). Fertilizer and irrigation effects on forage protein and energy production under semi-arid conditions of Pakistan. Field Crops Research, 159, 62-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2014.01.003

30.    Wang, Y., Qin, Y., Chai, Q., Feng, F., Zhao, C., & Yu, A. (2018). Interspecies interactions in relation to root distribution across the rooting profile in wheat-maize intercropping under different plant densities. Frontiers in Plant Science, 9, 483. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00483   

31.    Zeiditoolabi, N., Khomri, I., Sirous Mehr, A., Daneshvar, M., Glovy, M., & Dehmordeh, M. (2021). Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of vetch (Vicia narbonensis) and barley (Hordeum vulgar) intercropping in Khorramabad rainfed conditions under the influence of aztobarvar-1 biofertilizer and superabsorbent material. Crop Physiology Journal, 13(49), 167-185. (In Persian).

32.    Zhang, Y., Liu, J., Zhang, J., Liu, H., Liu, S., Zhai, L., Wang, H., Lei, Q., Ren, T., & Yin. C. (2015). Row ratios of intercropping maize and soybean can affect agronomic efficiency of the system and subsequent wheat. Plos One, 10(6), e0129245. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129245