The Evaluation of Resource Efficiency and Soil Fertility Indices in Pearl Millet (Panucum miliaceum L.) and Peanut ((Arachis hypogaea L.) Intercropping

Khamar, Zahra; Dahmardeh, Mahdi; Khammari, Issa; Moosavi Nik, Seyed Mohsen

doi:10.22067/jag.v11i4.76827

The Evaluation of Resource Efficiency and Soil Fertility Indices in Pearl Millet (Panucum miliaceum L.) and Peanut ((Arachis hypogaea L.) Intercropping

Document Type : Scientific - Research

Authors

Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agriculture, Zabol University, Zabol, Iran

10.22067/jag.v11i4.76827

Abstract

Introduction
Increase agricultural production to match the increasing demand for food sources is inevitable. It causes too much pressure on the agricultural resource base and threatens the sustainability of these systems. Intercropping is an important method of high production in agriculture. This technic can affect soil environmental condition. Sustainable Agriculture defines the proper management of agricultural resources which in addition to changing human needs, maintaining environmental quality and capacity of soil and water resources. The aim of this study was to investigate the competition between two types of millet and peanuts and determine the best planting ratio of mixed cropping.
Materials and Methods
In order to investigate the effect of density, weeding and different ratios of millet (Panucum miliaceum L. var Common) and peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L. var Goli), an experiment as factorial has been conducted in a randomized complete block design with three replications at the Agricultural Research Farm of Zabol University during 2012. The experimental treatment consisted of 4 planting ratio at (sole millet, 50% millet + 50% peanut, 100% millet + 100% peanut and sole peanut), 3 weeding levels (non-weeding, once weeding and twice weeding) and 2 levels of intervals between rows (40 and 50 centimeters). Traits evaluated by environmental resources including (Photosynthetically Active Radiation and temperature and humidity of soil), soil nutrient elements (Ca, Mg, Na, and C), and land equivalent ratio (LER) for evaluation of intercropping compared to the monoculture.
Results and Discussion
The results showed that all studied traits were affected by the planting system. There was a significant interaction between planting system, weeding and density in light absorption, temperature and humidity. The results showed that the absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation in the intercropping (75.5%) was higher than the monoculture of both plants. Weed control increased the adsorption of Photosynthetically Active Radiation by 70.75%, and in the twice weeding treatments and low density, the highest amount of adsorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation was obtained. The highest volumetric soil moisture was obtained in sole peanut (31.1%) and the highest soil temperature was obtained in sole millet (29.66 °C), respectively. Comparison of volumetric soil moisture and temperature in weed and density treatments indicated an increase in moisture content and a decrease in temperature by increasing weeding and density. The reduction of soil temperature in intercropping systems compared to sole millet can be attributed to the greater absorption of light by the intercropping canopy and the increase of shadow by plant canopy. Since the soil temperature under the canopy of intercropping systems was less than the soil temperature in sole millet, so the moisture content in the intercropping systems was higher than sole millet. The results of the changes in soil nutrient elements showed that the number of bivalent elements (calcium and magnesium contents) in additive intercropping series and monoculture of millet (0.033 and 1.907 ppm) was higher than the replacement intercropping and monoculture of peanut. The study of weeding showed that with increasing weeding, the amount of calcium and magnesium of the soil increased after weed harvesting. The cation exchange capacity of the root of the legumes is about twice as much as the root of the cereals. A plant with a higher cation exchange capacity can absorb more bivalent elements. For this reason, the power of peanut competition in absorbing bivalent elements of calcium and magnesium was higher than that of millet. The additive intercropping had the highest land equivalent ratio (1.65). The effect of weed control and density on the land equivalent ratio was significant, and twice weeding treatment with higher density had the maximum land equivalent ratio.
Conclusions
In total, intercropping systems with increasing weeding and density increased the number of soil elements after weeding and increased soil fertility, and treatment of 100% millet + 100% peanuts due to better utilization of resources and increased soil fertility and increase yield compared to monocultures, it was the best treatment in this study.

Keywords

20.1001.1.20087713.1398.11.4.21.2

References

Andersen, M.K., Hauggard-Nielsen, H., Ambus, P. and Jensen, E.S., 2005. Biomass production, symbiotic nitrogen fixation and inorganic N use in dual and tri-component annual intercrops. Planting and Soil 266: 273-287.

Anthony, R.S., and Rene, C.V., 2008. Land equivalent ratios, light interception, and water in annual intercrops in the presence or absence of in-crop herbicides. Agronomy Journal 100: 1145-1154.

Awal, M.A., Koshi, H., and Ikeda, T., 2006. Radiation interception and use by maize/peanut intercrop canopy. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 139: 74–83.

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.

Bantilan, R.T., Palada, M., and Harwood, R.R., 1976. Integrated weed management, I. Key factors effecting weed/crop balance, Philippine Weed. Science. Bulletin 1: 1-14.

Bell, M.J., Harch, B., and Wright, G.C., 1991. Planting population studies on peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.).in subtropical Australia. I. Growth under fully irrigated conditions. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 31 (4): 535- 543.

Berdhal, J.D., Karn, J.F., and Herdrickson, J.R., 2001. Dry matter yield of cool season grass monocultures and grass-alfalfa binary mixtures. Agronomy Journal 93: 463-467.

Caradus, J.R., 1990. The structure and function of white clover root system. Advance in Agronomy 43: 22-37.

Fetene, M., 2003. Intra-and inter-specific competition between seedlings of Acacia etbaica and a perennial grass (Hyperemia hirta). Journal of Arid Environment 55: 441–451.

Dahmardeh, M., 2010. Eco physiological aspects of intercropping maize and cowpea on the quantity and quality of forage maize (SC 704). Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Zabol, Iran. (In Persian with English Summary)

Daryayi, F., Agha Qalykhany, M., and Chaiechi, M., 2008. Comparison beneficial indicators of the pea and barley mixed cultures in the forage production. Journal of Agriculture Engineer and Natural Resource 21:35-40.

Eskandari, H., and Ghanbari, A., 2011. Assessment of competing and complementary components of intercropping maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea (Vigna sinensis L.) in nutrient consumption. Journal of Agricultural and sustainable production 21(2): 67-75.

Ghanbari, A., 2000. Intercropped wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and bean (Vicia faba) as a low-input forage. PhD Thesis. Wye Collage University of London.

Giller, K., 1999. Scaling up the Best Best-Soybean is on the move in Zimbabwe. University of Zimbabwe.

Haynes, R., 1980. Competitive aspects of the grass-legume association. Advance in Agronomy 33: 227-261.

Hinga, G., Tisdale, S.L., and Nelson, W.L., 1979. Cropping systems and soil management, soil fertility and fertilizer. Ministry of Agriculture, National Agricultural Laboratories, Annual Report. pp: 10-11. GOK, Nairobi.

Hitsuda, K., Yamada, M., and Klepker, D., 2005. Soil and crop management: Sulfur requirement of eight crops at early stages of growth. Agronomy Journal 97: 155–159.

Hosseinpanahi, F., Koocheki, A., Nassiri Mahallati, M., and Ghorbani, R., 2010. Evaluation of radiation absorption and use efficiency in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) /corn (Zea mays L.) intercropping . Journal of Agroecology 2(1): 45-54. (In Persian with English Summary)

Kjeldahl, J., 1883. New method for the determination of nitrogen in organic substances, Zeitschrift für analytics Chemie 22 (1): 366-383.

Innis, D.Q. 1997. Intercropping and the scientific basis of traditional agriculture. London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Jaya, K.D., Bell, V.J., and Sale, P.W., 2008. Modification of within-canopy microclimate in maize for intercropping in the lowland tropics. Available at: http:// www.regional.org.au.

Kandel, H.J., Johnson, B.L., and Scheiter, A.A., 2000. Hard red spring wheat response fallowing the intercropping of legumes into sunflower. Crop Science 40: 731–736.

Li, L., Yang, S., Li, X., Zhang, F., and Christie, P., 1999. Interspecific complementary and competitive interactions between intercropped maize and faba bean, Planting and Soil 212: 105–114.

Liebman, M., and Davis, A.S., 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-input farming systems. Weed Research 40:27– 47.

Mason, S.C., Leihner, D.E., Vorst, J.J., and Salazar, E., 1986. Cassava-cowpea and cassava-peanut intercropping. I.

Leaf area index and dry matter accumulation. American Society of Agronomy Journal 78: 47-53.

Marschner, P., Fu, L., and Rengel, Z., 2003. Manganese availability and microbial populations in the rhizosphere of wheat genotypes differing in tolerance to Mn deficiency. Journal Planting Nutrition Soil Science 166:712–718.

Mazaheri, D., 1998. Intercropping (2nd ed.). Tehran University publications. Tehran. Iran. P: 262. (In Persian).

Nzabi, A.W., Makini, F., Onyango, M., Kidula, N., Muyonga, C.K., Miruka, M., Mutal, E., and Gesare, M., 1999. Effect of intercropping legume with maize on soil fertility and maize yield. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, Kisi Regional Reacerch Center. P. O. Box 523, Kisii.

Rezvani Moghaddam, P., Raoofi, M.R., Rashed Mohassel, M.H., and Moradi, R., 2009. Evaluation of sowing patterns and weed control on mung bean (Vigna radiate L. Wilczek) - black cumin (Nigella sativa L.) Intercropping system. Journal of Agroecology 1(1): 65-79. (In Persian with English Summary)

Tavassoli, A., Ghanbari, A., Ramazan, D., and Mousavi-nik, M., 2010. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers on quantitative and qualitative characteristics of pearl millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) and red bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in intercropping. Journal of Crop Echophysiology 4:15(3): 1-16.

Pandita, A.K., Saha, M.H., and Bali, A.S., 2000. Effect of row ratio in cereal-legume intercropping systems on productivity and competition functions under Kashmir conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy 45: 48-53

Qamar, I.A., Keatinge, J.D.H., Noormohammad, T., Ali, A., and Ajmal Khan, M., 1999. Interduction and management of vetch/barley forage mixtures in the rainfed areas of Pakistan. forage yield. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 50:1-9.

Rajaii, M., Dahmardeh, M., Khammari, I., and Keshtegar, B., 2018. The effect of planting pattern and vermicompost on the changes in soil nutrients and use of environmental resources in intercropping of corn (Zea mays L.), peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) and borage (Borago officinalis L.). Journal of Agroechology 10(2): 547-564. (In Persian with English Summary)

Reddy, K.C., Visser, P.L., Klaij, M.C., and Renard, C., 1994. The effect of sole and traditional intercropping of millet and cowpea on soil and crop productivity. Experimental Agriculture 30: 83-88

Rezaee Chiane, E., Dabagh Mohammadinasab, A., Shakiba, M.R., Ghasemi Golazani, K., and Aharizade, S., 2010. Evaluation of light interception and canopy characteristics in mono-cropping and intercropping of maize (Zea mays L.) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Journal of Agroecology 2(3): 437-447. (In Persian with English Summary)

Safarzadeh Vishgahi, M.N., and Hossein Zadeh Gashti, A., 1999. Effect of method and amount of iron intake on peanut growth and yield in Gilan. First National Conference on Oil Seeds, Isfahan, Iran. 772-774. (In Persian with English Summary)

Sarkar, R.K., and Kundu, C., 2001. Sustainable intercropping system of sesame (sesamum indicium) whit pulse and oilseed crops on rice fallow land. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 71(2): 545-550.

Sirousmehr, A., Javanshir, A., Rahimzadeh Khoye, F., and Moghaddam, M., 2003. Pearl millet and common vetch.

Stuart, P.N., 1990. The Forage Book Pacific Seeds. Toowoomba, Australia Intercropping. Biaban 2: 250-263. (In Persian)

Tsubo, M., Mukhala, E., Ogindo. H., and Walker, S., 2004. Productivity of maize-bean intercropping in a semi-arid region of South Africa. Water SA 29: 381-388.

Tsubo, M., Walker, S., and Mukhala, E., 2001. Comparisons of radiation use efficiency of mono/intercropping system with different row orientation. Field Crop Research 71: 17-29.

Tsubo, M., Walker, S., and Ogindo, H.O., 2004. A simulation model of cereal-legume intercropping systems for semiarid regions I. Model development. Field Crops Research 90: 48-61.

VanderMeer, J.H., 1992. The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA.

Vasilakoglou, I.B., Lithourgidis, A.S., and Dhima, K.V., 2005. Assessing common vetch: cereal intercrops for suppression of wild oat. In Proceeding of The 13th International Symposium, session S5, European weed Research society Bari, Italy, 371–379.

Walkley, A., and Black, I.A., 1934. An examination of the degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Science 37: 29-38.

Watiki, J.M., Fukai, S., Banda, J.A., and Keating, B.A., 1993. Radiation interception and growth of maize/cowpea intercrop as affected by maize planting-row spacing and cowpea cultivar. Field Crops Research 35: 123-133.

Williams, J.H., Ndungguru, B.J., and Greenberg, D.C., 1995. Assessment of groundnut cultivars for end- of season drought tolerance in saheran environment. Journal of Agricultural Scince 125: 79- 85.

Willey, R.W., 1990. Resource use in intercropping system. Journal of Agriculture Water Management 17: 215-231.

Zhang, F.S., and Li, L., 2003. Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping system enhance crop productivity and nutrient use efficiency. Planting Soil 248:305–312.