The International Journal of Biological Research (TIJOBR)
M. Zahid1, Saeed Ahmad2*, Sobia Manzoor2, M. Usama Javed3, Farukh Nawaz3, H. M. Waseem1, Aamir Ali1, M. Asim Raza1, Abdur Rehman1
*Corresponding author: firstname.lastname@example.org
|Jun 10,2018||Jan 27,2019||Feb 11,2019|
2019 / Vol: 2 / Issue: 1
A field trail to assess the influence of various geometric patterns on yield and yield attributes of linseed garden cress intercropping was carried out at Agronomy Research area, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad during the rabi season 2017. The experiment was executed into randomized complete block design (RCBD) and replicated thrice. The net plot was size of 3.6 m × 7 m. Sowing was done with hand drill in mid Nov. 2017. The experiment was comprised of 7 treatments viz., (T1) linseed alone at 30 cm spaced rows, (T2) linseed + 1 row of garden cress, (T3) linseed + 2 rows of garden cress, (T4) linseed + 3 rows of garden cress, (T5) linseed + 4 rows of garden cress, (T6) Garden cress alone in 30 cm spaced rows. The observations on yield and yield attributes of linseed and garden cress were noted by adopting standard procedures. Further the recorded data was subjected to statistical analysis by using Fisher’s analysis of variance technique and the comparison between the individual treatment means was made with the aid of (LSD) test at 5% probability. The bio-economic assessment of linseed garden cress intercropping revealed that intercropping reduced the linseed yield by 37%, 42%, 53%, and 66%, due to adding 4, 6, 8 and 12 rows of garden cress in intercropping system respectively; however garden cress gave remunerative yield of 428.31 kgha-1, 601.54 kgha-1, 736.19 kg ha-1and 693.91 kg ha-1 which resulted yield advantages 12%, 28%, 33% and 15% in the respective patterns over sole cropping of linseed. The treatment T4 (linseed + 3 rows of garden cress) proved to be the most economically viable intercropping system compared to sole and other intercropping systems of linseed and garden cress which showed the maximum yield advantage of 33%, maximum net return of Rs. 50719, land equivalent ratio (LER) 1.15 and highest benefit: cost ratio (BCR) of 1.61. So it can be recommended for general cultivation.
Key points: Intercropping, linseed, garden cress, row spacing, Land equivalent ratio
- Aggarwal, P. K., D. P. Garrity., S. P. Liboon and R.A. Morris. 1992. Resource use and plant interactions in a rice - mungbean intercrop. J. Agron., 84:71-78.
- Ahlawat, I.P.S. and B. Gangaiah. 2010. Effect of land configuration and irrigation on sole and linseed intercropped chickpea. Ind. J. Agr. Sci., 80: 250-253.
- Amjad, M. 2014. Oilseed crops of Pakistan. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council Islamabad, (PARC), 1-59.
- Ansari, M. H., V. K. Verma., M. A. Ansari., D. Mishra., A. K. Srivastava., N. Khan and M. Saquib. 2015. Impact of cropping pattern on growth, yield attributes and system productivity of citronella-pulses intercropping system in central India. Ind. J. Agr. Sci., 85: 392-6.
- Bahadur., J. P. Singh., K. Pradeep., R. K. Singh., and V. Sudhanshu. 2016. Economics of linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.)+ dwarf field pea (Pisum sativum L.) influenced by intercropping association. Environ. Eco., 34: 1602-1604.
- Chaudhary, V.K., A. Dixit., P.S. kumar. 2014. Productivity, competition behavior and weed dynamics of various row proportions of maize-legumes intercropping in Arunachal Pradesh. Ind. J. Agric. Sci., 84: 1329-34.
- Chemeda, F. 1996. Effect of bean and maize intercropping on bean common bacteria blight and rust diseases. Int. J. Pest Manag. 42: 51−54.
- Falana, H., W. Nofal and H. Nakhleh. 2014. A Review Article Lepidium Sativum (Garden cress). Author information, Article notes, Copyright and License information, Published online June, 2014. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262914046
- Hassan, F. U., M. Arif. 2012. Response of white mustard (Sinapis alba L.) to spacing under rainfed conditions. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 22: 137-141.
- Joshi, S.G., 2008. Medicinal plants, Oxford & IBH publishing Co., New Delhi: 105-106.
- Khatun, A., M. H. Rashid., M. I. U. Mollah., A.H. Khan., M. S. Islam and N. E. Elahi. 2001. Performance of rabi crops intercropping with wheat at different planting geometry. J. Biol. Sci., 1: 1103-1105.
- Lithourgidis, A. S., C. A. Dordas., C. A. Damalas and D. Vlachostergios. (2011). Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Aust. J. Crop. Sci., 5: 396.
- Morris, H. M. 2007. Flax: A health and nutrition primer. Flax Council of Canada, Winnipeg, Canada, pp: 140.
- Rashid, A., Himayatullah. I. Ahmad and M. Aslam. 2002. Land Equivalent Ratio as Influenced by Planting Geometry and Legumes intercropping System. Pakistan J. Agric. Res., 17: 373-378.
- Rehimi, R. M, G. H. Nourmohamadi. A. Ayneband. E. Afshar and G.H. Moafpourian. 2011. Study on effect of planting date and Nitrogen levels on yield, yield component and fatty acids of linseed (Linum usitatissimum L.). J. W. App. sci., 12: 59-67.
- Shinwari, K. Zabta. 2010. Medicinal plants research in Pakistan. J. Med. Plant. Res., 4: 161-176.
- Singh, D.K. and D.S. Yadav. 1992. Production potential and economics of chickpea-based intercropping systems under rainfed conditions. Indian J. Agron. 37: 424-429.
- Singh, R. A. 1998. Cropping system on degraded land of watershed of sustainable production. Agriculture Extension Review, 8: 2-11.
- Smith, H.V. and J. Jimmerson, 2005. Briefing. Agricultural Marketing Policy Center, Montana State University, MO, USA. Accessed:20 Dec, 2017. http://www.ampc.montana.edu/briefings/briefing56.pdf
- Vandermeer, J.H. (1989). The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Willey, R.W. 1979. Intercropping: its importance and research needs. Competition and yield advantages. J. Field. Crops. Res., 32: 1-10.
- Yadav, L.R., S. Choudhary., G.L. Keshwa and O.P. Sharma. 2013. Garden cress (Lepidium sativum) growth, productivity and nutrient uptake under different sowing dates, row spacing and nitrogen levels. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 58: 114-118.