Yield and yield components of wheat as influenced by intercropping of oilseed rape and fertilizers

Paper Details

Research Paper 01/06/2013
Views (287) Download (2)

Yield and yield components of wheat as influenced by intercropping of oilseed rape and fertilizers

Rashin Amir Mardfar, Yaegoob Raei, Adel Dabbagh Mohammadi Nassab, Samad Khaghaninia, Rouhollah Amini
J. Bio. Env. Sci.3( 6), 38-46, June 2013.
Certificate: JBES 2013 [Generate Certificate]


A field experiment was carried out at Research Farm of Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran, over consecutive 2 winter seasons (2010-2012) in order to study the profitability of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) intercropping under 2 types of fertilizer. A sole crop of wheat (A1) was compared with 8:3 (A2), 12:4 (A3) and 16:5 (A4) row proportions of wheat-oilseed rape intercropping systems under 100% chemical fertilizers and 50% chemical fertilizers + biofertilizers. The results showed that grain yield increased by 22.25, 25.38 and 13.72 percent over sole crop of wheat in case of intercropping of wheat-oilseed rape at 8:3, 12:4 and 16:5 rows, respectively. The 12:4 rows combination gave significantly higher number of spike/m2 (611.6), grain yield (610.3 g/m2) and biological yield (1353.0 g/m2) than that of sole wheat (513.4, 455.3 g/m2and 1072.7 g/m2, respectively). According to measured traits, A2 and A3 had no statistically significant difference and so sole crop of wheat had the lowest value for all of studied traits. In 2010-2011, spike length and grain umber per spike were more than those of 2011-2012, while the number of spike per plant and per unit area, 1000 grain weight and harvest index were greater in 2011-2012. Treatment 100% chemical fertilizer had significantly higher grain yield (575.8 g/m2) and biological yield (1301.7 g/m2) than that of 50% chemical fertilizer + biological fertilizers. Therefore, it was concluded that strip intercropping of wheat and oilseed rape in 8:3, and 12:4 row ratio had the maximum yield components that it led to increase grain yield.


Banik P, Midya A, Sarkar BK, Ghose SS. 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: Advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy 24(4), 325–332. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2005.10.010

Bora PC. 1999. Competition studies in intercropping of wheat (Triticum aestivum), rapeseed (Brassica campestris) and pea (Pisum sativum). Indian Journal of Agronomy 44, 509-513.

Ebrahimi S, Naehad HI, Shirani Rad AH, Akbari GA, Amiry R, Modarres Sanavy SAM. 2007. Effect of Azotobacter chroococcum application on quantity and quality forage of rapeseed cultivars. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 10, 3126-3130.

FAO. 2003. Production year book. 2002. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Fischer RA. 1993. Irrigated spring wheat and timing and amount of nitrogen fertilizer. II. Physiology of grain yield response. Field Crops Research 33, 57-80.

Gupta AK, Samnotra RK. 2004. Effect of biofertilizers and nitrogen on growth, quality and yield of cabbage (Brassica napus). Environment and Ecology 22(3), 551-553.

Keerio HK, Aslam M.1986. Intercropping in maize crop. Maize production manual, Islamabad, Pakistan: PARC.

Khalid A, Rashad MA, Zahir ZA. 2004. Screening plant growth-promoting Rhizobacteria for improving growth and yield of wheat. Journal of Applied Microbiology 96(3), 473-480. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2003.02161.x

Khan MRUK, Wahab A, Rashid A. 2005. Yield and yield components of wheat as influenced by intercropping of chickpea lentil and rapeseed in different proportions. Pakistan Journal of Agriculture Sciences 42(3-4), 1-3.

Khan RU, Rashid A, Khan MS. 2009. Seed yield and monetary return of wheat crop as affected by intercropping with canola (Brassica napus L.). Journal of Agriculture Research 47(2), 165-170.

Kumar V, Behl RK, Narula N. 2001. Establishment of phosphate-solubilizing strains of Azotobacter chroococcum in the rhizosphere and their effect on wheat cultivars under green house conditions. Microbiological Research 156(1), 87-93. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1078/0944-5013-00081.

Liebman M. 1988. Ecological suppression of weeds in intercropping systems: Are review. In: Altieri MA, Liebman M. eds. Weed management in agroecosystems: Ecological approaches. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. 197-212.

Li L, Sun J, Zhang F, Li X, Rengel Z, Yang S. 2001. Wheat/maize and wheat/soybean strip intercropping II. Recovery or compensation of maize and soybean after wheat harvesting. Field Crop Research 71(3), 173-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00157-5

Long Lia b,  Sunc J,  Zhanga F,  Lia X,  Yangc S, Rengel Z. 2001. Wheat/maize or wheat/soybean strip intercropping: I. Yield advantage and interspecific interactions on nutrients. Field Crops Research 71(2), 123–137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00156-3

Malik MA, Hayat MA, Ahamad S, Haq I. 1998. Intercropping of lentil, gram and rapeseed in wheat under rainfed conditions. Sarhad Journal of Agricclture 14 (5), 417-421.

Mandal BK, Dasgupta S, Roy PK. 1991. Effect of intercropping on yield components of wheat, chickpea and mustard under different moisture regimes. Field Crop Abstracts 39(10), 7025.

Mader P, Kaiser F, Adholeya A, Singh R, Uppal HS, Sharma AK, Srivastava R, Sahai V, Aragno M, Wiemken A, Johri BN, Fried PM. 2011. Inoculation of root microorganisms for sustainable wheat–rice and wheat–black gram rotations  in  India.  Soil  Biology  and  Biochemistry, 43(3), 609-619. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.11.031

Megawar EA, Mahfouz SA. 2010. Response of canola (Brassica napus L.) to biofertilizers under Egyptian condition in newly reclaimed soil. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences 2(1), 12-17.

Mikhov M, Nankov N, Dimitrov I. 1991. Investigations of growing lentil sown in a mixture with wheat. Rasteriv, dni-Nauki 28(7-10), 23-29.

Roy DK, Singh BP. 2006. Effect of level and time of nitrogen application with and without vermicompost on yield, yield attributes and quality of malt barley (Hordeum vulgare). Indian Journal of Agronomy 51(1), 40-42.

Singh RV, Gupta PC, Singh Y. 1992b. Economic feasibility of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and mustard (Brassica juncea) intercropping under limited water-supply condition. Indian Journal of Agronomy 37, 541-543.

Singh SS, Ehsanullah MD, Singh AK, Singh BK. 1995. Spatial arrangement in wheat (Triticum aestivum)-Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) intercropping. Indian Journal of Agronomy 40, 91-93.

Sinha AK, Nathan AK, Singh AK. 1985. Radiation climate and water use studies in intercropping systems. Journal of Nuclear Agriculture and Biology 14, 64–69.

Srivastava RK, Bohra JS. 2006. Performance of wheat (Triticum aestivum) + Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) intercropping in relation to row ratio, Indian mustard variety and fertility levels. Indian Journal of Agronomy 51(2), 107-111.

Srivastava RK, Bohra JS, Singh RK. 2007. Yield advantage and reciprocity functions of wheat (Triticam aestivum) + Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) intercropping under varying row ratio, variety and fertility level. Indian journal of Agricultural science 77, 139-144.

Stigter CJ, Baldy Ch. 1995. Manipulation of the microclimate by intercropping: making the best of services rendered. In: Sinoquet H, Cruz P, eds. Ecophysiology of tropical intercropping. Paris, France: Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA) 29–44.

Timmusk S, Nicander B, Granhall U, Tillberg E. 1999. Cytokinin production by Paenibacillus polymyxa. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 31, 1847- 1852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(99)00113-3.

Tsubo M, Mukhala E, Ogindo HO, Walker S. 2003. Productivity of maize-bean intercropping in a semi-arid region of South Africa. Water South African 29, 381–388.

Willey RW. 1979. Intercropping-Its importance research needs. Part 1. Competition and yield advantage. Field Crop Abstracts 32(2), 1-10.

Yang CH, Chai Q, Huang GB. 2010. Root distribution and yield responses of wheat/maize intercropping to alternate irrigation in the arid areas of northwest China. Plant, Soil and Environment 56(6), 253–262.