ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

A field experiment was carried out on inter-cropping of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), and wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.). Treatments from combinations of either single, double or triple (row: crop) proportions were arranged in the standard replacement series at Grdarasha experimental farm (36.2º N, 44.1º E, and elevation of 476 m) during the winter season of 2016-17. The aim of the present study was to evaluate some of the growth aspects of wheat (A) and chickpea (B) in the presence of wild mustard (C), which invades common weed in these areas. Wheat crop possessed the highest values of biological dry biomass (BIO), crop growth rate (CGR), and relative growth rate (RGR) whether measured on physical or thermal scales at the first three growth intervals, while mustard weed showed superiority in the same growth aspects at the last two growth stages of flowering and maturity. This could be the reason for the lower performance of the cultivated crops in the presence of the wild mustard.
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-
ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is
given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
© 2019 Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education & Research | Published by SPER Publication 108
Growth analysis of intercropped Wheat, Chickpea and wild
Mustard based on physical and thermal time scales
Aryan S. A. Dizayee*, Sami M. Maaroof
Department of Field Crops, College of Agriculture, Salahaddin University-Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.
Correspondence:
Aryan S. A. Dizayee, Department of Field Crops, College of Agriculture, Salahaddin University-Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq.
Email: aryan.ahmed @ su.edu.krd.
ABSTRACT
A field experiment was carried out on intercropping of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), and wild mustard
(Sinapis arvensis L.). Treatments from combinations of either single, double or triple (row: crop) proportions were arranged in the
standard replacement series at Grdarasha experimental farm (36.2º N, 44.1º E, and elevation of 476 m) during the winter season of
2016-17. The aim of the present study was to evaluate some of the growth aspects of wheat (A) and chickpea (B) in the presence of
wild mustard (C), which invades common weed in these areas. Wheat crop possessed the highest values of biological dry biomass
(BIO), crop growth rate (CGR), and relative growth rate (RGR) whether measured on physical or thermal scales at the first three
growth intervals, while mustard weed showed superiority in the same growth aspects at the last two growth stages of flowering and
maturity. This could be the reason for the lower performance of the cultivated crops in the presence of the wild mustard.
Keywords: Intercropping, Growth indices, Row: crop ratio
Introduction
Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is the most important food crop in
Kurdistan region which lays under semi-guaranteed rainfall.
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is a staple crop pulse and is used
throughout the world, particularly Asian countries. [1] Wheat
and chickpea comprise respectively 50% and 20% of the total
food production in the region. They consist of the first cereal
and third pulse of the most edible crops that play a vital role in
universal agricultural economy, [2] with average productivity of
2.109 t ha-1 and 0.9 t ha-1 respectively. [3] Wheat production
reduced in Iraq by minus 14% during the period from 2013 to
2018. [4] Wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) was recorded as early
as 1748 in New York State (c.f. Mulligan and Bailey, 1975).[5]
Mustard plants have the ability of dense invading due to the
production of 2000 to 3500 viable soil embedded up to sixty
years. [6]
The natural resources such as water, soil, air, temperature, and
other environmental resources caused by humans, lead to
differences in production (c.f. Rad et al., 2018).[7] So, the
studying of growth aspects of the interplant species supports the
ecological management of the field crops. Growth analysis is
one of the basic techniques used to determine growth aspects
and represents the first step in primary production analysis,
which is the most practical way to evaluate net photosynthetic
production. [8] Hoffmann and Poorter (2002) mentioned that
the most important growth aspect is the relative growth rate
(RGR).[9] Crop dry matter production can be analyzed in terms
of crop growth rate (CGR) and RGR, the two important
growth indices used in growth analysis. [10] Growth indices
based on the temperature, such as growing degree days (GDD),
rather than elapsed time, allow for direct comparison among
cultivars with different phonological and development
techniques, and may otherwise be confused by temperature
variations. [11] Davidson and Campbell (1984) found high mean
values of initial RGR increasing up to near anthesis, then
Access this article online
Website: www.japer.in
E-ISSN: 2249-3379
How to cite this article: Aryan S. A. Dizayee, Sami M. Maaroof. Growth
analysis of intercropped Wheat, Chickpea and wild Mustard based on physical
and thermal time scales. J Adv Pharm Edu Res 2019;9(2):108-114.
Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Interest: None declared.
Dizayee and Maaroof: effects of physical and thermal time scales on wheat growth
Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education & Research | Apr-Jun 2019 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 109
decreasing with time up to zero, then negative values, during
the first maturity stage. [12] Differences in RGR and CGR are
rarely mentioned in growth studies. This fact was reported also
by [13] who recorded differences in RGR and CGR affecting
yield and yield improvement.
Many researchers regarded that plant biological processes are
differed due to/or associated with masked role of temperature
in physiological processes rather than time, and this principle
was recorded by Remur since 1735.[11] Consequently, wheat
and chickpea productions vary in the area including the current
research, following the fluctuations in both the amount and
distribution of rainfall. The scarcity of rainfall in the small
parcels pushes the farmers toward intercropping choice.
Intercropping is an old practice, placed on the fringes of
modern agriculture dominated by large tracts of mono-cultural
crops, consuming resources and high yield crops. [14, 15] The
practice of growing of two or more dissimilar crop species or
varieties in distinct row combinations simultaneously on the
same field practicing is some kind of intercropping as described
by [16]. Many researchers mentioned the importance of this
process. [16-20] Intercropping plays a major role in expanding
biodiversity and maintenance of ecological balance in
agriculture ecosystem. [21]
The current research was carried out to study the beneficial
gains from the wheat-based intercropping system including
chickpea in the presence of natural wild mustard, over a
variable row arrangement. The wheat was taken as a base crop
and modified growth degree days or the unit scale
(phyllocrone), besides elapsed time were employed to analyze
the growth, aiming to find out the appropriate treatment with
compatible row ratio.
Materials and Methods
A field study was carried out in Grdarasha, the experimental
farm of college of Agriculture-University of SalahaddinErbil,
on geographical location (36.2o N, 44.1o E and elevation 470 m
above the mean sea level), to study some of the growth aspects
from intercropping wheat, chickpea, and wild mustard in
single, double, and triple (row: crop) arrangement in a standard
replacement series maintaining total number of 6 rows with
varying ratios of species components, so that seven (row:
species) consortia were formed the basic combinations of 21
plots repeated in 3 replications to form 63 units with an area of
(2×2.40 m) including 20 cm departed sowing lines in
randomized complete block design (RCBD). Each treatment
was duplicated to avoid any probable risk. Data related to
growth measurements and their estimated indices as biological
dry biomass, crop growth rates, and relative growth rates based
on physical (days) and thermal (phyllocrone) time scales were
recorded and analyzed. Field practicing related to land
preparing and cropping densities were achieved upon local
agricultural recommended criteria. Mustard plant population
was resembled from its natural local invasion density. The soil
of the experiment was silty clay with composition of sand
(11.22%), silt (47.28%), and clay (41.75%) with pH of 7.82,
EC of 0.2, 0.6% OM, 0.22% total nitrogen, as well as available
P and K of 3.73 and 100 respectively. The climatic data during
the experiments are presented in Table 2. Plant sampling
achieved at emergence and physiological maturity including
three regular samplings at each 20 days interval from
emergence up to harvesting to measure the total biomass
accumulation then estimating crop growth and relative growth
rates based on time intervals scaled by days after establishment
and modified growth degree days (phyllochron). Seeding was
done on Nov. 26th 2016, while harvesting was executed
manually at different dates (May 16th, 17th, and 18th 2017) for
wild mustard, chickpea, and wheat respectively according to
their seed dryness.
Physiological study
Random samples were taken from the inner lines of each plot
along the total of one meter for each species every 20 days from
plant establishment (DAS). The samples were dried at 72
for 48 hours, and both CGR (g m-2d-1) and RGR (mg g-1d-1)
were determined from the standard formulae. [22]
Estimation of Growth Indices
The CGR is defined as the daily production of plant dry matter
per land unit area, and the RGR is the daily accumulation of dry
matter relative to the current plant dry weight. [23] Because of
the differences in the pattern of growth and maturation among
the three competitor species used in this study, and due to the
direct effect of temperature rather than day lengths, GDD was
also taken into account to determine both CGR and RGR.
Growth analysis was done based on measuring various mean
rate changes in plant weights obtained at each interval following
Radford (1967).
1- Crop Growth Rate (CGR).
CGR (g m-2d-1) = w2w1
t2t1
W2 and W1 = Plant dry matter (g) at time 2 and time 1,
respectively.
T2 and T1 = Physical times (days)
2- Relative Growth Rate (RGR)
RGR (mg g-1phyl-1) = (loge w2 − loge w1)
(t2t1)
ln = Natural logarithm (e = 2.718)
3- Growth Degree Days (GDD)
GDD = [(Tmax- Tmin)/2] - Tb
Where BIO is biological weights (g) and a temperature index
measured in GDD units and calculated by summing the
following equation [11] for each day from the date of sowing to
the date of each sampling. GDD is the growing degree day for
1th day; Tmax is the maximum daily air temperature with an
upper limit of 30 Cº; Tmin is the minimum daily air temperature
with a lower limit of 0 ; Tb is set equal to 0 Cº, i.e. the base
temperature below which no growth occurs.[24]
Dizayee and Maaroof: Growth analysis of intercropped Wheat, Chickpea and wild Mustard based on physical and thermal time scales
110 Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education & Research | Apr-Jun 2019 | Vol 9 | Issue 2
GDD2 and GDD1 = Growth degree day at the beginning and
end of each sampling interval (Phyllocron), respectively.
Tuckey’s 0.05 statistical analysis achieved on obtained data
using SAS computer package. Tuckey’s HSD test was adopted to
obtain 5% level of significance.
Results and Discussion
Tables 3 and 4 show the BIO at plant growth establishment, and
at 20, 40 and 60 days after establishment referred to as BIOa,
BIOb, BIOc, and BIOd respectively in addition to the dry
biomass at physiological maturity (BIOe). Biological biomass
reached its significantly (P ≤ 0.05) highest values at growth
intervals a, b and c for wheat, and intervals d and e for mustard
plant. The superiority in biomass production followed by
superiority in crop growth rate and relative growth rates based
on time CGR and RGR, and thermal scales CGRf and RGRf (f
after phyllocrone). Biomass mean values were 1.43, 4.12, and
14.57 g for wheat at the first three growth intervals a, b, and c
respectively, while biomass mean values were 25.22 g and
31.24 g for the mustard plant at the two last growth intervals d
and e, respectively. Chickpea was dominated by wheat and
mustard plant in all the studied parameters. Superiority in crop
growth rates and relative growth rates of wheat and mustard at
the above-mentioned intervals related to each species and the
significant lowest mean values of biomass of chickpea are the
probable reasons for the higher and lower mean values of crop
growth rates and relative growth rates of corresponding species.
Crop growth rates as well as relative growth based on elapsed
days behaved in direction to their corresponding rates based on
thermal scale in superiority but had quite different mean values
due to the variation of accumulated GDD (phyllochron) at the
same growth period over the different season days. Wheat crop
had crop growth rate of 0.033 g m-2d-1 and 0.522 g m-2d-1 or
0.413 g m-2phyl-1 then 3.898 g m-2phyl-1, during the first two
intervals a and b, while the relative growth rate was 0.0059 mg
g-1d-1 and 0.0737 mg g-1phyl-1 at RGRa and RGRfa respectively.
The external abnormal superiorities of CGRc, CGRfd, RGRc,
and RGRfd seem to be in the benefit of mustard plant at
intervals c and a, which is normal indeed due to estimation of
those indices from two successive weight values. Mustard plant
was superior in both of crop growth rates and relative growth
rates at the two last growth intervals c and d with mean values
of 0.801 g m-2d-1 and 0.301 g m-2d-1 or 4.684 g m-2phyl-1 and
1.400 g m-2phyl-1 crop growth rates with 0.0220 mg g-1d-1,
0.0046 mg g1d-1 or 0.1284 mg g-1phyl-1 and 0.0214 mg g-1phyl-1
of relative growth rates based on both time scales, respectively.
Table (5) reveals that most of parameters possessed non-
significant differences when measured from the intercrops,
except the intercropping consortium 1A2B3C that obtained
significant superiority in the biological weights of 20.85 g and
23.86 g at the last two growth intervals BIOd and BIOe, crop
growth rates of 0.431 and 0.498 g m-2d-1 or 3.217 and 2.909 g
m-2 phyl-1 at growth intervals CGRb, CGRc, CGRfb, and CGRfc
for both time scales respectively. This might be having 50% of
cropping rows of the superior species mustard plant, while the
treatment combination of 3A2B1C revealed superiority in
biological weight of 1.50 g at growth interval BIOa. Table (6)
didn’t reveal any significant differences among three competitor
species on RGR.
Tables 7 and 8 postulated significant differences at 5%
probability among the different interactions between crops and
intercropping consortia as the interaction between chickpea and
the consortium wheat×1A2B3C produced the highest values of
biological weights of 16.37 g at growth interval BIOc. Besides,
the highest mean values of 0.658 g m-2d-1 or 4.913 g m-2phyl-1
crop growth rates were observed at growth intervals CGRb and
CGRfb respectively. For wheat × 1A3B2C recorded highest
mean value was 4.97 g and 0.578 g m-2phyl-1 at BIOb and
CGRfa, while wheat×3A1B2C was superior at BIOa (1.77 g).
Interaction consortium of mustard×1A2B3C possessed the
highest significant mean values of 0.858 and 0.358 gm-2d-1 or
5.019 and 1.667 g m-2phyl-1 at growth intervals CGRc, CGRd,
CGRfc, and CGRfd, while RGRd and RGRfd possessed 0.0053
mg g-1d-1 or 0.0245 mg g-1phyl-1 for both time scales,
respectively. Interaction of mustard×1A3B2C postulated 27.30
g and 34.19 g at last two growth intervals BIOe and BIOd, while
mustard×2A1B3C interaction had higher values of 0.0102 and
0.0240 mg g-1d-1 or 0.1047 mg g-1phyl-1 and 0.1403 mg g-1phyl-1
at growth intervals RGRa, RGRc, RGRfa, and RGRfc,
respectively. Comparison between CGR and RGR was
measured on the bases of time (days) and thermal time
(phyllochron), as phyllochron refers to 100 of accumulated
temperature, the standard amount of temperature required to
produce one wheat leaf or GDD.
Conclusions
To summarize the overall results of this study, it was conducted
in general that the wild mustard negatively acts as a competitor
to the principle crops according to wheat and chickpea.
Acknowledgments
We appreciate the assistance of the Field Crops Department,
College of Agriculture, and University of Salahaddin-Erbil for
their help and conducting these experiments.
References
1. Sumbul, A., Rizvi, R., Salah, M., Tiyagi, S.A., Ansari,
R.A. and Mahmood, I. Role of Different Sawdusts and
Bioinoculant in the Management of Root-Knot
Nematode Infesting Chickpea. Asian Journal of Crop
Science. 2015; 7(3), p.197-206.
2. FAO. Production Year Book, 2002. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),
Rome, Italy. 2003; http://apps.fao.org.
3. Al-Qaesi, H.A.H. and Salih, A.A. The Analysis of the
Main Statistical Indicators Which Characterize the
Agriculture’s Evolution in the Vegetal Sector of the
Republic of Iraq. Scientific Papers Series-Management,
Dizayee and Maaroof: effects of physical and thermal time scales on wheat growth
Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education & Research | Apr-Jun 2019 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 111
Economic Engineering in Agriculture and Rural
Development. 2018; 18(1), pp.45-51.
4. FAO. Giews country brief of Iraq. 2018.
5. Mulligan, G.A. and Bailey, L.G. The Biology of
Canadian Weeds. 8. Sinapis arvensis L. Canadian Journal
of Plant Science. 1975; 55(1), pp. 171-183.
6. Warwick, S.I., Beckie, H.J., Thomas, A.G. and
McDonald, T. The biology of Canadian Weeds. 8.
Sinapis arvensis L. (updated). Canadian Journal of Plant
Science. 2000; 80(4), pp. 939-961.
7. Rad, M.H., Ebrahimi, M. and Shirmohammadi, E. Land
Use Change Effects on Plant and Soil Properties in a
Mountainous Region of Iran. Journal of Environmental
Science and Management. 2018; 21(2), pp.47-56.
8. Nogueira, S.S.S., Nagai, V., Braga, N.R., Novo, M.
and Camargo, M.B.P. Growth analysis of chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.). Scientia Agricola. 1994; 51(3), pp.
430-435.
9. Hoffmann, W.A. and Poorter, H. Avoiding bias in
calculations of relative growth rate. Annals of botany.
2002; 90(1), pp. 37-42.
10. Watson, D. J. The physiological basis of variation in
yield. Advances in Agronomy. 1952; 4, pp. 101-45.
11. Russelle, M.P., Wilhelm, W.W., Olson, R.A. and
Power, J.F. Growth Analysis Based on Degree Days.
Crop science. 1984; 24(1), pp. 28-32.
12. Davidson, H. R., and Campbell, C. A. Growth rates,
harvest index and moisture use of Manitou spring wheat
as influenced by nitrogen, temperature and moisture.
Canadian Journal of Plant Science. 1984; 64, pp. 825-
839.
13. Siddique, K. H. M., Belford, R. K., Perry, M. W., and
Tennant, D. Growth, Development and Light
Interception of Old and Modern Wheat Cultivars in a
Mediterranean Type Environment. Australian Journal
of Agricultural Research. 1989; 40, pp. 473-87.
14. Zhang, F., Shen, J., Zhang, J., Zuo, Y., Li, L. and
Chen, X. Rhizosphere Processes and Management for
Improving Nutrient Use Efficiency and Crop
Productivity: Implications for China. Advances in
Agronomy. 2010; 107, pp. 1-32.
15. Li L, Zhang, L.Z and Zhang, F.Z. Crop mixtures and
the mechanisms of overyielding. In: Levin SA, ed.
Encyclopedia of biodiversity, Waltham, MA, USA 2nd
ed, Vol, 2. Academic Press. 2013; pp. 382395.
16. Katyayan, A. Fundamentals of Agriculture, Kushal
Publications & Distributors, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.
2005; pp. 10-11.
17. Ahlgren, H.L. and Aamodt, O.S. Harmful Root
Interactions as a Possible Explanation for Effects Noted
between Various Species of Grasses and Legumes.
Agronomy Journal. 1939; 31(11), pp. 982-985.
18. Donald, C.M. Competition among crop and pasture
plants. In: Advances in agronomy, Vol. 15. Academic
Press. 1963; pp. 1-118.
19. Willey, R.W. The Use of Shade in Coffee, Cocoa and
Tea. Horticultural Abstracts. 1975; 45(12), pp. 791-
798.
20. Sarkar, R.K., Shit, D. and Maitra, S. Competition
Functions, Productivity and Economics of Chickpea
(Cicer arietinum)-Based Intercropping System Under
Rainfed Conditions of Bihar Plateau. Indian Journal of
Agronomy. 2000; 45(4), pp. 681-686.
21. Abate, M. and Alemayehu, G. Biological Benefits of
Intercropping Maize (Zea mays L) with Fenugreek, Field
Pea and Haricot Bean Under Irrigation in Fogera Plain,
South Gonder Zone, Ethiopia. Agriculture, Forestry
and Fisheries. 2018; 7(1), pp. 19-35.
22. Radford, P.J. Growth Analysis Formulae-Their Use and
Abuse 1. Crop science. 1967; 7(3), pp. 171-175.
23. Warren Wilson, J. Analysis of growth, photosynthesis
and light interception for single plants and stands. Ann.
Bot. 1981; 8, 507-12.
24. Cao, W., and Moss, D. N. Temperature effect on leaf
emergence and phyllochron in wheat and barley. Crop
Science. 1989; 29, 1018-1021.
Dizayee and Maaroof: Growth analysis of intercropped Wheat, Chickpea and wild Mustard based on physical and thermal time scales
112 Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education & Research | Apr-Jun 2019 | Vol 9 | Issue 2
Table 1. The number of days and phyllochrones between each two successive growth intervals for
each plant component.
Plant
Time scale (days)
Thermal scale (phyllochron)
GS1
GS2
GS3
GS4
GS1
GS2
GS3
GS4
Wheat
Chickpea
Mustard
81
73
67
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
6.52
5.75
5.30
2.68
2.68
2.68
3.42
3.42
3.42
4.30
4.30
4.30
Note: GS= growth stage.
Table 2. Meteorological data during the field experimental period rainfall season of 2016-2017.
Months
Temperature
Relative
Humidity (%)
Atmospheric
Pressure
Wind Direction
Avg.
Maximum Wind
Speed
Soil Temp.
Precipitation
(mm)
Max.
Mini.
Average
Nov.2016
Dec.2016
Jan.2017
Feb.2017
Mar.2017
Aprl.2017
May.2017
21.9
12.5
12.5
13.2
18.3
25.2
33.5
9.7
4.9
2.0
1.9
8.3
12.6
16.9
15.2
8.5
7.3
7.6
13.3
18.9
25.2
29.3
68.9
59.0
50.3
55.6
45.0
22.2
971.0
971.4
970.2
970.9
965.7
965.8
961.5
165.4
171.2
180.7
167.9
153.5
179.9
180.4
3.0
3.1
3.0
3.2
3.9
4.1
4.3
16.7
11.0
9.2
9.0
13.4
18.5
24.2
21.1
110.0
27.9
14.2
4.5
38.0
2.4
Table 3. Biological weight (BIO) and crop growth rate based on time (CGR) and temperature (CGRf) for three plant species in
mono-cultures.
Parameters
Biological weights g
Crop Growth Rate g m-2d-1
Crop Growth Rate g m-2phyl-1
at days after establishment
Interval by days
Thermal (phyllocrone)
20
40
60
80
maturity
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
5.86
2.68
3.42
4.30
BIOa
BIOb
BIOc
BIOd
BIOe
CGRa-b
CGRb-c
CGRc-d
CGRd-e
CGRfa-b
CGRfb-c
CGRfc-d
CGRfd-e
Species
Wheat (A)
Chickpea (B)
Mustard (C)
1.43 a
0.97 b
1.09 b
4.12 a
1.72 c
2.30 b
14.57 a
7.37 c
9.20 b
19.98 b
12.79 c
25.22 a
21.46 b
13.56 c
31.24 a
0.033 a
0.010 c
0.018 b
0.522 a
0.282 c
0.345 b
0.271 b
0.271 b
0.801 a
0.074 b
0.038 c
0.301 a
0.413 a
0.115 b
0.186 b
3.898 a
2.107 c
2.575 b
1.584 b
1.586 b
4.684 a
0.344 b
0.178 c
1.400 a
Tuckey HSD 0.05
0.2878
0.5196
0.6635
1.2868
1.5448
0.0073
0.0412
0.0546
0.0327
0.0755
0.3022
0.3177
0.1521
Table 4. Relative growth rate based on time (RGR) and temperature (RGRf) for three plant species in mono-cultures.
Parameters
Relative growth rate mg g-1d-1
Relative growth rate mg g-1phyl-1
Interval by days
Thermal (phyllochron)
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
5.86
2.68
3.42
4.3
RGRa-b
RGRb-c
RGRc-d
RGRd-e
RGRfa-b
RGRfb-c
RGRfc-d
RGRfd-e
Species
Wheat (A)
Chickpea (B)
Mustard (C)
0.0059 a
0.0035 b
0.0052 a
0.0278
0.0321
0.0313
0.0068 c
0.0120 b
0.0220 a
0.0016 b
0.0012 b
0.0046 a
0.0737 a
0.0396 b
0.0533 b
0.2075
0.2397
0.2335
0.0395 c
0.0705 b
0.1284 a
0.0073 b
0.0058 b
0.0214 a
Tuckey HSD 0.05
0.0034
N.S
0.0019
0.0022
0.0169
N.S
0.0089
0.0035
Table 5. Biological weight (BIO) and crop growth rate based on time (CGR) and temperature (CGRf) for three plant species in
mix-cultures.
Parameters
Biological weights g
Crop growth rate g m-2d-1
Crop growth rate g m-2phyl-1
at days after establishment
Interval by days
Thermal (phyllocrone)
20
40
60
80
maturity
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
5.86
2.68
3.42
4.3
BIOa
BIOb
BIOc
BIOd
BIOe
CGRa-b
CGRb-c
CGRc-d
CGRd-e
CGRfa-b
CGRfb-c
CGRfc-d
CGRfd-e
Dizayee and Maaroof: effects of physical and thermal time scales on wheat growth
Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education & Research | Apr-Jun 2019 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 113
Row-species treatments
1A2B3C
1A3B2C
2A1B3C
2A2B2C
2A3B1C
3A1B2C
3A2B1C
0.86 b
1.02 ab
1.06 ab
1.39 ab
1.19 ab
1.13 ab
1.50 a
2.28
2.91
2.84
2.57
2.61
2.73
3.04
10.9
10.7
9.83
10.21
10.38
10.5
10.12
20.85 a
20.19 ab
19.06 ab
19.25 ab
19.19 ab
18.23 b
18.57 ab
23.86 a
23.12 ab
22.16 ab
22.37 ab
21.92 ab
20.45 b
20.72 b
0.019
0.025
0.024
0.015
0.019
0.021
0.02
0.431 a
0.389 ab
0.349 b
0.382 ab
0.388 ab
0.388 ab
0.354 ab
0.498 a
0.474 ab
0.461 ab
0.452 ab
0.441 ab
0.387 b
0.422 ab
0.151
0.147
0.155
0.156
0.136
0.111
0.108
0.218
0.29
0.274
0.181
0.218
0.245
0.237
3.217 a
2.906 ab
2.608 ab
2.852 ab
2.898 ab
2.898 ab
2.641 b
2.909 a
2.774 ab
2.697 ab
2.642 ab
2.576 ab
2.261 b
2.469 ab
0.701
0.681
0.723
0.726
0.635
0.516
0.501
Tuckey HSD
0.05
0.5607
N.S
N.S
2.5061
3.0085
N.S
0.0803
0.1063
N.S
N.S
0.5885
0.6188
N.S
Table 6. Relative growth rate based on time (RGR) and temperature (RGRf) for three plant species in mix-cultures.
Parameters
Relative growth rate mg g-1d-1
Relative growth rate mg g-1phyl-1
Interval by days
Thermal (phyllochron)
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
5.86
2.68
3.42
4.3
RGRa-b
RGRb-c
RGRc-d
RGRd-e
RGRfa-b
RGRfb-c
RGRfc-d
RGRfd-e
Row-species treatments
1A2B3C
1A3B2C
2A1B3C
2A2B2C
2A3B1C
3A1B2C
3A2B1C
0.0057
0.0055
0.0059
0.0036
0.0045
0.0051
0.0039
0.0342
0.0305
0.0281
0.0305
0.0315
0.0311
0.0268
0.0143
0.0135
0.0143
0.0141
0.0134
0.0122
0.0133
0.0025
0.0024
0.0027
0.0029
0.0025
0.0022
0.0021
0.0647
0.0634
0.0656
0.042
0.0513
0.0571
0.0448
0.2555
0.2278
0.2102
0.2279
0.2348
0.2322
0.1999
0.0836
0.0788
0.0835
0.0824
0.0783
0.0716
0.078
0.0114
0.0113
0.0123
0.0137
0.0118
0.0101
0.0098
Tuckey HSD 0.05
N.S
N.S
N.S
N.S
N.S
N.S
N.S
N.S
Table 7. Biological weight (BIO) and crop growth rate based on time (CGR) and temperature (CGRf) for three plant species in
mix-cultures.
Interaction
Biological weights g
Crop growth rate g m-2d-1
Crop growth rate g m-2phyl-1
Species
Row-species
treatments
at days after establishment
Interval by days
Thermal (phyllochron)
20
40
60
80
maturity
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
5.86
2.68
3.42
4.3
BIOa
BIOb
BIOc
BIOd
BIOe
CGRa-b
CGRb-c
CGRc-d
CGRd-e
CGRfa-b
CGRfb-c
CGRfc-d
CGRfd-e
Wheat (A)
1A2B3C
1A3B2C
2A1B3C
2A2B2C
2A3B1C
3A1B2C
3A2B1C
1.00 ab
1.20 ab
1.43 ab
1.43 ab
1.67 ab
1.77 a
1.50 ab
3.20 a-d
4.97 a
3.83 a-c
3.83 a-c
4.37 ab
4.30 ab
4.33 ab
16.37 a
14.23 ab
13.50 b
14.60 ab
14.20 ab
15.03 ab
14.03 ab
23.80 a-d
20.52 b-e
18.59 de
19.86 c-e
19.14 de
18.36 ef
19.63 c-e
25.16 b-e
21.81 ed
20.33 e-f
22.24 c-e
20.51 e-f
19.50 e-g
20.68 e-f
0.027 a-d
0.047 a
0.030 a-d
0.030 a-d
0.033 a-d
0.031 a-d
0.035 a-c
0.658 a
0.463 bd
0.483 bc
0.538 ab
0.492 a-c
0.537 ab
0.485 bc
0.372 b
0.315 b
0.254 b
0.263 b
0.247 b
0.166 b
0.279 b
0.068 c
0.064 c
0.087 c
0.119 bc
0.068 c
0.057 c
0.053 c
0.337 a-d
0.578 a
0.368 a-d
0.368 a-d
0.414 a-c
0.389 a-d
0.435 ab
4.913 a
3.458 b-d
3.607 bc
4.017 ab
3.669 a-c
4.005 ab
3.619 bc
2.173 b
1.839 b
1.487 b
1.537 b
1.445 b
0.972 b
1.635 b
0.317 c
0.299 c
0.406 c
0.553 bc
0.318 c
0.267 c
0.246 c
Chickpea (B)
1A2B3C
1A3B2C
2A1B3C
2A2B2C
2A3B1C
3A1B2C
3A2B1C
1.00 ab
0.80 ab
1.10 ab
1.10 ab
0.80 ab
0.70 ab
1.30 ab
2.07 cd
1.67 d
1.70 cd
1.63 d
1.53 d
1.40 d
2.03 cd
7.47 de
7.47 de
7.50 de
7.10 e
7.00 e
7.37 de
7.67 c-e
12.72 g
12.74 g
12.98 g
13.15 fg
12.74 g
12.47 g
12.76 g
13.23 g
13.35 g
13.45 g
14.33 fg
13.81 g
13.20 g
13.51 g
0.015 b-d
0.012 b-d
0.008 cd
0.007 d
0.010 b-d
0.010 b-d
0.010 b-d
0.270 e
0.290 e
0.290 e
0.273 e
0.273 e
0.298 d-e
0.282 e
0.262 b
0.264 b
0.274 b
0.302 b
0.287 b
0.255 b
0.254 b
0.026 c
0.031 c
0.024 c
0.059 c
0.054 c
0.037 c
0.038 c
0.164 b-d
0.133 b-d
0.092 d
0.082 d
0.112 cd
0.107 cd
0.112 cd
2.015 e
2.164 e
2.164 e
2.040 e
2.040 e
2.226 de
2.102 e
1.535 b
1.543 b
1.601 b
1.768 b
1.678 b
1.492 b
1.488 b
0.120 c
0.142 c
0.111 c
0.274 c
0.250 c
0.171 c
0.176 c
Mustard (C)
1A2B3C
1A3B2C
2A1B3C
2A2B2C
2A3B1C
3A1B2C
3A2B1C
0.57 b
1.07 ab
0.63 ab
1.63 ab
1.10 ab
0.93 ab
1.70 ab
1.57 d
2.10 cd
3.00 a-d
2.23 b-d
1.93 cd
2.50 b-d
2.77 b-d
8.87 c-e
10.40 c
8.50 c-e
8.93 c-e
9.93 cd
9.10 c-e
8.67 c-e
26.04 a
27.30 a
25.60 ab
24.74 a-c
25.68 ab
23.87 a-d
23.32 a-e
33.20 a
34.19 a
32.71 a
30.53 ab
31.42 ab
28.64 a-c
27.97 a-d
0.015 b-d
0.015 b-d
0.035 ab
0.009 b-d
0.012 b-d
0.023 b-d
0.016 b-d
0.365 c-e
0.415 b-e
0.275 e
0.335 c-e
0.400 b-e
0.330 c-e
0.295 e
0.858 a
0.845 a
0.855 a
0.790 a
0.787 a
0.739 a
0.733 a
0.358 a
0.345 a
0.355 a
0.290 a
0.287 a
0.239 ab
0.233 ab
0.153 b-d
0.158 b-d
0.363 a-d
0.092 d
0.128 b-d
0.240 b-d
0.164 b-d
2.724 c-e
3.097 b-e
2.052 e
2.500 c-e
2.985 b-e
2.463 c-e
2.201 e
5.019 a
4.940 a
5.001 a
4.620 a
4.604 a
4.319 a
4.285 a
1.667 a
1.603 a
1.652 a
1.349 a
1.336 a
1.110 ab
1.082 ab
Dizayee and Maaroof: Growth analysis of intercropped Wheat, Chickpea and wild Mustard based on physical and thermal time scales
114 Journal of Advanced Pharmacy Education & Research | Apr-Jun 2019 | Vol 9 | Issue 2
Tuckey HSD
0.05
1.195
2.1563
2.7536
5.3406
6.4114
0.0303
0.1711
0.2265
0.1356
0.3135
1.2541
1.3187
0.6312
Table 8. Biological weight (BIO) and relative growth rate based on time (RGR) and temperature (RGRf) for three plant species
in mix-cultures.
Interaction
Relative growth rate mg g-1d-1
Relative growth rate mg g-1phyl-1
Species
Row-species
treatments
Interval by days
Thermal (phyllochron)
0-20
20-40
40-60
60-80
5.86
2.68
3.42
4.3
RGRa-b
RGRb-c
RGRc-d
RGRd-e
RGRfa-b
RGRfb-c
RGRfc-d
RGRfd-e
Wheat (A)
1A2B3C
1A3B2C
2A1B3C
2A2B2C
2A3B1C
3A1B2C
3A2B1C
0.0065 ab
0.0076 ab
0.0052 ab
0.0062 ab
0.0054 ab
0.0048 ab
0.0058 ab
0.0356
0.0233
0.0281
0.0291
0.0257
0.0272
0.0257
0.0079 b-e
0.0077 b-e
0.0069 de
0.0067 de
0.0065 de
0.0043 e
0.0073 c-e
0.0013 d
0.0014 d
0.0019 cd
0.0024 b-d
0.0015 d
0.0013 d
0.0011 d
0.0807 a-c
0.0946 ab
0.0648 a-c
0.0772 a-c
0.0675 a-c
0.0596 a-c
0.0714 a-c
0.2656
0.1739
0.2098
0.2169
0.1915
0.203
0.1919
0.0465 b-e
0.0448 b-e
0.0404 de
0.0392 de
0.0377 de
0.0254 e
0.0426 c-e
0.0058 d
0.0064 d
0.0089 cd
0.0114 b-d
0.0070 d
0.0061 d
0.0053 d
Chickpea (B)
1A2B3C
1A3B2C
2A1B3C
2A2B2C
2A3B1C
3A1B2C
3A2B1C
0.0044 ab
0.0044 ab
0.0024 b
0.0025 b
0.0043 ab
0.0041 b
0.0026 b
0.0281
0.0325
0.0333
0.0323
0.0332
0.0364
0.0291
0.0116 b-d
0.0118 b-d
0.0119 b-d
0.0134 b
0.0131 bc
0.0114 b-d
0.0112 b-d
0.0009 d
0.0010 d
0.0008 d
0.0018 cd
0.0017 cd
0.0013 d
0.0012 d
0.0492 a-c
0.0496 a-c
0.0274 bc
0.0282 bc
0.0481 a-c
0.0456 a-c
0.0293 bc
0.2097
0.2425
0.2486
0.2408
0.2478
0.2714
0.2172
0.0676 b-d
0.0692 b-d
0.0697 b-d
0.0782 b
0.0764 bc
0.0669 b-d
0.0652 b-d
0.0040 d
0.0047 d
0.0037 d
0.0086 cd
0.0080 cd
0.0058 d
0.0056 d
Mustard (C)
1A2B3C
1A3B2C
2A1B3C
2A2B2C
2A3B1C
3A1B2C
3A2B1C
0.0063 ab
0.0045 ab
0.0102 a
0.0020 b
0.0037 b
0.0064 ab
0.0033 b
0.039
0.0358
0.0231
0.0303
0.0355
0.0298
0.0256
0.0234 a
0.0210 a
0.0240 a
0.0222 a
0.0207 a
0.0210 a
0.0216 a
0.0053 a
0.0049 a
0.0053 a
0.0046 ab
0.0043 ab
0.0040 a-c
0.0040 a-c
0.0643 a-c
0.0460 a-c
0.1047 a
0.0206 c
0.0382 a-c
0.0660 a-c
0.0336 bc
0.2913
0.267
0.1722
0.226
0.2651
0.2222
0.1907
0.1368 a
0.1226 a
0.1403 a
0.1297 a
0.1208 a
0.1226 a
0.1262 a
0.0245 a
0.0227 a
0.0245 a
0.0212 ab
0.0202 ab
0.0184 a-c
0.0184 a-c
Tuckey HSD 0.05
0.0142
N.S
0.0079
0.009
0.701
N.S
0.0368
0.0145
... To fulfill the increasing demand for food due to the non-stop expansion of the world's population, various crop nutrition techniques are being explored by farmers because demand for agricultural products is increasing constantly. Enhancing crop production, retaining a secured environment is one of the major challenges in front of the farmers in the present century (Dizayee & Maaroof, 2019;Karagodin et al., 2020;Nosheen, et al., 2021). Modern agriculture continuously applies chemical fertilizers and pesticides increase the world's food production, as these serve as a fast-food for plants causing them to grow more efficiently and rapidly (Sneha et al., 2018) Continuous application of chemical fertilizers causes soil quality decay and fertility, degradation of soil structure, pollution of the soil, generally not absorbed and can interfere with both underground and surface water (Ajmal et al., 2018). ...
... al., 2014;Kubík Ľ et. al., 2017;Dizayee & Maaroof, 2019), thermo physical (Božiková et. al., 2010;Glicerina et. ...
Article
Full-text available
This article is focused on evaluating the rheological properties of tomato ketchup. The purpose of the paper was to show the importance of knowledge about the rheological properties of ketchup and to find new more adequate equations of the temperature-viscosity dependence. All measurements were performed under the same temperature conditions at approximately 25 °C and shear velocities between 5.46 and 700.41 s-1. Ketchup is a non-Newtonian material, so the apparent viscosity was measured. We found out that the apparent viscosity decreased exponentially with increasing temperature, so the Arrhenius equation is valid. Ketchup fluidity increases exponentially with temperature, which leads us to propose an original logarithmic expression correlating the shear stress and the square root of shear rate with only two adjustable parameters with some physical significance. The model is compared with some previous ones showing that the calculated rheological characteristics can be used to design the technological equipment or containers for the distribution of the product to the end-users. A comparison between parameter values of different fluids can contribute to the knowledge of the flow behavior is also important for the development of new recipes and the direct qualitative evaluation of the products.
Article
Full-text available
This study was conducted to show the effects of rangeland conversion into agricultural land uses in terms of on plant and soil degradation in Choram rangeland, Iran. Three sites, including dry farming, horticultural and rangeland were selected. Across site, vegetation factors such as plant production, canopy cover and density were measured. Soil samples were extracted at depths of 0-30 and 30-60 cm. The highest plant productions (60 kg ha-1), vegetation cover (30%) and density of class I (3 n m-2) were recorded in the rangeland. The lowest plant productions (19 kg ha-1), vegetation cover (0.41%) and density of class I, II and III ( 2, 7, 6 n m-2, respectively) were measured in the horticultural land use. Except saturation percentage, clay, silt and sand there were not significant differences among the soil properties of land uses. However, at depth of 30-60 cm the highest significant organic matter (14.33 kg ha-1) and potassium (0.84%) were measured in the rangeland and dry farming land uses, respectively. Habitat conversion from the rangeland to arable lands could change the species properties and result in the reduction of vegetation cover and reduction of soil quality.
Article
Full-text available
A field experiment was conducted during the winter (rabi) season of 1996-97 and 1997-98 at Deochanda Experiment Station, Hazaribagh, to study the productivity of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)-based intercropping system with cereal, pulses and oilseeds in rainfed uplands of Bihar plateau. Intercropping of chickpea and safflower (Carthamus tinctorious L.) in 1:1 row ratio proved most efficient system resulting in maximum chickpea-equivalent yield (12.76 q/ha), gross (Rs 10, 846) and net (Rs 5, 346/ha) monetary returns and benefit : cost ratio (1.97). The same treatment also accounted for higher land-equivalent ratio (1.12), area-time equivalent ratio (0.96), monetary advantage (Rs 1, 162/ha) and maximum product of crowding coefficient (K 1.84) with modest competition coefficient (0.31 : 0.68) which proved the most efficient. Chickpea sown with barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in 1:2 row proportion proved to be inefficient intercropping system with minimum chickpea-equivalent yield (9.84 q/ha) and net monetary returns (Rs 2,758/ha).
Article
The impact of amending soil with composted sawdusts derived from different woods [Neem (Azadirachta indica), sheesham (Dalbergia sissoo), teak (Tectona grandis) and chir (Pinus roxburghii)] at different concentrations (12.5, 25 and 50 g per pot) and a bio-inoculant, Pseudomonas fluorescens, singly and in combination, was investigated in terms of plant growth parameters of chickpea, both in the presence and absence of root-knot nematode, Meloidogyne incognita. Effect of these amendments on nematode reproduction was also assessed. All the sawdusts at all the concentrations and the bioinoculants either singly or in combination, improved plant growth parameters in terms of plant length, fresh weight, dry weight and number of nodules per plant and suppressed root-knot nematode infection in terms of number of galls/plant and nematode population. Among the four sawdusts, neem was found to be most effective followed by sheesham, teak and chir. The effectiveness of all the four sawdusts was proportional to their doses. However, addition of Pseudomonas fluorescens along with the different sawdusts was more efficient than either of them applied alone, the maximum improvement was recorded in all growth variables in the plants those received the combined application of neem sawdust at 50 g/pot+Pseudomonas fluorescens.
Chapter
In the early days of agriculture, man must have learned of the competition among individual plants within a crop or intraspecific competition, even though his knowledge was purely in empirical terms. He must have learned by experience that if the sowing rate were sparse, his harvest would be lean, and conversely that if the seed rate were increased beyond a certain value, the plants would be spindly and poorly grown. The fuller understanding of competition among plants requires a greater knowledge of the response of plants to their environment, especially of the response to the environmental stresses created by neighbors. Plant physiologists have studied the single plant, and agronomists have looked at the whole crop, but the plant within the community has scarcely been investigated. This is a field which promises both scientific depth and great potential reward in terms of crop production.
Article
Discusses various formulae used in the analysis of plant growth.
Article
An updated review of biological information is provided for Sinapis arvensis L. Native to the Old world, the species is widely introduced and naturalized in temperate regions around the world. The species occurs in all the provinces, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon. It is an important weed of field crops in the Canadian prairies. A strongly persistent seedbank, competitive annual growth habit and high fecundity all contribute to its weedy nature and ensure that it will be a continuing problem. Several cases of herbicide resistance have been documented for natural populations of S. arvensis in Canada, including biotypes resistant to: i) Group 2 herbicides, which inhibit acetolactate synthase (ALS), from Manitoba in 1992 and Alberta in 1993; ii) Group 4 herbicides or synthetic auxins from Manitoba in 1991; and iii) Group 5 herbicides, which inhibit photosynthesis at photosystem II, from Ontario in 1983. The species is a close relative of Brassica nigra (L.) Koch, black mustard, and is capable of limited genetic exchange with the Brassica crop species under laboratory hybridization conditions either by conventional crossing or with the aid of ovary/embryo recovery techniques.
Article
Rhizosphere dynamics have been widely investigated since the beginning of last century but little attention has been paid to process-based rhizosphere management at an agroecosystem level. High inputs, high outputs, low nutrient use efficiency, and increasing environmental pressure are typical characteristics of intensive farming systems in China. Achievement of high nutrient use efficiency and high crop productivity together is a major challenge for sustainability of Chinese intensive agriculture. Over the last 20 years crop yield has not increased proportionately with increasing fertilizer inputs, leading to low nutrient use efficiency and increasing environmental risk. Traditional nutrient management is highly dependent on the external fertilizer inputs but ignores exploiting the intrinsic biological potential of rhizosphere processes for efficient mobilization and acquisition of soil nutrients by crops. Several successful case studies on rhizosphere processes and management have been summarized in this chapter, and the results demonstrate that rhizosphere management provides a unique opportunity to harmonize crop productivity, nutrient efficiency, and environmental impact. Rhizosphere management strategies emphasize maximizing the efficiency of root and rhizosphere processes in nutrient acquisition and use by crops rather than solely depending on excessive application of chemical fertilizers. The strategies mainly include manipulating root system, rhizosphere acidification, carboxylate exudation, microbial associations with plants, rhizosphere interactions in terms of intercropping and rotation, localized application of nutrients, use of efficient crop genotypes, and synchronizing rhizosphere nutrient supply with crop demands. Rhizosphere management has been proved to be an effective approach to increasing nutrient use efficiency and crop productivity for sustainable agricultural production.