Chickpea and Wild mustard as Influenced by Intercropping in Different Row Proportions

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted at Grdarasha Experimental Farm / College of Agricultural Engineering Sciences / Salahaddin University-Erbil, located at (36.2 o N, 44.1 o E and elevation 470 m) during the winter season of (2016-2017) to study the performance of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) in intercropping. Seven treatments were initialized from combination of either single, double or triple (row: species) were arranged in a standard replacement series. Aiming to study growth, yield and yield component of wheat (A), chickpea (B) in the presence of the invading wild mustard weed (C), which is the common invader weed in the area. Wheat species possessed the highest significant mean values of plant height (123.0 cm), spike length (13.9 cm), grain yield (182.0 g plant-1), straw yield (752.5 g plant-1), while wild mustard showed superiority in all studied traits except in silique length and grain number. silique-1 .

Full text

ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences
The official scientific journal of Salahaddin University-Erbil
https://zancojournals.su.edu.krd/index.php/JPAS
ISSN (print ):2218-0230, ISSN (online): 2412-3986, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21271/zjpas
RESEARCH
PAPER
Growth, Yield and Yield Components of Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.),
Chickpea and Wild mustard as Influenced by Intercropping in Different Row
Proportions
Aryan S. A. Dizayee1*, Sami Mohammad Amin Maaroof 2
1&2Department of Field Crops, College of Agricultural Engineering Sciences, Salahaddin University-Erbil, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
A B S T R A C T:
A field experiment was conducted at Grdarasha Experimental Farm / College of Agricultural Engineering Sciences /
Salahaddin University – Erbil, located at (36.2o N, 44.1o E and elevation 470 m) during the winter season of (2016-2017) to study
the performance of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis L.) in
intercropping. Seven treatments were initialized from combination of either single, double or triple (row: species) were arranged
in a standard replacement series. Aiming to study growth, yield and yield component of wheat (A), chickpea (B) in the presence of
the invading wild mustard weed (C), which is the common invader weed in the area. Wheat species possessed the highest
significant mean values of plant height (123.0 cm), spike length (13.9 cm), grain yield (182.0 g plant-1), straw yield (752.5 g plant-
1), while wild mustard showed superiority in all studied traits except in silique length and grain number. silique-1.
KEY
WO
R
D
S:
Intercropping, Growth, Yield Components, Relative yield, Row: Species Ratio.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21271/ZJPAS.32.1.13
ZJPAS (2020) , 32(1);115-126 .
1. INTRODUCTION
In the developing countries at tropic and
sub tropic regions, lands are often utilized by a
special method called intercropping where as two
or more crops are grown simultaneously on the
tract (Shaker and Nasrollahzadeh, 2014). Bybee-
Finley and Ryan (2018) confirmed the legacy of
traditional practice of the intercropping pattern
throughout the history to increase yield then to
insure optimal instinctive use of land in
sustainable agriculture. Wheat (Triticum aestivum
L.) is one of the most important crops in terms of
cultivated area and productivity, due to the
excellent control over weed invasion (Siyahpoosh
et al., 2012).
The mineral nutrition significantly
contributed in increasing crop yields during the
20th century. (Khursheed and Mahammad, 2015).
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is important pulses
food, which is traditionally grown under rain-fed
environmental conditions in most parts in the
world and it is belong to the family Leguminaceae
(Erdemci, 2018). Cicer arietinum L. is the main
crops that have a role in fixed nitrogen in the
nodules of the root, through its role in soil fertility
(Qader, 2019). Wild mustard (Sinapsis arvensis
L.) is an annual winter plant which belongs to
Brassicacea or Crusiferea plant family it has
indeterminate upright growth and may reach a
height of more than two and a half meter. This
weed proliferates extreme spreading through
producing thousands of seeds, which are assisted
by the valuable tropical and subtropical weather
(Siyahpoosh et al., 2012). Weed-crop competition
studies possessed many scenarios or experimental
designs. Any one of them has a critical importance
* Corresponding Author:
Aryan Suad Ahmad Dizayee
E-mail: aryan.ahmed@su.edu.krd
Article History:
Received: 01/07/2019
Accepted: 02/10/2019
Published: 25/02 /2020

Dizayee. A. and Maaroof.S/ZJPAS: 2020, 32 (1): 115-126
116
ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 2020
(Rejmanek et al., 1989). Harper (1977), noted that
the replacement design is an effective way
particularity in the study of the interference
between two species of plant crops. However,
additive design is widely used to study the
competition between the weeds and crops (Aziz,
1991; Wilcox, 1995; Ali, 2000; Bhan and Froud,
2005). In replacement series total plant density is
kept fixed within a special care to plant geometry.
Total density of all the crops involved in the
design was constant. In other word, when the
density of one crop components increases or
decreases, the density of the other crops changes
to maintain a constant total for all partial crop
densities seeking for optimizing yield levels
(Kaushik et al., 2016). Sharma et al., (1986) in the
other hand detected significant effects of plant
density on intercropped plants of wheat and
mustard. Intercropping of wheat and mustard
according to (Singh and Pal, 1994) reduces their
seed yield comparing to their pure stands. Yield
and yield components of wheat were significantly
affected by intercropping of chickpea, lentil and
rapeseed (Malik et al., 1998). Intercropping can
increase the productivity of both yield and grain
quality by integrating the use of water, fertilizer,
space, and other resources (Thorsted et al., 2006;
Lithourgidis et al., 2011). Selection of suitable
cultivars and sowing time plays an important role
in obtaining higher yields due to good utilizing of
residual soil moisture and nutrients from the soil
(Mandal et al., 1996; Sekhar et al., 2015; Kaushik
et al., 2016). Cultivation of chickpea with cereal
crops (barley, wheat, etc.) or oilseed (mustard,
linseed, etc.) is well known to farmers of non-
insured rain fed areas (Poddar et al., 2017). The
importance of intercropping is the possibility of
increasing the quantity and improving the quality
not only by increasing production costs; but also
by modifying farm management (Willey, 1979).
Intercropping facilitates different resources of
returns to the farmer from the same land, and
reduces crop failure risk of a mono-cropping when
susceptible to ecological and economical
fluctuations. This approach was backed by (Khan
et al., 2005). The objective of this study was to
evaluate the effect of intercropping and row ratios
on some growth parameters and yield components
of wheat, chickpea and wild mustard.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiment was carried out at
Grdarasha Research Farm, College of Agricultural
Engineering Sciences / Salahaddin University / in
Erbil-Iraq (36.2º N, 44.1º E and elevation 470 m
above the mean sea level). In single, double, and
triple (row: species) arrangements were used in a
standard replacement series to maintain a total
number of 6 rows, which forms seven (row: ratio)
consortia. Each group represents one
intercropping mixture treatment. Combinations
were repeated 3 times to form sixty three units of
2 m rows length and 0.2 m inter-row spacing
forming an area of 4.8 m2. Each treatment was
duplicated to avoid any probable risk. The
experiment was planned based on the Randomized
Complete Block Design (RCBD). Wheat (A),
chickpea (B) and wild mustard (C) were sown
solely or in 1, 2, 3 rows out of 6 rows per each
treatment. They form triple (row: crop) ratios
named 1A:2B:3C, 1A:3B:2C, 2A:1B:3C,
2A:2B:2C, 2A:3B:1C, 3A:1B:2C and 3A:2B:1C,
respectively plus three sole crops as control
treatments. Data are represented by error bars with
standard error labeled by (Duncan, 1975) letters
for 5% significance. Samples were taken from air
dried soil in the field at a depth (0 - 30 cm), and
then analyzed for some physical and chemical
properties as shown in (Table 1). The recorded
rainfall during the growing period from (Nov.
2016 to May. 2017) was 218 mm. The seeds were
sown in rows on November 26th 2016. Manual
weed control repeated twice. Planting densities
were chose based on the recommendations of the
competent local agricultural authorities. However,
wild mustard density was adopted according to its
natural abundance in the region as 175, 63 and 38
plants/m2 for wheat, chickpea and wild mustard
respectively. Seeds of the competitor plant species
were obtained from the Directorate of Agricultural
Research Station, Erbil.

Dizayee. A. and Maaroof.S/ZJPAS: 2020, 32 (1): 115-126
117
ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 2020
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Days to Flowering
The results of analysis of variance in
figure (1) showed that chickpea plant had
significant response to number of days to
flowering. The highest number was recorded in
the mix-consortium 2:3:1 (134.7 days), while
1:2:3 row consortia recorded lowest number of
days (129.3). In addition wheat and mustard didn’t
obtain any significant differences among all
treatments.
Figure 1: Effect of intercropped species on number of days to flowering.
3.2. Plant Height (cm)
Plant height is an important growth
parameter that is affected by genetic and
environmental variation. The result in figure (2)
indicates the existence of significant differences
among all studied factors. The greater plant height
(123.0 cm) was showed in the treatments where
chickpea and wild mustard was intercropped in
1:2:3 ratios. The wheat recorded minimum plant
height of (110.2 cm) at pure stands. Chickpea
possessed (77.7 cm) taller plant at 3:1:2 ratio, in
addition wild mustard (130.2 cm) the highest
mean when planted at 2:3:1 row species consortia.
This result is in agreement with the findings of
Mandal (1991), who noticed intercropping legume
crops significantly increased wheat plant height.

Dizayee. A. and Maaroof.S/ZJPAS: 2020, 32 (1): 115-126
118
ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 2020
Figure 2: Effect of intercropped species on plant height (cm).
3.3. Number of tillers or branches plant -1
Number of wheat tillers and mustard
branches responded significantly to mix-culture as
they produced (3.3 tillers. plant-1) tiller for wheat
and (17.7 branches. plant-1) for mustard at
consortia 1:2:3, 1:3:2 and 2:3:1 respectively
superior to their pure stands, in addition chickpea
obtained the highest mean value (6.0 branches.
plant-1) in pure stand, while the lowest value (3.7
branch. plant-1) in mix-consortia 132 ratio (Figure
3). Lemerle et al., (2001), note that the number of
tillers is the most important yield component in
wheat, which reduced with increase competition
of weeds. Armin et al. (2011) has reported that in
condition of competition for nutrients, water and
light availability, it will restrict the plant growth
and reducing number of tiller per plant. Similar
results also found by (Marof, 2008; Marof, 2013).
Figure 3: Effect of intercropped species on number of tiller or branch.plant-1.

Dizayee. A. and Maaroof.S/ZJPAS: 2020, 32 (1): 115-126
119
ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 2020
3.4. Spike or Pod Length (cm)
Statistical analysis of the data figure (4)
revealed that chickpea shows non-significant
affects in length of reproductive organs pods.
However wheat plant recorded longest mean
values of (13.9 cm) was possessed in the treatment
where wheat was intercropped with chickpea and
wild mustard in 1:3:2 ratio, while the smallest was
(12.3 cm) planted at 1:2:3 mix consortia. Mustard
recorded the longest silique length in the treatment
3:1:2 (2.7 cm), whereas the smallest mean was
(2.3 cm) in the treatment 2:1:3 row ratio. Karim
and Mamun (1988) reported that competition
leads to reduced length of leaves which eventually
caused the process of photosynthesis that provided
less absorption than required to produce natural
spike. These results are in agreement with the
findings reported by (Nazir et al., 1988; Malik et
al., 2002; Sinha et al., 2009).
Figure 4: Effect of intercropped species on spike or pod length (cm).
3.5. Grain Number per Spike or Pod
All three competitor plant species in all
mix and pure stands showed significant variation
number of grain per spike or per pod and silique.
The most number of grain was obtained of wheat
plant (63.7) at 1:3:2, while the lower mean value
was (52.3) in mix-consortia 3:1:2. Chickpea and
wild mustard possessed the higher mean value
(48.0 and 16.0) in the treatment 1:2:3 and 3:2:1
row ratio, followed by the lower mean was (37.0
and 12.3) in the mix-consortia 3:1:2 and 2:3:1
ratio (Figure 5).

Dizayee. A. and Maaroof.S/ZJPAS: 2020, 32 (1): 115-126
120
ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 2020
Figure 5: Effect of intercropped species on grain number per spike or pod.
3.6. Days to Maturity
The data Postulated in figure (6) confirm
non-significant differences P ≥ 0.05 in the time
period required to maturity in general. The highest
number was (172.7) showed of wheat at 2:1:3
ratio, followed by mustard weed by (142.7) in
2:2:2 mix- consortium compared with pure stands.
The decrease in the length of the plant cycle under
rain conditions is one of the main effects of water
deficits. (Thompson and Chase 1992), these
results are also supported by (Naeem Khan et al.,
2002; Hassani et al., 2006).
Figure 6: Effect of intercropped species on number of days to maturity.

Dizayee. A. and Maaroof.S/ZJPAS: 2020, 32 (1): 115-126
121
ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 2020
3.7. Grain Yield (g). m-2
Grain yield displayed in figure (7) shows a
wide variation, the highest mean values was
(182.0 g. m-2) in the mix consortia 1:2:3, whereas
the lowest were at (78.2 g. m-2) in the pure stands
of wheat plants. The highest chickpea were (82.4
g. m-2) when intercropped with wheat and mustard
at 2:2:2 ratio, but the lowest value was (54.6 g. m-
2) in the 3:1:2 row consortia. Wild mustard at pure
stand recorded (54.9 g. m-2) which was the highest
mean value, while 3:1:2 row consortium recorded
lowest value (28.9 g. m-2). There has been a
decline in grain yield due to the physiological and
morphological characteristics of wheat and weeds
that have led to a similar convergence towards the
use of natural resources towards final
photosynthesis (Sinha et al., 2009).
Figure 7: Effect of intercropped species on grain yield (g). m-2.
3.8. Straw Yield (g). m-2
Figure (8) revealed that straw yield
recorded highest significant mean value of wheat
in the mix stand 1:2:3 was (752.5 g. m-2), whereas
the lowest value was (385.7 g. m-2) in the pure
stand. Wild mustard cultivated produced higher
straw yield (211.9 g. m-2) in the pure stand
over all mix-consortia. However chickpea plants
showed non-significant effected on mean straw
yield over all studied treatments. Hossain et al.
(2010), suggested that straw yield decreases with
increased competition for weeds, because the
plant cannot take more light for photosynthesis
and tillage production, while disagree results were
noted by (Marof, 2008).

Dizayee. A. and Maaroof.S/ZJPAS: 2020, 32 (1): 115-126
122
ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 2020
Figure 8: Effect of intercropped species on straw yield (g). m-2.
3.9. Biological Yield (g). m-2
Biological yield is correlated with plant
height and number of tillers. The data presented in
figure (9) shows that chickpea and wild mustard
possessed the highest mean value (233.1 and
266.7 g. m-2) in 2:2:2 mix and pure stand
respectively. In addition 3:1:2 row mix-consortia
recorded the lowest value which was (155.5 and
171.8 g. m-2) respectively. Additionally wheat
plant didn’t possess any significant differences
over all mix and pure stands in this trait.
Figure 9: Effect of intercropped species on biological yield (g). m-2.

Dizayee. A. and Maaroof.S/ZJPAS: 2020, 32 (1): 115-126
123
ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 2020
3.10. Harvest Index
The results of harvest index displayed in
figure (10) the higher mean value of cultivated
chickpea was (0.38) in pure-stand, whereas the
lowest was recorded at 2:3:1 which was (0.33).
The maximum was for mustard provided (0.20) in
mix consortia 1:2:3 and pure stand respectively.
However, wheat plant showed no significant
differences among all studied treatments.
Figure 10: Effect of intercropped species on harvest index.
3.11. Relative Yield and Relative Yield Total
The data presented in figure (11) turns out
that partial relative yield of chickpea and mustard
plant scored highest significant mean value 1.102
in mix consortium 2:2:2 and 0.979 in 1:2:3 mix
consortia over pure stands, while wheat plant
didn’t scored any significant effects. Total relative
yield scored higher mean value 1.414 in mix
consortia 1:2:3 and lower mean value 1.098 in
2:3:1 mix consortium.

Dizayee. A. and Maaroof.S/ZJPAS: 2020, 32 (1): 115-126
124
ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 2020
Figure 11: Effect of intercropped species on relative yield and relative yield total.
Table (2): The analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the effect of intercropped species on growth, yield and yield
components.
Crop
Source DF
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
Parameters
Wheat
Days to flowering
14
7
2
0.857
0.559
Plant height (cm)
394.8
7
56.4
3.091
0.029
N. of tiller. plant-1
9.052
7
1.293
3.119
0.028
Spike length (cm)
5.166
7
0.738
1.665
0.188
Grain number. spike-1
260
7
37.143
2.19
0.092
Days to maturity
10.5
7
1.5
0.643
0.715
Grain yield g. m-2
22390.3
7
3198.61
2.314
0.078
Straw yield g. m-2
295105
7
42157.8
5.454
0.002
Biological yield g. m-2
476683
7
68097.6
4.544
0.006
Harvest index
0.002
7
0
0.581
0.762
Chickpea
Days to flowering
54.5
7
7.786
1.797
0.157
Plant height (cm)
287.265
7
41.038
1.992
0.12
N. of branch. plant-1
11.958
7
1.708
1.864
0.143
Pod length (cm)
0.516
7
0.074
1.351
0.291
Grain number. pod-1
283.958
7
40.565
1.732
0.172
Days to maturity
43.833
7
6.262
0.737
0.645
Grain yield g. m-2
1290.05
7
184.293
1.007
0.462
Straw yield g. m-2
4445.96
7
635.137
0.971
0.484

Dizayee. A. and Maaroof.S/ZJPAS: 2020, 32 (1): 115-126
125
ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 2020
Biological yield g. m-2
9765.76
7
1395.11
0.917
0.519
Harvest index
0.005
7
0.001
13.321
0
Wild
Mustard
Days to flowering
79.167
7
11.31
1.299
0.312
Plant height (cm)
952.213
7
136.03
4.448
0.006
N. of branch. plant-1
33.292
7
4.756
5.188
0.003
Silique length (cm)
0.576
7
0.082
1.317
0.304
Grain number. silique-1
26.625
7
3.804
1.049
0.437
Days to maturity
202
7
28.857
0.63
0.725
Grain yield g. m-2
2492.85
7
356.121
5.316
0.003
Straw yield g. m-2
18298
7
2614
5.313
0.003
Biological yield g. m-2
34028.4
7
4861.19
5.665
0.002
Harvest index
0.006
7
0.001
2.904
0.037
Significant occurs when P ≤ 0.05
4. CONCLUSIONS
Intercropping could reduce the yield of
mustard to about 30% compared to the yield in its
sole cropping. Wheat and chickpea did not show
any reciprocal significant harm effects on each
other.
Acknowledgements
I heartily thank Field Crops Department,
Agricultural Engineering Sciences College, and
Salahaddin University - Erbil for their help
towards successful completion of the work.
REFERENCES
Ali, Z., Malik, M.A. and Cheema, M.A. 2000. Studies on
determining a suitable canola-wheat intercropping
pattern. International Journal of Agriculture and
Biology, 2(1-2), pp.42-44.
Armin, M., H. gholami and H. Miri. 2011. Effect of Plant
Density and Nitrogen Rate on Yield and Yield
Components of Wheat in Wild oat-Infested
Condition. Advances in Environmental Biology,
5(10): 3084-3090.
Aziz, F.H. 1991. Studies on the effect of timing of fertilizer
additions on the competition within and between
wheat and syrian cephalaria different plant
densities. (Zanko) Sci. J. Salahaddin Univ., 4(3):
35-56.
Bhan, A. and R.J. Froud-Williams. 2005. Phalaris spp.
competition with wheat using an additive design
series. 15th Austr. Weeds Conf., 417-419.
Bybee-Finley, K. and Ryan, M. 2018. Advancing
Intercropping Research and Practices in
Industrialized Agricultural
Landscapes. Agriculture, 8(6), p.80.
Duncan, D.B., 1975. T tests and intervals for comparisons
suggested by the data. Biometrics, pp.339-359.
Erdemci, I., 2018. Investigation of genotype× environment
interaction in Chickpea genotypes using AMMI
and GGE biplot analysis. Turkish Journal Of Field
Crops, 23(1), pp.20-26.
Harper, J.L., 1977. Population biology of plants. Academic
Press London. PP: 892.
Hassani, H.S.; S.M. Reader and T.E. Miller. 2006.
Agronomical and Adaptation Characters of
Tritipyrum lines in comparison with Triticale and
Iranian Wheat. Asian J. PL.Sci.5 (3): 553-58.
Hossain, A., M.A.S. Chowdhury, T. Jahan, M.A.I. Sarker
and M.M.Akhter. 2010. Competitive ability of
wheat cultivars against weeds. Bangl. J. Weed Sci.,
1(1): 63-70.
Karim, S.M.R. and A.A. Mamun. 1988. Crop-weed
competition: Analysis of some perspectives.
Bangladesh J. Agril. Sci. 15(1): 65-73.
Kaushik, S.S., Singh, D.V., Rai, A.K., Sharma, A.K. and
Negi, R.S. 2016. Response of intercropping and
different row ratios on growth and yield of wheat
(Triticum aestivum) under rainfed condition of
kaymore plateau. 5: PP.15-19.
Khan, M., Khan, R.U., Wahab, A. and Rashid, A. 2005.
Yield and yield components of wheat as influenced
by intercropping of chickpea, lentil and rapeseed in
different proportions. Pak. J. Agric. Sci, 42, pp.1-3.
Khursheed, M.Q. and Mahammad, M.Q. 2015. Effect of
different nitrogen fertilizers on growth and yield of
wheat. ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied
Sciences, 27(5), pp.19-28.
Lemerle, D., G.S. Gill, C.E. Murphy, S.R. Walker, R.D.
Cousens, S. Mokhtari, S.J. Peltzer, R. Coleman and
D.J. Luckett. 2001. Genetic improvement and
agronomy for enhanced wheat competitiveness
with weeds. Aust. J. of Agric. Res., 52(5): 527-548.

Dizayee. A. and Maaroof.S/ZJPAS: 2020, 32 (1): 115-126
126
ZANCO Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences 2020
Lithourgidis AS, Dordas CA, Damalas CA, Vlachostergios
DN. 2011. Annual intercrops: an alternative
pathway for sustainable agriculture. Aust J Crop
Sci 5:396–410.
Malik, M.A., F. Hassan and I. Aziz. 2002. Feasibility of
intercropping lentil and lathyrus in wheat under
rainfed condition. Pak. J. Arid Agric. 5(1): 13-16.
Malik, M.A., Hayat, M.A., Ahmad, S. and Haq, I. 1998.
Intercropping of lential, gram and rape in wheat
under rainfed conditions. Sarhad Journal of
Agriculture (Pakistan). 14: 417-421.
Mandal, B.K., Das, D., Saha, A. and Mohasin, M. 1996.
Yield advantage of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and
chickpea (Cicer arietinum) under different spatial
arrangements in intercropping. Indian Journal of
Agronomy, 41(1), pp.17-21.
Mandal, B.K., Dasgupta, S. and Ray, P.K.1985. Effect of
intercropping on yield components of wheat, chick
pea and mustard under different moisture
regimes. Zeitschrift fur Acker-und Pflanzenbau,
Journal of agronomy and crop science. 155: 261-
267.
Mandal, B.K., S. Dasgupta and P.K. Roy. 1991. Effect of
intercropping on yield components of wheat,
chickpea and mustard under different moisture
regimes. Field Crop Absts., 39(10): 7025.
Marof, S.M.A. 2008. Competitive interference between
triticale x Triticosecale Rimpaui Wittmac and
wheat Triticum spp. L. under two environmental
conditions. Ph.D. Desertation. Coll. of Agric.
Salahddin University. PP: 181.
Marof, S.M.A. 2013. Utilizing of new models to predict
wheat yield losses due to weed competition.
Kerkuk University, Agric. Coll. 2nd Sci. Confe. for
Agric. Res., PP: 57-62.
Naeem Khan,A.Jan, A.K. Ijaz, M.A. Khan and Ihsanulla.
2002. Response of wheat cultivers to varying
seeding rates under rainfed conditions Asian J.PI.
Sci. 1(4):343-345.
Nazir, M.S., H.R. Khan, G. Ali and R. Ahmad. 1988.
Inter/relay cropping in wheat planted in multi-row
strips at uniform plant population. Pak. J. Agric.
Res. 9(3): 305-309.
Poddar, R., Kundu, R. and Kumar, S. 2017. Assessment of
Chickpea-Spices Intercropping Productivity Using
Competitive Indices Under Irrigated Conditions of
Haryana. Agricultural Research, 6(3), pp.241-247.
Qader, H.R. 2019. Influence combination of Fruits Peel and
Fertilizer Methods on growth and yield of
Chickpea (Cicer areitinum) L. Plants. ZANCO
Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 31(3), pp.
45-51.
Rejmánek, M., Robinson, G.R. and Rejmankova, E. 1989.
Weed-crop competition: experimental designs and
models for data analysis. Weed Science, 37(2),
pp.276-284.
Sekhar, D., Kumar, P.P. and Rao, K.T. 2015. Performance
of chickpea varieties under different dates of
sowing in high altitude zone of Andhra Pradesh,
India. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci, 4(8),
pp.329-332.
Shaker-Koohi, S. and Nasrollahzadeh, S. 2014. Evaluation
of yield and advantage indices of sorghum
(Sorghum bicolor L.) and mungbean (Vigna radiate
L.) intercropping systems. International Journal of
Advanced Biological and Biomedical
Research, 2(1), pp.151-160.
Sharma, K.C., Sing, Y., Gupta, P.C., Tripathy, S.K.,
Bhardwaj, A.K. and Singh, S.P. 1986. Plant
population and spatial arrangement in wheat-
mustard intercropping. Indian J. Agron, 31, pp.154-
157.
Singh, O. and Pal, M. 1994. Performance of wheat+ mustard
intercropping system in limited irrigation
conditions. Ann. Agric. Res, 15, pp.255-259.
Sinha, N.K., D. Singh and D.K. Roy. 2009. Economic
threshold levels of little seed canary grass in wheat
in north Bihar. Indian J. of Weed Sci., 41(3&4):
154-156.
Siyahpoosh, A., Fathi, G.A., Zand, E., ata Siadat, S.,
Bakhshande, A. and Gharineh, M.H. 2012.
Competitiveness of Different Densities of Two
Wheat Cultivars with Wild Mustard Weed Species
(Sinapis arvensis) in Different Densities. World
Applied Sciences Journal, 20(5), pp.748-752.
Thompson, J.A. and D.L.Chase. 1992. Effect of limited
irrigation on growth and yield of a semi-dwarf
wheat in southern New South Wales. Australian J.
of experimental Agriculture. East Melboume, V :
30, p 727-730.
Thorsted MD, Weiner J, Olesen JE. 2006. Above- and
belowground competition between intercropped
winter wheat Triticum aestivum and white clover
Trifolium repens. J Appl Ecol 43:237–245.
Wilcox, D.H. 1995. Models of interference in monocultures
and mixtures of wheat and quack grass. Ph.D.
Dissertation. Univ. of Manitoba. PP: 34-45.
Willey RW. 1979. Intercropping, its importance and
research needs. Part-I. Competition and yield
advantages. Field Crop Abstr 32(1): 1-10.