Grain Yield and Economic Benefit of Intercropping Barley and Faba Bean in the Highlands of Southern Ethiopia
Downloads
Abstract: Farmers in the highland areas of southern Ethiopia own less cultivable land. Barley and faba bean are important crops in the southern highlands of Ethiopia. However, rapid population growth in the region, which has led to scarcity of cultivable land, is threatening cultivation of these crops. Therefore, farmers often resort to alternative ways of maximizing crop yields from the small plots of land they own through intercropping. However, little empirical information is available on the agronomic and economic benefits obtained from intercropping barley and faba bean as well as on the influence of pattern of intercropping the two crops on productivity. Thus, a study was conducted during 2011 and 2012 years to evaluate the effect of barley (Ba)-faba bean (Fb) intercrop on yield, yield related traits and economic benefit in the highlands of southern Ethiopia. The treatments consisted of planting patterns of one (1Fb), two (2Fb) and three (3Fb) rows of faba bean combined with one (1Ba), two (2Ba) and three (3Ba) rows of barley. The experiment was laid out as a randomized complete block design in a factorial arrangement with three replications per treatment. Data were collected on a number of plant parameters on both crops. The results indicated that there were significant main effects of year and planting pattern on grain, straw and total biomass yields, harvest index and net income of barley. The number of barley seeds per spike was significantly influenced by the main effect of year, and was 12% less in 2011 than in 2012. Grain yield of barley in 2011 was 67% more than in 2012 while straw and total biomass yields were 45 and 23% less, respectively. Intercropping of 1Faba bean: 1Barley yielded 2176 kg ha-1 grain, HI of 96%, LER of 1.56, system productivity index of 3013, better monetary benefit of 9056 Ethiopian birr, and additional land benefit of 36% over the control treatment. Intercropping in this pattern also produced 91% more energy and significantly more income (167%) compared to sole crop barley. Intercropping of 1Faba bean: 1Barley, 1Faba bean: 2Barley and 1Faba bean: 3Barley yielded 52 to 79% less grain of faba bean than sole faba bean. The productivity of barley-faba bean intercrop was more (LER>1) and varied between 32 and 56%. In conclusion, this study indicated that farmers with subsistence and low-input farming can benefit more from intercropping of one row of faba bean combined with one, two and three rows of barley in terms of productivity and economic benefit.
Â
Keywords: Land equivalent ratio; Land benefit; Monetary benefit; Planting pattern; System productivity index; Row ratioAndersen, M. K., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Weiner, J. and Jensen, E. T. 2007. Competitive dynamics in two-and three-component intercrops. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44: 545-551.
Babatunde, F. E. 2003. Intercrop productivity of roselle in Nigeria. African Crop Science Journal, 11: 43-47.
Benincasa, P., Pace, R., Tosti, G. and Tei, F. 2012. Early inter-specific interference in the wheat/faba bean and rapeseed/squarrosum clover intercrops. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 7: 171-177.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2014 Agricultural Sample survey, 2013/2014, vol I. Report on Area and production of major crops (private peasant holdings, meher season). Statistical bulletin, 532. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Dordas, C. A., Viachostergios, D. N. and Lithourgidis, A. S. 2012. Growth dynamics and agronomic benefits of pea-oat and pea-barley intercrops. Crop and Pasture Science, 63 (1): 45-52.
Eslami-Khalili, F., Piradashti, H. and Motaghian, A. 2011. Evaluation of barley and faba bean yield in different density and mixture intercropping via competition indices. Agro-ecology Spring, 3 (1): 94-105.
Esmaeili, A., Sadeghpour, A., Hosseini, S.M.B., Jahanzad, E., Chaichi, M.R. and Hashemi, M. 2011. Evaluation of seed yiled and competition indices for intercropped barley and annual medic. International Journal of Plant Production, 5 (4): 1735-8043.
Eskandari, H., Ghanbari, A. and Javanmard, A. 2009. Intercropping of Cereals and Legumes for Forage Production. Natural Science Biology, 1 (1): 07-13.
FAO/UNESCO. 1988. FAO/UNESCO soil map of the world, revised legend. World soil resources report 60. Food and Agriculture organization, Rome, Italy.
Fujita, K., Ogata, S., Matsumoto, K., Masuda, T., Ofosu-Budu, K. G. and Kuwata, K. 1990. Nitrogen transfer and dry matter production in soybean and sorghum mixed cropping systems at different population densities. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition, 36: 233-241.
Getachew, A., Amare, G. and Woldeyesus S. 2006. Yield performance and land use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. European Journal of Agronomy, 25: 202-207.
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. Second edition. John Wiley and Sons. New York, Brisbane
Headey, D., Dereje, M., Ricker-Gilbert, J., Josephson, A. and Taffesse, A. S. 2013. Land constraints and agricultural intensification in Ethiopia: Village-level analysis of high potential areas. International food policy research institute (IFPRI) discussion paper 01290, September 2013.
IFPRI (International food policy research institute). 2010. Fertilizer and Soil Fertility Potential in Ethiopia: Constraints and opportunities for enhancing the system Sustainable solutions for ending hunger and poverty. Supported by CGIAR.
Knudsen, M. T., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Jornsgard, B. and Jensen, E.S. 2004. Comparison of inter-specific competition and N use in pea-barley, faba bean-barley and lupin-barley intercrops gown at two temperate locations. Journal of Agricultural Science, 142: 617-627.
Kopke, U and Nemecek, T. 2010. Ecological services of faba bean. Field Crps Res., 115: 217-233.
Landon, J. R. 1984. Booker Tropical Soil Manual: a handbook for soil survey and agricultural land evaluation in the tropics and subtropics. Booker Agriculture International limited, UK.
Mariotti, M., Masoni, A., Ercoli, L. and Arduini, I. 2006. Forage potential of winter cereal/legume intercrops in organic farming. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 3: 403-412.
MoARD (Ministry of Agriculture and Development). Crop Development Department. 2007. Crop variety register. Issue No. 10. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Papastylianou, I., Puckridgem, D. W. and Carter, E. D. 1981. Nitrogen nutrition of cereals in a short-term rotation. I. Single season treatments as a source of nitrogen for subsequent cereal crops. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 32 (5): 703-712.
Pristeri, A., Tortorella, D., Scalise, A., Preiti, G., Gelsomino, A. and Monti, M. 2012. Agronomic evaluation of legume-barley intercropping systems in a Mediterranean dry area. Legume Futures-Annual Meeting, Athens, 26-29 March2012.
Reynolds, M. P., Sayre, K. D. and Vivar, H. E. 1994. Intercropping wheat and barley with N-fixing legume species: a method for improving ground cover, N-use efficiency and productivity in low-input systems. Journal of Agricultural Science, 123: 175-183.
Sadeghpour, A., Jahanzad, A., Esmaeili, M. B., Hosseini, M. and Hashemi, M. 2013. Forage yield, quality, and economic benefits of intercropped barley and annual medic in semi-arid condition: Additive Series. Field Crops Research, 148: 43-48.
Sadeghpour, A., Jahanzad, A. S., Lithourgidis, M., Hashemi, A., Esmaeili, M. B. and Hosseini, M. 2014. Forage yield and quality of barley-annual medic intercrops in semi-arid environments. International Journal of Plant Production, 8 (1): 77-89.
SAS institute. 2000. SAS user’s guide. 8.2 editions. SAS insti., Cary, NC.
Strydhorst, S. M., King, J. R., Lopetinsky, J. and Neil Harker K. 2008. Forage potential of intercropping with faba bean, lupin, or field pea. Agronomy Journal, 100 (1): 182-190.
Takim, F. O. 2012. Advantages of maize-cowpea intercropping over sole cropping through competition indices. Journal of Agricultural Biodiversity Research, 1 (4): 53-59.
Tenaw, W., Husni, M. H. A., Anuar, A. R., and Rahman, Z. A. 2006. Effect of coffee residue and intercropping on soil physicochemical properties and yield of component crops in southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Natural Research, 8 (2): 199-216.
Tsubo, M., Ogindo, H. O. and Walker, S. 2004. Yield evaluation of maize-bean intercropping in a semi-arid region of South Africa. African Crop Science Journal, 12: 351-358.
Willey, R. W. 1979. Intercropping: its importance and research needs. Part I. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crops Abstract (Research), 32 (1): 2-10.
Workayehu, T. and Wortmann, C. S. 2011. Maize-bean intercrop weed suppression and profitability in southern Ethiopia. Agronomy Journal, 103 (4): 1058-1063.
Yilmaz, S. Atak, M. and Erayman, M. 2008. Identification of advantages of maize-legume intercropping over solitary cropping through competition indices in the east Mediterranean region. Turkey Journal of Agricultural Forestry, 32: 111-119.
Copyright (c) 2017 Tenaw Workayehu, Legesse Hidoto, Gobeze Loha
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
- I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- I warrant, on behalf of myself and my co-authors, that:
- the article is original, has not been formally published in any other peer-reviewed journal, is not under consideration by any other journal and does not infringe any existing copyright or any other third party rights;
- I am/we are the sole author(s) of the article and have full authority to enter into this agreement and in granting rights to Springer are not in breach of any other obligation;
- the article contains nothing that is unlawful, libellous, or which would, if published, constitute a breach of contract or of confidence or of commitment given to secrecy;
- I/we have taken due care to ensure the integrity of the article. To my/our - and currently accepted scientific - knowledge all statements contained in it purporting to be facts are true and any formula or instruction contained in the article will not, if followed accurately, cause any injury, illness or damage to the user.
- I, and all co-authors, agree that the article, if editorially accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. If the law requires that the article be published in the public domain, I/we will notify Springer at the time of submission, and in such cases the article shall be released under the Creative Commons 1.0 Public Domain Dedication waiver. For the avoidance of doubt it is stated that sections 1 and 2 of this license agreement shall apply and prevail regardless of whether the article is published under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 or the Creative Commons 1.0 Public Domain Dedication waiver.
- I, and all co-authors, agree that, if the article is editorially accepted for publication in Haramaya Journals, data included in the article shall be made available under the Creative Commons 1.0 Public Domain Dedication waiver, unless otherwise stated. For the avoidance of doubt it is stated that sections 1, 2, and 3 of this license agreement shall apply and prevail.
