A two-year study was carried out at Ismailia Agricultural Research Station, Egypt during 2016 and 2017 summer seasons to evaluate competitive effects of intercropping sunflower and peanut under different drip irrigation water amounts and K fertilizer rates for increasing farmer profitability. Three irrigation amounts (70%, 100% and 120% ETo), three K fertilizer levels (57, 86 and 114 K 2O kg/ha) and four intercropping patterns of sunflower and peanut (different spatial arrangements) were implemented. The experimental design was strip split plot with three replications. The results showed that there were no significant differences between 100% and 120% ETo on most of yield traits of the intercrops. The highest K fertilizer level had the highest values of most yield traits of the intercrops. The highest values of peanut and sunflower traits were obtained from intercropping sunflower with peanut, where peanut seeds were sown on both sides of all the raised beds, sunflower seeds were sown on one row above the raised beds and the following bed was left without intercropping (P1). Thus, to attain the highest yield of intercrops and water equivalent ratio (WER), the lowest competitive pressure and the highest farmer profitability, 120% ETo, 114 K 2O kg/ha and P1 intercropping pattern should be implemented. This research found that the result of competitiveness was consistent with the result of profitability.
In general, nutrients, water and light are the three main classes of resources that limit plant growth and are considered to be resources for which individual plants compete. The effects of competition are widespread and easily observed in different intercropping patterns. The complexity of resource competition is derived not only from the variability of resource limitation in space and time and among species, but also from the complexity of the resources themselves. Nutrients, water and light each differ in their properties, which generates unique ways that plants compete for these resources [
In Egypt, drip irrigation management could be an important factor to minimize the inter-specific competition between oil crops for basic growth resources under sandy soil conditions. Drip irrigation markedly increased yield and shortened the growing season over sprinkler or furrow irrigation and offered the best method of supplying uniform soil moisture in the root zone throughout the growing season [
However, increased intensity of cropping and introduction of high yielding varieties have resulted in considerable drain of potassium (K) and crops are becoming responsive to K fertilization [
It is important to mention that appropriate plant density of sunflower could form suitable spatial arrangement of intercropping sunflower with peanut, especially Pal et al. [
A two-year study was carried out at Ismailia Agricultural Research Station, Agricultural Research Centre, Ismailia governorate (Lat. 30˚35'30''N, Long. 32˚14'50''E, 10 m above the sea level), Egypt during 2016 and 2017 summer seasons. The objective of this investigation was to evaluate competitive effects of intercropping sunflower and peanut under different drip irrigation water amounts and K fertilizer rates for increasing farmer profitability. The treatments were the combinations of three irrigation water levels (70%, 100% and 120% ETo), three K fertilizer rates (K1 = 57, K2 = 86 and K3 = 114 K2O kg/ha) and four sunflower and peanut intercropping patterns in a strip split plot design with three replications. The studied intercropping patterns are as follows:
− P1 = Peanut seeds were sown on both sides of all the raised beds (1.2 m width) with 20 cm planting spacing (two plants together). Sunflower seeds were sown on one row above the one of the raised beds, with 20 cm planting spacing (one plant) and the following bed was left without intercropping sunflower seeds.
− P2 = Peanut seeds were sown on both sides of all the raised beds (1.2 m width) with 20 cm planting spacing (two plants together). Sunflower seeds were sown on one row above the one of the raised beds, with 40 cm planting spacing (one plant) on all the raised beds.
− P3 = Peanut seeds were sown on one row on the side of all the ridges (0.6 m width) with 20 cm planting spacing (two plants together). Sunflower seeds were sown on the other side of the ridge, with 20 cm planting spacing (one plant) and the following three ridges were left without intercropping sunflower seeds.
− P4 = Peanut seeds were sown on one row on the side of all the ridges (0.6 m width) with 20 cm planting spacing (two plants together). Sunflower seeds were sown on the other side of the ridge, with 40 cm planting spacing (one plant) and the following ridge was left without intercropping sunflower seeds.
− P5 = Sole peanut was sown with 100% of its recommended planting density on ridges (0.6 m width) with 20 cm planting spacing (two plants together).
− P6 = Sole sunflower was sown with 100% of its recommended planting density on ridges (0.6 m width) with 20 cm planting spacing (one plant).
The yield and its components for each crop were only used to estimate comparative relationships and did not include in the statistical analysis. The studied sunflower and peanut intercropping patterns were planted with 166,600 and 20,825 plants per hectare, represented 100% and 25% of peanut and sunflower recommended planting densities.
Irrigation water treatments were randomly assigned to the horizontal plots, K fertilizer levels were allocated in vertical plots and intercropping patterns were distributed in sub plots. Plot area was 21.6 m2. Each sub plot consisted of 12 ridges, 3.0 m long and 0.6 m wide or 6 raised beds 3.0 m long and 1.2 m wide.
The soil of the experimental area is sandy texture with an average bulk density of 1.67 g/cm3 and is alkaline in reaction with pH value of 8.20. Average soil electrical conductivity in the saturated paste extract, over 0 - 60 cm depth, was about 0.33 dS/m. The electrical conductivity of irrigation water was 0.50 dS/m and pH value was 7.55. Chemical and physical soil analyses were conducted by the standard methods described by Tan (1996). The analysis revealed that available NPK was 10.4, 16.9 and 64.4 ppm in the experimental site.
Wheat was the preceding winter crop in both seasons. Calcium super phosphate (15.5% P2O5) at rate of 476 kg/ha was applied during soil preparation in the two summer seasons. Peanut cultivar Ismailia1 semi-erect and sunflower cultivar Sakha 53 were used and sown on May 26th and May 30th at 2016 and 2017 summer seasons, respectively. In the two seasons, peanut seeds were inoculated by Bradyrhizobium before seeding it.
Nitrogen fertilizer was added for sole peanut at a rate of 83.3 kg N/ha as ammonium nitrate (33.5% N). Furthermore, nitrogen fertilizer was added for sole sunflower at a rate of 142.8 kg N/ha as ammonium nitrate (33.5% N). With respect to sunflower intercropped with peanut, nitrogen fertilizer was added at a rate of 120.9 kg N/ha as ammonium nitrate (33.5% N). Calcium sulfate at the rate of 1190 kg/ha was applied for peanut after 35 days from peanut sowing. Recommended cultural practices for growing each crop were implemented as provided by the Egyptian Ministry of Agriculture.
At harvest, the following traits were measured on ten bordered plants from each sub plot: numbers of pods and seeds per plant (g) and seed yield per plant (g). Pod yield of peanut per hectare (ton/ha) was recorded on the basis of experimental plot area by harvesting all plants of each sub plot.
At harvest, the following traits were measured on ten bordered plants from each sub plot: Number of leaves per plant, stem and head diameters (cm) and head seed weight (g). Seed yield per hectare (kg/ha) was recorded on the basis of experimental sub plot area by harvesting all plants of each plot.
Irrigation water was applied every three days using the drip lateral lines connected to the sub-main line. Each lateral line is 20 m long and spaced at 0.7 m on the sub-main and is equipped with build-in emitters of 2 L/h discharge rate spaced at 0.3 m on the lateral lines. A differential pressure tank was connected to the drip irrigation system to inject fertilizer via irrigation water. Evapotranspiration values (ETo) were calculated using BISm model [
A I W = E T o × I E a ( 1 − L R )
where: AIW = depth of applied irrigation water (mm), ETo = reference evapotranspiration (mm/day). I = irrigation intervals (days), Ea = irrigation application efficiency of drip system (Ea = 90% in the first seasons and 93% in the second season). LR = leaching requirements (10%).
Crop water use was estimated by the method of soil moisture depletion according to Majumdar [
W C U = ∑ i = 1 i − 4 θ 2 − θ 1 100 × B d × d
where: WCU = water consumptive use or actual evapotranspiration, ETa (mm), I = number of soil layer, θ2 = soil moisture content after irrigation (%, by mass), θ1 = soil moisture contents just before irrigation (%, by mass), Bd = soil bulk density (g/cm3), d = depth of soil layer (mm).
Water equivalent ratio was calculated to quantify the amount of water that would be needed in single crops to achieve the same yield as produced with one unit of water in intercrop as stated by [
W E R = W E R A + W E R B = [ Y i n t , A W U i n t / Y m o n o , A W U m o n o , A ] + [ Y i n t , B W U i n t / Y m o n o , B W U m o n o , B ] [
where: WUint, WUmono,A and WUmono,B = water use efficiency of whole intercropping system, A and B in monocultures, respectively, Yint, Ymono,A and Yint,B = yield of whole intercropping system, A and B in monocultures, respectively. If the WER > 1, it suggests that the water utilization of intercropping is higher than that of monoculture. If WER < 1, it shows that water utilization of intercropping is lower than that of monoculture.
1) Land Equivalent Coefficient (LEC)
LEC is a measure of interaction concerned with the strength of relationship [
LEC = L a × L b
where: La = relative yield of crop a (peanut) and Lb = relative yield of crop b (sunflower).
2) System Productivity Index (SPI)
SPI was calculated as [
SPI = [ ( S A / L B ) × L b ] + S a
where: SA and LB are the yield of peanut and sunflower in sole cropping, Sa and Lb are the yield of peanut and sunflower in intercropping.
3) Relative Crowding Coefficient (RCC)
RCC, which estimates the relative dominance of one species over the other in the intercropping system [
K = K a × K b
K a = Y ab × Z ba / [ ( Y aa − Y ab ) × Z ab ] ;
K b = Y ba × Z ab / [ ( Y bb − Y ba ) × Z ba ]
where: Yaa = Pure stand yield of crop a (peanut); Ybb = Pure stand yield of crop b (sunflower); Yab = Intercrop yield of crop a (peanut); Yba = Intercrop yield of crop b (sunflower); Zab = The respective proportion of crop a in the intercropping system (peanut); Zba = The respective proportion of crop b in the intercropping system (sunflower).
4) Aggressivity (Agg)
Agg, which represents a simple measure of how much the relative yield increase in one crop is greater than the other in an intercropping system [
A ab = [ Y ab / ( Y aa × Z ab ) ] − [ Y ba / ( Y bb × Z ba ) ] ;
A ba = [ Y ba / ( Y bb × Z ba ) ] − [ Y ab / ( Y aa × Z ab ) ]
5) Competitive Ratio (CR)
CR is an index which gives a more desirable competitive ability for the crops [
CR a = ( LER a / LER b ) ( Z ba / Z ab ) ,
CR b = ( LER b / LER a ) ( Z ab / Z ba )
where: where LERa = (Yab/Yaa), LERb = (Yba/Ybb). If CRa < 1, there is negative benefit and the crop can be grown in association. If CRa > 1, there is negative benefit. The reverse is true for CRb.
6) Actual Yield Loss (AYL)
The partial actual yield losses, AYLpeanut or AYLsunflower represent the relative decrease of yield per sowing proportion in intercropping of peanut and sunflower compared to corresponding yields in sole crops [
AYL = AYL a + AYL b , AYL a = [ ( Y ab / Z ab ) / ( Y aa / Z aa ) ] − 1 , AYL b = [ ( Y ba / Z ba ) / ( Y bb / Z bb ) ] − 1 .
Positive AYL indicates an intercropping advantage; negative AYL indicates disadvantage in intercropping system.
1) Monetary Advantage Index (MAI)
MAI suggests that the economic assessment should be in terms of the value of land saved; this could probably be most assessed on the basis of the rentable value of this land. MAI was calculated according to the formula, suggested by [
2) Intercropping Advantage (IA)
IA contributing in the intercropping advantage of system [
IA a = AYL a × P a ,
IA b = AYL b × P b ,
where: Pa = price of peanut (454 US$ per ton) and Pb = price of sunflower (188 US$ per ton). The prices of peanut and sunflower were recorded from Bulletin of Statistical Cost Production and Net Return [
3) Income Equivalent Ratio (IER)
IER is similar in concept to LER, except that yield is measured in terms of net income, rather than plant product productivity. Because income is a function of both yield and crop price, even if the agronomic response is consistent, IER for intercrops may vary in different years as crop prices fluctuate. IER can be determined for systems involving more than two crops by summing the intercrop to sole crop yield (or net income) ratios of each crop included in the intercropping system. To calculate the IER obtained from intercropping a hectare of land were used. It was calculated by the formula developed by Ghaffarzadeh [
IER = ( I ab / I aa ) + ( I ba / I bb )
where: Iaa = Gross income in component a (peanut) in pure stand, Ibb = Gross income in component b (sunflower) in pure stand, Iab = Gross income in component a (peanut) in mixed stand, Iba = Gross income in component b (sunflower) in mixed stand.
Analysis of variance of the obtained results of each season was performed. The homogeneity test was conducted of error mean squares and accordingly, the combined analysis of the two experimental seasons was carried out. The measured variables were analyzed by ANOVA. Mean comparisons were performed using the least significant differences (L.S.D) test with a significance level of 5% [
1) Peanut Traits
Data in
Treat | Pods plant−1 (no.) | Seeds plant−1 (no.) | Seed yield plant−1 (g) | Pods yield ha−1 (t) | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | |
I1K1 | 14.53 | 14.58 | 14.42 | 14.41 | 14.49 | 35.86 | 35.81 | 35.79 | 35.84 | 35.83 | 26.81 | 26.84 | 26.80 | 26.85 | 26.82 | 2.52 | 2.41 | 2.43 | 2.38 | 2.43 |
I1K2 | 16.91 | 16.84 | 16.98 | 16.90 | 16.91 | 36.12 | 36.18 | 36.11 | 36.18 | 36.15 | 28.64 | 28.61 | 28.56 | 28.57 | 28.59 | 2.63 | 2.51 | 2.55 | 2.45 | 2.53 |
I1K3 | 18.01 | 18.62 | 17.98 | 17.95 | 18.14 | 36.64 | 36.45 | 36.60 | 36.52 | 36.55 | 30.39 | 30.15 | 30.19 | 30.40 | 30.28 | 2.70 | 2.61 | 2.64 | 2.53 | 2.62 |
Mean | 16.49 | 16.68 | 16.46 | 16.42 | 16.51 | 36.21 | 36.15 | 36.17 | 36.18 | 36.17 | 28.61 | 28.53 | 28.51 | 28.61 | 28.57 | 2.62 | 2.51 | 2.54 | 2.45 | 2.53 |
I2K1 | 18.73 | 18.68 | 18.75 | 18.64 | 18.70 | 39.63 | 39.63 | 39.69 | 39.64 | 39.64 | 29.27 | 29.26 | 29.22 | 29.21 | 29.24 | 3.19 | 3.09 | 3.08 | 3.07 | 3.10 |
I2K2 | 20.41 | 20.38 | 20.43 | 20.39 | 20.40 | 40.84 | 40.85 | 40.86 | 40.70 | 40.81 | 32.14 | 32.16 | 32.19 | 32.13 | 32.15 | 3.29 | 3.15 | 3.19 | 3.13 | 3.19 |
I2K3 | 21.85 | 21.77 | 21.45 | 21.35 | 21.61 | 41.16 | 41.30 | 41.37 | 41.38 | 41.30 | 33.82 | 33.71 | 33.53 | 33.62 | 33.67 | 3.35 | 3.22 | 3.28 | 3.16 | 3.25 |
Mean | 20.33 | 20.28 | 20.21 | 20.13 | 20.24 | 40.54 | 40.59 | 40.64 | 40.57 | 40.58 | 31.74 | 31.71 | 31.64 | 31.65 | 31.68 | 3.27 | 3.15 | 3.18 | 3.12 | 3.18 |
I3K1 | 18.23 | 18.20 | 18.16 | 18.24 | 18.20 | 39.87 | 39.63 | 39.73 | 39.61 | 39.71 | 30.25 | 30.32 | 30.20 | 30.21 | 30.24 | 3.22 | 3.09 | 3.09 | 3.04 | 3.11 |
I3K2 | 20.33 | 20.69 | 20.40 | 20.43 | 20.46 | 40.95 | 40.90 | 40.27 | 40.50 | 40.65 | 32.38 | 32.21 | 32.26 | 32.30 | 32.29 | 3.30 | 3.17 | 3.26 | 3.13 | 3.21 |
I3K3 | 21.37 | 21.32 | 21.68 | 21.41 | 21.45 | 41.43 | 41.41 | 41.31 | 41.81 | 41.49 | 33.44 | 33.27 | 33.19 | 33.23 | 33.28 | 3.34 | 3.22 | 3.29 | 3.19 | 3.26 |
Mean | 19.98 | 20.07 | 20.08 | 20.02 | 20.04 | 40.75 | 40.65 | 40.44 | 40.64 | 40.62 | 32.02 | 31.93 | 31.88 | 31.91 | 31.94 | 3.28 | 3.16 | 3.21 | 3.12 | 3.19 |
Ave K1 | 17.16 | 17.15 | 17.11 | 17.10 | 17.13 | 38.45 | 38.36 | 38.40 | 38.36 | 38.39 | 28.78 | 28.81 | 28.74 | 28.76 | 28.77 | 2.97 | 2.86 | 2.86 | 2.83 | 2.88 |
Ave K2 | 19.22 | 19.30 | 19.27 | 19.24 | 19.26 | 39.30 | 39.31 | 39.08 | 39.13 | 39.20 | 31.05 | 30.99 | 31.00 | 31.00 | 31.01 | 3.07 | 2.94 | 3.00 | 2.90 | 2.98 |
Ave K3 | 20.41 | 20.57 | 20.37 | 20.24 | 20.40 | 39.74 | 39.72 | 39.76 | 39.90 | 39.78 | 32.55 | 32.37 | 32.30 | 32.42 | 32.41 | 3.13 | 3.01 | 3.07 | 2.96 | 3.04 |
Ave P | 18.93 | 19.01 | 18.92 | 18.86 | 18.93 | 39.16 | 39.13 | 39.08 | 39.13 | 39.13 | 30.79 | 30.72 | 30.68 | 30.72 | 30.73 | 3.06 | 2.94 | 2.98 | 2.89 | 2.97 |
LSD0.05 Irrigation (I) | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0.28 | 0.45 | ||||||||||||||||
LSD0.05 K fertilizer (K) | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 0.15 | ||||||||||||||||
LSD0.05 Intercropping (P) | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | ||||||||||||||||
LSD0.05 I × K | 0.24 | 0.17 | 0.28 | N.S. | ||||||||||||||||
LSD0.05. I × P | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | ||||||||||||||||
LSD0.05 K × P | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | ||||||||||||||||
LSD0.05 I × K × P | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | ||||||||||||||||
Sole peanut | 23.03 | 41.77 | 35.66 | 3.43 |
increased significantly numbers of pods and seeds plant−1, seed yield plant−1, pod yield ha−1 in comparison with those with applications of 70% and 100% ETo the combined data across the two seasons. With respect to irrigation water level 70% Eto, numbers of pods and seeds plant−1, seed yield plant−1 and pods yield ha−1 were decreased significantly by 17.61%, 10.95%, 10.55% and 20.68%, respectively, in comparison with those with application of 120% ETo in the combined data across the two seasons (
Excessive water can cause excessive vegetative growth and a greater leaf area index, but restrict root growth and development [
2) Sunflower Traits
Data in
With respect to irrigation water level 70% ETo, number of leaves plant−1, stem and head diameters, head seed weight and seed yield ha−1 were decreased significantly by 4.00%, 7.25%, 22.83%, 8.79% and 34.86%, respectively, in comparison with those of application 120% ETo in the combined data across the two seasons (
There were no significant differences between two irrigation water levels; 100% and 120% Eto for number of leaves plant−1 and seed yield ha−1 in the combined data across the two seasons. These results are in same context with those observed by Szabo and Pepo [
Treat | Number of leaves/plant | Stem diameter (cm) | Head diameter (cm) | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | |
I1K1 | 20.54 | 20.47 | 20.25 | 20.14 | 20.35 | 2.92 | 2.91 | 2.92 | 2.89 | 2.91 | 18.63 | 18.33 | 18.59 | 18.28 | 18.46 |
I1K2 | 20.90 | 20.86 | 20.44 | 20.52 | 20.68 | 2.97 | 2.95 | 2.97 | 2.93 | 2.95 | 18.85 | 18.66 | 18.81 | 18.62 | 18.74 |
I1K3 | 20.90 | 20.82 | 20.72 | 20.76 | 20.80 | 2.99 | 2.97 | 2.98 | 2.95 | 2.97 | 18.85 | 18.51 | 18.80 | 18.49 | 18.66 |
Mean | 20.78 | 20.72 | 20.47 | 20.47 | 20.61 | 2.96 | 2.94 | 2.95 | 2.92 | 2.94 | 18.77 | 18.50 | 18.73 | 18.46 | 18.62 |
I2K1 | 21.28 | 21.20 | 21.08 | 21.11 | 21.17 | 3.14 | 3.13 | 3.12 | 3.09 | 3.12 | 23.30 | 22.95 | 23.25 | 22.90 | 23.10 |
I2K2 | 21.39 | 21.33 | 21.24 | 21.24 | 21.30 | 3.19 | 3.16 | 3.20 | 3.17 | 3.18 | 23.60 | 23.35 | 23.54 | 23.52 | 23.50 |
I2K3 | 21.50 | 21.40 | 21.35 | 21.39 | 21.41 | 3.20 | 3.20 | 3.20 | 3.17 | 3.19 | 23.66 | 23.38 | 23.60 | 23.34 | 23.49 |
Mean | 21.39 | 21.31 | 21.22 | 21.25 | 21.29 | 3.18 | 3.16 | 3.17 | 3.14 | 3.16 | 23.52 | 23.22 | 23.46 | 23.25 | 23.36 |
I3K1 | 21.44 | 21.37 | 21.34 | 21.34 | 21.37 | 3.14 | 3.12 | 3.14 | 3.11 | 3.13 | 23.44 | 24.06 | 23.39 | 24.03 | 23.73 |
I3K2 | 21.64 | 21.58 | 21.52 | 21.48 | 21.55 | 3.22 | 3.21 | 3.22 | 3.20 | 3.21 | 24.17 | 24.46 | 24.14 | 24.57 | 24.33 |
I3K3 | 21.55 | 21.48 | 21.41 | 21.46 | 21.48 | 3.21 | 3.17 | 3.19 | 3.15 | 3.18 | 24.21 | 24.64 | 24.10 | 24.37 | 24.33 |
Mean | 21.54 | 21.48 | 21.42 | 21.43 | 21.47 | 3.19 | 3.17 | 3.18 | 3.15 | 3.17 | 23.94 | 24.39 | 23.88 | 24.32 | 24.13 |
Ave K1 | 21.09 | 21.01 | 20.89 | 20.86 | 20.96 | 3.07 | 3.05 | 3.06 | 3.03 | 3.05 | 21.79 | 21.78 | 21.74 | 21.73 | 21.76 |
Ave K2 | 21.31 | 21.26 | 21.07 | 21.08 | 21.18 | 3.12 | 3.11 | 3.13 | 3.10 | 3.11 | 22.20 | 22.16 | 22.16 | 22.24 | 22.19 |
Ave K3 | 21.32 | 21.23 | 21.16 | 21.20 | 21.23 | 3.13 | 3.11 | 3.12 | 3.09 | 3.11 | 22.24 | 22.18 | 22.17 | 22.07 | 22.16 |
Ave P | 21.24 | 21.17 | 21.04 | 21.05 | 21.12 | 3.11 | 3.09 | 3.10 | 3.07 | 3.09 | 22.08 | 22.04 | 22.02 | 22.01 | 22.04 |
LSD0.05 Irrigation (I) | 0.43 | 0.01 | 0.18 | ||||||||||||
LSD0.05 K fertilizer (K) | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.18 | ||||||||||||
LSD0.05 Intercropping (P) | N.S. | 0.01 | N.S. | ||||||||||||
LSD0.05 I × K | 0.42 | 0.02 | N.S. | ||||||||||||
LSD0.05 I × P | N.S. | N.S. | 0.23 | ||||||||||||
LSD0.05 K × P | 0.32 | N.S. | N.S. | ||||||||||||
LSD0.05 I × K × P | N.S. | N.S. | N.S. | ||||||||||||
Sole sunflower | 21.09 | 2.97 | 21.86 |
Treat | Head seed weight (cm) | Seed yield ha−1 (kg) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | |
I1K1 | 57.86 | 57.16 | 57.80 | 57.10 | 57.48 | 740.33 | 649.33 | 700.33 | 610.00 | 675.00 |
I1K2 | 59.15 | 58.78 | 59.10 | 58.70 | 58.93 | 876.66 | 753.33 | 824.00 | 734.00 | 797.00 |
I1K3 | 60.67 | 59.25 | 60.58 | 59.38 | 59.97 | 869.00 | 768.66 | 859.00 | 796.66 | 823.33 |
Mean | 59.23 | 58.39 | 59.16 | 58.39 | 58.79 | 828.66 | 723.77 | 794.44 | 713.55 | 765.11 |
I2K1 | 61.22 | 60.87 | 61.20 | 60.82 | 61.03 | 1113.33 | 980.00 | 1045.33 | 926.66 | 1016.33 |
I2K2 | 63.58 | 63.23 | 63.53 | 63.19 | 63.38 | 1302.00 | 1132.33 | 1279.33 | 1111.66 | 1206.33 |
I2K3 | 64.25 | 64.59 | 64.31 | 64.69 | 64.46 | 1301.00 | 1129.00 | 1276.00 | 1175.33 | 1220.33 |
Mean | 63.02 | 62.89 | 63.01 | 62.90 | 62.95 | 1238.77 | 1080.44 | 1200.22 | 1071.22 | 1147.66 |
I3K1 | 61.67 | 61.39 | 61.60 | 61.66 | 61.58 | 1121.66 | 997.66 | 1105.00 | 949.66 | 1043.50 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I3K2 | 65.14 | 65.57 | 65.50 | 65.51 | 65.43 | 1319.33 | 1151.00 | 1309.66 | 1122.33 | 1225.58 |
I3K3 | 66.50 | 66.35 | 66.28 | 66.37 | 66.38 | 1334.66 | 1176.33 | 1305.66 | 1203.00 | 1254.91 |
Mean | 64.43 | 64.44 | 64.46 | 64.51 | 64.46 | 1258.55 | 1108.33 | 1240.11 | 1091.66 | 1174.66 |
Ave K1 | 60.25 | 59.80 | 60.20 | 59.86 | 60.03 | 991.77 | 875.66 | 950.22 | 828.77 | 911.61 |
Ave K2 | 62.62 | 62.52 | 62.71 | 62.46 | 62.58 | 1166.00 | 1012.22 | 1137.66 | 989.33 | 1076.30 |
Ave K3 | 63.81 | 63.40 | 63.72 | 63.48 | 63.60 | 1168.22 | 1024.66 | 1146.88 | 1058.33 | 1099.52 |
Ave P | 62.23 | 61.91 | 62.21 | 61.93 | 62.07 | 1108.66 | 970.85 | 1078.25 | 958.81 | 1029.14 |
LSD0.05 Irrigation (I) | 0.06 | 35.18 | ||||||||
LSD0.05 K fertilizer (K) | 0.11 | 42.21 | ||||||||
LSD0.05 Intercropping (P) | 0.14 | 30.49 | ||||||||
LSD0.05 I × K | 0.16 | N.S. | ||||||||
LSD0.05. I × P | 0.20 | N.S. | ||||||||
LSD0.05 K × P | N.S. | N.S. | ||||||||
LSD0.05 I × K × P | 0.44 | N.S. | ||||||||
Sole sunflower | 61.43 | 3442.66 |
compared to those with application of 100% ETo in the combined data across the two seasons.
This can be attributed to the high growth parameters and the high metric potential and more availability of water in the root zone and these enhanced roots to absorb more water and increased the photosynthesis activity, which consequently increased the dry matter accumulation in plant organs. These results are in accordance with those obtained by Osman [
1) Peanut Traits
Data in
2) Sunflower Traits
Data in
1) Peanut Traits
Data in
2) Sunflower Traits
Data in
1) Peanut Traits
The interaction between irrigation water levels and K fertilizer affected significantly numbers of pods and seeds plant−1 and seed yield plant−1 in the combined data across the two seasons, meanwhile pod yield ha−1 was not affected (
2) Sunflower Traits
The interaction between irrigation water levels and K fertilizer affected significantly number of leaves plant−1, stem diameter and head seed weight in the combined data across the two seasons, meanwhile head diameter and seed yield ha−1 were not affected (
1) Peanut Traits
All the studied peanut traits were not affected significantly by the interaction between irrigation water levels and intercropping patterns in the combined data across the two seasons (
2) Sunflower Traits
The interaction between irrigation water levels and intercropping patterns affected significantly head diameter and head seed weight in the combined data across the two seasons, meanwhile number of leaves plant−1, stem diameter and seed yield ha−1 were not affected (
1) Peanut Traits
Data in
2) Sunflower Traits
The interaction between K fertilizer and intercropping patterns affected significantly number of leaves plant−1 in the combined data across the two seasons, meanwhile stem and head diameters, head seed weight and seed yield ha−1 were not affected (
1) Peanut Traits
Data in
2) Sunflower Traits
The interaction between irrigation water levels, K fertilizer and intercropping patterns affected significantly head seed weight in the combined data across the two seasons, meanwhile number of leaves plant−1, stem and head diameters, head seed weight and seed yield ha−1 were not affected (
The results in
The lowest values of WER were obtained under the application of 70% ETo, K1 fertilizer level and P4 intercropping patterns. The highest value was obtained under the application of 120% ETo, K3 fertilizer level and P1 intercropping pattern. Thus, the productivity of the unit of water can be increased by a value between 52% - 56% under 120% ETo, K3 fertilizer level and P1 intercropping pattern.
Our results indicated that the highest values of water equivalent ratio were obtained from using 120% ETo, K3 fertilizer level under P1 intercropping pattern, followed by 100% ETo, K3 fertilizer under P1 intercropping pattern. Similar results were obtained by El-Mehy et al. (15) who indicated that the highest value of water equivalent ratio was obtained with 120% ETo and 25% of sunflower planting density intercropped with 100% of peanut planting density, where its spatial arrangements was similar to what was implemented in our experiment under P1 intercropping pattern.
LEC is a measure of interaction concerned with the strength of relationship. LEC is used for a two-crop mixture the minimum expected productivity coefficient (PC) is 25 percent, that is, a yield advantage is obtained if LEC value was exceeded 0.25. The effects of irrigation water quantities, K fertilizer and intercropping patterns on the LEC of sunflower with peanut were exceeded 0.25 under all treatments except treatments that irrigated with 70% ETo and treatments that irrigated with 100% and 120% ETo for P2 and P4 intercropping patterns (
The values of SPI were presented in
Treat | Applied water (m3/ha) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | |||
I1K1 | 3170 | 3170 | 3170 | 3170 | 3170 | ||
I1K2 | 3170 | 3170 | 3170 | 3170 | 3170 | ||
I1K3 | 3170 | 3170 | 3170 | 3170 | 3170 | ||
Mean | 3170 | 3170 | 3170 | 3170 | 3170 | ||
I2K1 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | ||
I2K2 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | ||
I2K3 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | ||
Mean | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | ||
I3K1 | 4590 | 4590 | 4590 | 4590 | 4590 | ||
I3K2 | 4590 | 4590 | 4590 | 4590 | 4590 | ||
I3K3 | 4590 | 4590 | 4590 | 4590 | 4590 | ||
Mean | 4590 | 4590 | 4590 | 4590 | 4590 | ||
Peanut | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | ||
Sunflower | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | 3900 | ||
Treat | Water consumptive use (m3/ha) | ||||||
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | |||
I1K1 | 2821 | 2758 | 2790 | 2726 | 2774 | ||
I1K2 | 2878 | 2805 | 2825 | 2786 | 2824 | ||
I1K3 | 2886 | 2829 | 2853 | 2790 | 2839 | ||
Mean | 2862 | 2797 | 2823 | 2767 | 2812 | ||
I2K1 | 3471 | 3393 | 3432 | 3354 | 3413 | ||
I2K2 | 3510 | 3452 | 3476 | 3315 | 3438 | ||
I2K3 | 3549 | 3480 | 3510 | 3276 | 3454 | ||
Mean | 3510 | 3441 | 3473 | 3315 | 3435 | ||
I3K1 | 4085 | 3993 | 4039 | 3947 | 4016 | ||
I3K2 | 4131 | 4062 | 4091 | 3902 | 4046 | ||
I3K3 | 4177 | 4096 | 4131 | 3856 | 4065 | ||
Mean | 4131 | 4050 | 4087 | 3902 | 4042 | ||
Peanut | 3630 | 3630 | 3630 | 3630 | 3630 | ||
Sunflower | 3400 | 3400 | 3400 | 3400 | 3400 | ||
Treat | Water equivalent ratio | ||||||
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | |||
I1K1 | 1.05 | 1.03 | 1.04 | 1.02 | 1.03 | ||
I1K2 | 1.07 | 1.05 | 1.05 | 1.04 | 1.05 | ||
I1K3 | 1.08 | 1.05 | 1.06 | 1.04 | 1.06 | ||
Mean | 1.07 | 1.04 | 1.05 | 1.03 | 1.05 | ||
I2K1 | 1.29 | 1.26 | 1.28 | 1.25 | 1.27 | ||
I2K2 | 1.31 | 1.29 | 1.29 | 1.23 | 1.28 | ||
I2K3 | 1.32 | 1.30 | 1.31 | 1.22 | 1.29 | ||
Mean | 1.31 | 1.28 | 1.29 | 1.23 | 1.28 | ||
I3K1 | 1.52 | 1.49 | 1.50 | 1.47 | 1.50 | ||
I3K2 | 1.54 | 1.51 | 1.52 | 1.45 | 1.51 | ||
I3K3 | 1.56 | 1.53 | 1.54 | 1.44 | 1.51 | ||
Mean | 1.54 | 1.51 | 1.52 | 1.45 | 1.51 | ||
Peanut | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Sunflower | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||
Treat | L (peanut) | L (sunflower) | LEC | SPI | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | |
I1K1 | 0.73 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 0.14 | 0.11 | 0.13 | 3.25 | 3.04 | 3.12 | 2.98 | 3.09 |
I1K2 | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.21 | 0.22 | 0.19 | 0.15 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 3.49 | 3.25 | 3.36 | 3.17 | 3.31 |
I1K3 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 0.19 | 0.16 | 0.18 | 0.16 | 0.17 | 3.55 | 3.36 | 3.48 | 3.31 | 3.43 |
Mean | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.15 | 0.17 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 3.43 | 3.22 | 3.32 | 3.15 | 3.28 |
I2K1 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.32 | 0.28 | 0.30 | 0.26 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.25 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 4.29 | 4.06 | 4.11 | 3.98 | 4.10 |
I2K2 | 0.95 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 0.37 | 0.32 | 0.37 | 0.32 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.29 | 0.34 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 4.58 | 4.27 | 4.45 | 4.23 | 4.38 |
I2K3 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.38 | 0.32 | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.36 | 0.29 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 4.64 | 4.33 | 4.54 | 4.32 | 4.46 |
Mean | 0.95 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.33 | 0.28 | 0.31 | 0.27 | 0.29 | 4.49 | 4.22 | 4.37 | 4.18 | 4.31 |
I3K1 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.32 | 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.27 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.25 | 0.28 | 0.23 | 0.26 | 4.33 | 4.07 | 4.18 | 3.97 | 4.14 |
I3K2 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0.32 | 0.34 | 0.36 | 0.30 | 0.36 | 0.29 | 0.31 | 4.60 | 4.31 | 4.55 | 4.24 | 4.42 |
I3K3 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 4.66 | 4.38 | 4.58 | 4.38 | 4.50 |
Mean | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.36 | 0.32 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 0.34 | 0.29 | 0.33 | 0.27 | 0.29 | 4.52 | 4.25 | 4.44 | 4.20 | 4.35 |
Sole | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
highest than the other treatments. This result implies a relatively stable productivity.
Data presented in
Data in
The present results indicate clearly that the competition of sunflower to peanut P1 that irrigated with 120% Eto and received K3 fertilizer is less than P4 intercropping pattern with irrigated with 70% Eto and received K1 fertilizer. It is
Treat | Kpeanut | Ksunflower | RCC | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | |
I1K1 | 0.69 | 0.59 | 0.60 | 0.56 | 0.61 | 1.09 | 0.92 | 1.02 | 0.86 | 0.97 | 0.75 | 0.54 | 0.62 | 0.48 | 0.59 |
I1K2 | 0.82 | 0.68 | 0.72 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 1.36 | 1.12 | 1.25 | 1.08 | 1.20 | 1.12 | 0.76 | 0.91 | 0.67 | 0.85 |
I1K3 | 0.92 | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.70 | 0.81 | 1.35 | 1.14 | 1.32 | 1.20 | 1.25 | 1.24 | 0.91 | 1.11 | 0.84 | 1.01 |
Mean | 0.80 | 0.68 | 0.71 | 0.62 | 0.70 | 1.26 | 1.06 | 1.19 | 1.04 | 1.14 | 1.02 | 0.72 | 0.85 | 0.65 | 0.80 |
I2K1 | 3.32 | 2.27 | 2.20 | 2.13 | 2.48 | 1.91 | 1.59 | 1.74 | 1.47 | 1.68 | 6.35 | 3.61 | 3.83 | 3.14 | 4.14 |
I2K2 | 5.87 | 2.81 | 3.32 | 2.60 | 3.65 | 2.43 | 1.96 | 2.36 | 1.90 | 2.16 | 14.29 | 5.51 | 7.86 | 4.97 | 7.71 |
I2K3 | 10.46 | 3.83 | 5.46 | 2.92 | 5.67 | 2.42 | 1.95 | 2.35 | 2.07 | 2.20 | 25.43 | 7.48 | 12.87 | 6.06 | 11.99 |
Mean | 5.10 | 2.81 | 3.18 | 2.51 | 3.40 | 2.24 | 1.82 | 2.14 | 1.80 | 2.00 | 11.48 | 5.14 | 6.80 | 4.54 | 6.70 |
I3K1 | 3.83 | 2.27 | 2.27 | 1.94 | 2.58 | 1.93 | 1.63 | 1.89 | 1.52 | 1.74 | 7.41 | 3.70 | 4.29 | 2.96 | 4.44 |
I3K2 | 6.34 | 3.04 | 4.79 | 2.60 | 4.19 | 2.48 | 2.00 | 2.45 | 1.93 | 2.22 | 15.77 | 6.12 | 11.77 | 5.04 | 9.00 |
I3K3 | 9.27 | 3.83 | 5.87 | 3.32 | 5.57 | 2.53 | 2.07 | 2.44 | 2.14 | 2.30 | 23.49 | 7.95 | 14.35 | 7.13 | 12.42 |
Mean | 5.46 | 2.92 | 3.64 | 2.51 | 3.63 | 2.30 | 1.89 | 2.25 | 1.85 | 2.07 | 12.60 | 5.55 | 8.21 | 4.67 | 7.39 |
Peanut | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Sunflower | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
Treat | Agg peanut | Agg sunflower | CRpeanut | CRsunflower | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | |
I1K1 | −0.12 | −0.05 | −0.10 | −0.01 | −0.07 | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.86 | 0.97 | 0.87 | 1.01 | 0.92 | 1.15 | 1.02 | 1.14 | 0.98 | 1.08 |
I1K2 | −0.25 | −0.14 | −0.21 | −0.13 | −0.18 | 0.25 | 0.14 | 0.21 | 0.13 | 0.18 | 0.76 | 0.86 | 0.80 | 0.84 | 0.82 | 1.31 | 1.15 | 1.24 | 1.18 | 1.20 |
I1K3 | −0.22 | −0.13 | −0.22 | −0.18 | −0.19 | 0.22 | 0.13 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 0.19 | 0.78 | 0.86 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.81 | 1.28 | 1.15 | 1.26 | 1.26 | 1.22 |
Mean | −0.19 | −0.10 | −0.18 | −0.11 | −0.15 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.11 | 0.15 | 0.79 | 0.86 | 0.80 | 0.88 | 0.82 | 1.26 | 1.11 | 1.24 | 1.12 | 1.18 |
I2K1 | −0.36 | −0.23 | −0.31 | −0.18 | −0.27 | 0.36 | 0.23 | 0.31 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 0.72 | 0.80 | 0.74 | 0.85 | 0.77 | 1.37 | 1.24 | 1.34 | 1.16 | 1.28 |
I2K2 | −0.55 | −0.39 | −0.55 | −0.37 | −0.47 | 0.55 | 0.39 | 0.55 | 0.37 | 0.47 | 0.64 | 0.71 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 0.67 | 1.55 | 1.40 | 1.59 | 1.40 | 1.47 |
I2K3 | −0.53 | −0.37 | −0.52 | −0.44 | −0.46 | 0.53 | 0.37 | 0.52 | 0.44 | 0.46 | 0.63 | 0.72 | 0.64 | 0.67 | 0.67 | 1.56 | 1.37 | 1.55 | 1.47 | 1.48 |
Mean | −0.48 | −0.33 | −0.46 | −0.33 | −0.40 | 0.48 | 0.33 | 0.46 | 0.33 | 0.40 | 0.67 | 0.73 | 0.67 | 0.72 | 0.71 | 1.47 | 1.36 | 1.47 | 1.37 | 1.39 |
I3K1 | −0.36 | −0.25 | −0.38 | −0.21 | −0.30 | 0.36 | 0.25 | 0.38 | 0.21 | 0.30 | 0.72 | 0.80 | 0.70 | 0.81 | 0.77 | 1.37 | 1.24 | 1.42 | 1.22 | 1.28 |
I3K2 | −0.57 | −0.41 | −0.57 | −0.39 | −0.48 | 0.57 | 0.41 | 0.57 | 0.39 | 0.48 | 0.63 | 0.69 | 0.62 | 0.71 | 0.68 | 1.58 | 1.43 | 1.60 | 1.40 | 1.46 |
I3K3 | −0.57 | −0.42 | −0.55 | −0.46 | −0.50 | 0.57 | 0.42 | 0.55 | 0.46 | 0.50 | 0.63 | 0.68 | 0.64 | 0.68 | 0.67 | 1.56 | 1.46 | 1.55 | 1.46 | 1.48 |
Mean | −0.50 | −0.36 | −0.50 | −0.35 | −0.43 | 0.50 | 0.36 | 0.50 | 0.35 | 0.43 | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.64 | 0.72 | 0.71 | 1.51 | 1.39 | 1.54 | 1.37 | 1.39 |
Sole | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
clear that sunflower plants had higher competitive ability than peanut plants. Similar results were obtained by El-Mehy et al. [
The values of CR were presented in
The values of AYL were presented in
Treat | AYLpeanut | AYLsunflower | Total AYL | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | |
I1K1 | −0.27 | −0.30 | −0.30 | −0.31 | −0.30 | −0.13 | −0.25 | −0.18 | −0.29 | −0.22 | −0.40 | −0.55 | −0.48 | −0.60 | −0.52 |
I1K2 | −0.24 | −0.27 | −0.26 | −0.29 | −0.27 | 0.01 | −0.12 | −0.04 | −0.15 | −0.08 | −0.22 | −0.39 | −0.30 | −0.44 | −0.35 |
I1K3 | −0.22 | −0.24 | −0.24 | −0.27 | −0.25 | 0 | −0.11 | −0.01 | −0.08 | −0.04 | −0.22 | −0.35 | −0.25 | −0.35 | −0.29 |
Mean | −0.24 | −0.27 | −0.26 | −0.29 | −0.27 | −0.04 | −0.16 | −0.08 | −0.17 | −0.11 | −0.28 | −0.43 | −0.34 | −0.46 | −0.38 |
I2K1 | −0.07 | −0.10 | −0.11 | −0.11 | −0.10 | 0.29 | 0.13 | 0.20 | 0.06 | 0.17 | 0.22 | 0.03 | 0.09 | −0.04 | 0.07 |
I2K2 | −0.05 | −0.09 | −0.07 | −0.09 | −0.08 | 0.51 | 0.31 | 0.47 | 0.29 | 0.39 | 0.46 | 0.22 | 0.40 | 0.20 | 0.31 |
I2K3 | −0.03 | −0.07 | −0.05 | −0.08 | −0.06 | 0.51 | 0.30 | 0.47 | 0.36 | 0.41 | 0.48 | 0.23 | 0.42 | 0.28 | 0.35 |
Mean | −0.05 | −0.09 | −0.08 | −0.10 | −0.08 | 0.43 | 0.25 | 0.39 | 0.24 | 0.32 | 0.38 | 0.16 | 0.31 | 0.14 | 0.24 |
I3K1 | −0.07 | −0.10 | −0.10 | −0.12 | −0.10 | 0.30 | 0.15 | 0.27 | 0.09 | 0.20 | 0.23 | 0.05 | 0.17 | −0.02 | 0.10 |
I3K2 | −0.04 | −0.08 | −0.05 | −0.09 | −0.07 | 0.52 | 0.33 | 0.51 | 0.30 | 0.41 | 0.48 | 0.25 | 0.46 | 0.21 | 0.34 |
I3K3 | −0.03 | −0.07 | −0.05 | −0.07 | −0.06 | 0.54 | 0.36 | 0.51 | 0.39 | 0.45 | 0.51 | 0.29 | 0.46 | 0.32 | 0.39 |
Mean | −0.05 | −0.08 | −0.07 | −0.10 | −0.08 | 0.45 | 0.27 | 0.44 | 0.26 | 0.36 | 0.40 | 0.19 | 0.37 | 0.16 | 0.28 |
pattern that irrigated with 120% Eto and received K3 fertilizer. The results suggest that competitive ability of peanut decreased and sunflower increased.
The economic performance of the intercropping was evaluated to determine if sunflower and peanut combined yields are high enough for the farmers to adopt this system. The averages of MAI values of P1 intercropping pattern that irrigated with 120% ETo and received K3 fertilizer were higher than the other treatments (
The values of IA were presented in
The values of IER were presented in
Treat | IApeanut | IAsunflower | Total IA | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | |
I1K1 | −122.58 | −136.20 | −136.20 | −140.74 | −136.20 | −26.23 | −48.09 | −34.97 | −54.65 | −41.53 | −148.81 | −184.29 | −171.17 | −195.39 | −177.73 |
I1K2 | −108.96 | −122.58 | −118.04 | −131.66 | −122.58 | 2.18 | −24.04 | −8.74 | −28.41 | −15.30 | −106.77 | −146.62 | −126.78 | −160.07 | −137.88 |
I1K3 | −99.88 | −108.96 | −108.96 | −122.58 | −113.50 | 0 | −21.86 | −2.18 | −15.30 | −8.74 | −99.88 | −130.82 | −111.14 | −137.88 | −122.24 |
Mean | −110.47 | −122.58 | −121.06 | −131.66 | −124.09 | −8.01 | −31.33 | −15.30 | −32.79 | −21.86 | −118.48 | −153.91 | −136.36 | −164.45 | −145.95 |
I2K1 | −31.78 | −45.40 | −49.94 | −49.94 | −45.40 | 54.65 | 26.23 | 39.34 | 13.11 | 32.79 | 22.87 | −19.16 | −10.59 | −36.82 | −12.60 |
I2K2 | −22.70 | −40.86 | −31.78 | −40.86 | −36.32 | 96.18 | 59.02 | 89.62 | 54.65 | 74.32 | 73.48 | 18.16 | 57.84 | 13.79 | 38.00 |
I2K3 | −13.62 | −31.78 | −22.70 | −36.32 | −27.24 | 96.18 | 56.83 | 89.62 | 67.76 | 78.69 | 82.56 | 25.05 | 66.92 | 31.44 | 51.45 |
Mean | −22.70 | −39.34 | −34.80 | −42.37 | −36.32 | 82.34 | 47.36 | 72.86 | 45.17 | 61.93 | 59.64 | 8.01 | 38.06 | 2.80 | 25.61 |
I3K1 | −31.78 | −45.40 | −45.40 | −54.48 | −45.40 | 56.83 | 28.41 | 52.46 | 17.48 | 39.34 | 25.05 | −16.98 | 7.06 | −36.99 | −6.05 |
I3K2 | −18.16 | −36.32 | −22.70 | −40.86 | −31.78 | 98.37 | 63.39 | 96.18 | 56.83 | 78.69 | 80.21 | 27.07 | 73.48 | 15.97 | 46.91 |
I3K3 | −13.62 | −31.78 | −22.70 | −31.78 | −27.24 | 102.74 | 67.76 | 96.18 | 74.32 | 85.25 | 89.12 | 35.98 | 73.48 | 42.54 | 58.01 |
Mean | −21.18 | −37.83 | −30.26 | −42.37 | −34.80 | 85.98 | 53.19 | 81.61 | 49.55 | 67.76 | 64.79 | 15.36 | 51.34 | 7.17 | 32.96 |
Treat | IERpeanut | IERsunflower | Total IER | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | P1 | P2 | P3 | P4 | Mean | |
I1K1 | 0.73 | 0.70 | 0.70 | 0.69 | 0.70 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.20 | 0.17 | 0.19 | 0.94 | 0.89 | 0.91 | 0.87 | 0.90 |
I1K2 | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.25 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.21 | 0.22 | 1.02 | 0.95 | 0.98 | 0.92 | 0.97 |
I1K3 | 0.78 | 0.76 | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.75 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.23 | 1.03 | 0.98 | 1.01 | 0.96 | 1.00 |
Mean | 0.76 | 0.73 | 0.74 | 0.71 | 0.73 | 0.24 | 0.21 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.22 | 1.00 | 0.94 | 0.97 | 0.92 | 0.95 |
I2K1 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.90 | 0.32 | 0.28 | 0.30 | 0.26 | 0.29 | 1.25 | 1.18 | 1.20 | 1.16 | 1.19 |
I2K2 | 0.95 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 0.37 | 0.32 | 0.37 | 0.32 | 0.34 | 1.33 | 1.24 | 1.30 | 1.23 | 1.26 |
I2K3 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.94 | 0.38 | 0.32 | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 1.35 | 1.26 | 1.32 | 1.26 | 1.29 |
Mean | 0.95 | 0.91 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.35 | 0.31 | 0.34 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 1.31 | 1.23 | 1.27 | 1.22 | 1.25 |
I3K1 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.90 | 0.32 | 0.28 | 0.32 | 0.27 | 0.29 | 1.26 | 1.19 | 1.22 | 1.16 | 1.19 |
I3K2 | 0.96 | 0.92 | 0.95 | 0.91 | 0.93 | 0.38 | 0.33 | 0.38 | 0.32 | 0.34 | 1.34 | 1.25 | 1.33 | 1.23 | 1.27 |
I3K3 | 0.97 | 0.93 | 0.95 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.38 | 0.34 | 0.37 | 0.34 | 0.35 | 1.36 | 1.28 | 1.33 | 1.27 | 1.29 |
Mean | 0.95 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.36 | 0.32 | 0.36 | 0.31 | 0.32 | 1.32 | 1.24 | 1.29 | 1.22 | 1.25 |
Sole | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 |
with 70% Eto and received K1 fertilizer. IER shows an advantage from intercropping patterns over sole culture in terms of the use of environmental resources for plant growth with application of 120% ETo that received K3 fertilizer. The combined yield advantage in terms of total IER indices was greatest in the cases of P1 intercropping pattern that irrigated with 120% ETo and received K3 fertilizer, meanwhile P4 intercropping pattern that irrigated with 70% ETo and received K1 fertilizer gave a disadvantage of this intercropping pattern over sole culture.
Generally, competitive effects of intercropping peanut with sunflower appear to be a viable approach for reducing water dependency and improving profitability of Egyptian farmers under sandy soil conditions. P1 intercropping pattern decreased competitive pressure between the intercrops and increase WER with increase in K uptake by 30% over sole peanut under 120% drip water irrigation. Also, this cropping system increased MAI, IA and IER compared with sole peanut and it could be recommended.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Ouda, S.A., Hefny, Y.A.A., Abdel-Wahab, T.I. and Abdel-Wa- hab, S.I. (2018) Competitiveness and Profitability of Intercropping Sunflower with Peanut under Different Irrigation Water Levels and Potassium Fertilizer Rates. Agricultural Sciences, 9, 1007-1031. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2018.98070