Kandil, E., Gomaa, M., Nassar, M., Saif ElNasr, F., Abo-Aisha, A. (2023). Wheat-Sugar Beet Productivty and Land Equivalent Ratio under Intercropping System with Mineral, Nano Npk and Bio Npk Application. Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 28(1), 106-119. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2023.190391.1111
Essam Kandil; Mahmoud Gomaa; Mohamed Abd ElGawad Nassar; Fakhry Mohamed Saif ElNasr; Awad Abo-Aisha. "Wheat-Sugar Beet Productivty and Land Equivalent Ratio under Intercropping System with Mineral, Nano Npk and Bio Npk Application". Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 28, 1, 2023, 106-119. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2023.190391.1111
Kandil, E., Gomaa, M., Nassar, M., Saif ElNasr, F., Abo-Aisha, A. (2023). 'Wheat-Sugar Beet Productivty and Land Equivalent Ratio under Intercropping System with Mineral, Nano Npk and Bio Npk Application', Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 28(1), pp. 106-119. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2023.190391.1111
Kandil, E., Gomaa, M., Nassar, M., Saif ElNasr, F., Abo-Aisha, A. Wheat-Sugar Beet Productivty and Land Equivalent Ratio under Intercropping System with Mineral, Nano Npk and Bio Npk Application. Journal of the Advances in Agricultural Researches, 2023; 28(1): 106-119. doi: 10.21608/jalexu.2023.190391.1111
Wheat-Sugar Beet Productivty and Land Equivalent Ratio under Intercropping System with Mineral, Nano Npk and Bio Npk Application
1Plant Production Dep., Faculty of Agriculture (Saba Basha), Alexandria University, Egypt.
2Etay El-Baroud Research Station El-Beheira, Agriculture Research Center, Giza Egypt.
Abstract
Two field experiments were carried out during seasons at 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 in Etay El-Baroud, Research Station, El Beheira Governorate, Agriculture Research Center (ARC), Giza, Egypt to study the effect of intercropping two densities of wheat [25% (D1) and 12.50% (D2) with sugar beet as well as sugar beet and wheat in pure stands under eight fertilizer types {100% NPK (T1), 75% NPK + nano-fertilizer of NPK (T2), 75% NPK +bio-fertilizer of NPK (T3), 50% NPK +nano-fertilizer of NPK (T4), 50% NPK +bio-fertilizer of NPK (T5), nano- fertilizer of NPK only, bio-fertilizer of NPK only (T7) and nano- fertilizer of NPK + bio-fertilizer of NPK (T8)}, on sugar beet and wheat. The experiments were designed as split plot design. Results indicated that sowing in pure stand (D3) followed by grown sugar beet under plant density 12.50% of wheat (D2) recorded the highest values of yield and quality of sugar beet in both seasons. All studied characters of sugar beet achieved the highest values with 75% NPK + bio-fertilizer (T3) treatment in both seasons. Top, root and sugar yields/ fed in both season, and sucrose% in 2021/2022 seasons were significantly affected by the interaction between intercropping densities and fertilizer types. The highest values for these characters were obtaned when sowing sugar beet in pure stand (D3) followed by grown under intercropping density 12.50% of wheat (D2) and application of 75% NPK + bio-fertilizer (T3). Sowing wheat in a monoculture crop (D4) recorded the highest values of Plant height (cm), Number of spike/ m2, Grain weight / m2 (g), 1000-grain weight (g) and Grain yield in tons as well as straw yield in tons / fed., followed by grown wheat in intercropping density 25% (D1) in both seasons. Wheat fertilized with 75% NPK + bio-fertilizer (T3) recorded the highest values for all characters in both seasons. Sowing wheat in pure stand (D4), followed by intercropping density 25% (D1) with application of 75% NPK + bio-fertilizer (T3) achieved the highest values of all studied wheat characters in both seasons. LER and K achieved the highest values by using intercropping density 12.50% of wheat with sugar beet and application of 75% NPK + bio-fertilizer, which reached 1.403 and 1.415 as well as 6.602 and 7.124 in the first and second seasons, respectively.
The sugar beet crop is the second sugar crop after sugar cane in Egypt. Egypt imports 300 thousand tons of sugar every year narrow the shortage gap. Sugar beet is cultivated in 121 countries, the total production of sugar beet in the world is 270 million tons from an area of 7.9 million hectares (FAO, 2019). The area of sugar beet in Egypt is 720,000 fed and the yield is 14,409,160 tons (Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation 2021).
Wheat is the number onegrain crop in Egypt and the main ingredient for bread flour in Egypt. Egypt imports from 5 to 5.5 million tons annually. The area of wheat in Egypt was estimated at about (3,353,151 acres), which produced 9,342,538 tons (FAO, 2019).
Intercropping is one of the solutions and a major pillar to reduce imports of sugar and wheat. Thus, there is a need to maximize production per unit area to accelerate productivity gains, which may encourage a reduction in the expected food security gap. Intercropping is a component of permaculture, a more productive system than different crops separately (Kumar et al., 2014). intercropping wheat with sugar beets by reducing the density of wheat reduced competition between growers and increased production per unit area (Gomaa et al., 2019).
The main elements (N, P and K) are the basis of plant nutrition. On the other hand, the production of mineral fertilizers is expensive. In addition, most of the energy for fertilizer production is provided by non-renewable fossil fuel consumption, which cause problems for the environment (Akbari et al., 2011 and Mir et al., 2015).
The application of nano-fertilizers and nitrogen-fixing bio-fertilizers and the increase in the activity of phosphorus and potassium in the soil led to a decrease in the use of chemical fertilizers and the provision of high-quality products free of agricultural chemicals harmful to human safety (Mahfouz and Sharaf El-Din, 2007). Spraying with nano-fertilizers increases the efficiency of nutrient consumption (Rezaei and Abbasi, 2014). The highest values of Guar Plan vegetative growth, yield, oil yield, chlorophyll content, and NPK ratios were recorded with bio-fertilizer treatment plus two-thirds of the recommended dose of mineral fertilizer (Gendy et al., 2013).
The aim of this study was to study the effect of intercropping densities of wheat with sugar beet, nano and bio fertilizers (NPK) and their interaction on yield and quality of sugar beet and yield of wheat.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two field experiments were carried out at Etay El-Baroud Experimental station in El-Beheira Governorate, Agriculture Research Center, Egypt during 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 seasons to study the effect of two intercropping densities of wheat and the monoculture of both crops as follow:
1- Density 1 (D1) ═ 100% sugar beet + 25% wheat (15 kg of wheat grain in rows on the width of sugar beet ridge).
2- Density 1 (D2) ═ 100% sugar beet + 12.50% wheat (7.50 kg of wheat grain in rows on the width of sugar beet ridge).
3- Sugar beet in a monoculture crop (D3) (35000 plant/fed).
4- Wheat in a monoculture crop (D4) (60 kg of wheat grain/fed).
And eight treatments of fertilization as follow:
T1: 100% mineral NPK [215 kg N /fed (urea 46.50%) + 125 kg P/fed (super phosphate15%) + 62.50 kg K/fed (potassium sulphate 50 %)].
T2: 75% mineral NPK [161 kg N /fed (urea 46.50%) + 93.25 kg P/fed (super phosphate 15%) + 46.88 kg K/fed (potassium sulphate 50 %)] + Nano NPK (2 g/liter from three elements were add three time) for D1. Whereas, [145 kg N /fed (urea 46.50%) + 84 kg P/fed (super phosphate15%) + 42 kg K/fed (potassium sulphate 50%)] + Nano NPK (by rate 2 g/liter of distilled water from N, P and K were add at spayed three time after the first, second and third irrigations).
T3: 75% Mineral + bio NPK. Azobacterin (800g/fed) + Phosphorine (800 g/fed) + Potassiummag (800 g/fed). Turning the three types on sand in a shady place and scattering its mixed with sand and after planting and immediately before irrigating.
T4: 50% mineral + Nano NPK. [107 kg N /fed (urea 46.50%) + 62.50 kg P/fed (super phosphate15%) + 31.25 kg K/fed (potassium sulphate 50%)] + Nano NPK (2g/liter sprayed three times.
T5: 50% mineral NPK + Bio NPK.
T6: Nano NPK only.
T7: Bio NPK.
T8: Nano NPK + bio NPK.
The experimental design was a split-plot design with four replications. The two densities of wheat and the monoculture crops were allocated in the main plots, whereas the eight fertilizers treatments were distributed at random in the sub-plots. The number of ridges in each sub- plot was 3 ridges (120 cm width), the length of ridge was 3 m (plot area was 10.80 m2 = 1/388.89 of fed). All the other culture Practices p were done according to the recommendation of the Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation. Sugar beet was planted in 14th and 16th of October 2020 whereas wheat was planted in15th and 17th of November 2021, respectively.
The fertilizer Super phosphate (15%) was applied during soil preparation, while urea (46.50 % N) was done in two equal doses before the first and second irrigation, and potassium sulphate (50 % K2O) was applied before the first irrigation.
Table (1). Physical and chemical analysis of experimental soil during 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 seasons.
Soil properties
Soil texture
Sand%
Silt%
Clay%
PH
Organic matter%
Available N (ppm)
Available P (ppm)
Available K (ppm)
EC (m mhos) cm-1 (1;5)
2020/021
Clay
7.09
32.50
61.41
7.71
1.99
1.50
0.39
278.86
1.93
2021/022
Clay
8.59
31.80
59.61
7.79
2.07
1.52
0.38
286.79
1.61
2- Nano- fertilizer: the nano-fertilizers of NPK were obtained from (Bio-nano-technology Company Factory Al-Nubaria Alexandria Desert Road, the rate of 2 g / liter in distilled water. It was foliar sprayed three times after the first, second and third irrigations.
3- Bio-fertilizer: bio-fertilizer of Nitrogen, Phosphorous and Potassium were obtained by Azobacterin (800g/fed), Phosphorine (800 g/fed) and Potassiummag (800 g/fed), respectively. The three types of Bio and immediately before irrigating.
The studied Characters:
A- Sugar beet:
Yield characters: Root yield (ton/fed) and top yield (ton/fed) were estimated from whole plot and sugar yield (ton/fed): was calculated from root yield (tons/ fed) x sucrose%.
Quality characters:
1-Total soluble solids percentage (T.S.S. %) of roots were measured in juice of fresh root using hand refractometer according to (A.O.A.C., 1990).
2- Sucrose % was measured by hand saccharemeter according to Le-Docte (1972).
3- Juice purity %, was calculated according to Carruthers and Oldfield (1961) as follows: Juice purity% ═
B- Wheat:
Yield and yield components: Number of spikes/ m2, 1000- grain weight (g) and Grain yield as well as straw yield in tons / fed.
C- Yield and yield advantages:
c.1. Land equivalent ratio (LER):
LER is the sum of fractions of the intercropped yield related to their monoculture crop yields. It is usually assumed that the same level of management must be the same for intercropping as for mono cropping. It was determined according to Willey and Soiree (1972).
LER=
Where: Yab = yield of crop (a) intercropped with crop (b),Yba = yield of crop (b) intercropped with crop (a), Yaa = yield of crop (a) as a monoculture crop and Ybb = yield of crop (b) as a monoculture crop.
c.2. Relative crowding coefficient (K):
The relative crowding coefficient (K) is a measure of the relative dominance of one species over the other in a mixture (Banike et al., 2006). K was determined according to the following formula for species (a) in mixture with species (b).
Kab= and Kba=
K ═ Kab x Kba
Where: Zab=sown proportion of crop (a) in combination with crop (b) and Zba=sown proportion of crop (b) in combination with crop (a).
When the values of LER and K were greater than1, there is a yield advantage; when LER and K were equal to 1, there is no yield advantage; and, when it is less than 1, there is a disadvantage (Dhima et al., 2007).
c.3. Aggressivity: (Agg):
It gives simple measure of how much relative yield increase in species (a) greater than for species (b) which is often used to determine the competitive relationship between two crops used in mixed cropping (Willey, 1979). The aggressivity was formulated as follows:
Aa =
Ab =
If Aggressivity value = zero it indicates that the component species are equality-for any other situation, both species will have the same numerical value, but the sing of the dominant species will be positive and the dominated will be negative.
3.2. Statistical analysis:
The obtained data were analyzed according to Snedecor and Cochron (1967). The treatments means were compared by using the least significant differences (L.S.D.) at 5% of probability, where it was computed using CoStat V 6.4 (2005) program.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A: Sugar beet:
Data presented in Table (2) revealed that yield and yield components characters of sugar beet were significantly intercropping densities of wheat with sugar beet in both seasons. The highest values of these traits were recorded by growing sugar beet in a monoculture crop, followed by growing sugar beet under intercropping density 12.50% (D2) in the two growing seasons. Whereas, the lowest values were recorded by growing sugar beet under intercropping density 25% of wheat. Results of sugar beet yields/fed i.e. top, root and sugar yields/fed as the same trend as yield components characters in both seasons. The highest values of top, root and sugar yields /fed in the first season, and second season, resulted when sugar beet was grown in a monoculture crop, followed by growing sugar beet under intercropping density 12.50% (D2). Whereas, the lowest values of these characters in the first and second season, respectively were recorded by growing sugar beet under intercropping density 25% of wheat. These results were due to that increasing seeding rate of wheat lead to decrease of sugar beet traits. So, these traits of sugar beet were affected by inter-specific competition between sugar beet and wheat Plants for light, which led to increase shading especially at higher wheat plants density. Similar results were recorded by Heba et al. (2016) and Gomaa et al. (2019).
Data presented in Table (2) revealed that quality characters of sugar beet i.e. total soluble solids % and sucrose % were significantly affected intercropping densities in both seasons, while purity % was not significantly affected. Also, chemical characters were increased by decreasing seeding rate of wheat compared with sugar beet in Pure stand in both seasons. These results are due to intra and inter competitive Saban et al. (2008) they found that intercropping improve the economic status of growers and sugar industry.
As shown in Table (2) sugar beet yield components were affected by fertilizer treatments in both seasons. Results of sugar beet yields/fed i.e. root and sugar yields/fed toke the same trend of yield components characters in both seasons. The highest values of root and sugar yields/fed in the first and second seasons, respectively were recorded when sugar beet plants were fertilized with75%NPK + bio-fertilizer (Azobacterin, Phosphorine and Potassiummag) (T3). This result may be due to that bio-fertilizing with mineral fertilizer, reduces mineral and makes nutrients available to the plant slowly during the growing season. Valizadeh and Milic (2016) found that a balanced fertilization strategy with macro and micronutrients in plant nutrition is very imperative for crop production. Top yield (ton/fed) was increased when sugar beet plants were fertilized of 100% mineral NPK in the first and second seasons, respectively. These results due to complete dose of NPK fertilizer increased growth traits than fruiting. These findings agreed with (Ouda, 2007). While the lowest values of root and sugar yields/fed were recorded when sugar beet plants Were fertilized with bio fertilizer only (T7), nano- fertilizer only (T6) and Nano + bio NPK together (T8) in both seasons, respectively. But T8 treatment was the best. Bio-fertilizers widely used as an alternative to chemical fertilizers, fertilizer producers have introduced new types of nanotechnology-based fertilizers, bio-fertilizers consisting of environmentally friendly microorganisms provide nutrients to the plant, improve soil fertility and crop productivity, nanoparticles provided the advantage of efficient loading due to their large surface area (Ghormade et al., 2011, Jakiene et al., 2015).
For total soluble solids %, sucrose % and purity % were significantly affected by fertilizer treatments in both seasons as shown in Table (2). These characters behaved the same direction as sugar beet yields per fed in both seasons. These characters increased by application of bio-fertilizer with NPK mineral fertilizer compared to NPK mineral fertilizer alone in both seasons. These results due to that excessive NPK fertilizer increase impurities in quality traits. Quality traits (TSS, sucrose%, purity and recoverable sugar percentage were decreased with increasing N in combination with bio-fertilizer (Bassal et al., 2001).
Yield and its components were significantly affected by the interaction in both seasons as shown in Table (3). Growing sugar beet alone achieved the highest values with most fertilizer treatments from T1 to T5, followed by growing sugar beet under intercropping density 12.50% with 75% NPK +bio-fertilizer (T3), for root yield and sugar yield/fed in both seasons, respectively. While the lowest values were recorded by growing sugar beet under intercropping density 25% (D1) with bio-fertilizer only (T7), followed by nano-fertilizer only (T6) in both seasons, respectively. These results were due to inter and intera specific competitive. Similar results were obtained by (Gomaa et al., 2019).
The sugar beet quality traits weren't significantly affect by interaction except sucrose% in the second season as shown in Table (3). When the percentage of NPK mineral fertilizer decreased from T1 to T5 sucrose% increased, so the highest value was (19.06%) when sugar beet plants were fertilized with 50% NPK + bio-fertilizer (F5) under intercropping density 12.50% wheat (D2). While the lowest values (16.57 and 16.52%) Were recorded when sugar beet plants were fertilized with 100% NPK (T1) and 75% NPK + nano- fertilizer (T2) under intercropping density 25% wheat (D1), respectively.
Table (2). Effects of intercropping densities, fertilizer treatments and their interaction on yield and yield components of sugar beet as well as its quality characters during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 growing seasons.
Treatments
Top yield
(ton/ fed)
Root yield
(ton/fed)
Sugar yield
(ton/ fed)
TSS (%)
Sucrose (%)
Purity (%)
Seasons
2020/21
2021/22
2020/21
2021/22
2020/21
2021/22
2020/21
2021/22
2020/21
2021/22
2020/21
2021/22
A- Intercropping densities of wheat (D)
25% density (D1)
5.954c
5.885c
22.478c
22.751c
2.215c
2.238c
20.61b
20.17b
17.90b
17.52c
86.85
86.60
12.50% density (D2)
6.689b
6.632b
23.926b
24.031b
2.391b
2.403b
21.39a
20.59a
18.50a
17.88a
86.15
86.88
Sugar beet alone (D3)
12.358a
12.057a
29.330a
29.209a
3.335a
3.350a
20.71b
20.40a
17.99b
17.79a
86.86
86.99
L.S.D. at 5%
0.553
0.445
0.166
0.248
0.036
0.041
0.21
0.24
0.16
0.13
Ns
Ns
B- Fertilizer treatments
T1(100%NPK)
12.304a
12.089a
30.313a
30.840a
3.435c
3.453c
20.83bcd
19.86e
17.21f
16.83e
83.62d
84.86de
T2(75%NPK+nano-fertilizer)
11.731b
11.198b
30.108b
30.164b
3.376d
3.330d
20.55d
20.22d
17.19f
16.79e
88.67b
83.36e
T3(75%NPK+bio-fertilizer)
11.781b
11.556b
30.593a
30.971a
3.784a
3.806a
21.15a
20.67a
18.82b
18.43b
86.42c
89.22ab
T4(50%NPK+nano-fertilizer)
10.702c
10.468c
28.885d
29.330c
3.324e
3.336d
20.76cd
20.45bcb
17.94e
17.56d
90.40a
85.89cd
T5(50%NPK +bio-fertilizer)
10.618c
10.317c
29.231c
30.025b
3.626b
3.726b
21.26a
21.03a
19.21a
18.40a
87.38bc
89.52a
T6(nano-fertilizer only)
3.252d
3.285e
17.722f
17.027e
1.206g
1.189f
20.56d
20.32cd
17.96e
17.47d
86.75c
86.49abc
T7(bio-fertilizer only)
2.646e
2.752f
17.041g
16.588f
1.115h
1.155g
21.13ab
20.44bc
18.46c
18.04c
87.07bc
87.25bc
T8(nano+ bio-fertilizer)
3.637d
3.863d
18.177e
17.696d
1.312f
1.312e
20.99abc
20.33cd
18.27d
17.88c
83.62d
87.95abc
L. S. D. at 5%
0.420
0.416
0.211
0.266
0.044
0.045
0.38
0.36
0.25
0.14
1.73
84.86de
Interaction (A x B)
*
*
*
*
*
*
ns
ns
ns
*
ns
ns
* and ns : significant difference, not significant difference at 5 % level of probability, respectively.
Table (3). The interaction between intercropping densities and fertilizer treatments on yield and yield components of sugar beet as well as its quality characters during 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 growing seasons.
Treatments
Top yield (ton/fed)
Root yield (ton/fed)
Sugar yield (ton/fed)
Sucrose%
2020/21
2021/22
2020/21
2021/22
2020/21
2021/22
2021/22
25% density (D1)
T1(100%NPK)
8.957
8.844
27.117
27.761
4.596
4.601
16.57
T2(75%NPK+Nano-fertilizer
8.690
8.410
26.903
27.187
4.555
4.491
16.52
T3(75%NPK+Bio-fertilizer)
8.264
8.144
27.744
27.937
5.179
5.079
18.18
T4(50%NPK+nano- fertilizer
7.920
7.583
25.701
26.211
4.544
4.537
17.31
T5(50%NPK +bio-fertilizer)
7.544
7.480
26.051
26.897
4.937
4.995
18.57
T6(nano- fertilizer only)
2.023
2.111
15.513
15.263
2.746
2.644
17.32
T7(bio-fertilizer only)
1.730
1.920
14.981
14.880
2.757
2.681
18.02
T8(nano+ bio fertilizer)
2.507
2.587
15.810
15.871
2.848
2.798
17.63
12.50% density(D2)
T1(100%NPK)
9.694
9.631
28.944
29.583
5.103
5.050
17.07
T2(75%NPK+nano- fertilizer
9.527
8.920
28.471
28.887
5.014
4.919
17.03
T3(75%NPK+bio-fertilizer)
9.461
9.357
29.084
29.691
5.596
5.543
18.67
T4(50%NPK+nano- fertilizer
8.133
7.898
27.297
28.011
5.012
4.983
17.79
T5(50%NPK +bio-fertilizer)
8.584
7.620
27.611
28.667
5.420
5.464
19.06
T6(nano- fertilizer only)
2.804
3.334
16.667
15.768
3.063
2.761
17.51
T7(bio-fertilizer only)
2.260
2.460
16.083
15.250
2.972
2.716
17.81
T8(nano+ bio fertilizer)
3.050
3.834
17.251
16.387
3.224
2.969
18.12
Sugar beet alone(D3)
T1(100%NPK)
18.261
17.793
34.878
35.177
5.943
5.931
16.86
T2(75%NPK+nano- fertilizer
16.977
16.264
34.607
34.417
5.890
5.785
16.81
T3(75%NPK+bio-fertilizer)
17.617
17.167
34.951
35.284
6.518
6.510
18.45
T4(50%NPK+nano- fertilizer
16.054
15.924
33.657
33.767
5.981
5.933
17.57
T5(50%NPK +bio-fertilizer)
15.727
15.850
34.031
34.510
6.480
6.502
18.84
T6(nano- fertilizer only)
4.930
4.410
20.987
20.050
3.734
3.527
17.59
T7(bio-fertilizer only)
3.947
3.877
20.060
19.634
3.709
3.589
18.28
T8(nano+ bio fertilizer)
5.354
5.168
21.470
20.831
3.886
3.729
17.90
L.S.D. at 5%
0.602
0.597
0.302
0.324
0.063
0.154
0.61
B- Wheat
Results in Table (4) revealed that Wheat yield and its components characters were significantly affected by intercropping densities of wheat with sugar beet in both seasons. The highest values of these characters were achieved by growing wheat in a monoculture crop, followed by growing wheat in intercropping density 25% with sugar beet (D1) in the two growing seasons. Whereas, the lowest values were resulted by growing wheat in intercropping density 12.50 % with sugar beet (D2) in both seasons, respectively.studied four intercropping densities of wheat with sugar beet i.e. (6.25%, 12.50%, 25% and 50% gain per fed from seeding rate of fed which was it 60 Kg/fed, as well as along with two solid checks of both crops. Wheat characters were reached the maximum in pure stands and reduced by reducing the intercropping percentages of wheat with sugar beet (Gomaa et al., 2019). Similar results were obtained by Heba et al. (2016).
Results in Table (4) revealed that Wheat yield and its components characters were significantly affected by fertilizer treatments. 100% mineral NPK (T1) recorded the highest straw yield. Gomaa et. al. (2021) found that 100% NPK achieved the highest values for plant height, straw yield and biological yield/fed. Application of 75% NPK + bio-fertilizer (T3) resulted the highest values of wheat traits i.e. number of spikes /m2, 1000-grain wheat and grain yield /fed in both seasons, respectively. This result may be due to bio-fertilizer with mineral fertilizer, makes nutrients available to the plant slowly during the growing season. Valizadeh and Milic (2016) found that a balanced fertilization strategy with macro and micronutrients in plant nutrition is very imperative for crop production. While the lowest values were recorded when wheat plants were fertilized by bio only (T7), nano- fertilizer only (T6) and both together (T8) for all characters in both seasons, respectively. Gomaa et al. (2021) found that bio-fertilizers (Mycorrhiza + Microben + Potassiummag ) only gave the lowest values.
Results in Table (5) showed that yield and it's components of wheat were significantly affected by interaction between intercropping densities and fertilizer treatments in the first and second seasons. Sowing wheat as a monoculture crop attained the highest values with all fertilizer treatments. Except 1000-grain weight which was the highest by growing wheat in intercropping density 25% with sugar beet (D1) and fertilized with 50% NPK + bio-fertilizer (T5). These results may be due to the competition between plants of different species is less than the competition between plants of the same species, that is, intra and inter competition. Similar results were obtained by Gomaa et al. (2019). While the lowest values were recorded when growing wheat in intercropping density 12.50% (D1) with bio-fertilizer only (T7), followed by nano- fertilizer only (T6) in both seasons, respectively. Grain yields of wheat and barley and seed yield of faba bean reached the maximum in the pure stand and reduced by reducing intercropping percentage of the three companion crops (Heba et al., 2016).
Table (4). Effects of intercropping densities, fertilizer treatments and their interaction on yield and its components of wheat in both seasons.
Treatments
Number of spikes /m2
1000- grain weight (g)
Grain yield/fed (ton)
Straw yield /fed (ton)
Seasons
2020/21
2021/22
2020/21
2021/22
2020/21
2021/22
2020/21
2021/22
A- Intercropping densities of wheat (D)
25% density (D1)
183.85b
181.56b
65.76a
59.86a
1.622b
1.553b
2.097b
2.034b
12.50% density (D2)
173.31c
170.89c
64.69b
59.11b
1.576c
1.533b
1.828c
1.824b
Wheat alone (D4)
293.38a
288.71a
61.28c
58.67c
2.808a
2.733a
3.568a
3.388a
L.S.D. at 5%
5.00
1.65
1.12
0.34
0.032
0.096
0.147
0.214
B- Fertilizer treatments (T)
T1(100%NPK)
256.24a
252.46a
64.21abc
59.40bc
2.511a
2.431a
3.337a
3.230a
T2(75%NPK+nano- fertilizer)
238.24b
230.39b
64.07abc
59.04bc
2.433b
2.357b
3.166ab
3.042ab
T3(75%NPK+bio-fertilizer)
257.85a
253.58a
64.72a
60.20a
2.526a
2.446a
3.116b
2.976b
T4(50%NPK+nano- fertilizer)
220.28d
211.48c
63.88bcd
59.08bc
2.284d
2.194c
2.795c
2.715c
T5(50%NPK +bio-fertilizer)
231.85c
228.59b
64.53ab
59.64ab
2.326c
2.297c
2.715c
2.628c
T6(nano- fertilizer only)
173.76f
171.46e
63.13d
58.72bc
1.333f
1.288e
1.566e
1.528e
T7(bio-fertilizer only)
171.48f
169.66e
63.10d
58.47c
1.193g
1.142f
1.375e
1.409e
T8(nano+ bio fertilizer)
185.09e
182.11d
63.60cd
59.16ab
1.410e
1.362d
1.914d
1.794d
L. S. D. at 5%
3.30
4.63
0.86
0.65
0.061
0.072
0.208
0.187
Interaction (A x B)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* and ns : significant difference, not significant difference at 5 % level of probability, respectively.
Table (5). The interaction between intercropping densities and fertilizer treatments on yield and its components of wheat in both seasons.
Treatments
Number of spikes/ m2
1000-grain weight(g)
Grain yield/fed (ton)
Straw yield /fed (ton)
2020/21
2021/22
2020/21
2021/22
2020/21
2021/22
2020/21
2021/22
25% density (D1)
T1(100%NPK)
220.83
218.22
65.14
59.55
2.043
1.963
2.747
2.514
T2(75%NPK+nano- fertilizer
204.17
199.78
65.45
59.45
1.984
1.893
2.650
2.420
T3(75%NPK+bio-fertilizer)
223.89
219.41
66.27
60.41
2.067
1.974
2.531
2.403
T4(50%NPK+nano- fertilizer
188.33
190.00
65.77
60.05
1.823
1.753
2.067
2.107
T5(50%NPK +bio-fertilizer)
195.55
191.44
66.60
60.43
1.883
1.841
2.087
2.014
T6(nano- fertilizer only)
141.67
140.00
65.61
59.60
1.064
1.019
1.617
1.590
T7(bio-fertilizer only)
137.22
136.11
65.44
59.50
0.931
0.902
1.313
1.474
T8(nano+ bio fertilizer)
159.17
157.50
65.77
59.83
1.127
1.079
1.770
1.750
12.50% density(D2)
T1(100%NPK)
207.22
201.67
64.38
59.04
1.991
1.925
2.551
2.510
T2(75%NPK+nano- fertilizer
193.89
187.22
64.15
58.74
1.907
1.861
2.347
2.443
T3(75%NPK+bio-fertilizer)
208.00
202.44
64.61
60.28
2.003
1.954
2.293
2.314
T4(50%NPK+nano- fertilizer
176.67
181.11
64.27
58.91
1.801
1.734
2.027
2.013
T5(50%NPK +bio-fertilizer)
187.50
186.00
65.27
59.83
1.833
1.815
2.007
1.961
T6(nano- fertilizer only)
133.78
133.55
64.94
58.94
1.048
1.009
1.013
0.984
T7(bio-fertilizer only)
133.34
133.43
64.71
58.11
0.917
0.893
0.978
0.907
T8(nano+ bio fertilizer)
146.11
141.67
65.10
59.05
1.106
1.069
1.410
1.457
Wheat alone (D4)
T1(100%NPK)
340.66
337.50
63.11
59.61
3.497
3.405
4.713
4.667
T2(75%NPK+nano- fertilizer
316.67
308.33
62.61
58.94
3.407
3.317
4.501
4.257
T3(75%NPK+bio-fertilizer)
341.67
338.89
63.27
59.84
3.507
3.410
4.523
4.211
T4(50%NPK+nano- fertilizer
295.84
293.34
61.61
58.28
3.227
3.094
4.291
4.024
T5(50%NPK +bio-fertilizer)
312.50
304.17
61.72
58.66
3.263
3.234
4.052
3.910
T6(nano- fertilizer only)
245.84
240.84
58.83
57.61
1.888
1.836
2.067
2.010
T7(bio-fertilizer only)
243.89
239.44
59.16
57.79
1.679
1.632
1.833
1.847
T8(nano+ bio fertilizer)
250.00
247.17
59.94
58.61
1.997
1.938
2.563
2.174
L.S.D. at 5%
4.73
6.64
1.24
0.93
0.087
0.103
0.298
0.269
C- Yield and yield advantages.
1- Land equivalent ratio (LER):
Results in Table (6) showed that intercropping densities of wheat with sugar beet and fertilizer sources, exceeded land usage than unit in all treatments in both seasons. Best results in both seasons were obtained by using intercropping density 12.50% of wheat with sugar beet (D2) and application of 75% NPK + bio-fertilizer (T3) fertilizer treatment which recorded 1.403 and 1.415 in the first and second seasons, respectively. In all fertilizer treatments, sugar beet during the two intercropping density with wheat produced higher yields than 0.50% in both crops in all intercropping systems in both seasons. This result indicated that wheat with sugar beet is a good component where its yields exceeded the expected yield. Similar results were recorded by Heba et al. (2016) and Gomaa et al. (2019).
2- Relative crowding coefficient (RCC):
Results in Table (6) indicated that all intercropping treatments were exceeded than unity in both seasons. The best results were achieved by the treatment including intercropping density 12.50% of wheat with sugar beet (D2) and application of 75% NPK + bio-fertilizer (T3) where K values reached 6.602 and 7.124 in the first and second seasons, respectively. It is quite evident form results that both components coefficient Ks and Kw exceeded unit in all treatments and Kw was more contributor for K than Ks in both seasons. This result indicates clearly that wheat was the better contributor in all treatments. Similar results were reported by Abou-Elela (2012).
3- Aggressivity (A):
Results in Table (6) showed that wheat was the dominant intercrop component and sugar beet was the dominated in all treatments in both seasons. Data revealed that "A" values of sugar beet were increased by increasing wheat percentage with sugar beet and the maximum values for "A" of sugar beet were achieved with intercropping 25% of wheat with sugar beet in both seasons. The present results indicate clearly that wheat the "overstory" intercrop has higher competitive abilities than sugar beet the "understory" component. These results are in line with the conclusion of Abou-Elela (2012) and Gomaa et al. (2019).
Table (6). Land equivalent ratio (LER), relative crowding coefficient (K) and Aggressivity (A) of intercropping densities of wheat with sugar beet and fertilizer sources in both seasons.
Treatment
LER
K
A
LER
K
A
Ls
Lw
LER
Ks
Kw
K
As
Aw
Ls
Lw
LER
Ks
Kw
K
As
Aw
2020/2021
2021/2022
25% wheat (D1)
T1
0.778
0.585
1.363
0.874
5.620
4.909
-1.949
+1.949
0.789
0.577
1.366
0.936
5.445
5.096
-1.896
+1.896
T2
0.777
0.582
1.359
0.873
5.577
4.869
-1.940
+1.940
0.790
0.571
1.361
0.940
5.317
4.998
-1.866
+1.866
T3
0.794
0.590
1.384
0.962
5.742
5.526
-1.955
+1.955
0.792
0.580
1.372
0.951
5.499
5.227
-1.905
+1.905
T4
0.764
0.565
1.329
0.808
5.194
4.195
-1.870
+1.870
0.776
0.567
1.343
0.867
5.229
4.535
-1.863
+1.863
T5
0.766
0.577
1.343
0.816
5.458
4.454
-1.928
+1.928
0.779
0.569
1.348
0.883
5.286
4.669
-1.872
+1.872
T6
0.739
0.554
1.293
0.708
5.165
3.659
-1.894
+1.894
0.761
0.555
1.316
0.797
4.989
3.977
-1.823
+1.823
T7
0.727
0.555
1.282
0.737
4.979
3.672
-1.839
+1.839
0.758
0.553
1.311
0.782
4.942
3.867
-1.816
+1.816
T8
0.737
0.564
1.301
0.698
5.182
3.619
-1.901
+1.901
0.762
0.557
1.319
0.801
5.025
4.020
-1.831
+1.831
12.50% wheat (D2)
T1
0.830
0.569
1.399
0.603
10.697
6.449
-4.243
+4.243
0.841
0.565
1.406
0.654
10.524
6.879
-4.195
+4.195
T2
0.823
0.560
1.383
0.573
10.286
5.899
-4.164
+4.164
0.839
0.561
1.400
0.646
10.341
6.676
-4.157
+4.157
T3
0.832
0.571
1.403
0.613
10.775
6.602
-4.257
+4.257
0.842
0.573
1.415
0.656
10.858
7.124
-4.264
+4.264
T4
0.811
0.558
1.369
0.531
10.219
5.421
-4.162
+4.162
0.830
0.560
1.390
0.601
10.316
6.205
-4.163
+4.163
T5
0.812
0.562
1.374
0.532
10.371
5.513
-4.195
+4.195
0.831
0.561
1.392
0.606
10.349
6.275
-4.169
+4.169
T6
0.794
0.555
1.349
0.477
10.094
4.813
-4.154
+4.154
0.786
0.540
1.326
0.455
9.871
4.493
-4.112
+4.112
T7
0.802
0.546
1.348
0.501
9.737
4.867
-4.064
+4.064
0.777
0.547
1.324
0.431
9.777
4.203
-4.102
+4.102
T8
0.803
0.556
1.359
0.505
10.049
5.078
-4.132
+4.132
0.787
0.552
1.339
0.456
9.953
4.536
-4.131
+4.131
Pure
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Where: A. Wheat density , D1 (25% wheat) , D2 (12.50% wheat) --- B. fertilizer sources, T1(100% mineral NPK), T2(75% mineral NPK + nano NPK), T3(75% mineral NPK + bio NPK), T4(50% mineral NPK + nano NPK), T5(50% mineral NPK + bio NPK), T6(nano NPK only), T7(Bio NPK only) and T8(Nano NPK + bio NPK).- Ls ═ Relative yield of sugar beet, Lw═ Relative yield of wheat and LER═ Land equivalent ratio. Ks ═ Relative yield of sugar beet, Kw═ Relative yield of wheat and K ═ Relative crowding coefficient. As ═ Aggressivity of sugar beet and Aw═ Aggressivity of wheat.
CONCLUSION.
It could be concluded that to obtain the maximum value of productivity, quality and LER of intercropping wheat with sugar is to intercrop 12.50% wheat density after 30 days from sowing date of sugar beet and fertilizer treatment of 75% NPK + bio-fertilizer.
References
A.O.A.C. (1990). American Official Methods of Analysis. 15th Ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, USA.
Abou-Elela, A. M. (2012). Effect of intercropping system and sowing dates of wheat intercropped with sugar beet. J. Archive, Vol. (3): 3101-3116.
Gendy, A. S., H. A. Said-Al Ahl, A. A. Mahmoud and H. F. Mohamed (2013). Effect of nitrogen sources, bio-fertilizers and their interaction on the growth, seed yield and chemical composition of guar plants. Life Science Journal, 10(3), 389-402.
Akbari, P.; A.Ghalavand; A. M. Sanavy; M. AghaAlikhani and S. S. Kalkhoran, (2011). Comparison of different nutritional levels and the effect of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on the grain yield and quality of sunflower. Australian J. of Crop Sci., 5(12): 1570-1576.
Bassal, K.S.; A.A. Zohry and K.A. Douby (2001). Effect of row and hill spacing and bio mineral N-fertilization rates on sugar beet productivity. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 26(9): 5217-5226.
Banike, P., A. Midya, B.K. Sarkar and S.S. Ghose (2006). wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: advantages and weed smothering. Eur. J. Agron. 24: 325-332.
Carruther, A. and J. E. T. Oldfield (1961): Methods for assessment of beet quality .Int. Sugar J.63,72h: 103-105.
Dhima, K.V., A.S. Lithourgidis, I.B. Vasilakoglou and C.A. Dordas (2007). Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research, 100, 249-256.
FAO, (2019). Official web site of Food and Agriculture organization of The United Nations, http : //www. fao. Org /waicent / portal / statistics. asp.
Ghormade V., M. V. Deshpande and K. M. Paknikar (2011). Perspectives for nano-biotechnology enabled protection and nutrition of plants. Biotechnology Advances, 29: 792–803
Gomaa M.A., A.A.M. Zen El-Dein, Gawhara A. El-Sorady, and Noha G.A. Salama (2021). Growth and productivity of maize in relation to preceding crops, mineral and biofertilization. Egypt. Acad. J. Biolog. Sci., 12(1):135- 145.
Gomaa, M.A., E.E. Kandil1., A.A. Zen El-Dein, and A. K. Abu Eisha (2019). Impact of planting methods and plant density on intercropped wheat with sugar beet. J. of the Adv. in Agric. Res. 24 (92): 212-225.
Heba, S. A. Salama, Dina El-S. El-Karamity and A. I. Nawar (2016). Additive intercropping of wheat, barley, and faba bean with sugar beet: Impact on yield, quality and land use efficiency. Egypt. J. Agron. 38(3): 413-430.
Jakienė, E., V. Spruogis, K. Romaneckas, A. Dautartė, D. Avižienytė (2015). The bio-organic nano fertilizer improves sugar beet photosynthesis process and productivity. Žemdirbystė, Agriculture. 102(2): 141-146.
Kumar, S., K. Bauddh, S. C. Barman, R. P. Singh (2014). Organic matrix entrapped bio-fertilizers increase growth, productivity, and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and transport of NO3 -, NO2 -, NH4 + and PO4-3 from soil to plant leaves. J. of Agric. Sci. and Tech., 16 (2): 315–329.
Le-Docte A. (1972). Commercial determination of sugar in beet root using the Shacks-Le Docte process, Int. Suug. J, 29: 488-492(C.F. Sugar beet nutrition, Applied Science Publishers LTD, A.P. Draycott).
Mahfouz, S.A., M.A. Sharaf Eldin (2007). Effect of mineral vs. bio-fertilizer on growth, yield, and essential oil content of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill). International Agrophysics 21(4): 361-366.
Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation (2021). 'Agriculture' aims to increase the area of 'beets' to 720,000 feddans next season. Monday 6-Sep. 2021. https://almalinews.com
Mir S., A. Sirousmehr and E. Shirmohammadi (2015): Effect of nano and biological fertilizers on carbohydrate and chlorophyll content of forage sorghum (Speedfeed hybrid). International J. of Bioscience, 6 (4): 157-164.
Ouda S. M. M. (2007). Effect of chemical and bio-fertilizer of nitrogen and boron on yield and quality of sugar beet. Zagazig J. of Agric. Res., 34 (1): 1–11.
Rezaei, M. and Abbasi H. (2014). 'Foliar application of nanochelate and non-nanochelate of zinc on plant resistance physiological processes in cotton (Gossipium hirsutum L.)'. Iranian J. Plant Physiology 4(4): 1137-1144.
Saban, Y., A. Mehmet and E. Mustafa (2008). Identification of advantages of maize-legume intercropping over solitary cropping through competition indices in the East Mediterranean Region. Turk J. Agric. For 32: 111-119.
Snedecer G.W., and W.G. Conchran (1967). Statistical methods 7th edition. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, USA.
Valizadeh M. and V. Milic (2016). The effects of balanced nutrient managements and nano-fertilizers effects on crop production in semi-arid areas. J. of Current Opinion in Agriculture Curr. Opin. Agric. 2016 5(1): 31–38.
Willey, R.W. (1979). Intercropping – Its importance and research needs. Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts, 32: 1-85.
Willey, R.W. and D.S. Soiree (1972). Studies on mixture of maize and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with particular reverse to plant population. J. Agric. Sci. Cambridge, 79: 519-529.