Contribution from the Division of Agronomy,Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012
Studies on Pure and Mixed Stands of Wheat and BarleyUnder Dryland Agriculture Conditions
R. PRASAD, S. SINGH, S. N . SHARMA and C. P. SINGH
Authors' address: Dr. R PRASAD, Professor of Agronomy, Dr. S. SiNGH, Scientist S,, Dr. S. N. SHARMA,Scientist S. and C. P. SINGH, Technical Assistant, Division of Agronomy, Indian Agricultural ResearchInstitute, New Delhi-110012, India.
With one figure and 2 tables
Received September 28, 1987; accepted December D, 1987
Abstract
Gram yield and yield components were studied in wheat and barley grown in pure and 2 : 1 , 1 : 1 and 1 : 2mixed stands (Wheat : barley row ratio) as well as a 1 : 1 seed blend mixture under dryland agricultureconditions of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi. Wheat as well as barley producedsignificantly longer and more ears/m and higher grain yield in mixed stands than in their pure stands. The 2 : 1wheat : barley mixed stand gave the highest grain yield; 35 % relative yield advantage over mid-monocultureyield. The 1 : 1 seed blend mixture was inferior to 1 : 1 (Wheat : barley row ratio) mixed stand.
Barley, being more tolerant to salinity, andalkalinity and also to drought conditions thanwheat, is grown in Northern India in fieldswbere irrigation is not available and wheat maynot be successful (I.C.A.R. 1980, MARTIN et al.1976). In earlier days (before 1950) the farmerspractised mixed cropping of barley and wheatin seed ratio of 1 : 1 to 1 : 6 (barley : wheat) asan insurance against loss in productivity (AIYER
1949), With the increased availability to irriga-tion water, advent of dwarf high yielding vari-eties of wheat and government policy of pro-curing wheat on pre-harvest fixed prices, tbearea under barley has decreased in India andmixed cropping of barley and wheat has almostcompletely ceased.
In our studies on wheat we noted yieldadvantages of mixtures over pure stands underadverse weatber conditions (REDDY and PRASAD
1980). JENSEN and FEDERER (1965) and SAGE
(1971) also reported higher productivity ofwheat mixtures. On the basis of a 6 year studyZAVITZ (1927) reported 104 % efficiency ofwheat-barley mixtures. JENSEN (1952) reported98—123 % efficiency of wheat-oats-barleymixtures. No data are available on the effi-ciency of wheat-barley mixtures in India andtherefore, the present study was taken up.
II. Materials and Methods
A field experiment was made in rabi season (win-ter—spring; November—April) of 1983—84 and198^1—85 under dryland conditions (crop was grown
U.S. Copyright Clearance Center Code Stm-mcnt: 093 1-2250/88/6005-0335$02.50/0
336 PRASAD, SINGH, SHARMA and SINGH
Table 1. Plant height, yield components and straw yield of wheat and barley in pure and mixed stands
on stored soil moisture) at the Indian AgriculturalResearch Insitute, New Delhi. The treatments werepure and mixed stands of wheat (Cultivar WL 711)and barley (Cultivar DL 84). There were three sys-tematic mixed stands made by sowing separate rowsof wheat and barley in row ratios of 1 : 1, 1 : 2 and2 : 1 (wheat : barley). In addition 1 : 1 seed blend ofwheat and barley was also sown. The experimentwas laid out in randomized block design with threereplications.
The soil of the experimental field was a sandy loamof medium fertility and had a water holding capacityof 150 mm in the top 1 m depth. Forty kg N as ureaand 20 kg P.O^/ha as ordinary' superphosphate weredrilled in soil before sowing. Sowing was done witha hand plough in the first week of November and thecrop was hai-vested in the second week of April. Inmixed stands, except 1 : 1 seed mix plot, wheat andbarley were har\^ested separately.
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.2
2.0I Q
O WHEATA BARLEYD Mix.STAND+ SEED BLEND MIXTURE
WHtAT 2:1 1̂ 1 1-2 BARLEY
WHEAT : BARLEY
Fig. 1. Grain yield of pure and mixed stands ofwheat and barley
Data were recorded at har\^est on plant heightnumber of ears/m, ear length, grains/ear, 1000-grainweight and grain and straw yield. Yielding ability,relative yield total and mean relative yield of tnixedstands were calculated by using the formulae( D E W I T and VAN DEN BERGH 1965):
where, Ymix = Yield of mixed standYmono = Yield of higher yielding species
Ymix-mono = Mean yield of pure stands of two speciesYab = Yield of species a in the mixed standYaa - Yield of species a in the pure standYba = Yield of species b in the mixed standYbb = Yield of species b in the pure stand
III, Results and Discussion
Results obtained in both the two years of studywere similar and therefore the data werepooled and are presented in Tables 1 and 2 andFig. 1.
Wheat WL 711 plants were taller than barleyDL 84 in pure stands (Table 1) and this mayhave given an advantage to wheat over barleyin mixed stands.
In all the three systematic mixed stands ofdifferent row ratios wheat plants were signifi-cantly taller than in its pure stand. On theother hand barley plants were significantlyshorter in the mixed stands than in its purestand. These results differ from those ofRAJESWARA RAO and PRASAD (1983) and REDDY
and PRASAD (1979), also reported that theplants of tall genotypes were shorter in mixedthan in pure stands.
Studies on Pure and Mixed Stands of Wheat and Barley 337
Table 2. Yielding ability, relative yield total andmean relative yield of mixed stands of wheat andbarley
Mixed standWheat : Barley(row ratio)
1 :11 : 1 (seed blend)
1 :2
2 : 1
Yieldingability(%)
11897
106124
Relativeyieldtotal
1.28—
1.161.35
Meanrelative
yield (%)
128.8106.0115.5135.1
Both wheat and barley produced signifi-cantly longer and more ears/m in the mixedstands than in their pure stand. Barley alsorecorded significantly more grains/ear in themixed stands but this advantage was lost in1 :2 and 2 : 1 mixed stands, where 1000-grainweight was significantly reduced.
Both wheat and barley yielded more inmLxed stands than in pure stands (Fig. 1), andthe highest grain yield was recorded in 2 : 1wheat : barley mixed stand. Straw yield data(Table 1) also showed similar trend. Theseresults differed from those of RAJESWARA RAO
and PRASAD (1983) who from a study on wheatcultivars reported that in a mixture taller geno-types scored higher and dwarfer genotypesscored less.
In the present study all the three estimates ofadvantages of mixtures, namely, yielding abil-ity, relative yield total and mean relative yieldwere found to be equally effective and gave thesame ranking for the different mixtures. The2 : 1 (wheat : barley) mixed stand performedbest and had a yielding ability of 124 %(Table 2) and a mean relative yield of 135 %,while 1 : 2 mixed stand performed the poorest.The 1 : 1 mixed stand was in between. It isinteresting to note that the 1 : 1 wheat : barleyseed blend mixture was inferior to the 1 : 1row ratio wheat : barley mixed stand andrecorded a mean relative yield of 106 %, veryclose to that reported by ZAVITZ (1927). Thepresent study shows that growing of differentspecies or several cultivars of a species in sepa-rate rows in a mixed stand may have additionaladvantages over the seed mixtures. Theseresults also lend support to the advantages ofsystematic mixed stands of wheat cultivarsreported by SHARMA and PRASAD (1978) andPRASAD and SHARMA (1980).
The results of the present study clearly bringout the advantages of wheat-barley mixedstands under dryland agriculture conditionsand justify the earlier practice in India of grow-ing these two crops m mixture.
Zusammenfassung
Untersuchungen an reinen und gemischtenBestanden von Weizen und Gerste unterTrockenlandhedingungen
Kornertrag und Ertragskomponenten wurdenbei Weizen und Gerste in Rembestanden undMischungen von 2 : 1 , 1:1 und 1 : 2 (Wei-zenreihen : Gerstenreihen) sowie in Mischun-gen von 1:1 als Saatgutmischungen unterTrockenlandbedingungen am Indian Agricul-tural Research Institute, New Delhi, unter-sucht. Weizen und Gerste produzierten signi-fikant langere und mehr Ahren/m und einenhoheren Kornertrag in Mischbestanden als inreinen Bestanden. Die 2 : 1-Weizen-Gerstemi-schung ergab den hochsten Kornertrag; dieserlag 35 % iiber dem Mittel der Monokulrur.Die 1 : 1-Saatgutmischung war der 1 : 1 (Wei-zen : Gerste)-Reihenrelation unterlegen.
References
AiYER, A. K. Y. N., 1949: Mixed cropping in India.Indian J. agric. Sci. 19, 439—543.
DEWIT, C . T. , and J. P. VAN DEN BERGH, 1965:
Competition between herbage plants. Neth. J.Agric. Sci. 13,212—222.
I.C.A.R., 1980: Handbook of Agriculture, IndianCouncil of Agricultural Research, New Delhi,India, 3rd Rev. Ed. p. 801.
JENSEN, N . F. , 1952: Intra-varietal diversification inoat breeding. Agron. J. 44, 30—34.
, and W. T. FEDF.RER, 1965: Competing abilityin wheat. Crop Sci. 5, 449—452.
MARTIN, J. H., H. L. WARREN, and D. L. STAMP,
1976: Principles of Field Crop Production. CollierMcmillan Int. 3rd ed. p. 504.
PRASAD, R. , and S. N. SHARMA, 1980: Systematicmixed stands of spring wheat cultivars. J. agric. Sci.Camb. 94, 529—532.
338 PRASAD et al., Studies on Pure and Mixed Stands of Wheat and Barley
REDDY, M. R., and R. PRASAD, 1979: Effect ofnitrogen doses and row direction on LAI, lighttransmission, plant height and dry matter produc-tion of wheat cultivars grown in pure and mixedstands. Biol. Plant 21, 85—91.
, and , 1980: Effect of nitrogen and rowdirection on yield and yield components in pureand systematic mixed stand of wheat varieties dif-fering in plant height. Indian J. agric. Sci. 25,332—341.
SAGE, G. C . M., 1971: Inter-varietal competitionand its possible consequences for the production ofFl hybrid wheat. J. agric. Sci., Camb. 11^
SHARMA, S. N . , and R. PRASAD, 1978: Systematicmixed versus pure stands of wheat genotypes. J.agric, Sci., Camb. 90, 441—444.
XhVllz^ C. A., 1927: Forty years experiments withgrain crops. Ontario agric. Col. Bull. 332.
