sign in sign up
<<
Home , Intercropping

Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 12 (1): 100-110, 2017 ISSN 1304-9984, Derleme

Intercropping Systems in Sustainable

Ertan YILDIRIM Melek EKİNCİ*

Atatürk University, Agriculture Faculty, Department of , -Erzurum *Corresponding author: [email protected]

Geliş tarihi: 20.03.2017, Yayına kabul tarihi: 17.07.2017

Abstract: Different systems have been investigated that can increase the yield to be taken from agriculture area in order to increase the production decreasing with the decrease of the agricultural areas available in the worldwide. One of these systems is intercropping. Intercropping is characterized as production of two or more different crop species at same time on the same piece of land. Intercropping is one of the most effective methods in agricultural production with a long history. It is known as the achievement of a high and stable production that not only raises complementary products in the area but also reduces the harmful effects of diseases and pests, prevents pollution and results in effective use of resources. In this review study, it is informed about the use and importance of the intercropping system which is mainly based on very old ones and which is of great importance in recent years in agricultural production.

Key words: Intercrop, sole cropping, use of land, diversity

Sürdürülebilir Tarımda Birlikte Yetiştiricilik

Özet: Dünya genelinde azalan mevcut tarım alanlarına paralel olarak, azalan üretimi artırmak için verimi artıran farklı sistemler araştırılmaktadır. Bu sistemlerden biri de birlikte yetiştiriciliktir (intercropping). Intercropping aynı birim alanda asıl yetiştiriciliği yapılan bitkinin sıra aralarında yetiştiriciliği yapılan, bir veya daha fazla benzer olmayan bitkinin birlikte yetiştirilmesi olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Birlikte yetiştiricilik sistemi tarımsal üretimde çok uzun bir geçmişe sahip olan etkili yöntemlerden biridir. Sadece birim alanda tamamlayıcı ürünlerin yetiştiriciliği değil, aynı zamanda hastalıkların ve zararlıların olumsuz etkilerini azaltan, kirliliği önleyen ve kaynakların etkili kullanılmasını sağlayan yüksek ve istikrarlı bir üretim şekli olarak bilinmektedir. Bu derleme çalışmasında, temelde çok eskilere dayanan ve tarımsal üretimde son yıllarda büyük önem arz eden intercropping sisteminin kullanımı ve önemi hakkında bilgi verilmektedir.

Anahtar kelimeler: Birlikte yetiştiricilik, tek ürün, alan kullanımı, çeşitlilik

Introduction use has negative impact on human health, ecosystem and food quality (Altieri and Globally, cultivable land has decreased Nicholls, 2005). Furthermore, although due to population increase and modern industrialized agriculture based on industrialization. Particularly in Asia and has resulted in high increased Africa where producers have small plots, yields, it caused huge costs. agricultural areas are under pressure to A huge amount of energy requires for produce for human nutrition (Awal et al., production the synthetic of and 2007). While global demand for food . Moreover, agrochemicals can increases, agricultural expansion faces more cause environmental degradation and stringent environmental preservation disruption and human health risks. Many demands and sustainability laws aimed to scientists nowadays are getting worried prevent deforestation (Crusciol et al., 2014). about the environmental and health risks of Industrialization and globalization in industrialized agricultural practices, and they agriculture and food supply endanger the are reconsideration low-technology future of humanity and environment. alternatives (Horwith, 1985). Sustainable Industrial agriculture based on agrochemical agriculture aims to simulate nature as the

100 E. YILDIRIM, M. EKİNCİ pattern for designing agricultural systems an with appropriate additional density of important principle for sustainable the inter-crop (Takim, 2012; Chandra et al., agriculture is to create and maintain 2013; El Naim et al., 2013; Aminifar and diversity, integrating and animals into Ghanbari, 2014). Intercropping has a diverse landscape (Oad et al., 2007). In important advantages in regard to efficient , it is essential to land use, increasing crop productivity and provide needs of people today and future monetary returns thanks to effective use of generations. Diversity and its effective various inputs compared to sole cropping. management for sustainable agriculture are and their agronomic characteristics very important (Shaker-Koohi et al., 2014). used in intercropping systems are very Intercropping suggests farmers the chance to crucial. simulate nature’s principle of diversity on Component crops having different their . Intercropping can be a method harvest time should be preferred to reduce to improve diversity in agricultural competition for similar resources at the same ecosystem. time. Moreover, different and above The intercropping systems are old and ground parts of plants used in intercropping widespread applications in low-input systems can be advised for effective agricultural systems in tropical regions and utilization of moisture and light. The they were common for developed countries intercrops should have either synergistic or before the modernization of agriculture complementary effect relative to the main (Hauggaard-Nielsen and Jensen, 2005). It crop (Kumar et al., 2010). Success of has been reported the benefits of intercropping systems over sole cropping intercropping in some crops which can cause can be achieved by some agronomic to efficient land use as an important manipulations. These manipulations can be component of sustainable agriculture plant density, planting time, available (Yildirim and Guvenc, 2005; Karlidag and resources and intercropping patterns Yildirim, 2009a; Eskandari and Ghanbari, (Mousavi and Eskandari, 2011). Spatial 2009). arrangements, planting and harvest times of The growing population has compelled crops should be taken into account in agricultural planners to recheck the role of intercropping systems. There are several intercropping, the application of growing intercropping systems such as mixed, strip more than one crop in a field at the same and row intercropping patterns (Oad et al., time, as a tool to enhance agricultural 2007). Supplemental effects in models of production and to obtain efficient land use resource use should be considered to get (Midmore, 1993). Cropping of several plant better yield and quality in intercropping species together reduces negative effects of systems. Cultivars to be determined for a monoculture and thus is commonly intercropping systems should improve the employed in ecological agricultural systems. complementary effects between species Agricultural practices like intercropping are (Baumann et al., 2001). pro ecological; supporting bio-diversity and Intercropping systems are widely used in is compatible with the principles of balanced Latin America, Asia, and Africa where agriculture. Intercropping has recently being capital investment is restricted, minimizing discovered again due to popularity of risk of total crop failure (Francis 1989; organic agriculture (Blazewicz-Wozniak and Legwaila et al., 2012). Many different Wach, 2011). intercropping patterns are practiced all of Andrews and Kassam (1976) defined the over the world that farmers employee the intercropping as the agricultural practice of different crops and management practices to growing two or more species in the same supply their requirements for food, fiber, land at the same time. Intercropping is medicine, fuel, building materials, forage, bottomed on the management of crop and cash. Annual crops with other annuals, interactions to optimize growth and annuals with perennials, or perennials with productivity. The recommended optimum perennials can be grown in intercropping plant density of the main crop is cultivated practices (Liebman and Dyck, 1993). The

101 E. YILDIRIM, M. EKİNCİ benefit of intercropping in the nursery is yet intercropping applications improve to to receive the necessary research attention. partake the available resources over time There have been studied to determine the and space, using the differences between effect of different intercropping models on crops used in intercropping in terms of plant growth, yield, and canopy growth rate, canopy and root economic returns in young tree-vegetable structure (Midmore, 1993). Complementary intercropping. These studies indicated that effects of intercrops can be expressed as sapling-vegetable intercrop treatments could complementary resource use and niche result in higher total yield as well as differentiation in space and time, thus profitability (Ojeifo et al., 2007a; Ojeifo et reducing competition between crop species al., 2007b: Karlidag and Yildirim, 2009a). and improving greater acquisition of limiting Intercropping can significantly increase resources (Li et al., 2014). total productivity as compared to sole There are direct and indirect facilitative cropping thanks to better utilization of interactions of intercropping systems. , nutrients and solar energy, (Yildirim Intercropping systems can cause more and Guvenc, 2005; Matusso et al., 2014). effective use of resources by providing Agricultural sustainability encourages the symbiotic nitrogen from , or making intercropping practices because they can available inorganic phosphorus fixed in improve soil conservation and soil fertility, because of lowering of pH via nitrogen has more stable yields and potential for pest fixing legumes (Jensen, 1996a; Aminifar and disease control (Guvenc and Yildirim, and Ghanbari, 2014). Zhou et al. (2000) 2006). Intercropping systems have been suggested that intercropping could enhance reported to be one of the agricultural nitrogen utilization. by a practices to control soil erosion (Sharaiha crop can be the cheapest and the and Ziadat, 2007). easiest way for supplying nitrogen to the non-legume in intercropping systems. Many Intercropping for More Effective Use of studies reported that legume plants might Resources provide biologically fixed nitrogen to the Agricultural planners have taken non-legume ones (Karlidag and Yildirim, attention to intercropping systems, which 2009b). Moreover, intercropping systems decrease inputs in sustainable agriculture can reduce the nitrate leaching from the soil due to exploit natural resources more profile since intercropping systems utilize effectively (Ouma and Jeruto, 2010). soil nutrient elements more efficiently than Intercropping systems have been reported to pure stands (Zhang and Li, 2003). Whitmore increase total productivity since it utilizes and Schröder (2007) concluded in their nutrient elements in soil more efficiently study that the yield and profitability of than sole cropping (Eskandari, 2011; intercropping systems can be contrary Mobasser et al., 2014). One of the goals of correlated to the residual nitrate at harvest the intercropping is to improve total and intercropping systems can be used to productivity in a particular area by reduce nutrient pollution from agricultural improving resources use efficiency. Crops in practices as keeping yields. Sobkowicz and these systems use available resources more Sniady (2004) reported that triticale-bean efficiently thanks to different rooting and intercropping system resulted in more canopy properties which component plants benefit for nitrogen uptake than for total species exploit resources complementary yield. Higher nitrogen uptake by (Lithourgidis et al., 2011; Moradi et al., intercropping than by sole cropping 2014). suggested that intercrops separately utilized Intercropping practices have different sources of nitrogen, which complementary effect for plants used in indicated complementary usage of nitrogen regard to resources use, which effectively in intercropping systems. utilizes solar radiation, water and nutrient Root interactions in intercropping elements as compared to pure cropping systems results in nitrogen transfer form (Eskandari, 2011). The successful legume crops to non-legume ones and

102 E. YILDIRIM, M. EKİNCİ exploitation of the soil through mycorrhizal resources by intercrops (Santos et al., 2002; fungi and various soil-plant relationships. Yildirim and Guvenc, 2005; Guvenc and These soil-plant interactions greatly modify Yildirim, 2006; Yildirim and Turan, 2013). the mobilization of resources via exudation More efficient water usage in of amino acids and plant growth promoting intercropping systems was suggested matters, extracellular enzymes, acidification (Moradi et al., 2014). Kanton and Dennet and competition-induced modification of (2004) pointed out that intercrops produced root properties (Hauggaard-Nielsen and more dry matter than sole. Intercropping Jensen, 2005). Some legume crops have systems reduce wind speed, provide shade been reported to fix atmospheric nitrogen as and increase infiltration, so conserving soil well as improve availability of phosphorus, water and improving soil structure. The thus improving total yields (Snapp and different root architects of intercrops Silim, 2002). Mobesser et al. (2014) influence water uptake and the capability of indicated that intercropping has improved plants to reach for water resources. Maize- nutrient uptake like phosphorus. intercropping systems enhanced There is evidence that some legume light interception, decreased water species can solubilize fixed phosphorus by evaporation and conserved the soil water modifying the chemistry of their when compared to sole maize cropping, and rhizosphere, making it available for uptake therefore had consistently greater water use (Hauggaard- Nielsen and Jensen 2005). efficiencies (Mobesser et al., 2014). Studies Cereals-legume intercropping practices can on rhizosphere processes and nutrient use in be an effective way for improving the intercropping systems have proved a lot of acquisition of soil resources such as nitrogen physiological indicator for interspecific and phosphorus. The suggested hypothesis facilitation among crops (Li et al., 2014). can be that different intercrop species can Furthermore, earlier studies reported that use different phosphorus pools, the legume intercropping systems could improve light being responsible for greater changes in interception and increase shading compared phosphorus availability in the rhizosphere, with mono cropping, lower water as a result of root-induced acidification from evaporation and conserve of soil water nitrogen fixation (Betencourt et al., 2010). (Ghanbari et al., 2010). Nutrient uptake of plants with different root In intercropping systems arbuscular architects in intercropping systems is higher mycorrhizal mycelia may interconnect from than sole cropping as their root one crop root to another crop (He et characteristics explores a larger soil mass. al., 2003). Jensen (1996b) suggested that The capability of an intercropping system plant nutrient elements such as phosphorus use for plant nutrient elements is affected and nitrogen emerging from arbuscular from the extent of root growth of intercrops. mycorrhizal hyphae elevated with time Complementary usage of resources can be because of accelerating turnover of hyphae more effective when used crops with and rich phosphorus root materials. different root characteristics (Midmore, Moreover, He et al. (2003) showed one-way 1993). transfer of from leguminous nitrogen to non- Competition for nutrient elements can be nitrogen fixing mycorrhizal ones and reduced in intercropping systems by transfer from non-nitrogen fixing crops to choosing crops with different rooting nitrogen fixing mycorrhizal ones as a kind of characteristics, nutrient requirements, and two-directional transfer approach. timing of peak demand for nutrients. Long-season plants slowly grow and Nutrient competition is reflected by lower establish a full canopy, which provide an nutrient content in plant parts (Varghese, opportunity for short-season plants to be 2000; Morris and Garrity, 1993). Many produced between long-season plant rows earlier studies pointed out that the nutrient (Fukai and Trenbath, 1993). Some available contents of plants in intercropping practices resources such as solar radiation, water and were similar to the ones in sole cropping, nutrient elements may efficiently be used by indicating the efficient use of available a component plant grown between the rows

103 E. YILDIRIM, M. EKİNCİ of long-season plants (Midmore, 1993). could be more stable systems of agricultural Intercropping systems of crops having practices than mono cropping for farms, different under and above ground which are low-input and small-scale. This characteristic, and growth span have been might be attributed that the yield from one reported to be more productivity, profitable intercrop meets for decreasing in yield of and utilize the resources such as water and another crop (Zimmermann, 1996). nutrient elements than mono cropping (Vargeshe, 2000; Yildirim and Guvenc, Increasing Productivity with Intercropping 2005, Karlidag and Yildirim, 2009b). Systems One of the most important causes for Intercropping for More Stable System growing two or more crops at same time is Being able to sustain total yield and to maximize total yield per unit of area. economic return is a more essential goal for Intercropping practices can increase total producer with very restricted resources than productivity by using natural sources to maximize productivity or economic effectively on condition that intercrops return. Additionally, the family goals can be requirements for sources are fulfilled. considered as supplying food and income Management of component crops to increase throughout the year, reducing the risk of their complementary effects, and to decrease failure at all times, keeping cash costs to a competition depends on simple natural rules, minimum, and fulfilling social involvements and its practice is limited only by the in the community (Fukai and Midmore, imagination of farmers and agronomists 1993). Studies have affirmed usage of (Midmore, 1993). intercropping systems as one of the crop The sustainability of any production production alternatives in case of crop system can be affected by the economic failure in mono cropping and have been income, assessing the feasibility of different declared worldwide as one of the most cropping practices. Many researches showed dependable ways to maintain the that intercropping practices can ensure sustainability of crop production (Coolman higher yield as well as productivity and and Hoyt, 1993). Some plants can improve profitability in crops per unit land (Emuh et unsuitable environmental conditions and the al., 2006; Karlidag and Yildirim, 2007; availability of resources for other ones Yildirim and Turan 2013). This phenomena (Lambers et al., 1998). could be expressed via the effective usage of Plants differently respond to available sources per unit land for inter environmental stress conditions, and it is not crops (Sharaiha and Hattar, 1993). rare for one plant species to do poorly while Intercropping could be not only use limited a different plant is grown under the same areas for crop production more efficiently conditions (Horwith, 1985). There is a but also increase income. Higher returns increasing of interest on intercropping under intercropping systems explained the practices since the benefits of intercropping suitability of intercropping systems to be practices are limited to low-input and small- adopted on a commercial scale (Yildirim scale agricultural practices (Baumann et al., and Guvenc, 2005; Karlidag and Yildirim, 2001). Itulya et al., (1997) suggested 2007; Karlidag and Yildirim, 2009b; Mahant intercropping practices could be consonant et al., 2012). Rehman et al. (2010) with mechanized agriculture and an determined that the maximum net and alternative to sole cropping, particularly for cost-benefit ratio was obtained from maize small, resource-limited farmers. intercropped with cowpea compared to the Intercropping practices have been sole crops. reported to increase total yields and as well Previous works have showed that the as a useful way of reducing risk: if one crop land equivalent ratio (LER) generally was fails another can still provide sufficient food determined as higher one. LER values are until the next harvest (Whitmore and accepted as an index of biological efficiency Schröder, 2007). Guvenc and Yildirim of intercropping systems (Baumann et al., (2006) indicated that intercropping practices 2001; Yildirim and Guvenc, 2004; Guvenc

104 E. YILDIRIM, M. EKİNCİ and Yildirim, 2005; Yildirim and Guvenc, Keeping a full plant cover on the soil will 2005; Karlidag and Yildirim, 2007; Yildirim prevent the weed germination and reduce and Turan, 2013). If land equivalent ratio weeds population. Spatial regulations, (LER) values of intercropping practices are physical and temporal barriers, microclimate higher than one, this generally means modification, odor effects, and color and intercropping efficiency over the mono trapping effects between intercrops cropping (Vandermeer, 1989). Intercropping influence or disease situation or their practices are the most productive when natural enemies (Midmore, 1993). Diversity intercrops of different growth period are in agricultural ecosystems may restrict used so that their maximum requirements for pathogenic epidemic. Intercropping growth resources occur at different times practices raises as natural (Fukai and Trenbath, 1993). ecosystems. Raising diversity can decrease Earlier studies supported the advantages negative effect of insect and diseases (Anil of intercropping systems over mono et al., 1998). cropping (Karlidag and Yildirim, 2009a; There are three hypothesis suggested for Yildirim and Turan, 2013). Intercropping decreasing negative effect of insect and systems can use present sources and be more diseases; a) limiter crop hypothesis: one effective especially if inputs such as water intercrop breaks down the ability of a pest in and nutrients are given to the plants in attack to its host, b) trap crop hypothesis: suitable quantity and time (Abusuwar and one intercrop species, attracted towards Al-Solimani, 2013). The differences of their, pest or pathogen that normally does harvest time, root and above ground damage to the main species, c) “natural properties or intercrops resource usage can enemies” hypothesis: predators and parasites decrease competition among intercrops due can be more present in intercropping to complementary effect of them (Sharaiha practices than sole cropping (Aminifar and and Hattar, 1993). Ghanbari, 2014) and intercropping practices Intercropping for Pest, Disease and Weed can decrease weed population density and Control biomass yield. Intercropping systems have Intercropping is the one of the integrated advantages over mono pest management tools to reduce population cropping systems. This can be attained when densities of pests in field grown crops intercropping practices are more effective (Theunissen, 1997). Integrated pest than mono cropping in capturing sources management studies have increased interest from weeds or suppressing weed growth in cultural control methods and these have through allelopathy. Furthermore, extended to include agro-ecosystem intercropping systems can have some management. Intercropping practices have advantages without suppressing weed been reported to have positive effect on growth below levels determined in insect, disease and weed control component crops if intercrops utilize sources (Theunissen, 1997; Baumann et al., 2000). that are not exploitable by weeds or convert Intercropping systems have been determined resources to harvestable parts more to reduce the populations of numerous efficiently than sole crops (Liebman and herbivore species under a wide range of Dyck., 1993). conditions. The component crop may also Available natural resources in sole serve as a host for natural enemies of pests cropping practices can effectively not of the other crops (Vandermeer, 1989). utilized by plant, thus capturing by weeds. Hauggaard-Nielsen et al., (2008) determined Intercropping practices with more and barley-grain legumes (pea, faba bean, and effective use of ecological sources, and lupine bean) intercropping practices filling the empty niche, leads to weed decreased the disease incidence when control are better and effective than the sole compared to the corresponding mono crops, cropping practicing (Altieri, 1995; Aminifar with a general disease reduction in the range and Ghanbari, 2014). The exudation of of 20–40%. some growth regulating matters can

105 E. YILDIRIM, M. EKİNCİ contribute greatly to the competitive References interactions between intercrops including weeds and thus affect the final intercrop Abusuwar, A.O. and Al-Solimani, S.J. composition (Hauggaard- Nielsen and 2013. Effect of Chemical Fertilizers Jensen, 2005). Aghaalikhani et al. (2009) on Yield and Nutritive Value of determined that complementarily effect of Intercropped Sorghum bicolor and corn/soybean intercropping created better Lablab purpureus Forages Grown condition for optimum utilization of solar under Saline Conditions. The radiation to successfully suppress weeds and Journal of Animal and Plant maintain crop production. Sciences, 2013, 23(1): 271-276. Aghaalikhani, M., Zaefarian, F.Z., Conclusions Mashhadi, R.H. and Rezvani, M. 2009. Corn and Soybean Intercropping systems can be Intercropping Canopy Structure as characterized by interactions among Affected by Competition from component plant species that can affect Redroot Pigweed (Amaranthus growth and yield of plant species used retrofelxus L.) and Jimson Weed (Vandermeer, 1989). In general, the studies (Datura srtramonium L.). Iranian of intercropping which have done by Journal of Weed Science, 2009, 5: 39- researchers over the world, have indicated 53. that intercropping practices could be more Altieri, M.A. 1995. : The productivity than mono cropping, which was Science of Sustainable Agriculture, suggested this to facilitative relationships in (2nd edition). Publisher: Westview intercropping. With better understanding of Press. these interactions, we may manage to get Altieri, M.A. and Nicholls, C.I. 2005. higher productivity and resource use Agroecology and the Search for a efficiency in agro ecosystems. The results of Truly Sustainable Agriculture. the many studies concluded that Environmental Training Network for intercropping could be a profitable, which Latin America and the Caribbean resulted in more total productivity and Boulevard de los Virreyes 155, economic gains as compared to mono Colonia Lomas de Virreyes 11000, cropping. The urges of sustainable Mexico D.F., Mexico. agricultural practices and the environmental Aminifar, J. and Ghanbari, A. 2014. problems sourcing from current agricultural Biological Facilitative Interactions practices have had intercropping systems and Their Roles on Maximize Growth reconsidered. It should be continued study and Productivity of Crops in on the possibilities of growing more than Intercropping Systems. Scientia one crop in a given area at the same time Agriculturae. 2014, 2(2): 90-95. many advantages of intercropping systems Andrews, D.J. and Kassam, A.H. 1976. The (Lithourgidis et al., 2011). Importance of in The extent of increasing crop Increasing World Food Supplies. In: productivity via appropriate intercrop Multiple Cropping. (Ed. Papendick, patterns has not yet been utilized to its full R.I., Sanchez, P.A. and Triplett, potential. Complementarities in models of G.B.), ASA Special Publication 27, resource use should be considered to get American Science of , better productivity in intercropping systems. Madison, WI, USA. Cultivars to be used in intercropping Anil, L., Park, J., Phipps, R.H. and Miller, systems should improve the complementary F.A. 1998. Temperate Intercropping effects between crops. Furthermore, to of Cereals for Forage: Review of obtain advantageous of intercropping it is Potential for Growth and Utilization important to determine species or cultivars, with Particular Reference to the UK. and spatial geometry and planting density of Grass and Forage Science, 1998, 53: component plants used intercropping. 301-317.

106 E. YILDIRIM, M. EKİNCİ

Awal, M.A., Pramanik, M.H.R. and Hossen, Arrangements. Journal of Renewable M.A. 2007. Interspecies Competition, Agriculture, 2013, 1(2): 11-16. Growth and Yield in Barley-Peanut Emuh, F.N., Ofuoku, A.E. and Oyefia, E. Intercropping. Asian Journal of Plant 2006. Effect of Intercropping Okra Science, 2007, 6: 577-584. (Hibiscus esculentus) with Pumpkin Baumann, D.T., Kropff, M.J. and (Cucurbita maxima) on some Growth Bastiaans, L. 2000. Intercropping Parameters and Economic Yield of Leeks to Supress Weeds. Weed Maize (Zea mays) and Maximization Research, 2000, 40: 359-374. Land use in a Fadama Soil. Research Baumann, D.T., Bastiaans, L. and Kropff, Journal of Biological Sciences, 2006, M.J. 2001. Competition and Crop 1(1-4): 50-54. Performance in a Leek-Celery Eskandari, H. and Ghanbari, A. 2009. Intercropping System. Crop Science, Intercropping of Maize (Zea mays) 2001, 41: 764-774. and Cowpea (Vigna sinensis) as Betencourt, E., Colomb, B., Justes, E., Whole-Crop Forage: Effect of Souche, G. and Hinsinger, P. 2010. Different Planting Pattern on Total P for Two- Intercropping as a Means Dry Matter Production and Maize to Better Exploit Soil P Resources Forage Quality. Notulae Botanicae under Low Imput Conditions. 19th Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca, World Congress of Soil Science, 2009, 37(2): 152-155. Soil Solutions for a Changing Eskandari, H. 2011. Intercropping of Wheat World, 1-6 August, 2010, Brisbane, (Triticum aestivum) and Bean (Vicia Australia. faba): Effects of Complementarity Blazewicz-Wozniak, M. and Wach, D. and Competition of Intercrop 2011. The Effect of Intercropping on Components in Resource Yielding of Root Vegetables of Consumption on Dry Matter Apiaceae family. Acta Scientiarum Production and Weed Growth. Polonorum-Hortorum Cultus. 2011, African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(4): 233-243. 2011, 10(77): 17755-17762. Chandra, A., Kandari, L.S., Negi, V.S., Francis, C.A. 1989. Biological Efficiencies Maikhuri, R.K. and Rao, K.S. 2013. in Multiple-Cropping Systems. Role of Intercropping on Production Advances in Agronomy, 1989, 42: 1- and Land Use Efficiency in the 42. Central Himalaya, , Fukai, S. and Midmore D.J. 1993. Environment and We: An Adaptive Research for International Journal Science and Intercropping: Steps Towards the Technology, 2013, 8: 105-113. Transfer of Intercrop Research Coolman, R.M. and Hoyt, G.D. 1993. Findings to Farmers’ Fields. Field Increasing Sustainability by Crops Research, 1993, 34: 459-467. Intercropping. HortTechnology, Fukai, S. and Trenbath, B.R. 1993. 1993, 3: 309-311. Processes Determining Intercrop Crusciol, C.A.C., Nascenteb, A.S., Mateusc, Productivity and Yields of G.P., Parizd, C.M., Martinsa, P.O. and Component Crops. Field Crops Borghi. E. 2014. Intercropping Research, 1993, 34: 247-271. Soybean and Palisade Grass for Ghanbari, G., Dahmardeh, M., Siahsar, Enhanced Land use Efficiency and B.A. and Ramroudi, M. 2010. Effect Revenue in a No Till System. of Maize (Zea mays L.) - Cowpea European Journal of Agronomy, 2014, (Vigna unguiculata L.) 58: 53-62. Intercropping on Light Distribution, El Naim, A.M., Baballa, A.K., Hassan, A.E. Soil Temperature and Soil Moisture and Ahmed, M.F. 2013. Agronomic in Arid Environment. Journal of Evaluation of Sorghum and Cowpea Food, Agriculture and Environment, Intercropped at Different Spatial 2010, 8(1): 102-108.

107 E. YILDIRIM, M. EKİNCİ

Guvenc, I. and Yildirim, E. 2005. Maize/Pea Cultivars in Sole and Intercropping with Eggplant for Intercrops in Temperate Conditions. Proper Utilisation of Interspace under Experimental Agriculture, 2004, 40: Conditions. European 201-214. Journal of Horticultural Sciences, Karlidag, H. and Yildirim, E. 2007. The 2005, 70(6): 300-302. Effects of Nitrogen Fertilization on Guvenc, I. and Yildirim, E. 2006. Increasing Intercropped Strawberry and Broad Productivity with Intercropping Bean. Journal of Sustainable Systems in Cabbage Production. Agriculture, 2007, 29(4): 61-74. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Karlidag, H. and Yildirim, E. 2009a. The 2006, 28(4): 29-44. Effect of Vegetable Intercropping on Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. and Jensen, E.S. Plant Growth, Yield, Land Equivalent 2005. Facilitative Root Interactions in Ratio and Economic Income in Intercrops. Plant and Soil, 2005, 274: Sapling Growing. Yuzuncu Yıl 237-250. University, Journal of Agricultural Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Jørnsgaard, B., Science, 2009, 19(2): 71-77. Kinane, J. and Jensen, E.S. 2008. Karlidag, H. and Yildirim, E. 2009b. Grain Legume-Cereal Intercropping: Strawberry Intercropping with The Practical Application of Vegetables for proper Utilizaiton of Diversity, Competition and Space and resources. Journal of Facilitation in Arable and Organic Sustainable Agriculture, 2009, 29: 61- Cropping Systems. Renewable 74. Agriculture and Food Systems, 2008, Kumar, S.R., Kumar, H. and Kumar, S.A. 23: 3-12. 2010. Brassica Based Intercropping He, X.H., Critchley, C. and Bledsoe, C. Systems-A Review. Agricultural 2003. Nitrogen Transfer Within and Reviews, 2010, 31(4): 253-466. Between Plants Through Common Lambers, H., Chapin, F.S. and Pons, T.L. Mycorrhizal Networks (CMNs). 1998. Plant Physiological . Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, Springer-Verlag, New York. 2003, 22: 531-567. Legwaila, G.M., Marokane, T.K. and Horwith, B. 1985. A Role for Mojeremane, W. 2012. Effects of Intercropping in Modern Intercropping on the Performance of Agriculture. BioScience, 1985, Maize and in Botswana. 35(5): 286-290. International Journal of Agriculture Itulya, F.M., Mwaja, V.N. and Masiunas, and Forestry, 2012, 2(6): 307-310. J.B. 1997. Collard-Cowpea Li, L., Tilman, D., Lambers, H. and Zhang, Intercrop Response to Nitrogen F.S. 2014. Plant Diversity and Over Fertilization, Redroot Pigweed Yielding: Insights from Belowground Density, and Collard Harvest Facilitation of Intercropping in Frequency. HortScience, 1997, Agriculture. New Phytologist, 2014, 32(5): 850-853. 203: 63-69. Jensen, E.S. 1996a. Grain Yield, Symbiotic Liebman, M. and Dyck, E. 1993. Crop N2-Fixation and Interspecific Rotation and Intercropping Strategies Competition for Inorganic N in Pea- for Weed Management. Ecological Barley Intercrops. Plant Soil, 1996, Applications, 1993, 3(1): 92-122. 182: 25-38. Lithourgidis, A.S., Dordas, C.A., Damalas, Jensen, E.S. 1996b. Barley uptake of N C.A and Vlachostergios, D.N. 2011. Deposited in the Rhizosphere of Annual Intercrops: an Alternative Associated Field Pea. Soil Biol Pathway for Sustainable Agriculture. Biochem, 1996, 28: 159-168. Australian Journal of Crop Science, Kanton, R.A.L. and Dennett, M.D. 2004. 2011, 5(4): 396-410. Water uptake and use by Mahant, H.D., Patil, S.J., Bhalerao, P.P., Morphologically Contrasting Gaikwad, S.S. and Kotadia, H.R.

108 E. YILDIRIM, M. EKİNCİ

2012. Economics and Land in the Nursery. Agricultural Journal, Equivalent Ratio of Different 2007, 2(1): 55-59. Intercrops in (Musa Ojeifo, I.M., Jolaoso, M.A. and Aiyelaagbe, paradisiacal L.) cv. Grand Naine I.O.O. 2007b. Intercropping Citrus under Drip Irrigation. The Asian Rootstock Seedlings with Seed Melon Journal of Horticulture, 2012, 7(2): in the Nursery. Agricultural journal, 330-332. 2007, 2(1): 60- 63. Matusso, J.M.M., Mugwe, J.N. and Ouma, G. and Jeruto, P. 2010. Sustainable Mucheru-Muna, M. 2014. Potential Horticultural Crop Production through Role of Cereal-Legume Intercropping Intercropping: The Case of and Systems in Integrated Soil Fertility Vegetable Crops: A review. Management in Smallholder Farming Agriculture and Biology Journal of Systems of Sub-Saharan Africa. North America, 2010, 1(5): 1098- Research Journal of Agriculture and 1105. Environmental Management, 2014, Rehman, H., Ali, A., Waseem, M., Tanveer, 3(3): 162-174. A., Tahir, M., Nadeem, M.A. and Midmore, D.J. 1993. Agronomic Zamir, M.S.I. 2010. Impact of Modification of Resource use and Nitrogen Application on Growth and Intercrop Productivity. Field Crops Yield of Maize (Zea mays L.,) Grown Research, 1993, 34: 357-380. Alone and in Combination with Mobasser, H.R., Vazirimehr, M.R. and Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.,). Rigi, K. 2014. Effect of American-Eurasian Journal of Intercropping on Resources use, Agriculture and Environment Science, Weed Management and Forage 2010, 7(1): 43-47. Quality. International Journal of Shaker-Koohi, S., Nasrollahzadeh, S. and Plant, Animal and Environmental Raei, Y. 2014. Evaluation of Sciences, 2014, 4(2): 706-713. Chlorophyll Value, Protein Content Moradi, M., Noori, M., Sobhkhizi, A., and Yield of Sorghum (Sorghum Fahramand, M. and Rigi, K. 2014. bicolor L.)/ Mungbean (Vigna radiate Effect of Intercropping in L.) Intercropping. International Agronomy. Journal of Novel Journal of Biosciences, 2014, 4(8): Applied Sciences, 2014, 3(3): 315- 136-143. 320. Santos, R.H.S., Gliessman, S.R. and Morris, R.A. and Garrity, D.P. 1993. Cecon, P.R. 2002. Crop Interactions Resource Capture and Utilization in in Broccoli Intercropping. Intercropping: Non-Nitrogen Biological Agriculture and Nutrients. Field Crops Research, Horticulture, 2002, 20: 51-75. 1993, 34: 319-334. Sharaiha, R.K. and Hattar, B., 1993. Mousavi, S.R. and Eskandari, H. 2011. A Intercropping and Poultry Manure General Overview on Intercropping Effects on Yields of Corn, and Its Advantages in Sustainable Watermelon and Soybean Grown in Agriculture. Journal of Applied a Calcareous Soil in the Jordan Environmental and Biological Valley. Journal of Agronomy and Sciences, 2011, 1: 482-486. Crop Science, 1993, 171: 260-267. Oad, F.C., Siddiqui, M.H. and Buriro, U.A. Sharaiha, R. K. and Ziadat, F.M. 2007. 2007. Agronomic and Economic Alternative Cropping Systems to Interference Between Cotton Control Soil Erosion in Arid to Semi- Gossypium hirsutum L. and Pigeon Arid Areas in Jordan. African Crop Pea Cajanus cajan L. Journal of Science Conference Proceedings, Agronomy, 2007, 6: 199-203. 2007, 8: 1559-1565. Ojeifo, I.M., Jolaoso, M.A. and Aiyelaagbe, Snapp, S.S. and Silim, S.N. 2002. Farmer I.O.O. 2007a. Intercropping Citrus Preferences and Legume Rootstock Seedlings with Watermelon Intensification for Low Nutrient

109 E. YILDIRIM, M. EKİNCİ

Environments. Plant and Soil, 2002, Yildirim, E. and Guvenc, I. 2004. 245: 181-192. Intercropping in Cucumber (Cucumis Sobkowicz, P. and Sniady, R. 2004. sativus) under Greenhouse Nitrogen Uptake and Its Efficiency in Conditions. The Indian Journal of Triticale (Triticosecale Witt.) Field Agricultural Sciences, 2004, 74: 663- Beans (Vicia faba var. minor L.) 664. Intercrop. Plant Soil Environment, Yildirim, E. and Guvenc, I. 2005. 2004, 50 (11): 500-506. Intercropping Based on Cauliflower: Takim, F.O. 2012. Advantages of Maize- More Productive, Profitable and Cowpea Intercropping over Sole Highly Sustainable. European Journal Cropping through Competition of Agronomy, 2005, 22: 11-18. Indices. Journal of Agriculture and Yildirim, E. and Turan, M., 2013. Growth, Biodiversity Research, 2012, 1(4): Yield and Mineral Content of 53-59. Broccoli Intercropped with Lettuce. Theunissen, J. 1997. Intercropping in Field The Journal of Animal and Plant Vegetables as an Approach to Sciences, 2013, 23(3): 919-922. Sustainable Horticulture. Outlook on Zhang, F. and Li, L. 2003. Using Agriculture, 1997, 26(2): 95-99. Competitive and Facilitative Vandermeer, J. 1989. The Ecology of Interactions in Intercropping Systems Intercropping. Cambridge Enhance Crop Productivity and University Press, p 237, Cambridge, Nutrient-use Efficiency. Plant Soil, UK. 2003, 248: 305-312. Varghese, L. 2000. Indicators of Zhou, X., Madramootoo, C.A., MacKenzie, Production Sustainability in A.F., Kaluli, J.W., and Smith, D.L. Intercropped Vegetable Farming on 2000. Corn Yield and N Montmorillonitic in India. Recovery in Water-Table-Controlled Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Corn--Grass Systems. European 2000, 16(4): 5-17. Journal Agronomy, 2000, 12: 83-92. Whitmore, A.P. and Schröder, J.J. 2007. Zimmermann, M.J.O. 1996. Breeding for Intercropping Reduces Nitrate Yield, in Mixtures of Common Leaching from under Field Crops Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and without Loss of Yield: A Modelling Maize (Zea mays L.). Euphytica, Study. European Journal of 1996, 92: 129-134. Agronomy, 2007, 27(1): 81-88.

110