PLANT ECOPHYSIOLOGY

PLANT ECOPHYSIOLOGY
Plant Ecophysiology 3 (2011) 53-58

Evaluation of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) and lentil

(Lens culinaris Medikus) intercropping

M.H. Shirzadia, S. Rezaeib*, S.S. Hemayatic, M. Abedid

a
Assistant Professor, Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University, Jiroft Branch, Jiroft, Iran.
b
Former M.Sc. Student of Agriculture, Islamic Azad University, Jiroft Branch, Jiroft, Iran.
c
Sugar Beet Seed Institute, Karaj, Iran.
d
Agronomy Expert, Governorship of Birjand, Birjand, Southern Khurasan, Iran.

Received on November 27, 2010; revised on October 12, 2011; accepted on November 28, 2011

Abstract

This research was carried out to evaluate the performance of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.) and lentil (Lens
culinaris Medikus) intercropping system during the growing season of 2009-2010 at a research field located in Kerman,
Iran. The experiment was done based on a randomized complete block design with three replications. Treatments were
five different intercropping arrangements consisted of T1: 100% lentil (eight rows per plot), T 2: 75% lentil and 25% fenu-
greek (three rows lentil-two rows fenugreek-three rows lentil), T 3: 50% fenugreek and 50% lentil (alternating rows of fe-
nugreek and lentil), T4: 25% lentil and 75% fenugreek (three rows fenugreek-two rows lentil-three rows fenugreek) and
T5: 100% fenugreek (eight rows per plot). Results showed that different intercropping arrangements had significant effects
on all the traits except number of fenugreek grains per pod, lentil harvest index and 1000-grain weight of both plants
(p≤0.05). T3 indicated the highest values of the evaluated traits in both plants. Proportionately, yield declined with de-
creasing the proportion of each intercropped plant. The maximum land equivalent ratio (LER) and net income which re-
lated to T3 were 1.77 and 34379000 (Rs/ha), respectively, that showed an overall advantage of this intercropping arrange-
ment in comparison with monoculture. Relative value total (RVT) was greater than one in all intercropping treatments,
indicating the economical advantage of the intercropped lentil and fenugreek compared to monoculture and the highest
RVT (1.65) was obtained from T3.

Keywords: intercropping, fenugreek, lentil, LER, net income, RVT, yield.

Introduction advantages (Aggarwal et al., 1992) of intercrop-

Given the increasing global demands for food
and the relationship of enhanced food production
with food security, and the need to conserve the
natural resources, diversification of planting sys-
tem is necessary. The goal of diversified agricul-
tural production systems is to reach production
stability through improved crop protection and
increased productivity and profitability offered
by many intercropping systems (Banik and
Sharma, 2009). There are some socio-economic
(Ofori and Stern, 1987), biological and ecological
*
Corresponding author’s email: rezaie_s1982@yahoo.com
ping over monoculture system. In intercropping
system, two or more crops are grown in proximi-
ty to each other to promote interactions between
them (Sullivan, 2003). This kind of cropping
provides insurance against yield reduction and
crop failure, especially in areas subject to frost,
floods or droughts (Alteiri, 1995) and also pro-
vides farmers profit-oriented and subsistence-
oriented requirements from the same piece of
land (Mandal et al., 1990). Mashingaidze (2004)
found that by intercropping, land was effectively
utilized and yield was improved. Intercropping
occupies greater land area and thereby provides
higher net returns (Seran and Jeyakumaran,
54 M.S. Shirzadi et al. / Plant Ecophysiology 3 (2011) 53-58
Table 1. Physical and chemical properties of the experimental soil
pH Absorbable K Absorbable P
(ppm) (ppm)
7.65 340 5.5
2009).
Legume intercrops are included in cropping
systems because they reduce soil erosion (Giller
and Cadisch, 1995) and suppress weeds (Exner
and Cruse, 1993). Gangwar and Karla (1982) and
Quayum et al. (1987) obtained the highest net
income by intercropping of maize with chickpea.
Mixed cropping of faba bean with barley culture
at a density not less than 37.5% of the sole faba
bean may give better overall yield and income
than monoculture of each crop species (Agegne-
hu et al., 2006). The results of mustard and lentil
intercropping indicated that mustard and lentil
populations are well compatible in intercrop as-
sociation and a 1:2 row ratio mixture would be
better for their profitable production (Rahman et
al., 2009). The intercropping of lentil with Brown
Sarson (1:4) and lentil with oat (2:1) showed
higher lentil-equivalent yield, land-equivalent
ratio, income-equivalent ratio, area-time equiva-
lent ratio, biological efficiency and monetary ad-
vantage (Singh et al., 2008). Maize-Kenaf-
African yam bean intercropping gave the highest
value of LER compared to mono-cropping
(Adeniyuan et al., 2007).
Fenugreek is an annual legume crop (Acharya
et al., 2006), which has medicinal properties such
as anti-diabetic, lowering blood sugar and choles-
terol level, anti-cancer, anti- microbial, etc
(Basch et al., 2003). Intercropping of fenugreek
as a cover crop with guava seedlings resulted in
the greatest increases of guava overall growth
parameters values and the highest N-leaf content
(Al-qurashi, 2005).
Considering the importance of fenugreek as a
medicinal crop and nutritional value of lentil
(high quality proteins, vitamins and a balanced
range of minerals (Adsule et al., 1989) as well as
the intercropping advantages, the present study
was aimed at determining the performance, yield
advantages and economics gains from the varia-
ble seed rate ratios of fenugreek and lentil under
intercropping system.
Materials and methods
The experiment was carried out at the agricul-
tural research field, located in Kerman, Iran
Absorbable N Clay Silt Sand Sampling depth
(ppm) (%) (%) (%) (cm)
6.2 25.40 28.88 45.72 0-30
(31˚7′ N, 57˚14′ E and 1749 MASL). Average
annual rainfall of this region is 140 mm and max-
imum and minimum temperatures are +41˚C and
–22˚C, respectively.
Soil sampling was done before cultivation to
detect physical and chemical properties of the
soil. The result of soil analysis is shown in Table
1. The soil was loamy with a pH of 7.62 (Table
1).
The experiment was laid out in a randomized
complete block design with three replications.
Treatments were five different intercropping ar-
rangements consisting of T1: 100% lentil (8 rows
lentil), T2: 75% lentil and 25% fenugreek (3 rows
lentil-2 rows fenugreek-3 rows lentil), T 3: 50%
fenugreek and 50% lentil (alternating rows of
fenugreek and lentil), T4: 25% lentil and 75%
fenugreek (3 rows fenugreek-2 rows lentil- 3
rows fenugreek) and T5: 100% fenugreek (8 rows
fenugreek). Both plants belong to leguminous
family
Fertilizers like triple super phosphate (100
kg/ha) as basal and urea (20 kg/ha) as starter
were applied at final land preparation.
Each plot consisted of 8 rows of 30 cm dis-
tance and 1.5 m length. Fenugreek and lentil
were hand planted at the depth of 2-3cm. Irriga-
tion was done immediately after sowing and then,
every 8 day intervals until harvesting time.
Weeding was done twice during plants growth
periods. No major insect, pest and disease infec-
tions were observed in the experimental field.
Both plants were harvested in 4th July 2010 at full
maturity stage.
At grain harvest, plants materials of fenugreek
and lentil were sampled from a 1 m2 at each plot
to determine 1000-grain weight (g), biological
yield (kg/ha), grain yield (kg/ha) and harvest in-
dex. Traits such as shoot dry weights (kg/ha),
pods per plant and grains per pod of both crops,
as well as fertile pods per fenugreek plant were
measured from 5 plants randomly selected per
plot.
Microsoft Excel and the Statistical Analysis
System (SAS) were used to carry out the analy-
sis.
To find the best intercropping ratio for each
plant, 4 treatments were considered in each com-
 M.S. Shirzadi et al. / Plant Ecophysiology 3 (2011) 53-58
parison (lentil intercropping treatments compared
to sole lentil and fenugreek intercropping treat-
ments compared to sole fenugreek).
The increase in productivity per unit area of
intercrops was calculated in terms of land equiva-
lent ratio (LER), using the following formula
(Willey and Rao, 1980):
næ Y ö
I greek monoculture (19.28 and 20.70). Number of
LER = å çç im ÷÷, i =1
è Yi ø
where, YiI=yield of crop i in intercropping, Yim =
yield of crop i in mono-cropping and n=number
of crops in association. An LER value of 1.0 in-
dicates no difference in yield between the inter-
crop and the collection of monocultures. Any
values greater than 1.0 shows a yield advantage
for intercrop (Hadjichris, 1973). Area harvests
equivalency ratio (AHER) is an indicator of re-
source – use efficiency that calculated as fallows
(Balasubramanian and Sekayange, 1990):
næ Y
I
ö compared to monoculture of the crop (Adeniyan
AHER = å çç mi ÷÷, i =1
è Yi ni ø
where, YiI = yield of crop i in intercropping. Yim
= yield of crop i in mono-cropping and n i = total
number of possible harvests of crop i that could
be obtained during the full intercrop period if
crop i was mono-cropped (AHER = LER when ni
= 1). In order to compare the economic value of
the treatments, relative value total (RVT) of each
treatment was calculated as below (Koocheki et
al., 2009),
P1Y1 + P2Y2
RVT =
P1Y1
where, P1 = fenugreek value and Y1 = fenugreek
yield, P2 = lentil value and Y2 = lentil yield.
Results and Discussions
According to analysis of variance, different
intercropping treatments were highly significant
for fenugreek characteristics except number of
grains per pod and 1000-grain weight (p≤0.01)
and had significant effects on lentil characteris-
tics, except 1000seed weight and harvest index
(Table 2).
Fenugreek
According to mean comparison of fenugreek
traits (Table 3), 2:2 ratios of fenugreek and lentil
intercropping showed the highest value (2200.1
kg/ha) for shoots dry weight and other treatments
55
were not significant for the trait. In a study, le-
gume-cereal intercropping also resulted in more
plant dry weight compared to monoculture of the
legume (Hadjichris, 1973). Maximum pods were
recorded from 2:2 and 3:1 ratios of fenugreek and
lentil intercropping (27.42 and 22.91) against
minimum pods in case of 1:3 ratios and fenu-
fertile pods per plant followed a trend almost
similar to that of pod number per plant. The
highest (763.33 kg/ha) and lowest (163.33 kg/ha)
fenugreek grain yields were revealed by 2:2 and
1:3 intercropping ratios, respectively. Grain yield
of fenugreek monoculture and 3:1 ratios were not
significant. The increase in fenugreek grain yield
in case of 2:2 ratios may be attributed to having
more pods and fertile pods per plant, which are
the main components affecting fenugreek grain
yield. African yam bean-maize-kenaf intercrop-
ping increased seed yield of African yam bean
et al., 2007). Biological yields of 2:2 intercrop-
ping ratios and monoculture of fenugreek were
the highest (2783.3 and 2400 kg/ha) and those of
1:3 and 3:1 ratios were the same and lowest
(1923.3 kg/ha). It seemed that increased or de-
creased proportion of intercropped fenugreek
with lentil affected biological yield of fenugreek
negatively. Maybe the reduction was due to de-
clining of mutual co-operation. In a research on
intercropping of fenugreek and Ajowan, different
cropping arrangements had significant effect on
biological yields of both crops (Mirhashemi et
al., 2009). The 1:3 ratios of fenugreek and lentil
intercropping showed minimum value of harvest
index (8.47). The effects of 2:2 and 3:1 ratios of
intercropping and monoculture of fenugreek were
not significant on harvest index, although 2:2
ratios had the highest value. The difference of
harvest indices can be attributed to difference in
fenugreek yield components and biological
yields. Willey (Willey, 1990) concluded that in-
tercropping could increase harvest index. In cur-
rent assay, the treatments did not have significant
effects on fenugreek grains per pod and 1000-
grain weight (Table 3).
Lentil
According to mean comparison of lentil traits
(Table 3), the lowest shoots dry weight (1290.0
kg/ha) was related to 3:1 ratio of fenugreek and
lentil intercropping and other treatments were not
significant. However, 2:2 ratios showed the
56 M.S. Shirzadi et al. / Plant Ecophysiology 3 (2011) 53-58
 M.S. Shirzadi et al. / Plant Ecophysiology 3 (2011) 53-58
Table 4. Land equivalent ratio (LER), area harvest equivalency ratio (AHER), relative value total (RVT), gross return and net
income in the treatments applied
Treatments LER AHER
T1: 100% L 1 1
T2: 75% L + 25% F 0.76 0.76
T3: 50% L + 50% F 1.77 1.77
T4: 25% L + 75% F 0.72 0.72
T5: 100% F 1 1
highest shoots dry weight. Among treatments, 2:2
ratios of intercropping revealed the highest pods
per plant (2.40) and others did not affect the trait
significantly. The maximum and minimum seeds
per pod (1.60 and 1.16) were obtained from 2:2
and 3:1 ratios of fenugreek and lentil intercrop-
ping, respectively. Intercropping of groundnut
with sorghum significantly affected the number
of seeds per groundnut pod (Langgat et al.,
2006). The highest seed yield (961.0 kg/ha) was
observed in 2:2 ratios of intercropping, while
other arrangements did not have significant effect
on the trait. The highest pods per plant and seeds
per pod, the main identified affective components
on lentil seed yield, resulted in the maximum
seed yield of 2:2 ratios. In a research on two in-
tercropped soybean cultivars, the highest seed
yield was obtained from 50:50 ratios of cultivars
(Biabani et al., 2008). Biological yield of 2:2 ra-
tios of fenugreek and lentil intercropping was the
highest (3205.0 kg/ha) and the 3:1 ratios showed
the lowest value of the trait (1055.0 kg/ha). De-
creasing biological yield of 3:1 ratios could have
been due to fenugreek aggression, when its pro-
portion enhanced. Different intercropping ar-
rangements did not affect lentil 1000-seed weight
and harvest index significantly. Akter et al.
(2004) reported that lentil and wheat intercrop-
ping treatments had no significant effect on lentil
1000-seed weight. In a research on intercropping
of corn with soybean, lupine and forages, ex-
amined corn variables such as harvest index,
1000-seed weight and number of kernels per cob
were not affected by the various corn intercrop-
ping treatments (Carruthers et al., 2000).
In the different treatments, the highest land
equivalent ratio (LER) (1.77) was related to 2:2
ratios of intercropping (Table 4). Reaching to
LER higher than one in the treatment indicated
increasing of productivity per unit area in com-
parison with monoculture of fenugreek and lentil.
It seems that the proportion of both crops in LER
increasing was the same. The value of land
equivalent ratio (LER) in the oat-lentil intercrop-
57
RVT Gross return Net income
(Rls/ha) (Rls/ha)
1 9866000 -3134000
1.58 16886540 3636540
1.65 48378540 34378540
1.25 24476860 10726860
1 16403460 2403460
ping was 1.29, which means that it is a real ad-
vantage of this kind of crop system compared
with oat and lentil raised in monoculture (Dusa
and Gheorghe, 2009). In intercropping of wheat
and lentil, the maximum LER (1.52) was
achieved in lentil and 40% wheat as mixed crop-
ping system (Akter et al., 2004). Considering that
ni (total number of possible harvests of crop i that
could be obtained during the full intercrop pe-
riod, if crop i was mono cropped) equaled to one,
LER and AHER (area harvests equivalency ratio)
rates were the same (Table 4).
Higher net return is achieved with greater
productivity. Highest gross and net income
(48378540 and 34378540 Rs/ha) were obtained
from 2:2 ratios of intercropping due to higher
total productivity under mixed stand with rela-
tively less input investment (Table 4). In inter-
cropping of corn-legumes, the highest returns
were obtained from baby corn-groundnut (2:2)
(Banik and Sharma, 2009). Intercropping capsi-
cum and cowpea gave high net return compared
to mono-cropping (Seran and Brintha, 2009).
Relative value total (RVT) was greater than
one in all intercropping treatments indicating the
economical advantage of intercropped fenugreek
and lentil over monoculture. Moreover, 2:2 ratios
of intercropping contributed the highest RVT
(1.65) (Table 4).
Conclusion
This study revealed that intercropping of fe-
nugreek and lentil may increase, decrease or have
no effect on yield components of each crop de-
pending on spatial arrangements of intercrops.
Finally, 2:2 ratios of fenugreek and lentil inter-
cropping showed higher values of significant
traits in both crops compared to monoculture and
other intercropping arrangements and was known
as the best cropping arrangement of the experi-
ment. Moreover, 2:2 ratios had the highest land
equivalent ratio, gross return, net income and
Relative value total which indicated the econom-
58 M.S. Shirzadi et al. / Plant Ecophysiology 3 (2011) 53-58
ical advantage of this spatial arrangement. There-
fore, 2:2 ratios of fenugreek and lentil is recom-
mended as a beneficial intercropping arrange-
ment of fenugreek and lentil in Kerman region.
References
Acharya, S., A. Srichamroen, S. Basu, B. Oorasikul and
T. Basu. 2006. Improvement in Nutraceutical Proper-
ties of Fenugreek, Songklanakrin J. Sci. Technol.,
28(1), 1-9.
Adeniyan, O.N., S.R. Akande, M.O. Balogun and J.O.
Saka. 2007. Evaluation of crop yield of african yam
bean, maize and kenaf under intercropping systems.
Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci., 2: 99-102.
Adsule, R.N., S.S. Kadam and H.K. Leung. 1989. Lentil.
In: D.K. Salunkhe and S.S. Kadam (Eds), Hand-book
of World Food Legumes: Nutritional Chemistry,
Processing Technology and Utilization. Vol. II. ,
CRC Press. Inc. boca Raton, Florida. pp. 133-152.
Agegnehu, G., A. Ghizaw and W. Sinebo. 2006. Yield
performance and land-use efficiency of barley and
faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands.
Eur. J. Agron. 25( 3): 202-207.
Aggarwal, P.K., D.P. Garrity, S.P. Liboon and R.A. Mor-
ris. 1992. Resource use and plant interactions in a
rice mungbean intercrop. Agron. J., 84: 71-78.
Akter, N., A. Alim, M.M. Islam, Z. Naher, M. Rahman
and A.S.M. Iqbal Hossein. 2004. Evaluation of mixed
and intercropping of lentil and wheat. J. Agron., 3:
48-51.
Al-qurashi, A.D.S. . 2005. Growth and leaf nutrients
content of Guava seedlings (Psidium guajava L.) in-
tercropped with some legume cover crops. Assiut
Journal of Agricultural Science. Vol 36, No 3.
Alteiri, M.A. 1995. Agroecology, the science of sustain-
able agriculture-2nd edition. Westview Press, Inc,
USA.
Banik, P. and R.C. Sharma. 2009. Yield and resource
utilization efficiency in baby corn-legume-
intercropping system in the Eastern plateau of India.
J. Sust. Agric, 33(4):379 – 395.
Basch, E., C. Ulbricht, G. Kuo, P. Szapary and M. Smith.
2003. Therapeutic application of fenugreek. Alt.
Med. Rev. 8: 20-27.
Biabani, A., M. Hashemi and S.J. Herbert. 2008. Agro-
nomic performance of two intercropprd soybean cul-
tivars. Int. J. Plant Prod. 2: 215-222.
Carruthers, K., B. Prithiviraj, Q. Fe, D. Cloutier, R.C.
Martin and D.L. Smith. 2000. Intercropping corn
with soybean, lupin and forages: yield component
responses. Eur. J. Agron. 12 (2): 103-115.
Dusa, M.E., and V.R. Gheorghe. 2009. Researches re-
garding the production of oat-lentil intercropping in
the organic agriculture system. Res. J. Agric. Sci.
41(1):22-26.
Exner, D.N. and R.M. Cruse. 1993. Interseeded forage
legume potential as winter ground cover, nitrogen
source, and competition. J. Prod. Agric., 6: 226-231.
Gangwar, B. and G.S. Karla. 1982. Intercropping of
rainfed maize with different legumes. Indian J. Agri.
Sci., 51: 113-116.
Giller, K. E. and G. Cadisch. 1995. Future benefits from
biological nitrogen fixation: An ecological approach
to agriculture. Plant and Soil, 174: 225-277.
Hadjichris, T.A. 1973. Production of forage from cereals,
legumes and their mixtures under rained condition in
Cyprus. Agric. Res.Institute.Nicosia. Technical Bul-
letin, 14.
Koocheki, A.R., S. Najibnia and B. Lalehgani. 2009.
Evaluation of saffron yield (Crocus sativus L.) in in-
tercropping with cereals, pulses and medicinal plants.
Iran. Agron. Res.. J. 7(1): 163-171.
Langgat, M.C., M.A. Okiror, J.P. Ouma and R.M. Ge-
simba. 2006. The effect of intercropping groundnut
(Arachis hypogea L.) with sorghum (Sorghum bico-
lor L. Moench) on yield and cash income. Agricultu-
ra Tropica Et Subtropica. 39 (2): 87-91.
Mandal, B.K., M.C. Dhare, B.B. Mandal, S.K. Das and
R. Nandi. 1990. Rice, mungbean, soybean, peanut, ri-
cebean and balckgarm yields under different inter-
cropping systems. Agron. J., 82: 1063-1066.
Mashingaidze, A.B. 2004. Improving weed management
and crop productivity in maize systems in Zimbabwe.
Ph.D Thesis. Wageningen University, Wageningen,
The Netherlands.
Mirhashemi, S.M., A. Koocheki, M. Parsa and M. Nasiri
mahallati. 2009. Evaluating the benefit of Ajowan
and fenugreek intercropping in different levels of
manure and planting pattern. Iran. Agron. Res.. J.
7(1): 269-279.
Ofori, F. and W.R. Stern. 1987. Cereal legume intercrop-
ping systems. Adv. Agron., 41: 41-90.
Quayum, M.A., M.E. Akanda and M. Fazlul Karim.
1987. Row spacing and number of rows of chickpea
grown in association with maize (Zea mays L.). Ban-
gladesh J. Agric., 12: 223-230.
Rahman, M.M., M.A. Awal, A. Amin, and M.R. Parvej.
2009. Compatibility, growth and production poten-
tials of mustard/lentil intercropping. Int. J. Bot. 5(1):
100-106.
Seran T.H. and J. Jeyakumaran. 2009. Effect of planting
geometry on yield of capsicum (Capsicum annum L.)
intercropping with vegetable cowpea (Vigna unguicu-
lata L.). J. Sci., 6: 11-19.
Seran, T.H. and I. Brintha. 2009. Studies on determining
a suitable pattern of capsicum (Capsicum annum L.)-
vegetable cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) intercrop-
ping. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 22: 1153-1154.
Singh, U., A.A. Saad, B. Hasan, P. Singh and S.R. Singh.
2008. Production potential and economics of inter-
croppings of lentil (Lens culinaris) with brown sarson
(Brassica compestris) and oat (Avena sativa ). Indian
J.Agron.. 53(2): 135-139.
Sullivan, P. 2003. Intercropping principles and produc-
tion practices. Agronomy System Guide, ATTRA
National Sustainable Agriculture Information Servic-
es, Fayetteville, AR, USA. 12p.
Willey, R.W. 1990. Resource use in intercropping sys-
tems. Agric. Water Manage. 17: 215-231.
Willey, R.W. and M.R. Rao. 1980. A comparative ratio
for quantifying competition between intercrops. Exp.
Agric.16: 117-125.