THE EFFECTS OF SOWING DESIGNS ON FORAGE YIELD AND QUALITY OF SWEET SORGHUM AND MUNG BEAN MIXTURES UNDER MEDITERRANEAN CONDITIONS

Abstract

This study was conducted to determine the effects of sowing designs on forage yield and quality in sweet sorghum and mung bean grown as binary mixture with different cultivation systems in Mediterranean conditions under second crop season during 2019-2020. As sowing design, twin-row (20×55 cm row spacing), narrow-row (55 cm row spacing) and conventional-row (75 cm row spacing) were used as sowing design. The mixtures were formed based on the plant density and alternative row numbers of sweet sorghum and mung bean. Sowing was done on alternating rows of 1 row of sweet sorghum and 1 row of mung bean and 2 rows of sweet sorghum and 1 row of mung bean. The plant density of sweet sorghum was 14 plants m-2 and plant densities of mung bean were 14 plants m-2, 21 plants m-2 and 28 plants m-2. This experiment was planned as two-factor (sowing designs and mixtures) and conducted in randomized complete block design arranged in split plot with 3 replications. To evaluate the forage yield and quality, fresh forage yield, dry matter yield, NDF, ADF, ADL, crude ash crude protein and ether extract characteristics were examined. In addition, the intercropping potential of mung bean and sweet sorghum mixtures was evaluated by the land equivalent ratio. As a result of the present study, mixed cultivation of 14 plants m-2 with one row of sweet sorghum and 14 plants m-2 with one row of mung bean gave the best results in narrow row sowing design. It was concluded that an efficient and high quality intercropping system can be realized in the second crop conditions in regions where Mediterranean climatic conditions prevail, especially for mung beans and sweet sorghum.

Keywords

• Intercropping
• forage quality
• forage yield
• mung bean
• sweet sorghum

References

1. Acaroglu, M. 2013. Alternative Energy Sources. Nobel Publishing House, ISBN: 978-605-133-620-6 (in Turkish).
2. Ahmad, A.U.H., R. Ahmad, N. Mahmood and A. Tanveer. 2007. Performance of forage sorghum intercropped with forage legumes under different planting patterns. Pakistan Journal of Botany 39(2): 431-439.
3. Altieri, M.A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environonment 74: 19-31.
4. Anonymous. 2020. Mung bean. www.feedipedia.org (Accessed October 9, 2020).
5. AOAC. 1990. Official methods of analysis. Arlington, VA, USA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
6. Atis, I. and S. Acikalin. 2020. Yield, quality and competition properties of grass pea and wheat grown as pure and binary mixture in different plant densities. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 25(1): 18-25.
7. Atis, I., O. Konuskan, M. Duru, H. Gozubenli and S. Yilmaz. 2012. Effect of harvesting time on yield, composition and forage quality of some forage sorghum cultivars. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology 14: 879-886.
8. Baghdadi, A., R.A. Halim, A. Ghasemzadeh and M. Ebrahimi. 2016. Effect of intercropping of corn and soybean on dry matter yield and nutritive value of forage corn. Legume Research 39(6): 976-981.

9. Basaran, U., M. Copur-Dogrusoz, E. Gulumser and H. Mut. 2017. Hay yield and quality of intercropped sorghum-sudangrass hybrid and legumes with different seed ratio. Turkish Journal of Field Crops 22(1): 47-53.
10. Bennett, F.W. 1990. Modern Grain Sorghum Production. University of Lowa Press, Lowa City, 178.
11. Erdal, S., M. Pamukcu, M. Curek, M. Kocaturk and O. Yilmaz-Dogu. 2016. Silage yield and quality of row intercropped maize and soybean in a crop rotation following winter wheat. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 62(11): 1487-1495.
12. Geng, S., F.J. Hill, S.S. Johnson and R.N. Sah. 1989. Potential yields and on farm ethanol production cost of corn, sweet sorghum. fodder beet and sugar beet. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science (162): 21-29.
13. Ibrahim, M., A. Ayub, A. Tanveer and M. Yaseen. 2012. Forage quality of maize and legumes as monocultures and mixtures at different seed ratios. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences 22(4): 987-992.
14. Karaman, R., M. Kaya and C. Turkay. 2020. Determination of forage yield, quality and mineral content mung bean growing as second crop. Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology 8(10): 1118-2124 (in Turkish).
15. Kizil-Aydemir, S. and M. Kizilsimsek. 2019. Assessing yield and feed quality of intercropped sorghum and soybean in different planting patterns and in different ecologies. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 16: 5141-5146.
16. Kizilsimsek, M., C. Ozturk, K. Yanar, I. Ertekin, C.O. Ozkan and A. Kamalak. 2017. Associative effects of ensiling soybean and corn plant as mixtures on the nutritive value, fermentation and methane emission. Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 26: 5754-5760.
17. Lithourgidis, A.S., C.A. Dordas, C.A. Damalas and D.N. Vlachostergios. 2011. Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5(4): 396-410.
18. Maitra, S., J.B. Palai, P. Manasa and D.P. Kumar. 2019. Potential of intercropping system in sustaining crop productivity. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology 12(1): 39-45.
19. Oplinger, E.S., L.L. Hardman, A.R. Kaminski, S.M. Combs and J.D. Doll. 1990. Mungbean. Alternative Field Crops Manual. University of Wisconsin, Cooperative Extensive Service, Madison. May,1990.
20. Propheter, J.L., S.A. Staggenborg, X. Wu and D. Wang. 2010. Performance of annual and perennial biofuel crops: yield during the first two years. Agronomy Journal 102: 806-814.
21. Ram, K. and R. Meena. 2014. Evaluation of pearl millet and mung bean intercropping systems in Arid Region of Rajasthan (India). Bangladesh Journal of Botany 43(3):367-370.
22. Salama, H.S.A., A.I. Nawar and H.E. Khalil. 2022. Intercropping pattern and N fertilizer schedule affect the performance of additively intercropped maize and forage cowpea in the Mediterranean region. Agronomy 12: 107.
23. Sarlak, S., M. Aghaalikhani and B. Zand. 2008. Effect of plant density and mixing ratio on crop yield in sweet corn/mungbean intercropping. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 11(17): 2128-2133.
24. Serbester, U., M.R. Akkaya, C. Yucel and M. Gorgulu. 2015. Comparison of yield, nutritive value, and in vitro digestibilty of monocrop and intercropped corn-soybean silages cut at two maturity stages. Italian Journal of Animal Science 14:3636.
25. Tolera, A. 2003. Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus farmyard manure and population of climbing bean on the performance of maize (Zea mays L.)/climbing bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) intercropping system in Alfisols of Bako. An MSc Thesis Presented to the School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University.1-75p.
26. Van Soest, P.J., J.B. Robertson and B.A. Lewis. 1991. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science 74 (10): 3583-3597.
27. Yilmaz, S., M. Erayman, H. Gozubenli and E. Can. 2008. Twin or narrow-row planting patterns versus conventional planting in forage maize production in the Eastern Mediterranean. Cereal Research Communications 36(1): 189-199.
28. Zhang, S.J., A.S. Chaudhry, A. Osman, C.Q. Shi, G.R. Edwards, R.J. Dewhurst and L. Cheng. 2015. Associative effects of ensiling mixtures of sweet sorghum and alfalfa on nutritive value, fermentation and methane characteristics. Animal Feed Science and Technology 206: 29-38.