Next Article in Journal
Why Per Capita Apple Consumption Is Falling: Insights from the Literature and Case Evidence from South Tyrol
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Light-Emitting Diodes on the Accumulation of Phenolic Compounds and Glucosinolates in Brassica juncea Sprouts
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Horticulturae
Volume 6
Issue 4
10.3390/horticulturae6040078
horticulturae-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Sorghum bicolor L. under Intercropping with Legumes and Different Weed Control Methods

by
Saeid Vaezi Rad
1,*,
Said Ali Reza Valadabadi
1,
Majid Pouryousef
2,
Saeid Saifzadeh
1,
Hamid Reza Zakrin
1 and
Andrea Mastinu
3,*
1
Department of Agronomy, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Takestan 3413, Iran
2
Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, University of Zanjan, Zanjan 45371, Iran
3
Department of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, 25123 Brescia, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Horticulturae 2020, 6(4), 78; https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6040078
Submission received: 12 October 2020 / Revised: 5 November 2020 / Accepted: 6 November 2020 / Published: 9 November 2020
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In order to evaluate the quantity and quality of forage when intercropping forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) with lathyrus (Lathyrus sativus) and hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), and using different weed management methods such as double cropping, a factorial experiment in a randomized complete block design with three replications was carried out at the research station of the University of Zanjan over two growing seasons (2015 and 2016). In this experiment, the intercropping of forage sorghum with lathyrus and hairy vetch at six levels with single cropping of forage sorghum, lathyrus, and hairy vetch, and three weed management strategies (no weed control, full weed control, and single weed control) was evaluated. The results showed that most forage sorghum traits were significantly (p ≤ 0.05) affected by different sowing ratios. The highest fresh forage yield of sorghum (77.9 ton/ha) and lowest (49.0 ton/ha) were obtained with sorghum + 33% hairy vetch and sorghum + 100% lathyrus, respectively. Forage qualitative traits were also affected by intercropping and weed management. The highest average acid detergent fiber (ADF), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), and total ash percentage (ASH) were obtained with 100% sorghum + 66% lathyrus and 33% hairy vetch. The results showed that sorghum intercropping with 33% lathyrus led to a significant reduction in dry matter intake and relative feed value with no weed control and single weed control. This study demonstrated that, by selecting the appropriate intercropping ratios and forage legumes, we could largely control sorghum weeds in addition to improving the quantitative and qualitative yield of sorghum forage.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Shortage of forage is one of the main problems for livestock in Iran [1]. Forage crops are among the most important crops in livestock feeds and, consequently, for supplying livestock products for human consumption. Due to its unique morphological and physiological characteristics, sorghum has been introduced as a drought resistant crop and, as such, has fewer water requirements than other crops. It can be used in arid and semi-arid regions as a reliable source of forage [2]. Sorghum is also a major C4 plant that has high growth potential and high production [3,4,5,6,7,8]. Due to the small size of sorghum seed, its seedlings are relatively weak and unable to compete with weeds [5,9,10]. Therefore, weed management is one of the most important aspects of sorghum farming. Without weed control, the loss of yield varies from 10% to 100%, depending on the competitive ability of the weeds and crops, their density, and the competition duration [11]. Herbicide application has not only led to many weeds becoming resistant, but also poses environmental hazards [12,13]. Moreover, seedlings from seeds are relatively weak and cannot compete with weeds [14,15]. Furthermore, manual weed control is a time-consuming method and is not cost-effective. However, an effective method for controlling weeds is the application of cover plants between rows of crops [16]. Cover crops inhibit the germination of weed seeds and reduce the growth and development of weed seedlings by the rapid occupation of open space between rows of the main plant [17]. Legume cover plants have the potential to compete with dominant weeds due to their rapid growth, in addition to supplying nitrogen for the next crop [18]. Intercropping gives more yield per area than monocropping for a variety of reasons, such as improved use of food sources, light, and water, as well as suppressing weed growth [19,20,21]. Research has shown that forage produced in intercropping is of a higher quality than sole cropping, especially when intercropping is used with legume and non-legume combinations, because Graminae are rich in carbohydrates and legumes are rich in protein and vitamins [22,23]. Researchers have demonstrated that yield, crude protein content, and total digestible dry matter in grass–legumes intercropping were higher than monocropping [24,25]. Naim (2013) found that forage production in sorghum and alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) intercropping was more stable than the sole cropping of each of these plants, and this intercropping produced quality forage in addition to maximum forage production due to the mixing of grasses and legumes [26]. Other authors reported that sorghum–soybean (Glycine max) intercropping increased the qualitative traits of forage sorghum due to nitrogen contributions from legume intercrops resulting in increased crude protein and total ash contents, while crude fiber reduced significantly [27,28]. Sorghum is an appropriate plant for seed and forage production in regions with poor soil and warm and dry winters where corn (Zea mays L.) is unable to grow [29]. Sorghum intercropping with forage plants such as lathyrus and hairy vetch is a valuable method of increasing diversity, and it uses land more efficiently throughout the cropping season without reducing grain and forage yields. Considering the importance of this plant in terms of livestock nutrition and its possible cultivation in dry lands compared to similar plants, more research on its quantitative and qualitative characteristics is required. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different ratios of forage sorghum intercropping with forage legumes and different weed management methods on some of the quantitative and qualitative traits of forage sorghum.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Area and Design

This study was conducted at the research station of the University of Zanjan (Latitude of 35°15′ North, Longitude of 47°52′ East) at 1664 m above sea level, over two growing seasons, 2015 and 2016. The area is characterized as a semi-arid region with a 50-year mean air temperature of 14.2 °C, and an annual rainfall of 379 mm. The meteorological data of the experimental field during the growing seasons are shown in Table 1. The soil texture of the research field was silty clay loam (Table 2).
The experiment was carried out as a factorial based on a randomized complete block design with three replications. In this experiment, intercropping of forage sorghum with different ratios of Lathyrus sativus L. (lathyrus) and hairy vetch, included at nine levels (single cropping of sorghum, lathyrus and hairy vetch, sorghum intercropping with 33%, 66%, and 100% hairy vetch and lathyrus), and three weed management strategies (no weed control, full weed control, and single hand-weeding on day 35 after emerging) were evaluated. Land preparation for a second cultivation, including plowing and disking after harvesting of the first crop, was carried out. One hundred kilograms per hectare each of N, P, and K fertilizers were applied. Thereby, one third of N fertilizer was applied before planting and the rest was applied during the season, while P and K fertilizers were consumed completely before sowing. Seed sowing was done by hand in both years. Before planting and in order to prevent fungal diseases, seeds were disinfected with Vitavax (Bayer, Tehran, Iran) fungicide at a rate of one per thousand. The crop density of the forage sorghum cultivar Spidfid was 25 plants per m2 for all treatments. Cultivation of the Zanjan cultivar of lathyrus and the Isfahan cultivar of hairy vetch was carried out in strip lines with sorghum at densities of 100–250 plants per square meter (sole cultivation), respectively. Sorghum, lathyrus, and hairy vetch plants were cultivated at the same time on July 10th in both years of the study. Each plot included five rows of 9 m length, 2.5 m width, and a row space of 0.5 m. The plot size of intercropped and monoculture sorghum was 22.5 m2. The distances between plots and between experimental blocks were 0.5 and 1.5 m, respectively.

2.2. Plant Sampling and Measurements

The recording of sorghum forage and cover crop yield in each treatment was performed in a 2 m2 area in the middle rows of the plot. To measure qualitative traits of sorghum forage, a sample from dried and milled samples was selected with a weight of approximately 50 g.
Qualitative traits including dry matter digestibility (DMD), water-soluble carbohydrates (WSC), crude protein (CP), acid detergent fiber (ADF), total ash percentage (ASH), crude fiber (CF), and neutral detergent fiber (NDF) were measured using a near-infrared spectrometer (NIR-8620) [30]. In order to calculate dry matter intake and relative feed value, the formulas DMI% = 120/ADF% and RFV = DDM% × DMI% × 0.775, respectively, were used.

2.3. Statistical Analyses

For statistical analysis, a two-way ANOVA was performed using the PROC GLIMMIX procedure in SAS version 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Before analyses, data were tested for normality of residuals using the PROC UNIVARIATE procedure in SAS. When the ANOVA indicated treatment effects were significant, means were separated at p = 0.05 using Duncan’s multiple range test. Since ANOVA indicated no significant differences between the years of the experiment for the majority of the variables, the values reported herein are averages over 2 years.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Dry Matter Digestibility (DMD)

The effect of year, year × intercropping, and year × weed management were significant (Table 3). In general, the percentage of digestible dry matter in the second year was greater than that in the first year. Sorghum cultivation with 66% and 100% hairy vetch had a significantly higher digestible dry matter than other treatments in both years, although in the second year, intercropping had no significant effect on DMD.
The lowest mean digestible dry matter content was obtained in sorghum mixed with 33% lathyrus in the first year (Table 4). Digestibility of forage depends on the ratio of intracellular content to the cell wall, and digestible energy is the most common limiting factor of forage quality [31]. The cell is mainly composed of carbohydrates and soluble proteins (which have high digestibility). It seems that the increase in DMD when intercropping sorghum with forage legumes can increase the nitrogen content of the soil and consequently increase leaf area and photosynthetic capacity. Environmental factors have an impact on digestibility. In this study, by increasing the percentage of hairy vetch, the percentage of soluble proteins increased and, as a result, digestible dry matter content increased. Researchers have argued that the reason for the increase in digestible dry matter content when intercropping with legumes is the increase in the amount of nitrogen in the soil and the leaf area of the plant, resulting in an increase in plant photosynthesis and dry matter [32]. Weed management did not cause significant differences between the experimental groups over the two years considered (Figure 1).
Phelam et al. [33] reported that by increasing the nitrogen fixation of forage legumes, digestible dry matter increased. Because an increase in the digestible dry matter is considered an advantage or positive factor, sorghum–hairy vetch intercropping was presented as a superior treatment. Digestibility is usually calculated based on dry matter, expressed as a percentage or coefficient, and digestion is defined as the preparation of the feed for absorption by the digestive system [34]. Restelatto et al. [35] reported that cover plants and nitrogen fertilizers increase the digestible dry matter of sorghum.

3.2. Crude Protein (CP)

The effects of intercropping and year × intercropping on percentage of crude protein were significant (Table 3). Intercropping significantly increased the crude protein content, although this difference was not significant in the first year (Table 4). The highest percentage of crude protein was observed in sorghum with 33% hairy vetch. Increasing the crude protein content of the sorghum plant with hairy vetch may be due to the semi-deep roots of sorghum, which can absorb nutrients from deep levels of soil, as well as nitrogen fixation by forage legumes that increase the nitrogen content of soil. In addition, legume plants increase the protein content of the forage compound, and their root bacteria increase the nitrogen content of soil, ultimately increasing the protein in seeds and forage [36]. Iqbal et al. [28] reported that forage legumes increased the percentage (14.9%) of crude protein in sorghum. An increase of 11–51% of crude protein in corn intercropped with other plants, compared to sole corn cultivation, has also been reported [37].

3.3. Crude Fiber (CF)

The effect of year, intercropping, year × weed control, year × intercropping, and intercropping × weed control were significant in terms of crude fiber content (Table 3). The percentage of crude fiber in the first year was higher than the second year. The highest average percentage of crude fiber was observed in sorghum monocropping with single weed control, although this treatment showed little difference from other treatments and the lowest value was obtained with 100% sorghum + 33% vetch. However, as shown in Figure 2, weed management gave no significant differences among treaments. Zandvakili et al. [38], by comparing the intercropping strip cultivation patterns of forage sorghum with beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and soybeans, concluded that the highest percentage of crude fiber was obtained by sorghum monocropping, which was consistent with the results of this research. Intercropping increased forage quality by decreasing the crude fiber of grass [39].

3.4. Total Ash (ASH)

The effects of year, intercropping and intercropping × weed management were significant at p < 0.01 (Table 3). The percentage of total ash showed that sorghum intercropping with 100% lathyrus and weed control had a positive effect on total ash. Single weed control and no weed control treatments had an increasing effect on total ash content compared to full weed control. Single weed control and no weed control treatments increased total ash content by 14% and 10%, respectively. The highest mean was recorded in sorghum with 33% hairy vetch in single weed control. The lowest percentage of total ash was obtained in sorghum with 100% lathyrus and full weed control (Table 5). The crude protein and ash content of forage maize improved under intercropping with legumes compared to sole-cropping [24].
These results may seem contradictory and this may be due to differences in legume species or variation in soil fertility conditions. Sorghum intercropping with hairy vetch increased soil nitrogen, which could lead to an increase in total ash content in sorghum. Saarsalmi et al. [40] reported that increasing the nitrogen fertilizer resulted in higher total ash. These findings are consistent with the results of this study and the results obtained by Palmer et al. [41] reported that returning the remnants of cover plants to the soil increased the total nitrogen and organic carbon content of the soil and consequently led to an increase in percentage of total ash in the plant. The percentage of total ash in forage represents the mineral content in the plant tissues [42]. Mineral elements in forage are important because they are involved in the metabolism of the animals who feed on it and are necessary for the activity of cells in the body. Mineral elements can also be effective in forage quality [43].
At the same time, in order to understand some contradictory results and complex correlations, it must be recognized that the data collected require further investigation.

3.5. Neutral Detergent Fiber (NDF)

All main and interaction effects, except year × weed control and year × intercropping × weed control, had significant effects on the percentage of neutral detergent fiber (Table 3). NDF averages among the treatments were higher in 2016 than in 2015. The highest mean of this trait was obtained with sorghum with 33% hairy vetch and weed control, and the lowest was obtained with sorghum with 100% lathyrus with full weed control (Table 5). In addition, the data in Table 5 show that sorghum–lathyrus intercropping had a greater effect on increasing the NDF content than intercropping with hairy vetch. No weed control led to an increase in NDF, which shows the negative effects of weeds on qualitative traits. The neutral detergent fiber (NDF) is an indispensable indicator of the digestibility and consumption of the plant by livestock [31]. Therefore, the higher the NDF content of the diet of livestock, the lower its digestibility and consumption [44]. Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) intercropping with beans resulted in increased neutral detergent fiber compared to the sole cultivation of beans and wheat [37]. It seems that hairy vetch resulted in increased nitrogen in the soil. Some authors reported that nitrogen increment leads to an increase in percentage of soluble fiber in acid detergent and this leads to an increase in digestibility [45,46,47].

3.6. Water-Soluble Carbohydrate (WSC)

The effects of year, weed management, intercropping, and year × intercropping were significant at p < 0.01 for percentage of water-soluble carbohydrate (Table 3). There was a higher percentage of water-soluble carbohydrates in the first year than the second year. The results showed that in two years of study only sorghum cultivation with 66% hairy vetch could significantly increase the percentage of water-soluble carbohydrates in comparison to sole sorghum. However, in some treatments, this incremental trend was not significant. Furthermore, the lowest percentage of WSC was obtained in sorghum cultivation with 66% lathyrus in the second year (Table 4). In maize intercropping with common fava bean (Vicia faba L.), Stoltz and Nadeau [48] observed the highest amount of water-soluble carbohydrates with intercropping. Jahanzad et al. [49] stated that soybean intercropping with pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Br.) increased the amount of soluble carbohydrates in millet forage. Full control of weeds resulted in a significant increase in soluble carbohydrate content. However, there was no significant difference between single weed control and no weed control in terms of soluble carbohydrate content. Considering the reduction in weed density due to the increased percentage of hairy vetch with sorghum intercropping, it seems that the ability of vetch to release phytotoxin into the rhizosphere resulted in production of toxic substances and a change in the acidity of the soil [50]. As a result, because of decreased germination and weed establishment, weed density was reduced.

3.7. Dry Matter Intake (DMI)

In this study, year, intercropping and weed control, year × intercropping, and intercropping × weed management had significant effects on DMI. The first year resulted in a better DMI than the second year. The results demonstrated that no control and single weed control in sorghum intercropped with 33% lathyrus significantly reduced the DMI compared to sorghum monocropping (Table 5). The highest DMI in the first year belonged to sorghum cultivation with 66% hairy vetch, which showed a significant increase compared to sorghum monocropping and intercropping with 33% hairy vetch, while in other treatments this increase was not significant. In the second year, sorghum intercropped with lathyrus showed relative superiority compared to its cultivation with hairy vetch (Table 4). Assefa et al. [51] suggested that the increase in DMI of Avena sativa L. (oats) could be attributed to the increased amount of total CP (crude protein) due to intercropping legumes.

3.8. Relative Feed Value (RFV)

Year, intercropping and weed control, year × intercropping, and the interaction of intercropping and weed management had significant effects on RFV. The results showed that sorghum cultivation with 66% and 100% hairy vetch, as well as sorghum cultivation with 100% lathyrus, led to a significant increase in RFV under full weed control conditions compared to sole sorghum cultivation. On the other hand, the results showed that no weed control and single weed control in sorghum intercropped with 33% lathyrus could have a significant effect on weed control compared to sorghum monocropping (Table 5). The results indicated that the highest RFV belonged to sorghum intercropped with 66% hairy vetch in the first year. However, in the second year, sorghum with 100% hairy vetch, and 33% lathyrus significantly increased the percentage of relative feed value compared to sorghum monocropping, but this increase was not significant in the other treatment. This shows the positive effect of sorghum intercropping with cover crops (Table 4). Strydhorst et al. [52] reported an increase in RFV in barley intercropped with bean, white lupin (Lupinus albus L.), and pea (Pisum sativum L).

3.9. Cell Wall Percentage Minus Hemicellulose (ADF)

ADF percentage was significantly different by year, year × weed control, and intercropping × weed control (Table 3). The second year showed a higher ADF than the first year. The results showed that in the first year, no weed control reduced the percentage of ADF, whereas in the second year, single weed control showed no significant difference compared to full control and it prevented a further decrease in the percentage of ADF compared to no weed control (Figure 3). In addition, the interaction of intercropping and weed management showed that the lowest mean was recorded in sorghum with 66% hairy vetch and full control of weeds (Table 4). These results were similar to the findings of other researchers who concluded that combined cereal legume forage had lower ADF content than sole cereal/legume [52,53]. Mosebi et al. [54] also reported that the highest ADF resulted from sole barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), followed by sole oat and sole alfalfa, while the lowest ADF was obtained with alfalfa + barley and alfalfa + oat intercropping systems. Acid detergent fiber (ADF) is an important parameter for evaluating forage quality. As the ADF increases, digestible energy content decreases [37].

3.10. Sorghum Forage and Forage Legumes Yield

Dry and fresh forage of sorghum and dry fodder of forage legumes were significantly affected by year, intercropping, and weed control. Intercropping × weed control had a significant effect on sorghum fresh forage and legume dry forage traits (Table 3). Sorghum and forage legumes gave a higher yield in the first year than the second year. The difference could be attributed, at least partially, to higher precipitation in 2015 compared to 2016. In addition, meteorology data show that average temperatures in 2015 for all months of the growing season were higher than averages in 2016. The high level of ambient temperature, particularly the minimum temperature, accelerated and increased leaf area and plant growth and, finally, enhanced the forage yield. Furthermore, the results of soil analysis showed that the cultivated land in the first year of the experiment showed better fertility (Table 2). The fresh and dry forage yield of sorghum in the first year was 25%, which was 39% higher than the second year. The highest fresh forage yield was obtained in sorghum intercropped with 33% hairy vetch and full control of weeds. The results showed that the intercropping of sorghum with 33% hairy vetch led to a significant difference between single weed control and full weed control, due to the lower density of this cover plant compared to the other ratios. Also, sorghum intercropped with 100% lathyrus and weed control had a positive effect on sorghum forage. No weed control and single weed control treatments in this mix showed no significant difference compared to full control (Table 5). Although with 100% lathyrus, due to the competitive principle, the sorghum yield was lower than with monocropping. Nevertheless, the total forage yield of this treatment (sorghum + lathyrus) was high and the total quality of the forage was better than that of the sorghum monocropping due to the high quality of lathyrus as a legume.
The highest forage of forage legumes was obtained with sole lathyrus cultivation with full weed control (Figure 4). The presence of a high density of lathyrus in intercropping with sorghum (sorghum + 100% lathyrus) inhibited the growth of weeds largely by competing with them and finally resulted in reducing weed growth in the no weed control treatment. One of the reasons for the higher yield of intercropping sorghum with 33% hairy vetch and full control of weeds can be that in intercropping, plants can use environmental resources in a better way with less competition for water, food and light. The ability of each plant to compete in intercropping is not constant, but rather a function of density variation [55]. Therefore, by the appropriate selection of forage legumes in the intercropping system and by increasing the diversity, the ability of weeds to compete for resource absorption can be reduced.
A previous study demonstrated that by mixed cropping of lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus L.) with sorghum, green forage yield was increased by 61% with an 80:20 sorghum–legume seed-blending ratio compared to other blending ratios. It was further discovered that multiple cropping was more effective than row intercropping systems in nitrogen transfer from lima bean to sorghum through roots intermingling, which enhanced mixed forage performance [38]. Aladesanwa and Adigun [56] also reported that living mulch increases crop yield due to less competition and its control effect on weeds. Some authors reported that, in incremental corn–mung bean (Phaseolus radiates L.) mixing treatments, not only was the yield of corn not reduced, but the yield of mung bean was increased, the weeds were controlled better, their negative effect was decreased, and the conditions for better growth of corn and mung bean were provided [57,58,59].

4. Conclusions

Based on the results, it can be concluded that, by adding a minimum of 33–66% of hairy vetch to intercropping, the forage yield was increased. Forage quality was affected by intercropping and weed control treatments such that the crude protein and total ash were affected by sorghum intercropped with 33% and 66% hairy vetch under no weeding conditions. Furthermore, sorghum with 100% lathyrus had a positive effect on weed control and could greatly offset the negative effects of weed control on yield reduction. Therefore, it seems that sorghum mixing with cover plants could have a positive effect on weed control and sorghum forage yield.
Although some critical issues were highlighted in the discussion of the results, these data can give important indications on the dynamics associated with intercropping and the management of weeds. Further measurements in the field will have to be repeated to better define the results obtained.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.V.R. and S.A.R.V.; methodology, S.V.R.; formal analysis, S.S. and H.R.Z.; investigation, H.R.Z.; resources, A.M.; data curation, S.V.R.; writing—original draft preparation, S.V.R.; writing—review and editing, A.M.; visualization, M.P.; supervision, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ghanbari-Bonjar, A.; Lee, H.C. Intercropped wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and bean (Vicia faba L.) as a whole-crop forage: Effect of harvest time on forage yield and quality. Grass Forage Sci. 2003, 58, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aldababseh, A.; Temimi, M.; Maghelal, P.; Branch, O.; Wulfmeyer, V. Multi-criteria evaluation of irrigated agriculture suitability to achieve food security in an arid environment. Sustainability 2018, 10, 803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Olson, S.N.; Ritter, K.; Rooney, W.; Kemanian, A.; McCarl, B.A.; Zhang, Y.Q.; Hall, S.; Packer, D.; Mullet, J. High biomass yield energy sorghum: Developing a genetic model for C4 grass bioenergy crops. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2012, 6, 640–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Acharya, P.; Ghimire, R.; Cho, Y. Linking soil health to sustainable crop production: Dairy compost effects on soil properties and sorghum biomass. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Kumar, A.; Memo, M.; Mastinu, A. Plant behaviour: An evolutionary response to the environment? Plant Biol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Mahdavi, A.; Moradi, P.; Mastinu, A. Variation in terpene profiles of thymus vulgaris in water deficit stress response. Molecules 2020, 25, 1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Bonini, S.A.; Mastinu, A.; Maccarinelli, G.; Mitola, S.; Premoli, M.; La Rosa, L.R.; Ferrari-Toninelli, G.; Grilli, M.; Memo, M. Cortical structure alterations and social behavior impairment in p50-deficient mice. Cereb. Cortex 2016, 26, 2832–2849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gianoncelli, A.; Bonini, S.A.; Bertuzzi, M.; Guarienti, M.; Vezzoli, S.; Kumar, R.; Delbarba, A.; Mastinu, A.; Sigala, S.; Spano, P.; et al. An integrated approach for a structural and functional evaluation of biosimilars: Implications for erythropoietin. BioDrugs 2015, 29, 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Wu, H.W.; Walker, S.R.; Osten, V.A.; Robinson, G. Competition of sorghum cultivars and densities with Japanese millet (Echinochloa esculenta). Weed Biol. Manag. 2010, 10, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gressel, J.; Valverde, B.E. A strategy to provide long-term control of weedy rice while mitigating herbicide resistance transgene flow, and its potential use for other crops with related weeds. Pest Manag. Sci. Former. Pestic. Sci. 2009, 65, 723–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Swanton, C.J.; Nkoa, R.; Blackshaw, R.E. Experimental methods for crop–weed competition studies. Weed Sci. 2017, 63, 2–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Norsworthy, J.K.; Ward, S.M.; Shaw, D.R.; Llewellyn, R.S.; Nichols, R.L.; Webster, T.M.; Bradley, K.W.; Frisvold, G.; Powles, S.B.; Burgos, N.R.; et al. Reducing the Risks of herbicide resistance: Best management practices and recommendations. Weed Sci. 2017, 60, 31–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Lazzari, P.; Pau, A.; Tambaro, S.; Asproni, B.; Ruiu, S.; Pinna, G.; Mastinu, A.; Curzu, M.M.; Reali, R.; Bottazzi, M.E.; et al. Synthesis and pharmacological evaluation of novel 4-alkyl-5-thien-2′-yl pyrazole carboxamides. Cent. Nerv. Syst. Agents Med. Chem. 2012, 12, 254–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Skøien, S.E.; Børresen, T.; Bechmann, M. Effect of tillage methods on soil erosion in Norway. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant Sci. 2012, 62, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gupta, A.K.; Rather, M.A.; Kumar Jha, A.; Shashank, A.; Singhal, S.; Sharma, M.; Pathak, U.; Sharma, D.; Mastinu, A. Artocarpus lakoocha roxb. and artocarpus heterophyllus lam. flowers: New sources of bioactive compounds. Plants 2020, 9, 1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Uchino, H.; Iwama, K.; Jitsuyama, Y.; Ichiyama, K.; Sugiura, E.; Yudate, T.; Nakamura, S.; Gopal, J. Effect of interseeding cover crops and fertilization on weed suppression under an organic and rotational cropping system. Field Crops Res. 2012, 127, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. den Hollander, N.G.; Bastiaans, L.; Kropff, M.J. Clover as a cover crop for weed suppression in an intercropping design. Eur. J. Agron. 2007, 26, 92–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Elsalahy, H.; Döring, T.; Bellingrath-Kimura, S.; Arends, D. Weed suppression in only-legume cover crop mixtures. Agronomy 2019, 9, 648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Huang, C.; Liu, Q.; Gou, F.; Li, X.; Zhang, C.; van der Werf, W.; Zhang, F. Plant growth patterns in a tripartite strip relay intercrop are shaped by asymmetric aboveground competition. Field Crops Res. 2017, 201, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Mastinu, A.; Bonini, S.A.; Rungratanawanich, W.; Aria, F.; Marziano, M.; Maccarinelli, G.; Abate, G.; Premoli, M.; Memo, M.; Uberti, D. Gamma-oryzanol prevents lps-induced brain inflammation and cognitive impairment in adult mice. Nutrients 2019, 11, 728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Mastinu, A.; Kumar, A.; Maccarinelli, G.; Bonini, S.A.; Premoli, M.; Aria, F.; Gianoncelli, A.; Memo, M. Zeolite clinoptilolite: Therapeutic virtues of an ancient mineral. Molecules 2019, 24, 1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Dawo, M.I.; Wilkinson, J.M.; Sanders, F.E.T.; Pilbeam, D.J. The yield and quality of fresh and ensiled plant material from intercropped maize (Zea mays) and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). J. Sci. Food Agric. 2007, 87, 1391–1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Huňady, I.; Hochman, M. Potential of legume-cereal intercropping for increasing yields and yield stability for self-sufficiency with animal fodder in organic farming. Czech J. Genet. Plant Breed. 2014, 50, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Javanmard, A.; Nasab, A.D.M.; Javanshir, A.; Moghaddam, M.; Janmohammadi, H. Forage yield and quality in intercropping of maize with different legumes as double-cropped. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2009, 7, 163–166. [Google Scholar]
  25. Serbester, U.; Akkaya, M.R.; Yucel, C.; Gorgulu, M. Comparison of yield, nutritive value, andin vitrodigestibility of monocrop and intercropped corn-soybean silages cut at two maturity stages. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 14, 3636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Naim, A.M.E. Agronomic evaluation of sorghum and cowpea intercropped at different spatial arrangements. J. Renew. Agric. 2013, 1, 11–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Iqbal, M.A. Comparative performance of forage cluster bean accessions as companion crops with sorghum under varied harvesting times. Bragantia 2018, 77, 476–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Iqbal, M.A.; Hamid, A.; Ahmad, T.; Siddiqui, M.H.; Hussain, I.; Ali, S.; Ali, A.; Ahmad, Z. Forage sorghum-legumes intercropping: Effect on growth, yields, nutritional quality and economic returns. Bragantia 2019, 78, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Borghi, E.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Nascente, A.S.; Sousa, V.V.; Martins, P.O.; Mateus, G.P.; Costa, C. Sorghum grain yield, forage biomass production and revenue as affected by intercropping time. Eur. J. Agron. 2013, 51, 130–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jafari, A.; Connolly, V.; Frolich, A.; Walsh, E.J. A note on estimation of quality parameters in perennial ryegrass by near infrared reflectance spectroscopy. Irish J Agric. Food Res. 2003, 42, 293–299. [Google Scholar]
  31. Carita, T.; Simes, N.; Carneiro, J.; Moreira, J.; Bagulho, A. Forage yield and quality of simple and complex grass-legumes mixtures under Mediterranean conditions. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2016, 28, 501–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Coleman, S.W.; Moore, J.E. Feed quality and animal performance. Field Crops Res. 2003, 84, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Phelan, P.; Moloney, A.P.; McGeough, E.J.; Humphreys, J.; Bertilsson, J.; O’Riordan, E.G.; O’Kiely, P. Forage legumes for grazing and conserving in ruminant production systems. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2015, 34, 281–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Arzani, H.; Zohdi, M.; Fish, E.; Zahedi Amiri, G.; Nikkhah, A.; Wester, D. Phenological effects on forage quality of five grass species. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2004, 57, 624–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Restelatto, R.; Pavinato, P.S.; Sartor, L.R.; Einsfeld, S.M.; Baldicera, F.P. Nitrogen efficiency and nutrient absorption by a sorghum-oats forage succession. Adv. Agric. 2015, 2015, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Capstaff, N.M.; Miller, A.J. Improving the Yield and Nutritional Quality of Forage Crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Lithourgidis, A.S.; Vlachostergios, D.N.; Dordas, C.A.; Damalas, C.A. Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea–cereal intercropping systems. Eur. J. Agron. 2011, 34, 287–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Reza, Z.O.; Allahdadi, I.; Mazaheri, D.; Akbari, G.A.; Jahanzad, E.; Mirshekari, M. Evaluation of quantitative and qualitative traits of forage sorghum and lima bean under different nitrogen fertilizer regimes in additive - replacement series. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 4, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. La Guardia Nave, R.; Corbin, M. Forage warm-season legumes and grasses intercropped with corn as an alternative for corn silage production. Agronomy 2018, 8, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Saarsalmi, A.; Smolander, A.; Kukkola, M.; Moilanen, M.; Saramäki, J. 30-Year effects of wood ash and nitrogen fertilization on soil chemical properties, soil microbial processes and stand growth in a Scots pine stand. For. Ecol. Manag. 2012, 278, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Palmer, J.; Thorburn, P.J.; Biggs, J.S.; Dominati, E.J.; Probert, M.E.; Meier, E.A.; Huth, N.I.; Dodd, M.; Snow, V.; Larsen, J.R.; et al. Nitrogen cycling from increased soil organic carbon contributes both positively and negatively to ecosystem services in wheat agro-ecosystems. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Monti, A.; Di Virgilio, N.; Venturi, G. Mineral composition and ash content of six major energy crops. Biomass Bioenergy 2008, 32, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Spears, J.W. Minerals in Forages. Forage Qual. Eval. Util. 1994, 7, 281–317. [Google Scholar]
  44. Contreras-Govea, F.E.; Muck, R.E.; Armstrong, K.L.; Albrecht, K.A. Fermentability of corn–lablab bean mixtures from different planting densities. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2009, 149, 298–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Schulze, H.; van Leeuwen, P.; Verstegen, M.W.A.; Huisman, J.; Souffrant, W.B.; Ahrens, F. Effect of level of dietary neutral detergent fiber on ileal apparent digestibility and ileal nitrogen losses in pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 1994, 72, 2362–2368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Marcos, C.N.; Carro, M.D.; García, S.; González, J. The acid detergent insoluble nitrogen (ADIN) analysis overestimates the amount of N associated to acid detergent fibre. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2018, 244, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Farías-Kovac, C.; Nicodemus, N.; Delgado, R.; Ocasio-Vega, C.; Noboa, T.; Abdelrasoul, R.A.-S.; Carabaño, R.; García, J. Effect of dietary insoluble and soluble fibre on growth performance, digestibility, and nitrogen, energy, and mineral retention efficiency in growing rabbits. Animals 2020, 10, 1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stoltz, E.; Nadeau, E. Effects of intercropping on yield, weed incidence, forage quality and soil residual N in organically grown forage maize (Zea mays L.) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Field Crops Res. 2014, 169, 21–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jahanzad, E.; Sadeghpour, A.; Hosseini, M.B.; Barker, A.V.; Hashemi, M.; Zandvakili, O.R. Silage yield and nutritive value of millet-soybean intercrops as influenced by nitrogen application. Agron. J. 2014, 106, 1993–2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Dhima, K.V.; Vasilakoglou, I.B.; Eleftherohorinos, I.G.; Lithourgidis, A.S. Allelopathic potential of winter cereals and their cover crop mulch effect on grass weed suppression and corn development. Crop Sci. 2006, 46, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Assefa, G.; Ledin, I. Effect of variety, soil type and fertiliser on the establishment, growth, forage yield, quality and voluntary intake by cattle of oats and vetches cultivated in pure stands and mixtures. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2001, 92, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Strydhorst, S.M.; King, J.R.; Lopetinsky, K.J.; Harker, K.N. Forage potential of intercropping barley with faba bean, lupin, or field pea. Agron. J. 2008, 100, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Vern, S.; Baron, A.A.; Clayton, G.W.; Campbell Dick, A.; McCartney, D.H. Swath grazing potential of spring cereals, field pea and mixtures with other species. Can. J. Plant Sci. 2004, 84, 1051–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mosebi, P.E.; Matebesi-Ranthimo, P.A.; Ntakatsane, M.P.; Ratsele, R. Forage potential of alfalfa with oats and barley in intercropping system. Asian J. Res. Agric. For. 2018, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bybee-Finley, K.; Ryan, M. Advancing intercropping research and practices in industrialized agricultural landscapes. Agriculture 2018, 8, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Aladesanwa, R.D.; Adigun, A.W. Evaluation of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) live mulch at different spacings for weed suppression and yield response of maize (Zea mays L.) in southwestern Nigeria. Crop Prot. 2008, 27, 968–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kumar, P.; Pal, M.; Joshi, R.; Sairam, R.K. Yield, growth and physiological responses of mung bean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] genotypes to waterlogging at vegetative stage. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2013, 19, 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Tanveer, M.; Anjum, S.A.; Hussain, S.; Cerdà, A.; Ashraf, U. Relay cropping as a sustainable approach: Problems and opportunities for sustainable crop production. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 6973–6988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Samal, S.K.; Rao, K.K.; Poonia, S.P.; Kumar, R.; Mishra, J.S.; Prakash, V.; Mondal, S.; Dwivedi, S.K.; Bhatt, B.P.; Naik, S.K.; et al. Evaluation of long-term conservation agriculture and crop intensification in rice-wheat rotation of Indo-Gangetic Plains of South Asia: Carbon dynamics and productivity. Eur. J. Agron. 2017, 90, 198–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Horticulturae 06 00078 g001 550
Figure 1. Mean comparison by year of the effect of weed management on percentage of digestible dry matter. All measurements were performed in triplicate. Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation. There were no significant differences.
Figure 1. Mean comparison by year of the effect of weed management on percentage of digestible dry matter. All measurements were performed in triplicate. Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation. There were no significant differences.
Horticulturae 06 00078 g001
Horticulturae 06 00078 g002 550
Figure 2. Mean comparison by year of the effect of weed management on crude fiber. All measurements were performed in triplicate. Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation. There were no significant differences.
Figure 2. Mean comparison by year of the effect of weed management on crude fiber. All measurements were performed in triplicate. Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation. There were no significant differences.
Horticulturae 06 00078 g002
Horticulturae 06 00078 g003 550
Figure 3. Mean comparison by year of the effect of weed management on acid detergent fiber. All measurements were performed in triplicate. Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation. There were no significant differences.
Figure 3. Mean comparison by year of the effect of weed management on acid detergent fiber. All measurements were performed in triplicate. Data are shown as the mean ± standard deviation. There were no significant differences.
Horticulturae 06 00078 g003
Horticulturae 06 00078 g004 550
Figure 4. Means ± standard error for the interaction effect of planting density and weed management on dry weight of forage legumes. Different letters on the top of the bars indicate significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 by DMRT.
Figure 4. Means ± standard error for the interaction effect of planting density and weed management on dry weight of forage legumes. Different letters on the top of the bars indicate significant difference at p ≤ 0.05 by DMRT.
Horticulturae 06 00078 g004
Table
Table 1. Meteorological data of the experimental site during the growing season in 2015 and 2016.
Table 1. Meteorological data of the experimental site during the growing season in 2015 and 2016.
YearMonthAverage Temperature (°C)Max. Temperature (°C)Min. Temperature (°C)Actual Evaporation
(mm)		Precipitation (mm)RH (%)
2015July26.634.618.53000.0441.2
August25.935.716.2297036.3
September21.530.312.62070.1150.4
October17.125.49.11470.5952.1
2016July24.732.815.73010.0541.2
August25.634.716.4298042
September22.632.512.7240042
October16.622.710.61800.550.3
Table
Table 2. Some physical and chemical characteristics of the field soil of the experimental site in 2015 and 2016.
Table 2. Some physical and chemical characteristics of the field soil of the experimental site in 2015 and 2016.
YearPotassium mg kg−1Phosphorus
mg kg−1		EC
mS cm−1		Sand (%)Silt (%)Clay (%)Soil TextureOrganic
Carbon (%)		pH
201522022.633.1442.234.423.4Silty clay loam1.37.72
201627045.234.2138.163229.84Silty clay loam0.987.15
Table
Table 3. Analysis of variance for qualitative traits of sorghum forage under increasing intercropping sorghum cultivation with vetch and lathyrus using combined data from 2015 to 2016
Table 3. Analysis of variance for qualitative traits of sorghum forage under increasing intercropping sorghum cultivation with vetch and lathyrus using combined data from 2015 to 2016
SourceDFMS
DMD
Dry Matter Digestibility		CP
Crude Protein		WSC
Water Soluble Carbohydrates		CF
Crude Fiber		ADF
Acid Detergent Fiber		NDF
Neutral Detergent Fiber		ASH
Total Ash Percentage		DMI
Dry Matter Intake		RFV
Relative Feed Value		Fresh Weight of SorghumDry Weight of SorghumDry Weight of Forage Legumes
Year150.220.084ns51.00 **3.94 *29.05 *680.02 **65.95 **0.588 **55205 **6214.39 **108105 **23.59 **
Rep./Y41.15ns z2.14ns3.04ns0.98ns1.37ns2.21ns0.343 *0.003Ns15.99ns298.54 **15.09 **0.42ns
P.Ry (A)67.57ns8.41 **9.43 **2.88 **9.77ns41.18 **0.319 **0.038 **147.63 **676.34 **98.73 **68.67 **
A × Y69.79 *5.07 *8.33 **3.49 **7.19ns33.97 **0.163ns0.032 **179.96 **99.38 **42.96 **4.24 **
W.My (B)21.76ns1.2ns13.81 **0.289ns2.05ns43.68 **0.198ns0.034 *210.43 **1094.91 **196.10 **47.29 **
B × Y222.93 **1.89ns0.98ns3.42 *37.84 **0.203ns0.015ns0.001ns3.44ns1.54ns0.45ns0.45ns
A × B126.42ns3.62ns3.13ns2.91 **10.48 *19.21 *0.523 **0.019 *87.03 *20.76 **6.47ns3.36 **
B × A × Y123.91ns2.76ns2.99ns1.03ns5.31ns10.46ns0.181ns0.009ns18.94ns15.99ns1.88ns0.33ns
Error804.222.152.450.7984.728.190.1020.00836.6620.084.160.41
CV3.39%14.62%14.21%2.51%6.28%4.48%4.43%4.70%8.21%7.28%11.42%19.72%
Z * is significant at p < 0.005, ** is significant at p < 0.001, and ns is not significant. y P.R Planting ratios. W.M; Weed management.
Table
Table 4. Interaction effect of year and intercropping on quantitative and qualitative traits of sorghum in 2015 and 2016.
Table 4. Interaction effect of year and intercropping on quantitative and qualitative traits of sorghum in 2015 and 2016.
YearPlanting RatiosNDF%CF%WSC%CP%DMD%Dry Weight of SorghumFresh Weight of SorghumDMI%RFV%
First yearsole cropping of sorghum63.97cdz36.50a9.90b–d10.86a59.37b–d22.31b75.14ab1.88b–d89.42b
Sorghum with 33% vetch63.23cd35.59ab12.112ab11.28a59.96d27.16a76.53a1.89bc92.56b
Sorghum with 66% vetch58.44e34.32c13.40a9.07bc62.14a21.86bc69.57bc2.06a103.0a
Sorghum with 100 % vetch60.74de35.78ab11.37a–d10.11a–c61.24a–c19.23cd65.36cd1.98ab95.22b
Sorghum with 33% Lathyrus61.48de36.47a11.91a–c8.89c58.80d21.87bc73.67ab1.96ab94.14b
Sorghum with 66% Lathyrus61.46de35.96ab10.87b–d10.61ab59.15cd17.48de63.04de1.96ab93.37b
Sorghum with 100% Lathyrus61.58de35.94ab11.93a–c10.04a–c60.12a–d15.53e–g56.58fg1.96ab94.93b
Second yearsole cropping of sorghum68.18ab35.44a–c10.12b–d8.67c60.90a–d15.97ef58.75ef1.76de48.90d
Sorghum with 33% vetch68.30ab34.76bc9.94b–d11.12a61.48ab16.37ef62.68de1.76de48.92d
Sorghum with 66% vetch68.74a35.90ab9.72cd9.11bc61.92a14.79e–g56.18fg1.75e48.01d
Sorghum with 100 % vetch63.98cd35.33a–c10.74b–d10.10a–c61.79a15.57e–g57.27ef1.88b–d57.00c
Sorghum with 33% Lathyrus63.13cd35.99ab11.97a–c9.98a–c60.96a–d14.22fg51.15gh1.90bc58.91c
Sorghum with 66% Lathyrus66.26a–c35.23a–c9.30d10.15a–c60.36a–d14.58fg48.63h1.81c–e52.40cd
Sorghum with 100% Lathyrus64.81b–d35.42a–c10.79b–d10.58ab61.21a–c12.93g46.90h1.87b–d55.43cd
z Column means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 5. Interaction effects of intercropping and weed management on quantitative and qualitative traits of sorghum.
Table 5. Interaction effects of intercropping and weed management on quantitative and qualitative traits of sorghum.
Planting RatiosWeedFresh Weight of Sorghum (ton/ha)ASH%NDF%ADF%CF%DMI%RFV%
sole culture of sorghumFull weed control71.38abz7.15a–d65.85a–c35.15a–e35.97a–e1.82d–f69.67e–h
Single weed control69.54bc6.86de65.57a–d35.49a–c36.89a1.84c–f70.72d–h
No weed control61.38d–h7.52ab66.82ab35.77a–c35.06c–e1.80ef67.10gh
Sorghum with 33% vetchFull weed control77.89a7.17a–d64.50a–e33.06c–e34.42e1.87b–f73.31a–h
Single weed control66.69b–e7.61a64.53a–e34.29a–e35.48a–e1.86c–f72.74b–h
No weed control62.78c–g6.93c–e68.27a35.40a–d35.63a–e1.77f66.17h
Sorghum with 66% vetchFull weed control68.92b–d7.44a–c61.65d–f32.27e34.67de1.98ab80.52ab
Single weed control61.53d–h7.43a–d62.90b–f32.38de34.74c–e1.91a–e77.00a–f
No weed control58.17f–i7.42a–d66.22a–c35.31a–d35.93a–e1.82d–f68.94f–h
Sorghum with 100 % vetchFull weed control65.55b–f7.43a–d60.40f35.22a–e34.83c–e1.99a78.38a–d
Single weed control60.99e–h6.98b–e61.61d–f34.49a–e36.25a–d1.95a–c78.62a–d
No weed control57.40g–j7.31a–d65.07a–d33.47b–e35.58a–e1.84c–f71.33c–h
Sorghum with 33% LathyrusFull weed control67.94b–e6.99b–e64.39a–e35.32a–d36.77ab1.87b–f72.55b–h
Single weed control62.59c–g7.08a–d60.67ef35.46a–c36.03a–e1.98ab79.34a–c
No weed control56.69g–j7.09a–d61.85d–f33.10c–e35.90a–e1.95a–d77.69a–e
Sorghum with 66% LathyrusFull weed control60.98e–h7.26a–d65.39a–d36.54a36.02a–e1.84c–f69.69e–h
Single weed control56.67g–j7.50a–c63.42b–f35.23a–e35.27b–e1.89a–e74.21a–h
No weed control49.87jk7.09a–d62.77c–f34.53a–e35.50a–e1.92a–e74.75a–g
Sorghum with 100% LathyrusFull weed control54.12h–k6.52e60.76ef33.16c–e36.33a–c1.99ab81.52a
Single weed control52.09i–k7.43a–d64.43a–e36.43ab35.33a–e1.87a–f71.99c–h
No weed control49.01k7.21a–d64.40a–e34.15a–e35.38a–e1.86a–f72.03c–h
z Column means with the same letter are not significantly different by DMRT (p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rad, S.V.; Valadabadi, S.A.R.; Pouryousef, M.; Saifzadeh, S.; Zakrin, H.R.; Mastinu, A. Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Sorghum bicolor L. under Intercropping with Legumes and Different Weed Control Methods. Horticulturae 2020, 6, 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6040078

AMA Style

Rad SV, Valadabadi SAR, Pouryousef M, Saifzadeh S, Zakrin HR, Mastinu A. Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Sorghum bicolor L. under Intercropping with Legumes and Different Weed Control Methods. Horticulturae. 2020; 6(4):78. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6040078

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rad, Saeid Vaezi, Said Ali Reza Valadabadi, Majid Pouryousef, Saeid Saifzadeh, Hamid Reza Zakrin, and Andrea Mastinu. 2020. "Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Sorghum bicolor L. under Intercropping with Legumes and Different Weed Control Methods" Horticulturae 6, no. 4: 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae6040078

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop