Abstract
Background: Chickpea is the third-most important food legume in the world. Chickpea is less remunerative than raya, linseed and fenugreek. Hence there is a gradual shift in cropping patterns from sole chickpea to its intercropping with raya, linseed and fenugreek. Intercropping offers potential advantages over sole cropping. Since information on the relative yield, competition, land use and economics of chickpea intercropping with raya, linseed and fenugreek is lacking, hence the present experiment was undertaken. Methods: A field experiment was performed at CCSHAU, Hisar, during two consecutive winter seasons, i.e., 2020-21 and 2021-22, following a randomized block design comprising nineteen treatments, replicating thrice. The study was aimed to evaluate the chickpea-based intercropping in row replacement system with fenugreek, linseed and raya as an intercrop with row ratio of 4:4, 5:3, 6:2, 3:5 and 2:6 for chickpea + intercrop along with their sole crop. Result: Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was found utmost efficient and suitable, having significantly higher LER (1.20), CEY (2396 kg/ha), LUE (119.3), ATER (1.18), A (0.53), RCC (4.18), MAI (18838), SPI (2208), IAI (34.6), net return (Rs. 96,170/ha) and benefit cost ratio (3.79).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 12
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping had significantly higher land equivalent ratio (LER 1.20).
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- LERe1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 1.20e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was found utmost efficient and suitable, having significantly higher LER (1.20), CEY (2396 kg/ha), LUE (119.3), ATER (1.18), A (0.53), RCC (4.18), MAI (18838), SPI (2208), IAI (34.6), net return (Rs. 96,170/ha) and benefit cost ratio (3.79)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping had significantly higher crop equivalent yield (CEY 2396 kg/ha).
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- CEYe1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 2396 kg/hae1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was found utmost efficient and suitable, having significantly higher LER (1.20), CEY (2396 kg/ha), LUE (119.3), ATER (1.18), A (0.53), RCC (4.18), MAI (18838), SPI (2208), IAI (34.6), net return (Rs. 96,170/ha) and benefit cost ratio (3.79)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping had significantly higher land use efficiency (LUE 119.3).
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- LUEe1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 119.3e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was found utmost efficient and suitable, having significantly higher LER (1.20), CEY (2396 kg/ha), LUE (119.3), ATER (1.18), A (0.53), RCC (4.18), MAI (18838), SPI (2208), IAI (34.6), net return (Rs. 96,170/ha) and benefit cost ratio (3.79)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping had significantly higher ATER (1.18).
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- ATERe1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 1.18e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was found utmost efficient and suitable, having significantly higher LER (1.20), CEY (2396 kg/ha), LUE (119.3), ATER (1.18), A (0.53), RCC (4.18), MAI (18838), SPI (2208), IAI (34.6), net return (Rs. 96,170/ha) and benefit cost ratio (3.79)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping had significantly higher A (0.53).
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- Ae1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 0.53e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was found utmost efficient and suitable, having significantly higher LER (1.20), CEY (2396 kg/ha), LUE (119.3), ATER (1.18), A (0.53), RCC (4.18), MAI (18838), SPI (2208), IAI (34.6), net return (Rs. 96,170/ha) and benefit cost ratio (3.79)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping had significantly higher RCC (4.18).
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- RCCe1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 4.18e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was found utmost efficient and suitable, having significantly higher LER (1.20), CEY (2396 kg/ha), LUE (119.3), ATER (1.18), A (0.53), RCC (4.18), MAI (18838), SPI (2208), IAI (34.6), net return (Rs. 96,170/ha) and benefit cost ratio (3.79)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping had significantly higher MAI (18838).
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- MAIe1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 18838e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was found utmost efficient and suitable, having significantly higher LER (1.20), CEY (2396 kg/ha), LUE (119.3), ATER (1.18), A (0.53), RCC (4.18), MAI (18838), SPI (2208), IAI (34.6), net return (Rs. 96,170/ha) and benefit cost ratio (3.79)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping had significantly higher SPI (2208).
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- SPIe1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 2208e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was found utmost efficient and suitable, having significantly higher LER (1.20), CEY (2396 kg/ha), LUE (119.3), ATER (1.18), A (0.53), RCC (4.18), MAI (18838), SPI (2208), IAI (34.6), net return (Rs. 96,170/ha) and benefit cost ratio (3.79)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping had significantly higher IAI (34.6).
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- IAIe1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 34.6e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was found utmost efficient and suitable, having significantly higher LER (1.20), CEY (2396 kg/ha), LUE (119.3), ATER (1.18), A (0.53), RCC (4.18), MAI (18838), SPI (2208), IAI (34.6), net return (Rs. 96,170/ha) and benefit cost ratio (3.79)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping had significantly higher net return (Rs. 96,170/ha).
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- net returne1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- Rs. 96,170/hae1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was found utmost efficient and suitable, having significantly higher LER (1.20), CEY (2396 kg/ha), LUE (119.3), ATER (1.18), A (0.53), RCC (4.18), MAI (18838), SPI (2208), IAI (34.6), net return (Rs. 96,170/ha) and benefit cost ratio (3.79)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping had significantly higher benefit cost ratio (3.79).
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- benefit cost ratioe1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 3.79e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was found utmost efficient and suitable, having significantly higher LER (1.20), CEY (2396 kg/ha), LUE (119.3), ATER (1.18), A (0.53), RCC (4.18), MAI (18838), SPI (2208), IAI (34.6), net return (Rs. 96,170/ha) and benefit cost ratio (3.79)”
Claim · model-written summary
Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was the most efficient and suitable of the chickpea intercropping systems.
- Taxon
- chickpeaCicer arietinumt0
- Treatment
- Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- utmost efficient and suitablee1
- Direction
- utmost efficient and suitablee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“chickpea”
e1“Chickpea + fenugreek (6:2) intercropping was found utmost efficient and suitable, having significantly higher LER (1.20), CEY (2396 kg/ha), LUE (119.3), ATER (1.18), A (0.53), RCC (4.18), MAI (18838), SPI (2208), IAI (34.6), net return (Rs. 96,170/ha) and benefit cost ratio (3.79)”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.