Economic assessment of mustard based intercropping system under semi-arid region of Rajasthan

Introduction

Mustard (Brassica juncea L.) is one of the most important oilseed crops cultivated during the rabi season and plays a vital role in ensuring edible oil security, nutritional sustainability and farmers' income in India. It occupies the second position among oilseed crops after soybean in terms of area and production. Mustard seed contains approximately 38-42% oil and 24-26% protein, making it an important source of edible oil, livestock feed and industrial raw material. India cultivates rapeseed-mustard over about 9.5 million hectares with an annual production exceeding 13 million tonnes; however, productivity remains lower than that of many developed countries due to poor resource-use efficiency, imbalanced nutrient management and climatic constraints (FAOSTAT, 2024; Government of India, 2024) [3,4] . Intercropping is recognized as one of the most efficient cropping strategies for improving biological productivity, resource-use efficiency and farm profitability. It involves the simultaneous cultivation of two or more crops in the same field during the same growing season in a definite spatial arrangement. Properly designed intercropping systems improve utilization of sunlight, soil moisture, nutrients and growing space, reduce weed infestation, minimize pest and disease incidence and provide greater yield stability than monocropping. The biological advantage of intercropping is commonly assessed through the Land Equivalent Ratio (LER), where values greater than one indicate superior land-use efficiency over sole cropping (Willey, 1979) [10] . Recent studies have further confirmed that wellplanned intercropping systems enhance sustainability and resilience of crop production under climate variability (Bedoussac et al., 2024) [1] .

International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science https://www.agriculturaljournals.com Among pulse crops, chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is one of the most important winter legumes cultivated in India.

Besides being a rich source of dietary protein, vitamins and minerals, chickpea contributes substantially to soil fertility through biological nitrogen fixation and improves soil physical properties by adding organic residues. Similarly, field pea (Pisum sativum L.) is another valuable pulse crop widely cultivated under irrigated and limited irrigation conditions owing to its short duration, high nutritional value and excellent compatibility with oilseed crops. Integration of these legumes with mustard may improve overall system productivity while reducing dependence on synthetic nitrogen fertilizers (Yadav et al., 2023) [13] .

Several investigators have demonstrated that mustard-based intercropping systems significantly improve resource-use efficiency and economic returns compared with sole cropping. Choudhary et al. (2023) [2] reported higher mustard equivalent yield and profitability under mustardchickpea intercropping than monocropping. Likewise, Meena et al. (2023) [8] observed that appropriate row arrangements enhanced growth, yield attributes and overall productivity of component crops. Patel et al. (2023) [9] also reported that legume intercropping increased land equivalent ratio and economic returns by improving complementary utilization of available resources. Although considerable research has been conducted on mustard-based intercropping, information regarding suitable row arrangements of mustard with chickpea and field pea under the semi-arid agro-climatic conditions of Rajasthan remains limited. Identification of an optimum planting geometry capable of maximizing productivity of both component crops without causing excessive competition is therefore essential. The present investigation was undertaken to evaluate the effect of different mustard-based intercropping systems involving chickpea and field pea on the growth, yield attributes and yield of component crops, with the objective of identifying a biologically efficient and economically profitable production system for sustainable agriculture under semi-arid conditions. For comparison of intercrop performance, observations were also recorded from the respective sole chickpea (T₂) and sole field pea (T₃) plots.

Materials and Methods

Crop establishment and management

The experimental field was prepared by one deep ploughing followed by two cross harrowings and planking to obtain a fine seedbed. Recommended agronomic practices were followed throughout the crop season. Mustard, chickpea and field pea were sown during the first fortnight of November 2025 using the recommended seed rates and row spacing according to the respective treatment combinations. Fertilizers were applied uniformly to all treatments following the recommended package of practices for the region. Irrigation, weed management, plant protection measures and other intercultural operations were carried out as and when required to maintain a healthy crop.

Statistical analysis

The experimental data were statistically analysed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate for a Randomized Block Design as described by Panse and Sukhatme (1985). The significance of treatment differences was tested using the F-test at the 5% probability level. Wherever the treatment effects were found significant, the Critical Difference (CD) at P = 0.05 was calculated for comparison of treatment means. Standard error of mean (SEm±) and coefficient of variation (CV%) were also computed to assess experimental precision.

Results and Discussion

Growth parameters and yield attributes of mustard

The growth parameters and yield attributes of mustard were influenced by different intercropping systems (Table 1). Plant population at 30 DAS and at harvest did not differ significantly among the treatments, indicating that crop establishment was uniform under all planting arrangements. The initial plant population ranged from 10.00 to 10.12 plants m⁻¹, while the final population varied between 8.30 and 8.60 plants m⁻¹. The absence of significant differences may be attributed to uniform seed quality, optimum germination conditions and similar crop management practices across treatments. Similar observations were reported by Yadav et al. (2022) [12] and Kumar et al. (2023) [5] , who observed that intercropping had little influence on initial crop establishment in mustard-based systems. Likewise, plant height of mustard at 60 DAS and at harvest remained statistically unaffected by various intercropping systems, although numerically taller plants were observed under sole mustard (117.38 and 162.57 cm, respectively). Slight reductions in plant height under intercropping might be due to interspecific competition for light, moisture and nutrients; however, these differences were insufficient to attain statistical significance. Similar findings have been reported by Patel et al. (2023) [9] and Meena et al. (2024) [7] , who concluded that compatible legume intercrops generally do not exert a significant influence on mustard plant height.

The number of primary and secondary branches per plant was significantly influenced by the intercropping systems. Sole mustard produced the maximum number of primary (6.17) and secondary (12.39) branches per plant, which remained statistically at par with mustard + chickpea (1:1).

In contrast, mustard intercropped with field pea (1:2) and mustard + chickpea (2:2) recorded significantly lower branching. Better branching under sole cropping may be attributed to the absence of interspecific competition, resulting in greater interception of solar radiation, efficient nutrient uptake and increased assimilate production. These results corroborate the findings of Choudhary et al. (2023) [2] , Yadav et al. (2023) [13] and Kumar and Verma (2024) [6] , who also reported superior vegetative growth of mustard under sole cropping compared with intercropping systems. [8] , Patel et al. (2023) [9] and Meena et al. (2024) [7] .

Yield of mustard

Seed yield, stover yield and biological yield of mustard were significantly influenced by the intercropping systems (Table 2). Sole mustard produced the highest seed yield (2120 kg ha⁻¹), stover yield (4750 kg ha⁻¹) and biological yield (6870 kg ha⁻¹). The superior performance of sole mustard was mainly due to the absence of interspecific competition, enabling efficient utilization of available moisture, nutrients, sunlight and growing space throughout the crop growth period. Among the intercropping systems, mustard + chickpea (2:4) produced the highest mustard seed yield (1325 kg ha⁻¹), followed by mustard + chickpea (1:1) (1180 kg ha⁻¹) and mustard + field pea (2:2) (1105 kg ha⁻¹). In contrast, mustard + chickpea (2:2) recorded the lowest seed yield (780 kg ha⁻¹). The relatively higher productivity of the 2:4 row arrangements may be attributed to reduced competition between component crops and better complementary utilization of growth resources. Wider spacing between mustard rows likely improved light penetration and facilitated efficient utilization of soil moisture and nutrients by both crops. These findings are in close agreement with those reported by Choudhary et al. (2023) [2] , Meena et al.

(2024) [7] and Yadav et al. (2024) [11] , who observed that wider row arrangements of mustard-legume intercropping improved mustard productivity compared with closer planting geometries.

Harvest index remained statistically unaffected by different treatments, varying only from 30.12 to 30.86%. The stability of harvest index suggests that intercropping influenced total biomass production more than dry matter partitioning towards economic yield. Similar observations have also been reported by Kumar et al. (2023) [5] and Patel et al.

Performance of chickpea under mustard-based intercropping systems

The growth, yield attributes and yield of chickpea were markedly influenced by different mustard-based intercropping systems (Table 2). Sole chickpea consistently recorded superior growth and productivity compared with the intercropped treatments. Plant population at 30 DAS and at harvest was highest under sole chickpea (10.78 and 8.20 plants m⁻¹, respectively), whereas the lowest values were recorded under mustard + chickpea (2:2). The slight reduction in plant stand under intercropping may be attributed to increased competition for available space and growth resources. Similar findings were reported by Meena et al. (2023) [8] and Kumar et al. (2023) [5] . Plant height of chickpea followed a trend similar to plant population. Sole chickpea produced the tallest plants, recording 28.95 cm at 60 DAS and 58.76 cm at harvest. Among the intercropping treatments, mustard + chickpea (2:4) recorded comparatively greater plant height (27.40 and 58.20 cm at 60 DAS and harvest, respectively), while the shortest plants were observed under mustard + chickpea (2:2). Reduced plant height under intercropping could be attributed to competition for light, nutrients and soil moisture imposed by the associated mustard crop. Comparable results were also observed by Patel et al. (2023) [9] and Meena et al. (2024) [7] . Yield attributes of chickpea were significantly influenced by intercropping. Sole chickpea produced the highest number of branches per plant (6.01), pods per plant (26.02), grains per pod (1.32) and seed index (21.09 g). Among the intercropping treatments, mustard + chickpea (2:4) recorded the highest values for these parameters, whereas mustard + chickpea (2:2) produced the lowest. The better performance of the 2:4 row arrangement may be attributed to reduced competition and improved availability of growth resources due to wider spatial arrangement. Similar findings have been reported by Yadav et al. (2024) [11] and Choudhary et al. (2023) [2] . Seed yield, stover yield and biological yield of chickpea declined under intercropping compared with sole cropping. Sole chickpea recorded the highest seed yield (1825 kg ha⁻¹), stover yield (2295 kg ha⁻¹) and biological yield (4120 kg ha⁻¹). Among the intercropping treatments, mustard + chickpea (2:4) produced the highest seed yield (1550 kg ha⁻¹), followed by mustard + chickpea (1:1) (1485 kg ha⁻¹), while the lowest seed yield (1350 kg ha⁻¹) was recorded under mustard + chickpea (2:2). Similar trends were observed for stover and biological yields. The higher productivity of the 2:4 row ratio indicates better compatibility between mustard and chickpea due to efficient utilization of sunlight, moisture and nutrients. These findings are in agreement with those of Meena et al. (2024) [7] , Patel et al. (2023) [9] and Kumar and Verma (2024) [6] . Harvest index varied only slightly among the treatments, ranging from 43.20 to 44.30%, indicating that intercropping had little effect on dry matter partitioning in chickpea. The relatively stable harvest index suggests that although total biomass production decreased under intercropping, the proportion of economic yield remained almost unchanged. Similar observations have been reported by Kumar et al. (2023) [5] and Yadav et al. (2023) [13] .

Conclusion

The present study demonstrated that mustard-based intercropping systems significantly influenced the growth and productivity of component crops. Although sole mustard produced the highest individual seed yield (2120 kg ha⁻¹), intercropping with chickpea in a 2:4 row ratio proved to be the most efficient among the evaluated systems by maintaining superior growth, yield attributes and seed yield of both crops. Similarly, mustard + field pea (1:2) performed better than the other mustard-field pea combinations. Overall, the results indicated that appropriate row arrangements minimized interspecific competition and improved resource utilization. Therefore, mustard + chickpea (2:4) can be recommended as a productive and sustainable intercropping system for enhancing crop productivity under semi-arid conditions.

References

1. Bedoussac L, Journet EP, Hauggaard-Nielsen H, et al. Ecological principles and recent advances in cereallegume intercropping systems. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2024;44:15.
2. Choudhary R, Meena RK, Kumar A. Productivity and economics of mustard-based intercropping systems under semi-arid conditions. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;12(10):1845-1850.
3. Government of India. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2024. New Delhi: Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare; 2024.
4. Kumar P, Singh R, Verma S. Growth, productivity and resource-use efficiency of mustard-based intercropping systems. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2023;68(4):412418.
5. Kumar S, Verma RK. Influence of row arrangement on growth and yield of mustard-based intercropping systems. Journal of Oilseed Brassica. 2024;15(1):41-48.
6. Meena RK, Choudhary R, Jat ML. Productivity and economic evaluation of chickpea-based intercropping systems under Rajasthan conditions. Legume Research. 2024;47(4):561-567.
7. Meena RK, Choudhary R, Patel DK. Effect of row geometry on productivity and economics of mustardlegume intercropping. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science. 2023;35(18):1796-1805.
8. Patel DK, Meena RK, Yadav SK. Biological efficiency and economic evaluation of mustard-legume intercropping systems. Journal of Oilseed Brassica. 2023;14(2):128-135.
9. Willey RW. Intercropping-Its importance and research needs. Part I. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts. 1979;32:1-10.
10. Yadav SK, Choudhary R, Patel DK. Effect of row proportion on productivity and profitability of mustardpulse intercropping systems. Agricultural Research Journal. 2024;61(2):219-226.
11. Yadav SK, Kumar R, Meena RK. Crop establishment and productivity of mustard-based intercropping systems. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2022;92(11):1354-1359.
12. Yadav SK, Kumar R, Meena RK. Growth and yield performance of mustard-pulse intercropping under semi-arid environments. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2023;93(11):1205-1211.