Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp2 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Assessment of natural farming practices on productivity and profitability of a wheat–chickpea intercropping system

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.14052
Submitted
9 February 2026
Published
30-04-2026

Abstract

Combining intercropping systems with organic amendments has the potential to enhance both crop productivity and soil health. The present study aimed to evaluate the performance of wheat and chickpea under organic amendments like ghanjeevamrit and jeevamrit with and without mulching, to identify economically viable strategies for enhancing productivity. A field experiment was conducted for two years during the winter season (2019–2020 and 2020–2021) at Palampur, Himachal Pradesh, India, which comprises combination of ghanjeevamrit, jeevamrit and mulching. The experiment was conducted in randomised block design (RBD) with 3 replications. The wheat equivalent yield and economics of wheat-chickpea intercropping system were studied under a sub-temperate humid zone. Data showed that application of cow-based organic preparations (ghanjeevamrit- added at rate of 0.5 t ha-1, jeevamrit-1st spray at rate 5 %, 2nd spray 7.5 % and subsequent sprays 10 % jeevamrit in the water with the rate of 200 L acre-1 at 21 days interval) and mulching significantly affected wheat equivalent yield and economic of the intercropping system. Based on pooled data of both years, the wheat equivalent yield of wheat-chickpea cropping system was found significantly higher with application of ghanjeevamrit + jeevamrit + mulching and was statistically at par with application of ghanjeevamrit + jeevamrit and lowest was recorded with control treatment. Similarly, the application of ghanjeevamrit + jeevamrit + mulching resulted in significantly higher gross and net returns, followed by ghanjeevamrit + jeevamrit, whereas the lowest returns were observed with ghanjeevamrit applied alone.

References

  1. 1. Mylonas D, Stavrakoudis D, Katsantonis E. Better farming practices to combat climate change. Thermi–Thessaloniki (Greece): Institute of Plant Breeding and Genetic Resources; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819527-7.00001-7
  2. 2. Willey RW. Intercropping—Its importance and research needs. Field Crop Abstr. 1979;32(1):1–10.
  3. 3. Patel N, Meena S, Chhabhaiya NB. Natural farming: a study of farmers' perceptions and practices. Int J Multidiscip Res. 2024;6(6). https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2024.v06i06.31681
  4. 4. Dahmardeh M, Ghanbari A, Syasar BS, Ramroudi M. Effect of intercropping maize with cowpea on green forage yield and quality evaluation. Asian J Plant Sci. 2009;8(3):235–9. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajps.2009.235.239
  5. 5. Choudhary R, Kumar R, Sharma GD, Sharma RP, Rana N, Dev P. Effect of natural farming on yield performance, soil health and nutrient uptake in wheat + gram intercropping system in sub-temperate regions of Himachal Pradesh. J Crop Weed. 2022;18(2):1–8. https://doi.org/10.22271/09746315.2022.v18.i2.1566
  6. 6. Lithourgidis AS, Vlachostergios DN, Dordas CA, Damalas CA. Dry matter yield, nitrogen content and competition in pea–cereal intercropping systems. Eur J Agron. 2011;34(4):287–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2011.02.007
  7. 7. Gao Y, Duan AW, Sun JS, Li FS, Liu ZG, Liu H, et al. Crop coefficient and water-use efficiency of winter wheat/spring maize strip intercropping. Field Crops Res. 2009;111(1-2):65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2008.10.007
  8. 8. Choudhary R, Kumar R, Rana BB, Choudhary M, Gurjar SN, Choudhary J, et al. Effects of cow-based preparations and mulching on weed management and nodulation in chickpea under intercropping system. J Exp Agric Int. 2024;46(11):571–9. https://doi.org/10.9734/jeai/2024/v46i113078
  9. 9. Sharma RS, Choubey SD. Effect of maize–legume intercropping system on nitrogen economy and nutrient status of soil. Indian J Agron. 1991;36:60–3.
  10. 10. Lal RB, Ray S. Economics of crop production under different cropping intensities. Indian J Agric Sci. 1976;46(2):93–6.
  11. 11. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1984.
  12. 12. Sahare D, Mahapatra A. Effect of organic manures and liquid organic manures on growth, yield and economics of aerobic rice cultivation. Int J Agric Sci. 2015;11(1):183–8. https://doi.org/10.15740/HAS/IJAS/11.1/183-188
  13. 13. Shwetha BN, Babalad HB. Effect of nutrient management through organics in soybean–wheat cropping system [master's thesis]. Dharwad (India): University of Agricultural Sciences; 2008.
  14. 14. Kasbe SS, Joshi MJ, Bhaskar S. Characterization of farmers' Jeevamruta formulations with respect to aerobic rice. Mysore J Agric Sci. 2009;43(3):570–3.
  15. 15. Upendranaik P, Rao S, Desai BK, Krishnamurthy D, Yadahalli VG. Effect of different sources of organic manures on growth and yield of foxtail millet (Setaria italica) under integrated organic farming system. Adv Res. 2018;13(2):1–6. https://doi.org/10.9734/AIR/2018/38541
  16. 16. Glaze-Corcoran S, Hashemi M, Sadeghpour A, Jahanzad E, Afshar RK, Liu X, et al. Understanding intercropping to improve agricultural resiliency and environmental sustainability. Adv Agron. 2020;162:199–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.agron.2020.02.004
  17. 17. Sharmili K, Yasodha M, Rajesh P. Millet- and pulse-based intercropping: A review. Agric Rev. 2021;42(2):230–4. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.R-1981
  18. 18. Pradhan A, Patil SK, Sao A, Nag SK, Mukherjee SC. Finger millet and horsegram intercropping systems in replacement series for advantages and weed smothering. Agric Sci Dig. 2018;38(2):73–80. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.D-4495
  19. 19. Benider C, Laour S, Madani T, Gundouz A, Kelaleche H. The effect of cereal–legume intercropping systems on cereal grain yield under semi-arid conditions. Agric Sci Dig. 2021;41(4):610–4. https://doi.org/10.18805/ag.D-346

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.