evaluation of radiation absorption and use efficiency in replacement series intercropping of chickpea (cicer arietinum l.) and sesame (sesamum indicum l.)

the present study was carried out to evaluate radiation absorption and use efficiency (rue) in replacement series intercropping of chickpea and sesame. the experiment included main factor a (planting methods) with two levels a1 (row planting) and a2 (mixed planting) and factor b (replacement planting pattern) consisting of five levels b1 (chickpea monoculture), b2 (75% chickpea+25% sesame), b3 (50% chickpea+50% sesame), b4 (25% chickpea+75% sesame) and b5 (sesame monoculture). the experiment was arranged in a split plots based on randomized complete blocks design with three replications. results showed that sesame rue was higher than chickpea rue in all treatments. the amount of sesame rue varied from 1.33 up to 2.07 g.mj-1 par and from 1.27 up to 1.66 g.mj-1 par in row planting and mixed planting, respectively. rue chickpea, also varied from 0.86 up to 1.14 g.mj-1 par and from 0.48 up to 0.99 g.mj-1 par in row planting and mixed planting, respectively. the results also showed that sesame and chickpea rue of intercropping treatments was higher than monocrop. in general, the amount of rue of both crops in row planting was higher than mixed planting either in intercrop or monocrop treatments. on the basis of these results the best recommendable treatment for intercropping is 75% chickpea+25% sesame based on row planting. the chickpea rue of this treatment was highest level (1.14 g.mj-1) among the other treatments and the sesame rue of this treatment was higher than sesame monocrop rue. the results of radiation absorption showed that in row intercropping treatments the amount of radiation absorption was higher than sesame monocrop but had not significant differences with chickpea monocrop. the amount of radiation absorption of mixed planting was lower than row planting. furthermore, the differences between radiation absorption of mixed intercropping treatments and monocrop were not equal to the differences between radiation absorption of row intercropping treatments and monocrop.