International Journal of Plant Production

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 35–46 | Cite as

Investigation of Biodiversity and Some of the Ecosystem Services in the Intercropping of Corn, Soybean and Marshmallow

  • Faranak NourbakhshEmail author
  • Alireza Koocheki
  • Mehdi Nassiri Mahallati


Increasing species diversity through intercropping can be effective in improving the ecosystem functions and services. In this experiment, three different functional groups, soybean (Glycine max) as a C3 and fixing nitrogen plant, corn (Zea mays) as a C4 and nitrogen-demanding crop and marshmallow (Althaea officinalis) as a perennial medicinal plant, were cultivated as double and triple intercropping. The purpose of this study was to evaluate different patterns of intercropping in terms of production enhancement, weeds control, increase of nutrients uptake and improvement of soil biological properties as different ecosystem services and compare them with the sole cropping systems. For this purpose, two experiments were conducted based on strip design as a randomized complete block with three replications at research farm of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad in 2014 and 2015. Experimental treatments (14 treatments) were weeding and non-weeding, different planting patterns as double intercropping (corn + soybean, corn + marshmallow and soybean + marshmallow), triple intercropping (corn + soybean + marshmallow) and also their sole cropping. The results indicated that the highest density of weeds was observed by sole cropping of soybean among the different planting patterns in both years (46.7 plants per m2 in the first year and 47.3 plants per m2 in the second year) and the minimum number of weeds was observed under intercropping of corn + soybean + marshmallow with 37.6 plants per m2 for the first year and sole cropping of Marshmallow by 13 plants per m2 for the second year. Planting pattern treatment had no significant effect on Shannon–Weaver diversity index; however, the findings of the study illustrated that increasing plant diversity as intercropping caused to increase in weeds diversity. Among different intercropping patterns, the highest amount of nitrogen uptake was achieved from corn + soybean intercropping. In both weeding and non-weeding, phosphorous uptake in corn monoculture was higher than soybean and marshmallow monoculture, so that in the weed absence, phosphorus absorption in corn, soybean and marshmallow monocultures were 85.50, 46.66 and 44.51 kg ha−1 respectively. Using the intercropping systems increased the soil microbial respiration and biomass in comparison with sole cropping systems. According to the findings of this study, it can be mentioned that intercropping systems not only increase economic yield but also improve other ecosystem services.


Multiple cropping Nutrient uptakes Weeds control 


  1. Anderson, T. H. (2003). Microbial eco-physiological indicators to assess soil quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 98, 285–293.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. (2005). A multi-tactic approach to manage weed population dynamics in crop rotations. Agronomy Journal, 97(6), 1579–1583.Google Scholar
  3. Banik, P., Midya, A., Sarkar, B. K., & Ghose, S. S. (2006). Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in the additive series experiment: Advantages and smothering. European Journal of Agronomy, 24, 324–332.Google Scholar
  4. Bertramson, B. R. (1942). phosphorous analysis of plant material. Plant Physiology, 17(3), 447–454.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, C., Westcot, M., Neill, K., Wichaman, D., & Knox, M. (2004). Row configuration and nitrogen application for barley-pea intercropping in Montana. Agronomy Journal, 96, 1730–1738.Google Scholar
  6. Eskandari, H., & Ghanbari, A. (2010). Environmental resource consumption in wheat (Triticum aestivum) and bean (Vicia faba) intercropping: Comparison of nutrient uptake and light interception. Notulae Scientia Biologicae., 2(3), 100–103.Google Scholar
  7. Gao, Y., Duan, A., Sun, J., Li, F., Liu, Z., Liu, H., et al. (2009). Crop coefficient and water-use efficiency of winter wheat and spring corn strip intercropping. Field Crops Research., 111(1), 65–73.Google Scholar
  8. Gardner, J. B., & Drinkwater, L. E. (2009). The fate of nitrogen in grain cropping systems: A meta-analysis of N-15 field experiments. Ecological Applications, 19(8), 2167–2184.Google Scholar
  9. Jenkinson, D. S., & Powelson, D. S. (1976). The effect of biocidal treatments of metabolism in soil-V: A method for measuring soil biomass. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 8, 209–213.Google Scholar
  10. Jeyabal, A., & Kuppuswamy, G. (2001). Recycling of organic wastes to produce vermicompost and its response in rice–legume cropping system and soil fertility. Europian Journal of Agronomy, 15, 153–170.Google Scholar
  11. Kaori, K. (2012). Biodiversity of intercropped fields in central African rainforests. African study monographs. The supplementary issue., 43, 61–84.Google Scholar
  12. Kremen, C., & Miles, A. (2012). Ecosystem services in biologically diversified versus conventional farming systems: Benefits, externalities, and trade-offs. Ecology and Society., 17(4), 40–47.Google Scholar
  13. Li, W., Li, L., Sun, J., Guo, T., Zhang, F., Bao, X., et al. (2005). Effects of intercropping and nitrogen application on nitrate present in the profile of an OrthicAnthrosol in Northwest China. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment., 105, 483–491.Google Scholar
  14. Li, L., Li, S., Sun, J., Zhou, L., Bao, X., Zhang, H., et al. (2007). Diversity enhances agricultural productivity via rhizosphere phosphorus facilitation on phosphorus-deficient soils. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(27), 11192–11196.Google Scholar
  15. Li, S. M., Li, L., Zhang, F. S., & Tang, C. (2004). Acid phosphatase role in chickpea. Corn intercropping. Annals of Botany, 94, 297–303.Google Scholar
  16. Li, X., Mu, Y., Cheng, Y., Liu, X., & Nian, H. (2013). Effects of intercropping sugarcane and soybean on growth, rhizosphere soil microbes, nitrogen and phosphorus availability. Acta physiological Plantarum, 35(4), 1113–1119.Google Scholar
  17. Liebman, M., & Davis, A. S. (2000). Integration of soil, crop and weed management in Low input farming systems. Weed Research, 40, 27–47.Google Scholar
  18. Liebman, M., & Dyck, E. (1993). Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecological Applications Journal., 3, 92–122.Google Scholar
  19. Mada, D., Duniya, N., & Adams, I. G. (2013). Effect of continuous application of herbicide on soil and environment with crop protection machinery in Southern Adamawa state. International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science., 2(6), 4–9.Google Scholar
  20. Mader, P., Fliessbach, A., Dubois, D., Gunst, L., Fried, P., & Niggli, U. (2002). Soil fertility and biodiversity in organic farming. Science, 296, 1694–1697.Google Scholar
  21. Nelson, D. W., & Somers, L. E. (1973). Determination of total nitrogen in plant material. Agronomy., 65, 109–112.Google Scholar
  22. O’Riordan, T., & Stoll-Kleemann, S. (2002). Biodiversity, sustainability and human communities: Protecting beyond the protected. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Ramirez-Garcia, J., Martens, H. J., Quemada, M., & Thorup-Kristensen, K. (2014). Intercropping effect on root growth and nitrogen uptake at different nitrogen levels. Journal of Plant Ecology., 8(4), 380–389.Google Scholar
  24. Rivest, D., Cogliastro, A., Bradley, R. L., & Olivier, A. (2010). Intercropping hybrid poplar with soybean increases soil microbial biomass, mineral N supply and tree growth. Agroforest Systems., 80, 33–40.Google Scholar
  25. Scherr, S. J., & McNeely, J. A. (2008). Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: Towards a new paradigm of ‘eco agriculture’landscapes. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Biological Sciences., 363(1491), 477–494.Google Scholar
  26. Schowalter, T. D. (2013). Insects and sustainability of ecosystem services. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  27. Schroder, S., Begemann, F., & Harrer, S. (2007). Agrobiodiversity monitoring documentation at European level. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety., 1, 29–32.Google Scholar
  28. Scott, J. T., Cotner, J. B., & LaPara, T. M. (2012). Variable stoichiometry and homeostatic regulation of bacterial biomass elemental composition. Frontiers in Microbiology., 3, 1–8.Google Scholar
  29. Sosnoskie, L. M., Herms, C. P., & Cardina, J. (2006). Weed seed bank community composition in a 35-yr-old tillage and rotation experiment. Weed Science, 54(2), 263–273.Google Scholar
  30. Tang, X., Bernard, L., Brauman, A., Daufresne, T., Deleporte, P., Desclaux, D., et al. (2014). Increase in microbial biomass and phosphorus availability in the rhizosphere of intercropped cereal and legumes under field conditions. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 75, 86–93.Google Scholar
  31. Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005). Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity–ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters, 8(8), 857–874.Google Scholar
  32. Vandermeer, J. (1992). The ecology of inter-cropping. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Waite, S. (2000). Statistical ecology in practice. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall Publishing.Google Scholar
  34. Wall, D. H., Bardgett, R. D., Covich, A. P., & Snelgrove, V. R. (2004). The need for understanding how biodiversity and ecosystem functioning affect ecosystem services in soils and sediments. In D. H. Wall (Ed.), Sustaining bio diversity and ecosystem services in soils and sediments. Washington DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  35. Watanabe, M., Ortega, E., Bergier, I., & Silva, J. S. V. (2012). Nitrogen cycle and ecosystem services in the Brazilian La Plata Basin: Anthropogenic influence and climate change. Brazilian Journal of Biology., 72(3), 691–708.Google Scholar
  36. Zhang, F., & Li, L. (2003). Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhance crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant and Soil, 248(1–2), 305–312.Google Scholar
  37. Zhang, X., Liu, X., Zhang, M., Dahlgren, R. A., & Eitzel, M. (2010). A review of vegetated buffers and a meta-analysis of their mitigation efficacy in reducing nonpoint source pollution. Journal of Environmental Quality, 39(1), 76–84.Google Scholar
  38. Zimdahl, R. L. (1993). Fundamentals of weed science. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Faranak Nourbakhsh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Alireza Koocheki
    • 2
  • Mehdi Nassiri Mahallati
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agronomy, Faculty of AgricultureFerdowsi University of MashhadMashhadIran
  2. 2.Faculty of AgricultureFerdowsi University of MashhadMashhadIran

Personalised recommendations