Enhancing productivity of spring maize (Zea mays) with intercrops and row-orientations

Jaswinder Kumar; Thakar Singh; Som Pal Singh

doi:10.56093/ijas.v90i6.104774

Authors

Jaswinder Kumar Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, India
Thakar Singh Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, India
Som Pal Singh Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v90i6.104774

Keywords:

Competitive indices, Equivalent yield, Intercropping system, PAR interception, Spring maize

Abstract

A research experiment was conducted on spring maize (Zea mays L.) in a split-plot design with two row orientations in main plots and nine intercropping including sole systems in sub plots during 2016-17 at Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. Row orientation did not significantly influence the growth and yield of spring maize. Spring maize equivalent yield and net returns recorded from various intercropping systems remained at par with north-south and east-west row orientation. Spring maize + spring groundnut intercropping system recorded significant higher growth and development parameters of spring maize and remained at par with spring maize + summer squash, sole spring maize and spring maize + maize (fodder) but significantly higher than spring maize + spinach. Spinach recorded highest value of aggressively (0.42) and gave maximum competition to spring maize. Spring maize equivalent yield, net returns, land equivalent ratio and area time equivalent ratio were significantly higher under spring maize + summer squash system as compared to all other systems. Spring maize + summer squash proved highly productive, profitable and viable intercropping system which gave 92.4% higher spring maize equivalent yield and ` 60200 ha-1 higher net returns in comparison to sole spring maize.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdel-Maksoud M F. 2008. Effect of row direction and plant arrangement on growth, yield and yield components of two maize cultivars. Journal of Applied Science and Research 4(10): 1182–90.

Adhikari S, Chakraborty T and Bagchi D K. 2005. Bio- economic evaluation of maize (Zea mays) and groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) intercropping in drought-prone areas of Chotonagpur plateau region of Jharkhand. Indian Journal of Agronomy 50(2): 113–15.

Chaudhary V K, Dixit A and Chauhan B S. 2016. Resource-use maximization through legume intercropping with maize in the eastern Himalayan region of India. Crop and Pasture Science 67(5): 508–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1071/CP15233

Dhima K V, Lithourgidis A A, Vasilakoglou I B and Dordas C A. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100 (2-3): 249–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2006.07.008

Drews S, Neuhoff, D and Kopke U. 2009. Weed suppression ability of three winter wheat varieties at different row spacing under organic farming conditions. Weed Research 49 (5): 526–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2009.00720.x

Hira G S, Jalota S K and Arora V K. 2004. Efficient management of water resources for sustainable cropping in Punjab. Research Bulletin, Department of Soils, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. pp 4–5.

Karanja S M, Kibe A M, Karogo P N and Mwangi M. 2014. Effects of intercrop population density and row orientation on growth and yields of sorghum-cowpea cropping systems in semi-arid Rongai, Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6: 34–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v6n5p34

Kheroar S and Patra B C. 2014. Productivity of maize-legume intercropping systems under rainfed situation. African Journal of Agricultural Research 9(20): 1610–17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2013.7997

Kumar A, Chhillar R K and Gautam R C. 2006. Nutrient requirement of winter maize (Zea mays) - based intercropping systems. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 76(5): 104–08.

Padhi A K and Panigrahi R K. 2006. Effect of intercrop and crop geometry on productivity, economics, energetics and soil-fertility status of maize (Zea mays) based intercropping systems. Indian Journal of Agronomy 51(3): 174–77.

Pandey M and Singh T. 2018. Production potential and economic viability of bed planted wheat (Triticum aestivum) as influenced by different intercropping systems and levels of nutrients applied to intercrops. Indian Journal of Agronomy 63: 26–31.

Pandey M, Singh Thakar and Kang J S. 2015. Competitive indices of bed planted wheat based intercropping systems as influenced by row orientations and different intercrops. Research on crops 16(3): 432–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5958/2348-7542.2015.00059.5

Panhale A, Angadi S S and Hebbar M. 2016. Performance of sorghum based intercropping systems under dry sowing and normal sowing conditions. Asian Journal of Horticulture 11(1): 180–85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15740/HAS/TAJH/11.1/180-185

Reddy S R. 2004. Agronomy of Field Crops. Kalyani Publishers, India.

Sekhon F S, Singh T and Saini K S. 2018. Productivity and nutrient uptake of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) in pigeonpea based intercropping systems as influenced by planting pattern and nutrients levels applied to intercrops. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 88(10): 1582–86. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-3910

Takim F O. 2012. Advantages of maize-cowpea intercropping over sole cropping through competition indices. Journal of Agricultural Biodiversity Research 1(4): 53–59.