Evaluation of maize (Zea mays) based intercropping for productivity, resource-use efficiency and competition indices in the rainfed foothills of northwest Himalayas

SHER SINGH; S S BAWA; SATVINDER SINGH; S C SHARMA

doi:10.56093/ijas.v85i5.48431

Authors

SHER SINGH Senior Scientist (Agronomy), Crop Production Division, ICAR – Vivekananda Parvatiya Krishi Anusandhan Sansthan, Almora – 263 601
S S BAWA Professor (Soil Science), Department of Soil Science, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, Punjab, India
SATVINDER SINGH Assistant Agricultural Engineer (SWE), Punjab Agricultural University Regional Research Station for Kandi Area, Ballowal Saunkhri, Punjab 144 521
S C SHARMA Professor (Forestry), Punjab Agricultural University Regional Research Station for Kandi Area, Ballowal Saunkhri, Punjab 144 521

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v85i5.48431

Keywords:

Blackgram, Competitive indices, Greengram, Maize, Planting pattern, Productivity, Sesame

Abstract

A three-year (2009-2011) field experiment was conducted to study competitive behaviour of maize (Zea mays L.)+ legume/oilseed based additive series paired-row intercropping at the Punjab Agricultural University's Regional Research Station for Kandi Area, Ballowal Saunkhri. The experiment comprised 10 treatments viz. 4 sole plantings of maize, blackgram [Vigna mungo (L.) Wilczek], greengram (Vigna radiata L.) and sesame (Sesamum indicum L.) each, and six intercropping treatments. Among two planting patterns, 100 maize:33 intercrop mix proportion proved superior for maize yield than 100:67 for all the intercrops. The productivity (3.07 tonnes/ha) and sustainability yield index (0.69) were highest when 1 row of greengram was intercropped with maize (2 M:1 G). Inclusion of legumes in intercropping improved both production and rain water use efficiencies with definite yield and economic advantage. The higher land equivalent ratio (1.27) and relative crowing coefficient (20.4) values for 2 M:1 G planting pattern indicated more efficient benefits and maximum maize yield advantage. As per values of aggressivity, greengram (2 rows) proved most competitive (Â±0.0005) while sesame (2 rows) least competitive (±0.0046) to maize. Among intercrops, the competitive ratio was highest (1.42) for greengram followed by blackgram in both the planting patterns. 2 M:1 G provided 9.8% (actual yield loss=+0.098) yield gain as compared to sole cropping. In the maize+greengram planting patterns, area time equivalent ratio values indicated yield advantages in the range of 19% for 2 M: 1G and 17% for 2 M:2 G. Thus, inclusion of legumes (especially greengram) in maize culture system can achieve a sustainable and economic yield advantage along with shorter system duration compared to their monocultures.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Banik P, Midya D K, Sarkar B K and Ghose S S. 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy 24: 325–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2005.10.010

Banik P, Sasmal T, Ghosal P K and Bagchi D K. 2000. Evaluation of mustard (Brassica compestris var. Toria) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row-replacement series systems. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 185: 9–14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037X.2000.00388.x

Bastia D K, Garnayak L M and Barik T. 2008. Diversification of rice (Oryza sativa)-based cropping systems for higher productivity, resource-use efficiency and economics. Indian Journal of Agronomy 53: 22–6.

Dahmardeh M and Rigi K. 2013. The influence of intercropping maize (Zea mays L.) greengram (Vigna radiata L.) on the changes of soil temperature, moisture and nitrogen. International Journal of Ecosystem 3: 13–7.

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: 249–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2006.07.008

Ehsanullah, M J, Ahmad R and Tariq A. 2011. Bio-economic assessment of maize-mash intercropping system. Crop and Environment 2: 41–6.

Krantz B A, Virmani S M, Singh, S and Rao M. 1976. Intercropping for increased and more stable agricultural production in the semi-arid tropics. (in) Intercropping symposium, Moragoro, Tanzania.

Latha P M and Prasad P V N. 2008. Productivity and economics of maize+ greengram intercropping at different NPK levels. Agricultural Science Digest 28: 30–2.

Maingi M J, Shisanya A C, Gitonga M N and Hornetz B. 2001. Nitrogen fixation by common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in pure and mixed stands in semi arid South East Kenya. European Journal of Agronomy 14: 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1161-0301(00)00080-0

Mao L, Zhang L, Li W, Werf W van der, Sun J S H and Li L. 2012. Yield advantage and water saving in maize/pea intercrop. Field Crops Research 138: 11–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2012.09.019

Padhi A K and Panigrahi R K. 2006. Effect of intercrop and crop geometry on productivity, economics, energetics and soilfertility status of maize (Zea mays) based intercropping systems. Indian Journal of Agronomy 51: 174–7.

Patil E N, Jowale S and Mahayan M S. 1995. Production potential, economics and fertility status of soil as influenced by wheat-based cropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 40: 544–8.

Sharma A, Maruthi Sankar G R, Arora S, Gupta V, Singh B, Kumar J and Mishra P K. 2013. Analyzing rainfall effects for sustainable rainfed maize productivity in foothills of Northwest Himalayas. Field Crops Research 145: 96–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.02.013

Sheoran P, Sardana V, Sher Singh and Singh S. 2009. Productivity potential and economic feasibility of maize (Zea mays)-greengram (Vigna radiata) intercropping system under rainfed conditions. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 79: 535–7.

Sheoran P, Sardana V, Singh, S and Bhushan B. 2010. Bioeconomic evaluation of rainfed maize (Zea mays)-based intercropping systems with blackgram (Vigna mungo) under different spatial arrangements. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 80: 244–7.

Singh U, Saad A A, Hasan B, Singh P and Singh S R. 2008. Production potential and economics of intercropping of lentil (Lens culinaris) with brown sarson (Brassica compestris) and oat (Avena sativa). Indian Journal of Agronomy 53: 135–9.

SPSS. 2007. SPSS Base 16.0 User’s Guide. SPSS Inc., Chicago. Takim F O. 2012. Advantages of maize-cowpea intercropping over sole cropping through competition indices. Journal of Agriculture and Biodiversity Research 1: 53–9.

Vittal K P R, Maruthi Sankar G R, Singh H P, Balaguravaiah D, Padamalatha Y and Yellamanda Reddy T. 2003. Modeling sustainability of crop yield on rainfed groundnut based on rainfall and land degradation. Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and Development 18: 7–13.

Willey R W. 1979. Intercropping – its importance and research needs. Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts 32: 1–10.

Willey R W and Rao, M R. 1980. A competitive ratio for quantifying competition between intercrops. Experimental Agriculture 16: 117–25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700010802

Yilmaz F, Atak M and Erayman M. 2008. Identification of advantages of maize-legume intercropping over solitary cropping through competition indices in the East Mediterranean region. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 32: 111–9.