Evaluation of different tillage and intercropping systems in castor under rainfed conditions
Evaluation of different tillage and intercropping systems in castor under rainfed conditions
148 / 4
Keywords:
Conventional tillage, Intercrop, Legume, No tillageAbstract
The field experiments were conducted in 2020-21 and 2021-22 at Tapioca and Castor Research Station, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Yethapur. The pooled result of the two-year study of different tillage practices in castor based legume intercropping systems in rainfed, there was no significant difference among tillage practices relevant to growth, yield attributing characters, seed yield and biomass yield, numerically higher values were registered under conventional tillage practices over minimum tillage. The higher seed yield of both base (1152 kg/ha) and inter crop (481 kg/ha) were recorded in conventional tillage practices over minimum tillage. With respect to inter cropping, higher base crop (castor) yield of 1058 kg/ha was recorded under castor + groundnut inter cropping system which was observed to be on par with sole castor (1020 kg/ha) and castor + greengram (907 kg/ha). The highest. Moreover, the maximum benefit-cost ratio was recorded in castor + groundnut (1:3) intercropping, over sole castor cropping.
Downloads
References
Chand, P. and Sujatha, M. 2000. Castor based intercropping systems- a review. Agricultural. Reviews, 21(4): 244-248
Ganvir MM, Jadhao PN, Raut RF, Shamkumar GR, Tagade UG. 2004. Studies on castor based intercropping system under dry land conditions. Ann Pl Physiol, 18: 55—57.
Kumavat AK, Ardesna RB, Kumar D, Chouhan M. 2016. Yield, quality, nutrient uptake, soil fertility and weed dry weight as influenced by castor (Ricinus communis L.) intercropped with mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) under different row ratios and spacing during rabi season. The Bioscan. 11(1):607-610.
Sharma, S. K. and Singh, J. 2014. Productivity and economics of castor (Ricinus communis) based intercropping systems under rainfed conditions. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 84 (3): 432-435. DOI: https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v84i3.38602