Effects of Different Maize–Soybean Intercropping Patterns on Yield Attributes, Yield and B: C Ratio
International Journal of Plant & Soil Science,
A field experiment was carried out to study the “Effects of different maize–soybean intercropping patterns on yield attributes, yield and B: C ratio” at the Agricultural Research Farm, Bhagwant University, Ajmer. Treatment consists of Sole maize (60x20 cm), Sole Soyabean (30x10 cm), Maize-Soybean (1:1) (60X20 cm), Maize-Soybean (1:1) (75X20 cm), Maize-Soybean (1:1) (90X20 cm), Maize-Soybean (1:2) (90X20 cm) and Maize-Soybean (2:6) (Paired row 45/180 cm). There were four replicated blocks and plot sizes measuring 7 m x 4.5 m laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD). Results of the experiment showed that the maize-soybean intercropping patterns had significant effect on maize stover and grain yields. Sole maize recorded significantly higher yield than intercropped maize under varying geometry and row proportion. However, it was at par with maize intercropped with soybean in 1:1 row proportion with 60 x 20 cm .The intercropping patterns affected significantly the PAR intercepted and the leaf area index. The soybean sole crop intercepted significantly more light and leaf area index (LAI) than all other treatments and/or crop. Further,, the yield of sole soybean was significantly superior over other intercropped treatments. The highest benefit cost ratio revealed that higher return per unit money invested for inputs used for raising crops. The highest B: C ratio was recorded with maize + soybean in 2:6 paired row (3.57) intercropping system. The least B: C ratio was recorded in sole soybean (2.45).
- Leaf area index (LAI)
- maize- intercropping
How to Cite
Odendo M, Bationo A, Kimani S. Socio-Economic Contribution of Legumes to Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa. In: A. Bationo et al. (eds.), Fighting Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Multiple Roles of Legumes in Integrated Soil Fertility Management. Springer Science+Business Media. 2011;27-46.
Prasad RB, Brook RM. Effect of Varying Maize Densities on Intercropped Maize and Soybean in Nepal. Experimental Agriculture. 2005;41:365–382.
Sanginga N, Woomer PL. Integrated soil fertility management in africa: principles, practices and development process. (eds.). Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture. Nairobi. 2009;263.
Shetty SVR, Ntare BR, Bationo A, Renard C. Millet and Cowpea in Mixed farming of the Sahel. A Review of Strategies for Increased Productivity and Sustainability. Proceedings International Conference, ILCA. 1995;293-304.
Waddington SR, Mekuria M, Siziba S, Karigwindi J. Long-term Yield Sustainability and Financial Returns from Grain Legume-Maize Intercrops on a Sandy Soil in Sub-humid North Central Zimbabwe. Experimental Agriculture. 2007;43:489-503.
Ghanbari A, Dahmardeh M, Siahsar BA, Ramroudi M. Effect of Maize (Zea mays L.) – Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) intercropping on light distribution, soil temperature and soil moisture in arid environment. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment. 2010;8(1):102-108.
Fisher, RA Statistical Methods for Research Workers, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburg, London. 1950;57-63.
Kankeri VV. Studies on intercropping of legumes in kharif maize and their residual effects on succeeding wheat. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India); 1991.
Pattanashetti VA. Integrated nutrient management in maize - soybean intercropping system under vertisols of northern transitional tract of Karnataka, M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India); 2000.
Singh DP, Rana NS, Singh RP. Growth and yield of winter maize as influenced by intercrops and nitrogen application. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2000;45(3):515-519.
Mohan HM. Maize based intercropping studies with grain legumes in vertisols. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad (India); 2003.
Gardner FP, Kisakye J. Productivity of beans / maize intercrops as influenced by bean type and planting date and maize densities. Proc. Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida. 1990;49:139-146.
Abstract View: 89 times
PDF Download: 54 times