Effect of Intercrop Row Arrangement on Maize and Haricot Bean Productivityand the Residual Soil

Tamiru Hirpa

Effect of Intercrop Row Arrangement on Maize and Haricot Bean Productivityand the Residual Soil

Tamiru Hirpa §

Contact

§ School of Plant and Horticultural Sciences, Hawassa ...

Effect of Intercrop Row Arrangement on Maize and Haricot Bean Productivityand the Residual Soil

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

Z455B

Effect of Intercrop Row Arrangement on Maize and Haricot Bean Productivityand the Residual Soil Banner

Key Research Insights

Synthesized scholarly intelligence & interactive research assistant

This converted HTML version may contain rendering inconsistencies. Please refer to the PDF for the authoritative version, or click here to provide feedback.

Abstract

On farm studies were conducted to determine the effects of intercrop row arrangements on the performances of maize (Zea mays L.) and haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) crops and the residual soil at Hallabaand Tabaareas, southern Ethiopia. The result revealed that there were significant differences among the cropping patterns on growth and yield components of both crops. Grain yield of the maize crop was observed to be the highest insole stand, which was statistically at par with the maize grown in 1:1 ratio with haricot bean. There was 15.5% yield reduction in maize when the number of haricot bean rows introduced between two maize rows increased from one to three, attributable to aggravation of inter-specific competition in the latter case. In the case of haricot bean crop, compared to the sole stand intercropping of one, two and three rows of haricot bean between two rows of maize had resulted in yield reductions of 56, 44.5 and 28.2%, respectively. Evaluation of the land use efficiency of the system in terms of land equivalent ratio (LER) has, however, showed improvement across the cropping pattern, where by 1:3 maize-haricot bean row ratio gave the highest land use efficiency value, 54% more efficient than growing both crops in sole stand. Total N content of the residual soil has also showed significant improvement due to the introduction of the leguminous haricot bean into the cropping system. In contrast, sole maze stands had contributed the least in amending the acidity problem of the experimental soils.

References

29 Cites in Article

Reference Format

1. P. Adetiloye,F. Ezedinma,B. Okigbo (1983). A land equivalent coefficient (LEC) concept for the evaluation of competitive and productive interactions in simple to complex crop mixtures. Ecological Modelling, 19(1), 27-39.
CrossRef DOI
2. Adhikary S,Bagchi DK,Ghosal P,Banerjee RN,Chattkrjee BN (1991). Studies on Maize‐Legume Intercropping and their Residual Effects on Soil Fertility Status and Succeeding Crop in Upland Situation. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 167(5), 289-293.
CrossRef DOI
3. Myaka Adu-GyamfiJJ,Odgaard Sakala WD,Hogh-Jensen VesteragerJM (2007). Biological nitrogen fixation and nitrogen and phosphorus budgets in farmer-managed intercrops of maize–pigeonpea in semi-arid southern and eastern Africa. Plant and Soil, 295(1-2), 127-136.
CrossRef DOI
4. Emw Akunda (2001). Improving Food Production by Understanding the Effects of Intercropping and Plant Population on Soybean Nitrogen Fixing Attributes. Journal of Food Technology in Africa, 6(4), 110-115.
CrossRef DOI
5. Anil,Park,Phipps,Miller (1998). Temperate intercropping of cereals for forage: a review of the potential for growth and utilization with particular reference to the UK. Grass and Forage Science, 53(4), 301-317.
CrossRef DOI
6. Ciarlo Ariel,O. Eduardo,Lidia BenitoGE (2013). Effects of Two Plant Arrangements in Corn (Zea Mays L.) And Soybean (Glycine Max L. Merrill) Intercropping on Soil Nitrogen and Phosphorus Status and Growth of Component Crops at an Argentinean Argiudoll. American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, 1(2), 22.
CrossRef DOI
7. P. Bankin (1996). Evaluation of wheat (Triticumsesdvum) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row-replacement series system. J. Agronomy & Crop Science, 176, 289-294.
8. P. Banik,D. Bagchi (1993). Evaluation of rice (Oryza sativa) and legume intercropping in upland situation 19.
9. GC (2014). Productivity of maize (Zea Mays) basedintercropping system during Kharifseason under red and lateritic tract of west Bengal. The Bioscan, 9(1), 31-35.
10. Morgado LB,Willey RW (2008). Optimum plant population for maize-bean intercropping system in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Sci. Agric. (Piracicaba. Braz, 65(5), 474-480.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20. Kwambai Ndung’u KW,Omollo Barkutwo J,Mulati KamidiM (2005). Effect of maize and bean spatial arrangements on bean yields in north rift Kenya. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings, 7, 1211-1215.
21. Odhiambo GD,Ariga ES (2001). Effect of intercropping maize and beans on striga incidence and grain yield. Proceedings of the Eastern/ Southern Africa Regional Maize conference, 7, 183-186.
22. Ossom EM,Rhykerd L (2007). Effect of corn (Zea mays L.) and grain legume associations on soil mineral nutrient concentration, soil temperature, crop yield, land equivalent ratio and gross income in Swaziland. African Crop Science Proceedings, 8, 225-230.
23. R. Prasad,R. Brook (2005). EFFECT OF VARYING MAIZE DENSITIES ON INTERCROPPED MAIZE AND SOYBEAN IN NEPAL. Experimental Agriculture, 41(3), 365-382.
CrossRef DOI
24. E. Paul,R. Kucey (1981). Carbon flow in microbial associations. Science, 213, 473-478.
25. T. Silwana,E. Lucas (2002). The effect of planting combinations and weeding on the growth and yield of component crops of maize/bean and maize/pumpkin intercrops. Journal of Agricultural Science, 138, 193-200.
26. Anthony Szumigalski,Rene Van Acker (2006). Nitrogen yield and land use efficiency in annual sole crops and intercrops. Agron. Agronomy Journal, 98(4), 1030-1040.
CrossRef DOI
27. Uwahdf UndiesUL,E. Attoe (2012). Effect of Intercropping and crop arrangement on yield and productivity of late season maize/soybean mixtures in the humid environment of southern Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science, 4(4), 37-50.
28. J. Vandermeer (1989). The ecology of intercropping.
29. Q. Zama,M. Malik (2000). Ricebean (Vignaumbellata) productivity under various maizericebean intercropping systems. International Journal of Agriculture &Biology, 2(3), 255-257.

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Tamiru Hirpa. 2014. "Effect of Intercrop Row Arrangement on Maize and Haricot Bean Productivityand the Residual Soil". Global Journal of Science Frontier Research - D: Agriculture & Veterinary GJSFR-D Volume 14 (GJSFR Volume 14 Issue 14 (D4)).

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

GJSFR Volume 14 Issue 14 (D4)

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJSFR

Print ISSN 0975-5896

e-ISSN 2249-4626

Keywords

grain yield kernel lAI LER row ratio total soil n

Classification

GJSFR-D Classification FOR Code: 820401

820299

Submission ReceivedMay 6, 2014
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted May 27, 2014
Published April 15, 2014

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

April 15, 2014

Language

English

Order Article Reprint

Experience in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 71

Country: Ethiopia

Subject: Global Journal of Science Frontier Research - D: Agriculture & Veterinary

Authors: Tamiru Hirpa (PhD/Dr. count: 0)

View Count (all-time): 341

Total Views (Real + Logic): 1292

Total Downloads (simulated): 87

Publish Date: 2014 04, Wed

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 34 views
Month 2: 46 views
Month 3: 30 views
Month 4: 50 views
Month 5: 48 views
Month 6: 25 views
Month 7: 42 views
Month 8: 47 views
Month 9: 39 views
Month 10: 38 views
Month 11: 50 views
Month 12: 23 views
Month 13: 41 views
Month 14: 26 views
Month 15: 31 views
Month 16: 33 views
Month 17: 29 views
Month 18: 36 views
Month 19: 18 views
Month 20: 24 views
Month 21: 31 views
Month 22: 24 views
Month 23: 23 views
Month 24: 20 views
Month 25: 41 views
Month 26: 38 views
Month 27: 37 views
Month 28: 37 views
Month 29: 34 views
Month 30: 14 views
Month 31: 39 views
Month 32: 26 views
Month 33: 42 views
Month 34: 43 views
Month 35: 31 views
Month 36: 29 views
Month 37: 22 views
Month 38: 29 views
Month 39: 32 views
Month 40: 30 views
Month 41: 18 views
Month 42: 13 views
Month 43: 36 views
Month 44: 46 views
Month 45: 26 views
Month 46: 29 views
Month 47: 39 views
Month 48: 32 views
Month 49: 44 views
Month 50: 27 views
Month 51: 38 views
Month 52: 14 views
Month 53: 34 views
Month 54: 31 views
Month 55: 19 views
Month 56: 24 views
Month 57: 13 views
Month 58: 41 views
Month 59: 22 views
Month 60: 43 views
Month 61: 30 views
Month 62: 40 views
Month 63: 19 views
Month 64: 21 views
Month 65: 20 views
Month 66: 35 views
Month 67: 28 views
Month 68: 22 views
Month 69: 36 views
Month 70: 16 views
Month 71: 46 views
Month 72: 23 views
Month 73: 22 views
Month 74: 22 views
Month 75: 33 views
Month 76: 15 views
Month 77: 25 views
Month 78: 29 views
Month 79: 41 views
Month 80: 45 views
Month 81: 34 views
Month 82: 33 views
Month 83: 31 views
Month 84: 34 views
Month 85: 31 views
Month 86: 10 views
Month 87: 40 views
Month 88: 21 views
Month 89: 40 views
Month 90: 24 views
Month 91: 43 views
Month 92: 31 views
Month 93: 36 views
Month 94: 19 views
Month 95: 29 views
Month 96: 26 views
Month 97: 37 views
Month 98: 37 views
Month 99: 42 views
Month 100: 45 views
Month 101: 22 views
Month 102: 27 views
Month 103: 22 views
Month 104: 27 views
Month 105: 40 views
Month 106: 31 views
Month 107: 37 views
Month 108: 37 views
Month 109: 35 views
Month 110: 34 views
Month 111: 39 views
Month 112: 19 views
Month 113: 28 views
Month 114: 34 views
Month 115: 29 views
Month 116: 41 views
Month 117: 16 views
Month 118: 43 views
Month 119: 36 views
Month 120: 33 views
Month 121: 16 views
Month 122: 38 views
Month 123: 22 views
Month 124: 30 views
Month 125: 28 views
Month 126: 33 views
Month 127: 37 views
Month 128: 40 views
Month 129: 17 views
Month 130: 27 views
Month 131: 22 views
Month 132: 33 views
Month 133: 25 views
Month 134: 50 views
Month 135: 17 views
Month 136: 29 views
Month 137: 52 views
Month 138: 29 views
Month 139: 37 views
Month 140: 42 views
Month 141: 69 views
Month 142: 45 views
Month 143: 45 views
Month 144: 45 views
Month 145: 37 views
Month 146: 51 views
Month 147: 43 views
Month 148: 53 views
Month 149: 40 views
Month 150: 33 views
Month 151: 48 views

Total Views: 1.3K

Total Downloads: 87

All Trends