Table 1. Response of maize yield attribute and yield to spatial arrangement and planting time of common bean at Adet research station, Northwestern Ethiopia a.
Table 2. Response of maize yield attribute and yield to spatial arrangement and planting time of common bean at Finoteselam sub-research station, Northwestern Ethiopia a. Table 3. Response of common bean yield attribute and yield to its planting time and spatial arrangement in maize -common bean intercrops at Adet research station, Northwestern Ethiopia a. Table 4. Response of common bean yield attribute and yield to its planting time and spatial arrangement in maize -common bean intercrops at Finoteselam sub-research station, Northwestern Ethiopia a.
Fig 4. The relationship between the component grain yields as affected by spatial arrangement and planting date of common bean in maize-common bean intercropping. Land use efficiency and monetary advantage index Results showed that partial land equivalent ratio PLER of both component crops were less than one for all treatments in both locations Table 5.
Table 5. Partial and total land equivalent ratios for maize-common bean intercropping at Adet research station, Northwestern Ethiopia a. Fig 5. The relationship between the MEY and LER as affected by spatial arrangement and planting date of common bean inmaize-common bean intercropping.
Table 6. Partial and total land equivalent ratios for maize-common bean intercropping at Finoteselam sub-resaerch station, Northwestern Ethiopia a. Yield stability Generally, the coefficient of variations CV of the total land output yield TLOY was much higher than the individual crops in intercrops Table 7. Table 7. Conclusion Results revealed that the spatial and temporal differentiation significantly affected only the agronomic attributes of common bean in common bean-maize intercropping.
Supporting information. S1 Table. Maize row data ready for analysis at Adet. S2 Table. Common bean row data ready for analysis at Adet. S3 Table. Land equivalent ratio row data ready for analysis at Adet. S4 Table. Maize row data ready for analysis at Finotslam.
S5 Table. Common bean row data ready for analysis at Finotslam. S6 Table. Land equivalent ratio row data ready for analysis at Finotslam. References 1. Land constraints and agricultural intensification in Ethiopia: A village-level analysis of high-potential areas. Food Policy. View Article Google Scholar 2. Advances in Agriculture. View Article Google Scholar 3.
The effect on voluntary feed intake, invivo digestibility and nitrogen balance in sheep of feed-ing grass silage or pea- wheat intercrops differingin pea to wheat ra-tio and maturity.
View Article Google Scholar 4. Grain legume—cereal intercropping: The practical application of diversity, competition and facilitation in arable and organic cropping systems. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. View Article Google Scholar 5. Yildirim E and Guvenc I. Intercropping based on cauliflower: More productive, profitable and highly sustainable. European Journal of Agronomy. View Article Google Scholar 6.
Temporal and spa-tial distribution of roots and competition for nitrogen in pea-barley intercrops. A field studies employing 23 P techniques.
View Article Google Scholar 7. Comparison of interspecific competition and N use in pea-barley, faba bean-barley and lupin-barley intercrops grown at two temperate locations. Journal of Agricultural Science. View Article Google Scholar 8. Wheatand chickpea intercropping systems in an additive experiment.
Advantages andweed smothering. View Article Google Scholar 9. The effects of planting time and combination on the nutrient composition and digestible dry mat-ter yield of four mixtures of vetch varieties intercropped with barley. View Article Google Scholar Zhang F and Li L. Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency.
Plant and Soil ; — Modeling dry matter production and resource use in intercrops of pea and barley. Field Crop Research. Effect of intercropping maize with cowpea on green forage yield and quality evaluation. Plant Sci.
Yield stability of cassava, maize, soya bean and cowpea intercrops. The Journal of Agricultural Science. Intercropping of different silage maize cultivars and alfalfa. Acta Agron. Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models. Agronomy for Sustainable Development. Ghanbari-Bonjar A. Intercropped wheat and bean as a low-input forage.
PhD thesis. Wye College. London, Vandermeer J. The Ecology of intercropping. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, ; p.
Field Crops Research ; 63— Competition, production efficiency and yield stability of finger millet and legume additive design intercropping.
Morgado L, Willey RW. Effect of plant population and nitrogen fertilizer on yield and efficiency of maize-bean intercropping. Effect of maize density, bean cultivar and bean spatial arrangement on intercrop Performance. African Crop Science Journal. Stability, productivity, and profitability of some intercropping systems in dryland agriculture.
Hyderabad, India, ; 10—13 January pp. Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science. Yayeh B, Fekremariam A. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare. Cropping systems and crop complementarity in dry land agriculture to increase soil water use efficiency: a review.
Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science. Plant configuration and cultivar environments. Crop Sci. Response of a maize or dry bean intercrop to maize density and dry bean arrangement under rainfed conditions. IJAAR ; 6 6 — Isaac A. Effects of spatial arrangement and population density on the growth and yield of sesame sesamum indicum l. Journal of Agricultural Sciences.
Nwaogu E N. Nigeria Agricultural Journal. Maize-common bean-lupine intercrops productivity and profitability in maize-based cropping system of Northwestern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Science and Technology. Determination of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer levels in different maize-faba bean intercropping patterns in northwestern Ethiopia.
Intercropping tef and sunflower in semi-arid areas of Welo,Ethiopia. Tropical Science. American Journal of Plant Sciences. Teff [Eragrostis tef Zucc. Agronomy Journal. Yayeh B, Fikire-Mariam A. Determination of seed rate and inter row spacing for finger millet production eleusine coracana gaertn. Int J Res Rev. Ethiopian Meteorology Agency. Shah et al. Weed biomass is reduced in intercropping as reported by researchers for maize—legume combinations [ 40 , 41 ].
In studies it has been claimed that enhancement of diversity of crop species in intercropping system maintains a highly asymmetric competition over weeds resulting in less weed biomass [ 42 , 43 ]. Weeds compete with crops for available resources and less weed occurrence assures ultimately higher productivity.
Intercropping systems can influence the pest and pathogen population dynamics. The population of beneficial insects such as parasites and predators are enhanced in polyculture due to diversity of crops [ 2 ] and presence of harmful pests may remain below the economic threshold level. Thus, plant protection becomes easy and use of chemicals for crop protection comes down which ultimately reduces the chemical pollution to agricultural ecology, however, monoculture of maize requires more chemical pesticides [ 44 ].
In intercropping system, two or more crop species are cultivated which creates complexity in food and habitat of pests. Further, intercropping of maize with legumes is known to increase population of beneficial insects and decrease the population of bud worm, corn borer, leaf hopper and maize stalk borer [ 1 , 45 ].
The intercropping system has also an impact against disease management, because in mixture of crops functional diversity is created that checks population increase of pathogen.
Some diseases of legume crops like angular leaf spot Phaeoisariopsis griseola of beans and ascochyta blight Mycosphaerella pinodes were observed with less severity when these were intercropped with maize [ 46 , 47 ] than pure stand of legumes.
Reduction of pest-disease incidence not only saves the crop loss and better yield but also assures less use of chemicals for plant protection and thus minimizes the chance of pollution in crop ecology. Legumes are known to fix atmospheric nitrogen biologically. The biological nitrogen fixation BNF is a process where some bacteria convert atmospheric N 2 into ammonia NH 3 and making it available to plants. In maize-legume intercropping system, both the crops acquire N from the common soil pool and compete and thus deficit of mineral N may occur in the rhizosphere which promotes legume to fix atmospheric N [ 48 , 49 ].
Maize is an exhaustive crop and legumes are soil replenishing crops and decomposition of legumes residue improves soil fertility. In the soils with poor available nitrogen status, the biologically fixed nitrogen plays an important role. Under the situation of limited supply of nitrogenous fertilizer also intercropping legume and non-legume may a suitable option of nutrient management.
Further, chemical N fertilizers are responsible for degradation of ecosystem in the form of nitrate pollution and legumes grown as intercrops help in environmental sustainability [ 50 ].
In maize-soybean intercropping system, soybean supplements nitrogen to cereal component [ 51 ]. Maize grown as forage in intercropping with legumes is known to improve quality parameters of forage like higher crude protein and mineral content and digestibility [ 48 , 52 ]. Biologically fixed N by pigeon pea was transferred to associated maize and N content and uptake by maize was improved in maize-pigeon pea intercropping system [ 53 ].
The associated non-legume crop maize gets benefit of fixed N by legumes [ 1 ]. Thus, maize-legume intercropping system is beneficial in terms of N economy too. Leaf defoliation of legumes is known to increase productivity of maize—soybean intercropping system [ 22 ]. Intercropping is advantageous in terms of erosion control because of coverage of more ground area than monocropping of cereals. The striking actions of rain drops can erode the bare or uncovered soil, but the coverage of soil by legumes can check it.
In maize-cowpea intercropping combination, ground area is mostly covered, thus soil erosion is reduced [ 54 ]. Taller crop like maize also plays a vital role as wind break and protects the crops with shorter canopy like legumes as well as erosion caused by wind [ 45 ].
Intercropping is a common practice of small and marginal farmers in developing countries of Asia and Africa and in risky and fragile ecological conditions which is known as a suitable practice to provide natural insurance and thus provides a profitable shape to farm economy. Under moisture stress conditions, more of ground area is covered under maize-legume intercropping than sole cropping of maize which leads to less evaporation loss of soil moisture.
Thus stability in yield and return are achieved due to creation of crop diversity in the intercropping systems. In economic point of view, it may be stated that small farmers may face problem of seasonal price variability of commodities which often can destabilize net realization, but diversification in the form of intercropping can stabilize farm income to a great extent. Experimental results indicated superiority of intercropping maize-beans in soil fertility restoration and income enhancement than monocropping of the component crops [ 55 ].
Yield enhancement of crops is another basis to strengthen the economy of small and marginal farmers adopting intercropping system [ 56 ]. Though intercropping of maize-grain legumes is labour and cost intensive, small holders of central Mozambique prefer it because of reduced risk of crop failure and enhanced productivity [ 57 ]. Intercropping is now in the centre of attention targeting sustainability in agriculture. The negative impacts of industrialized and modern agriculture have already been realized and issues are very crucial in crop ecology to achieve sustainability.
On the other side, maize-legume intercropping has enough potential in the form of more yields from limited resource, proper utilization of resources, and restoration of soil fertility, efficient pest management and creation of above and below ground diversity. In the moisture stress or resource poor conditions, intercropping provides natural insurance against crop failure caused by biotic and abiotic factors and thus ascertains economic stability of small holders.
Considering the multiple advantages, it can be stated that maize-legume intercropping system is one of the suitable options for achieving production sustainability for small holders. Despite a number of benefits of maize-legume intercropping over monocropping, sometimes intercropping may exhibit some limitations especially in terms of agronomic management. In the field where farm mechanizations have been adopted, intercultural operations and harvest become difficult with two dissimilar crops.
However, there is no problem where the intercrops are harvested for forage or grazed [ 13 ]. It may be mentioned that where human workforce is sufficient, particularly in developing countries, there is no need for investment in costly machines for agronomic management and harvest of crops in intercropping and in this regard intercropping does not express any disadvantages.
Intercropping may cause yield loss of the base crop maize compared to its sole stand, but MEY become more and thus intercropping may be considered more productive than monoculture. Further in intercropping, crowded crop canopy may create a microclimate which may be congenial to spread of fungal pathogens, but in maize-legumes intercropping combination, such incidences are not common. Considering the importance of maize in cereal basket of the world, production sustainability is a prime concern.
Maize is an exhaustive crop by nature that requires enough nutrient inputs to achieve target yield. In this regard, maize-legume intercropping system is considered a suitable option as it has enough potential to replenish the soil nutrients, produce more yield and economic benefit by utilizing limited resource, check damage caused by pests, diseases and weeds to a large extent, control soil erosion by covering ground and provide natural insurance to small holders under risky conditions against crop failure.
Thus, in true sense, maize-legume intercropping system can boost yield as well as production sustainability of the system as a whole. Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3. Help us write another book on this subject and reach those readers. Login to your personal dashboard for more detailed statistics on your publications. Edited by Akbar Hossain.
By Akbar Hossain, Mst. Tanjina Islam, Md. We are IntechOpen, the world's leading publisher of Open Access books. Fukai S and Trenbath B R Processes determining intercrop productivity and yields of component crops. Field Crops Res. Jensen E S Barley uptake of N deposited in the rhizosphere of associated field pea.
Soil Biol. Midmore D J Agronomic modification of resource use and intercrop production. Trenbath B R Resource use by intercrops. In Multiple Cropping Systems. C A Francis. Macmillan, New York. Willey RW Intercropping-its importance and research needs. Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts 32, 1— Download references.
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar.
0コメント