Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:01:42.990Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intercropping Morphologically Different Cowpeas With Pearl Millet in a Short Season Environment in the Sahel

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

Bonny R. Ntare
Bonny R. Ntare
Affiliation:
IITA/ICRISAT Cooperative Programme, ICRISAT Sahelian Centre BP 12404, Niamey, Niger
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effects on yield of varying the planting date and planting pattern of morphologically different cowpea cultivars intercropped with pearl millet were studied in two field trials. The interaction between cowpea cultivars and planting date was highly significant. There was a sharp reduction in cowpea yields with late planting. Millet yields were reduced less when sown simultaneously with early cowpea cultivars than when sown with a late maturing local cultivar. Early maturing cowpea cultivars planted in closely spaced hills had less effect on millet yields than a late maturing cultivar sown in widely spaced hills. An appropriate cowpea cultivar for intercropping with peal millet would be one that was weakly competitive and that yielded both grain and fodder.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 26 , Issue 1 , January 1990 , pp. 41 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adetiloye, P. O. (1980). Growth Development and Yield in Sole and Intercropped Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) and Maize (Zea mays L.). PhD thesis, Nsukka, Nigeria, University of Nigeria.Google Scholar
Andrews, D. J. (1974). Response of sorghum varieties to intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 10:57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, C. A. (1981). Development of plant genotypes for multiple cropping systems. In Plant Breeding II (Ed. by Frey, K. J.). Iowa: The Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
Francis, C. A., Drager, M. & Tejad, G. (1982). Effect of relative planting dates in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and maize (Zea mays L.) intercropping patterns. Field Crops Research 5:45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fussell, L. K. & Serafini, P. G. (1985). Crop association in the semi-arid tropics of West Africa. Research strategies, past and future. In Appropriate Technology for Farmers in Semi-arid West Africa. Proceedings of a Symposium, 2–5 04 1985, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 218–235 (Eds Ohm, W. and Nagy, J. C.). University of Purdue.Google Scholar
Matlon, P. J. (1980). Local varieties, planting strategies and early season farming activities in two villages in central Upper Volta. ICRISAT West Africa Economics Program Progress Report 2, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso.Google Scholar
Norman, D. W. (1974). Rationalizing mixed cropping under indigenous conditions. The example of Northern Nigeria. Journal of Development Studies 11:3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sivakumar, M. V. K. (1988). Predicting rainy season potential from the onset of rains in Southern Sahelian and Sudanian climatic zones of West Africa. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 42:295–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, K. G. (1982). Intercropping in Smallholder Agriculture with Special Reference to West Africa. GTZ No. 137. GTZ, Eschborn, Germany.Google Scholar
Stoop, W. A. (1986). Agronomic management of cereal/cowpea cropping systems for major toposequence land types in the West African Savanna. Field Crops Research 13:301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
West, L. T., Wilding, L. P., Landeck, J. K. & Calhoun, F. G. (1984). Soil Survey of the ICRISAT Sahelian Center. Soil Crops Science Department, Tropsoils, Texas A & M, College Station, Texas, USA.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. (1979). Intercropping, its importance and research needs Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts 32:1–10 Part 2.Google Scholar