Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T01:09:42.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ASSESSMENT OF ADVANTAGES OF PEA AND NON-LEGUME WINTER VEGETABLE INTERCROPPING SYSTEMS THROUGH COMPETITION AND ECONOMIC INDICES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2014

MUHAMMAD AKBAR ANJUM ,
SYED ALI QASIM ,
SHAKEEL AHMAD  and
SAJJAD HUSSAIN
MUHAMMAD AKBAR ANJUM
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60800, Pakistan
SYED ALI QASIM
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60800, Pakistan
SHAKEEL AHMAD
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60800, Pakistan
SAJJAD HUSSAIN*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan 60800, Pakistan
*
‡Corresponding author. Email: sajjad_h@yahoo.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Intercropping is considered as a promising system having multi-dimensional advantages such as improved yield on sustained basis, effective use of land and other resources and reduction in cost of production. The present study was carried out using pea and three non-legume winter vegetables, i.e. garlic, turnip and cauliflower, by planting as sole crops and in pea–garlic, pea–turnip and pea–cauliflower intercropping systems to determine the competition among these vegetables and economics of each intercropping system. The intercropping systems were assessed on the basis of existing competition and economic indices such as land equivalent ratio (LER), relative crowding coefficient (K), aggressivity (A), competitive ratio (CR), actual yield loss (AYL), intercropping advantage and monetary advantage index (MAI). Yields of individual vegetables were higher when grown as sole crops compared with their intercropping with pea. Harvest index for pea was higher when grown alone or intercropped with garlic and was significantly reduced when intercropped with turnip or cauliflower. Harvest indices for garlic, turnip and cauliflower were statistically similar when grown as sole crops or intercropped with pea. The partial LER, K, A and CR for pea were higher in pea–garlic intercropping. However, partial LER, K, A and CR for intercrop were significantly higher for cauliflower and turnip in pea–cauliflower and pea–turnip intercropping systems respectively. The product of relative K values was greater for pea–garlic intercropping system, indicating a definite yield advantage. A similar trend to LER was followed by AYL. These results indicate that pea was more competitive than garlic, and cauliflower and turnip were more competitive than pea for exploiting the available growth resources. The highest MAI value was recorded for pea–garlic intercropping, reflecting that this intercropping system was more advantageous compared with other intercropping systems, indicating definite yield and economic advantages. However, pea–cauliflower intercropping system resulted in higher net income and benefit cost ratio.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , July 2015 , pp. 327 - 343
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Adeniyi, O. R. (2011). Economic aspects of intercropping systems of vegetables (okra, tomato and cowpea). African Journal of Plant Science 5:648–655.Google Scholar
Agegnehu, G., Ghizaw, A. and Sinebo, W. (2008). Yield potential and land-use efficiency of wheat and faba bean mixed intercropping. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28:257–263.Google Scholar
Ali, H., Khan, M. A., Ahmad, S. and Ali, H. (2006). Economic benefits of chickpea-based intercropping of different arable crops. Indus Journal of Biological Sciences 3:862–866.Google Scholar
Banik, P. (1996). Evaluation of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row replacement series system. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 175:189–194.Google Scholar
Banik, P., Midya, A., Sarkar, B. K. and Ghose, S. S. (2006). Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy 24:325–332.Google Scholar
Banik, P., Sasmal, T., Ghosal, P. K. and Bagchi, D. K. (2000). Evaluation of mustard (Brassica campestris var. Toria) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row-replacement series system. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 185:9–14.Google Scholar
Bedoussac, L. and Justes, E. (2010). Dynamic analysis of competition and complementarity for light and N use to understand the yield and the protein content of a durum wheat-winter pea intercrop. Plant and Soil 330:37–54.Google Scholar
Boraj, K. K., Singh, K. and Kanar, A. (2001). Stress Environmental Plant Physiology. Jaipur, India: Poineer, 344 pp.Google Scholar
Brintha, I. and Seran, T. H. (2009). Effect of paired row planting of radish (Raphanus sativus L.) intercropped with vegetable amaranths (Amaranths tricolor L.) on yield components in sandy regosol. Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4:19–28.Google Scholar
Chen, C., Westcott, M., Neill, K., Wichman, D. and Knox, M. (2004). Row configuration and nitrogen application for barley-pea intercropping in Motana. Agronomy Journal 96:1730–1738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Co-Stat 6.300. (2003). Co-Stat Statistical Software. California: Cohort Software.Google Scholar
DeWit, C. T. (1960). On competition. Verslag Landbouwkundige Onderzoek 66:1–28.Google Scholar
Dhima, K. V., Lithourgidis, A. S., Vasilakoglou, I. B. and Dordas, C. A. (2007). Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100:249–256.Google Scholar
Dordas, C. A., Vlachostergios, D. N. and Lithourgidis, A. S. (2012). Growth dynamics and agronomic-economic benefits of pea-oat and pea-barley intercrops. Crop & Pasture Science 63:45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feike, T., Chen, Q., Penning, J., Graeff-Honninger, S., Zuhlke, G. and Claupein, W. (2010). How to overcome the slow death of intercropping in China? In Proceedings of 9th European IFSA Symposium, 2149–2158 (Eds Darnhofer, I. and Grotzer, M.). Vienna, Austria: International Farming Systems Association (Europe Group), Universität für Bodenkultur Wien.Google Scholar
Fustec, J., Lesuffleur, F., Mahieu, S. and Cliquet, J. B. (2010). Nitrogen rhizodeposition of legumes. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 30:57–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghosh, P. K. (2004). Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops Research 88:227–237.Google Scholar
Grime, J. P. I. (1977). Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies of plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. The American Naturalist. 111:1169–1174.Google Scholar
Hadidi, N., Sharaiha, R. and Al-Debei, H. (2011). Effect of intercropping on the performance of some summer vegetable crops grown under different row arrangements. Lucǎri Ştiinţifice 54:11–17.Google Scholar
Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Ambus, P. and Jensen, E. S. (2001). Temporal and spatial distribution of roots and competition for nitrogen in pea-barley intercrops – a field study employing 32P technique. Plant and Soil 236:63–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussain, S. A. (2003). Growth, Yield and Economic Impacts of Intercropping in Vegetables. PhD Thesis, Department of Horticulture, NWFP Agricultural University, Peshawar, Pakistan.Google Scholar
Ijoyah, M. O. (2012). Review of intercropping research: studies on cereal-vegetable-based cropping system. Scientific Journal of Crop Sciences 1:55–62.Google Scholar
Ijoyah, M. O. and Fanen, F. T. (2012). Effect of different cropping pattern on performance of maize-soybean mixture in Makurdi, Nigeria. Scientific Journal of Crop Sciences 1:39–47.Google Scholar
Ijoyah, M. O. and Jimba, J. (2012). Evaluation of yield and yield components of maize (Zea mays L.) and okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) intercropping system at Makurdi, Nigeria. Journal of Biological and Environmental Sciences 2:38–44.Google Scholar
Jannoura, R., Joergensen, R. G. and Bruns, C. (2014). Organic fertilizer effects on growth, crop yield, and soil microbial biomass indices in sole and intercropped peas and oats under organic farming conditions. European Journal of Agronomy 52:259–270.Google Scholar
Jones, G. A. and Gillett, J. L. (2005). Intercropping with sunflowers to attract beneficial insects in organic agriculture. Florida Entomology 88:91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khan, M. B., Khan, M., Hussain, M., Farooq, M., Jabran, K. and Lee, D. (2012). Bio-economic assessment of different wheat-canola intercropping systems. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 14:769–774.Google Scholar
Lithourdigis, A. S., Dordas, C. A. and Vlachostergios, D. N. (2011). Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Sciences 5:396–410.Google Scholar
Malézieux, E., Crozat, Y., Dupraz, C., Laurans, M., Makowski, D., Ozier-Lafontaine, H., Rapidel, B., de Tourdonnet, S. and Valantin-Morison, M. (2009). Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models: a review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29:43–62.Google Scholar
Mao, L., Zang, L., Li, W., van der Werf, W., Sun, J., Spiertz, H. and Li, L. (2012). Yield advantage and water saving in maize/pea intercrop. Field Crops Research 138:11–20.Google Scholar
McGilchrist, C. A. (1965). Analysis of competition experiments. Biometrics 21:975–985.Google Scholar
Mucheru-Muna, M., Pypers, P., Mugendi, D., Kung, J., Mugwe, J., Merckx, R. and Vanlauwe, B. (2010). A staggered maize legume intercrop arrangement robustly increases crop yields and economic returns in the highlands of Central Kenya. Field Crops Research 115:132–139.Google Scholar
Munz, S., Graeff-Honninger, S., Lizaso, J. I. (2014). Modeling light availability for a subordinate crop within a strip-intercropping system. Field Crops Research 155:77–89.Google Scholar
Mushagalusa, G. N., Ledent, J. and Draye, X. (2008). Shoot and root competition in potato/maize intercropping: effects on growth and yield. Environmental and Experimental Botany 64:180–188.Google Scholar
Neugschwandtner, R. N. and Kaul, H. P. (2014). Sowing ratio and N fertilization affect and yield components of oat and pea intercrops. Field Crops Research 155:159–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qasim, S. A., Anjum, M. A., Ahmad, S. and Hussain, S. (2013). Effect of pea intercropping on biological efficiencies and economics of some non-legume winter vegetables. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 50:399–406.Google Scholar
Saker, P. K., Rahman, M. M. and Das, B. C. (2007). Effect of intercropping of mustard with onion and garlic on aphid population and yield. Journal of Biological Sciences 15:35–40.Google Scholar
Siddique, K. H. M., Regan, K. L., Tennant, D. and Thomson, B. D. (2001). Water use and water use efficiency of cool season grain legumes in low rainfall Mediterranean-type environments. European Journal of Agronomy 15:267–280.Google Scholar
Sikirou, R. and Wydra, K. (2008). Effect of intercropping cowpea with maize or cassava on cowpea bacterial blight and yield. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 115:145–151.Google Scholar
Szumigalski, A. R. and van Acker, R. C. (2006). Nitrogen yield and land use efficiency in annual sole crops and intercrops. Agronomy Journal 98:1030–1040.Google Scholar
Tsubo, M., Walker, S. and Mukhala, E. (2001). Comparisons of radiation use efficiency of mono-/inter-cropping systems with different row orientations. Field Crops Research 71:17–29.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. (1979). Intercropping – its importance and research needs. I. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts 32:1–10.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W., Natarajan, M., Reddy, M. S., Rao, M. R., Nambiar, P. T. C., Kammainan, J. and Bhatanagar, V. S. (1980). Intercropping studies with annual crops. In Better Crops for Food. CIBA Foundation Symposium, Vol. 512, pp. 83–97. (Ed Homeless, J. C.). London: Pitman Books Ltd. Google Scholar
Zhang, F. and Li, L. (2003). Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant and Soil 248:305–312.Google Scholar
Zhang, L., van der Werf, W., Bastiaans, L., Zhang, S., Li, B. and Spiertz, J. H. J. (2008). Light interception and utilization in relay intercrops of wheat and cotton. Field Crops Research 107:29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, L., van der Werf, W., Zhang, S., Li, B. and Spiertz, J. H. J. (2007). Growth, yield and quality of wheat and cotton in relay strip intercropping systems. Field Crops Research 103:178–188.Google Scholar
Zougmore, R., Kambou, F. N., Ouattara, K. and Guillobez, S. (2000). Sorghum-cowpea intercropping: an effective technique against runoff and soil erosion in the Sahel (Saria, Burkina Faso). Arid Land and Research Management 14:329–342.Google Scholar