Effect of replacement intercropping ratios of sweet corn with bean varieties on yield and yield components

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors

• Ghorbanali Asadi ¹
• Sorur Khorramdel ²
• Roshanak Shahriary ¹
• Fatemeh Ranjbar ²
• Mahsa Aghhavani Shajari ¹

¹ Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

² Ferdowsi University of mashhad

10.22067/ijpr.v8i2.50084

Abstract

Introduction
Conservation agriculture (CA) has been proposed as a set of principles that could help reverse widespread soil degradation in the region and help farmers stabilize yields by mitigating the effects climate variability. Though numerous questions remain on how CA practices might fit in a complex mix grain- grazing farming systems, where limited land, cash and labor impose severe constraints on farmers’ options. Intercropping is a CA approach that has been traditionally practiced in many parts of world and has some advantages over monocultures. One of its obvious advantages may be to increase forage protein, the principle being improvement of forage quality through the complementary effects of two or more crops grown simultaneously on the same area of land. Intercropping supplies efficient resource utilization, reduces risk to the environment and production costs, and provides greater financial stability, making the system more suitable particularly for labor-intensive, small farmers. Morpho-physiological differences and agronomic factors such as the proportion of crops in the mixture and fertilizer application regulate competition between component crops for growth-limiting factors. Greater total uptake of nutrients and other growth factors by the component crops in the intercropping is the primary cause of obtaining intercropping advantage. Intercropping research studies involving a cereal and a legume have not considered the combined effect of fertilizer application and plant population variation. Maize and beans are important food crops, mostly grown by resource- poor farmers in complex and risky farming systems. Morgado & Willey (2003) showed that competitive effect of intercrop beans on maize yields was high at higher plant populations.

Materials & Methods
In order to study the production potential and competitiveness of sweet corn and bean varieties, an experiment was carried out based on a randomized complete block design with three replications in the Agricultural Research Station, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, during growing season of 2014-2015. Treatments included different combinations of bean (B) and sweet corn (C): 25%B+75%C, 50%B+50%C, 75%B+25%C and bean varieties and their monoculture. Bean varieties consisted cowpea, white, red, pinto and landrace and chase sweet corn. Studied criteria were yield components (pod number per plant, seed number per pod and 100-seed weight), biological yield, seed yield and harvest index (HI) of bean and biological yield, seed yield and HI of sweet corn and land equivalent ratio (LER).

Results & Discussion
The results indicated that effect of intercropping ratios were significant (p≤0.05) on seed yield, biological yield, HI, pod number per plant and seed number per pod and biological yield and seed yield of bean. The highest seed yield of bean was observed in 75%B + 25%C with 1675 g.m-2 and the lowest was related to 25%B + 75%C with 778 g.m-2. The maximum seed yield was obtained in pinto (2342.33 g.m-2) and the minimum was achieved in landrace (847.75 g.m-2). Seed yield of sweet corn in monoculture was higher than intercropping ratios, but by increasing density in intercropping ratios with bean varieties it significantly enhanced. The highest and the lowest seed yield in intercropping ratios were observed in 75%C + 25%B with 7348.1 g.m-2 and 25%C + 75%B with 3466 g.m-2, respectively. In all combinations of intercropping ratios LER was higher than 1, that it represents intercropping is better than monoculture. The maximum land equivalent ratio was calculated with 1.47 for 25%B (landrace) + 75%C. The results showed that landrace was competitive than other varieties.

Conclusion
The effect of intercropping ratios of sweet corn with bean landraces were significant (p≤0.05) on seed yield, biological yield, HI and yield components of the crops. The maximum seed yield was obtained in pinto and the minimum was achieved in landrace. Seed yield of sweet corn in monoculture was higher than intercropping ratios, but by increasing density in intercropping ratios with bean varieties it significantly enhanced. According to the results, intercropping of plants of 25%B (landrace) + 75%C can be beneficial in term of ecological management.

Keywords

• Competitiveness
• Harvest index
• Intercropping
• Land equivalent ratio

---

References

1. Abeya, S., Fukai, A., and Rodriguez, D. 2015. As the level of crop productivity increases: Is there a role for intercropping in smallholder agriculture. Field Crop Research 180: 156-166.

2. Agegnehu, G., Ghizam A., and Sinebo, W. 2006. Yield performance and land-use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. European Journal of Agronomy 25: 202-207.

3. Awal, M.A., Koshi, H., and Ikeda, T. 2006. Radiation interception and use by maize/peanut intercrop canopy. Agriculture and Forest Meteorology 139: 74-83.

4. Black, C., and Ong, C. 2000. Utilization of light and water in tropical agriculture. Agriculture and Forest Meteorology 104: 25-47.

5. Blackshaw, R.E., O’Donovan, J., Harker, T.K.N., Clayton, G.W., and Stougaard, R.N. 006. Reduced herbicide doses in field crops: A review. Weed Biology and Management 6: 10-17.

6. Carruthers, K., Prithiviraj, B., Fe, Q., Cloutier, D., Martin, R.C., and Smith, D.L. 1998. Intercropping corn with soybean, lupin and forage yield component responses. European Journal of Agronomy 12: 103-11.

7. Fininsa, C. 1997. Effects of planting pattern, relative planting date and intra-row spacing on haricot bean/maize intercrop. African Crop Science Journal 5(1): 15-22.

8. Gao, Y., Duan, A., Sun, J., Li, F., Liu, Z., Liu, H., and Liu, Z. 2009. Crop coefficient and water-use efficiency of winter wheat/spring maize strip intercropping. Field Crops Research 111: 65-73.

9. Geren, H., Avcioglu, R., Soya, H., and Kir, B. 2008. Intercropping of corn with cowpea and bean: biomass yield and silage quality. African Journal of Biotechnology 7(22): 4100-4104.

10. Gliessman, S.R. 1995. Agroecology, Researching the Ecological Basis for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer-Verlag, New York, Inc. 380 pp.

11. Jadoski, S.O., Carlesso, R., Wolschick, D., Petry, T., and Frizzo, Z. 2000. Plant population and row spacing for irrigated dry bean. II: Grain yield and yield components. Brazilian Ciencia Rural 30: 567-573.

12. Katang, A.B. 1989. The performance of sweet corn and selected legumes in weeded and non-weeded intercropping system. University Putra Malaysia. Pp. 80.

13. Keating, B.A., and Carberry, P.S. 1993. Resource capture and use in intercropping: solar radiation. Field Crops Research 34: 273-301.

14. Koocheki, A., Laleghani, B., and Najibnia, S. 2008. Evaluation of intercropping beans and corn production. Journal of Agricultural Research 7: 605-614.

15. Koocheki, A., Lalehgani, B., and Najibnia, S. 2009. Evaluation of productivity in bean and corn intercropping. Iranian Journal of Field Crop Research 7(2): 605-614. (In Persian with English Summary).

16. Lesoing, G.W., and Francis, A.C. 1999. Strip intercropping effects on yield and yield components of corn, grain sorghum, and soybean. Agronomy Journal 91: 804-813.

17. Manna, M.C., and Singh, M.V. 2001. Long- term effects of intercropping and biolitter recycling on soil biological activity and fertility status of subtropical soils. Bioresource Technology 76: 143-150.

18. Mukhala, E., Juger, J.M., and Vanrensburg, L.D. 1999. Dietary nutrient deficiency in small-scale farming communities in South Africa benefits of intercropping maize and beans. Nutrition Research 19(4): 629-641.

19. Mushagalusa, G.N., Ledent, J.F., and Draye, X. 2008. Shoot and root competition in potato/maize intercropping: Effects on growth and yield. Environmental and Experimental Botany 64: 180-188.

20. Nielsen, H., Ambus, H.P., and Jensen, E.S., 2001. Interspecific competition N use and interference with weeds in pea-barley intercropping. Field Crops Research 70: 101-109.

21. Ofori, F., and Stern, W.R. 1987. Cereal-legume intercropping systems. Advances in Agronomy 41: 41-90.

22. Poggio, S.L. 2005. Structure of weed communities occurring in monoculture and intercropping of field pea and barley. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 109: 48-58.

23. Pour Tagi, N. 2003. Intercropping Corn and Common Bean. MSc. Thesis, University of Tabriz. Pp. 90. (In Persian)

24. Rahimi, M., Mazaheri, D., Khodabande, N., and Heidari Sharif Abad, H. 2002. Study of yield and component yield of corn and soybean in intercropping. Pazhouhesh and Sazandegi (55): 45-51. (In Persian with English Summary).

25. Rao, M.R., and Singh, M. 1990. Productivity and risk evaluation in contrasting intercropping system. Field Crops Research 23: 279-293.

26. Rezvan Beydokhti, S. 2005. Comparison of different intercropping arrangement of corn and bean. MSc. Thesis, College of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University, Mashhad, Iran. (In Persian with English Summary).

27. Rostami, L., Koocheki, A., and Nassiri Mahallati, M. 2011. The effect of different crop plant densities on radiation absorption and use efficiency by corn (Zea mays L.) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) intercropped canopy. Journal of Agroecology 3(3): 290-297. (In Persian with English Summary).

28. Shafshak, S.E., Shokre, E.S., and Ahmar, B.A. 1989. Studies on soybean and sunflower intercropping, plant characteristics, yield and yield components of soybean sunflower. Field Crops Research 10:41-56. (In Persian with English Summary).

29. Shayghan, M., Mazaheri, D., Rahimian, H., and Peghambari, S. 2008. Effect of planting date and corn and foxtail millet grain yield and weed control and weed. Iranian Journal of Crop Sciences 10(1): 31- 46. (In Persian with English Summary).

30. Taifehnoori, M. 2001. 2003. Intercropping of corn and pinto bean. MSc. Thesis University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran Pp. 83. (In Persian).

31. Tsubo, M., and Walker, S. 2002. A model of radiation interception and use by a maize-bean intercrop canopy. Agriculture and Forest, Meteorology 110: 203-215.

32. Tsubo, M., Walker, S., and Ogindo, H.O. 2005. A simulation model of cereal-legume intercropping systems for semi-arid regions I. Model development. Field Crops Research 93: 10-22.

33. Walker, S., and Ogindo, H.O. 2003. The water budget of rainfed maize and bean intercrop. Physiology Chemistry Earth 28: 919-926.

34. Yilmaz, S., Atak, M., and Erayman, M. 2008. Identification of advantages of maize-legume intercropping over solitary cropping through competition indices in the East Mediterranean region. Turkish Journal of Agricultural and Forestry 32: 111-119.

35. Zhang, Z.H., Weaver, S.E., and Hamill, A.S. 2000. Risks and reliability of using herbicides at below-labeled rates. Weed Technology 19: 106-115.