Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T00:05:25.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of Yield Stability in Intercropping:† Studies on Sorghum/Pigeonpea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

M. R. Rao  and
R. W. Willey
M. R. Rao
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, ICRISAT Patancheru PO 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India
R. W. Willey
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, ICRISAT Patancheru PO 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Data from 94 experiments on sorghum/pigeonpea intercropping were examined for evidence that the stability of yield is greater with intercropping than sole cropping. Stability of the major component (sorghum) was examined by calculating the distribution of yields; stability of the overall intercropping system was examined by calculating coefficients of variation, by computing regressions of yield against an environmental index, and by estimating the probability of monetary returns falling below given ‘disaster’ levels. All these approaches have some merit; taking the last as an example, it was found that for a particular ‘disaster’ level quoted, sole pigeonpea would fail one year in five, sole sorghum one year in eight, but intercropping only one year in thirty-six. Intercropping gave yield advantages under a wide range of environmental conditions and there was no significant evidence that advantages were greater under stress. This is discussed in relation to possible mechanisms contributing to greater yield stability.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 1980 , pp. 105 - 116
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Aiyer, A. K. Y. N. (1949). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 19:439–543.Google Scholar
Daniel, D. H. (1955). Jnl NIAB 7:309–317.Google Scholar
Eberhart, S. A. & Russell, W. A. (1966). Crop Sci. 6:36–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finlay, K. W. & Wilkinson, G. N. (1963). Austr. J. Agric. Res. 14:742–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, N. M. (1976). Symp. on Intercropping in Semi-Arid Areas. Morogoro, Tanzania, 47–49.Google Scholar
Gliemeroth, G. (1950). Zeits. fur Acker-und-pflanz. 91:519–544.Google Scholar
Harwood, R. R. & Price, E. C. (1976). Multiple Cropping (Eds Papendick, R. I., Sancthez, P. A. & Triplett, G. B.). Am. Soc. Agron. Special Pub. 27. Madison: Wisconsin.Google ScholarPubMed
Jodha, N. S. (1979). Proc. Internat. Intercropping Workshop. ICRISAT, Hyderabad, India (in press).Google Scholar
Krishnamurthy, Ch., Chowdhury, S. L. & Anderson, D. T. (1978). National Symp. on Intercropping of Pulse Crops in India. Ind. Agric. Res. Inst., New Delhi, India.Google Scholar
Morrish, R. H. (1934). Mich. State Coll. Agric. Expt. Sta. Special Bull. 256.Google Scholar
Norman, D. W. (1974). J. Devel. Studies. 11:3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadakis, J. S. (1941). Agron. J. 33:504–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, S. J. (1977). Unpub. rep. Farming Systems Research Program, ICRISAT, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
Trenbath, B. R. (1974). Adv. Agronomy 26:177–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trenbath, B. R. (1975). Ecologist 5:76–83.Google Scholar