Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:57:16.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies of resource use and yield of mustard and chickpea grown in intercropping systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

B. L. Kushwaha  and
R. De
B. L. Kushwaha
Affiliation:
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India
R. De
Affiliation:
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110012, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A study was made under rainfed (unirrigated) conditions in a subtropical and semi-arid region of northern India during the winter (October–March) seasons of 1980–1 and 1981–2 to evaluate the growth, resource use and seed yield performance of four intercropping systems, namely mustard alone, ⅔ mustard +⅓ chickpea, ⅓ mustard + ⅔ chickpea and chickpea alone grown at 7·5, 15·0, 22·5 and 30·0 plants/m2.

The total economic productivity of intercrop systems was greater than that of either component grown alone. The components of seed yield (number of primary and secondary branches, number of pods, seed weight per plant and weight of seed) increased in mustard where intercropped but the opposite occurred in chickpea. These growth attributes were decreased with an increase in plant population density. The two crop species needed an individual density less than their sole crop optima to form an optimum density when intercropped. A mixture of ⅓ mustard + ⅔ chickpea appeared to be the best system for the rainfed conditions in which these experiments were made and produced greatest yield advantage.

Chickpea grown in ⅓ mustard + ⅔ chickpea combination had greater nodulation with higher dry weight per nodule. A greater leaf area index (LAI) for both the crop species was noted in ⅓ mustard + ⅔ chickpea mixture than were found in other systems. The maximum LAI of mustard and chickpea was attained at 60 and 120 days after sowing respectively and this may be why a lower proportion of mustard plants in the intercrop was more advantageous.

A combination of ⅓ mustard + ⅔ chickpea removed more nitrogen from the soil, had better water use efficiency and comparatively less soil moisture depletion than the sole crop. Soil nitrogen utilization and soil moisture depletion were less at higher densities.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 108 , Issue 2 , April 1987 , pp. 487 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

De, R., Gupta, R. S., Singh, S. P., Pal, M., Singh, S. N., Sharma, R. N. & Kaushik, S. K. (1979). Interplanting maize, sorghum, pearl millet with short duration legumes. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 48, 132–140.Google Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1963). Competition among crops and pasture plants. Advances in Agronomy 15, 1–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haynes, R. J. (1980). Competitive aspects of the grass–legume association. Advances in Agronomy 33, 227–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Rice Research Institute (1973). Annual Report, pp. 15–16. Los Baños, Philippines.Google Scholar
McAuliffe, C, Chamblee, D. S., Uribe-Arango, H. & Woodhouse, W. W. (1958). Influence of inorganic nitrogen on nitrogen fixation by legumes as revealed by N15. Agronomy Journal 50, 334–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohta, N. K. & De, R. (1980). Intercropping maize and sorghum with soyabeans. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95, 117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagarajrao, Y., Mallick, S. & Singh, G. (1980). Moisture depletion and root growth of different varieties of chickpea under rainfed conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy 25, 289–293.Google Scholar
Natarajan, M. & Willey, R. W. (1980). Sorghum–pigeonpea intercropping and the effects of plant population density. 2. Resource use. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 95, 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osiru, D. S. O. & Willey, R. W. (1972). Studies on mixtures of dwarf sorghum and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with particular reference to plant population. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 75, 531–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pendleton, J. W., Bolen, C. D. & Seif, R. D. (1963). Alternating strips of corn and soybeans vs. solid plantings. Agronomy Journal 55, 293–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheldrake, A. R. & Saxena, N. P. (1979). The growth and development of chickpeas under progressive moisture stress. In Stress Physiology in Crop Plants (ed. Mussel, H. and Staples, R. C.), pp. 465–483. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Simpson, J. R. (1965). Transference of nitrogen from pasture legumes to an associated grass under several systems of management in pot culture. Australian Journal of Agriculture Research 16, 915–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, R. W. (1979). Intercropping – its importance and research needs. Field Crop Abstracts 32, 1–10, 73–85.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. & Osiru, D. S. O. (1972). Studies on mixtures of maize and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with particular reference to plant population. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 79, 517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, R. W. & Rao, M. R. (1981). A systematic design to examine effects of plant population and spatial arrangement in intercropping, illustrated by an e periment on chickpea/safflower. Experimental Agriculture 17, 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar