Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T12:20:10.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Breeding corn for adaptation to two diverse intercropping companions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2009

N. O'Leary  and
M.E. Smith
N. O'Leary*
Affiliation:
Professor of Biology, Wells College, Aurora, NY 13026;
M.E. Smith
Affiliation:
Professor of Plant Breeding and Biometry, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.
*
N. O'Leary ([email protected]) is the corresponding author.
Get access

Abstract

Intercropping is an agricultural system widely practiced in the tropics and becoming more widespread in temperate regions. The vast majority of varieties currently grown in intercrop have been developed in and for monoculture, although some breeding programs specifically focused on intercrop systems have been initiated. It is not clear if selection in monoculture is adequate to identify varieties adapted to intercrop, nor is it clear if varieties selected for intercrop performance with one companion will be adapted to another crop combination. The aims of this study were to determine the extent to which selection of corn in monoculture would identify types adapted to growth in corn—bean or corn—clover intercrop, and to determine how selection in one of the intercrops (corn—bean or corn—clover) would compare with selection in the other. The corn used consisted of two groups that had been selected in monoculture, and two that had been selected in corn—bean intercrop. All groups were evaluated in monoculture, corn-bean intercrop, and corn—clover intercrop. Analysis of variance showed that the ranking of the four selection groups was not significantly different when the two intercrops were compared, but was significantly different (P < 0.05 for comparison of clover intercrop and monoculture, and P = 0.07 for comparison of bean intercrop and monoculture) when either of the two intercrops was compared with monoculture. Correlation analysis of corn traits and corn yield in the three cropping systems revealed more similarities between the intercrops than between either intercrop and monoculture. Plant height and leaf area index were more strongly negatively correlated with days to flower in both intercrops than in monoculture. Correlation analysis also revealed some differences between the intercrops, particularly with bean and clover yields. Clover yields were not adversely affected by early growth and maturity of corn, but bean yields were. We conclude that selection of corn in monoculture is not ideal when lines adapted to cornclover intercrop or corn—bean intercrop are desired. Furthermore, selection in either intercrop will identify corn types adapted to the other, as early vigor and maturity allow best corn performance in both crop combinations. Thus, individualized breeding programs may not be required to adapt a crop to growth in association with relatively different companions.

Keywords

intercropmonocultureselectioncloverbean
Type
Articles
Information
American Journal of Alternative Agriculture , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , December 1999 , pp. 158 - 164
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

1.Barker, T.C., and Smith, M.E.. 1990. Corn adaptation to alternative cropping systems: A new Cornell initiative. In C.A. Francis, J. Bushell, and R. Fleming (eds.). Proc. National Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources Conference, 15–18 August, Lincoln, NE. p. 1–2.Google Scholar
2.Cline, M.G., and Bloom, A.L.. 1965. Soil survey of Cornell University property and adjacent areas. Misc. Bull. 68. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
3.Davis, J.H.C., and Garcia, S.. 1983. Competitive ability and growth habit of indeterminate maize and beans for intercropping. Field Crops Res. 6:59–75.Google Scholar
4.Enyi, B.A.C. 1973. Effect of intercropping maize or sorghum with cowpeas, pigeonpeas or beans. Exper. Agric. 9:83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Finlay, R.C., Kayumbo, H.Y., Monyo, J.H., and Mohuru, A.N.. 1974. The Morogoro intercropping research project. In D.R.B. Manda (ed.). Proc. Fifth Eastern African Cereals Research Conference, Zomba, Malawi, p. 311–315.Google Scholar
6.Francis, C.A. 1981. Development of plant genotypes for multiple cropping systems. In Frey, K.J. (ed.). Plant Breeding Symposium II. Iowa State University Press, Ames. p. 179–231.Google Scholar
7.Francis, C.A. 1985. Variety development for multiple cropping systems. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 3:133–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Francis, C.A. 1989. Biological efficiencies in multiple-cropping systems. Adv. Agron. 42:1–42.Google Scholar
9.Francis, C.A., and Callaway, M.B.. 1993. Crop improvement for future farming systems. In Callaway, M.B., and Francis, C.A. (eds.). Crop Improvement for Sustainable Agriculture. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, p. 1–18.Google Scholar
10.Francis, C.A., and Sanders, J.H.. 1978. Economic analysis of bean and maize systems: Monoculture versus associated cropping. Field Crops Res. 1:319–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Francis, C.A., Flor, C.A., and Temple, S.R.. 1976. Adapting varieties for intercropped systems in the tropics. In Papendick, R.I., Sanchez, P.A., and Triplett, G.B. (eds.). Multiple Cropping. Spec. Pub. 27. Amer. Soc. Agronomy, Madison, WI. p. 235–254.Google Scholar
12.Francis, C.A., Prager, M., Laing, D.R., and Flor, C.A.. 1978. G × E interactions in bush bean cultivars in monoculture and associated with maize. Crop Sci. 18:237–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Hamblin, J., and de, M.J., Zimmerman, O.. 1986. Breeding common bean for yield in mixtures. Plant Breed. Rev. 4:245–272.Google Scholar
14.Hill, J. 1990. The three C's—competition, coexistence and coevolution— and their impact on the breeding of forage crop mixtures. Theoret. Appl. Genet. 79:168–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.IITA. 1983. Annual Report. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
16.IITA. 1988. Annual Report and Research Highlights 1987/1988. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
17.IRRI. 1973. Multiple cropping. Annual Report. International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines, p. 21–34.Google Scholar
18.Jellum, E. J., and Kuo, S.. 1990. Effects of corn row pattern and intercropping with legumes on silage corn. J. Prod. Agric. 3:545–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Mmbaga, M.E.T. and Edje, O.T.. 1992. Effects of distance of bean rows from maize rows on yield of both crops grown in association. Annu. Rep. Bean Improve. Coop. 35:173–174.Google Scholar
20.Odurukwe, S.O., and Ikeorgu, J.E.G.. 1994. Effects of fertilizer and time of introduction of cassava in yam/maize/ cassava intercrop on component yields. Acta Hortic. 380:72–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Olasantan, F.O., Ezumah, H.C., and Lucas, E.O.. 1996. Effects of intercropping with maize on the microenvironment, growth and yield of cassava. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 57:149–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Osiru, D.S.O., and Ezumah, H.C.. 1994. Genotype evaluation for intercropping systems. Acta Hortic. 380:62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Portillo, H.E., Pitre, H.N., Andrews, K.L., and Meckenstock, D.H.. 1994. The influence of weeds on insect-reated mortality of intercropped sorghum and maize in southern Honduras. Tropical Agric. 71:208–214.Google Scholar
24.Power, J.F., and Follett, R.F.. 1987. Monoculture. Sci. Amer. 256(3):79–86.Google Scholar
25.Rowe, D.E., and Brink, G.E.. 1993. Heritabilities and genetic correlations of white clover clones grown in three environments. Crop Sci. 33:1149–1152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26.Simmons, S.R., Sheaffer, C.C., Rasmusson, D.C., Stuthman, D.O., and Nickel, S.E.. 1995. Alfalfa establishment with barley and oat companion crops differing in stature. Agron. J. 87:268–272.Google Scholar
27.Smith, M.E., and Francis, C.A.. 1986. Breeding for multiple cropping systems. In Francis, C.A. (ed.). Multiple Cropping Systems. Macmillan, New York. p. 219–249.Google Scholar
28.Smith, M.E., and Zobel, R.W.. 1991. Plant genetic interactions in alternative cropping systems: Considerations for breeding methods. In Sleper, D.A., Barker, T.C., and Bramel-Cox, P.J. (eds.). Plant Breeding and Sustainable Agriculture: Considerations for Objectives and Methods. Special Pub. 18. Crop Sci. Soc. Amer., Madison, WI. p. 57–81.Google Scholar
29.Smith, R.R., Maxwell, D.P., Hanson, E.W., and Smith, W.K.. 1973. Registration of Arlington red clover. Crop Sci. 13:771.Google Scholar
30.Snedecor, G.W., and Cochran, W.G.. 1989. Statistical Methods. Iowa State University Press, Ames.Google Scholar
31.Soto, J.G. 1991. Using divergent recurrent selection to develop maize cultivars suited to intercrop with dry bean. Ph.D. thesis. Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
32.Souza, E., Myers, J.R., and Scully, B.T.. 1993. Genotype by environment interaction in crop improvement. In Callaway, M.B. and Francis, C.A. (eds.). Crop Improvement for Sustainable Agriculture. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
33.Stinner, B.R., and Blair, J.M.. 1990. Ecological and agronomic characteristics of innovative cropping systems. In Edwards, C.A., Lal, R., Madden, P., Miller, R.H., and House, G. (eds.). Sustainable Agricultural Systems. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, IA. p. 123–140.Google Scholar
34.Woolley, J.N., and Rodriguez, W.. 1987. Cultivar × cropping system interactions in relay and row intercropping of bush beans with different maize plant types. Exper. Agric. 23:181–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Zhou, X.M., Madramootoo, C.A., Mackenzie, A.F., and Smith, D.L.. 1997. Biomass production and nitrogen uptake in corn—ryegrass systems. Agron. J. 89:749–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar