Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T10:30:37.371Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative Sowing Time and Density of Component Crops in a Maize/Cowpea Intercrop System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

Francis Ofori  and
W. R. Stern
Francis Ofori
Affiliation:
Agronomy Group, School of Agriculture, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA 6009
W. R. Stern
Affiliation:
Agronomy Group, School of Agriculture, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, WA 6009
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The effect of variations in the relative sowing time and density of component crops in a maize/cowpea intercrop were examined in two experiments. In the first experiment, maize and cowpea were sown together, and either 10 or 21 days before or after each other. Maize yield was reduced when sown at the same time or after cowpea; intercrop cowpea yields were less than sole cowpea yields at all sowings. In the second experiment, maize densities of 35, 50 and 70 × 103 plants ha−1 were combined with cowpea densities of 70, 100 and 140 × 103 plants ha−1. Increasing the density of either crop in the mixture resulted in increases in total yield. Maize reduced cowpea yields more than the effect of cowpea on maize yields. In terms of LER and total seed protein yield, there was no advantage of either staggered sowings over simultaneous sowing or of the various intercrop density combinations, except between the lowest and the highest densities of either maize or cowpea. The LERs appeared to follow the trends in cowpea yields and total seed protein yields the trends in maize yields.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , January 1987 , pp. 41 - 52
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

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S., Gunasena, H. P. M. & Yang, Y. H. (1979). Proceedings: Final INPUTS Review Meeting, 20–24 August 1979, East-West Centre, Honolulu, Hawaii.Google Scholar
Bremner, J. M. (1965). Total nitrogen. In Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. 1149–1178. (Eds Black, C. A. et al. ). Agronomy 9, Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Cook, K. J. (1982). Voluntary register of grain legume cultivars in Australia - cowpea cv. Banjo. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 48: 127–128.Google Scholar
Fawusi, M. O. A., Wanki, S. B. C. & Nangju, D. (1982). Plant density effects on growth, yield, leaf area index and light transmission on intercropped maize and Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp. in Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 99: 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, N. M. (1977). Studies in mixed cropping. II. Population pressures in maize-bean mixtures. Experimental Agriculture 13: 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, C. A. (1978). Multiple cropping potentials of beans and maize. Horticultural Science 113: 12–17.Google Scholar
Francis, C. A., Praeger, M. & Tedjada, G. (1982). Effects of relative planting dates in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and maize (Zea mays L.) intercropping patterns. Field Crops Research 5, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. L. (1977). Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huxley, P. A. & Maingu, Z. (1978). Use of a systematic spacing design as an aid to the study of intercropping: some general considerations. Experimental Agriculture 14: 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, R. & Willey, R. W. (1980). The concept of a ‘Land Equivalent Ratio’ and advantages in yields from intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 16: 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ofori, F. & Stern, W. R. (1986). Maize/cowpea intercrop system: effect of nitrogen fertilizer on productivity and efficiency. Field Crops Research (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osiru, D. S. O. & Willey, R. W. (1972). Studies on mixtures of dwarf sorghum and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 79: 531–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, D. H., Herbert, S. J. & Vargas, A. (1985). Intercropped corn-soyabean density studies. I. Yield complementarity. Experimental Agriculture 21: 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remison, S. U. (1982). Interaction between maize and cowpea sown simultaneously and at intervals in a forest zone of Nigeria. Indian Journal of Agricultural Science 52: 500–505.Google Scholar
Spitters, C. J. T. (1983). An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 2. Marketable yield. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 31: 143–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tariah, N. M. & Wahua, T. A. T. (1985). Effects of component populations on yields and land equivalent ratios of intercropped maize and cowpea. Field Crops Research 12: 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahua, T. A. T. (1983). Nutrient uptake by intercropped maize and cowpeas and a concept of nutrient supplementation index (NSI). Experimental Agriculture 19: 263–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, R. W. (1979). Intercropping – its importance and needs. Part 2. Agronomy and research approaches. Field Crop Abstracts 32: 73–85.Google Scholar