Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T19:17:03.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Growth and Resource Use of Maize, Pigeonpea and Maize/Pigeonpea Intercrop in an Operational Research Watershed†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

M. V. K. Sivakumar  and
S. M. Virmani
M. V. K. Sivakumar
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, ICRISAT Patancheru Post Office, 502 324, AP, India
S. M. Virmani
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, ICRISAT Patancheru Post Office, 502 324, AP, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Growth and interception of Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR) in a maize/pigeonpea intercrop and sole maize and sole pigeonpea crops grown in large plots in an operational research watershed at ICRISAT research centre were compared. Growth and yield of the maize crop, in pure stands and in intercrop, were not significantly different. Efficiency of dry matter production, calculated from the relations between dry matter production and cumulative intercepted PAR, was highest for the maize/pigeonpea intercrop, followed by sole maize and sole pigeon-pea, proving the utility of such intercrops in making better use of resources in the Semi-Arid Tropics (SAT).

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 1980 , pp. 377 - 386
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

Alberda, Th., Bodlaender, K. B. A., Kremer, D., Van Laar, H. H., Louwerse, W., Toxopeus, H., De Vos, N. M. & De Wit, C. T. (1977). Agrl Res. Rep. Wag. 865:1–46.Google Scholar
Biscoe, P. V. & Gallagher, J. N. (1977). In Environmental Effects on Crop Physiology (Ed. Landsberg, J.J. & Cutting, C. V.), 75–100. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Biscoe, P. V., Scott, R. K. & Monteith, J. L. (1975). J. Appl. Ecol. 12:269–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalal, R. C. (1974). Expl Agric. 10:219–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, C. M. (1963). Adv. Agron. 15:1–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, W. G., Shaver, D. N. & Williams, W. A. (1973). Crop. Sci. 13:187–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enyi, B. A. C. (1973). Expl Agric. 9:83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, N. M. (1975). Tech. Comm. 14, Univ. Nairobi.Google Scholar
Hesketh, J. & Baker, D. (1967). Crop Sci. 7:285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Icrisat, (1978). Rep. Agroclimatology, 1977–78, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
Krantz, B. A. (1979). Proc. Int. Workshop on Intercropping. ICRISAT, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
Krantz, B. A., Kampen, J. & Virmani, S. M. (1978). J. Art. 30, ICRISAT, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1977). Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. (B) 281:277–294.Google Scholar
Trenbath, B. R. (1979). Proc. Int. Workshop on Intercropping. ICRISAT, Hyderabad, India.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. & Natarajan, M. (1978). Some Aspects and Resource Use in Sorghum-pigeonpea Intercropping. IARI, New Delhi. (Mimeo).Google Scholar
Williams, W. A., Loomis, R. S. & Lepley, C. R. (1965). Crop Sci. 5:211–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar