Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-04T19:35:39.430Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analysis of maize–common bean intercrops in semi-arid Kenya

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

C. J. Pilbeam ,
J. R. Okalebo ,
L. P. Simmonds  and
K. W. Gathua
C. J. Pilbeam
Affiliation:
Chemistry Division, National Agricultural Research Centre – Muguga, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, PO Box 30148, Nairobi, Kenya
J. R. Okalebo
Affiliation:
Chemistry Division, National Agricultural Research Centre – Muguga, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, PO Box 30148, Nairobi, Kenya
L. P. Simmonds
Affiliation:
Department of Soil Science, University of Reading, London Road, Reading RGI 5AQ, UK
K. W. Gathua
Affiliation:
Chemistry Division, National Agricultural Research Centre – Muguga, Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, PO Box 30148, Nairobi, Kenya
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Maize (Zea mays L.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) were each sown at four plant densities, including zero, in a bivariate factorial design at Kiboko Rangeland Research Station, Kenya during the long and short rains of 1990. The design gave nine intercrops with different proportions of maize and beans, and six sole crops, three of maize and three of beans. Seed yields in both the sole crops were not significantly affected by plant density, so the mean yield was used to calculate the Land Equivalent Ratio (LER), which averaged 1·09 in the long rains but only 0·87 in the short rains. These low values were apparently due to the fact that beans failed to nodulate and fix nitrogen in the study area. The difference in LER between seasons was probably caused by differences in the amount and distribution of rain in relation to crop growth. Maize was more competitive than bean, each maize plant being equivalent to between 0·7 and 3·4 bean plants depending upon the treatment and the season.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 123 , Issue 2 , October 1994 , pp. 191 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Azam-Ali, S. N., Matthews, R. B., Williams, J. H. & Peacock, J. M. (1990). Light use, water uptake and performance of individual components of a sorghum/groundnut intercrop. Experimental Agriculture 26, 413–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. A. & Francis, C. A. (1985). Transgressive yielding in bean:maize intercrops; interference in time and space. Field Crops Research 11, 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, J. (1986). On difficulties with replacement-series methodology in mixture experiments. Journal of Applied Ecology 23, 125–137.Google Scholar
Davis, J. H. C., Amézquita, M. C. & Muñioz, J. E. (1981). Border effects and optimum plot sizes for climbing beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) and maize in association and monoculture. Experimental Agriculture 17, 127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, N. M. (1977). Studies in mixed cropping. I. Seasonal differences in relative productivity of crop mixtures and pure stands in the Kenya highlands. Experimental Agriculture 13, 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, C. A., Prager, M. & Tejada, 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.Google Scholar
Giller, K. E., Ormesher, J. & Awah, F. M. (1991). Nitrogen transfer from Phaseolus bean to intercropped maize measured using 15N-enrichment and 15N-isotope dilution methods. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 23, 339–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, D., Natarajan, M. & Willey, R. W. (1987). Physiological basis for yield advantage in a sorghum/groundnut intercrop exposed to drought. 1. Dry-matter production, yield, and light interception. Field Crops Research 17, 259–272.Google Scholar
Jones, M. J. (1987). Soil water and crop production in Botswana. Soil Use and Management 3, 14–19.Google Scholar
McGilchrist, C. A. & Trenbath, B. R. (1971). A revised analysis of plant competition experiments. Biometrics 27, 659–671.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.Google Scholar
Nadar, H. M. (1983). Intercropping and intercrop component interaction under varying rainfall conditions in Eastern Kenya. 1. Maize/Bean intercrop. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 44, 166–175.Google Scholar
Nadar, H. M. & Faught, W. A. (1983). Effect of legumes on the yield of associated and subsequent maize in intercropping and rotation systems without nitrogen fertilizer. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 44, 127–136.Google Scholar
Nadar, H. M., Chui, J. N., Waweru, E. S., Bendera, N. & Faught, W. A. (1981). Agronomy research for marginal rainfall areas. Record of Research Annual Report 1977–1980, pp. 36–104. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute.Google Scholar
Pilbeam, C. J., Mahapatra, B. S. & Wood, M. (1993). Effect of soil matric potential on gross rates of nitrogen mineralization in an orthic ferralsol from Kenya. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 25, 1409–1413.Google Scholar
Rees, D. J. (1986). Crop growth, development and yield in semi-arid conditions in Botswana. II. The effects of intercropping Sorghum bicolor with Vigna unguiculata. Experimental Agricultural 22, 169–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snaydon, R. W. (1991). Replacement or additive designs for competition studies? Journal of Applied Ecology 28, 930–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, J. I. & Kashasha, D. A. R. (1983). Rainfall criteria to enable response farming through crop-based climate analysis. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 44, 58–79.Google Scholar
Touber, L. (1983). Soils and vegetation of the Amboseli-Kibwezi area. Reconnaissance Soil Survey Report No. R6 (Eds Van der Pouw, B. J. A. & Van Engelen, V. W. P.). Kenya Soil Survey, Nairobi.Google Scholar
Trenbath, B. R. (1974). Biomass productivity of mixtures. Advances in Agronomy 26, 177–210.Google Scholar
Vallis, I., Haydock, K. P., Ross, P. J. & Henzell, E. F. (1967). Isotopic studies on the uptake of nitrogen by pasture plants. III. The uptake of small additions of 15N-labelled fertilizer by Rhodes grass and Townsville lucerne. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 18, 865–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vandermeer, J. (1984). Plant competition and the yield density relationship. Journal of Theoretical Biology 109, 393–399.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. (1979). Intercropping – its importance and research needs. Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts 32, 1–10.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.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. & Rao, M. R. (1980). A competitive ratio for quantifying competition between intercrops. Experimental Agriculture 16, 117–125.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 experiment on chickpea/safflower. Experimental Agriculture 17, 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar