Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:18:50.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium utilization efficiency in maize/mungbean intercropping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. K. Chowdhury  and
E. L. Rosario
M. K. Chowdhury
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of the Philippines at Los Baños, College, Laguna 4031, Philippines
E. L. Rosario
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, University of the Philippines at Los Baños, College, Laguna 4031, Philippines
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Effects of rhizobial inoculation and applied nitrogen on the utilization efficiency of N, P and K were studied in relation to the yield advantage in additive maize/mungbean intercrops at Los Baños, Philippines in 1988. Inoculation increased grain yield of both maize (Zea mays L.) and mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Yield of maize increased by 60% in the sole crop and 71% in the intercrop as the N application rate was increased from 0 to 90 kg/ha, with a corresponding decrease of 29–35% in the yield of the associated mungbean. Intercropping reduced mungbean yield by 35–57%; maize was less affected. Inoculation also improved the land equivalent ratio (LER). The highest LER (1·49) was obtained at 30 kg N/ha with inoculation.

Nutrient absorption by both maize and mungbean was reduced due to intercropping, mungbean being more affected than maize. The reductions in the N absorption efficiency of maize ranged from 4 to 37% and those of mungbean from 37 to 58%. Increases in N rate increased N absorption of maize but caused greater reductions in N absorption of mungbean. Reductions in P absorption by intercropped maize declined with increases in applied N and with inoculation. Inoculation, however, had a lesser effect on K absorption efficiency.

Land equivalent ratio analysis in terms of N, P and K utilization efficiency showed that the increase in LER over unity was due largely to a higher total uptake of nutrients by the component crops in the mixture than by the sole crops. The greater efficiency of intercrops than of the sole crops in converting absorbed nutrients to grains also contributed to the yield advantage.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 122 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 193 - 199
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

REFERENCES

Chowdhury, M. K. (1989). Utilization efficiency of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium as related to yield advantage in corn and mungbean intercrops. PhD thesis, University of the Philippines at Los Baños, Philippines.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, M. K. & Rosario, E. L. (1992 a). Utilization efficiency of applied nitrogen as related to yield advantage in maize/mungbean intercropping. Field Crops Research 30, 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chowdhury, M. K. & Rosario, E. L. (1992 b). Phosphorus utilization efficiency as affected by component population, rhizobial inoculation and applied nitrogen in maize/mungbean intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 28, 255–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalal, R. C. (1977). Effect of intercropping of maize with soyabean on grain yield. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 54, 189–191.Google Scholar
Kraokaw, S. (1982). Planting configuration, nitrogen fertilization and mungbean seed inoculation in corn/mungbean intercrops. MS thesis, University of the Philippines at Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.Google Scholar
Marshall, B. & Willey, R. W. (1983). Radiation interception and growth in an intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut. Field Crops Research 7, 141–160.CrossRefGoogle 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
Ofori, F. & Stern, W. R. (1986). Maize/cowpea intercrop system: effect of nitrogen fertilizer on productivity and efficiency. Field Crops Research 14, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ofori, F. & Stern, W. R. (1987). Cereal–legume intercropping systems. Advances in Agronomy 41, 41–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palada, M. C. & Harwood, R. R. (1974). The biological stability and productivity of intercropping system involving annual field crops. A lecture given to Tropical Ecology Course (mimeo.). Department of Botany, University of the Philippines at Los Baños, Philippines.Google Scholar
Searle, P. G. E., Comudom, Y., Shedden, D. C. & Nance, R. A. (1981). Effect of maize + legume intercropping systems and fertilizer nitrogen on crop yields and residual nitrogen. Field Crops Research 4, 133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trenbath, B. R. (1976). Plant interactions in mixed crop communities. In Multiple Cropping (Eds Papendick, R. I., Sanchez, P. A. & Triplett, G. B.), pp. 129–169. Madison, Wisconsin: American Society of Agronomy Special Publication no. 27.Google Scholar
Trenbath, B. R. (1986). Resource use by intercrops. In Multiple Cropping Systems (Ed. Francis, C. A.), pp. 57–81. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co.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