Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T05:18:54.449Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competitive ability of maize and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) cultivars intercropped in different environments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

G. D. S. P. Rezende  and
M. A. P. Ramalho
G. D. S. P. Rezende
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia, Escola Superior de Agricultura de Lavras, CEP 37200–000, Lavras, MG, Brasil
M. A. P. Ramalho
Affiliation:
Departamento de Biologia, Escola Superior de Agricultura de Lavras, CEP 37200–000, Lavras, MG, Brasil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Sixteen common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars with different life cycles and growth habits were intercropped with four maize cultivars, to evaluate the competitive ability of each yield component, following a methodology similar to that used for diallel crosses. The experiments were done in 1991 at two sites in Brazil. The intercropping combinations were evaluated using an 8 × 8 quadratic lattice design with three replications. Two other experiments were done on monocultures, using a randomized complete block design with three replications. The variable considered was ‘maize equivalent yield’, obtained by adjusting for the price difference between the species. The method used showed that the differences in performance of the many intercropped combinations can be explained by ‘general complementing ability’ (gĉa) of each cultivar, since there was no significant effect of ‘specific complementing ability’ (sĉa). The best maize cultivars to be intercropped with common bean (indicated by high gĉa values) were BR–201 and C–525, which produced high grain yields when intercropped without detrimental effects on legume yields. FT–84–292, Carioca 300V and ESAL506 were the common bean cultivars with the highest yields when intercropped, which was also reflected in their good performance in monoculture. Significant cultivar × location interactions occurred only in monocultures, supporting the belief that intercropping is a more stable cropping system.

Type
Crops and Soils
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 123 , Issue 2 , October 1994 , pp. 185 - 190
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

Aidar, H., Vieira, C., Oliveira, L. M. de & Vieira, M. (1979). Cultura associada de feijão e milho. II. Efeitos de populações de plantio simultâneo de ambas as culturas. Revista Ceres 26, 102–111.Google Scholar
Araújo, A. G. de (1978). Sistemas de culturas milho-feijão; efeitos de cultivares e população de plantas de milho em três sistemas de consorciação. MS thesis, UFV.Google Scholar
Andrade, M. J. B. de, Oliveira, L. A. A. de, Souza, Filho B. F. de, Pereira, R. P. & Parente, F. C. (1980). Efeitos de diferentes populações de plantas na consorciação milho × feijão. Technical Communiqué 49, PESAGRO.Google Scholar
Candal, Neto J. F. (1985). Cultivo consorciado de milho com feijão; efeitos da altura das plantas de milho e da densidade populacional. MS thesis, UFV.Google Scholar
Candal, Neto J. F., Pacova, B. E. V. & Guidoni, A. L. (1986). Comportamento de cultivares de feijão em cultivo exclusivo e associado ao milho no Espírito Santo. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 21, 1155–1159.Google Scholar
Cruz, J. C., Correa, L. A., Ramalho, M. A. P., Silva, A. F. da & Oliveira, A. C. de (1984). Avaliação cultivares de milho associado com feijão. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 19, 163–168.Google Scholar
Cruz, J. C., Ramalho, M. A. P. & Salles, L. T. G. (1987). Utilização de cultivares de milho prolifíco no consórcio milho-feijãao. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 22, 203–211.Google Scholar
Francis, C. A. (1989). Biological efficiencies in multiplecropping systems. Advances in Agronomy 42, 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Francis, C. A., Prager, M., Laing, D. R. & Flor, C. A. (1978). Genotype × environment interactions in bush bean cultivars in monoculture and associated with maize. Crop Science 18, 237–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, C. O. & Eberhart, S. A. (1966). Analysis and interpretation of the variety cross diallel and related populations. Biometrics 22, 439–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geraldi, I. O. (1983). Método de análise estatística para combinação de cultivares em consórcio. Doctoral thesis, ESALQ/USP.Google Scholar
Hamblin, J., Rowell, J. G. & Redden, R. (1976). Selection for mixed cropping. Euphytica 25, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. & Shimamoto, Y. (1973). Methods of analysing competition with special reference to herbage plants. 1. Establishment. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 81, 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ofori, F. & Stern, W. R. (1987). Cereal–legume intercropping systems. Advances in Agronomy 41, 41–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oliveira, A. C. de, Morais, A. R. de, Souza, Junior C. L. de & Gama, E. E. G. e (1987). Análise de cruzamentos dialélicos parciais repetidos em vários ambientes. Revista Brasileira de Genética 10, 517–533.Google Scholar
Pereira, Filho I. A., Cruz, J. C. & Ramalho, M. A. P. (1991). Produtividade e índice de espiga de três cultivares de milho em sistema de consórcio com o feijão comum. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 26, 745–751.Google Scholar
Ramalho, M. A. P., Oliveira, A. C. de & Garcia, J. C. (1983). Recomendações para o planejamento e análise de experimentos com as culturas de milho e feijão consorciadas. Documents 2, EMBRAPA/CNPMS.Google Scholar
Ramalho, M. A. P., Silva, A. F. da & Aidar, H. (1984). Cultivares de milho e feijão em monocultivo e em dois sistemas de consorciação. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 19, 837–843.Google Scholar
Reis, P. W. (1984). Análise de crescimento de milho e feijão em monocultivo e consorciados em diferenles arranjos de semadura destas culturas. MS thesis, ESAL.Google Scholar
Souza, Filho B. F. & Andrade, M. J. B. de (1982). Influência de diferentes populações de plantas no consorcio milho-feijāo. In Anais da la Reunião Nacional de Pesquisa de Feijão, (Ed. EMBRAPA/CNPAF), pp. 103–104. Goiânia, Brasil: EMBRAPA/CNPAF.Google Scholar
Vieira, C. (1980). Plantio de feijão na cultura do milho. Informe Agropecuário 6, 45–48.Google Scholar
Voysest, O. & Dessert, M. (1991). Bean cultivars: classes and commercial seed types. In Common Beans: Research for Crop Improvement (Eds van Schoonhoven, A. & Voysest, O.), pp. 119–159. Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
White, J. W. & Izquierdo, J. (1991). Physiology of yield potential and stress tolerance. In Common Beans: Research for Crop Improvement (Eds van Schoonhoven, A. & Voysest, O.), pp. 287–382. Wallingford: CAB International.Google Scholar
White, J. W. & Singh, S. P. (1991). Sources and inheritance of earliness in tropically adapted indeterminate common bean. Euphytica 55, 15–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wijesinha, A., Federer, W. T., Carvalho, J. R. P. & Portes, T. de A. (1982). Some statistical analyses for a maize and beans intercropping experiment. Crop Science 22, 660–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, R. W. (1979 a). Intercropping – its importance and research needs. Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts 32, 1–10.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. (1979 b). Intercropping – its importance and research needs. Part 2. Agronomy and research approaches. Field Crop Abstracts 32, 73–85.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. (1985). Evaluation and presentation of intercropping advantages. Experimental Agriculture 21; 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar