Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:34:47.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maize–common bean intercropping to optimize maize-based crop production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2017

A. ALEMAYEHU ,
T. TAMADO ,
D. NIGUSSIE ,
D. YIGZAW ,
T. KINDE  and
C. S. WORTMANN
A. ALEMAYEHU*
Affiliation:
Crop Research Directorate, Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 8, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
T. TAMADO
Affiliation:
School of Plant Science, Haramaya University, P.O. Box 138, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
D. NIGUSSIE
Affiliation:
School of Plant Science, Haramaya University, P.O. Box 138, Dire Dawa, Ethiopia
D. YIGZAW
Affiliation:
LIVE Project, International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
T. KINDE
Affiliation:
Crop modelling and GIS for Agricultural Systems, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
C. S. WORTMANN
Affiliation:
Agronomy and horticulture, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, P.O. Box 830915, Lincoln, NE 68583-0915, USA
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Maize (Zea mays L.)–common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) intercropping is a recent practice in north-western Ethiopia and there is limited information on its productivity. A field experiment was conducted at South Achefer and Mecha in north-western Ethiopia during the 2012 and 2013 crop growing seasons to determine combinations of intercrop planting arrangement (IPA) with nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) rates for optimizing maize–common bean intercrop productivity and profitability. Treatments consisted of factorial combinations of two IPA (single row of common bean between maize rows and paired rows of common bean between paired rows of maize), two N rates (92 and 128 kg N/ha) and two P rates (20 and 40 kg P/ha). A sole crop maize with recommended fertilizer rate of 128/40 kg N/P/ha was used as a control treatment. The treatments were laid out in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Results indicated that land equivalent ratio was more than unity, and the intercrop system was 20% more productive relative to the sole crop. Maize equivalent yields were highest for most of the intercrop treatments relative to mono-crop maize with yield advantage of 14% from single row IPA with 128/20 kg N/P/ha. Single row IPA with 128/20 kg N/P/ha and paired row IPA with 92/20 kg N/P/ha increased financial returns by 16 and 8% relative to sole crop maize, respectively. Smallholder maize-based cropping of north-western Ethiopia could be nutritionally, agronomically and financially improved through maize–common bean intercropping of single row IPA with appropriate nutrient management.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 155 , Issue 7 , September 2017 , pp. 1124 - 1136
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

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. & Rao, M. R. (1982). Performance of maize–soybean intercrop combination in the tropics: results of a multi-location study. Field Crops Research 5, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatnagar, G. S. & Chaplot, P. C. (1991). Evaluation of intercropping of winter maize with legumes. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture 9, 52–55.Google Scholar
Bogale, T., Debele, T., Gebeyehu, S., Tana, T., Geleta, N. & Workayehu, T. (2002). Development of appropriate cropping systems for various maize producing regions of Ethiopia. In Enhancing the Contribution of Maize to Food Security in Ethiopia: Proceedings of the Second National Maize Workshop of Ethiopia, 12–16 November 2001, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (Eds Nigussie, M., Tanner, D. & Twumasi-Afriyie, S.), pp. 61–70. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
Bray, R. H. & Kurtz, L. T. (1945). Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus in soils. Soil Science 59, 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, J. M. & Mulvaney, C. S. (1982). Nitrogen – total. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 2 (Eds Page, A. L., Miller, R. H. and Keeney, D. R.), pp. 595–624. Madison, WI: ASA, SSSA.Google Scholar
Cardoso, E. J. B. N., Nogueira, M. A. & Ferraz, S. M. G. (2007). Biological N2 fixation and mineral N in common bean–maize intercropping or sole cropping in southeastern Brazil. Experimental Agriculture 43, 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassman, K. G., Dobermann, A. & Walters, D. T. (2002). Agroecosystems, nitrogen use efficiency, and nitrogen management. Ambio 31, 132–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center). (1988). From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economic Training Manual. Revised edn. Mexico City, Mexico: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
CSA (Central Statistical Agency). (2015). Area, Production and Yield of Crops for Private Peasant Holdings for Meher Season 2014/2015 (2007 E.C). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: CSA.Google Scholar
Gee, G. W. & Bauder, J. W. (1986). Particle-size analysis. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd edn (Ed. Klute, A.), pp. 383–411. Agronomy No. 9 (Part 1). Madison, WI: ASA, SSSA.Google Scholar
Gichuru, M. P., Bationo, A., Bekunda, M. A., Goma, H. C., Mafongonya, P. L., Mugendi, D. N., Murwira, H. M., Nandwa, S. M., Nyathi, P. & Swift, M. J. (2003). Soil Fertility Management in Africa: A Regional Perspective. Nairobi, Kenya: Academic Science Publishers (ASP) and Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility of CIAT.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. & Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York,NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Halm, A. T. (1978). Tentative soil fertility rating for available phosphorus. Ghana Journal of Agricultural Science 11, 11–15.Google Scholar
Heanes, D. L. (1984). Determination of total organic C in soils by an improved chromic acid digestion and spectrophotometric procedure. Communications in Soil Science Plant Analysis 15, 1191–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaizzi, K. C., Byalebeka, J., Semalulu, O., Alou, I., Zimwanguyizza, W., Nansamba, A., Musinguzi, P., Ebanyat, P., Hyuha, T. & Wortmann, C. S. (2012). Maize response to fertilizer and nitrogen use efficiency in Uganda. Agronomy Journal 104, 73–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matusso, J. M. M., Mugwe, J. N. & Mucheru-Muna, M. (2014). Potential role of cereal-legume intercropping systems in integrated soil fertility management in smallholder farming systems of Sub-Saharan Africa. Research Journal of Agriculture & Environmental Management 3, 162–174.Google Scholar
Mucheru-Muna, M., Pypers, P., Mugendi, D., Kung'u, J., Mugwe, J., Merckx, R. & Vanlauwe, B. (2010). A staggered maize–legume intercrop arrangement robustly increases crop yields and economic returns in the highlands of central Kenya. Field Crops Research 115, 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mukhala, E., De Jager, J. M., Van Rensberg, L. D. & Walker, S. (1999). Dietary nutrient deficiency in small-scale farming communities in South Africa: benefits of intercropping maize (Zea mays) and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Nutrition Research 19, 629–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pineda, P., Kipe-Nolt, J. A. & Rojas, F. (1994). Rhizobium inoculation increases of bean and maize yields in intercrops on farms in the Peruvian Sierra. Experimental Agriculture 30, 311–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prasad, R. B. & Brook, R. M. (2005). Effect of varying maize densities on intercropped maize and soybean in Nepal. Experimental Agriculture 41, 365–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SAS (Statistical Analysis System) Institute (2013). SAS/AF® 9·4 Procedure Guide, 2nd edn. Cary, NC: SAS Inst.Google Scholar
Schwartz, H. F., Brick, M. A., Harveson, R. M. & Franc, G. D. (2004). Dry Bean Production and Pest Management, 2nd ed. Bulletin 562A. Minneapolis, MN: APS Press.Google Scholar
Seran, T. H. & Brintha, I. (2010). Review on maize based intercropping. Journal of Agronomy 9, 135–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siame, J., Willey, R. W. & Morse, S. (1997). A study of the partitioning of applied nitrogen between maize and beans in intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 33, 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siame, J., Willey, R. W. & Morse, S. (1998). The response of maize/Phaseolus intercropping to applied nitrogen on oxisols in Northern Zambia. Field Crops Research 55, 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, W. R. (1993). Nitrogen fixation and transfer in intercrop systems. Field Crops Research 34, 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tadesse, T., Haque, I. & Aduayi, E. A. (1991). Soil, Plant, Water, Fertilizer, Animal Manure and Compost Analysis. Working Document No. 13. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: International Livestock Research Center for Africa.Google Scholar
Tadesse, T., Liben, M., Assefa, A. & Marie, A. (2007). Maize fertilizer response at the major maize growing areas of northwest Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the 1st Annual Regional Conference on Completed Crop Research Activities, 14–17 August 2006 (Eds Ermiase, A., Akalu, T., Melaku, W., Tadesse, D. and Tilahun, T.), pp. 35–43. Bahir Dar, Ethiopia: Amhara Regional Agricultural Research Institute.Google Scholar
Tadesse, T., Assefa, A., Liben, M. & Tadesse, Z. (2013). Effects of nitrogen split-application on productivity, nitrogen use efficiency and economic benefits of maize production in Ethiopia. International Journal of Agricultural Policy and Research 1, 109–115.Google Scholar
Tana, T. & Mulatu, E. (2000). Evaluation of sorghum, maize and common bean cropping system in east Hararghe, Eastern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Science 17, 33–46.Google Scholar
Tolessa, D. (1994). Relay cropping of different crops in short cycle maize, Guetto, at Bako. Sebil 6, 75–79.Google Scholar
Verma, S. P. & Modgal, S. C. (1983). Production potential and economics of fertilizer application as resource constraints in maize-wheat crop sequence. Himachal Journal of Agricultural Research 9, 89–92.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
Woomer, P. L., Bekunda, M. A., Karanja, N. K., Moorehouse, T. & Okalebo, J. R. (1997). Agricultural resource management by smallholder farmers in East Africa. Nature and Resources 34, 22–33.Google Scholar
Woomer, P. L., Lan'gat, M. & Tungani, J. O. (2004). Innovative maize–legume intercropping results in above- and below-ground competitive advantages for understorey legumes. West African Journal of Applied Ecology 6, 85–94.Google Scholar
Workayehu, T. & Wortmann, C. S. (2011). Maize–bean intercrop weed suppression and profitability in Southern Ethiopia. Agronomy Journal 103, 1058–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worku, M., Tuna, H., Nigussie, M. & Deressa, A. (2002). Maize production trends and research in Ethiopia. In Enhancing the Contribution of Maize to Food Security in Ethiopia: Proceedings of the Second National Maize Workshop of Ethiopia, 12–16 November 2001, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia (Eds Nigussie, M., Tanner, D. & Twumasi-Afriyie, S.), pp. 10–14. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
Wortmann, C. S., Schnier, H. F. & Muriuki, A. W. (1996). Estimation of the fertilizer response of maize and bean intercropping using sole crop response equations. African Crop Science Journal 4, 51–55.Google Scholar
Wortmann, C. S., Tarkalson, D. D., Shapiro, C. A., Dobermann, A. R., Ferguson, R. B., Hergert, G. W. & Walters, D. (2011). Nitrogen use efficiency of irrigated corn for three cropping systems in Nebraska. Agronomy Journal 103, 76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadoks, J. C., Chang, T. T. & Konzak, C. F. (1974). A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14, 415–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar