Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T08:55:20.521Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition, production efficiency and yield stability of finger millet and legume additive design intercropping

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 March 2020

Yayeh Bitew Open the ORCID record for Yayeh Bitew [Opens in a new window] ,
Getachew Alemayehu Open the ORCID record for Getachew Alemayehu [Opens in a new window] ,
Enyew Adgo Open the ORCID record for Enyew Adgo [Opens in a new window]  and
Alemayehu Assefa Open the ORCID record for Alemayehu Assefa [Opens in a new window]
Yayeh Bitew*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Bahir Dar University, P.O. Box 5501, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia Crop Research Section, Amhara Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 527, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
Getachew Alemayehu
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Bahir Dar University, P.O. Box 5501, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
Enyew Adgo
Affiliation:
Department of soil and Neutral Resource Management, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Bahir Dar University, P.O. Box 5501, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
Alemayehu Assefa
Affiliation:
Crop Research Section, Amhara Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 527, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
*
Author for correspondence: Yayeh Bitew, E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Currently, the unchecked increase in human population results in increased demand for agricultural lands. Growing two or more crops simultaneously is one of the mechanisms to reduce this problem. A field experiment was conducted in northwestern Ethiopia during 2017 and 2018 cropping seasons. Two legume crops [haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) and lupine (Lupinus angustifolius)] were intercropped with finger millet (Eleusine coracana) using two intercrop planting methods (row and mixture) and three finger millet-legume planting ratios (100.0%:75.0%, 100.0%:50.0% and 100.0%:25.0% of the respective recommended seed rate of sole crops). Two sole crop finger millets (planted in rows and broadcast) and two sole legume crops (haricot bean and lupine) were included as checks. The experiment comprised a randomized complete block design with three replications. Results indicated intercropped finger millet and total land output yield from finger millet-haricot bean row intercropping at a 100:50 planting ratio and sole finger millet planted in a row improved better yield stability. Finger millet-haricot bean row intercropping at a 100:50 planting ratio also resulted in higher grain yields of the component crops, area time equivalent ratio (1.34), relative production (38.1%) and economic (314.0%) efficiencies with a relatively lower component crop competitive ratio. Thus, this cropping system offered increased productivity and economic return and is a viable option for increasing household food security.

Keywords

Mixed intercroppingproduction efficiencyrow intercroppingyield stability
Type
Research Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 2021 , pp. 108 - 119
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Akuja, TE, Akundabweni, LS and Chweya, JA (2003) Effect of intercropping finger millet with two indigenous edible legumes at different nitrogen levels at Kabete and Njoro, Kenya. East African Journal of Rural Development 9, 81–89.Google Scholar
Alemayehu, A, Tamado, A, Nigusie, D, Yigzaw, D, Kinde, T and Wortmann, CS (2016) Maize-common bean-lupine intercrops productivity and profitability in maize-based cropping system of Northwestern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Journal of Science and Technology 9, 69–85.Google Scholar
Arega, A, Manyong, VM and Gockowski, J (2006) The production efficiency of intercropping annual and perennial crops in southern Ethiopia: a comparison of distance functions and production frontiers. Agricultural Systems 91, 51–70.Google Scholar
Baker, EF and Yusuf, Y (1976) Mixed cropping research at the Institute for Agricultural Research, Samaru, Nigeria. Report of a Symposium on Intercropping with Semi-Arid Areas, 10–12 May 1976, Morogoro, Tanzania, Ottawa, Canada: International Development Research Centre, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
Bantie, Y, Fetien, A and Tadesse, D (2014) Competition indices of intercropped lupine and small cereals in additive series in West Gojjam, North Western Ethiopia. American Journal of Plant Sciences 5, 1296–1305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, GR and Hartge, KH (1986) Bulk density. In Klute, A (ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 1: Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd Edn., Madison: Wisc. ASA and SSSA, pp. 364–367.Google Scholar
Bray, RH and Kurz, LT (1945) Determination of total, organic and available forms of phosphate in soil. Soil Science 59, 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremner, JM and Mulvaney, CS (1982) Nitrogen total. In Page, AL (ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2. Chemical and Microbiological Properties. 2nd Edn. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, pp. 595–624.Google Scholar
Brintha, I and Seran, TH (2009) Effect of paired row planting of radish intercropped with vegetable amaranths on yield components of radish in sandy regosol. Journal of Agricultural Science 4, 19–28.Google Scholar
Chandra, A, Pardha, SP, Maikhuri, RK, Saxena, KG and Rao, KS (2010) Assessment of monetary budget in traditional agrodiversity management: a case study of central Himalayan Village ecosystem. Phytomorphology 60, 137–149.Google Scholar
Connolly, J, Goma, HC and Rahim, K (2001) The information content of indicators in intercropping research. Agricultural Ecology and Environments 87: 191–207.Google Scholar
FAO (2008) Guide to laboratory establishment for plant nutrient analysis. FAO fertilizer and plant nutrition bulletin 19, Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
Gee, GW and Bauder, JW (1986) Particle-size analysis. In Klute, A (ed.), Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods, 2nd Edn. Madison, WI: ASA, SSSA, pp. 383–411.Google Scholar
Getachew, A, Amare, G and Woldeyesus, S (2008) Yield potential and land-use efficiency of wheat and faba bean mixed intercropping. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28, 257–263.Google Scholar
Gomez, KA and Gomez, AA (1984) Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Heanes, DL (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
Hiebsch, CK and Macollam, RE (1980) Area time equivalency ratio. A method for evaluating the productivity of intercrops. Agronomy Journal 75, 15–22.Google Scholar
Hondrade, FR, Hondrade, E, Zheng, L, Elazegui, F, Duque, EJ, Mundt, CC, Vera Cruz, CM and Garrett, KA (2017) Cropping system diversification for food production in Mindanao rubber plantations: a rice cultivar mixture and rice intercropped with mung bean. PeerJ 5, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joliffe, PA and Wanjau, FM (1999) Competition and productivity in crop mixtures: some properties of productive intercrops. The Journal of Agricultural Science 132, 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josiah, AA and Tanko, MU (2015) Assessing the land equivalent ratio and stability of yield of two cultivars of sorghum – Soybean to Row intercropping system. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 5, 144–149.Google Scholar
Landon, JR (1991) Booker Tropical Soil Manual: A Handbook for Soil Survey and Agricultural Land Evaluation in the Tropics and Subtropics. Essex, New York: Longman Scientific and Technical.Google Scholar
Laurent, B, Hauggaard-Nielsen, H, Naudin, C and Corre-Hellou, G (2015) Ecological principles underlying the increase of productivity achieved by cereal-grain legume intercrops in organic farming. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 35, 911–935.Google Scholar
Li, L, Long, Z and Fusuo, Z, (2013) Crop mixtures and the mechanisms of overyielding. In Levin, SA (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Biodiversity, 2nd ed., vol. 2. pp. 382–395. Waltham, MA: Academic Press. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-384719-5.00363-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maitra, S, Ghosh, DC, Sounda, P, Jana, PK and Roy, DK (2000) Productivity, competition and economics of intercropping legumes in finger millet (Eleusine coracana) at different fertility levels. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 70, 824–828.Google Scholar
Malezieux, E, Crozat, Y and Dupraz, C (2009) Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29, 43–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naudin, C, Corre-Hellou, G, Pineau, S, Crozat, Y and Jeuffroy, MH (2010) The effect of various dynamics of N availability on winter pea–wheat intercrops: crop growth, N partitioning and symbiotic N2 fixation. Field Crops Research 119, 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panda, SC (2010) Agronomy. Jedhpur, India: Agrobios (India), pp. 99–137.Google Scholar
Prasannakumar, BH, Halikatti, SI and Ninganur, BT (2009) Sustainable intercrop association of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) in little millet (Panicum sumatrence L.). Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 22, 887–888.Google Scholar
Rao, MR and Morgado, LB (1984) A review of maize-beans and maize-cowpea intercrop systems in the semiarid northeast brazi. Pesq. agropec. bras. Brasília 19, 179–192.Google Scholar
Rao, NG, Rana, BS and Tarhalkar, PP (1981) Stability, productivity, and profitability of some intercropping systems in dryland agriculture. In Rana, BS and Tarhalkar, PP (eds), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Intercropping. Hyderabad, India, 10–13 January 1979: pp. 292–298.Google Scholar
Raseduzzaman, MD (2016) Intercropping for enhanced yield stability and food security. MSc. thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, pp. 1–59.Google Scholar
Raun, WR, Barreto, HJ and Westerman, RL (1993) Use of stability analysis for long-term soil fertility experiments. Agronomy Journal 85, 159–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samant, TK (2015) System productivity, profitability, sustainability and soil health as influenced by rice based cropping systems under mid central table land zone of Odisha. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences 7, 746–749.Google Scholar
Sankaranarayanan, K, Nalayini, P, Sabesh, M, Rajendran, K, Nachane, P, Mumbai, QE and Gopalakrishnan, N (2011) Multi-tier cropping system for profitability and stability in Bt cotton production. Technical Bulletin No.2, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
SAS (Statistical Analysis System) Institute (2008) SAS/AF® 9.2 Procedure Guide, 2nd Edn. Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Smith, RG, Menalled, FD and Robertson, GP (2007) Temporal yield variability under conventional and alternative management systems. Agronomy Journal 99, 1629–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thilakarathna, S and Raizada, N (2015) A review of nutrient management studies involving finger millet in the semi-arid tropics of Asia and Africa: review. Agronomy 5, 262–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thimonier, A, Sedivy, I and Schleppi, P (2010) Estimating leaf area index in different types of mature forest stands in Switzerland: a comparison of methods. European Journal of Forest Research 129, 543–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsubo, M, Walker, S and Ogindo, HO (2005) A simulation model of cereal-legume intercropping systems for semi-arid regions II. Model application. Field Crops Research 93, 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van, N, Paln, M, Studer, C, Bielders, LC and Beukes, D (2000) Cropping systems and crop complementarity in dryland agriculture to increase soil water use efficiency: a review. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 48, 213–236.Google Scholar
Vandermeer, J (1989) The Ecology of Intercropping. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yayeh, B, Getachew, A, Enyew, A and Alemayehu, A (2019) Boosting land use efficiency, profitability and productivity of finger millet by intercropping with grain legumes. Cogent Food & Agriculture 5, 1–22.Google Scholar
Yu, Y, Stomph, TJ, Makowski, D and van der Werf, W (2015) Temporal niche differentiation increases the land equivalent ratio of annual intercrops: a meta-analysis. Field Crops Research 184, 133–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, F and Li, L (2003) Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant and Soil 248, 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, LZ, van der Werf, W, Bastiaans, L, Zhang, SP, Li, BG and Spiertz, JH (2008) Light interception and utilization in relay intercrops of wheat and cotton. Field Crops Research 107, 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, G, Zaibin, Y and Shuting, D (2014) Interspecific competitiveness affects the total biomass yield in an alfalfa and corn intercropping system. Field Crops Research 124, 66–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Bitew et al. supplementary material

Table S1

Download Bitew et al. supplementary material(File)
File 40.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Bitew et al. supplementary material

Table S2

Download Bitew et al. supplementary material(File)
File 32.3 KB