AGRICULTURE AND BIOLOGY JOURNAL OF NORTH AMERICA
ISSN Print: 2151-7517, ISSN Online: 2151-7525, doi:10.5251/abjna.2016.7.2.40.49
© 2016, ScienceHuβ, http://www.scihub.org/ABJNA
Land Equivalent Ratio, Growth, Yield and Yield Components Response of
Mono-cropped vs. Inter-cropped Common Bean and Maize With and
Without Compost Application
Amanullah1*, Faisal Khan1, Haji Muhammad1, Abbas Ullah Jan2 and Ghaffar Ali2
1
Department of Agronomy, 2Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics
The University of Agriculture Peshawar-25130, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa-Pakistan
*Email of the corresponding author: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
Field experiment was conducted to investigate land equivalent ratio (LER), yield and yield
components of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L., cv. Dargai Local) grown alone as mono
cropping and in various combinations (intercropping) in maize (Zea mays L., cv. Azam) with and
without compost application. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design
on farmer‟s field at Dargai, Malakand (Northwest Pakistan) during summer 2012. In case of
intercropping, growing common bean grown as T2 (two alternate rows of each crop) and T 4 (when
maize four rows were grown in center and two rows of bean on each side) had improved growth
(phenological development, plant height, leaves per plant and leaf area), higher yield components
(seeds per pod, pods per plant and 1000 grains weight) and higher yields (biomass yield, grain
yield and harvest index). Application of compost tremendously improved growth, increased yield
and yield components of common bean when grown alone in mono-cropping or inter-cropping.
The land equivalent ratio (LER) was higher in plots treated with compost than without compost
treated plots. Intercropping of common bean under compost treated plots had higher LER when
grown as T2 (1.14) and T4 (1.07) as compared with sole cropping (1.0). All other mixtures with
compost and without compost treated plots had less than one LER and should not be practiced
due to the harmful association between the two crops.
Key words: maize, common bean, intercropping, compost, LER, grain yield
INTRODUCTION
helps to reduce weed populations once the crops are
established (Beets, 1990). Having a variety of root
systems in the soil reduces water loss, increases
water uptake and increases transpiration. This is
important during times of water stress, as
intercropped plants use a larger percentage of
available water from the field than monocropped
plants. Rows of maize in a field with a shorter crop
will reduce the wind speed above the shorter crops
and thus reduce desiccation (Beets, 1990).
Mixed cropping is the practice of growing more than
one crop in a field at a given time, while intercropping
is the practice of growing more than one crop
simultaneously in alternating rows of the same field
(Beets, 1990). The main advantage of intercropping
is the more efficient utilization of the available
resources and the increased productivity compared
with each sole crop of the mixture (Dhima et al.,
2007; Agegnehu et al., 2008; Launay et al., 2009;
Mucheru-
Cereal-grain legume intercropping has potential to
address the soil nutrient depletion on smallholder
farms (Sanginga and Woomer, 2009). The legumes
play an important role in nitrogen fixation (Peoples
and Craswell, 1992), and are important source of
nutrition for both humans and livestock (Nandwa et
al., 2011). The low input and high risk environment
of the smallholder farmer benefits enormously from
intercropping (Rana and Pal, 1999). Cereal and
legumes which has become a popular combination
Muna et al., 2010). Cereal and legume intercropping
is recognized as a common cropping system by the
small scale farmers in developing countries (Ofori
and Stern, 1987; Tsubo and Mukhala, 2003).
Intercropped legumes fix most of their N from the
atmosphere and not compete with cereals for N
resources (Adu-Gyamfi et al., 2007; Vesterager et al.,
2008). Increased leaf cover in intercropping systems
40
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
among farmers was probably due to legumes ability
to combat erosion and raise soil fertility levels
(Matusso et al., 2012). Flexibility, maximization of
profit, minimization of risk, soil conservation and soil
fertility improvement are some of the principal
reasons for smallholder farmers to intercrop their
farms/crops (Matusso et al., 2012). Further to that,
they have the potentials to give higher yield than sole
crops, greater yield stability and efficient use of
nutrients (Seran and Brintha, 2010). Similarly, better
weeds control, improvement of quality by variety
while cereal crops require larger area to produce
same yield as cereals in an intercrop system (Ijoyah,
2012). Maize-legume intercrop could considerably
increase forage quantity and quality and lessening
condition for protein supplement (Ali and Mohammad,
2012).
the waste material is piled at the farm level,
composted and added into the soil he fertility status
can be improved and crop yields can significantly be
increased (Sarwar, 2005). The objective of this
research project was to investigate yield, yield
components and land equivalent ratio of intercropped
maize and common bean with and without compost
application.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Field experiment was conducted to investigate
growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L., cv. Azam)
and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L., Dargai Local)
grown alone as monocropping and in various
combinations (intercropping) with and without
compost application in Northwest Pakistan at farmer
field at Dargai, Malakand, during summer 2012.
Maize and beans are popular intercrop in many parts
The detail of factors and there levels were:
of the world. Farmers can benefit from the high
protein of the beans as well as the improved soil
fertility. Bean-maize intercrop is a common practice
Factor A: Composts (C) having two levels i.e. C1 =
-1
in at high altitudes of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. However,
with compost (1000 kg ha ) and C2 = without
-1
its effect on crop productivity, and economic benefit
Compost (0 kg ha ) and
has not been assessed so for. Organic matter
Factor B: Intercropping (I) having seven levels and
content is very low in Pakistani soils due to which
each was planted in eight rows per plot viz. I1 = Sole
over all fertility status is not higher enough to give the
(maize or common bean), I2 = 2 rows of bean-2 rows
enhanced yield of different crops (Zaka et al., 2004).
of maize and so on, I3 = Bean + maize mixed stand,
In Pakistan, there is lack of research on using
I4 = 2 rows of bean-4 rows of maize-2 rows of bean,
compost in field crops. Huge amounts of leaves,
I5 = 2 rows of maize-4 rows of beans-2 rows of
grass clippings, plant stalks, wines, weeds, twigs and
maize, and I6 = 1 row of maize-1 rows of bean and so
branches and the food wastes like fruit and
on. The detail of different intercropping in eight rows
vegetables scraps, and egg shells are wasted / burnt
each is given in Table 1.
every day that increasing environmental pollution. If
Table-1.
The seven intercropping arrangements used in the field experiment (each in eight rows
plot) with and without compost application.
Rows
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Crop
Stands
T1
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
Sole
maize
crop
T1
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
Sole
common
bean
crop
T2
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
Two
alternate
rows of
maize and
common
bean crops
T3
γ♣γ♣γ♣γ♣
♣γ♣γ♣γ♣γ
γ♣γ♣γ♣γ♣
♣γ♣γ♣γ♣γ
γ♣γ♣γ♣γ♣
♣γ♣γ♣γ♣γ
γ♣γ♣γ♣γ♣
♣γ♣γ♣γ♣γ
Both
crops
grown
mixed
41
T4
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
Four
central
rows of
maize and
two rows of
common
bean on
each side
T5
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
γγγγγγ
γγγγγγ
Four
central
rows of
common
bean and
two rows of
maize on
each side
T6
γγγγγγ
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
γγγγγγ
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
γγγγγγ
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
γγγγγγ
♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
One
alternate
row maize
and
common
bean crop
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
Two separate fields were used viz. one for with
compost and second without. The experiment in each
field was laid out in randomized complete block
design using three replications. Each replication
consisted of seven intercropping methods. A sub-plot
size of 22.4 m by 5.4 m, having 8 rows, 4 m long and
70 cm apart was used. A uniform basal dose of 45 kg
-1
ha P2O5 as single super phosphate was applied and
Table-2.
mixed with the soil during seedbed preparation.
-1
Nitrogen at the rate of 120 kg N ha as urea was
applied to soil in three equal splits (at sowing, first
and second irrigation). Compost (Higo organic plus)
-1
was applied at the rate of 1000 kg ha to all plots in
the experiment under compost. The chemical
analysis (%) of Higo Organic Plus used in the
experiment is given in Table 2.
The chemical analysis (%) of the compost (Higo Organic Plus) used in the experiment.
N
P
K
C/N
OM
OC
---------------------------------------%------------------------2.8
3.0
3.0
4.5
40
11.7
pH
7.1
Statistical Analysis
EC
-1
dSm
8.6
Zn
Cu
Fe
Mn
-1
-----------mg kg (ppm)-------145
56
380
228
values of the plots applied with compost produced
-1
more seeds pod (3) than the plots without compost
-1
(2). Number of pods plant of common ban was
significantly affected by compost, intercropping and
interaction (Table 3). The mean values of the plots
applied with compost produced significantly more
-1
number of pods plant (31) than the plots without
compost (26). Different intercropping resulted in
-1
significantly more pods plant (29-31) than sole
common bean crop (25). Among the intercropping,
-1
the common bean produced maximum pods plant
(31) in T6, followed by T4 (30), while the less number
-1
of pods plant (25) was obtained in T 1. The
interaction between C x I (Fig. 1) indicated that there
was no significant difference in pods per plant of sole
common with and without compost plots. However,
significantly higher pods per plant were recorded for
all intercropped common bean stands under compost
applied plots than plots received no compost.
Thousand grains weight of common ban was
significantly affected by compost, intercropping and
interaction (Table 3). The plots under compost
produced heavier thousand grains weight (306.08 g)
than the plots without compost (298.46 g).
Intercropped common bean crop had higher
thousand grains weight (298.63-315.0 g) than the
sole common bean (297.63 g). Among the
intercropping, the common bean produced maximum
1000 grains weight (315.00 g) in T 6, followed by T2
(301.63 g), while the lowest 1000-grains weight
(297.63 g) was recorded in T 1. The interaction
between C x I (Fig. 2) indicated that there was no
significant difference in 1000-grains weight of
common bean mixed stand with maize or four
common bean rows grown in center of maize crop
with and without compost application. However,
significantly higher 1000-grains weight under
compost applied plots with sole common bean, when
Data was collected on grain yield and yield
components of both crops. The data were
statistically analyzed combined over compost
according to Steel et al. (1997) and means were
compared using LSD test (P < 0.05). In the sole
common bean and maize crops, the grain yield
data was taken on eight rows and then converted
-1
into grain yield (kg ha ). In case of intercropping
the grain yield data was taken on the basis of four
rows of both crops in each plot and then converted
-1
into grain yield (kg ha ).
Land Equivalent Ratio: Land equivalent ratio
(LER) is the most common index adopted in
intercropping to measure the land productivity. It is
often used as an indicator to determine the
efficacy of intercropping (Brintha and Seran,
2009). The LER is a standardized index that is
defined as the relative area required by sole crops
to produce the same yield as intercrops (Mead and
Willey, 1980). The LER is the ratio of land required
by pure (sole) crop to produce the same yield as
that of intercrop was determined according to the
following formula:
LER = YCB in mixed stand + Y MZ in mixed stand
YCB in pure stand
Y MZ in pure stand
Where
LER = Land equivalent ratio
YCB = Yield of common bean crop
YMZ = Yield of maize crop
RESULTS
Compost (C) had significant, while intercropping (I)
and interaction (C x I) had non-significant effect on
-1
seeds pod of common bean (Table 3). The mean
42
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
common bean was grown in one or two alternate
rows with maize, and when two rows of common
bean were grown on each side of four center rows of
maize (Fig. 2). The results indicated that composts
and intercropping had significant effects, while
interaction had non-significant effects on the grain
yield of common bean (Table 3). The mean values of
the plots applied with compost produced significantly
-1
higher grain yield (491 kg ha ) than the plots without
-1
compost (406 kg ha ). Sole bean crop had
-1
significantly higher grain yield (826 kg ha ) than the
-1
various intercropping (346-424 kg ha ). Among the
intercropping, the common bean produced maximum
-1
grain yield (424 kg ha ) in T2, followed by T4 (379 kg
-1
-1
ha ), while the lowest grain yield (346 kg ha ) each
was obtained from T5 and T6.
Compost, intercropping and interaction had
-1
significant effects on number of seeds ear of maize
(Table 4). Plots applied with compost produced
-1
significantly more seeds ear (476) than the plots
without compost (349). The average of intercropped
-1
stands had more number of seeds ear (417) than
the sole maize crop (391). Among the intercropping,
-1
maize produced maximum seeds ear (447) in T6,
followed by T5 (439), while the lowest number of
-1
seeds ear (363) was recorded in T2. The interaction
between C x I (Fig. 3) indicated that significantly
higher number of seeds per ear was observed for
sole and all intercropped maize plots under compost
applied plots. However, the increase was higher with
compost than without compost when maize was
grown as sole crop (Fig. 3). Compost had significant
while intercropping and interaction had non-1
significant effects on number of rows ear (Table 4).
Plots applied with compost produced significantly
-1
more rows ear (13) than the plots without compost
(12). Compost and intercropping had significant
effects, while interaction had non-significant effects
on the thousand grains weight of maize (Table 4).
The mean values of the plots applied with compost
produced higher thousand grains weight (214.88 g)
than the plots without compost (208.58 g). Sole
maize crop had higher thousand grains weight
(218.38 g) than the weight of intercropping. Among
the intercropping, maximum 1000-grains weight
(214.63 g) was recorded for T2, followed by T4 and T5
each (211.50 g), while the lowest 1000-grains weight
(204.00 g) was recorded for T6. Grain yield was
significantly affected by compost and intercropping,
while interaction had non-significant effects on the
grain yield of maize (Table 4). The plots under
-1
compost produced higher grain yield (1600 kg ha )
-1
than the plots without compost (1157 kg ha ). The
-1
sole maize crop had higher grain yield (2344 kg ha )
than the average grain yield of all intercropped
-1
stands (1185 kg ha ). Among the intercropping, the
maize crop produced maximum grain yield (1228 kg
-1
ha ) when grown as T4, followed by T6 (1217 kg ha
1
-1
), while the lowest grain yield (1083 kg ha ) was
obtained in T5.
-1
Fig.1. Number of pods plant of common bean as
affected by interaction between intercropping and
compost (C x I).
Fig.2. Thousand grains weight (g) of common bean
as affected by interaction between intercropping and
compost (C x I).
43
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
Table-3.
-1
-1
Number of seeds pod , pods plant , 1000-grains weight and grain yield of common bean as
affected by intercropping with and without compost application.
Intercropping
T1=Sole Bean Crop
T2=2 BR + 2 MR + 2 BR + 2 MR
T3=Bean mixed with maize
T4=2 BR + 4 MR + 2 BR
T5=2 MR + 4 BR + 2 MR
T6=1 BR + 1 MR + 1 BR + 1 MR
LSD (P ≤ 0.05)
Compost
With Compost
Without Compost
LSD (P ≤ 0.05)
Intercropping x Compost
Seeds
-1
pod
Pods
-1
plant
1000-grains weight
(g)
3
2
3
3
2
2
ns
25
29
29
30
29
31
3.1
297.63
301.63
300.25
300.50
298.63
315.00
6.01
Grain
yield
-1
(kg ha )
826
424
368
379
346
346
122.4
3
2
0.4
ns
31
26
1.8
*
306.08
298.46
3.43
*
491
406
70.7
ns
Where: * = significant at P ≤ 0.0, ns = Non-significant, LSD = Least Significant Difference, BR =
and MR = Maize Row
Table-4.
Bean Row
-1
Number of seeds and rows ear , 1000-grains weight and grain yield of maize as affected by
intercropping with and without compost application.
Intercropping
T1=Sole Maize Crop
T2=2 BR + 2 MR + 2 BR + 2 MR
T3=Maize mixed with bean
T4=2 BR + 4 MR + 2 BR
T5=2 MR + 4 BR + 2 MR
T6=1 BR + 1 MR + 1 BR + 1 MR
LSD (P ≤ 0.05)
Compost
With Compost
Without Compost
LSD (P ≤ 0.05)
Intercropping x Compost
Seeds
-1
ear
Rows
-1
ear
1000-grains weight
(g)
391
363
407
428
439
447
37.6
13
13
13
13
12
12
ns
218.38
214.63
210.38
211.50
211.50
204.00
9.89
Grain
yield
-1
(kg ha )
2344
1194
1205
1228
1083
1217
445.8
476
349
21.7
*
13
12
0.9
ns
214.88
208.58
5.71
ns
1600
1157
257.4
ns
Where: * = significant at P ≤ 0.0, ns = Non-significant, LSD = Least Significant Difference, BR =
and MR = Maize Row
44
Bean Row
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
Table-5.
Land equivalent ratio (LER) of crops grown alone and mixed with each other with and
without compost application.
Crop Stands
T1
Sole Crops (Average)
T2
2 BR + 2 MR + 2 BR + 2 MR
T3
Bean and maize mixture
T4
2 BR + 4 MR + 2 BR
T5
2 MR + 4 BR + 2 MR
T6
1 BR + 1 MR + 1 BR + 1 MR
Mean
With Compost
1.00
1.14
0.97
1.07
0.90
0.99
1.01
Without Compost
1.00
0.88
0.95
0.88
0.86
0.88
0.89
Mean
1.00
1.01
0.96
0.98
0.88
0.93
experiment demonstrated that the plots without compost
resulted in lower yield and yield components in both
crops indicating the importance of compost application
in the multiple cropping systems in Pakistan. Korsaeth
et al. (2002) reported that application of compost is
important in sustaining farming by providing plant Nsupply. Application of compost in crop production is very
important by managing large volumes of organic wastes
and improvement in crop production (Lasaridi and
Stetiford, 1999).
Intercropping is a type of mixed cropping and defined as
the agricultural practice of cultivating two or more crops
in the same space at the same time (Hugar and Palled,
2008). Intercropped common bean resulted in
significantly more pods plant-1, higher thousand grains
weight than the sole common bean (Table 3). Santalla
et al. (2001) reported that seed size in bush bean was
longer in intercropping with maize than with sweet corn.
In contrast to our results, Francis et al. (1978) reported
that number of pods plant-1 was reduced in bush bean
while intercropping with maize crop. The discrepancies
in our results and with those of Francis et al. (1978) may
be due to the differences in the varieties/species used
and environmental conditions. Numbers of pods per
okra plant were lower in maize-okra intercropping
compared to monocropping due to nutrients and light
competition (Ijoyah and Jimba, 2012). Santalla et al.
(2001) found a significant variety × cropping system
interaction for grain yield of sole and intercropped bean
crops. They observed greatest reduction in bean yield
occurred in intercropping with field maize (55%) than in
intercropping with sweet maize (44%) but it was not
consistent across all bean varieties. In our experiment
the intercropped maize had more number of seeds ear-1
and seeds ear-1 than sole maize crop (Table 4). The
Fig.3. Number of seeds per ear of maize as
affected by interaction between intercropping and
compost (C x I).
DISCUSSION
Composts are the product resulting from the controlled
biological decomposition of organic wastes which are
potentially beneficial to plant growth when used as soil
amendments (Amanullah, 2014). In case of common
bean, the compost applied plots produced significantly
more number of pods plant-1, 1000-grains weight and
grain yield than the plots without compost application
(Table 3). Similarly, the maize crop produced
significantly more number of rows ear-1, seed ear-1,
1000-grains weight and grain yield than the plots without
compost application (Table 4). The increase in the yield
and yield components of both crops under compost
applied plats may be attributed to the improvement in
soil physical and chemical properties, capacity to absorb
more macro/micro-nutrients from the soil and stimulation
of soil microorganism (Biala, 2000). Nzabi et al. (2000)
reported that maize intercropped with Dolichos spp
(legume) had the highest mean yield, followed by maize
intercropped with soybeans, and pure stand of maize
under the incorporation of crop residues, while without
crop residue incorporation had significantly reduced
yield and yield components indicating the importance of
composts in crop production. The results of our
higher yield components of maize (grass) in
intercropping with common bean (legume) probably
may be due to more N availability because legumes
provide symbiotic N to the associated grass (Gettle et
al., 1996; Adu-Gyamfi et al., 2007; Vesterager et al.,
2008) and thereby improve yield and yield
45
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
components. In contrast to common bean, the sole
maize crop had higher thousand grains weight than
intercropped maize (Table 4). The decrease in 1000grains weight of maize with common bean
intercropped may be attributed to the shading effect
of common bean on maize. As the common bean
variety (Dargai Local) was runner type that over
shaded the maize crop. Factors such as shading,
planting density, rooting system, and nutrient
competition need to be considered while
intercropping of different crops (Ijoyah and Fanen,
2012; Ijoyah and Jimba, 2012). Maize yield
components and yield was generally higher in high
solar intensities (Adesoji et al., 2013) and shading
reduced its yield and yield components. Both sole
common bean and maize crops crop had significantly
-1
higher grain yield (826 and 2344 kg ha ,
respectively) than all intercropping. In our
experiment, the increase in grain yield of sole
common bean and maize was attributed to the
doubled plot area than all intercropped plots. The
intercropped common bean and maize shared half of
their plot area with each other and therefore resulted
in less grain yield per unit area than the sole crops.
Our results agree with those of Willey and Osiru
(1972) who observed lower grain yield in
intercropped common bean, and Francis et al. (1978)
who reported lower grain yield in bush bean than sole
crops. Ofori and Stern (1987) reported that the yield
of the legume component decline on normal by about
52% of the sole crop yield whereas the cereal yield
was condensed by only 11%. Adams (1967) and
Atuahene-Amankwa (1997) found the number of
-1
pods plant most readily affected by intercropping
that could be the possible reason for lower grain yield
under intercropped legumes than sole crops.
-1
However, in our study the pods plant in common
bean was significantly increased while intercropping
in maize because of the support of maize plants and
so greater exposure to light than sole common bean
crop, but the grain yield per unit area in both crops
was reduced in intercropping because of sharing
50% of their plot area with each other. Rao and
Mathuva (2000) reported that maize-cowpea
sequential and pigeonpea/maize intercropping
systems produced, respectively, 17 and 24% higher
maize yields than continuous sole maize, but maize–
pigeonpea rotation yielded only marginally better.
bean in intercropping under compost plots resulted in
higher LER (Table 5) when grown as T 2 and T4
indicting beneficial association between the two. A
LER greater than 1.0 has also been reported with
maize-soybean (Addo-Quaye et al., 2011; Solanki et
al., 2011), maize-cowpea (Dahmardeh et al., 2010;
Hugar and Palled, 2008), and maize-common beans
(Yilmaz et al., 2008; Odhiambo and Ariga, 2001). The
higher productivity of the two intercropping in T2 and
T4 over monocropping may have resulted from
complementary and efficient use of growth resources
by the component crops (Li et al., 2006). For
instance, Sivakumar and Virmani (1980) observed
that in maize-pigeon pea intercropping, dry matter
production per unit of PAR intercepted was higher in
the mixture than in sole crops. Rao and Mathuva
(2000) reported that the annual grain legume-based
cropping systems were 32–49% more profitable than
continuous sole maize, making them attractive to
small farmers in semi-arid tropics. In our study all
other intercropping arrangements except T 2 and T4
with and without compost had less than one LER and
should not be practiced due to the harmful
association between the two crops. The lower LER
can be explained by the findings of Ofori and Stern
(1986) and Davis et al. (1984) who reported that light
is the most important factor determining LER of
maize and soybean intercropping and LER declines
when
legume
becomes
severely
shaded.
Intercropping of legumes with cereals is one of the
most practical multi-cropping techniques (Li et al.,
2006) to increase crop yields and to improve landuse efficiency (Bhatti et al., 2006; Gao et al., 2010).
Legume/cereal intercropping is a practical method to
conserve soil and to increase economic returns
(Diebel et al., 1995; Clark et al., 1998; Smith and
Carter, 1998). Recently, the finding of Hussain (2013)
shows the benefit of intercropping in terms of
reduced weed population, increased land utilization
and economic benefit.
CONCLUSIONS
Intercropping of maize and common bean with
compost application had higher LER when grown two
alternate rows of each crop (1.14) and when the
maize four rows were grown in center and two rows
of common bean was grown on each side (1.07) as
compared with sole cropping of maize and common
bean each (LER = 1.0). All other mixtures with
compost and without compost had less than one LER
and should not be practiced due to the harmful
association between the two crops. Application of
compost helps retain soil moisture and make
When two crops are grown together, yield
advantages occur because of differences in their use
of resources (Willey et al., 1983). The land equivalent
ratio (LER) was more with compost than without
compost application. Growing maize and common
46
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
experience, Sustainable Industries Branch, Canberra
act 2601, Environment Australia, Canberra.
nutrients available for longer period to crop plant due
to slow release and can lead improve crop growth
and increase yield on sustainable basis.
Brintha, I., and T.H. Seran. (2009). Effect of paired row
planting of raddish (Raphanus sativus L.) intercropped
with vegetable amaranths (Amaranths tricolor L.) on
yield components in sandy regosol. J. Agric. Sci. 4: 1928.
REFERENCES
Adams, M.W. (1967). Basis of yield compensation in crop
plants with special reference to the field bean,
Phaseolus vulgaris. Crop Sci. 7: 505–510.
Clark, M.S., H. Ferris, K. Klonsky, W.T. Lanini, A. Van
Bruggen, and F.G. Zalom. (1998). Agronomic,
economic, and environmental comparison of pest
management in conventional and alternative tomato
and corn systems in northern California. Agric.
Ecosyst. Environ. 68: 51–71.
Addo-Quaye, A.A., A.A. Darkwa, and G.K. Ocloo. (2011).
Yield and productivity of component crops in a maizesoybean intercropping system as affected by time of
planting and spatial arrangement. ARPN J. Agric. Biol.
Sci. 6(9): 50-57.
Dahmardeh, M., A. Ghanbari, B.A. Syahsar, and M.
Ramrodi. (2010). The role of intercropping maize (Zea
mays L) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L) on yield
and soil chemical properties. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 5: 631636.
Adesoji, A.G., I.U. Abubakar, B. Tanimu, and D.A. Labe.
(2013). Influence of Incorporated short duration
legume fallow and nitrogen on maize (Zea mays L.)
growth and development in northern guinea savannah
of Nigeria. American-Euroasian J. Agric. And Env. Sci.
13(1): 58-67.
Dhima, K.V., A.S. Lithourgidis, I.B. Vasilakoglou, and C.A.
Dordas. (2007). Competition indices of common vetch
and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops
Res. 100: 249-256.
Adu-Gyamfi, J.J., F.A. Myaka, W.D. Sakala, R. Odgaard,
J.M. Vesterager, and H. Hogh-Jensen. (2007).
Biological Nitrogen Fixation and Nitrogen and
Phosphorus Budgets in Farmer-Managed Intercrops of
Maize-Pigeonpea in Semi-arid Southern and Eastern
Africa. Plant and Soil. 295(1-2): 127-136.
Diebel, P.L., J.R. Williams, and R.V. Llewelyn. (1995). An
economic comparison of conventional and alternative
cropping systems for a representative northeast
Kansas farm. Rev. Agric. Econ. 17: 323–335.
Agegnehu, G., A. Ghizaw, and W. Sinebo. (2008). Yield
potential and land-use efficiency of wheat and faba
bean mixed intercropping. Agron. Sustain. Dev.
28:257-263.
Francis, C.A., M. Prager, D.R. Laing, and C.A. Flor. (1978).
Genotype × environment interactions in bush bean
cultivars in monoculture and associated with maize.
Crop Sci. 18:237–241.
Ali, S., and H.S. Mohammad. (2012). Forage yield and
quality in intercropping of forage corn with different
cultivars of berseem clover in different levels of
nitrogen fertilizer. J. Food Agric. Envir. 10(1): 602-604.
Gao, Y., A. Duan, X. Qiu, Z. Liu, J. Sun, J. Zhang, and H.
Wang. (2010). Distribution of roots and root length
density in a maize/soybean strip intercropping system.
Agric. Water Manage. 98: 199–212.
Amanullah (2014). Wheat and rye differ in dry matter
partitioning, shoot-root ratio and water use efficiency
under organic and inorganic soils. J. Plant Nutr.
37:1885–1897.
Hugar, H.Y., and Y.B. Palled. (2008). Studies on maizevegetable intercropping systems. Karnataka J. Agric.
Sci., 21, 162-164.
Atuahene-Amankwa, G., and T.E. Michaels. (1997).
Genetic
variances,
heritabilities
and
genetic
correlations of grain yield, harvest index and yield
components for common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
in sole crop and in maize × bean intercrop. Can. J.
Plant Sci. 77: 537–538.
Hussain, Z. (2013). Influence of intercropping in maize on
performance of weeds and the associated crops. Pak.
J. Bot. 45(5): 1729-1734.
Ijoyah, M.O., and F.T. Fanen. (2012). Effects of different
cropping pattern on performance of maize-soybean
mixture in Makurdi, Nigeria. Sci. J. Crop Sci. 1(2): 3947.
Beets, W.C. (1990). Raising and Sustaining Productivity of
Smallholder Farming Systems in the Tropics. Alkmaar,
Holland: AgBe Publishing.
Ijoyah, M.O., and J. Jimba. (2012). Evaluation of yield and
yield components of maize (Zea mays L.) and okra
(Abelmoschus esculentus) intercropping system at
Makurdi, Nigeria. J. Bio. Env. Sci. 2(2), 38-44.
Bhatti, I.H., R. Ahmad, A. Jabbar, M.S. Nazir, and T.
Mahmood. (2006). Competitive behavior of component
crops in different sesame-legume intercropping
systems. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 8: 165–167.
Korsaeth, A., T.M. Henriksen, and L.R. Bakken. (2002).
Temporal changes in mineralization and immobilization
of N during degradation of plant material: implications
Biala, J. (2000). The use of composed organic waste in
viticulture – A review of the international literature and
47
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
for the plant N supply and nitrogen losses. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 34: 789–799.
Ofori, C.F., and W.R. Stern. (1987). Cereal legume
intercropping systems. Adv. Agron. 26:177-204.
Lasaridi, K.E., and E.I. Stentiford. (1999). Composting of
source separated MSW: an approach to respirometric
techniques
and
biodegradation
kinetics.
In:
International Symposium on “Composting of Organic
Matter”. 31-September, 1999, Kassandra-Chalkidiki,
Greece.
Peoples, M.B., and E.T. Craswell. (1992). Biological
nitrogen fixation: Investments, Expectations and Actual
Contributions to Agriculture. Plant and Soil 141:13-39.
Kluwer
Academic
Publishers.Printed
in
the
Netherlands.PLSO SA02. In: Biological Nitrogen
Fixation for Sustainable Agriculture. Developments in
Plant and Soil Sciences. pp. 49.
Li, L., J. Sun, F. Zhang, T. Guo, X. Bao, F.A. Smith, and
S.E. Smith. (2006). Root distribution and interactions
between intercropped species. Oecologia 147: 280–
290.
Rana, K.S., and M. Pal. (1999). Effect of intercropping
systems and weed control on crop-weed competition
and grain yield of pigeonpea. Crop Res. 17: 179-182.
Ijoyah, M.O., and F.T. Fanen. (2012). Effects of different
cropping pattern on performance of maize-soybean
mixture in Makurdi, Nigeria. J. Crop Sci. 1(2): 39-47.
Rao, M.R., and M.N. Mathuva. (2000). Legumes for
improving maize yields and income in semi-arid Kenya.
Agric. Ecosy. Environ. 78: 123-137.
Launay, M., N. Brisson, S. Satger, H. Hauggaard-Nielsen,
G. Corre-Hellou, E. Kasynova, R. Ruske, E.S. Jensen,
and M.J. Gooding. (2009). Exploring options for
managing strategies for pea-barley intercropping using
a modeling approach. Eur. J. Agron. 31: 85-98.
Saleem, R., Z.I. Ahmed, and M. Ashraf. (2011). Response
of maize-legume intercropping system to different
fertility sources under rainfed conditions. Sarhad J.
Agric. 27(4):503-511.
Sanginga, N., and P.L. Woomer. (2009). Integrated Soil
Fertility Management in Africa: Principles, Practices
and Development Process. (eds.). Tropical Soil
Biology and Fertility Institute of the International Centre
for Tropical Agriculture. Nairobi. P. 263.
Matusso, J. M. M., J.N. Mugwe, and M. Mucheru-Muna.
(2012). Potential role of cereal-legume intercropping
systems in integrated soil fertility management in
smallholder farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa
Research Application Summary. Third RUFORUM
Biennial Meeting 24-28 September 2012, Entebbe,
Uganda.
Santalla, M., A.P. Rodino, P.A. Casquero, and A.M. de
Ron. (2001). Interactions of bush bean intercropped
with field and sweet maize. European J. Agron. 15:
185–196.
Mead, R., and R.W. Willey. (1980). The concept of a „‟Land
Equivalent Ratio‟‟ and advantages in yields from
intercropping. Expl. Agric. 16: 217-228.
Sarwar, G. (2005). Use of compost for crop production in
Pakistan Ph.D. Dissertation (Published) Ökologie und
Umweltsicherung. Universität Kassel, Fachgebiet
Landschaftsökologie und Naturschutz, Witzenhausen,
Germany.
Mucheru-Muna, M., P. Pypers, D. Mugendi, and B.
Vanlauwe. (2010). A staggered maize-legume
intercrop arrangement robustly increases crop yields
and economic returns in the highlands of Central
Kenya. Field Crops Res. 115: 132-139.
Seran, T. H., and I. Brintha. (2010). Review on maize
based intercropping. J. of Agron. 9(3): 135-145.
Nandwa, S.M., A. Bationo, S.N. Obanyi, I.M. Rao, N.
Sanginga, and B. Vanlauwe. (2011). Inter and IntraSpecific Variation of Legumes and Mechanisms to
Access and Adapt to Less Available Soil Phosphorus
and Rock Phosphate. In: A. Bationo et al. (eds.),
Fighting Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Multiple
Roles of Legumes in Integrated Soil Fertility
Management.
DOI
10.1007/978-94-007-15363_3,Springer Science+Business Media B.V., pp.47-83.
Sivakumar, M.V.K., and S.M. Virmani. (1980). Growth and
resource
use
of
maize,
pigeonpea
and
maize/pigeonpea intercrop in an operational research
watershed. Exp. Agric. 16:377-386.
Smith, M.A., and P.R. Carter. (1998). Strip intercropping
corn and alfalfa. J. Prod. Agr. 11: 345-352.
Solanki, N.S., D. Singh, and H.K. Sumeriya (2011).
Resources utilization in Maize (Zea mays)-based
intercropping system under rainfed condition. Indian J.
Agric. Sci. 81(6):511-515.
Nzabi, A.W., F. Makini, M. Onyango, N. Kidula, C.K
Muyonga.,M. Miruka, E. Mutai, and M. Gesare. (2000).
Effect of intercropping legume with maize on soil
fertility
and
maize
yield.
http://www.kari.org/fileadmin/publications/legume_proj
ect/Legume2Conf_2000/26.pdf.
Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrie, and D.A. Dickey. (1997).
Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A Biometrical
rd
approach, 3 Ed. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York.
Pp: 172-177.
Odhiambo, G.D., and E.S. Ariga. (2001). Effect of
intercropping maize and beans on striga incidence and
grain yield. Proc. 7th Eastern Southern Africa Reg.
th
Maize Conf. 11-15 Feberuary, 2001.
Tsubo, M., E. Mukhala, H.O. Ogindo, and S. Walker.
(2003). Productivity of maize bean intercropping in a
48
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
semi-arid region of South Africa. Water S.A. 29(4):
381-388.
Willey, R.W., M. Natarajan, M.S. Reddy, and M.R. Rao.
(1983). Intercropping studies with annual crops: In
Better Crop for Food . Nugent, J. and Connor, M.
(Eds), Pitman Co., London.
Vesterager, J.M., N.E. Nielsen, and H. Hogh-Jensen.
(2008). Effects of Cropping History and Phosphorus
Source on Yield and Nitrogen Fixation in Sole and
Intercropped Cowpea-maize Systems. Nutrient Cycl.
Agroec. 80(1): 61-73.
Yilmaz, S., M. Atak, and M. Erayman. (2008). Identification
of advantages of maize-legume intercropping over
solitary cropping through competition indices in the
east Mediterranean region. Turk. J. Agric. For. 32:111119.
Willey, R.W., and D.S.O. Osiru. (1972). Studies on mixtures
of maize and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) with
particular reference to plant population. J. Agric. Sci.
Camb. 79: 517-529.
Zaka, M.A., N. Hussain, G. Sarwar, M.R. Malik, I. Ahmad,
and K.H. Gill. (2004). Fertility status of Sargodha
district soils. Pakistan. J. Sci. Res. 56 (12): 69-75.
49