Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T03:29:21.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance, radiation capture and use by maize–mungbean–common bean sequential intercropping under different leaf removal and row orientation schemes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2020

Walelign Worku Open the ORCID record for Walelign Worku [Opens in a new window]
Walelign Worku*
Affiliation:
School of Plant and Horticultural Sciences, Hawassa University, P.O. Box 5, Hawassa, Ethiopia
*
*Corresponding author. Email: walelignworku@yahoo.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Food security under smallholder farming can be improved through innovative intensification of cropping systems. Maize (Zea mays L.) – mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) – common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) sequential intercropping was studied to evaluate the patterns of radiation capture and radiation use efficiency and to determine the effects of leaf removal and row orientation on performance and intercropping efficiency. Sequential intercropping captured 1039 MJ m−2 photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) accounting for 70% of incident seasonal PAR. The corresponding sole stands for maize captured 41%, mungbean 29%, common bean 34% and mungbean–common bean 63%. Intercropped components had interception ratios of 0.98, 0.31 and 0.61 for maize, mungbean and common bean, respectively. Associated maize used intercepted light with similar efficiency, mungbean with greater efficiency and common bean with lesser efficiency compared to sole crops. Maize leaf removal and row orientation had no significant effect on performance and partial land equivalent ratio (LER) of maize. Leaf removal under East–West (EW) orientation increased grain yield by 96%, total biomass by 63%, partial LER by 92%, in common bean and total LER by 7%. Leaf removal also improved grain yield, biomass yield, partial LER, in common bean and total LER during the wetter year of 2013. Similarly, EW orientation was advantageous in 2013 raising total LER by 8%. Maize leaf removal and EW row orientation had synergistic effects on intercropping efficiency and economic benefit and both have exerted positive influence under favourable weather. Total LER values of 1.47 in 2013 and 1.29 in 2015 had revealed greater biological efficiency for intercropping during both years though it was more profitable in 2013. Thus, the cropping system can be adopted under timely onset of the rainy season using EW row orientation while leaf removal can also be practiced depending on weather conditions and convenience.

Keywords

IntercroppingLeaf removalRadiation interceptionRadiation use efficiencyRow orientation
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 56 , Issue 5 , October 2020 , pp. 752 - 766
Check for updates
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

Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D. and Smith, M. (1998). Crop Evapotranspiration: Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. Rome: FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56.Google Scholar
Anda, A. and Stephens, W. (1996). Sugar beet production as influenced by row orientation. Agronomy Journal 88, 991–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Awal, M.A., Koshi, H. and Ikeda, T. (2006). Radiation interception and use by maize/peanut intercrop canopy. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 139, 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, S. and Dennett, M.D. (2013). Effect of density, cultivar and irrigation on spring sown monocrops and intercrops of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and faba beans (Vicia faba L.). European Journal of Agronomy 51, 108–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bedoussac, L. and Justes, E. (2010). Dynamic analysis of competition and complementarity for light and N use to understand the yield and the protein content of a durum wheat-winter pea intercrop. Plant and Soil 330, 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borger, C.P.D., Hashem, A. and Pathan, S. (2010). Manipulating crop row orientation to suppress weeds and increase crop yield. Weed Science 58, 174–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooker, R.W., Bennett, A.E., Cong, W.F., Daniell, T.J., George, T.S., Hallett, P.D., Hawes, C., Iannetta, P.P.M., Jones, H.G., Karley, A.J., Li, L., McKenzie, B.M., Pakeman, R.J., Paterson, E., Schöb, C., Shen, J., Squire, G., Watson, C.A., Zhang, C., Zhang, F., Zhang, J. and White, P.J. (2015). Improving intercropping: A synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytologist 206, 107–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chai, Q., Qin, A., Gan, Y. and Yu, A. (2014). Higher yield and lower carbon emission by intercropping maize with rape, pea, and wheat in arid irrigation areas. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 34, 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coll, L., Cerrudo, A., Rizzalli, R., Monzon, J.P. and Andrade, F.H. (2012). Capture and use of water and radiation in summer intercrops in the south-east Pampas of Argentina. Field Crops Research 134, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, N., Ming-Ming, Tang, Wei-Ping, Zhang, Xing-Guo, Bao, Wang, Y., Christie, P. and Li, L. (2018). Temporal differentiation of crop growth as one of the drivers of intercropping yield advantage. Scientific Reports 8, 3110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ewansiha, S.U., Kamara, A.Y. and Onyibe, J.E. (2014). Performance of cowpea cultivars when grown as an intercrop with maize of contrasting maturities. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 60, 597–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Gou, F., van Ittersum, M.K., Simon, E., Leffelaar, P.A., van der Putten, P.E.L., Zhang, L.Z. and van der Werf, W. (2017). Intercropping wheat and maize increases total radiation interception and wheat RUE but lowers maize RUE. European Journal of Agronomy 84, 125–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, L.E., Pascual, U. and Hodgkin, T. (2007). Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121, 196–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knörzer, H., Müller, B.U., Guo, B., Graeff-Hönninger, S., Piepho, H.P., Wang, P. and Claupein, W. (2010). Extension and evaluation of intercropping field trials using spatial models. Agronomy Journal 102, 1023–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lithourgidis, A.S., Dordas, C.A., Damalas, C.A. and Vlachostergios, D.N. (2011). Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5, 396–410.Google Scholar
Liu, G., Yang, Y., Liu, W., Guo, X., Xue, J., Xie, R., Ming, B., Wang, K., Hou, P. and Li, S. (2020). Leaf removal affects maize morphology and grain yield. Agronomy 10, 269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, X., Rahman, T., Song, C., Yang, F., Sua, B., Cui, L., Bu, W. and Yang, W. (2018). Relationships among light distribution, radiation use efficiency and land equivalent ratio in maize-soybean strip intercropping. Field Crops Research 224, 91–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, R. and Willey, R.W. (1980). The concept of a ‘Land Equivalent Ratio’ and advantages in yield from intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 16, 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raza, M.A., Feng, L.Y., Khalid, M.H.B., Iqbal, N., Meraj, T.A., Hassan, M.J., Ahmed, S., Chen, Y.K., Feng, Y. and Wenyu, Y. (2019a). Optimum leaf excision increases the biomass accumulation and seed yield of maize plants under different planting patterns. Annals of Applied Biology 175, 54–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raza, M.A., Feng, L.Y., van der Werf, W., Iqbal, N., Khalid, M.H.B., Chen, Y.K., Wasaya, A., Ahmed, S., Mohi Ud Din, A., Khan, A., Ahmed, S., Yang, F. and Yang, W. (2019b). Maize leaf-removal: A new agronomic approach to increase dry matter, flower number and seed yield of soybean in maize soybean relay intercropping system. Scientific Reports 9, 13453.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raza, M.A., Feng, L.Y., van der Werf, W., Iqbal, N., Khan, I., Hassan, M.J., Ansar, M., Chen, Y. K., Xi, Z.J., Shi, J.Y., Ahmed, M., Yang, F. and Yang, W. (2019c). Optimum leaf defoliation: A new agronomic approach for increasing nutrient uptake and land equivalent ratio of maize soybean relay intercropping system. Field Crops Research 244, 107647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarlikioti, V., de Visser, P.H.B. and Marcelis, L.F.M. (2011). Exploring the spatial distribution of light interception and photosynthesis of canopies by means of a functional–structural plant model. Annals of Botany 107, 875–883.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS Institute (2000). SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Shekoofa, A., Emam, Y. and Pessarakli, M. (2012). Effect of partial defoliation after silking stage on yield components of three-grain maize hybrids under semi-arid conditions. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science 58, 777–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsubo, M. and Walker, S. (2004). Shade effects on Phaseolus vulgaris L. intercropped with Zea mays L. under well-watered conditions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 190, 168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vrignon-Brenas, S., Celette, F., Piquet-Pissaloux, A., Corre-Hellou, G. and David, C. (2018). Intercropping strategies of white clover with organic wheat to improve the trade-off between wheat yield, protein content and the provision of ecological services by white clover. Field Crops Research 224, 160–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woomer, P.L. and Tungani, J.O. (2003). Light availability within an innovative maize-legume intercropping system in Western Kenya. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings 6, 42–46.Google Scholar
Worku, W. (2014). Sequential intercropping of common bean and mungbean with maize in southern Ethiopia. Experimental Agriculture 50, 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Worku supplementary material

Table S1

Download Worku supplementary material(File)
File 14.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Worku supplementary material

Figure S1

Download Worku supplementary material(File)
File 196.8 KB
Supplementary material: File

Worku supplementary material

Figure S2

Download Worku supplementary material(File)
File 96.6 KB