Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First Articles
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First Articles
Agricultural Science Digest
Print ISSN: 0253-150X
Online ISSN: 0976-0547
NASS Rating
5.52
SJR
0.176
CiteScore
0.357

Chief Editor:
Arvind kumar
Rani Lakshmi Bai Central Agricultural Uni., Jhansi, U.P., INDIA
Frequency:Bi-monthly
Indexing:
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossR...

Research Article

Agricultural Science Digest, volume 38 issue 2 (june 2018) : 73-80

Finger millet and horsegram intercropping systems in replacement series for advantages and weed smothering

Adikant Pradhan, S.K. Patil, A. Sao, S.K. Nag, S.C. Mukherjee
1S.G. College of Agriculture and Research Station, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya, Jagdalpur-494 001, Chhattisgarh, India.
Cite article:- Pradhan Adikant, Patil S.K., Sao A., Nag S.K., Mukherjee S.C. (2018). Finger millet and horsegram intercropping systems in replacement series for advantages and weed smothering. Agricultural Science Digest. 38(2): 73-80. doi: 10.18805/ag.D-4495.

ABSTRACT

The land use efficiency and weed suppression through intercropping plays a pivotal role. A field experiment was carried out on finger millet (Eleusine indica L. Gaertn) –horsegram (Macrotyloma uniflorum (Lam.) Verdc.) mono- and intercropping with various weeding (0, 1, or 2 hand-weeding operations) and row spacing (20 and 30 cm) treatments in the Bastar plateau region of India over consecutive five Kharif seasons (2010/2014). The experimental design was a randomized complete block with eighteen treatments replicated thrice. Five percent significant differences were observed in yield and its economics with and without weeding treatments. Horsegram yield was significantly reduced by Finger millet when intercropped. However, total productivity and land use efficiency were higher under the intercropping system as compared to monocrops of either species. There was a significant reduction in weed density and biomass for the intercropping system over both monocrops. Finger millet facilitated an increase in nodule number and dry weight in horsegram under intercropping over monocrops, moreover, root length of horsegram was greater when intercropped. These findings suggest that intercropping Finger millet and horsegram increase total productivity per unit area improve land use efficiency and suppress weeds. Focussing the experimental findings, Finger millet–horsegram (30 cm) with two weedings may be recommended for yield advantage, higher net income, more efficient utilization of resources, and weed suppression as a biological control in western plateau region of India. 

REFERENCES

  1. Altieri, M.A., Liebman, M., (1986). Insect, weed and plant disease management in multiple cropping. In: Francis, C.A. (Ed.), Multiple Cropping System, 1. McMillan Publishing Company, New York, pp. 183–218.
  2. Banik, P., (1996). Evaluation of Finger millet (Triticum aestivum) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row replacement series system. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 175: 189–194.
  3. Banik, P., Bagchi, D.K., (1994). Evaluation of rice (Oryza sativa) and legume intercropping in upland situation of Bihar plateau. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 64: 364–368.
  4. Banik, P., Midya, A., Sharon, F., Kam, S.P., (2006). Natural resource inventorying and implications for sustainable agricultural development: a case study of Luppi village, eastern plateau of India. J. Sust. Agric., in press. 
  5. Banik, P., Sasmal, T., Ghosal, P.K., Bagchi, D.K., (2000). Evaluation of mustard (Brassica campestris var.Toria) and legume in 1:1 and 2:1 replacement series system. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 185: 9–14.
  6. Chetty, C.K., Reddy, M.N., 1987. A general proposal for ranking intercrop treatments. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 57: 64–65.
  7. Crabtree, R.J., Rupp, R.N., (1980). Double and monocropped Finger millet and soybean under different tillage and row spacings. Agron. J. 72: 448–495.
  8. DeWit, C.T., (1960). On competition. Verslag Landbouwkundige Onderzoek 66, 1–28.
  9. Exner, D.N., Cruse, R.M., 1993. Interseeded forage legume potential as winter ground cover, nitrogen source, and competition. J. Prod. Agric. 6: 226–231.
  10. FAO, (2003). Production Year Book, 2002. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy. http://    apps.fao.org.
  11. Ghosh, P.K., (2004). Growth, yield, competition, and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops Res. 88: 227–237.
  12. Giller, K.E., Cadisch, G., (1995). Future benefits from biological nitrogen fixation: an ecological approach to agriculture. Plant Soil 174: 225–277. 
  13. Giller, K.E., Wilson, K.J., (1991). Nitrogen Fixation and Tropical Cropping Systems. CAB International, Wallingford, pp. 10–120.
  14. Grime, J.P.L., (1977). Evidence for the existence of three primary strategies of plants and its relevance to ecological and evolutionary theory. Am. Nat. 111: 1169–1174. 
  15. Gomez, K.A., Gomez, A.A., (1984). Statistical procedure for Agricultural Research, an IRRI Book. John Willey and Sons, New York, pp. 20–356.
  16. Hiltbrunner, J., Stamp, P., Streit, B., (2004). Impact of different legume species on weed populations in a living mulch cropping system with direct seeded winter Finger millet under organic farming conditions. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 19: 517–525.
  17. Jackson, M.L., (1973). Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice Hall of India Inc., New Delhi, pp. 48–97.
  18. Jeyabal, A., Kuppuswamy, G., (2001). Recycling of organic wastes for the production of vermicompost and its response in rice–legume cropping system and soil fertility. Eur. J. Agron 15: 153–170.
  19. Johri, A.K., Singh, G., Sharma, D., (1992). Nutrient-uptake by Finger millet and associated weeds as influenced by management practices. Trop. Agric. 69: 391–393.
  20. Lafond, G.P., Gan, Y.T., (1999). Row spacing and seeding rate studies in no-till winter Finger millet for the northern Great Plains. J. Prod. Agric. 12: 624–629.
  21. Li, L., Tang, C., Rengel, Z., Zhang, F.S., (2002). Horsegram facilitates phosphorus uptake by intercropped Finger millet from an organic phosphorus source. Plant Soil 248: 297–303.
  22. Li, L., Tang, C., Rengel, Z., Zhang, F.S., (2004). Calcium, Magnesium and micro element uptake as affected by phosphorus sources and interspecific root interaction between Finger millet and horsegram. Plant Soil 261: 29–37.
  23. Liebman, M., Elizabeth, D., (1993). Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol. Appl. 3: 92–122.
  24. Maingi, M.J., Shisanya, A.C., Gitonga, M.N., Hornetz, B., (2001). Nitrogen fixation by common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in pure and mixed stands in semi arid South east Kenya. Eur. J. Agron. 14: 1–12.
  25. Mandal, B.K., Dhara, M.C., Mandal, B.B., Das, S.K., Nandy, R., (1990). Rice, mungbean, soybean, peanut, rice bean and blackgram yields under different intercropping systems. Agron. J. 82: 1063–1066.
  26. McLeod, J.G., Campbell, C.A., Gan, Y., Dyck, F.B., Vera, C.L., (1996). Seeding depth, rate and row spacing for winter Finger millet grown on stubble and chemical fallow in the semiarid prairies. Can. J. Plant Sci. 76 (2), 207–214.
  27. McGilchrist, C.A., (1965). Analysis of competition experiments. Biometrics 21, 975–985.
  28. Midya, A., Bhattacharjee, K., Ghose, S.S., Banik, P., (2005). Deferred seeding of blackgram (Phaseolus mungo L.) in rice (Oryza sativa L.) field on yield advantages and smothering of weeds. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 191: 195–201.
  29. Mohsin, M.A., Prasad, R.B., Sinha, P.K., Haque, M.D.F., (1986). Dryland Farming Technology and Package of Practices for Oilseed and Pulse for Bihar Plateau. Tech. Bull. BAU/1/86. Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi, India, pp. 8–24.
  30. Moody, K., Shetty, S.V.R., (1979). Weed management in intercropping systems. In: Proceedings of the International Workshop on Intercropping. 10–13 January 1979. 229–237. Intl. Crop Res. Inst. for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT). Hyderabad, India.
  31. Nielson, Hauggaard, H., Jornsgaard, B., Steen, J.E., (2003). Legume-cereal intercropping system as a weed management tool. In: Proceedings of the 4th Eur. Weed Res. Soc. Workshop: Crop weed competition interaction. Universita Tusca, Viterbro, Italy, 10–12th April. 
  32. Ofori, F., Stern, W.R., (1987). Cereal-legume intercropping systems. Adv. Agron. 41 41–90.
  33. Scott, T.W., Pleasant, J., Burt, R.F., Otis, D.J., (1987). Contributions of ground cover, dry matter and nitrogen from intercrops and cover crops in a corn polyculture system. Agron. J. 79: 792–798.
  34. Sheaffer, C.C., Gunsolus, J.L., Jewett, G., Lee, S.H., (2002). Annual medicago as a smother crop in soybean. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 188: 408–416.
  35. Teich, A.H., Smid, A., Welacky, T., Hamill, A., 1993. Row-spacing and seed rate effects on winter Finger millet in Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73: 31–35.
  36. Thompson, D.R., (1977). The effect of cereal height on performance of stands intercropped with soybean. M.Sc. thesis, University of Dar es salaam, Morogoro, Tanzania. Weiner, J., Griepentrog, H.W., Kristensen, L., (2001). Suppression of weeds by spring Finger millet triticum aestivum increases with crop density and special uniformity. J. Appl. Ecol. 38: 784–790.
  37. Whittington, W.J., O’Brien, T.A., 1968. A comparison of yields from plots sown with single species or mixtures of grass species. J. Appl. Ecol. 5: 209–213.
  38. Willey, R.W., (1979). Intercropping its importance and research needs. I. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abst. 32: 1–10. 
  39. Willey, R.W., Rao, M.R., (1980). A competitive ratio for quantifying competition betweens intercrops. Expl. Agric. 16: 105–117.
  40. Yih, W.K., 1982. Weeds, intercropping and mulch in temperate zones and the tropics-Some ecological implications for low technology agriculture. Ph.D. thesis. University of Michigan, Ann, Arbor, MI. Yunusa, I.A.M., 1989. Effects of planting density and plant arrangement pattern on growth and yields of maize (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) grown in mixtures. J. Agric. Sci. 112: 1–8.
  41. Zhang, F.S., Li, L., 2003. Using competitive and facilitative interactions in intercropping systems enhances crop productivity and nutrient-use efficiency. Plant Soil 248: 305–312. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)