Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.156

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Full Research Article

Agricultural Science Digest, volume 44 issue 4 (august 2024) : 625-631

Growth and Productivity of Maize (Zea mays L.) as Influenced by Precision Nutrient Management and Intercropping Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) under Hot and Sub-humid Region of Odisha

Upasana Sahoo1, Ganesh Chandra Malik2, Mahua Banerjee2, Sagar Maitra1, Masina Sairam1,*, Monotoshdas Bairagya3
1Department of Agronomy and Agroforestry, Centurion University of Technology and Management, Paralakhemundi-761 211, Odisha, India.
2Department of Agronomy, Palli-Siksha Bhavana, Visva-Bharati University, Sriniketan-731 204, West Bengal, India.
3Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Siksha ‘O’ Anusandhan, Bhubaneshwar-751 030, Odisha, India.
Cite article:- Sahoo Upasana, Malik Chandra Ganesh, Banerjee Mahua, Maitra Sagar, Sairam Masina, Bairagya Monotoshdas (2024). Growth and Productivity of Maize (Zea mays L.) as Influenced by Precision Nutrient Management and Intercropping Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) under Hot and Sub-humid Region of Odisha . Agricultural Science Digest. 44(4): 625-631. doi: 10.18805/ag.D-5895.

ABSTRACT

Background: Cereal-legume intercropping is an age-old practice in most of the countries. Among the major cereals, maize is a better choice to include in legume intercropping due to its morphology and wider row spacing. Therefore, legume intercropping in consort with proper nutrient management can enhance overall productivity of the system, further improving crop diversification, nutritional security and agriculture sustainability. Considering these aspects, the present study was performed to examine the growth and productivity of maize as influenced by precision nutrient management and cowpea intercropping. 

Methods: The present study was carried out during rabi season of 2022-23 at P. G. Research Farm of M.S. Swaminathan School of Agriculture, Odisha, India. The experiment was laid out in split-plot design with five intercropping combinations and five nutrient management treatments. All the treatments were replicated thrice. The plot size maintained was 5.0 m x 4.8 m. In case of maize and cowpea, high yielding hybrid ‘JKMH 4510’ and ‘KBC 9’ variety were taken for the study, respectively.

Result: The results revealed that the growth parameters were significantly affected by intercropping ratios and nutrient management treatments. Although the yield attributes of maize were differed non significantly among the intercropping treatments but were significantly influenced by the nutrient treatments. In case of grain yield of maize, the Green Seeker-based nutrient management gave highest value with cowpea intercropping ratio of 1:1 and 2:2. LER and ATER were greater than unity, which indicated that the intercropping was advantageous. However, the maximum LER and Area Time Equivalent Ratio (ATER) were obtained from C3 (M+C 1:2) with 140:70:70 kg N, P2O5, K2O/ha, respectively. The study concluded that intercropping of maize + cowpea in 1:2 row ratio with Green Seeker-based nutrient management were advantageous over pure stand of maize fertilised with conventional nutrient management.

INTRODUCTION

In the present scenario of rapid global urbanisation, shrinkage of agricultural land, degradation of resources and ill effects of climate change are major concerns for agricultural sustainability (Noorunnahar et al., 2023; Sairam et al., 2023a). To meet the future need of foodgrains for ever-increasing population, there is urgent need for proper crop planning and intensification with efficient use of available resources (Maitra and Gitari, 2020; Maitra, 2020). In this aspect, intercropping can be an ideal choice in which multiple crops are cultivated over the same area at a given time (Sahoo et al., 2023). In countries like India, cereal based cropping system is widely adopted. Among the major cereals, maize is considered next to rice and wheat. Maize cultivation is increasing day by day in India due to its stable market price and versatile usage such as food, feed and fodder and its wider adaptability under diverse agroclimatic conditions (El-Mehy et al., 2023; Zalac et al., 2023). Intercropping of pulses in cereals is an age-old practice to ensure diversity in the food-basket for smallholders. Maize is cultivated in wide row spacing that offers suitable companion crops to grow under the mixed stand (Maitra et al., 2019). In maize-legume intercropping system, further space can be created by arranging paired row seeding where higher population of legumes can be seeded in an additive series to ensure more grain and biomass yield from unit area (Manasa et al., 2018; Maitra et al., 2020).
 
Maize-legume intercropping system can ensure crop diversification, enhanced resource use efficiency, higher gross productivity, natural insurance against adverse conditions and improvement of soil health (Baishya et al., 2021; Ndayisaba et al., 2021). Moreover, legumes share a portion of biologically fixed nitrogen to nonlegumes grown in the mixed stand and positively influence soil chemical and biological properties (Maitra et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2023). Among different legumes, cowpea is one of the most suitable pulses, which can perform in various agroclimatic conditions and cropping systems. There are suitable short duration and partial shade tolerant cultivars of cowpea, which can perform well in an intercropping system with taller cereals like maize as row intercropping (Nandi et al., 2022).

The nitrogen requirement of legumes is less; however, maize is a high nutrient demanding crop. Therefore, when maize is considered as a cereal component with cowpea, required primary nutrients are to be provided to maize for its optimum yield. Among the primary nutrients, since nitrogen is subjected to various losses; hence, an optimization of nitrogen for maize is essential for increasing its productivity as well as nitrogen use efficiency (Nduwimana et al., 2020; Sairam et al., 2023b). In this regard, various precision tools developed for nitrogen management in cereals can be considered. The GreenSeeker is such a precision nitrogen management tool which is a hand-held optical sensor used for the real time nitrogen requirement of cereals at different growth stages through a non-destructive sampling of leaves (Ali et al., 2018). During recent time, the GreenSeeker-based nitrogen management is becoming popular (Kumar et al., 2022).

Considering these above facts, the present study was conducted to assess the effect of precision nutrient management in maize and intercropping cowpea on growth, productivity and competitive ability of maize under hot and sub-humid region of Odisha.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study was carried out during rabi season of 2022-23 (25th November 2022 to 30th March 2023) at P. G. Research Farm of M.S. Swaminathan School of Agriculture, Odisha, India (23°39' North latitude and 87°42' East longitude). The meteorological data showed that the maximum and minimum temperature during the crop period varied from 29-35°C and 15-21°C respectively (Fig 1). The maximum relative humidity ranged between 79-91% and the minimum relative humidity varied from 37-68%. The total rainfall during the crop period was 71.8 mm and the average sunshine hours varied between 7-9 hours/day. The experimental soil was sandy loam in texture with a pH of 6.6. The electrical conductivity of the soil was 0.24 dS/m. The soil was lower in organic carbon (0.46%) and the initial nutrient status of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium, are found to be 246, 12.6 and 143 kg/ha respectively. The experiment was laid out in split-plot design with five cropping systems in main plot and five nutrient management treatments in sub plot (Table 1) with three replications. Further, a reference plot of sole cowpea was laid out beside the experimental area.
 

Fig 1: Agrometeorological observations during the crop period (Nov 2022 to Mar 2023).



Table 1: Details of the treatment.



During the experiment, standard package of practices was considered for maize-legume intercropping system. In case of maize, hybrid ‘JKMH 4510’ and cowpea variety ‘KBC 9’ was considered for the study. The plot size maintained was 5 m x 4.8 m and maize uniform row and paired rows were sown with a row spacing of 60 cm and 90/30 cm respectively. The plant to plant spacing of maize adopted was 25 cm in both the row proportions. In between the inter row spacing of maize, one, two and three rows of cowpea was planted as per the treatment specifications. The plant-to-plant distance of cowpea were 10 cm and in reference plot (sole cowpea) 30 cm x 10 cm spacing was adopted. The nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium were applied through urea, single super phosphate and muriate of potash as per the nutrient treatments at different stages (Table 1). Five irrigations were provided to maize. To maintain the plots weed free, two hand weedings at 20 DAS and 50 DAS were performed. Emamectin benzoate 5% SG @ 250 g/ha was sprayed at 30 DAS to protect the crop from fall army worm (Spodoptera frugiperda).
 
The growth and yield attributes of maize and yield of both the crops were recorded by adopting the standard procedures. The competitive functions such as land equivalent ratio, area time equivalent ratio, monetary advantage and maize equivalent yield were calculated by considering the concept and formulas given by Willey and Osiru (1972), Hiebsch (1978), Willey (1979) and De Wit (1960) respectively. The statistical analysis of the experimental data was processed by considering the concept of Gomez and Gomez (1984). The analysis of variance (ANOVA), the standard error of means (SEm±) and critical difference (CD) at 5% probability level of significance was analysed through Excel software, Microsoft Inc., Redmond, Washington, USA.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect of intercropping system and nutrient management on growth parameters of maize
 
The results revealed that intercropping systems did not influence plant height significantly, however, it significantly impacted on dry matter accumulation and leaf area of maize (Table 2). Similar results were observed by Ogedegbe et al., (2017), because there was no competition for light due to morphological difference between the crops. Among cropping systems, C1 (sole maize), C2 (M+C 1:1) and C4 (M+C 2:2) remained statistically at par in dry matter accumulation of maize and they were significantly superior to C3 (M+C 1:2) and C5 (M+C 2:3). Probable reasons may be no inter-species competition in C1 and complementary effect in C2 and C4. C3 and C5 showed inferior values of dry matter accumulation due to higher interspecies competition as cowpea population was more (Moriri et al., 2010; Prasanthi and Venkateswaralu, 2014). The treatments C1 (5079 cm2) and C2 (5187cm2) being statistically at par with each other recorded significantly higher maize leaf area/plant than rest of the cropping systems. Sole maize (C1) did not fetch any interspecies competition; hence, utilized the resources full-fledgedly and expressed higher leaf area along with dry matter accumulation. The treatment M+C (2:2) recorded moderately higher leaf area of maize than rest of the treatments probably because of paired row arrangement of planting, which created enough space for cowpea. In case of C3 and C5, cowpea competed with maize due to its planting geometry and density respectively. The results are in conformity with the findings of Yavas and Unay (2016) and Gaikwad et al., (2022).

Table 2: Effect of intercropping system and nutrient management on plant height, leaf area and dry matter accumulation of rabi maize.


 
Nutrient management influenced plant height significantly, where the GreenSeeker-based treatment resulted in the highest plant height (277 cm) which was statistically at par with N4 (266 cm). Further, the treatment N3 increased plant height of maize and it remained significantly superior to N2 (211 cm) and N1 (174 cm). Such differences were obtained probably due to variation in nutrient doses and their split application. In the Green Seeker-based treatment, nitrogen was applied for six times which might increase N-use efficiency (Pooniya et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2022). As expected, N1 produced significantly the lowest plant height than remaining treatments because of no exogenous application of nutrients. Almost a similar trend was observed in leaf area/plant in maize as influenced by nutrient management. However, N5 showed its supremacy over rest of the treatments. The second-best treatment was N4, which was significantly superior to N3 and its lower doses. The results clearly support the importance of nutrient needs as well as split application of nitrogen in maize (Pooniya et al., 2015; Kumar et al., 2022; Singh et al., 2015). The dry matter accumulation/m2 followed exactly a same trend as leaf area/plant of maize in which the GreenSeeker-based recommendation produced significantly higher value than other treatments. The trend was like C5<C4<C3<C2<C1. The higher leaf area led to increase in the photosynthetic capacity which increased dry matter accumulation in maize (Parihar et al., 2017; Shivashankar et al., 2023).
 
Effect of intercropping system and nutrient management on yield attributes of maize
 
Yield attributes of maize were not affected by the different intercropping ratios (Table 3). Marginally higher number of cobs/plant and number of grains/cob were recorded with C2 (M+C 1:2). Ogedegbe et al., (2017) and Nandi et al., (2022) also reported nonsignificant effect of intercropping systems on these yield attributes. Although, nutrient level N5 led to the highest number of cobs/plant (1.83), which was found at par with N4 (160: 80: 80 kg N,P2O5,K2O/ha). The treatment N3 (160: 80: 80 kg N, P2O5, K2O/ha) increased the number of cobs/plant and it remained significantly superior to N2 (1.45) and N1 (1.12). Similar results were also obtained for number of grains/cob. However, N5 (GreenSeeker-based nutrient management) showed its superiority over other treatments. The treatment N3 (218) was significantly inferior to N4 (160: 80: 80 kg N, P2O5, K2O/ha) (282) in production of number of grains/cob. The 1000 grain weight of maize as affected by nutrient doses varied from 233 g for N5 to 210 g for N1. Treatment N5 and N4 were at par with each other while other treatments were at par with N1. The result demonstrated the importance of nutrient management in attaining better yield attributes. Precision nutrient management with GreenSeeker probably helped in increasing the nutrient use efficiency; thus resulting in higher values of yield attributes as recorded by (Sinha, 2016) and Vikram et al., 2015).

Table 3: Effect of intercropping system and nutrient management on yield parameters of rabi maize.


 
Effect of intercropping system and nutrient management on grain yield of maize and cowpea
 
The treatment C2 (M+C 1:1) (5488 kg/ha) being at par with C1 (5374 kg/ha) and C4 (5323 kg/ha) produced the highest grain yield of maize (Table 3). C3 (M+C 1:2) contributed significantly lower grain yield than other treatments and was at par with C5 (M+C 2:3). Superiority of C2, C1 and C4 was probably due to higher dry matter accumulation, better crop geometry and less inter species competition respectively. Overcrowding in C3 and C5 probably led to lower yield (Kim et al., 2018; Talukdar et al., 2023). Cowpea yield was also significantly affected as C3 gave the highest yield followed by C5. C4 yielded significantly lower than C5 due to reduction in plant population but it was at par with C2 because of same population of cowpea in both the treatments. Similar findings were also found by (Ogedegbe et al., 2017).

The GreenSeeker treatment with split application of nitrogen produced the highest yield (7070 kg/ha) followed by N4 (160: 80: 80 kg N, P2O5, K2O/ha) with a yield of 6593kg/ha (Table 3). The trend was like N5>N4>N3>N2>N1. The increased leaf area and dry matter accumulation in maize led to increased yield and precision nutrient management showed its positive impact on yield (Shekhawat et al., 2021; Jain and Maliwal, 2022; Kumar et al., 2022 and Salama et al., 2022). The highest yield of cowpea grain was obtained under N4 (828 kg/ha) followed by N3 (784 kg/ha) treatment. N5 (Green Seeker-based) treatment was inferior to the above treatments and it was at par with N2 (120: 60: 60 kg N, P2O5, K2O/ha), which yielded 690 kg/ha and 674 kg/ha respectively. The reduced grain yield of cowpea in Green Seeker-based treatment was probably because of the growth habit cowpea which did not require excess nitrogen at the later stage.
 
Effect of intercropping system and nutrient management on intercropping competition functions
 
The highest LER-total (1.84) was obtained in the treatment C3N3 (M+C 1:2) with 140:70:70 kg N, P2O5, K2O/ha (Table 4). LER-total value was more than one for all the intercropping ratios, which indicated the advantage of additive series. Increase in the nutrient doses increased LER for a particular intercropping ratio which suggested that nutrient helped in attaining better yield and land utilisation efficiency by crops in the mixed stand. Similar results were observed by Salama et al., (2022); Akter Suhi et al., (2022) and Nandi et al., (2022). The treatment C3N3 (M+C 1:2) with 140:70:70 kg N, P2O5, K2O/ha registered the highest ATER of 1.62, which denoted that it had highest land and time utilisation among the other intercropping systems. In contrast, M+C 1:2 with no application of fertilisers gave the lowest ATER. The findings were in line with the results of Nandi et al., (2022) and Jan et al., (2016). The maize equivalent yield (MEY) was highest for the treatment C3N4 (5223 kg/ha) closely followed by treatment C3N3 (5162 kg/ha) and lowest for treatment C2N1(1120). Difference in the MEY was due to difference in the yield and price of the individual crops. The results were in conformity with the findings of Jan et al., (2016) and Akter Suhi et al., (2022). Monetary advantage obtained for intercropping was highest for C3N4 (Rs.100076/ha) followed by C3N3 (Rs.98361/ha). However, the lowest monetary advantage was observed for treatment C2N1 (Rs.10394/ha). C3N4 and C3N3 both having the same population gave different monetary advantage because of difference in nutrient doses in each. Optimum crop geometry in C3 makes it highly profitable in economic terms.  The results are in conformity with findings of Alla et al., (2015) and Abou-Keriasha et al., (2011).

​

Table 4: Effect of intercropping systems and nutrient management on intercropping competition functions.

CONCLUSION

Significantly higher maize equivalent yield was observed for maize + cowpea 1:2 row arrangement with application of 160:80:80 kg N, P2O5, K2O/ha and it was closely followed by Green seeker based N management along with optimum application of phosphorous and potassium.  Keeping in the view of nutrient optimization and obtaining optimum yields, the experiment may conclude that the planting of maize and cowpea in intercropping with 1:1 and 2:2 row proportion along with the GreenSeeker-based nutrient recommendation was found to be more remunerative to obtain higher system productivity and economic return over sole cropping of maize in hot and sub-humid region of Odisha.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

All authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.

REFERENCES


  1. Abou-Keriasha, M.A., Ibrahim, S.T. and Mohamadain, E.E.A. (2011). Effect of cowpea intercropping date in maize and sorghum fields on productivity and infestation weed. Egypt. J. Agron. 33(1): 35-49.

  2. Akter, S.A., Mia, S., Khanam, S., Hasan Mithu, M., Uddin, M.K., Muktadir, M.A., Ahmed, S. and Jindo, K. (2022). How does maize-cowpea intercropping maximize land use and economic return? A field trial in Bangladesh. Land. 11: 581. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11040581.

  3. Ali, A.M., Abou-Amer, I. and Ibrahim, S.M. (2018). Using Green seeker active optical sensor for optimizing maize nitrogen fertilization in calcareous soils of Egypt. Archives Agron Soil Sci. 64(8): 1083-1093.

  4. Alla, W.H., Shalaby, E.M., Dawood, R.A. and Zohry, A.A. (2015). Effect of cowpea (Vigna sinensis L.) with maize (Zea mays L.) intercropping on yield and its components. Int. J. Agric. Biosys. Eng. 8(11): 1258-1264.

  5. Baishya, L.K., Jamir, T., Walling, N. and Rajkhowa, D.J. (2021). Evaluation of maize (Zea mays L.) + legume intercropping system for productivity, profitability, energy budgeting and soil health in hill terraces of Eastern Himalayan Region. Legume Research. 44(11): 1343-1347. DOI: 10.18805/ LR-4190.

  6. De Wit, C.T. (1960). On competition. Agricultural Research Report number 66.8, PUDOC, Wageningen. pp. 82.

  7. Gaikwad, D.D., Pankhaniya, R.M., Singh, B., Patel, K.G. and Viridia, H.M. (2022). Studies on growth and productivity of maize- cowpea intercropping system under different spatial arrangements and nutrient levels. Pharma Innov. J. 11(2): 2506-2512.

  8. Gomez, K.A. and Gomez, A.A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research (2nd Edn.). John Wiley and Sons, New York. pp. 680.

  9. Hiebsch, C. (1978). Comparing intercrops with monoculture. Agron. Econ. Res. Soil Trop. 187-200.

  10. Jain, L. and Maliwal, P. (2022). Growth and productivity of maize (Zea mays L.) as influenced by organic weed and nutrient management practices in Western Rajasthan. Ann. Plant Soil Res. 24(1): 59-64.

  11. Jan, R., Saxena, A., Jan, R., Khanday, M. and Jan, R. (2016). Intercropping indices and yield attributes of maize and black cowpea under various planting pattern. Bioscan. 11(2): 1-5.

  12. Kim, J., Song, Y., Kim, D.W., Fiaz, M. and Kwon, C.H. (2018). Evaluating different interrow distance between corn and soybean for optimum growth, production and nutritive value of intercropped forages. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 60: 1-6.

  13. Kumar, S., Didawat, R.K., Kumar, P., Singh, V.K., Shekhawat, K. and Singh, S.P.Y.S. (2022). Effect of Green seeker based nitrogen management and its interaction with water on growth and productivity of maize (Zea mays L.) under conservation agriculture. Ann. Plant Soil Res. 24(3): 500- 504.

  14. Maitra, S. (2020). Potential horizon of brown-top millet cultivation in drylands: A review. Crop Res. 55: 57-63

  15. Maitra, S. and Gitari, H.I. (2020). Scope for adoption of intercropping system in organic agriculture. Ind. J. Nat. Sci. 11: 28624-31.

  16. Maitra, S., Hossain, A., Brestic, M., Skalicky, M., Ondrisik, P., Gitari, H., Brahmachari, K., Shankar, T., Bhadra, P., Palai, J.B., Jena, J., Bhattacharya, U., Duvvada, S.K., Sagar, L. and Sairam, M. (2021). Intercropping-A low input agricultural strategy for food and environmental security. Agronomy. 11(2): 343. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11020343.

  17. Maitra, S., Palai, J.B., Manasa, P. and Kumar, D.P. (2019). Potential of intercropping system in sustaining crop productivity. Int. J. Environ. Agric. Biotechnol. 12: 39-45. 

  18. El-Mehy, A.A., Shehata, M.A., Mohamed, A.S., Saleh, S.A. and Suliman, A.A. (2023). Relay intercropping of maize with common dry beans to rationalize nitrogen fertilizer. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 7: 1052392. doi: https://doi.org/ 10.3389/fsufs.2023.1052392.

  19. Maitra, S., Shankar, T. and Banerjee, P. (2020). Potential and Advantages of Maize-legume Intercropping System. In: Maize-Production and Use, [Hossain A. (eds)], Intech Open. doi: 10.5772/intechopen.91722.

  20. Manasa, P., Maitra S. and Reddy M.D. (2018). Effect of summer maize-legume intercropping system on growth, productivity and competitive ability of crops. Int. J. Manage. Technol. Eng. 8: 2871-75. 

  21. Moriri, S., Owoeye, L.G. and Mariga, I.K. (2010). Influence of component crop densities and planting patterns on maize production in dry land maize/cowpea intercropping systems. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 5(11): 1200-1207.

  22. Nandi, S., Maitra, S., Shankar, T., Panda, M. and Sairam, M. (2022). Impact of intercropping of vegetable legumes in summer maize on productivity and competitive ability of crops. Crop Res. 57(3): 122-127.

  23. Ndayisaba, P.C., Kuyah, S., Midega, C.A.O., Mwangi, P.N. and Khan, Z.R. (2021). Intercropping desmodium and maize improves nitrogen and phosphorus availability and performance of maize in Kenya. Field Crops Res. 263: 108067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2021.108067. 

  24. Nduwimana, D., Mochoge, B., Danga, B., Masso, C., Maitra, S. and Gitari, H.I. (2020). Optimizing nitrogen use efficiency and maize yield under varying fertilizer rates in Kenya. Int. J. Biores. Sci. 7(2): 63-73.

  25. Noorunnahar, M., Mila, F.A. and Haque, F.T.I. (2023). Does the supply response of maize suffer from climate change in Bangladesh? Empirical evidence using ARDL approach. J. Agric. Food Res. 14: 100667-100667. doi: 10.1016/ j.jafr.2023.100667.

  26. Ogedegbe, F.O., Remison, S.U. and Okaka, V.B. (2017). Effects of various planting ratios on the performance of maize and cowpea in mixtures. Nigeria Agric. J. 48(1): 142-150.

  27. Parihar, C.M., Jat, S.L., Singh, A.K., Ghosh, A., Rathore, N.S., Kumar, B., Pradhan, S., Majumdar, K., Satyanarayana, T., Jat, M.L. and Saharawat, Y.S. (2017). Effects of precision conservation agriculture in a maize-wheat-mungbean rotation on crop yield, water-use and radiation conversion under a semiarid agro-ecosystem. Agric. Water Manage. 192: 306-19.

  28. Pooniya, V., Jat, S.L., Choudhary, A.K., Singh, A.K., Parihar, C.M., Bana, R.S., Swarnalakshmi, K. and Rana, K.S. (2015). Nutrient Expert assisted site specific nutrient management: An alternative precision fertilization technology for maize- wheat cropping system in South- Asian Indo-Gangetic Plains. Ind. J. Agric. Sci. 85(8): 996-1002.

  29. Prasanthi, K. and Venkateswaralu, B. (2014). Fodder quality in fodder maize-legume intercropping systems. J. Tropic. Agric. 52(1): 86-89.

  30. Sahoo, U., Maitra, S., Dey, S., Vishnupriya, K.K., Sairam, M. and Sagar, L. (2023). Unveiling the potential of maize-legume intercropping system for agricultural sustainability: A review. Farming Manage. 8(1): 1-13.

  31. Sairam, M., Sagar, L., Sahoo, U. and Maitra, S. (2023a). Inclusion of Legumes in Mixture for Improving Forage Productivity, Quality and Soil Health. In: Recent Advances in Agricultural Sciences and Technology. [Biradar, N., Shah, R.A., Ahmad, A. (eds)], Dilpreet Publication House, New Delhi, India. 177-188.

  32. Sairam, M., Maitra, S., Sain, S., Gaikwad, D.J. and Sagar, L. (2023b). Dry matter accumulation and physiological growth parameters of maize as influenced by different nutrient management practices. Agric. Sci. Digest. doi: 10.18805/ag.D-5835.

  33. Salama, H.S., Nawar, A.I. and Khalil, H.E. (2022). Intercropping pattern and N fertilizer schedule affect the performance of additively intercropped maize and forage cowpea in the Mediterranean region. Agronomy 12(1): 107. https:// doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12010107.

  34. Shekhawat, A.S., Purohit, H.S., Jat, G., Doodhwal, K., Aechra, S., Sharma, J.K. and Bamboriya, J.S. (2021). Effect of integrated nutrient management on productivity, quality and economics of maize (Zea mays L.) on typic haplustepts of Rajasthan. Ann. Plant Soil Res. 23(4): 407-410.

  35. Shivashankar, K., Potdar, M.P., Biradar, D.P. and Balol, K.M.G. (2023). Effect of sensor-based precision nitrogen management through SPAD and green seeker on dry matter accumulation and growth indices of maize. Pharma Innov. 12: 3555- 3559.

  36. Singh, V.K., Shukla, A.K., Singh, M.P., Majumdar, K., Mishra, R.P., Rani, M. and Singh, S.K. (2015). Effect of site-specific nutrient management on yield, profit and apparent nutrient balance under predominant cropping systems of upper gangetic plains. Ind. J. Agric. Sci. 85(3): 335-343. https:/ /doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v85i3.47096. 

  37. Singh, S.D., Nongmaithem, N., Konsam, J., Senjam, P. and Singh, N.A. (2023). Evaluation of soybean and green gram as intercrops with maize under different row proportions in the north-eastern hill region, India. Legume Research. 46(12): 1647-1652. doi: 10.18805/LR-4791.

  38. Sinha, A.K. (2016). Effect of site-specific nutrient management on production and productivity of maize (Zea mays L.) under mid hill condition of Chhatisgarh. Int. J. Plant Sci. 11(2): 167-170.

  39. Talukdar, T.P., Tamuli, B., Boruah, R.R. and Richo, M.K. (2023). Growth and yield of maize (Zea mays) as influenced by intercropping of french bean and soybean. Agric. Rev.  44(1): 124-127. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-2474.

  40. Vikram, A.P., Biradar, D.P., Umesh, M.R., Basavanneppa, M.A. and Rao, K.N. (2015). Effect of nutrient management techniques on growth, yield and economics of hybrid maize (Zea mays L.) in vertisols. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 28(4): 477- 481.

  41. Willey, R.W. (1979). Intercropping-Its importance and research needs. I. Competition and yield advantages. II. Research approaches. Field Crop Abstr. 32: 2-10.

  42. Willey, R.W. and Osiru, D.S.O. (1972). Studies on mixtures of maize and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with particular reference to plant population. J. Agric. Sci. 79(3): 517-529.

  43. Yavas, I. and Unay, A. (2016). Evaluation of physiological growth parameters of maize in maize legume intercropping system. J. Animal Plant Sci. 26(6): 1680-1687.

  44. Zalac, H., Herman, G., Ergovi ìc, L., Jovi ìc, J., Zebec, V., Bubalo, A. and Ive zi ìc, V. (2023). Ecological and agronomic benefits of intercropping maize in a walnut orchard-A case study. Agronomy. 13: 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/ agronomy 13010077.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)