Competition Indices
Relative crowding coefficient
Relative crowding coefficient (RCC) plays a significant role in determining the competition effects and advantages of intercropping. If the product of RCC (K) of two species is equal, less or greater than one, it means that the intercropping system has no advantage, disadvantage or advantage, respectively. RCC value in the intercropping system, showed higher value (1.23) with 4:1 replacement series and greater values in other replacement series than sole groundnut (K
bc) and sole blackgram (K
ic) indicating that intercrops had highly dominant over sole groundnut and sole blackgram in intercropping systems. It can be inferred that 4:1 ratio intercrop utilized the resources more efficiently than its base groundnut crop which appeared to be dominated. Among the intercropping system, significantly maximum value of RCC (K
bc, K
ic and K) was recorded in 4:1 intercropping system (Fig 1) indicating that maximum yield advantage was obtained by this intercropping system due to spatial and temporal complementary between both the component crops and also having distant difference in rooting pattern, growth habit and maturity periods and contrast nature of utilize natural resources efficiently. The results were in accordance with the findings of
Sarkar et al., (1995) and
Dutta and Bandhyopadhyay (2006).
Aggressivity
Aggressivity (A) is an important competition function to determine the competitive ability of a crop when grown in association with another crop. The value of aggressivity was recorded minimum for intercrops and maximum for groundnut and blackgram sole cropping systems (Fig 2). This shows that component crops did not compete equally and all the intercrops indicated dominant behaviour over the base groundnut and base blackgram. Among the intercropping systems, the highest value of aggressivity was observed in 5:1 replacement series (0.004) indicating greater difference in competitive ability between the component crops, resulting in wide variations between the actual and expected yields. While the lowest value of aggressivity was recorded in 4:1 (0.002) which indicated that 4:1 replacement series was least competitive replacement series among the groundnut cum blackgram based intercropping system.
These results were in close conformity with the findings of
Sarkar et al., (1995) and
Singh and Ahlawat (2011).
Competitive ratio
Competitive ratio (CR) gives better measure of competitive ability of the crops and can prove a better index over with K and A. The values of CR of intercrops were more than sole crops (1.00 to 3.36), indicating that intercrops were more competitive than sole crop under intercropping system (Fig 3). Among intercrops, the highest value of CR for groundnut as base crop was recorded by 5:1 (3.36) followed by 6:1 (2.99) and 7:1 (2.94) than 3:2 (1.00), 4:2 (1.21) and 4:1 (2.10) thus indicating that 5:1, 6:1 and 7:1 proved to be better competitor as compared to other replacement series when grown in groundnut cum blackgram association. It is also evident from the competitive ratio that 3:2, 4:2 and 4:1 was found to be least competitor crop ratios for intercropping groundnut cum blackgram. These results were in line with those reported by
Dutta and Bandhyopadhyay (2006) and
Singh and Ahlawat (2011).
Biological indices
Land equivalent ratio
Land equivalent ratio (LER) was used as criterion for evaluate efficiency of intercropping advantage in using the resources of the environment compared to sole crops. LER values greater than one in intercropping system (Table 2) indicating the yield advantage of intercropping over sole cropping of groundnut and blackgram for the effective use of environmental resources for plant growth. Among the intercropping system, the highest LER (1.1) was recorded in 4:1 which was on par with 6:1 and 7:1 and recorded significantly higher LER as compared to 4:2, 5:1, 5:2, 6:2, 7:2 which was significantly superior to 3:1 (0.9) and 3:2 (0.7). It might be attributed to better complementary relationship between component crop, leading to better use of growth resources. These results confirm the findings of
Kumar et al., (2010).
Land equivalent coefficient
Land equivalent coefficient (LEC) is the product of individual LER of the component crops. Values of LEC in all the intercropping system were greater than 0, which indicate yield advantages in intercropping systems and each component crop ratios in the system should give at least 50 per cent of their sole crop yield (Table 2). Among intercropping systems, significantly the highest value of LEC (0.15) was registered in 4:2, which was on par with 4:1 and 3:2 also recorded significantly higher compared to 3:1, 5:2 and 6:2 (0.07) which was significantly superior to 7:2 (0.05), 5:1, 6:1 and 7:1 (0.04) indicating better performance under inter cropping systems in groundnut cum blackgram intercropping proportion.
Area time equivalent ratio
Area time equivalent ratio (ATER) provides more a realistic comparison of the yield advantage of intercropping over that of sole cropping than LER as it considers variation in time taken by the component crops of different intercropping systems (Table 2). Significantly higher ATER was recorded in 4:1 (0.96) as compared to sole groundnut (0.89). This indicates that not only the efficient use of land but also efficient use of time to the extent of 7 per cent. While, significantly lowest ATER (0.87) was recorded in 6:1 which were on par with 5:1 and 7:1 (0.84) and 3:1(0.77) and 7:2 (0.76) also recorded ATER less than one indicating poor utility of resources. Similar observations were made by
Kumar et al., (2010).
Groundnut pod equivalent yield
Productivity in terms of groundnut pod equivalent yield (GPEY) is the best tool to determine the overall productivity potential of an intercropping system (Table 2). The highest GPEY (3756.38 kg ha
-1) was obtained significantly by 4:1 followed by 6:1 (3635.09 kg ha
-1) and 7:1 (3501 kg ha
-1) which were on par with sole groundnut (3841.75 kg ha
-1) due to better performance and yield of component crops as well as higher market price of intercrops (Table 3). While significantly lowest GPEY was recorded in 3:2 (1602.31 kg ha
-1), 5:2 (2930.81 kg ha
-1) and 6:2 (2978.94 kg ha
-1) compared to sole groundnut mainly due to low yield of component crop. This result showed that intercrops with replacement series
viz., 4:1 was more compatible than other row proportions. Higher overall productivity in terms of GPEY of intercropping over sole cropping of groundnut has also been reported by
Chandrika et al., (2001) and
Prasad et al., (2007).
Economic indices
Gross and net returns and B:C ratio
Gross and net returns and B:C ratio was significantly influenced by intercropping systems (Table 3). The higher gross return, net return and B: C ratio was obtained significantly in 4:1 (Rs 232099.4, 152346.4 ha
-1 and 2.91) followed by 6:1 (Rs 220583.4, 134668.4 ha
-1 and 2.56) and 5:1 (Rs 210286.1, 127452.1 ha
-1 and 2.53) and 7:1 (Rs 212527.6, 126612.6 ha
-1 and 2.47) as compared to sole groundnut. Whereas less gross return, net return and B: C ratio was recorded by 3:2 (Rs 113064.5, 48479.54 ha
-1 and 1.75) followed by 4:2 (Rs 160431, 89762.98 ha
-1 and 2.27) and 5:2 (Rs 181162.9, 104332.9 ha
-1 and 2.35) as compared to sole groundnut (Rs 230505, 135505 ha
-1 and 2.42). The highest gross and net returns as well as B: C ratio might due to higher yield levels and higher market price of the component crops. Similar results were earlier reported by
Solaiappan et al., (1994), Prasad et al., (2007) and
Singh et al., (2011).
Monetary equivalent ratio
Monetary equivalent ratio (MER) was significantly influenced by intercropping systems (Table 3). Significantly highest MER (1.01) was recorded by 4:1 which is on par with 6:1 and 7:1 compared to sole groundnut (1.0). While significantly lowest MER (0.49) was recorded by 3:2 followed by 4:2 (0.7) and 5:2 (0.79) than sole groundnut. It suggested that 4:1, 6:1 and 7:1 would be the economic superiority replacement series among other series for groundnut cum blackgram intercropping system.