The agronomic traits and inflorescence yield of oil palm
The plant diameter and height, the number of male and female inflorescences and sex ratio of oil palms planted with different intercrops are presented in Table 2. Plate 1 illustrates twelve-year-old oil palms intercropped with some perennial plants. The diameter, height and the number of male inflorescences in all observed months, the number of female inflorescences in June 2020 and sex ratio in October 2019 and June 2020, were not significantly different among the various treatments. The only significant differences were found in the number of female inflorescences in October 2019 and February 2020 and sex ratios in February 2020. Oil palm intercropped with
A. excelsa (6.00±0.00) and
M. champaca (5.71±1.70) produced the greatest number of female inflorescences in October 2020, but they were statistically at par with monocropped oil palm (3.25±0.38; p < 0.05), oil palm intercropped with
I. palembanica (4.20±2.17; p < 0.05),
H. odorata (3.55±2.62; p < 0.05),
S. macrophylla (3.43±1.40; p < 0.05) and
T. wallichiana (4.50±1.91; p < 0.05). Monocropped oil palm (5.13±2.75), oil palm intercropped with
I. palembanica (5.40±3.13),
H. odorata (5.25±2.65),
S. macrophylla (5.57±3.74),
T. wallichiana (5.25±2.87),
A. excelsa (6.00±1.41) and
M. champaca (4.43±2.64) produced a greater number of female inflorescences than oil palm intercropped with
M. ferrea (0.50±0.07; p < 0.05) in February 2020. Oil palm intercropped with
T. wallichiana (0.93±0.14),
A. excelsa (0.92±0.12) and
M. champaca (1.00±0.00) produced the greatest sex ratio in February 2020, but they were statistically at par with monocropped oil palm (0.86±0.35; p < 0.05), oil palm intercropped with
I. palembanica (0.76±0.43; p < 0.05),
H. odorata (0.87±0.25; p < 0.05) and
S. macrophylla (0.76±0.27; p < 0.05).
The agronomic traits of perennial intercrops and their growth rates
The plant height and stem perimeter of the intercrops are presented in Table 3.
M. champaca produced the greatest plant height (15.83±4.62, 18.83±2.99 and 19.83±3.20 m) in all observed months, but they were statistically at par with
S. macrophylla (13.67±3.61, 13.87±1.94 and 13.92±1.72 m; p < 0.01),
A. excelsa (13.00±3.45, 14.00±1.55 and 15.00±3.25 m; p < 0.01) and
M. ferrea (9.50±2.12, 11.00±1.41 and 12.00±1.41 m; p < 0.01).
A. excelsa produced the greatest stem perimeter (84.90±4.90, 90.00±3.00 and 93.20±3.20 cm) in all observed months, however, these were statistically at par with
M. champaca (74.90±14.27, 80.83±16.23 and 83.30±15.16 cm; p < 0.01) and
S. macrophylla (54.55±8.11, 58.92±9.82 and 60.70±10.54 cm; p < 0.01). Growth rates of plant height and stem perimeter of intercrops are presented in Table 4. From October 2019 to February 2020,
M. champaca produced the highest growth rate of plant height (55.00±8.74 cm month
-1), but was at par with
S. macrophylla,
A. excelsa and
M. ferrea (29.17±9.21, 25.00±3.56 and 37.50±7.68 cm month
-1).
A. excelsa produced the highest growth rate of stem perimeter (2.03±0.15 cm month
-1), but they were statistically at par with
S. macrophylla and
M. champaca (1.09±0.85 and 1.48±0.85 cm month
-1). From February to June 2020,
M. champaca produced the highest growth rate of plant height (35.00±7.91 cm month
-1), but they were statistically at par with
S. macrophylla,
A. excelsa and
M. ferrea (18.75±6.85, 25.00±4.25 and 29.00±5.00 cm month
-1).
A. excelsa produced the highest growth rate of stem perimeter (1.05±0.11 cm month
-1) and were also statistically at par with
S. macrophylla,
T. wallichiana and
M. champaca (0.45±0.30, 0.38±0.19 and 0.92±0.42 cm month
-1).
The results are similar to those found in previous studies relating to oil palm, where it has been reported that oil palm can be intercropped with different plants at different growth stages.
Salako et al., (1995) studied the effect of intercropping oil palm with cocoyam (
Xanthosoma sagittifolium) and the results show that such intercropping did not affect the growth or yield of oil palm. They recommended that owners of oil palm plantations maximize their land use and profit by intercropping oil palm with cocoyam during the first five years after planting oil palm.
Erhabor and Filson (1999) investigated the nutrient dynamics in relation to soil fertility management for oil palm intercropped with soybean (
Glycine max), maize (
Zea mays) and cocoyam during the first three years after planting. The results showed that, there was no significant change in soil pH after three years of using these cropping systems. Moreover, oil palm intercropped with soybean showed a 71 per cent increase in the level of phosphorus in the soil.
Putra et al., (2012) determined the effect of soybean and groundnut on oil palm, with neither producing high yields. However, the presence of soybean and groundnut between the rows of oil palms was found not to inhibit the growth rate and development of the oil palms.
Okyere et al., (2014) investigated the effects of intercropping four-year-old oil palm with maize, cassava and plantain, finding that there were no significant differences between the vegetative growth and yield of oil palm intercropped with those plants and those of sole cropped oil palm. Moreover, intercropping oil palm with maize, plantain and / or cassava had no adverse effect on the growth, development and yield of the oil palm.
Amoah et al., (1995) studied the feasibility of cocoa intercropping with eighteen-year-oil palm which had achieved maximum canopy formation. The results found that, there were no significant differences in oil palm yield between oil palms intercropped with cocoas and monocropped oil palms. Oil palms have a four-level root system, consisting of primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary roots. The root system of oil palm spreads in both the vertical and horizontal directions and extends to a maximum depth of over 6 meters (
Jourdan and Rey, 1997). The number and strength of the roots of oil palms affects their potential to absorb water and minerals from the soil. In addition, intercropping oil palm with other plants could provide a habitat for and increase the activities of soil microorganisms, resulting in the release of fixed minerals, leading to an increase in available plant nutrients in the soil
(Belel et al., 2014; Buragohain, 2015;
Rahim et al., 2016).