Legume Research

  • Chief EditorJ. S. Sandhu

  • Print ISSN 0250-5371

  • Online ISSN 0976-0571

  • NAAS Rating 6.80

  • SJR 0.391

  • Impact Factor 0.8 (2023)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Research Article

Legume Research, volume 39 issue 4 (august 2016) : 558-564

Productivity, relative yield and plant growth of forage corn intercropped with soybean under different crop combination ratio

Ali Baghdadi1, Ridzwan A. Halim1*, Radziah Othman2, Martini Mohammad Yusof1, Ali Reza Mahdavi Atashgahi 3
1<p>Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture,&nbsp;Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 Serdang, Malaysia.</p>
Cite article:- Baghdadi1 Ali, Halim1* A. Ridzwan, Othman2 Radziah, Yusof1 Mohammad Martini, 3 Atashgahi Mahdavi Reza Ali (2016). Productivity, relative yield and plant growth of forage corn intercroppedwith soybean under different crop combination ratio . Legume Research. 39(4): 558-564. doi: 10.18805/lr.v0iOF.10755.

ABSTRACT

An experiment was carried out to evaluate influence of different crop combination ratios of corn and soybean in terms of forage yield in corn-soybean intercropping. The experiment compared both corn and soybean as monocultures and in different intercropping ratios from 25:75, 50:50 and 75:25 of corn to soybean. The crop combination ratio had significant effects on physiological traits and dry matter yield of forage. The ratio of 75:25 and 50:50 recorded DM yields similar to those of monocropped corn (14.77 t/ha). Relative yield total (RYT) values of intercropping were higher than that of monocrop corn and soybean. Mixtures with 50:50 combination ratio had higher mean total relative yield values (1.15) in comparison with the other ratios. Land equivalent ratio (LER) increased with corn-soybean intercropping and the highest total LER value was recorded with 50:50 ratio (1.13). The crop ratio of 50:50 gave the best combination based on DM yield, relative yield, LER of the combined forage.

REFERENCES


  1. American Psychological Association (1972). Ethical Standards of Psychologists. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

  2. Addo-Quaye, A. A., Darkwa, A. A. and Ocloo, G. K. (2011). Yield and productivity of component crops in a maize-    soybean intercropping system as affected by time of planting and spatial arrangement. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, 6: 50-57.

  3. Agegnehu, G., Ghizaw, A. and Sinebo, W. (2006). Yield performance and land-use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. European Journal of Agronomy, 25: 202-207.

  4. Arlauskienë, A., Maikðtënienë, S., Ðarûnaitë, L., Kadþiulienë, Þ., Deveikytë, I., Þëkaitë, V. and Èesnulevièienë, R. (2011). Competitiveness and productivity of organically grown pea and spring cereal intercrops. Þemdirbystë Agriculture, 98: 339-348.

  5. Banik, P., Midya, A., Sarkar, B. K. and Ghose, S. S. (2006). Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: Advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy, 24: 325-332.

  6. Bhatti, I. H., Ahmad, R. I. A. Z., Jabbar, A. B. D. U. L., Nazir, M. S. and Mahmood, T. (2006). Competitive behaviour of component crops in different sesame-legume intercropping systems. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 8: 165-167.

  7. Bhatti, I. H., Ahmad, R., Jabbar, A., Nadeem, M., Khan, M. M. and Vains, S. N. (2013). Agronomic performance of mash bean as an intercrop in sesame under different planting patterns. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture, 25: 52-57.

  8. Bildirici, N., Aldemir, R., Karsli, M. A. and Dogan, Y. (2009). Potential Benefits of Intercropping Corn with Runner Bean for Small-sized Farming System. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 22: 836-842.

  9. Carr, P. M., Horsley, R. D. and Poland, W. W. (2004). Barley, oat, and cereal-pea mixtures as dryland forages in the northern great plains. Agronomy Journal, 96: 677-684.

  10. Çiftçi, V., Toðay, N., Toðay, Y. and Doðan, Y. (2006). The effects of intercropping sowing systems with dry bean and maize on yield and some yield components. Journal of Agronomy, 5: 53-56.

  11. Dhima, K. V., Lithourgidis, A. S., Vasilakoglou, I. B. and Dordas, C. A. (2007). Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research, 100: 249-256.

  12. Dhima, K. V., Vasilakoglou, I. B., Eleftherohorinos, I. G. and Lithourgidis, A. S. (2006). Allelopathic potential of winter cereals and their cover crop mulch effect on grass weed suppression and corn development. Crop Science, 46: 345-352.

  13. Dhima, K. V., Vasilakoglou, I. B., Keco, R. X., Dima, A. K., Paschalidis, K. Á. and Gatsis, T. D. (2014). Forage yield and competition indices of faba bean intercropped with oat. Grass and Forage Science, 69: 376-383.

  14. Eskandari, H. (2012). Yield and Quality of forage produced in intercropping of maize (Zea mays L.) with cowpea (Vignasinensis L.) and Mungbean (Vigna radiate L.) as double cropped. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 2: 93-97.

  15. Esmaeili, A., Sadeghpour, A., Hosseini, S. M. B., Jahanzad, E., Chaichi, M. R. and Hashemi, M. (2011). Evaluation of seed yield and competition indices for intercropped barley (Hordeum vulgare) and annual medic (Medicago scutellata). International Journal of Plant Production, 5: 395–404.

  16. Ghosh, P. K., Manna, M. C., Bandyopadhyay, K. K., Tripathi, A. K., Wanjari, R. H., Hati, K. M., Misra, A. K., Acharaya, C. L. and Subba Rao, A. (2006). Interspecific interaction and nutrient use in soybean/sorghum intercropping system. Agronomy Journal, 98: 1097-1108.

  17. Hirpa, T. (2014). Response of maize crop to spatial arrangement and staggered interseeding of haricot bean. International Journal of Environment, 3: 126-138.

  18. Hulet, H., Gosseye, P. and ILCA, B. (1986). Effect of intercropping cowpea on dry-matter and grain yield of millet in the semi-arid zone of Mali. In Proc. workshop on potentials of forage legumes in farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa. International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa (pp. 379-396).

  19. Ijoyah, M. O. (2012). Review of intercropping research: Studies on cereal-vegetable based cropping system. Scientific Journal of Crop Science, 1: 55-62.

  20. Kebebew, S. (2014). Intercropping Soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) at Different Population Densities with Maize (Zea mays L.) on Yield Component, Yield and System Productivity at Mizan Teferi, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development, 1: 121-127.

  21. Mead, R. and Willey, R. W. (1980). The concept of a ‘land equivalent ratio’and advantages in yields from intercropping. Experimental Agriculture, 16: 217-228.

  22. Mutungamiri, A., Mariga, I. K. and Chivinge, O. A. (2001). Evaluation of maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars and density for dryland maize-bean intercropping. Tropical agriculture, 78: 8-12.

  23. Nassab, A. D.M., Amon, T. and Kaul, H. P. (2011). Competition and yield in intercrops of maize and sun flower for biogas. Industial Crops and Products, 34: 1203-1211.

  24. Nazir, M. S., Jabbar, A. B. D. U. L., Ahmad, I. M. T. I. A. Z., Nawaz, S. H. A. H. and Bhatti, I. H. (2002). Production potential and economics of intercropping in autumnplanted sugarcane. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 4: 140-142.

  25. Raji, J. A. (2007). Intercropping Soybean and Maize in a Derived Savanna Ecology. African Journal of Biotechnology, 6: 1885-1887.

  26. Refay, Y. A., Alderfasi, A. A., Selim, M. M. and Awad, K. (2013). Evaluation of Variety, Cropping Pattern and Plant Density on Growth and Yield Production of Grain Sorghum -Cowpea under Limited Water Supply Condition Growth, yield and yield component characters of Sorghum. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, 2: 24-29.

  27. Sadeghpour, A. and Jahanzad, E. (2012). Seed yield and yield components of intercropped barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) and annual medic (Medicago scutellata L.). Australian Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 3: 47-50.

  28. Sarlak, S., Aghaalikhani, M. and Zand, B. (2008). Effect of plant density and mixing ratio on crop yield in sweet corn/    mungbean intercropping. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 11: 2128-2133.

  29. Smith, H. A. and McSorley, R. (2000). Intercropping and pest management: a review of major concepts. American Entomologist, 46: 154-161.

  30. Takim, F. O. (2012). Advantages of maize-cowpea intercropping over sole cropping through competition indices. Journal of Agriculture and Biodiversity Research, 1: 53-59.

  31. Tessema, Z. and Baar, R. M. T. (2006). Chemical composition, drymatter production and yield dynamics of tropical grasses mixed with peerenial forage legumes. Tropical Grasslands, 40:150-156.

  32. Tsubo, M., Mukhala, E., Ogindo, H. O. and Walker, S. (2003). Productivity of maize-bean intercropping in a semi-arid region of South Africa. Water SA, 29: 381-388.

  33. Ullah, A., Bhatti, M. A., Gurmani, Z. A. and Imran, M. (2007). Studies on planting patterns of maize (Zea mays L.) facilitating legumes intercropping. Journal of Agricultural Research, 45: 113-118.

  34. Valadabadi, S. A. and Farahani, H. A. (2010). Effects of Planting Density and Pattern on Physiological Growth Indices in Maize (Zea Mays L.) under Nitrogenous Fertilizer Application. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 2: 040-047.

  35. Waktola, S. K. (2014). Intercropping Soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) at Different Population Densities with Maize (Zea mays L.) on Yield Component, Yield and System Productivity at Mizan Teferi, Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development, 1: 121-127.

  36. Yilmaz, S., Gozubenli, H., Kruskan, O. and Atis, I. (2007). Genotype and plant density effect on corn (Zea mays L.) forage yield. Asian Journal of Plant Science, 6: 538-541. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)