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
Legume Research, volume 40 issue 1 (february 2017) : 105-116

Growth, development and yield as affected by planting pattern and weed management in field pea and baby corn intercropping system

Moirangthem Thoithoi Devi*1, V.K. Singh
1<p>Department of Agronomy, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology&nbsp;Pantnagar, U.S. Nagar-263145, India.</p>
Cite article:- Devi*1 Thoithoi Moirangthem, Singh V.K. (2016). Growth, development and yield as affected by planting pattern and weed management in field pea and baby corn intercropping system . Legume Research. 40(1): 105-116. doi: 10.18805/lr.v0iOF.11039.

A field experiment was conducted during two consecutive seasons of rabi 2011-13 at Dr. Norman E. Borlaug Crop Research Centre of G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar to find out the effect of planting pattern and weed management practices on growth, development and yield of field pea and baby corn in field pea (Pant P-13) + baby corn (Surya) intercropping system. The experiment was laid out in split plot design keeping four planting patterns as main plot and four weed management practices as sub plot with three replications. Most of the growth parameters viz. number of branches per plant, dry matter accumulation (g/plant), crop growth rate and relative growth rate of field pea were comparatively higher under sole planting of field pea as compared to intercropping systems. Sole planting of field pea recorded significantly higher grain (2264 and 1434 kg ha-1) and straw yields (3263 and 2540 kg ha-1) during 2011-12 and 2012-2013 than yield obtained as a component crop in paired planting of maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2:2) and planting  of maize + field pea (1:1). Baby corn yield was similar in sole, paired (2:2) and 1:1 planting but significantly higher stover yield of baby corn (3576 kg ha-1 and 3533 kg ha-1, during 2011-12 and 2012-2013 respectively) was obtained from sole crop than other planting methods during both the years. Hand weeding at 30 days after sowing, pre emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg ha-1 and post emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g ha-1 30 days after sowing improved all the growth and yield parameters of field pea and baby corn than weedy check . 

  1. Alam, M.Z., Haider, S.A. and Paul, N.K. (2005). Effects of sowing time and nitrogen fertilizer on barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Bangladesh J. Bot. 34: 27-30.

  2. Alom, M.S., Paul, N.K. and Quayyum, M.A. (2010). Production potential of different varieties of hybried maize (Zea mays L.) with groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) under intercropping system. Bangladesh J. Agric. Res. 35: 51-64.

  3. Aravinth, V., Kuppuswamy, G. and Ganapathy, M. (2011). Growth and yield of baby corn (Zea mays) as influenced by intercropping, plant geometry and nutrient management. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 81: 875-877.

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

  5. Barod, N.K., Dhar, S. and Kumar, A. (2012). Effect of nutrient sources and weed control methods on yield and economics of baby corn (Zea mays). Indian J. Agron. 57: 96-99.

  6. Carruthers, K., Prithiviraj, B., Cloutier, D., Martin, R.C. and Smith, D.L. (2000). Intercropping corn with soybean, lupin and forages: yield components responses. European J. Agron. 12: 103-115.

  7. Das, A.K., Khaliq, Q.A. and Haider, M.L. (2013). Effect of planting configurations on yield and yield components in maize + soybean and maize + bushbean intercropping system. Int. J. Expt. Agric. 3:38-45.

  8. Dixit, A. (1995). Economics of weed control methods in winter maize. Agric. Sci. Digest. Karnal 15: 143-145.

  9. Dixit, A. and Gautam, K.C. (1996). Effect of atrazine on growth and yield of winter maize. Ann. Agric. Res. 17: 121-124.

  10. Gopinath, K.A., Kumar, N., Banshi, L., Mina, A., Srivastva, K. and Gupta, H.S. (2009). Evaluation of mulching, stale seedbed, hand weeding and hoeing for weed control in organic garden pea (Pisum sativum sub sp. hortense L.) Archives of Agron. and Soil Sci. 55: 115-123.

  11. Hawaldar, S. and Agasimani, C.A. (2012). Effect of herbicides on weed control and productivity of maize (Zea mays L.). Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 25: 137-139.

  12. Khan, M. and Haq, N. (2004). Weed control in maize (Zea mays L.) with pre-and post- emergence herbicides. Pakistan J.Weed Sci. Res. 10: 39-46.

  13. Khan, M.A., Marwat, K.B., Gul, H.and Naeem, K. (2002). Impact of weed management on maize (Zea mays L.) planted at night. Pakistan J.Weed Sci. Res. 8: 57-62.

  14. Kheroar, S. and Patra, B.C. (2014). Productivity of maize-legume intercropping systems under rainfed situation. African J. Agric. Res. 9: 1610-1617.

  15. Kretchmer, P.J., Ozbun, J.L., Kaplan, S.L., Laing, D.R. and Wallace, D.H. (1977). Red and far- red light effects on climbing in Phaseolus vulgaris L. Crop Sci. 17: 797-799. 

  16. Mandal, M.K., Banerjee, M., Banerjee, H., Alipatra, A. and Malik, G. C. (2014a). Productivity of maize (Zea mays) based intercropping system during kharif season under red and lateritic. The Bioscan 9: 31-35. 

  17. Mandal, M.K., Banerjee, M., Banerjee, H., Pathak, A. and Das, R. (2014b). Evaluation of cereal-legume intercropping systems through productivity and Competition ability. Asian J. Sci and Techno. 5:233-237. 

  18. Mashingaizde, A.B., Nyakanda, C., Chivinge, O. A., Washaireni, A.M. and Dube, K. W. (2000). Influence of a maize pumpkin live much on weed dynamics and maize yield. African Plant Protection 6:57-63. 

  19. Mishra, A. (2014). Effect of winter maize-based intercropping systems on maize yield, associated weeds and economic efficiency. Comunicata Scientiae 5: 110-117.

  20. Morgan, D.C. and Smith, H. (1981). Non photosynthetic to light quality. In: Orogpro, Tanzania. Advances in Agron. 41: 41-90.

  21. Mundra, S.L., Vyas, A.K. and Maliwal, P.L. (2003). Effect of weed and nutrient management on weed growth and productivity of maize (Zea mays L.). Indian J. Weed Sci. 35: 57-61.

  22. Pandey, A.K., Prakash, V., Singh, R.D. and Mani, V.P. (1999). Effect of intercropping pattern of maize (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max L. Merril) on yield and economics under mid-hills of N-W Himalayas. Ann. Agric.l Res. 20: 354-359.

  23. Pandey, A.K., Ved, P. and Gupta. (2002). Effect of integrated weed management practices on yield and economics of babycorn (Zea mays). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 72: 206-209.

  24. Rao, M.R. and Willey, R.W. (1983). Effect of genotypes in cereal/pigeonpea intercropping on alfisols of semi-arid tropics of India. Expt. Agric. 19: 67-78.

  25. Shinde, S.H., Kolage, A.K. and Bhilare, R.L. (2001). Effect of weed control on growth and yield of maize. J.Maharashtra Agric. University 26: 212-213.

  26. Shivay, Y.S. and Shingh, R.P. 2000. Growth, yield attributes and nitrogen uptake of maize (Zea mays L.) as influenced by cropping system and N levels. Ann. Agric. Res. 21: 494-498.

  27. Singh, M.K., Thakur, R., Verma, U.N., Pal, S.K. and Pasupalak, S. (1998). Productivity and nutrient balance of maize (Zea mays) + blackgram (Phaseolus mungo) intercropping as affected by fertilizer and plant density. Indian J. Agron. 43: 495-500.

  28. Sinha, S.P., Prasad, S.M. and Singh, S.J. (2001). Response of winter maize (Zea mays) to integrated weed management. Indian J. Agron. 46: 485- 488.

  29. Warren Wilson, J. (1981). Analysis of growth, photosynthesis and light interception for single plants and stands. Ann. Bot. 8: 507-12. 

  30. Watson, D. J. (1952). The physiological basis of variation in yield. Adv. Agron. 4: 101-45.


Editorial Board

View all (0)