A field experiment was conducted at Oilseeds Research Station (12° 21' N, 79° 66' E and 45.6 m above mean sea level), Tindivanam, Tamil Nadu, India during
rabi season (November-March) of 2017-18 and 2018-19. The soil at experimental site was sandy loam (20.4% coarse sand; 30.6% fine sand; 26.2% silt; 22.6% clay) medium in organic carbon (0.56%), low in available nitrogen (246 kg ha
-1), medium in phosphorus (24.1 kg ha-1) and potassium (204 kg ha
-1). The weather parameters recorded during the trial is given in Table 1.
The experiment was laid out in split plot design with 5 intercropping treatments in the main plot
viz., sole groundnut, groundnut + castor (6:1), groundnut + blackgram (6:1), groundnut + sesame (4:1) and groundnut + pearl millet (4:1) and 3 treatments in the sub plot based on climatological irrigation scheduling using IW/CPE ratio of 0.50, 0.75 and 1.0. The crops were sown under replacement series on 12th of December, 2017 and 13th of December 2018, with groundnut (var. TMV 13) spacing of 30 × 10 cm (plant population: 333,333 ha-1). Groundnut when intercropped with row ratio of 6:1 with castor (var. TMV 5: spacing 60 × 30 cm; plant population: 7,936 plants ha
-1) and blackgram (var. VBN 8: spacing 30 × 10 cm; plant population: 47,619 plants ha
-1) retained a plant population of 285,714 plants ha-1 and when intercropped with row ratio of 4:1 sesame (var. TMV 7: spacing 30 × 30 cm; plant population: 22,222 plants ha-1) and pearl millet (var. CO 10: spacing 45 × 15 cm; plant population: 29,630 plants ha-1) retained 266,666 plants ha
-1 under replacement series. Recommended dose of fertilizer (25:50:75 NPK kg ha
-1) was applied as 50% nitrogen and potassium with 100% phosphorus as basal and the remaining 50% of nitrogen and potassium along with gypsum (400 kg ha
-1) at 45 days after sowing.
Initially one irrigation was provided on the day of sowing (DAS) followed by another at 5 DAS. The remaining irrigations were applied as per treatment based on daily pan evaporation data. Irrigation supplied to the crop was measured with an 18-inch cutthroat flume. During all the irrigations, the Ha and Hb depths were noted and irrigation was supplied once it became constant and the time was noted using a stop watch to calculate the volume of water supplied to the plot. Buffer channels were provided around each experimental plot to prevent irrigation water from entering the adjacent plot. The soil moisture was determined using gravimetric method. The soil samples were collected using a screw auger at the depth of 0-15 cm, 15-30 cm, 30-45 cm, 45-60 cm and 60-75 cm to determine the total consumptive use (mm) and soil moisture extraction pattern of the crop.
Where, soil moisture depletion was calculated using
Dastane (1972) formula:
Where,
d = Moisture deficit in the root zone.
M
1i = Soil moisture in the ith layer of profile 24 hours after irrigation.
M
2i = Soil moisture in the ith layer of profile 24 hours before the next irrigation.
ASi = Bulk density of the ith layer (g/cc).
Di = Depth of the ith layer (cm).
ER = Effective rainfall.
Both the sole and intercrops were harvested manually, sundried and threshed manually. Groundnut was harvested on 26th of March during both the consecutive years. Observations of relevant parameters of all the crops were recorded as per standard procedure. The yields of different intercrops were converted into groundnut equivalent yield based on price of the produce and expressed as kg ha
-1. Water use efficiency (WUE) was calculated from the amount of yield that was produced from the unit consumptive use of water (kg ha
-1 mm
-1).
Similarly, economic water productivity (EWP) was calculated as a function of gross income to the total water used by the crop throughout its growth and expressed in ₹ ha
-1 mm
-1.
The economic analysis was formulated as per the standard procedure of
CIMMYT (1988). For each system, partial budgeting was calculated to determine the expenses incurred and net returns using the market price during the experiment.
Light interception (LI) was calculated using light intensity recorded on 30 DAS, 60 DAS and 90 DAS using a lux meter at different time intervals at 10:00 AM, 12:00 PM and 2:00 PM. At each time the values were noted at the top, middle and ground level of the crop. For each time interval, the mean value for the particular day was arrived and the light interception was calculated keeping the light intensity in the open as constant. Similar method of estimation was done by
Rosenthal and Gerik (1991),
Chelliah (1996) and
Kiniry et al., (2005) using the formula:
Where,
LI = Light interception.
Lo = Light intensity in the open.
Lc= Average light intensity of the crop.
Statistical analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed with the SAS software
(SAS Institute, 1999). The analysis of the data for the years was done separately and the homogeneity of variances was tested using the Bartlett’s Chi-square test. The data with heterogeneous variances were applied with Aitken’s square root transformation. The combined analysis was done using the PROC GLM procedure considering the years as fixed effects. Critical difference (CD) at 5% level of probability and P values were used to examine differences among the treatment means.