Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Land Equivalent Ratio, Growth, Yield and Yield Components Response of Mono-Cropped vs. Inter-Cropped Common Bean and Maize With and Without Compost Application
Land Equivalent Ratio, Growth, Yield and Yield Components Response of Mono-Cropped vs. Inter-Cropped Common Bean and Maize With and Without Compost Application
Field experiment was conducted to investigate land equivalent ratio (LER), yield and yield
components of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L., cv. Dargai Local) grown alone as mono
cropping and in various combinations (intercropping) in maize (Zea mays L., cv. Azam) with and
without compost application. The experiment was laid out in randomized complete block design
on farmer‟s field at Dargai, Malakand (Northwest Pakistan) during summer 2012. In case of
intercropping, growing common bean grown as T2 (two alternate rows of each crop) and T 4 (when
maize four rows were grown in center and two rows of bean on each side) had improved growth
(phenological development, plant height, leaves per plant and leaf area), higher yield components
(seeds per pod, pods per plant and 1000 grains weight) and higher yields (biomass yield, grain
yield and harvest index). Application of compost tremendously improved growth, increased yield
and yield components of common bean when grown alone in mono-cropping or inter-cropping.
The land equivalent ratio (LER) was higher in plots treated with compost than without compost
treated plots. Intercropping of common bean under compost treated plots had higher LER when
grown as T2 (1.14) and T4 (1.07) as compared with sole cropping (1.0). All other mixtures with
compost and without compost treated plots had less than one LER and should not be practiced
due to the harmful association between the two crops.
Key words: maize, common bean, intercropping, compost, LER, grain yield
40
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
among farmers was probably due to legumes ability the waste material is piled at the farm level,
to combat erosion and raise soil fertility levels composted and added into the soil he fertility status
(Matusso et al., 2012). Flexibility, maximization of can be improved and crop yields can significantly be
profit, minimization of risk, soil conservation and soil increased (Sarwar, 2005). The objective of this
fertility improvement are some of the principal research project was to investigate yield, yield
reasons for smallholder farmers to intercrop their components and land equivalent ratio of intercropped
farms/crops (Matusso et al., 2012). Further to that, maize and common bean with and without compost
they have the potentials to give higher yield than sole application.
crops, greater yield stability and efficient use of
MATERIALS AND METHODS
nutrients (Seran and Brintha, 2010). Similarly, better
weeds control, improvement of quality by variety Field experiment was conducted to investigate
while cereal crops require larger area to produce growth and yield of maize (Zea mays L., cv. Azam)
same yield as cereals in an intercrop system (Ijoyah, and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L., Dargai Local)
2012). Maize-legume intercrop could considerably grown alone as monocropping and in various
increase forage quantity and quality and lessening combinations (intercropping) with and without
condition for protein supplement (Ali and Mohammad, compost application in Northwest Pakistan at farmer
2012). field at Dargai, Malakand, during summer 2012.
Maize and beans are popular intercrop in many parts The detail of factors and there levels were:
of the world. Farmers can benefit from the high
protein of the beans as well as the improved soil
fertility. Bean-maize intercrop is a common practice Factor A: Composts (C) having two levels i.e. C1 =
-1
in at high altitudes of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. However, with compost (1000 kg ha ) and C2 = without
-1
its effect on crop productivity, and economic benefit Compost (0 kg ha ) and
has not been assessed so for. Organic matter
content is very low in Pakistani soils due to which Factor B: Intercropping (I) having seven levels and
over all fertility status is not higher enough to give the each was planted in eight rows per plot viz. I1 = Sole
enhanced yield of different crops (Zaka et al., 2004). (maize or common bean), I2 = 2 rows of bean-2 rows
In Pakistan, there is lack of research on using of maize and so on, I3 = Bean + maize mixed stand,
compost in field crops. Huge amounts of leaves, I4 = 2 rows of bean-4 rows of maize-2 rows of bean,
grass clippings, plant stalks, wines, weeds, twigs and I5 = 2 rows of maize-4 rows of beans-2 rows of
branches and the food wastes like fruit and maize, and I6 = 1 row of maize-1 rows of bean and so
vegetables scraps, and egg shells are wasted / burnt on. The detail of different intercropping in eight rows
every day that increasing environmental pollution. If each is given in Table 1.
Table-1. The seven intercropping arrangements used in the field experiment (each in eight rows
plot) with and without compost application.
Rows T1 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
1 γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ γ♣γ♣γ♣γ♣ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ γγγγγγ γγγγγγ
2 γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ ♣γ♣γ♣γ♣γ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
3 γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ γγγγγγ γ♣γ♣γ♣γ♣ γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ γγγγγγ
4 γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ γγγγγγ ♣γ♣γ♣γ♣γ γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
5 γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ γ♣γ♣γ♣γ♣ γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ γγγγγγ
6 γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ ♣γ♣γ♣γ♣γ γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
7 γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ γγγγγγ γ♣γ♣γ♣γ♣ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ γγγγγγ γγγγγγ
8 γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ γγγγγγ ♣γ♣γ♣γ♣γ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣ γγγγγγ ♣♣♣♣♣♣♣♣
Crop Sole Sole Two Both Four Four One
Stands maize common alternate crops central central alternate
crop bean rows of grown rows of rows of row maize
crop maize and mixed maize and common and
common two rows of bean and common
bean crops common two rows of bean crop
bean on maize on
each side each side
41
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
Two separate fields were used viz. one for with mixed with the soil during seedbed preparation.
-1
compost and second without. The experiment in each Nitrogen at the rate of 120 kg N ha as urea was
field was laid out in randomized complete block applied to soil in three equal splits (at sowing, first
design using three replications. Each replication and second irrigation). Compost (Higo organic plus)
-1
consisted of seven intercropping methods. A sub-plot was applied at the rate of 1000 kg ha to all plots in
size of 22.4 m by 5.4 m, having 8 rows, 4 m long and the experiment under compost. The chemical
70 cm apart was used. A uniform basal dose of 45 kg analysis (%) of Higo Organic Plus used in the
-1
ha P2O5 as single super phosphate was applied and experiment is given in Table 2.
Table-2. The chemical analysis (%) of the compost (Higo Organic Plus) used in the experiment.
N P K C/N OM OC pH EC Zn Cu Fe Mn
-1 -1
---------------------------------------%------------------------- dSm -----------mg kg (ppm)--------
2.8 3.0 3.0 4.5 40 11.7 7.1 8.6 145 56 380 228
42
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
common bean was grown in one or two alternate Compost, intercropping and interaction had
-1
rows with maize, and when two rows of common significant effects on number of seeds ear of maize
bean were grown on each side of four center rows of (Table 4). Plots applied with compost produced
-1
maize (Fig. 2). The results indicated that composts significantly more seeds ear (476) than the plots
and intercropping had significant effects, while without compost (349). The average of intercropped
-1
interaction had non-significant effects on the grain stands had more number of seeds ear (417) than
yield of common bean (Table 3). The mean values of the sole maize crop (391). Among the intercropping,
-1
the plots applied with compost produced significantly maize produced maximum seeds ear (447) in T6,
-1
higher grain yield (491 kg ha ) than the plots without followed by T5 (439), while the lowest number of
-1 -1
compost (406 kg ha ). Sole bean crop had seeds ear (363) was recorded in T2. The interaction
-1
significantly higher grain yield (826 kg ha ) than the between C x I (Fig. 3) indicated that significantly
-1
various intercropping (346-424 kg ha ). Among the higher number of seeds per ear was observed for
intercropping, the common bean produced maximum sole and all intercropped maize plots under compost
-1
grain yield (424 kg ha ) in T2, followed by T4 (379 kg applied plots. However, the increase was higher with
-1 -1
ha ), while the lowest grain yield (346 kg ha ) each compost than without compost when maize was
was obtained from T5 and T6. grown as sole crop (Fig. 3). Compost had significant
while intercropping and interaction had non-
-1
significant effects on number of rows ear (Table 4).
Plots applied with compost produced significantly
-1
more rows ear (13) than the plots without compost
(12). Compost and intercropping had significant
effects, while interaction had non-significant effects
on the thousand grains weight of maize (Table 4).
The mean values of the plots applied with compost
produced higher thousand grains weight (214.88 g)
than the plots without compost (208.58 g). Sole
maize crop had higher thousand grains weight
(218.38 g) than the weight of intercropping. Among
the intercropping, maximum 1000-grains weight
(214.63 g) was recorded for T2, followed by T4 and T5
each (211.50 g), while the lowest 1000-grains weight
-1
Fig.1. Number of pods plant of common bean as (204.00 g) was recorded for T6. Grain yield was
affected by interaction between intercropping and significantly affected by compost and intercropping,
compost (C x I). while interaction had non-significant effects on the
grain yield of maize (Table 4). The plots under
-1
compost produced higher grain yield (1600 kg ha )
-1
than the plots without compost (1157 kg ha ). The
-1
sole maize crop had higher grain yield (2344 kg ha )
than the average grain yield of all intercropped
-1
stands (1185 kg ha ). Among the intercropping, the
maize crop produced maximum grain yield (1228 kg
-1 -
ha ) when grown as T4, followed by T6 (1217 kg ha
1 -1
), while the lowest grain yield (1083 kg ha ) was
obtained in T5.
43
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
-1 -1
Table-3. Number of seeds pod , pods plant , 1000-grains weight and grain yield of common bean as
affected by intercropping with and without compost application.
Where: * = significant at P ≤ 0.0, ns = Non-significant, LSD = Least Significant Difference, BR = Bean Row
and MR = Maize Row
-1
Table-4. Number of seeds and rows ear , 1000-grains weight and grain yield of maize as affected by
intercropping with and without compost application.
Where: * = significant at P ≤ 0.0, ns = Non-significant, LSD = Least Significant Difference, BR = Bean Row
and MR = Maize Row
44
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
Table-5. Land equivalent ratio (LER) of crops grown alone and mixed with each other with and
without compost application.
45
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
components. In contrast to common bean, the sole bean in intercropping under compost plots resulted in
maize crop had higher thousand grains weight than higher LER (Table 5) when grown as T 2 and T4
intercropped maize (Table 4). The decrease in 1000- indicting beneficial association between the two. A
grains weight of maize with common bean LER greater than 1.0 has also been reported with
intercropped may be attributed to the shading effect maize-soybean (Addo-Quaye et al., 2011; Solanki et
of common bean on maize. As the common bean al., 2011), maize-cowpea (Dahmardeh et al., 2010;
variety (Dargai Local) was runner type that over Hugar and Palled, 2008), and maize-common beans
shaded the maize crop. Factors such as shading, (Yilmaz et al., 2008; Odhiambo and Ariga, 2001). The
planting density, rooting system, and nutrient higher productivity of the two intercropping in T2 and
competition need to be considered while T4 over monocropping may have resulted from
intercropping of different crops (Ijoyah and Fanen, complementary and efficient use of growth resources
2012; Ijoyah and Jimba, 2012). Maize yield by the component crops (Li et al., 2006). For
components and yield was generally higher in high instance, Sivakumar and Virmani (1980) observed
solar intensities (Adesoji et al., 2013) and shading that in maize-pigeon pea intercropping, dry matter
reduced its yield and yield components. Both sole production per unit of PAR intercepted was higher in
common bean and maize crops crop had significantly the mixture than in sole crops. Rao and Mathuva
-1
higher grain yield (826 and 2344 kg ha , (2000) reported that the annual grain legume-based
respectively) than all intercropping. In our cropping systems were 32–49% more profitable than
experiment, the increase in grain yield of sole continuous sole maize, making them attractive to
common bean and maize was attributed to the small farmers in semi-arid tropics. In our study all
doubled plot area than all intercropped plots. The other intercropping arrangements except T 2 and T4
intercropped common bean and maize shared half of with and without compost had less than one LER and
their plot area with each other and therefore resulted should not be practiced due to the harmful
in less grain yield per unit area than the sole crops. association between the two crops. The lower LER
Our results agree with those of Willey and Osiru can be explained by the findings of Ofori and Stern
(1972) who observed lower grain yield in (1986) and Davis et al. (1984) who reported that light
intercropped common bean, and Francis et al. (1978) is the most important factor determining LER of
who reported lower grain yield in bush bean than sole maize and soybean intercropping and LER declines
crops. Ofori and Stern (1987) reported that the yield when legume becomes severely shaded.
of the legume component decline on normal by about Intercropping of legumes with cereals is one of the
52% of the sole crop yield whereas the cereal yield most practical multi-cropping techniques (Li et al.,
was condensed by only 11%. Adams (1967) and 2006) to increase crop yields and to improve land-
Atuahene-Amankwa (1997) found the number of use efficiency (Bhatti et al., 2006; Gao et al., 2010).
-1
pods plant most readily affected by intercropping Legume/cereal intercropping is a practical method to
that could be the possible reason for lower grain yield conserve soil and to increase economic returns
under intercropped legumes than sole crops. (Diebel et al., 1995; Clark et al., 1998; Smith and
-1
However, in our study the pods plant in common Carter, 1998). Recently, the finding of Hussain (2013)
bean was significantly increased while intercropping shows the benefit of intercropping in terms of
in maize because of the support of maize plants and reduced weed population, increased land utilization
so greater exposure to light than sole common bean and economic benefit.
crop, but the grain yield per unit area in both crops
CONCLUSIONS
was reduced in intercropping because of sharing
50% of their plot area with each other. Rao and Intercropping of maize and common bean with
Mathuva (2000) reported that maize-cowpea compost application had higher LER when grown two
sequential and pigeonpea/maize intercropping alternate rows of each crop (1.14) and when the
systems produced, respectively, 17 and 24% higher maize four rows were grown in center and two rows
maize yields than continuous sole maize, but maize– of common bean was grown on each side (1.07) as
pigeonpea rotation yielded only marginally better. compared with sole cropping of maize and common
bean each (LER = 1.0). All other mixtures with
When two crops are grown together, yield
compost and without compost had less than one LER
advantages occur because of differences in their use
and should not be practiced due to the harmful
of resources (Willey et al., 1983). The land equivalent
association between the two crops. Application of
ratio (LER) was more with compost than without
compost helps retain soil moisture and make
compost application. Growing maize and common
46
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
nutrients available for longer period to crop plant due experience, Sustainable Industries Branch, Canberra
to slow release and can lead improve crop growth act 2601, Environment Australia, Canberra.
and increase yield on sustainable basis. Brintha, I., and T.H. Seran. (2009). Effect of paired row
REFERENCES planting of raddish (Raphanus sativus L.) intercropped
with vegetable amaranths (Amaranths tricolor L.) on
Adams, M.W. (1967). Basis of yield compensation in crop yield components in sandy regosol. J. Agric. Sci. 4: 19-
plants with special reference to the field bean, 28.
Phaseolus vulgaris. Crop Sci. 7: 505–510.
Clark, M.S., H. Ferris, K. Klonsky, W.T. Lanini, A. Van
Addo-Quaye, A.A., A.A. Darkwa, and G.K. Ocloo. (2011). Bruggen, and F.G. Zalom. (1998). Agronomic,
Yield and productivity of component crops in a maize- economic, and environmental comparison of pest
soybean intercropping system as affected by time of management in conventional and alternative tomato
planting and spatial arrangement. ARPN J. Agric. Biol. and corn systems in northern California. Agric.
Sci. 6(9): 50-57. Ecosyst. Environ. 68: 51–71.
Adesoji, A.G., I.U. Abubakar, B. Tanimu, and D.A. Labe. Dahmardeh, M., A. Ghanbari, B.A. Syahsar, and M.
(2013). Influence of Incorporated short duration Ramrodi. (2010). The role of intercropping maize (Zea
legume fallow and nitrogen on maize (Zea mays L.) mays L) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L) on yield
growth and development in northern guinea savannah and soil chemical properties. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 5: 631-
of Nigeria. American-Euroasian J. Agric. And Env. Sci. 636.
13(1): 58-67.
Dhima, K.V., A.S. Lithourgidis, I.B. Vasilakoglou, and C.A.
Adu-Gyamfi, J.J., F.A. Myaka, W.D. Sakala, R. Odgaard, Dordas. (2007). Competition indices of common vetch
J.M. Vesterager, and H. Hogh-Jensen. (2007). and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops
Biological Nitrogen Fixation and Nitrogen and Res. 100: 249-256.
Phosphorus Budgets in Farmer-Managed Intercrops of
Diebel, P.L., J.R. Williams, and R.V. Llewelyn. (1995). An
Maize-Pigeonpea in Semi-arid Southern and Eastern
economic comparison of conventional and alternative
Africa. Plant and Soil. 295(1-2): 127-136.
cropping systems for a representative northeast
Agegnehu, G., A. Ghizaw, and W. Sinebo. (2008). Yield Kansas farm. Rev. Agric. Econ. 17: 323–335.
potential and land-use efficiency of wheat and faba
Francis, C.A., M. Prager, D.R. Laing, and C.A. Flor. (1978).
bean mixed intercropping. Agron. Sustain. Dev.
Genotype × environment interactions in bush bean
28:257-263.
cultivars in monoculture and associated with maize.
Ali, S., and H.S. Mohammad. (2012). Forage yield and Crop Sci. 18:237–241.
quality in intercropping of forage corn with different
Gao, Y., A. Duan, X. Qiu, Z. Liu, J. Sun, J. Zhang, and H.
cultivars of berseem clover in different levels of
Wang. (2010). Distribution of roots and root length
nitrogen fertilizer. J. Food Agric. Envir. 10(1): 602-604.
density in a maize/soybean strip intercropping system.
Amanullah (2014). Wheat and rye differ in dry matter Agric. Water Manage. 98: 199–212.
partitioning, shoot-root ratio and water use efficiency
Hugar, H.Y., and Y.B. Palled. (2008). Studies on maize-
under organic and inorganic soils. J. Plant Nutr.
vegetable intercropping systems. Karnataka J. Agric.
37:1885–1897.
Sci., 21, 162-164.
Atuahene-Amankwa, G., and T.E. Michaels. (1997).
Hussain, Z. (2013). Influence of intercropping in maize on
Genetic variances, heritabilities and genetic
performance of weeds and the associated crops. Pak.
correlations of grain yield, harvest index and yield
J. Bot. 45(5): 1729-1734.
components for common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
in sole crop and in maize × bean intercrop. Can. J. Ijoyah, M.O., and F.T. Fanen. (2012). Effects of different
Plant Sci. 77: 537–538. cropping pattern on performance of maize-soybean
mixture in Makurdi, Nigeria. Sci. J. Crop Sci. 1(2): 39-
Beets, W.C. (1990). Raising and Sustaining Productivity of
47.
Smallholder Farming Systems in the Tropics. Alkmaar,
Holland: AgBe Publishing. Ijoyah, M.O., and J. Jimba. (2012). Evaluation of yield and
yield components of maize (Zea mays L.) and okra
Bhatti, I.H., R. Ahmad, A. Jabbar, M.S. Nazir, and T.
(Abelmoschus esculentus) intercropping system at
Mahmood. (2006). Competitive behavior of component
Makurdi, Nigeria. J. Bio. Env. Sci. 2(2), 38-44.
crops in different sesame-legume intercropping
systems. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 8: 165–167. Korsaeth, A., T.M. Henriksen, and L.R. Bakken. (2002).
Temporal changes in mineralization and immobilization
Biala, J. (2000). The use of composed organic waste in
of N during degradation of plant material: implications
viticulture – A review of the international literature and
47
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
for the plant N supply and nitrogen losses. Soil Biol. Ofori, C.F., and W.R. Stern. (1987). Cereal legume
Biochem. 34: 789–799. intercropping systems. Adv. Agron. 26:177-204.
Lasaridi, K.E., and E.I. Stentiford. (1999). Composting of Peoples, M.B., and E.T. Craswell. (1992). Biological
source separated MSW: an approach to respirometric nitrogen fixation: Investments, Expectations and Actual
techniques and biodegradation kinetics. In: Contributions to Agriculture. Plant and Soil 141:13-39.
International Symposium on “Composting of Organic Kluwer Academic Publishers.Printed in the
Matter”. 31-September, 1999, Kassandra-Chalkidiki, Netherlands.PLSO SA02. In: Biological Nitrogen
Greece. Fixation for Sustainable Agriculture. Developments in
Plant and Soil Sciences. pp. 49.
Li, L., J. Sun, F. Zhang, T. Guo, X. Bao, F.A. Smith, and
S.E. Smith. (2006). Root distribution and interactions Rana, K.S., and M. Pal. (1999). Effect of intercropping
between intercropped species. Oecologia 147: 280– systems and weed control on crop-weed competition
290. and grain yield of pigeonpea. Crop Res. 17: 179-182.
Ijoyah, M.O., and F.T. Fanen. (2012). Effects of different Rao, M.R., and M.N. Mathuva. (2000). Legumes for
cropping pattern on performance of maize-soybean improving maize yields and income in semi-arid Kenya.
mixture in Makurdi, Nigeria. J. Crop Sci. 1(2): 39-47. Agric. Ecosy. Environ. 78: 123-137.
Launay, M., N. Brisson, S. Satger, H. Hauggaard-Nielsen, Saleem, R., Z.I. Ahmed, and M. Ashraf. (2011). Response
G. Corre-Hellou, E. Kasynova, R. Ruske, E.S. Jensen, of maize-legume intercropping system to different
and M.J. Gooding. (2009). Exploring options for fertility sources under rainfed conditions. Sarhad J.
managing strategies for pea-barley intercropping using Agric. 27(4):503-511.
a modeling approach. Eur. J. Agron. 31: 85-98.
Sanginga, N., and P.L. Woomer. (2009). Integrated Soil
Matusso, J. M. M., J.N. Mugwe, and M. Mucheru-Muna. Fertility Management in Africa: Principles, Practices
(2012). Potential role of cereal-legume intercropping and Development Process. (eds.). Tropical Soil
systems in integrated soil fertility management in Biology and Fertility Institute of the International Centre
smallholder farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa for Tropical Agriculture. Nairobi. P. 263.
Research Application Summary. Third RUFORUM
Biennial Meeting 24-28 September 2012, Entebbe, Santalla, M., A.P. Rodino, P.A. Casquero, and A.M. de
Uganda. Ron. (2001). Interactions of bush bean intercropped
with field and sweet maize. European J. Agron. 15:
Mead, R., and R.W. Willey. (1980). The concept of a „‟Land 185–196.
Equivalent Ratio‟‟ and advantages in yields from
intercropping. Expl. Agric. 16: 217-228. Sarwar, G. (2005). Use of compost for crop production in
Pakistan Ph.D. Dissertation (Published) Ökologie und
Mucheru-Muna, M., P. Pypers, D. Mugendi, and B. Umweltsicherung. Universität Kassel, Fachgebiet
Vanlauwe. (2010). A staggered maize-legume Landschaftsökologie und Naturschutz, Witzenhausen,
intercrop arrangement robustly increases crop yields Germany.
and economic returns in the highlands of Central
Kenya. Field Crops Res. 115: 132-139. Seran, T. H., and I. Brintha. (2010). Review on maize
based intercropping. J. of Agron. 9(3): 135-145.
Nandwa, S.M., A. Bationo, S.N. Obanyi, I.M. Rao, N.
Sanginga, and B. Vanlauwe. (2011). Inter and Intra- Sivakumar, M.V.K., and S.M. Virmani. (1980). Growth and
Specific Variation of Legumes and Mechanisms to resource use of maize, pigeonpea and
Access and Adapt to Less Available Soil Phosphorus maize/pigeonpea intercrop in an operational research
and Rock Phosphate. In: A. Bationo et al. (eds.), watershed. Exp. Agric. 16:377-386.
Fighting Poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Multiple Smith, M.A., and P.R. Carter. (1998). Strip intercropping
Roles of Legumes in Integrated Soil Fertility corn and alfalfa. J. Prod. Agr. 11: 345-352.
Management. DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1536-
3_3,Springer Science+Business Media B.V., pp.47-83. Solanki, N.S., D. Singh, and H.K. Sumeriya (2011).
Resources utilization in Maize (Zea mays)-based
Nzabi, A.W., F. Makini, M. Onyango, N. Kidula, C.K intercropping system under rainfed condition. Indian J.
Muyonga.,M. Miruka, E. Mutai, and M. Gesare. (2000). Agric. Sci. 81(6):511-515.
Effect of intercropping legume with maize on soil
fertility and maize yield. Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrie, and D.A. Dickey. (1997).
http://www.kari.org/fileadmin/publications/legume_proj Principles and Procedures of Statistics. A Biometrical
rd
ect/Legume2Conf_2000/26.pdf. approach, 3 Ed. McGraw Hill Book Co., New York.
Pp: 172-177.
Odhiambo, G.D., and E.S. Ariga. (2001). Effect of
intercropping maize and beans on striga incidence and Tsubo, M., E. Mukhala, H.O. Ogindo, and S. Walker.
grain yield. Proc. 7th Eastern Southern Africa Reg. (2003). Productivity of maize bean intercropping in a
th
Maize Conf. 11-15 Feberuary, 2001.
48
Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2016,7(2):40-49
semi-arid region of South Africa. Water S.A. 29(4): Willey, R.W., M. Natarajan, M.S. Reddy, and M.R. Rao.
381-388. (1983). Intercropping studies with annual crops: In
Better Crop for Food . Nugent, J. and Connor, M.
Vesterager, J.M., N.E. Nielsen, and H. Hogh-Jensen. (Eds), Pitman Co., London.
(2008). Effects of Cropping History and Phosphorus
Source on Yield and Nitrogen Fixation in Sole and Yilmaz, S., M. Atak, and M. Erayman. (2008). Identification
Intercropped Cowpea-maize Systems. Nutrient Cycl. of advantages of maize-legume intercropping over
Agroec. 80(1): 61-73. solitary cropping through competition indices in the
east Mediterranean region. Turk. J. Agric. For. 32:111-
Willey, R.W., and D.S.O. Osiru. (1972). Studies on mixtures 119.
of maize and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) with
particular reference to plant population. J. Agric. Sci. Zaka, M.A., N. Hussain, G. Sarwar, M.R. Malik, I. Ahmad,
Camb. 79: 517-529. and K.H. Gill. (2004). Fertility status of Sargodha
district soils. Pakistan. J. Sci. Res. 56 (12): 69-75.
49