Field Crops Research 88 (2004) 227–237

Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal

fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India
P.K. Ghosh*
National Research Centre for Groundnut, P.B. No. 5, Junagadh 362001, Gujarat, India
Received 14 May 2003; received in revised form 30 November 2003; accepted 5 January 2004

Abstract

Intercropping legumes with non-legume crops during the rainy season (wet season) is a common practice in the semi-arid
tropics of India. Of late, the concept of intercropping has also been utilized in irrigated (dry season) situations. In a 2-year field
study during the dry season (February–May), we assessed yield, competition and economics in a groundnut/cereal fodder
intercropping system compared with monocropped groundnut. Maize (Zea mays L.), sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench)
and pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum L.) were grown for fodder. One cutting for all and two cuttings (first at 50 days after
sowing and second at 95 days after sowing) for sorghum and pearl millet were made. In intercrops one row of cereal fodder was
sown between every three rows of groundnut (1:3). The green fodder yields and pod yield of groundnut were lower in
intercropped than in monoculture plots. The highest green fodder yield in intercrops was recorded in pearl millet with two cuts
(16.5 t ha
1) followed by pearl millet with one cut (11.8 t ha
1) and sorghum with two cuts (10.7 t ha
1). In intercrops the
growth and yield of groundnut were affected by cereal fodder and intensity of cutting. A significant (P < 0:05) reduction in leaf
area index (LAI) and crop growth rate (CGR) was observed in the groundnut–pearl millet system over sole groundnut. Decrease
in nodule mass at pod filling stages in groundnut ranged from 3.5 to 11.0% when intercropped with cereal fodders compared to
sole groundnut crop. Groundnut yield was reduced more due to pearl millet and sorghum with two cuts. However, maize as the
associated crop produced 9.0 t green fodder ha
1 and affected the groundnut less with respect to pod yield (5.76% reduction),
yield attributes, CGR, LAI and nodule dry mass. Of the two cutting situations under intercropping, one cut gave 9.9% higher
yield of groundnut as compared to two cuts. A higher land equivalent ratio (LER) and relative crowding coefficient (RCC) value
leads to a crop yield advantage. Accordingly, yield advantage was greater in case of the groundnut/maize association. The
competition ratio (CR) is a better indication of performance than RCC. The CRs of pearl millet and sorghum with two cuts were
greater than maize but the corresponding CRs of groundnut were less. Thus, pearl millet and sorghum were more competitive,
and groundnut under these two crops was affected more. The maximum monetary advantage was also recorded for the
groundnut/maize intercropping system.
# 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Zea mays; Sorghum bicolor; Pennisetum glaucum; Arachis hypogaea; Cereal fodder; Fodder yield; Intensity of cutting; Intercrops;
Competition indices

1. Introduction
*
Present address: Indian Institute of Soil Science, Nabibagh,
Berasia Road, Bhopal 462038, Madhya Pradesh, India.
In recent days there is mounting interest in diversi-
Tel.: þ91-755-2730970; fax: þ91-755-2733310. fied agricultural production systems to obtain
E-mail address: pkg@iiss.mp.nic.in (P.K. Ghosh). improved crop protection, increased productivity and

0378-4290/$ – see front matter # 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2004.01.015
228 P.K. Ghosh / Field Crops Research 88 (2004) 227–237
profitability offered by many intercropping system.
This may be due to some of the established and spe-
culated advantages for intercropping systems such as
higher yields, greater land-use efficiency and improve-
ment of soil fertility through the addition of N by
fixation and excretion from the component legume
(Willey, 1979; Ofori and Stern, 1987). Groundnut
(Arachis hypogaea L.) is traditionally intercropped
with crops like pearl millet, maize and sorghum, and
also with pigeon pea in groundnut-growing areas of
India by marginal and sub-marginal farmers during
rainy season (Reddy et al., 1980). Such legume/non-
legume mixtures probably reduce competition for
nitrogen (N), since the legume depends mainly on
its own N fixation while the cereal uses mineral N
(Ofori and Stern, 1987; Rerkasem et al., 1988). Many
studies of cereal/legume intercropping have shown
that the quantity of N fixed by the legume depends
on such factors as the morphology, density and com-
petitive ability of the legume (Ofori and Stern, 1987),
the effectiveness of the rhizobia symbiosis and the
system of intercropping (Rerkasem and Rerkasem,
1988).
India has traditionally been a livestock-rearing
country. The increasing human population pressure
and its ramifications resulted in a demand for more
food, thus diverting the attention of farmers to food
crop production and rendering forage farming a sec-
ondary priority. This neglect of forage crops led to a
decline in the productivity of livestock (Mal, 1998).
According to the National Commission on Agricul-
ture, the green fodder requirement for the existing
livestock in India is around 1136 Mt, whereas the
availability is 695 Mt, indicating a 61% deficit in
fodder supply (Singh and Roy, 1999). Further, fodder
availability in the dry season is scarce and costly.
Groundnut in the dry season (summer) is grown
mainly in pure stands with irrigation. The crop is
sown from the second fortnight of January to the first
fortnight of February. Though this summer crop gives
almost double the yield and profit of rainy season
groundnut, recently doubts have been raised about the
economic advantages of further investment by farmers
in sole groundnut production due to higher labor cost
and higher input requirement, particularly irrigation.
Intercropping is a viable option in such situations.
Of late, in irrigated situations during the dry season,
intercropping of groundnut with vegetables (AICRPO,
1980; UNIAS, 1978) and with cereal fodders (Ghosh
et al., 1999) has been reported. In the semi-arid tropics
of central and western India, Yadav and Yadav (2001)
also observed that to meet the shortage of fodder, it is a
common practice to put some seed of maize/sorghum/
pearl millet in the groundnut field along with seed of
groundnut where these crops are cut early for fodder
and groundnut is raised as a seed crop. However,
systematic study of this system in the dry season
has not been done. The frequency of cutting (Sped-
ding, 1971; Devkota and Rerkasem, 2000) and time of
cutting of fodders (Brann and Juny, 1974) are known
to affect the performance of legumes in mixtures but
there is little information on the effects of cutting
management and the economy of cereal/legume inter-
cropping system. Therefore, the present study aims to
explore the possibility of providing green fodder dur-
ing the dry season from an intercropping system, and
to assess the groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping
system as a means of better resource management
with respect to growth, productivity, competition and
monetary advantage.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental site
Field experiments were conducted at the research
farm of the National Research Centre for Groundnut,
Junagadh, Gujarat, India (708360 E longitude and
218310 N latitude at an altitude of 60 m above mean
sea level) during two dry seasons (1997–1998). The
experimental site is located in a semi-arid region with
mean annual rainfall of 844 mm. In this region the
onset of monsoon rains occurs in the third week of
June but can start as late as the first week of August.
The rainfall is confined to three-and-a-half months
from June to September with practically negligible
rainfall during winter and summer (October–May).
The average maximum temperature from April to June
is very high (37–44 8C) with a mean of 41 8C. In
January, temperature falls to a minimum of 12 8C. It
reaches a maximum of 42 8C in May. The soil is
classified as Vertic Ustochrept, medium black, clayey,
shallow (15–20 cm depth), highly calcareous in nature
(pH 7.7). The soil is characterized by low organic
carbon (0.55), available N (117–123 kg ha
1) and
 P.K. Ghosh / Field Crops Research 88 (2004) 227–237
available P (7.9–8.3 kg ha
1), high in available K
(318–328 kg ha
1), high P fixation capacity (75–95%)
and contains an appreciable amount of CaCO3 (Kan-
zariya and Patel, 1985). Groundnut, castor, wheat,
cotton, pulses, sorghum and pearl millet are mainly
grown on this soil.
2.2. Experimental and crop culture
Cereal fodders, namely, maize (Zea mays L.), sor-
ghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) and pearl millet
(Pennisetum glaucum L.), sole as well as intercrops
were sown simultaneously with groundnut (cv. GG 2,
a Spanish bunch) in the first week of February. Initially
3–5 seeds of all cereals were planted per hill at a row
spacing of 60 cm but the seedlings were thinned to one
plant per hill 1 week after emergence giving a plant
density of 50  103 ha
1. For groundnut, row spacing
of 30 cm was maintained giving a plant density of
300  103 ha
1. These are very close to the optimum
populations for these crops. In intercrops one row of
cereal fodder was sown between every three rows of
groundnut (1:3) and plant population of both the crops
were adjusted as per area occupied by each crop. This
way, cereal to cereal row distance in intercropping was
120 cm (Fig. 1). Sole cropping of groundnut and
fodder were also maintained for comparison and for
calculation of competition indices. One cutting for all
and two cuttings for sorghum and pearl millet were
made. The first cut was at 50 days after sowing (DAS)
and second was at 95 DAS. Nine treatments comprised
T1: sole groundnut, T2: sole maize, T3: sole sorghum,
T4: sole pearl millet, T5: groundnut þ maize (one cut),
T6: groundnut þ sorghum (one cut), T7: groundnut þ
pearl millet (one cut), T8: groundnut þ sorghum (two
cuts) and T9: groundnut þ pearl millet (two cuts), and
were tested in a completely randomized block design.
All treatments were replicated four times. Seeds were
treated with appropriate fungicides for all the crops
before sowing. A basal application of 50 kg P2O5,
30 kg K2O and 1/2 of the N (12.5 kg ha
1) was applied
to groundnut in the furrow before planting. The
remainder of the N (12.5 kg ha
1) was applied at 25
DAS. The cereal fodders received 60 kg N ha
1,
40 kg P2O5, 30 kg K2O ha
1 as basal. Twenty kilo-
grams additional N ha
1 was applied to the fodder
crops after the harvest of the first cut in treatments
where two cuts were planned. Urea (46.4% N), single
229
superphosphate (16% P2O5) and muriate of potash
(60% K2O) were used to supply N, P and K, respec-
tively. The necessary plant protection, irrigation and
other management practices were followed during crop
growth. Crops were grown with irrigation. Nine irriga-
tions were given at 10-day interval; in each irrigation
50 mm water was applied through flooding. The crop
was hand-weeded once, 1 month after sowing to keep
the field weed-free. No serious incidence of insects or
diseases was observed. Plot sizes of 4:8 m  10 m were
maintained. Crops were harvested manually by sickle
from ground level and the total above-ground biomass
was removed from each plot as per treatment and the
fodder yield was recorded. The groundnut was
uprooted manually at 105 days and pod yield was
recorded.
2.3. Plant and soil sampling
Groundnut plants from each plot were sampled for
growth analysis at 15-day intervals between 15 DAS
and harvest. The plant samples were oven-dried at
65 8C for 72 h to a constant weight and dry weight was
recorded. Leaf area was estimated from area to dry
mass ratio based on a sub-sample, whose area was
measured on leaf area meter (LI-COR; Lincoln, NE).
For comparison of growth analysis between middle
rows and rows adjacent to fodder, groundnut plants
were also sampled from four locations of each
plot. Five plants were tagged for recording the tiller
and plant height of fodder crops at each cutting.
The plant height was measured from base of the
plant to tip of the topmost leaf of plants. Three
groundnut plants were uprooted with a ball of soil
for recording nodulation. Keeping the root portion
intact, the ball of soil was washed gently with clean
running water followed by washing with camel hair-
brush to dislodge any soil particles adhering to it.
Nodules from roots were removed, counted and dry
mass was measured (Vincent, 1970). Nitrogen con-
tent of shoot from a bulk sample was estimated at
30 and 60 days growth following micro-Kjeldhal
method.
2.4. Growth analysis
Crop growth rate (CGR), the increase in dry weight
per unit ground area of crop in a unit time, was
230 P.K. Ghosh / Field Crops Research 88 (2004) 227–237
30 cm
Sole groundnut
30 cm
30 cm
120 cm
Fig. 1. Planting pattern in intercropping system.
calculated as (W2
W1 )/(t2
t1 ), where W1 and W2
are dry weights at times t1 and t2, respectively, and
expressed as g m
2 per day. Net assimilation rate
(NAR), the increase in dry weight per unit time per
unit leaf area (g cm
2 per day) was calculated as
(W2
W1 )(ln L2
ln L1 )/(t2
t1 )(L2
L1 ), where
L1 and L2 are leaf areas at t1 and t2 times. Leaf
area index (LAI) was calculated as leaf area/ground
area.
60 cm
Sole fodder
Groundnut
Fodder
3:1 row ratio
2.5. Competition indices and monetary advantages
The yield advantage of intercropping was calcu-
lated according to Ofori and Stern (1987), Willey and
Osiru (1972), and Willey and Rao (1980). The land
equivalent ratio (LER) gives an accurate assessment of
the greater biological efficiency of the intercropping
situation and was calculated as LER ¼ ðYab =Yaa Þþ
ðYba =Ybb Þ, where Yaa and Ybb are yields as sole crops
 P.K. Ghosh / Field Crops Research 88 (2004) 227–237
and Yab and Yba are yields as intercrops. LER values
greater than 1 are considered advantageous. LER has
also been used to calculate monetary advantage.
Relative crowding coefficient (RCC) is a measure
of relative dominance of one component crop over
the other in an intercropping system. For crop ‘a’ in
association with ‘b’, Kab ¼ Yab Xba =ðYaa
Yab ÞXab ,
where Xab is the sown proportion of ‘a’ in mixture of
‘b’ and Xba the sown proportion of ‘b’ in mixture of ‘a’.
The product of two coefficients ðKab Kba Þ ¼ K; if K
obtained in the system is greater than 1, there is a yield
advantage, if K obtained in the system equals to 1, there
is no yield advantage, if K in the system is less than 1,
there is a yield disadvantage. Aggressivity is another
index that represents a simple measure of how much the
relative yield increase in ‘a’ crop is greater than that of
‘b’ crop in an intercropping system. It was calculated as
Aab ¼ ðYab =Yaa Xab Þ
ðYba =Ybb Xba Þ; if Aab ¼ 0, both
crops are equally competitive, if Aab is positive, ‘a’ is
dominant, if Aab is negative, ‘a’ is the dominated
crop. Willey and Rao (1980) suggested the ratio of
these terms, which they designated as competition ratio
(CR), instead of taking the difference of two terms in
aggressivity. The CR represents simply the ratio of
individual LERs of the two component crops, but taking
into account the proportion of the crops in which they
were initially sown. CRa ¼ ðLERa =LERb ÞðXba =Xab Þ,
and if CRa < 1, there is a positive benefit and the crop
can be grown in association, if CRa > 1, there is
negative benefit. The reverse is true for CRb. There is
a large labor cost associated with growing the ground-
nut. Farmers are concerned mostly with total profit
and the marginal benefit:cost ratio from investment
in labor and inputs. The yield and economic perfor-
mance of the intercropping was traced to decide
whether groundnut yield and additional fodder yield
are sufficient to justify farmers using this intercropping
system. Moreover, none of the competition indices
explains economic advantage of the intercropping
system. Thus, we computed monetary advantage index
(MAI) as MAI ¼ value of combined intercrops 
ðLER
1Þ=LER. The higher the index value, the more
profitable is the cropping system.
2.6. Data analysis
Data collected for various studies were subjected to
the analysis of variance (ANOVA) appropriate to the
231
design as given by Cochron and Cox (1958). Test of
significance of the treatment difference was done
on the basis of a ‘T-test’. The significant differences
between treatments were compared with the critical
difference at 5% level of probability.
3. Results
3.1. Fodder crops
Since treatment  year was not significant, pooled
data of 2 years are discussed. The plant height of
sorghum and pearl millet was comparatively greater
than maize. In general, cereal fodder growth measured
by plant height and tiller number was greater in second
cut than first cut and also in monocrops than in
intercrops (Table 1). On average, monocropped cer-
eals produced 20% higher fodder yields than inter-
cropped. The fodder yield was the highest in pearl
millet with two cuts followed by pearl millet with one
cut and sorghum with two cuts (Table 1), both in sole
and intercropping systems. The lowest fodder yield
was recorded in sorghum with one cut. The fodder
yield in maize and sorghum with one and two cuts, and
pearl millet with one cut were not different in inter-
cropping systems, but were significantly different in
sole cropping.
3.2. Groundnut
3.2.1. Growth
The CGR of groundnut was low at initial stage, and
attained its peak between 60 and 75 days (Fig. 2b).
LAI followed a trend similar to CGR (Fig. 2a). The
CGR and LAI of groundnut were reduced in associa-
tion with fodder crops. The magnitude of reduction
varied with component crops and number of cuttings.
Except between 15 and 30 DAS, monocropped
groundnut recorded significantly (P < 0:05) greater
CGR at all stages over intercropped groundnut with all
fodders and cuttings. However, up to 30–45 DAS, the
CGR of groundnut with maize was significantly higher
over sorghum and pearl millet with two cuts. A
significant (P < 0:05) reduction in LAI (Fig. 2a)
was observed in groundnut/pearl millet system over
sole groundnut. However, maize/groundnut intercrop-
ping system reduced LAI the least. Fig. 2 shows that
232 P.K. Ghosh / Field Crops Research 88 (2004) 227–237

Table 1
Yields and growth attributes of fodders in intercrops and monoculture

Treatments Plant height at Tiller number Total green fodder Total dry fodder
first cut (cm) at first cut yield (t ha
1) yield (t ha
1)

Sole cropping
Maize (one cut) 112.7 10.25 3.27
Sorghum (one cut) 112.3 1.8 9.10 2.89
Pearl millet (one cut) 114.4 2.4 12.60 3.76
Sorghum (two cuts) 120.3 (143.6)a 3.0 (4.6)b 14.96 4.61
Pearl millet (two cuts) 118.5 (148.7)a 3.5 (5.2)b 17.72 5.12
Mean 115.4 2.7 15.81 3.93
Intercropping
Maize (one cut) 103.3 9.00 2.64
Sorghum (one cut) 107.6 1.9 7.98 2.19
Pearl millet (one cut) 110.3 2.6 11.81 3.55
Sorghum (two cuts) 111.3 (146.5)a 2.3 (4.1)b 10.80 3.16
Pearl millet (two cuts) 110.3 (139.2)a 3.2 (4.9)b 16.50 4.83
Mean 108.6 2.5 13.7 3.27
LSD 5% NSc 0.54 3.04 0.76
a
Plant height at two cuts.
b
Tiller number at two cuts.
c
Not significant.

the dry weight of groundnut expressed in terms of

8.0 CGR was affected more than LAI due to shading effect
7.0 of cereal fodders. There was 20.8 and 40.4% reduction
6.0 in LAI and CGR in intercropped groundnut in asso-
5.0 ciation with pearl millet with two cuts over sole
LAI

4.0 groundnut, and it was 9.5 and 30.7%, respectively,

3.0
SG G+M
with maize. The NAR of groundnut in middle rows
2.0
G+S (1 cut) G+P (1 cut) and in rows adjacent to cereal in intercropping system
1.0 G+S (2 cut) G+P (2 cut) showed considerable differences. In rows adjacent to
0.0
(a) 0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105
cereal, the NAR was less than the middle rows in all
treatments; however, differences were significant in
16.0 pearl millet with two cuts and sorghum with two cuts
14.0 at all the three stages measured (Fig. 3). The NAR of
12.0 groundnut between adjacent rows and middle rows in
CGR (g m-2 day-1)

10.0 case of maize and pearl millet one cut at three stages
8.0 and in sorghum one cut at 60–75 and 75–90 DAS was
6.0
not different.
4.0
3.2.2. Nodulation and nitrogen content
2.0
In general, nodule number and nodule mass at pod
0.0
15-30 30-45 45-60 60-75 75-90 90-105 filling stage (60 DAS) were much lower in groundnut
(b) Days after sowing when cereals were used as intercrops as compared to
sole groundnut. However, there were no marked dif-
Fig. 2. (a) Leaf area index and (b) crop growth rate of groundnut
under different combinations of cereal fodder. G, M, S and P
ferences in nodulation between groundnuts in sole and
represents groundnut, maize, sorghum and pearl millet, respec- cereal intercropping system during initial stages of
tively. The line above the bars indicates LSD at 5% probability. crop growth. Nodule number and nodule mass were
 P.K. Ghosh / Field Crops Research 88 (2004) 227–237
Fig. 3. Trend in the net assimilation rate of groundnut at three
stages in the middle row and adjacent rows to cereal fodders. AR
and MR represent adjacent row and middle row, while G, M, S and P
represent groundnut, maize, sorghum and pearl millet, respectively.
The line above the bars indicates standard error at 5% probability.
significantly higher in monocropped groundnut over
its intercropped counterpart with all cereal fodders
except maize. Decrease in nodule mass at pod filling
stages ranged from 3.5 to 11.0% with cereal fodders
compared to sole groundnut crop. There was 30%
reduction in nodule mass in intercropped groundnut in
association with pearl millet with two cuts compared
to sole groundnut, and the reduction was 20% with
maize. The N content in shoot followed the same trend
to nodule number and its mass (Table 2).
3.2.3. Yield and yield attributes
Sole groundnut recorded greater pod numbers
(9.8), pod yield per plant (7.9 g) and 100-kernel mass
233
(37.7 g); these were significantly (P < 0:05) reduced
in association with fodders (Table 2). The magnitude
of reduction in these yield attributes was more when
two cuts were allowed. The lowest pod numbers (5.0),
pod yield per plant (3.8 g) and 100-kernel mass
(34.4 g) were recorded in association with pearl
millet (two cuts). Maize as associated crop had less
impact on yield attributes. The highest pod yield
(2.43 t ha
1) and harvest index (0.42) were recorded
in sole groundnut. Pod yield of groundnut inter-
cropped with cereals was reduced due to suppressive
effect of fodder. Significant (P < 0:05) reduction in
grain yield of groundnut and harvest index were
recorded when two cuts of pear millet (2.01 t ha
1,
0.34) and sorghum (2.04 t ha
1, 0.34) were made.
Two cuts of pearl millet and sorghum produced
0.18 and 0.16 t ha
1, respectively, less grain yield
of groundnut than their corresponding one cut
(Table 2).
3.3. Yield advantages and competition indices
Yield advantage in terms of LER was greatest (1.68)
in the groundnut/maize association. The lowest LER
(1.34) was recorded in groundnut/sorghum association
(Table 3). The RCC value was significantly greater
(26.0) in groundnut/maize associated over all other
combinations. The lowest RCC (8.7) was recorded in
groundnut/pearl millet (two cuts). Table 3 reveals that
the value of aggressivity of groundnut was negative
and it was considered as the less-dominant crop in the
system. Due to a positive value of aggressivity for
associated cereals, fodder crops were the dominant
crops in the present study. Among the cereal crops,
pearl millet was more dominant than the others. The
CR value of groundnut was less than those of the
associated cereal fodders.
3.4. Monetary advantage
Monetary advantage index followed the trend
similar to LER (Table 3). The MAI was significantly
higher in groundnut/maize association over all other
treatments. The MAI due to groundnut/sorghum
one cut and groundnut/pearl millet two cuts associa-
tion was statistically the same. The lowest monetary
benefit was recorded in groundnut/pearl millet one
cut.
234 P.K. Ghosh / Field Crops Research 88 (2004) 227–237

Table 2
Nodulation, nitrogen content, yield, yield attributes and harvest index of groundnut under different combinations of fodder and number of
cuttings

Treatments Nodule per plant Nodule mass N content Hundred- Pods per Pod yield Pod yield Harvest
(mg per plant) (mg per plant) kernel plant per plant (t ha
1) index
mass (g) (g)
30 DASa 60 DAS 30 DAS 60 DAS 30 DAS 60 DAS

Sole groundnut 10.7 17.0 44.1 186.0 165 353 37.7 9.8 7.9 2.43 0.423
Maize (one cut) 9.4 15.8 42.5 179.5 159 312 35.7 6.1 4.5 2.29 0.406
Sorghum (one cut) 9.3 15.6 40.3 171.5 155 282 34.5 6.5 5.5 2.20 0.386
Pearl millet (one cut) 8.9 16.8 41.7 165.4 151 288 34.7 5.2 4.9 2.19 0.386
Sorghum (two cuts) 9.2 15.1 41.2 172.5 148 260 33.3 5.9 4.2 2.04 0.343
Pearl millet (two cuts) 9.0 14.8 39.2 169.8 144 254 34.4 5.0 3.8 2.01 0.340
Mean 9.4 15.81 41.5 177.1 35.05 6.4 5.13 2.19 0.380
LSD 5% NS 1.41 NS 13.6 16.2 29.2 1.73 1.83 1.78 0.34 0.041
a
Days after sowing.

Table 3
Assessment of yield advantage under different competition treatments (unit price (Rs. kg
1) of fodder and groundnut pods represent 1 and 15,
respectively)

Treatments LERa RCCb Aggressivity Competition ratio MAIc

Groundnut Cereals Groundnut Cereals

Maize (one cut) 1.68 25.98
1.93 1.93 0.38 2.64 16543
Sorghum (one cut) 1.34 17.35
1.69 1.69 0.40 2.45 14383
Pearl millet (one cut) 1.49 8.74
2.03 2.03 0.32 3.06 12656
Sorghum (two cuts) 1.43 10.67
1.99 1.99 0.34 2.92 13503
Pearl millet (two cuts) 1.54 11.7
2.32 2.32 0.29 3.42 14699
Mean 1.49 14.88
1.99 1.99 0.34 2.28 14356
LSD 5% 0.17 5.34 0.54 NSd 0.78 2897
a
Land equivalent ratio.
b
Relative crowding coefficient.
c
Monetary advantage index.
d
Not significant.

4. Discussion sorghum was more than due to maize. Of the two

Monoculture production of cereal fodder or ground-
nut yielded higher than in the intercropped culture.
This was partly the result of the higher plant popula-
tion in the monocrops. In addition, the crop did not
experience inter-specific competition. Superiority of
green fodder yields of pearl millet over sorghum and
maize was perhaps due to a higher number of tillers.
Despite tiller formation, higher fodder yield obtained
in maize with one cut than sorghum with one cut was
possibly due to more rapid dry matter accumulation in
maize. In intercrops the yield of groundnut was
affected by cereal fodders and intensity of cutting.
Reduction in yield of groundnut due to pearl millet and
cutting situations under intercropping, one cut gave
relatively higher yield of groundnut compared to two
cuts because of increased inter-specific competition
between the component crops (Mandal et al., 1990).
Competition for nutrients and light in intercropping
systems is often interrelated, particularly for legume/
non-legume crop combinations. On low-N soils, the
non-legume is often suppressed, but on high-N soils,
the vigorous growth of the non-legume usually causes
it to dominate over the legume by shading (Trenbath,
1976). In the present study, application of 20 kg N
after first cut of sorghum and pearl millet produced
more dry matter and plant height that caused adverse
shading of the groundnut. This also explains why
 P.K. Ghosh / Field Crops Research 88 (2004) 227–237
groundnut yield was low in case of two cuts as
compared to one cut. These effects of intercropped
pearl millet and sorghum were also prominent on
CGR, LAI, nodule dry mass and yield attributes
(pod numbers, pod yield per plant, 100-kernel mass).
Nambiar et al. (1983) demonstrated that intercrops
like pearl millet, maize and sorghum limited the light
reaching the groundnut canopy by at least 33% thereby
reducing photosynthesis. This restricted photosynth-
esis was further shown by lower CGR. Such a reduction
in yield, growth and yield attributes in association with
pearl millet and sorghum were also reported by Bandel
et al. (1992), Ghosh and Dayal (1998), Willey and
Reddy (1981), Reddy and Willey (1981), and Marshal
and Willey (1983).
The reproductive sink size and its relative strength
appear to have an innate bearing on photosynthesis
and consequently the pod yield. Duncan et al. (1978)
observed partitioning of photosynthate to pods as the
most influential physiological factor in yield determi-
nation. Comparatively less reproductive sink mass as
reflected in harvest index might be the reason for lower
pod yield of groundnut in treatments when two cuts of
sorghum and pearl millet were planned (Table 2).
The NAR of groundnut in rows adjacent to cereals
was less than the middle rows (Fig. 3) in all treatments.
This may be attributed to the less efficient conversion
of light energy into dry matter in adjacent rows of
groundnut (Reddy and Willey, 1979). Further, signifi-
cant reduction in NAR between these two rows was
observed only in the systems with two cuts of sorghum
and pearl millet. In fact, number of tillers and plant
height in second cuts are more than in the first cut,
which caused effective shading to groundnut at later
growth stages also in adjacent rows of pearl millet and
sorghum. However, in treatments with only one cut of
maize, sorghum and pearl millet stress, shading was
released at 50 days in those treatments, hence the NAR
between these two rows did not vary.
It is apparent from the results that tall-growing
cereal intercrops significantly affected nitrogen fixa-
tion traits in groundnut. Reduced light due to shading
by tall-growing cereals may be the cause of poor
nodulation in groundnut. This reduced light energy
affects N2
fixation by restricting photosynthesis and
the energy supply to roots, thereby reducing nodula-
tion and nodule size (Nambiar et al., 1983). Low N
content of groundnut shoots measured in the cereal
235
intercropping systems could be attributed mainly to
lower nitrogen fixation and reduced N uptake from soil
under restricted photosynthesis. Nambiar et al. (1983)
observed that when lateral leaves of the sorghum crop
were removed, the intercropped groundnut nodulated
better and fixed more N. Similar reduction in N2

fixation of soybean by shading caused by maize was
reported by Wahue and Miller (1978). Non-significant
differences in the nodulation in the initial stage could
be attributed to shorter height of intercrops, which
apparently did not create effective shading. Further,
maximum nodulation and nitrogen fixation in ground-
nut are known to occur at the pod filling stage (Nambiar
et al., 1986). Thus any discrepancy in nodulation and
nitrogen fixation is bound to contribute to differences
in pod yield. Hence it is clear that pod yield of ground-
nut was significantly affected in the intercropping
system with cereal fodders.
Though cereal fodders depressed the yield of
groundnut, an overall benefit was observed when yield
of both the crops are considered together. The LER
gives an accurate assessment of the greater biological
efficiency of the intercropping situation. LER values
indicated that groundnut recorded yield advantage in
all intercropping systems due to crop complementa-
rities. This corroborated the findings of several
researchers (Willey, 1979; Reddy and Willey, 1981).
Yield advantage in terms of LER and RCC was greater
in case of the groundnut/maize association. The higher
the LER and RCC value, the greater is the yield
advantage. The aggressivity of groundnut is negative;
thus, it is considered as the less-dominant crop in the
system. Associated cereals were the dominant crops in
the present study as measured by the positive value of
aggressivity. The data in Table 3 show that among the
cereal crop treatments, pearl millet was more domi-
nant than others. The CR value of groundnut was less
compared to the associated crops, which indicated that
groundnut in the intercropping system is less compe-
titive than the associated cereals. According to Willey
and Rao (1980), CR gives a better measure of com-
petitive ability of the crops and is also advantageous
as an index over RCC and aggressivity. The data in
Table 3 revealed that the CR values of pearl millet and
sorghum (two cuts) were greater than maize, and the
corresponding CR value of groundnut was also less.
This clearly indicates that pearl millet and sorghum
were more competitive, and groundnut under these
236 P.K. Ghosh / Field Crops Research 88 (2004) 227–237
two crops was affected more. When monetary advan-
tage was considered, groundnut/maize association
gave maximum MAI which might be due to higher
LER, RCC and less CR value.
5. Conclusion
The study provides information that shading created
by tall-growing pearl millet, sorghum and maize
on groundnut inhibited the normal nodulation and
affected CGR, LAI and NAR in groundnut, resulting
in decreased pod yield. However, growing maize
between groundnut rows could produce additional
green fodder yield in the intercropping system without
jeopardizing the pod yield of groundnut and mitigate
the fodder scarcity to some extent during the dry
season. From this study it has also been found that
although groundnut/maize fodder combination is of
great economic importance, the choice depends on
which cereal is preferred for food and which is better
adapted to the particular environment. Crop compo-
nents in a mixture have differential requirements;
therefore, fertilizer use is complicated, particularly
rate, time and application of fertilizers in order to
obtain the highest economic effect without disturbing
the biological function of legumes in nitrogen econ-
omy. Research on these aspects needs to be strength-
ened to obtain the greatest economic return from
legume/non-legume intercropping systems.
References
AICRPO (All India Coordinated Research Project on Oilseeds),
1980. Annual Progress Report on Groundnut. Directorate of
Oilseeds Research, Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh,
India, p. 42.
Bandel, H., Purushotham, S., Shivashankar, K., 1992. Feasibility of
raising fodders as intercrops in summer groundnut (Arachis
hypogaea L.). J. Oilseeds Res. 9 (2), 326–327.
Mal, B., 1998. Forage research in India. The post-independence
scenario. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 68 (8), 439–447.
Brann, D.E., Juny, G.A., 1974. Influence of cutting management
and environmental variation on the yield, but activity and
autumn carbohydrate reserve levels of crown vetch. Agron. J.
66, 767–773.
Cochron, W.G., Cox, G.M., 1958. Experimental Designs, 2nd ed.
Wiley, New York.
Devkota, N.R., Rerkasem, B., 2000. Effect of cutting on the
nitrogen economy and dry matter yield of lablab grown under
monoculture and intercropped with maize in northern Thailand.
Exp. Agric. 36, 459–468.
Duncan, W.G., Mc Cloud, O.E., Mc Grow, R.C., Boote, K.J., 1978.
Physiological aspects of peanut yield improvement. Crop Sci.
18, 1015–1020.
Ghosh, P.K., Dayal, D., 1998. Effect of varying levels of nitrogen in
three groundnut-based intercropping systems. In: Proceeding
of the International Conference on Food Security and Crop
Science, CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hissar, India,
p. 133.
Ghosh, P.K., Dayal, D., Bandyopadhyay, A., Singh, V., Naik, P.R.,
1999. Resource-use efficiency and profitability of intercropping
of summer groundnut with short duration vegetables: evaluation
of a concept. Int. Arachis Newl. 19, 57–60.
Kanzariya, M.V., Patel, M.S., 1985. Soils of Gujarat and their
management in soil of India. FAI, New Delhi, pp. 103–129.
Mandal, B.K., Dhara, M.C., Mandal, B.B., Das, S.K., Nandy,
R., 1990. Rice, mungbean, soybean, peanut, ricebean and
blackgram yields under different intercropping systems. Agron.
J. 82, 1063–1066.
Marshal, B., Willey, R.W., 1983. Radiation interception and growth
in an intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut. Field Crops Res. 7,
141–160.
Nambiar, P.T.C., Rao, M.R., Reddy, M.S., Floyd, C.N., Dart, P.J.,
Willey, R.W., 1983. Effect of inter-cropping on nodulation and
N2-fixation by groundnut. Exp. Agric. 19, 1979–1986.
Nambiar, P.T.C., Rupela, O.P., Kumar Rao, J.V.D.K., 1986.
Nodulation and nitrogen fixation on groundnut, chickpea and
pigeon pea. In: Subba Rao, N.S. (Ed.), New Trends in Biological
Nitrogen Fixation. Oxford and IBH Publishers, New Delhi.
Ofori, F., Stern, W.R., 1987. Cereal-legume intercropping systems.
Adv. Agron. 41, 41–90.
Singh, P., Roy, M.M., 1999. Agro forestry and rangeland
development. In: Yadav, R.L., Singh, P., Prasad, R., Ahlawat,
I.P.S. (Eds.), Fifty Years of Agronomic Research in India.
Indian society of Agronomy, IARI, New Delhi, pp. 221–254.
Reddy, M.S., Floyd, C.N., Willey, R.W., 1980. Groundnut in
intercropping systems. In: Gibbons, R.W. (Ed.), Proceedings of
the International Intercropping Workshop. ICRISAT, Andhra
Pradesh, India, pp. 133–142.
Reddy, M.S., Willey, R.W., 1979. A study of groundnut/groundnut
inter-cropping: leaf canopy and rooting pattern. In: Proceeding
of the International Intercropping Workshop. ICRISAT, India.
Reddy, M.S., Willey, R.W., 1981. Growth and Resource use studies
in an inter crop of pearl millet/groundnut. Field Crops Res. 4,
13–24.
Rerkasem, K., Rerkasem, B., 1988. Yields and nitrogen nutrition
of intercropped maize (Zea mays L.) and rice bean (Vigna
umbellta (Thumb.) Ohwi and Onashi). Plant Soil 108, 151–162.
Rerkasem, B., Rerkasem, K., Peoples, M.B., Herrigde, B.F.,
Bergersen, F.J., 1988. Measurement of N2 fixation in maize
(Zea mays L.)—rice bean (Vigna umbellata (Thumb) Ohwi and
Ohashi) intercrops. Plant Soil 108, 125–135.
Spedding, C.R.W., 1971. Grassland Ecology. Oxford University
Press, London.
Trenbath, B.R., 1976. Plant interactions in mixed crop commu-
nities. In: Papendick, R.I., Sanchez, P.A., Triplett, G.B. (Eds.),
 P.K. Ghosh / Field Crops Research 88 (2004) 227–237
Multiple Cropping, vol. 27. American Society of Agronomy,
pp. 129–169 (special publication).
UNIAS (UNI Agriculture Service), 1978. Intercropping in Ground-
nut. UNIAS, New Delhi, India, pp. 5, 107.
Vincent, J.M., 1970. A Manual for the Practical Study of Root
Nodule Bacteria, IP Handbook No. 15. Blackwell Scientific
Publication, London.
Wahue, T.A.T., Miller, D.A., 1978. Effect of intercropping on
soybean N2 fixation and plant composition of associated
sorghum soybeans. Agron. J. 70, 292–295.
Willey, R.W., 1979. Intercropping its importance and research
needs. Part I. Competition and yield advantage. Field Crops
Abstr. 32, 1–10.
237
Willey, R.W., Rao, M.R., 1980. A competitive ratio for quantifying
competition between intercrops. Exp. Agric. 16, 117–125.
Willey, R.W., Osiru, D.S.O., 1972. Studies on mixtures of maize
and beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with particular references to
plant population. J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.) 79, 519–529.
Willey, R.W., Reddy, M.S., 1981. A field technique for separating
above- and below-ground interaction in intercropping: an
experiment with groundnut/groundnut intercropping. Exp. Agric.
17, 257–264.
Yadav, R.S., Yadav, O.P., 2001. The performance of cultivars of
pearl millet and clusterbean under sole cropping and intercrop-
ping systems in arid zone conditions in India. Exp. Agric. 37,
231–240.