Şaban YILMAZ, Mehmet ATAK, Mustafa ERAYMAN

Identification of Advantages of Maize-Legume Intercropping over Solitary Cropping through Competition Indices in the East Mediterranean Region

Alternate planting combinations of maize (Zea mays L.) with common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) or cowpea (Vigna sinensis L.) were compared with the solitary planting of each crop during 2003 and 2004 under the East Mediterranean conditions in Turkey. The experiment comprised 15 treatments; sole planting of maize (71,500 plant ha-1), sole planting of common bean (285,750 plant ha-1) and cowpea (285,750 plant ha-1), and 2 different planting patterns (1- and 2-row plantings) with 6 maize-legumes intercropping series, 50:50, 67:50, and 100:50, respectively, using randomized complete block design with 3 replications. Evaluation of the planting patterns was performed on basis of several intercropping indices such as land equivalent ratio (LER), relative crowding coefficient (K), aggressivity (A), aggressivity ratio (CR), actual yield loss (AYL), monetary advantage index (MAI), and intercropping index (IA). Competition indices revealed that, compared to solitary planting, the maize-cowpea and maize-common bean intercropping, regardless of planting patterns, at the mix proportions of 67:50 plant density had advantages due to its better yield, land use efficiency, and economics. Methods used in this study should be easily implemented especially by small scale farms in the East Mediterranean region.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Maize, common bean, cowpea and intercropping

Identification of Advantages of Maize-Legume Intercropping over Solitary Cropping through Competition Indices in the East Mediterranean Region

Keywords:

Maize, common bean, cowpea and intercropping,

PDF

___

Agegnehu, G., A. Ghizam and W. Sinebo. 2006. Yield performance and land-use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. Eur. J. Agron. 25: 202-207.
Akman, Z. and O. Sencar. 1999. The effect of various planting patterns on grain yield and agronomic characters of corn and legume (bean and cowpea) grown under intercropping. Turk J. Agric. For. 23: 1139-1148.
Anil, L., J. Park, R.H. Phipps and F.A. Miller. 1998. Temperate intercropping of cereals for forage: a review of the potential for growth and utilization with particular reference to the UK. Grass For. Sci. 53: 301-317.
Banik, P. 1996. Evaluation of wheat (T. aestivum) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row-replacement series system. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 176: 289-294.
Banik, P., T. Sasmal, P.K. Ghosal and D.K. Bagchi. 2000. Evaluation of Mustard (Brassica compestrisvar. Toria) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row-replacement series systems. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 185: 9-14.
Banik, P., A. Midya, B.K. Sarkar and S.S. Ghose. 2006. Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: advantages and weed smothering. Eur. J. Agron. 24: 325-332.
Caballero, R., E.L. Goicoechea and P.J. Hernaiz. 1995. Forage yields and quality of common vetch and oat sown at varying seeding ratios and seeding rates of common vetch. Field Crop Res. 41: 135-140.
Carr, P.M., R.D. Horsley and W.W. Poland. 2004. Barley, oat and cereal-pea mixtures as dryland forages in the Northern Great Plains. Agron. J. 96: 677- 684.
Chen, C., M. Westcott, K. Neill, D. Wichman and M. Knox. 2004. Row configuration and nitrogen application for barley–pea intercropping in Montana. Agron. J. 96: 1730-1738.
Dhima, K.V., A.A. Lithourgidis, I.B. Vasilakoglou and C.A. Dordas. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crop Res. 100: 249-256.
Fenandez-Aparicio, M., C. Josefina and D. R. Sillero. 2007. Intercropping with cereals reduces infection by Orobanche crenata in legumes. Crop Protec. 26: 1166-1172.
Ghosh, P.K. 2004. Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops Res. 88: 227-237.
Hauggard-Nielson, H., P. Ambus and E.S. Jensen. 2001. Evaluating pea and barley cultivars for complementary in intercropping at different levels of soil N availability. Field Crop Res. 72: 185-196.
Karadag, Y. and U. Buyukburc. 2004. Forage qualities, forage yields and seed yields of some legume-triticale mixtures under rainfed conditions. Acta Agri. Scan., Sec. B, Soil and Plant Sci. 54: 140
Kızılsimsek, M. and T. Saglamtimur. 1996. A research on determining the suitable intercropping systems of sorghum (Sorghum bicholar L.) with cowpea (Vigna sinensis L.) a second crop Cukurova conditions. Turk J. Agric. For. 20: 133-137.
Li, L., S. Yang, X. Li, F. Zhang and F. Christie. 1999. Interspecific complementary and intercropped maize and faba bean. Plant Soil. 212: 105-114. interactions between
Mead, R. and R.W. Willey. 1980. The concept of a land equivalent ratio and advantages in yields for intercropping. Exp. Agric. 16: 217
Ofori, F. and W. R. Stern.1987. Cereal–legume intercropping systems. Adv. Agron. 41: 41-90.
Poggio, S. L. 2005. Structure of weed communities occurring in monoculture and intercropping of field pea and barley. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 109: 48-58.
Qamar, I.A., J.D.H. Keatinge, N. Mohammad, A. Ali and M.A. Khan. 1999. Introduction and management of vetch/barley forage mixtures in the rain fed areas of Pakistan. 3. Residual effects on following cereal crops. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 50: 21-27.
Santalla, M., A.P. Rodino, P.A. Casquero and A.M. de Ron. 2001. Interactions of bush bean intercropped with field and sweet corn. Eur. J. Agron. 15: 185-196.
SAS 1998. SAS, STAT User’s Guide, Version 6.12 SAS Institute, Cary, NC.
Tsubo, M., S. Walker and E. Mukhala. 2001. Comparisons of radiation use efficiency of mono-inter-cropping systems with different row orientations. Field Crops Res. 71: 17-29.
Tsubo, M., S. Walker and H.O. Ogindo. 2005. A simulation model of cereal–legume intercropping systems for semi-arid regions. II. Model application. Field Crops Res. 93: 23-33.
Willey, R.W. 1979. Intercropping its importance and research needs. PartI. Competition and yield advantage. Field Crops Abst. 32: 1- 10.