Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T15:11:34.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Systematic Design to Examine Effects of Plant Population and Spatial Arrangement in Intercropping, Illustrated by an Experiment on Chickpea/Safflower†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

R. W. Willey  and
M. R. Rao
R. W. Willey
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru PO 502 324, AP, India
M. R. Rao
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru PO 502 324, AP, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

An intercropping experiment is described, using a parallel-row systematic design, to examine four plant populations of chickpea in all combinations with 15 systematically arranged populations of safflower in 1:1 and 2:1 row arrangements; four populations of the sole crops were included. Safflower was usually dominant and increasing the total population (i.e. both crops combined) made it more so. Safflower yield was little affected by changes in its own population and was independent of changes in the chickpea population. Chickpea yield increased with increase in its own population and it was the dominant crop at high chickpea/low safflower populations. An initial increase in safflower population caused an increase in chickpea yield at the 1:1 row arrangement; otherwise increasing safflower population decreased chickpea yield. LERs at 2:1 indicated no real evidence of yield advantages for intercropping. At 1:1 advantages ranged up to 19%, with a maximum where the highest chickpea population was combined with a low safflower one. This optimum combination could not have been identified with earlier designs.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 1981 , pp. 63 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bleasdale, J. K. A. (1967). Expl Agric. 3:73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleasdale, J. K. A. & Nelder, J. A. (1960). Nature 188:342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Wit, C. T. (1960). Vers. Landbouw. Onderzoek 66:1–82.Google Scholar
Farazdhaghi, H. & Harris, P. M. (1968). Nature 217:289–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, R. (1960). Field Crops Abst. 13:159–167.Google Scholar
Huxley, P. A. & Maingu, Z. (1978). Expl Agric. 14:49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mead, R. (1979). Biometrics 35:41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelder, J. A. (1962). Biometrics 18:283–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahua, T. A. T. & Miller, D. A. (1978). Agron. J. 70:287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, R. W. & Heath, S. B. (1969). Adv. Agron. 21:281–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, R. W. & Osiru, D. S. O. (1972). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 79:517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, F. (1939). Biometrika 30:440–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar