Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T13:30:23.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relative Performance of Forage Legumes as Rotational Crops in the Gezira

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

M. M. Musa  and
H. O. Burhan
M. M. Musa
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Corporation, Medani, Sudan
H. O. Burhan
Affiliation:
Agricultural Research Corporation, Medani, Sudan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

A study was made of the nitrogen fixing systems of various forage legumes and their rotational effect on yield of subsequent cotton crops, as well as of yields of the different legumes. Phillipe-sara, clitoria and lubia out-yielded all the others. Nitrogen yields of the various forage legumes showed that they are active fixers of atmospheric nitrogen, but yields of cotton following the various legumes showed wide seasonal variability and were neither significantly nor consistently different in different seasons. On the other hand, the increase in cotton yield due to fertilizer nitrogen was highly significant, indicating a comparatively small end-of-season contribution of cut legumes to soil nitrogen. It was therefore difficult to differentiate between the legumes on the basis of any consistent ability to influence yields of following cotton, suggesting that the choice of a legume in the rotation should depend primarily on economic considerations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 1974 , pp. 131 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1974

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anon. (1967). Agric. Res. Corp. Sudan, Tech. Bull. 1 (N.S.).Google Scholar
Burhan, H. O. & Mansi, M. G. (1967). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 68, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, G. W. & Bathurst, N. O. (1956). 7th Int. Grassland Congr. 1680.Google Scholar
Harmsen, G. W. & van Sohreven, D. A. (1955). Adv. Agron. 7, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henzell, E. F., Martin, A. E., Ross, P. J. & Haydock, K. P. (1968). Aust. J. agric. Res. 19, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, M. L. (1958). Soil Chemical Analysis. London: Constable.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. E. & Burhan, H. O. (1968). J. agric. Sci., Camb. 70, 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, T. A. (1958). J. Soil Sci. 9, 267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masefield, C. B. (1952). Unpublished.Google Scholar
Masefield, C. B. (1955). Emp.J. expl. Agric. 23, 17.Google Scholar
Musa, M. M. (1972). Ann. Rep. Gez. Res. Sta., Sudan.Google Scholar
Oke, O. L. (1967). Trop. Sci. 9, 90.Google Scholar
Rizk, S. G. (1962). J. Soil Sci. United Arab Republic 2, 253.Google Scholar
Vincent, J. M. (1965). In Soil Nitrogen (Ed. Bartholomew, W. V. and Clark, F. E.). Amer. Soc. Agron.Google Scholar
Virtanen, A. I. & Hausen, S. V. (1952). Plant and Soil 4, 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar