Hostname: page-component-7f64f4797f-kg7gq Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-11-03T19:30:08.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

SEQUENTIAL INTERCROPPING OF COMMON BEAN AND MUNG BEAN WITH MAIZE IN SOUTHERN ETHIOPIA

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2013

WALELIGN WORKU
WALELIGN WORKU*
Affiliation:
School of Plant and Horticultural Sciences, Hawassa University, P.O.Box 5, Hawassa, Ethiopia
*
†Corresponding author. Email: walelignworku@yahoo.co.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Most previous studies focused on intercropping systems involving two-crop associations. However, there is much scope to improve existing cropping systems by devising and evaluating modifications that allow more effective use of the season. To this effect, experiments were conducted to quantify efficiency of sequential intercropping consisting of maize (Zea mays L.), common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) and mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) during 2007 and 2009 cropping seasons, in southern Ethiopia. Treatments included three- and two-crop associations and equivalent sole crops of components. Land equivalent ratio (LER) and area time equivalency ratio (ATER) were used to estimate intercropping advantage. Maize had the highest partial LER, 0.95, whenever mung bean comes first in the sequence. Comparable partial LERs were observed in common bean irrespective of planting times while mung bean had greater partial LERs from simultaneous rather than sequential planting. Maize had the highest competitive ratio (1.56) followed by common bean (0.67) and mung bean (0.53). The three-crop association involving simultaneous planting of maize with mung bean followed by common bean (MZ + MB − CB) gave the highest mean total LER of 1.66. This combination also had the highest combined productivity and maximum monetary gain, which is above the minimum acceptable marginal rate of return. It exceeded advantages from intercrops of maize–common bean by 41% and maize–mung bean by 23%. Thus, farmers would get greater advantage from practicing sequential intercropping in areas where the season is sufficient to grow long-duration maize.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 90 - 108
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

Addo-Quaye, A. A., Darkwa, A. A. and Ocloo, G. K. (2011). Growth analysis of component crops in a maize-soybean intercropping system as affected by time of planting and spatial arrangement. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 6:34–44.Google Scholar
Agegnehu, G., Ghizaw, A. and Sinebo, W. (2006). Yield performance and land-use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highland. European Journal of Agronomy 25:202–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asaduzzaman, M., Karim, F. M., Ullah, M. J. and Hasanuzzaman, M. (2008). Response of mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) to nitrogen and irrigation managements. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research 3 (1):40–43.Google Scholar
Awal, M. A., Koshi, H. and Ikeda, T. (2006). Radiation interception and use by maize/peanut intercrop canopy. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 139:74–83.Google Scholar
Baldé, A. B., Scopel, E., Affholder, F., Corbeels, M., Da Silva, F. A. M., Xavier, J. H. V. and Wery, J. (2011). Agronomic performance of no-tillage relay intercropping with maize under smallholder conditions in Central Brazil. Field Crops Research 124:240–251.Google Scholar
Banik, P., Midya, A., Sarkar, B. K. and Ghose, S. S. (2006). Wheat and chickpea intercropping systems in an additive series experiment: advantages and weed smothering. European Journal of Agronomy 24:325–332.Google Scholar
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). (2010a). Agricultural Sample Survey: Land Utilization. Statistical Bulletin 468, Addis Ababa.Google Scholar
Central Statistical Agency (CSA). (2010b). Agricultural Sample Survey: Area and Production of Crops. Statistical Bulletin 446, Addis Ababa.Google Scholar
Coll, L., Cerrudo, A., Rizzalli, R., Monzon, J. P. and Andrade, F. H. (2012). Capture and use of water and radiation in summer intercrops in the south-east Pampas of Argentina. Field Crops Research 134:105–113.Google Scholar
Echarte, L., Della Maggiora, A., Cerrudo, D., Gonzalez, V. H., Abbate, P., Cerrudo, A., Sadras, V. O. and Calviňo, P. (2011). Yield response to plant density of maize and sunflower intercropped with soybean. Field Crops Research 121:423–429.Google Scholar
Eyre, J. X., Routley, R. A., Rodriguez, D. and Dimes, J. P. (2011). Intercropping maize and mungbean to intensify summer cropping systems in Queensland, Australia. In: World Congress on Conservation Agriculture 2011 Papers: Proceedings of 5th World Congress on Conservation Agriculture and Farming Systems Design, 26–29 September 2011, Brisbane, Australia. Available from: http://aciar.gov.au/files/node/13992/intercropping_maize_and_mungbean_to_intensify_summ_20607.pdf [Accessed 11 January 2013].Google Scholar
Federer, W. (1999). Statistical Design and Analysis for Intercropping Experiments, Vol. II. Three or More Crops. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Fininsa, C. (1996). Effect of intercropping bean with maize on bean common bacterial blight and rust diseases. International Journal of Pest Management 42:51–54.Google Scholar
Fininsa, C. (1997). Effects of planting pattern, relative planting date and intra-row spacing on a common bean/maize intercrop. African Crop Science Journal 5 (1):15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gebeyehu, S., Simane, B. and Kirkby, R. (2006). Genotype × cropping system interaction in climbing bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) grown as sole crop and in association with maize (Zea mays L). European Journal of Agronomy 24:396–403.Google Scholar
Gomez, K. A. and Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research, 2nd edn.New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Hiebsch, C. K. and McCollum, R. E. (1987). Area-×-time equivalency ratio: a method for evaluating the productivity of Intercrops. Agronomy Journal 79:15–22.Google Scholar
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT). (1988). From Agronomic Data to Farmer Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual. Revised edition, Mexico: CIMMYT.Google Scholar
Islam, M. T., Kubota, F., Mollah, Md. F. H. and Agata, W. (1993). Effect of shading on the growth and yield of mungbean (Vigna radiata [L.] Wilczek). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 171:274–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ketema, M. and Bauer, S. (2012). Factors affecting intercropping and conservation tillage practices in eastern Ethiopia. Agris on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics 4:21–29.Google Scholar
Lithourgidis, A. S., Vlachostergios, D. N., Dordas, C. A. and Damalas, C. A. (2011). Dry matter yield, nitrogen content, and competition in pea–cereal intercropping systems. European Journal of Agronomy 34:287–294.Google Scholar
Mao, L., Zhang, L., Li, W., van der Werf, W., Sun, J., Spiertz, H. and Li, L. (2012). Yield advantage and water saving in maize/pea intercrop. Field Crops Research 138:11–20.Google Scholar
Masojldek, J., Trivedi, S., Halshaw, L., Alexiou, A. and Hall, D. O. (1991). The synergistic effect of drought and light stresses in sorghum and pearl millet. Plant Physiology 96:198–207.Google Scholar
Mead, R. and Willey, R. W. (1980). The concept of a ‘Land Equivalent Ratio’ and advantages in yield from intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 16:217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgado, L. B. and Willey, , , R. W. (2008). Optimum plant population for maize-bean intercropping system in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Scientia Agricola 65:474–480.Google Scholar
Mushagalusa, J. N., Ledent, J. F. and Drave, X. (2008). Shoot and root competition in potato/maize intercropping: effects on growth and yield. Environmental and Experimental Botany 64:180–188.Google Scholar
Natarajan, M. and Willey, R. W. (1986). The effects of water stress on yield advantages of intercropping systems. Field Crops Research 13:117–131.Google Scholar
National Meteorological Service Agency (NMSA). (2001). Initial National Communication of Ethiopia to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Addis Ababa: NMSA.Google Scholar
Nelson, A. G., Pswarayi, A., Quideau, S., Frick, B. and Spaner, D. (2012). Yield and weed suppression of crop mixtures in organic and conventional systems of the Western Canadian Prairie. Agronomy Journal 104:756–762.Google Scholar
Ngwira, A. R., Aune, J. B. and Mkwinda, S. (2012). On-farm evaluation of yield and economic benefit of short term maize legume intercropping systems under conservation agriculture in Malawi. Field Crops Research 132:149–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ofori, F. and Stern, W. R. (1987). Cereal-legume intercropping systems. Advances in Agronomy 41:41–90.Google Scholar
Polthanee, A. and Trelo-ges, V. (2003). Growth yield and land use efficiency of corn and legumes grown under intercropping systems. Plant Production Science 6:139–146.Google Scholar
Rusinamhodzi, L., Corbeels, M., Nyamangara, J. and Giller, K. E. (2012). Legume intercropping is an attractive option for ecological intensification that reduces climatic risk for smallholder farmers in central Mozambique. Field Crops Research 136:12–22.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. (2000). SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 8e. SAS Inst., Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Tana, T., Fininsa, C. and Worku, W. (2007). Agronomic performance and productivity of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties in double intercropping with maize (Zea mays L.) in Eastern Ethiopia. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 6:749–756.Google Scholar
Theunissen, J. and Schelling, , , G. (1996). Pest and disease management by intercropping: suppression of thrips and rust in leek. International Journal of Pest Management 42:227–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsubo, M., Mukhala, E. M., Ogindo, H. O. and Walker, S. (2003). Productivity of maize-bean intercropping in a semi-arid region of South Africa. Water SA 29:381–388.Google Scholar
Tsubo, M. and Walker, S. (2002). A model of radiation interception and use by a maize-bean intercrop canopy. Agriculture and Forest Meteorology 110:203–215.Google Scholar
Tsubo, M. and Walker, S. (2003). Shade effects on Phaseolus vulgaris L. intercropped with Zea mays L. under well-watered conditions. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 190:168–176.Google Scholar
Tsubo, M., Walker, S. and Mukhala, E. (2001). Comparison of radiation use efficiency of mono-/intercropping systems with different row orientations. Field Crops Research 71:17–29.Google Scholar
Venkateswarlu, B. and Shanker, A. K. (2009). Climate change and agriculture: adaptation and mitigation strategies. Indian Journal of Agronomy 54:226–230.Google Scholar
Willey, R. O. and Rao, M. R. (1980). A competitive ratio for quantifying competition between intercrops. Experimental Agriculture 16:117–125.Google Scholar
Workayehu, T. and Wortmann, C. S. (2011). Maize–bean intercrop weed suppression and profitability in Southern Ethiopia. Agronomy Journal 103:1058–1063.Google Scholar
Worku, W. (2004). Maize–tef relay intercropping as affected by maize planting pattern and leaf removal in southern Ethiopia. African Crop Science Journal 12 (4):359–367.Google Scholar
Worku, W. (2008). Evaluation of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes of diverse growth habit under sole and intercropping with maize (Zea mays L.) in southern Ethiopia. Journal of Agronomy 7:306–313.Google Scholar
Worku, W. and Skjelvåg, A. O. (2006). The effect of different moisture and light regimes on productivity, light interception and use efficiency of common bean. SINET: Ethiopian Journal of Science 29 (2):95–106.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, S., Atak, M. and Erayman, M. (2008). Identification of advantages of maize-legume intercropping over solitary cropping through competition indices in the east Mediterranean region. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry 32:111–119.Google Scholar