Evaluation of forage production in maize-soybean and pearl millet-soybean intercroppings

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.

2 Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding

Abstract

In order to find an alternative to summer monoculture forage maize (Zea mays), intercropping systems of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum): soybean (Glycine max) (P:G) and maize: soybean (Z:G) and intercropping patterns, substitutive (XXG, XXGG and XGG) and additive (X%100G%25, X%100G%50 and X%83G%67) were evaluated as factorial in RCBD at research field of Agriculture and Natural Resources College of Tehran University in Karaj during 2013 and 2014 (G and X respectively: soybean and cereal including maize, Z, or pearl millet, P). Results showed that yields of cereal forage and mixed forage in Z:G were significantly higher than P:G. Cereals were dominant component in intercrop and the dominance of maize was higher than millet. Intercropping system or pattern did not affect total land equivalent ratio (LER).The highest LER was recorded 1.15 by P%100G%25 in 2013 and 1.07 by Z%83G%67 in 2014 without 2nd cut of pearl millet, and 1.10 by PGG in 2014 with sum of 2 cuts of pearl millet. In X%83G%67 despite the 83% cereal density of monoculture, partial LER was 0.95 for maize but 0.70 for pearl millet. It is concluded that additive patterns with a small ratios of soybean or with some decrease in ratios of cereal component, tend to have potential to achieve higher LERs. Thus intercropping, specially additive pattern can provide suitable alternatives to monoculture in production of forage with customized quality and higher diversity in ecosystem, in consistent with sustainability.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Anil, L., Park, J., Phipps, R. & Miller, F. (1998). Temperate intercropping of cereals for forage: a review of the potential for growth and utilization with particular reference to the UK. Grass and Forage Science, 53(4), 301-317.
  2. Azim, A., Khan, A., Nadeem, M. & Muhammad, D. (2000). Influence of maize and cowpea intercropping on fodder production and characteristics of silage. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 13(6), 781-784.
  3. Bedoussac, L., & Justes, E. (2011). A comparison of commonly used indices for evaluating species interactions and intercrop efficiency: Application to durum wheat–winter pea intercrops. Field Crops Research, 124(1), 25-36.
  4. Chen, C., Westcott, M., Neill, K., Wichman, D. & Knox, M. (2004). Row configuration and nitrogen application for barley–pea intercropping in Montana. Agronomy Journal, 96(6), 1730-1738.
  5. Erdal, S., Pamukcu, M., Curek, M., Kocaturk, M., & Dogu, O. Y. (2016). Silage yield and quality of row intercropped maize and soybean in a crop rotation following winter wheat. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science, 62(11), 1487-1495.
  6. Dahmardeh, M., Ghanbari, A., Syasar, B. & Ramroudi, M. (2009). Effect of intercropping maize (Zea mays L.) with cow pea (Vigna unguiculata L.) on green forage yield and quality evaluation. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 8(3), 235.
  7. Gomez, K. A. & Gomez, A. A. (1984). Statistical procedures for agricultural research. John Wiley & Sons.
  8. Herbert, S., Putnam, D., Poos-Floyd, M., Vargas, A. & Creighton, J. (1984). Forage yield of intercropped corn and soybean in various planting patterns. Agronomy journal, 76(4), 507-510.
  9. Hosseinmardi, M., Hosseini, S. M. B. & Jahansooz, M. R. (2017). Study the effect of intercropping maize and pearl millet on fodder yield quantity and quality. Iranian Journal of Filed Crop Science, 48(2), 329-338. (In Farsi).

10. Hosseini, S. M. B. (2004). Eco-physiology of intercropping pearl millet and cowpea. Ph. D. thesis, Faculty of agricultural sciences and engineering, University of Tehran, Iran. (In Farsi).

11. Ibrahim, M., Ayub, M., Maqbool, M. M., Nadeem, S. M., ul Haq, T., Hussain, S. & Lauriault, L. M. (2014). Forage yield components of irrigated maize–legume mixtures at varied seed ratios. Field Crops Research, 169, 140-144.

12. Javanmard, A., Nasab, A. D. M., Javanshir, A., Moghaddam, M., & Janmohammade, H. (2012). Effects of maize intercropping with legumes on forage yield and quality. Journal of Agricultural Science and Sustainable Production, 22(3), 137-149. (In Farsi).

13. Lithourgidis, A. S., Dordas, C. A., Damalas, C. A. & Vlachostergios, D. (2011). Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science, 5(4), 396-410.

14. Maasdorp, B. & Titterton, M. (1997). Nutritional improvement of maize silage for dairying: mixed-crop silages from sole and intercropped legumes and a long-season variety of maize. 1. Biomass yield and nutritive value. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 69(1-3), 241-261.

15. Martin, R. C., Voldeng, H. D. & Smith, D. L. (1990). Intercropping corn and soybean for silage in a cool-temperature region: yield, protein and economic effects. Field Crops Research, 23(3-4), 295-310.

16. Nakhzari Moghaddam, A., Chaichi, M. R., Mazaheri, D., Rahimian Mshhadi, H., Majnounhoseini, N. & Nourinia, A. (2009). The effect of corn and mungbean intercropping on land equivalent ratio and some forage quality parameters. Journal of Agricultural Science, 3-151.

17. Nandy, S. K., Mandal, B. K. & Khan, D. K. (2013). Effect of sowing date and NPK on the forage yield and quality in the crop combination of maize and cowpea in newer alluvial zone of west Bengal, India. Journal of Agronomy, 12(1), 64.

18. Pelzer, E., Bazot, M., Makowski, D., Corre-Hellou, G., Naudin, C., Al Rifaï, M., Baranger, E., Bedoussac, L., Biarnès, V. & Boucheny, P. (2012). Pea–wheat intercrops in low-input conditions combine high economic performances and low environmental impacts. European Journal of Agronomy, 40, 39-53.

19. Sengul, S. (2003). Performance of some forage grasses or legumes and their mixtures under dry land conditions. European Journal of Agronomy, 19(3), 401-409.

20. Snaydon, R. W. (1991). Replacement or additive designs for competition studies?. Journal of Applied Ecology, 930-946.

21. Stoltz, E., & Nadeau, E. (2014). Effects of intercropping on yield, weed incidence, forage quality and soil residual N in organically grown forage maize (Zea mays L.) and faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Field Crops Research, 169, 21-29.

22. Surve, V., Patil, P. & Arvadia, M. (2011). Forage production potential of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor), maize (Zea mays) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) under sole and intercropping systems. Madras Agricultural Journal, 98(4), 372-374.

 

Iranian Journal of Field Crop Science
Volume 49, Issue 3
November 2018
Pages 137-150

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 June 2017
  • Revise Date: 19 November 2017
  • Accept Date: 28 November 2017
  • Publish Date: 22 November 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics