Share This Article:

Competition Indices of Intercropped Lupine (Local) and Small Cereals in Additive Series in West Gojam, North Western Ethiopia

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:344KB) PP. 1296-1305
DOI: 10.4236/ajps.2014.59143    4,311 Downloads   6,041 Views   Citations

ABSTRACT

The experiment was conducted on intercropping of lupine (Lupinus albus L.) with wheat (Triticum aestivum), barley (Hordeum vulgar) and finger millet (Eleusine coracana) in 2009 at Adet Agricultural research station, in Western Gojam. The treatments were sole wheat at a seed rate of 175 kg/ha, sole barley at a seed rate of 125 kg/ha, sole finger millet at a seed rate of 30 kg/ha, sole lupine at a seed rate of 90 kg/ha, and an additive series of 25, 50 and 75% of the sole lupine seed rate combined with the full cereal seed rate to determine the effect of intercropping on competition (CR) among the different species, the land equivalent and area time equivalent ratios (LER and ATER); and the economic feasibility of each intercropping system(MAI) as compared with sole cropped. The experimental design was a completely randomized block with nine intercropping and four sole cropping systems in three replications. Lupine was planted in rows after establishment of main crops. JMP-5 (SAS, 2002) software’s was used to compute the analysis of variance. Partial LER of lupine was lower than LER of cereal, indicating an advantage for main crops and a disadvantage for the minor crop. Values of ATER showed 4.9%-31.3% and 11.1%-37.8% advantage in lupine-wheat and lupine-finger millet combinations, respectively, whilst lupine-barley combinations showed ATER of 54.5%-60.9% disadvantage. CR showed dominancy of wheat and barley over lupine while lupine was higher CR than finger millet. Positive MAI values were recorded in lupine-wheat and lupine-finger millet mixtures indicating that these intercropping systems were a definite yield advantage and the most profitable as compared to sole cropped. In conclusion, the lupine-finger millet mixture at the 50:100 seeding ratio and 75:100 seeding ratio; and lupine-wheat mixture at the 75:100 seeding ratio indicated a significant advantage from intercropping which was attributed to better MAI and land use efficiency (higher LER and ATER), lower CR and thereby enhanced sustainability of crop production in West Gojam, but the other socio-economic and cost of production aspects of intercropping should also be assessed especially under small scale farmers’ conditions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Bantie, Y. , Abera, F. and Woldegiorgis, T. (2014) Competition Indices of Intercropped Lupine (Local) and Small Cereals in Additive Series in West Gojam, North Western Ethiopia. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 5, 1296-1305. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2014.59143.

References

[1] Mitchell, C.E., Tilman, D. and Groth, J.V. (2002) Effects of Grassland Plant Species Diversity, Abundance, and Composition on Foliar Fungal Disease. Ecology, 83, 1713-1726.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1713:EOGPSD]2.0.CO;2
[2] Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Ambus, P. and Jensen, E.S. (2001) Interspecific Competition, N Use and Interference with Weeds in Pea-Barley Intercropping. Field Crop Research, 70, 101-109.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4290(01)00126-5
[3] Nigusei, T. (1994) Performance of Maize/Bean Intercropping Systems under Low and Medium Rainfall Situations, Unpublished M.Sc. Thesis, Alemaya University of Agriculture, Ethiopia.
[4] Amare, B. (1987) Maize-Soybeans Intercropping. 19th National Crop Improvement Conference, Adis Ababa, 22-26 April 1987.
[5] Jansen, P.C.M. (2006) Lupines albus L. In: Brink, M. and Belay, G., Eds., PROTA (Plant Resources of Tropical Africa) Wageningen. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/
[6] Central Statistical Agency (2012) Agricultural Sample Survey. 2011/2012 Volume I Report on Area and Production of Major Crops. Statistical Bulletin. May 2012, Addis Ababa.
[7] Aleligne, K. and Steven, F. (1987) Initial Results of Informal Survey Adet Farming System, Gojam Region, and Working Paper No.2187, IAR and Bair Dar, Ethiopia.
[8] Willey, R.W. and Osiru, D.S.O. (1972) Studies on Mixtures of Maize and Beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) with Particular Reference to Plant Population. Journal of Agricultural Science, 79, 517-529.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859600025909
[9] Willey, R.W. and Rao, M.R. (1980) A Competitive Ratio for Quantifying Competition between Intercrops. Experimental Agriculture, 16, 117-125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700010802
[10] Willey, R.W. (1979b) Intercropping—Its Importance and Research Needs. Part II. Agronomy and Research Approaches. Field Crop Abstract, 32, 73-85.
[11] AARC (Adet Agricultural Research Center) (2002) Summary of Research Achievements (1987-2001), Adet, Amhara, Ethiopia.
[12] Mead, R. and Willey, R.W. (1980) The Concept of Land Equivalent Ratio and Advantages in Yields from Intercropping. Experimental Agriculture, 16, 217-228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700010978
[13] Ofori, F. and Stern, W.R. (1987) Cereal and Legume Intercropping Systems. Advanced Agronomy, 41, 41-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60802-0
[14] Hiebsch, C.K. (1980) Principles of Intercropping. Effect of N Fertilization and Crop Duration on Equivalency Ratios in Intercrops versus Monoculture Comparisons. PhD thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh.
[15] Willey, R.W. (1979) Intercropping, Its Importance and Research Needs. Part 1. Competition and Yield Advantages. Agronomy and Research Approaches. Field Crop Abstract, 32, 1-10.
[16] YWARDO (Yilmana Denesa Wereda Agricultural and Rural Development Office) (2009) Annual Plan of Office of Agriculture and Natural Resources Development Adet, Amhara. (Unpublished)
[17] Ghosh, P.K. (2004) Growth, Yield, Competition and Economics of Groundnut/Cereal Fodder Intercropping Systems in the Semi-Arid Tropics of India. Field Crops Research, 88, 227-237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.01.015
[18] SAS Institute Inc. (2002) JMP-5 Statistical Software, Version 5. Cary, USA.
[19] Beets, W.C. (1982) Multiple Cropping and Tropical Farming Systems. Gower, London, Britain, and West Views Press, Colorado.
[20] Caballero, R., Goicoechea, E.L. and Hernaiz, P.J. (1995) Forage Yields and Quality of Common Vetch and Oat Sown at Varying Seeding Ratios and Seeding Rates of Common Vetch. Field Crop Research, 41, 135-140.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(94)00114-R
[21] Yadav, R.S. and Yadav, O.P. (2001) The Performance of Cultivars of Pearl Millet and Cluster Bean under Sole Cropping and Intercropping Systems in Arid Zone Conditions in India. Experimental Agriculture, 37, 231-240.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0014479701002046
[22] Aasim, M., Muhammad, E.U. and Karim, A. (2008) Yield and Competition Indices of Intercropping Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) Using Different Planting Patterns. Ankara.
[23] Reddy, K.C., Visser, P.L., Klaij, M.C. and Renard, C. (1994) The Effects of Sole and Traditional Intercropping of Millet and Cowpea on Soil and Crop Productivity. Experimental Agriculture, 30, 83-88.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700023875
[24] Chen, C., Westcott, M., Neill, K., Wichman, D. and Knox, M. (2004) Row Configuration and Nitrogen Application for Barley-Pea Intercropping in Montana. Journal of Agronomy, 96, 1730-1738.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.1730
[25] Trydemanknudsen, M., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Jornsgard, B. and Steenjensen, E. (2004) Comparison of Inter-Specific Competition and N Use in Pea-Barley, Faba Bean-Barley, and Lupine-Barley Intercrops Grown at Two Temperate Locations. Journal of Agricultural Science, 142, 617-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021859604004745
[26] Banik, P., Samsal, T., Ghosal, P.K. and Bagchi, D.K. (2000) Evaluation of Mustard and Legume Intercropping under 1:1 and 1:2 Row Replacement Series System. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science, 185, 9-14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037X.2000.00388.x
[27] Tamado, T. and Eshetu, M. (2000) Evolution of Sorghum, Maize and Common Bean Cropping Systems in East Harerghe, Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Science, 17, 33-45.
[28] Bhadoria, R.B., Chauhan, G.S., Kushwaha, H.S. and Singh, V.N. (1992) Intercropping of Cluster Bean and Pearl Millet. Indian Journal Agronomy, 17, 416-439.
[29] Dutta, H.S., Baroova, S.R. and Rajkhowa, D.J. (1994) Feasibility and Economic Profitability of wheat (Triticum aestivum)-Based Intercropping System under Rain Fed Conditions. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 39, 448-450.
[30] Dhima, K.V., Lithourgidis, A.S. and Dordas, C.A. (2006) Competition Indices of Common Vetch and Cereal Intercrops in Two Seeding Ratio. Field Crops Research, 100, 249-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2006.07.008
[31] Trydeman, K.M., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Jornsgard, B. and Steen, J.E. (2004) Comparison of Interspecific Competition and N Use in Pea-Barley, Faba Bean-Barley and Lupine-Barley Intercrops Grown at Two Temperate Locations. Journal of Agricultural Science, 142, 617-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021859604004745
[32] Zhang, F. and Li, L. (2003) Using Competitive and Facilitative Interactions in Intercropping Systems Enhances Crop Productivity and Nutrient-Use Efficiency. Plant and Soil, 248, 305-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022352229863
[33] Berntsen, J., Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Olesen, J.E., Petersen, B.M., Jensen, E.S. and Thomsen, A. (2004) Modeling Dry Matter Production and Resource Use in Intercrops of Pea and Barley. Field Crops Research, 88, 69-83.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2003.11.012
[34] Jensen, E.S. (1996) Grain Yield, Symbiotic N-2 Fixation and Interspecific Competition for Inorganic N in Pea-Barley Intercrops. Plant Soil, 182, 25-38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00010992
[35] Hauggaard-Nielsen, H., Mette Klindt, A., Bjarne, J. and Erik Steen, J. (2005) Density and Relative Frequency Effects on Competitive Interactions and Resource Use in Pea-Barley Intercrops. Field Crop Research, 95, 256-267.
http://orgprints.org/4053/
[36] Grace, J. (1990) On the Relationship between Plant Traits and Competitive Ability. In: Grace, J.B. and Tilman, D., Eds., Perspective on Plant Competition, Academic Press, San Diego, 51-65.

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.