CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE EFFECT OF MUSTARD ON COMPONENT CROPS. Effect on Chickpea

Transcription

1 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Intercropping of mustard and pulse crops together has been studied by a number of research workers under varied agro-climatic conditions. Those studies were conducted mainly in single pair of component crops where either plant geometry of component crops was worked out or agronomic inputs were tried, but screening of pulse crops for mustard intercropping has been studied only in few studies. A brief resume of research work done on associated aspects of present investigation is presented here under different heads. EFFECT OF MUSTARD ON COMPONENT CROPS The effect of mustard crop on pulse crops grown in intercropping system had been studied by different research workers in varied agro-climatic conditions. Effect on Chickpea Gangasaran and Giri (1985) evaluated the effect of mustard on chickpea at IARI, New Delhi under dryland conditions where one row of mustard was adjusted in place of every 5 th, 7 th and 9 th row of chickpea. Grain yield of chickpea was found to be reduced by 45.78%, 32.82% and 29.82% in proportion to row number of chickpea and the adverse effect was found to be reduced as the proportionate number of rows of chickpea was increased Mandal et al. (1985) reported that intercropping of mustard reduced the number of pods and number of seed /pod in chickpea than sole cropping. Kushwaha and De (1987) tried mustard + chickpea intercropping and observed that number of branches, pods, seed yield/plant and 1000-seed weight of chickpea decreased in intercropping than sole chickpea. The intercropping of 66% chickpea + 34% mustard population gave the greatest yield advantage and chickpea in this system had most nodules and dry weight of nodules. This combination also had the highest LAI and removed more nitrogen from the soil. Kumar and Singh (1987) evaluated the effect of mustard on chickpea at Pantnagar where one row of mustard was adjusted on every 4 th and 5 th row of chickpea. They reported reduction in grain yield of 9.1 and 19.4% in 3:1 and 4:1 row ratio system, respectively. Verma et al. (1989) reported that chickpea intercropped with mustard in 4:1 row ratio gave 2.60 t ha -1 grain yield against 3.12 t ha -1 in pure stand. Dhingra et al. (1990) studied the effect of mustard on chickpea at Ludhiana, Punjab where grain yield of chickpea was found to reduce by , 21.71, and 15.07% when every 2 nd, 3 rd, 5 th and 7 th row was replaced by mustard in intercropping. In 4

2 the studies of Mehta et al. (1990) chickpea grown in 4:1 row ratio with mustard gave 1.82 t ha -1 grain yield, while in pure stand it was 2.42 t ha -1. They also reported that mustard was a better competitor than chickpea in intercropping system. Bhatnagar et al. (1991) studied the effect of mustard on chickpea when mustard was adjusted on every 4 th, 5 th 6 th, 7 th and 8 th row of chickpea. The reduction in grain yield of chickpea was 5.33%, 5.17%, 2.69%, 6.53% and 11.38% in 3:1, 4:1, 5:1. 6:1 and 7:1 systems, respectively. Singh (1991) studied the effect of mustard on chickpea at Kanpur under Central U.P. condition, where grain yield of chickpea was found to be reduced by 3.58%, when every 4 th row of mustard was replaced by one row of chickpea. Patel et al. (1991) reported the effect of mustard on chickpea grown under irrigated condition from Udaipur, Rajasthan where one row of mustard was adjusted in place of every 4 th, 6 th, 8 th and 10 th row of chickpea. Grain yield of chickpea was found to be reduced by 8.34%, 5.24%, 3.70% and 5.26% in chickpea : Mustard row proportions of 3:1, 5:1, 7:1 and 9:1 system, respectively. Bhatnagar et al. (1991) studied the effect of mustard on chickpea at RAU, Udaipur, Rajasthan where the grain yield of chickpea was found to be increase by 26.12% and 23.66% when every 2 nd and 3 rd row of mustard was replaced by one row of chickpea. Mandal et al. (1991) reported the positive effect of mustard on chickpea at Mohanpur, West Bengal where one row of mustard was adjusted on every 3 rd and 6 th row of chickpea. Grain yield of chickpea was found to be increased by 4.36% and 0.51% in the two systems, respectively. Singh and Yadav (1992) evaluated the effect of mustard on chickpea at Kumarganj, Faizabad, where one row of mustard was adjusted on every 5 th row of chickpea. Grain yield of chickpea was found to be reduced by 4.46% in this system of intercropping. Sachan and Uttam (1992) evaluated the effect of mustard on chickpea at Kanpur in rainfed condition where one row of mustard was adjusted on every 3 rd and 4 th row of chickpea and two rows on 3 rd and 4 th row in chickpea. The increase in grain yield of chickpea was 2.87%, 6.02% and 3.91% in 2:1, 2:2 and 3:1 systems. Ali(1992) reported that chickpea equivalent seed yield (3.25t ha -1 ) and LER (1.22) were highest in intercropping of chickpea and mustard in 4:1 row ratio under Kanpur condition. Bishnoi et al. (1992) reported from Hisar, Haryana that intercropping of chickpea and mustard in 6:1 row ratio produced chickpea equivalent yield of 2.38t ha -1 against 1.39 and 1.93t ha -1 seed yield of pure chickpea and pure mustard, respectively. The higher yield under intercropping were reported due to improved microclimatic conditions with greater portioning of net radiation to latent heat of evaporation and a lower production to sensible heat. 5

3 Singh and Pal (1993) tried chickpea+mustard intercropping at Kanpur, U.P. and found that higher chickpea yield equivalents (1.55 and 1.54 t ha -1 ) were obtained under 3:1 and 4:1 row ratio of chickpea and mustard. Upasani (1994) studied the effect of mustard on chickpea at Chinki, Daltonganj where one row of mustard was adjusted in place of every second row of chickpea. Grain yield of chickpea was found to be increased by 8.45% in 1:1 row ratio. Singh (1996) studied the effect of mustard on chickpea at Rendhar, Jalaun (U.P.). Grain yield of chickpea was found to be increased by 4% when every 6 th row of chickpea was replaced by mustard. In the studies of Rana et al. (1996) chickpea seed yield decreased by around 20 and 15% under intercropping with mustard in 6:1 and 8:1 row ratios, respectively. Singh et al. (1997 a) reported from Western U.P. That dry matter accumulation by chickpea decreased in intercropping with mustard in 3:1 row, ratio. Total uptake on N and P, they reported higher in intercropping than in single cropping. In another study of Singh et al. (1997 b) intercropping of chickpea + mustard produced equivalent yield by 46.0 and 23.2% higher than the sole crops of mustard and chickpea respectively. Singh et al. (1998) observed that chickpea + mustard intercropping in 3:1 row ratio gave higher net returns and land equivalent ratio (1.38 and 1.25) than sole cropping of either crops in two years study. Kumar and Prasad (1998) reported that in intercropping with mustard, chickpea produced 73.0% grain yield with 80.0% plant stand thus a loss of 7% due to mustard Punia et al. (1999) reported adverse effect of mustard on chickpea in intercropping where 83.3% rows of chickpea yielded 79.4% grain yield. Thus a loss of 3.9% in chickpea yield due to mustard. Prasad et al. (2000) reported from Kanpur, U.P. that in inter cropping with 8:2 row ratio of chickpea + mustard, chickpea was adversely affected by mustard. The adverse effect on grain yield of chickpea varieties varied from 0.57 to 4.09%. Parihar et al. (2000) reported from Bilaspur, M.P. that seed yield, equivalent yield and total uptake of N and P reduced under intercropping of chickpea + mustard in 4:2 row ratio than pure chickpea indicating that mustard interfered with chickpea yield. Prasad et al. (2003) reported from Kanpur that 80% population of chickpea in intercropping with mustard varieties, produced grain yield of 70% chickpea in intercropping with mustard varieties, produced grain yield of 70% to 79.3% which stand the losses of 0.7 to 9.9 % in chickpea yield due to mustard varieties. Singh (2004) reported yield reduction of chickpea from 2.18 to % due to intercropping of different varieties of mustard. Ahlawat et al. (2005) reported from New Delhi that chickpea in intercropping with mustard, produced more plant height which was explained because of mustard posed 6

4 competition to chickpea for light and space resulting in taller plants of chickpea crop. Pods/plant were lesser in intercropping which could be attributed to competition with mustard. The differences in 1000-seed weight were not significant but were pure and intercropping system while yields were higher in pure cropping. Tripathi et al. (2005) reported from Kanpur, U.P. that seed yield of chickpea with mustard in 8:2 row ratio reduced by 28.3% compared with sole stand of chickpea. In their study, Chickpea + mustard in 8:2 row ratio intercropping system recorded the maximum LER of 1.19 and relative crowding co-efficient of 2.30 indicating that intercropping though reduced the yield of chickpea, this system as a whole was more productive with total yield advantage of 19%. It indicates that intercropping was more efficient in utilizing natural resources than sole cropping of component crops. Effect on Pea Shah et al. (1991) tried pea intercropping with mustard under different row ratios at Shalimar, Kashmir on clay loam soil. They observed that grain yield of pea in 5:1 or 10:2 row ratio with mustard were and q ha -1 and, and q ha -1 against 26.6 and q ha -1 under sole pea crop during two years of study. Thus, pea yield increased in intercropping in proportion to plant stand maintained. The marginal increase was higher when number of pea rows increased in between two rows of mustard. Singh (1991) studied the effect of mustard on pea for two years in which one row of mustard was adjusted in place of every 3 rd, 4 th, 5 th and 6 th row of pea with 66.7%, 75%, 80% and 83.75% rows of pea, respectively in comparison to 100% rows in its sole stand. The grain yield of pea was estimated to be 81.21%, 91.70%, 93.70% and 94.70% showing the beneficial effect of mustard to the extent of 14.50% %.13.70% and 11.70% respectively, in 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 and 5:1 pea-mustard row ratios. The maximum advantage of 16.70% was however observed in 3:1 row ratio. Kwatra and Singh (1995) tried tall pea Rachna + mustard intercropping at Kumarganj, Faizabad in Eastern U.P. They observed that both crops mustard earlier in intercropping than their sole cropping. Pea yield reduced in intercropping than pure pea crop but mustard equivalent yield was higher in intercropping system than pure cropping of either crops. Singh (1996) carried out studies on intercropping of dwarf pea Aparna with mustard at Rendhar, Jalaun Bundelkhand zone of U.P. He observed reduction in grain yield of pea under intercropping system due to adverse effect of mustard on pea. The results of the experiments carried out Punia et al. (1999) at Hisar, Haryana indicated that the yield of field pea in intercropping with mustard decreased than in pure cropping due to adverse affect of mustard. However, field pea + mustard intercropping had higher land equivalent ratio to sole crop of field pea. 7

5 Banike et al. (2000) reported from Calcutta, India that mustard inter- cropping reduced yield of pea compared with pure stand of pea but increased the total production. Kaushik and Chaubey (2001) also reported that grain yield of pea reduced in intercropping with mustard than in pure stand and the effect of mustard was found adverse on pea performance. Effect on Lentil Gangasaran and Giri (1985) evaluated the effect of mustard on lentil at IARI, New Delhi under dryland condition, where one row of mustard was adjusted in place of every 5 th, and 7 th and 9 th row of lentil. They reported that adverse effect of mustard on lentil was found to be reduced as the proportions number of rows of lentil were increased. The studies of Kushwaha (1985) at Kanpur indicated that lentil yield in intercropped stand with mustard decreased as compared with pure lentil stand but land equivalent ratio and mustard equivalent yield were higher in intercropping than sole stand of either crop. Mandal et al. (1991) evaluated the effect of mustard on lentil at Mohanpur (W.B.) in rain fed condition where one row of lentil was adjusted at every 3 rd row of mustard. Grain yield of lentil was found to be increased by 1.67%. Singh (1996) reported the positive effect of mustard on lentil at Rendhar (Jalaun), were grain yield of lentil was found to be increased by 1.36% when 6 th row of lentil was replaced by mustard. Kushwaha (1992) reported the adverse effect of mustard on lentil from IIPR, Kanpur where one or two rows of lentil were adjusted on every 3 rd and 4 th row of mustard. The reduction in the grain yield of lentil was 15.19%, 19.18% and 29.10% on 1:2, 2:2 and 2:1 row ratio of lentil and mustard, respectively. Punia et al. (1999) tried lentil + mustard intercropping in 5:1 row ratio at Hisar, Haryana and found that lentil yield was affected adverse by mustard as lentil in intercropping produced only 188 kg ha -1 grain yield against 382 kg ha -1 in sloe cropping. Thus, loss of more than 50% in yield was recorded with more than 80% population in intercropping than sole cropping. Singh et al. (2000) carried out studies on intercropping of lentil+ mustard at Agra, U.P. Results showed that The yield of lentil increased progressively with the number of its rows in intercropping system and the intercropping recorded higher productivity than sole lentil. The depressing effect of mustard on lentil reduced with increase in number of lentil rows in between two rows of mustard. A study on lentil+mustard intercropping was conducted by Singh et al. (2000) at Ranchi, Bihar for 3 continuous years. Grain yield of intercropped lentil decreased and the extent of reduction was more in additive (32.5%) Then in replacement (29.3%) series as compared to pure lentil. Banike et al. (2000) reported yield reduction of lentil in intercropping with mustard than pure lentil but mustard + lentil resulted in maximum actual yield loss and 8

6 intercropping advantage which are suggested more appropriate measures of intercropping systems, particularly when per plant yield is considered. Kaushik and Chaubey (2001) also reported from Pantnagar that lentil yield significantly in intercropping with mustard compared to sole lentil due to adverse affect of mustard on lentil. Kumar (2006) studied the effect of mustard on lentil in intercropping and found that lentil yield reduced by 21.9% with 5.5% less plant population, thus a loss of 16.4% in lentil yield due to adverse effect of mustard. This reduction was associated with poor yield attributes viz. number of pods/plant, pod weight/ plant, grain/plant and grain weight/plant in intercropping system. Effect on French bean Singh and Ali (1987) evaluated the effect of mustard on french bean at IIPR, Kanpur under irrigated condition, where one row of mustard was adjusted in place of every 4 th and 6 th row of french bean the reduction in the grain yield of french bean was 27.85% and 32.89% in 3:1 and 5:1 row ratio. Singh and Ali (1988) reported that grain yield of french bean at IIPR, Kanpur, was found to be reduced by 2.29%, when grown in 1:1 row ratio with mustard. Singh and Ali (1990) evaluated the effect of mustard on french bean under irrigated condition where one row of mustard was adjusted on every 5 th row of french bean. The reduction in grain yield of french bean was calculated by 1.84% in 4:1 row ratio. Khola and Singh (1996) also observed reduction in yield of french bean due to adverse effect of mustard in intercropping system. Effect of Chickpea on Mustard Gangasaran and Giri (1985) compared the yield of intercropped mustard in chickpea with its solid cropping at IARI, New Delhi in dryland condition where every 5 th, 7 th and 9 th row of chickpea was replaced by one row of mustard showing 20%, 14.20% and 11.11% rows of mustard, respectively in comparison to 100% rows in its pure cropping. The seed yield of mustard in intercropping was 55.21%, 46.99% and 36.66% respectively in comparison to 100% yield in its solid cropping showing an increase of 35.21% % and 25.55% than its proportionate row number in intercropping. Mandal et al. (1985) reported that intercropping with chickpea reduced the number of siliquae/pant of mustard under different moisture regimes. Kushwaha and De (1987) compared the yield of intercrop mustard in chickpea in two systems (2:1 and 1:2) with its solid cropping at IARI, Regional Research Center Kanpur in rainfed condition. Mustard gave proportionately higher 7.14% and 14.62%. Than its row number in intercropping as the seed yield of mustard was 73.8% and 47.95% in comparison to 100% yield in its solid cropping. 9

7 Mehta et al. (1990) compared the yield of mustard intercropped in chickpea with its sole cropping at HAU, Hisar in dryland condition where one row of mustard was adjusted in place of every 3 rd, 4 th and 5 th row of chickpea with 33.33%, 25% and 20% rows of mustard in intercropping. The seed yield of mustard was 63.10%, 44.03% and 48.02% in comparison to 100% yield in its solid cropping showing on yield increase of 30%, 24% and 23% in intercropping. Singh (1991) compared the yield of mustard intercropped in chickpea with its solid cropping at Kanpur in irrigated condition, where one row of mustard in place of every 4 th row of chickpea was adjusted with 25% row in comparison to its pure cropping. Mustard gave seed 37.58% in comparison to 100% yield in its solid cropping showing a benefit of 12.58% in its yield. Sachan and Uttam (1992) compared the yield of mustard intercropped in chickpea with its solid cropping at Kanpur in rainfed condition where one row of mustard in place of every 3 rd and 4 th rows of chickpea were adjusted with 33.33% 25.00% and 50% rows in comparison to its pure cropping. Mustard gave proportionately higher 14.68%, 7.31% and 14.68% in intercropping. Bishnoi et al. (1992) Observed beneficial effects of chickpea intercropping on mustard which were related to improved microclimatic conditions. Singh and Pal (1993) reported that in intercropping with chickpea, mustard inspite of 25% population produced about 50% seed yield as compared to sole crop of mustard. Upasani (1994) compared the yield of mustard intercropped in chickpea with its solid cropping at Daltonganj (Bihar) where every 2 nd and 3 rd row of chickpea was replaced by one row of mustard showing 50% and 33.33% rows of musturd respectively, in comparison to 100% rows in its pure cropping. The seed yield of mustard in intercropping was 79.69% and 58.43%, respectively in comparison to 100% rows in pure cropping. Thus it showed an increase of 29.69% and 25.10% than its proportionate row number in intercropping. Anonymous (1995) compared the yield of intercropped mustard in chickpea with its solid cropping at Pantnagar and Dholi in irrigated condition where one rows of mustard was kept in place of every 6 th row of chickpea with 16.66% row in comparison to its pure cropping. Mustard gave seed yield of 37.19% and 18.30% in comparisons to 100% yield in its solid cropping showing the benefit of 20.53% and 0.64 in its yield during two years study. Singh (1996) compared the yield of intercropped mustard in chickpea with its solid cropping at Rendhar (Jalaun) in U.P. Where one row of mustard was kept in place of every 6 th row of chickpea with 16.66% row in comparison to its pure cropping. Mustard gave seed yield of 22.83% in comparison to 100% yield in its solid cropping showing a benefit 10

8 of 6.17% into yield. Rana et al. (1996) observed yield improvement of mustard in intercropping with chickpea in proportion to plant stand maintained in two systems Singh et al. (1997 a) reported that dry matter accumulation by mustard increased in intercropping with chickpea than sole mustard. Total uptake of N and P also behaved in similar manner. Singh and Srivastava (1997) reported that mustard produced 26.8% seed yield with 20% population in intercropping with chickpea, thus yield advantage of 6.8% due to chickpea. Kumar and Prasad (1998) reported from Kanpur that about 13% more seed yield of mustard was obtained due to beneficial effect of chickpea in intercropping system. Prasad et al. (2000) reported from Kanpur that mustard production enhanced from 8.93% to 13.08% by intercropping of different chickpea varieties. Thakur et al. (2000) reported from Chineswar, M.P. that mustard in intercropping with chickpea, enhanced plant height, branches/plant, pods/plant, seeds/pod, seed weight/plant and 1000-seed weight as compared with sole stand of mustard. Prasad (2001) reported that intercropped mustard produced 30.9% seed yield with 20% population thus, a net grain of 14.9% in seed yield due to beneficial effect of chickpea. Prasad et al. (2003) observed that intercropped mustard varieties with chickpea produced higher seed yield by 4.58 to 21.83% due to beneficial effect of associated chickpea crop. Similarly, in the studies of Singh (2004) positive effect of chickpea on the seed yield of mustard verities varied from 11.5 to 22.8 % in intercropping system. Such effect on seed yield was observed due to improvement in different yield attributes of mustard viz. number of siliquae/plant, seeds/plant, silliquae weight/plant and seed weight/plant than pure mustard. In his study, growth characters of mustard viz. number of branches/plant, fresh weight/plant and dry weight/plant were also improved in intercropping with chickpea. Ahlawat et al. (2005) observed that number of siliquae/plant and harvest index of mustard were improved in intercropping with chickpea as compared with sole crop of mustard. Tripathi et al. (2005) reported from Kanpur, That all the yield attributing characters of mustard were higher in intercropped stand with chickpea over its sole cropping. Among intercropping patterns, chickpea + mustard in 8.2 row ratio had higher values of yield attributes in mustard owing to lesser competition for nutrients, light, space and moisture and took more advantage of solar radiation. Effect of Pea on Mustard Shah et al. (1991) studied the effect of pea on mustard in intercropping at Shalimar (Kashmir) under rainfed condition. Results showed that the seed yield of mustard in intercropping with pea was proportionately more than mustard row (%) in comparison to 100% in its pure crop more than mustard rows ( % ) in combination to 100% in its pure 11

9 crop showing a beneficial effect of pea on mustard in respect to grain yield. The results also showed that replacement of two rows of pea after 4 th, 6 th and 10 th rows showed more degree of advantage in comparison to when its single row was adjusted in place of every 3 rd, and 5 th rows of pea. Singh (1991) studied the effect of pea on mustard at Kanpur. The results showed that mustard yield in intercropping was 6% more than its proportionate rows in comparison to 100% in pure cropping showing a beneficial effect. Anonymous (1995) reported the effect of pea on mustard at Kanpur in irrigated conditions where one row of mustard was adjusted on every 4 th row of pea (1:3) and mustard yield was found to be decreased by 26.25% in comparison to mustard without intercrop. Anonymous (1995) evaluated the effect of pea on mustard at Pantnagar and Dholi in irrigated condition where one row of mustard was intercropped in place of every 6 th row of pea. Grain yield of mustard was found to be reduced by 15.49% and 17.96% in comparison to mustard without intercrop. Singh (1996) evaluated the effect of pea on mustard at Rendhar (Jalaun), where grain yield of mustard was found to be increased by 7.17% when every 6 th row of pea was replaced by mustard. Effect of Lentil on Mustard Gangasaran and Giri (1985) compared the yield of mustard in lentil intercropping with its solid cropping at IARI, New Delhi in dryland condition where every 5 th, 7 th and 9 th row of lentil was replaced by one row of mustard showing 20%, 14.2% and 11.11% rows of mustard, respectively in comparison to 100% rows in its pure cropping. The seed yield of mustard intercropping was 60.44%, 48.30% and 44.43% respectively in comparison to 100% rows in its solid cropping showing the increases of 40.44%, 34.02% and 33.22% than its proportionate row number in intercropping. Kushwaha (1985) reported that mustard yield in intercropping with lentil was 1.8 t ha -1 against 1.68 t ha -1 in pure mustard. Thus, lentil benefited mustard. Lentil also decreased the fertilizer requirement of mustard by the equivalent of 40 kg N and 20 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 Mandal et al. (1991) compared the yield of mustard in lentil intercropping in two systems (2:1) and (4:2) with its solid cropping at Mohanpur (W.B.) in rainfed condition. Mustard gave proportionately higher 8.60 and 2.43% than its row number in intercropping its yield was 75.26% and 69.09% in comparison to 100% yield in its sole cropping. Kushwaha (1992) compared the yield of mustard in lentil intercropping in three systems viz. 1:2, 2:2 and 2:1 with its solid cropping at IIPR, Kanpur in rain fed condition. Mustard gave proportionately higher 23.55% % and 50.99% than its row number in intercropping. Its seed yield was 90.21%, % and 84.23% in comparison to 100% yield in the solid cropping. 12

10 Anonymous (1995) compared the yield of mustard in lentil intercropping with its sole cropping at Pantnagar in irrigated conditions where one row of mustard was adjusted in place of every 6 th row of lentil with 16.66% row in comparison to its pure cropping. Mustard gave seed 57.67% in comparison to 100% yield in its solid cropping showing benefit of 41.01% in the yield. Singh(1996) compared the yield of mustard in lentil intercropping with its solid cropping at Rendhar (Jalaun) in U.P. where one row of mustard was adjusted in place of every 6 th row of lentil with 16.66% rows in comparison to its pure cropping. Mustard gave seed yield of 23.41% in comparison to 100% yield in its solid cropping, showing a gain of 6.75% in its yield. Kumar (2006) obtained more than 50% of mustard yield with only 16% population in intercropping with lentil under Central U.P. conditions. Such higher yield of mustard was observed due to increase in yield attributes viz. number of branches/plant, number of pods/plant, seed weight/plant and number of seed/plant in intercropping with lentil. However, he recorded reduction in plant height of mustard in intercropping as compared to pure stand. Effect of French bean on Mustard Singh and Ali (1988) compared the yield of mustard in french bean intercropping with its solid cropping at I.I.P.R Kanpur in irrigated condition where one row of mustard was raised in place of every 2 nd and 3 rd row of french bean with 50% and 33.33% rows in comparison to its pure cropping. Mustard gave grain 53.28% and 35.49% in intercropping to 100% yield in its solid cropping showing the benefit of 3.28% and 2.16% in its yield. Singh and Ali (1990) compared the yield of mustard grown with french bean against its solid cropping at IIPR, Kanpur in irrigated condition where one row of mustard was kept in place of every 5 th row of french bean with 20% rows in comparison to 100% in solid cropping. Mustard yielded 35.99% with 20% stand and thus, a net increase of 15.99% in seed yield. Khola and Singh (1996) tried french bean and mustard in intercropping at Hisar, Haryana. They reported improvement in the growth (plant height, no. of branches/plant, leaf area index and dry matter accumulation/plant) of mustard due to french bean. The yield attributes of mustard viz. siliquae/plant, seeds/siliquae, 1000-seed wt. and seed yield /plant also increased by %, %, % and 35.5% -36.1% due to french bean intercropping than sole mustard. However, the seed yield ha -1 decreased by % because of the lower (25-50% of sole crop) plant population in intercropping system. 13

11 PERFORMANCE OF INTERCROPPING SYSTEM OF PULSE CROP +MUSTARD Gangasaran and Giri (1985) tried the intercropping of mustard + chickpea and mustard + lentil in row proportions of 1:4, 1:6, and 1:8 under dryland condition of semiarid tropics of North India. They reported that total economic mustard equivalent yield decreased but chickpea and lentil equivalent yield increased in both systems under all row proportions. The greatest yield advantage was with a 1:6 row ratio of mustard + chickpea. Competitive ability of mustard was reported was highest and that of lentil lowest. On the whole mustard + chickpea system was found much better than mustard + lentil intercropping system. Mandal et al. (1991) tested mustard + chickpea and mustard + lentil intercropping under W.B. (India) condition and found that mustard + Lentil system performed better than the mustard + chickpea intercropping system. Kushwaha (1992) studied the comparative performance of mustard + chickpea and mustard + lentil intercropping system on sandy loam soil at Kanpur, U.P. They reported that chickpea and lentil yield reduced in intercropping due to adverse effect of mustard particularly on adjusted row of pulse with mustard row. Such effect was found more on lentil than chickpea as rate of reduction in grain yield was more in lentil than chickpea. Mandal et al. (1997) carried out detailed studies on intercropping of mustard + chickpea and mustard + lentil with varied levels of fertility at Kalyani (W.B.) for three years. They reported that intercropping of mustard + lentil with a fertilizer dose of 80 kg N kg P kg K ha -1 recorded higher land equivalent ratio and monetary advantage than the intercropping system of mustard + chickpea. Punia et al. (1999) tried the intercropping systems of mustard+ chickpea, mustard + field pea and mustard+lentil in their three years studies conducted on sandy loam soil of Hisar, Haryana, on overall mean basis of three years. Mustard against 1005 kg ha -1 in mustard + field pea and only 778 kg ha -1 in mustard + lentil intercropping systems. Net monetary returns in mustard intercropping with chickpea was also maximum of Rs ha -1 against Rs and Rs ha -1 with field pea and lentil, respectively. In all pulses, 6 th row was replaced by mustard in intercropping. Banike et al. (2000) studied the performance of mustard intercropping with peas and lentil at Giridih, Bihar intercropping reduced the yield of component crops, compared with respective pure stands. Mustard + pea system in row replacement series gave the highest mustard yield equivalent value. Mustard+lentil system in the same series, resulted in maximum actual yield loss and intercropping advantage values. Kaushik and chaubey (2001) studied the productivity of mustard intercropping with chickpea, peas and lentil against pure stand in North Indian condition. They reported that the mustard seed yield was higher in sole cropping than the intercropping system. 14

12 Among the intercropping systems, mustard + chickpea obtained the highest mustard seed yield (15.54 q ha -1 ). This system gave higher mustard seed equivalent, land equivalent ratio, income equivalent ratio and net returns as compared to mustard + pea and mustard + lentil intercropping systems. This system likewise exhibited the lowest percentage of yield reduction. RESPONSE TO PHOSPHORUS Phosphorus is a constituent of sugar phosphates, nucleotides nucleic acid, coenzymes and phospholipids. The process of anabolism and catabolism of carbohydrates proceed when organic compounds are esterised with phosphoric acid (Reddy and Reddy 2001). It is closely related to cell division and development. In legumes, it enhances the activity of rhizobium and increase the formation of root nodules, thus it helps in fixing of more atmospheric nitrogen (Yawalkar et al. (1977). Response of chickpea to phosphorus It is universally accepted that legumes serve as restorative crops. Their adequate fertilization with phosphorus not only improves the yield and quality of seed but also provides adequate soil fertility of succeeding crops. Chickpea being leguminous crop is known to be more responsive to phosphorus for fertilization than nitrogen. Phosphorus also stimulates the root growth and hastens the maturity in plants. Effect of phosphorus on growth and yield attributes of chickpea The effect of phosphorus on growth and yield characters of chickpea has been reported by many research workers. Manjhi and chaudhary (1971) have reported significant increase in growth characters and yield attributes of gram with application of 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 over other doses of phosphorus. Mishra (1971) has reported significant increases in yield attributes and yield of gram with application of 60:40:20 kg N P K ha -1 over control and tremendous increase in plant height and number of branches/plant. It was also reported that application of 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 gave significantly superior growth and yield attributes than application of 30 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1. It was reported by Singh (1971) that the application of P 2 O 5 has stimulated the nodulation in gram over control. Chaudhary et al. (1975) have reported that application of 25 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 gave significantly more root weight, root length and dry weight of nodules in chickpea. Koinov and Vitkov (1976) have reported that yield attributes of chickpea like number of pod and seed weight/plant increased by N P K fertilization. Mudholkar and Ahlawat (1979) have reported that application of P 2 O 5 improved the yield parameters such as number of pods/plant and seed weight/plant. Rewari et al. (1979) have reported significant correlation between nitrogen fixation in nodules and P 2 O 5 15

13 uptake by cluster been. Dixit et al. (1983) have observed that application of P 2 O 5 to gram increased the nodulation significantly upto 40 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 over other doses of phosphorus. Increase in root nodulation due to P 2 O 5 application as well as grain production of pea upto the highest level of 45 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 have also been reported by Singh et al. (1983) Singh and Yadav (1985) have reported from Faizabad, U.P. that pods/plant, grain/pod and grain weight/plant were maximum with 80 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 whereas 1000-grain weight was maximum at 40 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1. The study carried out by Singh and Singh (1989) at Lakhaoti, Bulandshahr, and reported that pod weight/plant, number and weight of seeds/plant, 1000 seed weight, were higher with 50 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 whereas number of pods/plant, root nodules/plant and primary branches/plant were maximum with 75 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1. Tomar et al. (1990) have reported that application of 40 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 significantly increased the root biomass, leaf area index, dry weight, number and weight of pods/plant and 100-seed weight of groundnut. In a field trial at Sagar (M.P.) intercropping of chickpea with linseed was tried in 1:1, 2:1, 2:2, 3:1 or 3:2 row ratios. The result of experiment indicated higher gram equivalent yield, LER and benefit:cost ratio than pure chickpea (Jain et al. 1993) Tomar and Raghu (1994) tried 0,30, 45 and 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 in chickpea on clay loam soil of Tikamgarh, (M.P.) and reported significant increase in plant height, branches/plant, dry matter, root nodules/plant, pods/ plant, seeds/plant, seed weight/plant, test weight and harvest index upto highest tested dose of 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1. The P 2 O 5 doses from 0 to 60 Kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 in gram were tried by Siag (1995) at Sriganganagar, Rajasthan on sandy loam soil with low in O.C. and available P 2 O 5. He reported significant increased in plant height, pods/ plant and 100-grain weight of gram upto 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1. Saraf et al. (1997) have tried 0, 30 and 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 in gram at New Delhi and reported linear significant in plant height, branches/plant, dry matter/plant, pod weight/plant, seeds/pod and 100-seed weight upto maximum tested dose of 60 Kg P 2 O 5 ha -1. Singh et al. (1997 a) have stated that application of P 2 O 5 upto 60 Kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 increased significantly dry matter accumulation in gram in pure as well as intercropping systems. Saini and Faroda (1998) have tried 0, 40, 60 and 80 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 in gram at Hisar, Haryana and reported significant increase in pods/plant, seeds/pods and 1000-seed weight upto the dose of 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 Response of chickpea to phosphorus was studied in detail by Bahadur et al. (2002) of Dinajpur, Bangladesh who tried 0,20,40,60, 80, and 100 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 doses. They reported significant increase in plant height, Number of braches/plant, dry matter/plant, pods/plant, seeds/pod, 100-seed weight and seed weight/plant of chickpea with increasing levels of P 2 O 5 upto does of 80 Kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 16

14 Javiya et al. (1989) reported Gujarat from a field trial was conducted two levels of N (0 and 20 kg ha -1 ) and three levels of P 2 O 5 (0, 25 and 50 kg ha -1 ) application of P 2 O 5 responded upto the higher level, 50 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1, higher number of developed pods/plant and 100-grain weight. Thenua et al. (2010) field experiment were carried out for two years at Lakhaoti to study in the performance of chickpea as influenced by sources of P and Levels of biofertilizers. Their the application of rock phosphate and biofertilizer to chickpea showed significant residual effect on the succeeding fodder sorghum. The fore said review indicates that the growth and yield attributes of gram increased significantly with increase in phosphorus. The dose varied from 25 to 80 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 in different studies conducted under various agro climatic conditions. In most of the cases response remained significant upto the dose of 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 Effect of phosphorus on chickpea yields Gram crop is grown under wide range of soil and sufficient literature is available to show significant varied responses to increasing rate of P 2 O 5 supply. In the following paras the review on effect of phosphorus on grain, biological and by product yield of gram are reported. Manjhi and chaudhary (1971) have reported significant increase in seed yield of gram with application of 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 over other doses of P 2 O 5. An increase in yield of gram by 3.81, 5.08 and 6.12 q ha -1 with the application of 22.5, 45 and 67.5 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 respectively over control was reported by Singh and Yadav (1971). Sinha (1972) has reported that application of P 2 O 5 in gram increased production with increasing P 2 O 5 doses but application of 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 gave maximum production over other doses of P 2 O 5. Singh et al. (1983) have reported significant increase in grain production of pea upto the highest level of 45 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1. Singh and Yadav (1985) have reported significant increase in grain yield and straw yield of chickpea with increasing P 2 O 5 doses upto 80 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1, under Faizabad condition of Eastern U.P. contrary to there findings, Yadav et al. (1985) have reported that application of 30 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 increased the yield of gram significantly over control but further increase in P 2 O 5 dose had no increase in gram yield. The highest significant seed yield of gram was reported by Singh and Singh (1989) at 50 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 in Sandy loam soil of Western U.P. at Lakhaoti Bulandshahr. Parihar (1990) carried out studies with gram grown at 20, 50 and 75 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 in sandy clay loam soil of Kharagpur, W.B. He reported significant increase in grain and straw yield of gram with increasing levels of P 2 O 5 upto 75 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1. Dadhich and Moli (1991) where tried different doses of P 2 O 5 on gram observed significantly highest yield with maximum dose of 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1. Joseph and Verma 17

15 (1994) tried 15, 30 and 45 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 in chickpea on medium black, clay soil of Varanasi, U.P. They reported that highest does of 45 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 produced significantly maximum grain and straw yield of gram. It was reported by Siag (1995) that 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 has given 5.31, 3.80 and 1.88 q ha -1 more yields of gram over control, 20 and 40 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 doses, respectively on sandy loam soil with low in organic carbon and available P 2 O 5 contents. Enania and Vyas (1995) have tried 0, 25, and 50 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 doses on chickpea at Udaipur, Rajasthan where seed and straw yields increased significantly upto 25 and 50 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1, respectively. The highest seed yield of chickpea at 80 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 was reported by Paikarg et al. (1996). Saraf et al. (1997) have reported from New Delhi that grain yield of gram increased significantly in linear manner with increasing levels of P 2 O 5 upto highest tested dose of 60 Kg P 2 O 5 It was stated by Singh and singh (1997) that application of 40 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 in 4:1 row ratio of gram + mustard intercropping gave significantly increased seed yield of gram over control. The P 2 O 5 doses from 0 to 80 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 were tried in gram by Saini and Faroda (1998) at Hisar, Haryana. They reported that grain yield and straw yield of gram were maximized at 60 and 80 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 respectively. Bahadur et al. (2002) have tried P 2 O 5 doses from 0 to 100 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 on different varieties of gram at Dinajpur, Bangladesh in sandy loam soil. They reported significant increase in seed and biological yield of gram with increasing P 2 O 5 upto the level of 80 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 Thenua et al. (2010) tried field experiment were carried out at Lakhaoti to study in the performance of chickpea as influenced as irrigation, source of P and levels of biofertilizers. Application of P 2 O 5 in the form of either SSP (1.56. t ha -1 ) or DAP (1.53 t ha - 1 ) was better when compared with rock phosphate. The application of rock phosphate and bifertilizer to chickpea recorder higher yield of chickpea. It is indicated from the review mentioned above that in almost all cases, gram yield responded significantly to application of P 2 O 5. However, rate of response and dose of P 2 O 5 varied. Response was reported significantly from 30 to 80 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 under different agro climatic conditions in most of the studies, crop yield showed significant increase upto maximum dose of phosphorus tried. 18

16 EFEECT OF PHOSPHORUS ON QUALITY, N P S UPTAKE AND ECONOMICS OF CHICKPEA Nitrogen is the primary constituent for the synthesis of protein in the plant. The application of P 2 O 5 in legumes favours better development of root system and increased growth of rhizobium bacteria, which fix the atmospheric nitrogen. Thus phosphorus application is responsible to synthesis of protein and uptake of N P K by legume. A number of research workers have reported significant influence of phosphorus on protein content, N P K uptake and economics of gram. Singh and Yadav (1971) have recorded an increase in protein content in gram with applicantion of P 2 O 5 over control Kapoor and Gupta (1977) have reported significant increase in crude protein content of soybean seed with the application of 56 and 112 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 over control. Dwivedi and Singh(1982) have studied the effect of P 2 O 5 doses on gram at Kanpur, U.P. They observed that P 2 O 5 at increasing rates upto 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 had a significant positive effect on protein content of seed. Dohariya et al. (1985) have calculated maximum net C:B ratio of 1:1 at 40 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 in gram. Javiya et. al. (1989) have reported that 50 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 maximum net profit of Rs 3648 ha -1 with net C:B ratio of 1:1.09 in gram. Patel et al. (1989) have reported maximum net return of Rs ha -1 with 30 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 in gram. Kacha et al. (1990) have reported significantly increase in protein content of soybean seed with application of P 2 O 5 over control. They also reported highest protein content with application of 80 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1. Nutrient uptake by chickpea crop was studied by Dadhich and Moli (1991) who reported that P 2 O 5 60 and 30 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 enhanced the total uptake N P K by 61.8 and 36.3 Kg ha -1, respectively over control. Tomar and Raghu (1994) reported from Tikamgarh, M.P. that the dose of 60 kg P 2 O 5 gave maximum net return Rs 5699 ha -1 which was higher by Rs ha -1 over control. Siag (1995) where tried different doses of P 2 O 5 on chickpea reported significant increase in benefit : cost ratio with increasing P 2 O 5 dose, being ncrease in benefit : cost ratio with increasing P 2 O 5 dose, being maximum of 6.86:1 at 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1. Singh and Singh (1997 b) have stated that application of 40 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 in 4:1 row ratio of gram + mustard, gave significant increase in net return ha -1 over control. They also reported highest net return ha -1 with application of 40 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1. Application of P 2 O 5 upto 60 kg ha -1 increased uptake of nitrogen and P 2 O 5 by gram and mustard in pure as well as intercropping system (Singh et al.1997 a). It was reported by Singh et al. (1998) that intercropping of chickpea + mustard in 3:1 row ratio, gave highest net return with highest dose of 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1. Reddy and Ahlawat (1998) reported from New Delhi that s P 2 O 5 fertilizer application increased uptake of N and P both along with protein yield in chickpea over control. 19

17 Thenua et al. (2010) reported that the application of rock phosphate and biofertilizer to chickpea showed rock phosphate as source of P and bio fertilizer resulting in higher net return and net benefit : cost ratio. The review given above indicates that seed protein of gram and N, P uptake in gram crop showed significant increase from kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 in different studies. Response of net profit to phosphorus varied from 30 to 60 kg ha -1 P 2 O 5 doses in different agro climatic conditions in majority of cases, seed protein and N, P-uptake showed significant increase upto 60 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 and net return. ROLE OF SULPHUR Sulphur is the constituent of amino acids (cysteine, cystine and methionine), vitamins and number of co-enzyme. It stimulates the nodules formation in leguminous plants. It favour the soluble organic nitrogen and decrease in quantity of insoluble nitrogen. It also encourages the chlorophyll synythesis thereby increase negative growth. The effect of sulphur on plant growth are discussed by number of research workers as under effect of sulphur on chickpea. Effect on nodulation Josheph and Verma (1994) obsorved that application of 40 kg S ha -1 gave significant increase in nodule/plant over the 20 kg S ha -1. Umesh et al.(1997) observed that the dose of 30 kg S + 5 kg Zn ha -1 was optimum for increase in nodule weight in mung (NM-1). Effect on growth characters Saraf (1988) advocated that sulphur was found to be most prominent for chickpea. Rao and Sahu (1991) Conduct a field trial in winter season, chickpea were given 0 or 100 kg S ha -1 at sowing and sprayed with 10-3 MDMSO, 0.1% H 2 SO 4, 1.0% KCl, 0.10% H 3 BO 4 or water, each with or without 1.0% Glucose at 45 days after sowing and at 50% flowering and reported that sulphur application increased leaf chlorophyll a, Chlrophyll b and total chlorophyll contents and leaf sap electrical conductivity. Shinde and Saraf (1994) tested sulphur on chickpea upto 80 kg ha -1 and found that sulphur fertilization increased leaf, stem, pod and total dry matter only upto the dose of 40 kg S ha -1 while response to higher level of 80 kg S ha -1 was not significant. Joseph and Verma (1994) observed that application of 40 kg S ha -1, significantly increased in pods/plant, seed weight/plant over the 20 kg S ha -1. Umesh et al. (1997) observed that the effect of sulphur with Zn was positive on growth of legume plants. Saraf et al. (1997) studied the effect of 0, 40, and 80 kg ha -1 sulphur on chickpea at New Delhi and recorded more number of branches/plant and dry matter/plant with increased levels of sulphur mostly upto 80 kg S ha -1. In the same study plant height, 20

18 seeds/pod, seed : pod ratio and harvest index were not significantly influenced by sulphur application at any rate. Shiv Kumar (2001) conduct a field trial in New Delhi to study the effect of sulphur (40 and 80 kg ha -1 ) alone or in combination with 40 kg DAP ha -1 on the yield and yield component of chickpea. The application of 80 kg S ha kg DAP ha -1 gave dry matter, number of branches and pods more per plants. Srinivason and Sankaran (2001) reported that the gypsum gave greatest plant height (53.8 cm) in black gram when studied the effect of source of sulphur. Sher et al. (2006) conduct a field experiment in winter season in Hisar to evaluate the effect of irrigation, S ( 20 and 40 kg ha -1 ) and seed inoculation on late sown chickpea and find that Rhizobium + PSB and S at 40 kg ha -1 resulted in the highest no. of pods/plant. Effect on yield attributes Saraf et al. (1997) reported that maximum number of pods/plant were increased with increasing levels of sulphur mostly upto 80 kg ha -1. Singh and Agrawal (1998) observed that the effect of different sources of sulphur fertilization on chickpea (PU-19), application of 30 kg S ha -1 (gypsum) significantly increased the number of flowers/plant. Shiv kumar (2001) conduct a field trial in New Delhi to study the effect of sulphur (40 and 80 kg ha -1 as pyrites) alone or in combination of 40 kg DAP ha -1 on the yield and yield components of chickpea cultivars. The application of 80 kg S ha kg DAP ha - 1 gave tallest plants and number of branches. Shiv kumar (2001) reported that application of 80 kg S ha kg DAP ha -1 gave highest dry matter, number of pods/plant, pod weight in chickpea over 40 kg S ha -1 alone. Shiv singh et al. (2006) conduct a field trial in Hisar, Haryana to evaluate the effect of irrigation, S (20 and 40 kg ha -1 ) and seed inoculation on late sown chickpea. Results recorded that Rhizobium SP + PSB and sulphur at 40 kg ha -1 resulted in the highest pod number/plant. EFFECT ON SEED YIELD Tandon (1991) states as a thumb role, kg sulphur uptake/10 t grain yield can be taken as 3-4 kg for cereals, 8 kg for pulses and 12 kg for oil seeds. Joseph and Verma (1994) observed that application of 40 kg S ha -1 in chickpea, it is increased in seed weight/plant, straw yield and grain yield per plant. Singh et al. (1994) reported that increased yield of green gram with increasing level of 0 to 80 kg S ha -1 as gypsum but seed yield was highest at 40 kg S ha -1 Singh and Agarwal (1998) found that 30 kg S ha -1 was optimum which gave highest yield of black gram. 21