EFFECT OF PLANTING GEOMETRY AND DURATION OF INTERCROPS ON PERFORMANCE OF PIGEONPEA-FINGER MILLET INTROCROPPING SYSTEMS.

Transcription

1 Indian J. Agric. Res., 44 (1) : 43-47, 2010 AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATION CENTRE / indianjournals.com EFFECT OF PLANTING GEOMETRY AND DURATION OF INTERCROPS ON PERFORMANCE OF PIGEONPEA-FINGER MILLET INTROCROPPING SYSTEMS. A.K. Padhi, R.K. Panigrahi and B.K. Jena Centre for Pulse Research, Agriculture Research Station, Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology, Berhampur, Orissa, , India ABSTRACT A field experiment was conducted during the wet seasons of to study the effect of planting geometry and duration of intercrops on production potential, economics and energy relationship of pigeonpea[cajanus cajan(l.) Milsp.] + finger millet [Eleusine coracana(l.)gaertn] intercropping systems. Early duration pigeonpea (UPAS 120) and intercropping at 2:4 row ratio was found superior to medium duration pigeonpea (TTB 7), and intercropping at 2:8 row ratio with regard to productivity, economics and energy output. Both long ( PR 202 ) and medium ( Bhairabi ) duration finger millet varieties remained at par with each other on the above aspects. Among the intercropping systems UPAS 120" pigeonpea + Bhairabi finger millet at 2:4 row ratio appeared to be compatible, biologically efficient and economically viable with significantly higher pigeonpea seed equivalent yield (1.32 t/ha), land equivalent ratio (1.42), area time equivalent ratio (1.38), monetary advantage (Rs 5868), net return (Rs 8566/ha), return/rupee investment (1.74), energy output (93700 MJ /ha), energy-use efficiency for economic (237 g/mj) and biological produce (747 g/mj). It was closely followed by UPAS 120 pigeonpea + PR 202 finger millet at 2:4 row ratio. Key words: Plant geometry, Intercroping pigeompea, Finger millets. INTRODUCTION The present area of 1.84 lakh hectares under finger millet [Eleusine coracana(l.) Gaertn] during rainy season in Orissa can further be increased by growing it as an intercrop with wide-spaced crop like pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan(l.) Milsp.]. The initial slow growth rate and deep root system of pigeonpea offers a good scope for intercropping with fast growing early maturing and shallow rooted finger millet (Ramamoorthy et al.,2004). Varieties of different duration and their spatial arrangement in an intercropping have important effects on of competition between component crops and their productivity (Sarkar and Pal, 2004). Unlike other crops, early maturiety finger millet escapes damage due to rain at maturity thus proves to be an excellent intercrop with pigeonpea under rainfed farming during wet season (Ramamoorthy et al., 2004). Further, in most of the intercropping studies involving pigeonpea and finger millet, total yield of the system increased over the respective sole component crops (Padhi et al., 1992). But studies on performance of varieties of pigeonpea and finger millet of different duration at different row ratios in intercropping are lacking. Hence, the present investivation was undertaken. MATERIAL AND METHODS A field experiment was conducted during the rainy seasons of at the Centre for Pulse Research, Agriculture Research Station, Berhampur, Orissa. The soil of the experimental site was well drained sandy-loam with ph 6.0, organic carbon content 0.42%, available N 200kg/ha, available P, 9.5kg/ha and available K, 125kg/ha. The experiment consisted of 4 treatments of pure crops of early duration pigeonpea [ UPAS 120 (120 days)], medium duration pigeonpea [ TTB 7 (180 days)], long duration finger millet. [ PR 202 (120 days)], and medium duration finger millet [ Bhairabi (105 days)] and 8 intercropping treatments involving different combinations of pigeonpea and finger millet planted at 2:4 and 2:8 row ratios. Early and medium duration pigeonpea were sown in uniform rows of 60 and 75cm and plant to plant distance of 20 and 30 cm apart in sole plantings, respectively. In intercropping treatments early duration pigeonpea

2 44 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH was sown at a row distance of 30cm leaving 110 and 190 cm between two paired rows and medium duration pigeonpea was sown at a row distance of 45cm leaving 125 and 205 cm between two paired rows in 2:4 and 2:8 proportion sowing, respectively. In both the systems, plant to plant spacing of 20 and 30 cm within the rows for early and medium duration pigeonpea varieties, respectively were maintained. Opening a furrow between two individual rows was taken up in this study with a view to conserve moisture and to prevent soil erosion. Finger millet varieties were transplanted in rows of 20cm apart keeping 10cm between two plants within the row in sole planting. Four to eight rows of finger millet at the same row and plant distance were transplanted between 2-paired rows of pigeonpea as per the treatment. Sole pigeonpea was fertilized with 20kg N, 17.6kg P/ha while sole finger millet was given with 40kg N, 8.73kgP and 16.7kg K/ha. In intercropping both the component crops were fertilized with the proportions of the recommended N, P and K for the respective sole crop based on the area occupied by each of them. Two manual weedings and 3 insecticidal sprays against pod borer were followed. All the 12 treatments were tried in randomized block design with 3 replications. The crops were planted simultaneously in the first fortnight of July during all the years of study. Early duration pigeonpea was harvested in first week of November whereas medium duration pigeonpea was harvested in last week of December in all the years of study. On the other hand, early and medium duration finger millet varieties were harvested in the last week of September and in first fortnight of October, respectively. The market price for pigeonpea seed (Rs 15/ kg), pigeonpea stick (Rs 200/t) and finger millet grain (Rs 7.50/kg) was multiplied with the seed and by-product yield obtained for calculating the gross returns accrued from the system. Competition functions like land equivalent ratio, area time equivalent ratio, aggressivity, monetary advantage and competitive ratio were computed as per standard procedures. The equivalent energy values (megajoule) specified by Mittal et al.(1985) were used, i.e. for input:pigeonpea seed and finger millet grain 14.7/kg; fertilizer N 60/kg; P 5.4/kg; K 8/kg; farm yeard manure (dry matter) 0.3/kg; pesticides 120/kg; tractor 68.4/kg; machinery and tools 62.7/ kg, fuel and lubricant 56.31/litre, adult man hour 1.96 and adult woman hour 1.57; and for outputs :pigeonpea seed and finger millet grain 14.7/kg; pigeonpea stick 18/kg finger millet straw 12.5/kg. They were multiplied by total quantity of input used and output produced from different treatments for computing the energy input and output, respectively obtained from the system. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Pigeonpea seed yield: Early duration pigeonpea UPAS 120 recorded significantly 22% higher seed yield than medium duration pigeonpea TTB 7 in sole planting (Table 1) Intercropping with finger millet significantly reduced the seed yield of UPAS 120 by 50% and of TTB 7 by 54% irrespective of planting ratios compared to seed yield of respective varieties at regular rows. However, the extent of recovery was more with UPAS 120 (50%) and at 2:4 row ratio (61%) than that with TTB 7 (46%) and at 2:8 row ratio (34%). As a result, UPAS 120 planted at 2:4 row ratio significantly recorded 33% and 77% higher seed yield than TTB 7 planted at 2:8 row ratio, respectively. This increase was attributed to significantly higher population of UPAS 120 at 2:4 (85% of sole crop population) and 2:8 (55%) row ratios than that of TTB 7 at 2:4 (71% of sole crop population) and 2:8 (48%) row ratios, respectively. Further, UPAS 120 escaped from moisture stress in sole and intercropping due to its early maturity, which enabled it to record significantly higher number of pods/plant, seeds/pod and seed yield than TTB 7. Planting at 2:4 row ratio recorded significantly higher number of pods/ plant and seeds/pod which resulted into significantly higher seed yield than the planting at 2:8 row ratio. Between the pigeonpea varieties, UPAS 120 gave significantly higher seed yield with Bhairabi finger millet at 2:4 row ratio closely followed by UPAS 120 with PR 202 finger millet at the same row ratio because of production of significantly higher number of pods/plant and seeds/ pod. Finger millet grain yield: Grain yield of both the varieties of finger millet Bhairabi and PR 202 remained at par with each other in sole planting and intercropping (Table 1). Intercropping with pigeonpea reduced significantly the grain yield of

3 Table 1: Yield attributes, yield and economics of pigeonpea and finger millet as influenced by intercropping systems (mean data of 3 years) Treatment Bran-ches/ Pods/ Seeds/ Ears/ hill Grain Pigeon-pea seed Finger millet Pigeon-pea seed Net return Return/ plant plant pood weight/(g) yield (t/ha) grain yield (t/ha) equival-ent yield (t/ha) rupee Pigeonpea UPAS 120) Pigeonpea TTB Finger millet Bhairabi Finger millet PR Pigeonpea UPAS 120 +Finger millet PR 202 (2:4) Pigeonpea TTB 7 +Finger millet PR 202 (2:4) Pigeonpea UPAS 120 +Finger millet Bhairabi (2:4) Pigeonpea TTB 7 +Finger millet Bhairabi (2:4) Pigeonpea UPAS 120 +Finger millet PR 202 (2:8) Pigeonpea TTB 7 +Finger millet PR 202 (2:8) Pigeonpea UPAS 120 +Finger millet Bhairabi (2:8) Pigeonpea TTB 7 +Finger millet Bhairabi (2:8) S.Ed(+) C.D.(p=0.05) Vol. 44, No. 1, PR 202 by 19% and Bhairabi by 21% at both the row ratios compared to respective finger millet varieties at regular rows, respectively. However, the extent of recovery was significantly higher at 2:8 (85%) than that at 2:4 (75%) row ratio, irrespective of finger millet and pigeonpea varieties. As a result planting at the former row ratio recorded significantly higher (17%) grain yield than that at the later row ratio because of significantly higher population of finger millet at 2:8 row ratio (63-73% of sole crop population), ears/ hill and grain weight/ ear than that at 2:4 row ratio. Between the finger millet variety, PR 202 with TTB 7 pigeonpea recorded significantly higher grain yield at 2:8 row ratio closely followed by PR 202 with UPAS 120 pigeonpea at the same row ratio due to production of significantly higher number of ears/ hill and grain weight/ear. Pigeonpea seed equivalent yield: Pigeonpea seed equivalent yield (PSEY) of all the intercropping systems was significantly superior to their respective sole crop yields at both the row ratios, except UPAS PR 202 or Bhairabi and TTB 7 + Bhairabi at 2:8 row ratio(table 1). Inspite of 14% increase in grain yield of finger millet at 2:8 row ratio, sowing at 2:4 row ratio recorded 15% higher PSEY than the former row ratio due to 77% increase in seed yield of pigeonpea in this row ratio. Among the intercropping systems, UPAS Bhairabi recorded significantly the highest PSEY at 2:4 row ratio, which was 62% and 31% higher than UPAS 120 and TTB 7 and 51% and 52% higher than PR 202 and Bhairabi in sole planting, respectively. Intercropping system UPAS PR 202 at 2:4 row ratio closely followed the above intercropping system. This system significantly recorded 28% and 56% higher PSEY than that of sole UPAS 120 and PR 202, respectively. Competition functions Pigeonpea was more competitive than finger millet at both the row ratios, having higher values of competitive ratio and positive aggressivity factor (Table 2). These results confirm the results of Maitra et.al.(2001). In general, UPAS 120 sown at 2:4 row ratio recorded the highest land equivalent ratio (LER), area-time equivalent ratio(ater), competitive ratio (CR a ), aggressivity (A a ) and monetary advantage index (MAI) than TTB 7 sown at 2:8 row ratio, respectively. Among the intercropping systems, UPAS Bhairabi

4 46 INDIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH Table 2: Competition functions and energy relationship of pigeonpea and finger millet as influenced by intercropping systems (mean data of 3 years) Treatment LER ATER CR Aggre-ssivity MAI Energy input Energy output Energy output: Energy-use efficiency (g/mj) CR a CR b A a (MJ/ha) (MJ/ha) input ratio Economic Biological Pigeonpea UPAS 120) Pigeonpea TTB Finger millet Bhairabi Finger millet PR Pigeonpea UPAS 120 +Finger millet PR 202 2: Pigeonpea TTB 7 +Finger millet PR 202 2: Pigeonpea UPAS 120 +Finger millet Bhairabi 2: Pigeonpea TTB 7 +Finger millet Bhairabi 2: Pigeonpea UPAS 120 +Finger millet PR 202 2: Pigeonpea TTB 7 +Finger millet PR 202 2: Pigeonpea UPAS 120 +Finger millet Bhairabi 2: Pigeonpea TTB 7 +Finger millet Bhairabi 2: S.Ed(+) CD(p=0.05) LER, land equivalent ratio; ATER, area time equivalent ratio; CR, competition ratio; CR a, competition ratio of pigeonpea; CR b, competition ratio of finger millet; A a, aggressivity of pigeonpea; A b, aggressivity of finger millet; MAI, monetary advantage index. recorded the highest LER, ATER and MAI values at 2.4 row ratio. This system recorded 42% more landuse efficiency, 32% more per day yield and Rs 586 more monetary adventage than the respective sole component crops. This established that growth requirement of both the component crops differed in time which resulted in spatial and temporal complementarities between the component crops and higher values of combined crop yield. In this system UPAS 120 was found to be more competitive with the highest values of CR a and A a and Bhairabi was found to be less competitive with the lowest values of CR b and A b. This system was closely followed by UPAS PR 202 intercropping system at the same row ratio with 37% more land-use efficiency, 28% more per day yield, Rs 5197 more monetary advantage than the respective sole component crops due to higher values of combined crop yield. Economics: Pigeonpea variety UPAS 120 was found significantly more profitable than TTB 7 in sole planting. Sowing at 2:4 row ratio recorded significantly higher net returns than the sowing at 2:8 row ratio. Intercropping system UPAS Bhairabi was found to be most remunerative with the highest net returns and return/ rupee investment followed by UPAS PR 202 with comparable net returns and return/ rupee investment at 2:4 row ratio. Ramamoorthy et al. (2004) also reported higher net return from pigeonpea+ finger millet intercropping system at 2:4 row ratio. This intercropping system found superior to sole TTB 7 and UPAS 120 pigeonpea with significantly higher net profit of Rs.5934 and Rs.3232 and to sole Bhairabi and PR 202 finger millet with significantly higher net profit of Rs.6491 and Rs.6348, respectively. Energetics: Pigeonpea variety UPAS 120 produced higher energy output, energy-use efficiency for main and total produce than pigeonpea variety TTB 7 in intercropping (Table 2). On the other hand, sowing at 2:4 row ratio was found superior to sowing at 2:8 row ratio on the above aspects. Among the intercropping systems, UPAS Bhairabi proved energetic with higher energy output, energy output : input ratio and energyuse efficiency for economic and biological produce, followed by UPAS PR 202

5 at 2:4 row ratio. This increase might be due to higher economic and biological produce. Padhi et al. (1992) also reported higher energy output from pigeonpea + finger millet intercropping due to higher economic and biological produce. It secured 34% and 25% higher energy output than UPAS 120 and TTB 7 pigeonpea, 54% and 61% higher energy output than PR 202 and Bhairabi finger millet in sole plantings, respectively. Vol. 44, No. 1, It was concluded that raising 4 rows of medium duration finger millet ( Bhairabi ) as an intercrop in between 2 paired rows of early duration pigeonpea( UPAS 120 ) under rainfed condition during the rainy season proved most productive, economically viable, energetically efficient than their sole plantings. This system was closely followed by 4 rows of long duration finger millet ( PR 202 ) between 2 paired rows of early duration pigeonpea ( UPAS 120 ). REFERENCES Maitra, S. et.al. ( 2001). Indian J. Agron. 46: Mittal, V.K. et.al.(1985). Research Digest on Energy requirement of Agriculture Sector, Bulletin 1, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana. Padhi, A.K. et.al. (1992). Indian J Agric Sci 62: Ramamoorthy, K. et.al. (2004). Indian J. Agron. 49: Sarkar,R.K. and Pal,P.K.(2004). Indian J.Agron., 49: