Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 3(2), pp. 66-72, February, 2013 Available online at http:// www.scholarly-journals.com/sjas ISSN 2276-7118 2013 Scholarly-Journals Full Length Research Paper Effects of mustard-maize intercropping system on productivity of maize in moisture deficit sub-tropical areas of Jammu and Kashmir Brij Nandan, B. C. Sharma and Anil Kumar Pulses Research Sub Station, SKUAST-J, Samba-184121, India. Accepted 6 September, 2012 Field experiments were carried out from winter season of 2008 to 2009 to kharif season of 2010 at Dryland Research Sub Station, RakhDhainsar, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu to study the effects of mustard maize system based intercropping on productivity of maize intercropping system in moisture deficit sub-tropical areas of Jammu and Kashmir. Initially, the experiment was laid out in a randomized block design (RBD) in four replications by taking four mustard based intercropping systems as experimental treatments during rabi season and by keeping the rabi imposed intercropping systems as main plot treatments; four new maize based intercropping systems were superimposed as subplot treatments in four replications. Among the sixteen treatment combinations, the intercropping system where maize in maize + cowpea preceded by mustard + fieldpea registered statistical higher grain and stover yield as that recorded under sole maize preceded by mustard based intercropping systems and record of higher nutrient removal taken by this treatment combination. Maize in maize + cowpea produced more number of gains/cob and 1000-grain weight than other intercropping systems preceded by mustard based intercropping systems. Higher system productivity in terms of mustard equivalent yield, net returns and b:c ratio was also observed with maize in maize + cowpea preceded by mustard + fieldpea. Key words: Moisture deficit, mustard, maize intercropping systems, yield. INTRODUCTION Mustard maize rotation is popular and predominant in Northern India in general, Jammu and Kashmir in particular, and both crops grown entirely under moisture deficit sub-tropical (rainfed) conditions. Intercropping/mixed cropping of cereals with legumes provides higher yields as well as an insurance against adverse weather conditions. Both crops are grown under rainfed conditions in more than 50% area of Jammu and Kashmir, especially on hill slopes and plains and are almost a chance crops. These crops suffer due to moisture stress especially at reproductive stages. Visualizing the importance of intercropping sequences remained untouched for enhancing the production of these crops. The beneficial effects of legumes on soil fertility through *Corresponding author. E-mail: bmankotia333@gmail.com. Tel: 09419234393. Fax: 01923-246161. symbiotic nitrogen fixation are well established. Das and Mathur (1980) reported that residual effect of cowpea, blackgram and greengram as intercrop with maize was up to 50 kg/ha. The effect of preceding legumes on the succeeding cereals could be manipulated through their management. However, the efficiency of various legumes also varies greatly with their residual effect on succeeding crop. The present study was to supplement the information available on the residual effect of nitrogen on growth, yield and economics of maize in maize based intercropping systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS The present investigation entitled Effect of mustardmaize system based intercropping on productivity of maize intercropping system in moisture deficit subtropical areas of Jammu and Kashmir was conducted at the Research Farm of Dryland Research Sub Station,
Nandan et al. 67 Table 1. Effect of mustard-maize based intercropping system on seed and stover yield of mustard during 2008 to 2009 and 2009 to 2010. Seed yield (q/ha) Stover yield (q/ha) Y 1 Y 2 Y 1 Y 2 Sole mustard 10.52 5.99 44.85 24.76 Mustard + fieldpea 9.75 5.40 41.47 22.68 Mustard + chickpea 8.52 5.10 36.91 21.73 Mustard + lentil 8.37 5.02 35.79 21.07 C.D (P=0.05) 1.43 0.61 6.78 2.14 Y 1 = 2008 2009; Y 2 = 2009 to 2010 and NS = non-significant. RakhDhainsar, Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology of Jammu during winter seasons of 2008 to 2009 to Kharif season in 2010. The soil of the experimental field is sandy loam, low in organic carbon (0.46%), available nitrogen (174.2 kg/ha) and medium in available phosphorus (16.50 kg/ha), potassium (124 kg/ha) and sulphur (20.5 kg/ha) with sufficient quantity of zinc. Initially, the experiment was laid out in a Randomized block design (RBD) in four replications by taking four mustard based intercropping systems namely, sole mustard, mustard + fieldpea, mustard + chickpea and mustard + lentil. As experimental treatments during rabi season and keeping the rabi imposed intercropping systems as main plot treatments for kharif, four new maize based intercropping systems namely, sole maize, maize + moong, maize + urdbean maize + cowpea were introduced as sub-plot treatments. A uniform dose of 60-30-15-20 kg /ha of N-P-K-S and 60-40-30-10 kg /ha of N-P-K-Zn were applied to mustard (base crop of rabi season) and maize (base crop of kharif season) crops as per their recommended mode of applications, respectively. The crops were raised on 9 th and 11 th November and 4 th July and 25 th June. Rabi and kharif seasons of both years had crop geometry of 30 10 cm (mustard) and 75 20 cm (maize) and the crops were harvested on 25th March and 15 April during first and second rabi seasons whereas the kharif crops were harvested on 28th and 30th September of 2009 and 2010, respectively. Yield parameters and yield were recorded as per the standard procedures. Economics was calculated based on the input and output prices. All observations recorded on different aspects were analyzed statistically following standard procedure for randomized block design and split plot design as outlined by Cochran and Cox (1963). Environmental conditions (climatic behavior of the experimental site during the course of experimentation) During the crop growth periods the temperature conditions were more favourable during second kharif season of 2010 as compared to Kharif season of 2009. The mean values for maximum temperature for the first few standard meteorological weeks were relatively higher whereas mean minimum temperature values were declining leading to greater diurnal variations during kharif 2009. In contrast, of these conditions, such values were more favourable in kharif 2010. The mean values for maximum and minimum temperatures declined at constant rates during kharif season of 2010 as against the case in the kharif season of 2009 where greater fluctuations were noticed. Out of the total rainfall of 694.7 and 1032.8 mm received during the crop-growing period, 110.4 and 37.4 mm; and 584.3 and 995.4 mm were received during the rabi and kharif seasons of both the crop cycles, respectively. A seasonal deficit of 33 and 77% in rainfall below normal was recorded during rabi seasons of 2008 to 2009 and 2009 to 2010, respectively, while the extent of deficit rainfall was to the tune of 28.4% in kharif season of 2009. However, the kharif season of 2010 experienced a 32.7% higher rainfall over its seasonal normal values. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Seed and stover yield of mustard The data given in Table 1 revealed that the crop of mustard in sole stand produced significantly more seeds and stover yield as compared to mustard + chickpea and mustard + lentil intercropping systems and it was found to be statistically at par with that of seed and stover mustard yields realized under mustard + fieldpea intercropping system. The significantly higher seed yield of mustard in sole stand might be attributed to higher numerical values of all the yield attributes, including significant improvement in siliquae bearing ability of sole mustard as compared to their values in chickpea and lentil intercropped mustard. The optimum space available for mustard plants under sole stand reduced the competition for moisture, nutrients and light among the mustard plants as compared to that provided under other
Scholarly J. Agric. Sci. 68 Table 2. Effect of mustard-maize based intercropping system on yield attributes of maize during 2009 and 2010. No. of plants m -2 Cobs plant -1 Grains cob -1 1000-grain weight (g) Y 1 Y 2 Y 1 Y 2 Y 1 Y 2 Y 1 Y 2 Mustard based systems Sole mustard 4.16 4.66 1.15 1.19 304.55 313.98 207.42 221.72 Mustard + fieldpea 4.46 5.03 1.21 1.37 315.97 335.31 219.25 231.62 Mustard + chickpea 4.41 4.78 1.16 1.33 313.29 329.56 217.18 229.12 Mustard + lentil 4.39 4.74 1.09 1.27 309.88 323 215.64 226.78 C.D (P = 0.05) NS NS NS NS 3.52 7.21 2.63 3.51 Maize based systems Sole maize 4.24 4.65 1.07 1.25 301.6 316.19 208.5 220.84 Maize + mungbean 4.33 4.93 1.16 1.28 310.82 327.37 213.62 227.69 Maize + urdbean 4.29 4.67 1.13 1.26 308.52 324.33 212.69 226.75 Maize + cowpea 4.56 4.96 1.25 1.37 322.75 333.96 224.68 233.96 C.D (P=0.05) NS NS NS NS 5.81 3.89 2.33 3.04 Y 1 = 2009; Y 2 = 2010 and NS = non-significant interactions. Table 3. Effect of mustard-maize based intercropping system on grain and stover yields of maize during 2009 and 2010. Grain yield (q/ha) Stover yield (q/ha) Y 1 Y 2 Y 1 Y 2 Mustard based systems Sole mustard 23.55 31.33 63.50 84.19 Mustard + fieldpea 32.23 38.62 84.22 103.61 Mustard + chickpea 30.01 36.51 78.64 99.79 Mustard + lentil 28.66 35.69 73.40 94.23 C.D (P=0.05) 2.75 2.26 6.91 6.37 Maize based systems Sole maize 23.53 29.96 62.41 77.39 Maize + mungbean 29.82 36.33 76.02 96.06 Maize + urdbean 27.80 34.56 74.89 95.74 Maize+ cowpea 33.30 41.30 86.44 112.63 C.D (P=0.05) 2.34 2.69 6.10 7.27 Y 1 = 2009; Y 2 = 2010 and NS = non-significant interactions. intercropping combinations responsible for the production of higher yield attributes of mustard sole crop. These results are in agreement with the findings of Prasad (1996) and Singh et al. (2008). Stover yield of mustard as realized under mustard based intercropping systems followed a similar statistical trend as that observed for seed yield. Similar results were also reported by Shivran (2002) and Chalka and Nepalia (2005). Yield attributes and yields of succeeding maize An improvement in plant population and number of cobs/plant of maize crop in maize based intercropping systems preceded by mustard based systems (Table 2) over that of maize preceded by sole mustard were recorded in both crop growing seasons. Significant enhancement in grains/cob as well as 1000-grain weight of maize in maize based intercropping systems preceded by mustard + fieldpea were also observed and being statistically at par with mustard + chickpea, which in turn was statistically similar with mustard + lentil based systems over that of maize preceded by sole mustard. These differences in yield attributes might have been due to the variation in contribution of residual nitrogen by different mustard based intercrops, which created favourable soil environment. Sharma et al. (1998) also
Grain yield (q/ha) Grain yield (q/ha) Nandan et al. 69 Sole mustard Mustard + fieldpea Mustard + chickpea Mustard + lentil Figure 1. Grain yield (q/ha) of maize in mustard based systems (main plot yield). Sole maize Maize + mungbean Maize + urdbean Maize + cowpea Figure 2. Grain yield (q/ha) of maize in mustard based systems (subplot yield). reported similar results in maize-based legume intercropping on growth of succeeding wheat crop. Among the maize based intercropping systems, maize in maize + cowpea recorded increase in plant population and number of cobs/plant and a significant improvement in grains/cob and 1000-grain weight over maize crop grown with mungbean followed by urdbean as intercrops as well as in its sole cropping. Better source-sink relationship and check on soil moisture loss because of varied canopy cover of intercrops, their synergetic effect favouring better environment for growth and development of the plants might have helped in improving yield attributes amongst the various maize based intercropping treatments. These results corroborate the findings of Chalka and Nepalia (2005) and Shapoo (2006). Grain and stover yield of succeeding maize A significant reduction in grain and stover yields (Table 3 and Figures 1 and 2) of sole maize preceded by sole mustard over maize preceded by mustard + fieldpea intercropping system being statistically at par with mustard + chickpea and in turn statistically similar to mustard + lentil might have occurred due to the cumulative effect of their respective yield attributing characters. Sharma et al. (1998) also reported similar results. As regards the grain and stover yields (Figures 3 and 4) of maize in maize based intercropping systems preceded by mustard based systems, it was observed that the crop of maize in maize + cowpea intercropping system produced statistically higher grain and stover yields over all other maize based intercropping systems as well as sole maize. This might be due to cumulative effects of improved yield contributing parameters of maize recorded under these treatments. Similar findings were also reported by Shivran (2002) and Rana and Choudhary (2006). Nutrient uptake Maize taken after mustard + fieldpea removed significantly higher nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) and was found to be statistically similar with that when it was taken after mustard + chickpea which in turn at par with that when maize was preceded Sole
Stover yield (q/ha) Grain yield (q/ha) Scholarly J. Agric. Sci. 70 Figure 3. Stover yield (q/ha) of maize in mustard based systems (main plot yields). Sole maize Maize + mungbean Maize + cowpea Figure 4. Stover yield (q/ha) of maize in mustard based systems (sub-plots yield). by mustard + lentil. The numerically higher values of sulphur (S) and zinc (Zn) removal by grains and stover of maize grown after mustard + fieldpea was followed was taken after mustard + chickpea and mustard + lentil. Among the maize based intercropping systems preceded, mustard based intercropping systems recorded markedly higher removal of N, P, K, S and Zn in grain and stover of maize than pure stands of maize. Significant variation in respect or N, P and K and non-significant differences of S and Zn uptake by grains and stover of maize grown in association with cowpea followed by maize + mungbean and maize + urdbean were recorded over that of sole maize preceded by mustard based intercropping systems. This might have happened primarily because of increased concentration in the nutrients in grain and stover of maize and secondly due to different rooting system, degenerating behavior of legume nodules due to shades provided by maize canopy as well as the current nitrogen transfer, which resulted in varied biomass production in maize plants under these treatments. Similar results have been reported by Singh et al. (1986) and Thakur and Bora (1987). System productivity and economic returns Data with regard to sequence productivity of different mustard-maize system based intercropping sequences on mustard equivalent yield presented in Table 5 revealed that all the intercropping systems recorded highest system productivity as compared to mustardmaize sequence taken in sole stand during both years of experimentation. Amongst the different mustard-maize system based intercropping sequences mustard + fieldpea maize + cowpea intercropping sequences recorded highest mustard equivalent system productivity of 47.0 and 49.1 q ha -1 during the year 2008 to 2009 and 2009 to 2010, respectively. This is due to better utilization of resources and production of component crops in intercropping sequences. These results are in line with the findings of Pandey et al. (2003) and Tripathi et al.2010
Nandan et al. 71 Table 4. Effect of mustard- maize system based intercropping sequences on N, P, K, S (kg/ha) and Zn (kg/ha) uptake of maize. N P K Y 1 Y 2 Y 1 Y 2 Y 1 Y 2 Seed Stover Seed Stover Seed Stover Seed Stover Seed Stover Seed Stover Sole mustard 38.15 33.48 49.69 41.25 8.95 18.89 11.85 21.89 7.30 41.37 9.03 55.09 Mustard + fieldpea 54.15 53.06 67.27 67.35 15.15 34.08 19.92 39.08 10.96 63.17 14.52 84.85 Mustard + chickpea 49.82 43.97 60.97 58.87 13.20 27.94 16.43 32.94 9.90 54.62 12.41 76.84 Mustard + lentil 47.29 41.10 59.25 56.71 12.04 25.44 15.35 29.44 9.17 49.91 11.78 71.61 C.D (P = 0.05) 3.41 3.58 4.50 4.50 1.30 4.03 1.78 5.53 0.75 4.85 1.05 5.75 Sole maize 38.12 30.58 48.83 38.70 9.41 18.57 12.58 18.57 7.29 39.32 9.59 50.30 Maize + mungbean 49.50 44.85 60.31 58.60 12.82 27.86 17.08 27.86 9.84 57.78 12.72 75.89 Maize + urdbean 45.59 41.94 57.02 55.53 12.23 25.85 15.55 25.85 8.90 53.92 11.40 72.76 Maize + cowpea 56.28 55.32 71.04 73.21 16.32 34.92 21.06 34.92 11.32 68.29 14.87 91.23 C.D (P = 0.05) 4.83 3.65 4.32 5.93 0.96 2.53 1.72 2.65 1.09 3.97 1.42 5.05 S Y 1 Y 2 Y 1 Y 2 Seed Stover Seed Stover Seed Stover Seed Stover Sole mustard 8.24 35.56 11.28 48.83 19.35 15.72 21.45 11.40 Mustard + fieldpea 11.93 46.40 15.06 56.31 44.00 19.26 57.50 18.98 Mustard + chickpea 10.80 43.06 13.87 53.71 29.02 17.86 34.80 17.54 Mustard + lentil 10.32 41.10 12.85 50.87 24.50 15.87 29.50 16.74 C.D (P = 0.05) N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S Sole maize 8.00 34.95 10.49 44.11 16.75 14.99 12.50 13.52 Maize + mungbean 11.03 44.85 13.81 59.56 30.68 16.74 29.85 17.66 Maize + urdbean 10.01 43.44 12.79 56.49 23.98 10.37 24.42 15.42 Maize + cowpea 12.65 52.73 16.11 69.83 71.50 16.84 37.53 18.65 C.D (P = 0.05) N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S N.S Y 1 = 2009; Y 2 = 2010 and NS = non-significant. Zn Net returns and benefit - cost ratio Amongst the different mustard-maize system based intercropping sequences; highest net returns and benefit cost ratio (rupee per rupee investment) were fetched when mustard was intercropped with fieldpea succeeded by maize + cowpea intercropping sequence with Rs 71608 and 71090 ha -1 with benefit cost ratio values of 2.54 and 2.32 during the years of 2008 to 2009 and 200 2010, respectively. This sequence was closely followed by mustard + fieldpea-maize + mungbean intercropping sequence fetching higher net returns of Rs 69051 and64420 ha -1 with a benefit cost ratio of 2.48 and 2.12 during the first and second year of investigation, respectively. The lowest net returns obtained with the treatment where sole mustard followed by sole maize in the sequences with Rs32720 and 29874 ha -1 had a benefit cost ratio of 1.37 and 1.16 in the first and second year, respectively. This might be attributed
Scholarly J. Agric. Sci. 72 Table 5. Effect of mustard-maize system based intercropping sequences on system productivity, net returns and benefit cost ratio. Cropping sequences System productivity Net returns B:C ratio Y 1 Y 2 Y 1 Y 2 Y 1 Y 2 Sole mustard-sole maize 25.9 25.6 32720 29874 1.37 1.16 Sole mustard-maize + mungbean 32.1 35.2 45334 47644 1.78 1.74 Sole mustard-maize + urdbean 29.6 31.7 40803 41560 1.62 1.53 Sole mustard-maize+ cowpea 33.6 39.2 50822 57156 1.97 2.06 Mustard + fieldpea - sole maize 34.8 31.8 44745 36219 1.71 1.27 Mustard + fieldpea - maize + mungbean 46.5 45.4 69051 64420 2.48 2.12 Mustard + fieldpea-maize + urdbean 43.3 40.1 61843 53842 2.25 1.80 Mustard + fieldpea-maize + cowpea 47.0 49.1 71608 71090 2.54 2.32 Mustard + chickpea - sole maize 34.0 31.1 44273 38261 1.71 1.35 Mustard + chickpea - maize + mungbean 43.6 44.1 61775 60867 2.24 2.03 Mustard + chickpea - maize + urdbean 42.1 41.2 59188 56072 2.17 1.89 Mustard chickpea - maize + cowpea 45.1 46.6 63196 64165 2.27 2.11 Mustard lentil - sole maize 28.8 26.3 45520 35331 1.80 1.27 Mustard + lentil - maize + mungbean 37.0 37.3 44464 49995 1.65 1.70 Mustard + lentil - maize + urdbean 34.6 34.0 52075 50419 1.95 1.73 Mustard + lentil - maize + cowpea 38.1 35.6 57669 62386 2.11 2.10 Y 1 = 2008 to 2009 and Y 2 = 2009 to 2010. to higher mustard and maize equivalent yields resulting in higher net returns achieved from this treatment besides higher cost of cultivation involved under the same intercropping sequence than sole mustard-sole maize sequence. Pandita et al. (1998), Padhi and Panighrahi (2006), and Pathak and Singh (2008) also reported the economic viability of intercropping systems over sole cropping system. REFERENCES Chalka, M.K, Nepalia, V. (2005). Production potential and economics of maize (Zeamays) intercropped with legume as influenced by weed control. Indian J. Agro., 50 (2):119-122. Cochran, G., Cox, G.M. (1963). Experimental design. Asia publishing House, Bombay, India. Padhi, A.K., Panigrahi, R.K. (2006). Effect of intercrop and crop geometry on productivity, economics, energetic and soil fertility status of maize (Zeamays)-based intercropping systems. Indian J. Agro., 51(3):174-77. Pande, I.B., Bharti, V., Mishra, S.S. (2003). Effect of maize (Zeamays)- based intercropping systems on maize yield and associated weeds under rainfed conditions. Indian J. Agro., 48(1):30-33. Pandita, A.K., Shah, M.H., Bali, A.S. (1998). Row ratio in maize (Zeamays)-legume intercropping in temperate valley condition. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 68(10):633-35. Pathak, K., Singh, N.P. (2008). Growth and yield of blackgram (Phaseolusmungo) varieties under intercropping systems with maize (Zeamays) during rainy season in North India.Farming System Res. and Development,14 (1):29-34. Prasad, A.V.R. (1996). Studies on oleiferous Brassica and chickpea intercropping. Ph.D. Thesis. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India. Rana, K,S., Chodhary, R.S. (2002). Productivity, nitrogen uptake and water use in maize (Zea mays L.) + mungbean intercropping system as affected by nitrogen levels under rainfed conditions. Crop Res., 32(3): 306-308. Shapoo, F.A. (2006). Relative efficacy of different herbicides for weed control in maize-pulse intercropping system under sub-tropical conditions of Jammu.M.Sc. Thesis, Division of Agronomy, SKUAST- J, Jammu, India. Sharma, V.M., Chakor, I.S., Manchana, A.K. (1998). Effect of maize (Zea mays)-based legume intercropping on growth and yield attributes of Succeeding wheat (Triticumaestivum) and economics. Indian J. Agro., 43(2):231-236. Shivran, R.K. (2003). Studies on intercropping and moisture conservation practices on growth,yield and water use efficiency of maize under rainfed conditions. M.Sc. Thesis. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, India. Singh, H.G., Singh, M., Singh, M.P. (1986). Response of oilseeds to sulphur.fertlizer News 31(9): 23-27. Singh, U., Saad, A.A., Singh, S.R. (2008). Production potential, biological feasibility and economic viability of maize (Zea mays)- based intercropping systems under rainfed conditions of Kashmir valley. Indian J. Agro., 78(12):1023-27. Thakur, R.C., Bora, U.C. (1987). Effect of planting geometry in maize + blackgram intercropping system. Indian J. Agro., 32(1): 91-92. Tripathi, A.K., Kumar, A., Nath, S. (2010). Production potential and monetary advantage of winter maize (Zeamays)-based intercropping systems under irrigated conditions in central Uttar Pradesh. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 80(2):125-128.