Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:29:56.571Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Light Use, Water Uptake and Performance of Individual Components of a Sorghum/Groundnut Intercrop

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

S. N. Azam-Ali ,
R. B. Matthews ,
J. H. Williams  and
J. M. Peacock
S. N. Azam-Ali
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru PO, Andhra Pradesh, India and ‡ ODA Microclimatology Unit, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, LE12 5RD, England
R. B. Matthews
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru PO, Andhra Pradesh, India and ‡ ODA Microclimatology Unit, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, LE12 5RD, England
J. H. Williams
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru PO, Andhra Pradesh, India and ‡ ODA Microclimatology Unit, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, LE12 5RD, England
J. M. Peacock
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Patancheru PO, Andhra Pradesh, India and ‡ ODA Microclimatology Unit, University of Nottingham School of Agriculture, Sutton Bonington, LE12 5RD, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The productivity of each component of a sorghum/groundnut intercrop and its constituent sole crops is determined in terms of a ‘Crop Performance Ratio’ (CPR) defined as the productivity of an intercrop per unit area of ground compared with that expected from sole crops sown in the same proportions. The CPR allows productivity, intercepted radiation and seasonal transpiration to be compared so that conversion coefficients for radiation (e; g MJ−1) and dry matter/water ratios (q; g kg−1) can be calculated for each intercrop component and its constituent sole crops. In this experiment, CPR for total dry weight in the intercrop was 1.08 and that for reproductive yield was 1.27. These advantages in overall productivity and yield were typical of those reported elsewhere for sorghum/groundnut intercrops. The proportional increase in total dry matter in the intercrop was largely a result of its greater interception of radiation. The further advantage in reproductive yield was a consequence of an improved harvest index in the sorghum component of the intercrop (0.64) compared with that of its sole crop counterpart (0.55).

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , October 1990 , pp. 413 - 427
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahmed, S. & Rao, M. R. (1982). Performance of maize-soybean intercrop combination in the tropics: Results of multilocation study. Field Crops Research 5: 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azam-Ali, S. N. (1983). Seasonal estimates of transpiration from a millet crop using a porometer. Agricultural Meteorology 30: 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azam-Ali, S. N. (1984). Environmental and physiological control of transpiration by groundnut crops. Agricultural and Forestry Meteorology 33: 129–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodade, V. N. 1964. Mixed cropping of groundnuts and jowar. Indian Oilseeds Journal 8: 297–301.Google Scholar
Doyle, A. D. & Fischer, R. A. (1979). Dry matter accumulation and water use relationships in wheat crops. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 30: 815–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, A. C. (1960). Studies of intercropping 1. Maize or sorghum with groundnuts. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 26: 1–10.Google Scholar
Francis, C. A. (1986). Distribution and importance of multiple cropping. 1–20. In Multiple Cropping Systems. (Ed. by Francis, C. A.). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Francis, C. A., Flor, C. A. & Temple, S. R. (1976). Adapting varieties for intercropped systems in the tropics. In Multiple Cropping. American Society of Agronomy Special Publication No. 27, 235–253 (Eds Papendick, R. I., Sanchez, P. A. and Triplett, G. B.). Madison, Wisconsin: American Society of Agronomy.Google Scholar
Harris, D., Natarajan, M. & Willey, R. W. (1987). Physiological basis for yield advantage in a sorghum/groundnut intercrop exposed to drought. 1. Dry-matter production, yield and light interception. Field Crops Research 17: 259–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
John, C. M., Seshadri, C. R. & Bhavani Shanker Rao, M. (1943). Mixed cropping of groundnuts. Madras Agricultural Journal 31: 191–200.Google Scholar
Marshall, B. & Willey, R. W. (1983). Radiation interception and growth in an intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut. Field Crops Research 7: 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1977). Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London Series B, 281: 277–294.Google Scholar
Monteith, J. L. (1986). How do crops manipulate water supply and demand? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London Series A 316: 245–259.Google Scholar
Ong, C. K. & Monteith, J. L. (1984). Response of pearl millet to light and temperature. In Agrometeorology of Sorghum and Millet in the Semi-Arid Tropics: Proceedings of the International Symposium,15–20 November 1982,ICRISAT Center,India. Patancheru, India: ICRISAT.Google Scholar
Rao, N. G. P., Rana, B. S. & Tarhalkar, P. P. (1980). Stability, productivity, and profitability of some intercropping systems in dryland agriculture. In Proceedings International Workshop on Intercropping,10–13 January 1979,ICRISAT,Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, 292–305. Patancheru, India: ICRISAT.Google Scholar
Rao, M. R. & Willey, R. W. (1980). Current status of intercropping research and some suggested experimental approaches. In Proceedings, Second Review Meeting INPUTS Project Honolulu,Hawaii,May 8–19 1978.Google Scholar
Reddy, M. S., Floyd, C. N. & Willey, R. W. (1980). Groundnut in intercropping systems. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Groundnuts,13–17 October, 1980,Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India.Google Scholar
Sivakumar, M. V. K. & Virmani, S. M. (1980). Growth and resource use of maize, pigeonpea and maize/pigeonpea intercrop in an operational research watershed. Experimental Agriculture 16: 377–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, J. I., Misra, R. D., Pruitt, W. O. & Hagan, R. M. (1975). Irrigating corn and grain sorghum with a deficient water supply. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 18: 270–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarhalkar, P. P. & Rao, N. G. P. (1981). Genotype-plant density considerations in the development of an efficient intercropping system for sorghum. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Groundnuts,13–17 October, 1980,Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, 35–40.Google Scholar
Wahua, T. A. T. & Miller, D. A. (1978). Relative yield totals and yield components of intercropped sorghum and soybeans. Agronomy Journal 70: 287–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wein, H. C. & Smithson, J. B. (1979). The evaluation of genotypes for intercropping. In Proceedings International Workshop on Intercropping,10–13 January 1979,ICRISAT,Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, 105–116.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. (1979). Intercropping – its importance and research needs. 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts 32: 1–10.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. & Rao, M. R. (1981). Genotype studies at ICRISAT. In Proceedings International Workshop on Intercropping,10–13 January 1979,ICRISAT,Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, India, 117–127.Google Scholar
Willey, R. W. & Osiru, D. S. O. (1972). Studies of mixtures of maize and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) with particular reference to plant population. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 79: 517–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Willey, R. W. (1985). Evaluation and presentation of intercropping advantages. Experimental Agriculture 21: 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar