Agricultural Science Digest

  • Chief EditorArvind kumar

  • Print ISSN 0253-150X

  • Online ISSN 0976-0547

  • NAAS Rating 5.52

  • SJR 0.176, CiteScore: 0.357

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Agricultural Science Digest, volume 37 issue 1 (march 2017) : 32-36

Growth and productivity of fennel (Foeniculum Vulgare Mill.) as influenced by intercropping with fenugreek (Trigonella Foenum-Graecum L.) and sulphur fertilization 

P.K. Boori, A.C. Shivran*, S. Meena, G.K. Giana
1<p>SKN College of Agriculture (SKN Agriculture University), Jobner- 303 329, India.</p>

ABSTRACT

The study was carried out during rabi 2013-2014 in 3 times replicated RBD with three intercropping systems (sole fennel, fennel + fenugreek in 1:1 and 1:2 row ratios) and four sulphur levels (0, 20, 40 and 60 kg S/ha). The results revealed that fennel in 1:2 row ratio recorded significantly higher dry matter and yield attributes of fennel as compared to 1:1 row ratio and sole fennel. Intercropping of fennel in 1:2 row ratio significantly reduced seed (10.42 q/ha), straw and biological yields of fennel over 1:1 ratio and sole fennel. The fennel in 1:1 row ratio could not bring significant variation in growth and yield of fennel as compared to sole fennel. However, when system productivity was compared, intercropping in 1:1 row ratio registered significantly highest net monetary returns (Rs 126471/ha) and land equivalent ratio (1.45) in comparison to intercropping in 1:2 ratio and sole fennel. The sulphur at 40 kg/ha significantly increased growth and yield attributes, seed (15.60 q/ha), straw and biological yields and net returns (Rs 100612/ha) of fennel. Application of 40 kg S/ha in fennel intercropping system was found suitable considering input economy as it recorded 42.07 and 13.37% higher seed yield and 60.71 and 17.40% higher net monetary returns over control and application of 20 kg S/ha, respectively. 

REFERENCES


  1. Anonymous (2012-13). Rajasthan Agriculture Statistics- At a glance. Statistical cell, Directorate of Agriculture, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

  2. Anonymous (2013). Department of Agriculture and Cooperation (Horticulture Division). Government of India.

  3. Awasthi, U.D., Tripathi, A.K., Dubey, S.D. and Kumar, S. (2011). Effect of row ratio and fertility levels on growth, productivity, competition and economics in chickpea + fennel intercropping system under scarce moisture condition. Journal of Food Legumes 24: 211-214.

  4. Bochalia, G.S., Tiwari, R.C., Ram, B., Kantwa, S.R. and Choudhari, A.C. (2011). Response of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum) genotypes to planting geometry, agro-chemicals and sulphur levels. Indian Journal of Agronomy 56: 273-279.

  5. Carvalho, L.M., Oliveira, L.R., Almeida, N.A. and Andrade, K.R. (2011). The intercropping of fennel with beans and cowpea in Agreste region in Brazil. Acta Horticulturae 925: 199-204.

  6. Jat, R.L., Dashora, L.N., Golada, S.L. and Choudhary, R. (2012). Effect of phosphorus and sulphur levels on growth and yield of fenugreek. Annals of Plant and Soil Research 14: 116-119.

  7. Jat, S.R., Patel, B.J., Shivran, A.C., Kuri, B.R. and Jat, G. (2013). Effect of phosphorus and sulphur levels on growth and yield of cowpea under rainfed conditions. Annals of Plant and Soil Research 15: 114-117.

  8. Kumar, S., Patal, S.K. and Ghosh, G. (2013). Response of different boron and sulphur levels on chickpea based mustard intercropping system. Trends in Biosciences 6: 256-259.

  9. Kumawat, B.L., Kumawat, A. and Kumawat, S. (2011). Response of fenugreek to claying, irrigation and sulphur in loamy sands In: Production and Protection of Seed Spices. [Sastry, E.V.D. and Shekhawat, K.S. (Eds)]. Avishkar Publishers and Distributors, Jaipur, pp. 150-160.

  10. Mehta, R.S., Malhotra, S.K., Lal, G., Meena, S.S., Singh, R., Aishwath, O.P., Sharma, Y.K., Kant, K. and Khan, M.A. (2012). Influence of intercropping systems with varying fertility levels on yield and profitability of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.). International Journal of Seed Spices 2: 24-27.

  11. Mehta, R.S., Meena, S.S. and Anwer, M.M. (2010). Performance of coriander (Coriandrum sativum) based intercropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 55: 286-289.

  12. Monem, R., Mirtaheri, S.M., Maleki, F.P., Mohebi, H.R. and Sharifiashorabad, E. (2012). Intercropping in fennel (Foeniculum vulgare L.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.). International Journal of Agriculture and Crop Sciences 4: 1736-1739.

  13. Panse, V.G. and Sukhatme, P.V. (1978). Statistical methods for Agricultural Workers. Revised 3rd edn. ICAR, New Delhi.

  14. Patel, C.B., Amin, A.U. and Patel, A.L. (2013). Effect of varying levels of nitrogen and sulphur on growth and yield of coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.). An International Quarterly Journal of Life Science 8: 1285-1289.

  15. Prajapat, K., Shivran, A.C., Yadav, L.R. and Choudhary, G.L. (2011). Growth, production potential and economics of mungbean as influenced by intercropping system and sulphur levels. Journal of Food Legumes 24: 330-331.

  16. Rao, M.R. and Singh, M. (1990). Productivity and risk evaluation in constrasting intercropping system. Field Crop Research 23: 279-293.

  17. Singh, A. and Meena, N.L. (2004). Effect of nitrogen and sulphur on growth, attributes and seed yield of mustard (Brassica juncea) in eastern plain of Rajasthan. Indian Journal of Agronomy 3: 186-188. 

  18. Singh, I.D. and Stoskopf, Y.C. (1971). harvest index in cereals. Agronomy Journal 63: 224-226.

  19. Singh, S.N. and Kumar, A. (2002). Production potential and economics of winter maize based intercropping systems. Annals of Agricultural Research 23: 532-534.

  20. Tandon, H.L.S. and Messick, D.L. (2007). Practical of Sulphur Guide. The Sulphur Institute Washington, D.C. 1-2.

  21. Willey, R.W. (1979). Intercropping: its importance and research I.Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstract 52: 181–193. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)