Mechanized and profitable intercropping of legumes in autumn planted sugarcane

Citation :-

Mechanized and profitable intercropping of legumes in autumn planted sugarcane

.Legume Research-An International Journal.2016.(39):411-418

Anil Khippal*1, Samar Singh2, Meharchand2, Rajender Sheokand3, Jasbir Singh3, Ramesh Verma3 and Rakesh Kumar4

Anil Khippal*1, Samar Singh2, Meharchand2, Rajender Sheokand3,Jasbir Singh3, Ramesh Verma3 and Rakesh Kumar4 anilkhippal@gmail.com
Address : CCS HAU Regional Research Station,Karnal-132 001, India.
Submitted Date : 20-07-2015
Accepted Date : 2-04-2016

Abstract

To increase the area, production and productivity of sugarcane and legumes/oilseeds for increasing the profit of the farmers’, field experiments were conducted at Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Regional Research Station, Karnal during 2005-06 and 2006-07 followed by demonstrations on intercropping of legumes/oilseed with sugarcane at farmers’ field in Kaithal district during 2009-10 and 2010-11. Cane yield did not reduce significantly due to intercropping except raya during 2005 -06. The percent incidence of pink borer, shoot borer, top borer and root borer remained below economical threshold level (ETL). In all intercropping systems, total land equivalent ratio (LERt) was greater than unity, indicated yield advantage for the intercropped plots. Land equivalent coefficient (LEC) followed the same pattern as LERt. Total area time equivalent ratio (ATERt) values showed an advantage (22-28 %) with all intercropping systems than sole cropping with maximum advantage from sugarcane + chickpea. Sugarcane was more competitive than pea and lentil intercrops, whereas, raya and chickpea were more competitive than sugarcane. Higher competitive ratio values for the intercrops (CRi) indicated that all the intercrops were more competitive than sugarcane. Total values of actual yield loss (AYL) showed an advantage of 22-38% from intercropping compared to sole cropping. Highest monetary advantage index (MAI) value was obtained from sugarcane + pea intercropping system (75779). However, the minimum MAI was obtained from sugarcane + lentil intercropping system (62382).  Demonstrations on intercropping at farmers’ field also resulted in higher gross returns, returns over variable cost and benefit: cost ratio. 

Keywords

Chickpea Competitive ratio Intercropping LER Lentil Pea Raya Sugarcane.

References

  1. Anonymous (2013) IIPR vision 2050. IIPR, Kanpur.
  2. Adetiloye, P.O.; Ezedinma, F.O.C. and Okigho, B.N. (1983). A land equivalent coefficient concept for the evaluation of competitive and productive interactions on simple complex crop mixtures. Ecol. Modelling. 19: 27-39.
  3. Banik, P.; Samsal, T.; Ghosal, P. K. and Bagchi, D.K. (2000).Evaluation of mustard (Brassica Compestris var. Toria) and legume intercropping under 1:1 and 1:2 row replacement series system. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 185: 9- 14.
  4. Chen, C.; Westcott, M.; Neill, K. ; Wichman, D. and Knox, M. (2004). Row configuration and nitrogen application for barley-pea intercropping in Montana. Agron. J. 96: 1730-1738.
  5. De Witt, C.T. (1960). On competition. Verslag Landbouw- Kundige Onderzoek 66: 1-28.
  6. Dhima, K.; Lithourgidis, A.; Vasilakoglou, I. and Dordas, C. (2007). Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Res. 100: 249–256.
  7. Ghosh, P.K. (2004). Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops Res. 88: 227–237.
  8. Gowda, C.; Laxmipathi, L.; Srinivasan, S.; Gaur, P. M. and Saxena, K.B. (2013). Enhancing the Productivity and Production of Pulses in India in Climate Change and Sustainable Food Security, P. K. Shetty, S. Ayyappan and M. S. Swaminathan (eds). ISBN: 978-81-87663-76-8, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore and Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.
  9. Jha, G. K.; Pal, S.; Mathur, V.C. ; Bisaria, G.; Anbukkani, P. ; Burman, R.R. and Dubey, S.K. (2012).Edible Oilseeds Supply and Demand Scenario in India: Implications for Policy. Division of Agricultural Economics, Indian Agricultural Research Institute New Delhi - 110 012.
  10. John, S. A. and Mini, C. (2005). Biological efficiency of intercropping in okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench). Journal of Tropical Agriculture. 43 : 33-36,
  11. Khan, M.B.; Akhter, M. and Khaliq, A. (2001). Some competition functions and economics of different cotton based intercropping systems. Int. J. Agri. Bio. 3: 428-431.
  12. Khan, M.B. and Khaliq, A. (2004). Studies on intercropping summer fodders in cotton. J. Res. Sci. 15: 325-331.
  13. Khippal, Anil; Roshan lal; Meharchand; Singh, Samar and Singh, Ran (2007). Intercropping of chickpea in sugarcane with bed planter. In proc.of 68th Annual Convention of STAI held at Goa, pp.231-237. 
  14. Mc Gilchrist, C.A. (1965). Analysis of competition experiments. Biometrics. 21: 975-985. 
  15. Nazir, M.S.; Jabbar, A.; Ahmad, I.; Nawaz, S. and Bhatti, I.H. (2002). Production potential and economics of intercropping in autumn-planted sugarcane. Int J Agric Biol. 4: 140-142.
  16. Singh, S.B.; Singh, S.C. and Singh, A. (2003). Studies on intercropping with sugarcane in Uttar Pradesh. Cooperative Sugar. 33: 883-892.
  17. Srikanth, J.; Salin, K. P.; Easwaramoorthy, S. and Kailasam C. (2002). Incidence of Sugarcane Shoot Borer under Different Levels of Weed Competition, Crop Geometry, Intercropping and Nutrient Supply Systems Sugar Tech. 4(3&4): 149 – 152. Affiliated withSection of Entomology, Sugarcane Breeding Institute
  18. Tahir, M.; Malik, M.A.; Tanveer, A. and Rashid, A. (2003). Competition functions of different canola-based intercropping systems. Asian J. Plant Sci., 2: 9-11.
  19. Willey, R.W. (1979). Intercropping- its importance and research needs- I. Competition and yield advantages. Fld. Crops Abstr. 32: 1-10.
  20. Willey, R.W. and Rao, M.R. (1980). A competitive ratio for quantifying competition between intercrops. Exp. Agric. 16: 117-125.
     

Global Footprints