PRODUCTIVITY OF INTERCROPPING MAIZE (Zea mays L.) AND PUMPKINS (Cucurbita maxima Duch.) UNDER CONVENTIONAL VS. CONSERVATION FARMING SYSTEM

Year 2015, , 92 - 98, 18.05.2015

Željko Dolıjanovıć Nebojša Momırovıć Snežana Oljača Milena Sımıć Mićo Oljača Biljana Janoševıć

https://doi.org/10.17557/.75885

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Abstract

 

The evaluation of pumpkin (Cucurbita maxima Duch.) and maize (Zea mays L.) intercropping productivity, under different farming systems: conventional farming vs. conservation farming was carried out on the chernozem type of soil at Zemun Polje, Serbia. Results obtained by the bivariate analysis of variance showed significant differences between different proportions of components in intercropped maize and pumpkins. Regarding the land equivalent ratio (LER), two rows of pumpkins and two rows of maize (proportion 2/3:1/3) were the optimum spatial arrangement in conventional farming system, while proportion 1/3:2/3 was optimal in conservation farming system. The yield of pumpkins proportionally increased with the increase of the plant population, although the intraspecies competition of pumpkins was very pronounced in intercropping with maize. The average fruit yield of pumpkins in the first year was lower in conservation farming practices in comparison with conventional farming practices. On the other hand, situation was complete opposite with pumpkin yield in second year of investigation, while significant decrease in maize yield was observed in the plots where conservation farming practices were applied. Growing pumpkins in mixture with maize probably costs a small farmer very little more effort, than the production of a sole stand of maize. At least where the productivity of mixture is dominated by one species, as with maize in maize-pumpkins intercropping, the competitive effect of the recessive species on the dominant is small.

 

Key words: Conventional farming; Conservation farming; Intercropping; Maize; Pumpkin

Keywords

Conventional farming; Conservation farming; Intercropping; Maize; Pumpkin

References

• LITERATURE CITED
• Biabani, A., M. Hashemi and S.J. Herbert. 2008. Agronomic performance of two intercropped soybean cultivars. International Journal of Plant Production, 2: 215-222.
• Biabani, A. 2009. Agronomic performance of intercropped Wheat cultivars. Asian Journal Plant Sci., 8: 78-81.
• Birkás, M., A. Dexter, T. Kalmár and L. Bottlik. 2006. Soil quality-soil condition-production stability. Cereal. Research Communication, 34: 135-138.
• Budakli Carpici, E., N. Çelik and G. Bayram. 2010. Yield and quality of forage maize as influenced by plant density and nitrogen rate. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 15: 128-132.
• Conteras Magana, E.S. and F. del Castillo. 1991. Preliminary trial of the performance of squashes, snap bean, and cucumbers with mulching and row covers. Rev. Chap., 5: 73-74.
• Dahmardeh, M., A. Ghanbari, B.A. Syahsar and M. Ramrodi. 2010. The role of intercropping maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea (Vigna unquiculata L.) on yield and soil chemical properties. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 5: 631-636.
• De Wit, C.T. 1960. On competition. Verslag Landbouw-Kundige Onderzoek, 66: 1–28.
• Dhima, K.V., A.S. Lithourgidis, I.B. Vasilakoglou and C.A. Dordas. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research, 100: 249-256.
• Dolijanović, Ž., S. Oljača, D. Kovačević and M. Simić. 2007. Effects of different maize hybrids on above-ground biomass in intercrops with soybean. Maydica, 52: 265–271.
• Dolijanović, Ž., S. Oljača, D. Kovačević, M. Simić, N. Momirović and Ž. Jovanović. 2013. Dependence of the productivity of maize and soybean intercropping systems on hybrid type and plant arrangement pattern. Genetics, Belgrade, 45: 135-144.
• Francis, C.A. 1986. Introduction: Distribution and importance of multiple cropping. In: Multiple Cropping System, (Ed. CA Francis), Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, USA, pp. 1-20.
• Galloway, B.A. and L.A. Weston. 1996. Influence of cover crop and herbicide treatment on weed control and yield in no-till sweet corn and pumpkin. Weed Technology, 10: 341-346.
• Gliessman, S.R. 1986. Plant interaction in multiple cropping systems. In: Multiple Cropping System, (Ed. CA Francis), Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, USA, pp. 82-96.
• Hugar, H.Y. and Y.B. Palled. 2008. Studies on maize-vegetable intercropping systems. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sci., 21: 159-161.
• Ilker, E., F. Aykut Tonk, Ö. Çaylak, M. Tosun and I. Özmen. 2009. Assessment of genotype x environment interactions for grain yield in maize hybrids using ammi and gge biplot analyses. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 14: 123-135.
• Kuscu, H., A. Karasu, M. Oz, A.O. Demir, and I. Turgut. 2013. Effect of irrigation amounts applied with drip irrigation on maize evapotranspiration, yield, water use efficiency, and net return in a sub–humid climate. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 18: 13-19.
• Liebman, M. and P.C. Staver. 2001. Crop diversification for weed management. In: Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds (Eds. M Liebman, CL Mohler, PC Staver) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 336-351.
• Marer, S.B., B.S. Lingaraju and G.B. Shashidhara. 2007. Productivity and economics of maize and pigeonpea intercropping under rainfed condition in northern transitional zone of karnataka. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sci., 20: 1-3.
• Mead, R. 1986. Statistical methods for multiple cropping. In: Multiple Cropping System, (Ed. CA Francis), Macmillan Publishing Company, New York, USA, pp. 317-351.
• Mitrović, B., D. Stanisavljević, S, Treskić, M. Stojaković, M. Ivanović, G. Bekavac and M. Rajković. 2012. Evaluation of experimental maize hybrids tested in multi-location trials using AMMI and GGE biplot analyses. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 17: 35-40.
• Mudita, I.I., C. Chiduza, S.J. Richardson-Kageler and F.S. Murungu. 2008. Performance of maize (Zea mays L.) and soya bean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] cultivars of varying growth habit in intercrop in sub-humid environments of Zimbabwe. European Journal of Agronomy, 7: 229–236.
• Oljača, S. 1998. Productivity of intercropped maize and bean on the irrigated and non irrigated conditions, PhD thesis. University of Belgrade, Faculty of Agriculture, 138. p. (in Serbian)
• Oljača, S., R. Cvetković, D. Kovačević, G. Vasić and N. Momirović. 2000. Effect of plant arrangement pattern and irrigation on efficiency of maize (Zea mays) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) intercropping system. Journal of Agricultural Sci. Cambridge, 135: 261-270.
• Pearce, S.C. and B. Gilliver. 1978. The statistical analysis of data from intercropping experiments. Journal of Agricultural Sci. Cambridge, 91: 625-632.
• Powers, L.E., R. McSorley, D.A. Dunn and A. Montes. 1993. The agroecology of cucurbit-based intercropping system in the Yeguare Valley of Honduras. Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment, 48: 139-147.
• Riley, J. 1984. A general form of the “Land Equivalent Ratio”, Experimental Agriculture, 20: 19-29.
• Silwana, T. and E.O. Lucas. 2002. The effect of planting combinations and weeding on the growth and yield of component crops of maize/bean and maize/pumpkin intercrops. Journal of Agricultural Sci. Cambridge, 138: 193-200.
• Snaydon, R.W. and E.H. Satorre. 1989. Bivariate diagrams for plant competition data: modification and interpretation. Journal of Applied Ecology, 26: 1043-1057.
• Ullah, A., M.A. Bhatti, Z.A. Gurmani and M. Imran. 2007. Studies on planting patterns of maize (Zea mays L.) facilitating legumes intercropping. Journal of Agricultural Research, 45: 113-118.
• Vandermeer, J.H. 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 231 p.
• Videnović, Ž., Ž. Jovanović, Z. Dumanović, M. Simić, J. Srdić, V. Dragičević and I. Spasojević. 2013. Effect of long term crop rotation and fertiliser application on maize productivity. Turkish Journal of Field Crops, 18: 233-237.
• Willey, R.W. 1979a. Intercropping-Its importance and research needs. II. Agronomy and research approaches. Field Crop Abstract, 32: 73-85.
• Willey, R.W. 1979b. Intercropping-Its importance and research needs. I. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstract, 32: 1-10.
• Yang, C.H., Q. Chai and G.B. Huang. 2010. Root distribution and yield responses of wheat/maize intercropping to alternate irrigation in the arid areas of northwest China. Plant, Soil and Environmental, 56: 253–262.