EC ‘._.‘- ",__"~.1 ‘- ".<£A-:+ ' ‘

‘1-

1354i"

1.

-,-.. w,

—:I|Va'.n'1‘

‘ ' . (gur'

 

 

 

      
  
 

.

  
  
  
 
 

 

     
 
  

i LU“ '.
. .._.l.‘“.

'1'1' X" 'Ak‘.‘
h' "11 '

‘ -.. 1

'1‘]! ’I::~...\

L. ..
’ 1‘ ' ‘1

«11' "V" 14.1} 3".
.4. 10.;
0 HI '_. 1-44.th

     
    
 
 
   

 
 
 
 

EJ- ,;“ :‘gWI'F‘

I~ - Lg‘t‘rs’.” ‘

D .v. ' .i’L‘ll ég‘L . ‘
-‘§LZ;.-5(:fif’}

1M '

._.

 
 
  

    

   
 

 
 
 
  
     

   
  
   

   

fier— (Li‘i‘wr'

“fin-ya}; i
‘0 .

_ “3 .t. .

H“.
L-q.

'2

  
  

   
 

   

%

I,
.9 L.
.h"

     
      

.é-

    

   
  
  
  

     

      
 
   

   
  
  
 

'1$7(*'"r:.
‘ML 3‘3)"
$326.22: :
‘L.V~ >
at... :1
< .. ‘_‘.

fr "‘7 ‘ ; - —
"V .t.’ .-
—;- , giant. - '1
| v
- ”.an 14;“
12.12: «J. ‘
#319," ":x
.

n

  
  
  
  

3‘15“?“

' L
1-.

fn’K.

  
   
  

5.

  

1, 1T.
1?-

n . ..
0 « |
“3433.1"

   
 

.. ~
, .
fl, ' " $5 13' _ ”"1: t.
:5“ 1r»... ' n,
. D414:
A‘ Kw .1...

  
   
   

      
 

 
 
  
 
 
   

             
    
   
      
  

   
 

  
  

       
 

. .x L . -< A
,'.‘.~ "311- , 13‘ ' ‘31”? v“ . ' L‘ "
fr L: 3L1 1W1 .. .»
fig?j%%:i ‘ ¢ '1’.- lel'w L-‘JPJ. .: ‘

  
  

   
 

i ‘Df‘K :1 bfi
41‘ 43451qu} "d? q

   

3:5. .

   

“its:

  
  

.2
a)

    
 

    
 

--
“—fi ‘
~u

     
   

   
   
 
 

     
  
  
    
  
 
   
  
  
    

    
  
 
     

  

  

 
    
      
 
  
   
 

   
   
 

.‘x‘; {#155 '._7‘ 5““

     
   
   
 

 

   
    

   

  
  
 

   

   

   

   
    

 

 

l‘Ln L t ‘ L 37’! ‘3f‘ ,

5L, LI)" . . I..+¢§L1ilx,Lxh (f

7“" LLL 1 , ~' .1 ,rfia‘TRLP'w'li‘Li #911. ,v .,_., 1:",
‘WVNWLLL' 1L“ 1 ~L ”L”“€fiwfi ‘ :wwv
11‘ I n; -.v V“, :1 _ L‘n . ., . v‘ .' 'i‘, ’3!"- .. .'
L11 1 a?» "“EmL-‘L . 1.1;.LL1- ,. LL.LLL§L.:;;1£§::D.. —'
("H "LL‘LLLL’LIL'TLL '-- 1;..L "L - . 2.15'1-4135‘55'L'Lu'rfl‘17-“? ""I' L,

L"L‘:.1.'31“LLLJ 01,-1‘1111‘LLL‘3‘” ’ ,LLLLMLLLmLJ: “~11; 17;;6‘1Lnfi". ;"

" '- 1' ‘...1LLLL. 1941}. Mflsm' ' ' ' -t .. ‘5 _ .1! '1 ‘_ “'L ”f. '51:" un‘o"

  
     

mm LLLLLUHLILLLLLLLLILLLULLILLILI

fl-.. ,_ “MW 0464 7411

J LIB RARY k
Michigan Start:
,3 University .

* pugs-1 -u——‘- “-—

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
EFFECT OF ASSOCIATED CULTURE 0N GRAIN YIELD. PERCENT

PROTEIN AND PERCENT OIL 0F MAIZE, DRY BEANS AND SOYABEANS.
presented by
M. EMIL T. MMBAGA

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

MASTER OF sglEucfidegreeinAGRQNnML ' 1

.4 f ’4
A 0 fly, a [(2 77: 7..

Dr. M. WAYNE ADAMS

Major professor

 

 

L/ /7 . _
Date /:’63{} /x/)/§"fi9
- 7 .

 

0-7639

     
  

. -QVERDUE FINES:
15- NV:;‘-25¢,pergday per item
RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS:

Place in book return to remove
charge from circulation records

1 '-
F’o o"

3 ,lnu“ _

d r--\\\\ L

, lulu

1“ - a . _ m

D‘ ' «JIV'IA'
q“ ,,,

h .
V

v

  
       
        

 

 

 

 

EFFECT OF ASSOCIATED CULTURE ON GRAIN YIELD,
PERCENT PROTEIN AND PERCENT OIL OF MAIZE,
DRY BEANS AND SOYABEANS

BY

M. Emil T. Mmbaga

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Crop and Soil Sciences

1980

.x

I

.‘(/

6 {/60

ABSTRACT
EFFECT OF ASSOCIATED CULTURE
ON GRAIN YIELD, PERCENT PROTEIN AND PERCENT OIL OF
MAIZE, DRY BEANS AND SOYABEANS
BY

M. Emil T. Mmbaga

Two associated culture experiments (maize in asso-
ciation with either dry beans or sovaheans) of 21 treatment
combinations each, were conducted in the field on the
Michigan State University crops farm at East Lansing,
Michigan 1978. In each experiment, two maize planting den-
sities (22,500 and 45,000 plants/ha), three row spacings
(75, 100, and 130 cm), three legume configurations (17 or
25, 38, and 50 cm from maize rows), two monoculture maize,
pure culture drv beans (200,000 plants/ha) and pure stand
soyabeans (300,000 plants/ha) were arranged in a randomized
complete block design.

Maize grain yields of five treatment combinations in
maize-beans and in only one treatment in maize-soyabean
association were not significantly different from mono—
culture maize yield. Maize at the high density with rows
100 cm apart and interplanted with double rows of soyabean
38 cm from maize rows gave significantly higher percent pro-

tein of maize than monoculture maize. Percent oil of maize

M. Emil T. Mmbaga
grown in associated culture was not significantly different
from maize grown in pure culture (except a single treatment
combination with higher oil content than monoculture in the
maize-soyabean association).

Beans and sovabeans were 45 to 66% and 38 to 68% lower
in seed yield, respectively, than their pure culture yields.
Percent protein in bean seed in associated culture was non-
significant as compared to monoculture while percent protein
of soyabean seed was significantly higher in associated
culture than in monoculture. However, percent oil of
soyabean seed in associated culture was significantly lower
than in monoculture soyabeans.

Land equivalent ratio (LER) values of maize-beans, and
maize-soyabeans were up to 1.34 and 1.14 higher,
respectively, than monoculture value. Combined yields of
maize and beans, and maize-soyabeans were up to 55% and 48%
higher, respectively, than the component crops grown
separately.

Gross revenue returns of asSOciated culture crops were
up to 14% and 26% higher than pure culture crops in maize
associated with beans and soyabeans, respectively. As high
as 1165 and 1082 kg/ha total protein yields were achieved
from maize-beans and maize-soyabean association,
respectively. The protein was adequate to feed up to 49 and
46 men, respectively, for one year as compared with pure
culture farming where protein was sufficient to feed only 38

men for the same period.

M. Emil T. Mmbaga

It was noted that higher (than monoculture) values of
LER, combined yield, protein and economic returns were
constantly obtained from both experiments when maize at the
high density was spaced 75 cm apart and interplanted with a
single row of beans or soyabeans. Furthermore, it was
suggested that 130 cm row width was more convenient in the
developing countries than other spacings in conducting
cultural operations such as hand weeding, spraying, fer-
tilizer application and harvesting of the minor crOps. On
the other hand, 75 cm row width had merits over the other
spacings in that it suppressed weeds earlier in the growing
season but was deficient in providing opportunities for

other cultural practices.

To my wonderful and beloved parents, who through their
moral support, constant encouragement and love have always
been my inspiration and foundation for my success and
achievements throughout my career.

To Mary A. Macha, my friend, for her patience,
kindness, constant correspondence, care and love throughout
my stay in the United States of America.

To Enea and Roseline, my children, whom I love and

promise to do the best I can for their daily life.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author sincerely expresses his appreciation to his
major prbfessor, Dr. M. Wavne Adams for the enthusiasm,
kindness, moral support, knowledge, experience,
encouragements, and patient guidance throughout the course
of this study and for his constructive criticism in the pre-
paration of this manuscript.

Gratitude is also expressed to Drs. George L.
Hosfield, Alfred W. Saettler and John C. Shickluna for
serving as guidance committee members and for their valuable
contributions and substantive discussions throughout this
study.

' He is also grateful to Drs. M. Wavne Adams, George L.
Hosfield, Pericles Markakis and Mark A. Uebersax for
allowing him to use their facilities which provided the
framework for his success.

Special appreciation is extended to Drs. Lynn S.
Robertson and Alan R. Putnam for their suggestions and to
Mr. D. Michael Williams of Dickey-john corporation for his
unlimited effort to calibrate the Grain Analysis Computer
for the analysis of protein and oil content of his samples.

Special acknowledgements are extended to Mr. N.

Georges Agbo for his assistance in the laboratory and to

iii

Mr. Douglas C. Carter for his suggestion and assistance in
setting up the experiment.

Sincere thanks and appreciation are also extended to
all his brothers, sisters, relatives and friends par—
ticularly those at Ilonga Research Station for their con-
tinuous care and correspondence throughout his study.

Finally, the author deeplv appreciates the scholarship
from the government of the United Republic of Tanzania and
he is also indebted to the International Institute of

Tropical Agriculture for their financial support.

iv

DEDICATION

ACKNOWLEDG

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EMENTS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O . O 0 0

LIST OF TABLES O I O O O O C O O O O O O I O O O O 0

LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O I

INTRODUCTION 0 O O I O O I O O O O O I O O O O O O 0

LITERATURE REVIEW 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 0 0

MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RESULTS .

l.
2.

DISCUSSION

1.
2.

Maize and Bean Association . . . . . . . .
Maize and Soyabean Association . . . . . .

Maize and Bean Association . . . . . . . .
Maize and Soyabean Association . . . . . .

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDCIES

A.

Crop Science Field Lab Rainfall Data . . .

Maize yield per hectare in association
With beans 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Maize grain percent protein in association
With beans 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O I

Maize grain percent oil in association

With beans 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O '

Page

ii
iii
vii

ix

.19
26

26
38

52

52
65

78
87
87

88

89

90

N.

Page

Bean yield per hectare in association
with m e

1
‘77
-‘J

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 91

1))

Bean seed percent protein in association
With maize I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 92

Maize-Bean Land equivalent ratios (LER) . . . 93

Maize yield per hectare in association with
SOT/abean I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 94

Maize grain percent protein in association
With sovabean I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 95

Maize grain percent oil in association
With sovabean I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 96

Sovabean seed yield per hectare in
association with maize . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Soyabean seed percent protein in 98
association with maize . . . . . . . . . . . .

Soyabean seed percent oil in aSsociation

With maize I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 99

Maize-Soyabean Land equivalent ratios
(LER) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 100

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lOl

vi

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

M

10

ll

12

LIST OF TABLES

SPECIFICATIONS IN THE MAIZE-BEAN
ASSOCIATION EXPERIMENT . . . . . . . . . . .

SPECIFICATIONS IN THE MAIZE-SOYABEAN
ASSOCIATION EXPERIMENT . . . . . . . . . . .

EFFECT OF MAIZE DENSITY AND SPACING ON BEAN
TRAITS IN ASSOCIATION WITH MAIZE . . . . . .

EFFECT OF MAIZE DENSITY AND BEAN
CONFIGURATION ON BEAN TRAITS IN ASSOCIATION
WITH MAI ZE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

EFFECT OF SPACING AND BEAN CONFIGURATION ON
BEAN TRAITS IN ASSOCIATION WITH MAIZE . . .

COMPARISON OF BEAN TRAITS ASSOCITATED WITH
MAIZE TO MONOCULTURE BEAN TRAITS . . . . . .

COMPARISON OF BEAN TRAITS ASSOCIATED WITH
MAIZE TO MONOCULTURE BEAN TRAITS . . . . . .

EFFECT OF MAIZE DENSITY AND SPACING ON MAIZE
TRAITS IN ASSOCIATION WITH BEANS . . . . . .

EFFECT OF MAIZE DENSITY AND BEAN
CONFIGURATION ON MAIZE TRAITS IN
WITH BEANS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

EFFECT OF MAIZE SPACING AND BEAN
CONFIGURATION ON MAIZE TRAITS IN ASSOCIATION
WITH BEANS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

COMPARISON OF MAIZE TRAITS IN ASSOCIATION
WITH BEANS TO MONOCULTURE MAIZE TRAITS . . .

EFFECT OF MAIZE DENSITY AND SPACING ON
SOYABEAN TRAITS IN ASSOCIATION WITH MAIZE .

EFFECT OF MAIZE DENSITY AND SOYABEAN
CONFIGURATION ON SOYABEAN TRAITS IN
ASSOCIATION WITH MAIZEI I I I I I I I I I I

vii

Page

23

24

27

28

29

31

32

34

35

36

39

40

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

TABLE

13 -

EFFECT OF MAIZE SPACING AND SOYABEAN
CONFIGURATION ON SOYABEAN TRAITS IN

' ASSOCIATION WITH MAIZE . . . . . . . . . . .

14.1-

14.2-

15 -

l6 -

COMPARISON OF SOYABEAN TRAITS IN ASSOCIATION
WITH MAIZE TO SOYABEAN TRAITS IN
MONOCULTURE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

COMPARISON OF SOYABEAN TRAITS IN ASSOCIATION
WITH MAIZE TO SOYABEAN TRAITS IN
MONOCULTURE I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

EFFECT OF MAIZE DENSITY AND SPACING ON MAIZE
TRAITS IN ASSOCIATION WITH SOYABEANS . . . .

EFFECT OF MAIZE DENSITY AND SOYABEAN

' CONFIGURATION ON MAIZE TRAITS IN ASSOCIATION

l7 -

18 -

19 -

20 -

WITH SOYABEANS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

EFFECT OF MAIZE SPACING AND SOYABEAN
CONFIGURATION ON MAIZE TRAITS IN ASSOCIATION
WITH SOYABEANS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

COMPARISON OF MAIZE TRAITS ASSOCIATED WITH
SOYABEAN TO MONOCULTURE MAIZE TRAITS . . . .

PRODUCTIVITY, ECONOMIC RETURNS AND PROTEIN
YIELD PER HECTARE OF MAIZE AND BEAN IN
ASSOCIATED CULTURE AND MONOCULTURE . . . . .

PRODUCTIVITY, ECONOMIC RETURNS AND PROTEIN

YIELD PER HECTARE OF MAIZE AND SOYABEAN IN
ASSOCIATED CULTURE AND MONOCULTURE . . . . .

viii

Page

41

42

43

45

46

47

48

63

75

FIGURE

FIGURE

FIGURE,

FIGURE

FIGURE

FIGURE

LIST OF FIGURES

MAIZE AND BEAN OR SOYABEAN ARRANGEMENTS
IN EACH SPAC ING I I I I I I I I I I I I I

EFFECT OF MAIZE DENSITY, SPACING AND BEAN
CONFIGURATION ON MAIZE AND BEAN YIELDS. .

EFFECT OF MAIZE DENSITY, SPACING AND BEAN
CONFIGURATION ON MAIZE YIELD AND BEAN DRY
MATTER WIGHT I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

MAIZE, BEAN AND SOYABEAN YIELDS IN
ASSOCIATED CULTURE AND MONOCULUTURE . . .

EFFECT OF MAIZE DENSITY, SPACING AND
SOYABEAN CONFIGURATION ON MAIZE YIELD AND
SOYABEAN DRY MATTER WEIGHT . . . . . . .

EFFECT OF MAIZE DENSITY, SPACING AND

SOYABEAN CONFIGURAION ON MAIZE AND
SOYABEAN YIELDS I I I I I I I I I I I I I

ix

Page

22

S6

61

68

71

73

INTRODUCTION

Associated culture is a traditional practice of sub-
sistence farmers in many developing countries. Maize-bean
association is one of the most important agricultural~
systems used by small farmers in the tropics. Associated
culture consists of the growing of two or more different
crops simultaneously in alternate rows in the same field
within a common growing season. It differs from mixed
cropping in that two or more crops are grown simultaneously
within the rows of a major crop or in an unorganized spatial
arrangement. In other words, intercrOpping (associated
culture) is an inter-row whereas mixed crooping is an intra-
row planting of two or more different species simultaneously
in the same field in a single season. Each system experien-
ces interspecific competition for limiting or potentially
limiting resources, which may result in reduction in yield
of one or both crops as compared with monoculture, although
the combined yield of associated culture is sometimes higher
than either of the component crops in pure stand.

Generally, intercropping or associated culture is
characterized by high plant species diversity, closed
cycling of soil nutrients and reduced incidence of diseases

and pests. Associated culture often provides better weed

2
and erosion control, low but stable yields and provides an
intensive exploitation of limited land resources (32). It
is also characterized by interspecific competition between
two crop species as opposed to monoculture in which there is
only intraspecific competition within a single crOp species
(43). Competition between the major and minor
(interplanted) crOps is likely to reduce the yield of the
former to an amount that depends on the nutrient require-
ments and growth habits of the latter (24). Maize yield
compensation from the minor or interplanted crops will
depend partly on maize and interplanted crOp growth duration
and partly on the growth habits of the major crop (24).
Associated culture provides higher combined yield, protein
and economic returns.

Surplus labour availabilitv, limited land and capital,
greatly stimulated intercropping as a production svstem in
subtropical and tropical countries where small farmers are
provided with their daily food requirements through an
intensive and efficient use of available resources.
Associated culture of legumes and non-legumes or cereal spe-
cies have been practiced for centuries as a means of main-
taining soil productivity. In poor soils, non-legumes per-
form better in associated culture than when in sole crop
because they utilize nitrogenous compounds synthesized and
transferred by the legumes either from a previous or within

the same crop season (2).

3

The types and choices of crops grown in intercropping
systems depend on personal tastes, traditions, environmental
factors and economic factors. However, intercropping a
staple crop such as maize with a minor legume crop like
beans, cowpeas, groundnuts, mung beans and pigeon peas is
widely employed in tropical areas to provide balanced nutri-
tional supply of carbohydrates and protein.

Over 85% of the beans in Tanzania are produced in asso:
ciation with both cash and food crOp intercrOp particularly
young coffee plantations, maize, sorghum, sweet potatoes,
cassava and banana. Beans are served with rice, different
forms of banana, maize and cassava dishes. They are also
cooked either as green or dry beans together with potatoes,
maize, cassava and yams.

Bean leaves are also served as vegetables. An average
family in Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania consumes beans at
least four days per week. Indeed, beans will continue to be
the only cheap source of protein in developing countries as
a result of the rise'in meat price..‘u~

Unfortunately, intercropping is unamenable to mechani-
zation and thus hand labour is needed for almost all field
Operations such as planting, weeding and harvesting.
Associated culture could also be a problem if the component
crops have different requirements for herbicide, fertilizer
and pesticide. Nonetheless, intercropping probably will
continue to be the major production system in the developing

countries possibly due to low income, land shortage (as a

4

result of increased pOpulation) and increase in prices of

agricultural inputs.

The objective of this study was to determine whether

growing maize with beans or soyabeans will affect total

grain yield, crude protein and crude oil of the component

crops in associated culture. I therefore, hypothesized

that:

(l)

(2)

(3)

(4)

On an equivalent land basis, combined yield of the
component crops in associated culture will be
higher than monoculture component crops due to
more efficient utilization of environmental
factors.

Total crude protein will be higher in maize grown
in associated culture than in monoculture as a
result of amino acids excreted from legume plants
which are then available for use by maize and
eventually for protein synthesis.

Maize oil content will remain unchanged probably
because maize has low oil content and
consequently, maize plant uses less stored energy
for oil synthesis.

Soyabean crude oil content in associated culture
will be lower than in monoculture soyabean while
protein content will remain unchanged because more
stored energy is used for oil synthesis and rela-
tively smaller amount of calories is used for

protein synthesis (46), consequently, under a low

5
energy supply in associated culture, oil content

will be more affected than protein content.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Legumes in associated culture quickly establish a
canopy which intercepts light not intercepted by the main
crop, suppresses weeds, reduces run off and evaporation. As
a result, water storage for use by component crops is
inoreased. In addition to protecting soil from erosion, the
legume canopy also modifies soil temperature and improves
soil fertility by adding organic matter and nitrogen to the
soil through root, stem and leaf decomposition and fixation
of atmospheric nitrogen, respectively. Intercropping also
minimizes the effects of a complete crop failure due to
environmental factors. One component crOp compensates
should the other crop fail to grow as a result of insect or
disease damage. Associated culture provides flexibility for-
markets and prices.

CrOp yields of maize-beans, and dwarf sorghum-bean
association were up to 38% and 55% higher, respectively
than could be achieved by growing the component crops
separately due to a greater utilization of environmental
resources, different rooting depths and their different
growth cycles (5, 75, 101). The largest yield increases
were achieved at the high maize and bean planting densities

(20, 101). Maize has a higher relative competitive ability

7

than beans Probably due to the shading effect which the
maize imposes on the beans (101). This relative competitive
ability increases with increased plant pOpulation.

Experiments conducted in Kabete, Kenya showed that
maize-bean association gave an apparent yield advantage
over pure stands, due to increased population pressure in
the mixtures (27). Sowing beans two weeks before maize gave
the best balance of competition and the highest yield (29),
showing that in some circumstances, this change in relative
competitive ability could be beneficial. On the other hand,
beans suffered strong competition from the maize, prin-
cipally when planted simultaneously with the higher maize
populations and maize yield was not affected by the bean
(68, 79); or in some cases, a modest reduction in yield was
offset by production from the minor crop (l, 21).

Climbing (indeterminate) beans gave the poorest yields
when planted simultaneously with maize because an
appropriate climbing support was lacking at a critical stage
in bean plant development (79). Bean-maize systems have
provided a source of income and a balanced diet for the farm
family (32) in Latin America for centuries. In an economic
analysis, Hart (44) found that when beans, corn, and manioc
were planted at the same time, yield and economic returns
were 37% and 54% higher, respectively, in the polyculture
than in the monocropping system.

Intercropping of maize with soyabeans in Morogoro,

Tanzania, increased maize yield by 34% and decreased

8
soyabean yield by 51% as compared to their yields under sole
crop conditions (63, 85). However, soyabean yield under
short maize was 17% higher than under tall maize (91).
Planting legumes in alternating single rows gave greater
returns than other intercropping patterns (57) although
other researchers (78, 85) report slightly higher yields of
maize and soyabeans, and of sorghum and soyabeans when
planted in alternating double or triple rather than single
rows..

Intercropping of soyabeans and maize in alternate rows
in a 1:1 ratio gave higher yields than the pure stands of
maize or soyabean at all levels of nitrogen fertilization.
Yield of intercropped soyabeans was depressed particularly
at high nitrogen rates, possibly due to the shading effect’
of maize (4, 78). Soyabean at 50% basic density
intercropped with 100% maize and vice versa did not signifi-
cantly reduce maize yield (94% of sole crop maize) and
soyabean yield was 74% of soyabeans in pure stand. When
both maize and soyabeans were intercropped at 100% basic
densities each, individual crop yields were significantly
reduced, that is, 74% of maize and 63% of soyabean mono—
culture (37).

Pigeon peas and cowpeas had greater adverse effect on
grain yield of sorghum than beans, but with maize, beans and
cowpeas had a more adverse effect on grain yield than pigeon
peas, although Dalal (19) found a significant reduction of

grain yield of maize but not of pigeon peas. Although

9
intercropping maize with either beans or cowpeas decreased
total grain yield of the component crops, intercropping
sorghum with pigeon peas increased total grain yield (24).
In Ghana (64), groundnut yields in mixed crOpping were one-
third to one-half the yields obtained in pure culture, but
maize yield was not reduced to the same extent. Inter-row
cropping appeared to be the best in terms of yield, cash
return, fertilzer application, spraying and weeding (64). At
constant plant populations of maize and groundnuts, varying
row arrangements had little effect on yields (52) and yields
of each species in polyculture were reduced in comparison to
pure stand (21, 90). Cowpeas and greengram (l) tended to
compete with maize during the late cropping season resulting
in suppressed legume yield by maize shade but maize yield
was not seriously affected. High yields of maize were main-
tained during the four growing seasons in Nigeria (1) in
both the fertilized control plots and those interplanted
with different legumes without fertilizers, whereas, the
yield of maize in plots with neither legume nor fertilizer
was reduced to half the yield of the first maize crop.

The efficiency of intercropping is estimated in several
ways but the most commonly used is land equivalent ratio
(LER) which specifies the size of an area of land which
would be required by sole crops to provide the same yield as
that given by the components being grown together on unit
area. LER should be calculated by using the optimum pure

culture yield for each component in order to ascertain

10
whether or not the farmer will be technically better off

with a mixture or monoculture (47):

 

 

Yield of maize Yield of beans

in associated culture + in associated_cu1ture
LER = Yield of maize Yield of beans
in monoculture in monoculture

LER greater than 1 indicates a gain in grain (maize plus
beans) production in associated culture. A wide variety of
intercrop combinations exist and LER of up to 2.0 have been
reported in several cases (9). However, at very wide
spacing the LER will be close to 1. Work done at the
Faculty of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania, obtained LER in
millet-soyabean, and sorghum-soyabean intercropping ranging
from 1.04 to 1.44 compared to 1.0 for pure stands (54). The
data indicated that more than one hectare of sole crop was
required to produce the yield of one hectare of intercropped
crop components. Francis (29) reported LER of greater than
unity and as high as 1.88 for combinations of dwarf and nor-
mal maize and bush and climbing bean types. The LER was
lowest when maize was planted before the beans and when
climbing bean types were used.

Surprisingly, IRRI (53) found that LER values tended to
be closer to unity under poor climatic and management con-
ditions although polyculture is supposed to ameliorate the
effects of adverse conditions. They also found that when
one crOp was heavily attacked by disease, the LER was
reduced but never fell below unity with mung bean - maize

and maize - rice combinations on farms.

ll

Intercropping of maize with dry beans in Colombia
(17), maize with groundnut in Taiwan (17), maize with
soyabean in Egypt (36), India (85) and Indonesia (89), pro-
vided LER values of 1.4, 1.5, 1.22, to 1.31, 1.2 to 1.4 and
1.2 to 1.3, respectively. The LERs obtained from
intercrOpped maize plus soyabean (53) or maize plus green
gram (57) were always greater than 1.0, being as high as 1.6
depending upon the amount of N supplied to the soil. Garcia
et a1. (37) found that intercropping maize at 100% basic
density and soyabean at 50% basic density produced'more
foodstuff, highest LER (1.41) and possibly better net income
than monoculture.

Effects of an intercrop are somewhat self-compensating,
a drop in population or poor growth of one crop allows
another to yield more, thus, exemplifying one of the safety
features (8). Maize and sorghum have higher temperature
requirements for Optimum growth than beans and respond
better to high light intensities (17). These species remove
carbon dioxide from the air more efficiently and thus have
quite different environmental demands from other food crops
like beans, potatoes or small grains. Thus, at any time,
maize will make maximum use of the environment before beans.
This allows for better soil use since plants with varying
environmental demands can be crowded together more com-
patibly than can plants which respond identically and, thus,
compete with each other (17). Light supply exceeds the

requirements at the beginning of the growing season and

12
becomes scarce at the later part of the season leading to
light competition. Likewise, nutrients and soil moisture
requirements are in peaks during tillering and panicle ini-
tiation of cereals which may not meet the high demands of
component crops (10).

Generally, two plants do not compete with each other as
long as resources (water, nutrients, light, C02, temperature)
are in excess of the needs of the crOp components. When the
immediate supply of a single necessary factor falls below
the combined demands of the plants, competition begins (41)
and yields of component crops in intercrOpping may be low
due to competition for nutrients, water, light, space, oxy-
gen and carbon dioxide (24, 93). Thus, a combination of
intra-specific and inter-specific competition will affect
total dry matter production, distribution in each component
crop and economic yield of grain of associated culture (33).

IntercrOpping is more popular due to built—in balanced
nutritional supply of energy and protein, profit and re-
sources maximization, efficient water utilization, inexpensive
weed control, minimization of agricultural risks, broad uti-
1ization of hand labour and improvement of soil fertility
(2, 5, 24, 77). Willey et al. (101) suggested that yield
advantage of the mixtures may be due to more efficient uti-
1ization of light by the combination of a tall maize with a
short bean. However, Osiru et a1. (75) obtained larger
advantages for mixtures of dwarf sorghum and beans and

concluded that different rooting patterns might have

13
provided a more efficient exploitation of the soil
resources- Khristozov (62) in Bulgaria, found that soyabean
inhibited the growth of maize stems and ear development but
did not affect the number of cobs and leaves and maize inhi-
bited soyabean growth by shading. Similarly, Dzhumalieva
(22) noted that soyabean stimulated the development of
sorghum root system, whereas sorghum suppressed both root
and nodule development in soyabeans. Soyabean intercropped
with wheat branched very little until the wheat was
yharvested. Emergence of branches depended mainly on the
content of available carbohydrate in the plants while N con-
tent did not seem to be a limiting factor (74).

Associated culture is characterized by reduced pest
populations compared to monocultures of the same crops due
to more natural enemies, microclimatic gradients (mainly
shading) and chemical interaction (7). Grain sorghum has
been shown to furnish a suitable habitat for the build up
of cotton bollworm predators (Lady beetles, green lacewings,
hooded beetles and spiders) which provide a natural and
inexpensive alternative to chemical insect control (17).
When four rows of sorghum were planted for every twelve rows
of cotton, large numbers of beneficial insects were found in
the cotton and they provided even better insect control than
pesticides as the latter killed both the predators as well
as the bollworms (17). Brown (12) and Francis et al. (30)
reported a lower incidence of fall army worms on maize asso-

ciated with soyabeans and maize-bean mixture planted six

14
days before maize, respectively, than on pure stand maize.
Likewise, Sastrawinata (82) found that maize-groundnut and
maize-soyabean polycultures reduced the number of corn borer
egg masses, larvae and pupae on maize plants at both 20,000
and 40,000 maize plants per hectare.

Willey et al. (101), however, noted that an attack of
gall midges on the bean pods seemed to be worse in poly-
culture plots because the mixture provided a more humid and
shady environment. IITA (49) and IRRI (50, 51) reported
increased incidence of soyabean and mung bean rust when
intercropped with maize than when planted in monoculture.

On the other hand, IITA (49) and Soria et a1. (87) reported
that the incidence of rosette in groundnuts and rust in
beans, respectively, were higher in pure stand than in asso-
ciated culture with maize as the main crop acted as a
natural barrier impeding free dissemination of the pathogen.
Kayumbo (59) suggested that the stability of intercropping
results from their ability to maintain yields despite pest
and disease attack due to growing-of mixtures that have a
"spare capacity" or are able to compensate for damage caused
by pests. Many photophilic pests (require abundant light)
avoid short crops when they are shaded by taller crOps
because they cannot spread so easily through intercropped
fields, which provided a less favourable habitat for some of
the major pests than when the crops are grown separately
(38, 71). Changes in colour, texture and shape of the crOp

canopy in associated culture may vary the optical stimuli

15
available to these insects and decrease their colonization
efficiency. There may also be some adverse chemical stimu-
li which come from the respective companion plants (7).

Environment influences maize grain chemical com-
position and a similar environmental influence on the pro-
tein content of chick peas was reported in Russia (16).
Cultural practices also have an influence on chemical com-
position of seed. Soyabeans develop a higher oil content if
planted early in the season and progressively decreases with
later planting dates. Protein content of maize ranges from
7.44 to 12.88% within hybrids with an average of 8.9% pro-
tein and 3.9% oil. Dry beans contain an average of 22.3%
crude protein and 1.7% oil, while soyabean average protein
is about 38% and average oil content is about 18% (16, 25).
It can be noted that soyabeans are relatively high in oil
and protein and relatively low in carbohydrates. Corn, on
the other hand, is high in carbohydrates and low in oil and
protein. About 6% of the total energy stored by the maize
plant is used for oil'and protein synthesis while about 17%
of the total energy stored by the soyabean plant is used for
oil and about 12% for protein synthesis (46).

Howell (46) found that fats and oils contain 2 1/3
times as much energy per pound as do carbohydrates and pro-
teins contain 1 1/3 times as much (4,300; 2,560; 1,860
Kcal/lb, fat, protein and carbohydrates, respectively). It
is thus obvious that soyabeans concentrate more of its fixed

amount of energy into high-energy oil and protein units,

l6
consequently, making fewer pounds of seed than maize. In
making one pound of oil a plant uses nearly five pounds of
carbohydrates (2.7 lb of the carbohydrates are compressed
into one pound of oil and 2.3 pounds is burned in the pro-
cess of building the higher-energy oil). The synthesis of
protein also requires work energy but the amount is somewhat
smaller than that for oil (46). Soyabeans and other legumes
also acquire work energy for the symbiotic fixation of
nitrogen (about 550 Kcal/lb).

‘ Legumes fix nitrogem from the atmosphere by means of
bacteria living in the nodules of its roots, thereby itself
making larger growth. Some of the nitrogen so gathered is
passed onto other non-legume plants associated with it,
resulting in a larger growth of the non-legume and a higher
protein content which increases its value as food (73, 94,
100). However, high nitrate concentration inhibited nodula-
tion to a greater extent than higher ammonium concentrations
although a small amount of combined nitrogen appeared to
promote the process (80). Galal et a1. (36) found that pod
number and seed number per plant were about 30 to 50% more
in solid soyabeans than in intercropped culture. He also
noted that soyabean oil content was slightly affected but
protein content increased in intercropped soyabean. Son et
a1. (86) found that plant height and protein content of
soyabeans increased while branch number, number of pods per
plant, grain yield, 100-seed weight and oil content
decreased. Oil content of soyabeans was negatively corre-

lated with protein content.

l7

Shading accelerated the rate of loss of total nodule
Nz-fixing activity since the energy for Nz-fixation is
derived from photosynthesis which depends on light. Seed
percent protein and oil content of the seed were virtually
unaffected between 20 and 80% shade but at 93% shade, pro-
tein percent was the highest while oil was at its lowest
percent (97). The effect of an inoculated companion legume
on a non-legume may be similar to that obtainable by the‘
application of'nitrogenous manure to a non-leghme in single
culture (73). Maize associated with field beans gave
increases of 12 to 14% dry matter and 59% crude protein over
yields from monoculture maize (39). Kalaidzhieva (56) found '
the highest increases in crude protein yield-from mixtures
sown at 55,000 maize plus 350,000 soyabean plants per hec-
tare without irrigation and from 60,000 maize plus 350,000
soyabean plants per hectare with irrigation compared with
pure stands of maize.

Fred et a1. (34), Lipman (65), Nicol (72) and Wilson

(105) stated that the main justification for employing poly-
culture system with a legume and non-legume was to supply
nitrogen to the latter and pointed out that an association
of legumes and non-legumes can contain more N than either
crop in pure stand even though crop yields need not be
higher. In sorghum and soyabean mixtures, the roots of
sorghum contained more N, and those of soyabeans less than
when grown separately (22). Wahua et a1. (96) found that

protein yield of intercropped tall and semi-dwarf sorghum

18
was reduced by 15 and 71%, respectively. With a dwarf
cultivar, he found an increase of 15% seed protein and in
all cases, sorghum grain oil was unaffected by
intercrOpping. In contrast, he found lower soyabean oil
content and unaffected soyabean percent seed protein when
soyabean was associated with variable heights of sorghum.
In his previous work on maize-soyabean association, he found
12% reduction in percent maize grain protein. Kaurov (58),
Madhok (67) and Virtanen et a1. (94) reported that when
chick peas or peas were intercropped with oats, wheat and
barley, the nitrogen content of small grains increased and
that of peas decreased in comparison with sole crop. On a
loamy soil near St. Augustine, Trinidad, Dalal (19) found
that pigeon peas and maize planted in alternate rows pro-
duced more N than pure stands of maize or pigeon peas

although the difference for pigeon peas was not significant.

MATER IALS AND METHOD 8

A short-season maize hybrid (Zea mays L., Michigan

Hybrid 5802), a black bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L., variety

 

San Fernando) and a maturity group II soyabean (Glycine
mgx(L) Merill, cultivar Cole) were grown under
intercropped culture and monoculture on the Michigan State
University crop farm at East Lansing, Michigan during the
1978 season. The soil was classified as capac loam, 0-3%
slopes (aeric ochraqualfs; fine loamy mixed, mesic).

Clover, which occupied the field during the preceding
season was ploughed down on May 19, 1978 and disced three
times before planting. A complete fertilizer 19-19-19 was
broadcasted at a rate of 64 kg each of N-PZOS-KZO per hec-
tare on May 25, 1978 and worked into the soil in the last
discing.

The component crops were hand planted on May 29, 30 and
31, 1978 for maize, beans and soyabean, respectively, in a
2x3x3 factorially arranged randomized complete block with
four replications. Lasso herbicide (alachlor) was applied
at a rate of 1.96 kg/ha a day after maize-soyabean com-
binations were planted. The eighteen treatments
(maize-beans or maize-soyabean) which were planted in 3x4

meter plots consisted of two maize densities, three maize

19

20
row widths, and three bean or soyabean configurations.
Monoculture maize at both high and low densities and bean or
soyabean at recommended rates (200,000 plants/ha for beans
and 300,000 plants/ha for soyabeans) were included in each
replication making a total of 21 treatments for each of the
two intercrOpping experiments.

High seeding rates were used and plots were thinned
three weeks after emergence to desired plant densities. The
two maize densities, a low density of 22,500 plants/ha and a
high density of 45,000 plants/ha were planted in the three
row widths. In the first and second row widths, single
maize rows were spaced 75 cm and 100 cm apart, respectively.
In the third maize row width paired rows of maize were
spaced 130 cm apart and the rows within pairs were separated
by a width of 40 cm (see Figure l). The legume species plant
density remained constant throughout the experiment as the
number of rows and their distances from maize rows were
altered. The distance between maize and legume rows was 17,
25, and 37.5 cm in the 75 cm row width and 25, 38, and 50 cm
in the 100 and 130 cm row widths (see Figure 1). In each
row width, the shortest distance between maize and the legume
species represented configuration level one, the next clo-
sest distance as level two and the distance farthest from
maize rows as configuration level three.

Configuration levels one and two had two rows of legu-
mes (beans or soyabeans) between the adjacent maize rows and

their seeding rates were 7.5 and 10 (beans) and 11.25 and

21
15 (soyabeans; plants/meter of row in the 75 and 100 cm row
width, respectively. In the third configuration level of
the 75 and 100 cm row widths one row of legume was altered
with one row of maize and their seeding rates were 15 and 20
(beans) and 22.5 and 30 (soyabeans) plants/meter of row,
respectively. In the 130 cm maize row width, a constant
double row of legumes with a constant seeding rate of 15
(beans) and 22.5 (soyabeans) plants/meter of row were
planted in all three configuration levels. Soyabean spacing
between adjacent legume rows at 75, 100 and 130 cm row
widths for configuration levels one through three were 41x8,
25x8, 75x4, 50x6, 24x6, 100x3 and 80x4, 54x4 and 30x4 cm,
respectively (see Figure 1 and Table l for dry bean row
spacings).

Legume traits (plant height, nodes, branches, pods,
racemes and dry matter weight) were determined at physiolo-
gical maturity (when 90% of pods were yellow) by taking
measurements on four random plants per plot.

The two experiments, that is, maize in association with
dry beans and maize in association with soyabean, were kept
weed free by hand during the growing season. All dry bean
and a few soyabean plots were sprayed once with sevin

(Carbaryl) to control Mexican bean beetle (Epilachna

 

varivestis).

 

Rainfall during the course of the experiment was
slightly less than average but was generally adequate and

timely (Appendix A). Maize plants showed the rolled leaves

MAIZE AND DRY BEANS 0R SOYABEANS ARRANGEMENTS IN EACH SPACING.

FIGURE 1.

MAIZE RON SPACINGS

 

130 cm

130 cm

100 cm

75 cm

 

 

~r‘+-+-+-+-+;i
5
if)

; x-x-x-x-x-x9?

-x-x-x-x-x-x:¢

 

N

~x-x-x-x-x-x-fi

 

-x-x-x-x-x-x;
U
2:

    
   

41 cm

-+-+-+-+-+-+-

 

N

I~x-x-x-x-x-x-

22

 

 

  

321V” X'X‘X'X‘Xgfi
O
'E
SNVES ._+‘+-+_+-+‘-
l
5!
Ed
SNV39 ‘+‘+‘+-+-+-x
5%
a:
m
BZIVN ‘X'X'X'X‘X-V
5:
3:
321vw-x-x-x-x-x«(
5!
I”
311738 l"+’+-+-+-+TX
‘ -i
5')
31
$14ng '+‘+‘+-+-+;1
5)
1 CC)
. p”
EZva -x-x-x;x-x-!
321VN!‘X’X‘X‘X‘X'*
I _.
l a)
l 33'
‘ m
i )
SNV38 '+‘+‘+'+-+-
U
Q'
SNV38 -+-+-+-+-+-
HZIV\ ‘X'X'X‘X-x-f
EZIVN 'X'

SNV38 -+¢

SNVEQ -+-#-+-+‘+-

 

 

EZIVk ‘X‘X'X‘X‘X‘

$73A37 N011VHH913N03

 

 

 

‘-x-x-x-x-x-A-

-x-x-x-x-x-x--
E

O

Ln

 

i 50 Cl]!

%
74L

‘X'X‘X‘X‘X

fiQImI

vet

.-_ __.-._

4.9—- -
CM

.._ *4..-"

50 cm

I
><
a
><
a
x.
n
><
I
><
I
K
A<.

~x-x-x-x;x-x-x

 

50 cm

-x-x-x-x-x-x-.‘.'

‘-x-x-x‘x-x-x-‘A

37.5 cm

-+-+-+‘+-+-+-

w
7‘

37.5 cm

-x-x-x-x-x-x-#’

 

H.713: -u..:_vhn.- :3 — ~n~d U..?. m..< :33:1|.JN N :2 «J.- - an — 2:3 ‘ a «xiv ‘ h V magi-‘7. . . s ....v ~ A-...~.

 

23

 

 

 

 

m N.N aanN coo.me mNNaz atauNzooaoz NN
m N._ memN cem.NN mNNmz 66:6Naooao: oN
N oN oNxom ooo.ooN mamas muasNauocoz aN
4 AN exam ooo.ooN a N.N saonN oom.NN Nasa so am mace cams N mN
4 AN axon ooo.ooN a N.q NNonN coo.ma Nags Eu om mace came N NN
a mN oxen ooo.ooN a N.N ssonN oom.NN Nazm so am mace cams N SN
4 AN exam ooo.ooN q N.N NNonN coo.ms Naza so NN mace cams N nN
4 AN exam . ooo.ooN a N.N saonN can.NN Nasm so mN mace came N sN
4 AN axon ooo.ooN a N.N NNonN coo.ms Nasm so mN mace cams N NN
N oN mech ooo.ooN a N.N saxooN con.NN Nmsm go on so: came N NN
N cN mxooN ooo.ooN a m.s NNxooN coo.ma Nasm 56 on see same N NN
a oN oquN ooo.ooN a N.N «exocN con.NN Naza so am mace cams N oN
6 ON oNst ooo.ooN a m.q NNxooN ooc.ms . Naam so an mace came N a
a oN oNxom ooo.aoN a N.N ssxooN con.NN Nmaa a6 mN mace came N N
a cN oNxom coo.ooN a m.s NNxooN coo.nq Nasm 56 NN mace cams N N
a «N ame ooo.ooN m N.N anme oom.NN Nmsa a6 N.NN 3oz came N a
a «N cme coo.ooN m s.N aNemN coo.ms Nasm so N.NN sex cams N m
m N NNme ooo.ooN m N.N meNN con.NN Naaa so AN mace cams N s
N N NNme ooo.ooN m s.N aNme coo.ms Nmsm 36 NN mace cams N m
N N NNst oco.ooN m N.N NANNN oom.NN Naam 56 NN mace cams N N
a N NNst ooo.ooN m s.N aNme coo.mq Nmsa so NN mace came N N
uoam Home: Aaov mzom Amz\amv uoam Noam: Aauv Ams\~av mBom muNmz accomflp< .
\wzom \mucmam ucmomnp< xuwmcwo \m3om \mucmam mcaogdm xuwmcon Eopw mzom scan «0 mocmuman oz
c“ wcuomdm .
_ N ..
demon _ . mafia: .

 

 

 

mcofiumsunaoo ucmeummus

ucosNNmaxm coNumNoomm< cmmmtouqm: mag cN mcoaumonNooam . .N wants

24

 

 

m 4.4 aNme 444.44 44N4z 4444N44444: NN
m N.N memN 444.NN 44N4: 4434N44444z 44
A NN 444N 444.444 44444N44 44444 4444 4N
4 NN 4444 444.444 4 N.N 4444NN 444.NN N434 s4 44 4344 N 4N
4 NN 4444 444.444 4 4.4 NN44NN 444.44 N434 s4 44 4344 N NN
4 NN 4444 444.444 4 N.N 44444N 444.NN N434 44 44 4344 N 4N
4 NN 4444 444.444 4 4.4 NNxomN 444.44 N434 44 44 4344 N 4N
4 NN 4444 444.444 4 N.N 44444N 444.NN N434 s4 4N 4344 N 4N
4 NN 4444 444.444 4 4.4 NNN4NN 444.44 N434 44 NN 4344 N 4N
N 44 4444N 444.444 4 N.N 44444N 444.NN N434 s4 44 344 N NN
N 44 4444N 444.444 4 4.4 NN444N 444.44 N434 e4 44 344 N NN
4 AN 4x4N 444.444 4 N.N 44444N 444.NN N434 a4 44 4344 N 4N
4 AN 4x4N 444.444 4 4.4 NN444N 444.44 N434 44 44 4344 N 4
4 4N 4444 444.444 4 N.N 44444N 44m.NN N434 44 NN 4344 N 4
4 «N 4444 444.444 4 4.4 NN444N 444.44 N434 44 NN 4344 N N
4 NN 444N 444.444 4 N.N 4444N 444.NN .N434 s4 4.NN 344 N 4
4 NN 4NNN 444.444 4 4.4 4N44N 444.44 N434 44 N.NN 344 N m
4 NN 444N 444.444 4 N.N 4444N 444.NN N434 44 NN 4344 N 4
4 NN NNNN 444.444 4 4.4 aNme 444.44 N434 44 AN 4344 N N
4 NN 44N4 444.444 4 N.N NNNNN 444.NN N434 44 NN 4344 N N
4 NN 44N4 444.444 4 4.4 aNme .444.m4 N434 44 NN 4344 N N
.uon 404m: Awmwommwmm Am;\~av uon Noam: AEoV Am:\Nav 430a oNNmz ucoomnp< Eoum .oz
\wzo: \mucmfim :N wsfiumdm huchoa \mzox \mucmNm chonm >4chma mzom :dopmxom mo mocmumN:

 

 

snopmzom oNNmz

 

mcowuchnEou ocosummua

x

acoENpmaxm :oNumNoomw< :conmzomiouNmz 0:; c« msowumofiuuomdm .N mange

25
typical of water stress only once throughout the growing
season.

Guard or border rows consisted of two lateral rows on
each side and the first and last meter of each central row
in configuration levels 1 and 2 at 75 and 100 cm row width,
one lateral row in configuration level three of the same
spacings and also in the three configuration levels in 130 cm
row width. Only a single outside row of maize on each side
of the plot, the first and last meter of each central row
were considered as border rows. The harvest area was 4.5,
4.0, and 3.4 square meters for 75, 100 and 130 cm row
widths, respectively. Dry bean and maize were hand har-
vested while soyabean was mechanically threshedin the field
with a Hege small research plot combine. The seed samples
were dried with forced air to constant moisture content,
weighed and converted to kg/ha.

After each sample was weighed, maize, bean and soyabean
samples were taken for percent protein and oil
determination. Samples were ground by the use of 40 mesh
UDY mill and percent protein and oil were determined in
triplicate with the near infrared light reflectance grain
analysis computer (48, 96).

The data were analyzed in accordance with a univariate
analysis of variance. Since this method could not be used
to compare each treatment with monoculture component crops,
one-way analysis of variance was used to compare each char-

acter in a 2x3x3 arrangement with characters in pure culture.

RESULTS

1. Maize and Bean Association

 

Results of maize and beans planted simultaneously in
associated culture indicated that density, spacing, con-
figuration levels and interations of these factors did not
significantly affect dry bean plant height and harvest index
(Tables 3-5). The maize density effect upon beans was
expressed in nodes per plant, branches per plant (p <0.05),
pods per plant, dry matter weight and racemes per plant
(p <0.01) (Table 3 and 4). Maize at 22,500 plants/ha signifi-
cantly increased these characters of beans. One hundred seed
weight, seed percent protein and yield of beans were signifi-
cantly affected (p< 0.01, 0.05, 0.01, respectively) by maize
density (Table 3 and 4). Bean yields and lOO-seed weight
were high at low density while percent protein in bean seed
was high at 45,000 plants/ha. With the exception of loo-seed
weight, these traits were not affected by spacing, con-
figuration levels and their interactions. Spacing had effect
on pods/plant (p <0.05), loo-seed weight (p< 0.01) and dry
matter weight (p‘<0.05). Pods were significantly higher at
100 cm spacing at the low density than 75 and 100 cm at the
high density. One hundred seed weight was significantly high

at spacing three at the low density than spacing one at the

26

27'

on_t.3m_an

4:_4NN..4_4_

444444.444N4

«gums..\n¢¢c_m

N444444
4.4NN

23.4%

24.44.:

u:pu~uN:wNm uozn:

 

 

 

III.||.I.'1‘!tu o 1 . I I n'.l'». (1.....Iup {0' I» |I-IIY.I1' fit. I..'

444494 zen:

vsqsz :NNJ :oNuaNuoan< :_ nNNsNa :53:.:o msqummm p:m xuqazua

44N4: N4 444444

.m onsch

:4.ch
««
moévm
x
«N.q mn.N~ Nx.n q~.v ao.nN :o.m~ on.mm 54.0 pm.mq “N >0
acm~.q m~¢p.3~q pnnq. --.m momn._ pawm.q Name. «wan. Naao.am pp 40442
. J. . . . . . . . chumzm
mzo-QN ncnaqe n—m n:_934 n:_enq N ncNmNN nznoan mzmodu mswsam aco-o «N N x xuumcv:
manqc. «aNnfi.mmmN «4Noqq.w n:_n~m.m m:mn-.e «Nnon.N~ nzmdaw. m:m-o.~ m:¢com.ooN N chom¢M
amnmn.~ «44Nno.am~a 4«N0ao.n nconmc. «4mmnm.nw «xmmco.nn «ammo.m «mwON.m m:¢nmo.om N xuNncy:
N44344N43 Nmosszuz NNC .
:NouoNa ostax coamIOQN 49::- N::Nm 4:343 usaam used; Aauv appwoum :oNomN41>
4:39433 >4: Nmu>u=2 \nvéouax \npoa \mwzocmum \nupoz uzmqu: no no ouusom
cam: mounmon

28

Ane.o._av .zau_uucw.m “oz”:

 

 

 

o acév a
««
no.3v.*
«
«m.m_ ma.m Nm.mN «n.n 3N.q nN.$— a¢.a~ aN.mm m¢.o m¢.N~ “N >0
no.3._n.am nmco.~ dwoo.mnc wane. N¢m0.m nana._ moNN.n Nnmw. nnmn. maa~.9¢ co “chum
. , :owum
n:o:;n..Nqno nanan.. mznmao._a. « mznaaa.. n:a~nn.m n:a_mN. ncqnnc.n mcdodd. manomN. m:mo~n.~n N luswquzau
x xuumzw:
J. . .. .I . . . . . . . . Sauna.
nzscqa cqaac nzdmn— N nzs0¢q NN. acqum mzm¢mm c mznaNo a mzNo~e m:Noc_ m:¢n~— asamnn no N luswuucoo
«mac—.Nn¢ca.a «4nan.N «annn3.amma ««~cao.m azonmc. ««mm-.a~ {£Nmao.wm ammo.n «mmoN.m m:mmac.om a xaumzu:
A1:\wxv :_a.3ua va.;w_uz Amv4:2_uz ARV. usa~a uzm-m ucmqm aza~a Afluv aefiooum :0«ua~un>
1_;_r azauuu; gvaanz fluumucaq xwflcu \mQEmoax \muoa \amsocmum \nmvcz uzwnuz ac ‘ no wuuaom
1:;n Nu: . unu>umz cam: «magma:

 

 

 

m=<acm z<az

yuan: sad:
::_.3«u3nn< :« nd_:u% :33: :0 :c.uau:m«w:au :39: 1am xuamzva yuan: uo aumuum .e manna

29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$5.04.: 23:2»; “:22.
56v m
c«
om.cv m
g
ca.a_ «N.¢ ~m.¢N NN.n ca.q $9.0N ma.oN nN.oq mn.o an.N_ "N >9
acac.oon~oq coqN.. qnmq.mmq omNc. Nn~<.$ Naou.N nnmm.n oNom. Noon. aqnn.on no “chum
. coda:
Nxoa.mNNoq. ncwmm@. n:nn_o.mw3_ zchNa. nzoaoN.N ass-aN.N n:_wcm.m as~=aN. aanNm. mznnan.a~ q luawquccu
: . , . . . x wcuummm
-. , . .. - I . . . . . . . :3;
:13:«. oNanq 2:.nm_ e 2:.oaq ax. nan<m n:nqnm q nznaNo a m:~o—¢ a:~co~ acmn- mcamnm no N lu:m_u:oo
:zaaac..onN: mszqc. «:Ncm.Nnn_ «nNoec.N ann.N manNN.q «Nmow.4N man-N. msNNmo.~ «oom.ao~ N mcuuaam
A::\wxv :duHOHL Auv‘;m_33 Amv¢:w_uz ARV acagz acm~z Head; Head; Aauv locowum sodumqua>
3_aq» azuuuu: ayudfiz 1uumIOO— xvfisu \muavuzz \mfiom \mu:ucaun \mufioz uzwuwz no we Quu:3m
730m Nu: unu>aaz cam: muuuwun
. 5.55m 23:
yawn: :UNJ cawuauuoma< :«
ndq1uh :au: :3 m:3.uwu:wqa:au :33: v:a azuumam uo Hummus .m Quack

30

high density. Dry matter weight was also significantly high
at spacing three at the low density than spacing two at the
high density.

Comparison of monoculture beans with associated culture
showed that bean height (except treatment one which was
significantly shorter), harvest index:

Economic yield (seed) X 100%
Total biological yield

 

and percent protein of bean seed were not significantly dif-
ferent from pure culture beans. However, pods per plant,
racemes per plant, dry matter weight and yield of beans in
association with maize were significantly lower (p< 0.01)
than sole crOp of beans. As shown in Tables 6.1 and 6.2, all
intercropped treatments Were significantly lower in loo-seed
weight (except treatment 16), branches per plant (except
treatments 10 and 14) and nodes per plant (except treatments
6, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 and 16).

Maize in association with beans analysis indicated that
maize loo-kernel weight, percent protein of maize, land
equivalent ratio (LER) and yield were highly affected by
maize density at the 1% probability level (Table 7 and 8).
One hundred kernel weight and percent protein of maize were
highest at low maize density while LER and yield were highest
at 45,000 plants/ha. Percent oil of maize was not signifi-
cantly different both within associated culture and when com-
pared with monoculture maize at the high density, although

maize at low density planted at the 75 cm row width with a

1,~u‘.s- uuouq-«— .J -ud -,a....
.4... lq . r .. ~ . Auh‘ Q-E
\ Q 2 a. an: Qua. ~a~‘.'au‘uo~< qt In cw u... non..v-! -.u n--.i Iov.--«. v I

‘ Il.‘ n‘iniov‘

31

.m3.:vNQ No NcmNonNp xqgcchNNchm

No: 0N3 AmvaNNmN 056m ozu >2 meONNoN paw NNmNN m :NzuN3 mammz

«

 

 

 

N.NH 6.6H N.NN 6.6 NH N 36
66.6 NH.N N6. 66.H 6 .6.N.6 NN
66.N 66... H6.H 6N._H HN 666: 66666
6NH.NH 6N6.HN 6NH.N 6NH.N_ 66NN 666.66N 6666H666662 6N 6H
T I6NN. N 6I666HHH 6I6NNHN 6666... 6I 6NN 66NHNN N636 a6 6N 6366 N 6H
T I6NN. 6 6I666.6 6I666 N 6I6NNHHH 6I 6NN 666 N6 N636 e6 6N 6366 N NH
6I I66H. 6 6I6N6 NH 66NH.N 6I6NN NH 6I666 66N NN N636 66 NN 6366 N 6H
6I 6H6. 6 66NN.NH 6I 6NN H 6I6NN.HH 6I6NN 666 N6 N636 66 NN 6366 N 6NH NH
6NH. 6 6NH.6H 66 6N6. N 6I6NNHNH 6I6NN 66N.NN N636 66 NN 6366 N 6H
NI I6NN. N 6I6N6H6H 666N. H 6I6NN.HH 6I6HN 666HN6 N636 66 NN 6366 N NH
NI I666. N 6I6NN.NH 6I I6NN. H 66N6.NH 66N 66N NN N636 a6 6N 366 H NH
NI I6N6. 6 6I6NN.HH 6I I6NN. H 6I6N6.NH 6I 6NN 666 N6 N636 a6 6N 366 H HH
6666.6 66N6 NH 66N. N 6I6N6.HH 6I666 66N.NN N636 66 NN 6366 N 6H
N66H. 6 6I6N6.6 6I6NN. N 6I66. NN 6I6NN 666 N6 N636 66 NN 6366 N 66H 6
NI I6N6. N 66NN.NH 6I I6N6. H 6I6NNHNH 6I6H6 66N.NN N636 66 NN 6366 N 6
T I666. 6 6I6NNH6H 6I 666 H 6I6NN.HH 6666 666MN6 N636 66 NN 6366 N N
6I 6N6. N NI6N6 NH 66NH. N 6I6NN NH 6I6NN 66N NN N636 s6 NmNN 366 H 6
T I6NN. 6 6I6N6.6 6I dN6. H 66H.HH 66N6 666 N6 N636 s6 N.NN 366 H N
T I66H. N NI6NN.6H 6I666. H 6I6N6.HH 6666 66N.NN N636 66 NN 6366 N 6
NI I6N6. 6 6NNNN 6I6N6.H 6I66N.HH 666 666.N6 N636 66 NN 6366 N NN N
NI 66H. N 6I66N.HH 6I6N6.H 6I6N6.HH 6666 66N.NN N636 66 NH 6366 N N
. «Now. N «6N6.m «6NN.N «66NN.NN «666 coo N6 N636 so NN 6366 N N
szNQ Namam Nomam NamNL Aaov Amzxaav m3om muNmz scum m3om AEUV .aoz
\mmswomx \mpom \mmsocmum \mmpoz usmmm= Nuumcmn cwmmmtuoocmumN: wCNomom News
. mNNmz tumoue

 

 

 

mNNmNH :mwm muzuasuocoz cu
mNch nuqz poNcNuomm< muumue name No :omNumano

H.o wand?

n ~ ‘ n.1,-.~. -—-.v.vu.~ 910i ‘1 u — ucnihennnuw‘ «a u
.oIN ‘ .w-L .- d C 3 utmd «can .uaauun6< 4.. u i 6.. u... .N-s.~n— ,‘av unavsh‘ .- -\q§-:Avuv o\.I nay a. § «~63?

32

NmH 956m

 

 

.mo.cv.z Na NszmNNNc NaucsuNNNchm No: 0N6 AmvNo- usu >4 cmzoNNoN paw NNmNu m :NzuNz mama:
an
6H 6.6 NN N.N 6.6 N >6
NNN 6N.H 6N 66. 62 .6.6.6 NN
N6NH 6N.6N 66 6N.6H 66 666: 66666
HNNN 6-6N6.NN 66NH 6N6. 6H 66 666.66N 6666H666662 6N 6.
6-6NNNH 6- 6NN. NN N-666 6N 6H 66 66N.NN N636 e6 6N 6366 N 6H
H-666NH 6-6HH. 6N NI I66N 66N6. 6H 66 666.N6 N636 e6 6N 6366 N NH
6I6N6NH 6- 666.6N 6666H 666N.6H 66 66N.NN N636 s6 6N 6366 N 6H
H-6N6NH 6I 66H. 6N T 6666 6NH. 6H N6 666.N6 N636 s6 6N 6366 N 6NH NH
6- 6NN6H M6H. 6N 6NHH 6NN. 6H 66 66N.NN N636 66 NN 6366 N 6H
766NNH I6HN. NN T I6N6 66N6.6H N6 666.N6 N636 66 NN 6366 N NH
6H66H 6666. 6N 6I6N6H 6666.6H N6 66NHNN N636 a6 6N 366 H N6
6I6NN6H 6- 66N. 6N N-6N6 NH 6H N6 666 N6 N636 66 6N 366 H HH
6-6666H 66N NN 6- 6N6 66N. 6H 66 66N.NN N636 66 6N 6366 N 6H
HINNH6H 666. 6N N6NN. 6N6. NH N6 666 N6 N636 66 66 6366 N 66H 6
66H66H 6NN. NN 6I6N6 6N6.6H N6 66N NN N636 66 NN 6366 N 6
H666NH 6H6 NN N666 6N6.NH 66 666 N6 N636 66 NN 6366 N N
66N66H 66NN. 6N N-6N6 66N6.6H N6 66N NN N636 s6 N.NN 366 H 6
6-66NNH 66N6. 6N NI666 6NN.6H 66 666 N6 N636 e6 N.NN 366 H N
NI6666H N6. NN N.N6 6NH.6H N6 66N.NN N636 66 NN 6366 N 6
H66HH 6- 6NH. 6N N6NN 6N6.6H N6 666 N6 N636 66 NN 6366 N NN N
.I6N6NH 6- 66H. 6N N-6NN 6NN.6H 66 66N.NN N636 66 NH 6366 N N
I666NH .N6. 6N ,.HN NN. NH N6 666 N6 N636 66 NH 6366 N H
«N «6 «N6 «p to
Am:\wxv :NoNon va va ANN Am;\Nav mzom mNNmz scum AEQV .oz
pNQN> Ncchum Nszmz Nszmz xopsm NNchma mBom :mmm mo mucmumNo chummm News
6666 66666: 6666 -66H 666366: 66H6z I666NN
AN:

 

.’l f

mNNmNE cmwm musuasoocoz cu

vNan :NN3 vamNucmm< mNNnNH cams mo :omNNmaEOQ

.N.6 6H66H

33
single bean row, and maize at the same spacing but at high
density with double bean rows planted 25 cm from maize rows
gave an average of 4.14% and 4.13% oil, respectivelv, as com—
pared to 3.98% oil in pure stand maize. Maize at the high
density was taller than at the low density and was also
affected by spacing while other maize traits were not signi-
ficantly affected by spacing, configuration levels and fac—
tor interactions (Table 7, 8 and 9). Maize at spacing three
at the high density was significantly taller than spacing one
at the low density.

The comparison of maize vield in intercropping and
monocropping systems indicated that maize yields at the low
density and some combinations at the high density were signi-
ficantly lower (p< 0.05) in general than maize in pure stand.
Configurations one and two at 100 cm spacing, one and three
at 130 cm spacing and configuration three at 75 cm spacing at
the high maize densitv were not significantly different in
grain yield from monoculture. Maize height and loo-kernel
weight were either non-significant or significantly lower
than the monoculture values. It was noted that at the high
maize density, loo-seed weight and percent protein of maize
obtained from configuration and spacing three were both
significantly lower (p<:0.05) than pure stand maize (Table
10). In addition, percent protein of maize was lower than
control at the 5% probability level at the configuration
level two of the first row width. The LER comparison with

monoculture maize was significantly high at the high maize

34

Am0.0An~v UGSUfiaMCWHm UOZ fl

 

 

 

 

m:
No.ov.m
««
No.36
an
mm.ma O6.NN mm.m NN.m om.m o6.6 "N >0
onN.qummmH News. NoNo. meow. H6mm.6 mmmm.mo 66 Noppm
6=NN66.66NNNNH 666N66. m6NN66. 666666. 666NHH.N 666H66.NN N 66H6666
x zuchoa
mswmmc.mmmNon msHmNo. msmNmo. mamch. memooo.m «onN.mqm m chomam
«aooo~ mmpqOmoHN «gamma chmoo «666o6.m «meo6.NNH ««OOOm.6wo N NNchua
mm m .
Aan\wxv Aucwwmmmwwmm HNo :NmNon Amy uanmz Naov Eowwoum :oNumNum>
@606» cumuu pang N :Nmuu N :Nmuo pmmmlooN uszmz oNNm: Naouwmn mo momaom

 

666666 266:

mama: £663 :oNumNuomm< :N

muNmub oNNmz co szomam 6cm zuumcwa oNNmz mo uomwum .m mdnme

 

35

 

 

 

 

$5553 28:2me “oz u m:
dem

*%

mm.o~ o«.- m~.m oq.m mm.m mm.q "N >o
Ammo.mmmmmmfi come. mode. chow. mmom.q Nfiqo.~fi co Houum
coaum
mammmw.mmmmc mcowcc. mcaomo. mcwddm. ascmfi~.dd mam-~.md N nuawfimcou
x. zuwmcmo
m:a~m~.mo¢woa mcqomo. mcmooo. msomoN. m:o~mm.m m:m¢m.oo N sodas
Ipsmwmcoo

oooq.mwoqomoHd . , . . . . a
*« «gammm mcmwoo ««q~oN m **N~oq NNH «*Om «we H uwmcma
Am;\wxv AmeWmmmwwmz Mao zfimuoum Amv unmfimz Asov souwwpm aofiumfium>
chH> :fimuo new; N :fimuo N :fimuu swam-oo~ usage: mufimz mouuwma mo mopaom
mx<=om z<mz

mafia: so :owumusmfiusoo :mum flaw zuumcmn mafia: mo uumwmm

mzmmm saw: gawumwuomm< cw muamuh

0m “Ana-H5

36

m

m

m

 

 

 

3:13 ESCEwNm “oz n m:
moévn
an
N@.qN om.mN . «N.N mN.o «N.o mc.q "N >u .

cNNN.NNNoooN mec. oN_o. mNcm. NNam.e .m@mq.mN mo “chum
:oNu
:oNa..NNcham mamaNo. m:38. mammwm. mzmom_.NN achN¢.oN q -mhswdwcoo
x wsuummm
:ofium
:WNNN._quNo mamNNo. manage. ncNNao. m=NN_o.N mcmNNq.qo N nuawNwsoo
cmmmq.NNmNon mcamNo. mcmNmo. mamaoq. mcwoao.m «QNNN.qu N mcqumam
Amg\wxv Ammwwmmmwwmm NNo :Nmuoum Amv uanoz AauV aommwNm :oNumNum>
stN> :Nmuo can; N cNmuo N :Nauo cmmmuood uanmz mNNmz emuwmo No muusom

 

 

 

 

ma<=¢m z<mz

msmmm saga :ofiumfiuomm< :« mafimue

mugs: :0 sewumuzwqusoo cam: tam wcqumam mafia: mo uomwwm

.o wfinmh

37

.NN.NVN Na NNNNNNNNN NNNNNNNNNNNNN

No: mum AmvaNNNN wean mzu >2 ntONNON ass NNmNu m :wsuN3 msmmz

oNumx ucmNm>Nzcm ncqu

 

N.N

 

NN N.NN N.N N.N N.N N N No
NNNN NN. NNN NN. NN.N NN .N.N.N NN
NNNN NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.NN NNN NNNz NNNNN
NNNN NNN.N N..NNN.N N NNN. N N..NNN.NN NNNN NNN.NN NNNN: NN NN
NN NNNNN N.84 mNN.N U.NNNN NNNN.NN NNNNN NNN.NN NNNN: NN NN
N MNNNN N-NNN.N NINNNN U..NNN.N NN. NN N-NNNN NNN.NN Nmzm so NN NaoN N NN
o NNNNN N-NNN.N N.NNNN NNN.N U.MNN. NN U.NNNN ooo.NN NN3N so NN NaoN N NN
N NNNNN NNNN. N N.NNNHN N-NNNHN NNNN.NN N-NNNN N:N.NN Nmsm so NN NzoN N NN
N NNNNN N NNN. N N.NNN N N-NNN N N NNN. NN N-NNNN NNN.NN NN3N Eu NN NzoN N oNN NN
N NNNNN N NNN.N N-NNN.N NNNNN NN No. NN NLNNNN NNN.NN NN3N 50 NN NaoN N NN
N NNNN NN. N N-NNN.N N-NNN.N NNNN. NN N-NNNN NNN.NN Nmam 50 NN NzoN N NN
NMNNNN “ “NN. N NNNNN N.NNNN NNoN.NN N-NNNN Nxm.NN Nmam 50 NN 30N N NN
-NNNNN N NNN. N NNNN.N N-NNN.N N NNN.NN N-NNNN Noo.NN Nmzm so NN 30m N NN
NNNNNN N5N9N N-NNN.N NV.NNNN NNN. NN N-NNNN NNN.NN Nmzm so NN NaoN N NN
N NNNNN N NNN. N N-NNN.N N.oNNN NIMNN. NN N-NNNN coo.NN Nmam so NN NaoN N NNN N
NNNNN N NNNN N N-NNN.N NoN.N NNNNNN N|NNNN Nxm.NN Nmam so NN NaoN N N
NNNNNN NNNN. N N-NNN.N NNNN.N NNN.NN N-NNNN NNN.NN Nmsm 50 NN NaoN N N
NNNNN N NNN.N NNN.N U.NNNN NNNN.NN NNNNN NNNNNN Nmam so N.NN 30N N N
U..NNNNN NNN. N o.NN9N N-NNN.N N NN. NN N-NNNN ooo.NN Nana so N.NN :NN N N
NNNNNN Nb MN9 N N-Noo.N N-NNN.N N-NNN. NN N-NNNN NNN.NN Nmsm 50 NN NaoN N N
N-NNNNN N NNN. N NNN.N NNN.N NN.NNNN N-NNNN NNN.NN NN3N so NN NzoN N NN N
NNNNN N NNN N m NNo.N N-NNNHN N.NNNHNN NNNN NNNHNN ”Nam 50 NN NaoN N N
-NNNNN «NauoNo. N «N-NNN. N NNNINNN N «NNINNN NN NNNaNNNN coo NN Nam 50 NN NaoN N N
NNNNNNN NNo cNmNoNN ANN NauN NNNNNNN . NaoN NNNNz soNN Nagy .cz
uNmNN mag ucmoumm uzmuumm uzwqmz Nszoz Nuumcun mzom :mmm No mucmuwNa chumam ucms
:Nauo « :Nmuo :Nmuu wmmmIGON MNNmz nummua

 

 

mNNmNH mNNmz musuasuocoz cu
mzmmm :NNB :oNNmNuomm< :N mNNmNa mNNmz mo :omNumanu

.OH manms

 

38

density at configuration level three of the first row width
and in all configuration levels of the second and third row

spacings.

 

2. Maize and Soyabean Association

Results of maize and soyabeans planted simultaneously in
associated culture are presented in Tables 11, 12 and 13.
Maize density did not affect soyabean height to the first pod
set, height to the tips and loo-seed weight. Soyabean nodes,
branches, pods per plant, dry matter weight, oil and yield
were significantly higher (p <0.01) at 22,500 plants/ha than
at 45,000 maize plants/ha, while soyabean protein was signi-
ficantly high (p< 0.01) at the high maize density.

Maize spacing had no effect on soyabean height, nodes,
branches, total pods per plant, lOO-seed weight, dry matter
weight, protein and soyabean oil percent (Table 11). Spacing
had significant effect on soyabean number of pods on branches
per plant and seed yield at the 5% probabilitv level while
configuration levels significantly affected (p< 0.05) percent
protein in soyabean seed and loo-seed weight (Table 12).
Density x configurations influenced soyabean yield at the 5%
probability level (Table 12).

A oneway analysis of variance was conducted to compare
each treatment in associated culture with pure culture
soyabean (Table 14.1 and 14.2). It was found that height to
first pod set was significantly higher in intercrOpped
systems than in monoculture soyabean. However, yield, percent

oil of soyabean seed, drv matter weight, nodes, branches and

39

NNo.oANN NssuNNNsNNN NozN:

 

 

 

 

I... ‘I!!! o-"|.lllv.|‘ II!
V x N- |.. u l. «I: ( .n'l

 

:0- I I. ‘.I.¢'I|-9.Iti| '

muNsub cuvgnxom :o chanm a:: zNNncua exam: uo Noouum

NN<=3N z<Nz

vuusz :NNJ :oNucNuoma< :N

No.oVN
««
No.o vN
i
N .NN NN.N N=.N NN.NN NN.N HN.NN . . oN.N NN.NN NN.NN "N >u
NNNN._NNNN NNNH. NNNN.N NNNo.NNN NNNN.N oNNN.NN NNHN.NN NNNN. NHNN.H NNNo.NoN NNNN.NN NN .oNNN
. . . . . . . . . . . . . mNNNuaNNm
n:N= H NNNNNN nsNNNo nzNNNN NzNNNo NN N=NNNN N=NNNN N nzNNoN N NNNNNN aeoNNN NNNNNN NN NN.NNNNN N N NNNNNNN
NNNNN._NNNNN n:NNNo. n:NNNN. msNNNo.NNN nzNNNN.N m"N.NNNNNNN: NNNNN.NN NNNNNN.N mN.NNHN. NNNNNN.NoN NN.NNNNNN N NNNNNNN
:: . 4 1 . .,. N.n: -. J ..a . . o . . . .
NNNNNo NN_NNNN NNNNNN N “N NN N NNNNNN N NN m"N.NNNN N NNNNNN NN NNNNNN NoH N.NNoN N «NNNNN NH m=NNNo NNN NNNNNo.oN N NNHmzua
2:? 3232. .2: as: . 3 as
UNJN> NNO :NuNoum Nuuusz AmstwNoz \mcoz \nosozaum “sum; Nona; A v Nam 39; fiouuoum coNNuNNn>
139m Nzuouoa Ncuuuuz xun swumlooN Nous? co moo; \musoccun \mmpoz oNh On and ON we «0 oousom

szNuz usza: «cosmos

.- nuns?

 

40

$93.: NNNUNNNNNNN Nozm:

 

 

 

I O l .Ilnil‘tl . "I

8.0!
««
no.ova
{
Nm.- mo.~ an.~ No.N~ a u cc.a Na.~N mq.mN "N >0
NNQN.nNmoo NNNN. NNnN.N oomn.¢m Nnaa.mN smoo. NNnN.N omoN.mN~ enco.NN co NoNNm
. coNum
N"NNNNNNNNNN N.NNNN9 mSNNNNN N:NNNNNN NNNNNNNN N=NNNN. 2NNNN.H N=NNN9NNH NN.NNNN .N N LaNNNEo
x auchma
2.33.332 2.3:. NNNNNN «23.2 .3NHN9NN. N._NN:N.N N=NNNN. maNNNN. N:NNo9NNH NN.NNHNN N :3;
luszusoo
nomo.o~NnNN~ «NNNxm.N NeaN.a NNNN.cno ~N~3.aoN NNON.N mwoc.mN NmNc.moN cnmo.o~ N NNNm:ua
Na {Na Ns «x i* i‘ an: m":
1.. --- u I Aaum
A1:\24v NNO :NoNzN; AmNN;wN23 AwVN:wsz usaNL Nsaqa Nana; Ncsqm Aaov Now non socvuum coNNsNus>
CNLN> Nzuuuv; NzuNN;; \nco; \mu:::oua \mmzucmun \mmvoz nah Ga Ga cu mo «0 uuuzom
353m N143? :3 £13; . Nzwuuz wzmwoz mucuwma

 

- IIIP-IV..I I. .‘I":¢'Il..l|"

ILIIQ.| nllnrl',rltifulo

52:3 23:

uanz :NNz :oNozNuonn< cN aonuh

:t;;tN:x :: ::.N1N:2_N:ou :zussxom $2: xuNn:3= usqot uo uuamwm .Nq Quack

41

NNc.oANN N=NNNNN=NNN Nozmc

 

 

 

 

No.ov m
. «a
. on.ov m
«
Nm.am ¢~.~ c_.n oa.- «a.o mo.cn a I NN.: no.~N mm.mN "N >0
oacn.nsccoN NNNN. Nnoa.N aNnN.omq aa~..~ osnm.¢q qun.mN Omen. mnoN.~ coNo.¢a~ occm.NN no uoNNm
coNNa
nzanma.mamfl~ mzmmgo. nznamn. nanm¢.mm n:nomn.d ncmaqo.qN aza~m0.~ accoNN. mcmnmm. acnmnq.~ma m:3nan.~ c nuszN:ou
x chomam
a. I I I o o o I. o o o o o P—Ofium
nz~oao ooocaN a:aoNN «ooqn c nSONNn Nam «ONOm ON n=NNQo on m:5~9q N namxaN mcwooN mambo: «ma chNNa o N luawNucoo
nzqanm._qm¢—~ m2ae~c. msnnNa. nom¢N3.Nec mszo~.o moanqN.ocq aanaN.~c m:~m~©.~ acmuao. acoNNo.Nco m:~w-.¢~ N m:Nosam
TEEJV :O 33.3.... AmVNNENu: 233.333 NNNNNTN :3: Ne:
1NuN> Nzuuuu; N:ooN:; u9NN=z sunnIDSN \wvza \nu:c::N: szum usmNa navy Now com aocuuua :oNNsNNs>
cyan NN: NnNob :0 nos; \aozocsun \mupoz QNH ou NW ou No No muuaom
2.30: NA. Nu: mmouwoa

‘EII‘ ‘III- I ‘1‘! cl"
;.\ .1. . . 0:0 .l-.| -., ... ,‘l!iiuln.'.ll.. ....I. . .I’ ..I ...t.01 7-1.3.- I I \t 10 1 .II . ..1I.c. u UVllln?Io,..'|.u’ll-.'J\Ja‘.flrv‘t7|'| .c:'\l lir‘t'l

 

 

NN<=oN z<Nz

onus: sNNa :oNNsNoomn< cw mNNoNH
:zuszxom :o :oNNzuszN:3u :ouaoxom coo wsNosom onus: No Nooumm .nN o.nsh

uni-1 -—-.u-:-Au—L -.— mm ~.-.~z-.—. n-u.‘n«n-~>au.f. an. fiqN‘qw:
-- a ‘ 3 n-nvd. .- 31. .uAva.u‘u< an w ...u d ~ qw -.~‘ anuu‘uA—uwkquuh Nad nuavuh‘ ..~ ~VA~=uA~HU .- ~ 0 .V N mu §A\-\.~.

42

 

 

mc.cv.m an uchonNc NaucmuNNNchm No: mNm AmvumuumN mama mgu >3 meONHON new uNmNu m :N;UN3 mama:
. «
NN N NN NN N >u
N No.o NN.N N oN q .a.N.N NN
NN NN.N oo.N NN NNN NN cam: ccmuu
nNN NN NN NN.¢ sNN nmqu nNN ooo.ooN «NauNauoco: NN NN
H5NN n_oN. N NNN.N UNNN a NNN moN ooN.NN Nmzm so am msom N NN
NI nNN unmm. m mlnNo.H mined an «NAN mNN coo.m¢ >m3m so on m3oz N ma
ulamN unmo. q M AmN. N mlnmN nNoN ch con.NN xmsm Eu mm mzom N 0N
NANN onNN. N a nNo. N mANN e“NN: mNN coo.N¢ Nasm 50 NN msom N oNN NN
noN NNN.N m nNo. N NNN mNNN mNN ooN.NN Nmam 20 NN msom N «N
NunNN on.NN.N mnoNq. qu NMNoN NWNN coo.Nq Nmam 20 NN msom N NN
N-NNN UH.NN. NTNNNN mANN AENNN aNN ooNHNN Nmzm so on 3oz N NN
NluNN unNNHN asuoN. N-NNN nmNNN moN oco.Nq Nmsm so am 2oz N NN
NLNN UNNN. N $3No. N mANN nmNoN mNN oom.NN Nana so NN maoz N oN
N UNN ANN N N-NNN. mANN awNNN mNN coo NN Nmam Eu NN «sou N ooN. N
a- N.NN .0 8. N unoNN .73.: em.NNN mNN ooNNN .525 so NN 26: N
NuoN ”NN. moNN. aloeN fl.NoN mNN oco.Nq Nana so NN maoN N N
NVANN UNNN. N -NNN.N N-NNN mNNN mNN ooN.NN Nmam so N.NN sou N N
NsNN i.NN N m-UNq. quN N HNNN moN coo.Nq Nmzm go N.NN 3oz N N
NuuoN wqu. N m:nNo. N-NNN nmNNN NNN ooN.NN Nmsm 50 NN «sou N N
NqN UNN. «No. N-NNN NQNNN mNN coo.Nq Nmzm 20 NN maom N NN N
NANN onNN.N 0-0NN. N-NNN “a oNN mNN ooN.NN Nmzm ac NN msom N N
NNmoN ENNN «m-ooN. NN-NNN QNNN NNN coo.N¢ Nmsm so NN mzom N N
ANN—UV AEUV
NucmNa. NamNm NcmNm NcmNN aNe Nam com Am;\NaN maom ouNmz aouN maom AauV .oz
\mflog \mmsosmN: \mwsucmum \mmvoz ucmNm Cu umNNm Cu auwmcma :mmnmzom mo mocmumfin wcaomam News
Nmuoe so mnog , Nszmz uanms mNNaz nummus

 

 

up:UN:uocoz :N mufimue :mmnmzom ON muNmz

:NN3 :oNumNuomm< :« mUNmNa :monmxcm mo :omfiamqsoo .N.¢N manna

.JJ-.d—:.:.::—L .N‘ «auntie .- ....N-,.\Aa:n Ayn UNuNCA
54.3 :Av‘dqw‘NvAvEENQ a-‘ :a-:.-... :334-qNsANNun ~5- :.:f.‘x-.:==.v.fiv .N..\N .dsauwkr

43

mo.ov m an NavaNmNc N.N:muNmNchm No: uumaMMNmuNxN mama use Na cmzoNNoN

mam NNQNN m :NsuNa mammz

 

 

NN N.N N.N NN o.N N >o
NoN oN. NN.N NN No.N .a.N.N NN
NNNN No.NN no.NN NN No.NN new: ucmuo
N.NNNN NNN.NN NNN.NN NNoN NTNNNNN ooogxxu mNouNzuooo: NN NN
;:mNNoN aNN.NN oaoNN.NN oLNNN NNo.NN NNNHNN Nmzm so oN maom N NN
usw¢mmn unn¢uwN :nnmwumm winmNN uumN¢HNN ooo.mc amzm EN Cm maom N NN
NIQNNoN oaqo NN N-NNN NN N-NNN oINNN oN NNN.NN Nmsm so NN Nzom N oN
zNNN UNNN.NN NNNN.NN NuuNo NI.NN.oN ooo.NN Nmam 50 NN Naom N oNN NN
NINNNNN NNN.NN N.NNNNN n.NoN o:NNN.NN NNN.NN Nmam 20 NN Naom N NN
smNNN UNN.NN mNNNN NNNo U.NNNNN NxerN Nags Eu NN msom N NN
£leNNN nNN.NN NoNN.NN N-NNN U..N..N.N.NN NNN.NN Nmam Eu oN 3oz N NN
gnmNNoN onNN.NN N-NNN.NN N-Noo N-NoN.NN ooo NN Nazm ac oN 3cm N NN
N.UNNNN onNN.NN N-NNN.NN N.bNN N5NNNN NNN.NN Nmam so NN maom N oN
:-oNNNN UNN.}: N-NNN.NN alooN o.NNNoN ooo.NN Nmzm so NN msom N ooN N
UNNNNN oNN.NN oumNN.NN N-NNN NTNoNoN NNNHNN Nmsm so NN msom N N
NNNNN onN.N.NN NNNN.NN NNoN oNN.NN ooo NN Nazm Eu NN maom N N
o-NN¢NN n_oN.NN N$3.3 UNNN awoN.NN ooN.NN Nmam Eu N.NN 3oz N o
:NNN onNN.NN N-NNN.NN N..NNo usNNN.NN ooo.NN Nmsm so N.NN 3oz N N
N-NNNNN uaNN.oN awNNNN N-NNN U.NNoNN ooNHNN Nmsa so NN Naom N N
N..NNoN onNN.NN NNNN.NN NNN NTNNNoN ooo NN Nmam 50 NN N3ON N NN N
oNoNN onoo.NN 0leNN.NN N-NNN U.NNNHNN ooNHNN ”mam so NN Nzom N N
iTNoNN «ogNo NN NNNNN NN «NNoo «NINNN oN ooo NN mam Eu NN maom N N
NNNNNNV NNo cNmNoNN Nwo ANN NNNNNNN Nzom NNNmz aoNN mac“ NauN .oz
vaN> acmuumm ucmoumm uszmz uchmz >uchm: :mmnmzom mo mucmumwn .wcwumam acme
wwwm comm 30mm umuumz ammmlcoN wNNmz n lummuh
Nun

 

 

wNzuNauccoz :« muNmNu :mmnmzom Cu muNmz

saw: :aNumNuomm< :N mufimua :mwnmzom mo :omNumaEOU .N.<H mdnwh

44

pods per plant were significantly lower in associated culture
than in monoculture soyabean. Plant height to the tip and
lOO-seed weight were not signficantly different from the sole
crop soyabeans. Furthermore, it was noted that some
intercrOpped treatments had significantly higher seed percent
protein than the control (Table 14.2).

Unlike soyabean, maize yield in association with
soyabean was significantly higher (p< 0.01) at 45,000
plants/ha than at a density of 22,500 plants/ha. Similarly,
maize height was affected by maize densitv being signifi-L
cantly high (p <0.05) at 45,000 plants/ha. Percent protein
of maize and loo-kernel weight were generally high at the 1%
probability level at the low maize densitv (Table 15 and
16). It was observed that the same combinations with high
loo-kernel weight were also high in percent protein
of maize (Table 18). LER and percent oil of maize were
not affected by maize densitv.

Spacing and density X spacing had no significant effect
on height, oil percent, LER and yield but row width and den-
sity X spacing significantly affected (p< 0.05) loo-kernel
weight and grain percent protein. Spacing three at the low
maize density was significantly high in loo-kernel weight
than spacing one and three at the high maize density.

Percent protein of maize was significantly lower in spacings
one and three at the high maize density than in spacing three
at the low maize density.

Soyabean configurations significantly affected maize

 

 

 

 

 

 

l'u-‘. .l'.l|ll

moNcNe oNNoz :o wcwooam pom xuqmco: yuan: mo uumuum

NNo.o ANN ooNUNNNsmNN No2 u a:
No.0 vm
««
mo.o VA
3.
mm.~N m¢.n~ oo.N do.q qa.0~ Nm.q "N >0
0No~.owoOmN_ «Nmo. moao. NwNN. awm~.ma mqmq.mm co Nahum
. . . . . . chomam
moNoNo NNNooo_ N.oNooo NN.NNoo NNNNNN NNi: NN mooooo NN N N NNNmouo
r3
4. . w ooom
_ J . H. . a. . . m :N .
noNNNN.NNoNoN NoNNoo. noooNo «NNNN «oNoo No NooN N N
NNNNNN.NNNNNNNN NooNoo. msoNoo. NNNoNN.N «NNoNo.NoN «oN.oNo N Nonowo
A::\wxv , AzmAv moNuwz NNC :«wNONm va uzwfimz Ast Eocmmhm cofiumwum>
oNo_> :Nouu osoNc>Nztu . :NoN . c on mom: u w m as o mo 0 oouso
oomN N . o N N o N ooN ; N = N z mmmNNmo N N

 

om<oom z<Nz

mcoosmzom zuNa :oNumNoomm< :N

.m~ wanna

46

 

 

 

 

Goof: NomoNNNowNm N022.
No.ov.N
««
flfiovN
a.
No.NN NN.NN NN.N NN.N oN.oN NN.N "N >o
NNoN.NNNoooN NoNo. NNoo. NNoN. NNNN.NN. NooNo.NN oo NoNNN
coNom
maoNNoNNNoNN NcoNNo. «Noqmo. N=NNoN. moNNNo. NooNNo.N N -NNNNNcoo
x zufimcma
NNNNNo.ooNoNNoN NcNoNo. NcNNNo. vENNNN. *«ooNN.oNN «oNNN.NNN N :oNNm
luowfiwcoo
vN.NNNNN..NoNoNNNN NN.NNoo. NooNoo. *NNoNo.N «NNoNo.NoN «oN.oNo N Nonomo
Am:\wxv AwmemMMMNMm HNO :NMNONA va uswwmz Asov Eocwwum :oNumNNm>
onN» :NNNo ooNN N oNNNo N :NmNo ommmuooN Nngmo mNNmz Nmmpmmo No muuoom
NN<=om zamz
mcomnmzom suNz :oNumNoomm< :N mofimuh mafia: so
coNumuszucoo :omcmxom pom zonco: vNNmz wo ooouwm .oa magma

47

NNo.oA No oomuNNNowNN NozN:

 

 

 

No.ov m

««

mo.ov ax

NN.NN m¢.md Nq.N aq.q NN.oN no.¢ "N >u
comm.NoqNoaN ammo. mace. NNcN. coco.¢N mNQN.mN no uoNNm
:oNom
m:owmc.comommN mcmoNo. mcmNNo. ««Nm¢N. wmmm.mq chmNN.mm q luswwmcou
N x chomnm
Nc.cmmmNNoN choNo. ncNNNo. NaNm. ¢o¢N.cNN «cNmN.N¢N N :oNum
«« , «N «« uuowNNcoo
moNN.NooNoo moNNoo. moNoNo. NN.NNNN. «NNoo.No mooN.NN N woNoNNN

. no on a on
Am;\wxv Ammwwm>fiwcmx NNO swoooum va unwwoz Aaov Opwo m :oNumNNm>
meN> :Nouo papa .N cNmuu N cNmNU poomICON uszm: mNNmZ omuwoa uo mouoom

 

 

mz<=om z<mz

:mmnmzom :NN3 coNumNoomm< cN muNmNu moan: co
coNuoNowNucou :moamzom com choQO ouNmz mo Hanumm .NN manme

.36}. um
ucmummwNv N
Nusmonch
.mp3 U3: n,
gum AmvumuumN wsmm mzu a:
cmzoNAON
can ufimuu m
:NzuNz mcmm

:

««

oNumm usmNm>Nscm tam;
i

48

 

 

ma «.
NNNN oN.mN N.N N.
ammo No.N NN. eq.m N.N N
No.q NN.N ‘
om. .‘ NN .
QHMQ© £QOO.H w MO Gm Nag . . .5 >0
nunoNNo oo.N N1.3 q NN.N can m N Na
H'Ummmo nchofi ammo” “Icon. fiUNQ-Nm do 0: ficmho
uaNmaN amoo. NuaNo.q aunq .m 0-1mn.mm m N occ.mq
.325 €8.N 3N: Emma $3.: anmN SNNN 3555: m
filnmoNc nma. vumco.v alga .w msma.cm alum H oom.NN zmzm E memEocoz N ON
waumqoc name. Nunmo.q .mug.N.a -uoo.Nm usn NN ooo.mq amzm u an mzom N mN mN
munqqoo namm.N N-on.m NMM.N NoN.oN uume oom.NN Nmsm no em maom N NN
NluoNNo swam. Nuu¢o.m w-UN-.N -uoN.NN uuNNN ooo.mq Nuam so NN maom N NN
ugquN amoN.N Nnumm.m NNM.N an.oN uuaNMm osm.NN zmsm aw mm was“ N 0N
Slfldwmm ammw. Ulmmo.€ visa .m Ulmmq.om film OOOqu >m3m mN mBOm N Om~ ma
NN am . ;-m a N . a- NNN com. ao m was
613 No OH.A wluam m o . uamq mm an NN >m3m N m N «a
NNNNN am . NN.N «-3 N.N QIQNN.NN 0-x NN ooo.m¢ am So am sou N NN
muuomNc nmwc.N olmmo.q moN.a arNN.N¢ vaN con.NN amamm so on son N NN
guuNNNm nmNm. Niumm.m N-NNN.N m-NNN.NN u-mcaN ooo.mq Nmsm 50 NN maom N NN
NNNm nm N NN. NNNN N NN. NNNN ooN.NN 20 NN mzom O
OH... .NHoH W” m ¢mo F—w om de >m3m E N H
zNNNq a . nmNN.q nm‘ .N aaNN.oq we ooo.m¢ Na u mN mzom N ooN a
wauooNc nmmm. NuaNo.q N$5.3 wNNN.mm nmomN oom.NN Nmamam Eu mN mzom N a
znquNN nmNm.N N-3No.q N-UMN.N Nquo.mN nmme ooo.m¢ Nmzm “w NHNN 30m N N
«gNuoNNNc amma. mNN.¢ Now.“ :mN.oN seem“ com.NN Nuam aw NN so: N o
* Q o . l a
«a ««clmmo q Numm.m «mmm mm c nNmN ooo.m¢ zmzm so mN mzom N m
A «#531 «*mlfixo.cm flud¢d axm NN >m3m 80 mm m3om N mm c
a: w r «*1Im co . NN mac
HMNHV MAO : m G mq >m3m Eu NH m3om M M
Sawho «3mg uSGUhmm A uOHm fiEUv , A
:Nmuo ucmoumm uszmz AEUV Am£\Nav mBOH
:Nauo wmm n NamNmz NuNm: mNNmz scum mac
m sea on :mmnmzo z Aau
mNNm: m m0 mocmumaa wcauwm .02
m ucmE
lummufi

 

 

mNNmN
H muNmz musu~suocoz Cu

cmmamzon .
. .NN3 a . .
U Nm_;omw< nuwmus MNNmz mo
:omwumaso
U .wN a
.Nnma

49

height, loo-kernel weight, grain percent protein and yield
(Table 16). In the third soyabean arrangement, maize at the
high density was significantly taller (p‘<0.05) than in the
second soyabean configuration at the low maize densitv while,
at the low maize density, third sovabean configuration gave a
significantly higher (p <0.01) loo-kernel weight than the rest
of the soyabean row arrangements in all row widths and
densities. Similarly, the third sovabean arrangement at the
low maize density was significantly higher (p‘<0.01) in pro-
tein content than the other arrangements except in the second
soyabean configuration at the low maize density. Maize yield
at the third soyabean row arrangement at the high maize den-
sity was significantly higher (p< 0.01) than in the first and
second soyabean row arrangements at the low maize density.
Density X configurations was only observed in grain per-
cent oil in which the third soyabean configuration at the
high density was significantly higher than the second con-
figuration at the same densitv and at the same configuration
at the low maize density. Similarly, spacing X soyabean con-
figurations was highly significant in loo-kernel weight and
grain percent protein (Table 17). The second configuration
of the second spacing was significantly higher (p <0.01) than
all spatial arrangements in the third spacing, first con-
figuration of the same spacing and configurations one and two
of first spacing while loo-kernel weight in the third
soyabean arrangement at the second row width was signifi-

cantly higher than in configurations two, one, and one and

50-

nutrients during maize grain filling stage and therefore
photosynthate storage in sinks (seeds) was much higher at
the low density than at the high maize density in which
intra-specific competition for these resources was still a
major factor and therefore there was a reduced carbohydrate
for grain filling. It appeared that loo-kernel weight also
depended on number of kernels per unit area or per cob since
treatments with the highest yield had the highest kernels
per hectare too, but were the lowest in 'lOO-kernel weight.

Similarly, percent protein of maize was significantly
higher at the low maize density than at the high density
probably due to less competition for soil nitrogen. In
addition, available light and nitrate might have enhanced
enzyme nitrate reductase activity in nitrogen assimilation
at the low maize density than at the high density. The
increase may also be attributed to the fact that beans in
low maize density were exposed to less inter-crop com-,
petition and shading and therefore were probably able to
form active nodules which in turn fixed atmospheric nitrogen
for their use and surplus nitrogen were probably transferred
to maize possibly through bean leaf leachate (during heavy
rainfall), stem and root excretion, nodule exudation or
through bean leaf and nodule decomposition. Such additional
supply of nitrogen might have contributed to the high grain
percent protein at the low density than at the high maize
density. Other authors (2, 73, 94, 100) indicated that some

of the fixed nitrogen was passed onto other non-legume

51

two in spacings one, two and three, respectively, at the
5% probability level. .
Comparison between monocropping and associated culture
indicated that monoculture maize yielded significantly
higher than intercrOpped maize except when maize was spaced
at 75 cm and interplanted with a single row of soyabeans at
the high density. Likewise, percent protein of maize in
some treatments was significantly lower than control and
others were not significantly different from pure culture
maize. Only treatment 9 was significantly higher in grain
percent protein at the high maize density in the second con-
figuration and row width as compared with monoculture maize.
Furthermore, maize at the low density with rows spaced 75 cm
apart and interplanted with double soyabean rows 17 cm from
maize rows gave significantly higher (p <0.05) percent oil
of maize than monoculture maize. Other treatment com-
binations were not significantly different from monoculture
maize oil. Comparison of loo-kernel weight in associated
culture with monoculture maize indicated a non-significant
effect, some intercropped treatments were significantly
lower in loo-kernel weight than pure stand maize.
Treatments 6, 9 and 18 gave significantly higher loo-kernel
weight than monoculture maize as shown in Table 18.
Similarly, maize height was either non-significant or signi-
ficantly shorter than maize in monocropping systems. Land
equivalent ratio (LER) was not significantly different from

pure culture.

DISCUSSION

1. Maize and Bean Association

 

Results of maize in association with beans indicated
that maize at the high density was taller than that of the
low densitv. High maize density with rows spaced 130 cm
apart (with paired maize rows 40 cm apart) were signifi-
cantly taller than any other treatments possibly due to
reduced light intensity which might have stimulated IAA
activity in promoting internode extension through the
alteration of IAA oxidase inhibitor, leading to increased
maize height since these paired rows were only 40 cm apart.
Maize plants at the low density experienced somewhat strong
light intensity which suppressed IAA activity upon internode
extension, resulting in shorter though generally sturdier
plants than at the high density.

Weight of loo-kernels of maize in association with
beans was significantly higher at the low maize density than
at the high density presumably because at the lower popula-
tional levels, each plant simply has had greater Opportunity
to photosynthesize and to.store temporarily carbohydrates
and nitrogen assimilates for use later in seed filling.
Furthermore, beans matured after two and a half months thus

eliminating inter-crop competition for moisture and

52

53

associated with it, resulting in a large growth of the non-
legume and a high protein content which increased its value
as food. However, Wilson (105) pointed out that the direct
transfer of nitrogen between the legume and non-legume
appeared to be relatively unimportant for high protein con-
tent of the non-legume.

Monoculture maize at the high density had a mean per-
cent protein of maize of 9.24 and the low density mono-
culture maize percent protein was 9.29. It was concluded
that soil nitrogen availability in both monoculture treat-
ments was used to increase kernels/cob rather than percent
protein, otherwise, one would expect to obtain higher per-
cent protein in the low density than in the high density
monoculture maize. Since the highest percent protein of
maize obtained from intercropped low density maize (though
not significantly different from monoculture) was 9.60, the
difference in percent protein could not be due to less intra
and interspecific competition for nutrients only but also due
to nitrogen supply from beans which were presumably trans-
ferred to maize when kernels/cob were already initiated.
Nevertheless, it appeared that both fixed and residual
nitrogen might significantly contribute more to succeeding
non-legume crop than the associated one. Gorlitz (39) found
a significant increase in grain percent protein in maize
field bean mixtures.

Percent oil of maize was not significantly different

54
in maize-bean association. Comparison between intercropped
percent oil of maize with pure culture maize did not show
any difference, indicating that neither interspecific nor
intraspecific competition for environmental factors affected
percent oil. Wahua (96) found no effect on sorghum percent
oil of grain when sorghum was intercropped with soyabeans.
Grain yield and land equivalent ratios (LER) of maize in
association with beans (treatments 5, 7, 9, 13, 17 for the
former and 5, 7, 9, ll, 13, 15, 17, for the latter) were
significantly high at the high maize density.

The use of optimum plant density resulted in more
efficient exploitation of the soil resources and light.
Yield was significantly high when maize rows were spaced 100
and 130 cm apart with double bean rows and 75 cm apart with
a single bean row. Since yield from these combinations did
not significantly differ from monoculture maize, it indi-
cated that San Fernando in appropriate arrangement did not
suppress maize yield and thus any bean yield harvested from
these combinations was an advantage for the subsistence far-
mers in total grain yield (maize plus beans) for food and
net income. Combined yield (maize plus beans) was 10423
kg/ha and 9880 kg/ha at bean configurations one and two,
respectively, at 100 cm row width; 9935 and 10138 kg/ha in
bean arrangements one and three, respectively, at 130 cm
maize row spacing and 10341 kg/ha at configuration three of
75 cm row width. At the current prices of 51 and 8 ¢/kg

black beans and maize, respectively, the yield above

(n

 

‘-ww.’m-r- _' -- ,

55
represented an economic return of $1386, 1399; 1365, 1370

and $1484, respectively. Maize yield in monoculture was
9831 kg/ha and 3571 kg/ha for beans, representing a cash
return of $786 and $1821, respectively. It was therefore
obvious that in this case the farmer lost money by engaging
himself in intercropping instead of growing monoculture
beans.

Francis et a1. (31) found that at yield levels above
3,000 kg/ha, beans in monoculture gave higher economic
returns than an associated culture. In places where land is
limited, planting a single row of beans between maize rows
spaced 75 cm apart would provide the best intercrop com-
bination in terms of combined yield, protein and cash
return. (Figure 2 and Table 19). This combination would
provide the farmer with 90%, 43% and 80% of pure culture
maize and bean yield and of pure stand bean economic
return/ha, respectively. CIAT (14) reported a 20-30% and
51% yield reduction of maize and beans, respectively.
Treatments 5, 7p 9, 13 and 17 provided better utilization
of available resources such as labour, land and environmen-
tal factors as compared to monoculture. Osiru et a1. (75)
concluded that yield advantages of the mixtures of dwarf
sorghum and beans were due to different rooting patterns
which provided a more efficient utilization of the soil
resources. However, Willey (101) suggested that the yield
advantage might be due more to the efficient utilization of

light by the combination of a tall maize with a short bean.

56

Figure 2. Effect of maiZe density, spacing and bean

mmvmm<mmm

D253
r ‘z’1 ' C
iazof- 2 ‘r ” 2 1 ’
’C l2C2 I
1660-:- 2C2 ”
"153
. .I C
W 4 3 ' D1C3-
isod- '1CQ
.. ~ :2 C2
134oe- ' .I ..
' y -' C1 01L
.; I
. 1C1
118snoso T sa'ao ' afoo r vs'zo ' 8330 . 8160

Note:

configuration on maize and bean yields.

 

 

 

 

MAIZE YIELD (kg/ha)

Maize density (45,000 plants/ha)
Maize density (22,500 plants/ha)
C1 - C3 = Configuration levels.

CD O
N —-8
I. II

D1C3 of 75 cm row spacing provided the best combination

' for land use efficiency, combined yield and economic

returns.

57
It should be noted that intercropping maize with beans may
affect the yield (quantity) of one or both component crops
but not the protein and oil (quality) content. Maize has a
low percent protein and oil and therefore a small amount of
stored energy is used to synthesize these components.
Consequently, the effect of reduced energy supply in asso-
ciated culture did not significantly alter the contents of
protein and oil as compared with the monoculture maize
components. .

Because bean yields were low in the high maize density
due to severe competition for available moisture, light and
nutrients, LER reached only as high as 1.34. It was
concluded that efficient use of natural resources increased
with the addition of beans in associated culture. Francis
(29) reported an LER greater than unity and as high as 1.88
for maize in association with beans. Yields of both com;
ponent crops were reduced but their total yield per unit
area was higher than their pure stand yields. LER values of
1.21 to 1.34 obtained from this experiment were highly
significant indicating that up to 1.34 hectares of pure
stand crops would be required to produce the same yield of
one hectare of associated culture.

Bean height in associated culture was not signifi-
cantly affected as compared with monoculture (except one
treatment which was significantly shorter) indicating that
probably bean plants completed their vegetative cycle before

maize was vigorous enough to affect this character. Partial

58

shading at that time was not severe enough to significantly
promote bean height by internode extension. Nodes of bean
plant were high in low maize density due probably to ade-
quate availability of nutrients, moisture, space and solar
energy for branch development. Furthermore, the growth
habits of the two species differred in time so that beans
had their peak demands of resources before maize. In
addition, more carbohydrates were presumably produced in
lower leaves, which were possibly transported to roots and
nodules for N-fixation. Consequently, optimum plant growth
was greatly promOted as a result of fixed nitrogen. Number
of branches per plant in associated culture was reduced from
31% to 64% when compared with their pure stands. The reduc-
tion was more outstanding in the high density with rows
spaced 75 cm apart with two bean rows planted 17 cm aWay
from maize rows. Indeed, both intra and inter-crop com-
petition for moisture, nutrient and available light were the
major factors which contributed to low branch set per plant
since these rows were crowded together. Comparison of asso-
ciated culture nodes per plant and bean height with mono-
culture beans showed that some treatments had less nodes per
plant than the control while their plant heights were not
significantly different, supporting the commonly accepted
concept that height was not only a function of nodes per
plant but also a function of inter-node length.
Interspecific and intraspecific competition for

environmental factors adversely affected the number of bean

59
pods and number of racemes per plant as compared with pure
stand beans. These traits were associated with vigorous
vegetative growth of maize which imposed both a shading
effect and severe interspecific competition for natural
resources. Reduced uptake of resources might have lowered
the rate of photosynthesis which resulted in reduced amount
of carbohydrates for the formation and develOpment of pods
and racemes. Comparison between pure culture and
intercropped beans indicated that racemes and pods were
reduced from 24 to 51% and 30 to 60%, respectively. Bean
loo-seed weight was also reduced in associated culture from
5 to 14% compared with pure culture. Beans in association
appeared to have responded to competition for light and
moisture through the reduction of number of branches and
-pods per plant and dry matter weight.

Percent protein of bean seed in maize-bean association
was not different from pure stand, indicating that
intercropping did not affect bean seed quality (protein).
However, in associated culture, protein percent of bean seed
was significantly high in high maize density. It was
suggested that increased seed percent protein in associated
culture was a natural consequence of a reduced seed filling
rate due to reduced light intensity for photosynthesis.“

As a consequence, seed yield was reduced while percent
protein of bean seed was increased at the high maize
density, probably because of their negative correlation type

of relationship. Treatment combinations which were high in

60
maize grain percent protein were also significantly high in
bean seed yield, suggesting a low degree of inter-crOp com-
petition for available moisture, nutrients and light at the
low maize density. Competition for available light has been
implicated on suppressed nodule formation (97) and,
consequently, N-fixation. This possibly contributed to low
bean yield at the high maize density since beans could not
fix nitrogen for optimum use.

Dry matter weight (Figure 3) and bean seed yield in
associated culture were significantly reduced (26 to 57%,
and 45 to 66%, respectively), as compared with monoculture
beans. Taller and wider maize plant canopy had a com-
petitive advantage over beans and therefore might have
intercepted a greater share of light than the beans. It was
suggested that light was a limiting factor for beans which
might have affected the optimum utilization of other factors
necessary for normal bean plant growth and production.
However, harvest index was not significantly different from
monoculture beans. Mann et a1. (68) and Reddy et a1. (79)
concluded that beans suffered strong competition from the
maize, principally when planted simultaneously with high
maize populations. Also maize yield was not affected by the
beans or a modest reduction in yield was offset by
production from the minor crop (1,22).

In production point of view, maize relative yield
associated culture maize yield X100% at the low maize

monoculture maize yield
density was from 52 to 73% while at the high density the

 

_ 51 , .
Figure 3. Effect of maize density, spacing and bean
configuration on maize yield and bean dry

matter weight.

 

.120 1
,_ .9251
IUEP' ~ '2C2
.- " C3
Sfit . 1 ’I It,
“2 3 252 0152

BEAN DRY MATTER WEIGHT (g/pl)
33

 

 

U1C2

 

 

 

 

soao saoo- A azoo' ' 7szo~ ‘* 3540' 9180

MAIZE YIELD (kg/ha) -

. Maize density (45,000 plants/ha)
Maize density (22,500 plants/ha)
C1 - C3 = Configuration levels

U
N
u

62
relative yield ranged from 69 to 93%. In contrast, the
relative bean yields were higher at the low maize density
than at the high maize density, with values ranging from 44
to 55%, and 33 to 46%, respectively. Yield increase over
monocropping

combined yield (maize plus beans) in association X 100%
8 maize +*% bean yield in pure culture

 

at the low maize density was from 4 to 31% and at the high
maize density yield advantages were from 21 to 55% over the
mean of monoculture crops, thus supporting one of the
hypothesis of these experiments. Aiyer (5), Osiru et a1.
(75) and Willey et al. (101) pointed out that yields of the
mixture of maize and beans, and dwarf sorghum and beans were
up to 38% and 55% higher, respectively, than could be
achieved by growing the component crops separately, due to a
greater utilization of environmental resources, different
rooting depths and their different growth cycles.
Furthermore, Desir et al. (20) and Willey et al (101) indi-
cated that the largest yield increases were achieved at the
high maize and bean densities. However, a net loss in gross
revenue up to 7% was obtained when maize at the high density
was spaced 75 cm apart and interplanted with double rows of
beans. Other treatment combinations had cash returns of up
to 14% over monocropping system (Table 19). Economic
Returns over monocrops = Combined economic return from asso-

ciated culture - Combined economic returns from monoculture x 100
Combined economic returns from monoculture

63

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mam «N.N ppm onm ao.~ Nana Nana ooounq oNNnaosoz
aNo NN.a New Nan 3=.~ oNNo ammo can.NN usqmsasoz
NNm Na.nN ll! .qu NNnN . oo.« «Nan Nmnn ooo.ooN mzoonocoz
NNQN Noe Nso NN.mN «N.N c «pm. New oxn NN.N Nm «q as mwNa enmN ooNN n can.NN
Nmo moo nmm mo.oN o~.a m mmmu «Na 3;; q:.N N. on on mqu anN mono N
«ooN. onq com ¢~.oN No.9 3 NNcN onm Nm¢ NN.N N— an «o m¢mm mama NNoo 4
mNoN awn mac NN.oN m~.m n onN moo NON cN.~ an on cm NNNON ooNN mama m oooqwc an
anon qma Nap a~.cN om.m o onna NoN a—o NN.N am N¢ mm n¢Nm men— mans N
:NNN Non 3mm NN.NN NN.N m nONN NNo amp mN.N we Na Na mama aNnN Neon q
mooN NNn awn mo.oN NN.N Na NmoN coca qu NN.N NN mm Nn wooN Ncmq Neon n conqNN
«Na woe can ¢n.mN NN.N o mNnN Ngm Nae ac.N a No an aamm mead Noon N
was one can NN.mN oo.a m onN com oNq ca.q a an an arch Nmma NoNn a
NoNN Ono Nmo @N.cN n~.m NN N¢¢N nan NNc «N.N an be as emNm awed ones m sesame cad
aNNN cam wNN cw.oN NN.: N mama NNN NNo 0N.— Ne cc ow exam oNqN «com N
Nada Ncm qu NO.NN no.2 a Nana one Nam NN.N mm on ma NNqoa onNN Nnam A
«No Nan NNq mm.oN 3m.a n «RNN mom ace mo.N e no Nn some somu «New m ocnqNN
9mm mNc nNn no.mN co.m N . mumq Nam «no oo.~ o— Nc on menu mmpa omen N
cum ocq sac c~.cN «N.N N «NNN o_a «Ne «o._ c an on mach nmNN camn N
mod. mac 3mm mo.cN 00.x a. awed cam ch «N.N on no om demo. NNnN Nana n occunc mm
«Na N.N moo n~.cN NN.N nu NoNN Nae «no w_.N so an. an Homo oaN~ NNNm N
mow Nam 3.0 ma.oN NN.: N: NcNN moo Non as.— .N on me «mow «CNN onmo N
ANV N
.Aa£\axv nzoom uNNmr wagon oNNzx ozoguo:o: w nzaua uNNs: 9N:N_:u mason muNoz menu: uuqa: occuumu Ao:\~av Aaov
meN» IINmmVMANII. It- ua>3 nauzuuz 11111 mill)! 13:3: ANN pNoNr Aaz\mxv Am:\mxv Iamqucco auchon mcqoaam
odououm panmr :Nauaua nzuauoz u.5o=o:m m:N:Nuz uo>o muzauzoocox puoN> unauazu puumuu
NmNOh :Nuuoax N:ouuux sag; puanaou 3N5::o;: mm; oNoNr pmumNoonn< pwcunaou nomn< :« 6N0N> acoNuacaaeou ucoauooph

 

all" I’VCII-|| 1.1. It. rilzt: n Fla I I-

'cllil. M‘l’ll!.v.

ausuqsuozoz 3:: up:u_:o pmNnNuomn< :_ one: p:m mama: no
vuoNuy: by: uNoN» cNoNoN; use acuaNax oNaozoou .NNN>«uuap0um

.a~ aunmb

it,"

64

It appeared that besides personal tastes, traditions,
locations, environmental factors and available capital, the
price of the commodities would also play part in dictating
the type of proportions and species to be used in associated
culture. Hart (44) found that when beans, maize, and
cassava were planted at the same time, yield and economic
returns were 37% and 54% higher, respectively, from the
polyculture than from the monocropping system. Francis et
a1. (31) indicated that increased land use efficiency and
higher net income from associated culture were among the
reasons why subsistence farmers with limited resources
insisted on maintaining associated cropping systems.

In nutritional terms, the range of combined protein
yield in a maize and bean association was from 936 to 1165
kg/ha (up to 27% higher than monoculture), being much higher
than monocropping mean protein production (915 kg/ha).
According to Latham (66), 65 g of protein are required daily
for a 55-kg active man. Therefore, the protein from asso-

ciated culture would be adequate to feed 39 to 49 men for

 

 

one year
936 kg/ha x 1000 9 = 39 men; 1.55 kg/ha x 1000 g = 49 men
65 g x 365 days/year 65 g x 365 days/year

On the other hand, if half a hectare was planted to maize
and the other half to beans as monoculture, protein yield
would be enough to feed only 38 men yearly. Edje et al.

(23) found that the protein from the maize and dwarf beans

intercrop planted early in the season was sufficient to feed

65

42 men for one year while monoculture produced enough
protein to feed only 25 men for the same period.

2. Maize and Soyabean Association

 

Unlike maize in association with beans, maize height in
maize-soyabean association was significantly affected by
soyabean configurations besides the effect of maize density.
At the high maize densitv, the third row spacing maize
height was significantly increased presumably due to the
well-known effects of reduced light intensity upon internode
extension. With a few exceptions, intercropped maize was
shorter than pure stand maize probably due to intensive com-
petition for available soil moisture since these crop spe-
cies had similar growth cycles and were both capable of
penetrating soils to a greater depth for nutrients and
moisture.

Grain percent protein and loo-kernel weight were
increased when low density maize with rows spaced at 130 cm
was interplanted with two soyabean rows 50 cm from maize
rows. This combination gave maize plants an ample root
system sorption zone from which adequate nutrients and
moisture were obtained for optimum rate of photosynthesis
and the photosynthate was presumably transferred to the
sinks (seeds) for nourishment. Percent protein of maize was
significantly high at high maize density when maize rows
were spaced 100 cm apart and two soyabean rows interplanted
38 cm from maize rows. It was speculated that high maize

percent protein was probably due to amino acids excreted to

66

the soil from soyabean and taken up by maize for protein
synthesis. However, it appeared that the amount of amino
acids released did not influence grain yield (number of
kernels/cob) suggesting that those compounds were transferred
to maize when the number of kernels/cob were already
initiated, consequently, percent protein and loo-kernel
weight in this treatment combination were significantly
higher than in monoculture maize. Nevertheless, N-fixation
is an energy requiring process and therefore soyabean would
only fix nitrogen if its root system sorption zone was void
of nitrogen. Howell (46) indicated that soyabeans and other
legumes acquired work energy (550 Kcal/lb) for the symbiotic
fixation of nitrogen. In spite of the high percent protein
of maize, the maize protein production per hectare was lower
than that obtained from the monoculture maize, that is,
6733.75 kg/ha x 9.79% protein = 659 kg/ha protein yield as
compared with monoculture maize protein yield of 9831.57
kg/ha x 9.24% protein = 908 kg/ha protein production.
Therefore, intercropping maize with legumes does not seem to
be a solution for total maize protein production per unit
area.

High density maize with soyabean rows planted 50 cm
from maize rows outyielded most treatments in the associated
culture, indicating that inter-crop competition for
moisture, nutrients, space and available light was greatly
reduced and there was probably limited root svstem sorption

zone overlap of the component crops as compared to cases

67

where component crop rows were only 17 cm apart. Unless
roots of one species had mechanisms to avoid roots of the
other species, growing two species very close would reduce
yield of both crops since each species was capable of
spreading its massive lateral roots or penetrating the soil
to a greater depth in search of nutrients and moisture.
Unlike maize-bean association, only one treatment in maize—
soyabean association was not significantly different from
pure culture maize, indicating that interspecific com-
petition for moisture, nutrients and available light was
quite severe in the latter association. This might possibly
be due to similar growth cycle of the two crop species in
which competition for natural resources was quite intensive
and resulted in reduced rate of photosynthesis for both com-
ponent crops. Maize and soyabean entered and terminated
their grain filling period at nearly the same time. Hence
there was more direct competition for light over the growth
period. Effective crop combinations would depend on dif-
ferent grain filling periods for the two crops.
Consequently, yields of maize and soyabeans were drastically
reduced as compared with the yields of the former asso—
ciation (Figure 4). One soyabean row between maize rows 75
cm apart at the high maize density was a more efficient way
of land use than the other experimental units and the best
way to maximize economic returns as the following
calculations indicated:

(8338 kg/ha x 8 ¢/kg) + (813 kg/ha x 22 ¢/kg soyabean) = $846

YIELD (kg/ha)

68

Figure 4. Maize, bean and soyabean yields in associated
culture and monoculture.

1070C}

 

avow- _

avooe -

4700-1-

 

 

2700+?

N. 9*.“ <
' 524 613151714101839

9 1 3
. . cc c c cc .
515203510243 Ligfiacaggjo 110533 0.3343

L... 00 cm ..J 1.... 7S cm_.__J L.___.130 cm._.J
D

1 = Maize density (45,000 plants/ha)
02 = Maize density (22,500 plants/ha)
C1 - C3 = Configuration levels

"’1 N

 

 

 

 

Note: Maize yield in association with soyabean was lower
than in maize-bean association.

69
compared with pure stand maize 9831 kg/ha x 8 ¢/kg N $786
or monoculture soyabean 2535 kg/ha x 22 ¢/kg = $558. It was
obvious from these calculations that farmers who practiced
maize-soyabean mixture in the developing countries gained a
higher cash return than could be achieved from either mono~
culture crops. Planting legumes in alternating single rows
gave greater returns than other intercropping patterns (57)
although other researchers (78, 85) found slightly higher
yields of maize and soyabean when planted in alternating
double or triple rather than single rows. Although
soyabeans yielded more at the low maize density, the
increase was not large enough to offset the maize yield
losses due to reduced density. Other authors (57, 58, 85)
found maize yield increase in association with soyabeans
while Enyi (24) found maize yield reduction when planted in
association with grain legumes.

Yield of soyabeans was too low such that the values of
land equivalent ratios in maize associated with soyabeans
were slightly above control (1.00). The same treatment which
was not significantly different in yield from pure culture
maize also gave the highest LER (1.14), although this value
was not significantly different from pure stand maize.

Grain percent oil was not significantly different from
pure stand maize in all combinations except one which had
higher oil content than monoculture maize. In spite of the
above exception, it was generally concluded that

intercropping had no effect on the quality of maize (protein

70
and oil), but was quite effective in reducing the quantity
(yield) of one or both component crops. About 6% of the
total energy stored by the maize plant is used for oil and
protein synthesis (46) and thus reduced rate of photosynthe-
sis in associated culture could not severely affect these
components.

Soyabean nodes per plant, branches per plant, pods per
plant and dry matter weight (Figure 5) were significantly
higher at the low maize than at the high maize density
because of more space and thus less inter-crop competition
for environmental factors. Probably there was less com-
petition within the root surface and root system sorption
zones for nutrients and moisture than in high maize density.
As a result, the rate of nutrient uptake and photosynthesis”
was accelerated and soyabean plants obtained their Optimum
carbohydrates for their normal growth and development of the
soyabean components. It was found that branches in asso-
ciated culture were reduced from 60 to 98%, pods per plant
were reduced from 45 to 74% and dry matter weight was reduced
from 40 to 67% as compared with monoculture soyabean, presu—
mably due to reduced photosynthetic rate. Galal et al.

(36) found that pod number and seed number per plant were
about 30 to 50% more in solid soyabeans than in associated
culture. Oizumi (74) noted that emergence of soyabean
branches depended mainly on the content of available car-
bohydrates in the plants while N content did not seem to be a

limiting factor.

71

Figure 5. Effect of maize density, spacing and soyabean

configuration on maize yield and soyabean
dry matter weight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11c
:51. “- '2C1
3. se-

. s~ .;D C
E .. e‘ y 2030, “ DZC3
as ..
o: 86%
g: . c 02 '2
>- "2C1
2% '7 - l ' D1C3
:5 .. ’50 ‘ it” ”if? 0 c
53 ‘fly- . (0 C4 4j’3‘

. '1C1
qb D1 .t- .1C1
3.5260 : 5630 A 5:00 : 67:0 ; 75:0 : asso

MAIZE YIELD (kg/ha)

D1 = Maize density (45,000 plants/ha)
02A: Maize density (22,500 plants/ha)
C1 - C3 = Configuration levels

72

Soyabean yield as in previous traits was also high at
the low maize density (Figure 6) for the same reasons pre-
sented earlier. Soyabean at the low maize density with maize
rows spaced 75 cm apart yielded significantly higher than
other row widths except the second maize row spacing at the
low maize density. Soyabean yield reduction due to
intercropping was from 38 to 68%. Contrary to soyabean
yield, soyabean seed percent protein was significantly high
at the high maize density. However, it appeared that
increased protein was actually a consequence of reduced yield
per plant particularly in treatments with soyabean rows
planted as close as 17 or 25 cm away from maize rows.
Comparison with monoculture soyabean protein indicated an_
increase in percent protein of soyabean seed from the
intercropping systems. Galal et al. (36) in Egypt found an
increase in soyabean percent protein when soyabeans were
associated with maize.

Weight per loo-seed and seed percent oil were generally
high when soyabean rows were planted far away from maize.
rows, probably due to increased rate of photosynthesis.
However, lOO-seed weight was not significantly different from
control while percent oil was significantly lower than sole
crop, thus justifying one of the hypothesis of this
experiment. Seed percent oil reduction was from 3 to 7%
while Wahua (96) found 3% less oil in soyabean seed
intercropped with sorghum. Son et al. (86) found that plant

height and protein content of soyabeans in association with

y 73 ~
Figure 6. Effect of maize density, spacing and soyabean
configuration on maize and soyabean yields.

 

1596

l 430i

1270+

SOYABEAN YIELD (kg/ha)

1110-1. ‘

3501.

 

 

 

 

738 t“ i ‘r t t ’ 4 r .
4230 5080 5900 6720 7540 ' 8360

MAIZE YIELD (kg/ha)

D1 = Maize density (45,000 plants/ha)
D2 = Maize density (22,500 plants/ha)
C1 -C3 = Configuration levels

Note: D1C3 of 75 on row spacing provided the best combination
for land use efficiency, combined yield and net income.

74

sorghum increased while branch number, number of pods per
plant, seed yield, loo-seed weight and oil content decreased
as compared with monoculture soyabeans.

Since maize-soyabean association was severely affected
by intensive intra and interspecific competition for
available nutrients, moisture and solar energy, relative
yields of maize ranged only from 43 to 65% and 62 to 85%, at
the low and the high maize density, respectively. Likewise,
the relative soyabean yield range was only from 38 to 62% at
the low maize density, and 31 to 44% at the high maize den-
sity (Figure 8). Despite the low relative values at the high
density, combined yield increase over pure stand was from 13
to 48%, indicating more efficient use of natural resources.
Besides three treatments which had combined yield lower than
the mean yield of monoculture crops, other combinations at
the low maize density had higher yields (up to 21%) than the
mean of the pure culture crops. This yield response phenome-
non is quite common wherever intercropping is practiced
because farmers do not plant crops at their optimum
densities. In order to achieve the benefits of intercropping
systems, component crops should be planted at their recom-
mended densities.

Economic loss of up to 9% was obtained as a result of
low density, further stressing that the subsistence farmer
could not only lose combined yield per hectare but could also
diminish his cash returns. However, other treatment com-

binations at the low maize density had gross revenue returns

75

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:2. NN.N. a: 2: so... NN.N... N25 25.? 932.25:
One Om.a New Nam oa.N oNNo cNmo can.NN ouNmaoco:
NNN aN.oN man man oo.N nnmN mnnN ooo.c0m mcnmsoxonocsz
Na: 03c Nam NN.NN cm.a NN meN NNN NNm ¢:.N NN Nq no when NNQN some n can.NN
onn Nam seq mn.mm NN.N ml NNo aNN nan Np. on Nc mg onm mqu naNc N
NNGN seq mmn NN.NN mN.a 5N NoN NNN «no a:.N a— On No ¢onn wnNN coco N
wna NNN NNQ aq.mm an.n a. cam maN nmn oc.N an an NN aNom «ma NqNN n 3304m¢ CNN
ac» can mom NN.NN mn.m o N.N oN_ Nam as. .N Na mo News aaN aoNe N
an aNn msa a~.am NN.w N N.N an_ Nan 93. NN as No nacN won nqco N
Nqa can mum «N.on Nm.a N GNN ANN man ma. n. mm «o NwNN NNa oNno n conqNN
On: aqq Nan Nn.Nn NN.: m Nae NoN cad mm. o No mm mono NaNN Nmmm N
Nno axn Ncq mN.Nm Np.» n NON Nam con Nc._ .: on cc moNo cmmN cums N
nNoN Nan Nee mm.~n Na.n aN mam nNN 32m ON.N «N co «m moNa oNoN acNN n ooo~mq ooN
NNaN nNc ans mn.mm NN.: N. qu ooN omm ON.N NN cc no News nNNN «mac N
No: oNn NNn .qN.mm Nc.a N amp NnN Nag «a. MN an no mooN Nnm NnNo N
NmoN NNn mmn N¢.om am.a 0N NmN n_m nos NN.N NN Nm an nNNN chN ammm m cenqNN
mam nma can 9N.mn NN.N ms NNo onN Now Na. 3.: Nn av nomm NmNN NNNc N
«noN nan qu mm.sm an.» a. mom «em amn mo.N c No . Nn memo «ooN mmac N
mnoN nan anN m¢.Nn Na.» am can aNN Noe ¢N.N as Nm mm NnNm nNm mmmm m oceans mm
Nmm no” Nan «N.mm mN.n N ”no ooN ana mm. a. on No NOON mom ooNo N
oNa Nnn Non Nn.nm ca.m c o_N moN Nan pa. NN on so ooNN NNm Nana N
mzmos so ANV nszua ANV mzmmn
N1:\mxv stsm an_n: :mxsms an_az zzouuo::z w asxsm oNsz ouzsN:u Imaom ostx osmon uuNmz mcoNunu Au:\N1v Aaov
aN9N> I! ~n:\mm¢.l. I. I Nu>o w:C:Noz (it w .nll- tozo: mum pNaN> Am:\w4v Am:\mxv Iswqucou zuNm:mo mzNumam
:Nvu0um ENUN> :Nnuaum mzasNuz uNao::uu m:NJNU: uu>2 ouzuNauocoZ fiNoNx flunuNau fiuuano
NnNoe :Nstuz Nsvoav; :nnu 19:.2333 u_so:oou sz 1_wN> pmuoNoomm< poanaoo Ionm< :N cNoN> msoNuchaaoo ucoaumuuh

 

0L:N_::o::z 1:3 uu=N_:u onusNuonn< :N :zngzxom was ouNgx No
9.1.0:: to: 3NDN> :NuNoC; 6:: nauaNoz 0.33:393 .NNN>Nu9330um

.‘ .ll' ll;

 

 

:I‘xll l |.. .0..1l||

.oN mNasa

76

of up to 16% and l to 26% cash returns were obtained at the
high maize density. Nevertheless, densities did not seem to
affect total protein production per hectare, probably because
protein content of each species changed with the change in
maize density being generally high at the high maize density
for soyabeans and vice versa for percent protein of maize.

Eight hundred thirty-six to 1082 kg/ha combined protein
yield,from the maize and soyabean association which was up to
18% higher than monoculture, would be sufficient to feed 35
to 46 men for one year while half a hectare each of a pure
culture of maize and soyabeans produced enough protein to
feed only 38 men for one year. Maize at the high density
paced 75 cm apart and interplanted with a single row of
beans or soyabeans, constantly provided high values of yield,
LER, gross revenue returns and combined protein yield,
possibly because this combination permitted more efficient
use of land and intercepted most of the available light. It
appeared that the root system sorption zone in this treatment
combination was probably adequate to support the crop
species.

In maize-bean association, it was found that each of the
spacings had at least one combination which was not signifi-
cantly different in yield performance as compared with mono-
culture maize while in maize-soyabean association only one
combination at 75 cm row width was nearly as good as pure
stand maize. It was therefore suggested that among the maize

row spacings, 130 cm row width was more convenient in the

77

developing countries in conducting cultural operations such
as hand weeding, spraying, fertilizer application (to maize)
and harvesting of minor crops. On the other hand, 75 cm row
width had merits over the other spacings in that it
suppressed weeds earlier in the growing season but was defi-
cient in providing opportunities for other cultural
practices. Highlights from these experiments suggested that
possibly by growing maize at 45,000, 50,000, 55,000 and
60,000 plants/ha and intercropped with both 50 and 100%
legume densities would provide opportunities to detect the
Optimum maize-bean or soyabean combinations for yield.
However, in terms of gross revenue returns, it appeared

that the present maize-bean association prOportion would
still be more profitable than the above proposal if beans
and maize prices would remain at 4:1 ratio, respectively
(31). Legumes are capable of compensating for available
spacing by increasing the number of branches per plant while

maize is incapable.

SUMMARY AND CONC LUS ION

Maize-bean association at the high density was signifi-
cantly taller than maize at the low density probably due to
reduced light intensity which might have stimulated IAA acti-
vity in promoting internode extension through the alteration
of IAA oxidase inhibitor, leading to increased maize height.
However, maize loo-kernel weight and percent protein of maize
were significantly high at the low maize densitv probably
because each plant simply has had greater Opportunity to pho-
tosynthesize and to store carbohydrates and nitrogen assimi-
lates temporarily for use later in seed filling. Increased
loo-kernel weight and percent protein of maize might also be
a consequence of the early bean maturity which occurred at
about the grain filling stage of maize.

Furthermore, there was also a probability that high per-
cent protein of maize might be attributed to nitrogen
released from beans to maize through nodule exudation and
decomposition of bean leaves and nodules. Nevertheless, it
was felt that both fixed and residue nitrogen would signifi-
cantly contribute to succeeding non-legume crops. At any
rate, percent protein of maize in maize-bean association was
not significantly different from pure culture except two

treatments which were significantly lower than the control.

78

79

Percent oil of maize in maize associated with dry beans
was not significantly different from pure stand maize, indi-
cating that association of these component crops did not
affect maize quality (protein and oil). When maize at the
high density was spaced 100 and 130 cm apart and interplanted
with double bean rows and 75 cm row width with a single bean
row, maize yield was not significantly different from mono-
culture maize, indicating that any bean yield obtained from
these combinations was a bonus in land management for the
subsistence farmers in combined yield for food and net income
and that is why subsistence farmers engage themselves in asso-
ciated culture.' However, besides the above treatment com-
binations, the rest of the treatments yielded significantly
lower than monoculture maize and their yield reductions were
from 7 to 48%. The yield losses were much lower than in
maize associated with soyabeans in which yield reductions
ranged from 26 to 56%, presumably due to early maturity of
dry beans and therefore more moisture and nutrients were
available for maize grain filling in maize-bean association.
On the other hand, maize and soyabean had longer growth
cycle. They entered and terminated their grain filling
period at nearly the same time. Consequently, there was more
direct competition for light and moisture over the growth
period. It was concluded that effective crop combinations
would depend on different grain filling periods for the two
crops.

Land equivalent ratio (LER) values of 1.21 to 1.34 were

80

highly significant undoubtedly due to more complete use of
available nutrients and light in associated culture. It was
concluded that up to 1.34 hectares of monocrops would be
required to produce the equivalent yield of one hectare of
the crops in association. Maize at the high density spaced 75
cm apart and interplanted with a single dry bean row gave the
best intercropping combination in terms of more efficient use
of land and natural resources, yield, combined protein yield
and cash returns. However, at the current bean and maize
prices, a farmer would be economically better by growing dry
beans as pure culture rather than engaging himself in asso-
ciated culture.

Dry bean height was not significantly affected by
intercropping, indicating that probably San Fernando plants
completed their vegetative cycle before maize was vigorous
enough to impose inter-crop competition for available
nutrients and light. The partial shading at that time was
probably not severe enough to significantly promote bean
plant internode elongation in associated culture to cause a
difference in plant height as compared with the monoculture
bean height. Number of nodes per bean plant was signifi-
cantly higher in low maize density than in high maize density
probably due to ample space for branch development,
nutrients, moisture and solar energy. Comparison with mono—
culture beans showed that some treatments had less nodes per
bean plant than the control while their plant heights were

not significantly different, supporting the commonly

81

accepted concept that height was not only a function of nodes
per plant but also a function of internode length. There was
a 31 to 64% branch reduction of beans in associated culture
as compared with pure culture beans.

Number of racemes and pods per plant in associated
culture were 24 to 51% and 30 to 60% lower, respectively,
than pure stand bean values, the reduction being highest at
the high maize density. It was concluded that these traits
coincided with vigorous maize vegetative growth cycle which
imposed severe inter-crop competition for available
nutrients, moisture and light. Bean lOO-seed weight in asso-
ciated culture was as low as 14% (depending on maize density)
as compared with pure stand beans. Percent protein in bean
seed in associated culture was not significantly different
from monoculture, indicating that associated culture did not
affect San Fernando seed quality. Dry matter weight and seed
yield in associated culture were significantly lower than the
pure culture beans and they were 26 to 57% and 45 to 66%
lower, respectively, than monoculture bean values, being more
drastically reduced at the high maize density. However, the
harvest index was not significantly different from the mono-
culture beans.

Observations on maize in association with soyabeans
indicated that most intercropped maize was significantly
shorter than monoculture maize undoubtedly due to severe
inter-crOp competition for available moisture. When maize at

the low density was spaced 130 cm apart and double soyabean

82

rows were planted 50 cm from maize rows, loo-kernel weight
was significantly increased probably due to higher levels of
photosynthesis as a result of ample light intensity and root.
system sorption zone from which adequate resources were
obtained and ultimately higher levels of photosynthate were
probably stored and were later transferred to the sinks.
However, the actual kernel weight would certainly depend on
how many kernels had to be filled per plant or per unit area.

Percent protein of maize was significantly higher in
associated culture than in pure stand when maize at the high
density was planted 100 cm apart and two soyabean rows were
planted 38 cm from maize rows. It was speculated that high
percent protein of maize was probably due to amino acids
excreted to the soil by bean nodules, roots and stems and
taken up by maize for protein synthesis. However, it appeared
that the amount of amino acids released did not influence
grain yield (number of kernels/cob) suggesting that these
compounds were available for maize use when the number of
kernels per plant were already initiated. Consequently, per-
cent protein and loo-kernel weight of maize were signifi-
cantly higher in this treatment combination than in mono-
culture maize.

A single treatment combination maize at the high density
with rows spaced 75 cm apart and interplanted with a single
soyabean row was not significantly different from monoculture
maize yield. It was therefore concluded that interspecific

competition for available moisture, nutrients and solar

83
energy was more critical in maize-soyabean association than
when maize was associated with beans, possibly due to similar
growth period of maize and soyabeans. The grand mean dif-
ference between maize yield in association with beans and
maize associated with soyabeans (7107-6330 kg/ha) was 777
kg, indicating an intensive maize-soyabean competition pro-
bably for moisture.

The highest LER obtained in maize associated with
soyabean was 1.14 as compared with 1.34 in maize-bean
association, further stressing the intensive intra and
inter-crop competition. At any rate, the LER obtained in
maize-soyabean association was not significantly different
from pure stand maize (1.00). Percent oil of maize was not
significantly different from the control in all combinations
except one which had higher percent oil than the monoculture
maize.

Number of branches and pods per soyabean plant in
associated culture were 60 to 98% and 45 to 74% lower,
respectively, while dry matter weight was 40 to 67% lower
(depending on maize density) than monoculture soyabean.
Soyabean yield was significantly high at the low maize den-
sity with rows spaced at 75 cm apart.

Soyabean was 38 to 68% lower in seed yield than the
monocropping of soyabean. There was a significant increase
in percent protein in soyabean seed in associated culture
as a consequence of reduced yield per plant, a non-

significant change in loo-seed weight and a significantly

84
lower percent oil of soyabean seed than in monoculture
soyabeans. .

In general, performance of these experiments indi-
cated that the maize relative yield at the low maize den-
sity was from 52 to 73% while at the high density it ranged
from 69 to 93%. Likewise, relative yields of maize in asso-
ciation with soyabeans ranged from 43 to 65% and 62 to 85%,
at the low and the high maize density, respectively. In
contrast, the relative bean yields were higher at the low
maize density than at the high density, with values ranging
from 44 to 55%, and 33 to 46%, respectively. Similarly,
soyabean relative yield range was from 38 to 62% at the low
maize density, and 31 to 44% at the high maize density.

In maize-bean association, yield increase over
monocropping at the low maize density was from 4 to 31%
while at the high density yield advantages were from 21 to
55%. On the other hand, combined yield increase over mono—
culture was from 13 to 48% when maize at the high density
was planted in association with soyabeans. Maize-bean gross
revenue returns at the high maize density ranged from a loss
of 7% to an increase of up to 14% while at the low maize
density, an increase of economic returns of l to 11% was
obtained. Unlike maize-bean association, maize-sovabean
cash values ranged from a loss of 9% to an increase of up to
16% and l to 26% at the low and the high maize densities,
respectively. Combined protein yield from a maize and bean

association was from 936 to 1165 kg/ha (up to 27%) while

35
maize—soyabean association provided a combined protein yield
ranging from 836 to 1082 kg/ha (up to 18%) as compared with
their monoculture component crops mean protein production of
915 and 912 kg/ha, respectively. The protein was adequate
to feed up to 49 and 46 men for one year, respectively, as
compared with pure culture where protein was sufficient to
feed only 38 men for the same period. Maize at the high den-
sity spaced 75 cm apart and interplanted with a single
legume row constantly provided higher values of land use
efficiency (LER), yield, gross revenue returns and combined
protein yield per hectare than any other treatment com—
binations or monocrops.

For the general field.management, it was noted that
130 cm row width was more convenient in the develOping
countries than the other spacings in conducting cultural
operations such as hand weeding, spraying, fertilizer appli-
cation and harvesting of minor crops. On the other hand, 75
cm row width had merits over the other spacings in that it
suppressed weeds earlier in the growing season but was defi-
cient in providing opportunities for other cultural
practices.

Although beans and soyabeans in these experiments
might have influenced percent protein of maize to a certain
degree, it appeared that their organic matter and fixed
nitrogen would be a more important source of nitrogen for
the succeeding maize crop. Optimum density, adequate soil

nutrients and moisture should be maintained in the

86

associated culture in order to maximize land use efficiency
(LER), combined yield and protein production, and economic
returns. Identification of compatible crop species for
intercropping should get the first priority in the future
research in order to utilize the limited natural resources
more efficiently and to improve combined yield production
for the subsistence farmer. Results obtained in these
experiments gave some highlights which suggested that the
best maize-legume combinations would be detected if both 50
and 100% bean or soyabean densities would be interplanted
with maize at 45,000, 50,000, 55,000 and 60,000 plants/ha.
Legumes are capable of compensating for available space by
increasing the number of branches per plant while maize is

incapable.

APPEND ICIES

87

Nmmoa .m .2 mm prNmEoo

 

ho.m

mb.oN mm.N wN.m Nm.N mm.N mN.v Nb.N omm~m>¢ ummw 5N
mm.mN Nm.N mm.N oo.N om.N mm.m No.N mo.N NmmN
mN.mN om. hN.N mo.N mm.N mm.v «N.N mm.N mmmN
NN.NN mo. vm.N om.v vo.N mw.m mv.v mm.N «mmN
N¢.mN mN.N NN.m mh.m hp. Nm.N mN.N mh. mmmN
Nm.bN No.N on.N NN.m mm.N mm.m mo.N mN.m mmmN
vm.NN mN.m w¢.N mv.m mm.N NN.w mN.N mm.m homN
mm.v~ mN.N No.m mm.N mN.N mN.m Nv.e Nh.N mmmN
5N.vN mo.N mN.N me. ¢¢.> mm.q NN.m hm.¢ mmmN
wo.Nm Nv.m mN.v Nw.N mm.c m¢.w Nm.N «N.m cth
Nm.mN mo.N vo.m hm.N NN.m mm.m hm.N mN.N meN
m¢.NN 0N.m ON.v om.m h¢.N mm.N ¢m.m mm.m thN
wN.NN ON.N mN.m vN.N hm. mm.m mm.¢ vm.m mnmN
on.hN NN.N mh.N mm.m mm.N vb.N vw.v vo.N vth
om.mN NN.N aw.N mN.w am.N am.N mb.N mv.m mth
mm.NN mh.N mm.N mm. vm.¢ mN.¢ No.m Nm.v mth
ev.m~ mo.N am.m mN.N m¢.m mh.v vm. mN.v NBNN
vm.mN mm.N mm.¢ NN.m mp.N mm.N vh.m Nm.N mth
HMUOB HOEOHUO Hwflemumwm um5m5< NHDU 0CD»... a kumd Hmww

 

nucoz pom cNmm mo monocH

 

AcmmNcONz .chmcmq ummm .mpmom ucOEOmom can omom .uzv mama NNmchmm and pNon oocoNom OONU

d. an—memfi

88

APPENDIX B

Maize yield per hectare in association with beans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREATMENTS
Distanceof Maize REPLICATIONS

Spa- bean rows density fl I MEAN

No. cing from maize rows (pl/ha) I II III IV (kg/ha)
l 2 rows 17cm away 45,000 6604 6604 7033 6879 6780
2 2 rows 17cm away 22,500 5002 5537 4895 5764 5300
3 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 6348 7842 9104 9388 8171
4 75cm 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 5153 6802 5059 5691 5676
S 1 row 37.5cm away 45,000 7902 9682 8711 8953 8812
6 1 row 37.5cm away 22,500 4835 5244 5137 5079 5074
7 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 9052 9335 9630 8532 9137
8 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 5375 5010 5275 5167 5206
9 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 9557 7237 10087 6972 8463
10 100cm 2 rows 38cm away 22,500 5065 5467 5947 5362 5460
11 1 row 50cm away 45,000 7313 7507 7580 8220 7656
12 1 row 50cm away 22,500 4660 5660 6027 6242 5647
13 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 6517 7661 12188 8058 8606
14 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 6050 6785 5264 5947 6011
15 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 7347 6691 9958 6955 7738
16 130cm 2 rows 38cm away 22,500 4941 6603 6220 5232 5749
17 2 rows 50cm away 45,000 8470 7123 10141 9617 8838
18 2 rows 50cm away 22,500 8623 7982 6197‘ 5997 7200
19 75cm Monocropping maize 22,500 6993 8013 6323 5773 6776
20 75cm Monocrorping maize 45,000 10997 8564 9986 9777 9831

 

’89

APPENDIX C

Maize grain percent protein in association with beans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREA'D’IENI‘S
Distanceof Maize REPLICATIONS
Spa- bean rows density MEAN
No. cing fran maize rows (pl/ha) I II III IV (%)
l 2 rows 17cm away 45,000 9.07 8.14 9.12 10.13 9.11
2 2 rows 17cm away 22,500 9.73 9.40 8.31 9.51 9.24
3 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 7.81 8.07 8.71 7.89 8.12
75cm
4 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 9.42 8.15 9.22 9.37 9.04
5 1 row 37.5cm away 45,000 c3.08 8.13 8.75 8.44 8.60
6 1 row 37.5cnn away 22,500 9.65 9.20 9.61 8.74 9.30
7 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 8.79 8.32 8.48 8.72 8.58
8 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 9.65 8.78 10.35 9.64 9.60
9 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 8.86 7.78 9.07 9.17 8.72
100cm
10 2 rows 38cm away 22,500 9.25 9.38 9.42 9.02 9.27
11 1 row 50cm away 45,000 8.85 8.54 8.80 8.92 8.78
12 1 row 50cm away 22,500 9.45 8.98 9.35 9.08 9.21
13 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 9.29 8.12 8.93 9.05 8.85
14 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 9.23 9.07 9.77 9.56 9.41
15 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 8.68 8.49 8.58 9.44 8.80
130cm
16 2 rows 38cm away 22,500 9.16 9.36 9.06 8.82 9.10
17 2 rows 50cm away 45,000 7.31 7.38 8.04 8.18 7.73
18 2 rows 50cm away 22,500 9.43 9.10 9.17 9.68 9.34
19 75cm Monocr0pping maize 22,500 9.29 8.05 9.44 10.38 9.29
20 75cm Monocr0pping maize 45,000 9.06 9.47 9.14 9.31 9.24

 

90

APPENDIX D

Maize grain percent oil in association with beans.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREATMENTS
Distanceof Maize REPLICATIONS
Spa- bean rows density MEAN
No. cing fran maize rows (pl/ha) I II III IV 0% L
1 2 rows 17cm away 45,000 3.95 4.03 4.07 3.86 3.98
2 2 rows 17cm away 22,500 3.90 4.11 4.14 4.02 4.00
3 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 4.08 4.01 4.01 4.41 4.13
75cm
4 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 3.98 4.05 3.96 4.02 4.00
5 1 row 37.5cm away 45,000 4.12 4.06 4.05 4.10 4.08
6 1 row 37.5cm away 22,500 3.91 4.14 4.05 4.46 4.14
7 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 4.00 4.09 4.05 4.03 4.04
8 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 3.89 4.04 3.76 4.00 3.92
9 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 4.07 4.05 3.97 4.14 4.06
100cm
10 2 rows 38cm away 22,500 3.91 3.81 3.97 4.09 3.94
11 1 row 50cm.away 45,000 3.76 3.73 4.05 4.02 3.89
12 1 row 50cm away 22,500 4.13 4.24 4.14 3.91 4.10
13 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 3.92 3.98 3.91 4.16 3.99
14 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 3.93 3.89 4.06 4.08 3.98
15 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 3.89 3.88 4.18 4.04 4.00
130cm
16 2 rows 38cm away 22,500 3.93 3.95 4.09 4.01 3.99
17 2 rows 50cm away 45,000 3.88 3.95 4.19 4.16 4.04
18 2 rows 50cm away 22,500 3.81 4.02 4.08 3.85 3.94
19 75cm. Mbnocropping maize 22,500 3.68 3.91 3.99 3.93 3.88
20 75cm. MOnocrOpping maize 45,000 3.95 3.90 4.12 3.97 3.98

 

Bean yield per hectare in association with maize

APPENDIX E

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREATMENTS
Distanceof Maize REPLICATIONS
Spa- , bean rows density J J MEAN

No. cing fran maize rows (pl/ha) I II III IV (kg/ha)
l 2 rows 17cm away 45,000 1117 911 1696 1492 1304
2 2 rows 17cm away 22,500 1813 1822 1520 .1985 1785
3 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 1064 1303 1311 1083 1190
4 75a“ 2 rows 25am away 22,500 1526 1849 1531 1849 1689
5 1 row 37.5cm away 45,000 1784 1521 1474 1338 1529
1 row 37.5cm away 22,500 2133 1796 2180 1464 1893

7 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 1402 1228 1143 1371 1286
8 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 2113 1575 2218 1619 1881
9 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 1554 1085 1635 1387 1415
10 100cm 2 rows 38cm away 22,500 .2216 1678 2092 1407 1848
11 1 row 50cm away 45,000 1324 1593 1700 1934 1637
12 1 row 50cm away 22,500 2036 1732 2191 1885 1961
13 ' 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 1486 939 1471 1416 1328
14 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 2065 1580 1980 1715 1835
15 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 1341 1335 1797 1548 1505
16 130cm 2 rows 38cm away 22,500 1924 1758 1750 1741 1793
17 2 rows 50cm away 45,000 1211 1109 1483 1397 1300
18 2 rows 50cm away 22,500 1778 1413 1642 1498 1583
19 50cm Sole crop bean 200,000 3323 3569 3468 3923 3571

 

92

APPENDIX F

Bean seed percent protein in association with maize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREA'D’IENI‘
Distanceof Maize REPLICATIONS
Spa- bean rows density r-IFAN
No. cing fran maize row (pl/ha) I II III IV ( % )
1 2 rows 1700 away 45,000 27.75 27.26 26.49 26.22 26.93
2 2 rows 1700 away 22,500 26.13 .26.44 26.01 25.81 26.10
3 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 24.02 26.26 28.87 25.45 - 26.15
4 7500 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 25.25 24.45 25.33 25.11 25.03
5 1 row 37.500 away 45,000 27.88 26.41 27.58 24.84 26.68
6 1 row 37.5011 away 22,500 25.52 27.17 26.97 26.54 26.55
7 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 28.35 26.52 26.81 26.36 27.01
8 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 25.27 25.15 27.10 25.57 25.77
9 2 rows 3800 away 45,000 26.48 26.34 27.31 27.25 26.84 -
10000
10 2 rows 38cm away 22,500 25.08 24.44 26.59 24.95 25.26
11 1 row 5000 away 45,000 27.20 24.43 26.70 26.73 26.26
12 1 row 5000 away 22,500 27.94 24.97 27.26 26.58 26.69
13 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 27.04 27.21 26.69 27.92 27.21
14 2 rows 250m away 22,500 26.07 25.11 27.11 26.27 26.14
15 2 rows 3800 away 45,000 24.20 26.42 27.03 27.10 26.19
16 130cm 2 rows 3800 away 22,500 23.48 27.30 27.03 26.53 26.08
17 2 rows 5000 away 45,000 27.16 25.08 26.03 26.19 26.11
18 2 rows 500m away 22,500 27.16 24.40 26.06 25.32 25.73
19 5000 Sole Crop bean 200,000 25.70 26.20 25.59 25.78 25.82

 

93

APPENDIX G

Maize-Bean Land equivalent ratios (LER) .

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREATMENT r i r
Distanceof Maize REPLICATIONS
Spa- bean rows density ‘ L MEAN
No. cing fran maize rows (pl/ha) I II III IV

1 2 rows 17C!!! away 45,000 .94 1.03 1.19 1.08 1.06

2 2 rows 1700 away 22,500 1.00 1.16 ' .93 1.09 1.04

3 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 .90 1.28 1.29 1.24 1.18

7500 '

4 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 .93 1.31 .95 1.05 1.06

5 1 row 37.500 away 45,000 1.25 1.56 1.30 1.26 1.34

1 row 37.500 away 22,500 1.08 1.11 1.14 .89 1.05

7 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 'l.24 1.43 1.29 1.22 1.29

8 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 1.12 1.03 1.17 .94 1.06

9 . 2 rows 3800 away 45,000 1.34 1.15 1.48 1.07 1.26
10000

10 2 rows 3800 away 22,500 1.13 1.11 1.20 .91 1.09

11 1 row 5000 away 45,000 1.06 1.32 1.25 1.33 1.24

12 1 row 5000 away 22,500 1.04 1.15 1.23 1.12 1.13

13 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 1.04 1.16 1.64 1.18 1.25

14 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 1.17 1.23 1.10 1.04 1.13

15 2 rows 3800 away 45,000 1.07 1.15 1.51 1.11 1.21
13000

16 2 rows 3800 away 22,500 1.03 1.26 1.13 .98 1.10

17 2 rows 5000 away 45,000 1.13 1.14 1.44 1.34 1.26

18 2 rows 5000 away 22,500 1.32 1.33 1.09 .99 1.18

19 7500 Monocrowing maize 45,000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

20 5000 Sole crop beans 200,000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

 

APPENDIX H

94

Maize yield per hectare in association with soyabean.

 

 

 

 

 

 

'I'REA'IMENI'
Distanceof Maize REPLICATIONS
Spa- soyabean rows density MEAN
No. cing from maize rows (El/ha) I II III IV (kg/ha)
1 2 rows 1700 away 45,000 6033 5011 7884 6428 6339
2 2 rows 1700 away 22,500 4684 4144 6268 4842 4984
3 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 6073 7204 4837 6286 6100
4 7500 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 3700 5277 4528 3582 4272
5 1 row 37.500 away 45,000 10431 7673 6153 9095 8338
6 1 row 37.500 away 22,500 3024 8151 6748 5226 5787
7 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 4640 5462 6607 7917 6156
8 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 4085 4437 5025 4750 4574
9 ' 2 rows 3800 away 45,000 5710 8355 7370 5500 6733
10 10000 2 rows 3800 away 22,500 4070 5642 6607 5205 5381
11 1 raw 5000 away 45,000 7950 5832 7012 8203 7249
12 1 row 5000 away 22,500 6930 5575 6657 6077 6310
13 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 5388 5170 7923 8097 6644
14 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 6341 6617 5579 5644 6045
15 2 rows 3800 away 45,000 6238 8267 5664 6661 6708
16 13000 2 rows 3800 away 22,500 3520 5179 4467 5964 4783
17 2 rows 5000 away 45,000 4947 9017 6476 8326 7191
18 2 rows 5000 away 22,500 6776 6376 6873 5567 6398
19 7500 Monocropping maize 22,500 6993 8013 6326 5773 6776
20 7500 Monocrogaing maize 45,000 10997 8564 9986 9777 9831

 

.Maize grain percent protein in association with soyabean.

95

- APPENDIX I

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREATD’IEN’I‘
Distance of Maize R E P L I C A.T I O N S
Spa- soyabean rows density MEAN
No. cing fr00 maize rows (pl/ha) I II III IV (%)
1 2 rows 17cm away 45,000 8.88 8.89 8.93 9.05 8.94
2 2 rows 17cm away 22,500 8.93 8.81 8.85 8.83 8.85
3 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 8.22 8.26 8.26 8.28 8.25
75cm
4 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 9.06 9.12 9.01 9.33 9.13
5 1 row 37.5cm away 45,000 8.85 8.63 8.48 9.30 8.81
6 1 row 37.5cm away 22,500 -.56 9.65 9.62 9.55 9.59
7 2 rows 250m away 45,000 8.55 8.43 8.34 8.57 8.47
8 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 8.82 8.72 8.73 9.01 8.82
9 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 9.71 9.74 9.84 9.84 9.79
100cm
10 2 rows 38cm away 22,500 9.30 9.34 9.23 9.36 9.31
11 1 row 50cm away 45,000 9.21 8.31 8.92 9.23 8.92
12 1 row 50cm.away 22,500 9.67 9.25 9.19 9.17 9.32
13 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 8.20 8.18 8.14 8.34 8.21
14 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 8.97 9.06 9.23 9.47 9.18
15 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 8.45 8.28 8.26 8.56 8.39
13OCm
16 2 rows 380m away 22,500 9.19 9.23 9.53 9.23 9.29
17 2 rows 50cm away 45,000 8.60 8.59 8.63 8.50 8.58
18 2 rows 50cm away 22,500 9.32 9.24 9.22 9.60 9.34
19 7500 Monocropping maize 22,500 9.30 8.07 9.34 10.50 9.30
20 75cm.Monocropping maize 45,000 9.01 9.57 9.16 9.24 9.24

 

APPENDIX J

96

MAIZE GRAIN PERCENT OIL IN ASSOCIATION WITH SOYABEAN

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRERBKENT
Distanceof Maize REPLICATIONS
Spa- soyabean rows density DEAN
No. cing fr00 maize rows (pI/ha) I II III IV (95)
1 , 2 rows 17cm away 45,000 4.13 4.09 4.01 4.07 4.07
2 2 rows 1700 away 22,600 4.22 4.18 4.17 4.16 4.18
3 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 4.03 4.05 4.02 3.96 4.01
7500
4 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 4.06 4.02 4.12 3.85 4.01
5 1 row 37.500 away 45,000 4.22 4.19 4.05 4.05 4.13
6 1 row 37.5cm away 22,500 4.12 3.92 3.85 3.87 3.94
7 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 4.00 3.77 4.03 4.01 3.95
8 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 4.12 4.15 4.10 4.00 4.09
9 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 4.01 3.91 3.88 3.86 3.91
10000
10 2 rows 3800 away 22,500 4.11 4.05 4.00 3.82 3.99
11 1 row 50cm away 45,000 4.22 4.01 4.14 3.99 4.09
12 1 row 50cm away 22,500 3.97 4.03 3.93 3.88 3.95
13 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 4.04 4.07 3.99 3.88 3.99
14 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 4.01 3.92 3.98 3.98 3.97
15 2 rows 3800 away 45,000 4.13 4.01 3.98 3.99 4.03
13000 a

16 2 rows 38cm away 22,500 4.17 4.15 3.88 4.03 4.06
17 2 rows 5000 away 45,000 4.10 4.22 4.04 4.14 4.12
18 2 rows 5000 away 22,500 4.02 3.98 4.11 3.94 4.01
19 7500 anocropping maize 22,500 3.75 3.96 4.04 3.97 3.93
20 7500 Monocropping maize 45,000 4.12' 3.89 4.06 4.01 4.02

 

APPENDIX K

97

Soyabean seed yield per hectare in association with.maize.

TREHDKENT

Distance of

Maize

IJ'RLEPLICATIONS‘T

 

 

 

 

 

Spa- soyabean rows density _. MEAN
No. cinggfrom.maize rows (BI/ha) I II III IV’ (kg/ha)
1 2 rows 17cm away 45,000 1043 1033 843 763 920
2 2 rows 17cm away 22,500 1240 1700 1423 1893 1564
3 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 866 766 1133 870 909
4 7500 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 1166 1570 1306 1.123 1291
5 1 row 37.5cm away 45,000 846 513 666 1226 813
6 1 row 37.5cm away 22,500 1676 1400 1306 1406 1447
7 2 rows .25cm away 45,000 850 680 1055 825 852
8 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 1415 1265 1935 1520 1533
9 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 900 1000 975 1585 1115
100cm
10 2 rows 38cm away 22,500 1060 960 1165 1565 1187
11 1 row 5000 away 45,000 1150 650 950 1315 1016
12 1 row 50cm away 22,500 1000 955 1110 845 977
13 2 rows 250m away 45,000 735 655 1035 964 847
14 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 1147 1117 1238 1529 1258
15 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 794 764 691 947 799
130cm
16 2 rows 38cm away 22,500 1011 794 988 1376 1042
17 2 rows 50cm away 45,000 582 735 764 1255 834
18 2 rows 5000 away 22,500 1076 826 958 1447 1077
19 75cm.Sole crop soyabean 300,000 3000 2333 2943 1862 2535

 

Soyabean seed percent protein in association with maize.

'I‘REA'INEIN'I'
Distance of

APPENDIX L

Maize

98

REPLIEATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

Spa- soyabean rows density _ MEAN
No. cing from maize rows (pl/ha) I II III IV (is)
1 2 rows 17cm away 45,000 39.73 37.36 39.29 36.88 38.31
2 2 rows 17cm away 22,500 38.46 38.97 37.70 36.61 37.93
3 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 39.07 36.86 37.68 39.34 38.24
4 75cm2rows 2500 away 22,500 38.78 36.76 38.63 38.47 38.16
5 1 row 37.5cm away 45,000 36.88 37.40 39.55 36.15 37.49
6 1 row 37.5cm away 22,500 35.66 36.68 36.48 36.82 36.41
7 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 38.56 39.47 35.56 39.36 38.24
8 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 39.02 38.60 36.53 36.98 37.78
9 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 39.64 36.44 36.94 37.09 37.53
10 loocmzrcws 3800 away 22,500 37.40 37.61 38.56 37.90 37.87
11 1 row 50cm away 45,000 36.84 39.90 36.49 36.97 37.55
12 1 row 50cm away 22,500 34.80 37.17 36.17 36.82 36.24
13 2rows 256m away 45,000 38.87 38.17 39.59 38.49 38.78
14 2 rows 25cm away 22,500 37.74 36.83 37.58 36.78 37.23
15 2 rows 38cm away 45,000 39.29 36.78 38.53 38.58 38.29
16 130cm2 rows 38cm away 22,500 38.56 37.75 38.25 35.78 37.58
17 2 rows 50cm away 45,000 39.91 37.83 38.88 37.35 38.49
18 2 rows 50cm away 22,500 37.13 36.90 37.79 36.70 37.13
19 7500 Sole crop soyabean 300,000 35.84 36.58 36.02 36.34 36.19

 

APPENDIX M

99

Soyabean seed percent oil in association with maize.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TREATMENT
Distanceof Maize REPLICATIONS
Spa- soyabean rows density ME‘AN

No. cing fr00 maize rows (pl/ha) I II III IV (8)

1 2 rows 1700 away 45,000 18.20 19.12 18.19, 19.01 18.63
2 2 rows 1700 away 22,500 18.94 18.26 18.60 18.86 18.66
3 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 18.30 18.95 18.35 17.89 18.37
4 75cm 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 18.71 18.63 18.35 18.63 18.58
5 1 row 37.500 away 45,000 18.31 19.11 18.12 18.80 18.58
6 1 row 37.500 away 22,500 19.06 18.72 18.79 18.88 18.86
7' 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 18.16 18.12 19.16 18.43 18.47
8 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 18.50 18.48 19.36 18.82 18.79
9 2 rows 3800 away 45,000 17.98 19.12 18.65 18.21 18.49
10 10000 2 rows 3800 away 22,500 18.40 18.65 18.49 18.82 18.59
11 1 row 5000 away 45,000 18.56 17.96 18.80 18.05 18.34
12 1 row 5000 away 22,500 19.53 18.57 18.80 18.43 18.83
13 2 rows 25cm away 45,000 18.40 17.81 18.47 17.93 18.15
14 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 18.65 18.79 18.85 19.11 18.85
15 2 rows 3800 away 45,000 17.96 19.21 18.38 18.23 18.44
16 1300“ 2 rows 3800 away 22,500 18.25 18.89 18.33 19.10 18.64
17 2 rows 5000 away 45,000 17.70 18.60 18.92 18.72 18.48
18 2 rows 5000 away 22,500 18.48 19.27 18.71 18.84 18.82
19 7500 Sole cr0p soyabean 300,000 19.35 19.62 19.84 19.33 19.53

 

APPENDIX N

100

Maize-Soyabean Land equivalent ratios (LER) .

TREATMENT

Distance of

Maize

R E P L I C A.T I O N S

 

 

 

 

 

Spa- soyabean rows density MEAN
No. cing fr00 maize rows (pl/ha) I II III IV (%)
1 2 rows 1700 away 45,000 .90 1.03 1.08 .93 .98
2 2 rows 1700 away 22,500 .84 1.21 1.11 1.17 1.08
3 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 .84 1.17 .87 .95 .96
7500
4 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 .72 1.29 .90 .77 .92
5 1 row 37.500 away 45,000 1.23 1.11 .84 1.35 1.14
6 1 row 37.500 away 22,500 .83 1.55 1.12 1.04 1.13
7 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 .70 .93 1.02 1.10 .94
8 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 .84 1.06 1.16 1.03 1.02
9 2 rows 3800 away 45,000 .82 1.40 1.07 1.13 1.10
10000
10 2 rows 3800 away 22,500 .72 1.07 1.06 1.09 .98
11 1 row 5000 away 45,000 1.11 .96 1.02 1.31 1.10
12 1 row 5000 away 22,500 .96 1.06 1.04 .92 .99
13 2 rows 2500 away 45,000 .73 .88 1.14 1.17 .98
14 2 rows 2500 away 22,500 .96 1.25 .98 1.12 1.08
15 2 rows 3800 away 45,000 .83 1.29 .80 1.02 .98
13000
16 2 rows 3800 away 22,500 .66 .94 .78 1.10 .87
17 2 rows 5000 away 45,000 .64 1.37 .91 1.31 1.06
18 2 rows 5000 away 22,500 .97 1.10 1.01 1.09 1.04
19 7500 Monocropping maize 45,000 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
20 7500 Sole crop soyabean 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

300,000 1.00

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agboola, A. A., and A. A. Fayemi.
1971. Preliminary trials on the intercropping of maize
with different tropical legumes in Western Nigeria.
J. Agr. Sci. 77:219-225.

Agboola, A. A., and A. A. Fayemi.
1972 Fixation and excretion of nitrogen by trOpical
legumes.
Agron. J. 64:409-412.

Ahmed, S.
1976. Studies on intercropping with grain legumes -
A review of inputs III trial.
East-West Centre, pp. 239-248.

Ahmed, S. and H. P. M. Gunasena.
1979. N utilization and economics of some intercropped
systems in tropical countries.
Trop. Agr. 56(2):115-123.

Aiyer, A. K. Y. N.
1949. Mixed cropping in India.
Indian J. Agr. Sci. 19:439-543

Alexander, M. W. and C. F. Center.
1962 Production of corn and soyabeans in alternate
pairs of rows. '
Agron. J. 54:233-235.

Altieri, M. A., C. A. Francis, A. Van Schoonhoven and J.
1978 D. Doll.
A review of insect prevalence in maize and beans
poly-cultural systems.
Field CrOps Res. 1:33-49.

Andrews, D. J.

1972. IntercrOpping with sorghum in Nigeria.
Exp. Agr. 8:139-150.

101

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

102

Andrews, D. J. and A. H. Kassam.
1976 The importance of multiple crOpping in
» increasing world supplies.
pp. 1-10. In Papendick, R. I., R. A. Sanchez,
and G. B. Triplett (eds.). Multiple cropping.
Am. Soc. Agron., Madison, Wis.

Beets, W. C.

1975. Multiple cropping practices in Asia and the Far
East.
Agr. Environm. 2:219-228.

Bernard, R. I.
1975. Soybeans in the PeOples Republic of China.
Soybean News 26(2):1—4

Brown, H. B.
1935. Effect of soybeans on corn yields.
Louisiana Agr. Exp. Stat. Bul. 265, 31pp.

CIAT, Cali, Colombia.
1975. Annual report pp. 60-62.

CIAT, Cali, Colombia.
1978. Annual report pp. 40-45.

CIMMYT, Batan, Mexico.
1972. Annual report pp. 139-143.

COpeland, L. O.
1976. Principles of seed science and technology.
Burgess Publishing Company, pp. 38-39.

Crookston, R. K.
1976. Intercropping - a new version of and old idea.
Crops and Soils Magazine, 28(9):7—9.

Crookston, R. K. and D. S. Hill
1979. Grain yields and land equivalent ratios from
intercropping corn and soyabeans in Minnesota.
Agron. J. 71:41-44.

Dalal, R. C.
1974. Effects of intercrOpping maize with pigeon peas
on grain yield and nutrient uptake.
Exp. Agr. 10:219-224.

Desir, S. and A. M. Pinchinat.
1976. Tipo Y poblacion en cultivo asociado
maiz-frijol.
Turrialba 26(3):237-240.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

103

Donald, C. M.
1963. Competition among crop and pasture plants.
Advances in Agronomy 15:1-118.

Dzhumalieva, D.

1967. The effect of fertilizers and of sugar sorghum/
soyabeans ratio in mixed cropping on the growth
and chemical composition of their roots.

Field Crop Abstr. 20:951.

Edje, O. T., L. K. Mughogho and Y. P. Rao.
1979. Effects of intercropping maize and beans on
yield. Paper presented at "Symposium on Grain
Legume Improvement in Eastern Africa", Nairobi,
Kenya.

Enyi, B. A. C.

1973. Effects of intercropping maize or sorghum with
cowpeas, pigeon peas or beans.
Exp. Agr. 9:83-90.

FAO
1977. Food legumes: distribution, adaptability and
biology of yield. ‘
ppol_124o

Fisher, N. M.

1976. Experiments with maize-bean and maize-potato
mixed crOps in an area with two short rainy
seasons in the Highlands of Kenya.

(In) J. H. Monyo, A. D. R. Ker, and M.
Campbell, Ottawa, IDRC, pp. 72.

Fisher, N. M.
1977. Studies in mixed cropping. I. Seasonal dif-
- ferences in relative productivity of crop mix-
tures and pure stands in the Kenya Highlands.
Exp. Agr. 13:177-184.

Fisher, N. M.
1977. Studies in mixed cropping. II. Population
pressures in maize-bean mixtures.
Exp. Agr. 13:185-191.

Francis, C. A., C. A. Flor, and S. R. Temple.
1976. Adapting varieties for intercropping systems in
the tropics.
(In) Amer. Soc. Agron, Spec. Publ. No. 27, pp.
235-253.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

104

Francis, C. A., C. A. Flor, and Prages.
1977. Fitotecnia latinoamericana.
(In) Donald C. L. Kass (ed.), Polyculture
cropping systems: Review and analysis, p. 45.

Francis, C. A., C. A. Flor, and M. Prager
1978. Effects of bean association on yields and yield
components of maize.
Crop Sc. 18:760-764.

Francis, C. A.
1978. Multiple cropping potential of beans and maize.
Hort. Sci. 13(1):12—17.

Francis, C. A., S. R. Temple, C. A. Flor, and C. O.
Grogan. '
1978. Effects of competition on yield and dry matter
distribution in maize.
Field Crops Res. 1:51-63.

Fred, E. B., I. L. Baldwin, and E. M. Coy.
1932. Root nodule bacteria and leguminous plants.
Univ. of Wise. Studies in Science 5, pp. 343.

Freyman, S. and J. Venkateswarlu.
1977. Intercropping on rainfed red soils of the Decan
Plateau, India.
Can. J. Plant Sci. 57:697-705.

Galal, S., L. Hindi, M. M. F. Abdalla and A. A.
Metwally.
1979. Soyabean and corn yields under different
intercropping patterns.
World Soyabean Res. Conf. II Abstr., p. 69.

Garcia, J. M. and A. M. Pinchinat.
1976. Produccion asociada de maiz Y soya a diferentes
densidades de siembra.
Turrialba 26(4):409-411.

Gerard, B. M.
1976. Measuring plant density effects on insect pests
in intercropped maize-cowpeas.
(In) J. H. Monyo, A. D. R. Ker, and M. Campbell
(eds.). Intercropping in semi-arid.
Ottawa, IDRC, 72 pp.

Gorlitz, H.

1963. Growing green fodder-maize/field bean mixtures.
Field Crop Abstr. 16:1690.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

105

Guerrero, C. V. P.

1977. Identification and stability analysis of traits
important to yield of beans in associated
culture. Ph.D.Thesis, Michigan State
University, 61 pp.

Hall, R. L.

1974. Analysis of the nature of interference between
plants of different species. 1. Concepts and
extension of the de Wit analysis to examine
effects.

Aust. J. Agr. Res. 25:739-747.

Hamblin, J., J. G. Rowell and R. Redden.
1976. Selection for mixed cropping.
Euphytica, 25:97-106.

Hart, R. D.

1975(a). A bean, corn and manioc polyculture cropping
system. I. The effects of interspecific com-
petition on crop yield.

Turrialba 25(3):294-301.

Hart, R. D. 1
1975(b). A bean, corn and manioc polyculture cropping
system. II. A comparison between the yield and
economic return from monoculture and poly-
culture crOpping systems.
Turrialba 25(4):377-384.

Henderson, J. L. and R. 0. Davies.
1955. The yield and composition of mixed cereal-
1egume crops at different stages of growth.

Exp. Agr. 23(90):131—144.

Howell, R. W.
1962. What happens to the energy of soyabeans and
corn? Better Crops with Plant Food 21(8):4-5.

Huxley, P. A. and Z. Maingu.

1978. Use of a systemic Spacing design as an aid to
the study of intercrOpping: Some general
considerations.

Exp. Agr. 14:49-56.

Hymowitz, T., J. W. Dudley, F. L. Collins, and C. M.
Brown.

1974. Estimation of protein and oil concentrations in
corn, soyabean and oat seed by near-infrared
light.

Crop. Sci. 14:713-715.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

106

IITA.
1975. Agronomy systems.
Annual report for 1974, 199 pp.

IRRI.
1973. Multiple cropping.
Annual report for 1972, pp. 21-34.

IRRI.
1974. Multiple crOpping.
Annual report for 1973, pp. 15-34.

IRRI.
1975. Cropping systems.
Annual report for 1974, pp. 323-347.

IRRI.
1976. Annual report for 1975.

Jana, R. K. and V. M. Sekao.

1976. Effect of crop combinations and planting con—
figurations on the growth and yield of
soyabeans, millet, and sorghum in
intercrOpping.

(In) J. H. Monyo, A. D. R. Ker and M. Campbell
(eds). Intercropping in semi-arid.
Ottawa, IDRC, 72 pp.

Johnston, T. J., J. W. Pendleton, D. B. Peters, and D.
R. Hicks.

1969. Influence of supplemental light on apparent
photosynthesis, yield and yield components of
soyabeans.

Crop Sci. 14:728-731.

Kalaidzhieva, S. .
1971. Results of intercropping maize and soyabean.
Field Crop. Abstr. 24:265.

Kass, D. C. L.
1978. Polyculture cropping systems: Review and
analysis.
Cornell International Agr. Bul. 32, 67 pp.

Kaurov, I. A. and T. A. Budkevitch.

1973. Kinetics of mineral nutrients in oats and peas
in pure and mixed stands during growth and
development.

Field Crop Abstr. 27(4):1662.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

107

Kayumbo, H. Y.
1976. Pest control in mixed cropping systems.
(In) J. H. Monyo, A. D. R. Ker, and M. Campbell
(eds.). IntercrOpping in semi-arid.

Kayumbo, H. Y., R. C. Finlay, and S. A. Doto.
1976. Effect of spraying on yield of cowpeas grown in
monoculture and under maize, sorghum or millet.
(In) J. H. Monyo, A. D. R. Ker and M. Campbell
(eds.). Intercropping in semi-arid.
Ottawa, IDRC, 72 pp.

Kellerman, K., and R. C. Wright.
1914. Mutual influence of certain crOps in relation
to nitrogen. Agron. J. 6:204-210.

Khristozov, A.

1965. Concerning the growth and production features
of the Ohio C-92 maize hybrid and certain soya
varieties, grown as mixed crOps.

Field Crop. Abstr. 18:1904.

Kiswani, C. L., T. H. M. Kibani and M. S. Chowdhury.
1977. Effect of intercropping on rhizosphere pOpula-
tion in maize and soyabean.
Agr. Environm. 3:363-368.

Koli, S. E.
1975. Pure cropping and mixed cropping of maize and
groundnuts in Ghana.
Ghana Int. Agr. Sci. 8:23-30.

Lipman, J. G.
1912. The associative growth of legumes and
non-legumes. New Jersey Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul.
253, 48 pp.

Latham, M.
1971. Human nutrition in tropical Africa.
Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome.

Madhok, R. M.
1940. Associations of legumes and non-legumes.
Soil Sci. 49:419-429.

Mann, J. D. and E. D. Jawanski.
1970. Comparison of stress which limit soyabean
yeilds.
Crop. Sci. 10:620-624.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

108

Moga, I., and H. Slusanschi.

1965. Contributions to the study of intercalary crOps
of silo maize and soyabeans under the Baragan
plain conditions.

Field CrOp Abstr. 18:96.

Monvo, J. H., A. D. R. Ker and M. Campbell (eds.)
1976. IntercrOpping in semi-arid.
Ottawa, IDRC, 72 pp.

Mukubi, J.
1976. Possible relationship between intercropping and
plant disease problems in Uganda.
(In) J. H. Monvo, A. D. R. Ker and M. Campbell
(eds.). Intercroping in semi-arid.
Ottawa, IDRC, 72 pp. '

Nicol, H. z
1934. The derivation of the nitrogen of crOp plants
with special reference to associated growth.
Biol. Rev. 9:383-410.

Nowotnowna, A.
1937. An investigation of nitrogen uptake in mixed
crops not receiving nitrogenous manures.
J. Agr. Sci. 27:504-510.

Oizumi, H.
1964. Studies on the mechanism of branching and its
agronomic considerations in soyabean plants.
Field Crop. Abstr. 17:1481.

Osiru, D. S. 0., and R. W. Willey.
1972. Studies on mixtures of dwarf sorghum and beans
with particular reference to plant population.
J. Agr. Sci. 79:531-540.

Papendick, R. I., P. A. Sanchez and G. B. Triplett
(eds.).
1976. Multiple cropping.

ASA Special publication No. 27, 378 pp.

Pendleton, J. W., C. M. Brown, and R. O. Wiebel.
1965. Effect of reflected light on small grain
yields.
CrOp Sci. 5:373.

Pinchinat, A. M., J. Soria, and R. Bazan.
1976. Multiple cropping in tropical America.
(In) R. I. Papendick, P. A. Sanchez, and G. B.
Triplett (eds.). Multiple Cropping.
ASA Special publication No. 27:51-61.

79.

80.

81.

82.

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

109

Reddy, N. N. and B. N. Chatterjee.
1973. Intercropping of sovabean and rice.
Indian J. Agron. 18:464-472.

Richardson, D. A., D. C. Joran, and E. H. Gerard.
1957. The influence of combined nitrogen on nodula-
tion and nitrogen fixation by Rhizobium
melilotti.
Can. J. Plant Sci. 37:205-214.

Santa-Cecilia, F. C and C. Vieira.

1978. Associated cropping of beans and maize. I.
Effects of bean cultivars with different growth
habits.

Turrialba 28(1):19-23.
Sastrawinata, S. E.

1976. Nutrient uptake, insect, disease, labour use
and productivity characteristics of selected
traditional intercropping patterns which
together affect their continued use by farmers.
Ph.D. thesis. Univ. of Phillippines, Los
Banos, 130 pp.

Schiling, R. -
1965. (In) Donald C. L. Kass. Polyculture cropping
systems: Review and analysis.
Cornell Intl. Agr. Bul. No. 32, 69. pp.

Singh, J. N., P. S. Negi, and S. K. Tripathi.
1973. Study on the intercropping of soyabean with
maize and jowar.
Indian J. Agron, 18:75-78.

Singh, R. D., and P. Chand.
1969. Intercropping of maize with forage legumes.
Indian J. Agron. 14:67-70.

Son, 8. J., and K. Y. Chung.

1971. Effect of intercropping of sorgo (Andropogon
sorhum var. saccharatus K.) and soyabeans
(G1yc1ne max M.) on growth yield and qualities
of'two crops. Field Crop Abstr. 24(1):389.

 

 

Soria, J., R. Bazan, A. M. Pinchinat, G. Paez, N.
Mateo, R. Moreno, T. Fergusona and W. Forsythe.
1975. (In) Donald C. L. Kass. Polyculture cropping
Contr. Ctr. Res. Insti. Agric. Bogor 12:1-13.

Thatcher, L. E.
1925. The soybean in Ohio.
Ohio Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 384, 68 pp.

91. Thompson, D. R., J. H. Monyo and R. C. Finlay.
1976. Effect of maize height differences in the
growth and yield of intercrOpped soyabeans.
(In) J. H. Monyo, A. D. R. Ker and M. Campbell
(eds.). Intercropping in semi-arid.
Ottawa, IDRC, 72 pp.

92. Trenbath, B. R.
1974. Biomass productivity of mixtures.
Adv. in Agron. 26:177-210.

93. Trenbath, B. R.
1976.. Plant interaction in mixed crop communities.
(In) Multiple crOpping.
ASA Special publ. No. 27, 378 pp.

94. Virtanen, A. I., S. Von Hausen and T. Laine.

1937. Investigation on the root nodule bacteria of
leguminous plants. XX. Excretion of nitrogen
in associated cultures of legumes and
non-legumes.

J. Agr. Sci. 27:584-610.

95. Wahua, T. A. T., and D. A. Miller.
1978. Relative yield totals and yield components of
intercrOpped sorghum and soybeans.
Agron, J. 70:287-291.

96. Wahua, T. A. T., and D. A. Miller.

1978. Effects of intercropping on soy bean
N2-fixation and plant composition on associated
sorghum and soyabean.

Agron. J. 70:292-295.

97. Wahua, T. A. T., and D. A. Miller.
1978. Effects of shading on the N2-fixation, yield,
and plant composition of field- -grown soybeans.
Agron. J. 70: 387- 392.

98. Weber, C. R.
1968. Physiological concepts for high soyabean
yields. Field Crop Abstr. 21:313-317.

99. webster, C. C. and P. N.‘Wilson.
1966. Agriculture in the trOpics.
Longmans, London, 488 pp.

100. westgate, J. M. and R. A. Oakley.

1913. Percentage of protein in non-legumes and legu-
mes when grown alone and in association in
field mixtures.

Agron. J. 6:210-215.

10]..

103.

104.

105.

111

Willey, R. W. and D. S. O. Osiru.
1972. Studies on mixtures of maize and beans with
particular reference to plant population.
J. Agr. Sci. 79:519-529.

Willey, R. W.
1979. Intercropping - Its importance and research
needs. 1. Competition and yield advantages.
Field CrOp Abstr. 32(1):1—10.

Willey, R. W.
1979. IntercrOpping - Its importance and research
needs. 2. Agronomy and research approaches.
Field Crop Abstr. 32(2):?3-85.

Wilson, P. W. and J. C. Burton.
1938. Excretion of nitrogen by leguminous plants.
J. Agr. Sci. 28:307-323.

Wilson, P. W.
1940. The biochemistry of symbiotic nitrogen

fixation. Univ. Wisc. Press, Madison, Wis.
302 pp.

"I0110100ES