Production potential and competitive ability of wheat (Triticum aestivum) + Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) intercropping under varying row ratio, farmyard manure and fertilizer level of middle Gangetic Plain of India

RAJESH KUMAR SINGH; UMENDRA SINGH; PRAVIN KUMAR UPADHYAY

doi:10.59797/ija.v61i4.4413

Authors

RAJESH KUMAR SINGH
UMENDRA SINGH
PRAVIN KUMAR UPADHYAY

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v61i4.4413

Keywords:

Competitive indices, Economics, Fertility, Intercropping, Mustard, Row ratio, Wheat

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted during the winter season of 201011 and 201112 at the research farm, In- stitute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, to evaluate the production po- tential and competitive ability of wheat [Triticum aestivum (L.) emend Fiori & Paol.] + Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czernj. & Cosson] intercropping under different row ratios and fertility levels of Middle Gangetic Plains of India. Among the row proportions, 8:1 row proportion recorded significantly higher yield parameters (grains/ spike, spikelets/spike, 1,000-grain weight and yield as well as straw yield in wheat, and number of siliqua/plant and seeds/siliqua of Indian mustard). However, seed and stover yields of Indian mustard was higher in 6 : 2 row ratio which was at par with 8 : 2 and 10 : 2 raw ratios. Significantly higher land-equivalent ratio, aggressivity index and economics were registered with row ratio of 8:1 over 10:2, 8:2, and 6:2. An application of 15% or 30% N through farmyard manure (FYM) + 100% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) significantly enhanced yield at- tributes and yield of wheat and Indian mustard. However, benefit: cost ratio was higher with application 15 % N FYM + 100% RDF.

References

Indian Journal of Agronomy 61 (4): 460 __ 466 (December 2016) Research Paper Production potential and competitive ability of wheat (Triticum aestivum) + Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) intercropping under varying row ratio, farmyard manure and fertilizer level of middle Gangetic Plain of India RAJESH KUMAR SINGH1, UMENDRA SINGH2 AND PRAVIN KUMAR UPADHYAY3 Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221 005 Received : March 2016; Revised accepted : December 2016 ABSTRACT A field experiment was conducted during the winter season of 201011 and 201112 at the research farm, In- stitute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, to evaluate the production po- tential and competitive ability of wheat [Triticum aestivum (L.) emend Fiori & Paol.] + Indian mustard [Brassica juncea (L.) Czernj. & Cosson] intercropping under different row ratios and fertility levels of Middle Gangetic Plains of India. Among the row proportions, 8:1 row proportion recorded significantly higher yield parameters (grains/ spike, spikelets/spike, 1,000-grain weight and yield as well as straw yield in wheat, and number of siliqua/plant and seeds/siliqua of Indian mustard). However, seed and stover yields of Indian mustard was higher in 6 : 2 row ratio which was at par with 8 : 2 and 10 : 2 raw ratios. Significantly higher land-equivalent ratio, aggressivity index and economics were registered with row ratio of 8:1 over 10:2, 8:2, and 6:2. An application of 15% or 30% N through farmyard manure (FYM) + 100% recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) significantly enhanced yield at- tributes and yield of wheat and Indian mustard. However, benefit: cost ratio was higher with application 15 % N FYM + 100% RDF_CIT_ Key words : Competitive indices, Economics, Fertility, Intercropping, Mustard, Row ratio, Wheat Intercropping is an advanced agro-technique and is considered to be an effective and potential means of in- creasing crop productivity, particularly for farmers having marginal and small holdings. It provides an efficient utili- zation of environmental resources, decreases the cost of production, provides higher financial stability for farmers, decreases the pest damage, inhibits weeds growth more than monocultures, and improves soil fertility through fer- tilizers and increase yield and quality (Francis et al., 1976; Willey, 1979). Substantial increase in total production over space and time not by means of costly inputs but by simple expedient of growing crops together are the unique advan- tage associated with intercropping, mainly micro-climatic manipulation is shown to be appreciably more limited in sole cropping than in intercropping (Stigter and Baldy, 1995)_CIT_In India, wheat with Indian mustard intercropping is an 3Corresponding author Email: [email protected] 1Assistant Professor, 2Research Scholar, Department of Agronomy; Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh 221 005; 3Scientist, Division of Agronomy, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012 old and important cropping system under both irrigated and rainfed conditions. Growing cereals with pulses and oilseeds endowed with varying rooting depth and growth pattern help better extraction of soil moisture and nutrients from different soil profile. Further, increased water and nutrient efficiency. It is also known to intercept more so- lar energy and give comparatively higher yield stability and insurance during aberrant weather conditions than sole crops (Willey, 1979; Sinha et al., 1985; Mandal and Mahapatra, 1990)_CIT_Intercropping of wheat with Indian mustard is ecologi- cally suitable, economically viable, operationally feasible and socially acceptable cropping system during the winter season in India (Ghoniskar and Shinde, 1994). The coun- try still is presently surplus in the production of wheat but in spite of quantum jump in oilseed production during the last two decades, its production is not sufficient to meet countrys growing demands for edible oil. This is attrib- uted to improvement in standard of living with better pur- chasing power of people because of better economic growth as well as the high growth rate of Indian popula- tion. Mixed cropping of Indian mustard with wheat is very common in eastern Uttar Pradesh which is one of the ma-December 2016] PERFORMANCE OF WHEAT+INDIAN MUSTARD INTERCROPPING 461 jor causes of low productivity of Indian mustard in the region. The reason might be use of improper proportion of the component crops_CIT_In intercropping system, the competition between main and subsidiary crops depends on the maturity periods, rooting pattern, canopy spread and plant habit etc. of the component crops (Singh and Gupta, 1994). It has been proved beyond doubt that in wheat + Indian mustard inter- cropping, the competition offered by Indian mustard is much higher than wheat. However, it can be altered to some extent by modification of row proportion for higher yield advantages and also by proper nutrient management (Verma et al., 1997; Srivastava and Bohra, 2006). Realiz- ing the importance of these facts, the present investigation were therefore, conducted to assess production potential and competitive interaction of wheat + Indian mustard in- tercropping with under different row ratios and fertility levels of Middle Gangetic Plain of India_CIT_METHODS AND MATERIALS The experiment was conducted during the winter (rabi) season of 201011 and 201112 at the Agricultural Re- search Farm, Department of Agronomy, Institute of Agri- cultural Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi (25 18' N and 83 03' E, 128.93 m above mean sea-level), Uttar Pradesh. The soil was sandy clay loam (Order Inceptisol, Type Ustochrept). The pH of soil was 7.12, with low organic carbon 0.40% and available N, P and K 181.5, 18.32, and 208.43 kg/ha respectively. The experi- ment was laid out in a split-plot design, comprising 4 ra- tios (10 : 2, 8 : 2, 8 : 1 and 6 : 2) of wheat + Indian mus- tard intercropping in replacement series. Each main plot was divided into 4 sub-plots with 2 doses each of farmyard manure (15% N and 30% N) and fertilizer doses (75%, 100% recommended N, P and K to wheat and Indian mus- tard crop). The sole Indian mustard (cv. Vardan) was sown at a recommended seed rate of 4 kg/ha. The recom- mended N, P and K dose to wheat and Indian mustard were 120 N, 60 P O and 60 K O kg/ha respectively. Two 2 5 2 separate plots of sole wheat and sole Indian mustard were also raised for the estimation of sole crop yield indices_CIT_Accordingly, 16 treatment combinations were formed along with 2 sole crops of wheat and Indian mustard. Fer- tilizer application to the pure crops of wheat and Indian mustard was done at 100% of their recommended dose_CIT_However, full doses of P K along with 50% N were ap- , plied as basal to wheat and Indian mustard in sole as well as to intercrop. However, in wheat crop, remaining N was applied in 2 equal splits at crown-root initiation and maxi- mum tillering stages. Fertilizers used were urea, single superphosphate (SSP), muriate of potash (MoP). The crops were sown in the last week of November during both the years with 120 and 4 kg seed/ha for HUW 234 wheat and Vardan Indian mustard respectively. The ex- perimental plot size was 22.95 m2, being 7.65 m in length and 3.0 m in width. Weekly weather data were recorded at the experimental site from the meteorological observatory, Department of Agronomy, Institute of Agricultural Sci- ences_CIT_Yield parameters like number of spike-bearing tillers was counted at maturity from randomly selected 0.25 m row length at 5 locations in net plot area. Length of 10 randomly selected spikes in each sample plants of running 0.25 m was measured with scale from the neck node to the tip of the spike. Finally, the average value of spike length was computed in centimeter. Ten spikes selected randomly for the measurement of spike length at 5 places in each plot were counted for number of spikelet present in each spike and the mean was computed. In Indian mustard, siliqua/plant were determined by counting the total num- ber of siliqua on 5 tagged plants and averaging them_CIT_Seeds/siliqua were counted from 10 random 5 selected plants. One thousand seeds were counted and dried and then weight was recorded treatment-wise in g. The seed yield of net plot after cleaning and proper drying was re- corded in g and converted to kg/ha by multiplying with appropriate conversion factor. After threshing, stem and chaff weight per plot were recorded and added treatment- wise and converted to kg/ha. Grain or seed-yield index was calculated according to Singh and Gupta (1994) where sole stand of wheat or Indian mustard was taken as 100_CIT_Cost of cultivation, gross and net returns under differ- ent treatments were worked out on the basis of prevailing cost of different inputs. Power and labour for different operations, i.e. ploughing, harvesting, sowing, weeding, plant protection, harvesting and threshing were calculated per hectare basis as per normal rates prevalent at the Ag- ricultural Research Farm, BHU, and Varanasi. The cost of fertilizers, plant-protection chemicals and seeds etc. were taken from the market rates. Net return ( /ha) and benefit: cost ratio were calculated_CIT_Land equivalent ratio (LER) and aggressivity index were also calculated for assessing the yield advantage and competition systems The data pertaining to each of the characters of the ex- perimental crops were tabulated and finally analyzed sta- tistically. Analysis of variance for split-plot design was worked out as per the standard procedure given by Cochran and Cox (1957) and the significance was tested by F test. Treatment mean differences were separated and tested by Fishers protected least significant difference (LSD) at a significance level of P0.05.462 SINGH ET AL. [Vol. 61, No. 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 201112 94.7 70.9 77.3 85.5 - - 75.4 85.7 78.0 89.2 - - 100.0 82.1 - - Grain yield index (%) 201011 92.8 70.4 76.9 85.3 - - 74.2 85.4 77.2 88.6 - - 100.0 81.3 - - Effect of weather The meteorological data showed marked variation in weather conditions during both the years. Precipi- tation recorded during crop-growing season was 22.1 and 46.2 mm in 201011 and 201112 respectively_CIT_Consequently during the first year of experimenta- 201112 73 252 67 196 137 393 tion, amount of precipitation was distributed un- Straw yield (kg/ha) 5,627 4,405 4,634 5,258 4,665 5,135 4,796 5,328 5,971 4,981 equally and fluctuated variably high during crop- growing period as compared to the second year where the equally distribution of precipitation was occurred. Similarly, the average temperature during 201011 4,105 4,334 4,958 74 255 4,340 4,810 4,471 5,003 57 166 5,671 4,656 121 348 5,227 Table 1. Effect of row ratio and fertility levels on yield attributes and grain and straw yields of wheat in wheat + Indian mustard intercropping Treatment 201112 Row ratio (Wheat: Indian mustard) 3,265 3,557 3,938 64 222 Fertility level 3,474 3,948 3,591 4,106 58 170 Sole vs. intercrop 4,602 3,780 115 332 February and March, coinciding with the reproduc- tive stages of the component crops, remained milder Grain yield (kg/ha) 4,358 3,165 3,457 3,838 3,338 3,841 3,471 3,983 4,495 3,658 during the second year than the first. During the first year, an average evapotranspiration was higher than second year. This resulted in a slightly better perfor- mance of the crops during 201112 than during 201011 4,174 66 228 59 172 117 337 20102011_CIT_ Yield attributes and yields of component crops 1,000-seed weight (g) 201112 37.50 39.32 40.85 0.40 1.39 36.74 43.06 37.04 43.95 0.39 1.14 42.22 40.20 1.90 5.47 Grains/spike, spikelets/spike and 1,000-grain 43.12 weight in wheat + Indian mustard intercropping sys- tem were found significantly lower than sole stand of wheat (Table 1). The significantly higher (grains/ 201011 42.11 36.77 38.51 39.93 0.39 1.36 35.94 42.14 36.24 43.00 0.38 1.12 41.23 39.33 1.86 5.35 RDF, Recommended dose of fertilizer (120 N; 60 P O ; 60 K O kg/ha); NS, Non-significant spike, spikelets/spike and 1,000-grain weight, grain yield and straw yield of wheat, and siliquae/plant, seed/siliqua, 1,000-grain weight of Indian mustard in 201112 16.69 14.11 14.94 15.77 0.24 0.82 14.10 16.53 14.17 16.70 0.16 0.48 26.68 15.38 0.62 1.78 wheat + Indian mustard intercropping were recorded Spikelets/spike 0.23 0.81 0.16 0.47 0.61 1.77 at 8:1 row ratio, which was followed by 10:2, 8:2 and 6:2 row ratios except Indian mustard seed yield and stover yield were maximum in 6:2 row ratio and re- 201011 16.64 14.08 14.91 15.73 14.06 16.50 14.14 16.66 26.60 15.34 2 mained at par with 8 : 2 row ratio. This could be as- cribed to the inter-generic competition between the component crops for possible under and above- ground resources, viz. space, nutrients, moisture. 201112 5 These results support the finds of Sharma et al. 0.70 2.42 0.59 1.71 52.50 40.77 1.23 3.54 2 46.41 35.95 38.93 41.79 38.48 42.11 39.53 42.96 Grain/spike (1986); Singh et al. (1995) and Srivastava et al_CIT_(2006)_CIT_201011 43.78 34.91 37.43 39.80 0.63 2.18 36.79 40.26 37.79 41.07 0.56 1.63 49.07 38.98 1.15 3.32 The fertility doses from 15% N by FYM + 75% RDF to 30% N by FYM + 100% RDF applied to wheat and Indian mustard correspondingly (wheat, viz. grains/spike, spikelets/spike and 1,000-grain SEm CD (P=0.05) 15% N by FYM + 75% RDF 15% N by FYM + 100% RDF 30% N by FYM + 75% RDF 30% N by FYM + 100% RDF SEm CD (P=0.05) Sole (Control) Intercrop SEm CD (P=0.05) weight, grain yield and straw yield and mustard, viz_CIT_siliquae/plant, seeds/siliqua, 1,000-grain weight, seed yield and stover yield) of wheat and mustard inter- cropping. Among the fertility doses, (grains/spike, spikelets/spike and 1,000-grain weight, grain yield and straw yield of wheat siliquae/plant, seeds/siliqua, 1,000-grain weight, seed yield and stover yield of 8 : 1 6 : 2 8 : 2 10 : 2 Indian mustard were significantly higher at 30% N by FYM + 100% RDF than the other treatments, exceptDecember 2016] PERFORMANCE OF WHEAT+INDIAN MUSTARD INTERCROPPING 463 treatment 15% N by FYM + 100% RDF which 201112 37.1 50.3 45.1 43.4 - - 37.4 47.0 40.8 50.8 - - 100 44.0 - - Seed yield index (%) 201011 35.7 51.2 46.3 42.5 - - 37.3 46.8 40.8 50.7 - - 100 43.9 - - was at par during both the years_CIT_Examination of the data indicated the adverse effect of Indian mustard on wheat under the dif- ferent row combinations. Grain-yield index in- creased with the increasing wheat proportion. On the contrary, the lowest grain-yield index was re- corded at the highest Indian mustard proportion 201112 97 70 147 423 Stover yield (kg/ha) 201011 335 203 3,152 3,868 3,719 3,668 3,256 3,796 3,403 3,952 7,356 3,602 on area basis when 2 rows of Indian mustard was sown after every 6 rows of wheat. In the inter- cropping, the area under wheat reduced by 25, 20, 18 and 16% respectively, in 6 : 2, 10 : 2, 8 : 2 and 93 61 134 387 2,966 3,620 3,478 3,316 323 2,933 3,624 3,023 3,800 177 7,086 3,445 8 : 1 row ratios. The corresponding yield reduc- tion in wheat yield on per cent wheat grain-yield Table 2. Effect of row ratio and fertility levels on yield attributes yields and stover of mustard in wheat + Indian mustard intercropping Treatment 201112 Row ratio (Wheat: Indian mustard) 783 1,062 951 908 34 117 Fertility level (F) 788 992 861 1,062 30 88 Sole vs. intercrop 2,108 926 60 174 index basis was noted 92.85, 85.37, 76.91 and Seed yield (kg/ha) 697 995 901 826 34 119 727 911 794 988 30 87 1,946 855 61 175 70.40 during the first year and 94.71, 85.54, 77.31 and 70.94 during the second years respec- tively. In mustard crop, seed-yield index de- 201011 creased with every increase in proportion of wheat rows. Accordingly, the seed yield index was maximum with 6 rows of Indian mustard al- 1,000-seed weight (g) 201112 4.00 3.36 3.46 3.59 0.41 NS 2.95 3.91 3.45 4.10 0.30 NS 4.49 3.60 0.65 NS ternated with 2 rows of Indian mustard. Indian Mustard replaced 11.12, 16.67, 20 and 25% area of wheat in 8:1, 10:2, 8:2, and 6:2 row ratio re- spectively, with corresponding seed yield of 201011 3.85 3.29 3.36 3.45 0.40 NS* 2.86 3.79 3.34 3.97 0.30 NS 4.23 3.49 0.63 NS 201112 8 : 1 6 : 2 8 : 2 10 : 2 0.2 1.0 15% N by FYM + 75% RDF 11.9 10.8 12.0 0.1 0.5 16.3 11.3 0.5 1.5 RDF, Recommended dose of fertilizer (120 N; 60 P O ; 60 K O kg/ha); NS, Non-significant 35.73, 42.55, 46.33 and 51.22% during the first years and 37.16, 43.49, 45.12 and 50.38% during the second year, respectively, in comparison to sole stand. It shows that the seed yield of Indian 12.7 10.6 10.9 11.1 10.7 Seeds/siliquae 0.2 0.9 0.1 0.4 0.5 1.5 mustard was proportionately higher than area re- placed. Application of fertilizer doses from 15% 201011 12.1 10.4 10.6 10.7 10.3 11.5 10.4 11.6 15.4 11.0 N by FYM + 75% RDF to 30% N by FYM + 100% RDF applied to wheat correspondingly in- creased grain-yield index of wheat during both 2 the years. In fertilizer doses, grain-yield index was significantly highest at 30% N by FYM + 201112 7.1 6.3 377.7 5 413.3 361.3 364.7 371.7 24.7 364.8 387.1 366.9 392.1 18.4 428.4 12.6 36.4 2 Siliquae/plant 6.0 5.5 100% RDF which was at par with 15% N by FYM + 100% RDF during both the years. How- 201011 21.0 16.0 400.4 360.5 10.9 31.5 ever, the lowest grain-yield index was observed in 389.9 347.4 350.7 354.0 348.1 369.4 350.1 374.2 15% N by FYM + 75% RDF and 30% N by FYM + 75% RDF. Our results confirm those of Srivastava and Bohra (2006)_CIT_ SEm CD (P=0.05) 15% N by FYM + 100% RDF 30% N by FYM + 75% RDF 30% N by FYM + 100% RDF SEm CD (P=0.05) Sole (Control) Intercrop SEm CD (P=0.05) Yield advantage and competitive indices While comparing the different intercrop com- binations, corresponding decrease in wheat LER was noted due to reducing wheat proportion in varying wheat + Indian mustard row ratio. Ac- cordingly, maximum LER was observed un- wheat der 8 : 1 row ratio, which proved significantly superior to 10 : 2, 8 : 2 and 6 : 2 row combina- tions. Similarly, row ratio of 10 : 2 (wheat + In-464 SINGH ET AL. [Vol. 61, No. 4 dian mustard) produced significantly higher wheat LER over 8:2 and 6:2 row ratio. This trend was common during both the years. In spite of that the reverse trend was ob- served in mustard crop. However, wheat + Indian mustard intercropping produced marked variation on total LER during both the years. Row ratios of 8 : 1 and 10 : 2 though remained statistically at par, they recorded signifi- cantly higher LER than 8 : 2 and 6 : 2 row ratios of wheat + Indian mustard intercropping. This might be due to ef- ficient effect of light, moisture and nutrients, besides re- duced competition from taller component (Indian mustard) on shorter component (wheat). Singh and Gupta (1994), Singh and Bohra (2012) and Singh et al. (2014) also re- ported higher yield advantage under wider row ratios of 8 : 1 and 10 : 2 in wheat + Indian mustard intercropping_CIT_Increase in fertility levels from lower to higher mark- edly enhanced the partial LER and partial LER wheat mustard during both the years. The maximum partial LER and wheat partial LER were recorded with the highest levels of mustard fertility (30% FYM with 100% RDF) which was at par with (15% FYM with 100% RDF). However, the lowest was recorded in (15% FYM with 75% RDF). The maxi- mum total LER were recorded with highest levels of fer- tility (30% FYM with 100% RDF) over other fertility doses_CIT_The aggressive nature of Indian mustard, made it more competitive than wheat. The aggressivity of Indian mus- tard was maximum at 8:1 row ratio of wheat + Indian mustard intercropping, followed by 10 : 2, 8 : 2 and 6 : 2 row ratios_CIT_Aggressivity index of Indian mustard in wheat + Indian mustard intercropping enhanced markedly with increasing levels of fertility to Indian mustard causing corresponding decline in these indices for wheat because Indian mustard uptake quickly in compression to wheat. The maximum total LER was observed at highest fertility levels (30% N by FYM + 100% RDF), followed by (15% N by FYM + 100% RDF). These results are in agreement with the find- ings of Srivastava et al. (2007)_CIT_Oil content and oil yield Lucid effect of row ratio was noticed on seed oil con- tent and oil yield of Indian mustard (Fig. 1). Increasing proportion of wheat to mustard rows from 6 : 2, 8 : 2, 10 : 2 and 8 : 1 resulted in concomitant decline in seed oil percentage and the differences among 6 : 2, 10 : 2 and 8 : 1 row ratio was significant. The increased seed yield of Indian mustard from narrow to wider row ratios of wheat and Indian mustard (Table 2) might have resulted in dilu- tion of seed oil content. Singh and Gupta (1994) also re- ported enhanced seed oil content at narrow row ratio. This accompanied with 11.12, 16.67, 20 and 25% Indian mus- tard population respectively in 8 : 1, 10 : 2, 8 : 2 and 6 : 2 row ratio of wheat and Indian mustard, resulted in oil yield in the order 6 : 2 > 8 : 2 >10 : 2 >8 : 1, the differences being significant among three row ratio_CIT_In fertility doses, oil per cent in Indian mustard seeds tend to decrease with the increase in level of fertility up to 30% N by FYM + 100% RDF (Fig. 1). The reduction in oil is due to higher rate of nitrogen appears to be due to Table 3. Effect of row ratio and fertility levels on land-equivalent ratio and aggressivity index of wheat and Indian mustard in wheat + Indian mustard intercropping Treatment Land-equivalent ratio (LER) Aggressivity index Wheat (Lw) Mustard (Lm) Total (Lw+ Lm) Wheat (Awm) Indian mustard 201011 201112 201011 201112 201011 201112 201011 201112 (Amw) 201011 201112 Row ratio (Wheat: Indian mustard) 8 : 1 0.928 0.947 0.357 0.372 1.29 1.32 -2.17 -2.28 2.17 2.28 6 : 2 0.704 0.709 0.512 0.504 1.21 1.21 -1.11 -1.07 1.11 1.07 8 : 2 0.769 0.773 0.463 0.451 1.23 1.22 -1.35 -1.29 1.35 1.29 10 : 2 0.854 0.855 0.426 0.435 1.29 1.29 -1.53 -1.58 1.53 1.58 SEm 0.015 0.015 0.018 0.018 0.02 0.02 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14 CD (P=0.05) 0.051 0.053 0.064 0.062 0.06 0.06 0.46 0.49 0.46 0.49 Fertility level 15% N by FYM + 75% RDF 0.743 0.755 0.373 0.375 1.12 1.13 -1.25 -1.26 1.25 1.26 15% N by FYM + 100% RDF 0.854 0.858 0.468 0.471 1.32 1.33 -1.63 -1.66 1.63 1.66 30% N by FYM + 75% RDF 0.772 0.780 0.408 0.408 1.18 1.19 -1.43 -1.44 1.43 1.44 30% N by FYM + 100% RDF 0.886 0.892 0.508 0.508 1.39 1.40 -1.85 -1.87 1.85 1.87 SEm 0.013 0.013 0.015 0.015 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.08 0.07 0.08 CD (P=0.05) 0.038 0.039 0.042 0.044 0.04 0.05 0.21 0.23 0.21 0.23 RDF, Recommended dose of Fertilizer 120 N; 60 P O ; 60 K O kg/ha; NS, Non-significance 2 5 2December 2016] PERFORMANCE OF WHEAT+INDIAN MUSTARD INTERCROPPING 465 Fig. 1. Effect of row ratio (left) and fertility levels (right) on oil content (%) of Indian mustard in wheat + Indian mustard intercropping conversion of carbohydrates into protein. Maximum oil content was recorded in with 15% N by FYM + 75% RDF which was at par with 30% N by FYM + 75% RDF. How- ever, the reverse trend was observed in oil yield. This could be attributed to the highest seed yield obtained un- der the highest fertility levels, which decreased markedly with every curtailment in fertility levels (Fig. 1). Singh (1983) and Tomer et al. (1996) also obtained higher oil yield with increasing levels of fertility_CIT_Economics In general intercropping of wheat and Indian mustard in 8 : 1 and 10 : 2 row ratios was found more remunera- tive than growing either of the component crops in pure stand as well as wheat + Indian mustard in 6 : 2 row ratio_CIT_Among the 4 row ratios in wheat + Indian mustard inter- cropping, 8 : 1 row ratio recorded the highest gross return and net return, benefit: cost crop productivity and crop profitability closely by 10 : 2 row ratio and both proved remunerative over 8 : 2 and 6 : 2 row ratio during both the years. Nevertheless, the lower yield remained associated with 6:2 row proportion followed by 10 : 2, 8 : 2 and 8 : 1 row ratios. Increase in fertility from lower to higher level markedly increased the net return ( /ha), crop productiv- ity and crop profitability but decreased the benefit: cost ra- tio and due to increased cost of cultivation. Accordingly, Table 4. Effect of row ratio and fertility levels on economics of wheat and mustard in wheat + Indian mustard intercropping Treatment Cost of cultivation ( 103/ha) Gross returns ( 103/ha) 2010- 2011- 11 12 Net returns ( 103/ha) 2010- 2011- 11 12 Benefit: cost ratio 2010- 2011- 11 12 Crop productivity (kg/ha/day) 2010- 2011- 11 12 Crop profitability ( /ha/day) 2010- 2011- 11 12 Row ratio (Wheat: Indian mustard) 8 : 1 27.44 95.13 102.74 67.70 75.31 2.48 2.76 53.09 56.44 589 655 6 : 2 27.14 89.07 94.57 61.93 67.43 2.28 2.49 51.52 53.53 539 586 8 : 2 27.25 90.23 95.27 62.98 68.03 2.32 2.51 51.78 53.45 548 592 10 : 2 27.32 94.72 101.22 67.40 73.90 2.48 2.72 53.30 55.95 586 643 Fertility level 15% N by FYM + 75% RDF 24.60 82.82 88.82 58.23 64.22 2.37 2.61 46.56 48.87 506 558 15% N by FYM + 100% RDF 25.97 97.12 103.28 71.14 77.31 2.74 2.98 55.36 57.83 619 672 30% N by FYM + 75% RDF 28.60 87.06 93.16 58.47 64.56 2.04 2.26 49.33 51.61 508 561 30% N by FYM + 100% RDF 29.97 102.19 108.54 72.18 78.57 2.41 2.62 58.44 61.05 628 683 Sole crop Wheat 22.36 74.65 78.42 52.29 50.00 2.34 2.51 39.09 40.02 682 455 Indian mustard 19.97 69.97 75.32 56.05 55.35 2.50 2.77 52.19 54.82 655 487 Selling price of wheat, 11/kg in 2011 and 11.20/kg in 2012; selling price of wheat straw 4.5/kg in 2010 and 2011; commercial price of Indian mustard 30.50/kg and stover 1.50/kg RDF, Recommended dose of fertilizer466 SINGH ET AL. [Vol. 61, No. 4 application of 30 % N by FYM + 100 % RDF resulted sig- nificantly higher gross returns, net returns and also in- creased cost of cultivation. However, benefit: cost ratio was highest with 15% N by FYM + 100% RDF signifi- cantly_CIT_Thus to achieve higher yield advantage and efficient resources utilization in wheat + Indian mustard intercrop- ping, 8 rows of wheat be taken after every 1 row of Indian mustard and the component crops be fertilized with 15% N by FYM + 100% recommended fertilizer dose_CIT_REFERANCES Cochran, W.G. and Cox, G.M. 1957. Experimental Designs. John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York_CIT_Francis, C.A., Flor, C.A. and Temple, S.R. 1976. Adapting varieties for intercropped systems in the tropics, (In:) Multiple Crop- ping. American Society of Agronomy 27: 23553_CIT_Mandal, B.K. and Mahapatra, S.K. 1990. Barley, lentil and flax un- der different intercropping systems. Agronomy Journal 82: 1,0661,068_CIT_Sharma, K.C., Singh, Y., Gupta, P.C., Bhardwaj, A.K. and Singh, S.P. 1986. Plant population and spatial arrangement in wheat and mustard intercropping. Indian Journal of Agronomy 31(2): 154157_CIT_Singh, A.K., Singh, R.K. and Singh, U. 2014. Production potential and competitive indices of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) based intercropping with wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris L.) under different row ratios of eastern Uttar Pradesh. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Sci- ence 60(2): 225237_CIT_Singh, A.K. and Bohra, J.S. 2012. Competitive indices of wheat + compact-mustard intercropping in a 5:1 row proportion as influenced by fertilizer doses and seed rates of wheat variet- ies. Archive of Agronomy and Soil Science 58(12): 1,399 1,412_CIT_Srivastava, R.K., Bohra, J.S. and Singh, R.K. 2007. Yield advantage and reciprocity functions of wheat (Triticam aestivum L.) + Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) intercropping under varying row ratio, variety and fertility level. Indian Journal Agricultural Sciences 77(3): 139144_CIT_Srivastava, R.K. and Bohra, J.S. 2006. Performance of wheat (Triti- cum aestivum) + Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) intercrop- ping in relation to row ratio, Indian mustard variety and fer- tility levels. Indian Journal of Agronomy 51(2): 107111_CIT_Singh, R.V. and Gupta, P.C. 1994. Production potential of wheat and mustard cropping systems under adequate water supply con- ditions. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 28(4): 219 224_CIT_Singh, S.S., Ehsanullah, M.D., Singh, A.K. and Singh, B.K. 1995_CIT_Spatial arrangement in wheat Indian mustard intercropping_CIT_Indian Journal of Agronomy 40(1): 9193_CIT_Sinha, V.K. 1985. Response of mustard to irrigation and fertiliza- tion. Madras Agriculture Journal 70(1): 1518_CIT_Tomar, S., Tomar, T.V.S., Kumar, S., Tomar, S., Singh, M. and Singh Subey 1996. Response of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.) varieties to nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertiliz- ers. Indian Journal of Agronomy 41(4): 624626_CIT_Verma, U.N., Pal, S.K., Singh, M.K. and Thakur, R. 1997. Produc- tivity energetic and competition function of wheat Indian mustard intercropping under varying fertilizer level. Indian Journal of Agronomy 42(2): 201204_CIT_Willey, R.W. 1979. Intercropping its importance and research needs_CIT_Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts 32(1): 110 Willey, R.W. 1985. Evaluation and presentation of intercropping advantages. Experimental Agriculture 21: 119133.