Productivity and economics of field pea (Pisum sativum) and baby corn (Zea mays) intercropping systems as affected by planting pattern and weed management
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v63i2.5398Keywords:
Baby corn, Economics, Field pea, Planting pattern, Weed management, YieldAbstract
A field experiment was conducted during the consecutive winter seasons of 2011–12 and 2012–2013 to find out the effect of planting patterns and weed-management practices on yield attributes, yields and economics of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) + baby corn (Zea mays L.) intercropping system. The experiment was laid out in a split-plot design, keeping 4 planting patterns as main plot and 4 weed-management practices as subplot with 3 replications. An intercropping of field pea with baby corn reduced the yield attributes of field pea, viz. pods/plant, grains/pod, 1,000-grain weight and grain yield/plant and cobs/plant of baby corn. Sole field pea recorded significantly higher grain (1.85 t/ha) and straw yields (2.90 t/ha) than yield obtained as a component crop in paired maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2 : 2) and maize + field pea (1 : 1). Baby corn yield was similar in sole, paired (2 : 2) and 1 : 1 planting but significantly higher stover yield of baby corn (3.55 t/ha) was obtained from sole crop than other planting methods. Both the intercropping systems had significantly higher field pea-equivalent yield than sole crop of either field pea or baby corn. Hand-weeding 30 days after sowing (DAS), pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg/ha and post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g/ha (30 DAS) improved all the growth and yield parameters of field pea and baby corn than weedy check. Hand-weeding (30 DAS), pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg/ha and post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g/ha (30 DAS) resulted in significantly higher field pea-equivalent yield than weedy check. The highest gross return (80.71 × 103 /ha) and net returns (53.25 × 103 /ha) were obtained under paired maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2 : 2) and the highest benefit: cost ratio (2.15) was found in sole field pea (30 cm). Hand-weeding (30 DAS) resulted in the maximum value of gross returns (103.42 × 103 /ha), net returns (77.80 × 103 /ha) and benefit: cost ratio (3.04).
References
Aravinth, V., Kuppuswamy, G. and Ganapathy, M. 2011. Growth and
yield of baby corn (Zea mays) as influenced by intercropping, plant geometry and nutrient management. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 81(9): 875–877.
Barod, N.K., Dhar, S. and Kumar, A. 2012. Effect of nutrient
sources and weed control methods on yield and economics
of baby corn (Zea mays). Indian Journal of Agronomy 57(1):
–99.
Barod, N.K., Kumar, S., Dhaka, A.K. and Kathwal, R. 2017. Evaluation of intercropping systems involving pearlmillet
(Pennisetum typhoides) and mungbean (Vigna radiata) as
intercrop in pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Indian Journal of
Agronomy 62(2): 170–173.
Dahmardeh, M., Ghanbari, A., Syahsar, B.A. and Ramrodi, M.
The role of intercropping maize (Zea mays L.) and
cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) on yield and soil chemical
properties. African Journal of Agricultural Research 5(8):
–636.
Das, A.K., Khaliq, Q.A. and Haider, M.L. 2013. Effect of planting
configurations on yield and yield components in maize +
soybean and maize + bushbean intercropping system. International Journal of Experimental Agriculture 3(1): 38–45.
Gopinath, K.A., Kumar, N., Banshi, L., Mina, A., Srivastva, K. and
Gupta, H.S. 2009. Evaluation of mulching, stale seedbed,
hand weeding and hoeing for weed control in organic garden
pea (Pisum sativum sub sp. hortense L.). Archives of
Agronomy and Soil Science 55(1): 115–123.
Khan, M.A., Naveed, K., Ali, K., Ahmad, B. and Jan, S. 2012. Impact of mungbean–maize intercropping on growth and yield
of mungbean. Pakistan Journal of Weed Science Research
(2): 191–200.
Mishra, A. 2014. Effect of winter maize-based intercropping systems
on maize yield, associated weeds and economic efficiency.
Comunicata Scientiae 5(2): 110–117.
Oljaca, S., Cvetkovic, R., Kavacevic, D., Vasic, G. and Momirovic,
N. 2000. Effect of plant arrangement pattern and irrigation
on efficiency of maize (Zea mays) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) intercropping system. Journal of Agricultural Science
(3): 261–270.
Pandey, A.K., Prakash, V., Singh, R.D. and Mani, V.P. 1999. Effect
of intercropping pattern of maize (Zea mays) and soybean
[Glycine max (L.) Merril] on yield and economics under
mid-hills of N-W Himalayas. Annals of Agricultural Research 20(3): 354–359.
Rao, M.R. and Willey, R.W. 1983. Effect of genotypes in cereal/
pigeonpea intercropping on alfisols of semi-arid tropics of
India. Experimental Agriculture 19: 67–78.
Shinde, S.H., Kolage, A.K. and Bhilare, R.L. 2001. Effect of weed
control on growth and yield of maize. Journal of
Maharashtra Agricultural Universities 26(2): 212–213.
Singh, B., Dhaka, A.K., Kumar, S., Singh, S. and Kumar, M. 2017.
Land, biological and economic evaluation of intercropping
systems involving barley (Hordeum vulgare), Indian mustard
(Brassica juncea) and chickpea (Cicer arietinum) under different spatial arrangements. Indian Journal of Agronomy
(4): 443–450.
Singh, M.K., Thakur, R., Verma, U.N., Pal, S.K. and Pasupalak, S.
Productivity and nutrient balance of maize (Zea mays)
+ blackgram (Phaseolus mungo) intercropping as affected by
fertilizer and plant density. Indian Journal of Agronomy
(3): 495–500.
Sinha, S.P., Prasad, S.M. and Singh, S.J. 2001. Response of winter
maize (Zea mays) to integrated weed management. Indian
Journal of Agronomy 46(3): 485–488.
