Sesame PHD

J" 51u r/anu 0/ _AlfaA 51u m: mlll'ci/ul51u m;
Compad:jionai4 _And 51u mOdi BIlIUJ/icllni

AGRO-PHYSIOLOGICAL STUDIES ON SESAME-LEGUMES INTERCROPPING SYSTEMS UNDER DIFFERENT GEOMETRIC ARRANGEMENS

BY

IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN BHATTI M.Sc.(Hons.) Agronomy

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN

AGRONOMY

FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, FAISALABAD (PAKISTAN)

2005

The Controller of Examinations, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.

We, the supervisory committee, certify that the contents and form of the thesis submitted by Mr. Iftikhar Hussain Bhatti, have been found satisfactory and recommend that it be processed for the evaluation by the External Examiner (s) for the award of degree.

CHAIRMAN

(DR. RIAZ AHMAD)

MEMBER

(DR. MUHAMMAD SHAFI NAZIR)

(DR. SHAHZAO

00 AHMAD BASRA)

MEMBER

DEDICATED TO

MY MOTHER

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All praises and thanks for Almighty Allah, the most Merciful and Beneficent Whose bounteous blessings enabled me to complete this study and put it in this form. I offer my humblest thanks to the Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him!) who is for ever a torch of guidance and knowledge for the humanity as a whole.

I feel highly privileged to express the deep sense of gratitude to my Supervisor, Dr. Riaz Ahmad, Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, under whose dynamic supervision, propitious guidance, keen interest, sincere help and encouragement, the research work presented in this dissertation was carried out.

I am highly indebted to Dr. Muhammad Shafi Nazir, Professor Emeritus, Department of Agronomy, for his critical review, valuable comments and philanthropic attitude and encouragement for the improvement of this manuscript.

Thanks are extended to the Supervisory Committee member Dr. Shahzad M.A.

Basra, Associate Professor and Chairman, Department of Crop Physiology for his valuable advice and invigorating encouragement during the course of present studies.

[ wish to thank my friends especially Abdul Jabbar and Ghulam Sarwar who smilingly shared tough hours during research work.

Heartiest and sincere sense of gratitude are extended to my affectionate parents, brothers and sisters for their prayers for my success. I wish to thank my wife and children for their prayers, sacrifices, patient waiting and moral help during the write up of this manuscript.

Last but not the least I wish to extend my heartiest thanks and obligations to the Higher Education Commission for providing financial support under the program of "Indigenous scholarship" for the completion of my Ph.D studies.

(IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN BHATTI)

CONTENTS

~~

l}J."~'cro"

«ov-:: <:: STUDIES

~." " ~{rlc"/lur.
;;;;~.~,~~; 3
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE
Acknowledgements I
List of Tables VlJ
List of Figures ix
J INTRODUCTION 1
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6
2.1 Growth 6
2.2 Mixedllntercropping 7
2.3 Sesame-based Intercropping II
2.4 Geometric Arrangements 23
2.5 Physiological traits and Intercropping 34
2,6 Competitive Functions and Intcrcropping 36
'-
m MA TERIALS AND METHODS 40
..
3,1 Site Characteristics 40
3.2 Soil Analysis 40
3.3 Agro-rneteorological data 40
3.4 Experiments and Treatments 40
3.4.1 Experiment 40
3.4.2 Treatments 43
3.5 Layout 43
3.6 Crop Husbandry 43
3.6.1 Seed Bed Preparation 43
3.6.2 Crop Varieties and Seed Rates 46
_.
3.6.3. Time and Method of Sowing 46
I- 3.6.4
Fertilization 46
I- 3.6.5 Thinning
46
I-
3.6.6 Irrigation 46
I-
3.6.7. Plant Protection 46
I-
3.6.8 Harvesting and Threshing 48
t-
3.7 Data Collection 48
t- 3.8 Observations
48
3.8.1 Growth, Yield Parameters and Final Yield 48
l-
I-- 3.8.!.1 Sesame 48
3.8.1.1.1 Agronomic Traits 48 I
f-
3.8.1.1.2 Physiological Traits 49
f-
3.8.1.1.3 Qualitative Traits 49
f-
3.8.1.2 Intercrops 49
3.8.2 Competitive Functions 49 I
'- ii

3.8.3 Agronomic Advantages 50
3.8.4 Post-harvest Nutrient (NPK) Status of Soil 50
3.8.5 Economic Analysis 50
3.8.5.1 Net Field Benefit 50
3.8.5.2 Marginal Analysis 50
3.8.6 Sensitivity Analysis 50
3.9 Procedures Adopted for Recording Data 50
3.9.1 Growth, Yield Parameters and Final Yield 51
c- 3.9.1.1 Sesame 51
3.9.1.1.1 Agronomic Traits 51
3.9.1.1.2 Physiological Traits 52
I- Qualitative Traits 53
3.9.1.1.3
c- 3.9.2 Competitive Functions 56
c- 3.9.3 Agronomic Advantages 57
c- 3.9.4 Soil and Plant Analysis for NPK 58
I- 3.9.5 Economic Analysis 58
3.9.5. I Net Field Benefit 58
3.9.6 Marginal Analysis 59
3.9.7 Sensitivity Analysis 60
3.9.8 Statistical Analysis 60
-.
IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 61
_.
4.1 Experiment 61
-
4.1.1 Agronomic Traits 61
-, Grain Yield per Hectare (GYH)
4.1.1.1 61
- 4.1.1.2 Stalk Yield per Hectare (SYH) 64
:- 4.1.1.3 Biological Yield per Hectare (BYH) 66
I- Plant Population Density at Harvest (m")
4.1.1.4 68
I-
4.1.1.5 Number of Capsules plant" 68
- 4.1.1.6 Number of seeds per capsule (NSC)
71
4.1.1.7 Seed Weight plant" (SWP) 74
4.1.1.8 1000-Seed Weight (g) 74
-. Plant Height (em)
4.1.1.9 76
_. Harvest Index (%) 78'-
4.1.1.10
r--
4.1.2 Physiological Traits 80
_.
4.1.2.1 Leaf Area Index 80
-
4.1.2.2 Leaf Area Duration (days) 84
-
4.2.1.3 Dry Matter Accumulation at Fortnight Interval 88
- (g m")
4.2.1.4 Crop Growth Rate {s m" d') 92
4.2.1.5 Net Assimilation Rate (g m-t dOl) 96
4.2.3 Qualitative Traits 98
r- Crude seed Protein Concentration (%)
4.2.3.1 98
_.
4.2.3.2 Seed Oil Concentration (%) 98
_.
4.2 Performance of Mungbean in Intercropping Systems
-
4.2.1 Yield and Yield Components 100
- 111

4.2.1.1 Seed Yiefd (kg ha'l) 100
4.2.1.2 Stalk Yield (kg ha'l) 100
-
4.2.1.3 Biological Yield (kg ha") 102
4.2.1.4 Number of Branches plan!'! 102
4.2.1.5 Number of Pods plant" 103
t- 4.2.1.6 Number of Seeds pod" 104
t- 4.2.1.7 Number of Seeds plant" 104
t- Seed Weight plant'l -
4.2.1.8 104
J-
4.2.1.9 1000-Seed Weight (g) 105
t- 4.2.1.10 Plant Density m" 105
4.2.1.11 Plant Height (ern) 106
r- 4.2.1.12 Harvest Index (%) 106
r- 4.2.2 Quantitative Traits 107
t- Seed Protein Concentration-(%) 107
4.2.2.1
,..... 4.3 Performance of Mashbean in Intercropping Systems 107
-
4.3.1 Yield and Yield Components of Mashbean 107
4.3.1. I Seed Yield (kg ha") 107
1--- Stalk Yield (kg ha'T5
4.3.1.2 109
r- 4.3.1.3 Biological Yield (k£ ha-1}
109
r- 4.3.1.4 Number of Branches planf1
uo
J- 4.3.1.5 Number of Pods plant" 110
4.3.1.6 Number of Seeds podol 1 11
4.3.1.7 Number of Seeds plant~ 1 I 1
J- 4.3.1.8 Seed Weight planrl
112
r-
4.3.1.9 1 ooo-se-a Weight (g) 112 I
I-
4.3.1.10 Plant Density mol 113
I- 4.3.1.11
Plant Height (ern) 113
4.3.1.12 Harvest Index (%) 113
1-' 4.3.2 Quantitative Traits
114
I- 4.3.2.1 Crude Seed Protein Concentration (%)
114
t- 4.4 Performance of Soybean in lntercropping Systems
114
t--
4.4.1 Yield and Yield Components 114
4.4.1.1 Seed Yield (kg ha") 114
4.4.1.2 Stalk Yield (kg ha") I J 6
f-
4.4.1.3 Biological Yield (kg ha") 116
f-
4.4.1.4 Number of Branches plant" 117
f-
f- Number of Seeds pod"
4.4.1.6 11,L_
4.4.1.7 Number of Seeds plant" 118
J-- Seed Weight planfl
4.4.1.8 119
4.4.1.9 1000-Seed Weight (g) 119
4.4.1.10 Plant Density m" 120
r
4.4.1.11 Plant Height (em) 120
r
4.4.2 Quantitative Traits 12!___j
'-- iv

4.4.2.1 Crude Seed Protein Concentration ~%) 121
4.4.2.2 Seed Oil Concentration (%) 121
_. 4.5 Performance of Cowpea in Intercropping Systems 121
_ 4.5.1 Yield and Yield Components 121
_ 4.5.1.1 Seed Yield (kg ha') 121
_ 4.5.1.2 Stalk Yield (k_&ha'l) 122
_ 4.5.1.3 Biolo_gical Yield (kg ha") 124
t 4.5.1.4 Number of Branches plant" 124
4.5.1.6 Number of Seeds pod" 125
4.5.1.7 Number of Seeds plant" 125
4.5.1.8 Seed Weight plant" 126
- 4.5.1.9 WOO-Seed Weight_ig) 126
r-
4.5.1.10 Plant Density mAL 127
4.5.1.11 Plant Height (ern) 127
f- Quantitative Traits 128
4.5.2
_. 4.5.2.1 Crude Seed Protein Concentration (%) 128
~. 4.6 Competition Functions 129 I
r-
4.6.1 Aggressivity (A) 129
f- Relative Crowding Coefficient (RCC)
4.6.2 131
4.6.3 Competitive Ratios (CR) 133
4.7 Agronomic Advantages 133
r-' Sesame Seed Yield Eguivalent_(kgha')
4.7.1 133
1-'
4.7.2 Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) 135
4.7.3 Area-time Equivalent Ratio (ATER) 137
t- 4.8 Residual Soil Fertility
139
r- Residual Soil Fertility (a.M.)
4.8.1 139
f--
4.8.2 Residual Soil Fertility (Nitrogen) 139
4.8.3 Residual Soil Fertility (Phosphorus) 139
1-'
4.8.4 Residual Soil Fertility (Potassium) 141
1-'
4.9 Economic Analysis of Different Sesame-based 141
f--' IntercroQIling Systems
4.9.1 Partial Budget of Different Intercropping Systems 142
t-
4.9.2 Gross Field Benefits (Rs. ha"l) 142
r-- Total Cost that vary (Rs. ha')
4.9.3 142
4.9.4 Net Field Benefits (Rs. ha") 142
,......._-
4.10 Dominance Analysis of Different Intercropping 146
'__" Systems
4.11 Marginal Analysis of Different Intercropping 146
r- Systems
4.12 Sensiti vi ty Analysis of Di fferent Intercropping 148
Systems
4.12.1 Sensitivity Analysis with constant input prices and 148 I
_. outQ_ut prices increased by 1 0% v

4.12.2 Sensitivity Analysis with input prices increased by 150
I 0% and output prices kept constant
4.12.3 Sensitivity Analysis with input prices increased by 152
5% and outQut _Qrices decreased by_ 5%
V SUMMARY 154
5.1 Conclusions 157
5.2 Recommendations 158
5.3 Future Research Needs 159
LITERA TURE CITED 160 VI

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE
3.1 Pre-sowing physico-chemical analysis of the experimental site. 41
3.2 Botanical names, varieties and seed rates of component cro_ps 47
3.3 Planting and harvesting dates of the component crops under 47
different intercr~ping sy_stems.
4.1 Grain yield (kg ha'!) of sesame as affected by planting patterns 62
and grain legumes intercropping.
4.2 Stalk yield (kg ha") of sesame as affected by planting patterns and 65
grain legumes intercropping.
4.3 Biological yield (kg ha") of sesame as affected by planting 67
_Q_atterns and grain legumes intercropping.
t4 Plant population density at harvest (m") of sesame as affected by 69
- pJanting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.
t5 Number of capsules plant" of sesame as affected by planting 70
- _patterns and _grain legumes intercropping.
·L6 Number of seeds capsule" of sesame as affected by planting 72
- patterns and grain legumes intercrop_ping.
,L7 Seed weight plant"! of sesame as affected by planting patterns and 73
- grain legumes intercr~eEing.
·1.8 1000-seed weight (g) of sesame as affected by planting patterns 75
_. and grain legumes intercropping.
~~. 9 Plant height (ern) of sesame as affected by planting patterns and 77
- grain legumes intercropping.
'·.10 Harvest index (%) of sesame as affected by planting patterns and 79
- _grain legumes intercroEf!ing.
L .11 Leaf area index (LAI) of sesame as affected by planting patterns 83
-. and grain legumes intercro~Eing.
4.12 Total leaf area duration (LAD) of sesame as affected by planting 87
- patterns and grain legumes intercropping.
4.13 Dry matter accumulation (g m" of land) by sesame as affected by 91
4.14 planting patterns and grain legumes intercmpging.
Mean crop growth rate (g m" dOl) of sesame as affected by 95
- _Qianting_patterns and grain legumes intercropping.
4.15 Net assimilation rate (g mol d) by sesame as affected by planting 97
416 patterns and grain legumes intercropping.
Crude seed protein concentration (%)of sesame as affected by 99
- planting patterns and grain legumes intercroppin_g_.
417 Crude seed oil concentration (%) of sesame as affected by 99
4' 18 planting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.
Performance of mungbean intercropped in sesame under different 101
_g_eometric arrangements.
4.19 Performance of mashbean intercropped in sesame under different 108
geometric arrangements. VIII

r 4.20 Performance of soybean intercropped in sesame under different 115
geometric arrangements.
4.21 Performance of cowpea intercropped in sesame under different 123
geometric arrangements.
4.22 Aggressivity as influenced by planting patterns and sesame based 130
r intercropping systems
4.23 Relative crowding coefficient as influenced by planting patterns 132
,_ and sesame based intercro2Pin_g_ s1'_stems
t24 Relative crowding coefficient for sesame based intercropping 132
t- systems
L2S Competitive ratio as influenced by planting patterns and sesame 134
t- based intercropping systems
·1.26 Impact of intercropping systems on sesame seed yield e_quivalent 136
I-
,L27 Land equivalent ratio of sesame as influenced by planting patterns 138
r- and sesame based intercroPQing s~stems
'·.28 Area time equivalent ratio as influenced by planting patterns and 138
t- sesame based intercro'pping s~stems
~ .29 Post-harvest fertility status of different sesame-legumes 140
I- intercropping systems
4.30 Post-harvest fertility status of different sesame-legumes 140
r-- intercropping systems with re~ect to sesame alone.
J.3! Partial budget of pooled results of different intercro..2Qin_g_ ~stems. 143
J.32 Dominance analysis of different intercropping systems. 147
433. Marginal rate of return (MRR) analysis of different intercropping 147
~34 systems
Sensitivity analysis with constant input prices and output prices 149
f-- in~reased b:t I 0% ~Dominance anal:tsis)
435 Sensitivity analysis with constant input prices and output prices 149
r-- increased ,?y IO%_CMRR)
4.36 Sensitivity analysis with constant input prices increased by 10% 151
and o'!!Jlut prices kept constant (Dominance ana!l'sis)
4.37 Sensitivity analysis with constant input prices increased by 10% 151
I-- and output prices kept constant (MRR)
4. )8 Sensitivity analysis with constant input prices increased by S% 153
I--- and output prices decreased by_ S% (Dominance analysis)
4.:;9 Sensitivity analysis with constant input prices increased by 10% 153
and output prices decreased by S% (MRR) ix

LIST OF FIGURES

IG.NO. TITLE PAGE
I Meteorological data for growing period of crops during the year 42
200 I and 2002.
2 Layout plan 44
3 Geometric arrangements of sesame 45
1 Leaf area index of sesame at various development stages (DAE) as 81
influenced by different intercropping systems during the year 200 I
and 2002
2 Leaf area index of sesame at various development stages (DAE) as 82
influenced by different planting patterns during the year 2001 and
2002
3 Leaf area duration (LAD) of sesame at various development stages 85
(DAE) as influenced by different intcrcropping systems during the
year 2001 and 2002
4 Leaf area duration (LAD) of sesame at various development stages 86
(DAE) as influenced by different planting patterns during the year
200 I and 2002
.5 Dry matter accumulation of sesame at various development stages 89--
(DAE) as influenced by different intercropping systems during the
year 2001 and 2002
.6 Dry matter accumulation of sesame at various development stages 90
2001 and 2002
.7 Crop growth rate (COR) of sesame at various development stages 93
(DAE) as influenced by different intercropping systems during the I
year 200 I and 2002
.8 Crop growth rate (COR) of sesame at various development stages 94
200 I and 2002 x

ABBREVIA TIONS

A ATER BNF

em

CR D OM g ha" HI K Kab Kg LA! LER

MC iYfNB MRR N NFB

Aggressivity

Area time equivalent ratio Biological nitrogen fixation Centimeter

Competitive ratio Dominated

Dry matter

Gram

Per hectare Harvest index Potassium

Relative crowding co-efficient for a component crop a. Kilogram

Leaf area index

Land equivalent ratio Meter

Per square meter Marginal cost Marginal net benefit Marginal rate of return Nitrogen

Net field benefit

xi

P20S P

PI

P2

p)

RCC S

SI

S2 S] S4

S5

SSYE Y

Yaa Yab Yba Ybb Zab Zba

Phosphorus Planting pattern

40 ern spaced single rows

60 em spaced 2-row strips 100 em spaced 4-row strips Relative crowding coefficient Intercropping system

Sesame alone

Sesame + Mungbean intercropping system Sesame + Mashbean intercropping system Sesame + Soybean intercropping system Sesame + Cowpea intercropping system Sesame seed yield equivalent

Year

Pure stand yield of crop "a" Intercrop yield of crop "a" Intercrop yield of crop "b" Pure stand yield of crop "b" Sown proportion of crop "a" Sown proportion of crop "b"

Xli

ENGLISH AND BOTANICAL NAMES OF CROPS REFERRED IN THE TEXT

English name

Botanical name

Barley

Bajra

Cabbage Carrot

Cassava Castorbcan Chickpea/gram Clusterbean Cowpea

Egyptian clover (Berseem) Fenugreek (Methra) Fieldbean

Garlic

Guara

Lentil

Linseed

Maize

Hordeum vulgare L Pennisetum typhoides L Brassica oleracea L.

Daucus carota L

Manihot esculenta Crantz Ricinus communis L.

Cicer arietinum L.

Cyamopsis tepsoraloides L Vigna unguiculata L. Trifolium alexandrinum L. Trigonella foenumgraecum L. Vicia faba L.

Allium sativum L.

Cyamopsis tetragonoloba L. Lens culinaris Medik

Unum usitatissimum L.

Mashbean (Black gram) Mungbean (Green gram) Mustard

Zea mays L.

Vigna mungo L. Vigna radiata L. Brassiea juneea L.

XIII

Pea PeanutlGroundnut Pigeonpea

Potato

Rice

Sarsoon

Sesame

Sorghum

Soybean Sugarcane Sunflower

Wheat

Pisum sativum L. Arachis hypogea L. Cajanus cajan L. Solanum tuberosum L. Oryza sativa L.

Brassica campestris L.

Sesamum indicum L Sorghum vulgare L. Glycine max L. Saccharum officinarum L. Helianthus annuus L.

Triticum aestivum L.

XIV

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The world during the 21 st century will be facing shrinkage of land resources, increasing small holdings, heavy population pressure and accumulation of world resources with developed nations and consequently more hungry faces particularly in the developing countries. So to overcome these constraints and new challenges of the century there is a need to revolutionize and modernize the traditional production systems in the light of new challenges and to develop production-oriented and economic-based cropping systems with new geometric forms for sustainable development in agriculture sector and :0 meet the increasing demands for food, feed and forage by effective utilization of igriculture resources. Any scheme or plan to increase food and oil production cannot be a .otal success unless and until an appropriate production-oriented cropping system and production technology for each ecological zone is not developed and properly implemented.

Multiple cropping in the form of inter/relay cropping being a unique asset of tropical and subtropical areas is becoming popular day by day among small farmers as it ( ffers the possibility of yield advantage relative to sole cropping through yield stability and improved yield (Willey. 1979). Hence it demands due attention of agricultural risearch scientists to explore its feasibility and other related agro-economic aspects in Pakistan too which has arid to semi-arid sub-tropical climate with abundant agroirrigation resources.

Pakistan is an important country of South Asia being between 23° and 37° North latitude and 610 to 76° east longitude (Khan, 2000). Agriculture is the mainstay of its economy, contributing 23.30% to GOP, earning 73.00% of total export, employing 42.10% of the total work force and providing raw material to its agro-industries (Sahibzada, 1995). Its geographical area is 79.61 million hectares, of which cropped area is 23.04 million hectares. Majority of Pakistani fanners (75%) have land holding <5 hectares (Anonymous, 2003-04), extra family labour force, less resources and are practicing subsistence farming.

No doubt, Pakistan has made a remarkable improvement in agriculture sector, but it is facing a chronic shortage in edible oils and the situation is getting worse day by day with alarmingly increasing rate of population. The domestic production of edible oil is 0.70 million tones, while 1.1 million tones is imported to meet the country need at the expense of US $ 788 million foreign exchange (Anonymous, 2003-04). The edible oil requirement of the country is projected to rise to 2.15 million tones up to 2010 AD.

At present there are two sources of edible oil in Pakistan i.e. traditional and nontraditional oilseed crops. Although considerable efforts have been made to propagate the cultivation of non-traditional oilseed crops like sunflower, soybean and safflower, but Jespite the availability of potential areas for production of these crops and demonstrated aotential of the known production technologies, no substantial increase in their xoduction has been achieved. Thus the only option left with us to give due attention towards traditional oilseed crops such as cotton-seed, rapes and mustards, groundnut, ~ esame, etc. Among them, sesame is of great agro-economic importance and deserves due attention and scientific approach for its increased productivity.

2

Sesame seed is used in confectioneries like cakes, cookies and similar many other backing products. Minor uses of sesame oil include pharmaceutical and skin care products and is synergist for insecticides. Sesame seed contains 50-60% edible oil and seed cake contains 42% protein rich in tryptophan and methionine which is an excellent feed for milch animals and layers (Hatam and Abbasi, 1994). Sesame oil is colourless and odourless. The presence of antioxidants such as sesarnolin, sesamin and sesamol makes the sesame oil highly preservable as a result of which it does not get rancid (Ahuja et aI., 1971),

In spite of its multi-dimentional uses, the commercial and mechanized cultivation of sesame in Pakistan is very discouraging and hence its per hectare yield is very low. It is grown as a kharif oilseed crop on an area of 60 thousand hectares with a total annual production of 24.7 thousand tones giving an average yield of 502 kg ha" (Anonymous, 2003-04) which is much lower than the average yield of other countries such as Egypt (1120 kg ha'), Mexico (962 kg ha") and China 900 kg ha") (Anonymous, 1996).

Similarly, the role of legumes as a source of vegetable protein in the human diet, animal feeds and their beneficial role in augmenting the soil fertility is well known. Besides, pulses in our country have usually been grown in poor soils of rainfed areas. Unfortunately, these crops could not benefit from the impact of green revolution, which resulted in chronic low yield and shortage of pulses in country for the last many years. At present gross domestic production of pulses in Pakistan amounts to 0.96 million tones with net availability 519 kg ha-1 annum". Pakistan imported 0.27 million tones of pulses to meet the need of her population (Anonymous, 2003-04) by spending huge amount of foreign exchange ($100.6 million) .

3

In the past monocropping of grain legumes (pulses) was a usual practice among the growers but now-a-days the interest in growing food legumes in an intercropping system is increasing. Recent evidence suggests that there are substantial advantages of legumes intercropping which are achieved not by means of costly inputs but by the simple expedient of growing crops together in an appropriate geometry. When legumes are grown in association with non-legumes, there is often advantage to the non-legumes from nitrogen fixed by the legumes. Furthermore, two crops differing in height, canopy, adaptation and growth habits grow simultaneously with least competition (Keerio and Aslarn, 1986). Other suggested forms of advantages are, the greater stability of yield over different seasons, better use ofland resources, possibility of better control of weeds, pests and diseases.

Pakistan is a subtropical country having adequate irrigation and land resources with high intensity of sunlight for plant growth, therefore, possibility of raising two or more crops on the same piece of land in a year needs to be explored for effective and efficient utilization of these natural resources. Intercropping is being looked as an efficient and most economical production system as it not only increases the production per unit area and time but also improves the resource-use efficiency and economic standard of the growers. Presently, interest in intercropping is increasing among the small growers because of their diversified needs and low farm income from the monocropping system.

So in the present scenario of preponderance of small holding, surplus farm family labour, overlapping of growing season of crops, low productivity of most of the crops and

4

practice of subsistence farming intercropping seems to be a promising strategy for

inereasing crop productivity particularly at small farm level in Pakistan.

The conventional method of planting sesame in 40-cm spaced single rows does

not permit intercropping because of narrow row spacing. Recently a new method of

planting sesame in well spaced multi-row strips has been developed which not only gives

relatively higher seed yield than the conventional single row planting (Siddique, 1997),

but also facilitates intercropping harvesting and handling of the intercrops without doing

damage to the base crop.

In Pakistan, no systematic research work has been done so far to explore the

possibility of intercropping of various legume crops in sesame. Thus there is a need to

develop an appropriate sesame-legume intercropping system. The present study was,

therefore, planned to achieve the following objectives:

• To explore the feasibility and production potential of different sesame-legume intercropping systems,

• To determine the physio-economic relationships of the component crops in different systems of sesame-legume intercropping, and

• To develop a sustainable, economically viable and easily workable sesamelegume intercropping system for general adoption by the small growers in Pakistan.

5

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Growth

Yield of a crop is a function of series of morphological manifestation and

physiological processes involved in a crop environment interaction. Temporal trends of leaf area development and dry matter accwnulation may reveal that when and how environmental factors interfere with growth. Waston (1952) developed classical growth analysis technique and attributed productivity differences in field crops to variation in leaf area index (LAI) and identified early canopy closure as a crucial determinant of initial crop growth rate (CGR) in well nourished stands. Differences in initial rates of LAI development may, therefore, be reflected in the final yield. Thus agronomic practices which increase LAI are likely to increase crop yield. For most crops irrespective to climate, LA! of 4-6 is sufficient to intercept more than 90% of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) to ensure maximwn growth rate (Monteith and Scott, 1982). Primarily yield of a crop is the product of total dry matter (TDM) production and the harvest index (HI). The HI is generally conservative in most field crops and thus yield depends mainly upon TDM produced by a crop.

The relationship between the amount of DM produced by the crops and the length of growing season of each crop is very important. The quantity is the mean rate of DM production, and Monteith (1978) reported average values of 13.0 ± 1.6 g m-2 d-1 for C) and 22.0 ± 3.6 g m-2 d-1 for C4 species. The corresponding variable is the time from sowing to harvest determined essentially by the longevity of leaves. Therefore, the factors which

6

determine the development and death of leaves are much more significant discriminates of yield than the photosynthetic capacity of leaves (Monteith and Elston, 1983). Differences in yield are, therefore, the result of differences in the duration of canopies rather than the rate at which they produce DM. This inference that growth rate is much more conservative than growth duration emerged long ago.

Waston (1952) concluded that leaf area duration (LAD) rather than net assimilation rate (NAR) is a major factor determining differences in yield among crop varieties of agronomic treatments.

Rao (1993) analyzed sesame growth in term of crop growth rate, net assimilation rate and LAI during summer season and reported that optimum LA! for maximum COR was in the range 1.59-1.65 and for maximum NAR was 0.96-0.97. The maximum COR and NAR were 10.65 to 12.50 g m-2 d-I and 17.42 to 25.78 g m-2 d-I, respectively.

2.2 MixedJIntercropping

The economic advantages of mixed cropping In monetary terms have been demonstrated in late 1980s and early 1990s (Mandai et al., 1990). But now multi cropping is not only common in the tropics but is also expanding to the wanner regions in the subtropics. This is illustrated by the vast areas of the world stretching from South-West Japan, 30° 40 N (Fujita et al., 1990) to West Australia, 32° 5 t' S (Ofori and Stem, 1986). Mixed cropping is practiced under different climatic regions such as humid tropics (Agboola and Fayemi, 1972) temperate climate (Fujita et al., 1983), and Mediterranean regions (Ofori and Stem, 1986). Intercropping is a well established practice and there are 12 million hectares under double cropping system in South Asia only (Woodhead et al., 1994). Fanners are motivated to adopt intercropping primarily by its economic gains

7

(McCrown et al., 1988) and possible conflict to tum around time between harvest of one crop and sowing of the other crop, i.e. cotton-wheat and rice-wheat cropping system of Indo-gangenetic plains.

Yield advantages from intercropping are often attributed to mutual effects of component crops such as better use of available farm resources. A mixed legume system as compared to a non-legume monocropoping is a dynamic system whereby biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) varies with differences in legume growth potential, inorganic soil N level and component crop competitiveness (Legard and Steel, 1992 and Singh, 1983). Complementary effects of intercrop depend upon morphology and physiology of the component crops (Trenbath, 1976). Improved productivity may be achieved by the adoption of intercropping system which either increases the interception of solar radiation and/or has greater radiation-use efficiency by minimizing the proportion of the radiant energy reaching the ground. This could be achieved by selecting plant combinations like short and long duration species or tall and short plants allowing improved productivity per unit incident solar radiation (Keating and Carberry, 1993). The intercropping system benefits are realized in areas where rainy season is long and favourable enough to grow more than one crop of different maturity periods simultaneously or successively or where irrigation is available (Okigo and Greenland, 1976 and Mandai et al., 1986). Natre (1989) indicated benefits of intercropping system even under dry and erratic rainfall conditions.

Choice of crops in an intercropping system plays a vital role in increasing the productivity and economic return, In long duration crops with an initial slow rate, resource utilization can be optimized by interplanting an early maturing crop (Rajat and Singh, 1979). Exhaustive crops (crops depleting the fertility of the soil) and short duration

8

legumes crop fixing biological nitrogen) are now becoming a more important combination of multiple cropping, as economic and environmental costs of heavy use of chemical N fertilizers in agriculture are a global concern (Bohlool et al., 1990). Leaves are proving alternative to commercial N fertilizers. Ishizuka (1992) reported that total BNF by legumes is 17.2 x 107 tonnes per annum, three times more than that of industrial nitrogen. For initially slow growing crops like cotton, short duration and fast maturing crops like mungbean, mashbean and similar other beans appear to be compatible companion crops (Rajat and Singh, 1979). Plant population of main crop is maintained as a principle in various intercropping systems to realize full yield of main crop plus some additional benefits of a second crop (Willey, 1979).

In an intercropping system, main crop is commonly grown at the density which is optimum for a sole crop. Therefore, it is important to manage the short duration crop in such a way that it produces high yield without affecting the growth of other crop (Rao, 1986). In wheat-based intercropping experiment, Sahi (1988) and Saleem (1991) reported that plant population of lentil was reduced significantly by the associated wheat crop as compared to the plant density in the sole plots of lentil, whereas wheat plant population was maintained at its optimum level by different geometrical configurations. However, plant height of green gram (short duration component crop of an intercropping system) was not affected to a significant level by the base crop.

Willey et ai. (1980) concluded that legume-non-legume intercropping systems gave higher yield than monocuIture, by using environmental resources more efficiently. However, the maize-groundnut intercropping system proved to be the best.

Kumar and Agarwal (1982) intercropped pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) with mung 9

(Vigna radiata L.), mash (Vigna mungo L.), guara tCyamposis tetragonoloba L.), soybean (Glycine max L.) and bajra (Pennisetum glaucum L.) on sandy loam soil and applied 40 kg P20S ha" as single super phosphate at sowing and 50 kg N ha" as urea a month after sowing. They concluded that grain yield of pigeonpea was the maximum (1.7 t ha") when grown without intercrop. Intercropping with mash produced total yield of 2.3 t ha", reducing the yield of pigeonpea to 1.5 t ha-1 •

Singh (1982) reported that intercropping of mungbean (Vigna radial a L.). urdbean (Vigna mungo L.), or soybean (G/ycine max L.) in arhar (Cajanus cajan L.) had no adverse effect on the seed yield of arhar (Cajanus cajan) and gave additional seed yield of 537-785 kg ha" in 1973 and 423-594 kg ha-1 in 1974.

Umrani and Shinde (1985) reported that advantages of intercropping were greater in sub-normal than normal season. Paired row sowing was efficient in using natural resources due to better root development and sunlight interception. This system being stable resulted in higher returns than pure cropping.

Taylor (1986) investigated the effects of different sowing dates, spacings and nitrogen rates on three sesame cultivars intercropped with a local sorghum. He concluded that the sesame yield was better in the improved cultivars SSB54 and 28-795-1-2 than in the local one, which was later, taller and more branched.

Tanda and Atwal (1989) found that the intercropping with sesame resulted in decreased penetration of root-knot nematode maturation; it favoured development of M incognita males and increased yield of okra and chickpea (Cicer ariettnumy. The maximwn effect of intercropping sesame with okra was observed when they were 15-30 ern apart.

10

Nawaz (1990) reported that intercropping of mungbean in I, 2. 3 and 4-row strips of soybean reduced soybean yield by 18.33, 15.89, 13.44 and 12.87%, respectively over soybean alone. However. this reduction in soybean yield was compensated by an additional harvest of mungbean seed yield of 5,40, 8.72, 10.00 and 11.09 q ha" from the respective treatments,

Ahmed et al. (1992) found that in a mung-mash intercropping system the various yield components of mung and mash like plant population, leaf area index, number of pods per plant, seed yield, straw yield and harvest index were affected significantly. while lOOO-seed weight, number of nodules per plant were not influenced to a significant level. The highest land equivalent ratio of 1.41 was recorded in case of mung + one row of mash intercropping system,

2.3 Sesame-based Intercropping

Venkateswarlu et al. (1980) concluded that intercropping of one row of sunflower or sesame in groundnut grown at 30 x 5 ern gave total oil yield of 787 and 852 kg ha", respectively, lntercropping of sunflower, sesame or green gram (Vigna radiata L.) in groundnut gave total protein yield of 364, 368 and 378 kg ha", respectively gained 281-312 kg ha'! in sole groundnut.

Pandey et aJ. (1981) reported that intercropping of groundnut in the interspace of maize grown in rows 75 or 90 ern apart had no adverse effect on grain yield of maize. Additional yield of groundnut resulted in the highest net profit. Intercropping of urd (V mungo) or sesame in maize although decreased maize yield but increased the net profit ha".

Choudhary and Singh (1982) concluded that intercropping of green gram, mothbean, black gram, cowpea, soybean, peas or gram in cotton, castor, pearl millet, 11

pigeonpea, sugarcane, rice, sesame and maize had no adverse effect on the yield of main crops but gave additional seed yield over the respective sole crops.

Singh and Sharma (1982) revealed that intercropping of sesame in alternate rows or in between the paired rows of cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) with the application of 40 kg N ha" increased the total seed yield and net profit ha" over unfertilized cluster bean (Cyamopsis letragonoloba) in pure stand. They also concluded that application of 40 kg P20S ha·1 increased yield of both the component crops.

Arunachalam and Venkatesan (1984) reported that sesame intercropped with Vigna radiata or Vigna mungo gave better yield in both summer and monsoon seasons than when sesame was grown alone. Yield of both the component crops was better with the application of25 kg N ha·1 than with 50 kg N ha".

Sannah et al. (1984) concluded that cultivation of soybean in 3 rows, 40 em apart alternating with sesame in 3 rows, 25 cm apart was superior to growing both the crops in pure stand and in mixed stands with other row patterns in term of total seed yield and net return.

Lee (1985) studied the effect of mixed intercropping on growth and yield of groundnut and sesame and found that sesame seed yield was reduced in all the mixtures compared with pure stands, but groundnut yield was not affected in 3: 1 mixtures with sesame. The mixture gave 20% increase in total yield of the 2 crops and was the most economic combination.

Yadava and Gupta (1988) concluded that four rows of sesame alternating with six rows of Vigna aconitifolia, V radiata or cluster bean (Cyamopsis tetragonoiobai gave significantly higher sesame equivalent yield than sesame in pure stand. The net return was

12

the highest in a sesame-V aconitifolia cropping system.

Gangwar and Kumar (1989) stated that sesame in paired rows 30170 cm apart intercropped with two rows of black gram (Vigna mungo) in the 70 em wide interspace with green gram in I: I row ratio gave seed yield of 560-580 kg ha·1 against 560 kg in pure stand. The intercrops gave seed yield of 370 and 210 kg ha", against 580 and 310 kg ha·1 in pure stand, respectively.

Baskaran el al. (1991) investigated the effect of intercropping sesame at a ratio of 1:4 with pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) or groundnut on infestation of shoot webber (Antigastra catalannalis). They reported that the intercropping reduced damage on sesame from 23% to 7.8% and 12% for P. glaucum and groundnut, respectively and increased the profitability of the crop. A farmers' method of intercropping with P. glaucum and groundnut reduced damage to 14.2 and 17.3%, respectively.

Khadse and Thakur (1991) studied the relative performance of recommended intercropping systems and concluded that cotton, mung, soybean and sesame grown alone gave less monetary return than to heir respective intercrops.

Mahapatra et al. (1991) studied the effect of different row ratios of sesame/pigeonpea intercrops. The highest seed yield of both sesame (0.53 t ha") and pigeonpeas (1.15 t ha-I when sown in paired rows) was obtained from their pure stand. When intercropped, the highest seed yield of sesame (0.20 t) was obtained from the 8: I sesame: pigeonpea row ratio with the highest yield of pigeonpea (0.87 t) from a 2: I ratio. The paired rows of pigeon pea gave the maximum net return ofRs. 5,330 ha".

Sarma and Kakati (1991) evaluated the compatibility of sesame intercropping with maize, green gram and black gram and concluded that the maize and V radiaae yields were

:;'3

greater when grown in alternate rows with sesame than in mixture, while V mungo was not

affected by sowing arrangements. The yield of V radiata was not reduced by intercropping

compared with the pure stand yield. Financial return was the highest from intercropping

sesame and V radiata in alternate rows.

Haque et al. (1992) evaluated the rice and sesame mixed cropping system and

reported that the rice equivalent yield, land equivalent ratio, net return and benefit cost ratio

were the highest when rice cv. MY and sesame were sown in a 50:50 ratio.

Lee et al. (1992) studied the intercropping system on the established sesame field.

Soybean, Vigna radiate, Vigna angulataris were sown into a stand of sesame 30, 40 or 50

days before harvesting, and buck wheat was sown into sesame stand 10, 20 or 30 days

before harvesting. They reported that the sesame seed yield was not affected by the

intercrops, but yield of soybean, V radiate, V angularis and buck wheat were reduced by

72-78, 31-51, 40-68 and 33-87%, respectively, over the yield obtained by sole cropping of

these crops.

Mishra (1992) reported that the highest land equivalent ratio was obtained from

intercropping arhar iCajanus cajan L.) with rice (1.47) and the lowest from intercropping

arhar with sesame (1.14).

Prasad et al. (1992) intercropped rainfed upland rice with pigeon pea, black gram

and sesame and concluded that rice yield was decreased by all the intercrops except the rice-

black gram intercropping system in 2: I ratio. Black gram gave the highest yield among the

intercrops. Rice equivalent yield and land equivalent ratio were the highest in case of 2: I

rice-black gram intercropping system.

Samui et al. (1992) intercropped groundnut with sesame and reported that

groundnut and sesame pod/seed yields were the highest in sole crops (1489 and 1624 kg 14

ha°!, respectively), but the overall pod/seed yield was increased by intercropping. The highest total pod/seed yield was with one row of sesame to two rows of grounclnut (992 and 1038 kg hao! in sesame and groundnuts, respectively); the lowest yielding intercropping system was 1: 1 groundnut:sesame.

Sarkar and Pramanik (1992) studied the effect of planting patterns in a sesame + mungbean intercropping system and concluded that the highest total yield, land equivalent ratio and financial return were given by two rows of sesame alternating with two rows of mungbean at a row spacing of37.5 cm.

Thakur (1992) intercropped 12 new sesame cultivars with rice cv. Janki in a 2:1 rice:sesame row ratio. Sesame seed yield ranged from 0.29 t ha" in Krishna to 0.13 t in TeA 84-1-1 and lLT-27. There were no significant differences in rice yield when intercropped with different sesame cultivars. The rice yield equivalence was the highest with sesame cv. Krishana (2.63 t ha").

Zhao et al. (1992) found that sesame intcrcropped with wheat showed greater plant height, capsule number per plant, number of seeds per capsule, 1000-seed weight and seed yield haw!. Wheat yield was slightly increased in intercrop treatments.

Shankaralingappa and Hegde (1993) intercropped pigeon pea with sesame, soybean, black gram and cowpea and concluded that yield of all crops was decreased by intercropping, but land equivalent ratios of the intercrops were 1.124-1.53 with the highest in pigeon peas with cowpeas. This treatment gave an equivalent yield of 1.85 t haw! .

Behera et al. (1994) intercropoped legumes with sesame in various row ratios and concluded that the sesamelblack gram (2:2) produced sesame seed yield of 0.98 t ha-I and black gram seed yield of 0.50 t, with the highest net return.

15

EI-Maghraby et al. (1994) studied the effects of intercropping and N rates (0-90 kg/Feddan) on sweet sorghum and sesame and found that intcrcropping decreased juice and syrup yield of sweet sorghum. Juice and syrup yields were the highest ~th 60 kg Nffeddan. Seed yield of sesame was 0.45 t/feddan in pure stands and 0.19 t/feddan when intercropped. Sesame seed and oil yield increased significantly with upto 60 kg Nffeddan [feddan = 0.42 hal

El-Maghraby et al. (1994) concluded from the study of sweet sorghum and sesame intercropping at different N rates (0-90 kg Nffeddan) that the land equivalent ratio was> 1 for intercropping at all N rates with the highest at 30 kg Nffeddan. Sweet sorghum had the highest relative crowding coefficient than sesame and a positive aggressivity value indicating that sweet sorghum was the dominant species in the intercrop.

Maliwal and Rathore (1994) tested different weed management practices In groundnut-sesame intercropping system and observed that all weed control treatments increased groundnut pod and sesame seed yields from untreated control values of 558 and 53 kg ha" to 713-898 and 66-116 kg, respectively. Pendimethalin + hand weeding once resulted in the highest groundnut pod yield while Fruchloralin + hand weeding gave the highest sesame seed yield.

Patra and Bhal (1994) intercropped sesame with green gram (V radiatai, black gram (V. mugo), pigeon peas, groundnuts and ragi (Eleusine coracana) in a 3: 1 row ratio and concluded that seed yield of sesame was 0.73 t ha" when grown alone and 0.58-0.66 t ha" when intercropped. Seed/grain yield of pigeon peas, ragi, groundnuts, green gram and black gram was 0.39, 0.95, 0.66, 0.61 and 0.52 t ha' when grown alone and 0.05, 0.34,

16

0.04, 0.18 and 0.12 t ha", respectively, when intercropped. Calorie output was the highest when sesame was intercropped with ragi,

Thakuria and Saharia (1994) concluded that sesame intercropped with black gram in a 3:1 row ratio gave seed yield of 565 and 416 kg ha", respectively with the highest land equivalent ratio (1.26) and net return.

Tiwari et al. (1994) planted sesame, green gram, soybean and Kodo millet (Paspalum scrobiculatum) in pure stands and in 1: 1, 2: 1 and 3: I intercrops of sesame with each of the crop. Sesame yield was 5.93 t ha" in pure stand, and swhen intercropped it ranged from 2.23 t ha·1 with P. scrabiculatum in a I: I row ratio to 4.03 t with V radiata in a 3: 1 ratio. t ha": radiata and P. scrobiculatum gave higher yields than soybean both in pure stand and when intercropped with sesame. The I: 1 sesame : V. radial a intercrop gave land equivalent ratio> I.

Gupta and Rathore (1995) studied the effect of fertility in pigeon pea + sesame intercropping system under rainfed conditions and concluded that when both the crops received the recommended NP rates, pigeon pea produced mean seed yield of 1.06 t ha·1 and sesame produced seed yield of 0.35 t ha' with the highest net return.

Domadia et al. (1995) intercroppcd sesame with green gram in J: 1,2: 1,3: 1,2:2 or 2:3 row ratio and concluded that sesame seed equivalent yield, net returns, cost benefit ratio and land equivalent yield were the highest when sesame and green gram were intercropped in a 2: 1 row ratio.

Ghosh et al. (1995) intercropped sesame with V radiata and V mungo in 1: 1, 2: I or 1:2 row ratio and concluded that although individual crop yield was the highest when

17

grown alone but the combined yield and net return were the highest with sesame + V. radiata in a 1:2 ratio, whereas the land equivalent ratio and area time equivalent ratio were the highest with sesame + V. mungo in a 1:2 ratio.

Sarka! and Chakraborty (1995) reported a slight decrease in sunflower yield (from 1.08 to 1.05 t ha·l) when intercropped with sesame and green gram.

Sarma el al. (1995) intercropped pigeon pea with green gram, black gram and sesame and concluded that pigeon pea seed yield was not affected significantly by intercropping.

Singh and Singh (1995) obtained the highest pigeon pea equivalent yield and gross income when pigeon pea was intercropped with sesame sown at 7% of its sole crop density. Land equivalent ratio was the highest (1.73) when pigeon pea were intercropped with V. radiata sown at 100% of its sole crop density.

Hooda el al. (1996) intercropped green gram and sesame in pearl millet and reported that the pearl millet yield was the highest when grown alone with 40 kg N ha", The net return was the highest when pearl millet was intercropped with green gram and fertilized @ 40 kg N ha·I,

Mandal and Pramanik (1996) studied the effect of N (20 or 40 kg ha" and K (0, 40, 80 kg K20 ha") fertilizer on the yield of soybean and sesame grown as sole crops or as intercrops (2:2 row ratio), Potassium application at 80 kg K20 ha'l with either dose of nitrogen significantly increased the yield parameters and seed yield of both soybean and sesame under sole and intercropping systems, The highest yield of soybean and sesame under sole and intercropping systems were recorded in the plots given 40 kg K20 ha'.

18

Mehmood (1996) obtained the highest net income of Rs. 27,871.39 ha" from an intercropping system of mung bean + 4 row of sesame against Rs. 26,653.94, Rs. 25,546.74, Rs. 23,801.94, Rs. 25,851.24 and Rs. 10,772.94 ha for mungbean with three-rows of sesame, mungbean with two-row of sesame, mungbean with one row of sesame, sesame alone and rnungbean alone, respectively.

Singh e/ al. (1996) reported that K loss due to weeds was the maximum (56.6 kg ha") when pigeon pea was the sole crop, and the minimum (33.6 kg ha") when pigeon pea was intercropped with sesame. Hand weeding (20 and 40 days after sowing) and Fuechloralin at 1.0 kg haw! in intercropping system was the most effective regime for minimizing K loss to weeds and for maximizing pigeon pea yields (1.7 t ha"), When pigeon pea was grown as a sole crop and not weeded K loss was 93.2 kg ha" and pigeon pea yield was 0.55 kg ha-'.

Mohiuddin and Ghosh (1997) intercropped sesame with green-gram and black gram in a 1: 1, 1:2 or 2: 1 row ratio and concl uded that seed yield of all the crops was the highest when grown alone. However, the combined seed yield and land equivalent ratio were the highest when sesame and black gram were intercropped in a 1:2 row ratio.

Sharma et al.( 1997) reported that intercropping green gram and sesame in rainfed cotton (Gossypium species) gave higher cotton-equivalent yield and higher net return than the sole crop.

Xuan et al. (1997) studied wheat-sesame intercropping relationships and obtained an increase of 9.4% in wheat and 10% in sesame as compared to no intercropping. The average income from the intercropped yield was 33% higher than without intercropping.

19

Zhang et al. (1997) studied the technique of interplanting sesame in wheat and concluded that average income from the intercropoped field was 33% higher than sole cropping.

Dubay (1998) monocropped and intercropped soybean with pigeonpeas, sesame and niger (Gutzotia abysstnicai and were treated with Fluchloralin or Oxyfluorfen, hand weeded or not weeded and concluded that the weed control was the best with Oxyfluorfen (0.235 kg ha-1 pre-emergence) and hand weeded at 30 days after sowing and in the monocropped soybean and the niger intercrop. Soybean and soybean equivalent yields, net returns and benefit:cost ratio were the highest in the monocrop. followed by the sesame and pigeonpea intercrops.

Maitia et al, (1998) planted groundnut and sesame in pure stand in 2: 1 or 1:2 intercrops without NP fertilizers and with 30-25, 60-50 or 90-75 kg NP ha'. Relative yield total (RYT) of the 2: 1 groundnut-sesame system was higher than the 1:2 groundnutsesame intercrop. Monetary return was the highest with the 1:2 ground nut-sesame intercropping system with a fertilizer level of 60-50 kg NP ha".

Ramulu et al. (1998) studied the performance of different pearl millet-based intercropping systems and reported significant increase in dry matter per plant in pearl millet + cowpea and pearl millet + sesame intercropping. Yield attributes and grain yield recorded in pearl millet + pigeonpeas, pearl millet + groundnut and pearl millet + cov v pea did not differ significantly from sole pearl millet at 60 em uniform row spacing. The maximum pearl millet grain equivalent was however, recorded for pearl millet + pigeonpea intercropping system.

20

Sharma et al. (1998) intercropped sesame with pigeon pea under different sowing

dates and concluded that pigeon pea yield was higher with sowing in July than early

September, while sesame yield decreased with delay in sowing but increased again with

September sowing. The pigeon pea equivalent yield, net returns and benefit cost ratio

were greater with sowing in July than thereafter. Pigeon pea and pigeon pea equivalent

yields, net return and benefit cost ratio were greater with 2:2 row ratio, while sesame

yield was the maximum at 2:6 ratio.

Singh et al. (1998) intercropped sesame with black gram and concluded that yield

of both the component crops was increased by increasing N but decreased by

intercropping. Total productivity was higher in intercropping systems, with the highest

sesame-equivalent yield given by sesame with 40 kg N ha-I plus black gram with 10 kg N

h -I a .

Ahuja (1999) studied the incidence of insect pest in sesame based intercropping

systems and concluded that no marked differences were observed in the attack of mites in

sesame monoculture and sesame-green gram, sesame-pearl millet and sesame-moth bean

intercropping or mixed cropping systems. Capsule damage due to gall fly and leaf webber

and capsule borer at harvest were significantly less in intercropped sesame or in sesame

mixed cropped with pearl millet, green gram or moth bean compared with sole cropped

sesame. Maximum sesame yield equivalent was recorded when sesame was intercropped

with green gram in 1: I ratio.

Moorthy and Das (1999) investigated the feasibility of different intercropping ratios

of sesame with the legumes. Monetary gain and sesame-equivalent yield were the highest in

greengram and groundnut grown alone, while intercrops gave higher yield than pure 21

sesame. Land equivalent ratio ranged between 0.89 and 1.25.

Singh and Singh (l999) determined the N requirement of sesame + V mungo intercropping system and reported that the growth characters of both component crops in the intercropping system were improved with increasing N rates. The oil content and yield of sesame sole crop and the grain and protein yield of V mungo sole crop increased with increasing N rates. The best N treatment in the intercropping system was 40 kg N ha-I to sesame and 10 kg N ha" to V. mungo.

Sarkar and Chakraborty (2000) intercropped sesame with green gram (Vigna radiata L.) cv. 81, black gram (V. mungo) cv. 876 or groundnut cv. AK-12-24 at 1:1,2:1 or 2-row ratios. Intercropping increased total crop productivity over sole cropping of sesame. Sesame equivalent yield, net returns, land equivalent ratio, product of crowding coefficient and areatime equivalent ratio were the highest with 1: I sesame + greengram intercropping. This treatment had a modest competitive ratio and aggressivity factor.

Sarkar and Sanyal (2000) evaluated the economically and biologically sustainable intercrop association of sesame iSesamum indicum) with greengram (Vigna mungoi, groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) and sunflower iHelianthus annuus) on rice fallow land. They concluded that among the intercrop associations, sesame + groundnut at 3:2 row ratio gave the highest sesame equivalent yield (947 kg ha"), land equivalent ratio (1.31), monetary advantage (Rs, 2913 ha"), net return (Rs. 5321 ha"), income equivalent ratio (1.21) with a modest competitive ratio (0.86: 1.16) and aggressivity factor (::I: 0.37). It proved to be the best intercrop stand among all the crop associations.

22

Mondal el al. (2001) studied the effect of nitrogen and potassiwn on oil

yield, nutrient uptake and soil fertility in a soybean (Glycine max) - sesame (Sesamum indicum) intercropping system and concluded that oil yield of sesame and soybean as sole crop was higher than the oil yield of both component crops as intercrop. The highest oil yield of soybean and sesame was recorded at 66 kg K + 40 kg N ha·'. Nutrient uptake of

sesame as sole crop was higher in summer than during the rainy season. The maximwn

uptake of nutrients in both sesame and soybean was observed with the application of 66 kg K + 40 kg N ha-I. K content in soybean and sesame showed negative correlation with

disease incidence and positive correlation with their respective yield. Continuous

application of K with lower N doses caused higher K build up in sole and intercropping

plots as compared to higher N dose.

Sarkar et al. (2001) investigated the sustainability of intercropping system of sesame

with pulse and oilseed crops and revealed that the intercropping of groundnut with sesame

was found to be the most beneficial. Among the intercrop association sesame + ground nut

under 2:1 row arrangement gave the maximwn sesame equivalent yield (1245 kg ha-I) and

land equivalent ratio (1.35), product of crowding coefficient (K ::; 4.58), monetary advantages (Rs.3550 ha"), net return (Rs. 5815 ha·I), income equivalent ratio (1.79) with modest competitive ratio (0.42:2.35) and aggressivity factor (1.26). It proved to be the best

among all intercrop associations.

2.4 Geometric Arrangements

Yield potential of a crop is a function of its genetic constitution (cultivar) which in

turn, is realized by high rated agro-management, availability of resources and favourable

environmental conditions (Fukai and Trenbath, 1993). In cropping pattern studies,

identification of best agronomic manipulation is sought out for a particular environment. 23

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Site Characteristics

The experiments were conducted at the Research Area of the Agronomy Department,

University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (Pakistan) during 200) and 2002. This site is located at latitude 31 ~ and longitude 73°E.

3.2 Soil Analysis

The soil of the experimental site was analysed for physico-chemical characteristics. For

this purpose composite soil samples were collected from the experimental area from a depth of

15 to 30 cm. The detail of soil analysis is given in Table 3.1. For post-harvest NPK soil

analysis, composite soil samples to a depth of 30 em were taken from each experimental unit

immediately after the harvest of the component crops.

3.3 Agro-meteorological Data

The meteorological data for the growing period of the crops during both years (200)

.md 2002) were collected from the Crop Physiology Department (Agro-rneteorology Cell),

'. Jniversity of Agriculture, Faisalabad (Fig. 3.1).

2.4 Experiment and Treatments

3.4.1 Experiment

Agro-physiological studies on sesame-legume Intercropping systems in different geometric arrangements

The experiment was conducted to determine the agro-physiological response of the

component crops in different sesame-legume intercropping systems under different geometric

ax rangements. Studies were carried out during the khari fs of 200 I and 2002. A detail of the

40

Table 3.1:

Pre-sowing physico-chemical analysis of the experimental soil.

Determination Unit
Value
2001 2002
A. Physical diaracteristics
Sand % 59.9 60.8
Silt % 18.6 17.2
Clay % 21.5 22.0
Textural class Sandy clay Sandy clay
loam loam
B. Cheml.cal characteristics
pH - 7.9 7.8
EC dSm-! 1. 10 1. 12
)rganic matter % 0.76 0.75
-\vailable N % 0.041 0.040
~\vailable
ppm 6.90 7.00
phosphorus
7 vailable
ppm 137 136
t:otassium
'-- 41

~ 25

-

!1J

; 20 Q.

E ~ 15

10

5 o +----.:.:;

45

40

35

0' 30 o

-

~ 25

:J

-

~ 20

Q.

E

~ 15

10

5

(6)

45 40 35

b 30

-

(A)

Mean maximum temperature (oC) t Mean minimum temperature (oC) I

Relative humidity (%) I

Rainfall (mm) _i

70

60

50 E E

-

40 ~

c on;

30 ~ :::!!

o

-

20 ~

10

o

July

September

October

August

Growing Season

[]a=2:i Mean maximum temperature (OC)] _ Mean minimum temperature (oC)

___ Relative humidity (%)

--- Rainf_a_c_II_,_(m_m_)L- _

70

60

50 E E

-

40 i

c 'I;

30 ~ :::!!

o

-

20 z IX

10

o

July

Aug__ust . September

urowmg Season

October

:ig ~1.1. Meteorological data for growing period of crops during the year 2001 (A) and 2002(8)

42

experimental treatments is given as under:

3.4.2 Treatments

A. Geometric arrangements

40 em spaced single rows

60 cm spaced two-row strips (20/60 ern)

100 em spaced four-row strips (2011 00 ern)

B. Intercropping systems

SI Sole sesame
S2 Sesame + mungbean
S) Sesame + mashbean
S4 Sesame + soybean
S5 Sesame + cowpea
3.5 Layout The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with split plot

.urangernent using four replications keeping geometric arrangements in the main plots and

intercropping systems in sub-plots. The net plot size measured 3.2 m x 7 m.

:,.6 Crop Husbandry

The agro-management practices for the component crops were as follows:

3.6.1 Seed bed preparation

The seed bed preparation was uniform for all component crops in all the experimental

units. Each year before seed bed preparation, pre-soaking irrigation of 10 COl depth was

applied. When soil reached the optimum moisture level (locally called as "Wattar" condition)

th ~ seedbed was prepared by giving four cultivations with a tractor-mounted cultivator

fo.lowing planking after each two cultivations. Every time soil was cultivated to a depth of 10- 43

LAYOUT PLAN

-:;1- Sc sa m c a l ooe , S~ ..... Sc s n m c -+ mnIlgh~.III, S, S ... ' .... :rrJ1L·· rll,I ... h b ca n. S, .sl."_-.,lln( f :->Llyh":;IIL

.,,,- Sc s a m c + COWj)CU

PI = 40 em spaced single rows

20 40 em 40 em 40em 40 em 40em 40 em 40em 20
em em
I., m
P" Pz = 60 em spaced 2-rows strips

~ 60em 20 60em 20 60em 20 60 em §i
~ ~
em cm cm
-. 3 2

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

3.2 m -----------------..

,---~---- PJ = 100 em_~~e~~~ strips ____ ~ _______ . __
20 )00 em 20 20 20 100 em 20 f
em cm em cm em
:.. .__------------------------

3.2 m--------------------+

F ig.3.3. GEOMETRIC ARRANGEMENTS OF SESAME

4S

12 cm.

3.6.2 Crop varieties and seed rates

The same crop varieties with normal seed rates were used during both years, the detail

of which is given in Table 3.2.

3.6.3 Time and method of sowing

The sesame crop was sown on a well prepared fine seed-bed on July 4, 200 I and July 5, 2002 with a single-row hand drill. The respective intercrops were also inter-planted on the same day as per treatments.

3.6.4 Fertilization

A basal close of fertilizer @ 50-100-50 kg NPK ha-I was applied in the forrn of Urea, single superphosphate (SSP) and sulphate of potash (SOP), respectively at. the time of sowing while additional 50 kg N ha-1 was drilled just before first irrigation to sesame rows cnly to neet its full nitrogen requirement.

. t6.S Thinning

The sesame and other intercrops were thinned out at 3-4 leaf stage to achieve desired plant population of respective crops under study.

~ .6.4 Irrigation

Three irrigations each of 7.5 ern were given during the entire growth period of crops. 1 he first irrigation was given 20 days after germination, the second 35 days after germination a td the third at tlowering.

36.7 Plant Protection

All the component plots were kept free of weeds by doing manual hoeing. Plant protection measures against sucking pests like whitefly, jassid and against pod borers were used by spraying with Acetamprid @ 300 g ha-1 and Bifenthrin @ 500 ml ha-I, respectively. 46

T rble 3.2 Botanical name, variety and seed rate of the component crops.

Crop Botanical name Variety Seed rate
(kg ha")
Sesame Sesamum indicuta 92001 5
L.
2 Mungbean Vigna radiata L. NIAB-92 25
3 Mashbean Vigna mungo L. Mash-88 20
4. Soybean Glycine max L. Faisal 100
5. Cowpea Vigna unguiculate White Star 20
L. Reference

2 3 4 5

ReI erence I and 4 Oilseed Research Institute, Ayub Agricultural Research Institute, Faisalabad, Pakistan, while 2, 3 and 5 Pulses Research Institute. Ayub Agricultural Research Institute. Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Table 3.3 Planting and harvesting dates of the component crops under different
intercropping systems.
2001 2002
Creps Planting Harvesting Duration Planting Harvesting Duration
date date (days) date date (days)
1. Sesame 4.7.2001 16.10.2001 102 5.7.2002 15.10.2002 100
2. Mungbean 4.7.2001 26.9.2001 82 5.7.2002 28.9.2002 83
3. y... ashbean 4.7.2001 26.9.2001 82 5.7.2002 27.9.2002 82
4. Soybean 4.7.2001 19.10.2001 105 5.7.2002 21.10.2002 106
5. Cowpea 4.7.2001 24.10.2001 110 5.7.2002 25.10.2002 110 47

For the control of powdry mildew one spray of Mencozaib @ 2.5 kg ha" was also done. All

other agronomic practices were kept uniform and normal for all the treatments.

3.6.8 Harvesting and threshing

Both the sesame and intercrops were harvested at their physiological maturity on the

dates given in Table 3.3. The crops were harvested manually at the ground level with the help

of a sickle, sun dried and then tied into separate bundles. All the component crops were

threshed manually.

3.7. Data Collection

The data were collected on the desired parameters of the components crops as per

treatments by using standard procedures.

3.8 Observations

The following observations were recorded during the courses of study:

3.8.1. Growth, yield parameters and final yield

J.8.1.1 Sesame

t8.1.1.1 Agronomic traits

1. Plant population density at harvest (nf2)

2. Plant height at maturity (cm)

3. Number of capsules per plant

4. Number of seeds per capsule

5. Seed weight per plant (g)

6. IOOO-seed weight (g)

7. Biological yield (kg ha·l)

8. Seed yield (kg ha")

9. Straw yield (kg ha")

10. Harvest index (%)

48

3.8.1.1.2 Physiological traits

1. Leaf area index

2. Leaf area duration (days)

3. Crop growth rate (g m,2d,,)

4. Dry matter accumulation at fortnight interval (g m")

5. Net assimilation rate (g m,2d,l)

3.8.1.1.3 Qualitative traits

1. Seed oil concentration (%)

2. Seed crude protein concentration (%)

3.8.1.2 Intercrops

1. Plant population density at harvest (m")
2. Plant height at maturity (em)
3. Number of pods per plant
4. N urn ber 0 f seeds per pod
5. IOOO-seed weight (g)
6. Biological yield (kg ha")
7. Seed yield (kg ha")
8. Straw yield (kg ha")
9. Harvest index (%)
10. Seed crude protein concentration (%) ~ .8.2 Competitive Functions

I. Relative crowding coefficient

2. Aggressivity value

3. Competitive ratio

49

3.8.3 Agronomic Advantages

I. Sesame seed yield equivalent (kg ha·l)

2. Land equivalent ratio (LER)

3. Area-time equivalent ratio (ATER)

3.8.4 Post-harvest Nutrient (NPK) Status of the Soil

I. Nitrogen level (%)

2. Phosphorus level (ppm)

3. Potassium level (ppm) 3 .• 8.5 Economic Analysis

3.8.5.1 Nct field benefit

I. Gross field benefit (Rs. ha·l)

2. Total variable cost (Rs. ha")

3. Net field benefit (Rs. ha") t8.5.2 Marginal Analysis

I. Dominance analysis

2. Marginal rate of return (%)

: ;.8.6 Sensitivity Analysis

: .9 Procedures adopted for recording data

The procedures used for collecting data on the above mentioned parameters in both years were the same as detailed below:

50

3.9.1 Growth, yield parameters and final yield 3.9.1.1 Sesame

3.9.1.1.1 Agronomic traits

3.9.1.1.1.1. Plant population density at harvest

At harvest total plants were counted in each plot measuring 3.2 m x 7 m and then

converted into plants m·2•

3.9.1.1.1.2. Plant height at maturity (em)

Twenty mature plants were randomly selected from each experimental unit, their height was measured with the help of a meter rod and thereafter average per plant was calculated in

cm.

3.9.1.1.1.3. Number of capsules/pods per plant

Total number of capsules/pods per twenty randomly selected plants from each experimental unit was counted and then average per plant was calculated.

J.9.1.1.1.4. Number of seeds per capsule/pod

Seeds collected from pods of twenty plants were counted and then averaged. : ,.9.1.1.1.5. Seed weight plant"

Seed collected from pods of twenty plants were weighed and averaged. :.9.1.1.1.6. lOOO-seed weight (g)

Three samples each of 1000 seeds were taken at random from the seed lot of each plot, v eighed on an electric balance and then averaged.

39.1.1.1.7. Biological yicld (kg ha")

Crop from each experimental unit was harvested close to the ground level and kept separately, S1.1 dried for about a week and then tied into small bundles and thereafter weighed with the help of sp 'ing balance to determine the total biomass plot" and then converted into kg ha'l.

51

3.9.1.1.1.8. Seed yield (kg ha-1)

Sun dried biomass in each plot was threshed manually, cleaned and then seed weight per plot was recorded and thereafter to record the seed yield plot" converted into kg ha", 3.9.1.1.1.9. Straw yield (kg ha")

The threshed biomass in each plot was weighed and thereafter to record the straw weight ha-' converted into kg ha-',

3.9.1.1.1.10. Harvest index (%)

The harvest index (HI) was calculated as the ratio of seed yield to total biological yield.

Seed yield

HI (%) =

----- x 100

Biological yield

3.9.1.1.2 Physiological traits Leaf area index

Leaf area index (LAl) was determined by using the following formula of Beadle

1987):

L.AI =

p

Where r, is the functional (green) leaf area of the crop canopy standing on ground area

I.

I eaf area duration (LAD)

The LAD was estimated using the formula of Hunt (1978) LAD = [(LA!, + LAI2) x (t2 - t,) /2]

V 'here

LAI, and LAI2 are the leaf area indices at tl and t2, respectively.

52

Crop growth rate

The crop growth rate (CGR) was calculated by the formula given by Hunt (1978).

GCR=W2-W1/t2-tl

Where

WI and W2 are the total dry weights harvested at tl and t2, respectively.

Dry matter accumulation and leaf area

Dry matter (OM) accumulation and leaf area (LA) m'2 in sesame was determined at fortnight intervals by collecting samples from a uniform unit area in each treatment. The sampling was initiated 15 days after emergence (OAE) and terminated 75 OAE. Soon after harvest each sample was weighed to determine the fresh weight. Then leaf blades (Lamina) in each sample were removed with a razor blade for determining LA by using the Leaf Area Meter (Model 3100). Each plant sample including the excised leaves was chaffed, thoroughly nixed and then sun dried. After this, samples were placed in an oven at 70°C to dry the plant naterial to the constant dry weight. The data pertaining to the OM and LA were used to :alculate OM accumulation m'2 and LA me2 ground area.

Ij'et assimilation rate (NAR)

Net assimilation rate (NAR) was determined by the formula of Hunt (1978).

NAR = TOMILAO

, Vhere

TOM = LAD ;;:::

Total dry matter Leaf area duration

J 9.1.1.3 Qualitative Traits

1. Seed oil concentration (%)

2, Seed protein concentration (%)

53

Crude seed protein (%)

Total nitrogen content of the sample was determined by the micro Kjeldahl method (AOAC, 1990). A 0.5 g of dried and finely ground sample was taken in a Kjeldahl flask with 3 g of digestion mixture (H2S04 + K2S04») in the ratio of 1:9 and thereafter 20 ml of Sulfuric acid was added. The material was boiled in a digestion apparatus for 1.5-2 hours till the contents became clear. The digested material was cooled and then diluted up to 250 ml in a volurnetric flask by adding distilled water. An aliquot 10 ml was transferred to the micro cjeldahl distillation apparatus. It was mixed with 10 ml of 40% NaOH and distilled in the iresence of 50 mg zinc dust. Ammonia thus evolved was collected in a receiver containing 10 nl of2% Boric acid solution with methyl red as an indicator.

The contents of distillate were titrated against standard Sulfuric acid (NIl 0 H2S04) to a I ight pink colour end point. From the volume of acid used, percentage of nitrogen was I alculated on the basis of ammonia liberated. Nitrogen and crude protein percentage were , zorked out as follows:

Volume of acid used x 0.0014 x 250 x 100

l litrogen (%) ;;;: ---------------------

Sample weight x 10m I

Crude protein content (%) 5 eed oil concentration (%)

The seed oil concentration in sesame and soybean were determined by Soxhlet method v ith the help of Soxhlet apparatus in the laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Faculty of Animal

==

Nitrogen content (%) x 6.25

J-: usbandry, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. S txhlet Fat Extraction method

In general "Soxhlet" apparatus is used for routine analysis. Usually Diethyle ether or 54

refined petroleum (low boiling point i.c. 40-60°C) is used for extraction of fat from ground material. The apparatus consists of an extraction tube, condenser and a flask. Ether is poured in the flask which upon heating, evaporates and passes into the condenser, from where it falls back in the extraction tube and comes in intimate contact with the solvent, when excess ether (or petroleum) reaches the extraction tube, it is siphoned back along with fat. Usually 4·6 siphonings are required to complete the extraction.

PROCEDURE

1. Weigh the oven dried filter paper (WI)

2. Weigh the ground oven dried sample (W2)

3. Wrap the sample in the filter paper (W 3)

4. Put the wrapped sample in extraction tube

5. Turn on water and heater to start extraction of fat.

6. After 4-6 siphonings, stop the apparatus and disconnect the flask. The ether

(Petroleum) in the extraction tube is recovered for future use.

7. Turn out the wrapped residue (Paper + sample) from the extraction tube.

8. Place the wrapped residue for some time in open air and then place it in oven.

9. Cool in dessicator and weigh (W4)

10 .Caleulate fat percentage by using the following formula (AOAC, 1990):

Fat %age

:::

x 100

55

3.9.2. Competitive Functions

The following abbreviations were used to calculate different competitive functions.

Yaa pure stand yield of crop "a".

Yab intercrop yield of crop "all,

Ybb pure stand yield of crop "b".

Yba intercrop yield of crop "b".

lab and Zba are sown proportions of crop "a" and lib" in an intercropping system.

Relative crowding coefficient

Relative crowding coefficient (K) was proposed by Dewit (1960) which was calculated

by the following formula:

Yab Zba

Kab =

(Dewit, 1960).

Yaa - Yab Zab

Nhere

Kab = Relative crowding coefficient for the component crop "a". All other

; bbreviations such as Yaa, Yab, Zab, Zba have been described above in this section.

.rggressivity value

Aggressivity (A) shows the degree of dominance of one crop over other when sown

tigether. Aggressivity value was calculated by the formula proposed by McGilchrist (1965).

Yab Yba

Aab =

Yaa x lab

Yba x Zba

Vbere

Aab = Aggressivity value for the component crop "a". All other abbreviations have

be en described above in this section.

56

Competitive ratio

Competitive ratio (CR) was calculated by the formula proposed by Willey et al. (1980).

Yab Yba

CRa ;:::

----- +

Yaa x Zab

Ybb x Zba

Where

CRa;::: Aggressivity value for the component crop "a". All the other abbreviations have

been described above in this section.

3.9.3. Agronomic advantages

Sesame seed yield equivalent:

Sesame seed yield equivalent was computed by converting the yields of intercrops into

grain yield of sesame, based on the existing market price of each intercrop (Anjeneyulu et al.,

982) .

... and equivalent ratio

Land equivalent ratio (LER) was computed using the formula described by Willey

( 1979).

LER ;:::

La+ Lb

Yab Yba

--+--

Yaa Ybb

\ /here

La and Lb are the LERs for the individual crops

Yaa ;:::

Pure stand yield of crop "a"

Ybb =

Pure stand yield of crop lib"

Yab =Intercrop yield of crop "all intercropped with crop lib"

Yab =Intercrop yield of crop "b" intercropped with crop "a"

57

\

Area-time equivalent ratio

Area time equivalent ratio (A TER) was determined by using the formula proposed by

Hiebsch (1980).

ATER ::;

(Rye x tc) x (Ryp x tp)

T

Where

Ryc == Relative yield of main crop ( c )
Ryp :;; Relative yield of component crop ( p )
tc == Duration (days) for crop c
tp == Duration (days) for crop p
T = Duration (days) of the intercropping system 3.9.4 Soil and plant analysis for NPK

The physico-chemical analysis of different soil and plant parameters was done by using :he procedures described in the Manual for soil. plant and water analysis (Anonymous, 1984). \.9.5 Economic analysis

Economic analysis was conducted in three steps i.e., net field benefits, marginal : nalysis and sensitivity analysis.

: .9.5.1 Net field benefits

(;ross benefit (Rs, ba-I)

The gross field benefit refer to the gross income derived from the main and by-products o "the component crops in each intercropping system.

58

Total variable cost (Rs. ha")

The total variable cost (Rs.ha-I) was determined by calculating total variable cost of

production of sesame and intercrops in each treatment.

Net field benefit

The net field benefit (Rs.ha-I) was calculated by deducting the gross investment from

the gross field benefit (CIMMYT 1988).

3.9.6 Marginal Analysis

In economic analysis, we calculated the net field benefits but did not compare the costs

that vary with the net field benefits. For such a comparison, marginal analysis is required. The

marginal analysis involves the dominance analysis and marginal rate of return that are detailed

below:

(a) Dominance analysis

For dominance analysis, treatments were arranged in order of increasing variable costs.

<\ treatment was considered dominated (0) if its variable costs were higher than the preceding

reatment, but its net field benefits were equal or lower (CIMMYT, 1988).

I b) Marginal rate of return

Marginal rate of return (MRR [%] is the marginal net field benefit (MNB) i.e., the

change in net field benefits divided by the marginal cost (MC) i.e., the change in costs

e {pressed as a percentage. MRR was determined by using the formula given by CIMMYT

( 988).

MRR(%)

=

MNB -XIOO MC

59

3.9.7 Sensitivity analysis

The input and output prices of agricultural commodities keep on fluctuating from year

to year and location to location in Pakistan. Therefore, in order to test our recommendation, its

ability to withstand the possible price changes "Sensitivity analysis" was performed, In this

analysis, marginal analysis was done using an alternative set of input and output prices.

Different scenario assumed about tilt: change in input and output prices are listed below:

(a) Sensitivity analysis with constant input prices and output prices increased by 10% from the current level,

(b) Sensitivity analysis with input prices increased by 10% and output prices kept constant, and

(c) Sensitivity analysis with input prices increased by 5% and output prices decreased by 5%.

3.9.8 Statistical Analysis

The data were statistically analysed by using the computer Statistical Programme

MSTAT-C (Freed and Eiscnsmith, 1986). Analysis of variance technique was employed (Steel and Torrie, 1984) and Least Significant Differences (LSD) test at 0.05 P was used to compare

he treatment's means. While the computer package "Excel" was used to prepare graphs.

60

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Ago-physiological Studies on Sesame-Legumes Intercropping Systems in Different Geometric Arrangements

The experiment was conducted during the Kharif 2001 and 2002 by using three

planting patterns i.e., 40 cm spaced single rows, 60 ern spaced 2-row strips and 100 ern

spaced 4-row strips. Four legumes viz. mungbean, mashbean, soybean and cowpea were

ntercropped in sesame on the same day just before sowing of Sesame. Plant population

vas kept constant and optimum in all the three geometric arrangements. The crops were

iarvested at their physiological maturity. The data regarding growth, yield. yield

,omponents and other parameters were recorded at suitable crop growth stages. In this

I hapter the results obtained for different cropping systems and planting patterns are

1 -resented and described in detail.

, .1.1 Agronomic Traits

; .1.1.1 Grain Yield per Hectare (GYH)

The year effect on grain yield per hectare (GYH) of sesame was significant and

curing 2002 the grain yield was 7.77% higher than the preceding year. The yield

( ifference between the years might be ascribed to differential day-to-day variations in the

r iaximum and minimum temperatures resulting in different daily leaf temperature across

t. Le years. more total rainfall during 2002 than 200 I, different patterns of rainfall and

r· ·Iative humidity over the two years and other temporal variations in the environment.

Such environmental variations across the years also resulted in better growth and

61

fable 4.1: Grain yield (kg ha") of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.

ntercropping Systems Planting Patterns
40 em spaced 60 ern spaced 100 em spaced Mean
single rows paired rows 4-row strips
(PI) _(P2) (PJ)
2001
.esarne alone (SI) 731.3 a 697.7 be 720.9 ab 716.6 A
+ Mungbean (S2) 466.0 i 639.2 ef 669.9 cd 591.8 B
+ Mashbean (S3) 456.3 ij 627.6 f 658.4 de 580.7 B
+ Soybean (S4) 435.5 j 590.7 g 645.8 def 557.3 C
+ Cowpea (S5) 394.8 k 557.3 h 622.4 f 524.8 D
lean 496.80 C 622.50 B 663.50 A 594.24
. SD (P ~ 0.05) P = 18.23, S == 17.19 and P x S == 29.77
2002
; esame alone (SI) 776.5 a 745.8 b 768.3 ab 763.5 A
: + Mungbean (S2) 509.4 h 687.3 de 718.0 c 638.2 B
'+ Mashbean (S3) 496.0 hi 675.7 e 706.5 cd 626.2 B
. + Soybean (S4) 477.6 i 638.8 f 693.9 cde 603.5 C
._
+ Cowpea (S5) 436.9 j 605.5 g 669.8 e 570.70
, ean 539.3 C 670.6 B 711.3 A 640.42
,0 (P ~ 0.05) for P = 25.48, S = 15.38 and P x S == 16.65 + Any two means not sharing a letter differ significantly at P ~ 0.05.

62

( evelopment of sesame in 2002 than 200 I as is evident from the results discussed latter i I this chapter.

The planting patterns, intercropping systems and their interaction had significant ( Teets on GYH in both years (Table 4.1). Although the crop planted in 40 ern spaced s ngle rows with no intercropping produced significantly higher GYH (731.3 kg) than ~ ime of the interactive combinations but was statistically at par with PJS I compared to te minimum in P [S5 i.e., when sesame crop was planted in 40 em spaced single rows and

tercropped with cowpea.

Reduction in grain yield of sesame due to intercropping might be due to greater 1 ter and intra specific competition for different growth factors i.e., moisture. nutrient, s lace, solar radiation etc. Besides intercrops might have some suppressive allelopathic e feet on growth and yield of the associated sesame. The maximum reduction in grain y eld of sesame due to cowpea intercropping was ascribed to relatively more aggressive vgetative growth than mungbean, mashbean and soybean. Reduction in grain yield of s· same due to legumes intercropping was also reported by Patra and Bhal (1994) and !\ ohiuddin and Ghosh (1997).

As regards planting patterns, the crop planted in 4-row strips produced si miflcantly higher GYH (363.5 kg) than the crop planted in 60 ern spaced paired rows «( 22.5 kg) compared to the minimum (496.8 kg) in 40 cm spaced single rows.

Grain yield in strip plantation was attributed to greater number of capsules plant" ar d IOOO-seed weight. Significant variation in G YH of sesame among different planting p: ttems has also been reported by Sarkar and Pramanik (1992) and Osman (1993). H iwever, these results are not in agreement with those of Ahuja et (II. (1971) and Sarma

63

1994) who reported that sesame yield was not significantly different among various lanting patterns. Almost similar trend was observed during 2002 .

. . 1.1.2 Stalk Yield per Hectare (SYH)

The year effect on stalk yield per hectare (S YH) of sesame was significant. On an : verage, the crop gave 5.91 % higher S YI-I during 2002 than 200 I .

The planting patterns, intercropping systems and their interaction had a significant I lfect on SYH in both years (Table 4.2). During 2001 the crop planted in 40 cm spaced ~ .ngle rows with no intercropping gave significantly higher SYH (2670 kg) than some of t re interactive combinations but was statistically at par with P2S]' P)SI and P)S2 ( ompared to the minimum (1522 kg) in P1S5 i.e., when sesame crop was planted in 40 ern ~ saced single rows and intercropped with cowpea.

During 2002 the crop planted in 40 ern spaced single rows with no intercropping I roduced significantly higher SYH but was at par with P2Sl, P2S2, P)SI, P)S2, p)S), P)S4, E id P3SS as against the minimum in PISS which was at par with PIS2, PIS), P1S4 and P2S1 I atra et al. (1995) and Ahmad (1997) reported a significant reduction in straw yield of \ heat grown in association with lentil compared with the sole crop of wheat. Reduction i SYH of intercropped sesame was probably ascribed to severe competition between the c -rnponent crops for essential growth factors which suppressed the vegetative a -velopment of sesame. This is evident from the less plant height and less number of c psules plant" in some interactive combinations compared with sole sesame.

As regards planting patterns, during 200 I the crop planted in 4-row strips p oduced significantly higher SYH (2535 kg) than the crop planted in 60 ern spaced pired rows compared to the minimum (1899 kg) in 40 cm spaced single rows. Similarly

64

fable 4.2. Stalk yield (kg ha") of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.

40 em spaced 60 em spaced I 00 em spaced Mean
(PI) (P2] (P3) "-
2001
esarne alone (SI) 2670 a 2581 abc 2634 ab 2628 A
+ Mungbean (S2) 1808 h 2499 cde 2566 abed 2291 B
+ Mashbean (S)) 1768 hi 2464 de 2548 bed 2660 B
+ Soybean (S4) 1996 i 2325 f 2505 cde 2176 C
+ Cowpea (S5) 1552 j 2204 g 2424 ef 20600
lean 1899 C 2414 B 2535 A 2283
SO (P ~ 0.05) P = 65.69 S::::; 60.27 and P x S::::; 104.4
2002
esame alone (SI) 2836 a 2755 ab 2824 ab 2805 A
+ Mungbean (S2) 1967 cd 2676 ab 2749 ab 2464 B
+ Mashbean (S)) 1899 d 2964 cd 2734 ab 2232 B
+ Soybean (S4) 1859 d 2509 ab 2691 ab 2353 B
+ Cowpea (S5) 1717 d 2389 be 2603 ab 2236 B
ean 2056 B 2478 A 2720 A 2418
;0 (P ~ 0.05) p::::; 294.8, S = 256.1 and P x S = 443.6 • \ny two means not sharing a letter differ significantly at P;::;: 0.05.

65

n 2002, although the crop planted in 4-row strips gave significantly higher SYH but was .t par with the crop was planted in 60 cm spaced paired rows against the minimum when he crop planted in 40 ern spaced single rows. These results concur with the findings of liddique et al. (1995) and Ahmad (1997) who reported variable straw yield of wheat for ifferent planting techniques .

. 1.1.3 Biological Yield per Hectare (BYH)

The year effect on biological yield ha' was significant and BYH was 7.68% igher during the second year than the Ist year probably due to more favourable weather . onditions and regular supply of water during the 2nd year.

The planting patterns. intercropping system and their interactions had a significant I ffect on biological yield during 200 I (Table 4.3). Although the crop planted in 40 em ; paced single rows with no intercropping produced significantly higher B YH (340 I kg) 1 Ian some of the interactive combinations but was statistically at par with P2S1 and P3S1 ; gainst the minimum (1947 kg) in PISS i.e., when sesame crop was planted in 40 ern ~ laced single rows and intercropped with cowpea. Significant reduction in biomass yield i I all intercropping treatments was attributed to the direct competition between ( nnponent crops for plant growth factors. Such reduction in BYH was reported by 1 hmad (1990), Anjum (1996) and Ahmad (1997) in wheat-based intercropping systems.

As regards planting patterns, the crop planted in 4-row strips gave significantly l gher biomass than the crop planted in 60 em spaced paired rows compared to the r inimum in 40 ern spaced single rows. Differences in biomass yield of sesame among , irious planting patterns were attributed to their variable plant height and vegetative

66

"able 4.3. Biological yield (kg ha") of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.

40 em spaced 60 em spaced 100 em spaced Mean
(PI) (P2) (P3)
2001
esame alone (SI) 3401 a 3278 abc 3355 ab 3345 A
+ Mungbean (Sz) 2274 i 3138 def 3236 bed 2883 B
+ Mashbean (S3) 2.224 ij 3091 ef 3206 cdc 2841 B
+ Soybean (S4) 2132 j 2916 g 3151 edef 2733 C
+ Cowpea (S5) 1947 k 2761 h 3046 fg 2585 D
lean 2396 C 3037 R 3199 A 2877
SD(P~0.05)P;: 83.9, S;: 77.1 andPxS= 135.5
2002
ssarne alone (SI) 3612 a 3503 abc 3575 ab 3563 A
+ Mungbean (S2) 2476 i 3363 def 3467 bed 3102 B
+ Mashbean (SJ) 2420 ij 3320 ef 3441 cde 3060 B
t Soybean (S4) 2337 j 3147 g 3385 cdef 2956 C
t- Cowpea (S5) 2154 k 2994 h 3273 fg 2807 D
ean 2600 C 3266 B 3428 A 3098
;D (P ~ 0.05) p;: 111.8, S = 74.3 and P x S :;;:: 128.7 • \ny two means not sharing a letter differ significantly at P ~ 0.05.

67

rowth. Almost similar trend was noted during 2nd year. Malik et al. (1992) reported that ifferent row spacings had a significant effect on biological yield of sesame .

. 1.1.4 Plant population density at harvest (mol)

The year effect on plant population density (PPD) at harvest was non-significant. herefore, the 2-year average data are discussed. Different planting patterns, itercropping systems and their interaction, had also a non-significant effect on PPD in . oth years (Table 4.4). This was primarily due to the fact that a uniform sesame : opulation in rows was maintained by thinning in all the treatments during both years. : econdly, planting geometry was altered in such a way that number of sesame rows was 1 ie same in all the three planting patterns. Thus similar plant population was maintained. : ie et al. (1978) also reported experiments in which the plant population of the base crop . 'as kept constant while the planting geometries were altered. Plant population of the I lain crop is maintained as a principle in various intercropping systems, so as to realize 1 111 yield of the main crop plus some additional yield of the second crop (Willey, 1979). lon-significant effect of intercropping legumes in relation to planting patterns of cotton ( '1 plants mo2 at harvest have also been reported by Deshpande et al. (1989) and Khan ( :000).

" 1.1.5 Number of capsules plant" (NCP)

The year effect on the number of capsules plant" was significant and NCP on an , .erage was 7.29% higher during the second year than the 1st year. The planting patterns, i tercropping systems and their interactions had a significant effect on NCP in both years ( 'able 4.4). During the 1st year although the crop planted in 40 em spaced single rows \ ith no intercropping gave significantly high NCP (47.91) than some of the interactive

68

fable 4.4.

Plant population density at harvest (m-2) of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.

Two-year average data
Planting Patterns
40 em spaced 60 em spaced 100 em spaced
itercropping Systems single rows paired rows 4-row strips Mean
(PI) (P2) (PJ) ._
esame alone (SI) 23.69 22.61 23.00 23.10 N~
+ Mungbean (S2) 22.14 22.29 23.31 22.58 I
+ Mashbean (S3) 23.26 23.22 22.42 22.96
+ Soybean (S4) 28.11 22.19 22.56 22.29
+ Cowpea (55) 23.06 22.23 22.31 22.53
lean 22.85 22.51 22.72 ._ r S = Non-significant

69

'able 4.5. Number of capsules plant" of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes intereropping.

40 cm spaced 60 em spaced 100 em spaced Mean
(PI) (P2) (p)
2001
esame alone (St) 47.91 a 45.08 ab 45.95 a 46.31 A
+ Mungbean (~) 31.92 fg 39.80 ede 43.89 abc 38.54 B
+ Mashbean (SJ) 31.32 fg 38.61 de 43.54 abc 37.82 BC
+ Soybean (S4) 28.08 gh 37.68 de 41.07 bed 35.61 CD
+ Cowpea (S5) 25.57 h 35.44 ef 40.31 cd 33.77 D
1ean 32.96 C 39.32 B 42.95 A 38.41
SD (P ~ 0.05) P = 1.97, S == 2.61 and P x S == 4.52
2002
esame alone (St) 50.84 a 48.24 abc 49.15 ab 49.41 A
._
+ Mungbean (S2) 34.13 g 42.92 de 46.29 bc 41.11 B
+ Mashbean (S3) 33.98 g 42.47 e 45.94 cd 40.80 B
+ Soybean (S4) 31.83 g 40.28 ef 43.06 de 38.39 C
+ Cowpea (S5) 28.42 h 38.44 f 42.15 e 36.34 D
lean 35.84 C 42.47 B 45.32 A 41.21
SD (P ~ 0.05) P == 1.75 S == 1.85 and P x S == 3.21 ~ Any two means not sharing a letter differ significantly at P ~ 0.05.

70

( ombinaticns but was statistically at par with P2S I, P3S I, P)S2 and p)S,l. compared to the I .inirnum in PISS (25.57) which was statistically at par with PIS4 (28.08).

Similarly in the second year the crop planted in 40 em spaced single rows with no

tercropping produced significantly higher NCP (50.84) than some of the interactive ( smbinations but was statistically at par with P2S1 and p)Sr against the minimum in PISS ( 8.42) i.e. when sesame crop was intercropped with cowpea, Significant variation in I1 Imber of capsules plant" has also been reported by Zhao et al. (1992). On the contrary I- vila et al. (1992) stated that NCP of sesame were not affected significantly by different r, w spacings.

4 1.1.6 Number of seeds pcr capsule (NSC)

Since the year effect on NSC was non-significant, hence 2-year average data are d scussed. The planting patterns, intercropping systems and their interaction had nonsi mificant effects on NSC in both years (Table 4.4). However, on an average the number n rged between 60.99 and 62.32 seeds per capsule". Bajwa et al. (1992) reported that m mber of grains per spike of wheat was not affected significantly by intercropping. By cr ntrast, Zhao et al. (1992) recorded greater number of seeds per capsule when sesame w s intercropped with wheat. Similarly Khalid et al. (1988) and Tareen et al. (1988) re orted that the number of grains per spike of wheat was not affected significantly by di ferent planting patterns. On the contrary Bonsu (1977) and Malik et al. (1992) ot ierved that different row spacings had a significant effect on the number of seeds per ca .sule (NSC) of sesame.

71

· 'able 4.6.

Number of seeds capsule" of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.

Planting Patterns
40 ern spaced 60 ern spaced 100 ern spaced
tercropping Systems single rows paired rows 4-row stri ps Mean
(PI) (P2) (PJ)
ssarne alone (S,) 61.74 61.75 61.99 61.83 N~
+ Mungbean (S2) 61.28 61.62 61.75 61.55
+ Mashbean (SJ) 61.50 61.71 61.80 61.67
+ Soybean (S4) 62.30 61.58 61.66 61.85
+ Cowpea (S5) 61.73 61.32 61.15 61.40
ean 61.71 61.60 61.67 1\ ; = Non-significant

72

. 'able 4.7.

Seed weight plant" of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.

ltercroE~ing Sz:stems Planting Patterns
single rows paired rows -l-row strips
(PI) (P2) (p))
2001
esame alone (SI) 5.63 a 5.13 be 5.42 ab 5.38 A
+ Mungbean (S2) 3.88 f 4.42d 4.15 be 4.48 B
+ Mashbean (S)) 3.85 f 4.40b 5.12 be 4.46B
. + Soybean (S4) 3.10 g 4.24 de 5.09 be 4.14 C
. + Cowpea (S5) 3.05 g 4.01 ef 5.00 c 4.02 C
lean 3.90 C 4.44 B 5.16 A 4.50
._
SD (P ~ 0.05) P ::=: 0.13, S = 0.14 and P x S = 0.24
2002
esame alone (Sd 5.87 a 5.51 b 5.74 ab 5.71 A
+ Mungbean (S2) 3.96 f 4.66 d 5.55 b 4.72 B
+ Mashbean (S3) 3.92 f 4.63 d 5.52 b 4.69 B
+ Soybean (S4) 3.34 g 4.33 e 5.24 c 4.30 C
+- Cowpea (S5) 3.25 g 4.29 e 5. I I c 4.22 C
ean 4.07 C 4.68 B 5.43 A 4.73
:D (P ~ 0.05) P = 0.13, S = 0.15 and P x S = 0.26 • \ny two means not sharing a letter differ significantly at P ~ 0.05.

73

U.l.7 Seed weight plant" (SWP)

The year effect on seed weight plant" (SWP) was significant which on an average vas 5.11 % morc during the second year than the Ist year. This was probably due to elatively more favourable weather conditions especially rainfall and temperature during . ie 2nd year.

The planting patterns, intercropping systems and their interactions had a ~ .gnificant effect on seed weight plant" (SWP) during each year (Table 4.6). Although 1 re crop planted in 40 em spaced single rows produced significantly the maximum (5.63) ~ WP than some of the interactive combination but was ~atistically at par with P)SI ~ ~ainst the minimum when sesame crop was planted in 40' em spaced single rows and i .tercropped with cowpea or soybean. Similar trend was noted during the 2nd year. Ahuja e al. (1971) also reported that seed weight plant" of sesame was increased in wider row s lacing. On the contrary A vila et al. (1992) observed that seed production per plant was n )t significantly affected by different row spacings.

4 1.1.8 lOOO-seed weight (g)

As the year effect on 1000-seed weight of sesame was non-significant, so mean v lues of two year data are discussed. The planting patterns, intercropping systems and tl sir interaction had a significant effect on 1000-seed weight in both years (Table 4.8). Te crop planted in 40 cm spaced single rows with no intercropping although gave si .nificantly higher lOOO-seed weight (3.64 g) than some of the interactive combinations bi t was statistically at par with P2SI, P3S1, P3S3, P3S4 and P3SS compared to the minimum in PISS (3.16) i.e., when sesame crop was grown in 40 ern spaced single rows and in ercropped with cowpea. This was probably due to higher competition among the

74

l'able 4.8: lOOO-seed weight (g) of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.

Planting Patterns
ntercropping Systems 40 em spaced 60 em spaced ! 100 em spaced
single rows paired rows 4-row strips Mean
_(PJ) (Pv _(P1)
esame alone (SJ) 3.64 a 3.61 ab 3.62 ab 3.62 A
3.47 B'-
+ Mungbean (S2) 3.37 de 3.53 be 3.52 be
+ Mashbean (SJ) 3.36 de 3.51 be 3.59 ab 3.49 B
+ Soybean (S4) 3.27 e 3.43 cd 3.58 ab 3.43 BC
+ Cowpea (Ss) 3.16 f 3.82 de 3.55 ab 3.36 C
.ean 3.36 C 3.49 B 3.57 A 3.47
I
;0 (P ~ 0.05) p;:: 0.56, S = 0.66 and P x S = 0.11 • Any two means not sharing a letter differ significantly at P ~ 0.05.

75

t omponent crops for essential growth factors. Zhao et al. (1992) also reported that the

OOO-seed weight of sesame was significantly affected when intercropped with wheat. , 'hese results are also in line with those of Malik eJ al. (1992) who reported that the row ~ pacing had a significant effect on 1000-seed weight of sesame. By contrast, Bonsu (1977) reported that the 1000-seed weight of sesame was not affected significantly by ( ifferent row spacings had no significant effect on 1000-seed weight of sesame.

4.1.1.9 Plant height (em)

There was a significant year effect on plant height of sesame. It was 3.40% higher d .iring 2nd year than the Ist year which was attributed to relatively more rainfall and c mtinuous supply of irrigation water during 2002 than 200 I.

The planting patterns, intercropping systems and their interactions had a s gnificant effect on plant height during 2001 (Table 4.9). Although the crop planted in 4) ern spaced single rows with no intercropping produced significantly taller plants C 29.9 em) than some of the interactive combinations but was statistically at par with P SI, P2S2, P3SJ, P3S2, P3S), P)S4 and P3SS compared to the minimum in PISS (90.52 ern) i.1 . when sesame crop was planted in 40 ern spaced single rows and intercropped with cc wpea which was statistically at par with P1S4. Decrease in plant height of sesame due to associated cultures was also reported by Osman (1993).

As regards planting patterns, the crop planted In 4-row strips produced sil :nificantly taller plants (125.5 em) than the crop planted in 60 em spaced paired rows (I 4.1 ern) compared to the minimum (106.1 ern) in 40 cm spaced single rows.

During 2002, although the main effects were significant but the interaction was no r-significant, The crop planted in 4-row strips produced significantly taller plants

76

Table 4.9: Plant height (em) of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.

lntercropping Systems Planting Patterns
40 cm spaced 60 cm spaced 100 cm spaced Mean
(Pd (P2) (P3)
2001
,esarne alone (SI) 129.9 a 124.4 ab 127.7 ab 127.3 A
: + Mungbean (S2) 105.3 de 118.9 abc 127.0 ab 117.1 B
. + Mashbean (S3) 10S.de 115.9 bed 126.4 ab 115.8 B
+ Soybean (S4) 99.55 ef 110.5 cde 124.6 ab 111.5 BC
+ Cowpea (55) 90.52 f 100.9 ef 121.7 abc 104.4 C
fean 106.1 C 114.1 B 125.5 A 115.2
SD (P ~ 0.05) P = 7.23, S = 7.28 and P x S = 12.60
2002
esame alone (51) 134.91 130.95 131.79 132.6 A
+ Mungbean (S2) 110.85 119.24 130.87 120.3 B
+ Mashbean (SJ) 108.15 118.92 130.35 119.1 B
t- Soybean (S4) 103.31 114.90 127.40 115.2 Be
t- Cowpea (S~) 93.76 105.95 125.52 108.4 C
--
ean 110.2 B 118.0 B 129.2 A 119.12
~ D (P ~ 0.05) P = 9.58 and S = 8.55 '" .vny two means not sharing a Jetter differ significantly at P :;.;; 0.05.

77

(129.2 ern) than the crop planted either in 40 em spaced single rows or 60 em spaced oaired rows which were at par with each other. Greater plant height in 4-row strips was ittributed to close spacing among the rows in a strip. Osman (1993) also reported that 'ow spacing had a significant effect on plant height of sesame. As regards intercropping ystems there was also a significant variation among them. The sesame crop grown alone

: n 40 em spaced rows produced significantly taller plants (132.6 em) than all other i rtercropping treatments.

'.1.1.10 Harvest index (HI)

The year effect on harvest index (HI) of sesame was non-significant. Therefore, r Lean values of two year data are discussed. The harvest index was affected significantly b r both planting patterns and intercropping systems in each year. However, the it teractive effects were non-significant (Table 4.10).

Sole sesame produced significantly higher H.I. than all intercropped treatments \\ aich also differed significantly from one another. Among the intercropping systems, the CDP intercropped with mungbean although gave significantly higher H.I. (21.43) than se same + soybean and sesame + cowpea but was at par with sesame + mashbean. in ercropping system. The lowest H.I. of 20.31 % was recorded for sesame + cowpea in' ercropping system which was significantly less than sesame + soybean (20.40) that in tel 1 was at par with sesame + mash (20.48) intcrcropping system. The reduction in HI of set arne due to intercropping might be ascribed to intensive competition among the coi iponent crops for moisture, space and light which probably lowered the ability of the ses ime to convert dry matter into seed yield. These results are similar to those reported

78

Table 4.10: Harvest index (%) of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.

Planting Patterns
40 ern spaced 60 em spaced 100 em spaced
ntercropping Systems single rows paired rows 4-row strips Mean
(PI) (P2) (p)
, Iesame alone (SI) 21.50 21.29 2 1.49 N~ 21.43 A
: ; + Mungbean (S2) 20.53 20.40 20.70 20.55 B
~ + Mashbean (S3) 20.51 20.33 20,60 20.48 BC
~ + Soybean (S4) 20.44 20.28 20.50 20.40 C
~ + Cowpea (S5) 20.27 20.20 20.45 20.3 I 0
~Iean 20.65 B 20.50 C 20.75 A
L SO (P ~ 0.05) P = 0.079 and S = 0.093 " Any two means not sharing a letter differ significantly at P ~0.05.

N S = Non-significant

79

by Singh and Gupta (1993) and Ahmad (1997) who reported that HI of wheat was reduced significantly by intercropping.

Regarding planting patterns, the crop grown in 4-row strips gave significantly higher HI (20.75) than the crop planted in 60 em spaced paired rows against the minimum (20.65) in 40 em spaced single rows. These results are in line with those of Siddique et al. (1995) and Ahmad (1997) who reported variable HI of wheat raised at lifferent planting patterns.

1.1.2. Physiological Traits

,·.1.2.1 Leaf area index (LAJ)

Periodic data on leaf area index (LAI) of sesame as influenced by different i itercropping systems and planting patterns recorded in 2001 and 2002 are depicted in I ig 4.1 and Fig. 4.2, respectively. During both years, the trend was almost similar. The I, oaf area index increased consistently up to 60 DAE under all intercropping systems and panting patters. Thereafter, LAI exhibited a sharp decline.

The year effect on LAI of sesame was significant. The LAI was higher during 21102 than 200 I. The planting patterns, intercropping systems and their interactions had a si mificant effect on LAI in both years (Table 4.1 I). During 200 I the crop planted in 40 cr I spaced single rows with no intercropping gave significantly higher LAI than rest of th. interactive combinations but was statistically at par with P2S1 and P3S1 compared to tlu minimum in PISS i.e, when sesame crop was planted in 40 ern spaced single rows and int srcropped with cowpeas. Madhavan et al. (! 986), Ahmad (1997) and Khan (2000) also re~ orted a significant reduction in LAI of different crops due to intercropping. Reduction in ° ,AI of sesame was ascribed to low per unit leaf area (data not shown) because of less

80

A.2001
_L.'D('~"")
......... Sq,l ...........
5 • ..... 1 ......... "'vft9D11-.r1
........... u,..,. • .- ..... 1:1..,.
4.5 .......... ....,.. Soybct"
.............. """ .. CGwMI"
4
~ 3.5
;c 3
411
'tI
.5
~ 2.5
2!
~
.... 2
~
QI
..J
1.5
1
0.5
0
15 30 45 60 75
CAE B.2002
_UOII''')
5 -+-s.s .....
--- k' ..... ...".1H«1
............ ...,.' ....... t.. ....
4.5 _,._ ..... .,..,. • toyt:.an
--- ••• .". • Co_blln
4
-- 3.5
~
0
)(
CD 3
"CI
.5 2.5
1"11
e
" 2
.....
1"11
CD 1.5
...J
1
0.5

0
15 30 45 60 75 DAE

Fig: 4.1: Leaf area index of sesame at various development stages (days after emergence) as influenced by different intercropplng systems during the year 2001 and 2002

81

A.2001
4 .LSD (5%)
-- Single rows
3.5 -- 2· strips
--4· strips
3
~
)( 2.5
QI
"0
.:
I'll 2
e
I'll
-
I'll 1.5
QI
..J
1
0.5
0
15 30 45 60 75
DAE B.2002
4 .LSO(5%)
-- Single rows ~~~~
3.5 -- 2· strips
3 ~4· strips
~
0
)(
G) 2.5 ~~
"0
.5
~ 2
e
ftI
- 1.5
ftI
Gl
...J
1
0.5
0
15 30 45 60 75
OAE Fig: 4.2: Leaf area index of sesame at various development stages (days after emergence) as influenced by different planting patterns during the year 2001 and 2002

Table 4. 11: Leaf area index (LAI) of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.

Intercropping Systems Planting Patterns
40 em spaced 60 em spaced I 00 ern spaced Mean
(PI) (Pz) (P3)
2001
Sesame alone (SI) 4.39 a 4.34 a 4.36 a 4.36 A
S + Mungbean (82) 2.68 g 3.13 cd 3.58 b 3.13 B
S + Mashbean (S3) 2.50 h 3.03 d 3.51 b 3.01 C
S + Soybean (S4) 2.30 i 2.83 ef 3. IS c 2.76 D
) + Cowpea (S5) 2.19 j 2.79 f 2.92 e 2.63 E
vlean 2.81 C 3.22 B 3.50A
i-
.SD (P ~ 0.05) P == 0.03460, S == 0.05855 and P x S =; 0.1014
-
2002
r"
-esame alone (SI) 4.42 a 4.38 a 4.39 a 4.40 A
r-
, + Mungbean (S2) 2.70 f 3.16 c 3.63 b 3.16 B
I-
: + Mashbean (S3) 2.56 g 3.09 cd 3.58 b 3.08 C
f-
~ + Soybean (S4) 2.34 h 2.88 e 3.33c 2.81 0
""'":
~ + Cowpea (S5) 2.23 h 2.84 e 2.97 de 2.68 E
- --
~ean 2.58 C 3.27 B 3.56 A
-,
L ,D (P ~ 0.05) for P = 0.03460, S = 0.7406 and P x S -= 0.1283
- • \ny two means not sharing a letter differ significantly at P ~ 0.05.

83

leaf expansion due to competition between the component crops for essential growth factors.

As regards planting patterns, the crop planted in 100 em spaced 4-row strips gave significantly higher LA! (3.50) than the crop planted in 60 em spaced paired rows (3.22) compared to the minimum (2.81) in 40 em spaced single rows. Almost similar trend was noted during 2002.

4.1.2.2 Leaf area duration

Trends in leaf area duration (LAD) of sesame as influenced by different intercropping systems and planting patterns during the year 200 I and 2002 are depicted in Fig. 4.3 and Fig. 4.4, respectively.

Table 4.12 represents the effect of treatments on total seasonal LAD of sesame juring both the growing seasons. The year effect on LAD of sesame was significant. ]reater LAD was observed during 2002 than 2001.

The planting patterns, intercropping systems and their interactions had a .ignificant effect on LAD in both years (Table 4.12).

During 2001, the crop planted in 40 ern spaced single rows with no intercropping rodueed significantly the maximum LAD (170.00) than some of the interactive ombinations but was statistically at par with P2S1 and P3S1 compared to the minimum I 79.90) in P,S5 when sesame was planted in 40 em spaced single rows and intercropped 1 -ith cowpea. Almost similar trend was observed during 2002. Reduction in LAD of ~ .same was ascribed to low LAI of sesame because of less leaf expansion due to ( irnpetition between the component crops for essential growth factors.

84

_L"D(-!I''Il.)
___ 540M ' ••• rN
70 ____ 8ft ........ t.Cwno""'"
-"-"IiIII""' ..... htot ...
__._ , ... ~It .. !iQ)bIt .....
-..-s. .. .,.,.. c.,...t. ....
60
-
'a 60
..
'E
~
e 40
0
:;:;
e
:l 30
'tl
<U
2!
<U
- 20
<U
QI
oJ
10
0
15-30 A,2001

70
60
-
:.a
~ 50
E
$
c 40
0
:0:1
l!
~ 30
'tI
I'll
f
I'll 20
....
I'll
III
..J
10
0 30-45

45-60

60-76

CAE

8,2002

_~'D{r.) --'So'e3 .. ~

___ Sot,.."... .. "~t:.At)

-..- SOl.mot • ".ul)t:. • ., e-. Sn.,-w t i4)'bt ...

-IIIIJ· ". ... ..,.,.. • Ccrwht ..

15-30

30-45

45-60

60-75

OAE

Fig: 4.3: Leaf area duration of sesame at various development stages (days after emergence) as influenced by different intercropping systems during the year 2001 and 2002

A,2001

60 _LSD(~%)
~ Single ,ows
---1· .trips
-- 4· .!tip'
50
"0
..
'E 40
$
e
0
= 30
I!
:::J
'a
<Q
e 20
nJ
....
nJ
CD
...J
10
0
15·30 --------.

30-45

45·60

60·75

DAE

B.2002

.lSD(5%)
60 -- Single rows
-- 2- strips
r 50 -- 4- strips
"
N
140
c
0
'.-:I 30
I!
:::I
"C
IV
f 20
IV
-
IV
Q)
...J 10
0
15-30 -------

30-45

45-60

60-75

Days

Fig: 4.4: leaf area duration of sesame at various development stages (days after emergence) as influenced by different planting patterns during the year 2001 and 2002

. -- ----- ---

Table 4. 12: Leaf area duration (LAD) (g m-2 d-I) of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.

lntercropping Systems Planting Patterns
40 em spaced 60 em spaced I 00 em spaced Mean
(PI) (P2) (P3)
2001
,esame alone (SI) 170.00 a 167.42 ab 168.69 a 168.70 A
: + Mungbean (S2) 101.36 j 127.19 g 150.00 d 126.18B
. + Mashbean (S3) 95.34 k 122.43 h 145.76e 121.17C
+ Soybean (S4) 85.01 1 109.67ij 126.63 f 107.100
+ Cowpea (S,) 79.90 m 108.33 j 118.38h 102.20 E
lean 106.32 C 126.81 B 141.89 A
SD (P~ 0.05) P> 2.67, 5;::: 1.07 and P x S ;::: 1.85
2002
esarne alone (51) 172.16 a 169.99 b 171.59 a 171.25 A
~ + Mungbean (S2) 102.75j 130.52 g 151.61 d 128.29 B
'- + Mashbean (S3) 97.24 k 125.38h 146.63 e 123.08 C
i- Soybean (S4) 86.261 114.07 i 127.00 f 109.11 D
- Cowpea (S5) 81.21 m 110.97j 119.19 h 103.79 E
san 107.92 C 130.19 B 143.20 A
D (P ~ 0.05) for P ;::: 2.89, S ;::: 1.86 and P x 5 ;::: 1.23 • Any two means not sharing a letter differ significantly at P ~ 0.05.

87

4.2.1.3 Dry matter accumulation (DM)

Periodic data pertaining to dry matter (OM) accumulation by sesame as influenced by intercropping systems and planting patterns recorded in 2001 and 2002 are depicted in Fig. 4.5 and Fig. 4.6, respectively. Sesame grown alone or intercropped at different planting patterns accumulated OM at a very slow rate upto 30 OAE because of slow growth rate and ultimately less initial plant biomass. Thereafter, OM increased at a :aster rate from 30 to 75 OAE. The differences among the planting patterns were more ironounced than those of intercropping systems.

The year effect on OM accumulation by sesame was significant. Sesame planted luring 2002 produced more OM than 2001. It might be due to relatively more favourable 'leather conditions and regular supply of water.

The planting patterns, intercropping systems and their interactions had a

ignificant effect on OM in both years (Table 4.13). During 2001, the crop planted in 40 . m spaced single rows with no intercropping produced significantly the maximum OM \ 581.8 gm"2d"I) than some of the interactive combinations but was statistically at par with I 2SI and P3SI• compared to the minimum (206.4 g m02d"') in PISS i.e., when sesame was 1 lanted in 40 em spaced single rows and intercropped with cowpea. Dry matter e icumulation in intercropped sesame was low because of competition between the C imponent crops for different growth resources such as water, nutrients, etc. that resulted iI slow COR of the intercropped sesame. Ahmad (1990), Ahmad (1997) also reported a s mificant reduction in DM accumulation by wheat due to legumes and non-legume it .ercropping.

88

A.2001
_LSD (S)I)
......... 1500.1 .. ''''"''
·_1 ... .,.. ... Yu"'gbon"
- ....... "'n ............ bt ....
100 __ "a.u"",-+5a.,.o._n
___ ••• .-..+c~ • .n
600
%
s 500
c::
0
~
"' 400
-;
E
~
o
u 300
"'
..
GI
=
"' 200
E
~
0
100
0
15 30 45 60 15
DAE B.2002
_Llew,,)
--- So" SUIeN'
__._ s .. .anw. ~bI"'"
- ..... s .. ,...,. • y •• hDt- ....
100 -- .••• ..m •• &0,.0...,
_,.,..,..·Co-.blt..,
~- 600
e
~
e 500
0
:.:I
"'
'5 400
E
~
u 300
u
"'
..
~ 200
III
E
€ 100

0
15 30 45 60 75
DAE Fig: 4.5: Dry matter accumulation of sesame at various development stages (days after emergence) as influenced by different intercropping systems during the year 2001 and 2002

89

A.2001
_LSD (5%)
600 - Slnlll~ row I
-- 2· 'trip'
450 __ .-llr1p.
-
'1'E 400
.£!
e 350
0
-.::
III 300
"5
E
:I 260
u
u
III
... 200
III
::
III
E 150
~
c 100
60

0
16 30 46 60 76
DAE B.2002
.LSD (5%)
500 - Single rows
450 -- 2- strips ...
"! --- 4- strips
E 400
CI
~ 350
0
~ 300
:I
§ 250
u
~ 200
...
III
i 150
E 100
~
Q
SO
0
15 30 45 60 75
DAE Fig: 4.6: Dry matter accumulation of sesame at various development stages (days after emergence) as influenced by different planting patterns during the year 2001 and 2002

90

Table 4.13: Dry matter accumulation (g mo2 dol) of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes in1ercropping.

Intercropping Systems Planting Patterns
(Pll (P2) (p))
2001
Sesame alone (SI) 581.8 a 568.9 c 576.9 b 575.8 A
s + Mungbean (S2) 278.7 k 391.8 f 468.8 d 379.1 B
3 + Mashbean (S) 266.61 373.8 g 453.9 e 364.7 C
) + Soybean (S4) 220.8 m 328.1 i 389.8 f 312.9 D
; + Cowpea (S5) 206.4 n 301.7 j 346.1 h 284.8 E
vfean 310.9 C 392.9 B 446.7 A
.SD (P ~ 0.05) P == 1.227, S = 1.233 and P x S = 2.136
2002
.esame alone (SI) 593.7 a 580.8 b 589.3 ab 587.9 A
) + Mungbean (S2) 290.6 j 402.1 e 474.4 c 389.0 B
+ Mashbean (S) 276.5 k 385.7 f 448.8 d 370.4 C
321.50'-
+ Soybean (S4) 232.71 340.0 h 391.7 ef
, + Cowpea (S5) 213.4 m 313.8 i 357.6 g 295.0 E
,
I lean 321.4 C 404.5 B 452.4 A
I SD (P ~ 0.05) for P = 11.82, S = 6.975 and P x S = 12.08 ~ Any two means not sharing a letter differ significantly at P ~ 0.05.

91

As regard planting patterns, the crop planted in 100 ern spaced 4-row strips produced significantly the highest DM (446.7 g m") against the lowest (392.9 g rn") in ~O em spaced single rows. Almost similar trend was noted during the 2nd year.

"2.1.4 Crop growth rate

Trends in the crop growth rate (CGR) of sesame as influenced by different

ntercropping systems and planting patterns during 2001 and 2002 are depicted in Fig. 4.7 md Fig. 4.8, respectively. The year effect on average CGR of sesame was significant and ,:OR on an average was 2.6% higher during the second year than the Ist year. The ilanting patterns, intercropping systems and their interactions had a significant effect on :GR in both years under study.

In 2001 regardless of intercropping system and planting pattern COR was slow up 1 ) 30 DAE because of less initial plant biomass. Thereafter, COR exhibited steep increase 1 pto 60 DAS followed by pronounced decline. The maximum CGR was recorded during c 5-60 DAE, the most active growth phase of sesame Similar trend was observed during : )02.

Statistical analysis of the data pertaining to the mean COR for the entire growth p 'riod of sesame (from germination upto maturity) is presented in Table 4.14. During 21101 intercropping reduced CGR of the associated sesame significantly compared with til! sole sesame. Among intercrops, cowpea caused the maximum reduction in CGR of Sf same preceded by mungbean, mashbean and soybean, respectively. Variable CGR of Sf arne in different intercropping systems was attributed to the variation in total above gi lund plant biomass (DM) of sesame (Table 4.14). Reduction in CGR of different crops

92

A,2001
_L~D(5"'1
---+-&oIe ••• .."...
16 ........... ...,.. .... Wtll .. ..,
---+-S. .. MTM .... -"' .... "1
...,._ .......... .,. ·.;riM'"
14 _".I""·CU'Pf~
-" 12
N
's 10
til
-
$
<'II 8
...
J:.
i
0 6
..
til
a.
0 4
..
o
2
0
15-30 30-45 45-60 60-75
CAE B,2002
_LSD(I'A)
_..... SoM a. ... m.
16 --- 'n..,.. I!LungMW'
........ a. ... me ..... N>e.n
............ ..,... .. So~M"" -~
14 --I •• ..", •• C."..1bNrI
r
'-a 12
<'<
'e -.
E! 10
S
e 8
t 6
..
DI
~ 4
e
o
2
0
15-30 30-45 45-60 60-75
DAE Fig: 4.7: Crop growth rate of sesame at various development stages (days after emergence) as influenced by different intercropping systems during the year 2001 and 2002

93

A.2001
12 _LSD IS'!.)
-- Single rows
--- 2· ,trip,
-+-.- atrip.
10
-
:a
.. 8
'E
e
$
I! 6
&.
j
2
DI 4
a.
2
o
2
0
15·30 3045 45·60 60·75
OAE B.2002
.LSD (5%)
12 ~ Single rows
-- 2- strips
10 ....... 4- strips /--------::_~
--
:.a
~
E 8
~
oS
I! 6
s:
i
0
... 4
m
Q.
0
...
c 2
0
15-30 30-45 45·60 60-75
DAE Fig: 4.8: Crop growth rate of sesame at various development stages (days after emergence) as influenced by different planting patterns during the year 2001 and 2002

94

Table 4.14: Mean crop growth rate (g m-2 d·1) of sesame as affected by planting patterns and grain legumes intercropping.

Imercropping Systems Planting Patterns
40 em spaced 60 cm spaced 100 em spaced Mean
(PI) (P2) (p))
2001
--
Sesame alone (SI) 9.09 a 8.90 c 9.02 b 9.00 A
:; + Mungbean (S2) 4.12 k 5.98 f 7.22 d 5.77 B
; + Mashbean (S)) 3.931 5.70 g 7.01 e 5.55 C
; + Soybean (S4) 3.19 m 4.96 i 5.95 f 4.70D
; + Cowpea (S5) 2.97 n 4.53 j 5.24 h 4.24 E
.Aean 4.66 C 6.02 B 6.89 A
I ,SO (P ~ 0.05) P "" 0.03, S = 0.03 and P x S = 0.05
2002
~ esame alone (SI) 9.25 a 9.06 b 9.19 a 9.17 A
~ + Mungbean (S2) 4.29 j 6.12 e 7.32 c 5.91 B
~ + Mashbean (SJ) 4.06 k 5.87 f 7.16 d 5.70 C
S + Soybean (S4) 3.371 5.13 h 6.11 e 4.87 D
5 + Cowpea (S5) 3.05 m 4.70 i S.40g 4.38 E
!'lean 4.80 C 6.18 B 7.04 A
L ;D (P ~ 0.05) for P - 0.04, S = 0.04 and P x S == 0.06 • \ny two means not sharing a letter differ significantly at P ~ 0.05.

95

Sesame PHD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sesame PHD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J" 51u r/anu 0/ _AlfaA 51u m: mlll'ci/ul51u m;

Compad:jionai4 _And 51u mOdi BIlIUJ/icllni

You might also like

Sesame PHD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sesame PHD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

﻿J" 51u r/anu 0/ _AlfaA 51u m: mlll'ci/ul51u m;

Compad:jionai4 _And 51u mOdi BIlIUJ/icllni

You might also like

J" 51u r/anu 0/ _AlfaA 51u m: mlll'ci/ul51u m;