You are on page 1of 14

American-Eurasian J. Agric. & Environ. Sci.

, 12 (2): 210-223, 2012 ISSN 1818-6769 © IDOSI Publications, 2012

Yield Comparison of Structural Carbohydrates in Sweet Sorghum and Legumes under Single and Double Cropping Systems
Muhammad Arshad Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand
Abstract: Cropping systems study was conducted to improve the land productivity of structural carbohydrates contributing to food, feed, paper, bio-energy and biomaterials. Experiment was conducted during two consecutive seasons to study the individual and interactive influence of treatments i.e. intercrop legumes (mungbean, soybean), planting patterns (alternate single rows, alternate double rows) and times of seeding (simultaneous, staggered) on the yield of non structural carbohydrates i.e. cellulose and hemicelluloses in intercropped sweet sorghum, mungbean and soybean. Together with eight intercropping treatments, three sole cropping of test crops were established for comparison in randomized complete block design. Key observations indicated that the yields of cellulose and hemicelluloses computed from total dry matter multiplied with respective chemical contents were significantly reduced in intercropping systems established with mungbean. Whereas, the yield of cellulose increased by 13 to 18 % and that of the hemicelluloses by 6 to 12 % in sweet sorghum-soybean association established with staggered seeding compared to that in sole cropping of sweet sorghum. Significant influence of intercrop legume, planting pattern and time of seeding observed in intercropping associations. However, few significant interactions between intercrop legume and time of seeding concluded the advantage in intercropping over sole system of sweet sorghum in terms of cellulose and hemicelluloses production. Key words: Structural carbohydrates INTRODUCTION Cellulosic crop biomass is used as raw material for human food and animal feed products or converted into biomaterials (plastics, paper) and/ or bio-energy (bioethanol). Effective utilization of crop biomass for such purposes depends largely on its physico-chemical status burgeoned in plant parts during life period (assimilation and partitioning). Variability in contents of cellulosic constituents (structural carbohydrates) in plant components (leaf and stem) and associated dry yields lead to accumulated differences at crop and cropping system levels [1, 2]. Increased productivity of chemical constituents demands well understanding of domestication process for cropping system through predefined production practices. Optimized production practices are stipulated devoid of significantly influenced physical yield concomitant with chemical composition determined by crop genetics [3, 4, 5]. Sweet sorghum is one of the multipurpose crops grown for different uses i.e. grain for food, syrup and fuel, stalks and leaves for feed, paper and fuel [6, 7]. It has Intercropping Staggered seeding Sweet sorghum Legumes

ample quantities of insoluble carbohydrates like cellulose and hemicelluloses (22.6-47.8%) in stalk and leaves [8-10]. It has been studied as a whole plant feedstock for structural carbohydrates in mono-cropping and in intercropping for green forage yield [11]. However, it’s potential in intercropping as a source for combined yield of structural carbohydrates from its plant and associated crop as influenced by intercropping and other linked factors were not reported. Intercropping technology coupled with diverse benefits in terms of land use efficiency, additional income, insurance against failure and sustainability [12, 13] can be established for sweet sorghum and grain legumes (mungbean, soybean) for increased yield of structural carbohydrates linked with enhanced agro-biodiversity and sustainability [14-16]. In intercropping environment especially additive series, competition within plant among parts (leaf, stalk and grain) for allocating assimilates and between companion crops for common resource pool is likely. Such competition may reflect differences in growth, yield and chemical composition of biomass as compared to that in respective pure stands [17].

Corresponding Author: Muhammad Arshad, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand.

210

20. 2010 in randomized complete block design. Agric. compatibility between the intercrops would be possible if the differences in their quantitative and temporal requirements for the same resource pool are enhanced [25.15 P(ppm) 11. two planting patterns (alternate single rows and alternate double rows) and two times of seeding (simultaneous and staggered) studied together with three mono-cropping treatments of sweet sorghum. 26]. row pattern and/or time of seeding. & Environ.5 210. length of mutual shading period and microclimate [24]. crude fiber and protein contents in crops [18. silt. 100° 30' E). sorghum-alfalfa system and sorghum-cotton system [30] for different aspects other than the yield of structural carbohydrates.002-0.5 12. legumes are well matched for intercropping associations with cereals especially with C4 crops with tall stature. isohyper. mixed acid. 22]. mungbean (Chinat 72) [32] and soybean Nakhorn Swan 1) [33] were grown in the field trials. legume competes with and brings physico-chemical dynamics in companion crop [21. Variety of mungbean was determinate whereas that of the soybean was indeterminate.6 Organic matter % 2. sulfic tropaquepts) with hot humid climate. from simultaneous to stagger. 19.. Objective of this study was to evaluate a sweet sorghum-based cropping system together with/without intercrop legume.002 separated using different pore sized sieves 211 . 11.0. In intercropping environment. the varieties of sweet sorghum (KKU 40) [31]. soybean).9 1/Sand. For decreased competition.0 4. 23]. 11.0 pH 5. Eight sweet sorghum-legume intercropping treatments composed of two types of legumes (mungbean. Following the compatible intercrop associations. But owing to common requirements of nutrients. Possible reasons for such influences were different type of intercrop associations. Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) Thailand (13° 44' N. J. In both legumes and sweet sorghum. Experimental Crops: Recommended in Thailand. 1. crops were sown as per treatments. interspecific competition can affect not only growth. silt and clay components of soil were measured on percentage weight basis for the particles with respective sizes. 0. clay.05-2.2 K( ppm) 213. water and light.05. Temporal adjustments for high resource (inputs) requiring growth periods of component crops can help further decrease the competition through shifting their times of seeding few weeks or months (staggered seeding) to attain the normal growth as in respective sole systems [17].7 6.1 27.5 Silt % 27.e. tomato-french bean system [28.9 Sand/1 % 6. 00. 20]. development and yield parameters but also qualitative characteristics like carbohydrate.Am-Euras. mungbean and soybean with three replications in dry season. These constituents were considered in sweet sorghummungbean system or sweet sorghum-soybean system as investigated in this study. Advantages in relay or staggered cropping were observed in sorghum-legume shrubs systems [27]. 19. Soil type at research farm was Ongkarak clay (very fine texture. 2009/2010 and four replications in the wet season. 2012 Legumes are cultivated for food.13 0. 12 (2): 210-223. feed and oil either alone or in association with cereals on marginal soils [18. MATERIALS AND METHODS Experimental Design: Field trials were practiced in dry (2009/10) and wet (2010) seasons at the Agricultural Systems and Engineering Research Farm and chemical analysis of plant samples was conducted in Agricultural Technology Laboratory.2 65. sand. The selected soil physical and chemical features at experimental site are shown in Table 1 whereas the climatic situation during study period is presented in Fig. 0. Interspecific competition resulted chemical changes in biomass of sweet sorghum-legume association may be mediated by optimizing the influence of selected agronomic management practices by changing the type of intercrop legume. Sci. Following the seedbed preparation.6 Clay % 66. seeding was carried out at the same time in sole crop and intercrops except in the cropping system Table 1: Selected soil physical and chemical characteristics in the profile (0-25 cm) collected before the conduction of field trials in dry and wet season Season Dry Wet Total N % 0. Due to variation in photosynthetic process (C3) and plant height. 29] and sorghum-wheat system.1 3. the rest competition between the companion crops in intercropping association may further be relieved partially by arranging the intercrop rows or changing the plant densities and partially by shifting the time of seeding i. planting pattern and time of seeding for optimized yields of cellulose and hemicelluloses.

2).Am-Euras. Treatment Definition and Planting Methods: Alternate single row pattern was characterized with one row of sweet sorghum sown in 22.. 2009 in dry season experiment and on July 10. Sci. In staggered planting plots. Simultaneous seeding referred to sowing of both sweet sorghum and legume at the same time whereas staggered seeding means sowing of sweet sorghum one month after that of legumes (Fig. . J. Agric. 2012 Fig. 12 (2): 210-223. 2010 in wet season experiment. sweet sorghum seeding was done one month after the legume sowing. Fig. 2: Alternate single rows and alternate double rows for planting patterns Fig. Alternate double row pattern was consisted of 30 cm spaced two row strip of sweet sorghum established with 20 cm spaced two row strip of legume with inter strip spacing of 20 cm (Fig. 1: Patterns of climatic variations during experimentation for dry and wet seasons. 3: Sowing and harvesting dates for the sole and intercropping systems of sweet sorghum and legumes characterized for staggered system of sweet sorghum on December 1.5 cm spaced rows and one row 212 of legume established between the two sweet sorghum rows. & Environ. 3).

001) effects on cellulose yield in sweet sorghum during both seasons (Fig. Growth Requirements and Conditions: Water requirements of the crops were kept at non stressed condition by sprinkling on the daily basis following estimations based on crop evapotranspiration (ETcrop).001) between sole cropping and intercropping stands of sweet sorghum associated with mungbean in dry and wet seasons. For the determination of contents for cellulose and 213 hemicelluloses.222 111.6 m2 (3. Sci. 3-dihydro-2. Amount of fertilizer applied at the time of sowing to sole stands of mungbean and soybean were 30 kg N ha 1. mungbean and soybean in planting pattern and sole cropping Crop Sweet sorghum Mungbean Soybean Alternate single row (plants ha 1) 148. Cellulose yield also significantly 0.. between (p intercrop legume and time of seeding and between planting pattern and time of seeding only in dry season (Fig. Carbofuran (2. USA [35].148 222.148 194. RESULTS Cellulose in Sweet Sorghum: Cellulose yield in sweet sorghum was highest in sole stands compared to its intercropping stands (Table 3). Agric. Area of the plot was 21. . Table 5). Statistical Analysis: Yields of cellulose and hemicelluloses were calculated by multiplying the contents (%) of constituents with the dry biomass of crop components. Total quantity of fertilizer applied to sole and intercropping plots of sweet sorghum was calculated as per the rate of 80 kg N ha 1. mungbean and soybean was kept as 15.222 Alternate double row (plants ha 1) 148. However. intercrop legume. Weeds were manually removed from all the plots. aphids and pod borers. the dose of nitrogen was divided into two splits for simultaneous system by half at sowing and half at booting stage of sweet sorghum and into three splits for staggered system by 25% at legume sowing and 25% at sowing and 50% at booting stage of sweet sorghum. 12 (2): 210-223. to control shoot fly. 30 kg P ha 1 and 30 kg K ha 1. 10 and 20 cm. respectively. J. 30 kg P ha 1 and 30 kg K ha 1. 4.222 111. 2012 Table 2: Plant densities for sweet sorghum. planting pattern and time of seeding had highly significant (p = 0. Plant samples were oven-dried at 70°C. 8. Subsamples were prepared for each of the plant part and were ground for chemical analysis. Total amount of phosphorous and potash was applied at the time of simultaneous sowing. respectively [36. plant samples were sieved to 1 mm.05) influenced by the interactions. Orthogonal Contrast Procedure (OCP) was used to compare performance of crops and cropping systems in terms of chemical yields between sole and intercropping stands and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) adopted by Fisher’s protected Least Significant Difference (LSD) was used to compare treatments and their interactions on contents and yields of cellulose and hemicelluloses in sweet sorghum. 2dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl methylcarbamate).5 L ha 1 respectively. Plant densities of mungbean and soybean in their sole stands were same as in intercropping system with alternate double row pattern but had 12. The increase was highly significant (p = 0.6 x 6. Collection and Analysis of Plant Samples: A four meter row section each of sweet sorghum and legume (adjacent rows in case of intercropping treatments) was harvested up to the ground surface at their physiological maturity to obtain dry matter yield of leaf and stalk in sweet sorghum and biomass of stubbles in legumes.28 kg ha 1 and 0. 37]. Yields of a constituent in plant parts were added to get total yield as whole plant dry biomass basis. mungbean and soybean [38]. Intensity of green color was measured at 630 nm wavelength by double bean spectrometer (model: UVD-2950) produced by LAMBOMED INC. In intercropping systems.148 222.444 97.Am-Euras.111 Sole (plants ha 1) 148.111 Plant density of sweet sorghum was same in both intercropping patterns and its pure stands.5 percent less plant density in alternate single row pattern (Table 2). Intra row spacing for sorghum. Glucose was dehydrolysed to hydroxymethyl furfural and developed the green color by adding anthrone reagent [34]. Contents of hemicelluloses were calculated by subtracting the acid detergent fiber from neutral detergent fibers determined by treating samples with acid detergent solution and neutral detergent solutions. Contents of cellulose were determined by treating samples with acetic/nitric reagent to convert cellulose into acetylated cellodextrins which get dissolved into sulfuric acid (67%) to form glucose. & Environ. 0.0 m) whereas each plot was spaced out at 1m spacing and 2m space was left between the two replicates. carbaryl (1Naphthyl-methylcarbamate) and Melathion (Dimethoxy Phosphino Thioyl Thio Butanedioic Acid Diethyl Ester) pesticides were sprayed or applied in all the plots at the rate of 50 kg ha 1. Table 5).

0206 0.6*** 6.0 Sweet sorghumsoybean intercropping -----------------------------------------Contrast with Intercropping sole cropping yield.5±0.7*** 0.4 6.8±0.6±0. P×T.2 6. 2012 Table 3: Comparison of cellulose yield in sole cropping and intercropping using Orthogonal Contrasts and mean squares for comparisons in dry and wet seasons Sweet sorghummungbean intercropping ---------------------------------------Contrast with Intercropping sole cropping1/ yield.2±0.5±0.8±0. J.5763 0.4 Error means square 0.1336 1/ mean square contrast with sole stands having superscript *.9±0. respectively Table 4: Comparison of hemicelluloses yield in sole cropping and intercropping using Orthogonal Contrasts and mean squares for comparisons in dry and wet seasons Sweet sorghummungbean intercropping ---------------------------------------Contrast with Intercropping sole cropping1/ yield. respectively whereas ns and dash (-) indicate the non significant and not applicable.3 1. C×P×T) during dry and wet seasons Dry season -----------------------------------------------------------------------C P T C×P C×T P×T C×P×T *** *** *** *** *** *** ns ns ns ns *** *** *** *** *** *** * *** *** *** ns ns ns ns *** ** *** *** * ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns ns Wet season --------------------------------------------------------------------C P T C×P C×T P×T C×P×T *** *** ns ns ns ns *** *** *** *** ns ns ns ns ** *** *** *** * *** *** *** *** *** ns ns ns ns ns * ns * ns *** ns ns ns ns ns ** ns ns ns ns Parameter Sweet sorghum Cellulose Hemicelluloses Mungbean Cellulose Hemicelluloses Soybean Cellulose Hemicelluloses Cropping system Cellulose Hemicelluloses 1/ *.5±0.1±0.0169 0.3±0.0198 0. tha 1 6.3*** 0.8±0.4 1.5695 1/ mean square contrast with sole stands having superscript *.01 and 0.4 0.2*** 2.001.3±0.1 1.5±0.0078 0.3 5.6*** 8.5 2.4 1..2 6.0138 0.2*** 0. row pattern (P).7±1.7* 0.7 Season/ Constituent/ Crop Dry season Sweet sorghum Mungbean Soybean Cropping System Wet season Sweet sorghum Mungbean Soybean Cropping System Sole cropping yield t ha 1 7.0*** 0.6*** 12.2±0.0074 0. ** and *** indicating the level of significance at p=0.3 0.3 5. respectively Table 5: Results of a three-way ANOVA for the analysis of the main effects of intercrop (C).4188 0.2 4. t ha 1 14.1635 0.4 0.6 0.1279 0. 0.3±0.3 0. ** and *** indicates the level of significance at p=0.2 0.1±0.01 and 0. respectively 214 . t ha-11 0.2±0.5*** 4.0143 0.001.001.0092 0.1391 0.1 7.9 Error means square 0. t ha 1 1.1*** 0.7±1.6±0.8±0.8 Sweet sorghumsoybean intercropping -----------------------------------------Contrast with Intercropping sole cropping yield.2 6.2*** 0.0 5.2 5.7±0.3715 0.01 and 0. 0.0±0.3 1.9±0.8 Season/ Constituent/ Crop Dry season Sweet sorghum Mungbean Soybean Cropping System Wet season Sweet sorghum Mungbean Soybean Cropping System Sole cropping yield.3±0.1 0.4 0.5 0.8±0.2 5.0 1.1 5.9 5.3±0. Agric.1*** 0.1 4.8±0. 0.2±0.05. & Environ.1 7.Am-Euras. Sci.6±0.6 2.1±0. C×T.05.4 0.1*** 6.9** 0.5±0.5±0.5 1.4±0.2*** 1. time of seeding (T) or their interactions (C×P.7±0.1 5.2 5. t ha 1 12.9±0. ** and *** indicating the level of significance at p=0.7±1.05.6*** 0. 12 (2): 210-223.0±0.9±0.8±0.3 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.4 1.

05) in staggered system compared to simultaneous system.05) between the simultaneous and staggered systems of seeding. & Environ. 2012 Fig.05) decreased when intercropped in alternate double row pattern compared to alternate single row pattern in both simultaneous and staggered systems and the change was greater in later (Fig. Under intercropping. 8a). cellulose yield in sweet sorghum varied significantly (p 0. Alternate single row pattern together with staggered seeding produced yield of cellulose almost at par with that of sole system of sweet sorghum.05) influenced by the time of seeding (Fig.2 t ha 1 cellulose yield higher compared to its sole cropping. Agric. row pattern and time of seeding (Fig. Cellulose in Legumes: Chemical yield of cellulose in stubbles of legumes was compared between sole and intercropping stands during dry and wet seasons 215 (Table 3).05) decreased when intercropped with mungbean compared to soybean in both simultaneous and staggered systems and the difference was greater in the former {Fig. The variation was significant between sole cropping and sweet sorghum-mungbean intercropping in dry season only.. Sci.001) reduction in cellulose yield was observed due to intercropping compared to its sole cropping in both seasons. Within each planting pattern. 8. cellulose yield in stubbles of mungbean and soybean was significantly (p 0. 4: Performance of sweet sorghum in sole cropping and the effects of intercrop legume (a). planting pattern (b) and time of seeding (c) on yield of cellulose in intercropping stand in dry and wet seasons Note: Different alphabets represent significant difference within a season. . cellulose yield significantly (p 0. Table 5). Sweet sorghum associated with soybean in staggered planting produced 0. 5: Performance of mungbean in sole cropping and the effects of planting pattern (a) and time of seeding (b) on cellulose yield in intercropping stand in dry and wet seasons Note: Different alphabets represent significant difference within a season Yield of cellulose significantly (p 0. Cellulose yield experienced a significant (p = 0.Am-Euras. Legumes established in staggered system produced cellulose at par with respective sole cropping in both seasons except the soybean in wet season. Table 5) and due to interactions between intercrop legume and time of seeding and between row pattern and time of seeding (Fig. Competitive influence due to each type of intercrop legume on cellulose yield in sweet sorghum reduced significantly (p 0. It was reduced in simultaneous system compared to staggered system. 5 and 6. 8b). Moreover. Yield of cellulose was highest in sweet sorghum-soybean system in both seasons. 6. Cellulose in Cropping System: Total yield of cellulose in intercropping systems of sweet sorghum and mungbean or soybean was compared with that of sole cropping of sweet sorghum in dry and wet seasons (Table 3). J. Fig. Highly significant (p = 0.01) influence due intercrop legume. Table 5). 12 (2): 210-223.

b). 2012 Fig.05) higher in sole stands compared to intercropping stands in both seasons. Sci. 12 (2): 210-223. 8c). 13a. Yield of hemicelluloses was significantly (p 0. Response of hemicelluloses to each type of intercrop legume was not varied across the times of seeding and maximum intercropping yield for hemicelluloses was observed in sweet sorghum associated with soybean under staggered seeding. Yield of hemicelluloses in sweet sorghum reduced significantly (p 0. 7: Performance of sweet sorghum in sole cropping and the effects of intercrop legume (a). Hemicelluloses yield in staggered system of sweet sorghum and soybean was 0.05) varied across the times of seeding and reduced in simultaneous system. 13.001) influence of intercrop legume. The maximum cellulose yield in intercropping systems was observed where sweet sorghum established with intercrop soybean in staggered system and was increased by 1. planting pattern and time of seeding in dry and 216 wet seasons (Fig. & Environ.01) when it was intercropped with mungbean compared to soybean under both simultaneous and staggered systems of seeding and this loss in yield was greater in the former system {Fig.2 t ha 1 higher in wet season compared to that in sole cropping of sweet sorghum. The reduction in yield under intercropping environment was due to pooled and highly significant (p=0. Agric. Behavior of cellulose yield with intercrop legumes remained unchanged across the seeding times. planting pattern (b) and time of seeding (c) on total cellulose yield of intercropping system in dry and wet seasons Note: Different alphabets represent significant difference within a season During dry season. Table 5).4 t ha 1 higher in dry season and 0. yield of cellulose significantly declined in sweet sorghum-mungbean system compared to sweet sorghum-soybean system in both simultaneous and staggered systems and the increase was greater in the later system of seeding {Fig. 9. Table 5). Hemicelluloses yield was significantly reduced when sweet sorghum was present in alternate double row system compared to alternate single row system in both .Am-Euras. Hemicelluloses in Sweet Sorghum: Production of hemicelluloses was compared between sole and intercropping stands of sweet sorghum in both dry and wet seasons (Table 4). Cellulose yield in each of the intercropping systems significantly (p 0..3 t ha 1 in dry season and 0. Furthermore. Competitive influence on yield due to each type of intercrop legume reduced in staggered system compared to simultaneous system and variability significantly increased in case of intercrop mungbean. yield was also significantly (p = 0.01) affected by the interactions between intercrop legume and time of seeding in dry season and between planting pattern and time of seeding in wet season (Fig. J.7 t ha 1 in wet season compared to that in sole cropping of sweet sorghum. 6: Performance of soybean in sole cropping and the effects of planting pattern (a) and time of seeding (b) on yield of cellulose in intercropping stand in dry and wet seasons Note: Different alphabets represent significant difference within a season Fig.

8: Two-way interaction effects of intercrop legume and time of seeding on yield of cellulose contents in sweet sorghum (a) and intercropping system (c) and of row pattern and time of seeding on yield of cellulose contents of sweet sorghum (b) in dry season Fig.. It was observed that the yield of hemicelluloses remained lower in intercropping stands compared to sole cropping stands of legumes except the hemicelluloses in . The yield significantly decreased in simultaneous system of seeding compared to staggered system of seeding. This reduction was significantly higher in simultaneous system of seeding (Fig. In intercropping stands significant influence of time of seeding was observed in dry and wet seasons (Fig.2 t ha 1 greater compared to that in sole cropping of sweet sorghum in wet season.Am-Euras. & Environ. Within each planting pattern. 10 and 11. Agric. yield of hemicelluloses significantly decreased in simultaneous system compared to staggered system and maximum yield due to interaction between planting pattern and time of seeding observed in sweet sorghum under staggered system with alternate single row pattern. planting pattern (b) and time of seeding (c) on yield of hemicelluloses in intercropping system of dry and wet seasons Note: Different alphabets represent significant difference within a season Fig. 13c). 10: Performance of mungbean in sole cropping and the effects of planting pattern (a) and time of seeding (b) on yield of hemicelluloses contents in intercropping systems of dry and wet seasons Note: Different alphabets represent significant difference within a season simultaneous and staggered patterns. 12 (2): 210-223. The yield was 0. 2012 Fig. 9: Performance of sweet sorghum in sole cropping and the effects of intercrop legume (a). 217 Hemicelluloses in Legumes: Yield of hemicelluloses in both the legumes was affected significantly by the intercropping system (Table 4). Table 5). Sci. J.

planting pattern (b) and time of seeding (c) on total yield of hemicelluloses contents of intercropping systems in dry and wet seasons Note: Different alphabets represent significant difference within a season Fig. 13: Two-way interaction effects of intercrop legume and time of seeding on yield of hemicelluloses in sweet sorghum in dry (a) wet (b) seasons and in intercropping system of dry (d) wet season (e) and of row pattern and time of seeding interaction on yield of hemicelluloses in sweet sorghum (c) and in intercropping system in wet season (f) 218 . J. & Environ.Am-Euras. 11: Performance of soybean in sole cropping and the effects of planting pattern and time of seeding on yield of hemicelluloses contents in intercropping systems of dry and wet seasons Note: Different alphabets represent significant difference within a season Fig. 12: Performance of sweet sorghum in sole cropping and the effects of intercrop legume (a). Sci. Agric. 12 (2): 210-223. 2012 Fig..

Mpairwe. yield of hemicelluloses in intercropping association varied significantly across the times of seeding and was lower in simultaneous system compared to staggered system. Behavior of hemicelluloses yield with intercrop legumes remained same across the times of seeding.4 t ha 1 in dry season and 0.4 t ha 1 higher yield of hemicelluloses compared to that in sole cropping of sweet sorghum in wet season. [42] and Bildirici. Hemicelluloses in Cropping Systems: Total yield of hemicelluloses remained higher in sole cropping of sweet sorghum compared to intercropping system of sweet sorghum and legumes in dry and wet seasons (Table 4). The produced yield was higher by 0.05) influence due to interactions between intercrop legume and time of seeding in both dry and wet seasons and between planting pattern and time of seeding only in wet season (Fig. Despite lower yields of cellulose and hemicelluloses in intercropping stands due to pooled influence of treatment levels. [22]. et al. in sweet sorghum with simultaneous system compared to staggered system of seeding. et al. Agric. Cellulosic and hemi-cellulosic yields were higher by 20 to 23 % and 19 to 30 % in respectively. nutrients and water. Azraf. [41] and Mpairwe. the yield had significant influence due to intercrop legume. in alternate single row pattern compared to alternate double row pattern because of greater opportunity for solar radiation interception and less chances of mutual shading due to uniform and wider inter row spacing (45cm) and accommodated lower (12. Zhang.. et al. Javanmard. Alternate single row pattern together with staggered seeding produced 0. et al. et al. maximum yield was gained by sweet sorghum-soybean association when established with staggered system. [45]. In both dry and wet seasons. [18]. In intercropping systems. Due to each type of legume.05) difference of hemicelluloses yield in each of the row patterns between simultaneous and staggered systems. e).7 t ha 1 in wet season compared to that in sole cropping of sweet sorghum in the respective seasons (Fig.Am-Euras. Cellulose and hemicelluloses decreased by 34 to 38 % and 36 to 37 %. There was significant (p = 0. compared to sole cropping of sweet sorghum. interactive influence of intercrop soybean and staggered seeding could produce yields of cellulose and hemicelluloses at par with that of . Decline in structural carbohydrates in intercropping stands compared to sole cropping of sweet sorghum was due to reduced photosynthetic activity and growth owning to competition with intercrop legumes concomitant with possible limited availability of resources like light. et al. [40]. Sci. The yield increased by 0. respectively. et al. respectively. & Environ. [17]. the difference was highly significant (p = 0. [43]. Row pattern associated with different intercrop additive proportions influenced the physico-chemical features in component crops in intercropping system as observed by Tsubo. [21] and Khalatbari. 2012 soybean produced in alternate double row system irrespective of time of seeding. 13. in sweet sorghum associated with soybean compared to when it was associated with mungbean. [18]. Yields of cellulose and hemicelluloses were reduced by 38 to 41 % and 45 to 50 %. However. It was due to increased period of interspecific competition between the component crops in simultaneous system compared to that in staggered system. J. A similar reduction trend in biomass and structural carbohydrates in base crop under intercropping environment was reported by Soet. DISCUSSION Structural Carbohydrates in Sweet Sorghum: Yield of cellulose and hemicelluloses in sweet sorghum decreased by 15 % and 33 to 36% in association with mungbean and 219 by 5 to 7 % higher and 9 to 12 % lower in association with soybean respectively. The double population of mungbean compared to soybean exerted greater competition to sweet sorghum for available nutrients and moisture in intercropping environment as also observed by Wanjari. The differences of yield in sweet sorghum might be due to the differences in competition encountered for the available resources. 13f). row pattern and time of seeding (Fig. However. Table 5). yield of hemicelluloses decreased significantly in alternate double row pattern compared to alternate single row pattern in both simultaneous and staggered systems (Fig. 12. Shifting times of seeding from simultaneous to stagger appreciably benefited the intercrops to restore normal growth through optimal resource utilization as illustrated by Nnko and Doto [44] and Sivakumar.5%) plant population of intercrop in former pattern compared to that in later pattern. 12 (2): 210-223. Furthermore it also had significant (p 0.5 t ha 1 compared to that in sole cropping of soybean. Table 5).001) between sole cropping of sweet sorghum and intercropping association of sweet sorghum and mungbean in both the seasons. et al. et al. 13d. yield of hemicelluloses significantly decreased in intercropping systems established with sweet sorghum and mungbean compared to one established with sweet sorghum and soybean. In wet season. [39].

[48]. Yields of cellulose and hemicelluloses declined by 18 to 20 % and 25 to 38% in mungbean and 18 to 42 % and 25 to 40 % in soybean respectively. et al. [47]. [44]. [17]. [27]. [30]. in intercropping stands compared to sole stands because of pooled influence of intercropping features and greater competition and mutual shading effect from base crop as noted by Redfearn. Similarly. CONCLUSION Production of structural carbohydrates (cellulose and hemicelluloses) in sweet sorghum and legume biomass was influenced negatively by some intercropping characteristics. et al. Cellulose yield in soybean during wet season increased by 6 % due to interaction between alternate single row pattern and staggered seeding compared to that in its sole cropping. 2012 pure stands of sweet sorghum. [29]. Such variation in yield of structural carbohydrates in intercropping compared to sole cropping of sweet sorghum were due to combined influence of intercrop legume. It was according to the contribution of component crops where the yield of cellulose varied due to competition between 220 the intercrops resulted from differences in growth pattern and plant populations as observed by Shah. The yields decreased by 8 to 25 % and 14 to 20 % in mungbean and 13 to 33 % and 0 to 33 % in soybean respectively.1 t ha 1) . Such increased yields were observed in sweet sorghumsoybean combination for celluloses in dry (8. Structural Carbohydrates in Legumes: Stubbles of mungbean and soybean comprising stem and leaves were tested as main source of structural carbohydrates in legumes. [49]. Whereas the rest intercropping attributes individually or interactively managed the system to provide nearly optimum crop requirements in time and space for accommodated plant densities as expected in respective pure stands. These results are in agreement with Tripathy. [19] who noticed a promotive influence of intercrop beans on qualitative traits in cereals. Structural Carbohydrates in Cropping Systems: Yield of cellulose and hemicelluloses decreased by 15 and 42 %. J. Agric. when system was established with alternate single row pattern compared to alternate double row pattern due to less number of plants and limited opportunity to intercept solar radiation in former pattern compared to later. reduced in sweet sorghum-mungbean intercropping compared to sweet sorghum-soybean intercropping primarily owing to nearly normal growth performance of component crops in later system. Cellulose and hemicelluloses decreased significantly in mungbean and in soybean respectively. Phoofolo. [42] and Bildirici. et al. Intercropping practice with staggered seeding yielded above the simultaneously established combinations or pure stands of sweet sorghum in terms of structural carbohydrates. planting pattern and time of seeding. et al. et al. & Environ. Row arrangement of associated crops in intercropping system can bring physico-chemical changes in component crops as observed by Tsubo. [46] and Thippeswamy. The yields decreased by 14 to 15 % and 13 to 23 %. Total cellulose and hemicelluloses yields were 23 to 26 % and 27 %. yield of hemicelluloses improved by 18 % in dry season due to interaction between intercrop soybean and staggered seeding and 13 % in wet season due to staggered seeding irrespective of the type of legumes compared to sole cropping of sweet sorghum in respective seasons. Phoofolo. Yield of cellulose and hemicelluloses significantly reduced in simultaneous system compared to staggered system owing to differences in competition periods. respectively.. et al.Am-Euras. Vedprakash.6 t ha 1) and wet (6. Vedprakash. Yield of cellulose improved by 16 % in dry season due to intercrop soybean and staggered seeding and 13 % in wet season due to only staggered seeding over the sole cropping of sweet sorghum. when in simultaneous system compared to staggered system. Cellulose and hemicelluloses yields in stubbles of mungbean and soybean were compared between their sole and intercropping stands and the effect of planting pattern and time of seeding was observed on the yields of structural carbohydrates in intercropped stands. Bharati. et al.2 t ha 1) seasons and for hemicelluloses (7. et al. [29]. Vedprakash. Sci. [ 43]. et al. It was due to the fact that staggered or relay cropping provided a competition free period to both component crops to attain normal growth pattern of sole cropping as reported by Reda. Shifted times of seeding from simultaneous to staggered appreciably increased the resource utilization and growth as illustrated by Nnko and Doto. et al. [28]. et al. et al. [30]. respectively in sweet sorghum-mungbean intercropping and were at par in sweet sorghum-soybean intercropping compared to sole stands of sweet sorghum. 12 (2): 210-223. respectively in alternate double row pattern compared to alternate single row pattern due to less competitive environment for base crop that reflected in greater contribution in later pattern compared to former pattern. Bharati. et al. [28]. It was mainly due to short period of interspecific competition between the component crops in staggered system compared to that in simultaneous system. et al. Azraf.

. We also thank to Dr. Malézieux. Amaducci. Klein. Sorghum. L. 7: 265-272. 2008. maize and sorghum) in the North of Italy. Y. Dordas and M..M. Influence of planting pattern in terms of yield increase remained lower compared to the contribution of intercrop legume and time of seeding.. 70: 173-182. 1999. 16. A. Bull. R. Saiano and P. Shah. Hadi. Kresovich. Grandi and G. 2(1): 99-102. Jahad Daneshgahi of University of Isfafan. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are extended to Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan and Agricultural Systems and Engineering field of study. 15. Agric. Agric. Agronomy and Biotechnology.. though alternate single row pattern together with staggered seeding produced 0. Sharma. Rapidel.Am-Euras. Saka. Bioresour. S. Agron. Agron Sustain Dev. H. H. Sci. This study evaluated the sweet sorghum-soybean combination for higher yields of cellulose and hemicelluloses in dry and wet seasons. Mambelli. W. C. Mohsen and A. Lyberatos. 29: 43-62. A. 13. Balogun and J.V. and Environ Sci. 2009. A review. 2: 48-62.N. Rattunde. Ozier-Lafontaine.D. Yiakoulaki. The influence of selected agronomic practices on the yield and chemical composition of winter garlic. De Tourdonnet and M.pdf.. Venturi.W. Taheri and V. 2004. Altieri. Venturi. 2008.N. 3. Thailand for providing financial support for this research project.A. Akande. Agric. O. Mullet.. Makowski. Dhima. Field Crops Res. I. Hamblin. 7. Genetic improvement of sorghum as a biofuel feedstock I: quantitative loci for stem sugar and grain non-structural carbohydrates. Crozat. Tanveer. E. 2007. R. J. A.4 t ha 1 higher hemicelluloses yield compared to sole cropping of sweet sorghum in wet season. S. B.L.J. S. E... Environ. Laurans... Evaluation of Crop Yield of African Yam Bean. 27: 95-99. K. P. M. Ind.E. Carrubba.B. Lithourgidis.A. Ecosyst. 221 5. Crop yield and quality parameters of four annual fibre crops (hemp.E. Sustainable production of fennel and dill by intercropping. Akbari. 12. M. G. Dajue.A. D. Crops Products. 11. Aiello.T. F. Benati and G.. S. Studies on the fodder yield and quality of sorghum grown alone and in mixture with rice -bean. 2001. S. Stover quality of dual-purpose sorghums: genetic and environmental sources of variation.. Murray. Safavi. Sweet sorghum diversity and association mapping for brix and height.O. Retrieved on 6 April 2011 from www.. Technol. And Environ. REFERENCES 1. Isfahan. J. C..5 t ha 1 wet seasons which were higher compared to that yielded by sole cropping of sweet cropping system. Gavala. Agron Sustain Dev. M. Mitchell and S. Veg.O. Antonopoulou. M. 2009. I. B. Maize and Kenaf Under Intercropping Systems. Wilczek). 10.R. American-Eurasian J. Crops Res. 2: 46-48.. 1998. Dev. M. Crop Sci. Dupraz.. Rooney. Roone.ifad.. 12 (2): 210-223.. J. 2012 in dry and 6. Chandra and D. 4: 306-310. Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts.. R.V.org/ events/ sorghum/ b/ LiDajue_developing. W. Angelopoulos and G.C. 2008. E. Skupieñ. 8. Energy and Environment in 21st Century.C. Sci. I.F. 28: 247-256. S. and K. Ayub. La Torre. M.L. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Wattanaporn Meskuntavon and Dr. AIT. 2008.. Life Soc. 71: 1-8.. 2008. Adeniyan. Bio-fuels generation from sweet sorghum: fermentative hydrogen production and anaerobic digestion of the remaining biomass.. 4. 14. Murray. Rekowska.T. tools and models... K. Pak. Plant Genome. 9. Abdul Waheed for their technical and moral support during experimentation.. Influence of alterations in fertilizer inputs and in plant densities under different climatic conditions on the production of structural carbohydrates are required to be optimized for the validation of evaluated double cropping model. Developing Sweet Sorghum to Meet the Challenge of Problems on Food. Flower. S. Vasilakoglou. 2. Skiadas.. Amaducci. kenaf.E. & Environ. 6. A.. Botany. 2007. Change of Grain Protein Content and Correlations with Other Characteristics under Planting Pattern and Starter N Fertilizer of Mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Agric. S. A. H. Zerbini. Industrial Crops and Products.S. Comparison with respect to economic return of the evaluated system is needed to be studied. American-Eurasian J. Sci. 2007.. S. 2009. 48: 2165-2179. Almodares. S. N.E. Comparison of two sorghum genotypes for sugar and fiber production.. 2000.. Sustainable production of barley and wheat by intercropping common vetch. Kresovich. Valantin-Morison. Sustain. 74: 19-31.A. Dolciotti. Nadeem and S. Mitchell and S. 11: 179-186. . M. 99: 110-119.

. Savaghebi.. Sci. Dordas. L. Wongkaew and P.I. 2003.G. 31. V. S. Khajudparn. Kumar and I. Rahimian Mashhadi.xxx. A. M. 75: 794-796. M. 20. pp: 29.M.N. Sunan. 35 Updegraff. and S. Pattana. Environmental Entomol. ASA. Penjit.L. Technol. Preekamol and L. N. R. and B. Thippeswamy and S. Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Field Crops Research. N. J.. H. Forage fibre analysis U..D. Indian J... (1975) pp: 138. Appl.. India. pp: 401-437. Goering. E. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminants. G.A. Elliott. Productivity of maize-bean intercropping in a semi-arid region of South Africa..r.S. Viability of relay intercropping of tomato and French bean with maize in north-west Himalaya. Sabiiti. J.. Ann. 38.. 2nd Ed. V. Effect of irrigation levels on yield. Nandan. 2005. Agric. 8: 743-745.R. 1962..) Academic Press New York. Ethanol production from sweet sorghum juice using very high gravity technology: Effects of carbon and nitrogen supplementations..C.B. McGraw-Hill. Jahansooz. 39. 12 (2): 210-223. Tegegne and P. A. Reda. 2002. In: Principles and Procedures of Statistics: a Biometrical Approach. Bharati. D. F. Mohsenabadi. Evaluation of Genetic Diversity in Thai Indigenous and Recommended Soybean Varieties by SSR Markers. Bioresourse Technol. 29. oat and cereal pea mixutre as dry land forages in the Northern Great Plains.. C. 2001. 27. 5: 396-410.. Javanmard. Enhanced crop productivity and compatibility through intercropping of sesame and sunflower varieties. Intercropping of legumes with sweet sorghum for higher green forage production. K. In Van Soet P.N. A. 21. 52: 27-30.. Ernst. Srivastava. (JFAE).O.R.T. 32: 424-428. water use efficiency and economics of winter maize (Zea mays L. Vlachostergios. Narendrakumar and A.H. Water S. 37. Evaluation of Barley-Vetch Intercrop at Different Nitrogen Rates. 18. Agriculture and Environ.D. and A. S. 30.K. S. 2001. pp: 140-155. 25. Hofreiter. alfalfa and cotton on lady beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) abundance and species composition. and P. 2005. Agronomy and Crop Sci. 1980. xxx. Vedprakash. Y. 33. . Agric.) based intercropping systems.R. J.. Biol. Sci.L. 100: 4176-4182. Torrie.. M. Laopaiboon. 32.C. Olowe. A. 24. 2012 17. J. Shuting. K. P. 1975.A. Zaibin and D. 7: 163-166. Steel. R. Soet.. Mukhala. and J. Biochem. Alagundagi. R. Tsubo. Mungbean powdery mildew resistance identification of genes for resistance to powdery mildew in Mungbean. Thai J. Thipyapong. 19. V. (ed.C. Effect of Intercropping Cereal Crops with Forage Legumes and Source of Nutrients on Cereal Grain Yield and Fodder Dry Matter Yields. Whistler and Be J.) Forage quality. J.A. Agric. 40: 119-126. & Environ. Chotiyarnwong. 222 28.M. Relay Cropping of Sorghum and Legume Shrubs for Crop Yield Improvement and Striga Control in the Subsistence Agriculture Region of Tigray (Northern Ethiopia).. Mohammad and J. AJCS. Dharwad-580-005. Chatwachirawong. Carr. 2010. J..C. C.H.. Agric. In: Methods in Carbohydrate Chemistry (eds R.O.W.. New York. 2004. Chanprame and P. 36. Dept of Agriculture. O. Adeyemo. M. Walker. Zhang. Plant environment and quality.L. Lithourgidis.R.N. Adel. 26. H. D.J.M. P. African Crop Science Conference Proceedings. Cornell University Press. G. Agricultural Research Service Washington. CSSA and SSSA.I. Fales. Department of Agronomy. Verkleij and W. Panday. 155: 285-291.D. 2011. Agronomy. 10: 23-31. Analysis of covariance. 23.. In G.E. Srinives. 2008. Madison W. 1969. Semi-micro determination of cellulose in biological material. Vansoest. Phoofolo. Horsley and W. J. Osuji. D. Indian J. evaluation and utilization. Giles and N. Hosein.. 2007. 22. Damalas and D. Forage yield and quality in intercropping of maize with different legumes as double-cropped. 39: 763-774... 191: 20-26.. Fahey..P. Hodge. 14: 605-609.R.N. Egypt. Effects of relay-intercropping sorghum with winter wheat. Food. A. Ummuna.J. et al. D. OMA. Barley.N. 96: 677-684. 34. 1993. University of Agricultural Sciences. H.Y. Sci. Liaghat and Gh. Interspecific competitiveness affects the total biomass yield in an alfalfa and corn intercropping system. Sci. Mpairwe. Anal. El-Minia. Miller. Buxton. V.J.S.A. 2009. E. J. Agron. 2007..Am-Euras. Ogindo and S. 2009. M. Sci. Chaichi. Agric. Fiber and Physiochemical Properties of Feeds. Ithaca and London. R. Karnataka J.W. 2008.J.O. 1994. Official Methods of Analysis of the AOAC 12th Ed. Poland.. African Crop Sci. 10: 81-97... P. 2007.

Srivastava and H.K.. 48. Tanzania 4-7 August.M. 43. B. held at Morogoro. Shah. 2004. A. Tripathy. 2006. 1980. H. R. Wanjari. J. Rahman and Z. In: Proceedings of the second symposium on intercropping in semi arid areas. A. D. Agric. 3: 15-20.A. Doto. 47. 1997. 74: 405-408. 49. S. Bildirici. 1994. Khalatbari. H. Vedprakash. Sustain. 42: 38-41..M. N.. Nnko.R. Riaz.D. Sci. Dhope and V. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Sci.K. 54: 401-411. Dogan. O. 43: 1-2. C..R.B. A. N. Mahmood and M. Growth and Yield of Millet and Cowpea in Relay and Intercrop Systems in the Sahelian Zone in Years when the Onset of the Rainy Season is early.N.. Intercropping studies in sorghum (cv.. 46. 2012 40. Sci. 29: 417-427. & Environ. Devine. Sivakumar. Shekar. Potential Benefits of Intercropping Corn with Runner Bean for Small-sized Farming System. A. 45. Intercropping maize or millet with sorghum with particular reference to planting schedule.. 2009. R. P. 1982. Intercropping..K... E. M..S. Ndunguru. Competitive performance of associated forage crops grown in different forage sorghum-legume intercropping systems..V. D. A.V. Buxton and T. AsianAust. Canada. Pakistan J.. Rath. Agric.S. Indian J. 1993. 12 (2): 210-223. Evaluation of Intercropping Forage Sorghum with Pearl Millet at Different Row Proportion and Plant Densities in Semiarid Areas: Am. Karsli and Y. 41. Potdukhe. Sorghum intercropping effects on yield. (Eds.-Eurasian J.Am-Euras. Agric. Sci. Crop Res. Relay intercropping of hybrid tomato in maize under mid-hill condition of north-western Himalayas. Anim.. Eslampour. Agric. 8: 428-430. Experimental Agric.. Sci.S. morphology and Quality of Forage Soybean.K. M.R. Hosseini. Khan.) IDRC 186c Ottawa.A.S. Shah. Performance of maize and cowpea forage intercropping system in summer. and A. Nazir. A. 1999.N. Gupta. 22: 836-842. Pradhan and B.H. Mahakulkar. A. Redfearn. 2008.. Plant density and nitrogen effects on growth dynamics. light interception and yield of maize. 44. Keswani and B..L.E. Pandey. 2009. 42.L. J. Indian J. Khalatbari.J. M. Aldemir. Azraf. 39: 1380-1384. Zandvakili and A. 223 .B. L. Agronomy. A. CSH-14) under Akola conditions..