J. Agronomy & Crop Science 188, 914 (2000) © 2000 Blackwell Wissenschalts-Verlag, Berlin ISSN 0931-2250 Agricultural Science Unit, Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta, India Evaluation of Mustard (Brassica compestris Var. Toria) and Legume Intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 Row-Replacement Series Systems P. Banik, T. Sasmal, P. K. Ghosal and D. K. Bagehi Authors’ address: Drs P. Banik (corresponding author), T. Sasmal, P. K. Ghosal and D. K. Bagehi, Agricultural Science Unit, Indian Statistical Institut With 5 tables Received December 10, 1998; accepted June 14, 1999 Abstract Field experiments were conducted at Agricultural Exper- imental Farm, Giridih, Bihar during the winter seasons of 1992-93 and 1993-94 to compare 1:1 and 2:1 row- replacement series intereropping of mustard (Brassica campestris Var. Toria) with pea (Pisum sativum), with lentil (Lens culinaris) and with gram (Cicer areitinum L.) Inlereropping systems were assessed on the basis of new indices termed ‘actual yield loss’ (AYL) and ‘inter~ cropping advantage’ (1A), as well as several existing inter cropping indices such as LER, RCC and aggressivity. Intercropping reduced the yield of component crops, ‘compared with respective pure stands. Mustard + pea in 1:1 row-replacement series gave the highest mustard yield equivalent value (1,00 t/ha). When the actual sown proportion was considered, mustard + lentil (1:1) resulted in maximum AYL (0.438) and IA (42.889) values, We conclude that AYL and IA are more appro- priate, particularly when per plant yield is considered Key words: actual yield loss — intereropping — intercropping advantage — legume — monetary advantage — mustard Introduction Intercropping has long been a common practice throughout the developing tropics and is likely to continue to be important, particularly in certain rain-fed areas (Dalrymple 1971, Arnon 1972 Francis etal. 1975, Norman 1976, Okigbo and Greenland 1976). In intereropping systems involv- ing a legume and a non-legume, part of the nitrogen fixed in the root nodule of the legume may become available to. the non-legume component. So legumes, both alone and as intercrop with cereals, have been advocated not only for yield aug- mentation but also for maintenance of soil health, particularly in degraded soil (Chatterjee and Bhat- tacharjee 1986, Banik and Bagchi 1993). e, 202 B.T. Roza, Caleutta 700035, India This study was conducted to compare the suit- ability of legume intercrops (pea, lentil and gram) in association with rain-fed mustard in the subtropical mid-uplands of the plateau region of India. A secondary objective of the study was to com= pare various measures of intercropping advantage. Various indices of intercropping have been reviewed by several authors, including the comprehensive review of intercropping by Willey (1979) and the more specific review of statistical methods in inter- cropping by Mead and Riley (1981). These authors have considered various methods of computing yield advantages/disadvantages of inter/mixed crop- ping, for example through land equivalent ratio, monetary advantage, crop equivalent and other agronomic and economic parameters. Materials and Methods ‘The study was conducted during the winter (‘Rabi’) sea sons of 1992-93 and 1993-94 at Giridih on a sandy loam soil with pH 5.8-6.3, organie carbon 0.36-0.43%, avail- able P-17-19kg ha~! and available K 98-110 ke ha" Mustard cultivar B-9 was intereropped with pea (Pisum sativam L.) cultivar T-163, lentil (Lens eulinaris L.) cul tivar BR-25 and gram (Cicer areitinun L,) cultivar BR- 71. Weekly rainfall and) evapotranspiration during the growth periods are summarized in Table 1. Treatments included sole crops of mustard, pea, lentil and gram, sown at a normal seed rate and spacing (30 x 15m) recommended for the plateat region (Mohsin etal. 1986). The intererops were based on a replacing design, in which cither alternate rows of mustard were replacing by a legume (1:1 mixture), or every third row was replaced Q:1 mixture), so that the seed rate of mustard in 1:1 and 2:1 mixtures was 50% and 66.67%, respectively Fertilizers were applied to both sole and intercropped plots at 20kg Nba', 18kg P ha"? and 17 kg K ha” at sowing time, and an additional dose of 10kg Nha~! was applied only to mustard rows 1 month alter sowing.w Banik etal Table 1: Weekly rainfall (mm) and evapotranspiration values (mm) during the crop Rainfall Evapotranspiration (mm) (nm) Weeks 1992-93 1993-94 1992-93 1993.94 4B i) 169) 16.0 4 00 100 181 168 45 00 (00 wd 142, 46 09 00 167 188 47 00 368 172 140 48 3800 1s 136 49 323-80 128 88 50 0000 146 126 st 50 10.2 4 67 22 00 4d 200 112 1 00 200 18.7 129 2 15400 19.4 15.6 3 oo 4 203 139) 4 00 00 26.2 197 5 228 48.7 1712 2s 6 0056 188, 138 7 0900 30.9 19.7 8 00 172 299 248 9 106 00 217 29.0 10 00 100 358 38.0 un 0000 53.7 465 2 202 00 39.2 50.0 B 14 88 355 499 4 Ws Sa 48.0 388 1s 91 00 352 48.8 16 oo 172 586 376 " 10 06 46.7 49.0 Treatments were laid out in a randomized block design with three replications. The plot sizes were 36 min both sole and intereropped combinations, Crops were sown fon 25 October 1992 and 2 November 1993. The erops received one irigation just after sowing and were weeded ‘once, I month after sowing, Yield data were taken, leav- ing border rows. Land-equivalent ratio and monetary advantages were calculated following Willey (1979), rela~ tive crowding coeflicient following De Wit (1960), aggressvity following MeGilehrst (1965) and erop (mus- tard) equivalent following Chetty and Reddy (1987) Actual yield loss (AYL) was ealeulated following Banik (1996) and intererop advantage (IA) was calculated as follows. Actual yield loss is the proportionate yield loss ‘or gain of intercrops in comparison to the respective sole ex0p, ie. it takes into account the actual sown proportion of the component crops with its pure stand, where: Actual yield Joss (AYL) = AYL, + AYL, AYL, = {((uu/Z) Yoa!Za)] = and AYLy = (lV ou/Zra)/(Yon!Zoo)] — 1 Here Y is the yield per hectare (unit area) and Z is the sown proportion, subscripts aa and bb refer to pure stands (sole crops) of species A and B, and ab and ba refer to intererops. Partial actual yield loss AYL, and AYL, represent the proportionate yield loss or gain of species A and B when grown as intererops, relative to their yield in pure stands. AYL is therefore the sum of the two partials AYL, and AYL,, The sign (positive or negative) of the AYL score gives 4 quantitative assessment of advantage/disadvantage accrued under any intercrop situation when the main objective is to compare yield on a per plant basis. The intereropping advantage (IA) was calculated using the following formula: TA = (P, x AYL,) + (P, x AYLy) where IA = intereropping advantage, P, ‘a crop, and P, = unit price of “b’ crop. Statistical analysis of yield data was performed using ‘the normal procedures (Gomez and Gomez 1984), unit price of Results and Discussion Yield and mustard equivalent yield ‘The results (Table 2) show that crops under sole cropping gave higher yields than in mixtures during both years. The pure stand of crops maintained supremacy over the intercropping system with respect to economic yield, which may be due to limited disturbance of the habitat and interactional competition in the sole cropping environment (Grime 1977). Mustard yields of 0.65 and 0.77 tha" were obtained under sole cropping in 1992-93 and 1993-94, respectively. This variation in yield is sim- ply due to winter rains and their distribution (123mm in 11 days in 1992-93 and 211mm in 1 days in 1993-94). When mustard was grown in association with legumes, irrespective of the specific combination, the mustard crop benefited with respect to the proportionate yield of its sole crop. This can be attributed to the complementary effect of legume association through nutrient transfer (Ofori and Stern 1987), When intercropped with lentil in 1:1 and 2:1 row-replacement series, Le. with $0% and 66.67% sole sown proportion, mus- tard yielded 63.38% and 80.28% of its sole crop yield. Yield advantages of mustard grown with lentil may be due to the greater temporal differences, Mus- tard is a long crop compared to lentil so it received more light when grown in association with lentil When sown in association with pea in a 1:1 rows replacement series, mustard showed greater yield