Establishment Intercropping The Effects of Water

Establishment intercropping: The effects
of watermelon, banana, cassava and

maize on oil palm performance
How land sharing in oil palm plantations can lead to land
sparing in nature
David Oomen
MSc thesis: PPS80436

Wageningen University and Research
MSc Plant Sciences
Specialization C: Natural Resource Management
Student number: 1017397

Supervisor: Maja Slingerland
Examiner: Lotte Woittiez
Chair group: Plant Production Systems (PPS)
Date: 13-04-2023
Wageningen University & Research Oomen, D.
i
Abstract
Intercropping in oil palm has potential in intensifying land use via crop diversification. This MSc thesis
focused on smallholder intercropping with watermelon, banana, cassava and maize and its effects on
oil palm performance. In addition, the effect of oil palm on intercrop maize was evaluated. The results
showed that watermelon intercropping increased oil palm yields, FFB number, ground projection and
frond number, making it a good alternative to monoculture fields that were poorly managed. For the
oil palm smallholders, cost and nutrient efficiencies were higher in the watermelon-intercropped fields
than the monocultures. In contrast, oil palm surrounded by four banana plants had a lower FFB number
compared to oil palm monocrop with the same management, indicating a decreased productivity due
to competition between oil palm and banana. Cassava and maize intercropping were compared.
Maize-intercropped oil palms showed a larger increase in frond length than cassava-intercropped oil
palm. This frond etiolation could be the result of increased light competition. Cassava intercropping
arguably affects oil palm less, since these palms increased their ground projection significantly more
than maize-intercropped oil palms. Oil palm had a negative effect on intercrop maize performance,
since both maize height and cob size were significantly lowest when positioned close to oil palm.
Apparently, some intercrops are more likely to induce stress than others. However, with proper
management, intercropping could be a great attribute in diversifying plantations, as well as
smallholder incomes, and increase land use efficiency.
ii
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................. ii
1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1
1.1 The dilemma of oil palm ............................................................................................................1
1.2 The economic and environmental potential of intercropping ....................................................2
1.3 Resource use in oil palm ............................................................................................................3
1.4 Oil palm performance and effects of intercropping ...................................................................4
1.4.1 Watermelon intercropping .................................................................................................5
1.4.2 Banana intercropping .........................................................................................................5
1.4.3 Cassava intercropping.........................................................................................................6
1.4.4 Maize intercropping ...........................................................................................................6
1.5 Problem statement and research objective ...............................................................................7
2 Materials and methods ....................................................................................................................8
2.1 Study area: Bengkulu.................................................................................................................8
2.2 Measurements ..........................................................................................................................8
2.2.1 Vegetative growth indicators for oil palm ...........................................................................8
2.2.2 Productivity indicators for oil palm .....................................................................................9
2.3 Watermelon intercropping compared with oil palm monoculture .............................................9
2.3.1 Field selection ....................................................................................................................9
2.3.2 Interviews on oil palm and watermelon management ...................................................... 10
2.3.3 Transect walk, tree selection and general field parameters............................................... 11
2.3.4 Soil Sampling .................................................................................................................... 11
2.4 Smallholder banana – oil palm intercropping........................................................................... 11
2.5 Intercropping with maize and cassava ..................................................................................... 12
2.5.1 Data collection ................................................................................................................. 13
2.5.2 Interviews ........................................................................................................................ 13
2.6 Data analysis ........................................................................................................................... 13
3 Results ........................................................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Oil palm performance when intercropped with watermelon ................................................... 14
3.1.1 Field descriptions.............................................................................................................. 14
3.1.2 The details of watermelon intercropping .......................................................................... 18
3.1.3 The effects of watermelon intercropping on oil palm performance ................................... 19
3.1.3.1 The effect of watermelon intercropping on oil palm yields ......................................... 19
3.1.3.2 The effect of watermelon intercropping on FFB number ............................................ 20
3.1.3.3 The effect of watermelon intercropping on Frond Number ........................................ 22
3.1.3.4 The effect of watermelon intercropping on ground projection ................................... 23
3.2 Cost Analysis Watermelon Intercropping ................................................................................. 24
iii
3.3 The influence of banana on oil palm growth and development................................................ 26

3.4 The influence of intercropping with maize and cassava on oil palm growth and development . 27
3.5 Maize positioning in regard to oil palm .................................................................................... 29
4 Discussion ...................................................................................................................................... 31
4.1 Oil palm – watermelon intercropping ...................................................................................... 31
4.1.1 The positive effect of watermelon intercropping on oil palm performance ....................... 31
4.1.1.1 The effect of watermelon intercropping on oil palm productivity ............................... 31
4.1.1.2 Improved vegetative growth by watermelon intercropping........................................ 32
4.1.1.3 Explanations for the benefits of watermelon intercropping........................................ 33
4.1.2 The struggles of high management costs .......................................................................... 34
4.1.3 Intermediate conclusions on oil palm – watermelon intercropping ................................... 36
4.2 The influence of banana density on oil palm growth ................................................................ 37
4.3 Comparison cassava and maize ............................................................................................... 38
4.3.1 Frond etiolation in maize intercropping ............................................................................ 38
4.3.2 Increased ground projection in cassava intercropping ...................................................... 39
4.3.3 Distance from oil palm affects maize growth and yields .................................................... 40
4.3.3.1 Decreased maize height close to oil palm ................................................................... 40
4.3.3.2 Decreased cob size close to oil palm .......................................................................... 41
4.4 General discussion .................................................................................................................. 42
4.5 Shortcomings and recommendations ...................................................................................... 43
5 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 44
6 Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ 45
References........................................................................................................................................ 46
Appendix .......................................................................................................................................... 52
iv
1 Introduction
The following section will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis)
cultivation. Intercropping has the potential to alleviate some of these disadvantages. This thesis will
describe intercropping with watermelon (Citrullus lanatus), banana (Musa spp), cassava (Manihot
esculenta) and maize (Zea mays), their effects on oil palm performance and their potential in making
oil palm cultivation more efficient.
1.1 The dilemma of oil palm

Oil palm cultivation has increased enormously in the past decades, becoming second to soybean in
global supply of oils and fats (Wahid, Abdullah and IE, 2005). This increase was due to an increase in
global demand for vegetable oils (Sayer et al., 2012; Byerlee, Falcon and Naylor, 2017). Oil palm, having
a higher oil production per unit of land than any other crop, was especially useful in answering this
demand for oil. Consequently, the total cultivation area of oil palm increased four-fold between 1980
and 2018 (FAO, 2019). Especially Indonesia and Malaysia greatly increased cultivation, leading to these
countries accounting for almost 85% of international palm oil trade (FAO, 2019). To illustrate the high
yields of oil palm compared to other oil crops: approximately 40% of vegetable oils is derived from oil
palm, while only around 5% of global oil crop area is dedicated to oil palm (Meijaard et al., 2020).
Unfortunately, the boom in oil palm cultivation also came with negative environmental and social
effects (Sayer et al., 2012). Oil palm plantations rapidly replaced tropical forests, leading to biodiversity
loss, land degradation, greenhouse gas emissions, as well as increased risk of fires and pollution (Qaim
et al., 2020). In addition, large oil palm companies often neglect the land and worker rights of rural
communities (Hidayat et al., 2018; Pye, 2019; Qaim et al., 2020). Therefore, oil palm cultivation
generally has a negative charge in the public debate (Edwards, 2019; Qaim et al., 2020).
However, oil palm can also greatly contribute to poverty alleviation of smallholders, which is seldom
mentioned (Edwards, 2019). Oil palm has relatively low labour requirements, allowing farmers to
cultivate larger areas, while saved labour time can also be utilized for additional secondary profits
(Kubitza et al., 2018). Furthermore, oil palm export greatly contributes to the economies of Indonesia
and Malaysia, with Indonesia generating billions of dollars in foreign exchange income annually from
oil palm trade (Paoli et al., 2013). Oil palm’s high yields per land unit are promising, if not at the
expense of rainforests. As it were, the advantages and drawbacks of oil palm cultivation create a
dilemma between the sustainable development goals of ‘no poverty’ and ‘biodiversity’. While oil palm
benefits the economy, nature and rainforests suffer.
Especially in Indonesia, a major portion of oil palm is cultivated by smallholders, which typically have
landholdings of less than 50 ha, making up an estimated 40% of land area in 2015 (Jelsma et al., 2017;
RSPO, 2019). Generally, these Indonesian smallholders have lower yields oil palm than corporate
plantations due to poor management (Jelsma et al., 2017). Euler et al. (2016) confirms that
smallholders’ performance is often far below plantation standards, based on data from Sumatra. Oil
palm smallholdings have a tremendous potential, since their yields are currently only around 50% of
the potential for a plantation in the first 20 years after planting. Fertilizer dosage, plant mortality and
the length of harvesting intervals are examples of management practices that determine this big yield
gap (Euler et al., 2016). The potential of increasing smallholder productivity is huge. However, since
lack of financial resources is often a bottleneck for smallholders, realistic and cost-efficient
interventions will be needed (McCarthy & Zen, 2016; Woittiez et al., 2017). Growing crops in between
the oil palm rows, i.e. intercropping, is an example of such an intervention, since it allows smallholders
to have an income in the first unproductive years of oil palm cultivation (Slingerland et al., 2019).
1
1.2 The economic and environmental potential of intercropping

Oil palm has an economic lifespan of about 30-35 years, but reaches productivity relatively late at 3-5
years after planting (Dissanayake and Palihakkara, 2019). Increasing yield per unit of land could
decrease deforestation, according to the land-sparing principle (Mertz and Mertens, 2017). At the
moment, a big portion of area dedicated to oil palm is in need of replanting (Nurfatriani et al., 2022).
This large replanting task ahead offers an opportunity to make large-scale improvements (Petri et al.,
2022). With this large area dedicated to immature non-yielding plantations, considerable land area
could be used by landless or displaced farmers to graze their cattle or grow crops (Azhar et al., 2021).
Sharing land by integrating crops or livestock in oil palm on a large-scale has the potential to mitigate
deforestation, boost food security and reduce chemical herbicides (Azhar et al., 2021).
Generally, a plantation is most productive when following a triangular planting pattern of 9x9x9m
spacing. In immature plantations, sufficient space is available to cultivate another crop: establishment
intercropping (Dissanayake & Palihakkara, 2019; Slingerland et al., 2019). Establishment intercropping
results in more efficient land-use, while generating income in the immature phase (Okyere et al., 2014).
Additionally, cultivation of intercrops with proper fertilization may have spill over effects for the palm
trees and increase fertilizer use efficiency, which is especially useful with currently high costs of
fertilizers. The increased financial benefit is one of the main reasons smallholder farmers often apply
establishment intercropping. An oil palm smallholder can either practice intercropping himself or invite
other (landless) farmers to cultivate on his field. Cultivating himself provides the smallholder with
additional income and/or nourishment. However, sowing an additional crop requires an investment in
capital and labour. On the other hand, inviting other farmers to cultivate does not provide additional
profits, but also does not involve an investment by the smallholder. Meanwhile, the smallholder could
still benefit by saving money on oil palm management and benefit from the potential environmental
advantages of intercropping, e.g. increased carbon stock, decreased nitrogen leaching and improved
erosion control (Slingerland et al., 2019). Arrangements exist in which the landowners also get a part
of the intercrop revenue, hereby stimulating the tenants to aim for high yields, i.e. sharecropping
(Amanor & Diderutuah, 2001; Krishna et al., 2017).
Smallholder farmers indicate that greater importance of sufficient management skills and yield
uncertainties are main reasons for rejecting intercropping (Nchanji et al., 2016; Pridham & Entz, 2008).
Additional crops between the oil palm trees increase the denseness within the plantation, since there
are more crops on the same area. Consequently, mobile equipment use is more complicated due to
the lack of space, making mechanization difficult (Amoah et al., 1995). In addition, the decreased space
complicates the physical control of diseases, pests and weeds. Concurrently, intercropping can also
shade weeds, reducing weeds compared to a monocrop system (Dissanayake & Palihakkara, 2019).
Additionally, farmers tend to weed their intercrop to prevent competition. Disease control is also often
mentioned as a benefit of intercropping. Additional crops could possibly benefit the oil palm by
offering ecosystem services such as integrated pest management and pollination (Slingerland et al.,
2019). In the case that oil palm and intercrop are cultivated by different farmers, costs and benefits
per party are of relevance. The oil palm smallholder could save costs by benefiting from fertilizing and
weeding that is done by the intercrop farmer. However, the oil palm farmer will not have the (whole)
revenue of the intercrop.
A variety of crops is being intercropped with oil palm. Some smallholders grow additional crops for
their own use, while others prefer cash crops. Crop choices are also made based on management
intensity and length of the growing season. Intercrop choice is also dependent on environmental
factors such as soil type (Slingerland et al., 2019). For instance, banana and cassava are better suited
for mineral soils, while pineapple thrives better on peat soils. Nchanji et al. (2016) stress the need to
2
consider pre-emptive measures, like crop choice and planting density, so that the intercropping does
not jeopardize oil palm yields (Nchanji et al., 2016). However, little research has been done into the
effects of different intercrops and especially different densities, of which optimums are relative to
the age of the oil palm. Resource competition increases as the oil palm matures (Nchanji et al., 2016).
In the first years intercropping might seem beneficial, but the question remains if these initial
benefits will not decrease oil palm yields later.
1.3 Resource use in oil palm

Whether an intercropping system is beneficial depends on the degree of competition or facilitation
between the crops (van Doorn, 2020). To obtain optimal yields sufficient resources are required for
both crops. Light, nutrient and water levels have to be maintained. In addition, pests and diseases
should be managed. Especially when both crops use identical niches, resources can be limited resulting
in competition between crops. When crops use different niches, the area can be used more efficiently
compared to a monocrop system, which is referred to as complementation or facilitation. Of course,
besides competition between two different crops (interspecific competition), the same crop can also
compete neighbouring plants (intraspecific competition; van Doorn, 2020).
In very immature oil palm plantations, the canopy is far from closed (Okyere et al., 2014). The oil palm
canopy only makes up a small part of the area, resulting in a big waste of solar radiation. However, as
the oil palm matures, the canopies grow towards each other, available light decreases and the oil palm
starts to outcompete undergrowing plants. Once the canopy close, only shade tolerant crops will be
able to grow in this light deficient climate. Light competition stimulates the oil palm to invest in vertical
growth. Lower light availability also decreases formation of new leaves (Breure, 1994; Woittiez et al.,
2017).
The majority of smallholder farmers in Indonesia use conventional fertilizers such as NPK Ponska, NPK
Pelangi, Urea, Dolomite, KCl, single super phosphate (SP-36), triple super phosphate (TSP), sulphate of
ammonium and rock phosphate (Woittiez et al., 2018). Organic fertilizers like manure or empty fruit
bunches are barely applied. To minimize nutrient losses, the majority of nutrients can be re-used when
oil palm fronds, trunks and the empty fruit bunches are left to decompose in the field (Sung, 2016).
The fronds and fruit bunches can gradually release nutrients into the soil for one to two years, while
the trunk takes two to three years to fully decompose. Re-using biomass as mulch and fertilizer
generally increased soil pH, soil nutrient, soil water and soil carbon levels (Sung, 2016). Intercropping
can help increase efficiency by for example decreasing nitrogen leaching (Slingerland et al., 2019). In
addition, erosion control is often improved, which in its turn can decrease the run-off of nutrients
(Slingerland et al., 2019). To prevent nutrient competition with the intercrop, soil nutrient levels should
be kept moderate to high. The soil nutrient status for oil palm for macronutrients nitrogen (N),
phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) is shown in Table 1 (Goh & Po, 2005). N increases leaf area index
and net assimilation rate, while reducing leaf area ratios. N and K both similarly increase fresh fruit
bunch (FFB) yield, without affecting bunch indices. K increased leaf area index by only increasing mean
leaf area, while N affects leaf number as well (Corley & Mok, 1972). In summary, K application mainly
increases dry matter production and yields of oil palm, primarily by increasing leaf area. N increases
both leaf area and net assimilation rate (Corley & Mok, 1972). N application also appears to be
positively correlated with FFB yields by increasing weight per bunch (Arifin et al., 2022).
3
Table 1: Soil Nutrient Status for Oil Palm (Goh & Po, 2005).
NUTRIENT VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH

TOTAL N < 0.08 0.08-0.12 0.12-0.15 0.15-0.25 > 0.25
(%)
AVAILABLE P (PPM) < 10 10-25 25-40 40-60 > 60
EXCHANGEABLE K < 0.08 0.08-0.20 0.20-0.25 0.25-0.30 > 0.30
(CMOL/KG)
Water levels should also be sufficient for optimal palm growth. In water stress conditions, root/shoot
ratio increases (Sun et al., 2011). In a study conducted in India, intermittent water stress reduced FFB
yields (88% reduction), stem growth (49% reduction) and leaf production (30% reduction in early
growth phase and 12.5% reduction in later growth phase) compared to irrigated conditions (Gawankar
et al., 2003). Water shortages also affect nutrient uptake, which is reliant on water flow (van Doorn,
2020). A combination of water and nutrient stress (i.e. no irrigation and no fertilization) significantly
decreases leaf N and P concentrations, while leaf K concentration increases (Sun et al., 2011).
Optimally, oil palm and intercrop complement each other by using different resources, i.e. light,
nutrient and water. However, as Reddy et al (2004) already illustrated, oil palm and intercrop can
compete for resources if not managed properly. Fortunately, competition between crops can be
limited with proper management and spacing, hereby maintaining high yields (Dissanayake &
Palihakkara, 2019). In order to improve management in a specific system, the current situation will
first need to be described by getting an overview of environmental, economic and social aspects of the
farm.
Intensifying land use by growing two crops on the same area touches upon the land-sharing and land-
sparing principle (Mertz & Mertens, 2017). The sustainability of a system can be increased via
extensifying the system by incorporating more space for nature. The other option is intensifying by
increasing yields, which could, for instance, decrease the need for deforestation (Mertz & Mertens,
2017). Establishment intercropping has the potential to do both, increasing yields per hectare, while
offering environmental services, such as reducing the carbon footprint and increasing N use efficiency
(Khasanah et al., 2020).
1.4 Oil palm performance and effects of intercropping

When investigating such establishment intercropping systems, the growth patterns of both oil palm
and intercrop are of the essence. An oil palm tree consists of roots, a trunk and fronds (Figure 1; Lewis
et al., 2020). Each frond consists of a part to which leaflets are attached, the rachis, and a part close to
the stem where no leaflets are attached. Frond number and size greatly determine vegetative growth
in oil palm. The orientation of the fronds is of importance as well as this influences ground projection
and light interception. The fronds are arranged in eights spirals (Figure 1i). In frond numbering, the
newest emerged leaf is considered frond number 1 and following the spiral the other fronds can be
numbered (Corley & Tinker, 2016).
Oil palm productivity is generally correlated with vegetative growth. Specific productivity indicators
are FFB number, female inflorescences and yields (Corley & Tinker, 2016). Stress in oil palm can be
recognized by rachis elongation (relative to general growth) or a decrease in inflorescence sex ratio
(Corley & Tinker, 2016).
4
Figure 1: A. an illustration of an oil palm tree. B. a frond and its different compartments
(Lewis et al., 2020)
While intercropping has many benefits in the immature phase of oil palm, the intercrops should not
affect oil palm performance negatively (Dissanayake & Palihakkara, 2019). The potential of
intercropping with watermelon, banana, cassava and maize will be discussed. These intercrops cover
a wide range of possible hinderances and benefits or the oil palm. The crops vary in height,
aboveground and underground biomass and nutrient application.
1.4.1 Watermelon intercropping

Watermelon is considered a high profit intercrop, due to high selling prices, high yields and short
growing seasons (Amzeri et al., 2021; Kuvaini, 2022). To pursue high yields and profits, farmers often
apply more and more fertilizers (Kang et al., 2020). In addition, many plant protection inputs are
needed to prevent yield losses (Brickell, 1992). Watermelon intercropping is encouraged during oil
palm immaturity (Idoko et al., 2017). However, little research have been done into this particular kind
of intercropping system. The little research available indicates that watermelon intercropping
improves soil conditions by preventing erosion, retaining water and maintaining moisture (Kuvaini,
2022). Arguably, high fertilizer use could also be of benefit to the oil palm if the roots are long enough
to reach the intercrop.
1.4.2 Banana intercropping

Banana is known for being a relatively high intercrop, which could potentially increase light
competition with oil palm (Malia, 2021). Nevertheless, banana is often chosen as intercrop, because it
is a highly profitable crop (Malia, 2021; Tukan et al., 2006). Banana is perennial, yielding relatively late
at ten to twelve months after planting (Tock et al., 2010). Still, smallholder often opt for banana as
intercrop. Reddy et al. (2004) studied oil palm intercropping in India and concluded that out of fruit
intercrops, banana was most popular. A comparison between intercrops banana, guinea grass,
moringa, maize-okra, tobacco, chilli and colocasia showed that banana had the highest gross and net
returns. Considering the benefit-cost ratio, banana came in second after maize, because the costs of
banana cultivation were higher than that of maize (Reddy et al., 2004). Banana intercropping was
evaluated in Sri Lanka with a banana spacing of 1.5mx1.5m in 4 rows per oil palm plot of 28mx28m.
The research resulted in banana yields of 7550 kg/ha, which is 61% of monocrop yield (Dissanayake &
Palihakkara, 2023). The main reason given for this yield reduction was the limited space in the oil palm
field, leading to less banana trees, rather than competition for water, light or nutrients. However, yield
per plant was not compared between intercrop and monoculture. Intercropped banana plants grew
5
significantly taller than monocrop banana plants, probably due to light interference from surrounding
oil palms. The oil palm did not show any adverse effects on its growth when intercropped with banana
(Dissanayake & Palihakkara, 2023).
1.4.3 Cassava intercropping

Cassava is one of the most important energy staples in the tropics (Leihner, 1983). In addition, this
intercrop is known for being tolerant against low soil fertility, drought and pests. Especially smaller
farms tend to cultivate cassava, often in mixed systems with other food or cash crops (Leihner, 1983).
Cassava is considered an intercrop with low financial risk, since labour and fertilizer inputs are
relatively low (Koussihouèdé, Clermont-Dauphin, et al., 2020). A study comparing costs and benefits
between intercrops cassava, maize, tomato and pineapple showed that cassava had the lowest
planting material costs (26 USD/ha), followed by maize (57 USD/ha). Also labour costs were much
lower for cassava and maize compared to tomato and pineapple. However, returns were also much
lower for cassava and maize, resulting in the returns on costs for cassava to be half of that of tomato,
and that of maize being 2.5 times smaller compared to tomato (Koussihouèdé, Clermont-Dauphin, et
al., 2020). An advantage of cassava is that it can be kept relatively long in the field. Cassava
intercropping was associated with farmers that want to avoid risk and expenditure. Farmers in Benin
cultivated cassava that was planted on a lightly hoed field in a density of 15000 plants ha -1, which
would correspond with a 1mx0.75m spacing. No mineral fertilizer or pesticides were applied to the
cassava, but the oil palm was supplied with 50 kg N ha-1 and 60 kg K ha-1 in total during the first three
years. At the end of the immature phase of the oil palm, the cassava extended under the oil palm
canopy. The farmers indicated that cassava does affect oil palm growth negatively in the first year,
leaving stunted palms. In addition, the start of production was delayed (Koussihouèdé, Clermont-
Dauphin, et al., 2020). In contrast, other research showed that cassava intercropping with oil palm had
no adverse effects on oil palm growth, development and yields (Okyere et al., 2014).
1.4.4 Maize intercropping

As mentioned above, costs for maize are higher than cassava. However, management costs are still
relatively low compared to most cash crops. Maize intercropping had a relatively high benefit-cost
ratio due to its low management costs (Reddy et al., 2004). Maize is considered as a crop with low
market risk, but with a low return on costs of only 30% (Koussihouèdé, Clermont-Dauphin, et al., 2020).
In other words, maize is cheap to cultivate, but the returns are also low. Maize intercropping was
associated with farmers that are unable to hire external labour (Koussihouèdé, Clermont-Dauphin, et
al., 2020). In addition, maize has a relatively short crop cycle of three months, while cassava has a
cycle of 12 months. In Benin, maize was sown at a density of 50 000 plants ha-1 and fertilized with 46
kg N ha-1 as urea. The maize was also sown under the oil palm crowns (Koussihouèdé, Clermont-
Dauphin, et al., 2020). Maize intercropping in immature oil palm plantation can be done to increase
land use efficiency without disadvantages on maize growth and yield per plant (Suherman et al., 2019).
In the research of Suherman et al. (2019) maize was intercropped with one-year-old oil palm with a
planting distance of 8mx8m. Maize was sown at a planting distance of 75cmx20xm, so that 2m distance
was kept to the oil palms. An additional 0.5 kg NPK-manure mixture was added to each maize plant to
ensure that there was no lack of nutrients (Suherman et al., 2019). Recommend fertilizer rates for
maize are 350 kg ha-1 Urea, 100 kg ha-1 SP-36 and 150 kg ha-1 KCl (Rizki, 2020). In Indonesia, Alhaviz et
al. (2021) looked into the effects of fertilized maize on oil palm as well, with maize spacing of
25cmx70cm. The findings suggest that maize does not affect oil palm negatively in plant height, frond
number, stem diameter, canopy width and frond length. Intercropped oil palms even seem to have an
increased morphological growth, which is hypothesized to be due to oil palm using fertilizer applied to
maize, referred to as nutrient symbiosis (Alhaviz, 2021). However, since the intercrop does not benefit
from this interaction, nutrient competition or stealing by the oil palm would be a more appropriate
6
term. Okyere et al. (2014) confirm that maize intercropping has been found to have no adverse effects
on oil palm performance (Okyere et al., 2014).
1.5 Problem statement and research objective

All crops mentioned above are being cultivated as intercrops in this thesis’ study area Bengkulu,
Indonesia, a province in Sumatra that has become a centre of oil palm production (Irawan & Syakir,
2019). Oil palm was cultivated on 426,508 hectares of Bengkulu province in 2019, which is 2.6% or the
total area dedicated to oil palm in Indonesia (Herlina & Wahyuni, 2022). Oil palm production in
Bengkulu improves people’s welfare, contributes to regional development and creates job
opportunities. Simultaneously, extensive oil palm plantations are detrimental to the environment,
damaging forests and land cover, which on its turn results in regular flooding. Water runoff triggers
erosion and land degradation. Bengkulu province has experienced severe disasters, such as floods,
which are triggered by land clearing for both oil palm and coal mining (Herlina & Wahyuni, 2022).
Intercropping may help mitigate mentioned problems in Bengkulu. However, literature seems
inconclusive about whether intercrops affect oil palm performance. This MSc thesis will investigate the
potential of watermelon intercropping as affordable alternative to increasingly expensive oil palm
management. The influence of banana on oil palm will be analysed to evaluate whether such a
profitable crop does not compete with the oil palm. Maize and cassava are similar in terms that they
are cheap and easy to manage. The two will be compared to determine which is more likely to benefit
or limit the neighbouring oil palms. Finally, intercrop yields are likely to be more affected by the oil
palm than the other way around. Maize growth and production will be assessed to determine whether
the oil palm influences yields.
This MSc thesis will address three major challenges in the oil palm. The first is that yields on current
hectares of oil palm have to be improved to meet future palm oil demands, while not expanding in
land area. The second is that smallholders need an income at replanting, or else they will continue with
old non-productive trees occupying large stretches of land and/or open new land. Research suggests
that intercropping could improve land use efficiency (Jelsma et al., 2017; Nchanji et al., 2016), and can
help bridging current income gap at replanting (Malia, 2021; Reddy et al., 2004; Slingerland et al.,
2019). Besides oil palm performance, intercrop performance is important as well, greatly affecting the
resource efficiency of a production system. To increase efficiency, more knowledge on intercrops,
management and the effects on oil palm is of the essence. Therefore, the following three research
questions were formulated:
RQ1: How does intercropping with watermelon, banana, cassava and maize affect performance of
2.5-year-old oil palm in Bengkulu, Indonesia?
This question will be answered with the following sub questions:
RQ1.1: How does watermelon intercropping affect oil palm performance and how does this compare
to different levels of oil palm management?
RQ1.2: How does the number of surrounding banana plants affect oil palm performance?
RQ1.3: What are the differences in oil palm growth and development in two months when intercropped
with cassava or maize?
RQ2: How cost-effective is watermelon - oil palm intercropping?
RQ3: How does oil palm affect intercrop maize performance?
7
In the section of materials and methods the intercropping systems will be described in detail, and the
context of performance as well as measurements assessing performance will be further explained.
2 Materials and methods

The research consisted of three different sub-topics: (i) a comparison in oil palm performance between
fields that were previously intercropped with watermelon and poorly- and well-managed oil palm
monocultures. (ii) An analysis of how intercropping with banana affects oil palm performance. (iii) An
analysis of the effects of intercrops cassava and maize on oil palm growth, whilst also looking at the
influence of oil palm on maize. This chapter will describe the study area, data collection and data
analysis for each topic.
2.1 Study area: Bengkulu

Data collection was performed in the area of Putri Hijau in Bengkulu province, Sumatra, Indonesia.
Bengkulu province has a tropical rainforest climate with an annual rainfall of 2960 mm and an average
temperature of 25.6 °C (Climate Data, 2021). Temperature and day length of 12-13 hours are rather
consistent throughout the year. Rainfall is the highest between October and April, with a drier season
from May to September. Even in the driest month, precipitation is still 158 mm (Climate Data, 2021).
Oil palm smallholders often practice intercropping with crops such as watermelon, cassava, maize and
banana, but also chili, groundnut, papaya, long beans and rubber. This research focuses on
intercropping with watermelon, but also has two side-studies about the intercrops cassava, maize and
banana. Three formerly watermelon-intercropped fields will be compared with three poorly-managed
monocultures and three well-managed monocultures. The effect of banana on oil palm performance
will be assessed by looking at how oil palm performance when grown next to four, two or zero banana
plants. One of the watermelon-intercropped fields was being intercropped with cassava and maize at
the time of measuring. Over a timespan of months, differences in growth between oil palms grown
next to maize or cassava will be evaluated.
2.2 Measurements
To determine whether oil palm performance differed between treatments, data on oil palm vegetative
growth and productivity was collected (Table 2).
2.2.1 Vegetative growth indicators for oil palm

Frond number, stem circumference and ground projection in each wind direction were determined
using a measuring tape to get a general idea of the size of the palms. Fronds that were considered in
bad condition (i.e. fronds that were dried out, snapped or completely covered in vines) and dried out
fruit bunches were noted down as well. Per tree, measurements were done on frond number 25. This
frond was chosen because a younger frond, such as frond 17, was difficult to reach, for the larger palm
trees. Since oil palms are arranged in eight spirals, frond number 25 can be found by looking at the
newest emerged leaf and then counting down four fronds, following the spiral direction (1,9,17,25;
illustrated in Figure 1i). Frond number 25 was measured on rachis length, petiole length, leaflet
number, the lengths of the six largest leaflets and the widths of the six largest leaflets.
Based on the measurements, frond length was calculated using Formula 1. Ground projection was
calculated using the stem radius and average radius of projections (between stem and furthest
projection of leaf on the soil) of all wind directions (Formula 2; Formula 3). Stem diameter was
measured to calculate stem radius (Formula 2). Moreover, leaf area per palm was calculated using
leaflet number (n), mean length (l) and mean mid-width (w) of the six largest leaflets on frond number
25 (Formula 4; Corley & Tinker, 2016).
8
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = 𝑅𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ + 𝑃𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ (1)
𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 = 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟/2 (2)
𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝜋 (𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠)2 (3)
𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 0.455 (𝑛 ∗ 𝑙 ∗ 𝑤) − 0.245 (4)
2.2.2 Productivity indicators for oil palm

Whether the trees were already productive was determined by looking at mature fruit bunches (i.e.
fruit bunches with red coloration) and immature fruit bunches (i.e. black fruit bunches). Female and
male inflorescences were counted to calculate the inflorescence sex ratio, an indicator of future yields
as well as stress (Formula 5; Corley & Tinker, 2016). Inflorescence counting was done by walking
around the stem and assigning each inflorescence, if possible, to either male or female.
# 𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠
𝐼𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑥 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = # 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠
(5)
Table 2: Oil palm measurements
Name unit
Field-specific parameters Location Coordinates
Planting pattern Triangular/Rectangular
Planting distance m
Land area ha
Vegetative growth indicators Frond number -
Rachis length cm
Frond length cm
Leaflet number -
Leaflet length cm
Leaflet width cm
Leaf area cm
Ground projection cm
Stem circumference cm
Productivity indicators Immature fruit bunch number -
Mature fruit bunch number -
Number of female inflorescences -
Number of male inflorescences -
Inflorescence sex-ratio -
2.3 Watermelon intercropping compared with oil palm monoculture

2.3.1 Field selection
In this research, three different categories of oil palm systems are distinguished, namely watermelon
intercropping, well-managed oil palm monocropping, and poorly-managed oil palm monocropping. For
each category, three smallholder farms were selected for measurements. The smallholder plantations
were selected on planting date (i.e. 2.5 years after planting at the moment of measuring), length of
intercropping (i.e. 2 or more growing seasons) and oil palm variety (i.e. Tenera). During field selection,
9
the oil palm smallholders were asked whether they considered their fields well managed. Farmers that
had no clear management plan and (inconsistently) applied little or no additional fertilizer were
classified as poorly-managed oil palm monocropping farmers. Farmers that bought and consistently
applied additional fertilizer after the first year are classified here as well-managed oil palm
monocropping farmers.
2.3.2 Interviews on oil palm and watermelon management

Necessary context per field was collected with semi-structured interviews. The interviews started with
general questions, such as oil palm variety and source, field history and what was done with residues
of previous land-use, and month and year of planting. Subsequently, fertilizer application was
evaluated by asking which fertilizers were applied at planting, in the first year, in the second year and
in the previous half year. Brand, composition, quantity, frequency of application and price were noted
down for each fertilizer. Herbicide use was determined by asking application in the first, second and
third year. Brand, quantity, frequency of application and price were again noted down. A similar
approach was followed for other plant protection. For each type of management (i.e. applying
fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, mowing, etc.) the farmers were asked if they did it themselves, how
long it took, and if they had hired labour, the additional labour costs. Yields were determined by asking
how often the farmers had harvested already, the time between harvest and how many kilograms of
FFB they had sold for each harvest. Again, the farmers were asked whether they harvested themselves
or had hired labour and the potential extra harvesting costs. The earnings per kilogram of FFB was also
asked. Finally, the farmers were asked on their opinion on intercropping and why the did or did not
choose to incorporate it in their smallholdings. The smallholders of the watermelon-intercropped fields
were asked what the age of the oil palms was when the intercropping started and if they had noticed
any differences in oil palm performance (Table 3).
Table 3: List of topics discussed with the oil palm farmers
Topics
General questions Oil palm variety
Planting date
Field history
Management Fertilizer inputs
Palm management and nutrient cycling
Herbicide use
Pest and disease problems and plant protection
Labour
Costs
Yields
Intercropping Opinion on intercropping
All measured fields were part of the same replanting program. To get some more context, an official
from the replanting program was interviewed to discover how the program works and find out what
the oil palm smallholders are provided with. Questions were asked about which fertilizers the program
provided, whether they provided plant protection, if they also gave advise and what their budget was
per farmer.
10
Additionally, information about the watermelon intercropping was also collected via a semi-structured
interview. The watermelon farmers were asked which watermelon varieties they had used, if the seeds
were certified, how they obtained the seeds, how many seeds were bought and the price of the seeds.
The farmers were asked if they worked with a buyer from the beginning of looked for one afterwards.
Per field, the land area dedicated to watermelon was asked and when the first intercropping started
relative to the oil palm. The amount of growing seasons, the length per growing season, the time in
between seasons and preparation time was asked. The amount of mulch rows was confirmed with
what was observed during measurements and the distance between watermelon within rows was
determined. The farmers were also asked whether distance to the oil palm was considered when
preparing the mulch rows. Subsequently, fertilizer application was assessed by asking quantity, price,
and time of application of each fertilizer applied. Other questions related to use of irrigation and
fertigation, what was done with plant residues, weeding, pests and diseases, herbicide and pesticide
use, costs for each management practice. Finally, the farmers were asked about their yields, reasons
for choosing watermelon as intercrop and how they had perceived the performance of watermelon
relative to watermelon cultivation in monocultures. In addition, field requirements for watermelon
intercropping were determined and the agreement between oil palm smallholders and watermelon
farmers was described.
2.3.3 Transect walk, tree selection and general field parameters

The oil palms that were measured, were selected by walking diagonally through each field, a method
called a transect walk. On the occasion that another tree could interfere with the growth of a particular
palm tree, this palm was skipped in the transect. The same counts for trees that were replanted, and
therefore had a different planting date. The transect walks started by selecting a palm tree in one of
the corners of the field, omitting the palm rows at the edges of the field. If an edge of the field was
reached, a 90 degree angle was made in the transect, before reaching the outer rows. Per field, 12
palm trees were analysed (van Leeuwen, 2019). The transect walk ended once 12 trees were
measured. The location of each field was noted by obtaining coordinates from Google Maps.
Furthermore, the planting pattern and density was written down. Land area per field was determined
inserting the coordinates in Google Earth and calculating the acreage per field.
2.3.4 Soil Sampling

Two soil samples of the first 20cm depth were taken per field to get a general idea of the soil nutrients.
The first was taken from underneath the canopy, approximately 0.5m from the palm stem. The second
was taken from underneath the remaining mulch, and in the monocultures at approximately 2 meters
distance from the palm stem. The second sample was taken to determine whether the oil palm could
still benefit from the nutrient of previous intercropping. Each sample was a mixture of three locations
from different parts of the field, to get an average of the field. The samples were analysed for NPK
content and pH. The soil analysis was done externally by the soil department of Bengkulu University.
The analyses were done following the guidelines by the Indonesian Soil Research Institute (Eviati &
Sulaeman, 2009). Available P was analysed using the Bray 1 method, which is a typically used for soils
with high acidity (Bray & Kurtz, 1945). Exchangeable K was analysed by mixing soil with ammonium
acetate and measuring the exchangeable K with a flame photometer. The pH-analyses were conducted
in 1:2.5 ratio of soil and water and measured with an electrode pH meter (Eviati & Sulaeman, 2009).
2.4 Smallholder banana – oil palm intercropping

One smallholder intercropped a part of his oil palm plantation with banana. The palm trees were
planted in a rectangular pattern with 9x9m distance between trees. In three rows, banana mats were
planted in the centre of the rectangles (Figure 2). A comparison was made between oil palms that had
banana plants on two sides (i.e. surrounded by four banana plants), oil palms that had banana plants
11
on one side (i.e. close to two banana plants), and oil palms that were not close to a banana plant. Frond
number, frond no. 25 length, number of fruit bunches, inflorescence sex ratio, ground projection and
leaf area were determined. Six trees were sampled per treatment. The farmer responsible for the
banana trees was questioned on his inputs and management practices with a semi-structured
interview.
Figure 2: Representation of the banana mats growing within the oil palm plantation. The two inner oil palm (*) rows represent
the rows with banana plants on two sides. The most left and most right row represent the palms next to no banana plants.
The second to left and second to right row represent the palms next to banana on only one side. * = oil palm, = banana.
2.5 Intercropping with maize and cassava

One of the fields that was formerly intercropped with watermelon (Field 7) was being intercropped
with maize and cassava at the time of measuring. One side of the field was dedicated to maize, while
the other side was dedicated to cassava. To assess the effects of maize and cassava on oil palm
performance, the oil palm was monitored during two months of intercropping with these crops. The
palm trees were analysed as described above in section 2.2 (i.e. fruit bunches, inflorescence sex
ratio, frond number, rachis/frond length, and average projection). All palms were measured that
were located between two alleys of maize (n=12) or two alleys of cassava cultivation (n=4). Each
palm was measured twice with two months’ time difference. Stem diameters were not determined,
so for these two intercrops the projection is the average ground projection from stem to frond tip.
Four intercropping alleys were dedicated to maize, each consisting of eight rows, while the cassava
grew in three alleys, each consisting of only two rows directly planted next to each other. Maize was
planted in a density of approximately 20cmx60cm. Cassava was planted in a density of approximately
80cmx80cm.
Maize performance was measured to assess the influence of oil palm. Four different sampling locations
were distinguished, namely close to the palms in the edge rows (1, CloseOuter), close to the palms in
12
the middle rows (2, CloseInner), far from the palms in the edge rows (3, FarOuter) and far from the
palms in the middle rows (4, FarInner; Figure 14). CloseOuter was closest to the oil palm, with distances
between oil palm stem and maize plant varying between 220 and 310 cm. CloseInner had a distance
of approximately 400 cm from the oil palm. The FarOuter location was 460-470 cm from the oil palm
and the FarInner position had a distance of more than 500 cm.
2.5.1 Data collection

For each location, twelve maize plants were selected for analysis, 48 in total. Maize height was
measured as an indicator of growth, as well as light competition. Cob length and maximum cob
circumference were measured as indication of the yield per location. Using Formula 6 (Matsoso et al.,
2007), an estimation of the cob size can be calculated.
𝐶𝑜𝑏 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 = 𝑐𝑜𝑏 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ ∗ max 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠/𝜋 (6)
Fullness per cob was not determined and was assumed 100% for all measurements. No data was
collected on cassava because vegetative growth was just pruned at the time of measuring. Also, the
cassava was still a few months away from yielding at the time of the last oil palm measurement, so no
yield data was available.
2.5.2 Interviews
The farmer responsible for the cassava and the farmer responsible for the maize were interviewed on
their inputs and management practices for context of both intercropping systems. Questions were
asked on what fertilizers were used and the quantity and frequency of application. The use of
herbicides and pesticides was evaluated as well as season length and use of residues. The area on
which maize was cultivated was estimated using Google Earth. The land area was used to calculate
nutrient inputs per ha from the total nutrient inputs.
2.6 Data analysis

The raw data was processed into usable data by making the above-mentioned calculations in excel.
The interview results were converted so that all units were the same for each field. All statistical
analyses were performed in Rstudio. P-values lower than 0.05 were considered significant in all
analyses. The packages lme4 and ggplot2 were used. Data was prepared by setting the variables as
variables and factors as factors. The formulas used are described in sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.5.1.
Regarding the comparison between previously watermelon-intercropped fields with the

monocultures, the different fields were compared using a linear mixed effects model, with field as a
random factor. For each output variable, different models were made keeping the factor Intercropping
consistent and variating between additional factors and variables (i.e. management and NPK inputs).
These different models were then compared with the ANOVA function and the most appropriate
model was chosen by looking at the AIC values. Using the mixed model analysis allows to test
correlation between a single factor and a variable. Whether a correlation is significant was determined
by looking at the variance. The variable yield was analysed with an ANOVA test instead of a linear
mixed effects model because this data was collected per field rather than per tree. Banana
intercropping was evaluated in a similar matter, by testing significance using an ANOVA and Tukey HSD
test. For the analysis of the effects of maize or cassava on oil palm growth, the measured variables
were analysed using a linear mixed model, with intercrop and time as fixed factors and tree and row
as a random factor. The maize data was analysed with an ANOVA test. Afterwards a Tukey HSD test
was performed to compare the four different treatments, CloseInner, CloseOuter, FarInner and
FarOuter.
13
3 Results
The following section will describe the findings concerning watermelon, maize, cassava and banana
intercropping. The results will address the following activities in order to answer the research
questions formed in section 1.5:
RQ1.1 will be addressed by analysing previously done establishment intercropping with watermelon
and its continuous effects on 2.5 year old oil palm plantations. The results will be compared with
poorly-managed and well-managed oil palm monocultures.
RQ2 will be addressed by giving an indication of the cost efficiency or watermelon-intercropped fields,
poorly-managed monocultures and well-managed monocultures by comparing management costs
with oil palm productivity.
RQ1.2 will be addressed by determining the effects of banana intercropping in oil palm by comparing
oil palms with different numbers of banana in their proximity.
RQ1.3 will be addressed by comparing the effects that intercrops maize and cassava have on oil palm
growth during two months of intercropping.
RQ3 will be addressed by analysing intercrop maize growth and productivity in regards to interspecific
and intraspecific competition, by looking at maize growth at different distances from the oil palm.
3.1 Oil palm performance when intercropped with watermelon

3.1.1 Field descriptions
All fields planted oil palm variety Tenera, a subvariety named Sriwijaya, obtained from the same batch
from the large-scale oil palm plantation pt. Agricinal. Fields 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 followed a triangular
planting pattern, while fields 3, 7, 8 and 9 followed a rectangular planting pattern. So, all well-managed
fields followed a triangular pattern, all intercropped fields followed a rectangular pattern and the
planting pattern differed per poorly-managed field. Furthermore, the field history was rubber for fields
1, 4, 6 and 9, oil palm for fields 2, 3, 5 and 8, and field 7 was previously intercropped with rubber and
oil palm, before current plantation was planted. All fields had a 9x9m planting distance. At the time of
measuring, the oil palms in field 9 were 29 months old, the oil palms in fields 3 and 8 were 30 months
old, the oil palms in field 2 were 30.5 months old and the oil palms in fields 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were 31
months old (Table 4).
Table 4: Summary of the fields that were measured.
FIELD NO. CATEGORY PATTERN HISTORY AGE (MONTHS)

1 Poorly-managed Triangular Rubber 31
2 Poorly-managed Triangular Oil palm 30.5
3 Poorly-managed Rectangular Oil palm 30
4 Well-managed Triangular Rubber 31
5 Well-managed Triangular Oil palm 31
6 Well-managed Triangular Rubber 31
7 Watermelon intercropping Rectangular Rubber + Oil palm 31
8 Watermelon intercropping Rectangular Oil palm 30
9 Watermelon intercropping Rectangular Rubber 29
14
The nine fields were divided in three different field categories, namely poorly-managed monoculture,
well-managed monoculture and watermelon intercropping. The fields were selected and assigned to
the field categories by asking the farmers for the NPK inputs and by looking at the condition of the
trees to see whether the trees where maintained properly. Fields 1 to 3 and 7 to 9 were relatively
poorly managed, following the replanting program but having limited additional inputs. On the other
hand, fields 4 to 6 followed a structured management plan in terms of weeding and pruning, while
being supplied with more additional nutrients than the “poorly-managed” fields. The number of
unhealthy-looking fronds was noted (i.e. fronds that were dried out, discoloured or covered in vines)
as an indicator of how well a field was managed and if the trees had been pruned (Appendix 6).
Furthermore, the nutrient inputs per field were surveyed. The average total nutrient application for
the three “poorly-managed” monocultures was 85 kg/ha, 62 kg/ha and 66 kg/ha for N, P2O5 and K2O
respectively. The average nutrient application for the ”well-managed” fields was 153 kg/ha, 121 kg/ha
and 128 kg/ha for N, P2O5 and K2O respectively. The fields that were intercropped with watermelon
had an average nutrient application of 41 kg/ha, 72 kg/ha and 29 for N, P2O5 and K2O respectively
(Figure 3). Conventional application rates are 260 kg N/ha/year, 50 kg P/ha/year and 220 kg K/ha/year,
which equals 650 kg N/ha, 125 kg P/ha and 550 kg K/ha over 2.5 years (Darras et al., 2019).
Figure 3: Nutrient application of N, P and K per field. Values are the total inputs from oil palm planting till time of measuring.
Field 1-3 are poorly-managed monocultures, field 4-6 are well-managed monocultures and field 7-9 are formerly watermelon-
intercropped fields.
All oil palm farmers used NPK, although brands and compositions differed between fields. An
additional P fertilizer was added to all the fields in the form of SP36 or TSP. In all fields except field 9
also urea was applied. The total fertilizer inputs (i.e. fertilizer types, brands and amounts in kg/ha) are
displayed in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2.
15
Figure 4: Nutrient efficiencies for NPK, in kg FFB yield per kg nutrient application.
Comparing reported yields with N, P and K inputs shows that field the formerly intercropped fields
have a higher yield-to-nutrient-application ratio than the monocultures. Field 1 and 2 do not yield yet,
explaining the lack of a bar in Figure 4.
The soil underneath the oil palm canopies was analysed to estimate the nutrient availability for the
palms. Figure 5 illustrates the variability in nutrient content between fields. Fields 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9
had a N content of more than 0.20%, while field 4 and 5 had a lower N content of 0.16% and 0.10%
respectively. Also P content varied per field, with fields 4, 7 and 8 having the higher P content with
more than 10 ppm. The other fields varied between 4.0 and 7.0 ppm. Fields 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9 had the
highest values for K, ranging between 0.2 and 0.3 cmol/kg, with the exception of field 9 even exceeding
0.3 cmol/kg. Remaining fields 5, 7 and 8 had less K in their soils, with values ranging between 0.1 and
0.2 cmol/kg. On average, the soil in poorly managed monocultures had an NPK content of 0.22%,
5.14ppm and 0.24 cmol/kg respectively. The soil in the well-managed monoculture had average NPK
values of 0.17%, 7.74 ppm and 0.21 cmol/kg respectively. The soil in the watermelon-intercropped
fields had NPK contents of 0.25%, 10.45 ppm and 0.22 cmol/kg respectively. As shown in Figure 5, field
5 is deficient in N, all fields are deficient in P and fields 5, 7 and 8 are deficient in K.
The pH-values of the samples were also tested. Underneath the canopies, the pH values were 3.45,
3.70, 3.13, 4.08, 3.75, 3.78, 3.21 and 5.76 for fields 2 to 9 respectively.
16
0.30
A
0.25
0.20
N Soil (%)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 Field 6 Field 7 Field 8 Field 9
N content soil Moderate mininum Moderate maximum
45.00
B 40.00
35.00
30.00
P Soil (ppm)
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
P content soil Moderate mininum Moderate maximum
0.35
C
0.30
K Soil (me/100g)
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
K content soil Moderate mininum Moderate maximum
Figure 5: Soil nutrient content in the upper 20 cm underneath the oil palm canopy (approx. 0.5 m from stem). Per graph two
lines are added. Values between these lines are considered moderate (Goh & Po, 2005). Values under the lower line are likely
to deficient in concerning nutrient. [A] displays the N content in the soil. [B] displays the available P content in the soil. [C]
displays the exchangeable K content in the soil. Field 1 was omitted in soil analysis because this field was found after the soil
analysis was done.
17
3.1.2 The details of watermelon intercropping

Nutrient ‘sharing’ was one of the main reasons for the oil palm smallholder to allow watermelon
cultivation on their fields. However, the watermelon farmers tried to minimize oil palm ‘stealing’
nutrients by keeping the distance between mulch and oil palm into account when planting. The main
reasons for choosing watermelon as intercrop are that the growing seasons are short, harvesting is
already possible after two months. In addition, watermelon is one of the most profitable crops in the
area. The watermelon farmers did not own land themselves, so could not grow watermelon in
monoculture. Because of previous experience in monoculture watermelon cultivation, growing
watermelon in monoculture was preferred over intercropping. According to the farmers, watermelon
has better vegetative growth and higher yields and profits when grown in monoculture. A farmer
indicated that the yield differences between monocrop and intercrop depend on the age of the oil
palm. In a farmer’s experience, if the oil palm is closer to reaching maturity and therefore larger in size,
the yield differences will also be larger between watermelon monocrop and intercrop. The farmer in
question uses the same planting density in intercropping as in monocropping and argues that yield
decreases are due to more competition in the oil palm – watermelon intercropping system.
Furthermore, a watermelon farmer stated that oil palm and watermelon share the same pests and
diseases. For this reason, watermelon pests and diseases are more prevalent when there is an older
oil palm plantation nearby. Additionally, pests and diseases for watermelon can vary a lot, which makes
it hard for the farmers to estimate which pesticides they need to buy in advance. Buying pesticides last
minute can be challenging due to market availability.
Considering many oil palm smallholder replanted at the same time with the replanting program, the
watermelon farmers had a choice which fields they wanted to use. Fields were considered suitable for
watermelon cultivation based on sufficient water resources, accessibility (e.g. infrastructure for
harvesting) and topography (i.e. avoid flooding and water logging). A rectangular planting pattern was
preferred over a triangular planting pattern, because with a triangular planting pattern, the canopy
will close sooner. A rectangular planting pattern allows for more growing seasons, which is more cost
efficient, since previous infrastructures can be reused.
Field specific information is shown in Table 5. For field 9 the whole field was used for intercropping.
Field 7 and 8 both had a slope on the edge of the fields, which was not used for watermelon cultivation.
The oil palm farmer of field 8 indicated that only the area where the oil palms where previously
intercropped with watermelon had yielding oil palms.
Table 5: Watermelon cultivation details for the three fields.
FIELD 7 FIELD 8 FIELD 9

AREA (HA) 0.5 0.75 1
NUMBER OF GROWING SEASONS 4 2 8
LENGTH GROWING SEASON (MONTHS) 2 2 2
TIME BETWEEN GROWING SEASONS (WEEKS) 3 8 3
NUMBER OF ROWS 1 2 2
OIL PALM AGE AT FIRST PLANTING (MONTHS) 7 18 3
DISTANCE BETWEEN MULCH AND PALM (M) 4.5 2.0 2.2
DISTANCE BETWEEN WATERMELON (CM) 60 65 60
18
The watermelons on field 7 and 9 were managed by the same farmer, using the same operation
procedure. In both fields watermelon varieties Inden, Mardi, Juve, Melano and Prime were planted
varying per season. In field 8 the varieties Juve and Mardi were planted in both seasons.
The watermelon was supplied with nutrients, of which the totals are displayed in Table 6. Nutrient
application in more detail can be found in Appendix 3.
Table 6: Nutrient application (kg/ha) for the three watermelon intercropped fields. The data is provided for N, P and K per
season and in total. Fertilizer applied to the oil palm is not considered in this table.
NUTRIENT FIELD 7 FIELD 8 FIELD 9

N (kg/ha/season) 135.72 228.1 135.72
P2O5 (kg/ha/season) 196.2 274.2 196.2
K2O (kg/ha/season) 224.6 511.75 224.6
Total N (kg/ha) 542.9 456.2 1085.8
Total P2O5 (kg/ha) 784.8 548.4 1569.6
Total K2O (kg/ha) 898.4 1023.5 1796.8
3.1.3 The effects of watermelon intercropping on oil palm performance

Whether the previous watermelon intercropping had lasting effects in 2.5-year-old oil palm plantations
was evaluated by looking at yield, leaf area, ground projection, rachis and frond length, number of
fronds, number of FFBs and inflorescence sex ratio. Creating linear mixed effect models for each output
variable showed significant differences between monocropping and watermelon intercropping for
Yield and FFB Number. Each variable was analysed with different fixed factor combinations, involving
whether the fields were intercropped, level of management and the NPK inputs for the oil palm. The
best model was chosen by comparing the AIC values for each model. The following section will describe
the most appropriate models for all significant differences in collected performance indicators.
3.1.3.1 The effect of watermelon intercropping on oil palm yields

The ANOVA results show that the field category significantly affects yield (Table 7). Figure 6 displays
that yield is lowest for the poorly-managed monocultures, which have a mean of 801 kg/ha. Two of
the three fields had not begun yielding at the time of interviewing. Watermelon-intercropped fields
and well-managed monocultures have similar yield levels, with averages of 3429 kg/ha and 3681 kg/ha,
respectively.
Table 7: ANOVA results for yield against field type, e.g. poorly-managed monocultures, well-managed monocultures and
watermelon-intercropped fields.
DF SUM SQ MEAN SQ F VALUE PR(>|T|)

FIELD_TYPE
2 15256879 7628440 10.406 0.01121 *
RESIDUALS
6 4398593 733099
Significance codes: ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1
19
Figure 6: Yield (kg/ha) per field category.
3.1.3.2 The effect of watermelon intercropping on FFB number

Two models were chosen to analyse the FFB number:
Total FFB ~ Intercropping + Management + (1|Field)
Total FFB ~ Intercropping + N application (kg/ha) + P2O5 application (kg/ha) + K2O application (kg/ha)
+ (1 | Field)
These two models had AIC values of 592.82 and 589.91 respectively (Table 8 and Table 9). The model
with Intercropping and Management as fixed factors showed a significant effect of intercropping on
FFBs. The effect of management was not significant. The second model, where NPK inputs were also
incorporated as fixed factors, shows that besides intercropping, also P2O5 input has a significant effect.
Table 8: Output for linear mixed effects model for variable total FFB with fixed factors intercropping and management.
Random factor is field.
INTERCROPPING+ ESTIMATE STD. ERROR DF T VALUE PR(>|T|)

MANAGEMENT
(INTERCEPT) 3.722 1.373 9 2.71 0.0240 *
INTERCROPPING 5.583 1.942 9 2.875 0.0183 *
MANAGEMENT 3.278 1.942 9 1.688 0.1258
20
Table 9: Output for linear mixed effects model for variable total FFB with fixed factors intercropping and N, P and K application.
Random factor is field.
INTERCROPPING + NPK ESTIMATE STD. ERROR DF T VALUE PR(>|T|)

(INTERCEPT) -0.73635 2.15244 9 -0.342 0.74013
INTERCROPPING 4.35022 1.85624 9 2.344 0.04376 *
N_TOTAL_KG_HA 0.03815 0.03318 9 1.15 0.27986
P2O5_TOTAL_KG_HA 0.08167 0.02433 9 3.356 0.00844 **
K2O_TOTAL_KG_HA -0.06109 0.04195 9 -1.456 0.17927
Figure 7 displays the number of FFBs still on the tree per field category. Again, the poorly-managed
monocultures have the lowest values, with a mean of 4 FFBs. The watermelon-intercropped fields have
the most FFBs, with a mean of 9 FFBs, and the well-managed monoculture fields fall in between the
other two categories with a mean of 7 FFBs.
Figure 7: Total FFB number for the three field categories.
21
3.1.3.3 The effect of watermelon intercropping on Frond Number

Besides productivity estimates Yield and FFB number, the number of fronds was also significantly
affected by intercropping and management (Table 10). The model used is as follows:
Table 10: The output for linear mixed effects model: Healthy Frond Number ~ Intercropping + Management + (1|Field)
MEAN SQ DF F VALUE PR(>F)

INTERCROPPING 253.63 9 16.945 0.002612 **
MANAGEMENT 959.33 9 64.092 2.201e-05 ***
Another model was used where the management was replaced by NPK inputs (Table 11), resulting in
the following model:
Table 11: The output for linear mixed effects model: Healthy Frond Number ~ Intercropping + N application (kg/ha) + P 2O5
(kg/ha) + K2O (kg/ha) + (1|Field)
MEAN SQ DF F VALUE PR(>F)
INTERCROPPING 346.87 9 23.174 0.000955 ***

N_TOTAL_KG_HA 652.55 9 43.596 9.897e-05 ***
P2O5_TOTAL_KG_HA 311.22 9 20.792 0.001367 **
K2O_TOTAL_KG_HA 203.78 9 13.614 0.004999 **
Both models had similar AIC values of 622.47 for the first model and 622.12 for the second.
Figure 8 shows the differences in frond number between the different field categories. The poorly-
managed monocultures has the least fronds (mean = 41.2), while the well-managed monoculture have
the most fronds (mean = 56.8). The watermelon-intercropped fields fall in between (mean = 49.2).
Figure 8: Healthy frond number for the 3 repetitions for each different field category.
22
3.1.3.4 The effect of watermelon intercropping on ground projection

The best fitted model for ground projection was the following model:
Ground projection (cm2) ~ Intercropping + N application (kg/ha) + P2O5 application (kg/ha) + K2O
application (kg/ha) + (1|Field)
Table 12: Output for linear mixed effects model for variable ground projection with fixed factors intercropping, and N, P and
K application. Random factor is field.
ESTIMATE STD. DF T VALUE PR(>|T|)

ERROR
(INTERCEPT) 2666 52811 9 0.05 0.96084
INTERCROPPINGWATERMELON 117436 45544 9 2.579 0.029768 *
N_TOTAL_KG_HA 4357 814 9 5.353 0.000461 ***
P2O5_TOTAL_KG_HA 2922 597 9 4.895 0.000854 ***
K2O_TOTAL_KG_HA -3928 1029 9 -3.817 0.004108 **
Ground projection was lowest for the poorly-managed monocultures (mean = 284787 cm2), followed
by the watermelon-intercropped fields (mean = 395559 cm2) and highest for the well-managed
monocultures (mean = 530943 cm2; Figure 9)
Figure 9: Ground projection in cm2 for the different field categories
The other measured variables (i.e. leaf area, rachis length, inflorescence sex ratio) did not show to be
significantly affected by intercropping. Still, some trends were visible. For instance, leaf area was
lowest in the poorly-managed monocultures, with a mean of 17401 cm2. Leaf area was highest in the
well-managed monocultures (mean = 31287 cm2) and watermelon falls in between (mean = 22987
cm2). The same trend is visible for rachis length. Differences in inflorescence sex ratios were minor
between field categories, although poorly-managed monocultures seemed to have slightly lower
ratios, followed by the watermelon-intercropped fields and the well-managed monocultures had
values closest to 1 (Appendix 8).
23
3.2 Cost Analysis Watermelon Intercropping

Each smallholder was asked how much they spent on the different aspects of management. Besides
their own inputs, the replanting program indicated that each smallholder received 25,000,000 IDR/ha
for planting material and startup fertilizers received in kind from the replanting program. One of the
main differences between the different categorizations are that much more money is spent on
fertilizer for the well-managed monoculture compared to the other categories (11,835,633 IDR
compared to 1,180,886 IDR and 829,114 IDR). The same counts for other plant protection and in a
lesser degree hired labour. On the other hand, for the well-managed monoculture, less money is spent
on herbicides, because of the use of a grass mower. Combining all the extra costs, the well-managed
monocultures receive more financial inputs, almost 10,000,000 IDR/ha more than the poorly-managed
monocultures and the watermelon intercropped fields (Table 13).
Table 13: Average total Oil Palm Costs in IDR/ha the time of interviewing (approximately 31-32 months after planting)
Poorly-Managed Well-Managed Watermelon

Monoculture Monoculture Intercropping
Replanting program 25,000,000 IDR 25,000,000 IDR 25,000,000 IDR
1700 USD 1700 USD 1700 USD
Additional fertilizer 1,180,886 IDR 11,835,633 IDR 829,114 IDR
80 USD 800 USD 55 USD
Herbicides 995,109 IDR 723,053 IDR 1,386,688 IDR
Other plant protection 13,826 IDR 440,424 IDR 19,001 IDR
1 USD 30 USD 1 USD
Hired labour 501,065 IDR 745,760 IDR 358,651 IDR
Own costs 3,983,273 IDR 13,744,871 IDR 3,954,213 IDR
270 USD 930 USD 265 USD
Total costs 28,983,273 IDR 38,744,871 IDR 28,954,213 IDR
1970 USD 2630 USD 1965 USD
Figure 10 compares the costs each smallholder made with the total yields at the time of interviewing.
The own costs and yields are highest for the well-managed monoculture fields, with an average cost
of 13,744,871 IDR/ha and average yield of 3681 kg/ha. On average, the poorly managed monoculture
smallholders spent 3,983,273 IDR/ha and had yields of 801 kg/ha. The smallholders that had practiced
watermelon intercropping spent on average 3,954,213 IDR/ha and had yields of 3429 kg/ha.
24
16000000 4500
14000000 4000
3500
Own costs (IDR/ha)
12000000
3000
Yield (kg/ha)
10000000
2500
8000000
2000
6000000
1500
4000000 1000
2000000 500
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Field
Own Costs (IDR/ha) Yield (kg/ha)
Figure 10: comparison between own costs and yield for each field. Field 1-3 are poorly-managed monocultures, field 4-6 are
well-managed monocultures and field 7-9 are watermelon-intercropped fields.
The cost efficiency for total yields for the 2.5-year-old oil palms was calculated and visualized in Figure
11. Field 7 showed to have the highest yield respective to the own costs of the oil palm smallholder.
The other two watermelon-intercropped fields (fields 8 and 9) also had relatively high yield to own
cost ratios. Poorly managed fields 1 and 2 have a value of 0, since both field do not yield yet. Not
counting non-yielding field 1 and 2, the well-managed monocultures (fields 4, 5 and 6) have the lowest
yield to own cost ratios.
16
Yield per own costs (tons FFB/million IDR)
14
12
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Field
Figure 11: Cost efficiency in tons FFB yield per millions of farmers’ own costs in IDR. Field 1-3 are poorly-managed
monocultures, field 4-6 are well-managed monocultures and field 7-9 are watermelon-intercropped fields.
The semi-structured interviews with the watermelon farmers resulted in the following cost overview
(Table 14).
25
Table 14: Costs of watermelon cultivation per season in IDR/ha. *one-time investments values are in total and not per season.
FIELD 7 FIELD 8 FIELD 9 AVERAGE

FERTILIZER 25,708,000 18,250,000 25,708,000 23,222,000
PLANT PROTECTION 2,110,000 1,635,000 2,110,000 1,951,667
ONE-TIME 16,500,000 29,833,333 11,500,000 19,277,778
INVESTMENTS*
TOTAL COSTS 44,318,000 49,718,333 39,318,000 44,451,444
3.3 The influence of banana on oil palm growth and development

Banana variety Kepok was grown, mainly for the farmer’s own use, although he occasionally sold some
bunches. The farmer did not buy the seedlings himself, but got them from a neighbour and planted
them three months after the oil palm was planted. No fertilizers or pesticides are applied for banana.
Only herbicides are applied, that are meant for oil palm management. Little management is done,
suckers and occasionally old leaves are removed. The banana started yielding at approximately one
years old and the 7th generation sucker was producing fruits at the time of interviewing and measuring.
Harvesting was inconsistent. Per sucker, one bunch can be harvested per harvesting round, containing
nine to eleven hands. Four bunches are harvested per month. According to the farmer, the banana
was not disruptive yet to the oil palm. However, the farmer realized that the banana would need to be
chopped down within five months to prevent negative effects on the oil palm. The farmer could not
think of a explicit reason for intercropping banana, although he mentioned that banana is easy to grow
and grows fast. The banana farmer had gotten the advice to limit the number of banana rows because
the roots would interact with the oil palm. Moreover, if the banana would get a disease, this disease
would easily spread to the oil palm. In the farmer’s opinion, banana intercropping is possible on a
larger scale, as long as banana growth is managed with enough capital, fertilizer inputs, pesticides, etc.
To test the farmer’s hypothesis that banana did not influence oil palm negatively, several performance
indicators were measured for oil palm. Leaf area, ground projection, rachis length, frond number,
inflorescence sex ratio and FFB number were analysed for trees that grew next to four (two sides), two
(one side) or zero (monoculture) banana plants. Only FFB number was affected by the number of
banana plants next to the tree, with a significant difference between monoculture (11 FFBs) and the
palm trees with banana plants on both sides (4.5 FFBs). The palm trees with banana plants on only one
side did not differ from the other two treatments with a mean of 7.7 FFBs (Figure 12). All the other
measured variables did not differ significantly between trees that were next to two, one or zero banana
rows. However, some non-significant trends were visible such as a higher inflorescence sex ratio in the
monoculture and the rachis length increasing when the oil palm is next to more banana plants
(Appendix 9). Leaf area did not seem to differ significantly, with means of 14069 cm2 for banana on
two sides, 14073 cm2 for banana on one side and 14061 cm2 for no banana in the proximity.
26
Figure 12: the number of FFBs per oil palm for monoculture, banana on one side (2 bananas), and
banana on two sides (4 bananas). * = significant difference (p-value = 0.005), ns = not significant.
3.4 The influence of intercropping with maize and cassava on oil palm growth and
development
Using Google Earth, the land area dedicated to maize was estimated at 275 m2 per alley, which equals
1100 m2 (0.11 ha) in total in four alleys. Cassava was cultivated in two rows of 150 m2 , equalling 300
m2 (0.03 ha) in total. The growth periods were 2.5 and 8 months for maize and cassava respectively.
For both intercrops, the alleys were previously intercropped with watermelon for four seasons of two
months. Field history did not differ for both intercrops. The cassava received no fertilizers, because
the farmers assumed that the soil still contained enough nutrients because of previous watermelon
intercropping. The maize was fertilized with 25 kg urea and 25 kg SP36 in total, which corresponds to
1.28 kg/ha N and 0.99 kg/ha P.
Within the same field, growth and differences in productivity indicators were determined for oil palm
trees that were intercropped with cassava or maize. Each oil palm was measured twice with 2 months
in between. The differences between time points were calculated and analysed by making linear mixed
effects models with type of intercrop as fixed factor and the palm and the row in which the palms grew
as random factor. The type of intercrop affected change in ground projection and change in frond
length between the two time points. The output for the models can be found in Table 15 and Table 16.
A mixed model was chosen to incorporate time as a fixed factor.
Table 15: The output for linear mixed effects model: Projection ~ Intercrop + Time + Intercrop * Time + (1|Tree)
ESTIMATE STD. ERROR DF T VALUE PR(>|T|)

(INTERCEPT) 332.364 6.407 25.045 51.871 < 2e-16 ***
INTERCROP -25.593 7.135 30.746 -3.587 0.00114 **
TIME -26.875 8.587 26.09 -3.13 0.00427 **
INTERCROP:TIME 11.5 9.915 26.09 1.16 0.25662
27
Table 16: The output for linear mixed effects model: Frond_Length ~ Intercrop + Time + Intercrop * Time + (1|Tree)
ESTIMATE STD. ERROR DF T VALUE PR(>|T|)

(INTERCEPT) 388.782 10.356 14.51 37.541 7.33e-16 ***
INTERCROP -35.032 9.257 28.851 -3.784 0.00072 ***
TIME -17 10.805 27.649 -1.573 0.12701
INTERCROP:TIME -22.25 12.476 27.649 -1.783 0.08551 .
The trees that were intercropped with cassava increased their ground projection more between the
two measurements than the trees that were intercropped with maize (average increases of 26.9 cm
and 15.4 cm, respectively; Figure 13A). On the other hand, the trees intercropped with maize increased
more in frond length than the trees that grew next to cassava, with average frond length increases of
39.25 cm and 17 cm respectively (Figure 13B). The other measured variables do not show significant
differences for trees that grew between cassava or maize. However, a trend is visible that shows more
increase in frond number for trees that grew next to cassava (mean increase of 26.88 cm 2) compared
to trees that grew next to maize (mean increase of 15.38 cm 2 ; non-significant results shown in
Appendix 10).
A B
Figure 13: A comparison between the effects of intercrops maize and cassava on oil palm growth. [A]
Displays the increase in ground projection between the two time points. [B] Displays the increase in
frond length between the two time points.
28
3.5 Maize positioning in regard to oil palm

Maize growth and productivity were measured in different locations respective to the oil palm and
neighbouring maize plants. Distance indicates the distance of maize from the oil palm, which is far or
close (Figure 14). Location indicated the row in which the maize was measured, which is classified as
inner or outer row.
Figure 14: Representation of one alley, made up of the eight maize rows located between two oil palm rows. 1 = CloseOuter,
2 = CloseInner, 3 = FarOuter, 4 = FarInner.
Maize height is modelled for both distance and location, which shows that both factors have a
significant effect on the height of the maize (Table 17).
Table 17: ANOVA of following model: Maize Height (cm2) ~ Distance + Location
DF SUM SQ MEAN SQ F VALUE PR(>F)

DISTANCE 1 1680.3 1680.3 6.1895 0.01662 *
ROW_LOCATION 1 12936.3 12936.3 47.6512 1.419e-08 ***
RESIDUALS 45 12216.6 271.5
A Tukey HSD test was done to evaluate which positions differed significantly (Table 18).
Table 18: Comparison of maize height between the different positions with a Tukey HSD test.
DIFFERENCE LOWER UPPER P ADJ

CLOSEOUTER-CLOSEINNER -42.91667 -60.148737 -25.6846 0.0000002
FARINNER-CLOSEINNER 1.75 -15.48207 18.98207 0.9929288
FAROUTER-CLOSEINNER -21 -38.23207 -3.76793 0.0113487
FARINNER-CLOSEOUTER 44.66667 27.434596 61.89874 0.0000001
FAROUTER-CLOSEOUTER 21.91667 4.684596 39.14874 0.0076836
FAROUTER-FARINNER -22.75 -39.98207 -5.51793 0.005344
Moreover, cob size was calculated and modelled:
29
Table 19: ANOVA of following model: Cob Size ~ Distance + Location
DF SUM SQ MEAN SQ F VALUE PR(>F)

DISTANCE 1 2034.9 2034.9 5.9751 0.018491 *
ROW_LOCATION 1 3686.6 3686.6 10.8249 0.001951 **
RESIDUALS 45 15325.5 340.6
Table 20: Comparison of cob size between the different positions with a Tukey HSD test.
DIFFERENCE LOWER UPPER P ADJ

CLOSEOUTER-CLOSEINNER -31.807115 -50.455693 -13.15854 0.0002354
FARINNER-CLOSEINNER -1.257324 -19.905902 17.39125 0.9978967
FAROUTER-CLOSEINNER -4.505411 -23.153989 14.14317 0.9167084
FARINNER-CLOSEOUTER 30.549791 11.901214 49.19837 0.0004163
FAROUTER-CLOSEOUTER 27.301704 8.653127 45.95028 0.0017396
FAROUTER-FARINNER -3.248087 -21.896665 15.40049 0.9662799
Similar to maize height, the ANOVA shows that both factors affect cob size individually (Table 19).
The different locations seem to affect maize growth and cob development. Maize height was
signficantly the lowest for the CloseOuter location (mean = 153.50 cm), which was next to the oil palm.
Maize that grew in the FarOuter location (mean = 175.42 cm) was signifcantly higher than the
CloseOuter location. However, both the CloseInner (mean = 196.42 cm) and FarInner (mean = 198.17
cm) locations showed to result in the highest maize plants.
Cob size was only signficantly lower for the CloseOuter locations (mean = 80.17 cm2). All the other
locations did not differ significantly (mean FarInner = 110.72 cm2, mean FarOuter = 107.47 cm2 and
mean CloseInner = 111.98 cm2; Figure 15).
A B
Figure 15: Maize height and cob size at different location relative to oil palm and neighbouring maize
plants. Close means that the maize was measured parallel to oil palm, while Far means the maize was
30
measured as far as possible from the oil palm. Inner stands for the inner two rows and Outer stands
for the outer two rows. ns = not significant, Significance codes: ‘****’0.0001, ‘***’ 0.001, ‘**’ 0.01, ‘*’
0.05,
4 Discussion
The following section will discuss the findings regarding the different intercrops and their effects on
oil palm performance. First, the performance of the oil palms that were formerly intercropped with
watermelon will be compared with the performance of poorly- and well-managed oil palms. In
addition, nutrient and cost efficiency will be discussed. Second, the effect of banana intercropping on
oil palm performance will be assessed. Third, the growth of oil palms intercropped with either
cassava or maize will be compared, while also the effect of oil palm on maize will be addressed.
4.1 Oil palm – watermelon intercropping

As mentioned in chapter 2, three field categories were compared, namely poorly- and well-managed
oil palm monocultures and fields that were formerly intercropped with watermelon.
4.1.1 The positive effect of watermelon intercropping on oil palm performance

The results showed that watermelon intercropping increased yields, FFB, healthy frond number and
ground projection. Watermelon intercropping affects yield with total yields for the intercropped fields
being 2628 kg/ha higher compared to the poorly managed monoculture (increase of 328%). The yields
of the formerly intercropped fields almost reached the yields of the well-managed monoculture, with
no significant difference between the two field categories.
4.1.1.1 The effect of watermelon intercropping on oil palm productivity

The yield data were explained using a linear mixed effects model with intercropping and management
as fixed factors. This model showed that both intercropping and management influence yield. The
significant difference is due to two out of three poorly-managed monoculture fields not yielding yet,
indicating a delay of coming into productivity compared to the other categories. Considering that the
oil palm farmers have similar management levels for the poorly-managed monocultures and
watermelon intercropped fields, watermelon intercropping seems to accelerate oil palm coming into
productivity. In contrast, Reddy et al. (2004) describe intercropped oil palms that took much longer to
come in productivity. This delay of the yielding phase was caused by farmers shifting focus to intercrop
and neglecting oil palm (Reddy et al., 2004). Basin areas were not left clear and were ploughed through.
Also, fronds were cut or tied together to facilitate intercrop growth (Reddy et al., 2004). The yielding
delay was more due to improper management than to the intercrop itself, which relates to the poorly-
managed fields coming later into productivity than the well-managed fields. Apparently, watermelon
intercropping does not stress the oil palm that much that it causes a delay in production.
An additional model was analysed, in which management was replaced by N, P and K application to
explain yield (Appendix 5). The AIC value of this model was evidently higher than the AIC value of the
first model, so the first model was considered more reliable in representing the data. However, the
second model did show that besides intercropping, also N, P and K application affect yield. The fact
that both models differ significantly in accuracy suggests that management seems to encompass more
than only NPK inputs. Other factors are likely to be involved in management such as weeding or other
forms of plant protection. The fact that all watermelon-intercropped fields follow a rectangular
planting pattern is also an important consideration, because this spacing allows the trees to have more
space, which could be beneficial for their growth. The involvement of other factors is logical because
the fields were divided into categories before the exact nutrient application was known. In addition,
nutrient imbalances were seen for poorly-managed fields, where sometimes one of the three main
nutrients (NPK) was sufficient, while the others were insufficient. These differences in ratios between
N:P:K could also explain why these nutrients did not fully explain the yields. Furthermore, nutrient
supply compared to nutrient requirements also showed to be imbalanced. Especially, N and K were
31
applied in much lower quantities than what conventional rates are. Paradoxically, the soil sampling
showed that P was the nutrient that was most deficient.
The number of FFBs counted per tree was also affected by whether the fields have been intercropped
or not. The watermelon intercropped fields had the highest FFB number, followed by the well-
managed monoculture. The poorly-managed monocultures had the lowest FFB number. The two
models chosen in the result section are very similar in their AIC value, indicating that both models are
similarly accurate in representing the data. In the first model, where intercropping and management
are chosen as fixed factors, intercropping has a significant effect on FFB number, while management
does not. In the second model, management is replaced with N, P and K application. This model
indicates that both intercropping and P application affect FFB number significantly. The fact that P
application seems to affect FFB number more than the other nutrients could be explained by the soil
nutrient levels. As displayed in Figure 5, the N and K contents in the soil are similar to what a moderate
level should be for oil palm. However, the P content in the soil is very low in all the fields when
comparing it to the range that is moderate for oil palm. This deficiency of P in the soil could explain
why the oil palm is influenced more strongly by P application than by N or K (Appendix 7).
FFB number is not only influenced by the productivity of the oil palm, but by the last harvest as well.
Just harvested palms will have less FFBs than palms that are about to be harvested. The moment of
last harvest was not considered when analysing the FFB number. However, the data on FFB number
do resonate with the fact that the poorly-managed monocultures are delayed in reaching productivity
and for this reason carry less FFBs. Moreover, the results show a trend (not significant), that the poorly-
managed monoculture oil palms carry less fronds, which also relates to FFB formation, since each frond
will finally carry one bunch (Gerritsma & Soebabyo, 1999). Despite the well-managed oil palms having
less FFBs, their yield still seems to be slightly higher. Therefore, the well-managed oil palms are likely
to yield less but heavier FFBs. Arifin et al. (2022) found that N fertilization increases yield FFB by
increasing weight per FFB, while FFB number remains the same in irrigated oil palm. Different P and K
fertilizer treatments did not affect yield, FFB number or FFB weight significantly in their research. The
fertilizer rates that were compared were 0, 0.84 and 1.68 kg N/palm/year, 0, 0.68 and 1.36 kg
P2O5/palm/year and 0, 0.24 and 4.8 kg K2O/palm/year (Arifin et al., 2022). The well-managed oil palms
received most N, which could explain why their FFBs are heavier, hereby also explaining the high yields.
Nonetheless, the linear mixed effects model did not show any significant effect of N application on FFB
number. Water stress could play a role as well, since bunch weight is less sensitive to water stress than
FFB. Comparing rainfed (i.e. intermittent water stressed) with irrigated oil palm in India, showed that
water stress decreases yield, stem growth, and to a lesser extent foliage production (Gawankar et al.,
2003). Water stress also reduces number of female inflorescences, while production of male
inflorescences was least affected. FFB number seems to be more affected by water stress than average
bunch weight, with FFB number being 91.37% decreased and bunch weight being 40.90% decreased
(Gawankar et al., 2003). Hermanto et al. (2023) confirm that in low rainfall conditions, yield itself is
less decreased than FFB number (Hermanto et al., 2023). In conclusion, timing of harvests, N
application and water stress could explain the higher FFB number, but the slightly lower yields in the
watermelon intercropped fields compared to the well-managed monocultures. A growth indicator
related to FFB number is frond number, since for every frond, a FFB could be formed.
4.1.1.2 Improved vegetative growth by watermelon intercropping

Healthy frond number was another measured variable that was significantly influenced by
intercropping. Two models showed a similar AIC value. The first model incorporated intercropping and
management level as fixed factors. Both factors influence frond number significantly. The second
model replaced management level with N, P and K application. In this model all fixed factors influenced
32
frond number significantly as well. Apparently, nutrient application makes up a big part of the
management level. The well-managed monocultures had the highest frond number, followed by the
watermelon intercropped fields, and lastly the poorly-managed intercropped fields. Additionally,
ground projection was significantly increased by watermelon intercropping. Similar to frond number,
poorly-managed monocultures performed worst in ground projection and well-managed
monocultures performed best. Watermelon intercropped fields had ground projection values in
between both monoculture categories. A lower ground projection results in less light capture for
photosynthesis (Niinemets, 2007). These differences in photosynthetic capabilities between field
categories could explain the yield differences between the poorly-managed monocultures and the
other two categories. Nevertheless, the well-managed monocultures did not have significantly higher
yields than the watermelon intercropped fields.
Comparing the poorly managed monocultures with watermelon intercropped fields makes it evident
that watermelon intercropping did not have any adverse effects on oil palm performance. For
performance indicators yield, FFB number, frond number and ground projection, the oil palms that
were intercropped with watermelon even perform better. For this reason, establishment intercropping
with watermelon is a good alternative for farmers that do not have the time or capital to manage their
plantation properly. Okyere et al. (2014) has also found a trend, although not significant, that indicates
that intercropping increases oil palm growth in the first three years of intercropping. This increase is
thought to be caused by more regular weeding and weed decomposition in intercropped fields (Okyere
et al., 2014). Considering the oil palm smallholders’ perspectives, the watermelon-intercropped fields
have a much higher yield relative to their own nutrient application than the monocultures (Figure 4).
Allowing other farmers to cultivate on their fields apparently increases yields relative to oil palm
fertilization.
4.1.1.3 Explanations for the benefits of watermelon intercropping

The question remains why watermelon intercropping improves oil palm performance. The concerning
smallholders argued that intercropping provides extra fertilizer and less labour is needed for
management such as weeding. To benefit from the additional fertilizers, the oil palm roots would need
to be long enough to reach the soil under the intercrops. 11 year old oil palms can have horizontal
roots of 25 m (Jourdan & Rey, 1997). Oil palms between 5 and 12 months old can already have roots
with a length of 180 cm (Jourdan & Rey, 1997). However, the active root system of eight year old palms
under good management is mainly concentrated within a radius of 0.5 to 3m laterally from the stem
(Gawankar et al., 2018; Suresh et al., 2003). Considering the palms had already grown in a nursery
before planting and intercropping did not start directly, the oil palms roots were probably capable of
reaching the mulch layers at 2 m distance, being more than 3 years of age. The smallholder that started
intercropping the soonest after oil palm planting was in field 9, where the watermelon was planted 3
months after the oil palm. In this field, the mulch rows were also closest to the oil palm, with a distance
of 2.2 m. In field 7, the watermelon was planted 7 months after the oil palm, with a distance of 4.5. In
field 8, the watermelon was planted latest at 18 months after the watermelon with a distance of 2 m.
Especially the oil palms field 7 might not have had long enough roots in the beginning of intercropping
to reach the intercrop at 4.5 m distance. Arguably, all additional fertilizers are welcome since all fields
have a vast shortage in NPK application, compared to conventional rates 260 kg N/ha/year, 50 kg
P/ha/year and 220 kg K/ha/year (Figure 3; Darras et al., 2019). Oil palm ‘stealing’ nutrients from the
watermelon could explain the increased oil palm productivity in intercropping systems. Oil palm is able
to use the same nutrient pool as the intercrop. This concept has been referred to as the nutrient
symbiosis between oil palm and intercrop, but nutrient stealing would be a more appropriate term
(Rizki, 2020). At the same time, nutrient competition is often an argument against intercropping,
especially when managed incorrectly (Dissanayake & Palihakkara, 2019; Koussihouèdé, Aholoukpè, et
33
al., 2020). Still, research indicates that intercropping can improve nutrient efficiency. Oil palm roots
are relatively inefficient in taking up nutrients, causing them to be dependent on arbuscular
mycorrhizal colonization (da Silva Maia et al., 2021). Increasing plant diversity in an agricultural system
via intercropping can increase arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization and hereby improve nutrient
absorption (da Silva Maia et al., 2021). Besides increased nutrient efficiency, improved weed control
could explain why intercropping seems to improve oil palm performance (Okyere et al., 2014).
Intercropping can suppress weeds and the watermelon farmers contribute with their own herbicides
and manual weeding (Dissanayake & Palihakkara, 2019). In conclusion, intercropping can improve
nutrient uptake via several ways, while also potentially decreasing competition of weeds.
A benefit of using watermelon as intercrop is its high nutrient requirements, which potentially also can
be taken up by the oil palm. Especially considering high fertilizer costs, nutrient application should be
as efficient as possible. Nutrient losses are stimulated by soil acidification, which enhances leaching of
essential plant nutrients (Mahmud & Chong, 2022). Worldwide, an estimated 95% of oil palm grows
on acidic soils, which is also seen for the measured fields (Mutert, 1999). Especially considering that
watermelon is a crop with high fertilizer needs, these high fertilizer inputs could cause further soil
acidification (Meng et al., 2019; Nelson et al., 2011). Alleviation of soil acidity was shown to improve
oil palm performance (Cristancho et al., 2011). Soil acidification, even more so in the case of an
intercrop with high nutrient needs, should be managed properly to prevent yield decreases and
inefficient nutrient use. Finally, the watermelon was irrigated. The irrigation could also supply the oil
palm with additional water, which is especially useful is periods of drought. Drought conditions in oil
palm trees delay the emergence of spear leaves and floral initiation, and increase development of male
inflorescence, which in turn decreases the proportion of female inflorescences (Caliman & Southworth,
1998). Additionally, drought stress triggers the abortion of inflorescences and bunches. These effects
on the reproductive growth of oil palm can have significant impacts on the overall productivity of oil
palm (Caliman & Southworth, 1998). Therefore, the irrigation needed in watermelon intercropping
might be beneficial for the oil palm as well.
Figure 16: Watermelon intercropping in the first year of oil palm cultivation.
4.1.2 The struggles of high management costs

The following section will relate oil palm productivity to the management costs. Especially
vegetatively, but to some extent also generatively, the well-managed monocultures perform best.
34
However, in regards of additional costs, the well-managed monoculture fields were the highest as
well. The average additional costs for the well-managed monocultures (13,744,871 IDR/ha) were
considerably higher than the costs for oil palm cultivation of the poorly-managed monocultures
(3,983,273 IDR/ha) and the watermelon intercropped fields (3,954,213 IDR/ha). Yields of watermelon
intercropped fields almost reach the same values are the well-managed monocultures. However, the
difference in costs between both field categories is big. Watermelon intercropping was a choice that
has paid off, since yields are evidently higher compared to the poorly-managed monocultures, while
costs do not differ as much. Based on these findings, watermelon intercropping seems the most cost-
efficient option, at least at this stage of production.
A big proportion of the good-management smallholders’ costs goes to additional fertilizers (86%),
explaining almost all the difference with the other two field categories. Watermelon intercropping
could be a solution to maintain adequate yields while saving costs on fertilizers, of which the prices
are increasing drastically. The reality is that most smallholders do not have the capital to manage their
plantation optimally. Therefore, cost-efficiency is an important consideration when attempting to
improve production. Furthermore, with high fertilizer prices, the question arises whether the well-
managed monoculture farmers will continue with high nutrient applications.
On another note, intercropping should reduce the cost of weeding (Nchanji et al., 2016). However, this
study found the opposite that for the watermelon-intercropped fields, more money was spent on
herbicides than for the monocultures. Suggestively, the high fertilizer inputs for watermelon increase
the weeds in the area around the watermelon cultivation, which the watermelon farmers do not
manage anymore. These weeds would need to be managed by the oil palm smallholders, explaining
an increase in money spent on herbicides.
In the study area, oil palm and watermelon were cultivated and managed by different farmers. In all
three fields, the oil palm smallholders did not ask for compensation for allowing the watermelon
farmers to cultivate in their plantations. Additional profits while the palms are in their non-productive
stage have been reported to be a main reason for intercropping (Dissanayake & Palihakkara, 2023;
Nkongho & Levang, 2015; Reddy et al., 2004). In this case, the oil palm smallholders made no profit in
the juvenile stage, suggesting smallholders do not make use of the full extent of benefits of
intercropping. Nevertheless, smallholders did save costs and labour on management and therefore did
not want a financial compensation for the use of their fields. From perspective of the oil palm
smallholder, revenues could be increased by either leasing their land, asking for compensation or
practicing the intercropping themselves. However, intercropping themselves does require a big
investment (see Table 14 for the costs of watermelon cultivation). Smallholders do not always have
the capital for such an investment, do not have the knowledge for watermelon cultivation, or might
not want to take the risk. Besides the need for capital investment, watermelon cultivation will require
considerable additional labour.
In summary, both well-managed monocultures and intercropped watermelon fields have benefits.
Whereas the well-managed monocultures perform best, the watermelon intercropped fields are most
cost-efficient for oil palm cultivation in the first 2.5 years. Whether the watermelon fields remain the
most cost-efficient during its whole production phase is unknown. Considering the intercropping phase
is short compared to the productive stage, small limitations in the juvenile phase could result in big
yield losses over the next 25-30 years of production (Reddy et al., 2004). This decrease in yield could
potentially exceed the costs saved during intercropping. Ideally, the system would combine
intercropping with good oil palm management. Hereby, optimal oil palm performance is facilitated,
while land and other resource use efficiency might be increased (Khasanah et al., 2020). Confirmed by
this study, lack of capital remains a hurdle to overcome in working towards optimal yields, especially
35
for smallholders, who do not have the money for adequate management (Jelsma et al., 2019; McCarthy
& Zen, 2016).
4.1.3 Intermediate conclusions on oil palm – watermelon intercropping

Still, the well-managed monocultures tend to perform best. Vegetative growth indicators such as leaf
area, frond number and ground projection were highest for the well-managed monocultures, although
not significant. Even though the intercropped fields did not perform best, an advantage over a well-
managed monoculture is that the oil palm smallholders do not need as much capital, considering the
watermelon farmers bore a part of the management costs. Most farmers indicated that they did not
have time or capital to properly manage their fields, especially considering the increasing fertilizer
prices (Nurdini et al., 2022). This lack of time and capital suggests that watermelon cultivation by the
oil palm smallholders themselves is not feasible. In this case, the smallholders do not cultivate the
watermelon themselves but allow a watermelon farmer to grow his watermelon on their fields.
Therefore, the oil palm smallholders do not need additional time and labour, but they also do not have
direct financial gain from the watermelon. Indirectly, allowing watermelon intercropping does save
the smallholders time, because the plantations required less management. This extra time allows the
smallholders to seek profit elsewhere, such as one of the oil palm farmers having a side-job as
carpenter. Importantly, smallholders argue that the fertilizer used in watermelon intercropping can be
taken up by the oil palm as well, hereby decreasing the need for additional fertilizer outside of the
replanting program. In conclusion, watermelon may fill the income gap in the immature phase of a oil
palm plantation, and has to potential to partly replace oil palm management practices. However,
watermelon cultivation requires high investment costs. Credit facilities and business models that focus
on collaboration between oil palm landowners and landless intercrop farmers can lower the threshold
to incorporate intercropping (Pasmans, 2019; Slingerland et al., 2019).
An important consideration is that the watermelon farmers chose the fields to do intercropping. The
fields with adequate water availability, infrastructure and topography were selected, all factors could
influence oil palm growth as well. The visible trend that watermelon intercropping improves oil palm
performance could also be explained by the better circumstances in the intercropped fields. This field
selection could also explain why the poorly-managed monocultures perform worse than the
watermelon-intercropped fields. Intercrop choices are highly dependent of field characteristics.
Watermelon has some specific field requirements which means that intercropping is not possible on
all fields. Other intercrops could be used and perhaps a monoculture will be the best option in some
cases.
Considering increased cost- and nutrient efficiency, and more efficient land-use by growing two crops
on the same area, watermelon intercropping still has benefits for oil palm smallholders. In conclusion,
watermelon intercropping seems to improve conditions for poorly-managed oil palms. Still, the well-
managed monocultures seem to perform better than poorly-managed fields that were intercropped
with watermelon. At the same time, the well-managed monocultures do require a lot more financial
input, which is not feasible for many farmers. For smallholders that do not have the capital for proper
oil palm management, watermelon intercropping is a good alternative to increase yields at low costs.
Intercropping can be done by the oil palm smallholders themselves, but in most cases, allowing
external farmers to cultivate watermelon is the better option, due to high costs, labour and
requirement of knowledge and experience.
36
4.2 The influence of banana density on oil palm growth

Similar to watermelon, banana is a profitable crop. However, banana is perennial and grows higher,
which suggests that light competition could affect oil palm performance. The comparison between oil
palms that grew next to four, two or zero banana plants only resulted in a significant difference in FFB
number between monoculture and the oil palms that grew next to banana in four corners. This
difference in FFB number indicates that the neighbouring banana plants might have a negative effect
on the productivity of the oil palm, either via aboveground or underground competition (Casper &
Jackson, 1997). In addition, some non-significant trends indicate that with an increase of banana in the
surroundings, frond number and inflorescence sex ratio decrease, while rachis length increases.
Besides FFB number, a decrease in frond number also relates to a decreased performance of the oil
palm. The decrease in inflorescence sex ratio and increase in rachis length are both signs of stress, with
an increased rachis length especially being a sign of light competition (Corley & Tinker, 2016; Henson
& Dolmat, 2003). As only female inflorescences can produce bunches, unfavourable sex ratio will
negatively affect yield. A decreased inflorescence sex ratio could be a result of light stress, nutrient
stress, but also water stress (Caliman & Southworth, 1998). As also indicated by the increased rachis
length, oil palm and banana might compete for light. Moreover, since the banana is not fertilized,
banana is likely to compete with oil palm for nutrients as well. The oil palm roots are expected to partly
overlap with the banana roots, which could also cause competition for water (van Doorn, 2020). Water
shortages can also cause nutrient deficiencies, since water flows are required for nutrient uptake (van
Doorn, 2020). Irrigation might be needed to minimize competition between the two crops.
Results might be affected by the fact that the oil palms with banana on two sides grew alongside the
entrance of the field. The monoculture oil palms grew further away and the oil palms with banana on
one side grew in between. The oil palms closer to the field entrance could have been treated better
than the other trees, since management is easier for these trees. This difference could also explain
why intercropping with banana did not result in significantly decreased vegetative growth.
Figure 17: Banana intercropping in a 2.5-year-old oil palm plantation.
37
In summary, only FFB number is significantly decreased when the oil palm had banana growing on both
sides, compared to oil palm with no banana in the proximity. Considering that FFB number is a major
indicator of yields, and frond number, inflorescence sex ratio and rachis length also seem to be
affected, banana intercropping appears to negatively affect oil palm performance in this particular
field. Suggestively, banana intercropping could be beneficial, especially in the immature phase, if the
banana is properly managed (van Doorn, 2020). A difference between banana and most other
intercrops is that banana is relatively tall, which might increase light stress (Ezumah et al., 1991; van
Doorn, 2020). Banana intercropping could be possible in the very immature phase, but as soon as the
canopy starts closing, light competition becomes more substantial. In addition, banana is a perennial
crop which takes almost a year before its first yield. Therefore, the harvest period is relatively short
before the banana will need to be chopped down to prevent stealing light from the oil palm. Proper
fertilization and irrigation should also decrease the level of competition for nutrients and water
between the two crops (van Doorn, 2020). Different configurations of banana in oil palm fields are also
important to consider. Whether there are one or two banana rows, and distance between banana and
oil palm, will influence the amount of competition between with oil palm. Adjusting planting distances
between palms offers the possibility to extend the duration of banana cultivation (Ismail et al., 2009;
van Doorn, 2020).
4.3 Comparison cassava and maize

Similar to banana, maize is known for being fast growing and growing relatively high, compared to a
crop such as cassava. On the other hand, cassava is a root crop, where aboveground vegetation was
removed twice during its growing period and the cuttings were used to fertilize the surrounding palm
trees. The removal of vegetation likely results in little aboveground competition (Figure 18). Based on
the results, intercropping with cassava or maize had different effects on oil palm growth and
development. While intercropping with cassava resulted in a larger increase in ground projection, the
palms that grew next to maize showed to have increased their frond length more compared to the
trees intercropped with cassava.
4.3.1 Frond etiolation in maize intercropping

Even though maize resulted in relatively longer fronds, ground projection increased less when
intercropping with maize compared to cassava. Therefore, the frond elongation is more vertically than
horizontally. In case of light competition, crops also tend to invest in vertical growth, a phenomenon
also referred to as etiolation (Rao et al., 1992). Rizki (2020) compared oil palm intercropping with maize
and soybean in Indonesia and also found the trend that oil palm height was higher for the maize
intercropped trees (Rizki, 2020). The same findings align with a statement that intercropping only
affects oil palm vegetative growth in the first two years (Syakir et al., 2015). In this experiment, both
cassava and maize were planted approximately 2 years after oil palm planting and maize resulted in
frond etiolation of oil palm. This finding aligns with the finding of Rizki (2020) that oil palm tends to
increase its height when intercropped with maize. However, this result also contradicts Syakir et al.
(2015), since oil palm still seems to be influenced after the first two years. Hariyadi et al. (2016) also
researched the effect of maize intercropping on oil palm growth and found the same results as in this
study. The maize was planted in 80cmx40cm and was fertilized with urea, TSP and MOP. Maize height
increased, while number of fronds and width of canopy remained the same (Hariyadi et al., 2019). This
increased height was hypothesized to be caused by maize roots containing endophytic
microorganisms, which can provide plant P and produce growth hormone IAA. Hereby, maize
hypothetically supports oil palm growth (Hariyadi et al., 2019). Another research into maize
intercropping showed better oil palm performance in intercropping compared to monoculture
38
(Alhaviz, 2021). This difference was explained by before-mentioned nutrient stealing, where the
nutrients applied to maize can also be taken up by the oil palm. Alhaviz’ research varied N, P and K
application with 0 g, 240 g, 480 g and 720 g urea, 0 g and 320 g SP-36 and 0 g, 80 g, 160 g, and 240 g
KCl per plot of 4mx4m, containing 96 maize plants (Alhaviz, 2021). The lowest fertilizer applications
correspond with 70.0 kg ha-1 N, 72.0 kg ha-1 P and 120.0 kg ha-1 K. These values are in the same range
as the recommended rates for maize cultivation described in section 1.4.4 (Rizki, 2020). These
quantities are much higher than the N, P and K applied to maize in this study, of which the values are
1.28 kg ha-1 N, 0.99 kg ha-1 P and no K. While oil palm benefiting from the nutrients applied to the
intercrop is occasionally mentioned as benefit of intercropping, this is unlikely the case in this study,
considering the low fertilizer application compared to literature (Alhaviz, 2021). The fact that maize-
intercropped oil palms seem to mainly invest in vertical growth, rather than leaf area or ground
projection, could also be explained by the maize being planted very close to the oil palm, almost
touching the canopy. The close spacing could explain the stress effect on oil palm, rather than the use
of maize as intercrop. Other research also reported maize growing at a similar distance of 2m from the
oil palm (Suherman et al., 2019). However, maize yield and growth did not seem to be affected by the
intercropping with oil palm. The palms in concerning research were one year old, compared to the
palms being approximately 2.5 years old in this study. Logically, maize is more affected by older, and
thus larger, oil palms in regards of resource competition.
4.3.2 Increased ground projection in cassava intercropping

Cassava-intercropped oil palms showed to have increased their ground projection more than maize-
intercropped palm. This difference cannot be explained by fertilizer application since cassava did not
receive any fertilizer. However, the cuttings of cassava were composted around the weeding circles of
the surrounding oil palms, which could increase nutrient availability and thereby stimulate growth and
ground projection. Okyere et al. (2014) also conducted an experiment into the effects of intercropping
with non-fertilized cassava on oil palm. The results show no adverse effects on oil palm growth (Okyere
et al., 2014). Another explanation for larger increase in ground projection in cassava intercropping
would be increased light competition in maize intercropping. The maize-intercropped palms show
relatively longer fronds, but a relatively smaller ground projection, indicating vertical growth.
Increased vertical growth via rachis elongation is a symptom of light stress (Breure, 1994; Woittiez et
al., 2017).
A B
Figure 18: Cassava intercropping in a 2.5-year-old oil palm plantation. [A] shows the cassava after pruning. [B] shows
the cassava right before the final measurement.
39
The comparison between maize and cassava only compares these two crops in one farm. Therefore,
the findings could be specific to this field and not representable to all cases. In addition, maize was
fertilized while cassava did not receive any fertilizer. Because the crop management was directly linked
to the intercrop, this thesis was not able to distinguish between different management practices or
the effects of the intercrop itself. However, maize was more actively managed (i.e. received additional
fertilizer), so if the management would have a strong effect on oil palm performance, the expectation
would be that the oil palm intercropped with maize would perform better. In contrast, the palms next
to cassava appear to perform better, having increased more in ground projection and showing no signs
of light stress with etiolation. Another crucial difference between the management of the intercrops
is that the maize was planted densely in eight rows between palm rows, while the cassava only grew
in two closely planted rows per alley. As a result, the maize was planted more closely to the oil palms
(between 2-3m) and the cassava had more distance (approximately 4m). This difference in distance
between intercrop and oil palm could explain why stress is likely increased for maize intercropping and
tree development seems to be relatively lower. Finally, four alleys were dedicated to maize and three
alleys were dedicated to cassava. The different alleys were taken into consideration with the statistics,
but the fact that maize grew on one side of the field, while cassava grew on the other side could also
be a reason for differences in performance.
As becomes clear from the comparison between cassava and maize, maize seems to affect oil palm
growth more than cassava. Frond length increases more and ground projection increases less in maize
intercropping compared to cassava intercropping, indicating vertical rather than horizontal growth.
The maize-intercropped oil palms are hypothesized to invest more in vertical growth via frond
elongation, aiming to capture more light. The cassava-intercropped oil palms are hypothesized to not
have to compete for light and could capture light by a relatively larger ground projection and more
4.3.3 Distance from oil palm affects maize growth and yields
The performance of maize in respect to its positioning to the oil palm was also evaluated by looking at
different distance from the oil palm in the two outer and two inner maize rows. The linear mixed effects
models showed that maize height was influenced by distance and location in the row. However, when
adding an interaction between distance and row location, distance does not affect height significantly
anymore. The interaction between distance and row location does now significantly affect height,
which is logical because row location is similar to distance but then in the other orientation. Both
factors are related to distance from the oil palm, but row location also says something about the
intraspecific competition between maize plants. The same counts for cob size. Both distance and row
location are significant, but once the interaction between the two is considered, the effect of distance
is replaced by the interaction between distance and row location.
4.3.3.1 Decreased maize height close to oil palm

The results show that maize height varies significantly between being planted directly next to the oil
palm or further away from the oil palm. Also, whether the maize grew in the inner rows or the outer
rows seemed to affect the plant height, with the inner rows having significantly higher plants. Distance
is only related to the oil palm, so the difference that was found suggests that maize height decreases
when planted closer to oil palm. The position closest to the oil palm (CloseOuter) resulted in the
shortest maize plants, which is likely due to competition with the oil palm. Carrier et al (2019) also
found that in tree-based maize intercropping systems, the maize plants closest to the trees tended to
perform worst. Decreased light transmittance is their main explanation for this decrease in yield
(Carrier et al., 2019). Maize-coconut intercropping confirms that maize yield decreases with shade
(Braconnier, 1998). Suggestively, oil palm decreased light availability more than neighbouring maize
plants. Root competition also affects yields, but the degree depends on soil and climatic conditions
40
(Braconnier, 1998). Oil palm roots are likely to reach under the maize plants, which can cause nutrient
competition. Shortage in nutrients will also decrease growth and yields (Kimaro et al., 2009).
The other position in the outer row (FarOuter) also had significantly shorter maize plants compared to
the inner rows. However, this cannot be explained by its distance to the oil palm, since the CloseInner
position was closer with approximately 4m distance compared to 4.6m. Apparently, a factor in the
inner rows stimulates maize height. One explanation could be an increased soil nutrient level, since
the middle rows were planted in the mulch that was used in previous intercropping. Increased nutrient
availability, especially P and K, can increase maize height (Aziz et al., 2010). Another explanation could
be that the density of maize planting resulted in increased vertical growth. If maize is planted in higher
densities, light competition increases, which can increase internode length and thereby height
(Amanullah et al., 2009).
4.3.3.2 Decreased cob size close to oil palm

Cob size seemed to be less affected by the location of the maize respective to the oil palm and within
the maize alley. The only location that showed to have a significant effect on cob size was the
CloseOuter location, where the maize had a smaller cob size compared to the other treatments. The
FarOuter position now does not differ from the inner positions, which was the case for maize height.
Considering effects of oil palm are limited in the far positions, the main difference between FarInner
and FarOuter positions, is the level of intraspecific competition. Therefore, cob size is likely barely
affected by the intraspecific competition. The lower height in this position apparently also does not
influence cob size. Since the maize plants that are next to oil palm perform worse than the maize plants
surrounded by maize, the interspecific competition is likely bigger than intraspecific competition for
maize.
In the position closest to the oil palm, maize showed no etiolation, while the oil palms did show frond
etiolation when intercropped with maize. The oil palm probably shaded maize, hereby affecting maize
height. Subsequently, cob size and yield are relatively lower for the maize grown close to the oil palm.
41
4.4 General discussion

Watermelon, banana, cassava and maize all possess different characteristics, which influence the oil
palm. Maize and watermelon have the shortest growing seasons of about two months, while cassava’s
growing season is already longer with eight months and banana will take more than one year.
Watermelon generally requires a lot of nutrients (Kang et al., 2020), which could also potentially be
taken up by oil palm. In this study, maize was also fertilized in low quantities, but this is not always the
case (Okyere et al., 2014). Banana and cassava were not fertilized and solely relied on nutrients already
in the soil. The biggest improvements in oil palm performance were seen for the watermelon
intercropping, which could be explained by the significantly higher fertilizer rates watermelon received
compared to the other intercrops. Watermelon was also the only crop that is irrigated, which might
have been of benefit for the oil palm as well. Banana grows the highest and thus light competition
should be limited (Ezumah et al., 1991). Maize also grows relatively high compared to watermelon.
The height of cassava depends on whether the farmers prunes the cassava during the growing season.
Previous research confirms that a higher crop such as banana is more likely to limit oil palm growth
than lower crops such as watermelon, cassava and maize (Ezumah et al., 1991). A similar trend is visible
in the comparison between maize and cassava, where the taller crop, maize, elicited signs of light stress
in the oil palm. The growth of maize and cassava was not compared with monoculture growth or both
cassava and maize. Also, the oil palm intercropped with cassava or maize was not compared to oil
palm monocultures. Therefore, no conclusion was drawn on the feasibility of these intercrop systems.
Nevertheless, literature suggests that both crops, as well as plantain, can be used as intercrop without
hindering the oil palm, provided the plantation is managed properly (Okyere et al., 2014).
Establishment intercropped is also deemed successful as the profits from the intercrop allow the
smallholder to sustain their families and maintain their fields (Okyere et al., 2014).
Comparing vegetative growth for both watermelon and banana intercropping shows that watermelon
intercropping seems to result in higher leaf area than banana intercropping. This difference could be
explained by increased light stress in banana intercropping, but management practices are also a likely
factor. Watermelon was relatively well managed, with high fertilizer inputs. In contrast, banana did
not receive any fertilizer. As a result, the banana intercropping system might very well suffer from
nutrient competition, while watermelon intercropping could offer additional nutrients, due to its
higher nutrient inputs. Still, regarding vegetative growth, both intercropping systems do not come
close to the well-managed monocultures.
Intercropping in oil palm definitely has potential. If the intercrop is managed properly, the oil palm can
benefit from its weeding, fertilizer and improved soil conditions (Nchanji et al., 2016). Additionally, the
increased revenue or saved costs are great financial motivators to add an intercrop (Ezumah et al.,
1991). Intercropping with watermelon illustrated that oil palm performance can be improved without
additional costs. Furthermore, increasing crop number will increase stability in yield and profit
(Erhabor & Filson, 1999). Intercropping is also the better option when considering land efficiency.
Increased land efficiency will decrease the need for additional land, hereby leaving more space for
nature (Erhabor & Filson, 1999).
This study mainly focused on oil palm performance. However, intercrop performance is also important
to consider when evaluating the effectivity of the system. The maize experiment showed that the yields
of the plants closest to the oil palm were affected. Intercropped maize can match monoculture yields,
while not affecting oil palm growth (Sarwendah, 2015). However, to match monoculture yields,
adequate knowledge and management is necessary. Planting density and fertilizer application are
examples of crucial things to consider when intercropping.
42
4.5 Shortcomings and recommendations

First, only nine fields were selected, which are three fields per category. The field repetitions were not
sufficient to make linear mixed effect models to analyse more than five fixed factors. To get a more in-
depth idea of what the relationships between fixed factors and outcome variables are, more field
repetitions could be added. Moreover, the found results could be specific to this research area, being
specifically linked to certain soil types or climate for example. Also, the interview results are based on
farmers’ estimates for a time span of 2.5 years, which affects reliability.
The main aim of research into oil palm is improving efficiency, increasing yields and minimizing
necessary land area. Researching the possibility of large-scale intercropping could help in more
efficient land and resource use. Larger plantations often have more knowledge and money to spend
on proper management of both oil palm and intercrop (Woittiez et al., 2017). However, intercrops
complicate the mechanization of management practices and maintaining the same yields as in
monoculture can be challenging (Amoah et al., 1995). Finding solutions to these drawbacks could
stimulate large-scale plantations to incorporate intercrops, hereby increasing resource use efficiency
and sustainability of the oil palm sector.
In this study, different intercrops were hard to compare. The experiments for watermelon and banana
looked at performance at a certain time point, while the effects of maize and cassava were analysed
by looking at growth between two time points. In addition, the timing of intercropping differed.
Watermelon and banana were cultivated in approximately the first two years, while maize and cassava
were added when the plantation was already two years old. More research needs to be done to
discover optimal planting densities and management for the intercrops, as well as finding out which
intercropping systems flourish in which circumstances. In addition, farmers indicated watermelon
could not grow in an oil palm plantation older than two years. Determining per intercrop what their
time limit is, related to the canopy closing, can help in developing crop sequences for the whole
immature phase. The first years will likely be a crop in need of much radiation and the last years will
be shade tolerant crops. Furthermore, research could be done on shade tolerant crops that could grow
in a mature plantation. With current knowledge and practices, intercropping is mostly done in the
period before complete canopy coverage (Ezumah et al., 1991). For indefinite intercrop systems,
spatial arrangements could be a solution to prevent the canopy from closing. Research could be done
into the potential of other oil palm spacings, allowing for permanent intercropping (Namanji et al.,
2021).
43
5 Conclusion
Watermelon intercropping showed to be an improvement compared to monoculture with similar
management (i.e. poorly-managed monoculture). Intercropping increased yields, FFB and frond
number. Well-managed monocultures tend to still outperform watermelon-intercropped fields,
although often not significantly. Considering cost efficiency, watermelon intercropping is considered a
good choice, since its yield cost ratio greatly exceeds that of the oil palm monocultures. Watermelon
intercropping is more cost efficient because the oil palm benefits from management practices for
watermelon. Hereby, oil palm yields increase while management costs for the oil palm smallholders
remain the same, because the watermelon farmers bear a part of the management costs. In banana
intercropping, FFB number was significantly higher in monocrop oil palms compared to oil palms
surrounded by four banana plants. This difference suggests that the presence of banana decreases
FFBs and hereby possibly yields. Cassava and maize intercropping was compared. Cassava intercropped
resulted in a larger increase in ground projection than maize intercropping, while maize intercropping
resulted in increased frond length. Arguably, maize intercropping is accompanied by light competition,
with frond etiolation as a result. Consequently, the maize-intercropped palms perform worse in new
frond formation. The effect of oil palm on maize was evaluated as well. Maize growing close to the oil
palm were significantly shorter and had smaller cobs. Looking at watermelon intercropping,
intercropping seems promising in regards of not limiting oil palm yields. However, the other intercrops
do not confirm the same. In conclusion, intercropping can be a cost-efficient intervention to improve
oil palm performance. However, intercrop management is key in determining whether the oil palm
benefits or suffers from the intercrop. Proper management practices are needed to fully make use of
the potential benefits of intercropping.
44
6 Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Maja Slingerland for her feedback and suggestions during
preparation, data collection and analysis. I would like to thank Jusrian Saubara Orpa Yanda and
organization Arconesia for helping with the arrangements of going to Indonesia, helping me find
researchable fields and translating with the farmer interviews. Special thanks to plantation Agricinal
for housing and food. I would like to thank Douwe de Maijer and Katharina Andres for helping me make
choices during data collection and me being able to discuss my findings and doubts. Many thanks to
all the other MSc students and PPS staff who gave suggestions during the thesis ring and helped with
statistical analysis. Finally, many thanks to Bengkulu University for aiding with the soil analysis.
45
References
Alhaviz, A. (2021). Kandungan hara N dan K dalam sistem tumpang sari jagung (Zea mays) di lahan
kelapa sawit belum menghasilkan. IPB University.
Amanor, K., & Diderutuah, M. K. (2001). Share contracts in the oil palm and citrus belt of Ghana. Iied.
Amanullah, H., Marwat, K. B., Shah, P., Maula, N., & Arifullah, S. (2009). Nitrogen levels and its time
of application influence leaf area, height and biomass of maize planted at low and high density.
Pak. J. Bot, 41(2), 761–768.
Amoah, F. M., Nuertey, B. N., Baidoo-Addo, K., Oppong, F. K., Osei-Bonsu, K., & Asamoah, T. E. O.
(1995). Underplanting oil palm with cocoa in Ghana. Agroforestry Systems, 30(3), 289–299.
Amzeri, A., Badami, K., Gita, P., Syah, M. A., & Daryono, B. S. (2021). Phenotypic and genetic diversity
of watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) in East Java, Indonesia. Biodiversitas Journal of Biological
Diversity, 22(11).
Arifin, I., Hanafi, M. M., Roslan, I., Ubaydah, M. U., Abd Karim, Y., Tui, L. C., & Hamzah, S. (2022).
Responses of irrigated oil palm to nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilizers on clayey soil.
Agricultural Water Management, 274, 107922.
Azhar, B., Nobilly, F., Lechner, A. M., Tohiran, K. A., Maxwell, T. M. R., Zulkifli, R., Kamel, M. F., & Oon,
A. (2021). Mitigating the risks of indirect land use change (ILUC) related deforestation from
industrial palm oil expansion by sharing land access with displaced crop and cattle farmers.
Land Use Policy, 107, 105498.
Aziz, T., Ullah, S., Sattar, A., Nasim, M., Farooq, M., & Khan, M. M. (2010). Nutrient availability and
maize (Zea mays) growth in soil amended with organic manures. International Journal of
Agriculture and Biology, 12(4), 621–624.
Braconnier, S. (1998). Maize-coconut intercropping: effects of shade and root competition on maize
growth and yield. Agronomie, 18(5–6), 373–382.
Bray, R. H., & Kurtz, L. T. (1945). Determination of total, organic, and available forms of phosphorus
in soils. Soil Science, 59(1), 39–46.
Breure, C. J. (1994). Development of leaves in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) and determination of leaf
opening rate. Experimental Agriculture, 30(4), 467–472.
Brickell, C. (1992). The Royal Horticultural Society Encyclopedia of Gardening (Print). London: Dorling
Kindersley, 356–357.
Caliman, J.-P., & Southworth, A. (1998). Effect of drought and haze on the performance of oil palm.
Carrier, M., Gonzalez, F.-A. R., Cogliastro, A., Olivier, A., Vanasse, A., & Rivest, D. (2019). Light
availability, weed cover and crop yields in second generation of temperate tree-based
intercropping systems. Field Crops Research, 239, 30–37.
Casper, B. B., & Jackson, R. B. (1997). Plant competition underground. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics, 28(1), 545–570.
Climate Data. (2021). Climate: Bengkulu. https://en.climate-data.org/asia/indonesia/bengkulu-1206/
Corley, R. H. V, & Mok, C. K. (1972). Effects of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and magnesium on
growth of the oil palm. Experimental Agriculture, 8(4), 347–353.
Corley, R. H. V, & Tinker, P. B. (Philip B. (2016). The oil palm LK -
https://wur.on.worldcat.org/oclc/922970970 (Fifth edit). John Wiley & Sons.
46
http://site.ebrary.com/id/11113441
Cristancho, J. A., Hanafi, M. M., Syed Omar, S. R., & Rafii, M. Y. (2011). Alleviation of soil acidity
improves the performance of oil palm progenies planted on an acid Ultisol. Acta Agriculturae
Scandinavica, Section B-Soil & Plant Science, 61(6), 487–498.
da Silva Maia, R., Vasconcelos, S. S., Viana-Junior, A. B., Castellani, D. C., & Kato, O. R. (2021). Oil palm
(Elaeis guineensis) shows higher mycorrhizal colonization when planted in agroforestry than in
monoculture. Agroforestry Systems, 95, 731–740.
Darras, K. F. A., Corre, M. D., Formaglio, G., Tjoa, A., Potapov, A., Brambach, F., Sibhatu, K. T., Grass,
I., Rubiano, A. A., & Buchori, D. (2019). Reducing fertilizer and avoiding herbicides in oil palm
plantations—ecological and economic valuations. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 2, 65.
Dissanayake, & Palihakkara, I. R. (2023). Effects of intercropping of immature oil palm (Elaeis
guineensis) with banana, ginger, and turmeric in the Galle District, Sri Lanka. Environmental
Quality Management.
Dissanayake, S. M., & Palihakkara, I. R. (2019). A review on possibilities of intercropping with
immature oil palm. International Journal for Research in Applied Sciences and Biotechnology, 6.
Erhabor, J. O., & Filson, G. C. (1999). Soil fertility changes under an oil palm-based intercropping
system. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 14(2–3), 45–61.
Euler, M., Hoffmann, M. P., Fathoni, Z., & Schwarze, S. (2016). Exploring yield gaps in smallholder oil
palm production systems in eastern Sumatra, Indonesia. Agricultural Systems, 146, 111–119.
Eviati, & Sulaeman. (2009). ANALISIS KIMIA TANAH, TANAMAN, AIR, DAN PUPUK. Kepala Balai
Penelitian Tanah, iv Petunjuk Teknis Edisi 2.
Ezumah, H. C., Federer, W. T., & Awa, N. E. (1991). Importance and Sustainability of Root Crops-Based
Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Gawankar, M. S., Devmore, J. P., Jamadagni, B. M., Sagvekar, V. V, & Khan, H. H. (2003). Effect of
water stress on growth and yield of Tenera oil palm. Journal of Applied Horticulture, 5(1), 39–
40.
Gawankar, M. S., Haldankar, P. M., Salvi, B. R., Haldavanekar, P. C., Malshe, K. V, & Maheswarappa,
H. P. (2018). Intercropping in young oil palm plantation under Konkan Region of Maharastra,
India.
Gerritsma, W., & Soebabyo, F. X. (1999). An analysis of the growth of leaf area of oil palms in
Indonesia. Experimental Agriculture, 35(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/DOI:
10.1017/S0014479799003038
Goh, K. J., & Po, S. B. (2005). Fertilizer recommendation systems for oil palm: estimating the fertilizer
rates. Proceedings of MOSTA Best Practices Workshops-Agronomy and Crop Management.
Malaysian Oil Scientists’ and Technologists’ Association, 1–37.
Hariyadi, H., Jarwadi, P. M. Y., Rosa, D., Tri, M., & Ani, K. (2019). Response of Immature Oil Palm
Growth and CO2 emission on Intercropping System After Replanting. International Journal of Oil
Palm, 2(2), 81–86.
Henson, I. E., & Dolmat, M. T. (2003). Physiological analysis of an oil palm density trial on a peat soil.
Journal of Oil Palm Research, 15(2).
Herlina, N., & Wahyuni, H. (2022). Impact of Oil Palm Plantation on Economy and Environment in
Bengkulu Province. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Mamangan, 11(2), 146–152.
47
Hermanto, A., Gan, S. H., Mustopa, I. R., Wong, W. C., Ng, P. H. C., Tan, N. P., & Chong, C. W. (2023).
Use of multiseasonal oil palm yield data to assess drought tolerance. Scientia Horticulturae,
308, 111603.
Hidayat, N. K., Offermans, A., & Glasbergen, P. (2018). Sustainable palm oil as a public responsibility?
On the governance capacity of Indonesian Standard for Sustainable Palm Oil (ISPO). Agriculture
and Human Values, 35(1), 223–242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-017-9816-6
Idoko, S. O., Omokhafe, K. O., Iyoha, E., Oghomieje, L. A., & Ighedosa, S. A. (2017). FERTILITY
EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES OF SOILS OF IJEBU IGBO, NIGERIA FOR RUBBER
(HEVEA BRASILIENSIS) AND OIL PALM (ELAEIS GUINEENSIS) AGRO-FORESTRY. Journal of
Agricultural Production and Technology ISSN, 2360, 9364.
Irawan, A., & Syakir, M. (2019). Determinants of oil palm smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategy to
climate change in Bengkulu, Indonesia. Revista de Economia e Sociologia Rural, 57, 428–440.
Ismail, S., Khasim, N., & Omar, R. Z. R. (2009). Double-row avenue system for crop integration with oil
palm. MPOB Information Series, 465(424), 1–4.
Jelsma, I., Slingerland, M., Giller, K. E., & Bijman, J. (2017). Collective action in a smallholder oil palm
production system in Indonesia: The key to sustainable and inclusive smallholder palm oil?
Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 198–210.
Jelsma, I., Woittiez, L. S., Ollivier, J., & Dharmawan, A. H. (2019). Do wealthy farmers implement
better agricultural practices? An assessment of implementation of Good Agricultural Practices
among different types of independent oil palm smallholders in Riau, Indonesia. Agricultural
Systems, 170, 63–76.
Jourdan, C., & Rey, H. (1997). Architecture and development of the oil-palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.)
root system. Plant and Soil, 189, 33–48.
Kang, F., Wang, Z., Xiong, H., Li, Y., Wang, Y., Fan, Z., Zhao, H., Kuang, D., Chen, Z., & Wang, J. (2020).
Estimation of watermelon nutrient requirements based on the QUEFTS model. Agronomy,
10(11), 1776.
Khasanah, N., van Noordwijk, M., Slingerland, M., Sofiyudin, M., Stomph, D., Migeon, A. F., & Hairiah,
K. (2020). Oil palm agroforestry can achieve economic and environmental gains as indicated by
multifunctional land equivalent ratios. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 3, 122.
Kimaro, A. A., Timmer, V. R., Chamshama, S. A. O., Ngaga, Y. N., & Kimaro, D. A. (2009). Competition
between maize and pigeonpea in semi-arid Tanzania: Effect on yields and nutrition of crops.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 134(1–2), 115–125.
Koussihouèdé, H., Aholoukpè, H., Adjibodou, J., Hinkati, H., Dubos, B., Chapuis-Lardy, L., Barthès, B.
G., Amadji, G., & Clermont-Dauphin, C. (2020). Comparative analysis of nutritional status and
growth of immature oil palm in various intercropping systems in southern Benin. Experimental
Agriculture, 56(3), 371–386.
Koussihouèdé, H., Clermont-Dauphin, C., Aholoukpè, H., Barthès, B., Chapuis-Lardy, L., Jassogne, L., &
Amadji, G. (2020). Diversity and socio-economic aspects of oil palm agroforestry systems on the
Allada plateau, southern Benin. Agroforestry Systems, 94, 41–56.
Krishna, V., Euler, M., Siregar, H., & Qaim, M. (2017). Differential livelihood impacts of oil palm
expansion in Indonesia. Agricultural Economics, 48(5), 639–653.
Kuvaini, A. (2022). Implementasi Model Tumpang Sari Kelapa Sawit dan Semangka di Perkebunan
Kelapa Sawit Rakyat Bagan Sinembah Rokan Hilir Riau. Jurnal Citra Widya Edukasi, 14(1), 1–12.
48
Leihner, D. (1983). Management and evaluation of intercropping systems with cassava. Ciat.
Lewis, K., Rumpang, E., Kho, L. K., Mccalmont, J., Teh, Y. A., Gallego-Sala, A., & Hill, T. (2020). An
assessment of oil palm plantation aboveground biomass stocks on tropical peat using
destructive and non-destructive methods. Scientific Reports, 10, 2230.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-58982-9
Lingga, & Marsono. (2004). Petunjuk Penggunaan Pupuk. Redaksi Agromedia. Jakarta.
Mahmud, M. S., & Chong, K. P. (2022). Effects of Liming on Soil Properties and Its Roles in Increasing
the Productivity and Profitability of the Oil Palm Industry in Malaysia. Agriculture, 12(3), 322.
Malia, I. E. (2021). Intercropping of several cultivars of banana and plantain under coconut based in
North Sulawesi, Indonesia. E3S Web of Conferences, 232, 3007.
Matsoso, L., Raphoto, M., & Sephoko, N. (2007). Crop and yield forecasting procedure in lesotho.
Bureau of Statistics Lesotho.
McCarthy, J. F., & Zen, Z. (2016). Agribusiness, agrarian change, and the fate of oil palm smallholders
in Jambi. The Oil Palm Complex: Smallholders, Agribusiness and the State in Indonesia and
Malaysia, 109–154.
Meng, T., Ren, G., Wang, G., & Ma, Y. (2019). Impacts on soil microbial characteristics and their
restorability with different soil disinfestation approaches in intensively cropped greenhouse
soils. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 103, 6369–6383.
Mertz, O., & Mertens, C. F. (2017). Land sparing and land sharing policies in developing countries–
drivers and linkages to scientific debates. World Development, 98, 523–535.
Mudhita, I. K., Umami, N., Budhi, S. P. S., Baliarti, E., Noviandi, C. T., Budisatria, I. G. S., & Wattimena,
J. (2016). Effect of Bali cattle urine on legume cover crop puero (Pueraria javanica) productivity
on an east borneo oil palm plantation. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 15(5), 406.
Mutert, E. (1999). Suitability of soils for oil palm in Southeast Asia. Better Crops International, 13(1),
36–38.
Namanji, S., Ssekyewa, C., & Slingerland, M. (2021). Intercropping food and cash crops with oil palm–
Experiences in Uganda and why it makes sense.
Nchanji, Y. K., Nkongho, R. N., Mala, W. A., & Levang, P. (2016). Efficacy of oil palm intercropping by
smallholders. Case study in South-West Cameroon. Agroforestry Systems, 90(3), 509–519.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-015-9873-z
Nelson, P., Rhebergen, T., Berthelsen, S., Webb, M., Banabas, M., Oberthur, T., Donough, C. R.,
Indrasuara, K., & Lubis, A. (2011). Soil acidification under oil palm: rates and effects on yield.
Better Crops with Plant Food, 95, 22–25.
Niinemets, U. (2007). Photosynthesis and resource distribution through plant canopies. Plant, Cell &
Environment, 30(9), 1052–1071.
Nkongho, Y. K. N. R. N., & Levang, W. A. M. P. (2015). Efficacy of oil palm intercropping by
smallholders. Case study in South-West Cameroon.
Nurdini, A., Harliana, E. W., & Putri, L. K. (2022). Implementation of Cost Leadership Strategy in
Indonesian Fertilizer Company.
Nurfatriani, F., Sari, G. K., Saputra, W., & Komarudin, H. (2022). Oil Palm Economic Benefit
Distribution to Regions for Environmental Sustainability: Indonesia’s Revenue-Sharing Scheme.
Land, 11(9), 1452.
49
Okyere, S. A., Danso, F., Larbi, E., & Danso, I. (2014). Residual effect of intercropping on the yield and
productivity of oil palm.
Paoli, G. D., Gillespie, P., Wells, P. L., Hovani, L., Sileuw, A., Franklin, N., & Schweithelm, J. (2013). Oil
palm in Indonesia: governance, decision making and implications for sustainable development.
The Nature Conservancy, Jakarta, Indonesia.
Pasmans, T. (2019). Local livelihood stories from producers of a global commodity. ETFRN NEWS, 87.
Petri, H., Hendrawan, D., Bähr, T., Asnawi, R., Mußhoff, O., Wollni, M., & Faust, H. (2022). The
challenges Indonesian oil palm smallholders face when replanting becomes necessary, and how
they can be supported: A review. EFForTS Discussion Paper Series, 36.
Pridham, J. C., & Entz, M. H. (2008). Intercropping spring wheat with cereal grains, legumes, and
oilseeds fails to improve productivity under organic management. Agronomy Journal, 100(5),
1436–1442.
Pye, O. (2019). Commodifying sustainability: Development, nature and politics in the palm oil
industry. World Development, 121, 218–228.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.02.014
Qaim, M., Sibhatu, K. T., Siregar, H., & Grass, I. (2020). Environmental, economic, and social
consequences of the oil palm boom. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 12(1), 321–344.
Rao, V., Rajanaidu, N., Kushairi, A., & Jalani, S. (1992). Density effects in the oil palm. International
Workshop on Yield Potential in the Oil Palm. Phuket, Thailand. 29-30 Oct 1990.
Reddy, V. M., Suresh, K., Saraswathi, M. S., Bijimol, G., & CH, N. (2004). Inter cropping in irrigated oil
palm in India. Journal of Plantation Crops, 32, 218–220.
Rizki, D. P. (2020). Optimalisasi Lahan Pertanaman Kelapa Sawit Belum Menghasilkan dengan
Tanaman Sela Semusim. IPB University.
RSPO. (2019). RSPO independent smallholder standard. For the pr.
Sarwendah, M. (2015). KAJIAN PERTUMBUHAN DAN HASIL BEBERAPA TANAMAN SELA SISTEM
TUMPANGSARI PADA KAWASAN PERKEBUNAN KELAPA SAWIT TBM 3. Universitas Gadjah Mada.
Slingerland, M. A., Khasanah, N., van Noordwijk, M., Susanti, A., & Meilantina, M. (2019). Improving
smallholder inclusivity through integrating oil palm with crops. In Exploring inclusive palm oil
production (Issue 59, pp. 147–154). ETFRN and Tropenbos International, Wageningen.
Suherman, V. Z. C., Nuraini, A., Yuditri, R. E., Batu, L., & Soleh, M. A. (2019). Utilize open space of oil
palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) plantation at immature stages for growing maize (Zea mays L.)
which is applied biofertilizer. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 334(1),
12027.
Sukartono, S. (2011). Soil fertility status, nutrient uptake, and maize (Zea mays L.) yield following
biochar and cattle manure application on sandy soils of Lombok, Indonesia. Journal of Tropical
Agriculture.
Sun, C., Cao, H., Shao, H., Lei, X., & Xiao, Y. (2011). Growth and physiological responses to water and
nutrient stress in oil palm. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(51), 10465–10471.
Sung, C. T. B. (2016). Availability, use, and removal of oil palm biomass in Indonesia. Report Prepared
for the International Council on Clean Transportation.
Suresh, K., Reddy, V. M., Sarma, K. N., Bhanusri, A., & Sivasankara Kumar, K. M. (2003). Quantification
of root biomass in oil palm grown under basin irrigation. International Journal of Oil Palm, 2(3),
50
39–41.
Syakir, M., Herman, M., Pranowo, D., & Ferry, Y. (2015). Pertumbuhan dan produksi tanaman serta
pendapatan petani pada model peremajaan kelapa sawit secara bertahap. Jurnal Penelitian
Tanaman Industri, 21(2), 69–76.
Tock, J. Y., Lai, C. L., Lee, K. T., Tan, K. T., & Bhatia, S. (2010). Banana biomass as potential renewable
energy resource: A Malaysian case study. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(2),
798–805.
Tukan, C. J. M., Roshetko, J. M., Budidarsono, S., & Manurung, G. S. (2006). Banana Market Chain
Improvement–Enhance Farmers’ Market Linkages in West Java, Indonesia. Meeting ‘Regional
Consultation on Linking Farmers to Markets: Lessons Learned and Successful Practices to Share
Innovative Ideas Resulting from Building New Partnerships in the Global Food Chain’Held On, 30.
Untung, S., Akhmad, G., Emmy, S. M., & Raihani, W. (2021). Application of livestock manure and
edamame harvest waste to improve the chemical properties of acid dry land. Application of
Livestock Manure and Edamame Harvest Waste to Improve the Chemical Properties of Acid Dry
Land, 19(4), 41–52.
van Doorn, M. (2020). A Tipping Point in Establishment Intercropping.
van Leeuwen, S. (2019). Analysis of a pineapple-oil palm intercropping system in Malaysia. MSc
dissertation, Wageningen University.
Woittiez, L. S., Slingerland, M., Rafik, R., & Giller, K. E. (2018). Nutritional imbalance in smallholder oil
palm plantations in Indonesia. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems, 111(1), 73–86.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10705-018-9919-5
Woittiez, L. S., Van Wijk, M. T., Slingerland, M., Van Noordwijk, M., & Giller, K. E. (2017). Yield gaps in
oil palm: A quantitative review of contributing factors. European Journal of Agronomy, 83, 57–
77.
51
Appendix
Appendix 1: Fertilizer names and compositions for oil palm and intercrop
Name N P2O5 K2O Crop Source

NPK KEBOMAS 13-6-27 0.13 0.06 0.27 Oil Palm
NPK Phonska Plus 15-15-15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Oil Palm
NPK MAHKOTA 13-6-27 0.13 0.06 0.27 Oil Palm
NPK MAHKOTA 15-15-6 0.15 0.15 0.06 Oil Palm
NPK caping tani 6-10-15 0.06 0.10 0.15 Oil Palm
NPK mutiara 16-16-16 0.16 0.16 0.16 Oil Palm

SP36 - 0.36 - Oil Palm
Maize
Dolomite kebomas - - - Oil Palm
Watermelon
Urea 0.47 - - Oil Palm
Maize
Eco Farming - - - Oil Palm
TSP - 0.46 - Oil Palm

Cow Urine 0.0003 2E-08 0.0117 Oil Palm (Mudhita et al.,
2016)
Cow Manure 0.0094 0.0062 0.0052 Oil Palm (Sukartono,
2011)
Chicken Manure 0.015 0.013 0.008 Watermelon (Lingga &
Marsono, 2004;
Untung et al.,
2021)
Organic PetroKimia 0.01 - - Watermelon
SP26 - 0.26 - Watermelon
Goat Manure 0.007 0.004 0.0025 Watermelon (Lingga &
Marsono, 2004;
Untung et al.,
2021)
NPK Mahkota 0.15 0.15 0.15 Watermelon
Ultradap Pak Tani 0.12 0.60 - Watermelon
NPK Yaramila 0.12 0.11 0.18 Watermelon
Winner Yaramila 0.15 0.09 0.20 Watermelon
KCl Mahkota - - 0.60 Watermelon
NPK Grower Mutiara 0.12 0.09 0.23 Watermelon
NPK Pak Tani 0.16 0.16 0.16 Watermelon
52
Appendix 2: Fertilizer quantities and total N, P and K inputs for each field (kg/ha)
Field1 Field2 Field3 Field4 Field5 Field6 Field7 Field8 Field9

NPK 157.3 157.3 157.3
kebomas
NPK 572 572 572
Phonska+
NPK 162.5 347.96 60.11 71.5 63.29 143.46
MAHKOTA
NPK 139.18
caping
tani
SP36 139.18 120.22 71.5 71.5 71.5 71.5 126.58 143.46
Dolomite 139.18 143 143 143 264.68
kebomas
Urea 68.18 139.18 90.17 100.1 100.1 100.1 66.17 94.94
Eco 28.6 28.6 28.6
Farming
TSP 50 143.46
NPK 66.17
mutiara
PHE 45.08 47.47
Cow urine 307.5
Cow 3606.66
manure
N_Total 52.93 118.51 83.78 152.94 152.94 152.94 50.75 52.51 18.65
P_Total 32.75 84.90 69.25 120.98 120.98 120.98 40.62 49.37 126.25
K_Total 43.875 114.82 38.58 128.27 128.27 128.27 29.89 17.09 38.73
Appendix 3: Fertilizer inputs for watermelon (kg/ha). Totals are shown in Table 6.
FERTILIZER BRAND FIELD 7 FIELD 8 FIELD 9
Chicken manure - 2200 - 2200
Organik Petrokimia 2400 - 2400
SP26 Petrokimia 400 - 400
Dolomite Kebomas 1000 750 1000
Goat manure - - 300 -
TSP Mahkota - 200 -
NPK 15-15-15 Mahkota - 200 -
Ultradap Pak tani 6 - 6
NPK Yaramila 300 - 300
Winner Yaramila 200 - 200
KCl Mahkota 150 200 150
NPK grower Mutiara 100 1500 100
NPK Pak tani - 100 -
53
Appendix 4: Three different linear mixed effects models for the variable yield and their AIC values.
DIFFERENT YIELD MODELS AIC

YIELD ~ INTERCROPPING + (1 | FIELD) -1417.0
YIELD ~ INTERCROPPING + MANAGED + (1 | FIELD) -1527.98
YIELD ~ INTERCROPPING + N_TOTAL_KG_HA + -678.48

P2O5_TOTAL_KG_HA + K2O_TOTAL_KG_HA + (1 | FIELD)
Appendix 5: The output for a linear mixed effects model for yield, with intercropping, N application,
P application and K application as fixed factors and field as random factor.
ESTIMATE STD. DF T VALUE PR(>|T|)

ERROR
(INTERCEPT) -2120.397 180.603 9.839 -11.74 4.17e-07
***
INTERCROPPINGWATERMELON 2175.977 155.826 91.961 13.96 < 2e-16
***
N_TOTAL_KG_HA 48.396 2.784 4.715 17.38 1.86e-05
***
P2O5_TOTAL_KG_HA 40.313 2.041 19.29 19.75 2.94e-14
***
K2O_TOTAL_KG_HA -52.483 3.52 2.927 -14.91 0.000747
***
Appendix 6: Unhealthy frond number per field. Used as confirmation for how well the oil palms were
managed.
54
Appendix 7: The relationship between FFB number and P application.
Appendix 8: Non-significant (leaf area, inflorescence sex ratio, rachis length) results for the
watermelon intercropping experiment. Poor = poorly-managed monoculture, inter = watermelon-
intercropped, well = well-managed monoculture
55
Poor Inter Well Poor Inter Well Poor Inter Well

Appendix 9: Non-significant trends of how oil palm is affected by banana intercropping. Performance
indicators are healthy frond number, inflorescence sex ratio and rachis length.
56
Appendix 10: Non-significant results of the cassava/maize-intercropping experiment
57

Establishment Intercropping The Effects of Water

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

Establishment Intercropping The Effects of Water

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Establishment intercropping: The effects

of watermelon, banana, cassava and

MSc thesis: PPS80436

Student number: 1017397

3.3 The influence of banana on oil palm growth and development................................................ 26

1.1 The dilemma of oil palm

1.2 The economic and environmental potential of intercropping

1.3 Resource use in oil palm

NUTRIENT VERY LOW LOW MODERATE HIGH VERY HIGH

1.4 Oil palm performance and effects of intercropping

1.4.1 Watermelon intercropping

1.4.2 Banana intercropping

1.4.3 Cassava intercropping

1.4.4 Maize intercropping

1.5 Problem statement and research objective

This question will be answered with the following sub questions:

RQ2: How cost-effective is watermelon - oil palm intercropping?

RQ3: How does oil palm affect intercrop maize performance?

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study area: Bengkulu

2.2.1 Vegetative growth indicators for oil palm

𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = 𝑅𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ + 𝑃𝑒𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ (1)

𝑆𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠 = 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟/2 (2)

𝐺𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝜋 (𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 + 𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑚 𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑖𝑢𝑠)2 (3)

𝐿𝑒𝑎𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 = 0.455 (𝑛 ∗ 𝑙 ∗ 𝑤) − 0.245 (4)

2.2.2 Productivity indicators for oil palm

Table 2: Oil palm measurements

2.3 Watermelon intercropping compared with oil palm monoculture

2.3.2 Interviews on oil palm and watermelon management

2.3.3 Transect walk, tree selection and general field parameters

2.3.4 Soil Sampling

2.4 Smallholder banana – oil palm intercropping

2.5 Intercropping with maize and cassava

2.5.1 Data collection

𝐶𝑜𝑏 𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 = 𝑐𝑜𝑏 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ ∗ max 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑓𝑢𝑙𝑙𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠/𝜋 (6)

2.6 Data analysis

Regarding the comparison between previously watermelon-intercropped fields with the

3.1 Oil palm performance when intercropped with watermelon

Table 4: Summary of the fields that were measured.

FIELD NO. CATEGORY PATTERN HISTORY AGE (MONTHS)

N content soil Moderate mininum Moderate maximum

P content soil Moderate mininum Moderate maximum

K content soil Moderate mininum Moderate maximum

3.1.2 The details of watermelon intercropping

Table 5: Watermelon cultivation details for the three fields.

FIELD 7 FIELD 8 FIELD 9

NUTRIENT FIELD 7 FIELD 8 FIELD 9

3.1.3 The effects of watermelon intercropping on oil palm performance

3.1.3.1 The effect of watermelon intercropping on oil palm yields

DF SUM SQ MEAN SQ F VALUE PR(>|T|)

Figure 6: Yield (kg/ha) per field category.

3.1.3.2 The effect of watermelon intercropping on FFB number

Total FFB ~ Intercropping + Management + (1|Field)

INTERCROPPING+ ESTIMATE STD. ERROR DF T VALUE PR(>|T|)

INTERCROPPING + NPK ESTIMATE STD. ERROR DF T VALUE PR(>|T|)

Figure 7: Total FFB number for the three field categories.

3.1.3.3 The effect of watermelon intercropping on Frond Number

MEAN SQ DF F VALUE PR(>F)

MEAN SQ DF F VALUE PR(>F)

INTERCROPPING 346.87 9 23.174 0.000955 ***

3.1.3.4 The effect of watermelon intercropping on ground projection

ESTIMATE STD. DF T VALUE PR(>|T|)