2007
DOI: 10.1590/s0103-90162007000600010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Competition in a rice - cowpea intercrop as affected by nitrogen fertilizer and plant population

Abstract: The increased productivity or yield advantage provided by intercropping is attributed to a better use of resources by crops grown in mixtures, as compared to the same species grown in sole stands. In an intercropping system with upland rice and cowpea, the intra and inter-competition was quantified, as affected by plant population density and rate of nitrogen. Reductions in number of panicles per rice plant and number of grains per panicle were obtained with high density in both sole and mixture rice populatio… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

4
15
0
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
(11 reference statements)
4
15
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Results showed positive aggressivity for sorghum at 2S:1C and 1S:1C planting patterns while it proved less competitive and was dominated by cowpea at 1S:2C planting pattern. This agreed with the findings of Oroka and Omoregie (2007) who obtained higher aggressivity in cowpea over rice at higher population densities. The competitive ratio which measures the degree with which one crop competes with the other showed that sorghum had higher competitive indices than cowpea in all the planting patterns except 1S:2C arrangement.…”
Section: A Cr and Mai Of Sorghum-cowpea Intercropsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Results showed positive aggressivity for sorghum at 2S:1C and 1S:1C planting patterns while it proved less competitive and was dominated by cowpea at 1S:2C planting pattern. This agreed with the findings of Oroka and Omoregie (2007) who obtained higher aggressivity in cowpea over rice at higher population densities. The competitive ratio which measures the degree with which one crop competes with the other showed that sorghum had higher competitive indices than cowpea in all the planting patterns except 1S:2C arrangement.…”
Section: A Cr and Mai Of Sorghum-cowpea Intercropsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…The results have showed that mixed cropping of rice and cowpea under CCD and CD is economically efficient, as indicated by the LER values in both 2009 and 2010. Other studies (Okereke and Ayama, 1992;Okonji et al, 2007;Oroka and Omoregie, 2007) have reported increased biological efficiency of rice-cowpea intercrops indicated by LER >1. The yield advantage of the ricecowpea mixed cropping may be attributed to more efficient light utilization in the combination of tall rice with short cowpea.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 87%
“…In addition, the harvest of cowpea during the reproductive stage (early heading) of rice could have contributed to the higher productivity of rice under the mixed cropping system, as a result of less plant-plant interaction and competition for resources after the harvest of cowpea. Oroka and Omoregie (2007) also reported an increase in panicle number per hill of rice intercropped with cowpea over their sole rice crops. The reduction in rice grain yield under the mixed cropping system compared with the grain yield of rice under the sole cropping system was due to the higher population of rice plants under the sole than under the mixed cropping system.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Similarly, in the potato-maize mixture, increase in maize plant population resulted in a decline in tuber yield (Ebwongu et al, 2001), due to reduced light interception by the potato hence the reduced photosynthetic activities of the crop. Apart from light, crops grown in association compete for water and nutrients in the soil (Oroka and Omoregie, 2007), and high plant densities result in increased competition for these resources, consequently causing low yields (Zamir et al, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%