Effects of nitrogen supply and spatial arrangement on the grain yield of a maize/soybean intercrop in a humid subtropical climate

Effect of Intercropping and Crop Arrangement on Yield and Productivity of Late Season Maize/soybean Mixtures in the Humid Environment of South Southern Nigeria

“…The 2:2 arrangement was, therefore, the best arrangement in this study, followed by the 1:2 arrangement. These trends are similar to those reported for early season crops by Ofori and Stern (1987), Clement et al (1992), Ennin et al (2002), Silwana et al (2007) and Ullah et al (2007) that 2 maize rows: 2 soybean rows or 1 maize row: 2 soybean rows resulted in more grain yield than planting the crops in single alternate rows. Since the populations in each of the arrangements were the same, any yield difference in this study might be attributed to plant arrangement effect, thus, better resources utilization as reported by Keating and Carberry (1993), Ennin et al (2002) and Banik and Sharma (2009).…”

“…Montha and De (1980) recommended one row of maize alternating with two rows of soybean and alternating single rows of sorghum and soybean as the best arrangements for the cultivation of the two cereals with soybean. Some other reports also indicated that planting two rows of soybean after one row of maize was the best arrangement over single alternate rows (Ofori and Stern, 1987;Clement et al, 1992, Ullah et al, 2007. A wide range of other legume-maize intercrops have been found to respond better to two rows of legume after one row of maize (Odhiambo and Ariga, 2001;Marer et al, 2007;Banik and Sharma, 2009).…”

Meta‐Analysis of the Effect of Nitrogen Fertilization on Annual Cereal–Legume Intercrop Production

“…The solid line corresponds to the model estimation for an N rate of 0 kg N ha −1 ; the dashed line corresponds to the model estimation for N1; the dotted line corresponds to the model estimation for N2. The studies are the following: (a) Bedoussac and Justes (2010b); (b) Ghaley et al (2005); (c) Pelzer et al (unpublished data, 2009–2010); (d) Pelzer et al (2012); (e) Hauggaard‐Nielsen and Jensen (2001); (f) Jensen (1996); (g) Mohsenabadi et al (2008); (h) Cardoso et al (2007); (i) Chowdhury and Rosario (1994); (j) Shisanya and Gitonga (2007); (k) Siame et al (1998); (l) Ahmed and Rao (1982); (m) Clement et al (1992b); (n) Ofori et al (1987); (o) Rao et al (1987); (p) Adu‐Gyamfi et al (1997); (q) Baker and Blamey (1985); and (r) Oroka and Omoregie (2007).…”

“…Most of the selected experiments made use of a replacement design (50–50, i.e., sowing rates for each crop in the intercrop that was half the rate for sole crops) or a full substitutive design (100–100, i.e., the same sowing rate in the intercrop and in sole crops), with only a few making use of a partial substitutive design (100–50, 50–100, and 90–75). In terms of spatial arrangement, the intercrops were strip or row intercrops, consisting of alternate rows (one or several) of the species (e.g., Bedoussac and Justes, 2010b; Clement et al, 1992b; Siame et al, 1998) or mixed intercrops, in which the two species were mixed in the same row (e.g., Cardoso et al, 2007; Ghaley et al, 2005; Pelzer et al, 2012). Nitrogen fertilization rates ranged from 0 to 180 kg N ha −1 .…”

“…In several studies, N fertilization was found to have a positive effect on the intercropped cereal and a negative effect on the intercropped legume (Andersen et al, 2005; Chowdhury and Rosario, 1992; Clement et al, 1992b; Ezumah et al, 1987; Ghaley et al, 2005; Hauggaard‐Nielsen and Jensen, 2001; Jensen, 1996; Naudin et al, 2010; Rao et al, 1987). Nitrogen fertilization has frequently been found to have no effect on the total grain yield of the intercrop or to decrease this yield, and has been shown to increase the proportion of cereal in the mixture.…”