2001
DOI: 10.1016/s1161-0301(01)00104-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interactions of bush bean intercropped with field and sweet maize

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

8
55
0
2

Year Published

2007
2007
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 86 publications
(65 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
8
55
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Similarly Varghese et al (1979) reported the negative effects of intercropping on yield of cabbage. Quayyum and Maniruzzaman (1995), Islam et al (2006) and Santalla et al (2001) also reported that seed yield was higher in monoculture as compared to their corresponding intercropped yield. The yield loss due to intercropping also reported by Ahmed et al (2013), Muoneke and Ndukwe (2008) and Manga et al (2003).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Similarly Varghese et al (1979) reported the negative effects of intercropping on yield of cabbage. Quayyum and Maniruzzaman (1995), Islam et al (2006) and Santalla et al (2001) also reported that seed yield was higher in monoculture as compared to their corresponding intercropped yield. The yield loss due to intercropping also reported by Ahmed et al (2013), Muoneke and Ndukwe (2008) and Manga et al (2003).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Usually plants differing in growth duration, height, rooting systems and nutrient requirements are considered to growth together in intercropping systems (Reddy and Willey, 1981). Better intercrop production could be achieved with the choice of the appropriate crops (Santalla et al, 2001), population density and planting geometry of component crops (Myaka 1995).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This implies that higher plant density and optimum spacing in the above crop ratios provided effective utilization of resources, such as land nutrients etc. Hence, efficiency in productivity and profitability can be accounted in these planting patterns (Santalla et al, 2001). The marginal cost of the sole crop of CP, FB, and BG was lower than the cost for production of sole M. All the intercrops showed additional yield advantages and therefore marginal returns were higher than the sole M. Apart from this, intercropping with different crops and their row proportion also required lower cost than the sole M due to drastic reduction of the cost involved in weeding, except in 1M:2CP.…”
Section: Monetary Advantagementioning
confidence: 99%
“…BEGUM et al (Santalla et al, 2001), shifting the period of peak demand for growth resources through changing the time of sowing of the component crops (Santalla et al, 1999) and when their component crops differ in photosynthetic pathway, growth habit, growth duration, alteration of planting arrangement and demand for growth resources (Fukai and Trenbath, 1993).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%