Tillage Effect on Soil Water Content and Corn Yield in a Strip Intercropping System

Abstract

A three‐crop strip intercropping system including corn (Zea mays L.), soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.], and oat (Avena sativa L.) interseeded with nondormant alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), was established in south‐central Iowa on a poorly drained Haig soil (fine, smectitic, mesic Vertic Argiaquoll). In 1989 (a dry year) and 1990 (a wet year), we studied the effect of tillage treatment (conventional, CT; reduced, RT; and no‐till, NT) and row position on soil water content, canopy and air temperatures, corn grain yield, and yield components. No‐till resulted in the most favorable soil water status, plant water status, and grain yield in 1989. No‐till had the poorest performance in 1990, mainly because of excessive soil water. The opposite was true for conventional till in both years. Reduced till yield equaled that for the most productive tillage treatment in both years. Conventional and reduced tillage resulted in lower corn grain yield at the border with oat‐alfalfa than with soybean because oat depleted soil water more than soybean in both years. In contrast, for no‐till the corn grain yield at the border with oat‐alfalfa was 6% greater than corn yield bordering soybean in 1989 and 13% greater in 1990. When water was not limiting, in 1990, both corn borders outyielded the center rows by an average of 14% in NT, 27% in RT, and 28% in CT. Soil water content rankings throughout the 1989 season were NT > RT > CT and row position rankings were soybean border > center > oats‐alfalfa border. In 1990, there were no soil water content differences between tillage treatments and row positions. Reduced tillage is the most suitable soil management system for corn production with three‐crop strip intercropping on this soil, considering consistently high relative yields for both wet and dry years.

Corn and Soybeans in a Strip Intercropping System: Crop Growth Rates, Radiation Interception, and Grain Yield Components

“…Plants of row 1 generated a second ear in 60% of the time of plants of row 1 and plants of row 12 generated a second ear 40% of the time (Table 3). Similar results were reported by Lesoing and Francis [20] and Ghaffarzadeh et al [26].…”

“…Previous experiments report contrasting responses on the water stress on this yield component [20,21,26,28,29]. It is important to note that two weeks following crop blooming, the young grain does not accumulate dry weight.…”

Strip Intercropping Effects on Yield and Yield Components of Corn, Grain Sorghum, and Soybean

“…Although significant at only two of six site years, higher plant populations in our border rows were associated with higher yields. Ghaffarzadeh et al (1997) found more ears per plant, more kernels per ear, and higher seed weight from corn in border rows next to soybean than in the inside rows of the corn strips. West and Griffith (1992) found higher yields for intercropped corn at higher populations than in solid‐seeded rows.…”

In support of a well-planned intercropping systems in south eastern soils of Nigeria: A review

“…Yang et al (2010) found out that grain yield and N uptake of maize in intercrop were significantly greater than those of sole maize and grain yield of soybean as an intercrop which is significantly lower than sole soybean and their N uptake relatively, thus indicating that intercropping favoured nutrient uptake and growth of maize and the growth of soybean significantly. According to Ghaffarzadeh et al (1997), the basic ideas are based on how different species interact during intercropping competition for resources which arise from varying time of planting, root growth patterns and different resource demands. At high levels of N, under intercropping, Ezumah et al (1987) and Ofori and Stern (1987) observed that grain and legume yield was reduced by the maize intercrop.…”