Effects of Bean Association on Yields and Yield Components of Maize¹

Abstract

Maize (Zea mays L.) in monoculture and in association with bush and climbing beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) was evaluated at CIAT in the Cauca Valley, Colombia (1,000 m elevation, 4° N lat). Since small farmers in the Andean zone plant maize at low densities in association with beans, the objectives were to measure the effects of the associated legume crop on maize yields and net returns.Maize yields did not differ significantly between monoculture and associated cropping at harvest densities from 3 to 4 ✕ 104 plants/ha, in trials with different bean cultivars, bean plant densities, planting systems, and relative dates of planting of the two crops. There were no significant differences between systems in the following maize components: ear length, ear and cob diameter, row number, shelling percent, weight per 100 seeds, harvest index, prolificacy index, total biological yield, or plant height. Lodging was less severe in an associated culture of maize, wiht an average of 16.4% in association compared to 28.7% in monocrop over six trials. Less fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda Smith) attack was observed in associated crop maize than in monoculture. Efficiency of land use increased with addition of beans to the system, and highest net income was achieved with associated cropping systems. These results may help to explain why small farmers continue to utilize associated cropping systems in the tropics of Latin America.

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

“…Average yields of soybean strips MG III were 6, 13, and 11% lower than those in the monoculture, whereas in MG V yields were 2, 8, and 8% lower than those in the monocultures during C1, C2, and C3, respectively (Figure 4). Results are similar to those obtained by Pendleton et al [35], Lesoing and Francis,[20,21], West and Griffith, [15], Ghaffarzadeh et al [16], and Francis et al [27].…”

“…As far as grain number per ear, which is related to ear size, there were no significant differences, as it has also been found by Lesoing and Francis [21] and Francis et al [27]. A probable explanation to this response is that although water stress occurred in year C2, it may have not been significant ).…”

Optimum plant population for maize-bean intercropping system in the Brazilian semi-arid region

“…At M2, grain yield of intercropped maize was not much different from sole cropping at similar nitrogen levels, but the highest yield, obtained at B2-N2, was higher than the yield for sole cropped maize at N1. This is in agreement with early findings by Francis et al (1978) for a maize-bean intercropping, where maize grain yields did not differ between sole and intercropping systems at a constant maize population.…”

Genetic variances, heritabilities and genetic correlations of grain yield, harvest index and yield components for common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in sole crop and in maize/bean intercrop

“…It is already established, however, that common bean is the critical component as it generally suffers more significant yield decline in a maize/bean intercrop (Francis et al 1978c;Davis and Garcia 1983). Furthermore, genotype × cropping system interactions are frequently encountered when a crop is grown in sole crop and intercrop, and these interactions are to the detriment of the dominated/understorey crop such as common bean (Davis and Woolley 1993).…”