Yield advantage and water saving in maize/pea intercrop

Mao, Lili; Zhang, Lizhen; Wei-qi, LI; Werf, Wopke Van der; Sun, Jianhao; Spiertz, Huub; Li, Long

doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2012.09.019

Cited by 192 publications

(140 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The high LER values were mainly attributed to the superior individual yields of maize in intercropping than in monocropping at any N application rate across the three sites (Table 4). The vigorous growth of individual maize plants is commonly observed in replacement intercropping systems with subordinate legume crops, which compensated to some extent for the reduced planting densities (Sivakumar and Virmani, 1980;Mao et al, 2012). This compensation effect can be generally explained by the superior capture of available resources on a per-plant basis with a reduced planting density for maize.…”

Section: Performance Of the Maize-soybean Intercropping System In Normentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of Maize-Soybean Intercropping under Various N Application Rates and Soil Moisture Conditions in Northern Mozambique

Tsujimoto

Pedro

Boina

et al. 2015

Plant Production Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Performance Of the Maize-soybean Intercropping System In Normentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of Maize-Soybean Intercropping under Various N Application Rates and Soil Moisture Conditions in Northern Mozambique

Tsujimoto

Pedro

Boina

et al. 2015

Plant Production Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Mulching is a method of covering the soil surface that otherwise loses moisture through evaporation. Various studies show the importance of mulching to decrease ET per unit yield in crop production (Ogban et al, 2008;Zhao et al, 2003;Zhou et al, 2011;Mao et al, 2012;Jalota and Prihar, 1998).…”

Section: Published By Copernicus Publications On Behalf Of the Europementioning

confidence: 99%

Green and blue water footprint reduction in irrigated agriculture: effect of irrigation techniques, irrigation strategies and mulching

Chukalla¹,

Krol²,

Hoekstra³

2015

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

236

164

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Consumptive water footprint (WF) reduction in irrigated crop production is essential given the increasing competition for freshwater. This study explores the effect of three management practices on the soil water balance and plant growth, specifically on evapotranspiration (ET) and yield (Y ) and thus the consumptive WF of crops (ET / Y ). The management practices are four irrigation techniques (furrow, sprinkler, drip and subsurface drip (SSD)), four irrigation strategies (full (FI), deficit (DI), supplementary (SI) and no irrigation), and three mulching practices (no mulching, organic (OML) and synthetic (SML) mulching). Various cases were considered: arid, semi-arid, sub-humid and humid environments in Israel, Spain, Italy and the UK, respectively; wet, normal and dry years; three soil types (sand, sandy loam and silty clay loam); and three crops (maize, potato and tomato). The AquaCrop model and the global WF accounting standard were used to relate the management practices to effects on ET, Y and WF. For each management practice, the associated green, blue and total consumptive WF were compared to the reference case (furrow irrigation, full irrigation, no mulching). The average reduction in the consumptive WF is 8-10 % if we change from the reference to drip or SSD, 13 % when changing to OML, 17-18 % when moving to drip or SSD in combination with OML, and 28 % for drip or SSD in combination with SML. All before-mentioned reductions increase by one or a few per cent when moving from full to deficit irrigation. Reduction in overall consumptive WF always goes together with an increasing ratio of green to blue WF. The WF of growing a crop for a particular environment is smallest under DI, followed by FI, SI and rain-fed. Growing crops with sprinkler irrigation has the largest consumptive WF, followed by furrow, drip and SSD. Furrow irrigation has a smaller consumptive WF compared with sprinkler, even though the classical measure of "irrigation efficiency" for furrow is lower.

show abstract

“…The CLI technique promotes an increase in the use efficiency of the land and natural resources such as water, light and nitrogen (N) (Mao et al, 2012;Jannoura et al, 2014), thus establishing the sustainable management of agricultural and livestock production (Bell et al, 2014;Crusciol et al, 2014;Lemaire et al, 2014;Salton et al, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of nitrogen fertilization on yield components in a corn-palisadegrass intercropping system

Almeida¹,

Favarin²,

Otto³

et al. 2017

Aust J Crop Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pasture and grain crop intercropping is considered an alternative for increasing biomass production during the winter periods in Brazil for the establishment of no-tillage systems. We studied nitrogen (N) fertilization rates in a corn-palisadegrass intercropping system that would allow both corn and biomass production without a reduction in corn yield. A field trial was carried out in São Desidério, Bahia -Brazil using a complete block experimental design with a 5 x 2 factorial layout with two factors: N rate (control, 50, 100, 150, and 200 kg ha -1 N) and two cropping systems (corn with or without palisadegrass). Both corn and palisadegrass were sown simultaneously with N fertilizer applied at sowing. The measurements included corn biomass, grain yield and N uptake. In addition, palisadegrass biomass was assessed at corn harvest and at three consecutive times during the winter. There was an interaction between N rates and the intercropping system. Grain yield was affected by intercropping when N fertilizer rates were lower than 100 kg ha -1 , but above that rate, corn grain yield reached 10,000 kg ha -1 and was similar with or without palisadegrass. Nitrogen fertilizers also positively affected corn N uptake. There was no residual effect of N fertilization on palisadegrass biomass production during the sampling periods. However, the biomass of the palisadegrass increased during the winter period and reached 5,000 kg ha -1 of dry matter by the following season. There was no corn yield reduction when corn was intercropped with palisadegrass using nitrogen rates above 100 kg ha -1 . In addition, it is possible to increase biomass production for the establishment of no-tillage systems in Brazil.

show abstract

Yield advantage and water saving in maize/pea intercrop

Cited by 192 publications

References 31 publications

Performance of Maize-Soybean Intercropping under Various N Application Rates and Soil Moisture Conditions in Northern Mozambique

Performance of Maize-Soybean Intercropping under Various N Application Rates and Soil Moisture Conditions in Northern Mozambique

Green and blue water footprint reduction in irrigated agriculture: effect of irrigation techniques, irrigation strategies and mulching

Effects of nitrogen fertilization on yield components in a corn-palisadegrass intercropping system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About