Impact of mungbean-maize intercropping on growth ... - Wssp.org.pk

Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 18(2): 191-200, 2012 

IMPACT OF MUNGBEAN-MAIZE INTERCROPPING ON GROWTH 

AND YIELD OF MUNGBEAN 

Muhammad Azim Khan 1 , Khalid Naveed 2 , Kawsar Ali 1 , Bashir 

Ahmad and Samin Jan 3 

ABSTRACT 

The influence <strong>of</strong> different <strong>intercropping</strong> treatments on yield and 

yield components <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> was investigated at the New 

Developmental Farm <strong>of</strong> Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University 

Peshawar. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block 

design with three replications, and comprised <strong>of</strong> five treatments viz, sole 

<strong>mungbean</strong>, <strong>maize</strong> + 1 row <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> simultaneously seeded, 

intercrop <strong>maize</strong> + 2 rows <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> simultaneously seeded, intercrop 

<strong>maize</strong> + 1 row <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> delay seeded by 3 weeks, intercrop <strong>maize</strong> + 

2 rows <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> delay seeded by 3 weeks. The treatments 

significantly affected nodules plant -1 , nodule dry weight, pods plant -1 , 

number <strong>of</strong> grains pod -1 , thousand grain weight, grain yield and biological 

yield; though the impact was non-significant on weeds fresh and dry 

biomass parameters. Highest number <strong>of</strong> nodules plant -1 (9.87), nodules 

dry weight (2.10 g), number <strong>of</strong> pods plant -1 (17.32), number <strong>of</strong> grains 

pod -1 (4.23), thousand grain weight ( 39.33 g), biological yield (1654 kg 

ha -1 ) and grain yield (525 kg ha -1 ) <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> was recorded in plots 

where sole <strong>mungbean</strong> was cultivated as compared to <strong>intercropping</strong> with 

<strong>maize</strong> in all combinations. In conclusion, the sole cultivation <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>mungbean</strong> was the most effective <strong>intercropping</strong> system in terms <strong>of</strong> yield 

and yield components <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> crop. 

Key words: <strong>intercropping</strong>, legume, <strong>maize</strong>, <strong>mungbean</strong>, yield. 

INTRODUCTION 

Mung Bean (Vigna radiata L.), a member <strong>of</strong> the Fabaceae 

family, is a tropical legume. It is a warm season annual, highly 

branched and having trifoliate leaves with plants varying from one to 

five feet in length. Mungbean seeds are primarily used for food 

purposes. They are a rich source <strong>of</strong> lysine and proteins, and thus can 

supplement cereal-based human diet. In Pakistan, the whole or split 

seed is usually cooked as dhal or boiled with rice (Rosaiah et al., 1993, 

Singh and Singh, 1992). Mungbean stalks, leaves and husk constitute 

a significant proportion <strong>of</strong> livestock feed. 

Intercropping is the practice <strong>of</strong> growing two or more crops 

together in a single field. The main purpose <strong>of</strong> <strong>intercropping</strong> is to 

1 

KPK Agricultural University Peshawar, Pakistan. 2 Hazara University, Haripur Campus, 

Haripur, Pakistan. 3 Department <strong>of</strong> Botany, Islamia College University Peshawar, 

Pakistan. Correspondance email: azim@aup.edu.pk.

192 Muhammad Azim Khan et al., <strong>Impact</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong>-<strong>maize</strong> … 

produce a greater yield on a given piece <strong>of</strong> land by making use <strong>of</strong> 

resources that would otherwise not be utilized by a single crop 

efficiently. Legume <strong>intercropping</strong> systems play a significant role in the 

efficient utilization <strong>of</strong> resources. Cereal-legume <strong>intercropping</strong> is a more 

productive and pr<strong>of</strong>itable cropping system in comparison with solitary 

cropping (Evan et al., 2001). Philosophy <strong>of</strong> <strong>intercropping</strong> is 

improvement <strong>of</strong> resource utilization efficiency and increase production 

per unit area (Zhang et al., 2007). Kumar et al. (2008) concluded that 

soil surface remained moist in the intercrop during dry spell <strong>of</strong> 6-8 

days when compared to sole <strong>maize</strong> cropping. Decline <strong>of</strong> external inputs 

and increased demand <strong>of</strong> home grown feed together with a more 

efficient nutrient use from leguminous symbiotic dinitrogen (N2) 

fixation (SNF) can result in a decrease <strong>of</strong> nitrogen and mineral losses. 

The main subject <strong>of</strong> <strong>intercropping</strong> is to augment total 

productivity per unit area and time, besides judicious and equitable 

utilization <strong>of</strong> land resources and farming inputs including labors (Marer 

et al., 2007). Maize + legume <strong>intercropping</strong> was found more 

productive and remunerative compared to sole cropping according to 

Li et al., (2003). Intercropping is being considered to utilize these 

resources in an efficient way and is also the most economical way to 

increase production per unit area and per unit time. Intercropping is 

becoming popular in Pakistan among farmers due its multiple benefits 

(Nazir et al., 1997). Maize-legume <strong>intercropping</strong> systems are able to 

lessen amount <strong>of</strong> nutrients taken from the soil in comparison to a 

<strong>maize</strong> monocrop (Tsubo et al., 2003). Kamanga et al. (2010) reported 

that <strong>maize</strong>-legume <strong>intercropping</strong> was a more productive system and a 

less risky technology. Higher crop productivity and efficiency in 

resource use was observed in <strong>maize</strong>-bean <strong>intercropping</strong> systems than 

in the respective sole cropping (Tsubo et al., 2003). 

Among legume-cereal <strong>intercropping</strong> system, the combination <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>maize</strong> + pigeonpea was considered to be highly suitable with a 

minimum competition for nutrients, while legume + legume 

<strong>intercropping</strong> system, pigeonpea + groundnut system was the most 

efficient one in terms <strong>of</strong> resource use-efficiency (Ghosh et al., 2007). 

MATERIALS AND METHODS 

The experiment was conducted at the Agricultural Research 

Farm, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural University (Peshawar) during 

Summer 2011. The experiment consisted in different <strong>intercropping</strong> 

combinations <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> with <strong>maize</strong> in one and two rows, 

respectively, with simultaneous and delay sowing. Treatments were 

<strong>mungbean</strong> mono cropping, <strong>mungbean</strong>-<strong>maize</strong> one and two row 

simultaneously sowing and <strong>mungbean</strong>-<strong>maize</strong> one and two rows delay 

sowing by three weeks. The experiment was laid out in randomized

Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 18(2): 191-200, 2012 193 

complete block design with three replications. The crop was grown on 

soil previously ploughed twice and then planked to level the field at 

proper moisture. A composite soil sample was taken from 

experimental field before planting and samples were collected from 

each experimental unit after the harvest <strong>of</strong> the crop for determination 

<strong>of</strong> soil fertility. Full dose <strong>of</strong> P and half N was applied at time <strong>of</strong> planting 

whereas the remaining half <strong>of</strong> N was applied with first irrigation. 

Intercropped treatments did not receive extra fertilizer dose due to the 

fact that leguminous crops fix nitrogen to compensate its requirement. 

Plot size <strong>of</strong> 4 x 5 m was used. Mungbean seeds were planted by hand 

hoe simultaneously or with inter cultivation in <strong>maize</strong> rows as per 

treatment description. Treflan EC was applied as pre-emergence 

herbicide for weeds control in <strong>mungbean</strong>. Data were recorded on 

number <strong>of</strong> nodules plant -1 at pod filling stage, dry biomass <strong>of</strong> nodules 

plant -1 at pod filling stage, number <strong>of</strong> pods plant -1 , number <strong>of</strong> seeds 

pod -1 , 1000 seed weight, biological and grain yield. 

Three plants were uprooted with a ball <strong>of</strong> soil for recording 

number <strong>of</strong> nodules per plant at pod filling stage. With root portion 

intact, the ball <strong>of</strong> soil was washed gently with clean water followed by 

washing with camel hair-brush to dislodge any soil particles adhering 

to it. Nodules were removed from roots for counting their number and 

recording dry mass. Numbers <strong>of</strong> pods were counted for sampled plants 

and then were averaged for calculating number <strong>of</strong> pods plant -1 . 

Similarly weight <strong>of</strong> 1000 seed was recorded for each plot on average 

basis. To record biological yield, two central rows were harvested in 

each treatment, bundled, sun dried and were weighed. The data was 

then converted to kg ha -1 . Grain yield was recorded after threshing 

pods <strong>of</strong> each treatment separately and then was converted to kg ha -1 . 

Statistical Analysis 

The data were statistically analyzed using the procedure 

appropriate for randomized complete block (RCB) design. Means were 

compared using least significant difference (LSD) test at 5% level <strong>of</strong> 

probability when F values are significant (Steel and Torrie, 1983). 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 

Fresh and dry weeds biomass (g m -2 ) 

Weeds fresh biomass as affected by various <strong>intercropping</strong> 

intensities and weeds control treatment is given in Table-1. Statistical 

analysis <strong>of</strong> the data revealed that none <strong>of</strong> the treatments caused any 

significant change in weeds fresh biomass. However, higher fresh 

weeds biomass (2760 g) was observed in plots where <strong>maize</strong><strong>mungbean</strong> 

one row simultaneously <strong>intercropping</strong> was practiced. While 

lower fresh weeds biomass (480 g) was produced by sole <strong>mungbean</strong> 

cultivated plots. Weeds dry biomass as affected by various treatments


under study showed that the effect <strong>of</strong> all treatment also remained not 

significant. Though, lower weeds fresh biomass (132 g) was recorded 

in plots where sole <strong>mungbean</strong> was sowed whereas higher weeds fresh 

biomass (570 g) was produced by plots where <strong>maize</strong>-<strong>mungbean</strong> two 

rows delay sowing was practiced. 

Number <strong>of</strong> nodules plant -1 

Effective nodulation determines the nitrogen fixation ability <strong>of</strong> 

legume. Nitrogen fixation by legume is gaining attention as it 

contributes substantial amount <strong>of</strong> nitrogen in agricultural ecosystems. 

Nodule formation is characteristic <strong>of</strong> legume. Maize <strong>mungbean</strong> 

<strong>intercropping</strong> caused difference in number <strong>of</strong> nodule plant -1 <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>mungbean</strong>. Higher nodule density (9.87) was recorded in plots where 

<strong>mungbean</strong> was sown alone while lower nodules plant -1 (4.98) were 

recorded in plots where <strong>maize</strong> was intercropped with one row <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>mungbean</strong> delay seeded by three weeks which was at par with 

<strong>mungbean</strong> intercropped with two rows <strong>of</strong> <strong>maize</strong> seeded delay by three 

weeks. Zero competition and early root establishment in sole 

<strong>mungbean</strong> plots might be the possible reason for improved number <strong>of</strong> 

nodules plant -1 while increase <strong>of</strong> intercropped with <strong>maize</strong> conditions 

were not suitable for nodule establishment as <strong>maize</strong> has deep roots 

which are better competitor for available resources as compared to 

<strong>mungbean</strong> (Mosses et al., 2010). Our results confirm the findings <strong>of</strong> 

Saleem (2006) who found higher nodules plant -1 in sole <strong>mungbean</strong> 

while <strong>mungbean</strong> intercropped in <strong>maize</strong> registered lower nodules plant -1 . 

However, Agegnehu and Ghizam (2006) reported that the number <strong>of</strong> 

nodule plant -1 and nodule dry weight <strong>of</strong> chickpea and <strong>mungbean</strong> 

increased when intercropped with cereals. 

Dry biomass <strong>of</strong> nodules plant -1 

Mungbean had a significant role in improving the productivity <strong>of</strong> 

cereal-based cropping systems mainly because <strong>of</strong> their nitrogen fixing 

ability and nodulation. Significant variation was observed when 

<strong>mungbean</strong> was intercropped with <strong>maize</strong> in various combinations 

(Table-1). Higher nodule dry biomass per plant (2.10 g) was recorded 

in plots where <strong>mungbean</strong> mono cropping was practiced which was at 

par with <strong>intercropping</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>maize</strong> with one row <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> seeded 

simultaneously (2.07) followed by two rows <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> seeded 

simultaneously (1.94 g). Mungbean <strong>intercropping</strong> with <strong>maize</strong> delay 

sowing by three weeks resulted in lower nodule dry weight plant -1 

(1.35 g). Higher nodule dry biomass in sole <strong>mungbean</strong> crop might be 

attributed to higher nodule density and formation <strong>of</strong> healthy nodule in 

these plots due to no shading effect and no competition by <strong>maize</strong> crop. 

Similar results are reported by Saleem (2006) who concluded that 

higher nodule dry weight plant -1 was recorded in sole <strong>mungbean</strong> 

cultivated fields while <strong>mungbean</strong> intercropped in <strong>maize</strong> registered


lower nodule dry weight plant -1 . Similarly increased dry weight <strong>of</strong> 

nodule in intercropped treatment might be due to positive effect <strong>of</strong> 

cereal on <strong>mungbean</strong> nodulation. Maximum nodule dry biomass under 

<strong>intercropping</strong> system over pure stand <strong>of</strong> legume is an indication <strong>of</strong> 

more atmospheric nitrogen fixation in the crop mixture (Agbage et al., 

2002). Higher nodule dry biomass may also be due to the “facilitative 

interaction” <strong>of</strong> <strong>intercropping</strong> (Li et al., 2003). 

Number <strong>of</strong> pods plant -1 

Number <strong>of</strong> pods plant -1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> directly influences grain 

yield <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong>. Different <strong>intercropping</strong> treatments caused 

significant variation in pods plant -1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong>. Pods plant -1 were 

higher in case <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> monocropping (17.32) as compared to 

<strong>intercropping</strong> with <strong>maize</strong> while lower pods plant -1 (9.07) were recorded 

in plots where <strong>maize</strong> was intercropped with one row <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> 

seeded delay by three weeks. Possible reason for higher pods plant -1 in 

sole <strong>mungbean</strong> plots might be attributed to no inter specific 

competition and better utilization <strong>of</strong> nitrogen being applied as a starter 

dose and fixed by root nodule. Being drought resistant crop <strong>mungbean</strong> 

crop can not tolerate excess water if it is grown with <strong>maize</strong> as 

intercrop where more water is applied. It is also not possible to drain 

out all water quickly from <strong>maize</strong> crop which caused reduction in 

<strong>mungbean</strong> pods plant -1 (Asim et al., 2006). Similar results are 

reported by Islam et al. (2006) who observed that number <strong>of</strong> pods 

plant -1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> were higher in monoculture as compared to their 

corresponding intercropped. 

Number <strong>of</strong> grains pod -1 

Grain yield <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> directly depends on number <strong>of</strong> grains 

pod -1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong>. Different <strong>intercropping</strong> treatment <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> 

with <strong>maize</strong> significantly affected number <strong>of</strong> grains pod -1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> 

(Table-2). Number <strong>of</strong> grains pod -1 were higher in case <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> 

mono cropping (4.23) over all intercrop treatments followed by plots 

where <strong>maize</strong> was sown with <strong>mungbean</strong> in tow rows seeded 

simultaneously (3.51). Intercropping <strong>of</strong> <strong>maize</strong> with two rows <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>mungbean</strong> delay sowing by three weeks resulted in fewer grains pod -1 

(3.06). Possible reason for higher number <strong>of</strong> grains pod -1 in sole 

<strong>mungbean</strong> plots could be attributed to availability <strong>of</strong> more nutrients 

and less interspecific competition between <strong>maize</strong> and <strong>mungbean</strong> crop 

for available resources. Plots where <strong>mungbean</strong> were sown alone were 

fully exploited to irradiance that improved yield components and light 

penetration to the canopy <strong>of</strong> the legume component (Oljaca et al., 

2000). These results are in contrast to Bhatti et al. (2006) who 

observed non significant variation in number <strong>of</strong> grains pod -1 when 

<strong>mungbean</strong> was intercropped with sesame.


Thousand seed weight (g) 

Thousand grain weight is an important yield contributing 

parameter which positively affect final yield <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong>. Thousand 

grain weight was significantly affected by <strong>intercropping</strong> <strong>of</strong> munbbean 

with <strong>maize</strong> at various proportions. Heavier grains (39.33 g) were 

recorded in plots where <strong>mungbean</strong> was sown alone while grain weight 

was lower in plots where <strong>mungbean</strong> was planted with tow rows <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>maize</strong> seeded delay by three weeks (28.98 g). Inter cropped 

<strong>mungbean</strong> produced lighter grains as compared to sole <strong>mungbean</strong> 

cultivation. Increments in 1000-grain weight <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> in sole 

<strong>mungbean</strong> cultivated plots are attributed to favorable growing 

conditions which improved nutrient and water uptake. It might be due 

to increased nitrogen fixation and full utilization <strong>of</strong> P and N during 

growing period by <strong>mungbean</strong> itself while incase <strong>of</strong> <strong>intercropping</strong> these 

resources was shared by <strong>maize</strong> crop which is strong competitor as 

compared to <strong>mungbean</strong> due its improved plant geometry 

(Thavaprakaash et al., 2005). Our results are in agreement with 

Saleem (2010) who reported that <strong>mungbean</strong> grain weight and yield 

was convincingly higher when it was sown alone as compared to 

intercropped bean. 

Biological yield (kg ha -1 ) 

Biological yield <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> responded significantly to various 

<strong>intercropping</strong> treatments (Table-2). Sole <strong>mungbean</strong> performed better 

than intercropped <strong>mungbean</strong> and higher biological yield was obtained 

from plots where <strong>mungbean</strong> was sown alone (kg ha -1 ) followed by 

<strong>mungbean</strong> intercropped with one row <strong>of</strong> <strong>maize</strong> seeded simultaneously 

while <strong>maize</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> two rows seeded simultaneously resulted in 

lower biological yield. Maize-<strong>mungbean</strong> <strong>intercropping</strong> decreased 

<strong>mungbean</strong> biological yield by 21 % as compared to <strong>mungbean</strong> mono 

cropping. It might be due to less photosynthetic activities by 

<strong>mungbean</strong> crop due to less exposure to sunlight and canopy covered 

by <strong>maize</strong> leaves. Intercropping systems between <strong>maize</strong> and <strong>mungbean</strong> 

may face a complex series <strong>of</strong> inter- and intra-specific competition 

which is mostly won by <strong>maize</strong> (Izaurralde et al., 1990). Our results are 

supported by Giller and Cadisch (1995) and Evan et al. (2001) who 

reported that light use efficiency, water uptake, nutrient absorption 

and enzymatic activities were much better in <strong>maize</strong> as compared to 

<strong>mungbean</strong> when intercropped with each other. Intercropping 

drastically reduced biological yield <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> but <strong>maize</strong> showed 

negligible reductions; the reductions were evident when the crops 

reached at flowering (Singh, 2000). 

Grain yield (kg ha -1 ) 

Data regarding grain yield <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> are presented in Table- 

2. Mungbean grain yield varied significantly in different <strong>intercropping</strong>


treatments. Higher grain yield (525 kg ha -1 ) was recorded in plots 

where <strong>mungbean</strong> was sown alone followed by <strong>maize</strong>-<strong>mungbean</strong> one 

row simultaneously seeded plots. Mungbean grain yield was lower 

(393 kg ha -1 ) in plots where <strong>maize</strong>-<strong>mungbean</strong> two rows simultaneously 

<strong>intercropping</strong> was practiced. Maize <strong>mungbean</strong> Intercropping caused 

33% reductions in <strong>mungbean</strong> yield as compared to sole <strong>mungbean</strong> 

cultivation. Possible reason for yield loses might be due to interspecific 

competition between <strong>maize</strong> and <strong>mungbean</strong> for below and 

above ground growth factors i.e. soil moisture, nutrient, space and 

solar radiation. Also lower grain yield in intercropped plots may be due 

to shading effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>maize</strong> on <strong>mungbean</strong> due to variation in plant 

architecture. Light capture might be considered the primary source <strong>of</strong> 

competition as the other major growth factors such as water and 

nitrogen, were at adequate levels throughout the cropping system. 

Similar results are reported by Tsubo and Walker (2002) who observed 

28% reduction in <strong>mungbean</strong> yields in the <strong>maize</strong>-bean <strong>intercropping</strong> 

systems. Mungbean yield and yield attributing parameters adversely 

affected in <strong>intercropping</strong> with <strong>maize</strong> and it might be due to poor 

competition <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> for nutrient as compared to <strong>maize</strong> 

(Sunilkumar et al., 2005). Our findings are strongly supported by 

Islam et al. (1995) who concluded that grain yield <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> 

declined with increasing <strong>intercropping</strong> intensity with <strong>maize</strong> confirming 

that <strong>mungbean</strong> is susceptible to competition from <strong>maize</strong> in this 

<strong>intercropping</strong> system. Light competition is also suspected <strong>of</strong> being the 

primary limiting factor responsible for reduced <strong>mungbean</strong> yield. Yield 

reduction <strong>of</strong> 45% was noted in this cropping system. 

Table-1. Fresh and dry weed biomass (g m -2 ), Number <strong>of</strong> 

nodules plant -1 , nodule dry weight plant -1 (g) and 

pods plant -1 <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> as affected by different 

<strong>intercropping</strong> treatments. 

Treatments Fresh weed 

biomass 

Dry weed 

biomass 

Nodules 

plant -1 

Nodule dry 

weight plant - 

Pods 

plant -1 

(g m -2 ) (g m -2 ) 

1 

Mungbean sole 480 15 9.87 a 2.10 a 17.32 a 

MMIS 1380 33 8.07 ab 2.07 a 11.77 b 

MM2S 1110 28 7.08 bc 1.94 a 9.33 c 

MM1D 1320 36 4.87 d 1.28 b 9.07 c 

MM2D 2760 63 5.43 cd 1.35 b 9.85 bc 

LSD (0.05) NS NS 2.06 0.45 2.393 

Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly 

different at p≤0.05. 

MM1S and MM2S = <strong>mungbean</strong>-<strong>maize</strong> one and two rows 

simultaneously, respectively.


MM1D and MM2D = Mungbean-<strong>maize</strong> one and two rows delayed 

sowing by three weeks 

Table-2. Number <strong>of</strong> grains pod -1 , thousand grain weight (g), 

biological yield (kg ha -1 ) and grain yield kg ha -1 <strong>of</strong> 

<strong>mungbean</strong> as affected by different <strong>intercropping</strong> 

treatments. 

Treatments Grains 

pod -1 

1000 grain 

weight 

(g) 

Biological 

yield 

(kg ha -1 ) 

Grain 

yield 

(kg ha -1 ) 

Mungbean only 4.23 a 39.33 a 1654 a 525 a 

MMIS 3.24 b 32.25 b 1383 b 468 b 

MM2S 3.51 b 34.33 ab 1211 c 393 c 

MM1D 3.42 b 34.33 ab 1239 c 419 bc 

MM2D 3.06 b 28.98 b 1302 bc 441 bc 

LSD (0.05) 0.61 5.52 93.78 53.57 

Means in the same column followed by different letters are significantly 

different at p≤0.05. 

MM1S and MM2S = <strong>mungbean</strong>-<strong>maize</strong> one and two row simultaneously 

seeded. 

MM1D and MM2D = Mungbean-<strong>maize</strong> one and two rows delayed 

sowing by three weeks 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

This study is a part <strong>of</strong> HEC sponsored project entitled “Soil 

fertility and economic benefits <strong>of</strong> <strong>maize</strong>-legume <strong>intercropping</strong> and 

weed suppression by inter-row cultivation”. The authors highly 

acknowledge the financial support <strong>of</strong> HEC. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Abbas, M., S. S. Tomer and K. M. Nigma. 1995. Maize (Zea mays L.)- 

based <strong>intercropping</strong> systems with pulses under rainfed 

condition. Ind. J. Agri. 65(1): 34-38. 

Agbaje, G.O., B.A. Ogunbodede and J.O. Makinde. 2002. Biological and 

economical efficiency <strong>of</strong> <strong>maize</strong> + soybean intercrop pattern in 

rainforest and savanna areas <strong>of</strong> Nigeria. Moor J. Agric. Res. 3: 

37- 40. 

Agegnehu, G., A. Ghizam and W. Sinebo. 2006. Yield performance and 

land-use efficiency <strong>of</strong> barley and faba bean mixed cropping in 

Ethiopian highlands. Eur. J. Agron. 25(2): 202-207. 

Asim, M., M. Aslam, N. I. Hashmi and N. S. Kisana. 2006. Mung bean 

(Vigna radiata) in wheatbased cropping system: An option for 

resource conservation under rainfed ecosystem. Pak. J. Bot. 37 

(4): 1197-1204.


Bhatti, I. H., R. Ahmad, A. Jabbar, Z. A. Virk and M. Aslam. 2008. 

Agro-economic performance <strong>of</strong> <strong>mungbean</strong> intercropped in 

Sesame under different planting patterns. Pak. J. Agric. Sci. 

45(3): 25-28 

Evans, J., A. M. Mcneill, M. J. Unkovich, N. A. Fettell and D. P. Heenan. 

2001. Net nitrogen balances for cool-season grain legume 

<strong>intercropping</strong> and contributions to wheat nitrogen uptake: a 

review. Aus. J. Exp. Agric. 41: 347-359. 

Ghosh, P. K., K. K. Bandyopadhyay, R. H. Wanjari, M. C. Manna, A. K. 

Misra, M. Mohanty and A. S. Rao. 2007. Legume effect for 

enhancing productivity and nutrient use-efficiency in major 

cropping systems - an Indian perspective: a review. J. Sust. 

Agri. 30(1): 59-86. 

Giller, K. E. and G. Cadisch. 1995. Future benefits from biological 

nitrogen fixation: an ecological approach to agriculture. Plant 

Soil. 174: 255-277. 

Izaurralde, R. C., N. G. Juma and W. B. McGill. 1990. Crop and 

nitrogen yield <strong>of</strong> barley and barley-field pea intercrop in 

cryoboreal-subhumid central Alberta. Agron. J. 82: 295-301. 

Kamanga, B. C., G. S. R. Waddington, M. J. Robertson and K. E. Giller. 

2010. Risk analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>maize</strong>-legume crop combinations with 

smallholder farmers varying in resource endowment in central 

Malawi. J. Exp. Agric. 46:1-21. 

Kumar, R.B.P., S. Ravi and J. S. Balyan. 2008. Effect <strong>of</strong> <strong>maize</strong> (Zea 

mays) + black gram <strong>intercropping</strong> and integrated nitrogen 

management on productivity and economics <strong>of</strong> <strong>maize</strong>. Int. J. 

Plant Sci. 3(1): 53-57. 

Li, L., C. Tang, Z. Rengel and F.S. Zhang. 2003. Chickpea facilitates 

phosphorus uptake by intercropped wheat from an organic 

phosphorus source. J. Plant Soil. 248: 297-303. 

Marer, S. B., B. S. Lingaraju and G. B. Shashidhara. 2007. Productivity 

and economics <strong>of</strong> <strong>maize</strong> and pigeonpea <strong>intercropping</strong> under 

rainfed condition in northern transitional zone <strong>of</strong> karnataka. 

Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 20(1): 1-3. 

Moses, G. B. K., M. Ikramullah and M. Shaikh. 2000. The effect <strong>of</strong> N 

and P application on the yield <strong>of</strong> Black gram (Vigna mungo) as 

monoculture and intercroping with (Zea mays, L). J. Crop Res. 

1: 149-151. 

Nazir, M.S., A. Jabbar, I. Ahmad, S. Nawaz and I.H. Bhatti. 2002. 

Production potential andeconomics <strong>of</strong> <strong>intercropping</strong> in autumnplanted 

sugarcane. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 4(1): 140-142. 

Oljaca, S., R. Cvetkovic, D. Kovacevic, G.Vasii and N. Momirovic. 

2000. Effect <strong>of</strong> plant arrangement pattern and irrigation on 

efficiency <strong>of</strong> <strong>maize</strong> and bean <strong>intercropping</strong> system. J. Agric. Sci.


135: 261- 270. 

Singh, V. P. 2000. Planting geometry in <strong>maize</strong> and <strong>mungbean</strong> 

<strong>intercropping</strong> systems under rainfed low hill valley <strong>of</strong> Kumaon. 

Ind. J. Agron. 45: 274-278. 

Sunilkumar, C., R. Rawat and N.P. Melkania. 2005. Forage production 

potential and economics <strong>of</strong> <strong>maize</strong> (Zea mays) and <strong>mungbean</strong> 

(Vigna Radiata) <strong>intercropping</strong> under rainfed condition. Ind. J. 

Agron. 50(3): 184-186. 

Thavaprakaash, N., K. Velayudham and V.B. Muthukumar. 2005. Effect 

<strong>of</strong> Crop Geometry, Intercropping Systems and Integrated 

Nutrient Management Practices on Productivity <strong>of</strong> Baby Corn 

(Zea mays L.) based Intercropping Systems. Res. J. Agric. Biol. 

Sci. 1(4): 295-302. 

Tsubo, M. and S. Walker. 2002. A model <strong>of</strong> radiation interception and 

use by <strong>maize</strong> –bean intercrop canopy. J. Agric. Forest Meth. 

110: 203-215. 

Tsubo, M., S. Walker and E. Mukhala. 2003. Comparisons <strong>of</strong> radiation 

use efficiency <strong>of</strong> mono-inter-cropping systems with different 

row orientations. Field Crops Res. 71: 17-29. 

Zhang, L., W. Werf, S. Zhang, B. Li and J.H.J. Spiertz. 2007. Growth, 

yield and quality <strong>of</strong> wheat and cotton in relay strip 

<strong>intercropping</strong> systems. Field Crops Res. 103: 178-188.

Impact of mungbean-maize intercropping on growth ... - Wssp.org.pk

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?