Advertisement

Sugar Tech

pp 1–5 | Cite as

Agronomic Response, Weed Smothering Efficiency and Economic Feasibility of Sugarcane and Legume Intercropping System in Tropical India

  • P. Geetha
  • A. S. Tayade
  • C. A. Chandrasekar
  • T. Selvan
  • Rajesh Kumar
Short Communication
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Intercropping helps diversification of crop production to fulfill diversified need of farmers. Sugarcane because of its initial slow growth can comfortably accommodate short-duration crops in between the rows. With the aim of assessing the profitability of sugarcane based-intercropping system, an experiment was taken up in randomized block design with five legume crops (green gram, black gram, cowpea, soybean and sunn hemp) as intercrops in sugarcane under wide row of planting (150 cm) along with sole sugarcane as control during 2016–2017 at ICAR-Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Coimbatore. Among the different intercropping systems followed, the yield attributes were nonsignificant except the number of millable cane (NMC/ha). The NMC recorded with sugarcane + soybean was significantly higher (116.5 thousands/ha) than control. Sugarcane intercropped with soybean has recorded significantly higher cane yield of 122.82 t/ha, followed by sugarcane intercropped with sunn hemp (117.31 t/ha) and black gram (116.38 t/ha), while sole crop of sugarcane has recorded the lowest cane yield of 74.30 t/ha. Among the five legume intercrops in sugarcane, sugarcane + soybean has recorded higher cane equivalent yield (CEY) of 132.0 t/ha, followed by sugarcane + green gram (119.4 t/ha). Sugarcane + sunn hemp has recorded higher LER of 1.39, followed by green gram (1.37) and soybean (1.21) when compared to sole crop of sugarcane. Weed smothering efficiency (WSE) was significantly higher in sugarcane + cowpea (36.3%) intercropping system followed by sunn hemp (32.3%) and soybean (32.0%) over the sole sugarcane (control). The highest gross return (Rs. 376,243/ha) was obtained from sugarcane + soybean followed by sugarcane + green gram (Rs. 340,242/ha), and it was lowest in sole sugarcane (Rs. 211,771/ha). Similarly, highest benefit–cost ratio (1.83) was observed in sugarcane + soybean, while lowest in sole sugarcane (1.06). On the basis of cane yield, cane equivalent yield and returns per rupee of investment, it is inferred that, among all the cropping systems, sugarcane + soybean found to be most profitable under wide row of planting than cultivation of sole sugarcane.

Keywords

Sugarcane Yield parameters Quality parameters Cane yield CEY LER WSE Benefit–cost ratio 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bilalis, D., P. Papastylianou, A. Konstantas, S. Patsiali, A. Karkanis, and A. Efthimiadou. 2010. Weed-suppressive effects of maize–legume intercropping in organic farming. Int J Pest Manag 56: 173–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen, C., M. Westcott, K. Neil, D. Wichman, and M. Knox. 2004. Row configuration and nitrogen application for barley–pea intercropping in Montana. Agronomy Journal 96: 1730–1738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Darish, M., M. Ahad, and O. Meysam. 2006. Assessing the land equivalent ratio (LER) of two corn (Zea mays L.) varieties intercropping at various nitrogen levels in Karaj, Iran. Journal Central European Agriculture 7: 359–364.Google Scholar
  4. Dhanapal, R., A.S. Tayade, A. Baskaran, and P. Geetha. 2018. Water management with composted coirpith and sugarcane trash for sustainable sugarcane production. Sugar Tech.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-018-0593-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dhima, K., A. Lithourgidis, I. Vasilakoglou, and C. Dordas. 2007. Competition indices of common vetch and cereal intercrops in two seeding ratio. Field Crops Research 100: 249–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Geetha, P., K. Sivaraman, A.S. Tayade, and R. Dhanapal. 2015. Sugarcane based intercropping system and its effect on cane yield. Journal of Sugarcane Research 5: 1–10.Google Scholar
  7. Geetha, P., and A.S. Tayade. 2015. Production potential of sugarcane based cropping system as influenced by nitrogen levels. Journal of Sugarcane Research 5: 83–86.Google Scholar
  8. Jeyakumaran, J., and T. H. Seran. 2007. Studies on intercropping capsicum (Capsicum annum L.) with bushitao (Vigna unguiculata L.). In Proceedings of the 6th annual research session. October 18–19, Trincomalee Campus, EUSL, pp. 431–444.Google Scholar
  9. Kailasam, C. 1994. Evaluation of nitrogen levels and seed rates for short duration sugarcane (Co 8338) intercropped with three soybean cultivars of varying growth habits. Ph.D. Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, p. 238.Google Scholar
  10. Li, X., Y. Mu, Y. Cheng, X. Liu, and H. Nian. 2013. Effects of intercropping sugarcane and soybean on growth, rhizosphere soil microbes, nitrogen and phosphorus availability. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum 35: 1113–1119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lithourgidis, A.S., C.A. Dordas, C.A. Damalas, and D.N. Vlachostergios. 2011. Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5(4): 396–410.Google Scholar
  12. Meade, G.P., and J.C.P. Chen. 1977. Cane sugar hand book, 10th ed, 947. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Nagpure, S.C., A.B. Jhakare, A.P. Khandare, and R.K. Patil. 2004. Economics of sugarcane production in Vidarbha Region of Maharashtra State. Rural India 67: 123–125.Google Scholar
  14. Singh, A.K., and M. Lal. (2008). Weed management in spring planted sugarcane (Saccharum spp hybrid)-based intercropping systems. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 78: 35–39.Google Scholar
  15. Singh, A.K., L. Menhi, and S. Archna. 2008. Effect of intercropping in sugarcane (Saccharum complex hybrid) on productivity of plant cane—ratoon system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 53: 140–144.Google Scholar
  16. Sivaraman, K., and S.P. Palaniappan. 1996. Cropping systems in the tropic-principles and management, 150. India: New Age International Ltd.Google Scholar
  17. Tayade, A.S., P. Geetha, S. Anusha, R. Dhanapal, and K. Hari. 2017. Effect of green cane trash blanketing and microbial consortia application on soil compaction and productivity of mechanically harvested sugarcane ratoon crops. Journal of Sugarcane Research 7: 112–120.Google Scholar
  18. Tayade, A.S., P. Geetha, R. Dhanapal, and K. Hari. 2016. Effect of microbially aided in situ trash management on sugarcane production under wide row planting system. Journal of Sugarcane Research 6: 35–41.Google Scholar
  19. Verma, S.P., and S.C. Modgel. 1983. Production potential and economics of fertilizer application as resource constraints in maize wheat crop sequence. Himalayan Journal of Agricultural Research 9: 89–92.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Crop ProductionICAR - Sugarcane Breeding InstituteCoimbatoreIndia

Personalised recommendations