Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Yield performance & economic evaluation of mustard varieties under mango based Agri-horticulture practice in semi-arid tropics

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A field experiment conducted at research farm of College of Agriculture Jabalpur J.N.K.V.V (M.P) on 2017–18. First year of experiment on based on Agri-Horticulture practices of agroforestry. It have two system of Sole-Horticulture (Mango) plantation and another Agri-Horticulture practices (Mustard crops + Mango). Agri-Horticulture practices have five mustard varietal treatment (Pusa Bold, Arpan, JM-3, NRCDR-2, and Urvashi) in six replication. Computation of data by RBD design applied to analysis of yield performance of mustard variety. After analysis of parameters, we have recorded following data. First fall plant population of mustard varieties were recorded highest to lowest NRCDR-2(37.67) > Arpan (35.44) > Urvashi (34.67) > JM-3(27.22) > Pusa Bold (26.67) continually. In aspect number, silique braches−1 and number of silique plant−1 were significantly superior 23.73 and 120.90 found in Arpan and minimum recorded in Urvashi 21.83 & 111.63 variety of mustard respectively. The maximum production grain yield were found in Arpan 955.28 kg ha−1 and lowest in Urvashi 680.89 kg ha−1 also in respect of harvesting index Arpan (13.61) highest and NRCDR-2 (9.80) minimum recorded. This analysis conclude that the highest yielding variety was Arpan among mustard varieties. Economic evaluation we find it the cost of cultivation of Agri-Horticulture practise is higher than Sole-Horticulture practice, the gross monitoring return & net monitoring return were highest found in Arpan (Rs 62,153.85 ha−1 & Rs 36,916.45 ha−1 respectively) variety. The B/C ratio was not significantly difference but highest found in Arpan 0.966 in 1st year of plantation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anonymous (1986) Annual Report, Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad, pp 44–45

  • Awasthi OP, Singh J, Saroj PL (2005) Yield and economic& of mango based mult species cropping system in Baster plateau of Chatisgarh. Indian J Agrofor 7:10–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Black CA (1965) Method of plant and soil analysis part 11. Publ. Amenrican society Agronomy, Madison Wiscorsin USA, pp 1367–1373

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman HD, Pratt PF (1961) Methods of analysis for soils, plants and waters. University of California, Los Angeles, pp 60–61; 150–179

  • Chaudhri SA (1976) Mangifera indica-Mango. In: Garner RJ, Chaudhri SE and the staff of the Commonwealth Bureau of Horticulture and Plantation Crops. The propagation of tropical fruit tree, Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux England, pp 403–474.

  • Dar A, Newaj R, Bhargava MK, Yadav RS (2004) Effect of management practices on growth of white siris (Aibizia procera), grain yield of intercrops, weed population and soil fertility changes in agrisilviculture system in semi-arid India. Agrofor Syst 56:7–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhyani SK (2012) Agroforestry interventions in India: focus on environmental series and livelihood security. Indian J Agrofor 13(2):1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer RA (1985) Number of kernels in wheat crops and the Influence of solar radiation and temperature. J Agri Sci Camb 105:447–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedures for agricultural research. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Handa AK, Dhyani SK, Uma SK (2015) Three decades of agroforestry research in India: retrospection for way forward. Agric Res J 52(3):1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karwar GR (1992) Studies on alley cropping and agrosilviculture system in black soils under dryland agricultural conditions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.

  • Mathukia RK, Sagarka BK, Panara DM (2016) Fodder production through agroforestry: a boon for profitable dairy farming. Innovare J Agric Sci 4(2):13–19

    Google Scholar 

  • McMaster Gregory S, Morgan JA, Willis WO (1987) Effects of shading on winter wheat yield, spike characteristics and carbohydrate allocation. Crop Sci 27(5):967–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nair PKR (1992) Classification of agroforestry systems. Agrofor Syst 3(2):97–128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen SP, Cole CV, Watanable FS and Dean LA (1954) Estimation of available phosphorus in soil by extraction with sodium bi-carbonate. Publ., U.S. Deptt. Agric. circular 939: 1-19.

  • Opeke LK (ed) (1982) Mango trees as components of agroforestry systems in Mangwende, Zimbabwe. Tropical tree crops. John Wiley and Sons, UK, pp 288–293. https://www.cabdirect.org/

  • Pawar KR, Giri AN, Kattar KD, Nadrc KR (1976) Effect of sowing dates on yield of promising varieties of cotton under irrigated conditions in Marathwada region. J Maharashtra Agric Univ 1(I):75–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Piper CS (1967) Soil and plant analysis. Publ Asia Publication House, Bombay, pp 157–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Ram N, Rai P (2005) Aonla-based agroforestry system: a source of higher income under rainfed conditions. Indian Farming 55(9):24–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Shekhawat K, Rathore SS, Premi OP, Kandpa BK, and Chauhan JS (2012) Advances in Agronomic Management of Indian Mustard (Brassica juncea (L.) Czernj.Cosson): An Overview, Hindawi Publishing Corporation International Journal of Agronomy Volume 2012, Article ID 408284, 14 pages.

  • Subbiah BV, Asija CL (1956) A rapid method for the estimator of available nitrogen in soil. Curr Sci 25:259–260

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Subrahmanyam MVR, Bheemaiah G, Syed I (1996) Compatibility of aerable crops intercropped with Oalbergia sissoo for sustainable rainfed agriculture. Indian for 122(7):646–650

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsubo M, Walker S, Mukhala E (2001) Comparisons of radiation use efficiency of mono-inter cropping systems with different row orientations. Field Crops Res 71:17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forestry, College of Agriculture, JNKVV, Jabalpur, 482004, India

    Ajay Kumar Shah, Anil Kumar Kori, Kailash Kumar & Rahul Dongre

Authors
  1. Ajay Kumar Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anil Kumar Kori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kailash Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rahul Dongre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ajay Kumar Shah.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix–1: cost of cultivation on Agrihorticulture practises in Agroforestry system

Appendix–1: cost of cultivation on Agrihorticulture practises in Agroforestry system

Cost of cultivation for agricultural crops.

S.no

Particular

Input ha-1

Rate Rs.

Cost ha−1

1

land preparation

   

a

Harrowing by cultivator

One pass

1800

1800

b

Disk harrow

Two pass

450

900

c

Planker

One pass

400

400

2

Seed sowing

   

a

Cost of seed

7 kg

240

1680

b

Seed treatment

 

30 Rs kg−1

210

c

Seed sowing

5 MAN

200

1000

3

fertilizer

   

a

Urea

126

14.6

1839.6

b

SSP

222

8.4

1864.8

c

MOP

66

18

1188

d

Application charge

2

200

400

4

Irrigation

2

500

1000

5

Plant protection

1

500

500

6

Harvesting

4 MAN

200

800

7

Other miscellaneous

  

655

 

Total

  

14,237.4

Cost of mango seeding plantation.

S.no

Particular

Input

Rate Rs

Cost ha−1

1

Cost of digging pit

400

10 man

4000

2

Seeding cost

400

15

6000

3

FYM application

  

1000

 

Total

  

11,000

 

Grand total

  

25,237.4

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shah, A.K., Kori, A.K., Kumar, K. et al. Yield performance & economic evaluation of mustard varieties under mango based Agri-horticulture practice in semi-arid tropics. Agroforest Syst 96, 651–657 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00712-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-021-00712-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation