الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 135 |  |  |
| | | from | 135 | | |
Abstract
This investigation was conducted in 1982 and 1983 seasons at Sids
Agricultural Research Station , Beni Seuf Governorate , Egypt , to
study the effect of eight different intercropping patterns on yield
and other agronomic characters of soybean ( Glycine max (L.) Merrill)
and sunflower ( Helianthus annuus L. ) .
This study included two experiments as follow
A - Intercropping Ca Ll.andaoybaan with Majak sunflower •
B - Intercropping Calland soybean with Ala sunflower .
The treatments for each experiment were :
1. Solid planting of soybean A constant population of 140,000 plants/
fad. was attained by thinning to one plant per hill , 5 cm apart in
one side ridge of 60 cm width ”
2. Solid planting of sunflower: A constant sunflower population of
23,333 plants/fad. was attained by leaving one plant per hill, 30 cm
apart , one side of 60 em width •
3. Pattern I: planting one side ridge of soybean ( 140,000 plants/
fad.) alternating with one ridge of sunflower, one plant per hill
( 23,333 plants/fad.) •
- 108 -
\..
4. Pattern II: Planting one ridge of soybean on both sides (280,000
plants/fad.) alternating with one ridge of sunflower, one plant
per hill ( 23,333 plants/fad.) .
5. Pattern III: Planting two ridges of soybean on one side in each
( 140,000 plants/fad.) alternating with two ridges of sunflower,
one plant per hill ( 23,333 plants/fad. )
6. Pattern IV : Planting two ridges of soybean , on both sides
If;
( 280,000 plants/fad.) alternating with two ridges of sunflower,
one plant per hill ( 23,333 plants/fad.)
7. Pattern V : Planting one sLde ridge of soybean ( 140.000 plants/
fad.) alternating with one ridge of sunflower, two plants per hill
( 46,666 plants / fad.) •
8. Pattern VI: Planting one ridge of soybean on both sides (280,000
plants/fad.) alternating with one ridge of sunflower, two plants
per hill ( 46,666 plants/fad.) •
9. Pattern VII : Planting two ridges of soybean on one side ( 140,000
plants/fad.) alternating with t1;07r0idges of sunflower , two plants
per hill ( 46,666 plants/fad.) .
10. Pattern VIII : Planting two ridges of soybean , on both sides
( 280,000 plants/fad.) alternat:lng with two ridges of sunflower
two plants per hill ( 46,666 plants/fadSoybean was planted on May 20 and 25 in 1982 and 1983 seasons •
respectively • three weeks later sunflower was planted . Both crops
were treated with the normal agronomic practices according to the
Ministry of Agriculture recommenda1:ions • Soybean was harvested on
Sep •• 22 and 25 in 1982 and 1983 seasons • respectively . While
sunflower was harvested on Sep .• 24 • 30 and 9 ,17 in 1982 and
1983 seasons for Majak and Ala varieties, respectively.
The results could be summarized as follows
I - 1. Intercropping Calland soybean with Majak sunflower significantly
increased LA! of soybean compared with solid planting . The
increase in LA! was more clear where a dense soybean population
was grown ( patterns II • IV • VI and VIII ) .
In the second experiment where Calland soybean was intercropped
with Ala sunflower ,LAI of soybean grown at a dense population
significantly exceeded that of solid planting •
2. Intercropping Calland soybean with Majak sunflower significantly
reduced plant height of soybean compared with solid planting •
The reduction in plant height varied according to the densities
and the arrangement of the t~o components .
In the second experiment whe,re Ala sunflower was grown , plant
height of soybean was not greatly affected by inter cropping •
__3. Number of branches/plant was affected by intercropping where a
marked reduction has been rec:orded • The reduction was more
clear where a dense population of soybean and (or) sunflower was
grown •
In the second experiment with Ala sunflower such reduction in
number of branches/plant was only significant under the dense
soybean population ( patterns II , IV , VI , and VIII ).
4. Intercropping in general and n dense intercropped soybean population
in particular reduced the yield components of soybean ,
namely , number of pods/plant , number of seeds/plant, 100-seed
weight and seed yield per plant • The reduction in yield components
was quite evident in both experiments with both sunflower varities
used.
5. Solid planting of soybean significantly outyielded intercropped
soybean as a result of growing soybean on 50% of the actual area
of solid planting •
Intercropping soybean at highl:!.drensities ( patterns II , IV , VI ,
and VIII) produced higher seed yields compared with soybean at
lower densities ( I , III , V , and VII ) • These results were
true in both seasons as well as with both intercropped sunflower
varieties •
In Calland/Majak association the relative seed yield of soybean
ranged between 46 and 49 % wh.en one side of the ridge was grown
as an average of both seasons • while a dense population of
soybean ( both sides of the ridge) yielded from 63 to 66 of the
pure stand yield •
In Calland / Ala association the: two years average of soybean
seed yield was from 4S to 48 % of the pure stand yield when
soybean was grown on one side of the ridge • While soybean
inter cropped on both sides yielded from 59 to 66 % of the pure
stand yield •
6. Intercropping reduced protein content in soybean seeds compared
with soybean in pure stand •
7.
Some intercropping patterns re:corded higher oil content in
soybean seeds than the pure stand seeds when Calland soybean
was inter cropped with Majak s1mflower. While Calland interincreased
oil content in soybean seeds and decreased protein
cropped with Ala showed no s:lgnificant response with regard to
oil content. But a dense p,:>pulationof sunflower plant
content •
I I - SUNFLOWER
cantly increased LAl of sunflower plants •
1. Intercropping soybean with ej~ther Majak or Ala sunflower sign1£i-
LAI at higher population deJ:lsities( pat~erns V , VI , VII and
VIII ) was greater than in lower densities ( patterns I , II t
III and IV) •
2. Intercropping Calland soybean with Majak sunflower almost
reduced plant height • The reduction was more pronounced at
higher population densities of sunflower • With Ala sunflower
intercropped with Calland soybean similar trend was also
recorded •
3. Stem diameter of sunflower intercropped at low population
density was greater than in sol:idplanting or at dense population
• Results of the second e,~ertment showed also similar
trend •
With regard to number of leaves per sunflower plant no clear
effect for inter cropping could be detected for both varieties
in both seasons • This character was not influenced by intercropping
•
Intercropping either Maj ak or Ala sunflower at low density with
Calland soybean produced greater head diameter compared with
solid planting and 1ntercropping at higher sunflower density
Most of the intercropp1ng patteras reduced husk percentage of
sunflower seeds compared with solid planting •
The weight of lOO-seed of sunflower intercropped at lower density
almost outweighed that of solid planting or of the dense population
• Such result was more clear with Ala sunflower than
Majak variety •
8. Intercropping patterns at low popu l.atLon density of sunflower
increased seed yield per plant compared with solid planting on
other intercropping patterns • Such result was clear in both
experiments with Maj ak or Ala sunflower •
9. Intercropping significantly reduced sunflower seed yield compared
with sole planting as a result of the reduction in actual area
grown. • However , all intercropping patterns of Majak sunflower
produced higher seed yield thar. the expected yield • The yield
at dense sunflower population WeI.S significantly higher than at
lower population.
On the two seasons average relative seed yield of Majak sunflower
ranged between 52 and 59 % at low density and 71 and 80% at higher
density compared with solid stand yield •
With Ala sunflowe~ the corresponding values were 44 7” 49 % for
lower density and 72 - 78 % at higher density •
It was also evident that Majak sunflower had better yield capacity
than Ala variety.
10. Oil content in sunflower seed wal~ favourably affected by intercropping
where a marked increal~e in oil percentage was recorded
in most intercropping patterns eompared with sole cropping •
III- Competitive Relationships and yiE!ld advantage of Intercropping :
1. Intercropping soybean with sunfl(~er increased LER. When Calland
soybean was intercropped with Majak sunflower the land usage has
been increased in 7 patterns out of 8 on the two seasons average.
Growing dense population of soybean as well as sunflower
increased the LER values •
The highest LER values were obtained when both crops were grown
at higher population densities where LER reached 1.35 and 1.43
for patterns VI and VIII. respectively on the two years average •
When Calland soybean was interl::roppedwith Ala sunflower, LER
values exceeded 1 in 6 patte:rns out of 8·. A similar trend
was obtaine~ where pa~terns VI and VIII produced LER values of
1.37 and 1. 36 on the average. r1aspectively •
2. The relative crowding ccef’fLcLent; ( RCC) or K value of intercropping
was greatly influenced by the population density of both
intercrop components • K value:s exceeded 1 in 7 patterns in the
first experiment and in 6 patt1arns in the second one •
RCC ( K value) reached its ma.:rlmum where both species were
intercropped at dense popukat Lon ( patterns VI and VIII ) in both
experiments
The product of Rce· reached 4.22 and 6.99 for patterns VI and VIII,
respectively as the two years a~erage for Calland/ Majak association.
In Calland/Ala association K values averaged 5.17 and 4.70 , respectively
for patterns VI and VIII • including dense population of
both species •
3. The estimation of Aggr8ssivity ( A ) 8S an average of.both seasons
of experimentation showed that in Calland/Hajak mixture • soybean
was the dominant component only in 2 patterns out of 8(patterns
II and IV ) • whereas sunflower was the dominant component in
the other 6 patterns .
In the second experiment with Calland/ Ala mixture , soybean
was the dominant component in 3 patterns ( II • III and IV )
while sunflower was the dominant component in the other 5
patterns
Aggressivity was therefore. greatly affected by the population
density of the intercrops •
/-