الفهرس 
Materials and mithodsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 143 |  |  |
| | | from | 143 | | |
Abstract
SUMMARy
Six experiments were carried out at Sids Agricultural Research
Station, Beni Suef Governorate, Egypt, during ,1987 and 1988
seasons, to study the possibility of intercropping each of soybean,
maize and sesame with cotton, using either the normal or the double
population density per unit area.
In each season, three aeparat.e exper1llents were undertaken,
for intercropping the three summercrops, soybean, maize and sesame
with cotton.
In each experiment, four intercropping systems were evaluated,
in comparison with the pure stand of both intercrop components.
Intercropping was done in all cases in alternate single ridges
(1 : 1). The following four systems were included:
1- 50% : 50%of the standard population -;:’densityof each intercrop.
2- 50%: 100% of the standard population,gensity of cotton: soybean,
maize or sesame.
3- 100% : 50% of the standard population density of cotton soybean,
maize or sesame.
4- 100% : 100% of the standard population density of cotton soybean
maize or sesame.
S- Sole cropping of cotton at 70000 plants/fad. as the standard
density.
6- Sole cropping of soybean at 140000 plants/fad, or sole cropping
of Dl8ize was at 23333 plantsl fad or sole cropping of se88lle at
a standard density of 70000 plants/fad.
___________ c~ _ -- ------------
- 113 -
Doubling the standard density (1oo%) was followed by growing
on both sides of the ridge, whereas the standard density was attained
by growing on one side.
Sowing date of soybean was followed 6 days later after cotton
using the wet method of planting t whereas maize and sesame were
sownat the same time with cotton. Harvesting was followed at maturity •
. .Fert.ilizer application t irrigation and other cultural treatments
were similar either for intercropping treatments or for pure stand.
The experiments were arranged in a completely randomized block
design with four replications.
Data on grow~h~yieldand its componentsand somequality characters
(for cotton) were collected. Results could be summarized as
f011lows
1- First ExperimeDt :
lntercroppiDS Cotton and Soybean
1- IntercroppiD.$ reduced cotton plant height and nuaber of fruiting
branches/plant, particularly when intercropping vas followed
at higher cotton population densities.
2- Busber of total bolls per plant vas reduced when cotton was
intercropped at higher densities, but when inter cropping was
done at lover densities (cotton and soybean) n•• ber of bolls/
plant was increased in one aeason only.
3- Veigbt of seed cottoqJboU vas not significantly affected by
-----~---_.-~-~ ._.--_.
_._------------------~
- 114 -
intercropping J whereas seed index was significantly affected
only in one season with no specific trend for its response to
inter cropping •
4- Seed cotton yield/plant was significantly reduced when·intercropping
was followed under higher population density. but under
lower densities an increase was recorded when intercropping was
followed at 50% : 50% of the standard pure stand densities.
S- Intercropping cotton and soybean significantly reduced seed
cotton yield estimated as the Itactual” intercropped yield.
”Adjusting” the seed cotton yield/fad. on unit area basis ”adjUSted
yield” -showedthat intercropping increased cotton yield in
some intercropping patterns but decreased the yield with some
other patterns.
6- Intercropping affected the percentage of surviving plants in
the second se~son where a reduction in the percentage of survival
plants was associated with the higher densities.
7~ Lint percentage. fiber fineness and fiber strength were not
significantly affected by intercropping.
8- Intercropping decreased soybean plant height in t)e first season.
whereas an increase in plant height was recorded in the second
season.
9- Intercropping increased nWlber of branches/plant in soybean.
lIuDer of pods/plant vas increased in the second season when
o intercropping vas done at lover densities.
10- Seed indeX of soybean ~reased by intercropping in the first
season. but decreased in the second one. s·hoVinI no definite
_.-.- - ---- - - - __ 0.- _ - - -------
- us -
trend for intercropping on this character.
11- Seed yield/plant in soybean increased in the first season due
to intercropping, but decreased in the second one when intercropping
was followed at higher densities.
12- Seed yield of soybean/fad estimated as ”actual” yield was significantly
reduced by intercropping. ”Adjusting” the yield on
unit area basis showed a marked increase in seed yield due to
intercr:opping~Theincrease reached 63%and 28%in the first and
second season, respectively.
13- Straw yield of soybean estimated as ”actual” yield was reduced,
due to intercropping, but a marked increase was observed with
straw yield/fad ”adjusted” on unit area basiS.
14- Increasing the population density of soybean intercropped with
cotton decreased markedly the percentage of surviving plants
at harvest, comparedwith sole cropping.
15- Land equivalent ratio fot’ intercropping cotton and soybean
showed promising resu1t for intercropping. An increase of 53%
in the first season and 7%in the second one in land usage was
recorded due to intercropping.
16- Relative crowding coeffic;ient exceeded one in all systems
indicating yield advantage with tntercropping. Soybeancoeficient
([s) was almost higher than cotton coefficient (I.s. ).
11- Aggressivity shoved that cotton vas dQllinant only in two systems
in the second season, whereas soybean was dOllinant in all systems
in the first season aDdin two syst •• in the second one.
-- ---- --------~
- 116 -
II - ~~condExperim~~t~
Intercropping Cotton and Maize
1- Intercropping reduced cotton plant height. number of fruiting
branches/plant and total nUDlberof bolls/plant. compared with
sale cotton cropping. particularly when intercropping was done
under higher deasities.
2- Weight of seed cotton/boll and seed index in cotton were not
not significantly affected by intercropping.
3- Seed cotton yield/plant was significantly reduced by intercropping.
The reduction was more serious when intercropping was
followed under higher densities.
4- Seed cotton yield/fad. estimated as ”actual” yield was significantly
reduced due to intercropping. ”Adjusting” the yield
on unit area basis showed also that intercropping caused significant
reductions in seed cotton yield. The yield reduction
was more serious in the second season and reached 66%.
5- Cotton stand at picking was not significantly affected by intercropping
cotton and maize.
~ Lint percentage vas reduced in the first season as a result of
intercropping.
7- Fineness and strength of cotton fiber were not significantlyaffected
by intercropping in cotton and _ize.
8- Plaat height of uize vas DOt significantly affected by intercropping.
while area of tot-OSt ear leaf- was increased due to
- 117 -
intercropping maize with cotton at lower densities.
9-Number of ears/plant was increased by intercropping, whereas
ear weight was increased when intercropping was followed at 50%
of the standard density, comparedwith sole cropping.
10- Weight of 100 kernels was reduced due to intercropping at
higher densities.
11- Grain yield/plant was increased when intercropping was done
at lower densities.
12- Increasing maize population density slightly increased percentage
of barren plants and significantly ”reducedmaize stand at
harvest.
13- Grain yield of maize/fad estimated as ”actuak” yield was sig- ”
nificantly reduced by intercropping. ”Adjusting” tbe yield on
unit area basis indicated that intercropping markedly increased
grain yield. Increases reached 48% and 77% in the first and
second season, respectively.
14- Estimation of LER showed values exceeding one in the first
season and in two systems out of four in the second one. LER
reached 1.13 in the first season and 1.06 in the second one,
Best result was with intercropping cotton and JlBize at 50% :
100%,of the pure stand densi”ty, respectively.
15- Relative crowding coefficient showed that aize was superior
to cotton with greater contl~ibution. Ia exceeded one and I.e was
lover thaD one ill all sJste-s.
16- AggresBirltJ indicated that .a!ze was the dOlllinantCOllponent
and cotton was the dc;ainated intercrop.
- - - ..- -- - --_. __ .---
”-------- -
- 118 -
ill - Third Experiment:
Intercropping Cotton and Sesame
1- Intercropping at higher cotton population densities reduced plant
height. number of fru~ting branches. total nWlber of bolls
and seed cotton yield per plant.
2- weight of seed cotton/boll as well as seed index in cotton were
not significantly affected by intercropping.
3- Seed cotton yield/fad. estimated as the ”actual” yield was significantly
reduced by intercropping. ”Adjusting” the yield on
unit area basis showed that intercropping cotton with sesame
had no adverse effect. All increases or decreases recorded in
intercropped yield were not significant. compared with pure
stand cotton.
4- Intercropping cotton and sesame had no significant effect on
the percentage of .surviving cotton plants at picking.
S- Lint percentage as well as fineness, and strength of cotton
fiber were not significantly affected by intercropping.
6- Intercropping at higher se.- population density reduced seNile
plant height. nwaberof capsules/plant and seed yield/plant.
7- Seed index and percentage of surviving plants at harvest of
se&alle were not significantly affected by intercropping.
8- ”Actual” seed yield/fad. of intercropped seea-e was significantly
reduced. ”Adjusting” seed yield OIl unit area b&aia indicated
- ------------------------------
- 119 -
that intercropping favourably affected seed yield. Increases
of 24-44%in the first season and 24-59%in the second one were
obtained over pure stand yield due to intercropping.
9- Land equivalent ratio showedthat intercropping cotton and sesame
increased land usage by 13-15% in the first season and 10-24%
in the second one.
1Q-Relative crowding coefficient exceeded one under all intercropping
systems with one exception in the second season. Sesame
coefficient (I ses) was higher than cotton coefficient (Ic)
under most systems of intercropping-
11-Aggressivity showed that sesame was the dominant component and
cotton was dominated under all systems in both seasons with one
exception.