See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/261285843

MAIZE-COWPEA INTERCROPPING AND WEED SUPPRESSION IN LEAF STRIPPED

AND DETASSELLED MAIZE IN ZIMBABWE

Article  in  Electronic Journal of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Chemistry · November 2009

CITATIONS READS

3 95

1 author:

Itai Offat Manyanhaire

Zimbabwe Open University
15 PUBLICATIONS   65 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

social networks and integrated water resources management View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Itai Offat Manyanhaire on 19 May 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSN: 1579-4377

MAIZE-COWPEA INTERCROPPING AND WEED

SUPPRESSION IN LEAF STRIPPED AND DETASSELLED
MAIZE IN ZIMBABWE
Katsaruware, R.D1.and Manyanhaire, I.O.
1. Lecturer, Agricultural Management Geography the Zimbabwe Open University
2. Lecturer, Geography and Environmental the Zimbabwe Open University
rdkatsaruware@yahoo.com offatmanya@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

A study was conducted to evaluate the suitability of cowpea (Vigna anguiculata) varieties
for maize-cowpea intercropping in leaf stripped and detasselled maize at the University
of Zimbabwe Farm during the 2005/6 cropping season. A Randomized Complete Block
Design (RCBD 4*3*2 factorial experimental design was adopted. Three factors that
included cowpea variety, cropping system and detasselling/leaf stripping were used for
the design. Trailing and climbing varieties invested more dry matter to vegetative growth
than the new upright bushy cultivars that invested most of their dry matter in grain yield.
Leafstripping and detasselling significantly increased cowpea grain and maize yields.
Sole cowpea grain yield was significantly higher than grain yield from their respective
intercrops. Weed density significantly (P<0.01) decreased at 6 weeks after crop
emergence (WACE and at maize physiological maturity (PM), and biomass decreased at
6 (WACE) and maize (PM) respectively. Weed density was reduced in the intercrops
when maize was intercropped with CBC3, BEB and L. Landrace. In contrast R.ex-Mbare
was not effective in suppressing weeds when intercropped with maize. Leafstripping and
detasselling maize at anthesis can be used by smallholder farmers to increase the
productivity of maize and cowpea.

KEYWORDS

intercropping adaptability weed suppression productivity leafstripped detasselled.

 Katsaruware, R.D et al. EJEAFChe, 8 (11), 2009. [1218-1226]
INTRODUCTION
In Zimbabwe’s smallholder sector, maize is commonly intercropped with legumes like
cowpea (Vigna anguiculata) and curcubits that include low densities of pumpkins
(Curcubita maxima),groundnut (Arachis hypogea) and cucumber (Cucumis sativa)
(Mariga, 1990). Among these combinations cowpea is widely intercropped with maize
not only in Zimbabwe but in Southern Africa. Besides their compatibility in the field,
these two crops complement each other in human diets as a ready source of carbohydrates
(Galinat, 1992) and proteins with 22-30% protein. However, these crops continue to be
grown in traditional formats with limited scientifically established cultural practices that
would exploit interactions between the two crops for maximizing yield and weed
supresión.
Intercropping is an important agricultural technique that improves diversification
of food supply (Francis, 1985) and ensures high economic returns (Norman, Simmons
and Hays, 1982). It also suppresses weeds particularly when short statured, bushy cowpea
varieties are used (Zimdahl, 1999). These varieties have the potential to intercept incident
radiation reaching the soil surface (Liebman, 1988). Cowpea cultivars with a prostrate,
vining and dense crop canopy also act as live mulch, suppressing weed germination and
growth (Mashingaidze, 2004). Thus, reducing the frequency of weeding the maize crop
and the labour costs involved (Akobundu, 1993).
Intercropping results in efficiency of land utilization and improved yields
(Mashingaidze (2004). However, the maize yield was observed to be depressed by 12-
22% when intercropped with a legume (ibid).this is mainly due to competition for water
and nutrients yield by the minor crop (Liebman and Dyck, 1993). Yields decline for the
legume crop are due to reduced Photosynthetic Active Radiation (PAR) reaching the
lower parts of the intercrop canopy (Subedi, 1996). A second reason advanced is due to
the early maturity of the minor crop that does not allow it to benefit from increased PAR
penetration towards the end of the growing season when the dominant cereal senesces
(Mashingaidze, 2004).
The architectures of climbing cowpea varieties yield well maize intercropped.
They have greater vertical separation of the leaves that probably improve the radiation
interception of the climber in intercropping (Trenbath and Angus, 1975) and depend on
the cultivar, spatial arrangement and foliage architecture of the component crops (Subedi,
1996). Cowpea varieties with an upright and semi-determinate structure are potentially
less competitive for light resource. In contrast traditional cowpea varieties are more
vigorous and active competitors for light. This characteristic is attributed to perennial
intercropping (Iwaki, 1959, Williams, 1964 Kumura, 1968). They have reduced rates of
dark respiration, lowered root to shoot ratio and greater leaf area to leaf weight ratio
which increase their chances for survival and increased yields of the intercrops if
enhanced with architecture modification. Maize crop architecture modifications are
achieved through leaf stripping (removal of lower leaves of maize plants) and
detasselling at anthesis (the removal of male inflorescence of a maize plant
(Mashingaidze, 2004). High yields of maize are achieved by a smaller proportion of
barren plants in the detasselled treatments than intact plants (Chinwuba, Grogan and
Zuber, 1961), diversion of energy normally expended in pollen production to grain
production and increases in PAR penetration in the maize canopy (Mashingaidze, 2004).
The aim of this study was therefore to determine the suitability of commonly grown
cowpeas varieties (BEB, CBC3, and L. Landrace and Red ex-Mbare) for intercropping
with intact maize and maize modified by detasselling and leaf stripping.

1219
 Katsaruware, R.D et al. EJEAFChe, 8 (11), 2009. [1218-1226]

METHOD AND MATERIALS

Site location and description

The experiment was carried out at the University of Zimbabwe Farm during the 2005/6
cropping season fifteen kilometers north of Harare. Altitude on the farm varies from
highest point of 1480 metres to the lowest of 60 metres. The arable lands are flat with
slopes of 2% or less. The farm is in Natural Region 2a (Vincent and Thomas, 1960) and
is a reliable cropping area with annual rainfall ranging between 444 mm and 1270 mm.
The mean annual temperature is 19C with risk of frosts between late May and early
August. The farm has deep to moderately deep well drained granular, red clay soils
derived from epidiorite rocks with some intrusions of ironstone.

Treatment description and Experimental Design

The experiment was set up as a 4*3*2 factorial in a Randomized Complete Block
Design (RCBD) with four factors; variety, cropping systems, Leafstripping and
detasselling. The BEB, CBC3, Local Landrace and Red ex-Mbare cowpea varieties were
used for the experiment. The cropping systems used in the experiment were sole cowpea,
sole maize and maize-cowpea intercrops. A commercial late maturity hybrid maize seed,
SC637 was used and Leaf stripped/detasselled treatment was done at 50% silking. The
gross plot size was 4.56 m, that is total area planted and the net plot size was 3.6×4m (the
net size of the land excluding the border effects for the measurement of yields).
Plots were marked, disc ploughed and harrowed to a fine tilth just before planting
on the16th of December, 2005. Planting furrows were opened using hoes at 90 cm inter-
row and 30 cm within row spacing for the sole maize plots and 45 cm and 20 cm
respectively for the sole cowpeas plots. Cropping density in intercrops for cowpea was
156 or 55 555 plants ha- 1 and 311 for sole cow pea plots or 111 000 plants ha-1. Maize
was planted at a density of 37 000 plants ha-1 in all the treatments. Compound D (7%N,
14%P2O5, 8%K2O) was applied into furrows before seeding maize at 150 kg ha-1 .Super
sulphate SSP (19% P2O5, 5 %S) was dribbled into cowpea planting furrows a and 150 kg
ha-1t . Two maize seeds were dropped per hole and were thinned to one plant per planting
station at two WACE. Cowpea was overseeded and later thinned to 20 cm between plants
at three WACE in both the intercrop and the monocrop.
Maize was top dressed with 150 kg ha-1 Ammonium Nitrate (34.5%N) at five
WACE and nothing was applied to the sole cowpeas. At 5 and 8 WACE, carbaryl
(85%WP) was sprayed into the maize funnel at 20 g/10l of water to control maize stalk
borer (Busseola fusca). Dimethoate® (40%EC) was also sprayed at 5 WACE to control
leaf eaters at 83 ml ha-1. Benomyl and Copper Oxychloride® (85%WP) were sprayed at
50 g/10l of water to control Ascochyta blight in cowpea during flowering. The crops were
hoe weeded twice, at 3 and 8 WACE. Leaf stripping and detasselling was done at 50%
silking. Weed density and biomass measurements were done at six WACE and at
physiological maturity (PM) through use of randomly thrown quadrants measuring 30 30
cm into the net plot. Weeds were cut at ground level, put into brown paper bags and were
dried at 80C for 48 hours.
The yield and yield components of cowpeas were determined at physiological
maturity. Number of pods per plant, number of beans per pod, cowpea grain yield, 1000-
bean weight and the residual vegetative biomass of cowpea plants were measured.
Cowpea pods were picked when they were brown and rattling within the pod, but before

1220
 Katsaruware, R.D et al. EJEAFChe, 8 (11), 2009. [1218-1226]
they shattered. A random sample of ten cowpea plants was selected and means permuted.
Moisture content was measured for each cowpea sample using a moisture meter and the
final cowpea grain yield was standardized to 11% moisture content. Maize was dried in
greenhouses for fourteen days, thrashed and grain yield per plot was measured using a
suspension scale. Moisture content was measured for each maize sample and the final
maize grain yield was standardized to 12.5% moisture content.

Data analysis
Cowpea grain yield, above ground biomass (minus grain), number of pods per plant,
cowpea 1000 seed weight and number of cowpeas per pod were analyzed as a 4*3
factorial in a RCBD testing the effect of cropping system (maize-cowpea intercrop with
maize leaf stripped and detasselled, maize cowpea intercrop with maize intact, sole
cowpea), and the effect of variety (BEB, CBC3, Local Landrace (L. Landrace) and Red
ex Mbare) as well as their interactions. Maize grain yield and 1000 grain were analyzed
as a 4*2 factorial in a RCBD testing the effect of leaf stripping and detasselling (leaf
stripped and detasselled maize) and cowpea variety (BEB, CBC3, L. Landrace and Red ex
Mbare) as well as their interactions. To compare the performance of sole maize
treatments with detasselling and leaf stripping and cowpea variety treatment
combinations, a RCBD with 10 treatments was used. Weed density were expressed on a
square metre basis and was square root transformed before the Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) (Steel and Torrie, 1984) using Minitab Version 12. Weed biomass was
expressed in g m-2 and weed density was expressed in number m-2 before ANOVA.
Maize grain and cowpea yield were expressed in tonnes ha-1 and kg ha-1 respectively
before the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Means were separated using Least
Significant Difference (LSD) at P<0.05. Productivity of intercropping was assessed by
calculating the Land Equivalent Ratios (LERs) from component crop yields (Mead and
Willey, 1980) using the following formula;
LERT = LERM + LERC= YIM + YIC
YSM YSC

Where LERT is the total LER

LERM is the partial LER for the maize crop
LERC is the LER for the cowpea crop
YIM is the mass of yield unit area-1 of intercropped maize and cowpea
YSM is the mass unit area-1 of sole maize
YSC is the mass unit area -1 of sole cropped cowpeas.

If LER is greater than one, then intercropping has a yield advantage (Willey, 1979).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Cowpea-maize intercrops compared to sole crop controls
Intercropping BEB, CBC3 and Red ex Mbare with maize leafstripped and detasselled
reduced cowpea grain yield by 16.5%, 25.2% and 37.2% respectively. Under intact
maize, BEB, CBC3 and Red ex Mbare cowpea grain yield was lower by 16.2%, 30.5%
and 44% when compared to the respective sole crop grain yield of each variety. When
local landrace was intercropped there was no significant difference in grain yield
compared to its monocrop treatment.Monocropped upright cowpea cultivars, BEB and
CBC3 had significantly higher 1000 grain weight than intercropped cowpeas with maize

1221
 Katsaruware, R.D et al. EJEAFChe, 8 (11), 2009. [1218-1226]
intact or leafstripped and detasselled (Table 1). Intercropping BEB and CBC3 with intact
maize reduced 1000 grain weight by 41.95% and 35.5% respectively while under
leafstripped and detasselled maize 1000 grain weight was reduced by 3.5% and 29.5%
respectively, when compared to sole crops of each variety. The test weights of sole
climbing cowpea cultivars, L. Landrace and Red ex- Mbare were not statistically
different from their respective intercrops (Table 1).

BEB showed no significant difference in number of grains per pod when it was either
intercropped or monocropped (Table 1). When maize was leafstripped and detasselled the
number of grains per pod for CBC3 and L. Landrace were reduced by 15.4% and 50.1%
respectively. Red ex-Mbare intercrop had an 8% increase in number of grains per pod
when it was intercropped with leafstripped and detasselled maize compared to the
monocrop. However, this variety showed no significant differences with the intercrop in
number of grains per pod when maize were intact (Table 1).

Table 1: Cowpea grain yield and yield components in the maize-cowpea intercrops compared to sole
cowpeas.
Treatment # of pods # of grains 1000grain grain yield Plant
plant-1 pod-1 (weight g-1) (kg ha-1) biomass
(kg ha-1)
Maize-BEB Lsdetass 3.27c 9.47d 198.47d 118.98c 94.35a
Maize-BEB intact 2.73bc 8.93d 119.44b 119.44c 83.24a
Maize-CBC3 Lsdetass 3.40cd 11.53e 153.80c 140.05d 97.87a
Maize-CBC3 intact 3.27c 10.60e 140.74bc 130.09d 73.74a
Maize-Lrace Lsdetass 2.27b 6.87c 176.07cd 49.24b 147.71ab
Maize-Lrace intact 2.20b 6.93c 164.42cd 44.81ab 111.41a
Maize-R,Mbare Lsdeta 1.53b 2.47b 95.67a 36.16a 150.43ab
Maize-R,Mbare intact 0.73a 0.80a 82.20a 32.25a 129.98ab
BEB monocrop 4.07d 9.47d 205.70e 142.49d 146.10ab
CBC3 monocrop 5.67e 13.63f 218.15e 187.27e 109.92a
Landrace monocrop 2.47bc 13.77f 178.90c 59.61b 200.31b
Red,Mbare monocrop 0.93a 1.37a 94.14a 57.64b 186.96b
P-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sed 0.37 0.70 11.21 5.35 18.96
LSD0.05 0.77 1.45 23.20 11.07 39.24
Means followed by the same letter in a column are not significantly different at P<0.05.

The residual vegetative biomass of CBC3, BEB and Red ex-Mbare were not
significantly different when they were either grown in monocrops or in the intercrop. The
climbing cultivars, L. Landrace and Red ex-Mbare in monocrops had significantly higher
residual vegetative biomasses compared to their intercropped treatments (Table 1).
Leafstripping and detasselling maize in a maize-cowpea intercrop (P<0.05)
significantly affected 1000-grain weight as well as the grain yield. Cowpea cultivar
grown with maize did not significantly affect (P>0.05) 1000 grain weight. There was no
significant interaction between cowpea cultivar and leafstripping and detasselling on
1000-grain weight as well as maize grain yield). Maize yield and 1000-grain weight
increased by 12% and 11.7% respectively in leafstripped and detasselled maize compared
to intact maize averaged across cowpea cultivars. Cowpea cultivar in a maize-cowpea
intercrop had a highly significant effect on maize grain yield (P<0.01). Maize
intercropped with the upright cowpea cultivars, BEB and CBC3 had 13.9%-22.9%
higher grain yield than maize intercropped with the climbing varieties (Table 1). There
was no significant interaction (P>0.05) between cowpea cultivar and leafstripping and

1222
 Katsaruware, R.D et al. EJEAFChe, 8 (11), 2009. [1218-1226]
detasselling on 1000-grain yield and maize grain yield.
The upright cowpea cultivars intercropped with maize reduced maize grain yield
probably due to the small staturedness of the upright cowpea cultivars that offered little
competition with maize for important growth resources. The crawling cowpea varieties
crawled over the maize and shaded some of the most photosynthetic ally active leaves
such as the cob leaves, therefore reducing maize grain yield. The upright cultivars also
appeared to mature too early (Mashingaidze, 2004 and Wein and Nangju (1976) prior to
the reproductive phase of maize therefore reducing competition at the reproductive phase
of maize. The vigorous nature of the climbing cowpea cultivars resulted in competition
for water, nutrients and light therefore reducing the amount of incident light to penetrate
the cob leaves (Mashingaidze, 2004) as well as other leaves that contribute assimilates for
the grain filling processes therefore significantly reducing maize grain yield.
Maize yield reduction in intercropped maize compared to the sole maize
reductions could be due to a higher degree of interspecific competition in mixed stands
and the absence of interspecific competition in the monocrops (Agboola and Fayemi,
(1971), Semu and Jana 1975 and Enyi, 1973). The delays in senescence in the
monocropped treatment increased the grain filling period therefore increasing the size of
kernels contributing to higher maize yield.
Cowpea grain yield was reduced at varying rates for BEB, CBC3, Local Landrace
and Red ex Mbare, respectively when intercropped with maize. These variations could be
due to the different architectures of cowpea cultivars. BEB and CBC3 are short statured
semi- prostate cowpea cultivars (Musundire, 2005) as indicated by their low residual
vegetative biomass. The cultivars spent much of their energy in reproductive growth at
the expense of vegetative growth. CBC3 and BEB produced relatively high number of
pods per plant, grains per pod and the extent of grain filling was relatively higher
compared to the climbing cultivars. The L. Landrace and Red ex-Mbare produced
relatively lower yield components because of extensive vegetative growth at the expense
of reproductive growth. A relatively longer length of time the cowpeas take to reach the
reproductive phase as well as a shorter grain filling period in the climbing cultivars also
contributed to the reduced cowpea grain yields in the climbing cultivars.
Leafstripping and detasselling increased cowpea yield and its yield components
compared to the intact treatments averaged across cowpea cultivars. This was due to the
increase in the amount of incoming PAR into the canopy to the benefit of the dominated
minor crop (Subedi, 1996 and Mashingaidze, 2004). Detasselling and leafstripping was
also likely to benefit a companion crop grown under the canopy of the maize that
continues to grow and reproduce long after leafstripping and detasselling interventions
were implemented (Mashingaidze, 2004) therefore increasing cowpea yield. The
indeterminate Local landraces and Red ex-Mbare were therefore more likely to exhibit
the greater yield benefits from leafstripping and detasselling but however failed due to
disease attack. The cowpea cultivar*leafstripping and detasselling interactions showed
that leafstripping and detasselling treatment affected the production of pods on cowpea
cultivars differently. The effects of leafstripping and detasselling treatment was only
expressed when Red ex Mbare intercropped with maize that was leafstripped and
detasselled. The results suggest that as long as farmers intercrop maize with cowpeas
there is no additional gain in number of pods per plant as a result of leafstripping and
detasselling maize, however grain yield is positively affected.

1223
 Katsaruware, R.D et al. EJEAFChe, 8 (11), 2009. [1218-1226]
Weed density and biomass

Weed density and biomass were significantly affected by cropping system (P<0.05).
However, cowpea cultivar grown with maize had no significant effect on the number of
the weeds that emerged as well as weed growth at 6 WACE. There was a significant
cultivar* cropping system interaction on weed density at 6 WACE. Weed density and
biomass were significantly lower when maize was intercropped with cowpeas than sole
cowpeas (Table 1). Significantly higher weed density (32%) and biomass (27%) were
recorded in sole cowpeas than the maize-cowpea intercrops. Cropping system had a
significant effect (P<0.05) on weed density and biomass at physiological maturity.
Cowpea cultivar grown with maize (P>0.05) had no significant effect on weed density
and biomass. There was no significant interaction between cropping system and cowpea
cultivar grown with maize.
There was a significant interaction (P=0.042) between cropping system and
cowpea cultivar grown with maize on weed density at 6 WACE. There was a difference
in the effectiveness of cowpea cultivars to suppress weed emergence in the intercrop and
when planted as monocrops. When Local Landrace, BEB and CBC3 were intercropped
with maize, weed density was significantly reduced by 34%, 42% and 50.5% respectively
compared to the cowpea monocrops. In contrast when Red ex Mbare was intercropped
with maize, weed density was not significantly reduced compared to the monocropped
treatment.
Leafstripping and detasselling (P<0.05) significantly affected weed density at
physiological maturity. This intervention significantly increased weed density by 37.2%
than intact maize averaged across cowpea cultivars and cropping system. Weed biomass
was 33.3% lower in intact maize compared to leafstripped and detasselled maize although
not statistically significant. There was no significant interaction between leafstripping
and detasselling of maize at anthesis and cowpea cultivar on weed density and biomass.

Figure 1 Interaction between cowpea cultivar and cropping system on weed densities at 6 WACE. (Error
bars are ±standard error of the difference SED).

Maize-cowpea intercropping reduced weed germination as well as weed. Weed

biomass was significantly reduced by 46.2% in the intercropped treatments compared to
sole cowpea treatments (Figure 1). There was no significant cropping system*cultivar
interaction (P>0.05) on weed biomass and density. Cowpea cultivars grown with maize
did not have a significant effect on weed density and biomass at 6 WACE probably due
to similar initial growth rates of the various cultivars (Musundire, 2005). The growth
rates were almost the same such that the number of weeds that emerged as well as their
growth was almost similar.
The cultivar*cropping system interactions on weed density showed that weed
density did not respond to cropping system only when Red ex-Mbare was grown but
with all the other varieties, the intercrops had lower weed density when intercropped than
monocropped. These results mean that as long as smallholder farmers intercrop maize
with cowpeas there is a gain in weed suppression in intercropped treatments than sole
treatments as indicated by the lower weed densities in intercropped treatments, however
there is not much benefit in intercropping Red ex-Mbare with maize for the purpose of
weed suppression.
Maize-cowpea intercrops reduced density and weed biomass when compared to
sole crops. This was consistent with the work of Mashingaidze, Nyakanda, Chivinge,

1224
 Katsaruware, R.D et al. EJEAFChe, 8 (11), 2009. [1218-1226]
Mwashaireni and Dube (2000) in a maize-pumpkin live mulch experiment. The reduction
in weed densities of intercropped treatments was as a result of limited availability of
resources to weed species (Gahlot, 1978). The interrow spaces provide room for weeds to
flourish in monocrops compared to the intercrops (Gahlot, 1978) therefore increasing
weed density in monocrops. In intercrops, the combined foliage of the cereal and legume
crop intercepted most of the green and red light leaving far red to reach the ground. Far
red light is known to be inhibitory to weed germination (Bridgemohan and Braithwaite,
1987). and total ground cover by intercrops (Clark and Francis, 1985) was responsible for
weed suppression by the intercrops. Weed biomass reduction in intercrops can be
explained by the reduction in total incoming PAR reaching the ground caused by maize-
cowpea intercrop. Similar to work done by Mashingaidze (2004) with a maize-pumpkin
intercrop were the pumpkin had a similar growth habit to the climbing cowpea cultivars.
The increase in weed density and biomass (in leaf stripped and detasselled
treatments at physiological maturity can be attributed to an increase in the amount of
incident PAR reaching the ground late in the season due to leafstripping therefore
encouraging the germination of late weeds (Mashingaidze, 2004). The break in canopy
architecture as a result of leafstripping and detasselling stimulated tremendous weed
emergence (Bridgemohan and Brathwaite, 1987) resulting in the higher weed numbers
observed late in the season in leafstripped and detasselled treatments compared to intact
maize treatments.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS TO FARMERS

The upright cowpea cultivars (CBC3 and BEB) were the more adaptable cowpea varieties
for maize-cowpea intercropping where they gave the least maize and cowpea yield
reduction and highest LERs (1.44-1.63) in contrast to the traditional trailing and climbing
varieties that reduced maize and cowpea yields and had relatively lower LERs (1.17-
1.51).
Leafstripping and detasselling increased maize grain filling and grain yield by,
compared to intact maize. Maize-cowpea intercrops reduced weed emergence at 6 WACE
and physiological maturity. However, maize-CBC3 and maize-BEB intercrops were more
effective in suppressing weeds compared to the maize-Local Landrace and maize-Red ex-
Mbare intercrops.
The new upright cowpea varieties are suitable for intercropping with maize and
are recommended for use in traditional maize cowpea intercrops used by smallholder
farmers in Zimbabwe. The traditional trailing and climbing varieties produced very low
grain yields both in monocrops and when intercropped with maize. Leafstripping and
detasselling maize at anthesis can be used by smallholder farmers to increase the
productivity of maize and cowpea. Maize-cowpea intercropping increases the efficiency
of land utilization (higher LER) and has potential to reduce the weeding burden of
smallholder farmers-recommended in low input smallholder farming.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the Department of Crop Science in the Faculty of Agriculture at the
University of Zimbabwe for providing facilities and fields for experimental designs and
Ruforum funding for the project.

REFERENCES
1. Agboola, A. A. and A. A. Fayemi, 1971. Preliminary trials on the intercropping of Maize
with different tropical legumes in western Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Science

1225
 Katsaruware, R.D et al. EJEAFChe, 8 (11), 2009. [1218-1226]
(Cambridge) 77: 219-225.
2. Akobundu, I. O., 1993. How weed science can protect soil. International Agricultural
Development 13(1): 7-9.
3. Bridgemohan, P. and R. A. Brathwaite, 1987. Economic importance of white top
(Parthenium hysterophorus L.) under intensive vegetative production in Trinidad.
Proceedings of 23rd CFRS. Annual meeting, Antigua. pp 219-226.
4. Chinwuba, P. M., C. O. Grogan and M. S. Zuber, 1961. Interaction of detasselling,
sterility and spacing on yields of maize hybrids. Crop Science 1: 279-280.
5. Clark, E. A. and C. A. Francis, 1985. Transgressive yielding in maize-bean intercrops:
Interference in space and time. Field Crops Research 11: 37-53.
6. Enyi, B. A. C., 1973. Effects of intercropping maize or sorghum with cowpeas, pigeon
peas or beans. Experimental Agriculture 9: 83-90.
7. Francis, C. A., 1985. Intercropping: Competition and yield advantage. In: Ed.R.
Shibles,World Soyabean Research Conference 111. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, pp
1017-1024.
8. Gahlot, K. N. S., 1978. ‘Urd T.9 as intercrop with Ahar T.21. Indian Farming 27: 7-8.
9. Galinat, W., 1992. Maize. In Encyclopedia of Mexico. History, Culture and Society,
1997. Fitzroy, Dearbon Publishers, Mexico City, Mexico.
Kumura, A., 1968. Studies on dry matter production of soyabean plant. IV.
Photosynthetic properties of leaf as subsequently affected by light. Proceedings of Japan
Crop Science Society 37: 583-588.
10. Liebman, M., 1988. Ecological suppression of weeds in intercropping systems: A
review. In Eds: M. A. Altieri and M. Liebman. Weed management in Agro-
systems: Ecological Approaches. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
11. Mariga, I. K., 1990. Effect of cowpea planting date and density on the performance of
Maize-cowpea intercrop. Zimbabwe Journal of Agricultural Research 28: 125-131.
12. Mashingaidze, A. B., C. Nyakanda, O. A. Chivinge, A. Mwashaireni, and K. W. Dube,
2000. Influence of a maize pumpkin live mulch on weed dynamics and maize yield. African
Plant Protection 6(1): 57-63.
13. Mashingaidze, A. B. 2004. Improving weed management and crop productivity in maize
systems in Zimbabwe. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen.
14. Mead, R. and R. W. Willey, 1980. The concept of ‘land equivalent ratio’ and advantages
in yields from intercropping. Experimental Agriculture 16: 217-228.
15. Musundire, P., 2005. Evaluation of the adaptability of three cowpea varieties for maize
cowpea intercrop systems and their effectiveness in suppressing weeds. BSc
dissertation, Crop Science Department, University of Zimbabwe.
16. Nangju, D., 1978. Effect of plant density, spatial arrangement and plant type on weed
control in cowpea and soybean. In: Weeds and their control in the humid and semi-humid
tropics. Ed. I. O. Akobundu pp 288-293.
17. Semu, E. and R. K. Jana, 1975. Intercropping soybean with maize. Presented at the first
World Soybean Research Conference, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
18. Subedi, K. P., 1996. Effect of leaf stripping, detasselling and topping of maize on maize
and relay intercropped finger millet. Experimental Agriculture 32: 57-61.
19. Trenbath, B. R. and Angus, J. F, 1975. Leaf inclination and crop production. Field Crop
Abstracts 28: 231-244.
20. Vincent, V and Thomas, R. G., 1960. An Agricultural survey of Southern Rhodesia, Part
I. Agro-ecological survey. Government Printers, Salisbury.
21. Wein, H. C. and Nangju, D. 1976. The cowpea as an intercrop under cereals. In
Symposium on intercropping in semi-arid areas. Morogoro. Tanzania.
22. Willey, R. W., 1979. Intercropping-Its importance and research needs. Part 1:
Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstracts 32: 1-10.
23. Williams, J. T., 1964. A study of the competitive ability of Chenopodium album L
Interference between kale and Chenopodium album grown in pure stands and in Mixtures.
Weed Research 4: 283-295.
24. Zimdahl, E., 1999. Fundamentals of Weed Science. Academic Press, London.

1226
Copyright of Electronic Journal of Environmental, Agricultural & Food Chemistry is the property of Electronic
Journal of Environmental, Agricultural & Food Chemistry and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

View publication stats