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

net/publication/315825681

An evaluation of the yield of corn (Zea mays L.) and bean (phaseolus vulgaris)
intercrop

Article · April 2015

CITATIONS READS

2 202

4 authors, including:

Mehrdad Ataie Kachouie

Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord Branch
20 PUBLICATIONS   39 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Effect of plant hormones on yield, quality and genetic variations of two herbs St John's-wort and lemon balm in two years View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mehrdad Ataie Kachouie on 08 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ACADEMIE ROYALE DES SCIENCES D OUTRE-MER BULLETIN DES SEANCES
Vol. 4 No. 2 May 2015 pp. 132-135
ISSN: 0001-4176

An evaluation of the yield of corn (Zea mays L.) and bean (phaseolus vulgaris) intercrop
1
Habibollah Heidari, 2Bahram Majd Nassiri, 3Seyed Jalil Noorbakhshia, 1Mehrdad Ataie Kachoie
1
Department of Agro-Ecology, Faculty of Agriculture, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Shahrekord, Iran
2
Central of Agriculture Research Institute of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
3
Central of Agriculture Research Institute of Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari, Shahrekord, Iran

Abstract: In order to investigate the yield of maize-green bean intercrop (Zea mays L. and phaseolus
vulgaris) an experiment was conducted in a randomized complete block design with 3 replications in 2013
cropping season in Chahar Mahal-e-Bakhtiari Province. The experiment comprised of 6 treatments: sole
maize, sole green pea and 4 maize-green pea intercropping mix-proportion: 50green pea:50 maize in one
alternate rows (1GB:1M), 20 green pea:80 maize, 50 green pea:50 maize in 2 rows of maize to 2 rows of
green pea (2M:2GB), 80 green bean: 20 maize. The results showed that planting pattern had significant
effects on (P≤0.01) biological yield of maize and green bean, dry weight of green bean sheath, dry weight
of corn, ear length, ear diameter, height of green bean and maize plants, and the length of green bean
sheath. The comparison of the results shows the advantage of intercropping over sole-crop, and most of the
measured traits 1GB: 1M and 2M: 2GB planting patterns had significant advantage over other planting
patterns. Therefore, according to the results, under climatic conditions of the study area and similar regions,
we can recommend rotate intercropping of these two plants to get the top yield.

Key words: Zea mays L Phaseolus vulgaris Biological yield Intercrop Dry weight
   

INTRODUCTION utilization of the available resources such as land, work,

time, water and nutritional ingredients, economic
Despite the expansion of monoculture, there are advantage and reducing the damage caused by pests and
many countries which for various reasons prefer diseases [8; 9].
intercropping systems to sole-cropping [6]. However, Maize has a single tall stalk with multiple leaves, the
intercropping system is not adequately studied roots easily extend deep enough into the soil. Green
compared to other systems. Some researchers with bean is an annual plant of legume family which is
ecological tendencies to intercropping approaches have available in two types: var.vulgaris and var.nanus.
argued that if two species grow next to each other, the Green bean needs temperatures between 18 ° C and 25 °
C
competition between the species would be inevitable to grow. It is susceptible to frost, and gets damaged at
which result in decreased growth of one or both species, temperatures below 4 ° C. The minimum temperature
but if the intensity of competition is not so high as to for germination of beans is between 6 ° C and 8 ° C, and
lead to the removal of one of the intercropping species, the minimum temperature for growth is between 9° C to
then it may lead to increased intercropping performance 10 ° C. Bean is cultivated in all weather conditions. But
compared to sole-cropping of each of the species, based in too hot climatic conditions, its performance reduces
on the principle of competitive production or the drastically [2]. Cultivation of tall stalk crops such as
Principle of Proto-cooperation . The purpose of maize and grain maize with cereals is one the most
intercropping systems is to optimize the use of space, important types of intercropping. Since maize and green
time and physical resources in both sections, i.e. the bean are different in their growth habits, roots
higher and lower soil, through maximizing the positive development forms and shoots, due to the reduced
effects and minimizing the negative effects general competition in vegetation cover it is expected
(competition) between the components. Generally, the that their intercropping lead to increased yield
following are some reasons to prefer intercropping to compared to sole-cropping of each crop. Most
sole-cropping: increased production per unit area, better researchers believe that temporal difference between
Corresponding Author: Mehrdad Ataie Kachoie
132
 the stages of growth and maturity of the intercropping morphological characteristics. As their development
elements which lead to differentiation of the periods and growth stages, cultivation and harvesting are in a
they require maximum growth factors is the main manner that most likely differences in their need for
factor which trigger assistance mechanisms between food, water, light are expected; reduced competition
species and ensure excellence in intercropping [5]. between species and increased proto-cooperation make
Some research report a significant effect of way for the usefulness of intercropping.
intercropping on biological yield and grain yield of
maize and green bean [4]. Eskandari and Javan-mard MATERIALS AND METHODS
[1] evaluated the yield and quality of forage in
intercropping patterns of corn and cowpea (Vigna This study was conducted at Gol-Dareh farm, in
unguiculata). The results showed that the ingredients of Farrokhshahr which is located to the East of Shahrekord
intercropping maize and cowpea on consumption of with latitude 32 degrees 17 minutes and longitude 50
environmental resources including light, humidity and degrees 56 minutes and 2105 meters above sea level. It
soil nutrients are complementary that make way for is a cold mountainous region; with an average annual
increased dry matter production in intercropping rainfall of 291.2 mm and an average temperature of
compared to sole-cropping. 12.9 ° C. Physical and chemical characteristics of the
Considering the results of the studies and the benefits of soil in the study area were analyzed. Based on
intercropping, the purpose of this study was to gain physiographical units, Shahrekord and its suburbs have
proper plant density and pattern for maize-green bean large amounts of amorphous iron crystalline in surface
intercropping. In this study, maize and green bean were horizon compared to subsoil, and it also has a higher
selected to investigate the advantage of intercropping percentage of organic matter (Table 1.0).
over sole-cropping with regard to their biological and

Table 1.0 Soil characteristics of the study area

Kava. Zn. Mn. Cu
Sample Depth EC PH. OC TNV Pava. N Fe.
(Mg .kg - (Mg.kg - (Mg.kg - (Mg.kg -
description (Cm) (Ds.m -1) of past (%) (%) (Mg.kg -1)
1) (%) 1) 1) (Mg.kg -1) 1)

maize-green
bean 30 .753 7.77 .488 35.5 4.2 246 0.061 0.55 7.34 3.05 0.83
intercrop

Maize cv. KSC704 and Sunry green bean were used in development. SAS software package was used for
the experiment. Treatments of intercrops respectively statistical data analysis, analyzing the variance of the
were: treatment 1: 100% maize - 0.0 % green beans data and comparing their means. Microsoft Excel was
(sole maize), treatment 2: 0.0 % maize -100% green used to draw graphs. Duncan's multiple range tests at
beans (sole green bean), treatment 3: 50% maize - 50% 5% significance level was used to compare the means.
green beans in alternate rows (1M:1GB), treatment 4:
80% maize- 20% green beans (80M:20GB), treatments RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5: 50% maize-50% green beans (2 rows of maize to 2
rows of green bean) namely (2M:2GB), and treatment Analysis of variance showed that the use of different
6: 20% corn - 80% green beans (20M:80GB). The methods of planting patterns for maize and green beans
experimental farm bed was prepared by furrower. The have significant effects on the biological yield of maize,
distance between rows was 50 cm. Maize and green dry weight of the corn, diameter and length of the ear
bean was planted on each row with 7-15 cm from one and the height of the maize plants (Table 1.0).
another. The traits we studied included biological yield Comparative analysis of the means show that 1M: 1GB
of maize and green beans, dry weight of green bean and 2M: 2GB had the highest biological yield, and there
sheath, dry weight of maize, ear length, ear diameter, were no significant differences in biological yield of
green bean pod length, the height of the maize and intercropped maize and sole-cropping one. It should be
green bean plants. The seeds of both species were noted that biological yield of 80M: 20GB and 20M:
sowed simultaneously in dry soil in mid-May. 150 kg 80GB respectively had significantly decreased
triple super phosphate fertilizer and 100 kg potassium compared to sole-cropping treatment. To the extent that
sulfate fertilizer per hectare and 150 kg urea per hectare biological yield of 20M:80GB compared to sole maize,
were used simultaneously for both species. The shows 80% loss in biological yield. Analysis of
fertilizer was used three times based on the principles variance showed that planting pattern had a significant
of crop and soil analysis, i.e., before planting, when effect on the dry weight of maize. The comparison of
they had grown six leaves and during flower the means suggests there were no significant
133
differences in dry weight of maize planted in the deteriorated with regard to sunlight absorption and the
patterns of 1M: 1GB, and 2M: 2GB and sole maize. space required for plant growth. In this study, 2M: 2GB
Dry weight of maize planted in pattern of 4 rows of plot had higher dry matter compared to sole maize.
maize to 1 row of green bean and vice versa Creating suitable space and light in 2M: 2GB lead to
significantly decreased compared to dry weight of ear higher yield of maize per unit area. In this study, as the
in alternate planting (1M: 1GB and 2M: 2GB). density of the maize increases, the ear diameter
Comparative analysis shows that the mean corn decreases. This finding accords with Rezaee et al. [3].
diameter decreased as compared to other treatments. Reduction in yield components of each crop and the
The mean ear diameter has decreased from almost 125 conditions for increase in density of the crop are
mm to 117 mm. Other treatments of intercropping evident, but due to the increase per unit area, yield
maize had no significant differences with other increases per unit area. The same situation was
treatments. As Tables 2.0 and 3.0 shows, the ear length observed for the length of the ear in maize plants. In
in both alternate planting of green beans- maize and 1M: 4GB plot, the competition between plants during
1M: 4GB had no significant differences with other the growth of ears was the lowest. Provision of
treatments. In 1M: 4GB and sole green bean, ear length adequate space and light for maize plants and their
were not significantly different from each other, but had competition with green beans makes the growth of the
15% loss compared to alternate planting, on average it ears last longer and increase the quantitative parameters
had decreased from 35cm to 30 cm. Alternate planting of this trait. This is consistent with Eskandari and
of 2M: 2GB compared to sole-cropping conditions had Javan-mard [12].
significantly higher plants, 4M: 1GB was significantly The higher the number of maize plants compared to
different and its plants were higher than those of sole- green bean plant, the less would be the height of maize
crops (Tables 2.0 and 3.0). plants, which reveals the competition between plants,
Table 4.0 shows that 20M:80GB (1 row of maize to 4 especially the intense competition between the maize
rows of green bean) suggest that biological yield of plants compared to green bean plants. Dry weight of
green bean was significantly different form sole green green bean sheath, more than any other parameter is
bean and showed 12 % loss. 4M: 1GB had the lowest influenced by different treatments of intercropping. 2M:
biological yield. 4M: 1GB compared to other treatments 2GB plot has the highest dry weight of sheath in green
and sole green bean had significantly higher plants. To bean plants. The trend of dry weight of sheath also
the extent that, this treatment compared to sole green suggests that the higher the light share of plants in
bean was up to 20% higher and had highest plants. green bean intercrops; the yield of dry matter of sheath
Planting pattern had significant effect on dry weight of would be higher too. Thus, 4M: 1GB has the lowest
sheath per unit area. 2M: 2GB and 1M: 4GB had sheath dry weight; and the treatment consisting of two
significantly higher dry weight of green bean sheath by rows of green bean and two rows of maize had the
about 30% compared to sole green bean. The pattern highest sheath dry weight. The significantly positive
consisting of a line of green beans for 4 lines of maize impact of the planting pattern makes way for increased
significantly by 60% reduced the dry weight of pods yield of green bean in unit area which is due to better
per unit area. 1M: 1GB and 4M: 1GB compared to sole- environmental conditions, higher efficiency in
crops are significantly different. 4M: 1GB plot had the absorption of sunlight, humidity, and higher food
greatest height (Table 4.0). intake. Further, green beans use maize plants as a
The study results showed that biological yield of maize protector which helps to achieve higher yield in
is heavily influenced by planting pattern, especially in intercropping. This is in agreement with Eskandari and
the treatment which are planted in the space between the Javan-mard [1] in evaluating the yield of maize and
green beans. Providing appropriate light and suitable cowpea intercropping patterns in consumption of
density for green beans in the open space of maize and environmental resources and complementary role of
providing the perfect conditions for maize leads to intercropping components.
greater biological yield for both crops. Different growth
rates, the breadth of the leaf and shoots of both crops, CONCLUSION
provided environmental conditions (especially adequate
light) for expansion of maize shoots, leading to Due to resource limitations and tendency to make less
increased yield and higher efficiency of photosynthesis use of agricultural inputs and machinery we may
in maize. This finding agrees with Schutz and Brim recommend intercropping. The combination of these
(1967). 4M: 1GB plot to some extent has improved the two plants after harvesting can provide better hay or
light and environmental conditions in favor of higher silage with higher nutritional value. Although maize has
biological yield of maize; however, the growth a high yield in dry matter production, the plant is poor
conditions for green bean plants have significantly in protein (less than 100 grams per kilogram of dry
134
 matter). While protein is essential for optimum growth and proposed field plot design. Crop sci.7: 371-
and milk production by animals [11], because of the 376.
low protein content of forage maize, to only feed forage 11. Ghanbari-Bonjar H, 2000. Intercropped wheat
maize does not lead to satisfactory results in many (Triticumaestivum) and bean as a
animals. Thus, when the produced forage is poor in
protein, it is necessary to use protein supplements. A
good way to increase the protein content of the forage is
to mix it with legume plants which are rich in protein
content. Green bean is an annual plant from the legume
family that could be intercropped with maize to
increase the protein content of livestock diets and cut
the expenses of adding protein supplements to forage.
Physiological and morphological differences between
intercropping ingredients influence their ability to make
use of environmental resources.

REFERENCES

1. Javan-shir, A., Dabbagh Muhammadi Nasab, A.,

Hamidi, A., and Qolipur, M. 2000. The ecology of
intercropping. Iranian Academic Center for
Education, Culture and research, Mashhad, 217.
2. Khoda Bandeh, N. 1989. Cereal Cultivation,
Sepehre Publication
3. Rezaee et al. 2011. Journal of Agricultural Science
and Sustainable Production. Vol. 2. 21 (1).
4. Zaviyeh Mavadat, L., 1995, intercropping of maize
and cowpea and its effect on control of weeds.
MSc Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, University of
Tehran.
5. Sharifi, E., Agha Ali Khani, M., Modares Thanavi,
A., and M. Soroush Zadeh, A. 2006. The effect of
mix-proportions and plant density on forage
production in intercropping of sorghum with
cowpea. Journal of Agricultural Science, Vol. 1, 37
(2): 363-370.
6. Mazaheri, D. 1994. Intercropping as a technique to
rise the stability of products. The 3rd Iranian Crop
Sciences Congress, University of Tabriz.
7. Nielsen, HH, P. Ambus, and ES Jensen. 2001.
Interspecific competition N use and interference
with weeds in pea-barley intercropping. Field
Crops Research. 70: 101-109.
8. Awal, MA, Koshi, H., and Ikeda, T. 2006.
Radiation interception and use by maize / peanut
intercrop canopy. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology. 139: 74-83.
9. Ebwongu, M., Adipala, E., Kyamanywa, S.,
Ssekabembe, CK, and Bhagsari, AS 2001a.
Influence of spatial arrangements in maize/solanum
potato intercrops on incidence of potato aphids and
leaf hoppers in Uganda. African Crop Science
Journal. 9 (1): 175-184.
10. Schutz, WM and CA Brim. 1967. Inter-genotypic
competition in soybeans. I. Evaluating of effects
135

View publication stats