Suchergebnisse

International audience ; Five sorghum/soyabean planting schedules intercrop were evaluated in a field experiment at Mokwa (Guinea savannah) in Nigeria, during the 2012 and 2013 cropping seasons with a view of determining the planting schedule that will result in the highest net benefits. Experimental design was randomize complete block (RCB) with three replicates. Soyabean variety TGX1019-2EB was drilled on the crest of the ridge, while sorghum seedlings were transplanted on the lower side of the ridge. The following sorghum/soyabean intercrop treatments were evaluated: (1) Sorg + Soy 0DAPS: Sorghum seedlings intercropped with soyabean at 0 day after planting soyabean, (2) Sorg + Soy 14DAPS: Sorghum seedlings intercropped with soyabean at 14 days after planting soyabean, (3) Sorg + Soy 28DAPS: Sorghum seedlings intercropped with soyabean at 28 days after planting soyabean. Sole soyabean and sole sorghum were also planted as treatments 4 and 5 respectively. Results obtained indicated that the treatment Sorg + Soy 0DAPS gave the highest net benefit of N798, 000 and N287, 150 in 2012 and 2013 respectively.

International audience ; Seven soyabean/maize planting schedule intercrop were evaluated in a field experiment at Mokwa (Guinea savannah agro-ecology) in Nigeria, during the 2012 and 2013 cropping seasons with a view of determining the planting schedule that will result in the highest net benefit. Experimental design was randomize complete block (RCB) with three replicates. Soyabean variety TGX1448-2E was intercropped with maize variety ACR-DMR-SRY using the following planting schedules: (1) Maize planted at 14 Days Before Planting Soyabean(14DBPS), (2) Maize planted at 7 Days Before Planting Soyabean(7DBPS), (3) Maize and soyabean planted on the Same Date(PSD), (4) Soyabean planted 14 Days Before Planting Maize (14DBPM), (5) Soyabean planted at 7 Days Before Planting Maize (7DBPM), (6) Sole soyabean, (7) Sole maize. Results obtained indicated that when maize was the main crop, optimum net benefit was obtained when maize was planted at 14 Days Before Planting Soyabean (14DBPS), while when soyabean was the main crop, optimum net benefit was obtained when soyabean was planted at 7 Days Before Planting Maize (7DBPM).

Cassava intercropping is a common practice in sub-Saharan Africa. In terms of growth pattern, canopy development and nutrient demand, grain legumes are well suited for intercropping with cassava. Due to the inter-specific competition for growth resources, the relative planting time of the component crops has been considered as one of the important management practices for intercropping system productivity. Little information exists on the effect of cassava planting time on yields and economic returns of a cassava-legume intercrop. This study investigated the effect of relative planting times of cassava on yields and economic returns of a cassava-groundnut intercrop. Researcher-managed, field trials were installed in Bas-Congo Province in two consecutive seasons using four different planting times of cassava after the groundnuts. The results indicated that cassava planting time did not affect both grain and biomass yields of groundnut. When cassava was planted 3 weeks after the groundnuts, cassava storage root yields were significantly (P = 0.029) decreased by 48 to 60 % (9.3 to 11.3 t ha-1) over cassava planted at the same time as groundnut. The net revenue of cassava planted 3 weeks after the groundnut was significantly (P = 0.002) decreased by about 70 % over that of cassava planted at the same time or 2 weeks after the groundnuts. Maximum net revenue of $ 1877 ha-1 with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.42 was reported in the treatment of cassava planted at the same time. Benefit-cost ratio was favourable for the pure cassava (3.2 to 3.8) but not favourable for the pure groundnut. Cassava intercropping with groundnut had significantly (P = 0.019) lower profits than the pure cassava. The results suggest that cassava should be planted at the same time or not later than 2 weeks after the groundnuts to maximize yields and economic returns in a cassava-groundnut intercrop. ; Peer Review

Cassava intercropping is a common practice in sub-Saharan Africa. In terms of growth pattern, canopy development and nutrient demand, grain legumes are well suited for intercropping with cassava. Due to the inter-specific competition for growth resources, the relative planting time of the component crops has been considered as one of the important management practices for intercropping system productivity. Little information exists on the effect of cassava planting time on yields and economic returns of a cassava-legume intercrop. This study investigated the effect of relative planting times of cassava on yields and economic returns of a cassava-groundnut intercrop. Researcher-managed, field trials were installed in Bas-Congo Province in two consecutive seasons using four different planting times of cassava after the groundnuts. The results indicated that cassava planting time did not affect both grain and biomass yields of groundnut. When cassava was planted 3 weeks after the groundnuts, cassava storage root yields were significantly (P = 0.029) decreased by 48 to 60 % (9.3 to 11.3 t ha-1) over cassava planted at the same time as groundnut. The net revenue of cassava planted 3 weeks after the groundnut was significantly (P = 0.002) decreased by about 70 % over that of cassava planted at the same time or 2 weeks after the groundnuts. Maximum net revenue of $ 1877 ha-1 with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.42 was reported in the treatment of cassava planted at the same time. Benefit-cost ratio was favourable for the pure cassava (3.2 to 3.8) but not favourable for the pure groundnut. Cassava intercropping with groundnut had significantly (P = 0.019) lower profits than the pure cassava. The results suggest that cassava should be planted at the same time or not later than 2 weeks after the groundnuts to maximize yields and economic returns in a cassava-groundnut intercrop.

This study compares farmer and professional mental perceptions, in the village of Tentuli, India, of their preferences of specific conservation agricultural production systems and objectives as they relate to the goal of improved income. The analytical hierarchy process is used to compare mental perceptions of various agricultural technology characteristics. Results reveal that farmers prefer intercrop/ plow with yield, while professionals prefer intercrop/ minimum tillage with profit as the most preferred objective. Results can be used to support and promote collaborations amongst stakeholders and farmers to reduce perception gaps and provide recommendations towards other agricultural efforts in extension, government and agribusiness. ; LTRA-11 (CAPS among tribal societies in India and Nepal)

The problem of severe weed infestation often arises during the early phases of establishment of oil palm field due to the spacing requirement and growth habit of young oil palm plantation until later years when the canopy closes. This study was conducted at Ala, Akure-North Local Government Area, Ondo State, Nigeria, to investigate the composition of weed species and their distribution in fruit vegetable-juvenile oil palm intercrop. The fallow alleys within the immature oil palm were intercropped with 2 accessions of tomato (NGB 01665 and NG/AA/SEP/09/053) and eggplant (NGB 01737). The sampling of the weed species was carried out with a quadrat (0.25 m2). Weed species parameters and the Diversity Index (D) were quantitatively analyzed. The results revealed that members of Asteraceae and Poaceae gave the highest weed species at 3 and 6 weeks after intercropping (WAI) (17.857% and 19.04%) respectively. A total of 23 and 16 were found at 3 and 6 WAI, while the least diversity index of 0.734 was recorded in the immature oil palm/tomato (NGB 01665) plot at 6 WAI. Farmers should be persuaded to simultaneously intercrop fruit vegetables within the alley of juvenile oil palm, particularly at the earlier years prior to closure of the oil palm canopy.

Cereal-legume intercropping can increase yields, reduce fertilizer input and improve soil quality compared with pure culture. Designing intercropping systems requires the integration of plant species trait selection with choice of crop configuration and management. Crop growth models can facilitate the understanding and prediction of the interactions between plant traits, crop configuration and management. However, currently no existing crop growth model has been calibrated and tested for cereal-legume intercrops throughout Europea. We calibrated the Agricultural Production Systems sIMulator (APSIM) for pure cultures of wheat and faba bean using data from Dutch field trials, and determined the phenological parameters to simulate pure cultures and intercrops from seven field experiments across Europe. APSIM successfully reproduced aboveground dry matters and, for wheat only, grain yields in pure cultures. In intercrops, APSIM systematically overestimated the aboveground dry matter and grain yield of faba bean and underestimated those of wheat. APSIM was reasonably capable of simulating plant heights in pure cultures, but respectively overestimated and underestimated the height of faba bean and wheat in intercrops. In order to simulate wheat-faba bean intercrops better, APSIM should be improved regarding the calculation of biomass partitioning to grains in faba bean and of height growth in both species. ; HNCB, MW, AJK, EA, ÁMV, LPK, ACN, CS, ST, and GV received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement No. 727284, project DIVERSify: Designing InnoVative plant teams for Ecosystem Resilience and agricultural Sustainability, https://www.plant-teams.eu/. WvdW received funding from the European Union Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant agreement no. 727217, project ReMIX: Redesigning European cropping systems based on species MIXtures, https://www.remix-intercrops.eu.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of nitrogen topdressing rates applied to an intercrop of maize (M) with paiaguás grass (G) and pigeonpea (P) on silage production and on the pasture development in the offseason. Treatments consisted of two simultaneous intercropping systems (M + G; and M + G + P) and four N topdressing rates (0, 80, 160, and 240 kg ha?1). The introduction of pigeonpea into the system and the increasing N rates provided gains in yield and silage quality. Pigeonpea responded to nitrogen fertilization by having good regrowth and good dry matter yields in the intercrop. For silage making, the N rates of 240 kg ha?1 N for M+G and 120 kg ha?1 for M+G+P can be recommended. Nitrogen rates promote an increase in the dry matter yield of the grass and of pigeonpea, resulting in improvements in the pasture during the offseason.

Silvoarable agroforestry integrates the use of trees and arable crops on the same area of land, and such systems can be supported by national governments under the European Union's (EU) Rural Development Regulations (2014–2020). In order to improve the understanding of farmers' perceptions of such systems, detailed face-to-face interviews were completed with 15 farmers in Bedfordshire, England. Most of these farmers thought that silvoarable systems would not be profitable on their farms and that benefits would tend to be environmental or social rather than economic. Most farmers also thought that management and use of machinery would become more difficult. They felt that the tree component could potentially disrupt field operations and drainage and expressed concerns over the uncertain and long-term nature of timber revenue and the effect of intercrop yield reductions on crop revenue. Even so, 20% of the farmers stated they would use silvoarable systems if convinced that they were more profitable than conventional arable farming. A further 20%said they would farm the intercrop area belonging to someone else, if the rent was reduced to compensate for crop yield reductions. These results suggest that for most arable farmers, an economic advantage over current practice needs to exist before silvoarable systems are likely to be adopted. However, a minority might rent the crop component of a silvoarable system from another party or implement a full system for perceived environmental or social benefits.

Silvoarable agroforestry integrates the use of trees and arable crops on the same area of land, and such systems can be supported by national governments under the European Union's (EU) Rural Development Regulations (2014–2020). In order to improve the understanding of farmers' perceptions of such systems, detailed face-to-face interviews were completed with 15 farmers in Bedfordshire, England. Most of these farmers thought that silvoarable systems would not be profitable on their farms and that benefits would tend to be environmental or social rather than economic. Most farmers also thought that management and use of machinery would become more difficult. They felt that the tree component could potentially disrupt field operations and drainage and expressed concerns over the uncertain and long-term nature of timber revenue and the effect of intercrop yield reductions on crop revenue. Even so, 20% of the farmers stated they would use silvoarable systems if convinced that they were more profitable than conventional arable farming. A further 20%said they would farm the intercrop area belonging to someone else, if the rent was reduced to compensate for crop yield reductions. These results suggest that for most arable farmers, an economic advantage over current practice needs to exist before silvoarable systems are likely to be adopted. However, a minority might rent the crop component of a silvoarable system from another party or implement a full system for perceived environmental or social benefits.

Silvoarable agroforestry integrates the use of trees and arable crops on the same area of land, and such systems can be supported by national governments under the European Union's (EU) Rural Development Regulations (2014–2020). In order to improve the understanding of farmers' perceptions of such systems, detailed face-to-face interviews were completed with 15 farmers in Bedfordshire, England. Most of these farmers thought that silvoarable systems would not be profitable on their farms and that benefits would tend to be environmental or social rather than economic. Most farmers also thought that management and use of machinery would become more difficult. They felt that the tree component could potentially disrupt field operations and drainage and expressed concerns over the uncertain and long-term nature of timber revenue and the effect of intercrop yield reductions on crop revenue. Even so, 20% of the farmers stated they would use silvoarable systems if convinced that they were more profitable than conventional arable farming. A further 20% said they would farm the intercrop area belonging to someone else, if the rent was reduced to compensate for crop yield reductions. These results suggest that for most arable farmers, an economic advantage over current practice needs to exist before silvoarable systems are likely to be adopted. However, a minority might rent the crop component of a silvoarable system from another party or implement a full system for perceived environmental or social benefits.

Silvoarable agroforestry integrates the use of trees and arable crops on the same area of land, and such systems can be supported by national governments under the European Union's (EU) Rural Development Regulations (2014–2020). In order to improve the understanding of farmers' perceptions of such systems, detailed face-to-face interviews were completed with 15 farmers in Bedfordshire, England. Most of these farmers thought that silvoarable systems would not be profitable on their farms and that benefits would tend to be environmental or social rather than economic. Most farmers also thought that management and use of machinery would become more difficult. They felt that the tree component could potentially disrupt field operations and drainage and expressed concerns over the uncertain and long-term nature of timber revenue and the effect of intercrop yield reductions on crop revenue. Even so, 20% of the farmers stated they would use silvoarable systems if convinced that they were more profitable than conventional arable farming. A further 20%said they would farm the intercrop area belonging to someone else, if the rent was reduced to compensate for crop yield reductions. These results suggest that for most arable farmers, an economic advantage over current practice needs to exist before silvoarable systems are likely to be adopted. However, a minority might rent the crop component of a silvoarable system from another party or implement a full system for perceived environmental or social benefits.