2. CASTOR BASED INTERCROPPING SYSTEMS
SEMINAR -I
ON
Presented by
Mahantesh Chougule
I.D.No. PG12AGR4037
Sr.M.Sc.(Agri)
Dept. of Agronomy

3. SEQUENCE OF PRESENTATION
 Introduction
Castor scenario
Importance, merits and demerits of intercropping systems
 Research studies on different intercropping systems
Crop compatibility
Crop geometry
Nutrient management
Relay intercropping
Agroforestry system
 Conclusion
 Future line of work

4. INTRODUCTION

5. Area Production Productivity
World 2.63 m ha 2.79 m t 1,060 kg ha-1
India 1.45 m ha 2.29 m t 1,578 kg ha-1
Karnataka 19,100 ha 16,069 t 886 kg ha-1
Castor scenario (2011-12)
Source
Directorate of economics and statistics, Bangalore
Department of agriculture and Co-operation, India
www.iolworld.biz

6. India
84%
China
7%
Brazil
4%
Mozambique
2%
Thailand
1%
other
countries
2%
casto production in world
2.34 m t
0.20 m t
0.12 m t
0.06 m t
0.011m t
0.05 m t
Castor production in the world
FAO, 2012
Total castor production 2.79 m t

7. Area, production and productivity of castor in
India (2011-12)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Gujarat Rajasthan Andhra Pradesh Karnataka
Area (000 ha)
Production (000
tonne)
Indiastat, 2012

8. INTERCROPPING
 It refers to growing of two or more crops
simultaneously on the same piece of land.
 Crop intensification is in both time and space.

9. ADVANTAGES
Higher
income per
unit area
Biological
insurance
Better
utilization of
natural
resources
Reduction in
soil runoff
and controls
weeds
Maintain
soil
fertility

10. Disadvantages
Competition
for resources
Varying
response to
fertilizers and
water
Harvesting is
difficult
Difficulty in
management

11. Produce higher yields per unit area through better use of
natural resources
Offer greater stability in production under adverse
weather conditions and with disease and insect infestation
Provide an equitable distribution of farm resources
Meet the domestic needs of the farmer
An ideal intercropping should aim to

12. Hegde et al., 2009
INTERCROPPING SYSTEMS OF CASTOR FOR DIFFERENT REGIONS

13. RESEARCH FINDINGS

14. CROP COMPATIBILITY

15. Treatment Castor yield
(kg/ ha)
Intercrop
(kg/ ha)
CEY
(kg/ ha)
Net returns
`/ha
B:C ratio
Sole castor (120 X 60 cm) 2980 - 980 38 160 3.05
Castor + moong 1:1 3310 648 3895 51 215 3.41
Castor + moong 1:2 2982 829 3769 47 823 2.94
Castor +sesame 1:1 2982 446 3703 48 451 3.34
Castor + sesame 1:2 2560 557 3446 43 082 2.77
Castor +mothbean 1:1 2185 361 2606 29 302 1.95
Castor +mothbean 1:2 1941 459 2307 22 969 1.41
SEm± 173 - 181 - -
CD (P=0.05) 534 - 558 - -
Sardarkrishinagar, Gujarat Patel et al., 2007
Table 1. Yield and economics as influenced by different intercropping
systems under irrigated condition (3 years pooled data)

16. Table 2. Effect on castor yield under intercropping
systems
Treatment
Yield of
castor
(Kg/ha)
Yield of
intercrop
(Kg/ha)
Castor
equivalent
yields (Kg/ha)
Net returns
(`/ ha)
Additional
returns (`/ ha)
T1 -Castor sole crop 1130 - 1130 10482 -
T2 – Castor + Pigeonpea
(1:1) 1150 134 1276 12262 1779
T3 – Castor + Greengram
(2:2) 1157 - 1157 10969 486
T4 – Castor + Sunflower
(2:2) 860 336 1068 7924 -2559
T5 – Castor + Maize (2:1) 1003 194 1056 8042 -2441
T6 – Castor + Pigeonpea
(2:1) 1265 344 1590 18137 7654
SEm±
230 36
CD (P=0.05) NS 110
ANGRAU, Hyderabad, A.P. Leela Rani, 2008

17. Table 3. Effect of various treatments on dry matter, yield
attribute and yield of rabi castor (2 years pooled data)
Treatments
Dry matter
accumulation at
harvest (g plant-1 )
No. of
spikes per
plant
No. of
capsules per
main spikes
Seed yield
(kg ha-1)
% decrease
in yield over
sole castor
T1 –Sole castor 234.33 6.57 69.76 2072.65 -
T2- castor + chickpea (NP) 187.53 5.7 58.03 1673.79 19.24
T3- castor + greengram (NP) 210.31 6.23 65.36 1796.29 13.33
T4- castor + Indian bean (NP) 153.53 4.32 48.53 1319.44 36.34
T5- castor + chickpea(PR) 175.78 5.22 57.10 1538.46 25.77
T6- castor + greengram(PR) 194.58 5.97 62.20 1764.60 14.86
T7- castor + Indian bean(PR) 147.88 4.11 43.98 1230.41 40.64
CD (P=0.05) 251.33
Dhimmar, 2009Navsari (Gujarat)

18. Table 4. Seed yield of main crop and intercrops in castor-based
intercropping systems (kg ha-1)
Treatments Castor seed yield Intercrop yield
Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif
T1 - Castor + blackgram 1009 1064 349 385
T2 - Castor + greengram 984 1052 339 350
T3 - Castor + cowpea 930 980 323 335
T4 - Castor + soybean 875 888 226 280
T5 - Castor + sesame 804 804 224 249
T6 - Castor sole 1129 1201
SEd 24.29 26.43 - -
CD (P=0.05) 49.88 55.93 NA NA
NA - Statistically not analysed
Annamalainagar, Tamil Nadu Thanunathan et al., 2008

19. Table 6. Effect of different castor-based intercropping systems on
CEY, LER, IER and economics
Treatments Castor
equivalent
yield
Land
equivalent
ratio
Net returns
(`/ ha)
Returns
rupee-1
invested
Income
equivalent
ratio
Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif
T1-Castor+blackgram 1346 1425 1.71 1.72 10846 12317 1.91 2.04 1.74 1.75
T2-Castor+greengram 1329 1398 1.64 1.65 9880 11076 1.83 1.93 1.71 1.72
T3 - Castor + cowpea 1182 1224 1.54 1.55 9727 10885 1.82 1.92 1.64 1.65
T4 - Castor + soybean 1182 1224 1.54 1.55 7907 8638 1.70 1.76 1.54 1.55
T5 - Castor + sesame 1177 1220 1.30 1.31 7664 8307 1.68 1.74 1.30 1.31
T6 - Castor sole 1129 1201 1.00 1.00 7680 8755 1.74 1.85 - -
Annamalainagar, Tamil Nadu Thanunathan et al., 2008

20. Table7. Yields of castor and intercrops as influenced by
intercropping
Treatment Kharif 2007 Kharif 2008
Castor
yield
(kg/ ha)
Intercrop
yield
(kg/ ha)
CEY
(kg/ ha)
Castor
yield
(kg/ ha)
Intercrop
yield
(kg/ ha)
CEY
(kg/ ha)
Sole castor 854 - 854 586 - 586
Castor + sorghum 474 221 571 284 167 361
Castor + pearl millet 361 1218 897 245 1093 753
Castor + greengram 516 754 1179 425 482 942
Castor + blackgram 928 338 1225 614 266 903
Castor + soybean 666 388 900 400 243 553
Castor + sunflower 574 275 794 288 254 541
Sem ± 43 - 68 38 - 85
CD (P=0.05) 126 - 141 111 - 175
ANGRAU, Hyderabad Basith and Shaik Mohmammad, 2012

21. Table 8. Monetary returns as influenced by intercropping
Treatment
Kharif, 2007 Kharif, 2008
Gross
returns
(`/ ha)
Net
returns
(`/ ha)
Net
returns
(`/ Re)
Gross
returns
(`/ ha)
Net
returns
(`/ ha)
Net
returns
(`/ Re)
Sole castor 21 351 11 351 1.14 16 391 6 391 0.64
Castor + sorghum 15 630 630 0.04 11343 -3657 - 0.24
Castor + pearl millet 24 705 9 705 0.65 23 126 8 126 0.54
Castor + greengram 31 464 16 464 1.10 27 823 12 823 0.85
Castor + blackgram 31 573 16 573 1.10 26 142 11 142 0.74
Castor + soybean 22 894 7 594 0.50 15 750 450 0.03
Castor + sunflower 19 850 4 850 0.32 15 164 164 0.01
ANGRAU, Hyderabad Basith and Shaik Mohmammad, 2012

22. Crop geometry

23. Table 10. Castor yield, economics & land equivalent ratio (LER) as
influenced by intercropping systems
Intercropping
Castor yield kg/ ha
Net returns
(`/ ha)
B: C ratio LER
1992 1993 1994 Pooled
Castor + Cluster bean
1:1 1870 2232 2707 2270 15967 1.24 1.20
1:2 1244 1824 1456 1508 9740 0.72 1.24
Castor + Cowpea
1:1 1388 1917 2343 1882 9058 0.70 1.02
1:2 1089 1470 2240 1601 6730 0.50 1.18
Castor + Greengram
1:1 1684 2332 2839 2285 16703 1.29 1.18
1:2 820 2137 1697 1551 11181 0.82 1.15
Castor + Groundnut
1:1 2109 2690 3130 2643 15362 0.94 1.28
1:2 1166 1894 2215 1758 7610 0.44 1.24
Sole castor 3266 3409 3573 3416 24160 2.41 1.00
CD (P=0.05) 735 427 522 352 - - -
GAU, Sardarkrishinagar Patel et al., 2002

24. Table 11. Grain yield of component crops (kg/ ha)
Crop
Component crops yield (kg/ ha)
1992-93 1993-94 1995-96 Pooled
Intercrop Sole Intercrop Sole Intercrop Sole Intercrop Sole
Castor + Cluster bean
1:1 569 366 - 713 - 549 -
1:2 733 941 617 704 1128 1447 826 1030
Castor + Cowpea
1:1 397 - 414 - 231 - 348 -
1:2 665 755 568 887 366 598 538 747
Castor + Greengram
1:1 357 - 649 - 463 - 456 -
1:2 557 829 626 1070 689 800 624 900
Castor + Groundnut
1:1 439 - 482 - 211 - 318 -
1:2 606 860 704 935 299 424 536 740
CD (P=0.05) 271 - 218 - 159 - 351 -
GAU, Sardarkrishinagar Patel et al., 2002

25. Table 12. Yield and yield attributes of castor as influenced by intercropping treatments
Treatment
Kharif, 2001 Kharif, 2002 Seed yield plant -1 (g) Seed yield (kg ha-1)
No. capsules/
spike
No. capsules/
spike
Kharif,
2001
Kharif,
2002
Kharif
2001
Kharif
2002
Mean
Castor + 1 row GN 69 64 21.2 22.6 479 640 559
Castor + 2 rows GN 71 62 22.7 15.1 484 506 495
Castor + 3 rows GN 71 72 22.5 22.7 507 662 585
Castor + 4 rows GN 72 75 22.4 24.1 517 674 595
Castor + 5 rows GN 86 78 24.4 24.3 628 807 718
Castor + 6 rows GN 76 77 22.3 23.0 572 452 512
Castor + 7 rows GN 75 66 21.6 22.1 531 375 453
Castor + 1 row PM 72 65 22.6 20.5 536 640 588
Castor + 2 rows PM 77 64 23.3 15.5 550 735 643
Castor + 3 rows PM 86 75 23.6 23.4 601 806 704
Castor + 4 rows PM 75 62 22.7 14.0 535 424 480
Castor + 5 rows PM 76 64 21.4 20.1 455 400 423
Castor + 6 rows PM 72 61 21.8 20.2 403 315 359
Castor + 7 rows PM 67 56 20.1 12.4 352 263 307
Sole castor 86 69 24.1 14.2 697 860 778
CD (P=0.05) 7.7 9.65 1.5 NS 69 219 43
GN- Groundnut PM- Pearl milletANGRAU, Hyderabad, Srinivas et al., 2003

26. Table 13. Productivity & economics of castor based intercropping
systems involving pulses & vegetables
Intercropping systems Castor seed
yield (kg/ ha)
Intercrop
yield (kg/ ha)
CEY
(kg/ ha)
Net returns
(`/ ha)
B: C
ratio
Castor + mungbean (1:1) 1529 287 1960 11 028 2.29
Castor + mungbean (1:2) 1390 395 1983 10 939 2.23
Castor + soybean (1:1) 1694 216 1867 10 068 2.17
Castor + soybean (1:2) 1564 346 1841 9 608 2.09
Castor + clusterbean (1:1) 1654 1483 1951 10 956 2.28
Castor + clusterbean (1:2) 1568 3096 2187 11 217 2.05
Castor + Frenchbean (1:1) 1405 361 1549 6 444 1.71
Castor + Frenchbean (1:2) 1583 933 1956 8 907 1.83
Castor + lablab (1:1) 1505 1568 1956 11 171 2.30
Castor + lablab (1:2) 1528 2423 2255 12 729 2.30
Castor + cucumber (1:1) 1414 2792 2172 11 141 2.30
Castor + cucumber (1:2) 1436 4602 2356 13 644 2.38
Sole castor 1821 - 1821 10 660 2.41
CD (P=0.05) NS 325
DOR, Hyderabad Padmavati and Raghavaiah, 2004

27. Table 14. Productivity & economics of castor based intercropping
systems involving pulses & vegetables (Drought year)
Intercropping systems Castor seed
yield (kg/ ha)
Intercrop
yield (kg/ ha)
CEY
(kg/ ha)
Net returns
(`/ ha)
B: C ratio
Castor + mungbean (1:1) 433 202 735 2 103 1.40
Castor + mungbean (1:2) 262 351 788 2 009 1.34
Castor + soybean (1:1) 583 211 752 1 928 1.34
Castor + soybean (1:2) 460 373 758 1 098 1.16
Castor + clusterbean (1:1) 393 4329 1 259 6 548 2.08
Castor + clusterbean (1:2) 358 8338 2 026 12 611 2.65
Castor + Frenchbean (1:1) 637 2421 1 121 5 270 1.88
Castor + Frenchbean (1:2) 577 3117 1 185 4 405 1.59
Castor + lablab (1:1) 314 1934 894 3 369 1.60
Castor + lablab (1:2) 328 2135 968 2 875 1.42
Castor + cucumber (1:1) 694 4212 1 536 8 791 2.34
Castor + cucumber (1:2) 607 6513 2 050 11 181 2.41
Sole castor 748 748 5 440 1.40
CD (P=0.05) 155 293
DOR, Hyderabad Padmavati and Raghavaiah, 2004

28. Table 15. Effect of planting pattern and intercropping on yield attributes of castor
Treatment Branches/
plant
Length primary
spike (cm)
Capsules/
plant
Capsule weight/
plant (g)
Seed index (g)
2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03
Method of planting
90 X 60 cm 7.8 7.6 37.9 36.0 280.3 255.3 368.7 324.2 30.7 29.9
120 X 45 cm 7.1 7.1 35.3 33.7 244.2 240.4 335.7 298.4 28.1 27.8
60/120 X 60 cm 8.4 8.0 41.8 37.8 303.8 263.9 377.7 329.3 32.4 31.9
80/160 X 45 cm 7.9 7.8 41.0 37.3 296.5 255.9 370.7 326.1 31.2 30.9
CD (P=0.05) 0.5 0.5 2.1 2.1 14.9 13.9 18.8 17.3 2.0 2.0
Intercropping
Sole castor 7.7 7.5 38.8 35.8 284.9 256.2 370.4 312.8 30.8 29.9
Castor + greengram 8.2 8.0 40.7 37.9 295.8 261.8 381.7 334.2 31.7 31.6
Castor + blackgram 8.0 7.8 39.8 37.3 289.5 258.3 376.3 332.4 31.3 31.4
Castor + clusterbean 8.0 7.9 39.3 37.1 289.0 256.9 371.7 329.6 31.4 30.3
Castor + sesame 7.1 6.7 36.5 32.9 246.9 236.2 315.8 288.5 27.9 27.5
CD (P=0.05) 0.6 0.5 2.3 2.4 16.4 15.6 21.0 19.3 2.3 2.2
MPUAT, Udaipur (Rajasthan) Porwal et al., 2006

29. Table 16. Effect of intercropping on yield and yield attributes of
castor
Treatment Castor seed yield (q/
ha)
CEY (q/ ha) Mean
LER
Mean
B: C
ratio2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03
Method of planting
90 X 60 cm 42.5 40.6 47.3 45.2 1.37 4.01
120 X 45 cm 38.5 37.1 43.0 41.4 1.32 3.54
60/120 X 60 cm 42.9 40.8 48.7 46.3 1.52 4.22
80/160 X 45 cm 42.3 40.5 47.2 45.1 1.51 4.16
CD (P=0.05) 2.1 1.6 2.3 1.8 0.04 0.15
Intercropping
Sole castor 41.8 40.0 41.8 40.0 1.00 3.87
Castor + greengram 43.7 41.2 51.5 47.6 1.61 4.29
Castor + blackgram 42.5 40.7 50.3 46.5 1.60 4.18
Castor + clusterbean 42.1 40.3 47.6 48.0 1.54 4.20
Castor + sesame 37.6 36.6 41.4 40.5 1.40 3.36
CD (P=0.05) 2.4 1.8 2.6 2.0 0.04 0.17
MPUAT, Udaipur (Rajasthan) Porwal et al., 2006

30. Table 17. Growth and yield attributes of castor as influenced by
intercropping under irrigated conditions (pooled mean of 3 season)
Treatment Plant
stand
(‘000 ha)
Plant
height
(cm)
Nodes up
to primary
raceme
100-seed
weight
(g)
Raceme
length
(cm)
Spikes/
plant
Sole castor 13.1 61 15 27 41 18
Castor + Mungbean (1:1) 13.0 57 14 26 40 18
Castor + Mungbean (1:2) 13.1 57 13 26 40 16
Castor + Sesame (1:1) 13.5 66 15 24 38 15
Castor + Sesame (1:2) 13.1 64 15 25 37 15
Castor + Mothbean (1:1) 13.5 58 13 26 39 19
Castor + Mothbean (1:2) 13.4 62 14 26 42 18
SEm± 0.3 3.8 0.8 0.8 2.1 1.3
CD (P=0.05) NS NS NS 2.3 NS 3.8
ARS, Mandor, Rajasthan Singh, 2009

31. Table 18. Yield and economics of castor as influenced by
intercropping under irrigated conditions (pooled mean of 3 season)
Treatment Spikes/
plant
Intercrop
mean seed
yield (kg/
ha)
Castor
seed yield
(kg/ ha)
Castor seed
equivalent
yield (kg/
ha)
Oil
content
(%)
B:C
ratio
Sole castor 18 - 3694 3694 50.3 3.20
Castor + Mungbean (1:1) 18 546 3593 4531 49.5 3.58
Castor + Mungbean (1:2) 16 606 3429 4472 49.7 3.44
Castor + Sesame (1:1) 15 280 3356 3829 48.0 3.08
Castor + Sesame (1:2) 15 321 3332 3870 48.9 3.01
Castor + Mothbean (1:1) 19 573 3525 4287 49.1 3.40
Castor + Mothbean (1:2) 18 629 3491 4333 48.7 3.37
SEm± 1.3 - 128 254 0.9 -
CD (P=0.05) 3.8 - NS NS NS -
ARS, Mandor, Rajasthan Singh, 2009

32. Treatments Plant
height
(cm)
No. of
branches
/ plant
No. of
leaves/
plant
No. of
spikes/
plant
No. of
capsules/
plant
Length of
primary
spike (cm)
Sole castor 155 8.20 16.2 9.1 42.5 29.7
Castor + Groundnut (1:3) 144 7.70 14.1 8.3 39.3 28.1
Castor + finger millet (1:3) 139 7.47 14.8 7.7 31.8 24.8
Castor + Kharif chickpea (1:3) 143 7.62 14.9 8.2 38.3 27.9
Castor + clusterbean (1:3) 146 7.78 15.3 8.4 40.1 28.2
PR castor + groundnut (2:4) 150 8.03 15.9 8.7 41.1 29.1
PR castor + finger millet (2:4) 143 7.56 14.6 8.0 37.9 26.1
PR castor + Kharif chickpea (2:4) 147 7.82 15.3 8.4 39.9 28.2
PR castor + clusterbean (2:4) 152 8.09 16.0 8.8 42.2 29.1
S. Em± 2.5 0.12 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.4
C.D. (P=0.05) 7.5 0.37 0.8 0.6 2.4 1.3
GKVK, Bengaluru Sharat Kumar et al., 2010
PR- Paired Row
Table 19. Plant growth and yield parameters(at harvest) of castor
influenced by intercropping systems

33. Treatments Castor seed
yield (kg/ ha)
Intercrop
yield (kg/ ha)
CEY
(kg/ ha)
Net returns
(`/ ha)
B:C
ratio
Sole castor 1434 - 1434 19446 2.50
Castor + Groundnut (1:3) 1314 723 2102 30 891 2.78
Castor + finger millet (1:3) 1175 1198 1638 24 660 2.72
Castor + Kharif chickpea (1:3) 1272 672 1974 28 575 2.75
Castor + clusterbean (1:3) 1334 3706 2345 33 076 3.02
PR castor + groundnut (2:4) 1400 676 2136 32 717 3.00
PR castor + finger millet (2:4) 1258 1124 1692 26 069 2.85
PR castor + Kharif chickpea (2:4) 1351 620 1999 30 065 2.95
PR castor + clusterbean (2:4) 1417 3529 2380 37 938 3.36
S. Em± 27.1 - 27.56 - -
C.D. (P=0.05) 81.2 - 82.64 - -
PR; Paired Row, CEY: Castor Equivalent Yield, LER: Land Equivalent Ratio
Table 20. Seed yield, CEY, LER, net returns and B:C ratio as
influenced by intercropping systems
GKVK, Bengaluru Sharat Kumar et al., 2010

34. Treatments Castor seed
yield (kg/ ha)
Intercrop
yield (kg/ ha)
CEY
(kg/ ha)
Net returns
(`/ ha)
B:C
ratio
LER
Castor + pearl millet (1:2) 1085 1398 1678 17069 3.70 1.80
Castor + setaria (1:2) 1291 418 1444 14 134 3.27 1.34
Castor + sesamum (1:2) 952 122 1243 10 556 2.63 1.13
Castor + niger (1:2) 779 78 942 6532 2.03 1.04
Castor + pearl millet (2:4) 996 1202 1510 14 572 3.31 1.56
Castor + setaria (2:4) 1085 496 1261 14 572 2.79 1.26
Castor + sesamum (2:4) 804 150 1149 9241 2.44 1.07
Castor + niger (2:4) 515 79 720 2840 1.45 0.88
Sole Castor 1379 - 1379 13 823 3.18 1.00
Sole pearl millet - 1446 615 4365 2.06 1.00
Sole setaria - 1179 416 2476 1.65 1.00
Sole sesamum - 285 658 4446 2.01 1.00
Sole niger - 163 340 1291 1.28 1.00
SEm± - - 79 860 0.18 0.08
CD (P=0.05) - - 225 2490 0.52 0.23
RARS, Bijapur Kalaghatagi and Guggari, 2010
Table 21. Yield of castor & other intercrops as influenced by castor
based intercropping systems (two year pooled mean)

35. Treatments
Yield kg/ ha Monetary
returns
(`/ ha)
SVI
B:C
ratio
Moisture use efficiency
Main
crop
Inter/
intra crop
Castor Vegetable
(Dry wt basis)
Sole castor (VI 9) 653 8 496 0.63 1.60 2.41
Castor + mothbean
(MBS 26)
580 48 7 960 0.57 1.81 2.01 0.24
Castor + ridge gourd
intra (Pusa Nasdar)
581 1918 13 312 0.79 2.13 1.89 3.81
Castor + bitter gourd
(Hirkani)
536 229 7426 0.65 1.76 1.89 0.51
Castor + smooth
gourd intra (Local)
531 242 7877 0.64 1.73 1.75 0.65
Castor + clusterbean
(Pusa Navabhar)
546 1171 15308 0.84 1.97 1.90 3.60
CD (P=0.05) 3552
ZARS, MPKV, Solapur Koli et al., 2004
Table 22. Yield, monetary returns, sustainable value index, B:C
ratio, MUE of castor based inter/ intra cropping systems

36. Relay intercropping

37. Treatments
CEY (kg/ ha) LER Net
returns
(`/ ha)
B:C
ratio
2003 2004 Mean 2003 2004 Mean
T1-Normal planting of castor (90 X 60) 2126 2228 2177 1 1 1 14821 2.31
T2-Paired row planting of castor (60 /120 X 60 cm) 2022 2180 2101 1 1 1 13909 2.23
T3 -Sole crop finger millet 1779 1899 1839 1 1 1 12032 2.20
T4-French bean fb transplanted finger millet 4816 5445 5130 1 1 1 43229 3.36
T5-French bean fb field bean 6007 6612 6307 1 1 1 58581 4.43
T6- Baby corn fb transplanted finger millet 5981 6802 6392 1 1 1 56228 3.75
T7- Baby corn fb field bean 7391 7655 7523 1 1 1 68023 4.06
T8-T2-+French bean fb transplanted finger
millet
4072 4450 4260 1.89 1.81 1.85 34251 3.03
T9-T2-+ French bean fb field bean 4461 4862 4660 1.74 1.77 1.76 40738 3.68
T10-T2-+ Baby corn fb transplanted finger millet 4328 4831 4579 1.71 1.71 1.71 34600 2.70
T11-T2-+ Baby corn fb field bean 4671 5028 4849 1.55 1.59 1.57 36931 2.74
T12-T2-+ Transplanted finger millet 2947 3185 3066 1.54 1.54 1.54 24262 2.94
CD (P=0.05) 289.3 223 250.1 0.14 0.03 0.9 1189 0.3
Table 23. Castor equivalent yield, land equivalent ratio, net returns
and B:C ratio as influenced by intercropping systems
A.C. Navile, Shimoga Narayan Mavarkar et al., 2007

38. Treatments
Plant
height
(cm)
leaves
/plant
spikes/
plant
branc
hes/
plant
capsules
/ spike
Castor
yield
(kg/ ha)
Test
weight
(g)
Length
primary
spike
(cm)
T1-NP of castor (90 X 60) 166 42 8 12 81 2177 32 55
T2-PR of castor (60 x 120 cm) 163 41 8 11 80 2101 31 53
T8-T2-+ -French bean fb
transplanted finger millet
177 37 6 10 65 1857 30 47
T9-T2-+ French bean fb field
bean
173 35 7 10 67 1927 31 50
T10-T2-+ Baby corn fb
transplanted finger millet
182 29 5 9 47 1649 27 42
T11-T2-+ Baby corn fb
field bean
178 30 5 9 52 1654 29 44
T12-T2-+transplanted finger
millet
172 37 7 10 59 1791 29 47
CD (P=0.05) 3.85 3.01 1.00 1.08 2.18 219.8 1.56 1.82
A.C. Navile, Shimoga Narayan Mavarkar et al., 2007
Table 24. plant growth (at harvest) and yield parameters of castor
as influenced by intercropping system (2 years pooled data)

39. Treatments
Seed yield of castor (kg/ ha) Castor equivalent yield (kg/ ha) B:C
ratio2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
Pooled
2006-
07
2007-
08
2008-
09
Pooled
Sole castor 4039 4068 3521 3876 4039 4068 3521 3876 2.63
Simultaneous sowing of
greengram & castor
3963 3962 3589 3838 4707 4838 4378 4641 3.01
Sowing at 15 DAS of
greengram
3499 3405 2872 3259 4339 4451 3722 4170 2.85
Sowing at 30 DAS of
greengram
3362 3171 2766 3100 4262 4332 3730 4108 2.78
Sowing at 45 DAS of
greengram
3195 2485 1732 2471 4099 3578 2726 3468 2.32
Sowing at harvesting of
greengram
2729 2154 1382 2088 4344 4303 3421 4023 2.35
CD (P=0.05) 535 385 546 425 NS 421 475 431 -
Sardarkrishinagar, Gujarat Patel et al., 2009
Table 25. Seed yield of castor and castor equivalent yield (kg/ ha)

40. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

41. Table 26. Castor yield, intercrop yield, CEY and economics as
influenced by intercropping and planting pattern
Treatment
Castor yield
(kg/ ha)
Intercrop
yield (kg/ ha)
Castor equivalent yield
(kg/ ha)
Net
income
(`/ ha)
B:C
ratio
96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 Mean
Castor sole crop 3946.9 3971.7 3946.9 3971.7 3959.3 28 367 1.92
Castor+ greengram (1:2) 3231.4 4066.6 210.3 54.0 3648.2 4178.1 3913.5 27527 1.81
Castor+ clusterbean (1:2) 3952.8 4053.7 215.2 218.3 4286.6 4465.1 4375.9 32687 2.18
Castor+ sesame (1:2) 4003.3 4121.1 213.8 0.0 4238.1 4121.1 4252.6 31348 2.09
Castor+ greengram (PR) 3351.5 4170.8 182.4 35.0 3729.8 4243.1 3986.5 28324 1.86
Castor+ clusterbean (PR) 3940.8 4205.7 190.0 156.0 4235.3 4499.6 4367.5 32606 2.17
Castor+ sesame (PR) 3954.6 4201.8 191.4 0.0 4276.8 4201.8 4238.5 31227 2.09
CD (P=0.05) 173.4 281.5 173.8 281.4 201.4
Control 2385.7 2809.6 96.6 79.9 2543.7 2886.6 2715.2 15801 1.14
FYM 10 tonne/ ha 3569.6 3696.1 190.2 155.6 3823.3 3845.0 3834.2 25958 1.64
FYM 5 tonne + 40 kg N/ ha 4604.2 4862.5 266.4 134.1 4996.6 4991.5 4994.1 39016 2.53
80 kg N/ ha 4561.2 5078.8 248.9 93.8 4926.5 5147.5 5037.0 41610 2.87
CD (P=0.05) 115.0 234.6 14.5 25.6 109.3 234.9 131.4 - -
ARS, Jalore (Rajasthan) Subhash Kumar, 2002

42. Table 27. Yield attributes of castor as influenced by intercropping,
plant pattern and nutrient management
Treatment
Plant height (cm) Spikes/ plant
Length of primary
spike (cm)
100-seed weight (g)
1996-97 1997-98 1996-97 1997-98 1996-97 1997-98 1996-97 1997-98
Castor sole crop 190 185 10.8 11.6 40.3 41.5 24.3 23.7
Castor+ greengram (1:2) 184 188 9.3 10.1 35.6 38.7 25.1 24.2
Castor+ clusterbean (1:2) 192 175 11.3 10.5 42.3 40.7 24.6 23.8
Castor+ sesame (1:2) 178 188 10.5 11.1 39.8 42.5 24.9 25.1
Castor+ greengram (PR) 183 191 9.2 10.8 36.0 41.3 23.9 24.9
Castor+ clusterbean (PR) 189 177 10.6 11.4 41.6 42.6 25.0 23.9
Castor+ sesame (PR) 175 186 11.3 10.2 42.1 41.7 24.5 25.1
CD (P=0.05) NS NS 0.81 NS 3.96 NS NS NS
Control 156 161 6.2 5.4 30.6 29.5 18.1 17.4
FYM 10 tonne/ ha 182 179 8.5 8.1 35.8 35.1 21.8 20.7
FYM 5 tonne + 40 kg N/ ha 190 186 11.8 12.3 43.4 45.3 25.3 25.1
80 kg N/ ha 194 193 12.2 13.0 44.1 44.8 24.7 25.6
CD (P=0.05) 18.5 16.2 2.11 2.72 4.14 4.42 2.32 2.41
ARS, Jalore (Rajasthan) Subhash Kumar, 2002

43. Treatments
Castor Groundnut
B:C
ratio
No. spikes/
plant
100 grain
weight (g)
Seed yield
(kg/ ha)
Pod yield
(kg/ ha)
T1- control (no fertilizer) 7.5 9.0 554 324 1.5
T2- 100% RDF of main crop to the entire
system
10.0 14.5 909 686 2.1
T3-T2+ 50% N of castor for top dressing in
2 splits at 30 and 50 DAS
13.5 15.5 1029 695 2.3
T4- T-2+ 75% N of castor for top dressing
in 2 splits at 30 and 50 DAS
15.5 17.5 1134 831 2.5
T5- T2+ 100% N of castor for top dressing
in 3 splits at 30, 50 and 70 DAS
18.5 18.8 1291 1028 2.9
T6- 100% RDF of main and intercrop (area
basis and N of intercrop to be top dressed)
16.5 18.9 1221 828 2.5
T7- 100% RDF of main and intercrop 14.0 18.6 1049 693 2.1
CD (P=0.05) 3.0 2.5 45 32 -
Table 27. Fertilizer management in groundnut + castor intercropping
system on yield attributes and yield of rainfed castor and groundnut
Salem, T.N. Selvaraju et al., 2005

44. AGROFORESTRY SYSTEM

45. Table 28. Yield of jatropha and perennial castor in
different years
Anon. (2009)CRIDA, Hyderabad

46. CONCLUSION

47. FUTURE LINE OF WORK
 Need to evaluate castor with short stature crops
like onion, garlic, leafy vegetables etc.
 Nutrient management studies in castor based
intercropping systems need to be carried out since
nutrient management may differ in intercropping
systems
 To explore the possibility of growing different
hybrids/ varieties of castor in intercropping
systems

48. DISCUSSION