Seminar for oilseed crops based intercropping

2. Oilseed crops based intercropping
Name of Speaker
Patel Hardik A.
3rd Sem. M.Sc.(Agri.) Agronomy
Reg. No.: 2010115082
N. M. College of Agriculture
N.A.U., Navsari-396 450
Major Guide
Dr. A. D. Raj
Subject Matter Specialist
(Agronomy)
Krishi Vigyan Kendra
Navsari Agricultural University
Dediapada, dist. Narmada
Minor Guide
Dr. G. G. Patel
I/c. Professor and Head
Dept. of Soil Science and
Agril. chemistry
N. M. College of Agriculture
N.A.U., Navsari-396 450

3. Introduction
Objectives of intercropping
Principles of intercropping
Types of intercropping
Requirements of intercropping
Advantage and disadvantage of intercropping
Review of research work
Conclusion
Contents

4.  Oilseed crops are grown primarily for the oil contained in the
seed.
 India has the largest area about 28.05 million hectares and
production about 32.74 million tons of oilseeds in the world.
 Among the nine oilseed crops grown in the country, seven are of
edible oil (soybean, groundnut, rapeseed-mustard sunflower,
sesame, safflower and niger) and two are of non-edible oils (castor
and linseed).
Introduction
4

5.  Among the oilseed crops, rapeseed-mustard ranked next to
ground nut and soybean in contribution to the oilseed production.
 Oilseeds are mainly used for extraction of edible oils and it is the
chief source of fats and proteins.
 In general oilseed crops are grown as a sole crop. Cultivating
oilseed crops as a sole crop with wide spacing is usually found to
be risky and less remunerative.
 Intercropping in oilseed crops is of significance because of higher
profit and stabilized yield advantage, especially under adverse
weather conditions.
5

6.  The basic concept of intercropping system involves growing
together two or more crops with the assumption that two crops can
exploit the environment better than one and ultimately produce the
higher yield (Reddy and Willy, 1981) because the component crops
differ in resources use and when grown together they complement
each other and make overall better use of resources.
 This practice leads to some benefit like yield advantage as
compared to sole cropping and greater stability of yield over
different seasons.
 Intercropping system utilizes resources efficiently and increases
the productivity. 6

7. Source: Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and
Cooperation. September 20, 2015.
7

8. Table 1: Major oilseed crops area, production and productivity
in India (2013-2014).
Crop
Area
(m ha)
Production
(m tonnes)
Productivity
(kg/ha)
Soybean 11.716 11.861 1012
Mustard/Rapeseed 6.646 7.877 1185
Groundnut 5.505 9.714 1764
Sesame 1.679 0.715 426
Castor 1.063 1.727 1624
Sunflower 0.672 0.504 750
Niger 0.299 0.098 328
Linseed 0.293 0.142 484
Safflower 0.178 0.113 638
Oilseed all 28.051 32.749 1168
Source: IIOR, Rajendranagar (Hyderabad) 2013-14
8

9. Crop
Area
(lakh ha)
Production
(lakh M.T.)
Productivity
(kg/ha)
Groundnut 18.42 54.45 2956
Castor 6.27 12.92 2060
Mustard/Rapeseed 2.82 4.46 1581
Sesame 2.36 1.24 525
Others 0.31 0.14 451
Total Oilseeds 30.18 73.21 2425
Table 2: Oilseed crops area and production and productivity in
Gujarat (2013-14).
Source: Agriculture & Cooperation Department, Govt. of Gujarat (2013-14)
9

10. Major oilseed crops are grown in India
Groundnut Safflower Sunflower
Soybean MustardLinseed
Castor Sesame Niger
10

11.  Soybean based
 Soybean + Groundnut
Soybean + Pigeon pea
Soybean + Pearl millet
Soybean + Sorghum
Soybean + Cotton
Soybean + Castor
Castor based
 Castor + Sesame
 Castor + Pearl millet
 Castor + Groundnut
 Castor + Mung bean
 Castor + Urdbean
 Castor + Pigeon pea
Groundnut based
Groundnut + Castor
Groundnut + Pigeon pea
Groundnut + Sunflower
Groundnut + Sesame
Sesame based
Sesame + Groundnut
Sesame + Black gram
Sesame + Pigeon pea
Sunflower based
Sunflower + Ground nut
Sunflower + Castor
 Mustard based
 Mustard + Chick pea
 Mustard +Groundnut
Safflower based
Safflower + Wheat
Safflower + Chick pea
Safflower + Linseed
Linseed based
Linseed + Chick pea
Linseed + Wheat
Linseed + Safflower
Intercropping system following in India
11

12. Intercropping
 Intercropping is growing two or more crops simultaneously on
the same piece of land with a definite row pattern.
 It is the intensification of cropping in time and space dimension
12

13. Why intercropping ?
1. Stability: Intercropping adds diversity to the cropping system and
diversity tends to lead to stability.
2. Reduced chemical use: Intercropping may allow for lower input
levels in cropping system by reducing fertilizer and pesticide
requirements.
3. Over yielding: Over yielding occurs when the yield produced by an
intercrop is larger than the yield produced by the component crops
grown in monoculture on the same total land area.
 Over yielding is calculated using the Land Equivalency Ratio.
When the LER is greater than 1, over yielding is occurring and
the intercrop is more productive than the component crops grown as
sole crops.
When the LER is less than 1, no over yielding is occurring and
the sole crops are more productive than the intercrop.
13

14. Objectives of intercropping
 To utilize the space between two rows of main and intercrop
per unit area.
 Insurance against total crop failure under aberrant weather
conditions or pest epidemics.
 Judicious utilization of resources such as land, labour and
inputs.
 Increase in total productivity per unit land area.
14

15. Principles of intercropping
 Should have complementary effects rather competitive effects.
 Should be shorter duration and of faster growing habits.
 Should have similar agronomic practices.
 Erect growing crops should be intercropped with cover crops.
 The component crops should have different root depth.
 Select crops as per the characteristics and constraints of soils.
15

16. Types of Intercropping
 Row intercropping
 Strip intercropping
 Relay intercropping
 Parallel cropping
 Companion cropping
16

17. Row intercropping:
Growing two or more crops
simultaneously where one or more
crops are planted in rows.
Strip intercropping:
Growing two or more crops
simultaneously in different strips wide
enough to permit independent
cultivation but narrow enough for the
crops to interact agronomically. 17

18. Relay intercropping:
Growing two or more crops
simultaneously during part of the life
cycle of each. A second crop is planted
after the first crop has reached its
reproductive stage but before it is ready
for harvest.
18

19. Parallel cropping:
Cultivation of such crops which have
different natural habit and zero
competition.
Eg.- Maize + Greengram
Companion cropping:
Such intercropping where the
production of both intercrops is equal
to that of its solid planting.
Eg.- Sugacane + Musturd/Potato/Onion
19

20. Intercropping: on the basis of percent of plant population :-
1. Additive series
2. Replacement series
Additive series intercropping
 In such type of intercropping, one crop is main crop or base crop
and another crop is intercrop
 Intercrop introduced into the base crop by adjusting or changing
crop geometry, i.e., addition of intercrop to the base crop
 The plant population of base crop is same to recommended
population in pure stand where as that of intercrop is less.
20

21. Replacement series intercropping
 Both the crops are component crops. Neither is the base crop
or is the inter crop
 It means the plant population of both component crops is less
than their recommended population in pure stand
 This type of intercropping is widely adopted in western
countries
21

22.  The time of peak nutrient demands of component crops should
not overlap.
 Competition for light should be minimum among the
component crops.
 Complementarily should exist between the component crops.
 The differences in maturity of component crops should be at
least 30 days.
Important requirements for
successful intercropping
22

23. 1. Solar Radiation
2. Water and Nutrients
3. Allelopathy
4. Annidation
Annidation in Space
Annidation in Time
5. Other complementary effects
Interactions in Intercropping
23

24.  Additional yield is obtain from unit area of land .
 Additional care is not needed for the companion crop because
principle crop supplement the requirement of the companion crop.
 Helps to restore soil fertility, if legumes are included as inter crops.
 Control the weed as well as soil erosion is possible.
 Intercrop provide shade and support to the other crop.
 Practiced as an insurance against crop failure under rainfed
condition.
 Utilizes resources efficiently and productivity is increased.
 Intercropping with cash crops is highly profitable.
Advantages of intercropping
24

25. Disadvantages of intercropping
 Yield decreases because of adverse competition effect.
 Allelopathic effect.
 Creates obstruction in the field operations.
 Higher amount of fertilizer or irrigation water cannot be utilized
properly as the component crops vary in their response of these
resources.
 Harvesting is difficult.
25

26. 26

27. Intercropping in Castor
27

28. Treatments
Castor seed
yield (kg/ha)
Castor
equivalent yield
(kg/ha)
Land
equivalent
ratio
Net return
(Rs/ha)
Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif
T1 : Castor sole 1129 1201 1129 1201 1.00 1.00 7680 8755
T2 : Castor + blackgram 1009 1064 1429 1526 1.74 1.75 10846 12317
T3 : Castor + greengram 984 1052 1346 1425 1.71 1.72 9880 11076
T4 : Castor + cowpea 930 980 1329 1398 1.64 1.65 9727 10885
T5 : Castor + soybean 875 888 1182 1224 1.54 1.55 7907 8638
T6 : Castor + sesame 804 804 1177 1220 1.30 1.31 7664 8307
CD (P=0.05) 50 56 - - - - - -
Annamalainagar (Tamilnadu) Thanunathan et al. (2008)
Table 3: Effect of different castor based intercropping systems on CSY, CEY, LER
and economics
CSY = Castor Seed Yield, CEY = Castor equivalent yield, LER = Land equivalent ratio
28

29. Treatment
CEY
(kg/ha)
Gross
returns
(Rs/ha)
Net returns
(Rs/ha)
B: C
ratio
T1 : Sole Castor 1031 16496 6632 1.67
T2 : Sole Indian bean 625 10000 1517 1.18
T3 : Sole Cow pea 602 9632 1149 1.14
T4 : Sole Green gram 745 11872 3389 1.40
T5 : Castor + Indian bean (1:2) 1275 20400 8567 1.72
T6 : Castor + Cowpea (1:2) 1345 21520 9687 1.82
T7 : Castor + Green gram (1:2) 1678 26848 15015 2.27
SEm± 0.04 - - -
CD ( P = 0.05) 0.11 - - -
Table 4: CEY and economics as influenced by intercropping system
Navsari Vasava (2008)
29

30. Treatment
CEY
(Kg/ha)
LER
Net
Returns
(Rs/ha)
B : C
ratio
Available
N
(kg/ha)
Available
P2O5
(kg/ha)
Available
K2O
(kg/ha)
T1 : Sole castor 1432 1.00 19446 2.50 280 33 298
T2 : Castor + Groundnut (1:3) 2102 1.66 30891 2.78 299 38 309
T3 : Castor + Finger millet (1:3) 1638 1.43 24660 2.72 272 32 293
T4 : Castor + Chickpea (3:1) 1974 1.68 28575 2.75 296 37 308
T5 : Castor + Clusterbean (1:3) 2345 1.69 33076 3.02 292 36 307
T6 : Paired row of Castor +
Groundnut (2:4)
2136 1.67 32717 3.00 297 37 309
T7 : Paired row of Castor + Finger
millet (2:4)
1692 1.45 26069 2.85 275 31 292
T8 : Paired row of Castor +
Chickpea (2:4)
1999 1.69 30065 2.95 294 36 308
T9 : Paired row of Castor +
Clusterbean (2:4)
2380 1.71 37938 3.36 291 36 307
SEm± 28 - - - 1.5 1.2 1.8
CD (P=0.05) 83 - - - 4.5 3.7 5.3
Initial nutrient status 282 34 306
Table 5: Effect of intercropping systems on castor equivalent Yield, Land equivalent
ratio, economics and post harvest nutrient status of soil.
Hiriyur (Karnataka) Kumar et al.(2011)30

31. Treatments
Castor seed
yield
(kg/ ha)
CEY
(kg/ ha)
Net returns
(Rs/ ha)
B:C
ratio
T1 : Sole castor 1398 1398 21077 2.60
T2 : Castor + Groundnut (1:3) 1253 1947 30 129 2.71
T3 : Castor + Finger millet (1:3) 1132 1665 26225 2.80
T4 : Castor + Kharif chickpea (1:3) 1225 1793 27378 2.65
T5 : Castor + Clusterbean (1:3) 1323 2371 41470 3.49
T6 : PR castor + Groundnut (2:4) 1334 1970 31728 2.92
T7 : PR castor + Finger millet (2:4) 1219 1767 28968 3.00
T8 : PR castor + Kharif chickpea (2:4) 1300 1854 27777 2.77
T9 : PR castor + Clusterbean (2:4) 1377 2421 43032 3.63
SEm.± 36 29 - -
CD (P=0.05) 108 85 - -
Table 6 :Yield, net returns and B:C ratio as influenced by intercropping systems (two
year pooled data)
Bengaluru Mudalagiriyappa et al. (2011)
31

32. Treatment
WUE
(kg/ha-
mm)
CEY
(kg/ha)
LER ATER
Net
Returns
(Rs/ha)
B : C
ratio
T1 : Sole Castor 3.99 1858 1.00 180.00 13723 1.98
T2 : Castor + Finger millet (1:3) 1.56 2910 1.26 71.09 29058 2.98
T3 : Castor + Chilli (1:2) 2.50 1686 1.00 116.44 09692 1.62
T4 : Castor + Cowpea (1:2) 1.52 1817 1.21 68.90 12564 1.85
T5 : Castor + Clusterbean (1:2) 3.08 1747 1.20 139.59 11411 1.77
T6 : Castor + Fieldbean (1:2) 2.21 1680 1.33 100.25 10406 1.70
T7 : Castor + Grain Amaranth (1:2) 1.62 1243 0.98 73.37 05669 1.39
S.Em± - 13.29 0.05 5.16 - -
C.D (P = 0.05) - 40.94 0.15 15.90 - -
Table 7: WUE, CEY, LER, ATER and economics as influenced by castor based
intercropping systems
Bangalore Neginhal et al.(2011)
WUE = Water use efficiency, CEY = Castor equivalent yield, LER = Land equivalent ratio, ATER = Area time equivalent ratio, B : C = Benefit cost ratio.
32

33. Intercropping in Sesame
33

34. Table 8 : Yield, sesame equivalent yield, LER and B:C ratio as influenced by different
intercropping ratios
Treatment
Sesame
seed yield
(q/ha)
Groundnut
pod yield
(q/ha)
Sesame
equivalent
yield (q/ha)
LER
B: C
ratio
T1: Sole sesame 4.77 -- 4.77 1.00 1.19
T2: Sole groundnut -- 21.60 6.48 1.00 1.50
T3: Sesame+ groundnut (1:1) 3.89 12.55 7.66 1.45 1.70
T4: Sesame+ groundnut(2:1) 4.34 8.09 6.77 1.32 1.55
T5: Sesame+ groundnut(3:1) 5.34 5.42 6.97 1.43 1.60
T6: Sesame+ groundnut(1:2) 3.52 15.02 8.03 1.46 1.75
T7: Sesame+ groundnut(1:3) 2.47 15.78 7.20 1.29 1.63
SEm± 0.25 0.451 0.89 0.17 0.14
CD (P=0.05) 0.79 1.42 2.75 0.52 0.43
Ratnagiri (MH) Mahale et al.(2008)
34

35. Treatment
Sesame equivalent
yield
(kg/ha)
Net income
(Rs/ha)
B : C
ratio
T1 : Sesame sole 545 8317 1.02
T2 : Greengram sole 344 2254 0.26
T3 : Blackgram sole 229 833 0.13
T4 : Soybean sole 368 1913 0.19
T5 : Sesame + greengram (2:2) 505 6037 0.83
T6 : Sesame + blackgram (2:2) 518 8306 1.17
T7 : Sesame + soybean (2:2) 481 6434 0.65
T8 : Sesame + geengram (3:2) 512 7197 0.87
T9 : Sesame + blackgram (3:2) 552 8997 1.18
T10 : Sesame + soybean (3:2) 484 6531 0.71
S.Em± 9 315 0.02
CD (P = 0.05) 26 894 0.08
Table 9: SEY and economics as influenced by sesame based intercropping systems
(Pooled data of 3 years)
Kanpur (U.P) Yadav et al. (2008)
35

36. Treatment
Sesame equivalent
yield
(Kg/ha)
LER
Net return
(Rs/ha)
T1 : Sesame sole 1108 1.00 23290
T2 : Cotton sole 870 1.00 12985
T3 : Castor sole 610 1.00 6525
T4 : Sesame + Cotton (1:1) 1494 1.54 33285
T5 : Sesame + Castor (1:1) 816 1.13 13615
T6 : Sesame + Cotton (2:1) 1523 1.54 34685
T7 : Sesame + Castor (2:1) 1063 1.34 21330
T8 : Sesame + Cotton (3:1) 1589 1.59 36930
T9 : Sesame + Castor (3:1) 1185 1.43 25140
CD (P=0.05) 368 - -
Table 10: SEY, Land equivalent ratio and economics as influenced by sesame
based intercropping systems (Pooled data of 3 years)
Anand (Gujarat) Bhatt et al.(2010)
36

37. Treatment
Sesame equivalent
Yield
(kg/ha)
System
Productivity
(kg/ha/day)
T1 : Sesame – Wheat 1724 4.7
T2 : Sesame – Castor 2665 7.3
T3 : Sesame – Mustard 1952 5.3
T4 : Sesame + Greengram (1:1) – Wheat 2107 5.8
T5 : Sesame + Greengram (1:1) – Castor 2874 7.9
T6 : Sesame + Greengram (1:1) – Mustard 2132 5.8
T7 : Sesame + Groundnut (1:1) – Wheat 2065 5.7
T8 : Sesame + Groundnut (1:1) – Castor 2883 8.0
T9 : Sesame + Groundnut (1:1) – Mustard 2160 5.9
T10 : Sesame + Hybrid Cotton (1:1) 1945 5.3
SEm± 100 -
CD ( P =0.05) 291 -
Table 11 : Sesamum equivalent yield and system productivity of the different sesame
based cropping systems
Dantiwada (Gujarat) Oyeogble et al. (2015)
37

38. Treatments SEY (q/ha) LER
RWUE
(kg/ha-mm)
Net returns
(Rs/ha)
B : C ratio
T1 : Sesame sole 6.16 1.00 2.57 14718 2.48
T2 : Greengram sole 13.35 1.00 5.68 38956 3.91
T3 : Blackgram sole 12.92 1.00 5.78 37309 3.90
T4 : S + GG (1:1) 12.30 1.35 6.28 34134 3.88
T5 : S + GG (2:1) 10.17 1.28 5.14 27388 3.47
T6 : S + GG (2:2) 12.62 1.41 7.25 36667 4.09
T7 : S + GG (3:1) 9.82 1.16 5.21 25736 3.34
T8 : S + BG (1:1) 13.85 1.42 7.42 39374 4.40
T9 : S + BG (2:1) 12.60 1.36 7.07 35861 4.26
T10: S + BG (2:2) 12.50 1.34 6.66 35480 4.06
T11: S + BG (3:1) 10.00 1.19 5.87 28620 3.63
CD (P=0.05) 2.83 0.20 2.18 - -
Table 12: SEY, LER, RWUE and economics as influenced by sesame based
intercropping systems ( Pooled data of 3 years )
S = Sesame, GG =Green gram, BG = Black gram, SEY =Seed equivalent yield, LER = Land equivalent ratio, RWUE = Rain water use
efficiency, B : C = Benefit cost ratio.
Sonitpur (Assam) Sharma et al. (2016)
38

39. Intercropping in Groundnut
39

40. Table 13: Effect of groundnut base intercropping system on groundnut equivalent yield
and economic (Pooled data of 2 year)
Treatment Groundnut equivalent
yield (t/ha)
Net return
(Rs./ha)
B : C
ratio
Groundnut 12.87 15200 1.44
Pigeonpea 9.47 10824 1.33
Maize 7.95 8612 1.18
Groundnut : Pigeonpea
3:1 12.56 14762 1.42
4:1 13.62 16557 1.54
5:1 13.10 15183 1.38
3:2 12.51 14980 1.49
4:2 13.32 16186 1.55
5:2 14.42 17986 1.66
Groundnut : maize
3:1 12.65 15335 1.54
4:1 13.34 16289 1.57
5:1 13.28 15896 1.49
3:2 12.01 14400 1.50
4:2 13.56 17075 1.70
5:2 13.52 16572 1.58
CD (P=0.05) 1.05 - -
Jhargram (West Bengal) Dutta and Bandyopadhyay (2006)
40

41. Treatment
GEY
(kg/ha)
2004 2005
LER ATER SLER LER ATER SLER
T1 : Groundnut + pigeonpea 2541 1.64 1.26 0.95 1.64 1.26 0.95
T2 : Groundnut + castor 2636 1.66 1.36 0.96 1.65 1.35 0.96
T3 : Groundnut + sorghum 1822 1.24 1.22 0.86 1.21 1.19 0.86
T4 : Groundnut + pearmillet 1819 1.23 1.15 0.87 1.21 1.13 0.87
T5 : Groundnut + sunflower 1964 1.25 1.16 0.86 1.28 1.18 0.86
T6 : Groundnut + sesame 1741 1.29 1.20 0.87 1.28 1.19 0.87
T7 : Groundnut + greengram 1689 1.16 1.04 0.82 1.19 1.08 0.83
T8 : Groundnut + soybean 1584 1.25 1.15 0.84 1.28 1.18 0.85
SEm± 53.6 0.042 0.029 0.027 0.042 0.028 0.264
CD (P = 0.05) 115 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.06
Table 14: Groundnut equivalent yield, Land equivalent ratio, Area time equivalent
ratio and Staple land equivalent ratio of different intercropping systems
Kandiri (A.P) Kumar et al. (2010)
41

42. Intercropping in Soybean
42

43. Treatment
SEY
(q/ha) LER
Gross
returns
(Rs/ha)
Net
returns
(Rs/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1 : Sole soybean 32.05 1.00 30028 18348 2.57
T2 : Sole pigeonpea 31.42 1.00 29466 17555 2.47
T3 : Soybean + pigeonpea (1:1) 35.19 1.10 33035 18840 2.33
T4 : Soybean + piogeonpea (2:2) 34.79 1.09 32634 20794 2.76
T5 : Paired planting of
soybean(30/90) + pigeonpea ( 2:1)
36.31 1.14 34115 20839 2.57
T6 : Soybean + pigeonpea( 2:1) 38.09 1.20 35665 23783 3.00
T7 : Soybean + pigeonpea ( 3:1) 40.14 1.26 37579 25744 3.18
CD (P=0.05) 1.11 - - - -
Table 15 : SEY, LER, net returns and B:C ratio of soybean in different
intercropping systems
Pune (MH) Halvankar et al. (2000)
43

44. Table 16 : Effect of Soybean based intercropping systems on economics
Treatment
Soybean
equivalent
yield
(q/ha)
Gross
returns
(Rs/ha)
NMR
(Rs/ ha)
B:C
ratio
T1 : Soybean+ wheat 50.61 48136 34743 3.59
T2 : Soybean+ safflower 45.02 41056 30172 3.77
T3 : Soybean+ chickpea 65.92 59274 46530 4.65
T4 : Soybean+ mustard 43.62 39866 28,933 3.64
CD (P=0.05) 5.98 5695 5336 -
Raksar et al.(2000)Rahuri (MH)
44

45. Table 17 : Soybean equivalent yield, LER and economics as influenced by different
intercropping (pooled mean of 2001 to 2004)
Treatment
Soybean
equivalent
yield
(q/ha)
LER
Gross
returns
(Rs./ha)
Net
returns
(Rs./ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Sole soybean (JS-335) 21.72 1.00 27398 17143 2.64
T2: Sole soybean (MACS-124) 13.51 1.00 17257 6988 1.64
T3: Sole cotton (Y-1) 12.95 1.00 17046 1927 1.10
T4: Sole sorghum (CSH-14) 15.28 1.00 22597 11926 2.09
T5: Sole pigeon pea (BSMR-736) 12.34 1.00 17229 6785 1.60
T6: Soybean + cotton (JS-335+Y-1) 21.29 1.12 27182 15725 2.33
T7: Soybean + cotton (MACS-124+Y-1) 18.48 1.19 20389 8933 1.72
T8: Soybean + sorghum (JS-335+CSH-14) 19.99 1.13 27527 17155 2.64
T9: Soybean + sorghum (MACS-124+CSH-14) 16.43 1.20 23243 12872 2.24
T10:- Soybean + pigeonpea (JS-335+BSMR-736) 24.06 1.38 30322 20010 2.92
T11: Soybean + pigeonpea (MACS-124+BSMR-736) 16.86 1.27 22197 11885 2.10
SEm± 2.08 0.06 2773 2754 0.25
CD (P=0.05) 6.01 0.19 7999 7945 0.73
Dhule (MH) Chaudhari et al.(2006)
45

46. Table 18 : SEY and economics as influenced by intercropping system
Treatment
SEY (t/ha) Net returns
(Rs/ ha)
B:C ratio
T1 : Soybean+ durum wheat
4.22 56,421 2.38
T2 : Soybean+ mustard 3.32 43,318 2.10
T3 : Soybean+ chickpea 3.40 44,307 2.11
T4 : Soybean+ isabgol 2.94 36,402 1.75
SEm ± 0.08 - -
CD(P=0.05)
0.23 - -
Ramesh et al.(2009)Bhopal (M.P)
46

47. Intercropping in Mustard
47

48. Treatments LER
Net return
(Rs/ha)
Benefit : Cost
ratio
T1: Toria sole 1.00 2795 1.91
T2: Safflower sole 1.00 14563 4.19
T3: Mustard sole 1.00 04813 2.54
T4: Toria + safflower (2:2) 0.87 06762 2.88
T5: Toria + safflower (4:2) 1.24 11551 4.22
T6: Toria + safflower (6:2) 1.46 14031 4.91
T7: Mustard + safflower (2:2) 0.78 06987 2.94
T8: Mustard + safflower (4:2) 1.14 12366 4.45
T9: Mustard + safflower (6:2) 1.37 14937 5.16
Table 19: LER, economics of different intercropping systems (Data of 3 years)
Indore (M.P) Deshpande and Sawant (2001)
48

49. Intercropping in Sunflower
49

50. Table 20: Effect of various weed management practices and intercropping
systems on sunflower yield, SEY and economics.
Treatment
Sunflower
yield
(kg/ha)
Sunflower
equivalent
yield (kg/ha)
Net income
(kg/ha)
B : C ratio
Cropping systems
Sole sunflower 1169 1169 7975 1.70
Sunflower + blackgram (1: 1) 1485 1941 19368 2.60
Sunflower + sesame (1: 1) 1377 1653 15634 2.35
LSD (P=0.05) 79 - - -
Weed management practices
Unweeded control 860 1016 7190 1.76
Hand weeding twice 1560 1855 17715 2.37
Fluchloralin 1 kg /ha 1355 1568 13874 2.22
Fluchloralin 1 kg/ ha + 1HW 1598 1911 18524 2.50
LSD (P=0.05) 91 - - -
Hand weeding
Vedharethinam et al.(2004)Annamalainagar (Tamilnadu)
50

51. Table 21: Effect of Sunflower + French bean intercropping system on sunflower
equivalent yield and economic (mean data of 2 years)
Treatment
Sunflower
equivalent
yield (q/ha)
Net income
(Rs./ha)
B : C ratio
T1: Sole sunflower 9.82 8662 1.67
T2: Sole french bean 10.06 9474 1.74
T3: Sunflower + french bean (1:1) 11.22 10720 1.76
T4: Sunflower + french bean (2:2) 12.31 13138 1.95
CD (P=0.05) 0.41 542 0.07
Wadura (Jammu and Kashmir) Singh (2007)
51

52. Conclusion
Introduction of various intercrop in oilseed
crops not only improve the yield of crops, but
also improve the soil fertility, WUE and
suppress weeds to increase income.
52