الفهرس 
Materials and mithodsOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 148 |  |  |
| | | from | 148 | | |
Abstract
!ffact of Inte,rplanting of ~o.~:Croe8on
the growth and Yield 0.1 .C:otton”
TWo field ekp~1menta wero carried out at the
Agr:l.cultun.l Research and Exper1ment$tat1on of the
Faculty of Agr1cult’urol Science. ~htoho ••, to study
the effect of interplanting onion’ .:8 well 8S soybean
withootton und~ different N lev~t8on the growth and
yield of lntercf’Op compOnents. The .tudy was untfertaken
during 1977 and 1978 seasons.
The 8011 of the -xporllllenta was clay textured 10th
a pH value of 7.8 and an organic matter content of 1.&%•.
’Each experiment included ftlteentreetaente which
were tbe aoab1nat1on of five cropping .yate •• and three
N levels.
1 Cropping eyate.. waret
1. Cotton in sole cropping.
2. Onion in aolecrop,J.ng.
3. SOybean in sole cropping •
••.• Cotton :Lnterplantecl Id.th omon.
6. Cotton 1ntQrplented ’11th soybeen.
All utercrop cas•• lent•• re grownat thG 8.a8
densities •• 1n .ole ..-pp1ng_
The three l:wals of N weret 20, 40 and 60 kg/fad.
A oomplete ~andomized block design 1n four
replicatiOns was used in both sea80ns.
Results could be summarized 88 follows:
A. Interplant1ns Effect ••
A· Effect of 1nterplant1ng on gro~th char.cte~81
1. Cotton plant height was not significantly affected
by 1nterplanting onion or soybean on cotton ridges
in both aeasone.
2. Growing onion with cotton reduced ins1gnificantly
number of frUiting branches per plant in both •••• ona.
Interplant1ng 80ybean with COtton signlf1cantly
reduced n~ber of fruiting ~nches in 1978 8•• eon.
3. Cotton grown alone produced a1gnif1cently higher
nuaber of leaves per plant than that lnterp1anted
Idth on1On Or” aoybe.n in both a8880na.
4. Interplanting cot ton ••i th onion had no 8ignificant
effect on n~er of bolls per cotton plant 1n both
aea80ft8. On the other hand. lnt:erpl~t1ng cotton
with soybean rignlf1.cantly reduced nuaber of bo1le
per plant in 1978 _.on.
5. Onion plants int...-opped ”itb cotton produced
ahor-ter steas than those gro.. 1n pu~ • t.d in
both ••••••••
6. Nuaber of tubulw ”des •• e1gn1f1cently reduced
88 8 result of in ••• cropp1.ng _~h co~~on.
7. IntBrplant1ng 80ybean 1V1th cotton·roduced soybean
plant height end numbe~ of 1e.eves and pode per plant.
Reduct1on8 in thesechar.acters were significant 1n
1977 se8S0n.
p. Effect of intorpl.~ngon dry •• tear content,
1. IntetPlant1ng COtton with either onlon or soybean
.significantly reduced dry matter content of steas.
leaves and bolls per cottOn plant 1n both se.eons.
2. Interplant1ng on1on with cotton significantly
reduoed dry metter content of onion bulb. tubular
blades and the wholQ on10n plant 1n both aeasons.
3. Dry -atter content of stoas. leaves. pods and the
whole plant of soyboan 8ignif1cantly 8urpassed that
of intorcropped soybean 1n both aeasons.
Or Effect of interplantlng on growth relat.1onah1es I
l~ Interplanting reduced relative leaf growth rate
(RLGR)of intercrop componente. part1cularly at
ea~l~er stages of s-onth 1n both ae••ana
2~ Inte~18nU”1l reduaed net ”.~U.t1••n rate CHAR)of
1ntercrop oo.poneRt. in both ”’8On8, part1cu1erly. at
later at.gee of gf’Otlth. lileduct1.on in CHAR)•• IIOre
eY1dent in lntel”’CI”’O””ed onJ.on.
3. Crop growth ”ete (~) of cotton •• adveraely
.ffected by intercr.p1ng cth o1t1Jor .”.lot) or 00”’”
bean. particularly at letor stage. of gro.rth.
4. Crop grO\vth rate (CGR) of enaen and soybean intercropped
with cotton were lower than those obta1ned
in eo10 cropping_
5. Interplant1ng soybean with cotton r~uced cotton
••e.lat1ve growth rate (RGR)at ear.lier stages of .
growth 1n 1977 eeaeon.
6. Interplant1ng COtton and on10n had no effect on
(RCR) of both 1ntercrop components.
d. Effect of interplant1na en X1e1d an,d yield cO!!I?onentaJ
1. Interplanting onion with cotton had no 81gn~flcant
effect on nuaber of seeds/boll. weight 0’ ••ed./boll.
aeed 1ndex. l1nt percontag, end boll weight in both
eGason ••
2. Interplant1ng soybean with cotton significantly
reduced cotton yield components in 1978 season.
3. Interplentlng cotton with on10n had no 81gnif1cant
effect on seed cotton yield 1n both seesons.
Reductions 1n aeed cotton y1al~ due to 1ntercropp1ng
,with on1onwore only 5.3 and 4.~ in 1977 and 1978
so.eons, respectively_
4. Interplant1ng aoybean with cotton reduced seed cotton
yield by ~.7 snd”.Oj) 1n 197’7 and 1978. respectively,
indicating a severe co.pet1tlve effect for intercropping
with a~ in 1978 a.aeon.
5. Interplanting oniop with cotton reduced onlon yield
by 14.0% in 19n and 23.8% 1n 1978. As for soybean.
yield reduct’ions were 85.3. and 69.5% in 1977 and
1976, respectively due to intercropping_
6. Yield components of onion. nslllely, bulb weight, bulb
length and bulb diameter were reduced due to intercropping
in both $8880n8. Differences in bulb
d1ameter between sole grown and 1ntercropped onion
were 81gnif1can-~,
7. Interplanting significantly reduced lOOO-saed weight
of soybean 1n both seasons.
~. Nitrogen Level Effects.
2- Effect of nJ.trogen level on srow;th charset.ere:
1. Plant he1gh~ of ootton increased as the N lev-e1
increased. Such increase W8S significant 1n 1977
sea80n.
2. Effect of N level on number of fruiting branch ••
I
por cotton p~ant was significant 1n 1978 seeson.
3. Nuaber of leaves and bolls per cotton plant were
favourabtt affected by N level.
-4. Plant ·.height cs wall 8a number of tubular blad•• of
on~on were not 81~f1cant~y affected by N level in
both seasons.
5. Plant height of soyllean 81gnl f1cantly increased ,,1th
increase in N level in 1977season.
6 •.In both seasons. N lewel had significant effect on
number of leaves per soybean plant.
7. Increase in N level. significantly increased nueber
of pods per soybean plant in 1976 season
p. eff~ctof ~~tro98nlevel o~ dry matter coptent.
1. N level had no sign1ficant effect on dry weight of
steNs, leaves and bolls per Gotton plant. S1a11arly,
dry weight of cotton per one square lDeter was not
affected by N level.
2. Dry matter content of onion bulbs and tubular b1edes
increased with increase 1n N level in both ..-egA••
3. In both S8S80ns. dry matter content of staas,
loaves and pods par soybean plant significantly
lncrea •• d as the N level iocrea.ad. S:Lmtterly.
~ncrease 10 N level favourably affected dry weight
per one square meter of soybean 1n both seasone.
c· Effe.ct of ”ltrosen IGve~ on Srot”/th r:elatlonsh1eat
1. In both aeosons, N levol had DO significant effect
on growth relat1onah1ps. na.ely. relative leaf growth
rate (RLGR)•. net ••a1Jlj,1at1on rate CHAR). crop growth
rata (CGR)end re!at1vo growth rete (RGR). of cotton
and soybean at earlier as 8011 as later eta,.. of
growth.
2. Net eS81111latj,on rIIte CHAR)of on:Lon •••• 1gnlflcen’tly.
decreased with 1ncWeeae in N level jn 1978 .”8011.
Other growth relationships of onion were not
significantly affected by N level in both season$ •
.B.-ve.tfoct qt .nitrogen level .0,” >:1eld and yield c;,om,eonentsl,
1. N level had no significant effect on sead cotton yield
and yield components of cotton in both seasons.
2. In both soasons. the thr~e levels of N were statist!.-
cally similar 1n their effect on onion bulb yield as
well as dry weight, length and diameter of bulb.
·3. In both seasons. 1ncrease in N level significantly
1ncreesed’1000-scod weight of aoybeen.
4. Seed yield of soybean increased with increase 1n N
level 1n both seasons. Increasing N level from 20
to 40 and 60 kg/fad_ increased seed y1eld by 7.8 and
’~7.lS in 1977 and 16_4 end 9.~ in 1978. respectively_ {
Effect of N lovel on soybean seed yield was significant
1n 1977 season.
c. Effect of the 1n,teractio,n boty.een ipt!rplant1.ng ant!.
”1 trosen level I
The interacf10n between 1nterplant1ng end N fertilizer
level had no s1gnificant effects on growth characters.
~eld and yle1a coapOAehta of cottan, onion and aoybean
in both seaSOns.
Results 1nd.cate that both lnterplanting and N
level affected the 8t~d characters independently.
~. ,:OO!pet1It1v,eRelationships end Y:Le,ldAdventage~1
~. le~d e9u~valent rat1~.~
1. Intercropp1ng cotton and onion (at 67 a 33 ~at1o)
produced LERs of 1.81 and 1.72 in 1977 and 1978,
respoctively.
2. LeR resulting from cotton/onion 1nte~c~oPP1n9was
not affected by N level 1n both se~son8.
3. IntercroPP1ng cotton end soybean (at 50 a 50 tetio)
produced LERs of 1.11 and 0.87 i~ 1977 and 1978,
re$pactively. Such’1.nterCl”Opping cOllb1nat1.on had
negative .ffect on land use in 1978.
4. In gener~l. N level affected Posit1velyl.ER of- oot-tooI
soybean lotercroPP1ng, particularly in 1978 season.
b. Rsl,etix8 aro.ding coeff1c1ent..t5!:
1. In both se880n8~ cotton and onion as intercrop
components produced 80re yields thon ·expecte~ at
ell’N levels. indicating a yield advantage for intere.
t’Opping.
2. N level had no clear effect on rel.ative erotId1.ng
coefficient of cotton and on1on.
3. Xn cottOn/onion inter-cropping. onion had higher
coefficient (Ka) 10 18’17. wh.,.eas cotton Produced
h1gher coefficient (Ke) 1n 1978 season.
4. In 11171.cotton and aoybean intercroPP1ng gave 0
coefflcj,eAt Pr’Oduct (K) of 4.0 lnd1cet1.ng D yield
Ddvantege for interc~opping. In 1978, this product
was only 0.58 indicating Q yield disadvantage.
6. Increase in N lavel increased the product of the
coefficient (K) of intercropping cotton and soybean.
c. Agqre.81v1t~1
1. In cotton/onlon 1ntercroPP1ng, onion WDG the do.1nant”
1ntercrop component and cotton was the dom1nateo\one.
Aggressiv1ty values were 1.19 and O.aa for onion ~nd
-1.19 and -0.88 for cotton 1n 1977 an~l97S,
respectively.
2. N level had no considerable effect On aggf”888iv1ty
values 1n cotton/onion intercropping.
3. In cott~oybean 1ntercroppi.ng. cotton was the
dominant 1ntel”’crop component with aggress1v1ty
values of 1.63 and 0.53 in 1977 and 1978. respectiVS;Y.
whereas soybean Was the domino ted component with
aggress1v1ty values of -1.63 and -0.53 in the two
SUccessive 80asons.
4. In general. the increaso in N level increased the
eggreaeiv1ty values 1n cotton/soybean 1ntercrapP1ng.