Printer Friendly

Influence of planting patterns and intercropping on growth and yield of suru sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.).

The population per unit area and distance between cane rows play a significant role in influencing the yield. Wide row sugarcane planting technology is spreading fast particularly in tropical states (Sundara, 2002) to facilitate mechanical harvesting of the crop. The larger interspaces between the wide spaced sugarcane rows can be utilized by the intercrops for better exploitation of the natural resources like light, soil moisture, nutrients and carbon dioxide. Sugarcane is generally planted as sole crop in spring season. The slow establishment of sugarcane during the initial period and adoption of comparatively wider row spacing offers vast scope for intercropping. Temporal differences can be best exploited by using species or varieties of intercrops that are sufficiently early maturing and harvested before they compete with cane may provide ample opportunity for intercropping of summer crops, particularly in suru season which replaced at the rate of 25% in Maharashtra each year (Verma and Yadav, 1986),.

Intercropping in spring sugarcane with legume is quite a common practice and has been recognized as potential system to enhance the productivity of sugarcane based cropping systems (Anon. 2015). There is need for better management and the selection of suitable intercrop for local conditions necessitate for harnessing maximum benefits and sustaining soil health. With the introduction of high tillering and high yielding varieties of sugarcane, it is possible to maintain the cane population and final cane yield even at relatively wider row spacing. increasing the row spacing of sugarcane from the present recommended spacing of 90 to 120 cm would greatly facilitate not only easy management of intercropping without any competition effects, but also provide enough scope for intercrops to get higher productivity, especially under frequently irrigated tropical climatic regions. (Shahi, 2002). In light of this back ground, present experiment was conducted to find out the effect of planting pattern and intercropping with groundnut on growth and yield of suru sugarcane var. Co-86032.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The field experiment was conducted at Agronomy Farm, College of Agriculture, Pune during spring season of 2011-12 to find out the influence of different planting patterns along with intercropping on growth and yield of suru sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) Var. Co86032 on medium deep black, well drained, clayey textured soils found low in available N (143 kg [ha.sup.-1]), medium in available P (16.5 kg [ha.sup.-1]), high in available K (416 kg [ha.sup.-1]), moderately high organic carbon content (0.72%) with low EC (0.24 [dSm.sup.-1]) and alkaline in reaction (pH 7.6) with 36.07% field capacity, 18.45% permanent wilting point and 1.21 g [cm.sup.-3] bulk density.

The experiment was laid out in strip plot design with three replications. The treatment was consisted of four planting patterns viz., 90 x 30 cm single row planting ([P.sub.1]), 90-180 x 30 cm paired row planting ([P.sub.2]), 180 x 30 cm single row planting ([P.sub.3]) and 120 x 30 cm single row planting with sugarcane planter ([P.sub.4]) as main plots and two intercropping systems viz., sugarcane + groundnut ([I.sub.1]) and sole sugarcane ([I.sub.2]). In single row planting system, single line of groundnut (TPG 41) was sown in inter-row space of sugarcane on one side of ridge, whereas, in paired row as well as in wide row planting two rows of groundnut was sown in inter-row space of sugarcane. The recommended dose of 250:115:115 kg N, [P.sub.2][O.sub.5] and [K.sub.2]O [ha.sup.-1] to spring sugarcane and 25 kg N and 50 kg [P.sub.2][O.sub.5] [ha.sup.-1] to groundnut was applied through urea, single super phosphate and muriate of potash, respectively. In sugarcane nitrogen was given in four splits. The Ist 10 per cent (25 kg N [ha.sup.-1]) at the time as planting, 2nd 40 per cent (100 kg N [ha.sup.-1]) after 45 DAP at tillering stage, 3rd 10 per cent (25 kg N [ha.sup.-1]) after 90 DAP at light earthing up and remaining 40 per cent (100 kg N [ha.sup.-1]) after 120 DAP at the time of final earthing up. The [P.sub.2][O.sub.5] and [K.sub.2]O fertilizers were applied in two equal splits i.e. 50% as a basal dose at planting and remaining 50% as top dressing at final earthing up. 40% of recommended fertilizer (25-50-00 kg NPK [ha.sup.-1]) was applied to groundnut separately as an intercrop i.e. 10 kg N [ha.sup.-1] in two equal splits at planting and one month after planting and full dose of 20 kg [P.sub.2][O.sub.5] [ha.sup.-1] was applied as basal dose.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect of planting patterns

Data depicted in fig. 1 showed that the initial plant population of sugarcane was not affected extensively due to different treatments of planting patterns, but the maximum plant population was observed at 90 x 30 cm single row planting (26379 [ha.sup.-1]) as compared to other planting patterns. But planting pattern had perceptible influence on survival percentage and significantly higher survival percentage (75.71%) was observed in paired row planting of 90-180 x 30 cm (Table-1). It was also further revealed that significantly the highest plant height (312.12 cm), number of leaves [plant.sup.-1] (7.69), length of internodes (20.13 cm) and millable cane height (276.70 cm) of sugarcane were recorded in 90-180 x 30 cm paired row planting ([P.sub.2]) at harvest. This could be attributed to more availability of light, space and moisture under paired row planting which might lead to more availability of land per shoot for growth and development under pair row planting as compared to single row planting resulted in to higher number of leaves per shoot available for the purpose of photosynthesis production under paired row planting (More, 2003). Nevertheless, periodical number of tillers [clump.sup.-1] (Fig.2), dry matter accumulation, mean girth of cane and number of internodes [plant.sup.-1] (Table-1) were not affected markedly due to different planting patterns. Similar results were also reported by Raskar and Bhoi (2003) and Gulati et al. (2015).

Yield attributes shown in table-2 revealed that number of millable cane (927800 [ha.sup.-1]) was found significantly higher under [P.sub.1] i.e. single row planting with 90 x 30 cm, however, it was found at par with [P.sub.2] i.e .paired row planting of 90-180 x 30 cm spacing (91020 [ha.sup.-1]). Chaudhari et al. (2014) and Kumawat and Dahima (2016) also observed that millable cane population was the highest under normal row spacing (90 cm) and was reduced under wider row spacing of 150 cm.

Conversely, being at par with 180 x 30 cm single row ([P.sub.3]), appreciably higher average cane weight (1.45 kg [plant.sup.-1]) was recorded under paired row planting of 90-180 x 30 cm spacing ([P.sub.2]). The higher cane weight in paired row planting might be due to increase in number of internodes and length of internodes, millable height of cane, respectively. An outright increase in cane yield (131.95 t [ha.sup.-1]), commercial cane sugar (19.21 t [ha.sup.-1]) yield and cane equivalent yield (143.91 t [ha.sup.-1]) was reported in paired row planting of 90-180 x 30 cm spacing ([P.sub.2]). In paired row planting, main factors contributing towards cane yield was number of internodes and length of internodes, millable height of cane and weight of cane. Similar findings were reported by More (2003) and Anon. (2015).

Different planting patterns of sugarcane did not exert any significant influence on the yield and yield attributes of groundnut as an intercrop indicating non-detrimental impact of sugarcane on growth and development of groundnut (Table-3).

Effect of intercrop

Intercropping of sugarcane with groundnut had remarkable influence on survival percentage, plant height and number of leaves [plant.sup.-1] of sugarcane and remarkably less survival percentage (72.39%), plant height (304.85 cm) and number of leaves [plant.sup.-1] (7.57) were reported when sugarcane was intercropped with groundnut ([I.sub.1]) compared to sole sugarcane ([I.sub.2]). Numbers of tillers per clump, mean girth of cane, number of internodes per plant, length of internodes, millable cane height as well as number of millable canes ha-1 were not influenced significantly due to intercrops.

The dry matter accumulation per plant in sugarcane at harvest (554.58 g) was significantly more in sole planted sugarcane than groundnut intercropped cane. The differences in weight of individual cane (1.36 kg [cane.sup.-1]), mean cane yield (112.15 t [ha.sup.-1]) and CCS (16.09 t [ha.sup.-1]) were differed significantly due to intercrops and it was found maximum with sole sugarcane than groundnut intercropped cane. The cane yield decreased by 4.89 per cent with intercropping of groundnut compared with sole sugarcane. Contrary to this, significantly higher cane equivalent yield (131.61t [ha.sup.-1]) was recorded by groundnut intercropped sugarcane than sugarcane alone (116.59 t [ha.sup.-1]) and it was 12.88 per cent higher than sole planting of sugarcane. This might be owing to additional yield obtained from groundnut and attractive price of their pods in market. These results corroborated the findings of Kumar et. al, (2006).

Interaction effect

The combined effect (Table-4) of planting patterns and intercrop clearly indicates that significantly maximum sugarcane equivalent yield (152.96 t [ha.sup.-1]) and higher net monetary returns (' 120628 [ha.sup.-1]) were obtained from paired row planting at 90-180 x 30cm ([P.sub.2]) accommodating two rows of groundnut in skip row as an intercrop ([I.sub.1]) over rest of the combinations. The sugarcane + groundnut intercropping recorded 13.42 per cent higher CEY over sole sugarcane in paired row planting.

Economics

The operational cost required for planting of sugarcane at 90 x 30 cm single row planting and 90-180 x 30 cm pared row planting were '56019 and '53372 [ha.sup.-1], respectively. The gross monetary returns ('165496 [ha.sup.-1]), net monetary returns ('112125 [ha.sup.-1]) and B:C ratio (3.1) were significantly higher at paired planting of 90-180 x 30 cm spacing ([P.sub.2]) than rest of the treatments. The planting of cane at 90-180 x 30 cm recorded 21.02 per cent higher monetary returns over 90 x 30 cm, 35.71 per cent over 180 x 30 cm and 12.83 per cent over 120 cm with sugarcane planter.

The sugarcane planted with groundnut registered significantly higher gross monetary returns ('151354), net monetary returns ('96092) and B:C (2.74) ratio than sole sugarcane.

The combined effect of planting patterns and intercrop clearly indicated that sugarcane + groundnut intercropping in paired row planting recorded 16.41 per cent higher than sole sugarcane in paired row planting.

CONCLUSIONS

In light of the above discussion it can be concluded that intercropping of two rows of groundnut in paired row planting of sugarcane at 90-180 x 30 cm spacing was proved to be the most productive system. Considering the net monetary returns in paired row planting of sugarcane at 90180 x 30 cm associated with groundnut in 2:2 ratio was found to be most remunerative.

REFERENCES

[1.] Anonymous. Annual Report, Research Review committee (RRC), M. P. K.V, Rahuri, 2015 pp. 74-79.

[2.] Anonymous. Reseach Report, Vasantdada Sugar Institute (VSI) Manjari, Pune, 2015 pp : 113-118.

[3.] Chaudhari, P. M., Ombase, K. C., Thorave, D. S., Ghodke, S. K. and Pawar, S. M. . Evaluation of plantinng geometry and different varieties on growth and yield of spring planted sugarcane. International Journal of Current Research, 2014; 6(12) : 10394-10396.

[4.] Gulati, J. M., Jitendra Behra, Jena, S. N. and Subhrasini Lenka. Effect of planting methods on growth pattern and productivity of sugarcane varieties.Indian Journal of Agriculture Research, 2015; 49(3) : 222-228.

[5.] Kumar, S. Rana, N.S. Singh, R. and Singh, A.. Production potential of spring sugarcane as influenced by intercropping of dual purpose legumes under tarai conditions of Uttarakhand. Indian. J. Agron. 2006; 51(4):271-273.

[6.] Kumawat, P. D. and Dahima, N. U.. Effect of sugarcane (saccharum officinarum l.) Varieties and row spacing on growth, yield and quality of Sugarcane. Progressive Agriculture. 2016; 16(1) : 88-92.

[7.] Mahadevaswamy, M.. Studies on intercropping of onion in wide spaced sugarcane. Ph.D. Thesis, 2001, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.

[8.] More, S.M.. Study on the effect of row spacing, planting system and intercropping on growth, yield, quality and economics of suru sugarcane (cv. Co 86032) and its ratoon under drip irrigation. Ph.D. Thesis, 2003, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri

[9.] Raskar, B.S. and Bhoi, P.G.. Yield attributes of sugarcane as influenced by intra-row spacings, fertilizer levels and planting materials. Indian Sugar, 53: 5: 327-331

[10.] Shahi, H.N. 2002. Sugarcane crushing prize cause concern. The Hindu, Survey of Indian agriculture, 2003, pp. 119-124

[11.] Sundara, B.. Influence of varieties, seed and fertilizer rates and planting patterns on sugarcane grown under wide row spacing. Indian Sugar, 2002, LII (5):341-348

[12.] Verma, R.S. and Yadav, R.L., Growth and yield of sugarcane and potato in companion cropping system. J.Agric.Sci.Camb., 1986; 125-231.

K.C. Ombase (1), K.D. Mevada (2), R.B.Kadu (3), P.G. Gamar (4) and H.L. Ghadage (5)

(1) SRA, College of Agriculture, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

(2) Department of Agronomy, BACA, AAU, Anand, Gujarat, India.

(3) JRA, Central Sugarcane Research Station, Padegaon, Maharastra, India.

(4) Department of Agronomy, BACA, AAU, Anand, Gujarat, India.

(5) College of Agriculture, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

http://dx.doi.org/ 10.22207/JPAM.11.2.65

(Received: 10 April 2017; accepted: 03 June 2017)

* To whom all correspondence should be addressed.

E-mail: amt_kd@yahoo.com

Caption: Fig. 1. Initial plant count of sugarcane as influenced by various treatments

Caption: Fig. 2. Mean number of tillers per clump of sugarcane as influenced by planting patterns
Table 1. Ancillary observations of sugarcane at harvest as affected
by different treatments

Treatments                              Survival %     Plant
                                                     Height (cm)
Planting patterns

[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row         71.22        300.63
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row      75.71        312.12
[P.sub.3] :180 x 30 cm single row         75.36        306.39
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with         68.78        303.94
sugarcane planter
SEm +                                      0.31         0.63
CD at 5%                                   1.06         2.19
Intercrops
[I.sub.1] : Sugarcane + Groundnut         72.39        304.85
[I.sub.2] : Sole Sugarcane                73.14        306.69
SEm +                                      0.35         0.47
CD at 5%                                   1.13         1.53
Interaction
SEm +                                      0.69         0.94
CD at 5%                                    NS           NS
Mean                                      72.77        305.77

Treatments                                Number of       Dry matter
                                           leaves        accumulation
Planting patterns                       [plant.sup.-1]       (g)

[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row            7.39           549.49
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row         7.69           552.00
[P.sub.3] :180 x 30 cm single row            7.57           553.49
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with            7.50           551.16
sugarcane planter
SEm +                                        0.03            1.78
CD at 5%                                     0.09             NS
Intercrops
[I.sub.1] : Sugarcane + Groundnut            7.51           548.49
[I.sub.2] : Sole Sugarcane                   7.57           554.58
SEm +                                        0.01            1.39
CD at 5%                                     0.04            4.56
Interaction
SEm +                                        0.02            2.78
CD at 5%                                      NS              NS
Mean                                         7.54           551.54

Treatments                              Girth     Number of
                                        (cm)      Intemodes
Planting patterns                               [plant.sup.-1]

[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row       8.70        22.49
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row    8.92        23.18
[P.sub.3] :180 x 30 cm single row       8.96        23.01
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with       8.87        22.89
sugarcane planter
SEm +                                   0.02         0.63
CD at 5%                                 NS           NS
Intercrops
[I.sub.1] : Sugarcane + Groundnut       8.89        22.78
[I.sub.2] : Sole Sugarcane              8.84        23.00
SEm +                                   0.02         0.40
CD at 5%                                 NS           NS
Interaction
SEm +                                   0.04         0.79
CD at 5%                                NS           NS
Mean                                    8.86        22.89

Treatments                              Length of    Millable
                                        Intemodes   cane height
Planting patterns                         (cm)         (cm)

[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row         19.06       263.07
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row      20.13       276.70
[P.sub.3] :180 x 30 cm single row         19.76       271.29
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with         19.37       267.26
sugarcane planter
SEm +                                     0.12         1.08
CD at 5%                                  0.42         3.73
Intercrops
[I.sub.1] : Sugarcane + Groundnut         19.48       268.59
[I.sub.2] : Sole Sugarcane                19.69       270.57
SEm +                                     0.10         0.74
CD at 5%                                   NS           NS
Interaction
SEm +                                     0.20         1.49
CD at 5%                                   NS           NS
Mean                                      19.58       269.58

Table 2. Yield attributes, yield and Cane equivalent yield of
sugarcane as affected by different treatments

Treatment                                NMC (1)      ACW (2)
                                         ('000'        (kg)
                                       [ha.sup.-1])

Planting patterns
[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row         92.78        1.11
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row      91.02        1.45
[P.sub.3] : 180 x 30 cm single row        59.99        1.42
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with         86.06        1.37
  sugarcane planter
SEm +                                      1.16        0.01
CD at 5%                                   4.02        0.04
Intercrops
[I.sub.1] :Sugarcane + Groundnut          81.65        1.31
[I.sub.2] :Sole Sugarcane                 83.26        1.36
SEm +                                      0.89        0.01
CD at 5%                                    NS         0.04
Interaction                                1.79        0.02
SEm +
CD at 5%                                    NS          NS
Mean                                      82.46        1.34

Treatment                                   Cane
                                            yield
                                       (t [ha.sup.-1])

Planting patterns
[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row          102.55
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row       131.95
[P.sub.3] : 180 x 30 cm single row          85.17
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with          117.91
  sugarcane planter
SEm +                                       1.36
CD at 5%                                    4.70
Intercrops
[I.sub.1] :Sugarcane + Groundnut           106.67
[I.sub.2] :Sole Sugarcane                  112.15
SEm +                                       1.49
CD at 5%                                    4.87
Interaction                                 2.99
SEm +
CD at 5%                                     NS
Mean                                       109.39

Treatment                                 CCS (3)
                                            yield
                                       (t [ha.sup.-1])

Planting patterns
[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row           14.51
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row        19.21
[P.sub.3] : 180 x 30 cm single row          11.63
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with           17.13
  sugarcane planter
SEm +                                       0.16
CD at 5%                                    0.57
Intercrops
[I.sub.1] :Sugarcane + Groundnut            15.16
[I.sub.2] :Sole Sugarcane                   16.09
SEm +                                       0.22
CD at 5%                                    0.73
Interaction                                 0.45
SEm +
CD at 5%                                     NS
Mean                                        15.62

Treatment                                  CEY (4)
                                       (t [ha.sup.-1])

Planting patterns
[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row          118.91
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row       143.91
[P.sub.3] : 180 x 30 cm single row         106.04
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with          127.55
  sugarcane planter
SEm +                                       2.19
CD at 5%                                    7.59
Intercrops
[I.sub.1] :Sugarcane + Groundnut           131.61
[I.sub.2] :Sole Sugarcane                  116.59
SEm +                                       0.99
CD at 5%                                    3.25
Interaction                                 1.99
SEm +
CD at 5%                                    8.95
Mean                                       124.10

(1) Number of milleable canes,
(2) Average cane weight,
(3) Commercial cane sugar,
(4) Cane equivalent yield

Table 3. Ancillary observations of Groundnut as influenced by various
treatments of sugarcane planting patterns

                                        Plant    Plant    Filled
Treatment                               height   spread   pods /
                                         (cm)     (cm)    plant

[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row       25.78    30.02    14.18
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row    26.40    32.51    16.70
[P.sub.3] : 180 x 30 cm single row      26.23    32.47    16.43
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with       26.05    32.18    14.99
  sugarcane planter
SEm +                                    0.10     0.11     0.07
CD 5%                                     NS       NS       NS
General Mean                            26.12    31.79    15.57

                                          Un      Pod     Kernel
Treatment                               filled   weight   weight
                                        pods/    /plant   /plant
                                        plant     (g)      (g)

[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row        3.78    28.88    18.02
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row     4.34    30.58    20.33
[P.sub.3] : 180 x 30 cm single row       4.25    30.59    19.89
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with        4.01    29.36    18.44
  sugarcane planter
SEm +                                    0.08     0.07     0.09
CD 5%                                     NS       NS       NS
General Mean                             4.10    29.83    19.17

                                         Dry
Treatment                                pod
                                        yield
                                        (q/ha)

[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row        9.93
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row    13.76
[P.sub.3] : 180 x 30 cm single row      13.07
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with       11.10
  sugarcane planter
SEm +                                    0.11
CD 5%                                     NS
General Mean                            11.17

Table 4. Interaction effects of planting patterns and intercrop on
cane equivalent yield

Treatment                               cane equivalent yield
                                        (t [ha.sup.-1])

                                        Sugarcane +     Sole
                                         groundnut    sugarcane

Planting patterns
[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row         123.04       114.77
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row      152.96       134.86
[P.sub.3] : 180 x 30 cm single row        115.50        96.58
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with         134.94       120.15
  sugarcane planter
SEm +                                      1.99
CD at 5%                                   8.95

Table 5. Economics of sugarcane as influenced by various treatments

Treatments                                   Gross
                                           Monitory
                                            returns
                                        ('[ha.sup.-1])
Planting patterns
[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row           136742
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row        165496
[P.sub.3] : 180 x 30 cm single row          121946
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with           146679
  sugarcane planter
SEm [+ or -]                                 2521
CD at 5 %                                    8726
Intercrops
[I.sub.1] :Sugarcane + Groundnut            151354
[I.sub.2] :Sole Sugarcane                   134078
SEm [+ or -]                                 1146
CD at 5%                                     3738
Interaction SEm [+ or -]                     2292
CD at 5%                                      NS
Mean                                        142716

Treatments                                  Cost of
                                          cultivation
                                        ('[ha.sup.-1])

Planting patterns
[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row            56019
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row         53372
[P.sub.3] : 180 x 30 cm single row           51701
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with            52536
  sugarcane planter
SEm [+ or -]                                  132
CD at 5 %                                     457
Intercrops
[I.sub.1] :Sugarcane + Groundnut             55262
[I.sub.2] :Sole Sugarcane                    51552
SEm [+ or -]                                  80
CD at 5%                                      261
Interaction SEm [+ or -]                      160
CD at 5%                                      NS
Mean                                         53407

Treatments                                   Net          B:C
                                          realization
                                        ('[ha.sup.-1])

Planting patterns
[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row            80723        2.44
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row        112125        3.10
[P.sub.3] : 180 x 30 cm single row           70245        2.35
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with            94143        2.79
  sugarcane planter
SEm [+ or -]                                 2497         0.05
CD at 5 %                                    8641         0.16
Intercrops
[I.sub.1] :Sugarcane + Groundnut             96092        2.74
[I.sub.2] :Sole Sugarcane                    82526        2.60
SEm [+ or -]                                 1136         0.02
CD at 5%                                     3705         0.07
Interaction SEm [+ or -]                     2272         0.04
CD at 5%                                      NS           NS
Mean                                         89309        2.67

Table 6. Interaction effect between planting patterns and intercrop
on net realization ('[ha.sup.-1])

Treatment                                       Intercrop

                                        Sugarcane +     Sole
                                         groundnut    sugarcane
Planting patterns
[P.sub.1] : 90 x 30 cm single row          83576        77871
[P.sub.2] :90-180 x 30 cm paired row      120628       103622
[P.sub.3] : 180 x 30 cm single row         79220        61271
[P.sub.4] :120 cm single row with         100945        87341
  sugarcane planter
SEm [+ or -]                               2272
CD at 5%                                   10223
COPYRIGHT 2017 Oriental Scientific Publishing Company
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Ombase, K.C.; Mevada, K.D.; Kadu, R.B.; Gamar, P.G.; Ghadage, H.L.
Publication:Journal of Pure and Applied Microbiology
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:9INDI
Date:Jun 1, 2017
Words:4015
Previous Article:Effect of pruning, micronutrients and plant growth regulators on Kinnow Mandarin fruits.
Next Article:Effect of bio-availability of magnetized water on different biological systems.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |