Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp5 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Evaluation of productivity and intercropping indices in twin row groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) based intercropping systems under irrigated conditions of Tanjore

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.14913
Submitted
9 April 2026
Published
10-07-2026

Abstract

Groundnut, a major oilseed crop of South India, has experienced a decline in cultivation in recent years, mainly due to low economic returns. Intercropping offers a viable approach to improve productivity and enhance farmers’ profitability. In this context, the present study was conducted to optimise row proportions in a groundnut–small millet intercropping system under irrigation and to assess its economic viability. A field experiment was conducted for two consecutive rabi seasons at the Agricultural College and Research Station, Eachangkottai, located in the red soil region. The experiment was laid out in a randomised complete block design (RCBD) with 10 treatments and 3 replications. The soil was red sandy loam, neutral in pH, low in organic carbon and medium in phosphorus (P), available nitrogen (N), high in potassium (K).
Treatments comprised sole cropping and intercropping of groundnut with millets such as little millet and kodo millet under different row arrangements. Results indicated that paired row planting of groundnut recorded superior growth parameters, including number of leaflets, plant height, branches, leaf area index (LAI), in the twin row groundnut. Significantly superior dry matter production (DMP) and yield attributes such as mature pods, pod yield were also observed in paired row groundnut. Among intercropping systems, groundnut twin row system with kodo millet (2 : 1) recorded the highest land equivalent ratio (LER), area-time equivalent ratio (ATER) and net return. Thus, groundnut grown in a twin-row system intercropped with kodo millet proved to be the most productive and economically viable system under irrigated red soil conditions.

References

  1. 1. Groundnut outlook. 2025. https://www.pjtau.edu.in/files/AgriMkt/2025/November/groundnut-November-2025.pdf
  2. 2. Misra CM. Trends in area production and productivity of groundnut in India: Issues & challenges. J Res Agric Anim Sci. 2017;4(7):1–6.
  3. 3. Bantie Y, Fetien A, Tadesse D. Competition indices of intercropped lupine (local) and small cereals in additive series in West Gojjam, north western Ethiopia. Am J Plant Sci. 2014;5:1296–305. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2014.59143
  4. 4. Kiwia A, Kimani D, Harawa RR, Jama B, Sileshi G. Sustainable intensification with cereal-legume intercropping in eastern and southern Africa. Sustainability. 2019;11:2891. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11102891
  5. 5. Opole RA. Opportunities for enhancing production, utilization and marketing of finger millet in Africa. Afr J Food Agric Nutr Dev. 2019;19:13863–82. https://doi.org/10.18697/ajfand.84.BLFB1004
  6. 6. Yu Y, Stomph TJ, Makowski D, van der Werf W. Temporal niche differentiation increases the land equivalent ratio of annual intercrops: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Res. 2015;184:133–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.010
  7. 7. Reddy TY, Reddi GHS. Principles of Agronomy. New Delhi: Kalyani Publishers; 2019.
  8. 8. Basavanneppa MA, Gaddi AK, Chittapur BM, Birdar DP, Basavarajappa R. Yield maximization through resource conservation technologies under maize-pearl millet and soil fertility of clay soils under south Gujarat conditions. Res Crops. 2017;18:225–31. https://doi.org/10.5958/2348-7542.2017.00038.9
  9. 9. Chaudhari D, Vekariya P, Vora V, Talpada M, Sutaria G. Enhancing productivity of groundnut based intercropping systems under rainfed conditions of Gujarat. Legume Res. 2017;40:520–5. https://doi.org/10.18805/lr.v0i0.7849
  10. 10. Manjunath MG, Salakinkop SR, Somanagouda G. Productivity and profitability of soybean-based millets intercropping systems. Res Crops. 2018;19:43–7. https://doi.org/10.5958/2348-7542.2018.00006.2
  11. 11. Zhang WP, Liu GC, Sun JH, Fornara D, Zhang LZ, Zhang FF, Li L. Temporal dynamics of nutrient uptake by neighbouring plant species: Evidences from intercropping. Funct Ecol. 2017;31:469–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.12732
  12. 12. Willey RW. Intercropping-Its importance and research needs. Part 1. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abstr. 1979;32:1–10.
  13. 13. Lithourgidis AS, Dordas CA, Damalas CA, Vlachostergios DN. Annual intercrops: An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Aust J Crop Sci. 2011;5(4):396–410.
  14. 14. Watson DJ, Thron GW, French SAW. Physiological cause of different grain yield between varieties in barley. Ann Bot. 1952;22:321–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a083616
  15. 15. Donald CM. In search of yield. Aust Inst Agric Sci. 1962;28:171–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0071368600007400
  16. 16. Caballero R, Goicoechea EL, Hernaiz PJ. Forage yields and quality of common vetch and oat sown at varying seeding ratios and seeding rates of common vetch. Field Crops Res. 1995;41:135–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(94)00114-R
  17. 17. Anjaneyulu VR, Singh SP, Pal M. Effect of competitive free period and technique and pattern of pearl millet planting on growth and yield of mung bean and total productivity in solid pearl millet and pearl millet/mung bean intercropping system. Indian J Agron. 1982;27:219–26.
  18. 18. Hiebsch CK, McCollum RE. Area-x-time equivalency ratio: A method for evaluating the productivity of intercrops. Agron J. 1987;79:15–22. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1987.00021962007900010004x
  19. 19. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural Research. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1984.
  20. p. 680.
  21. 20. Maitra S, Ghosh DC, Sounda G, Jana PK, Roy DK. Performance of intercropping legumes in finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) at varying fertility levels. Indian J Agric Sci. 2001;46(1):38–44. https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v46i1.3216
  22. 21. Bassij A, Dugje IY. Growth and development components of pearl millet varieties-groundnut intercrop in Sudan savanna of Nigeria. Proc Int Acad Conf Sub-Sahara Afr Transform Dev. 2015;3(1):12–3.
  23. 22. Lanier JE, Jordan DL, Spears JF, Wells R, Johnson PD, Barnes JS, et al. Peanut response to planting, row spacing, and irrigation. Agron J. 2004;96:1066–72. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2004.1066
  24. 23. Ahmad A, Rahim M, Khan U. Evaluation of different varieties, seed rates and row spacing of groundnut, planted under agro-ecological conditions of Malakand division. J Agron. 2007;6(2):385–7. https://doi.org/10.3923/ja.2007.385.387
  25. 24. Konlan S, Sarkodie-Addo J, Asare E, Kombiok MJ. Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) varietal response to spacing in the Guinea savanna agro-ecological zone of Ghana: Growth and yield. Afr J Agric Res. 2013;8(22):2769–77.
  26. 25. Meena BK, Hulihalli UK, Sumeriya HK. Growth, yield attributes and yield of medium duration pigeon pea hybrid ICPH-2671 as influenced by fertility levels and planting geometry. Legume Res. 2015;38(6):816–20. https://doi.org/10.18805/lr.v38i6.6729
  27. 26. Waghmare YM, Gokhale DN, Chavan AS. Production potential of pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.] as influenced by plant geometry and irrigation schedules. Int J Agric Sci. 2016;8(16):1287–9.
  28. 27. Gajera MS, Ahlawat RPS. Effect of different depths of ploughing and mulches on moisture extraction and yield of rabi pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Legume Res. 2002;25(3):165–9.
  29. 28. Swathi YM, Srinivasa Reddy M, Prabhakara Reddy G, Kavitha. Influence of density, planting patterns and mulching on yield of drip irrigated pigeon pea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Indian J Agric Res. 2017;51(6):611–4. https://doi.org/10.18805/IJARe.A-4849
  30. 29. Prasanna Kumar BH, Halikatti SI, Ninganur BT. Sustainable intercrop association of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L.) in little millet (Panicum sumatrense L.). Karnataka J Agric Sci. 2008;22(4):887–8.
  31. 30. Patil NB, Halikatti SI, Sujay YH, Kumar BHP, Topagi SC, Pushpa V. Influence of intercropping on the growth and yield of little millet and pigeon pea. Int J Agric Sci. 2010;6(2):573–577.
  32. 31. Shwethanjali KV, Kumar Naik AH, Basavaraj Naik T, Dinesh Kumar M. Effect of groundnut + millets intercropping system on yield and economic advantage in central dry zone of Karnataka under rainfed condition. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2018;7(9):2921–6. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.709.363
  33. 32. Honnali SN, Chittapur BM. Production potential, sustainability and energetics of groundnut based intercropping system in Upper Krishna project command area of Karnataka. J Oilseeds Res. 2014;31(1):33–6. https://doi.org/10.56739/jor.v31i1.142089
  34. 33. Kithan L, Longkumer LL. Economics of maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max L.) intercropping. Int J Bio-res Stress Manag. 2017;8(3):401–4. https://doi.org/10.23910/IJBSM/2017.8.3.1722
  35. 34. Triveni B, Babu AM, Reddy GP, Munaswamy V. Cropping indices and economics of pearl millet-based intercropping systems under rainfed conditions. Int J Pure Appl Biosci. 2018;6(1):1626–8. https://doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.5817
  36. 35. Chovatia VP, Mathukia RK, Chhodavadia SK, Sagarka BK. Crop diversification and intensification through groundnut + sweet corn mix/intercropping systems for enhancing farmer's income. J Eco-friendly Agric. 2020;15(1):10–3.
  37. 36. Baishya LK, Jamir T, Walling N, Rajkhowa DJ. Evaluation of maize (Zea mays L.) + legume intercropping system for productivity, profitability, energy budgeting and soil health in hill terraces of eastern Himalayan region. Legume Res. 2021;44(11):1343–7. https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-4190
  38. 37. Sreelatha PP, Sudhakar V, Umamahesh D, Subramanyam, Vasanthi RP. Variability in growth and yield attributes among different growth habits of groundnut genotypes. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2019;8(6):1066–71. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2019.806.131
  39. 38. Liu X, Rahman T, Song C, Yang F, Su B, Cui L, et al. Relationships among light distribution, radiation use efficiency and land equivalent ratio in maize-soybean strip intercropping. Field Crops Res. 2018;224:91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2018.05.010
  40. 39. Imbamba SK, Akunda EMW. Diurnal course of light interception by a groundnut crop grown in association with maize. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 1985;1:45–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01748153
  41. 40. Sunil Kumar T, Sumathi V, Reddi Ramu Y, Nirmal Kumar AR, Karuna Sagar G. Influence of planting densities and phosphorus levels on light interception and quality of groundnut. Andhra Agric J. 2024;71(1):12–6. https://doi.org/10.61657/aaj.2024.86
  42. 41. Ayaz S, McKenzie BA, McNeil DL, Hill GD. Light interception and utilization of four grain legumes sown at different plant populations and depths. J Agric Sci. 2004;142:297–308. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859604004241
  43. 42. Lin L, Bueckert RA, Yantai G, Warkentin T. Light interception and radiation use efficiency of fern and unifoliate-leaf chickpea cultivars. Can J Plant Sci. 2008;88:1025–34. https://doi.org/10.4141/CJPS07056
  44. 43. Wang R, Sun Z, Zhang L, Yang N, Feng L, Bai W, et al. Border-row proportion determines strength of interspecific interactions and crop yields in maize/peanut strip intercropping. Field Crops Res. 2020;253:107819. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107819

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.