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

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp1 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Legume intercropping and phosphorus management enhance the productivity and profitability of winter maize in calcareous soil

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.12933
Submitted
25 November 2025
Published
05-03-2026

Abstract

Winter maize exhibits an extended growth duration. Due to this longer growth period, it requires greater nutrient inputs, particularly phosphorus (P). However, in calcareous soils, a substantial portion of applied P becomes fixed due to reactions with calcium and magnesium, forming insoluble calcium-phosphate complexes. Additionally, the low soil temperature during the winter season further decreases phosphorus mobility and diffusion in the rhizosphere, thereby reducing its availability for plant uptake. Winter maize is sown in October–November and shows limited growth until mid-February, offering a suitable window for intercropping. The field experiment was conducted at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural (RPCAU), Pusa, Bihar during the rabi season of 2024 and 2025, comprising 2 factors that were laid out in split plot design (SPD) with 3 intercrop combinations and 5 nutrient management practices in 3 replications. The maize variety chosen for the study, DKC 9081. Among the intercropping treatments, winter maize + vegetable pea was the most effective, showing superiority over all other treatments in terms maize equivalent yield (10.69 and 11.82 t ha-1) along with the maximum net return (₹187430 and 228423 ha-1) and the highest benefit-cost ratio (2.13 and 2.58), the other intercropping treatments. Under nutrient management, 100 % recommended dose of phosphorous (RDP) + nano di-ammonium phosphate (nano-DAP) (10.43 and 11.10 t ha-1) recorded about 45 % and 43 % yields than the control (7.18 and 7.77 t ha-1) in both year of experimentation. Winter maize + vegetable pea with 100 % RDP and nano-DAP achieved the highest yield and profitability, outperforming legume intercropping systems.

References

  1. 1. Sanodiya P, Tiwari P, Gupta C. Maize (Zea mays L.) – the future potential cereal crop of an indispensable significance in agro-forestry system. Maize J. 2023;12(2):61–71.
  2. 2. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (MoA&FW). Agricultural statistics at a glance. 2022;38–9,78. https://desagri.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/Agricultural-Statistics-at-a-Glance-2022.pdf
  3. 3. Anchal, Kaur A, Sharma S. Intercropping: a sustainable holistic approach for improving growth and productivity of crops. Int J Res Agron. 2025;8(4):133–9. https://doi.org/10.33545/2618060X.2025.v8.i4b.2757
  4. 4. Jensen ES, Carlsson G, Hauggaard-Nielsen H. Intercropping of grain legumes and cereals improves the use of soil N resources and reduces the requirement for synthetic fertilizer N: a global-scale analysis. Agron Sustain Dev. 2020;40(1):5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-020-0607-x
  5. 5. Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Gooding M, Ambus P, Corre-Hellou G, Crozat Y, Dahlmann C, et al. Pea-barley intercropping for efficient symbiotic N₂-fixation, soil N acquisition and use of other nutrients in European organic cropping systems. Field Crop Res. 2009;113(1):64-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.04.009
  6. 6. Yong T, Chen P, Dong Q, Du Q, Yang F, Wang X, et al. Optimized nitrogen application methods to improve nitrogen use efficiency and nodule nitrogen fixation in a maize–soybean relay intercropping system. J Integr Agric. 2018;17(3):664–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(17)61836-7
  7. 7. Zheng B, Zhou Y, Chen P, Zhang X, Du Q, Yang H, et al. Maize–legume intercropping promotes N uptake through changing the root spatial distribution, legume nodulation capacity and soil N availability. J Integr Agric. 2022;21(6):1755–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(21)63730-9
  8. 8. Yang Z, Zhang Y, Wang Y, Zhang H, Zhu Q, Yan B, et al. Intercropping regulation of soil phosphorus composition and microbially driven dynamics facilitates maize phosphorus uptake and productivity improvement. Field Crops Res. 2022;287:108666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108666
  9. 9. Cordell D, Drangert JO, White S. The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Glob Environ Change. 2009;19(2):292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.009
  10. 10. Beegle DB, Durst PT. Managing phosphorus for crop production. Agronomy Facts. 2002;13(6).
  11. 11. Tarafdar JC, Raliya R, Rathore I. Microbial synthesis of phosphorus nanoparticle from tri-calcium phosphate using Aspergillus tubingensis TFR-5. J Bionanosci. 2012;6(2):84–9. https://doi.org/10.1166/jbns.2012.1077
  12. 12. Luo G, Xue C, Jiang Q, Xiao Y, Zhang F, Guo S, et al. Soil carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus cycling microbial populations and their resistance to global change depend on soil C:N:P stoichiometry. mSystems. 2020;5(3):e00162–20. https://doi.org/10.1128/msystems.00162-20
  13. 13. Duchene O, Vian JF, Celette F. Intercropping with legume for agroecological cropping systems: complementarity and facilitation processes and the importance of soil microorganisms. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2017;240:148–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.02.019
  14. 14. Gomez A, Gomez A. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1984.
  15. 15. Marer SB, Lingaraju BS, Shashidhara GB. Productivity and economics of maize and pigeonpea intercropping under rainfed condition in northern transitional zone of Karnataka. Karnataka J Agric Sci. 2007;20(1):1–3.
  16. 16. Kour M, Thakur NP, Kumar P, Charak AS. Productivity and profitability of maize (Zea mays) as influenced by intercropping of raj mash (Phaseolus vulgaris) and nutrient management techniques under sub-alpine conditions of Jammu, India. Legume Res. 2016;39(6):970–5. https://doi.org/10.18805/lr.v0iOF.11042
  17. 17. Fu Z, Chen P, Zhang X, Du Q, Zheng B, Yang H, et al. Maize–legume intercropping achieves yield advantages by improving leaf functions and dry matter partition. BMC Plant Biol. 2023;23(1):438. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-023-04408-3
  18. 18. Shaikh SN, Waghmare MS, Ighare OA, Ugile SK, Puri AN. Effect of nano-DAP on growth, yield and quality of soybean in Entisol. Int J Res Agron. 2024;7(11):256–63. https://doi.org/10.33545/2618060X.2024.v7.i11Sd.1976
  19. 19. Rajput JS, Thakur AK, Nag NK, Chandrakar T, Singh DP. Effect of nano fertilizer in relation to growth, yield and economics of little millet (Panicum sumatrense Roth) under rainfed conditions. J Pharm Innov. 2022;11(7):153–6.
  20. 20. Bhargavi G, Sundari A. Effect of nano urea on the growth and yield of rice (Oryza sativa) under SRI in the Cauvery delta zone of Tamil Nadu. Crop Res. 2023;58(1–2):12-7. https://doi.org/10.31830/2454-1761.2023.CR-885
  21. 21. Sridhar HS, Salakinkop SR, Harlapur SI. Effect of leguminous intercrops on maize productivity and economics. J Farm Sci. 2019;411–14.
  22. 22. Pierre JF, Latournerie-Moreno L, Garruna-Hernandez R, Jacobsen KL, Guevara-Hernandez F, Laboski CA, et al. Maize-legume intercropping systems in southern Mexico: a review of benefits and challenges. Ciencia Rural. 2022;52:e20210409. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20210409
  23. 23. Jan R, Saxena A, Jan R, Khanday MA, Jan R. Impact of intercropping patterns (maize + black cowpea) on yield attributes and soil physico-chemical properties. Ecol Environ Conserv. 2016;13–16.
  24. 24. Ch R, Venkata Ramana M, Jaya Sree G. Management of phosphorus on performance of rice–zero till maize (Zea mays L.) cropping system. Int J Environ Clim Chang. 2023;13(9):1801–12. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2023/v13i92410
  25. 25. Jagadev PN, Kanungo P, Lenka D. Genetic variability, association and path coefficient studies in quality protein maize inbreds. J Pharm Innov. 2021;10(12):776–9.
  26. 26. Naik NR, Hemalatha S, Reddy AP, Madhuri KV, Umamahesh V. Need-based nitrogen management on growth attributes of rabi maize (Zea mays L.) using leaf colour chart under varied plant density. Int J Chem Stud. 2019;7:2591–6.
  27. 27. Alzreejawi SA, Al-Juthery HW. Effect of spray with nano NPK, complete micro fertilizers and nano amino acids on some growth and yield indicators of maize (Zea mays L.). IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2020;553(1):012010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/553/1/012010
  28. 28. Ajithkumar K, Kumar Y, Savitha AS, Ajayakumar MY, Narayanaswamy C, Raliya R, et al. Effect of IFFCO nanofertilizer on growth, grain yield and managing turcicum leaf blight disease in maize. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2021;33(16):19–28. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2021/v33i1630519
  29. 29. Deo HR, Chandrakar T, Srivastava LK, Nag NK, Singh DP, Thakur A, et al. Effect of nano-DAP on yield, nutrient uptake and nutrient use efficiency by rice under Bastar plateau. J Pharm Innov. 2022;11(9):1463–5.
  30. 30. Kumar Y, Singh T, Raliya R, Tiwari KN. Nano fertilizers for sustainable crop production, higher nutrient use efficiency and enhanced profitability. Indian J Fertilizers. 2021;17(11):1206–14.
  31. 31. Kumar N, Manuja S, Sankhyan NK, Kumar P, Kumar A, Sharma T, et al. Effect of application of nano-DAP and conventional fertilizers on rice yield. Sustainable Agricultural Innovations for Resilient Agri-Food Systems. 2022;373.
  32. 32. Poudel A, Singh SK, Jiménez-Ballesta R, Jatav SS, Patra A, Pandey A, et al. Effect of nano-phosphorus formulation on growth, yield and nutritional quality of wheat under semi-arid climate. Agronomy. 2023;13(3):768. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13030768
  33. 33. Bedse RD, Patel AM, Raval CH, Rathore BS, Vyas KG. Forage equivalent yield, quality, soil status and economics of maize (Zea mays L.) as influenced by intercropping of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) and fertility levels during kharif season. Res Crops. 2015;16(2):236-42. https://doi.org/10.5958/2348-7542.2015.00035.2
  34. 34. Barik E, Behera B, Jena SN, Satapathy MR, Roul PK. Impact of planting pattern and nutrient management strategy on productivity and comparative economics of maize (Zea mays L.) + cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) intercropping under rainfed condition. J Crop Weed. 2016;12(3):79–82.
  35. 35. Chhetri B, Sinha AC. Effect of integrated nutrient management practices on maize (Zea mays L.) based intercropping system under Terai region of West Bengal. Adv Res. 2018;16(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.9734/AIR/2018/41623
  36. 36. Mohanty TR, Ray M, Sahoo SK, Sahoo KC, Mishra N, Patro HK, et al. Performance of intercrops in hybrid maize under north central plateau zone of Odisha. J Plant Dev Sci. 2020;12(5):283–7.
  37. 37. Singh D, Kumar M, Birla D, Gajanand SS. Effect of irrigation methods, nutrient management and intercropping system on grain yield, maize equivalent yield, protein content and economics of maize (Zea mays L.). Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2022;34(23):1248–53. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2022/v34i232539
  38. 38. Singh MB, Dwivedi DK, Kumar S, Nanda G, Singh SK, Dwivedi A, et al. Effect of different sources of nutrient management on yield and economics of potato + maize intercropping system in north Bihar region. J Pharm Innov. 2022;11(8):2154–5. https://doi.org/10.33545/2618060X.2025.v8.i11l.4311
  39. 39. Verma VK, Meena RN, Singh DN, Upadhyay PK, Singh RK, Singh RK, et al. Cropping geometry and nutrient management study on winter maize (Zea mays) + potato (Solanum tuberosum) intercropping. Indian J Agric Sci. 2021;91(7):1005–9. https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v91i7.115112

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.