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

Research Articles

Early Access

Optimizing row patterns to enhance productivity, quality and profitability in soybean-maize intercropping systems

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.7005
Submitted
1 January 2025
Published
08-06-2025
Versions

Abstract

The optimal row patterns in maize-soybean intercropping enhance resource use efficiency, land productivity and profitability, promoting sustainability in resource-limited regions. The experiment was conducted at the CAU Research Farm in Imphal, Manipur, during the kharif season of 2022-23. Seven treatments were tested, including sole soybean, sole maize and five maize-soybean intercropping combinations (2:2, 3:1, 3:2, 4:1, 4:2), with four replications each. The results showed that sole crops performed better than intercropped treatments in most growth and yield parameters. Among intercropping treatments, 3S:1M (three rows of soybean to one row of maize) configuration achieved the highest seed yield, with 775 kg ha-1 for soybean and 4006 kg ha-1 for maize. The correlation analysis indicated strong associations between soybean grain yield with dry matter accumulation (r = 0.948) and the number of pods per plant (r = 0.944). In contrast, maize yield was linked to the crop growth rate (r = 0.957) and the number of cobs per plant (r = 0.924). Principal component analysis (PCA) identified biomass and pod production as the primary contributors to yield variation in soybean and dry matter accumulation and crop growth rate for maize. One row of maize intercropped between three rows of soybean showed the highest land equivalent ratio (1.44), indicating a yield advantage over sole cropping, alongside the highest economic performance with a net return of ₹103123 and a benefit-cost ratio of 3.21. Maize exhibited dominance over soybean in intercropping, with an aggressivity index of 0.55. These findings suggest that one row of maize intercropped between three rows of soybean intercropping patterns optimizes productivity and profitability, providing a sustainable solution for smallholder farmers.

References

  1. 1. Parida PK, Ray LI, Sirisha K, Ram V, Singh AK, Singh NJ. Performance of Blackgram (Vigna mungo) cultivars grown during the pre-monsoon season in Meghalaya. Indian J Hill Farm. 2023;36(1):219–26. https://doi.org/10.56678/iahf-2023.36.01.28.
  2. 2. Sahoo C, Ameena M, Shalini PP, Susha VS, Ayisha R, Ankit, et al. Impact of land configuration methods on growth parameters of soybean in summer rice fallows. Plant Sci Today. 2025;12(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.4270
  3. 3. Messina MJ. Legumes and soybeans: overview of their nutritional profiles and health effects. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999;70(3):439s–50s. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/70.3.439s
  4. 4. Burssens S, Pertry I, Ngudi DD, Kuo YH, Montagu VM, Lambein F. Soya, human nutrition and health. In: Yin Y, Fatufe AA, Blachier F, editors. Soya bean meal and its extensive use in livestock feeding and nutrition. INTECH Open Access Publisher; 2011. p. 157–80. https://doi.org/10.5772/21951
  5. 5. FAOSTAT. Production. Crops and livestock products. FAO: Rome; 2022 [cited 2023 Dec 20]. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL
  6. 6. ICAR-IISR. Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Indian Institute of Soybean Research. 2024. Annual report of All India Coordinated Research Project on Soybean. https://iisrindore.icar.gov.in/.
  7. 7. Dev TA, Devi NS, Sarangthem I, Lhungdim J, Singh NO, Das H. Effect of rock phosphate, PSB and FYM on P concentration and dry matter yield of soybean (Glycine max). Int J Chem Stud. 2020;8(6):627–30. https://doi.org/10.22271/chemi.2020.v8.i6i.10842
  8. 8. ICAR-IIMR. Indian Council of Agricultural Research-Indian Institute of Maize Research. 2024. https://iimr.icar.
  9. gov.in/ .
  10. 9. Rafiq MA, Ali A, Malik MA, Hussain M. Effect of fertilizer levels and plant densities on yield and protein contents of autumn-planted maize. Pak J Agri Sci. 2010;47(3):201–08.
  11. 10. Chongloi KL, Singh D, Ansari MA. Profitability of maize cultivation under rainfed conditions for marginal and small farmers. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2021;10(1S):17–18.
  12. 11. Lithourgidis AS, Dordas CA, Damalas CA, Vlachostergios D. Annual intercrops: an alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian J Crop Sci. 2011; 5(4):396–410.
  13. 12. Feng Yang, Shan Huang, Rencai Gao, Weiguo Liu, Taiwen Yong, Xiaochun Wang, et al. Growth of soybean seedlings in relay strip intercropping systems in relation to light quantity and red: far-red ratio. Field Crops Res. 2014; 155:245–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2013.08.011
  14. 13. Liebman M, Dyck E. Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management. Ecol App. 1993; 3(1):92–122. https://doi.org/10.2307/1941795
  15. 14. Itulya FM, Aguyoh JN. The effects of intercropping kale with beans on yield and suppression of redroot pigweed under high altitude conditions in Kenya. Exp Agric. 1998; 34(2):171–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001447979800204X
  16. 15. Zhang LZ, Van der Werf W, Bastiaans L, Zhang S, Li B, Spiertz JHJ. Light interception and utilization in relay intercrops of wheat and cotton. Field Crops Res. 2008; 107(1):29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.12.014
  17. 16. Singh G, Singh OP. Intercropping compatibility of different crops with winter maize (Zea mays). Indian J Agronom. 1993; 38(4):519–22. https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v38i4.3972
  18. 17. Donald CM. In search of yield. J Australian Inst Agri Sci. 1962; 28:171–78. https://doi.org/10.1136/pgmj.28.317.171
  19. 18. Willey RW. Intercropping: Its importance and research needs. I. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crops Abstr. 1979; 32:1–10.
  20. 19. Mc Gilchrist CA. Analysis of competition experiments. Biometrics. 1965; 21:975–85. https://doi.org/10.2307/
  21. 2528258
  22. 20. Cousens R, O'Neill M. Density dependence of replacement series experiments. Oikos. 1993; 68(2):347–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/3544824
  23. 21. Ghosh PK. Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/cereal fodder intercropping systems in the semi-arid tropics of Indian. Field Crops Res. 2004; 88: 227–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.01.015
  24. 22. Prasad K, Srivastava VC. Pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) and soybean (Glycine max) intercropping systems under the rain-fed situation. Indian J Agric Sci. 1991;61(4):243–46.
  25. 23. Campbell WR, Hanna MI. The determination of nitrogen by modified Kjeldahl methods. J Biol Chem. 1937;119(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)74426-8
  26. 24. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 13th ed. Arlington, VA: Official Method 7.058; 1980.
  27. 25. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1984.
  28. 26. Shen L, Wang XY, Yang T, Teng YX, Liu TT, Li LH, et al. Effects of different planting patterns on the growth and yield of maize and soybean in Northwest China. J Agri Sci. 2021;13(4):1. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v13n4p1
  29. 27. Mandal MK, Banerjee M, Banerjee H, Alipatra A, Malik GC. Productivity of maize (Zea mays) based intercropping system during the kharif season under red and lateritic tracts of West Bengal. The Bioscan. 2014;9(1):31–35. https://doi.org/10.3329/sja.v12i1.21118
  30. 28. Metwally AA, Shafik MM, El-Habbak KE, Abdel-Wahab SHI. Yield and soybean characters under some intercropping patterns with corn. Soybean Res. 2012;10:24–42.
  31. 29. Kithan L, Longkumer LT. Economics of maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) intercropping. Int J Bio Res Stress Manag. 2017;8:401–4. https://doi.org/10.23910/IJBSM/2017.8.3.1722
  32. 30. Raza MA, Feng LY, van der Werf W, Cai GR, Khalid MHB, Iqbal N, et al. Narrow-wide-row planting pattern increases the radiation use efficiency and seed yield of intercrop species in the relay-intercropping system. Food Energy Secur. 2019;8(3):e170. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.170
  33. 31. Singh NB. Effect of herbicides on growth, yield and weed dynamics of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merrill] under the rainfed condition of Manipur; MSc. [Thesis]. Imphal, Manipur: College of Agriculture, Central Agricultural University; 2016.
  34. 32. Ijoyah MO, Fanen FT. Effects of different cropping patterns on the performance of maize-soybean mixture in Makurdi, Nigeria. Sci J Crop Sci. 2012;1(2):39–47.
  35. 33. Dudwal M, Singh RP, Verma BL, Choudhary B. Effects of different maize-soybean intercropping patterns on yield attributes, yield and B:C ratio. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2021;33(12):51–8. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2021/v33i1230486
  36. 34. Singh SD, Nongmaithem N, Konsam J, Senjam P, Singh NA. Evaluation of soybean and green gram as intercrops with maize under different row proportions in the North-eastern hill region. Indian Leg Res. 2022;46(12):1647–52. https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-4791
  37. 35. Atansluos AAL, Buluk BFI. Use of bees in horticulture. J BinBee-Apicul Nat Prod. 2022;2(2):1–7.
  38. 36. Telkar SG, Singh AK, Dey JK. Effect of population proportion of component crops on growth, yield and nutrient
  39. uptake of component crops in maize+soybean intercropping. Int J Biores Stress Manag. 2017;8(6):779–83. https://doi.org/10.23910/IJBSM/2017.8.6.3C0363
  40. 37. 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 the eastern Himalayan region. Leg Res. 2021;44(11):1343–47. https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-4190
  41. 38. Kumar KA, Reddy MD, Sivasankar A, Reddy NV. Yield and economics of maize (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) in intercropping under different row proportions. Indian J Agric Sci. 2003;73(2):69–71.
  42. 39. Begam A, Pramanick M, Dutta S, Paramanik B, Dutta G, Patra PS, et al. Inter-cropping patterns and nutrient management effects on maize growth, yield and quality. Field Crops Res. 2024;310:109363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2024.109363
  43. 40. Parida PK, Ray LI, Shirisha K. Effect of organic mulches on yield, water productivity and economy of garden pea cultivars. Int J Environ Clim Change. 2023;13(8):1773–83. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijecc/2023/v13i82131
  44. 41. Wekesa R, Naliaka P, Simiyu JM. Seed quality of three soybean varieties as influenced by intercropping time and arrangement in maize. Afr J Agri Res. 2015;10(6):505–14. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2014.8999
  45. 42. Liu X, Rahman T, Song C, Su B, Yang F, Yong T. Changes in light environment, morphology, growth and yield of soybean in maize-soybean intercropping systems. Field Crops Res. 2017;200:38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.10.003
  46. 43. Ciftci V, Togay N, Togay Y, Dogan Y. The effects of intercropping sowing systems with dry bean and maize on yield and some yield components. J Agronom. 2006;5(1):53–56. https://doi.org/10.3923/ja.2006.53.56
  47. 44. Ullah A, Bhatti MA, Gurmani ZA, Imran M. Studies on planting patterns of maize (Zea mays L.) facilitating legumes intercropping. Pak J Agri Res. 2007;45(2):113–18.
  48. 45. Baghdadi A, Halim RA, Othman R, Yusof MM, Atashgahi ARM. Productivity, relative yield and plant growth of forage corn intercropped with soybean under different crop combination ratios. Leg Res. 2016;39(4):558–64. https://doi.org/10.18805/lr.v0iOF.10755
  49. 46. Wei W, Liu T, Shen L, Wang X, Zhang S, Zhang W. Effect of maize (Zea mays) and soybean (Glycine max) intercropping on yield and root development in Xinjiang, China. Agric. 2022;12(7):996. https://doi.org/10.3390/
  50. agriculture12070996
  51. 47. Khalid MHB, Cui L, Abbas G, Raza MA, Anwar A, Ahmed Z, et al. Effect of row spacing under maize-soybean relay intercropping system on yield, competition and economic returns. Turk J Agri For. 2023;47(3):390–401. https://doi.org/10.55730/1300-011X.3095
  52. 48. Erythrina E, Susilawati S, Slameto S, Resiani NMD, Arianti FD, Jumakir J, et al. Yield advantage and economic performance of rice-maize, rice-soybean and maize-soybean intercropping in rainfed areas of Western Indonesia with a wet climate. Agron. 2022;12(10):2326. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy12102326

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.