Effect of cowpea (Vigna sinensis L.) with maize (Zea mays L.) intercropping on yield and its components

Abstract

A field experiment was carried out at Arab El-Awammer Research Station, Agric. Res. Center. Assiut Governorate during summer seasons of 2013 and 2014. The present study assessed the effect of cowpea with maize intercropping on yield and its components. The experiment comprised of three treatments (sole cowpea, sole maize and cowpea-maize intercrop). The experimental design was a randomized complete block with four replications. Results indicated that intercropped maize plants with cowpea, exhibited greater potentiality and resulted in higher values of most of the studied criteria viz., plant height, number of ears/plant, number of rows/ear, number of grains/row, grains weight/ear, 100-grain weight and straw and grain yields. Fresh and dry forage yields of cowpea were lower in intercropping with maize than sole. Furthermore, the combined of the two seasons revealed that the total Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) between cowpea and maize was 1.65. The Aggressivity (A) maize was 0.45 and cowpea was-0.45. This showed that maize was the dominant crop, whereas cowpea was the dominated. The Competitive Ratio (CR) indicated that maize more competitive than cowpea, maize was 1.75 and cowpea was 0.57. The Actual Yield Loss (AYL) maize was 0.05 and cowpea was-0.40. The Monetary Advantage Index (MAI) was 2360.80.

Full text

 Abstract—A field experiment was carried out at Arab El-
Awammer Research Station, Agric. Res. Center. Assiut Governorate
during summer seasons of 2013 and 2014. The present study assessed
the effect of cowpea with maize intercropping on yield and its
components. The experiment comprised of three treatments (sole
cowpea, sole maize and cowpea-maize intercrop). The experimental
design was a randomized complete block with four replications.
Results indicated that intercropped maize plants with cowpea,
exhibited greater potentiality and resulted in higher values of most of
the studied criteria viz., plant height, number of ears/plant, number of
rows/ear, number of grains/row, grains weight/ear, 100–grain weight
and straw and grain yields. Fresh and dry forage yields of cowpea
were lower in intercropping with maize than sole. Furthermore, the
combined of the two seasons revealed that the total Land Equivalent
Ratio (LER) between cowpea and maize was 1.65. The Aggressivity
(A) maize was 0.45 and cowpea was -0.45. This showed that maize
was the dominant crop, whereas cowpea was the dominated. The
Competitive Ratio (CR) indicated that maize more competitive than
cowpea, maize was 1.75 and cowpea was 0.57. The Actual Yield
Loss (AYL) maize was 0.05 and cowpea was -0.40. The Monetary
Advantage Index (MAI) was 2360.80.
Keywords—Intercropping, cowpea, maize, land equivalent ratio
(LER).
I. INTRODUCTION
NTERCROPPING is a type of mixed cropping and defined
as agricultural practice of cultivating two or more crops in
the same space at the same time. The important reason to grow
two or more crops together may be increase of productivity
per unit of land. In intercropping system, all the environmental
resources utilized to maximize crop production per unit area
and per unit time. Thus, intercropping systems can provide
many benefits through increased efficiency of land use,
enhancing the capture and use of light, water and nutrients,
controlling weeds, insects, diseases and increasing the length
of production cycles. Other benefits of intercropping may be
improve quality of the seed, and better control of water quality
through minimizing the use of inorganic N fertilizers,
replacing them by the use of legumes [1].

W. A. Hamd Alla is with the Crop Intensification Research Department,
Field Crops Research Institute, Agriculture
Research Centre, Giza, Egypt
(phone: +201094290163; fax: +20889230055; e-mail: bwael20@yahoo.com).
A. A. Zohry is with the Crop Intensification Research Department, Field
Crops Research Institute, Agriculture Research Centre, Giza, Egypt (e-mail:
abdelhafeezzohry@yahoo.com).
E. M. Shalaby and R. A. Dawood are with Department of Agronomy, Fac.
of Agriculture, Assiut University, Cairo, Egypt (e- mail: eshalaby55
@yahoo.com, ragabdawood@yahoo.com).
There is a shortage of summer forage crops production in
Egypt. Defoliation of maize is commonly used to feed
animals. This resulted in decreasing maize yield. Hence,
intercropping of forage crops with cereal crops, e.g. maize,
sorghum and millet reduce the green fodder gab during
summer season.
Maize is ranked third after wheat and rice among the most
important cereal crops. In the USA maize is considered the
king of cereal crops [2]. In Egypt, maize is essential for human
and live-stocks consumption as a major source of
carbohydrates, oil, as well as a minor source of protein. It is
required for several industrial purposes such as starch and oil.
At the same time, cowpea is an important legume crop. It is a
primary source of plant protein for humans and animals.
Cowpea can be used as a cover crop and to fix nitrogen in the
soil [3].
Therefore, the main target of this research was to study the
effect of cowpea with maize intercropping on yield and its
components. Previous studies indicated thatintercropping
cowpea with maize significantly increased plant height in both
crops and grain yield of maize in the first season and reduced
it in the second season, but cowpea yield was reduced in the
both seasons [4]. Grain yield of cowpea was reduced by 43%
and 33% in intercropping and relay cropping, respectively [5].
Intercropping maize with runner bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)
gave the highest-equivalent yield productive efficiency, land
equivalent ratio, net returns and monetary advantage index [6].
Yield increased in a maize/soybean strip intercropping
arrangement were primarily due to the upsurge in the boarder
rows of maize together to soybeans [7]. Land equivalent ratio,
Aggressivity, Competitive ratio and Actual yield loss were
higher, in addition, there was a significant economic benefit
expressed with higher Monetary advantage index values have
been used to describe competition between component crops
of intercropping systems [8]. Maize intercropped with cowpea
produced the highest grain yield and the lowest values of
associated weeds [9]. Grain yield of maize was observed the
highest when maize intercropping with cowpea cultures. In
monoculture the yield of cowpea was higher than yield of
cowpea, while the lowest yield was obtained when cowpea
sown with maize. The highest land equivalent ratio was
obtained from corn with cowpea [10]. Maize, sorghum or
millet grain yields were increased, or slightly affected by
intercropping system compared with the sole crop, but that of
legume crop yields (cowpea, bean) showed decrement of 50%
[11]. The combined yield from the intercropping system was
Effect of Cowpea (Vigna sinensis
L.) with Maize
(Zea mays L.) Intercropping on Yield and Its
Components
W. A. Hamd Alla, E. M. Shalaby, R. A. Dawood, A. A. Zohry
I
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Biological, Veterinary, Agricultural and Food Engineering Vol:8 No:11, 2014
1170International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 8(11) 2014
International Science Index Vol:8, No:11, 2014 waset.org/Publication/10000250

h
i
T
h
1
5
r
a
p
u
i
n
s
o
p
l
p
l
m
c
r
h
a
be
c
a
I
n
l
a
S
o
g
r
st
u
H
p
a
si
g
i
n
s
o
i
n
p
a
t
h
r
o
p
e
[
2
m
y
i
i
n
c
r
s
u
t
o
m
i
n
m
m
I
n
o
f
p
r
r
a
c
o
d
r
[
2
i
n
i
n
s
h
[
2
a
f
o
b
o
b
e
q
[
3
i
gher than th
e
h
e reduction
i
5
% of the p
u
a
nging from
4
u
re stand yie
l
n
tercrops wer
e
o
le crops [13]
l
ant height
e
l
anted at the
s
m
aize either in
t
r
op, moreove
r
a
d the highes
e
used as a
a
nopy with
n
tercropping
w
a
nd equivale
n
o
rghu
m
plan
t
r
eater potenti
a
u
died crite
r
i
a
H
owever, Grai
n
a
ttern than
g
nificantly i
n
n
tercropping r
o
le crops. T
n
tercropping
h
a
rticularly, w
h
h
e same basi
n
o
w arrangeme
n
e
r hectare, w
h
2
0]. Cowpea
m
aize in the i
i
elds and soy
b
n
tercropping
r
ops helps m
a
u
ch as cowpe
a
o
350 kg N/h
a
m
ore efficient
n
creased prod
u
m
ixture [23].
O
m
aize due to i
n
n
tercropping
m
f
the indivi
d
r
oductivity o
f
a
ther than
m
o
wpea was se
r
y ear weigh
t
2
6]. The plan
t
n
crease the yi
e
The vegetat
i
n
tercroppe
d
w
h
owed advan
t
2
9]. The vege
t
f
fected by in
t
b
tained from
b
tained wh
e
q
uivalent rati
o
3
1]. Maize/be
e
total yieldi
n
i
n intercropp
e
u
re stand co
4
5 to 67 % in
l
ds [12]. For
a
e
greater tha
n
. Intercroppi
n
e
specially w
h
s
ame of maiz
e
t
ercropped wi
r
, 100% mai
z
t land equiv
a
tool to impr
o
good su
p
w
as advantag
n
t ratio valu
e
t
s, when inte
r
a
lity and reco
a
including p
l
n
yield per h
e
solid patter
n
n
creased on t
h
esulting in hi
he land eq
u
h
ad a majo
r
h
en the maiz
n
[19]. Cowp
e
n
t recorded t
h
h
ich were sig
n
yield was lo
w
ntercropping
b
ean yield w
e
[
22]. Intercr
o
a
intain and i
m
a
, mung bean
a
. The main
utilization o
f
u
ctivity com
p
O
n the other
h
n
tercropping
m
ay result in
d
ual crops i
n
f
a unit land
a
m
onocultures
en to be sign
i
t
, dry grain
y
t
ing pattern
o
e
ld of maize [
2
i
ve biomass
w
ith maize
[
t
ages in land
t
ative growth
t
ercropping [
3
sole croppi
n
e
n intercrop
p
o
s were hig
h
an intercrop
n
g of any the
e
d maize yiel
mpared with
legume crop
s
a
ge dry wei
g
n
those by eit
h
n
g resulted in
h
en the inter
c
e
planting da
t
th legume w
e
z
e + 100% c
o
a
lent ratio [1
5
o
ve the com
p
p
pressive c
h
eous relative
e
s were mo
r
r
cropped wit
h
o
rded higher
v
l
ant height a
n
e
ctare was lo
w
n
[18]. Inte
r
h
e maize and
gher Straw y
i
u
ivalent rati
o
r
advantage
o
e and cowpe
a
e
a intercropp
e
h
e highest gra
i
n
ificantly diff
e
w
er due to
c
syste
m
[21].
e
re significa
n
o
pping cerea
l
m
prove soil fe
r
and soybean
advantage of
f
the availab
l
p
ared with e
a
h
and, there w
a
of legumes
n
decreases in
n
a mixtur
e
a
rea is impro
v
[25]. Interc
r
i
ficantly decr
y
ield and dry
o
f the maize
2
7].
legume cro
p
[
28]. Mixtur
e
use efficienc
y
of componen
t
3
0]. The hig
h
n
g, while th
e
p
ed maize-
c
h
er than one
system, the
b
crops in pur
e
d ranged fro
m
a higher re
s
(cowpea an
d
g
hts achieved
h
er maize or
c
an increase i
n
c
ropped cro
p
t
e [14]. Yiel
d
e
re the highes
t
o
wpea planti
n
5
]. Intercropp
i
p
etitive abili
t
h
aracteristics
to sole crop
p
r
e than unit
y
h
cowpea, e
x
v
alues of mos
n
d grain yiel
w
er in interc
r
r
cropping al
s
cowpea Stov
e
i
el
d
compare
d
o
also show
e
o
ver sole cr
o
a
are plante
d
e
d with maiz
e
i
n yield per p
l
e
rent from so
l
c
ompetitive e
f
Maize stra
w
n
tly increased
l
and grain
r
tility, becau
s
accumulate
f
intercroppin
g
l
e resources
a
a
ch sole cro
p
a
s decreased
y
n
amely cowp
e
yield of one
e
. Neverthele
v
ed by interc
r
r
opping mai
z
eased the ear
total plant
b
and legume
p
s the highes
e
s of maize-
y
expressed
a
t
crop in a mi
h
est grain yi
e
e
lowest yi
e
c
owpea. Th
e
in all interc
r
b
ean compo
n
e
stand.
m
10 to
duction
d
bean)
by the
c
owpea
n
maize
p
s were
d
and of
t
as sole
n
g ratio
i
ng can
t
y of a
[16].
p
ing as
y
[17].
x
hibited
t of the
d/plant.
r
opping
s
o had
er
, with
d
to the
e
d that
o
pping;
d
within
e
at 1:1
l
ant and
l
e crops
f
fect of
w
, grain
by the
legume
s
e crops
f
rom 80
g
is the
a
nd the
p
of the
y
ield of
e
a [24].
or both
ss, the
r
opping
z
e with
length,
b
iomass
did not
t when
legume
a
s LER
xture is
e
ld was
e
ld was
e
land
r
opping
n
ent did
n
o
co
A
w
G
o
2
0
lo
n
ca
l
U
n
co
a
r
A
o
t significan
t
mponents [3
2
The current
s
w
ammer Re
s
o
vernorate,
E
0
14. The fiel
d
n
gitude 31
°
6
l
careous as p
r
P
HY
Chemi
p
Ec
CaC
O
O.
M
Tota
Av.
P
K
O.M: organic m
a
* Agricultural
R
n
it of Analysis &
The current
wpea, sole m
a
r
andomized c
o
Fig. 1 Crop
p
A
C
t
ly affect
m
2
].
II.
M
ATERIA
L
s
tudy was co
n
s
earch Statio
E
gyp
t
during
d
site is loca
t
6
4
׳
. The soil
r
esented in T
a
T
A
SICAL
-C
HEMICA
cal soil propertie
p
H 8.3
7
dsm -1 0.3
3
O
3 (%) 30.
9
M
. (%) 0.1
9
l N (%) 0.0
0
P
(ppm) 8.3
1
K
+ 0.7
5
a
tter and Av. P:
A
R
esearch Center
S
Studies
study includ
e
a
ize and the i
n
o
mplete bloc
k
p
ing systems; (
A
(C)
I
m
aize grain
L
S AND
M
ETH
O
n
ducted in res
e
n, Agric.
R
the summer
t
ed between
l
of such ex
p
a
ble І.
A
BLE І
A
L
P
ROPERTIES O
F
s

Mechanica
l
7
Sand (%)
3
Clay (%)
9
Silt (%)
9
Class
0
3
1
5
A
vailable Phosph
S
oil, Water & E
n
e
d three trea
t
n
tercrop of c
o
k
design with
f
A
) Sole cowpe
a
I
ntercrop
yield and
O
DS
e
arch field, A
r
R
es. Center.
seasons 20
1
l
atitude 27
°
0
p
eriment was
F
THE
S
OIL
l
properties
89.9
3.0
7.1
Sandy
orus in ppm.
n
vironment Res.
t
ments

name
l
o
wpea with m
a
f
our replicati
o
a
; (B) Sole mai
z
yield
r
ab El-
Assiut
1
3 and
0
5
׳
and
sandy
Institute
l
y sole
a
ize, in
o
ns.
z
e;
B
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Biological, Veterinary, Agricultural and Food Engineering Vol:8 No:11, 2014
1171International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 8(11) 2014
International Science Index Vol:8, No:11, 2014 waset.org/Publication/10000250

All other normal cultural practices of growing crops at
Assiut Governorate were applied and dates of these practices
are present in Table II.
TABLE II
APPLICATION DATES OF SOME CULTURAL PRACTICES OF GROWING CROPS IN
THE FIRST AND THE SECOND AT ASSIUT GOVERNORATE
Cultural practices 2013 2014
Sowing of maize and cowpea 12/5/2013 5/5/2014
First cut of cowpea 12/7/2013 5/7/2014
Second cut of cowpea 22/8/2013 15/8/2014
Harvest of maize 2/9/2013 25/8/2014
Each block with sole cowpea, sole maize and cowpea+ maize
intercrop was 4.20 m x 5 m (21 m2). Cowpea seeds variety (cv.
Cream) and maize seeds variety (cv. Single cross 130) was
sown at 25 cm within a row and 70 cm between rows. Cowpea+
maize intercrops planting both crops on same row (100%
cowpea + 100% maize).
The plots were irrigated by sprinkler irrigation. Weeds
control and other agricultural practices were performed as
recommended.
The fertilization requirements ware calculated based on area of
feddan, this is 4200 m2. The feddan fertilization requirements
were 150 kg N fed-1, P2O5 (200 kg fed-1) and K2O (50 kg fed-1).
Nitrogen of ammonium nitrate in five equal doses, after 15-
25- 35- 45 and 55 days from sowing for maize. Cowpea was
fertilized with 40 kg N fed., ammonium nitrate after thinning.
Studied Traits
A. For Maize
The plants of each plot were harvested at the end of the
growing season (110 days from planting) and the ears were
separated, air dried for 2 weeks, then total weight of ears/plot
and ten plants were chosen at random from each plot at
harvest to determine
1- Plant height (cm)
2- Number of ears/plant
3- Ear length (cm)
4- Ear diameter (cm)
5- Number of rows/ear
6- Number of grains/row
7- Grains weight/ear (g)
8- 100–grain weight (g)
9- Grain yield (kg/fed.)
10- Straw yield (kg/fed.)
B. For Cowpea
Two cuts of cowpea were harvested (either sole or
intercropping). Traits studied over all cuts
1- Plant height (cm)
2- Number of branches /m2
3- Fresh forage yield (ton/fed.)
4- Dry forage yield (ton/fed.)
C. Competitive Relationships
1. Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) which verifies the
effectiveness of intercropping for using the resources of the
environment compared to sole cropping as indicated by [33].
The LER values were calculated as: LER = (LERM + LERC ),
where LERM = YIM/YM and LERC = YIC/YC, where YM
and YC are the yields of maize and cowpea as sole while YIM
and YIC are the yields of maize and cowpea as intercrops,
respectively.
2. Aggressivity (A) was used to determine the competitive
relationship between two crops in a mixture as indicated by
[34]. The Aggressivity was calculated as: AM = (YIM/YM x
ZIM) – (YIC/YC x ZIC), and AC = (YIC/YC x ZIC) –
(YIM/YM x ZIM) where: ZIM = sown proportion of crop
maize (in maize intercropping with cowpea); ZIC = sown
proportion of crop cowpea (in cowpea intercropping with
maize)
3. Competitive Ratio (CR) gives more desirable competitive
ability for the crops. The CR represents simply the ratio of
individual LERs of the two component crops and takes into
account the proportion of the crops on which they are initially
sown as indicated by [35] The CR index was calculated using
the following formula: CRM = (LERM / LERC) (ZIC / ZIM)
while CRC = (LERC / LERM) (ZIM / ZIC).
4. Actual Yield Loss (AYL), which gave more accurate
information about the competition than the other indices
between components of intercropping system. The AYL is the
proportionate yield loss or gain of intercrops compared to sole
crop as indicated by [36]. The AYL was calculated as: AYL =
AYLM + AYLC, where AYLM = {(YIM/XIM) / (YM /XM)}
– 1 and AYLC = {(YIC/XIC) / (YC/XC)} -1, where X is the
sown proportion of intercrop maize and cowpea.
5.
Monetary Advantage Index (MAI) Suggests that the
economic assessment should be terms of the value of land
saved; this could probably be most assessed on the basis of the
rentable value of this land. The MAI was calculated according
to the formula, as indicated by [37].
With Egyptian currency (LE), maize Price was 2 LE/kg for
grain yield and cowpea was 120 LE/ton for fresh forage yield
of the two seasons.
Statistical Analysis
The obtained data in each season were statistically analyzed
of a randomized complete blocks design according to
procedures outlined as indicated by [38].
III. RESULTS
A. Effect of Cowpea with Maize Intercropping on Maize
Characters
Data in Table III revealed that the cowpea with maize
intercropping had significantly effect on the plant height and
number of ears/plant in both seasons, as well as number of
rows/ear and 100-grain weight in the second season only. The
other studied traits either in the 1st season or in the 2nd season
did not differ significantly affected by the cowpea with maize
intercropping. Moreover, the combined intercropping had a
highly significantly or significantly effect on the most of the
Value of combined intercrops x LER - 1
MAI LE
R


World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Biological, Veterinary, Agricultural and Food Engineering Vol:8 No:11, 2014
1172International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 8(11) 2014
International Science Index Vol:8, No:11, 2014 waset.org/Publication/10000250

above studied traits except ear length, number grains/row,
grains weight/ear and grain yield/fed. Here, the results
indicated that the intercropping significantly increased plant
height, number of ears/plant, number of rows/ear, 100-grain
weight, ear diameter and straw yield/fed., in the either 1st
season and 2nd season and its combined over sole.
TABLE III
EFFECT OF COWPEA WITH MAIZE INTERCROPPING ON THE PLANT HEIGHT, YIELD AND ITS COMPONENTS OF MAIZE IN 2013 AND 2014 SEASONS AND ITS
COMBINED
Season 2013
Characters
Treatments
Plant
height
(cm)
No. of
ears/plant
Ear
length
(cm)
Ear
diameter
(cm)
No.of
rows/ear
No. of
grains/
row
Grains
weight/
ear (g)
100-grain
weight
(g)
Grain
yield
(kg/fed.)
Straw
yield
(kg/fed.)
Sole maize 232.64 1.03 19.04 3.92 14.40 39.15 122.20 31.05 2246 2636
Intercropping cowpea + maize 235.47 1.05 19.70 4.03 15.00 40.85 140.40 32.20 2340 2721
F-test ** * NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NS
Season 2014
Characters
Treatments
Plant
height
(cm)
No. of
ears/plant
Ear
length
(cm)
Ear
diameter
(cm)
No.of
rows/ear
No. of
grains/
row
Grains
weight/
ear (g)
100-grain
weight
(g)
Grain
yield
(kg/fed.)
Straw
yield
(kg/fed.)
Sole maize 229.63 1.09 19.91 4.23 15.00 41.22 138.12 33.43 2420 2926
Intercropping cowpea + maize 233.98 1.10 20.36 4.41 15.60 42.62 155.99 35.07 2550 3004
F-test ** ** NS NS ** NS NS * NS NS
Combined of the two seasons
Characters
Treatments
Plant
height
(cm)
No. of
ears/plant
Ear
length
(cm)
Ear
diameter
(cm)
No.of
rows/ear
No. of
grains/
row
Grains
weight/
ear (g)
100-grain
weight
(g)
Grain
yield
(kg/fed.)
Straw
yield
(kg/fed.)
Sole maize 231.14 1.06 19.47 3.98 14.70 40.18 130.16 32.24 2333 3706
Intercropping cowpea + maize 234.73 1.08 20.03 4.21 15.30 41.73 148.19 33.64 2445 3834
F-test ** ** NS * ** NS NS ** NS *
*, **: indicated the significantly and highly significantly at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of probability, respectively
NS: non-significant difference
B. Effect of Cowpea with Maize Intercropping on Cowpea
Characters
Data in Table IV showed that the plant height and number
of branches/plant had a highly significantly affected by the
intercropping either in the 1st cut or in the 2nd cut in both
seasons. Moreover, the fresh forage yield and dry forage yield
had significantly either in the 1st cut or in the 2nd cut in the
both seasons. The results indicated that the cowpea plant
height (cm) surpassed in the intercropping either in the 1st cut
or in the 2nd cut over the sole cowpea in both seasons.
However, the cowpeas number of branches/plant, fresh forage
yield and dry forage yield (ton/ fed.) surpassed in either 1st cut
or in the 2nd cut over the cowpea with maize intercropping in
both seasons.
C. Effect of Cowpea with Maize Intercropping on
Competitive Relationships and Yield Advantages in 2013 and
2014 Seasons and Its Combined
1. Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)
Results in Table V showed that LER values were greater
(1.59, 1.70 and 1.65) than one in the both seasons and the
combined analysis. The results, also showed that maize was
superior in the intercrop system where the relative yield was
increased (1.04, 1.05 and 1.05) of the sole in the both seasons
and the combined analysis. Cowpea was inferior companion
crop where the relative yield was decreased (0.55. 0.65 and
0.60) of the sole in the both seasons.
2. Aggressivity (A)
The data of Aggressivity revealed that values of (A) of
maize was (0.49, 0.40 and 0.45) of the sole in both seasons
and the combined analysis. Cowpea was (-0.49, -0.40 and -
0.45) of the sole in the both seasons and the combined
analysis.
3. Competitive Ratio (CR)
The CR of maize was greater (1.89, 1.61 and 1.75) while
the CR of cowpea which was less than one (0.52, 0.62 and
0.57).
4. Actual Yield Loss (AYL)
The AYL values of maize were positive, (+0.04, +0.05 and
+0.05) indicating that there was increase in yield (4.0, 5.0 and
5.0%) when intercropping with cowpea in both seasons and
the combined seasons were analyzed. Actual Yield Loss
values of cowpea were negative (-0.45, -0.35 and -0.40)
indicating that there was a decrease in yield (45, 35 and 40%
of sole).
5. Monetary Advantage Index (MAI)
The MAI is an indicator of the economic feasibility of
intercropping systems. These values of MAI were 2097.28,
2607.95 and 2360.80 in both seasons and the combined
analyses.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Biological, Veterinary, Agricultural and Food Engineering Vol:8 No:11, 2014
1173International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 8(11) 2014
International Science Index Vol:8, No:11, 2014 waset.org/Publication/10000250

TABLE IV
EFFECT OF COWPEA WITH MAIZE INTERCROPPING ON PLANT HEIGHT, NUMBER OF BRANCHES/PLANT, FRESH FORAGE YIELD AND DRY FORAGE YIELD OF
COWPEA 2013 AND 2014 SEASONS
Traits
Treatments
Season 2013 Season 2014
First cut Second cut Mean cuts First cut Second cut Mean cuts
Plant
height
(cm)
No. of
branches/
plant
Plant
height
(cm)
No. of
branches/
plant
Plant
height
(cm)
No. of
branches/
plant
Plant
height
(cm)
No. of
branches/
plant
Plant
height
(cm)
No. of
branches/
Plant
Plant
height
(cm)
No. of
branches/
plant
Sole cowpea 83.75 5.42 76.33 3.31 80.04 4.37 78.52 5.45 71.48 3.66 75.00 4.56
Intercropping
cowpea + maize
127.68 2.75 96.51 1.53 112.10 2.14 106.96 2.90 92.78 1.94 99.87 2.42
F-test ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
Traits
Treatments
First cut Second cut Total cut First cut Second cut Total cut
Fresh
forage
yield
(ton/fed.)
Dry
forage
yield
(ton/fed.)
Fresh
forage
yield
(ton/fed.)
Dry
forage
yield
(ton/fed.)
Fresh
forage
yield
(ton/fed.)
Dry
forage
yield
(ton/fed.)
Fresh
forage
yield
(ton/fed.)
Dry
forage
yield
(ton/fed.)
Fresh
forage
yield
(ton/fed.)
Dry
forage
yield
(ton/fed.)
Fresh
forage
yield
(ton/fed.)
Dry
forage
yield
(ton/fed.)
Sole cowpea 9.37 1.81 5.27 1.16 14.64 2.97 10.33 2.21 5.57 1.34 15.90 3.56
Intercropping
cowpea + maize
5.69 1.13 2.41 0.60 8.10 1.72 7.12 1.54 3.17 0.80 10.28 2.34
F-test * * * * * * * ** ** ** ** **
*, **: indicated the significantly and highly significantly at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of probability, respectively
NS: non-significant difference
TABLE V
EFFECT OF COWPEA WITH MAIZE INTERCROPPING ON COMPETITIVE RELATIONSHIPS AND YIELD ADVANTAGES IN 2013 AND 2014 SEASONS AND ITS COMBINED

Characters
Treatments
Season 2013
Yield/fed. Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)
Aggressivity
(A)
Competitive Ratio
(CR)
Actual Yield Loss (AYL) Monetary
Advantage
Index
(MAI)
maize
kg/fed.
cowpea
ton/fed. LERM LERC total AM AC CRM CRC AYLM AYLC total
Sole 2246 14.64
2097.28
Intercropping
cowpea + maize
2340 8.10 1.04 0.55 1.59 0.49 -0.49 1.89 0.52 0.04 -0.45 -0.41
Season 2014
Sole 2420 15.90
2607.95
Intercropping
cowpea + maize
2550 10.28 1.05 0.65 1.70 0.40 -0.40 1.61 0.62 0.05 -0.35 -0.30
Combined of the two seasons
Sole 2333 15.27
2360.80
Intercropping
cowpea + maize
2445 9.19 1.05 0.60 1.65 0.45 -0.45 1.75 0.57 0.05 -0.40 -0.35
IV. DISCUSSION
The height of maize plant under intercropping system was
more than that in the sole maize may be due to competition of
associated crops for intercepted the light intensity,Therefore,
its lead to the increase in maize plant. Moreover, the highest
grain yield of intercropped maize may be due to the highest
values for number of ears/plant, ear length, number of
rows/ear, number of grains/row and 100-grain weight, since an
important yield components caused in increasing the grain
yield/fed at compared the sole maize. Moreover, cowpea
plantation in such agro-ecosystem can be played as a reservoir
for the naturally occurring biological control agents (As in
Fig. 2). Intercropping is the best cropping system, because at
this system light interception, soil moisture, soil temperature
and yield were higher compared to sole crops. Microclimatic
variation in intercropping system have caused favorable
environmental conditions, ready for growth and high yield
compared to sole crops [15]. Also, [18] mentioned that
sorghum intercropped with cowpea exhibited greater
potentiality and recorded higher values of plant height and
grain yield/plant. However, Grain yield per hectare was lower
in intercropping pattern than solid pattern. Moreover, [23]
found that intercropping cereal and grain legume crops helps
maintain and improve soil fertility, because crops such as
cowpea, mung bean and soybean accumulate from 80 to 350
kg N/ha. The main advantage of intercropping is the more
efficient utilization of the available resources and the
increased productivity compared with each sole crop of the
mixture. These results are conformity to those reported by [4],
[7], [9], [11], [14], [16], [19], [20]. They mentioned that
cowpea intercropped with maize at 1:1 row arrangement
recorded the highest grain yield per plant and per hectare,
which were significantly different from sole crops. However,
[27], [32] found that in a maize/bean intercrop system the bean
component does not significantly affect maize grain yield and
yield components. On the other hand, [24], [26] reported that
intercropping maize with cowpea was seen to significantly
decrease ear length, dry ear weight and dry grain yield at the
same of maize planting date.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Biological, Veterinary, Agricultural and Food Engineering Vol:8 No:11, 2014
1174International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 8(11) 2014
International Science Index Vol:8, No:11, 2014 waset.org/Publication/10000250

s
o
i
n
i
n
a
s
c
o
r
e
t
h
T
h
c
o
c
o
p
e
o
f
c
o
r
e
o
b
w
c
r
by
f
o
t
h
r
e
s
o
r
e
v
a
o
n
p
r
A
w
t
h
bo
t
h
c
o
o
b
w
Fig. 2 Spotted
l
The cowpea
o
le cowpea.
T
n
te
r
-and intr
a
n
tercropping.
I
s
sociated cr
o
o
nsequently i
t
e
duction in g
r
h
an in the firs
t
h
e large red
u
o
mpetition o
f
o
mponent m
a
e
netrating int
o
f
young maiz
e
o
mpetitions
e
duction. The
b
served in si
n
w
eight reduce
d
r
opping [5].
T
y
[11], [12],
o
rage dry we
i
h
an those by
e
e
ported that t
h
o
le crop at
c
e
sults were al
s
Data in Tab
l
a
ried conside
r
n
maize. T
h
r
oductivity
A
ggressivity r
e
w
hereas it was
h
e dominant c
o
th seasons
a
h
at the maize
o
wpea. Simil
a
b
served for
A
w
as positive v
a

l
adybird on m
a
plant height
w
T
his finding i
s
a
-plants of
I
t is clear tha
t
o
ps amplifi
e
t
s large sha
d
r
een forage y
i
t
cut compare
d
u
ction in th
e
f
maize wi
t
a
ize, which
o
the lower c
o
e
plants on co
w
and in co
n
maximum
g
n
gle croppin
g
d
by 52% in i
n
T
hese results
a
[21]. On the
i
ghts achieve
e
ither maize
h
e highest st
r
c
ompared by
s
o reported b
y
l
e V indicate
d
r
ably due to t
h
h
e LER it
c
was highe
r
e
vealed that
negative for
c
rop and cow
p
a
nd the com
b
was domina
n
a
r trend to t
h
A
YL in Table
a
lue in both s
e
a
ize plants inter
c
w
as higher in
s
logic, since
t
cowpea and
t
the competit
i
e
d by mai
z
d
ing on cow
p
i
eld was hig
h
d with solid
p
e
second cut
t
h shading
e
obstructed s
o
wpea canop
y
w
pea accomp
a
n
sequence l
o
g
rowth and y
g
. They add
e
n
tercropping
a
a
re consisten
t
other hand,
d by the int
e
or cowpea s
o
r
aw yield wa
s
the intercro
p
y
[19], [28], [
3
d
that LER, A
,
h
e effect of i
n
c
ould be co
n
r
the exp
e
values of
m
c
owpea. It sh
o
p
ea was the d
o
b
ined analyse
s
n
t crop and m
h
at of LER,
A
V. In partic
u
e
asons and th
e
c
ropped with c
o
intercrop tha
n
t
he light com
p
the maize
i
on between t
h
z
e elongati
o
p
ea. In addit
i
h
er in the sec
o
p
lant in both
s
due to the
e
ffect of th
e
olar radiatio
n
y
, the lowest
s
a
nies with th
e
o
west forag
e
ield of cow
p
e
d that the st
a
s compared t
o
t
with those
o
[13] mentio
n
e
rcrops were
o
le crops. Al
s
s
obtained u
n
p
ping crops.
3
0].
,
CR, AYL a
n
n
tercropping
c
n
cluded that
e
cted prod
u
m
aize were
p
o
wed that ma
o
minated cro
p
s
. The CR i
n
ore competiti
A
and CR
w
u
lar, AYL fo
r
e
combined a
n
o
wpea
n
that in
p
etition
under
h
e two-
o
n and
i
on, the
o
nd cut
s
easons.
highest
e
taller
n
from
s
hading
e
lowest
e
yield
p
ea was
em dry
o
single
o
btained
n
ed that
greater
s
o, [22]
n
der the
Similar
n
d MAI
c
owpea
actual
u
ctivity.
p
ositive,
ize was
p
in the
n
dicated
ve than
w
as also
r
maize
n
alysis.
W
h
ad
v
co
w
va
w
h
p
o
re
s
[2
9
i
m
In
t
ab
R
e
gr
e
th
a
pa
r
th
e
m
a
in
t
R.
A
g
pr
o
C
r
E
g
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[1
0
hen intercro
p
vantage for
m
wpea on ma
i
lues of cowp
e
h
ich indicate
d
o
sitive due to
s
ulted were o
b
9
], [31].
In conclusio
m
proved by
t
ercropping c
ility of a c
a
e
sults indicat
e
e
ater grain yi
e
a
t intercroppi
n
rticularly wh
e
e
same basin.
a
ize mixture
s
t
ercrop on the
The author t
h
A. Dawo
o
g
riculture, A
s
o
fessor of Cr
o
r
ops Researc
h
g
ypt.
KU. Dhima,
Competition i
n
seeding ratio.
F
M. Dahmard
e
intercropping
evaluation. A
s
J. A. N. Asi
w
b
reeding line
Potchefstroo
m
on Biological
N
D. A. Okpar
a
influenced
b
y
tropics. J. Sus
t
Polthanee A
n
cropping, inte
rained conditi
o
vol., 6. pp.1-1
2
A. K. Padh
i
economics an
d
46. pp. 204-2
1
L. Li, J. Sun,
wheat/soybea
n
interaction on
P. K. Ghosh.
cereal fodder
Field Crops R
e
A. A. Zohry.
yield, yield
c
Agric. Sc., M
o
0
]
S. M. Shata,
calcareous so
i
p
ping with c
o
m
aize probabl
y
i
ze when gr
o
e
a was negat
i
d
a yield adva
n
LER and C
R
b
served by [
6
V.
C
O
n, the prod
u
intercroppi
n
an be used
a
a
nopy with
g
e
d that cowp
e
e
ld than maiz
e
n
g had a ma
j
e
n the maize
We recomm
e
s
hould be 10
0
other side of
A
CKNO
W
h
anks to Prof.
o
d professo
r
s
siut Univers
o
p Intensific
a
h
Institute, A
g
R
EF
E
AA. Lithourgi
d
n
dices of comm
o
F
ield Crops Res.
e
h, A. Ghanbari,
maize with co
w
s
ian J. Plant Sci.
v
w
e, D. Belane,
a
s for nitrogen
m
, South Africa.
A
N
itrogen Fixatio
n
a
. Growth and
y
intercropping an
d
t
ainable Agric. a
n
n
an and Surac
h
rcropping and r
e
o
ns in an upland
2
. 2000.
i
. Effect of v
e
d
energetics of
m
1
0. 2001.
F. Zhang, X. Li
,
n
strip intercrop
p
nutrients. Field
C
Growth, yield c
intercropping s
y
e
s. vol., 88. pp.2
2
Effect of prec
e
c
omponents and
o
shtohor, vol., 43
Safaa, A. Ma
h
i
l productivity
b
owpea, whic
h
y
because of
t
o
wn in asso
c
i
ve when inte
r
n
tage. These
v
R
was great
e
6
], [8], [10], [
O
NCLUSION
u
ctivity of a
n
g rather t
h
a
s a tool to i
m
g
ood suppres
e
a with maiz
e
e
sole crop. T
h
j
or advantage
and cowpea
w
e
nd that plan
t
0
% cowpea: 1
0
maize rows).
W
LEDGMENT
Dr. E. M. S
h
r
s of Agro
n
ity and Pro
f
a
tion Researc
h
g
riculture Re
s
E
RENCES
d
is, IB. Vasilak
o
o
n vetch and cer
e
vol., 100. pp. 24
B. Syasar and
w
pea on green
fo
v
ol., 8. pp. 235-2
a
nd F. D. Dakor
a
fixation at AR
C
A
bstract of the 1
6
n
, Montana, US
A
y
ield of maize
a
d nitrogen fertili
z
n
d the Environ.
V
h
et Butchareon.
e
lay cropping o
f
area of northeas
t
e
getable intercr
o
m
aize (
zea mays
,
S. Yang and Z.
p
ing I yield ad
v
C
rop Res., vol., 7
ompetition and
e
y
stems in the se
2
7-237. 2004.
e
ding winter cro
p
associated We
e
. pp. 139-148. 2
0
h
moud and Han
a
b
y integrated ef
fe
h
indicates
a
t
he positive e
f
c
iation. Whil
e
r
cropping on
v
alues of M
A
e
r than one.
S
14], [15], [17
]
unit land
a
h
an monoc
u
m
prove com
p
sive charact
e
e
intercrop pr
o
h
e LER also
s
over sole cr
w
ere planted
t
ing of cowp
e
0
0% maize (
c
h
alaby and P
r
n
omy, Facu
l
f
. Dr. A. A.
h
Departmen
t
s
earch Centre
o
qlou, and CA.
e
als intercroppin
9-258. 2007.
M. Ramroudi.
E
fo
rage yields an
d
39. 2009.
a
. Evaluation o
f
C
Grain crops
i
6
th
International
C
A
pp. 14-19. 200
9
a
nd vegetable co
z
er in the low la
n
V
ol., 2. pp.188-1
9
Comparison o
corn with cowp
e
t
ern Thailand. J.
o
pping on pro
d
). Indian J. Agr
o
Rengel. Wheat/
m
v
antage and inte
1. pp. 123-137.
2
e
conomics of gr
o
mi-arid tropics
o
p
s and Intercro
p
e
ds in maize. A
n
0
05.
a
n, S. Siam. I
m
fe
ct of intercrop
p
a
yield
f
fect of
e
AYL
maize,
A
I were
S
imilar
]
, [19],
a
rea is
u
ltures.
p
etitive
e
ristics.
o
duced
s
howed
opping
within
e
a with
c
owpea
r
of. Dr.
l
ty of
Zohry
t
, Field
, Giza,
Dordas.
g in two
E
ffect of
d
quality
f
cowpea
i
nstitute,
C
ongress
9
.
wpea as
n
d humid
9
4. 2000.
f single
e
a under
ISSAAS
d
uctivity,
o
n. Vol.,
m
aize or
r
specific
2
001.
o
undnut/
o
f India.
p
ping on
n
nals of
m
proving
p
ing and
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Biological, Veterinary, Agricultural and Food Engineering Vol:8 No:11, 2014
1175International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 8(11) 2014
International Science Index Vol:8, No:11, 2014 waset.org/Publication/10000250

fertilizer dorycnium rectum. Res. J. of Agri. and Biolo. Sciences, vol., 3.
pp.733-739. 2007.
[11] F. Yilmaz, M. Atak and M. Erayman. Identification of advantages of
maize- legume intercropping over stocy cropping through competition
indices in the East Mediterranean Region. Turk. J. Agric. Vol., 32.
pp.111-119. 2007.
[12] M. A. Abou-Keriasha, M.A. Abd EI-Hady and F.R. Nawar. Response of
some cowpea varieties to intercropping with maize under upper Egypt
condition. Egypt. J. App. Sci. vol., 24. pp. 495-514. 2009.
[13] Hamdollah Eskandari and Ahmad Ghanbari. Intercropping of Maize
(Zea mays) and Cowpea (Vigna sinensis) as Whole-Crop Forage: Effect
of Different Planting Pattern on Total Dry Matter Production and Maize
Forage Quality. Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj. Vol., 37. pp.152-155.
2009.
[14] M. A. Abou-Keriasha, A. Sahar Sherif and KH. Wafaa Mohamed. Maize
grain yield response to intercropping with three legume fodder crops.
Egypt. J. Agric. Res. vol., 88. pp.1259-1276. 2010.
[15] Ahmed Ghanbari, Mehdi Dahmardeh, Barat Ali Siahsar and Mahmoud
Ramroudi. Effect of maize (Zea mays L.) - cowpea (Vigna unguiculata
L.) intercropping on light distribution, soil temperature and soil moisture
in arid environment. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment. Vol.,
8. pp. 102-108. 2010.
[16] M. Rezvani, F. Zaefarian, M. Aghaalikhani, H. Rahimian Mashhadi and
E. Zand. Investigation Corn and Soybean intercropping advantages in
competition with redroot pigweed and jimsonweed. World Academy of
Science, Engineering and Technology, vol., 5. pp.327-329. 2011.
[17] J. Sarkodie-Addo and Abdul-Rahaman. Spatial arrangements and time of
introducing an intercrop on the productivity of component crops in
maize (Zea mays L.) – soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill) intercropping
systems. Inter. J.of Sci. and Adva. Tech. vol., 2. pp.103-107. 2012.
[18] Y. A. Refay, A. A. Alderfasi, M. M. Selim and k. Awad. Evaluation of
variety, cropping pattern and plant density on growth and yield
production of grain sorghum-cowpea under limited water supply
condition growth, yield and yield component characters of sorghum. J.
of Agric. and Veterinary Science, vol., 2. pp.24-29. 2013.
[19] E. D. N. Dube, T. Madanzi1, A. Kapenzi and E. Masvaya. Root length
density in maize/cowpea intercropping under a basin tillage system in a
semi-arid area of zimbabwe. American Journal of Plant Sciences. vol., 5.
pp. 1499-1507. 2014.
[20] Iderawumi abdulraheem mukhtar. Effect of cowpea on growth and yield
parameter in a maize-cowpea intercrop. Journal of Management and
Science. Vol., 4. pp. 37-42. 2014.
[21] ET. Sebetha, AT. Modi and LG. Owoeye. Maize-cowpea rotation and
intercropping effects on cowpea yield. Ph. D. Thesis, University of
KwaZulu- Natal. 2014.
[22] J. M. M. Matusso, J. N. Mugwe and M. Mucheru-Muna. Effects of
different maize (Zea mays L.)–Soybean (Glycine max L. Merrill)
intercropping patterns on yields and its economics. Academia Journal of
Agricultural Research. Vol., 2. pp.159-166. 2014.
[23] Hamid Reza Mobasser, Mohammad Reza Vazirimehr and Khashayar
Rigi. Effect of intercropping on resources use, weed management and
forage quality. Inter. J. of Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences,
vol., 4. pp.707-713. 2014.
[24] K. S. Gangwar, and S. K. Sharma. Fodder legume intercropping in
maize (Zea mays) and its effect on succeeding wheat (Triticum
aestivum). Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, vol., 64. pp.38-40.
1994.
[25] Y. A. Abayomi. Influence of height of maize variety on the productivity
of intercropped maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.
Walp). Ghana Jnl arie. Vol., 33. pp. 199-206. 2000.
[26] O. M. Egbe, S. E. Alibo, and I. Nwueze. Evaluation of some extra-early-
and early- maturing cowpea varieties for intercropping with maize in
southern guinea savannah of Nigeria. Agriculture and Biology Journal of
North America. http://dx.doi.org/10.5251/abjna.2010.1.5.845.858. 2010.
[27] Thayamini H. S. and I. Brintha. Review on maize based intercropping. J.
of Agro. Vol., 9. pp.135-145. 2010.
[28] R. N. Amos, B. A. Jens and M. Symon. On farm evaluation of yield and
economic benefits of short term maize legume intercropping systems
under conservation Agriculture in Malawi. Field crop research, vol., 132.
pp.149-157. 2012.
[29] Hamdollah Eskandari. Intercropping of maize (zea mays) with cowpea
(vigna sinensis) and mungbean (vigna radiata): effect of
complementarity of intercrop components on resource consumption, dry
matter production and legumes forage quality. J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res.,
vol., 2. pp. 355-360. 2012.
[30] K. Mangasini, L. M. Mwanahawa, G. M. Arbogast and P. K.
Neema.Agronomic factors limiting groundnut production: A case of
smallholder farming in Taboraregion. 17th Annual Research Workshop
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, pp. 28-29. 2012.
[31] F. O. Takim. Advantages of maize-cowpea intercropping over sole
cropping through competition indices. Journal of Agriculture and
Biodiversity Research, vol., 1. pp. 53-59. 2012.
[32] O. M. Kitonyo, G.N. Chemining’wa and J.W. Muthomi. Productivity of
farmer-preferred maize varieties intercropped with beans in semi-arid
Kenya. International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research.
Vol., 3. pp.6-16. 2013.
[33] R. W. Willey and S.O. Osiru. Studies on mixture of maize and beans
(Phaseolus vulgaris) with particular reference to plant populations. J.
Agric. Sci. Camb. Vol., 79. pp. 519-529. 1972.
[34] C. A. Mc-Gillichrist. Analysis and competition experiments. Biometrics,
Vol., 21. pp. 975- 985. 1960.
[35] R. W. Willey and M. R. Rao. Competitive ratio for quantifying
competition between intercrops. Exp. Agric. f6. pp.117-125. 1980.
[36] P. Banik. Evaluation of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and legume
intercropping under 1:1 and 2:1 row replacement series system. J.
Agron. & Crop Sci. vol., 176. pp. 289-294. 1996.
[37] R.W. Willey. Intercropping its importance and research needs. Part I:
Competition and yield advantages. Field Crop Abst. Vol., 32. pp.1-10.
1979.
[38] K. A. Gomez and A. A. Gomez. Statistical procedures for agriculture
research 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons. New York, pp. 317-333. 1984.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
International Journal of Biological, Veterinary, Agricultural and Food Engineering Vol:8 No:11, 2014
1176International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation 8(11) 2014
International Science Index Vol:8, No:11, 2014 waset.org/Publication/10000250