Sustainability of carrot-cowpea intercropping systems through optimization of green manuring and spatial arrangements

Silva, Josimar Nogueora da; Bezerra Neto, Francisco; Lima, Jailma Suerda Silva de; Chaves, Aridênia Peixoto; Nunes, Renato Leandro Costa; Rodrigues, Gardênia Silvana de Oliveira; Lino, Vitor Abel da Silva; Sá, Jolinda Mércia de; Santos, Elizangela Cabral dos

doi:10.1590/0103-8478cr20190838

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

CROP PRODUCTION • Cienc. Rural 51 (1) • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20190838 copy

Sustainability of carrot-cowpea intercropping systems through optimization of green manuring and spatial arrangements

Sustentabilidade de sistemas consorciados de cenoura e feijão-caupi por meio da otimização da adubação verde e arranjos espaciais

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT:

One of the biggest challenges in intercropping of two or more crops is to maintain their productivity as that of their sole counterparts. In order to obtain sustainable intercropping systems in a semi-arid environment, this study evaluated the agro-economic advantage and sustainability of intercropped systems of carrot and cowpea, optimizing the green manuring and spatial arrangements. Experiments were conducted in the period from July to October 2017 and 2018, using a randomized complete block design with the treatments arranged in a 4 x 3 factorial scheme, with four replications. Treatments included four amounts of M. aegyptia incorporated into the soil (20, 35, 50, and 65 t ha^-1 on dry basis) with three spatial arrangements (2:2, 3:3, and 4:4) between the components cultures formed from cowpea rows alternated with carrot rows. The agro-economic advantage indices evaluated in the intercropping systems were: land equivalent ratio (LER), area-time equivalent ratio (ATER), score of the canonical variable (Z), actual yield loss (AYL), intercropping advantage (IA), gross income (GI), net income (NI), rate of return (RR), and profit margin (PM). The highest agro-economic advantages of the carrot and cowpea intercropping were obtained for LER, ATER, NI, and RR of 2.60, 4.16, US$ 8,720.99 ha^-1, and US$ 2.21, respectively, for M. aegyptia biomass amounts of 46.42, 47.82, 32.60 and 31.51t ha^-1 added to the soil. The 2: 2 spatial arrangement was the one with the best productive performance, with higher net income and rate of return in the intercropping of carrot-cowpea.

Keywords:
agro-economic efficiency; competitive ability; Daucus carota; Merremia aegyptia; Vigna unguiculata

Universidade Federal de Santa Maria Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Centro de Ciências Rurais , 97105-900 Santa Maria RS Brazil , Tel.: +55 55 3220-8698 , Fax: +55 55 3220-8695 - Santa Maria - RS - Brazil
E-mail: cienciarural@mail.ufsm.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] E-mail: renatoleandro.ce@hotmail.com. ^*Corresponding author

--------------------------------------------------------------Prior to incorporation of C. procera-------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental areas	N g kg^-1	pH (water)	EC ds m^-1	OM g kg^-1	P	K⁺	Na⁺	Ca²⁺	Mg²⁺	Cu	Fe	Mn	Zn
Experimental areas	N g kg^-1	pH (water)	EC ds m^-1	OM g kg^-1	----------mg dm^-3----------			--cmol_c dm^-3--		-----------mg dm^-3-----------
1	0.51	8.20	1.77	3.64	10.30	57.20	11.60	2.05	0.60	0.19	2.03	10.43	6.21
2	0.35	8.10	0.24	4.97	22.80	64.70	13.70	3.28	0.78	0.10	1.91	11.67	2.63

Cropping years	----------------------------Macronutrient contents in the green manure (g kg^-1)-------------------------------					C/N ratio
	N	P	K	Ca	Mg
1	15.30	4.00	15.70	9.30	7.03	25:1
2	16.60	2.79	20.80	19.35	7.07	25:1

Treatments	-------------------------------------------------------Cropping year 1-----------------------------------------------------------
Amounts of Merremia aegyptia biomass	Spatial arrangements	--------------------(VC) R$ ha^-1-----------------------				--------(FC) R$ ha^-1--------			--(OC) R$ ha^-1--		(TC) R$ ha^-1
		(I)	(L)	(E)	(OE)	(MC)	(D)	(TF)	(FHL)	(LR)	(RFC)
20 t ha^-1	2:2	3,466.30	15,522.60	230.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3123.54	333.00	999.84	24,462.86
	3:3	3,466.30	15,094.00	230.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3123.54	333.00	999.84	24,034.26
	4:4	3,466.30	14,870.00	230.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3123.54	333.00	999.84	23,810.26
35 t ha^-1	2:2	3,466.30	19,781.00	241.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3123.54	333.00	999.84	28,732.26
	3:3	3,466.30	19,352.60	241.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3123.54	333.00	999.84	28,303.86
	4:4	3,466.30	19,128.60	241.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3123.54	333.00	999.84	28,079.86
50 t ha^-1	2:2	3,466.30	24,882.00	252.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3123.54	333.00	999.84	33,844.26
	3:3	3,466.30	24,453.60	252.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3123.54	333.00	999.84	33,415.86
	4:4	3,466.30	24,229.60	252.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3123.54	333.00	999.84	33,191.86
65 t ha^-1	2:2	3,466.30	29,983.40	263.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3123.54	333.00	999.84	38,956.66
	3:3	3,466.30	29,555.00	263.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3123.54	333.00	999.84	38,528.26
	4:4	3,466.30	29,331.00	263.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3123.54	333.00	999.84	38,304.26
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Cropping year 2---------------------------------------------------------------------------
		--------------------(VC) R$ ha^-1-----------------------					--------(FC) R$ ha^-1--------			--(OC) R$ ha^-1--		(TC) R$ ha^-1
		(I)	(L)	(E)	(OE)	(MC)	(D)	(TF)	(FHL)	(LR)	(RFC)
20 t ha^-1	2:2	3,466.30	16,767.60	230.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3.176.82	333.00	999.84	25,761.14
	3:3	3,466.30	15,635.20	230.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3.176.82	333.00	999.84	24,628.74
	4:4	3,466.30	15,365.20	230.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3.176.82	333.00	999.84	24,358.76
35 t ha^-1	2:2	3,466.30	21,026.20	241.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3.176.82	333.00	999.84	30,030.76
	3:3	3,466.30	19,893.80	241.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3.176.82	333.00	999.84	28,898.36
	4:4	3,466.30	19,623.80	241.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3.176.82	333.00	999.84	28,628.36
50 t ha^-1	2:2	3,466.30	26,127.20	252.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3.176.82	333.00	999.84	35,142.76
	3:3	3,466.30	24,994.80	252.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3.176.82	333.00	999.84	34,010.36
	4:4	3,466.30	24,724.80	252.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3.176.82	333.00	999.84	33,740.34
65 t ha^-1	2:2	3,466.30	31,228.60	263.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3.176.82	333.00	999.84	40,255.14
	3:3	3,466.30	30,096.20	263.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3.176.82	333.00	999.84	39,122.74
	4:4	3,466.30	29,826.30	263.70	120.60	220.17	412.78	33.33	3.176.82	333.00	999.84	38,852.84

Sources of variation	DF	LER	ATER	Z	AYL	IA
Blocks (Cropping years)	6	0.74^ns	363.99^**	0.72 ^ns	0.90^ns	0.88 ^ns
Cropping years (Y)	1	252.50^**	1869.45^**	24.57^**	83.37^**	81.27^**
Amounts of M. aegyptia biomass (Q)	3	37.00^**	23.85^**	38.68^**	37.88^**	37.06^**
Spatial arrangements (A)	2	106.96^**	79.35^**	120.09^**	105.52^**	123.86^**
Y x Q	3	0.19 ^ns	1.67 ^ns	1.74 ^ns	2.03^ns	2.14^ns
Y x A	2	46.33^**	8.65^**	33.10^**	13.06^**	15.94^**
Q x A	6	2.75^*	2.26^*	3.75^**	2.12^ns	2.61^*
Y x Q x A	6	0.46^ns	0.49 ^ns	0.58 ^ns	0.53^ns	1.06 ^ns
CV (%)	-	9.87	7.06	14.61	26.23	30.88

Sources of variation	DF	GI	NI	RR	PM
Blocks (Cropping years)	6	1.14 ^ns	1.14^ns	1.70 ^ns	1.70^ns
Cropping years (Y)	1	12.37 ^**	12.37^**	13.53 ^**	11.15^ns
Amounts of M. aegyptia biomass (Q)	3	15.85^**	50.69^**	137.44^**	133.74^**
Spatial arrangements (A)	2	1.46^ns	0.95 ^ns	1.39^ns	0.71^ns
Y x Q	3	0.67^ns	0.67^ns	0.44^ns	0.98^ns
Y x A	2	0.39^ns	0.39^ns	0.42^ns	0.42^ns
Q x A	6	0.70^ns	0.63^ns	0.87^ns	0.41^ns
Y x Q x A	6	1.21^ns	1.21^ns	1.76^ns	1.56^ns
CV (%)	-	9.56	21.21	8.53	12.32

Cropping years	GI (US$ ha^-1)	NI (US$ ha^-1)	RR	PM (%)
1	14,159.74b	6,108.83b	1.81b	42.32b ^†
2	15,166.49a	7,115.84a	1.93a	46.03a
-------------------------------------------------------------------------Spatial arrangements-------------------------------------------------------------------
2:2	15,007.01a	6,887.79a	1.90a	44.62a
3:3	14,525.97a	6,438.18a	1.84a	43.24a
4:4	14,456.62a	6,510.91a	1.88a	44.67a