Paper · 1998 · The Journal of Agricultural Science

Productivity and economic viability of a palmarosa–pigeonpea intercropping system in the subtropical climate of north India

A. SINGH; M. SINGH; K. SINGH

10
claims
12
verbatim quotes
13
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The poor viability of the perennial aromatic grass, palmarosa ( Cymbopogon martinii Stapf. var. motia), in the first year of planting, restricts its popularity among farmers in India. Two pigeonpea cultivars, Bahar (late maturing), and UPAS–120 (early maturing) were intercropped at different row spacings with palmarosa at a row spacing of 60 cm, in the subtropical climate of Lucknow, north India in 1988/89 and 1989/90. Intercropping with the late maturing cv. Bahar at 300 cm row spacing produced 1·26 t/ha grain (2-year mean) without affecting the growth and yield of the palmarosa. Intercropping improved land-use efficiency by 47%, relative net return by 58% and net economic return by Rs. 12500/ha over a sole palmarosa crop. The grain, stalk and total dry matter yield per plant of pigeonpea was considerably improved when grown at the wider row spacing in the intercropped system than when grown as a sole crop. This indicates that the competition between pigeonpea plants was not reduced when palmarosa was present. Palmarosa tiller production and herb and oil yield were significantly reduced when the distance between rows of pigeonpea was narrowed, demonstrating both the greater susceptibility of palmarosa to lack of light, and also that in palmarosa–pigeonpea intercropping systems, competition exists mainly for light rather than for nutrients and moisture, possibly because the two crop components acquire their nutrients and moisture from different soil layers. Intercropping with the high yielding, late maturing pigeonpea cultivar, Bahar, at 300 cm row distance is recommended to make palmarosa cultivation economically viable in the first year of planting. The selection of high yielding, late maturing pigeonpea cultivars with an upright growth habit is suggested as a further way of improving the economic benefits of a palmarosa–pigeonpea intercropping system.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 10

Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping with the late maturing pigeonpea cultivar Bahar at 300 cm row spacing produced 1·26 t/ha grain without affecting palmarosa growth and yield.

Taxon
pigeonpeaCajanus cajane6
Material
Bahare0
Treatment
Intercropping with the late maturing cv. Bahar at 300 cm row spacinge0
Outcome
graine0
Value
1·26 t/hae0
Qualifier
without affecting the growth and yield of the palmarosae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Intercropping with the late maturing cv. Bahar at 300 cm row spacing produced 1·26 t/ha grain (2-year mean) without affecting the growth and yield of the palmarosa”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 423–586 · show in text ↑
e6

“The grain, stalk and total dry matter yield per plant of pigeonpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 734–800 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping improved land-use efficiency by 47% over a sole palmarosa crop.

Taxon
palmarosae5
Treatment
Intercroppinge5
Outcome
land-use efficiencye5
Direction
improvede5
Value
47%e5
Comparator
sole palmarosa crope5

Verbatim

e5

“Intercropping improved land-use efficiency by 47%, relative net return by 58% and net economic return by Rs. 12500/ha over a sole palmarosa crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 588–732 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping improved relative net return by 58% over a sole palmarosa crop.

Taxon
palmarosae5
Treatment
Intercroppinge5
Outcome
relative net returne5
Direction
improvede5
Value
58%e5
Comparator
sole palmarosa crope5

Verbatim

e5

“Intercropping improved land-use efficiency by 47%, relative net return by 58% and net economic return by Rs. 12500/ha over a sole palmarosa crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 588–732 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping improved net economic return by Rs. 12500/ha over a sole palmarosa crop.

Taxon
palmarosae5
Treatment
Intercroppinge5
Outcome
net economic returne5
Direction
improvede5
Value
Rs. 12500/hae5
Comparator
sole palmarosa crope5

Verbatim

e5

“Intercropping improved land-use efficiency by 47%, relative net return by 58% and net economic return by Rs. 12500/ha over a sole palmarosa crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 588–732 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Pigeonpea grain, stalk and total dry matter yield per plant were considerably improved at the wider row spacing in the intercropped system compared with a sole crop.

Taxon
pigeonpeaCajanus cajane6
Treatment
wider row spacing in the intercropped systeme6
Outcome
grain, stalk and total dry matter yield per plante6
Direction
considerably improvede6
Comparator
sole crope6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e6

“The grain, stalk and total dry matter yield per plant of pigeonpea was considerably improved when grown at the wider row spacing in the intercropped system than when grown as a sole crop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 734–920 · show in text ↑
Associationauthor interpretationoriginal resultno effectbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Competition between pigeonpea plants was not reduced when palmarosa was present.

Taxon
pigeonpeaCajanus cajane1
Treatment
palmarosa was presente1
Outcome
competition between pigeonpea plantse1
Direction
not reducede1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“This indicates that the competition between pigeonpea plants was not reduced when palmarosa was present”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 922–1025 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Palmarosa tiller production and herb and oil yield were significantly reduced when the pigeonpea row distance was narrowed.

Taxon
palmarosae7
Treatment
the distance between rows of pigeonpea was narrowede7
Outcome
tiller production and herb and oil yielde7
Direction
significantly reducede7

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e7

“Palmarosa tiller production and herb and oil yield were significantly reduced when the distance between rows of pigeonpea was narrowed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1027–1161 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Competition between palmarosa and pigeonpea exists mainly for light rather than for nutrients and moisture.

Taxon
palmarosae7
Outcome
competitione2
Qualifier
mainly for light rather than for nutrients and moisturee2

Verbatim

e7

“Palmarosa tiller production and herb and oil yield were significantly reduced when the distance between rows of pigeonpea was narrowed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1027–1161 · show in text ↑
e2

“competition exists mainly for light rather than for nutrients and moisture”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1300–1374 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping with the late maturing pigeonpea cultivar Bahar at 300 cm row distance is recommended to make palmarosa cultivation economically viable in the first year.

Taxon
palmarosae3
Material
Bahare3
Treatment
Intercropping with the high yielding, late maturing pigeonpea cultivar, Bahar, at 300 cm row distancee3
Outcome
economically viablee3

Verbatim

e3

“Intercropping with the high yielding, late maturing pigeonpea cultivar, Bahar, at 300 cm row distance is recommended to make palmarosa cultivation economically viable in the first year of planting”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1482–1678 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Selecting high yielding, late maturing pigeonpea cultivars with an upright growth habit is suggested to improve the economic benefits of the system.

Taxon
pigeonpeaCajanus cajane4
Treatment
selection of high yielding, late maturing pigeonpea cultivars with an upright growth habite4
Outcome
economic benefitse4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cajanus cajan
Cajanus cajan · TaxonFilo gèn' · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e4

“The selection of high yielding, late maturing pigeonpea cultivars with an upright growth habit is suggested as a further way of improving the economic benefits”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1680–1839 · show in text ↑

intercropping · yield · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)Results differ

117 papers: 94 positive, 23 negative or no effect

93 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. no effect

113 papers more in this group

See all 117 papers →

density · yield · Cajanus cajan (pigeon pea)Positive and negative results

52 papers: 49 positive, 3 negative or no effect

48 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

48 papers more in this group

See all 52 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.