CHAPTER - 2
REVIEW OF LITERATTIRE
B@@ of
beetr done oo
b€ing nett@cd crop verY liule
rcs.eb
wo sns
to havc
riccbed in Patistan and around Oe torld. However, an effon has becn
mrd. in rhis chaprcr to rcyiw rhc avait.bl€ scatcc literaorc on riceb€an and orhcr
releva gnh lcg'E qops.
cb$tdel
@tmis vdied fron
ndt (lyt8)
md Relwmi (1979 rcported ftar in ri@bean, pdein
14-24 perccnt ard
anim
acids nc6ionine
ad
tryprophd ve.e
consid€rably high. TIE secds also posessed high quality vnamis a.d rhianine. It was
also statcd that sccdr of ric.b.an
w.r.
r€sisbnr lo srore grain p6rs ard rhe s€ed viabitny
r@iDcd uftLn8€d for !\{o to thrce yea6 ad thc nutririvc valu€ of d€be& was also
cxceptionally hisl' (Mukhcrjee .r at.,
millaiIcd tlat
sced yicld
199). Funler, Cbsn€rj€e and Mukhe.jee
pore id of riccbcan vas L&2.6 r
ha
(rt9)
' ar comparcd ro yields
of 0.6-1.0 t hat of other lcguDcs. Again MuLherJ€. s, ar, (1980) ctaimed $r1 somc
cultivars of ricebean could p.oduc.
fongc during two
l@
33{2 q ha I dry he.bagc to
p€riod5 i.€., April-June
meet
sercity of green
afll Novenb.r-Decenbe. ard
Sreat yicld pormtials and unde. good nanagemed pBclices, ir
6utd
atso had
produc€ 30 q hai
se€d.
sd
S$t|gr
ed
DeDDttb (r96E) conparcd whcal rict.
ctotolatio iunc.a tor growd
aDd
b[lev, W s'
viSna unbellata
nurient uFak. ando"&"'{hat concentBLion ol
nitrogetr, phofphorus affl potassim in rool atrd thoot of vEna unbelLtta inct@sdJ
Pr€ms e,
ot
Nith
(1990) obscrvcd thlt in ric€b€an th€ pods/Plmt. pod lengh and
s€.ds/pod wer€ rhe chief contibulors ro
tcd yi.lds
Pcr plant
Rodrlsulz
ed Mend@
(1991) repon d |hat PrcxiErc composition of ddcd se.ds of ricebe3tr was; l6- 1? Percenr
c
proleils. 3-4 perc.nt fa6, 5-7 Frc.llt
qhohydrats, II'12 Pcrcc dpinic
dc fibre' 3'4 Percent arh and
acid ald
6l{5
P€'ce
l?'tE pcrcctt glutmic &id- AhDtd and
dEr
AsNq (199) oPined thal ric.bcan was thc non PromisinS lodder crop and @ncluded
h
a!
addrrion to providitg fodder, it also
'drl
reporLd
as a very
lblt s!.d
s.n6
rs ft.$h vegeltble atd
s€eds could b€
usel
lasctul dish cnuld b. pr.Per€d from the cook€d se€ds It was aho
dcv€lopmcot in riceben
conti
ed uplo 19 davs atur
a
ltesG and
germiMtion
physiologicd nnudty r€lched at 22 davs afier anth.sis wher sccd wcight'
porcei.ge .rd
s€ed
viSourla+hn'h lzrd. ct al.' 1993r.
M.mr md Nrh (r9q,)
cooductld field
on dceb€an' sovabea'
'xP€rinent!
dlat g'cen fodder
coryea, velvctD€an and black grun Srown in rice fallows ald reponed
yields
of6.56.4.57,7 98,3.7E
and 6
241h.r, r€spetivelv
were oblaiftd'
I. PLANTING PATTERN AND BOPULATION
DENSTTY
Nt aaL ., dr. 0960) strl.d r[|1 difiere rce
30.0, 37.5 alrd 45.0 cn bad very
lidc
spacings of
7.5, 15.0,22.5,
cffcct on thc heigbt of plmls, but the
nubcr of
bt@bcs, pod and gnin yield r|cr plaln w.rc itEresed with eide. spacog io ca$ of
chickp€a-
(r9r)
whilc Amra ,r aL
found rlar mwpcas
cm apan gave average seed yield of 1.06, l.18
ad
g.oM in rcws 20, 30
and 40
1.14 t har, resp€ctlvely.
Bharagarva ct or. (192) conclud€d that soyabean sown at Plant deNity
0.2. 0.4 and 0.6 million
pla
s per hcctare and at
row spacing 30, 45 and 60 cm, a
deNity of 0.6 DilioD plant! per h€cir|E aod a spacitrt of 45 cm beiwen the
rle N8h6r yield. R4ragopelor ., da (192) foud tnat
at 3pacinSr of 30
x
IO
@ &d
45
x l0 dn ard
broadcasl (@turol) plo6. Hoecvcr,
B
!veb& s€d
ad
12 cm
Plel
ros &vc
yields wqc
highcl
lore. at all olner spa.in8s ftar in
wllsor tnd TcrI. 0972) reported
grown with a platrt disbnc€ of 1.5, 3.6
of
witbh the rows
15
thar lentib wncn
or 30 cn aPan'
gave rhe hiSh€st yield a1 the close$ spacinS. Ituque G973) ot6eded lhal growing
muDgten plants ia 30 o.60 cn apart ro\{s produced statbticaUy the sde yield, while
phen spaced in 45
cn .pan rcws yiclded EDrc. But S€ft4r tnd Evals 0973)
rhat AckerDerlin a
cultive of vtaalara. whcn tom al60, lm, l'/|O, 180, 220 or 260
tg s!.d
per hetarc
wifi
the
tw
spacirgs
si8trifi@tly biShd at l5 cro t!:o at 30
of
m
15 cm
rePorted
o. 30 crn, the seed vields w.re
s?acing at
a[
s.€dins
6t6
Howcv.r,
Eussrh
rd
hiSher s€€d yi.t<ls
18 inch (45 cm)
t2'
094]
G|ll
t!!n
th€
nodcld tlat nungb€an groen ar .ow spacin8 of L5
fi
save
speing I n. or 2 fi. Simitady Rlndhawa (1974) rcPoned lhtt
int r-row sPeiDg yi€ld€d significantly more nutgbeaD seed vield than
(30 cm) and 24 inch (60 cm)
i
eFrovs lpacings- The row sP6cing did not alfect
significa ly sc€ding desity per uDit ar.i-
Sltr8h
rnd Bhsdwqi
ott
r.pon d ttst hishcr $cd vields (66h79
kglh.) of $nmcr wng werc obtain€d by sowing in rows 20 and 30 cn aPan'
Alen.r lnd Rodi$ez 0t6)
166
b
rows 0.5 atr(| 0.6
n
apan
plant€d cowp€as cultivars Aauca and 69F_
vith 5 or t0 cm betw€en Pls ! ald
yicld of 69 F-166 ranged fton 0 9?
lollB
Per hccBrc
obs€rvcn $ar lhe
* [0 6 o berwdn the rcwtlnd
l0 cd be.*ecn lhc plants lo t .24 rotrEs with 0.6 m betw€en the rows and 5 ch betwccn
rhc plant!. Whilc in cas€ of Arauca, yiclds vcrc 0.87{.92
tom's
Pet
lec|,rc'
Thc
ffixitnum yield was given by sPa.ing 0.6 m b€tween the rows and l0 cm betw€€n
planis. Mutherj€€
0970 @ealed
thal when sovlbean
wd gro{n
a1
the
60 crn apa't rows
pirh 30. 45 and 60 cD intfa row spacir85, thc tovabean grc*n at 30 cm int|.'{o$'
spacing yicld.d
sigtifi@tly noE t|i'n
Yrdrr t ||ld Jsy$aE
tha( 45
ad
60 cm btm-rcw
spacnSt
l
(l97O reponed that av.ragc s..d vields of mungb'rn in rows 30
yi'ld of
ard 45 cm apart v.re 642 tg and 550 kg pcr heclare' resp@tivetv The hiShet
695 kg
p.r hcctarc w4 Siven by @ltivar lawahar-4s with ?,50 000 plan$ per hed're m
10
(197) concluden lf)al the'e was no significant incr@s'
rows 30 cm aPan. Howcvcr, Jain
in
s
yicldofmurUbcan(t4te tddiora L.) wi$ iEr.asirt poFilationabove l20'000 Pla
D€r hcctlre @mpded
wift
The
r€sponscs upto 4 00,000 planls per h€ctare of sovabean
of photosvntba€s atul nltm8en
sced yi€ld of mungb€an was limitcd bv l.ss avaiLbilitv
siniLtly MrLy (197)
more
noticed $at 30 cm inreFrows spacing yield€d signiftcadlv
Rut
soyabean secd lhan 45 ald 60 cm inter-rows spacitrss
*nib coductitrg
and
l9+?5
exPcrimed on
ad
(198) rlso
?5
cn
oPitr€d
(tvD
repod.d
decr€ascd the seed
thlt
$tl
yi.ld of thrce
L.)grovn at l0 cm plant tpocing in row 22.5
ar
plrrt sp.cbt of 10,
0.98, 1.12,
l.l5
(l9E)
15. 20 or 25
sovabean
10 cm sPacins (50
culdvan
Subbaiab
of Arc' Enm \Wena
q[ ryrn &d
radiato
in rows 15 to 30 cm apan'
reponed d|at green granj. \wgna radiata L ) Ztowr
cn h mws 30 cn
aDd 0.91 tonnes per hccide,
olant€d French b€an (Prarzort
x
iilcr€asin8 tbe spacrng ber$''en rcws ftom
rhere \ras higher secd vields
Moreover. Subba$vrfu s, di.
al'(1977)
glam varielv Co'2 in 0|e we1 s'sson of !973_74
concludcd rhat the st€.t vield was hiShest at 20
DLnts/mr. similarly Rio
25 to 50
grd
Rdikrlshmr ,'
r vrlsatir L.)
at a
aPan Save average sed yiclds
r$P€rtively Sinilarlv tuias
pla
distance of 20 cm in rotrs
of
(1979)
3Gl0
plant (5 6
cm apan and indi€ted tlE! 20 cm rPan rows gavc the lowest seed vield Per
g) and lhe highest leed yield p€r hechr€ (2 64
tigh.$
(10.6 8) Mth a sPacing of l0o cm b{t se.d yicld Pcr hcctaE
lon). Drnr. !r 4r.
60 cm
lonnet Se'd vi€ld pe' Pla wd tre
i
(r99)
in a trial
onpla spacin!of10
*"
dF
lowe (l
15 and 20 cm and 30' 45
?5
ald
a
.Frcws in beqss (Prr$olu wl8@r L ) conclud'rl tlat towdg a! Phttr
ll
dkane of l0
othc.
cm and in
l0
cm
lprr
,ows Save signincdLly hiSher s.cd yield than rhe
spacio8s. fiinmn"r.nd Fsnda
(1979) ehi,le g.owhegr4n (Cicer adetin@
L.) with se€d rate6 30, 45 and 60 kg per hectare and keeping row spacing of20, 30 or
40 cm, obs€rvcd lbat s.cd yield
due to
u
incr€ase
imr.a&d vith ircrcasitr8 roe
in lo0Ggain w€idt ad nu$er of
ircr.ased, 1000-seed weieht ald seeds
Arir,
(19E0)
spacings and s.cd B(es
seeds per pod.
Ar roe spacc
pod ako incrcas.d due ro better light
Fr
pt.nt d Frenchbcan (Phat.ol6 wlSarb L.) .ttltilat'r?catisra
in 30 and 60 cm apa.t roes with either 5 or t0 cm between plmls or 15 to 20 cn
b€rween drills (4 s€ed
drill') ard
found ftat seed yield per plant wai
m
imm(12.5I
pl.nrr) ar the low6t dcBitt (10 cm of plmts in rows 60 cn ap.n) and dccre$€d wilh
incrcasing plrntitrS denJity. Sed yield pcr h@tare was rhe hiShest 2825 kg
pfrna
10
cn x 30 cm lpart. Sl||gh .,
sown on 15 Marcn, 5 or 15 April
tbcrc was no rignrficad
PS-7, PS-I6, Baisalhi
dr.
(1980) iD rials with fout
viga rudidta c'.tntua
sl3,33,0m b 500,0m phnts per het.are observed that
dificrcM
in s.cd yield among Plant dcmity from all cultivaFj
ad Aurtrlian
(I
l
.32-
38 tonncs
har). Taylor (1980) rePorlcd $al
th€rc was no sigrficant difi€rence itr yi€ld of soyab€4tr among 25, 50, 75
row widtls. Howcvcr, Dlsnts
lsf
ir J0, 75 ad
arca and scr rnorc pods than ll)ose
?dftn gran
\Ciet odeti@ L.)
ha'wirh
at
l0O
qn roes widths 8rcw talle., had larger
grcM io
25
cd rows. Ve€mnm
plot spacitg of 7.5, t0
1Z
ed lm cn
e,
zt
(19E0)
and 15 cm in rows 22.5 and
30 cm
:p|n urd ob6clcd itlt Alcirg of
30
x l0 cm
tonB pcr h.cb.. followcd by 30 x ?.5 cm (l.l I
$dn
cD
(Vigno
ndi.ta L., v.s sigtificirtly
rh|n1l5
r6ond
o.t
x
t'v.
tom€s
dE NShBr s..d yicld
of I .24
hr'r) Thc sced vield ol
gr€en
tn tlr whcn grovn .t 3 tPacing of 22.5 x l0
l0or30r{ocn(V.rl|t6wr|lu.r41,1980)
mury (1.'8ra rudjr& L.) wh.n trcwo
i!
But
thc s.mi add
h
Bqlpat.,a4 096r)
r.doN
of RrjhisBn in
Knarif sc.!o4 yieldcd morc
h
Ho$/.vcr, Bhd 0981) whilc
.Ydu.ti4 t!rcc cowFlr typ6 t mlv SPACING'|5I'
Chie
30 cm rpon rcws thrn
rows 20 or 40 cm apan.
r.d ed N.v Srovn al thrcc row 3pecin85 (3O, 40 |od 60 c'n). Co|Elud.d dEt
i.cd yicld of C l5l and Chindc .cd va! incrcas.d wilh itEre3s€ in ro* sprcirys bu did
oot diffcr signifiently. WLteas,
bcMccr.owr with thrc! pbnB
Hld.yd
Fr
(1981) fotnd
dl.| phnl 3P4ing of l:l0
hol. Oill) (450000 PIdt! p.r iccr.E) Ptoductd rbc
mrxinum yicld of 8m kg pcr h.ctarc of Bbrtd, a mong c1'lllivar' Hursc.
096l)
obo€rvcd that plaDt hcighl
lod poir i€[ing
w$
(1961) 8rc$ soyabcan
a
(rt8l) sEt
d th.t thc
!tr d..r
ttrorc (69 cm) with a d.ruc
t!. lowdl
qttiv.r,
k
&6i9'
dcnsitv (10 pbnt
, in 30,
,15
ard
/n)
,..d yicld of vtf]a
rd
Olrr
land (25 ptm6 mi,
whilc th. s.cd vich w's
in mungbcan.
K5h ,, tL
60 cm ap8n rows and concludcd
!.€d yicld vas sig!fieottv 8rt-!l.r rt Mrcw.r
planrlcigh
t
w'!
xinun 4E4 plor' tti!
maxinun (369 g plor') rl
cm
ft.ara lViSM
rd
How'vcr'
tllt
Sdr'ir
nliata L ) $T s nor siSnilicrndv
by growinS in ross 22 5, 30, 3?.5 or 45 cm apart bot thc nulbcr of bruDhcs
pcr pl.nt
l{!r. ti$€r
with wider row sPtcins. while Uddln O98r) lcPoncd
and
Fd!
tbat
s..d yicld of soyab€$ wr' orilnllm .t 30 cm row sprciry but numbcr of pods pcr
pLn and l0oGgBi! w.i8ht
was marimum wirb
/tgAD .mrn @hat@lB vulseit
70 or 95 cm apan with
th. optimum
bctweeo
5,
spacing for
th. rcws.
ie|%ed
10, 20 or 30 cm b€tweeD
tdimM
hill'
lO
i
@ apin.
l0 cm spaci4s. Lsvn (19831
(rgn ,Ms
pla
in January. He concluded lhal
b€tw€en Plants witb ?0 cm
bmm
aPan gav€ similai yi.lds to
Howevcr, R
E
s
l0 ch
sc.d yi.ld w.s
thal th€ yield of mungbean (l?8n4 mnbtu L.) ||^s
cn o. 40
wlE|%. Felnilrd€z
L.) culrivsr CA'Tui in 1980 in Cuba in rows 35, 45,
Sowitr8 two s€eds pcr hiu 20
sowing of singte sccd
sprcinS.
iput tnd Verma
higtg
G982) rcpodcd
^t30x10cmdanat20xl0
w (Vig"a rudiata L ) Bcrketr and Celera and
L.) cultivrs Kolobok Ma&ba a!
i
.rjow
sPacing of 25, 50, 75 or
and conclud€d that dry malter Production \tas incre3!€d wilh incrcasing Plant
s..rl yield ws deprcss.d $
Siobodlsnd
rhe
|0ocm
d€i.sily The
higt€r d.nsity fo. mct of the sowing due to lodging
Hrutr
(194) cultivat
d
syabean culrivr6 Zon' Allom and
Nomao using 45, 60 or 75 gemimble se€ds per m: and given 0, 60 and
120 kg
h.n. Thcy concluded thlt trmber of ptanls nn wa5 85.5 P€rcent of $e
seeds sovn
rh. lowest so*iry
I:t
sowing ra.es, resp€ctivcly. They
densiry white
sd
s€t
ad
atd 76.0
wa!
yicld i{ere DoGsignifisnt.
75.6 perc.nt for tbc
tut!€r
hidst
a1
.mediat atd lh.
reponed thar brarchhg
thc highcst
N.ttgrva
i
desitv
pe
(ca.iantlt
fi.t s..d
caiu L.\ cttti'var Kaki
l4
hiSher
va. increis€d in lower
characterislics werc
most affecEd by sP&ing b€tlr,een lhe Plants Seed weiSht ard vi8ou' were
v/id€r spacins, whcn pigeon
for
Wherea!' lhe differences in seed
G983) rePoi.d
e, aJ.
nitro8en
gr'tcr
at
was sown in etrlv
I.nuary at 5 to 20 cm alart with 50, l0O or 150 cm between the lows While in
@nuadictioD. Singh .r dL (1983) reponed that row spacinS did nol affccl the
ot pig€I,\ p@
lcajw
aiott L.) but thc handt irdex
*d
wd
yield
ircrcsld signifi@dv with
ole incrca!. in row spacings.
Clens 0984) @trdwted
an
€xp.tineat$lPht5.olu5 vut8a"' L ) cul$vars
ald Eport d lh.r yi.ld w4 Positively concLt d with nmbcr of sc€d P€r pod. Palb
aElysis of tansfofln€d dala shol'/ed that the contributior of trunber of se€ds Per plant
werc ?6.9
ad
?8.6 percent,
sPerivcly.
However, there wcE no posnive corelarion
of yield p€r plant witi pldt height, numb€r of clfective nodes lnd brarches with lbe
effective number of bramh€s. S€td yield pcr udt area was increas€d a! planting densny
was
i!cre:!.d with optinum Plant ddsity at 4+50
Platrts
o!turaioed ltal soyab€$ gro*a at widcr_ow spacirys produced
ma Escr .,4,. 0944)
nor.
pods .nd bnncbcs
per plant and more plant surviYal at nanlrity than nanow row spacing But Patel d, 4t'
(19E4) obsened
s.ed yield!
tlat (vkn4 /4d,lda L ) grown in rows
Od whd grom ir ros
while onducting
at
exPerimmr
o!
15 or 45 cm apart gave
30 cm aPan. similarlv
gr€.n
ob*ned ttat s€.d yield wd more with l0 x
grd
X.o
ud
fie lo{est
Rqian (19E4)
(vig@ todioh L ) oltivar Ps
30 cm spacing olatr
wilh
10
i
20' 15 x
16
15
or 15 x 20 cn spacinS. B€st economic r€sul$ were obtain€d in bour Rabi and Sumner
aJ. (1984) gr€w sovab'ao cultivar
s6on! with l0
x 30 crn slacing. Rqiput
,,
266 at inti? and
inrlr row slacing of lO,
15, 20
llamFon-
ad 30 45 aod 50 cm' r€tpetivelv $d
@ncluded 1hal incr€asitr8 the rcw or plant spacing incrcased lhc rumber of pods p€l planr
witl higtcsl mc{ Dmber of lm pcr
pls
in 20 cm plrit sgaci.g
ad
45 cm roe
spacing. They obtain€d tt€ nrximum nmber of s€€ls per plant (250) with 60 cm rcw
spacing
ard
15 cm
plad spacrng. The hiSh€sl
at 20 x 60 cm spaciDg, but looGgrain wcighr
l{eU a5 intra'rov spacings. Sirgh alrd
mu!8be3n
w n biglcr plmi
seed
yi.ld ol3E 8 per plant s"s obtained
wd mt
affecto\d significandy by intcr
riitlogo 09E4) repon.d
d.nsities in rows 20
@
that
lh.
apan and at low€r
seed yiclds
pla
ir row
2l)
cn
apan yicld.d nore than th.t ot rows 30
of
density in
rows 30 cm apan were statbtically sinilar. Tomar e, ar. (r9E4) concluded that 4
rar',ara L.) culrivm
a
m
(viara
apan.
Agrrclo (1989 grew nugb.an c1lllivar CESIDI at row spacing of 30, 50
ard 75 cm, *ilh
madnu
pla
secd yield
popobtion
(5ll kelri)
of 10, 20 dd 30 cm
at 30 cm row spacirss.
r.poned thn sowin8 (r8nd rudiata L.) ai 20
incrcased DW wn€n int€rcroryeA
50 or
lm m,
plants pe. m: 3nd obiained
Ilulya
@ eithin rov
\lith Cucwbla pepo L.
a1
aDd Oebke. (r9E
spaciog had sienaficandy
witnh row lpacing of 25,
wh.rca!. planl populadon did not aff.cr economc yiclds of Ue lwo
le8lllB. Klpus{(a rrd Wihor (l9Bt
soyabcatr cultivsr Wayn€
report
d llEt
increasing plant
de$iti$ of
ftom 30 to l0 cm inlcFplaDt distqnce incrcased appare
speific nitogeEs. acdvity, decr.rsed mdule mmber .nd eeight altered morpholoeJ
ald g.osth rate had no elfect on frui and seed production p€r plad. Slcm,
ad
ncight of
syabco cultil6
Pcllas,
William, Golden han6t
t6
lef,
w.i8hr
1285 .nd Srein 3G308
pla
were nEreascd sienific:ntly with incresing
pla]€d
deGfty. ftuDg
ed
(vigta ndiataL.) ar3 pladinS dctrsities r! soils i! which 'lO,
100 and 100 ks
N, PrOr and K:O pcr hectare, Ep<stivcly
hd tEn ircorponted Thre
in ech hole and lhiN€d later on !o on€
Pla . They
report d
deNity increas€d dry m.t er production per unit arc!, LAI,
per unir
d€,
t]{rt hrd
ndc efrer
of s€cd! per pod- Th€
increaiing
pla
oD
Y6hid.! 0985)
of
s€€ds w€re sown
th.t increatibS pl4tinS
8€ed
vield and Pod numler
aveBtc numb.r (8.2_8-6) or weight (0.39 o 0-4 8)
1000-s€€d w€ight (42.6
to 47.1) was also lest affect€d by
deffity. The loul Nmber ofpods/tnr atur two bdcsts were 805,915
ard 1035 io thc 8, 14 ard 26 plant/m'? reatnerts, rcsp€ctiv.ly with co.isPonditrg se.d
yields of 313, 369 and 411
39.2 g, r.s?€crivcly
i!
ca3€
gnt.
Pod nunber
ad
s€ed weiSht per plaot was 100.6 and
ofE plads/m':*h.r€as 37
ad
pbn6/mt
14.7 g in c.asc ol2E
DuDcu (r9EO reporM tlat teed yield continued to incrqse wilh incrcas€
b pbfi
density
o a definit! linn. rvbile Rror md Anqi,
/rdirra Nltivars in rows 20,
30 and,lO
cn
(19E6) @ltivated lhrce
apart and report.d
ftal sverage
seed yields
of 621, 6?4 and 499 kg ha I wec oblaincd. resPetively. cltltivar PS'16, Pus4
.!d
K-E5l 8.vc yields of 0.033, 0.55 and 0.28
and pods
beigh a$d dmbcr of bhrcne v.re sioilar in all othcr cultivsrs
coDclud€d that intra-rcw spacinS did not aff€.t yicld
t7
Baisthi
t h.-', rcspetively. PS-16 wrs
sigrifica ly superior !o other cuttivds in DM produdion
soyabaD Bing row width of 51, 102 arld 152 Eun
&84,
in
19E2
plant', whil. plant
W.nse
ad 5l
m
(1966) grcw
in
19E3. H€
signinca ly, but inter row sPacing
i
luenc€d distribution of yield on bnnches and increas€ in yield was associat€d with
incr€asc in pod nunber and iDcr€:s€ of
Pr.ee
S-8
lDd Sirou (r9En
lonl yield in upper mopy.
gc* tlAE
ald PS-? at l5 ad 30 pLnts/d ard corcluded &.t
Jai
rows of 30
co
m
pldrr,
it
crops
r
pod planr' and pod bmnchJ decreased in all culdvan
Dd Chruchor (198t) rcport€d that yields of
(v*ro zdiah L.)
on
apan we.e hiShe. than in rows 15, 22.7 or 37 cm apan. Seed protcin
rrybe?{lt (Vi8M
8om
Bsir*ni, S'9,
all oltivars wler.2s vield
ents of crcps in {,idet tows wcrc hiShcr ll|an in nanow
trstt,J 4
Pu-ra
tI. yieldh. atrd nmber of s€€ds
podr on bramhs iNr€ased wirh incr..siDg Plant dcnsty
planrr, nmb€r of flowers
olivs
mdirra
tuliata L.) cultivars
at 4
rows Jal! el ar. (r9AE)
differcol row sPacirys atd stated $at
in rows 30 cn apan Save yield of 1.86 r
!!r
conparcd with
1
50 !o
| ?0
I h.-r itr crops groeB in rows 15, 22.5 or 30 cm apan. Incr€$€ in spacing from 15 lo
22-5, 30 and 37.5 €m incr€i!€d |he prot€in conteds from 17.6 ro 20 3,21 8
p€rcent, respectively. Srl Babu
rnd Carg (1988) grcw NnCbeM lvigna rudiota
cultivan K-85 I and P6a BaisaLhi at
of
15. 30. 45
247 .5
ro
l!f..l
anl60 cB
Elm'1
afi
atl22
a plant spacing
and rcponed that
of
s..d vi€ld
10 cm
sd
and pod
3
L)
be!*eeo row spacitrSs
nwb€r d€'rcascd iiom
!214 2 !o 609.3 p.r mi ald Nmber Per pod incre!€d fton E 37
!o 9.83 with increas. in ros/
sF.ing Yrdrr.nd Warst
groM at spacing of 5, r0 or
15
cn
(1988) @Nlud€d dBt crops
in rows 30 cm apan Save sinilar vields'
l8
Ydra
d Gupb (19E9) tesred the performance ot 3 grain legumes in
rclatiotr to sowiry metnods atrd rcponed tllar g.een
srafl (Vi8na radiata L.)
.ri
clustefie n (L>anopit tetmgon"rora) groqn in rows 22.5 cm apart and norhbe3n
lviSna aconitifolia)
b
rcws
fi
cm apart gave fte nigheet yields of L11, 2.1? and 2.1I
Prrsrd and Yrdlv 090) o6t
fld n
8t1M al difiercd row sFcinss of 30, 22.5 ald
t haJ, of s€ed
spocing of
5,
yi.ld rqpcctivcly. SbS
10
or
rd
15
yigna mdialo
a$ tiSM M8o
cm apan gav€ 0.E4,
090) gw Dungb€e
15 cm in rows 20, 30, 40 or 50 cm apan
ad
Ll3
and 0.93
culdvars at a planr
concluded
tnr
seed
yields we.e sinilar in ro\r$ 20 or 30 cm apart but highcr tlan,lO or 50 cm apan row!.
Pldt speing of5 and l0 cn tave similar yields bll yields
were higher lban 15 cm plant
rial
spacing. Slngb aDd Sirgh 0990) reporred that io a ned
munS Cv.
PN
Baisaldi,
Type-I, ML26n08 and UMP 79-1-2 were sosn at populatioB of 400,000, 5,00,000 or
600,000 plmls har. Seed yield was highst in Cv. UMP 79-l-2
in Cv. Typc-l (1.06 t har) plant population did mr
Cbouhr ., rr.
r.42, r.o,2.o1
lld
rerpc.tively. Kler .,
by sowiry al s€ed
1.56
(l9l)
and towesr
se€d yield.
obsrvcd ott !ietdt ot (vbM ndiata L.) avensei
t/ta at inrer rop sp.cing of 15, 22.5,30 ard 37.5
d. 09r)
nl6
afier
O.2l r har)
@Dducred an
of 15, 20 ard 25
E
e4crirne
n!-r in
l9
u
on mungbertrolriv&
cm
ML,13l
E.w o. N-S dir@rion in roes 30
x
15 cm apan or bidirectional (E.W x N.S) rows rvith 30 x 30
July
(6lml)
Eno*
spacins
,!reard
10
swi.g dat
(l9l)
o. 25 July-4 Ausu$
$v.
Gir.) .nd coeluded
cn
apart spacing on 29
thar bidir@rioml sowing
highcr s.ed yi.kls. How.ve., 20 ks s.ed har lnd nol@t
gavc hich sc.d yicld tnan 15 or 25 kg har lare
tEw DuSben (yia& ndiata L.) Cy. PS 16 ar
.ither brcadcast or at 20, 25
ad
30 cm
incrrow
e*'r8
16, 24
lld
dare. Slogh
.r
32 k8 seeds
spaciDg. S.€d yield war 0_32, 0.48
4L
b.,.
ed
0.55 t har with 16, 24 and 32 ks h!-' swinS etes, rcsp€criv€ly, while yield was hjgher
in 25 and 30 cm rows thm iD 20 cm rcws
Ihi,aDgeD
30
cn apan aid
DvarSrn
ea
zL
,t
a
broadc.lr sl1n(ts.
(199) Srew arc.\ s^m (vigna rudiata L.) in fows 20 or
dJ.
obse.ved dBl le€d yi€ld was the higbest with 20 cm row spaciDg.
(1992) erew
gren girm (yAM ndiata L.) C\. pus aaishrti
ob6edcd high€r N ard P concennarioN in se€d and sraw when Srown a1a 30
thatr 20 x
imr€asing
l0
cm spacinS. Uprate of N
ad
P
ad prci.in
and
x l0 cn
yield of rhe crop increased wirh
plafi speings. MlDbar 0992) gr€w nunSb€.o in 6 sowitrg
parrerns wilh
unilorm plant density of 320,000 plan6 har. He .eported th.t plant grcwth ald yierd
va.ied
wir[ sowing irr€gul& !o 5.3 r ba'r wilh sowirS in
Poolp€kd
ad
square pattern.
Patrrsdilok (1993) compared planr densities (200,000,
:l&,000 and 800,000 plants ha') of mungbean sd obseryed rhar yield increased wirh
increaiing plant d€Nity while pod nmb€r planr' de.reased wirh ircr€bing densily.
20
Prrsad 0994) reponed har yield ot VigM unbeqab decrea!€d wilh
incr€asiq spacirSs (30, 45 or 60 x l0 cm) while alnory drogcn 616 (0{O kg N ha r).
40 kg nitrog€n produc€d highdt yi€lds in each y€!r. Slngh
.iebar
,r
had 0E highesr yield ( I .95 t bar) wben soen in 40 cm
aa.
(t9r4) reporred riat
roe sprcings and
15
cn
plant spacirys in the lait w€€k of June and Iertilizer war applied a1 the rale of 30 ks
dlrctctr,60 kg
pboGphoru
ad
tI!,. Borat
(1994) corcluded that 9
spacings of 30
x l0 cm and 4 x l0 cm.
40 kg pobsn
cultivars of ric4b€an gave similar seed yield
i!
2. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENI
Arera
a!.a.r
ud Luthn
were incr€rs€d
iri|[
Oyl2) r.port d
iDcrcaling
proain conte
rhar seed
nr.s of N rld
P-
Brlge
ea
s
of Ptar.otzr
d. (rt3)
ob$efled
dut with thc application of N, P and K in .rmbinalion of 0-30 and 60 ke N + 60 and
120 kg PzOr ald
M
kg
applicaion increased the
Kp
seed
h.n at ewin8, rhe r€suh *"$ posirive and
yicld of bean crops. Similarly
lhat .pplicafion ofnitrogen upto 50
tg
li@r
white p
Meharnu 0t4) rcpon
and PrOj upto l0O kg per
hetrre,
d
resp€crively
iftrcased ftc reed yield of nungbe!!.
Johnsoo ond Eyrn
yield of cow pea, war highcsl
ro very
a1
(199
obs.rv€d in rbe field nials durinS 1969,7t thar
67 kg N per hechf€, soil phosphons nnged
higt, fenilizer P bid no cfftcr on yield. Niklylee (199 concluded
2l
fron high
rhar
mirenl
fenililer ir.r€a$d sc.d yi€ld ad pmrein conr.nr from
l
4 to 2.0 timcs in
6e
ofpulses.
He turtber rcported thar ninog€n had Oe gre!.st eftect otr conpositioD of g.ain
panicularly prorein contcnl.
Dlshtp
in singl.
yes
98 kg P per
,, oL (1t76)
du.io8 192-74
gr€w soyab€an, pcas and beans at rtu@ or four sires
,!d
Save all
conbinlios
of 0, 28 or 56 kg N. O, 49 o.
h.chre. Fcnilias h.d lidle etf€ct on yiclds. Avcrage s.€d yield
sites nnged from 1.74-3.m t
hr-Ifor syabee, 2.94 io 3.25 r hal for
p€as
ar
different
ed l.?44.40
toooesforb€ais.Fertilizcrnearnc,howdcr,badnon-signirt€ntefielonse€dpnein
co
enB.
Agnwd
e, aL
(l9O foud
0.7 t ha' wilh application of25
Ratli
!!d Siqh
pnosphorus
fiat sed yield of mungbean was increased fron
k8 P,Or ta-'
o 0.q)
o
€s witn 50 kg P,Oj p€r hecrare.
O97O @mluded rhar appticarion of virioos rai.s of nilrogetr ald
in rea$d
sced yield oJ
g|u.
Nmd€€ lDd Ch8tgi
(l9O
appli.:tion of 20 k8 N + @ t8 P1q per belarc ro btack Snrn producld
s€€d!, wher€as s.€d yicl.l of
co rol rcffiiDed
Rrra alrd Chrnd (197)
seeds and giv€n 20 kg
se.d yields
l
foutrd rhat lhe
l
64
ro||B of
19 ronner p€r heclare.
obs€rved tl|ar soyabeu groen fmm inoculared
P,O, N per hectarc witn 40, E0 or 120 kg per hecrare gave aveng.
of 1.51, 2.03 ad l.8l lom€s pcr brcra$, Bpcctively comparql virh
tormr without P.
heLrc gav.
Rrma*irhlrftI
ar.
(l9D
1.0?
sbred thar application of 60 kg P,Or pet
siSnificantly itror€ yicld of grcen gr.m. They tunher notcd rbar oprimun
2?
econonicrat€ofP,qwar48kghar.panwerrat (t9D
k8
P,q hal ro vi8'a naryo .tn Nr?,l
ier.sed
s.cd yield by 153 kg
that
apptied G30 ks N and G60
oprimM N nr.
b.r. Morcover, rb. opriou
ru
PrO,
l5 ka
n& *as
han which
46.3 ks
hlr
wnich incrcas€d yiel& by 298 kg ha'.
Ac.ording ro
Cl'rdet r! ar. (197t)
20 kg nitrogen
ad
40 kg phosphorus
p€r hedrr! weE rcquired to pmduc€ good secd yields of nc€bsn. S€iem (197E),
how.ver, reported out pigmr p.3, @w pcd, cbick pea, yi8r, /a/iiata, lenril broadbean,
peas
aid
ViSno t unSo rcspoDded to 50 ard 75 kg
Prq
per hecbrc in medium and tow
fenility soil, rerp€ctively. men FYM and P was applied to pigeon pcr, yietds wcrc
imreased
ald also in
applicalion of 25-50 kg
foUowing crop6, small yield irErealer werc ob.ained wirh
&O
p€r hecraE.
Wher6, Gowrh lrd Go{dr
(197E) srated (har
spplicatior of 30 tg N ald 60 kAPzO5 pet l]f,ctarc ro Vignt .aniarc Savc rhe highest s€ed
yield of l-2? t
tar. Tlley
also repon€d Oat nunb€r of pod! pcr plant and seeds per pod
werc incrcalcd with N ald P applications.
Cl'rdd ,r d. (r98) ed Relerri
minl3ired tlEl ir ric€ber pmt in @
vdied ftom 14-24 percert and alriDo acids
€trrs
0979)
nethionine and lyplophan were .rsiderably high. The seeds also posessed hiSh qualiry
Bah
lg N +
60 kg P?O,
(rqt9) appiicd (a) no fenilizcr (b) 60 k8 Pror
+
120 kg
&O ald
(d) 90 k8 N
2l
+
+
90 k8 P:Or
120 ks
+
Kp
(c) 60
lEo kg KiO per
hecrar. ro pas aDd
eyab.e
crolE
ft@ inocllal'd
s.€ds ai
variM pla deNilics. Wnh
increasing fenilizer ra& rhe DM yield increased from 4.32-5.12 to ?.11-7.73 r
ba' in
Fa5 a|d Aon 4.2q5,16 to 6.26?.02 r tar in soyabcan. Applic:doD at (c) 8ave hiSlest
seed yield
of 4.14.37 t h.r in pcz6 ard 1.75-2.01 t ha' in soyabean, @mparcd wilh
resp€ctive yi€ld
of 2.57-2.81
Ml€dly ircr..lcd
^rA
1.2-1.42
toB without f€rtilizer. Applied feniluet
crude protein @rt€ms
Murilerj€e dl al 099) n Nidrin d that
ir tll. DM ad
se€ds of ricebean wcrc resistant to store grain
s€d viabihy remain€d unchanSed for two lo Oree years md thc nudtive
pesB and the
valuc of ric4b.:n was also exc€plionaly bieh. Ali
P 10 letuil crop and concluded
yicld-
crude prcrein yields-
Stlhidul|h.rrr.
(199) applied various dNs or N ad
drd 30 k8 N aDd 120 kg P:Or per hectare improved the
(1979 applied 40lbs dtrcgeD + 0, 30, 40 or 50 lbs P,O5 per
acre lo soyab€{n and obs.rved imrealed
plad heiShr wi0' 40 lb P,O, p.r erc lnd Lhlt
oi co rol. Number of pod! per plad were also maxinun witb 40 lbs PrO, per acr..
Hoecv.r,
the
niShd s.d procin co enls of 37.57 ps.ent eere ob.aircd with 50 lbs
P,q pcr &re. Chatt€rlee ,nd Mutherje€
ricebcao was
l
(1979) rcported thar seed yield potental
of
E-2.6 r h. ' as compar€d 10 yields of 0.61 .0 t nar of other l.tumcs.
Hrmfssa (1980) oba€rv€d tnat lJa'r yietd ot ml.lngtaall. (vigna rcdiota L.)
%
imlBcd 9.+10.5 Frc€ by tb! rppli€.tion of l8 kg N pd
conp.red with m
fertilia
h@larc
or mo.e
and 9.8 and 15.7 percent with 3E and 72 k8 P1q per hecare,
rqp.crively. Mukh€rje€ n4L (19E0) reported that
u
sorne cultivare of ri@bean prcduced
33-62 q
nd
net srcity
dry terboge to
of 8.een foEge duting two lcan pcriods i c
April-Juae rnd Nov.rnber-Decenber. Ri&bc.n h.d g@r yield potentials and urde. Sood
mMg.nent pncri@s ir
A..ording to Uddtn O98r)
l5
d
plot wirh m feftilizlr lo
noted lhat
hidcr
mles gave
pod yield pcr plmt and
hr'
could prod@. 30 q
s€€d yi€ld
2- 19
s€ed.
of soyabeatr
kg eith
l0 +
20
wd
tg Fr
increased
h
weight wcre also inc.eased by NP fenilizers. Similarly,
nutrgbean.
Tle
Nmb.r of bnncbes per plant. He tuil€r
of s..ds pcr pod,
lregain
.66 kg per
Plant hciSht braDchs,
Yash (198r) naintained tlat combin€d applicrtion of 25 ks N + 50 kg
gave highcr sccd yield
I
b@tarc of NP. He tunher
m turtc. yield r..ponsc. MoEv.r,
1ms€.d
lron
P1OJ
incr€ase in seed yield was due
p.r hectare
lo increase in
stated thrt number ot pod! p€r plant, nunber
*€i8ht wcrc nEreased vith the applic.tion of N and
S.lon rnd Nah
(1982) ako noled significandy
imre.!.d
P-
se€d yield
in
munSbcrn with the application of 30'60 kg PrOJ per hec|arc. Whereas. Samiullah ,r at.
(1982) rcpon d dDt application of 20 kg N
ad
60 kg PlOr
onbiiation sas the optinum dose for most of yield
nungDe3n.
wrile, ShaDblr .t
sigdfiddy
imre3led
oub.r
rt
of
!€r h€ctarc
charact€ristics
(19E2) sLlcd ttlal aPPliction of
brdh.s p.r Pla
s€ed weighl in mungb€an.
25
separatelv or
m kg P'ol
ir
of s'llmer
Per hectare
r
, numte. of pods Plant and 1000'
., d.
Ro6ol€m
G9a3) applicd 39 kg
N+
60 kg
P,q lo murgbein
obsened that seed yield ircr.ased to 1 .94 bnnes per i@tare, compared with
i! udEtcd
plots. Tbj! yicld
irctts
wa
due !o
iEl€c
witi
60 kg
54 tontes
in number of Pods Per
Wbile KoteDIo 09&l) cnrcluded thal sc€d yictds of soyab.sr iNreas€d
2.02 tomcs p€l h€ctare
t
and
plet.
fron l-49
to
N + 60 kg Pp5 per h€.l3re. NP was mosl eflective
fenilizcr follo*€d by N alonc.
Tom€I
wrc incrc.srd
et
to Daiimum with appliqtion of 20
tunhcr incr.a!. in N
significant
al. (1984) reported th.1 sced yield of four v€ra nm8o cultivars
incrde
ad
tg N +
50 kg P,Or Per h€.tarc while
P proved irEffcctive However, Prtel s, dr' 0984) found
in munSbenn yield wilh 20 kg N and ulo kg
PA
pef h€ctare. Thev
tuiDe. sbr.d ttat im|%iry PhosPhorus rat6 showed ao iFrc.lc in numbcr of pods Pe.
plur and
1000-se€d weighl.
Simil&ly, Kushlrsha aDd Bhandouria (1964) reponed rhar
sced yicld and loocseed wci9hr
.pplied P
hk
WEna
ntnSo werc itlfrc.red by increasing rates of
Am G@ 18 Fr hetarc. Toner ., rJ.
G9BO obaerycd fiat fenilizeB werc
+
:lO kg P?O,
of 1281.25 k8
Per beclarc
y profitable for mun8, whcrc the oPtimum €.onoDic ratc was 20 ks N
p.r trect.Ic. Ayyorb
was
ot
(l9E
rcPort€d
tltlt hiShat
s€€d vield
l@r(ted in Dlots f.nilizcd with 25-50 kg NP per halar€ at agailst 691.66 k8 in
conuo!
h
mungb€an. Bul
application of 25 kg
Ch.foor (198t
N + lm
trot€d dle daritnum proleiD contents ll/ith rhe
kg P,Or in munSbe!
26
Abnad 0980 clrihcd $at N alone or in combination with P and K
incr€ased the leaf area per plant, nunber of pods
soyab.an but the etrec1 of
Raytl
ed
fenili4r
p.r planr a 1000{eed weight of
on rh€ protein content of se€d was ron siSnificant.
Yadrv 09EO repornd thar sced yiclds of viSra nun8, \rcre incrssed by
incr.asirg N nLs fiomG2o.rd 40 kg h.r. Wltile
plant height, dry matcr poduction, weiShr
of lm
c!.siri..rd
Meira
se€d, pods per
6) srat€d rhar
pldr ircrcasld
incrcas in phcphorus appli!^atiotr in soyab.an but had no effet on
M€lh! ., al. 0987)
(1
found 0Bl applirlrion of 25 kg
Mber
p,q
duc
lo
of s.€dr per
p€. hcclarc ro
mugb@r irEr€aled d|€ yield by 24.l perc€nl, bu tunler ircre.sc uplo 50kg p,O,
had
non-sigrificafl eff@t. They tunler sbted dEt sed p.or.in content ircrssed with applied
P. N.Ddel
.t.1.
(198?) ob!€ryed in triats with four Brain tegumes given 0-90 kg
pp,
har ttat dry nrAtter accumularion and se€d yield were hilnest in Cajan6 cajan
urdbeatr with 60 ke P?Or har and in mungbean and soyabear wnh 90 kg
Sarbr rnd &bmth
Mb.llab aN
Crotolatia
G9B8) colnpaEd wh.ar,
jMea for
P:q.
ice, tattey, p. s,
growrh and nutrienr uprakc
afi
viSna
ald reponed
rhar
coretrmdoD ofoiEogen. phcphorus and potassiM in r@r andst\mtot VigM ukbe ato
iftrssed veigli
age lt|an
kgPprto viw ndiata
ol}cB. Arye and l(,lra (r98E) foud that applicrlion of 25,75
ircrca$d rhe sced yicld and proreir conrenls and P uplake.
27
Ito*ever, Par€l
,l
4t. (1988) poinled out $ar applic{rion of 20 kg PlOr ha' increased
Srowth and 100csced wcignr in
sumer gran.
Whereas,
Si.wtr
(l9EE) concluded thar
diftereDr yield componen$ of munSbeln like number of pods per plant, number of se€ds
per pod and loocse.d weight,
fenilier
at the
w.e
signilt@ntly aflectal by
$e
application of NPK
Br. of 3G9G30 t8 haj.
Gupt! (19E9 rppli.d l0 kg N, l() kg P ard 20 kg K har in differcnt
@DbiradoN with or withoui se.d inoculation
M8o
sigdircrn cffect
on se.d yield
EIes. Howcver,
Juwrl ., ar. (1989) reponed
viSno nunSo incrcase{l
of Vigna
LAI, LAD,
*ith
Rhizobim and obse.ved non-
following
Vrtzic
grown with nigh NPK
tlnt applicadon of 60 kg P:OJ har
nodulatiotr md sced protein corrents. Mshmood
G989) found tlut mungbean s€€d yield increased wilh the applietion of 75
ha ' at sandy loarn soil. The fedilizer also incrcased the
per plan and other yield contributinS compondBgreen grarn yield increa$d
ro
pla
+
75 kg PK
heigh! nunber of branches
wltile Meem ,t al. (1989) foutrd that
who it lras soM aier
haryesting sole croppcd potatoes or
wheal giv€n 0 and 17.5 kg PrO5 nar. Th€y tunher concluded rhar respose lo P was
highcr wbcn applied with N.
ho!
podi wer€ tle cti€f
., dr. (190) ob$n.d rlar
c.
ribuics lo
'ted
ine.stigated lhe €ffect of NPK on two
1he
yields p€r
pods planrI, pod lenglh and secds
pla
of ri@bean. HuilaiD
differe cuitivas of munSbsn
28
(1990)
and found rhat
yield paraneteis lire number of pods per planl, number of seeds per pod, 1000 seed
weiSht and prot€in conlent! were signilicanrly affecred. Whereas, GhalTsr (1990)
rcvcded thlt rppliqtion of25 k8 N
of
+
75 kg
mungbean. The various crop yield
P,q
mrimun yield
gave
(tE5E.9 kg ha r)
co ributing parameteB Mnely
brmchcs, plant heiSht, nunber of pods, .umber of seeds pod
werc inva.iably affelcd rignificadly with thc spplication of
'
and
lcnilizr,
sd
number of
weight plan.l
while lhe fenilizer
application did not affcd lhe bary€st inder ro a sigtrificant extent.
Toner
et ar.
(l9l)
coDducred a field
tial
1983 on soyabed by inocularing se€d and applying
effecl on yield but 40 kg P ha'
(l9l)
incMed
s€€d
in Kharifseason during 1982 and
N and reponed that there was no
yield in both years. Wberea
HrDld.rat
@rcludcd that appli@tior of r!6ogcn to muSben incr@ed ihe s€ed yield
dd
yield increaes werc associatcd widr increas€ in pod number per plaL md seed number
p€r pod rath€r
rudia1a,
sowing
VitM
ft.n in se€d weigit. Sarkr rrd Multrerj€€ (r99r) f€rtiliz€d
v/8ro
Mgo
ha I al
^tt
lfith ad *irhoul
ViEM uttb.llota
7.E5 kg
^t
tlg nE ot 26.2 or 52-4 kg PrOr
Prq a! 4 p€rcent
spmy ar flowe.in8 and obsed€d that
applied P?O, increased nunber and dry weight of nodules in all crcps- Mear s€€d yield
was 0.74, 0.&5
ald
r
.85 r ha I
Yield of all crops wrs
a1
sowing
plol.
+ 7.85 kg
n
incr*€d
v- tudiato, v-
Mgo aN
v. unbe ora, rcs.ettuet!
by applicd PrO, and was th. highBt
P,Or al flowering. In 8ereBl,
it
fton 26.2 k8
incr€ased number
.
P,O5
ol pods per
Rodriguez and Mendoa (1991) obreded 1b.1 proxilrBt€ coDlosnioD of dri€d
29
se.ds of riccbcatr wa6 16- 17 f'erccnl prcteins 3 4 perccnr fars, 5-7 percenr crude fibre 3-4
p.@
ah atn
61-65 pc!@t cirbohydrar6, as?snic acid I l-12 perc.nr ald gturamic
Rqjput.ral. 099)
@mtuded darNP
f.nilizirion
yi.ld over coturcl. A f.nilizer tr€.nnc 34-37 kg NP har grv.
k8 har. However,
D*rngan.,
cftcimy iarer.d wit!
Thtutu
+ pod lormarion
an im@sc in rle
incMed graitr
a grain yield of 802.50
ar. (199) fcnilized g.eetr grim ar mre
P,Oy'ba dong with iniSation at bnmhing
e
ro murS
of0,
srages. Seed
nr. of appligrioD.
Bur
30 or 60
tg
yi.td and warer
Rdrohw..Dd
(1992) ot6erved dljrl gretr 8r!m fertilizcd ar the rale of G60 kg P1O, pe.
[cctarc as SSP o. DAP gave highesr seed yield with 20 kg PrOr ard was uFff€.lcd by
P-!oue. While
KushrvabN
r[d
SiDgh (ltt92) poiored our illat Inungb€&
sd
yield
ircr.ased with applicanon of phosphorus @ 50 kg hai and wa! mt atre&d by applicalion
Zde .t aI. (l99}l te{f,ftn b^
upto 19 days afier sntb€sis ard physioloSiel
s€€d dcvclopnctu
na
i!
nccbein contift€d
rity war rech€d at 22 days after
.nbes's wtln s€ed w.ieht. germiEtioo FrccnaSc ard s€.d vigour war hi8h. Srltthu
(193) repon d Uut application of
essential 10
harst
phosphorus and porash alotrgwirh oitrogcn was
good yield ofmungbean. He tunher corcluded
baj od a srdy loan soil appcared to be rhc b€st lcvcl.
30
ttlr
25
+
75 kg PK
Sdhc..ha.d Khlr.t (r93)
concrudcd
tlnt 8MI4st
k8 ' s€€d. Srtutvrsa
ha
yi.ld
seed
ard
Xlirrk
olgna
Q993,
mbellata.arnr ftom application of
rryn& b^t viSna mbeuata
' witlout N-fertili4r ard I .60 t ha-' wilh
tavc lhc !i8h6l firanciel
r.$ru.
gMt6t sed yicld of vi8r,
RhiabiM bio-fertilte.
YtJ.y
25
tg N
4 g MO
prcduced L22 r
ha I al|d fourd tnat appti€d nilrogen
Kmrr .|rd Khrlrt
(1993) obsen€d th.r
@D.lrara affl number of nodules pcr platrr came ftom
per hec.are, althouglh benetir
mu
rano wa! higher wirh 2m gm
biofe.tilizlr. KhlD 0993) lourd that rl:ximm s.€d yi.td of nusbern ws obain d
with application of
lm
Abbas
kg
N+
O9l)
250 kg PrOr hai.
coochded
aloDgwith nitrogm was $s€trtial
dlir
of
application
phosplorus and porash
io h.rv$t a good yi€ld of nungb€an. The belt
combi.arioo .pp.$ed !o bc 25-7t75 k8
hr,. Qrsim ,, at (t994) slldid
rhe etrec1
of
diferent LSurn.s on soil prop.nies al.l reponed rllat leguncs like riceb€qn, soyabean,
murSb€a!, malh b€an incrcased soil organic na$er,
incre$ed
ir filtrnion
rate ard
soyab.an and ric.bean.
dccree
available phospnoru$,
dccre$d soil pH. Soil polalsim wd abo
decr€ased by
Arya and Singb (1991) rcporred that se€ yi€td of yi8,?,
|rrzreltrr, incrcased with i[crcasing phosphoru Er€s upio 40 k8 P,q
sources si!8le superpho$hrtc gave highest
Nle.o (195)
s..d yield 1.20
found tbrt rpplication ofP
ad
r
hr'
and amotr8
tal.
K ar the mte of75-50 tg
hr''
with the br$rldose of nitrogen at nte of 25 kg haj appsrcd ro be an approprialc dosc
3l
!0 obah maxirnum yield (861.722 kg hr1) of muDgbean. According to
md Effat (1995)
rhe applicadon of
panially acidulared purulia .ock phosphare (PRP) 30
F.celrt willl lilric &id ircre3!€d pbosphorus upi*c in
V|SM ,adiata .nn
wtp.t.nn lbo
lqbd (1999
Drspatlallyrk
tegus
tike vie@ u'nJiuab,
ircrqsed phosphorus conrcn$ in the soil.
repofted tbat 8ro*1h characcristics
of riceb.rn lite Dldl
heiglt, numb€r of brafthcs per plant incr.ased siSnificantly by the application of nirroSen
ard phocphorus oler conrrol. H. abo coo.lud€d Oat tteE was a
coDtenB
lir.ar ircc.se
witl dc! succ4sivc do!€ of nirrogd appli@rion. Tbe hig[6r
@ntcnis 21.E9
p€rce w.re
io
For.iD
crude
!.otcin
obraircd by rhe applicarion of 50-75 kg Npha.'.
3. TNTERCROPPINC SYSTEMS
It
is alEost universaly accepred lhar s€verat beietib are arrribul€d ro
suftable iDt!rcroppirg sucn
d
efhcieDt ard bencr urililarion
of
nurrieDr clemeDrs from
differenr soil d€pths, Mintenance and build up of roit fenilily and possibly highe. yi€lds
as
conpar.d ro momculruE.
Evans (1960) reported
towards higher yield
tlul in East Africa,
uder inr€rcmppiog. Ar
was substaDtially reduc.d, roral yicld eas
th€re was Sercrally a trend
some ptaces wherc yield of companion crop
8Er.r.
32
P.lt*
,, rr. OCto) st
ted
rlrt mixd
found !o be superior to single cropping in
yields cve. un lcr rdversc cliEat s
Ro,
.ld Srtrrt (190)
legumes c@ld be
rcpon d
ad
mai aining soil fertility and incre$ng crop
wirh rhc iNid.nr of p.srs and
oat gEtr gralD, blacl glfin, covFs
0t2)
tDt
if relativ.ly hider vrlE lcSMes adlptablc to
Andr€w
lnd K.Nrm G97t
bdigeloB Faditiodl famiry syst D in Inlia
tne economic renrru could be
rhe
r.poned
de
ftal
and in some pans
under inrerqopping are
i
ercroppiry inproved
orAsia by tully utilizing
the gmwirg s€ason, p.oducing two or morc crops of ri@, com ard
.rd
and other
recoftned.d irtercropping of maize witn legmes which
app€ar€d to be more profitable. They turth.r sdd
ye2r
dbe9s. Similarly
gro*fl successtuUy as atr intercrop in association with maize. Similarly
WiUey snd Oslru
more
cropping of leguncs wft[ mrize wa!
has ilcre2scd the yicld p€r unir of lard per unit
l.gues
in
r
singlc
of IiDe. B€nad (199
rcporr€d that usually all soyat'eatr is idercropp€d with coru in CeDtral Chirese province
of
Kirh. Six to cight row
strips of soyabcan arc plmted
F.d! ,, d. (tCtO
sorghun with co*!€a
ad
Productiv€ dlan monoculture,
bclwg nuch wider strips of
in a pElininary snldy or tn. int rcropping of com and
be3[s rcponid lbat the inlercroppirS rystem was more
Fnncis ,, ar.
(l9t)
obsend non-significam dilTereFes in maize yietds
b.Mc.n ioonoculdue aod associat d croppirS at bd6t dq$ities from 3 to 4
pe! h€ct
ft
r I d plads
in nials with difreretrt bee cultivars.
R{d
de
., aL (198)
indicaEd
th.l thc inteB€€ding of gren gram
aDd
soyb..n in the unifom ro*s of 90 cm apan naize, ircresed the productivity pcr unit
area. They tunh.r
between
r.!on d th.t . widcr ron
spacing
two maize rows to grow cospetable
comp.titioD. Sihilarly, Rroisoo (198) sMied
maizc
ad
@wp€a with
difre.e
lte
i
of 90 cm providcd rnor.
space
ercrop without offering mlrch
int€rcrcpping ard monoculn|re
l€v€ls of N and P.
It
*ai
found
th.ar
of
ftere was m
@np.litioD b€twceD lhe two crops for N and P. Maize grain yiclds wcr. 1.5 to 2.06 r
p.r hcctaE bigl€r but
thrn in
pw
co*Fa
ft@
yicld dercrs€
160 to
l2l
kg per nccare in
miJfift
stlnds. Howcver, mixlures of maiz€ and gmin legumes ou yielded the ncan
Abnad ., ar.
0y',
co.der.d a slri.s of €rFrime s in Pbilippifts,
Srilanla, Nigcria srd USA (Ha$,aii) on notrnulturt atrd
i
cr.roppiry of Daize with
munSb€an, sunflower, soyaban and @*?e1.
All tr€atmeots were treat€d wilh 0, 50 and
l@ kg N bai. Irley conclud€d that wh€th.r
i
ercroppcd or oot lbe yicld of g!?in crcp
u,as incres€d with increasing N rat s. Itr rearly all lhc
cas*, fterc wc.e Don*ignificanr
yicLl difrcrcm.s betwccn m:izc grl)m 6l@ o! itncrcrcpp.d, Howevcr,
34
Li@ .,
/r/.
(rt9)
bt€rcropp€d oaize with clinbing b€ans at differed deruitia and concluded ttat
alihougn mliz€
decM.d
b.an yiclds
i!
sonc t etrDcnr bur inrercropping incrcascd lolat
uit ag. Modllo (ryt9) s0dicd MiE
yicld pcr
rows spaced at 45 cm within each pair of rows
in 75
ed
@ spac.d uoifon
rcs,
poncd
150 cm between fte paired rows in
monocut rc and wilh $yabcnn id€rcrcppitrg wilt direrent plant populariotr of rhe b.s.
cmp urd.r various fertility leleir. Maize plrnr.d iD
incrscd
sysGn wilh bigh fcrtility level
L|lin lnd Carargal
Wlley
wirh single .ow planrir8
the erain yield as @mpared to
all
orher
(19E0) planred muns alone and intercropped jn maize
ude. Wlad colditioB. Tl|cy repon
uDder
norculturc
d rblt rh. crftivers of lnlln8
wtich
gave b.$cr yield
noroculorrc, yield.d b€der, also in inrercropping systcm of mung + Mizc. Whic
et
d.
(1983) iDdicatd that intercropping of
l€gune with nonlegumes
gave higher
yiclds tbar nonoculur€ by usirg covimM.nral resourcs morc tully and eff:cien y ovcr
time and space. However, dE
mi'.
Sb8h md Ch.lty
+
(f$a)
groundrur iDt.rcrcpping syslcm piov€d ro be rlE
repon d
lb.Nl
intercroppilg and doubte croppinS
systln3 of er€als and mill€tr witn pdse.s and oilseds cluld increa$
puhes and
oil
s€eds iD
dry land ar.rs of
irc@s.d grain yi.ld of haiz. by
ulal
as an
17 ro 22
ldia.
rhe
prcduction
of
Slngh ard Sirgh (1984) obrained an
pc@rr whd soyabcaa .rd btack g|m wdc
htlrcrops uder lami (hunid) condirion! of U
.r
P.edesh.
Xh!|r (r9AA fourd rlat germinariotr vas
i
ercroppirS system. He tunher rcponed Oar Ddzc
prcfitabte
u
ler irrigat d
codirio$ of P6have.
Khrrred!
ud
+
nor affected
ir mize +
soyab€an
soybean inrercropping was foutrd
+
Sa..it 098E) from rbe sMy on mize
soyb€an
inrercropping rcladonship conclud€d Oar altnouSh rhe yield of naize ard soyabcm in
nixturts was Elativcly low.r &atr thcir monoculture, yd torlt yield of rlF int rc.op
sysldn was signific.ndy }igher ihln nonocultur yiei.tr duriog borb fte ycsrs of ssrdy.
They nrftler report€d ttst grair wciglt of soyaben was feduced mor€ in aliem.t! rows
wilh ln!'ze, while rhar of Mize was dccres.d norc wteo plant€d b the sarne rowc with
Xhrlil
leodl, lirs€.d,
(1990)
Eportd tlEt
inrerc.opping
s8oor ard garlic dccre!€d
grain mDbcr, harv.st indcr
Bartk
,t
ad
rh€ ficah
grain yicld of
w[al
of whear wirh gram, m.6ra,
Da(er, le3f a@.
lef
ar€. inder,
over sole croppiry.
ar. 0991) r€pon€d thar maize and VigM unbeltata
givctr 40 kg ritrog.n ald 60 kg phoaphoru.s gave 2-3 rorn s morc foddcr yield
crop6 and CP
m!.nts w€rc tiSh.sr i! purc VbM
36
@nbettnta
qop
^t
^I
i
ercrcps
thd pur.
liiE.oA.n
^d