African Journal of
Agricultural Research

  • Abbreviation: Afr. J. Agric. Res.
  • Language: English
  • ISSN: 1991-637X
  • DOI: 10.5897/AJAR
  • Start Year: 2006
  • Published Articles: 6693

Review

In support of a well-planned intercropping systems in south eastern soils of Nigeria: A review

Nweke I. A.
  • Nweke I. A.
  • Department of Soil Science, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, Anambra State, Nigeria.
  • Google Scholar


  •  Received: 21 September 2017
  •  Accepted: 20 October 2017
  •  Published: 28 June 2018

 ABSTRACT

Soil is the medium for all crop production activities and many of the tropical soils especially soils of South Eastern Nigeria show nutrient deficiency problems after only a short period of cultivation because of the fragile nature and prevailing environmental condition. Land available for further crop production purposes in this area is very limited. To offset some of these problems and boast crop production and yields as well as economic returns, farmers use chemical fertilizers extensively on their field. These chemical fertilizers have their attendant problems ranging from non-availability, high cost, and nutrient imbalances to soil acidity. Consumers of agricultural products and farmers are getting more aware of the dangers caused by these chemicals in soil, environment, and health problems in consuming heavily chemically fertilized crops. An alternative to these chemicals is intercropping due to its environmentally friendly approach. Beside the labour management and adequate use of resources available, intercropping system promotes soil fertility maintenance, conservation and balanced nutrient which will improve crop quality and yield. It ensures farmers’ flexibility, reduction against crop failures, weed control and profit maximization. This paper reviews the various contributions of intercropping system to soil fertility enhancement, nutrient recycle, and transfers among intercrop species; its effect on growth and yield of crop species as well as enlightenment on the various terms used to describe the intercropping system.
 
Key words: Intercropping, nutrient recycle and transfer, sole cropping, soil nutrients.


 INTRODUCTION

Intercropping is a system of growing two or more crops in available piece of land and is as old as man in agricultural activities especially in tropical countries. Every peasant farmer in Nigeria practice intercropping in one form or another. They inter crop a lot of crops such as cowpea, groundnut, Bambara groundnut, melon, etc., with cassava, yam, maize, millet, sorghum, etc.

According to WGM (2003), there are a number of ways people do intercropping. In one form, crops are planted in alternating rows or strips, with the crops being kept separated, but still interacting as a result of proximity. In another, an intercrop or intercrops are planted between the rows after a main crop has started to mature. Intercrops  which  grow  quickly  can  also  be   grown   in several cycles while a primary crop matures. Intercropping can as well be done with crops which are totally intermixed rather than being separated. Intercropping is also known as under sowing system whereby a secondary crop or less desired crop is sown underneath the primary cash crops already established so that both will develop at the same time to cover the ground. The under sown species are always leguminous crops with the capacity of quick growing dense layer of vegetation underneath the cash crops and adds nutrients to maintain the fertility of the soil.  Another terminology for intercropping is poly culture practices which involve growing of two or more plant species on the same piece of land. Depending on the plant species and their arrangement by the farmer within the farm field available, poly culture practices can take different forms. Other forms of intercropping systems are mixed cropping, cultivation of two or more crops together without any district row arrangement. Relay cropping is a system of planting a second crop alongside already cultivated crops at a time when the cultivated crops is at its reproductive stage or has completed its development, but before harvesting. Alley-cropping is a system of growing arable crops in alley formed by trees or shrubs, multiple cropping is a traditional farming system of growing more than one crop on the same piece of land during one calendar year.

Intercropping system takes advantage of interdependent relationships between crops with the intercrops providing shade, cover, nutrients, a trellis to grow on, and other wholesome benefits. Some crops in the intercropping may even have insecticidal and pathogenicidal effect and keep pests from vulnerable crops and suppress weeds infestation. For soils intercropping hasten soil fertility restoration and enhance soil productivity for sustainable agricultural activities. With these attributes, intercrop promotes yield and healthy crops. Onwueme and Sinha (1991) stated that among other things farmers derive yield advantage and yield stability than growing each crop separately. Thus, intercrop system can guarantee crop yield stability and bring additional income to the farmers, thereby encourage the sustainability of farming community especially with most African farmers where poverty is prevalent.

Also, decline in soil fertility from continuous cultivation on a tropical soil of which many are highly weathered, low activity clays, nutrient deficiency and nutrient imbalances, and soil acidity, makes the practice of intercropping very attractive with the poor resource farmers especially with inherent cost and non-availability of fertilizers. This has rekindled the interest of farmers in the use of natural and local (within reach) nutrient resources to build and conserve soil fertility and biodiversity management of their farm fields to sustain crop production. Thus, this review intends to report the contributions of intercropping system  to  improve  soil  productivity,  crop  growth,  and yield in crop production activities.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF INTERCROPPING SYSTEM TO NUTRIENT COMPOSITION OF SOIL, NUTRIENT RECYCLE AND TRANSFER

Proper and adequate utilization of natural resources is the main item in practicing intercropping as the component crops are able to use natural resources to their ability differently and complementarily for the overall development of the two crops. Therefore, for success to be achieved, intercropping needs several considerations before and during cultivation. Intercropping systems according to Ibeawuchi and Ofoh (2003) limits soil losses and run-off and provides a nearly continuous cover thus preventing soil from the direct impact of the rains, and that it produces a dense and diversified root system which reduces leaching of nutrients. Gosh et al. (2006) in their study found that intercropping was beneficial for the soil microbial community of sorghum, addition of nitrogen by fixation and transferring to the cereals, and soil fertility improvement. Legume crops in intercropping system support the growth of cereal crops by improving the organic matter content and physical characteristics of the soil like structure and texture of the soil (Aslam and Mahmood, 2003). Legume-cereal inter cropping enhanced soil faunal activity resulting in more organic substrates accumulation in the soil;  it could improve the soil fertility status of a less fertile soil by fixing atmospheric nitrogen and the intercrop legume will not compete with cereal crop for nitrogen resources (Gosh et al., 2006; Adu-Gyamfi et al., 2007).

Dahmardeh et al. (2010) in Iran investigated the influence of maize-cowpea intercropping on soil chemical properties and found out that intercropping increased the amount of nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P), and potassium (K) content of the intercrop maize compared to the sole maize. According to Fatokum et al. (2000), cowpea can fix up to 88 kgN/ha and in an effective cowpea rhizobium symbiosis more than 150 kgN/ha of N is fixed which can supply 80 to 90% of plants total nitrogen requirements. Ibeawuchi and Ofoh (2003) found out that the combination of base-crops and legumes intercrop generally increased soil P, soil organic matter (SOM), and soil pH, while soil N and K were reduced. Okigbo and Lal (1979) reported that relatively simple intercropping system as maize/cassava can increase the cation exchange capacity (CEC) and pH as well as increase in manganese (Mn) content in the soil. Intercropping of cotton and cowpea was found by Rusinamhodzi et al. (2006) as wonderful opportunity to improve carbon (C) sequestration and N-use efficiency in the short-term compared with monoculture. Caballero et al. (1995) and Assefa and Ledin (2001) revealed that there was competition for resources such as nutrients in the rhizosphere and light in intercropping system. Vesterager et al. (2008) observed that maize and cowpea intercropping is beneficial in nitrogen poor soils.

In pearl millet-cowpea intercrops, Bathiono et al. (1996) and Van der Pol (1992) reported low soil pH, k, calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and CEC than the fallow system suggesting that the cropping system studied was mining the soil nutrients. Whereas Shave et al. (2012) in their studies with mucuna intercropped with maize showed positive impact on the chemical properties of soil, especially when it was introduced 6 weeks after planting (WAP) of maize and that clay, organic matter (OM), total N, P and CEC were improved by 8-14, 25-27, 43-50, 70-83, and 24-26%, respectively when compared with control, whereas sand and soil pH declined by 17-4 and 6-3%, respectively during the study. Nitrogen fixation by grain legumes in intercropping is importance as it contributes to a cereal to get higher yield and substantial amount of nitrogen in agricultural ecosystem (Cochran and Schlentner, 1995; Giller and Cadish, 1995; Izaurande et al., 1992; Giller et at., 1991; Herchel, 1987; Dakora and Keya, 1997). There was equally evidence of direct transfer of fixed N to cereal components in many controlled studies (Frey and Schuepp, 1993; Chu et al., 2004). Also, available report showed that mineralization of decomposing legumes in rhizosphere enhanced nitrogen availability of cereal crop in intercropping system (Evans et al., 200l; Dubach and Russelle, 1994; Scroth et al., 1995). When the configuration of the row are wider than the rate of N fixation activity by the legumes, Fujita et al. (1990) and Handerson and Alkins (2003) observe that the depletion of soil N by cereal stimulates legume crops to fix more N. Manna et al. (2001) observed that coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) intercropped with guava (Psidium guajava L.) enhanced the soil microbial activities approximately 2-fold after 38 years; over 10 years of the same intercropped system, soil organic carbon (OC) increased from 38 and 10 years, respectively. Also, the report of Gosh et al. (1989) revealed that OC content of the soil was improved when cassava were intercropped with tree crops Leucaena and Eucolyptus compared to the tree crops monoculture. Even surface run off and soil erosion were effectively reduced with the intercrop due to better canopy coverage of the soil surface. Handerson and Alkins (2003) found that legume-cereal intercropping increased the fixation of N by the legumes. Maize-Cowpea intercropping was observed by Vesterager et al. (2008) to be beneficial on N poor soils and that amount of N,P,K content of the was increased compared to the mono crop maize. Intercropping control soil erosion by preventing rain drops from hitting the bare soil where they tend to seal surface pores, prevent water from entering the soil, and increase surface erosion.

Intercropping benefits non-legumes in the mixture as legumes fix nitrogen in the soil (Portes, 1989; Areioglu et al., 2003). Intercropping when properly practiced maintain high soil fertility (Opeke, 2006). Maize-Soybean  intercrop helps in efficient utilization of renewable atmospheric N since they contribute to the maintenance of soil fertility as these had been shown to be usually increased in an intercropping system (Scott and Darl, 1987). Increase in the inclusion of herbaceous and wordy forage legumes in crop production systems, improves soil structure and texture and controls erosion and supplementary browse to develop sustainable and low-input production systems (Brewbaker et al., 2012; Sumberg, 2004; Kang and Duguma, 2005). This is because legumes are notable to have symbiotic N fixing bacteria in structure called root nodules and the symbiotic bacteria called rhizobia within the root nodules of legume root systems. These bacteria have exclusive ability of fixing N from atmospheric molecular N2 into ammonia (NH3) as follows:

Ammonia is then converted by oxidation-reduction to the forms NH4 + N and NO3 – N, respectively which are available and useable by plants. The first step of the reaction is that Ammonia is converted to Ammonium (NH4+) and then nitrate (NO3--) by the following reaction, thus:

The illustration shows the microbial transformation of N in the soil. Nitrogen in the form of ammonium ion (NH4+) may be taken up by plants or adsorbed on the exchange sites, while as the nitrates ion (NO3--) it may be taken by plants or leached through the soil profile. Other nutrients suffer similar fate in the soil and the reaction processes take place better in well aerated soils.

According to Wood (2006), when the legume plant dies in the field after harvesting all of its remaining nitrogen incorporated into amino acid inside the remaining plants parts and are released back into the soil, the amino are converted to nitrate (NO3) making the N available to other plants (in case a cereal crop in the intercrop), thereby serving as fertilizer for future crops in the soil. A number of studies have shown that forage and grain legume mixture increase the OM and N contents of the soil. Leguminous crops improved soil physical parameters such as texture, bulk density, moisture, and soil chemical properties and gave better protection against erosion (Nweke, 2016). The use of legumes intercropping system had been shown by Sharma and Churby (1991) to be advantageous especially in improving the N-economy of the soil by fixing atmospheric N. Total grain and plant N yield can often  be  increased  by  intercropping  legumes with non-legumes (Baker and Blamey, 1985), however, conflicting reports exist about whether a non-legume benefits from N supplied by an intercropping legume. In some instances, the N contribution of the intercropping legume to maize has been estimated to be up to 40 kg/ha (Willey, 1979), while other investigators did not find any evidence for such N benefits (Wahua and Muller, 1978). Maize-legume intercrop is wide spread. This production system has traditionally enabled farmers to cope with soil erosion and with declining levels of soil organic matter (SOM) and available N2 (Scott et al., 1987).

Filho (2000) observed that intercropped maize is more competitive than cowpea in terms of use of available resources mainly soil water. Innis (1997) opined that various root systems in the soil reduce water loss, increase water uptake, and increase transpiration leading to creation of microclimate cooler than surroundings. Soil water use efficiency was observed to be the highest under soybean-maize intercropping when compared with either of the mono cropping maize or soybean (Barhom, 2001). In water scarcity, Tsubo et al. (2005) observed that soybean-maize intercropping was the best combination system during water scarcity periods. Thus, availability of water is one of the most important factors determining productivity in legume/cereal cropping systems. According to Ofori and Stern (1987), cereals and legumes use water equally and competition for water may not be important in determining intercrop efficiency except under favourable conditions. Water use by intercrop is mostly been studied in terms of water use efficiency (WUE). The work of Willey (1979) has shown that an intercrop of two crop species such as legumes and cereals may use water more efficiently than a monoculture of either species through exploring a greater total soil volume for water especially if the component crops have different rooting pattern. The WUE in a maize/cowpea intercrop was found to be higher than in the sole crops when soil water was not limiting; however, under water limiting conditions, WUE in the intercrop compared to sole maize was higher resulting in retarded growth and reduced yield. Another possible advantage of intercropping is the efficient use of soil nutrients.  If both species have different rooting and uptake patterns, more efficient use of available nutrients may occur and higher total N-uptake in intercropping system compared to monoculture system have been reported by Dalal (1974), though Willey (1979) opined that it is unclear if better use of nutrient uptake is the course of the effect of higher yield potentials.

Solar radiation provides energy for photosynthesis which ultimately sets the potential for crop productivity and also determines water use by the process involved in evaporation and transpiration (Goudrian, 1982; Keating and Carberry, 1993). Photo synthetically active radiation which green plants utilize, according to Szeicz (1974) conservatively makes up about 50% of global short wave radiation compared  to  high  variable  that  occurs  in  the supply of water and nutrients to the plant, solar radiation is more reliable and used sufficiently by intercrops as they form a complete cover to allow full interception. Solar radiation cannot be stored for later use; it must be intercepted and utilized instantly to energize the photosynthesis process. Therefore, close plants compete for solar radiation by direct interception. Soybean and maize intercropping have been shown to have better use of solar radiation, soil nutrients, and water over the mono crop (Keating and Carberry, 1993; Willey, 1990; Morris and Garrity, 1993).

The difference between species, plant density, developmental pattern, plant height, canopy architecture, foliage overlap, and photosynthetic rate and in the assimilated reserves can cause great structural complexity in mixed-species canopies. Leaf area index (LAI) is the amount of green leaf area per unit land area, which is a parameter commonly used to describe the profitability of light interception in relation to crop canopies. Therefore, great diversity in intercrop canopies is possible according to Keating and Carberry (1993), resulting from various combination in space and time of planting date and spatial distribution, leaf size, shape and orientation, and plant height. Reddy and Willey (1981) opined that where the components of an intercrop are in direct competition for light, increased total biomass production by the crop could result in improved yield. The capturing of radiant energy drives crop evapotranspiration and the pattern of its interception determines the ratio of water use through crop transpiration to that lost in soil evaporation. N2 which occurs in the atmosphere and released through decomposition of organic materials converted to ammonia by the process of biological nitrogen fixation in legume-cereal cropping system. This process is done through rhizobial fixation in legume by free-living diazotrophs. The plant furnishes the necessary energy that enables the bacterial to fix gaseous N2 from the atmosphere and transfer it onto the plant for use in producing proteins. However, the quantity of N fixed by the legumes is difficult to quantify and varies with respect to the species involved and the location (Webster and Wilson, 1998). Yang et al. (2010) also observed that the radiation use efficiency of maize in intercrop 3.14 gMJ-1 was slightly less than the value obtained in sole maize 3.18 gMJ-1 and concluded that radiation was not a major factor in producing the competition results in maize/soybean intercropping system. Based on the fact that plants rarely compete for light without simultaneously competing for water (Cannell and Grace, 1993; Wallace, 1995).

Biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) has been exploited extensively by researchers concerned with plant nutrition in crop production practice studies which emphasized on environmental sustainable development on the use of renewable resources including the role of BNF for supplying N for agriculture (Peoples and Craswell, 1992).

The subject of BNF is of plant practical importance because the use of nitrogenous fertilizers has resulted in unacceptable level of water-pollution increasing concentration of toxic nitrates in drinking water supplies and the eutrophication of lakes and rivers, soil acidity and nutrient imbalance resulting in not only a waste of energy and money, but also leads to serious pollution problems. Nitrogen fixation is an energy demanding process and is dependent on photosynthesis (Bech et al., 1985).  Therefore, if the intercrop non-legume is taller than the legume crop, shading will occur and photosynthesis and subsequently N2 fixation will be reduced (Wahua and Muller, 1978), plant density also has an effect on N2 fixing activity. A reduction of N2-fixation per plant at increasing plant density has been reported by Haidy and Hauelka (1976) and bulk total N2-fixing activity per area appeared to be less variable (Haidy and Hauelka, 1976). The value compiled by Peoples and Harridge (1990) and Peoples and Craswell (1992) showed that the rate of N fixation by a range of legumes varies between 5 and 300 kg N/ha/year with an average of about 100 kg N/ha/year. The amount of biological fixed N2 that is actually taken up by the main crops is difficult to determine with accuracy.

Ofori and Stern (1986) opined that in cereal-legume intercropping, BNF sole crops without applied N, large application results in excessive vegetative growth of cereal, causing it to shade and suppress the legumes yield; also similar observation was made on melon intercrop where seed yield was significantly reduced by 25 kg/ha. Stern (1993) opined that conflicting reports exist about the transfer of N from legumes to cereals intercropping studies. Nitrogen transfer refers to the movement of biologically fixed nitrogen from the legume crop to the non-legume crops and encompasses interactions within the soil OM, reduced into a mineral form, directly taken up the companion crop or lost from the system and one affected by physical and biological factors at that time. This as was revealed by Ofori and Stern (1987) can be directly transferred to the companion non-legume crop residually available to the subsequent crops. The mechanism of the transfer depends on the species, proportion of component crops in the stand, relative maturities of the associated crops and their vigour and duration of growth. Harridge et al. (1994) emphasized that a problem faced by farmers everywhere is that the capacity of soils to supply N declines rapidly once agricultural activities commence and N derived from the breakdown of soil matter must be sustainable production, N2 reward must be replaced by N fertilizer.

The movement of fixed N from legume to the companion crop during the current growing season is said to be direct N transfer (Stern, 1993), however, an assumption exists stating that a portion of N2 fixed by an intercropping legume is more available to an associated non-legume crops during the growing season. Depending on the biomass of the legume crop, Stern (1993) stated that mycorrhiza can help on the direct transfer of  N  from plant to plant because intercropping is one season duration (annual), Peoples and Harridge (1990) argued that direct transfer of N from legume to non-legume might not be a rapid or spontaneous phenomenon. Ofori and Stern (1987) observed no direct transfer from cowpea or rice bean (Vigna umbleleta) to maize. When the fixed N becomes subsequently available to the companion non-legume crop during the current season it is referred to as indirect N transfer (Stern, 1993). Decaying of roots and nodules are thought to be an important factor that determines the N transfer, generally, there is a small amount of N transfer during a current season and most movement occurs during the end of the legume crop cycle. The proportion of root system that might be decomposing during growth has not been estimated (Peoples and Craswell, 1992). The possibility also exists that N exudation from roots should not be ignored (Poth et al., 1986). Indirect transfer of N has been reported by Eaglesham et al. (1981), but it was not confirmed by Ofori and Stern (1987). Nitrogen contribution of legumes in the intercropping is very vital for maintaining soil productivity over long periods.

The nature and manner of root spread in soil among the intercrops determines the uptake of water and nutrients and their utilization. Root distribution among intercropping plays an important role in interactions between the intercrop species. Studies of Zhang et al. (2002), Zhang and Huang (2003), and Lie et al. (2006) investigated root distribution in intercropping system and found out that yield advantages of the intercropping system are due to both aboveground and belowground interactions between intercrop species and when the roots of the two crops does not overlap it reduced competition for water and nutrients between the two crops which results in higher yields. Zhang et al. (2002) investigated the root distribution in wheat/faba bean intercrop and observed that the growth stages of the two crops when root weight is maximum did not overlap, reduced the competition between the maize and faba bean for nutrients and water which resulted in higher yields of both crops. Root distribution in a maize/cabbage intercropping system showed clearly unbalanced distribution according to the observation of Zhang and Huang (2003), with the roots of maize extending horizontally to greater distances than those of cabbage, while Adiku et al. (2001) in their own studies were able to discover that the roots of maize and cowpea has extended into the rhizospheres of each other but the encroachment on part of maize was much greater. This scenario definitely affects the uptake and utilization of water and nutrients of both crops. Lie et al. (2006) observed that the roots of maize penetrated deeper than those of the faba bean and spread under the faba bean strip in a maize/faba bean intercropping system. In intercropping system, availability of soil water and all that dissolve there in are the limiting factor to the roots arrangement and distribution in soil. Roots  tend  to  grow

profusely into all sections of soil when water is not a limiting factor, but under water stress they clump within their own zone and under severe water stress the roots do not intermingle at all (Ozier-lafontaine et al., 1998; Adiku et al., 2001; Lie et al., 2006). Root distribution in intercropping therefore influences strongly water and nutrient uptake and invariable the yield of the component crops. Yang et al. (2010) attributed the difference in grain yield and N uptake of maize in maize/soybean intercrop to faster development and deeper reach of maize roots and a higher N uptake capacity under non-limiting conditions. The inconsistency of cereal and legume intercropping performance requires critical investigation in areas where farmers are to benefit from intercropping in that specific locality (Mpangene et al., 2004), like the south eastern soils of Nigeria that are suffering from various degrees of degradation and the farmers are poor.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF INTERCROPPING TO THE SOIL, GROWTH AND YIELD OF INTERCROPPED SPECIES AND EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Many researchers have explored the use of intercropping system for forage production and quality. Maize/Cowpea intercropping system resulted in significant effect on forage dry weight and digestive dry matter yield and amino protein content was increased by intercropping when compared with maize and cowpea sole crops (Dahmardeh et al., 2007), significantly higher crude protein content of maize-soybean intercropping than that of mono-cropped maize (Toniolo et al., 1987). The authors showed that the result was related with higher consumption of environmental resources such as photosynthetic active radiation and soil moisture by intercropping. Maize forage quality in terms of crude protein was improved by intercropping. It was probable because of more nitrogen availability for maize in intercropping compared with its sole crop. Javanmard et al. (2009) worked on intercropping of maize with different legume; their findings showed that dry matter yield and crude protein yield of forage were increased by all intercropping compositions as compared to the maize mono culture. Intercropping system is an important factor that influences the quantity of N fixed by legumes (Rerkasem et al., 1988). However, the differences in the depth of rooting and spread of the intercrops, lateral root and rooting densities are some of the factors that affect competition between the component crops in an intercropping system for water and nutrients. In this regard, Carr et al. (1998) and Carruthers et al. (2000) in their studies found cereal component maize to be competitively advantageous for soil nitrogen as compared to the component crop in the intercropping because the cereal is taller, has faster growing and more extensive root system particularly a large mass  of  fine  roots.  This competition for N forces the legume component cowpea according to the work of Jensen (1996) and Huaggard et al. (2001) to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere. This effectively influences the growth and yield of the intercrop components as maize and cowpea benefit from the biological fixation of atmospheric N. This scenario will end in more uptakes of N and crude protein content in maize intercrop compared to the sole maize. The forage quality or maize was improved by intercropping due to more nitrogen availability for maize in intercropping. Intercropping system is an option for diversification of crop production system by increasing the number of cultivated crop species in the same piece of land; this is usually justified by the better use of environmental resources as compared to mono cultures (Vandermeer et al., 1998). Intercropping advantages include higher yield and yield stability and more efficient use of environmental resources, probably due to less intra-specific competition between the intercrops which is also an insurance against crop failure (Viljoen and Allemann 1996). This is a more balance food supplies for both human and livestock. Yang et al. (2010) found out that grain yield and N uptake of maize in intercrop were significantly greater than those of sole maize and grain yield of soybean as an intercrop which is significantly lower than sole soybean and their N uptake relatively, thus indicating that intercropping favoured nutrient uptake and growth of maize and the growth of soybean significantly.

According to Ghaffarzadeh et al. (1997), the basic ideas are based on how different species interact during intercropping competition for resources which arise from varying time of planting, root growth patterns and different resource demands. At high levels of N, under intercropping, Ezumah et al. (1987) and Ofori and Stern (1987) observed that grain and legume yield was reduced by the maize intercrop. The decrease in maize yield under intercrop was also reported by Shumba et al. (1990). Faulknar (1994) estimated that the increase in yield of a maize crop following a mucuna crop or cowpea or groundnut was in the order of 200 to 900 kg/ha. Agboola and Fayemi (2001) investigated maize/Mucuna pruriens intercrop and observed that maize yield was reduced but intercropping with Calopogonium mucunoides, groundnut, pigeon peas did not affect the maize yield, their studies equally indicated that C. mucunoides, groundnut, pigeon pea and cowpea fixed 370 kg N/ha when intercropped with maize. Maize-potato intercropping performed better than the sole potato as was observed by Begum et al. (1999) and in maize-okra intercropping Muoneke and Asiegbu (1997) observed that yield and yield components of okra was increased. Sharma and Tiwani (1996) reported that maize/tomato intercrop increased the number and weight of fruit. The mixtures of cereal and legumes produce higher grain yield than crops grown individually or together; in such crop mixtures the yield increases were not only due to enhanced N nourishment  of  the  cereal  component,  but also to other unexplored causes, thus intercropping ensures yield stability (Onwueme and Sinha, 1991). Alom et al. (2009) observed that maize yield under intercropping was higher than that of mono crop, though the population of maize was constant regardless of the intercropping and pod yield of groundnut in the intercropping situation was considerably reduced.  On the contrary, Nweke et al. (2013) investigated the intercropping system of ground/maize/okra and observed that the intercropping system did not influence the plant height, number of leaves and number of branches and that groundnut sole crop recorded the highest value in these parameters when compared with the intercrops. Equally the yield of pods of groundnut was the highest in sole cropping compared to groundnut-maize-okra intercropping and conversely, the values of weight of pod obtained from groundnut-maize-intercrop and groundnut-maize-okra intercrop were also similar which indicated that the effect of intercropping system were not effective in the intercrop. Addo-Quenye et al. (2011) reported the reduction in cob growth and net assimilation rate in maize/soybean intercrop, where shaded by already established soybean. Atilola (2007) revealed in his study that there was non-significant effect of groundnut intercropped with maize on growth and yield parameters of groundnut. In maize/cowpea intercropping, Dahmardeh et al. (2010) found increased yields of cereal succeeding cowpea. Pod weight of brinjal in brinjal/groundnut intercropping was low in mono culture compared to intercrop and reddish vegetable amaranths intercropping indicate yield advantages from intercropping compared to mono cropping (Prasharanth et al., 2009; Seren and Brintha, 2009). Ennih et al. (2002) revealed that there was increase in plant height reduced number of branches, leaves and leaf area index of soybean when inter cropped with maize, Chiezey et al. (2004) found no significant response to crop arrangement in number of days to 50% flowering in soybean or sorghum grown as intercrops. Quayyum and Maniruzzaman (1995), Nag et al. (1996) and Uddin et al. (2003) opined that higher yield of maize was obtained in the mono culture as compared to the yield of intercropping of groundnut. They attributed the result to no intercrop competition for light, moisture and space. The result of Koli (1975) on pure and mixed cropping of maize and groundnut in Ghana showed that yields of groundnut in the mixed intercropping were from one third to one half the yields obtained from the pure culture but the yield of maize was not reduced to the same extent. Similarly, Khatiwada (2000) found cauliflower in maize intercrop produced 7 t/ha cauliflower in conjunction with 2.1 t/ha maize. Seran and Jegakumaran (2009) however reported lower number of pods per capscum plant in capsicum-vegetable cowpea intercropping compared to mono cropping probably due to nutrient and light competition. Cereal-legume intercropping is superior to mono cropping, maize/French bean gave higher maize equivalent yield over sole  maize yield (Hugar and Palled, 2008) and Kernel yield of maize was unaffected in maize-French bean intercropping (Hugar and Palled, 2008). The study of Akinmfesi et al. (2006) revealed that without N fertilizer application, gliricidia-maize intercropping gave high maize yield. In maize-bean intercropping, Tsubo et al. (2005) found maize yield not affected by the production system. Cassava/Maize intercrop yield better than the component crops due to greater biological advantages over sole cropping and temporal complementarily of those species. Muoneke et al. (2001) reported yield reduction in Roselle/cowpea intercrop and the reduction was the highest when intercropped with Roselle planting density of 37,000 Roselle plant/ha. The authors attributed yield reduction to competition for growth resources as reported in other crops in mixtures by other various workers (Willey, 1979; Muoneke and Asiegbu, 1997). Ikeh et al. (2013) noted yield increase in water yam/vegetable cowpea. An increase of 64 to 84% of ware tubers (tubers of 1 kg and above) was recorded over what was obtained from sole cropped yam; however, they found non-significant difference between both cropping systems in sprouting percentage and in numbers of leaves per plant in all the month under study. High leave retention of 32.17 and 65.92 over sole crop of 23.87 and 57.17 was recorded at 2 and 3 months after planting.

Onyekwere et al. (2013) observed that all the leguminous food crops, namely, pigeon bean, groundnut, and vegetable cowpea intercropped with Dioscorea dumetorum and maize gave significantly (P < 0.05) higher yield than sole D. dumentorum and that of D. dumentorum/maize intercrops, with the highest yield value obtained from D. dumentorum/maize/groundnut. Thelma (2002) and Esekhade et al. (2003) found out that intercropping rubber with arable crops had growth and yield advantages and capable of increasing the returns of the rubber enterprise. In a four-year study of rubber and cassava intercropping, Esekhade et al. (2013) found yield of rubber to be zero of which they attributed it to have not attained tappable maturity, but the yield of cassava in the intercrop was superior to the sole crop with a value of 2.19, 42.80, 19.44, and 19.44 t/ha of cassava tuber for 1, 2, 3, and 4 years, respectively as against sole crop of 20.90, 37.73, 16.52, and 16.52 t/ha of cassava tuber in 1, 2, 3, and 4 year, respectively.  Singh and Sharma (1987) evaluated yield stability in intercropping in India and found out that intercrops gave additional yields and increased the net returns.

Adetiloye and Adekunle (1989) working in Southwest Nigeria, reported that intercropping of cassava-maize-cowpea gave higher agronomic yield advantage than any of the crops planted in pure culture.  Although, the total productivity of an intercropping system can be greater, Rees (1986) observed that the productivity of at least one or even both component crops is usually less than that of respective sole crops in popular binary system. Roy et al. (1990)  reported fibre  yield  reduction   in    Roselle intercropping with black gram, cowpea, soybean, groundnuts, and sesame. Samsri et al. (1987) work on groundnut/Roselle intercropping and reported yield reduction. Roselle a fibre crop, the fibre yield, was found to be reduced by 4 to 18%.  In groundnut/sorghum intercropping, a yield reduction of 50 to 52% in groundnut was reported (John et al., 1943) and higher yield increase was obtained from intercropping than sole cropping. In an experiment conducted by Evans (1960) in East Africa, almost all experimental combinations of groundnuts with sorghum recorded positive benefits as the combinations gave yield advantages as high as 38% (Rao and Willey 1980), while yield advantages up to 57% was already reported by Tarhalkar and Rao (1979). Anthony and Wilmott (1957) reported higher yield from groundnut and cotton intercropped together. Evans and Sreedharan (1962) and Tarhalkar and Rao (1975) worked on castor bean/groundnut intercropping and found out that the intercrop performed exceedingly better and higher monetary returns was higher than what was obtained from pure castor crop. Increasing maize density three-fold from 18,000 to 55,000 plants/ha caused reduction of 24% in leaf area index and 70% in seed yield of the associated bean (Gardiner and Cracker, 1981). Addo-Quaye et al. (2011) recorded higher yield in sole maize than the intercropped maize in a study of maize/soybean intercropping system as affected by time of planting and spatial arrangement. They attributed the reduction in the yield of the cereal component of the intercrop to inter specific competition and shading of maize seedling by the already established soybean plants that led to reduction in leaf area, crop growth rate, and net assimilation rate (Caballero et al., 1995; Assefa and Ledin, 2001; Misbahulmumir et al., 1989; Addo-Quaye et al., 2011). Alom et al. (2009) investigated performances of different hybrid maize (Zea mays L) varieties under intercropping systems with groundnut (Arachis hypogaeu L) and found out that all yield and yield components of hybrid maize were significantly influenced by maize/groundnut intercropping system in the years under study. The grain yield of maize showed almost similar pattern to its yield contributing characters observed in sole and at different intercropping system studied though the result of their maize yield was found to be higher in monoculture compared to their yield in intercropping situation of which they attributed to no intercrop competition for light, nutrients, moisture, and space. Their findings corroborated with the works of Uddin et al. (2003), Nag et al. (1996), and Quayyum and Maniruzzaman (1995). The shading effect of maize on the groundnut according to the authors contributed considerable to the reduced pod yield observed in the intercropping situation of which similar results were reported by Razzaque et al. (2007) and Karim et al. (1990). Nweke (2015) however, found higher grain yield in intercrop than sole crop of which the percentage increase in grain yield per plot over sole crop on the average was 28.6%  when he  investigated  the effect of intercropping panicum maximum with maize.

 


 CONCLUSION

Intercropping cost effective and eco-friendly with the advantage of intercropping species together; and their associated microbes has many advantages over sole cropping. Intercropping system can be an excellent sources of bio fertilizer especially when leguminous crop is used, of which their addition improves the biophysical, biochemical and physiochemical and biological properties of agricultural soil. Although, there are some insinuations and challenges that intercropping systems is not well adapted to dry, poorly drained and heavy clay soils and difficult in mechanisation such as in sowing, weeding, fertilizer application, and harvesting. Hence, intercropping on large scale using machinery is generally believed to be impossible. These challenges not withstanding adequately planned and full implementation of intercropping system can act as a panacea for soil fertility enhancement, soil reclamation, crop growth and yield and for sustainable agriculture in south eastern soils of Nigeria.

 


 CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

The author has not declared any conflict of interests.

 



 REFERENCES

Addo-Quaye AA, Darkwa AA, Ochoo GK (2011). Growth Analysis of compound crops in maize-soybean intercropping system as affected by time of planting and spatial arrangement. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 6(6):34:44.

 

Addo-Quaye AA, Darkwa AA, Ochoo GK (2011). Yield and productivity of component crops in maize-soybean intercropping system as affected by time of planting and spatial arrangement. Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science 6(9):50-51.

 
 

Adetiloye PO, Adekunle AA (1989). Concept of monetary equivalent ratio and its usefulness in the evaluation of intercropping advantages. Tropical Agriculture (Trin) 86:4.

 
 

Adiku SEK, Ozier Lafontaine H, Bajazet T (2001). Patterns of root growth and water uptake of maize – cowpea mixture grown under greenhouse conditions. Plant Soil 235:85-94.
Crossref

 
 

Adu-Gyamfi JJ, Myaka FA, Sakala WD, Odgaard R,Vesterager JM, Hoghjensen H (2007). Biological nitrogen fixation and phosphorus budgets in farmer – managed intercrops of maize – pigeon pea in semiarid southern and eastern Africa. Plant Soil 295:127-136.
Crossref

 
 

Agboola AA, Fayemi AA (2001). Fixation and excretion of nitrogen by tropical legumes. Agronomy Journal 64:409-412.
Crossref

 
 

Akinmfesi FK, Makumba W, Kwesiga FR (2006). Sustainable maize production using gliricidal/maize intercropping in Southern Malawi Experimental Agriculture 42:441-457.

 
 

Alom MS, Paul NK, Quayyum MA (2005), Performance of different hybrid maize (Zea mays L.) and varieties under intercropping system with groundnut/Arachis hypogeae L). Bangladesh Journal of Agronomy Research 34(94):585-595.

 
 

Anthony KRM, Wilmott SG (1957). Cotton intercropping experiments in the South West Sudan. Empire Journal Experimental Agriculture 25:29-36.

 
 

Areioglu R, Boberfeld WO, Soya H, Green H, Backmann E (2003). Investigation on source yield and quality characteristics of second crop of Vicia sative and Trifolium resupinatum and their mixtures with

 
 

Aslam M, Mahmood G (2003). Economic feasibility of crop groundnuts. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 26:344-348.

 
 

Assefa G, Ledin I (2001). Effect of Variety, Soil type and fertilizer on the establishment growth, forage, yield, quality and voluntary intake by cattle of oats and vetches cultivated in pure and mixtures. Annual Food Science and Technology 92:95-111.

 
 

Atilola NCP (2007). Effect of Interplant groundnut with maize on soil organic carbon and yield of groundnut. Soil Fertility Research 16:81-86.

 
 

Baker CM, Blamey FP (1985). Nitrogen fertilizer effects on yield and nitrogen uptake of sorghum and soybean growth in sole and intercropping systems. Field Crops Research 12:233-240.
Crossref

 
 

Barhom TIH (2001). Studies on water requirements for some crops under different cropping systems. M.Sc. Thesis Faculty of Agriculture Cairo University, Egypt.

 
 

Bathiono AP, Ntare BR, Pierre D, Christians BC (1996). Crop rotation and N effects on crop yield and soil chemical properties in a sandy soil of West Africa semi arid tropics. Fertility Research 27:75-81.

 
 

Bech MK, Mague WE, Burris RH (1985). Translocation of photosynthetic product to soybean nodules and their role in nitrogen fixation. Plant Physiology 33:118-124.
Crossref

 
 

Begum N, Ullah MM, Haq NF, Khatuna MAR, Yasmun S (1999). Performance of potato intercropped with maize. Bangladesh Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 34:183-187.

 
 

Brewbaker JI, Vanden Beldt R, Macdickson K (2012). Nitrogen – fixing tree resources: Potentials and limitations in: Graham PH and Hairs, S.C. (eds) Biological nitrogen Fixation Technology for Tropical Agriculture, I.A.T. ALL, Columbia pp. 413-425.

 
 

Caballero R, Guicoechera EL, Hermaiz PJ (1995). Forage yield and quality of common vetch and oat sown at varying seedling ration and seedling rates of common vetch. Fixed Crops Research 41:135-140.
Crossref

 
 

Cannel MGR, Grace J (1993). Competition for light detection, measurement and quantification. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 23:1969-1979.
Crossref

 
 

Carr PM, Martins CAB, Caton US, Poland WW (1998). Forage and yield of barley-pea and oat – pea intercrops. Agronomy Journal 1:79-84.
Crossref

 
 

Carruthers K, Printhrutiraj B, Couther UFD, Martins RC, Smith DL (2000). Intercropping corn with soybean lupin and forages: Yield component resources. European Journal of Agronomy 12:163-115.
Crossref

 
 

Chiezey UF, Haruna IM, Odions EC (2004). Growth and development of sorghum soybean mixture with nitrogen, phosphorus and plant arrangement in the Northern Guinea Savanna ecological zone of Nigeria. Crop Research 28:1-14.

 
 

Chu GV, Shen QR, Cao JI (2004). Nitrogen fixation and N – transfer from peanut to rice cultivated and aerobic soil in an intercropping system and its effect on soil fertility. Plant Soil 263:17-27.
Crossref

 
 

Cochran VL, Schlentner SF (1995). Intercropped oat and Faba bean in Alaska: Dry matter production, dinitrogen fixation, nitrogen transfer and nitrogen fertilizer response. Agronomy Journal 87:420-242.
Crossref

 
 

Dahmardeh MA, Ghanbari BA, Syahsat Ramordi M (2010). The role of intercropping maize (Zea mays L) and cowpea (Vigna unguicualte L) on yield and soil chemical properties. African Journal of Agricultural Research 5:631-636.

 
 

Dakora FD, Keya SV (1997). Contribution of legume nitrogen fixation to sustainable agriculture in Sub – Saharan Africa. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 29:809-817.
Crossref

 
 

Dubach M, Russelle MP (1994). Forage legume roots and nodules and their role in nitrogen transfer. Agronomy Journal 86:259-266.
Crossref

 
 

Eaglesham ARJ, Ayanaba A, Rango Rao B, Eskew DL (1981). Improving the nitrogen nutrition of maize by Intercropping with Cowpea. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 13:169-171.
Crossref

 
 

Ennih SA, Clepy MD, Francisi CA (2002). Resource utilization in soybean/maize intercrops. Agric. Crop Science J. 10:251-261

 
 

Esekhade TU, Idoko SO, Ogbebor ON (2013). Sole rubber and rubber + cassava intercropping systems in Southern, Nigeria: A comparative profitability analysis. In Proceedings of the 47th Conference of the Agricultural Society of Nigeria, Ibadan, pp. 260-262.

 
 

Esekhade TU, Ugwa IK, Orimaloye Idoko SO (2003). Potentials of multiple cropping in young rubber plantation. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 22(4):79-94.
Crossref

 
 

Evans AC (1960). Maize and sorghum studies on intercropping with groundnut. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 26 (1):1-10.

 
 

Evans AG, Sreedharan A (1962). Studies of intercropping II castor beans with groundnuts or soybean. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 28(91):7-8.
Crossref

 
 

Evans J, Mcneil AM, Unkovich MJ, Feltel NA, Heenam DP (2001). Net nitrogen balances for cool-season grain legume crops and contributions to wheat nitrogen uptake: A review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41:347-359.
Crossref

 
 

Ezumah HC, Nguyen KYN, Waler P (1987). Maize – Cowpea intercropping as affected by nitrogen fertilization. Agronomy Journal 79:275-280.
Crossref

 
 

Fatokum C, Porawali C, Sing B, Kormata P, Pamo M (eds) (2000). Challenges and opportunities for enhancing sustainable cowpea production. Proceedings of the World Cowpea Conference 111 held in International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Ibadan, Nigeria pp. 301-318.

 
 

Faulknar OT (1994). Some Experiments with Leguminous Crops at Ibadan Southern Nigeria. Empire Journal of Experimental Agriculture 2:93-102.

 
 

Filho JML (2000). Physiology responses of maize and cowpea to intercropping. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira 35(5):915-921.
Crossref

 
 

Frey WW, Blennis RL, Smith MS, Corak SJ, Varco JJ (2008). Role of Annual Legume Cover Crops inefficient use of water and nitrogen in: Hargrove N.L. (eds). Cropping strategies in efficient use of water and nitrogen Spec. Pub. No. 51 Am, Soe. Agron. Madison Wise pp. 129-154.

 
 

Fujita KS, Ogata K, Matsimoto T, Masude K, Godfred KG, Ofoju Budu Kuwata K (1990). Nitrogen transfer and dry matter production in soil soybean and sorghum mixed cropping system at different population densities. Soil Science and Plant Nutrition 30:12-19.

 
 

Gardiner TR, Craker LE (1981). Bean Growth and Light Interception in a Bean-Maize Intercrop. Field Crops Research 4:313-320.
Crossref

 
 

Ghaffarzadeh M, Prechec FG, Curse RM (1997). Tillage Effect on Soil Water Content and Corn Yield in Strip Intercropping System. Agronomy Journal 89(6):893-899.
Crossref

 
 

Giller KE, Cadish G (1995). Future benefit from biological nitrogen fixation: An ecological approach to agriculture. Plant Soil 74:225-227.
Crossref

 
 

Giller KE, Ormsher J, Aweh F (1991). Nitrogen transfer from phosphorus bean to intercropped maize measured using 15 N – enrichment and 15N Isotope dilution method in Dommergues YR Krupa S.V. (eds) Soil Micro-Organism and Plants. Elsevier Austorsan 163:203.

 
 

Gosh PK, Manna MC, Bandyo Padhyay KK, Ajay Tak, Wanjan RH, Hati KM, Misra AK, Acharya CL Subbe RA (2006). Intercropping systems. Agronomy Journal 98:1097-1108.

 
 

Gosh SP, Mohan Kumar B, Kaberathumma S, Nair GM (1989). Productivity soil fertility and soil erosion under cassava based agroforestry systems. Agroforestry Systems 8:67-82.
Crossref

 
 

Goudrian J (1982). Potentials Production Process In: Penninade Vries F.W.T and Van Laar H.H. (eds). Simulation of plant growth crop production. Pudoc. Wageningen pp. 98-113.

 
 

Haidy RWF, Hauelka UD (1976). Photosynthate as a major factor limiting nitrogen fixation by field grown legumes with emphasis on soybeans. In symbiotic nitrogen fixation in plants. Ed. PS Nutman Cambridge University Press pp. 421-439.

 
 

Handerson G, Alkins (2003). Optimising Biological N2 fixation by legumes in farming systems. Plant Soil 252:41-54.
Crossref

 
 

Harridge DF, Marcellos H, Felton Wl, Turner GL (1994). Legume Nz Fixation an Efficient Source of N for Cereal Production in Nuclear Related Methods in Soil/Plant Aspects of Sustainable Agriculture, FAO/ LAEA.

 
 

Herchel GH (1987). Legume nitrogen fixation and recovery by subsequent crops in Helselze (ed) energy in plant nutrient and pest control. Elsevier Sci. Public Amsterdam pp. 63-80.

 
 

Huaggard Nelson H, Anbus P, Jenson ES (2001). Temporal and spated distribution of roots and competition for nitrogen in pea-baday intercrops: A field study employing P techniques. Plant Soil 236:63-74.
Crossref

 
 

Hugar HY, Palled YB (2008). Effect of intercropping vegetables on maize and associated weeds in maize vegetable intercropping systems Kamataka Journal of Agricultural Science 21:159-161.

 
 

Ibeawuchi II, Iofoh MC (2003). Effects of maize/cassava/food legume mixture in soil nutrient status and weed control. Bionature 23:59-64.

 
 

Ikeh AO, Essang DM, Akata OR, Ndeayo NU (2013). Effect of intercropping and fertilization on the growth and yield of water yam (Dioscorea alata) in Uyo, South Eastern Nigeria. In: Revamping Nigeria Agriculture through Transformation Agenda: The way Forward eds JA Avediran; JO Saka; AG Ibrahim; MO Adenekan; AO Atere & VA Adeyemi. Proceedings of Annual Conference of Agricultural Society of Nigeria (ASN), Ibadan Nigeria pp. 13-15.

 
 

Innis WH (1997). Intercropping and the scientific basis of Traditional Agriculture 1st edn. Intermediate Tech. Publ. Ltd. London.
Crossref

 
 

Izaurande RCW, Gill BMC, Juma NE (1992). Nitrogen fixation efficiency, interspecies N transfer and root growth in Borlay file intercrop on a black chernozemic soil. Fertility Soil 13:1-16.

 
 

Javanmard A, Dabbagh Mohammadi Nasi A, Javanshier A (2009). Forage yield and quality in intercropping of maize with different legume as double cropped. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment 7(1):163-166.

 
 

Jensen ES (1996). Grain yield symbolic N – fixation and interspecific competition for inorganic N in Pea –Berley intercrops. Plant Soil 182(1):25-38.
Crossref

 
 

John CM, Seshadri CR, Bhavani Shanker Rao M (1943). Mixed cropping of groundnut. The Madras Agricultural Journal 31:191 - 200

 
 

Kang BT, Duguma B (2005). Nitrogen management in alley cropping systems. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Nitrogen Management in the Tropics I.B. Haran (Gr), The Netherlands.

 
 

Karim MA, Zaman SS, Quayyum MA (1990). Study on groundnut rows grown in association with normal and paired row of maize. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research 17(1):99-102.

 
 

Keating BA, Carberry PS (1993). Resource capture and use in intercropping, solar radiation. Field Crops Research 34:273-301.
Crossref

 
 

Khatiwada PP (2000). Intercropping cauliflower under maize an approach to extend the cauliflower product in season for subsistence farmers. Kasetsart Journal - Natural Science 32:72-80.

 
 

Koli SE (1975). Pure cropping and mixed cropping of maize and groundnut in Ghana. Ghana Journal of Agricultural Science 81:23-30.

 
 

Lie L, Sun J, Zang T, Guo T, Bao X, Smith A, Smith SE (2006). Root distribution and interaction between intercropped species Oecologia 147:280-290.
Crossref

 
 

Manna MC, Singh MV (2001). Long-term effects of inter cropping and bio litter recycling on soil biological activity and fertility status of sub-tropical soils. Bioresource Technology 76(2):143-150.
Crossref

 
 

Misbahulmumir MY, Sammons DJ, Weil PR (1989). Corn – peanut intercropping performance in relation to component crop relative planting dates. Agronomy Journal 81(2):184-189.
Crossref

 
 

Mpangene PNZ, Ayisi KK, Mishiyi MG, White bread A (2004). Grain yield of maize grown in sole and binary culture with cowpea and lablab in the Limpopo Province of South Africa. Tropical legumes of sustainable farming systems in Southern Africa and Australia eds White bread A.M. and Pengell B.C., ACIAR Proceedings No. 115.

 
 

Muoneke CO, Akingbade IO, Magaji MD (2001). Productivity of Roselle cowpea intercropping system in a semi-arid agroecology. In: Proceeding of the 19th Annual Conference of Horticultural Society of Nigeria held at University of Nigeria, Nsukka, May 28th – June 1st 2001 pp. 170-174.

 
 

Muoneke CO, Asiegbu JE (1997). Effect of okra planting density and spatial arrangement in intercrop with maize on the growth and yield of the component species. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 179:201-207.
Crossref

 
 

Nag BL, Kundhu AK, Quayyum MA, Sala huddin ABM (1996). Intercropping of maize with cowpea, Khesan, mungbean and groundnut. Bangl. Agronomy Journal 6(182):29-34.

 
 

Nweke IA (2015). Effect of intercropping panicum maximum with maize (Zea mays). Journal Of Agriculture And Veterinary Sciences 8(2):77-79

 
 

Nweke IA (2016). Influence of leguminous crop on the ultisol that had been continuously cropped to cassava/maize for over six years. Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management 7(12):222-229.
Crossref

 
 

Nweke IA, Ijeoru SI, Igili DN (2013). The growth and yield performance of groundnut in sole cropping and intercropped with okra and maize. Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences 2(3):15-18.

Ofori F, Stern WR (1986). Maize/cowpea intercrop system. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer on productivity and efficiency. Field Crops Research 14:247-261.
Crossref

 

Ofori F, Stern WR (1987). Cereal – Legume intercropping systems advantages. Agronomy 41:41-90.
Crossref

 
 

Okigbo BN, Lal R (1979). Soil fertility maintenance and conservation for improved agro –forestry systems in humid tropics. ICRAF Soils Research Agroforestry pp. 41-47.

 
 

Onwueme IC, Sinha TD (1991). Field crop production in tropical africa technical centre for agriculture and rural co-operation Netherlands, pp. 103-116.

 
 

Onyekwere IN, Mbe JO, Mbadiwe M, Ehisianya CN, Nwokoro CC (2013). Effect of leguminous food crops on productivity of component crops in Dioscorea dumentorum / maize intercropping system, In: Revamping Nigeria agriculture through transformation agenda, pp. 123-126.

 
 

Opeke Lawrence K (2006). Essentials of Crop Farming. Spectrum Books Limited, Spectrum Iwuse Ring Road Ibadan Nigeria Editor Anthony Olumekor 5:58.

 
 

Ozier-Afontaine H, Lafolie F, Bruckher L, Yournebize R, Mollier A (1998). Modelling competition for water in intercropping theory and comparison with field experiments. Plant Soil 204:183-201.
Crossref

 
 

Peoples MB, Craswell ET (1992). Biological nitrogen fixation: Investment expectations and actual contribution to agriculture. Plant Soil 141:13-39.
Crossref

 
 

Peoples MB, Harridge DT (1990). Nitrogen fixation by legumes in tropical and sub – tropical agriculture. Advances in Agronomy 44:155-223.
Crossref

 
 

Portes TDA (1984). Profile of Light Interception and yield of six bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cultivars of different growth habits intercropped with maize (Zea mays L), Field Crop Abstracts 37(6):491.

 
 

Poth MBLA, Farve JS, Fotch DD (1986). Quantification by direct 15N Dilation of Fixed N2 Incorporated into Soil by Cajanus cajen (Pigeon Pea). Soil Biology and Biochemistry 18:125-127.
Crossref

 
 

Prasharanth R Sera TH, Sivakhandiran I. Porintha (2009). Agronomic evaluation of Brinjal (Solanuim melongena L) and groundnut (Arachis hypogeae L) intercropping system. Journal of Gampaha Wickramara chchi Ayurveda Institute4:37-42.

 
 

Quayyum MA, Maniruzzaman AFM (1995). Effect of maize (Zea mays L) and rice (Oryza sativa) with block grain (Phaseolus mungo). Indian Journal of Agronomy 40(1):20-25.

 
 

Rao MR, Willey RW (1980). Evaluation of yield stability in intercropping studies on sorghum/pigeon pea. Experimental Agriculture 16:105-116.
Crossref

 
 

Razzaque MA, Rafiquzzaman S, Bazzar MM, Ali MA, Talukdar MMR (2007). Study on the Intercropping groundnut with chill at different plant populations. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research 32(1):37-43.

 
 

Reddy MS, Willey RW (1981). Growth and resource use studies in an intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut. Field Crops Research 4:13-24.
Crossref

 
 

Rees DT (1986). Evaluation of yield stability in intercropping: Studies on sorghum/pigeon pea. Experimental Agriculture 16:105-116.

 
 

Rerkasem K, Peoples MB, Herridge DF, Bergersen FJ (1988). Measurement of N2 fixation in maize (Zea mays L.)-ricebean (Vigna umbellata [Thunb.] Ohwi and Ohashi) intercrops. Plant Soil 108(1):125-35.
Crossref

 
 

Roy AR, Sasmal BC, Bhattachrjee AK (1990). Effect of intercropping roselle with black grain cowpea, soybean, groundnut and sesame. Experimental Agriculture 26(4):407-411.
Crossref

 
 

Rusinamhodzi L, Murwa HK, Nyamangara J (2006). Cotton – Cowpea intercropping and its N fixation capacity improves yield of a subsequent maize crop under Zimbabwean rain-fed conditions. Plant Soil 287:327-336.
Crossref

 
 

Samsri N, Jatu Poriun Ponobe S, Murata Y (1987). Studies on Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa) effect of row spacing in Roselle peanut intercropping system. Crop Science 56(2):204-209.
Crossref

 
 

Scott C Killpack, Darl Buchultz (1987). Nitrogen in the environment. Working paper P. 277.

 
 

Seran TH, Brintha I (2009). Studies on determining a suitable pattern of Capsicum (Capsicum anum L) – vegetable cowpea (Vigra unguniculanta L.) intercropping. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 22:11153-1154.

 
 

Seran TH, Jegakumaran J (2009). Effect of planting geometry on yield of Capsicum (Capsicum anum L) intercropping with vegetable cowpea (Vigra unguniculanta L.) Journal of Science 6:11-19.

 
 

Sharma NK, Tiwani RS (1996). Effect of shade on yield and yield contributing characters of tomato CV. Pusa Ruby Recent Horticulture 3:39-92.

 
 

Sharma RS, Churby SA (1991). Effect of maize/legume intercropping system on nitrogen economy and status of soil. Indian Journal of Agronomy 36:60-63.

 
 

Shave PA, Ter-Rumum A, Enoch MI (2012). Effects of time of intercropping of Mucuna (Mucuna cochinchinensis) in maize (Zea mays) for weed and soil fertility management. International Journal of Agricultural and Biological 14(3):469.

 
 

Shumba EM, Dhilwayo HH, Mukoko OZ (1990). The potentials of maize cowpea intercropping in low rainfall areas of Zimbabwe. Zum. International Journal of Agricultural Research 28:33-38.

 
 

Singh YP, Sharma A (1987). Intercropping in rabi maize for higher production. Seeds Farms 13(12):12-14.

 
 

Stern WR (1993). Nitrogen fixation and transfer in an Intercropping Systems. Field Crops Research 34:335-355.
Crossref

 
 

Sumberg JE (2004). Small ruminant feed production in a farming systems context. Paper Presented at the Workshop on Small Ruminants Production System in the Humid Zone of West Africa IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria.

 
 

Szeicz G (1974). Solar radiation for plant growth. J. Appl. Ecol. 11:617-636.
Crossref

 
 

Tarhalkar PP, Rao NEP (1975). Changing concepts and practices of cropping systems. Indian Farming 25(3):3-7.

 
 

Thelma R Paris (2002). Crop-animal System in Asia Socio – Economic Benefits and Impacts on Rural Livelihoods. Agric. Syst. 71:(1-2):147.
Crossref

 
 

Toniolo L, Settin M, Moscas G (1987). Soybean – maize intercropping for forage. Euro. Soya 5:73-78.

 
 

Tsubo M, Walker S, Ogindo HO (2005). Simulation model of cereal legume intercropping system for semi-arid: Regina model application. Field Crops Research 93:23-33.
Crossref

 
 

Uddin MS, Rahman MJ, Begum SA, Ali MR (2003). Intercropping of maize with soybean in saline area under rainfed condition. Bangladesh Journal of Agricultural Research 28(3):451-455.

 
 

Van der Pol F (1992). Soil Mining: An unseen Contributor to Farm income in Southern Mali. Bulletin 325, Royal Tropical Institute Amsterdam, The Netherlands P 48.
Crossref

 
 

Vandermeer J (1989). The Ecology of Intercropping Cambridge University Press, New York.

 
 

Vesterager JM, Nielson NE, Hoghjensen H (2008). Effects of cropping history and phosphorous source on yield and nitrogen fixation in sole and intercropped cowpea – maize systems nutrient cycling. Agro –Acosyst. 80:61-73.

 
 

Viljoen J, Allemann J (1996). Cowpea and maize Intercropping. In Training Course Cowpea, Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Institute, Agricultural Research Council, Rood Pleat pp. 16-24.

 
 

Wahua TAT, Muller DA (1978). Relative yield totals and yield components of intercropped sorghum and soybean. Agronomy Journal 70:287-291.
Crossref

 
 

Wallace JS (1995). Towards a coupled light partitioning and transpiration model for use in intercrop and agro forestry. In: Sinoquet, H. Cruz P. (eds). Eco physiology of tropical intercropping INRA Paris pp. 153-162.

 
 

Webster C, Wilson P (1998). Agriculture in the Tropics. Blackwell Science Oxford.

 
 

Willey RW (1979). Intercropping – Its importance and research needs I. Competition and yield advantages. Field Crops Research 32(1):1-10.

 
 

Willey RW (1990). Resources use in intercropping systems. Agric. Water Manage. 17:216-231.
Crossref

 
 

Wise Greek Mobile Article (2003) updated Website www. Wise Greek Mobile Article.Com.

 
 

Wood M (2006). Nitrogen fixation: How much and at what cost? In legumes in sustainable farming systems. BGS Occasional Symposium No. 30 (ed. D. Younie) Reading, British Grassland Society. pp. 26–35.

 
 

Yang Gao, Aiwang Duan, Xingiang Qui, Zugui Lui, Jingsheng Sun, Junpeng Zhang, Hezlou Wang (2010). Distribution of roots and root length density in a maize/soybean strip intercropping system. Agricultural Water Management 98:199-212.
Crossref

 
 

Zhang E, Huang C (2003). Temporal and spatial distribution characteristics of the crop root in intercropping system. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology 14:1301-1304.

 
 

Zhang E, Li L, Huang C, Huang P, Chai O (2002). Regulation of fertilization application on yield and root growth of spring wheat -Faba bean intercropping system. Chinese Journal of Applied Ecology 13:839-842.

 
 

 




          */?>