Intercropping Unconventional Green Manures in Cotton: An Organic Approach for Multiple Benefits: A Review
Cotton is a wide spaced and initial slow growing crop and therefore offers scope for intercropping green manure. Intercropping and incorporation of green manure supply nitrogen and increase the nutrient use efficiency and yield of cotton. Incorporation of leguminous green manure crops has the beneficial effect on soil fertility also. Green manure intercrop serves as plant protectant too. To start with green manures effect on the associate cotton growth and yield are reviewed hereunder followed by their effect on soil fertility, pest and weed control on the principle crop.
Received: March 24, 2010;
Accepted: May 01, 2010;
Published: June 19, 2010
Cotton (Gossypium sp.), considered as white gold, is one of the most
important commercial crops which is cultivated in India over an area of 9.1
m ha with a production of 270 lakh bales. The productivity is 503 kg ha-1
which is low as compared to the world average of 733 kg ha-1
Green manuring is an age-old practice and even research on it has been for long. Green manures are neither cash crops nor food crops and this is yet another factor for green manures not becoming popular in the present day agriculture. The opportunity cost of raising green manures is also less. Yet it has to be promoted due to several unfavorable effects caused by chemical agriculture. Cotton is a slow growing crop initially and wide spaced and consequently vulnerable for weed infestation. Cotton and plant protection are inseparable. Therefore, the green manure that is considered as an intercrop in cotton has to serve as a plant protectant too. More importance has to be attached on such green manures which offer multiple benefits in cotton.
Effect on pests: Cotton is grown on 5% of the land in India but it consumes
about 54% of the pesticides in the country (Menon, 2003).
Thus the emphasis is on newer measures preferably by non-chemical, agronomic
approaches for managing the pests. They have to buildup beneficial insects or
as an attractant of cotton pests or both. Heliothis populations were
much higher on sesame intersown in cotton reducing its incidence in the latter
(Laster and Furr, 1972). Suresh
and Dason (1996) recorded the lowest population of leaf hopper and bollworms
in cotton intercropped with black gram, cluster bean or greengram. Cotton is
damaged by about 135 pest species right from crop germination to final picking.
The indeterminancy of cotton also facilitates continuous food supply and shelter
to the pests. Varied adverse effects are noticed due to the use of pesticides
in cotton (Jambhrunkar et al., 1998). They suggested
inter alia intercropping as one of the agro techniques to minimize the pest
incidence. One of the ways to check major damage due to pests is raising intercrops
with aromatic odour. Pest outbreaks in cotton are believed to be less common
in mixed stands, which can be explained by resource concentration hypothesis
and natural enemies hypothesis. In a survey involving crop diversity approach,
minimum population was recorded in cotton +cowpea in southern districts of Tamil
Nadu state (Saminathan et al., 2002).
Lucerne in association with cotton could promote natural enemies. Parasitis
of bollworm egg and larvae was more in cotton + sorghum intercropping. Increased
plant diversity and transfer of natural enemies from intercrop to main crop
led to reduction in pest population as observed in cotton hybrid intercropped
with cowpea, soybean, groundnut, sorghum, chilli and lucerne (Hegde
et al., 2003). Pink bollworm incidence was significantly reduced
when cotton was intercropped with maize (Kavitha et al.,
Cotton+cowpea had maximum number of predators followed by cotton+greengram,
cotton + soybean. Intercropping of cowpea and greengram could suppress the sucking
pests (Mote et al., 2001). In Punjab alone, American
boll worm attack destroyed 4.3 lakh bales of cotton valued at Rs.3.80 crores.
In 2002-03 seasons, stem weevil incidence was widely prevalent in Tamil Nadu.
Sometimes it destroys 70 to 80% of the crop in the state in summer. Weaver
et al. (1994) observed the use of Tagetas minuta on controlling
Mexican bean weevils. Vaiyapuri et al. (2008)
reported that intercropping unconventional green manures in two rows in between
cotton rows and incorporating it on 30 DAS ultimately had less pest incidence
in associated cotton.
Effect on weed incidence: Cotton is slow growing in nature and widely
spaced too. It creates suitable conditions for an increased weed competition
in the crop (Kulandaivel et al., 2001). Weed
population comprising of grasses, sedges and broad-leaved weeds were found to
be significantly reduced under high density cotton and paired-row planting with
blackgram as intercrop (Sankaran and Balasubramanian, 1982).
Chatterjee and Mandal (1992) and Thakur
(1994) have pointed out depressive effect on weed growth due to legume intercropping.
Cotton + black gram and cotton + cluster bean had comparable effect to reduce
the weed density and dry matter than sole cotton in rainfed vertisols. The depressive
effect on weed growth was long with cluster bean in association with its prolonged
duration (Solaiappan and Chellaiah, 1998). Cotton yields
are reduced by 50-85% with unchecked weed growth or ineffective weed control.
Effect on nutrient status: Cotton is a heavy feeder and needs supplementation
of nutrients to sustain yield. Nutrients P, K, Ca, Mg, B and Zn have influence
on fruiting efficiency, whereas N, S, Mo and Mn have equal influence on vegetative
and reproductive growth. But all cotton growing area in India are very poor
in organic carbon, poor in available P and medium to high in available K. Buildup
of soil organic matter is useful. Despite application of recommended dose of
fertilizers, yield drops in the absence of organic manuring (Chittapur
and Shenoy, 1998).
Studies on soil fertility due to intercropping of green manures in cotton are
limited. Gidnavar et al. (1992) reported 0.079
to 0.088% total N at harvest of cotton due to intercropping of green manures
such as sunnhemp, cowpea, horse gram and similar other four green manures as
compared 0.061% in sole cotton. The P and K were also higher in green manure
plots. The other favourable contribution of green manuring was higher organic
carbon (0.54 to 0.63%). In a study of in situ green manuring and phosphate
fertilization to irrigated cotton, Satheeskumar (1999)
observed increase in soil available nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium at later
stages as compared to sole cotton. Vaiyapuri et al.
(2007a) observed that intercropping unconventional green manures in two
rows in between cotton rows and in situ incorporating it on 30 DAS recorded
higher nutrient uptake of cotton in both summer and winter crops and an increase
in soil available nutrient status at later stages as compared to sole cotton
Effect on growth and yield: Cotton, having wider spacing in between
rows, makes feasible to grow an intercrop in it (Rao, 1991).
Cotton being a long duration crop provides an opportunity for in situ
green manuring during growing period (Chittapur and Shenoy,
More than five decades back Mirchandani (1950) reported
yield advantage to the tune of 15-20% in cotton due to intercropping and in
situ incorporation of guar or sunnhemp as observed from the studies on the
left bank of river Indus. The standing cotton receiving guar incorporation had
better growth. Height and number of bolls were increased. There was an economic
gain also due to these green manures intercropping.
Rao (1982) reported that leguminous crops like cowpea
could be grown as intercrop in cotton for green manure purpose. The cowpea for
fodder purpose, on the other hand, benefits the associate cotton. The rate of
decomposition of legumes intercropped and in situ incorporated in between
cotton rows followed Lucerne > sunnhemp > cowpea > horse gram >
soybean > blackgram > FYM. The seed cotton yield varied in accordance
with the decomposition rate and followed sunnhemp > horse gram > Lucerne
> FYM > blackgram > cowpea > soybean.
Raising green manures in between cotton rows and in situ incorporation
resulted in increased boll production and lint yield as compared to sole cotton.
While cotton+ horse gram gave 14.66 q of lint ha-1, sole cotton produced
11.04 q and cotton+FYM 10 t ha-1 yielded 12.82 q showing right choice
of green manures could outweigh even FYM (Gidnavar et
al., 1992). In a cotton + green manure intercropping study conducted
at Coimbatore, India, all the four green manures tested viz., sunnhemp, lucerne,
cowpea and clitoria had manurial effect and increased the seed cotton
yield. Though the yield difference did not exist among green manure sources,
sunnhemp gave some higher cotton yield than other green manures (Subramanian
et al., 1995). Vaiyapuri et al. (2007b)
reported that the overall effect of intersowing and in situ incorporation
of green manures on kapas yield was significant in both the seasons as compared
to sole cotton (without intercropping any green manure). The yield increase
was by 28.2 and 25.0% due to green manuring in summer and winter seasons, respectively
as compared to sole cotton.
There are reports of yield reduction in cotton due to intercropping of green
manures. At Banswara, Central Zone, intercropping and in situ incorporation
of greengram, cowpea and sunnhemp decreased the yield of cotton considerably,
whereas, FYM at 5 t ha-1 resulted in higher yield of kapas (AICCIP,
1999). Recently, Katkar et al. (2002) reported
15% increase in cotton yield due to green manuring with sunnhemp. Thus from
most of the studies, advantages of intercropping of green manures in cotton
are seen. Few reasons such as short growing season of cotton if any, prolonging
turning time might be detrimental.
Effect on yield and return: In earlier years, mixed cropping was in
vogue. Ducker and Hozle (1948) reported reduced yield
of cotton when grown as a mixture. Iyer (1950) listed
22 crops, which lend themselves for cultivation along with cotton. Cotton inter
sown in groundnut had no yield reduction as compared to sole cotton in two out
of three years. But the return due to cotton + groundnut mixed cropping was
promising as compared to sole cotton Similar was the report of Divekar
and Kurtakoti (1961). Cotton + mung at 1:1 ratio resulted in nominal reduction
in cotton yield but an yield of 462 kg ha-1 of mung was obtained
due to intercropping. The wheat that followed cotton was also benefited. But
intercropping of cotton with cowpea in different proportions did not prove beneficial
under grain purpose cultivation (Singh and Singh, 1973).
Bavale and Vyahalkar (1981) observed that intercropping
of legume significantly reduced the yield of seed cotton significantly. However
urd as an intercrop did affect the seed cotton yield only very marginally by
3% but gave an extra yield of 280 kg ha-1 of urd and gave the highest
monetary return. Mung reduced the seed cotton yield, while cowpea raised as
fodder and cowpea raised and incorporated in situ did not affect the
seed cotton yield. Monetary returns were, however, more with cotton+mung as
compared to sole cotton (Rao, 1982). Intercropping of
cotton with legumes such as greengram, black gram and groundnut as well as non-legumes
such as foxtail millet, maize, chilli, onion etc., have been found to be profitable
in the Central and Southern cotton zones.
Short duration greengram and black gram gave the best results with 5-6 q of
pulse ha-1 maintaining the cotton yield at the same time (Basu,
1985). Soybean and cowpea as intercrops suppressed the seed cotton yield,
while onion enhanced the seed cotton yield and also seed cotton yield equivalent
(Babu, 1998). Sole cotton yield was higher in both the
years of study as compared to intercropped cotton. The reduction in seed cotton
yield (rainfed) was 7.9 and 10.3% in black gram and 13 and 13.9% in cluster
bean during 1993-94 and 1994-95, respectively (Solaiappan
et al., 1999).
Chellamuthu and Ramaswami (2000) reported that cowpea
and black gram as intercrops increased the seed cotton yield, while greengram
and soybean were not so as for as base crop yield was concerned. Vaiyapuri
et al. (2007c) reported that intercropping unconventional green manures
in two rows in between cotton rows and in situ incorporating it on 30 DAS had
contributed ultimately more kapas and lint yield of cotton securing higher yield
advantage in both summer and winter crops. Higher net return and BC ratio were
obtained when intercropping with marigold in two rows in between cotton rows
and incorporating it on 30 DAS.
Thus, from the distant years of study to recent ones, it is seen that many grain legumes did not affect the cotton yield (if at all only slightly) and overall returns were found higher. The point of observation of this review is that with proper choice of a component, cotton yield might not be affected. But with green manure intercropping with far higher duration difference, the expected benefits might be still higher.
1: AICCIP, 1999. Annual report 1998-99. Central Institute of Coton Research. Regional Station, Coimbatore.
2: AICCIP, 2007. Annual report 2006-07. Central Institute of Coton Research. Regional Station, Coimbatore.
3: Babu, R., 1998. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) based cropping systems in Ghataprabha command area of Karnataka. Indian J. Agron., 43: 261-263.
4: Basu, A.K., 1985. Research achievements of All India Co-ordinated cotton improvement project with particular reference to achievements in fertilizer use research. Fert. News, 30: 35-42.
5: Bavale, B.L. and G.R. Vyahalkar, 1981. Studies on planting pattern, intercropping and nitrogen economy in WHH-1 (Godawari) hybrid cotton in rainfed condition. Cotton Dev., 11: 1-3.
6: Chatterjee, B.N. and R.K. Mandal, 1992. Present trends in research on intercropping. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 62: 507-518.
7: Chellamuthu, V. and C. Ramaswami, 2000. Studies on intercropping in winter irrigated cotton. Madras Agric. J., 87: 95-98.
8: Chittapur, B.M. and H. Shenoy, 1998. Trends in cotton nutrition A review. Agric. Rev., 19: 167-177.
9: Divekar, C.B. and F.D. Kurtakoti, 1961. Studies relating to the intercropping of groundnut in cotton. Indian Groundnut Res., 15: 233-233.
10: Ducker, H.C. and S.T. Hozle, 1948. Some studies on cultivation practices, food crop and the maintenance of fertility at the cotton station, Nyasal and Emp. Cotton Grow. Rev., 25: 112-122.
11: Gidnavar, V.S., G.B. Shashidhara and H.M. Manjunathaiah, 1992. Soil fertility management in monocrop cotton through legume incorporation. Fmg. Systems, 8: 53-55.
12: Hegde, M., K.A. Kulkarni and S. Lingappa, 2003. Impact of intercrops on conservation of Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) and other natural enemies in cotton ecosystems. Indian J. Plant Prot., 31: 98-104.
13: Iyer, Y.K., 1950. Mixed cropping in India. Ind. J. Agric. Sci., 10: 439-543.
14: Jambhrunkar, S.R., M.N. Nachane, V.U. Sonalkar and A.K. Sadawarte, 1998. Management of sucking pests in cotton through cropping systems. J. Soils Crops, 8: 50-52.
15: Katkar, A., B. Turkhede, V.M. Solanke and S.T. Wankhade, 2002. Response of cotton to integrated management of various types of organic manures and fertilizers. Crop Res., 23: 194-197.
16: Kavitha, G., P. Ram and R.K. Saini, 2003. Impact of strip crops on the population of arthopad predators and insect pests in cotton. J. Biol. Control., 17: 17-21.
17: Kulandaivel, S., R. Bhoopathi Prabhukumar and S. Gurumurthy, 2001. Effect of planting pattern on cotton based intercropping system. Ann. Agric. Res., 22: 64-66.
18: Laster, M.L. and R.E. Furr, 1972. Heliothis populations in cotton Sesame interplantings. J. Econ. Entomol., 65: 1524-1525.
19: Menon, M., 2003. Growing cotton: Finally a loss of faith in chemical agriculture. Farmers` Forum, 3: 17-17.
20: Mirchandani, R.T., 1950. Green manuring of standing cotton crop. Indian Cotton Grow Rev., 4: 89-94.
21: Mote, U.N., M.B. Patil and A.B. Tambe, 2001. Role of intercropping in population dynamic of major pest of cotton ecosystem. Ann. Plant Prot. Sci., 9: 36-40.
22: Rao, M.H., 1982. Intercropping in cotton. Cotton Dev., 12: 33-34.
23: Rao, P., 1991. A study on Intercropping of cotton with grain legumes under rainfed conditions. J. Res. APAU, 19: 73-74.
24: Saminathan, V.R., N.R. Mahadevan and N. Muthukrishnan, 2002. Crop diversity approach to manage cotton leaf hopper Amrasca devastans. Indian J. Entomol., 64: 351-357.
25: Satheeskumar, N., 1999. In situ green manuring and phosphate fertilization to irrigated cotton. M.Sc. Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agric. Univ., Coimbatore.
26: Singh, S. and R. Singh, 1973. Intercropping cotton with mung (Phaseolus aureus) and cowpeas. J. Res. PAU, 10: 280-284.
27: Solaiappan, U. and N. Chellaiah, 1998. Effect of sowing time and mulching on weed control in cotton based intercropping system in rainfed vertisols. Madras Agric. J., 85: 117-120.
28: Solaiappan, V., N. Subbaraman, P. Dhamu and A.A. Dason, 1999. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) based intercropping system under different sowing environments. Indian J. Agron., 44: 59-63.
29: Subramanian, V., N.T. Jaganathan, R. Venkitaswamy, P. Premesekhar and S. Purushothaman, 1995. Effect of fast growing leguminous intercrops and nitrogen levels on cotton. Madras Agric. J., 82: 40-41.
30: Suresh, S. and A.A. Dason, 1996. Effect of intercropping and time of sowing on cotton leaf hopper and bollworm. Madras Agric. J., 83: 56-57.
31: Thakur, D.R., 1994. Weed management in maize based intercropping systems under rainfed mid hill condition. Indian J. Agron., 39: 203-206.
32: Vaiyapuri, K., M. Mohamed Amanullah, S. Pazhanivelan and E. Somasundaram, 2007. Nutrient uptake, yield of cotton and soil nutrient status as influenced by intercropping unconventional greenmanures. J. Applied Sci. Res., 3: 1676-1683.
33: Vaiyapuri, K., M. Mohamed Amanullah, K. Sathiyamoorthi, A. Alagesan and S. Pazhanivelan, 2007. Influence of incorporation of unconventional green manures on growth, yield attributes and yield of cotton (Gossypium sp.). Int. J. Agric. Res., 2: 75-80.
CrossRef | Direct Link |
34: Vaiyapuri, K., M. Mohamed-Amanullah, S. Pazhanivelan and K. Sathyamoorthi, 2007. Yield attributes yield and economics of cotton as influenced by intercropping unconventional greenmanures. Res. J. Agric. and Biol. Sci., 3: 302-305.
Direct Link |
35: Vaiyapuri, K., M. Mohamed-Amanullah, S. Pazhanivelan and E. Somasundaram, 2008. Influence of intercropping unconventional greenmanures on pest incidence and yield of cotton. J. Applied Sci. Res., 3: 1710-1716.
36: Weaver, D.K., C.D. Wells, F.V. Dunkel, W. Bertsch, S. Sing and S. Sriharan, 1994. Insecticidal activity of floral, foliar and root extracts of Targetes minuta (Asterales; Asteraceae) against adult Mexican Bean Weevil (Coleopotera: Burchidae). J. Econ. Entomol., 87: 1718-1725.
37: Sankaran, S. and N. Balasubramanian, 1982. Intercropping of cotton. Cotton Dev., 12: 23-23.