Intercropping Cropping Systems 1. Monoculture (one crop) 2 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 46
About This Presentation
Title:

Intercropping Cropping Systems 1. Monoculture (one crop) 2

Description:

Intercropping Cropping Systems 1. Monoculture (one crop) 2. Polyculture (many crops) a) crops separated in time: crop rotation, cover crops b) crops at same time ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:1981
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 47
Provided by: entnemdep7
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Intercropping Cropping Systems 1. Monoculture (one crop) 2


1
Intercropping
2
Cropping Systems
  • 1. Monoculture (one crop)
  • 2. Polyculture (many crops)
  • Separated in time crop rotation
  • Same time intercropping (mixed cropping)

3
Types of Intercropping
  • Mixed
  • Multiple crops, no rows
  • Row
  • Strip
  • Relay cropping
  • seeding a second crop in before the first crop is
    harvested.
  • Agroforestry
  • May be mixtures of intercropping types
  • Ex strip, relay crop

4
Intercropping
Row
Mixed
Strip
Smith et al., 2001
5
Mixed- vanilla, cardamom, coffee, pepper under
areca and coconut palm
6
Row- corn and beans
7
Strip- wheat and soybean, corn and soybean
8
Relay- wheat and cotton
9
Intercropping-history
  • The Three Sisters
  • Maize, beans, squash
  • Archaeological evidence going back 5,000 years.
  • Common in U.S. before 1940s
  • Synthetics made monoculture more economical.

10
Intercropping-history and current use
  • Common in Tropics
  • New World Old World
  • Africa
  • 98 of cowpeas in Africa (Arnon 1972).
  • 94 of ag land in Malawi (Edje 1979).
  • South America
  • 90 beans in Columbia (Gutierrez et. al. 1975).
  • India
  • 17 of ag land in India.
  • China
  • One third of land is intercropped.
  • 50 of grain yield is intercropped (Tong 1994).

11
Intercropping-history and current use
  • Uncommon in modern U.S. agriculture.
  • Large-scale and intensive.
  • Mechanization.
  • Agronomic recommendations dont exist.

12
Benefits of Intercropping
  • Increased yield per ha.
  • Less competition.
  • Better partitioning of resources by plants.
  • Yield stability, greater variety of food crops in
    small farm plots.
  • Protection against risk and environmental
    extremes (crop diversity, mutual shading, etc.).
  • More efficient use of resources (land, vertical
    space, sunlight, etc.).
  • Improved pest management.
  • Other (improved soil quality, physical support
    for vine crops, maintain genetic diversity, etc.
    ).

13
Competition or - ?
  • Plant competition
  • No advantage if both plant species aggressively
    pursue resources in same niche.
  • Intercropping is then a hindrance instead of a
    benefit.
  • Competition varies with situation.
  • Crop species or cultivars.
  • Density of each species.
  • Arrangement (in rows, strips, etc.).
  • Timing of planting of each crop (e.g., corn and
    vining beans).

14
Competitive Production
  • Growing two crops together can be advantageous.
  • If interspecific competition lt intraspecific
    competition.
  • Interspecific- between different species
  • Intraspecific- between members of the same species

15
Calculating Intercrop Advantage
  • Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)-
  • Amount of monoculture land needed to produce same
    yield as intercrop.

Photo Thomas Wright Photo P. E.
Hildebrand
16
Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)
  • Amount of monoculture land needed to produce same
    yield as intercrop.

Yield of crop 2 grown as intercrop Yield of crop
2 grown as monoculture
I1 I2 ---- ---- M1 M2
LER RY1 RY2
17
Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)
  • Amount of monoculture land needed to produce same
    yield as intercrop.
  • If LER gt 1 intercrop is more efficient
  • If LER lt 1 monoculture is more efficient

Yield of crop 2 grown as intercrop Yield of crop
2 grown as monoculture
I1 I2 ---- ---- M1 M2
LER RY1 RY2
18
Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)
(kg/ha)
(kg/ha)
19
Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)
Yield of crop 2 grown as intercrop Yield of crop
2 grown as monoculture
I1 I2 ---- ---- M1 M2
LER RY1 RY2
3000 750 ------- ----
4000 1000
Corn
Soybean
20
Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)
1.5 ha of land needed to produce same amount
through monoculture
0.5 0.5 is expected just based on land area
LER 3000/4000 750/1000 0.75 0.75 1.50
Corn Soybean
  • If LER gt 1 intercrop is more efficient
  • If LER lt 1 monoculture is more efficient

21
Mechanism of Intercrop AdvantageCompetitive
Production
  • Competitive Production-
  • Plants grow in same area but niches and resource
    partitioning are somewhat different.
  • Together, both plants use available resources
    more efficiently.

22
Competitive Production
  • Partitioning light
  • C4 plant in canopy, C3 plant in understory.
  • Partitioning soil resources (water, N, minerals).
  • Plants with different rooting patterns.
  • Long tap root, shallow feeder roots.
  • Example Intercropping legumes and non-legumes.
  • legume using N2 source, non-legume using NO3-
    source.

23
Mechanisms of Intercrop AdvantageFacilitation
  • Facilitation
  • One plant modifies environment for benefit of 2nd
    species.
  • Soil resources and nutrients
  • Example legume transfers more N into soil
    system, to the benefit of both plant species).
  • Pest management
  • Many examples of reduced pest incidence in
    intercrops.

24
Facilitation
  • Pepper in Perennial Peanut Living Mulch
  • Legume facilitatesnon-legume.

25
Reduced Pests in Polyculture
  • Several Hypotheses to Explain Trend
  • Disruptive Crop Hypothesis
  • Natural Enemies Hypothesis
  • Trap Crop Hypothesis

26
Reduced Pests in Polyculture
  • 1. Disruptive Crop Hypothesis 2nd plant
    species disrupts ability of pest to attack host
    crop efficiently (interferes with insect host
    finding volatiles, visual, etc.)

27
Reduced Pests in Polyculture -
  • 2. Natural Enemies Hypothesis more predators
    and parasites in intercrop.

28
White Dill (Queen Anne Lace)
  • A weedy intercrop is a good source of natural
    enemies.

29
Weedy Hedgerow
30
Sunflowers and peppers
  • Intercropping enhances biological control.
  • Attracts Orius spp. (minute pirate bug) and other
    beneficial insects.
  • Food resources and refuge for parasitoids
    predators.
  • Provide a perch for birds who also prey on
    insects.

Photo G. A. Jones
31
Reduced Pests in Polyculture
  • 3. Trap Crop HypothesisPest diverted away from
    cash crop to less important but more attractive
    trap crop.
  • a) Density and timing of trap crop is critical
  • Too low ? pest not attracted away.
  • Too high ? build up pests or attract more pests
    into area.
  • b) Examples
  • Lygus bugs attracted from cotton to strips of
    alfalfa in California (Altieri, 1994).
  • Flea beetles from collard to cruciferous weeds
    with stronger chemical attractants (Cromartie,
    1991).
  • Others (Altieri, 1994, p. 33).

32
Altieri, 1994
33
Trap Crop
  • Could increase pests and cause more trouble in
    some cases !!

34
Maize and Sorghum with Molasses Grass
  • Khan et. al. 1997- Nature.
  • Kenya
  • Intercrop with Molasses grass
  • Decreased damage stem borers
  • 39 mono, 4.6 inter.
  • Increased parasitism of stem borers
  • 5.4 mono, 20.7 inter.
  • Molasses grass produces volatile that
  • Repels female stem borers.
  • Attracts parasitoid wasps.

35
Assessment Pests and Natural Enemies in
Polyculture vs. Monoculture
  • Andow (1991) summarized large number of
    polyculture vs. monoculture studies.
  • Figure shows usual trends, but note exceptions.
  • Results vary, depend on
  • relative densities and ages of plants involved.
  • biology of specific insects involved.

36
Assessment Intercropping Successful or Not?
32
27
Andow, 1991
37
Polyculture vs. Conventional Monoculture
  • Magnitude of pest reduction in polyculture may be
    small compared to insecticide treatment.
  • Yields are usually more in polyculture than in
    monoculture (unsprayed).
  • Yields are usually more in monoculture sprayed
    with insecticides than in polyculture.
  • Difficult to design experiments that compare
    polyculture or monoculture methods often biased
    toward one method or other.

38
Agroforestry
  • Type of intercropping
  • Cultivate trees with annual or perennial crops.
  • Shares the benefits of other types of crop
    intercroppingand some additional ones.
  • Drawbacks-
  • Economics of long term crop
  • Land ownership
  • In general, adaptable to every situation.

39
Agroforestry Benefits
  • Shield smaller shade-tolerant crops, vines
  • Stabilize temperature, slow decomposition of
    organic matter
  • Permanent above and below ground structure
  • Moderates extremes- wind, water
  • Canopy- shades
  • Root system- reduce erosion, reach deeper
    resources.
  • Permanent reservoirs for parasitoids predators
  • Supply nutrients mulch via leaf litter, etc.

40
Mixed- banana and cacao
41
Intercropping Cacao
  • Cacao
  • main cash crop.
  • 4-5 yrs. to mature.
  • Intercropping
  • Maximizes land use by growing fast-growing food
    crops.
  • Income
  • Food
  • Good microclimate for cacao.

42
Intercropping Cacao
  • Grown with economically important crops and food
    for farmer.
  • Plantain bananas, cocoyam, papaya, sugarcane,
    coconut and oil palms, rubber, etc.
  • Microclimate for Cacao Shade, humidity, leaf
    litter (nutrients, OM, soil moisture, weed
    control), windbreak.

43
Leucaena
  • Legume
  • Tropical / subtropical
  • Fast growing
  • Forage
  • Firewood, Fence

44
Alley cropping of Leucaena
45
Leucana for erosion control
Erosion Control
46
References
  • Text, Ch. 13, pp. 266-276.
  • Altieri, 1987. Ch. 9.
  • Altieri, 1994. Biodiversity and Pest Management
    in Agroecosystems. Food Products Press, New
    York.
  • Andow, 1991. Pp. 257-284 in CRC Handbook of Pest
    Management in Agriculture (Pimentel, ed.). CRC
    Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  • Cromartie, 1991. Pp. 183-216 in CRC Handbook of
    Pest Management in Agriculture.
  • Smith et al., 2001 Environ. Entomol. 3089-100.
  • Tivy, 1992. Ch. 6, pp. 111-114.
  • Tong, 1994. Cropping System and cultivation
    technology 77 1-5.
  • Vandermeer, 1990. Ch. 18 in Agroecology (Carroll,
    Vandermeer, and Rosset, eds.). McGraw-Hill, New
    York.
  • Vandermeer, 1989. The Ecology of Intercropping.
    Cambridge University Press.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com