Yield Comparison of Nonstructural Carbohydrates in Sweet Sorghum and Legume-Based Cropping Systems

This article was downloaded by: [Asian Institute of Technology], [Rajendra PrasadShrestha]On: 12 May 2014, At: 18:09Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communications in Soil Science andPlant AnalysisPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

Yield Comparison of NonstructuralCarbohydrates in Sweet Sorghum andLegume-Based Cropping SystemsMuhammad Arshad a , Tanzeem Akbar Cheema b , Sajjad Ahmad c ,Rab Nawaz d , Muhammad Shahzad Sarfraz e , Rajendra P. Shrestha f

& S. L. Ranamukhaarachchi ga Department of Agriculture and Food Technology , KarakoramInternational University , Pakistanb Department of Botany , GC University , Lahore , Pakistanc Department of City and Regional Planning Lahore , College forWomen University , Lahore , Pakistand Environmental Sustainable Development Study Center, Faculty ofScience and Technology , GC University , Lahore , Pakistane Department of Computer Science , COMSATS Institute ofInformation Technology (CIIT) , Abbottabad , Pakistanf Natural Resources Management, School of Environment,Resources and Development , Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) ,Pathumthani , Thailandg Agricultural Systems and Engineering, School of Environment,Resources and Development , Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) ,Pathumthani , ThailandAccepted author version posted online: 28 May 2013.Publishedonline: 29 Jul 2013.

To cite this article: Muhammad Arshad , Tanzeem Akbar Cheema , Sajjad Ahmad , RabNawaz , Muhammad Shahzad Sarfraz , Rajendra P. Shrestha & S. L. Ranamukhaarachchi(2013) Yield Comparison of Nonstructural Carbohydrates in Sweet Sorghum and Legume-BasedCropping Systems, Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 44:14, 2186-2206, DOI:10.1080/00103624.2013.800097

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2013.800097

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lcss20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00103624.2013.800097

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2013.800097

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 44:2186–2206, 2013Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0010-3624 print / 1532-2416 onlineDOI: 10.1080/00103624.2013.800097

Yield Comparison of Nonstructural Carbohydratesin Sweet Sorghum and Legume-Based Cropping

Systems

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD,1 TANZEEM AKBAR CHEEMA,2

SAJJAD AHMAD,3 RAB NAWAZ,4 MUHAMMAD SHAHZADSARFRAZ,5 RAJENDRA P. SHRESTHA,6

AND S. L. RANAMUKHAARACHCHI7

1Department of Agriculture and Food Technology, Karakoram InternationalUniversity, Pakistan2Department of Botany, GC University, Lahore, Pakistan3Department of City and Regional Planning Lahore, College for WomenUniversity, Lahore, Pakistan4Environmental Sustainable Development Study Center, Faculty of Science andTechnology, GC University, Lahore, Pakistan5Department of Computer Science, COMSATS Institute of InformationTechnology (CIIT), Abbottabad, Pakistan6Natural Resources Management, School of Environment, Resources andDevelopment, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Pathumthani, Thailand7Agricultural Systems and Engineering, School of Environment, Resources andDevelopment, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Pathumthani, Thailand

Field experiments were conducted during dry (2009/10) and wet (2010) seasons toevaluate sweet sorghum–legume-based cropping systems for soluble sugars and starchproduction. Treatments were composed of two types of legumes (mung bean, soy-bean), two planting patterns (alternate single rows, alternate double rows), and twotimes of seeding (simultaneous, staggered) together with three monocrop treatmentsof sweet sorghum, mung bean, and soybean in randomized complete block design.Key observations indicated that the average yields of soluble sugars and starch weresignificantly reduced in intercropping systems in both seasons, due to partial or inter-active influence of treatments considered. Yields of soluble sugars and starch wereincreased by 6 and 11% in the dry season and by 5 and 19% in the wet seasonin sweet sorghum–soybean and sweet sorghum–mung bean associations, respectively,when established with staggered seeding compared to those in simultaneously seededcombination or in monocropping of sweet sorghum.

Keywords Intercropping, legume, planting pattern, soluble sugars, staggered seeding,starch, sweet sorghum

Received 8 October 2011; accepted 25 June 2012.Address correspondence to Muhammad Arshad, Agricultural Systems and Engineering, School

of Environment, Resources and Development, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Pathumthani12120, Thailand. E-mail: [email protected]

2186

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014

Cropping System for Nonstructural Carbohydrates 2187

Introduction

Nonstructural carbohydrates are among the major constituents of crop biomass, are used asraw materials for human and animal food products, and are considered as potential sourcesof biomass-based bioenergy production. Effective utilization of crop biomass and graindepends largely on physicochemical status in plant parts the during life period (assimila-tion and partitioning). Variability of concentrations of constituents (carbohydrates) in plantcomponents (leaf, stem, grain) and associated dry yields lead to accumulated differencesin chemical yields at crop and cropping system levels (Akbari, Mohsen, and Hadi 2008).Increased productivity of chemical constituents demands a well-understood domestica-tion mechanism for cropping systems through readjusted production practices. Optimizedproduction practices are stipulated, devoid of significantly influenced physical yields ofbiomass concomitant with chemical composition determined by crop genetics (Murrayet al. 2008, 2009).

Sweet sorghum is one of the multipurpose crops grown for different uses (i.e.,food, feed, syrup, and fuel) (Almodares, Taheri, and Safavi 2008; Dajue 2007). It hasample quantities of soluble sugars in the stalk (43.6–58.2%) (Billa et al. 1997; Dolciottiet al. 1998; Amaducci, Monti, and Venturi 2004; Antonopoulou et al. 2008) and starchin the seed (39–48%) (Zhao et al. 2009) (Dolciotti et al. 1998; Rattunde et al. 2001;Antonopoulou et al. 2008). It has been studied as a whole-plant feedstock for nonstructuralcarbohydrates in monocropping and in intercropping for grain or green forage yieldsand not for soluble sugars or starch yields (Ayub et al. 2004). However, its potential inintercropping as a source for nonstructural carbohydrates from its components and associ-ated crops influenced by combination and other intercropping factors has not been reporteddirectly. Intercropping technology has diverse benefits in terms of land-use efficiency,additional income, insurance against failure, and sustainability (Lithourgidis et al. 2007;Carrubba et al. 2008) and can be established for sweet sorghum and grain legumes (mungbean, soybean) for increased yield of carbohydrates and enhanced agrobiodiversity andsustainability (Altieri 1999; Malezieux et al. 2009; Kurdali 2009).

In pure stands, sweet sorghum is grown with wider interrow spacing, providinga chance to increase stem size, which is associated with greater quantity of chemicalconstituents. Moreover, at early growth stages, sweet sorghum plants grow slowly, encom-passing a smaller area underneath a canopy with erect leaves. Further, by narrowing therows (30 cm apart), more interrow spacing (60 cm) can be vacated between two pairs(strips). This available interrow or interstrip space can be utilized to establish single (low-density) or double (high-density) rows of a short-duration legume crop (mung bean orsoybean), which may increase the land productivity of chemical constituents through addi-tional contribution by legume intercrop. In intercropping environments, especially additiveseries, competition among plant components (leaf, stalk, grain) for allocating assimilatesand between companion crops for common resource pool is likely, which may reflectvariations in growth, yield, and chemical composition of biomass as compared to that inrespective pure stands (Tsubo, Walker, and Mukhala 2003).

Legumes are grown for food, feed, and oil either alone or in combination withcereals on marginal soils (Stout et al. 1997; Krishna, Raikhelkar, and Reddy 1998;Mpairwe et al. 2002; Thippeswamy and Alagundagi 2001; Ayub et al. 2004; Carr, Horsley,and Poland 2004). Because of differences in photosynthetic mechanism (C3) and plantstature, legumes are well suited for intercropping associations with cereals, especiallywith C4 and tall stature plants. However, owing to mutual requirements of nutrients,water, and light, legumes compete with the companion crop and change physicochemicaldynamics (Soet 1994; Javanmard et al. 2008; Kurdali, Janat, and Khalifa 2003). Because

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014

2188 M. Arshad et al.

in an intercropping environment, interspecific competition can affect not only growth,development, and yield parameters but also qualitative characteristics such as carbohydrateand protein contents in crops (Ranamukharachchi 1985; Moreira et al. 1989; Chellaiah andErnest 1994; Stout et al. 1997; Krishna, Raikhelkar, and Reddy 1998; Mpairwe et al. 2002;Thippeswamy and Alagundagi 2001; Ayub et al. 2004; Carr, Horsley, and Poland 2004).Such effects occurred due to different intercrop associations, temporal effects of mutualshading period, and microclimate (Buxton and Fales 1993).

Interspecific competition resulted chemical dynamics in sweet sorghum–legumeintercropping system may be mediated by optimizing the effect of selected agronomic man-agement practices through altering intercrop legume, row pattern, and/or time of seeding.To lessen the competition, compatibility between the intercrops would be possible if dif-ferences existed in their quantitative and temporal requirements for the same resource pool(Olowe and Adeyemo 2009; Lithourgidis et al. 2011). Following the compatible intercropcombinations, the rest of the competition between the crops in intercropping may fur-ther be relieved partially by adjusting the intercrop rows or plant densities (Okogun andMulongoy 1999) and partially by shifting the time of seeding from simultaneous to stagger(Nnko and Doto 1982). Temporal adjustments for high resource (inputs) requiring growthperiods of component crops can help further downplay the competition by shifting time ofseeding of one companion a few weeks earlier or later (staggered seeding) to acceleratethe photosynthetic abilities of component crops Midmore 1993; Morris and Garrity 1993;Tsubo, Walker, and Mukhala 2001). It is quite appropriate to shift the seeding time of sweetsorghum few weeks after that of the legume to overcome the competition for fixing atmo-spheric nitrogen (N) during the vegetative phase of the latter (Nnko and Doto 1982). Meritsof staggered or relay cropping over the simultaneous or sole cropping in terms of grain orfresh biomass yields have been reported by Sandhu, Gill, and Brar (1972) for a wheat–potato system, Andrews (1972) for sorghum–cowpea system, Reda, Verkleij, and Ernst(2005) for sorghum–legume shrub systems, Vedprakash, Narendrakumar, and Srivastava(2005) and Bharati et al. (2007) for tomato–french bean system, and Phoofolo, Giles, andElliott (2010) for sorghum–wheat, sorghum–alfalfa, and sorghum–cotton systems. Thisstudy was conducted to examine the variations in yield of nonstructural carbohydrates insweet sorghum and legume crops in monocrop and intercrop systems as influenced byindividual or interactive effects of intercrop legume, row pattern, and time of seeding.

Materials and Methods

Experimental Design

Field trials were conducted during dry (2009/10) and wet (2010) seasons at theAgricultural Systems and Engineering Research Farm, and chemical analysis was carriedout in Agricultural Technology Laboratory, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) Thailand(13◦ 44′ N, 100◦ 30′ E). Soil type was Ongkarak clay (very fine texture, mixed acid, iso-hyper, sulfic tropaquepts) with hot humid climate. The selected soil physical and chemicalcharacteristics at the experimental site are presented in Table 1. Eight sweet sorghum–legume intercropping treatments factorially composed of two types of legumes (mungbean, soybean), two planting patterns (alternate single rows, alternate double rows), andtwo times of seeding (simultaneous, staggered) tested together with three monocroppingtreatments of sweet sorghum, mung bean, and soybean with three replications in the dryseason of 2009/2010 and four replications in the wet season of 2010 in a randomizedcomplete block design.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


Table 1Soil physical and chemical properties in the profile (0–25 cm) collected

before the conduction of field trials in dry and wet seasons

Properties Dry season Wet season

Total N (%) 0.13 0.15P (ppm) 11.5 12.2K (ppm) 213.5 210.6Organic matter (%) 2.1 3pH 5 4.9Sanda (%) 6.7 6.5Silt (%) 27.1 27.6Clay (%) 66.2 65.9

aSand, silt, and clay components of soil were measured based on respectiveparticle sizes (sand, 0.05–2.0; silt, 0.002–0.05; and clay, 00.002) separated usingdifferent pore-sized sieves.

Experimental Crops

Recommended Thai varieties of sweet sorghum (KKU 40) (Laopaiboon et al. 2009), mungbean (Chinat 72) (Khajudparn, Wongkaew, and Thipyapong 2007), and soybean (NakhornSwan 1) (Chotiyarnwong et al. 2007) were grown in the field experiments. Mungbean andsoybean varieties were determinate and indeterminate, respectively. Following the landpreparation, crops were seeded as per treatments. In both legumes and sweet sorghum,seeds were established at the same time in monocrop and intercrops except in the croppingpattern designed for staggered planting of sweet sorghum on 1 December 2009 in a dry-season experiment and on 10 July 2010 in the wet-season experiment. In staggered plantingtreatments, sweet sorghum seeds were seeded 1 month after legume establishment.

Treatment Definition and Planting Methods

Alternate single-row pattern consisted of one row of sweet sorghum seeded in 22.5-cm-spaced rows and one row of legume seeded between the two sweet sorghum rows. Alternatedouble-row pattern was composed of 30-cm-spaced two-row strip of sweet sorghum grownwith 20-cm-spaced two-row strip of legume with interstrip spacing of 20 cm (Figure 1).Simultaneous seeding means seeding of both sweet sorghum and legume at the same timewhereas staggered seeding means seeding of sweet sorghum 1 month after the seeding oflegumes (Figure 2).

Planting density of sweet sorghum was kept the same in both intercropping patternsand its pure stands. Planting densities of mung bean and soybean in their sole stands weresame as in intercropping stands with alternate double-row pattern but have 12.5% less plantpopulation in alternate single-row pattern (Table 2). Intrarow spacing for sorghum, mungbean, and soybean was maintained as 15, 10, and 20 cm, respectively. Area of the plot was21.6 m2 (3.6 × 6.0 m), and each plot was spaced out at 1 m. A 2-m area was left betweenthe replicates.

Growth Requirements and Conditions

Water needs of the crops were kept at unstressed condition by sprinkling on a daily basisfollowing estimations based on crop evapotranspiration (ETcrop). Total quantity of fertilizer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


Figure 1. Alternate single rows and alternate double rows for planting patterns.

Figure 2. Temporal arrangements of sowing and harvesting times for sweet sorghum and legumesin simultaneous and staggered systems.

applied to sole and intercropping plots of sweet sorghum composed of 80 kg nitrogen (N)ha−1, 30 kg phosphorus pentoxide (P2O5) ha−1, and 30 kg dipotassium oxide (K2O) ha−1.Total amount of phosphorus (P) and potash was applied at the time of simultaneous sow-ing. However, the dose of N was divided into two splits for simultaneous system (50% atsweet sorghum sowing, 50% at booting) and into three splits for staggered system (25%at legume sowing, 25% at sweet sorghum sowing, 50% at booting). Amount of fertilizerapplied at the time of sowing to sole stands of mung bean and soybean were 30 kg N

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


Table 2Number of plants for sweet sorghum, mungbean, and soybean in row pattern systems and

sole cropping

Planting pattern Sweet sorghum Mungbean Soybean

Alternate single row (plants ha−1) 148148 194444 97222Alternate double row (plants ha−1) 148148 222222 111111Sole (plants ha−1) 148148 222222 111111

ha−1, 30 kg P2O5 ha−1, and 30 kg K2O ha−1. Weeds were manually uprooted from all theplots. Carbofuran (2,3-dihydro-2,2-dimethyl-7-benzofuranyl methylcarbamate), carbaryl(1-naphthyl-methylcarbamate), and malathion (dimethoxy phosphino thioyl thio butane-dioic acid diethyl ester) pesticides were sprayed or applied in all the plots at rates of 50,0.28, and 0.5 L ha−1, respectively, to control shoot fly and aphids.

Collection and Analysis of Plant Samples

A 4-m row section each of sweet sorghum and legume (adjacent rows in case ofintercropping plots) was harvested up to the ground surface at their physiological matu-rity to obtain dry-matter yields of stalk and grain in sweet sorghum and of only seedin mung bean and soybean. Samples of leaf and stalk of sweet sorghum and stubbles oflegumes were oven dried at 70 oC. Subsamples were made for each of the plant parts forgrinding and chemical analysis. For soluble sugar and starch determination, plant sam-ples were ground to 0.5 mm using sieves. Stalk and grain soluble sugars as well as grainstarch contents were determined by following the anthrone methods (Hodge and Hofreiter1962; Thayumanavan and Sadasivam 1984). Intensity of green color was measured at the630-nm wavelength by a double-beam spectrometer (model UVD-2950, Lambomed Inc.,Culver City, Calif.).

Statistical Analysis

Yields of soluble sugars and starch were calculated by multiplying their contents (%) withthe dry biomass of crop components. Yields of a constituent in plant parts were added toget combined yield as total plant dry biomass basis. Orthogonal contrast procedure wasused for comparison of yield performance between monocrop and intercropping systems,and analysis of variance adopted by Fisher’s protected least significant difference was usedto compare treatments and their interactions on contents and yields of soluble sugars andstarch in sweet sorghum, mung bean and soybean (Steel and Torrie 1980).

Results

Soluble Sugars in Sweet Sorghum

Soluble sugars in stalk of sweet sorghum examined and compared between its sole standand intercropping stands with mung bean or soybean for dry and wet seasons (Table 3).Yield of soluble sugars in sweet sorghum was greatest in monocrop stands compared tointercropping stands with mung bean or soybean. The increase was significant between

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014

Tabl

e3

Com

pari

son

ofso

lubl

esu

gar

yiel

din

sole

crop

ping

and

inte

rcro

ppin

gus

ing

orth

ogon

alco

ntra

sts

and

mea

nsq

uare

sfo

rco

mpa

riso

nsin

dry

and

wet

seas

ons

Swee

tsor

ghum

–mun

gbea

nin

terc

ropp

ing

Swee

tsor

ghum

–soy

bean

inte

rcro

ppin

g

Seas

on/

cons

titue

nt/cr

opSo

lecr

oppi

ngyi

eld

(tha

−1)

Mea

nsq

uare

cont

rast

with

sole

crop

ping

aIn

terc

ropp

ing

yiel

d(t

ha−1

)

Mea

nsq

uare

cont

rast

with

sole

crop

ping

Inte

rcro

ppin

gyi

eld

(th

a−1)

Err

orm

ean

squa

re

Dry

seas

onSw

eets

orgh

um12

.0±

0.3

18.2

∗∗∗

9.2

±0.

90.

211

.6±

1.0

0.63

26So

ybea

n0.

4±

0.1

——

0.03

0.3

±0.

10.

0079

Cro

ppin

gsy

stem

12.0

±0.

318

.2∗∗

∗9.

2±

0.9

0.01

11.9

±0.

90.

6314

Wet

seas

onSw

eets

orgh

um9.

7±

1.1

18.1

∗∗∗

7.3

±0.

70.

59.

3±

1.0

0.25

58So

ybea

n0.

2±

0.04

——

0.02

∗∗0.

1±

0.01

0.00

16C

ropp

ing

syst

em9.

7±

1.1

18.1

∗∗∗

7.3

±0.

70.

29.

4±

1.0

0.25

97aM

ean

squa

reco

ntra

stw

ithso

lecr

opst

ands

.Sup

ersc

ript

s∗ ,

∗∗,a

nd∗∗

∗in

dica

teth

ele

velo

fsi

gnifi

canc

eat

P=

0.05

,0.0

1,an

d0.

001,

resp

ectiv

ely.

2192

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


monocropping and intercropping stands established with mung bean. Fluctuation in yieldbecause of the intercropping environment occurred because of the significant influence ofintercrop legume, planting pattern, and time of seeding in both seasons (Table 4, Figure 3).It also was influenced significantly by the interactions between intercrop legume and timeof seeding in both seasons and between row pattern and time of seeding in the wet season(Table 4, Figure 4).

Yield of soluble sugars in sweet sorghum significantly decreased when intercroppedwith mung bean compared to soybean in both simultaneous and staggered systems, and thedecrease was greater in the former system of seeding (Figures 4a and 4b). Furthermore,there was a significant difference for yield of sugars within each intercropping environ-ment across the times of seeding. It significantly decreased when sweet sorghum wasintercropped in alternate double-row pattern as compared to the alternate single-row pat-tern in both simultaneous and staggered systems, and the change was greater in the lattersystem of seeding. Chemical yield of soluble sugars in the alternate single-row pattern orin alternate double-row pattern varied significantly between simultaneous and staggeredsystems (Figure 4c). Yield of soluble sugars in intercropped sweet sorghum was not onlyrestored but also improved in promotive environment due to intercrop soybean and stag-gered seeding in both the seasons. The yield was increased by 0.3 t ha−1 in intercroppedstand compared to the sole cropping stand of sweet sorghum owing to interaction betweenintercrop soybean and staggered system of seeding.

Soluble Sugars in Soybean

Soluble sugars in grain of soybean were examined and compared between monocrop standand intercropping stand with sweet sorghum in dry and wet seasons (Table 3). The yieldwas influenced significantly by the intercropping only in the wet season, where it wassignificantly influence by time of seeding and was significantly reduced in the simultaneoussystem compared to staggered system (Table 4, Figure 5). The staggered system almostrestored the yield of soluble sugars in intercropped soybean compared to monocropping inthe wet season (Figure 5c).

Soluble Sugar Production in Cropping Systems

Total chemical yield of soluble sugars obtained from components of intercropping systemwas compared with that from monocropping of sweet sorghum in dry and wet sea-sons (Table 4). Yield of soluble sugars did not significantly (P > 0.05) vary betweenmonocropping of sweet sorghum and sweet sorghum–soybean intercropping in both theseasons. However, within intercropping association, the yield was significantly (P ≤0.05) influenced by intercrop legume, row pattern, and time of seeding (Table 4, Figure 6),interactions between intercrop legume and time of seeding in both seasons, and row patternand time of seeding only in the wet season (Table 4, Figure 4).

Because of the interaction effect of intercrop legume and time of seeding in dryand wet seasons (Figures 4d and 4e), the yield of soluble sugars was significantly (P =0.05) reduced in sweet sorghum–mung bean intercropping compared to sweet sorghum–soybean intercropping. This reduction was observed in both simultaneous and staggeredsystems and it was greater in the former system of seeding. In each of the intercroppingsystems, yield was significantly varied across the times of seeding and was greater in thestaggered system.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014

Tabl

e4

Res

ults

ofa

thre

e-w

ayA

NO

VA

for

the

anal

ysis

ofth

em

ain

effe

cts

ofin

terc

rop

(C),

row

patte

rn(P

),tim

eof

seed

ing

(T),

orth

eir

inte

ract

ions

(C×

P,C

×T,

P×

T,C

×P

×T

)du

ring

dry

and

wet

seas

ons

Dry

seas

onW

etse

ason

Para

met

erC

PT

C×

PC

×T

P×

TC

×P

×T

CP

TC

×P

C×

TP

×T

C×

P×

T

Swee

tsor

ghum

Solu

ble

suga

rs∗∗

∗∗∗

∗∗∗

∗ns

∗ns

ns∗∗

∗∗∗

∗∗∗

∗ns

∗∗∗

∗∗∗

nsSt

arch

∗∗∗

∗∗∗

∗∗∗

ns∗∗

∗ns

ns∗∗

∗∗∗

∗∗∗

∗ns

∗ns

nsM

ungb

ean

Star

chns

ns∗

nsns

nsns

—ns

∗—

—ns

—So

ybea

nSo

lubl

esu

gars

nsns

∗∗∗

nsns

nsns

—ns

∗—

—ns

—C

ropp

ing

syst

emSo

lubl

esu

gars

∗∗∗

∗∗∗

∗∗∗

ns∗

nsns

∗∗∗

∗∗∗

∗∗∗

ns∗∗

∗∗∗

∗ns

Star

chns

ns∗∗

∗ns

∗∗∗

nsns

∗∗∗

∗∗∗

∗∗∗

ns∗∗

∗ns

nsaSu

pers

crip

ts∗ ,

∗∗,

and

∗∗∗

indi

cate

the

leve

lof

sign

ifica

nce

atP

=0.

05,

0.01

,an

d0.

001,

resp

ectiv

ely,

whe

reas

nsan

dda

sh(—

)in

dica

teno

tsi

gnifi

cant

and

not

appl

icab

le,r

espe

ctiv

ely.

2194

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


Figure 3. Effects of intercropping (a), planting pattern (b), and time of seeding (c) on yield of solublesugars in sweet sorghum in intercropping and its performance in sole cropping during dry and wetseasons.

Behavior of the yield with intercrop mung bean and soybean remained unchangedunder both times of seeding. It was observed that the soybean intercrop and staggeredseeding could individually reduce the suppressive effect of intercrop mung bean andsimultaneous seeding, respectively, and together produced a maximum quantity of sol-uble sugars. The resultant yield of soluble sugars due to interaction between intercropsoybean and staggered seeding increased by 0.7 t ha−1 in the dry season and 0.5 t ha−1

in the wet season compared to that in monocropping of sweet sorghum in respectiveseasons.

Because of interaction between planting pattern and time of seeding in the wet sea-son (Figure 4f), yield of soluble sugar in intercropping system was significantly (P =0.05) reduced in an alternate double-row pattern compared to alternate single-row patternwhen established with simultaneous seeding. Moreover, in each planting pattern yield ofsoluble sugars varied significantly (P = 0.05) across the times of seeding and was lower insimultaneous systems. Staggered seeding significantly reduced the suppressive influencebecause of simultaneous seeding and minimized the difference between the planting pat-terns to a nonsignificant level and consequently improved the yield to almost at par withthat in sole cropping of sweet sorghum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


Figure 4. Two-way interaction effects on yield of soluble sugars due to intercrop legume and time ofseeding in sweet sorghum and intercropping system in dry (a, b) and wet (d, e) seasons respectively,and due to planting pattern and time of seeding in sweet sorghum (d) and intercropping system (e) inthe wet season.

Starch in Sweet Sorghum

Yields of starch derived from grain yield and its starch contents in sweet sorghum werecompared between monocropping stand and intercropping stand with mung bean or soy-bean in dry and wet seasons (Table 5). The yield was greatest in monocropping stands. Theincrease was significant between monocropping stand and intercropping stand with mungbean. Within intercropping systems, intercrop legume, planting pattern, and time of seed-ing had significant effects on starch yield of sweet sorghum in both the seasons (Table 4,Figure 7). Moreover, it was affected significantly by interaction between type of intercropand time of seeding in both seasons (Table 4, Figure 8). Yield of starch in sweet sorghumsignificantly decreased when intercropped with mung bean compared to soybean in bothsimultaneous and staggered systems and the decrease was greater in the former system ofseeding (Figures 8a and 8b). Furthermore, there was a significant difference in the yieldwithin each type of cropping systems across the times of seeding. Suppressive influence bythe intercrop mung bean and simultaneous seeding was relieved by intercropping soybeanand staggered seeding, which individually and collectively restored the yield to par withthat in sweet sorghum monocrop in both seasons.

Starch in Mung Bean

Starch yields from seed of mung bean were compared between monocropping andintercropping with sweet sorghum in dry and wet seasons (Table 5). It was significantlygreater in monocropping stands compared to intercropping stands in both seasons becauseof the significant influence of time of seeding in the latter system (Table 4, Figure 9). Theyield was significantly decreased in the simultaneous system compared to the staggered

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


Figure 5. Effects of intercropping (a), planting pattern (b), and time of seeding (c) on yield of solublesugars in soybean in intercropping system and its performance in sole cropping during dry and wetseasons.

system (Figure 9c). However, under the staggered system the yield was at par with that inmonocropping of mung bean in the wet season.

Starch Production in Cropping Systems

Total yield of starch computed from sweet sorghum and mung bean or soybean componentsin intercropping system was compared with that of sweet sorghum monocropping stand indry and wet seasons (Table 5). The yield did not significantly (P ≥ 0.05) vary among allthe three cropping systems in both the seasons. However, within intercropping, the yieldwas significantly influenced by type of intercrop legume, row pattern, and time of seedingin the wet season and by time of seeding only in the dry season (Table 4, Figure 10).Furthermore, yield of starch was also influenced by interaction between intercrop legumeand time of seeding in both seasons (Table 4, Figure 8). It was significantly reduced in thesweet sorghum–soybean system compared to the sweet sorghum-mung bean system in bothsimultaneous and staggered patterns, and the decrease was greater in the former systemof seeding (Figures 8c and 8d). Starch yield within each of the intercropping systems wassignificantly varied across the times of seeding. Intercrop mung bean and staggered seedingtogether produced maximum starch yield in intercropping system that increased by 0.3 tha−1 in the dry season and 0.4 t ha−1 in the wet season compared to that in sole croppingof sweet sorghum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


Figure 6. Effects of intercropping (a), planting pattern (b), and time of seeding (c) on yield of solublesugars in intercropping system and performance of sweet sorghum in sole cropping during dry andwet seasons.

Discussion

Sweet Sorghum

Nonstructural carbohydrates tested include soluble sugars and starch. In sweet sorghum,soluble sugars were examined in stalks whereas the starch was studied in seeds. Yieldsof soluble sugars and starch in sweet sorghum were 23 to 25% and 15 to 29%, respec-tively, less when intercropped with mung bean and at par when intercropped with soybeancompared to monocropping stands. Decreased yields of nonstructural carbohydrates inintercropping stands resulted in pooled influence of intercropping features (i.e., intercroplegume, planting pattern, and time of seeding). In general, limited availability of resourcesowing to increased competition from companion legumes and intercropping componentcrops resulted in lower yields. These results are in agreement with the findings of Toaima,El-Douby, and Nafei (2001), Khan et al. (2002), Al-Dalain (2009), and Khalatbari et al.(2009). Sweet sorghum intercropping with mung bean reduced its soluble sugars andstarch by 26 to 27% and 13 to 33%, respectively, compared to that observed when itwas associated with soybean. Such reduction was due to the differences of growth pat-terns, mechanisms for utilizing the available resources, and interaction with the companioncrop intercropping systems as observed by Soet (1994), Akunda (2001), Zhang, Zaibin,and Shuting (in press), Rashid, Khan, and Arshad (2004), Mpairwe et al. (2002), and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014

Tabl

e5

Com

pari

son

ofst

arch

yiel

din

sole

crop

ping

and

inte

rcro

ppin

gus

ing

orth

ogon

alco

ntra

sts

and

mea

nsq

uare

sfo

rco

mpa

riso

nsin

dry

and

wet

seas

ons

Swee

tsor

ghum

–mun

gbea

nin

terc

ropp

ing

Swee

tsor

ghum

–soy

bean

inte

rcro

ppin

g

Seas

on/

cons

titue

nt/

crop

Sole

crop

ping

yiel

d(t

ha−1

)

Mea

nsq

uare

cont

rast

with

sole

crop

ping

aIn

terc

ropp

ing

yiel

d(t

ha−1

)

Mea

nsq

uare

cont

rast

with

sole

crop

ping

Inte

rcro

ppin

gyi

eld

(tha

−1)

Err

orm

eans

squa

re

Dry

seas

onSw

eets

orgh

um2.

7±

0.3

0.4∗∗

∗2.

3±

0.2

0.01

2.6

±0.

30.

0066

Mun

gbea

n0.

8±

0.5

0.4∗

0.4

±0.

2—

—0.

0780

Cro

ppin

gsy

stem

2.7

±0.

30.

001

2.6

±0.

30.

022.

6±

0.3

0.02

92W

etse

ason

Swee

tsor

ghum

2.1

±0.

61.

4∗∗∗

1.5

±0.

20.

052.

0±

0.2

0.04

21M

ungb

ean

0.4

±0.

10.

12∗∗

∗0.

1±

0.04

——

0.00

16C

ropp

ing

Syst

em2.

1±

0.6

0.01

2.2

±0.

30.

052.

0±

0.2

0.04

75aM

ean

Squa

reco

ntra

stw

ithso

lest

ands

.Sup

ersc

ript

s∗ ,

∗∗,a

nd∗∗

∗in

dica

teth

ele

velo

fsi

gnifi

canc

eat

P=

0.05

,0.0

1,an

d0.

001,

resp

ectiv

ely.

2199

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


Figure 7. Effects of intercropping (a), planting pattern (b), and time of seeding (c) on yield of starchin sweet sorghum in intercropping and its performance in sole cropping during dry and wet seasons.

Javanmard et al. (2008). An alternate double-row planting pattern accommodated a greaterplant population of legumes and narrower interrow spacing, but increased adjacency tolegume reduced the yields of soluble sugars and starch in sweet sorghum crop by 13 to14% and 5 to 13%, respectively, compared to those of the alternate single-row pattern,as also noted by Hussain, Baloch, and Sayal (1999). Simultaneous seeding enhanced thecompetition between intercrops for pooled resources during important phases of growthand development and thereby reduced the yields of soluble sugars and starch by 22 to34% and 13 to 19%, respectively, compared to those in a staggered system. Shifted timesof seeding could relieve the competition between intercrops and restore the environmentfor normal growth and development of intercropping systems, as substantiated by Nnkoand Doto (1982). Maximum yields of soluble sugars and starch in sweet sorghum underintercropping system of soybean established with staggered seeding was at par with that inits monocropping.

Legumes

Soluble sugars and starch were examined in grains of soybean and mung bean, respec-tively. Yields of both soluble sugars and starch were reduced by 25 to 50% and 25 to 75%,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


Figure 8. Two-way interaction effect of intercrop legume and time of seeding on starch yield insweet sorghum (a, b) and in intercropping system (c, d) of dry and wet seasons, respectively.

Figure 9. Effects of intercropping (a), planting pattern (b), and time of seeding (c) on yield of starchin mungbean in intercropping and its performance in sole cropping during dry and wet seasons.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


Figure 10. Effects of intercropping (a), planting pattern (b), and time of seeding (c) on yield ofstarch in intercropping association and performance of sweet sorghum in sole cropping during dryand wet seasons.

respectively, in intercropping stands compared to monocropping stands. Similar reductionswere also observed by Dahmardeh et al. (2009) and Al-Dalain (2009). Yields of solublesugars and starch in respective legumes were reduced by 0 to 33% and 25 to 67% inalternate single-row pattern compared to alternate double-row pattern as also experiencedby Mahmoud, Khalil, and Besheet (1990). Similarly, these yields also declined by 33 to50% and 50%, respectively, in a simultaneous system compared to a staggered systembecause of the absence of a competition-free period in the former system. In conclu-sion, maximum yields of soluble sugars and starch in soybean and mung bean under anintercropping environment were observed in a staggered pattern and were at par in the wetseason but were lower by 25 and 75%, respectively, in the dry season compared to yieldsin monocropping stands.

Cropping Systems

Total yields of soluble sugars and of starch under the pooled influence of intercroppingfeatures decreased by 23 to 25% and 4 to 5% in sweet sorghum–mung bean intercropping

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


and by 1 to 3% and 4 to 5% in sweet sorghum–soybean intercropping, respectively, com-pared to those in sweet sorghum monocropping. This reduction in intercropping happeneddue to different levels of intercropping treatments. Yields of soluble sugars were reducedby 29, 11, and 22% in the dry season and by 29, 13, and 35% in the wet season insweet sorghum-mung bean system, alternate double-row system and simultaneous sys-tem compared to those in sweet sorghum–soybean system, alternate single row system andstaggered system, respectively. Similarly, yield of starch was reduced by 0, 0, and 17%in the dry season and by 9, 10, and 28% in the wet season in sweet sorghum–mung beansystem, alternate double-row system, and simultaneous system compared to those in sweetsorghum–soybean system, alternate single-row system, and staggered system, respectively.However, because of the interaction effect, the soluble sugar yield was improved by 6% inthe dry season and 5% in the wet season in the intercropping system established withintercrop soybean and staggered seeding, whereas the yield of starch was improved by11% in the dry season and 17% in the wet season in intercropping system characterizedwith intercropped mung bean and staggered seeding compared to those of monocroppingof sweet sorghum.

Conclusion

Some intercropping features collectively restored the yields of soluble sugars and starchthat were individually suppressed by the other features. Land productivity of nonstructuralcarbohydrates increased in intercropping systems over the monocropping or simultane-ous systems because the times of seeding for sweet sorghum were shifted to 1 monthafter the establishment of legume. This positive reflection was due to favorable influenceof the domesticated microclimate and included nearly normal growth and developmentof sweet sorghum and legumes in intercropping associations in comparison to theirrespective monocropping systems. As a result, the yield of soluble sugars increased insweet sorghum–soybean associations, whereas that of the starch was greater in sweetsorghum–mung bean combination under a staggered system irrespective of the plantingpatterns in dry and wet seasons. The increased yields were greater by 5 to 6% for solu-ble sugars and 11 to 19% for starch compared to monocropping of sweet sorghum. Forthe purpose of producing raw material with high soluble sugar yield for syrup and/orbiofuel production, we propose adopting the sweet sorghum–soybean system with stag-gered seeding, with generation of starch of about 2.0 to 2.6 t ha−1 in dry and wetseasons. For the purpose of harvesting high yields of starch for flour, animal feed, andbacking products, the sweet sorghum–mung bean association can be considered as thebetter cropping system, with production of soluble sugars of about 7.0 to 9.0 t ha−1 inthe dry and wet seasons. Comparison of the economic return of the staggered systemneeds to be examined, as well as the effects of different fertilizer inputs and chang-ing plant densities under different climatic conditions on the production of nonstructuralcarbohydrates.

Acknowledgments

Thanks are extended to Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan and AgriculturalSystems and Engineering Department, Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand, forproviding financial support for this research project. We also thankful to Naveed Anwar(CEO, AIT Consulting), Wattanaporn Meskuntavon, Abdul Waheed, and MuhammadShahzad Sarfraz for their technical and moral support during experimentation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


References

Akbari, N., B. Mohsen, and A. Hadi. 2008. Change of grain protein content and correlations withother characteristics under planting pattern and starter N fertilizer of mungbean (Vigna radiataL. Wilczek). American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Science 4 (3):306–310.

Akunda, E. M. 2001. Intercropping and population density effects on yield component, seed quality,and photosynthesis of sorghum and soybean. Journal of Food Technology (Africa) 6:170–172.

Al-Dalain, S. A. 2009. Effect of intercropping of Zea maize with potato (Solanum tuberosum L.)on the productivity and land equivalent ratio of potato and Zea maize. Agricultural Journall4:164–170.

Almodares, A., R. Taheri, and V. Safavi. 2008. Sorghum, botany, agronomy, and biotechnology.Isfahan, Pakistan: Jahad Daneshgahi of University of Isfafan.

Altieri, M. A. 1999. The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystemsand Environment 74:19–31.

Amaducci, S., A. Monti, and G. Venturi. 2004. Nonstructural carbohydrates and fibre components insweet and fibre sorghum as affected by low and normal input techniques. Industrial Crops andProducts 20:111–118.

Andrews, D. J. 1972. Intercropping with guineacorn: A biological cooperative. Samaru AgriculturalNewsletter 14 (3): 40–42.

Antonopoulou, G., H. N. Gavala, I. V. Skiadas, K. Angelopoulos, and G. Lyberatos. 2008. Bio- fuelsgeneration from sweet sorghum: Fermentative hydrogen production and anaerobic digestion ofthe remaining biomass. Bioresource Technology 99:110–119.

Ayub, M., A. Tanveer, M. A. Nadeem, and S. M. A. Shah. 2004. Studies on the fodder yield andquality of sorghum grown alone and in mixture with ricebean. Pakistan Journal of Life andSocial Science 2 (1): 46–48.

Bharati, V., R. Nandan, V. Kumar, and I. B. Panday. 2007. Effect of irrigation levels on yield, wateruse efficiency, and economics of winter maize (Zea maize)–based intercropping systems. IndianJournal of Agronomy 52 (1): 27–30.

Billa, E., D. P. Koullas, B. Monties, and E. G. Koukios. 1997. Structure and composition of sweetsorghum stalk components. Industrial Crops and Products 6:297–302.

Buxton, D. R., and S. L. Fales. 1993. Plant environment and quality. In Forage quality, evaluation,and utilization, ed. G. C. Fahey Jr. et al. Madison, Wisc.: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA.

Carr, P. M., R. D. Horsley, and W. W. Poland. 2004. Barley, oat, and cereal pea mixture as dry landforages in the northern Great Plains. Agronomy Journal 96:677–684.

Carrubba, A., R. la Torre, F. Saiano, and P. Aiello. 2008. Sustainable production of fennel and dill byintercropping. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 28:247–256.

Chellaiah, N., and J. Ernest. 1994. Fodder production of cereal–legume mixture. Livestock Advisor19 (4): 15–18.

Chotiyarnwong, O., P. Chatwachirawong, S. Chanprame, and P. Srinives. 2007. Evaluation of geneticdiversity in Thai indigenous and recommended soybean varieties by SSR markers. Thai Journalof Agricultural Science 40 (3–4): 119–126.

Dajue, L. 2007. Developing sweet sorghum to meet the challenge of problems on food, energy, andenvironment in 21st century. Retrieved on 6 April 2011 from www.ifad.org/events/sorghum/b/LiDajue_developing.pdf.

Dahmardeh, M., A. Ghanbari, B. Syasar, and M. Ramroudi. 2009. Effect of intercropping maizewith cowpea on green forage yield and quality evaluation. Asian Journal of Plant Science 8 (3):235–239.

Dolciotti, I., S. Mambelli, S. Grandi, and G. Venturi. 1998. Comparison of two sorghum genotypesfor sugar and fiber production. Industrial Crops and Products 7:265–272.

Hussain, I., M. S. Baloch, and O. Sayal. 1999. A field study of sorghum cv. Giza-3 grown alone ofintercropped with guara or cowpeas. Pakistan Sarhad Journal of Agriculture 15 (4): 317–323.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


Hodge, J. E., and B. T. Hofreiter. 1962. In Methods in carbohydrate chemistry, ed. R. L. Whistlerand J. N. B. Miller. New York: Academic Press.

Javanmard, A., D. N. Adel, A. J. Mohammad, and J. Hosein. 2008. Forage yield and qualityin intercropping of maize with different legumes as double-cropped. Food, Agriculture andEnvironment 7 (1): 163–166.

Khajudparn, P., S. Wongkaew, and P. Thipyapong. 2007. Mungbean powdery mildew resistanceidentification of genes for resistance to powdery mildew in mungbean. African Crop ScienceConference Proceedings, El-Minia, Egypt 8:743–745.

Khalatbari, A. M., M. B. Hosseini, A. A. Khalatbari, O. R. Zandvakili, and A. H. Eslampour. 2009.Evaluation of intercropping forage sorghum with pearl millet at different row proportion andplant densities in semi-arid areas. American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 3 (1):15–20.

Khan, S. N., A. Ali, D. Khan, and S. Minhas. 2002. Economic feasibility of intercropping sugar beetin autumn planted sugarcane under various planting geometry. Pakistan Sugar Journal 17 (15):10–12.

Krishna, A., S. V. Raikhelkar, and A. S. Reddy. 1998. Effect of planting pattern and nitrogen onfodder maize with cowpea. Indian Journal of Agronomy 43 (2): 237–240.

Kurdali, F. 2009. Growth and nitrogen fixation in dhaincha/sorghum and dhaincha/sunflowerintercropping systems using nitrogen and carbon natural abundance techniques.Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis (19–20): 2995–3014.

Kurdali, F., M. Janat, and K. Khalifa. 2003. Growth and nitrogen fixation and uptakein dhaincha/sorghum intercropping system under saline and non-saline conditions.Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis 34 (17–18): 2471–2494.

Laopaiboon, L., N. Sunan, S. Penjit, K. Preekamol, and L. Pattana. 2009. Ethanol productionfrom sweet sorghum juice using very high gravity technology: Effects of carbon and nitrogensupplementations. Bioresource Technology 100 (18): 4176–4182.

Lithourgidis, A. S., K. V. Dhima, I. B. Vasilakoglou, C. A. Dordas, and M. D. Yiakoulaki. 2007.Sustainable production of barley and wheat by intercropping common vetch. Agronomy forSustainable Development 27:95–99.

Lithourgidis, A. S., C. A. Dordas, C. A. Damalas, and D. N. Vlachostergios. 2011. Annual intercrops:An alternative pathway for sustainable agriculture. Australian Journal of Crop Science 5 (4):396–410.

Mahmoud, E. A., N. A. Khalil, and S. Y. Besheet.1990. Effect of nitrogen fertilization and plantdensity on sugar beet 1: Growth and growth analysis. Proceedings of Fourth Conference onAgronomy, Cairo 15–16 Sept. 11: 415–431.

Malezieux, E., Y. Crozat, C. Dupraz, M. Laurans, D. Makowski, H. Ozier-Lafontaine, B. Rapidel,S. de Tourdonnet, and M. Valantin-Morison 2009. Mixing plant species in cropping systems:Concepts, tools, and models: A review. Agronomy Sustainable Development 29:43–62.

Midmore, D. J. 1993. Agronomic modification of resource use and intercrop productivity. FieldCrops Research 34:357–380.

Moreira, N. 1989. The effect of seed rate and nitrogen fertilizer on the nutritive value of oat–vetchmixtures. Journal of Agricultural Science Cambridge 112 (1): 57–66.

Morris, R. A., and D. P. Garrity. 1993. Resource capture and utilization in intercropping water. FieldCrops Research 34:303–317.

Mpairwe, D. R., E. N. Sabiiti, N. N. Ummuna, A. Tegegne, and P. Osuji. 2002. Effect of intercroppingcereal crops with forage legumes and source of nutrients on cereal grain yield and fodder drymatter yields. African Crop Science Journal 10 (1): 81–97.

Murray, S. C., W. L. Rooney, M. T. Hamblin, S. E. Mitchell, and S. Kresovich. 2009. Sweet sorghumdiversity and association mapping for brix and height. Plant Genome 2:48–62.

Murray, S. C., A. Sharma, W. L. Roone, P. E. Klein, J. E. Mullet, S. E. Mitchell, and S. Kresovich.2008. Genetic improvement of sorghum as a biofuel feedstock I: Quantitative loci for stem sugarand grain nonstructural carbohydrates. Crop Science 48:2165–2179.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014


Nnko, E. N., and A. L. Doto. 1982. Intercropping maize or millet with sorghum with particularreference to planting schedule. In Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Intercroppingin Semi-arid Areas, ed. C. L. Keswani and B. J. Ndunguru. Ottawa, Canada: InternationalDevelopment Research Center.

Okogun, J. A., and K. Mulongoy. 1999. Effect of intercrop spacing and nitrogen fertilizer on estab-lishment of Leucaena leucocephala in alley cropping. Communications in Soil Science andPlant Analysis 30 (5–6): 805–815.

Olowe, V. I. O., and A. Y. Adeyemo. 2009. Enhanced crop productivity and compatibility throughintercropping of sesame and sunflower varieties. Annals of Applied Biology 155:285–291.

Phoofolo, M. W., K. L. Giles, and N. C. Elliott. 2010. Effects of relay-intercropping sorghum withwinter wheat, alfalfa, and cotton on lady beetle (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) abundance andspecies composition. Environmental Entomology 39 (3): 763–774.

Ranamukharachchi, S. L. 1985. Productivity of corn and mung bean intercropping systems withspecial reference to plant population, row spacing, and nitrogen rate in the dry zone of SriLanka. PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.

Rashid, A., R. Khan, and M. M. F. Arshad. 2004. Effect of legume intercropping on sorghumproduction. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences 4 (2001): 109–113.

Rattunde, H. F. W., E. Zerbini, S. Chandra, and D. J. Flower. 2001. Stover quality of dual-purposesorghums: Genetic and environmental sources of variation. Field Crops Research 71:1–8.

Reda, F., J. A. C. Verkleij, and W. H. O. Ernst. 2005. Relay cropping of sorghum and legume shrubsfor crop yield improvement and striga control in the subsistence agriculture region of Tigray(northern Ethiopia). Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 191:20–26.

Sandhu, H. S., G. S. Gill, and S. S. Brar. 1972, Economics of regional practices in multiple cropping.Proceedings of Symposium on Multiple Cropping, Indian Society of Agronomy 121:123.

Soet, V. P. J. 1994. Nutritional ecology of the ruminants. In Fiber and physiochemical properties offeeds, 2nd ed., ed. P. J. Van Soet, 140–155. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

Steel, R. G. D., and J. H. Torrie. 1980. Analysis of covariance. In Principles and procedures ofstatistics: A biometrical approach, 401–437. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Stout, D. G., B. Brooke, J. W. Hall, and D. J. Thompson. 1997. Forage yield and quality fromintercropped barley, annual ryegrass, and different annual legumes. Grass and Forage Science52:298–308.

Thayumanavan, B., and S. Sadasivam. 1984. Physicochemical basis for the preferential uses ofcertain rice varieties. Plant Foods for Human Nutrition 34:253.

Thippeswamy and S. C. Alagundagi. 2001. Intercropping of legumes with sweet sorghum for highergreen forage production. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences 14 (3): 605–609.

Toaima, S. E. A. I., K. A. El-Douby, and A. I. Nafei. 2001. Effect of different intercropping systemsof onion and garlic on sugar beet yield components and chemical analysis. Egyptian Journal ofAgricultural Research 79 (3): 983–1004.

Tsubo, M., E. Mukhala, H. O. Ogindo, and S. Walker. 2003. Productivity of maize–beanintercropping in a semi-arid region of South Africa. Water SA 29 (4): 381–388.

Tsubo, M., S. Walker, and E. Mukhala. 2001. Comparisons of radiation use efficiency of mono/inter-cropping systems with different row orientations. Field Crops Research 576 (71): 17–29.

Vedprakash, Narendrakumar, and A. K. Srivastava. 2005. Viability of relay intercropping of tomatoand frenchbean with maize in northwest Himalaya. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 75(12): 794–796.

Zhang, G., Y. Zaibin, and D. Shuting. (in press). Interspecific competitiveness affects the totalbiomass yield in an alfalfa and corn intercropping system. Field Crops Research (in press).

Zhao, Y. L., A. Y. Dolat, X. Steinberger, A. Wang, G. Osman, and G. H. Xie. 2009. Biomass yieldand changes in chemical composition of sweet sorghum cultivars grown for biofuel. Field CropsResearch 111 (1–2): 55–64.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Asi

an I

nstit

ute

of T

echn

olog

y], [

Raj

endr

a Pr

asad

Shr

esth

a] a

t 18:

09 1

2 M

ay 2

014

Yield Comparison of Nonstructural Carbohydrates in Sweet Sorghum and Legume-Based Cropping Systems

Documents