Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/springer-journals/evaluating-different-interrow-distance-between-corn-and-soybean-for-AqyuSegoqr
- Publisher
- Springer Journals
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2018 by The Author(s).
- Subject
- Life Sciences; Animal Genetics and Genomics; Agriculture
- eISSN
- 2055-0391
- DOI
- 10.1186/s40781-017-0158-0
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
Background: Maize fodder is being used as staple feed for livestock but it lacks protein and essential amino acids; lysine and tryptophan. Intercropping maize with leguminous soybean crop is promising technique under limited land resources of South Korea but it can only give considerable advantages when adequate distance is provided between corn and soybean rows. Main aim of present study was to find-out adequate distance between corn and soybean seeding rows for optimum growth, yield and nutritive value of intercropped forage. Methods: Different interrow distances between corn and soybean were evaluated under four treatments, viz. 1) Corn sole as positive control treatment 2) Zero cm between corn and soybean (control); 2) Five cm between corn and soybean; 3) 10 cm between corn and soybean, with three replicates under randomized block design. Results: Findings depicted that height and number of corn stalks and ears were similar (P > 0.05) among different treatments. Numerically average corn ear height was decreased at zero cm distance. Dry matter percentage in all components; corn stalk, corn ear and soybean was also found not different (P > 0.05) but dry matter yield in component of corn ear was lower (P < 0.05) at zero cm distance as compared to that of 5 and 10 cm interrow distances. In case of nutritive value, total digestible nutrient yield in intercropped corn was also found lower (P <0.05) at zero cm distance than that of 5 and 10 cm interrow distances between corn and soybean seeding rows. Substantial decrease in dry matter yield of maize ear at zero cm distance might be attributed to factor of closed interrow spacing which made interplant competition more intensified for light interception, necessary for photosynthetic activity. Lower dry matter yield in ear also reduced total digestible nutrients in intercropped maize because it was determining factor in calculation of digestible nutrients. The optimum yield and nutritive value of forage at wider interrow distance i.e. 5 cm between corn and soybean might be due to adequate interseed distance. Conclusion: Conclusively, pattern of corn and soybean seeding in rows at 5 cm distance was found suitable which provided adequate interrow distance to maintain enough mutual cooperation and decreased competition between both species for optimum production performance and nutritive value of intercropped forage. Keywords: Interrow distance, Seeding rows, Corn-soybean and intercropping forage * Correspondence: chkwon@knu.ac.kr Department of Animal Science, Kyungpook National University, 2559, Gyeongsang-daero, Sangj-si 37224, South Korea Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. Kim et al. Journal of Animal Science and Technology (2018) 60:1 Page 2 of 6 Background with main objective to find-out adequate distance be- In connection to achievement of high economic growth tween corn and soybean seeding rows for optimum in Republic of Korea, consumption pattern is massively growth, yield and nutritive value of intercropped forage. shifted towards meat and dairy products. Accordingly, role of livestock industry has become more prominent Methods as an attempt to meet increasing domestic demand. Location of research site Therefore, livestock production reaches 40.2% of total Research trial was conducted at private farm in Angang- Agro-forestry production [1, 2]. Consequently, livestock eup of Gyeongju city in Gyeongbuk province of South population of beef cattle, pigs, chicken, ducks and dairy Korea. Its geographical coordinates are 36°00′51.5”N cattle is reached to 2742, 10,355, 101,014, 10,705 and 129°12′13.5″E. The comparative average temperature 402 thousand heads, respectively during second quarter and total rainfall recorded during study period and last of year 2016 [3]. This considerable number of livestock five years is given in Table 1. requires ample amount of feeding resources in country through import or local production. Unfortunately, self- Experimental treatments and design sufficiency in production of feeding resources for live- Different interseed distances between corn and soybean stock is quite low due to limited cultivatable land and seeding rows were evaluated under three research treat- use of traditional cropping techniques. ments, viz. 1) corn sole seeding (positive control), 2) Maize is worldwide renowned as king of cereal fodders zero cm distance between corn and soybean seeding which can be used as major feed ingredient in livestock. rows (control), 3) five cm distance between corn and It is good source of carbohydrates and provides 60% en- soybean seeding rows and 4) ten cm distance between ergy and 90% starch in animal’s diet [4]. Farmers prefer corn and soybean seeding rows. Each treatment was rep- to cultivate maize as staple feed for their animals be- licated three times following randomized block design. cause it can be easily processed and preserved for silage. An area of land having length and width measurement However, maize forage lacks protein and essential amino (15 × 12 m) was selected and preliminary divided it acids; lysine and tryptophan [5]. Legumes are known to equally into 3 main blocks (replicates); A, B and C. Then be an excellent source of protein and might be used to each block was further divided into 4 plots. Each plot cover protein deficiency of cereals [6]. In attempt to im- had length and width (5 × 3 m). Finally, 12 plots were prove the nutritive value of maize, intercropping maize made available for random application of four treat- with soybean is getting recognized in Republic of Korea ments with three replicates. by farmers as a promising technique under limited land resources [7]. Mixture of nitrogen fixing leguminous and Seed and seeding none fixing cereal crop would gave more productivity In connection with corn soybean intercropping, maize than mono-cropping [8] through biculture rhizobial (variety named Pioneer P1184) and soybean (crossbred symbiosis [9]. Intercropped legumes can fix nitrogen variety named PI483463 × Hutcheson) were sown on from atmosphere and do not compete with companion 15th June of 2015, whereas harvesting was furnished on maize crop for nitrogen resources [10] making cereal 8th October of same year. The land was prepared with legume biculture system more superior than mono- application of fertilizer NPK (21:17:17) at the rate of cropping [11]. 200 kg per hectare. Main aim of intercropping strategy has been to utilize Preliminary, seeding of corn was accomplished on resources such as distance, light and nutrients efficiently equally distant 4 lines in each plot. In case of positive [12] for enhancing forage quality as well as quantity control treatment for corn, soybean seeding was not per- [13]. When two independent crops are grown together, formed leaving plots for corn mono-cropping. However, plants of each component need enough distance in fa- soybean seeding under 2nd treatment (control) was con- cilitating cooperation and competition between crops. ducted over the same rows where corn seeding was done Adequate interseed distance is quite important to be considered in preliminary spatial arrangements because Table 1 Comparative average temperature and total rainfall in spatial arrangement are determining factor for optimum Gyeongju city, Gyeongbuk productivity in corn-soybean intercropping [14]. Any Climate Year June July Aug Sep change in hierarchy and spatial pattern can greatly influ- Temp (°C) 2015 21.2 24.0 25.4 19.8 ence productivity of intercropping strategy [15]. The lit- 2010–2014 21.4 25.4 25.3 20.2 erature regarding optimum interseed distance between Rainfall (mm) 2015 22.4 171.6 104.2 37.0 corn (Zee mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max L.) rows 2010–2014 90.4 170.0 243.8 82.5 in intercropping system under Korean environment con- ditions is scanty. Therefore present study was designed Source: Korea Meteorological Administration, 2016 Kim et al. Journal of Animal Science and Technology (2018) 60:1 Page 3 of 6 Table 2 Effect of different interrow space between corn & soybean on growth performance of forage Parameters (Mean ± SE) 0 cm Corn sole 0 cm distance Corn 5 cm distance 10 cm distance (Positive control) soybean (Control) Corn soybean Corn soybean Corn stalk height (cm) 250.4 ± 4.8 244.2 ± 6.4 260.8 ± 4.8 248.3 ± 13.5 Corn ear height (cm) 75.5 ± 4.2 66.8 ± 3.6 74.2 ± 1.2 74.2 ± 5.3 Soybean height (cm) – 46.2 ± 6.1 52.5 ± 7.7 45.4 ± 2.1 Corn stalk number (No.) 27.0 ± 2.5 27.6 ± 1.4 27.5 ± 1.5 28.0 ± 0.5 Corn ear number (No.) 26.6 ± 1.3 26.0 ± 0.5 26.0 ± 2.0 26.0 ± 1.5 Soybean number (No.) – 49.3 ± 4.2 33.5 ± 2.5 46.0 ± 7.0 Coupling (No.) – 18.0 ± 1.5 16.5 ± 2.5 15.3 ± 0.6 Variables having no superscripts in the same row are not different (P > 0.05), SE Standard error previously to ensure zero cm distance between corn and initially weighed, dried in oven at 70 °C for 72 h and then soybean seeds. Whereas, seeding of soybean under 3rd again weighed after drying. The percentage of DM was treatment was carried out on separate parallel rows just calculated using fresh yield and dry matter yield infor- which were 5 cm distant away from corn seeding lines. mation. Total Digestible Nutrients (TDN) was calculated The same method was followed in 4th treatment but through following equation [16], interseed distance was fixed 10 cm between corn and Total digestible nutrient = (DM yield of maize stalk × soybean rows. 0.582) + (DM yield of maize ear × 0.85). Mixture of Alachlor and Pendimethalin herbicides was Where, numbers 0.582 and 0.85 are constant factors used after completion of seeding. The management and used to calculate TDN. conditions like temperature, moisture, air and lighting were kept similar and identical to all experimental Parameters studied treatments. Effect of varying interrow spaces between corn and soybean was investigated in terms of following parameters, viz. corn Data collection stalk height and number, corn ear height and number, soy- Height and number of maize stalk, maize ear and soybean bean height and number, coupling number, dry matter per- was measured and counted on harvesting time. Maize centage, dry matter yield (corn stalk, ear and soybean) and height was taken from ground to top of plant and height total digestible nutrients yield (corn stalk plus ear). of maize ear was measured from ground to the bud of ear evolved, whereas soybean height was measured from ground to top of plant. Five plants were taken randomly Statistical analysis from each replicate for measuring data regarding height. Data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA technique Similarly, 2 samples from each replicate were randomly under randomized block design through SAS 9.1.3 soft- taken for dry matter and total digestible nutrient yield, ware. The difference among treatment means was tested Fig. 1 Effect of different interrow distance between corn and soybean on dry matter percentage in corn stalk, corn ears and soybean components of mixed forage (Mean ± SE). *Same colored bar variable with value over top having no superscripts are not different (P > 0.05) Kim et al. Journal of Animal Science and Technology (2018) 60:1 Page 4 of 6 through Duncan Multiple Range Test [17] and confi- matter yield as shown in Fig. 2. The TDN yield in dence level for this experiment was 95%. component of corn (Stalk plus ear) was also found lower (P < 0.05) at zero cm distance than that of 5 and 10 cm Results interrow distances between corn and soybean. Effect of different interrow space between corn and soybean on growth performance of forage Discussion Response of interrow distance on growth performance of The substantial reduction in dry matter yield of intercropped mixed forage is mentioned in Table 2. The height and num- maize ear at zero cm interrow distance between corn and ber of corn stalks and ears were not significantly different soybean in present study might be attributed to factor of (P > 0.05) among treatments of different interseed intervals. close interrow spacing which consequently affect interplant Similarly, soybean height, soybean number and corn competition for light interception [18–20]. The light inter- soybean coupling were also not different among treatments. ception could be more available at wider interrow spacing It was depicted that numerically average corn ear height than that of close interrow distance [20–22]. Intensified was decreased at zero cm distance between corn and interplant competition for factor of light interception might soybean seeding rows, although it was not significantly influence dry matter yield of intercropped maize ears [23] different from other treatments. In case of corn sole because maize yield was linearly correlated with photosyn- (Positive control treatment), the corn stalk height was not thetic output [19]. If row spacing were increased in inter- different (P < 0.05) with intercropping corn component at cropping, photosynthetic activity of forage could be any interrow space but it was tended to high at 5 cm enhanced [24]. In connection to comparison of corn sole interrow distance between corn and soybean. with other treatments, higher tendency of intercropping corn stalk height, corn stalk DMY and significantly higher inter- Effect of different interrow space between corn and cropping corn ear DMY under 5 cm distance treatment soybean on production of mixed forage might be due to suitable interrow space between corn and Dry matter percentage (DM %) in all components; corn soybean seeding lines which could fetch optimum advantage stalk, corn ear and soybean was found not significantly of intercropping corn with soybean through efficient rhizo- different (P > 0.05) among inter-seed distances between bial symbiosis between two intercropped species [25]. corn and soybean seeding rows as shown by Fig. 1. Dry Following pattern of dry matter yield in maize ear, TDN matter yield (tons/ha) in corn stalk and soybean compo- yield in intercropped corn forage was also comparatively nents of intercropping forage was also not significantly lower (P < 0.05) at zero distance between corn and soy- different among treatments of different interrow distances. bean seeding rows than that of wider interrow spacing. However, dry matter yield in component of corn ear was The possible reason might be lesser dry matter (DM) yield found lower (P < 0.05) at zero cm distance as compared to in maize ear as depicted by findings of this study. The DM that of 5 and 10 cm interrow spaces as shown in Table 3. yield of both components of intercropped maize forage; The DMY of corn component in corn sole was not differ- stalk and ear were determining factor of calculating its ent (P < 0.05) with intercropping corn component at any total digestible nutrient yield as mentioned in TDN for- interrow space but it was tended to high at 5 cm interrow mula. Better nutritive value of intercropped corn forage in distance between corn and soybean. However, corn ear terms of TDN at wider spaced (5 cm) seeding rows be- DMY was higher (P < 0.05) than that of zero cm treatment tween corn and soybean might be due to adequate inter- but not different (P > 0.05) with other treatments. seed space. Previously, Yang et al. (2016) also elaborated the influence of interrow space on yield of maize forage Effect of different interrow space between corn and even in maize soybean relay strip intercropping system. In soybean on nutritive value of mixed forage that study narrow-row spacing of maize ranged from 80 Pattern of effect on nutritive value in terms of total to 20 cm under relay strip intercropping, the yield of digestible nutrients (TDN) yield was similar to that of dry intercropped maize decreased by 25.53–3.13% [26]. Table 3 Effect of different interrow space between corn & soybean on dry matter yield of forage Parameters (Mean ± SE) 0 cm distance Corn sole 0 cm distance Corn & 5 cm interrow distance 10 cm interrow distance (Positive control) soybean (Control) Corn & soybean Corn & soybean a a a a Corn stalk DMY (ton/ha) 5.9 ± 0.4 5.1 ± 0.4 6.3 ± 0.6 5.5 ± 0.5 a b a a Corn ear DMY (ton/ha) 6.6 ± 0.5 4.8 ± 0.6 7.2 ± 0.03 6.7 ± 0.4 a a a Soybean DMY (ton/ha) – 0.8 ± 0.1 0.7 ± 0.3 0.9 ± 0.2 ab b a ab Total DMY (ton/ha) 12.5 ± 0.9 10.7 ± 0.7 14.2 ± 0.3 13.1 ± 1.03 a, b Variables having varying superscript in the same row are different (P < 0.05), SE Standard error, DMY Dry matter yield Kim et al. Journal of Animal Science and Technology (2018) 60:1 Page 5 of 6 Fig. 2 Effect of different interrow distance between corn and soybean on total digestible nutrient in intercropping corn forage (Mean ± SE). *Bar variable with value over top having different superscripts are different (P < 0.05) Maize growth could be highly sensitive to spatial arrange- Acknowledgements Not applicable. ment [27] and interplant competition might affect growth of neighboring plants negatively [28]. Although compara- Funding tive data between 5 cm and 10 cm distance treatments The work was supported by IPET agricultural life industry technical development project (314024–3). showed non-significant difference but distinct higher tendency in corn stalk height, corn stalk DMY and corn ear Availability of data and materials DMY and even total mixed forage DMY under 5 cm dis- Dataset generated or analyzed during the course of study are not publicly available due property of research project funded by IPET agricultural life tance treatment might be due to factor that 5 cm distance industry technical development. However, it can be available from could be optimum space between corn and soybean seed- corresponding author on reasonable request. ing lines than wider interrow space of 10 cm in this study. Authors’ contributions In contrast to previous published literature, growth per- CHK designed plan of study and supervised the research trial, whereas MF formance of plants in this study should also be decreased analyzed collected data and wrote the manuscript. JTK was principal author significantly at zero cm inter-row distance due to intensi- who was responsible to manage all activities of the experiment, whereas YS and DK worked in the execution of trial and also involved in data collection fied interplant competition. However, growth parameters and interpretation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. were not significantly (P > 0.05) different among various inter-seed spaces between corn and soybean due to larger Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. variation in data. Anyhow, average corn ear height was tended to decrease at zero cm interrow distance, although Consent for publication it was not significantly different from other treatments. Not applicable. This might be considerable limitation of this study and Competing interests needs further research to be conducted for authentication The authors declare that they have no competing interests. of adequate interrow space between in corn soybean intercropping. Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Conclusion Author details Conclusively, pattern of corn and soybean seeding in Department of Animal Science, Kyungpook National University, 2559, rows at 5 cm interrow distance was found suitable which Gyeongsang-daero, Sangj-si 37224, South Korea. Department of Livestock Production and Management, Arid Agriculture University, Rawalpindi 46300, provided adequate interplant space to maintain enough Pakistan. mutual cooperation and decreased competition between both species for optimum production performance and Received: 28 May 2017 Accepted: 6 November 2017 nutritive value of intercropped forage. References Abbreviations 1. Kim B, Han S, Kim T, Yang H. Agriculture, farm villages and prospect of food Bean, Soybean and DMY: Dry matter yield; DM: Dry matter; NPK: Nitrogen industry. Korea: Korean Rural Economic Institute (KREI); 2012. phosphorus potassium; SAS: Statistical analysis system; SE: Standard error; 2. Chung SH, Lee JS, Kim MJ, Lee HG. The development status and prospect TDN: Total digestible nutrients; Temp: Temperature of Korean livestock industry. J Anim Vet Advan. 2014;13(20):1143–9. Kim et al. Journal of Animal Science and Technology (2018) 60:1 Page 6 of 6 3. Korean Statistics (KOSTAT). Agriculture area survey in 2016 (According to 27. Maddonni GA, Otegui ME, Cirilo AG. Plant population density, row spacing Remote Sensing), the statistics Korea, Ministry of strategy and finance, and hybrid effects on maize canopy architecture and light attenuation. Field Republic of Korea. 2016. http://kostat.go.kr/portal/eng/surveyOutline/1/1/ Crops Res. 2001;71:183–93. index.static. Accessed 15 Oct 2016. 28. Franco M, Harper JL. Competition and the formation of spatial pattern in 4. Dado RG. Nutritional benefit of specialty maize grain hybrid in dairy diets. J spacing gradients: an example using Kochia Scoparia. J of. Ecol. 1988;76: Anim Sci. 1999:197–207. 959–74. 5. Yadav MR, Kumar R, Ram H. Using quality protein maize as an elite feed and fodder for. Livestock. 2016; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/ 308899920. Accessed 15 Oct 2016 6. Gebrehiwot L, McGrow RL, Assefu G. Forage yield and quality profile of three annual legumes in the tropical highlands of Ethiopia. Trop Agric. 1996; 73:83–98. 7. Seo JD, Chae JH, Park JH, Kim MS, Kwon CH, Lee JD. Yield and quality of forage produced by mixed planting of soybean and corn. Curr res on Agri. Life Sci. 2014;32:105–9. 8. Seran TH, Brintha T. Review on maize based intercropping. J Agron. 2010; 9(3):135–45. 9. Latati M, Pansu M, Drevon JJ, Ounane SM. Advantage of intercropping maize (Zea mays L.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) on yield and nitrogen uptake in Northeast Algeria. Int. J Res App Sci. 2013;01:23–9. 10. Adu-Gyamfi JJ, Myaka FA, Sakal WD, Odgaard R, Vesterager JM, Hogh- Jensen H. Biological nitrogen fixation and nitrogen and phosphorus budgets in farmer-managed intercrops of maize pigeon pea in semiarid southern and eastern Africa. Plant Soil. 2007;295:127–36. 11. Banik P, Sharma RC. Yield and resource utilization efficiency in baby corn- legume intercropping system in the eastern plateau of India. J Sust Agr. 2009;33:379–95. 12. Li L, Zhang FS, Li XL, Christie P, Sun JH, Yang SC, Tang C. Interspecific facilitation of nutrient uptake by intercropped maize and faba bean. Nut Cycl in agro. Ecosystems. 2003;65:61–71. 13. Mpairwe DR, Sabiiti EN, Ummuna NN, Tegegne A, Osuji P. Effect of intercropping cereal crops with forage legumes and source of nutrients on cereal grain yield and fodder dry matter yields. African Crop Sci J. 2002;10:81–97. 14. Addo-Quaye AA, Darkwa AA, Ocloo GK. Yield and productivity of component crops in a maize-soybean intercropping system as affected by time of planting and spatial arrangement. ARPN J of Agric Biol Sci. 2011; 6(9):50–7. 15. Oseni TO, Aliyu IG. Effect of row arrangements on sorghum-cowpea intercrops in the semiarid savannah of Nigeria. Int J Agric Biol. 2010;12(1): 137–40. 16. Holland C, Kezar W, Kautz WP, Lazowski EJ, Mahanna WC, Reinhart R. The pioneer forage manual. Des Moines, IA: A nutritional guide. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int. Inc.; 1990. 17. Steel RGR, Torrie JH, Dickey DA. Principles and procedures of statistics. A biochemical approach 3rd ed. NY, USA: McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc; 1997. 18. Farnham DE. Row spacing, plant density and hybrid effects on corn grain yield and moisture. Agron J. 2001;93(5):1049–53. 19. Zhang Y, Liu J, Zhang J, Liu H, Liu S, Zhai L. Row ratios of intercropping maize and soybean can affect agronomic efficiency of the system and subsequent wheat. PLoS One. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 20. Prasad RB, Brook RM. Effect of varying maize densities on intercropped maize and soybean in Nepal. Exp Agric. 2005;41:365–82. 21. Keating BA, Carberry PS. Resource capture and use in intercropping: solar radiation. Field Crop Res. 1993;34:273–301. 22. Jiao NY, Zhao C, Ning TY, Hou LT, GZ F, Li ZJ, Chen MC. Effects of maize- peanut intercropping on economic yield and light response of Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central photosynthesis. Chinese. J Appl Ecol. 2008;19:981–5. 23. Verdelli D, Acciaresi HA, Leguizamón ES. Corn and soybean in a strip and we will help you at every step: intercropping system: crop growth rates, radiation interception and grain • We accept pre-submission inquiries yield components. Int. J Agron. 2012;12:1–7. 24. Shao-sen L, Yong-jin T. Effects of density, row spacing and hole spacing of � Our selector tool helps you to find the most relevant journal maize on intercropped soybean's photosynthetic rates. Soy Sci. 2007;02 � We provide round the clock customer support 25. Latati M, Bargaz A, Belarbi B, Lazali M, Benlahrech S, Tellah S. The intercropping � Convenient online submission common bean with maize improves the rhizobial efficiency, resource use and grain yield under low phosphorus availability. Eur J Agron. 2016;72:80–90. � Thorough peer review 26. Yang F, Liao D, Fan F, Gao R, Wu X, Rahman T, Yong T, Liu W, Liu J, Du J, � Inclusion in PubMed and all major indexing services Shu K, Wang X, Yang W. Effect of narrow-row planting patterns on crop � Maximum visibility for your research competitive and economic advantage in maize-soybean relay strip intercropping system. Plant Prod Sci. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1080/ Submit your manuscript at 1343943X.2016.1224553. www.biomedcentral.com/submit
Journal
Journal of Animal Science and Technology – Springer Journals
Published: Feb 5, 2018