Productivity and economics of field pea (Pisum sativum) and baby corn (Zea mays) intercropping systems as affected by planting pattern and weed management

A field experiment was conducted during the consecutive winter seasons of 2011–12 and 2012–2013 to find out the effect of planting patterns and weed-management practices on yield attributes, yields and economics of field pea (Pisum sativum L.) + baby corn (Zea mays L.) intercropping system. The experiment was laid out in a split-plot design, keeping 4 planting patterns as main plot and 4 weed-management practices as subplot with 3 replications. An intercropping of field pea with baby corn reduced the yield attributes of field pea, viz. pods/plant, grains/pod, 1, 000-grain weight and grain yield/plant and cobs/plant of baby corn. Sole field pea recorded significantly higher grain (1.85 t/ha) and straw yields (2.90 t/ha) than yield obtained as a component crop in paired maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2: 2) and maize + field pea (1: 1). Baby corn yield was similar in sole, paired (2: 2) and 1: 1 planting but significantly higher stover yield of baby corn (3.55 t/ha) was obtained from sole crop than other planting methods. Both the intercropping systems had significantly higher field pea-equivalent yield than sole crop of either field pea or baby corn. Hand-weeding 30 days after sowing (DAS), pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg/ha and post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g/ha (30 DAS) improved all the growth and yield parameters of field pea and baby corn than weedy check. Hand-weeding (30 DAS), pre-emergence application of pendimethalin 1 kg/ha and post-emergence application of imazethapyr 50 g/ha (30 DAS) resulted in significantly higher field pea-equivalent yield than weedy check. The highest gross return (80.71 × 10³ /ha) and net returns (53.25 × 10³ /ha) were obtained under paired maize (30/60 cm) + field pea (2: 2) and the highest benefit: cost ratio (2.15) was found in sole field pea (30 cm). Hand-weeding (30 DAS) resulted in the maximum value of gross returns (103.42 × 10³ /ha), net returns (77.80 × 10³ /ha) and benefit: cost ratio (3.04).