Indian Journal of Agronomy
  • Year: 2022
  • Volume: 67
  • Issue: 2

Response of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) variety Pusa Arhar 16 to different row spacing and intercropping systems

  • Author:
  • Rajan Maini1,*, Kanwaljit Singh Sandhu2
  • Total Page Count: 4
  • Page Number: 212 to 215

1M.Sc. (Ag.), Agronomy, P.G. Department of AgricultureKhalsa College, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab-143 001

2Assistant Professor, P.G. Department of Agriculture, Khalsa College, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab-143 001

Khalsa College, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab-143 001

*Corresponding author’s Email: rajanmaini20@gmail.com

Online published on 12 July, 2022.

Abstract

The experiment was conducted at Students Research Farm, Khalsa College, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, Punjab, during the rainy (kharif) season of 2020–21, to study the effect of different row spacing and intercropping systems on growth and yield of ‘Pusa Arhar 16’ pigeonpea [Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp.]. Results showed that, number of branches/plant and yield attributes were significantly higher under 100 cm × 20 cm than in 50 cm × 20 cm, while the seed yield of pigeonpea (1.41 tonnes/ha) and pigeonpea-equivalent yield (1.78 tonnes/ha) were found significantly higher under narrow spacing 50 cm × 20 cm than wider spacing, i.e., 100 cm × 20 cm (1.02 and 1.33 tonnes/ha). Higher net returns (80.4 × 103/ha) and benefit: cost (B: C) ratio (4.08) were recorded in 50 cm × 20 cm than in 75 cm × 20 cm (73.4 × 103/ha and 3.84) and 100 cm × 20 cm (53.9 × 103/ha and 3.10). Among the different intercropping systems, pigeonpea + pearlmillet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.] fodder gave the maximum pigeonpea-equivalent yield of 1.85 tonnes/ha, being superior to 1.31 tonnes/ha in sole pigeonpea and 1.38 tonnes/ha of pigeonpea + fingermillet, while it was at par with pigeonpea + greengram [Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek] (1.80 tonnes/ha). Pigeonpea + pearlmillet fodder fetched higher net returns (84.8 × 103/ha) and B: C (4.25) ratio among the different intercropping systems.

Keywords

Economic returns, Intercropping systems, Pusa Arhar-16, Row spacing