02112nam a2200241 a 450000100080000000500110000800800410001910000160006024500870007626000410016330000110020450000180021552014850023365000180171865000130173665000210174965000120177065000260178265300200180865300170182865300140184565300110185910524072018-06-14 1983 bl uuuu m 00u1 u #d1 aLIMA, A. F. aA study of plant population and row arrangement in millet/groundnut intercropping. aReading: University of Readingc1983 a195 p. aPh.D. Thesis. aTwp sets pf ex[ero,emts were carroed pit at ICRISAT, Hyderabad,India, during the growing seasons of 1980 and 1981, with the objective of determining the optiumu row proportion and plant population of millet when intercropped with groundnut, and to compare the efficiency of two systematic designs with a conventional factorial design. Groundnut is normally regarded as the most important component crop because of its cash value, but the millet is required as a food crop. An attempt was made to establish a balance of crops which in practice is determined by the needs of the farmer's family. So, two situations were considered: i) a minimum groundnut intercrop requirement of 50 percent of the sole crop; ii) a minimum groundnut intercrop requirement of 75 percent of the sole crop. The results from both years indicate that the proposition which can best satisfy the first requirement is a 1:3 row arrangment of millet to groundnut. In this instance, the greatest yield advantage of the mixture in 1980 was 27 percent at a millet population of 5.6 plants/m2, while in 1981 it was 13 percent at a millet population of 11.1 plants/m2. The groundnut was grown at a standard population of 33.3 plants/m2. For the second experiment, the best proposition in both years was a 1:5 row arrangement of millet to groundnut and the highest yield advantages were 27 and 11 percent in 1980 and 1981 respectively, and both results were obtained at a millet population of 5.6 plants/m2. (...). aintercropping aAmendoim aArachis Hypogaea aMilheto aPennisetum Americanum aArachis hypogea aConsorciacao aGroundnut aMillet