CASTOR BASED INTERCROPPING SYSTEMS

SEMINAR -ION

Presented byMahantesh Chougule

I.D.No. PG12AGR4037Sr.M.Sc.(Agri)

Dept. of Agronomy

SEQUENCE OF PRESENTATION Introduction

Castor scenario

Importance, merits and demerits of intercropping systemsResearch studies on different intercropping systems

Crop compatibility

Crop geometry

Nutrient management

Relay intercropping

Agroforestry system ConclusionFuture line of work

INTRODUCTION

Area Production ProductivityWorld 2.63 m ha 2.79 m t 1,060 kg ha-1

India 1.45 m ha 2.29 m t 1,578 kg ha-1

Karnataka 19,100 ha 16,069 t 886 kg ha-1

Castor scenario (2011-12)

SourceDirectorate of economics and statistics, BangaloreDepartment of agriculture and Co-operation, Indiawww.iolworld.biz

India84%

China7%

Brazil4%

Mozambique2%

Thailand0%

other countries2%

casto production in world

2.34 m t

0.20 m t

0.12 m t

0.06 m t

0.011m t0.05 m t

Castor production in the world

FAO, 2012

Total castor production 2.79 m t

Area, production and productivity of castor in India (2011-12)

Gujarat Rajasthan Andhra Pradesh

Karnataka0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Area (000 ha)Production (000 tonne)yield (kg/ ha)

Indiastat, 2012

INTERCROPPING

It refers to growing of two or more crops

simultaneously on the same piece of land.

Crop intensification is in both time and space.

ADVANTAGES

Higher income per unit area

Biological insurance

Better utilization of

natural resources

Reduction in soil runoff

and controls weeds

Maintain soil

fertility

Disadvantages

Competition for resources

Varying response to

fertilizers and water

Harvesting is difficult

Difficulty in management

Produce higher yields per unit area through better use of natural resources

Offer greater stability in production under adverse weather conditions and with disease and insect infestation

Provide an equitable distribution of farm resources

Meet the domestic needs of the farmer

An ideal intercropping should aim to

Hegde et al., 2009

INTERCROPPING SYSTEMS OF CASTOR FOR DIFFERENT REGIONS

RESEARCH FINDINGS

CROP COMPATIBILITY

Treatment Castor yield (kg/ ha)

Intercrop (kg/ ha)

CEY(kg/ ha)

Net returns `/ha

B:C ratio

Sole castor (120 X 60 cm) 2980 - 980 38 160 3.05

Castor + moong 1:1 3310 648 3895 51 215 3.41

Castor + moong 1:2 2982 829 3769 47 823 2.94

Castor +sesame 1:1 2982 446 3703 48 451 3.34

Castor + sesame 1:2 2560 557 3446 43 082 2.77

Castor +mothbean 1:1 2185 361 2606 29 302 1.95

Castor +mothbean 1:2 1941 459 2307 22 969 1.41

SEm± 173 - 181 - -

CD (P=0.05) 534 - 558 - -

Sardarkrishinagar, Gujarat Patel et al., 2007

Table 1. Yield and economics as influenced by different intercropping systems under irrigated condition (3 years pooled data)

Table 2. Effect on castor yield under intercropping systems

TreatmentYield of castor

(Kg/ha)

Yield of intercrop (Kg/ha)

Castor equivalent

yields (Kg/ha)

Net returns (`/ ha)

Additional returns (`/ ha)

T1 -Castor sole crop 1130 - 1130 10482 -

T2 – Castor + Pigeonpea (1:1) 1150 134 1276 12262 1779

T3 – Castor + Greengram (2:2) 1157 - 1157 10969 486

T4 – Castor + Sunflower (2:2) 860 336 1068 7924 -2559

T5 – Castor + Maize (2:1) 1003 194 1056 8042 -2441

T6 – Castor + Pigeonpea (2:1) 1265 344 1590 18137 7654

SEm± 230 36

CD (P=0.05) NS 110

ANGRAU, Hyderabad, A.P. Leela Rani, 2008

Table 3. Effect of various treatments on dry matter, yield attribute and yield of rabi castor (2 years pooled data)

Treatments

Dry matter accumulation at harvest (g plant-1 )

No. of spikes per plant

No. of capsules per main spikes

Seed yield(kg ha-1)

% decrease in yield over sole castor

T1 –Sole castor 234.33 6.57 69.76 2072.65 - 

T2- castor + chickpea (NP) 187.53 5.7 58.03 1673.79 19.24

T3- castor + greengram (NP) 210.31 6.23 65.36 1796.29 13.33

T4- castor + Indian bean (NP) 153.53 4.32 48.53 1319.44 36.34

T5- castor + chickpea(PR) 175.78 5.22 57.10 1538.46 25.77

T6- castor + greengram(PR) 194.58 5.97 62.20 1764.60 14.86

T7- castor + Indian bean(PR) 147.88 4.11 43.98 1230.41 40.64

CD (P=0.05)       251.33  

Dhimmar, 2009Navsari (Gujarat)

Table 4. Seed yield of main crop and intercrops in castor-based intercropping systems (kg ha-1)

Treatments Castor seed yield Intercrop yield

Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif

T1 - Castor + blackgram 1009 1064 349 385

T2 - Castor + greengram 984 1052 339 350

T3 - Castor + cowpea 930 980 323 335

T4 - Castor + soybean 875 888 226 280

T5 - Castor + sesame 804 804 224 249

T6 - Castor sole 1129 1201

SEd 24.29 26.43 - -

CD (P=0.05) 49.88 55.93 NA NA

NA - Statistically not analysedAnnamalainagar, Tamil Nadu Thanunathan et al., 2008

Table 6. Effect of different castor-based intercropping systems on CEY, LER, IER and economics

Treatments Castor equivalent

yield

Land equivalent

ratio

Net returns (`/ ha)

Returns rupee-1 invested

Incomeequivalent ratio

Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif

T1-Castor+blackgram 1346 1425 1.71 1.72 10846 12317 1.91 2.04 1.74 1.75

T2-Castor+greengram 1329 1398 1.64 1.65 9880 11076 1.83 1.93 1.71 1.72

T3 - Castor + cowpea 1182 1224 1.54 1.55 9727 10885 1.82 1.92 1.64 1.65

T4 - Castor + soybean 1182 1224 1.54 1.55 7907 8638 1.70 1.76 1.54 1.55

T5 - Castor + sesame 1177 1220 1.30 1.31 7664 8307 1.68 1.74 1.30 1.31

T6 - Castor sole 1129 1201 1.00 1.00 7680 8755 1.74 1.85 - -

Annamalainagar, Tamil Nadu Thanunathan et al., 2008

Table7. Yields of castor and intercrops as influenced by intercropping

Treatment Kharif 2007 Kharif 2008

Castor yield (kg/ ha)

Intercrop yield(kg/ ha)

CEY(kg/ ha)

Castor yield(kg/ ha)

Intercrop yield (kg/ ha)

CEY (kg/ ha)

Sole castor 854 - 854 586 - 586Castor + sorghum 474 221 571 284 167 361Castor + pearl millet 361 1218 897 245 1093 753Castor + greengram 516 754 1179 425 482 942Castor + blackgram 928 338 1225 614 266 903

Castor + soybean 666 388 900 400 243 553Castor + sunflower 574 275 794 288 254 541Sem ± 43 - 68 38 - 85

CD (P=0.05) 126 - 141 111 - 175

ANGRAU, Hyderabad Basith and Shaik Mohmammad, 2012

Table 8. Monetary returns as influenced by intercropping

Treatment

Kharif, 2007 Kharif, 2008

Gross returns(`/ ha)

Net returns (`/ ha)

Net returns (`/ Re)

Gross returns (`/ ha)

Net returns (`/ ha)

Net returns (`/ Re)

Sole castor 21 351 11 351 1.14 16 391 6 391 0.64

Castor + sorghum 15 630 630 0.04 11343 - 3657 - 0.24

Castor + pearl millet 24 705 9 705 0.65 23 126 8 126 0.54

Castor + greengram 31 464 16 464 1.10 27 823 12 823 0.85

Castor + blackgram 31 573 16 573 1.10 26 142 11 142 0.74

Castor + soybean 22 894 7 594 0.50 15 750 450 0.03

Castor + sunflower 19 850 4 850 0.32 15 164 164 0.01

ANGRAU, Hyderabad Basith and Shaik Mohmammad, 2012

Crop geometry

Table 10. Castor yield, economics & land equivalent ratio (LER) as influenced by intercropping systems

IntercroppingCastor yield kg/ ha

Net returns (`/ ha)

B: C ratio LER1992 1993 1994 Pooled

Castor + Cluster bean

1:1 1870 2232 2707 2270 15967 1.24 1.20

1:2 1244 1824 1456 1508 9740 0.72 1.24

Castor + Cowpea

1:1 1388 1917 2343 1882 9058 0.70 1.02

1:2 1089 1470 2240 1601 6730 0.50 1.18

Castor + Greengram

1:1 1684 2332 2839 2285 16703 1.29 1.18

1:2 820 2137 1697 1551 11181 0.82 1.15

Castor + Groundnut

1:1 2109 2690 3130 2643 15362 0.94 1.28

1:2 1166 1894 2215 1758 7610 0.44 1.24

Sole castor 3266 3409 3573 3416 24160 2.41 1.00

CD (P=0.05) 735 427 522 352 - - -

GAU, Sardarkrishinagar Patel et al., 2002

Table 11. Grain yield of component crops (kg/ ha)

Crop

Component crops yield (kg/ ha)

1992-93 1993-94 1995-96 Pooled

Intercrop Sole Intercrop Sole Intercrop Sole Intercrop Sole

Castor + Cluster bean

1:1 569 366 - 713 - 549 -

1:2 733 941 617 704 1128 1447 826 1030

Castor + Cowpea

1:1 397 - 414 - 231 - 348 -

1:2 665 755 568 887 366 598 538 747

Castor + Greengram

1:1 357 - 649 - 463 - 456 -

1:2 557 829 626 1070 689 800 624 900

Castor + Groundnut

1:1 439 - 482 - 211 - 318 -

1:2 606 860 704 935 299 424 536 740

CD (P=0.05) 271 - 218 - 159 - 351 -

GAU, Sardarkrishinagar Patel et al., 2002

Table 12. Yield and yield attributes of castor as influenced by intercropping treatments

Treatment

Kharif, 2001 Kharif, 2002 Seed yield plant -1 (g) Seed yield (kg ha-1)

No. capsules/ spike

No. capsules/ spike

Kharif, 2001

Kharif, 2002

Kharif 2001

Kharif 2002

Mean

Castor + 1 row GN 69 64 21.2 22.6 479 640 559

Castor + 2 rows GN 71 62 22.7 15.1 484 506 495

Castor + 3 rows GN 71 72 22.5 22.7 507 662 585

Castor + 4 rows GN 72 75 22.4 24.1 517 674 595

Castor + 5 rows GN 86 78 24.4 24.3 628 807 718

Castor + 6 rows GN 76 77 22.3 23.0 572 452 512

Castor + 7 rows GN 75 66 21.6 22.1 531 375 453

Castor + 1 row PM 72 65 22.6 20.5 536 640 588

Castor + 2 rows PM 77 64 23.3 15.5 550 735 643

Castor + 3 rows PM 86 75 23.6 23.4 601 806 704

Castor + 4 rows PM 75 62 22.7 14.0 535 424 480

Castor + 5 rows PM 76 64 21.4 20.1 455 400 423

Castor + 6 rows PM 72 61 21.8 20.2 403 315 359

Castor + 7 rows PM 67 56 20.1 12.4 352 263 307

Sole castor 86 69 24.1 14.2 697 860 778

CD (P=0.05) 7.7 9.65 1.5 NS 69 219 43

GN- Groundnut PM- Pearl millet ANGRAU, Hyderabad, Srinivas et al., 2003

Table 13. Productivity & economics of castor based intercropping systems involving pulses & vegetables

Intercropping systems Castor seed yield (kg/ ha)

Intercrop yield (kg/ ha)

CEY(kg/ ha)

Net returns (`/ ha)

B: C ratio

Castor + mungbean (1:1) 1529 287 1960 11 028 2.29Castor + mungbean (1:2) 1390 395 1983 10 939 2.23Castor + soybean (1:1) 1694 216 1867 10 068 2.17Castor + soybean (1:2) 1564 346 1841 9 608 2.09Castor + clusterbean (1:1) 1654 1483 1951 10 956 2.28Castor + clusterbean (1:2) 1568 3096 2187 11 217 2.05Castor + Frenchbean (1:1) 1405 361 1549 6 444 1.71Castor + Frenchbean (1:2) 1583 933 1956 8 907 1.83Castor + lablab (1:1) 1505 1568 1956 11 171 2.30Castor + lablab (1:2) 1528 2423 2255 12 729 2.30Castor + cucumber (1:1) 1414 2792 2172 11 141 2.30Castor + cucumber (1:2) 1436 4602 2356 13 644 2.38Sole castor 1821 - 1821 10 660 2.41CD (P=0.05) NS 325

DOR, Hyderabad Padmavati and Raghavaiah, 2004

Table 14. Productivity & economics of castor based intercropping systems involving pulses & vegetables (Drought year)

Intercropping systems Castor seed yield (kg/ ha)

Intercrop yield (kg/ ha)

CEY(kg/ ha)

Net returns (`/ ha)

B: C ratio

Castor + mungbean (1:1) 433 202 735 2 103 1.40Castor + mungbean (1:2) 262 351 788 2 009 1.34Castor + soybean (1:1) 583 211 752 1 928 1.34Castor + soybean (1:2) 460 373 758 1 098 1.16Castor + clusterbean (1:1) 393 4329 1 259 6 548 2.08Castor + clusterbean (1:2) 358 8338 2 026 12 611 2.65Castor + Frenchbean (1:1) 637 2421 1 121 5 270 1.88Castor + Frenchbean (1:2) 577 3117 1 185 4 405 1.59Castor + lablab (1:1) 314 1934 894 3 369 1.60Castor + lablab (1:2) 328 2135 968 2 875 1.42Castor + cucumber (1:1) 694 4212 1 536 8 791 2.34Castor + cucumber (1:2) 607 6513 2 050 11 181 2.41Sole castor 748 748 5 440 1.40CD (P=0.05) 155 293

DOR, Hyderabad Padmavati and Raghavaiah, 2004

Table 15. Effect of planting pattern and intercropping on yield attributes of castorTreatment Branches/ plant Length primary

spike (cm)Capsules/ plant

Capsule weight/ plant (g)

Seed index (g)

2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03

Method of planting

90 X 60 cm 7.8 7.6 37.9 36.0 280.3 255.3 368.7 324.2 30.7 29.9

120 X 45 cm 7.1 7.1 35.3 33.7 244.2 240.4 335.7 298.4 28.1 27.8

60/120 X 60 cm 8.4 8.0 41.8 37.8 303.8 263.9 377.7 329.3 32.4 31.9

80/160 X 45 cm 7.9 7.8 41.0 37.3 296.5 255.9 370.7 326.1 31.2 30.9

CD (P=0.05) 0.5 0.5 2.1 2.1 14.9 13.9 18.8 17.3 2.0 2.0

Intercropping

Sole castor 7.7 7.5 38.8 35.8 284.9 256.2 370.4 312.8 30.8 29.9

Castor + greengram 8.2 8.0 40.7 37.9 295.8 261.8 381.7 334.2 31.7 31.6

Castor + blackgram 8.0 7.8 39.8 37.3 289.5 258.3 376.3 332.4 31.3 31.4

Castor + clusterbean 8.0 7.9 39.3 37.1 289.0 256.9 371.7 329.6 31.4 30.3

Castor + sesame 7.1 6.7 36.5 32.9 246.9 236.2 315.8 288.5 27.9 27.5

CD (P=0.05) 0.6 0.5 2.3 2.4 16.4 15.6 21.0 19.3 2.3 2.2

MPUAT, Udaipur (Rajasthan) Porwal et al., 2006

Table 16. Effect of intercropping on yield and yield attributes of castor

Treatment Castor seed yield (q/ ha)

CEY (q/ ha)Mean LER

MeanB: C ratio2001-02 2002-03 2001-02 2002-03

Method of planting90 X 60 cm 42.5 40.6 47.3 45.2 1.37 4.01

120 X 45 cm 38.5 37.1 43.0 41.4 1.32 3.54

60/120 X 60 cm 42.9 40.8 48.7 46.3 1.52 4.22

80/160 X 45 cm 42.3 40.5 47.2 45.1 1.51 4.16

CD (P=0.05) 2.1 1.6 2.3 1.8 0.04 0.15

IntercroppingSole castor 41.8 40.0 41.8 40.0 1.00 3.87Castor + greengram 43.7 41.2 51.5 47.6 1.61 4.29

Castor + blackgram 42.5 40.7 50.3 46.5 1.60 4.18

Castor + clusterbean 42.1 40.3 47.6 48.0 1.54 4.20

Castor + sesame 37.6 36.6 41.4 40.5 1.40 3.36

CD (P=0.05) 2.4 1.8 2.6 2.0 0.04 0.17 MPUAT, Udaipur (Rajasthan) Porwal et al., 2006

Table 17. Growth and yield attributes of castor as influenced by intercropping under irrigated conditions (pooled mean of 3 season)

Treatment Plant stand (‘000 ha)

Plant height (cm)

Nodes up to primary raceme

100-seed weight (g)

Raceme length (cm)

Spikes/ plant

Sole castor 13.1 61 15 27 41 18Castor + Mungbean (1:1) 13.0 57 14 26 40 18

Castor + Mungbean (1:2) 13.1 57 13 26 40 16

Castor + Sesame (1:1) 13.5 66 15 24 38 15

Castor + Sesame (1:2) 13.1 64 15 25 37 15

Castor + Mothbean (1:1) 13.5 58 13 26 39 19

Castor + Mothbean (1:2) 13.4 62 14 26 42 18

SEm± 0.3 3.8 0.8 0.8 2.1 1.3CD (P=0.05) NS NS NS 2.3 NS 3.8

ARS, Mandor, Rajasthan Singh, 2009

Table 18. Yield and economics of castor as influenced by intercropping under irrigated conditions (pooled mean of 3 season)Treatment Spikes/

plant

Intercrop mean seed yield (kg/ ha)

Castor seed yield (kg/ ha)

Castor seed equivalent yield (kg/ ha)

Oil content (%)

B:C ratio

Sole castor 18 - 3694 3694 50.3 3.20Castor + Mungbean (1:1) 18 546 3593 4531 49.5 3.58

Castor + Mungbean (1:2) 16 606 3429 4472 49.7 3.44

Castor + Sesame (1:1) 15 280 3356 3829 48.0 3.08

Castor + Sesame (1:2) 15 321 3332 3870 48.9 3.01

Castor + Mothbean (1:1) 19 573 3525 4287 49.1 3.40

Castor + Mothbean (1:2) 18 629 3491 4333 48.7 3.37SEm± 1.3 - 128 254 0.9 -CD (P=0.05) 3.8 - NS NS NS -

ARS, Mandor, Rajasthan Singh, 2009

Treatments Plant height (cm)

No. of branches/ plant

No. of leaves/ plant

No. of spikes/ plant

No. of capsules/ plant

Length of primary spike (cm)

Sole castor 155 8.20 16.2 9.1 42.5 29.7

Castor + Groundnut (1:3) 144 7.70 14.1 8.3 39.3 28.1

Castor + finger millet (1:3) 139 7.47 14.8 7.7 31.8 24.8

Castor + Kharif chickpea (1:3) 143 7.62 14.9 8.2 38.3 27.9

Castor + clusterbean (1:3) 146 7.78 15.3 8.4 40.1 28.2

PR castor + groundnut (2:4) 150 8.03 15.9 8.7 41.1 29.1

PR castor + finger millet (2:4) 143 7.56 14.6 8.0 37.9 26.1

PR castor + Kharif chickpea (2:4) 147 7.82 15.3 8.4 39.9 28.2

PR castor + clusterbean (2:4) 152 8.09 16.0 8.8 42.2 29.1

S. Em± 2.5 0.12 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.4

C.D. (P=0.05) 7.5 0.37 0.8 0.6 2.4 1.3

GKVK, Bengaluru Sharat Kumar et al., 2010PR- Paired Row

Table 19. Plant growth and yield parameters(at harvest) of castor influenced by intercropping systems

Treatments Castor seed yield (kg/ ha)

Intercrop yield (kg/ ha)

CEY (kg/ ha)

Net returns (`/ ha)

B:C ratio

Sole castor 1434 - 1434 19446 2.50

Castor + Groundnut (1:3) 1314 723 2102 30 891 2.78

Castor + finger millet (1:3) 1175 1198 1638 24 660 2.72

Castor + Kharif chickpea (1:3) 1272 672 1974 28 575 2.75

Castor + clusterbean (1:3) 1334 3706 2345 33 076 3.02

PR castor + groundnut (2:4) 1400 676 2136 32 717 3.00

PR castor + finger millet (2:4) 1258 1124 1692 26 069 2.85

PR castor + Kharif chickpea (2:4) 1351 620 1999 30 065 2.95

PR castor + clusterbean (2:4) 1417 3529 2380 37 938 3.36

S. Em± 27.1 - 27.56 - -

C.D. (P=0.05) 81.2 - 82.64 - -

PR; Paired Row, CEY: Castor Equivalent Yield, LER: Land Equivalent Ratio

Table 20. Seed yield, CEY, LER, net returns and B:C ratio as influenced by intercropping systems

GKVK, Bengaluru Sharat Kumar et al., 2010

Treatments Castor seed yield (kg/ ha)

Intercrop yield (kg/ ha)

CEY (kg/ ha)

Net returns (`/ ha)

B:C ratio

LER

Castor + pearl millet (1:2) 1085 1398 1678 17069 3.70 1.80

Castor + setaria (1:2) 1291 418 1444 14 134 3.27 1.34

Castor + sesamum (1:2) 952 122 1243 10 556 2.63 1.13

Castor + niger (1:2) 779 78 942 6532 2.03 1.04

Castor + pearl millet (2:4) 996 1202 1510 14 572 3.31 1.56

Castor + setaria (2:4) 1085 496 1261 14 572 2.79 1.26

Castor + sesamum (2:4) 804 150 1149 9241 2.44 1.07

Castor + niger (2:4) 515 79 720 2840 1.45 0.88

Sole Castor 1379 - 1379 13 823 3.18 1.00

Sole pearl millet - 1446 615 4365 2.06 1.00

Sole setaria - 1179 416 2476 1.65 1.00

Sole sesamum - 285 658 4446 2.01 1.00

Sole niger - 163 340 1291 1.28 1.00

SEm± - - 79 860 0.18 0.08

CD (P=0.05) - - 225 2490 0.52 0.23

RARS, Bijapur Kalaghatagi and Guggari, 2010

Table 21. Yield of castor & other intercrops as influenced by castor based intercropping systems (two year pooled mean)

Treatments 

Yield kg/ haMonetary

returns (`/ ha)

SVIB:C ratio

Moisture use efficiency

Main crop

Inter/ intra crop

Castor Vegetable (Dry wt basis)

Sole castor (VI 9) 653   8 496 0.63 1.60 2.41  

Castor + mothbean (MBS 26) 580 48 7 960 0.57 1.81 2.01 0.24

Castor + ridge gourd intra (Pusa Nasdar) 581 1918 13 312 0.79 2.13 1.89 3.81

Castor + bitter gourd (Hirkani) 536 229 7426 0.65 1.76 1.89 0.51

Castor + smooth gourd intra (Local) 531 242 7877 0.64 1.73 1.75 0.65

Castor + clusterbean (Pusa Navabhar) 546 1171 15308 0.84 1.97 1.90 3.60

CD (P=0.05)     3552        

ZARS, MPKV, Solapur Koli et al., 2004

Table 22. Yield, monetary returns, sustainable value index, B:C ratio, MUE of castor based inter/ intra cropping systems

Relay intercropping

Treatments

CEY (kg/ ha) LER Net returns (`/ ha)

B:C ratio

2003 2004 Mean

2003 2004 Mean

T1-Normal planting of castor (90 X 60)  2126 2228 2177 1 1 1 14821 2.31 

T2-Paired row planting of castor (60 /120 X 60 cm) 2022 2180 2101 1 1 1 13909 2.23

T3 -Sole crop finger millet 1779 1899 1839 1 1 1 12032 2.20

T4-French bean fb transplanted finger millet 4816 5445 5130 1 1 1 43229 3.36

T5-French bean fb field bean 6007 6612 6307 1 1 1 58581 4.43

T6- Baby corn fb transplanted finger millet 5981 6802 6392 1 1 1 56228 3.75

T7- Baby corn fb field bean 7391 7655 7523 1 1 1 68023 4.06

T8-T2 +French bean fb transplanted finger millet 4072 4450 4260 1.89 1.81 1.85 34251 3.03

T9-T2 + French bean fb field bean 4461 4862 4660 1.74 1.77 1.76 40738 3.68

T10-T2 + Baby corn fb transplanted finger millet 4328 4831 4579 1.71 1.71 1.71 34600 2.70

T11-T2 + Baby corn fb field bean 4671 5028 4849 1.55 1.59 1.57 36931 2.74

T12-T2 + Transplanted finger millet 2947 3185 3066 1.54 1.54 1.54 24262 2.94

CD (P=0.05) 289.3 223 250.1 0.14 0.03 0.9 1189 0.3

Table 23. Castor equivalent yield, land equivalent ratio, net returns and B:C ratio as influenced by intercropping systems

A.C. Navile, Shimoga Narayan Mavarkar et al., 2007

Treatments

Plant height (cm)

leaves /plant

spikes/ plant

branches/ plant

capsules/ spike

Castor yield (kg/ ha)

Test weight (g)

Length primary spike (cm)

T1-NP of castor (90 X 60) 166 42 8 12 81 2177 32 55

T2-PR of castor (60 x 120 cm) 163 41 8 11 80 2101 31 53

T8-T2 + -French bean fb

transplanted finger millet

177 37 6 10 65 1857 30 47

T9-T2 + French bean fb field bean 173 35 7 10 67 1927 31 50

T10-T2 + Baby corn fb

transplanted finger millet

182 29 5 9 47 1649 27 42

T11-T2 + Baby corn fb

field bean

178 30 5 9 52 1654 29 44

T12-T2 +transplanted finger millet 172 37 7 10 59 1791 29 47

CD (P=0.05) 3.85 3.01 1.00 1.08 2.18 219.8 1.56 1.82

A.C. Navile, Shimoga Narayan Mavarkar et al., 2007

Table 24. plant growth (at harvest) and yield parameters of castor as influenced by intercropping system (2 years pooled data)

Treatments

Seed yield of castor (kg/ ha) Castor equivalent yield (kg/ ha)B:C ratio 

2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

Pooled2006-07

2007-08

2008-09

Pooled

Sole castor  4039 4068 3521 3876 4039 4068 3521 3876 2.63

Simultaneous sowing of greengram & castor

3963 3962 3589 3838 4707 4838 4378 4641 3.01

Sowing at 15 DAS of greengram

3499 3405 2872 3259 4339 4451 3722 4170 2.85

Sowing at 30 DAS of greengram

3362 3171 2766 3100 4262 4332 3730 4108 2.78

Sowing at 45 DAS of greengram

3195 2485 1732 2471 4099 3578 2726 3468 2.32

Sowing at harvesting of greengram

2729 2154 1382 2088 4344 4303 3421 4023 2.35

CD (P=0.05) 535 385 546 425 NS 421 475 431 -

Sardarkrishinagar, Gujarat Patel et al., 2009

Table 25. Seed yield of castor and castor equivalent yield (kg/ ha)

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Table 26. Castor yield, intercrop yield, CEY and economics as influenced by intercropping and planting pattern

Treatment

Castor yield (kg/ ha)

Intercrop yield (kg/ ha)

Castor equivalent yield(kg/ ha) Net

income (`/ ha)

B:C ratio

96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 96-97 97-98 Mean

Castor sole crop 3946.9 3971.7 3946.9 3971.7 3959.3 28 367 1.92

Castor+ greengram (1:2) 3231.4 4066.6 210.3 54.0 3648.2 4178.1 3913.5 27527 1.81

Castor+ clusterbean (1:2) 3952.8 4053.7 215.2 218.3 4286.6 4465.1 4375.9 32687 2.18

Castor+ sesame (1:2) 4003.3 4121.1 213.8 0.0 4238.1 4121.1 4252.6 31348 2.09

Castor+ greengram (PR) 3351.5 4170.8 182.4 35.0 3729.8 4243.1 3986.5 28324 1.86

Castor+ clusterbean (PR) 3940.8 4205.7 190.0 156.0 4235.3 4499.6 4367.5 32606 2.17

Castor+ sesame (PR) 3954.6 4201.8 191.4 0.0 4276.8 4201.8 4238.5 31227 2.09

CD (P=0.05) 173.4 281.5 173.8 281.4 201.4

Control 2385.7 2809.6 96.6 79.9 2543.7 2886.6 2715.2 15801 1.14

FYM 10 tonne/ ha 3569.6 3696.1 190.2 155.6 3823.3 3845.0 3834.2 25958 1.64

FYM 5 tonne + 40 kg N/ ha 4604.2 4862.5 266.4 134.1 4996.6 4991.5 4994.1 39016 2.53

80 kg N/ ha 4561.2 5078.8 248.9 93.8 4926.5 5147.5 5037.0 41610 2.87

CD (P=0.05) 115.0 234.6 14.5 25.6 109.3 234.9 131.4 - -ARS, Jalore (Rajasthan) Subhash Kumar, 2002

Table 27. Yield attributes of castor as influenced by intercropping, plant pattern and nutrient management

TreatmentPlant height (cm) Spikes/ plant

Length of primary spike (cm)

100-seed weight (g)

1996-97 1997-98 1996-97 1997-98 1996-97 1997-98 1996-97 1997-98

Castor sole crop 190 185 10.8 11.6 40.3 41.5 24.3 23.7

Castor+ greengram (1:2) 184 188 9.3 10.1 35.6 38.7 25.1 24.2

Castor+ clusterbean (1:2) 192 175 11.3 10.5 42.3 40.7 24.6 23.8

Castor+ sesame (1:2) 178 188 10.5 11.1 39.8 42.5 24.9 25.1

Castor+ greengram (PR) 183 191 9.2 10.8 36.0 41.3 23.9 24.9

Castor+ clusterbean (PR) 189 177 10.6 11.4 41.6 42.6 25.0 23.9

Castor+ sesame (PR) 175 186 11.3 10.2 42.1 41.7 24.5 25.1

CD (P=0.05) NS NS 0.81 NS 3.96 NS NS NS

Control 156 161 6.2 5.4 30.6 29.5 18.1 17.4

FYM 10 tonne/ ha 182 179 8.5 8.1 35.8 35.1 21.8 20.7

FYM 5 tonne + 40 kg N/ ha 190 186 11.8 12.3 43.4 45.3 25.3 25.1

80 kg N/ ha 194 193 12.2 13.0 44.1 44.8 24.7 25.6

CD (P=0.05) 18.5 16.2 2.11 2.72 4.14 4.42 2.32 2.41

ARS, Jalore (Rajasthan) Subhash Kumar, 2002

Treatments

Castor GroundnutB:C ratio

No. spikes/ plant

100 grain weight (g)

Seed yield (kg/ ha)

Pod yield (kg/ ha)

T1- control (no fertilizer) 7.5 9.0 554 324 1.5

T2- 100% RDF of main crop to the entire

system10.0 14.5 909 686 2.1

T3-T2+ 50% N of castor for top dressing in 2

splits at 30 and 50 DAS13.5 15.5 1029 695 2.3

T4- T 2+ 75% N of castor for top dressing in

2 splits at 30 and 50 DAS15.5 17.5 1134 831 2.5

T5- T2+ 100% N of castor for top dressing in

3 splits at 30, 50 and 70 DAS18.5 18.8 1291 1028 2.9

T6- 100% RDF of main and intercrop (area

basis and N of intercrop to be top dressed) 16.5 18.9 1221 828 2.5

T7- 100% RDF of main and intercrop 14.0 18.6 1049 693 2.1CD (P=0.05) 3.0 2.5 45 32 -

Table 27. Fertilizer management in groundnut + castor intercropping system on yield attributes and yield of rainfed castor and groundnut

Salem, T.N. Selvaraju et al., 2005

AGROFORESTRY SYSTEM

Table 28. Yield of jatropha and perennial castor in different years

Anon. (2009)CRIDA, Hyderabad

CONCLUSION

FUTURE LINE OF WORK Need to evaluate castor with short stature crops

like onion, garlic, leafy vegetables etc. Nutrient management studies in castor based

intercropping systems need to be carried out since nutrient management may differ in intercropping systems

To explore the possibility of growing different hybrids/ varieties of castor in intercropping systems

DISCUSSION

thanq