EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,517,315
Abstracts:
29,339,501
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Studies on mung bean-grain sorghum intercropping



Studies on mung bean-grain sorghum intercropping



Annals of Agricultural Science, Moshtohor 35(2): 745-757



In field trials at Mostorod in 1994 and 1995, mung beans (Vigna radiata) Kawmy 1 and Giza 1 were intercropped with sorghum Giza 15 in 4 different sowing arrangements. In all intercropping patterns, yield was higher in mung bean Kawmy 1 than in Giza 1. Mung bean yield was highest with a 2:1 mung bean:sorghum ratio, while sorghum yield was highest when the 2 crops were sown on different sides of the same ridge.

(PDF 0-2 workdays service: $29.90)

Accession: 003283974

Download citation: RISBibTeXText



Related references

Stored grain insect studies. 1. Susceptibility of the bean and rice weevil to three insecticides. 2. Resistance of mung bean and sorghum seed to laboratory infestations of bean and rice weevil. Thai Journal of Agricultural Science 7(1): 63-70, 1974

Intercropping effects on yield components of dryland sorghum pigeon pea and mung bean. Tropical Agriculture 65(2): 145-149, 1988

Influence of different N rates and intercropping methods on grain sorghum, common bean, and soya bean yields. Tropical Agriculture 72(4): 257-260, 1995

Impact of wheat-mung bean intercropping on English grain aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) populations and its natural enemy. Journal of Economic Entomology 105(3): 854-859, 2012

Weed control in summer crops 1997-99. A guide to weed control in grain and forage sorghum, maize, sweet corn, soybean, sunflower, adzuki bean, cowpea, lablab, mung bean, pigeon pea, navy bean, peanut and millet. Weed control in summer crops 1997-99 A guide to weed control in grain and forage sorghum, maize, sweet corn, soybean, sunflower, adzuki bean, cowpea, lablab, mung bean, pigeon pea, navy bean, peanut and millet: iv + 47 pp., 1997

Mung bean viruses in the philippines 2. host range symptomatology and effect of mung bean mottle virus on growth of mung bean vigna radiata. Philippine Journal of Crop Science 3(4): 242-246, 1978

Studies on intercropping in grain sorghum. Indian Journal of Agronomy 24(2): 223-224, 1979

Effect of competition free period and technique and pattern of pearl millet planting on growth and yield of mung bean and total productivity in solid pearl millet and pearl millet/mung bean intercropping system. Indian Journal of Agronomy 27(3): 219-226, 1982

Comparative effects of black and green gram (mung beans) and grain sorghum on soil mineral nitrogen and subsequent grain sorghum yields on the Eastern Darling Downs. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture and Animal Husbandry 24(125): 244-249, 1984

Food chemical studies on mung bean vigna radiata iii properties of mung bean starch. 1985

Genetic studies in mung bean vigna radiata l wilczek 1. inheritance of tolerance to mung bean yellow mosaic virus and some morphological characters. Pakistan Journal of Botany 18(2): 189-198, 1986

Effects of intercropping and population on yields of mung bean vigna radiata l. wilczek. pinto bean phaseolus vulgaris l. and summer squash cucurbita pepo l. East African Agricultural and Forestry Journal 51(2): 93-100, 1985

Studies on the productivity of grain sorghum sorghum bicolor 3. comparative investigation of the effect of wilting treatments and foliar spray applications of naphthylacetic acid iaa and tryptophan on grain and forage yields of grain sorghum. Japanese Journal of Crop Science 49(3): 445-455, 1980

Effects of mung bean intercropping on the productivity of sunflower. Annals of Agricultural Research 23(3): 480-482, 2002

Response of maize and mung bean to different intercropping systems. Assiut Journal of Agricultural Sciences 33(5): 117-129, 2002