See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286960056

Effects of different maize hybrids on above

ground biomass in intercrops with soybean

Article in Maydica · January 2007

CITATIONS READS

5 65

4 authors, including:

Dolijanović Željko Kovačević D.

University of Belgrade University of Belgrade
182 PUBLICATIONS 131 CITATIONS 79 PUBLICATIONS 134 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Projects : 1. Integrated system of field crop cultivation: conservation of biodiversity and soil fertility
(TR31037); 2. Improving the quality of maize and soybean by conventional and molecular breeding
(TR 31068) View project

TR31018 View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dolijanović Željko on 18 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT MAIZE HYBRIDS ON ABOVE GROUND BIOMASS
IN INTERCROPS WITH SOYBEAN
Z. Dolijanovic1,*, S. Oljaca1, D. Kovacevic1, M. Simic2
1 Faculty of Agriculture, Nemanjina 6, PO Box 128, Zemun, Serbia and Montenegro
2 Maize Research Institute “Zemun polje”, Zemun, Serbia and Montenegro
Received May 22, 2006
ABSTRACT - An (Randomized Complete Block) experi-
ment with a maize and soybean intercropping system was
set up at the experimental school of the Faculty of Agri-
culture-Radmilovac, Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro.
The experiment were carried out during 2002 and 2003
on the eutric cambisol soil type. Two spatial planting
arrangements were applied: strip intercropping and alter-
nate rows. Intercropping was done according to the
method of replacement series and the main goal of this
approach is to exchange the particular number of plants
of one species with another. This examination included
four experimental hybrids of maize from various FAO
groups of maturity (400, 500, 600 and 700) and a soybean
cultivar, ZPS-015 (maturity group O). The aim of this pa-
per was to determine the optimal plant arrangement pat-
tern of maize and soybean toward getting the maximum
aboveground biomass with the best quality of silage.
Likewise it is important to examine the advantage of late
maturity maize hybrids (FAO 600 and 700) compared with
medium early maturity hybrids (FAO 400 and 500).
Weather had a large influence on biomass productivity.
The increase of intercrop productivity in 2002 (when rain-
fall was adequate) was from 25-38% (strips) and 27-43%
(alternate rows), while in 2003 (when rainfall was inade-
quate in parts of the growing season) this increase was a
little bit lower: 8-18% (strips) and 13-40% (alternate rows).
Intercrop variants with medium late hybrids of maize
(FAO 600 and 700) gave significantly higher yield of
above ground biomass in 2002. In second year of the ex-
amination 2003, the advantage was on the side of inter-
crop with hybrids of shorter vegetation period (FAO 400
and 500) because of drought. The greatest yield appeared
in 2002 in variants of alternate rows intercrop with hy-
brids FAO 400 and FAO 700.
KEY WORDS: Maize; Soybean; Intercropping; Above
ground biomass; Hybrids.
* For correspondence (fax: +381 11 3161987; e.mail: doli-
jan@agrifaculty.bg.ac.yu).
Maydica 52 (2007): 265-270
INTRODUCTION
Since the expenses of feeding animals can be
even 70% of all production costs, reducing expens-
es in feed production is important for improving the
profitability of livestock producers. Above ground
biomass of maize and soybean grown in mixtures
has extremely high nutrition value, and in the future
this mixture could be a very important ingredient in
livestock nutrition, especially as silage. There are
many advantages to this kind of intercropping pro-
duction: keeping and improving major characteris-
tics of soil and increasing quality silage production.
DINIC et al. (1998) noticed that maize is a plant
that with proper ensiling techniques produces high
quality and stable silage. The same authors claimed
that one of the disadvantages of leguminous plants
is that they are hard to conserve by ensiling, be-
cause of a small amount of fermentable sugar.
Silage made of mostly leguminous crops has a
smaller amounts of milk-acid and because of that,
the pH value of such silage is higher. At the same
time, proteins and amino-acids decompose, leading
to deterioration of silage. For these reasons, it is dif-
ficult to produce good quality silage made only of
leguminous crops. On the other hand, a drawback
of silage made only of maize is that such feed has
mostly carbohydrates and less proteins. (MISKOVIC et
al., 1980). There is a possibility to solve these prob-
lems and increase the quality of silage by growing
maize with some legumes (soybean, horse-bean
(Vicia faba), cowpea, etc.). Several authors (MARTIN
et al., 1987; DINIC et al., 1999; DJORDJEVIC et al., 2000)
suggest that growing maize and soybean in inter-
cropping systems will produce not only greater total
biomass yield, but also better quality of silage com-
pared to silage made of only maize or soybean. In
these kinds of intercropping systems it is very im-
portant to choose the proportion of maize and soy-
266 Z. DOLIJANOVIC, S. OLJACA, D. KOVACEVIC, M. SIMIC

bean in the mixture and also the maize hybrids to
optimize the quantity and quality of silage. Balanc-
ing the contributions of maize and soybean compo-
nents is critical because a bigger share of soybean
in the mixture increases protein content but de-
creases total aboveground biomass (TERZIC et al.,
2001). Previous research has shown that yields are
much bigger if done in a regular sowing time with
late maturity hybrids (MISKOVIC et al., 1980, 1983;
MIJATOVIC et al., 1983).
The significant question in intercropping system
is plant competition as we know that maize is a
much stronger competitor than soybean. The aim of
this paper was to determine the optimal plant
arrangement pattern of maize and soybean toward
getting the maximum aboveground biomass with
the best quality of silage. Likewise it is important to
examine the advantage of late maturity maize hy-
brids (FAO 600 and 700) compared with medium
early maturity hybrids (FAO 400 and 500).
spacing of 40 cm (35.714 plants/ha) in pure stands and for soy-
bean spacing was 70 cm inter-row and 3 cm within-row spacing
(500.000 plants/ha). Within-row spacing in mixtures was the
same as in the sole crops. The seeds of soybean were inoculated
by microbial preparation “azotofiksin”. The basic tillage was
done in autumn at the depth of 25 cm, and spring soil prepara-
tion 10 to 15 days prior to planting. All variants of the experi-
ment were fertilized by mineral fertilizer NPK (15:15:15) at the
amount of 50 kg/ha of active matter. Two hand inter-row culti-
vations were done on all plots. The crops were included in the
frame of four field crop rotation (maize-winter wheat-spring bar-
ley+red clover-red clover).
Wet above ground biomass of maize and soybean in inter-
crops and monocrops was harvested and measured at the same
time at technological maturity. Maize was in waxy ripeness and
soybean in pod formation stage. The maize and soybean crops
were separately measured and later the final yield was calculat-
ed. For the purpose of analysis, two broad approaches were
used: analysis of variance and Land Equivalent Ratio (LER),
(MEAD and WILLEY, 1980). The LSD was used to separate means
when the F test was significant.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experiment was established according to a randomised
complete block design plan with three replications on the exper-
imental field of Agricultural faculty - “Radmilovac” Belgrade, Ser-
bia and Montenegro. The experiment was done during the 2002
and 2003 growing seasons on the eutric cambisol soil type in
conditions of natural water regime. The size of the experimental
plots was 12.60 m2. The sowing time was May 13th 2002 and
May 5th 2003. Four experimental ZP maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids
with different duration of vegetation (EPH6-FAO 400, EPH2-FAO
500, EPH4-FAO 600 and EPH11-FAO700) were included as enters
and soybean (Glycine Max L. Merr) cultivar ZPS-015 from matu-
rity group 0. The intercrops were created according to the
method of replacement series. Two different spatial designs
were applied: the sowing of maize and soybean in strips or al-
ternate rows. The treatments consisted of each maize hybrid
alone (six rows) or soybean alone (six rows), and eight mix-
tures: 3 rows of maize and 3 rows of soybean in strips for each
hybrid of maize (four variants), 3 rows of maize and 3 rows of
soybean in alternated rows for each hybrid (another four vari-
ants). Maize was planted in rows 70 cm apart and within-row
For this cropping system the quantity and sched-
ule of precipitation was very important (MOMIROVIC
et al., 1997; OLJACA et al., 2000). Because of insuffi-
cient quantity and irregular schedule of rainfalls in
2003 (Table 1) the lower yield of crops in intercrop
variant and sole maize was recorded than in 2002
(Table 2).
The yield of above ground biomass of maize in
monocrop was on the level of the yield in intercrop
variants in 2002 while in 2003 the yield in
monocrop was statistically much higher than inter-
crop maize. On bases of data given in Table 2, it
can be seen that the above ground biomass of soy-
bean has a reversed trend. The irregular schedule of
rainfalls in 2003 was more negative for the stronger
competitor - maize. Intercropping maize and soy-
bean in alternate rows was advantageous for both
crops especially in the second year of examination
which is agreed with results of DAVIS et al. (1981)

TABLE 1 - Mean monthly temperatures (°C) and monthly precipitation sum (mm) for the 2002- 2003 period (Belgrade).
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Temp./ Month Average
Year Precip. ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– or Sum
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
2002. °C 1.4 9.1 10.7 12.7 20.2 22.4 24.6 22.8 17.9 14.0 11.5 1.6 14.08
mm 14 14 15 55 21 80 62 107 50 80 34 53 585

2003. °C 0.8 2.0 7.4 12.2 21.6 25.0 23.4 25.8 18.4 11.5 9.9 3.5 13.13
mm 51 26 11 22 40 33 116 5 57 124 29 42 556
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
 MAIZE INTERCROPPING 267

TABLE 2 - Yield of above ground biomass of maize and soybean in mono and intercrops in technological maturity (t ha-1).
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Year Intercropping design Maize hybrids Intercrops Yield
Maize Soybean
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
EPH6 24.97 19.60 5.37
EPH2 25.31 19.44 5.87
Strips EPH4 26.75 20.00 6.75
EPH11 28.15 23.09 5.06
Average 26.30 20.53 5.77
EPH6 25.78 19.29 6.49
2002 Alternate rows EPH2 28.90 23.17 5.86
EPH4 26.97 21.11 5.86
EPH11 28.89 22.62 6.27
Average 27.64 21.55 6.09
EPH6 – 27.30 –
Maize monocrops EPH2 – 19.44 –
EPH4 – 20.63 –
EPH11 – 19.76 –
Average – 21.78 –
Soybean monocrop – – 23.65
EPH6 20.09 13.26 6.83
Strips EPH2 19.66 12.21 7.45
EPH4 18.48 12.93 5.55
EPH11 19.45 12.07 7.38
Average 19.42 12.62 6.80
EPH6 24.83 15.31 9.52
2003 Alternate rows EPH2 22.38 13.50 8.88
EPH4 21.81 12.93 8.88
EPH11 20.09 13.02 7.07
Average 22.28 13.69 8.59
EPH6 – 26.12 –
Maize monocrops EPH2 – 21.90 –
EPH4 – 19.69 –
EPH11 – 24.13 –
Average – 22.96 –
Soybean monocrop – – 12.07
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
LSD (Maize) 0.05 0.01 LSD (Soybean) 0.05 0.01
hybrids 1.295 1.775 0.283 0.388
plant arr. 1.057 1.449 0.231 0.317
interaction 1.831 2.511 0.401 0.549
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

and DOLIJANOVIC (2002). By this spatial design the
transfer of nitrogen is easier from legume to the
other species, which is particularly seen in dry year
2003. In strip intercrop variants, intraspecific com-
petition is more intensive, therefore, together with
higher daily temperature and the lack of moisture it
can reduce crop yields. Besides the water and nutri-
ents, FISHER (1979), suggested that efficiency of in-
tercrops can increase with changing of arrangement
pattern of plants which is confirmed in this re-
search.
Intercrop variants of soybean with medium late
hybrids of maize (FAO 600 and 700) gave signifi-
cantly higher yield of above ground biomass in
2002. In second year of the examination 2003, the
advantage was on the side of intercrop of soybean
with hybrids of shorter vegetation period (FAO 400
and 500) because of drought. The greatest yield ap-
peared in 2002 in variants of alternate rows inter-
crop with hybrids EPH2 and EPH11. Above ground
biomass obtained in this experiment is significantly
higher than above ground biomass of the same
268 Z. DOLIJANOVIC, S. OLJACA, D. KOVACEVIC, M. SIMIC

TABLE 3 - Yield of above ground biomass of different maize hybrids in monocrop and intercrops (t ha-1).
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Intercrops
Year Maize hybrids Intercrops strips Maize monocrops Average
alternate rows
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
2002 EPH6 19.60 19.29 27.30 22.06
EPH2 19.44 23.17 19.44 20.68
EPH4 20.00 21.11 20.63 20.58
EPH11 23.09 22.62 19.76 21.82
Average 20.53 21.55 21.78 21.29

2003 EPH6 13.26 15.31 26.12 18.23

EPH2 12.21 13.50 21.90 15.87
EPH4 12.93 12.93 19.69 15.18
EPH11 12.07 13.02 24.13 16.41
Average 12.62 13.69 22.96 16.42
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
LSD 0.05 0.01
hybrids 1.670 2.291
cropp. syst. 1.929 2.645
interaction 3.340 4.581
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

TABLE 4 - Land equivalent ratio (LER) in maize and soybean intercropping system.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Year Intercropping design Maize Relative Yield Relative Yield Land Equivalent
hybrids of Maize of Soybean Ratio
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
EPH6 0.72 0.23 0.95
Strips EPH2 1.00 0.25 1.25
EPH4 0.97 0.28 1.25
EPH11 1.06 0.32 1.38
2002 Average 0.94 0.26 1.20
EPH6 0.71 0.27 0.98
Alternate rows EPH2 1.19 0.24 1.43
EPH4 1.02 0.25 1.27
EPH11 1.14 0.26 1.40
Average 1.02 0.25 1.27
SE (standard error) 0.035 0.021 0.031
EPH6 0.51 0.57 1.08
Strips EPH2 0.56 0.62 1.18
EPH4 0.66 0.46 1.12
EPH11 0.50 0.61 1.11
2003 Average 0.56 0.56 1.12
EPH6 0.59 0.79 1.38
Alternate rows EPH2 0.62 0.74 1.36
EPH4 0.66 0.74 1.40
EPH11 0.54 0.59 1.13
Average 0.60 0.71 1.31
SE (standard error) 0.019 0.031 0.020
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
 MAIZE INTERCROPPING
crops in stubble crop sowing reported by TERZIC et
al. (2001). Results obtained by DOLIJANOVIC et al.
(2003) indicated that the same combination of
maize and soybean grown in an additive design,
gave significant by higher yield of above ground
biomass when density of soybean increased.
On bases of data given in Table 3, it can be seen
that there is no significant differences between in-
tercrop and monocrop biomass of maize in 2002. In
2003 results has showed different situation. There
are very significant differences between maize bio-
mass in monocrop and intercrops variants in this
year. However, there were no differences between
strip intercrop and alternate row intercrop variants.
Monocrop EPH6 is significantlly superior for bio-
mass in both years compare with intercrops.
To fully compare intercrop and monocrop vari-
ants, the LER (Land Equivalent Ratio) index is most
appropriate. On the basis of LER value (Table 4) all
intercrop treatments had higher yields than the
monocrop treatments except the intercrop with the
earliest hybrid of maize (EPH6) in 2002. The in-
crease of intercrop productivity in the first year was
from 25-38% (strips) and 27-43% (alternate rows),
while in the second year this increase was a little bit
lower: 8-18% (strips) and 13-40% (alternate rows).
MISKOVIC et al. (1980) have indicated that the
stronger competition intensity of maize can reduce
yield in intercropping systems. The maize competi-
tion is stronger in advantageous conditions and that
maybe the main reason of lower yield of weaker
competitor in mixture (soybean) in 2002. MIDMORE
(1993) emphasized that the intercropping system us-
es the water better than monocrops in dry seasons,
which can be observed in the results of these exam-
inations. Two types of crops will similarly overyield
if their mutual competition is sufficiently weak, or
more formally, the interspecific competition is
weaker than the intraspecific competition. The vari-
ous mechanisms of intercropping advantage act by
reducing competition between the component
species. Spatial separation of the species, different
time of maturity or different resource use might be
expected to reduce or postpone competition. There
ought to be real advantages in photosynthetic pro-
duction from combining these two crops, which
have contrasting leaf area patterns over time. Row
arrangement improves the amount of light transmit-
ted to the lower legume canopy, especially alternate
rows. OFORI and STERN (1987) indicated that double
rather than single alternate row arrangement im-
prove the yield and light penetration to the canopy
269
of the legume component. Such legume/non-
legume mixtures probably reduce competition for
nitrogen (N), since the legume depends mainly on
its own N fixation while the cereal uses mineral N.
At least where the productivity of mixture is domi-
nated by one species, as with maize in maize-soy-
bean intercropping, the competitive effect of the re-
cessive species on the dominant is small. The opti-
mal spatial arrangement in our experiment was
maize and soybean in alternate rows. In the
favourable season (2002) medium late hybrids of
maize (FAO 600 and 700) can be recommended,
while in less favourable seasons (such as 2003) hy-
brids of shorter growing period (FAO 400 and 500)
are more suitable.
Considering the numerous ecological and socio-
economic constraints prevalent in the farming sys-
tems of small-scale farmers in Serbia, multiple crop-
ping involving maize and soybean as the integral
components crops is an attractive system and
hence, needs to be improved. The culture of soy-
beans in mixture with maize probably costs a small
farmer very little more effort and money, than the
production of a sole stand of maize and soybean.
Although this research had no goal to investigate
lowering the production costs, certainly that increas-
ing of forage quality can contribute to better finan-
cial effect for the producers. Research on these as-
pects needs to be strengthened to obtain the great-
est economic return from legume/non-legume inter-
cropping systems.
REFERENCES
DAVIS H.C., M.C. AMEZQUITA, J.E. MUNOZ, 1981 Border effects and
optimum plot sizes for climbing beans (Phaseolus vulgaris)
and maize in association and monoculture. Exp. Agriculture
17: 127-135.
DINIC B., V. KOLJAJIC, N. DJORDJEVIC, D. LAZAREVIC, D. TERZIC, 1998
Pogodnost krmnih biljaka za siliranje. Savremena Poljoprivre-
da Novi Sad 48: 154-162.
DINIC B., D. TERZIC, N. DJORDJEVIC, D. LAZAREVIC, 1999 Effects of
individual stubble crops share on silage. pp. 146-147. In:
Proc. IX International Symposium on Forage Conservation, 6-
8 September, Nitra, Slovak Republic.
DJORDJEVIC N., V. KOLJAJIC, B. DINIC, G. GRUBIC, 2000 Postupci
proizvodnje kvalitetne sila~e jednogodi|njih leguminoza,
Arhiv za poljoprivredne nauke Beograd 61: 133-138.
DOLIJANOVIC Z., 2002 Uticaj aditivnog na≈ina zdru~ivanja i
prihranjivanja na produktivnost kukuruza i soje, magistarska
teza, Poljoprivredni fakultet, Zemun.
 270 Z. DOLIJANOVIC, S. OLJACA, D. KOVACEVIC, M. SIMIC
DOLIJANOVIC Z., S. OLJACA, D. KOVACEVIC, 2003 Uticaj aditivnog
na≈ina zdru~ivanja i prihranjivanja na prinos nadzemne bio-
mase kukuruza i soje, Arhiv za poljoprivredne nauke
Beograd 64: 187-196.
FISHER N.M., 1979 Studies in mixed cropping III. Further results
with maize - bean mixtures. Exp. Agriculture 15: 49-58.
MARTIN R., D. SMITH, H. VOLDENG, 1987 Intercropping corn and
Soybeans, Sustainable Farming, Canada. www.eap.mcgill.ca/
magrack/SF/fall%2087%20B.htm
MEAD R., R.W. WILLEY, 1980 The concept of a “land equivalent
ratio” and advantages in yields from intercroping. Exp. Agri-
culture 16: 217-228.
MIDMORE D.J., 1993 Agronomic modification of resource use
and intercrop productivity. Field Crops Res. 34: 357-380.
MIJATOVIC M., J. PAVESIC-POPOVIC, S. KATIC, 1983 Produktivnost
nekih hibrida kukuruza za proizvodnju sila~e u brdskom po-
dru≈ju, Zbornik radova IV. pp. 74-83. Jugoslovenskog sim-
pozijuma o krmnom bilju, Novi Sad.
MISKOVIC B., D.J. JOCKOVIC, B. BELIC, P. ERIC, 1980 Proizvodnja
View publication stats
zelene sto≈ne hrane gajenjem kukuruza i soje u sme|i. Savre-
mena poljoprivreda Novi Sad 28: 337-348.
MISKOVIC B., D. DJUKIC, P. ERIC, 1983 Proizvodnja krme gajenjem
novih NS-hibrida kukuruza u ≈istoj setvi i u sme|i sa legumi-
nozama, Zbornik radova IV. pp. 62-73. Jugoslovenskog sim-
pozijuma o krmnom bilju, Novi Sad.
MOMIROVIC N., D. KOVACEVIC, D. BOZIC, 1997 Uticaj vodnog
re~ima, sistema obrade zemlji|ta i primene herbicida na pri-
nos sila~e i suvog zrna kukuruza. Acta bilogica jugoslavica,
serija G 6: 83-92.
OFORI F., W.R. STERN, 1987 Cereal-legume intercropping sys-
tems. Adv. Agron. 41: 41-90.
OLJACA S., R. CVETKOVIC, D. KOVACEVIC, G. VASIC, N. MOMIROVIC,
2000 Effect of plant arrangement pattern and irrigation on
efficiency of maize (Zea mays) and bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)
intercropping system. J. Agric. Sci. Cambridge 135: 261-270.
TERZIC D., M. STOSIC, B. DINIC, D. LAZAREVIC, J. RADOVIC, 2001
Produktivnost kukuruza i soje kao zdru~enih useva u
postrnoj setvi. Arhiv za poljoprivredne nauke 62: 151-158.