Field Crops Research 96 (2006) 80–89

www.elsevier.com/locate/fcr

Growth, competition, yield advantage and economics in soybean/

pigeonpea intercropping system in semi-arid tropics of India
I. Effect of subsoiling
P.K. Ghosh *, M. Mohanty, K.K. Bandyopadhyay, D.K. Painuli, A.K. Misra
Indian Institute of Soil Science, Nabibagh, Berasia Road, Bhopal-462038, Madhya Pradesh, India
Received 4 December 2004; received in revised form 12 May 2005; accepted 20 May 2005

Abstract

Opinions differ on the necessity of deep tillage for sustaining crop productivity in the rainfed Vertisols of the semi-arid tropics of central
India. We conducted a field experiment for 3 years (2000–2002) with a factorial combination of three cropping systems (sole soybean, sole
pigeonpea and soybean/pigeonpea intercropping in 2:1 row ratio) and three tillage practices (conventional, conventional + subsoiling in
alternate years and conventional + subsoiling every year). Objectives were (i) to examine the effect of subsoiling Vertisols on sustaining yield
of soybean/pigeon pea intercropping, and (ii) to assess the frequency of subsoiling for realizing maximum yield and profit. Though there was a
reduction in growth and yield of intercrops, higher soybean equivalent yield (SEY) and area-time equivalent ratio (ATER) value in soybean/
pigeonpea intercropping system as compared to sole soybean had a yield advantage. The average yield advantage in intercropping system was
60% higher than that from sole soybean. The yield advantage of intercropping system in terms of ATER was 7% greater with subsoiling than
conventional tillage. The yield response to subsoiling was consistent over the period and on an average, subsoiling increased yield by 20%.
The effect was associated with improved water storage and root length density. However, with respect to energy use efficiency and profit, the
effect of subsoiling was comparable to conventional tillage. The variation in net return and benefit:cost ratio in subsoiling every year and
subsoiling in alternate years in sole soybean and soybean/pigeonpea intercropping was not significant. However, in sole pigeon pea subsoiling
every year out-yielded subsoiling in alternate years. The interactive effect of subsoiling and intercropping increased the yield by 21–25%.
Thus, under rainfed cropping where drought of unpredictable intensity and duration is a prevailing feature, soybean/pigeon pea intercropping
could be a promising option, especially when combined with subsoiling in alternate years.
# 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cajanus cajan; Competition; Energy use efficiency; Glycine max; Intercropping; Root length density; Subsoiling

1. Introduction duration results in low and unstable crop productivity of

Soybean (Glycine max L.) is the most important rainy
season oilseed crop grown on Vertisols of the semi-arid
tropical region of central India. Though the area under
soybean has increased eight folds during 1982–1996, the
productivity gap between an achievable potential grain yield
of 3 t ha
1 and the current yield levels of 1 t ha
1 still
remains very wide (Gupta and Rajput, 2001). Annual rainfall
and its monthly distribution are highly variable in this zone
(Painuli et al., 2002). Drought of unpredictable intensity and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 755 2730970; fax: +91 755 2733310.
E-mail address: pkg@iiss.ernet.in (P.K. Ghosh).
soybean in this region. Studies in Vertisols of central India,
on the other hand, indicated very high bulk density
(1.71 Mg m3) at 15–30 cm soil depth (Anonymous, 1993).
Such high bulk-density (BD) restrict root penetration and
growth into deeper soil layers resulting in the reduction of
volume of soil exploited by the plant for essential nutrients
and water (Daddow and Warrington, 1983). They also
reported that a BD higher than the growth limiting value of
the soil (1.41 Mg m3) reduces crop growth and yield
significantly. Therefore, efficient soil management and
profitable production systems are needed for this non-
irrigated region to improve the economic condition of the
farmers.

0378-4290/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2005.05.009
 P.K. Ghosh et al. / Field Crops Research 96 (2006) 80–89
Vertisols are shrink-swell soils with 60–65% clay content
(Kanwar, 1988) and associated soils cover about 73 mil-
lion ha of the semi-arid tropical regions of India and are the
predominant soil type in Madhya Pradesh (central India).
Compaction in sub-surface layer of Vertisols has been
reported by Singer and Munns (1987); Braunack (1995); Kar
et al. (1997); Painuli and Yadav (1998). In most cases, the
large soil pores (macro-pores) are destroyed by the
compactive force acting on the soil, which results in
reduced content and movement of air, water and nutrients.
Compaction also increases soil strength, thereby increasing
the resistance to root penetration. Plants, thus, cannot
explore the entire soil volume to meet their demand of soil
moisture and plant nutrients because these become
positionally unavailable (Kirby and Blunden, 1994).
Under such soil and climatic conditions water stored in the
soil and its availability to the crop is of great importance to
increase and stabilise yields. Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan (L)
Mill sp.) is an important pulse crop of this region. Early and
medium duration varieties of pigeonpea have carved a niche
and are intercropped with soybean, where soybean completes
its life cycle before the grand growth period of pigeon pea:
pigeon pea being a deep-rooted crop may also withstand
effectively the drought encountered at later stages of its
growth (KumarRao et al., 2001). However, medium duration
pigeonpea, which at present covers a large area in
intercropping systems on Vertisols of the semi-arid tropics
of central India, suffer from lack of water during the
reproductive phase (terminal drought stress) resulting in
reduced yields. Kirkegaard et al. (1992) reported that growth
restriction of pigeonpea resulting from compaction was
primarily related to restricted root growth causing reduced
water uptake and decreased infiltration and storage of water.
Appropriate tillage system can increase water availability for
crops in this type of soil by increasing infiltration and thereby
facilitating root growth in zones of the soil profile from where
water is lost by evaporation (Lal, 1989; Bordovsky et al.,
1994; Lopez and Arrue, 1997; Lampurlanes et al., 2001). In
soils that are prone to compaction and experience crusting and
natural cracking and have low water infiltration capacity,
subsoiling can increase root depth (Lampurlanes et al., 2001;
Rajkannan and Selvi, 2002), improve infiltration and water
storage (McDonald and Fisher, 1987; Cannell and Hawes,
1994; Heatherly and Spurlock, 2001; Sharma et al., 2004), and
ultimately increase crop yield. In these soils, loosening by
deep tillage, however, may or may not be required every year
(Lal, 1989). Subsoiling has increased the yield of various
crops viz; soybean (Barbosa et al., 1989; Wesley et al., 1994,
2001), corn (Singh and Chaudhary, 1998; Diaz-zortia, 2000),
cotton (Salih et al., 1998) and sorghum (Rajkannan and Selvi,
2002). It has proven to be the practical method for increasing
water uptake by roots and depth-of-profile-wetted in slowly
permeable clays (Kirby and Blunden, 1994; Rajkannan and
Selvi, 2002).
Examination of the efficacy of subsoiling on Vertisols for
soybean/pigeonpea intercropping system has been limited.
81
In this paper, we have attempted (i) to examine the role of
subsoiling in Vertisols for sustaining yield of sole and
intercropped soybean and pigeonpea and (ii) to assess the
frequency of subsoiling for realizing maximum yield and
economic viability. A companion paper (Ghosh et al.,
2005b) deals with the effect of nutrient management on
productivity of soybean/pigeonpea intercropping system
that emerged from the same experiment.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental site
The field experiment was conducted during the rainy
(June to October) season of 2000, 2001 and 2002 on a deep
vertisol at the research farm of the Indian Institute of Soil
Science, Bhopal. The soil of the experimental site was
clayey in texture and classified as Typic Haplustert having
pH 7.8, organic carbon 0.5%, and EC 0.52 dS m
1. Soils at
0–15 cm depth are low in available N (alkaline permanga-
nate N 145 kg ha
1) (Subbiah and Asija, 1956), available P
(Olsen P 10.7 kg ha
1) and high in available K (ammonium
acetate K 325 kg ha
1) (Page et al., 1982). The water
holding capacity was 62% (w/w), bulk density 1.45 Mg m
3
and porosity 45% in the surface soil (0–15 cm). The region
has a semi-arid tropical climate and receives an annual
rainfall of 1005 mm. Major part of precipitation (88%)
occurs during June to September.
2.2. Experimental and crop culture
Soybean (variety JS 335) and medium duration pigeon-
pea (variety ICPL 87119), both as sole and intercrops were
sown in the last week of June. Three to four seeds of
pigeonpea were drilled per hill at a row spacing of 60 cm and
the seedlings were thinned to one plant per hill 1 week after
emergence for achieving a plant density of 75  103 ha
1
and plant-to-plant spacing of 22 cm. For soybean, row-to-
row spacing of 30 cm and plant-to-plant spacing of 10 cm
were maintained to get a plant density of 333  103 ha
1. In
intercropping, one row of pigeonpea was sown after every
two rows of soybean (1:2) at a distance of 30 cm. This way,
pigeonpea to pigeonpea row distance in intercropping was
90 cm (Fig. 1). A plant population of 223  103 for
intercropped soybean and 50  103 for intercropped
pigeonpea was maintained. Sowing was carried out by a
tractor-drawn seed drill in both the tillage systems.
Subsoiling treatment was performed in June when soil
became sufficiently wet with pre-monsoon showers. This
also reduced the amount of energy required and generated
fewer number of large clods. Subsoiling was done at 50 cm
spacing to a depth of 35  5 cm with the help of a chisel
plough. In conventional tillage, two passes of a sweep
cultivator was used. The treatment consisted of a factorial
combination of three cropping systems (sole soybean, sole
82 P.K. Ghosh et al. / Field Crops Research 96 (2006) 80–89
Fig. 1. Planting pattern in intercropping system.
pigeonpea and soybean/pigeonpea intercropping), three
tillage treatments (conventional, conventional + subsoiling
every year, conventional + subsoiling in alternate years) and
three nutrient treatments (control, 100% NPK, 100%
NPK + 4 t FYM ha
1). The treatments were laid out
following split–split plot design in three blocks. In 100%
NPK treatment, 30 kg N as urea, 26 kg P as single super
phosphate and 25 kg K as muriate of potash were applied.
Plant protection, and other management practices adopted
were those normally followed in the area. Soybean was
harvested manually at 110 days while pigeonpea was
harvested at 180 days after sowing (DAS). The size of each
plot was 9 m  6 m. Grain/seed yield of crops was recorded
from a net plot size of 5.4 m  4 m. Crop was harvested
manually by sickle at ground level and threshed with an
electrically operated multicrop thresher.
2.3. Sampling
Soybean and pigeonpea plants from each plot were
sampled for growth analysis at 15-day intervals starting from
15 DAS and at harvest. The plant samples were oven-dried at
65 8C for 72 h to a constant weight and its dry weight was
recorded. Crop growth rate (CGR), viz., the increase in dry
weight of crop per unit area per unit time was calculated as
(W2
W1)/(t2
t1) where W1 and W2 were dry weights at t1
and t2 the periods, respectively and expressed as
g m
2 day
1. Leaf area index (LAI) was calculated as leaf
area/ground area. Leaf area was estimated from specific leaf
area (area to dry mass ratio) based on a sub-sample. Leaf
area was measured using a leaf area meter (LI-COR;
Lincoln, NE). For studying nodulation, three plants each of
soybean and pigeonpea were uprooted at 75 DAS along with
a ball of soil. Keeping the root portion intact, the ball of soil
was washed gently with clean running water. A camel hair
brush was used to dislodge the remaining soil particles.
Nodules from roots were removed, counted and dry mass
was measured. Root samples were collected in cores of 6 cm
depth and 8.6 cm diameter. After thorough washing and
staining, root length was measured using Delta ‘T’ scan root
analyser (Delta T Corporation, London). Root length density
was calculated by dividing the root length with the volume
of the root-sampling core. Soil sample was collected depth
wise at 15 days interval starting from sowing to harvest.
Individual layer BD was multiplied with gravimetric water
content to get the volumetric water content. The volumetric
water content was then multiplied with depth of layer to
obtain water storage of each layer. Finally, water storage in
the soil profile up to 90 cm was obtained by the adding water
storage of each layer.
2.4. Production efficiency
Farmers are concerned mostly with total profit and the
marginal benefit:cost ratio from investment in labour and
inputs (Ghosh, 2004). The yield and economic performance
of intercropping was assessed to determine whether soybean
yield and additional pigeonpea yield were sufficient to
convince farmers for practising intercropping system. For
comparing the economical value of systems, the grain/seed
yields were converted into gross return and/or net return.
The yields of sole and intercrop pigeon pea was converted to
soybean equivalent yield on financial basis and was
expressed as SEY = yield of pigeonpea  unit price of
pigeonpea/unit price of soybean. However, SEY does not
indicate the net gain obtained from a cropping system and
also does not explain the land use pattern of the cropping
systems. As yield is a function of duration of land utilization,
Hiebsch (1978) suggested area time equivalent ratio (ATER)
as a better index for assessing yield advantage in
intercropping systems. In the present study, both the
component crops were of different maturity periods, thus,
we calculated ATER = [(Ya/Sa)  Ta + (Yb/Sb)  Tb]/T,
where Ya = yield of ‘a’ in intercropping, Sa = yield of ‘a’
in sole cropping, Yb = yield of ‘b’ in intercropping,
Sb = yield of ‘b’ in sole cropping, Ta = duration of ‘a’,
Tb = duration of ‘b’, T = total duration of intercropping
system. The ATER value greater than unity indicates more
efficient use of area and time.
2.5. Energy-use efficiency
Modernization is, in general, tied with increasing inputs
of energy in crop production. The energy use efficiency is
 P.K. Ghosh et al. / Field Crops Research 96 (2006) 80–89 83

declining consistently (Mandal et al., 2002). Energy input–
output relationships in cropping systems vary with the crops
grown in a sequence, type of soils, type of tillage operations,
nature and amount of organic manure and chemical
fertilizers, plant protection measures, harvesting and
threshing operations, yield levels and biomass production
(Baishya and Sharma, 1990; Singh et al., 1997).
The energy inputs include both operational (direct) and
non-operational (indirect) energy. Operational energy
comprised manual work, fuel, machinery, etc., whereas,
non-operational energy consisted of seed, manure and
chemical fertilizer (NPK) and agro-chemicals. Sowing was
carried out with a tractor-drawn seed drill. Weeding and
thinning operations were done manually. One spray of
insecticide (phosphamidon at 0.02%) was done at 60 DAS.
The crops were manually harvested and threshed by a
mechanical thresher. Total biomass included the seed plus
the by-product yield. The primary data on various inputs and
management practices were used for computation of energy
consumption. For estimation of energy inputs and outputs,
energy equivalents (Table 1) were utilized as suggested by
Baishya and Sharma (1980) and Singh et al. (1997). The
energy use efficiency (EUE) was calculated as
Energy output ðMJ ha
1 Þ
EUE ¼ :
Energy input ðMJ ha
1 Þ
2.6. Data analysis
Data were analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA)
following the split–split plot design (Gomez and Gomez,
1984). Tests of significance of the treatment differences
means were done using t-test. The significant differences
among treatments were compared with the critical
difference at 5% level of probability. Regression analysis
was done to develop empirical relationship between yield
and root length density.
3. Results
3.1. Rainfall
The total rainfall received during rainy seasons (June to
October) were 737 mm in 2000, 790 mm in 2001 and
670 mm in 2002. All the 3 years experienced low rainfall
leading to drought conditions during a part of the soybean
and pigeon pea growing seasons. In comparison to the long-
term average, the rainfall during growing season was not
only low but also erratic. Most of the precipitation occurred
during June to August. Drastic reduction in rainfall was
observed in September, and October especially in the years
2000 and 2001. However, in 2002 there was a delay in the
onset of monsoon (Fig. 2).

Table 1
Energy equivalents for different inputs and output
Particulars Units Equivalent energy (MJ) Remarks
(A) Inputs
1. Human labour
(a) Adult man Man-hour 1.96
(b) Woman Woman-hour 1.57
2. Diesel L 56.31 Includes cost of lubricants
3. Petrol L 48.23 Includes cost of lubricants
4. Electricity kW h 11.93
5. Machinery
(a) Electric motor kg 64.8
(b) Farm machinery including self propelled machines kg 62.7
6. Chemical fertilizers
(i) Nitrogen kg 60.60
(ii) Phosphate (P2O5) kg 11.1
(iii) Potash (K2O) kg 6.7
7. Farmyard manure (FYM) kg 0.3 Dry matter
8. Chemicals
(i) Superior chemicals kg 120 Require dilution at the time of application
9. Seed As output of crop production system

(B) Output
I. Main product
1. Soybean kg 14.7 Dry mass
2. Pigeonpea kg 14.7 Dry mass
II. By product
1. Straw kg 12.5 Dry mass
2. Stover kg 18.0 Dry mass
84 P.K. Ghosh et al. / Field Crops Research 96 (2006) 80–89

Fig. 2. Rainfall pattern during the year 2000, 2001, 2002 and 22-year
average (normal) at Bhopal.

3.2. Growth

In general, CGR for both species was higher under sole

cropping than under intercropping. The CGR of soybean
reached maximum between 75 and 90 DAS (Fig. 3) and
thereafter it declined owing to leaf senescence. The growth
of pigeonpea was slow up to 60–75 DAS and attained its
peak between 120 and 135 days. There was 7% reduction in
CGR and 4% in LAI (Fig. 4) of intercropped soybean while
the corresponding reduction in intercrop pigeon pea was
14% in CGR and 8% in LAI. In general, nodule mass of
soybean at pod filling stage was lower in intercrop soybean
than in sole soybean (Fig. 5) while, no marked difference in
nodule mass between sole and intercrop pigeonpea was
observed.
Effect of tillage on CGR was not noticeable up to 30–45
DAS in soybean and 60–75 DAS in pigeon pea: thereafter,
Fig. 3. Crop growth rate (CGR) of sole soybean (a), soybean as intercrop
subsoiling every year in comparison to conventional tillage (b), sole pigeon pea (c) and pigeon pea as intercrop (d) under different
resulted in significantly (*P < 0.05) greater CGR in both the tillage practices. S1, S2, S3 and ns represents conventional tillage, con-
crops. Leaf area Index followed similar trend in response to ventional tillage + subsoiling in alternate years, conventional tillage + sub-
subsoiling (Fig. 4). Effect of tillage on nodule mass of both soiling every year and nonsignificant. Vertical bar represents L.S.D.
(P = 0.05).
the crops was significant (*P < 0.05) and was comparatively
pronounced in soybean. Subsoiling every year significantly
(*P < 0.05) increased nodule mass in comparison to storage than sole cropping. Water storage in the soil profile
conventional tillage. The variation in nodule mass, however, was higher in 2002 than in 2000 and 2001.
due to subsoiling every year and subsoiling in alternate years
was not significant. Effect of subsoiling on root length 3.4. Yield and yield attributes
density (RLD) was significant at 7.5–15 cm and 15–22.5 cm
soil depth. Subsoiling every year significantly increased In general, sole soybean and sole pigeonpea recorded 22–
RLD relative to subsoiling in alternate years and conven- 47% pod number, 5–18% pod yield per plant and 6–12%
tional tillage (Fig. 6). 1000 seed weight more than their intercrops. The increase in
these parameters due to subsoiling was 16, 24 and 8%,
3.3. Soil water respectively (Table 2).
Since treatment  year was significant yield data of each
In general, soil water storage was less in conventional year are discussed. In year 2000, pigeonpea plants were
tillage than subsoiling in all 3 years (data not presented). damaged after germination by water logging due to heavy
Among the cropping systems, soybean/pigeon pea inter- rain in July (Fig. 2). Therefore, only yield of soybean has
cropping system maintained comparatively lower water been reported. The highest seed yield of both the crops was
 P.K. Ghosh et al. / Field Crops Research 96 (2006) 80–89 85

Fig. 5. Nodule weight under different cropping systems as affected by

Fig. 4. LAI of different cropping systems at 75 days after sowing as affected
by tillage practices. S, IS, P and IP represent sole soybean, intercrop
soybean, sole pigeon pea and intercrop pigeon pea while S1, S2, S3 and
ns represents conventional, conventional + subsoiling in alternate years,
conventional tillage + subsoiling every year and non significant. Vertical bar
represents L.S.D. (P = 0.05).
tillage practices. S, IS, P and IP represent sole soybean, intercrop soybean,
sole pigeon pea and intercrop pigeon pea while S1, S2, S3 and ns represents
conventional, conventional + subsoiling in alternate years, conventional
tillage + subsoiling every year and non significant. Vertical bar represents
L.S.D. (P = 0.05).

recorded in sole cropping and there was 16% reduction in

seed yields of intercrop soybean and 26% of intercrop
pigeonpea over the corresponding sole crops (Fig. 7).
Effect of tillage practices on seed yield of soybean and
pigeonpea was significant (*P < 0.05). Subsoiling produced
20% higher yield across the cropping system over
conventional tillage (Fig. 7). In the year 2001, subsoiling
every year compared with other tillage treatments recorded
significantly (*P < 0.05) higher seed yield of sole and
intercrop soybean and pigeon pea, while in the year 2002,
the effect of subsoiling every year and in alternate years on
yield did not show any significant variation. The correlation
(*P < 0.01) between RLD and yield was significant and was Fig. 6. Subsoiling effect on root length density distribution of soybean at
higher with RLD of 0–15 cm soil depth as compared to RLD anthesis. S1, S2, S3 and ns represents conventional, conventional + subsoil-
ing in alternate years, conventional tillage + subsoiling every year and non
of 15–30 cm soil depth (Fig. 8).
significant (horizontal bar).

3.5. Yield advantage

The yield advantage in terms of soybean equivalent yield
(SEY) was greater in soybean/pigeonpea intercropping
system than sole cropping (Table 3). The yield response to
deep tillage was consistent over the study period. Subsoiling
every year recorded the highest SEYand conventional tillage
practice showed the lowest. Over the study, 60% yield
advantage from intercropping over sole soybean and 20%
from subsoiling over conventional tillage were observed.
The interaction effect of tillage  cropping system was
significant. The interactive effect of subsoiling and
intercropping increased yield by 21–25%. SEY in subsoiling

Table 2
Yield attributes of soybean and pigeon pea as sole and intercrop as influenced by subsoiling and cropping system
Treatment Yield attributes
No. of pod plant
1 Pod weight plant
1 (g) 1000 grain weight (g)
a
Sole soybean 28 (0.58) 13 (0.19) 96 (0.96)
Sole pigeon pea 31 (0.77) 21 (0.48) 80 (0.58)
Soybean as intercrop 23 (0.38) 11 (0.29) 86 (0.77)
Pigeon pea as intercrop 21 (0.48) 20 (0.48) 87 (+0.67)
Conventional tillage 25 (0.58) 9 (0.58) 91 (0.58)
Conventional + subsoiling alternate year 28 (+0.58) 14 (0.38) 99 (0.96)
Conventional + subsoiling every year 30 (0.77) 16 (0.38) 98 (0.96)
a
Values in the parenthesis represents standard error.
86 P.K. Ghosh et al. / Field Crops Research 96 (2006) 80–89

Fig. 7. Seed yield of soybean and pigeon pea as sole and intercrop under different tillage practices. S, IS, P and IP represent sole soybean, intercrop soybean,
sole pigeon pea and intercrop pigeon pea while S1, S2 and S3 represents conventional, conventional + subsoiling in alternate years and conventional
tillage + subsoiling every year. The vertical bar represents L.S.D. (P = 0.05).

every year in intercropping was significantly higher than
the practice of subsoiling in alternate years and conven-
tional tillage in sole pigeonpea and sole soybean.
Subsoiling every year out-yielded subsoiling in alternate
years only in the case of sole pigeonpea. In the other two
systems, the effect of subsoiling every year and subsoiling
in alternate years was insignificant (Table 3). Yield
advantage in terms of ATER was the greatest (1.27) in
subsoiling every year. The lowest ATER (1.17) was
recorded in conventional tillage practice.
3.6. Energy use and economics
In general, more energy was consumed in subsoiling
treatments compared to conventional tillage (Table 4). Total
bio-energy output of sole pigeonpea was higher than the
 P.K. Ghosh et al. / Field Crops Research 96 (2006) 80–89 87

profit, effect of tillage was not significant on net return and

benefit:cost ratio.

4. Discussion

Soil water deficits that frequently occur during crop

Fig. 8. Relationship between RLD (a) 0–15 cm depth and (b) 15–30 cm
depth and crop yield. RLD represents root length density.
other two production systems. Higher energy use efficiency
was also obtained in sole pigeonpea. Variation in energy use
efficiency due to tillage was not noticeable.
Intercropping system gave maximum net return of Rs
19,104, which was about two times higher than sole pigeon
pea and four times than sole soybean (Table 4). This system
also provided significantly higher benefit:cost ratio than that
of the other two systems. Though subsoiling gave higher
growth because of erratic monsoon and non-uniform
distribution of rain reduce yield of soybean and pigeonpea
in traditional production systems (Gupta and Rajput, 2001).
The frequency and severity of water deficit increased from
August to October in 2000 and 2001, which was similar to
long-term average rainfall pattern. Though adequate
precipitation occurred in September 2002, the crops faced
initial water stress due to delayed onset of monsoon (Fig. 2).
The effect of drought in 2002 was compounded by drought
during the previous year (670 mm rainfall against normal
rainfall of 1005 mm). Therefore, yield of crops in 2002 was
in general low compared to previous years. The higher
profile soil water content in 2002 was related to less
extraction of soil water owing to low biomass production.
Our results clearly indicated that under uneven and deficit
rainfall situation, soybean/pigeonpea intercropping is super-
ior to conventional soybean or pigeonpea monoculture
production in the semi-arid region of central India, and
minimizes the risk of failure of soybean and provides
maximum profit. The soybean/pigeon pea intercropping
system comparatively maintained lower water storage than
sole cropping suggesting higher soil water extraction. Thus,
higher profit in the intercropping system may be attributed to
more extraction of soil water, high yield and high market
price of pigeon pea.
The duration of a crop in an intercropping system plays a
useful role in achieving yield advantage. Higher yield
advantage can be expected when the maturity period of the
component crops are different. In soybean/pigeonpea
intercropping system, associated crops had different
maturity periods and hence competition was less (Nambiar
et al., 1983). This was evident from CGR and LAI values in

Table 3
Interaction effect of subsoiling  cropping system on soybeana equivalent yield (kg ha
1)
Treatment Sole soybean Sole pigeon pea Intercropping Mean
2001
Conventional tillage 1235 1752 1823 1638
Conventional tillage + subsoiling alternate year 1400 1788 2012 1715
Conventional tillage + subsoiling every year 1472 2036 2126 1862
L.S.D. (P = 0.05) S = 155 C = 225 S  C = 160
2002
Conventional tillage 1029 1450 1590 1356
Conventional tillage + subsoiling alternate year 1200 1620 1860 1560
Conventional tillage + subsoiling every year 1290 1755 1990 1678
L.S.D. (P = 0.05) S = 120 C = 150 S  C = 125
S: subsoiling. C: cropping system.
a
Yields of sole and intercrop pigeon pea were converted to soybean equivalent yield as (yield of pigeon pea  unit price of pigeon pea)/unit price of soybean.
Thus, SEY in intercropping is yield of intercrop soybean + SEY of intercrop pigeon pea.
88 P.K. Ghosh et al. / Field Crops Research 96 (2006) 80–89

Table 4
Energy use efficiency and economics as influenced by subsoiling and cropping system
Cropping systems Energy input Energy output Net energy Energy use efficiency Net return Benefit:cost
(MJ ha
1) (MJ ha
1) (MJ ha
1) (output/input) (Rs ha
1) ratio
Sole soybean 6776 20660 13884 3.04 3711 1.32
Sole pigeon pea 6364 90505 84141 14.2 11219 2.00
Soybean/pigeon pea 5600 78709 73109 14.0 19104 2.78
L.S.D. (P = 0.05) 2.6 1055 0.15
Conventional tillage 4755 56586 51831 12.0 9918 1.92
Conventional tillage + subsoiling 5581 63878 58297 11.1 10951 1.94
alternate year
Conventional tillage + subsoiling 5581 69409 63827 12.2 11982 2.05
every year
L.S.D. (P = 0.05) NS 712 NS
NS: not significant.

the present study. Fig. 3 shows that soybean was harvested
when the associated pigeonpea attained its grand growth
period (120–135 DAS) and competition with associated
pigeonpea was not considerable. Soybean being a fast
growing crop, utilized resources, particularly the soil water
due to rainfall received during June to August (Fig. 2) early
in the season. Pigeon pea utilized resources later in the
season and being a deep-rooted crop, it continued to grow by
extracting residual moisture from deeper soil layers. Crop
complementarities or supplementarities determine the
magnitude of competition. In the present study, though
there was a reduction in growth and yield of intercrops, a
higher SEY and ATER value in intercropping system
indicated a definite advantage compared to monoculture
yields apparently because of crop complementarities.
Our results indicated that subsoiling was advantageous in
Vertisols of central India during drought situations of 2000–
2002. In black clay soil of central India, 30% increase in
sugarcane yield due to subsoiling was also reported by
Painuli and Yadav (1998). Wesley et al. (1993, 1994, 2001)
also emphasised that subsoiling in the non-irrigated
environment recorded 46% greater soybean yield and net
return than conventional tillage, whereas in the irrigated
environment, the difference between these two tillage
systems was not significant. Heatherly and Spurlock (2001)
reported that yield and net returns from deep tillage in
soybean were greater than shallow tillage system in a clay
soil but the increased profits from deep tillage were
infrequent in a three years study. Our results are also in
conformity to the results of Heatherly and Spurlock (2001).
The interaction effect of tillage  cropping system
(Table 3) clearly showed that under low and uneven
distribution of rainfall, the interactive effect of subsoiling
and intercropping soybean with deep-rooted pigeonpea
greatly minimized the effect of drought to a greater extent
than subsoiling with sole soybean or sole pigeon pea because
the former combination could extract more soil water than the
latter one. Increased crop yield of intercropping under
subsoiling may therefore be attributed to increased moisture
storage in the soil profile due to greater infiltration resulting
from improvement in water transmission properties and
macro porosity due to subsoiling (Kirkegaard et al., 1992).
Wesley et al. (1993) also reported an improved moisture status
resulting from subsoiling in soybean on clay soil. Better root
development (Fig. 6) at 7.5–15 and 15–22.5 cm depths under
subsoiling compared to conventional tillage practice is also
apparent because of soil loosening and the presence of soil
moisture (Merrill et al., 1996). This was also a possible reason
of higher yield under subsoiling as was evident from high
correlation between crop yield and root length density
(Fig. 8). Our results also showed improvement in nodulation
of soybean and pigeonpea with subsoiling perhaps because of
improvement in soil aeration as the soil water moves quickly
through macro-pores and excess water gets drained from the
profile (Wesley et al., 2001).
Though the total energy requirement of crop production
systems did not vary, the total output energy and energy use
efficiency differed. Total bio energy output (energy output of
economic products plus by-product) and energy use efficiency
(output/input) of sole pigeon pea and soybean/pigeon pea
intercropping system were higher than sole soybean because
of their greater grain and biomass production. The energy
output was less in soybean because of lower yield. The higher
energy use efficiency obtained in pigeonpea was associated
with higher benefit:cost ratio. Though the benefit:cost ratio
with subsoiling was higher than with conventional tillage, yet
the EUE was more in conventional tillage. This is because of
additional energy input required in the subsoiling operation
compared to the conventional tillage.
5. Conclusion
Based on 3-year results, we conclude that consistently
higher yields from soybean/pigeonpea intercropping could
be obtained and the risk of low yields or crop failure
associated with the traditional soybean production system,
under drought of unpredictable intensity and duration could
be reduced, especially when subsoiling is practiced in
alternate years. There is no need of subsoiling every year in
 P.K. Ghosh et al. / Field Crops Research 96 (2006) 80–89
vertisol to realize optimum yield of soybean/pigeonpea
intercropping system.
References
Anonymous, 1993. Detailed soil survey of the farm. Indian Institute of soil
Science, Bhopal, India, 14 p.
Baishya, A., Sharma, G.L., 1990. Energy budgeting of rice-wheat cropping
system. Indian J. Agron. 35 (12), 167–177.
Barbosa, L.R., Diaz, O., Barber, R.G., 1989. Effects of deep tillage on soil
properties, growth, and yield of soya in a compacted Ustochrept in Santa
Cruz, Bolivia. Soil Tillage Res. 15, 51–63.
Bordovsky, J.P., Lyle, W.M., Keeling, J.W., 1994. Crop rotation and tillage
effects on soil water and cotton yield. Agron. J. 86, 1–6.
Braunack, M.V., 1995. Effect of aggregate size and soil water content on
emergence of soybean (Glycine max L.) and maize. Soil Tillage Res. 33,
149–161.
Cannell, R.Q., Hawes, J.D., 1994. Trends in tillage practices in relation to
sustainable crop production with special reference to temperate climate.
Soil Tillage Res. 30, 245–282.
Daddow, R.L., Warrington, G.E., 1983. Growth limiting soil bulk densities
as influenced by texture. WSDG Report water shed systems develop-
ment group. USDA Forest Service, Fort cottons, Colorado.
Diaz-zortia, M., 2000. Effect of deep tillage and nitrogen fertilizer inter-
actions on dry land corn (Zea mays l.) productivity. Soil Tillage Res. 54,
11–19.
Ghosh, P.K., 2004. Growth, yield, competition and economics of groundnut/
cereal fodder intercropping in the semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops
Res. 88, 227–237.
Ghosh, P.K., Mohanty, M., Bandyopadhyay, K.K., Painuli, D.K., Misra,
A.K., 2005b. Growth, competition, yield advantage and economics in
soybean/pigeonpea intercropping system in semi-arid tropics of India.
II. Effect of nutrient management. Field Crops Res. (under review).
Gomez, K.A., Gomez, A.A., 1984. Statistical Procedures for Agricultural
Research. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Gupta, R.K., Rajput, R.P., 2001. Indigenous nutrient management practices
in Madhya Pradesh. In: Acharya, C.L., Ghosh, P.K., Subba Rao, A.
(Eds.), Indigenous Nutrient Management Practices: Wisdom Alive in
India. Indian Institute of Soil Science, Bhopal, India.
Heatherly, L.G., Spurlock, S.R., 2001. Economics of fall tillage for early
and conventional soybean plantings in mid southern USA. Agron. J. 93,
511–516.
Hiebsch, C.K., 1978. Interpretation of yields obtained in crop mixture.
Agronomical Abstract. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI,
p. 41.
Kanwar, J.S., 1988. Farming systems in swell-shrink soils under rainfed
conditions in soils of semi-arid tropics. In: Hirekerur, L.R., Pal, D.K.,
Sehgal, J.L., Deshpande, C.S.B. (Eds.), Transactions of International
Workshop on Swell-Shrink Soils. National Bureau of Soil Survey and
Land Use Planning, Nagpur, pp. 179–193.
Kar, S., Acharya, C.L., Prihar, S.S., 1997. Soil management effects on
physical edaphic environment and sustainability of rice-wheat system.
In: Biswas, T.D., Narayanasamy, G. (Eds.), Sustainable Soil Productiv-
ity Under Rice-wheat System. ISSS Bull., pp. 7–19.
Kirby, J.M., Blunden, B.G., 1994. Compaction in cotton beds: measure-
ments, modelling and management. In: Constable, G.A., Forester, N.W.
(Eds.), Challenging the Future, Proceedings of the World Cotton
Research Conference-1, Brisbane Australia, 14–17 February 1994.
CSIRO, Melbourne, pp. 165–168.
Kirkegaard, J.A., So, H.B., Troedson, R.J., Wallis, E.S., 1992. The effect of
compaction on the growth of pigeonpea on clay soils. I. Mechanisms of
crop response and seasonal effects on a vertisol in a sub-humid
environment. Soil Tillage Res. 24, 107–127.
KumarRao, J.V.D.K., Johansen, C., Chauhan, Y.S., Jain, V.K., Jain, K.C.,
Talwar, H.S., 2001. An analysis of yield variation among long duration
89
pigeonpea genotypes in relation to season, irrigation and plant popula-
tion. J. Agric. Sci. 136, 291–299.
Lal, R., 1989. Conservation tillage for sustainable agriculture; tropics versus
temperate environments. Adv. Agron. 42, 85–197.
Lampurlanes, B.J., Angas, P., Cantero-Martinez, C., 2001. Root growth, soil
water content and yield of barley under different tillage systems on two
soils in semi-arid conditions. Field Crops Res. 69, 27–40.
Lopez, M.V., Arrue, J.L., 1997. Growth, yield and water use efficiency of
winter barley in response to conservation tillage in a semi-arid region of
Spain. Soil Tillage Res. 44, 35–54.
Mandal, K.G., Saha, K.P., Ghosh, P.K., Hati, K.M., Bandyopadhyay, K.K.,
2002. Bioenergy and economic analysis of soybean-based crop produc-
tion systems in central India. Biomass Bioenergy 23, 337–345.
McDonald, G.K., Fisher, R.A., 1987. The role of soil management in the
maintenance of crop production in semi-arid environments. In: Ace-
vedo, E., Fereers, E., Gimenez, C., Srivastava, J.P. (Eds.), Improve-
ment and Management of Winter Cereals under Temperature, Drought
and Salinity Stress, Proceedings of the ICARDA–INIA Symposium,
Corodoba, 26–29 October 1987. MAPA-INIA, Madrid, Spain, pp. 421–
440.
Merrill, S.D., Black, A.L., Bauser, A., 1996. Conservation tillage affects
root growth of Dryland spring wheat under drought. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
60, 575–583.
Nambiar, P.T.C., Rao, M.R., Reddy, M.S., Floyd, C.N., Dart, P.J., Willey,
R.W., 1983. Effect of intercropping on nodulation and N2-fixing by
groundnut. Exp. Agric. 19, 1979–1986.
Page, A.L., Millar, R.H., Keeney, D.R., 1982. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part
2.. America Society of Agronomy/Soil Science Society of America,
Madison, WI, USA.
Painuli, D.K., Yadav, R.P., 1998. Tillage requirements of Indian soils. In:
Singh, G.B., Sharma, B.R. (Eds.), 50 Years of Natural Resource
Management Research. Division of Natural Resource Management,
ICAR, New Delhi, pp. 245–262.
Painuli, D.K., Tomar, S.J., Tembe, G.P., Sharma, S.K., 2002. Raised-Sunken
bed Technology for Rainfed Vertisols of High Rainfall Areas. Technical
Bulletin. AICRP on SPC and Their Amelioration for Sustainable Crop
Production. Indian Institute of Soil Science, Bhopal, pp. 1–19.
Rajkannan, B., Selvi, D., 2002. Effect of tillage, organics and nitrogen on
root behaviour and yield of sorghum in soil with sub soil hardpan at
shallow depth. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ. 27 (2), 213–215.
Salih, A.A., Babikir, K.M., Ali, S.A.M., 1998. Preliminary observation on
effect of tillage system on soil properties, cotton root growth and yield in
Gezira Scheme, Sudan. Soil Tillage Res. 46, 187–191.
Sharma, P., Tripathi, R.P., Singh, S., Singh, S., Kumar, R., 2004. Effect of
tillage on soil physical properties and crop performance under rice-
wheat system. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 52, 12–16.
Singer, M.J., Munns, D.N., 1987. Soils: An Introduction. MacMillan
Publication, New York.
Singh, M., Chaudhary, M.R., 1998. Effect of deep tillage on growth and
yield of maize under water stresses condition at different physiological
stages on coarse textured soils. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 46 (4), 557–
562.
Singh, M.K., Pal, S.K., Thakur, R., Verma, U.N., 1997. Energy input–output
relationship of cropping systems. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 67 (6), 262–264.
Subbiah, B.V., Asija, G.L., 1956. A rapid procedure for the determination of
available nitrogen in soils. Curr. Sci. 25, 259–260.
Wesley, R.A., Elmore, C.D., Spurlock, S.R., 2001. Deep tillage and crop
rotation effects on cotton, soybean & grain sorghum clayey soils. Agron.
J. 93, 170–178.
Wesley, R.A., Smith, L.A., Spurlock, S.R., 1993. Economics analysis of
irrigation and deep tillage in soybean production systems on clay soil.
Soil Tillage Res. 28, 63–78.
Wesley, R.A., Smith, L.A., Spurlock, S.R., 1994. Fall deep tillage of clay:
agronomic and economic benefits to soybeans. In: Wesley, R.A., Smith,
L.A. (Eds.), Response of Soybean for Deep Tillage with Controlled
Traffic on Clay Soil. Mississippi Agric. and Forestry Exp. Stn. Bull.
1015. Trans. ASAE 34, 113–119.