See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233260619

Weed-suppressive effects of maizelegume

intercropping in organic farming

Article in International Journal of Pest Management April 2010

DOI: 10.1080/09670870903304471

CITATIONS READS

36 189

6 authors, including:

D. Bilalis Panayiota Papastylianou

Agricultural University of Athens Agricultural University of Athens
107 PUBLICATIONS 758 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 102 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sotiria Patsiali Anestis Karkanis

Agricultural University of Athens University of Thessaly
13 PUBLICATIONS 117 CITATIONS 59 PUBLICATIONS 405 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Comparative evaluation of novel species (Chenopodium quinoa, Eragrostis tef) as forage crops in
Greece. View project

Enhancing of legumes growing in Europe through sustainable cropping for protein supply for food
and feed (EUROLEGUME) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Panayiota Papastylianou on 12 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Karkanis, Anestis]
On: 25 March 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 920328726]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Pest Management

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713797655

Weed-suppressive effects of maize-legume intercropping in organic

farming
Dimitrios Bilalis a; Panayiota Papastylianou a; Aristidis Konstantas a; Sotiria Patsiali a; Anestis Karkanis
a
;Aspasia Efthimiadou a
a
Department of Crop Science, Agriculture University of Athens, Greece

Online publication date: 25 March 2010

To cite this Article Bilalis, Dimitrios , Papastylianou, Panayiota , Konstantas, Aristidis , Patsiali, Sotiria , Karkanis, Anestis
andEfthimiadou, Aspasia(2010) 'Weed-suppressive effects of maize-legume intercropping in organic farming',
International Journal of Pest Management, 56: 2, 173 181
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09670870903304471
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09670870903304471

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 International Journal of Pest Management
Vol. 56, No. 2, AprilJune 2010, 173181

Weed-suppressive eects of maizelegume intercropping in organic farming

Dimitrios Bilalis*, Panayiota Papastylianou, Aristidis Konstantas, Sotiria Patsiali, Anestis Karkanis and
Aspasia Efthimiadou
Department of Crop Science, Agriculture University of Athens, Iera Odos 75, 118 55 Athens, Greece
(Received 19 September 2008; nal version received 2 September 2009)

In organic agriculture, intercropping is receiving increasing attention as it oers potential advantages for increasing
sustainability in crop production. However, intercropping can increase competition between crops and weeds. In this
study, we analyzed the eects of maizelegume intercrops on the weed community in an organic cropping system. We
were concerned only with competition between crops and weeds for light. We recorded a statistically signicant
negative correlation between the fraction of photosynthetically active radiation (Fint PAR) intercepted by the
canopy, and both weed density and weed dry matter. Maizelegume intercropping led to a higher soil canopy cover
(leaf area index) than sole crops. The lowest values for Fint PAR were received in sole crops. Thus, in maizelegume
intercrops the decrease in available light for weeds led to a reduction of weed density and dry matter, compared to
sole crops. Intercropping maize and legumes considerably reduced the weed density in the intercrop compared with
Downloaded By: [Karkanis, Anestis] At: 15:39 25 March 2010

the maize pure stand. Weed suppression by crops was also greater on a low-productivity site than on a high-
productivity site. Our results indicate that intercropping could be useful for weed suppression in organic row-crops
such as maize and cotton.
Keywords: competition; intercropping; maize; legumes; bean; cowpea; weed ora; organic agriculture; weed
suppression

1. Introduction Intercropping is a cultural practice which increases

Cultural practices such as mulching (Bilalis et al. 2003),
tillage (Bilalis et al. 2001), competitive cultivars
(Korres and Froud-Williams 2002), and irrigation
systems (Karkanis et al. 2007) inuence weed density
and distribution. There is a keen interest in developing
alternative methods of natural weed control in
organically grown crops, as weed control remains one
of the most signicant agronomic challenges in the
production of organic crops. Concern over potential
increases in weed populations without the use of
herbicides has limited the uptake of organic farming
practices (Bond and Grundy 2001).
Legumecereal intercropping, i.e. the practice of
growing two (or more) crops simultaneously in the
same land area, oers a potential method of reducing
inputs such as fertilizers (Hauggaard-Nielsen et al.
2007). Intercropping positively inuences both crop
growth and yield (Bilalis et al. 2005). Moreover, weed
suppression has been noted as one of the advantages of
intercropping (Mohler and Liebman 1987; Liebman
and Davis 2000; Brainard and Bellinder 2004; Chikoye
et al. 2004; Fujiyoshi et al. 2007; Hauggaard-Nielsen
et al. 2007; Bilalis et al. 2008). Liebman and Dyck
(1993) noted a decrease in weed biomass for intercrop
as compared with monocrop systems in 47 studies, a
higher level of weed biomass in four studies and
variable results in another three cases.
competition between crops and weeds. It can increase
light interception in a weakly competitive crop and can
contribute to weed suppression in a long-term strategy
for weed management (Baumann et al. 2001). The
amount of light intercepted by the component crops in
an intercrop system depends on the geometry of the
crop and foliage architecture (Keating and Carberry
1993). At low maize density, beans received 50% of
incident light (Ofori and Stern 1987). Intercrop systems
are reported to use more resources, thus reducing the
amounts available for weed growth (Liebman and
Robichaux 1990).
Weed control in intercrops is particularly eective in
slow-growing, ultimately tall crops when interpolated
with short-season short crops (Midmore 1993).
Baumann et al. (2000) reported that intercropping of
leek and celery in a row-by-row replacement design
considerably shortened the critical period for weed
control in the intercrop compared with the pure leek
stand. The intercropping of eld beans (Vicia faba L.)
and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) grown organically
reduced the growth of weeds and gave a yield advantage
over sole, cropping (Bulson et al. 1997). Fenandez-
Aparicio et al. (2007) reported that Orobanche crenata
infection on faba bean and pea is reduced when these
host crops are intercropped with oat, and they suggested
that inhibition of O. crenata seed germination by

*Corresponding author. Email: bilalisdimitrios@yahoo.gr

ISSN 0967-0874 print/ISSN 1366-5863 online

2010 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/09670870903304471
http://www.informaworld.com
 174 D. Bilalis et al.

allelochemicals released by cereal roots is the mechanism
for reduction of O. crenata infection. Zuofa et al. (1992)
observed that intercropping maize with 20,000 plants
ha71 of smother crops (groundnut, cowpea and melon)
provided the best weed control, highest total yields and
land equivalent ratio (LER). Olasantan et al. (1994)
found that intercropping cassava (Manihot esculenta
Crantz) and maize can alleviate weed problems. Inter-
cropping with N-fertilizer application gave the highest
leaf area index (LAI) and light interception and hence
the best weed control, total yields and LER.
The aim of this study was to extend knowledge
concerning intercrop systems using legume species. The
main objective was to analyze the eects of maize
legume intercrops on the weed community in an
organic cropping system. Our study was restricted to
competition between crops and weeds for light.
2. Materials and methods
Downloaded By: [Karkanis, Anestis] At: 15:39 25 March 2010
(Zea mays L. hybrid 31G98 (Pioneer)). The soil was
ploughed, to a depth of 25 cm, on 20 April 2002 and on
1st May 2003 followed by one rotary hoeing to a depth
of 56 cm. Maize was hand-sown on 24th April 2002
and on 4th May 2003. The row spacing of maize was
75 cm, sole crop and intercrop being planted at the
same density (8 plants m72). Bean and cowpea were
hand-sown in rows of 40 cm apart on 15th May 2002
and on 24th May 2003. Legumes that are early-sown
could result in reduced maize yield. Lawson et al.
(2007) reported that the highest cover spread of
Mucuna and Canavalia was observed when they were
incorporated 4 and 2 weeks after planting maize,
respectively. Legume crop density was 25 plants m72
(monocrop and intercrop at the same plant density). A
surface-drip irrigation system was installed soon after
crop emergence. The average mean monthly tempera-
ture and precipitation were 23.778C and 55.8 mm,
respectively, during the rst cultivation period (April
September 2002) and 22.338C and 98.6 mm for the

2.1. Field experiments second cultivation period (MaySeptember 2003).

Two experiments were conducted at the organic
research farm of the Agriculture University of Athens
(Lat: 348580 , Long: 238430 , alt: 277 m) in Greece (2002) 2.2. Measurements
and at an organic eld in the Mavrica area (Lat: 388360 , The sampling dates for all variables at both sites were
Long: 218210 , alt: 24 m) located in western Greece 40, 60, 80, 100, 120 and 140 days after sowing (d.a.s.).
(2003). The soil types (Table 1) were clay loam in Plants were destructively sampled (5 plants per
Athens and silt loam in the Mavrica area. Some plot) and leaf area was measured using an automatic
meteorological data for the experimental sites are leaf area meter (DeltaT Devices Ltd, Burwell, Cam-
presented in Table 1. The sites were managed accord- bridge, UK). The results, on a plant basis, were
ing to organic agriculture guidelines (EN 2092/91). converted into the leaf area index (LAI) by multiplying
The experiment was set up on an area of 2000 m2 the average crop density of each plot. Yield was
according to a randomized complete block design with determined by manually harvesting all plots. The land
eight replications. Experiments included ve treat- equivalent ratio (LER) was used to evaluate intercrop
ments: monocultures of maize, bean and cowpea and eciency in grain yield.
two intercrops of maize and both legume crops. The    
plot size of each treatment was 50 m2 (5 6 10 m). The Yintmaize Yintlegume
LER
species cultivated were bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv. Ysolomaize Ysololegume
sevilla), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) and maize
where Yintmaize and Ysolomaize are the yields of inter-
cropped and sole maize, respectively, and Yintlegume and
Table 1. Soil properties and meteorological data in the
experimental sites (Athens and Mavrica). Ysololegume are the yields of intercropped and sole
legume, respectively.
Mavrica Canopy interception of incident photosynthetically
Athens area active radiation (PAR) was calculated by taking 10
Soil properties readings in rapid succession above the canopy and 10
Soil type Clay loam Silt loam below the canopy at the soil surface using a 60-cm
Clay 29.8% 24.9% Suneck Ceptometer (Decagon devices, Pullman, WA,
Silt 34.3% 61.2%
Sand 35.9% 13.9% USA). The fraction of the incident PAR intercepted by
pH (1:1 H2O) 7.22 7.56 the canopy (Fint PAR) was calculated with the
Organic matter 1.37% 3.21% following equation (Poggio 2005):
CaCO3 18% 13%
Total nitrogen 0.112% 0.152%  
PARbelowcanopy
Phosphorus-Olsen 48 ppm 92 ppm % Fint PAR 1   100
Potassium 335 ppm 632 ppm PARabovecanopy
Meteorological data
Annual average 17.9 17.2 The weed density (Wdens) was measured using
temperature (8C) 0.5 6 0.5-m quadrants; 5 per plot. All weeds were
Total precipitation (mm) 434 955
collected from the measured area and weighed to

determine the weed dry matter (WDM). The dry
weight of weeds was determined after drying for 72 h
at 708C.
2.3. Statistical analysis
ANOVA was applied to the data (StatSoft software
1999). Dierences between the means were compared
using the least signicant dierence test (LSD).
Regression analysis was used to describe the relation-
ships between Wdens, WDM, LAI and Fint PAR.
3. Results
3.1. Leaf area index-grain yield
The values of LAI are presented in Figure 1. The
highest values of LAI were observed for maizebean
intercropping plots (5.11 and 5.12, in Athens and
Mavrica, respectively). In intercrop system plots, the
LAI was also signicantly higher than the LAI on sole
Downloaded By: [Karkanis, Anestis] At: 15:39 25 March 2010
Figure 1. Leaf area index for sole and intercrops, (a) in Athens and (b) in Mavrica (bars: LSD, P 0.05).
International Journal of Pest Management 175
crop plots. At both sites, on all sampling dates, the
highest LAI for sole crops were observed in beans
(3.32 and 3.50, at 140 d.a.s.) and the lowest values in
maize. Due to the inuence of maizelegume com-
petition, LAI was highest in sole crops compared to
the LAI of the same species intercropped. Finally, the
LAI of maize intercropped with legumes was
always higher than that of legumes intercropped with
maize. As expected, the highest grain yield values were
found in sole crops and the lowest in intercrops
(Figure 2).
3.2. Light interception
The values for Fint PAR under the cultivation plants
are shown in Figure 3. At both sites, at 40 d.a.s., there
were no signicant dierences between systems. After
80 d.a.s., the fraction of PAR that was intercepted
started to increase signicantly more rapidly on the
intercrop systems.
 176 D. Bilalis et al.
Figure 2. Grain yield as aected by crop system in Athens and Mavrica (bars: LSD, P 0.05).
Downloaded By: [Karkanis, Anestis] At: 15:39 25 March 2010
Figure 3. FintPAR (fraction of PAR (%) intercepted by
crop canopy) during the growing season, for inter- and sole
crops: (a) in Athens and (b) in Mavrica (bars: LSD,
P 0.05).
The highest values were observed in the maizebean
system (*90% at both sites, at 140 d.a.s.) and the next
highest in the maizecowpea system. There were no
signicant dierences between maizebean and maize
cowpea intercrops. Moreover, the highest Fint PAR
intercepted for sole crops was observed in beans (66
and 63%, in Athens and Mavrica, respectively, at 140
d.a.s.) and the lowest values in the maize sole crop (57
and 55%, respectively). Also, there was a signicant
positive correlation between LAI and Fint PAR at both
sites from 60 d.a.s. (Table 2).
3.3. Weed density
In Athens, about eight species of weeds appeared in the
experimental eld (Figure 4). The most dominant
among these were: Amaranthus blitoides, A. retroexus
(Amaranthaceae), Setaria sp. (Poaceae) and Tribulus
terrestris (Zygophyllaceae). In contrast, in the Mavrica
area, 10 species of weeds were found in the experi-
mental eld; the most dominant being: A. blitoides, A.
retroexus, Echinochloa crus-galli (Poaceae), Solanum
nigrum (Solanaceae) and Convolvulus arvensis
(Convonvulaceae).
At both sites, the highest Wdens was recorded on
sole crop plots (Figure 5). After 60 d.a.s., signicant
dierences between the treatments began to appear. At
both sites, there were no signicant dierences between
the maizebean and maizecowpea intercrop, and the
dierences between intercrop and sole crops were
statistically signicant in most cases.
The highest Wdens value for sole crops was
recorded in maize (27.67m72 in Athens and
33.37 m72 in Mavrica, at 140 d.a.s.) and the lowest
in the bean crop. At 140 d.a.s., the lowest weed
density was observed in maizebean and maize
cowpea intercrops. In Athens, the weed density in
maizebean and maizecowpea systems was 15.33 and
13.33 m72, respectively. In Mavrica, the Wdens in
maizebean and maizecowpea systems was 16.44
and 18.00 m72, respectively. There was a signicant
negative correlation between Fint PAR and weed
density (Table 2).
There was a signicant positive correlation between
LAI and Fint PAR. Of the models tted, the linear
model yielded the highest R2 value (Table 3). This is the
currently selected model (Figure 6). Over 60 d.a.s., the
correlation coecients between LAI and Fint PAR
were higher than 0.815 in Athens and 0.990 in Mavrica
(P 5 0.01) (Table 2). The great reduction of PAR
below canopy, at the soil surface, led to the reduction
of the number of weeds that survived. There was a
signicant negative correlation between Fint PAR and
 International Journal of Pest Management 177

Table 2. Linear correlation coecientsa between variables.

40 (d.a.s.) 60 (d.a.s.) 80 (d.a.s.) 100 (d.a.s.) 120 (d.a.s.) 140 (d.a.s.)

Athens
LAI7Fint% ns 0.815** 0.843** 0.902*** 0.913*** 0.908***
Fint%7WDM ns 70.864** 70.896*** 70.884** 70.945*** 70.986***
Fint%7Wdens ns 70.863** 70.841** 70.939*** 70.949*** 70.944***
WDM7Wdens ns 0.818** 0.856** 0.888** 0.877** 0.957***
Mavrica area
LAI7Fint% ns 0.990** 0.979** 0.990** 0.993*** 0.991***
Fint%7WDM ns 70.970** 70.996*** 70.993*** 70.995*** 70.990**
Fint%7Wdens ns 70.991*** 70.920** 70.982** 70.993*** 70.995***
WDM7Wdens ns 0.979** 0.899* 0.991*** 0.984** 0.997***

Notes: ar was calculated using the linear equation.

LAI, Leaf area index; Fint%, fraction of PAR (%) intercepted by crop canopy; WDM, weed dry matter; Wdens, weed density; d.a.s.: days after
sowing.
ns, not signicant; signicant at *P 0.05, **P 0.01 and ***P 0.001, respectively.

Wdens (at 140 d.a.s. r 70.944, P 5 0.001 in Athens rapid increase in leaf area in maizelegume intercrops
and r 70.995, P 5 0.001 in Mavrica, Table 2). was the main reason for their competitiveness against
Multiple regression analysis indicated that there weeds. Therefore, on both sites, there was signicant
Downloaded By: [Karkanis, Anestis] At: 15:39 25 March 2010

was a statistically signicant relationship between
Wdens, LAI and Fint PAR:
Wdens 12:59  LAI  1:33  Fint PAR  68:91
Equation 1
R2 (adjust) 86.25%; SE: (5.93) (0.41) (7.38); P level:
(0.05) (0.01) (0.0001).
The R2 statistic indicates that the model ( Equation
1) explains 86% of the variability in weed density.
3.4. Weed dry matter
In all cases, statistically signicant dierences in weed
dry matter were observed between the cropping
systems (intercropping and monoculture). At 40
d.a.s., the highest WDM (Figure 7) was found in
maize plots and the lowest in bean monocrop and
maizebean intercrop plots. After 60 d.a.s., the highest
WDM was found in sole crops, while the lowest WDM
was measured in intercrop systems. There were no
signicant dierences between maizebean and maize
cowpea intercrops. At both sites, the WDM in
intercrops were statistically signicantly lower those
in sole crops.
The highest WDM for sole crops was recorded in
maize (31.37 g m72 in Athens and 35.66 g m72 in
Mavrica, at 140 d.a.s.) and the lowest in bean crops. At
140 d.a.s., the lowest WDM was observed in maize
bean intercrops. In Athens, the WDMs in maizebean
and maizecowpea systems were 12.25 and 14.50 g
m72, respectively. Furthermore, in Mavrica, the
WDMs, in maizebean and maizecowpea systems
were 13.33 and 15.12 g m72, respectively. Finally,
there was a signicant negative correlation between Fint
PAR and WDM (Table 2).
The maizebean and the maizecowpea intercrops
had more rapid canopy development. Thus, the more
negative correlation between the fraction of photo-
synthetically active radiation intercepted by the canopy
(Fint PAR) and the WDM. Beyond 60 d.a.s. the
correlation coecients between Fint PAR and weed
biomass were higher than 70.864 and 70.970, in
Athens and Mavrica, respectively (P 5 0.01).
The multiple regression analysis indicates that there
is a statistically signicant relationship between WDM,
Wdens and Fint PAR:
WDM 0:44  Wdens  0:46  Fint PAR 47:24
Equation 2
R2 adjust 97:59%; SE : 9:600:169:60;
P level: 0:0010:030:001
The value for the R2 statistic indicates that the
model (Equation 2) explains 98% of the variability in
weed biomass.
4. Discussion
Intercropping cereals with legumes for forage or food
production is extensively practiced in many parts of the
world. Weed suppression, the reduction of weed
growth by crop interference, has been noted as one
of the major determinants of yield advantage in
intercropping (Poggio 2005). In this study, legume
crops were planted 3 weeks after planting maize
(WAPM). Lawson et al. (2007) also reported that the
greatest degree of weed suppression occurred when the
legume cover crops were planted 0 to 4 WAPM.
Intercropping legumes in maize at 6 WAPM gave poor
weed suppression, nevertheless higher maize grain yield
than earlier intercropping (0, 2 and 4 WAPM). The
highest grain yield values were found in sole crops and
the lowest in intercrops (Figure 2). This nding is
likely to have resulted from the limiting eect of
 178 D. Bilalis et al.
Downloaded By: [Karkanis, Anestis] At: 15:39 25 March 2010
Figure 4. Density of major weeds (m72) by sole and intercrop, (a) in Athens and (b) in Mavrica (bars: LSD, P 0.05).
legumecereal competition on leaf development in both
species. A statistically signicant higher value for LER
was received in the maizebean intercrop (1.47 and
1.52, for Athens and Mavrica, respectively) as com-
pared to maizecowpea (1.44 and 1.42, for Athens and
Mavrica, respectively).
Maizelegume intercropping resulted in higher soil
canopy cover (LAI) in comparison with the sole crops
(Figure 1). Consequently, there was an increase of light
interception by the canopy, as shown by the high
values of Fint PAR observed in the maizebean and in
the maizecowpea systems (Figure 3).
In fact, Kruk et al. (2006) observed that the
presence of a crop canopy reduced the photon ux of
all wavelengths relative to full daylight, much more in
the photosynthetically active part of the spectrum
(400700 nm) than in the near infra-red (700100 nm)
because of strong absorption by chlorophyll. Light
 International Journal of Pest Management 179

Figure 6. Correlation between LAI (leaf area index) and

Downloaded By: [Karkanis, Anestis] At: 15:39 25 March 2010

FintPAR (fraction of PAR (%) intercepted by crop canopy)

(n 30), for both sites (Athens and Mavrica).
Figure 5. Weed density (m72) by sole and intercrop, (a) in
Athens and (b) in Mavrica (bars: LSD, P 0.05).

Table 3. Correlation coecients between leaf area index

(LAI), FintPAR (fraction of PAR (%) intercepted by crop
canopy) (for all d.a.s.).

Correlation
Model coecient R2 Equation
Athens
Linear 0.988 97.76% Fint PAR 3.209
17.078*LAI
Exponential 0.951 90.52% Fint PAR exp
(2.398 0.484*LAI)
Logarithmic 0.907 82.41% Fint PAR 30.573
24.727*ln(LAI)
Mavrica
Linear 0.989 97.84% Fint PAR 3.927
16.425*LAI
Exponential 0.944 89.12% Fint PAR exp
(2.358 0.482*LAI)
Logarithmic 0.912 84.49% Fint PAR 30.935
24.201*ln(LAI)

Note: Comparison between alternative models.

perceived by specic plant photoreceptors such as

phytochromes, cryptocromes, and phototropin, plays a
central role in controlling the physiology and develop-
ment of both weed and crop plants (Ballare and Casal
2000). Seeds perceive the light environment via
phytochromes. Phytochromes have two photointercon-
vertible forms: Pfr (usually the active far-red absorbing
form), with maximum absorption at 735 nm, and Pr
(the inactive red-absorbing form), with maximum
absorption at 665 nm. Exposure of seed to light with
a high red (R) to far-red (FR) ratio leads to an increase
of Pfr:Pr ratios that might be high enough to trigger
Figure 7. Weed dry matter (g m72) by sole and intercrops,
(a) in Athens and (b) in Mavrica (bars: LSD, P 0.05).
germination (Kruk et al. 2006). The presence of crop
canopy reduces the R:FR ratio. This conclusion is
supported by the negative correlation received between
Fint PAR and measures of weed growth.
Data obtained by other researchers (Coultas et al.
1996; Buchler et al. 2001; Ghosheh et al. 2005) clearly
demonstrated the benecial eects of maizelegume
intercrops on weed suppression and crop growth.
 180 D. Bilalis et al.
Tripathi and Singh (1983) found that growing one or
two rows of soybean (Glycine max L.) as an intercrop
in maize, reduced weed numbers and weight signi-
cantly and increased maize yields. Sowing two rows of
soybean was more eective than one row, with maize at
a constant sowing density.
The dominant species found in this study were
the broadleaved weeds: A. blitoides, A. retroexus,
S. nigrum, T. terrestris and C. arvensis. Lawson et al.
(2006) reported that legume cover crops generally
suppressed grasses, whilst broadleaf populations
proved more resilient to control by the cover crops,
the dierence presumably being attributable to dier-
ences in photosynthetic eciency: grasses, generally
being C4 species, are less shade tolerant than broad-
leaved populations, which are mainly C3 species.
Moreover, at both sites, the highest Wdens for sole
crops was observed in maize and the lowest in legume
crops. At 40 d.a.s., the highest weed biomass for sole
crops was observed in maize (4.40 g m72 in Athens
Downloaded By: [Karkanis, Anestis] At: 15:39 25 March 2010
and 4.21 g m72 in Mavrica) and the lowest in beans
(1.83 g m72 in Athens and 1.92 g m72 in Mavrica).
The Fint PAR in legume sole crops was always higher
than that in the maize sole crop (Figure 3). The main
reason for this is the architecture of the maize canopy
(erect leaves). Bean and cowpea competitive ability was
associated with the high overall leaf area and
planophile leaves (high kleaf) of these plants. Legumes
were also more competitive at early growth stages.
Characteristics such as growth rates, shading ability
(Lemerle et al. 2001), leaf area, amount of upright
growth (Korres and Froud-Williams 2002), long stem
and high biomass (Seavers and Wright 1999) aect
cropweed interactions. Selection of crop species and
cultivars with superior weed suppression potential is
also receiving considerable attention in the literature.
The highest value for WDM was received in sole
crops, while the lowest was received in intercrop systems
(Fujiyoshi et al. 2007). A rapidly developing soil cover is
an important factor in weed suppression. Fujiyoshi et al.
(2007) observed that a maizesquash intercrop reduced
the biomass of the total weeds and of the dominant
weeds, A. retroexus and C. arvensis. Shading by the
squash was the major mechanism of weed suppression.
Thus, weed suppression by crops was greatest on
the low-productivity site (Athens) than on the high-
productivity site (Mavrica area). The absence of light
can increase competition, especially for nitrogen. Ross
et al. (2001) using clovers, also found that weed
suppression was highest on a low-productivity site.
According to our results, the growth of most plants
depends on their density, so increasing the crop density
would aect the potential growth of both crops and
weeds in cropping systems. Thus, high crop densities in
intercrop systems resulted in a faster growth of LAI of
intercrops and consequently in increased cropweed
competition for soil water, light and nitrogen. Shading
drastically reduces weed growth.
5. Conclusions
Our results show that maizelegume intercropping
greatly aected weed density and biomass. The
maizelegume intercrops resulted in higher soil
canopy cover (LAI) than with the sole crops. This
resulted in an increase of light interception by the
canopy. The highest Fint PAR values were observed
in the maizebean and then in the maizecowpea
system, while the highest Wdens and WDM were
measured in sole crops. Moreover, weed suppression
by crops was greater on the low-productivity site
(Athens) than on the high-productivity site (Mavri-
ca). Intercropping of cereals with legumes constitutes
a new, promising approach to weed management for
low input organic agriculture, under Mediterranean
conditions.
References
Ballare CL, Casal JL. 2000. Light signals perceived by crop
and weed plants. Field Crop Res. 67:149160.
Baumann DT, Bastiaans L, Krop M. 2001. Eects of
intercropping on growth and reproductive capacity of
late-emerging Senecio vulgaris L., with special reference
to competition of light. Ann Bot. 87:209217.
Baumann DT, Krop MJ, Bastiaans L. 2000. Intercropping
leeks to suppress weeds. Weed Res. 40:361376.
Bilalis D, Efthimiadis P, Sidiras N. 2001. Inuence of three
tillage systems on weed ora in a 3-year rotation. J Agron
Crop Sci. 186:135141.
Bilalis D, Konstantas A, Efthimiadou A, Papatheohari Y,
Kakampouki I. 2008. Eect of two oatlegume intercrop
systems on weed ora under Mediterranean conditions.
Paper presented at ISOFAR 2nd Conference. Proceed-
ings of the Second Scientic Conference of the Inter-
national Society of Organic Agriculture Research,
Modena, Italy. p. 302305.
Bilalis D, Sidiras N, Economou G, Vakali C. 2003. Eect of
dierent levels of wheat straw soil surface coverage on
weed ora in Vicia faba crops. J Agron Crop Sci.
189:233241.
Bilalis D, Sidiras N, Kakampouki I, Efthimiadou A,
Papatheohari Y, Thomopoulos P. 2005. Eects of
organic fertilization on maize/legume intercrop in a clay
loam soil and Mediterranean climate Can the Land
Equivalent Ratio (LER) index be used for root develop-
ment? J Food Agric Env. 3:117123.
Bond W, Grundy AC. 2001. Non chemical weed man-
agement in organic farming systems. Weed Res. 41:383
405.
Brainard DC, Bellinder RR. 2004. Weed suppression in a
broccoli-winter rye intercropping system. Weed Sci.
52:281290.
Buchler DD, Kohler KA, Foster MS. 2001. Corn, soybean,
and weed responses of spring-seeded smother plants. J
Sust Agric. 18:6379.
Bulson HAJ, Snaydon RW, Stopes CE. 1997. Eects of plant
density on intercropped wheat and eld beans in an
organic farming system. J Agric Sci. 128:5971.
Chikoye D, Schulz S, Ekeleme F. 2004. Evaluation of
integrated weed management practices for maize in the
northern Guinea savanna of Nigeria. Crop Protect.
23:895900.

Coultas CL, Post TJ, Jones JB, Jr, Hsieh YP. 1996. Use of
velvet bean to improve soil fertility and weed control in
corn production in northern Belize. Com Soil Sci Plant
Anal. 27:21712196.
EN2092/91. 1991. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/. . ./site/. . ./1991/
. . ./01991R2092-20060506-el.pdf
Fenandez-Aparicio M, Sillero JC, Rubiales D. 2007. Inter-
cropping with cereals reduces infection by Orobanche
crenata in legumes. Crop Protect. 26:11661172.
Fujiyoshi PT, Gliessman SR, Langeheim JH. 2007. Factors
in the suppression of weeds by squash interplanted in
corn. Weed Biol. Manag. 7:105114.
Ghosheh HZ, Bsoul EY, Abdullah AY. 2005. Utilization of
alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) as smother crop in eld corn
(Zea mays L.). J Sust Agric. 25:517.
Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Ambus P, Jensen ES. 2001. Inter-
specic competition, N use and interference with weeds in
pea-barley intercropping. Field Crop Res. 70:101109.
Karkanis A, Bilalis D, Efthimiadou A. 2007. Tobacco
(Nicotiana tabaccum) infection by branched broomrape
(Orobanche ramosa) as inuenced by irrigation system
and fertilization, under East Mediterranean conditions. J
Agron. 6:397402.
Keating BA, Carberry PS. 1993. Resource capture and use in
Downloaded By: [Karkanis, Anestis] At: 15:39 25 March 2010
intercropping: solar radiation. Field Crop Res. 34:273
301.
Korres NE, Froud-Williams RJ. 2002. Eects of winter
wheat cultivars and seed rate on the biological character-
istics of naturally occurring weed ora. Weed Res.
42:417428.
Kruk B, Insausti P, Razul A, Benech-Arnold R. 2006. Light
and thermal environments as modied by a wheat crop:
eects on weed seed germination. J Appl Ecol. 43:227
236.
Lawson YDI, Dzomeku IK, Asempa R, Benson S. 2006.
Weed control in maize using mucuna and canavalia as
intercrops in the Northern Guinea Savanna zone of
Ghana. J Agron. 5:621625.
Lawson YDI, Dzomeku IK, Drisah Y. 2007. Time of
planting mucuna and canavalia in an intercrop system
with maize. J Agron. 6:534540.
View publication stats
International Journal of Pest Management 181
Lemerle D, Verbeek B, Orchard B. 2001. Ranking the ability
of wheat varieties to compete with Lolium rigidum. Weed
Res. 41:197209.
Liebman M, Davis AS. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and
weed management in low-external-input farming systems.
Weed Res. 40:2747.
Liebman M, Dyck E. 1993. Crop rotation and intercropping
strategies for weed management. Ecol Appl. 3:92102.
Liebman M, Robichaux RH. 1990. Competition by barley
and pea against mustard: eects on resource acquisition,
photosynthesis and yield. Agric Ecosyst Envir. 31:155
172.
Midmore DJ. 1993. Agronomic modication of resource use
and intercrop productivity. Field Crop Res. 34:357380.
Mohler CL, Liebman M. 1987. Weed productivity and
composition in sole crops and intercrops of barley and
eld pea. J Appl Ecol. 24:685699.
Ofori F, Stern WR. 1987. Cereal-legume intercropping
systems. Adv Agron. 41:4190.
Olasantan FO, Lucas EO, Ezumah HC. 1994. Eects of
intercropping and fertilizer application on weed control
and performance of cassava and maize. Field Crops Res.
39:6369.
Poggio SL. 2005. Structure of weed communities occurring in
monoculture and intercropping of eld pea and barley.
Agric Ecosyst Env. 109:4858.
Ross SM, King GR, Izaurralde RC, ODonovan JT. 2001.
Weed suppression by several clover species. Agron J.
93:820827.
Seavers GP, Wright KJ. 1999. Crop canopy development and
structure inuence weed suppression. Weed Res. 39:319
328.
StatSoft Inc.. 1999. STATISTICA for Windows [Computer
program manual]. Tulsa (OK): Author.
Tripathi B, Singh CM. 1983. Weed and fertility management
using maize/soybean intercropping in the north-western
Himalayas. Int J Pest Manag. 29:267270.
Zuofa K, Tariah NM, Isirimah NO. 1992. Eects of
groundnut, cowpea, and melon on weed control and
yields of intercropped cassava and maize. Field Crops
Res. 28:309314.