Agricultural Science; Vol. 2, No. 1; 2020 ISSN 2690-5396 E-ISSN 2690-4799 https://doi.org/10.30560/as.v2n1p31 31 Published by IDEAS SPREAD Potentials of Intercropping Systems to Soil - Water - Plant- Atmosphere Nweke, I. A.1 1 Department of Soil Science, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, Anambra state, Nigeria Correspondence: Nweke I. A., Department of Soil Science, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu University, Anambra state, Nigeria. Tel: 234-816-460-7354. E-mail: nweksoniyke@gmail.com Received: January 30, 2020 Accepted: February 28, 2020 Online Published: March 10, 2020 Abstract A well planned intercropping system can efficiently serve as alternative to input such as fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides and pathogenicides. The interaction between the intercrop species, soil and environmental factors have positive effects on crop nutrition and photosynthesis and these have improved the nutrient content of the soil and different intercrop components. The high percentage ability of the intercrop species to suppress weeds especially when legume crops are involved in the plan, improves the physicochemical properties of the soil, contributes to the health of the intercrop species as the intercrop promotes the synthesis of allelopathic compounds and phenolic compounds such as anthocyanins and flavonoids which may serve as a deterrent to diseases and pests and improve the quality of the intercrop plants. Due to its inherent biological, biochemical and physiochemical properties intercropping system may be used to promote sustainable crop production and for safe management and cost- effective agricultural activities. Keywords: allelopathic, disease, intercrop, pests, pathogens, nutrient recycle, socioeconomic 1. Introduction Intercropping system is a traditional cropping system more pronounced in Africa, Asia and Latin America were poverty is on the higher percentage. The intention of the farmers being the quantitative advantage of the intercrop over the sole crop most often time the system involve growing the main crop together with the sub-crop or secondary crop (less desired crop). Some of the objectives of the sub-crop in the intercrop are to provide nutrients, suppress weeds, pests and disease check through their allelopathic effect, adequate utilization of environmental factors and their interactions with the crop species. In such a situation the yield advantage of the intercropping is the yield accruing from the additional crop (the sub-crops). In most cases especially where it is the main objective of the farmer to grow both crops, the joined intercrop result is greater than the joined sole crop output. Though in some cases combined intercrop yield does not necessary exceed the yield of the higher yielding sole crop. Cereal- legume intercrop in countries like south America, Africa, and Asia has being found by Vandermeer (1989) to be common practice and their advantages relative to sole cropping are affected by soil water content and nutrients, species and varieties of the crop plant. Intercropping ensures yield stability efficient utilization of sunshine and land and in maintaining the fertility of the soil (Onwueme and Sinha, 1991, Nweke et al., 2013, Nweke, 2015). In brinjal- groundnut intercropping Prashaanth et al. (2009) observed that pod weight of brinjal in mono cropping was low due to absence of intercrop which leads to high water evaporation from soil surface. Yield successes were recorded byJiao et al. (2008) in maize-groundnut intercropping they observed that the intercrop system increased the effective utilization of light by maize and groundnut that led to the yield enhancement. Ogindo and Walker (2008) have identified that due to higher leaf area and leaf area index inter crop has being able to minimize soil water loss. On low nitrogen soils the amount of nitrogen fixed was closely correlated with legumes dried-matter production (Vallis et al., 2012). Bhegat et al. (2006) reported yield increases under intercrop conditions of groundnut/sweet corn of which they attributed it to none availability of symbolically fixed N by the groundnut crop of which they observed to increase with increasing proportion of groundnut. Intercropping studies with calapogonum mucunoides, groundnut, pigeon pea and cowpea, Agboola and Fayemi (2001) indicated that the cover crops fixed 370kgN/ha when intercropped with maize. Viljoen and Allamaon (1996) found out that income generation, adaptability, and weed control, reduction in crop failure, adequate nutrient, soil conservation and maintenance are major factors for famers to intercrop their crops. Potentials for increase gains due to the growth of another crop on the same land are some other advantages of intercropping system. Time as well as farm instruments and labour are easily managed (McCoy et al., 2001, Vandermeer 1989). as.ideasspread.org Agricultural Science Vol. 2, No. 1; 2020 32 Published by IDEAS SPREAD Crop parasitic nematodes are one of the main soil-borne plant pests that can be effectively reduced when food crops and legumes are intercrop. Legume crops are susceptible to nematodes of various ranges of species. Some of these legumes when used in intercrop system whether as live mulch or in situ creates an unsuitable environment for the nematodes of which drastically reduced their population in soil. The number of nematode specie, meloidogyne incognita which is not thought as a maize pest can rise under pigeon pea, bambara groundnut psophocapuspalustris. When any of these legumes is intercropped with maize the population of Helicotylenchus psendorobustus the spiral specie of nematode which is injurious to maize plant is likely to decrease. Poor resource farmers due to none availability of farm land and efficient utilization of inputs by intercrop species engage in the practice of intercropping. Single crops require more chemicals to control diseases, pest and insects and these chemicals may not be available. Such beneficial interactions between food crops and legumes justify the intercropping systems effect on certain plant parasites and pest. Thus the review tends to report on the potentials of intercropping on efficient utilization of soil resources and environmental factors, yield and economic returns, pests, diseases and weed control. 2. Effect of Intercropping on the Soil Pathogens, Pests, Diseases, Weeds and Allelopathic Compound on Soil-Water-Crop Environment Intercropping system has been indicated to be more ideal to use instead of herbicide in controlling growth of weeds in farm land (Liebman and Davis 2000). The total quantity of weed on maize plant can decrease by means of intercropping of which are influenced byclimate condition and maize culture. The study of Gomez (2007) showed that for most variables evaluated in Brazil intercropping system decreased the quantity of herbicides used in weed control and there was no interaction recorded among the maize culture and weed control method. Crops from hand weeding recorded higher values relative to crops obtained from intercropped plots that are not weeded. Hence cowpea was inefficient in controlling weed in the intercropped plots. According to Liebman and Dyck (1993) intercropping system is competitively advantageous to mono cropping with regard to utilization of soil nutrients, allelopathic impact on weeds and the ability to exploit those nutrients not used by weeds for the good of the crop plant than would have done by mono cropping. Maize intercropping, with different kinds of leguminous and other crops is an extensively used practice across the world and the assessment of weed control in maize production using intercropping system is of great concern. The ability of the different crop varieties such as maize, soybean, cotton and potatoes, to reduce weed biomass have been reported by Callaway (1992). The yield losses observed in the old one were indicated to be due to less LAI (leaf area index), less photosynthetic densityand its less nitrogen use efficiency. Sinoquet and Cardwell (1995) have argued that plants involved in competition for light possess some major attributes of which are the rate of leaf area expansion, height of plant and distribution short leaf areas. These are some of the features that can make intercrop plants to have competitive advantage over weeds. These characteristics however may be increased by changes in plant management systems like plant spacing, crop population or through crop breeding (Linguist and Motesium 1998). The plan can cause maize plant to compete more favourable than the weed thereby reduce quantity of chemicals required for the control of weed. Forage legumes especially the prostrate type like bambara groundnut, mucuna pruineus, melon, cowpea, groundnut, centrosema pubescens pueraria phaseoloides etc, when use in an intercropping system compete with and smother weeds successfully when well established. Jurium and Henerary (2009) in Zaire used cover crops like pueraria javanica, stylosenthes guianensis and calapogonum mucunoides to get rid of imperata cylindica completely in the savannah region. In southwest Nigerian, at international institute of tropical agriculture (IITA) main station Ibadan, Akobundu and Okigbo (2005) investigated maize yield with several ground-cover weed competition. Maize seed was sown in already established legumes. Weed population was observed to be greatest in dsemondium triflorumindigofera spicata and in non-tillage control plots, was moderate in groundnut and maize – stover plots and very small in centrosema, pubescens, cow pea, pigeon pea, and psophocarpuspalustris plots. Higher maize yield was obtained from were weed competition was minimized by the legume cover crop. Akobundu (2010) noted that after five years of intensive cropping maize yield obtained from plots with live mulch (intercrop) under minimum or conventional tillage were found to be greater than maize yield obtained from sole crop (bare). Maize in non-tillage system responded to application of 60kg nitrogen/ha but no nitrogen response were observed by maize in the live mulch plots. This meant that intercrop contributed to the need of the maize crop. Although good results were obtained from alfisol, disappointing results were recorded on strongly acid ultisol in south-east Nigerian by Faulkner (2004) of which he attributed mainly to poor establishment of cover crop. The system of intercropping of cereals with legumes are been enjoyed by farmers in the tropical environment and rain fed areas of the world due to its advantage for weed control and yield increment (Tsubo et al., 2005, Gosh et al., 2004, Poggio 2005). as.ideasspread.org Agricultural Science Vol. 2, No. 1; 2020 33 Published by IDEAS SPREAD Srikrishanh et al. (2008) found weed population was reduced in brinjal- groundnut intercropping. Intercropping maize and legumes - soybean considerably reduces weed density compared with mono-cropping soybeans. Growing crops in a mixture reduce weed occurrence (Zuofia et al., 1992). Intercropping with cover crop reduced the structure of weed community, an alternative weed growth reduction and reproductive potential mainly to maintain productivity. Using cover cropping as a tool for weed control, especially for farming activities with small inputs weeds were drastically reduced and yield increased (Itulya and Aguyoh, 1998, Liebman and Davis 2000, Schoofs and Ebtz, 2000). The suppression of weed occurrence was observed in maize/groundnut intercrops, sweet potato/mung beans intercrop and in all weed biomass were drastically reduced.This could be due to the shading effect as was reported by Oswald et al. (1998) it was equally observed that single weeding is merely required to achieve the same yield value obtained from several weeding required of sole maize. Soybean intercropping was noted to decrease weed population to the tune of 39% as relative to sole maize (Ayemi et al., 1984). However in another study by Ayemi et al. (1984) weed biomass was not reduced by maize/cowpea intercrop, it was concluded that weed population must be controlled initially to enable the leaves to develop sufficiently enough for weed reduction in inter cropping of maize and cowpea. Obilana and Ramaiah (1998) explained that striga control practices can be achieved through intercropping systems which requires small manipulation in the farming methods without any conditional inputs though he opined that this should be accompanied by additional land weeding of which could be made easier by striga plants. The term allelopathy referred to the release of chemical substances directly or indirectly into the soil medium by one plant to harmfully affect another plant. Ferguson and Rathinasabapathi (2003) found out that in both natural and agricultural systems dangerous chemical which is allelopathy is released from one part of plant by leaching, root exudates, volatilization, residue decomposition and other process. Allelopathy been root exudates has potential effect on many parts of the plant communities, dominance, diversity and productivity. According to the work of Florentine and Fox (2003), the degree of allelopathic effect is determined by the magnitude or extent of disease and insect infestation during the plant growing period. Allelopathy as well play major role in reducing weed growth. Thus intercropping legumes with cereals can take advantage of allelopathic potential to reduce the growth of weeds. The reduction of weed population through allelopathy is weed sensitive. Hence weed control in larger form will involve the growing of different species of crop together and each releasing harmful chemical (allelopathy) to a particular weed type. The popularly known allelopathic impacts according to Ferguson and Rathinasabapathi (2003) will include decrease in the germination of seed and growth. There is no physiological target site orcommon mode of actionfor all allele chemicals. However, enzyme functions, photosynthesis, cell division, pollen germination etc are some known sites of action for allele chemicals. Allelopathic suppression becomes complex with mixture of different compounds when its activities interact with chemicals such as alkaloids, amino acids, flavonoids, phenolic compounds, carbohydrates and terponoids. Many of these chemical substances noted to be inhibiting are produced from living plants that release phytotoxic chemicals into the soil medium through plant residue decomposition, leaching, root exudation and volatilization. Swain (1977) found most of the phototoxic chemicals as secondary metabolites which are not important in primary metabolism necessary for plant establishment. Some notable allelochemicals usually cause suppression of seed germination and growth. Weed species often possess much higher levels of allelochemicals than the crop plants (Gupta 2007). In organism communities the work of Adie and Chase, (2007) showed that many plants tend to regulate one another through the production and release of chemical stimulators, inhibitors or attractants. Akinsanmi, (1998) however, reported that certain weeds produce chemical substances which are detrimental to crop plants, some are poisonous to animals while yet others may harbour insects and pathogenic organisms harmful to crop planted. Weeds can cause greater reduction in yield of vegetables. Awogbade et al. (2003) investigated the effects of aqueous extracts of phyllanthusamorus on germination rate of some vegetables. They found out that allelopathic effect of phyllanthusamorus on celosia, solanum and amaranthus germination were inhibited at 50% extract concentration while corchorus and okra had lowest germination rate 75% and 100% extract concentration respectively. Manonmani (2012) reported similar inhibition of root and shoot elongation with increased extract concentration of tridax procumbens on some leguminous plants. The plumule of solanum experienced stimulatory effect of extract at 100% concentration of which they found to be significantly higher than other treatments, both plumule and radicule of okra were mostly inhibited at 100% extra concentration. Allelopathic weed inhibition can be influenced by such factors as or parameters like; pest and disease infestation, amount of nutrients, herbicides, solar radiation, water content, temperature as well as environmental and physiological stress. Plant parts such as roots, stems/bark, leaves and flower, soils and their chemical compound can produce allelopathic effect of which changes over a growing period. Ferguson and Rathinasabapathi, (2003) noted that these chemicals can persist long in the soil affecting member plants and those planted in succession. as.ideasspread.org Agricultural Science Vol. 2, No. 1; 2020 34 Published by IDEAS SPREAD Crop yields and residues as noted by Stanford and Haris, (1984) are equally affected by allelopathic and phytotoxic chemicals. El –Ehawas and Shehata (2005) reported that kidney pea and maize seedling emergence decreased with treatment of Acacis Nilotic and Eucalyptis rostrate on biological and morphological criteria. The authors found out that yield reduction in cropping system was due to allelopathic effect. These allelopathic problems however can be observed in both intercropping systems and mono cropping systems. For instance, continuous monoculture system can cause the accumulation of photo-toxins and injurious soil organisms that can give rise to phototoxicity and reduction in fertility of soil. A good number of species of weed also have some growth inhibiting effects on crops. Many physiological processes and activities of crop plant are influenced by allele compound that stop growth of plant. In the root rhizophere the concentration of ion uptake and hydraulic conductivity determine the level of growth suppression by the allelochemical. Nonetheless some plant may be able to escape allelopathic chemicals due to their hypersensitivity of which the implication is that some crop root become strongly affected by allele chemicals which can inhibit their growth. Intercropping help in pest and disease control maize for example is susceptible to many insects and diseases. Therefore intercropping will be promising cultural practice for this purpose based on the fact that one member crop of an intercropping method may be check against pest or disease spread. In maize/chilli intercrop Gutierrez, (1999) found the activities of anthonomus eugenii to be less and yield obtained higher relative to sole chilli. The leaf hopper and white fly infestation were observed by Srikrishanh et al. (2008) to be less in the intercrop of groundnut and brinjal relative to mono cropping. Trenbath, (1993) noted that diseases and pests that cause destructive effect in sole crop show very less harmful effect in intercrop unlike in mono culture. For instance, maize is susceptible to many insect species as pest such as weevils, boll warms, beetles, stalk borers, leafhoppers, aphids etc and diseases like stalk rot and leaf streak (which are bacterial diseases), cob and tassel (fungal diseases) dwarf mosaic and streak diseases (viral diseases) and root knot disease cause by nematodes (Flett et al., 1996). Also for example cowpea are usually influenced by insect like aphids, foliage beetle, thrips and pod borers, diseases such as rust virus (e.g. anthracnose) and scab and bacterial diseases such as blight (Adipola et al., 1999, Edema 1995). So growing these crops in intercropping system have the capacity of bringing down the incidence of these diseases and pest to the barest minimum where it will have no remarkable effect on the yield of crops and the return on investment to the farmer. Vandermeer (1973) opined that intercropping effect on these pest and diseases may be associated to micro environment effects of related crops in intercropping compared to sole cropping. Intercropping methods have been observed to cause low survival of pests due to the consequences of landing on none host plant as well as their visual disturbance and distributive effect. Even the existence of weed as reported by Altien (1990) can affect pest search for their hosts. Power, (1990) used intercrop method to decrease the level of Dalbusmoundi (Maize leafhopper) in different maize cultivars. Anyisi and Mposi (2001) intercropping cowpea cultivar PAN 311 found that the incidence of stalk borer chiloparellus (swine hoe) infestation was significantly reduced in sorghum intercrop relative to mono culture. The yield of bean and aphid attack was observed by Oganga-Latigo et al. (1992) to decrease following intercropping system. Anyisi and Mposi, (2001) where of the opinion that factors such as crop species, variety of cultivars, crop density, soil water content and fertility as well as row management have made yield increases in intercrop relative to mono crop and pest control inconsistent in research results. Individual crops as reported by Nwanze and Mueller (1989) may not have the same effect or response. With maize/Lablab purcpureus L. (Lablab) intercrop Maluleke et al. (2005) observed significant reduction in maize stem borer of which was severe in mono culture. Increased crop densities were equally noted by Oganga-Latigo et al. (1992) to have decreased the impact of aphid following intercropping method. There was reason or chance that less visual diseases under this situationswere merely due to unfavourable micro climate for the aphid intercrops. 3. Influence of Intercropping on Soil Nutrient, Crop Yield and Economic Returns to The Farmer and Ills of Intercropping System Cash advantage due to intercropping (CAI) investigated in cassava and water melon intercrop in south-west Nigerian, Kintomo, (2001) observed that CAI increased with increase in water melon proportion indicating higher contribution of water melon to mixture productivity. The CAI value showed that the alternative cropping system could generate additional income for farmers of which such income could be used to maintain cassava plots the following year when farmer may be cash trapped. Gosh et al. (2006) in intercropping test found out that intercropping was beneficiary for the soil microbial community of sorghum but not for soybeans an indication that the two crops competed with each other. According to Ecoport (2004) and Ikeh et al. (2013) growing conditions affect yield of intercrop even with proper management. In as much as agricultural systems are been affected by the growing conditions of crops intercrop systems can as well make the conditions vulnerable to the environmental factors coupled with management systems in operation thereby creating inconsistency in yield of which cause a as.ideasspread.org Agricultural Science Vol. 2, No. 1; 2020 35 Published by IDEAS SPREAD drawback in the adoption of the intercrop method. Intercropping of cereal with legumes have been found to be a protection against yield failure, less cost of production and increase monetary return to poor resource farmers, improving yield stability and socioeconomic enhancement (Ofor and Stern 1987, Nweke and Anene 2019). Intercropping economic benefit according to the work of Seran and Brintha (2009) is that it occupied greater land uses thereby provide higher net returns. Vegetable cowpea intercropped with capsicum gave more money than mono culture. Therefore intercropping gives high income per unit area than sole cropping. John et al. (1943) reported 43% profit in intercrop over sole culture in a 3- year study of ground/pigeon pea intercrop prepared in 8:1 proportion. Veeraswormy et al. (1974) showed that the arrangement of 6 groundnuts:1 pigeon pea was more economical than 8:1 their result showed that groundnut gave 99% of the sole crop yield and pigeon pea 37% of its sole crop yield, totaling an advantage of 36%. Bhagat et al. (2005) in two –year study involving different maize varieties under intercropping system with groundnut recorded lowest net returns under sole groundnut compared to intercrop in a study of groundnut/sweet corn intercropping at different fertility levels and row proportions. Alom et al. (2009) summed up the findings of their studies that farmers of the maize growing areas should grow intercropped hybrid maize with groundnut as the intercrop was found to be more profitable than either sole hybrid maize or sole groundnut. The main factor responsible for yield gains in intercropping is the ability to use early resources by the legume that complements the use of late resources by the longer season crops of which were made possible by the general growth arrangement of crops in intercropping. In rubber based cropping system, intercropping cassava during the immature phase of rubber was found to be profitable. The profitability index 0.75 was recorded by Esekhade et al. (2013) for rubber + cassava intercropping system, indicating that 75% of the total amount invested in the farm was recovered in four years compared with zero returns recorded for sole rubber cropping. Also Esekhade and Ojiekpon (1997) reported high economic benefit of intercropping rubber with arable crop during the immaturity period of rubber. Intercropping may pose a certain problem like increased labour requirement and difficulty in mechanization. Problems like competition for water, light and nutrients that may result in low yield of component crops but this depend on the crop intercropped. Water needs competition can be reduced if the crops are planted at a larger distance. The major disadvantage of intercropping system according to Ghaffarzadeh, (1997) is that intercropping is not adapted to very dry, poorly drained and heavy clay soils and this implies difficult in seed planting, harvesting and fertilizer application and weeding in mechanization are made for uniform fields. Hence the use of implements in intercropping system in large scale could be herculean task, though presently some modern implements have been found useful in some intercropping methods. 4. Conclusion Intercropping system have shown to have significant effect on the yield and yield components of intercrop species due to its better use of environmental resources and soil moisture compared to mono crop. An alternative to the use of herbicides as it suppressed weed growth, decrease the preponderance of pests and diseases and increase the fertility of soil through nitrogen increase to the system. Therefore it is of interest that if farmers explore the use of intercropping effectively in their limited land resources cum non-availability of farm inputs in most cases, agricultural sustainability can be achieved with ease in south eastern soils of Nigerian. References Adie, M. J., & Chase C. A. (2007). Comparison of the alelopathic potentials of leguminous summer cover crops: cowpea, sun hemp and velvet bean. Hort Science, 42, 289-293. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.42.2.289 Adipala, E., Omongo, C. A., Sabiti, A., Obou, J. E., Edema, R., Bua, B., Atanya, A., Nusbuga, E. N., & Oganga- Latigo, M. W. (1999). Pests and diseases on cowpea in Uganda experience from diagnostic survey. African Crop Sci. J., 4, 465-478. https://doi.org/10.4314/acsj.v7i4.27740 Agboola, A. A. & Fayemi, A. A. (2001). Fixation and Excretion of nitrogen by tropical legumes. Agron. J., 64, 409-412. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1972.00021962006400040001x Akinsanmi, O. (1998). Definition of weeds and pests and ways to controlling them Macmillan New York pp 389. Akobundu, I. O. (2010). Live mulch: A new approach to wed control and crop protection in the tropics In: British Crop Protection Council UK PP 337- 382. Akobundu, I. O., & Okigbo, B. N. (2005). Preliminary evaluation of ground cover for use like mulch in maize production, Field Crop Res., 8, 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(84)90061-3 Alom, M. S., Paul, N. K., & Quayyum, M. A. (2005). Performance of different hybrid maize (Zea mays L.) and varieties under intercropping system with groundnut (Arachis hypogeae L.) Bangladesh J. Agron. Res., 34- 94, 585-595. https://doi.org/10.3329/bjar.v34i4.5835 as.ideasspread.org Agricultural Science Vol. 2, No. 1; 2020 36 Published by IDEAS SPREAD Altien, M. A., Glaser, D. L., & Schmidt, L. L. (1990). Diversification of agro ecosystems for insect pest regulation experiments with collards. In Giliesman, S. R. (Ed), Agroecology researching the ecological basis for sustainable Agriculture. Springer verlag New York, pp. 70-82. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-3252-0_5 Anyisi, K. K., & Mposi, M. S. (2001). Grain yield responses and chilo partellus infestation in diverse sorghum- cowpea intercrop Arrangement, South Afr. J. Plant Soil, 18(1), 39-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/02571862.2001.10634399 Awogbabe, A. L., Oladojo, L. F., & Oyetunji, L. (2013). Allelopathic effects of phyllanthus amarus (L) extract on the germination and seedling growth of some vegetables PP 228 -230, In: Revamping Nigeria Agriculture through Transformation Agenda: The way Forward eds JA Avediran; JO Saka; AG Ibrahim; MO Adenekan; AO Atere & VA Adeyemi. Proceedings of 47th Annual Conference of Agricultural Society of Nigeria (ASN), Ibadan Nigeria. Ayemi, A. O., Duke, W. B., & Akobundu, I. O. (1984). Weed interference in maize, cowpea and maize/cowpea intercrop in a sub-humid tropical environment. Inference of cropping seasons Weed Res., 24, 269-279. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.1984.tb01564.x Bhagat, S. B., chavan, S. A., Zogade, W. V., & Dahiphale, A. V. (2005). Intercropping groundnut and sweet corn at different fertility levels and row proportions. India J. Crop Sci., 1(1-2), 151-153. Callaway, M. B. A. (1992). Corn pedium of crop varietal tolerance to weed. American J. Alternative Agric., 4, 169- 180. https://doi.org/10.1017/S088918930000477X Ecoport. (2009). Agricultural science Ecoport Database Ecoportweb. http//www.ecoport.org. Edema, R. (1995). Investigation into factors affecting diseases occurrence and farmer control strategies on cowpea in Uganda M.Sc Thesis Mackerel University Kampala pp100. El-Ehawas, S. A., & Shehate, M. A. (2005). The Allelopathic potential of Acacia Nilotica and Eucalyptus rostrate on Monocot (zea mays) and Dicot (Phaseolus vulgaris L). Plants Biotech, 4(1), 23-34. https://doi.org/10.3923/biotech.2005.23.34 Esekhade, T. U., & Ojiekpon, F. I. (1997). Effects of intercropping cooking banana at different spacing with Hevea saplings. Ind. J. Natural Rubber Res., 10(182), 91-96. Esekhade, T. U., Idoko, S. O., & Ogbebor, O. N. (2013). Sole rubber and rubber + cassava intercropping system in Southern, Nigeria: A comparative profitability Analysis, pp 260-262, In: Revamping Nigeria Agriculture through Transformation Agenda: The way Forward eds JA Avediran; JO Saka; AG Ibrahim; MO Adenekan; AO Atere & VA Adeyemi. Proceedings of 47th Annual Conference of Agricultural Society of Nigeria (ASN), Ibadan Nigeria. Faulkner, O. T. (1994). Some experiments with leguminous crops at Ibadan southern Nigerian. Empire J. Exp. Agric., 2, 93-102. Ferguson, J. J., & Rathinasabapathi, B. (2003). Allelopathy: how plants suppress other plants. University of Florida IFESA Extension HS944pp1-3. http://edis.ifesa.ufl.ed.o Flett, B. C., Bensch, M. J., Smit, E., & Fourier, H. (1996). A field guide for identification of maize diseases in South African Agricultural Research Council potchefstoom. Florentine, S. K., & Fox, J. E. D. (2003). Alleopathic effects of eucalyptus species and grasses. Alleopathy J., 11, 77-78. Frey, B., & Schupp, H. (1993). A role of vesicular Arbuscular (V.A). Mycorrhizal fungi in facilitating inter plant nitrogen transfer. SoilnBiol –Biochem, 25, 651-658. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-0717(93)90104-J Ghaffarzadeh, M., Prechec, F. G., & Curse, R. M. (1997). Tillage effect on soil water content and corn yield in strip intercropping system. Agron. J., 893-899. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1997.00021962008900060008x Gomes, J. K. O. (2007). Effect of weed control through cowpea intercropping on maize plant Danirha Brazil. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-83582007000300001 Gosh, P. K., Manna, M. C., Bandyo Padhyay, K. K., Ajay Tak, Wanjan, R. H., Hati, K. M, Misra, A. K., Acharya, C. L., & Suba, R. A. (2006). Intercropping system. Agron. J., 98, 1097-1108. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2005.0328 Gupta, O. P. (2007) Fundamentals of weed science, Agronobis Jodhpur, India Pp379. Gutierrez, C. (1999). Evaluation of maize chilli intercrop for the management and Anthonomous Eugeim in as.ideasspread.org Agricultural Science Vol. 2, No. 1; 2020 37 Published by IDEAS SPREAD Nicaragua. Manafeo, intgrada De plagas, 54, 73-77. Ikeh, A. O., Essang, O. M., Akata, O. R., & Ndaeyo, N. U. (2013). Effect of intercropping and fertilization on the growth and yield of water yam (Dioscorea alata) in Uyo southeastern Nigeria Pp 13-18 In: Revamping Nigeria Agriculture through Transformation Agenda: The way Forward eds JA Avediran; JO Saka; AG Ibrahim; MO Adenekan; AO Atere & VA Adeyemi. Proceedings of 47th Annual Conference of Agricultural Society of Nigeria (ASN), Ibadan Nigeria. Itulya, F. M., & Agujoy, J. N. (1998). The effect of intercropping kale with beans on yield and suppression of redroot pig weed under Altitude conditions in Kenya. Exp. Agric., 34, 171-176. https://doi.org/10.1017/S001447979800204X Jiao, N. Y. C., Zhao, C., Nina, T. Y., Ho, L. T., FU, G. Z., Li, Z. J., & Chen M. C. (2008). Effect of maize-peanut intercropping on economics yield and light response of photosynthesis. Chinese J. Appl. Ecol., 19, 981 -985. John, C. M., Seshadri, C. R., & Bhavani, S. R. M. (1943). Mixed cropping of groundnut. Madras Agric J., 31,191- 200. Jurium, F., & Heneray, J. (2009). Can primitive farming modernized? INEAC Hors. Series, Brussels Belgium Pp 457. Kintomo, A. A. (2001). The effect of production mixture on competition and yield advantages in cassava/water melon intercrop in south western Nigeria In proceeding of the 19th annual conference of horticultural society of Nigeria held at University of Nigeria Nsukka, May 28th –June 1st 2001, Pp 76-77. Liebman, M., & Davies, A. S. (2000). Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low input farming system. Rev., 40(1), 27-47. Liebman, M., & Dyck, E. (1998). Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management, P 92-22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3180.2000.00164.x Lindquist, J. L. L., & Mortensen, D. A. (1998). Tolerance and velvent leaf (Abutition Theophi-rastus ) suppressive ability of two old and modern corn (zea mays) hybrids. Weed Sci., 46, 569-574. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500091116 Maluleke, H. M., Brediako, A. A., & Ayisi, K. K. (2005). Influence of maize lablab intercropping on lepidopterous stem borer infestation in maize. J Econ. Enta, 98, 384 -388. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/98.2.384 Manonmani, R., Fermina, D., Lakshimipriya, P., & Stha (2012). Alleopthic effects of weed (tridax procumbeans L) extract on seed germination and seedling growth of some leguminous plants. Res. J. Pharmacy, 3(6), 90- 95. McCoy, S., Vyn, T., Kline, A., West. Z. T., & Christmas, E. (2001). Management consideration for relay intercropping II soybeans Agronomy Guide AY-136. Nwanze, K. F., & Mueller, R. A. E. (1989). Management options for sorghum stem Borers for farmers in the semiarid tropics. In international workshops on sorghum stem borer 17-20 Nov. 1987. 1 CRISAT patancheru India Pp105-113. Nweke, I. A., & Anene, H. O. (2019). Effect of maize/bambara groundnut inter-crop on soil properties growth and yield parameter of the intercrop species. Euro. J. Agric. Forest. Res., 7(1), 16-28. Nweke, I. A. (2015). Effect of intercropping panicum maximum with maize (Zea mays). Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, 8(2), 77-79. Nweke, I. A., Ijearu, S. I., & Igili, D. N. (2013). The growth and yield performance of groundnut in sole cropping and intercropped with okra and maize. Agric. Vet. Sci., 2(3), 15-18. https://doi.org/10.9790/2380-0231518 Obilana, A.T., & Ramaiah, K. V. (1992). Striga Knowledge and future research needs Pp 187- 201 In: sorghum and millet diseases, a second review. In De Milliano, W. C., frederikson, J., & bengaston, G. D. (Eds.), ICRISAT, Parancheru, A.P. India. Ofor, F., & Stern, W. R. (1987). Cereal –legume intercropping systems Advantages. Agron., 41, 41-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60802-0 Oganga –Latigo, M. W., Ampofo, J. K. O. & Bailiddawa, C. W. (1992). Influence of Maize Row spacing on infestation and damage of intercropping beans by the Bean Aphid (Aphids Fabae Scop) 11. Reduction in Bean Yield Field Crops Res., 30, 123-130. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(92)90061-D Ogindo, H. O., & Walker, S. (2008). Comparison of measured changes in seasonal soil water content by rain fed Maize –beans intercrop and component cropping in semi –arid region in south. Phys. Chem. Earth., 30, 799- as.ideasspread.org Agricultural Science Vol. 2, No. 1; 2020 38 Published by IDEAS SPREAD 808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2005.08.023 Onwueme, I. C., & Sinha, T. D. (1991). Field crop production in tropical African Technical centre for Agriculture and rural co-operation Netherlands, pp:103-116. Oswald, A., Ramson, J. k., Korsochel, J., & Sauerborn, J. (1998). Suppression of striga on maize with intercrops In: proceedings of the 6th eastern and southern African Regional Maize conference 21st -25th September, 1998 Addis Ababa Ethiopia. Pogio, S. L. (2003). Structure of weed communities occurring monoculture and intercropping of field pea and barley. Agric. Ecogyt. Environt., 109, 48-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.019 Power, A. G. (1990). Leafhopper responses to genetically diverse maize stands. Entomol Exp. Appl., 49, 213-219. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.1988.tb01182.x Prashaanth, R., Sera, Sivakhandiran, T. H., & Porintha, I. (2009) Agronomic evaluation of Brinjal (Solanuim melongena L.) intercropping system. J. Gampaha wickramara chchi Ayureveda Inst., 4, 37-42. Root, R. B. (1973). Organization of plant arthropod association in simple and diverse habitants: The fauna of collords (Brassca Olerocea). Ecol. Manager, 43, 213-219. https://doi.org/10.2307/1942161 Schoofs, A., & Eblz, M. H. (2000). Influence of Animal forages on weed Dyanmics in a crooping system. Can J. plant spacing or plant population. Plant Sci., 80, 187-198. https://doi.org/10.4141/P98-098 Sera, T. H., & Brintha, I. (2009). Study on biological and economic efficiency of radish (Raphanus sativus l.) intercropping with vegetable amaranthus (Amaranthus tricolor L.). Open Hort. J., 2, 17-21. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874840600902010017 Sinquet, T. P., & Cardwell, W. A. (1995). Plant genetics and breeding or changes in crop management practise such as plant spacing or plant population Planta Daninha Brazil. Srikrishnah, S., Umarejiri, S., & Seran, T. H. (2008). Effect of intercropping Brinjal with groundnut on weed population. Proceedings of the 2nd international Symposium, July 8-12 Sabaramuwa University, Srilanka, Pp 15-15. Stanford, J. O., & Hariston, J. E. (1984). Effect of N fertilization on yield, growth and extraction of water following soybeans and Grain sorghum. Agron. J., 76, 623-627. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1984.00021962007600040028x Swain, J. (1977). Secondary compound as protective Agents. Annual Review of plant physiology, 28, 479-405. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.28.060177.002403 Trenbath, B. R. (1993). Intercropping for the management of pests and disease. Field Crop Res., 34, 382-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4290(93)90123-5 Tsubo, M., Walker, S., & Ogindo, H. O. (2005). Simulation model of cereal Legume intercropping system for semi-arid. Regina Model Application. Field Crops Res., 93, 23-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2004.09.003 Vallis, I., Fergus, I. F., & Henzell, R. F. (2012). Role of legumes in soil improvement. In Burt R. L., Ritar, P. P., Walker, J. L., & Silvery, M. W. (Eds.), The Role of leguminous crops in improving tropical pastures. West View Tropical Agriculture Series, No 6 West View Press Colorado Pp 231-24. Vandermeer, J. (1989). The ecology of intercropping Cambridge University press New York. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511623523 Veeraswamy, R., Rathnaswanny, R., & Palaniswamy, G. A. (1974). Studies in mixed cropping of red grain and groundnut under irrigation. Madras Agric. J., 61, 801-802. Viljoen, J., & Allemann, J. (1976). Cowpea and maize intercropping pp 16-24. In Training course cowpea, vegetable and ornamental plant institute, Agricultural Research Council, Rood Pleat. Zoufa, K., Tarah, N. M., & Isirinah, M. O. (1992). Effects of groundnut, cowpea and melon weed control and yield of intercropped cassava and maize. Field Crops Res., 28, 309-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378- 4290(92)90016-3 Copyrights Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV (Za stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /HUN /ITA /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice