







































 

 

 
118 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Status and measures of food insecurity in Karnali province of Nepal   

 

                                                                                                                                                      

 Janak Pant1+ 

 Prava Dawadi2 
 

1,2Department of Agronomy, Agriculture and Forestry University, Nepal. 
1Email: Janakpant500@gmail.com  
2Email: agpravadawadi@gmail.com  

 
(+ Corresponding author) 

 ABSTRACT 
 
Article History 
Received: 1 November 2024 
Revised: 9 December 2024 
Accepted: 20 December 2024 
Published: 31 December 2024 
 

Keywords 
Cropping 
Drought 
Farming 
Food 
Pollination 
Security. 

 
Food insecurity has been prevailing in the province for more than decades. Province 
lacks complete study on measures of food insecurity. So, an experiment and discussion 
with self-observation were conducted throughout the years to determine status and 
measures of food insecurity in Karnali, Nepal. The research was conducted in Jumla, 
Mugu & Surkhet of Karnali province with Split-plot design including two or three (as 
per technical requirement) mini plots to compare intensified or non-intensified 
cropping/inputs, conservational farming vs. non-conservational farming (three mini 
plots), artificial pollination vs natural pollination, and crop field protected with insect 
net vs. without net (part of plant protection), as part of experiment and field trials. 
Observation and self-study from various projects were carried out to determine status 
or opportunities of modern farming, drought resilient agriculture, value addition, and 
promotion of cereals/pseudo-cereals. KII (Key Informant Interview) and FGD (Focus-
Group Discussion) conducted with farmer groups (Number:25) and government 
officials to determine the situation of food security and programs or policy influencing 
opportunities in the province. Application of innovative tools, technologies and skills 
through crop or rice intensification, conservational farming, breeding or genetic make-
up, crop protection from insect/pest, opportunities of value addition centers, modern 
farming, and drought resilient agriculture with promotion of cereals or pseudo-cereals 
and policy influencing or advocacy opportunities have found most effective and 
sustainable methods of crop improvement for the potential measures of food insecurity 
in the province. Therefore, the study would support researchers to understand the 
contextual implications of food security in the province.  
 

Contribution/Originality: The study combines different tools together to understand the efficiency of various 

food insecurity measures. This research varies with others in terms of contextual measures of options it has 

deployed to determine status and measures of food insecurity representing the whole province. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Food security is the measure of an individual’s ability to access food that is nutritious and sufficient in quantity. 

The United Nations World Food Program (WFP) reported that 110 out of 210 countries—primarily poor countries 

with subsistence agriculture—are facing food security problems and this number is expected to grow [1]. Nepal is 

one of the most food insecure countries in the world and ranks 157 among 187 countries [2, 3]. In 2010/2011, of 

Nepal's 75 districts, 38 are characterized as food insecure districts [4]. Jumla, Mugu and Humla are the major food 

deficit districts in Karnali Province. The condition of people in terms of food security is deteriorating in the 

province. People are vulnerable to food crises with the progressive time. 

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2024 Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 118-127 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI: 10.18488/cras.v11i2.4024 
© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 

 
 
 
 

https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3278-1016
https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9652-5123
mailto:Janakpant500@gmail.com
mailto:agpravadawadi@gmail.com
https://www.doi.org/10.18488/cras.v11i2.4024


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 118-127 

 

 
119 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Many studies have been conducted to withstand food insecurity in Nepal. Among the various components of 

soil fertility legumes, if suitably inoculated, can fix 100 kg nitrogen per hectare to the soil. Intercropping, relay 

cropping or boundary cropping with legume-cereal could harbor soil fertility increasing crop production. Soybean 

increases yield of the following maize and most of the increase is due to their nitrogen contribution [5]. N-cycle 

management is utmost important for increasing sustainable yield and ecosystem. Soil organic matter (SOM) serves 

as the source of nutrients for crop plants [6]. Many adaptation strategies have been put forward in response to 

numerous adverse effects in Nepal [7]. At the local level, farming households have adopted strategies such as soil 

and water management, adjustments to the timing of farm operations and crop and varietal adjustment [8-11]. 

Fallow or misuse of land, low production, effects of climate change or crop insect or disease infestation and poor 

policy framework has resulted in an increase in food insecurity in Karnali Province. In this study, different methods 

and management strategies were screened and assessed to determine potential measures of food insecurity in the 

Karnali province of Nepal. 

Objective: To determine most effective and sustainable measures of food insecurity. 

 

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS 

Field experiments and discussion were the major methods of research carried to assess the potential measures 

of food insecurity. Research conducted to improve soil, production or productivity, traits, quality, and policy of the 

province. The research was conducted in Jumla, Mugu & Surkhet of Karnali province from February 2020 to 

September 2024.  

 

2.1. Research Design 

Research carried to reflect both qualitative and quantitative aspects of the experimental field and community or 

stakeholder discussion. 

 

2.2. Data and Information Collection Methods 

2.2.1. Experimental Field 

2.2.1.1. Methods and System Intensification 

This includes demonstration or study of method or system intensification for tools and crops in a single entity. 

Such as, drought resilient farming, value addition, modern farming system, and promotion of cereals or pseudo-

cereals. 

 

2.2.1.2. Crop Trials and Comparison 

Exclusively this method showcases the cropping comparison within the trial or research field. This includes 

crop intensification, legume farming or conservation agriculture, plant breeding & plant protection practices. 

 

2.2.2. Discussions 

Both primary and secondary sources were explored to generate data and information in influencing and policy 

frameworks of food security. Primary data include FGD with producers, & KII with government stakeholders (e.g., 

ministries, officials, etc.) while secondary through literature, books, guidelines, and previous findings. 

 

2.3. Research and Analysis Process 

2.3.1. Assessments of Experimental Fields 

The field was divided into split plot design where each attribute or treatments were compared in two mini-

plots. Process started with (land preparation) clearing, plowing, manuring, sowing, weeding, irrigation and to the 

harvesting. Each two mini plots designed to compare intensified or non-intensified cropping/inputs, conservational 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 118-127 

 

 
120 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

farming vs. non-conservational farming (three mini plots), plant breeding (artificial pollination) vs. non- breeding 

(natural pollination) crops and crop field protected with insect net vs. without net (part of plant protection). 

System of rice intensification was determined by tagging middle lines of rice to study plant height, water 

requirements, etc. Similarly, samples of soil, maize-cowpea or maize standalone selected and studied with N-content 

in grains, weed infestation, etc. at the central area of mini-plots. The pollinating attributes carried with selected 

sample size, tagging, and bagging them, and self-deployed with cautious laboratory equipment. And one mini-plot 

of cabbage treated with pesticides (as control) and other netted through mosquito net as a part of plant protection 

protecting from aphids, leaf miner, etc. to assess seedling development, time for true leaf formation and cost of 

seedling management. Whole mini plot was studied, and sample seedlings were taken for final study. 

To determine the efficacy of method & system intensification observation and study of value addition, drought 

resilient farming, modern farming, promotional activities of cereals and pseudo-cereals were carried out. The 

information and data collected from the various studies of the project, government body and individual assessment. 

 

2.3.2. Primary and Secondary Data 

The questionnaire was prepared to collect information and data form producers, government officials and 

ministries. FGD for 25 farmers to understand existing programs and plans of agriculture and food security in 

Karnali. KII with government or/and ministries conducted to determine actual plan, program, or framework of food 

security. In addition, they were asked about future possibilities, and scope of influencing on food security from 

producers or stakeholders. 

 

2.4. Statistical Analysis 

The primary and secondary data collected from the field was first coded and entered in the SPSS data sheet and 

analysis was done by using computer software packages; Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 21. 

Means & frequency distribution analysis were also performed. 

 

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 

3.1. Crop Intensification of Rice 

Through the system of Rice Intensification (SRI) method it was found that plant height after 45 days of 

transplanting became 20 cm compared with 36 cm from normal rice transplanting. After 60 days of transplanting 

the height of SRI rice revealed 30 cm while that of normal 45 cm. It was observed that water requirement for SRI 

rice was only 500 liters for one kg rice production while 1400 liter for one kg rice production in normal 

transplanting. And the yield through SRI found 350 kg/ropani compared to 200 kg/ropani through normal 

transplantation (Table 1).  

SRI has been appreciated as one of the ways of agronomic manipulation for increased yield [12]. The number 

of research activities grew then after and the results showing the supremacy of SRI over conventional system of rice 

cultivation regarding the pant physiology, yield, water saving, and economic benefit started to appear [13, 14] of 

crop and rice intensification have increasing throughout the province. SRI has been considered as one of the food 

securing factors through providing cereal source through an economic and time effective way. 

  

Table 1. Physiological attributes of system of rice intensification (SRI). 

Methods of rice 
transplantation 

Plant height @ 
45 DAT (cm) 

Plant height @ 
60 DAT (cm) 

Water requirement 
(lit/kg rice production) Yield (kg/ropani) 

System of rice 
intensification (SRI) 20 30 500 350 

Normal transplanting 
of rice 36 45 1400 200 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 118-127 

 

 
121 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

3.2. Conservation vs. Non-Conservation Farming 

The study was based on three mini-plots with maize and cowpea intercropped in one mini-plot, sole cowpea 

only in another and maize in the third. It was observed from laboratory study that Nitrogen content in the 

intercropping & sole cowpea was 100% compared with only 10% in maize cropping. Quantity of soil 

microorganisms (i.e., Bacteria) assessed to be 300 X 104g-1 in intercropping followed by 335X 104g-1 in sole cowpea 

and 20 X 104g-1 in maize mini-plot respectively through the laboratory study. Average reduction of weed infestation 

in intercropped fields found 50 to 60% followed by 40% & 30% in cowpea and maize sole cropping. Similarly, 

average top-soil loss found 50% in intercropped mini-plot followed by 30% and 20% in cowpea and maize sole 

cropping respectively. The yield of intercropping mini plots for maize found 170 kg/ropani in comparison with 30 

kg/ropani and 100 kg/ropani in the sole crop field of cowpea and maize respectively (Table 2). Legumes can 

provide up to 73% of the nitrogen required by cereals, depending on stand age, background soil available nitrogen, 

cropping system, and crop species [15, 16]. There are some socio economic, biological, and ecological advantages 

[17, 18] in intercropping over monocropping. Furthermore, intercropping cereals with legumes have huge capacity 

to replenish soil mineral nitrogen through its ability to biologically fix atmospheric nitrogen [19]. Except 

Maize+cowpea, maize+soyabean, maize+pigeonpea, etc. are some other examples of mixed or intercropping. 

Moreover, intercropping systems are efficiently used for the growth factors because they capture more radiation 

and make better use of the available water and nutrients, reduce pests, diseases incidence and suppress weeds and 

favor soil-physical conditions, particularly intercropping cereal and legume crops which also maintain and improve 

soil fertility [20-24]. Improving soil fertility is the result of preserving top and valuable soil structure. It has been 

considered and found that cropping standing plants or maize or any legume have lower efficiency than cropping 

them together as mixed or intercropping. Ultimately increases yield or production in intercropped fields compared 

with monoculture. 

 

Table 2. Intercropping and non-intercropping of cowpea and maize. 

Cropping 
methods of 
cowpea 

N-content in 
grain (%) 

Soil micro-
organisms 

(bacteria per ha) 
Weed infestation 

(reduced average %) 
Top-soil loss 

(av. in %) 
Yield 

(kg/ropani) 

Maize+ Cowpea 
(in maize) 100 300 X 104g-1 50-60 50% 170 
Cowpea 100 335X 104g-1 40 30 30 
Maize 10 20 X 104g-1 30 20 100 

 

3.3. Plant Breeding (Artificial Pollination) Vs. Non- Breeding (Natural Pollination)  

The bagged open or natural pollinated & artificial pollination were compared in maize mini plot where weight 

of single ear in average found to be 32 g in artificial pollination while 155 g in natural pollination. Similarly, the 

number of kernels per ear on average found to be 260 in open or natural pollination compared with 20 only in 

artificial pollination. Total kernel weight per ear on average found to be 112 g in natural pollination followed by 7 g 

in artificial pollination (Table 3). 

Comparative studies were conducted to evaluate the effects of open and hand pollination on several kernel 

quality traits, such as protein, oil, and carbohydrate content in maize kernels [25, 26]. It was found that the number 

of kernels, kernel weight, etc. were higher in open pollination compared with hand pollination, though sometimes 

the quality may be better in hand pollination. 

 

 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 118-127 

 

 
122 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table 3. Artificial pollination vs. natural pollination in maize. 

Methods of 
pollination 

Single ear weight in 
av. (g) 

Kernel number per ear 
(av.) 

Total kernel weight per ear 
in av. (g) 

Artificial pollination in 
maize 32 20 7 
Natural (Open) 
pollination in maize 155 260 112 

 

3.4. Protected Crop Field Vs. Non-Protected Crop Field 

It was assessed that it took 3 Days after Sowing (DAS) for seedling emergence in protected cabbage cropping 

by net compared with 6 days after sowing to emerge seedling in controlled mini plot. Number of weeks for true leaf 

formation after seedling emergence happened to 1 in case of protected cabbage while 3 in the control field. The cost 

of seedling and land management is almost half for a protected cabbage mini plot compared with control one 

(Figure 1). This study was supported by numerous past studies that the seedling growth, number of leaves 

development and overall yield are highly influenced by protected cropping compared with normal through 

protecting insects, pests, and another external environment. The quality, yield, or volume of production of crops 

increases with protection or conservation from insect pests compared with non-protected crop lands [27]. 

 

 
Figure 1. Comparison between protected and control cabbage field. 

 

3.5. Value Addition 

It was found that the numbers of processing units for value addition in 2020 was 3, 2 and 4 for turmeric, 

ginger, and potato (including other vegetables). It increased up to 9, 8, 15 for turmeric, ginger, and potato during 

2024 (Table 4). Producers link closely to traders to increase value of their products, and the traders determine 

themselves as a part of the value adding component [28]. Such study agreed with past studies that private sectors 

and companies for value addition are always ready to accept the products such as ginger, turmeric, etc. for value 

addition and overall market system development. Producers are interested in adding value to the crops and 

improving their income resources by selling or supplying high quality commodities to the processing centers. 

 

 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 118-127 

 

 
123 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table 4. Trend of increasing processing units. 

Date wise transformation in 
processing units Turmeric Zinger Potato 

Number of processing unit in 2020 3 2 4 
Number of processing unit in 2021 5 4 7 
Number of processing unit in 2022 7 5 10 
Number of processing unit in 2023 8 6 12 
Number of processing unit in 2024 9 8 15 

 

3.6. Drought Resilient Farming 

The study carried out in Mugu, Karnali showed that the average percentage of people applying drought 

resilient seed of rice and maize was 28 and 30 respectively during 2021 followed by 20 and 22 during 2022, 14 and 

17 during 2023, and 12 and 10 during 2024 (Figure 2). The study is in line with past research that climate resilient 

seeds and technologies have been declining in rural parts of the country may be because of lack of awareness or 

migration of people from hills to terai. However, droughts can create opportunities to explore different adaptation 

strategies that are suitable in such changing circumstances [29]. The variation in environment causing drought 

and other climatic crises have resulted in low production and ultimately food insecurity, and to mitigate such 

challenges improving climate or drought resilient varieties are crucial in hill parts of province. 

 

 
Figure 2. Trend of resilient seed application over time. 

 

3.7. Modern Farming 

The study carried in Jumla, Karnali revealed that the average percentage of farmers using tillage tractors in 

sub-urban site were 30, 40, 45 & 60 during 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 compared with 10, 13, 17, and 20 in rural 

sites during similar years. Similarly, the average percentage of sub-urban farmers using harvesting carats were 

found to be 40, 60, 70 and 80 during 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 as compared with 30, 35, 43, and 45 in rural areas 

during similar time (Figure 3). Various past studies revealed that the sub-urban or urban people are more aware 

about tools, technologies, and innovation in agriculture in comparison with rural people or farmers. Also, the rate of 

adoption of technologies and modern farming methods have been growing highly in sub-urban parts compared with 

rural parts in the province. This may be due to the level of affordability and accessibility as well. The adoption of 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 118-127 

 

 
124 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

modern technologies and methods are slowly improving in rural parts, while it is quickly increasing in urban or 

semi-urban country sites [30]. The past studies agree with finding of this research. 

 

 
Figure 3. Trend of modern farming system over time. 

 

3.8. Promotion of Cereals and Pseudo-Cereals  

From the observation it was found that the preference and cropping of cereal and pseudo-cereal crops in hilly 

areas of Karnali has been declining. Almost half of the farmers in the study site have left to grow and cultivate crops 

such as maize, finger millet, etc. These crops are very important parts to maintain food security in the country even 

in the adverse circumstances of climate change [31-33] Loss of such crops could be regenerated through 

improvement and their promotion. There is a high possibility to rehabilitate and recover the loss and decline in 

cereal and pseudo-cereal crops which are regarded as important sources of food crops and contribute highly to food 

security. 

 

3.9. Scope of Influencing in Food Security 

After discussion with the local government, line ministries and officials it was found that the province has 

highly prioritized food security plans and programs in their calendar. After need assessment and discussion with 

farmers the future programs were aligned to improve crop production and marketing system. It was found that the 

local people, and stakeholder’s have a high chance of influencing the ministries and government body to enhance 

food security in the province. All the policies and guidelines were not found in line with farmers' needs, food 

security purpose and crop improvement. Political constraints play a vital role in the improvement of food insecurity 

and related programs [34]. Studies and assessment have found that appropriate policy influencing was necessary 

for sustainable food security. Coordination, regular advocacy, and integration with government bodies (inter and 

intra) with producer groups and stakeholders was necessary to improve influencing in food security throughout the 

province. Therefore, many studies from past research agree with the above findings and details. The study and 

assessment clearly show that modern tools, technologies & skills for farming including policy influencing & 

scientific breeding or research to withstand impacts of changing circumstances are effective & sustainable methods 

to improve crop production and supply ultimately mitigating food insecurity in the province. 

 

4. CONCLUSION 

It was difficult to accumulate large amounts of information and data over an extensive study site at once. Food 

insecurity has been prevailing in the province for more than decades. Farmers and local people have been becoming 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 118-127 

 

 
125 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

poorer and inaccessible with food resources in the major rural parts of the province. An experiment and discussion 

with self-observation were conducted throughout the years to determine status and measures of food insecurity in 

Karnali, Nepal. Split-plot design with two or three (as per technical requirement) mini plots were prepared to 

compare intensified or non-intensified cropping/inputs, conservational farming vs. non-conservational farming 

(three mini plots), plant breeding (artificial pollination) vs. non- breeding (natural pollination) crops and crop field 

protected with insect net vs. without net (part of plant protection), as part of experiment and field trials. 

Observation and self-study from various projects were carried out to determine status or opportunities of modern 

farming, drought resilient agriculture, value addition, and promotion of cereals/pseudo-cereals. Thorough 

discussion with farmer groups and stakeholders was conducted to identify policy influencing status and as a key 

measure or food insecurity. All the attributes of research found positive and result oriented. Application of 

innovative tools, technologies and skills through crop or rice intensification, conservational farming, breeding or 

genetic make-up, crop protection from insect/pest, opportunities of value addition centers, modern farming, and 

drought resilient agriculture with promotion of cereals or pseudo-cereals and policy influencing or advocacy works 

have found most effective and sustainable methods of crop improvement for the potential measures of food 

insecurity in the province. 

 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.    
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. 
Transparency: The authors state that the manuscript is honest, truthful, and transparent, that no key 
aspects of the investigation have been omitted, and that any differences from the study as planned have been 
clarified. This study followed all writing ethics. 
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 
Authors’ Contributions: Conceptualization, Data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, 
project administration, resources, software, supervision, validation, visualization, writing original draft, 
review & editing, J.P.; data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, 
visualization, writing original draft, review & editing, P.D. All authors have read and agreed to the 
published version of the manuscript. 

 

REFERENCES 

[1] FAO, WFP, and IFAD, The state of food insecurity in the world the multiple dimensions of food security. Rome: FAO, 2013. 

[2] UNDP, Human development report. Sustainability and equity. A better future for all. Washington, D.C: UNDP, 2011. 

[3] K. D. Joshi, C. Conroy, and J. R. Witcombe, Agriculture, seed, and innovation in Nepal: Industry and policy issues for the 

future. Washington, D.C: Paper, Dec. 2012, IFPRI, 2012. 

[4] Government of Nepal, Agriculture atlas of Nepal. Nepal: National Planning Commission Secretariat, 2012. 

[5] J. O. Baldock, R. L. Higgs, W. H. Paulson, J. A. Jackobs, and W. D. Shrader, "Legume and mineral n effects on crop 

yields in several crop sequences in the upper mississippi valley 1," Agronomy Journal, vol. 73, no. 5, pp. 885-890, 1981.  

https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1981.00021962007300050031x 

[6] W. McGill and C. Cole, "Comparative aspects of cycling of organic C, N, S and P through soil organic matter," 

Geoderma, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 267-286, 1981.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7061(81)90024-0 

[7] B. Regmi, A. Paudyal, and P. Bordoni, Climate change and agrobiodiversity in Nepal: Opportunities to include agrobiodiversity 

maintenance to support Nepal’s national adaptation programme of action (NAPA). Pokhara: LI-BIRD, 2009. 

[8] B. Dahal et al., "Changing trends in cultivation practices and adoption of climate adaptive farming in Eastern Nepal," 

Sustainable Agriculture Research, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 52-62, 2018.  https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v7n3p52 

[9] M. Giri, M. Tiepolo, and S. Hada, "Household level adaptation practices to climate change in rural areas of Nepal. In: 

S. Pradhananga, J. Panthi, & D. Bhattarai, Eds," presented at the International Conference on Climate Change 

Innovation and Resilience for Sustainable Livelihood, Kathmandu, Nepal, 2015. 

[10] U. Khanal, C. Wilson, V.-N. Hoang, and B. Lee, "Impact of community-based organizations on climate change 

adaptation in agriculture: Empirical evidence from Nepal," Environment, Development and Sustainability, vol. 21, pp. 621-

635, 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-0050-6 

https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1981.00021962007300050031x
https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-7061(81)90024-0
https://doi.org/10.5539/sar.v7n3p52
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-0050-6


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 118-127 

 

 
126 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[11] S. Maharjan, K. Maharjan, U. Tiwari, and N. Sen, "Participatory vulnerability assessment of climate vulnerabilities and 

impacts in Madi Valley of Chitwan district, Nepal," Cogent Food & Agriculture, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 1310078, 2017.  

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1310078 

[12] B. Basnet, "Rice technologies and their sensitization for poverty reduction," in Proceedings of the 7th National Outreach 

Research Workshop, Outreach Research Division, NARC, 2005, pp. 15-18.  

[13] M. Bhatta and J. Tripathi, "On-station and on-farm studies on system of rice intensification (SRI)," presented at the 

SRI Workshop, ICIMOD, Lalitpur, Nepal, 2005. 

[14] M. Dhakal, "Farmers’ evaluation of the system of rice intensification in the middle mountains of Nepal." Kathmandu, 

Nepal: International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), 2005, p. 33. 

[15] M. S. Thilakarathna, M. S. McElroy, T. Chapagain, Y. A. Papadopoulos, and M. N. Raizada, "Belowground nitrogen 

transfer from legumes to non-legumes under managed herbaceous cropping systems. A review," Agronomy for 

Sustainable Development, vol. 36, pp. 1-16, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0396-4 

[16] E. C. Reilly, J. L. Gutknecht, N. E. Tautges, C. C. Sheaffer, and J. M. Jungers, "Nitrogen transfer and yield effects of 

legumes intercropped with the perennial grain crop intermediate wheatgrass," Field Crops Research, vol. 286, p. 108627, 

2022.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108627 

[17] P. Aggarwal, D. Garrity, S. Liboon, and R. Morris, "Resource use and plant interactions in a rice‐mungbean intercrop," 

Agronomy Journal, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 71-78, 1992.  https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1992.00021962008400010015x 

[18] C. Fininsa, "Effect of intercropping bean with maize on bean common bacterial blight and rust diseases," International 

Journal of Pest Management, vol. 42, no. 1, pp. 51-54, 1996.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09670879609371969 

[19] W. Beets, "Multiple cropping and tropical farming systems." Boulder: Westview Press, 1982, p. 156. 

[20] F. Ofori and W. Stern, "Cereal–legume intercropping systems," Advances in Agronomy, vol. 41, pp. 41-90, 1987.  

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2113(08)60802-0 

[21] N. Sanginga and P. Woomer, Integrated soil fertility management in Africa: Principles, practices, and development process. 

Nairobi: Tropical Soil Biology and Fertility Institute of the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, 2009. 

[22] P. Jeranyama, O. B. Hesterman, S. R. Waddington, and R. R. Harwood, "Relay‐intercropping of sunnhemp and cowpea 

into a smallholder maize system in Zimbabwe," Agronomy Journal, vol. 92, no. 2, pp. 239-244, 2000.  

https://doi.org/10.1007/s100870050028 

[23] B. Horwith, "A role for intercropping in modern agriculture," BioScience, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 286-291, 1985.  

https://doi.org/10.2307/1309927 

[24] R. Willey et al., "Ciba Foundation Symposium 97‐Better Crops for Food. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd," 

1983, pp. 83-100.  

[25] M. Letchworth and R. Lambert, "Pollen parent effects on oil, protein, and starch concentration in maize kernels," Crop 

Science, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 363-367, 1998.  https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1998.0011183x003800020015x 

[26] F. Kahrıman, C. Ö. Egesel, T. Aydın, and S. Subaşı, "The role of artificial pollination and pollen effect on ear 

development and kernel structure of different maize genotypes," Journal of Pollination Ecology, vol. 15, pp. 6-14, 2015.  

https://doi.org/10.26786/1920-7603(2015)1 

[27] J. Van Den Berg, "Socio-economic factors affecting adoption of improved agricultural practices by small scale farmers 

in South Africa," African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 8, no. 35, pp. 4490-4500, 2013.  

https://doi.org/10.5897/ajar12.1025 

[28] D. Choudhary, M. S. Kunwar, and G. Rasul, "From Farmers to Entrepreneurs—Strengthening Malta orange value 

chains through institutional development in Uttarakhand, India," Mountain Research and Development, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 

4-15, 2015.  https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd-journal-d-14-00036.1 

[29] H. B. Dulal, G. Brodnig, H. K. Thakur, and C. Green-Onoriose, "Do the poor have what they need to adapt to climate 

change? A case study of Nepal," Local Environment, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 621-635, 2010.  

https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2010.498814 

https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1310078
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-016-0396-4
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2022.108627
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1992.00021962008400010015x
https://doi.org/10.1080/09670879609371969
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2113(08)60802-0
https://doi.org/10.1007/s100870050028
https://doi.org/10.2307/1309927
https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci1998.0011183x003800020015x
https://doi.org/10.26786/1920-7603(2015)1
https://doi.org/10.5897/ajar12.1025
https://doi.org/10.1659/mrd-journal-d-14-00036.1
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2010.498814


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2024, 11(2): 118-127 

 

 
127 

© 2024 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[30] K. G. Liakos, P. Busato, D. Moshou, S. Pearson, and D. Bochtis, "Machine learning in agriculture: A review," Sensors, 

vol. 18, no. 8, p. 2674-2702, 2018.  

[31] S. Das, R. Khound, M. Santra, and D. K. Santra, "Beyond bird feed: Proso millet for human health and environment," 

Agriculture, vol. 9, no. 3, p. 64, 2019.  https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9030064 

[32] T. L. Goron and M. N. Raizada, "Genetic diversity and genomic resources available for the small millet crops to 

accelerate a New Green Revolution," Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 6, p. 157, 2015.  

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00157 

[33] C. Habiyaremye et al., "Proso millet (Panicum miliaceum L.) and its potential for cultivation in the Pacific Northwest, 

US: A review," Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 7, p. 1961, 2017.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01961 

[34] B. Chapagain and P. Gentle, "Withdrawing from agrarian livelihoods: Environmental migration in Nepal," Journal of 

Mountain Science, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1-13, 2015.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 

https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture9030064
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00157
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01961

