Evaluating different interrow distance between corn and soybean for optimum growth, production and nutritive value of intercropped forages

  • Kim, Jeongtae (Department of Animal Science, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Song, Yowook (Department of Animal Science, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kim, Dong Woo (Department of Animal Science, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Fiaz, Muhammad (Department of Livestock Production and Management, Arid Agriculture University) ;
  • Kwon, Chan Ho (Department of Animal Science, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2017.05.27
  • Accepted : 2017.11.06
  • Published : 2018.02.28


Background: Maize fodder is being used as staple feed for livestock but it lacks protein and essential amino acids; lysine and tryptophan. Intercropping maize with leguminous soybean crop is promising technique under limited land resources of South Korea but it can only give considerable advantages when adequate distance is provided between corn and soybean rows. Main aim of present study was to find-out adequate distance between corn and soybean seeding rows for optimum growth, yield and nutritive value of intercropped forage. Methods: Different interrow distances between corn and soybean were evaluated under four treatments, viz. 1) Corn sole as positive control treatment 2) Zero cm between corn and soybean (control); 2) Five cm between corn and soybean; 3) 10 cm between corn and soybean, with three replicates under randomized block design. Results: Findings depicted that height and number of corn stalks and ears were similar (P > 0.05) among different treatments. Numerically average corn ear height was decreased at zero cm distance. Dry matter percentage in all components; corn stalk, corn ear and soybean was also found not different (P > 0.05) but dry matter yield in component of corn ear was lower (P < 0.05) at zero cm distance as compared to that of 5 and 10 cm interrow distances. In case of nutritive value, total digestible nutrient yield in intercropped corn was also found lower (P < 0.05) at zero cm distance than that of 5 and 10 cm interrow distances between corn and soybean seeding rows. Substantial decrease in dry matter yield of maize ear at zero cm distance might be attributed to factor of closed interrow spacing which made interplant competition more intensified for light interception, necessary for photosynthetic activity. Lower dry matter yield in ear also reduced total digestible nutrients in intercropped maize because it was determining factor in calculation of digestible nutrients. The optimum yield and nutritive value of forage at wider interrow distance i.e. 5 cm between corn and soybean might be due to adequate interseed distance. Conclusion: Conclusively, pattern of corn and soybean seeding in rows at 5 cm distance was found suitable which provided adequate interrow distance to maintain enough mutual cooperation and decreased competition between both species for optimum production performance and nutritive value of intercropped forage.


Interrow distance;Seeding rows;Corn-soybean and intercropping forage


Supported by : IPET


  1. Kim B, Han S, Kim T, Yang H. Agriculture, farm villages and prospect of food industry. Korea: Korean Rural Economic Institute (KREI); 2012.
  2. Chung SH, Lee JS, Kim MJ, Lee HG. The development status and prospect of Korean livestock industry. J Anim Vet Advan. 2014;13(20):1143-9.
  3. Korean Statistics (KOSTAT). Agriculture area survey in 2016 (According to Remote Sensing), the statistics Korea, Ministry of strategy and finance, Republic of Korea. 2016. Accessed 15 Oct 2016.
  4. Dado RG. Nutritional benefit of specialty maize grain hybrid in dairy diets. J Anim Sci. 1999:197-207.
  5. Yadav MR, Kumar R, Ram H. Using quality protein maize as an elite feed and fodder for. Livestock. 2016; Accessed 15 Oct 2016
  6. Gebrehiwot L, McGrow RL, Assefu G. Forage yield and quality profile of three annual legumes in the tropical highlands of Ethiopia. Trop Agric. 1996; 73:83-98.
  7. Seo JD, Chae JH, Park JH, Kim MS, Kwon CH, Lee JD. Yield and quality of forage produced by mixed planting of soybean and corn. Curr res on Agri. Life Sci. 2014;32:105-9.
  8. Seran TH, Brintha T. Review on maize based intercropping. J Agron. 2010; 9(3):135-45.
  9. Latati M, Pansu M, Drevon JJ, Ounane SM. Advantage of intercropping maize (Zea mays L.) and common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) on yield and nitrogen uptake in Northeast Algeria. Int. J Res App Sci. 2013;01:23-9.
  10. Adu-Gyamfi JJ, Myaka FA, Sakal WD, Odgaard R, Vesterager JM, Hogh-Jensen H. Biological nitrogen fixation and nitrogen and phosphorus budgets in farmer-managed intercrops of maize pigeon pea in semiarid southern and eastern Africa. Plant Soil. 2007;295:127-36.
  11. Banik P, Sharma RC. Yield and resource utilization efficiency in baby cornlegume intercropping system in the eastern plateau of India. J Sust Agr. 2009;33:379-95.
  12. Li L, Zhang FS, Li XL, Christie P, Sun JH, Yang SC, Tang C. Interspecific facilitation of nutrient uptake by intercropped maize and faba bean. Nut Cycl in agro. Ecosystems. 2003;65:61-71.
  13. Mpairwe DR, Sabiiti EN, Ummuna NN, Tegegne A, Osuji P. Effect of intercropping cereal crops with forage legumes and source of nutrients on cereal grain yield and fodder dry matter yields. African Crop Sci J. 2002;10:81-97.
  14. Addo-Quaye AA, Darkwa AA, Ocloo GK. Yield and productivity of component crops in a maize-soybean intercropping system as affected by time of planting and spatial arrangement. ARPN J of Agric Biol Sci. 2011; 6(9):50-7.
  15. Oseni TO, Aliyu IG. Effect of row arrangements on sorghum-cowpea intercrops in the semiarid savannah of Nigeria. Int J Agric Biol. 2010;12(1): 137-40.
  16. Holland C, Kezar W, Kautz WP, Lazowski EJ, Mahanna WC, Reinhart R. The pioneer forage manual. Des Moines, IA: A nutritional guide. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int. Inc.; 1990.
  17. Steel RGR, Torrie JH, Dickey DA. Principles and procedures of statistics. A biochemical approach 3rd ed. NY, USA: McGraw Hill Book Co. Inc; 1997.
  18. Farnham DE. Row spacing, plant density and hybrid effects on corn grain yield and moisture. Agron J. 2001;93(5):1049-53.
  19. Zhang Y, Liu J, Zhang J, Liu H, Liu S, Zhai L. Row ratios of intercropping maize and soybean can affect agronomic efficiency of the system and subsequent wheat. PLoS One. 2015;
  20. Prasad RB, Brook RM. Effect of varying maize densities on intercropped maize and soybean in Nepal. Exp Agric. 2005;41:365-82.
  21. Keating BA, Carberry PS. Resource capture and use in intercropping: solar radiation. Field Crop Res. 1993;34:273-301.
  22. Jiao NY, Zhao C, Ning TY, Hou LT, GZ F, Li ZJ, Chen MC. Effects of maizepeanut intercropping on economic yield and light response of photosynthesis. Chinese. J Appl Ecol. 2008;19:981-5.
  23. Verdelli D, Acciaresi HA, Leguizamon ES. Corn and soybean in a strip intercropping system: crop growth rates, radiation interception and grain yield components. Int. J Agron. 2012;12:1-7.
  24. Shao-sen L, Yong-jin T. Effects of density, row spacing and hole spacing of maize on intercropped soybean's photosynthetic rates. Soy Sci. 2007;02
  25. Latati M, Bargaz A, Belarbi B, Lazali M, Benlahrech S, Tellah S. The intercropping common bean with maize improves the rhizobial efficiency, resource use and grain yield under low phosphorus availability. Eur J Agron. 2016;72:80-90.
  26. Yang F, Liao D, Fan F, Gao R, Wu X, Rahman T, Yong T, Liu W, Liu J, Du J, Shu K, Wang X, Yang W. Effect of narrow-row planting patterns on crop competitive and economic advantage in maize-soybean relay strip intercropping system. Plant Prod Sci. 2016;
  27. Maddonni GA, Otegui ME, Cirilo AG. Plant population density, row spacing and hybrid effects on maize canopy architecture and light attenuation. Field Crops Res. 2001;71:183-93.
  28. Franco M, Harper JL. Competition and the formation of spatial pattern in spacing gradients: an example using Kochia Scoparia. J of. Ecol. 1988;76: 959-74.