INTRODUCTION

Uttarakhand has 0.8 million hectares of cultivated area constituting 16% of total geographical area, out of which 90% is hilly and 10% is plain area (Maikhuri et al., 2009). Most of the resource-poor farmers produce cereals for their subsistence in 80% of the arable land (Sati and Wei, 2018). Finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn), locally known as ragi or mandua, is the most dominant kharif season crop in rainfed hills of Uttarakhand whereas rice is dominated in irrigated area. Finger millet has importance in hill agriculture as it is able to grow in low fertile soil and efficiently withstand under low soil moisture conditions in rainfed area. Finger millet is having health benefits such as anti-diabetic, anti-diarrheal, anti-ulcer, anti-inflammatory, anti-tumerogenic, atherosclerogenic , anti-microbial and antioxidant properties along with high nutrient content such as calcium (0.34%), dietary fiber (18%), phytates (0.48%), protein (6%–13%), minerals (2.5%–3.5%) and phenolics (0.3%–3%) (Saleh et al., 2013, Palanisamy et al., 2014, Chethan and Malleshi, 2007, Chandra et al., 2016). The finger millet grain and forage are important source of livestock feed (Verma and Patel, 2013, Wafula et al., 2017). Finger millet occupies 94 thousand hectares of area and produces 114 thousand metric tons with the productivity level of 1218 kg ha^-1 during 2018-19 in Uttarakhand (Anonymous, 2018–19). Amaranth is locally known as marshu or chua in Uttarakhand. Amaranth is rich in macronutrients, micronutrients, vitamins, minerals and essential amino acids, particularly high quality lysine (Coelho et al., 2018). Amaranth occupies 5678 hectares of area and produces 5903 metric tons with productivity level of 1040 kg ha^-1 in Uttarakhand (Anonymous, 2018–19). Amaranth is rich in nutrients such as protein 14–19%, carbohydrates 62–66%, fiber 4–5%, fat 6–7%, ash 2.5–4.4% (Mlakar et al., 2009, Iftikar and Khan, 2019, Ribeiro et al., 2018). Amaranth is being cultivated predominantly in hilly region of Garhwal of Uttarakhand.  Both the crops are sown under dry condition before the onset of monsoon, therefore, occurrence of drought at the time of germination and critical crop-growth stages severely affect its productivity (Bantie et al., 2014, Maitra, 2020). The farmers of this region generally grow finger millet and amaranth as mixed cropping through broadcasting mixed seed of both the crops. Besides having advantage of resource use efficiency and yield stability by mixed cropping, weed management and competition challenges are also associated with mixed cropping (Lizarazo et al., 2020). The mixed cropping of finger millet and amaranth are not able to realize the yield potential in absence of flexible adjustment of crop mixture.Intercropping is the main device to adjust crop mixture and increase diversity that provides insurance against risks and aberrant rainfall behavior in rainfed environments (Dutta and Bandyopadhyay, 2006). Intercropping is known to produce stable yields from diversified crops with minimum use of inputs with respect to nutrient supply and plant protection, focusing on sufficient food under healthy environmental conditions (Zhang et al., 200, Franco et al., 2015, Maitra et al., 2020, Manasa et al., 2018, Kiwia et al., 2019, Opole, 2019). Intercropping is being considered to utilize the resources in effective and economical way to increase production per unit area and per unit time(Gebru, 2015). Land holdings in Uttarakhand hills are fragmented where intercropping can be practiced easily. In view of the paucity of the information on intercropping system of finger millet and amaranth, the current experiment was designed to provide a better inter cropping system of finger millet and amaranth to stabilize the productivity of rainfed hills of Uttarakhand.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

On-farm experiment was carried out for two consecutive years during kharif season of 2016 to 2017 at Research and extension center Gaja, College of Forestry, VCSG Uttarakhand University of Horticulture and Forestry, Ranichauri, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand, India.The site of the experiment was lying between 30°15 N latitude and 78°30 E longitudes with elevation of 1750 m above mean sea level under mid hill zones of Uttarakhand. The soil of the experimental site is silty clay loam with medium depth having acidic pH (5.7), 0.73% organic carbon, 216 kg ha^-1 available N, 14.16 kg ha^-1 available P and 412 kg ha^-1 available K. Total rainfall received during crop period was 844.9 and 1186.9 mmduring 2016 and 2017, respectively. Seven treatments were designed for study in a randomized complete block design with three replicates each. Theseseven treatments consist of T₁:Sole finger millet, T₂: Sole Amaranth, T₃: Finger millet+Amaranth (4:1), T₄: Mix-cropping of finger millet+Amaranth (90:10), T₅: Mix-cropping of finger millet+Amaranth (85:15), T₆: mix-cropping of finger millet+Amaranth (80:20),T₇:  Farmers’ practice (mixed cropping of Finger millet+Amaranth (60:40). T₃ treatment was executed by sowing finger millet and amaranth in separate rows and in definite row ratios. Treatment T₄, T₅ and T₆ were sown in line by mixing of seeds in respective proportion of seed rate of selected crops. In case of T₇ treatment seeds of both the crops were mixed in respective proportion of seed rate and sown through broadcasting. The experiment was conducted in the first fortnight of June every year. A fertilizer dose of 40-20-20 kg of N:P:K ha^-1 was applied to finger millet and finger millet-based mixed/ intercropping. Indices for assessment of yield advantages like finger millet equivalent yield (FMEY), land equivalent ratio (LER) were computed using standard expressions. The economics of the treatments were worked out on the basis of prevailing market prices of inputs and outputs.The data were analysed by using proc (glm) of SAS and OPSTAT of COBS&H CCS HAU, Hisar.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Grain yield of finger millet in intercropping was recorded lower than the sole crop due to less plant population of finger millet (Table 1). Similar results were reported by Dass and Sudhishri, 2010 and Nigade et al. (2012). The reduction in finger millet yield was more in farmers practice due to high plant population of intercrop amaranth and lower population of finger millet than the sole finger millet treatment. The increase in the yield of finger millet in intercropping was recorded with the reduction of intercrop (Amaranth) plant population. Lower finger millet and amaranth yield was recorded in farmer’s practice, i.e., broadcasting of finger millet+amaranth (60:40), due to higher plant population and crowding and shading effect of intercrop on finger millet.

Among the inter-cropping and mixed cropping treatments, mixed-cropping system of T₄: Finger millet+amaranth (90:10) recorded higher yields of finger millet and amaranth (Table 1).

Table 1: Grain and straw yield of finger millet and amaranth under different intercropping system

The grain yield of finger millet was higher in 2017 than 2016 due to favourable weather conditions. While the grain yield of amaranth was recorded less in 2017 than 2016 due to infestation of leaf webber. Finger millet and amaranth straw yields were higher in the sole crop than the intercrop. Among the treatments, maximum straw yield of finger millet was recorded in T₅: finger millet+grain amaranth (85:15) in 2016 and in T₄: finger millet+amaranth (90:10) in 2017 while straw yield of amaranth was obtained highest in T₄: finger millet+grain amaranth (90:10) during both the years.

Finger millet grain equivalent yield was recorded highest in T₄: Finger millet+amaranth (90:10) and minimum was recorded in T₇: Farmer’s practiceof finger millet+amaranth (60:40) during both the years (Table 1). As per tukey’s grouping (Figure 1), the finger millet grain equivalent yield in T₄: finger millet+amaranth (90:10) was on par with sole finger millet and T₃: Finger millet+amaranth (4:1) while equivalent straw yield in all treatments were significantly higher than the T₇: farmer’s practice i.e. mixed cropping of finger millet and amaranth (60:40). The higher finger millet grain equivalent yield in T₄: finger millet+amaranth (90:10) was due to an appropriate plant population of amaranth with finger millet and less competition between the crops. The T₄: Finger millet+amaranth (90:10) recorded 5.56% and 27.7% higher mean grain equivalent yield than the T₁: sole finger millet and T₂: Sole amaranth, respectively. When compared with the T₇: Farmer’s practice of mixed cropping of finger millet and amaranth (60:40), T₄: Finger millet+amaranth (90:10) recorded 58.8% higher mean finger millet grain equivalent yield. Jakhar et al. (2015) also reported higher finger millet grain equivalent yield under strip cropping system of finger millet+groundnut (6:4). Severe competition exerted by amaranth on finger millet under farmer’s practice (T₇) might lead to reduce the mean finger millet grain equivalent yield. The two year mean of finger millet equivalent straw yield was recorded significantly higher in T₁: sole finger millet which is statistically at par with T₄: Finger millet+amaranth (90:10) and T₃: Finger millet and amaranth (4:1) than the T₇: Farmer’s practices, i.e., mixed cropping of finger millet+amaranth (60:40). The two years mean of finger millet straw equivalent yield of T₄: Finger millet+amaranth (90:10) was 42.12% higher than the T₇: farmer’s practices.

Figure 1: Finger millet grain and straw equivalent yield under different intercropping system

The two year mean of combined land equivalent ratio was also recorded highest (1.10) in T₄: finger millet+amaranth (90:10) (Table 2). Yadav (2018) also reported higher land equivalent ratio under the intercropping system of finger millet and green gram or pigeon pea. Minimum land equivalent ratio was recorded in case of T₇: Farmer’s practices (0.87 in 2016 and 0.52 in 2017). Data revealed that land equivalent ratio was decreased when finger millet population decreased and amaranth population increased. Land equivalent ratio in T₄: finger millet and amaranth (90:10) was recorded higher due to higher equivalent grain yield of finger millet and amaranth and higher sale price of amaranth than the finger millet.

Table 2: Land equivalent ratio under different finger millet and amaranth intercropping

The maximum net return (Rs. 45011 ha^-1) was recorded in T₄: finger millet+amaranth (90:10) and lowest net return (Rs. 28942 ha^-1) was recorded in case of T₇: Farmers practice of mixed cropping of finger millet and amaranth (60:40) (Table 3). It was only because of higher grain and straw yields of the finger millet and amaranth than other treatments. Manjunath and Salakinkop (2017) and Manjunath et al.(2018) reported higher net return in finger millet, little millet and proso millet based intercropping system, respectively than the sole crop. The benefit-cost ratio was also higher (2.30) in T₄: Finger millet+amaranth (90:10) followed by T₁: sole finger millet (2.18) and T₂: sole amaranth (1.63). The lowest benefit cost ratio (1.12) was registered in T₇: Farmers practice, i.e., mixed  cropping of finger millet and amaranth.

Table 3: Economics of different finger millet and amaranth intercropping

CONCLUSION

The intercropping of amaranth in finger millet by mixing seeds of finger millet and amaranth in the seed rate ratio 90:10 and sown in lines would be beneficial to the farming community than the mixed cropping of farmer’s practice of finger millet and amaranth (60:40) under rainfed hills of Uttarakhand.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

ICAR AICRP-Small Millet and College of Forestry, V.C.S.G. Uttarakhand University of Horticulture and Forestry, Ranichauri, Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand are duly acknowledged for financial and institutional support respectively for the smooth execution of the research.

Reference

Anonymous, 2018–19. Uttarakhand Agriculture Statistics Data, Kharif 2016–17. Available at https://agriculture.uk.gov.in/files/part-2_(page-_29__to_179).pdf, Accessed on 23 May, 2022

Bantie, Y., Fetien, A., Tadesse, D., 2014. Competition indices of intercropped lupine (local) and small cereals in additive series in West Gojjam, North Western Ethiopia. American Journal of Plant Sciences 5(9), 1296–1305.

Chandra, D., Chandra, S., Pallavi, Sharma., A.K., 2016. Review of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn): A power house of health benefiting nutrients. Food Science and Human Wellness 5(3), 149–155

Chethan, S., Malleshi, N.G., 2007. Finger millet polyphenols: optimization of extraction and the effect of pH on their stability. Food Chemistry 105(2), 862–870.

Coelho, L.M., Silva, P.M., Martins, J.T., Pinheiro, A.C., Vicente, A.A., 2018. Emerging opportunities in exploring the nutritional/functional value of amaranth. Food & Function 9(11), 5499–5512.

Dass, A., Sudhishir, S., 2010. Intercropping in finger millet (Eleusine coracana) with pulses for enhanced productivity, resource conservation and soil fertility in uplands of Southern Orissa. Indian Journal of Agronomy 55(2), 89–94.

Dutta, D., Bandyopadhyay, P., 2006. Production potential of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) with pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan) and maize (Zea mays) under various row proportionsin rainfed Alfisols of West Bengal. Indian Journal of Agronomy 51(2), 103–106.

Franco, J.G., King, S.R., Masabni, J.G., Volder, A., 2015. Plant functional diversity improves short-term yields in a low input intercropping system. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 203, 1–10.

Gebru, H., 2015.  A review on the comparative advantages of intercropping to mono-cropping system. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 5(9), 1–13.

Iftikhar, M., Khan, M., 2019. Amaranth. DOI 10.1007/978-981-13-6167-8_13.

Jakhar, P., Adhikary, P.P., Naik, B.S., Madhu, M., 2015. Finger millet-groundnut strip cropping for enhanced productivity and resource conservation in upland of Eastern Ghats of Odisha. Indian Journal of Agronomy 60(3), 365–371.

Kiwia, A., Kimani, D., Harawa, R., Jama, B., Sileshi, G., 2019. Sustainable intensification with cereal-legume intercropping in Eastern and Southern Africa. Sustainability 11(10), 2891.

Lizarazo, C.I., Tuulos, A., Jokela, V., Makela, P.S.A., 2020. Sustainable mixed cropping systems for the boreal-nemoral region. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems 4(103). Available from https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2020.00103. Accessed on 30^th June, 2022

Maikhuri, R.K., Rawat, L.S., Phondani, P.C., Negi, V.S., Farooquee, N.A., Negi, C., 2009. Hill agriculture of Uttarakhand: Policy, governance, research issues and development priorities for sustainability. The India Economy Review 6(31), 116–123.

Maitra, S., Hossain, A., Brestic, M., Skalicky, M., Ondrisik, P., Gitari, H., Brahmachari, K., Shankar, T., Bhadra, P., Palai, J.B., Jena, J., Bhattacharya, U., Duvvada, S.K., Lalichetti, S., Sairam, M., 2021. Intercropping- a low input agricultural strategy for food and environmental security. Agronomy 11(2), 343.

Maitra, S., 2020. Intercropping of small millets for agricultural sustainability in drylands: A review. Crop Research 55(3–4), 162–171.

Manasa, P., Maitra, S., Devender Reddy, M., 2018.  Effect of summer maize-legume intercropping system on growth, productivity and competitive ability of crops. International Journal of Management, Technology and Engineering 8(12), 2871–2875.

Manjunath, M.G., Salakinkop, S.R., 2017. Growth and yield of soybean and millets in intercropping systems. Journal of Farm Science 30(3), 349–353.

Manjunath, M., Vajjaramatti, Kalaghatagi, S.B., 2018. Performance of pigeonpea and millets in intercropping systems under rainfed conditions. Journal of Farm Science 31(2), 199–201.

Mlakar, S.G., Turinek, M., Jakop, M., Bavec, M., Bavec, F., 2009. Nutritional value and use of grain amaranth: potential future application in bread making. Agricultura 6, 43–53.

Nigade, R.D., Karad, S.R., More, S.M., 2012. Agronomic manipulations for enhancing productivity of finger millet based on intercropping system. Advance Research Journal of Crop Improvement 3(1), 8–10.

Opole, R.A., 2019. Opportunities for enhancing production, utilization and marketing of finger millet in Africa. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development 19(1), 13863–13882.

Palanisamy, B., Vijayabharathi, R., Sathyabama, S., Malleshi, N., Venkatesan, B., 2014. Health benefits of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) polyphenols and dietary fiber: A review. Journal of Food Science and Technology 51(6), 1021–1040.

Ribeiro, J.E.M.M., Pieterse, P.J., Sebastiao, Famba, 2018. Amaranth grain production as affected by watering regimes and day length in southern Mozambique. South African Journal of Plant and Soil 35(1), 23–32.DOI 10.1080/02571862.2017.1321795

Saleh, A.S., Zhang, Q., Chen, J., Shen, Q., 2013.  Millet grains: nutritional quality, processing, and potential health benefits. Comprehensive reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 12(3), 281–295.

Sati, V.P., Wei, D., 2018. Crop productivity and sustainability analysis for land-use planning in Himalayan ecosystem of Uttarakhand, India. Current Science 115(4), 767–772.

Verma, V., Patel, S., 2013. Value added products from nutria-cereals: Finger millet (Eleusine coracana). Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture 25(3), 169–176.

Wafula, W.N., Siambi, M., Ojulong, H.F., Korir, N., Gweyi-Onyango, J., 2017. Finger millet (Eleusine coracana) fodder yield potential and nutritive value under different levels of phosphorus in rainfed conditions. Journal of Agriculture and Ecology Research International 10(4), 1–10.

Yadav, R.C., 2018. Racy nature (Land and Water)-SIMM (System of Intensification of Minor Millets) combo endowed with eco-zero weeding towards quantum mechanics. Acta Scientific Agriculture 2(7), 61–73.

Zhang, L., W., Werf, S., Zhang, B., Li, J.H.J., Spiertz., 2007. Growth, yield and quality of wheat and cotton in relay strip intercropping systems. Field Crops Research 103(3), 178–188.