Page 49 - EER-2-3

Explora: Environment
and Resource Maize–pigeon pea intercropping in Ghana

A under FR but showed greater variability under low-input
conditions, indicating lower resilience than intercropping
(Table 2).
These findings highlight a key trade-off: NPP systems
excel under high input conditions but are vulnerable
to nutrient and environmental constraints. In contrast,
the MPP system prioritized stability and sustainability
over peak productivity (Table 2). The intercrop system’s
consistent growth under HR and its resilience to seasonal
B changes demonstrate its suitability for resource-limited
environments. In addition, the ecological benefits of pigeon
peas – such as nitrogen fixation, organic matter addition,
and soil protection – provide long-term advantages beyond
immediate growth measurements.
3.2. Maize growth as influenced by cropping system
and fertilization
In the minor season experiment, the morphological
growth patterns of maize in the MPP intercrop and NPP
C sole cropping systems were monitored from 6 to 15 weeks
after planting. Plant height (cm), stem girth (mm), and
leaf area (cm ) were recorded at each time point. Maize
2
height showed no statistically significant differences
between cropping systems and fertilizer treatments
throughout the growth period (Figure 4A). However, the
tallest plants were recorded at 15 weeks in the NPP system
under FR treatment (Figure 4A). In contrast, stem girth
exhibited significant differences between cropping systems
and fertilizer treatments (Figure 4B), with the thickest
Figure 4. Growth measurements of maize height (A), stem girth (B), and stems observed in the NPP system under FR. The MPP
leaf area (C) in maize–pigeon pea intercropping and sole maize plots, system under NF treatment showed reduced stem girth
recorded at 6 – 15 weeks after planting during the minor season of 2023 development (Figure 4B).

2
treatment during the minor season (fresh = 25,605.4 g; From 12 to 15 weeks, maize leaf area (cm ) showed
dry = 10,973.7 g; Table 2). This highlights the system’s significant differences among fertilizer treatments and
ability to effectively utilize high nutrient inputs when cropping systems (Figure 4C). The highest mean leaf area
resource limitations – such as light and space – are was recorded in the NPP system under FR, followed by
minimal. Conversely, the MPP intercrop system exhibited HR and NF, all of which are significantly higher than the
lower biomass under NF but maintained competitive intercrop plants (Figure 4C).
performance under HR, particularly in the minor season 3.3. Yield component of maize
(Table 2). This suggests that intercropping can sustain
reasonable productivity with moderate inputs, supporting Maize yield components were analyzed across the MPP
principles of sustainable agriculture (Table 2). intercrop and NPP systems under different fertilizer levels
and seasons (Table 3). Key traits – including number of
3.1.4. Seasonal variation and system dynamics cobs per plant, cob weight, hundred-seed weight, and
Seasonal effects were pronounced, with growth improving total grain yield – were evaluated to determine the effects
in the minor season across all treatments, likely due to the of cropping system, fertilizer application, and seasonal
accumulation of soil organic matter and nitrogen fixation variation on crop productivity (Table 3).
from pigeon pea biomass incorporation (Table 2). In the
intercrop system, HR treatments balanced growth and 3.3.1. Cob number and weight
resource use, showing adaptive potential under moderate Cob numbers differed significantly across cropping systems
nutrient levels (Table 2). The NPP system performed well and seasons. The MPP system recorded the highest cob

Volume 2 Issue 3 (2025) 8 doi: 10.36922/EER025130026