Comparison of economic returns from poplar-wheat, fodder maize intercropping to monoculture
Comparison of economic returns from poplar-wheat, fodder maize intercropping to monoculture
复制标题
杨麦、饲料玉米间作与单作经济效益比较
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
I. Ahmad
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. K. Chaudhry;G. S. Khan;I. Ahmad
设计了一个由白杨（美洲黑杨无性系AY-48）、小麦和饲用玉米组成的农林复合系统，比较了农林复合系统与常规农业系统的经济性。白杨（美洲黑杨无性系AY-48）种植密度分别为455株/公顷、305株/公顷和230株/公顷，种植间距分别为3.66 x 6.10 m（D1）、3.66 x 9.10 m（D2）和3.66 x 12.10 m（D3）。农业作物，即小麦（小麦）品种Inqalab-91和饲料玉米（玉米）品种Neelum交替播种在“拉比”和“Kharif”季节，每年在整个研究期间在白杨地块。为了比较单作和间作之间的差异，小麦和饲料玉米也被播种在单独的小区（Dw/f）中。最高净收益（51495卢比/公顷），而最低的净效益（10904卢比/ hm-2）。处理D2的BCR最高（1.10），处理D4的BCR最低（0.65）;处理D2的IRR最高（21.91%），处理D4的IRR最低（0.78%）。在显性分析中，处理D4、D1和D5均为优势处理。净效益曲线表明，随着成本的增加，处理D2的净效益最高，处理D1的净效益最低。处理D2的边际收益率最高，处理Dw的边际收益率最低。在敏感性分析中观察到，如果未来投入价格增加10%或未来产出价格下降10%，即使这样，推荐处理D2和D3也是经济的。
An agroforestry system comprising of Poplar (Populus deltoides clone AY-48), wheat and fodder maize crops was designed, in order to compare the economics of agroforestry system with conventional agricultural system. Poplar (Populus deltoides clone AY-48) was planted at a density of 455trees/ha, 305trees/ha, and 230trees/ha at the spacing of 3.66 x 6.10m (D1), 3.66 x 9.10m (D2) and 3.66 x 12.10m (D3) respectively. Agricultural crops namely, wheat (Triticum aestivum) variety Inqalab-91 and fodder maize (Zea mays) variety Neelum were sown alternately during “Rabi” and “Kharif” seasons each year throughout the entire study periods in poplar plots. To compare the differences between sole crop and intercropping the wheat and fodder-maize were also sown in separate plots (Dw/f). Highest net benefits (51495 Rs./ha) was observed in the treatment D2 while lowest net benefits (10904 Rs./ha) was observed in sole wheat, fodder maize treatment (Dw). The highest BCR (1.10) was recorded in treatment D2 and lowest BCR (0.65) was observed for sole poplar tree planting in treatment D4.The highest IRR was also (21.91%) observed in treatment D2 and lowest (0.78%) for treatment D4. In the dominance analysis it was that Treatments D4, D1 and D5 were dominated. The net benefit curve showed that net benefits were highest in treatment D2 while lowest in treatment D1 with the increase in cost. The marginal rate of return was highest in treatment D2 and lowest in treatment Dw. It was observed in the sensitivity analysis that if the future input prices increased by10% or the future output prices decreased by 10% even then it was economical to recommend the treatment D2 and D3.