@article{fdi:010082779,
  title = {{C}an intercropping be an adaptation to drought ? {A} model-based analysis for pearl millet-cowpea},
  author = {{N}elson, {W}. {C}. {D}. and {H}offmann, {M}. {P}. and {V}adez, {V}incent and {R}otter, {R}. {P}. and {K}och, {M}. and {W}hitbread, {A}. {M}.},
  editor = {},
  language = {{ENG}},
  abstract = {{C}ereal-legume intercropping is promoted within semi-arid regions as an adaptation strategy to water scarcity and drought for low-input systems. {O}ur objectives were firstly to evaluate the crop model {APSIM} for pearl millet ({P}ennisetum glaucum ({L}.))-cowpea ({V}igna unguiculata ({L}.) {W}alp) intercropping-and secondly to investigate the hypothesis that intercropping provides complimentary yield under drought conditions. {T}he {APSIM} model was evaluated against data from a two year on station field experiment during the dry season of a semi-arid environment in {P}atancheru, {I}ndia, with severe, partial and no water deficit stress (well-watered); densities of 17 and 33 plants per m(-2), and intercrop and sole crop production of pearl millet and cowpea. {O}verall, {APSIM} captured the dynamics of grain yields, indicated by the {W}illmott {I}ndex of {A}greement ({IA}: 1 optimal, 0 the worst) 0.91 from 36 data points (n), total biomass ({IA}: 0.90, n = 144), leaf area index ({LAI}, {IA} = 0.77, n = 66), plant height ({IA} 0.96, n = 104 pearl millet) and cowpea ({IA} 0.81, n = 102), as well as soil water ({IA} 0.73, n = 126). {M}odel accuracy was reasonable in absolute terms ({RMSE} pearl millet 469 kg/ha and cowpea 322 kg/ha). {H}owever, due to low observed values (observed mean yield pearl millet 1,280 kg/ha and cowpea 555 kg/ha), the relative error was high, a known aspect for simulation accuracy in low-yielding environments. {T}he simulation experiment compared the effect of intercropping pearl millet and cowpea versus sole cropping under different plant densities and water supplies. {A} key finding was that intercropping pearl millet and cowpea resulted in similar total yields to the sole pearl millet. {B}oth sole and intercrop systems responded strongly to increasing water supply, except sole cropped cowpea, which performed relatively better under low water supply. {H}igh plant density had a consistent effect, leading to lower yields under low water supply. {H}igher yields were achieved under high density, but only when water supply was high: absolute highest total intercrop yields were 4,000 (high density) and 3,500 kg/ha (low density). {T}his confirms the suitability of the common practice among farmers who use the low planting density under water scarce conditions. {O}verall, this study confirms that intercropping is no silver bullet, i.e. not per se a way to achieve high yield production or reduce risk under drought. {I}t does, however, provide an opportunity to diversify food production by additionally integrating protein rich crops, such as cowpea.},
  keywords = {adaptation ; drought stress ; intercropping ; {P}ennisetum glaucum ({L}) ; {V}igna unguiculata ({L}) {W}alp ; {INDE} ; {PATANCHERU}},
  booktitle = {},
  journal = {{J}ournal of {A}gronomy and {C}rop {S}cience},
  volume = {[{E}arly access]},
  numero = {},
  pages = {[18 p.]},
  ISSN = {0931-2250},
  year = {2021},
  DOI = {10.1111/jac.12552},
  URL = {https://www.documentation.ird.fr/hor/fdi:010082779},
}