Fertilizer management in multiple cropping

1 | P a g e
Introduction
Multiple cropping is not a new form of agricultural technology, but instead is an ancient means of
intensive farming. Multiple cropping has been practiced in many parts of the world as a way to
maximize land productivity in a specific area in a growing season. Generally, the practice of
planting two or more crops on the same field is more common in tropical regions where more
rainfall, higher temperatures, and longer growing seasons are more favorable for continual crop
production. As population has increased, increasing the need for agricultural production, the use
of multi cropping systems is more prevalent. Though the history of multiple cropping is old, the
concept has received very little attention from agricultural scientists, and what limited interest
exists has come about very recently.
Why was this interest increased so dramatically in such a short time? Food shortages in many parts
of the world, as well as the threat of insufficient supplies in the near future, continues to stimulate
more intensive agricultural investigation in a search for more productive alternatives. As a
consequence, it appears that we are about to embark on a new phase of agricultural research.
Exactly what form it will take is still not known, but the reasons for this new approach are rapidly
becoming apparent.
Present and potential multiple cropping patterns are determined by a wide range of physical and
socio-economic conditions against a background of available technology. We have therefore
chosen to present multiple cropping in tropical Asia in several parts which describe first the
economic and physical factors which influence multiple cropping, then the present farming
systems within which multiple cropping is practiced and their direction of change, and finally, the
major multiple cropping patterns. Relevant research needs are summarized. Tropical Asia includes
the area between the Himalayan mountains and the equator from Pakistan and India to Indonesia,
New Guinea, the Philippines, southern Taiwan, the southeastern portion of the People's Republic
of China and mainland southeast Asia. The dominant crops in the region are mainly determined
by water supply. Cropping systems in the drier regions of India and Pakistan are based on com
(Zea mays L.) sorghum (Sorghum spp.), millet (Setaria italica), and wheat (Triticum aestivum L.),
while the wetter areas of these same countries and nearly all of east Asia, having high rainfall, are

2 | P a g e
rice (Oryza sativa L.) based. Cover crops such as oats, barley or rye, seeded after crop harvest, can
be very beneficial in taking up residual soil N and in preventing wind and water erosion. They
protect the soil surface from erosion and thereby reduce the risk of nutrient losses by runoff as
soluble nutrients or erosion as sediment. Cover crops may also be used as green manure crops to
take up nitrate and prevent it from being leached to groundwater. Oilseed radish is quite effective
at this but must be seeded in August or early September. This practice is well suited to many soils
in Michigan and could be used more effectively than it is now. One of the keys to utilizing cover
crops successfully is to get them established in early fall so that they have a chance to take up
excess nitrate N before winter dormancy and excessive precipitation occur.
Examples of yield increases with multiple cropping systems are expressed in terms of Relative
Yield Totals (RYT) or Land Equivalent Use (LER) where the production per unit area with the
multiple crops is greater than the sum of equivalent areas planted to monoculture. This increase in
production is explained by higher overall efficiency of resource use. Specific examples of the
effects of multiple cropping systems on resource use, conservation, and management are discussed,
Variables considered include microclimate, light, soil, water, pests, diseases, weeds, crop
interactions, space, and time. The special case of agroforestry, which combines trees with crops
and grasses, will be discussed.
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the proposed study are as follow:
1. To know and understand different multiple cropping system .
2. To know the different fertilizer management in Multiple Cropping System
3. To know the advantages and disadvantages of different fertilizer management system in
multiple cropping system

3 | P a g e
Conceptual Discussion
Definitions of the Principal Multiple Cropping Patterns
l Multiple Cropping: The intensification of cropping in time and space dimensions. Growing two
or more crops on the same field in a year.
c Intercropping: Growing two or more crops simultaneously on the same field per year. Crop
intensification is in both time and space dimensions. There is intercrop competition during all or
part of crop growth. Farmers manage more than one crop at a time in the same field.
—Mixed intercropping: Growing two or more crops simultaneously with no distinct row
arrangement.
—Row intercropping: growing two or more crops simultaneously with one or more crops planted
in rows.
—Strip intercropping: Growing two or more crops simultaneously in different strips wide enough
to permit independent cultivation but narrow enough for the crops to interact agronomically.
—Relay intercropping: Growing two or more crops simultaneously during part of each one’s life
cycle. A second crop is planted after the first crop has reached its reproductive stage of growth,
but before it is ready for harvest.
l Sequential Cropping: Growing two or more crops i n sequence on the same field per year.
The succeeding crop is planted after the preceding one has been harvested. Crop intensification
is only in the time dimension. There is no intercrop competition. Farmers manage only one crop
at a time.
—Double cropping: Growing two crops a year in sequence.
— Triple cropping: Growing three crops a year in sequence.
—Quadruple cropping: Growing four crops a year in sequence.
—Ratoon cropping: Cultivating crop regrowth after harvest, although not necessarily for grain.

4 | P a g e
Related Terminology Used in Multiple Cropping Systems
Single Stands: The growing of one crop variety alone in pure stands at normal density.
Synonymous with “solid planting, “ “sole cropping. ” Opposite of ‘(multiple cropping. ”
Monoculture: The repetitive growing of the same crop on the same land.
Rotation: The repetitive growing of two or more sole crops or multiple cropping combinations
on the same field.
Cropping Pattern: The yearly sequence and spatial arrangement of crops, or of crops and
fallow on a given area.’
Cropping System: The cropping patterns used on a farm and their interactions with farm
resources, other farm enterprises, and available technology that determine their makeup.
Mixed Farming: Cropping systems that involve the raising of crops and animals.
Cropping Index: The number of crops grown per annum on a given area of land multiplied by
100.
Relative Yield Total (RYT): The sum of the intercropped yields divided by yields of sole crops.
The same concept as land equivalent ratios. “Yield” can be measured as dry matter production,
grain yield, nutrient uptake, energy, or protein production, as well as by market value of the
crops.
Land Equivalent Ratios (LER): The ratio of the area needed under sole cropping to the one
under intercropping to give equal amounts of yield at the same management level. The LER is
the sum of the fractions of the yields of the intercrops relative to their sole-crop yields. It is
equivalent to RYT, expressed in commercial yields.
Income Equivalent Ratio (IER): The ratio of the area needed under sole cropping to produce
the same gross income as is obtained from 1 ha of intercropping at the same management level.
The IER is the conversion of the LER into economic ter

5 | P a g e
Cropping Sequences and Yields:
Paddy is a popular crop the world over. Flooding of paddy improves the utilization of applied
nitrogen and makes phosphorus more readily available. The rice plants are tolerant to poor soils
under flooding. Under the traditional system a fallow season was meant for regeneration of soil
fertility and soil structure.
In case of paddy there is a difference between wetland and upland cultivation that is with
shortening of fallow period the following crop yield is lowered because the season becomes not
favourable.
With the above limitations there is bright side of multiple cropping. March to May a late season
is favourable as there is rich sunlight, mechanized operation can be performed, weed control is
easy, harvesting is convenient and could be mechanized and above all short duration crop will
grow well for example Moong Type 1 as a zaid crop can be conveniently grown but the water
supply should be assured.
In case there is shortage of water paddy could be dropped from the rotation instead growing of
HYV grain crop, pulses and vegetables would be feasible.
Some of the following crops suffer from low yield so a second crop of vegetable can be raised
dropping paddy. Some practices like installation of irrigation, fertilizer application and tillage
will benefit the first crop. Even though the second crap gives lower yield but the total production
will give larger income.

6 | P a g e
FERTILIZER RECOMMENDATIONS
The growth and development of field crops can be influenced by the levels of essential elements
(nutrients) available in the soil. Field studies at various locations in Michigan have provided the
data for describing growth and yield responses of crops to nutrient additions when available soil
levels are less than adequate. Soil testing procedures have been developed to relate extractable
nutrient levels to crop growth and yield. Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are the nutrients
most likely to be limiting crop growth. The nitrogen status in the soil is quite dynamic, and
predicting its availability over time is difficult. The availability of phosphorus and potassium in
the soil is fairly stable over time unless major additions are made. Soils in Michigan are naturally
quite low in available levels of phosphorus and potassium. Additions of these two elements over
time in manures and commercial fertilizers have caused significant increases in the available levels
in the soil. In 1962, the median soil test value (Bray-Kurtz P1) for phosphorus in Michigan soils
was 12 ppm. This gradually increased over time. Since the early 1980s, the median value has
fluctuated around 53 ppm. Similar values for potassium soil test values (1 N neutral ammonium
acetate) are 56 ppm and 91 ppm, respectively.

7 | P a g e
Figure 1 illustrates the general relationship between soil test value and crop growth or yield. With
each increment of increase in the soil test value, the increase in yield is less (law of the minimum).
The point where yield reaches 95 to 97 percent of maximum is referred to as the critical soil test
value. This is also near the point of optimum economic return on investment made in nutrient
additions. When phosphorus or potassium is added to the soil, some of it is taken up by the growing
crop, some goes to increasing the available level in the soil and some is converted into slowly
available forms. Adding more of a nutrient than is taken up by the crop will result in a buildup of
the readily available and slowly available forms. Soil tests have been developed that will extract a
portion of the nutrient pool that is available to plants as indicated by plant uptake. Soil test values
have been correlated with nutrient uptake, growth and subsequently yield. The amount of a nutrient
required to enhance crop growth and yield to the maximum is related to the soil test value
Development of Nutrient Management Programs
Development of a cost-effective nutrient management program needs to take into account the
nutrient requirements of the crop being grown and the nutrient status of the soil. The elemental
analyses of plants have established the general nutrient requirements of crops. Actual nutrient
uptake will vary with crop yield and variety. The nutrient requirement of the crop can be met by
nutrients available in the soil and by nutrient additions. Soil tests indicate the ability of soils to
supply nutrients. When the soil is able to supply all of the nutrients required by the crop (the soil
test value is greater than the critical value in Figure 1), no additional nutrient inputs are needed to
achieve maximum yields. Supplying an amount of nutrient equal to crop removal will maintain
the nutrient status of the soil. Field studies have established how much of a given nutrient to add
at a given soil test value to optimize yield. Soil tests, therefore, provide the base for building a
sound nutrient management program.
Soil Sampling
Sampling may be the most important part of soil testing. Representative samples result in
meaningful and useful soil test information. Soils in all fields have some degree of variability. It
may be due to natural soil-forming processes that created differences in soil texture, organic matter
or slope, or it may be due to management practices. Differences in historical cropping systems,

8 | P a g e
crop yields, nutrient applications, manure applications and tillage practices all contribute to
variability. Sampling is an averaging process — soil cores should be taken so that the properties
of all cores making up a composite sample are as similar as possible. Sample unusual or problem
soil areas separately. The first step in collecting soil samples from a field is to map the field and
identify areas with similar physical features and similar historical management practices. Within
each designated sampling area, collect about 20 cores to a depth of 8 inches and mix them
thoroughly. Banding fertilizer contributes to variability of chemical soil properties. Where the
location of the bands is still apparent, avoid sampling in the band. Where the location of the bands
is not discernible, collect soil cores from more random locations. Collecting one soil sample for at
least every 15 to 20 acres will provide good information about the nutrient status of fields. More
intense sampling will provide more information about the variability in a field. As the number of
acres represented by one composite sample increases, the probability that the sample is truly
representative of the sampled area decreases. In fields that appear uniform, the maximum area that
one composite sample should represent is 40 acres, but fewer is better. This approach will result
in samples and test results representative of the designated field areas. When only shallow tillage
(< 4 inches) or no tillage is used, collect an additional sample from the surface to 3-inch depth to
assess the acidity of the surface soil. Surface soil pH is critical to the efficacy of some herbicides.
(More information on soil sampling is available in MSU bulletins E-498 and E-1616, and NC
Multistate Report 348, (Item SB- 7647-S), available from the University of Minnesota) Send 11⁄2
to 2 cups of soil to a reliable soil test lab for analysis. Fall and spring tend to be the best and most
practical times to collect soil samples. Available nutrient levels are usually increased prior to or at
planting and then gradually decrease during the growing period because of plant uptake. By fall
the nutrient status is more stable. For long-term nutrient management planning, it is best to take
soil samples at the same time of year each time a field is sampled. Sampling while the crop is
growing is most appropriate for checking available nitrogen levels; one such test is the presidedress
soil nitrate test (PSNT). For most field crop production systems, sampling and testing the soil every
3 years is adequate. In more intense cropping systems or where the whole aboveground portion of
a crop is removed, such as with forages and silage corn, available nutrient levels may change
rapidly. For these situations, sample and test at least every 2 years. On organic soils, considerable
amounts of potassium may leach from the soil over winter, especially when the spring thaw occurs.

9 | P a g e
Hence, soil test potassium levels will usually be lower for organic soil samples taken in the spring
than in the fall.
Nitrogen Recommendations
Applying the correct amount of nitrogen (N) is important for profitable crop production, water
quality and energy conservation. Nitrogen recommendations are based on crop nitrogen utilization
and response to applied nitrogen rates.
Table 3 indicates an average amount of nitrogen removed in the harvested portion of various field
crops. Nitrogen recommendations for field crops grown on mineral and organic soils are listed in

10 | P a g e
Table 4. Because of additional mineralization of N in organic soils, the N recommendations for
most crops grown on organic soils are 40 to 50 pounds per acre less than those for mineral soils.
For the more responsive crops, such as corn, the cereal grains, canola and sugar beets, the amount
of nitrogen recommended varies according to the yield expected. It is very important that the
expected yield used in this calculation be realistic, based on past yields under favorable growing
conditions. Unrealistically high yield goals will result in excess nitrogen being applied that might
increase the risk to groundwater quality, increase lodging of cereal grains, delay maturity or
adversely affect crop quality. Other crops showing less response to applied N receive a static
nitrogen recommendation. No nitrogen is recommended for the legumes because they receive
nitrogen fixed from the air by symbiotic bacteria. Dry edible beans are the exception. They are not
as effective in fixing nitrogen and benefit from some supplemental nitrogen, especially during the
early growth stages. Most legumes leave a positive amount of residual nitrogen in the soil. When
N-responsive crops are grown in rotation with legume crops, credit should be taken for the amount
of residual nitrogen. Table 5 presents the average nitrogen credits for various legume and rotational
crops. Credits may vary, depending on amount of biomass incorporated.
Phosphorus (P) and Potassium (K) Recommendations
Response of crops to additions of P and K is a continuous function. When inadequate amounts are
present in the soil, crops respond to P and K additions with increases in biomass and/or grain
production according to the general response curve shown in Figure 1.Recommendations given in
this bulletin follow the buildup, maintenance and drawdown philosophy presented in “Tri-State
Fertilizer Recommendations,” bulletin E-2567. These recommendations provide for buildup of
available P and K levels when the soil test level is below the critical soil test value (Figure 2). At
the critical soil test level (CL), crop yield will be near 95 to 97 percent of maximum. Maintenance
recommendations (amount equal to crop removal) are given to keep the available P and K at the
optimum level and provide insurance against variations caused by sampling variability. Beyond
the maintenance zone, recommendations are less than crop removal to allow drawdown of soil
nutrient levels to occur.

11 | P a g e
Crop yield plays an important role in these recommendations. In the buildup zone, the amount of
P or K recommended is a combination of the amount required to build up the level in the soil to
the optimum range plus the amount that will be removed in the harvested portion of the crop. It is
very important to provide realistic yield goals to the MSU Soil and Plant Nutrient Lab so that you
receive nutrient recommendations that are economically and environmentally sound. Table 3
provides a guide for average amounts of nitrogen (N), phosphate (P2O5) and potassium (K2O)
removed in the harvested portion of major agronomic crops grown in Michigan. The exact amounts
may vary with stage of maturity, environmental conditions, and crop type or variety.
As indicated, phosphorus recommendations take into consideration the soil test level and the
crop yield. The buildup portion of the recommendation is based on building the soil up to the

12 | P a g e
critical value or level (CL), where yield is 95 to 97 percent of maximum. Buildup assumes that,
on average, it takes 20 pounds of P2O5 to increase the soil test 1 ppm P or 5 pounds per acre per
year over a 4-year period. The P buildup recommendations are given in Table 6. The critical level
varies with the crop and its response to phosphorus (Table 7). The maintenance plateau for most
field crops is 15 ppm on mineral soils. Maintaining the soil test P value in this maintenance zone
helps ensure that P will not limit crop yield. When the soil test P value is above the maintenance
zone, the soil P level should be drawn down so the recommendation is less than crop removal. The
phosphorus critical levels (CL), maintenance plateau length (PL) and drawdown length (DDL) are
given in Table 7 for field crops grown on mineral and organic soils. The maximum annual
phosphorus recommendation is 200 pounds P2O5 per acre.
Equations used to calculate the recommended amount of P2O5, in pounds per acre, when
the soil test is in each zone:
Mineral soils:
Buildup: lb P2O5/A = ((CL – ST) x 5) + (YP x CR)
Maintenance: lb P2O5/A = (YP x CR)
Drawdown: lb P2O5/A = (YP x CR) – (((YP x CR) x
(ST – (CL + PL))) ÷ DDL)
Organic soils:
Buildup: lb P2O5/A = ((CL – ST) x 2) + (YP x CR)
Maintenance: lb P2O5/A = (YP x CR)
Drawdown: lb P2O5/A = (YP x CR) – (((YP x CR) x
(ST – (CL + PL)) ÷ DDL
where: CL = critical soil test value (ppm)
ST = soil test value (ppm)
YP = yield potential or goal

13 | P a g e
Potassium recommendations take into consideration the soil test level and the crop yield. The
buildup portion of the recommendation also takes into account the cation exchange capacity (CEC)
of the soil. The amount of potassium required to increase the available soil potassium level and
reach the critical level (yield is 95 to 97 percent of maximum) varies with the CEC. The buildup
portion of the K recommendation is givenin Table 8. The maintenance plateau for most field crops
is 30 ppm for mineral soils and 25 ppm for organic soils. In the maintenance zone, the potassium
recommendation equals crop removal. When the soil test K value is above the maintenance zone,
crops should be allowed to use residual soil K and draw down the soil K level, so the K2O
recommendation is less than crop removal. For most crops, in mineral soils the K2O

14 | P a g e
recommendation goes to zero when the soil test level is 15 ppm beyond the upper maintenance
soil test value. The critical levels (CL), maintenance plateau length (PL) and drawdown length
(DDL) for field crops are given in Table 9. The maximum annual potassium recommendation is
300 pounds K2O per acre.
Magnesium
Magnesium (Mg) deficiency is most likely to occur in acid sandy soils with a subsoil as coarse or
coarser than the surface soil. These soils are most common in the southwestern and western areas
of Michigan. Use dolomitic limestone (contains calcium and magnesium) on low-magnesium acid
soils to neutralize soil acidity rather than using calcitic lime or marl (contain primarily calcium),
which may induce a magnesium deficiency. Potatoes, corn and oats are the field crops most
sensitive to marginal magnesium levels. Application of magnesium is recommended on the basis
of one of the following criteria: when the soil test value is less than 35 ppm on sandy soils or less
than 50 ppm on fine-textured soils, when magnesium is less than 3 percent (as a percent of
exchangeable bases on an equivalence basis), or when exchangeable potassium exceeds the percent
magnesium on an equivalence basis (milliequivalents per 100 grams of soil). On acid soils where
magnesium is needed, apply at least 1,000 pounds of dolomitic limestone per acre. For non-acidic
soils low in magnesium, broadcast 50 to 100 pounds of actual magnesium per acre or include 10
to 20 pounds of magnesium per acre in bandplaced fertilizer. Suitable sources of magnesium
include magnesium sulfate, potassium-magnesium sulfate and granulated finely ground
magnesium oxidemagnesium sulfate (granusols). Broadcasting 200 to 400 pounds of dolomitic
limestone on non-acidic soils is also an acceptable practice because it will cause only a modest
increase in soil pH. Magnesium deficiencies can be corrected by spraying 1 to 2 pounds Mg per
acre on the crop foliage. Using lower rates than this may require multiple applications. Magnesium
deficiency may be induced by applying high rates of potassium fertilizer. This can result in grass
tetany disorder in livestock that feed on lush grass. Where forages are being grown, agronomists
frequently strive for magnesium to be 10 percent of the total exchangeable bases (equivalency
basis). If there is concern about grass tetany, avoid applying high rates of potassium (more than
200 pounds per acre) in a single application. Use of supplemental magnesium in the feed ration
may also help avoid grass tetany.

15 | P a g e
Sulfur
Plants take up sulfur in amounts similar to phosphorus. The primary sources of plant-available
sulfur are soil organic matter (animal manures or plant residues) and atmospheric deposition.
Significant reductions in atmospheric deposition of S have increased the potential for sulfur
deficiency. Crops growing in sandy soils low in organic matter are the most likely to show sulfur
deficiency. Studies in the past with sulfur-responsive crops grown on potentially sulfur-deficient
sites in Michigan have not been shown to benefit from supplemental sulfur application. Many soils
have an accumulation of sulfur in the subsoil that the crops access once the roots reach that depth,
especially where there is an increase in clay content. Crops most likely to benefit from sulfur
application are alfalfa and canola. New studies are needed to reevaluate the need for sulfur by other
crops grown in Michigan soils.
Micronutrient Recommendations
Micronutrient recommendations are based on soil test, soil pH and crop responsiveness. The
responsiveness of selected field crops is given in Table 10. Equations used to calculate the recommended
amounts to apply are given at the beginning of each section.
Boron
Boron recommendations are based on crop response, not on soil tests. A boron soil test (hot water
soluble) can provide a general guide to whether the status is low (<0.7 ppm), marginal or adequate (>1.0
ppm). Boron occurs in the soil primarily as a water-soluble anion that is subject to leaching, so the
available boron status may change over time, especially in sandy soils. Boron readily leaches out of sandy
soils over the winter and early spring months, when precipitation exceeds evapotranspiration. Some
leaching may also occur in fine-textured soils but to a lesser degree. For responsive crops such as alfalfa,
boron deficiency may occur when soil moisture is marginal even though the soil contains adequate boron.
Application of 2 pounds of boron per acre per year is recommended for alfalfa grown on sandy soils
(CEC <8.0 me/100 grams soil). On fine-textured soils, boron application is usually notbeneficial except
for high-yielding established alfalfa fields, where a topdress boron application (0.5 to 1.0 pound per acre)
is suggested.
Recent research with newer sugar beet varieties has shown supplemental boron is not necessary when
beets are grown in soils of the Thumb and Saginaw Valley areas. On loamy sands and sandy loams, 1 to 2
pounds per acre is suggested. Field beans, soybeans and small grains are sensitive to boron application.
For these crops, avoid using boron in the starter fertilizer. The residual boron level from a previous year’s
application should not be of concern for these sensitive crops unless higher than recommended rates were
applied.
Manganese
For responsive crops, recommended amounts of manganese (Mn) are based on soil test (ST) (0.1
N HCl) value and soil pH according to the following equations: Mineral soils: Mn rec. = (6.2 x pH
– 0.35 x ST) – 36 Organic soils: Mn rec. = (8.38 x pH – 0.31 x ST) – 46 where Mn recommendation
is lb Mn/A (band application only) ST is soil test value, ppm Mn Manganese availability decreases
markedly as soil pH increases. In mineral soils, the critical soil test value is 6 ppm at pH 6.3 and
12 ppm at pH 6.7. In organic soils, the critical soil test value is 4 ppm at pH 5.8 and 16 ppm at pH
6.2. Liming acid soils may induce a manganese deficiency. Manganese deficiency is most likely
to occur on organic soils with a pH above 5.8 and dark-colored mineral soils in lakebed and glacial
outwash areas with a pH above 6.5. Recommended rates of manganese are for band application
because manganese is readily bound into unavailable forms when mixed (broadcast and
incorporated) with the soil. Flooding and fumigation temporarily increase manganese availability,

16 | P a g e
but it readily decreases once the soil dries and microbial populations are reestablished. Manganese
sulfate has proven to be the most suitable carrier for soil application, though granulated finely
ground manganous oxide-sulfate mixtures (granusols) and some chelates are also acceptable
sources on mineral soils. Manganese chelates are not recommended for application in organic soils.
It is difficult to build up the available manganese status of soils. Therefore, if a manganese
deficiency occurs in a field one year, it will likely reoccur each year, especially when sensitive
crops are grown. Oats, dry edible (field) beans, potatoes, soybeans, sorghum-Sudangrass, sugar
beets and wheat are most responsive to manganese. Under high pH conditions, barley may also
respond to manganese application. Manganese deficiency in these crops can be alleviated by
spraying the crop foliage with 1 to 2 pounds Mn per acre. Under severe conditions and when lower
rates are used, multiple applications may be necessary. If symptoms persist or appear on the new
foliage 10 days after application, make another application. Some manganese carriers have been
shown to reduce the efficacy of glyphosate when the two are tank mixed or sprayed sequentially
within 48 hours. Manganese EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) has shown minimal adverse
effect.
Zinc
For responsive crops, recommended amounts of zinc (Zn) are based on soil test (ST) (0.1 N HCl)
value and soil pH according to the following equations: Mineral and organic soils: Zn rec. = (5.0
x pH – 0.4 x ST) – 32 where Zn recommendation is lb Zn/A ST is soil test value, ppm Zn Michigan
soils with a pH less than 6.5 generally contain adequate zinc to meet the needs of field crops. At
pH 6.6, the critical soil test value is 2 ppm; at pH 7.0, it is 7 ppm. Zinc deficiency is most likely to
occur on the alkaline mineral soils of the lakebed regions of eastern Michigan and on near neutral
to alkaline organic soils. Deficiencies are also likely to occur on spoil-bank areas and areas where
tiles were trenched into calcareous subsoil. High rates of phosphorus may enhance the occurrence
of a zinc deficiency when the available soil zinc status is marginal. Dry edible beans, corn and
sorghum-Sudangrass are the field crops most sensitive to low levels of available zinc. Band
application of the recommended zinc rate is preferred, but broadcast application of 10 pounds or
more per acre is effective in meeting the need of the crop and building up the soil level. Annual
band applications will gradually build up available zinc levels and eliminate the need for further
applications. Zinc sulfate, granulated finely ground zinc oxide-sulfate mixtures and chelates are
good sources of zinc for soil application. Chelates are actually more effective than the inorganic
salts in improving the zinc availability for a given growing season. The recommended rate for zinc
chelates is one fifth the rate calculated above for the inorganic salts.
Copper
Copper (Cu) is recommended for organic soils based on the 1 N HCl soil test. Cu rec. = 6 – (0.22
x ST)where Cu recommendation is lb/A ST is soil test value, ppm The mineral soils of Michigan
generally contain adequate amounts of copper. Soil test values greater than 0.5 ppm (1N HCl
extractable) indicate adequate copper availability. Acid sandy soils that have been heavily cropped
are the most likely of the mineral soils to show a copper deficiency. Organic soils are naturally
low in available copper, and many field crops will respond to copper application when grown on
these soils. Once applied to the soil, copper remains available. Therefore, copper levels may have
been improved by past applications to the soil or by copper fungicide sprays in fields that have
been in production for a long time. The 1 N HCl soil test is a good indicator of copper availability
in organic soils. No further copper is needed for most field crops once a total of 20 pounds of
copper per acre have been applied to an organic soil or the soil test exceeds 20 ppm. Alfalfa,
sorghum, Sudangrass, oats and wheat are the crops most sensitive to low soil copper. When grown

17 | P a g e
on high organic matter sandy soils, these crops may benefit from the application of 2 to 4 pounds
Cu per acre. Copper sulfate and copper oxide are both effective sources of copper applied broadcast
or in a band. Copper chelates are also good sources of copper and may actually be slightly more
effective than the inorganic salts.
Managing Nutrient Inputs
Commercial fertilizers supply nutrients in forms that are concentrated, easily handled and applied,
readily soluble and available for plant uptake. Manures, biosolids and composts are good sources
of plant nutrients. The inorganic forms of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium are readily
available. Nutrients in organic forms are gradually released over time as they are broken down by
microorganisms. On average, 50 percent of the nitrogen in manures will be released during the
year of application, whereas 80 per cent of the phosphorus and 100 percent of the potassium are
available. The numbers for biosolids will vary with type and treatment but on average may be
similar to those for manures. The composting process tends to stabilize the nitrogen components
so that only about 10 percent of the nitrogen becomes available during the application year.
Injection or immediate incorporation of manures or biosolids is necessary not only to reduce odor
concerns but also to minimize volatile nitrogen loss, primarily ammonia. With commercial
fertilizers, the nutrient content is indicated by the grade on the label. Values for manures may vary
by type and how it is handled. Table 11 gives the nutrient content range that occurred in animal
manures collected from numerous farms. Organic nutrient carriers need to be analyzed to
determine the nutrient content. Once this is known, the amount to apply to meet the nutrient
requirements of the crop being grown can be calculated or the amount of nutrient credit to take for
manure already applied can be calculated.

18 | P a g e
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Multiple Cropping Systems Compared to Sole-
Cropping or Monoculture Systems
Advantages:
1. It is possible to obtain a better use of vertical space and time”, imitating natural ecological
patterns in regards to structure of the system, and permitting efficient capture of solar
energy and nutrients.
2. Greater amounts of biomass (organic matter) can be returned to the system, sometimes
even of better quality.
3. There exists a more efficient circulation of nutrients, including their “pumping” from the
deeper soil profiles when deeper rooted shrubs or trees are included.
4. The damaging effects of wind sometimes can be reduced.
5. Systems can be designed that are appropriate for (but not restricted to) marginal areas
because multiple cropping systems can better take advantage of variable soil, topography,
and steeper slopes.
6. Multiple cropping systems are less subject to variability in climatic conditions, especially
extremes of rainfall, temperature, or wind.
7. Reduction of water evaporation from the soil surface.
8. Increased microbial activity in the soil.
9. Avoidance or reduction of surface erosion.
10. Fertilizer use can be more efficient because of the more diverse and deeper root structure
in the system.
11. Improved soil structure, avoiding the formation of a “hard pan” and promoting better
aeration and filtration.
12. Legumes (as well as a few other plant families) are able to fix and incorporate nitrogen
into the system.
13. Heavier mulch cover aids in weed control.
14. Better opportunities for biological control of insects and diseases.
15. Crop mixtures better permit the functioning of complex mutualisms and beneficial
interactions between organisms.
16. Better use of time, with more crops per unit time in the same area.

19 | P a g e
17. Disadvantages
1. Competition between plants for light.
2. Competition between plants for soil nutrients.
3. Competition between plants for water.
4. Possibility for allelopathic influences between different crop plants due to plant-produced
toxins.
5. Harvesting of one crop component may cause damage to the others.
6. It is very difficult to incorporate a fallow period into multiple cropping systems,
especially when long lived tree species are included.
7. It is sometimes impossible, and many times very difficult, to mechanize multiple crop
systems.
8. Increased evapotranspiration loss of water from the soil, caused by greater root volume
and larger leaf surface area.
9. Possible over-extraction of nutrients, followed by their subsequent loss from the system
with the increased exportation of agricultural or forest products.
10. Leaf, branch, fruit, or water-drop fall from taller elements in a mixed crop system can
damage shorter ones.
11. Higher relative humidity in the air can favor disease outbreak, especially of fungi.
12. Possible proliferation of harmful animals (especially rodents and insects).
Executive Summary
Fertilizer and adequate supply of organic matter or manure from the farm yard, green manuring
sources is the life blood of multiple cropping specially where the HYV are preferred over the
traditional varieties which utilize along with major nutrients and the micro-nutrients as well. To
sustain the sequential cropping proper fertility level is the sine-qua-non of the multiple cropping.
Therefore, in rotation a leguminous crop (pulses) is very important. The nature of root system of
the successive crop should be shallow followed by deep rooted one as followed in traditional
system, for example, arhar or cotton was put in rotation with cereals followed by restoration
leguminous crop for tapping of nutrients from the different layers of soil without putting excessive
burden on a single layer. Wheat and rice play a complementary effect in the utilization of different
forms of soil phosphorous. Scientists should study the requirements of crops in different rotations
in multiple cropping system.

20 | P a g e
Conclusion
In all of the aspects of multiple cropping systems that this review has considered yield, resource
use, pest and disease control, weeds, use of space and time, types of planting systems much of the
evidence indicates that generally there are more advantages than disadvantages of a biological,
physical, or agronomic nature. But we need to consider the social and economic implications of
the possible more widespread use of multiple cropping systems in present day agriculture. Smaller
farms would require more farmers, To a certain extent multiple cropping systems mean a return to
the land, with the incentives necessary to keep the farmers there. The great diversity of activities
in multiple cropping systems would promote an increase in interdisciplinary activities in their
investigation, installation, management, and use in agriculture. This stimulation of interchange and
collaboration can, in the long term, lead to greater social cohesion, Rural regions might once again
take on the social importance they enjoyed in the past. The problems of lack of trained personnel,
and social, political, and economic restrictions on multiple cropping systems, all can be overcome
by thorough and conscientious programs of research aimed at determining the proper methods,
varieties, and practices necessary. Most of the economic disadvantages are derived from our lack
of experience and knowledge with multiple cropping systems. Reported lower yields, complexity
of management activities, higher labor demands, and the difficulty in mechanizing such systems
are all important factors that discourage modern farmers from participating in multiple cropping
practices. An important aspect of this resistance comes from the emphasis on large profits that
governs so much of modern agriculture today. Maximum profits in the short term, rather than
concern with maintaining constant income in the long term, governs the decision-making process
on most American farms today, But with the incredible rise in farm costs, a new focus is necessary.
All of these increases cannot be passed onto the consumer. Many of the advantages of multiple
cropping systems definitely need to be stressed more for use on farms today. Smaller farms, with
a greater diversity
of products and activities, can function quite
The belief that multiple cropping is only suitable for marginal or underdeveloped regions ignores
the fact that just a relatively short time ago, such systems were the most common type of
agriculture. Only recently have they been replaced by monoculture systems dependent on the use
of massive quantities of inexpensive high energy inputs. For the moment, this time has passed and
we need to learn from the past to reshape agriculture for the future. This will be a great challenge
for agricultural research.

21 | P a g e
Reference
 Aiyer, A. K. Y. N., “Mixed Cropping in India, ” Indian J. Agr. Sci. 19:439, 1942.
 Andrews, D. J., and Kassam, A. H., “The Importance of Multiple Cropping in Increasing
World Food Supplies, ” In: Papendick, R. 1., et al., Multiple Cropping, ASA Special
Publ. No. 27:1, 1976.
 Willey, R. W,, “Intercropping-Its Importance and Research Needs, Part 1: Competition
and Yield Advantages; Part 2: Agronomy and Research Needs, ” Field Crop Abstracts
32(1):2 and 32(2):73, 1979.
 https://ag4impact.org/sid/ecological-intensification/diversification/multiple-cropping/
 www.fao.org/docrep/v9926e/v9926e09.htm
 Siddoway, F, H., and Barnett, A. P., “Water and Wind Erosion Control Aspects of
Multiple Cropping, ” In: Papendick, R. I., et al., Multiple Cropping, ASA Special Publ.
No, 27:317, 1976.
 I,emis, W. M, and Phillips, J. A., “Double Cropping in the Eastern United States, In:
Papendick, R, I., et al., .44ultiple Cropping, ASA Specia] Publ. No, 27:41, 1 9 7 6
 Litsinger, J. A., and Moody, K., “Integrated Pest Management in Multiple Cropping
Systems, ” In: Papendick, R. 1., et al., Multiple Cropping, ASA Special Publ. No.
27:293, 1976.
 Pinchinat, A. M., Sora, J., and Bazan, R., “Multiple Cropping in Tropical America, ” In:
Papendick, R. I., et al., Multiple Cropping, ASA Specia] Publ. No. 27:51, 1976.
 www.cropsreview.com/crop-rotation.html
 journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0080990

Fertilizer management in multiple cropping

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to Fertilizer management in multiple cropping (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Fertilizer management in multiple cropping