Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Evaluation of the effect of planting density of maize hybrids intercropped with coffee Evaluación del efecto de la densidad de siembra de híbridos de maíz intercalados con café

How to Cite
Jaramillo, S., Medina-Rivera, R., & Jaramillo-Jiménez, A. (2024). Evaluation of the effect of planting density of maize hybrids intercropped with coffee. Cenicafe Journal, 75(1), e75105. https://doi.org/10.38141/10778/75105




Keywords
Intercropping

food security

crop diversification

maize

coffee

Cenicafé

Colombia

Intercalamiento

seguridad alimentaria

diversificación de cultivos

maíz

café

Cenicafé

Colombia

Cultivo consorciado

segurança alimentar

diversificação de culturas

milho

café

Cenicafé

Colômbia

Sectión
Articles
Santiago Jaramillo
Rubén Medina-Rivera
Alexander Jaramillo-Jiménez

Summary

The production of maize intercropped with coffee during the establishment stage has been a common practice recommended by Cenicafé to promote food security, generate complementary income and increase the sustainability of coffee production systems. With the objective of evaluating the effect of different planting densities of the white maize hybrid SGBIOH2 biofortified with zinc on the production of two cycles of intercropped maize and on the accumulated production of two coffee harvests, a research was carried out in four experimental stations of Cenicafé: Naranjal (Caldas), La Catalina (Risaralda), El Rosario (Antioquia) and El Tambo (Cauca). The experiment was established through a randomized complete block design with four intercropped maize planting density treatments (45,000, 50,000, 55,000 and 60,000 plants per hectare) and an absolute check without maize, which were evaluated in nine repetitions per location in 48 m2 plots. Intercropped hybrid maize yields increased linearly in all locations as planting density increased from 45,000 to 60,000 plants per hectare (Pr > F = 0.0001). Coffee production was not affected by any of the maize planting density treatments (Pr > 0.05), indicating low competition of the two crops. Likewise, the physical quality of the coffee represented in the cherry coffee/dry parchment coffee ratio and milling yield factor was not affected by any of the density treatments evaluated.

Santiago Jaramillo, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café

 Investigador Científico II. Disciplina de Fitotecnia, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café, Cenicafé.


Rubén Medina-Rivera, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café

Investigador Científico II. Disciplina de Biometría, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café, Cenicafé


Alexander Jaramillo-Jiménez, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café

Auxiliar de Investigación, respectivamente. Disciplina de Fitotecnia, Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café, Cenicafé


References (See)

  1. Almeida, M. L. de, Merotto Junior, A., Sangoi, L., Ender, M., & Guidolin, A. F. (2000). Incremento na densidade de plantas: Uma alternativa para aumentar o rendimento de grãos de milho em regiões de curta estação estival de crescimento. Ciência Rural, 30(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782000000100004
  2. Andrade, F. H., Calviño, P., Cirilo, A., & Barbieri, P. (2002). Yield Responses to Narrow Rows Depend on Increased Radiation Interception. Agronomy Journal, 94(5), 975–980. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2002.9750
  3. Brooker, R. W., Bennett, A. E., Cong, W., Daniell, T. J., George, T. S., Hallett, P. D., Hawes, C., Iannetta, P. P. M., Jones, H. G., Karley, A. J., Li, L., McKenzie, B. M., Pakeman, R. J., Paterson, E., Schöb, C., Shen, J., Squire, G., Watson, C. A., Zhang, C., … White, P. J. (2015). Improving intercropping: A synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytologist, 206(1), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.13132
  4. Centro Nacional de Investigaciones de Café. (2021). Guía más agronomía, más productividad, más calidad (3rd ed.). Cenicafé. https://doi.org/10.38141/cenbook-0014
  5. Cox, W. J., & Cherney, D. J. R. (2001). Row Spacing, Plant Density, and Nitrogen Effects on Corn Silage. Agronomy Journal, 93(3), 597–602. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2001.933597x
  6. Duque-Orrego, H., Salazar, H. M., Rojas-Sepúlveda, L. A., & Gaitán, Á. (2021). Análisis económico de tecnologías para la producción de café en Colombia. Cenicafé. https://doi.org/10.38141/cenbook-0016
  7. García-López, J. C., Ramírez-Carabalí, C., & Sarmiento-Herrera, N. (2023). Respuesta climática a eventos ENOS La Niña entre 1998 y 2022, en la zona cafetera. Avances Técnicos Cenicafé, 550, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.38141/10779/0550
  8. Govaerts, B., Vega, D., Chávez, X., Narro, L., San Vicente, F. M., Palacios-Rojas, N., Pérez, M., González, G., Ortega, P., Carvajal, A., Arcos, A. L., Bolaños, J., Romero, N., Bolaños, J., Vanegas, Y. F., Echeverria, R. G., Jarvis, A., Jiménez, D., Ramírez-Villegas, J., … Tapasco, J. (2019). Maíz para Colombia Visión 2030 (p. 109). Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz y Trigo. https://repository.cimmyt.org/handle/10883/20218
  9. Guvenc, I., & Yildirim, E. (2006). Increasing Productivity with Intercropping Systems in Cabbage Production. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 28(4), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v28n04_04
  10. Jaramillo, S. (2023). Recomendaciones para el manejo agronómico del cultivo de fríjol arbustivo en el sistema intercalado con café. Avances Técnicos Cenicafé, 551, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.38141/10779/0551
  11. Jaramillo, S., & Salazar, H. M. (2021). Cultivos intercalados: Una alternativa para aumentar los ingresos y la sostenibilidad de cafetales. Avances Técnicos Cenicafé, 534, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.38141/10779/0534
  12. Quevedo, Y. M., Beltrán, J. I., & Barragán-Quijano, E. (2018). Effect of sowing density on yield and profitability of a hybrid corn under tropical conditions. Agronomía Colombiana, 36(3), 248–256. https://doi.org/10.15446/agron.colomb.v36n3.71268
  13. Sangoi, L. (2001). Understanding Plant Density Effects On Maize Growth And Development: An Important Issue To Maximize Grain Yield. Ciência Rural, 31(1), 159–168. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-84782001000100027