Volume 9, Issue 1, January – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology

ISSN No:-2456-2165

Effect of Intercropping Maize with Selected

Agroforestry Species on Maize Yields and
Harvest Index in Kisumu and
Kisii Counties, Kenya
Wasikoyo Erastus Masika1*; Harun Ogindo Okello2; George Duncan Odhiambo3
1,2,3
Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, School of Agriculture, Food Security and Environmental Sciences, Maseno University,
P.O. Box, Private Bag, Maseno, Kenya

Abstract:- Maize is a staple food with a high per capita Despite the fact that maize plays a key role in food
consumption averaging 125 Kgs per person annually in security and income generation in western Kenya and the
Kenya. However, its low yields associated with climate whole country at large, its production which is done under
change, declining cultivable land and reduced soil an estimate of 1.5 million hectares still remains low at about
fertility posing a serious threat to food security. To 1.5 tons per hectare against a possible potential of 6.0 tons
ensure increased crop yields, apt intecropping systems per hectare (MOA, 2010). Food insecurity is therefore
and management has to be adopted to meet the ever rampant within this region majorly due to low soil fertility
increasing demands. Field experiments were carried out levels and unpredictable weather patterns (Sanchez et al.,
in Kisii and Kisumu counties over two seasons; to 1997, Kitonyo et al., 2013, Mbure et al., 2015). Thus, of the
determine the effect of intercropping maize with selected likely agricultural constraints, nutrient depleted soils are key
agroforestry species on maize yields and Harvest Index and major factor affecting maize production in addition to
(HI). The treatments consisted of; maize no-fertilizer, shallow soils and erratic summer rainfall (Robins, 1953,
maize+banana+Caliandra (MBC), maize+banana+ Sadras, 1996, Liu Cheng et al., 2017). Various studies have
Leucaena (MBL), maize+ banana+ Sesbania (MBS), shown the potential of agroforestry cropping system as an
maize+ banana (MB) and maize+ fertilizer arranged in a approach to an enhanced sustainable agriculture within the
Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three tropics (Young, 1997, Mugendi et al., 1999, Nyaga, 2018).
replications. Agroforestry species were planted six Agroforestry is a land-use system in which wood perennials
months before maize both in 2018 Short rains (SR) and like trees and shrubs are cultivated with herbaceous plants
2019 Long Rains (LR). Maize-fertilizer treatment was (crops, pastures) and livestock in a spatial arrangement or
applied with 35 Kgs P/ha and 85 Kgs N/ha. Maize rotation in the same parcel of land (Young, 1997, Stahl,
fertilizer had significantly high grain yields in Kisumu 2005) leading to significant ecological and economical
LR (3.98 t/ha) which was statistically similar to MBS interactions between trees and crops (Nyaga, 2018). Even
(3.72 t/ha). In Kisii, Maize fertilizer in SR (4.62 t/ha) and though agroforestry is a sustainable system towards
LR (5.0 t/ha) with Maize No fertilizer (5.0 t/ha) had achieving high crop yields, it comes with few challenges
significantly high yields. Maize fertilizer biomass in Kisii like poor growth and competition which can only be
SR was 26.4 t/ha and 15.8 t/ha in LR which was overcome thru good selection of agroforestry species and
significantly similar to Maize No fertilizer (13.9 t/ha) and agronomic management both above and below ground
MBS (13.8 t/ha). Intercropping systems had a significant crowns and roots to minimize competition (FAO, 2008,
effect on maize yields and Harvest Index. Maize fertilizer Salau et al., 2016). Hence, the addition of agroforestry
recommended to obtain higher grain and biomass yields species to the conventional cropping systems has the
in Kisumu and Kisii. capacity to enhance soil fertility through maintenance or
improving soil structure and organic matter by the
Keywords:- Intercropping Systems, Agroforestry, Maize accumulation of above ground litter and root residues in the
Yields, Harvest Index. nutrient depleted soils (Young, 1997, Stahl, 2005, Ahmad et
al., 2010, Uwizeyimana et al., 2018). Agroforestry species
I. INTRODUCTION like Sesbania sesban have been found to have a greater
influence on maize yields thru nitrogen fixation and high
Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important level of biomass production hence can store up to 10 tons
cereal crops for both human consumption and animal feeds C/ha in 12 months (Nyaga, 2018). Leucaena diversifolia and
across the globe (Ali et al., 2015). In Kenya, it’s the staple Calliandra calothyrsus prunnings incorporated in the soil
food with high per capita consumption averaging 125 Kgs were found to produce high maize yields after two seasons
per person annually (Byerlee and Eicher, 1997) which of planting (Mugendi et al., 2007).
provides basic diet to millions of Kenyans. It contributes to
more than 25% employment and 20% of the total
agricultural production (GoK, 2001; Nyaga, 2018).

IJISRT24JAN1567 www.ijisrt.com 1995

Volume 9, Issue 1, January – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
The adoption of agroforestry systems by most  Weather Data
smallholder farmers has been driven by the multiple Daily data for rainfall, temperature, wind and relative
beneficial functions like firewood supply, fodder for humidity was downloaded from the weather station data
livestock, green manure (Ojowi et al., 2001, Babu et al., logger located within the farm (KALRO Kisii and Maseno
2017), timber, and nitrogen fixation thus supplying nutrients University). The weather stations are located at the farms,
within the soil (Sanchez et al., 1997). However, much work 100m from where the experiments were taking place.
has been done on intercropping and agroforestry cropping
systems though they have majorly focused on a single  Crop Establishment and Management
agroforestry tree or cereal-legume cropping systems and During the first season, Maize Hybrid 516 was sown
nutritional aspects (FAO/IAEA, 2008) over years. In on 19th September 2018 and harvested on 10th January 2019.
Western Kenya, maize grain yield, biomass and harvest The same maize cultivar was sown on 30th April 2019 and
index under selected agroforestry species and cropping Harvested on 31st August 2019. Maize was planted at the
systems has not been explored well. Therefore, the present recommended spacing of 0.75 m between rows and 0.30 m
study sought to find out the effects of maize-based within rows, giving a population of 44, 444 plants/ha. The
agroforestry systems involving different species on maize planting depth was 0.05 m and hand weeding done two
grain yields, biomass and harvest index in Western Kenya. times in each season. The maize was also sprayed with
chlorpyrifos pesticide uniformly to keep them free from fall
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS army worms. The agroforestry species were planted 6
months before the introduction of maize. Pruning of trees
 Experimental Site Description was done every four weeks to a height of 0.75m above
The study was carried out in two sites, Kisii and ground. The pruned materials were chopped into small
Kisumu during the short rains (SR) of September to pieces, weighed and in-cooperated into the soil. The banana
December 2018 and the long rains (LR) between March to intercrop was maintained at four plants per stool.
August 2019. The experiments were conducted at the
Maseno University Farm, Kisumu County which lies at  Maize Grain Yield and Biomass Determination
latitude 00 09’’S and longitude 34o 25-47’’ E and an altitude Maize biomass and the grain yields were determined at
of approximately 1529m above sea level. The area receives physiological maturity. Grain yields was obtained from
an annual rainfall ranging between 1510-1678 mm with a cutting all maize plants in the harvesting area (54 m2) which
bimodal distribution. The minimum and maximum annual were 8 maize rows at the center of each plot leaving out the
temperatures range between 9-180C and 25-35 0C border rows. All cobs were removed and weighed to get the
respectively at the experimental site. The main soil types are field weight (FW). Grain moisture content was also
Ferralsols which are well drained, deep reddish brown clay- measured to at harvest. The formula used to calculate the
loam with the pH being slightly acidic and ranging between final grain yield in t/ha is shown in the Equation below
4.6 and 5.4 (Sikuku et al., 2010). (Tandzi and Mutengwa, 2019):

The Kisii experimental site is located on latitude 0 0 67’

00’’ N and longitude 340 77’ 00’’ E and an altitude of
approximately 1700 m above sea level with an average
annual temperature of 19.5 0C. The region receives a Where by:
significant amount of rainfall throughout the year with an
average of 1922mm. The site is within the Kenya FW- Field Weight (Kgs/plot)
Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization RMC- Required Moisture Content (13%)
(KALRO) farm. The site has a deep, well-drained soil with AREA- 54 m2
moderate water holding capacity and are characterized as 0.80 – Constant % of maize grain to a whole cob (80%)
Nitasols Phaezems (Ojowi et al., 2001).
Above-ground biomass was determined by sampling
 Experimental Design and Layout 10 maize plants which were cut from the harvesting area 54
The experiment comprised of 6 treatments arranged in m2 then leaves, shoots and cobs were separated chopped into
a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) replicated 3 pieces and placed into size 16 khaki bags separately.
times giving 18 experimental units. Each experimental unit Samples of leaves, shoots and cobs of maize plants were
measured 12 m x 9 m (108 m2) with pathways of 0.75m taken to the laboratory and oven dried at 700C to a constant
between them. weight to determine the dry weight (Biomass) (Djaman et
al., 2013). The above-ground maize biomass yields were
 Treatments computed from kgs within the harvest area then expressed in
Sole Maize+ No-fertilizer (M-No Fert.) Maize+ tons/ha.
Banana+ Calliandra (MBC), Maize+ banana+ Leucaena
(MBL), Maize+ banana+ Sesbania (MBS), Maize and  Harvest Index
banana (MB) and Sole maize + Fertilizer (M+ Fert.) This is the plant or crop capacity to allocate resources
in terms of assimilates into the formed reproductive parts.
According to (Wnuk et al., 2013), it’s the proportion of the
whole plant biomass which is allocated by the plant into the

IJISRT24JAN1567 www.ijisrt.com 1996

Volume 9, Issue 1, January – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
grain or into the economic yield. The plant is more efficient Difference (LSD) at p < 0.05 or 95% level of probability to
in producing the economic yield when it has a high harvest identify significance differences between the treatments for
index. The harvest index (HI) for maize was calculated biomass production and grain yield.
based upon the dry grain yield and the above ground
biomass or dry matter and expressed as a percentage: III. RESULTS

 Weather During the Experimental

Maseno, Kisumu site recorded 546 mm of rainfall in
2018 SR between, and 499 mm in 2019 LR between. The
Maize yield (cob weight and grain weight) were precipitation was lowest in November 2018 recording 52.16
assessed by separating the cobs from the stover and mm and 45.76 mm in July 2019 LR. The rainfall reached
weighed. The grain dry weight was determined after shelling peak in December 2018 at 238.67 mm in 2018. The annual
the cobs. mean temperature was 20.5 0C. The month of August 2018
was coolest month of the year with an average of 19.5 OC.
 Statistical Analysis February 2019 was the hottest month with an average
All parameters were subjected to Analysis of Variance temperature of 22.93 0C.
(ANOVA) and the means separated using Least Significance

Fig 1 Maseno (Kisumu) Rainfall and Temperature Data 2018/2019

Kisii recorded a total rainfall of 642.5 mm in 2018 SR and 653.2 mm in 2019 LR. The highest amount of rainfall of 238.9
mm was in October and 193.1 mm in June respectively. The annual mean temperature was 19.5 0C. The month of June 2019 was
the coolest with an average temperature of 18.5 0C while February and March were the hottest months in 2019 with the average of
20.6 0C.

Fig 2 Kisii Rainfall and Temperature Data 2018/2019

IJISRT24JAN1567 www.ijisrt.com 1997

Volume 9, Issue 1, January – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
 Weather Variations

Fig 3 Maseno and Kisii Rainfall Days after Planting

 Maize Grain Yields highest yields of 4.62 t/ha and significantly higher than all
The analyzed data on grain yield for both sites is other copping systems. MB treatment registered the lowest
shown in Table 1 below. There were no significant yields of 3.03 t/ha. In 2019 LR, maize fertilizer registered
differences in maize grain yield in Maseno 2018 SR. In the high maize grain yields of 5.0 t/ha and this was not
2019 LR, maize fertilizer grain yields were significantly statistically different from maize+ no fertilizer which
high and statistically similar to sole maize, MBS, MBL but registered 4.77 t/ha while MB registered the low maize grain
different from MB and MBC which were significantly yield 1.85t/ha.
lower. In Kisii 2018 SR, maize+ fertilizer registered the

Table 1 Maize Grain Yield at Maseno and Kisii Sites in 2018 SR and 2019 LR
Maseno Yield (t/ha) Kisii Yield (t/ha)
Treatment 2018 SR 2019 LR 2018 SR 2019 LR
Maize+ No fertilizer 2.79 2.48 3.473 4.77
Maize+ banana+ Calliandra 2.16 2.07 3.124 2.66
Maize+ banana+ Leucaena 2.39 2.52 3.247 2.95
Maize+ banana+ Sesbania 2.57 3.72 3.109 3.06
Maize+ banana 2.11 2.11 3.032 1.85
Maize+ Fertilizer 2.42 3.98 4.624 5.0
LSD NS 1.823 0.7245 1.361
Means 2.41 2.81 3.435 3.38
CV% 45.2 35.6 11.6 22.1
T/ha – Tons per hectare, LSD – Least Significance Difference, CV – Coefficient of Variance, Significance difference at p < 0.05.

 Maize Biomass Yield bananas with 14.0 t/ha. There were no significant
There were no significant differences in maize biomass differences in maize biomass yields among MBS, MBL and
yields at Maseno during both seasons. In Kisii 2018 SR, MBC treatments. During 2019 LR, maize+ fertilizer had the
maize+ fertilizer registered the highest maize biomass of highest biomass of 15.8 t/ha which was significantly higher
26.4 t/ha which was significantly different from all other than MBL and MB cropping systems. There were no
cropping systems (Table 2). MBS and maize+ no fertilizer significant differences in maize biomass yield among MBS,
with 19.8 t/ha were significantly higher than maize with MBL and MBC treatments.

IJISRT24JAN1567 www.ijisrt.com 1998

Volume 9, Issue 1, January – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
Table 2 Maize Biomass in Maseno and Kisii During 2018 SR and 2019 LR
Maseno Biomass (t/ha) Kisii Biomass (t/ha)
Treatment 2018 SR 2019 LR 2018 SR 2019 LR
Maize+ No fertilizer 17.9 8.7 19.8 13.9
Maize+ banana+ Calliandra 17.8 7.1 15.2 12.9
Maize+ banana+ Leucaena 17.3 7.7 16.1 11.5
Maize+ banana+ Sesbania 20.2 10.9 19.8 13.8
Maize+ banana 17.4 8.4 14.0 9.7
Maize+ Fertilizer 20.8 10.1 26.4 15.8
LSD NS NS 5.2 3.4
Means 18.6 8.8 18.6 12.9
CV% 30.6 32.1 15.2 14.3
T/ha – Tons per hectare, LSD – Least Significance Difference, CV – Coefficient of Variance.

 Harvest Index the other treatments except MBS (20.6%) which was
The analyzed data of harvest index is in shown in significantly lower. In 2019 LR, the maize+ no fertilizer
Table 3. There were no significance differences of HI in (32.2%) was significantly higher Maize + Banana (17.5%),
Maseno during both seasons. In Kisii 2018 SR, the HI was MBS (21.1%) and MBC (20.3%), but was statistically at par
highest in MB (28.3%) and it was statistically at par with all with MBL and Maize + Fertilizer (30.1%).

Table 3 Harvest Index for Maize

Treatments Maseno HI Kisii HI
2018 SR 2019 LR 2018 SR 2019 LR
Maize+ No fertilizer 20.3 29.4 23.1 32.2
Maize+ banana+ Calliandra 15.4 31.6 27.2 20.3
Maize+ banana+ Leucaena 18.5 30.2 26.8 24.4
Maize+ banana+ Sesbania 17.5 31.5 20.6 21.1
Maize+ banana 15.5 24.7 28.3 17.5
Maize+ Fertilizer 15.5 37.0 23 30.1
LSD NS NS 6.8 11.8
MEANS 17.1 30.8 24.8 24.3
CV% 20.7 40.0 15.0 26.8
HI – Harvest Index, LSD- Least Significance Difference, CV % - Coefficient of Variance

IV. DISCUSSION yields were often reduced by 50-80% owing to the dense
shading by shea butter trees (Vitellaria paradoxa) and nere
 Weather Variations at the Sites (Parkiabi globosa). It is clear that sole maize treatments had
Kisii experienced higher rainfall amounts than Maseno increasing grain yield from SR to LR as intercropped maize
both in 2018 SR and 2019 LR (Figure 1 and 2). However, yields declined (Table 1). This could imply that there was
there was an increased amount of rainfall observed in both competition for available resources from agroforestry
sites at the vegetative growth period of maize between 30-51 species especially bananas as they grew taller in the second
DAP. But a decline in rainfall was experienced between 58- season. Similar to these findings, Mugendi et al., (1999) and
72 DAP towards the critical stages of maize grain filling Ndiso et al., (2017) found that yields of maize alley-cropped
stage in both sites (Figure 3a and 3b). Maseno site (Figure with Calliandra and leucanea were 11-51% lower than those
3a) experienced higher rainfall amounts in the 2018 SR with of non-alley cropped treatments which received pruning of
546 mm than 2019 LR with 499 mm while Kisii site (Figure ex situ agroforestry species. This showed that there was
3b) had higher rainfall amounts in the 2019 LR with 653.2 below-ground competition for resources like water and
mm than 2018 SR with 642.5mm. nutrients amongst maize-tree roots (Ouma et al., 2013) and
above-ground competition for light which mirrors to the
 Maize Grain Yields reduced maize grain yields. Competition for nutrients and
The Kisii 2019 LR low maize grain yields observed in light might be there in intercrops because sole maize
intercrops might be attributed to the high shading effect treatments utilized their resources well thus giving
caused by the tall maturing bananas within the cropping significantly higher grain yields in 2019 LR. Even though
systems (MB, MBC, MBL and MBS) which limited light competition was minimized by maintaining the tree
maximum access of light to the maize leaves as compared to heights lower than 1 m, the bananas within the cropping
maize fertilizer and maize+ no fertilizer treatments (Table systems could have competed with maize for light. In a
1). This observation is different from that in Kisii 2018 SR study by Jones et al., (1998) it was found that substantial
as same bananas were still young and growing which could sorghum yields were only observed in pruned P. juliflora
not cause shading to the growing maize. A study done in cropping system showing that reduced shading enhanced
West Africa by Kater et al., (1992), found that millet grain

IJISRT24JAN1567 www.ijisrt.com 1999

Volume 9, Issue 1, January – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
light penetration which led to increased crop growth and have reduced the maize total biomass (Uwizeyimana et al.,
thus increased yields. 2018). MB had the lowest biomass yields in both 2018 SR
and 2019 LR, (14.0 t/ha) and (9.7 t/ha) respectively (Table
The low rainfall amounts experienced in Maseno and 2). The results in this study corresponds to the findings of
Kisii 2018 SR influenced the drastic drop of SWC at 72 and Mampana (2014), Nahuel, (2017) and Nassary et al., (2020),
79 DAP which might have affected the initial reproductive who found that, treatments intercropped with high and tall
stage in maize (Figure 3). Liu Cheng et al., (2017) recorded growing agroforestry species had low biomass due to
similar findings that soil water depletion and drought stress resource competition.
for 2 days during maize tasseling, silking and pollination
could lead to yield losses of up to 22%. Ogola et al., (2005) The seasonal onset, availability and rainfall
and Mampana (2014) also confirms with the current study distribution during the growth period of a crop has a great
that short period water stress may cause poor maize grain impact of the total biomass of maize intercropping system
filling owing to the negative effects on anthesis and silking according to Liu Cheng et al., (2017). Ofuyo et al., (2020),
causing low yields. In other studies, it has been found that found that low rainfall amounts during reproductive stages
maize grain yields significantly increase by up to 15% with of maize leads to low yields. Furthermore, Huang et al.,
additional irrigation water applied at the critical growth (2015) found that insufficient precipitation during the maize
stages of pollination and the grain filling (Jalota et al., growing season was a major constraint for maximum maize
2010). yields. But the cropping systems had no significant
difference on the maize total biomass (Nassary et al., 2020).
In 2018 SR, maize+ fertilizer had significantly higher The study therefore differs with the current study which
grain yields than all other treatments which were indicates that cropping systems had significant effect on the
significantly similar. This shows that there was minimal total maize biomass. Therefore, maize crops need optimum
competition from agroforestry species in the initial stages of amounts of water, light and nutrients during its growth and
their growth. There was no significant treatment effect on development stages for optimum biomass yields.
maize grain yields in Kisumu, Maseno 2018 SR due to the
observed on-site differences in the crops growth pattern as  Harvest Index
patches of stunted maize were seen across the experimental There were no significance differences in both seasons
site. In 2019 LR, Maize + fertilizer and MBS were observed of Maseno HI. The intercropping systems had a significant
to have higher grain yields and this could be due to the effect on the maize harvest index in both seasons of Kisii.
possibility of the applied fertilizer and the in cooperated During 2018 SR, MB recorded the highest HI of 28.3%.
pruning’s respectively. The applied fertilizer and the high During 2019 LR, maize+ no fertilizer had the highest HI of
content Sesbania residues which decomposes faster than 32.2% and it was statistically similar to Maize+ fertilizer.
calliandra and leuceana (Stahl, 2005) incorporated in the soil Nevertheless, despite maize+ fertilizer being expected to
could have improved and enhanced the soil nutrient levels have higher HI, it did not because the applied fertilizer
(Khashayar et al., 2014). MB in the 2019 LR recorded the enhanced more vegetative growth than grain in both
lowest maize yields in both sites which might be due to seasons. These results show low HI in all treatments
more numbers of bananas which grew tall and large thus regardless of the differences because the crop experienced
shielding the maize under them from receiving enough water shortages at critical stages of maize development
sunlight. Therefore, in the sense that trees were cut down to (from 72- 93 DAP). Djaman et al., (2013) found that HI in
less than 1 m, they could not hinder light from reaching maize was lower in the rain fed treatment than in the
maize crops, so the banana shade might have limited the full irrigated treatment confirming that water shortage impacts
potential photosynthesis of the crops leading to lower yields. HI negatively. This water shortage affected the grain filling
process which led to low grain yields and eventually low HI
 Maize Biomass Yield and these findings are similar to Mampana (2014).
The intercropping systems had no significant effect on
maize biomass yields in both seasons in Maseno. In Kisii, V. CONCLUSION
different cropping systems had a significant effect on maize
biomass where Maize+ fertilizer had significantly higher The intercropping systems had a significant effect on
maize biomass yields in both 2018 SR (26.4 t/ha) and 2019 the maize grain and biomass yields with Maize +fertilizer
LR (15.8 t/ha), followed closely by maize+ no fertilizer with highest yields both in Maseno and Kisii (Table 1 and
(Table 2). This is attributed to the fact that maize monocrops 2). The readily available nutrients in maize fertilizer
had no above and below ground competition for resources. treatment enhanced better utilization of soil available water.
Furthermore, sole maize plant population was lower Bananas are not good intercrops with maize in the second
compared to intercrops. Ogola et al., (2005) found that season.
reduced maize biomass production was a response of
increased plant population density within the cropping ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
systems. These findings are similar to those of Nassary et
al., (2020) that monocrops in maize-legume cropping This research work was funded through Maseno
systems had higher biomass than intercrops due to absence University by the National Research Fund, Kenya and
of competition. This is in contrast with intercrops which had authors acknowledge their support
high plant density within the cropping systems which might

IJISRT24JAN1567 www.ijisrt.com 2000

Volume 9, Issue 1, January – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
REFERENCES [14]. Mbure G. N., Kathuku A. N., Njihia S. N., Saitoti Z.,
Kaiyare J. M and Ngae G. N (2015). Maize
[1]. Ali M. R, Rahman M. S, M Asaduzzaman, Hossain production practices for increased productivity
M. M, and Mannan M. A (2015). Intercropping among small holder farmers in central Kenya. KARI,
maize with different vegetables. Bangladesh Agron. Nairobi.
J. 18: 49-52 [15]. Ministry of Agriculture (MOA). (2010). Economic
[2]. Byerlee D. and Eicher C. K (1997). Africa’s review of Agriculture 2010. Central Planning and
emerging Maize Revolution. Boulder, CO, Lynne Project Monitoring Unit (CPPMU): 27
Rienner Publishers. [16]. Mugendi D. N., Nair P. R. R., Mugwe J. N., O’Neill
[3]. Djaman Koffi., Irmak Suat., Rathje William R., M. K and Woomer P. L (1999). Alley cropping of
Martin Derrel L., and Eisenhauer Dean E., (2013). maize with Calliandra and leucaena in the subhumid
Maize evapotranspiration, yield production functions, highlands of Kenya. Part 1. Soil-fertility changes and
biomass, grain yield, harvest index, and yield maize yield. Agroforestry systems 45:39-50.
response factors under full and limited irrigation. [17]. Muthuri, C.W., Ong, C.K., Craigon, J., Mati, B.M.,
Biological Systems Engineering. 56:273-393 Ngumi, V.W., Black, C.R. (2009). Gas exchange and
[4]. Food and Agriculture/International Atomic Energy water use efficiency of trees and crops in
Agency (2008). Management of Agroforestry agroforestry systems in semi-arid Kenya. Agriculture
systems for Enhancing resource use efficiency and Ecosystem Environment 129:497–507.
crop productivity. Soil and water management and [18]. Nahuel A. A. P. (2017). A study of water use in
crop nutrient section. Rome. Leucaena-grass systems. A Doctor of Philosophy
[5]. Government of Kenya (2001). Poverty Reduction Thesis at The University of Queensland, School of
Strategy Paper for the Period 2001- 2004. Ministry of Agriculture and Food Sciences.
Finance and Planning, Government Printer, Nairobi. [19]. Nassary E. K., Fredrick B and Ndakidemi P. A
Kenya. (2020). Productivity of intercropping with maize and
[6]. Huang C., Duiker S. J., Deng L., Fang C and Zeng W common bean over five cropping seasons on
(2015). Influence of precipitation on maize yield in smallholder farms of Tanzania. European Journal of
the Eastern United States. Sustainability 7:5996-6010 Agronomy. 113:125964
[7]. Jalota S. K., Singh S., Chahal G. B. S., Ray S. S., [20]. Ndiso J. B., Chemining’wa G. N., Olubayo F. M and
Panigraghy B-S and Singh K. B (2010). Soil texture, Saha H. M (2017). Effect of cropping system on soil
climate and management effects on plants growth, moisture content, canopy temperature, growth and
grain yield and water use by rainfed maize-wheat yield performance of maize and cowpea.
cropping system: Field and simulation study. International Journal of Agriculture Sciences
Agricultural Water Management. 97: 83-90 7:1271-1281.
[8]. Jones M., Sinclair F. L. and Grime V. L (1998). [21]. Nyaga J. M. (2018). Impact of trees on water and
Effect of trees species and crown pruning on root nutrients dynamics in small holder maize-based
length and soil water content in semi-arid farming systems in Trans-Nzoia, Rift Valley, Kenya.
agroforestry. Plant and soil 201: 197-207 Ph.D. Thesis, Plant Science, Jomo Kenyatta
[9]. Kater L.J.M., Kante S., Budelman A (1992). Karite University of Agriculture and Technology.
(Vitellaria paradoxa) and nere (Parkia biglobasa) [22]. Ofuyo D., Opala P., and George O. (2020).
associated with crops in South Mali. Agroforestry Agronomic and economic evaluation of phosphorus
Syst. 18:89-105 fertilizer use in maize-bean cropping systems in
[10]. Khashayar R., Hamid R. M., Mohammad R. V Western Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural
(2014). Effect of intercropping on resource use, weed Research. 16:1364-1371
management and forage quality. IJPAES. 4:706-713 [23]. Ogola J. B. O., Wheeler T. R., and Harris P. M
[11]. Kitonyo O. M., Chemining’wa G. N and Muthomi J. (2005). Water use of maize in response to planting
W (2013). Productivity of farmer preferred maize density and irrigation. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil. 22:2
varieties intercropped with beans in semi-arid Kenya. [24]. Ouma E. N., Rop S., Okoba (2013). Status review of
International Journal of Agronomy and Agro-forestry the adopted soil and water management technologies
47:49-66. in Kenya as a critical component of the environment.
[12]. Liu Cheng, Sun Bao-cheng, Tang Huai-jun, Wang Joint proceedings of the 27th Soil Science Society of
Tian-yu, Li Yu, Zhang Deng-feng, Xie Xiaoqing, East Africa and the 6th African Soil Science Society.
SHI Yun-su, SONG Yan-chun, YANG Xiao-hong, 1-7
LI Jian-sheng. (2017). Simple nonlinear model for [25]. Robins J. S. (1953). Some effects of severe soil
the relationship between maize yield and cumulative moisture deficits at specific growth stages in corn.
water amount. Journal of Integrative Agriculture Agron. J. U.S. 45:18-21.
16:858-866. [26]. Sadras V. O. (1996) Soil- Water thresholds for the
[13]. Mampana, R. M., (2014). Cropping systems effect on responses of leaf expansion and gas exchange. Filed
soil water, soil temperature and dryland maize crop. U.S. 47:253-66
production. University of Pretoria. [27]. Sanchez, P.A., Buresh, R.J., Leakey, R.R.B. (1997).
Trees, soils, and food security. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B, 352: 949-960.

IJISRT24JAN1567 www.ijisrt.com 2001

Volume 9, Issue 1, January – 2024 International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology
ISSN No:-2456-2165
[28]. Sikuku, P. A., Netondo, G. W., Musyimi, D. M., and
Onyango J. C. (2010). Effects of water deficit on
days to maturity and yield of NERICA rainfed rice
varieties. ARPN Journal of Agriculture and
Biological Science, 5:1-9
[29]. Stahl, L. (2005). Planted tree fallows and their
influences on soil fertility and maize production in
East Africa. Nitrogen fixation and soil nitrogen
dynamics. Doctors dissertation. ISSN 1652-6880,
ISBN 91-576-6908-2
[30]. Tandzi L. N and Mutengwa C. S (2019). Estimates of
maize (Zea mays L.) yield per harvest area:
Appropriate methods. Agronomy 10:29
[31]. Uwizeyimana D., Mureithi S. M., Karuku G and
Kironchi G (2018). Effect of water conservation
measures on soil moisture and maize yield under
drought prone agro-ecological zones in Rwanda.
International soil and water conservation research.
6:214-221
[32]. Waraich E A., Ahmad R., Yaseen M. A., Saifullah
and Ahmad M (2011). Improving agricultural water
use efficiency by nutrient management in crop plants.
Soil and Plant Science. 61: 291 – 304.
[33]. Young, A. (1997). Agroforestry for Soil
Management. CAB International, Wallingford, UK
and ICRAF, Nairobi, Kenya.

IJISRT24JAN1567 www.ijisrt.com 2002