1. Maize-grain legume intercropping is an
attractive option for ecological intensification
that reduces climatic risk for smallholder
farmers in central Mozambique
Leonard Rusinamhodzi, Marc Corbeels, Justice Nyamangara, K.E. Giller
Plant Production Systems Group - Wageningen University, CIRAD, ICRISAT-Bulawayo

2. Background…… Central Mozambique
Extensification systems
 Slash and burn
 Lack of inputs (manure, fertiliser, improved germplasm)
 Extension support is severely indisposed
charcoal

3. Soils
 Predominantly sandy soils
 Pockets of fertile red clays soils
 Current crop production systems lead to accelerated
loss of soil fertility
Time of cultivation (years)
0 5 10 15 20
SOC(tha-1
)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Time of cultivation (years)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
0
20
40
60
80
Clay soil Sandy soil

4. How do we intensify in these systems?....
 Basket of technologies exists but…..
 mismatch between farmers’ objectives
and technology outputs
 Farmers are interested in technologies
that ensure food security and cash
income
 Improving soil fertility
is seldom mentioned

5. Our approach -AfricaNUANCES Framework
NUtrient Use in Animal and Cropping Systems - Efficiencies and Scales.
 Used to analyse current
livelihoods, explore options for
their development and reveal
trade-offs
 Mainly relied on field based methods
(interviews, transect walks, FGD)
http://www.africanuances.nl/

6. Our approach
• Analysis of constraints and
opportunities showed a
strong bias towards maize-
legume intercropping
• Farmers and development
agents claimed that these
intercrop systems were
“working”
• Evidence and best-
practice guidelines
were missing

7. Maize-legume intercropping
 Farmers in Ruaca preferred maize-pigeonpea
intercropping
 Established market through CARITAS-Messica
 In Vunduzi, farmers preferred maize-cowpea
intercropping
 Food security was of primary concern

8. Our objective
To understand the farming systems, and to evaluate
the suitability of maize–legume intercropping to
alleviate the biophysical and socio-economic
constraints faced by smallholder farmers in central
Mozambique

9. Study sites
 Ruaca
 mixed-crop livestock system,
 Integration between
components is weak
 Vunduzi
 Mostly crop based farming
system Vunduzi villageRuaca village

10. Field experiments
Maize-pigeonpea intercrops
 Within row
(Maize 90 x 90, 3 plants per hill,
legume in between, 3 plants per hill)
 Distinct row
(maize 90 x 30 ), 2 rows of maize alternate
with a row of legume)
 All treatments simultaneously
planted

11. Maize-cowpea intercropping
 Same arrangement as in maize-pigeonpea
intercropping
 Relay planting for maize/cowpea
 Planting and weeding performed
using hand hoe
 Four fertiliser rates superimposed on intercrop
treatments
 (i) no fertiliser, (ii) 20 kg P ha-1, (iii) 20 kg P ha-1 + 30 kg N ha-1, and (iv) 20
kg P ha-1 + 60 kg N ha-1

12. Results - rainfall distribution
Ruaca
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Cumulativerainfall(mm)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2008/09 (19 November 2008)
2009/10 (29 November 2009)
2010/11 (21 November 2010)
Vunduzi
Days after planting
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Cumulativerainfall(mm)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2008/09 (15 November 2008)
2009/10 (18 November 2009)
2010/11 (24 November 2010)
 Long dry spells were
common
 Increased risk of crop
failure especially for maize
 Legumes more drought
resistant

13. Maize- pigeonpea yield
 Season ×
intercrop
interactions
were significant
 Pigeonpea
responded to
larger N
Pigeonpea
N-P applied (kg ha-1
)
0-0 0-20 30-20 60-20
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Maize
N-P applied (kg ha-1
)
0-0 0-20 30-20 60-20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sole maize (2008/09)
Sole maize (2009/10)
Sole maize (2010/11)
Distinct-row (2008/09)
Distinct-row (2009/10)
Distinct-row (2010/11)
Within-row (2008/09)
Within-row (2009/10)
Within-row (2010/11)

14. Maize- cowpea yield
• Season (rainfall
distribution) and crop
arrangement were
significant
• the interactions between
fertiliser and intercrop
treatments were weak for
maize
• Response in cowpea due
to improved rainfall later
in the season
Cowpea
N-P applied (kg ha-1
)
0-0 0-20 30-20 60-20
Cowpeagrainyield(tha
-1
)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
Maize
N-P applied (kg ha-1
)
0-0 0-20 30-20 60-20
Maizegrainyield(tha
-1
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sole maize (2008/09)
Sole maize (2010/11)
Distinct-row (2008/09)
Distinct-row (2010/11)
Within-row (2008/09)
Within-row (2010/11)

15. Intercrop productivity
Treatment Fertiliser Maize-pigeonpea
intercropping (Ruaca)
Maize-cowpea
intercropping
(Vunduzi)
2008/09 2009/10 2010/
11
2008/0
9a
2009/1
0b
2010/
11
Distinct-
row
No fertiliser 1.1 1.1 1.4 - - 1.4
20 kg P ha-1 1.0 1.1 1.2 - - 1.8
30 kg N + 20 kg P
ha-1
1.1 1.0 1.2 - - 1.7
60 kg N + 20 kg P
ha-1
1.0 1.2 1.3 - - 1.9
Within-row No fertiliser 2.2 1.7 2.0 - - 2.4
20 kg P ha-1 1.4 1.7 2.4 - - 2.0
30 kg N + 20 kg P
ha-1
1.4 2.0 2.0 - - 2.2
60 kg N + 20 kg P
ha-1
1.5 1.9 2.1 - - 2.0
*SED 0.1 0.1 0.2 - - 0.2
• Within row
intercrops
more
productive
than distinct
row intercrops

16. Cumulative benefits of pigeonpea
N-P applied (kg ha-1
)
0-0 0-20 30-20 60-20
Maizegrainyield(tha
-1
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Maize after pigeonpea
Continuous maize
Distinct rows intercropping
Within row intercropping
• Continuous maize suffered from
Striga asiatica
• Small yield penalty in within row
intercropping

17. Time (minutes)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Infiltrationrate(mmhr
-1
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Continuous maize
1 year intercropping
3 year intercropping
5 year intercropping
Duration of intercropping on rainfall infiltration
• Long-term large biomass
production in combination
with reduced tillage

18. Labour requirements of intercropping
Treatment Weeding number Total
1 2 3
Sole maize 6.0 4.8 6.7 17.6
Sole pigeonpea 6.5 5.0 6.7 18.2
Within row
intercropping
8.2 6.2 7.9 22.3
Distinct row
intercropping
9.1 7.8 9.6 26.4
SED 0.4
• Intercropping increased
weeding time by 36%
compared to sole crops
• Need to take care of slow
growing pigeonpea
• Movement is hampered
when its grown

19. Partial budget analysis
Fertiliser Production
option
MRR (%) at given price condition
Normal price Peak maize price Peak pigeonpea
price
Peak price
for both
crops(+140%) (+50%)
No fertiliser Sole pigeonpea 3729 437 6819 3528
Within-row 667 1361 1112 1639
Distinct-row 343 621 465 743
Fertiliser
(20 kg P and 30 kg N ha-1)
Sole pigeonpea 759 93 1326 660
Within-row 500 791 673 963
Distinct-row 472 472 758 758
• Farmers sold crops immediately when price were depressed
• Later in the year, maize prices rose 140%
• Pigeonpea prices rose by 50%

20. Farmer evaluation of intercrops
Evaluation criteria Treatment (scoring scale 1-20)
Sole maize Sole
pigeonpea
Distinct row
intercrop
Within row intercrop
Food security
(weight =5)
14 (70) 8 (40) 19 (95) 20 (100)
Cash income
(weight =4)
6 (24) 18 (72) 16 (64) 20 (80)
Input costs (weight
=3)
15 (45) 9 (27) 12 (36) 10 (30)
Ease of
mechanical
weeding (weight
=2)
15 (30) 14 (28) 6 (12) 15 (30)
Time to maturity
(weight =1)
14 (14) 4 (4) 12 (12) 12 (12)
Total score 183 171 219 252
Acceptability (%) 61 57 73 84
• Food security >
income > input
costs
• Sole legume
not preferred
• Within row
intercrop
preferred

21. Diversity of farmers in study sites vs. intercropping
• PCA shows good
correlation with locally
identified RGs
• Ruaca, land size,
number of cattle
owned (4 RGs)
• Vunduzi, land size,
number of goats and
pigs (3 RGs)

22. Diversity of farmers and intercropping
 In both sites, adopters were in the middle
resource groups
 The poorest were more interested in selling
labour either for money or for direct food
 Richer farmers especially in Ruaca had jobs in
the city and wanted to be middle men for other
farmers’ produce

23. Suitability of intercropping in the study sites
Ruaca Vunduzi
Land:labourratio(haperson-1
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
SED
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Landutilization(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Vunduzi
Ruaca
Land: labour ratio
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Monthsoffoodself-sufficiency(year-1
)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Ruaca Vunduzi
Landutilization(%)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Land: labour ratio
a b
c d
SED
• Ruaca - labour constraints due to extensification
• Intensification necessary will reduce labour
demands
• Vunduzi- land limitation
• rugged terrain + National Park

24. Seasonal changes in # of farmers practicing maize-
pigeonpea intercropping
• Market for
pigeonpea was a
driver for uptake
of pigeonpea
• Destruction by
cattle was
problematic in
Ruaca

25. Pigeonpea vs. communal grazing
• late maturity of pigeonpea
delays free-grazing of cattle
• allows farmers to retain crop
residues as mulch if they
choose to
• use of ‘ratoon’ pigeonpea
reduces costs of seed and
the need for tillage

26. Relay intercrop vs. climatic risk
Vunduzi (2009/10 season)
Days after planting
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Cumulativerainfall(mm)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
54 Days
• Relay
intercropping
reduces
climatic risk
of total crop
failure

27. Conclusion
Maize–legume intercropping has potential to:
(a) reduce the risk of total crop failure,
(b) improve productivity and income, and
(c) increase food security in vulnerable production systems, and
is a feasible entry point to ecological intensification.

28. Muito obrigado pela sua atenção!...............