Effects of Strip Intercropping of Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) with Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) on Yield and Yield Advantage

Effects of Strip Intercropping of Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) with Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) on Yield and Yield Advantage | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Effects of Strip Intercropping of Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) with Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) on Yield and Yield Advantage Adisu Wegari, Sintayehu Girma, Alamisa Gamachu, Ibrahim Kasim This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3878216/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract There are several advantages to intercropping over mono-cropping production. Therefore, intercropping approaches need to be investigated in greater depth. In order to evaluate the yield advantage, nutrient use efficiency, etc., of strip intercropping, researchers have proposed an intercropping approach that is based on systematic evaluation. Due to these advantages, intercropping is common throughout the world, especially in developing countries like Ethiopia. A field experiment was conducted at Mechara Agriculture Research center during 2016 to 2022 to evaluate the effect of strip intercropping ratios of coffee with groundnut on the yield of both crops and to determine economically optimum coffee to groundnut strip intercropping ratio for the study area. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Coffee variety (Arusa) and Babble-1 groundnut variety were used. In the experiment, five treatments were applied: sole coffee, sole groundnut, 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 ratios of coffee with groundnut. Regarding strip intercropping treatments, numerically the highest and lowest clean coffee yield was recorded at 1C (1coffee):3G (3goundnut) (9.79 * 100kg ha-1) and 1C (coffee): 2G (2groundnu) (8.53*100 kg ha-1) treatments. In coffee-groundnut strip intercropping, the highest land equivalent ratio was recorded at 1C (1coffee):3G (3goundnut) (1.68) closely followed by 1C (coffee): 2G (2groundnu) (1.43), and 1C (1coffee):1G (1groundnut) (1.39), which provides a relative yield advantage of 39 to 68%. As a result, the highest total LER indicates that strip intercropping with groundnut at 1C (1coffee):3G (3goundnut) ratio yields the highest yield and yield profit to farmers. intercropping land equivalent ratio strip mono-cropping Figures Figure 1 1. Introduction The coffee genus (Coffea) is a diverse group, comprising 124 species and is native to the old world tropics (Razafinarivo et al., 2012 ). It holds significant economic, social, and spiritual importance for many communities with varied cultural and psychological backgrounds (Chauhan et al., 2015 ). Coffee, the world's second most traded commodity after petroleum, serves as a primary source of income for growers across numerous regions (FAO, 2015). In the latter half of the 19th century, coffee underwent an industrial transformation due to the rapid expansion of coffee production in Brazil, paving the way for a mass consumer market in the United States (Morris et al. , 2018). Today, coffee cultivation spans over 80 countries, covering more than 10.6 million hectares of land in sub-tropical regions, particularly across Africa, Asia, and Latin America (FAOSTAT, 2020). Socially, it plays a crucial role in supporting nearly 20 million coffee-farming families in underdeveloped countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Zhou et al., 2016 ). Notably, in Ethiopia, coffee accounts for 40% of the total export and contributes to 10% of the government’s revenue (ICO, 2020). These figures emphasize the extensive impact and significance of the coffee industry in various facets of society and economies globally. Ethiopia's diverse ecologies host indigenous germplasm, providing a significant advantage for the production of superior C. arabica , enabling the country to compete effectively in the global market (Zenebe and Dawit, 2020). Approximately 700,447 hectares of land are dedicated to coffee cultivation (CSA, 2017). Notably, the Oromia Regional State holds prominence as the native habitat of C. arabica, evident through the presence of wild coffee trees, covering 464,426 hectares (66%) and yielding 317,316 tons annually (CSA, 2017). Regions such as Kaffa, Illubabor, Jimma, Wollega, Sidamo, Gedeo, Yirgachefe, and Hararghe stand out as primary coffee-growing and producing areas, highlighting the extensive role of coffee cultivation across various regions (Hinsene et al ., 2015). Coffee serves as a primary source of income for farm households, supporting various financial needs. Commonly grown as a garden plantation, coffee is often intercropped with other crops such as pineapple, banana, Enset, and other fruit crops, offering improved farm earnings for smallholder farmers without compromising coffee yield and quality (Damenu et al , 2008, Van Asten et al, 2011 ). In South East Ethiopia, farmers address land shortages by intercropping groundnut with perennial crops like coffee. This intercropping approach, along with alley cropping, has been instrumental in mitigating land scarcity challenges (Hika et al , 2018). However, variations in weed density are noted among different coffee farms intercropped with various crops. For instance, coffee farms intercropped with legumes and barley exhibit differing weed densities due to ground cover and competition for space (Hika et al , 2018). While the intercropping of coffee with groundnut is a common practice, there is a lack of documented scientific research on the recommended intercropping ratio, both within the study area and more broadly across the country. To address these gaps, this present study is aimed at evaluating the effect of different coffee-groundnut strip intercropping ratios on yield, and determining economically viable intercropping ratios to intensify the coffee-groundnut cropping system, ensuring sustainable productivity in the farming system. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Site Description The experiment was conducted at the Mechara Agricultural Research Center (McARC) on-station, spanning the 2015 and 2016 cropping seasons. Located 434 km east of Addis Ababa in the Daro Labu district of the west Hararghe Zone in the Oromia Regional State, Mechara sits at an altitude of 1760 meters above sea level. The area experiences an annual average temperature of 16°C and receives approximately 963mm of rainfall. The primary soil type at the center is sandy loam clay, characterized by a reddish color. 2.2. Experimental Materials, Treatments and Design The experimental materials consisted of five treatment combinations, including a recommended check, with the Arusa coffee variety used for the study. The experiment employed a Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications. The treatments encompassed sole coffee, sole groundnut, and ratios of 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 for coffee to groundnut, respectively. Inorganic fertilizers such as DAP and UREA were utilized applied at the time of transplanting and subsequently throughout the seasons to facilitate efficient nutrient uptake by the roots. These were applied in two splits, commencing at the start of the rainy season after seedling transplantation. Proper spacing for groundnut between rows and plants was adjusted based on previous research recommendations (60 cm X 30 cm), and all appropriate management practices were consistently carried out for both component crops. Table 1 The treatment combinations and spacing arrangement of the component crops. S/N Treatments Adjustment (Coffee: Groundnut) Coffee spacing (m) Groundnut spacing (cm) Space between Coffee and Groundnut raw Between raw and plant (m) Between raw and plant (m) 1 Sole Coffee 2mX1.5m - - 2 Sole Groundnut - 60 x 10 cm - 3 1 row coffee : 1 row ground nut 2m X 1.5m - 1m 4 1 row coffee : 2 row ground nut 3m X 1.5m 0.6m 1.2 m 5 1 row coffee : 3 row ground nut 3m X 1.5m 0.6m 0.9 m 2.3 Data Collection The weight of fresh cherries harvested per plot was recorded and converted to clean coffee yield, measured in 100 kg per hectare. Similarly, the groundnut yield was also recorded for each plot within the experimental unit. Furthermore, Land Equivalent Ratios (LER) for both coffee and groundnut yields were calculated following the procedure outlined by (Willey, 1985 ). TLER = PLER coffee + PLER Groundnut Where TLER, total land equivalent ratio; PLER coffee, Partial land equivalent ratio of coffee; PLER Groundnut, Partial land equivalent ratio of Groundnut. The collected data were statistically analyzed using R Software and the significance differences between any two treatments means were tested by least significant difference (LSD) at 5% probability level. 3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS Yield of Clean Coffee The variance analysis revealed that whether coffee groundnut strips were intercropped with coffee or not was not statistically significant (p < 0.05) (Table 2 ). Notably, the maximum clean coffee yield was achieved during the 2020 harvesting season. Due to unforeseen circumstances, no yields were obtained from any plots during the 2021 cropping season. A pooled mean analysis indicated that a row ratio of 1:3—where coffee was intercropped with groundnuts—resulted in numerically higher yields of clean coffee compared to other intercropped treatments. Specifically, in the strip intercropping treatments, the 1C:3G and 1C:2G yields were numerically the highest and lowest, respectively (Table 3 ). Intercropping coffee with groundnut has become increasingly vital in smallholder farms, primarily for subsistence food production and income generation from surplus produce. Likewise, coffee intercrop combinations with annual food crops offer benefits such as reducing soil erosion (Khisa, 2000 ) and providing food for coffee farmers (Kimemia, 1998 ). Additionally, legume cover crops like lablab (Lablab purpureus) can serve multiple purposes by aiding in weed control, enhancing soil fertility, and providing food (Mureithi et al., 2003 ). Other studies also indicate that 59% of smallholder farmers recognize the effectiveness of legume intercropping in controlling soil erosion, a finding supported by Barry ( 2020 ), who discovered that legume intercropping helps prevent soil erosion, enhances fertility, suppresses pests, and controls root nematodes in cropping systems. Table 2 Average results of coffee yield impacted by coffee-groundnut intercropping (measured in 100 kg/ha). Treatments Clean coffee yield with year of production Mean 2019 2020 2022 1:1 coffee to groundnut row ratio 12.07 12.84 3.86 9.59 1:2 coffee to groundnut row ratio 9.9 13.47 2.22 8.53 Sole coffee 12.43 10.85 3.39 8.89 1:3 coffee to groundnut row ratio 10.5 12.46 6.42 9.79 Mean 8.98 9.93 3.97 9.20 LSD (5%) NS NS NS NS CV % 25.68 31.03 96.31 16.87 Means followed by the same letter(s) within a column are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. Strip groundnut combined yield The analysis of variance indicated that coffee-groundnut strip intercropping significantly (The analysis of variance indicated that coffee-groundnut strip intercropping significantly (p < 0.05) affected groundnut yield in the 2020 and 2022 production years, as well as in the pooled mean (Table 3 ). According to the pooled mean analysis, sole-planted groundnut notably yielded statistically higher groundnut yields compared to other intercropped treatments. Furthermore, the sole stand plot yielded the highest and lowest groundnut yield in 2019 and 2021, respectively. Table 3 Mean Results of Groundnut Yield Affected by Coffee-Groundnut Intercropping (100 kg/ha) Treatments Yield of groundnut with year of production 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Mean 1:1 coffee to groundnut row ratio 2.33 5.62 1.62 1.53 3.8 2.98 1:2 coffee to groundnut row ratio 1.81 6.86 1.88 1.93 3.38 3.17 1:3 coffee to groundnut row ratio 3.33 7.75 4.64 2 4.45 4.43 Sole groundnut 6.53 11.38 5.61 1.66 9.05 6.85 Mean 2.8 6.32 2.75 1.78 5.17 4.36 LSD (5%) NS NS 3.93* NS 3.3* 1.64* CV % 0.82 2.18 77.26 14 31.97 27.34 Means followed by the same letter(s) within a column are not significantly different at P ≤ 0.05. Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) The LER analysis from this study demonstrates the efficiency of intercropping in terms of yield per unit area of land and overall biological efficiency. It underscores the significant advantages of growing two crops simultaneously on the same land, as shown through the Land Equivalent Ratios (LER). The intercropping ratios of coffee to groundnut remarkably influenced the total LER value, indicating the substantial superiority of intercropping over monoculture. Across all intercropping patterns, higher LERs were observed, highlighting the benefits of intercropping in this study. Specifically, the highest total land equivalent ratio was achieved at a 1C:3G strip intercropping ratio, closely followed by 1C:2G and 1C:1G. The LER ranged between 1.39 and 1.68 for coffee strip intercropped with groundnuts, indicating that intercropping would require 39–68% less land than monoculture to achieve the same yield. (Taye et al ,2008) and (Anteneh et al, 2020 ) The prominence of the 1C:3G strip intercropping ratio in maximizing growth resource utilization is evident, potentially leading to more efficient resource exploitation and overall production compared to other intercrop combinations. These findings are aligned with previous research demonstrating the advantages of intercropping, including improved resource utilization, weed control, pest and disease management, and soil erosion control. Additionally, interactions among component crops under intercropping facilitate maximum yield and productivity. This result is also in line with the findings of other research studies of (Taye et al ,2008, Anteneh et al, 2020 ), who demonstrated the advantage of coffee intercropping with Enset,orange, potato and spice crops, as well as a higher value of LER (> 1) was also recorded. It has been well known that intercropping provides many advantages like improved utilization of growth resources by intercropped species (Taye et al ,2008) and used as a method of controlling weeds, insect pests, diseases and control of soil erosion (Matusso et al, 2012 ). Interactions in the component crops under intercropping facilitate each other to achieve maximum yielding or productivity (Tewodros et al, 2018 ) and cloud also reduces the yield of the less competitive crops in intercropping. Overall, these results underscore the effectiveness of intercropping as a sustainable and advantageous agricultural practice and align with previous research findings emphasizing the benefits of intercropping in various cropping systems. 4. Conclusion Based on the findings, coffee-groundnut strip intercropping significantly impacted the yield and advantage of the respective crops. The pooled mean analysis indicated significant variation among different strip intercropping patterns, with the 1C:3G and 1C:2G coffee strip intercropping with groundnut resulting in the highest (9.79 * 100 kg/ha) and lowest (8.53 * 100 kg/ha) clean coffee yields, respectively. Similarly, different strip intercropping patterns significantly affected groundnut yield, with sole-planted groundnut yielding the highest total yield compared to other intercropped treatments. The intercropping ratio of coffee to groundnut significantly influenced the total Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) value (p < 0.05). The highest total LER was recorded at the 1C:3G level (1.68%), followed by 1C:2G (1.43%) and 1C:1G (1.39%). These results indicate that strip intercropping at the 1C:3G levels are more advantageous in producing higher yields per unit area of land by efficiently utilizing growth resources. The highest total LER suggests that intercropping coffee and groundnut at a 1:3 ratio enhances productivity, efficiency, and improves land equivalent ratios, ultimately generating additional economic returns. Declarations Acknowledgment The authors are grateful to Mechara Agricultural Research Center for financial and material supports. Data availability statement Data will be made available on request. Declaration of interest statement The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Anteneh N, Behailu M, Essubalew G, Shiferaw T, Tesfaye S,, (2020). Intercropping of Coffee with Enset (Enset ventricosum Welw. Cheesman) at Teppi, Southwestern Ethiopia. Intercropping of Coffee with Enset (Enset ventricosum Welw. Cheesman) at Teppi, Southwestern Ethiopia. International Journal of Research Studies in Agricultural Sciences. 6 8: 2020, PP 15–22. Barry, P. (2020). Cover Crops: Types and Benefits To Use In Agriculture. mountain Research and Development, 307–312. Bersisa, H., Dejene, M., Derso, E. (2018) Distribution and status of Coffee Berry Disease (CBD) in Arsi, Southeastern Ethiopia. International journal of food science and agriculture, 2(11), 108–117. DOI: 10.26855/ijfsa.2018.11.001 . Chauhan, R., Hooda, M. S. and Agena A. T., 2015. Coffee: the backbone of the Ethiopian economy, 1: 082–086. CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2017. Area and production of major crops in the Federal democratic republic of Ethiopia central statistical agency agricultural sample survey. Statistical Bulletin, 1: 1–117. Damenu, T., Coffee production and marketing in Oromiya. In: Girma, A., Bayetta, B., Tesfaye, S., Endale, T. and Taye, K. (2008). Coffee Diversity and Knowledge. Proceedings of a National Workshop Four Decades of Coffee Research and Development in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 485. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2015. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation statistical pocketbook of coffee , pp. 1-194. FAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/Statistical Database). 2020. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC . Hinsene Garuma, Gezahegn Berecha and Chemeda Abedeta. 2015. Influence of Coffee Production Systems on the Occurrence of Coffee Beans Abnormality: Implication on Coffee Quality. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 14: 40–44. ICO (International Coffee Organization). 2020. Top coffee producing countries. World Atlas. International Coffee Organization (ICO) (2019) http://www.ico.org/prices/po-production pdf Accessed 19 February 2019. International Coffee Organization [ICO]. (2015). World coffee market. ICO annual review Retrieved November 2016. http://www.ico.org/ . International Coffee Organization, 222 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8HB. Khisa, W. P. 2000. Soil loss and Nutrient losses Due To Erosion in a Maize-Legume based Cropping System in Gatanga (Kenya). Msc Thesis, Soil Science Dept. University of Nairobi. Kimemia, J.K. 1998. Studies on Green Manure Application and Intercropping in Coffee arabica Production. PhD Thesis, University of Nairobi. Matusso JMM, Mugwe JN, Mucheru-Muna M. (2012). Potential role of cereal-legume intercropping systems in integrated soil fertility management in smallholder farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa Research Application Summary. Third RUFORUM Biennial Meeting 24–28 September 2012, Entebbe, Uganda. Morris J. Coffee. 2018: A Global History. 1st ed. London: Reaktions Books . 176 p. Mureithi, J.G., Gachene, C.K.K. and Wamuogo, J.W. 2003. Legume Cover crops Research in Kenya: Experiences of the Legume Research Network Project. Highlights of Phase 1 Research Activities (1994–2000). KARI Technical Note Series No. 12, February 2003. Razafinarivo, N. J., Guyot, R., Davis, A. P., Couturon, E., Hamon, S., Crouzillat, D., Rigoreau, M., Dubreuil-Tranchant, C., Poncet, V., De Kochko, A., Rakotomalala, J.J, and Hamon, P. 2012. The genetic structure and diversity of coffee across Africa and the Indian Ocean islands were revealed using microsatellites. Annals of Botany, 111(2): 229–248. Taye, K., Anteneh, N., Tesfaye, S., Endale, T. and Alemseged, Y., (2008). Intercropping coffee with other crops. In: Girma, A., Bayetta, B., Tesfaye, S., Endale, T. and Taye, K. (Ed.). Coffee Diversity and Knowledge. Proceedings of a National Workshop Four Decades of Coffee Research and Development in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, 485. Tewodros M, Mesfin S, Getachew W, Ashenafi A, Neim S (2018). Effect of Inorganic N and P Fertilizers on Fruit Yield and Yield Components of Pineapple (Annanas comosus MERR L. Var. Smooth cayanne) at Jimma, Southwest Ethiopia. Agrotechnology 7: 1 DOI: 10.4172/2168-9881.1000178 . Thayamini H. and Brintha, I., (2010). Review on maize based intercropping. Journal of agronomy, 9 (3): 135–145. Van Asten P., Wairegi, L., Mukasa, D. and Uringi, N., (2011). Agronomic and economic benefits of coffee-banana intercropping in Uganda’s smallholder farming systems. Agricultural Systems, 104: 326–334. Willey, R., (1985). Evaluation and presentation of intercropping advantages. Experimental Agriculture, 21: 119–133. Zenebe Wubshet and Dawit Merga. 2020. Biology, Dispersal and Management of Coffee Berry Disease: A Review. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 10 (20), 2224–3208. Zhang, G., Yang, Z. and Dong, S., (2011). Interspecific competitiveness affects the total biomass yield in an alfalfa and corn intercropping system. Field Crops Res., 124 (1): 66–73. Zhou, L, Vega, FE, Tan, H, Lluch, AER, Meinhardt, LW, and Fang W. 2016. Developing Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) Markers for the Identification of Coffee Germplasm. Trop Plant Biology; 9:82–95. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3878216","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":268797647,"identity":"22e62d00-1ef3-49d7-b614-f710d45da604","order_by":0,"name":"Adisu Wegari","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Mechara Agricultural Research Center","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Adisu","middleName":"","lastName":"Wegari","suffix":""},{"id":268797648,"identity":"c1364002-c3fb-47c0-90d4-2dd6b2b67693","order_by":1,"name":"Sintayehu Girma","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Mechara Agricultural Research Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sintayehu","middleName":"","lastName":"Girma","suffix":""},{"id":268797649,"identity":"efb8197c-29c2-486b-9c1e-4f2ee4aafcd4","order_by":2,"name":"Alamisa Gamachu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Mechara Agricultural Research Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alamisa","middleName":"","lastName":"Gamachu","suffix":""},{"id":268797650,"identity":"4fd91b5e-144b-4035-a944-7bec5c44d59f","order_by":3,"name":"Ibrahim Kasim","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Mechara Agricultural Research Center","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ibrahim","middleName":"","lastName":"Kasim","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-01-19 09:04:51","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3878216/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3878216/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":50183549,"identity":"d56a20c2-e211-4e59-be44-365e728cc901","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-25 19:26:46","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":18146,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTotal LER. Bars capped with the same letter/s are not significantly different at (P\u0026lt;0.05)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"F1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3878216/v1/1830c7ce9fb777ab213e14cd.png"},{"id":51407849,"identity":"438fbcdb-5e4f-4f88-b215-1d5caf2d7b3c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 03:37:02","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":309653,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3878216/v1/021b68f8-e238-4d71-80f2-9a2c0935cfe5.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Effects of Strip Intercropping of Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) with Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) on Yield and Yield Advantage","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe coffee genus (Coffea) is a diverse group, comprising 124 species and is native to the old world tropics (Razafinarivo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). It holds significant economic, social, and spiritual importance for many communities with varied cultural and psychological backgrounds (Chauhan et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). Coffee, the world's second most traded commodity after petroleum, serves as a primary source of income for growers across numerous regions (FAO, 2015). In the latter half of the 19th century, coffee underwent an industrial transformation due to the rapid expansion of coffee production in Brazil, paving the way for a mass consumer market in the United States (Morris \u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eToday, coffee cultivation spans over 80 countries, covering more than 10.6\u0026nbsp;million hectares of land in sub-tropical regions, particularly across Africa, Asia, and Latin America (FAOSTAT, 2020). Socially, it plays a crucial role in supporting nearly 20\u0026nbsp;million coffee-farming families in underdeveloped countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America (Zhou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, in Ethiopia, coffee accounts for 40% of the total export and contributes to 10% of the government\u0026rsquo;s revenue (ICO, 2020). These figures emphasize the extensive impact and significance of the coffee industry in various facets of society and economies globally.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEthiopia's diverse ecologies host indigenous germplasm, providing a significant advantage for the production of superior \u003cem\u003eC. arabica\u003c/em\u003e, enabling the country to compete effectively in the global market (Zenebe and Dawit, 2020). Approximately 700,447 hectares of land are dedicated to coffee cultivation (CSA, 2017). Notably, the Oromia Regional State holds prominence as the native habitat of C. arabica, evident through the presence of wild coffee trees, covering 464,426 hectares (66%) and yielding 317,316 tons annually (CSA, 2017). Regions such as Kaffa, Illubabor, Jimma, Wollega, Sidamo, Gedeo, Yirgachefe, and Hararghe stand out as primary coffee-growing and producing areas, highlighting the extensive role of coffee cultivation across various regions (Hinsene \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e., 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoffee serves as a primary source of income for farm households, supporting various financial needs. Commonly grown as a garden plantation, coffee is often intercropped with other crops such as pineapple, banana, Enset, and other fruit crops, offering improved farm earnings for smallholder farmers without compromising coffee yield and quality (Damenu \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e, 2008, Van Asten et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). In South East Ethiopia, farmers address land shortages by intercropping groundnut with perennial crops like coffee. This intercropping approach, along with alley cropping, has been instrumental in mitigating land scarcity challenges (Hika \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, variations in weed density are noted among different coffee farms intercropped with various crops. For instance, coffee farms intercropped with legumes and barley exhibit differing weed densities due to ground cover and competition for space (Hika \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e, 2018). While the intercropping of coffee with groundnut is a common practice, there is a lack of documented scientific research on the recommended intercropping ratio, both within the study area and more broadly across the country.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address these gaps, this present study is aimed at evaluating the effect of different coffee-groundnut strip intercropping ratios on yield, and determining economically viable intercropping ratios to intensify the coffee-groundnut cropping system, ensuring sustainable productivity in the farming system.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Site Description\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experiment was conducted at the Mechara Agricultural Research Center (McARC) on-station, spanning the 2015 and 2016 cropping seasons. Located 434 km east of Addis Ababa in the Daro Labu district of the west Hararghe Zone in the Oromia Regional State, Mechara sits at an altitude of 1760 meters above sea level. The area experiences an annual average temperature of 16\u0026deg;C and receives approximately 963mm of rainfall. The primary soil type at the center is sandy loam clay, characterized by a reddish color.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Experimental Materials, Treatments and Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe experimental materials consisted of five treatment combinations, including a recommended check, with the Arusa coffee variety used for the study. The experiment employed a Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications. The treatments encompassed sole coffee, sole groundnut, and ratios of 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 for coffee to groundnut, respectively. Inorganic fertilizers such as DAP and UREA were utilized applied at the time of transplanting and subsequently throughout the seasons to facilitate efficient nutrient uptake by the roots. These were applied in two splits, commencing at the start of the rainy season after seedling transplantation. Proper spacing for groundnut between rows and plants was adjusted based on previous research recommendations (60 cm X 30 cm), and all appropriate management practices were consistently carried out for both component crops.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe treatment combinations and spacing arrangement of the component crops.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eS/N\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatments Adjustment\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Coffee: Groundnut)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCoffee spacing (m)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroundnut spacing (cm)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSpace between Coffee and Groundnut raw\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetween raw and plant (m)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBetween raw and plant (m)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSole Coffee\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2mX1.5m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSole Groundnut\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e60 x 10 cm\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 row coffee : 1 row ground nut\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2m X 1.5m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 row coffee : 2 row ground nut\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3m X 1.5m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 row coffee : 3 row ground nut\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3m X 1.5m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9 m\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3 Data Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe weight of fresh cherries harvested per plot was recorded and converted to clean coffee yield, measured in 100 kg per hectare. Similarly, the groundnut yield was also recorded for each plot within the experimental unit. Furthermore, Land Equivalent Ratios (LER) for both coffee and groundnut yields were calculated following the procedure outlined by (Willey, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1985\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTLER\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;PLER coffee\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;PLER Groundnut\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere TLER, total land equivalent ratio; PLER coffee, Partial land equivalent ratio of coffee; PLER Groundnut, Partial land equivalent ratio of Groundnut. The collected data were statistically analyzed using R Software and the significance differences between any two treatments means were tested by least significant difference (LSD) at 5% probability level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eYield of Clean Coffee\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe variance analysis revealed that whether coffee groundnut strips were intercropped with coffee or not was not statistically significant (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Notably, the maximum clean coffee yield was achieved during the 2020 harvesting season. Due to unforeseen circumstances, no yields were obtained from any plots during the 2021 cropping season. A pooled mean analysis indicated that a row ratio of 1:3\u0026mdash;where coffee was intercropped with groundnuts\u0026mdash;resulted in numerically higher yields of clean coffee compared to other intercropped treatments. Specifically, in the strip intercropping treatments, the 1C:3G and 1C:2G yields were numerically the highest and lowest, respectively (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntercropping coffee with groundnut has become increasingly vital in smallholder farms, primarily for subsistence food production and income generation from surplus produce. Likewise, coffee intercrop combinations with annual food crops offer benefits such as reducing soil erosion (Khisa, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) and providing food for coffee farmers (Kimemia, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Additionally, legume cover crops like lablab (Lablab purpureus) can serve multiple purposes by aiding in weed control, enhancing soil fertility, and providing food (Mureithi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Other studies also indicate that 59% of smallholder farmers recognize the effectiveness of legume intercropping in controlling soil erosion, a finding supported by Barry (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), who discovered that legume intercropping helps prevent soil erosion, enhances fertility, suppresses pests, and controls root nematodes in cropping systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAverage results of coffee yield impacted by coffee-groundnut intercropping (measured in 100 kg/ha).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eClean coffee yield with year of production\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1:1 coffee to groundnut row ratio\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.07\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.84\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.59\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1:2 coffee to groundnut row ratio\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.47\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.22\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSole coffee\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.39\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.89\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1:3 coffee to groundnut row ratio\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.46\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.42\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.79\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e8.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLSD (5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCV %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.68\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31.03\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e96.31\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.87\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeans followed by the same letter(s) within a column are not significantly different at P\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eStrip groundnut combined yield\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe analysis of variance indicated that coffee-groundnut strip intercropping significantly (The analysis of variance indicated that coffee-groundnut strip intercropping significantly (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) affected groundnut yield in the 2020 and 2022 production years, as well as in the pooled mean (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). According to the pooled mean analysis, sole-planted groundnut notably yielded statistically higher groundnut yields compared to other intercropped treatments. Furthermore, the sole stand plot yielded the highest and lowest groundnut yield in 2019 and 2021, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean Results of Groundnut Yield Affected by Coffee-Groundnut Intercropping (100 kg/ha)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"7\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreatments\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eYield of groundnut with year of production\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2018\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1:1 coffee to groundnut row ratio\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.62\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.98\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1:2 coffee to groundnut row ratio\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.81\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.86\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.88\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.93\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1:3 coffee to groundnut row ratio\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.33\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.64\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.45\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.43\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSole groundnut\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.53\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.61\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.66\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.85\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6.32\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.75\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.78\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4.36\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLSD (5%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.93*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.3*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.64*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCV %\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.82\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e2.18\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e77.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e31.97\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.34\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMeans followed by the same letter(s) within a column are not significantly different at P\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eLand Equivalent Ratio (LER)\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe LER analysis from this study demonstrates the efficiency of intercropping in terms of yield per unit area of land and overall biological efficiency. It underscores the significant advantages of growing two crops simultaneously on the same land, as shown through the Land Equivalent Ratios (LER). The intercropping ratios of coffee to groundnut remarkably influenced the total LER value, indicating the substantial superiority of intercropping over monoculture. Across all intercropping patterns, higher LERs were observed, highlighting the benefits of intercropping in this study. Specifically, the highest total land equivalent ratio was achieved at a 1C:3G strip intercropping ratio, closely followed by 1C:2G and 1C:1G. The LER ranged between 1.39 and 1.68 for coffee strip intercropped with groundnuts, indicating that intercropping would require 39\u0026ndash;68% less land than monoculture to achieve the same yield. (Taye \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e ,2008) and (Anteneh et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe prominence of the 1C:3G strip intercropping ratio in maximizing growth resource utilization is evident, potentially leading to more efficient resource exploitation and overall production compared to other intercrop combinations. These findings are aligned with previous research demonstrating the advantages of intercropping, including improved resource utilization, weed control, pest and disease management, and soil erosion control. Additionally, interactions among component crops under intercropping facilitate maximum yield and productivity. This result is also in line with the findings of other research studies of (Taye \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e ,2008, Anteneh et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e), who demonstrated the advantage of coffee intercropping with Enset,orange, potato and spice crops, as well as a higher value of LER (\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;1) was also recorded. It has been well known that intercropping provides many advantages like improved utilization of growth resources by intercropped species (Taye \u003cem\u003eet al\u003c/em\u003e ,2008) and used as a method of controlling weeds, insect pests, diseases and control of soil erosion (Matusso et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Interactions in the component crops under intercropping facilitate each other to achieve maximum yielding or productivity (Tewodros et al, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e) and cloud also reduces the yield of the less competitive crops in intercropping.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, these results underscore the effectiveness of intercropping as a sustainable and advantageous agricultural practice and align with previous research findings emphasizing the benefits of intercropping in various cropping systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"4. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eBased on the findings, coffee-groundnut strip intercropping significantly impacted the yield and advantage of the respective crops. The pooled mean analysis indicated significant variation among different strip intercropping patterns, with the 1C:3G and 1C:2G coffee strip intercropping with groundnut resulting in the highest (9.79 * 100 kg/ha) and lowest (8.53 * 100 kg/ha) clean coffee yields, respectively. Similarly, different strip intercropping patterns significantly affected groundnut yield, with sole-planted groundnut yielding the highest total yield compared to other intercropped treatments. The intercropping ratio of coffee to groundnut significantly influenced the total Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) value (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The highest total LER was recorded at the 1C:3G level (1.68%), followed by 1C:2G (1.43%) and 1C:1G (1.39%). These results indicate that strip intercropping at the 1C:3G levels are more advantageous in producing higher yields per unit area of land by efficiently utilizing growth resources. The highest total LER suggests that intercropping coffee and groundnut at a 1:3 ratio enhances productivity, efficiency, and improves land equivalent ratios, ultimately generating additional economic returns.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors are grateful to Mechara Agricultural Research Center for financial and material supports.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability statement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData will be made available on request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclaration of interest statement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflict of interest.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAnteneh N, Behailu M, Essubalew G, Shiferaw T, Tesfaye S,, (2020). Intercropping of Coffee with Enset (Enset ventricosum Welw. Cheesman) at Teppi, Southwestern Ethiopia. Intercropping of Coffee with Enset (Enset ventricosum Welw. Cheesman) at Teppi, Southwestern Ethiopia. International Journal of Research Studies in Agricultural Sciences. 6 8: 2020, PP 15\u0026ndash;22.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBarry, P. (2020). Cover Crops: Types and Benefits To Use In Agriculture. mountain Research and Development, 307\u0026ndash;312.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBersisa, H., Dejene, M., Derso, E. (2018) Distribution and status of Coffee Berry Disease (CBD) in Arsi, Southeastern Ethiopia. International journal of food science and agriculture, 2(11), 108\u0026ndash;117. DOI: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.26855/ijfsa.2018.11.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.26855/ijfsa.2018.11.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChauhan, R., Hooda, M. S. and Agena A. T., 2015. Coffee: the backbone of the Ethiopian economy, 1: 082\u0026ndash;086.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2017. Area and production of major crops in the Federal democratic republic of Ethiopia central statistical agency agricultural sample survey. Statistical Bulletin, 1: 1\u0026ndash;117.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDamenu, T., Coffee production and marketing in Oromiya. In: Girma, A., Bayetta, B., Tesfaye, S., Endale, T. and Taye, K. (2008). Coffee Diversity and Knowledge. Proceedings of a National Workshop Four Decades of Coffee Research and Development in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 485.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAO (Food and Agricultural Organization). 2015. \u003cem\u003eFood and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation statistical pocketbook of coffee\u003c/em\u003e, pp. 1-194.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFAOSTAT (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/Statistical Database). 2020. Available online: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHinsene Garuma, Gezahegn Berecha and Chemeda Abedeta. 2015. Influence of Coffee Production Systems on the Occurrence of Coffee Beans Abnormality: Implication on Coffee Quality. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 14: 40\u0026ndash;44.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eICO (International Coffee Organization). 2020. Top coffee producing countries. World Atlas.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Coffee Organization (ICO) (2019) \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.ico.org/prices/po-production\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.ico.org/prices/po-production\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e pdf Accessed 19 February 2019.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Coffee Organization [ICO]. (2015). World coffee market. ICO annual review Retrieved November 2016. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.ico.org/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.ico.org/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. International Coffee Organization, 222 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8HB.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhisa, W. P. 2000. Soil loss and Nutrient losses Due To Erosion in a Maize-Legume based Cropping System in Gatanga (Kenya). Msc Thesis, Soil Science Dept. University of Nairobi.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKimemia, J.K. 1998. Studies on Green Manure Application and Intercropping in Coffee arabica Production. PhD Thesis, University of Nairobi.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMatusso JMM, Mugwe JN, Mucheru-Muna M. (2012). Potential role of cereal-legume intercropping systems in integrated soil fertility management in smallholder farming systems of sub-Saharan Africa Research Application Summary. Third RUFORUM Biennial Meeting 24\u0026ndash;28 September 2012, Entebbe, Uganda.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorris J. Coffee. 2018: A Global History. 1st ed. London: \u003cem\u003eReaktions Books\u003c/em\u003e. 176 p.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMureithi, J.G., Gachene, C.K.K. and Wamuogo, J.W. 2003. Legume Cover crops Research in Kenya: Experiences of the Legume Research Network Project. Highlights of Phase 1 Research Activities (1994\u0026ndash;2000). KARI Technical Note Series No. 12, February 2003.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRazafinarivo, N. J., Guyot, R., Davis, A. P., Couturon, E., Hamon, S., Crouzillat, D., Rigoreau, M., Dubreuil-Tranchant, C., Poncet, V., De Kochko, A., Rakotomalala, J.J, and Hamon, P. 2012. The genetic structure and diversity of coffee across Africa and the Indian Ocean islands were revealed using microsatellites. Annals of Botany, 111(2): 229\u0026ndash;248.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTaye, K., Anteneh, N., Tesfaye, S., Endale, T. and Alemseged, Y., (2008). Intercropping coffee with other crops. In: Girma, A., Bayetta, B., Tesfaye, S., Endale, T. and Taye, K. (Ed.). Coffee Diversity and Knowledge. Proceedings of a National Workshop Four Decades of Coffee Research and Development in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, 485.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTewodros M, Mesfin S, Getachew W, Ashenafi A, Neim S (2018). Effect of Inorganic N and P Fertilizers on Fruit Yield and Yield Components of Pineapple (Annanas comosus MERR L. Var. Smooth cayanne) at Jimma, Southwest Ethiopia. Agrotechnology 7: 1 DOI: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.4172/2168-9881.1000178\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4172/2168-9881.1000178\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThayamini H. and Brintha, I., (2010). Review on maize based intercropping. Journal of agronomy, 9 (3): 135\u0026ndash;145.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Asten P., Wairegi, L., Mukasa, D. and Uringi, N., (2011). Agronomic and economic benefits of coffee-banana intercropping in Uganda\u0026rsquo;s smallholder farming systems. Agricultural Systems, 104: 326\u0026ndash;334.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWilley, R., (1985). Evaluation and presentation of intercropping advantages. Experimental Agriculture, 21: 119\u0026ndash;133.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZenebe Wubshet and Dawit Merga. 2020. Biology, Dispersal and Management of Coffee Berry Disease: A Review. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 10 (20), 2224\u0026ndash;3208.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhang, G., Yang, Z. and Dong, S., (2011). Interspecific competitiveness affects the total biomass yield in an alfalfa and corn intercropping system. Field Crops Res., 124 (1): 66\u0026ndash;73.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZhou, L, Vega, FE, Tan, H, Lluch, AER, Meinhardt, LW, and Fang W. 2016. Developing Single Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) Markers for the Identification of Coffee Germplasm. Trop Plant Biology; 9:82\u0026ndash;95.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"intercropping, land equivalent ratio, strip, mono-cropping","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3878216/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3878216/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThere are several advantages to intercropping over mono-cropping production. Therefore, intercropping approaches need to be investigated in greater depth. In order to evaluate the yield advantage, nutrient use efficiency, etc., of strip intercropping, researchers have proposed an intercropping approach that is based on systematic evaluation. Due to these advantages, intercropping is common throughout the world, especially in developing countries like Ethiopia. A field experiment was conducted at Mechara Agriculture Research center during 2016 to 2022 to evaluate the effect of strip intercropping ratios of coffee with groundnut on the yield of both crops and to determine economically optimum coffee to groundnut strip intercropping ratio for the study area. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Coffee variety (Arusa) and Babble-1 groundnut variety were used. In the experiment, five treatments were applied: sole coffee, sole groundnut, 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 ratios of coffee with groundnut. Regarding strip intercropping treatments, numerically the highest and lowest clean coffee yield was recorded at 1C (1coffee):3G (3goundnut) (9.79 * 100kg ha-1) and 1C (coffee): 2G (2groundnu) (8.53*100 kg ha-1) treatments. In coffee-groundnut strip intercropping, the highest land equivalent ratio was recorded at 1C (1coffee):3G (3goundnut) (1.68) closely followed by 1C (coffee): 2G (2groundnu) (1.43), and 1C (1coffee):1G (1groundnut) (1.39), which provides a relative yield advantage of 39 to 68%. As a result, the highest total LER indicates that strip intercropping with groundnut at 1C (1coffee):3G (3goundnut) ratio yields the highest yield and yield profit to farmers.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Effects of Strip Intercropping of Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) with Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) on Yield and Yield Advantage","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-01-25 19:26:42","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3878216/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"66369ee2-27e7-437c-9cc0-78924c2909e7","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 25th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-02-21T03:36:31+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-01-25 19:26:42","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3878216","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3878216","identity":"rs-3878216","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}