International Journal of Horticulture, 2025, Vol.15, No.6, 299-311 http://hortherbpublisher.com/index.php/ijh 309 0.411, indicating a strong positive relationship with overall cropping expenses, supported by a t-value of 4.48 and a p-value of 0.000, which confirmed its statistical significance. Table 10 Regression analysis based on solo cropping costs Variable (solo cropping) Estimated coefficient Standard error t-value p-value Tillage cost (NRs/ha) -0.158 0.131 -1.2 0.232 Organic manure cost (NRs/ha) 0.075 0.087 0.87 0.389 Chemical fertilizer cost (NRs/ha) 0.334*** 0.726 4.61 0.000 Potato tuber cost (NRs/ha) 0.467*** 0.108 4.31 0.000 Irrigation cost (NRs/ha) -0.007 0.022 -0.34 0.734 Pesticide cost (NRs/ha) 0.009 0.015 0.62 0.536 Labour cost (NRs/ha) 0.118 0.162 0.73 0.465 F-value 40.95 - - - R2 0.777 - - - AdjustedR2 0.758 - - - Note: *, ** and *** indicate significant at 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively Table 11 Regression analysis based on mixed cropping costs Variable (Mixed cropping) Estimated coefficient Standard error t-value p-value Tillage cost (NRs/ha) -0.075 0.113 -0.66 0.509 Mixed Organic manure cost (NRs/ha) -0.017 0.101 -0.18 0.86 Mixed Chemical fertilizer cost (NRs/ha) 0.411*** 0.091 4.48 0.000 Mixed Potato tuber cost (NRs/ha) 0.184* 0.098 1.87 0.065 Mixed Irrigation cost (NRs/ha) 0.006 0.02 0.3 0.768 Mixed Pesticide cost (NRs/ha) -0.073 0.076 -0.25 0.800 Mixed Labour cost (NRs/ha) -0.073 0.954 1.06 0.292 Maize seed cost (NRs/ha) 0.368* 0.203 1.81 0.074 F-value 57.52 - - - R2 0.866 - - - AdjustedR2 0.851 - - - Note: *, ** and *** indicate significant at 10%, 5% and 1% level respectively Additionally, mixed potato tuber cost demonstrated a marginally significant effect with a coefficient of 0.184 and a p-value of 0.065, suggesting its potential relevance. The maize seed cost also approached significance with a coefficient of 0.368 and a p-value of 0.074. In contrast, other variables, including tillage cost, mixed organic manure cost, mixed irrigation cost, mixed pesticide cost, and mixed labour cost, were found to have no significant impact on costs, as reflected by their high p-values. The model exhibited a strong overall fit, with an F-value of 57.52 and an R2 of 0.866, indicating that approximately 86.6% of the variability in mixed cropping costs was explained by the included variables, while the adjusted R2 of 0.851 further underscored the robustness of the model. These findings suggest that focusing on chemical fertilizers, potato tubers, and maize seeds may be crucial for managing costs in mixed cropping systems. 4 Discussion The potato productivity in Rasuwa district was 16.15 t/ha (MoALD, 2023/24). The BCR of solo potato cropping on our study site was 1.62 which was justified by the BCR of 1.84 of Nuwakot district (PMAMP, 2020/21). The BCR of mixed potato-maize cropping of our study area was found to be 2.77 which was justified by Islam et al. (2014). The mixed potato cropping reduce the risk of crop failure received the highest score of 89.8 by decreasing surface runoff on slopping land (Manrique, 1996). Mixed potato cropping also Increase soil moisture content (Fan et al., 2016). Maize is most compatible crop with potato for their contrasting phenology highest maize equivalent yield and yield advantage. Mix cropping increase BCR, Gross return and Gross margin combining than all other
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODYzNA==