Paper · 1984 · Weed Research

Weed interference in maize, cowpea and maize/cowpea intercrop in a subhumid tropical environment. III. Influence of land preparation

A. O. AYENI; W. B. DUKE; I. O. AKOBUNDU

9
claims
17
verbatim quotes
5
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Summary The influence of no‐tillage and conventional tillage on the outcome of early weed interference in maize ( Zea mays L., cv. TZB), cowpea [ Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp, cv. VITA‐5] and their intercrop at populations of 40000, 50 000 and 30 000 + 40 000 plants ha −1 was investigated on a loamy sand Oxic Ustropept in a subhumid tropical environment between April and July 1980. Both tillage treatments received 60 kg N, 30 kg P 2 O 5 and 30 kg K 2 O ha −1 . Although the weed spectrum was wider under no‐tillage, weed weight was only 52% of the weight recorded under conventional tillage 6 weeks after sowing and the average food energy yield reductions caused were 28 and 65%, respectively. Cropping pattern had no effect on plot weediness. With minimum or no weed interference, maize performance was better in conventional than no‐tillage but worse with prolonged weed interference. Cowpea responded more to weed interference than to tillage practice. Regardless of tillage practice and weed interference duration (up to 6 weeks) after sowing, maize monoculture produced the highest food energy yield, followed by maize/cowpea intercrop and cowpea monoculture in that order.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

No-tillage had a wider weed spectrum than conventional tillage.

Taxon
maize, cowpeaVigna unguiculataZea mayst0
Treatment
no‐tillagee0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed spectrume0
Direction
widere0
Comparator
conventional tillagee1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the weed spectrum was wider under no‐tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 473–517 · show in text ↑
e1

“influence of no‐tillage and conventional tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 12–60 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize, cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–34 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed weight under no-tillage was 52% of conventional tillage at six weeks.

Taxon
maize, cowpeaVigna unguiculataZea mayst0
Treatment
no‐tillagee1
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
weed weighte0
Direction
onlye0
Value
52%e0
Comparator
conventional tillagee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“weed weight was only 52% of the weight recorded under conventional tillage 6 weeks after sowing”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 519–614 · show in text ↑
e1

“The influence of no‐tillage and conventional tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 8–60 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize, cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–34 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weeds reduced food energy yield by 28% under no-tillage.

Taxon
maize, cowpeaVigna unguiculataZea mayst0
Treatment
no‐tillagee0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
food energy yield reductionse0
Direction
reductionse0
Value
28e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“under no‐tillage, weed weight was only 52% of the weight recorded under conventional tillage 6 weeks after sowing and the average food energy yield reductions caused were 28 and 65%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 501–696 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize, cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–34 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weeds reduced food energy yield by 65% under conventional tillage.

Taxon
maize, cowpeaVigna unguiculataZea mayst0
Treatment
conventional tillagee0
Interactor
weede1weed
Outcome
food energy yield reductionse0
Direction
reductionse0
Value
65%e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“under conventional tillage 6 weeks after sowing and the average food energy yield reductions caused were 28 and 65%, respectively”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 567–696 · show in text ↑
e1

“the weed spectrum was wider under no‐tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 473–517 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize, cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–34 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cropping pattern had no effect on plot weediness.

Taxon
maize, cowpeaVigna unguiculataZea mayst0
Treatment
Cropping patterne0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
plot weedinesse0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cropping pattern had no effect on plot weediness”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 698–746 · show in text ↑
t0

“maize, cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 21–34 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

With little weed interference, maize performed better under conventional tillage than no-tillage.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
conventionale0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
maize performancee0
Direction
bettere0
Qualifier
minimum or no weed interferencee0
Comparator
no‐tillagee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“With minimum or no weed interference, maize performance was better in conventional than no‐tillage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 748–846 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

With prolonged weed interference, maize performed worse under conventional tillage than no-tillage.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
conventionale0
Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
maize performancee0
Direction
worsee0
Qualifier
prolonged weed interferencee0
Comparator
no‐tillagee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“maize performance was better in conventional than no‐tillage but worse with prolonged weed interference”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 786–889 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cowpea responded more to weed interference than to tillage practice.

Interactor
weede0weed
Outcome
responded moree0
Direction
moree0
Comparator
tillage practicee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Cowpea responded more to weed interference than to tillage practice”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–958 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maize monoculture had the highest food energy yield across tillage and weed interference duration.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Material
maize monoculturee0
Outcome
food energy yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Comparator
maize/cowpea intercrop and cowpea monoculturee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Regardless of tillage practice and weed interference duration (up to 6 weeks) after sowing, maize monoculture produced the highest food energy yield, followed by maize/cowpea intercrop and cowpea monoculture in that order”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 960–1181 · show in text ↑

tillage · weed · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 3 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. positive
  3. positive
See all 4 papers →

tillage · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

111 papers: 65 positive, 46 negative or no effect

64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 41 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

107 papers more in this group

See all 111 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.