Abstract
Abstract Water‐use efficiency (WUE) and soil water extraction by four maize ( Zea mays L.)/cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata Walp.) cropping patterns were studied in a tropical hydromorphic soil over two consecutive growing seasons in 1983 and 1984. The cropping patterns used were: monocropped cowpea (T 1 ), monocropped maize (T 2 ), intercropped maize and cowpea planted in the same row as alternate plants (T 3 ), and intercropped maize and cowpea planted in alternate rows (T 4 ). Evapotranspiration (E t ) was calculated from the soil water balance. Soil water extraction was limited to the surface 0.35 m of the profile due to the restriction of roots by a gravel layer at this depth. Upward water flux into the root zone was negligible due to low hydraulic conductivity. All cropping patterns were subjected to drought stress in 1983. Mean runoff and net water flux in the root zone in 1983 and 1984 were 2.4 and 0.04%, respectively, and 1.4 and 0.4%, respectively, of the seasonal rainfall. Intercropping increased seasonal WUE. The WUE (kg grain per mm water per ha) of T 1 , T 2 , T 3 , and T 4 were 0.5, 2.2, 1.6, and 1.6, respectively, for the droughty conditions in 1983 and were 2.1, 2.1, 4.2, and 3.6, respectively, for the favorable moisture regime in 1984. One of the benefits of intercropping maize and cowpea is, therefore, a higher WUE in relation to monocropping provided soil water is not limiting
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased seasonal water-use efficiency.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Intercropping increased seasonal WUE”
e4“intercropping maize and cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
All cropping patterns were subjected to drought stress in 1983.
- Outcome
- drought stresse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“intercropping maize and cowpea”
e5“All cropping patterns were subjected to drought stress in 1983”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water extraction was limited to the surface 0.35 m of the profile.
- Outcome
- soil water extractione6
- Value
- 0.35 me6
- Qualifier
- due to the restriction of roots by a gravel layere6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“intercropping maize and cowpea”
e6“Soil water extraction was limited to the surface 0.35 m of the profile due to the restriction of roots by a gravel layer at this depth”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean runoff and net root-zone water flux were 2.4 and 0.04% of seasonal rainfall in 1983 and 1984 respectively.
- Outcome
- Mean runoff and net water flux in the root zonee7
- Value
- 2.4 and 0.04%e7
- Qualifier
- in 1983 and 1984e7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“intercropping maize and cowpea”
e7“Mean runoff and net water flux in the root zone in 1983 and 1984 were 2.4 and 0.04%, respectively, and 1.4 and 0.4%, respectively, of the seasonal rainfall”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean runoff and net root-zone water flux were 1.4 and 0.4% of seasonal rainfall in 1983 and 1984 respectively.
- Outcome
- Mean runoff and net water flux in the root zonee7
- Value
- 1.4 and 0.4%e7
- Qualifier
- in 1983 and 1984e7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“intercropping maize and cowpea”
e7“Mean runoff and net water flux in the root zone in 1983 and 1984 were 2.4 and 0.04%, respectively, and 1.4 and 0.4%, respectively, of the seasonal rainfall”
Claim · model-written summary
Upward water flux into the root zone was negligible.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“intercropping maize and cowpea”
e7“Upward water flux into the root zone was negligible due to low hydraulic conductivity”
Claim · model-written summary
Monocropped cowpea had a WUE of 0.5 kg grain per mm water per ha under 1983 droughty conditions.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae0 - Treatment
- monocropped cowpeae0
- Outcome
- WUEe1
- Value
- 0.5e1
- Setting
- droughty conditions in 1983e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“monocropped cowpea (T 1 )”
e1“The WUE (kg grain per mm water per ha) of T 1 , T 2 , T 3 , and T 4 were 0.5, 2.2, 1.6, and 1.6, respectively, for the droughty conditions in 1983 and were 2.1, 2.1, 4.2, and 3.6, respectively, for the favorable moisture regime in 1984”
Claim · model-written summary
Monocropped cowpea had a WUE of 2.1 kg grain per mm water per ha under 1984 favorable moisture.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Treatment
- monocropped cowpeae0
- Outcome
- WUEe1
- Value
- 2.1e1
- Setting
- favorable moisture regime in 1984e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“monocropped cowpea (T 1 )”
e1“The WUE (kg grain per mm water per ha) of T 1 , T 2 , T 3 , and T 4 were 0.5, 2.2, 1.6, and 1.6, respectively, for the droughty conditions in 1983 and were 2.1, 2.1, 4.2, and 3.6, respectively, for the favorable moisture regime in 1984”
Claim · model-written summary
Monocropped maize had a WUE of 2.2 kg grain per mm water per ha under 1983 droughty conditions.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“monocropped maize (T 2 )”
e1“The WUE (kg grain per mm water per ha) of T 1 , T 2 , T 3 , and T 4 were 0.5, 2.2, 1.6, and 1.6, respectively, for the droughty conditions in 1983 and were 2.1, 2.1, 4.2, and 3.6, respectively, for the favorable moisture regime in 1984”
Claim · model-written summary
Monocropped maize had a WUE of 2.1 kg grain per mm water per ha under 1984 favorable moisture.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“monocropped maize (T 2 )”
e1“The WUE (kg grain per mm water per ha) of T 1 , T 2 , T 3 , and T 4 were 0.5, 2.2, 1.6, and 1.6, respectively, for the droughty conditions in 1983 and were 2.1, 2.1, 4.2, and 3.6, respectively, for the favorable moisture regime in 1984”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize and cowpea in the same row had a WUE of 1.6 kg grain per mm water per ha under 1983 droughty conditions.
- Treatment
- intercropped maize and cowpea planted in the same row as alternate plantse0
- Outcome
- WUEe1
- Value
- 1.6e1
- Setting
- droughty conditions in 1983e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropped maize and cowpea planted in the same row as alternate plants (T 3 )”
e1“The WUE (kg grain per mm water per ha) of T 1 , T 2 , T 3 , and T 4 were 0.5, 2.2, 1.6, and 1.6, respectively, for the droughty conditions in 1983 and were 2.1, 2.1, 4.2, and 3.6, respectively, for the favorable moisture regime in 1984”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize and cowpea in the same row had a WUE of 4.2 kg grain per mm water per ha under 1984 favorable moisture.
- Treatment
- intercropped maize and cowpea planted in the same row as alternate plantse0
- Outcome
- WUEe1
- Value
- 4.2e1
- Setting
- favorable moisture regime in 1984e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropped maize and cowpea planted in the same row as alternate plants (T 3 )”
e1“The WUE (kg grain per mm water per ha) of T 1 , T 2 , T 3 , and T 4 were 0.5, 2.2, 1.6, and 1.6, respectively, for the droughty conditions in 1983 and were 2.1, 2.1, 4.2, and 3.6, respectively, for the favorable moisture regime in 1984”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize and cowpea in alternate rows had a WUE of 1.6 kg grain per mm water per ha under 1983 droughty conditions.
- Treatment
- intercropped maize and cowpea planted in alternate rowse0
- Outcome
- WUEe1
- Value
- 1.6e1
- Setting
- droughty conditions in 1983e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropped maize and cowpea planted in alternate rows (T 4 )”
e1“The WUE (kg grain per mm water per ha) of T 1 , T 2 , T 3 , and T 4 were 0.5, 2.2, 1.6, and 1.6, respectively, for the droughty conditions in 1983 and were 2.1, 2.1, 4.2, and 3.6, respectively, for the favorable moisture regime in 1984”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize and cowpea in alternate rows had a WUE of 3.6 kg grain per mm water per ha under 1984 favorable moisture.
- Treatment
- intercropped maize and cowpea planted in alternate rowse0
- Outcome
- WUEe1
- Value
- 3.6e1
- Setting
- favorable moisture regime in 1984e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropped maize and cowpea planted in alternate rows (T 4 )”
e1“The WUE (kg grain per mm water per ha) of T 1 , T 2 , T 3 , and T 4 were 0.5, 2.2, 1.6, and 1.6, respectively, for the droughty conditions in 1983 and were 2.1, 2.1, 4.2, and 3.6, respectively, for the favorable moisture regime in 1984”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping maize and cowpea gave a higher WUE than monocropping when soil water was not limiting.
- Treatment
- intercropping maize and cowpeae4
- Outcome
- WUEe4
- Direction
- highere4
- Qualifier
- provided soil water is not limitinge4
- Comparator
- monocroppinge4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“One of the benefits of intercropping maize and cowpea is, therefore, a higher WUE in relation to monocropping provided soil water is not limiting”
The same questions in other papers
Vigna unguiculata · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
3 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
intercropping · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 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.