Abstract
A three season (1995/96 – 1997/98) study was conducted on an Ultisol at Epemakinde, a primary forest area of southwestern Nigeria to assess the effects of bush clearing and tillage methods on the growth and yield of a maize/cassava intercrop. A randomized complete block design with plot arrangement and three replicates was used with the bush clearing (bulldozed and windrowed (BW), bulldozed not windrowed (BNW) and Clear-fell, slashed and burnt (CSB)] and tillage methods (conventional (CT), minimum (MT), traditional (TT) and zero (ZT) as the main and sub-treatments, respectively. Results indicated that maize and cassava heights and number of leaves were generally better in CSB than in BW and BNW plots. Cassava storage root yield was better in the BNW plots whereas maize grain yield in the CSB plots was 5-6%, 8-11% and 15-20% better than in BW and BNW plots after the first, second and third cropping cycles, respectively. Among the tillage methods, no definite pattern was shown for crop heights and number of leaves but TT and MT treatments were significantly (P<0.05) better than CT and ZT, except for number of maize leaves. The best crop yields were obtained in MT plots for maize and in TT plots for cassava. The interaction effects of bush clearing and tillage methods were significant for the crop yield with the CSB + ZT or TT combination supporting better crop yields. However since the CSB is slow, inefficient and laborious, it would hardly meet the food demands of the ever-increasing population. Therefore, the adoption of BNW + MT combination would be more appropriate in primary forests of the humid tropics.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Maize height and leaf number were generally better in CSB than BW and BNW plots.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize and cassava heights and number of leaves were generally better in CSB than in BW and BNW plots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cassava height and leaf number were generally better in CSB than BW and BNW plots.
- Taxon
- cassava
Manihot esculentae0 - Treatment
- CSBe0
- Outcome
- heights and number of leavese0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- BW and BNWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize and cassava heights and number of leaves were generally better in CSB than in BW and BNW plots.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cassava storage root yield was better in BNW plots.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- BNWe0
- Outcome
- storage root yielde0
- Direction
- bettere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cassava storage root yield was better in the BNW plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yield under CSB was 5-6% better after the first cropping cycle.
- Treatment
- CSBe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 5-6%e0
- Qualifier
- firste0
- Comparator
- BW and BNWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize grain yield in the CSB plots was 5-6%, 8-11% and 15-20% better than in BW and BNW plots after the first, second and third cropping cycles, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yield under CSB was 8-11% better after the second cropping cycle.
- Treatment
- CSBe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 8-11%e0
- Qualifier
- seconde0
- Comparator
- BW and BNWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize grain yield in the CSB plots was 5-6%, 8-11% and 15-20% better than in BW and BNW plots after the first, second and third cropping cycles, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yield under CSB was 15-20% better after the third cropping cycle.
- Treatment
- CSBe0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Value
- 15-20%e0
- Qualifier
- thirde0
- Comparator
- BW and BNWe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize grain yield in the CSB plots was 5-6%, 8-11% and 15-20% better than in BW and BNW plots after the first, second and third cropping cycles, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop heights and leaf numbers showed no definite pattern across tillage methods.
- Taxon
- maize/cassavaManihot esculenta
Zea mayst0 - Outcome
- crop heights and number of leavese0
- Direction
- no definite patterne0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize/cassava”
e0“Among the tillage methods, no definite pattern was shown for crop heights and number of leaves”
Claim · model-written summary
TT and MT treatments performed significantly better than CT and ZT, except for maize leaf number.
- Taxon
- maize/cassavaManihot esculentaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- TT and MTe0
- Outcome
- bettere0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Qualifier
- except for number of maize leavese0
- Comparator
- CT and ZTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize/cassava”
e0“TT and MT treatments were significantly (P<0.05) better than CT and ZT, except for number of maize leaves.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield was best in MT plots.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The best crop yields were obtained in MT plots for maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Cassava yield was best in TT plots.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- TTe0
- Outcome
- in TT plots for cassavae0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“and in TT plots for cassava.”
Claim · model-written summary
Clearing and tillage interacted significantly for crop yield, with CSB plus ZT or TT supporting better yield.
- Taxon
- maize/cassavaManihot esculentaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- CSB + ZT or TTe0
- Outcome
- crop yieldse0
- Direction
- bettere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize/cassava”
e0“The interaction effects of bush clearing and tillage methods were significant for the crop yield with the CSB + ZT or TT combination supporting better crop yields.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend BNW plus MT for primary forests of the humid tropics.
- Taxon
- maize/cassavaManihot esculentaZea mayst0
- Outcome
- adoption of BNW + MT combinatione0
- Setting
- primary forests of the humid tropicse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“maize/cassava”
e0“the adoption of BNW + MT combination would be more appropriate in primary forests of the humid tropics.”
The same questions in other papers
fire · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →fire · growth · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
fire · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →tillage · yield · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →fire · yield · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.