Abstract
Core Ideas Recommending complex maize pest management options for small‐scale African farmers. Determining effective and environmentally friendly fall armyworm management for smallholder farmers. Evaluating effects of edible legume and maize intercropping on fall armyworm. Maize ( Zea mays L.) production in Africa is constrained by several biotic and abiotic factors. The recent occurrence of fall armyworm (FAW), Spodoptera frugiperda (JE Smith) a new invasive pest in Africa, has escalated the problem. Push–pull technology (PPT), proven to be effective for stemborers ( Chilo partellus Swinhoe and Busseola fusca Fuller) and the parasitic weed striga ( Striga hermontica Delile) management in Africa has been shown to provide good control of FAW. This study investigated if intercropping maize with edible legumes can also reduce the abundance of FAW. Six treatments including (i) climate‐smart PPT, (ii) conventional PPT, (iii) maize intercropped with bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.), (iv) maize intercropped with soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.], (v) maize intercropped with groundnut [ Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.] and, (vi) mono‐cropped maize were evaluated on farm in six districts of Uganda in the 2017 short rains season. Data collected included FAW, stemborer, and striga infestation symptoms, and severity of infestation. Climate‐smart PPT performed best in reducing stemborer, FAW, and striga infestation followed by conventional PPT over all the phenological stages of maize. Intercropping of maize with leguminous crops also provided significant reduction of stemborer and FAW compared to mono‐cropped maize, especially in the early growth phases of the maize up to tasseling. However, intercropping of maize with edible legumes was not very effective for striga management as compared to PPT. Hence in addition to PPT, intercropping of maize with edible legumes could also be an alternative FAW management option when integrated with other sustainable management measures.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Climate smart push pull reduced stemborer infestation most effectively.
- Treatment
- Climate‐smart PPTe0
- Interactor
- stemborere0pest
- Outcome
- stemborere0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Comparator
- conventional PPTe0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Climate‐smart PPT performed best in reducing stemborer, FAW, and striga infestation followed by conventional PPT over all the phenological stages of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Climate smart push pull reduced fall armyworm infestation most effectively.
- Treatment
- Climate‐smart PPTe0
- Interactor
- FAWe0pest
- Outcome
- FAWe0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Comparator
- conventional PPTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Climate‐smart PPT performed best in reducing stemborer, FAW, and striga infestation followed by conventional PPT over all the phenological stages of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Climate smart push pull reduced striga infestation most effectively.
- Treatment
- Climate‐smart PPTe0
- Outcome
- striga infestatione0
- Direction
- reducinge0
- Comparator
- conventional PPTe0
StrigaOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Climate‐smart PPT performed best in reducing stemborer, FAW, and striga infestation followed by conventional PPT over all the phenological stages of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize legume intercropping significantly reduced stemborer infestation versus monocropped maize, especially before tasseling.
- Treatment
- Intercropping of maize with leguminous cropse0
- Interactor
- stemborere0pest
- Outcome
- stemborere0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Qualifier
- up to tasselinge0
- Comparator
- mono‐cropped maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping of maize with leguminous crops also provided significant reduction of stemborer and FAW compared to mono‐cropped maize, especially in the early growth phases of the maize up to tasseling”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize legume intercropping significantly reduced FAW infestation versus monocropped maize, especially before tasseling.
- Treatment
- Intercropping of maize with leguminous cropse0
- Interactor
- FAWe0pest
- Outcome
- FAWe0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Qualifier
- up to tasselinge0
- Comparator
- mono‐cropped maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping of maize with leguminous crops also provided significant reduction of stemborer and FAW compared to mono‐cropped maize, especially in the early growth phases of the maize up to tasseling”
Claim · model-written summary
Edible legume intercropping was less effective than push pull for striga management.
- Treatment
- intercropping of maize with edible legumese0
- Outcome
- striga managemente0
- Direction
- not very effectivee0
- Comparator
- PPTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping of maize with edible legumes was not very effective for striga management as compared to PPT”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors propose edible legume intercropping as an alternative FAW management option alongside push pull and other measures.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping of maize with edible legumes could also be an alternative FAW management option when integrated with other sustainable management measures”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · Striga · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →climate site · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →intercropping · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
46 papers more in this group
See all 50 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.