Abstract
This study was conducted to assess the growth, yield and cost effectiveness of okra-cowpea intercropping system at the Plantation Section of Faculty of Agriculture, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, during the major rainy season of 2017. The okra was planted on 1st May, 2017 and the cowpea introduced at varying planting dates i.e. at the same time, 1, 2, 3 and 4 WAP. Sole okra and cowpea served as control. The experimental plots were laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with seven (7) treatments and replicated three (3) times. The data collected were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the treatment means separated by least significance difference (LSD) at 5% probability. Results showed that time of introduction of the cowpea caused a reduction (P < 0.05) in the growth and yield of the component crops. The partial equivalent ratio of cowpea planted at the same time with okra and one week later was greater (P < 0.05) than the component okra whiles that of okra was greater than cowpea in 2, 3 and 4 weeks. The Land Equivalent Ratio of all the intercrops was greater than 1 showing that intercropping okra with cowpea was beneficial. The highest Gross Monetary Returns, Land Equivalent Ratio and Monetary Equivalent Ratio of GHȻ 7,039.40, 1.75 and 1.31, respectively were recorded in okra intercropped with cowpea 2 WAP. Okra sown with cowpea at the same time recorded a disadvantage (0.84) in Monetary Equivalent Ratio. To ensure higher yield and economic returns, cowpea could be introduced into okro 2 weeks after planting okro.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
The timing of cowpea introduction reduced growth and yield of both component crops.
- Taxon
- okra
.jpg?width=60)
Abelmoschus esculentust0 - Treatment
- time of introduction of the cowpeae0
- Outcome
- growth and yield of the component cropse0
- Direction
- reductione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“time of introduction of the cowpea caused a reduction (P < 0.05) in the growth and yield of the component crops”
t0“Okra”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea partial equivalent ratio was greater than okra when cowpea was planted simultaneously or one week later.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae0 - Outcome
- partial equivalent ratio of cowpeae0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- the component okrae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The partial equivalent ratio of cowpea planted at the same time with okra and one week later was greater (P < 0.05) than the component okra”
Claim · model-written summary
Okra partial equivalent ratio exceeded cowpea when cowpea was planted at weeks 2, 3 or 4.
- Taxon
- okraAbelmoschus esculentuse0
- Outcome
- that of okrae0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- 2, 3 and 4 weekse0
- Comparator
- cowpeae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“that of okra was greater than cowpea in 2, 3 and 4 weeks”
Claim · model-written summary
All intercrops had land equivalent ratio above one.
- Taxon
- okraAbelmoschus esculentust0
- Outcome
- Land Equivalent Ratioe0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The Land Equivalent Ratio of all the intercrops was greater than 1”
t0“Okra”
Claim · model-written summary
Okra intercropped with cowpea at two weeks had the highest gross monetary returns of GHȻ 7,039.40.
- Taxon
- okraAbelmoschus esculentuse0
- Treatment
- cowpea 2 WAPe0
- Outcome
- Gross Monetary Returnse0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- GHȻ 7,039.40e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest Gross Monetary Returns, Land Equivalent Ratio and Monetary Equivalent Ratio of GHȻ 7,039.40, 1.75 and 1.31, respectively were recorded in okra intercropped with cowpea 2 WAP”
Claim · model-written summary
The two-week cowpea introduction had the highest land equivalent ratio of 1.75.
- Taxon
- okraAbelmoschus esculentuse0
- Treatment
- cowpea 2 WAPe0
- Outcome
- Land Equivalent Ratioe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 1.75e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest Gross Monetary Returns, Land Equivalent Ratio and Monetary Equivalent Ratio of GHȻ 7,039.40, 1.75 and 1.31, respectively were recorded in okra intercropped with cowpea 2 WAP”
Claim · model-written summary
The two-week cowpea introduction had the highest monetary equivalent ratio of 1.31.
- Taxon
- okraAbelmoschus esculentuse0
- Treatment
- cowpea 2 WAPe0
- Outcome
- Monetary Equivalent Ratioe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 1.31e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest Gross Monetary Returns, Land Equivalent Ratio and Monetary Equivalent Ratio of GHȻ 7,039.40, 1.75 and 1.31, respectively were recorded in okra intercropped with cowpea 2 WAP”
Claim · model-written summary
Simultaneous sowing had an unfavorable monetary equivalent ratio of 0.84.
- Taxon
- OkraAbelmoschus esculentuse0
- Treatment
- cowpea at the same timee0
- Outcome
- Monetary Equivalent Ratioe0
- Direction
- disadvantagee0
- Value
- 0.84e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Okra sown with cowpea at the same time recorded a disadvantage (0.84) in Monetary Equivalent Ratio”
The same questions in other papers
Vigna unguiculata · yield · Abelmoschus esculentus (okra)Positive and negative results
9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 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.