Paper · 2020 · Nigerian Journal of Horticultural Science

Productivity efficiency of two animal manure sources on intercropped maize-groundnut in Ishiagu, Ebonyi State in the derived savanna, Nigeria

E. U. Mbah; C. I. Keke

9
claims
18
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Two animal manure sources (swine and sheep/goat manures) each at 5 Mt·ha-1, were applied in mono- and intercropped maize (Zea mays L.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.) to assess their effects on growth, yield and productivity of the systems. A general control (no manure treatment of the component crops was established) for productivity assessment. The trial was conducted at the Federal College of Agriculture, Ishiagu, in the derived savanna plains, Ishiagu, Nigeria in 2012 and 2013 mid-cropping seasons. The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Maize and groundnut were planted in monocrop and intercrop without manure, and with swine manure or goat/sheep manure. Some of the growth and yield data collected from the component crops were plant height, number of leaves·plant-1, stem girth, cob length, number of seeds·m-2, weight of seeds·m-2, number of pods·m-2 and grain yield. All the data were statistically analysed and means compared with least significant difference at p<0.05 level of significance. The combined analysis indicated that animal manure sources significantly (P<0.05) increased growth and yield of the crops in the systems. The economic and biological productivity indices indicated that the application of sheep/goat manure in the mixture exhibited greater intercrop advantage. Hence, the application of sheep/goat manure gave higher gross monetary return, % land saved and total land equivalent ratio, which was higher by 13.76%, 7.50% and 4.79 %, respectively relative to swine manure application. Therefore, sheep/goat manure application should be encouraged in maize-groundnut intercrop.

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 resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Animal manure significantly increased maize growth in the cropping systems.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
animal manure sourcese0
Outcome
growthe0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

“animal manure sources significantly (P<0.05) increased growth and yield of the crops in the systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1101–1200 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–169 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Animal manure significantly increased groundnut growth in the cropping systems.

Taxon
groundnutArachis hypogaeae1
Treatment
animal manure sourcese0
Outcome
growthe0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“animal manure sources significantly (P<0.05) increased growth and yield of the crops in the systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1101–1200 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–169 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Animal manure significantly increased maize yield.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
animal manure sourcese0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

“animal manure sources significantly (P<0.05) increased growth and yield of the crops in the systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1101–1200 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–169 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Animal manure significantly increased groundnut yield.

Taxon
groundnutArachis hypogaeae1
Treatment
animal manure sourcese0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“animal manure sources significantly (P<0.05) increased growth and yield of the crops in the systems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1101–1200 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–169 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sheep/goat manure gave greater maize-groundnut intercrop advantage.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
sheep/goat manuree0
Outcome
intercrop advantagee0
Direction
greatere0

Not reportedComparator

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

“the application of sheep/goat manure in the mixture exhibited greater intercrop advantage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1266–1355 · show in text ↑
e1

“intercropped maize (Zea mays L.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 102–169 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sheep/goat manure raised gross monetary return by 13.76% relative to swine manure.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
sheep/goat manuree0
Outcome
gross monetary returne0
Direction
highere0
Value
13.76%e0
Comparator
swine manure applicatione0

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

“sheep/goat manure gave higher gross monetary return, % land saved and total land equivalent ratio, which was higher by 13.76%, 7.50% and 4.79 %, respectively relative to swine manure application”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1383–1577 · show in text ↑
e1

“intercropped maize (Zea mays L.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 102–169 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sheep/goat manure raised land saved by 7.50% relative to swine manure.

Taxon
groundnutArachis hypogaeae1
Treatment
sheep/goat manuree0
Outcome
% land savede0
Direction
highere0
Value
7.50%e0
Comparator
swine manure applicatione0

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

Arachis hypogaea
Arachis hypogaea · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“sheep/goat manure gave higher gross monetary return, % land saved and total land equivalent ratio, which was higher by 13.76%, 7.50% and 4.79 %, respectively relative to swine manure application”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1383–1577 · show in text ↑
e1

“intercropped maize (Zea mays L.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 102–169 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sheep/goat manure raised total land equivalent ratio by 4.79% relative to swine manure.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
sheep/goat manuree0
Outcome
total land equivalent ratioe0
Direction
highere0
Value
4.79 %e0
Comparator
swine manure applicatione0

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

“sheep/goat manure gave higher gross monetary return, % land saved and total land equivalent ratio, which was higher by 13.76%, 7.50% and 4.79 %, respectively relative to swine manure application”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1383–1577 · show in text ↑
e1

“intercropped maize (Zea mays L.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 102–169 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend sheep/goat manure for maize-groundnut intercropping.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Outcome
sheep/goat manure application should be encouragede0

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

“sheep/goat manure application should be encouraged in maize-groundnut intercrop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1590–1669 · show in text ↑
e1

“maize (Zea mays L.) and groundnut (Arachis hypogea L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 115–169 · show in text ↑

fertilization · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results

204 papers: 182 positive, 22 negative or no effect

181 papers in the same direction as this paper · 22 in the opposite direction

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

200 papers more in this group

See all 204 papers →

fertilization · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results

683 papers: 635 positive, 48 negative or no effect

634 papers in the same direction as this paper · 44 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

679 papers more in this group

See all 683 papers →

fertilization · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,365 papers: 1,196 positive, 169 negative or no effect

1,195 papers in the same direction as this paper · 149 in the opposite direction · 20 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

1,361 papers more in this group

See all 1,365 papers →

fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

3,908 papers: 3,485 positive, 423 negative or no effect

3,484 papers in the same direction as this paper · 338 in the opposite direction · 85 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

3,904 papers more in this group

See all 3,908 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.