Abstract
The current study evaluated the impact of intercropping Cowpea and Moong bean on Maize yield and its constituent parts. Nine different treatments were used in the experiment viz., (T1) sole Maize, (T2) sole Cowpea, (T3) sole Moong bean, (T4) Maize + Cowpea (1:1), (T5) Maize + Cowpea (1:2), (T6) Maize + Cowpea (1:3), (T7) Maize + Moong bean (1:1), (T8) Maize + Moong bean (1:2) and, (T9) Maize + Moong bean (2:1) in a randomized block design with three replications in Kharif season. The findings showed that intercropped plants had greater potential and produced higher values for the majority of the studied criteria, including plant height, chlorophyll meter reading (SPAD) number of cobs plant-1, number of rows cob-1, number of grains row-1, 100-grain weight, and straw and grain yields Intercrop’s seed yields were less in intercropped treatments than sole Maize. (T5) Maize + Cowpea (1:2) was best treatment having highest yield (5915.83 kg ha-1), maximum LER (1.8) and MEY (kg ha-1) (11663.36). This clearly demonstrated the advantages of intercropping Maize with legumes. This is because the leguminous crops can provide additional nutrients to the Maize crop through biological nitrogen fixation (BNF). Additionally legumes can improve the declined soil productivity by enhancing the overall soil conditions like chemical, biological, and physical. The increased availability of nitrogen and enhancement in soil physical, chemical and biological properties can improve Maize growth, leading to higher yield. Additionally it boosts soil conservation by providing more ground cover than mono-cropping.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped plants were taller and had higher chlorophyll readings.
- Treatment
- intercroppede0
- Outcome
- plant height, chlorophyll meter reading (SPAD)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- sole Maizee1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropped plants had greater potential and produced higher values for the majority of the studied criteria, including plant height, chlorophyll meter reading (SPAD)”
t0“Maize (Zea mays)”
e1“(T1) sole Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased cob number, rows per cob, and grains per row.
- Treatment
- intercroppede1
- Outcome
- number of cobs plant-1, number of rows cob-1, number of grains row-1e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- sole Maizee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“produced higher values for the majority of the studied criteria, including plant height, chlorophyll meter reading (SPAD) number of cobs plant-1, number of rows cob-1, number of grains row-1”
t0“Maize (Zea mays)”
e1“intercropped plants”
e2“(T1) sole Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased 100-grain weight and straw and grain yields.
- Treatment
- intercroppede1
- Outcome
- 100-grain weight, and straw and grain yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- sole Maizee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“produced higher values for the majority of the studied criteria, including plant height, chlorophyll meter reading (SPAD) number of cobs plant-1, number of rows cob-1, number of grains row-1, 100-grain weight, and straw and grain yields”
t0“Maize (Zea mays)”
e1“intercropped plants”
e2“(T1) sole Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercrop seed yields were lower than sole maize.
- Treatment
- intercropped treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Intercrop’s seed yieldse0
- Direction
- lesse0
- Comparator
- sole Maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercrop’s seed yields were less in intercropped treatments than sole Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize plus cowpea at 1:2 produced the highest yield of 5915.83 kg ha-1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“(T5) Maize + Cowpea (1:2) was best treatment having highest yield (5915.83 kg ha-1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize plus cowpea at 1:2 had maximum LER of 1.8.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“(T5) Maize + Cowpea (1:2) was best treatment having highest yield (5915.83 kg ha-1), maximum LER (1.8)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize plus cowpea at 1:2 had MEY of 11663.36 kg ha-1.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maximum LER (1.8) and MEY (kg ha-1) (11663.36)”
t0“Maize (Zea mays)”
e1“(T5) Maize + Cowpea (1:2) was best treatment”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · physiology: pigments · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
612 papers in the same direction as this paper · 181 in the opposite direction · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 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.