Abstract
On-Farm trials were conducted from July to November during the 2009 and 2010 cropping seasons, at Tarka, Benue State, Nigeria to evaluate the effects of intercropping maize and soybean on striga control, grain yields and economic productivity. The treatments consisted of sole maize, sole soybean and the intercrop of maize and soybean, replicated three times in a randomized complete block design. The results obtained showed that intercropping maize and soybean significantly (P ≤ 0.05) reduced striga shoot count by 55.9 % and 56.1 % respectively, in 2009 and 2010 compared to that produced on pure maize plots. Number of affected maize plants, lodging score of maize and infestation rate were lower for intercropping than for sole maize plots. The severity level was also recorded lower for intercropping compared to that recorded for pure maize stands, where severity level is in the range of high to very high. Though, soybean yield was reduced by intercropping, however, soybean and maize intercropping system increased maize grain yield, total intercrop yield, land equivalent coefficient greater than 0.25, land equivalent ratio values greater than one (LER > 1), higher total intercrop values and monetary equivalent ratio greater than 1.00, indicating yield and economic advantages. The implication of study showed that intercropping maize and soybean can be adopted by farmers as an efficient cropping system strategy to reduce striga infestation, increase maize yield and give greater economic productivity.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping maize and soybean significantly reduced striga shoot count by 55.9% in 2009 relative to pure maize plots.
- Treatment
- intercropping maize and soybeane0
- Outcome
- striga shoot counte0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 55.9 %e0
- Qualifier
- 2009e0
- Comparator
- pure maize plotse0
Zea mays
StrigaOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping maize and soybean significantly (P ≤ 0.05) reduced striga shoot count by 55.9 % and 56.1 % respectively, in 2009 and 2010 compared to that produced on pure maize plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping maize and soybean significantly reduced striga shoot count by 56.1% in 2010 relative to pure maize plots.
- Treatment
- intercropping maize and soybeane0
- Outcome
- striga shoot counte0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 56.1 %e0
- Qualifier
- 2010e0
- Comparator
- pure maize plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping maize and soybean significantly (P ≤ 0.05) reduced striga shoot count by 55.9 % and 56.1 % respectively, in 2009 and 2010 compared to that produced on pure maize plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Number of affected maize plants, lodging score of maize and infestation rate were lower under intercropping than in sole maize plots.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- Number of affected maize plants, lodging score of maize and infestation ratee0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- sole maize plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Number of affected maize plants, lodging score of maize and infestation rate were lower for intercropping than for sole maize plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Severity level was recorded lower under intercropping than in pure maize stands, where severity ranged from high to very high.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- severity levele0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- high to very highe0
- Comparator
- pure maize standse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The severity level was also recorded lower for intercropping compared to that recorded for pure maize stands, where severity level is in the range of high to very high”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean yield was reduced by intercropping.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- soybean yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean yield was reduced by intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
The maize-soybean intercropping system increased maize grain yield and total intercrop yield.
- Treatment
- soybean and maize intercropping systeme0
- Outcome
- maize grain yield, total intercrop yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean and maize intercropping system increased maize grain yield, total intercrop yield, land equivalent coefficient greater than 0.25, land equivalent ratio values greater than one (LER > 1), higher total intercrop values and monetary equivalent ratio greater than 1.00”
Claim · model-written summary
The intercropping system gave a land equivalent coefficient greater than 0.25.
- Treatment
- soybean and maize intercropping systeme0
- Outcome
- land equivalent coefficiente0
- Direction
- greater thane0
- Value
- greater than 0.25e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean and maize intercropping system increased maize grain yield, total intercrop yield, land equivalent coefficient greater than 0.25, land equivalent ratio values greater than one (LER > 1), higher total intercrop values and monetary equivalent ratio greater than 1.00”
Claim · model-written summary
The intercropping system gave land equivalent ratio values greater than one (LER > 1).
- Treatment
- soybean and maize intercropping systeme0
- Outcome
- land equivalent ratioe0
- Direction
- greater thane0
- Value
- greater than one (LER > 1)e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean and maize intercropping system increased maize grain yield, total intercrop yield, land equivalent coefficient greater than 0.25, land equivalent ratio values greater than one (LER > 1), higher total intercrop values and monetary equivalent ratio greater than 1.00”
Claim · model-written summary
The intercropping system gave higher total intercrop values.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean and maize intercropping system increased maize grain yield, total intercrop yield, land equivalent coefficient greater than 0.25, land equivalent ratio values greater than one (LER > 1), higher total intercrop values and monetary equivalent ratio greater than 1.00”
Claim · model-written summary
The intercropping system gave a monetary equivalent ratio greater than 1.00.
- Treatment
- soybean and maize intercropping systeme0
- Outcome
- monetary equivalent ratioe0
- Direction
- greater thane0
- Value
- greater than 1.00e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean and maize intercropping system increased maize grain yield, total intercrop yield, land equivalent coefficient greater than 0.25, land equivalent ratio values greater than one (LER > 1), higher total intercrop values and monetary equivalent ratio greater than 1.00”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend that farmers adopt maize-soybean intercropping to reduce striga infestation, increase maize yield and give greater economic productivity.
- Treatment
- intercropping maize and soybeane0
- Outcome
- reduce striga infestation, increase maize yield and give greater economic productivitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping maize and soybean can be adopted by farmers as an efficient cropping system strategy to reduce striga infestation, increase maize yield and give greater economic productivity”
The same questions in other papers
Glycine max · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
154 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
176 papers more in this group
See all 180 papers →Glycine max · Striga · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →intercropping · Striga · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →intercropping · disease · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →intercropping · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →intercropping · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
86 papers in the same direction as this paper · 131 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
214 papers more in this group
See all 218 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
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
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.