Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Weeding enhanced intercrop yields in the maize/bean combination by 35%.

A claim from The effect of planting combinations and weeding on the growth and yield of component crops of maize/bean and maize/pumpkin intercrops · 2002

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weeding enhanced intercrop yields in the maize/bean combination by 35%.

Taxon
maize/beane6
Treatment
Weedinge6
Outcome
intercrop yieldse6
Direction
enhancee6
Value
35%e6

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingQualifier

Verbatim

e6

“Weeding was found to enhance intercrop yields in maize/bean combination by 35% and by 30% in maize/pumpkin combination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1475–1593

Title

The effect of planting combinations and weeding on the growth and yield of component crops of maize/bean and maize/pumpkin intercrops

T. TEMBAKAZI SILWANA; E. O. LUCAS The Journal of Agricultural Science 2002. doi:10.1017/s0021859601001861

Other claims from this paper (8)

Record rev-c99a020eb0ef44dbad4cff17de82ef23e403f33520a75b8875be5d1c58b477a0 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 7 in the model’s answer

herbicide · yield · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results

63 papers: 42 positive, 21 negative or no effect

41 papers in the same direction as this claim · 20 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
    PPI and POST imazethapyr at both tested rates did not reduce bean seed yield against untreated control.

    Dry Edible Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Response to Imazethapyr · 1991 · compared with untreated control

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    Bean grain yield was lower without weed control.

    Action of two herbicides on the microbial activity of soil cultivated with common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) in conventional‐till and no‐till systems · 2006

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Third trifoliate herbicide application reduced crop yield by 17% versus unifoliate application.

    Response of Dry Bean and Weeds to Fomesafen and Fomesafen Tank Mixtures1 · 2005 · compared with unifoliate growth stage

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    Yields of snap bean were reduced after postemergence applications of imazethapyr.

    Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) and Rotational Crop Response to Imazethapyr in Pea (Pisum sativum) and Snap Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) · 1990

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    PRE flumioxazin at 140 g/ha reduced yield in black and white beans by 20 to 30%.

    Responses of Dry Beans to Flumioxazin · 2005

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Plant performance did not differ between the early and farmers-practice weeding treatments.

    Effects of wood ash on soil fertility and plant performance in southwestern Kenya · 2017

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    PRE pyroxasulfone and sulfentrazone treatments did not change yield of kidney and small red Mexican bean.

    Response of Four Dry Bean Market Classes to Pre-Emergence Applications of Pyroxasulfone, Sulfentrazone and Pyroxasulfone plus Sulfentrazone · 2016

    Opposite direction

  8. negative
    Flumioxazin-containing treatments had 30% less dry bean yield than treatments without flumioxazin.

    Dry bean response to preemergence flumioxazin · 2019 · compared with treatments not containing flumioxazin

    Opposite direction

54 papers more in this group

See all 63 papers →

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

651 papers: 500 positive, 151 negative or no effect

499 papers in the same direction as this claim · 127 in the opposite direction · 24 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
    Lack of weed control decreased corn green ear and grain yield.

    Corn growth and yield in competition with weeds · 2011

    Opposite directionCites this paper

  2. negative
    Without herbicide, yield was reduced regardless of row spacing or population.

    Influence of Narrow Row/High Population Corn (Zea mays) on Weed Control and Light Transmittance · 1995

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Lack of weed control reduced green ear yield and grain yield of corn.

    Corn yield response to weed and fall armyworm controls · 2010 · compared with weed control

    Opposite direction

  4. no effect
    Herbicide-treated plots had no significant corn grain yield difference from handweeded plots.

    Effect of Postemergence Application Rate and Timing of Mesotrione on Corn (Zea mays) Response and Weed Control1 · 2002 · compared with handweeded plots

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    Withholding herbicides reduced continuous corn yield by 10 to 27% in ridge tillage.

    Weed Seed Populations in Ridge and Conventional Tillage · 1988

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Corn yields in narrow rows with reduced herbicide were about 10% below wide rows with full herbicide.

    Effect of row width on herbicide and cultivation requirements in row crops · 1992 · compared with WR with 100% RAR

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Under conventional tillage, several herbicide treatments gave corn yield similar to weed-free conditions.

    Influence of Tillage Systems on Giant Foxtail,Setaria faberi, and Velvetleaf,Abutilon theophrasti, Density and Control in Corn,Zea mays · 1988 · compared with weed-free

    Opposite direction

  8. negative
    Competition from weeds and uncontrolled vetch in treatments without herbicides reduced corn yield in three of four years by an average of 46% compared with a standard PRE herbicide treatment.

    Reduced-Herbicide Weed Management Systems for No-Tillage Corn (Zea mays) in a Hairy Vetch (Vicia villosa) Cover Crop · 1993 · compared with a standard PRE herbicide treatment of 0.6 kg ai/ha of paraquat plus 1.1 kg ai/ha of atrazine plus 2.2 kg ai/ha of metolachlor

    Opposite direction

642 papers more in this group

See all 651 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.