Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Cassava intercropped with Miben Pumpkin improved economic benefit about 38% compared with traditional single cropping.

A claim from Technique on using the efficient stereo planting of cassava intercropping Miben Pumpkin · 2011

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cassava intercropped with Miben Pumpkin improved economic benefit about 38% compared with traditional single cropping.

Treatment
cassava intercropped with Miben Pumpkine0
Outcome
economic benefite0
Direction
improvee0
Value
38%e0
Comparator
traditionally cropping cassava or miben pumpkin onlye0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier

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

Manihot esculenta
Manihot esculenta · Taxon葉子 · CC0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“cassava intercropped with Miben Pumpkin would improve the economic benefit about 38%,compared with the model of traditionally cropping cassava or miben pumpkin only”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 384–548

Title

Technique on using the efficient stereo planting of cassava intercropping Miben Pumpkin

Zheng YongQing 2011

Record rev-e900a30b30b91609d6a179209f64e94a7135c7a6619a7895c9613ac1be72ead9 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

intercropping · yield · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Results differ

78 papers: 48 positive, 30 negative or no effect

47 papers in the same direction as this claim · 28 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
    Intercropping reduced Gblemoduade cassava tuber yield by 16–49%.

    Yield stability of cassava, maize, soya bean and cowpea intercrops · 2003 · compared with sole crop

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    Intercropping with cowpea or peanut reduced cassava yield by 2.3 to 4.7 Mg ha −1, with a 1982 cowpea exception.

    Cassava‐Cowpea and Cassava‐Peanut Intercropping. I. Yield and Land Use Efficiency]1 · 1986

    Opposite direction

  3. no effect
    Cassava yield differences between monocropping and intercropping were zero at final harvest.

    Multi-trophic level interactions in a cassava–maize mixed cropping system in the humid tropics of West Africa · 2004 · compared with mono-

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    Intercropping reduced cassava total number of tubers.

    Productivity of cassava/okra intercropping systems as influenced by okra planting density · 2007

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Cassava growth and tuber yield were not significantly affected by intercropping and okra population density.

    Optimum plant populations for okra (Abelmoschus esculentus) in a mixture with cassava (Manihot esculenta) and its relevance to rainy season-based cropping systems in south-western Nigeria · 2001

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Soybean intercropping reduced fresh cassava root yield by 16%.

    Residual Influence of Early Season Crop Fertilization and Cropping System on Growth and Yield of Cassava · 2008

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Intercropping had no influence on N, P or K of cassava at later harvest dates.

    Cassava‐Cowpea and Cassava‐Peanut Intercropping. III. Nutrient Concentrations and Removal1 · 1986

    Opposite direction

  8. negative
    Soybean intercropping without residue incorporation reduced cassava yield by about 16%.

    Intercropping and Crop Residue Incorporation: Effects on Soil Nutrient Status · 2006

    Opposite direction

69 papers more in this group

See all 78 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.