Abstract
Abstract Little is known about the influence of intercropping cassava ( Manihot esculenta Crantz) with cowpea [ Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp] or peanut ( Arachis hypoguea L.) on nutrient concentrations of plant tissue or nutrient removal by the crops. The objectives of this study were to (i) compare the nutrient concentrations in plant parts of cassava, cowpea, and peanut in intercropping systems to those in sole cropping systems, and (ii) determine uptake of N, P, and K of cassava‐cowpea and cassava‐peanut intercropping systems as compared with the sole cropping systems. Cassava, cowpea, and peanut were grown as sole crops and intercrops on a Typic Dystropept soil at Santander de Quilichao, Colombia, in 1981 and 1982. Intercropping with cowpea resulted in 0.8, 0.6, and 0.3 g kg −1 lower P concentration [P], and 5.2,4.9, and 2.9 kg 1 lower [N] in cassava stems, leaves, and storage roots, than resulted from sole‐cropped cassava 50 days after planting. Intercropping had no influence on [N], [P], and [K] of cassava at later harvest dates or of cowpea at any harvest date. Similar results occurred when cassava was intercropped with peanut, although peanut was a less vigorous competitor with cassava for P than was cowpea. The cassava‐cowpea and cassava‐peanut intercropping systems removed 3.0 to 7.5 g m 2 more N, 0.30 to 0.47 g m 2 more P, and 2.5 to 5.1 g m more K than sole‐cropped cassava. Results suggest that these intercropping systems remove more nutrients than comparable sole crops, which leads to more rapid mining of natural soil fertility or the need for higher fertilizer application rates.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping with cowpea lowered cassava P concentration in stems, leaves and storage roots compared with sole-cropped cassava 50 days after planting.
- Taxon
- cassava
Manihot esculentae0 - Organ / stage
- stems, leaves, and storage rootse1
- Treatment
- Intercropping with cowpeae1
- Interactor
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae1other - Outcome
- P concentratione1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 0.8, 0.6, and 0.3 g kg −1e1
- Qualifier
- 50 days after plantinge1
- Comparator
- sole‐cropped cassavae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping cassava ( Manihot esculenta Crantz)”
e1“Intercropping with cowpea resulted in 0.8, 0.6, and 0.3 g kg −1 lower P concentration [P], and 5.2,4.9, and 2.9 kg 1 lower [N] in cassava stems, leaves, and storage roots, than resulted from sole‐cropped cassava 50 days after planting”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping with cowpea lowered cassava N concentration in stems, leaves and storage roots compared with sole-cropped cassava 50 days after planting.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Organ / stage
- stems, leaves, and storage rootse1
- Treatment
- Intercropping with cowpeae1
- Interactor
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae1other
- Outcome
- [N]e1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 5.2,4.9, and 2.9 kg 1e1
- Qualifier
- 50 days after plantinge1
- Comparator
- sole‐cropped cassavae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping cassava ( Manihot esculenta Crantz)”
e1“Intercropping with cowpea resulted in 0.8, 0.6, and 0.3 g kg −1 lower P concentration [P], and 5.2,4.9, and 2.9 kg 1 lower [N] in cassava stems, leaves, and storage roots, than resulted from sole‐cropped cassava 50 days after planting”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping had no influence on N, P or K of cassava at later harvest dates.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae2
- Treatment
- Intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- [N], [P], and [K] of cassava at later harvest datese2
- Direction
- no influencee2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Intercropping had no influence on [N], [P], and [K] of cassava at later harvest dates or of cowpea at any harvest date”
Claim · model-written summary
Similar results occurred when cassava was intercropped with peanut.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae3
- Treatment
- intercropped with peanute3
- Interactor
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae3other - Outcome
- resultse3
- Direction
- Similar results occurrede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Similar results occurred when cassava was intercropped with peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut was a less vigorous competitor with cassava for P than cowpea was.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae4
- Interactor
- peanutArachis hypogaeae4other
- Second interactor
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae4other
- Outcome
- competitor with cassava for Pe4
- Direction
- less vigorouse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“peanut was a less vigorous competitor with cassava for P than was cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Cassava-cowpea and cassava-peanut intercropping removed 3.0 to 7.5 g m-2 more N than sole-cropped cassava.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae5
- Treatment
- intercropping systemse5
- Interactor
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae5other
- Second interactor
- peanutArachis hypogaeae5other
- Outcome
- Ne5
- Direction
- moree5
- Value
- 3.0 to 7.5 g m 2e5
- Comparator
- sole‐cropped cassavae5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping cassava ( Manihot esculenta Crantz)”
e5“The cassava‐cowpea and cassava‐peanut intercropping systems removed 3.0 to 7.5 g m 2 more N, 0.30 to 0.47 g m 2 more P, and 2.5 to 5.1 g m more K than sole‐cropped cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Cassava-cowpea and cassava-peanut intercropping removed 0.30 to 0.47 g m-2 more P than sole-cropped cassava.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae5
- Treatment
- intercropping systemse5
- Interactor
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae5other
- Second interactor
- peanutArachis hypogaeae5other
- Outcome
- Pe5
- Direction
- moree5
- Value
- 0.30 to 0.47 g m 2e5
- Comparator
- sole‐cropped cassavae5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“The cassava‐cowpea and cassava‐peanut intercropping systems removed 3.0 to 7.5 g m 2 more N, 0.30 to 0.47 g m 2 more P, and 2.5 to 5.1 g m more K than sole‐cropped cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Cassava-cowpea and cassava-peanut intercropping removed 2.5 to 5.1 g m-2 more K than sole-cropped cassava.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae5
- Treatment
- intercropping systemse5
- Interactor
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae5other
- Second interactor
- peanutArachis hypogaeae5other
- Outcome
- Ke5
- Direction
- moree5
- Value
- 2.5 to 5.1 g me5
- Comparator
- sole‐cropped cassavae5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“The cassava‐cowpea and cassava‐peanut intercropping systems removed 3.0 to 7.5 g m 2 more N, 0.30 to 0.47 g m 2 more P, and 2.5 to 5.1 g m more K than sole‐cropped cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping systems are suggested to lead to a more rapid mining of natural soil fertility.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- intercropping systemse6
- Outcome
- mining of natural soil fertilitye6
- Direction
- more rapide6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping cassava ( Manihot esculenta Crantz)”
e6“Results suggest that these intercropping systems remove more nutrients than comparable sole crops, which leads to more rapid mining of natural soil fertility or the need for higher fertilizer application rates”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Results differ
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 48 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
74 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.