Abstract
Abstract Productivity of maize ( Zea mays L.) legume intercrops is determined by soil, management, and environment. Planting sequence and time and N fertilization are easily controlled management factors but their effects on intercrop yields are not well understood. Maize grown in monoculture or intercropped with polebean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) or cowpea ( Vigna unguiculata [L.] Warp.) was studied for two growing seasons at Morgantown, WV. Crops were seeded in the following sequences: maize before legume, both at the same time, and legume before maize. Planting times were early May or mid June. Nitrogen was applied at 0 or 160 kg ha −1 . Maize grain and forage, legume grain and forage, and total forage production were determined on a dry matter basis. Intercropping (average of all treatments) reduced maize grain and forage yields compared to maize in monoculture but had no effect on total forage production. However, total forage production was greatest when the seeding sequence was maize intercropped at the same time or before cowpea. Cowpea never produced grain, but forage production was almost double that of polebean. Maize produced most forage when seeded before the legumes, and the legumes produced most forage when seeded before maize. Early planting increased maize production and decreased legume production. Nitrogen increased maize grain, maize forage, and total forage yields but had not effect on legume forage production. It is concluded that maize/legume intercrops show promise for increasing forage production in temperate areas and more research on planting times and densities, weed control, harvesting and management is needed.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping reduced maize grain yield versus monoculture.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping (average of all treatments) reduced maize grain and forage yields compared to maize in monoculture”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping reduced maize forage yield versus monoculture.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping (average of all treatments) reduced maize grain and forage yields compared to maize in monoculture”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping had no effect on total forage production.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“but had no effect on total forage production”
t0“Maize”
e1“Intercropping (average of all treatments) reduced maize grain and forage yields compared to maize in monoculture”
Claim · model-written summary
Total forage production was greatest when maize was seeded with or before cowpea.
- Treatment
- maize intercropped at the same time or before cowpeae0
- Outcome
- total forage productione0
- Direction
- greateste0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“total forage production was greatest when the seeding sequence was maize intercropped at the same time or before cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea produced no grain.
- Taxon
- Cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae0 - Outcome
- graine0
- Direction
- never producede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cowpea never produced grain”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea forage production was almost double polebean production.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae1
- Outcome
- forage productione0
- Direction
- doublee0
- Value
- almost doublee0
- Comparator
- polebeane0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“forage production was almost double that of polebean”
e1“total forage production was greatest when the seeding sequence was maize intercropped at the same time or before cowpea”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize forage production was highest when maize preceded legumes.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize produced most forage when seeded before the legumes”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume forage production was highest when legumes preceded maize.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the legumes produced most forage when seeded before maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Early planting increased maize production.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Early planting increased maize production and decreased legume production”
Claim · model-written summary
Early planting decreased legume production.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Early planting increased maize production and decreased legume production”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen increased maize grain yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nitrogen increased maize grain, maize forage, and total forage yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen increased maize forage yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nitrogen increased maize grain, maize forage, and total forage yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen increased total forage yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nitrogen increased maize grain, maize forage, and total forage yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen had no effect on legume forage production.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“but had not effect on legume forage production”
e1“Nitrogen increased maize grain, maize forage, and total forage yields”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded that maize-legume intercrops show promise for increasing forage in temperate areas.
Verbatim
e0“maize/legume intercrops show promise for increasing forage production in temperate areas”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors call for further research on planting, weeds, harvesting and management.
- Outcome
- more research on planting times and densities, weed control, harvesting and managemente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“more research on planting times and densities, weed control, harvesting and management is needed”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
46 papers more in this group
See all 50 papers →nitrogen · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
59 papers more in this group
See all 63 papers →sowing time · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
177 papers in the same direction as this paper · 89 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
265 papers more in this group
See all 269 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
220 papers in the same direction as this paper · 613 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 papers →nitrogen · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1,905 papers in the same direction as this paper · 234 in the opposite direction · 45 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
2,181 papers more in this group
See all 2,185 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.