Paper · 2011 · Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences

The Effect of Kitchen Residue Ash, Poultry Manure and Goat Dung on Soil Properties and Yield of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) in a Typic Kandiudult of Southeast Nigeria

MI Onwuka; HO Nsofor

9
claims
16
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

A pot experiment was conducted at Michael Okpara University of Agriculture Umudike to determine the effect of kitchen residue ash, poultry manure and goat dung on soil properties and yield of Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) on Typic Kandiudult of Southeastern Nigeria. Six levels of the treatments; 0t/ha (control), 2t/ha of kitchen residue ash, 2t/ha of goat dung, 2t/ha of poultry manure, 1t/ha of kitchen residue ash + 1t/ha of poultry manure and 1 t/ha kitchen residue + 1t/ha goat dung were applied, replicated three times in a Completely Randomized Design (CRD). At the end of the experiment, plants agronomic parameters and soil chemical properties were measured. The result obtained showed that the application of kitchen residue ash, poultry manure and goat dung significantly (P<0.05) increased soil pH, available phosphorus, total nitrogen, soil carbon, exchangeable calcium, exchangeable potassium and magnesium over the control. The applied manure and ash increased the cowpea height, root length, root branching and grain yield more than the control. The combination of 1t/ha kitchen residue ash and 1t/ha goat dung gave the overall best performance in terms of increasing plant height, root length and number of root branching. Among the amendments tested, 1t/ha kitchen residue ash + 1t/ha poultry manure significantly (P<0.05) increased the soil pH, exchangeable calcium, exchangeable potassium, percentage base saturation and reduced exchangeable acidity more than the other treatment. Further research is recommended for the field application of the treatment on cowpea production.Key Words: Kitchen residue ash, goat dung, poultry manure, cowpea

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

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The tested ash and manure applications significantly raised soil pH, available phosphorus, and total nitrogen relative to control.

Treatment
kitchen residue ash, poultry manure and goat dunge0
Outcome
soil pH, available phosphorus, total nitrogene0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
controle0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“application of kitchen residue ash, poultry manure and goat dung significantly (P<0.05) increased soil pH, available phosphorus, total nitrogen, soil carbon, exchangeable calcium, exchangeable potassium and magnesium over the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 702–935 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–122 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The tested ash and manure applications significantly raised soil carbon and exchangeable calcium, potassium, and magnesium.

Outcome
soil carbon, exchangeable calcium, exchangeable potassium and magnesiume0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
the controle0

Not reportedTreatment

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“increased soil pH, available phosphorus, total nitrogen, soil carbon, exchangeable calcium, exchangeable potassium and magnesium over the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 790–935 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–122 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ash and manure increased cowpea height, root length, and root branching over control.

Treatment
manure and ashe0
Outcome
cowpea height, root length, root branchinge0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
the controle0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The applied manure and ash increased the cowpea height, root length, root branching and grain yield more than the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 937–1058 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ash and manure increased cowpea grain yield over control.

Treatment
manure and ashe0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
the controle0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The applied manure and ash increased the cowpea height, root length, root branching and grain yield more than the control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 937–1058 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–102 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 1t/ha ash plus 1t/ha goat dung combination gave the best cowpea height, root length, and root branching performance.

Treatment
1t/ha kitchen residue ash and 1t/ha goat dunge0
Outcome
plant height, root length and number of root branchinge0
Direction
beste0

Not reportedComparator

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The combination of 1t/ha kitchen residue ash and 1t/ha goat dung gave the overall best performance in terms of increasing plant height, root length and number of root branching”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1060–1236 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–102 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The ash plus poultry manure amendment significantly raised soil pH, exchangeable calcium, and potassium beyond other treatments.

Treatment
1t/ha kitchen residue ash + 1t/ha poultry manuree0
Outcome
soil pH, exchangeable calcium, exchangeable potassiume0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
the other treatmente0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“1t/ha kitchen residue ash + 1t/ha poultry manure significantly (P<0.05) increased the soil pH, exchangeable calcium, exchangeable potassium, percentage base saturation and reduced exchangeable acidity more than the other treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1267–1497 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–102 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The ash plus poultry manure amendment significantly raised percentage base saturation beyond other treatments.

Treatment
1t/ha kitchen residue ash + 1t/ha poultry manuree0
Outcome
percentage base saturatione0
Direction
increasede0
Comparator
the other treatmente0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“1t/ha kitchen residue ash + 1t/ha poultry manure significantly (P<0.05) increased the soil pH, exchangeable calcium, exchangeable potassium, percentage base saturation and reduced exchangeable acidity more than the other treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1267–1497 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–102 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The ash plus poultry manure amendment reduced exchangeable acidity beyond other treatments.

Treatment
1t/ha kitchen residue ash + 1t/ha poultry manuree0
Outcome
exchangeable aciditye0
Direction
reducede0
Comparator
the other treatmente0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“1t/ha kitchen residue ash + 1t/ha poultry manure significantly (P<0.05) increased the soil pH, exchangeable calcium, exchangeable potassium, percentage base saturation and reduced exchangeable acidity more than the other treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1267–1497 · show in text ↑
t0

“Cowpea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 96–102 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend further field research on these amendments for cowpea production.

Outcome
field application of the treatment on cowpea productione0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Further research is recommended for the field application of the treatment on cowpea production”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1499–1594 · show in text ↑

fertilization · quality: sugar starch · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

6 papers: 4 positive, 2 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

2 papers more in this group

See all 6 papers →

fertilization · soil: chemistry · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

18 papers: 14 positive, 4 negative or no effect

13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

14 papers more in this group

See all 18 papers →

fertilization · nutrient: content · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

78 papers: 71 positive, 7 negative or no effect

70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. no effect

74 papers more in this group

See all 78 papers →

fertilization · growth · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

143 papers: 131 positive, 12 negative or no effect

130 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

139 papers more in this group

See all 143 papers →

fertilization · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

292 papers: 275 positive, 17 negative or no effect

274 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

288 papers more in this group

See all 292 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.