Abstract
ABSTRACT Soils of the West African Savanna dominated by kaolinite clays are inherently poor in fertility, fragile, and rapidly degraded under continuous cropping and livestock production systems. To ensure sustainable production, causes of soil degradation must be checked and other sources of fertility provided for crops. To achieve this, the use of herbaceous and forage legumes intercropped with maize were evaluated. The study was conducted in Zaria, Nigeria (longitude 7° 30′ and 7° 50′ East, latitude 11° 00′ and 11° 10′ North), at the Ahmadu Bello University farm. Results show that the forage legume/maize treatments did not significantly deplete available soil moisture more than the sole maize treatment. Also, the legume/maize treatments resulted in positive carbon credits and higher total nitrogen content in the soils after two years of continuous cropping. Macrotyloma uniflorum, Stylosanthes hamata, and Lablab purpureus/maize intercrops did not reduce maize grain yields compared to the sole maize treatment. For sustained optimum grain yield of maize and improved soil conditions, Macrotyloma/maize intercrop treatment is recommended.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Legume/maize intercrops did not significantly deplete available soil moisture beyond sole maize.
- Treatment
- forage legume/maize treatmentse0
- Outcome
- available soil moisturee0
- Direction
- did not significantly depletee0
- Comparator
- sole maize treatmente0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the forage legume/maize treatments did not significantly deplete available soil moisture more than the sole maize treatment”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume/maize intercrops produced positive carbon credits after two years.
- Treatment
- legume/maize treatmentse0
- Outcome
- carbon creditse0
- Direction
- positivee0
- Qualifier
- after two years of continuous croppinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the legume/maize treatments resulted in positive carbon credits and higher total nitrogen content in the soils after two years of continuous cropping”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume/maize intercrops yielded higher soil total nitrogen after two years.
- Treatment
- legume/maize treatmentse0
- Outcome
- total nitrogen content in the soilse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- after two years of continuous croppinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the legume/maize treatments resulted in positive carbon credits and higher total nitrogen content in the soils after two years of continuous cropping”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Macrotyloma uniflorum/maize intercrop did not reduce maize grain yield relative to sole maize.
- Treatment
- Macrotyloma uniflorume0
- Interactor
- Macrotyloma uniflorum
Macrotyloma uniflorume0other - Outcome
- maize grain yieldse0
- Direction
- did not reducee0
- Comparator
- sole maize treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Macrotyloma uniflorum, Stylosanthes hamata, and Lablab purpureus/maize intercrops did not reduce maize grain yields compared to the sole maize treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Stylosanthes hamata/maize intercrop did not reduce maize grain yield relative to sole maize.
- Treatment
- Stylosanthes hamatae0
- Interactor
- Stylosanthes hamata
_Taub._(6254148545).jpg?width=60)
Stylosanthes hamatae0other - Outcome
- maize grain yieldse0
- Direction
- did not reducee0
- Comparator
- sole maize treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
_Taub._(6254148545).jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Macrotyloma uniflorum, Stylosanthes hamata, and Lablab purpureus/maize intercrops did not reduce maize grain yields compared to the sole maize treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Lablab purpureus/maize intercrop did not reduce maize grain yield relative to sole maize.
- Treatment
- Lablab purpureus/maize intercropse0
- Interactor
- Lablab purpureus
Lablab purpureuse0other - Outcome
- maize grain yieldse0
- Direction
- did not reducee0
- Comparator
- sole maize treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Macrotyloma uniflorum, Stylosanthes hamata, and Lablab purpureus/maize intercrops did not reduce maize grain yields compared to the sole maize treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend Macrotyloma/maize intercropping for sustained optimum maize grain yield and improved soil conditions.
- Treatment
- Macrotyloma/maize intercrop treatmente0
- Outcome
- Macrotyloma/maize intercrop treatment is recommendede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For sustained optimum grain yield of maize and improved soil conditions, Macrotyloma/maize intercrop treatment is recommended”
The same questions in other papers
Macrotyloma uniflorum · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
Stylosanthes hamata · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
Lablab purpureus · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
220 papers in the same direction as this paper · 613 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 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.