Abstract
Abstract To examine the advantages of cereal‐legume intercropping system with maize as main crops, field studies conducted for two years on sandy upland loamy soils in Bihar plateau, India, indicated maize‐groundnut as the best system. Yield advantages were noticed between 22–44 % over sole maize cropping. Different production indices largely indicated the same pattern in ranking intercropping treatments. Of the other legumes used, mung also showed potential whereas cowpea and soyabean did not. Increasing cropping intensities through use of interspace by legume did not significantly reduce maize yield, particularly in combination with groundnut and mung. Soil nitrogen enrichment through legume cultivation could be noted through examination of soil test values and yield of succeeding wheat crop. Wheat, however, did not show its promise as a follow‐up crop without input of water and fertilizer.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-groundnut intercropping was the best system.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e1“indicated maize‐groundnut as the best system”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping gave yield advantages of 22-44% over sole maize cropping.
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Yield advantages were noticed between 22–44 % over sole maize cropping”
Claim · model-written summary
Different production indices showed the same pattern in ranking intercropping treatments.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e3“Different production indices largely indicated the same pattern in ranking intercropping treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Mung showed potential as an intercrop with maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e4“Of the other legumes used, mung also showed potential whereas cowpea and soyabean did not”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea and soyabean did not show potential as intercrops with maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize”
e5“Of the other legumes used, mung also showed potential whereas cowpea and soyabean did not”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing cropping intensity through legume interspace did not significantly reduce maize yield.
- Treatment
- Increasing cropping intensities through use of interspace by legumee6
- Outcome
- maize yielde6
- Direction
- did not significantly reducee6
- Qualifier
- particularly in combination with groundnut and munge6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Increasing cropping intensities through use of interspace by legume did not significantly reduce maize yield, particularly in combination with groundnut and mung”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume cultivation enriched soil nitrogen.
Verbatim
e7“Soil nitrogen enrichment through legume cultivation could be noted through examination of soil test values and yield of succeeding wheat crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat did not show its promise as a follow-up crop without input of water and fertilizer.
- Taxon
- Wheat
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- without input of water and fertilizere1
- Outcome
- promisee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Wheat, however, did not show its promise as a follow‐up crop without input of water and fertilizer”