Abstract
SUMMARY A field technique is described in which trenches were dug and vertical polythene partitions installed to eliminate below-ground interactions between component crops in intercropping. With pearl millet/groundnut the control intercrop (i.e. not dug out) gave a yield advantage of 22% compared with sole cropping. A treatment dug out but refilled without polythene partitions was very similar to the control intercrop, indicating that the digging procedure per se had little effect on growth. An intercrop treatment in which below-ground partitions were installed gave a yield advantage of 19% over sole cropping, suggesting that the main determinant of yield advantage was an above-ground interaction between the canopies. However, partitioning decreased millet yield and increased groundnut yield, indicating that below-ground interactions were important in determining the competitive balance of the two crops. It is concluded that the partitioning technique is promising.
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
The control intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut gave a yield advantage of 22% compared with sole cropping.
- Taxon
- pearl millet/groundnut
Arachis hypogaea
Cenchrus americanuse0 - Treatment
- control intercrope0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- advantagee0
- Value
- 22%e0
- Comparator
- sole croppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“With pearl millet/groundnut the control intercrop (i.e. not dug out) gave a yield advantage of 22% compared with sole cropping”
Claim · model-written summary
The treatment dug out but refilled without polythene partitions was very similar to the control intercrop, so digging per se had little effect on growth.
- Taxon
- pearl millet/groundnutArachis hypogaeaCenchrus americanuse1
- Treatment
- dug out but refilled without polythene partitionse0
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- little effecte0
- Comparator
- control intercrope0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A treatment dug out but refilled without polythene partitions was very similar to the control intercrop, indicating that the digging procedure per se had little effect on growth”
e1“With pearl millet/groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
The intercrop with below-ground partitions gave a yield advantage of 19% over sole cropping.
- Taxon
- pearl millet/groundnutArachis hypogaeaCenchrus americanuse1
- Treatment
- below-ground partitionse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- advantagee0
- Value
- 19%e0
- Comparator
- sole croppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“An intercrop treatment in which below-ground partitions were installed gave a yield advantage of 19% over sole cropping”
e1“With pearl millet/groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Partitioning decreased millet yield.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“partitioning decreased millet yield and increased groundnut yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Partitioning increased groundnut yield.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- partitioninge0
- Outcome
- groundnut yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“partitioning decreased millet yield and increased groundnut yield”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors suggest the main determinant of the intercrop yield advantage was an above-ground interaction between the canopies.
- Taxon
- pearl millet/groundnutArachis hypogaeaCenchrus americanuse1
- Outcome
- yield advantagee0
- Qualifier
- above-ground interaction between the canopiese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“suggesting that the main determinant of yield advantage was an above-ground interaction between the canopies”
e1“With pearl millet/groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Below-ground interactions were important in determining the competitive balance of the two crops.
- Taxon
- pearl millet/groundnutArachis hypogaeaCenchrus americanuse1
- Outcome
- competitive balance of the two cropse0
- Qualifier
- below-ground interactionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“below-ground interactions were important in determining the competitive balance of the two crops”
e1“With pearl millet/groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that the partitioning technique is promising.
- Taxon
- pearl millet/groundnutArachis hypogaeaCenchrus americanuse1
- Outcome
- the partitioning technique is promisinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the partitioning technique is promising”
e1“With pearl millet/groundnut”
The same questions in other papers
poly(ethylene) · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
8 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →intercropping · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Results differ
46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
56 papers more in this group
See all 60 papers →intercropping · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
78 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
115 papers more in this group
See all 119 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.