Abstract
Summary A preliminary investigation on interplanting of maize with nine different tropical legumes in the rain-forest zone of the Western State of Nigeria at Ibadan indicated that Popondo ( Phaseolus lunatus ) and Mucuna ( Mucuna utilis ) lowered maize yield, while calopo ( Calopogonium tnucunoides ) Cowpea ( Vigna sinensis ) and greengram ( Phaseolus aureus ) had much less effect on maize and were themselves tolerant to maize shade. These three legumes were interplanted with maize continuously for four growing seasons, during which there was a significant response of maize to fertilizer treatment only in the control (no legume) treatment. Maize interplanted with the legumes gave no response to applications of 50 lb N per acre. High yields of maize were maintained during the four growing seasons in both the fertilized control plots and those interplanted with different legumes without fertilizer, whereas the yield of maize in plots with neither legume nor fertilizer was reduced to half of the yield of the first maize crop. Starting from the third cropping season, there was a significant interaction between the presence or absence of legume and fertilizer. The planting pattern of the maize and legumes (intercropping or growing maize after the legume harvest) did not affect the yield of maize. Legumes tended to compete with maize during the late cropping season. This did not affect the maize yield seriously during the investigation, but legume yield was significantly suppressed by maize shade.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Interplanting maize with Popondo (Phaseolus lunatus) lowered maize yield.
- Treatment
- Popondo ( Phaseolus lunatus )e1
- Outcome
- maize yielde1
- Direction
- lowerede1
- Setting
- rain-forest zone of the Western State of Nigeria at Ibadane2
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Popondo ( Phaseolus lunatus ) and Mucuna ( Mucuna utilis ) lowered maize yield”
e2“in the rain-forest zone of the Western State of Nigeria at Ibadan”
Claim · model-written summary
Interplanting maize with Mucuna (Mucuna utilis) lowered maize yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Popondo ( Phaseolus lunatus ) and Mucuna ( Mucuna utilis ) lowered maize yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Calopo, cowpea and greengram had much less effect on maize than Popondo and Mucuna did.
- Treatment
- calopo ( Calopogonium tnucunoides ) Cowpea ( Vigna sinensis ) and greengram ( Phaseolus aureus )e1
- Outcome
- effect on maizee1
- Direction
- much less effecte1
- Comparator
- Popondo ( Phaseolus lunatus ) and Mucuna ( Mucuna utilis )e2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“while calopo ( Calopogonium tnucunoides ) Cowpea ( Vigna sinensis ) and greengram ( Phaseolus aureus ) had much less effect on maize and were themselves tolerant to maize shade”
e2“Popondo ( Phaseolus lunatus ) and Mucuna ( Mucuna utilis ) lowered maize yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Calopo, cowpea and greengram were tolerant to maize shade.
- Outcome
- tolerant to maize shadee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“while calopo ( Calopogonium tnucunoides ) Cowpea ( Vigna sinensis ) and greengram ( Phaseolus aureus ) had much less effect on maize and were themselves tolerant to maize shade”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize responded to fertilizer treatment only in the control (no legume) treatment.
- Treatment
- fertilizer treatmente1
- Outcome
- response of maizee1
- Qualifier
- only in the control (no legume) treatmente1
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“there was a significant response of maize to fertilizer treatment only in the control (no legume) treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize interplanted with legumes gave no response to 50 lb N per acre.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Maize interplanted with the legumes gave no response to applications of 50 lb N per acre”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yields were maintained over four seasons in fertilized control plots and in legume-interplanted plots without fertilizer.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“High yields of maize were maintained during the four growing seasons in both the fertilized control plots and those interplanted with different legumes without fertilizer”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield in plots with neither legume nor fertilizer was reduced to half of the first maize crop yield.
- Treatment
- neither legume nor fertilizere1
- Outcome
- yield of maizee1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Value
- halfe1
- Comparator
- the first maize crope1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“the yield of maize in plots with neither legume nor fertilizer was reduced to half of the yield of the first maize crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume presence and fertilizer interacted significantly in their effect on maize from the third cropping season.
- Treatment
- the presence or absence of legume and fertilizere1
- Outcome
- interactione1
- Qualifier
- Starting from the third cropping seasone1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Starting from the third cropping season, there was a significant interaction between the presence or absence of legume and fertilizer”
e2“Popondo ( Phaseolus lunatus ) and Mucuna ( Mucuna utilis ) lowered maize yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Planting pattern (intercropping or growing maize after legume harvest) did not affect maize yield.
- Treatment
- planting patterne1
- Outcome
- yield of maizee1
- Direction
- did not affecte1
- Comparator
- growing maize after the legume harveste1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The planting pattern of the maize and legumes (intercropping or growing maize after the legume harvest) did not affect the yield of maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Legumes tended to compete with maize during the late cropping season.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Legumes tended to compete with maize during the late cropping season”
Claim · model-written summary
The competition by legumes did not seriously affect maize yield during the investigation.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“This did not affect the maize yield seriously during the investigation”
Claim · model-written summary
Legume yield was significantly suppressed by maize shade.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“legume yield was significantly suppressed by maize shade”
The same questions in other papers
Mucuna · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →Mucuna pruriens var. utilis · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →Calopogonium mucunoides · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
Vigna unguiculata · organism · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →shade · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →fertilization · organism · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
136 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
158 papers more in this group
See all 162 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
422 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3,485 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.