Abstract
The objective of this field experiment was to investigate the growth, hay yield and chemical composition of cassava and stylo 184 grown under intercropping. The experiment was arranged in a Randomized Complete Block (RCB) design with 5 treatments and 4 replications. The treatments were: sole crop cassava (C); sole crop stylo 184 (S) and three intercropping treatments comprising an additive series of one (SC), two (SSC) and three (SSSC) rows of stylo 184 to one row of cassava. The results showed that leaf area per plant (LA) of cassava was significantly higher (p<0.05) in the sole crop relative to the intercropping treatments. Both total hay yield and CPDM yield were significantly higher (p<0.05) for C treatment and lower (p<0.05) for SSSC treatment. The total hay yield and CPDM yield were significantly greater (p<0.05) in the sole crop relative to the intercropping treatments. At the first and second harvests, CP content was similar among treatments; while at third and fourth harvests, CP contents were significantly greater (p<0.05) for the intercropping treatment relative to the sole crop. At the first and second harvest, NDF contents were significantly greater (p<0.05) in the sole crop relative to the intercropping treatments, whereas NDF contents were similar among intercropping treatments. Leaf area of stylo 184 at first and second harvest were significantly greater (p<0.05) for C, SC and SSC as compared with the SSSC treatments. At each harvesting, there were no significant differences in ash, CP, NDF, ADF and ADL contents of stylo 184 hay between the sole crop and intercropping treatments, except for the first harvest. ADF contents were significantly greater (p<0.05) in S, SC treatments relative to SSC and SSSC treatments. Both collective hay yield and CPDM yield of cassava and stylo 184 were significantly greater (p<0.05) for the SSC treatment and significantly lower (p<0.05) for the S treatment. Collective hay yield and CPDM yield were significantly greater (p<0.05) for the intercropping treatments relative to the sole crop. Based on this research, it was concluded that stylo 184 showed potential for intercropping with cassava. Intercropping cassava with stylo 184 has beneficial effects and can improve foliage biomass yield and soil fertility, which would be a more sustainable system than growing the cassava as a pure stand. In terms of hay yield and CP production, two rows of stylo 184 to one row of cassava could be the optimal pattern for this intercropping system. (
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf area per cassava plant was significantly higher in sole crop than in intercropping.
- Taxon
- cassava
Manihot esculentae1 - Treatment
- sole crope1
- Outcome
- leaf area per plante1
- Direction
- significantly highere1
- Comparator
- intercropping treatmentse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“leaf area per plant (LA) of cassava was significantly higher (p<0.05) in the sole crop relative to the intercropping treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Total hay yield and CPDM yield were significantly higher for the C treatment.
Verbatim
t0“Cassava and Stylo 184”
e2“Both total hay yield and CPDM yield were significantly higher (p<0.05) for C treatment and lower (p<0.05) for SSSC treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Total hay yield and CPDM yield were significantly lower for the SSSC treatment.
Verbatim
t0“Cassava and Stylo 184”
e2“Both total hay yield and CPDM yield were significantly higher (p<0.05) for C treatment and lower (p<0.05) for SSSC treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
CP contents at third and fourth harvests were significantly greater for intercropping than for sole crop.
Verbatim
t0“Cassava and Stylo 184”
e3“at third and fourth harvests, CP contents were significantly greater (p<0.05) for the intercropping treatment relative to the sole crop”
Claim · model-written summary
NDF contents were significantly greater in sole crop than in intercropping at the first and second harvest.
Verbatim
t0“Cassava and Stylo 184”
e4“At the first and second harvest, NDF contents were significantly greater (p<0.05) in the sole crop relative to the intercropping treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Stylo 184 leaf area at first and second harvest was significantly greater for C, SC and SSC than for SSSC.
Verbatim
e5“Leaf area of stylo 184 at first and second harvest were significantly greater (p<0.05) for C, SC and SSC as compared with the SSSC treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Ash, CP and NDF contents of stylo 184 hay showed no significant difference between sole crop and intercropping, except at the first harvest.
Verbatim
t0“Cassava and Stylo 184”
e6“there were no significant differences in ash, CP, NDF, ADF and ADL contents of stylo 184 hay between the sole crop and intercropping treatments, except for the first harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
ADF and ADL contents of stylo 184 hay showed no significant difference between sole crop and intercropping, except at the first harvest.
Verbatim
t0“Cassava and Stylo 184”
e6“there were no significant differences in ash, CP, NDF, ADF and ADL contents of stylo 184 hay between the sole crop and intercropping treatments, except for the first harvest”
Claim · model-written summary
ADF contents were significantly greater in S and SC treatments than in SSC and SSSC treatments.
Verbatim
t0“Cassava and Stylo 184”
e7“ADF contents were significantly greater (p<0.05) in S, SC treatments relative to SSC and SSSC treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Collective hay yield and CPDM yield of cassava and stylo 184 were significantly greater for the SSC treatment.
Verbatim
e1“Both collective hay yield and CPDM yield of cassava and stylo 184 were significantly greater (p<0.05) for the SSC treatment and significantly lower (p<0.05) for the S treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Collective hay yield and CPDM yield of cassava and stylo 184 were significantly lower for the S treatment.
Verbatim
e1“Both collective hay yield and CPDM yield of cassava and stylo 184 were significantly greater (p<0.05) for the SSC treatment and significantly lower (p<0.05) for the S treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Collective hay yield and CPDM yield were significantly greater for intercropping than for sole crop.
Verbatim
t0“Cassava and Stylo 184”
e1“Collective hay yield and CPDM yield were significantly greater (p<0.05) for the intercropping treatments relative to the sole crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Two rows of stylo 184 to one row of cassava could be the optimal pattern for hay yield and CP production.
Verbatim
e1“In terms of hay yield and CP production, two rows of stylo 184 to one row of cassava could be the optimal pattern for this intercropping system”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping cassava with stylo 184 can improve foliage biomass yield and soil fertility compared with pure cassava.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae1
- Treatment
- Intercropping cassava with stylo 184e1
- Outcome
- foliage biomass yield and soil fertilitye1
- Direction
- can improvee1
- Comparator
- pure stande1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Intercropping cassava with stylo 184 has beneficial effects and can improve foliage biomass yield and soil fertility, which would be a more sustainable system than growing the cassava as a pure stand”
The same questions in other papers
Stylosanthes guianensis · yield · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
intercropping · yield · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Results differ
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 28 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 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.