Abstract
determine the yield and quality of three different grass cultivars intercropped with leucaena (Leucaena leucocephala). The treatments consisted of three grass cultivars (ruzi, dwarf napier and Taiwan A25) as the main plots, planted between leucaena at three row spacings (1, 2 and 4 m width) as the sub plots and leucaena cutting height (10 and 25 cm above ground levels) as sub-sub-plots. Dwarf napier consistently produced more dry matter than Taiwan A25 or ruzi and Taiwan A25 outyielded ruzi. Leucaena yield was highest in the ruzi plot and lowest in the dwarf napier plot. However, yields of grass plus leucaena were highest in the dwarf napier plot and were lowest in the ruzi plots. The difference was due mainly to the grass components. Increasing the spacing between rows of leucaena resulted in a lower leucaena yield but the reverse was true for the grasses. Cutting of leucaena at 10 cm above ground levels depressed yields of leucaena but did not affect the associated grasses. In terms of herbage quality, it was found that the crude protein of leaves and stems of the dwarf napier and Taiwan A25 were higher than that of the ruzi grass. Leucaena gave higher levels of crude protein than all grasses. The phosphorus and potassium levels of all grasses were higher than leucaena. ADF levels were higher in the grasses than in the legumes. Nutrient contents in the leaves and stems of grasses and leucaena were not affected by leucaena spacing and cutting height.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Dwarf napier yielded more dry matter than Taiwan A25 or ruzi.
Verbatim
e0“Dwarf napier consistently produced more dry matter than Taiwan A25 or ruzi”
t0“Three Associated Grasses”
Claim · model-written summary
Taiwan A25 outyielded ruzi.
Verbatim
e0“Taiwan A25 outyielded ruzi”
t0“Three Associated Grasses”
Claim · model-written summary
Leucaena yield was highest in ruzi plots.
LeucaenaNot reportedInteractor role
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leucaena yield was highest in the ruzi plot and lowest in the dwarf napier plot”
Claim · model-written summary
Leucaena yield was lowest in dwarf napier plots.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leucaena yield was highest in the ruzi plot and lowest in the dwarf napier plot”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined grass and leucaena yield was highest with dwarf napier.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yields of grass plus leucaena were highest in the dwarf napier plot and were lowest in the ruzi plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Combined grass and leucaena yield was lowest with ruzi.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yields of grass plus leucaena were highest in the dwarf napier plot and were lowest in the ruzi plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased leucaena row spacing lowered leucaena yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing the spacing between rows of leucaena resulted in a lower leucaena yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Increased leucaena row spacing raised grass yields.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Increasing the spacing between rows of leucaena resulted in a lower leucaena yield but the reverse was true for the grasses”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting leucaena at 10 cm depressed leucaena yields.
- Treatment
- Cutting of leucaena at 10 cm above ground levelse0
- Outcome
- yields of leucaenae0
- Direction
- depressede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cutting of leucaena at 10 cm above ground levels depressed yields of leucaena”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting leucaena at 10 cm did not affect associated grasses.
- Taxon
- grassese0
- Treatment
- Cutting of leucaena at 10 cm above ground levelse0
- Outcome
- associated grassese0
- Direction
- did not affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Cutting of leucaena at 10 cm above ground levels depressed yields of leucaena but did not affect the associated grasses”
Claim · model-written summary
Dwarf napier and Taiwan A25 leaf and stem crude protein exceeded ruzi.
Verbatim
e0“the crude protein of leaves and stems of the dwarf napier and Taiwan A25 were higher than that of the ruzi grass”
Claim · model-written summary
Leucaena crude protein exceeded all grasses.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leucaena gave higher levels of crude protein than all grasses”
Claim · model-written summary
Grass phosphorus and potassium levels exceeded leucaena levels.
Verbatim
e0“The phosphorus and potassium levels of all grasses were higher than leucaena”
Claim · model-written summary
Grass ADF levels exceeded legume levels.
Verbatim
e0“ADF levels were higher in the grasses than in the legumes”
Claim · model-written summary
Leucaena spacing did not affect grass or leucaena leaf and stem nutrients.
- Taxon
- grasses and leucaenae0
- Treatment
- leucaena spacinge0
- Outcome
- Nutrient contents in the leaves and stemse0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Nutrient contents in the leaves and stems of grasses and leucaena were not affected by leucaena spacing and cutting height”
Claim · model-written summary
Leucaena cutting height did not affect grass or leucaena leaf and stem nutrients.
- Taxon
- grasses and leucaenae0
- Treatment
- cutting heighte0
- Outcome
- Nutrient contents in the leaves and stemse0
- Direction
- not affectede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Nutrient contents in the leaves and stems of grasses and leucaena were not affected by leucaena spacing and cutting height”