Abstract
Food shortage is known to have been caused by overpopulation, natural disasters and poor food distribution. In areas facing food insecurity, such as Africa, peasants or small-scale farmers have practised intercropping since old times. In this study, an investigation was carried out to determine whether intercropping increased production for small-scale farming in a semi-arid region (Free State, South Africa). Crop productivity of maize and bean intercropping systems was evaluated in terms of crop yield and growth. The effect of radiation and water utilisation by these systems was measured to determine their productivity. Field trials were carried out during three summer crop growing seasons (plant densities, row orientation and sowing date trials. In all growing seasons, rainfall was below normal, and air temperatures were normal. The total land equivalent ratios for yield and growth ranged between 1.06 to 1.58 and 1.38 to 1.86 respectively, showing yield and growth advantage of intercropping. Concerning radiation and water use, the intercropping of maize and beans had both radiation and water use efficiencies (RUE and WUE, respectively) as high as maize sole cropping, and intercropping RUE and WUE were greater than bean sole cropping. >From these results, it has been concluded that maize-bean intercropping can be recommended to small-scale farmers in this semi-arid region. Water SA Vol.29(4): 381-388
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping had a yield advantage, with land equivalent ratios of 1.06 to 1.58.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The total land equivalent ratios for yield and growth ranged between 1.06 to 1.58 and 1.38 to 1.86 respectively, showing yield and growth advantage of intercropping.”
e1“maize and bean intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping had a growth advantage, with land equivalent ratios of 1.38 to 1.86.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The total land equivalent ratios for yield and growth ranged between 1.06 to 1.58 and 1.38 to 1.86 respectively, showing yield and growth advantage of intercropping.”
e1“maize and bean intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping radiation use efficiency was as high as maize sole cropping.
Verbatim
e0“the intercropping of maize and beans had both radiation and water use efficiencies (RUE and WUE, respectively) as high as maize sole cropping”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping water use efficiency was as high as maize sole cropping.
Verbatim
e0“the intercropping of maize and beans had both radiation and water use efficiencies (RUE and WUE, respectively) as high as maize sole cropping”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping radiation use efficiency exceeded bean sole cropping.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping RUE and WUE were greater than bean sole cropping”
e1“intercropping of maize and beans”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping water use efficiency exceeded bean sole cropping.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping RUE and WUE were greater than bean sole cropping”
e1“intercropping of maize and beans”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-bean intercropping was recommended to small-scale farmers in the semi-arid region.
Verbatim
e0“maize-bean intercropping can be recommended to small-scale farmers in this semi-arid region”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 29 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
63 papers more in this group
See all 67 papers →intercropping · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
137 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 papers →intercropping · growth · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →intercropping · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
612 papers in the same direction as this paper · 181 in the opposite direction · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 papers →intercropping · physiology: water · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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.