Abstract
Multiple use forestry is capable of generating income for forest based communities through Non-Timber forest products (NTFPs) which provide food, medicine, materials for domestic use and cash income for communities adjoining forest areas in developing countries. This study evaluates the economics of producing ginger rhizomes under teak canopy in a multiple land use system during 2007 and 2008 in even aged teak plantations in Ibadan and Ife, Nigeria. Twelve $6m^2$ sample plots were randomly selected in Completely Randomized Block Design within and outside the plantation. Average ginger rhizome of (50-60 g) were planted on the slightly tilled soil. NPK 15:15:15 was applied at 180 kg/ha on a split unit dose. ANOVA, Profitability, Benefit-Cost (B/C) ratio were used to analyze data. Results showed no significant differences between sites in ginger rhizome yield, (0.089 and 0.718, ${\rho}{\leq}0.05$) in 2007 and 2008 respectively. Average yield were higher outside teak canopy in both sites and treatments, (Ibadan -40.05 g>32.9 g, Ife -67.6 g>25.2 g and Ibadan -41.3 g>31.5 g, Ife -66.8 g>25.0 g) with and without NPK respectively. NPK had no effect on yields within teak plantation, (Ibadan -31.5<32.9 g, Ife -25 g<25.2 g). Ginger rhizome production was viable financially without inorganic fertilizer during second cropping season within and outside plantation (B/C=1.02, 1.09) respectively. Ginger could be raised profitably under teak canopy, however, studies on insolation requirement of ginger under teak canopy and other tree plantations are recommended.
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
Ginger rhizome yield showed no significant difference between sites in 2007.
- Taxon
- Ginger
Zingiber officinalet0 - Outcome
- ginger rhizome yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Qualifier
- 2007e0
- Setting
- sitese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Ginger (Zingiber officinale)”
e0“no significant differences between sites in ginger rhizome yield, (0.089 and 0.718, ${\rho}{\leq}0.05$) in 2007 and 2008 respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Ginger rhizome yield showed no significant difference between sites in 2008.
- Taxon
- GingerZingiber officinalet0
- Outcome
- ginger rhizome yielde0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Qualifier
- 2008e0
- Setting
- sitese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Ginger (Zingiber officinale)”
e0“no significant differences between sites in ginger rhizome yield, (0.089 and 0.718, ${\rho}{\leq}0.05$) in 2007 and 2008 respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Average ginger yield was higher outside teak canopy at both sites, with and without NPK.
- Taxon
- GingerZingiber officinalet0
- Treatment
- outside teak canopye0
- Outcome
- Average yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- with and without NPKe0
- Comparator
- teak canopye0
- Setting
- Ibadane0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Ginger (Zingiber officinale)”
e0“Average yield were higher outside teak canopy in both sites and treatments, (Ibadan -40.05 g>32.9 g, Ife -67.6 g>25.2 g and Ibadan -41.3 g>31.5 g, Ife -66.8 g>25.0 g) with and without NPK respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
NPK had no effect on ginger yield within teak plantation.
- Taxon
- GingerZingiber officinalet0
- Treatment
- NPKe0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- no effecte0
- Setting
- teak plantatione0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Ginger (Zingiber officinale)”
e0“NPK had no effect on yields within teak plantation, (Ibadan -31.5<32.9 g, Ife -25 g<25.2 g)”
Claim · model-written summary
Without inorganic fertilizer, second-season ginger production within the plantation was financially viable with B/C 1.02.
- Taxon
- GingerZingiber officinalet0
- Treatment
- without inorganic fertilizere0
- Outcome
- viable financiallye0
- Value
- B/C=1.02e0
- Qualifier
- second cropping seasone0
- Setting
- within and outside plantatione0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Ginger (Zingiber officinale)”
e0“Ginger rhizome production was viable financially without inorganic fertilizer during second cropping season within and outside plantation (B/C=1.02, 1.09) respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Without inorganic fertilizer, second-season ginger production outside the plantation was financially viable with B/C 1.09.
- Taxon
- GingerZingiber officinalet0
- Treatment
- without inorganic fertilizere0
- Outcome
- viable financiallye0
- Value
- 1.09e0
- Qualifier
- second cropping seasone0
- Setting
- outside plantatione0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Ginger (Zingiber officinale)”
e0“Ginger rhizome production was viable financially without inorganic fertilizer during second cropping season within and outside plantation (B/C=1.02, 1.09) respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors concluded ginger could be raised profitably under teak canopy.
- Taxon
- GingerZingiber officinalet0
- Outcome
- raised profitably under teak canopye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Ginger (Zingiber officinale)”
e0“Ginger could be raised profitably under teak canopy”
The same questions in other papers
fertilization · yield · Zingiber officinale (ginger)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 21 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 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.