Abstract
A study was conducted to examine the effects of the time and severity of cutting lablab ( Lablab purpureus ), both in sole crops and intercropped with maize ( Zea mays ). The effects of cutting management on the dry matter (DM) yield, leaf area index (LAI), nodulation, the nitrogen (N) yield, and N fixation by lablab were measured, as were the total DM yield, grain yield, and a yield component of maize. Two dates of lablab cutting (40 and 60 d after sowing (DAS)), and two heights of cutting (30 and 20 cm above the soil surface) were applied in factorial combinations as well as a no-cutting treatment. Maize was not cut either in monoculture or intercrops. Intercropping lablab with maize increased the grain yields of maize from 3.2 t ha −1 to 3.8 t ha −1 if lablab was cut at 40 DAS, but delaying cutting until 60 DAS had no effect, while uncut lablab reduced the yield of maize by 10%. Intercropping lablab with maize reduced the total N yield of lablab by over 50%, from 302 to 132 kg N ha −1 . Regardless of cropping system, the total N yield of lablab at 130 DAS was 24% less when lablab was cut at 60 DAS compared with 40 DAS. Cutting height did not significantly affect the total N yield of lablab. Although both cropping system and cutting time significantly affected the total N fixation by lablab at 130 DAS, there were no significant effects of cropping system, cutting time or severity of cutting on the proportion of N in lablab derived from N fixation. Values of Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) which ranged between 1.2 and 1.6, and of Area Time Equivalent Ratio (ATER) which ranged between 1.0 and 1.4 for intercrops of maize with lablab indicated a definite advantage of intercropping. LER and ATER values were greatest when lablab was uncut, and least when lablab was cut at 60 DAS.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping lablab with maize increased maize grain yield to 3.8 t/ha when lablab was cut at 40 DAS.
- Treatment
- Intercropping lablab with maizee0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 3.8 t ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- if lablab was cut at 40 DASe0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping lablab with maize increased the grain yields of maize from 3.2 t ha −1 to 3.8 t ha −1 if lablab was cut at 40 DAS, but delaying cutting until 60 DAS had no effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Delaying lablab cutting until 60 DAS had no effect on maize grain yield in the intercrop.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping lablab with maize increased the grain yields of maize from 3.2 t ha −1 to 3.8 t ha −1 if lablab was cut at 40 DAS, but delaying cutting until 60 DAS had no effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Uncut lablab reduced maize yield by 10% in the intercrop.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“while uncut lablab reduced the yield of maize by 10%”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping with maize reduced total N yield of lablab by over 50%.
- Treatment
- Intercropping lablab with maizee2
- Outcome
- total N yield of lablabe2
- Direction
- reducede2
- Value
- over 50%e2
- Qualifier
- from 302 to 132 kg N ha −1e2
LablabNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Intercropping lablab with maize reduced the total N yield of lablab by over 50%, from 302 to 132 kg N ha −1”
Claim · model-written summary
Lablab cut at 60 DAS had 24% less total N yield at 130 DAS than lablab cut at 40 DAS, regardless of cropping system.
- Treatment
- lablab was cut at 60 DASe3
- Outcome
- total N yield of lablab at 130 DASe3
- Direction
- lesse3
- Value
- 24%e3
- Comparator
- 40 DASe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Regardless of cropping system, the total N yield of lablab at 130 DAS was 24% less when lablab was cut at 60 DAS compared with 40 DAS”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting height did not significantly affect total N yield of lablab.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Cutting height did not significantly affect the total N yield of lablab”
Claim · model-written summary
Cropping system significantly affected total N fixation by lablab at 130 DAS.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Although both cropping system and cutting time significantly affected the total N fixation by lablab at 130 DAS”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting time significantly affected total N fixation by lablab at 130 DAS.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Although both cropping system and cutting time significantly affected the total N fixation by lablab at 130 DAS”
Claim · model-written summary
Cropping system had no significant effect on the proportion of lablab N derived from fixation.
- Treatment
- cropping systeme6
- Outcome
- proportion of N in lablab derived from N fixatione6
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“there were no significant effects of cropping system, cutting time or severity of cutting on the proportion of N in lablab derived from N fixation”
Claim · model-written summary
Cutting time had no significant effect on the proportion of lablab N derived from fixation.
- Treatment
- cutting timee6
- Outcome
- proportion of N in lablab derived from N fixatione6
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“there were no significant effects of cropping system, cutting time or severity of cutting on the proportion of N in lablab derived from N fixation”
Claim · model-written summary
Severity of cutting had no significant effect on the proportion of lablab N derived from fixation.
- Treatment
- severity of cuttinge6
- Outcome
- proportion of N in lablab derived from N fixatione6
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“there were no significant effects of cropping system, cutting time or severity of cutting on the proportion of N in lablab derived from N fixation”
Claim · model-written summary
Land Equivalent Ratio of maize-lablab intercrops ranged between 1.2 and 1.6, indicating an intercropping advantage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Values of Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) which ranged between 1.2 and 1.6, and of Area Time Equivalent Ratio (ATER) which ranged between 1.0 and 1.4 for intercrops of maize with lablab indicated a definite advantage of intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
Area Time Equivalent Ratio of maize-lablab intercrops ranged between 1.0 and 1.4, indicating an intercropping advantage.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Values of Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) which ranged between 1.2 and 1.6, and of Area Time Equivalent Ratio (ATER) which ranged between 1.0 and 1.4 for intercrops of maize with lablab indicated a definite advantage of intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
LER and ATER were greatest when lablab was uncut.
- Treatment
- lablab was uncute7
- Outcome
- LER and ATER valuese7
- Direction
- greateste7
- Comparator
- lablab was cut at 60 DASe7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“LER and ATER values were greatest when lablab was uncut, and least when lablab was cut at 60 DAS”
Claim · model-written summary
LER and ATER were least when lablab was cut at 60 DAS.
- Treatment
- lablab was cut at 60 DASe7
- Outcome
- LER and ATER valuese7
- Direction
- leaste7
- Comparator
- lablab was uncute7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“LER and ATER values were greatest when lablab was uncut, and least when lablab was cut at 60 DAS”
The same questions in other papers
pruning · yield · LablabPositive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
pruning · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
87 papers in the same direction as this paper · 86 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
170 papers more in this group
See all 174 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
- positive
- positive
- no effect
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 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.