Abstract
In the densely populated mixed farming areas of western Ethiopia, the integration of forages with food crops may be crucial to the achievement of sustainable crop and livestock production. This study investigated the effects of pure grass (Chloris gayana), legumes (Stylosanthes hamata, Desmodium intortum and Macrotyloma axillare) and grass/legume mixtures of the same species undersown in maize, on maize grain yields, fodder yields and soil parameters. The forages were undersown six weeks after planting the maize. After harvesting the maize, pastures were maintained as fodder crops for the subsequent two seasons. Maize, grown with and without fertiliser, and native grass fallow were control treatments. In the year of establishment, the undersown forages increased (p < 0.001) total fodder production without depressing (p < 0.05) maize grain yield. During the following two improved fallow years, the cultivated forages produced much higher (p < 0.05) DM yields than the traditional fallow. Amongst the improved fallows, the average forage DM yield was highest on C. gayana and the grass legume mixtures than on the pure legume stands (p < 0.05). During year four only D. intortum and S. hamata treatments produced maize grain and residue yields comparable to moderately fertilised maize (p < 0.05). Maize grain and stover yields from the other fallows and unfertilised maize treatments were lower (p < 0.05) than that of fertilized maize. Integrating D. intortum and its grass legume mixture and S. hamata as improved fallow, maximised the overall nett return compared to pure maize with or without fertiliser and the traditional fallow.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Undersown forages increased total fodder production in the establishment year.
- Treatment
- undersown foragese0
- Outcome
- total fodder productione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- Maize, grown with and without fertilisere1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the undersown forages increased (p < 0.001) total fodder production”
e1“Maize, grown with and without fertiliser, and native grass fallow were control treatments”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Undersown forages did not depress maize grain yield in the establishment year.
- Treatment
- undersown foragese1
- Outcome
- maize grain yielde0
- Direction
- without depressinge0
- Comparator
- Maize, grown with and without fertilisere2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“without depressing (p < 0.05) maize grain yield”
e1“the undersown forages increased (p < 0.001) total fodder production”
e2“Maize, grown with and without fertiliser, and native grass fallow were control treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Cultivated forages yielded more dry matter than traditional fallow in two later years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During the following two improved fallow years, the cultivated forages produced much higher (p < 0.05) DM yields than the traditional fallow”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
C. gayana had higher average forage dry matter yield than pure legume stands.
- Treatment
- C. gayanae0
- Outcome
- average forage DM yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- pure legume standse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“average forage DM yield was highest on C. gayana and the grass legume mixtures than on the pure legume stands (p < 0.05)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Grass legume mixtures had higher average forage dry matter yield than pure legume stands.
- Treatment
- grass legume mixturese0
- Outcome
- average forage DM yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- pure legume standse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“average forage DM yield was highest on C. gayana and the grass legume mixtures than on the pure legume stands (p < 0.05)”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Only D. intortum fallow gave maize grain and residue yields comparable to moderately fertilised maize in year four.
- Treatment
- D. intortume0
- Outcome
- maize grain and residue yieldse0
- Direction
- comparablee0
- Comparator
- moderately fertilised maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During year four only D. intortum and S. hamata treatments produced maize grain and residue yields comparable to moderately fertilised maize (p < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Only S. hamata fallow gave maize grain and residue yields comparable to moderately fertilised maize in year four.
- Treatment
- S. hamatae0
- Outcome
- maize grain and residue yieldse0
- Direction
- comparablee0
- Comparator
- moderately fertilised maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“During year four only D. intortum and S. hamata treatments produced maize grain and residue yields comparable to moderately fertilised maize (p < 0.05)”
Claim · model-written summary
Other fallows produced lower maize grain and stover yields than fertilized maize.
- Treatment
- other fallowse0
- Outcome
- Maize grain and stover yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- fertilized maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize grain and stover yields from the other fallows and unfertilised maize treatments were lower (p < 0.05) than that of fertilized maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Unfertilised maize produced lower grain and stover yields than fertilized maize.
- Treatment
- unfertilised maize treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Maize grain and stover yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- fertilized maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize grain and stover yields from the other fallows and unfertilised maize treatments were lower (p < 0.05) than that of fertilized maize”
Claim · model-written summary
D. intortum improved fallow maximised overall nett return compared with pure maize and traditional fallow.
- Treatment
- D. intortume0
- Outcome
- overall nett returne0
- Direction
- maximisede0
- Comparator
- pure maize with or without fertiliser and the traditional fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Integrating D. intortum and its grass legume mixture and S. hamata as improved fallow, maximised the overall nett return compared to pure maize with or without fertiliser and the traditional fallow”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
D. intortum grass legume mixture improved fallow maximised overall nett return compared with pure maize and traditional fallow.
- Treatment
- its grass legume mixturee0
- Outcome
- overall nett returne0
- Direction
- maximisede0
- Comparator
- pure maize with or without fertiliser and the traditional fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Integrating D. intortum and its grass legume mixture and S. hamata as improved fallow, maximised the overall nett return compared to pure maize with or without fertiliser and the traditional fallow”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
S. hamata improved fallow maximised overall nett return compared with pure maize and traditional fallow.
- Treatment
- S. hamatae0
- Outcome
- overall nett returne0
- Direction
- maximisede0
- Comparator
- pure maize with or without fertiliser and the traditional fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Integrating D. intortum and its grass legume mixture and S. hamata as improved fallow, maximised the overall nett return compared to pure maize with or without fertiliser and the traditional fallow”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other papers
Stylosanthes hamata · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
Desmodium intortum · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
rotation · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
67 papers in the same direction as this paper · 254 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
318 papers more in this group
See all 322 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.