Abstract
SUMMARY The intercropping objective of the subsistence fanner in Botswana was identified as a need to secure some cowpea production without reducing the yield of the staple crop, sorghum. Field experiments in which sorghum and cowpea were intercropped in several different environments over three years met this objective on most occasions, but cowpea yields were low compared with their sole crop performance. Although intercropping out-performed monocropping by producing some cowpea yield, land equivalent ratios greater than one and higher gross income and cash returns to draught-power (but not returns to labour) the differences were never large and seldom statistically significant.
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
Cowpea yields in intercropping with sorghum were low compared with sole cropping.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae3 - Treatment
- intercroppede2
- Outcome
- cowpea yieldse3
- Direction
- lowe3
- Comparator
- sole crop performancee3
- Setting
- several different environmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Field experiments in which sorghum and cowpea were intercropped in several different environments over three years met this objective on most occasions”
e3“but cowpea yields were low compared with their sole crop performance”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping met the objective of securing some cowpea production without reducing sorghum yield on most occasions.
- Treatment
- intercroppede2
- Outcome
- some cowpea production without reducing the yield of the staple crope1
- Direction
- mete2
SorghumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The intercropping objective of the subsistence fanner in Botswana was identified as a need to secure some cowpea production without reducing the yield of the staple crop, sorghum”
e2“Field experiments in which sorghum and cowpea were intercropped in several different environments over three years met this objective on most occasions”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping out-performed monocropping in cowpea yield.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae4
- Treatment
- intercroppinge4
- Outcome
- cowpea yielde4
- Direction
- out-performede4
- Comparator
- monocroppinge4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Although intercropping out-performed monocropping by producing some cowpea yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Land equivalent ratios of sorghum intercropped with cowpea were greater than one.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The intercropping objective of the subsistence fanner in Botswana was identified as a need to secure some cowpea production without reducing the yield of the staple crop, sorghum”
e5“land equivalent ratios greater than one and higher gross income and cash returns to draught-power (but not returns to labour)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping gave higher gross income and cash returns to draught-power than monocropping.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge4
- Outcome
- gross income and cash returns to draught-powere5
- Direction
- highere5
- Comparator
- monocroppinge4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The intercropping objective of the subsistence fanner in Botswana was identified as a need to secure some cowpea production without reducing the yield of the staple crop, sorghum”
e4“Although intercropping out-performed monocropping by producing some cowpea yield”
e5“higher gross income and cash returns to draught-power (but not returns to labour)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping did not increase returns to labour compared with monocropping.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge4
- Outcome
- returns to laboure5
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede5
- Comparator
- monocroppinge4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The intercropping objective of the subsistence fanner in Botswana was identified as a need to secure some cowpea production without reducing the yield of the staple crop, sorghum”
e4“Although intercropping out-performed monocropping by producing some cowpea yield”
e5“higher gross income and cash returns to draught-power (but not returns to labour)”
Claim · model-written summary
Differences between intercropping and monocropping were never large and seldom statistically significant.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge4
- Outcome
- differencese6
- Qualifier
- never large and seldom statistically significante6
- Comparator
- monocroppinge4
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The intercropping objective of the subsistence fanner in Botswana was identified as a need to secure some cowpea production without reducing the yield of the staple crop, sorghum”
e4“Although intercropping out-performed monocropping by producing some cowpea yield”
e6“the differences were never large and seldom statistically significant”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ
62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
99 papers more in this group
See all 103 papers →intercropping · yield · SorghumResults differ
117 papers in the same direction as this paper · 42 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- positive
- positive
161 papers more in this group
See all 165 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.