Abstract
GROWTH rate of sugarcane during the initial stages is rather slow with the low canopy coverage, and it is possible to exploit the potential of the cropping system by adjusting crop geometry and utilisation of inter-crops. Therefore, a field experiment was conducted to assess the economic benefits of intercrops with different planting configurations in sugarcane. Dual-row (60–120–60 cm) and single-row (90 cm) methods of planting were deployed as main plots and intercrops comprising sunnhemp, maize, cowpea (green manure), soybean (inter-crop), peanut, potato and french bean were treated as subplots. Planting systems did not alter significantly the number of millable canes (NMC) or cane yield. However, sunnhemp, cowpea grown and soybean recorded higher NMC (92 080, 89 830 and 87 830/ha respectively) than cane alone (85 910/ha), while maize intercropping gave 68 880 NMC and the sugarcane yields were 111.1, 109.1, 106.9 and 70.8 t/ha, respectively for the 4 inter-crops and 107.4 t/ha for cane alone. Higher cane yields are attributed to the optimum shoot population which later on converted higher NMC and cane weight due to in situ incorporation of green manure and its further decomposition in building organic matter content of soil. Detrimental effect on NMC and cane yield was noticed due to intercropping of maize in sugarcane. Compared to the normal single row configuration, dual-row planting with the same cost of cultivation improved B:C ratio from 2.17 to 2:76, due to higher cane yields. As a result of the grain yield of soybean (1.5 t/ha) and lower cost of production in soybean inter-cropping, this strategy recorded the highest net return (Rs68, 336/ha) with B:C ratio of 3.21 compared to other inter-crops. Conversely, although maize and potato yields were higher, these treatments produced lower net income and B: C ratios due to the reduction in cane yield. Post-cane harvest data indicate that inter-cropping has a positive effect on the chemical properties of soil.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Planting systems did not significantly alter millable cane number or cane yield.
- Taxon
- SUGARCANEt0
- Treatment
- Planting systemse0
- Outcome
- number of millable canes (NMC) or cane yielde0
- Direction
- did not altere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Planting systems did not alter significantly the number of millable canes (NMC) or cane yield”
t0“SUGARCANE”
Claim · model-written summary
Sunnhemp intercropping yielded 92 080 millable canes per hectare, above cane alone.
- Taxon
- SUGARCANEt0
- Treatment
- sunnhempe0
- Interactor
- sunnhemp
Crotalaria junceae0weed - Outcome
- NMCe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 92 080e0
- Qualifier
- 85 910/hae0
- Comparator
- cane alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sunnhemp, cowpea grown and soybean recorded higher NMC (92 080, 89 830 and 87 830/ha respectively) than cane alone (85 910/ha)”
t0“SUGARCANE”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea intercropping yielded 89 830 millable canes per hectare, above cane alone.
- Taxon
- SUGARCANEt0
- Treatment
- cowpeae0
- Interactor
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae0other - Outcome
- NMCe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 89 830e0
- Comparator
- cane alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sunnhemp, cowpea grown and soybean recorded higher NMC (92 080, 89 830 and 87 830/ha respectively) than cane alone (85 910/ha)”
t0“SUGARCANE”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean intercropping yielded 87 830 millable canes per hectare, above cane alone.
- Taxon
- SUGARCANEt0
- Treatment
- soybeane0
- Interactor
- soybean
Glycine maxe0other - Outcome
- NMCe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 87 830/hae0
- Comparator
- cane alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sunnhemp, cowpea grown and soybean recorded higher NMC (92 080, 89 830 and 87 830/ha respectively) than cane alone (85 910/ha)”
t0“SUGARCANE”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize intercropping reduced millable cane number to 68 880.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize intercropping gave 68 880 NMC”
e1“Detrimental effect on NMC and cane yield was noticed due to intercropping of maize in sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Cane yield under sunnhemp intercropping was 111.1 t/ha.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- sunnhempe1
- Interactor
- sunnhempCrotalaria junceae1other
- Outcome
- sugarcane yieldse0
- Value
- 111.1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the sugarcane yields were 111.1, 109.1, 106.9 and 70.8 t/ha, respectively for the 4 inter-crops and 107.4 t/ha for cane alone”
e1“sunnhemp, cowpea grown and soybean recorded higher NMC”
Claim · model-written summary
Cane yield under cowpea intercropping was 109.1 t/ha.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- cowpeae1
- Interactor
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae1other
- Outcome
- sugarcane yieldse0
- Value
- 109.1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the sugarcane yields were 111.1, 109.1, 106.9 and 70.8 t/ha, respectively for the 4 inter-crops and 107.4 t/ha for cane alone”
e1“sunnhemp, cowpea grown and soybean recorded higher NMC”
Claim · model-written summary
Cane yield under soybean intercropping was 106.9 t/ha.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- soybeane1
- Interactor
- soybeanGlycine maxe1other
- Outcome
- sugarcane yieldse0
- Value
- 106.9e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the sugarcane yields were 111.1, 109.1, 106.9 and 70.8 t/ha, respectively for the 4 inter-crops and 107.4 t/ha for cane alone”
e1“sunnhemp, cowpea grown and soybean recorded higher NMC”
Claim · model-written summary
Cane yield under maize intercropping was 70.8 t/ha, below cane alone.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- intercropping of maizee1
- Outcome
- sugarcane yieldse0
- Direction
- Detrimentale1
- Value
- 70.8 t/hae0
- Comparator
- cane alonee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the sugarcane yields were 111.1, 109.1, 106.9 and 70.8 t/ha, respectively for the 4 inter-crops and 107.4 t/ha for cane alone”
e1“Detrimental effect on NMC and cane yield was noticed due to intercropping of maize in sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Dual-row planting improved benefit-cost ratio from 2.17 to 2:76 relative to single-row planting.
Verbatim
e0“Compared to the normal single row configuration, dual-row planting with the same cost of cultivation improved B:C ratio from 2.17 to 2:76”
t0“SUGARCANE”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean intercropping produced 1.5 t/ha grain yield.
- Taxon
- SUGARCANEt0
- Treatment
- soybeane0
- Interactor
- soybeanGlycine maxe0other
- Outcome
- grain yield of soybeane0
- Value
- 1.5 t/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“grain yield of soybean (1.5 t/ha)”
t0“SUGARCANE”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean intercropping yielded the highest net return at Rs68, 336/ha.
- Taxon
- SUGARCANEt0
- Treatment
- soybean inter-croppinge0
- Interactor
- soybeanGlycine maxe0other
- Outcome
- net returne0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- Rs68, 336/hae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean inter-cropping, this strategy recorded the highest net return (Rs68, 336/ha) with B:C ratio of 3.21 compared to other inter-crops”
t0“SUGARCANE”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean intercropping achieved a benefit-cost ratio of 3.21.
- Taxon
- SUGARCANEt0
- Treatment
- soybean inter-croppinge0
- Interactor
- soybeanGlycine maxe0other
- Outcome
- B:C ratioe0
- Value
- 3.21e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“soybean inter-cropping, this strategy recorded the highest net return (Rs68, 336/ha) with B:C ratio of 3.21 compared to other inter-crops”
t0“SUGARCANE”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize intercropping produced lower net income and benefit-cost ratio despite higher maize yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“although maize and potato yields were higher, these treatments produced lower net income and B: C ratios due to the reduction in cane yield”
e1“maize in sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Potato intercropping produced lower net income and benefit-cost ratio despite higher potato yield.
- Taxon
- SUGARCANEt0
- Treatment
- potatoe0
- Interactor
- potato
Solanum tuberosume0other - Outcome
- net income and B: C ratiose0
- Direction
- lowere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“although maize and potato yields were higher, these treatments produced lower net income and B: C ratios due to the reduction in cane yield”
t0“SUGARCANE”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping improved soil chemical properties after cane harvest.
Verbatim
e0“Post-cane harvest data indicate that inter-cropping has a positive effect on the chemical properties of soil”
t0“SUGARCANE”
The same questions in other papers
Zea mays · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →intercropping · yield · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results differ
20 papers in the same direction as this paper · 67 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
84 papers more in this group
See all 88 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.