Abstract
Field trials were conducted in 2007 and 2008 early and late wet seasons, respectively at the Federal University of Agriculture Abeokuta (070 20`N, 30 23`E) in the forest-savanna transition agroecological zone of South-western Nigeria. Five weed control treatments viz pre-emergence application of commercial formulation of metolachlor plus prometryne (Codal Gold R , 412 EC) at 1.6kg a.i/ha alone, 1.6kg a.i/ha followed by supplementary hoe weeding at 6 weeks after planting (WAP), 2.4kg a.i/ha, two hoe weedings at 3 and 6 WAP and a weedy check were assigned to the main plots while intercropping methods which included four combinations of groundnuts between rows of maize spaced at 50cm and 75cm, as well as sole crops of maize and groundnut constituted the sub-plot treatments. Intercropped groundnut significantly suppressed weed infestation compared with the sole crops of maize and groundnut. Weed infestation was consistently lower in maize planted at intrarow spacing of 75cm in mixture with three groundnut stands in the inter-row between two maize stands and maize planted at 50cm in similar mixture with two groundnut stands compared with the other cropping methods. In both years of study, maximum cob and grain yields were obtained with sole maize spaced at 50cm within rows. Intercropped maize at 75cm produced grain yield comparable to the corresponding sole crop in both years. Intercropped groundnut in maize spaced at 50cm significantly reduced grain yield of maize in 2007 and non-significantly in 2008 compared to the corresponding sole crop. All the weed control methods evaluated resulted in significantly lower weed cover score than the weedy check.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped groundnut suppressed weed infestation compared with sole maize and sole groundnut.
- Taxon
- maize and groundnut
Arachis hypogaea
Zea mayse0 - Treatment
- Intercropped groundnute0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed infestatione0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Comparator
- sole crops of maize and groundnute0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped groundnut significantly suppressed weed infestation compared with the sole crops of maize and groundnut”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed infestation was lower with maize at 75 cm and three groundnut stands between rows than with other cropping methods.
- Treatment
- maize planted at intrarow spacing of 75cm in mixture with three groundnut standse0
- Interactor
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae0other
- Outcome
- Weed infestatione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- other cropping methodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weed infestation was consistently lower in maize planted at intrarow spacing of 75cm in mixture with three groundnut stands in the inter-row between two maize stands and maize planted at 50cm in similar mixture with two groundnut stands compared with the other cropping methods”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed infestation was lower with maize at 50 cm and two groundnut stands between rows than with other cropping methods.
- Treatment
- maize planted at 50cm in similar mixture with two groundnut standse0
- Interactor
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae0other
- Outcome
- Weed infestatione0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- other cropping methodse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Weed infestation was consistently lower in maize planted at intrarow spacing of 75cm in mixture with three groundnut stands in the inter-row between two maize stands and maize planted at 50cm in similar mixture with two groundnut stands compared with the other cropping methods”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole maize at 50 cm produced the maximum cob and grain yields in both years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In both years of study, maximum cob and grain yields were obtained with sole maize spaced at 50cm within rows”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize at 75 cm had grain yield comparable to sole maize in both years.
- Treatment
- Intercropped maize at 75cme0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- comparablee0
- Comparator
- corresponding sole crope0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped maize at 75cm produced grain yield comparable to the corresponding sole crop in both years”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping groundnut with maize at 50 cm reduced maize grain yield significantly in 2007 relative to sole maize.
- Treatment
- Intercropped groundnut in maize spaced at 50cme0
- Interactor
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae0other
- Outcome
- grain yield of maizee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- in 2007e0
- Comparator
- corresponding sole crope0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped groundnut in maize spaced at 50cm significantly reduced grain yield of maize in 2007 and non-significantly in 2008 compared to the corresponding sole crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping groundnut with maize at 50 cm reduced maize grain yield non-significantly in 2008 relative to sole maize.
- Treatment
- Intercropped groundnut in maize spaced at 50cme0
- Interactor
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae0other
- Outcome
- grain yield of maizee0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- in 2008e0
- Comparator
- corresponding sole crope0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped groundnut in maize spaced at 50cm significantly reduced grain yield of maize in 2007 and non-significantly in 2008 compared to the corresponding sole crop”
Claim · model-written summary
Every evaluated weed control method produced a lower weed cover score than the weedy check.
- Treatment
- weed control methodse0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed cover scoree0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- weedy checke0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“All the weed control methods evaluated resulted in significantly lower weed cover score than the weedy check”
The same questions in other papers
Arachis hypogaea · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 55 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
56 papers more in this group
See all 60 papers →Arachis hypogaea · weed · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →density · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →intercropping · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
75 papers more in this group
See all 79 papers →herbicide · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
359 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
402 papers more in this group
See all 406 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
220 papers in the same direction as this paper · 613 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.