Paper · 2008 · World Journal of Agriculture and Soil Science

Productivity of millet/cowpea intercrop as affected by cowpea genotype and row arrangement

Ibrahim Mohammed; O. O. Olufajo; B. B. Singh; et al.

11
claims
17
verbatim quotes
11
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Six cowpea genotypes (Danila, IT96D-772, IT90K-277-2, IT95K-1091-3, IT96D-740, IT96D-757) were intercropped with a local millet cultivar using four row arrangements (1:1, 1:2, 2:2 and 2:4 millet to cowpea rows) in a field experiment conducted at Minjibir near Kano in the Sudan savanna ecological zone of Nigeria during the 1999 and 2000 wet seasons. Cowpea genotypes and row arrangement had no effect on the grain yield, yield attributes and partial LER of millet. However, millet panicle weight per m was significantly lower at 1:1 and 2:2 2 row arrangements compared to 1:2 and 2:4 arrangements in 2000. Mean cowpea grain yield was reduced by 47% as a result of intercropping with millet. Intercropped cowpea grain yield varied from 472 to 861 kg/ha, with IT90K-277-2 recording the highest grain yield and partial land equivalent ratio (LER). Grain yield and partial LER of cowpea were significantly higher at 2:4 row arrangement compared with the other row arrangements in both seasons. The highest total LER (1.26) and gross monetary return were obtained using the dual purpose improved medium maturing photoperiod insensitive genotype, IT90K-277-2. Row arrangement had no significant effect on the total LER in 1999 whilst in 2000 total LER was higher at 2:4 row arrangement relative to the other arrangements. In both seasons, the highest gross monetary return was obtained from 2:4 row arrangement.

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cowpea genotype and row arrangement did not affect millet grain yield, yield attributes or partial LER.

Taxon
millete0
Treatment
Cowpea genotypes and row arrangemente0
Outcome
grain yield, yield attributes and partial LERe0
Direction
no effecte0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“Cowpea genotypes and row arrangement had no effect on the grain yield, yield attributes and partial LER of millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 351–464 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Millet panicle weight was lower at 1:1 and 2:2 than at 1:2 and 2:4 in 2000.

Taxon
millete0
Treatment
1:1 and 2:2 2 row arrangementse0
Outcome
millet panicle weight per me0
Direction
lowere0
Qualifier
2000e0
Comparator
1:2 and 2:4 arrangementse0

Verbatim

e0

“millet panicle weight per m was significantly lower at 1:1 and 2:2 2 row arrangements compared to 1:2 and 2:4 arrangements in 2000”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 475–605 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping with millet reduced mean cowpea grain yield by 47%.

Treatment
intercropping with millete0
Outcome
cowpea grain yielde0
Direction
reducede0
Value
47%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Mean cowpea grain yield was reduced by 47% as a result of intercropping with millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 607–690 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropped cowpea grain yield ranged from 472 to 861 kg/ha.

Outcome
grain yielde0
Value
472 to 861 kg/hae0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Intercropped cowpea grain yield varied from 472 to 861 kg/ha”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 692–752 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IT90K-277-2 had the highest cowpea grain yield and partial LER.

Material
IT90K-277-2e0
Outcome
grain yield and partial land equivalent ratio (LER)e0
Direction
higheste0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“millet/cowpea intercrop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–39 · show in text ↑
e0

“IT90K-277-2 recording the highest grain yield and partial land equivalent ratio (LER)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 759–844 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cowpea grain yield and partial LER were higher at 2:4 than other arrangements in both seasons.

Treatment
2:4 row arrangemente0
Outcome
Grain yield and partial LERe0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
both seasonse0
Comparator
other row arrangementse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Grain yield and partial LER of cowpea were significantly higher at 2:4 row arrangement compared with the other row arrangements in both seasons”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 846–989 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IT90K-277-2 produced the highest total LER of 1.26.

Material
IT90K-277-2e0
Outcome
total LERe0
Direction
higheste0
Value
1.26e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“millet/cowpea intercrop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–39 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest total LER (1.26) and gross monetary return were obtained using the dual purpose improved medium maturing photoperiod insensitive genotype, IT90K-277-2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1153 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

IT90K-277-2 produced the highest gross monetary return.

Material
IT90K-277-2e0
Outcome
gross monetary returne0
Direction
higheste0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“millet/cowpea intercrop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–39 · show in text ↑
e0

“The highest total LER (1.26) and gross monetary return were obtained using the dual purpose improved medium maturing photoperiod insensitive genotype, IT90K-277-2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 991–1153 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Row arrangement did not significantly affect total LER in 1999.

Treatment
Row arrangemente0
Outcome
total LERe0
Direction
no significant effecte0
Qualifier
1999e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“millet/cowpea intercrop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–39 · show in text ↑
e0

“Row arrangement had no significant effect on the total LER in 1999”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1155–1221 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Total LER was higher at 2:4 than other arrangements in 2000.

Treatment
2:4 row arrangemente0
Outcome
total LERe0
Direction
highere0
Qualifier
2000e0
Comparator
other arrangementse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“millet/cowpea intercrop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–39 · show in text ↑
e0

“in 2000 total LER was higher at 2:4 row arrangement relative to the other arrangements”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1229–1315 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The 2:4 arrangement produced the highest gross monetary return in both seasons.

Treatment
2:4 row arrangemente0
Outcome
gross monetary returne0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
both seasonse0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“millet/cowpea intercrop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–39 · show in text ↑
e0

“In both seasons, the highest gross monetary return was obtained from 2:4 row arrangement”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1317–1405 · show in text ↑

intercropping · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ

103 papers: 63 positive, 40 negative or no effect

39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 63 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

99 papers more in this group

See all 103 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.