Paper · 2017 · African Journal of Agricultural Research

Effect of row spatial arrangements on agromorphological responses of maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp] in an intercropping system in Southern Cote dIvoire

Serge Herve KIMOU; Falengue Lacina COULIBALY; Bertin Yao KOFFI; et al.

9
claims
14
verbatim quotes
7
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Field trials were conducted at the University Nangui Abrogoua, Abidjan, southern Cote d'Ivoire during the 2015 and 2016 short rainy season to study the performance of maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp] intercrop as influenced by row arrangement. A randomized complete block design (RCBD) with five treatments (SM; SC; MC; 1M1C and 2M4C) and three replications was used. SM was sole maize, SC was sole cowpea, MC was intra-line pattern, 1M:1C was inter-line pattern and 2M4C was strip-intercropping maize-cowpea. The results revealed that there were significant effects of cropping patterns on growth and yield components of maize and cowpea crops. Among the cropping systems studied during both years growing seasons 2015 and 2016, the highest yield advantage for cowpea and maize (land equivalent ratio = 1.62; 1.10) was obtained from intercropping pattern 2M:C4. The observed Land equivalent ratio (LER) values correspond to 38.27 and 9.90 % of lands saved which could be used for other agricultural purposes. With this cropping pattern, land equivalent coefficient (LEC) values (0.62 and 0.30) indicated that, greatest productivity per unit area was achieved by growing the two crops together. In this cropping pattern, both crops were highly complementary and most suitable in mixture as confirmed by competitive ratio (CR) values of 0.72. Key words: Crop row arrangement, yield component, maize, cowpea, system productivity.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cropping patterns significantly affected growth and yield components of maize.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse1
Treatment
cropping patternse1
Outcome
growth and yield componentse1

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“there were significant effects of cropping patterns on growth and yield components of maize and cowpea crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 564–672 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Cropping patterns significantly affected growth and yield components of cowpea.

Treatment
cropping patternse1
Outcome
growth and yield componentse1

Not reportedComparatorDirection

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

e1

“there were significant effects of cropping patterns on growth and yield components of maize and cowpea crops”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 564–672 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The intercropping pattern 2M:C4 gave the highest land equivalent ratio for cowpea, 1.62.

Treatment
intercropping pattern 2M:C4e2
Outcome
land equivalent ratioe2
Direction
highest yield advantagee2
Value
1.62e2
Comparator
cropping systems studiede2

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

e2

“Among the cropping systems studied during both years growing seasons 2015 and 2016, the highest yield advantage for cowpea and maize (land equivalent ratio = 1.62; 1.10) was obtained from intercropping pattern 2M:C4”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 674–889 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The intercropping pattern 2M:C4 gave the highest land equivalent ratio for maize, 1.10.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse2
Treatment
intercropping pattern 2M:C4e2
Outcome
land equivalent ratioe2
Direction
highest yield advantagee2
Value
1.10e2
Comparator
cropping systems studiede2

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e2

“Among the cropping systems studied during both years growing seasons 2015 and 2016, the highest yield advantage for cowpea and maize (land equivalent ratio = 1.62; 1.10) was obtained from intercropping pattern 2M:C4”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 674–889 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The observed land equivalent ratio values correspond to 38.27% of land saved.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Outcome
lands savede3
Value
38.27e3

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–129 · show in text ↑
e3

“The observed Land equivalent ratio (LER) values correspond to 38.27 and 9.90 % of lands saved”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–984 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The observed land equivalent ratio values correspond to 9.90% of land saved.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Outcome
lands savede3
Value
9.90 %e3

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–129 · show in text ↑
e3

“The observed Land equivalent ratio (LER) values correspond to 38.27 and 9.90 % of lands saved”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 891–984 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Land equivalent coefficient value of 0.62 indicated the greatest productivity per unit area from growing the two crops together.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Outcome
land equivalent coefficient (LEC) valuese4
Value
0.62e4
Qualifier
greatest productivity per unit area was achieved by growing the two crops togethere4

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–129 · show in text ↑
e4

“land equivalent coefficient (LEC) values (0.62 and 0.30) indicated that, greatest productivity per unit area was achieved by growing the two crops together”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1066–1221 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Land equivalent coefficient value of 0.30 indicated the greatest productivity per unit area from growing the two crops together.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Outcome
land equivalent coefficient (LEC) valuese4
Value
0.30e4
Qualifier
greatest productivity per unit area was achieved by growing the two crops togethere4

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–129 · show in text ↑
e4

“land equivalent coefficient (LEC) values (0.62 and 0.30) indicated that, greatest productivity per unit area was achieved by growing the two crops together”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1066–1221 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The competitive ratio of 0.72 shows that both crops were highly complementary and most suitable in mixture.

Taxon
maizeZea mayst0
Outcome
competitive ratio (CR) valuese5
Value
0.72e5
Qualifier
both crops were highly complementary and most suitable in mixturee5

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

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“maize (Zea mays L.) and cowpea [Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp]”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–129 · show in text ↑
e5

“both crops were highly complementary and most suitable in mixture as confirmed by competitive ratio (CR) values of 0.72”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1249–1368 · show in text ↑

intercropping · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ

103 papers: 63 positive, 40 negative or no effect

62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. positive

99 papers more in this group

See all 103 papers →

intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

834 papers: 613 positive, 221 negative or no effect

612 papers in the same direction as this paper · 181 in the opposite direction · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. 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.