Abstract
A study was conducted to determine the most profitable crop arrangements for maize and soybean intercropping system. The effect of tillage {conventional (CT) versus zero tillage (ZT)} and six crop arrangements (sole maize, sole soybean, maize+soybean intercropping at different row ratio arrangements) on grain yield and economics was investigated in Chitwan, Nepal during the summer of 2013. The grain yields of maize and soybean were not affected by tillage methods. However, crop arrangements significantly affect yield component and yield of both maize and soybean. Sole crop of maize and soybean recorded significantly higher grain yield than corresponding yields under intercropping systems. Planting maize+soybean at 1:1 ratio recorded highest maize grain yield (4.58 Mg ha-1) and 2:2 ratio recorded the highest soybean yield (1.70 Mg ha-1). Yield reduction due to intercropping ranged from 21.44% to 31.9% in maize and 22.3% to 53.88% in soybean as compared to their sole cropping. Remarkably higher net return was obtained in ZT (NPRs 110.4 thousands ha-1) than CT (NPRs 105.8 thousands ha-1). Intercropping of maize and soybean at 2:2 ratio recorded maximum benefit (NPRs 132.7 thousands ha-1), maize grain yield equivalent (8.74 Mg ha-1) and land equivalent ratio (1.47) than sole and intercropping treatments. It was found that paired rows of soybean between two rows of maize under ZT system could achieve higher productivity and profitability.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage did not affect maize and soybean grain yields.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The grain yields of maize and soybean were not affected by tillage methods.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays) + Soybean (Glycin max L. Merrill) Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
Crop arrangements significantly affected yield components and yield.
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“crop arrangements significantly affect yield component and yield of both maize and soybean.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays) + Soybean (Glycin max L. Merrill) Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole crops yielded more grain than intercropped crops.
- Treatment
- Sole crop of maize and soybeane0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- intercropping systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sole crop of maize and soybean recorded significantly higher grain yield than corresponding yields under intercropping systems.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays) + Soybean (Glycin max L. Merrill) Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
The 1:1 arrangement had the highest maize grain yield, 4.58 Mg ha-1.
- Treatment
- maize+soybean at 1:1 ratioe0
- Outcome
- maize grain yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 4.58 Mg ha-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Planting maize+soybean at 1:1 ratio recorded highest maize grain yield (4.58 Mg ha-1)”
t0“Maize (Zea mays) + Soybean (Glycin max L. Merrill) Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
The 2:2 arrangement had the highest soybean yield, 1.70 Mg ha-1.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“2:2 ratio recorded the highest soybean yield (1.70 Mg ha-1)”
t0“Maize (Zea mays) + Soybean (Glycin max L. Merrill) Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping reduced maize yield by 21.44% to 31.9%.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- Yield reduction due to intercroppinge0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 21.44% to 31.9%e0
- Comparator
- sole croppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield reduction due to intercropping ranged from 21.44% to 31.9% in maize and 22.3% to 53.88% in soybean as compared to their sole cropping.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays) + Soybean (Glycin max L. Merrill) Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping reduced soybean yield by 22.3% to 53.88%.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- Yield reduction due to intercroppinge0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 22.3% to 53.88%e0
- Comparator
- sole croppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield reduction due to intercropping ranged from 21.44% to 31.9% in maize and 22.3% to 53.88% in soybean as compared to their sole cropping.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays) + Soybean (Glycin max L. Merrill) Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
Zero tillage produced higher net return than conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- ZTe0
- Outcome
- net returne0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- NPRs 110.4 thousands ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- NPRs 105.8 thousands ha-1e0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher net return was obtained in ZT (NPRs 110.4 thousands ha-1) than CT (NPRs 105.8 thousands ha-1)”
t0“Maize (Zea mays) + Soybean (Glycin max L. Merrill) Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
The 2:2 intercrop had maximum benefit of NPRs 132.7 thousands ha-1.
- Treatment
- Intercropping of maize and soybean at 2:2 ratioe0
- Outcome
- benefite0
- Direction
- maximume0
- Value
- NPRs 132.7 thousands ha-1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping of maize and soybean at 2:2 ratio recorded maximum benefit (NPRs 132.7 thousands ha-1)”
t0“Maize (Zea mays) + Soybean (Glycin max L. Merrill) Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
The 2:2 intercrop had maize grain yield equivalent of 8.74 Mg ha-1.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize grain yield equivalent (8.74 Mg ha-1)”
t0“Maize (Zea mays) + Soybean (Glycin max L. Merrill) Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
The 2:2 intercrop had land equivalent ratio of 1.47.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“land equivalent ratio (1.47)”
t0“Maize (Zea mays) + Soybean (Glycin max L. Merrill) Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
Paired soybean rows between maize rows under zero tillage could improve productivity and profitability.
- Treatment
- paired rows of soybean between two rows of maize under ZT systeme0
- Outcome
- higher productivity and profitabilitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“paired rows of soybean between two rows of maize under ZT system could achieve higher productivity and profitability.”
t0“Maize (Zea mays) + Soybean (Glycin max L. Merrill) Intercropping System”
The same questions in other papers
Glycine max · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
154 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
176 papers more in this group
See all 180 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
612 papers in the same direction as this paper · 181 in the opposite direction · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 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.