Abstract
A summary of 2011-2012 trial plot results in terms of yield and profitability. Tillage and intercropping had no significant effect on maize yield (4890 kg ha 1) in the first year. The highest maize yield was recorded in maize+cowpea under minimum tillage (5610 kg ha 1). Economic return in case of intercropping was 38% higher than that of sole cropping, across both the tillage types. Though there was no significant effect of CAPS on soil properties in the first experimental year, trends were positive for soil pH, bulk density, and soil carbon.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage and intercropping had no significant first-year effect on maize yield of 4890 kg ha 1.
- Treatment
- Tillage and intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
- Value
- 4890 kg ha 1e0
- Qualifier
- first yeare0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Tillage and intercropping had no significant effect on maize yield (4890 kg ha 1) in the first year.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize and cowpea under minimum tillage gave the highest maize yield, 5610 kg ha 1.
- Treatment
- maize+cowpea under minimum tillagee0
- Interactor
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae0other - Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 5610 kg ha 1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The highest maize yield was recorded in maize+cowpea under minimum tillage (5610 kg ha 1).”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping raised economic return 38% compared with sole cropping across both tillage types.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- Economic returne0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 38%e0
- Qualifier
- across both the tillage typese0
- Comparator
- sole croppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Economic return in case of intercropping was 38% higher than that of sole cropping, across both the tillage types.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
CAPS had no significant first-year effect on soil properties.
- Treatment
- CAPSe0
- Outcome
- soil propertiese0
- Direction
- no significant effecte0
- Qualifier
- first experimental yeare0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no significant effect of CAPS on soil properties in the first experimental year”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
First-year soil pH, bulk density and soil carbon trends were positive under CAPS.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“trends were positive for soil pH, bulk density, and soil carbon”
e1“there was no significant effect of CAPS on soil properties in the first experimental year”
t0“maize”
The same questions in other 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
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
286 papers in the same direction as this paper · 812 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
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.