Abstract
A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the use of integrated fertilizers on the nutritive quality of maize and soybean in intercropping system in 2014 at field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia. Fertilizer applications were either in the form of inorganic (NPK) or poultry manure (PM). Treatments comprised of combinations of three intercropping systems (sole maize, sole soybean, and maize + soybean) and four nutrient managements (control, 100% NPK, 100% PM and 50 % NPK + 50% PM). The experiment was laid out in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with 3 replications. Results showed that intercropping maize with soybean significantly reduced protein and nutrient content of soybean; however, the oil content of soybean, sugar, oil, protein and nutrient content of maize were not significantly affected by intercropping. Sole and integrated application of NPK and PM increased the quality of both crops over control. Integrated application of 50% NPK and 50% PM fertilizer gave higher oil, protein and nutrient content of both crops. Use of 100 % PM gave better quality than the application of NPK fertilizer for both crops.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping maize with soybean reduced protein and nutrient content of soybean.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe1 - Treatment
- intercropping maize with soybeane1
- Outcome
- protein and nutrient contente1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Comparator
- sole soybeane6
- Setting
- field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysiae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t1“Maize and Soybean Intercrop”
e0“A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the use of integrated fertilizers on the nutritive quality of maize and soybean in intercropping system in 2014 at field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia”
e1“intercropping maize with soybean significantly reduced protein and nutrient content of soybean”
e6“three intercropping systems (sole maize, sole soybean, and maize + soybean)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping did not significantly affect the oil content of soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe2
- Treatment
- intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- oil content of soybeane2
- Direction
- not significantly affectede2
- Comparator
- sole soybeane6
- Setting
- field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysiae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t1“Maize and Soybean Intercrop”
e0“A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the use of integrated fertilizers on the nutritive quality of maize and soybean in intercropping system in 2014 at field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia”
e2“the oil content of soybean, sugar, oil, protein and nutrient content of maize were not significantly affected by intercropping”
e6“three intercropping systems (sole maize, sole soybean, and maize + soybean)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping did not significantly affect the sugar, oil and protein content of maize.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- sugar, oil, proteine2
- Direction
- not significantly affectede2
- Comparator
- sole maizee6
- Setting
- field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysiae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t1“Maize and Soybean Intercrop”
e0“A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the use of integrated fertilizers on the nutritive quality of maize and soybean in intercropping system in 2014 at field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia”
e2“the oil content of soybean, sugar, oil, protein and nutrient content of maize were not significantly affected by intercropping”
e6“three intercropping systems (sole maize, sole soybean, and maize + soybean)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping did not significantly affect the nutrient content of maize.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- nutrient content of maizee2
- Direction
- not significantly affectede2
- Comparator
- sole maizee6
- Setting
- field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysiae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t1“Maize and Soybean Intercrop”
e0“A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the use of integrated fertilizers on the nutritive quality of maize and soybean in intercropping system in 2014 at field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia”
e2“the oil content of soybean, sugar, oil, protein and nutrient content of maize were not significantly affected by intercropping”
e6“three intercropping systems (sole maize, sole soybean, and maize + soybean)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole and integrated application of NPK and PM increased the quality of both crops over control.
- Taxon
- Maize and SoybeanGlycine max
Zea mayst1 - Treatment
- Sole and integrated application of NPK and PMe3
- Outcome
- qualitye3
- Direction
- increasede3
- Comparator
- controle3
- Setting
- field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysiae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t1“Maize and Soybean Intercrop”
e0“A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the use of integrated fertilizers on the nutritive quality of maize and soybean in intercropping system in 2014 at field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia”
e3“Sole and integrated application of NPK and PM increased the quality of both crops over control”
Claim · model-written summary
Integrated application of 50% NPK and 50% PM gave higher oil, protein and nutrient content of both crops.
- Taxon
- Maize and SoybeanGlycine maxZea mayst1
- Treatment
- Integrated application of 50% NPK and 50% PM fertilizere4
- Outcome
- oil, protein and nutrient contente4
- Direction
- highere4
- Setting
- field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysiae0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t1“Maize and Soybean Intercrop”
e0“A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the use of integrated fertilizers on the nutritive quality of maize and soybean in intercropping system in 2014 at field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia”
e4“Integrated application of 50% NPK and 50% PM fertilizer gave higher oil, protein and nutrient content of both crops”
Claim · model-written summary
100% PM gave better quality than NPK fertilizer for both crops.
- Taxon
- Maize and SoybeanGlycine maxZea mayst1
- Treatment
- Use of 100 % PMe5
- Outcome
- qualitye5
- Direction
- bettere5
- Comparator
- the application of NPK fertilizere5
- Setting
- field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysiae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t1“Maize and Soybean Intercrop”
e0“A field experiment was conducted to evaluate the use of integrated fertilizers on the nutritive quality of maize and soybean in intercropping system in 2014 at field 2, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia”
e5“Use of 100 % PM gave better quality than the application of NPK fertilizer for both crops”
The same questions in other papers
Zea mays · quality: protein · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
intercropping · quality: oil · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- negative
intercropping · quality: protein · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →intercropping · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
46 papers more in this group
See all 50 papers →fertilization · quality: general · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
48 papers more in this group
See all 52 papers →fertilization · quality: general · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
85 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
99 papers more in this group
See all 103 papers →fertilization · quality: protein · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
130 papers more in this group
See all 134 papers →intercropping · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 122 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
137 papers more in this group
See all 141 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.