Abstract
A two-year field study was conducted to evaluate land use, and inter-specific competition effects on canopy development, dry matter production and nutrient status in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) - cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp) and cassava-peanut (Arachis hypegaea L.) intercropping systems. The influence of varying P application rate on inter-specific competition in a cassava-cowpea intercropping system was also studied. Intercropping cassava with either cowpea or peanut resulted in approximately 25 percent greater land use efficiency for the 11-month growing season than did sole cropped cassava and sole cropped cowpea or peanut. The greater land use efficiency when intercropped was associated with significantly greater leaf area and dry matter production during early growth than for those of sole cropped cassava, although at harvest the total leaf area and dry matter produced were similar for these cropping systems. Cassava yields were reduced from 0 to 35 percent when intercropped with cowpea or peanut. These yield reductions were associated with production of fewer storage roots per plant and lower LAIs between 50 and 100 days after planting, when storage root initiation occurs. Intercropping with cowpea or peanut reduced cassava dry matter production by 200 to 600 g m('-2) in both years, which accounted for most yield differences between sole cropped and intercropped cassava. However in 1982 when intercropped with peanut, cassava yield was further reduced, apparently due to sink size limitations caused by production of only 8.8 storage roots per plant. Nutrient concentrations of intercropped cassava leaves were reduced when cowpea and peanut were growing most rapidly. Both cowpea and peanut seed yields and dry matter production were reduced 26 to 40 percent when these crops were intercropped with cassava, while leaf area indices were reduced 10 to 30 percent. Increasing the P application rate from zero to 44 kg ha('-1) in intercropped cassava and cowpeas resulted in increased cowpea seed yield both years, and increased cassava yield in 1981. No further cassava or cowpea yield increases occurred at P application rates greater than 44 kg ha('-1). Leaf area and dry matter production, and nutrient uptake were more responsive to P application for cowpea than cassava.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Cassava-cowpea intercropping gave approximately 25 percent greater land use efficiency than sole cropping.
- Taxon
- cassava
Manihot esculentae0 - Treatment
- Intercropping cassava with either cowpea or peanute0
- Outcome
- land use efficiencye0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 25 percente0
- Qualifier
- 11-month growing seasone0
- Comparator
- sole cropped cassava and sole cropped cowpea or peanute0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping cassava with either cowpea or peanut resulted in approximately 25 percent greater land use efficiency for the 11-month growing season than did sole cropped cassava and sole cropped cowpea or peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping produced significantly greater early leaf area and dry matter production than sole cassava.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- early growthe0
- Outcome
- leaf area and dry matter productione0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- sole cropped cassavae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“significantly greater leaf area and dry matter production during early growth than for those of sole cropped cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
At harvest, total leaf area and dry matter were similar between intercropped and sole cropped systems.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae1
- Treatment
- these cropping systemse0
- Outcome
- total leaf area and dry matter producede0
- Direction
- similare0
- Qualifier
- at harveste0
- Comparator
- sole cropped cassavae1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“although at harvest the total leaf area and dry matter produced were similar for these cropping systems”
e1“those of sole cropped cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping with cowpea or peanut reduced cassava yields by 0 to 35 percent.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- intercropped with cowpea or peanute0
- Outcome
- Cassava yieldse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 0 to 35 percente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Cassava yields were reduced from 0 to 35 percent when intercropped with cowpea or peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield reductions were associated with fewer cassava storage roots per plant.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentae1
- Organ / stage
- storage rootse0
- Outcome
- yield reductionse0
- Direction
- fewere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These yield reductions were associated with production of fewer storage roots per plant”
e1“Cassava yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield reductions were associated with lower LAIs 50 to 100 days after planting.
- Taxon
- CassavaManihot esculentae2
- Organ / stage
- storage root initiatione0
- Outcome
- LAIse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- between 50 and 100 days after plantinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lower LAIs between 50 and 100 days after planting, when storage root initiation occurs”
e1“These yield reductions were associated with production of fewer storage roots per plant”
e2“Cassava yields”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping with cowpea or peanut reduced cassava dry matter production by 200 to 600 g m('-2) in both years.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- Intercropping with cowpea or peanute0
- Outcome
- cassava dry matter productione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 200 to 600 g m('-2)e0
- Qualifier
- in both yearse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping with cowpea or peanut reduced cassava dry matter production by 200 to 600 g m('-2) in both years”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut intercropping further reduced cassava yield in 1982, apparently through limited sink size.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- intercropped with peanute0
- Outcome
- cassava yield was further reducede0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 8.8 storage roots per plante0
- Qualifier
- sink size limitationse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in 1982 when intercropped with peanut, cassava yield was further reduced, apparently due to sink size limitations caused by production of only 8.8 storage roots per plant”
Claim · model-written summary
Cassava leaf nutrient concentrations declined while cowpea and peanut grew fastest.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- intercroppede0
- Outcome
- Nutrient concentrations of intercropped cassava leavese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Qualifier
- when cowpea and peanut were growing most rapidlye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nutrient concentrations of intercropped cassava leaves were reduced when cowpea and peanut were growing most rapidly”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea seed yield and dry matter production fell by 26 to 40 percent under cassava intercropping.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae0 - Treatment
- intercropped with cassavae0
- Outcome
- seed yields and dry matter productione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 26 to 40 percente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both cowpea and peanut seed yields and dry matter production were reduced 26 to 40 percent when these crops were intercropped with cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut seed yield and dry matter production fell by 26 to 40 percent under cassava intercropping.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae0 - Treatment
- intercropped with cassavae0
- Outcome
- seed yields and dry matter productione0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 26 to 40 percente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both cowpea and peanut seed yields and dry matter production were reduced 26 to 40 percent when these crops were intercropped with cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea and peanut leaf area indices were reduced 10 to 30 percent under intercropping.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae1
- Treatment
- intercropped with cassavae1
- Outcome
- leaf area indicese0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 10 to 30 percente0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“while leaf area indices were reduced 10 to 30 percent”
e1“Both cowpea and peanut seed yields and dry matter production were reduced 26 to 40 percent when these crops were intercropped with cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Raising P application from zero to 44 kg ha('-1) increased cowpea seed yield in both years.
- Taxon
- cowpeasVigna unguiculatae0
- Treatment
- P application rate from zero to 44 kg ha('-1)e0
- Outcome
- cowpea seed yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- both yearse0
- Comparator
- zeroe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing the P application rate from zero to 44 kg ha('-1) in intercropped cassava and cowpeas resulted in increased cowpea seed yield both years”
Claim · model-written summary
The same P increase raised cassava yield in 1981.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- P application rate from zero to 44 kg ha('-1)e0
- Outcome
- cassava yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- in 1981e0
- Comparator
- zeroe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing the P application rate from zero to 44 kg ha('-1) in intercropped cassava and cowpeas resulted in increased cowpea seed yield both years, and increased cassava yield in 1981”
Claim · model-written summary
P rates above 44 kg ha('-1) gave no further cassava or cowpea yield increase.
- Taxon
- cassavaManihot esculentae0
- Treatment
- P application rates greater than 44 kg ha('-1)e0
- Outcome
- cassava or cowpea yielde0
- Direction
- No furthere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No further cassava or cowpea yield increases occurred at P application rates greater than 44 kg ha('-1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea leaf area and dry matter production responded more to P than cassava.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Treatment
- P applicatione0
- Outcome
- Leaf area and dry matter productione0
- Direction
- more responsivee0
- Comparator
- cassavae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf area and dry matter production, and nutrient uptake were more responsive to P application for cowpea than cassava”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea nutrient uptake responded more to P than cassava.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Treatment
- P applicatione0
- Outcome
- nutrient uptakee0
- Direction
- more responsivee0
- Comparator
- cassavae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Leaf area and dry matter production, and nutrient uptake were more responsive to P application for cowpea than cassava”
The same questions in other papers
Manihot esculenta · growth · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
Manihot esculenta · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →Manihot esculenta · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →Arachis hypogaea · yield · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →Vigna unguiculata · yield · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 13 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →intercropping · yield · Manihot esculenta (cassava)Results differ
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 48 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
74 papers more in this group
See all 78 papers →intercropping · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 63 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
99 papers more in this group
See all 103 papers →phosphorus · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ
106 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
109 papers more in this group
See all 113 papers →8 of 13 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.