Abstract
Abstract The cover crops Mucuna pruriens var. utilis and Pueraria phaseoloides were introduced to African farmers to improve crop production on degraded soils, yet they appear not to be adopted at scale. In the humid forest zone of West and Central Africa, the dominant Acrisols and Nitisols are inherently poor even when not degraded through agriculture. In this zone, sole maize cropping and vegetable production systems are gaining importance, yet both suffer from nutrient deficiencies. Cover crops were often introduced along with a system change, requiring biomass retention, mainly for nutrient retention reasons. Farmers in the zone commonly use slash and burn systems due to added weed control and ease of operations on clean fields. This study evaluated mucuna and pueraria with and without burning the fallow biomass in an annual sole maize crop relay system against the burned and retained natural fallow. Over 14 consecutive years, biomass burning did not cause lower maize grain yields in any of the fallow types, on the contrary, the economically important marketable cob yields were higher when biomass was burned (mulched 2.10 cobs m −2 vs. 2.26 cobs m −2 when burned, p < 0.07). After cover crop fallow, maize grain yields were significantly higher than after natural fallow (1.92 Mg ha −1 ) over the 14 years, with maize yields in the pueraria treatment (2.63 Mg ha −1 ) out yielding those in the mucuna treatment (2.28 Mg ha −1 ). Maize produced 1.92 cobs m −2 in natural fallow, significantly less than in the mucuna (2.23 m −2 , p < 0.013) and the pueraria (2.39 m −2 , p < 0.001) fallow. Introducing mucuna or pueraria cover crops into slash and burn systems appears as a suitable measure to increase yields without changing the land preparation approach.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Burning did not lower maize grain yields in any fallow type.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“biomass burning did not cause lower maize grain yields in any of the fallow types”
Claim · model-written summary
Burning increased marketable cob yield from 2.10 to 2.26 cobs m −2.
- Treatment
- biomass was burnede0
- Outcome
- marketable cob yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.26 cobs m −2e0
- Qualifier
- 2.10 cobs m −2e0
- Comparator
- mulchede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“marketable cob yields were higher when biomass was burned (mulched 2.10 cobs m −2 vs. 2.26 cobs m −2 when burned, p < 0.07)”
t0“Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Pueraria fallow gave maize grain yield of 2.63 Mg ha −1, above natural fallow.
- Treatment
- pueraria treatmente0
- Outcome
- maize grain yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.63 Mg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- natural fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“After cover crop fallow, maize grain yields were significantly higher than after natural fallow (1.92 Mg ha −1 ) over the 14 years, with maize yields in the pueraria treatment (2.63 Mg ha −1 ) out yielding those in the mucuna treatment (2.28 Mg ha −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Mucuna fallow gave maize grain yield of 2.28 Mg ha −1, above natural fallow.
- Treatment
- mucuna treatmente0
- Outcome
- maize grain yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 2.28 Mg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- natural fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“After cover crop fallow, maize grain yields were significantly higher than after natural fallow (1.92 Mg ha −1 ) over the 14 years, with maize yields in the pueraria treatment (2.63 Mg ha −1 ) out yielding those in the mucuna treatment (2.28 Mg ha −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Pueraria fallow outyielded mucuna fallow in maize grain.
- Treatment
- pueraria treatmente0
- Outcome
- maize yieldse0
- Direction
- out yieldinge0
- Value
- 2.63 Mg ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- 2.28 Mg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- mucuna treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize yields in the pueraria treatment (2.63 Mg ha −1 ) out yielding those in the mucuna treatment (2.28 Mg ha −1 )”
Claim · model-written summary
Mucuna fallow increased maize cob number to 2.23 m −2 versus natural fallow.
- Treatment
- mucunae0
- Outcome
- cobs m −2e0
- Direction
- less thane0
- Value
- 2.23 m −2e0
- Qualifier
- 1.92 cobs m −2e0
- Comparator
- natural fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize produced 1.92 cobs m −2 in natural fallow, significantly less than in the mucuna (2.23 m −2 , p < 0.013)”
Claim · model-written summary
Pueraria fallow increased maize cob number to 2.39 m −2 versus natural fallow.
- Treatment
- puerariae0
- Outcome
- cobs m −2e0
- Direction
- less thane0
- Value
- 2.39 m −2e0
- Qualifier
- 1.92 cobs m −2e0
- Comparator
- natural fallowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize produced 1.92 cobs m −2 in natural fallow, significantly less than in the mucuna (2.23 m −2 , p < 0.013) and the pueraria (2.39 m −2 , p < 0.001) fallow”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend introducing mucuna or pueraria into slash and burn systems to increase yields.
- Outcome
- Introducing mucuna or pueraria cover crops into slash and burn systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Introducing mucuna or pueraria cover crops into slash and burn systems appears as a suitable measure to increase yields without changing the land preparation approach”
t0“Maize”
The same questions in other papers
fire · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →fire · quality: postharvest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
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.