Abstract
The inability of pre-emergence herbicides alone to give season-long weed control in maize production justifies the need for supplementary weed control. Field trials were conducted to evaluate intercropped groundnut and jack bean for enhanced weed control efficacy of two pre-emergence herbicides in maize production in 2013/2014 and 2015 cropping seasons at the Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria. The experiment was arranged in split-plot fitted in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Main plots consisted of eight weed control treatments of a commercially formulated mixture of prometryne + metolachlor (ProbabenR); prometryne + acetochlor (Super UnionR) each at 2.4 kg a.i ha-1, 1.6 kg a.i ha-1 with and without supplementary hoe-weeding, two hoe-weedings and a weedy check. Sub-plot treatments consisted of eight cropping patterns (sole maize, maize-jack bean and maize-groundnut intercrops, each at two spacings [100 x 37.5 cm and 75 x 50 cm] and sole crops of jack bean and groundnut). All the weed control methods significantly reduced (p<0.05) weed dry matter compared to the weedy check by 10-81%. Maize grain yields (1.4-5.2 t ha-1) were similar for all plots with the weed control methods, except in the 2015 late season, but significantly depressed (21-48%) on those weed-infested throughout. Intercropped jack bean and groundnut with maize significantly suppressed weed growth relative to sole crops of maize, jack bean or groundnut by 20-67%. Therefore, the efficacy of pre-emergence herbicides in this study was enhanced by intercropping of maize with jack bean and groundnut at the spacings of 75 x 50 cm and 100 x 37.5 cm in the early seasons.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-sa. 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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Weed control treatments reduced weed dry matter by 10-81% against the weedy check.
- Treatment
- weed control methodse0
- Outcome
- weed dry mattere0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 10-81%e0
- Comparator
- weedy checke0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“All the weed control methods significantly reduced (p<0.05) weed dry matter compared to the weedy check by 10-81%.”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed-infested maize plots yielded 21-48% less grain than weed-controlled plots.
- Treatment
- weed-infested throughoute0
- Outcome
- Maize grain yieldse0
- Direction
- depressede0
- Value
- 21-48%e0
- Comparator
- plots with the weed control methodse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize grain yields (1.4-5.2 t ha-1) were similar for all plots with the weed control methods, except in the 2015 late season, but significantly depressed (21-48%) on those weed-infested throughout.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain yields under weed control were similar except in late 2015.
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Value
- 1.4-5.2 t ha-1e0
- Qualifier
- except in the 2015 late seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize grain yields (1.4-5.2 t ha-1) were similar for all plots with the weed control methods, except in the 2015 late season”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-jack bean intercropping suppressed weed growth by 20-67% against sole crops.
- Treatment
- Intercropped jack beane0
- Outcome
- weed growthe0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Value
- 20-67%e0
- Comparator
- sole crops of maize, jack bean or groundnute0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped jack bean and groundnut with maize significantly suppressed weed growth relative to sole crops of maize, jack bean or groundnut by 20-67%.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-groundnut intercropping suppressed weed growth by 20-67% against sole crops.
- Treatment
- groundnut with maizee0
- Outcome
- weed growthe0
- Direction
- suppressede0
- Value
- 20-67%e0
- Comparator
- sole crops of maize, jack bean or groundnute0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped jack bean and groundnut with maize significantly suppressed weed growth relative to sole crops of maize, jack bean or groundnut by 20-67%.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend maize-jack bean or maize-groundnut intercrops at the tested spacings to enhance pre-emergence herbicide efficacy.
- Outcome
- intercropping of maize with jack bean and groundnut at the spacings of 75 x 50 cm and 100 x 37.5 cme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the efficacy of pre-emergence herbicides in this study was enhanced by intercropping of maize with jack bean and groundnut at the spacings of 75 x 50 cm and 100 x 37.5 cm in the early seasons”
The same questions in other papers
Canavalia ensiformis · weed · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
Arachis hypogaea · weed · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →intercropping · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
75 papers more in this group
See all 79 papers →herbicide · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
359 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction · 10 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
402 papers more in this group
See all 406 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.