Abstract
In the Sahel, promising technologies for agricultural intensification include millet stover mulching and ridging. A four year on-farm experiment was set-up in order to assess the effect of various combinations of these two technologies on crop development and yield in a millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) - cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) intercropping system. Treatments included bare surface, ridging, a surface applied banded millet stover mulch (2 t ha(-1)) and a banded millet stover mulch (2 t ha(-1)) buried in ridges. The latter three treatments were implemented exclusively in the cowpea rows, with an annual rotation between the millet and cowpea rows. On bare and ridged plots, millet yields fell below 100 kg grain ha-1 after the first year. This was ascribed mainly to soil acidification and loss of soil organic, matter rather than to soil physical constraints or water availability despite extensive surface crusting and high soil penetration resistance and bulk density. Compared to the bare plots, ridging increased cowpea hay production by 330% over the four years which was attributed to lower soil penetration resistance and bulk density but also to a reduction of 0.15 cmol(+)kg(-1) exchangeable acidity in the ridges. Except during the severe drought year of 1997, millet grain yield in the banded mulch treatment remained fairly stable over time at 526 +/- 9 kg ha(-1). However, a detailed analysis revealed yield compensation mechanisms between various yield components depending on the timing of occurrence of the abiotic stresses. Cowpea productivity was always higher in buried banded mulch plots than in surface applied banded mulch plots but the former treatment appeared unable to sustain millet yields. This decline was attributed to a greater nutrient uptake by cowpea and more rapid acidification in the buried mulch treatment compared to the banded mulch treatment.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Millet grain yields on bare and ridged plots fell below 100 kg grain ha-1 after year one.
Verbatim
t0“millet-cowpea”
e0“On bare and ridged plots, millet yields fell below 100 kg grain ha-1 after the first year.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attributed low millet yields mainly to acidification and organic matter loss.
Verbatim
t0“millet-cowpea”
e0“This was ascribed mainly to soil acidification and loss of soil organic, matter rather than to soil physical constraints or water availability”
Claim · model-written summary
Ridging increased cowpea hay production 330% over four years versus bare plots.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae0 - Treatment
- ridginge0
- Outcome
- cowpea hay productione0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 330%e0
- Qualifier
- over the four yearse0
- Comparator
- bare plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“millet-cowpea”
e0“Compared to the bare plots, ridging increased cowpea hay production by 330% over the four years”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attributed the ridging benefit to lower penetration resistance and bulk density.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Outcome
- soil penetration resistance and bulk densitye0
- Qualifier
- lower soil penetration resistance and bulk densitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“millet-cowpea”
e0“which was attributed to lower soil penetration resistance and bulk density”
Claim · model-written summary
Ridging reduced exchangeable acidity by 0.15 cmol(+)kg(-1).
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat0
- Treatment
- ridgese0
- Outcome
- exchangeable aciditye0
- Direction
- reductione0
- Value
- 0.15 cmol(+)kg(-1)e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“millet-cowpea”
e0“a reduction of 0.15 cmol(+)kg(-1) exchangeable acidity in the ridges.”
Claim · model-written summary
Millet grain yield under banded surface mulch stayed near 526 +/- 9 kg ha(-1), except in the severe drought year.
Verbatim
t0“millet-cowpea”
e0“Except during the severe drought year of 1997, millet grain yield in the banded mulch treatment remained fairly stable over time at 526 +/- 9 kg ha(-1).”
Claim · model-written summary
Millet yield components compensated for each other depending on timing of abiotic stresses.
Verbatim
t0“millet-cowpea”
e0“yield compensation mechanisms between various yield components depending on the timing of occurrence of the abiotic stresses.”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea productivity was consistently higher with buried than surface banded mulch.
- Taxon
- CowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Treatment
- buried banded mulch plotse0
- Outcome
- Cowpea productivitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- surface applied banded mulch plotse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“millet-cowpea”
e0“Cowpea productivity was always higher in buried banded mulch plots than in surface applied banded mulch plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Buried banded mulch failed to sustain millet yields.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“millet-cowpea”
e0“the former treatment appeared unable to sustain millet yields.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attributed millet yield decline under buried mulch to greater cowpea nutrient uptake and faster acidification.
Verbatim
t0“millet-cowpea”
e0“This decline was attributed to a greater nutrient uptake by cowpea and more rapid acidification in the buried mulch treatment compared to the banded mulch treatment.”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results agree
21 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 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.