Abstract
This study aimed to assess the impact of intercropping pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan cv. Super N) with maize (Zea mays cv. AG 5055) and Paiaguás palisadegrass (Urochloa brizantha cv. BRS Paiaguás) on grain yield, silage chemical composition, and post-harvest grazing forage. The experiment was conducted on the School Farm of Instituto Federal Goiano, Campus Iporá. The experiment treatments consisted of three cropping systems: pigeon pea and Paiaguás palisadegrass intercropping (PPPG), maize and Paiaguás palisadegrass intercropping (CPG), and maize, pigeon pea, and Paiaguás palisadegrass intercropping (CPPPG), respectively. It was observed after the fermentation process that the PPPG silage promoted the lowest values of forage mass (FM) and a reduction in the dry matter (DM) concentration. The PPPG silage showed higher values of crude protein (75.28 g kg−1 DM), while the CPPPG silage showed proportionately higher values of total digestible nutrients (616.11 g kg−1 DM). The intercropping did not affect the corn grain productivity, thus obtaining an average value of 4.78 Mg ha-1. After the silage harvest, during the dry season, a similar forage availability was obtained between the treatments (3.73 Mg ha−1). All three cultivation strategies produced abundant forage for grazing, showing that integrated intercropping systems can mitigate the seasonality in tropical forage production.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
PPPG silage had the lowest forage mass of the cropping systems.
- Treatment
- PPPG silagee1
- Outcome
- forage mass (FM)e1
- Direction
- loweste1
- Setting
- School Farm of Instituto Federal Goiano, Campus Iporáe0
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sustainable Production of Maize with Grass and Pigeon Pea Intercropping”
e0“The experiment was conducted on the School Farm of Instituto Federal Goiano, Campus Iporá”
e1“It was observed after the fermentation process that the PPPG silage promoted the lowest values of forage mass (FM) and a reduction in the dry matter (DM) concentration”
Claim · model-written summary
PPPG silage reduced dry matter concentration.
- Treatment
- PPPG silagee1
- Outcome
- dry matter (DM) concentratione1
- Direction
- a reductione1
- Setting
- School Farm of Instituto Federal Goiano, Campus Iporáe0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sustainable Production of Maize with Grass and Pigeon Pea Intercropping”
e0“The experiment was conducted on the School Farm of Instituto Federal Goiano, Campus Iporá”
e1“It was observed after the fermentation process that the PPPG silage promoted the lowest values of forage mass (FM) and a reduction in the dry matter (DM) concentration”
Claim · model-written summary
PPPG silage had higher crude protein (75.28 g kg−1 DM).
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sustainable Production of Maize with Grass and Pigeon Pea Intercropping”
e2“The PPPG silage showed higher values of crude protein (75.28 g kg−1 DM)”
Claim · model-written summary
CPPPG silage had proportionately higher total digestible nutrients (616.11 g kg−1 DM).
- Treatment
- CPPPG silagee3
- Outcome
- total digestible nutrientse3
- Direction
- highere3
- Value
- 616.11 g kg−1 DMe3
- Qualifier
- proportionatelye3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sustainable Production of Maize with Grass and Pigeon Pea Intercropping”
e3“the CPPPG silage showed proportionately higher values of total digestible nutrients (616.11 g kg−1 DM)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping did not affect corn grain productivity, which averaged 4.78 Mg ha-1.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge4
- Outcome
- corn grain productivitye4
- Direction
- did not affecte4
- Value
- 4.78 Mg ha-1e4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sustainable Production of Maize with Grass and Pigeon Pea Intercropping”
e4“The intercropping did not affect the corn grain productivity, thus obtaining an average value of 4.78 Mg ha-1”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage availability in the dry season was similar between the treatments (3.73 Mg ha−1).
- Outcome
- forage availabilitye5
- Direction
- similare5
- Value
- 3.73 Mg ha−1e5
- Comparator
- between the treatmentse5
- Setting
- dry seasone5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sustainable Production of Maize with Grass and Pigeon Pea Intercropping”
e5“After the silage harvest, during the dry season, a similar forage availability was obtained between the treatments (3.73 Mg ha−1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Integrated intercropping systems can mitigate seasonality in tropical forage production.
- Treatment
- integrated intercropping systemse6
- Outcome
- seasonality in tropical forage productione6
- Direction
- mitigatee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sustainable Production of Maize with Grass and Pigeon Pea Intercropping”
e6“All three cultivation strategies produced abundant forage for grazing, showing that integrated intercropping systems can mitigate the seasonality in tropical forage production”
Claim · model-written summary
All three cultivation strategies produced abundant forage for grazing.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Sustainable Production of Maize with Grass and Pigeon Pea Intercropping”
e6“All three cultivation strategies produced abundant forage for grazing, showing that integrated intercropping systems can mitigate the seasonality in tropical forage production”
The same questions in other papers
Urochloa brizantha · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
intercropping · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 138 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 papers →processing · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →processing · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →intercropping · quality: protein · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
46 papers more in this group
See all 50 papers →processing · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
32 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
69 papers more in this group
See all 73 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
220 papers in the same direction as this paper · 613 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 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.