Abstract
Cropping systems and crop combinations are among vital practices to improve land utilisation with the limited arable land resource. Combinations of Maize with legumes are common in Cameroon, but there is a knowledge gap on locality specificity of the best cropping system and maize/legume combination for sustained production. The experiment was conducted at the Faculty of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine Teaching and Research farm, University of Buea. Different cropping systems and crop combinations were planted in a Randomized Complete Block Design with 13 treatments replicated three times. Data collected for vigour and yield parameters, were analyzed for significance using a two-way ANOVA and treatment means compared using Tukey HSD at 5 % probability, while additional data, were analysed for land equivalent and benefit-cost ratio. The findings reveal no significant differences in the yield of Maize under different cropping systems, except for Maize-dwarf bean mix cropping system (MDBM), which recorded the lowest yield (3.9t/ha), with maize soybean intercropping (MSBI), recording the highest yield (5.9 t/ha) for Maize. Indeterminate legumes (cowpea and climbing beans) recorded significant results for yield (MCPI = 1.7 t/ha; MCBI = 1.8 t/ha) under intercropping system. Likewise, determinate legumes (dwarf beans and soybeans) also recorded significant results for yield (DB = 2.2 t/ha; SB = 3.5 t/ha) under mono cropping system. Land equivalent ratios for intercropping and mixed cropping systems were highest with MCBI = 1.93 and MCBM = 1.76 and the benefit-cost ratios for intercropping and mixed cropping were >1, with MSBI recording the highest ratio of 3.5, followed by MSBM = 3.3. Intercropping and mixed cropping systems and crop combinations were advantageous over monocropping as they gave better land equivalent and benefit-cost ratio. This study provides meaningful findings in bridging the knowledge gap on locality specificity of the best cropping systems and maize/legume combination, for sustained production, locally and nationally. The contribution to the sustainable development goals (SDG), are multidimensional: The enhancement of food security through improved crop yields (SDG2); the promotion of agricultural practices that mitigate environmental degradation (SDG13) and lastly, advocating for biodiversity conservation through the adoption of sustainable cropping systems (SDG15).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield did not differ significantly across most cropping systems.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no significant differences in the yield of Maize under different cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-dwarf bean mixed cropping had the lowest maize yield, 3.9t/ha.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize-dwarf bean mix cropping system (MDBM), which recorded the lowest yield (3.9t/ha)”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-soybean intercropping gave the highest maize yield, 5.9 t/ha.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize soybean intercropping (MSBI), recording the highest yield (5.9 t/ha) for Maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea yield under intercropping was 1.7 t/ha and significant.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae0 - Treatment
- intercropping systeme0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Value
- 1.7 t/hae0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Indeterminate legumes (cowpea and climbing beans) recorded significant results for yield (MCPI = 1.7 t/ha; MCBI = 1.8 t/ha) under intercropping system.”
Claim · model-written summary
Climbing bean yield under intercropping was 1.8 t/ha and significant.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Indeterminate legumes (cowpea and climbing beans) recorded significant results for yield (MCPI = 1.7 t/ha; MCBI = 1.8 t/ha) under intercropping system.”
Claim · model-written summary
Dwarf bean yield under monocropping was 2.2 t/ha and significant.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“determinate legumes (dwarf beans and soybeans) also recorded significant results for yield (DB = 2.2 t/ha; SB = 3.5 t/ha) under mono cropping system.”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean yield under monocropping was 3.5 t/ha and significant.
- Taxon
- soybeans
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- mono cropping systeme0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Value
- 3.5 t/hae0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“determinate legumes (dwarf beans and soybeans) also recorded significant results for yield (DB = 2.2 t/ha; SB = 3.5 t/ha) under mono cropping system.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-climbing bean intercropping had the highest intercropping land equivalent ratio, 1.93.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Land equivalent ratios for intercropping and mixed cropping systems were highest with MCBI = 1.93 and MCBM = 1.76”
t0“production of maize and selected grain legumes”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-climbing bean mixed cropping had the highest mixed-cropping land equivalent ratio, 1.76.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Land equivalent ratios for intercropping and mixed cropping systems were highest with MCBI = 1.93 and MCBM = 1.76”
t0“production of maize and selected grain legumes”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping and mixed cropping benefit-cost ratios exceeded one.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the benefit-cost ratios for intercropping and mixed cropping were >1”
t0“production of maize and selected grain legumes”
Claim · model-written summary
MSBI had the highest benefit-cost ratio, 3.5.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MSBI recording the highest ratio of 3.5”
t0“production of maize and selected grain legumes”
Claim · model-written summary
MSBM had the next highest benefit-cost ratio, 3.3.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“followed by MSBM = 3.3”
t0“production of maize and selected grain legumes”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping and mixed cropping improved land equivalent and benefit-cost ratios over monocropping.
- Treatment
- Intercropping and mixed cropping systemse0
- Outcome
- land equivalent and benefit-cost ratioe0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- monocroppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping and mixed cropping systems and crop combinations were advantageous over monocropping as they gave better land equivalent and benefit-cost ratio.”
t0“production of maize and selected grain legumes”
The same questions in other papers
cultivation system · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
109 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction · 5 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
151 papers more in this group
See all 155 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
612 papers in the same direction as this paper · 181 in the opposite direction · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
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.