Abstract
Finger millet, known for its resilience to adverse climatic conditions, is integrated with various crops to assess the synergistic benefits of intercropping. To obtain intercropping system benefits, crop association, and species combination play a crucial role. Hence, to augment the productivity, profitability, and resource use efficiency under the millet-based system, field research was initiated for three kharif seasons (2021, 2022, and 2023) at the Project Coordinating Unit, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. The outcomes indicated that crops under sole cropping outperformed their intercropping structure in yield. Amongst the intercropping systems, finger millet and groundnut at a 4:2 exhibited a significantly higher finger millet grain equivalent yield (3065 kg/ha), land equivalent ratio (1.64), and area time equivalent ratio (1.38). Also, net returns (Rs. 73,276 ha−1) were realized to be higher in the finger millet + groundnut intercropping system at 4:2 row proportion. Finger millet as a sole crop showed a higher energy output (72,432 MJ ha−1), net energy gain (60,227 MJ ha−1), and energy efficiency (5.95) in relation to other cropping systems. Still, it was analogous to finger millet + groundnut (62,279 MJ ha−1 and 60,378 MJ ha−1, 49,623 MJ ha−1 and 47,628 MJ ha−1, 4.93 and 4.74) at 6:2 and 4:2 row extents, correspondingly). The intercropping of the finger millet with groundnut has demonstrated superior carbon sequestration competencies making them more sustainable and carbon-efficient options compared to sole crops like niger, which showed net carbon loss. The present investigation concluded the adoption of the finger millet + groundnut (4:2) intercropping system as a feasible substitute for attaining overall enhanced productivity with profitability, resource use efficiency, carbon, and energy efficiency.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Sole cropping outperformed intercropping systems in yield.
- Taxon
- Finger Millet
Eleusine coracanat0 - Treatment
- sole croppinge0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- outperformede0
- Comparator
- intercropping structuree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Finger Millet”
e0“crops under sole cropping outperformed their intercropping structure in yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Finger millet + groundnut at 4:2 had the significantly highest finger millet grain equivalent yield among intercropping systems (3065 kg/ha).
- Taxon
- Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
- Treatment
- finger millet and groundnut at a 4:2e0
- Outcome
- finger millet grain equivalent yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 3065 kg/hae0
- Comparator
- Amongst the intercropping systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Finger Millet”
e0“Amongst the intercropping systems, finger millet and groundnut at a 4:2 exhibited a significantly higher finger millet grain equivalent yield (3065 kg/ha), land equivalent ratio (1.64), and area time equivalent ratio (1.38)”
Claim · model-written summary
Finger millet + groundnut at 4:2 had the significantly highest land equivalent ratio among intercropping systems (1.64).
- Taxon
- Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
- Treatment
- finger millet and groundnut at a 4:2e0
- Outcome
- land equivalent ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.64e0
- Comparator
- Amongst the intercropping systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Finger Millet”
e0“Amongst the intercropping systems, finger millet and groundnut at a 4:2 exhibited a significantly higher finger millet grain equivalent yield (3065 kg/ha), land equivalent ratio (1.64), and area time equivalent ratio (1.38)”
Claim · model-written summary
Finger millet + groundnut at 4:2 had the significantly highest area time equivalent ratio among intercropping systems (1.38).
- Taxon
- Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
- Treatment
- finger millet and groundnut at a 4:2e0
- Outcome
- area time equivalent ratioe0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 1.38e0
- Comparator
- Amongst the intercropping systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Finger Millet”
e0“Amongst the intercropping systems, finger millet and groundnut at a 4:2 exhibited a significantly higher finger millet grain equivalent yield (3065 kg/ha), land equivalent ratio (1.64), and area time equivalent ratio (1.38)”
Claim · model-written summary
Net returns were higher in the finger millet + groundnut intercropping system at 4:2 row proportion (Rs. 73,276 ha−1).
- Taxon
- Finger MilletEleusine coracanat0
- Treatment
- finger millet + groundnut intercropping system at 4:2 row proportione0
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- Rs. 73,276 ha−1e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Finger Millet”
e0“net returns (Rs. 73,276 ha−1) were realized to be higher in the finger millet + groundnut intercropping system at 4:2 row proportion”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole finger millet had higher energy output (72,432 MJ ha−1) than other cropping systems.
- Taxon
- Finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- sole crope0
- Outcome
- energy outpute0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 72,432 MJ ha−1e0
- Comparator
- other cropping systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Finger millet as a sole crop showed a higher energy output (72,432 MJ ha−1), net energy gain (60,227 MJ ha−1), and energy efficiency (5.95) in relation to other cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole finger millet had higher net energy gain (60,227 MJ ha−1) than other cropping systems.
- Taxon
- Finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- sole crope0
- Outcome
- net energy gaine0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 60,227 MJ ha−1e0
- Comparator
- other cropping systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Finger millet as a sole crop showed a higher energy output (72,432 MJ ha−1), net energy gain (60,227 MJ ha−1), and energy efficiency (5.95) in relation to other cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole finger millet had higher energy efficiency (5.95) than other cropping systems.
- Taxon
- Finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- sole crope0
- Outcome
- energy efficiencye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 5.95e0
- Comparator
- other cropping systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Finger millet as a sole crop showed a higher energy output (72,432 MJ ha−1), net energy gain (60,227 MJ ha−1), and energy efficiency (5.95) in relation to other cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping finger millet with groundnut showed superior carbon sequestration compared with sole crops like niger.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Treatment
- intercropping of the finger millet with groundnute0
- Outcome
- carbon sequestratione0
- Direction
- superiore0
- Comparator
- sole crops like nigere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The intercropping of the finger millet with groundnut has demonstrated superior carbon sequestration competencies making them more sustainable and carbon-efficient options compared to sole crops like niger”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole crops like niger showed net carbon loss.
- Taxon
- niger
Guizotia abyssinicae0 - Outcome
- net carbon losse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“sole crops like niger, which showed net carbon loss”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that the finger millet + groundnut (4:2) intercropping system is a feasible substitute for enhancing productivity, profitability, resource use, carbon and energy efficiency.
- Taxon
- finger milletEleusine coracanae0
- Outcome
- feasible substitutee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present investigation concluded the adoption of the finger millet + groundnut (4:2) intercropping system as a feasible substitute for attaining overall enhanced productivity with profitability, resource use efficiency, carbon, and energy efficiency”
The same questions in other papers
Arachis hypogaea · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →intercropping · yield · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Positive and negative results
28 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
28 papers more in this group
See all 32 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.