Abstract
Context Intercropping is a crop diversification strategy that enhances the sustainability of agricultural production systems by delivering a range of ecosystem services. It minimizes the risk of crop failure and increases land-use efficiency. However, limited knowledge exists about the varieties and traits that can enhance the performance of cereal/legume intercropping systems. Objective This study aims to explore the effect of sorghum genetic variability on intercropping performance and identify the genetic traits of sorghum that most influence the outcomes of intercropping. Method Thirty sorghum varieties, representing a broad range of diversity, were grown both in pure stands and as intercrops, with a single cowpea variety used as a tester. The experiment was conducted in 2020 and 2021 in Burkina Faso, using a split-plot design with three replications each year. Genotype rankings were established for both cropping systems, and genotype × cropping system interactions were evaluated. Results The total grain yield of the intercrop (sorghum + cowpea) was not significantly different from that of sorghum grown as a pure crop (2000 kg ha −1 and 2051 kg ha −1 , respectively). However, the intercrop produced more grain protein (290 kg ha −1 ) than the pure crop (217 kg ha −1 ). Significant genotypic variability was observed for most traits, with few instances of significant genotype × cropping system interactions. No significant effect of sorghum genotypes on cowpea grain yield was found, nor was there a negative correlation between cowpea and sorghum grain yields in the intercrop. In 2021, competition was observed through a negative correlation between cowpea grain yield and sorghum biomass, as well as a positive correlation with sorghum harvest index. However, this competition was not for light, but for water. Conclusions The choice of sorghum varieties for intercropping in our conditions depends mainly on the farmer's objectives regarding grain quality and production, avoiding varieties with high biomass and low harvest index. Further research should focus on the effect of cowpea genetic variability on the performance of sorghum-cowpea intercropping.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Intercrop grain yield did not differ significantly from pure sorghum yield.
- Treatment
- intercrop (sorghum + cowpea)e0
- Outcome
- total grain yielde0
- Direction
- not significantly differente0
- Value
- 2000 kg ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- 2051 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- sorghum grown as a pure crope0
SorghumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The total grain yield of the intercrop (sorghum + cowpea) was not significantly different from that of sorghum grown as a pure crop (2000 kg ha −1 and 2051 kg ha −1 , respectively)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping produced more grain protein than pure cropping.
- Treatment
- intercrope0
- Outcome
- grain proteine0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 290 kg ha −1e0
- Qualifier
- 217 kg ha −1e0
- Comparator
- pure crope0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the intercrop produced more grain protein (290 kg ha −1 ) than the pure crop (217 kg ha −1 )”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Most traits varied significantly by sorghum genotype.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Significant genotypic variability was observed for most traits”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Few genotype by cropping system interactions were significant.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“few instances of significant genotype × cropping system interactions”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum genotypes had no significant effect on cowpea grain yield.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae0 - Material
- sorghum genotypese0
- Outcome
- cowpea grain yielde0
- Direction
- No significant effecte0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No significant effect of sorghum genotypes on cowpea grain yield was found”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea and sorghum grain yields were not negatively correlated in the intercrop.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Outcome
- cowpea and sorghum grain yieldse0
- Direction
- nor was there a negative correlatione0
- Comparator
- sorghum grain yieldse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“nor was there a negative correlation between cowpea and sorghum grain yields in the intercrop”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea grain yield was negatively correlated with sorghum biomass in 2021.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Outcome
- cowpea grain yielde0
- Direction
- negative correlatione0
- Qualifier
- In 2021e0
- Comparator
- sorghum biomasse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 2021, competition was observed through a negative correlation between cowpea grain yield and sorghum biomass”
Claim · model-written summary
Cowpea grain yield was positively correlated with sorghum harvest index in 2021.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatat1
- Outcome
- cowpea grain yielde1
- Direction
- positive correlatione0
- Comparator
- sorghum harvest indexe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“as well as a positive correlation with sorghum harvest index”
t1“intercropping with cowpea”
e1“No significant effect of sorghum genotypes on cowpea grain yield was found”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercrop competition was for water rather than light.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, this competition was not for light, but for water”
t0“Sorghum”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors advise avoiding high-biomass, low-harvest-index sorghum varieties for intercropping.
- Outcome
- avoiding varieties with high biomass and low harvest indexe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“avoiding varieties with high biomass and low harvest index”
t0“Sorghum”
The same questions in other papers
Vigna unguiculata · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
45 papers more in this group
See all 49 papers →intercropping · yield · SorghumResults differ
46 papers in the same direction as this paper · 118 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
161 papers more in this group
See all 165 papers →intercropping · quality: protein · SorghumPositive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 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.