MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389641637 · doi:10.5539/jas.v16n1p37

Effects of Intercropping on Maize and Soybean Yield Performance, Land Equivalent Ratio, and Maize Leaf Area in Conservation Agriculture

2023· article· en· W4389641637 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Otim Godfrey Anyoni, Susan Balaba Tumwebaze, E. J. Joseph, Mudde Barnabas, O Opere Alfred

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntercroppingAgronomyTillageMulchConservation agricultureAgricultureAgroforestryCover cropCropCrop yieldMinimum tillageYield (engineering)Conventional tillageMathematicsEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maize-soybean intercropping systems as a conservation farming practice are receiving increased focus from the scientific community. This is because of the advantages of intercropping, especially nutrient benefits through cereal-legume interactions, alternative sustainable methods to manage biotic stress (pests, diseases, weeds), and crop failure risk management due to erratic weather. In addition, smallholders in developing countries commonly use intercropping to produce crops. In Uganda, 40% of smallholder farmers are practicing intercropping yet no adequate location-specific information is available to inform their practice. Farmers who adopted conservation farming practices did not mulch their maize due to drudgery associated with collecting mulch. This study evaluated the effect of two tillage methods (T1 = Conventional tillage using ox drawn mould board plough, T2 = Minimum tillage using ox drawn ripper) and five soil cover practices (SC1 = Mulched Maize, SC2 = Control no mulch, SC3 = Two rows of soybean in between one row of maize, SC4 = One row of soybean in between one row of maize, SC5 = Sole soybean) on maize and soybean yield performance. The trials were established for 4 rainy seasons on a sandy loam ferrosol at National Agricultural Research Organization Institute in Lira, Uganda. Soil cover practice had a significant effect on maize and soybean crop Yield. Mulching significantly increased maize yield and LAI. The LER for both intercropping partterns were above 1.2. Tillage methods were not significantly different in determining crop performance. The practice of minimum tillage should also be adopted because it enhances the positive effects of soil cover (intercropping). We recommend farmers to adopt the intercropping pattern of one row of soybean in between maize row spaced at 75 × 30 cm for better LER, and crop performance. This intercropping pattern maximizes on available resources to deliver better output in conservation farming. Maize crop generally performed better during first season as compared to second season. We recommend farmers to utilize the first rains as the main maize production season.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAgronomic Practices and Intercropping SystemsFrench-language works237,207