Maize-grain legume intercropping for enhanced resource use efficiency and crop productivity in the Guinea savanna of northern Ghana
•Productivity of different intercropping patterns was tested in Guinea savanna of northern Ghana.•Land Equivalent Ratios in intercropping systems are greater under low soil fertility conditions.•Competitive balance between intercrops in poor fields leads to greater Land Equivalent Ratios.•Within-row...
Saved in:
| Published in | Field crops research Vol. 213; pp. 38 - 50 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors | , , , , , |
| Format | Journal Article |
| Language | English |
| Published |
Netherlands
Elsevier B.V
01.11.2017
Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co |
| Subjects | |
| Online Access | Get full text |
| ISSN | 0378-4290 1872-6852 |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008 |
Cover
Loading…
| Abstract | •Productivity of different intercropping patterns was tested in Guinea savanna of northern Ghana.•Land Equivalent Ratios in intercropping systems are greater under low soil fertility conditions.•Competitive balance between intercrops in poor fields leads to greater Land Equivalent Ratios.•Within-row maize-legume intercropping is more productive than distinct row systems.•Radiation use efficiency is higher in intercrops than in sole crops.
Smallholder farmers in the Guinea savanna practise cereal-legume intercropping to mitigate risks of crop failure in mono-cropping. The productivity of cereal-legume intercrops could be influenced by the spatial arrangement of the intercrops and the soil fertility status. Knowledge on the effect of soil fertility status on intercrop productivity is generally lacking in the Guinea savanna despite the wide variability in soil fertility status in farmers’ fields, and the productivity of within-row spatial arrangement of intercrops relative to the distinct-row systems under on-farm conditions has not been studied in the region. We studied effects of maize-legume spatial intercropping patterns and soil fertility status on resource use efficiency, crop productivity and economic profitability under on-farm conditions in the Guinea savanna. Treatments consisted of maize-legume intercropped within-row, 1 row of maize alternated with one row of legume, 2 rows of maize alternated with 2 rows of legume, a sole maize crop and a sole legume crop. These were assessed in the southern Guinea savanna (SGS) and the northern Guinea savanna (NGS) of northern Ghana for two seasons using three fields differing in soil fertility in each agro-ecological zone. Each treatment received 25kg P and 30kgKha−1 at sowing, while maize received 25kg (intercrop) or 50kg (sole) N ha−1 at 3 and 6 weeks after sowing. The experiment was conducted in a randomised complete block design with each block of treatments replicated four times per fertility level at each site. Better soil conditions and rainfall in the SGS resulted in 48, 38 and 9% more maize, soybean and groundnut grain yield, respectively produced than in the NGS, while 11% more cowpea grain yield was produced in the NGS. Sole crops of maize and legumes produced significantly more grain yield per unit area than the respective intercrops of maize and legumes. Land equivalent ratios (LERs) of all intercrop patterns were greater than unity indicating more efficient and productive use of environmental resources by intercrops. Sole legumes intercepted more radiation than sole maize, while the interception by intercrops was in between that of sole legumes and sole maize. The intercrop however converted the intercepted radiation more efficiently into grain yield than the sole crops. Economic returns were greater for intercrops than for either sole crop. The within-row intercrop pattern was the most productive and lucrative system. Larger grain yields in the SGS and in fertile fields led to greater economic returns. However, intercropping systems in poorly fertile fields and in the NGS recorded greater LERs (1.16–1.81) compared with fertile fields (1.07–1.54) and with the SGS. This suggests that intercropping is more beneficial in less fertile fields and in more marginal environments such as the NGS. Cowpea and groundnut performed better than soybean when intercropped with maize, though the larger absolute grain yields of soybean resulted in larger net benefits. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | •
Productivity of different intercropping patterns was tested in Guinea savanna of northern Ghana.
•
Land Equivalent Ratios in intercropping systems are greater under low soil fertility conditions.
•
Competitive balance between intercrops in poor fields leads to greater Land Equivalent Ratios.
•
Within-row maize-legume intercropping is more productive than distinct row systems.
•
Radiation use efficiency is higher in intercrops than in sole crops.
Smallholder farmers in the Guinea savanna practise cereal-legume intercropping to mitigate risks of crop failure in mono-cropping. The productivity of cereal-legume intercrops could be influenced by the spatial arrangement of the intercrops and the soil fertility status. Knowledge on the effect of soil fertility status on intercrop productivity is generally lacking in the Guinea savanna despite the wide variability in soil fertility status in farmers’ fields, and the productivity of within-row spatial arrangement of intercrops relative to the distinct-row systems under on-farm conditions has not been studied in the region. We studied effects of maize-legume spatial intercropping patterns and soil fertility status on resource use efficiency, crop productivity and economic profitability under on-farm conditions in the Guinea savanna. Treatments consisted of maize-legume intercropped within-row, 1 row of maize alternated with one row of legume, 2 rows of maize alternated with 2 rows of legume, a sole maize crop and a sole legume crop. These were assessed in the southern Guinea savanna (SGS) and the northern Guinea savanna (NGS) of northern Ghana for two seasons using three fields differing in soil fertility in each agro-ecological zone. Each treatment received 25 kg P and 30 kg K ha
−1
at sowing, while maize received 25 kg (intercrop) or 50 kg (sole) N ha
−1
at 3 and 6 weeks after sowing. The experiment was conducted in a randomised complete block design with each block of treatments replicated four times per fertility level at each site. Better soil conditions and rainfall in the SGS resulted in 48, 38 and 9% more maize, soybean and groundnut grain yield, respectively produced than in the NGS, while 11% more cowpea grain yield was produced in the NGS. Sole crops of maize and legumes produced significantly more grain yield per unit area than the respective intercrops of maize and legumes. Land equivalent ratios (LERs) of all intercrop patterns were greater than unity indicating more efficient and productive use of environmental resources by intercrops. Sole legumes intercepted more radiation than sole maize, while the interception by intercrops was in between that of sole legumes and sole maize. The intercrop however converted the intercepted radiation more efficiently into grain yield than the sole crops. Economic returns were greater for intercrops than for either sole crop. The within-row intercrop pattern was the most productive and lucrative system. Larger grain yields in the SGS and in fertile fields led to greater economic returns. However, intercropping systems in poorly fertile fields and in the NGS recorded greater LERs (1.16–1.81) compared with fertile fields (1.07–1.54) and with the SGS. This suggests that intercropping is more beneficial in less fertile fields and in more marginal environments such as the NGS. Cowpea and groundnut performed better than soybean when intercropped with maize, though the larger absolute grain yields of soybean resulted in larger net benefits. Smallholder farmers in the Guinea savanna practise cereal-legume intercropping to mitigate risks of crop failure in mono-cropping. The productivity of cereal-legume intercrops could be influenced by the spatial arrangement of the intercrops and the soil fertility status. Knowledge on the effect of soil fertility status on intercrop productivity is generally lacking in the Guinea savanna despite the wide variability in soil fertility status in farmers' fields, and the productivity of within-row spatial arrangement of intercrops relative to the distinct-row systems under on-farm conditions has not been studied in the region. We studied effects of maize-legume spatial intercropping patterns and soil fertility status on resource use efficiency, crop productivity and economic profitability under on-farm conditions in the Guinea savanna. Treatments consisted of maize-legume intercropped within-row, 1 row of maize alternated with one row of legume, 2 rows of maize alternated with 2 rows of legume, a sole maize crop and a sole legume crop. These were assessed in the southern Guinea savanna (SGS) and the northern Guinea savanna (NGS) of northern Ghana for two seasons using three fields differing in soil fertility in each agro-ecological zone. Each treatment received 25 kg P and 30 kg K ha at sowing, while maize received 25 kg (intercrop) or 50 kg (sole) N ha at 3 and 6 weeks after sowing. The experiment was conducted in a randomised complete block design with each block of treatments replicated four times per fertility level at each site. Better soil conditions and rainfall in the SGS resulted in 48, 38 and 9% more maize, soybean and groundnut grain yield, respectively produced than in the NGS, while 11% more cowpea grain yield was produced in the NGS. Sole crops of maize and legumes produced significantly more grain yield per unit area than the respective intercrops of maize and legumes. Land equivalent ratios (LERs) of all intercrop patterns were greater than unity indicating more efficient and productive use of environmental resources by intercrops. Sole legumes intercepted more radiation than sole maize, while the interception by intercrops was in between that of sole legumes and sole maize. The intercrop however converted the intercepted radiation more efficiently into grain yield than the sole crops. Economic returns were greater for intercrops than for either sole crop. The within-row intercrop pattern was the most productive and lucrative system. Larger grain yields in the SGS and in fertile fields led to greater economic returns. However, intercropping systems in poorly fertile fields and in the NGS recorded greater LERs (1.16-1.81) compared with fertile fields (1.07-1.54) and with the SGS. This suggests that intercropping is more beneficial in less fertile fields and in more marginal environments such as the NGS. Cowpea and groundnut performed better than soybean when intercropped with maize, though the larger absolute grain yields of soybean resulted in larger net benefits. Smallholder farmers in the Guinea savanna practise cereal-legume intercropping to mitigate risks of crop failure in mono-cropping. The productivity of cereal-legume intercrops could be influenced by the spatial arrangement of the intercrops and the soil fertility status. Knowledge on the effect of soil fertility status on intercrop productivity is generally lacking in the Guinea savanna despite the wide variability in soil fertility status in farmers' fields, and the productivity of within-row spatial arrangement of intercrops relative to the distinct-row systems under on-farm conditions has not been studied in the region. We studied effects of maize-legume spatial intercropping patterns and soil fertility status on resource use efficiency, crop productivity and economic profitability under on-farm conditions in the Guinea savanna. Treatments consisted of maize-legume intercropped within-row, 1 row of maize alternated with one row of legume, 2 rows of maize alternated with 2 rows of legume, a sole maize crop and a sole legume crop. These were assessed in the southern Guinea savanna (SGS) and the northern Guinea savanna (NGS) of northern Ghana for two seasons using three fields differing in soil fertility in each agro-ecological zone. Each treatment received 25 kg P and 30 kg K ha-1 at sowing, while maize received 25 kg (intercrop) or 50 kg (sole) N ha-1 at 3 and 6 weeks after sowing. The experiment was conducted in a randomised complete block design with each block of treatments replicated four times per fertility level at each site. Better soil conditions and rainfall in the SGS resulted in 48, 38 and 9% more maize, soybean and groundnut grain yield, respectively produced than in the NGS, while 11% more cowpea grain yield was produced in the NGS. Sole crops of maize and legumes produced significantly more grain yield per unit area than the respective intercrops of maize and legumes. Land equivalent ratios (LERs) of all intercrop patterns were greater than unity indicating more efficient and productive use of environmental resources by intercrops. Sole legumes intercepted more radiation than sole maize, while the interception by intercrops was in between that of sole legumes and sole maize. The intercrop however converted the intercepted radiation more efficiently into grain yield than the sole crops. Economic returns were greater for intercrops than for either sole crop. The within-row intercrop pattern was the most productive and lucrative system. Larger grain yields in the SGS and in fertile fields led to greater economic returns. However, intercropping systems in poorly fertile fields and in the NGS recorded greater LERs (1.16-1.81) compared with fertile fields (1.07-1.54) and with the SGS. This suggests that intercropping is more beneficial in less fertile fields and in more marginal environments such as the NGS. Cowpea and groundnut performed better than soybean when intercropped with maize, though the larger absolute grain yields of soybean resulted in larger net benefits.Smallholder farmers in the Guinea savanna practise cereal-legume intercropping to mitigate risks of crop failure in mono-cropping. The productivity of cereal-legume intercrops could be influenced by the spatial arrangement of the intercrops and the soil fertility status. Knowledge on the effect of soil fertility status on intercrop productivity is generally lacking in the Guinea savanna despite the wide variability in soil fertility status in farmers' fields, and the productivity of within-row spatial arrangement of intercrops relative to the distinct-row systems under on-farm conditions has not been studied in the region. We studied effects of maize-legume spatial intercropping patterns and soil fertility status on resource use efficiency, crop productivity and economic profitability under on-farm conditions in the Guinea savanna. Treatments consisted of maize-legume intercropped within-row, 1 row of maize alternated with one row of legume, 2 rows of maize alternated with 2 rows of legume, a sole maize crop and a sole legume crop. These were assessed in the southern Guinea savanna (SGS) and the northern Guinea savanna (NGS) of northern Ghana for two seasons using three fields differing in soil fertility in each agro-ecological zone. Each treatment received 25 kg P and 30 kg K ha-1 at sowing, while maize received 25 kg (intercrop) or 50 kg (sole) N ha-1 at 3 and 6 weeks after sowing. The experiment was conducted in a randomised complete block design with each block of treatments replicated four times per fertility level at each site. Better soil conditions and rainfall in the SGS resulted in 48, 38 and 9% more maize, soybean and groundnut grain yield, respectively produced than in the NGS, while 11% more cowpea grain yield was produced in the NGS. Sole crops of maize and legumes produced significantly more grain yield per unit area than the respective intercrops of maize and legumes. Land equivalent ratios (LERs) of all intercrop patterns were greater than unity indicating more efficient and productive use of environmental resources by intercrops. Sole legumes intercepted more radiation than sole maize, while the interception by intercrops was in between that of sole legumes and sole maize. The intercrop however converted the intercepted radiation more efficiently into grain yield than the sole crops. Economic returns were greater for intercrops than for either sole crop. The within-row intercrop pattern was the most productive and lucrative system. Larger grain yields in the SGS and in fertile fields led to greater economic returns. However, intercropping systems in poorly fertile fields and in the NGS recorded greater LERs (1.16-1.81) compared with fertile fields (1.07-1.54) and with the SGS. This suggests that intercropping is more beneficial in less fertile fields and in more marginal environments such as the NGS. Cowpea and groundnut performed better than soybean when intercropped with maize, though the larger absolute grain yields of soybean resulted in larger net benefits. Smallholder farmers in the Guinea savanna practise cereal-legume intercropping to mitigate risks of crop failure in mono-cropping. The productivity of cereal-legume intercrops could be influenced by the spatial arrangement of the intercrops and the soil fertility status. Knowledge on the effect of soil fertility status on intercrop productivity is generally lacking in the Guinea savanna despite the wide variability in soil fertility status in farmers’ fields, and the productivity of within-row spatial arrangement of intercrops relative to the distinct-row systems under on-farm conditions has not been studied in the region. We studied effects of maize-legume spatial intercropping patterns and soil fertility status on resource use efficiency, crop productivity and economic profitability under on-farm conditions in the Guinea savanna. Treatments consisted of maize-legume intercropped within-row, 1 row of maize alternated with one row of legume, 2 rows of maize alternated with 2 rows of legume, a sole maize crop and a sole legume crop. These were assessed in the southern Guinea savanna (SGS) and the northern Guinea savanna (NGS) of northern Ghana for two seasons using three fields differing in soil fertility in each agro-ecological zone. Each treatment received 25 kg P and 30 kg K ha−1 at sowing, while maize received 25 kg (intercrop) or 50 kg (sole) N ha−1 at 3 and 6 weeks after sowing. The experiment was conducted in a randomised complete block design with each block of treatments replicated four times per fertility level at each site. Better soil conditions and rainfall in the SGS resulted in 48, 38 and 9% more maize, soybean and groundnut grain yield, respectively produced than in the NGS, while 11% more cowpea grain yield was produced in the NGS. Sole crops of maize and legumes produced significantly more grain yield per unit area than the respective intercrops of maize and legumes. Land equivalent ratios (LERs) of all intercrop patterns were greater than unity indicating more efficient and productive use of environmental resources by intercrops. Sole legumes intercepted more radiation than sole maize, while the interception by intercrops was in between that of sole legumes and sole maize. The intercrop however converted the intercepted radiation more efficiently into grain yield than the sole crops. Economic returns were greater for intercrops than for either sole crop. The within-row intercrop pattern was the most productive and lucrative system. Larger grain yields in the SGS and in fertile fields led to greater economic returns. However, intercropping systems in poorly fertile fields and in the NGS recorded greater LERs (1.16–1.81) compared with fertile fields (1.07–1.54) and with the SGS. This suggests that intercropping is more beneficial in less fertile fields and in more marginal environments such as the NGS. Cowpea and groundnut performed better than soybean when intercropped with maize, though the larger absolute grain yields of soybean resulted in larger net benefits. •Productivity of different intercropping patterns was tested in Guinea savanna of northern Ghana.•Land Equivalent Ratios in intercropping systems are greater under low soil fertility conditions.•Competitive balance between intercrops in poor fields leads to greater Land Equivalent Ratios.•Within-row maize-legume intercropping is more productive than distinct row systems.•Radiation use efficiency is higher in intercrops than in sole crops. Smallholder farmers in the Guinea savanna practise cereal-legume intercropping to mitigate risks of crop failure in mono-cropping. The productivity of cereal-legume intercrops could be influenced by the spatial arrangement of the intercrops and the soil fertility status. Knowledge on the effect of soil fertility status on intercrop productivity is generally lacking in the Guinea savanna despite the wide variability in soil fertility status in farmers’ fields, and the productivity of within-row spatial arrangement of intercrops relative to the distinct-row systems under on-farm conditions has not been studied in the region. We studied effects of maize-legume spatial intercropping patterns and soil fertility status on resource use efficiency, crop productivity and economic profitability under on-farm conditions in the Guinea savanna. Treatments consisted of maize-legume intercropped within-row, 1 row of maize alternated with one row of legume, 2 rows of maize alternated with 2 rows of legume, a sole maize crop and a sole legume crop. These were assessed in the southern Guinea savanna (SGS) and the northern Guinea savanna (NGS) of northern Ghana for two seasons using three fields differing in soil fertility in each agro-ecological zone. Each treatment received 25kg P and 30kgKha−1 at sowing, while maize received 25kg (intercrop) or 50kg (sole) N ha−1 at 3 and 6 weeks after sowing. The experiment was conducted in a randomised complete block design with each block of treatments replicated four times per fertility level at each site. Better soil conditions and rainfall in the SGS resulted in 48, 38 and 9% more maize, soybean and groundnut grain yield, respectively produced than in the NGS, while 11% more cowpea grain yield was produced in the NGS. Sole crops of maize and legumes produced significantly more grain yield per unit area than the respective intercrops of maize and legumes. Land equivalent ratios (LERs) of all intercrop patterns were greater than unity indicating more efficient and productive use of environmental resources by intercrops. Sole legumes intercepted more radiation than sole maize, while the interception by intercrops was in between that of sole legumes and sole maize. The intercrop however converted the intercepted radiation more efficiently into grain yield than the sole crops. Economic returns were greater for intercrops than for either sole crop. The within-row intercrop pattern was the most productive and lucrative system. Larger grain yields in the SGS and in fertile fields led to greater economic returns. However, intercropping systems in poorly fertile fields and in the NGS recorded greater LERs (1.16–1.81) compared with fertile fields (1.07–1.54) and with the SGS. This suggests that intercropping is more beneficial in less fertile fields and in more marginal environments such as the NGS. Cowpea and groundnut performed better than soybean when intercropped with maize, though the larger absolute grain yields of soybean resulted in larger net benefits. Smallholder farmers in the Guinea savanna practise cereal-legume intercropping to mitigate risks of crop failure in mono-cropping. The productivity of cereal-legume intercrops could be influenced by the spatial arrangement of the intercrops and the soil fertility status. Knowledge on the effect of soil fertility status on intercrop productivity is generally lacking in the Guinea savanna despite the wide variability in soil fertility status in farmers’ fields, and the productivity of within-row spatial arrangement of intercrops relative to the distinct-row systems under on-farm conditions has not been studied in the region. We studied effects of maize-legume spatial intercropping patterns and soil fertility status on resource use efficiency, crop productivity and economic profitability under on-farm conditions in the Guinea savanna. Treatments consisted of maize-legume intercropped within-row, 1 row of maize alternated with one row of legume, 2 rows of maize alternated with 2 rows of legume, a sole maize crop and a sole legume crop. These were assessed in the southern Guinea savanna (SGS) and the northern Guinea savanna (NGS) of northern Ghana for two seasons using three fields differing in soil fertility in each agro-ecological zone. Each treatment received 25kg P and 30kgKha−1 at sowing, while maize received 25kg (intercrop) or 50kg (sole) N ha−1 at 3 and 6 weeks after sowing. The experiment was conducted in a randomised complete block design with each block of treatments replicated four times per fertility level at each site. Better soil conditions and rainfall in the SGS resulted in 48, 38 and 9% more maize, soybean and groundnut grain yield, respectively produced than in the NGS, while 11% more cowpea grain yield was produced in the NGS. Sole crops of maize and legumes produced significantly more grain yield per unit area than the respective intercrops of maize and legumes. Land equivalent ratios (LERs) of all intercrop patterns were greater than unity indicating more efficient and productive use of environmental resources by intercrops. Sole legumes intercepted more radiation than sole maize, while the interception by intercrops was in between that of sole legumes and sole maize. The intercrop however converted the intercepted radiation more efficiently into grain yield than the sole crops. Economic returns were greater for intercrops than for either sole crop. The within-row intercrop pattern was the most productive and lucrative system. Larger grain yields in the SGS and in fertile fields led to greater economic returns. However, intercropping systems in poorly fertile fields and in the NGS recorded greater LERs (1.16–1.81) compared with fertile fields (1.07–1.54) and with the SGS. This suggests that intercropping is more beneficial in less fertile fields and in more marginal environments such as the NGS. Cowpea and groundnut performed better than soybean when intercropped with maize, though the larger absolute grain yields of soybean resulted in larger net benefits. |
| Author | Ahiabor, Benjamin D.K. Adjei-Nsiah, Samuel Giller, Ken E. Abaidoo, Robert C. Kermah, Michael Franke, Angelinus C. |
| AuthorAffiliation | e Department of Theoretical and Applied Biology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, PMB, Kumasi, Ghana b Soil, Crop and Climate Sciences, University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa d CSIR-Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 52, Tamale, Ghana a Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands c International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, P.O. Box TL 06, Tamale, Ghana |
| AuthorAffiliation_xml | – name: a Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands – name: c International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, P.O. Box TL 06, Tamale, Ghana – name: e Department of Theoretical and Applied Biology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, PMB, Kumasi, Ghana – name: b Soil, Crop and Climate Sciences, University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa – name: d CSIR-Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 52, Tamale, Ghana |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Michael surname: Kermah fullname: Kermah, Michael email: mike.kermah@gmail.com organization: Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands – sequence: 2 givenname: Angelinus C. surname: Franke fullname: Franke, Angelinus C. organization: Soil, Crop and Climate Sciences, University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa – sequence: 3 givenname: Samuel surname: Adjei-Nsiah fullname: Adjei-Nsiah, Samuel organization: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, P.O. Box TL 06, Tamale, Ghana – sequence: 4 givenname: Benjamin D.K. surname: Ahiabor fullname: Ahiabor, Benjamin D.K. organization: CSIR-Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 52, Tamale, Ghana – sequence: 5 givenname: Robert C. surname: Abaidoo fullname: Abaidoo, Robert C. organization: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, P.O. Box TL 06, Tamale, Ghana – sequence: 6 givenname: Ken E. surname: Giller fullname: Giller, Ken E. organization: Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29104356$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNqFkkGLFDEQhYOsuLOrP8CL5Oilx0rSSXcrCLLoKKx40XNIp6tnMvQkY9I9y3j1j5veWRf1sEKgIPXeRxX1LsiZDx4Jec5gyYCpV9tlb-OSA6uWkB_Uj8iC1RUvVC35GVmAqOqi5A2ck4uUtgCgFFNPyDlvGJRCqgX5-dm4H1iso3GeDriedkidHzHaGPZ759e0D5Gi3xhvsaMRU5iiRTolpNj3zjr09kiN7-jsoPsYusmO7uDGYwbRcYN0NTmPhiZzMN4bGnrqQ8yN6Okqc81T8rg3Q8Jnd_WSfPvw_uvVx-L6y-rT1bvrwkohx0KJGhVrBGdKyKq0oBqmFFRtJZumbW3bN2UtkNmOQ92yUgBjXIkub93Xfd-JS_L6xL0xa_R5N_Tam2hd0sE4Pbg2mnjUN1PUfpjLfmqTllzyzL0kb0_m_LnDzqIfoxn0PrrdbJoBf3e82-h1OGipWAn1DHh5B4jh-4Rp1DuXLA6D8RimpDlwaJiAqvmvlDWKgZDydqwXf451P8_vC2cBOwnyeVKK2N9LGOg5RXqrc4r0nCIN-cEMrf7xWDea0YV5Mzc86HxzcmK-48Fh1Ok2Idi5iHbUXXAPuH8BgHXk0g |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1093_aob_mcaa046 crossref_primary_10_1002_fes3_351 crossref_primary_10_3389_fmicb_2022_1041124 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12571_024_01504_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_agee_2019_106583 crossref_primary_10_2139_ssrn_4179077 crossref_primary_10_1007_s42729_022_00936_3 crossref_primary_10_3390_agriculture14122178 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclepro_2021_126132 crossref_primary_10_3390_agriculture15050456 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_agee_2020_107175 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41597_023_02831_7 crossref_primary_10_1002_ldr_5477 crossref_primary_10_3389_fsufs_2023_1191038 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_chemosphere_2023_140328 crossref_primary_10_1080_23311932_2024_2321677 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pbi_2018_05_012 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12571_022_01325_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2022_108550 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2022_108671 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eja_2020_126088 crossref_primary_10_1002_agr_21892 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11104_019_04197_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_S2095_3119_19_62648_1 crossref_primary_10_1071_CP22251 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_geoderma_2020_114342 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_agwat_2024_108876 crossref_primary_10_1080_03650340_2024_2419969 crossref_primary_10_1088_1755_1315_807_3_032033 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10668_025_06121_7 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_agee_2024_109181 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_rhisph_2023_100686 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_techfore_2021_121133 crossref_primary_10_3390_agronomy12102383 crossref_primary_10_3390_agronomy13041085 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_sciaf_2024_e02131 crossref_primary_10_3390_agriculture10040117 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_agsy_2021_103206 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2020_107911 crossref_primary_10_56093_ijas_v92i10_123649 crossref_primary_10_1088_1755_1315_985_1_012013 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0014479720000150 crossref_primary_10_1007_s42398_022_00228_7 crossref_primary_10_1007_s42106_023_00253_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2022_108656 crossref_primary_10_1002_agj2_20536 crossref_primary_10_1007_s42106_020_00090_9 crossref_primary_10_3390_agriculture10090420 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13593_020_00629_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2025_109862 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11270_018_3805_2 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_agee_2017_08_028 crossref_primary_10_1111_1365_2435_14115 crossref_primary_10_1111_nph_15308 crossref_primary_10_1080_15427528_2018_1547806 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2020_107923 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eja_2023_127059 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scienta_2021_110632 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_napere_2023_100060 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclepro_2018_03_199 crossref_primary_10_7717_peerj_17587 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2022_108785 crossref_primary_10_3389_fsufs_2023_1052392 crossref_primary_10_3390_su132112328 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2022_108666 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10668_024_04999_3 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2022_997868 crossref_primary_10_1590_1678_4499_2017363 crossref_primary_10_3390_agronomy13061451 crossref_primary_10_31413_nativa_v7i6_7930 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eja_2021_126290 crossref_primary_10_1002_jpln_202000527 crossref_primary_10_1080_17565529_2021_1930507 crossref_primary_10_1155_2020_8833872 crossref_primary_10_3390_agronomy10020248 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2020_107819 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ecoleng_2023_106933 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_spc_2020_10_023 crossref_primary_10_1080_09064710_2021_1998593 crossref_primary_10_3390_agronomy11081615 crossref_primary_10_1051_e3sconf_202122600013 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2022_975569 crossref_primary_10_1111_plb_13157 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envexpbot_2022_105120 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2021_724909 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13199_024_00971_x crossref_primary_10_1088_1748_9326_ac3030 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eja_2023_126983 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_gfs_2018_08_005 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jia_2024_12_018 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_agrformet_2020_108231 crossref_primary_10_3390_horticulturae10050432 crossref_primary_10_3390_plants13070991 crossref_primary_10_1080_1343943X_2024_2354544 crossref_primary_10_1002_agj2_21536 crossref_primary_10_3390_agriculture11050453 crossref_primary_10_1029_2024GB008159 crossref_primary_10_3390_agronomy11020343 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_still_2023_105867 crossref_primary_10_1080_21683565_2024_2314048 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2024_109335 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2018_07_016 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2024_109695 crossref_primary_10_4236_nr_2024_158013 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_wdp_2024_100645 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_022_05668_z crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eja_2021_126354 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2021_108208 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13593_019_0575_1 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jafr_2020_100040 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eja_2019_125964 crossref_primary_10_31015_jaefs_2023_1_5 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_020_66459_y crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scienta_2024_113470 crossref_primary_10_1002_agj2_21300 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0198159 crossref_primary_10_3390_agronomy11051010 crossref_primary_10_3390_plants14010106 crossref_primary_10_3390_plants12173027 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00374_020_01484_7 crossref_primary_10_11648_j_jps_20241206_14 crossref_primary_10_3390_plants9111592 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eja_2024_127290 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12892_022_00176_y crossref_primary_10_3389_fsufs_2021_741177 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpls_2022_1014631 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_worlddev_2021_105789 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_agsy_2019_102761 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_iswcr_2020_11_003 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eja_2022_126707 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0014479718000273 crossref_primary_10_3390_agronomy13020509 crossref_primary_10_1002_fes3_364 crossref_primary_10_1002_fes3_366 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_tifs_2019_04_007 crossref_primary_10_1093_hr_uhac046 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11104_024_07168_7 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1016/0378-4290(81)90050-2 10.3923/ja.2006.232.238 10.1016/0378-4290(87)90039-6 10.1023/A:1024192604607 10.1017/S0014479798001021 10.1017/S0014479700012400 10.1037/h0087423 10.1016/0378-4290(93)90118-7 10.1016/0378-4290(93)90122-4 10.1016/j.cropro.2005.11.014 10.1016/0378-4290(81)90063-0 10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.06.001 10.2134/agronj1986.00021962007800040039x 10.1017/S0014479710000347 10.1017/S0014479700010978 10.1016/j.fcr.2014.08.004 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60802-0 10.1016/0378-4290(82)90015-6 10.1016/0378-4290(86)90062-6 10.1016/0378-4290(83)90018-7 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.07.014 10.2136/sssaj1996.03615995006000060027x 10.1007/BF00935697 10.1016/0378-4290(93)90123-5 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.08.001 10.2135/cropsci1989.0011183X002900010023x 10.2134/agronj2009.0409 10.2307/1941795 10.1016/0378-4290(94)90028-0 10.1016/0378-3774(90)90069-B 10.1016/0378-4290(85)90059-0 10.1016/0378-4290(90)90060-O |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | 2017 The Authors 2017 The Authors 2017 Wageningen University & Research |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: 2017 The Authors – notice: 2017 The Authors 2017 – notice: Wageningen University & Research |
| DBID | 6I. AAFTH AAYXX CITATION NPM 7X8 7S9 L.6 5PM QVL |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008 |
| DatabaseName | ScienceDirect Open Access Titles Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access CrossRef PubMed MEDLINE - Academic AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) NARCIS:Publications |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef PubMed MEDLINE - Academic AGRICOLA AGRICOLA - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | PubMed MEDLINE - Academic AGRICOLA |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Agriculture |
| EISSN | 1872-6852 |
| EndPage | 50 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_library_wur_nl_wurpubs_525248 PMC5614088 29104356 10_1016_j_fcr_2017_07_008 S037842901730727X |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GeographicLocations | Guinea Ghana |
| GeographicLocations_xml | – name: Guinea – name: Ghana |
| GroupedDBID | --K --M .~1 0R~ 1B1 1RT 1~. 1~5 29H 4.4 457 4G. 5GY 5VS 6I. 7-5 71M 8P~ 9JM AABVA AACTN AAEDT AAEDW AAFTH AAIAV AAIKJ AAKOC AALCJ AALRI AAOAW AAQFI AAQXK AATLK AAXUO ABFNM ABFRF ABGRD ABJNI ABMAC ABXDB ABYKQ ACDAQ ACGFO ACGFS ACIUM ACRLP ADBBV ADEZE ADMUD ADQTV AEBSH AEFWE AEKER AENEX AEQOU AFKWA AFTJW AFXIZ AGHFR AGUBO AGYEJ AHHHB AIEXJ AIKHN AITUG AJBFU AJOXV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMFUW AMRAJ ASPBG AVWKF AXJTR AZFZN BKOJK BLXMC CBWCG CS3 DU5 EBS EFJIC EFLBG EJD EO8 EO9 EP2 EP3 FDB FEDTE FGOYB FIRID FNPLU FYGXN G-2 G-Q GBLVA HLV HMC HVGLF HZ~ IHE J1W KOM LW9 LY9 M41 MO0 N9A O-L O9- OAUVE OZT P-8 P-9 P2P PC. Q38 R2- RIG ROL RPZ SAB SDF SDG SEN SES SEW SPCBC SSA SSZ T5K UNMZH WUQ Y6R ~G- ~KM AAHBH AATTM AAXKI AAYWO AAYXX ABWVN ACRPL ACVFH ADCNI ADNMO AEGFY AEIPS AEUPX AFJKZ AFPUW AGCQF AGQPQ AGRNS AIGII AIIUN AKBMS AKRWK AKYEP ANKPU APXCP BNPGV CITATION SSH NPM 7X8 7S9 L.6 5PM EFKBS 0R 1 8P AAPBV ABPTK ADALY AFRUD G- HZ K KM M QVL UNR |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c535t-638e61932163574c06916607b7599bbcbf9483e1cd208b143011263d006f8ffd3 |
| IEDL.DBID | .~1 |
| ISSN | 0378-4290 |
| IngestDate | Fri Feb 05 18:08:07 EST 2021 Thu Aug 21 14:08:53 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 11 02:39:31 EDT 2025 Thu Jul 10 23:08:14 EDT 2025 Wed Feb 19 02:36:07 EST 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:13:06 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 01:32:32 EDT 2025 Fri Feb 23 02:33:47 EST 2024 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Keywords | LER Spatial arrangement Soil fertility Net benefit Radiation interception |
| Language | English |
| License | This is an open access article under the CC BY license. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c535t-638e61932163574c06916607b7599bbcbf9483e1cd208b143011263d006f8ffd3 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842901730727X |
| PMID | 29104356 |
| PQID | 1961035548 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| PageCount | 13 |
| ParticipantIDs | wageningen_narcis_oai_library_wur_nl_wurpubs_525248 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5614088 proquest_miscellaneous_2020913079 proquest_miscellaneous_1961035548 pubmed_primary_29104356 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_fcr_2017_07_008 crossref_citationtrail_10_1016_j_fcr_2017_07_008 elsevier_sciencedirect_doi_10_1016_j_fcr_2017_07_008 |
| ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX QVL |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2017-11-01 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2017-11-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 11 year: 2017 text: 2017-11-01 day: 01 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | Netherlands |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: Netherlands |
| PublicationTitle | Field crops research |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Field Crops Res |
| PublicationYear | 2017 |
| Publisher | Elsevier B.V Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co |
| Publisher_xml | – name: Elsevier B.V – name: Elsevier Scientific Pub. Co |
| References | Ojiem, Franke, Vanlauwe, de Ridder, Giller (bib0145) 2014; 168 Ofori, Stern (bib0135) 1987; 41 Oikeh, Chude, Carsky, Weber, Horst (bib0140) 1998; 34 Rao, Singh (bib0150) 1990; 23 Vandermeer (bib0195) 1989 Midmore (bib0125) 1993; 34 Sanginga (bib0165) 2003; 252 Sinclair, Horie (bib0180) 1989; 29 Chang, Shibles (bib0040) 1985; 12 Gallo, Daughtry (bib0065) 1986; 78 (bib0050) 2012 Rusinamhodzi, Corbeels, Nyamangara, Giller (bib0160) 2012; 136 Stevenson, Van Kessel (bib0185) 1996; 60 Harris, Natarajan, Willey (bib0085) 1987; 17 Dakora, Aboyinga, Mahamah, Apaseku (bib0045) 1987; 3 Willey (bib0205) 1979; 32 Agyare, Clottey, Mercer-Quarshie, Kombiok (bib0010) 2006; 5 Awal, Koshi, Ikeda (bib0030) 2006; 139 WRB (bib0200) 2015 Willey (bib0215) 1990; 17 Adjei-Gyapong, Asiamah (bib0005) 2002 Yu, Stomph, Makowski, Zhang, van der Werf (bib0220) 2016; 198 Kermah, Franke, Adjei-Nsiah, Ahiabor, Abaidoo, Giller (bib0100) 2017 Giller (bib0075) 2001 Reddy, Willey (bib0155) 1981; 4 Ahmed, Rao (bib0015) 1982; 5 Buri, Iassaka, Fukii, Wakatsuki (bib0035) 2010; 8 Gimenez, Connor, Rueda (bib0080) 1994; 38 Ajeigbe, Singh, Adeosun, Ezeaku (bib0020) 2010; 5 Franke, Ellis-Jones, Tarawali, Schulz, Hussaini, Kureh, White, Chikoye, Douthwaite, Oyewole, Olanrewaju (bib0055) 2006; 25 Marshall, Willey (bib0115) 1983; 7 Saville (bib0170) 2003; 57 Trenbath (bib0190) 1993; 34 Liebman, Dyck (bib0110) 1993; 3 Willey (bib0210) 1985; 21 Mead, Willey (bib0120) 1980; 16 Ofori, Stern (bib0130) 1986; 14 Konlan, Sarkodie-Addo, Kombiok, Asare, Bawah (bib0105) 2013; 6 Heemst, Merkelijn, van Keulen (bib0090) 1981; 20 Franke, Berkhout, Iwuafor, Nziguheba, Dercon, Vandeplas, Diels (bib0060) 2010; 46 Keating, Carberry (bib0095) 1993; 34 Gao, Duan, Qiu, Sun, Zhang, Liu, Wang (bib0070) 2010; 102 Alimi, Manyong (bib0025) 2000; vol. 65 Searle, Comudom, Shedden, Nance (bib0175) 1981; 4 Marshall (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0115) 1983; 7 Oikeh (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0140) 1998; 34 Buri (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0035) 2010; 8 Rao (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0150) 1990; 23 Willey (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0215) 1990; 17 Willey (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0205) 1979; 32 Heemst (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0090) 1981; 20 Saville (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0170) 2003; 57 Alimi (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0025) 2000; vol. 65 (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0050) 2012 Vandermeer (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0195) 1989 Ofori (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0130) 1986; 14 Awal (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0030) 2006; 139 Chang (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0040) 1985; 12 Giller (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0075) 2001 Reddy (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0155) 1981; 4 Yu (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0220) 2016; 198 Searle (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0175) 1981; 4 Gimenez (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0080) 1994; 38 Dakora (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0045) 1987; 3 Stevenson (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0185) 1996; 60 Trenbath (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0190) 1993; 34 Franke (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0060) 2010; 46 Rusinamhodzi (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0160) 2012; 136 Keating (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0095) 1993; 34 Liebman (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0110) 1993; 3 Ajeigbe (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0020) 2010; 5 Harris (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0085) 1987; 17 Mead (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0120) 1980; 16 Ojiem (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0145) 2014; 168 WRB (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0200) 2015 Midmore (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0125) 1993; 34 Ofori (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0135) 1987; 41 Gallo (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0065) 1986; 78 Sanginga (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0165) 2003; 252 Agyare (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0010) 2006; 5 Franke (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0055) 2006; 25 Adjei-Gyapong (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0005) 2002 Gao (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0070) 2010; 102 Kermah (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0100) 2017 Willey (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0210) 1985; 21 Ahmed (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0015) 1982; 5 Konlan (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0105) 2013; 6 Sinclair (10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0180) 1989; 29 |
| References_xml | – volume: 38 start-page: 15 year: 1994 end-page: 27 ident: bib0080 article-title: Canopy development: photosynthesis and radiation use efficiency in sunflower in response to nitrogen publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: vol. 65 year: 2000 ident: bib0025 article-title: Partial budget analysis for on-farm research publication-title: International Institution of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) Research Guide – year: 2001 ident: bib0075 article-title: Nitrogen Fixation in Tropical Cropping Systems – volume: 4 start-page: 13 year: 1981 end-page: 24 ident: bib0155 article-title: Growth and resource use studies in an intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: 17 start-page: 215 year: 1990 end-page: 231 ident: bib0215 article-title: Resource use in intercropping systems publication-title: Agric. Water Manage. – volume: 34 start-page: 357 year: 1993 end-page: 380 ident: bib0125 article-title: Agronomic modification of resource use and intercrop productivity publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: 198 start-page: 269 year: 2016 end-page: 279 ident: bib0220 article-title: A meta-analysis of relative crop yields in cereal/legume mixtures suggests options for management publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: 20 start-page: 178 year: 1981 end-page: 201 ident: bib0090 article-title: Labour requirements in various agricultural systems publication-title: Q. J. Int. Agric. – volume: 168 start-page: 75 year: 2014 end-page: 85 ident: bib0145 article-title: Benefits of legume–maize rotations: assessing the impact of diversity on the productivity of smallholders in Western Kenya publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: 21 start-page: 119 year: 1985 end-page: 133 ident: bib0210 article-title: Evaluation and presentation of intercropping advantages publication-title: Expl. Agric. – volume: 102 start-page: 1149 year: 2010 end-page: 1157 ident: bib0070 article-title: Distribution and use efficiency of photosynthetically active radiation in strip intercropping of maize and soybean publication-title: Agron. J. – volume: 57 start-page: 167 year: 2003 end-page: 175 ident: bib0170 article-title: Basic statistics and the inconsistency of multiple comparison procedures publication-title: Can. J. Expl. Psychol. – volume: 17 start-page: 259 year: 1987 end-page: 272 ident: bib0085 article-title: Physiological basis for yield advantage in a sorghum/groundnut intercrop exposed to drought. 1. Dry-matter production, yield, and light interception publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: 6 start-page: 76 year: 2013 end-page: 84 ident: bib0105 article-title: Yield response of three groundnut ( publication-title: J. Cereals Oilseeds – year: 2012 ident: bib0050 article-title: Handbook for integrated soil fertility management publication-title: Africa Soil Health Consortium – volume: 32 start-page: 1 year: 1979 end-page: 10 ident: bib0205 article-title: Intercropping −its importance and research needs: part 1 Competition and yield advantages publication-title: Field Crop Abstr. – volume: 12 start-page: 133 year: 1985 end-page: 143 ident: bib0040 article-title: An analysis of competition between intercropped cowpea and maize: i Soil N and P levels and their relationships with dry matter and seed productivity publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: 34 start-page: 73 year: 1998 end-page: 83 ident: bib0140 article-title: Legume rotation in the moist tropical savanna: managing soil nitrogen and dynamics and cereal yields in farmers’ fields publication-title: Expl. Agric. – volume: 8 start-page: 384 year: 2010 end-page: 388 ident: bib0035 article-title: Comparison of soil nutrient status of some rice growing environments in the major agro-ecological zones of Ghana publication-title: J. Food Agric. Environ. – volume: 34 start-page: 273 year: 1993 end-page: 301 ident: bib0095 article-title: Resource capture and use in intercropping: solar radiation publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: 7 start-page: 141 year: 1983 end-page: 160 ident: bib0115 article-title: Radiation interception and growth in an intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: 5 start-page: 232 year: 2006 end-page: 238 ident: bib0010 article-title: Maize yields in the long-term rotation and intercropping systems in the Guinea savanna zone of Northern Ghana publication-title: J. Agron. – volume: 25 start-page: 868 year: 2006 end-page: 878 ident: bib0055 article-title: Evaluating and scaling-up integrated Striga hermonthica control technologies among farmers in northern Nigeria publication-title: Crop Prot. – year: 2017 ident: bib0100 article-title: N publication-title: Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. – volume: 34 start-page: 381 year: 1993 end-page: 405 ident: bib0190 article-title: Intercropping for the management of pests and diseases publication-title: Field Crop Res. – start-page: 237 year: 1989 ident: bib0195 article-title: The Ecology of Intercropping – volume: 5 start-page: 2080 year: 2010 end-page: 2088 ident: bib0020 article-title: Participatory on-farm evaluation of improved legume-cereals cropping systems for crop-livestock farmers: maize-double cowpea in Northern Guinea Savanna Zone of Nigeria publication-title: Afr. J. Agric. Res. – year: 2015 ident: bib0200 article-title: World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2014, Update 2015. International Soil Classification System for Naming Soils and Creating Legends for Soil Maps. World Soil Resources Reports No. 106 – volume: 14 start-page: 247 year: 1986 end-page: 261 ident: bib0130 article-title: Maize/cowpea intercrop system: effect of nitrogen fertilizer on productivity and efficiency publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: 4 start-page: 133 year: 1981 end-page: 145 ident: bib0175 article-title: Effect of maize + legume intercropping systems and fertilizer nitrogen on crop yields and residual nitrogen publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: 3 start-page: 389 year: 1987 end-page: 399 ident: bib0045 article-title: Assessment of N2 fixation in groundnut publication-title: J. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. – volume: 23 start-page: 279 year: 1990 end-page: 293 ident: bib0150 article-title: Productivity and risk evaluation in contrasting intercropping systems publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: 136 start-page: 12 year: 2012 end-page: 22 ident: bib0160 article-title: Maize-grain legume intercropping as an attractive option for ecological intensification that reduces climatic risk for smallholder farmers in central Mozambique publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: 78 start-page: 752 year: 1986 end-page: 756 ident: bib0065 article-title: Techniques for measuring intercepted and absorbed photosynthetically active radiation in corn canopies publication-title: Agron. J. – volume: 139 start-page: 74 year: 2006 end-page: 83 ident: bib0030 article-title: Radiation interception and use by maize/peanut intercrop canopy publication-title: Agric. For. Meteorol. – volume: 3 start-page: 92 year: 1993 end-page: 122 ident: bib0110 article-title: Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management publication-title: Ecol. Appl. – volume: 41 start-page: 41 year: 1987 end-page: 90 ident: bib0135 article-title: Cereal-legume intercropping systems publication-title: Adv. Agron. – volume: 252 start-page: 25 year: 2003 end-page: 39 ident: bib0165 article-title: Role of biological nitrogen fixation in legume based cropping systems; a case study of West Africa farming systems publication-title: Plant Soil – start-page: 51 year: 2002 end-page: 76 ident: bib0005 article-title: The interim Ghana soil classification system and its relation with the World Reference Base for Soil Resources publication-title: FAO., Quatorzième réunion Du Sous-Comité Ouest Et Centre Africain De Corrélation Des Sols – volume: 5 start-page: 147 year: 1982 end-page: 165 ident: bib0015 article-title: Performance of maize-soybean intercrop combination in the tropics: results of a multi-location study publication-title: Field Crop Res. – volume: 29 start-page: 90 year: 1989 end-page: 98 ident: bib0180 article-title: Leaf nitrogen, photosynthesis, and crop radiation use efficiency: a review publication-title: Crop Sci. – volume: 46 start-page: 439 year: 2010 end-page: 455 ident: bib0060 article-title: Does crop-livestock integration lead to improved crop production in the savannah of West Africa? publication-title: Expl. Agric. – volume: 60 start-page: 1797 year: 1996 end-page: 1805 ident: bib0185 article-title: A landscape-scale assessment of the nitrogen and non-nitrogen rotation benefits of pea publication-title: Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. – volume: 16 start-page: 217 year: 1980 end-page: 228 ident: bib0120 article-title: The concept of a land equivalent ratio and advantages in yields for intercropping publication-title: Expl. Agric. – start-page: 51 year: 2002 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0005 article-title: The interim Ghana soil classification system and its relation with the World Reference Base for Soil Resources – volume: 4 start-page: 13 year: 1981 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0155 article-title: Growth and resource use studies in an intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(81)90050-2 – volume: vol. 65 year: 2000 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0025 article-title: Partial budget analysis for on-farm research – volume: 32 start-page: 1 year: 1979 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0205 article-title: Intercropping −its importance and research needs: part 1 Competition and yield advantages publication-title: Field Crop Abstr. – volume: 5 start-page: 232 year: 2006 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0010 article-title: Maize yields in the long-term rotation and intercropping systems in the Guinea savanna zone of Northern Ghana publication-title: J. Agron. doi: 10.3923/ja.2006.232.238 – volume: 17 start-page: 259 year: 1987 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0085 article-title: Physiological basis for yield advantage in a sorghum/groundnut intercrop exposed to drought. 1. Dry-matter production, yield, and light interception publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(87)90039-6 – volume: 252 start-page: 25 year: 2003 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0165 article-title: Role of biological nitrogen fixation in legume based cropping systems; a case study of West Africa farming systems publication-title: Plant Soil doi: 10.1023/A:1024192604607 – volume: 34 start-page: 73 year: 1998 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0140 article-title: Legume rotation in the moist tropical savanna: managing soil nitrogen and dynamics and cereal yields in farmers’ fields publication-title: Expl. Agric. doi: 10.1017/S0014479798001021 – volume: 21 start-page: 119 year: 1985 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0210 article-title: Evaluation and presentation of intercropping advantages publication-title: Expl. Agric. doi: 10.1017/S0014479700012400 – volume: 57 start-page: 167 year: 2003 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0170 article-title: Basic statistics and the inconsistency of multiple comparison procedures publication-title: Can. J. Expl. Psychol. doi: 10.1037/h0087423 – volume: 34 start-page: 273 year: 1993 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0095 article-title: Resource capture and use in intercropping: solar radiation publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(93)90118-7 – volume: 34 start-page: 357 year: 1993 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0125 article-title: Agronomic modification of resource use and intercrop productivity publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(93)90122-4 – volume: 25 start-page: 868 year: 2006 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0055 article-title: Evaluating and scaling-up integrated Striga hermonthica control technologies among farmers in northern Nigeria publication-title: Crop Prot. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2005.11.014 – volume: 4 start-page: 133 year: 1981 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0175 article-title: Effect of maize + legume intercropping systems and fertilizer nitrogen on crop yields and residual nitrogen publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(81)90063-0 – volume: 139 start-page: 74 year: 2006 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0030 article-title: Radiation interception and use by maize/peanut intercrop canopy publication-title: Agric. For. Meteorol. doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2006.06.001 – volume: 5 start-page: 2080 year: 2010 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0020 article-title: Participatory on-farm evaluation of improved legume-cereals cropping systems for crop-livestock farmers: maize-double cowpea in Northern Guinea Savanna Zone of Nigeria publication-title: Afr. J. Agric. Res. – volume: 78 start-page: 752 year: 1986 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0065 article-title: Techniques for measuring intercepted and absorbed photosynthetically active radiation in corn canopies publication-title: Agron. J. doi: 10.2134/agronj1986.00021962007800040039x – volume: 46 start-page: 439 year: 2010 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0060 article-title: Does crop-livestock integration lead to improved crop production in the savannah of West Africa? publication-title: Expl. Agric. doi: 10.1017/S0014479710000347 – volume: 16 start-page: 217 year: 1980 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0120 article-title: The concept of a land equivalent ratio and advantages in yields for intercropping publication-title: Expl. Agric. doi: 10.1017/S0014479700010978 – volume: 168 start-page: 75 year: 2014 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0145 article-title: Benefits of legume–maize rotations: assessing the impact of diversity on the productivity of smallholders in Western Kenya publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2014.08.004 – volume: 41 start-page: 41 year: 1987 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0135 article-title: Cereal-legume intercropping systems publication-title: Adv. Agron. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60802-0 – year: 2017 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0100 article-title: N2-fixation and N contribution by grain legumes under different soil fertilities and cropping systems in the Guinea savanna of northern Ghana publication-title: Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. – volume: 5 start-page: 147 year: 1982 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0015 article-title: Performance of maize-soybean intercrop combination in the tropics: results of a multi-location study publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(82)90015-6 – volume: 14 start-page: 247 year: 1986 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0130 article-title: Maize/cowpea intercrop system: effect of nitrogen fertilizer on productivity and efficiency publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(86)90062-6 – volume: 7 start-page: 141 year: 1983 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0115 article-title: Radiation interception and growth in an intercrop of pearl millet/groundnut publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(83)90018-7 – volume: 136 start-page: 12 year: 2012 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0160 article-title: Maize-grain legume intercropping as an attractive option for ecological intensification that reduces climatic risk for smallholder farmers in central Mozambique publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.07.014 – volume: 60 start-page: 1797 year: 1996 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0185 article-title: A landscape-scale assessment of the nitrogen and non-nitrogen rotation benefits of pea publication-title: Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. doi: 10.2136/sssaj1996.03615995006000060027x – volume: 3 start-page: 389 year: 1987 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0045 article-title: Assessment of N2 fixation in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) and their relative N contribution to a succeeding maize crop in northern Ghana MIRCEN publication-title: J. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. doi: 10.1007/BF00935697 – volume: 34 start-page: 381 year: 1993 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0190 article-title: Intercropping for the management of pests and diseases publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(93)90123-5 – volume: 6 start-page: 76 year: 2013 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0105 article-title: Yield response of three groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) varieties intercropped with maize (Zea mays) in the guinea savanna zone of Ghana publication-title: J. Cereals Oilseeds – volume: 198 start-page: 269 year: 2016 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0220 article-title: A meta-analysis of relative crop yields in cereal/legume mixtures suggests options for management publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.08.001 – volume: 29 start-page: 90 year: 1989 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0180 article-title: Leaf nitrogen, photosynthesis, and crop radiation use efficiency: a review publication-title: Crop Sci. doi: 10.2135/cropsci1989.0011183X002900010023x – start-page: 237 year: 1989 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0195 – volume: 102 start-page: 1149 year: 2010 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0070 article-title: Distribution and use efficiency of photosynthetically active radiation in strip intercropping of maize and soybean publication-title: Agron. J. doi: 10.2134/agronj2009.0409 – year: 2001 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0075 – volume: 8 start-page: 384 year: 2010 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0035 article-title: Comparison of soil nutrient status of some rice growing environments in the major agro-ecological zones of Ghana publication-title: J. Food Agric. Environ. – year: 2012 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0050 article-title: Handbook for integrated soil fertility management – volume: 3 start-page: 92 year: 1993 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0110 article-title: Crop rotation and intercropping strategies for weed management publication-title: Ecol. Appl. doi: 10.2307/1941795 – volume: 38 start-page: 15 year: 1994 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0080 article-title: Canopy development: photosynthesis and radiation use efficiency in sunflower in response to nitrogen publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(94)90028-0 – volume: 20 start-page: 178 year: 1981 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0090 article-title: Labour requirements in various agricultural systems publication-title: Q. J. Int. Agric. – year: 2015 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0200 – volume: 17 start-page: 215 year: 1990 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0215 article-title: Resource use in intercropping systems publication-title: Agric. Water Manage. doi: 10.1016/0378-3774(90)90069-B – volume: 12 start-page: 133 year: 1985 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0040 article-title: An analysis of competition between intercropped cowpea and maize: i Soil N and P levels and their relationships with dry matter and seed productivity publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(85)90059-0 – volume: 23 start-page: 279 year: 1990 ident: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008_bib0150 article-title: Productivity and risk evaluation in contrasting intercropping systems publication-title: Field Crop Res. doi: 10.1016/0378-4290(90)90060-O |
| SSID | ssj0006616 |
| Score | 2.5885394 |
| Snippet | •Productivity of different intercropping patterns was tested in Guinea savanna of northern Ghana.•Land Equivalent Ratios in intercropping systems are greater... Smallholder farmers in the Guinea savanna practise cereal-legume intercropping to mitigate risks of crop failure in mono-cropping. The productivity of... • Productivity of different intercropping patterns was tested in Guinea savanna of northern Ghana. • Land Equivalent Ratios in intercropping systems are... |
| SourceID | wageningen pubmedcentral proquest pubmed crossref elsevier |
| SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | 38 |
| SubjectTerms | corn costs and returns cowpeas farmers Ghana grain yield Guinea intercropping LER Net benefit peanuts profitability Radiation interception rain risk savannas Soil fertility soil quality sowing soybeans Spatial arrangement |
| Title | Maize-grain legume intercropping for enhanced resource use efficiency and crop productivity in the Guinea savanna of northern Ghana |
| URI | https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.07.008 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29104356 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1961035548 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2020913079 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC5614088 http://www.narcis.nl/publication/RecordID/oai:library.wur.nl:wurpubs%2F525248 |
| Volume | 213 |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Na9wwEBUhuaSH0vTTTRNU6KngrmzLkn1cQpJtS3JpA3sTki1vNizaxV4T6KGX_PHOyPamS8oeejK2JSGk0cyzZ-YNIZ8Ml9zkiQirquQhT7MozHglwjTSPCpirSu_01fXYnLDv03T6R45G3JhMKyy1_2dTvfaun8y6ldztJrPRz9YIjOObkAQUrDCU8xg5xLD-r78fgzzAPvT-SvhawlbD55NH-NVFUgJGknP34kVJv9tm55iz6chlIf3cP6dT4j6y0BdvCDPe2RJx93kj8iedS_Js_Gs7tk17CvycKXnv2w4w7IQdGFnoJco8kXUWMcLE6coQFhq3a0PC6B1_2ufto2l1nNNYKIm1a6k2IOuOrpYX38CBqIAJullC7hV00YDRHeaLivq0DVka0cvYVz9mtxcnP88m4R9FYawSJN0HcIBtQJhXoTUdbxgAhClYNLINM-NKUyV8yyxUVHGLDMAvxhmJSUlLH2VgQQkb8i-Wzr7jtBEi8gIbXQucpARnlubcc1kVYImEHEZEDasvyp6inKslLFQQyzanYItU7hliqHjPAvI502XVcfPsasxHzZVbQmZAvuxq9vHQQAUHD70qGhnl22jQH1FDBHbjjYxAPIckILMA_K2E5rNTGMAa4BXRUDkljhtGiD59_YbN7_1JODI4AoWIiDJo-Aph_WnGt-r_wmo7ttauQVeYJxGpXEa8-z9_y3EMTnEuy4V8wPZX9etPQFMtjan_tCdkoPx1--T6z84LDns |
| linkProvider | Elsevier |
| linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1Lb9swDCa69LDuMOw976kBOw0w4ocs28egWJuuTS5rgdwEyZbTDIES2AkK7Lo_PtKWswUdctjJgC0KhkiRn03xI8BnzVOu81j4VVVynydZ6Ge8En4SKh4WkVJVq-nJVIxv-LdZMjuC074Who5VOt_f-fTWW7s7Q7eaw_ViMfwexGnGKQ2IRopRePYAjomdig_geHRxOZ7uHDKGoC5liR9MJNAnN9tjXlVBrKBh2lJ4UpPJf4en-_Dz_inKkzt0AbatiforRp09gccOXLJR9_5P4cjYZ_BoNK8dwYZ5Dr8mavHT-HPqDMGWZo6uiRFlRE2tvKh2iiGKZcbeticDWO3-7rNtY5hp6SaoVpMpWzKSYOuOMbZtQYETMcST7HyL0FWxRiFKt4qtKmYpO2Rqy85xXvUCbs6-Xp-OfdeIwS-SONn4uEeNIKQXEnsdLwKBoFIEqU6TPNe60FXOs9iERRkFmUYEFlBhUlzi0lcZGkH8EgZ2Zc1rYLESoRZKq1zkqCueG5NxFaRVic5ARKUHQb_-snAs5dQsYyn742g_JKpMkspkQLnzzIMvO5F1R9FxaDDvlSr37ExiCDkk9qk3AIn7j5IqyprVtpHowcKAQNuBMRFi8hzBQpp78Kozmt2bRojXELIKD9I9c9oNIP7v_Sd2cdvygBOJKwYJD-I_hicttaBqWin3H1DebWtpl3TBeRqZREnEszf_txAf4eH4enIlry6ml2_hhJ50lZnvYLCpt-Y9QrSN_uC24G_REDyd |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Maize-grain+legume+intercropping+for+enhanced+resource+use+efficiency+and+crop+productivity+in+the+Guinea+savanna+of+northern+Ghana&rft.jtitle=Field+crops+research&rft.au=Kermah%2C+Michael&rft.au=Franke%2C+Angelinus+C.&rft.au=Adjei-Nsiah%2C+Samuel&rft.au=Ahiabor%2C+Benjamin+D.K.&rft.date=2017-11-01&rft.issn=0378-4290&rft.volume=213&rft.spage=38&rft.epage=50&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.fcr.2017.07.008&rft.externalDBID=n%2Fa&rft.externalDocID=10_1016_j_fcr_2017_07_008 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0378-4290&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0378-4290&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0378-4290&client=summon |