Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, D: Agriculture and Veterinary, Volume 21 Issue 7

legumes on moisture remains better than on bare soil. In fact, there is no significant difference between the differents horizons but the soil moisture is better on mulchning and legumes treatments than bare soil. Figure 3: Effect of legumes and mulching on soil moisture status. MwRP: Maize with Rice straw combined with Peanut; MfRP: Maize free of rice Straw combined with Peanut; MwRC: Maize with Rice straw combined with Cowpea; MfRC: Maize free of Rice straw combined with Cowpea; MwRMb: Maize with Rice straw combined with Mung bean; MfRMb: Maize free of Rice straw combined with Mung bean; MwLf: Maize with Rice straw and Legume- free; MfLf: Maize free of rice straw and Legume-free b) Effects of mulching and legumes on grass cover The specific and combined effects of mulch and legumes on plot grass cover differed between treatments and between assessment periods (Table 2). A significant difference (p < 0.05) was detected among no mulching and mulching treatments. In fact, the assessment of the straw cover rate at 14 DAP showed that the highest value was with the MwRP treatment (22.5 ± 3.23%) and the lowest value with the MfRMb treatment (15.00 ± 00%). At this level, all the plots that were mulched (MPAb: 22.5 ± 3.23%, MwRC: 20.00 ± 3.53%, MwRMb: 18.75 ± 2.39%, and MWLF: 18.75 ± 1.25%) had a higher grass cover rate than the plots without mulching (MfRP, MfRC, MfRMb, and MfLf). As in the 14 th DAP, data on grass cover rates also differed between treatments. The MwRC treatment resulted in the highest grass cover rate (24.16 ± 3.40%), and the lowest value was with the MWLF treatment (17.50 ± 1.44%). At this level, treatments combining legume-mulch (MwRP: 22.66 ± 3.53%, MwRC: 24.16 ± 4.40% and MwRMb: 23.75 ± 3.15%) gave higher values compared to simple mulching (MWLF: 17.50 ± 1.44%). However, bare soil (MfLf: 20.00 ± 2.89%) had a higher grass cover rate than plots with legume only (MfRP: 18.75 ± 2.39%, MFRC: 18.75 ± 3.75% and MfRMb: 17.50 ± 2.50%). No significant differences were detected among different treatments. At the 42 nd DAP, the grass cover rate also differed from one treatment to another. The highest value was with the MfRMb treatment (32.50 ± 3.88%), and the lowest value was with the MfRP treatment (22.91 ± 4.73%). Peanut in combination with mulch had a better effect on the grass cover rate (MwRP: 25.83 ± 6.25%) compared to the other combinations (MwRC: 29.58 ± 1.57%) and MwRMb (28.75 ± 6.71). At this stage, weed control is essential regardless of the treatment. No significant difference was found between treatments. On the 56 th DAP, the grass cover rate varied according to treatments. Significant differences were detected among mulching and no mulching treatments. The effect on the grass cover rate is much greater with the MwRMb treatment (17.5 ± 1.44%) than with the MfLf treatment (27.50 ± 5.81%). At this production stage, all treatments combining legumes with mulch significantly affected the weed cover (MwRP: 18.75 ± 1.25%, MwRC: 20.00 ± 2.04%, and MwRMb: 17.5 ± 1.44%). Similarly, legumes associated solely with maize had an effect on © 2021 Global Journals 1 Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Volume XXI Issue VII Year 2021 6 ( D ) Version I Effects of Cereal-Legume Intercropping and Mulching on Maize ( Zea Mays L.) Productivity in Dry Season using Drip Irrigation in South-Sudanian Climatic Zone of Burkina Faso