Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Alternate-irrigated intercropping had higher land equivalent ratio than sole cropping.

A claim from Water Use Characteristics of Alternately Irrigated Wheat/Maize Intercropping in Oasis Region of Northwestern China · 2011

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Alternate-irrigated intercropping had higher land equivalent ratio than sole cropping.

Treatment
alternately irrigated wheat/maize intercropping treatmente0t0e1e2e3
Outcome
land equivalent ratio(LER)e0t0e1e2e3
Direction
increasee0t0e1e2e3
Value
1.22 to 1.52e0t0e1e2e3
Comparator
sole cropping treatmentse0t0e1e2e3

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingQualifier

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“compared to sole cropping treatments,there was a significant increase of land equivalent ratio(LER) in the alternately irrigated wheat/maize intercropping treatment with the LER values ranging from 1.22 to 1.52”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 751–961
t0

“Wheat/Maize Intercropping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 51–76
e1

“there was no significant change of wheat yield in the alternately irrigated intercropping treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1254–1353
e2

“The water consumption in the alternately irrigated intercropping treatment had no significant increase compared to that of the conventionally irrigated intercropping treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1538–1713
e3

“The WUE of alternatiely irrigated intercropping treatment was 0.9-22.5% higher than that of the conventionally irrigated intercropping treatment”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1791–1935

Title

Water Use Characteristics of Alternately Irrigated Wheat/Maize Intercropping in Oasis Region of Northwestern China

Yang Cai ACTA AGRONOMICA SINICA 2011

Other claims from this paper (9)

Record rev-46b5e876b381673a236fc00a82223a3e174542697b3a50a26ed0351266a4e09c · schema claims-v0.9 · position 1 in the model’s answer

Zea mays · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

61 papers: 52 positive, 9 negative or no effect

51 papers in the same direction as this claim · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative
  4. negative
  5. negative
  6. negative
  7. negative
  8. negative

52 papers more in this group

See all 61 papers →

Triticum aestivum · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

102 papers: 83 positive, 19 negative or no effect

82 papers in the same direction as this claim · 18 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative
  4. negative
    Winter annual forage reduced subsequent corn yield.

    Integrating a Double‐Cropped Winter Annual Forage into a Corn‐Soybean Rotation · 2002 · compared with treatments thatdid not have a double‐crop winter annual forage

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
  6. no effect
  7. negative
  8. negative

93 papers more in this group

See all 102 papers →

intercropping · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ

189 papers: 131 positive, 58 negative or no effect

130 papers in the same direction as this claim · 51 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative
  4. no effect
  5. negative
  6. negative
  7. negative
  8. negative

180 papers more in this group

See all 189 papers →

3 of 6 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.

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.