Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Intercropping gave similar total yield to sole pearl millet.

A claim from Can intercropping be an adaptation to drought? A model‐based analysis for pearl millet–cowpea · 2021

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectsimulated

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping gave similar total yield to sole pearl millet.

Taxon
pearl millet and cowpeaVigna unguiculataCenchrus americanuse0
Treatment
intercropping pearl millet and cowpeae0
Outcome
total yieldse0
Direction
similare0
Comparator
sole pearl millete0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageInteractorInteractor roleSecond interactorSecond interactor roleSettingValueQualifier

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Cenchrus americanus
Cenchrus americanus · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“intercropping pearl millet and cowpea resulted in similar total yields to the sole pearl millet”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1597–1692

Title

Can intercropping be an adaptation to drought? A model‐based analysis for pearl millet–cowpea

William C. D. Nelson; Munir P. Hoffmann; Vincent Vadez; et al. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science 2021. doi:10.1111/jac.12552

Other claims from this paper (18)

Record rev-981e849ca4eaf119dd75c6d48c463c3d4dab004fb603e5f43a1c12eec6a5eb9b · schema claims-v0.9 · position 10 in the model’s answer

Cenchrus americanus · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

Vigna unguiculata · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Positive and negative results

21 papers: 19 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this claim · 19 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

12 papers more in this group

See all 21 papers →

intercropping · yield · Cenchrus americanus (pearl millet)Results differ

60 papers: 47 positive, 13 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this claim · 47 reporting no difference from an alternative

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

51 papers more in this group

See all 60 papers →

3 of 4 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.