Intervention effectmodel-written summary

Early maize sowing increased soybean yield.

A claim from Effect of Maize Sowing Time and Density on Stem and Leaf Morphological Characters of Soybean in Relay-cropping System · 2014

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Early maize sowing increased soybean yield.

Taxon
soybeanGlycine maxe0
Treatment
early sowing of maizee1
Interactor
maizeZea mayse1other
Outcome
soybean yielde0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedMaterialGeneCompoundOrgan / stageSecond interactorSecond interactor roleComparatorSettingValueQualifier

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

Glycine max
Glycine max · TaxonPublic domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · InteractorAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“so soybean yield was also increased.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 418–454
e1

“with early sowing of maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 207–233

Title

Effect of Maize Sowing Time and Density on Stem and Leaf Morphological Characters of Soybean in Relay-cropping System

Zhanhui Wang Xi'nan nongye xuebao 2014

Other claims from this paper (8)

Record rev-e45fb372d510e972e388aa9046583f7c5eaa59a9ddc0e1a9b219fa7e75c9d0a3 · schema claims-v0.9 · position 5 in the model’s answer

Zea mays · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results

79 papers: 58 positive, 21 negative or no effect

57 papers in the same direction as this claim · 21 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
    Increasing maize planting density reduced soybean seed yield by 21% and 23% at 44,440 and 53,330 plants/ha compared with 38,000 maize plants/ha.

    Effect of maize planting density on the performance of maize/soybean intercropping system in a guinea savannah agroecosystem · 2007 · compared with intercropping at 38,000 maize plants/ha

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    Maize shading negatively affected the final yield of soybean, by 32.8%.

    Growth and photosynthetic responses of soybean seedlings to maize shading in relay intercropping system in Southwest China · 2014 · compared with monocropped soybean plants

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Maize intercropping reduced soybean yield 33.6%.

    Soybean–Cereal Intercropping Systems as Influenced by Nitrogen Nutrition · 2014

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    Soybean yield is 22% lower with maize than in a pure stand.

    Effects of nitrogen supply and spatial arrangement on the grain yield of a maize/soybean intercrop in a humid subtropical climate · 1992 · compared with pure stand

    Opposite direction

  5. negative
    Maize intercropping reduced soybean yield by 60% at Embu in the 2012 long rains.

    Effects of different maize (Zea mays L.) - soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) intercropping patterns on yields and land equivalent ratio · 2013

    Opposite direction

  6. negative
    Intercropping reduced soybean yield by 43.8% in 2011 relative to sole cropping.

    Soybean-maize intercropping on yield and system productivity in Makurdi, Central Nigeria · 2013

    Opposite direction

  7. no effect
    Other preceding crops produced no significant soybean yield difference.

    Summer Cropping Effects on the Abundance of Meloidogyne arenaria Race 2 and Subsequent Soybean Yield. · 1993

    Opposite direction

  8. negative
    Maize shading considerably reduced soybean yield in intercropping.

    Evaluation of Different Maturity Groups of Soybean (Glycine Max L. Merrill) Grown Sole and Intercropped with Maize (Zea Mays L.) for Yield and Yield Components at Bako, Ethiopia · 2014

    Opposite direction

70 papers more in this group

See all 79 papers →

sowing time · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results

207 papers: 115 positive, 92 negative or no effect

114 papers in the same direction as this claim · 89 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
    Delayed planting date reduced soybean seed yield by 0.01 to 0.04 Mg ha-1 per week, mainly in northern latitudes.

    Assessing Variation in US Soybean Seed Composition (Protein and Oil) · 2019

    Opposite direction

  2. negative
    Delayed planting reduced yield by 7–36% across cultivars.

    Potential of Early‐Maturing Soybean Cultivars in Late Plantings · 2000

    Opposite direction

  3. negative
    Mean soybean yields for the 15 July planting date were less than 50% of those of the April or May plantings.

    Soybean Response to Different Planting Patterns and Dates1,3 · 1982 · compared with April or May plantings

    Opposite direction

  4. negative
    There is potential for reduced soybean yields with delayed planting.

    Effect of Date of Preplant Tillage and Planting on Weed Populations and Mechanical Weed Control in Soybean (Glycine max) · 1996

    Opposite direction

  5. no effect
    Row width and planting date did not affect profitability.

    Organically Managed No‐Tillage Rye–Soybean Systems: Agronomic, Economic, and Environmental Assessment · 2011

    Opposite direction

  6. no effect
    Early planting had no observed effect on harvest index or seed-fill duration.

    Physiological and Phenological Responses of Historical Soybean Cultivar Releases to Earlier Planting · 2014

    Opposite direction

  7. negative
    Soybean seed yield in central Illinois decreased by an average of 33% as planting was delayed from early May to early July.

    Response of Determinate and Indeterminate Soybeans to varying Cultural Practices in the Northern USA1 · 1981 · compared with early May

    Opposite direction

  8. no effect
    Seeding date and cover crops did not reduce maize or soybean grain yields.

    Establishing winter annual cover crops by interseeding into Maize and Soybean · 2020

    Opposite direction

198 papers more in this group

See all 207 papers →

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.