Abstract
Shading patterns when two forage species are intercropped may be different than in a monocrop environment. Our objectives were to quantify yield and forage quality response of forage soybean [ Glycine max (L.) Merr.] intercropped with forage sorghum [ Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] and compare to the measurements of monocrop soybean. Soybean plants were harvested from the middle portion of individual rows in plots containing only soybean and from plots having alternating soybean and sorghum rows spaced 76 cm apart. Morphological and forage quality measurements were determined on leaf and stem fractions. Morphological measurements included main stem length, node number, leaf area ratio (LAR), specific leaf weight (SLW), and stem diameter. Forage quality constituents included in vitro dry matter disappearance (IVDMD), neutral detergent fiber (NDF), hemicellulose, and cellulose, and crude protein (CP) concentrations. Intercropped soybean had 6 more plants m −1 of row, less advanced morphological development, and 2.3 Mg ha −1 less dry matter than monocrop soybean. Leaf IVDMD, NDF, hemicellulose, and cellulose did not differ between intercrop and monocrop soybean. However, stem IVDMD was 33 g kg −1 greater for intercropped than monocrop soybean, reflecting the 36 g kg −1 decrease in NDF concentration. Intercropped soybean was lodged both years more than monocrop soybean, which may have been due to the significant decrease in stem NDF. Leaf CP concentration was 25 g kg −1 greater for monocrop soybean than intercropped soybean; however, stems from intercropped soybean had 12 g kg −1 greater CP than monocrop soybean stems. Soybean exhibited a high degree of morphological plasticity, presumably in response to increased competition for solar radiation. Although forage quality of intercrop soybean was greater than monocrop soybean, intercropping forage‐type soybean with another tall‐growing forage does not appear to be practical because of the decrease in dry matter accumulation.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 14
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped soybean had 6 more plants per m of row than monocrop soybean.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe1 - Treatment
- Intercroppede1
- Outcome
- plants m −1 of rowe1
- Direction
- moree1
- Value
- 6e1
- Comparator
- monocrop soybeane1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Intercropped soybean had 6 more plants m −1 of row, less advanced morphological development, and 2.3 Mg ha −1 less dry matter than monocrop soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped soybean had less advanced morphological development than monocrop soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- Intercroppede1
- Outcome
- morphological developmente1
- Direction
- less advancede1
- Comparator
- monocrop soybeane1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Intercropped soybean had 6 more plants m −1 of row, less advanced morphological development, and 2.3 Mg ha −1 less dry matter than monocrop soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped soybean had 2.3 Mg ha −1 less dry matter than monocrop soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- Intercroppede1
- Outcome
- dry mattere1
- Direction
- lesse1
- Value
- 2.3 Mg ha −1e1
- Comparator
- monocrop soybeane1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Intercropped soybean had 6 more plants m −1 of row, less advanced morphological development, and 2.3 Mg ha −1 less dry matter than monocrop soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf IVDMD, NDF and hemicellulose did not differ between intercropped and monocrop soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe2
- Organ / stage
- Leafe2
- Treatment
- intercrope2
- Outcome
- IVDMD, NDF, hemicellulosee2
- Direction
- did not differe2
- Comparator
- monocrop soybeane2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Leaf IVDMD, NDF, hemicellulose, and cellulose did not differ between intercrop and monocrop soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf cellulose did not differ between intercropped and monocrop soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe2
- Organ / stage
- Leafe2
- Treatment
- intercrope2
- Outcome
- cellulosee2
- Direction
- did not differe2
- Comparator
- monocrop soybeane2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Leaf IVDMD, NDF, hemicellulose, and cellulose did not differ between intercrop and monocrop soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem IVDMD was 33 g kg −1 greater in intercropped than in monocrop soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe3
- Organ / stage
- steme3
- Treatment
- intercroppede3
- Outcome
- stem IVDMDe3
- Direction
- greatere3
- Value
- 33 g kg −1e3
- Comparator
- monocrop soybeane3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“However, stem IVDMD was 33 g kg −1 greater for intercropped than monocrop soybean, reflecting the 36 g kg −1 decrease in NDF concentration”
Claim · model-written summary
Stem NDF concentration decreased by 36 g kg −1 in intercropped soybean compared with monocrop soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe3
- Organ / stage
- steme3
- Treatment
- intercroppede3
- Outcome
- NDF concentratione3
- Direction
- decreasee3
- Value
- 36 g kg −1e3
- Comparator
- monocrop soybeane3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“However, stem IVDMD was 33 g kg −1 greater for intercropped than monocrop soybean, reflecting the 36 g kg −1 decrease in NDF concentration”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped soybean lodged more than monocrop soybean in both years.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe4
- Treatment
- Intercroppede4
- Outcome
- lodgede4
- Direction
- moree4
- Qualifier
- both yearse4
- Comparator
- monocrop soybeane4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Intercropped soybean was lodged both years more than monocrop soybean, which may have been due to the significant decrease in stem NDF”
Claim · model-written summary
Lodging of intercropped soybean may be due to the significant decrease in stem NDF.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe4
- Outcome
- lodgede4
- Qualifier
- significant decrease in stem NDFe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Intercropped soybean was lodged both years more than monocrop soybean, which may have been due to the significant decrease in stem NDF”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf CP concentration was 25 g kg −1 greater in monocrop soybean than in intercropped soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe5
- Organ / stage
- Leafe5
- Outcome
- Leaf CP concentratione5
- Direction
- greatere5
- Value
- 25 g kg −1e5
- Comparator
- intercropped soybeane5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Leaf CP concentration was 25 g kg −1 greater for monocrop soybean than intercropped soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Stems of intercropped soybean had 12 g kg −1 greater CP than monocrop soybean stems.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe6
- Organ / stage
- stemse6
- Treatment
- intercroppede6
- Outcome
- CPe6
- Direction
- greatere6
- Value
- 12 g kg −1e6
- Comparator
- monocrop soybean stemse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“stems from intercropped soybean had 12 g kg −1 greater CP than monocrop soybean stems”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean showed a high degree of morphological plasticity.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxe7
- Outcome
- morphological plasticitye7
- Qualifier
- high degreee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“Soybean exhibited a high degree of morphological plasticity”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage quality of intercropped soybean was greater than that of monocrop soybean.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe1
- Treatment
- intercrope1
- Outcome
- forage qualitye1
- Direction
- greatere1
- Comparator
- monocrop soybeane1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“forage quality of intercrop soybean was greater than monocrop soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping forage-type soybean with another tall-growing forage does not appear practical because of lower dry matter accumulation.
Verbatim
e1“intercropping forage‐type soybean with another tall‐growing forage does not appear to be practical because of the decrease in dry matter accumulation”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
62 papers more in this group
See all 66 papers →intercropping · quality: grain · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
intercropping · molecular: metabolites · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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.