Abstract
Field experiments were conducted to characterize intercropping advantages in groundnut-fingermillet intercrop in relation to crop combination ratios, soil moisture and nitrogen (N) availability. Three intercrops in 1 : 2, 1 : 1 and 2 : 1 alternating rows of groundnut and fingermillet were examined for their growth and yield in comparison with their respective sole crops in 1996. The effect of well watered (W) and water stressed (D) conditions on the intercropping advantage was also examined for 1 : 1 intercrops in 1995 and 1996. Fertilizer N was applied at the rate of 20 kg ha−1 in 1995 and 50 kg ha−1 in 1996. The total above-ground biomass (DM) and its land equivalent ratio (LER) were highest in the 1 : 1 combination ratio. The DM production of intercropped fingermillet was higher in 1996 with higher N than in 1995 with low N application, while those of groundnut were similar in both years. The intercropped groundnut exhibited significantly higher DM production after the fingermillet harvest. The LERs in grain yield were higher in 1996 (1.43 under W and 1.45 under D), than in 1995 (0.87 under W and 1.22 under D). Also, LERs were consistently higher under D than W conditions. Water stress severely reduced the leaf area index (LAI) of fingermillet at a low N, especially in the later stages, whereas higher N alleviated the water stress effect. A close linear relationship was observed between LAI and leaf area (LA) per unit leaf N both for groundnut and fingermillet, with intercrops producing larger LA per unit leaf N than sole crops. Intercropping maintained higher ability in leaf net photosynthesis and transpiration of groundnut up to later stages, and significantly reduced water evaporation from the soil surface under the canopy than sole cropping of fingermillet. These results suggest that three processes associated with the intercropping yield advantages in the groundnut-fingermillet intercrop; 1) higher leaf photosynthesis and vigorous growth of groundnut after the fingermillet harvest, 2) higher LA production per unit N and 3) efficient water use. In conclusion, interspecific shading was considered to be the key mechanism associated with these processes, leading to the intercropping advantages. The degree of the interspecific shade and its effect on growth and yield depended on the available soil N and water.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Biomass and land equivalent ratio of the groundnut-fingermillet intercrop were highest at the 1:1 combination ratio.
- Taxon
- groundnut-fingermillet intercrope1
- Treatment
- 1 : 1 combination ratioe2
- Outcome
- total above-ground biomass (DM) and its land equivalent ratio (LER)e2
- Direction
- higheste2
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“groundnut-fingermillet intercrop in relation to crop combination ratios”
e2“The total above-ground biomass (DM) and its land equivalent ratio (LER) were highest in the 1 : 1 combination ratio”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped fingermillet DM production was higher in 1996 with higher N than in 1995 with low N.
- Taxon
- fingermillet
Eleusine coracanae1 - Treatment
- higher Ne1
- Outcome
- DM production of intercropped fingermillete1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- low N applicatione1
- Setting
- in 1996e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The DM production of intercropped fingermillet was higher in 1996 with higher N than in 1995 with low N application, while those of groundnut were similar in both years”
Claim · model-written summary
Groundnut DM production was similar in both years under the different N applications.
- Taxon
- groundnut
Arachis hypogaeae1 - Treatment
- higher Ne1
- Outcome
- DM productione1
- Direction
- similare1
- Comparator
- low N applicatione1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The DM production of intercropped fingermillet was higher in 1996 with higher N than in 1995 with low N application, while those of groundnut were similar in both years”
Claim · model-written summary
LER in grain yield under well-watered conditions was higher in 1996 (1.43) than in 1995.
Verbatim
e1“groundnut-fingermillet intercrop in relation to crop combination ratios”
e2“The LERs in grain yield were higher in 1996 (1.43 under W and 1.45 under D), than in 1995 (0.87 under W and 1.22 under D)”
Claim · model-written summary
LER in grain yield under water-stressed conditions was higher in 1996 (1.45) than in 1995.
Verbatim
e1“groundnut-fingermillet intercrop in relation to crop combination ratios”
e2“The LERs in grain yield were higher in 1996 (1.43 under W and 1.45 under D), than in 1995 (0.87 under W and 1.22 under D)”
Claim · model-written summary
LER was consistently higher under water stress (D) than under well-watered (W) conditions.
Verbatim
e1“groundnut-fingermillet intercrop in relation to crop combination ratios”
e2“Also, LERs were consistently higher under D than W conditions”
e3“well watered (W) and water stressed (D) conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Water stress severely reduced fingermillet leaf area index at a low N, especially in later stages.
- Taxon
- fingermilletEleusine coracanae1
- Treatment
- Water stresse1
- Outcome
- leaf area index (LAI)e1
- Direction
- reducede1
- Qualifier
- at a low N, especially in the later stagese1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Water stress severely reduced the leaf area index (LAI) of fingermillet at a low N, especially in the later stages”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher N alleviated the effect of water stress on fingermillet.
- Taxon
- fingermilletEleusine coracanae1
- Treatment
- higher Ne2
- Outcome
- water stress effecte2
- Direction
- alleviatede2
- Comparator
- low Ne1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Water stress severely reduced the leaf area index (LAI) of fingermillet at a low N, especially in the later stages”
e2“whereas higher N alleviated the water stress effect”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf area per unit leaf N was closely and linearly related to LAI in groundnut and fingermillet.
- Taxon
- groundnut and fingermilletArachis hypogaeaEleusine coracanae1
- Organ / stage
- leafe1
- Outcome
- leaf area (LA) per unit leaf Ne1
- Qualifier
- A close linear relationshipe1
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“A close linear relationship was observed between LAI and leaf area (LA) per unit leaf N both for groundnut and fingermillet”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercrops produced larger leaf area per unit leaf N than sole crops.
- Taxon
- groundnut and fingermilletArachis hypogaeaEleusine coracanae2
- Treatment
- intercropse1
- Outcome
- LA per unit leaf Ne1
- Direction
- largere1
- Comparator
- sole cropse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“with intercrops producing larger LA per unit leaf N than sole crops”
e2“A close linear relationship was observed between LAI and leaf area (LA) per unit leaf N both for groundnut and fingermillet”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping maintained higher leaf net photosynthesis and transpiration of groundnut up to later stages.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae1
- Treatment
- Intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- leaf net photosynthesis and transpiratione1
- Direction
- highere1
- Qualifier
- up to later stagese1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Intercropping maintained higher ability in leaf net photosynthesis and transpiration of groundnut up to later stages”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping significantly reduced water evaporation from the soil surface under the canopy compared with sole fingermillet.
Verbatim
e1“significantly reduced water evaporation from the soil surface under the canopy than sole cropping of fingermillet”
e2“Intercropping maintained higher ability in leaf net photosynthesis and transpiration of groundnut up to later stages”
e3“groundnut-fingermillet intercrop in relation to crop combination ratios”
Claim · model-written summary
Three processes are suggested to underlie the intercropping yield advantage: photosynthesis and growth of groundnut after fingermillet harvest, LA per unit N, and water use.
Verbatim
e1“These results suggest that three processes associated with the intercropping yield advantages in the groundnut-fingermillet intercrop”
e2“1) higher leaf photosynthesis and vigorous growth of groundnut after the fingermillet harvest, 2) higher LA production per unit N and 3) efficient water use”
Claim · model-written summary
Interspecific shading is considered the key mechanism behind the intercropping advantage.
Verbatim
e1“interspecific shading was considered to be the key mechanism associated with these processes, leading to the intercropping advantages”
e2“groundnut-fingermillet intercrop in relation to crop combination ratios”
Claim · model-written summary
The effect of interspecific shade on growth and yield depended on available soil N and water.
- Taxon
- groundnut-fingermillet intercrope2
- Treatment
- interspecific shadee1
- Outcome
- effect on growth and yielde1
- Qualifier
- depended on the available soil N and watere1
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e1“The degree of the interspecific shade and its effect on growth and yield depended on the available soil N and water”
e2“groundnut-fingermillet intercrop in relation to crop combination ratios”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped groundnut showed significantly higher DM production after the fingermillet harvest.
- Taxon
- groundnutArachis hypogaeae1
- Treatment
- intercroppede1
- Outcome
- DM productione1
- Direction
- highere1
- Qualifier
- after the fingermillet harveste1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The intercropped groundnut exhibited significantly higher DM production after the fingermillet harvest”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
78 papers in the same direction as this paper · 39 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
115 papers more in this group
See all 119 papers →intercropping · physiology: photosynthesis · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →intercropping · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →intercropping · growth · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
drought · growth · Eleusine coracana (finger millet)Results agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- negative
- negative
- negative
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.