Abstract
With dwindling water supplies, alfalfa ( Medicago sativa L.) and corn ( Zea mays L.) producers in the Southern High Plains (USA) seek alternative forages for the dairy industry. At New Mexico State University's Agricultural Science Center at Tucumcari, cereal forage monocultures and intercrops with legumes were subjected to two irrigation treatments during two growing seasons in a Canez fine sandy loam (fine‐loamy, mixed, thermic Ustollic Haplargid). Dry matter (DM) yield of monocultures averaged 3.76, 3.90, 5.55, 5.59, and 3.17 Mg ha −1 for rye ( Secale cereale L.), barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.), wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), triticale (× Triticosecale rimpaui Wittm.), and oat ( Avena sativa L.), respectively. Cereal forages irrigated once in a growing season yielded equally to those watered twice with average precipitation (2000–2001, 408 mm), but not in a dry growing season (2001–2002, 245 mm) (6.15, 5.41, 1.90, and 3.21 Mg ha −1 for cereal forages irrigated once or twice in 2000–2001 or 2001–2002, respectively). Also, levels of forage nutritive components were greatest when irrigated once in 2001–2002. Intercropping with winter pea [ Pisum sativum subsp. arvense (L.) Poir] or hairy vetch ( Vicia villosa Roth.) reduced yield of wheat and triticale compared with monocultures, but these yields were still greater than those of the other cereal forages and winter pea improved quality indicators when intercropped with wheat or triticale. Water can be conserved in the Southern High Plains by irrigating cereals only as needed for germination or to promote fall growth.
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
Rye monoculture yielded 3.76 Mg ha −1 dry matter.
- Taxon
- rye
Secale cerealee0 - Outcome
- Dry matter (DM) yielde0
- Value
- 3.76e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dry matter (DM) yield of monocultures averaged 3.76, 3.90, 5.55, 5.59, and 3.17 Mg ha −1 for rye ( Secale cereale L.), barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.), wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), triticale (× Triticosecale rimpaui Wittm.), and oat ( Avena sativa L.), respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Barley monoculture yielded 3.90 Mg ha −1 dry matter.
- Taxon
- barley
.jpg?width=60)
Hordeum vulgaree0 - Outcome
- Dry matter (DM) yielde0
- Value
- 3.90e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“Dry matter (DM) yield of monocultures averaged 3.76, 3.90, 5.55, 5.59, and 3.17 Mg ha −1 for rye ( Secale cereale L.), barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.), wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), triticale (× Triticosecale rimpaui Wittm.), and oat ( Avena sativa L.), respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat monoculture yielded 5.55 Mg ha −1 dry matter.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Outcome
- Dry matter (DM) yielde0
- Value
- 5.55e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dry matter (DM) yield of monocultures averaged 3.76, 3.90, 5.55, 5.59, and 3.17 Mg ha −1 for rye ( Secale cereale L.), barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.), wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), triticale (× Triticosecale rimpaui Wittm.), and oat ( Avena sativa L.), respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Triticale monoculture yielded 5.59 Mg ha −1 dry matter.
- Taxon
- triticale
×Triticosecalee0 - Outcome
- Dry matter (DM) yielde0
- Value
- 5.59e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dry matter (DM) yield of monocultures averaged 3.76, 3.90, 5.55, 5.59, and 3.17 Mg ha −1 for rye ( Secale cereale L.), barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.), wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), triticale (× Triticosecale rimpaui Wittm.), and oat ( Avena sativa L.), respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Oat monoculture yielded 3.17 Mg ha −1 dry matter.
- Taxon
- oat
Avena sativae0 - Outcome
- Dry matter (DM) yielde0
- Value
- 3.17 Mg ha −1e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Dry matter (DM) yield of monocultures averaged 3.76, 3.90, 5.55, 5.59, and 3.17 Mg ha −1 for rye ( Secale cereale L.), barley ( Hordeum vulgare L.), wheat ( Triticum aestivum L.), triticale (× Triticosecale rimpaui Wittm.), and oat ( Avena sativa L.), respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
One irrigation produced equal cereal forage yield to two irrigations in the average precipitation season.
Verbatim
e0“Cereal forages irrigated once in a growing season yielded equally to those watered twice with average precipitation (2000–2001, 408 mm)”
Claim · model-written summary
The yield equivalence between one and two irrigations did not hold in the dry season.
- Taxon
- Cereal foragese1
- Treatment
- irrigated oncee1
- Outcome
- yieldede1
- Qualifier
- dry growing season (2001–2002, 245 mm)e0
- Comparator
- watered twicee1
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“but not in a dry growing season (2001–2002, 245 mm)”
e1“Cereal forages irrigated once in a growing season yielded equally to those watered twice”
Claim · model-written summary
Forage nutritive components were greatest with one irrigation in 2001–2002.
Verbatim
e0“levels of forage nutritive components were greatest when irrigated once in 2001–2002”
e1“Cereal forages irrigated once in a growing season yielded equally to those watered twice”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter pea intercropping reduced wheat yield relative to monoculture.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Intercropping with winter peae0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- monoculturese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping with winter pea [ Pisum sativum subsp. arvense (L.) Poir] or hairy vetch ( Vicia villosa Roth.) reduced yield of wheat and triticale compared with monocultures”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter pea intercropping reduced triticale yield relative to monoculture.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- Intercropping with winter peae0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- monoculturese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping with winter pea [ Pisum sativum subsp. arvense (L.) Poir] or hairy vetch ( Vicia villosa Roth.) reduced yield of wheat and triticale compared with monocultures”
Claim · model-written summary
Hairy vetch intercropping reduced wheat yield relative to monoculture.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- hairy vetche0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- monoculturese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping with winter pea [ Pisum sativum subsp. arvense (L.) Poir] or hairy vetch ( Vicia villosa Roth.) reduced yield of wheat and triticale compared with monocultures”
Claim · model-written summary
Hairy vetch intercropping reduced triticale yield relative to monoculture.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- hairy vetche0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- monoculturese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping with winter pea [ Pisum sativum subsp. arvense (L.) Poir] or hairy vetch ( Vicia villosa Roth.) reduced yield of wheat and triticale compared with monocultures”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped wheat and triticale yields remained above other cereal forage yields.
- Taxon
- wheat and triticaleTriticum aestivum×Triticosecalee1
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- other cereal foragese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“these yields were still greater than those of the other cereal forages”
e1“yield of wheat and triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter pea improved quality indicators when intercropped with wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- winter peae0
- Outcome
- quality indicatorse0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“winter pea improved quality indicators when intercropped with wheat or triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Winter pea improved quality indicators when intercropped with triticale.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- winter peae0
- Outcome
- quality indicatorse0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“winter pea improved quality indicators when intercropped with wheat or triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Irrigate cereals as needed for germination or fall growth to conserve water.
Verbatim
e0“Water can be conserved in the Southern High Plains by irrigating cereals only as needed for germination or to promote fall growth.”
The same questions in other papers
Vicia villosa · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →Vicia villosa · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
intercropping · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
57 papers in the same direction as this paper · 131 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
185 papers more in this group
See all 189 papers →intercropping · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 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.