Abstract
ABSTRACT Intercropping is shown to have yield advantages compared with sole cropping, but it is unknown how much yield advantage is due to belowground interspecies interactions. Here we determined grain yield, land equivalent ratio (LER), and water use efficiency (WUE) of maize ( Zea mays L.)–pea ( Pisum sativum L.) intercropping and quantified the magnitude of the contribution by belowground interspecies interactions. Field experiments were conducted at Wuwei (37°96′ N, 102°64′ E), northwest China, in 2009 and 2010. Treatments included sole maize, sole pea, and three maize–pea intercropping systems that, respectively, had no root‐barrier (M–P), plastic sheet barrier (PM–P), and nylon mesh barrier (NM–P). The plastic sheet and nylon mesh barriers were vertically placed to 1‐m deep between the two intercrop strips; this allowed the quantification of belowground interspecies interactions. On a per hectare basis, the maize–pea intercropping increased grain yields by an average of 31.3% and improved WUE by 21.9% compared with the corresponding sole maize and sole pea. The LER value was 1.33 for the M–P system, suggesting that the grain yield produced by the maize–pea intercrops per hectare is equivalent to the yield that sole crops would produce with 33% additional farmland. The M–P system had the yield of 11,034 kg ha −1 , which was 21.9% greater compared with the PM–P system and 9.7% greater compared with the NM–P system. The comparison of the three intercropping systems revealed that belowground interspecies interactions contributed 59.3% of the increased yields and 88.9% of the improved WUE. Of the increased yield, about 40% was due to water movement between the two strips and the remaining 19% was due to root overlapping activity. We conclude that sharing resources in the rooting zones between the intercrops serve as a major mechanism responsible for the large yield and WUE advantages for the maize–pea intercropping in arid areas.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Maize–pea intercropping increased grain yield by an average of 31.3% relative to sole crops.
- Taxon
- maize–pea
Lathyrus oleraceus
Zea mayse0 - Treatment
- maize–pea intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 31.3%e0
- Comparator
- corresponding sole maize and sole peae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the maize–pea intercropping increased grain yields by an average of 31.3% and improved WUE by 21.9% compared with the corresponding sole maize and sole pea”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize–pea intercropping improved WUE by 21.9% relative to sole crops.
- Taxon
- maize–peaLathyrus oleraceusZea mayse0
- Treatment
- maize–pea intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- WUEe0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 21.9%e0
- Comparator
- corresponding sole maize and sole peae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the maize–pea intercropping increased grain yields by an average of 31.3% and improved WUE by 21.9% compared with the corresponding sole maize and sole pea”
Claim · model-written summary
The no-barrier intercropping system had a land equivalent ratio of 1.33.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The LER value was 1.33 for the M–P system”
t0“Maize–Pea Intercropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The M–P system yielded 11,034 kg ha −1.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The M–P system had the yield of 11,034 kg ha −1”
t0“Maize–Pea Intercropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The M–P yield was 21.9% greater than PM–P.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeaLathyrus oleraceusZea mayst0
- Treatment
- M–P systeme0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 21.9%e0
- Comparator
- PM–P systeme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The M–P system had the yield of 11,034 kg ha −1 , which was 21.9% greater compared with the PM–P system and 9.7% greater compared with the NM–P system”
t0“Maize–Pea Intercropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The M–P yield was 9.7% greater than NM–P.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeaLathyrus oleraceusZea mayst0
- Treatment
- M–P systeme0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Value
- 9.7%e0
- Comparator
- NM–P systeme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The M–P system had the yield of 11,034 kg ha −1 , which was 21.9% greater compared with the PM–P system and 9.7% greater compared with the NM–P system”
t0“Maize–Pea Intercropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Belowground interactions contributed 59.3% of increased yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“belowground interspecies interactions contributed 59.3% of the increased yields and 88.9% of the improved WUE”
t0“Maize–Pea Intercropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Belowground interactions contributed 88.9% of improved WUE.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“belowground interspecies interactions contributed 59.3% of the increased yields and 88.9% of the improved WUE”
t0“Maize–Pea Intercropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Water movement between strips accounted for about 40% of increased yield.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeaLathyrus oleraceusZea mayst0
- Outcome
- increased yielde0
- Value
- about 40%e0
- Qualifier
- water movement between the two stripse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Of the increased yield, about 40% was due to water movement between the two strips”
t0“Maize–Pea Intercropping Systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Root overlap accounted for the remaining 19% of increased yield.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeaLathyrus oleraceusZea mayst0
- Outcome
- increased yielde0
- Value
- 19%e0
- Qualifier
- root overlapping activitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Of the increased yield, about 40% was due to water movement between the two strips and the remaining 19% was due to root overlapping activity”
t0“Maize–Pea Intercropping Systems”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →intercropping · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
612 papers in the same direction as this paper · 181 in the opposite direction · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 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.