Abstract
Abstract Field experiments were carried out under unstressed conditions of soil water during two summer crop growing seasons (1998–99 and 1999–2000 seasons) in a South African semi‐arid region (Bloemfontein, Free State, South Africa). The aim of this study was to investigate shade effects on beans intercropped with maize in terms of plant mass and radiation use. The experimental treatments were two cropping systems (no shading/sole cropping and shading/intercropping) and two row orientations (north–south and east–west). At the top of bean canopies shaded by maize, incident radiation was reduced by up to 90 %. Shading reduced total dry matter of beans by 67 % at the end of the growing season, resulting in yield losses. The dry matter partitioning into leaf and stem (the ratios of leaf and stem to total biomass) was about 50 % higher in intercropping than sole cropping. In contrast, intercropped beans had 40 % lower dry matter partitioning into pod (the ratio of pod to total biomass). Fraction of radiation intercepted by sole‐cropped beans steeply increased until canopy closure (0.9) and then slowly decreased, while fraction of radiation intercepted by intercropped beans remained constant between 0.0 and 0.2 throughout the growing seasons. However, intercropped beans had 77 % higher radiation use efficiency (RUE) than sole‐cropped beans. In contrast, for maize, no effect of intercropping (shading) was found on growth, partitioning, yield, radiation interception or RUE. Consequently, lower bean yield losses can be attained in association with late shading rather than early shading. This can be controlled by growing crops with different temporal and spatial treatments. As regards row treatment, no effect of row direction was found on growth, partitioning, yield, radiation interception or RUE.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
Maize shading reduced incident radiation at bean canopies by up to 90%.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“At the top of bean canopies shaded by maize, incident radiation was reduced by up to 90 %.”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading reduced bean dry matter by 67%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Shading reduced total dry matter of beans by 67 % at the end of the growing season”
e2“Shading reduced total dry matter of beans by 67 % at the end of the growing season”
Claim · model-written summary
Shading resulted in bean yield losses.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Shading reduced total dry matter of beans by 67 % at the end of the growing season, resulting in yield losses”
e2“Shading reduced total dry matter of beans by 67 % at the end of the growing season”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased bean dry matter partitioning to leaf and stem by about 50%.
Verbatim
e0“The dry matter partitioning into leaf and stem (the ratios of leaf and stem to total biomass) was about 50 % higher in intercropping than sole cropping.”
t0“Shade Effects on Phaseolus vulgaris L. Intercropped with Zea mays L. under Well‐Watered Conditions”
e2“Shading reduced total dry matter of beans by 67 % at the end of the growing season”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping lowered bean pod dry matter partitioning by 40%.
- Taxon
- beanse2
- Treatment
- intercroppede0
- Outcome
- dry matter partitioning into pode0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 40 %e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“intercropped beans had 40 % lower dry matter partitioning into pod”
e2“Shading reduced total dry matter of beans by 67 % at the end of the growing season”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole bean radiation interception increased to canopy closure then decreased.
Verbatim
e0“Fraction of radiation intercepted by sole‐cropped beans steeply increased until canopy closure (0.9) and then slowly decreased”
e2“Shading reduced total dry matter of beans by 67 % at the end of the growing season”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped bean radiation interception stayed at 0.0 to 0.2 across seasons.
Verbatim
e0“fraction of radiation intercepted by intercropped beans remained constant between 0.0 and 0.2 throughout the growing seasons”
e2“Shading reduced total dry matter of beans by 67 % at the end of the growing season”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped bean radiation use efficiency was 77% higher than sole cropping.
Verbatim
e0“intercropped beans had 77 % higher radiation use efficiency (RUE) than sole‐cropped beans”
e2“Shading reduced total dry matter of beans by 67 % at the end of the growing season”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping did not affect maize growth, partitioning, or yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for maize, no effect of intercropping (shading) was found on growth, partitioning, yield, radiation interception or RUE”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping did not affect maize radiation interception or radiation use efficiency.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for maize, no effect of intercropping (shading) was found on growth, partitioning, yield, radiation interception or RUE”
Claim · model-written summary
Row direction did not affect growth, partitioning, or yield.
- Taxon
- Phaseolus vulgaris L.
Phaseolus vulgarist0 - Treatment
- row directione0
- Outcome
- growth, partitioning, yielde0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no effect of row direction was found on growth, partitioning, yield, radiation interception or RUE”
t0“Shade Effects on Phaseolus vulgaris L. Intercropped with Zea mays L. under Well‐Watered Conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Row direction did not affect radiation interception or RUE.
- Taxon
- Phaseolus vulgaris L.Phaseolus vulgarist0
- Treatment
- row directione0
- Outcome
- radiation interception or RUEe0
- Direction
- no effecte0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“no effect of row direction was found on growth, partitioning, yield, radiation interception or RUE”
t0“Shade Effects on Phaseolus vulgaris L. Intercropped with Zea mays L. under Well‐Watered Conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
Later shading is recommended to reduce bean yield losses.
Verbatim
e0“lower bean yield losses can be attained in association with late shading rather than early shading”
e2“Shading reduced total dry matter of beans by 67 % at the end of the growing season”
The same questions in other papers
shade · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
43 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
42 papers more in this group
See all 46 papers →shade · yield · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
49 papers more in this group
See all 53 papers →intercropping · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 138 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 papers →shade · growth · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →shade · yield · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →intercropping · growth · Phaseolus vulgaris (common bean)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
220 papers in the same direction as this paper · 613 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- 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.