Abstract
Abstract This study investigated the N and P uptake and yield performances of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) and maize (Zea mays) upon intercropping with 1- to 2-year-old poplar (Populus × euramericana cl. “74/76”) trees compared to a sole wheat and maize rotation in fertilized and unfertilized subplots. Aboveground biomass, grain yield, yield components, and N and P contents of wheat and maize were measured in each plot, in addition to soil available N and P. No significant differences in biomass, grain yield, and N and P uptake of wheat were found between the intercropping and sole-crop systems within the same fertilization treatment. Maize biomass and grain yield decreased by 37% and 31%, and 28% and 34% for the fertilized and unfertilized treatment at maize maturity in the same order. The N and P contents in maize intercropped with poplar were found to be significantly lower than in the sole-maize. For the fertilized treatment, intercropping with poplar led to significantly lower soil NO3-N and Olsen-P in the 0–20-cm layer during the active wheat growth period and a significant increase in soil NO3-N and Olsen-P during the active maize growth period due to less N and P uptake by maize. The poplar induced a decrease in soil NO3-N and Olsen-P during both wheat and maize season under unfertilized conditions, thereby influencing the yield and nutrient uptake of intercrops. Therefore, enough available nutrients had to be provided for the agroforestry systems, especially during the active growth period of intercrops. Keywords: maizenutrient uptakepoplarsemi-arid regionwheatyield The authors acknowledge the contributions of Prof. J. H. J. Spiertz of Wageningen University, The Netherlands, for his comments and advice. This study was financially supported by the Department of Science and Technology of Hebei Province, PR China under grant 03220169D. Notes a CEC-cation exchange capacity. a ±: standard deviation of the mean. Different lowercase letters within a column for one crop indicate significant differences at a level of p < 0.05. a ±: standard deviation of the mean. Different lowercase letters within a column for one crop indicate significant differences at a level of p < 0.05.
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
Wheat biomass, grain yield and N and P uptake did not differ significantly between intercropping and sole cropping at the same fertilization level.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- biomass, grain yield, and N and P uptakee0
- Direction
- No significant differencese0
- Qualifier
- within the same fertilization treatmente0
- Comparator
- sole-crop systemse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“No significant differences in biomass, grain yield, and N and P uptake of wheat were found between the intercropping and sole-crop systems within the same fertilization treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Poplar intercropping reduced fertilized maize biomass by 37%.
- Treatment
- Intercropped with Poplart0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 37%e0
- Qualifier
- fertilizede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize biomass and grain yield decreased by 37% and 31%, and 28% and 34% for the fertilized and unfertilized treatment at maize maturity in the same order.”
t0“Intercropped with Poplar”
Claim · model-written summary
Poplar intercropping reduced fertilized maize grain yield by 31%.
- Treatment
- Intercropped with Poplart0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 31%e0
- Qualifier
- fertilizede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize biomass and grain yield decreased by 37% and 31%, and 28% and 34% for the fertilized and unfertilized treatment at maize maturity in the same order.”
t0“Intercropped with Poplar”
Claim · model-written summary
Poplar intercropping reduced unfertilized maize biomass by 28%.
- Treatment
- Intercropped with Poplart0
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 28%e0
- Qualifier
- unfertilizede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize biomass and grain yield decreased by 37% and 31%, and 28% and 34% for the fertilized and unfertilized treatment at maize maturity in the same order.”
t0“Intercropped with Poplar”
Claim · model-written summary
Poplar intercropping reduced unfertilized maize grain yield by 34%.
- Treatment
- Intercropped with Poplart0
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 34%e0
- Qualifier
- unfertilizede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize biomass and grain yield decreased by 37% and 31%, and 28% and 34% for the fertilized and unfertilized treatment at maize maturity in the same order.”
t0“Intercropped with Poplar”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize had significantly lower N and P contents than sole maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The N and P contents in maize intercropped with poplar were found to be significantly lower than in the sole-maize.”
Claim · model-written summary
Under fertilization, poplar intercropping lowered soil NO3-N and Olsen-P during active wheat growth.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- intercropping with poplare0
- Outcome
- soil NO3-N and Olsen-Pe0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- 0–20-cm layer during the active wheat growth periode0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“For the fertilized treatment, intercropping with poplar led to significantly lower soil NO3-N and Olsen-P in the 0–20-cm layer during the active wheat growth period”
Claim · model-written summary
Under fertilization, poplar intercropping increased soil NO3-N and Olsen-P during active maize growth.
- Treatment
- Intercropped with Poplart0
- Outcome
- soil NO3-N and Olsen-Pe0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Qualifier
- during the active maize growth periode0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a significant increase in soil NO3-N and Olsen-P during the active maize growth period due to less N and P uptake by maize.”
t0“Intercropped with Poplar”
Claim · model-written summary
Without fertilization, poplar decreased soil NO3-N and Olsen-P in both wheat and maize seasons.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivum
Zea mayse0 - Treatment
- poplare0
- Outcome
- soil NO3-N and Olsen-Pe0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Qualifier
- under unfertilized conditionse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The poplar induced a decrease in soil NO3-N and Olsen-P during both wheat and maize season under unfertilized conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend sufficient available nutrients for agroforestry, especially during intercrop active growth.
- Taxon
- Wheat and MaizeTriticum aestivumZea mayst0
- Outcome
- enough available nutrients had to be providede0
- Qualifier
- especially during the active growth period of intercropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“enough available nutrients had to be provided for the agroforestry systems, especially during the active growth period of intercrops.”
t0“Wheat and Maize”
The same questions in other 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 →intercropping · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
57 papers in the same direction as this paper · 131 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
185 papers more in this group
See all 189 papers →intercropping · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 122 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
137 papers more in this group
See all 141 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.