Paper · 2013 · Journal of Agricultural Science

Root Distribution and N Acquisition in an Alfalfa and Corn Intercropping System

Guiguo Zhang; Chongyu Zhang; Zaibin Yang; et al.

9
claims
11
verbatim quotes
40
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Little attention has been paid to root distribution in combined perennial legume and annual cereal crops. The main objectives of this study were to explore the regularity of root distribution and the influence on nitrogen (N) acquisition in different alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and corn (Zea mays L.) intercropping patterns. A three year (2007–2009) field experiment studied four intercropping patterns of alternating alfalfa and corn rows with alfalfa:corn rows sown at 2:2, 3:2, 4:2, and 5:2. Sole crops of corn and alfalfa were used as controls. Roots were sampled over 3 consecutive years by auger sampling method in the prime filling stage of corn from different soil depth, and the root length density (RLD) was used to describe the root spatial distribution of intercropped alfalfa and corn. The results showed that the alfalfa/corn intercropping system had the greater RLD values compared to the sole cropped alfalfa or corn. In addition, the root mass centre of intercropped alfalfa descended into deeper soil layers with advancing stand age, and likewise proliferated laterally towards associated corn rows. Whereas the corn root mass spread at relative shallow soil profile, and also more deployed laterally to neighboring alfalfa root zone. The gap between alfalfa and corn rows was the highest colonized area with greater intermingling and the highest RLD of both species root. The complementary and compatibility of the root spatial distribution of component crops in alfalfa/corn community were the essential cause for better biomass yield.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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 9

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The alfalfa/corn intercropping system had greater root length density than sole-cropped alfalfa or corn.

Treatment
alfalfa/corn intercropping systeme1
Outcome
RLD valuese1
Direction
greatere1
Comparator
sole cropped alfalfa or corne1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗
Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e1

“The results showed that the alfalfa/corn intercropping system had the greater RLD values compared to the sole cropped alfalfa or corn”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 801–934 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The root mass centre of intercropped alfalfa descended into deeper soil layers with advancing stand age.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae2
Treatment
advancing stand agee2
Outcome
root mass centree2
Direction
descendede2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e2

“the root mass centre of intercropped alfalfa descended into deeper soil layers with advancing stand age”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 949–1052 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropped alfalfa roots proliferated laterally towards the associated corn rows.

Taxon
alfalfaMedicago sativae0
Outcome
proliferated laterallye3
Qualifier
towards associated corn rowse3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e3

“likewise proliferated laterally towards associated corn rows”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1058–1118 · show in text ↑
e0

“alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) and corn (Zea mays L.) intercropping patterns”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 251–325 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The corn root mass spread at a relatively shallow soil profile.

Outcome
root mass spreade4
Qualifier
at relative shallow soil profilee4

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e4

“Whereas the corn root mass spread at relative shallow soil profile”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1120–1186 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Corn roots were more deployed laterally towards the neighboring alfalfa root zone.

Outcome
more deployed laterallye5
Qualifier
neighboring alfalfa root zonee5

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e5

“more deployed laterally to neighboring alfalfa root zone”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1197–1253 · show in text ↑
e4

“Whereas the corn root mass spread at relative shallow soil profile”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1120–1186 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The gap between alfalfa and corn rows was the most intensively colonized area.

Outcome
colonized areae6
Direction
higheste6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗
Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e6

“The gap between alfalfa and corn rows was the highest colonized area with greater intermingling and the highest RLD of both species root”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1255–1391 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root intermingling between alfalfa and corn was greater in the gap between rows.

Outcome
interminglinge6
Direction
greatere6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗
Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e6

“The gap between alfalfa and corn rows was the highest colonized area with greater intermingling and the highest RLD of both species root”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1255–1391 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Root length density of both species was highest in the gap between alfalfa and corn rows.

Outcome
RLDe6
Direction
higheste6

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗
Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e6

“The gap between alfalfa and corn rows was the highest colonized area with greater intermingling and the highest RLD of both species root”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1255–1391 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Complementary and compatible root distribution of the component crops is the essential cause of better biomass yield in the alfalfa/corn community (author interpretation).

Outcome
better biomass yielde7
Qualifier
complementary and compatibility of the root spatial distributione7

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Medicago sativa
Medicago sativa · TaxonDrepanostoma · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗
Zea mays subsp. mays
Zea mays subsp. mays · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e7

“The complementary and compatibility of the root spatial distribution of component crops in alfalfa/corn community were the essential cause for better biomass yield”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1393–1556 · show in text ↑

Zea mays subsp. mays · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

3 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

Medicago sativa · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

8 papers: 5 positive, 3 negative or no effect

4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

4 papers more in this group

See all 8 papers →

Zea mays subsp. mays · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

94 papers: 60 positive, 34 negative or no effect

59 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

90 papers more in this group

See all 94 papers →

intercropping · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ

184 papers: 138 positive, 46 negative or no effect

137 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. negative

180 papers more in this group

See all 184 papers →

intercropping · growth · Medicago sativa (alfalfa)Positive and negative results

20 papers: 13 positive, 7 negative or no effect

12 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative

16 papers more in this group

See all 20 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.