Abstract
Abstract Two intercrop patterns and sole crops of mustard ( Brassica hirta Moench) and sunflower ( Helianthus annuus L.) were planted in 1988 and 1989 on a Waukegan silt loam soil (fine‐silty over sandy or sandyskeletal, mixed, mesic Typic Hapludoll) at Rosemount, MN, to examine mechanisms for overyielding [Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) > 1.0] in this intercrop system. We hypothesized that reduced competition between species for N and water were the mechanisms for previously observed yield benefits in both crops. Secondary objectives were to examine the importance of intercrop structure and N fertilizers on resource use and yield advantage. A strip intercrop pattern where 2.28‐m strips of sunflower (76‐cm rows) alternated with 2.28‐ m strips of mustard (15‐cm rows) was compared with a more intimate row intercrop pattern of 76‐cm sunflower rows interplanted with four 15‐cm rows of mustard. Nitrogen was applied at planting at 0 or 112 kg N ha− 1 to whole plots, with planting patterns allocated to subplots in a split‐plot design. Soil water content, nitrate N, and total N were measured at different locations and depths in the intercrop and sole crop patterns during the growing season. Mustard rows adjacent to sunflower in the strip intercrop yielded an average of 61% more than sole crop rows. Sunflower rows adjacent to mustard in the strip intercrop yielded an average of 40% more than sole crop rows. Yields of both sunflower and mustard were lower in the row intercrop compared with respective sole crops. Land equivalent ratios ranged from 0.96 to 1.43 in the strip intercrop and were generally below 1.0 in the row intercrop. Application of N did not consistently affect LER. Soil depletion patterns indicated that border rows of mustard obtained both soil water and N from the strips planted to sunflower at a time when demand for these resources by sunflower was low. Sunflower border rows obtained water and N from mustard strips later in the season. These data implicate complementary use of water and N as important mechanisms for the positive land equivalent ratio observed in this strip intercrop.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Mustard border rows in strip intercrops yielded 61% more than sole mustard rows.
- Taxon
- mustarde0
- Treatment
- strip intercrope0
- Interactor
- sunflower
Helianthus annuuse0other - Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 61%e0
- Comparator
- sole crop rowse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Mustard rows adjacent to sunflower in the strip intercrop yielded an average of 61% more than sole crop rows.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sunflower border rows in strip intercrops yielded 40% more than sole sunflower rows.
- Taxon
- SunflowerHelianthus annuuse0
- Treatment
- strip intercrope0
- Interactor
- mustarde0other
- Outcome
- yieldede0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 40%e0
- Comparator
- sole crop rowse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sunflower rows adjacent to mustard in the strip intercrop yielded an average of 40% more than sole crop rows.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sunflower yield was lower in row intercrops than sole crops.
- Taxon
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse0
- Treatment
- row intercrope0
- Interactor
- mustarde0other
- Outcome
- Yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- respective sole cropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields of both sunflower and mustard were lower in the row intercrop compared with respective sole crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mustard yield was lower in row intercrops than sole crops.
- Taxon
- mustarde0
- Treatment
- row intercrope0
- Interactor
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse0other
- Outcome
- Yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- respective sole cropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yields of both sunflower and mustard were lower in the row intercrop compared with respective sole crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip intercrop land equivalent ratios ranged from 0.96 to 1.43.
- Taxon
- Sunflower/Mustardt0
- Treatment
- strip intercrope0
- Outcome
- Land equivalent ratiose0
- Value
- 0.96 to 1.43e0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Verbatim
e0“Land equivalent ratios ranged from 0.96 to 1.43 in the strip intercrop”
t0“Sunflower/Mustard”
Claim · model-written summary
Row intercrop land equivalent ratios were generally below 1.0.
- Taxon
- Sunflower/Mustardt0
- Treatment
- row intercrope0
- Outcome
- Land equivalent ratiose0
- Direction
- belowe0
- Value
- 1.0e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Land equivalent ratios ranged from 0.96 to 1.43 in the strip intercrop and were generally below 1.0 in the row intercrop.”
t0“Sunflower/Mustard”
Claim · model-written summary
Nitrogen application did not consistently affect land equivalent ratios.
- Taxon
- Sunflower/Mustardt0
- Treatment
- Application of Ne0
- Outcome
- LERe0
- Direction
- did not consistently affecte0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Application of N did not consistently affect LER.”
t0“Sunflower/Mustard”
Claim · model-written summary
Mustard border rows drew soil water from sunflower strips when sunflower demand was low.
- Taxon
- mustarde0
- Interactor
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse0other
- Outcome
- soil watere0
- Qualifier
- demand for these resources by sunflower was lowe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“border rows of mustard obtained both soil water and N from the strips planted to sunflower at a time when demand for these resources by sunflower was low.”
Claim · model-written summary
Mustard border rows drew nitrogen from sunflower strips when sunflower demand was low.
- Taxon
- mustarde0
- Interactor
- sunflowerHelianthus annuuse0other
- Outcome
- Ne0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“border rows of mustard obtained both soil water and N from the strips planted to sunflower at a time when demand for these resources by sunflower was low.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sunflower border rows drew water from mustard strips later in the season.
- Taxon
- SunflowerHelianthus annuuse0
- Interactor
- mustarde0other
- Outcome
- watere0
- Qualifier
- later in the seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sunflower border rows obtained water and N from mustard strips later in the season.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sunflower border rows drew nitrogen from mustard strips later in the season.
- Taxon
- SunflowerHelianthus annuuse0
- Interactor
- mustarde0other
- Outcome
- Ne0
- Qualifier
- later in the seasone0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Sunflower border rows obtained water and N from mustard strips later in the season.”
Claim · model-written summary
Complementary water and nitrogen use was implicated in the positive strip-intercrop land equivalent ratio.
Verbatim
e0“These data implicate complementary use of water and N as important mechanisms for the positive land equivalent ratio observed in this strip intercrop.”
t0“Sunflower/Mustard”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Helianthus annuus (common sunflower)Positive and negative results
24 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 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.