Paper · 2006 · Agronomy Journal

Nitrogen Yield and Land Use Efficiency in Annual Sole Crops and Intercrops

Anthony R. Szumigalski; Rene C. Van Acker

8
claims
10
verbatim quotes
81
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Nitrogen is the most limiting nutrient for crop production on the northern Great Plains of North America. This study was initiated to determine if N yield and land use efficiency for N could be improved by manipulating crop diversity using three annual crops (wheat, Triticum aestivum L.; canola, Brassica napus L.; and field pea, Pisum arvense L.) commonly grown on the Canadian Prairies. The study included all combinations of the crops (sole crops and intercrops) and compared their effects on soil N depletion, plant N concentration, plant N yield, and land equivalent ratios for dry matter and grain N yield (NLER) at two field sites in Manitoba, Canada. The pea sole crop treatment tended to result in higher fall soil nitrate (NO 3 − )–N concentrations compared to other treatments, indicating greater potential for post‐season NO 3 − leaching after this treatment. There were often greater N concentrations in wheat, canola, and weeds when grown in association with field pea, suggesting that soil N could have been made available for nonlegume uptake through the NO 3 − –N sparing effect On average, most intercrop treatments resulted in more efficient land use for N compared to component sole crops, with overall mean intercrop NLER values ranging from 1.10 to 1.20. The wheat–canola–pea and canola–pea intercrop treatments tended to produce the highest and most consistent NLER values for crop dry matter and grain yield, respectively. The results of this study suggest that intercrops could be used for more efficient use of N on a per land area basis.

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 8

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sole field pea tended to leave higher fall soil nitrate than other treatments.

Treatment
pea sole crop treatmente0
Outcome
fall soil nitrate (NO 3 − )–N concentrationse0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
other treatmentse0

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

Lathyrus oleraceus
Lathyrus oleraceus · TaxonRenee Comet (photographer) AV Number: AV-9400-4164 · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The pea sole crop treatment tended to result in higher fall soil nitrate (NO 3 − )–N concentrations compared to other treatments”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 660–788 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Wheat nitrogen concentration was often greater when grown with field pea.

Treatment
grown in association with field peae0
Outcome
N concentrationse0
Direction
greatere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There were often greater N concentrations in wheat, canola, and weeds when grown in association with field pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 873–983 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Canola nitrogen concentration was often greater when grown with field pea.

Treatment
grown in association with field peae0
Outcome
N concentrationse0
Direction
greatere0

Not reportedComparator

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“There were often greater N concentrations in wheat, canola, and weeds when grown in association with field pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 873–983 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Weed nitrogen concentration was often greater when grown with field pea.

Taxon
weedse0
Treatment
grown in association with field peae0
Interactor
field peae0other
Outcome
N concentrationse0
Direction
greatere0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“There were often greater N concentrations in wheat, canola, and weeds when grown in association with field pea”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 873–983 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Most intercrops used land more efficiently for nitrogen than sole crops, with mean NLER from 1.10 to 1.20.

Treatment
intercrop treatmentse0
Outcome
land use for Ne0
Direction
more efficiente0
Value
1.10 to 1.20e0
Comparator
component sole cropse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“most intercrop treatments resulted in more efficient land use for N compared to component sole crops, with overall mean intercrop NLER values ranging from 1.10 to 1.20.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1109–1277 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat, Triticum aestivum L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 260–287 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The wheat–canola–pea intercrop tended to have the highest and most consistent dry matter NLER.

Treatment
wheat–canola–peae0
Outcome
NLER values for crop dry mattere0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
tendede0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The wheat–canola–pea and canola–pea intercrop treatments tended to produce the highest and most consistent NLER values for crop dry matter and grain yield, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1278–1447 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The canola–pea intercrop tended to have the highest and most consistent grain yield NLER.

Treatment
canola–pea intercrop treatmentse0
Outcome
grain yielde0
Direction
higheste0
Qualifier
tendede0

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

Brassica napus var. napus
Brassica napus var. napus · Taxoncontri from Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan · CC BY-SA 2.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The wheat–canola–pea and canola–pea intercrop treatments tended to produce the highest and most consistent NLER values for crop dry matter and grain yield, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1278–1447 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultbasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors suggest intercrops can use nitrogen more efficiently per land area.

Outcome
intercrops could be used for more efficient use of N on a per land area basise0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“intercrops could be used for more efficient use of N on a per land area basis.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1487–1565 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat, Triticum aestivum L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 260–287 · show in text ↑

intercropping · nutrient: content · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results

7 papers: 6 positive, 1 negative or no effect

6 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

3 papers more in this group

See all 7 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.