Abstract
Abstract Strip intercropping seeks to capture the biological efficiency of intercropping in traditional agricultural systems and is compatible with agricultural equipment used in the U.S. This efficiency stems from complementary use of resources by constituent crops and is a function of crop selection, strip width and orientation, weed control, and other factors. Strip intercropping requires a high level of management; further, some reports suggest the gains and losses more-or-less balance in actual production situations. These questions are best addressed by the performance of strip intercropping as implemented by farmers in production situations. Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI) members have worked with Iowa State University agronomists to evaluate strip intercropping. For three years six farmers compared strip intercropping to field blocks of individual crops. The strip intercrop systems employed three crops: corn, soybeans, and small grains with a forage legume underseeding. The comparison systems, crops grown in sole-crop blocks, consisted of the same three crops on four farms (planting pattern comparison) or, on two farms, just corn and soybeans in rotation (systems comparison). Yields and field operations were recorded and entered in the Iowa State University Crop Enterprise Record System (CER) to derive gross profit, total production cost, and net profit for each crop component and for each cropping system on every farm. Strip intercropping net profit was generally greater than that in field blocks, and intercropping compared favorably with CER results obtained from corn-soybean rotations on other farms around Iowa. Land equivalent ratios (LER) were usually greater than 1.0, indicating satisfactory biological efficiency. Despite occasional problems, in this set of 18 site-years strip intercropping was associated with greater stability of net profit.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Strip intercropping net profit was generally greater than that of field blocks of individual crops.
Verbatim
e0“The strip intercrop systems employed three crops: corn, soybeans, and small grains”
e1“Strip intercropping net profit was generally greater than that in field blocks”
Claim · model-written summary
Land equivalent ratios of strip intercropping were usually greater than 1.0.
Verbatim
e0“The strip intercrop systems employed three crops: corn, soybeans, and small grains”
e4“Land equivalent ratios (LER) were usually greater than 1.0”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip intercropping was associated with greater stability of net profit across 18 site-years.
Verbatim
e0“The strip intercrop systems employed three crops: corn, soybeans, and small grains”
e2“in this set of 18 site-years strip intercropping was associated with greater stability of net profit”
Claim · model-written summary
Strip intercropping net profit compared favorably with corn-soybean rotation results from other Iowa farms.
- Taxon
- corn
Zea mays subsp. mayse0 - Treatment
- intercroppinge3
- Outcome
- net profite1
- Direction
- compared favorablye3
- Comparator
- CER results obtained from corn-soybean rotations on other farmse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The strip intercrop systems employed three crops: corn, soybeans, and small grains”
e1“Strip intercropping net profit was generally greater than that in field blocks”
e3“intercropping compared favorably with CER results obtained from corn-soybean rotations on other farms around Iowa”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
612 papers in the same direction as this paper · 181 in the opposite direction · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
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.