Abstract
The effect of intercropping on plant water status, gas exchange and productivity of maize (Zea mays L.) cv. Centralmex, and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. (Walp)) cv. Pitiuba were evaluated under semi-arid conditions at the Embrapa-Centro de Pesquisa Agropecuária do Trópico Semi-Árido (CPATSA) at Petrolina, PE, Brazil. The treatments were: maize and cowpea as sole crops, at a population of 40,000 plants ha-1, and intercropped at a population of 20,000 plants ha-1. The results obtained in this paper appear to be related to the degree of competition experienced by the components, mainly for water and light. Maize intercropped had higher values of leaf water potential, stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthesis than as sole crop. Intercropped cowpea had higher values of leaf water potential but lower stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthesis than sole cowpea. Maize productivity increased 18% in relation to sole crop whereas a 5% decrease was observed with cowpea. Despite these facts the Land Equivalent Ratio obtained was 1.13 indicating intercropping advantage over the sole system. The higher partial Land Equivalent Ratio observed for maize suggests that this specie was the main component influencing the final productivity of the intercropping system studied.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize had higher leaf water potential, stomatal conductance and transpiration than sole maize.
- Treatment
- intercroppede0
- Outcome
- leaf water potential, stomatal conductance, transpiratione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- sole crope0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize intercropped had higher values of leaf water potential, stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthesis than as sole crop.”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize had higher photosynthesis than sole maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize intercropped had higher values of leaf water potential, stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthesis than as sole crop.”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped cowpea had higher leaf water potential than sole cowpea.
- Taxon
- cowpea
Vigna unguiculatae0 - Treatment
- Intercroppede0
- Outcome
- leaf water potentiale0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- sole cowpeae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped cowpea had higher values of leaf water potential but lower stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthesis than sole cowpea.”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped cowpea had lower stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthesis.
- Taxon
- cowpeaVigna unguiculatae0
- Treatment
- Intercroppede0
- Outcome
- stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthesise0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- sole cowpeae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped cowpea had higher values of leaf water potential but lower stomatal conductance, transpiration and photosynthesis than sole cowpea.”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping raised maize productivity by 18%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize productivity increased 18% in relation to sole crop”
t0“Physiological responses of maize and cowpea to intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping lowered cowpea productivity by 5%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a 5% decrease was observed with cowpea”
t0“Physiological responses of maize and cowpea to intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
Land Equivalent Ratio was 1.13, indicating an intercropping advantage.
- Taxon
- maize and cowpeaVigna unguiculata
Zea mayst0 - Outcome
- Land Equivalent Ratioe0
- Value
- 1.13e0
- Comparator
- sole systeme0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Land Equivalent Ratio obtained was 1.13 indicating intercropping advantage over the sole system”
t0“Physiological responses of maize and cowpea to intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
The maize partial Land Equivalent Ratio was higher and maize was the main contributor to intercropping productivity.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The higher partial Land Equivalent Ratio observed for maize suggests that this specie was the main component influencing the final productivity of the intercropping system studied.”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · physiology: photosynthesis · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
intercropping · physiology: gas exchange · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →intercropping · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 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
- 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.