Abstract
Crop compatibility is the most essential factor in a feasible intercropping system. Thus the success of any intercropping system depends on the selection of crop species which competes for light, space, moisture and nutrients between them. The combination of a non-leguminous species with a leguminous one might be expected to generate yield advantages over sole cropping since their canopy architectures are different. Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios viz., sole Lentil, sole Mustard, Lentil + Mustard (1:1), Lentil + Mustard (2:1), Lentil + Mustard (4:1), Lentil + Mustard (6:1), Lentil + Mustard (2:2), Lentil + Mustard (4:2), Lentil + Mustard (6:2) and Lentil + Mustard (4:4) during the winter season of 2009-10 and 2010-11 to assess the compatibility of lentil and mustard plants in intercrop association and to evaluate spatial intercropping systems for their profitable production. The competitive behavior of component crops in different intercropping systems was determined in terms of land equivalent ratio (LER), relative crowding coefficient (RCC), aggressivity, competitive ratio (CR) and monetary advantage index (MAI). The result revealed that lentil + mustard under 6:1 and 6:2 intercropping system were found to be more economical and had highest monetary advantage index (193.93 and 184.33). The lowest competitive ratio for lentil and mustard were 0.44 and 2.27 respectively. Among the different row ratios of lentil and mustard, 6:1 has the highest aggressivity value (0.205) for both lentil and mustard followed by 4:2 (0.162) and the lowest in 4:4 (0.003) showing that mustard was a better competitor in 6:1 than 4:4. The relative crowding co-efficient of lentil was greater than in all the treatments except 1:1 row ratio indicating yield advantage compared with their monoculture due to mutual cooperation. Lentil + mustard intercropping under 4:2 recorded the highest land equivalent ratio (1.35). The available nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) after the harvest of crops were significantly improved under 6:1 row ratio of lentil + mustard. Similarly, water use efficiency was also higher (3.75 kg ha-1 mm-1) under 6:1 and 6:2 (3.73 kg ha-1 mm-1) than sole lentil (2.38 kg ha-1 mm-1) and mustard (3.41kg ha-1 mm-1). It might be due to proportionately higher grain yield of both the crops than the amount of water used for individual crop yield. Moisture depletion from deeper layers were observed under sole mustard and lentil + mustard (1:1) intercropping system due to moisture stress in the upper 0-30 cm soil profile, compelling the root to go deeper in search of moisture.
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 16
Claim · model-written summary
Lentil + mustard at 4:2 gave the highest land equivalent ratio, 1.35.
- Taxon
- lentil
Lens culinarise0 - Treatment
- Lentil + mustard intercropping under 4:2e1
- Outcome
- land equivalent ratioe1
- Direction
- higheste1
- Value
- 1.35e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e1“Lentil + mustard intercropping under 4:2 recorded the highest land equivalent ratio (1.35)”
Claim · model-written summary
Lentil + mustard under 6:1 and 6:2 intercropping was more economical.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Treatment
- lentil + mustard under 6:1 and 6:2 intercropping systeme2
- Outcome
- economicale2
- Direction
- moree2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e2“lentil + mustard under 6:1 and 6:2 intercropping system were found to be more economical and had highest monetary advantage index (193.93 and 184.33)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 6:1 row ratio had the highest monetary advantage index, 193.93.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Treatment
- 6:1e2
- Outcome
- monetary advantage indexe2
- Direction
- higheste2
- Value
- 193.93e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e2“lentil + mustard under 6:1 and 6:2 intercropping system were found to be more economical and had highest monetary advantage index (193.93 and 184.33)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 6:2 row ratio had the highest monetary advantage index, 184.33.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise0
- Treatment
- 6:2e2
- Outcome
- monetary advantage indexe2
- Direction
- higheste2
- Value
- 184.33e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e2“lentil + mustard under 6:1 and 6:2 intercropping system were found to be more economical and had highest monetary advantage index (193.93 and 184.33)”
Claim · model-written summary
The lowest competitive ratio for lentil was 0.44.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise3
- Outcome
- competitive ratioe3
- Direction
- loweste3
- Value
- 0.44e3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e3“The lowest competitive ratio for lentil and mustard were 0.44 and 2.27 respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The lowest competitive ratio for mustard was 2.27.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e3“The lowest competitive ratio for lentil and mustard were 0.44 and 2.27 respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
The 6:1 row ratio had the highest aggressivity value, 0.205, for both lentil and mustard.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e4“Among the different row ratios of lentil and mustard, 6:1 has the highest aggressivity value (0.205) for both lentil and mustard followed by 4:2 (0.162) and the lowest in 4:4 (0.003)”
Claim · model-written summary
The 4:4 row ratio had the lowest aggressivity value, 0.003, for mustard.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e4“Among the different row ratios of lentil and mustard, 6:1 has the highest aggressivity value (0.205) for both lentil and mustard followed by 4:2 (0.162) and the lowest in 4:4 (0.003)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mustard was a better competitor in 6:1 than in 4:4.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e5“showing that mustard was a better competitor in 6:1 than 4:4”
Claim · model-written summary
The relative crowding coefficient of lentil was greater than in all treatments except 1:1 row ratio, indicating yield advantage.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise6
- Outcome
- relative crowding co-efficiente6
- Direction
- greatere6
- Qualifier
- indicating yield advantagee6
- Comparator
- all the treatments except 1:1 row ratioe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e6“The relative crowding co-efficient of lentil was greater than in all the treatments except 1:1 row ratio indicating yield advantage compared with their monoculture due to mutual cooperation”
Claim · model-written summary
The 6:1 row ratio of lentil + mustard significantly improved available N, P and K after harvest.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise7
- Treatment
- 6:1 row ratio of lentil + mustarde7
- Outcome
- available nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K)e7
- Direction
- improvede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e7“The available nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) after the harvest of crops were significantly improved under 6:1 row ratio of lentil + mustard”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency under 6:1 was higher than under sole lentil.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise1
- Treatment
- 6:1e1
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 3.75 kg ha-1 mm-1e1
- Qualifier
- 2.38 kg ha-1 mm-1e1
- Comparator
- sole lentile1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e1“water use efficiency was also higher (3.75 kg ha-1 mm-1) under 6:1 and 6:2 (3.73 kg ha-1 mm-1) than sole lentil (2.38 kg ha-1 mm-1) and mustard (3.41kg ha-1 mm-1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency under 6:1 was higher than under sole mustard.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise1
- Treatment
- 6:1e1
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 3.75 kg ha-1 mm-1e1
- Qualifier
- 3.41kg ha-1 mm-1e1
- Comparator
- mustarde1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e1“water use efficiency was also higher (3.75 kg ha-1 mm-1) under 6:1 and 6:2 (3.73 kg ha-1 mm-1) than sole lentil (2.38 kg ha-1 mm-1) and mustard (3.41kg ha-1 mm-1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency under 6:2 was higher than under sole lentil.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise1
- Treatment
- 6:2e1
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 3.73 kg ha-1 mm-1e1
- Qualifier
- 2.38 kg ha-1 mm-1e1
- Comparator
- sole lentile1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e1“water use efficiency was also higher (3.75 kg ha-1 mm-1) under 6:1 and 6:2 (3.73 kg ha-1 mm-1) than sole lentil (2.38 kg ha-1 mm-1) and mustard (3.41kg ha-1 mm-1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency under 6:2 was higher than under sole mustard.
- Taxon
- lentilLens culinarise1
- Treatment
- 6:2e1
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye1
- Direction
- highere1
- Value
- 3.73 kg ha-1 mm-1e1
- Qualifier
- 3.41kg ha-1 mm-1e1
- Comparator
- mustarde1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Thus a field experiment was conducted on intercropping of lentil and mustard in varying row ratios”
e1“water use efficiency was also higher (3.75 kg ha-1 mm-1) under 6:1 and 6:2 (3.73 kg ha-1 mm-1) than sole lentil (2.38 kg ha-1 mm-1) and mustard (3.41kg ha-1 mm-1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Moisture was depleted from deeper soil layers under sole mustard and lentil + mustard (1:1) because of moisture stress in the upper 0-30 cm.
- Taxon
- mustarde2
- Treatment
- sole mustard and lentil + mustard (1:1) intercropping systeme2
- Outcome
- Moisture depletion from deeper layerse2
- Qualifier
- due to moisture stress in the upper 0-30 cm soil profilee2
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e2“Moisture depletion from deeper layers were observed under sole mustard and lentil + mustard (1:1) intercropping system due to moisture stress in the upper 0-30 cm soil profile”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Lens culinaris (lentil)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
30 papers more in this group
See all 34 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.