Effect of Intercropped Wheat Stubble Retention Patterns on Yield and WUE of Intercropped Corn

Abstract

Effects of different stubble retention patterns of intercropped wheat on intercropped corn yield,water consumption and WUE were explored via a filed experiment.The results showed that,compared with sole corn(SC),intercropped corn yields under conventional tillage with 25 cm stubble incorporated(W/C1),no-tillage with 25cm stubble mulch(W/C2),conventional tillage(W/C3) increased by 12.53%,17.44%,11.27%,and corn yield of W/C2 was significantly higher than those of W/C1 and W/C3.Intercropping increased water consumption of wheat/corn,while wheat stubble could significantly reduce water consumption of intercropped corn.Water consumption of intercropped corn under those three treatments increased by 12.86%,9.71%,16.95%,respectively,while those of W/C1 and W/C2 decreased by 3.63% and 6.61% compared with W/C3.Their WUE enhanced by 10.82%,22.92%,4.78% compared with sole corn;WUE of W/C2 was the highest among those three treatments,and was significantly higher than those of W/C1 and W/C3.No-tillage with 25 cm stubble mulch is an effective treatment to improve yield and WUE of intercropped corn.

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 15

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropped corn yield under conventional tillage with 25 cm stubble incorporated(W/C1) increased by 12.53% compared with sole corn.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: conventional tillage with 25 cm stubble incorporated(W/C1)e0
Outcome: intercropped corn yieldse0
Direction: increasede0
Value: 12.53%e0
Comparator: sole corn(SC)e0

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

*Zea mays subsp. mays* · TaxonDominicus Johannes Bergsma · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0
“compared with sole corn(SC),intercropped corn yields under conventional tillage with 25 cm stubble incorporated(W/C1),no-tillage with 25cm stubble mulch(W/C2),conventional tillage(W/C3) increased by 12.53%,17.44%,11.27%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 184–403 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropped corn yield under no-tillage with 25cm stubble mulch(W/C2) increased by 17.44% compared with sole corn.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: no-tillage with 25cm stubble mulch(W/C2)e0
Outcome: intercropped corn yieldse0
Direction: increasede0
Value: 17.44%e0
Comparator: sole corn(SC)e0

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

Verbatim

e0
“compared with sole corn(SC),intercropped corn yields under conventional tillage with 25 cm stubble incorporated(W/C1),no-tillage with 25cm stubble mulch(W/C2),conventional tillage(W/C3) increased by 12.53%,17.44%,11.27%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 184–403 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropped corn yield under conventional tillage(W/C3) increased by 11.27% compared with sole corn.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: conventional tillage(W/C3)e0
Outcome: intercropped corn yieldse0
Direction: increasede0
Value: 11.27%e0
Comparator: sole corn(SC)e0

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

Verbatim

e0
“compared with sole corn(SC),intercropped corn yields under conventional tillage with 25 cm stubble incorporated(W/C1),no-tillage with 25cm stubble mulch(W/C2),conventional tillage(W/C3) increased by 12.53%,17.44%,11.27%”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 184–403 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Corn yield under W/C2 was significantly higher than under W/C1 and W/C3.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: W/C2e0
Outcome: corn yielde0
Direction: highere0
Comparator: W/C1 and W/C3e0

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

Verbatim

e0
“corn yield of W/C2 was significantly higher than those of W/C1 and W/C3”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 408–479 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping increased water consumption of wheat/corn.

Taxon: wheat/cornTriticum aestivum Zea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: Intercroppinge0
Outcome: water consumptione0
Direction: increasede0

Not reportedComparator

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

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

Verbatim

e0
“Intercropping increased water consumption of wheat/corn”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 480–535 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water consumption of intercropped corn under conventional tillage with 25 cm stubble incorporated(W/C1) increased by 12.86%.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: conventional tillage with 25 cm stubble incorporated(W/C1)e1
Outcome: Water consumption of intercropped corne0
Direction: increasede0
Value: 12.86%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Verbatim

e0
“Water consumption of intercropped corn under those three treatments increased by 12.86%,9.71%,16.95%,respectively,while those of W/C1 and W/C2 decreased by 3.63% and 6.61% compared with W/C3”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 622–812 · show in text ↑

e1
“conventional tillage with 25 cm stubble incorporated(W/C1)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 243–301 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water consumption of intercropped corn under no-tillage with 25cm stubble mulch(W/C2) increased by 9.71%.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: no-tillage with 25cm stubble mulch(W/C2)e1
Outcome: Water consumption of intercropped corne0
Direction: increasede0
Value: 9.71%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Verbatim

e0
“Water consumption of intercropped corn under those three treatments increased by 12.86%,9.71%,16.95%,respectively,while those of W/C1 and W/C2 decreased by 3.63% and 6.61% compared with W/C3”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 622–812 · show in text ↑

e1
“no-tillage with 25cm stubble mulch(W/C2)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 302–342 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water consumption of intercropped corn under conventional tillage(W/C3) increased by 16.95%.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: conventional tillage(W/C3)e1
Outcome: Water consumption of intercropped corne0
Direction: increasede0
Value: 16.95%e0

Not reportedComparator

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

Verbatim

e0
“Water consumption of intercropped corn under those three treatments increased by 12.86%,9.71%,16.95%,respectively,while those of W/C1 and W/C2 decreased by 3.63% and 6.61% compared with W/C3”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 622–812 · show in text ↑

e1
“conventional tillage(W/C3)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 343–369 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water consumption of intercropped corn under W/C1 decreased by 3.63% compared with W/C3.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: W/C1e0
Outcome: Water consumption of intercropped corne0
Direction: decreasede0
Value: 3.63%e0
Comparator: W/C3e0

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

Verbatim

e0
“Water consumption of intercropped corn under those three treatments increased by 12.86%,9.71%,16.95%,respectively,while those of W/C1 and W/C2 decreased by 3.63% and 6.61% compared with W/C3”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 622–812 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water consumption of intercropped corn under W/C2 decreased by 6.61% compared with W/C3.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: W/C2e0
Outcome: Water consumption of intercropped corne0
Direction: decreasede0
Value: 6.61%e0
Comparator: W/C3e0

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

Verbatim

e0
“Water consumption of intercropped corn under those three treatments increased by 12.86%,9.71%,16.95%,respectively,while those of W/C1 and W/C2 decreased by 3.63% and 6.61% compared with W/C3”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 622–812 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water use efficiency of corn under conventional tillage with 25 cm stubble incorporated(W/C1) was enhanced by 10.82% compared with sole corn.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: conventional tillage with 25 cm stubble incorporated(W/C1)e1
Outcome: WUEe0
Direction: enhancede0
Value: 10.82%e0
Comparator: sole corne0

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

Verbatim

e0
“Their WUE enhanced by 10.82%,22.92%,4.78% compared with sole corn”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 813–878 · show in text ↑

e1
“conventional tillage with 25 cm stubble incorporated(W/C1)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 243–301 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water use efficiency of corn under no-tillage with 25cm stubble mulch(W/C2) was enhanced by 22.92% compared with sole corn.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: no-tillage with 25cm stubble mulch(W/C2)e1
Outcome: WUEe0
Direction: enhancede0
Value: 22.92%e0
Comparator: sole corne0

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

Verbatim

e0
“Their WUE enhanced by 10.82%,22.92%,4.78% compared with sole corn”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 813–878 · show in text ↑

e1
“no-tillage with 25cm stubble mulch(W/C2)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 302–342 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water use efficiency of corn under conventional tillage(W/C3) was enhanced by 4.78% compared with sole corn.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: conventional tillage(W/C3)e1
Outcome: WUEe0
Direction: enhancede0
Value: 4.78%e0
Comparator: sole corne0

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

Verbatim

e0
“Their WUE enhanced by 10.82%,22.92%,4.78% compared with sole corn”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 813–878 · show in text ↑

e1
“conventional tillage(W/C3)”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 343–369 · show in text ↑

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

WUE of intercropped corn under W/C2 was the highest of the three treatments and significantly higher than under W/C1 and W/C3.

Taxon: CornZea mays subsp. mayst0
Treatment: W/C2e0
Outcome: WUEe0
Direction: highere0
Comparator: W/C1 and W/C3e0

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

Verbatim

e0
“WUE of W/C2 was the highest among those three treatments,and was significantly higher than those of W/C1 and W/C3”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 879–992 · show in text ↑

t0
“WUE of Intercropped Corn”
✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 69–93 · show in text ↑

Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors recommend no-tillage with 25 cm stubble mulch as an effective treatment to improve yield and WUE of intercropped corn.

Taxon: cornZea mays subsp. mayse0
Treatment: No-tillage with 25 cm stubble mulche0
Outcome: improve yield and WUEe0

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

Verbatim

e0
“No-tillage with 25 cm stubble mulch is an effective treatment to improve yield and WUE of intercropped corn”
✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 993–1100 · show in text ↑

tillage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

83 papers: 75 positive, 8 negative or no effect

74 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative

no effect
Tillage systems showed no significant difference in total water use or its pattern.
Corn Yields, Soil Temperature, and Water Use with Four Tillage Methods in the Western Corn Belt¹ · 1970
Opposite direction
no effect
Cover crops and minimum tillage had no effect on irrigation water use efficiency (p = .38).
Cover crop and minimum tillage effects on yield, irrigation water use, and net returns · 2021 · compared with Control fields
Opposite direction
negative
Tillage and bare soil increased water loss by 349% relative to straw mulch.
Straw Mulch Effect on Soil and Water Loss in Different Growth Phases of Maize Sown on Stagnosols in Croatia · 2023 · compared with straw-mulched plot
Opposite direction

79 papers more in this group

See all 83 papers →

mulching · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

116 papers: 108 positive, 8 negative or no effect

107 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

negative
Mulching decreased water use efficiency by 16% in 2011.
Straw Mulching Reduces Maize Yield, Water, and Nitrogen Use in Northeastern China · 2014
Opposite direction
no effect
Plastic and biodegradable film mulching did not differ significantly in corn yield or WUE.
Application of Mulching Materials of Rainfall Harvesting System for Improving Soil Water and Corn Growth in Northwest of China · 2013 · compared with BF
Opposite direction
negative
Conventional PF mulching reduced summer maize WUE by 9.4% compared with no mulching.
Grain yield and water-use efficiency of summer maize in response to mulching with different plastic films in the North China Plain · 2021 · compared with no mulching
Opposite direction

112 papers more in this group

See all 116 papers →

mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

364 papers: 330 positive, 34 negative or no effect

329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 31 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative

negative
Crimson, Balansa, and subterranean clover mulches produced poor corn yields despite high nitrogen.
Nitrogen Delivery from Legume Cover Crops in No‐Till Organic Corn Production · 2011
Opposite direction
no effect
Living mulches did not significantly reduce corn grain yield when legume suppression was adequate.
Cyanazine Losses in Runoff from No‐Tillage Corn in “Living” and Dead Mulches vs. Unmulched, Conventional Tillage · 1984
Opposite direction
negative
Without nitrogen in the wet year, mulched plots yielded much less.
Effect of a Killed Sod Mulch on Nitrate Movement and Corn Yield¹ · 1973 · compared with conventionally‐tilled no nitrogen treatment
Opposite direction

360 papers more in this group

See all 364 papers →

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative

no effect
Cover-crop no-tillage and standard no-tillage gave similar corn yields.
Potential Long‐Term Benefits of No‐Tillage and Organic Cropping Systems for Grain Production and Soil Improvement · 2007 · compared with NT
Opposite direction
negative
No-till produced less corn grain than plow tillage.
Tillage and Rotation Interactions for Corn and Soybean Grain Yield as Affected by Precipitation and Air Temperature · 2004 · compared with plow
Opposite direction
no effect
Tillage had no grain-yield effect in manure or compost plots in three of four years.
Composted and Noncomposted Manure Application to Conventional and No‐Tillage Systems: Corn Yield and Nitrogen Uptake · 1999
Opposite direction

1,095 papers more in this group

See all 1,099 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.

Abstract

Claims 15

The same questions in other papers

tillage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

mulching · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

mulching · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results