Abstract
Residue burning to prepare soil for maize growing deprives the soil of both protective cover and organic matter, and it exacerbates environmental issues such as Southeast Asia's haze problem. This paper reports on a study that evaluated the effectiveness of maize/legume intercropping as an alternative to maize cultivation with residue burning. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), mung bean (V. radiata), rice bean (V. umbellata), and lablab (Lablab purpureus) were sown into a standing maize crop 30 days before harvest, and the results were compared with a maize crop grown using residue burning as the method for land preparation at Pang Da Agricultural Station in Chiang Mai, Thailand, in a replicated trial conducted over 3 growing seasons from 2012 to 2014. Intercropping increased maize grain yield by 31–53% and left 70–170% more residue containing 113–230% more nitrogen than the maize sown after residue burning, depending on the legume, and decreased weed dry weight by two-thirds after 2 seasons. Soil biodiversity was enriched by the intercrops, with a doubling in the spore density of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the root-zone soil and increased abundance, diversity (Shannon index), and richness of the soil macrofauna. The abundance of soil animals increased with crop residue dry weight (r = 0.90, P < 0.05) and nitrogen content (r = 0.98, P < 0.01). The effect of intercropping on maize grain yield and accumulation of residue and nitrogen were then confirmed in a participatory experiment involving farmers in 2 highland villages in the Phrao and Chiang Dao districts of Chiang Mai Province with maize and rice bean in 2015. The effects of maize/legume intercropping—increased nitrogen accumulation and crop residue, enhanced soil biodiversity, suppression of weeds, and protection of the soil surface, which enabled the maize to be sown without land clearing with fire—should all contribute to sustainable highland maize production.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased maize grain yield by 31–53% relative to residue burning.
- Treatment
- Intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- maize grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 31–53%e0
- Comparator
- maize sown after residue burninge0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping increased maize grain yield by 31–53% and left 70–170% more residue containing 113–230% more nitrogen than the maize sown after residue burning”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping left 70–170% more residue than maize after residue burning.
- Treatment
- Intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- residuee0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 70–170%e0
- Comparator
- maize sown after residue burninge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping increased maize grain yield by 31–53% and left 70–170% more residue containing 113–230% more nitrogen than the maize sown after residue burning”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping residue contained 113–230% more nitrogen.
- Treatment
- Intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- nitrogene0
- Direction
- moree0
- Value
- 113–230%e0
- Comparator
- maize sown after residue burninge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping increased maize grain yield by 31–53% and left 70–170% more residue containing 113–230% more nitrogen than the maize sown after residue burning”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping decreased weed dry weight by two-thirds after two seasons.
- Treatment
- Intercroppinge0
- Interactor
- weede0weed
- Outcome
- weed dry weighte0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- two-thirdse0
- Qualifier
- after 2 seasonse0
- Comparator
- maize sown after residue burninge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping increased maize grain yield by 31–53% and left 70–170% more residue containing 113–230% more nitrogen than the maize sown after residue burning, depending on the legume, and decreased weed dry weight by two-thirds after 2 seasons”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercrops doubled arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal spore density in root-zone soil.
- Treatment
- intercropse0
- Interactor
- arbuscular mycorrhizal fungie0symbiont
- Outcome
- spore density of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungie0
- Direction
- doublinge0
- Value
- doublinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil biodiversity was enriched by the intercrops, with a doubling in the spore density of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the root-zone soil”
t0“Intercropping Maize With Legumes”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercrops increased abundance, diversity, and richness of soil macrofauna.
- Treatment
- intercropse0
- Interactor
- soil macrofaunae0other
- Outcome
- abundance, diversity (Shannon index), and richness of the soil macrofaunae0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soil biodiversity was enriched by the intercrops, with a doubling in the spore density of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the root-zone soil and increased abundance, diversity (Shannon index), and richness of the soil macrofauna”
t0“Intercropping Maize With Legumes”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil animal abundance increased with crop residue dry weight (r = 0.90, P < 0.05).
- Interactor
- soil animalse0other
- Outcome
- abundance of soil animalse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- crop residue dry weight (r = 0.90, P < 0.05)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The abundance of soil animals increased with crop residue dry weight (r = 0.90, P < 0.05)”
t0“Intercropping Maize With Legumes”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil animal abundance increased with crop residue nitrogen content (r = 0.98, P < 0.01).
- Interactor
- soil animalse0other
- Outcome
- abundance of soil animalse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- nitrogen content (r = 0.98, P < 0.01)e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The abundance of soil animals increased with crop residue dry weight (r = 0.90, P < 0.05) and nitrogen content (r = 0.98, P < 0.01)”
t0“Intercropping Maize With Legumes”
Claim · model-written summary
A farmer experiment confirmed intercropping effects on maize yield and residue and nitrogen accumulation.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- maize grain yield and accumulation of residue and nitrogene0
- Setting
- Phrao and Chiang Dao districts of Chiang Mai Provincee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effect of intercropping on maize grain yield and accumulation of residue and nitrogen were then confirmed in a participatory experiment involving farmers in 2 highland villages in the Phrao and Chiang Dao districts of Chiang Mai Province with maize and rice bean in 2015”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors conclude that maize/legume intercropping should contribute to sustainable highland maize production.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The effects of maize/legume intercropping—increased nitrogen accumulation and crop residue, enhanced soil biodiversity, suppression of weeds, and protection of the soil surface, which enabled the maize to be sown without land clearing with fire—should all contribute to sustainable highland maize production”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →intercropping · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
70 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
75 papers more in this group
See all 79 papers →intercropping · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
121 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
137 papers more in this group
See all 141 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
- negative
- no effect
- 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.