Abstract
Abstract Maize/soybean strip intercropping is a commonly used system throughout China with high crop yields at reduced nutrient input compared to sole maize. Maize is the taller crop, and due to its dominance in light capture over soybean in the intercrop, maize is expected to outperform maize in sole cropping. Conversely, soybean is the subordinate crop and intercropped soybean plants are expected to perform worse than sole soybean. Crop plants show plastic responses in plant architecture to their growing conditions to forage for light and avoid shading. There is little knowledge on plant architectural responses to growing conditions in simultaneous (non‐relay) intercropping and their relationship to species yields. A two‐year field experiment with two simultaneous maize/soybean intercropping systems with narrow and wide strips was conducted to characterise architectural traits of maize and soybean plants grown as intercrop and sole crops. Intercropped maize plants, especially those in border rows, had substantially greater leaf area, biomass and yield than maize plants in sole crops. Intercropped soybean plants, especially those in border rows, had lower leaf area, biomass and yield than sole soybean plants. Overall intercrop performance was similar to that of sole crops, with the land equivalent ratio (LER) being only slightly greater than one (1.03–1.08). Soybean displayed typical shade avoidance responses in the intercrop, such as greater internode elongation and changes in specific leaf area, but these responses could not overcome the consequences of the competition with the taller maize plants. Therefore, in contrast to relay intercrop systems, in the studied simultaneous maize/soybean system, plastic responses did not contribute to practically relevant increases in resource capture and yield at whole system (i.e., intercrop) level.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed other-oa. 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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize had greater leaf area, biomass and yield than sole maize.
- Treatment
- Intercroppede0
- Outcome
- leaf area, biomass and yielde0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Qualifier
- especially those in border rowse0
- Comparator
- maize plants in sole cropse0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped maize plants, especially those in border rows, had substantially greater leaf area, biomass and yield than maize plants in sole crops”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped soybean had lower leaf area, biomass and yield than sole soybean.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- Intercroppede0
- Outcome
- leaf area, biomass and yielde0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- especially those in border rowse0
- Comparator
- sole soybean plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped soybean plants, especially those in border rows, had lower leaf area, biomass and yield than sole soybean plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercrop performance was similar to sole crops, with LER 1.03–1.08.
- Outcome
- land equivalent ratio (LER)e0
- Direction
- slightly greatere0
- Value
- 1.03–1.08e0
- Comparator
- sole cropse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Overall intercrop performance was similar to that of sole crops, with the land equivalent ratio (LER) being only slightly greater than one (1.03–1.08)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped soybean displayed shade avoidance including internode elongation and changed specific leaf area.
- Taxon
- SoybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- internode elongation and changes in specific leaf areae0
- Direction
- greatere0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Soybean displayed typical shade avoidance responses in the intercrop, such as greater internode elongation and changes in specific leaf area”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean architectural changes could not overcome competition with taller maize.
Not reportedTaxon
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“these responses could not overcome the consequences of the competition with the taller maize plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Plastic responses did not yield practically relevant system-level resource capture or yield gains.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“plastic responses did not contribute to practically relevant increases in resource capture and yield at whole system (i.e., intercrop) level”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
86 papers in the same direction as this paper · 131 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
214 papers more in this group
See all 218 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.