Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND The production of sufficient animal feed in arid and semi‐arid regions plays a significant role in food security in these areas. The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages, will enhance the yield and quality of the feed under limited irrigation water availability. RESULTS Implementation of fixed alternate furrow irrigation (FFI) and alternate furrow irrigation (AFI) resulted in a saving of 22.5% and 19.7% of irrigation water, respectively. However, the water saving declined both yield and quality of forage. In conventional furrow irrigation (CFI), the highest dry matter (DM) yield was 15.5 Mg ha −1 , obtained from S 50 –A 50 treatment. In FFI and AFI, sole sorghum produced the highest DM. However, their maximum yields (11.2 and 12.6 Mg ha ‐1 , respectively) were not significantly different from yields in S 75 –A 25 intercropping ratios. Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) was similar in CFI and AFI and considerably higher than FFI. Sorghum monoculture and the S 75 –A 25 intercropping had the highest IWUE (3.4 and 3.3 kg m −3 ), whereas IWUE of the sole amaranth was 1.7 kg m −3 . The partial land equivalent ratio and monetary advantage index of amaranth and sorghum indicated that sorghum would benefit from intercropping as long as its ratio in the intercropping is more than 25%. CONCLUSION When sufficient irrigation is available, intercropping of sorghum and amaranth can considerably improve yield and quality of emergency feed. However, the benefits from intercropping faded under the two partial root‐zone irrigation methods used in the present study. © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry.
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
Claim · model-written summary
Fixed alternate furrow irrigation saved 22.5% of irrigation water in sorghum-amaranth intercropping.
- Treatment
- fixed alternate furrow irrigation (FFI)e1
- Outcome
- irrigation watere1
- Direction
- resulted in a savinge1
- Value
- 22.5%e1
SorghumNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e1“Implementation of fixed alternate furrow irrigation (FFI) and alternate furrow irrigation (AFI) resulted in a saving of 22.5% and 19.7% of irrigation water, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Alternate furrow irrigation saved 19.7% of irrigation water in sorghum-amaranth intercropping.
- Treatment
- alternate furrow irrigation (AFI)e1
- Outcome
- irrigation watere1
- Direction
- resulted in a savinge1
- Value
- 19.7%e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e1“Implementation of fixed alternate furrow irrigation (FFI) and alternate furrow irrigation (AFI) resulted in a saving of 22.5% and 19.7% of irrigation water, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Water saving under partial root-zone irrigation declined yield and quality of forage.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e2“However, the water saving declined both yield and quality of forage”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional furrow irrigation with the S 50 –A 50 ratio gave the highest dry matter yield of 15.5 Mg ha −1.
- Treatment
- conventional furrow irrigation (CFI)e3
- Outcome
- dry matter (DM) yielde3
- Direction
- higheste3
- Value
- 15.5 Mg ha −1e3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e3“In conventional furrow irrigation (CFI), the highest dry matter (DM) yield was 15.5 Mg ha −1”
Claim · model-written summary
In FFI and AFI, sole sorghum produced the highest dry matter.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e4“In FFI and AFI, sole sorghum produced the highest DM”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum yield under FFI of 11.2 was not significantly different from S 75 –A 25 intercropping ratio yields.
- Treatment
- FFIe1
- Outcome
- maximum yieldse5
- Direction
- not significantly differente6
- Value
- 11.2e5
- Comparator
- S 75 –A 25 intercropping ratiose6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e1“Implementation of fixed alternate furrow irrigation (FFI) and alternate furrow irrigation (AFI) resulted in a saving of 22.5% and 19.7% of irrigation water, respectively”
e5“their maximum yields (11.2 and 12.6”
e6“were not significantly different from yields in S 75 –A 25 intercropping ratios”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum yield under AFI of 12.6 was not significantly different from S 75 –A 25 intercropping ratio yields.
- Treatment
- AFIe1
- Outcome
- maximum yieldse5
- Direction
- not significantly differente6
- Value
- 12.6e5
- Comparator
- S 75 –A 25 intercropping ratiose6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e1“Implementation of fixed alternate furrow irrigation (FFI) and alternate furrow irrigation (AFI) resulted in a saving of 22.5% and 19.7% of irrigation water, respectively”
e5“their maximum yields (11.2 and 12.6”
e6“were not significantly different from yields in S 75 –A 25 intercropping ratios”
Claim · model-written summary
IWUE was similar under CFI and AFI.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e7“Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) was similar in CFI and AFI and considerably higher than FFI”
Claim · model-written summary
IWUE under CFI and AFI was considerably higher than under FFI.
- Treatment
- CFI and AFIe7
- Outcome
- Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE)e7
- Direction
- considerably highere7
- Comparator
- FFIe7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e7“Irrigation water use efficiency (IWUE) was similar in CFI and AFI and considerably higher than FFI”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum monoculture had the highest IWUE of 3.4 kg m −3.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e1“Sorghum monoculture”
e2“had the highest IWUE (3.4 and 3.3”
Claim · model-written summary
S 75 –A 25 intercropping had the highest IWUE of 3.3 kg m −3.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e1“S 75 –A 25 intercropping had the highest IWUE (3.4 and 3.3”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole amaranth had an IWUE of 1.7 kg m −3.
- Taxon
- amaranth
.JPG?width=60)
Amaranthus caudatuse1 - Outcome
- IWUEe1
- Value
- 1.7e1
- Qualifier
- sole amaranthe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.JPG?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e1“whereas IWUE of the sole amaranth was 1.7”
Claim · model-written summary
Sorghum would benefit from intercropping as long as its ratio in the intercropping is more than 25%.
- Treatment
- its ratio in the intercropping is more than 25%e1
- Outcome
- benefit from intercroppinge1
- Direction
- would benefite1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e1“The partial land equivalent ratio and monetary advantage index of amaranth and sorghum indicated that sorghum would benefit from intercropping as long as its ratio in the intercropping is more than 25%”
Claim · model-written summary
With sufficient irrigation, intercropping of sorghum and amaranth can considerably improve yield and quality of emergency feed.
- Treatment
- intercropping of sorghum and amaranthe1
- Outcome
- yield and quality of emergency feede1
- Direction
- considerably improvee1
- Qualifier
- When sufficient irrigation is availablee1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e1“When sufficient irrigation is available, intercropping of sorghum and amaranth can considerably improve yield and quality of emergency feed”
Claim · model-written summary
Benefits from intercropping faded under the partial root-zone irrigation methods used in the study.
- Treatment
- irrigation methods used in the present studye2
- Outcome
- benefits from intercroppinge1
- Direction
- fadede1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The present study was conducted based on the hypothesis that intercropping of sorghum and amaranth, comprising relatively drought tolerant forages”
e1“the benefits from intercropping faded”
e2“irrigation methods used in the present study”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · physiology: water · SorghumPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
irrigation · physiology: water · SorghumPositive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →irrigation · growth · SorghumPositive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 papers →irrigation · yield · SorghumPositive and negative results
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 94 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
127 papers more in this group
See all 131 papers →intercropping · quality: general · SorghumResults agree
6 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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.