Abstract
The incorporation of both food and forage crops in an intercropping system is receiving increasing attention, especially in developing countries with increasing populations and limited resources. In a two-year (2019–2020) field trial, conducted in Northern Egypt, productivity of soybean and fodder maize, as well as the quality of maize herbage, were investigated under three sowing schedules; soybean and maize sown together, and maize sown 15 and 30 days after soybean, in addition to soybean and fodder maize sown in pure stands, with maize harvested at green fodder maturity (GFM), and silage maturity (SM). Harvesting fodder maize at SM resulted in higher herbage yield than harvesting it at GFM, yet it negatively affected the soybean productivity. However, this negative impact was offset when fodder maize sowing was delayed 30 days after soybean sowing. Maize harvested at GFM was characterized by a higher leaf component, which was reflected in its higher crude protein content, yet the decline in quality with advanced maturity was to a great extent, counterbalanced by the presence of high-quality ears in maize harvested at SM. This was clear in its lower fiber and higher non-fiber carbohydrate contents. Land equivalent ratio (LER) demonstrated yield advantage with the delayed sowing of fodder maize (LER > 1), while the dry matter equivalent ratio (DMER) associated the yield advantage with the late harvesting of fodder maize at SM (DMER > 1), across all sowing schedules, which was more realistic for an additive intercropping model where the dry matter is the economic component. In a soybean-fodder maize intercropping system, whether fodder maize will be cultivated for green feeding or for silage production, it is recommended that sowing is delayed until 30 days after the soybean, in order to maximize yield advantage and land use efficiency.
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 11
Claim · model-written summary
Harvesting maize at silage maturity gave higher herbage yield than green fodder maturity.
Verbatim
e0“Harvesting fodder maize at SM resulted in higher herbage yield than harvesting it at GFM”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvesting maize at silage maturity negatively affected soybean productivity.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Outcome
- soybean productivitye0
- Direction
- negatively affectede0
Not reportedTreatmentComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yet it negatively affected the soybean productivity.”
Claim · model-written summary
Sowing maize 30 days after soybean offset the adverse soybean productivity effect of later maize harvest.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- fodder maize sowing was delayed 30 days after soybean sowinge0
- Outcome
- negative impacte0
- Direction
- offsete0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, this negative impact was offset when fodder maize sowing was delayed 30 days after soybean sowing.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize harvested at green fodder maturity had a higher leaf component.
Zea maysNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize harvested at GFM was characterized by a higher leaf component”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize harvested at green fodder maturity had higher crude protein content.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“which was reflected in its higher crude protein content”
Claim · model-written summary
High-quality ears at silage maturity counterbalanced the decline in forage quality.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the decline in quality with advanced maturity was to a great extent, counterbalanced by the presence of high-quality ears in maize harvested at SM.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize harvested at silage maturity had lower fiber content.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“This was clear in its lower fiber and higher non-fiber carbohydrate contents.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize harvested at silage maturity had higher non-fiber carbohydrate content.
Not reportedTaxonTreatmentComparator
Verbatim
e0“This was clear in its lower fiber and higher non-fiber carbohydrate contents.”
Claim · model-written summary
Delayed fodder maize sowing yielded a land equivalent ratio above one.
- Taxon
- fodder maizee0
- Treatment
- delayed sowing of fodder maizee0
- Outcome
- Land equivalent ratio (LER)e0
- Direction
- yield advantagee0
- Value
- LER > 1e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Land equivalent ratio (LER) demonstrated yield advantage with the delayed sowing of fodder maize (LER > 1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Harvesting fodder maize at silage maturity yielded a dry matter equivalent ratio above one.
- Taxon
- fodder maizee0
- Treatment
- late harvesting of fodder maize at SMe0
- Outcome
- dry matter equivalent ratio (DMER)e0
- Direction
- yield advantagee0
- Value
- DMER > 1e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“the dry matter equivalent ratio (DMER) associated the yield advantage with the late harvesting of fodder maize at SM (DMER > 1)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend delaying fodder maize sowing until 30 days after soybean to maximize yield advantage and land use efficiency.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- sowing is delayed until 30 days after the soybeane0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“it is recommended that sowing is delayed until 30 days after the soybean, in order to maximize yield advantage and land use efficiency.”
The same questions in other papers
stage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →processing · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
38 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →processing · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
69 papers more in this group
See all 73 papers →stage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 55 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
94 papers more in this group
See all 98 papers →sowing time · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
177 papers in the same direction as this paper · 89 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
265 papers more in this group
See all 269 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.