Abstract
Abstract The introduction of legumes into the cropping system has been considered as an effective and alternative way to reduce nitrogen (N) input and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, and boost system productivity. However, the productivity, water and N use, and carbon emission of legume‐based cropping systems in the North China Plain were not well‐documented. Here, a 2‐year field experiment was conducted to compare the yield, water and N use, and carbon footprint (CF) of summer peanut–winter wheat (PW) and summer maize–winter wheat (MW) cropping systems. Results showed that the experimental year significantly affected system productivity and water use efficiency of PW and MW. PW increased annual equivalent yield and water consumption by 10.1% and 12.9% in the first year ( p < 0.05), compared with MW. Yet, PW decreased annual net income by 8.6% on average during the two experimental years. PW lowered annual N input by 12.1% compared with MW; however, no significant difference in apparent N use efficiency was found between PW and MW. Moreover, PW decreased its annual CF by 13.0%, which was attributed to the lower indirect GHGs emission from N input of summer peanut. In summary, PW showed considerable potential in reducing N fertilizer input and CF, with acceptable economic loss and water consumption in the North China Plain.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut-wheat increased annual equivalent yield by 10.1% in the first year compared with maize-wheat.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- PWe1
- Outcome
- annual equivalent yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 10.1%e1
- Qualifier
- in the first yeare1
- Comparator
- MWe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“summer peanut”
e1“PW increased annual equivalent yield and water consumption by 10.1% and 12.9% in the first year ( p < 0.05), compared with MW”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut-wheat increased water consumption by 12.9% in the first year compared with maize-wheat.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- PWe1
- Outcome
- water consumptione1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 12.9%e1
- Qualifier
- in the first yeare1
- Comparator
- MWe1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“summer peanut”
e1“PW increased annual equivalent yield and water consumption by 10.1% and 12.9% in the first year ( p < 0.05), compared with MW”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut-wheat decreased annual net income by 8.6% on average over two years.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- PWe2
- Outcome
- annual net incomee2
- Direction
- decreasede2
- Value
- 8.6%e2
- Qualifier
- during the two experimental yearse2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“summer peanut”
e2“Yet, PW decreased annual net income by 8.6% on average during the two experimental years”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut-wheat lowered annual N input by 12.1% compared with maize-wheat.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- PWe3
- Outcome
- annual N inpute3
- Direction
- lowerede3
- Value
- 12.1%e3
- Comparator
- MWe3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“summer peanut”
e3“PW lowered annual N input by 12.1% compared with MW”
Claim · model-written summary
No significant difference in apparent N use efficiency was found between peanut-wheat and maize-wheat.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- PWe4
- Outcome
- apparent N use efficiencye4
- Direction
- no significant differencee4
- Comparator
- MWe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“summer peanut”
e4“no significant difference in apparent N use efficiency was found between PW and MW”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut-wheat decreased annual carbon footprint by 13.0%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“summer peanut”
e5“Moreover, PW decreased its annual CF by 13.0%”
Claim · model-written summary
Peanut-wheat has considerable potential to reduce N fertilizer input and carbon footprint in the North China Plain, with acceptable economic loss and water consumption.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Outcome
- potential in reducing N fertilizer input and CFe6
- Setting
- North China Plaine6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“summer peanut”
e6“PW showed considerable potential in reducing N fertilizer input and CF, with acceptable economic loss and water consumption in the North China Plain”
Claim · model-written summary
The experimental year significantly affected system productivity and water use efficiency of both cropping systems.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- experimental yeare7
- Outcome
- system productivity and water use efficiencye7
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“summer peanut”
e7“Results showed that the experimental year significantly affected system productivity and water use efficiency of PW and MW”
The same questions in other papers
Triticum aestivum · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
13 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
13 papers more in this group
See all 17 papers →Triticum aestivum · physiology: water · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
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.