Abstract
Intercropping is a breakthrough in land-use optimization. This work aimed to study the effects of intercropping patterns on the growth, yield, root morphological characteristics, and interspecific competition of maize and soybean, as well as provide a reference for the development of intercropping patterns of maize and soybean in Northwest China. Three different cropping patterns were designed: monocropping maize, monocropping soybean, and maize-soybean intercropping. Agronomic traits, intercropping indicators such as land equivalent ratio (LER), aggressivity (A), competition ratio (CR), and actual yield loss (AYL), as well as root morphological characteristics were assessed. The results showed that, compared with monocropping, the intercropping maize plant height increased by 6.07–8.40%, and the intercropping soybean plant height increased by 35.27–38.94%; the root length density (RLD) of intercropping maize was higher than that of monocropping maize, the RLD of intercropping soybean was lower than that of monocropping soybean, in the 0–40 cm soil layer the intercropping increased maize RLD by 1.79–7.44% while the soybean RLD was reduced by 3.06–9.46%; the aggressivity of maize was greater than 0 and the competition ratio was greater than 1, which was the dominant species; the maize/soybean land equivalent ratio was 1.18–1.26, which improved the land utilization rate. Therefore, the effect of increasing yield can be achieved by changing the maize and soybean planting method, which is beneficial to the ecological strategy of sustainable development in the northwest region.
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
Intercropping increased maize plant height by 6.07-8.40% compared with monocropping.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 6.07–8.40%e0
- Comparator
- monocroppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compared with monocropping, the intercropping maize plant height increased by 6.07–8.40%”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased soybean plant height by 35.27-38.94% compared with monocropping.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- plant heighte0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 35.27–38.94%e0
- Comparator
- monocroppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compared with monocropping, the intercropping maize plant height increased by 6.07–8.40%, and the intercropping soybean plant height increased by 35.27–38.94%”
Claim · model-written summary
In the 0-40 cm soil layer intercropping increased maize root length density by 1.79-7.44%.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- maize RLDe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.79–7.44%e0
- Qualifier
- 0–40 cm soil layere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in the 0–40 cm soil layer the intercropping increased maize RLD by 1.79–7.44%”
Claim · model-written summary
In the 0-40 cm soil layer intercropping reduced soybean root length density by 3.06-9.46%.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- soybean RLDe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 3.06–9.46%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the intercropping increased maize RLD by 1.79–7.44% while the soybean RLD was reduced by 3.06–9.46%”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize aggressivity was greater than 0, indicating maize as the dominant species.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the aggressivity of maize was greater than 0 and the competition ratio was greater than 1”
Claim · model-written summary
The maize competition ratio was greater than 1, indicating maize as the dominant species.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the aggressivity of maize was greater than 0 and the competition ratio was greater than 1”
Claim · model-written summary
The maize/soybean land equivalent ratio was 1.18-1.26, improving land utilization.
- Taxon
- maize/soybeanGlycine max
Zea mayse0 - Outcome
- land equivalent ratioe0
- Value
- 1.18–1.26e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the maize/soybean land equivalent ratio was 1.18–1.26, which improved the land utilization rate”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield can be increased by changing the maize and soybean planting method.
- Taxon
- maize and soybeanGlycine maxZea mayse0
- Outcome
- increasing yielde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the effect of increasing yield can be achieved by changing the maize and soybean planting method”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
37 papers in the same direction as this paper · 26 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
62 papers more in this group
See all 66 papers →intercropping · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
137 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 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.