Abstract
Abstract Plants have evolved to adapt to their neighbours through plastic trait responses. In intercrop systems, plant growth occurs at different spatial and temporal dimensions, creating a competitive light environment where aboveground plasticity may support complementarity in light‐use efficiency, realizing yield gains per unit area compared with monoculture systems. Physiological and architectural plasticity including the consequences for light‐use efficiency and yield in a maize‐soybean solar corridor intercrop system was compared, empirically, with the standard monoculture systems of the Midwest, USA. The impact of reducing maize plant density on yield was investigated in the following year. Intercropped maize favoured physiological plasticity over architectural plasticity, which maintained harvest index (HI) but reduced light interception efficiency ( ɛ i ) and conversion efficiency ( ɛ c ). Intercropped soybean invested in both plasticity responses, which maintained ɛ i , but HI and ɛ c decreased. Reducing maize plant density within the solar corridor rows did not improve yields under monoculture and intercrop systems. Overall, the intercrop decreased land‐use efficiency by 9%–19% and uncoordinated investment in aboveground plasticity by each crop under high maize plant density does not support complementarity in light‐use efficiency. Nonetheless, the mechanistic understanding gained from this study may improve crop cultivars and intercrop designs for the Midwest to increase yield.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize favored physiological over architectural plasticity.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped maize favoured physiological plasticity over architectural plasticity, which maintained harvest index (HI) but reduced light interception efficiency ( ɛ i ) and conversion efficiency ( ɛ c ).”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize maintained harvest index.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped maize favoured physiological plasticity over architectural plasticity, which maintained harvest index (HI) but reduced light interception efficiency ( ɛ i ) and conversion efficiency ( ɛ c ).”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize reduced light interception and conversion efficiency.
- Treatment
- Intercroppede0
- Outcome
- light interception efficiency ( ɛ i ) and conversion efficiency ( ɛ c )e0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped maize favoured physiological plasticity over architectural plasticity, which maintained harvest index (HI) but reduced light interception efficiency ( ɛ i ) and conversion efficiency ( ɛ c ).”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped soybean invested in both plasticity responses and maintained light interception efficiency.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Outcome
- both plasticity responsese0
- Direction
- maintainede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped soybean invested in both plasticity responses, which maintained ɛ i , but HI and ɛ c decreased.”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped soybean had decreased harvest index and conversion efficiency.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- Intercroppede0
- Outcome
- HI and ɛ ce0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped soybean invested in both plasticity responses, which maintained ɛ i , but HI and ɛ c decreased.”
Claim · model-written summary
Reducing maize density did not improve monoculture or intercrop yield.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Reducing maize plant density within the solar corridor rows did not improve yields under monoculture and intercrop systems.”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping reduced land-use efficiency by 9%–19%.
- Taxon
- maize–soybeanGlycine max
Zea mayst0 - Treatment
- intercrope0
- Outcome
- land‐use efficiencye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 9%–19%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Overall, the intercrop decreased land‐use efficiency by 9%–19%”
t0“maize–soybean”
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 →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.