Abstract
Improving cropping systems together with suitable agronomic management practices can maintain dry farming productivity and reduce water competition with low N inputs. The objective of the study was to determine the photosynthetic and yield responses of maize and peanut under six treatments: sole maize, sole peanut, maize–peanut intercropping, maize–peanut rotation–intercropping, 20% and 40% N reductions for maize in the maize–peanut rotation–intercropping. Maize–peanut intercropping had no land-use advantage. Intercropped peanut is limited in carboxylation rates and electron transport rate (ETR), leading to a decrease in hundred-grain weight (HGW) and an increase in blighted pods number per plant (N BP ). Intercropped peanut adapts to light stress by decreasing light saturation point (I sat ) and light compensation point (I comp ) and increasing the electron transport efficiency. Intercropped maize showed an increase in maximum photosynthetic rate (Pn max ) and I comp due to a combination of improved intercellular CO 2 concentration, carboxylation rates, PSII photochemical quantum efficiency, and ETR. Compare to maize–peanut intercropping, maize–peanut rotation–intercropping alleviated the continuous crop barriers of intercropped border row peanut by improving carboxylation rates, electron transport efficiency and decreasing I sat , thereby increasing its HGW and N BP . More importantly, the land equivalent ratio of maize–peanut rotation–intercropping in the second and third planting years were 1.05 and 1.07, respectively, showing obvious land use advantages. A 20% N reduction for maize in maize–peanut rotation–intercropping does not affect photosynthetic character and yield for intercropped crops. However, a 40% N reduction decreased significantly the carboxylation rates, ETR, I comp and Pn max of intercropped maize, thereby reducing in a 14.83% HGW and 5.75% lower grain number per spike, and making land-use efficiency negative.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Maize–peanut intercropping had no land-use advantage.
- Taxon
- Maize–peanut
Arachis hypogaea
Zea mayse0 - Outcome
- land-use advantagee0
- Direction
- noe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Maize–peanut intercropping had no land-use advantage”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped peanut had limited carboxylation rates and electron transport rate.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- Intercroppede0
- Outcome
- carboxylation rates and electron transport rate (ETR)e0
- Direction
- limitede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped peanut is limited in carboxylation rates and electron transport rate (ETR)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped peanut had decreased hundred-grain weight.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae1
- Treatment
- Intercroppede1
- Outcome
- hundred-grain weight (HGW)e0
- Direction
- decreasee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leading to a decrease in hundred-grain weight (HGW)”
e1“Intercropped peanut is limited in carboxylation rates”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped peanut had increased blighted pods per plant.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae1
- Treatment
- Intercroppede1
- Outcome
- blighted pods number per plant (N BP )e0
- Direction
- increasee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“an increase in blighted pods number per plant (N BP )”
e1“Intercropped peanut is limited in carboxylation rates”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped peanut decreased light saturation and compensation points.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Outcome
- light saturation point (I sat ) and light compensation point (I comp )e0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped peanut adapts to light stress by decreasing light saturation point (I sat ) and light compensation point (I comp )”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped peanut increased electron transport efficiency.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae1
- Outcome
- electron transport efficiencye0
- Direction
- increasinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increasing the electron transport efficiency”
e1“Intercropped peanut adapts to light stress”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize increased maximum photosynthetic rate and light compensation point.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropped maize showed an increase in maximum photosynthetic rate (Pn max ) and I comp”
Claim · model-written summary
The maize photosynthetic response was attributed to improved intercellular CO2, carboxylation, PSII efficiency and electron transport.
- Outcome
- maximum photosynthetic rate (Pn max )e1
- Qualifier
- improved intercellular CO 2 concentration, carboxylation rates, PSII photochemical quantum efficiency, and ETRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“due to a combination of improved intercellular CO 2 concentration, carboxylation rates, PSII photochemical quantum efficiency, and ETR”
e1“Intercropped maize showed an increase in maximum photosynthetic rate (Pn max )”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotation-intercropping improved peanut carboxylation rates and electron transport efficiency against intercropping.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- maize–peanut rotation–intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- carboxylation rates, electron transport efficiencye0
- Direction
- improvinge0
- Comparator
- maize–peanut intercroppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compare to maize–peanut intercropping, maize–peanut rotation–intercropping alleviated the continuous crop barriers of intercropped border row peanut by improving carboxylation rates, electron transport efficiency”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotation-intercropping decreased peanut light saturation point against intercropping.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- maize–peanut rotation–intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- I sate0
- Direction
- decreasinge0
- Comparator
- maize–peanut intercroppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compare to maize–peanut intercropping, maize–peanut rotation–intercropping alleviated the continuous crop barriers of intercropped border row peanut by improving carboxylation rates, electron transport efficiency and decreasing I sat”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotation-intercropping increased peanut hundred-grain weight against intercropping.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- maize–peanut rotation–intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- HGWe0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Comparator
- maize–peanut intercroppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compare to maize–peanut intercropping, maize–peanut rotation–intercropping alleviated the continuous crop barriers of intercropped border row peanut by improving carboxylation rates, electron transport efficiency and decreasing I sat , thereby increasing its HGW and N BP”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotation-intercropping increased peanut N BP against intercropping.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeae0
- Treatment
- maize–peanut rotation–intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- N BPe0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Comparator
- maize–peanut intercroppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compare to maize–peanut intercropping, maize–peanut rotation–intercropping alleviated the continuous crop barriers of intercropped border row peanut by improving carboxylation rates, electron transport efficiency and decreasing I sat , thereby increasing its HGW and N BP”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotation-intercropping land equivalent ratio was 1.05 in year two.
- Taxon
- maize–peanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayse0
- Treatment
- maize–peanut rotation–intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- land equivalent ratioe0
- Value
- 1.05e0
- Qualifier
- seconde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“land equivalent ratio of maize–peanut rotation–intercropping in the second and third planting years were 1.05 and 1.07, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotation-intercropping land equivalent ratio was 1.07 in year three.
- Taxon
- maize–peanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayse0
- Treatment
- maize–peanut rotation–intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- land equivalent ratioe0
- Value
- 1.07e0
- Qualifier
- thirde0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“land equivalent ratio of maize–peanut rotation–intercropping in the second and third planting years were 1.05 and 1.07, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
A 20% N reduction did not affect photosynthetic character or yield of intercropped crops.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“A 20% N reduction for maize in maize–peanut rotation–intercropping does not affect photosynthetic character and yield for intercropped crops”
Claim · model-written summary
A 40% N reduction significantly decreased maize carboxylation, ETR, I comp and Pn max.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a 40% N reduction decreased significantly the carboxylation rates, ETR, I comp and Pn max of intercropped maize”
Claim · model-written summary
A 40% N reduction lowered maize hundred-grain weight by 14.83%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a 40% N reduction decreased significantly the carboxylation rates, ETR, I comp and Pn max of intercropped maize, thereby reducing in a 14.83% HGW”
Claim · model-written summary
A 40% N reduction lowered maize grain number per spike by 5.75%.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a 40% N reduction decreased significantly the carboxylation rates, ETR, I comp and Pn max of intercropped maize, thereby reducing in a 14.83% HGW and 5.75% lower grain number per spike”
Claim · model-written summary
A 40% N reduction made land-use efficiency negative.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a 40% N reduction decreased significantly the carboxylation rates, ETR, I comp and Pn max of intercropped maize, thereby reducing in a 14.83% HGW and 5.75% lower grain number per spike, and making land-use efficiency negative”
The same questions in other papers
rotation · physiology: photosynthesis · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →rotation · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
33 papers more in this group
See all 37 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.