Paper · 2022 · Atmosphere

Effects of Mixed Cropping of Garden Plants with Brassica parachinensis on Remediation of Cr-Polluted Soil in Community Garden

Shiyu Cui; Wenbin Liu; Hexian Jin; et al.

5
claims
7
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Industrialization and urbanization have produced large amounts of atmospheric and soil pollutants. Among them, heavy metals are one of the main byproducts that are widely distributed in the atmosphere, water, soil and organisms, which have a great impact on climate. It is of great significance to reduce their enrichment in soil by ecological restoration methods for the sustainable development of urban atmosphere and climate. This study investigated the effects of different garden plants (Festuca arundinacea, Ageratum conyzoides, Trifolium repens) mixed with Brassica parachinensis on plant growth, physiological indexes and Cr (chromium) content in aboveground and underground parts in Cr (the main heavy metal pollution produced by industrialization) contaminated soil. The yield of B. parachinensis was the highest under the mixed cropping mode with T. repens, with the Cr content in edible parts being lower than the standard, suggesting an effective combination of B. parachinensis in community gardens. The mixed cropping of F. arundinacea with Bra decreased B. parachinensis yield. Under the mixed cropping of A. conyzoides, the edible parts of B. parachinensis were aggravated by Cr pollution, which was not recommended for planting. Our results suggest that converting the monoculture mode of vegetables to mixed cropping with garden plants reduced heavy metal pollution of community garden plants and improved soil productivity and environmental quality.

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 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Brassica yield was highest with Trifolium repens mixed cropping.

Treatment
mixed cropping mode with T. repense0
Outcome
yielde0
Direction
higheste0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica rapa var. parachinensis
Brassica rapa var. parachinensis · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The yield of B. parachinensis was the highest under the mixed cropping mode with T. repens”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 777–867 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Chromium in edible Brassica parts was below the standard with Trifolium repens mixed cropping.

Treatment
mixed cropping mode with T. repense1
Outcome
Cr content in edible partse0
Direction
lowere0
Comparator
the standarde0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica rapa var. parachinensis
Brassica rapa var. parachinensis · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“with the Cr content in edible parts being lower than the standard”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 869–934 · show in text ↑
e1

“mixed cropping mode with T. repens”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 833–867 · show in text ↑
e2

“The yield of B. parachinensis was the highest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 777–822 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Festuca arundinacea mixed cropping decreased Brassica yield.

Treatment
mixed cropping of F. arundinacea with Brae0
Outcome
B. parachinensis yielde0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica rapa var. parachinensis
Brassica rapa var. parachinensis · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The mixed cropping of F. arundinacea with Bra decreased B. parachinensis yield.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1014–1093 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Ageratum conyzoides mixed cropping aggravated chromium pollution in edible Brassica parts.

Treatment
mixed cropping of A. conyzoidese0
Outcome
edible parts of B. parachinensis were aggravated by Cr pollutione0
Direction
aggravatede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica rapa var. parachinensis
Brassica rapa var. parachinensis · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Under the mixed cropping of A. conyzoides, the edible parts of B. parachinensis were aggravated by Cr pollution”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1094–1205 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The authors did not recommend Ageratum conyzoides mixed cropping.

Treatment
mixed cropping of A. conyzoidese0
Outcome
not recommended for plantinge0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica rapa var. parachinensis
Brassica rapa var. parachinensis · TaxonEarth100 · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Under the mixed cropping of A. conyzoides, the edible parts of B. parachinensis were aggravated by Cr pollution, which was not recommended for planting.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1094–1246 · show in text ↑

intercropping · nutrient: content · Brassica rapa (field mustard)Positive and negative results

5 papers: 4 positive, 1 negative or no effect

4 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

1 paper more in this group

See all 5 papers →

intercropping · yield · Brassica rapa (field mustard)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 7 positive, 2 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. positive

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 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.