Abstract
Intercropping systems reduce ineffective evaporation between trees but also intensify interspecific competition and reduce productivity. To improve the water-use efficiency and the economic benefits of an intercropping system on the Loess Plateau, China, where rainfall is limited and evaporation intense, an apple–soybean intercropping system with micro-irrigation water control was adopted to analyze the soil water, root density, water-use efficiency, yield, and economic benefits of intercropping under different micro-irrigation methods. Subsurface seepage irrigation, bubbler irrigation, and drip irrigation under mulching were used with irrigation upper limit levels of three maximum irrigation levels [60% (W1), 75% (W2), and 90% (W3) of field capacity (FC)]. Rainwater harvesting from ridges and furrows (GL) without irrigation was the control. Bubbler irrigation increased the soil water content, optimized the vertical soil water distribution, and promoted root growth. Except for the control treatment (GL), the other micro-irrigation treatments increased with the irrigation amount, but the water-use efficiency decreased. Drip irrigation under mulch combined with W2 (75% Fc) irrigation could obtain the maximum intercropping yield, which was increased by 71.1% compared with the GL treatment. Drip irrigation under a mulch combined with W2 produced the maximum intercropping yield; the economic benefits were higher under drip irrigation with mulching combined with W1; and all three micro-irrigation methods combined with W2 improved the economic benefits by 52.1–115.5% compared to GL. Drip irrigation under mulching or bubbler irrigation combined with W2 should be used when there are sufficient water resources, but drip irrigation under a mulch combined with W1 when there is a water shortage.
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 10
Claim · model-written summary
Bubbler irrigation increased soil water content.
- Taxon
- apple–soybean
Malus domestica
Glycine maxt0 - Treatment
- Bubbler irrigatione0
- Outcome
- soil water contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Bubbler irrigation increased the soil water content, optimized the vertical soil water distribution, and promoted root growth.”
t0“Apple–Soybean Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
Bubbler irrigation optimized vertical soil water distribution.
- Taxon
- apple–soybeanMalus domesticaGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- Bubbler irrigatione0
- Outcome
- vertical soil water distributione0
- Direction
- optimizede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Bubbler irrigation increased the soil water content, optimized the vertical soil water distribution, and promoted root growth.”
t0“Apple–Soybean Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
Bubbler irrigation promoted root growth.
- Taxon
- apple–soybeanMalus domesticaGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- Bubbler irrigatione0
- Outcome
- root growthe0
- Direction
- promotede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Bubbler irrigation increased the soil water content, optimized the vertical soil water distribution, and promoted root growth.”
t0“Apple–Soybean Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency decreased with irrigation amount among micro-irrigation treatments.
- Taxon
- apple–soybeanMalus domesticaGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- irrigation amounte0
- Outcome
- water-use efficiencye0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the other micro-irrigation treatments increased with the irrigation amount, but the water-use efficiency decreased.”
t0“Apple–Soybean Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulched drip irrigation at W2 produced maximum intercropping yield, 71.1% above GL.
- Taxon
- apple–soybeanMalus domesticaGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- Drip irrigation under mulch combined with W2 (75% Fc) irrigatione0
- Outcome
- intercropping yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 71.1%e0
- Comparator
- GL treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drip irrigation under mulch combined with W2 (75% Fc) irrigation could obtain the maximum intercropping yield, which was increased by 71.1% compared with the GL treatment.”
t0“Apple–Soybean Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
Mulched drip irrigation at W1 gave higher economic benefits.
- Taxon
- apple–soybeanMalus domesticaGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- drip irrigation with mulching combined with W1e0
- Outcome
- economic benefitse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the economic benefits were higher under drip irrigation with mulching combined with W1”
t0“Apple–Soybean Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
All three micro-irrigation methods at W2 improved economic benefits 52.1–115.5% compared with GL.
- Taxon
- apple–soybeanMalus domesticaGlycine maxt0
- Treatment
- all three micro-irrigation methods combined with W2e0
- Outcome
- economic benefitse0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 52.1–115.5%e0
- Comparator
- GLe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all three micro-irrigation methods combined with W2 improved the economic benefits by 52.1–115.5% compared to GL.”
t0“Apple–Soybean Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend mulched drip irrigation at W2 when water is sufficient.
- Taxon
- apple–soybeanMalus domesticaGlycine maxt0
- Outcome
- Drip irrigation under mulchinge0
- Qualifier
- sufficient water resourcese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drip irrigation under mulching or bubbler irrigation combined with W2 should be used when there are sufficient water resources”
t0“Apple–Soybean Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend bubbler irrigation at W2 when water is sufficient.
- Taxon
- apple–soybeanMalus domesticaGlycine maxt0
- Outcome
- bubbler irrigation combined with W2e0
- Qualifier
- sufficient water resourcese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Drip irrigation under mulching or bubbler irrigation combined with W2 should be used when there are sufficient water resources”
t0“Apple–Soybean Intercropping System”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend mulched drip irrigation at W1 when water is scarce.
- Taxon
- apple–soybeanMalus domesticaGlycine maxt0
- Outcome
- drip irrigation under a mulch combined with W1e0
- Qualifier
- water shortagee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“drip irrigation under a mulch combined with W1 when there is a water shortage.”
t0“Apple–Soybean Intercropping System”
The same questions in other papers
mulching · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 10 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
47 papers more in this group
See all 51 papers →irrigation · growth · Malus domestica (apple)Results differ
51 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
63 papers more in this group
See all 67 papers →irrigation · soil: physics · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →mulching · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
50 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
54 papers more in this group
See all 58 papers →irrigation · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Positive and negative results
62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 17 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
80 papers more in this group
See all 84 papers →irrigation · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
78 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
110 papers more in this group
See all 114 papers →irrigation · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
263 papers in the same direction as this paper · 72 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
339 papers more in this group
See all 343 papers →irrigation · soil: physics · Glycine max (soybean)Results agree
12 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 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.