Abstract
Abstract Intercropping, a widely adopted agricultural practice worldwide, aims to increase crop yield, enhance plant nutrient uptake, and optimize the utilization of natural resources, contributing to sustainable farming practices on a global scale. However, the underlying changes in soil physio-chemical characteristics and enzymatic activities, which contribute to crop yield and nutrient uptake in the intercropping systems are largely unknown. Consequently, a two-year (2021–2022) field experiment was conducted on the maize/soybean intercropping practices with/without nitrogen (N) fertilization (i.e., N 0 ; 0 N kg ha −1 and N 1 ; 225 N kg ha −1 for maize and 100 N kg ha −1 for soybean ) to know whether such cropping system can improve the nutrients uptake and crop yields, soil physio-chemical characteristics, and soil enzymes, which ultimately results in enhanced crop yield. The results revealed that maize intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 MI and N 1 MI) had higher crop yield, biomass dry matter, and 1000-grain weight of maize than mono-cropping treatments (i.e., N 0 MM, and N 1 MM). Nonetheless, these parameters were optimized in N 1 MI treatments in both years. For instance, N 1 MI produced the maximum grain yield (10,105 and 11,705 kg ha −1 ), biomass dry matter (13,893 and 14,093 kg ha −1 ), and 1000-grain weight (420 and 449 g) of maize in the year 2021 and 2022, respectively. Conversely, soybean intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 SI and N 1 SI) reduced such yield parameters for soybean. Also, the land equivalent ratio (LER) and land equivalent ratio for N fertilization (LER N ) values were always greater than 1, showing the intercropping system’s benefits in terms of yield and improved resource usage. Moreover, maize intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 MI and N 1 MI) and soybean intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 SI and N 1 SI) significantly ( p < 0.05) enhanced the nutrient uptake (i.e., N, P, K, Ca, Fe, and Zn) of maize and soybean, however, these nutrients uptakes were more prominent in N 1 MI and N 1 SI treatments of maize and soybean, respectively in both years (2021 and 2022) compared with their mono-cropping treatments. Similarly, maize-soybean intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 MSI and N 1 MSI) significantly ( p < 0.05) improved the soil-based N, P, K, NH 4 , NO 3 , and soil organic matter, but, reduced the soil pH. Such maize-soybean intercropping treatments also improved the soil enzymatic activities such as protease (PT), sucrose (SC), acid phosphatase (AP), urease (UE), and catalase (CT) activities. This indicates that maize-soybean intercropping could potentially contribute to higher and better crop yield, enhanced plant nutrient uptake, improved soil nutrient pool, physio-chemical characteristics, and related soil enzymatic activities. Thus, preferring intercropping to mono-cropping could be a preferable choice for ecologically viable agricultural development.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Maize intercropping gave higher maize crop yield, biomass dry matter and 1000-grain weight than mono-cropping.
- Treatment
- maize intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- crop yield, biomass dry matter, and 1000-grain weighte1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- mono-cropping treatmentse1
- Setting
- field experimente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e0“a two-year (2021–2022) field experiment was conducted”
e1“The results revealed that maize intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 MI and N 1 MI) had higher crop yield, biomass dry matter, and 1000-grain weight of maize than mono-cropping treatments (i.e., N 0 MM, and N 1 MM)”
Claim · model-written summary
N 1 MI gave the maximum maize grain yield (10,105 and 11,705 kg ha −1 in 2021 and 2022).
- Treatment
- N 1 MIe2
- Outcome
- grain yielde2
- Direction
- maximume2
- Value
- 10,105 and 11,705 kg ha −1e2
- Qualifier
- in the year 2021 and 2022, respectivelye2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e2“For instance, N 1 MI produced the maximum grain yield (10,105 and 11,705 kg ha −1), biomass dry matter (13,893 and 14,093 kg ha −1 ), and 1000-grain weight (420 and 449 g) of maize in the year 2021 and 2022, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
N 1 MI gave the maximum maize biomass dry matter (13,893 and 14,093 kg ha −1 in 2021 and 2022).
- Treatment
- N 1 MIe2
- Outcome
- biomass dry mattere2
- Direction
- maximume2
- Value
- 13,893 and 14,093 kg ha −1e2
- Qualifier
- in the year 2021 and 2022, respectivelye2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e2“For instance, N 1 MI produced the maximum grain yield (10,105 and 11,705 kg ha −1), biomass dry matter (13,893 and 14,093 kg ha −1 ), and 1000-grain weight (420 and 449 g) of maize in the year 2021 and 2022, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
N 1 MI gave the maximum maize 1000-grain weight (420 and 449 g in 2021 and 2022).
- Treatment
- N 1 MIe2
- Outcome
- 1000-grain weighte2
- Direction
- maximume2
- Value
- 420 and 449 ge2
- Qualifier
- in the year 2021 and 2022, respectivelye2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e2“For instance, N 1 MI produced the maximum grain yield (10,105 and 11,705 kg ha −1), biomass dry matter (13,893 and 14,093 kg ha −1 ), and 1000-grain weight (420 and 449 g) of maize in the year 2021 and 2022, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean intercropping reduced soybean yield parameters.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe3 - Treatment
- soybean intercroppinge3
- Outcome
- yield parameterse3
- Direction
- reducede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e3“Conversely, soybean intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 SI and N 1 SI) reduced such yield parameters for soybean”
Claim · model-written summary
The land equivalent ratio and the land equivalent ratio for N fertilization were always greater than 1 in the maize/soybean intercropping.
- Taxon
- Maize/soybeanGlycine max
Zea mayst0 - Outcome
- land equivalent ratio (LER)e4
- Direction
- greater than 1e4
- Qualifier
- land equivalent ratio for N fertilization (LER N )e4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e4“the land equivalent ratio (LER) and land equivalent ratio for N fertilization (LER N ) values were always greater than 1”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize intercropping enhanced maize nutrient uptake relative to mono-cropping.
- Treatment
- maize intercroppinge5
- Outcome
- nutrient uptakee5
- Direction
- enhancede5
- Qualifier
- N, P, K, Ca, Fe, and Zne5
- Comparator
- mono-cropping treatmentse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e5“maize intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 MI and N 1 MI) and soybean intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 SI and N 1 SI) significantly ( p < 0.05) enhanced the nutrient uptake (i.e., N, P, K, Ca, Fe, and Zn) of maize and soybean, however, these nutrients uptakes were more prominent in N 1 MI and N 1 SI treatments of maize and soybean, respectively in both years (2021 and 2022) compared with their mono-cropping treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean intercropping enhanced soybean nutrient uptake relative to mono-cropping.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe5
- Treatment
- soybean intercroppinge5
- Outcome
- nutrient uptakee5
- Direction
- enhancede5
- Qualifier
- N, P, K, Ca, Fe, and Zne5
- Comparator
- mono-cropping treatmentse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e5“maize intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 MI and N 1 MI) and soybean intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 SI and N 1 SI) significantly ( p < 0.05) enhanced the nutrient uptake (i.e., N, P, K, Ca, Fe, and Zn) of maize and soybean, however, these nutrients uptakes were more prominent in N 1 MI and N 1 SI treatments of maize and soybean, respectively in both years (2021 and 2022) compared with their mono-cropping treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-soybean intercropping improved soil-based N, P and K.
- Taxon
- Maize/soybeanGlycine maxZea mayst0
- Treatment
- maize-soybean intercroppinge6
- Outcome
- soil-based N, P, Ke6
- Direction
- improvede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e6“maize-soybean intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 MSI and N 1 MSI) significantly ( p < 0.05) improved the soil-based N, P, K, NH 4 , NO 3 , and soil organic matter, but, reduced the soil pH”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-soybean intercropping improved soil NH4, NO3 and soil organic matter.
- Taxon
- Maize/soybeanGlycine maxZea mayst0
- Treatment
- maize-soybean intercroppinge6
- Outcome
- NH 4 , NO 3 , and soil organic mattere6
- Direction
- improvede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e6“maize-soybean intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 MSI and N 1 MSI) significantly ( p < 0.05) improved the soil-based N, P, K, NH 4 , NO 3 , and soil organic matter, but, reduced the soil pH”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-soybean intercropping reduced soil pH.
- Taxon
- Maize/soybeanGlycine maxZea mayst0
- Treatment
- maize-soybean intercroppinge6
- Outcome
- soil pHe6
- Direction
- reducede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e6“maize-soybean intercropping treatments (i.e., N 0 MSI and N 1 MSI) significantly ( p < 0.05) improved the soil-based N, P, K, NH 4 , NO 3 , and soil organic matter, but, reduced the soil pH”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-soybean intercropping improved soil protease, sucrose and acid phosphatase activities.
- Taxon
- Maize/soybeanGlycine maxZea mayst0
- Treatment
- maize-soybean intercroppinge7
- Outcome
- protease (PT), sucrose (SC), acid phosphatase (AP)e7
- Direction
- improvede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e7“Such maize-soybean intercropping treatments also improved the soil enzymatic activities such as protease (PT), sucrose (SC), acid phosphatase (AP), urease (UE), and catalase (CT) activities”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize-soybean intercropping improved soil urease and catalase activities.
- Taxon
- Maize/soybeanGlycine maxZea mayst0
- Treatment
- maize-soybean intercroppinge7
- Outcome
- urease (UE), and catalase (CT)e7
- Direction
- improvede7
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e7“Such maize-soybean intercropping treatments also improved the soil enzymatic activities such as protease (PT), sucrose (SC), acid phosphatase (AP), urease (UE), and catalase (CT) activities”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping is preferable to mono-cropping for ecologically viable agricultural development.
- Taxon
- Maize/soybeanGlycine maxZea mayst0
- Outcome
- preferring intercropping to mono-croppinge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/soybean intercropping”
e1“Thus, preferring intercropping to mono-cropping could be a preferable choice for ecologically viable agricultural development”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · physiology: antioxidant enzymes · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
intercropping · physiology: antioxidant enzymes · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →intercropping · soil: chemistry · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →intercropping · molecular: metabolites · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →intercropping · molecular: metabolites · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
21 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- negative
24 papers more in this group
See all 28 papers →intercropping · nutrient: content · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 8 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
36 papers more in this group
See all 40 papers →intercropping · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- negative
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 papers →intercropping · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
121 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- no effect
137 papers more in this group
See all 141 papers →8 of 10 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
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.