Abstract
The increasing global food demand, the degradation of one-third of agricultural land, and climate change pose significant threats to food production. Maize and soybean intercropping can enhance yields and land use efficiency, yet the year-interval effects of continuous intercropping on yield, yield sustainability, and phosphorus use efficiency (PUE) remain unclear. This study evaluates the effects of continuous maize/soybean intercropping over year intervals on yield, PUE, and sustainability. A seven-year field trial (2017-2023) was conducted on acidic soil, comparing two cropping systems: maize monocropping and maize intercropped with soybean. The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals. Over the first, third, and seventh year intervals, maize yield increased by 37%, 35%, and 58%, respectively, with a 55% average increase over the seven years. Intercropping also enhanced P use efficiency, as evidenced by AE, RE, PFP, and CPF increases. In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively; after the third year interval, these metrics improved by 40%, 35%, 26%, and 14%; and after the seventh year interval, they rose by 60%, 58%, 24%, and 10.5%. The average AE, RE, and PFP increases over seven years were 53%, 52%, and 27%, respectively, while CPF increased by 13%. The SEM analysis further confirmed the substantial impact of the seventh year intercropping interval on maize yield, sustainability, and PUE. This study demonstrates that continuous maize/soybean intercropping can enhance maize yield, PUE, and sustainability, with the seventh year interval offering the most pronounced benefits. These findings provide valuable insights for improving food security and nutrient management challenges.
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 20
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield increased 37% under intercropping in the first interval.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 37%e0
- Qualifier
- firste0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over the first, third, and seventh year intervals, maize yield increased by 37%, 35%, and 58%, respectively, with a 55% average increase over the seven years”
e1“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield increased 35% under intercropping in the third interval.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 35%e0
- Qualifier
- thirde0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over the first, third, and seventh year intervals, maize yield increased by 37%, 35%, and 58%, respectively, with a 55% average increase over the seven years”
e1“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield increased 58% under intercropping in the seventh interval.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 58%e0
- Qualifier
- seventhe0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over the first, third, and seventh year intervals, maize yield increased by 37%, 35%, and 58%, respectively, with a 55% average increase over the seven years”
e1“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yield increased 55% under intercropping in the seven years interval.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- maize yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 55%e0
- Qualifier
- seven yearse0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Over the first, third, and seventh year intervals, maize yield increased by 37%, 35%, and 58%, respectively, with a 55% average increase over the seven years”
e1“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
Claim · model-written summary
AE increased 48% with intercropping in the first year.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- AEe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 48%e0
- Qualifier
- first yeare0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
PFP increased 37% with intercropping in the first year.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- PFPe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 37%e0
- Qualifier
- first yeare0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
RE increased 27% with intercropping in the first year.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- REe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 27%e0
- Qualifier
- first yeare0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
CPF increased 16% with intercropping in the first year.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- CPFe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 16%e0
- Qualifier
- first yeare0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
AE increased 40% with intercropping in the third year interval.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- AEe1
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 40%e0
- Qualifier
- third year intervale0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“after the third year interval, these metrics improved by 40%, 35%, 26%, and 14%”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
PFP increased 35% with intercropping in the third year interval.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- PFPe1
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 35%e0
- Qualifier
- third year intervale0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“after the third year interval, these metrics improved by 40%, 35%, 26%, and 14%”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
RE increased 26% with intercropping in the third year interval.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- REe1
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 26%e0
- Qualifier
- third year intervale0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“after the third year interval, these metrics improved by 40%, 35%, 26%, and 14%”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
CPF increased 14% with intercropping in the third year interval.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- CPFe1
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 14%e0
- Qualifier
- third year intervale0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“after the third year interval, these metrics improved by 40%, 35%, 26%, and 14%”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
AE increased 60% with intercropping in the seventh year interval.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- AEe1
- Direction
- rosee0
- Value
- 60%e0
- Qualifier
- seventh year intervale0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“after the seventh year interval, they rose by 60%, 58%, 24%, and 10.5%”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
PFP increased 58% with intercropping in the seventh year interval.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- PFPe1
- Direction
- rosee0
- Value
- 58%e0
- Qualifier
- seventh year intervale0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“after the seventh year interval, they rose by 60%, 58%, 24%, and 10.5%”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
RE increased 24% with intercropping in the seventh year interval.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- REe1
- Direction
- rosee0
- Value
- 24%e0
- Qualifier
- seventh year intervale0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“after the seventh year interval, they rose by 60%, 58%, 24%, and 10.5%”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
CPF increased 10.5% with intercropping in the seventh year interval.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- CPFe1
- Direction
- rosee0
- Value
- 10.5%e0
- Qualifier
- seventh year intervale0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“after the seventh year interval, they rose by 60%, 58%, 24%, and 10.5%”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
AE increased 53% with intercropping in the seven years.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- AEe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 53%e0
- Qualifier
- seven yearse0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average AE, RE, and PFP increases over seven years were 53%, 52%, and 27%, respectively, while CPF increased by 13%”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
RE increased 52% with intercropping in the seven years.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- REe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 52%e0
- Qualifier
- seven yearse0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average AE, RE, and PFP increases over seven years were 53%, 52%, and 27%, respectively, while CPF increased by 13%”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
PFP increased 27% with intercropping in the seven years.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- PFPe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 27%e0
- Qualifier
- seven yearse0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average AE, RE, and PFP increases over seven years were 53%, 52%, and 27%, respectively, while CPF increased by 13%”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
CPF increased 13% with intercropping in the seven years.
- Treatment
- maize/soybean intercroppinge2
- Outcome
- CPFe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 13%e0
- Qualifier
- seven yearse0
- Comparator
- maize monocroppinge2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average AE, RE, and PFP increases over seven years were 53%, 52%, and 27%, respectively, while CPF increased by 13%”
e1“In the first year, AE, PFP, RE, and CPF increased by 48%, 37%, 27%, and 16%, respectively”
e2“The results showed that continuous maize/soybean intercropping outperformed maize monocropping across all year intervals”
t0“Continuous Maize/Soybean Intercropping”
The same questions in other papers
Glycine max · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →Glycine max · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
154 papers in the same direction as this paper · 18 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
176 papers more in this group
See all 180 papers →intercropping · nutrient: efficiency · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
612 papers in the same direction as this paper · 181 in the opposite direction · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 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.