Abstract
Intercropping and phosphorus application are effective ways to increase crop yield and improve soil quality. However, the effects of intercropping and phosphorus application on rhizosphere soil properties, root morphology, and microbial characteristics are still unclear. This study focuses on the effects of intercropping and phosphorus fertilizer application (180 kg P2O5 ha−1) on the physicochemical properties, enzyme activity, root morphology, and microbial characteristics of rhizosphere soil in a maize–peanut intercropping field planted for 14 years. The results showed that compared with monoculture, intercropping increased the carbon and nutrient contents. Phosphorus fertilizer application further increased the rhizosphere soil nutrient contents. Compared with monoculture, intercropping increased the urease and saccharase by 14.00 and 7.16% in rhizosphere soil, and phosphorus application increased the urease, alkaline phosphatase, and saccharase in rhizosphere soil by 13.38%, 9.75%, and 24.20% compared with no phosphorus application. Compared with monoculture, intercropping increased the root length, root surface area, root volume, and root tip number by 19.17%, 21.57%, 20.74%, and 28.54%, and phosphorus fertilizer application further increased the root length, root surface area, and root volume by 44.66%, 40.20%, and 41.70%. Compared with monoculture, intercropping increased the Chao index and Shannon index of rhizosphere soil bacteria and fungi by 4.29% and 1.63%, and 27.25% and 7.68%. Intercropping and phosphorus application increased the number of edges and modularity of the network of bacterial and fungal communities. To sum up, the intercropping of maize and peanut improved the nutrient contents and enzyme activity of rhizosphere soil, promoted the growth of the root system, and improved the diversity and connectivity of rhizosphere microbial communities, and the application of phosphate fertilizer further optimized the rhizosphere soil microecological environment. The research results provide a theoretical basis for maintaining the stability and sustainable development of the micro-ecosystem in a maize–peanut intercropping field.
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 17
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased carbon and nutrient contents compared with monoculture.
- Taxon
- Maize–Peanut
Arachis hypogaea
Zea mayst0 - Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- carbon and nutrient contentse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“compared with monoculture, intercropping increased the carbon and nutrient contents”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased urease compared with monoculture by 14.00.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- ureasee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 14.00e0
- Comparator
- monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with monoculture, intercropping increased the urease and saccharase by 14.00 and 7.16% in rhizosphere soil”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased saccharase compared with monoculture by 7.16%.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- saccharasee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 7.16%e0
- Comparator
- monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with monoculture, intercropping increased the urease and saccharase by 14.00 and 7.16% in rhizosphere soil”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased root length compared with monoculture by 19.17%.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- root lengthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 19.17%e0
- Comparator
- monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with monoculture, intercropping increased the root length, root surface area, root volume, and root tip number by 19.17%, 21.57%, 20.74%, and 28.54%”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased root surface area compared with monoculture by 21.57%.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- root surface areae0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 21.57%e0
- Comparator
- monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with monoculture, intercropping increased the root length, root surface area, root volume, and root tip number by 19.17%, 21.57%, 20.74%, and 28.54%”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased root volume compared with monoculture by 20.74%.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- root volumee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 20.74%e0
- Comparator
- monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with monoculture, intercropping increased the root length, root surface area, root volume, and root tip number by 19.17%, 21.57%, 20.74%, and 28.54%”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased root tip number compared with monoculture by 28.54%.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- root tip numbere0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 28.54%e0
- Comparator
- monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with monoculture, intercropping increased the root length, root surface area, root volume, and root tip number by 19.17%, 21.57%, 20.74%, and 28.54%”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased Chao index of rhizosphere soil bacteria and fungi compared with monoculture by 4.29%.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- Chao indexe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 4.29%e0
- Comparator
- monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with monoculture, intercropping increased the Chao index and Shannon index of rhizosphere soil bacteria and fungi by 4.29% and 1.63%, and 27.25% and 7.68%”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased Shannon index of rhizosphere soil bacteria and fungi compared with monoculture by 1.63%.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- Shannon indexe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1.63%e0
- Comparator
- monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with monoculture, intercropping increased the Chao index and Shannon index of rhizosphere soil bacteria and fungi by 4.29% and 1.63%, and 27.25% and 7.68%”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphorus application increased rhizosphere soil urease by 13.38%.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- phosphorus applicatione0
- Outcome
- ureasee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 13.38%e0
- Comparator
- no phosphorus applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“phosphorus application increased the urease, alkaline phosphatase, and saccharase in rhizosphere soil by 13.38%, 9.75%, and 24.20% compared with no phosphorus application”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphorus application increased rhizosphere soil alkaline phosphatase by 9.75%.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- phosphorus applicatione0
- Outcome
- alkaline phosphatasee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 9.75%e0
- Comparator
- no phosphorus applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“phosphorus application increased the urease, alkaline phosphatase, and saccharase in rhizosphere soil by 13.38%, 9.75%, and 24.20% compared with no phosphorus application”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphorus application increased rhizosphere soil saccharase by 24.20%.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- phosphorus applicatione0
- Outcome
- saccharasee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 24.20%e0
- Comparator
- no phosphorus applicatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“phosphorus application increased the urease, alkaline phosphatase, and saccharase in rhizosphere soil by 13.38%, 9.75%, and 24.20% compared with no phosphorus application”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphorus fertilizer further increased root length by 44.66%.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- phosphorus fertilizer applicatione0
- Outcome
- root lengthe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 44.66%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“phosphorus fertilizer application further increased the root length, root surface area, and root volume by 44.66%, 40.20%, and 41.70%”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphorus fertilizer further increased root surface area by 40.20%.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- phosphorus fertilizer applicatione0
- Outcome
- root surface areae0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 40.20%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“phosphorus fertilizer application further increased the root length, root surface area, and root volume by 44.66%, 40.20%, and 41.70%”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphorus fertilizer further increased root volume by 41.70%.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- phosphorus fertilizer applicatione0
- Outcome
- root volumee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 41.70%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“phosphorus fertilizer application further increased the root length, root surface area, and root volume by 44.66%, 40.20%, and 41.70%”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Phosphorus fertilizer further increased rhizosphere soil nutrient contents.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- Phosphorus fertilizer applicatione0
- Outcome
- rhizosphere soil nutrient contentse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Phosphorus fertilizer application further increased the rhizosphere soil nutrient contents”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping and phosphorus application increased bacterial and fungal network edges and modularity.
- Taxon
- Maize–PeanutArachis hypogaeaZea mayst0
- Treatment
- Intercropping and phosphorus applicatione0
- Outcome
- number of edges and modularity of the network of bacterial and fungal communitiese0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping and phosphorus application increased the number of edges and modularity of the network of bacterial and fungal communities”
t0“Maize–Peanut”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
137 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- no effect
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 papers →intercropping · soil: biology · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →intercropping · ecology: diversity · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →phosphorus · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
11 papers more in this group
See all 15 papers →intercropping · growth · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
11 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
16 papers more in this group
See all 20 papers →intercropping · nutrient: content · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
27 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
26 papers more in this group
See all 30 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 →fertilization · nutrient: content · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Positive and negative results
146 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
149 papers more in this group
See all 153 papers →8 of 14 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.