Paper · 2025 · Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems

Soil quality and biological and economic efficiency of intercropping in the Brazilian semi-arid region

Vanessa Maria de Souza Barros; José Vagner Silva; Nágilla Francielle Silva Cardoso; et al.

5
claims
9
verbatim quotes
0
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the soil chemical quality, productivity, and biological and economic efficiency of different intercropping arrangements with cotton, cowpea, maize, and sesame in agroecological properties in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Soil samples were collected from 24 farms in the municipalities of Choró (C), Massapê (M), Quixadá (Q) and Tauá (T), Ceará, Brazil, to assess soil chemical properties and in intercropping areas (IA). Among the chemical properties, the mean contents of potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and available P, sum of bases (SB), cation exchange capacity (t), and base saturation (V) were higher in the IA in relation to natural vegetation (NV), in all municipalities and depths, thus greater potential for distinguishing the systems. However, due to family and health problems, only 16 farms out of the initial 24 managed their areas until harvest. On these 16 farms, crop yields and biological and economic efficiency indices were determined in the IA. The land equivalent ratio was higher than 1 in nine of the 16 farms. The intercropping of maize, cowpea and cotton allowed a 31% increase in cowpea yields when compared to cowpea monocrop. The highest monetary advantages were observed in the four rows of maize and cowpea, sown in the same hole and four rows of cotton (US$ 2,755.77 ha−1) and one row of cowpea and maize in alternate holes and three rows of cotton (US$ 7,014.24 ha−1) arrangements.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Intercropping areas had higher mean soil base nutrient and fertility measures than natural vegetation.

Outcome
mean contents of potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and available Pe0
Direction
highere0
Comparator
natural vegetation (NV)e0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“mean contents of potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and available P, sum of bases (SB), cation exchange capacity (t), and base saturation (V) were higher in the IA in relation to natural vegetation (NV), in all municipalities and depths”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 500–745 · show in text ↑
t0

“with cotton, cowpea, maize, and sesame”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 162–200 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Land equivalent ratio exceeded one in nine of 16 farms.

Outcome
land equivalent ratioe0
Direction
highere0
Value
1e0
Qualifier
nine of the 16 farmse0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The land equivalent ratio was higher than 1 in nine of the 16 farms”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1022–1089 · show in text ↑
t0

“with cotton, cowpea, maize, and sesame”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 162–200 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Maize, cowpea and cotton intercropping increased cowpea yield by 31% versus cowpea monoculture.

Treatment
intercropping of maize, cowpea and cottone0
Outcome
cowpea yieldse0
Direction
increasee0
Value
31%e0
Comparator
cowpea monocrope0

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

Vigna unguiculata
Vigna unguiculata · TaxonHeraldDesa at English Wikipedia · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The intercropping of maize, cowpea and cotton allowed a 31% increase in cowpea yields when compared to cowpea monocrop”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1091–1209 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The four-row maize and cowpea plus four-row cotton arrangement had a monetary advantage of US$ 2,755.77 ha−1.

Treatment
four rows of maize and cowpea, sown in the same hole and four rows of cottone0
Outcome
monetary advantagese0
Value
US$ 2,755.77 ha−1e0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest monetary advantages were observed in the four rows of maize and cowpea, sown in the same hole and four rows of cotton (US$ 2,755.77 ha−1)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1211–1360 · show in text ↑
t0

“with cotton, cowpea, maize, and sesame”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 162–200 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The alternate-hole cowpea and maize plus three-row cotton arrangement had a monetary advantage of US$ 7,014.24 ha−1.

Treatment
one row of cowpea and maize in alternate holes and three rows of cottone0
Outcome
monetary advantagese0
Value
US$ 7,014.24 ha−1e0

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

Gossypium hirsutum
Gossypium hirsutum · TaxonChriKo · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The highest monetary advantages were observed in the four rows of maize and cowpea, sown in the same hole and four rows of cotton (US$ 2,755.77 ha−1) and one row of cowpea and maize in alternate holes and three rows of cotton (US$ 7,014.24 ha−1) arrangements”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1211–1469 · show in text ↑
t0

“with cotton, cowpea, maize, and sesame”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 162–200 · show in text ↑

Zea mays · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Positive and negative results

27 papers: 18 positive, 9 negative or no effect

17 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

23 papers more in this group

See all 27 papers →

intercropping · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ

103 papers: 63 positive, 40 negative or no effect

62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

99 papers more in this group

See all 103 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.