Abstract
Abstract Cereal/legume intercropping is gaining attention due to its potential contribution to achieving sustainable intensification of forage production. Productivity and quality of cereal/legume fodder mixtures are expected to vary among species combinations. However, for intercropping with different species combinations, the impacts of management practices on productivity and fodder quality have remained largely unexplored. We report a meta-analysis (with 467 data records from 49 publications) to evaluate options for improving forage yield and quality (%crude protein) in cereal/legume fodder mixtures through management (e.g., varying crop density and species combination). Our findings indicate how much forage mixture gains in yield or quality varied among 16 species combinations with ≥ 8 records. The net effect ratio for dry matter yield of barley/vetch (1.18±0.061), maize/cowpea (1.33±0.160), maize/soybean (1.66±0.188), and triticale/pea (1.41±0.139) intercrops was positive (> 1). The net effect ratio for % crude protein of barley/faba bean (0.87±0.025) and triticale/pea (0.85±0.026) intercrops was negative (< 1). In addition, intercropping design (replacement (relative density = 1)/additive (1 < relative density ≤ 2)) influences the size of effects without affecting their direction. Oat/pea intercropping in an additive design had a higher net effect ratio for %crude protein than that with a replacement design. Both maize/cowpea and sorghum/cowpea intercrops with additive designs had positive net effect ratios for dry matter yield, while those with a replacement design had net effect ratios similar to one. Here, we report a quantitative review demonstrating for the first time how yield and quality performance of cereal/legume intercropping for fodder production differs between species combinations and how management practices influence the size of the effect. Our findings support the design of intercropping systems for specific agro-ecological settings and production aims of target animal farming systems, thereby contributing to the forage production literature.
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
The net effect ratio for dry matter yield of barley/vetch intercrops was higher than 1 (1.18±0.061).
- Taxon
- barley/vetche1
- Treatment
- intercropse1
- Outcome
- net effect ratio for dry matter yielde1
- Direction
- higherinferrede1
- Value
- 1.18±0.061e1
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e1“The net effect ratio for dry matter yield of barley/vetch (1.18±0.061), maize/cowpea (1.33±0.160), maize/soybean (1.66±0.188), and triticale/pea (1.41±0.139) intercrops was positive (> 1)”
Claim · model-written summary
The net effect ratio for dry matter yield of maize/cowpea intercrops was higher than 1 (1.33±0.160).
- Taxon
- maize/cowpea
Vigna unguiculata
Zea mayse1 - Treatment
- intercropse1
- Outcome
- net effect ratio for dry matter yielde1
- Direction
- higherinferrede1
- Value
- 1.33±0.160e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The net effect ratio for dry matter yield of barley/vetch (1.18±0.061), maize/cowpea (1.33±0.160), maize/soybean (1.66±0.188), and triticale/pea (1.41±0.139) intercrops was positive (> 1)”
Claim · model-written summary
The net effect ratio for dry matter yield of maize/soybean intercrops was higher than 1 (1.66±0.188).
- Taxon
- maize/soybean
Glycine maxZea mayse1 - Treatment
- intercropse1
- Outcome
- net effect ratio for dry matter yielde1
- Direction
- higherinferrede1
- Value
- 1.66±0.188e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The net effect ratio for dry matter yield of barley/vetch (1.18±0.061), maize/cowpea (1.33±0.160), maize/soybean (1.66±0.188), and triticale/pea (1.41±0.139) intercrops was positive (> 1)”
Claim · model-written summary
The net effect ratio for dry matter yield of triticale/pea intercrops was higher than 1 (1.41±0.139).
- Taxon
- triticale/pea
Lathyrus oleraceus
×Triticosecalee1 - Treatment
- intercropse1
- Outcome
- net effect ratio for dry matter yielde1
- Direction
- higherinferrede1
- Value
- 1.41±0.139e1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The net effect ratio for dry matter yield of barley/vetch (1.18±0.061), maize/cowpea (1.33±0.160), maize/soybean (1.66±0.188), and triticale/pea (1.41±0.139) intercrops was positive (> 1)”
Claim · model-written summary
The net effect ratio for crude protein of barley/faba bean intercrops was lower than 1 (0.87±0.025).
- Taxon
- barley/faba bean
Vicia faba.jpg?width=60)
Hordeum vulgaree2 - Treatment
- intercropse2
- Outcome
- net effect ratio for % crude proteine2
- Direction
- lowerinferrede2
- Value
- 0.87±0.025e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e2“The net effect ratio for % crude protein of barley/faba bean (0.87±0.025) and triticale/pea (0.85±0.026) intercrops was negative (< 1)”
Claim · model-written summary
The net effect ratio for crude protein of triticale/pea intercrops was lower than 1 (0.85±0.026).
- Taxon
- triticale/peaLathyrus oleraceus×Triticosecalee2
- Treatment
- intercropse2
- Outcome
- net effect ratio for % crude proteine2
- Direction
- lowerinferrede2
- Value
- 0.85±0.026e2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“The net effect ratio for % crude protein of barley/faba bean (0.87±0.025) and triticale/pea (0.85±0.026) intercrops was negative (< 1)”
Claim · model-written summary
The intercropping design influences the size of the net effects but not their direction.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Cereal/legume intercropping is gaining attention”
e3“intercropping design (replacement (relative density = 1)/additive (1 < relative density ≤ 2)) influences the size of effects without affecting their direction”
Claim · model-written summary
Oat/pea intercropping in an additive design had a higher net effect ratio for crude protein than a replacement design.
- Taxon
- Oat/peaLathyrus oleraceus
Avena sativae4 - Treatment
- additive designe4
- Outcome
- net effect ratio for %crude proteine4
- Direction
- highere4
- Comparator
- replacement designe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Oat/pea intercropping in an additive design had a higher net effect ratio for %crude protein than that with a replacement design”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize/cowpea and sorghum/cowpea intercrops with additive designs had positive net effect ratios for dry matter yield.
- Taxon
- maize/cowpea and sorghum/cowpeaVigna unguiculata
SorghumZea mayse5 - Treatment
- additive designse5
- Outcome
- net effect ratios for dry matter yielde5
- Direction
- positivee5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Both maize/cowpea and sorghum/cowpea intercrops with additive designs had positive net effect ratios for dry matter yield, while those with a replacement design had net effect ratios similar to one”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize/cowpea and sorghum/cowpea intercrops with a replacement design had net effect ratios similar to one.
- Taxon
- maize/cowpea and sorghum/cowpeaVigna unguiculataSorghumZea mayse5
- Treatment
- replacement designe5
- Outcome
- net effect ratiose5
- Direction
- no_changeinferrede5
- Comparator
- additive designse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Both maize/cowpea and sorghum/cowpea intercrops with additive designs had positive net effect ratios for dry matter yield, while those with a replacement design had net effect ratios similar to one”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Vigna unguiculata (cowpea)Results differ
62 papers in the same direction as this paper · 33 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- no effect
99 papers more in this group
See all 103 papers →intercropping · quality: protein · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
intercropping · quality: protein · Vicia faba (faba bean)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
intercropping · quality: protein · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →intercropping · quality: protein · Hordeum vulgare (barley)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →intercropping · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →intercropping · yield · Lathyrus oleraceus (pea)Positive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- negative
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →intercropping · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
130 papers in the same direction as this paper · 79 in the opposite direction · 8 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
214 papers more in this group
See all 218 papers →8 of 9 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.