Abstract
Wild grapevine was cultivated either alone or in association with Medicago sativa– rhizobia symbiosis on two soil types: an agricultural soil and a contaminated one. In the present work, we observed that in the agricultural soil, grapevine intercropped with the alfalfa–rhizobium combination exhibited a significant increase in whole plant biomass compared to plants grown in monoculture, reaching values from 26 to 38 g/plant, respectively. However, in the contaminated soil, intercropping had no significant effect on plant biomass (approximately 26 g/plant). In the agricultural soil, intercropped grapevines showed no significant difference in shoot Zn, Mg, Ca, and Fe concentrations compared with those grown in monoculture. Nevertheless, root Zn, Ca, and Fe concentrations (0.5, 80, and 10 g/kg·DW, respectively) were significantly lower than in grapevines cultivated alone. This suggests that grapevine competes with alfalfa for mineral uptake. In the contaminated soil, a significant reduction in root Fe and Ca concentrations was also observed in intercropped plants compared with monocultured grapevines—approximately 35% and 64% lower, respectively. It is likely that intercropping improves nutrient use efficiency while decreasing trace metal accumulation in intercropped grapevines. In fact, compared with monoculture, intercropping with alfalfa and rhizobia did not enhance mineral nutrient levels in grapevines.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Grapevine intercropped with alfalfa–rhizobium increased whole plant biomass compared with monoculture in agricultural soil.
- Treatment
- alfalfa–rhizobium combinatione1
- Outcome
- whole plant biomasse1
- Direction
- increasee1
- Value
- 26 to 38 g/plante1
- Comparator
- monoculturee1
- Setting
- agricultural soile1
Vitis
RhizobiumOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“in the agricultural soil, grapevine intercropped with the alfalfa–rhizobium combination exhibited a significant increase in whole plant biomass compared to plants grown in monoculture, reaching values from 26 to 38 g/plant, respectively”
e2“Wild grapevine was cultivated either alone or in association with Medicago sativa– rhizobia symbiosis on two soil types: an agricultural soil and a contaminated one”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping had no significant effect on grapevine plant biomass in contaminated soil.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- plant biomasse1
- Direction
- no significant effecte1
- Value
- approximately 26 g/plante1
- Setting
- contaminated soile1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“However, in the contaminated soil, intercropping had no significant effect on plant biomass (approximately 26 g/plant)”
e2“Wild grapevine was cultivated either alone or in association with Medicago sativa– rhizobia symbiosis on two soil types: an agricultural soil and a contaminated one”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot Zn, Mg and Ca concentrations of intercropped grapevine did not differ from monoculture in agricultural soil.
- Organ / stage
- shoote1
- Treatment
- intercroppede1
- Outcome
- shoot Zn, Mg, Cae1
- Direction
- no significant differencee1
- Comparator
- those grown in monoculturee1
- Setting
- agricultural soile1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In the agricultural soil, intercropped grapevines showed no significant difference in shoot Zn, Mg, Ca, and Fe concentrations compared with those grown in monoculture”
e2“Wild grapevine was cultivated either alone or in association with Medicago sativa– rhizobia symbiosis on two soil types: an agricultural soil and a contaminated one”
Claim · model-written summary
Shoot Fe concentration of intercropped grapevine did not differ from monoculture in agricultural soil.
- Organ / stage
- shoote1
- Treatment
- intercroppede1
- Outcome
- Fe concentrationse1
- Direction
- no significant differencee1
- Comparator
- those grown in monoculturee1
- Setting
- agricultural soile1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In the agricultural soil, intercropped grapevines showed no significant difference in shoot Zn, Mg, Ca, and Fe concentrations compared with those grown in monoculture”
e2“Wild grapevine was cultivated either alone or in association with Medicago sativa– rhizobia symbiosis on two soil types: an agricultural soil and a contaminated one”
Claim · model-written summary
Root Zn concentration of intercropped grapevine was significantly lower than in grapevine grown alone in agricultural soil.
- Organ / stage
- roote1
- Treatment
- intercroppede2
- Outcome
- root Zn, Ca, and Fe concentrationse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 0.5e1
- Comparator
- grapevines cultivated alonee1
- Setting
- agricultural soile2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Nevertheless, root Zn, Ca, and Fe concentrations (0.5, 80, and 10 g/kg·DW, respectively) were significantly lower than in grapevines cultivated alone”
e2“In the agricultural soil, intercropped grapevines showed no significant difference in shoot Zn, Mg, Ca, and Fe concentrations compared with those grown in monoculture”
e3“Wild grapevine was cultivated either alone or in association with Medicago sativa– rhizobia symbiosis on two soil types: an agricultural soil and a contaminated one”
Claim · model-written summary
Root Ca concentration of intercropped grapevine was significantly lower than in grapevine grown alone in agricultural soil.
- Organ / stage
- roote1
- Treatment
- intercroppede2
- Outcome
- root Zn, Ca, and Fe concentrationse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 80e1
- Comparator
- grapevines cultivated alonee1
- Setting
- agricultural soile2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Nevertheless, root Zn, Ca, and Fe concentrations (0.5, 80, and 10 g/kg·DW, respectively) were significantly lower than in grapevines cultivated alone”
e2“In the agricultural soil, intercropped grapevines showed no significant difference in shoot Zn, Mg, Ca, and Fe concentrations compared with those grown in monoculture”
e3“Wild grapevine was cultivated either alone or in association with Medicago sativa– rhizobia symbiosis on two soil types: an agricultural soil and a contaminated one”
Claim · model-written summary
Root Fe concentration of intercropped grapevine was significantly lower than in grapevine grown alone in agricultural soil.
- Organ / stage
- roote1
- Treatment
- intercroppede2
- Outcome
- root Zn, Ca, and Fe concentrationse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 10 g/kg·DWe1
- Comparator
- grapevines cultivated alonee1
- Setting
- agricultural soile2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Nevertheless, root Zn, Ca, and Fe concentrations (0.5, 80, and 10 g/kg·DW, respectively) were significantly lower than in grapevines cultivated alone”
e2“In the agricultural soil, intercropped grapevines showed no significant difference in shoot Zn, Mg, Ca, and Fe concentrations compared with those grown in monoculture”
e3“Wild grapevine was cultivated either alone or in association with Medicago sativa– rhizobia symbiosis on two soil types: an agricultural soil and a contaminated one”
Claim · model-written summary
Root Fe concentration of intercropped grapevine was about 35% lower than in monocultured grapevine in contaminated soil.
- Organ / stage
- roote1
- Treatment
- intercropped plantse1
- Outcome
- root Fe and Ca concentrationse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 35%e1
- Comparator
- monocultured grapevinese1
- Setting
- contaminated soile1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In the contaminated soil, a significant reduction in root Fe and Ca concentrations was also observed in intercropped plants compared with monocultured grapevines—approximately 35% and 64% lower, respectively”
e2“Wild grapevine was cultivated either alone or in association with Medicago sativa– rhizobia symbiosis on two soil types: an agricultural soil and a contaminated one”
Claim · model-written summary
Root Ca concentration of intercropped grapevine was about 64% lower than in monocultured grapevine in contaminated soil.
- Organ / stage
- roote1
- Treatment
- intercropped plantse1
- Outcome
- root Fe and Ca concentrationse1
- Direction
- lowere1
- Value
- 64%e1
- Comparator
- monocultured grapevinese1
- Setting
- contaminated soile1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In the contaminated soil, a significant reduction in root Fe and Ca concentrations was also observed in intercropped plants compared with monocultured grapevines—approximately 35% and 64% lower, respectively”
e2“Wild grapevine was cultivated either alone or in association with Medicago sativa– rhizobia symbiosis on two soil types: an agricultural soil and a contaminated one”
Claim · model-written summary
Grapevine competes with alfalfa for mineral uptake when intercropped.
- Interactor
- alfalfa
Medicago sativae1other - Outcome
- mineral uptakee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“This suggests that grapevine competes with alfalfa for mineral uptake”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping likely decreases trace metal accumulation in grapevine.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“It is likely that intercropping improves nutrient use efficiency while decreasing trace metal accumulation in intercropped grapevines”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping with alfalfa and rhizobia did not enhance mineral nutrient levels in grapevine compared with monoculture.
- Treatment
- intercropping with alfalfa and rhizobiae1
- Outcome
- mineral nutrient levelse1
- Direction
- did not enhancee1
- Comparator
- monoculturee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“In fact, compared with monoculture, intercropping with alfalfa and rhizobia did not enhance mineral nutrient levels in grapevines”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · growth · VitisPositive 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 · nutrient: content · VitisPositive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 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.