Abstract
Intercropping maize with legume cover crops has been shown to increase soil organic carbon (SOC) and alter soil microbial communities, potentially affecting soil aggregate stability. However, whether different legume cover crop varieties vary in their effects on SOC enhancement and aggregate stability improvement, and whether such variation is associated with their capacity to enhance distinct microbial taxa, remains unclear. Here, we conducted a five-year field experiment comprising maize monoculture (MM) and six intercropping systems in which maize was grown with different legume cover crop varieties. We aimed to assess the role of bacterial, non-AMF, and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal (AMF) community composition in influencing SOC and aggregate stability, measured as mean weight diameter (MWD). On average, the six intercropping systems significantly increased SOC by 28% compared with MM, with no significant differences among legume varieties. However, MWD varied significantly depending on the specific legume used. Specifically, intercropping with red clover or sesbania resulted in MWD values similar to MM, whereas intercropping with soybean, hairy vetch, common vetch, or yellow sweet clover led to significantly higher MWD. Notably, MWD was positively correlated with the proportion of C within macroaggregates (>0.25 mm), and this effect was linked to the enrichment of specific microbial taxa—including the bacterium RB41, the non-AMF Trichoderma, and AMF (unclassified Glomerales, Glomus2, and Glomus3)—in systems with high MWD. These findings indicate that while SOC accrual under intercropping is robust across legume varieties, aggregate stability is contingent upon the identity of the legume and its associated microbiota. Selecting legume varieties with a greater ability to increase the abundance of specific microorganisms that enhance C allocation into macroaggregates can simultaneously improve both SOC accumulation and aggregate stability in maize-based intercropping systems.
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
Six intercropping systems increased soil organic carbon by 28% compared with maize monoculture.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“On average, the six intercropping systems significantly increased SOC by 28% compared with MM”
e1“maize monoculture (MM) and six intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
SOC did not differ significantly among legume varieties.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with no significant differences among legume varieties.”
e1“On average, the six intercropping systems significantly increased SOC by 28% compared with MM”
e2“maize monoculture (MM)”
Claim · model-written summary
Mean weight diameter varied significantly by legume identity.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“However, MWD varied significantly depending on the specific legume used.”
e1“maize monoculture (MM)”
Claim · model-written summary
Red clover intercropping produced MWD similar to maize monoculture.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping with red clover or sesbania resulted in MWD values similar to MM”
e1“maize monoculture (MM)”
Claim · model-written summary
Sesbania intercropping produced MWD similar to maize monoculture.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping with red clover or sesbania resulted in MWD values similar to MM”
e1“maize monoculture (MM)”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean intercropping gave significantly higher MWD than monoculture.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping with soybean, hairy vetch, common vetch, or yellow sweet clover led to significantly higher MWD”
e1“maize monoculture (MM)”
Claim · model-written summary
Hairy vetch intercropping gave significantly higher MWD than monoculture.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping with soybean, hairy vetch, common vetch, or yellow sweet clover led to significantly higher MWD”
e1“maize monoculture (MM)”
Claim · model-written summary
Common vetch intercropping gave significantly higher MWD than monoculture.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping with soybean, hairy vetch, common vetch, or yellow sweet clover led to significantly higher MWD”
e1“maize monoculture (MM)”
Claim · model-written summary
Yellow sweet clover intercropping gave significantly higher MWD than monoculture.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping with soybean, hairy vetch, common vetch, or yellow sweet clover led to significantly higher MWD”
e1“maize monoculture (MM)”
Claim · model-written summary
MWD correlated positively with carbon proportion in macroaggregates.
- Outcome
- MWDe0
- Direction
- positively correlatede0
- Qualifier
- proportion of C within macroaggregates (>0.25 mm)e0
- Setting
- macroaggregatese0
Not reportedOrgan / stage
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“MWD was positively correlated with the proportion of C within macroaggregates (>0.25 mm)”
e1“maize monoculture (MM)”
Claim · model-written summary
High MWD was linked to enrichment of RB41, Trichoderma and AMF taxa.
- Interactor
- the bacterium RB41e0other
- Second interactor
- the non-AMF Trichodermae0other
- Outcome
- high MWDe0
- Qualifier
- AMF (unclassified Glomerales, Glomus2, and Glomus3)e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“this effect was linked to the enrichment of specific microbial taxa—including the bacterium RB41, the non-AMF Trichoderma, and AMF (unclassified Glomerales, Glomus2, and Glomus3)—in systems with high MWD.”
e1“maize monoculture (MM)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend selecting legume varieties that enrich microorganisms and improve carbon allocation to macroaggregates.
- Outcome
- Selecting legume varieties with a greater ability to increase the abundance of specific microorganismse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Selecting legume varieties with a greater ability to increase the abundance of specific microorganisms that enhance C allocation into macroaggregates can simultaneously improve both SOC accumulation and aggregate stability in maize-based intercropping systems.”
The same questions in other papers
Trifolium pratense · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
Vicia villosa · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →Glycine max · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
18 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
22 papers more in this group
See all 26 papers →Vicia sativa · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
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
- no effect
- negative
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 papers →intercropping · soil: chemistry · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- negative
- no effect
38 papers more in this group
See all 42 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.