Abstract
With increasing economic and environmental costs associated with fertilizer use, the need for low-input agroecological systems is on the rise. It is well documented that intercropping legumes can increase the supply of nutrients, through N2-fixation and P mobilization. Concurrently, the integration of trees in the agricultural landscape shows increasing evidence of nutrient inputs through efficient biogeochemical cycles. However, little is known about the effects shade has on legume-crop performance. This research aims to determine whether intercropping of the legumes soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa) with wheat (Triticum turgidum durum) is beneficial for performance, particularly under shady conditions associated with tree-based intercropping. Test species were cultivated in hydroponics with a broad nutrient solution and steady state addition of N for 3 weeks. Individual plants were transferred to rhizoboxes with a 2 mm zone of soil for 16 days under (i) full sun or (ii) shade to mimic light levels at the tree-crop interface. Under monocropping, shading was found to significantly decrease wheat biomass. Intercropping wheat with alfalfa under full sun had no negative effect on growth but did increase wheat P uptake as compared to monocropped wheat. In contrast, intercropping wheat with soybean under full sun decreased wheat biomass, suggesting competition. However, under shade, this competitive effect was mitigated, as wheat exhibited similar biomass and higher N and P shoot concentration when associated with soybean as compared to monocropped wheat under lower light levels. This effect may be attributed to reduced biomass of soybean combined with higher soybean N2-fixation under shade. Legume-based intercrops may increase nutrient supply and growth but these beneficial effects will be dependent on matching species selection to light levels under tree-based intercropping.
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 8
Claim · model-written summary
Shade significantly decreased monocropped wheat biomass.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- shadinge0
- Outcome
- wheat biomasse0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Comparator
- monocroppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Under monocropping, shading was found to significantly decrease wheat biomass”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat intercropped with alfalfa in full sun had no negative growth effect.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Intercropping wheat with alfalfa under full sune0
- Interactor
- alfalfa
Medicago sativae0other - Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- no negative effecte0
- Comparator
- monocropped wheate0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping wheat with alfalfa under full sun had no negative effect on growth but did increase wheat P uptake as compared to monocropped wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat intercropped with alfalfa in full sun had increased P uptake.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- Intercropping wheat with alfalfa under full sune0
- Interactor
- alfalfaMedicago sativae0other
- Outcome
- wheat P uptakee0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Comparator
- monocropped wheate0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping wheat with alfalfa under full sun had no negative effect on growth but did increase wheat P uptake as compared to monocropped wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat intercropped with soybean in full sun had decreased biomass.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- intercropping wheat with soybean under full sune0
- Interactor
- soybean
Glycine maxe0other - Outcome
- wheat biomasse0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“intercropping wheat with soybean under full sun decreased wheat biomass”
Claim · model-written summary
Under shade, wheat with soybean had biomass similar to monocropped wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- associated with soybeane0
- Interactor
- soybeanGlycine maxe0other
- Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- similare0
- Qualifier
- under shadee0
- Comparator
- monocropped wheate0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under shade, this competitive effect was mitigated, as wheat exhibited similar biomass and higher N and P shoot concentration when associated with soybean as compared to monocropped wheat under lower light levels”
Claim · model-written summary
Under shade, wheat with soybean had higher N and P shoot concentration than monocropped wheat.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume0
- Treatment
- associated with soybeane0
- Interactor
- soybeanGlycine maxe0other
- Outcome
- N and P shoot concentratione0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- under shadee0
- Comparator
- monocropped wheate0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“under shade, this competitive effect was mitigated, as wheat exhibited similar biomass and higher N and P shoot concentration when associated with soybean as compared to monocropped wheat under lower light levels”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean biomass was reduced under shade.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- shadee0
- Outcome
- biomass of soybeane0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced biomass of soybean combined with higher soybean N2-fixation under shade”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean N2 fixation was higher under shade.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- shadee0
- Outcome
- soybean N2-fixatione0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“higher soybean N2-fixation under shade”
The same questions in other papers
Glycine max · molecular: metabolites · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
Medicago sativa · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →Medicago sativa · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →Glycine max · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
9 papers more in this group
See all 13 papers →shade · growth · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 12 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →shade · symbiosis · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →light · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →shade · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →8 of 11 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.