Abstract
A field experiment of split-plot design was conducted in 1999 and 2000 on light soil to study the effect of different levels of mineral nitrogen fertilization: 0, 25 and50 kgN/ha on dry matter yield, N uptake and N efficiency indices of spring triticale and field beans grown in pure stands and in intercrop. The intercrop was composed using half of the seeding densities from pure stands. Intercropping increased protein content in grain and plant biomass of triticale irrespective of N input. Increasing N rate from 0 to 25 kg/ha increased plant biomass yield of triticale and intercrop. Nitrogen uptake with grain and biomass of intercrop was significantly higher than by sole crops showing partial complementarity in N use by intercropped species despite strong dominance of triticale over field beans. The higher the N fertilizer rate, the lower was the gain from intercropping mainly due to increased suppression of field beans by triticale. Agronomic efficiency was similar for triticale and intercrop but it was significantly smaller for field beans indicating there were other limited resources hampering growth of the legume.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. 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
Intercropping increased triticale grain protein content regardless of nitrogen input.
- Taxon
- triticale
×Triticosecalee0 - Treatment
- Intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- protein content in graine0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- irrespective of N inpute0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping increased protein content in grain and plant biomass of triticale irrespective of N input”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased protein content in triticale plant biomass regardless of nitrogen input.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- Intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- protein content in grain and plant biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Intercropping increased protein content in grain and plant biomass of triticale irrespective of N input”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing nitrogen from 0 to 25 kg/ha increased triticale biomass yield.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- Increasing N rate from 0 to 25 kg/hae0
- Outcome
- plant biomass yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing N rate from 0 to 25 kg/ha increased plant biomass yield of triticale and intercrop”
Claim · model-written summary
Increasing nitrogen from 0 to 25 kg/ha increased intercrop biomass yield.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- Increasing N rate from 0 to 25 kg/hae0
- Outcome
- plant biomass yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Increasing N rate from 0 to 25 kg/ha increased plant biomass yield of triticale and intercrop”
t0“triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercrop nitrogen uptake with grain was significantly higher than sole crops.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- intercrope0
- Outcome
- Nitrogen uptake with graine0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- sole cropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nitrogen uptake with grain and biomass of intercrop was significantly higher than by sole crops”
t0“triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercrop nitrogen uptake with biomass was significantly higher than sole crops.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalet0
- Treatment
- intercrope0
- Outcome
- Nitrogen uptake with grain and biomasse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- sole cropse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nitrogen uptake with grain and biomass of intercrop was significantly higher than by sole crops”
t0“triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Gain from intercropping declined as nitrogen fertilizer rate rose.
Verbatim
e0“The higher the N fertilizer rate, the lower was the gain from intercropping mainly due to increased suppression of field beans by triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Higher nitrogen fertilizer rates increased suppression of field beans by triticale.
Verbatim
e0“The higher the N fertilizer rate, the lower was the gain from intercropping mainly due to increased suppression of field beans by triticale”
Claim · model-written summary
Agronomic efficiency was similar for triticale and the intercrop.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Outcome
- Agronomic efficiencye0
- Direction
- similare0
- Comparator
- intercrope0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Agronomic efficiency was similar for triticale and intercrop”
Claim · model-written summary
Agronomic efficiency was significantly smaller for field beans.
Verbatim
e0“it was significantly smaller for field beans”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · quality: protein · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
nitrogen · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
47 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- no effect
50 papers more in this group
See all 54 papers →intercropping · growth · x Triticosecale (triticale)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.