Abstract
Cotton-based intercropping is a popular agronomic practice in Northwest China.This agronomic practice addresses the conflict in planting area/space between cereals and cotton.However,not sufficient knowledge exists on the yield advantage and nu-trient uptake and conversion of cotton-based intercropping.In this paper,the uptake and conversion efficiency of nitrogen(N),phos-phorus(P) and potassium(K) were assessed in several cotton-based intercropping systems,including cotton/peanut,cotton/soybean,cotton/chickpea,cotton/onion,cotton/radish and cotton/line-chilli intercropping systems,and the corresponding monocropping sys-tems.Then yield advantage and nutrient uptake and conversion of cropping systems were determined.Compared with weighted mean of monocultured crops of sole cropping systems,cotton/peanut,cotton/chickpea,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping sys-tems increased N uptake by the range of 18%~74%.Also,compared with corresponding weighted mean of monocultured crops,cot-ton/soybean and cotton/chilli intercropping systems decreased N uptake by 10% and 34%,respectively.P uptake under intercropping systems of cotton/peanut,cotton/chickpea,cotton/onion,cotton/radish and cotton/soybean was higher than that under the corre-sponding sole cropping systems by 5%~104%.However,the reverse was the case for cotton/chill,where it was lower by 6%.About 20%~58% increase in K uptake was noted under cotton/peanut,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping systems over the corre-sponding sole cropping systems.However,K uptake dropped by 19%~22% under cotton/soybean,cotton/chickpea and cotton/chilli intercropping systems over the corresponding sole cropping systems.Land equivalent ratios(LER) of cotton/chickpea,cotton/peanut,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping systems were 1.02,1.30,1.12 and 1.68,respectively,indicating a significant yield ad-vantage.However,LER of both cotton/soybean and cotton/chilli intercropping systems were 0.91 and 0.99,respectively,indicating no yield advantage.The contributions of the uptake efficiencies of N,P and K to LER were 0.41~0.82,0.25~1.04 and 0.15~0.59 in cotton/peanut,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping systems,respectively.The corresponding conversion efficiencies were 0.35~ 0.04,0.03~0.14 and 0.16~0.01,respectively.Yield advantage of intercropping was mainly from enhanced nutrient uptake efficiency,and not from nutrient conversion efficiency.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/peanut intercropping increased N uptake relative to sole crops within an 18–74% range.
- Taxon
- cotton
Gossypium hirsutumt0 - Treatment
- cotton/peanute0
- Outcome
- N uptakee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 18%~74%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton/peanut,cotton/chickpea,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping sys-tems increased N uptake by the range of 18%~74%”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/chickpea intercropping increased N uptake within an 18–74% range.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton/chickpeae0
- Outcome
- N uptakee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 18%~74%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton/peanut,cotton/chickpea,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping sys-tems increased N uptake by the range of 18%~74%”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/onion intercropping increased N uptake within an 18–74% range.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton/onione0
- Outcome
- N uptakee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 18%~74%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton/peanut,cotton/chickpea,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping sys-tems increased N uptake by the range of 18%~74%”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/radish intercropping increased N uptake within an 18–74% range.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton/radishe0
- Outcome
- N uptakee0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 18%~74%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton/peanut,cotton/chickpea,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping sys-tems increased N uptake by the range of 18%~74%”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/soybean intercropping reduced N uptake by 10%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cot-ton/soybeane0
- Outcome
- N uptakee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 10%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cot-ton/soybean and cotton/chilli intercropping systems decreased N uptake by 10% and 34%,respectively”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/chilli intercropping reduced N uptake by 34%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton/chillie0
- Outcome
- N uptakee0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 34%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cot-ton/soybean and cotton/chilli intercropping systems decreased N uptake by 10% and 34%,respectively”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/peanut, chickpea and onion intercrops had higher P uptake than sole crops within a 5–104% range.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- P uptakee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 5%~104%e0
- Comparator
- corre-sponding sole cropping systemse0
Not reportedTreatment
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“P uptake under intercropping systems of cotton/peanut,cotton/chickpea,cotton/onion,cotton/radish and cotton/soybean was higher than that under the corre-sponding sole cropping systems by 5%~104%”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/chilli intercropping had 6% lower P uptake.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton/chille0
- Outcome
- cotton/chille0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Value
- 6%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“cotton/chill,where it was lower by 6%”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/peanut, onion and radish intercrops increased K uptake by 20–58%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton/peanut,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping systemse0
- Outcome
- K uptakee0
- Direction
- increasee0
- Value
- 20%~58%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“20%~58% increase in K uptake was noted under cotton/peanut,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping systems”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/soybean, chickpea and chilli intercrops reduced K uptake by 19–22%.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton/soybean,cotton/chickpea and cotton/chilli intercropping systemse0
- Outcome
- K uptakee0
- Direction
- droppede0
- Value
- 19%~22%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“K uptake dropped by 19%~22% under cotton/soybean,cotton/chickpea and cotton/chilli intercropping systems”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/chickpea had LER 1.02, indicating yield advantage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton/chickpeae0
- Outcome
- LERe0
- Direction
- yield ad-vantagee0
- Value
- 1.02e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“LER) of cotton/chickpea,cotton/peanut,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping systems were 1.02,1.30,1.12 and 1.68,respectively,indicating a significant yield ad-vantage”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/peanut had LER 1.30, indicating yield advantage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton/peanute0
- Outcome
- LERe0
- Direction
- yield ad-vantagee0
- Value
- 1.30e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“LER) of cotton/chickpea,cotton/peanut,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping systems were 1.02,1.30,1.12 and 1.68,respectively,indicating a significant yield ad-vantage”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/onion had LER 1.12, indicating yield advantage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton/onione0
- Outcome
- LERe0
- Direction
- yield ad-vantagee0
- Value
- 1.12e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“LER) of cotton/chickpea,cotton/peanut,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping systems were 1.02,1.30,1.12 and 1.68,respectively,indicating a significant yield ad-vantage”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/radish had LER 1.68, indicating yield advantage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton/radishe0
- Outcome
- LERe0
- Direction
- yield ad-vantagee0
- Value
- 1.68e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“LER) of cotton/chickpea,cotton/peanut,cotton/onion and cotton/radish intercropping systems were 1.02,1.30,1.12 and 1.68,respectively,indicating a significant yield ad-vantage”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/soybean had LER 0.91 and no yield advantage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton/soybeane0
- Outcome
- LERe0
- Direction
- no yield advantagee0
- Value
- 0.91e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“LER of both cotton/soybean and cotton/chilli intercropping systems were 0.91 and 0.99,respectively,indicating no yield advantage”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Cotton/chilli had LER 0.99 and no yield advantage.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Treatment
- cotton/chillie0
- Outcome
- LERe0
- Direction
- no yield advantagee0
- Value
- 0.99e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“LER of both cotton/soybean and cotton/chilli intercropping systems were 0.91 and 0.99,respectively,indicating no yield advantage”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Contributions of N, P and K uptake efficiency to LER were 0.41–0.82, 0.25–1.04 and 0.15–0.59.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Compound
- N,P and Ke0
- Outcome
- LERe0
- Value
- 0.41~0.82,0.25~1.04 and 0.15~0.59e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The contributions of the uptake efficiencies of N,P and K to LER were 0.41~0.82,0.25~1.04 and 0.15~0.59”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Corresponding conversion efficiencies were 0.35–0.04, 0.03–0.14 and 0.16–0.01.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- conversion efficienciese0
- Value
- 0.35~ 0.04,0.03~0.14 and 0.16~0.01e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The corresponding conversion efficiencies were 0.35~ 0.04,0.03~0.14 and 0.16~0.01”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attribute intercropping yield advantage mainly to improved nutrient uptake efficiency.
- Taxon
- cottonGossypium hirsutumt0
- Outcome
- Yield advantagee0
- Qualifier
- enhanced nutrient uptake efficiencye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield advantage of intercropping was mainly from enhanced nutrient uptake efficiency,and not from nutrient conversion efficiency”
t0“cotton-based intercropping systems”
The same questions in other papers
Arachis hypogaea · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- no effect
Raphanus sativus · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
intercropping · nutrient: content · Gossypium hirsutum (cotton)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.