Abstract
A field study was conducted to evaluate the effects of intercropping on weed seed germination in sugarcane soil. Four treatments were designed: natural recovery,peanut monoculture,sugarcane monoculture,sugarcane intercropping with peanut. The results showed that the weed seed density and species in the soil of sugarcane intercropping with peanut were reduced by44.4% and 34.0% compared with peanut monoculture,and by 37.5% and 22.7% compared with sugarcane monoculture,respectively. Compared with soil seed bank before sowing soil and in the natural recovery plots,the dominant species of weed increased but their seed density decreased significantly in the soil of intercropping sugarcane with peanut. The weed yield of intercropping sugarcane with peanut accounted for 33. 7%,40. 9% and 55. 8% of those in natural recovery,peanut monoculture,and sugarcane monoculture,respectively. Our study suggests that intercropping affects the density and species composition of the weed seedbank by producing higher crop yield and less weed growth through usurping resources from weeds and by suppressing weed growth through allelopathy.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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
Sugarcane intercropping with peanut reduced weed seed density by 44.4% compared with peanut monoculture.
Verbatim
t0“intercropping sugarcane with peanut”
e1“the weed seed density and species in the soil of sugarcane intercropping with peanut were reduced by44.4% and 34.0% compared with peanut monoculture,and by 37.5% and 22.7% compared with sugarcane monoculture,respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugarcane intercropping with peanut reduced weed species by 34.0% compared with peanut monoculture.
Verbatim
t0“intercropping sugarcane with peanut”
e1“the weed seed density and species in the soil of sugarcane intercropping with peanut were reduced by44.4% and 34.0% compared with peanut monoculture,and by 37.5% and 22.7% compared with sugarcane monoculture,respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugarcane intercropping with peanut reduced weed seed density by 37.5% compared with sugarcane monoculture.
Verbatim
t0“intercropping sugarcane with peanut”
e1“the weed seed density and species in the soil of sugarcane intercropping with peanut were reduced by44.4% and 34.0% compared with peanut monoculture,and by 37.5% and 22.7% compared with sugarcane monoculture,respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugarcane intercropping with peanut reduced weed species by 22.7% compared with sugarcane monoculture.
Verbatim
t0“intercropping sugarcane with peanut”
e1“the weed seed density and species in the soil of sugarcane intercropping with peanut were reduced by44.4% and 34.0% compared with peanut monoculture,and by 37.5% and 22.7% compared with sugarcane monoculture,respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed yield under sugarcane intercropping with peanut was 33.7% of that under natural recovery.
Verbatim
t0“intercropping sugarcane with peanut”
e2“The weed yield of intercropping sugarcane with peanut accounted for 33. 7%,40. 9% and 55. 8% of those in natural recovery,peanut monoculture,and sugarcane monoculture,respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed yield under sugarcane intercropping with peanut was 40.9% of that under peanut monoculture.
Verbatim
t0“intercropping sugarcane with peanut”
e2“The weed yield of intercropping sugarcane with peanut accounted for 33. 7%,40. 9% and 55. 8% of those in natural recovery,peanut monoculture,and sugarcane monoculture,respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed yield under sugarcane intercropping with peanut was 55.8% of that under sugarcane monoculture.
Verbatim
t0“intercropping sugarcane with peanut”
e2“The weed yield of intercropping sugarcane with peanut accounted for 33. 7%,40. 9% and 55. 8% of those in natural recovery,peanut monoculture,and sugarcane monoculture,respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Dominant weed species increased under sugarcane intercropping with peanut compared with the soil seed bank before sowing and natural recovery plots.
Verbatim
t0“intercropping sugarcane with peanut”
e3“the dominant species of weed increased but their seed density decreased significantly in the soil of intercropping sugarcane with peanut”
e4“Compared with soil seed bank before sowing soil and in the natural recovery plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed seed density decreased significantly under sugarcane intercropping with peanut compared with the soil seed bank before sowing and natural recovery plots.
Verbatim
t0“intercropping sugarcane with peanut”
e3“the dominant species of weed increased but their seed density decreased significantly in the soil of intercropping sugarcane with peanut”
e4“Compared with soil seed bank before sowing soil and in the natural recovery plots”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping suppresses weed growth through allelopathy, as suggested by the authors.
Verbatim
t0“intercropping sugarcane with peanut”
e5“suppressing weed growth through allelopathy”
The same questions in other papers
Arachis hypogaea · weed · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →intercropping · weed · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.