Abstract
Intercropping is considered a promising system for boosting crop productivity. However, intercropping usually requires higher inputs of resources that emit more CO2. It is unclear whether an improved agricultural pattern could relieve this issue and enhance agricultural sustainability in an arid irrigation area. A field experiment using a well-designed agricultural practice was carried out in northwest China; reduced tillage, coupled with wheat straw residue retention measures, they were integrated with a strip intercropping pattern. We determined the crop productivity, water use, economic benefits, and carbon emissions. The wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw covering (i.e., NTSI treatment), boosted grain yield by 27 to 38% and 153 to 160% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively, increased by 9.9 to 11.9% over the conventional intercropping treatment. Similarly, this pattern also improved water use efficiency by 15.4 to 22.4% in comparison to the conventional monoculture of maize, by 45.7 to 48.3% in comparison to the conventional monoculture of wheat, by 14.7 to 15.9% in comparison to the conventional intercropping treatment. Meanwhile, NTSI treatment caused 7.4 to 13.7% and 37.0 to 47.7% greater solar energy use efficiency than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively. Furthermore, the NTSI treatment had a higher net return by 54 to 71% and 281 to 338% and a higher benefit per cubic meter of water by 35 to 51% and 119 to 147% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively. Similarly, it increased the net return and benefit per cubic meter of water by 8 to 14% and 14 to 16% in comparison to the conventional intercropping treatment, respectively. An additional feature of NTSI is that it reduced carbon emissions by 13.4 to 23.8% and 7.3 to 17.5% while improving carbon emission efficiency by 62.6 to 66.9% and 23.2 to 33.2% more than the conventional monoculture maize and intercropping treatments, respectively. We can draw a conclusion that intercropping maize and wheat, with a straw covering soil surface, can be used to enhance crop production and net returns while effectively lowering CO2 emissions in arid oasis irrigation region.
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
Wheat-maize intercropping with straw covering boosted maize grain yield by 27 to 38% over conventional maize monoculture.
- Treatment
- wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw coveringe1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- boostede1
- Value
- 27 to 38%e1
- Comparator
- conventional monoculture of maizee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw covering (i.e., NTSI treatment), boosted grain yield by 27 to 38% and 153 to 160% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively, increased by 9.9 to 11.9% over the conventional intercropping treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat-maize intercropping with straw covering boosted wheat grain yield by 153 to 160% over conventional wheat monoculture.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw coveringe1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- boostede1
- Value
- 153 to 160%e1
- Comparator
- conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectivelye1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw covering (i.e., NTSI treatment), boosted grain yield by 27 to 38% and 153 to 160% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively, increased by 9.9 to 11.9% over the conventional intercropping treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat-maize intercropping with straw covering increased grain yield by 9.9 to 11.9% over conventional intercropping.
- Taxon
- maize and wheatTriticum aestivum
Zea mayse1 - Treatment
- wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw coveringe1
- Outcome
- grain yielde1
- Direction
- increasede1
- Value
- 9.9 to 11.9%e1
- Comparator
- conventional intercropping treatmente1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“The wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw covering (i.e., NTSI treatment), boosted grain yield by 27 to 38% and 153 to 160% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively, increased by 9.9 to 11.9% over the conventional intercropping treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat-maize intercropping with straw covering improved water use efficiency by 15.4 to 22.4% over conventional maize monoculture.
- Treatment
- wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw coveringe1
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 15.4 to 22.4%e2
- Comparator
- conventional monoculture of maizee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Similarly, this pattern also improved water use efficiency by 15.4 to 22.4% in comparison to the conventional monoculture of maize, by 45.7 to 48.3% in comparison to the conventional monoculture of wheat, by 14.7 to 15.9% in comparison to the conventional intercropping treatment.”
e1“The wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw covering (i.e., NTSI treatment), boosted grain yield by 27 to 38% and 153 to 160% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively, increased by 9.9 to 11.9% over the conventional intercropping treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat-maize intercropping with straw covering improved wheat water use efficiency by 45.7 to 48.3% over conventional wheat monoculture.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Treatment
- wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw coveringe1
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 45.7 to 48.3%e2
- Comparator
- conventional monoculture of wheate2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Similarly, this pattern also improved water use efficiency by 15.4 to 22.4% in comparison to the conventional monoculture of maize, by 45.7 to 48.3% in comparison to the conventional monoculture of wheat, by 14.7 to 15.9% in comparison to the conventional intercropping treatment.”
e1“The wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw covering (i.e., NTSI treatment), boosted grain yield by 27 to 38% and 153 to 160% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively, increased by 9.9 to 11.9% over the conventional intercropping treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat-maize intercropping with straw covering improved water use efficiency by 14.7 to 15.9% over conventional intercropping.
- Taxon
- maize and wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Treatment
- wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw coveringe1
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye2
- Direction
- improvede2
- Value
- 14.7 to 15.9%e2
- Comparator
- conventional intercropping treatmente2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Similarly, this pattern also improved water use efficiency by 15.4 to 22.4% in comparison to the conventional monoculture of maize, by 45.7 to 48.3% in comparison to the conventional monoculture of wheat, by 14.7 to 15.9% in comparison to the conventional intercropping treatment.”
e1“The wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw covering (i.e., NTSI treatment), boosted grain yield by 27 to 38% and 153 to 160% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively, increased by 9.9 to 11.9% over the conventional intercropping treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTSI treatment gave 7.4 to 13.7% greater solar energy use efficiency than conventional maize monoculture.
- Treatment
- NTSI treatmente3
- Outcome
- solar energy use efficiencye3
- Direction
- greatere3
- Value
- 7.4 to 13.7%e3
- Comparator
- conventional monoculture of maizee3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Meanwhile, NTSI treatment caused 7.4 to 13.7% and 37.0 to 47.7% greater solar energy use efficiency than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTSI treatment gave 37.0 to 47.7% greater solar energy use efficiency than conventional wheat monoculture.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume3
- Treatment
- NTSI treatmente3
- Outcome
- solar energy use efficiencye3
- Direction
- greatere3
- Value
- 37.0 to 47.7%e3
- Comparator
- conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectivelye3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e3“Meanwhile, NTSI treatment caused 7.4 to 13.7% and 37.0 to 47.7% greater solar energy use efficiency than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTSI treatment raised net return by 54 to 71% over conventional maize monoculture.
- Treatment
- NTSI treatmente4
- Outcome
- net returne4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 54 to 71%e4
- Comparator
- conventional monoculture of maizee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Furthermore, the NTSI treatment had a higher net return by 54 to 71% and 281 to 338% and a higher benefit per cubic meter of water by 35 to 51% and 119 to 147% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTSI treatment raised net return by 281 to 338% over conventional wheat monoculture.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Treatment
- NTSI treatmente4
- Outcome
- net returne4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 281 to 338%e4
- Comparator
- conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectivelye4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Furthermore, the NTSI treatment had a higher net return by 54 to 71% and 281 to 338% and a higher benefit per cubic meter of water by 35 to 51% and 119 to 147% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTSI treatment raised benefit per cubic meter of water by 35 to 51% over conventional maize monoculture.
- Treatment
- NTSI treatmente4
- Outcome
- benefit per cubic meter of watere4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 35 to 51%e4
- Comparator
- conventional monoculture of maizee4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Furthermore, the NTSI treatment had a higher net return by 54 to 71% and 281 to 338% and a higher benefit per cubic meter of water by 35 to 51% and 119 to 147% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTSI treatment raised benefit per cubic meter of water by 119 to 147% over conventional wheat monoculture.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Treatment
- NTSI treatmente4
- Outcome
- benefit per cubic meter of watere4
- Direction
- highere4
- Value
- 119 to 147%e4
- Comparator
- conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectivelye4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“Furthermore, the NTSI treatment had a higher net return by 54 to 71% and 281 to 338% and a higher benefit per cubic meter of water by 35 to 51% and 119 to 147% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat-maize intercropping with straw covering increased net return by 8 to 14% over conventional intercropping.
- Taxon
- maize and wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Treatment
- wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw coveringe1
- Outcome
- net returne5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 8 to 14%e5
- Comparator
- conventional intercropping treatmente5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Similarly, it increased the net return and benefit per cubic meter of water by 8 to 14% and 14 to 16% in comparison to the conventional intercropping treatment, respectively.”
e1“The wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw covering (i.e., NTSI treatment), boosted grain yield by 27 to 38% and 153 to 160% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively, increased by 9.9 to 11.9% over the conventional intercropping treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Wheat-maize intercropping with straw covering increased benefit per cubic meter of water by 14 to 16% over conventional intercropping.
- Taxon
- maize and wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Treatment
- wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw coveringe1
- Outcome
- benefit per cubic meter of watere5
- Direction
- increasede5
- Value
- 14 to 16%e5
- Comparator
- conventional intercropping treatmente5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e5“Similarly, it increased the net return and benefit per cubic meter of water by 8 to 14% and 14 to 16% in comparison to the conventional intercropping treatment, respectively.”
e1“The wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw covering (i.e., NTSI treatment), boosted grain yield by 27 to 38% and 153 to 160% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively, increased by 9.9 to 11.9% over the conventional intercropping treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTSI treatment reduced carbon emissions by 13.4 to 23.8% relative to conventional maize monoculture.
- Treatment
- NTSIe6
- Outcome
- carbon emissionse6
- Direction
- reducede6
- Value
- 13.4 to 23.8%e6
- Comparator
- conventional monoculture maizee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“An additional feature of NTSI is that it reduced carbon emissions by 13.4 to 23.8% and 7.3 to 17.5% while improving carbon emission efficiency by 62.6 to 66.9% and 23.2 to 33.2% more than the conventional monoculture maize and intercropping treatments, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTSI treatment reduced carbon emissions by 7.3 to 17.5% relative to conventional intercropping.
- Taxon
- maize and wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Treatment
- NTSIe6
- Outcome
- carbon emissionse6
- Direction
- reducede6
- Value
- 7.3 to 17.5%e6
- Comparator
- intercropping treatmentse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“An additional feature of NTSI is that it reduced carbon emissions by 13.4 to 23.8% and 7.3 to 17.5% while improving carbon emission efficiency by 62.6 to 66.9% and 23.2 to 33.2% more than the conventional monoculture maize and intercropping treatments, respectively.”
e1“The wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw covering (i.e., NTSI treatment), boosted grain yield by 27 to 38% and 153 to 160% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively, increased by 9.9 to 11.9% over the conventional intercropping treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTSI treatment improved carbon emission efficiency by 62.6 to 66.9% over conventional maize monoculture.
- Treatment
- NTSIe6
- Outcome
- carbon emission efficiencye6
- Direction
- improvinge6
- Value
- 62.6 to 66.9%e6
- Comparator
- conventional monoculture maizee6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“An additional feature of NTSI is that it reduced carbon emissions by 13.4 to 23.8% and 7.3 to 17.5% while improving carbon emission efficiency by 62.6 to 66.9% and 23.2 to 33.2% more than the conventional monoculture maize and intercropping treatments, respectively.”
Claim · model-written summary
NTSI treatment improved carbon emission efficiency by 23.2 to 33.2% over conventional intercropping.
- Taxon
- maize and wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Treatment
- NTSIe6
- Outcome
- carbon emission efficiencye6
- Direction
- improvinge6
- Value
- 23.2 to 33.2%e6
- Comparator
- intercropping treatmentse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“An additional feature of NTSI is that it reduced carbon emissions by 13.4 to 23.8% and 7.3 to 17.5% while improving carbon emission efficiency by 62.6 to 66.9% and 23.2 to 33.2% more than the conventional monoculture maize and intercropping treatments, respectively.”
e1“The wheat-maize intercropping coupled with straw covering (i.e., NTSI treatment), boosted grain yield by 27 to 38% and 153 to 160% more than the conventional monoculture of maize and wheat, respectively, increased by 9.9 to 11.9% over the conventional intercropping treatment.”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping maize and wheat with a straw surface covering can be used to enhance crop production and net returns in arid oasis irrigation regions.
- Taxon
- maize and wheatTriticum aestivumZea mayse7
- Outcome
- enhance crop production and net returnse7
- Setting
- arid oasis irrigation regione7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e7“We can draw a conclusion that intercropping maize and wheat, with a straw covering soil surface, can be used to enhance crop production and net returns while effectively lowering CO2 emissions in arid oasis irrigation region.”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
130 papers in the same direction as this paper · 51 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
185 papers more in this group
See all 189 papers →intercropping · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →intercropping · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
29 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- negative
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
612 papers in the same direction as this paper · 181 in the opposite direction · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 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.