Paper · 2019 · Scientific Reports

Innovation in alternate mulch with straw and plastic management bolsters yield and water use efficiency in wheat-maize intercropping in arid conditions

Wen Yin; Zhilong Fan; Falong Hu; et al.

11
claims
19
verbatim quotes
42
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

In arid regions, higher irrigation quota for conventional farming causes substantial conflict between water supply and demand for crop production. Innovations in cropping systems are needed to alleviate this issue. A field experiment was conducted in northwestern China to assess whether straw and plastic managements in wheat/maize intercropping could alleviate these issues. Integrating no tillage with two-year plastic and straw mulching (NTMI2) improved grain yields by 13.8-17.1%, compared to conventional tillage without straw residue and annual new plastic mulching (CTI). The NTMI2 treatment reduced soil evaporation by 9.0-17.3% and the proportion of evaporation to evapotranspiration (E/ET) by 8.6-17.5%, compared to CTI. The NTMI2 treatment weakened wheat competition of soil moisture from maize strip during wheat growth period, and enhanced wheat compensation of soil moisture for maize growth after wheat harvest, compared with CTI. Thus, soil water movement potential of NTMI2 was lowest during wheat growth period, but it was highest during maize-independent growth stage after wheat harvest. The NTMI2 treatment increased evapotranspiration before maize silking, decreased from maize silking to early-filling stage, and increased after the early-filling stage of maize, this effectively coordinated water demand contradiction of intercrops at early and late stages. The NTMI2 treatment improved WUE by 12.4-17.2%, compared with CTI. The improved crop yields and WUE was attributed to the coordinated water competition and compensation, and the decreased soil evaporation and E/ET.

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 11

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTMI2 increased grain yields over CTI by 13.8-17.1%.

Treatment
Integrating no tillage with two-year plastic and straw mulching (NTMI2)e0
Outcome
grain yieldse0
Direction
improvede0
Value
13.8-17.1%e0
Comparator
conventional tillage without straw residue and annual new plastic mulching (CTI)e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Integrating no tillage with two-year plastic and straw mulching (NTMI2) improved grain yields by 13.8-17.1%, compared to conventional tillage without straw residue and annual new plastic mulching (CTI)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 377–578 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat/maize intercropping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 321–346 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTMI2 reduced soil evaporation by 9.0-17.3%.

Treatment
NTMI2e0
Outcome
soil evaporatione0
Direction
reducede0
Value
9.0-17.3%e0
Comparator
CTIe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The NTMI2 treatment reduced soil evaporation by 9.0-17.3% and the proportion of evaporation to evapotranspiration (E/ET) by 8.6-17.5%, compared to CTI”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 580–730 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat/maize intercropping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 321–346 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTMI2 reduced E/ET by 8.6-17.5%.

Treatment
NTMI2e0
Outcome
proportion of evaporation to evapotranspiration (E/ET)e0
Direction
reducede0
Value
8.6-17.5%e0
Comparator
CTIe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The NTMI2 treatment reduced soil evaporation by 9.0-17.3% and the proportion of evaporation to evapotranspiration (E/ET) by 8.6-17.5%, compared to CTI”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 580–730 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat/maize intercropping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 321–346 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTMI2 weakened wheat competition for maize strip moisture.

Treatment
NTMI2e0
Outcome
wheat competition of soil moisture from maize stripe0
Direction
weakenede0
Comparator
CTIe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The NTMI2 treatment weakened wheat competition of soil moisture from maize strip during wheat growth period, and enhanced wheat compensation of soil moisture for maize growth after wheat harvest, compared with CTI”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 732–945 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTMI2 enhanced wheat moisture compensation after harvest.

Treatment
NTMI2e0
Outcome
wheat compensation of soil moisture for maize growthe0
Direction
enhancede0
Comparator
CTIe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The NTMI2 treatment weakened wheat competition of soil moisture from maize strip during wheat growth period, and enhanced wheat compensation of soil moisture for maize growth after wheat harvest, compared with CTI”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 732–945 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTMI2 had lowest soil water movement potential during wheat growth.

Treatment
NTMI2e0
Outcome
soil water movement potentiale0
Direction
loweste0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“soil water movement potential of NTMI2 was lowest during wheat growth period”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 953–1029 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat/maize intercropping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 321–346 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTMI2 had highest soil water movement potential after wheat harvest.

Treatment
NTMI2e1
Outcome
soil water movement potentiale1
Direction
higheste0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“it was highest during maize-independent growth stage after wheat harvest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1035–1107 · show in text ↑
e1

“soil water movement potential of NTMI2”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 953–991 · show in text ↑
e2

“wheat/maize intercropping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 321–346 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTMI2 increased evapotranspiration before maize silking.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
NTMI2e0
Outcome
evapotranspiratione0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The NTMI2 treatment increased evapotranspiration before maize silking”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1109–1178 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTMI2 decreased evapotranspiration between silking and early filling.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
NTMI2e0
Outcome
evapotranspiratione0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The NTMI2 treatment increased evapotranspiration before maize silking, decreased from maize silking to early-filling stage”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1109–1231 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat/maize intercropping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 321–346 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTMI2 increased evapotranspiration after early filling.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
NTMI2e0
Outcome
evapotranspiratione0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The NTMI2 treatment increased evapotranspiration before maize silking, decreased from maize silking to early-filling stage, and increased after the early-filling stage of maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1109–1285 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

NTMI2 improved water use efficiency by 12.4-17.2%.

Treatment
NTMI2e0
Outcome
WUEe0
Direction
improvede0
Value
12.4-17.2%e0
Comparator
CTIe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The NTMI2 treatment improved WUE by 12.4-17.2%, compared with CTI”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1383–1448 · show in text ↑
e1

“wheat/maize intercropping”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 321–346 · show in text ↑

organic · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

322 papers: 281 positive, 41 negative or no effect

280 papers in the same direction as this paper · 35 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. negative

318 papers more in this group

See all 322 papers →

organic · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

373 papers: 330 positive, 43 negative or no effect

329 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction · 11 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

369 papers more in this group

See all 373 papers →

tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

1,099 papers: 812 positive, 287 negative or no effect

811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. negative
  3. no effect

1,095 papers more in this group

See all 1,099 papers →

tillage · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

1,414 papers: 1,116 positive, 298 negative or no effect

1,115 papers in the same direction as this paper · 257 in the opposite direction · 41 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

1,410 papers more in this group

See all 1,414 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.