Abstract
Intercropping is used widely by smallholder farmers in developing countries to increase land productivity and profitability. We conducted a maize/peanut intercropping experiment in the 2015 and 2016 growing seasons in Shandong, China. Treatments included sole maize (SM), sole peanut (SP), and an intercrop consisting of four rows of maize and six rows of peanut (IM and IP). The results showed that the intercropping system had yield advantages based on the land equivalent ratio (LER) values of 1.15 and 1.16 in the two years, respectively. Averaged over the two years, the yield of maize in the intercropping was increased by 61.05% compared to that in SM, while the pod yield of peanut was decreased by 31.80% compared to SP. Maize was the superior competitor when intercropped with peanut, and its productivity dominated the yield of the intercropping system in our study. The increased yield was due to a higher kernel number per ear (KNE). Intercropping increased the light transmission ratio (LTR) of the ear layer in the maize canopy, the active photosynthetic duration (APD), and the harvest index (HI) compared to SM. In addition, intercropping promoted the ratio of dry matter accumulation after silking and the distribution of 13C-photosynthates to grain compared to SM. In conclusion, maize/peanut intercropping demonstrated the potential to improve the light condition of maize, achieving enhanced photosynthetic characteristics that improved female spike differentiation, reduced barrenness, and increased KNE. Moreover, dry matter accumulation and 13C-photosynthates distribution to grain of intercropped maize were improved, and a higher grain yield was ultimately obtained.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased maize yield by 61.05% compared with sole maize, averaged over two years.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e1“Averaged over the two years, the yield of maize in the intercropping was increased by 61.05% compared to that in SM”
Claim · model-written summary
Pod yield of peanut decreased by 31.80% in the intercrop compared with sole peanut.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeae2 - Treatment
- intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- pod yield of peanute2
- Direction
- decreasede2
- Value
- 31.80%e2
- Comparator
- SPe2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Averaged over the two years, the yield of maize in the intercropping was increased by 61.05% compared to that in SM”
e2“while the pod yield of peanut was decreased by 31.80% compared to SP”
Claim · model-written summary
The intercropping system had yield advantages, with land equivalent ratio values of 1.15 and 1.16 in the two years.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e3“the intercropping system had yield advantages based on the land equivalent ratio (LER) values of 1.15 and 1.16 in the two years”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize was the superior competitor when intercropped with peanut.
- Interactor
- peanutArachis hypogaeae4other
- Outcome
- superior competitore4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e4“Maize was the superior competitor when intercropped with peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize productivity dominated the yield of the maize/peanut intercropping system.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e5“its productivity dominated the yield of the intercropping system in our study”
Claim · model-written summary
The increased yield of intercropped maize is attributed to a higher kernel number per ear (KNE).
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e6“The increased yield was due to a higher kernel number per ear (KNE)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased the light transmission ratio of the maize ear layer, the active photosynthetic duration and the harvest index compared with sole maize.
- Treatment
- Intercroppinge7
- Outcome
- light transmission ratio (LTR) of the ear layer in the maize canopy, the active photosynthetic duration (APD), and the harvest index (HI)e7
- Direction
- increasede7
- Comparator
- SMe7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e7“Intercropping increased the light transmission ratio (LTR) of the ear layer in the maize canopy, the active photosynthetic duration (APD), and the harvest index (HI) compared to SM”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping promoted the ratio of dry matter accumulation after silking and the distribution of 13C-photosynthates to grain compared with sole maize.
- Organ / stage
- graine0
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- the ratio of dry matter accumulation after silking and the distribution of 13C-photosynthatese0
- Direction
- promotede0
- Comparator
- SMe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e0“In addition, intercropping promoted the ratio of dry matter accumulation after silking and the distribution of 13C-photosynthates to grain compared to SM”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize obtained a higher grain yield.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e0“a higher grain yield was ultimately obtained”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping improved female spike differentiation of maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e0“that improved female spike differentiation, reduced barrenness, and increased KNE”
Claim · model-written summary
Barrenness of intercropped maize was reduced.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e0“that improved female spike differentiation, reduced barrenness, and increased KNE”
Claim · model-written summary
Kernel number per ear (KNE) increased in intercropped maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e0“that improved female spike differentiation, reduced barrenness, and increased KNE”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results differ
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 79 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
115 papers more in this group
See all 119 papers →intercropping · disease · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
18 papers more in this group
See all 22 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
- positive
- positive
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.