Abstract
Shading created by intercropping reduces the photosynthetic capacity of soybean plants but also directly affects the pod setting process of soybean. However, which of the changed aspects induce the yield differences in intercropped soybean cultivars is still unknown. Four soybean cultivars with similar yield and growth and development processes in monoculture were selected by a pre-experiment. Field experiments were carried out from 2015 to 2017 to investigate the leaf photosynthetic parameters, total biomass, reproductive characteristics, yield and yield components of soybean. The yield of soybean cultivars was significantly decreased in intercropping systems and the yield of cultivars (cvs.) ZH39 and QH34 were considerably higher than those of cvs. HD19 and HD20. Besides, the pod and seed number and harvest index were also reduced by intercropping and the yield components of cvs. ZH39 and QH34 in intercropping were significantly higher than those of cvs. HD19 and HD20, other than the seed size. Although the parameters of leaf photosynthetic capacity (leaf area index, net photosynthetic rate, and chlorophyll content) of soybean were changed by intercropping, there was no significant difference among cultivars. Additionally, the CGRR1–R5 (crop growth rate between R1 and R5) of intercropped soybean was lower than that of monoculture, while no significant differences were observed in different cultivars. The reproductive biomass at R5 was significantly different among soybean cultivars, and the reproductive partitioning and seed set efficiency of different cultivars were varied by the reproductive biomass at R5. Therefore, high-yielding cultivars in intercropping can achieve higher yield due to more reproductive structures survived at R5.
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 9
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping significantly decreased soybean cultivar yield.
- Taxon
- soybean
Glycine maxe0 - Treatment
- intercropping systemse0
- Outcome
- yielde0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The yield of soybean cultivars was significantly decreased in intercropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
ZH39 and QH34 had higher yield than HD19 and HD20.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“yield of cultivars (cvs.) ZH39 and QH34 were considerably higher than those of cvs. HD19 and HD20”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping reduced pod and seed numbers and harvest index.
Not reportedTaxonComparator
Verbatim
e0“the pod and seed number and harvest index were also reduced by intercropping”
Claim · model-written summary
ZH39 and QH34 had higher intercropped yield components than HD19 and HD20, except seed size.
- Material
- ZH39 and QH34e0
- Outcome
- yield componentse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- other than the seed sizee0
- Comparator
- HD19 and HD20e0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“yield components of cvs. ZH39 and QH34 in intercropping were significantly higher than those of cvs. HD19 and HD20, other than the seed size”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf photosynthetic parameters changed with intercropping but did not significantly differ among cultivars.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- leaf photosynthetic capacitye0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“parameters of leaf photosynthetic capacity (leaf area index, net photosynthetic rate, and chlorophyll content) of soybean were changed by intercropping, there was no significant difference among cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped soybean had lower CGRR1–R5 than monoculture, without significant cultivar differences.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- CGRR1–R5e0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CGRR1–R5 (crop growth rate between R1 and R5) of intercropped soybean was lower than that of monoculture, while no significant differences were observed in different cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Reproductive biomass at R5 differed significantly among soybean cultivars.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe0
- Outcome
- reproductive biomass at R5e0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The reproductive biomass at R5 was significantly different among soybean cultivars”
Claim · model-written summary
Reproductive partitioning and seed set efficiency varied with reproductive biomass at R5.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“the reproductive partitioning and seed set efficiency of different cultivars were varied by the reproductive biomass at R5”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors attributed higher intercropped yield to survival of more reproductive structures at R5.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“high-yielding cultivars in intercropping can achieve higher yield due to more reproductive structures survived at R5”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
86 papers in the same direction as this paper · 131 in the opposite direction
- positive
- no effect
- negative
214 papers more in this group
See all 218 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.