Abstract
Strategies involving genes in the dehydration-responsive element binding (DREB) family, which participates in drought stress regulation, and intercropping with legumes are becoming prominent options in promoting sustainable sugarcane cultivation. An increasing number of studies focusing on root interactions in intercropping systems, particularly involving transgenic crops, are being conducted to better understand and thus, harness beneficial soil microbes to enhance plant growth. We designed experiments to investigate the characteristics of two intercropping patterns, soybean with wild-type (WT) sugarcane and soybean with genetically modified (GM) Ea-DREB2B-overexpressing sugarcane, to assess the response of the rhizosphere microbiota to the different cropping patterns. Bacterial diversity in the rhizosphere microbial community differed between the two intercropping pattens. In addition, the biomass of GM sugarcane that intercropped with soybean was significantly improved compared with WT sugarcane, and the aboveground biomass and root biomass of GM soybean intercropping sugarcane increased by 49.15 and 46.03% compared with monoculture. Furthermore, a beneficial rhizosphere environment for the growth of Actinobacteria was established in the systems intercropped with GM sugarcane. Improving the production mode of crops by genetic modification is a key strategy to improving crop yields and provides new opportunities to further investigate the effects of intercropping on plant roots and soil microbiota. Thus, this study provides a basis for selecting suitable sugarcane–soybean intercropping patterns and a theoretical foundation for a sustainable sugarcane production.
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 5
Claim · model-written summary
Rhizosphere bacterial diversity differed between WT and GM sugarcane–soybean intercropping.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- Bacterial diversitye0
- Qualifier
- soybean with wild-type (WT) sugarcane and soybean with genetically modified (GM) Ea-DREB2B-overexpressing sugarcanee1
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Bacterial diversity in the rhizosphere microbial community differed between the two intercropping pattens.”
e1“soybean with wild-type (WT) sugarcane and soybean with genetically modified (GM) Ea-DREB2B-overexpressing sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
GM sugarcane intercropped with soybean had significantly improved biomass relative to WT sugarcane.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Material
- GMe0
- Treatment
- intercropped with soybeane0
- Interactor
- soybean
Glycine maxe0other - Outcome
- biomasse0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Comparator
- WT sugarcanee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the biomass of GM sugarcane that intercropped with soybean was significantly improved compared with WT sugarcane”
Claim · model-written summary
Aboveground biomass of GM soybean intercropping sugarcane increased by 49.15 relative to monoculture.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- GM soybean intercropping sugarcanee0
- Interactor
- soybeanGlycine maxe0other
- Outcome
- aboveground biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 49.15e0
- Comparator
- monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: The wording leaves the biomass owner and the first value's unit ambiguous.
Verbatim
e0“the aboveground biomass and root biomass of GM soybean intercropping sugarcane increased by 49.15 and 46.03% compared with monoculture”
Claim · model-written summary
Root biomass of GM soybean intercropping sugarcane increased by 46.03% relative to monoculture.
- Taxon
- sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- GM soybean intercropping sugarcanee0
- Interactor
- soybeanGlycine maxe0other
- Outcome
- root biomasse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 46.03%e0
- Comparator
- monoculturee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Schema note from the model: The wording leaves the biomass owner ambiguous.
Verbatim
e0“the aboveground biomass and root biomass of GM soybean intercropping sugarcane increased by 49.15 and 46.03% compared with monoculture”
Claim · model-written summary
GM sugarcane intercropping established a beneficial rhizosphere environment for Actinobacteria growth.
- Taxon
- ActinobacteriaActinomycetotae0
- Treatment
- intercropped with GM sugarcanee0
- Interactor
- sugarcanee0host
- Outcome
- beneficial rhizosphere environmente0
Verbatim
e0“a beneficial rhizosphere environment for the growth of Actinobacteria was established in the systems intercropped with GM sugarcane”
The same questions in other papers
Glycine max · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →transgenic · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
intercropping · growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
16 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 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.