Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intercropping, a diversified planting pattern, increases land use efficiency and farmland ecological diversity. We explored the changes in soil physicochemical properties, nutrient uptake and utilization, and microbial community composition in wide-strip intercropping of maize and peanut. RESULTS: The results from three treatments, sole maize, sole peanut and intercropping of maize and peanut, showed that intercropped maize had a marginal advantage and that the nutrient content of roots, stems and grains in side-row maize was better than that in the middle row of intercropped maize and sole maize. The yield of intercropped maize was higher than that of sole cropping. The interaction between crops significantly increased soil peroxidase activity, and significantly decreased protease and dehydrogenase activities in intercropped maize and intercropped peanut. The diversity and richness of bacteria and fungi decreased in intercropped maize rhizosphere soil, whereas the richness of fungi increased intercropped peanut. RB41, Candidatus-udaeobacter, Stropharia, Fusarium and Penicillium were positively correlated with soil peroxidase activity, and negatively correlated with soil protease and dehydrogenase activities. In addition, intercropping enriched the functional diversity of the bacterial community and reduced pathogenic fungi. CONCLUSION: Intercropping changed the composition and diversity of the bacterial and fungal communities in rhizosphere soil, enriched beneficial microbes, increased the nitrogen content of intercropped maize and provided a scientific basis for promoting intercropping in northeastern China.
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 13
Claim · model-written summary
In intercropping, side-row maize had better nutrient content in roots, stems and grains than middle-row intercropped maize and sole maize.
- Organ / stage
- roots, stems and grainse0
- Treatment
- intercroppingt0
- Outcome
- nutrient contente0
- Direction
- bettere0
- Comparator
- middle row of intercropped maize and sole maizee0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e0“the nutrient content of roots, stems and grains in side-row maize was better than that in the middle row of intercropped maize and sole maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped maize yield was higher than sole-cropped maize.
- Treatment
- intercroppingt0
- Outcome
- yield of intercropped maizee1
- Direction
- highere1
- Comparator
- sole croppinge1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e1“The yield of intercropped maize was higher than that of sole cropping”
Claim · model-written summary
The interaction between crops significantly increased soil peroxidase activity.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e2“The interaction between crops significantly increased soil peroxidase activity”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping significantly decreased protease and dehydrogenase activities in intercropped maize.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e3“significantly decreased protease and dehydrogenase activities in intercropped maize and intercropped peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping significantly decreased protease and dehydrogenase activities in intercropped peanut.
- Taxon
- peanut
Arachis hypogaeat0 - Treatment
- intercroppingt0
- Outcome
- protease and dehydrogenase activitiese3
- Direction
- decreasede3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e3“significantly decreased protease and dehydrogenase activities in intercropped maize and intercropped peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
The richness of fungi increased in intercropped peanut.
- Taxon
- peanutArachis hypogaeat0
- Treatment
- intercroppingt0
- Outcome
- richness of fungie5
- Direction
- increasede5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e5“whereas the richness of fungi increased intercropped peanut”
Claim · model-written summary
The diversity and richness of bacteria and fungi decreased in intercropped maize rhizosphere soil.
- Treatment
- intercroppingt0
- Outcome
- diversity and richness of bacteria and fungie4
- Direction
- decreasede4
- Setting
- intercropped maize rhizosphere soile4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e4“The diversity and richness of bacteria and fungi decreased in intercropped maize rhizosphere soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping enriched the functional diversity of the bacterial community in maize.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e6“intercropping enriched the functional diversity of the bacterial community and reduced pathogenic fungi”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping reduced pathogenic fungi in maize.
- Treatment
- intercroppinge6
- Interactor
- pathogenic fungie6pathogen
- Outcome
- pathogenic fungie6
- Direction
- reducede6
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e6“intercropping enriched the functional diversity of the bacterial community and reduced pathogenic fungi”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping enriched beneficial microbes in the maize rhizosphere.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e7“enriched beneficial microbes, increased the nitrogen content of intercropped maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping increased the nitrogen content of intercropped maize.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e7“enriched beneficial microbes, increased the nitrogen content of intercropped maize”
Claim · model-written summary
RB41, Candidatus-udaeobacter, Stropharia, Fusarium and Penicillium were positively correlated with soil peroxidase activity.
- Interactor
- RB41, Candidatus-udaeobacter, Stropharia, Fusarium and Penicilliume6other
- Outcome
- soil peroxidase activitye6
- Direction
- positively correlatede6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e6“RB41, Candidatus-udaeobacter, Stropharia, Fusarium and Penicillium were positively correlated with soil peroxidase activity”
Claim · model-written summary
The same microbial taxa were negatively correlated with soil protease and dehydrogenase activities.
- Interactor
- RB41, Candidatus-udaeobacter, Stropharia, Fusarium and Penicilliume6other
- Outcome
- soil protease and dehydrogenase activitiese7
- Direction
- negatively correlatede7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Maize/peanut intercropping”
e6“RB41, Candidatus-udaeobacter, Stropharia, Fusarium and Penicillium were positively correlated with soil peroxidase activity”
e7“negatively correlated with soil protease and dehydrogenase activities”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · ecology: diversity · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 9 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 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 · nutrient: content · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
121 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction · 4 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
137 papers more in this group
See all 141 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 →intercropping · ecology: diversity · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
intercropping · physiology: enzyme activity · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
5 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →intercropping · physiology: enzyme activity · Arachis hypogaea (peanut)Results agree
7 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 papers →intercropping · soil: biology · Zea mays (maize)Results agree
26 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
- positive
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 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.