Abstract
Maize is one of the main irrigated crops in northern Spain. However, the traditional cropping system used for its cultivation has relied on intensive monoculture, demanding significant inputs, and resulting in occasional unprofitable yields. A promising practice to increase the sustainability of farms is the use of double-cropping systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the combined impact of introducing a legume prior to maize, together with different tillage systems and mineral N fertilization rates on crop yields and water productivity under Mediterranean irrigation conditions. The study compared monocropping maize (MC) versus legume-maize double cropping (DC) with three tillage systems (conventional tillage, CT; minimum tillage, MT; no-tillage, NT), and three mineral N fertilization rates (zero, medium and high). The legumes employed were pea for grain (2019), vetch for green manure (2020), and vetch for forage (2021). The highest yields were found in DC. On the one hand, the benefits associated with legume cropping allowed for increased grain yield of DC maize; on the other hand, the combined biomass of the legume plus maize led the DC systems to achieve significantly higher total biomass (sum of grain and stover) than the MC systems. In addition, a better adaptation of the maize DC phenological cycle to environmental conditions favoured higher yields in this system. Higher water consumptions in DC systems resulted in lower yield water use efficiency (WUEy). However, when only irrigation water was taken into account, DC was the system with the highest irrigation water use efficiency for yield (IWUy). Similarly, the high biomass values generated in the DC system resulted in higher water use efficiency for biomass (WUEb). The tillage system with the highest yields was NT. These results, together with a higher water retention capacity in NT made the water productivity (WUEb, WUEy and IWUy) of these systems higher. The use of high N fertilizer rates did not show any yield or WUE advantage over the medium rate. The results of this study indicate that in Mediterranean agroecosystems, the use of legume-maize double cropping systems together with NT systems and reduction of N fertilization can be a good strategy to maintain crop yields, while saving N fertilizer, and to improve WUEb and IWUEy.
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
Double cropping increased maize grain yield relative to monocropping.
- Treatment
- legume-maize double croppinge1
- Outcome
- grain yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Comparator
- monocropping maizee1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the benefits associated with legume cropping allowed for increased grain yield of DC maize”
e1“monocropping maize (MC) versus legume-maize double cropping (DC)”
Claim · model-written summary
Double cropping significantly increased total biomass relative to monocropping.
- Treatment
- legume-maize double croppinge1
- Outcome
- total biomasse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- monocropping maizee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the combined biomass of the legume plus maize led the DC systems to achieve significantly higher total biomass (sum of grain and stover) than the MC systems”
e1“monocropping maize (MC) versus legume-maize double cropping (DC)”
Claim · model-written summary
The adapted phenological cycle of double cropped maize favored higher yields.
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- better adaptation of the maize DC phenological cycle to environmental conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a better adaptation of the maize DC phenological cycle to environmental conditions favoured higher yields in this system”
Claim · model-written summary
Double cropping used more water than monocropping.
- Treatment
- legume-maize double croppinge1
- Outcome
- water consumptionse0
- Direction
- Highere0
- Comparator
- monocropping maizee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher water consumptions in DC systems resulted in lower yield water use efficiency (WUEy).”
e1“monocropping maize (MC) versus legume-maize double cropping (DC)”
Claim · model-written summary
Double cropping lowered yield water use efficiency.
- Treatment
- legume-maize double croppinge1
- Outcome
- yield water use efficiency (WUEy)e0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- monocropping maizee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Higher water consumptions in DC systems resulted in lower yield water use efficiency (WUEy).”
e1“monocropping maize (MC) versus legume-maize double cropping (DC)”
Claim · model-written summary
Double cropping had the highest irrigation water use efficiency for yield.
- Treatment
- legume-maize double croppinge1
- Outcome
- irrigation water use efficiency for yield (IWUy)e0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Comparator
- monocropping maizee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“DC was the system with the highest irrigation water use efficiency for yield (IWUy)”
e1“monocropping maize (MC) versus legume-maize double cropping (DC)”
Claim · model-written summary
Double cropping increased water use efficiency for biomass.
- Treatment
- legume-maize double croppinge1
- Outcome
- water use efficiency for biomass (WUEb)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- monocropping maizee1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the high biomass values generated in the DC system resulted in higher water use efficiency for biomass (WUEb)”
e1“monocropping maize (MC) versus legume-maize double cropping (DC)”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage gave the highest yields.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The tillage system with the highest yields was NT.”
e1“no-tillage, NT”
e2“Maize is one of the main irrigated crops in northern Spain.”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage increased water retention capacity.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a higher water retention capacity in NT”
e1“no-tillage, NT”
e2“Maize is one of the main irrigated crops in northern Spain.”
Claim · model-written summary
No tillage increased WUEb, WUEy and IWUy.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“made the water productivity (WUEb, WUEy and IWUy) of these systems higher”
e1“no-tillage, NT”
e2“Maize is one of the main irrigated crops in northern Spain.”
Claim · model-written summary
High nitrogen had no yield advantage over the medium nitrogen rate.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The use of high N fertilizer rates did not show any yield or WUE advantage over the medium rate.”
e1“Maize is one of the main irrigated crops in northern Spain.”
Claim · model-written summary
High nitrogen had no WUE advantage over the medium nitrogen rate.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The use of high N fertilizer rates did not show any yield or WUE advantage over the medium rate.”
e1“Maize is one of the main irrigated crops in northern Spain.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend legume-maize double cropping with no tillage and reduced nitrogen to maintain yield and improve water productivity.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the use of legume-maize double cropping systems together with NT systems and reduction of N fertilization can be a good strategy to maintain crop yields, while saving N fertilizer, and to improve WUEb and IWUEy”
The same questions in other papers
nitrogen · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 52 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
57 papers more in this group
See all 61 papers →tillage · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
74 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
79 papers more in this group
See all 83 papers →fertilization · physiology: water · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
9 papers in the same direction as this paper · 83 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
89 papers more in this group
See all 93 papers →tillage · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
811 papers in the same direction as this paper · 230 in the opposite direction · 57 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- negative
1,095 papers more in this group
See all 1,099 papers →nitrogen · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
278 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1,906 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- positive
- positive
2,181 papers more in this group
See all 2,185 papers →fertilization · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
422 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3,485 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- positive
3,904 papers more in this group
See all 3,908 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.