Abstract
Green manure crops intercropping is an effective agricultural practice to alleviate water and nutrient deficit by improving soil properties in the Loess Plateau of China. However, green manure crops intercropping could cause water and nutrient competition, but the effects of different green manure crops intercropping on soil water and nutrient status are rarely evaluated. Thus, we conducted a field experiment to investigate the responses of soil moisture, nitrogen, and yield to green manure crops intercropping. Three intercropping patterns, apple–ryegrass (AR), apple–spring rape (AS), and apple–alfalfa (AA), were set up with a blank control (CK), which employed clean tillage in the inter-row and row. All treatments had no significant difference on evapotranspiration. At maturity, AR, AS, and AA treatments reduced soil organic matter content by 4.2%, 6.5%, and 18.8%, and total nitrogen content by 0.01%, 1.3%, and 20.3%, relative to CK, respectively. The water competition degree in AR, AS, and AA were 38.4%, 48.8%, and 64.6%, respectively. Ryegrass, spring rape, and alfalfa’s nitrogen use efficiency were 19.71%, 29.24%, and 39.42%, respectively. AR and AS treatments increased the apple yield by 11.7% and 5.7%, and water-use efficiency (WUE) by 14.4% and 7.5%, relative to CK, respectively. AA treatment reduced the apple yield by 6.9% and WUE by 6.8%, relative to CK. All treatments had no significant difference on apple quality. Therefore, in normal water years, we suggest adapting the ryegrass–apple tree intercropping pattern for apple production on the Plateau Loess, 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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping treatments did not significantly differ in evapotranspiration.
- Taxon
- Apple
Malus domesticat0 - Treatment
- All treatmentse0
- Outcome
- evapotranspiratione0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All treatments had no significant difference on evapotranspiration.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
AR reduced soil organic matter by 4.2%.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- ARe0
- Outcome
- soil organic matter contente0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 4.2%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AR, AS, and AA treatments reduced soil organic matter content by 4.2%, 6.5%, and 18.8%, and total nitrogen content by 0.01%, 1.3%, and 20.3%, relative to CK, respectively.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
AS reduced soil organic matter by 6.5%.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- ASe0
- Outcome
- soil organic matter contente0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 6.5%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AR, AS, and AA treatments reduced soil organic matter content by 4.2%, 6.5%, and 18.8%, and total nitrogen content by 0.01%, 1.3%, and 20.3%, relative to CK, respectively.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
AA reduced soil organic matter by 18.8%.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- AAe0
- Outcome
- soil organic matter contente0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 18.8%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AR, AS, and AA treatments reduced soil organic matter content by 4.2%, 6.5%, and 18.8%, and total nitrogen content by 0.01%, 1.3%, and 20.3%, relative to CK, respectively.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
AR reduced total nitrogen by 0.01%.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- ARe0
- Outcome
- total nitrogen contente0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 0.01%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AR, AS, and AA treatments reduced soil organic matter content by 4.2%, 6.5%, and 18.8%, and total nitrogen content by 0.01%, 1.3%, and 20.3%, relative to CK, respectively.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
AS reduced total nitrogen by 1.3%.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- ASe0
- Outcome
- total nitrogen contente0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 1.3%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AR, AS, and AA treatments reduced soil organic matter content by 4.2%, 6.5%, and 18.8%, and total nitrogen content by 0.01%, 1.3%, and 20.3%, relative to CK, respectively.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
AA reduced total nitrogen by 20.3%.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- AAe0
- Outcome
- total nitrogen contente0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 20.3%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AR, AS, and AA treatments reduced soil organic matter content by 4.2%, 6.5%, and 18.8%, and total nitrogen content by 0.01%, 1.3%, and 20.3%, relative to CK, respectively.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
AR increased apple yield by 11.7%.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- ARe0
- Outcome
- apple yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 11.7%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AR and AS treatments increased the apple yield by 11.7% and 5.7%, and water-use efficiency (WUE) by 14.4% and 7.5%, relative to CK, respectively.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
AS increased apple yield by 5.7%.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- ASe0
- Outcome
- apple yielde0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 5.7%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AR and AS treatments increased the apple yield by 11.7% and 5.7%, and water-use efficiency (WUE) by 14.4% and 7.5%, relative to CK, respectively.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
AR increased water use efficiency by 14.4%.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- ARe0
- Outcome
- water-use efficiency (WUE)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 14.4%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AR and AS treatments increased the apple yield by 11.7% and 5.7%, and water-use efficiency (WUE) by 14.4% and 7.5%, relative to CK, respectively.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
AS increased water use efficiency by 7.5%.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- ASe0
- Outcome
- water-use efficiency (WUE)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 7.5%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AR and AS treatments increased the apple yield by 11.7% and 5.7%, and water-use efficiency (WUE) by 14.4% and 7.5%, relative to CK, respectively.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
AA reduced apple yield by 6.9%.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- AAe0
- Outcome
- apple yielde0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 6.9%e0
- Comparator
- CKe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AA treatment reduced the apple yield by 6.9% and WUE by 6.8%, relative to CK.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
AA reduced water use efficiency by 6.8%.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AA treatment reduced the apple yield by 6.9% and WUE by 6.8%, relative to CK.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
Apple quality did not significantly differ among treatments.
- Taxon
- AppleMalus domesticat0
- Treatment
- All treatmentse0
- Outcome
- apple qualitye0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All treatments had no significant difference on apple quality.”
t0“Apple Orchard”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend ryegrass–apple intercropping for apple production in normal water years.
- Taxon
- apple treeMalus domesticae0
- Outcome
- ryegrass–apple tree intercropping patterne0
- Qualifier
- normal water yearse0
- Setting
- Plateau Loess, Chinae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“in normal water years, we suggest adapting the ryegrass–apple tree intercropping pattern for apple production on the Plateau Loess, China.”
The same questions in other papers
Brassica napus · yield · Malus domestica (apple)Results agree
2 papers in the same direction as this paper
- positive
- positive
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.