Abstract
In the context of climate change, agricultural productivity, especially in semi-arid areas, is facing serious challenges ranging from water scarcity to soil degradation and perpetual salinization. Therefore, looking for sustainable and resilient cropping systems has been a priority of the National strategy « Green Generation2020-2030 ». Agroforestry could be a sustainable way to diversify and improve land productivity through the complementary and facilitating potential of its components. This study aims to introduce quinoa as a halophyte crop to scale up the performance of current olive-based intercropping systems. The field experiment was conducted in an organic farm under saline irrigation (6 dS/m) and was laid out in a randomized complete block design with two cropping systems: monocropping (SC) and agroforestry systems (AFS), four quinoa cultivars (Puno, Titicaca, ICBA-Q5 and ICBA-Q4) and one olive plot as a control (OR) in each block. The average grain and straw yields for quinoa were significantly reduced in AFS, respectively by 33%and 45% while average olive yield was not affected by the cropping system. In addition, the Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) was always higher than one, confirming the performance of the agroforestry system based on quinoa and olive tree under saline irrigation.
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 4
Claim · model-written summary
Quinoa grain yield was significantly reduced by 33% under agroforestry.
- Taxon
- quinoa
Chenopodium quinoae0 - Treatment
- AFSe0
- Outcome
- graine0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 33%e0
- Comparator
- monocropping (SC)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average grain and straw yields for quinoa were significantly reduced in AFS, respectively by 33%and 45% while average olive yield was not affected by the cropping system.”
e1“monocropping (SC) and agroforestry systems (AFS)”
Claim · model-written summary
Quinoa straw yield was significantly reduced by 45% under agroforestry.
- Taxon
- quinoaChenopodium quinoae0
- Treatment
- AFSe0
- Outcome
- straw yieldse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 45%e0
- Comparator
- monocropping (SC)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average grain and straw yields for quinoa were significantly reduced in AFS, respectively by 33%and 45% while average olive yield was not affected by the cropping system.”
e1“monocropping (SC) and agroforestry systems (AFS)”
Claim · model-written summary
Olive yield was unaffected by cropping system.
- Taxon
- olive
Olea europaeae0 - Treatment
- agroforestry systems (AFS)e1
- Outcome
- olive yielde0
- Direction
- not affectede0
- Comparator
- monocropping (SC)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“average olive yield was not affected by the cropping system”
e1“monocropping (SC) and agroforestry systems (AFS)”
Claim · model-written summary
The land equivalent ratio of the agroforestry system exceeded one.
- Taxon
- quinoa and olive treeOlea europaeaChenopodium quinoae0
- Treatment
- agroforestry systeme0
- Outcome
- Land Equivalent Ratio (LER)e0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- onee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“the Land Equivalent Ratio (LER) was always higher than one, confirming the performance of the agroforestry system based on quinoa and olive tree under saline irrigation.”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Olea europaea (common olive)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
intercropping · yield · Chenopodium quinoa (quinoa)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 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.