Abstract
Context Cereal/legume intercropping offers numerous advantages over monocultures , often attributed to complementary resource use of soil water , soil nitrogen (N), and radiation. Objective This study explores how the dynamics of crop resource (radiation, water, soil N) demand and use drive productivity in intercropping systems under different environmental conditions. Methods We used a process-based intercrop simulation model and field experimental data obtained from three contrasting environments with differing soil N and precipitation levels. Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design. Results The simulations and field experiments revealed no considerable differences in total water uptake and light interception between intercrops and the average of monocultures across environments. Intercrops acquired more soil N than the average of monocultures in all environments. Spring wheat in intercrop systems consistently acquired more soil water and N compared to spring wheat in monocultures. Faba bean resource acquisition and use efficiency depended on the environmental conditions. Resource use efficiency of intercropping was comparable to that of the monocultures, except for N use efficiency, which was 22 % higher, and water use efficiency which was 12 % higher under low N and the low precipitation environment. There was a slightly enhanced water use efficiency in the intercropping system compared to monoculture under high N and high precipitation environment. In environments with limited water, intercropped faba bean suffered considerably from drought stress, particularly during flowering compared to the monoculture of faba bean. Conclusions Soil water availability is a key determinant for faba bean productivity in intercropping, while mainly soil N availability influenced spring wheat productivity compared to its corresponding monocultures. Overall, there was small (high precipitation) or no (low precipitation) increase in radiation and water acquisition in the intercrops but there was a large increase in N uptake in all cases. Significance Designing site specific spring wheat/faba bean intercropping systems enhances the availability of N and use efficiency, which helps to minimize N input.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping did not considerably change total water uptake or light interception relative to the average of monocultures.
- Taxon
- Spring wheat and faba bean
Vicia faba
Triticum aestivume1 - Treatment
- intercropse2
- Outcome
- total water uptake and light interceptione2
- Direction
- no considerable differencese2
- Comparator
- the average of monoculturese2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design”
e2“no considerable differences in total water uptake and light interception between intercrops and the average of monocultures across environments”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercrops acquired more soil N than the average of monocultures in all environments.
- Taxon
- Spring wheat and faba beanVicia fabaTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- Intercropse3
- Outcome
- soil Ne3
- Direction
- moree3
- Comparator
- the average of monoculturese3
- Setting
- in all environmentse3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design”
e3“Intercrops acquired more soil N than the average of monocultures in all environments”
Claim · model-written summary
Spring wheat in intercrops consistently acquired more soil water and N than spring wheat in monocultures.
- Taxon
- Spring wheatTriticum aestivume4
- Treatment
- intercrop systemse4
- Outcome
- soil water and Ne4
- Direction
- moree4
- Qualifier
- consistentlye4
- Comparator
- monoculturese4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design”
e4“Spring wheat in intercrop systems consistently acquired more soil water and N compared to spring wheat in monocultures”
Claim · model-written summary
Faba bean resource acquisition and use efficiency depended on environmental conditions.
- Taxon
- Faba beanVicia fabae5
- Outcome
- resource acquisition and use efficiencye5
- Setting
- environmental conditionse5
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design”
e5“Faba bean resource acquisition and use efficiency depended on the environmental conditions”
Claim · model-written summary
N use efficiency of the intercrop was 22% higher than the monoculture average.
- Taxon
- Spring wheat and faba beanVicia fabaTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- intercroppinge6
- Outcome
- N use efficiencye6
- Direction
- highere6
- Value
- 22 %e6
- Comparator
- the monoculturese6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design”
e6“Resource use efficiency of intercropping was comparable to that of the monocultures, except for N use efficiency, which was 22 % higher, and water use efficiency which was 12 % higher under low N and the low precipitation environment”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency of the intercrop was 12% higher than the monocultures under low N and the low precipitation environment.
- Taxon
- Spring wheat and faba beanVicia fabaTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- intercroppinge6
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye6
- Direction
- highere6
- Value
- 12 %e6
- Qualifier
- under low Ne6
- Comparator
- the monoculturese6
- Setting
- the low precipitation environmente6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design”
e6“Resource use efficiency of intercropping was comparable to that of the monocultures, except for N use efficiency, which was 22 % higher, and water use efficiency which was 12 % higher under low N and the low precipitation environment”
Claim · model-written summary
Resource use efficiency of intercropping was comparable to that of the monocultures, apart from the N and water use efficiency exceptions.
- Taxon
- Spring wheat and faba beanVicia fabaTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- intercroppinge6
- Outcome
- Resource use efficiencye6
- Direction
- comparablee6
- Comparator
- the monoculturese6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design”
e6“Resource use efficiency of intercropping was comparable to that of the monocultures, except for N use efficiency, which was 22 % higher, and water use efficiency which was 12 % higher under low N and the low precipitation environment”
Claim · model-written summary
Water use efficiency was slightly enhanced in the intercropping system compared to monoculture under high N and high precipitation.
- Taxon
- Spring wheat and faba beanVicia fabaTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- intercropping systeme7
- Outcome
- water use efficiencye7
- Direction
- enhancede7
- Qualifier
- slightlye7
- Comparator
- monoculturee7
- Setting
- high N and high precipitation environmente7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design”
e7“There was a slightly enhanced water use efficiency in the intercropping system compared to monoculture under high N and high precipitation environment”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped faba bean suffered more drought stress than the monoculture, particularly during flowering, in environments with limited water.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabae2
- Organ / stage
- floweringe2
- Treatment
- intercroppede2
- Outcome
- drought stresse2
- Direction
- higherinferrede2
- Comparator
- the monoculture of faba beane2
- Setting
- environments with limited watere2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design”
e2“In environments with limited water, intercropped faba bean suffered considerably from drought stress, particularly during flowering compared to the monoculture of faba bean”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil water availability is a key determinant of faba bean productivity in intercropping.
- Taxon
- faba beanVicia fabae3
- Treatment
- Soil water availabilitye3
- Outcome
- productivitye3
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design”
e3“Soil water availability is a key determinant for faba bean productivity in intercropping, while mainly soil N availability influenced spring wheat productivity compared to its corresponding monocultures”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil N availability influenced spring wheat productivity compared to its corresponding monocultures.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume3
- Treatment
- soil N availabilitye3
- Outcome
- productivitye3
- Comparator
- its corresponding monoculturese3
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design”
e3“Soil water availability is a key determinant for faba bean productivity in intercropping, while mainly soil N availability influenced spring wheat productivity compared to its corresponding monocultures”
Claim · model-written summary
Radiation and water acquisition increased only slightly or not at all in intercrops, depending on precipitation.
- Taxon
- Spring wheat and faba beanVicia fabaTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- intercropse4
- Outcome
- radiation and water acquisitione4
- Direction
- increasee4
- Qualifier
- small (high precipitation) or no (low precipitation)e4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design”
e4“there was small (high precipitation) or no (low precipitation) increase in radiation and water acquisition in the intercrops but there was a large increase in N uptake in all cases”
Claim · model-written summary
N uptake in intercrops increased largely in all cases.
- Taxon
- Spring wheat and faba beanVicia fabaTriticum aestivume1
- Treatment
- intercropse4
- Outcome
- N uptakee4
- Direction
- increasee4
- Qualifier
- largee4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“Spring wheat and faba bean were sown as monocultures and intercropped in a 1:1 replacement design”
e4“there was small (high precipitation) or no (low precipitation) increase in radiation and water acquisition in the intercrops but there was a large increase in N uptake in all cases”
Claim · model-written summary
Designing site-specific spring wheat/faba bean intercropping systems is recommended to enhance N availability and use efficiency and minimize N input.
- Taxon
- spring wheat/faba beanVicia fabaTriticum aestivume2
- Outcome
- Designing site specific spring wheat/faba bean intercropping systemse2
- Qualifier
- which helps to minimize N inpute2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Designing site specific spring wheat/faba bean intercropping systems enhances the availability of N and use efficiency, which helps to minimize N input”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · physiology: water · Vicia faba (faba bean)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
intercropping · nutrient: efficiency · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →intercropping · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- positive
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 papers →intercropping · physiology: water · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →intercropping · nutrient: content · Vicia faba (faba bean)Positive and negative results
19 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
19 papers more in this group
See all 23 papers →intercropping · nutrient: content · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
44 papers more in this group
See all 48 papers →intercropping · nutrient: efficiency · Vicia faba (faba bean)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- 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.