Abstract
Abstract Triticale and lupin are promising candidates for sustainable intercropping in low‐input, mixed crop–livestock farming systems in the Mediterranean basin, where they can be grown as rain‐fed crops during the autumn‐winter period. A 2‐year field trial was conducted in Sardinia, Italy, to compare triticale–lupin row intercropping (IC) with triticale sole cropping (TSC) and lupin sole cropping under four fertilization treatments: nitrogen only (‘N,’ 100 kg ha −1 ), phosphorus only (‘P,’ 39 kg ha −1 ), nitrogen and phosphorus combined (‘NP,’ 100 kg ha −1 of N + 39 kg ha −1 of P), and an unfertilized control (‘0’). Measurements included radiation interception, dry matter (DM) production, N percentage, and N uptake per unit area (N yield) at various samplings, along with grain and N yield at maturity. While both species shared a common growing cycle duration, lupin's slower canopy development and shorter height limited its radiation interception and DM production in the intercrop. However, complementarity in DM and N yield was observed across all four sampling dates under the 0 and P treatments, with land equivalent ratio values peaking at 1.71 under the 0 treatment and 1.63 under the P treatment for DM, and around 2 for N yield. The higher DM at maturity translated into greater grain yields for IC compared to TSC under the 0 (3.9 vs. 3.2 t ha −1 ) and P treatments (4.3 vs. 3.6 t ha −1 ). IC also outperformed TSC in terms of DM N percentage, particularly at triticale anthesis, with notable differences in the 0 (N% = 1.09 for IC, 0.79 for TSC) and P treatments (N% = 1.17 for IC, 0.83 for TSC). This higher DM N percentage of IC was likely associated with the higher radiation‐use efficiency of IC compared to TSC under the 0 fertilization treatment. Furthermore, intercropping triticale with lupin demonstrated potential to replace N fertilization without compromising DM or N content in DM and in straw. The observed complementarity in the absence of fertiliser suggests that this intercrop could be especially suitable for low‐input systems. The experimental approach helped link the N‐related benefits of cereal–legume intercrops to radiation acquisition and radiation‐use efficiency, while highlighting the critical role of canopy developmental rates, and hence of cultivar choice, when height differences are substantial.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Lupin radiation interception and dry matter production were limited in the intercrop by its slower canopy development and shorter height.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triticale and lupin are promising candidates for sustainable intercropping”
e1“lupin's slower canopy development and shorter height limited its radiation interception and DM production in the intercrop”
Claim · model-written summary
Complementarity in DM and N yield was observed under the 0 and P treatments.
- Taxon
- Triticale and lupin
Lupinus
×Triticosecalee0 - Outcome
- complementarity in DM and N yielde2
- Qualifier
- under the 0 and P treatmentse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triticale and lupin are promising candidates for sustainable intercropping”
e2“complementarity in DM and N yield was observed across all four sampling dates under the 0 and P treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Land equivalent ratio for DM peaked at 1.71 under the 0 treatment.
- Taxon
- Triticale and lupinLupinus×Triticosecalee0
- Outcome
- land equivalent ratio valuese3
- Value
- 1.71e3
- Qualifier
- under the 0 treatmente3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triticale and lupin are promising candidates for sustainable intercropping”
e3“land equivalent ratio values peaking at 1.71 under the 0 treatment and 1.63 under the P treatment for DM, and around 2 for N yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Land equivalent ratio for DM peaked at 1.63 under the P treatment.
- Taxon
- Triticale and lupinLupinus×Triticosecalee0
- Outcome
- land equivalent ratio valuese3
- Value
- 1.63e3
- Qualifier
- under the P treatmente3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triticale and lupin are promising candidates for sustainable intercropping”
e3“land equivalent ratio values peaking at 1.71 under the 0 treatment and 1.63 under the P treatment for DM, and around 2 for N yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Land equivalent ratio for N yield was around 2.
- Taxon
- Triticale and lupinLupinus×Triticosecalee0
- Outcome
- land equivalent ratio valuese3
- Value
- around 2e3
- Qualifier
- for N yielde3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triticale and lupin are promising candidates for sustainable intercropping”
e3“land equivalent ratio values peaking at 1.71 under the 0 treatment and 1.63 under the P treatment for DM, and around 2 for N yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping (IC) gave higher grain yield than triticale sole cropping (TSC) under the 0 treatment, 3.9 vs. 3.2 t ha −1.
- Taxon
- Triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- ICe4
- Outcome
- grain yieldse4
- Direction
- greatere4
- Value
- 3.9 vs. 3.2 t ha −1e4
- Qualifier
- under the 0e4
- Comparator
- TSCe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triticale and lupin are promising candidates for sustainable intercropping”
e4“The higher DM at maturity translated into greater grain yields for IC compared to TSC under the 0 (3.9 vs. 3.2 t ha −1) and P treatments (4.3 vs. 3.6 t ha −1)”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping (IC) gave higher grain yield than TSC under the P treatment, 4.3 vs. 3.6 t ha −1.
- Taxon
- Triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- ICe4
- Outcome
- grain yieldse4
- Direction
- greatere4
- Value
- 4.3 vs. 3.6 t ha −1e4
- Qualifier
- P treatmentse4
- Comparator
- TSCe4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triticale and lupin are promising candidates for sustainable intercropping”
e4“The higher DM at maturity translated into greater grain yields for IC compared to TSC under the 0 (3.9 vs. 3.2 t ha −1) and P treatments (4.3 vs. 3.6 t ha −1)”
Claim · model-written summary
IC outperformed TSC in DM N percentage at triticale anthesis under the 0 treatment, N% 1.09 vs. 0.79.
- Taxon
- Triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- ICe5
- Outcome
- DM N percentagee5
- Direction
- outperformede5
- Value
- N% = 1.09 for IC, 0.79 for TSCe5
- Qualifier
- particularly at triticale anthesise5
- Comparator
- TSCe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triticale and lupin are promising candidates for sustainable intercropping”
e5“IC also outperformed TSC in terms of DM N percentage, particularly at triticale anthesis, with notable differences in the 0 (N% = 1.09 for IC, 0.79 for TSC) and P treatments (N% = 1.17 for IC, 0.83 for TSC)”
Claim · model-written summary
IC outperformed TSC in DM N percentage under the P treatment, N% 1.17 vs. 0.83.
- Taxon
- Triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- ICe5
- Outcome
- DM N percentagee5
- Direction
- outperformede5
- Value
- N% = 1.17 for IC, 0.83 for TSCe5
- Qualifier
- P treatmentse5
- Comparator
- TSCe5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triticale and lupin are promising candidates for sustainable intercropping”
e5“IC also outperformed TSC in terms of DM N percentage, particularly at triticale anthesis, with notable differences in the 0 (N% = 1.09 for IC, 0.79 for TSC) and P treatments (N% = 1.17 for IC, 0.83 for TSC)”
Claim · model-written summary
The higher DM N percentage of IC was likely associated with its higher radiation-use efficiency compared with TSC under the 0 fertilization treatment.
- Taxon
- Triticale×Triticosecalee0
- Treatment
- ICe6
- Outcome
- DM N percentagee6
- Direction
- highere6
- Qualifier
- under the 0 fertilization treatmente6
- Comparator
- TSCe6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triticale and lupin are promising candidates for sustainable intercropping”
e6“This higher DM N percentage of IC was likely associated with the higher radiation‐use efficiency of IC compared to TSC under the 0 fertilization treatment”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping triticale with lupin could replace N fertilization without compromising DM or N content in DM and straw.
- Taxon
- triticale×Triticosecalee7
- Treatment
- intercropping triticale with lupine7
- Outcome
- DM or N content in DM and in strawe7
- Direction
- without compromisinge7
- Comparator
- N fertilizatione7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triticale and lupin are promising candidates for sustainable intercropping”
e7“intercropping triticale with lupin demonstrated potential to replace N fertilization without compromising DM or N content in DM and in straw”
Claim · model-written summary
The intercrop could be especially suitable for low-input systems.
- Taxon
- Triticale and lupinLupinus×Triticosecalee0
- Outcome
- this intercrop could be especially suitablee7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Triticale and lupin are promising candidates for sustainable intercropping”
e7“The observed complementarity in the absence of fertiliser suggests that this intercrop could be especially suitable”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · growth · LupinusPositive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
intercropping · yield · x Triticosecale (triticale)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- positive
7 papers more in this group
See all 11 papers →intercropping · growth · x Triticosecale (triticale)Results agree
4 papers in the same direction as this paper
- 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.