Abstract
High planting density of maize usually results in higher grain yield but also raises the risk of lodging. Cultivar intercropping had been proved to improve yield and stress resistance. Thus, we aimed to coordinate grain yield and lodging resistance of maize under high planting density by intercropping short-stalked Zhengdan958 (ZD) with tall-stalked Xianyu335 (XY). Five planting systems were conducted, i.e. SZD: sole Zhengdan 958 at normal density (7.5 plants m -2 ); SXY and SHXY: sole Xianyu 335 at normal and high density (9.0 plants m -2 ); IND and IHD: normal density ZD intercropped with normal and high density XY, respectively. Land equivalent ratio (LER) averaged to 0.99 and 0.96 in two experimental years, indicating no land use advantage of maize variety intercropping compared to monocultures. The average relative yield (partial LER) of ZD was 0.36-0.42, but that of XY was 0.54-0.63, indicating dominance of tall XY in the intercropping. Yield of intercropped XY per meter row was 13.3% and 17.0% higher than sole XY in two years; however, yield of intercropped ZD in IND and IHD was 16.7% and 25.3% lower than sole ZD in this study, respectively. Compared with IND, IHD did not significantly improve the population yield. The upper leaf area of intercropped XY was greater than sole stand, leading to increased interception of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR). However, the increased leaf area of intercropped XY resulted in reduced PAR for ZD, especially at the middle layer where assimilates are directly transported to the ear. Moreover, decreased superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity and SPAD, increased malondialdehyde content of ear leaf was observed for intercropped ZD, due to shading stress caused by tall XY. The principal component analysis indicated upper and middle leaf area, light interception, and SOD were closely related to grain yield. Lodging rate of sole XY under normal and high density was 4.3% and 22.0% in 2021, but lodging was absent for ZD and intercropped XY, which demonstrated that the lodging resistance of intercropped XY was significantly enhanced. This study presents a strategy to enhance maize lodging resistance without yield penalty or requiring additional inputs.
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 19
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping showed no land-use advantage, with LER 0.99 and 0.96.
- Outcome
- Land equivalent ratio (LER)e0
- Direction
- no land use advantagee0
- Value
- 0.99 and 0.96e0
- Comparator
- monoculturese0
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Land equivalent ratio (LER) averaged to 0.99 and 0.96 in two experimental years, indicating no land use advantage of maize variety intercropping compared to monocultures.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped tall XY dominated ZD in relative yield.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average relative yield (partial LER) of ZD was 0.36-0.42, but that of XY was 0.54-0.63, indicating dominance of tall XY in the intercropping.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
XY relative yield was 0.54-0.63.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The average relative yield (partial LER) of ZD was 0.36-0.42, but that of XY was 0.54-0.63, indicating dominance of tall XY in the intercropping.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped XY row yield exceeded sole XY by 13.3% in one year.
- Material
- XYe0
- Treatment
- intercropped XYe0
- Outcome
- Yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 13.3%e0
- Comparator
- sole XYe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield of intercropped XY per meter row was 13.3% and 17.0% higher than sole XY in two years”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped XY row yield exceeded sole XY by 17.0% in the other year.
- Material
- XYe0
- Treatment
- intercropped XYe0
- Outcome
- Yielde0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 17.0%e0
- Comparator
- sole XYe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Yield of intercropped XY per meter row was 13.3% and 17.0% higher than sole XY in two years”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped ZD yield in IND was 16.7% below sole ZD.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield of intercropped ZD in IND and IHD was 16.7% and 25.3% lower than sole ZD”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped ZD yield in IHD was 25.3% below sole ZD.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“yield of intercropped ZD in IND and IHD was 16.7% and 25.3% lower than sole ZD”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
IHD did not significantly improve population yield relative to IND.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Compared with IND, IHD did not significantly improve the population yield.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped XY had greater upper leaf area than sole XY.
- Material
- XYe0
- Treatment
- intercropped XYe0
- Outcome
- upper leaf areae0
- Direction
- greatere0
- Comparator
- sole stande0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The upper leaf area of intercropped XY was greater than sole stand”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropped XY intercepted more photosynthetically active radiation.
- Treatment
- intercroppede1
- Outcome
- interception of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“leading to increased interception of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR).”
t0“Intercropping of short- and tall-stature maize”
e1“The upper leaf area of intercropped XY was greater than sole stand”
Claim · model-written summary
Greater XY leaf area reduced PAR for ZD.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“increased leaf area of intercropped XY resulted in reduced PAR for ZD”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Shaded intercropped ZD had decreased SOD activity and SPAD.
- Material
- ZDe0
- Treatment
- intercropped ZDe0
- Outcome
- superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity and SPADe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreased superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity and SPAD, increased malondialdehyde content of ear leaf was observed for intercropped ZD, due to shading stress caused by tall XY.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Shaded intercropped ZD had increased ear-leaf malondialdehyde.
- Material
- ZDe0
- Treatment
- intercropped ZDe0
- Outcome
- malondialdehyde content of ear leafe0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“decreased superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity and SPAD, increased malondialdehyde content of ear leaf was observed for intercropped ZD, due to shading stress caused by tall XY.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Leaf area, light interception and SOD were associated with grain yield.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“upper and middle leaf area, light interception, and SOD were closely related to grain yield.”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole XY lodging was 4.3% at normal density in 2021.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lodging rate of sole XY under normal and high density was 4.3% and 22.0% in 2021”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Sole XY lodging was 22.0% at high density in 2021.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Lodging rate of sole XY under normal and high density was 4.3% and 22.0% in 2021”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Lodging was absent in ZD.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lodging was absent for ZD and intercropped XY”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
Lodging was absent in intercropped XY.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“lodging was absent for ZD and intercropped XY”
t0“maize”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors present maize intercropping as a way to enhance lodging resistance without yield penalty or more inputs.
- Outcome
- enhance maize lodging resistance without yield penalty or requiring additional inputse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This study presents a strategy to enhance maize lodging resistance without yield penalty or requiring additional inputs.”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · growth · Zea mays (maize)Results differ
137 papers in the same direction as this paper · 40 in the opposite direction · 6 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
180 papers more in this group
See all 184 papers →intercropping · physiology: oxidative · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
intercropping · physiology: antioxidant enzymes · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
6 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →intercropping · physiology: photosynthesis · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
31 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- negative
31 papers more in this group
See all 35 papers →intercropping · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
612 papers in the same direction as this paper · 181 in the opposite direction · 40 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- negative
830 papers more in this group
See all 834 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.