Abstract
Abstract Long-term studies are crucial for evaluating how intercropping affects the agronomic, environmental, and socio-economic sustainability of sugarcane systems. Intercropping with cover crops is expected to improve soil fertility and reduce herbicide use; however, its long-term effects on yield, weed dynamics, and production costs remain unclear, particularly under tropical conditions. Weed pressure has been hypothesized to drive yield decline over time, yet the temporal evolution of weed communities and their consequences for system sustainability remain poorly understood. We hypothesized that intercropping would modify ecosystem functions and services by increasing weed diversity and soil fertility, reducing herbicide use, and also increasing labor and production costs. To test this hypothesis, we conducted the first 7-year field experiment on Reunion Island, comparing four sugarcane intercropping systems with conventional chemical and low weed control systems. A multi-criteria approach assessed weed community dynamics, soil fertility, sugarcane yield and quality, herbicide use, labor, and economic performance over a complete crop cycle, including multiple ratoons. We show that weed pressure increased over time in both chemical and intercropping systems due to greater weed cover and species richness. Weed community structure differed during the first 3 years but later homogenized under sugarcane dominance. This increase led to more manual weeding in intercropping systems and to increased herbicide use in chemical ones, resulting in a 61% reduction in herbicide use under intercropping. After 7 years, soil chemical and biological fertility remained unchanged, while physical fertility improved with companion crop and weed development. Sugarcane yield and sucrose content were maintained, but production costs and working hours increased. This study demonstrates that sugarcane intercropping reduces herbicide dependence without compromising yield, though at higher labor costs. Systems maintaining spontaneous flora in inter-rows appear to offer a promising compromise for sustainable weed management. Further research on this system should be conducted in different pedoclimatic conditions.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Weed pressure increased over time in chemical and intercropping systems.
Verbatim
e0“weed pressure increased over time in both chemical and intercropping systems due to greater weed cover and species richness”
e1“sugarcane systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed community structure differed in the first three years and later homogenized.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“Weed community structure differed during the first 3 years but later homogenized under sugarcane dominance”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping reduced herbicide use by 61%.
Verbatim
e0“resulting in a 61% reduction in herbicide use under intercropping”
e1“sugarcane intercropping systems with conventional chemical and low weed control systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil chemical and biological fertility remained unchanged after seven years.
Verbatim
e0“After 7 years, soil chemical and biological fertility remained unchanged”
e1“sugarcane yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Physical soil fertility improved with companion crop and weed development.
Verbatim
e0“physical fertility improved with companion crop and weed development”
e1“sugarcane yield”
Claim · model-written summary
Sugarcane yield and sucrose content were maintained.
Verbatim
e0“Sugarcane yield and sucrose content were maintained”
Claim · model-written summary
Production costs and working hours increased.
Verbatim
e0“production costs and working hours increased”
e1“Sugarcane yield”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · molecular: metabolites · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 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.