Abstract
Sustainable management of natural resources in Egypt's northwest coast is crucial given the arid conditions and low rainfall. Therefore, this research aimed to improve rainwater harvesting and reduce soil erosion through an intercropping system of wheat and quinoa cultivated on wide-tied ridges. A machine was designed to perform both the wide-tied ridges formation and crops planting on one pass of machine. Field experiments were conducted during the 2024/2025 rainy season at three spacings between tying dikes (50, 100, and 150 cm) compared with planting on flat soil. Each treatment included sole wheat, sole quinoa, intercropped systems, with overlap ratios (1:1, 2:2, and 4:4). The results showed that wheat and quinoa grain yields increased by 121% and 103%, respectively, on wide-tied ridges compared with flat soil, accompanied by a 151% higher net return. Runoff, soil, nutrient, and organic matter losses decreased by 86%, 82%, 85%, and 83%, respectively. The optimal treatment was a 100cm spacing between dikes with a 1:1 intercropping ratio of wheat and quinoa. This treatment reduced runoff and soil loss about 13% and 15%, respectively. It also achieved the highest land equivalent ratio (LER = 2.25), representing a 15% higher overall productivity compared with sole cropping, and achieved the greatest net returns (180%) compared with sole wheat. This optimal treatment resulted in balanced vegetation cover and good root spread, which enhanced soil moisture retention and erosion resistance. Therefore, this research offers a sustainable and highly productive solution for arid regions prone to erosion and drought.
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 15
Claim · model-written summary
Wide tied ridges increased wheat grain yield by 121% over flat soil.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- wide-tied ridgese0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 121%e0
- Comparator
- flat soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat and quinoa grain yields increased by 121% and 103%, respectively, on wide-tied ridges compared with flat soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Wide tied ridges increased quinoa grain yield by 103% over flat soil.
- Taxon
- quinoa
Chenopodium quinoae0 - Treatment
- wide-tied ridgese0
- Outcome
- grain yieldse0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 103%e0
- Comparator
- flat soile0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“wheat and quinoa grain yields increased by 121% and 103%, respectively, on wide-tied ridges compared with flat soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Wide tied ridges increased net return by 151%.
- Taxon
- wheat and quinoaTriticum aestivumChenopodium quinoae1
- Treatment
- wide-tied ridgese2
- Outcome
- net returne0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 151%e0
- Comparator
- flat soile2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“accompanied by a 151% higher net return.”
e1“intercropping system of wheat and quinoa”
e2“wheat and quinoa grain yields increased by 121% and 103%, respectively, on wide-tied ridges compared with flat soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Runoff decreased by 86% under wide tied ridges.
- Taxon
- wheat and quinoaTriticum aestivumChenopodium quinoae1
- Treatment
- wide-tied ridgese2
- Outcome
- Runoffe0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 86%e0
- Comparator
- flat soile2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Runoff, soil, nutrient, and organic matter losses decreased by 86%, 82%, 85%, and 83%, respectively.”
e1“intercropping system of wheat and quinoa”
e2“wheat and quinoa grain yields increased by 121% and 103%, respectively, on wide-tied ridges compared with flat soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Soil loss decreased by 82% under wide tied ridges.
- Taxon
- wheat and quinoaTriticum aestivumChenopodium quinoae1
- Treatment
- wide-tied ridgese2
- Outcome
- soile0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 82%e0
- Comparator
- flat soile2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Runoff, soil, nutrient, and organic matter losses decreased by 86%, 82%, 85%, and 83%, respectively.”
e1“intercropping system of wheat and quinoa”
e2“wheat and quinoa grain yields increased by 121% and 103%, respectively, on wide-tied ridges compared with flat soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Nutrient loss decreased by 85% under wide tied ridges.
- Taxon
- wheat and quinoaTriticum aestivumChenopodium quinoae1
- Treatment
- wide-tied ridgese2
- Outcome
- nutriente0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 85%e0
- Comparator
- flat soile2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Runoff, soil, nutrient, and organic matter losses decreased by 86%, 82%, 85%, and 83%, respectively.”
e1“intercropping system of wheat and quinoa”
e2“wheat and quinoa grain yields increased by 121% and 103%, respectively, on wide-tied ridges compared with flat soil”
Claim · model-written summary
Organic matter loss decreased by 83% under wide tied ridges.
- Taxon
- wheat and quinoaTriticum aestivumChenopodium quinoae1
- Treatment
- wide-tied ridgese2
- Outcome
- organic matter lossese0
- Direction
- decreasede0
- Value
- 83%e0
- Comparator
- flat soile2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Runoff, soil, nutrient, and organic matter losses decreased by 86%, 82%, 85%, and 83%, respectively.”
e1“intercropping system of wheat and quinoa”
e2“wheat and quinoa grain yields increased by 121% and 103%, respectively, on wide-tied ridges compared with flat soil”
Claim · model-written summary
The 100 cm dike spacing and 1:1 intercropping ratio was optimal.
- Taxon
- wheat and quinoaTriticum aestivumChenopodium quinoae0
- Treatment
- 100cm spacing between dikes with a 1:1 intercropping ratioe0
- Outcome
- optimal treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The optimal treatment was a 100cm spacing between dikes with a 1:1 intercropping ratio of wheat and quinoa.”
Claim · model-written summary
The optimal treatment reduced runoff by about 13%.
- Taxon
- wheat and quinoaTriticum aestivumChenopodium quinoae1
- Treatment
- 100cm spacing between dikes with a 1:1 intercropping ratioe2
- Outcome
- runoffe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 13%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This treatment reduced runoff and soil loss about 13% and 15%, respectively.”
e1“intercropping system of wheat and quinoa”
e2“The optimal treatment was a 100cm spacing between dikes with a 1:1 intercropping ratio of wheat and quinoa.”
Claim · model-written summary
The optimal treatment reduced soil loss by about 15%.
- Taxon
- wheat and quinoaTriticum aestivumChenopodium quinoae1
- Treatment
- 100cm spacing between dikes with a 1:1 intercropping ratioe2
- Outcome
- soil losse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 15%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This treatment reduced runoff and soil loss about 13% and 15%, respectively.”
e1“intercropping system of wheat and quinoa”
e2“The optimal treatment was a 100cm spacing between dikes with a 1:1 intercropping ratio of wheat and quinoa.”
Claim · model-written summary
The optimal treatment had a land equivalent ratio of 2.25.
- Taxon
- wheat and quinoaTriticum aestivumChenopodium quinoae1
- Outcome
- land equivalent ratioe0
- Direction
- higheste0
- Value
- 2.25e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“It also achieved the highest land equivalent ratio (LER = 2.25)”
e1“intercropping system of wheat and quinoa”
Claim · model-written summary
The optimal treatment raised overall productivity by 15% over sole cropping.
- Taxon
- wheat and quinoaTriticum aestivumChenopodium quinoae1
- Treatment
- 100cm spacing between dikes with a 1:1 intercropping ratioe2
- Outcome
- overall productivitye0
- Direction
- highere0
- Value
- 15%e0
- Comparator
- sole croppinge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“representing a 15% higher overall productivity compared with sole cropping”
e1“intercropping system of wheat and quinoa”
e2“The optimal treatment was a 100cm spacing between dikes with a 1:1 intercropping ratio of wheat and quinoa.”
Claim · model-written summary
The optimal treatment increased net return by 180% relative to sole wheat.
- Taxon
- wheat and quinoaTriticum aestivumChenopodium quinoae1
- Treatment
- 100cm spacing between dikes with a 1:1 intercropping ratioe2
- Outcome
- net returnse0
- Direction
- greateste0
- Value
- 180%e0
- Comparator
- sole wheate0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“achieved the greatest net returns (180%) compared with sole wheat.”
e1“intercropping system of wheat and quinoa”
e2“The optimal treatment was a 100cm spacing between dikes with a 1:1 intercropping ratio of wheat and quinoa.”
Claim · model-written summary
The optimal treatment produced balanced vegetation cover and good root spread.
- Taxon
- wheat and quinoaTriticum aestivumChenopodium quinoae1
- Outcome
- balanced vegetation cover and good root spreade0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This optimal treatment resulted in balanced vegetation cover and good root spread”
e1“intercropping system of wheat and quinoa”
Claim · model-written summary
The vegetation cover and root spread enhanced soil moisture retention and erosion resistance.
- Taxon
- wheat and quinoaTriticum aestivumChenopodium quinoae1
- Outcome
- soil moisture retention and erosion resistancee0
- Qualifier
- balanced vegetation cover and good root spreade0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“balanced vegetation cover and good root spread, which enhanced soil moisture retention and erosion resistance.”
e1“intercropping system of wheat and quinoa”
The same questions in other papers
intercropping · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
130 papers in the same direction as this paper · 51 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
185 papers more in this group
See all 189 papers →density · yield · Chenopodium quinoa (quinoa)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- negative
- positive
intercropping · yield · Chenopodium quinoa (quinoa)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →density · soil: physics · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 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 →density · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
375 papers in the same direction as this paper · 115 in the opposite direction · 7 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- no effect
- no effect
494 papers more in this group
See all 498 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.