Abstract
BACKGROUND: Saharan dryland systems in southern Tunisia are characterized by severe environmental constraints, including saline and waterlogged soils due to poor drainage and compacted textures. Agroecological practices such as intercropping and crop rotation offer sustainable alternatives to intensive monoculture for improving soil health and productivity. This study, conducted in southern Tunisia, evaluated the agroecological performance of different quinoa genotypes under varying planting densities, comparing monocropping, intercropping with oat, and rotation with traditional cereals such as wheat and oat. Seed rate (sowing density) significantly influenced growth, yield, and seed quality. RESULTS: seed rate reduced growth and yield, with harvest index (HI) and seed yield declining by up to 76%, depending on genotype. Saponin content increased by up to 25% with a high seed rate, whereas protein content decreased. Quinoa-oat intercropping enhanced plant height, stem diameter, and dry weight, but reduced quinoa HI by up to 53%. In contrast, oat HI, seed yield, and thousand-kernel weight (TKW) increased under the intercropping system. Land equivalent ratio values ranged from 1.5 to 2.14, indicating improved system productivity, whereas competitive ratio (CRq) values confirmed that quinoa was less competitive than oat. Rotation with quinoa increased oat harvest index by 95% but reduced wheat harvest index by 22%. Both intercropping and rotation improved soil organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorus availability while reducing salinity, enhancing soil fertility. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the potential of quinoa-based cropping systems for sustainable production and soil management in arid and saline environments. © 2026 Society of Chemical Industry.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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
Higher seed rate reduced quinoa growth and yield, including harvest index and seed yield by up to 76%.
- Taxon
- quinoa
Chenopodium quinoat0 - Treatment
- seed ratee0
- Outcome
- harvest index (HI) and seed yielde0
- Direction
- declininge0
- Value
- up to 76%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“seed rate reduced growth and yield, with harvest index (HI) and seed yield declining by up to 76%, depending on genotype”
t0“quinoa‐based cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
High seed rate increased quinoa saponin content by up to 25%.
- Taxon
- quinoaChenopodium quinoat0
- Treatment
- high seed ratee0
- Outcome
- Saponin contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- up to 25%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Saponin content increased by up to 25% with a high seed rate”
t0“quinoa‐based cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
High seed rate decreased quinoa protein content.
- Taxon
- quinoaChenopodium quinoat0
- Treatment
- high seed ratee2
- Outcome
- protein contente0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“protein content decreased”
e2“Saponin content increased by up to 25% with a high seed rate”
t0“quinoa‐based cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Quinoa–oat intercropping increased quinoa height, stem diameter and dry weight.
- Taxon
- quinoaChenopodium quinoae0
- Treatment
- Quinoa-oat intercroppinge0
- Outcome
- plant height, stem diameter, and dry weighte0
- Direction
- enhancede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Quinoa-oat intercropping enhanced plant height, stem diameter, and dry weight”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping reduced quinoa harvest index by up to 53%.
- Taxon
- quinoaChenopodium quinoae0
- Treatment
- intercroppinge1
- Outcome
- quinoa HIe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- up to 53%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced quinoa HI by up to 53%”
e1“Quinoa-oat intercropping enhanced plant height, stem diameter, and dry weight”
Claim · model-written summary
Oat harvest index, seed yield and thousand-kernel weight increased under intercropping.
- Taxon
- oat
Avena sativae0 - Treatment
- intercropping systeme0
- Outcome
- HI, seed yield, and thousand-kernel weight (TKW)e0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“oat HI, seed yield, and thousand-kernel weight (TKW) increased under the intercropping system”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping land equivalent ratios of 1.5 to 2.14 indicated higher system productivity.
- Taxon
- quinoaChenopodium quinoat0
- Outcome
- Land equivalent ratio valuese0
- Direction
- improvede0
- Value
- 1.5 to 2.14e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Land equivalent ratio values ranged from 1.5 to 2.14, indicating improved system productivity”
t0“quinoa‐based cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Quinoa was less competitive than oat.
- Taxon
- quinoaChenopodium quinoae0
- Outcome
- less competitive than oate0
- Direction
- less competitivee0
- Comparator
- oate0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“competitive ratio (CRq) values confirmed that quinoa was less competitive than oat”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotation with quinoa increased oat harvest index by 95%.
- Taxon
- oatAvena sativae0
- Treatment
- Rotation with quinoae0
- Outcome
- oat harvest indexe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 95%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Rotation with quinoa increased oat harvest index by 95%”
Claim · model-written summary
Rotation with quinoa reduced wheat harvest index by 22%.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivume0 - Treatment
- Rotation with quinoae1
- Outcome
- wheat harvest indexe0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 22%e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“reduced wheat harvest index by 22%”
e1“Rotation with quinoa increased oat harvest index by 95%”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping and rotation improved soil organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus availability.
- Taxon
- quinoaChenopodium quinoat0
- Treatment
- intercropping and rotatione0
- Outcome
- soil organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorus availabilitye0
- Direction
- improvede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both intercropping and rotation improved soil organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorus availability”
t0“quinoa‐based cropping systems”
Claim · model-written summary
Intercropping and rotation reduced soil salinity.
- Taxon
- quinoaChenopodium quinoat0
- Treatment
- intercropping and rotatione0
- Outcome
- salinitye0
- Direction
- reducinge0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Both intercropping and rotation improved soil organic matter, nitrogen, and phosphorus availability while reducing salinity”
t0“quinoa‐based cropping systems”
The same questions in other papers
density · yield · Chenopodium quinoa (quinoa)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
intercropping · yield · Chenopodium quinoa (quinoa)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
1 paper more in this group
See all 5 papers →rotation · yield · Avena sativa (oats)Positive and negative results
8 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →intercropping · yield · Avena sativa (oats)Positive and negative results
22 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- no effect
- negative
- negative
29 papers more in this group
See all 33 papers →rotation · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
91 papers in the same direction as this paper · 253 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
341 papers more in this group
See all 345 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.