Claim · model-written summary
Ic (I S S2) intercropping produced a 26.3% decrease in total land output
- Taxon
- chickpea
Cicer arietinumt0 - Treatment
- Ic (I S S 2 )e7
- Outcome
- TLOe7
- Direction
- decreaseinferrede7
- Value
- -26.3%e7
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
t0“L. iberica–chickpea intercropping systems”
e7“However, the Ic (I S S 2 ) treatment resulted in economic losses (-26.3% TLO) and shifted species interactions towards competition, reducing LER by 45%”
Title
Maryam Mirdoraghi; Saeideh Maleki Farahani; Alireza Rezazadeh Journal of Agriculture and Food Research 2026. doi:10.1016/j.jafr.2025.102627
Other claims from this paper (14)
- Intervention effect Ic (I20 S1) intercropping achieved maximum productivity with LER 2.43
- Intervention effect Ic (I20 S1) intercropping had a monetary advantage index of 6565.25
- Intervention effect Ic (I20 S1) intercropping had a total land output of 3762.3 kg/ha
- Association In the intercropping system complementary effects outweighed selection effects
- Association Intercropping benefits attributed to CE were strongly correlated with BE
- Association Chickpea dominated the intercrop, with competitive ratio CRc above CRl
- Association Chickpea yield peaked under enhanced nitrogen availability
- Intervention effect Severe deficit irrigation with spring sowing reduced sole-system productivity by 45%
- Intervention effect Intercropping remained resilient under the I S S2 conditions where sole cropping lost productivity
- Intervention effect Autumn sowing enhanced nitrogen uptake in the intercrop
- Intervention effect Autumn sowing enhanced economic returns with RVT 5.97
- Intervention effect Ic (I S S2) intercropping shifted species interactions towards competition
- Intervention effect Ic (I S S2) intercropping reduced LER by 45%
- Mechanism Complementary effects from chickpea root system and nitrogen fixation are asserted to mitigate drought stress