Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34868116›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2021

Breeding Beyond Monoculture: Putting the "Intercrop" Into Crops.

Peter M Bourke, Jochem B Evers, Piter Bijma, Dirk F van Apeldoorn, Marinus J M Smulders, Thomas W Kuyper, Liesje Mommer, Guusje Bonnema

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Green chemistry : an international journal and green chemistry resource : GC · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Coadaptation of coexisting plants enhances productivity in an agricultural system.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Peter M BourkePlant Breeding, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Jochem B EversCentre for Crops Systems Analysis, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Piter BijmaAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Dirk F van ApeldoornFarming Systems Ecology Group, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Marinus J M SmuldersPlant Breeding, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Thomas W KuyperSoil Biology, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Liesje MommerPlant Ecology and Nature Conservation, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Guusje BonnemaPlant Breeding, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intercropping is both a well-established and yet novel agricultural practice, depending on one's perspective. Such perspectives are principally governed by geographic location and whether monocultural practices predominate. Given the negative environmental effects of monoculture agriculture (loss of biodiversity, reliance on non-renewable inputs, soil degradation, etc.), there has been a renewed interest in cropping systems that can reduce the impact of modern agriculture while maintaining (or even increasing) yields. Intercropping is one of the most promising practices in this regard, yet faces a multitude of challenges if it is to compete with and ultimately replace the prevailing monocultural norm. These challenges include the necessity for more complex agricultural designs in space and time, bespoke machinery, and adapted crop cultivars. Plant breeding for monocultures has focused on maximizing yield in single-species stands, leading to highly productive yet specialized genotypes. However, indications suggest that these genotypes are not the best adapted to intercropping systems. Re-designing breeding programs to accommodate inter-specific interactions and compatibilities, with potentially multiple different intercropping partners, is certainly challenging, but recent technological advances offer novel solutions. We identify a number of such technology-driven directions, either ideotype-driven (i.e., "trait-based" breeding) or quantitative genetics-driven (i.e., "product-based" breeding). For ideotype breeding, plant growth modeling can help predict plant traits that affect both inter- and intraspecific interactions and their influence on crop performance. Quantitative breeding approaches, on the other hand, estimate breeding values of component crops without necessarily understanding the underlying mechanisms. We argue that a combined approach, for example, integrating plant growth modeling with genomic-assisted selection and indirect genetic effects, may offer the best chance to bridge the gap between current monoculture breeding programs and the more integrated and diverse breeding programs of the future.

Indexed as

functional–structural plant modelingindirect genetic effectsintercroppingmycorrhizaplant breedingplant–plant interactionsplasticity

Identifiers

PMID34868116
PMCPMC8636715

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.