Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36407615›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in plant science2022

Maize/soybean strip intercropping produces higher crop yields and saves water under semi-arid conditions.

Muhammad Ali Raza, Hassan Shehryar Yasin, Hina Gul, Ruijun Qin, Atta Mohi Ud Din, Muhammad Hayder Bin Khalid, Sajad Hussain, Harun Gitari, Amjed Saeed, Jun Wang and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Coupling photosynthetic physiology and CFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

18 authors.

Muhammad Ali RazaNational Research Center of Intercropping, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
Hassan Shehryar YasinNational Research Center of Intercropping, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
Hina GulNational Center for Industrial Biotechnology, Pir Mehar Ali Shah-Arid Agricultural University, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Ruijun QinHermiston Agricultural Research and Extension Center, Oregon State University, Hermiston, OR, United States.
Atta Mohi Ud DinNational Research Center of Intercropping, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
Muhammad Hayder Bin KhalidNational Research Center of Intercropping, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
Sajad HussainNational Research Center of Intercropping, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
Harun GitariDepartment of Agricultural Science and Technology, School of Agriculture and Enterprise Development, Kenyatta University, Nairobi, Kenya.
Amjed SaeedNational Research Center of Intercropping, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
Jun WangShaanxi Key Laboratory of Earth Surface System and Environmental Carrying Capacity, College of Urban and Environmental Science, Northwest University, Xian, China.
Esmaeil Rezaei-ChiyanehDepartment of Plant Production and Genetics, Faculty of Agriculture, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran.
Ayman El SabaghDepartment of Field Crops, Faculty of Agriculture, Siirt University, Siirt, Turkey.
Amir ManzoorNational Research Center of Intercropping, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.
Akash FatimaInstitute of Plant Breeding and Biotechnology, Muhammad Nawaz Sharif-University of Agriculture, Multan, Pakistan.
Shakeel AhmadDepartment of Agronomy, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Multan, Pakistan.
Feng YangCollege of Agronomy, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.
Milan SkalickyDepartment of Botany and Plant Physiology, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czechia.
Wenyu YangCollege of Agronomy, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sustainable increases in crop production require efficient use of resources, and intercropping can improve water use efficiency and land productivity at reduced inputs. Thus, in a three-year field experiment, the performance of maize/soybean strip intercropping system differing with maize plant density (6 maize plants m-2, low, D1; 8 maize plants m-2, medium, D2; and 10 maize plants m-2, high, D3) was evaluated in comparison with sole maize or soybean cropping system. Results revealed that among all intercropping treatments, D2 had a significantly higher total leaf area index (maize LAI + soybean LAI; 8.2), total dry matter production (maize dry matter + soybean dry matter; 361.5 g plant-1), and total grain yield (maize grain yield + soybean grain yield; 10122.5 kg ha-1) than D1 and D3, and also higher than sole maize (4.8, 338.7 g plant-1, and 9553.7 kg ha-1) and sole soybean (4.6, 64.8 g plant-1, and 1559.5 kg ha-1). The intercropped maize was more efficient in utilizing the radiation and water, with a radiation use efficiency of 3.5, 5.2, and 4.3 g MJ-1 and water use efficiency of 14.3, 16.2, and 13.3 kg ha-1 mm-1, while that of intercropped soybean was 2.5, 2.1, and 1.8 g MJ-1 and 2.1, 1.9, and 1.5 kg ha-1 mm-1 in D1, D2, and D3, respectively. In intercropping, the land and water equivalent ratios ranged from 1.22 to 1.55, demonstrating that it is a sustainable strategy to improve land and water use efficiencies; this maximization is likely associated with the species complementarities for radiation, water, and land in time and space, which resulted in part from competition avoidance responses that maximize the economic profit (e. g., 1300 US $ ha-1 in D2) over sole maize (798 US $ ha-1) or sole soybean (703 US $ ha-1). Overall, these results indicate that optimizing strip intercropping systems can save 20-50% of water and land, especially under the present scenario of limited resources and climate change. However, further research is required to fully understand the resource capture mechanisms of intercrops in intercropping.

Indexed as

competitioneconomic profitland productivitysustainabilitywater use efficiency

Identifiers

PMID36407615
PMCPMC9667818

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.