Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36595678›Full record

SynthesisProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023

The productive performance of intercropping.

Chunjie Li, Tjeerd-Jan Stomph, David Makowski, Haigang Li, Chaochun Zhang, Fusuo Zhang, Wopke van der Werf

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The productive performance of intercropping.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

7 authors.

Chunjie LiCollege of Resources and Environmental Science, National Academy of Agriculture Green Development, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2761-1085
Tjeerd-Jan StomphCentre for Crop Systems Analysis, Wageningen University, 6700 AK, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5984-1523
David MakowskiINRAe, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Unit Applied mathematics and computer science, Palaiseau 91120, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6385-3703
Haigang LiInner Mongolia Key Lab. of Soil Quality and Nutrient Resources, College of Grassland, Resources and Environment, Inner Mongolia Agricultural University, Hohhot 010018, China.
Chaochun ZhangCollege of Resources and Environmental Science, National Academy of Agriculture Green Development, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.
Fusuo ZhangCollege of Resources and Environmental Science, National Academy of Agriculture Green Development, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8971-0129
Wopke van der WerfCentre for Crop Systems Analysis, Wageningen University, 6700 AK, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5506-4699

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Crop diversification has been put forward as a way to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture without penalizing its productivity. In this context, intercropping, the planned combination of two or more crop species in one field, is a promising practice. On an average, intercropping saves land compared with the component sole crops, but it remains unclear whether intercropping produces a higher yield than the most productive single crop per unit area, i.e., whether intercropping achieves transgressive overyielding. Here, we quantified the performance of intercropping for the production of grain, calories, and protein in a global meta-analysis of several production indices. The results show that intercrops outperform sole crops when the objective is to achieve a diversity of crop products on a given land area. However, when intercropping is evaluated for its ability to produce raw products without concern for diversity, intercrops on average generate a small loss in grain or calorie yield compared with the most productive sole crop (-4%) but achieve similar or higher protein yield, especially with maize/legume combinations grown at moderate N supply. Overall, although intercropping does not achieve transgressive overyielding on average, our results show that intercropping performs well in producing a diverse set of crop products and performs almost similar to the most productive component sole crop to produce raw products, while improving crop resilience, enhancing ecosystem services, and improving nutrient use efficiency. Our study, therefore, confirms the great interest of intercropping for the development of a more sustainable agricultural production, supporting diversified diets.

Indexed as

EcosystemFabaceaeAgricultureCrops, AgriculturalEdible Grainfood securityintercroppingland-use efficiencyproductivitytransgressive overyielding

Identifiers

PMID36595678
PMCPMC9926256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.