ArticleFrontiers in plant science2025
Optimizing plant density to improve the soil microenvironment and enhance crop productivity in cotton/cumin intercropping systems.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Residual film pollution has become a key factor that affects the sustainable development of cotton, and intercropping may be an economical and environmentally friendly method to reduce the negative effects of nonmulched conditions on cotton growth. We hypothesized that optimizing the cotton/cumin intercropping density would improve the soil environment and increase crop productivity and resource utilization. Methods: Therefore, in this study, singlecropping cotton (CK) was used as the control, and three intercropping cumin seeding densities were used (plants ha Results and discussion: Compared with the CK treatment, the ID2 treatment decreased the water content in the 0-30 cm soil layer by 8.3%, increased the water consumption by 9.1%, increased the soil temperature by 0.5°C, and decreased the electrical conductivity of the 0-15 cm soil layer by 17.7%. Compared with the CK treatment, the ID1 treatment significantly decreased the soil respiration rate by 33.6%, and the weed density decreased in the following order: CK>ID1>ID2>ID3. During the nonsymbiotic period, compared with CK, ID2 increased the soil water content by 5.7%, increased the soil respiration rate by 17.7%, and decreased the electrical conductivity by 15.6%. Compared with those for CK and ID3, the seed yield for ID2 increased by 2.0% and 5.8%, respectively, and that for ID1 decreased by 1.6%. However, the land equivalent of the ID2 treatment was 4.3% greater than that for the ID1 treatment. Therefore, intercropping cumin at a density of 8×10
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.