INTERCROPPING: FEED MORE PEOPLE AND BUILD MORE SUSTAINABLE AGROECOSYSTEMS

Highlights

• Intercropping is a useful practice when agricultural sustainability is emphasized.

• We integrate biodiversity-ecosystem functioning and intercropping.

• Intercropping optimizes ecosystem services such as stabilizing yield and reducing use of chemicals.

• Intercropping benefits are attributed partly to complementarity and selection effects.

• Application of ecological principles is key to sustainable agricultural development.

Abstract

Intercropping is a traditional farming system that increases crop diversity to strengthen agroecosystem functions while decreasing chemical inputs and minimizing negative environmental effects of crop production. Intercropping is currently considerable interest because of its importance in sustainable agriculture. Here, we synthesize the factors that make intercropping a sustainable means of food production by integrating biodiversity of natural ecosystems and crop diversity. In addition to well-known yield increases, intercropping can also increase yield stability over the long term and increase systemic resistance to plant diseases, pests and other unfavorable factors (e.g. nutrient deficiencies). The efficient use of resources can save mineral fertilizer inputs, reduce environmental pollution risks and greenhouse gas emissions caused by agriculture, thus mitigating global climate change. Intercropping potentially increases above- and below-ground biodiversity of various taxa at field scale, consequently it enhances ecosystem services. Complementarity and selection effects allow a better understanding the mechanisms behind enhanced ecosystem functioning. The development of mechanization is essential for large-scale application of intercropping. Agroecosystem multifunctionality and soil health should be priority topics in future research on intercropping.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

agroecosystems / crop diversity / intercropping / interspecific interactions / sustainable agriculture

Introduction

Africa has a more rapidly growing population with a less developed agriculture when compared to other continents. What a missed opportunity! The rapid urbanization and growing food demand in urban centers asks for a rethink of how agriculture is organized. Are smallholders the food producers of the future? We argue here that a gradual restructuring of agriculture is needed, providing sufficient scale to support modern technology with all its benefits. It needs to be gradual to allow smallholders to transition to other work while being sensitive to land rights and the needs for biodiversity, preventing large-scale clearing of landscapes to maintain a good mix of habitats.

Agricultural development is key to wean the continent off foreign food supply^[1]. Improvement of agricultural productivity brings far more than food self-sufficiency; it reduces costs of food and increases labor productivity on farms and supply of labor for off-farm economic activities, and increases demand for services^[2]. As discussed by Djoumessi et al.^[3], economic growth of countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) since 2000 resulted from structural changes and transition from farm labor to more productive sectors of the economy. The large labor cost differences between Asian and western economies that propelled their economic growth still exists and SSA has only a small advantage in labor costs^[4]. Suitable policies are therefore needed to support transition of labor from on- to off-farm jobs in African economies^[3]. The relatively low food prices on the world market are a strong disincentive for investments in agricultural productivity^[2]. Yet at the same time many smallholders are net consumers and rely on purchased food for specific periods of the year. Increasing domestic food production reduces food prices but also food imports and, importantly, improves the balance of trade enabling investment in infrastructure, education and healthcare with enduring economic benefits. However, these long-term benefits from agricultural policies need visionary politicians that look far beyond price shocks and short election cycles. Good policies should therefore focus on food prices relative to income^[2] at decadal timescales.

The need to boost soil fertility with fertilizers is widely recognized. Also, the required recipe of combined use of fertilizers within good agricultural practices and integrated soil fertility management is well known^[5] and widely tested in a range of crops. Why is this recipe then not resonating among smallholders? One important reason is that ‘bullshit rules’^[6]: promises about increased fertilizer use and supporting policies made by politicians are not met.

Agronomic research has focused on improving agronomic efficiency, which is key to reducing costs. However is this truly the bottleneck for improved productivity? Lessons from Europe^[7] and elsewhere^[8,9] show that on-farm effects of fertilizer are highly variable among fields and between seasons, and typically improve as soil fertility builds up. When the agronomic efficiency is high, fertilizer use gives a good return on investment for African smallholders^[10]. However, is it fair and reasonable to expect African farmers to bridge the period required to build soil fertility before they are able to achieve the high agronomic efficiency required to repay their initial investments?

Reviving the Green Revolution in sub-Saharan Africa

Africa’s poor resource base, limited opportunities for irrigated agriculture, large distances to seaports and poor infrastructure made Green Revolution technologies less competitive when compared to other continents. Even now, many farmers see limited direct financial benefits from these technologies and at the same time face large financial risks, mainly due to low agronomic efficiencies of inputs, and volatile and poorly functioning markets. Recent focus has been on input subsidy schemes, which are highly politicized. In our view, protection of local markets and regulating food imports are more important as these reduce price volatility and risks. Agricultural revolutions do not start on farm but are triggered by market opportunities; African farmers will also respond to market demand.

Tunneling through: green solutions or murky waters?

Cheap inputs, such as fertilizer in China and feed imports in Europe, led to overuse and overload of nutrients in the system that sooner or later leach through, causing pollution of ground- and drinking water, eutrophication of surface water and toxic green tides. Excess N not only leaches but also results in gaseous losses, responsible for eutrophication and acidification of nature reserves and loss of biodiversity. Legislation to reduce the environmental burden can increase nutrient use efficiency (NUE) to near theoretical levels. This is what happened in Europe with a turnaround in the 1980s and is happening now in China^[11–13]. Tunneling through the Kutznets curve shortcuts this process of rise and decline in fertilizer rates^[14] with a focus on high NUE being of key importance.

African agriculture is, with some exceptions, based on soil mining; large amounts of nutrients are extracted from the farming system without adequate replacement. This erodes soil fertility with enduring negative consequences. This process has been happening for nearly a century, fueled by population growth and expansion of agriculture. Theoretically, the highest efficiencies are observed when all other production factors are optimal. In Africa, efficiencies are very low, even at the very low application rates that are commonly used, reflecting a combination of limiting factors. Fertilizing crops on a soil with a poor resource base therefore results in much smaller yield gains than on richer soils. For example, maximum yield gains for N applications of 50 kg grain kg⁻¹ N are observed in the new polders of the Netherlands, with vast soil reserves of nutrients. Farmers in SSA are also aware of this and will preferably focus fertilizers on their better fields which can also reach these high efficiencies^[15], while nutrients are most needed on poor fields these must be supplied in a more balanced composition. One of the reasons for the low agronomic efficiencies in African agriculture is inappropriate blends of nutrients in fertilizers. The variability of soil fertility is well known and reflects large differences in parent material and weathering, over which the impacts of management history are superimposed. Proper accounting for these differences is almost impossible. In addition, experimental results are highly variable, even more so when conducted on farm. Large experiments including replicates are not always possible; they might not fit in a single smallholder field or might violate the ceteris paribus assumptions. Alternatively, experimental results from a range of locations are pooled adding spatial variability. Then, the effect of locally-deficient nutrients will be masked by spatial variability and overall effects become insignificant. Typically, only nutrient limitations that occur everywhere are identified as significant, notably N+ P. Although wide ranges in responses can mask differences between treatments when statistically analyzed, they reflect a risk for the farmer^[16] and indicate that a complete and balanced mix of nutrients should be applied. A well balanced fertilizer with optimum N:P:K ratios that compensates for nutrient offtake will reduce the risk of poor NUE^[17]. This strongly argues for providing balanced nutrient mixtures in fertilizer blends that are regionally tailored to crop offtakes at competitive prices to prevent use of unbalanced fertilizer with long-term negative impacts on soil fertility.

Structural adjustments

African agriculture is dominated by smallholders. Many smallholders are net consumers, producing much of their own food but relying on off-farm income to meet the full household dietary needs, while at the same time more than 95% of smallholders sell produce to markets^[18]. Although intensification produces more, financial gains are marginal and will not help lift smallholders out of poverty. Many smallholders will opt for opportunities to invest away from the farm with larger potential income gains^[19]. This also means that not all smallholder land will be available for intensification, adding pressure on other areas. A first estimate is that only 11% to 14% of farmers in Africa will take this opportunity to step up and adopt technology when price incentives are right with food secure farmers are more likely to adopt than food insecure farmers^[20].

To keep pace with population growth, yield gains of 100–200 kg·ha⁻¹·yr⁻¹ cereal grain are needed^[21], depending on the expansion of land under agricultural use. These are staggering numbers, far larger than the yield increases that were achieved in the past in developed countries, especially when considering that not all farmland is available for intensification. Effective use of fertilizer combined with good agronomic practices is labor intensive, but for smallholders labor is a serious constraint at the peak of season^[22] depending on local conditions^[23]. Manual land-preparation, seeding and weeding is backbreaking work^[24]; sowing 50000 seeds h⁻¹ and fertilizer requires bending over up to 50–100 thousand times ha⁻¹. Even simple, locally manufactured mechanized seeders can place both seeds and fertilizer in rows at the required depth, providing direct yield benefits^[24]. The yield benefits resulting from more accurately placing seeds in a row also reduce the need for thinning compared to the common practice of two seeds per planting and reduces the risk of ammonium toxicity to the germinating seeds from basal fertilizers. This example shows that the benefits of scale are much larger for intensified systems, but also go far beyond economics alone.

Therefore, sustainable intensification of agriculture must be done concurrently with consolidation of farms to reap the benefits of mechanization and technology, fueled by a gradual transition to a more urbanized life for workers. Another major advantage of land consolidation is that a much smaller number of farmers need to be trained. Land is not only an asset for producing food, it is also the rural home, a place of belonging where ancestors are buried, and provides a safety net and insurance for families with urban workers to retreat to. Land use and land ownership are very sensitive issues but need to be addressed to allow short- or long-term land rent contracts that can provide the required scale for mechanized intensification.

Large opportunities for crops in sub-Saharan Africa

To revitalize the Green Revolution, African commodity crops provide excellent opportunities to boost productivity of land and labor, and initialize local processing industries proving work in rural areas. Recent work on cassava (Manihot esculenta) has shown that balanced nutrient ratios, applied in split applications aligned to crop demand, can result in highly-efficient crop uptake with high yields, for the commonly used cultivar TME 419, approaching theoretical maximum yields^[25]. Cassava is a widely grown food crop in SSA that also can be used for chips and starch processing, and is well-adapted to periods of drought. Also, cassava strongly responds to fertilizer and uses nutrients very efficiently (Table 1), strongly limiting environmental risks.

East African highland banana (Musa acuminata genome group AAA-EA) is another example; it is a highly productive crop, requiring little N fertilization^[30] and well suited to local conditions. Bananas demand large amounts of potassium^[29], but when properly fertilized with K, they provide high yields. Highland bananas are also labor intensive, providing job opportunities in rural areas with a good economic yield for sale in urban areas. In addition, the continuous soil cover provided helps to limit erosion of hillsides.

Tab.1 Optimum yields, agronomic efficiency and nutrient recovery of fertilizer (expressed kg−1 N applied) under balanced NPK nutrition for major food staple crops in sub-Saharan Africa

Plant	Agronomic efficiency (kg DM kg−1 N applied)	N recovery (kg N uptake kg−1 N applied)	Water-limited yields under optimum management (t·ha−1 DM)	Reference
Maize	18–19	0.5–0.6	6–13 (grain)	[26,27]
Cassava	27–60	0.5–0.7	22–35 (roots)	[25]
Highland banana	–	–	6–8 (fingers)	[28–30]

Conclusions

Investing in sustainable intensification in SSA is urgently required to prevent further nutrient mining of soils. Investments in agricultural development have wide-reaching benefits in the long-term. Fertilizer is a key component to increase land and labor productivity, that may free-up labor, and kick-start services and exporting industries when combined with broader economic investments. Low NUE may need to be accepted in the short-term to build up soil resources. Along with sustainable intensification, policies that address land rights are critical, enabling long-term investments in soil fertility and land exchange to provide the much-needed increase in the size of land management units to support improved management practices. In our view, investing in agriculture is an essential development pathway for African countries to boost economies and protect biodiversity from further expansion of agricultural use of land. International donors should invest in facilitating balanced fertilizer production facilities and reduction of transaction costs of fertilizer use through providing better services (e.g., roads, market access, storage services and agricultural supplier networks) in SSA to support intensification. Support for locally processed tropical root and tuber crops provide excellent opportunities to produce food locally and kick-start competitive industries that may produce for both domestic and international markets.

References

[1] Tilman D, Cassman K G, Matson P A, Naylor R, Polasky S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 2002, 418(6898): 671–677

[2] Malézieux E, Crozat Y, Dupraz C, Laurans M, Makowski D, Ozier-Lafontaine H, Rapidel B, de Tourdonnet S, Valantin-Morison M. Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2009, 29(1): 43–62

[3] Chen X, Cui Z, Fan M, Vitousek P, Zhao M, Ma W, Wang Z, Zhang W, Yan X, Yang J, Deng X, Gao Q, Zhang Q, Guo S, Ren J, Li S, Ye Y, Wang Z, Huang J, Tang Q, Sun Y, Peng X, Zhang J, He M, Zhu Y, Xue J, Wang G, Wu L, An N, Wu L, Ma L, Zhang W, Zhang F. Producing more grain with lower environmental costs. Nature, 2014, 514(7523): 486–489

[4] Guo J H, Liu X J, Zhang Y, Shen J L, Han W X, Zhang W F, Christie P, Goulding K W T, Vitousek P M, Zhang F S. Significant acidification in major Chinese croplands. Science, 2010, 327(5968): 1008–1010

[5] Davidson E A. The contribution of manure and fertilizer nitrogen to atmospheric nitrous oxide since 1860. Nature Geoscience, 2009, 2(9): 659–662

[6] Kleijn D, Kohler F, Báldi A, Batáry P, Concepción E D, Clough Y, Díaz M, Gabriel D, Holzschuh A, Knop E, Kovács A, Marshall E J P, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J. On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proceedings. Biological Sciences, 2009, 276(1658): 903–909

[7] Zimmerer K S. The compatibility of agricultural intensification in a global hotspot of smallholder agrobiodiversity (Bolivia). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013, 110(8): 2769–2774

[8] Loreau M, Naeem S, Inchausti P, Bengtsson J, Grime J P, Hector A, Hooper D U, Huston M A, Raffaelli D, Schmid B, Tilman D, Wardle D A. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science, 2001, 294(5543): 804–808

[9] He H M, Liu L N, Munir S, Bashir N H, Wang Y, Yang J, Li C Y. Crop diversity and pest management in susctainable agriculture. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2019, 18(9): 1945–1952

[10] Li L, Zhang L Z, Zhang F S. Crop Mixtures and the Mechanisms of Overyielding. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, second edition. Academic Press (Elsevier), 2013, 2: 382–395

[11] Li C, Hoffland E, Kuyper T W, Yu Y, Zhang C, Li H, Zhang F, van der Werf W. Syndromes of production in intercropping impact yield gains. Nature Plants, 2020, 6(6): 653–660

[12] Agegnehu G, Ghizaw A, Sinebo W. Yield potential and land-use efficiency of wheat and faba bean mixed intercropping. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2008, 28(2): 257–263

[13] Snapp S S, Blackie M J, Gilbert R A, Bezner-Kerr R, Kanyama-Phiri G Y. Biodiversity can support a greener revolution in Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2010, 107(48): 20840–20845

[14] Oroka F O, Omoregie A U. Competition in a rice-cowpea intercrop as affected by nitrogen fertilizer and plant population. Scientia Agrícola, 2007, 64(6): 621–629

[15] Mao L L, Zhang L Z, Li W Q, van der Werf W, Sun J H, Spiertz H, Li L. Yield advantage and water saving in maize/pea intercrop. Field Crops Research, 2012, 138: 11–20

[16] Liu Y X, Zhang W P, Sun J H, Li X F, Christie P, Li L. High morphological and physiological plasticity of wheat roots is conducive to higher competitive ability of wheat than maize in intercropping systems. Plant and Soil, 2015, 397(1–2): 387–399

[17] Chen P, Song C, Liu X M, Zhou L, Yang H, Zhang X, Zhou Y, Du Q, Pang T, Fu Z D, Wang X C, Liu W G, Yang F, Shu K, Du J, Liu J, Yang W, Yong T. Yield advantage and nitrogen fate in an additive maize-soybean relay intercropping system. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 657: 987–999

[18] Xia H Y, Wang Z G, Zhao J H, Sun J H, Bao X G, Christie P, Zhang F S, Li L. Contribution of interspecific interactions and phosphorus application to sustainable and productive intercropping systems. Field Crops Research, 2013, 154: 53–64

[19] Banik P, Sharma R C. Yield and resource utilization efficiency in baby cornlegume-intercropping system in the Eastern Plateau of India. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 2009, 33(4): 379–395

[20] Sarkar R, Malik G, Pal P. Effect of intercropping lentil (Lens culinaris) and linseed (Linum usitatissimum) under varying plant density and row arrangement on productivity and advantages in system under rainfed upland. Indian Journal of Agronomy, 2004, 49: 241–243

[21] Hamzei J, Seyyedi M. Energy use and input-output costs for sunflower production in sole and intercropping with soybean under different tillage systems. Soil & Tillage Research, 2016, 157: 73–82

[22] Barker S, Dennett M D. Effect of density, cultivar and irrigation on spring sown monocrops and intercrops of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and faba beans (Vicia faba L.). European Journal of Agronomy, 2013, 51: 108–116

[23] Amossé C, Jeuffroy M H, David C. Relay intercropping of legume cover crops in organic winter wheat: effects on performance and resource availability. Field Crops Research, 2013, 145: 78–87

[24] Giambalvo D, Ruisi P, Di Miceli G, Frenda A S, Amato G. Forage production, N uptake, N₂ fixation, and N recovery of berseem clover grown in pure stand and in mixture with annual ryegrass under different managements. Plant and Soil, 2011, 342(1–2): 379–391

[25] Kwabiah A B. Biological efficiency and economic benefits of pea-barley and pea-oat intercrops. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 2005, 25(1): 117–128

[26] Blaser B C, Singer J W, Gibson L R. Winter cereal canopy effect on cereal and interseeded legume productivity. Agronomy Journal, 2011, 103(4): 1180–1185

[27] Jahansooz M R, Yunusa I A M, Coventry D R, Palmer A R, Eamus D. Radiation- and water-use associated with growth and yields of wheat and chickpea in sole and mixed crops. European Journal of Agronomy, 2007, 26(3): 275–282

[28] Chaves A P, Bezerra Neto F, Lima J S S, Silva J N, Nunes R L C, Barros Júnior A P, Lima G K L, Santos E C. Cowpea and beet intercropping agro-economic dynamics under spatial arrangement and cowpea population density. Horticultura Brasileira, 2020, 38(2): 192–203

[29] Brooker R W, Bennett A E, Cong W F, Daniell T J, George T S, Hallett P D, Hawes C, Iannetta P P M, Jones H G, Karley A J, Li L, McKenzie B M, Pakeman R J, Paterson E, Schöb C, Shen J, Squire G, Watson C A, Zhang C, Zhang F, Zhang J, White P J. Improving intercropping: a synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology. New Phytologist, 2015, 206(1): 107–117

[30] Himmelstein J, Ares A, Gallagher D, Myers J. A meta-analysis of intercropping in Africa: impacts on crop yield, farmer income, and integrated pest management effects. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 2017, 15(1): 1–10

[31] Li L. Intercropping enhances agroecosystem services and functioning: current knowledge and perspectives. Chinese Journal of Eco-Agriculture, 2016, 24(4): 403–415 (in Chinese)

[32] Hong Y, Heerink N, Jin S Q, Berentsen P, Zhang L Z, van der Werf W. Intercropping and agroforestry in China—current state and trends. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2017, 244: 52–61

[33] Alignier A, Solé-Senan X O, Robleño I, Baraibar B, Fahrig L, Giralt D, Gross N, Martin J L, Recasens J, Sirami C, Siriwardena G, Bosem Baillod A, Bertrand C, Carrié R, Hass A, Henckel L, Miguet P, Badenhausser I, Baudry J, Bota G, Bretagnolle V, Brotons L, Burel F, Calatayud F, Clough Y, Georges R, Gibon A, Girard J, Lindsay K, Minano J, Mitchell S, Patry N, Poulin B, Tscharntke T, Vialatte A, Violle C, Yaverscovski N, Batáry P. Configurational crop heterogeneity increases within-field plant diversity. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2020, 57(4): 654–663

[34] Tscharntke T, Klein A M, Kruess A, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thies C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity–ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters, 2005, 8(8): 857–874

[35] Hauggaard-Nielsen H, Jensen E S. Evaluating pea and barley cultivars for complementarity in intercropping at different levels of soil N availability. Field Crops Research, 2001, 72(3): 185–196

[36] Yu Y, Stomph T J, Makowski D, Zhang L Z, van der Werf W. A meta-analysis of relative crop yields in cereal/legume mixtures suggests options for management. Field Crops Research, 2016, 198: 269–279

[37] Martin-Guay M O, Paquette A, Dupras J, Rivest D. The new Green Revolution: sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 615: 767–772

[38] Agegnehu G, Ghizaw A, Sinebo W. Yield performance and land-use efficiency of barley and faba bean mixed cropping in Ethiopian highlands. European Journal of Agronomy, 2006, 25(3): 202–207

[39] Nassary E K, Baijukya F, Ndakidemi P A. Productivity of intercropping with maize and common bean over five cropping seasons on smallholder farms of Tanzania. European Journal of Agronomy, 2020, 113: 125964

[40] Khan Z R, Midega C A O, Hassanali A, Pickett J A, Wadhams L J, Wanjoya A. Management of witchweed, Striga hermonthica, and stemborers in sorghum, Sorghum bicolor, through intercropping with greenleaf desmodium, Desmodium intortum. International Journal of Pest Management, 2006, 52(4): 297–302

[41] Ghosh P K, Mohanty M, Bandyopadhyay K K, Painuli D K, Misra A K. Growth, competition, yield advantage and economics in soybean/pigeonpea intercropping system in semi-arid tropics of India. Field Crops Research, 2006, 96(1): 80–89

[42] Tilman D, Isbell F, Cowles J M. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 2014, 45(1): 471–493

[43] Xie J, Hu L, Tang J, Wu X, Li N, Yuan Y, Yang H, Zhang J, Luo S, Chen X. Ecological mechanisms underlying the sustainability of the agricultural heritage rice-fish coculture system. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2011, 108(50): E1381–E1387

[44] Rao M R, Willey R W. Evaluation of yield stability in intercropping-studies on sorghum-pigeonpea. Experimental Agriculture, 1980, 16(2): 105–116

[45] Raseduzzaman M, Jensen E S. Does intercropping enhance yield stability in arable crop production? A meta-analysis. European Journal of Agronomy, 2017, 91: 25–33

[46] Han D, Currell M J, Cao G. Deep challenges for China’s war on water pollution. Environmental Pollution, 2016, 218: 1222–1233

[47] Ding Y, Huang X, Li Y, Liu H Y, Zhang Q C, Liu X M, Xu J M, Di H J. Nitrate leaching losses mitigated with intercropping of deep-rooted and shallow-rooted plants. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 2021, 21(1): 364–375

[48] Xu Z, Li C J, Zhang C C, Yu Y, van der Werf W, Zhang F S. Intercropping maize and soybean increases efficiency of land and fertilizer nitrogen use; A meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 2020, 246: 107661

[49] Lehmann J, Bossio D A, Kögel-Knabner I, Rillig M C. The concept and future prospects of soil health. Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, 2020, 1(10): 544–553

[50] Ma W, Ma L, Li J, Wang F, Sisák I, Zhang F. Phosphorus flows and use efficiencies in production and consumption of wheat, rice, and maize in China. Chemosphere, 2011, 84(6): 814–821

[51] Mei P P, Gui L G, Wang P, Huang J C, Long H Y, Christie P, Li L. Maize/faba bean intercropping with rhizobia inoculation enhances productivity and recovery of fertilizer P in a reclaimed desert soil. Field Crops Research, 2012, 130: 19–27

[52] Tooker J F, Frank S D. Genotypically diverse cultivar mixtures for insect pest management and increased crop yields. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2012, 49(5): 974–985

[53] Letourneau D K, Armbrecht I, Rivera B S, Lerma J M, Carmona E J, Daza M C, Escobar S, Galindo V, Gutiérrez C, López S D, Mejía J L, Rangel A M A, Rangel J H, Rivera L, Saavedra C A, Torres A M, Trujillo A R. Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review. Ecological Applications, 2011, 21(1): 9–21

[54] Hailu G, Niassy S, Zeyaur K R, Ochatum N, Subramanian S. Maize-legume intercropping and push-pull for management of fall armyworm, stemborers, and striga in Uganda. Agronomy Journal, 2018, 110(6): 2513–2522

[55] Zhu Y, Chen H, Fan J, Wang Y, Li Y, Chen J, Fan J, Yang S, Hu L, Leung H, Mew T W, Teng P S, Wang Z, Mundt C C. Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature, 2000, 406(6797): 718–722

[56] Zheng Y Q, Zhang L M, Chen B, Yan N S, Gui F R, Zan Q A, Du G Z, He S, Li Z Y, Gao Y L, Xiao G L. Potato/Maize intercropping reduces infestation of potato tuber moth, Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller) by the enhancement of natural enemies. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 2020, 19(2): 394–405

[57] Li C, He X, Zhu S, Zhou H, Wang Y, Li Y, Yang J, Fan J, Yang J, Wang G, Long Y, Xu J, Tang Y, Zhao G, Yang J, Liu L, Sun Y, Xie Y, Wang H, Zhu Y. Crop diversity for yield increase. PLoS One, 2009, 4(11): e8049

[58] Lal R. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science, 2004, 304(5677): 1623–1627

[59] Yang Y, Tilman D, Lehman C, Trost J J. Sustainable intensification of high-diversity biomass production for optimal biofuel benefits. Nature Sustainability, 2018, 1(11): 686–692

[60] Wang Z G, Jin X, Bao X G, Li X F, Zhao J H, Sun J H, Christie P, Li L. Intercropping enhances productivity and maintains the most soil fertility properties relative to sole cropping. PLoS One, 2014, 9(12): e113984

[61] Wang Z G, Bao X G, Li X F, Jin X, Zhao J H, Sun J H, Christie P, Li L. Intercropping maintains soil fertility in terms of chemical properties and enzyme activities on a timescale of one decade. Plant and Soil, 2015, 391(1–2): 265–282

[62] Cong W F, Hoffland E, Li L, Six J, Sun J H, Bao X G, Zhang F S, Van Der Werf W. Intercropping enhances soil carbon and nitrogen. Global Change Biology, 2015, 21(4): 1715–1726

[63] Hu F L, Chai Q, Yu A Z, Yin W, Cui H Y, Gan Y T. Less carbon emissions of wheat-maize intercropping under reduced tillage in arid areas. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2015, 35(2): 701–711

[64] Samarappuli D, Berti M T. Intercropping forage sorghum with maize is a promising alternative to maize silage for biogas production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018, 194: 515–524

[65] Adesodun J K, Atayese M O, Agbaje T A, Osadiaye B A, Mafe O F, Soretire A A. Phytoremediation potentials of sunflowers (Tithonia diversifolia and Helianthus annuus) for metalsin soils contaminated with zinc and lead nitrates. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 2010, 207(1–4): 195–201

[66] Tang L, Hamid Y, Zehra A, Sahito Z A, He Z L, Beri W T, Khan M B, Yang X E. Fava bean intercropping with Sedum alfredii inoculated with endophytes enhances phytoremediation of cadmium and lead co-contaminated field. Environmental Pollution, 2020, 265(Part A): 114861

[67] Rader R, Bartomeus I, Garibaldi L A, Garratt M P D, Howlett B G, Winfree R, Cunningham S A, Mayfield M M, Arthur A D, Andersson G K S, Bommarco R, Brittain C, Carvalheiro L G, Chacoff N P, Entling M H, Foully B, Freitas B M, Gemmill-Herren B, Ghazoul J, Griffin S R, Gross C L, Herbertsson L, Herzog F, Hipólito J, Jaggar S, Jauker F, Klein A M, Kleijn D, Krishnan S, Lemos C Q, Lindström S A M, Mandelik Y, Monteiro V M, Nelson W, Nilsson L, Pattemore D E, de O. Pereira N, Pisanty G, Potts S G, Reemer M, Rundlöf M, Sheffield C S, Scheper J, Schüepp C, Smith H G, Stanley D A, Stout J C, Szentgyörgyi H, Taki H, Vergara C H, Viana B F, Woyciechowski M. Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016, 113(1): 146–151

[68] Isbell F, Adler P R, Eisenhauer N, Fornara D, Kimmel K, Kremen C, Letourneau D K, Liebman M, Polley H W, Quijas S, Scherer-Lorenzen M. Benefits of increasing plant diversity in sustainable agroecosystems. Journal of Ecology, 2017, 105(4): 871–879

[69] Orford K A, Murray P J, Vaughan I P, Memmott J. Modest enhancements to conventional grassland diversity improve the provision of pollination services. Journal of Applied Ecology, 2016, 53(3): 906–915

[70] Korboulewsky N, Perez G, Chauvat M. How tree diversity affects soil fauna diversity: a review. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 2016, 94: 94–106

[71] Hooper D U, Bignell D, Brown V K, Brussard L, Mark Dangerfield J, Wall D H, Wardle D A, Coleman D C, Giller K, Lavelle P, Van Der Putten W H, De Ruiter P C, Rusek J, Silver W L, Tiedje J M, Wolters V. Interactions between aboveground and belowground biodiversity in terrestrial ecosystems: patterns, mechanisms, and feedbacks. Bioscience, 2000, 50(12): 1049–1061

[72] Schmidt O, Clements R O, Donaldson G. Why do cereal-legume intercrops support large earthworm populations? Applied Soil Ecology, 2003, 22(2): 181–190

[73] Tian X L, Wang C B, Bao X G, Wang P, Li X F, Yang S C, Ding G C, Christie P, Li L. Crop diversity facilitates soil aggregation in relation to soil microbial community composition driven by intercropping. Plant and Soil, 2019, 436(1–2): 173–192

[74] Fargione J, Tilman D, Dybzinski R, Lambers J H, Clark C, Harpole W S, Knops J M H, Reich P B, Loreau M. From selection to complementarity: shifts in the causes of biodiversity-productivity relationships in a long-term biodiversity experiment. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2007, 274(1611): 871–876

[75] Li B, Li Y Y, Wu H M, Zhang F F, Li C J, Li X X, Lambers H, Li L. Root exudates drive interspecific facilitation by enhancing nodulation and N₂ fixation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2016, 113(23): 6496–6501

[76] Isbell F, Cowles J, Dee L E, Loreau M, Reich P B, Gonzalez A, Hector A, Schmid B. Quantifying effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning across times and places. Ecology Letters, 2018, 21(6): 763–778

[77] Niklaus P A, Baruffol M, He J S, Ma K, Schmid B. Can niche plasticity promote biodiversity-productivity relationships through increased complementarity? Ecology, 2017, 98(4): 1104–1116

[78] Guderle M, Bachmann D, Milcu A, Gockele A, Bechmann M, Fischer C, Roscher C, Landais D, Ravel O, Devidal S, Roy J, Gessler A, Buchmann N, Weigelt A, Hildebrandt A. Dynamic niche partitioning in root water uptake facilitates efficient water use in more diverse grassland plant communities. Functional Ecology, 2018, 32(1): 214–227

[79] Barry K E, Mommer L, van Ruijven J, Wirth C, Wright A J, Bai Y, Connolly J, De Deyn G B, de Kroon H, Isbell F, Milcu A, Roscher C, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schmid B, Weigelt A. The future of complementarity: disentangling causes from consequences. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 2019, 34(2): 167–180

[80] Yu R P, Li X X, Xiao Z H, Lambers H, Li L. Phosphorus facilitation and covariation of root traits in steppe species. New Phytologist, 2020, 226(5): 1285–1298

[81] Navarro-Cano J A, Horner B, Goberna M, Verdú M. Additive effects of nurse and facilitated plants on ecosystem functions. Journal of Ecology, 2019, 107(6): 2587–2597

[82] Li L, Tilman D, Lambers H, Zhang F S. Plant diversity and overyielding: insights from belowground facilitation of intercropping in agriculture. New Phytologist, 2014, 203(1): 63–69

[83] Prieto I, Armas C, Pugnaire F I. Water release through plant roots: new insights into its consequences at the plant and ecosystem level. New Phytologist, 2012, 193(4): 830–841

[84] Fan Z L, Chai Q, Huang G B, Yu A Z, Huang P, Yang C H, Tao Z Q, Liu H L. Yield and water consumption characteristics of wheat/maize intercropping with reduced tillage in an Oasis region. European Journal of Agronomy, 2013, 45: 52–58

[85] Ledgard S F, Steele K W. Biological nitrogen-fixation in mixed legume grass pastures. Plant and Soil, 1992, 141(1–2): 137–153

[86] Sekiya N, Araki H, Yano K. Applying hydraulic lift in an agroecosystem: forage plants with shoots removed supply water to neighboring vegetable crops. Plant and Soil, 2011, 341(1–2): 39–50

[87] Zang H, Yang X, Feng X, Qian X, Hu Y, Ren C, Zeng Z. Rhizodeposition of nitrogen and carbon by mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) and its contribution to intercropped oats (Avena nuda L.). PLoS One, 2015, 10(3): e0121132

[88] Li L, Li S M, Sun J H, Zhou L L, Bao X G, Zhang H G, Zhang F S. Diversity enhances agricultural productivity via rhizosphere phosphorus facilitation on phosphorus-deficient soils. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007, 104(27): 11192–11196

[89] Xue Y, Xia H, Christie P, Zhang Z, Li L, Tang C. Crop acquisition of phosphorus, iron and zinc from soil in cereal/legume intercropping systems: a critical review. Annals of Botany, 2016, 117(3): 363–377

[90] Zhang D, Zhang C, Tang X, Li H, Zhang F, Rengel Z, Whalley W R, Davies W J, Shen J. Increased soil phosphorus availability induced by faba bean root exudation stimulates root growth and phosphorus uptake in neighbouring maize. New Phytologist, 2016, 209(2): 823–831

[91] Zuo Y M, Zhang F S, Li X L, Cao Y P. Studies on the improvement in iron nutrition of peanut by intercropping with maize on a calcareous soil. Plant and Soil, 2000, 220(1/2): 13–25

[92] Xiong H, Kakei Y, Kobayashi T, Guo X, Nakazono M, Takahashi H, Nakanishi H, Shen H, Zhang F, Nishizawa N K, Zuo Y. Molecular evidence for phytosiderophore-induced improvement of iron nutrition of peanut intercropped with maize in calcareous soil. Plant, Cell & Environment, 2013, 36(10): 1888–1902

[93] Zuo Y M, Zhang F S. Iron and zinc biofortification strategies in dicot plants by intercropping with gramineous species. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2009, 29(1): 63–71

[94] Yu Y, Stomph T J, Makowski D, van der Werf W. Temporal niche differentiation increases the land equivalent ratio of annual intercrops: a meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 2015, 184: 133–144

[95] Li C J, Hoffland E, Kuyper T W, Yu Y, Li H G, Zhang C C, Zhang F S, van der Werf W. Yield gain, complementarity and competitive dominance in intercropping in China: a meta-analysis of drivers of yield gain using additive partitioning. European Journal of Agronomy, 2020, 113: 125987

[96] Zhang W P, Liu G C, Sun J H, Fornara D, Zhang L Z, Zhang F F, Li L. Temporal dynamics of nutrient uptake by neighbouring plant species: evidence from intercropping. Functional Ecology, 2017, 31(2): 469–479

[97] Dong N, Tang M M, Zhang W P, Bao X G, Wang Y, Christie P, Li L. Temporal differentiation of crop growth as one of the drivers of intercropping yield advantage. Scientific Reports, 2018, 8(1): 3110

[98] Ahmed S, Raza M A, Yuan X Q, Du Y L, Iqbal N, Chachar Q, Soomro A A, Ibrahim F, Hussain S, Wang X C, Liu W G, Yang W Y. Optimized planting time and co-growth duration reduce the yield difference between intercropped and sole soybean by enhancing soybean resilience toward size-asymmetric competition. Food and Energy Security, 2020, 9(3): e226

[99] Zhang L Z, Van der Werf W, Bastiaans L, Zhang S, Li B, Spiertz J H J. Light interception and utilization in relay intercrops of wheat and cotton. Field Crops Research, 2008, 107(1): 29–42

[100] Gao Y, Duan A W, Qiu X Q, Sun J S, Zhang J P, Liu H, Wang H Z. Distribution and use efficiency of photosynthetically active radiation in strip intercropping of maize and soybean. Agronomy Journal, 2010, 102(4): 1149–1157

[101] Mommer L, Van Ruijven J, De Caluwe H, Smit-Tiekstra A E, Wagemaker C A M, Joop Ouborg N, Bögemann G M, Van Der Weerden G M, Berendse F, De Kroon H. Unveiling below-ground species abundance in a biodiversity experiment: a test of vertical niche differentiation among grassland species. Journal of Ecology, 2010, 98(5): 1117–1127

[102] Li L, Sun J, Zhang F, Guo T, Bao X, Smith F A, Smith S E. Root distribution and interactions between intercropped species. Oecologia, 2006, 147(2): 280–290

[103] Manning P, van der Plas F, Soliveres S, Allan E, Maestre F T, Mace G, Whittingham M J, Fischer M. Redefining ecosystem multifunctionality. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2018, 2(3): 427–436

Acknowledgements

The study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFD0300202) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31430014, 31971450).

Compliance with ethics guidelines

Hao Yang, Weiping Zhang, and Long Li declare that they have no conflicts of interest or financial conflicts to disclose. This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

The Author(s) 2021. Published by Higher Education Press. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)