COMPARING PERFORMANCE OF CROP SPECIES MIXTURES AND PURE STANDS

Highlights

•The literature on intercropping comprises thousands of papers.

•Evidence synthesis is needed to develop general conclusions.

•Quantitative evidence synthesis requires meaningful comparative performance metrics.

•The background, meaning, and limitations of some performance metrics is explained.

•Future challenges are identified.

Abstract

Intercropping is the planned cultivation of species mixtures on agricultural land. Intercropping has many attributes that make it attractive for developing a more sustainable agriculture, such as high yield, high resource use efficiency, lower input requirements, natural suppression of pests, pathogens and weeds, and building a soil with more organic carbon and nitrogen. Information is needed which species combinations perform best under different circumstances and which management is suitable to bring out the best from intercropping in a given production situation. The literature is replete with case studies on intercropping from across the globe, but evidence synthesis is needed to make this information accessible. Meta-analysis requires a careful choice of metric that is appropriate for answering the question at hand, and which lends itself for a robust meta-analysis. This paper reviews some metrics that may be used in the quantitative synthesis of literature data on intercropping.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

intercropping / species mixtures / meta-analysis / metrics / indicators

References

[1] WeigeltA, JolliffeP. Indices of plant competition. Journal of Ecology, 2003, 91( 5): 707– 720

[2] BedoussacL, JustesE. A comparison of commonly used indices for evaluating species interactions and intercrop efficiency: application to durum wheat–winter pea intercrops. Field Crops Research, 2011, 124( 1): 25– 36

[3] Makowski D, Piraux F, Brun F. From experimental network to meta-analysis-methods and applications with R for agronomic and environmental sciences. Springer, 2019

[4] ConnollyJ, GomabH C, RahimK. The information content of indicators in intercropping research. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2001, 87( 2): 191– 207

[5] Li L, Zhang L, Zhang F. Crop mixtures and the mechanisms of overyielding. In: Levin S A, ed. Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (2nd ed.). Waltham: Academic Press, 2013, 382–395

[6] TilmanD. Benefits of intensive agricultural intercropping. Nature Plants, 2020, 6( 6): 604– 605

[7] MalézieuxE, CrozatY, DuprazC, LauransM, MakowskiD, Ozier-LafontaineH, RapidelB, deTourdonnet S, Valantin-MorisonM. Mixing plant species in cropping systems: concepts, tools and models. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 2009, 29( 1): 43– 62

[8] YuY, Stomph T J, MakowskiD, van der WerfW. Temporal niche differentiation increases the land equivalent ratio of annual intercrops: A meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 2015, 184 : 133– 144

[9] Martin-GuayM O, PaquetteA, DuprasJ, RivestD. The new Green Revolution: Sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping. Science of the Total Environment, 2018, 615 : 767– 772

[10] XuZ, Li C, ZhangC, YuY, van der Werf W, ZhangF. Intercropping maize and soybean increases efficiency of land and fertilizer nitrogen use; A meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 2020, 246 : 107661

[11] FengC, SunZ X, ZhangL, FengL S, ZhengJ M, BaiW, Gu C F, WangQ, XuZ, van der Werf W. Maize/peanut intercropping increases land productivity: a meta-analysis. Field Crops Research, 2021, 270 : 108208

[12] LiC, Hoffland E, KuyperT W, YuY, Zhang C, LiH, ZhangF, van der WerfW. Syndromes of production in intercropping impact yield gains. Nature Plants, 2020, 6( 6): 653– 660

[13] MeadR, WilleyR W. The concept of a ‘Land Equivalent Ratio’ and advantages in yields from intercropping. Experimental Agriculture, 1980, 16( 3): 217– 228

[14] WangQ, BaiW, Sun Z, ZhangD, ZhangY, WangR, EversJ B, StomphT J, van der WerfW, FengC, ZhangL. Does reduced intraspecific competition of the dominant species in intercrops allow for a higher population density?. Food and Energy Security, 2021, 10( 2): 285– 298

[15] SpittersC J T. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 1. Estimation of competition effects. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science, 1983, 31( 1): 1– 11

[16] LoreauM, HectorA. Partitioning selection and complementarity in biodiversity experiments. Nature, 2001, 412( 6842): 72– 76

[17] LiC, Hoffland E, KuyperT W, YuY, Li H, ZhangC, ZhangF, van der WerfW. 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

[18] ZhangL, van der WerfW, ZhangS, LiB, Spiertz J H J. Growth, yield and quality of wheat and cotton in relay strip intercropping systems. Field Crops Research, 2007, 103( 3): 178– 188

[19] van OortP A J, GouF, Stomph T J, van der WerfW. Effects of strip width on yields in relay-strip intercropping: A simulation study. European Journal of Agronomy, 2020, 112 : 125936

[20] WangR, SunZ, Zhang L, YangN, FengL, BaiW, Zhang D, WangQ, EversJ B, LiuY, Ren J, ZhangY, van der WerfW. Border-row proportion determines strength of interspecific interactions and crop yields in maize/peanut strip intercropping. Field Crops Research, 2020, 253 : 107819

[21] Harper J L, Ltd H P. Population biology of plants. London: Academic Press, 1977

[22] WeinerJ, FreckletonR P. Constant final yield. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 2010, 41( 1): 173– 192

[23] Bastiaans L, Storkey J. Descriptive and mechanistic models of crop–weed competition. In: Hatcher P E, Froud-Williams R J, eds. Weed Research: Expanding Horizons, 2017, 33–60

[24] Trenbath B R. Biomass productivity of mixtures. In: Brady N C, ed. Advances in Agronomy. Academic Press, 1974, 26: 177–210

[25] Yu Y. Crop yields in intercropping: meta-analysis and virtual plant modelling. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. The Netherlands: Wageningen University, 2016

[26] CardinaleB J, WrightJ P, CadotteM W, CarrollI T, HectorA, SrivastavaD S, LoreauM, WeisJ J. Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2007, 104( 46): 18123– 18128

[27] BerghuijsH N C, WangZ, StomphT J, WeihM, Van der WerfW, VicoG. Identification of species traits enhancing yield in wheat-faba bean intercropping: development and sensitivity analysis of a minimalist mixture model. Plant and Soil, 2020, 455( 1−2): 203– 226

[28] de WitC T. Resource use efficiency in agriculture. Agricultural Systems, 1992, 40( 1-3): 125– 151

[29] MonteithJ L, MossC J, CookeG W, PirieN W, BellG D H. Climate and the efficiency of crop production in Britain. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 1977, 281( 980): 277– 294

[30] van IttersumM K, RabbingeR. Concepts in production ecology for analysis and quantification of agricultural input-output combinations. Field Crops Research, 1997, 52( 3): 197– 208

[31] GouF, van Ittersum M K, SimonE, LeffelaarP A, van der PuttenP E L, ZhangL, van der WerfW. Intercropping wheat and maize increases total radiation interception and wheat RUE but lowers maize RUE. European Journal of Agronomy, 2017, 84 : 125– 139

[32] ZhuJ, van der Werf W, AntenN P R, VosJ, Evers J B. The contribution of phenotypic plasticity to complementary light capture in plant mixtures. New Phytologist, 2015, 207( 4): 1213– 1222

[33] GouF, van Ittersum M K, Couëdel A, ZhangY, WangY, vander Putten P E L, ZhangL, vander Werf W. Intercropping with wheat lowers nutrient uptake and biomass accumulation of maize, but increases photosynthetic rate of the ear leaf. AoB Plants, 2018, 10( 1): ply010

[34] MaoL, Zhang L, LiW, van der WerfW, SunJ, Spiertz H, LiL. Yield advantage and water saving in maize/pea intercrop. Field Crops Research, 2012, 138 : 11– 20

[35] MaL, Li Y, WuP, ZhaoX, ChenX, GaoX. Coupling evapotranspiration partitioning with water migration to identify the water consumption characteristics of wheat and maize in an intercropping system. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 2020, 290 : 108034

[36] TanM, Gou F, StomphT J, WangJ, YinW, Zhang L, ChaiQ, van der WerfW. Dynamic process-based modelling of crop growth and competitive water extraction in relay strip intercropping: model development and application to wheat-maize intercropping. Field Crops Research, 2020, 246 : 107613

[37] MorrisR A, GarrityD P. Resource capture and utilization in intercropping: water. Field Crops Research, 1993, 34( 3−4): 303– 317

[38] RenJ, Zhang L, DuanY, ZhangJ, EversJ B, ZhangY, SuZ, van der Werf W. Intercropping potato ( Solanum tuberosum L.) with hairy vetch ( Vicia villosa) increases water use efficiency in dry conditions. Field Crops Research, 2019, 240 : 168– 176

[39] TangX, ZhangC, YuY, Shen J, van der WerfW, ZhangF. Intercropping legumes and cereals increases phosphorus use efficiency; a meta-analysis. Plant and Soil, 2021, 460( 1−2): 89– 104

[40] GouF, van Ittersum M K, WangG, van der PuttenP E L, van der WerfW. Yield and yield components of wheat and maize in wheat–maize intercropping in the Netherlands. European Journal of Agronomy, 2016, 76 : 17– 27

Compliance with ethics guidelines

Wopke van der Werf, Lizhen Zhang, Chunjie Li, Ping Chen, Chen Feng, Zhan Xu, Chaochun Zhang, Chunfeng Gu, Lammert Bastiaans, David Makowski, and TjeerdJan Stomph

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Frontiers of Agricultural Science and Engineering