/
Blog Posts
Page History
| HTML |
|---|
<div class="banner_general_fiche"><div class="table-wrap"><table class="ficheTable" style="width: 99.1985%;"><colgroup><col style="width: 60%;"><col style="width: 20%;"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td class="confluenceTd"><h1 style="text-align: center;" title="" id="banner_title"></h1></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div>
<script>
var title = $('#title-text').find('a').text();
var mytitle = title.replace('_',' ');
$('#banner_title').text(mytitle + ' Fiche');
</script>
<style>
.banner_general_fiche {
height: 194px;
padding-right: 20px;
background-color: #00afef;
}
.banner_general_fiche h1 {
position: relative;
font-size: 1.7 !important;
font-family: corbel;
color: #ffffff !important;
letter-spacing: -0.01em;
font-weight: normal;
line-height: 1.25;
top: 64px;
font-weight: bold;
margin-left: 30px;
}
#banner_title {
text-transform: uppercase;
}
.table-wrap {
overflow-x: hidden;
overflow-y: hidden;
}
.banner_general_fiche td {
border: 0px !important;
height: 170px;
width: 100%;
}
.content-wrapper {
font-family: corbel;
position: relative;
}
</style>
<style>
.highlight-green {
color: #000000;
background-color: #92d050 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-green>p {
background-color: #92d050 !important;
}
.highlight-red {
color: #000000 !important;
background-color: #ff0000 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-red>p {
background-color: #ff0000 !important;
}
.highlight-yellow {
color: #000000;
background-color: #ffc000 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-yellow>p {
background-color: #ffc000 !important;
}
.highlight-grey {
color: #000000 !important;
background-color: #a4a4a4 !important;
}
table.confluenceTable td.confluenceTd.highlight-grey>p {
background-color: #a4a4a4 !important;
}
#Agroforestry_GENERAL-GENERALFICHE-AGROFORESTRY {
color: #F8F8FF !important;
}
#main-content { font-family: corbel; }
.wiki-content img.confluence-embedded-image { cursor: default !important;}
</style> |
Data extracted in May 20212021
Fiche created in December 2023
Note to the reader: This general fiche summarises all the environmental and climate impacts of INTERCROPPING found in a systematic review of 25 synthesis research papers[1]. These papers were selected , from an initial number of 111 yielded by obtained through a systematic literature search strategy, according to the inclusion criteria reported in section 4. The impacts reported here are those for which there is scientific evidence available in published synthesis papers, what does not preclude the farming practice to have other impacts on the environment and climate still not covered by primary studies or by synthesis papers.
The synthesis papers review a number of primary studies ranging from 11 to 180. Therefore, the assessment of impacts relies on a large number of results from the primary studies, obtained mainly in field conditions, or As each synthesis research paper involves a number of primary research papers ranging from 11 to 180, the assessment of impacts relies on a large number of results obtained in field experiments (carried out in situations close to real farming environment ), and sometimes in lab experiments or from model simulations.
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE FARMING PRACTICE
...
- Description:
...
- Key descriptors
...
- :
- This
...
- review includes different types of intercropping2 [4]:
...
- Mixed cropping: sowing multiple crop species or cultivars in the same field at the same time, in a mixture with a given seeding ratio but random spatial arrangement.
- Row intercropping: sowing multiple crop species in the same field at the same time in alternate rows.
- Strip intercropping: sowing two (or more) crop species in the same field at the same time in multi-row strips wide enough to allow independent cultivation.
- Relay cropping: intercropping of two crop species in which the second species is under-sown in the first at a later point in the growing season.
- This
...
- review includes intercropping applied to cash crops, fodder (one study) and cover
...
- crops (one study). [5]
- This review does not include: 1) alley cropping, i.e., the cultivation of food, forage or specialty crops between rows of trees, and 2) dual-purpose cropping, i.e. the cultivation of two or more crops used for grazing by livestock and for grain. These two practices are assessed in separate sets of fiches.
...
2.
...
EFFECTS OF THE
...
FARMING PRACTICE ON CLIMATE AND
...
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The table below shows the number of synthesis papers with statistical tests reporting i) a significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator, that is to say, a significant statistical effect, which can be positive or negative; or ii) a non-statistically significant difference between the Intervention and the Comparator
...
We reviewed the impacts of intercropping compared to monoculture, i.e., the cultivation of one crop or cultivar.
The tables below show the number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or no effect, based on the statistical comparison of the intervention and the control. In addition, we include, if any, the number of systematic reviews synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects (uncertain). The numbers between parentheses indicate the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50%. Details on quality criteria . Details on the quality assessment of the synthesis papers can be found in the methodology section of this WIKI.
Out of the 25 selected synthesis papers selected, 18 reported included studies conducted in Europe. None of the synthesis studies exploring the impacts of intercropping on Carbon sequestration, Soil erosion, Soil nutrients and Water retention included experiments conducted in Europe. All synthesis papers and 25 have a quality score higher than 50%. Some synthesis papers reported more than one impact.
Table 1. Impacts of intercropping compared to monoculture
...
...
All studies
...
...
Only studies including EU
...
Impact
...
Intervention
...
Positive
...
Negative
...
No effect
...
Uncertain
...
...
Positive
...
Negative
...
No effect
...
Uncertain
...
Increase Carbon sequestration
...
Crop mixture
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
Increase Plant nutrient uptake
...
Crop mixture
...
5 (5)
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
...
4 (4)
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
Decrease Pests and diseases
...
Crop mixture
...
5 (5)
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
Cultivar mixture
...
3 (3)
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
...
3 (3)
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
Decrease Soil erosion
...
Crop mixture
...
2 (2)
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
Increase Soil nutrients
...
Crop mixture
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
Increase Soil water retention
...
Crop mixture
...
1 (1)
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
0
...
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
0
...
Increase Crop yield *
...
Crop mixture
...
14 (14)
...
2 (2) **
...
2 (2)
...
0
...
...
9 (9)
...
1(1) **
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
Cultivar mixture
...
3 (3)
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
0
...
...
3 (3)
...
0
...
1 (1)
...
0
Table 1: Summary of effects. Number of synthesis papers reporting positive, negative or non-statistically significant effects on environmental and climate impacts. The number of synthesis papers reporting relevant results but without statistical test of the effects are also provided. When not all the synthesis papers reporting an effect are of high quality, the number of synthesis papers with a quality score of at least 50% is indicated in parentheses. Some synthesis papers may report effects for more than one impact, or more than one effect for the same impact.
|
|
|
| Statistically tested | Non-statistically tested | ||
Impact | Metric | Intervention | Comparator | Significantly positive | Significantly negative | Non-significant | |
Increase Carbon sequestration | Soil organic carbon | Crop mixture cropping | monoculture | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Decrease Pests and diseases | Pest and disease control | Crop mixture cropping | monoculture | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Cultivar mixture cropping | monoculture | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
Increase Plant nutrient uptake | Nutrient uptake | Crop mixture cropping | monoculture | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Decrease Soil erosion | Soil erosion | Crop mixture cropping | monoculture | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
Increase Soil nutrients | Soil nutrients | Crop mixture cropping | monoculture | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Increase Soil physico-chemical quality | Soil physico-chemical quality | Crop mixture cropping | monoculture | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Increase Soil water retention | Soil water retention | Crop mixture cropping | monoculture | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Increase Crop yield* | Crop yield | Crop mixture cropping | monoculture | 14 | 2** | 2 | 0 |
Cultivar mixture cropping | monoculture | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | ||
* Nine out of 19 studies measured crop yield as land equivalent ratio (LER), i.e., the ratio of the area under sole cropping to the area under intercropping needed to give equal amounts of yield at the same management level. It is generally calculated as the sum of the fractions of the intercropped yields divided by the sole-crop yields.
** These studies considered crop yield from only the main crop, instead of all crops included in the intercropping.
3. FACTORS INFLUENCING THE EFFECTS ON CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The factors significantly influencing the size and/or direction of the effects on the impacts, according to the synthesis papers included in this review, are reported below. Details about the factors can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses available in this WIKI.
Table 2: List of factors reported to significantly affect the size and/or direction of the effects on environmental and climate impacts, according to the synthesis papers reviewed. The reference number of the synthesis papers where those factors are explored is given in parentheses.
Impact | Factors |
Pests and diseases | Crop type (Ref1), Crop/cultivar combinations (Ref1, Ref23, Ref20), Disease severity (Ref23), Pathogen species (Ref8), Season (Ref8), Sowing density (Ref23) and Type of herbivore pest (Ref11) |
Plant nutrient uptake | Crop/cultivar combinations (Ref4, Ref2, Ref6), Fertiliser application (Ref2, Ref6), Geographical area (Ref7), Growing degree days (climate) (Ref14), Method used to quantify Nitrogen fixation (Ref6), Previous crop (Ref14), Soil texture (Ref14) and Sowing time (Ref7, Ref2) |
Soil nutrients | Crop/cultivar combinations (Ref6), Fertiliser application (Ref6), Method used to quantify Nitrogen fixation (Ref6) |
Crop yield | Climate (Ref9), Crop density (Ref18, Ref19), Crop spatial arrangement (Ref4, Ref19, Ref17), Crop type (Ref10, Ref3, Ref13, Ref25, Ref18, Ref9), Crop/cultivar combinations (Ref16, Ref13, Ref12, Ref4, Ref5, Ref20, Ref25, Ref19, Ref17, Ref2, Ref21, Ref9), Disease severity (Ref10, Ref13), Fertiliser application (Ref16, Ref13, Ref4, Ref5, Ref18, Ref19, Ref2, Ref9), Geographical area (Ref19, Ref7), Growing degree days (Ref14), Herbicide use (Ref16), Latitude (Ref13, Ref25), Pesticide use (Ref16), Previous crop (Ref14), Row distance (Ref9), Soil organic matter (Ref13, Ref7), Soil pH (Ref13), Soil texture (Ref14, Ref9), Sowing time (Ref18, Ref7), Temporal treatment establishment (Ref9), Tillage (Ref16) and Trait heterogeneity (Ref10) |
4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY
Table 3: Systematic review search strategy - methodology and search parameters.
Parameter | Details |
Keywords | WOS: TOPIC: (( intercrop* OR "inter crop*" OR "mult* variet*" OR "mult* crop*" OR "Companion crop*" OR "Companion plant*" OR "polycultur*" OR "crop diversity" OR "mix* crop*" OR "crop* mix*" OR "cult* mix*"OR "variety mix*" OR "row crop*" OR "strip* crop*" OR "row crop*" OR "relay crop*")) AND TOPIC: (("meta-analy*" OR "systematic* review*" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis")) |
Time reference | No time restriction. |
Databases | Web of Science and Scopus: run on 18 May 2021 |
Exclusion criteria | The main criteria that led to the exclusion of a synthesis paper are: |
5. SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW
Table 4: List of synthesis papers included in this review. More details can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses.
Ref Num | Author(s) | Year | Title | Journal | DOI |
Ref1 | Gibson, AK; Nguyen, AE | 2021 | Does genetic diversity protect host populations from parasites? A meta-analysis across natural and agricultural systems | Evol Lett 5, 16-32 | 10.1002/evl3.206 |
Ref2 | Tang, XY; Zhang, CC; Yu, Y; Shen, JB; van der Werf, W; Zhang, FS | 2021 | Intercropping legumes and cereals increases phosphorus use efficiency; a meta-analysis | Plant Soil 460, 89–104 | 10.1007/s11104-020-04768-x |
Ref3 | Daryanto, S; Fu, BJ; Zhao, WW; Wang, S; Jacinthe, PA; Wang, LX | 2020 | Ecosystem service provision of grain legume and cereal intercropping in Africa | Agric Syst 178, 102761 | 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102761 |
Ref4 | Li, CJ; Hoffland, E; Kuyper, TW; Yu, Y; Zhang, CC; Li, HG; Zhang, FS; van der Werf, W | 2020 | Syndromes of production in intercropping impact yield gains | Nat Plants 6, 653–660 | 10.1038/s41477-020-0680-9 |
Ref5 | Li, CJ; Hoffland, E; Kuyper, TW; Yu, Y; Li, HG; Zhang, CC; Zhang, FS; van der Werf, W | 2020 | Yield gain, complementarity and competitive dominance in intercropping in China: A meta-analysis of drivers of yield gain using additive partitioning | Eur J Agron. 113, 125987 | 10.1016/j.eja.2019.125987 |
Ref6 | Rodriguez, C; Carlsson, G; Englund, JE; Flohr, A; Pelzer, E; Jeuffroy, MH; Makowski, D; Jensen, ES | 2020 | Grain legume-cereal intercropping enhances the use of soil-derived and biologically fixed nitrogen in temperate agroecosystems. A meta-analysis | Eur J Agron. 118, 126077 | 10.1016/j.eja.2020.126077 |
Ref7 | Xu, Z; Li, CJ; Zhang, CC; Yu, Y; van der Werf, W; Zhang, FS | 2020 | Intercropping maize and soybean increases efficiency of land and fertilizer nitrogen use; A meta-analysis | Field Crops Res 246, 107661 | 10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107661 |
Ref8 | Zhang, CC; Dong, Y; Tang, L; Zheng, Y; Makowski, D; Yu, Y |
* Nine out of 19 studies measured crop yield as land equivalent ratio (LER), i.e., the ratio of the area under sole cropping to the area under intercropping needed to give equal amounts of yield at the same management level. It is generally calculated as the sum of the fractions of the intercropped yields divided by the sole-crop yields.
** These studies considered crop yield from only the main crop, instead of all crops included in the intercropping.
3. DESCRIPTION OF THE KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SIZE OF THE EFFECT
Only the factors explicitly studied in the reviewed synthesis papers with a significant effect are reported below. Details regarding the factors can be found in the summaries of the meta-analyses.
...
Impact
...
Factors
...
Increase Plant nutrient uptake
...
Crop/cultivar combinations (ref. 5, 2, 6), Sowing time (ref. 7, 2), Geographical area (ref. 7), Soil texture (ref. 14), Previous crop (ref. 14), Growing degree days (Climate) (ref. 14), Fertiliser application (ref. 2, 6), Method used to quantify Nitrogen fixation (ref. 6)
...
Decrease Pests and diseases
...
Crop/cultivar combinations (ref. 1, 23, 20), Crop type (ref. 1), Sowing density (ref. 23), Disease severity (ref. 23), Type of herbivore pest (ref. 11), Season (ref. 8), Pathogen species (ref. 8)
...
Increase Soil water retention
...
Soil depth (ref. 3)
...
Increase Crop yield
...
Crop type (ref. 10, 3, 13, 25, 18, 9), Disease severity (ref. 10, 13), Trait heterogeneity (ref. 10), Fertiliser application (ref. 16, 13, 5, 4, 18, 19, 2, 9), Pesticide use (ref. 16), Tillage (ref. 16), Crop/cultivar combinations (ref. 16, 13, 12, 5, 4, 20, 25, 19, 17, 2, 21, 9), Herbicide use (ref. 16), Soil organic matter (ref. 13, 7), Soil pH (ref. 13), Latitude (ref. 13, 25), Crop spatial arrangement (ref. 5, 19, 17), Sowing time (ref. 18, 7), Crop density (ref. 18, 19), Geographical area (ref. 7, 19), Soil texture (ref. 14, 9), Previous crop (ref. 14), Growing degree days (ref. 14), Climate (ref. 9), Temporal treatment establishment (ref. 9), Row distance (ref. 9)
4. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW SEARCH STRATEGY
...
Keywords
...
TS=("grazing*" OR "grassland*" OR "pasture*" OR "rangeland")) AND TS=(("meta-analy*" OR "systematic* review*" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis")
or
TITLE-ABS-KEY: ( "grazing*" OR "grassland*" OR "pasture*" OR "rangeland") AND TITLE-ABS-KEY ( "meta-analy*" OR "systematic* review*" OR "evidence map" OR "global synthesis" OR "evidence synthesis" OR "research synthesis")
...
Search dates
...
No time restrictions
...
Databases
...
Web of Science and Scopus, run in September 2021
...
Selection criteria
...
The main criteria that led to the exclusion of a synthesis paper were when the paper: 1) did not deal with terrestrial grasslands or the effects on grasslands could not be disentangled from other land uses; 2) did not deal with grazing management; 3) was either a non-systematic review, a non-quantitative systematic review, or a meta-regression without mean effect sizes; 4) was not written in English. Due to the high number of potentially valid synthesis papers, we applied additional exclusion criteria: 5) the paper did not include studies conducted in Europe; 6) the paper only reported impacts on grassland or animal production, but any environmental impacts. Synthesis papers that passed the relevance criteria were subject to critical appraisal carried out on a paper-by-paper basis.
The search returned 1022 synthesis papers potentially relevant for the practice object of our fiche. From the 1022 potentially relevant synthesis papers, 661 were excluded after reading the title and abstract, and 330 after reading the full text according to the above-mentioned criteria. Finally, 31 synthesis papers were selected for grazing.
5. LIST OF SYNTHESIS PAPERS INCLUDED IN THE REVIEW
Ref. Num
Authors
Year
Title
Reference
DOI
1
Gibson, AK; Nguyen, AE
2021
Does genetic diversity protect host populations from parasites? A meta-analysis across natural and agricultural systems
Evol. Lett. 5, 16-32
10.1002/evl3.206
2
Tang, XY; Zhang, CC; Yu, Y; Shen, JB; van der Werf, W; Zhang, FS
2021
Intercropping legumes and cereals increases phosphorus use efficiency; a meta-analysis
Plant Soil 460, 89–104
10.1007/s11104-020-04768-x
3
Daryanto, S; Fu, BJ; Zhao, WW; Wang, S; Jacinthe, PA; Wang, LX
2020
Ecosystem service provision of grain legume and cereal intercropping in Africa
Agric. Syst. 178, 102761
10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102761
4
Li, CJ; Hoffland, E; Kuyper, TW; Yu, Y; Li, HG; Zhang, CC; Zhang, FS; van der Werf, W
2020
Yield gain, complementarity and competitive dominance in intercropping in China: A meta-analysis of drivers of yield gain using additive partitioning
Eur J Agron. 113, 125987
10.1016/j.eja.2019.125987
5
; Zhang, FS; van der Werf, W |
2020
Syndromes of production in intercropping impact yield gains
Nat. Plants 6, 653–660
10.1038/s41477-020-0680-9
2019 | Intercropping cereals with faba bean reduces plant disease incidence regardless of fertilizer input; a meta-analysis | Eur J Plant Pathol 154, 931–942 | 10.1007/s10658-019-01711-4 | ||
Ref9 | Ashworth, AJ; Toler, HD; Allen, FL; Auge, RM | 2018 | Global meta-analysis reveals agro-grassland productivity varies based on species diversity over time | PloS One 13, e0200274. | 10.1371/journal.pone.0200274 |
Ref10 | Borg, J; Kiaer, LP; Lecarpentier, C; Goldringer, I; Gauffreteau, A; Saint-Jean, S; Barot, S; Enjalbert, J | 2018 | Unfolding the potential of wheat cultivar mixtures: A meta-analysis perspective and identification of knowledge gaps | Field Crops Res 221, 298-313 |
6
Rodriguez, C; Carlsson, G; Englund, JE; Flohr, A; Pelzer, E; Jeuffroy, MH; Makowski, D; Jensen, ES
2020
Grain legume-cereal intercropping enhances the use of soil-derived and biologically fixed nitrogen in temperate agroecosystems. A meta-analysis
Eur. J. Agron. 118, 126077
10.1016/j.eja.2020.126077
7
Xu, Z; Li, CJ; Zhang, CC; Yu, Y; van der Werf, W; Zhang, FS
2020
Intercropping maize and soybean increases efficiency of land and fertilizer nitrogen use; A meta-analysis
10.1016/j.fcr. |
8
Zhang, CC; Dong, Y; Tang, L; Zheng, Y; Makowski, D; Yu, Y; Zhang, FS; van der Werf, W
2019
Intercropping cereals with faba bean reduces plant disease incidence regardless of fertilizer input; a meta-analysis
Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 154, 931–942
10.1007/s10658-019-01711-4
9
Ashworth, AJ; Toler, HD; Allen, FL; Auge, RM
2018
Global meta-analysis reveals agro-grassland productivity varies based on species diversity over time
PloS One 13, e0200274.
10.1371/journal.pone.0200274
10
Borg, J; Kiaer, LP; Lecarpentier, C; Goldringer, I; Gauffreteau, A; Saint-Jean, S; Barot, S; Enjalbert, J
2018
Unfolding the potential of wheat cultivar mixtures: A meta-analysis perspective and identification of knowledge gaps
Field Crops Res. 221, 298-313
10.1016/j.fcr.2017.09.006
11
Koricheva, J; Hayes, D
2018
The relative importance of plant intraspecific diversity in structuring arthropod communities: A meta-analysis
Funct. Col. 32, 1704-1717
10.1111/1365-2435.13062
12
Martin-Guay, MO; Paquette, A; Dupras, J; Rivest, D
2018
The new Green Revolution: Sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping
Sci. Total Environ. 615, 767–772
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.024
13
Reiss, ER; Drinkwater, LE
2018
Cultivar mixtures: a meta-analysis of the effect of intraspecific diversity on crop yield
Ecol. Appl. 28, 62–77
10.1002/eap.1629
14
Thapa, R; Poffenbarger, H; Tully, KL; Ackroyd, VJ; Kramer, M; Mirsky, SB
2018
Biomass production and nitrogen accumulation by hairy vetch-cereal rye mixtures: a meta-analysis
J. Agron. 91, 25–33
10.2134/agronj2017.09.0544
15
Xiong, M; Sun, R; Chen, L;
2018
Effects of soil conservation techniques on water erosion control: A global analysis
Sci. Total Environ. 645 753–760
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.124
16
Himmelstein, J; Ares, A; Gallagher, D; Myers, J
2017
A meta-analysis of intercropping in Africa: impacts on crop yield, farmer income, and integrated pest management effects
Int. J. Sustain. Agric. Res. 15, 1-10
10.1080/14735903.2016.1242332
17
Raseduzzaman, M; Jensen, ES
2017
Does intercropping enhance yield stability in arable crop production ? A meta-analysis
Eur. J. Agron. 91, 25–33
10.1016/j.eja.2017.09.009
18
Yu, Y; Stomph, TJ; Makowski, D; Zhang, LZ; van der Werf, W
2016
A meta-analysis of relative crop yields in cereal/legume mixtures suggests options for management
Field Crops Res. 198, 269–279
10.1016/j.fcr.2016.08.001
19
Yu, Y; Stomph, TJ; Makowski, D; van der Werf, W
2015
Temporal niche differentiation increases the land equivalent ratio of annual intercrops: A meta-analysis
Field Crops Res. 184, 133–144
10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.010
20
Iverson, AL; Marin, LE; Ennis, KK; Gonthier, DJ; Connor-Barrie, BT; Remfert, JL; Cardinale, BJ; Perfecto, I
2014
Do polycultures promote win-wins or trade-offs in agricultural ecosystem services? A meta-analysis
J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 1593–1602
10.1111/1365-2664.12334
21
Pelzer, E; Hombert, N; Jeuffroy, MH; Makowski, D
2014
Meta-analysis of the effect of nitrogen fertilization on annual cereal-legume intercrop production
Agron. J. 106, 1775–1786
10.2134/agronj13.0590
22
Slattery, RA; Ainsworth, EA; Ort, DR
2013
A meta-analysis of responses of canopy photosynthetic conversion efficiency to environmental factors reveals major causes of yield gap
J. Exp. Bot. 12, 3723–3733
10.1093/jxb/ert207
23
Huang, C; Sun, ZY; Wang, HG; Luo, Y; Ma, ZH
2012
Effects of wheat cultivar mixtures on stripe rust: A meta-analysis on field trials
Crop Prot. 33, 52-58
10.1016/j.cropro.2011.11.020
24
Letourneau, DK; Armbrecht, I; Rivera, BS; Lerma, JM; Carmona, EJ; Daza, MC; Escobar, S; Galindo, V; Gutierrez, C; Lopez, SD; Mejia, JL; Rangel, AMA; Rangel, JH; Rivera, L; Saavedra, CA; Torres, AM; Trujillo, AR
2011
Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review
Ecol. Appl. 21, 9-21.
10.1890/09-2026.1
25
Kiaer, LP; Skovgaard, IM; Ostergard, H
2009
Grain yield increase in cereal variety mixtures: A meta-analysis of field trials
Field Crops Res. 114, 361–373
2017.09.006 | |||||
Ref11 | Koricheva, J; Hayes, D | 2018 | The relative importance of plant intraspecific diversity in structuring arthropod communities: A meta-analysis | Funct Col 32, 1704-1717 | 10.1111/1365-2435.13062 |
Ref12 | Martin-Guay, MO; Paquette, A; Dupras, J; Rivest, D | 2018 | The new Green Revolution: Sustainable intensification of agriculture by intercropping | Sci Total Environ 615, 767–772 | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.024 |
Ref13 | Reiss, ER; Drinkwater, LE | 2018 | Cultivar mixtures: a meta-analysis of the effect of intraspecific diversity on crop yield | Ecol Appl 28, 62–77 | 10.1002/eap.1629 |
Ref14 | Thapa, R; Poffenbarger, H; Tully, KL; Ackroyd, VJ; Kramer, M; Mirsky, SB | 2018 | Biomass Production and Nitrogen Accumulation by Hairy Vetch-Cereal Rye Mixtures: A Meta-Analysis | J Agron. 91, 25–33 | 10.2134/agronj2017.09.0544 |
Ref15 | Xiong, M; Sun, R; Chen L | 2018 | Effects of soil conservation techniques on water erosion control: A global analysis | Sci Total Environ 645 753–760 | 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.124 |
Ref16 | Himmelstein, J; Ares, A; Gallagher, D; Myers, J | 2017 | A meta-analysis of intercropping in Africa: impacts on crop yield, farmer income, and integrated pest management effects | Int J Sustain Agric. Res. 15, 1-10 | 10.1080/14735903.2016.1242332 |
Ref17 | Raseduzzaman, M; Jensen, ES | 2017 | Does intercropping enhance yield stability in arable crop production ? A meta-analysis | Eur J Agron 91, 25–33 | 10.1016/j.eja.2017.09.009 |
Ref18 | Yu, Y; Stomph, TJ; Makowski, D; Zhang, LZ; van der Werf, W | 2016 | A meta-analysis of relative crop yields in cereal/legume mixtures suggests options for management | Field Crops Res 198, 269–279 | 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.08.001 |
Ref19 | Yu, Y; Stomph, TJ; Makowski, D; van der Werf, W | 2015 | Temporal niche differentiation increases the land equivalent ratio of annual intercrops: A meta-analysis | Field Crops Res 184, 133–144 | 10.1016/j.fcr.2015.09.010 |
Ref20 | Iverson, AL; Marin, LE; Ennis, KK; Gonthier, DJ; Connor-Barrie, BT; Remfert, JL; Cardinale, BJ; Perfecto, I | 2014 | Do polycultures promote win-wins or trade-offs in agricultural ecosystem services? A meta-analysis | J Appl Ecol 51, 1593–1602 | 10.1111/1365-2664.12334 |
Ref21 | Pelzer, E; Hombert, N; Jeuffroy, MH; Makowski, D | 2014 | Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Nitrogen Fertilization on Annual Cereal-Legume Intercrop Production | Agron J 106, 1775–1786 | 10.2134/agronj13.0590 |
Ref22 | Slattery, RA; Ainsworth, EA; Ort, DR | 2013 | A meta-analysis of responses of canopy photosynthetic conversion efficiency to environmental factors reveals major causes of yield gap | J Exp. Bot 12, 3723–3733 | 10.1093/jxb/ert207 |
Ref23 | Huang, C; Sun, ZY; Wang, HG; Luo, Y; Ma, ZH | 2012 | Effects of wheat cultivar mixtures on stripe rust: A meta-analysis on field trials | Crop Prot 33, 52-58 | 10.1016/j.cropro.2011.11.020 |
Ref24 | Letourneau, DK; Armbrecht, I; Rivera, BS; Lerma, JM; Carmona, EJ; Daza, MC; Escobar, S; Galindo, V; Gutierrez, C; Lopez, SD; Mejia, JL; Rangel, AMA; Rangel, JH; Rivera, L; Saavedra, CA; Torres, AM; Trujillo, AR | 2011 | Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review | Ecol Appl 21, 9-21. | 10.1890/09-2026.1 |
Ref25 | Kiaer, LP; Skovgaard, IM; Ostergard, H | 2009 | Grain yield increase in cereal variety mixtures: A meta-analysis of field trials | Field Crops Res 114, 361–373 | 10.1016/j.fcr.2009.09.006 |
Disclaimer: These fiches present a large amount of scientific knowledge synthesised to assess farming practices impacts on the environment, climate and productivity. The European Commission maintains this WIKI to enhance public access to information about its initiatives. Our goal is to keep this information timely and accurate. If errors are brought to our attention, we will try to correct them. However, the Commission accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the information on these fiches and WIKI.
[1] Synthesis research papers include either meta-analysis or systematic reviews with quantitative results. Details can be found in the methodology section of the WIKI.
[2] Vandermeer, J. H. (1992). The ecology of intercropping. Cambridge University Press
[3] Brooker, Rob W., et al. “Improving intercropping: a synthesis of research in agronomy, plant physiology and ecology.” New Phytologist 206.1 (2015): 107-117.
[4] Ditzler, Lenora, et al. “Current research on the ecosystem service potential of legume inclusive cropping systems in Europe. A review.” Agronomy for Sustainable Development 41.2 (2021): 1-13.
[5] Cover crops are plants that are planted to cover (and protect) the soil rather than for being harvested.