Row-Intercropping Maize (Zea mays L.) with Biodiversity-Enhancing Flowering-Partners—Effect on Plant Growth, Silage Yield, and Composition of Harvest Material
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maize cultivation faces some challenges, particularly in terms of low biodiversity in fields. Since maize is a highly efficient and economic crop, it is cultivated on large areas in Germany, with a high share in crop rotation, especially where cattle farming takes place. Such landscapes provide less habitat and food resources for small vertebrates and arthropods. Intercropping maize with flowering partners might have a positive effect on the environment and might promote biodiversity in agricultural ecosystems. Therefore, in two-year field experiments on three sites in south-western Germany, plants were tested for their suitability as intercropping partners in maize crops (Medicago sativa, Melilotus officinalis, Vicia sativa, Tropaeolum majus, Cucurbita pepo, and Phaseolus vulgaris). Almost all tested partners produced flowers, except M. officinalis. Intercropping maize with P. vulgaris or T. majus achieved comparable dry matter yields as sole maize, without changes in the biomass quality. For maize-intercropping, site adapted weed control and practicable sowing technique are mandatory, which already exist for P. vulgaris and T. majus. The study shows that intercropping maize with biodiversity-enhancing flowering partners can provide an applicable alternative to sole maize cropping and enhance biodiversity. The large production areas of maize have great potential for ecological improvements in agriculture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".