How does row configuration affect the productivity in maize/peanut strip intercropping? A simulation study

• APSIM loaded with a strip light interception model effectively simulated maize and peanut growth in sole and intercropping. • The performances of intercropping systems varied with border-row proportion and land-use proportion in strip intercropping. • Intercropping stabilized crop yield and exhibited adaptation to climate change compared with monocultures. • We explored optimal system design in maize/peanut intercropping under climate change. The yield advantage of strip intercropping arises from the spatial niche differentiation through the combination of different crops. In this study, an improved Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM) for strip intercropping was used to investigate optimal system design in maize/peanut intercropping under climate change. The validated model effectively simulated maize and peanut growth in sole and intercropping. The root mean square error (RMSE) of growth period of maize was 1.89 days, and the normalized RMSE (nRMSE) of yield and biomass were 20.5 % and 19.3 %, respectively. The RMSE of growth period of peanut was 3.42 days, and the nRMSE of yield and biomass were 27.4 % and 26.2 %, respectively. Simulated yields showed significant correlations with land-use proportion in strip intercropping. We analyzed crop yields, yield stability and land equivalent ratio (LER) of the intercropping with diverse row configurations for 60 years (1960–2019) under a warming and drying climate trend in Fuxin. Yields of sole maize and peanut decreased significantly during 60 years, while yield of intercropped maize and peanut remained stable with low coefficients of variation, indicating that intercropping can stabilize yield and mitigate climate risks. The average LER of each intercropping treatment was close to 1, but the LER in dry years was 1.04 on average, indicating a yield advantage in water limited conditions. A narrow-strip of maize intercropped with a wide-strip of peanut (e.g., M2P6, 2 rows of maize intercropped with 6 rows of peanut) amplified the advantage of maize and reduced the disadvantage of peanut, thereby enhancing productivity and reducing inter-annual variation. This study illustrates the importance of row configuration in strip intercropping and lays a foundation for future maize/peanut simulation study. The results are valuable for optimal design of intercropping systems.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Published
2026-02-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2026.111082
Primary Topic
Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

How does row configuration affect the productivity in maize/peanut strip intercropping? A simulation study

Zhanxiang Sun, Tianran Sun, Jiayi Nie, Tianshan Zha et al.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
article

How does row configuration affect the productivity in maize/peanut strip intercropping? A simulation study

Zhanxiang Sun, Tianran Sun, Jiayi Nie, Tianshan Zha, Ruonan Wang, Yue Zhang, Zhe Zhang, Liusheng Duan, Lizhen Zhang, Zhicheng Su
article en

Abstract

• APSIM loaded with a strip light interception model effectively simulated maize and peanut growth in sole and intercropping. • The performances of intercropping systems varied with border-row proportion and land-use proportion in strip intercropping. • Intercropping stabilized crop yield and exhibited adaptation to climate change compared with monocultures. • We explored optimal system design in maize/peanut intercropping under climate change. The yield advantage of strip intercropping arises from the spatial niche differentiation through the combination of different crops. In this study, an improved Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM) for strip intercropping was used to investigate optimal system design in maize/peanut intercropping under climate change. The validated model effectively simulated maize and peanut growth in sole and intercropping. The root mean square error (RMSE) of growth period of maize was 1.89 days, and the normalized RMSE (nRMSE) of yield and biomass were 20.5 % and 19.3 %, respectively. The RMSE of growth period of peanut was 3.42 days, and the nRMSE of yield and biomass were 27.4 % and 26.2 %, respectively. Simulated yields showed significant correlations with land-use proportion in strip intercropping. We analyzed crop yields, yield stability and land equivalent ratio (LER) of the intercropping with diverse row configurations for 60 years (1960–2019) under a warming and drying climate trend in Fuxin. Yields of sole maize and peanut decreased significantly during 60 years, while yield of intercropped maize and peanut remained stable with low coefficients of variation, indicating that intercropping can stabilize yield and mitigate climate risks. The average LER of each intercropping treatment was close to 1, but the LER in dry years was 1.04 on average, indicating a yield advantage in water limited conditions. A narrow-strip of maize intercropped with a wide-strip of peanut (e.g., M2P6, 2 rows of maize intercropped with 6 rows of peanut) amplified the advantage of maize and reduced the disadvantage of peanut, thereby enhancing productivity and reducing inter-annual variation. This study illustrates the importance of row configuration in strip intercropping and lays a foundation for future maize/peanut simulation study. The results are valuable for optimal design of intercropping systems.

Agricultural and Forest MeteorologyVol. 380
Beijing Forestry University (CN), China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research (CN), Beijing University of Agriculture (CN), Liaoning Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CN), China Agricultural University (CN), Northwest A&F University (CN)
Zero hunger
Openalex Percentile: Top 45%
Agronomic Practices and Intercropping Systems
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.