{
"document_id": 13538,
"page": 6,
"width_pt": 612,
"height_pt": 792,
"rotation": 0,
"pipeline_version": "paddleocr-vl-1.6+paul-48",
"engine": "paddleocr_vl",
"source_run_id": 13649,
"item_count": 14,
"counts_by_type": {
"footer": 1,
"formula": 2,
"heading": 1,
"text": 10
},
"build_ms": 3,
"items": [
{
"id": "p6.1",
"order": 1,
"type": "text",
"bbox": {
"l": 69.84,
"t": 717.12,
"r": 538.32,
"b": 588.72
},
"text": "Analysis. One replicate was excluded from the analysis in 2001 because of severe groundhog (Marmota momax L.) damage to the Brussels sprouts. Total aboveground fresh weight collected from each crop was divided by the number of plants representing that crop in a bed to give the average aboveground plant biomass in mixtures and pure stands ([p6.1.1] and[p6.1.2], respectively). Total aboveground fresh weight of each crop in each treatment was divided by bed area to give mixture yield,[p6.1.3], or pure stand yield,[p6.1.4]. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the logarithm of biomass per plant and yield for each crop by year (SAS Institute 2001). The ANOVA model was a randomized complete block with three treatments (pure stand and two mixtures) for each crop. Means were separated by Tukey's test when significant treatment effects were found.",
"children": [
{
"id": "p6.1.1",
"order": 2,
"type": "text",
"bbox": {
"l": 69.84,
"t": 717.12,
"r": 538.32,
"b": 588.72
},
"text": "P_{mix}",
"attrs": {
"inline": true,
"text_offset": 341,
"text_span": 8,
"bbox_estimated": true
}
},
{
"id": "p6.1.2",
"order": 3,
"type": "text",
"bbox": {
"l": 69.84,
"t": 717.12,
"r": 538.32,
"b": 588.72
},
"text": "P_{mono}",
"attrs": {
"inline": true,
"text_offset": 353,
"text_span": 8,
"bbox_estimated": true
}
},
{
"id": "p6.1.3",
"order": 4,
"type": "text",
"bbox": {
"l": 69.84,
"t": 717.12,
"r": 538.32,
"b": 588.72
},
"text": "Y_{mix}",
"attrs": {
"inline": true,
"text_offset": 486,
"text_span": 8,
"bbox_estimated": true
}
},
{
"id": "p6.1.4",
"order": 5,
"type": "text",
"bbox": {
"l": 69.84,
"t": 717.12,
"r": 538.32,
"b": 588.72
},
"text": "Y_{mono}",
"attrs": {
"inline": true,
"text_offset": 516,
"text_span": 8,
"bbox_estimated": true
}
}
]
},
{
"id": "p6.2",
"order": 6,
"type": "text",
"bbox": {
"l": 70.56,
"t": 563.52,
"r": 510.72,
"b": 552.96
},
"text": "Relative competition intensity (RCI) was calculated separately for each crop, replicate, and year according to Grace (1995):"
},
{
"id": "p6.3",
"order": 7,
"type": "formula",
"bbox": {
"l": 242.88,
"t": 525.12,
"r": 332.16,
"b": 494.64
},
"text": "RCI=\\frac{P_{mono}-P_{mix}}{P_{mono}}",
"attrs": {
"block_label": "display_formula",
"latex": "RCI=\\frac{P_{mono}-P_{mix}}{P_{mono}}",
"notation": "latex",
"alt": "RCI equals P sub mono minus P sub mix over P sub mono",
"mathml": ""
}
},
{
"id": "p6.4",
"order": 8,
"type": "text",
"bbox": {
"l": 484.8,
"t": 500.4,
"r": 504.72,
"b": 490.56
},
"text": "Eq. 1",
"attrs": {
"raw_type": "FORMULA_NUMBER",
"block_label": "formula_number"
}
},
{
"id": "p6.5",
"order": 9,
"type": "text",
"bbox": {
"l": 70.08,
"t": 463.44,
"r": 534.48,
"b": 417.12
},
"text": "Relative yield (RY) was calculated by dividing the yield of a single crop in each mixed planting by its yield in a pure stand[p6.5.1] (de Wit 1960). The land equivalence ratio (LER) for each mixture was calculated as the sum of both crops' RY (Willey and Osiru 1972).",
"children": [
{
"id": "p6.5.1",
"order": 10,
"type": "formula",
"bbox": {
"l": 70.08,
"t": 463.44,
"r": 534.48,
"b": 417.12
},
"text": "(Y_{mix}/Y_{mono})",
"attrs": {
"latex": "(Y_{mix}/Y_{mono})",
"inline": true,
"text_offset": 125,
"text_span": 8,
"bbox_estimated": true,
"notation": "latex",
"alt": "Y sub mix over Y sub mono",
"mathml": ""
}
}
]
},
{
"id": "p6.6",
"order": 11,
"type": "text",
"bbox": {
"l": 69.84,
"t": 390.24,
"r": 539.04,
"b": 287.04
},
"text": "The LER values of the intercrop treatments were tested for significance following methods recommended by Oyejola and Mead (1982). LERs were calculated separately for each replicate using the replicate plant yield for the numerators and the mean of pure stand yield across all replicates for the denominators. The LER values were then compared to a value of one by one-tailed t-test. This method tends to underestimate the true value of LERs by eliminating the variation in the ratio which is due to variability in pure stand yields, but it is statistically preferable to using the individual pure stand yield values for each replicate (Oyejola and Mead 1982, Vandermeer 1989)."
},
{
"id": "p6.7",
"order": 12,
"type": "heading",
"bbox": {
"l": 278.88,
"t": 249.6,
"r": 332.88,
"b": 238.08
},
"text": "RESULTS",
"attrs": {
"block_label": "paragraph_title"
},
"level": 3
},
{
"id": "p6.8",
"order": 13,
"type": "text",
"bbox": {
"l": 69.84,
"t": 205.2,
"r": 541.2,
"b": 76.8
},
"text": "Resource availability and competition. 2002 was hotter and drier than 2001 (Figure 3). Availability and use of two fundamental resources, light and water, was indicated by the proportion of the soil surface exposed to direct sunlight (Sunfleck) and the volumetric water content in the top 20 cm of soil (VWC), which were correlated in 2002 (r = 0.91, d.f. = 6, P = 0.01) but not 2001 (Figure 4). The variation in Sunfleck readings between treatments was lower in 2002 than in 2001, but variation in VWC was greater in 2002 (Figure 4). The relative order of treatments was similar between years. The least competition for sunlight occurred in the BAS and T&B plots; the most competition occurred in plots with Brussels sprout plants. More light penetrated the T&B mixture than the T&S mixture in both years; the difference between T&B and S&B was also significant in 2001."
},
{
"id": "p6.9",
"order": 14,
"type": "footer",
"bbox": {
"l": 302.4,
"t": 53.76,
"r": 309.12,
"b": 45.6
},
"text": "6",
"attrs": {
"block_label": "number"
}
}
],
"excluded_furniture": {
"first": [],
"last": []
}
}