Effects of Cassava-Peanut Intercropping Patterns on Soil Fertility

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2021-0083

Abstract

Abstract:

To explore the effects of different cassava-peanut intercropping patterns on soil fertility, four treatments were set, which were mono-cropping cassava (MC), one row of cassava intercropping with two rows of peanut (C₁P₂), two rows of cassava intercropping with three rows of peanut (C₂P₃) and two rows of cassava intercropping with four of rows peanut (C₂P₄). A total of 11 soil fertility indexes, such as pH, organic matter, alkali-hydrolyzable nitrogen, available phosphorus, available potassium, sucrase, urease, acid phosphatase, catalase, the number of culturable bacteria and the number of culturable fungi, in the 0-20 cm soil were measured, then the change rate of the 11 soil fertility indexes were assessed comprehensively by the principal component analysis (PCA). The results showed that: (1) the content of soil available P, available K and the number of culturable bacteria of C₂P₄ were significantly lower than those of MC, the content of soil available P of C₁P₂ was significantly lower than that of MC, the pH and urease activity of C₂P₃ were significantly higher than those of MC, while the number of culturable bacteria of C₂P₃ was significantly lower than that of MC; (2) according to the PCA scores of the comprehensive soil fertility, C₁P₂ could improve the soil fertility, while C₂P₃ and C₂P₄ could decrease the soil fertility. To promote the C₂P₄ pattern, additional nutrients should be applied to maintain the soil fertility of cassava field for yield increase, thus achieving the sustainable development cassava industry.

Key words: cassava, peanut, intercropping pattern, soil fertility, principal component analysis (PCA), comprehensive assessment

CLC Number:

S344

LIU Zifan, SU Bimeng, HUANG Jie, WEI Yunxia, XIAO Zili. Effects of Cassava-Peanut Intercropping Patterns on Soil Fertility[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2022, 38(25): 102-107.

Figures/Tables 9

References 20

[1]	南京土壤研究所. 南京土壤所揭示红壌花生-木薯根际互作调控养分利用的微生物信号机制[J]. 粮油与饲料科技, 2020(2):43-44.
[2]	刘子凡, 黄洁, 魏云霞, 等. 不同木薯/花生模式下的产量表现及其经济产出研究[J]. 热带作物学报, 2016, 37(1):65-69.
[3]	徐海强, 黄洁, 刘子凡, 等. 木薯/花生间作对其根际土壤微生物数量、群落结构及多样性的影响[J]. 南方农业学报, 2016, 47(2):185-190.
[4]	刘子凡, 苏必孟, 黄洁, 等. 木薯花生间作模式养分吸收与利用优势的比较[J]. 湖南农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2019, 45(5):478-484.
[5]	姜玉超. 玉米花生间作对土壤肥力特性的影响[D]. 郑州: 河南科技大学, 2015.
[6]	张晓娜, 蒙仲举, 杨振奇. 不同封育措施下希拉穆仁荒漠草原土壤质量评价[J]. 土壤通报, 2018, 49(4):788-793.
[7]	李金涛, 李守岭, 王晓媛, 等. 胶园间作土壤养分及土壤肥力的综合评价[J]. 江西农业学报, 2020, 32(9):73-79.
[8]	汪海波, 罗莉, 汪海玲, 等. SAS统计分析与应用[M]. 北京: 人民邮电出版社, 2010:292-325.
[9]	魏猛, 张爱君, 诸葛玉平, 等. 长期不同施肥方式对黄潮土肥力特征的影响[J]. 应用生态学报, 2017, 28(3):838-846.
[10]	LIU Z F, LIU P P, AN F, et al. Effects of cassava allelochemicals on rubber tree pathogens, soil microorganisms, and soil fertility in a rubber tree-cassava intercropping system[J]. Journal of rubber research, 2020, 23:257-271.
[11]	鲍士旦. 土壤农化分析(第三版)[M]. 北京: 中国农业出版社, 2000.
[12]	张瑞莲, 袁海波, 尹军峰, 等. 主成分分析与聚类分析在茶饮料汤色稳定性评价中的应用[J]. 茶叶科学, 2010, 30(4):287-294.
[13]	黎宁, 华兴, 朱凤娇, 等. 菜园土壤微生物生态特征与土壤理化性质的关系[J]. 应用生态学报, 2006, 17(2):285-288.
[14]	王海英, 宫渊波, 龚伟. 不同林分土壤微生物、酶活性与土壤肥力的关系研究综述[J]. 四川林勘设计, 2005(3):18-21.
[15]	吴湘琳, 陈署晃, 赖宁, 等. 基于主成分分析和聚类分析果园土壤养分综合评价[J]. 新疆农业科学, 2018, 55(7):1286-1292.
[16]	李娟, 林位夫, 周立军, 等. 成龄胶园间作不同豆科作物对土壤养分的影响[J]. 热带农业科学, 2014, 34(7):5-11.
[17]	CHANG J F, SHIBLES R M. An analysis of competition between intercropped cowpea and maize Ⅱ. The effect of fertilization and population density[J]. Field crops reseach, 1985(12):145-152.
[18]	曹永庆, 姚小华, 张平安, 等. 山稻间作对油茶林地土壤理化性质的影响[J]. 西南大学学报:自然科学版, 2017, 39(11),23-28.
[19]	叶优良, 孙建好, 李隆, 等. 小麦/玉米间作根系相互作用对氮素吸收和土壤硝态氮含量的影响[J]. 农业工程学报, 2005, 21(11):33-37.
[20]	LI H G, SHEN J B, ZHANG F S, et al. Phosphorus uptake and rhizosphere properties of intercropped and monocropped maize, fababean, and white lupin in acidic soil[J]. Biology and fertility of soils, 2010, 46(2):79-91.

处理	木薯			花生
处理	N	P₂O₅	K₂O	N	P₂O₅	K₂O
MC	133.50	75.00	150.00	－	－	－
C₁P₂	89.45	50.25	100.00	32.32	18.17	34.67
C₂P₃	97.46	54.75	109.50	26.45	14.86	27.82
C₂P₄	89.45	50.25	100.00	32.32	18.17	34.67

处理	木薯			花生
处理	N	P₂O₅	K₂O	N	P₂O₅	K₂O
MC	133.50	75.00	150.00	－	－	－
C₁P₂	89.45	50.25	100.00	32.32	18.17	34.67
C₂P₃	97.46	54.75	109.50	26.45	14.86	27.82
C₂P₄	89.45	50.25	100.00	32.32	18.17	34.67

处理	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)
C1P2	4.82±0.08ab	12.54±0.51a	56.18±0.88a	78.14±6.97b	185.95±16.68a
C2P3	4.86±0.17a	11.84±0.87a	58.96±4.03a	101.92±6.89ab	195.67±22.93a
C2P4	4.81±0.10ab	11.80±0.68a	61.38±1.56a	87.86±15.38b	162.72±24.01b
MC	4.60±0.08b	12.16±0.93a	55.13±2.99a	116.87±32.00a	193.75±22.75a

处理	pH	有机质/(g/kg)	碱解氮/(mg/kg)	速效磷/(mg/kg)	速效钾/(mg/kg)
C1P2	4.82±0.08ab	12.54±0.51a	56.18±0.88a	78.14±6.97b	185.95±16.68a
C2P3	4.86±0.17a	11.84±0.87a	58.96±4.03a	101.92±6.89ab	195.67±22.93a
C2P4	4.81±0.10ab	11.80±0.68a	61.38±1.56a	87.86±15.38b	162.72±24.01b
MC	4.60±0.08b	12.16±0.93a	55.13±2.99a	116.87±32.00a	193.75±22.75a

处理	蔗糖酶/[mg/(g·d)]	脲酶/[mg/(g·d)]	酸性磷酸酶/[mg/(g·d)]	过氧化氢酶/[μL/(g·d)]	可培养细菌/(×10⁹cfu/g)	可培养真菌/(×10⁴cfu/g)
C₁P₂	5.47±1.01a	0.21±0.03b	19.25±1.08a	11.62±0.38a	2.77±1.01ab	7.31±1.94a
C₂P₃	4.26±0.74ab	0.32±0.03a	21.96±0.34a	11.31±0.23a	1.61±0.28b	5.75±1.16a
C₂P₄	4.23±0.38ab	0.26±0.03b	21.29±1.05a	10.15±0.95a	1.85±0.28b	6.78±0.91a
MC	3.18±0.58b	0.21±0.04b	23.55±4.11a	10.36±0.45a	3.00±1.12a	5.15±1.77a